diff --git "a/arxiv/test.jsonl" "b/arxiv/test.jsonl"
deleted file mode 100644--- "a/arxiv/test.jsonl"
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,238 +0,0 @@
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The pivot algorithm is the most efficient known method for sampling polymer configurations for self-avoiding walks and related models. Here we introduce two recent improvements to an efficient binary tree implementation of the pivot algorithm: an extension to an off-lattice model, and a parallel implementation.'\naddress: 'Department of Mathematics, Swinburne University of Technology, P.O. Box 218, Hawthorn, Victoria 3122, Australia'\nauthor:\n- Nathan Clisby and Dac Thanh Chuong Ho\ntitle: 'Off-lattice and parallel implementations of the pivot algorithm'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nSelf-avoiding walks are non-intersecting paths on lattices such as the two-dimensional square lattice or the three-dimensional simple cubic lattice. Due to universality, they exactly capture the essential physics of the excluded-volume effect for polymers in the good-solvent limit, and as such can be used to study features such as the value of the Flory exponent $\\nu$ which relates the geometric size of a walk to the number of monomers in the chain.\n\nThe pivot algorithm is the most efficient known method for sampling self-avoiding walks of fixed length. It is a Markov chain Monte Carlo method, which was invented by Lal\u00a0[@Lal1969MonteCarlocomputer], but first studied in depth by Madras and Sokal\u00a0[@Madras1988PivotAlgorithmHighly], who also invented an efficient hash table implementation. Recent improvements to the implementation of the pivot algorithm\u00a0[@Kennedy2002fasterimplementationpivot; @Clisby2010AccurateEstimateCritical; @Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] have dramatically improved computational efficiency to the point where it is possible to rapidly sample polymer configurations with up to 1 billion monomers\u00a0[@Clisby2018MonteCarlo4dSAWs].\n\nIn this paper, we will describe two recent improvements in algorithms to sample self-avoiding walks, focusing in particular on the pivot algorithm. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:offlattice\\] we describe an off-lattice implementation of the SAW-tree data structure\u00a0[@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot]. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:parallel\\] we describe a parallel implementation of the pivot algorithm which improves the sampling rate for very long walks. Finally, we have a brief discussion about prospects for further progress and conclude in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:conclusion\\].\n\nOff-lattice implementation {#sec:offlattice}\n==========================\n\nThe SAW-tree data structure\u00a0[@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] is a binary tree that encodes information about the self-avoiding in an efficient way in nodes in the tree. In particular, the leaves of the tree consist of individual monomers, while the internal nodes store aggregate information about all of the monomers that are below that node within the tree, as well as \u201csymmetry\u201d information which encodes transformations that must be applied to sub-walks before they are concatenated together. The aggregate information that must be stored includes information about the extent of the sub-walk in the form of a \u201cbounding volume\u201d, which is taken to be a rectangle for square-lattice walks, and a rectangular prism for simple-cubic-lattice walks. For lattice self-avoiding walks, the symmetry elements are rotations and reflections that leave the lattice invariant. See\u00a0[@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] for a full description of the implementation.\n\nAlthough lattice self-avoiding walks capture the universal behaviour of polymers in the good-solvent limit, there are strong arguments for why off-lattice models of polymers may have advantages under certain circumstances. Firstly, they provide an opportunity to empirically model more realistic interactions for polymers, and thus to reproduce not only universal features but also make precise experimental predictions. Secondly, under some circumstances it may be the case that the effect of the lattice may have a non-negligible effect, for example when trying to understand the nature of the globule transition it may be the case that the restriction to the lattice significantly influences the nature of the transition. Finally, while lattices have discrete symmetry groups, the symmetry group corresponding to reflections and rotations of ${{\\mathbb R}}^d$ is the continuous orthogonal group $O(d)$. This continuous group allows for more freedom for performing pivot moves, and it is conceivable that this additional freedom may enhance sampling efficiency under some circumstances.\n\nWe implement the SAW-tree for the bead-necklace, or tangent-hard-sphere, model, which consists of a fully flexible chain of hard spheres that just touch. A typical configuration for this model in ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$ is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:ths\\].\n\n( 0.000000000000000e+00, 0.000000000000000e+00) circle (0.5); ( 9.786616592965383e-01, 2.054783604736682e-01) circle (0.5); ( 7.138507999451933e-01,-7.588220122160878e-01) circle (0.5); ( 1.652016368820576e+00,-1.105008905926305e+00) circle (0.5); ( 2.646246004809292e+00,-9.977362117224877e-01) circle (0.5); ( 2.489134802852920e+00,-1.985317130037450e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.586240769818234e+00,-2.415180323519237e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.247320086895478e+00,-3.355995273808173e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.160688733842073e+00,-4.352235710985934e+00) circle (0.5); ( 7.015135092890352e-01,-5.240581428123505e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.278387485331991e-01,-6.059664616128078e+00) circle (0.5); ( 9.829325913381517e-01,-6.578137874837782e+00) circle (0.5); ( 7.081814926340417e-01,-7.539653258885735e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.695731958738442e+00,-7.696955760127714e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.878679392456082e+00,-8.680078456690117e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.728991642820777e+00,-9.668811776452891e+00) circle (0.5); ( 1.113220493093022e+00,-1.045673683073341e+01) circle (0.5); ( 3.795115065809678e-01,-9.777272980987558e+00) circle (0.5); (-2.104289417354798e-01,-1.058471973925722e+01) circle (0.5); (-5.009594578546239e-02,-1.157178272124454e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.042960620081759e+00,-1.145253617607652e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.745024251321964e+00,-1.074042195933189e+01) circle (0.5); (-2.285333890964720e+00,-1.158188823513212e+01) circle (0.5); (-3.279517601945027e+00,-1.168958572266747e+01) circle (0.5); (-3.014664949667944e+00,-1.072529682789485e+01) circle (0.5); (-3.886513092322947e+00,-1.023552053595228e+01) circle (0.5); (-4.882985538957040e+00,-1.015159995981588e+01) circle (0.5); (-5.158386379043892e+00,-1.111292944406124e+01) circle (0.5); (-6.156662931653451e+00,-1.105424448423360e+01) circle (0.5); (-6.375662239105125e+00,-1.202996949843365e+01) circle (0.5); (-7.032752317546095e+00,-1.278378156308533e+01) circle (0.5); (-6.934322713325797e+00,-1.377892557930260e+01) circle (0.5); (-6.990313442431963e+00,-1.477735686800211e+01) circle (0.5); (-7.486950105403038e+00,-1.564531540675437e+01) circle (0.5); (-7.455465187445388e+00,-1.664481963382957e+01) circle (0.5); (-7.664058957800536e+00,-1.762282200548775e+01) circle (0.5); (-8.591767582783518e+00,-1.799612711813984e+01) circle (0.5); (-9.548096314174508e+00,-1.770383384501146e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.042656985674248e+01,-1.722604284990159e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.106496930040173e+01,-1.645633761389526e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.171513371270300e+01,-1.569654406497756e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.259657486866839e+01,-1.522425020669611e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.283225528518851e+01,-1.619608082016170e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.382091634554016e+01,-1.604591655096177e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.455716917651184e+01,-1.672262311136013e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.523147064610889e+01,-1.746107929022200e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.621509248047241e+01,-1.764132381014795e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.721480257620690e+01,-1.761724634170690e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.741638639517049e+01,-1.859671760924467e+01) circle (0.5); (-1.833285653853490e+01,-1.819661452712505e+01) circle (0.5);\n\nWe will now describe the key features of our implementation, and will present evidence that the off-lattice SAW-tree implementation of the pivot algorithm has $O(\\log N)$ performance in line with the performance of the original lattice SAW-tree implementation. The description will not be self-contained, and the interested reader is referred to\u00a0[@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] for relevant details.\n\nThe orthogonal group $O(2)$ is used as the symmetry group for ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$, and similarly $O(3)$ is used for ${{\\mathbb R}}^3$. The orthogonal group includes rotations as the subgroups $SO(2)$ and $SO(3)$ respectively, but also includes reflection moves.\n\nSymmetry group elements are sampled uniformly at random so as to preserve the Haar measure\u00a0[@Stewart1980EfficientGenerationOfRandomOrthogonalMatrices] on the group. This automatically ensures that the Markov chain satisfies the detailed-balance condition, and so must be sampling configurations with uniform weights.\n\nAs for ergodicity, we feel that it is extremely likely that the algorithm is ergodic. For lattice models the pivot algorithm has been proved to be ergodic; this was first done for ${{\\mathbb Z}}^2$ and ${{\\mathbb Z}}^3$ in the seminal paper of Madras and Sokal\u00a0[@Madras1988PivotAlgorithmHighly]. Interestingly, inclusion of reflections seem to be necessary for ergodicity for lattice models. In the continuum, it is our view that the additional freedom afforded as compared to the lattice should mean that pivot algorithm is ergodic in this case, too. We do not have sufficient insight into the problem to know whether the extra freedom would allow one to have an ergodic algorithm with only rotations (and not reflections). Some theoretical work has been done previously on the ergodicity of pivot moves for continuous models\u00a0[@Plunkett2016OffLatticeSAWPivotAlgorithmVariant], but this is not directly relevant here as the proof relied on double-pivot moves.\n\nThe key decision for the SAW-tree implementation for the bead-necklace model is the choice of *bounding volume* to be used. The bounding volume is a shape which is stored in nodes in the SAW-tree, such that it is guaranteed that the entire sub-chain which is represented by the node is completely contained within the bounding volume. The use of a bounding volume is necessary for the rapid detection of self-intersections when a pivot move is attempted.\n\nThe natural choice of the bounding volume for ${{\\mathbb Z}}^2$ is the rectangle, and for ${{\\mathbb Z}}^3$ the natural choice is the rectangular prism. This is because these shapes snugly fit the sub-chains that they contain (in the sense that the sub-chains must touch each boundary or face of the shape), and the shapes are preserved under lattice symmetry operations.\n\nThe natural shape for the bounding volume for the bead-necklace model for ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$ would seem to be the circle, and similarly for ${{\\mathbb R}}^3$ the natural choice would be the sphere. This is because these are the only shapes that are invariant under the action of $O(2)$ and $O(3)$ respectively.\n\nOne of the operations that must be performed with bounding volumes\u00a0[@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] is the merge operation, which involves combining two bounding volumes (which contain sub-chains) to create a bounding volume that contains both of the original bounding volumes (and hence contains both sub-chains). In contrast to the situation for lattice models, the bounding volumes which result from the merge operation do not necessarily form a snug fit for the polymer sub-chains. This is illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:circle\\] for an example in ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$ where the snugly fitting bounding circles for two sub-chains are merged together so that they contain the concatenated walk. The concatenated walk *does not* touch the boundary of the larger circle.\n\n(0.4,0.15) \u2013 (-0.61885,1.90211) ; (-0.61885,1.90211) \u2013 (-1.2,0.2); (-1.2,0.2) \u2013 (-0.85156,-1.809654) ; (-0.85156,-1.809654) \u2013 (0.7,-1.6); (0.7,-1.6) \u2013 (1.951834,0.436286);\n\n(0,0) circle (2);\n\n(-1.951834,0.4362868) \u2013 (-0.61885,1.90211); (-0.61885,1.90211) \u2013 (1.721484,1.01808) ; (1.721484,1.01808) \u2013 (0.7,-1.6); (0.7,-1.6)\u2013 (-0.85156,-1.809654); (-0.85156,-1.809654) \u2013 (-1.2,0.2); (-1.2,0.2)\u2013 (0.4,0.15);\n\n(0,0) circle (2);\n\n(0,0) circle (3.951834);\n\n*A priori*, we had no expectation about whether the lack of snug fit for the bounding volumes would prove to be a significant problem. We considered it possible that the error from the fit would grow rapidly as one moved up the SAW-tree, and this would have worsened the performance of the intersection testing algorithm. But, we found that in fact this was not a problem at all. We estimated the mean ratio of the diameter of the bounding volume to the square root of the mean value of the squared end-to-end distance $\\langle R_E^2 \\rangle^{1/2}$. We found that as the length of the chains increased the ratio was approaching a constant for both ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$ and ${{\\mathbb R}}^3$, indicating that the error was becoming saturated. For chain lengths of $N=10^6$ this ratio was only 1.45 for ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$, and 1.71 for ${{\\mathbb R}}^3$. Thus, in the average case this suggests that the lack of a snug fit only results in a constant factor error in the diameter of the bounding volume for the off-lattice implementation. This means that the behaviour of the lattice and off-lattice implementations should be essentially the same, up to a constant factor.\n\nWe evaluated the mean CPU time per pivot move for a range of polymer lengths, for lattice and off-lattice SAW-tree implementations in two and three dimensions on Dell PowerEdge FC630 machines with Intel Xeon E5-2680 CPUs, and plot the results of these computer experiments in Figs\u00a0\\[fig:cpud2\\] and \\[fig:cpud3\\].\n\nWe found that the time per pivot move attempt was somewhat worse for the off-lattice implementation as compared to the lattice implementation, which was to be expected due to the increased number of operations required for computations involving the symmetry elements and coordinate vectors. But, in absolute terms the performance is still impressive, and for polymers with $10^7$ monomers pivot attempts are performed in mean CPU time of less than 6$\\mu$s for ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$, and in less than 40$\\mu$s for ${{\\mathbb R}}^3$. We clearly observe $O(\\log N)$ behaviour in each case, which is strong evidence that the off-lattice implementation behaves in fundamentally the same way as the original lattice implementation of the SAW-tree.\n\n![CPU time per pivot move attempt for the bead-necklace model in ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$, in comparison to SAWs in ${{\\mathbb Z}}^2$, plotted against the number of monomers $N$.\\[fig:cpud2\\]](cpu_d2-crop){width=\"0.5\\paperwidth\"}\n\n![CPU time per pivot move attempt for the bead-necklace model in ${{\\mathbb R}}^3$, in comparison to SAWs in ${{\\mathbb Z}}^3$, plotted against the number of monomers $N$.\\[fig:cpud3\\]](cpu_d3-crop){width=\"0.5\\paperwidth\"}\n\nParallel implementation of the pivot algorithm {#sec:parallel}\n==============================================\n\nThe SAW-tree implementation of the pivot algorithm\u00a0[@Clisby2010Efficientimplementationpivot] is remarkably efficient, but it suffers from one significant drawback: the intersection testing and SAW-tree update procedures are inherently serial operations. This makes it difficult to take advantage of additional cores to improve the rate at which polymer configurations are sampled. To some extent this issue is obviated by the fact that for number of monomers $N$ up to the order of tens of millions or even 100 million it is possible to run simulations in parallel on multicore machines, and still obtain results in a reasonable clock time.\n\nBut, in the regime where a large amount of memory is needed for truly large $N$, of the order of $10^8-10^9$, on the Dell PowerEdge FC630 machines with Intel Xeon E5-2680 CPUs on which computer experiments are being run this prevents all cores being simultaneously used due to memory constraints[^1]. Under these circumstances most cores must be left idle while data is being collected.\n\nHere we will briefly sketch a method to improve the sampling rate by utilising additional cores in exactly this difficult regime.\n\nThe key insight is that as the number of monomers increases, the probability of a pivot move being successful decays as a power law of the form $N^{-p}$, with $p \\approx 0.19$ for ${{\\mathbb Z}}^2$, and $p \\approx\n0.11$ for ${{\\mathbb Z}}^3$. For $N = 10^9$ on ${{\\mathbb Z}}^2$, the probability of a pivot move being successful is 0.019, which means that on average roughly 50 unsuccessful pivot attempts are made for each success.\n\nGiven that most proposed pivot moves in this regime fail, and so do not result in any update being made for the self-avoiding walk, it is possible to perform many pivot attempts in parallel without this effort being wasted.\n\nFor example, imagine that we are sampling SAWs of $10^9$ steps via the pivot algorithm, and we may test for success or failure of up to ten pivot moves simultaneously. Note that a move consists of a proposed monomer location to act as the centre of the pivot move, and a proposed symmetry operation. Suppose for the first batch of ten proposed moves $\\{M_1, M_2, \\cdots, M_{10}\\}$, that each of these moves were unsuccessful. Then, we can move on to another batch, and none of the work performed by any of the threads was wasted. Suppose for the second batch $\\{M_{11}, M_{12}, \\cdots,\nM_{20}\\}$ that the first 6 moves $M_{11},\\cdots,M_{16}$ are unsuccessful, but $M_{17}$ is successful. Then we need to perform the update associated with the move $M_{17}$ which must happen as a serial operation performed by a single thread. It does not matter whether $M_{18}, M_{19}, M_{20}$ were successful or not: these tests will need to be performed again in case the update has altered the result of the test. The next batch will then consist of ten proposed moves $\\{M_{18}, M_{19}, \\cdots, M_{27}\\}$.\n\nThe tests for success or failure will occur for each thread regardless of the outcome of the tests performed by other threads. But, provided the probability of multiple successful moves occurring in a batch is low, then most of this work will not be wasted. The lower the probability of success, the greater the potential for speed up to occur by exploiting parallelism.\n\nWe have implemented this idea in a prototype C program with OpenMP being used for managing the parallel pivot attempts. The SAW-tree is held in shared memory where all threads can access it for performing intersection tests. When a pivot move is found to be successful, then the update is performed by a single thread while all other threads remain idle.\n\nWe performed computer experiments to test this implementation on the aforementioned FC630 machines for SAWs of various lengths on the square lattice. We utilised 24 threads, with batches (or chunks) of 48 pivot attempts which meant that each thread made two attempted pivot moves on average. We collated the calendar time per pivot attempt in $\\mu$s in Table\u00a0\\[tab:parallel\\]. The value $t_1$ is the mean CPU time for a single thread, while $t_{24}$ is the mean CPU time for the 24 threads running in parallel. We see that as $N$ increases the probability of a move being successful decreases, and the relative performance of the parallel implementation to the serial implementation improves. For $N = 10^9$ there is roughly a four-fold improvement in performance.\n\nAlthough it is suitable as a proof-of-concept, the implementation developed thus far is only a prototype, and more work remains to be done to improve its performance. In particular, it should be possible to re-use some information from intersection tests even if these moves are scheduled to occur after a move that is found to be successful. For example, if a move is found to cause a self-intersection between monomers labelled $l$ and $m$ along the chain, then if the prior succesful move involved a pivot site outside of the interval $l$ to $m$ then this would not have any effect on the self-intersection. Nonetheless, even in its current state the performance gain is sufficient to make it worthwhile for use in the large $N$, memory-limited regime.\n\n[rlllll]{} $N$ & $\\Pr(\\text{success})$ & $1/\\Pr(\\text{success})$& $t_1$ ($\\mu$s) & $t_{24}$ ($\\mu$s) & $t_1/t_{24}$\\\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n$10^6$& 0.068& 15 & 1.58 & 1.35 & 1.17\\\n$10^7$& 0.044& 23 & 2.31 & 1.07 & 2.16\\\n$10^8$& 0.029& 34 & 2.90 & 0.903 & 3.21\\\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n$10^9$& 0.019& 53 & 3.16 & 0.805 & 3.93\\\n\nDiscussion and conclusion {#sec:conclusion}\n=========================\n\nSchnabel and Janke\u00a0[@Schnabel2019] have very recently implemented a binary tree data structure which is similar to the SAW-tree for the bead-necklace model, as well as a model for which the Lennard-Jones interaction is implemented. The implementation for the bead-necklace model appears to have roughly the same computational efficiency as the implementation sketched here. The efficient implementation for the Lennard-Jones polymer model is very interesting, and a significant advance on the state of the art. It will be interesting to see if further progress in this direction can be made, for example in the evaluation of Coulomb interactions which would be necessary for efficient simulation of polyelectrolytes.\n\nFull details for the off-lattice SAW-tree implementation of the pivot algorithm will be presented elsewhere in future.\n\nMore work needs to be done to test and improve the implementation of the parallel version of the pivot algorithm. In future, the parallel implementation of the pivot algorithm will allow for improved simulations of very long SAWs on the square lattice. The method will result in significant speed-ups for SAWs with hundreds of millions or even one billion steps, especially for the square lattice.\n\nReferences {#references .unnumbered}\n==========\n\n[1]{} url \\#1[[\\#1]{}]{}urlprefix\\[2\\]\\[\\][[\\#2](#2)]{} Lal M 1969 [*Mol. Phys.*]{} [**17**]{} 57\u201364\n\nMadras N and Sokal A\u00a0D 1988 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**50**]{} 109\u2013186\n\nKennedy T 2002 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**106**]{} 407\u2013429\n\nClisby N 2010 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**104**]{} 055702\n\nClisby N 2010 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**140**]{} 349\u2013392\n\nClisby N 2018 [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**172**]{} 477\u2013492\n\nStewart G\u00a0W 1980 [*SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis*]{} [**17**]{} 403\u2013409 Plunkett L and Chapman K 2016 [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{} [**49**]{} 135203 Schnabel S and Janke W (*Preprint* )\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThanks to Stefan Schnabel for communicating results regarding an alternative efficient off-lattice implementation of the pivot algorithm prior to publication. N.C. gratefully acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council under the Future Fellowship scheme (project number FT130100972).\n\n[^1]: There are 24 cores, and total memory available is 128GB.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We prove that any metric space $X$ homeomorphic to $\\mathbb{R}^2$ with locally finite Hausdorff 2-measure satisfies a reciprocal lower bound on modulus of curve families associated to a quadrilateral. More precisely, let $Q \\subset X$ be a topological quadrilateral with boundary edges (in cyclic order) denoted by $\\zeta_1, \\zeta_2, \\zeta_3, \\zeta_4$ and let $\\Gamma(\\zeta_i, \\zeta_j; Q)$ denote the family of curves in $Q$ connecting $\\zeta_i$ and $\\zeta_j$; then $\\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma(\\zeta_1, \\zeta_3; Q) \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma(\\zeta_2, \\zeta_4; Q) \\geq 1/\\kappa$ for $\\kappa = 2000^2\\cdot (4/\\pi)^2$. This answers a question in [@Raj:16] concerning minimal hypotheses under which a metric space admits a quasiconformal parametrization by a domain in $\\mathbb{R}^2$.'\naddress: 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4, P.O. Box 35 (MaD), FI-40014, University of Jyv\u00e4skyl\u00e4, Finland.'\nauthor:\n- Kai Rajala\n- Matthew Romney\nbibliography:\n- 'ReciprocalLowerBoundBiblio.bib'\ntitle: Reciprocal lower bound on modulus of curve families in metric surfaces\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe classical uniformization theorem states that any simply connected Riemann surface can be mapped onto either the Euclidean plane $\\mathbb{R}^2$, the sphere $\\mathbb{S}^2$, or the unit disk $\\mathbb{D}$ by a conformal mapping. For obtaining similar results in the setting of metric spaces, the class of conformal mappings is too restrictive and it is natural to consider instead some type of quasiconformal mapping. One such class is [*quasisymmetric mappings*]{}, and a large body of recent literature is dedicated to quasisymmetric uniformization of metric spaces. We mention specifically papers by Semmes [@Sem:96b] and Bonk\u2013Kleiner [@BonkKle:02] as important references.\n\nAnother approach is to use the so-called [*geometric definition*]{} of quasiconformal mappings, based on the notion of modulus of a curve family. In the recent paper [@Raj:16], the first-named author proves a version of the uniformization theorem for metric spaces homeomorphic to $\\mathbb{R}^2$ with locally finite Hausdorff 2-measure. In the present paper, we call such spaces [*metric surfaces*]{}.\n\nIn [@Raj:16] a condition on metric surfaces called [*reciprocality*]{} (see Definition \\[defi:reciprocality\\] below) is introduced and shown to be necessary and sufficient for the existence of a quasiconformal parametrization by a domain in $\\mathbb{R}^2$. We refer the reader to the introduction of [@Raj:16] for a detailed overview of the problem and additional references to the literature.\n\nIn this paper, we show that one part of the definition of reciprocality is satisfied by all metric surfaces and therefore is unnecessary. This result gives a positive answer to Question 17.5 from [@Raj:16].\n\nWe first recall the relevant definitions and establish some notation. Let $(X,d,\\mu)$ be a metric measure space. For a family $\\Gamma$ of curves in $X$, the [*$p$-modulus*]{} of $\\Gamma$ is defined as $$\\operatorname{mod}_p \\Gamma = \\inf \\int_X \\rho^p\\,d\\mu ,$$ where the infimum is taken over all Borel functions $\\rho: X \\rightarrow [0,\\infty]$ with the property that $\\int_{\\gamma} \\rho\\,ds \\geq 1$ for all locally rectifiable curves $\\gamma \\in \\Gamma$. Such a function $\\rho$ is called [*admissible*]{}. If the exponent $p$ is understood, a homeomorphism $f: (X,d,\\mu) \\rightarrow (Y,d',\\nu)$ between metric measure spaces is [*quasiconformal*]{} if there exists $K \\geq 1$ such that $$K^{-1} \\operatorname{mod}_p \\Gamma \\leq \\operatorname{mod}_p f(\\Gamma) \\leq K \\operatorname{mod}_p \\Gamma$$ for all curve families $\\Gamma$ in $X$. In this paper, we always take $p=2$ and assume that a metric space $(X,d)$ is equipped with the Hausdorff 2-measure $\\mathcal{H}^2$, and we write $\\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma$ in place of $\\operatorname{mod}_2 \\Gamma$.\n\nThroughout this paper, we assume that $(X,d)$ is a metric surface as defined above. A [*quadrilateral*]{} in $X$ is a subset $Q \\subset X$ homeomorphic to $[0,1]^2$ with four designated non-overlapping boundary arcs, denoted in cyclic order by $\\zeta_1$, $\\zeta_2$, $\\zeta_3$, $\\zeta_4$, which are the images of $[0,1] \\times\\{0\\}$, $\\{1\\} \\times [0,1]$, $[0,1] \\times \\{1\\}$ and $\\{0\\} \\times [0,1]$, respectively, under the parametrizing homeomorphism from $[0,1]^2$. We write $\\Gamma_1(Q)$ to denote the family $\\Gamma(\\zeta_1,\\zeta_3; Q)$ of curves in $Q$ connecting $\\zeta_1$ and $\\zeta_3$, and $\\Gamma_2(Q)$ to denote the family $\\Gamma(\\zeta_2,\\zeta_4; Q)$ of curves in $Q$ connecting $\\zeta_2$ and $\\zeta_4$. More generally, for disjoint closed sets $E,F$ contained in the set $G \\subset X$, the notation $\\Gamma(E,F;G)$ is used to denote the family of curves in $G$ which intersect both $E$ and $F$.\n\n\\[defi:reciprocality\\] The metric surface $(X, d)$ is [*reciprocal*]{} if there exists $\\kappa \\geq 1$ such that for all quadrilaterals $Q$ in $X$, $$\\label{equ:reciprocality(1)}\n        \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_1(Q) \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_2(Q) \\leq \\kappa$$ and $$\\label{equ:reciprocality(2)}\n        \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_1(Q) \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_2(Q) \\geq 1/\\kappa,$$ and for all $x \\in X$ and $R>0$ such that $X \\setminus B(x,R) \\neq \\emptyset$, $$\\label{equ:reciprocality(3)} \n        \\lim_{r \\rightarrow 0} \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma(B(x,r), X \\setminus B(x,R); B(x,R)) = 0.$$\n\nWe then have the following result.\n\n\\[thm:uniformization\\] There exists a domain $\\Omega \\subset \\mathbb{R}^2$ and a quasiconformal mapping $f: (X,d) \\rightarrow \\Omega$ if and only if $X$ is reciprocal.\n\nThe necessity of each condition in Definition \\[defi:reciprocality\\] is immediate; standard computations show that $\\mathbb{R}^2$ is reciprocal. The actual content of Theorem \\[thm:uniformization\\] is that these conditions are sufficient to construct \u201cby hand\u201d a mapping that can then be shown to be quasiconformal. However, the question of whether a weaker set of assumptions might still be sufficient to construct such a quasiconformal mapping is not fully settled in [@Raj:16].\n\nIt is not difficult to construct examples of metric surfaces for which conditions and fail. For instance, the quotient space $\\mathbb{R}^2/ \\sim$, where $x \\sim y$ if $x=y$ or if both $x$ and $y$ belong to the closed unit disc, has a natural metric for which both conditions fail. On the other hand, it was conjectured in [@Raj:16] (Question 17.5) that in fact condition holds for all $(X,d)$. The main result of this paper shows that this is indeed the case.\n\n\\[thm:main\\] Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space homeomorphic to $\\mathbb{R}^2$ with locally finite Hausdorff 2-measure. There exists a constant $\\kappa\\geq 1$, independent of $X$, such that $\\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_1(Q) \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_2(Q) \\geq 1/\\kappa$ for all quadrilaterals $Q \\subset X$.\n\nAs a consequence of Theorem \\[thm:main\\], condition in Definition \\[defi:reciprocality\\] is unnecessary. Our proof as written gives a value of $\\kappa = 2000^2\\cdot (4/\\pi)^2$, though optimizing each step would improve this to $\\kappa = 216^2\\cdot (4/\\pi)^2$. It is a corollary of Theorem 1.5 in [@Raj:16], as improved in [@Rom:17], that if $X$ is reciprocal (and hence $X$ admits a quasiconformal parametrization), then Theorem \\[thm:main\\] holds with $\\kappa = (4/\\pi)^2$. For this reason, it is natural to conjecture that the best possible $\\kappa$ for the general case is also $(4/\\pi)^2$, though our techniques fall far short of this.\n\nIn Proposition 15.8 of [@Raj:16], Theorem \\[thm:main\\] (with a larger value of $\\kappa$) is proved under the assumption that $X$ satisfies the mass upper bound $\\mathcal{H}^2(B(x,r)) \\leq Cr^2$ for some $C>0$ independent of $x$ and $r$. Our proof follows a similar outline; the difficulty is to avoid using the upper bound.\n\nThe basic approach is to construct an \u201cenergy-minimizing\u201d or \u201charmonic\u201d function $u: Q \\rightarrow [0,\\infty)$ which satisfies the boundary constraints $u|\\zeta_1 = 0$ and $u|\\zeta_3 = 1$. Working only from the assumptions at hand, one can establish relevant properties of $u$. The main property needed to prove Theorem \\[thm:main\\] is that a version of the coarea inequality holds for $u$. For the case when $X$ satisfies the mass upper bound $\\mathcal{H}^2(B(x,r)) \\leq Cr^2$, this is found in Proposition 15.7 of [@Raj:16]. The coarea inequality implies that, from the level sets of $u$, one may extract a large family of rectifiable curves contained in $\\Gamma_2(Q)$. Since $u$ is defined by means of the curve family $\\Gamma_1(Q)$, this provides the necessary link between $\\Gamma_1(Q)$ and $\\Gamma_2(Q)$. Roughly speaking, if there are few curves in $\\Gamma_1(Q)$, as quantified by modulus, then these corresponding curves in $\\Gamma_2(Q)$ must be short, which implies that the modulus of $\\Gamma_2(Q)$ is large. The organization of the paper is the following. Section \\[sec:preliminaries\\] contains some basic notation and background, including an overview of the construction of the harmonic function $u$ described in the previous paragraph. In Section \\[sec:level\\_sets\\], we prove several properties of the level sets of $u$ which are required for the proof of Theorem \\[thm:main\\]. This section expands on the material present in Section 4 of [@Raj:16]. Section \\[sec:lower\\_bound\\] contains the main technical portion of our paper, the coarea inequality for $u$ described previously valid for all metric surfaces, as well as the proof of Theorem \\[thm:main\\]. Section \\[sec:continuity\\_u\\] contains a final auxiliary result, namely that the harmonic function $u$ is continuous in general. The continuity of $u$ had previously been proved as Theorem 5.1. of [@Raj:16] using the reciprocality conditions and .\n\nPreliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}\n=============\n\nIn this section, we give a review of notation and auxiliary results from [@Raj:16] that will be needed. For the remainder of this paper, we let $X$ be a metric surface and $Q$ denote a fixed quadrilateral in $X$. We write $\\Gamma_1$ for $\\Gamma_1(Q)$. We assume throughout this paper that all curves are non-constant.\n\nFor $k \\in \\{1,2\\}$ and $\\varepsilon > 0$, the [*$k$-dimensional Hausdorff $\\varepsilon$-content*]{} of a set $E \\subset X$, denoted by $\\mathcal{H}_\\varepsilon^k(E)$, is defined as $$\\mathcal{H}_\\varepsilon^k(E) = \\inf \\left\\{ \\sum a_k \\operatorname{diam}(A_j)^k: E \\subset \\bigcup_{j=1}^\\infty A_j, \\operatorname{diam}A_j < \\varepsilon \\right\\},$$ with normalizing constants $a_1 = 1$ and $a_2 = \\pi/4$. The [*Hausdorff $k$-measure*]{} of $E$ is defined as $\\mathcal{H}^k(E) = \\lim_{\\varepsilon \\rightarrow 0} \\mathcal{H}_\\varepsilon^k(E)$.\n\nWe proceed with an overview of the construction of the harmonic function $u$ corresponding to the curve family $\\Gamma_1$, as given in Section 4 of [@Raj:16]. By a standard argument using Mazur\u2019s lemma, there exists a sequence of admissible functions $(\\rho_k)$ for $\\Gamma_1$ that converges strongly in $L^2$ to a function $\\rho \\in L^2(Q)$ satisfying $\\int_Q \\rho^2\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 = \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_1$. By Fuglede\u2019s lemma, $$\\label{equ:fuglede}\n    \\int_\\gamma \\rho_k\\, ds \\rightarrow \\int_{\\gamma} \\rho\\, ds < \\infty$$ for all curves $\\gamma$ in $Q$ except for a family of modulus zero. In particular, this implies that $\\rho$ is weakly admissible for $\\Gamma_1$ (that is, admissible after removing from $\\Gamma_1$ a subfamily of modulus zero). We extend the definition of $\\rho$ to the entire space $X$ by setting $\\rho(x) = 0$ for all $x \\in X \\setminus Q$.\n\nLet $\\Gamma_0$ be the family of curves in $Q$ with a subcurve on which does not hold. Note that $\\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_0 = 0$. We define the function $u$ as follows. Let $x \\in Q$. If there exists a curve $\\gamma \\in \\Gamma_1 \\setminus \\Gamma_0$ whose image contains $x$, then define $$\\label{equ:u_definition}\n    u(x) = \\inf \\int_{\\gamma_x} \\rho\\,ds,$$ where the infimum is taken over all such curves $\\gamma$ and over all subcurves $\\gamma_x$ of $\\gamma$ joining $\\zeta_1$ and $x$. Otherwise, define $u(x)$ by $$u(x) = \\liminf_{y \\in E, y \\rightarrow x} u(y),$$ where $E$ is the set of those $y \\in Q$ such that $u(y)$ is defined by . Lemma 4.1 of [@Raj:16] shows that $u$ is well-defined in $Q$.\n\nWe recall Lemma 4.3 of [@Raj:16], which states that $\\rho$ is a weak upper gradient of $u$. More precisely, $$\\label{equ:upper_gradient}\n    |u(x) - u(y)| \\leq \\int_{\\gamma} \\rho\\,ds$$ for all curves $\\gamma$ in $Q$ with $\\gamma \\notin \\Gamma_0$. In particular, $u$ is absolutely continuous along any curve $\\gamma \\notin \\Gamma_0$. We also recall Lemma 4.5 of [@Raj:16], where it is shown that $0 \\leq u(x) \\leq 1$ for all $x \\in Q$. It follows from that if $x \\in \\zeta_3$ lies in the image of a curve $\\gamma \\in \\Gamma_1 \\setminus \\Gamma_0$, then $u(x) \\geq 1$ and thus $u(x) = 1$.\n\nAs final points of notation, for a set $A \\subset Q$, let $\\operatorname*{osc}_{A} u = \\sup_{x,y \\in A} |u(x) - u(y)|$. Let $|\\gamma|$ denote the image of the curve $\\gamma$ in $Q$.\n\nTo study the harmonic function $u$, there are three auxiliary results which are employed repeatedly in [@Raj:16] and which we state here for easy reference. The first concerns the existence of rectifiable curves and can be found as Proposition 15.1 of [@Sem:96c].\n\n\\[prop:existence\\_paths\\] Let $x,y \\in X$ be given, $x \\neq y$. Suppose that $E \\subset X$ is a continuum with $\\mathcal{H}^1(E) < \\infty$ and $x, y \\in E$. Then there is an $L>0$, $L \\leq \\mathcal{H}^1(E)$, and an injective 1-Lipschitz mapping $\\gamma\\colon [0,L] \\rightarrow X$ such that $\\gamma(t) \\in E$ for all $t$, $\\gamma(0) = x$, $\\gamma(L) = y$ and $\\mathcal{H}^1(\\gamma(F)) = \\mathcal{H}^1(F)$ for all measurable sets $F \\subset [0,L]$.\n\nThe next is the standard coarea inequality for Lipschitz functions on metric spaces, found in [@AmbTil:04 Proposition 3.1.5].\n\n\\[prop:coarea\\] Let $A \\subset X$ be Borel measurable. If $m\\colon X \\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}$ is $L$-Lipschitz and $g\\colon A \\rightarrow [0, \\infty]$ is Borel measurable, then $$\\int_{\\mathbb{R}} \\int_{A \\cap m^{-1}(t)} g(s)\\, d\\mathcal{H}^1(s)\\, dt \\leq \\frac{4L}{\\pi} \\int_A g(x)\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2(x).$$\n\nWe also need a topological lemma, cf. [@Moo:62 IV Theorem 26].\n\n\\[lemm:separating\\_continuum\\] Let $A,B \\subset Q$ be non-empty sets, and let $K \\subset Q$ be a compact set such that $A$ and $B$ belong to different components of $Q \\setminus K$. Then there is a continuum $F \\subset K$ such that $A$ and $B$ belong to different components of $Q \\setminus F$. Moreover, if $\\mathcal{H}^1(K) < \\infty$ and the component of $Q \\setminus K$ containing $A$ is contained in the interior of $Q$, then $F$ may be taken to be the image of an injective Lipschitz mapping $\\gamma: \\mathbb{S}^1 \\rightarrow K$.\n\nLevel sets of $u$ {#sec:level_sets}\n=================\n\nIn this section, we prove a number of topological properties for the level sets of the harmonic function $u$, or, more precisely, for the closure of these level sets. This section can be viewed as an extension of Section 4 in [@Raj:16], which also studies those properties of $u$ which can be proved without any use of the reciprocality conditions.\n\nThe primary technical difficulty we must deal with is that, without assuming the reciprocality conditions, we do not know [*a priori*]{} that the function $u$ is continuous. However, it is shown in Lemma 4.6 of [@Raj:16] that $u$ satisfies a maximum and a minimum principle. To state it, we use the following notation. For an open set $\\Omega \\subset X$, or a relatively open set $\\Omega \\subset Q$, let $$\\partial_* \\Omega = (\\partial \\Omega \\cap Q) \\cup (\\overline{\\Omega} \\cap (\\zeta_1 \\cup \\zeta_3)) .$$ Then we have the following.\n\n\\[lemm:maximum\\_principle\\] Let $\\Omega \\subset X$ be open. Then $\\sup_{x \\in \\Omega \\cap Q} u(x) \\leq \\sup_{y \\in \\partial_*\\Omega} u(y)$ and $\\inf_{x \\in \\Omega \\cap Q} u(x) \\geq \\inf_{y \\in \\partial_*\\Omega} u(y)$.\n\nLemma \\[lemm:maximum\\_principle\\] allows us to establish topological properties for the closures of sets of the form $u^{-1}([s,t])$.\n\n\\[prop:connect\\] For all $s, t \\in [0,1]$, $s \\leq t$, the set $\\overline{u^{-1}([s,t])}$ is connected and intersects both $\\zeta_2$ and $\\zeta_4$.\n\nLet $E = \\overline{u^{-1}([s,t])}$. To prove the first claim, suppose that $E$ is not connected. Then there is an open set $U \\subset X$ such that $$\\label{sussa}\n        U \\cap E \\neq \\emptyset, \\quad (Q \\setminus U) \\cap E \\neq \\emptyset, \\quad \\partial U \\cap E = \\emptyset.$$ Let $E_1 = U \\cap E$ and $E_2 = (Q \\setminus U) \\cap E$. By passing to a subset if needed, we may assume that $E_1$ and $E_2$ are each contained within a single component of $U$ and $Q \\setminus \\overline{U}$, respectively. We fix $\\varepsilon >0$ such that $\\operatorname{dist}(\\partial U,E) > \\varepsilon$. By Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\] applied to $h(x)=\\operatorname{dist}(\\partial U,x)$, there is $0<p<\\varepsilon$ such that $\\mathcal{H}^1(h^{-1}(p))< \\infty$ and every rectifiable curve $\\gamma$ for which $|\\gamma| \\subset h^{-1}(p)$ lies outside the exceptional set $\\Gamma_0$. By and our choice of $p$, the sets $E_1$ and $E_2$ belong to different components of $Q \\setminus h^{-1}(p)$. Lemma \\[lemm:separating\\_continuum\\] then shows that $h^{-1}(p)$ has a connected subset $F \\subset Q$ such that $E_1$ and $E_2$ belong to different components of $Q \\setminus F$. Notice that, for every rectifiable curve $\\gamma$ with $|\\gamma| \\subset F$, $u||\\gamma|$ is continuous and either $u(x) < s$ or $u(x)>t$ for all $x \\in |\\gamma|$. We divide the rest of the proof into cases.\n\n\\[pring\\] Suppose there is an open set $G \\subset X$ such that $\\partial G \\subset F$ and $E_j \\subset G$ for $j=1$ or $j=2$. By Lemma \\[lemm:maximum\\_principle\\] there are $x_0,x_1 \\in G$ such that $u(x_0)\\leq s$ and $u(x_1)\\geq t$. Moreover, by Proposition \\[prop:existence\\_paths\\] there is a rectifiable curve $\\gamma$ joining $x_0$ and $x_1$ in $F$. Since $u||\\gamma|$ is continuous, we conclude that $u(x) \\in E$ for some $x \\in |\\gamma|$. This is a contradiction, since $E \\cap F = \\emptyset$.\n\nSuppose next that the set $G$ in Case \\[pring\\] does not exist. We then find a subcontinuum $F'$ of $F$ with the following properties: $F' \\cap \\partial Q$ consists of two distinct points $x_0$ and $x_1$, and $E_1$ and $E_2$ belong to different components, say $\\Omega_1$ and $\\Omega_2$, of $X \\setminus (\\partial Q \\cup F')$. By Proposition \\[prop:existence\\_paths\\] we may moreover assume that $F'=|\\gamma|$, where $\\gamma:[0,1]\\to Q$ is simple and rectifiable, and $\\gamma(0)=x_0$, $\\gamma(1)=x_1$.\n\nSuppose that both $x_0$ and $x_1$ belong to $\\zeta_j$ for some $j=1,\\ldots,4$. Then $\\partial \\Omega_k \\subset |\\gamma| \\cup \\zeta_j$ for $k=1$ or $k=2$. As in Case \\[pring\\], Lemma \\[lemm:maximum\\_principle\\] and the continuity of $u||\\gamma|$ show that there exists $x \\in |\\gamma|$ such that $u(x) \\in [s,t]$. This contradicts the construction of $\\gamma$. A similar argument can be applied when $x_0 \\in \\zeta_i$ and $x_1 \\in \\zeta_j$, where either $i \\in \\{1,3\\}$ and $j \\in \\{2,4\\}$, or $j \\in \\{1,3\\}$ and $i \\in \\{2,4\\}$.\n\nSuppose that $x_0 \\in \\zeta_1$ and $x_1 \\in \\zeta_3$. Then, since $\\gamma \\notin \\Gamma_0$, the construction of $u$ shows that $u||\\gamma|$ takes all values between $0$ and $1$. In particular, $u(x) \\in [s,t]$ for some $x \\in |\\gamma|$. This contradicts the fact that $|\\gamma| \\cap E = \\emptyset$. The argument remains valid if the roles of $x_0$ and $x_1$ are reversed.\n\nSuppose that $x_0 \\in \\zeta_2$ and $x_1 \\in \\zeta_4$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\\Omega_1$ is the component containing $\\zeta_1$. It then follows from Lemma \\[lemm:maximum\\_principle\\] that $u(x) \\geq s$ for some $x \\in |\\gamma|$. Moreover, since $u||\\gamma|$ is continuous and $|\\gamma| \\cap E = \\emptyset$, it follows that in fact $u(x) >t$ for every $x \\in |\\gamma|$. Similarly, applying Lemma \\[lemm:maximum\\_principle\\] to $\\Omega_2$ shows that $u(x) < s$ for every $x \\in |\\gamma|$. This is a contradiction. The argument remains valid if the roles of $x_0$ and $x_1$ are reversed.\n\nWe conclude that the set $E$ is connected. It remains to show that $E$ intersects both $\\zeta_2$ and $\\zeta_4$. Suppose towards contradiction that this is not the case. We may assume without loss of generality that $E$ does not intersect $\\zeta_4$. Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\] applied to $g(x)=\\operatorname{dist}(\\zeta_4,x)$ shows that there exists a small $p>0$ such that $\\mathcal{H}^1(g^{-1}(p))< \\infty$. Moreover, by Lemma \\[lemm:separating\\_continuum\\] there is a continuum $F \\subset g^{-1}(p)$ joining $\\zeta_1$ and $\\zeta_3$ in $Q \\setminus E$. Proposition \\[prop:existence\\_paths\\] gives a simple curve $\\gamma$ such that $|\\gamma| \\subset F$ also joins $\\zeta_1$ and $\\zeta_3$. As before, we may assume that $\\gamma \\notin \\Gamma_0$ so that $u||\\gamma|$ takes all values between $0$ and $1$. This is a contradiction since $|\\gamma| \\cap E = \\emptyset$. The proof is complete.\n\nNext, we give a generalization of Lemma 15.6 in [@Raj:16], with a corrected constant. The proof is essentially the same as the corresponding proof in [@Raj:16].\n\n\\[lemm:oscillation\\] Let $x \\in Q$ and $r \\in (0, r_0)$, where $r_0 = \\min\\{\\operatorname{diam}\\zeta_1, \\operatorname{diam}\\zeta_3\\}/4$. Then $$\\label{equ:oscillation_bound}\n        r  \\mathcal{H}^1(u(B(x,r) \\cap Q))\\leq \\frac{4}{\\pi} \\int_{B(x,2r)} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2.$$ Moreover, if $U(x,r)$ is the $x$-component of $B(x,r) \\cap Q$, then $$\\label{equ:oscillation_bound2}\n        r  \\operatorname*{osc}_{U(x,r)} u \\leq \\frac{4}{\\pi} \\int_{B(x,2r)} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2.$$\n\nBy applying Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\] to the function $d(\\cdot,x)$ and arguing as in the first paragraph of the proof of Proposition \\[prop:connect\\], we see that for almost every $s \\in (r,2r)$, the sphere $S(x,s)$ satisfies $\\mathcal{H}^1(S(x,s)) < \\infty$ and has the property that $\\eta \\notin \\Gamma_0$ for every curve $\\eta$ with $|\\eta| \\subset S(x,s) \\cap Q$. Fix such an $s \\in (r,2r)$.\n\nThen $B(x,s) \\cap Q$ consists of countably many relatively open components $V_j$. By Lemma \\[lemm:separating\\_continuum\\], for such a component $V_j$ there is a simple curve $\\gamma_j$ with $|\\gamma_j| \\subset S(x,s)$ that separates $Q$ into the relative components $U_j$ and $Q \\setminus \\overline{U}_j$, where $V_j \\subset U_j$. Observe that either $\\gamma_j$ is a closed curve, or the two endpoints of $\\gamma_j$ are contained in $\\partial Q$.\n\nSince $B(x,r) \\cap Q \\subset \\bigcup_j U_j$, we have $$\\mathcal{H}^1(u(B(x,r) \\cap Q)) \\leq \\sum_j \\operatorname{diam}u(U_j).$$ By the maximum principle Lemma \\[lemm:maximum\\_principle\\], $$\\operatorname{diam}u(U_j) \\leq \\sup_{y,z \\in \\partial_* U_j} |u(y) - u(z)|.$$ By our assumption that $r \\leq \\min\\{ \\operatorname{diam}\\zeta_1, \\operatorname{diam}\\zeta_3\\}/4$, it follows that if $\\zeta_1 \\cap \\partial_* U_j \\neq \\emptyset$, then there exists a point $z_1 \\in |\\gamma_j| \\cap \\zeta_1$. Indeed, if $y \\in \\zeta_1 \\cap \\partial_* U_j$, then $d(y,x) \\leq 2r$. But by assumption, there exists $z \\in \\zeta_1$ such that $d(y,z) > 4r$. The triangle inequality gives $d(z,x) > 2r$, and in particular $z \\notin \\overline{U}_j$. Since $\\gamma_j$ separates $Q$, we conclude there is a point $z_1 \\in |\\gamma_j| \\cap \\zeta_1$. In this case it follows that $0 = \\inf_{z \\in \\partial_* U_j} u(z) = u(z_1) = \\min_{z \\in |\\gamma_j|} u(z)$. On the other hand, if $\\zeta_1 \\cap \\partial_* U_j = \\emptyset$, then by Lemma \\[lemm:maximum\\_principle\\] we again have $\\inf_{z \\in \\partial_* U_j} u(z) = \\min_{z \\in |\\gamma_j|} u(z)$.\n\nThe same argument shows that if $\\zeta_3 \\cap \\partial_* U_j \\neq \\emptyset$, then there exists $y_1 \\in |\\gamma_j| \\cap \\zeta_3$ such that $1 = \\sup_{y \\in \\partial_* U_j} u(y) = u(y_1) = \\max_{y \\in \\gamma_j} u(y)$. In general, we likewise have $\\sup_{y \\in \\partial_* U_j} u(y) = \\max_{y \\in |\\gamma_j|} u(y)$. This establishes the equality $$\\sup_{y,z \\in \\partial_* U_j} |u(y) - u(z)| = \\max_{y,z \\in |\\gamma_j|} |u(y) - u(z)| .$$ By the upper gradient inequality , $$\\max_{y,z \\in |\\gamma_j|} |u(y) - u(z)| \\leq \\int_{\\gamma_j} \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^1.$$ Finally, combining the estimates gives $$\\mathcal{H}^1(u(B(x,r) \\cap Q)) \\leq \\sum_j \\operatorname{diam}u(U_j) \\leq \\sum_j \\int_{\\gamma_j} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^1 \\leq \\int_{S(x,s)} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^1.$$ Observe that this estimate is the same independent of our choice of $s$. Inequality then follows from integrating over $s$ from $r$ to $2r$ and applying Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\].\n\nThe same argument also verifies inequality , since for each choice of $s \\in (r,2r)$ it holds that $\\operatorname*{osc}_{U(x,r)} u = \\operatorname{diam}u(U(x,r)) \\leq \\sum_j \\operatorname{diam}u(U_j)$.\n\nWithout assuming the reciprocality conditions, it is not clear that the function $u$ is continuous. Nevertheless, Lemma \\[lemm:oscillation\\] implies a certain amount of continuity for $u$, as we show in the following corollary.\n\n\\[cor:continuity\\] The function $u$ is continuous at $\\mathcal{H}^2$-almost every $x \\in Q$.\n\nInequality implies that $$\\limsup_{r \\rightarrow 0}  \\operatorname*{osc}_{U(x,r)} u \\leq \\limsup_{r \\rightarrow 0} \\frac{4r}{\\pi}\\cdot \\frac{1}{r^2} \\int_{B(x,2r)} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2$$ for all $x \\in Q \\setminus \\partial Q$. Here, $U(x,r)$ is as in Lemma \\[lemm:oscillation\\]. From basic properties of pointwise densities of measures (see [@Fed:69 Sec. 2.10.19(3)]), the integrability of $\\rho$ and local finiteness of $\\mathcal{H}^2$ imply that $$\\limsup_{r \\rightarrow 0} \\frac{1}{r^2} \\int_{B(x,2r)} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2 < \\infty$$ for $\\mathcal{H}^2$-almost every $x \\in Q$. The result follows by combining the estimates.\n\nReciprocal lower bound {#sec:lower_bound}\n======================\n\nThis section is devoted to a proof of Theorem \\[thm:main\\]. We first state and prove the coarea inequality mentioned above which constitutes the main technical contribution of this paper. This corresponds to Proposition 15.7 in [@Raj:16], where a similar result is proved under the assumption that $X$ has the mass upper bound $\\mathcal{H}^2(B(x,r)) \\leq Cr^2$. The proof of Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\_u\\], like Proposition 15.7 in [@Raj:16], is based on standard arguments such as that in [@AmbTil:04 Prop. 3.1.5].\n\n\\[prop:coarea\\_u\\] Let $u$ and $\\rho$ be as above. For all Borel functions $g: Q \\rightarrow [0,\\infty]$, $$\\int_{[0,1]}^* \\int_{\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} g\\,d\\mathcal{H}^1\\,dt \\leq 2000 \\int_Q g\\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2.$$ Here $\\int^*_A a(t)\\, dt $ is the upper Lebesgue integral of $a$ over $A$ (see [@Fed:69 Sec. 2.4.2]).\n\nIt suffices to consider the case where $g$ is a characteristic function, that is, $g = \\chi_E$ for some Borel set $E \\subset Q$. Moreover, we may assume that $E$ is open in $Q$. Indeed, for a Borel set $E$ we find open sets $U_j \\supset E$, $U_{j+1} \\subset U_j$, such that $\\mathcal{H}^2(U_j) \\to \\mathcal{H}^2(E)$. Assuming the proposition for $g=\\chi_{U_j}$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n            \\int_{[0,1]}^* \\int_{\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} \\chi_E \\,d\\mathcal{H}^1\\,dt  &\\leq &\\int_{[0,1]}^* \\int_{\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} \\chi_{U_j} \\,d\\mathcal{H}^1\\,dt \\leq 2000 \\int_Q \\chi_{U_j}\\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\\\ \n            &\\longrightarrow& 2000 \\int_Q \\chi_{E}\\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2. \n        \\end{aligned}$$ So we want to show that $$\\label{equ:set_E} \n        \\int_{[0,1]}^* \\mathcal{H}^1(\\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \\cap E) \\,dt \\leq 2000 \\int_E \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2$$ whenever $E$ is open in $Q$. The proof is divided into two steps, the first dealing with the subset of \u201cgood\u201d points of $E$ and the second dealing with the subset of \u201cbad\u201d points. Throughout this proof, all metric balls are considered as subsets of $Q$.\n\nConsider the set $$G = \\left\\{x \\in E: \\forall \\varepsilon>0, \\exists r<\\varepsilon, \\int_{B(x,10r)} \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\leq 200 \\int_{B(x,r)} \\rho \\,d\\mathcal{H}^2\\right\\}.$$ Fix $\\varepsilon>0$. We apply the basic covering theorem ([@Hei:01 Thm. 1.2]) to choose a countable collection of pairwise disjoint balls $B_j = B(x_j,r_j)$ such that $x_j \\in G$ and $10r_j \\leq \\min\\{\\varepsilon, d(x_j, Q\\setminus E)\\}$ for each $j$, the collection $\\{5B_j\\}$ covers $G$, and $$\\int_{10B_j} \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\leq 200 \\int_{B_j} \\rho \\,d\\mathcal{H}^2$$ for each $j$. We also require that $20r_j < \\min\\{\\operatorname{diam}\\zeta_1, \\operatorname{diam}\\zeta_3\\}$ for our application of Lemma \\[lemm:oscillation\\]. We have $$\\sum_j \\int_{10B_j} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\leq \\sum_j 200\\int_{B_j} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\leq 200\\int_{E} \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2,$$ where the last inequality follows since by our choice the balls $B_j$ are pairwise disjoint subsets of the open set $E$. For each $j$ fix a measurable set $A_j \\supset u(5B_j)$ such that $\\mathcal{H}^1(A_j)=\\mathcal{H}^1(u(5B_j))$. Moreover, define $g_\\varepsilon: [0,1] \\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}$ by $$g_\\varepsilon(t) = \\sum_j r_j \\chi_{A_j}(t).$$ Integrating and applying Lemma \\[lemm:oscillation\\] gives $$\\int_0^1 g_\\varepsilon(t)\\,dt = \\sum_j r_j \\mathcal{H}^1(u(5B_j)) \\leq \\frac{4}{\\pi}\\sum_j \\int_{10B_j} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2.$$ We observe that if $x \\in \\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \\cap G$ for a given $t \\in [0,1]$, with $j_x$ such that $x \\in 5B_{j_x}$, then of necessity $t \\in u(5B_{j_x})$. Hence $\\mathcal{H}_\\varepsilon^1(\\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \\cap G) \\leq 10g_\\varepsilon(t)$, by the definition of Hausdorff $\\varepsilon$-content. Letting $\\varepsilon \\rightarrow 0$ and applying Fatou\u2019s lemma gives $$\\int_{[0,1]}^* \\mathcal{H}^1(\\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \\cap G)\\, dt \\leq 10 \\int_0^1 \\liminf_{\\varepsilon \\to 0} g_\\varepsilon(t)\\, dt \\\\\n            \\leq 10 \\liminf_{\\varepsilon \\rightarrow 0} \\int_0^1 g_\\varepsilon(t) \\, dt.$$ Combining estimates, we obtain $$\\int_{[0,1]}^*\\mathcal{H}^1(\\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \\cap G)\\, dt \\leq \\frac{4 \\cdot 2000}{\\pi} \\int_E \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2.$$\n\nWe turn our attention next to the set $F = E \\setminus G$. We claim that $$\\label{equ:bad_points}\n            \\int_{[0,1]}^* \\mathcal{H}^1(\\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \\cap F)\\,dt = 0.$$ By the definition of $F$, for all $x \\in F$ there exists $\\varepsilon_x = 10^{-k_x}$ (for some integer $k_x \\geq 1$) such that $$\\label{equ:bad_iteration}\n            \\int_{B(x,10^{-j})} \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2  \\leq 200^{-1} \\int_{B(x,10^{-j+1})} \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\leq \\cdots \\leq 200^{-(j-k_x)} \\int_{B(x,\\varepsilon_x)} \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2$$ for all $j \\geq k_x$. For all $k \\in \\mathbb{N}$, let $F_k = \\{x \\in F: k_x \\leq k\\}$. Observe that $F = \\bigcup_k F_k$.\n\nNow, fix $k \\in \\mathbb{N}$ and let $j \\geq k$. By definition of the (spherical) Hausdorff measure, there exists a countable collection of balls $B_m=B(x_m, r_m)$ which cover $F_k$, such that $x_m \\in F_k$, $r_m \\leq \\min\\{10^{-j}, d(x_m,Q \\setminus E),\\operatorname{diam}\\zeta_1/4, \\operatorname{diam}\\zeta_3/4\\}$, and $\\sum 4r_m^2 \\leq 4\\mathcal{H}^2(F_k)+4/j$. For the last requirement, recall that the spherical Hausdorff 2-measure is at most 4 times the usual Hausdorff 2-measure. For each $m$, let $j_m$ be the largest integer such that $2r_m \\leq 10^{-j_m}$. Observe that $10^{-j_m} < 20r_m \\leq 20 \\cdot 10^{-j}$ and hence that $j_m \\geq j-1$.\n\nFrom Lemma \\[lemm:oscillation\\] and we deduce $$\\begin{aligned}\n            r_m \\mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m))& \\leq \\frac{4}{\\pi} \\int_{2B_m} \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\leq \\frac{4}{\\pi} \\int_{B(x,10^{-j_m})}\\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2  \\\\ \n            & \\leq \\frac{4}{\\pi} \\cdot \\frac{1}{200} \\int_{B(x,10^{-j_m+1})}\\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\\\ \n            & \\leq \\cdots \\leq \\frac{4}{\\pi} \\cdot \\frac{1}{200^{j_m-k}} \\int_{B(x,10^{-k})} \\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2.\n            \\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\\label{eq:oscillation}\n            r_m \\mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m)) \\leq \\frac{4}{\\pi} \\cdot \\frac{200^k}{200^{j_m}} \\int_Q \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2.$$\n\nSimilar to the first step of the proof, for each $m$ fix a measurable $A_m \\supset u(B_m)$ such that $\\mathcal{H}^1(A_m)=\\mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m))$ and define $g_j(t) =  \\sum_m r_m\\chi_{A_m}(t)$. Then, as before, the definition of $\\mathcal{H}_{1/j}^1$ gives $$\\label{nakki} \n            \\mathcal{H}_{1/j}^1(\\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \\cap F_k) \\leq 2g_j(t)$$ for all $t \\in [0,1]$. Integrating gives $$\\int_0^1 g_j(t)\\,dt \\leq \\sum_m r_m\\mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m)).$$ Applying and using the relationships $1 < 20\\cdot 10^{j_m} r_m$ and $j_m \\geq j-1$ gives $$\\begin{aligned}\n            \\sum_m r_m\\mathcal{H}^1(u(B_m)) & \\leq \\sum_m \\frac{3200}{\\pi}\\cdot 200^k r_m^2 \\left( \\frac{100}{200} \\right)^{j_m} \\int_Q \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\\\\n            & \\leq \\frac{3200}{\\pi}\\cdot 200^k \\left( \\frac{100}{200} \\right)^{j} \\left(\\int_Q \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\right) \\sum_m r_m^2 \\\\\n            & \\leq \\frac{3200}{\\pi}\\cdot 200^k \\left( \\frac{100}{200} \\right)^{j} \\left(\\int_Q \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\right)\\left(\\mathcal{H}^2(F_k)+1/j \\right) .\n            \\end{aligned}$$ From this we obtain $$\\lim_{j \\to \\infty} \\int_0^1 g_j(t) \\, dt \\leq \\lim_{j \\to \\infty} \\frac{3200}{\\pi}\\cdot 200^k \\cdot2^{-j}  \\left(\\int_Q \\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\right)\\left(\\mathcal{H}^2(F_k)+1/j \\right)=0.$$ Combining with Fatou\u2019s lemma and shows that $ \\mathcal{H}^1(\\overline{u^{-1}(t)} \\cap F_k)=0$ for almost every $t$. Since this is true for all $k$, follows.\n\nWith Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\_u\\] in hand, the proof of Theorem \\[thm:main\\] is now simple.\n\nFirst, observe from Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\_u\\] that $\\mathcal{H}^1(\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}) < \\infty$ for almost every $t \\in [0,1]$. Also, as shown in Proposition \\[prop:connect\\], $\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}$ is connected for all $t$ and connects $\\zeta_2$ and $\\zeta_4$. By Proposition \\[prop:existence\\_paths\\], for almost every $t \\in [0,1]$, $\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}$ contains a simple rectifiable curve $\\gamma_t$ joining $\\zeta_2$ and $\\zeta_4$ in $Q$. Let $g: Q \\rightarrow [0,\\infty]$ be an admissible function for $\\Gamma_2$. Then $$\\label{nakka}\n        1 \\leq \\int_{\\gamma_t} g \\, ds \\leq \\int_{\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} g\\,d\\mathcal{H}^1$$ for almost every $0 \\leq t \\leq 1$. Combining with Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\_u\\] yields $$1 \\leq \\int^*_{[0,1]}\\int_{\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}} g\\,d\\mathcal{H}^1\\,dt \\leq  \\frac{4 \\cdot 2000}{\\pi} \\int_Q g\\rho\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2.$$ By H\u00f6lder\u2019s inequality, $$\\int_Q g\\rho\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\leq \\left( \\int_Q g^2\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\right)^{1/2} \\left( \\int_Q \\rho^2\\, d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\right)^{1/2} = \\left( \\int_Q g^2\\,d\\mathcal{H}^2 \\right)^{1/2} (\\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_1)^{1/2}.$$ Infimizing over all admissible $g$, we obtain $$\\frac{1}{2000^2\\cdot (4/\\pi)^2} \\leq \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_1 \\cdot \\operatorname{mod}\\Gamma_2.$$\n\nWe can improve the value of $\\kappa$ as follows. For $\\delta>0$, a version of the basic covering theorem yields a family of balls $B_j$ with the property that $\\{(3+\\delta)B_j\\}$ covers $G$, instead of $\\{5B_j\\}$. In the definition of the set $G$ in Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\_u\\], we may then use $B(x,2(3+\\delta)r)$ in place of $B(x,10r)$. We also replace the constant 200 with $4(3+\\delta)^2 + \\delta$. Following the remainder of the proof and letting $\\delta \\rightarrow 0$ yields the final value of $\\kappa = 216^2\\cdot (4/\\pi)^2$.\n\nContinuity of $u$ {#sec:continuity_u}\n=================\n\nIn this section, we strengthen Corollary \\[cor:continuity\\] by showing that the harmonic function $u$ is continuous on the entire set $Q$. In Theorem 5.1 of [@Raj:16], the continuity of $u$ is proved employing reciprocality condition . In contrast, we do not assume any of the reciprocality conditions in this section.\n\nFirst, we need a technical fact. This is proved using Proposition 3.1 in [@Raj:16] (which is a re-statement of Proposition 15.1 in [@Sem:96c]) and an induction and limiting argument.\n\n\\[prop:curve\\_parametrization\\] Let $X$ be a metric space and $E \\subset X$ a continuum with $\\mathcal{H}^1(E) < \\infty$. For all $x, y \\in E$, there is a 1-Lipschitz curve $\\gamma: [0, 2\\mathcal{H}^1(E)] \\rightarrow E$ such that $|\\gamma| = E$, $\\gamma(0) = x$, $\\gamma(2\\mathcal{H}^1(E)) = y$, and $\\gamma^{-1}(z)$ contains at most two points for $\\mathcal{H}^1$-almost every $z \\in E$.\n\nFor this proof, we will let $D$ denote the length metric on $E$ induced by $d$. We write $D_{zw}$ in place of $D(z,w)$. Observe that $D_{zw} < \\infty$ for all $z,w \\in E$ by Proposition 3.1 in [@Raj:16]. Also, for $z,w \\in E$, we use $\\gamma_{zw}$ to denote some fixed choice of injective 1-Lipschitz curve in $E$ from $z$ to $w$ whose length attains $D_{zw}$; the existence of at least one such curve is guaranteed by the Hopf-Rinow theorem. Let $L = 2\\mathcal{H}^1(E)$.\n\nWe will inductively define a sequence of curves $\\gamma_j: [0, L] \\rightarrow E$. We define first $\\gamma_1$ by $$\\gamma_1(t) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{ll} \\gamma_{xy}(t) & 0 \\leq t \\leq D_{xy} \\\\ y & D_{xy} \\leq t \\leq L \\end{array} \\right. .$$\n\nFor the inductive step, assume that $\\gamma_j$ has been defined for some $j \\in \\mathbb{N}$. If $|\\gamma_j| = E$, then stop and take $\\gamma = \\gamma_j$. Otherwise, define $\\gamma_{j+1}$ as follows. Let $z_j$ be a point in $E$ maximizing $D$-distance from $|\\gamma_j|$. Such a point exists by the compactness of $E$. Let $\\gamma_{w_jz_j}$ be a shortest curve from $|\\gamma_j|$ to $z_j$, with initial point $w_j \\in |\\gamma_j|$. Let $t_j$ denote the smallest point in $[0, L]$ for which $\\gamma_j(t_j) = w_j$. Define now $\\gamma_{j+1}$ by $$\\gamma_{j+1}(t) = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{ll} \\gamma_j(t) & 0 \\leq t \\leq t_j \\\\ \\gamma_{w_jz_j}(t-t_j) & t_j \\leq t \\leq t_j + D_{w_jz_j} \\\\ \\gamma_{w_jz_j}(t_j+2D_{w_jz_j} - t) & t_j + D_{w_jz_j} \\leq t \\leq t_j + 2D_{w_jz_j} \\\\ \\gamma_j(t-2D_{w_jz_j}) & t_j + 2D_{w_jz_j} \\leq t \\leq \\ell(\\gamma_j) + 2D_{w_jz_j} \\\\ y & \\ell(\\gamma_j) + 2D_{w_jz_j} \\leq t \\leq L \\end{array} \\right. .$$\n\nObserve that the curve $\\gamma_j$ has multiplicity at most 2, except possibly at the points $w_j$. Thus $\\ell(\\gamma_j) + 2D_{w_jz_j} \\leq D_{xy} + \\sum_{k=1}^{j} 2 D_{w_kz_k} < 2\\mathcal{H}^1(|\\gamma_j|) \\leq L$. Hence the curve $\\gamma_{j+1}$ is well-defined.\n\nWe also note that $D(\\gamma_{j+1}(t),\\gamma_j(t)) \\leq 2D_{w_jz_j}$ for all $t \\in [0,L]$ and $j \\in \\mathbb{N}$, and thus the curves $\\gamma_j$ converge pointwise to a curve $\\gamma: [0, L] \\rightarrow E$. By construction, the curve $\\gamma$ has multiplicity at most 2, except possibly on the countable set $\\{w_j\\}$. To see that $|\\gamma| = E$, suppose there exists $z \\in E \\setminus |\\gamma|$. But then $D(z,|\\gamma|) > 0$. In particular, there exists $j \\in \\mathbb{N}$ with $D(w_j,z_j) < D(z, |\\gamma_j|)$, contradicting the maximality of the choice of $z_j$.\n\nWe proceed now to the main result of this section.\n\n\\[thm:continuity\\] The function $u$ is continuous in $Q$.\n\nFor all $t \\in [0,1]$ such that $\\mathcal{H}^1(\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}) < \\infty$, let $\\gamma_t$ denote a curve connecting $\\zeta_2$ to $\\zeta_4$ whose image is $\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}$ satisfying the conclusions of Proposition \\[prop:curve\\_parametrization\\]. By Lemma 4.3 in [@Raj:16], $u$ is continuous on each $\\gamma_t$ except on a curve family of modulus zero. Observe that $$\\int_{\\gamma_t} g\\,ds \\leq 2\\int_{\\overline{u^{-1}(t)}}g\\, d\\mathcal{H}^1$$ for each $t$ such that $\\gamma_t$ is defined, for any Borel function $g:Q \\rightarrow [0, \\infty]$. From this fact and the coarea inequality Proposition \\[prop:coarea\\_u\\], it follows that $u$ is continuous on $\\gamma_t$ for every $t \\in E$, where $E \\subset [0,1]$ has full measure.\n\nSuppose for contradiction that $u$ is not continuous at the point $x \\in Q$. Let $s_1 = \\liminf_{y \\rightarrow x} u(y)$ and $s_2 = \\limsup_{y \\rightarrow x} u(y)$; then $0 \\leq s_1 < s_2 \\leq 1$. Take $\\varepsilon$ satisfying $0 < \\varepsilon < (s_2-s_1)/2$. Then $x \\in A_1 \\cap A_2$, where $A_1= \\overline{u^{-1}([s_1-\\varepsilon, s_1+\\varepsilon])}$ and $A_2 = \\overline{u^{-1}([s_2-\\varepsilon,s_2+\\varepsilon])}$. Pick $t_1,t_2 \\in (s_1 + \\varepsilon, s_2 - \\varepsilon) \\cap E$ with $t_1 < t_2$. Observe that $Q \\setminus |\\gamma_{t_1}|$ consists of two disjoint relatively open sets $U_1, U_2 \\subset Q$, where each component of $U_1$ intersects $\\zeta_1$ and each component of $U_2$ intersects $\\zeta_3$. Lemma \\[lemm:maximum\\_principle\\] implies that $A_1 \\subset \\overline{U}_1$ and that $A_2 \\subset \\overline{U}_2$. This shows that $x \\in \\overline{U}_1 \\cap \\overline{U}_2$ and hence that $x \\in |\\gamma_{t_1}|$. Since $u^{-1}(t_1)$ is a dense subset of $|\\gamma_{t_1}|$, we see that $u(x) = t_1$. However, the same argument shows that $u(x) = t_2$, giving a contradiction.\n\n[**Acknowledgement.**]{} We are grateful to Toni Ikonen, Atte Lohvansuu, Dimitrios Ntalampekos, Martti Rasimus and the referee for their comments and corrections.\n\n[^1]: The first author was supported by the Academy of Finland, project number 308659. The second author was partially supported by the Academy of Finland grant 288501 and by the ERC Starting Grant 713998 GeoMeG. Primary 30L10, Secondary 30C65, 28A75.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'As of today abuse is a pressing issue to participants and administrators of Online Social Networks (OSN). Abuse in Twitter can spawn from arguments generated for influencing outcomes of a political election, the use of bots to automatically spread misinformation, and generally speaking, activities that [*deny*]{}, [*disrupt*]{}, [*degrade*]{} or [*deceive*]{} other participants and, or the network. Given the difficulty in finding and accessing a large enough sample of abuse ground truth from the Twitter platform, we built and deployed a custom crawler that we use to judiciously collect a new dataset from the Twitter platform with the aim of characterizing the nature of abusive users, a.k.a abusive \u201cbirds\u201d, in the wild. We provide a comprehensive set of features based on users\u2019 attributes, as well as social-graph metadata. The former includes metadata about the account itself, while the latter is computed from the social graph among the sender and the receiver of each message. Attribute-based features are useful to characterize user\u2019s accounts in OSN, while graph-based features can reveal the dynamics of information dissemination across the network. In particular, we derive the Jaccard index as a key feature to reveal the benign or malicious nature of directed messages in Twitter. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to propose such a similarity metric to characterize abuse in Twitter.'\nauthor:\n- \n- \n- \ntitle: 'Trollslayer: Crowdsourcing and Characterization of Abusive Birds in Twitter'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nUsers of OSN are exposed to abuse by other participants, who typically send their victims harmful messages designed to [*deny*]{}, [*disrupt*]{}, [*degrade*]{} and [*deceive*]{} among a few, as reported by top secret methods for online cyberwarfare in JTRIG\u00a0[@JTRIGs]. In Twitter, these practices have a non-negligible impact in the manipulation of political elections\u00a0[@Ferrara2015], fluctuation of stock markets\u00a0[@Bollen2011] or even promoting terrorism\u00a0[@twitter-suspension]. As of today, and in the current turmoil of fake news and hate speech, we require a global definition for \u201cabuse\u201d. We find the above definition from JTRIG to be able to cover all types of abuse we find in OSN as of today. Secondly, to identify abuse the Twitter platform often relies on participants reporting such incidents of abuse. In other OSN as Facebook this is also the case, as suggested by the large number of false positives encountered by\u00a0[@boshmafbots2011] in the Facebook Immune System\u00a0[@immune]. In addition, Twitter suspending abusive participants can be seen as censorship, as it effectively limits free speech of users in the Internet. Finally, user\u2019s privacy is today an increasing concern for users of large OSN. Privacy often clashes with efforts for reducing abuse in these platforms\u00a0[@FrenchCourt] because even disclosing metadata that holds individuals accountable in such cases violates the fundamental right to privacy according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights\u00a0[@UN]. In the same vein, and back to the Twitter platform, we observe a constant trading of individuals\u2019 privacy for granting governments access to private metadata. This endangers citizens well-being and puts them into the spotlight for law enforcement to charge them with criminal offenses, even when no serious criminal offense has been committed\u00a0[@caution:2012].\n\nThe main contribution of this paper is a large-scale study of the dynamics of abuse in a popular online social micro-blogging media platform, Twitter. For that, we collect a dataset where we annotate a subset of the messages received by potential victims of abuse in order to characterize and assess the prevalence of such malicious messages and participants. Also, we find it revealing to understand how humans agree or not in what represents abuse during the crowd sourcing. In summary, the aim of the study is to answer the following research questions (RQ):\n\n**RQ.1:** Can we obtain relevant abuse ground truth from a large OSN such as Twitter using BFS (Bread-First-Search) sampling for data collection and crowd-sourcing for data annotation? We show statistics about the dataset collected and the annotated dataset respectively.\n\n**RQ.2:** Does it make sense to characterize abuse from a victim\u2019s point of view? We provide a list of user attributes (local) and graph-based (global) features that can characterize abusive behavior.\n\n**RQ.3:** What are the dynamics of abusive behavior? Does it appear as an isolated incident or is it somehow organized? We show that the source of several messages comes from an automated social media scheduling platform that redirects Twitter users to a doubtful site about a fund-raising campaign for a charity (considered as deceive in the abuse definition we employ).\n\nVictim-Centric Methodology\n==========================\n\nIn order to collect data from Twitter we adapt the usual BFS for crawling social media and start crawling data from a sufficiently representative number of accounts for our measurement, which we we call the victims\u2019 seed set. The first half of accounts are likely victims, chosen independently of any sign or trace of abuse in their public Twitter timeline in order to account for randomness in the measurements. The second half is selected based in their public timeline containing traces or likelihood of abuse, namely potential victims of abuse. Therefore, we define the seed set as made up of potential victims and likely victims. We then bootstrap our crawler, following the recursive procedure in Algorithm\u00a0\\[algo:bfs\\], which collects messages directed towards each of the seeds. If a message is directed towards or mentioning two or more victims, we consider it several times for the same message sender but with different destinations. We also collect the subscription and subscriber accounts of sender and receiver in the Twitter social graph, namely follower and followee relationships.\n\nData model {#datamodel}\n----------\n\nConsider a seed set of nodes for forming a graph $\\mathcal{G}_s$=$(\\mathcal{V}_s, \\mathcal{E}_s)$ containing the nodes in the seed set (victims) and their potential perpetrators as the two entities defining the edge relationships in $\\mathcal{E}_s$. Given that $\\mathcal{G}_s$ is a directed graph made of vertices $(\\mathcal{V}_s)$ and edges $(\\mathcal{E}_s)$ making up a connection or defining a message sent among a pair of nodes $(u,v)$, we derive two specialized directed graphs with their corresponding relationships, messaging or social follow in the network.\n\nFirstly, let $\\mathcal{G}_f$=$(\\mathcal{V}_f, \\mathcal{E}_f)$ be a directed graph of social relationships where the vertices $\\mathcal{V}_f$ represent users and a set of directed edges $\\mathcal{E}_f$ representing subscriptions:\n\n$$\\mathcal{E}_f \\coloneqq \\{ (u, v) \\mid u \\textrm{ publicly follows } v\\}$$\n\nSecondly, let $\\mathcal{G}_m$=$(\\mathcal{V}_m, \\mathcal{E}_m)$ be a directed messaging multi-graph with a set of users as vertices $\\mathcal{V}_m$, and a set of directed edges representing messages sent by user $u$ mentioning user $v$:\n\n$$\\mathcal{E}_m \\coloneqq \\{ (u, v) \\mid u \\textrm{ messages } v\\ \\textrm{with a public mention} \\} $$\n\n$\\mathcal{E}_m$ models the tweets that are shown to users with or without explicit subscription by the recipient to the sender. Thus, these messages represent a vector for abusive behavior.\n\nTo bootstrap our crawler, we start with the mentioned *seed set* and run an adapted and recursive *bounded breath-first-search* (bBFS) procedure on the Twitter input seeds to cover up to a maximum depth [*maxdepth*]{} we pass as parameter to it. In Algorithm\u00a0\\[algo:bfs\\] we summarize the operational mode of [*bBFS*]{}.\n\nBoundaries of the data crawl\n----------------------------\n\nThe configuration of the crawler controls from where the crawl starts and puts some restrictions on where it should stop. The first one of such restrictions during the graph traversal is collecting incoming edges a.k.a followers in Twitter when the number does not exceed an upper bound, depending on the chosen [*maxfollowers*]{} as node popularity. Secondly, the followers must be within a maximum depth we call [*maxdepth*]{} in order to collect the related metadata in the graph belonging to them.\n\nFor each node meeting the above constraints, we also collect user account metadata as well as their respective public timeline of messages metadata in Twitter; then we start crawling the followers of nodes at depth 1, and next depth 2 (followers of followers)and so on as set by the parameter mentioned. In our dataset, we never go any further than second degree followers to collect relationships among users in the social graph crawled.\n\nData annotation {#gt}\n---------------\n\nTo annotate abuse we have developed an in-house crowd-sourcing platform, [*Trollslayer*]{} [^1], where we enlisted ourselves and various colleagues to assist with the tedious effort of annotating abuse. However, we decide to enlarge our annotations with the support of a commercial crowd-sourcing platform named [*Crowdflower*]{}, where we spent around \\$30 in credit using a student data for everyone pack. In the crowd sourcing process we account for scores collected from 156 crowd workers in [*Crowdflower*]{} and 7 trusted crowd workers in [*Trollslayer*]{}, accounting to 163 crowd workers overall. In these two platforms we display the same tweets and the same guidelines to crowd workers that annotate messages. Therefore, we are able to compute the global scores from both platforms on the same tweets to end up with at least 3 annotations per tweet inthe worst case.\n\nDataset\n=======\n\nSo far we have judiciously collected a dataset from Twitter to characterize abuse in Twitter. Using crowd workers we obtain abuse ground truth. Next we extract relatively simple features from the collected dataset. Given that the features are largely based on data that is available in the proximity of the potential victim, we aim to characterize the distribution of abuse in an online micro-blogging platform from the view of the victim. This also avoids the Big Data mining that can only be effectively performed by large micro-blogging service providers.\n\nStatistics {#sub:dataset-stats}\n----------\n\nTable\u00a0\\[table:crawl\\] shows statistics about the dataset collected such as the number of tweets directed toward the list of victims in our seed set. In total, we account for 1648 tweets directed to our seed set at depth 1. Then we show the same statistics organized by *depth* in the recursive crawl performed to obtain the dataset. Note that for the purpose of the statistical analysis of the dataset and findings presented here, we will only take into consideration nodes for which the social graph has been fully collected. Due to Twitter Terms and Conditions (TTC) we plan to make available and public only the identifiers of the messages annotated but not the rest of the information associated to the message, graph or private information that identifies the crowd-workers.\n\n[max width=]{}\n\n  -------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- -----\n  $\\mathcal{E}_s \\in \\mathcal{G}_s$ directed to seed set                 \u2013     \u2013\n  $\\mathcal{E}_m \\in \\mathcal{G}_m$                                            \n  \\# with mentions                                                             567\n  \\# with mentions & retweets                                            113   0\n  \\# with mentions & replies                               1183   1026   292   284\n  \\# $\\mathcal{E}_f \\in \\mathcal{G}_f$                                         0\n  -------------------------------------------------------- ------ ------ ----- -----\n\n  : Basic statistics of the data crawled[]{data-label=\"table:crawl\"}\n\n### Ground Truth {#sub:agreement}\n\nFollowing a voting scheme we explain here, we aggregate the votes received for each tweet into a consensus score. We take a pessimistic approach to ensure that a single vote is not decisive in the evaluation of a tweet as abusive (e.g., unlike in Brexit affairs). That is, if the aggregated score is between -1 and 1 the message is considered [*undecided*]{}. The sum of scores will render a tweet as [*abusive*]{} in the ground truth when &gt;1 and for [*acceptable*]{} when &lt;-1 . The final annotated dataset is comprised of labeled messages, out of which are marked as acceptable and as abusive and undecided.\n\n![Agreement in ground truth by platform[]{data-label=\"fig:hb-scores\"}](fig-new-converted/score_abuse_acceptable_boxplots-eps-converted-to){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:hb-scores\\] shows the result of crowdsourcing abuse annotation when asking crowd-workers to mark messages as either, abusive, acceptable or undecided. Agreement is high in both platforms, even so for abusive messages, but as expected lower than acceptable due to perfect disagreement in a number of tweets as the ones we show in Table\u00a0\\[table:disagreement\\]. There are tweets with perfect disagreement in Trollslayer out of around annotated, in Crowdflower out of , and in the aggregate out of mentioned above accounting for aggregated voting of all annotations from both platforms. Generally speaking, we see an upper bound of about 3.75% disagreement for Crowdflower, 2% in Trollslayer and lower bound of 1.3% among both, which highlights the importance of employing a minimal set of trusted crowd workers in the annotations (as we did with Trollslayer).\n\n### Agreement\n\nTo ensure agreement among crowd workers is valid, we calculate the inter-assessor agreement score of Randolph\u2019s multi-rater kappa\u00a0[@randolph2005free] among the crowd workers with common tweets annotated. Similarly to Cohen\u2019s kappa or Fleiss\u2019 Kappa, the Randolph\u2019s kappa descriptive statistic is used to measure the nominal inter-rater agreement between two or more raters in collaborative science experiments. We choose Randolph\u2019s kappa over the others by following Brennan and Predige suggestion from 1981 of using free-marginal kappa when crowd workers can assign a free number of cases to each category being evaluated (e.g., [*abusive*]{}, [*acceptable*]{}) and using fixed-marginal otherwise\u00a0[@brennan1981coefficient]. Our case considers different crowd workers assigning a different number of annotations to each class or category, which satisfies Randolph\u2019s kappa requirement.\n\nNote that in contrast to simple agreement scores, descriptive statistics consider agreement on all three possibilities, [*abusive*]{}, [*acceptable*]{} and [*undecided*]{}, thus providing a more pessimistic measure of agreement among crowd workers. There are number of descriptive statistics\u00a0[@Warrens2010] such as Light\u2019s kappa and Hubert\u2019s kappa, which are multi-rater versions of Cohen\u2019s kappa. Fleiss\u2019 kappa is a multi-rater extension of Scott\u2019s pi, whereas Randolph\u2019s kappa generalizes Bennett\u2019 $S$ to multiple raters.\n\nGiven this setting, values of kappa can range from -1.0 to 1.0, with -1.0 meaning a complete disagreement below random, 0.0 meaning agreement equal to chance, and 1.0 indicating perfect agreement above chance. According to Randolph, usually a kappa above 0.60 indicates very good inter-rater agreement. Across all annotations we obtain overall agreement of 0.73 and a a Randolph\u2019s free-marginal of 0.59 which is about the recommended value in Randolph\u2019s kappa (0.60).\n\n[|c|c|]{} Time & Text\\\n2015-11-26 20:51:49 &\\\n2015-11-23 20:41:52 &\\\n2015-11-29 11:59:25 &\\\n\nWe inspect some of the annotations manually and discover that some scores are aggregated as undecided and not as abusive due to their crowd-workers annotating as undecided several of these tweets serially. That shows the cognitive difficulty in the task of annotating abuse or the tedious nature which we mention before (despite having rewarded the crowd-workers in both platforms). On the other hand, we noticed it is easy for crowd workers to spot offensive messages containing [*hate speech*]{} or similar (which in fact is abuse but only a subset according to the [*JTRIG*]{} definition) but not so for deceitful messages or content.\n\nCharacterization of Abuse\n=========================\n\nThis section shows that our method can indeed capture all type of abusive behavior in Twitter and that while humans still have a hard time identifying as abuse deceitful activity, our latest findings suggest the use of network level features to identify some abuse automatically instead.\n\nIncidents\n---------\n\nIn several cases we find where there is perfect disagreement among crowd workers, see Table\u00a0\\[table:disagreement\\]; while in others some of the actual abusive \u201cbirds\u201d are just too difficult to spot for humans given just a tweet but more likely if we inspect an exhaustive list of similar messages from the potential perpetrators\u2019 timeline as shown in Table\u00a0\\[table:deceitful\\]. In that case the abusive \u201cbird\u201d is repeatedly mentioning the same users through the special character \u201c@\u201d that Twitter enables in order to direct public messages to other participants. Besides, he repeatedly adds a link to a doubtful fund-raising campaign.\n\n[|c|c|c|c|]{} Time & Text & Mentions & Hashtags\\\n2015-12-11 23:16:25 & & &\\\n2015-12-11 23:16:27 & & &\\\n\nWe investigate the owner of the Twitter public profile `@jrbny`: titled \u201cFood Service 4 Rochester Schools\u201d, which is also related to a presumed founder `@JohnLester` and both belonging to \u201cGlobal Social Entrepreneurship\u201d.\n\nFirstly, we look into the JSON data of the tweet and check the value of the field [*source*]{} in the Twitter API just to confirm that it points to \u201chttps://unfollowers.com\u201d, which in turn redirects to \u201chttps://statusbrew.com/\u201d, a commercial site to engage online audiences through social media campaigns. This confirms our suspicions about the nature of the profile and its use for a public fundraising campaign. After a quick inspection at the products offered by this social media campaign management site, indeed we see that the site offers an option to automatically \u201cschedule content\u201d for publishing tweets online. In summary, this Twitter account is controlled by humans but uses an automatic scheduling service to post tweets and presumably follow/unfollow other accounts in the hope of obtaining financial donations through an online website. Secondly, expanding the shortened URL linked to tweets as the ones from Table\u00a0\\[table:deceitful\\], we find out that indeed the user is redirected to a donation website [^2] from this organization. The site is hosted in Ontario and belongs to the Autonomous System AS62679, namely *Shopify, Inc.*, which reportedly serves several domains distributing malware. We also acknowledge the difficulty in automating crowdsourcing and characterization of the type of abuse [*deceive*]{}. Finally, in order to highlight the effect of automated campaign management tools as the ones used in the above case, we crawled the same profile again in 2016-01-10 23:02:59, and the account had only 16690 followers compared to the current 36531 as of January 2017, therefore showing a successful use of semi-automated agents on Twitter for fund-raising activities.\n\nFeatures of Abusive Behavior\n----------------------------\n\nIn order to characterize abuse we extract and build a set of novel features, categorized as [*Attribute*]{} or [*Graph*]{} based, which measure abuse in terms of the [*Message*]{}, [*User*]{}, [*Social*]{} and [*Similarity*]{}. We apply Extraction, Transformation and Loading (ETL) on the raw data in order to obtain the inputs to each of the features in those subcategories. The most readily available properties from the *tweet* are extracted. Then we also capture a number of raw inputs in the tweet that identify the features for a particular *user*. The next, and more complex subset of features involve [*Social*]{} graph metadata, which also enables the computation of the novel [*Similarity*]{} feature subset, namely the Jaccard index ($\\mathcal{J}$). Table\u00a0\\[table:features\\] summarizes the complete set of features we have developed to evaluate abusive behavior in Twitter.\n\n[max width=0.8]{}\n\n     Metadata   Feature                                                       Description\n  -- ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                \\# mentions                                                   mentions count in tweet\n                \\# hashtags                                                   hashtag count in the tweet\n                \\# retweets                                                   times a message has been reposted\n                is\\_retweet (true/false)                                      message is a repost\n                is\\_reply (true/false)                                        message is a reply\n                sensitive                                                     message links to external URL\n                \\#badwords                                                    number of swear words from Google\u00a0[@googlebadwords]\n                $\\nicefrac{\\text{\\# replies}}{\\text{\\# tweets} of user}$      fraction of replies to tweets\n                verified (true/false)                                         sender account is verified by Twitter\n                \\# favorites                                                  \\# tweets marked as favorites by sender\n                age of user account                                           days since account creation\n                \\# lists                                                      number of lists of sender\n                $\\nicefrac{\\text{\\# messages}}{\\text{age} of user}$           tweets per day\n                $\\nicefrac{\\text{\\# mentions}}{\\text{age} of user}$           mentions per day\n                $\\nicefrac{\\text{\\# mentions}}{\\text{\\# tweets} of user}$     ratio of mentions to tweets\n                account recent                                                check if account age is $<=$ 30 days\n                \\# subscriptions$^s$                                          followee count from public feed of sender\n                \\# subscribers$^s$                                            follower count to public feed of sender\n                $\\nicefrac{\\text{\\# subscribers}}{\\text{age}}$                ratio of subscribers count to age of sender\n                $\\nicefrac{\\text{\\# subscriptions}}{\\text{age}}$              ratio of subscriptions count to age of sender\n                $\\nicefrac{\\# \\text{subscriptions}}{\\# \\text{subscribers}}$   ratio of subscriptions count to subscribers of sender\n                $\\nicefrac{\\# \\text{subscribers}}{\\# \\text{subscriptions}}$   ratio of subscribers count to subscriptions of sender\n                reciprocity                                                   true if bi-directional relationship among sender and receiver in $\\mathcal{G}_f$\n                $\\mathcal{J}$ (subscriptions$^s$, subscriptions$^r$)          $\\mathcal{J}$ of sender & receiver subscriptions\n                $\\mathcal{J}$ (subscribers$^s$, subscribers$^r$)              $\\mathcal{J}$ of sender & receiver subscribers\n                $\\mathcal{J}$ (subscriptions$^s$, subscribers$^r$)            $\\mathcal{J}$ of subscriptions of sender & subscribers of receiver\n                $\\mathcal{J}$ (subscribers$^s$, subscriptions$^r$)            $\\mathcal{J}$ of subscribers of sender & subscriptions of receiver\n\nTo visualize the data distribution of the most relevant features from Table\u00a0\\[table:features\\] in detail we show the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF), which represents the probability $P$ that a feature having value of $\\geq x$ in the x axis does not exceed $X$ in the y axis. We use the CCDF in log-log scale to be able to pack a large range of values within the axis of the plot.\n\nIn\u00a0 we compare the characteristic distribution among abuse and acceptable content in our annotated dataset. The dotted line here represents abusive while the continuous one acceptable.\n\nFor the [*Attribute*]{} based features we notice the most significant gap among acceptable and abusive is the [*Message*]{} category, in particular the number of replies that a sender user has authored, meaning that abusive \u201cbirds\u201d reply more often and seek controversy as part of their public speech in Twitter. This makes sense from a \u201ctrolling\u201d perspective if we consider that the definition of troll is a user that posts controversial, divisive and at times inflammatory content. Secondly, and to the contrary of what we expected, we observe that humans agree on abuse when there are fewer receivers or mentioned users, so the abuse is less likely to be directed to multiple victims according to this. Otherwise, Table\u00a0\\[table:disagreement\\] shows that no agreement is reached with multiple targets if addressing users as a group, which can not be correlated into a personal attack to the potential victim. We see this as an indication of perpetrators sending disguising messages to their victims in order to decrease the visibility of their abusive behavior.\n\nFinally, the distribution presented in the \u201cbadwords\u201d feature shows that at least one \u201cbadword\u201d exist for many of tweets annotated as abusive by our crowd workers, showing a light tailed distribution with smaller probabilities for a larger number of \u201cbadwords\u201d. Firstly, this confirms that human crowd workers are notably good at flagging abusive content when it is related to the language itself and secondly, that abusive messages flagged as such by humans did not contain many \u201cbadwords\u201d. That is also confirmed by the fact that \u201cbad words\u201d have a negligible value in the distribution of acceptable for such feature. On the contrary, with hashtags we mostly observe acceptable messages in the CCDF thus indicating that messages from our ground truth flagged as abusive barely contain any hashtags.\n\nWe observe that some of the similarity features in the [*graph-based*]{} category exhibit a distinguishable pattern among acceptable and abusive messages. In particular, this is the case for [*mutual subscribers*]{} and [*mutual subscriptions*]{}, where the feature is calculated using [*Social*]{} graph metadata from a pair of users, namely sender and receiver. The most interesting CCDF is perhaps the [*mutual subscriptions*]{} one, Figure\u00a0\\[fig:ccdf-followees-followees\\], in which there is a significant initial gap between the social graph of acceptable and abusive messages in the log probability ($P(X>x)$) in the y axis for nearly about two-thirds of the distribution. Note that here the maximum value of the axis runs from zero to $10^0$ given that we compute similarity using Jaccard. Considering that we did not present crowd workers with information about the social graph, it is quite surprising that some of these the graph-based features show a characteristic pattern.\n\nRelated Work\n============\n\nThe following section covers works similar to ours that fall in the categories of the included subsections.\n\nGraph-based\n-----------\n\nTo characterize abuse without considering the content of the communication, graph-based techniques have been proven useful for detecting and combating dishonest behavior\u00a0[@Ortega2013] and cyberbullying\u00a0[@Galan-Garcia2014], as well as to detect fake accounts in OSN\u00a0[@Cao2012]. However, they suffer from the fact that real-world social graphs do not always conform to the key assumptions made about the system. Thus, it is not easy to prevent attackers from infiltrating the OSN or micro-blogging platform in order to deceive others into befriending them. Consequently, these Sybil accounts can still create the illusion of being strongly connected to a cluster of legitimate user accounts, which in turn would render such graph-based Sybil defenses useless. On the other hand and yet in the context of OSN, graph-based Sybil defenses can benefit from supervised machine learning techniques that consider a wider range of metadata as input into the feature set in order to predict potential victims of abuse\u00a0[@boshmaf2015thwarting]. Facebook Immune System (FIS) uses information from user activity logs to automatically detect and act upon suspicious behaviors in the OSN. Such automated or semi-automated methods are not perfect. In relation to the FIS, [@boshmafbots2011] found that only about 20% of the deceitful profiles they deployed were actually detected, which shows that such methods result in a significant number of false negatives.\n\nVictim-centric\n--------------\n\nThe data collection in\u00a0[@garcia2016discouraging] was partially inspired by the idea of analyzing the victims of abuse to eventually aid individual victims in the prevention and prediction of abusive incidents in online forums and micro-blogging sites as Twitter. One observation from previous research\u00a0[@boshmaf2015integro] that we have embedded into some of our features is that abusive users can only befriend a fraction of real accounts. Therefore, in the case of Twitter that would mean having bidirectional links with legitimate users. We capture that intuition during data collection by scraping in real-time the messages containing mentions to other users ([@user]{}) and thus we are able to extract features such as ratio of follows sent/received, mutual subscribers/subscriptions, etc.\n\nNatural Language Processing and text based\n------------------------------------------\n\nFirstly, previous datasets in this area are not yet released or in their infancy for verification of their applicability as abuse ground truth gold standard. The authors of\u00a0[@nobata2016abusive] claim to outperform deep learning techniques to detect hate speech, derogatory language and profanity. They compare their results with a previous dataset from\u00a0[@Djuric:2015] and assess the accuracy of detecting abusive language with distributional semantic features to find out that it does largely depends upon the evolution of the content that abusers post in the platform or else having to retrain the model.\n\nFinally, it is worth mentioning we in our feature set do not include sentiment analysis inputs as\u00a0[@slangsd] did; simply because we are interested in complex types of abuse that require more than just textual content analysis. Additionally, we have noticed that while some words or expressions may seem abusive at first (e.g., vulgar language), they are not when the conversation takes place between participants that know each other well or are mutually connected in the social graph (e.g., family relatives).\n\nOther datasets\n--------------\n\nFollowing the above classifications, we compile a number of previous works\u00a0[@de2010does; @cha2010measuring; @kwak2010twitter; @gabielkov2012] that collected a large portion of the Twitter graph for its characterization but not really meant for abusive behavior. Note some of these datasets can provide some utility from their social-graph for characterization of abusive behaviour but they are either anonymized or we are not able to get access to them. Naturally, social-graph metadata is not available due to restrictions imposed by Twitter Terms and Conditions (TTC) for data publishing. We also find the Impermium dataset, from a public Kaggle competition\u00a0[@impermium-dataset] that provides the text of a number of tweets and labels for classifying such messages as an insult or not. This can be useful for textual analysis of abuse (only for non-subtle insults), which can be supported by application of NLP based techniques, but it does not contain any social graph related metadata that we use in our characterization of abuse. Besides, as the tweet identifiers from the Imperium dataset are anonymized, it is not possible to reproduce data collection.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe concluded that identifying abuse is a hard cognitive task for crowd workers and that it requires employing specific guidelines to support them. It is also necessary to provide a platform as we created or questionnaires to ask crowd workers to flag a tweet as abusive if it falls within any of the categories of the guidelines, in our case the 4 D\u2019s of JTRIG, [*deny*]{}, [*disrupt*]{}, [*degrade*]{}, [*deceive*]{}. As a crowd worker provides a non-binary input value from [*acceptable*]{}, [*abusive*]{}, [*undecided*]{} to annotate tweets from $\\mathcal{E}_m$, the latter option is important; even with relatively clear guidelines, crowd workers are often unsure if a particular tweet is abusive. To further compensate for this uncertainty, each tweet has been annotated multiple times by independent crowd workers (at least 3). We highlight the reason for the disagreement we encountered by listing a few tweets in Table\u00a0\\[table:disagreement\\]. Table\u00a0\\[table:deceitful\\] contains metadata from a user that consistently tweets from a third-party tweet scheduling service.\n\nAdditionally, using the set of features presented here one could provide semi-automated abuse detection in order to help humans to act as judges of abuse. Filtering \u201cbadwords\u201d is not quite enough to judge a user as abusive or not, so in order to provide a better context to human crowd workers one could imagine coupling the score of attribute based features with those graph-based features that can provide an implicit nature of the relationships between senders and receivers of the content, thus flagging messages or users as abusive \u201cbird\u201d (or not) in Twitter. This will also present an scenario where abuse is a less tedious and self-damaging tasks for human crowd workers reading abusive content during annotation.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nAcknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}\n==============\n\nThank you to the anonymous Trollslayer crowd workers.\n\n[^1]: <https://github.com/algarecu/trollslayer>\n\n[^2]: Campaign site: [www.pureheartsinternational.com](www.pureheartsinternational.com)\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Preliminary results are presented from a simple, single-antenna experiment designed to measure the all-sky radio spectrum between 100 and 200\u00a0MHz. The system used an internal comparison-switching scheme to reduce non-smooth instrumental contaminants in the measured spectrum to 75\u00a0mK. From the observations, we place an initial upper limit of $450$\u00a0mK on the relative brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm contribution to the spectrum due to neutral hydrogen in the intergalactic medium (IGM) during the epoch of reionization, assuming a rapid transition to a fully ionized IGM at a redshift of 8. With refinement, this technique should be able to distinguish between slow and fast reionization scenarios. To constrain the duration of reionization to $\\Delta z>2$, the systematic residuals in the measured spectrum must be reduced to 3\u00a0mK.'\nauthor:\n- 'Judd D. Bowman, Alan E. E. Rogers, and Jacqueline N. Hewitt'\ntitle: Toward Empirical Constraints on the Global Redshifted 21 cm Brightness Temperature during the Epoch of Reionization\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe transition period at the end of the cosmic \u201cDark Ages\u201d is known as the epoch of reionization (EOR). During this epoch, radiation from the very first luminous sources\u2014early stars, galaxies, and quasars\u2014succeeded in ionizing the neutral hydrogen gas that had filled the intergalactic medium (IGM) since the recombination event following the Big Bang. Reionization marks a significant shift in the evolution of the Universe. For the first time, gravitationally-collapsed objects exerted substantial feedback on their environments through electromagnetic radiation, initiating processes that have dominated the evolution of the visible baryonic Universe ever since. The epoch of reionization, therefore, can be considered a dividing line when the relatively simple evolution of the early Universe gave way to more complicated and more interconnected processes. Although the Dark Ages are known to end when the first luminous sources ionized the neutral hydrogen in the IGM, precisely when this transition occurred remains uncertain.\n\nThe best existing constraints on the timing of the reionization epoch come from two sources: the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy and absorption features in the spectra of high-redshift quasars. The amplitude of the observed temperature anisotropy in the CMB is affected by Thomson scattering due to electrons along the line of sight between the surface of last scattering and the detector, and thus, it is sensitive to the ionization history of the IGM through the electron column density. In addition, if there is sufficient optical depth to CMB photons due to free electrons in the IGM after reionization, some of the angular anisotropy in the unpolarized intensity can be converted to polarized anisotropy. This produces a peak in the polarization power spectrum at the angular scale size equivalent to the horizon at reionization with an amplitude proportional to the optical depth [@1997ApJ...488....1Z]. Measurements by the WMAP satellite of these effects indicate that the redshift of reionization is $z_r\\approx11\\pm4$ [@2007ApJS..170..377S], assuming an instantaneous transition.\n\nLyman-$\\alpha$ absorption by neutral hydrogen is visible in the spectra of many high-redshift quasars and, thus, offers the second currently feasible probe of the ionization history of the IGM. Continuum emission from quasars is redshifted as it travels through the expanding Universe to the observer. Neutral hydrogen along the line of sight creates absorption features in the continuum at wavelengths corresponding to the local rest-frame wavelength of the Lyman-$\\alpha$ line. Whereas CMB measurements place an integrated constraint on reionization, quasar absorption line studies are capable of probing the ionization history in detail along the sight-lines. There is a significant limitation to this approach, however. The Lyman-$\\alpha$ absorption saturates at very low fractions of neutral hydrogen (of order $x_{HI} \\approx 10^{-4}$). Nevertheless, results from these studies have been quite successful and show that, while the IGM is highly ionized below $z\\lesssim6$ (with typical $x_{HI}\\lesssim10^{-5}$), a significant amount of neutral hydrogen is present above, although precisely how much remains unclear [@2001ApJ...560L...5D; @2001AJ....122.2850B; @2002AJ....123.1247F; @2003AJ....125.1649F; @2004Natur.427..815W; @2006AJ....132..117F].\n\nThe existing CMB and quasar absorption measurements are somewhat contradictory. Prior to these studies, the reionization epoch was assumed generally to be quite brief, with the transition from an IGM filled with fully neutral hydrogen to an IGM filled with highly ionized hydrogen occurring very rapidly. These results, however, open the possibility that the ionization history of the IGM may be more complicated than previously believed [@2003ApJ...595....1H; @2003ApJ...591...12C; @2003MNRAS.344..607S; @2004ApJ...604..484M].\n\nDirect observations of the 21\u00a0cm (1420\u00a0MHz) hyperfine transition line of neutral hydrogen in the IGM during the reionization epoch would resolve the existing uncertainties and reveal the evolving properties of the IGM. The redshifted 21\u00a0cm signal should appear as a faint, diffuse background in radio frequencies below $\\nu<200$\u00a0MHz for redshifts above $z>6$ (according to $\\nu=1420/[1+z]$\u00a0MHz). For diffuse gas in the high-redshift ($z\\approx10$) IGM, the expected unpolarized differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm line relative to the pervasive CMB is readily calculable from basic principles and is given by [@2004ApJ...608..622Z their \u00a7\u00a02] $$\\begin{array}{rl}\n\\label{eqn_intro_temp} \\delta T_{21}(\\vec{\\theta}, z) \\approx~&\n23~(1+\\delta)~x_{HI} \\left ( 1 - \\frac{T_\\gamma}{T_S} \\right ) \\\\\n& \\times \\left ( \\frac{\\Omega_b~h^2}{0.02} \\right ) \\left [ \\left (\n\\frac{0.15}{\\Omega_m~h^2} \\right ) \\left ( \\frac{1+z}{10} \\right )\n\\right ]^{1/2} \\mbox{mK},\n\\end{array}$$ where $\\delta(\\vec{\\theta},z)$ is the local matter over-density, $x_{HI}(\\vec{\\theta},z)$ is the neutral fraction of hydrogen in the IGM, $T_\\gamma(z) = 2.73~(1+z)$\u00a0K is the temperature of CMB at the redshift of interest, $T_S(\\vec{\\theta},z)$ is the spin temperature that describes the relative population of the ground and excited states of the hyperfine transition, and $\\Omega_b$ is the baryon density relative to the critical density, $\\Omega_m$ is the total matter density, and $h$ specifies the Hubble constant according to $H_0=100~ h$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$\u00a0Mpc$^{-1}$. From Equation\u00a0\\[eqn\\_intro\\_temp\\], we see that perturbations in the local density, spin temperature, and neutral fraction of hydrogen in the IGM would all be revealed as fluctuations in the brightness temperature of the observed redshifted 21\u00a0cm line.\n\nThe differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm line is very sensitive to the spin temperature. When the spin temperature is greater than the CMB temperature, the line is visible in emission. For $T_S \\gg T_\\gamma$, the magnitude of the emission saturates to a maximum (redshift-dependent) brightness temperature that is about 25 to 35\u00a0mK for a mean-density, fully neutral IGM between redshifts 6 and 15, assuming a $\\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\\Omega_m=0.3$, $\\Omega_\\Lambda=0.7$, $\\Omega_b=0.04$, and $h=0.7$. At the other extreme, when the spin temperature is very small and $T_S \\ll T_\\gamma$, the line is visible in absorption against the CMB with a potentially very large (and negative) relative brightness temperature.\n\nA number of factors are involved in predicting the typical differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm line as a function of redshift. In particular, the spin temperature must be treated in detail, including collisional coupling between the spin and kinetic temperatures of the gas, absorption of CMB photons, and heating by ultra-violet radiation from the first luminous sources. We direct the reader to @2006PhR...433..181F for a good introduction to the topic. The results of several efforts to predict the evolution of the differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm line have yielded predictions that are generally consistent in overall behavior, but vary highly in specific details . These models tend to agree that, for a finite period at sufficiently high redshifts ($z\\gtrsim20$), the hyperfine line should be seen in absorption against the CMB, with relative brightness temperatures of up to $|\\delta\nT_b|\\lesssim100$\u00a0mK. This is because the IGM initially cools more rapidly than the CMB following recombination [@1994ApJ...427...25S; @1997ApJ...475..429M]. During this period, fluctuations in the differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm background should track the underlying baryonic matter density perturbations . Eventually, however, the models indicate that the radiation from the first generations of luminous sources will elevate the spin temperature of neutral hydrogen in the IGM above the CMB temperature and the redshifted 21\u00a0cm line should be detected in emission with relative brightness temperatures up to the expected maximum values (of order $25$\u00a0mK). Finally, during the reionization epoch, the neutral hydrogen becomes ionized, leaving little or no gas to produce the emission, and the apparent differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm line falls to zero as reionization progresses. As the gas is ionized, a unique pattern should be imprinted in the redshifted 21\u00a0cm signal that reflects the processes responsible for the ionizing photons and that evolves with redshift as reionization progresses [@1997ApJ...475..429M; @2000ApJ...528..597T; @2003ApJ...596....1C; @2004ApJ...608..622Z; @2004ApJ...613...16F]. The details of the specific timing, duration, and magnitude of these features remains highly variable between theoretical models due largely to uncertainties about the properties of the first luminous sources.\n\nMeasuring the brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm background could yield information about both the global and the local properties of the IGM. Determining the average brightness temperature over a large solid angle as a function of redshift would eliminate any dependence on local density and temperature perturbations and constrain the evolution of the product $\\overline{x_{HI}(1-T_\\gamma/T_S)}$, where we use the bar to denote a spatial average. During the reionization epoch, it is, in general, believed to be a good approximation to assume that $T_S\\gg T_\\gamma$ and, therefore, that the brightness temperature is proportional directly to $\\bar{x}_{HI}$. Global constraints on the brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm line during the EOR, therefore, would directly constrain the neutral fraction of hydrogen in the IGM. Such constraints would provide a basic foundation for understanding the astrophysics of reionization by setting bounds on the duration of the epoch, as well as identifying unique features in the ionization history (for example if reionization occurred in two phases or all at once). They would also yield improvements in estimates of the optical depth to CMB photons and, thus, would help to break existing degeneracies in CMB measurements between the optical depth and properties of the primordial matter density power spectrum [@2006PhRvD..74l3507T].\n\n![ \\[f\\_edges\\_photos\\] EDGES deployed at Mileura Station in Western Australia. The left panel shows the full antenna and ground screen in the foreground and the analog-to-digital conversion and data acquisition module in the background. The right panel is a close-up view of the amplifier and switching module connected directly to the antenna (through the balun).](f1_color.eps){width=\"20pc\"}\n\nFor these reasons, several efforts are underway to make precise measurements of the radio spectrum below $\\nu<200$\u00a0MHz ($z>6$). In this paper, we report on the initial results of the Experiment to Detect the Global EOR Signature (EDGES). In \u00a7\u00a0\\[s\\_edges\\_method\\], we describe the specific approach used for EDGES to address the issue of separating the redshifted 21 signal from the foreground emission. We then give an overview of the EDGES system in \u00a7\u00a0\\[s\\_edges\\_system\\], followed by the results of the first observing campaign with the system in \u00a7\u00a0\\[s\\_edges\\_results\\], along with a discussion of the implications for future single-antenna measurements.\n\nMethod {#s_edges_method}\n======\n\nIn principle, the global brightness temperature measurement is much less complicated to perform than the detection of local perturbations in the redshifted 21\u00a0cm background (which will be attempted in the near future by the Mileura Widefield Array \\[MWA\\], Low Frequency Array \\[LOFAR\\], Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope \\[GMRT\\], and Twenty-one Centimeter Array \\[21CMA\\]). Since the desired signal for the global measurement is the mean brightness temperature due to redshifted 21 cm emission (or absorption) over the entire sky, there is no need for high angular resolution or imaging. A single antenna tuned to the appropriate frequencies could reach the required sensitivity ($\\sim25$ mK) within only one hour of integration time, assuming a reasonable spectral resolution of $\\sim1$\u00a0MHz (equivalent to $\\Delta\nz\\approx0.1$ at $z\\approx8$). There is a fundamental complication with such an experiment, however, arising from the global nature of the signal. Since the expected redshifted 21 cm emission fills the entire sky, there is no ability to perform comparison switching between the target field and a blank field. The problem this causes is two-fold. First, it is difficult to separate the contribution to the measured spectrum due to the redshifted signal from that of any other all-sky emission, including Galactic synchrotron and free-free radiation, the integrated contribution of extragalactic continuum sources, or the CMB. Second, for similar reasons, it is difficult to avoid confusing any systematic effects in the measured spectrum due to the instrument or environment with received signal from the sky. The severity of these problems is exacerbated in single-antenna measurements by the intensity of the Galactic synchrotron emission. Unlike interferometric observations, a single antenna is sensitive to the large-scale emission from the Galaxy, providing a 200 to 10,000\u00a0K foreground in the measured spectrum.\n\nDetermining the $\\sim25$ mK redshifted 21 cm contribution to the radio spectrum requires separating the signal from the foreground spectrum at better than 1 part in 10,000. This can be accomplished by taking advantage of the differences between the spectra of the Galactic and extragalactic foregrounds and the anticipated redshifted 21\u00a0cm contribution. As discussed by , Galactic synchrotron emission is the dominate component of the astrophysical foregrounds below $\\nu<200$\u00a0MHz, accounting for all but approximately 30 to 70\u00a0K of the foregrounds at 178\u00a0MHz [@1967MNRAS.136..219B]. Its spectrum is very nearly a power-law given, in temperature units, by $T_{gal}(\\nu) \\sim \\nu^{-\\beta}$, where $\\beta\\approx2.5$ is the spectral index. The spectral index is generally constant over the frequencies of interest ($50 \\lesssim \\nu\n\\lesssim 200$\u00a0MHz), although it is known to flatten with decreasing frequency due to self-absorption. The intensity of the synchrotron emission and the exact value of the spectral index depend on Galactic coordinate. The amplitude varies over an order of magnitude, between about $200 < T_{gal} < 10,000$ K at 150\u00a0MHz (peaking toward the Galactic center and along the Galactic plane), while the spectral index has small variations of order $\\sigma_\\beta\\approx0.1$ dependent largely on Galactic latitude, with the steepest regions occurring at high Galactic latitudes. Free-free emission in the Galaxy and discrete Galactic and extragalactic continuum sources also have spectra that can be reasonably described by power-laws. The integrated flux from extragalactic continuum sources is generally isotropic on large scales and accounts for the majority of the remaining power in the low-frequency radio spectrum, with free-free emission making up only about 1% of the total power. The combined spectrum due to the astrophysical foregrounds is smooth and remains similar to a power-law profile.\n\nOn the other hand, as the apparent differential brightness temperature of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm background transitions from $T_{21}=0$\u00a0mK at very high redshift to $T_{21}\\approx-100$\u00a0mK before heating of the IGM by the first luminous sources, and then climbs to $T_{21}\\approx25$\u00a0mK at the beginning of the reionization epoch before falling back to $T_{21}\\approx0$\u00a0mK at the end of reionization, the global mean redshifted 21\u00a0cm spectrum may contain up to three relatively sharp features between $50\\lesssim\\nu\\lesssim200$\u00a0MHz that would not be represented well by a power-law profile. For the large solid angles of a single antenna beam, the mean redshifted 21\u00a0cm signal should vary little from one location to another on the sky. @2006MNRAS.371..867F and [@2004ApJ...608..611G] have calculated example global mean redshifted 21\u00a0cm spectra for various assumptions of stellar formation histories.\n\nThe specific approach employed with EDGES to exploit these expected differences in spectral characteristics in order to overcome the difficulty in separating the foreground and signal contributions in the measured spectrum is to limit the scope of the experiment to test for discontinuous features in the spectrum, since these would necessarily be due to the rapid transitions in the redshifted 21\u00a0cm brightness temperature and not the spectrally smooth foregrounds. In particular, the frequency response of the system is designed to test for fast reionization only (and not the transitions that might arise at higher redshifts from cooling and heating of the IGM). In the extreme case that the transition from a fully neutral to a fully ionized IGM was virtually instantaneous, such that $\\dot{\\bar{x}}_{HI}(z_r)\\rightarrow\\infty$, where $z_r$ is the redshift of reionization, the contribution to the global spectrum at the frequencies corresponding to the reionization epoch would approach a step function. A sharp feature resembling a step function that is superimposed on the smooth power-law-like foreground spectrum should be relatively easy to identify. And if reionization were to progress more slowly, producing a smooth transition that spanned a large range of redshifts and many tens of MHz, a simple model could be used to set limits on the maximum rate of the transition.\n\nIn principle, a variety of such models could be devised to use in tests for the presence of a step feature in the radio spectrum due to a rapid reionization. A simple low-order polynomial fit to the measured spectrum would reveal such a discontinuous feature in the residual spectrum after subtracting the fit and, thus, would be able to determine the redshift range of a rapid reionization. Figure \\[f\\_edges\\_model\\] illustrates this approach by plotting a model (described in Section \\[s\\_edges\\_limits\\]) of the redshifted 21 cm contribution to the measured spectrum along with the residuals after a seventh-order polynomial fit is removed from a simulated sky spectrum. This is the method used for the preliminary EDGES measurements. An advantage of this approach for global reionization experiments is that, given sufficient sensitivity, even a null result could still constrain $\\dot{\\bar{x}}_{HI}(z)$ and, thereby, distinguish between slow and fast reionization scenarios.\n\nExperiment Design {#s_edges_system}\n=================\n\nBy focusing (at least initially) on confirming or ruling out a fast reionization scenario, the design of the EDGES system is able to be relatively simple. The primary need is to reduce any instrumental or systematic contributions to the measured power spectrum that vary rapidly with frequency, since these could be confused with a sharp feature in the spectrum due to a fast reionization of the IGM. Such contributions could be due to terrestrial transmitters, reflections of receiver noise or sky noise from nearby objects, undesirable resonances within the electronics or the radio-frequency interference (RFI) enclosures, or spurious signals introduced by the digital sampling system. In this section, we provide an overview of the experimental design and setup, highlighting aspects that are relevant to reducing the effects of both the external and internal sources of systematic errors. Additional details on the analysis of systematic contributions and the hardware design can be found in the EDGES memorandum series[^1].\n\n![ \\[f\\_edges\\_model\\] Example of redshifted 21\u00a0cm contribution (solid) to $T_{sky}$ based on the model described in \u00a7\u00a0\\[s\\_edges\\_limits\\] with $\\Delta T_{21}=25$\u00a0mK, $z_r = 8$, and $\\Delta z = 0.6$. The residuals are also shown for a seventh-order polynomial fit to a simulated spectrum between 130 and 190\u00a0MHz with (dash) and without (dot) the redshifted 21 cm contribution. The foreground contribution was modeled for the plot using $\\beta=2.5$, and $T_{gal}(150$ MHz$) = 250$\u00a0K.](f2.eps){width=\"20pc\"}\n\nSite Selection\n--------------\n\nSome of the contributions to the systematic uncertainty listed above can be addressed by careful selection of the observing site. Avoiding terrestrial transmitters (primarily from FM radio and television stations) is the most serious problem. Even at distances of hundreds or thousands of kilometers, tropospheric ducting and scattering (troposcatter), sporadic E propagation in the ionosphere, and reflections from meteors are all capable of transferring a significant amount of power from Earth-based transmitters. The background produced by the integrated effect of many distant transmitters may have significant spectral structure above the expected redshifted 21 cm level. For example, a single, 100 kW FM radio station at 300 km from the observing site could produce up to a 100 K effective temperature in a 1 MHz channel due to troposcatter, or 100\u00a0mK due to meteor reflections. Fortunately, these mechanisms of atmospheric propagation exhibit diurnal or transient behavior (as is the case for sporadic E propagation, tropospheric ducting, and meteor reflections) or require specific geometries for peak efficiency (as is the case for troposcatter), making sensitive measurements possible at remote sites at least some of the time.\n\nAnother concern is that local objects in the environment will scatter both external noise and receiver noise, which will then be picked up by the system and correlate with the original noise, causing sinusoidal ripples in the measured spectrum. We have estimated the magnitude of the reflections of the Galactic foreground from objects like trees and mountains on the horizon where the antenna gain is reduced by a factor of 20 dB or more. As long as objects subtend solid angles under about 100\u00a0deg$^2$, the spectrum will only be affected by a few parts per million (*ppm*). We have also considered the magnitude of noise originating from the receiver that will be returned by a nearby scatterer. Even if we assume that this noise is perfectly correlated with the internal receiver noise, it will only produce ripples in the spectrum at the level of a few *ppm* provided that the object, like a tree subtending a few deg$^2$, is more than $\\sim100$\u00a0m away or a larger object, subtending $\\sim100$\u00a0deg$^2$ is more than $\\sim1$\u00a0km away.\n\nReflections of signals from compact radio sources may also be correlated. In this case the scatterer and the receiving antenna act like an adding interferometer to produce ripples in the spectrum. However, these effects are extremely small since a 1\u00a0Jy source results in under 1\u00a0mK of antenna temperature for the dipole-based EDGES system and the reflected signal is much smaller still. The ground reflection has been eliminated by placing the antenna on the ground. A brief discussion on the impact of these effects in radio astronomy measurements can be found also in @rohlfs_wilson.\n\nHardware Configuration {#s_edges_config}\n----------------------\n\nFollowing a careful choice of the deployment site for the experiment, the remaining sources of systematic uncertainty result from the hardware design of the system. The EDGES system consists of three primary modules: 1) an antenna, 2) an amplifier and comparison switching module, and 3) an analog-to-digital conversion and storage unit. The antenna, shown in Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_photos\\], is a \u201cfat\u201d dipole-based design derived from the four-point antenna of [@fourpoint1; @fourpoint2]. The design was chosen for its simplicity and its relatively broad frequency response that spans approximately an octave. The response of the antenna was tuned to 100 to 200\u00a0MHz by careful selection of the dipole dimensions. In order to eliminate reflections from the ground and to reduce gain toward the horizon, the antenna is placed over a conducting mesh that rests directly on the ground. The mesh is constructed from thin, perforated metal sheets to reduce weight and is shaped to match an octagonal support structure below the ground screen. The diameter of this ground screen is approximately 2\u00a0m.\n\nAlthough the antenna is constructed with perpendicular dipoles capable of receiving dual linear polarizations, only one polarization of the crossed-dipole is sampled by the receiver in order to reduce the cost of the system. This is acceptable since the spatially averaged all-sky spectrum is expected to have essentially no polarized component. The Galactic foreground does exhibit strong polarization in certain regions, such as the \u201cfan region\u201d around $\\ell\\approx140^\\circ$, $b\\approx8^\\circ$, which has an extended polarized component of about 3\u00a0K [@1973MNRAS.163..147W]. Such a region could produce a ripple in the measured spectrum from a single linear polarization as the polarization angle rotates with frequency. Under the worst circumstances, if such a region were located at the peak of the EDGES beam, the magnitude of the ripple could reach $\\sim50$\u00a0mK. Away from the Galactic plane, however, where EDGES observations are generally targeted in order to reduce the system temperature, it is more likely that the effects of polarization would be at least an order of magnitude lower. Furthermore, if the rotation measure (RM) is of order 10 rad m$^{-2}$, then the polarized component could be averaged out over $\\sim1$\u00a0MHz. Nevertheless, in future versions of EDGES, both ports of the antenna will be sampled in order to check for polarization effects and other systematic effects that result from the non-uniformity of Galactic radiation.\n\nA dipole antenna is naturally a balanced electrical system. To convert from the balanced antenna leads to the unbalanced receiver system (in which one lead is grounded), a short coaxial cable enclosed in a clamp-on split ferrite core with a high impedance is used as a common-mode choke balun[^2] and is connected directly to the terminals of the antenna with the central conductor fastened to one element and the braided shielding to the other.\n\nThe amplifier module consists of two stages that are contained in separate aluminum enclosures to reduce coupling between the low-noise amplifiers. Each stage provides 33\u00a0dB of gain for a total of 66\u00a0dB. Bandpass filtering of the signal is also performed in the second stage, and the resulting half-power bandwidth spans approximately 50 to 330\u00a0MHz. The amplifier chain can be connected through a voltage controlled three-position switch to one of three inputs: the antenna, an ambient load, or an ambient load plus a calibration noise source. Switching between the ambient load and the antenna provides a comparison to subtract spurious instrumental signals in the measured sky spectrum.\n\nImpedance mismatch between the antenna and the amplifiers causes reflections of the sky noise within the electrical path of the instrument that produce an undesirable sinusoidal ripple in the measured spectrum due to the frequency-dependence of the phase of the reflections at the input to the amplifier. To reduce the effects of these reflections in EOR measurements, the input to the amplifier chain is connected directly to the balun on the antenna (with no intermediate transmission cable), as shown in Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_photos\\]. While absolute calibration is limited in this configuration by the effect of the unknown phases of the reflections on the measured spectrum, the compact size of the antenna and the small signal path delays result in a smooth spectral response.\n\nThe amplifier module is connected to the analog-to-digital conversion module by three low-loss coaxial transmission cables. The cables provide power, switching control, and signal transmission, respectively. Common-mode current on these cables (i.e. current that is on the outer surface of the shielding in the coaxial cable, or current that is unidirectional on both the central conductor and inner surface of the shielding) is also capable of producing reflections and additional sinusoidal ripples in the measured spectrum. The ferrite core balun used between the antenna and amplifiers allows common-mode current of approximately 10% of the differential mode. Although most of this current is transferred to the ground screen by direct contact between the amplifier module casing and the ground screen, some current persists and leaks through the casing of the amplifier module and onto the shielding of the three cables connecting the amplification module to the analog-to-digital conversion module. To reduce this current to less than 0.005% of the differential mode current, additional clamp-on ferrite cores are placed every meter on the transmission cables.\n\nFinally, the analog-to-digital conversion is accomplished with an Acqiris AC240[^3] 8-bit digitizer with maximum dynamic range of 48\u00a0dB (although, in practice, the effective dynamic range was substantially lower due to coupling between the digital output of the converter and its input). The AC240 uses an embedded field programmable gate array (FPGA) to perform onboard Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and integration of the power spectrum in realtime. The spectrometer is clocked at 1\u00a0GS/s and the Fourier transform processes 16,384 channels, giving a bandwidth of 500\u00a0MHz and a raw spectral resolution of about 30\u00a0kHz. The broadband spectrometer employs the FPGA code of and a Blackman-Harris window function is used to improve the isolation between neighboring frequency channels at the expense of reducing the effective spectral resolution to 122\u00a0kHz. The unit is contained on a CompactPCI card connected to a host computer. The digitizer and host computer, along with a power transformer and interface circuitry for controlling the amplifier module with the serial port of the computer, are enclosed in an aluminum box to prevent self interference.\n\nThe Measured Spectrum {#s_data_acquisition}\n---------------------\n\n![ \\[f\\_edges\\_spectrum\\] Integrated spectrum used for upper limit analysis of reionization signal. The sky temperature, $T_{sky}$, is an estimate based on modeled values for cable losses and no correction for antenna reflections. The spectrum represents the best 10% of the data from observations over two nights. It is selected by discarding individual observation cycles (see \u00a7\u00a0\\[s\\_data\\_acquisition\\]) containing periods of particularly intense radio frequency interference. A total of approximately 1.5 h of integration is included (3.75 h including the ambient load and calibrator noise source measurements in each cycle). The black curve shows the spectrum after de-weighting the interferers (shown in gray) present in the retained observations.](f3.eps){width=\"22pc\"}\n\nThe measured spectra from each of the three switch positions can be combined to produce a calibrated estimate of the true sky spectrum. The three spectra are given by $$\\begin{array}{ccl}\np_0 & = & g ~ (T_L + T_R) ~ (1 + n_0) \\\\\np_1 & = & g ~ (T_L + T_R + T_{cal}) ~ (1 + n_1) \\\\\np_2 & = & g ~ (T_A + T_R) ~ (1 + n_2)\n\\end{array}$$ where the explicit frequency dependence of each term has been dropped and $p_0$ is the spectrum for the ambient load, $p_1$ is the spectrum for the ambient load plus calibration noise, and $p_2$ is the spectrum for the antenna. In this terminology, $g$ is the gain, $T_L$ is the ambient load temperature, $T_R$ is the receiver noise temperature, $T_{cal}$ is the calibration noise temperature, and $T_A$ is the antenna temperature. Thermal uncertainty in the measurements is explicitly included in the Gaussian random variables $n_0$, $n_1$, and $n_2$, the magnitudes of which are given by $n_i =\n(\\epsilon~b~\\tau_i)^{-1/2}$, where $\\epsilon=0.5$ is the efficiency for the Blackman-Harris window function (which could be improved to 0.93 by processing two sets of overlapping windows), $b =\n122\\times10^3$\u00a0Hz is the resolution bandwidth, and $\\tau_i$ is the integration time in seconds (for each switch position, $i$). Temporarily setting the noise terms to zero, $n_i\\rightarrow0$, and solving for the antenna temperature yields $$T_A = T_{cal}\\frac{p_2 - p_0}{p_1 - p_0} + T_L.\\label{eqn_ta}$$ In practice, the impedance match between the antenna and receiver is not perfect and some of the incident sky noise may be reflected back out of the system. This produces deviations between the derived sky temperature found using Equation\u00a0\\[eqn\\_ta\\] and the true sky spectrum. Independent measurements of the impedance mismatch can be used to correct these deviations by applying a frequency-dependent multiplicative factor to $T_A$ that is proportional to the inverse of the reflection coefficient. For the EDGES system, this correction was measured by two methods: we used a network analyzer in the laboratory to determine the impedance of the antenna, and we reconfigured the system in the field with a long cable inserted between the antenna and amplifier module so that reflections between the two elements were visible in the measured spectrum and could be used to calibrate the reflection coefficient. In both sets of measurements, the corrections were found to be small (of order 1%) and smooth (able to be fit by a low-order polynomial in frequency) over the band of interest. For the remainder of this paper, we will ignore this correction since its effects are easily absorbed by the polynomial fit technique used to constrain the redshifted 21 cm contribution to the spectrum.\n\nAdding the noise terms back in and solving in the limit that $T_{cal}\n\\gg (T_L \\approx T_A) > T_R$ results in an estimate of the thermal uncertainty per frequency channel of approximately $$\\Delta T_{A,rms} \\approx \\sqrt{ n^2_0 (T_L + T_R)^2 + n^2_1 (T_L)^2 +\nn_2^2(T_A+T_R)^2}.$$ For optimal efficiency, the three terms contributing to $\\Delta\nT_{A,rms}$ should be comparable in magnitude. Substituting $T_L=300$\u00a0K, $T_A=250$\u00a0K and $T_R=20$\u00a0K, we find that the terms are comparable as long as approximately equal time is spent in each switch position. In addition, a 1\u00a0hour integration in each switch position (3\u00a0hours total) will result in a thermal uncertainty in the estimate of the antenna temperature of $\\Delta T_{A,rms} \\approx\n35$\u00a0mK within each 122\u00a0kHz frequency channel.\n\nTo acquire a series of estimates of the true sky spectrum using this technique, software on the host computer cycles the amplifier module between the three switch positions and triggers the digitizer to acquire, Fourier transform, and accumulate data for a predefined duration at each of the switch positions. The integration durations per switch position are $\\tau_{\\{0,1,2\\}}=\\{10, 5, 10\\}$ seconds for the ambient load, ambient load plus calibration noise source, and antenna, respectively, giving a duty cycle of about 40% on the antenna. This loop is repeated approximately every 25 seconds for the duration of the observations and the resulting measurements are recorded to disk.\n\nInitial Results {#s_edges_results}\n===============\n\n![ \\[f\\_edges\\_residuals\\] Residuals after subtraction of seventh-order polynomial fit to measured spectrum shown in Figure \\[f\\_edges\\_spectrum\\]. The gray line is the raw spectrum with 122 kHz resolution. The black line is after smoothing to 2.5 MHz resolution to reduce the thermal noise to below the systematic noise. The *rms* of the smoothed fluctuations is approximately 75\u00a0mK (see Figure \\[f\\_edges\\_rms\\_vs\\_time\\]).](f4.eps){width=\"22pc\"}\n\nThe EDGES system was deployed at the radio-quiet Mileura Station in Western Australia from 29\u00a0November through 8\u00a0December\u00a02006. These dates were chosen such that the Galactic center would be below the horizon during most of the night, keeping the system temperature as low as possible for the measurements. The system was located approximately 100\u00a0m from the nearest buildings in a clearing with no nearby objects and no obstructions above $\\sim5^{\\circ}$ on the horizon, and the antenna was aligned in an approximately north-south/east-west configuration. The system was operated on 8 consecutive nights during the deployment, with 5 of the nights dedicated to EOR observing. In total, over 30\u00a0h of relevant drift scans were obtained, but strong, intermittent interference from satellites complicated the measurements and only approximately 8\u00a0h of high-quality observations were retained as the primary data set. Although the satellite interferers that complicated the measurements were narrow-band and, in many cases, were easily removed through excision of the effected spectral channels, the limited dynamic range of the EDGES system resulted in clipping of the analog-to-digital converter and corruption of the full band during especially strong transmissions. This required all channels to be omitted from the data set in those instances. In particular, it was found that the low Earth orbiting satellites of Orbcomm (transmitting between approximately 136 and 138 MHz), as well as satellite beacons (at 150 MHz) from discarded spacecraft were particularly troublesome. The Orbcomm activity was somewhat variable and usually decreased during the night. The typical duration of a pass was approximately 15 minutes, during which time the power in the satellite signal could easily reach an order of magnitude greater than the integrated sky noise over the band. While previous observations at the site with prototype MWA equipment [@2007AJ....133.1505B] have demonstrated (in a subset of the full target band) that it is possible to reach the sensitivities required for EDGES despite the satellites and other sources of interference, improvements to the EDGES digitizing system, such as an upgrade of the analog-to-digital converter to 10 or 12 bits, would certainly help to alleviate the difficulties encountered during this observing campaign and increase the usable fraction of measurements.\n\nFrom the primary data set remaining after transient RFI exclusion, a stringent filter was applied to select the best 1.5\u00a0h of sky-time when transient interference signals were weakest. The final cut of data included measurements from multiple nights and spanned a range of local apparent sidereal time (LST) between 0 and 5\u00a0h. The sky temperature at 150\u00a0MHz derived from the system during this period was found to have a minimum of $\\sim240$\u00a0K at about 3\u00a0h LST and a maximum of $\\sim280$\u00a0K at 5\u00a0h LST. The integrated spectrum generated from these measurements is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_spectrum\\]. Frequency channels containing RFI were identified in the integrated spectrum by an algorithm that employs a sliding local second-order polynomial fit and iteratively removes channels with large errors until the fit converges. The affected channels were then weighted to zero in subsequent analysis steps. To look for small deviations from the smooth foreground spectrum, a seventh-order polynomial was fit to the measured spectrum between 130 and 190\u00a0MHz (where the impedance match between the antenna and receiver was nearly ideal) and subtracted.\n\nThe residual deviations in the measured sky spectrum after the polynomial fit and subtraction are shown in Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_residuals\\]. The *rms* level of systematic contributions to the measured spectrum was found to be $\\Delta\nT_{rms} \\approx 75$\u00a0mK, a factor of $\\sim3$ larger than the maximum expected redshifted 21\u00a0cm feature that would result from a rapid reionization. Although it is not obvious in Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_residuals\\], the variations in the residuals are due to instrumental contributions and not thermal noise. The large variations between 163 and 170\u00a0MHz are due to the 166 MHz PCI-bus clock of the AC240 and computer, while the gap centered at approximately 137\u00a0MHz is due to RFI excision of the Orbcomm satellite transmissions over a region spanning more than 2.5\u00a0MHz. Analysis of the dependence of $\\Delta T_{rms}$ on integration duration is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_rms\\_vs\\_time\\] and illustrates that the *rms* of the residuals follows a thermal profile $\\sim(b\n\\tau)^{-1/2}$ initially and then saturates to a constant value. After smoothing to 2.5\u00a0MHz resolution ($\\Delta z\\approx0.2$), the instrumentally dominated 75\u00a0mK threshold is reached in approximately 20\u00a0minutes (1200\u00a0s) of integration on the sky (50\u00a0minutes of total integration in all three switch positions). Reordering the individual 25-second observation cycles used in the full integration does not change the behavior in Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_rms\\_vs\\_time\\], and longer integrations (up to approximately 3 h of sky time), using observation cycles with more intense interference, continued to decrease the thermal noise, but leave the spurious signals and systematic effects unchanged.\n\n![ \\[f\\_edges\\_rms\\_vs\\_time\\] Characteristic amplitude of the residuals to the polynomial fit as a function of integration time on the sky. The *rms* follows a thermal $(b \\tau)^{-1/2}$ dependency until saturating at a constant 75\u00a0mK noise level due to the instrumental errors introduced into the measured spectrum. The dotted lines are guides for the eye showing a $(b \\tau)^{-1/2}$ profile and a constant 75\u00a0mK contribution.](f5.eps){width=\"22pc\"}\n\nLimits on Reionization History {#s_edges_limits}\n------------------------------\n\nAlthough the sensitivity level of the initial observations with the EDGES system was limited by instrumental effects in the measured spectrum at a level greater than the expected maximum contribution due to redshifted 21\u00a0cm emission, weak constraints can still be placed on the reionization history. In addition, it is possible to make a quantitative assessment of how much improvement must be made before significant constraints are possible, as well as to characterize the best-case outcome of future efforts using similar approaches. To begin, we introduce a model for the sky spectrum such that $$\\label{eqn_sky_temp} T_{sky}(\\nu) = T_{gal}(\\nu) + T_{cmb} +\nT_{21}(\\nu)$$ where $T_{gal}$ represents the contribution of all the foregrounds (and is dominated by the Galactic synchrotron radiation), $T_{cmb}=2.73$\u00a0K is the CMB contribution, and $T_{21}$ is the specific form for the frequency-dependence of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm emission during the transition from the fully neutral to fully ionized IGM. This model neglects any directional or temporal variation in $T_{sky}$ and, therefore, implicitly assumes an angular average over the antenna beam and a time average over the drift scan measurements performed for the experiment. Since $T_{cmb}$ and $T_{21}$ are taken to be constant over the sky, only the $T_{gal}$ contribution is affected by this simplification. This does not impact the result, however, as long as the foreground emission varies slowly on the sky and the antenna pattern changes slowly with frequency\u2014conditions that are presumed to be met in the high Galactic latitude region sampled by the dipole-based EDGES system. As a test of this assumption, we calculated the residuals after the polynomial fit for a bright source with flux comparable to Cas A (1400\u00a0Jy at 100\u00a0MHz) and spectral index $\\beta=2.77$ at various positions in the antenna beam using simulated beam patterns to determine the frequency-dependence. We found, in all cases, less than a $\\sim50$\u00a0$\\mu$K residual.\n\nDuring the reionization epoch, we define $T_{21}$ to be given by $$T_{21}(z) = \\Delta T_{21} \\frac{1}{2} \\left \\{ 1 + cos \\left [ \\frac{\n\\pi (z_r - z - \\Delta z / 2)} { \\Delta z} \\right ] \\right \\},$$ where $\\Delta T_{21}$ is constant and is the maximum amplitude of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm contribution, $z_r$ is the redshift when $\\bar{x}_{HI}(z_r)=0.5$, $\\Delta z$ is the total duration of the reionization epoch, and we use $\\nu = 1420 / (1+z)$\u00a0MHz to convert back to frequency units. Before the reionization epoch ($z>z_r+\\Delta\nz/2$), $T_{21} \\equiv \\Delta T_{21}$, while after reionization ($z<z_r-\\Delta z/2$), $T_{21}\\equiv0$. The exact form of the transition used for $T_{21}$ has little influence on the outcome of the constraints as long as it is reasonably smooth. Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_model\\] illustrates the modelled redshifted 21\u00a0cm spectrum. The free parameters in the model are $z_r$, $\\Delta z$, and $\\Delta T_{21}$.\n\nFor the EDGES best-response frequency range, a center redshift around $z_r=8$ allows the largest range of $\\Delta z$ to be explored. By simulating the combined sky spectrum, $T_{sky}$, for a range of the two remaining free parameters, we can determine the *rms* of the residuals that would remain following the polynomial fit used in the EDGES data analysis. Comparing the *rms* of the residuals in the models to the 75\u00a0mK *rms* of the initial measurements gives a good estimate of the region of parameter space ruled out so far. Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_constraint\\] illustrates the results of this process. The line defining the ruled-out region is computed by finding the locus of parameters that make the *rms* residuals in the model equal to 75 mK. While a more statistically robust analysis is clearly possible, little benefit would be gained for the initial measurements presented here due to the severe systematic effects present in the spectrum.\n\nFrom Figure\u00a0\\[f\\_edges\\_constraint\\], it is clear that the initial results constrain only a small portion of parameter space that is well outside the expected region for both the intensity of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm signal and the duration of reionization. The best constraint, in the case of a nearly instantaneous reionization, is that the redshifted 21\u00a0cm contribution to the spectrum is not greater than about $\\Delta T_{21} \\lesssim 450$\u00a0mK before the transition. Reducing the systematic contributions in the measured spectrum by more than an order of magnitude to $\\Delta T_{rms}<7.5$\u00a0mK would begin to allow meaningful constraints, while an improvement of a factor of 25 to $\\Delta T_{rms} \\approx 3$\u00a0mK would be able to rule out a significant portion of the viable parameter range and constrain $\\Delta z > 2$. In principle, such an improvement is possible with minor modifications to the EDGES system. Reaching a systematic uncertainty below $\\sim3$\u00a0mK, however, is likely to be infeasible without a redesign of the experimental approach because errors in the polynomial fit to the overall power-law-like shape of the sky spectrum, $T_{sky}(\\nu)$, are the dominant source of uncertainty below that level in the current approach. The sharp cut-off at $\\Delta z\\approx2$ in parameter space is the result of using a seventh-order polynomial to fit a 60\u00a0MHz bandwidth, thus yielding a maximum residual scale size of order 10\u00a0MHz, which corresponds to $\\Delta z\\approx2$ at $z\\approx8$. If the same polynomial could be reasonably fit to a larger bandwidth (or a lower-order polynomial fit to the existing bandwidth), then $\\Delta z$ could be probed to larger values.\n\n![ \\[f\\_edges\\_constraint\\] Constraints placed by EDGES on the redshifted 21\u00a0cm contribution to the sky spectrum. The dark-gray region at the top-left is the portion of the parameter space ruled out by the initial EDGES results with $\\Delta T_{rms}=75$\u00a0mK (solid line). The dashed lined labelled $\\Delta T_{rms}=7.5$\u00a0mK and the dotted line labelled $\\Delta T_{rms}=3$\u00a0mK indicated the constraints that could be placed on reionization if the experimental systematics were lowered to the respective values. The light-gray region along the bottom is the general range of parameters believed to be viable. The redshifted 21\u00a0cm contribution to the spectrum is modelled according to the description in \u00a7\u00a0\\[s\\_edges\\_limits\\] with $z_r =\n8$.](f6.eps){width=\"20pc\"}\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nIn principle, useful measurements of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm background can be carried out with a small radio telescope. These measurements would be fundamental to understanding the evolution of the IGM and the EOR. In particular, the global evolution of the mean spin temperature and mean ionization fraction of neutral hydrogen in the high redshift IGM could be constrained by very compact instruments employing individual radio antennas. We have reported preliminary results to probe the reionization epoch based on this approach from the first observing campaign with the EDGES system. These observations were limited by systematic effects that were an order of magnitude larger than the anticipated signal and, thus, ruled out only an already unlikely range of parameter space for the differential amplitude of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm brightness temperature and for the duration of reionization. Nevertheless, the results of this experiment indicate the viability of the simple global spectrum approach.\n\nBuilding on the experiences of these initial efforts, modifications to the EDGES system are underway to reduce the residual systematic contribution in the measured spectrum and to expand the frequency coverage of the system down to 50\u00a0MHz or lower in order to place constraints on the anticipated transition of the hyperfine line from absorption to emission as the IGM warms before the EOR. Constraining the redshift and intensity of this feature would be very valuable for understanding the heating history of the IGM and, since the transition has the potential to produce a step-like feature in the redshifted 21\u00a0cm spectrum with a magnitude over 100\u00a0mK (up to a factor of 4 larger than the amplitude of the step during the reionization epoch), it may be easier to identify than the transition from reionization\u2014although the sky noise temperature due to the Galactic synchrotron foreground increases significantly at the lower frequencies, as well. Through these and other global spectrum efforts, the first contribution to cosmic reionization science from measurements of the redshifted 21\u00a0cm background will hopefully be achieved in the near future.\n\nThis work was supported by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Science, and by the NSF through grant AST-0457585.\n\n[^1]: http://www.haystack.mit.edu/ast/arrays/Edges/\n\n[^2]: This balun provides a 1:1 impedance transition and operates on the same principle as the quarter wavelength sleeve balun described by @KrausAntennas [page 742]. The ferrite provides a high impedance over a wide frequency range to reduce the common-mode currents, whereas the sleeve balun provides a high impedance over only a limited frequency range close to the quarter wavelength resonance.\n\n[^3]: http://www.acqiris.com/products/analyzers/cpci-signal-analyzers/ac240-platform.html\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'While cavity cooling of a single trapped emitter was demonstrated, cooling of many particles in an array of harmonic traps needs investigation and poses a question of scalability. This work investigates the cooling of a one dimensional atomic array to the ground state of motion via the interaction with the single mode field of a high-finesse cavity. The key factor ensuring the cooling is found to be the mechanical inhomogeneity of the traps. Furthermore it is shown that the pumped cavity mode does not only mediate the cooling but also provides the necessary inhomogeneity if its periodicity differs from the one of the array. This configuration results in the ground state cooling of several tens of atoms within a few milliseconds, a timescale compatible with current experimental conditions. Moreover, the cooling rate scaling with the atom number reveals a drastic change of the dynamics with the size of the array: atoms are either cooled independently, or via collective modes. In the latter case the cavity mediated atom interaction destructively slows down the cooling as well as increases the mean occupation number, quadratically with the atom number. Finally, an order of magnitude speed up of the cooling is predicted as an outcome the optimization scheme based on the adjustment of the array versus the cavity mode periodicity.'\naddress: 'Theoretische Physik, Universit\u00e4t des Saarlandes, D-66041 Saarbr\u00fccken, Germany'\nauthor:\n- 'O.S. Mishina'\ntitle: Cavity cooling of an atomic array\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe possibility of trapping chains of atoms [@Gupta2007; @Schleier-Smith2011; @Brandt2010] and Wigner crystals [@Herskind2009] in an optical cavity provides a new platform to study quantum optomechanics [@Stamper-Kurn2012; @Ritsch2013]. The advantage of this system compared to other optomechanical platforms (i.e., micro- and nanometer scale mechanical oscillators) is the access to internal atomic degrees of freedom that can be used to tune the coupling and to manipulate the mechanical modes. The cavity does not only provide tailored photonic modes to interact with the atomic mechanical modes, it also alters the radiative properties of atoms giving rise to cavity mediated atom-atom interactions and collective effects. The combination of these ingredients results in a high degree of control of the optomechanical interface which has allowed, for example, the experimental observation of cavity nonlinear dynamics at a single photon level [@Gupta2007] and ponderomotive squeezing of light [@Brooks2012]. Such a platform, in which the optomechanical system includes multiple mechanical oscillators in the quantum regime globally coupled to the cavity field, shall eventually allow multipartite entanglement of distant atom motion [@Peng2002; @Li2006], hybrid light-motion entanglement [@Peng2002], [@Cormick2013] and also engineering of spin-phonon coupling mediated by light when considering the atomic internal degrees of freedom.\n\nAn important problem on the way to reach the quantum optomechanical regime, is the cooling of the atomic mechanical modes to the ground state. Several techniques can be envisaged to prepare an atomic chain in the ground state of motion. One way is to prepare the atoms in the ground state of an optical lattice prior to coupling them to the cavity field. Sidebandanalysed resolved laser cooling can be used in this case [@Hamann1998], but the implementation of Raman sideband cooling is restricted to atomic species with a suitable cycling transition. Another route, very powerful and experimentally convenient, is to use the cavity mode itself for cooling the atomic chain. It eliminates the need for additional preparation steps and allows reusing the same atoms multiple times. Moreover, it is not restricted to specific atomic species and can be potentially extended to the cooling of any polarizable object such as, for example, molecules [@Lev2008]. While the problem of cooling a single trapped particle in a cavity was explored theoretically [@Cirac1995a; @Vuletic2001; @Zippilli2005] and experimentally [@Leibrandt2009], the simultaneous cooling of many particles forming an array poses the question of scalability. Cooling of an atomic array using a cavity mode was experimentally demonstrated in Ref. [@Schleier-Smith2011] where a single mode of the collective atomic motion was cooled close to the ground stare. The cooling rate of this unique collective mode was found to be proportional to the number of atoms in the array. A similar scaling was reported in a theoretical work for the case when a homogeneous cloud is first organized by the cavity potential and than collectively cooled [@Elsasser2003].\n\nA number of questions remain open on the protocol to cool down an array of atoms to the ground state inside a cavity. What is the role of the collective modes in the cooling dynamics of individual atoms? How do the cooling rates of individual atoms scale with the number of atoms in the array? What is the role of the lattice periodicity *vs* the cavity mode period? What is the most efficient cooling scheme? This work provides the answers to these questions. It shows that (i) cooling of a single collective mode is faster than the cooling of individual atoms, which is destructively suppresed due to collective effects, (ii) the cooling time for individual atoms increases non-linearly with the atom number, and (iii) the periodicity of the array plays a key role in the dynamics which can be used to optimize the cooling performance. Additionally it considers the limitations imposed by the spontaneous estimate outside of the cavity mode and shows the experimental feasibility of the cavity cooling of tens of atoms in the array.\n\nIn order to address these questions, a theoretical model is developed describing the general configuration in which the cavity potential and the atomic array have different periodicity as, for example, implemented in ref. [@Schleier-Smith2011]. The key factor insuring the ground state cooling of all atoms via global coupling to the single cavity mode is found to be the mechanical inhomogeneity of the traps. The cavity mode itself is demonstrated to provide the nesessary inhomogeneity due to the effect of the cavity potential on the individual traps. This controlability makes the configuration of an atomic array coupled to the cavity with different periodicity an attractive platform for further investigation of a multimode quantum optomethanical interface. Additionally, the proposed cavity cooling scheme can be extended to the case of an array of micro- or nanometer scale mechanical oscillators, where strong optomechanical coupling was recently predicted [@Xuereb2012].\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. Section \\[sec\\_model\\] summarizes the theoretical model and describes the physical mechanisms governing the cooling dynamics. In section \\[sec\\_anal\\_res\\] we present the analytical results for the scaling of the cooling rates with the atom number. Section \\[sec\\_num\\_res\\] compares numerical and analytical results for the cooling rates and the steady state mean phonon number per atom. The transition between two distinct regimes, when atoms interact independently or collectively with the cavity field, is reported. Also the destructive suppression of the cooling due to collective effects is demonstrated. In section \\[sec\\_optimization\\] the role of the lattice periodicity *vs* the cavity mode period is discussed and a possible way to speed up the cooling is suggested. Finally the effect of the spontaneous emission on the scaling of the steady state phonon number is analysed in section \\[sec\\_spont\\_em\\] together with the experimental feasibility of the proposed cooling scheme. The conclusions are drawn in section \\[sec\\_conclusion\\].\n\nSummary of the model {#sec_model}\n====================\n\nThe system under investigation consists of two elements: (i) a one dimensional array of $N$ independently trapped atoms coupled to (ii) a quantum light field with wave number $k_c$ confined inside an optical cavity pumped by a monomode laser as presented in figure \\[fig\\_schema\\]. The chain of two-level atoms is formed along the axis of the cavity where the atoms are confined in a deep optical lattice potential generated by an additional external classical field [@Gupta2007; @Schleier-Smith2011]. The case of hopping and tunnelling of atoms between the different sites will be neglected. The trap array holding the neutral atoms may be experimentally implemented in various ways. In the works [@Gupta2007; @Schleier-Smith2011] an extra cavity pump field resonant to the other cavity frequency was used to create a deep optical lattice. Alternatively, an optical lattice along the cavity can be created by two laser beams crossing each other at an angle inside the cavity or with the use of a spatial light modulator. Although the focus of this work is on the cooling of neutral atoms it is worth noticing that the generalization of the model for the case of of ions or other polarizable particles can be straightforwardly done.\n\n![The schematic representation of the system. $N$ individually trapped atoms are placed inside a cavity with resonant frequency $\\omega_{c}$ and decay rate $\\kappa$. Atoms have identical two-level structure and a resonance frequency $\\omega_{eg}$. The cavity is pumped by an external laser, detuned by $\\Delta_{c}=\\omega_{p}-\\omega_c$ from the cavity resonance frequency and by $\\Delta_a=\\omega_p-\\omega_{eg}$ from the atomic transition frequency.[]{data-label=\"fig_schema\"}](figure1.eps){width=\"0.5\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe main mechanism behind the cavity cooling is the scattering process taking place when an atom absorbs a photon with pump frequency $\\omega_p$ and then emits a photon back into the cavity with frequency $\\omega_c$. If the pump frequency is lower than the cavity resonance frequency ($\\Delta_c=\\omega_p-\\omega_c < 0$) and the difference is equal to the atomic trap frequency $\\nu$, the atom will lose one vibration quantum, and the photon, eventually leaving the cavity, will carry this energy away. Such a cooling mechanism essentially relies on the interaction of atoms with the cavity field and assumes that the spontaneous emission into free space is negligibly small. This requires the cavity-to-free space scattering ratio to be much larger than one, which is reached when the single atom cooperativity (Purcell number) $c_r=\\frac{g^2}{\\kappa\\gamma}$ is larger than one, regardless of the pump filed detuning from the atomic transition $\\Delta_a=\\omega_p-\\omega_{eg}$ [@Vuletic2001]. It is achieved when a light-atom coupling strength $g$ is larger than the geometric average of the atomic natural linewidth $\\gamma$ and the cavity decay rate $\\kappa$.\n\nWe will focus on the regime in which the cavity field is far off-resonance from the atomic transition $|g\\rangle \\leftrightarrow |e\\rangle$, such that the probability of an atomic excitation is negligibly small. Under the conditions $|\\Delta_a|\\gg\\gamma,\\kappa,g\\sqrt{N_{ph}}$, where $N_{ph}$ is the mean photon number in the cavity, the atomic internal degree of freedom can be adiabatically eliminated. In this case the coherent part of the optomechanical interaction between the cavity and atomic motion is described by the effective Hamiltonian [@Domokos2003; @Larson2008]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Hammiltonian_spin_phot_phon}\nH=&-&\\hbar \\left(\\Delta_c-U_0 \\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\cos^2(k_c x^{(0)}_i+k_c\\hat{x}_i) \\right)\\hat{A}^\\dag \\hat{A}\n+\\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\left(\\frac{m \\nu^2\\hat{x}^2_i}{2}+\\frac{\\hat{p}^2_i}{2m}\\right)\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&+&i\\hbar\\left(\\frac{\u2022}{\u2022}\\eta_p\\hat{A}^\\dag-\\eta_p^*\\hat{A}\\frac{\u2022}{\u2022}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Here $\\hat{A}^\\dag$ and $\\hat{A}$ stands for the creation and annihilation operators of the cavity field in the rotating frame at the pump frequency $\\omega_p$, and $\\eta_p$ is the cavity pumping strength. The motion of atoms with mass $m$ inside the traps with identical frequencies $\\nu$ is described by the displacement operator $\\hat{x}_i$ of the $i$-th atom from its trap center $x_i^{(0)}$. The single atom off-resonant coupling strength at the anti-node is $U_0=g^2/\\Delta_a$. The first term in the Hamiltonian contains the optomechanical interaction between the cavity field and the atomic motion: $U_0 \\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\cos^2(k_c x^{(0)}_i+k_c\\hat{x}_i)$ is the shift of the cavity frequency caused by the presence of the atoms and, conversely, the mechanical potential exerted on the atoms by a single cavity photon. Further on only the Lamb-Dicke regime will be considered, when the atoms are localized on a length scale $\\Delta x=\\sqrt{\\hbar/(2\\nu m)}$ much smaller than the cavity wavelength $\\lambda=2\\pi/k_c$ ($\\eta=k_c \\Delta x$ is much smaller than one). Thus only the contributions up to the second order in the Lamb-Dicke parameter will be considered and the approximation ${\\cos^2(k_c x^{(0)}_i+k_c\\hat{x}_i)=\\cos^2(k_c x^{(0)}_i)-\\sin(2k_c x^{(0)}_i) k_c \\hat{x}_i-\\cos(2k_c x^{(0)}_i) (k_c \\hat{x}_i)^2}$ will be used.\n\nThe incoherent dynamic due to the cavity decay and the spontaneous emission (up to the second order in $1/\\Delta_a$) is captured by the following Heisenberg-Langevin equations: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{H-L_equations}\n\\label{H-L_equations_sp_em}\n\\dot{\\hat{A}}&=&\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[H,\\hat{A}\\right]\n-(\\kappa+\\sum_{i=1}^ND_{ai}/2)\\hat{A}\n+\\sqrt{2\\kappa}\\hat{S}_{a}\n+i\\sum_{i=1}^N\\sqrt{D_{ai}}\\hat{f}_{ai},\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n\\dot{\\hat{p}}_i&=&\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[H,\\hat{p}_i\\right]\n-2\\Delta p\\sqrt{D_{bi}}\\hat{f}_{bi},\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\n\\dot{\\hat{x}}_i=\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[H,\\hat{x}_i\\right].\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Delta p=\\sqrt{\\hbar\\nu m/2}$. The above equations are derived in the appendix by taking in to account the coupling of the atom-cavity system to the external electromagnetic environment and using the markovian approximation to eliminate the external field modes from the equation [@Bienert2012] prio to the elimination of the atomic internal degree of freedom [@Vitali2008].\n\nThe noise operator $\\hat{S}_a$ of the vacuum field entering the cavity through the mirror has the zero mean value and its correlation functions are: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle\\hat{S}_{a}(t)\\hat{S}^\\dag_{a}(t')\\rangle=\\delta(t-t'),\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\langle\\hat{S}^\\dag_{a}(t)\\hat{S}_{a}(t')\\rangle=\\langle\\hat{S}_{a}(t)\\hat{S}_{a}(t')\\rangle=\\langle\\hat{S}^\\dag_{a}(t)\\hat{S}^\\dag_{a}(t')\\rangle=0.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe scattering of the cavity photons by the atoms in to the outer modes causes the Langevin forces $\\hat{f}_{ai}$ and $ \\hat{f}_{bi}$ correspond to the loss of the cavity photons with rate $D_{ai}$, and the diffusion of an atomic motion with rates $D_{bi}$ respectively. They have the following non-zero correlation functions: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq_cor_fun_sp_em}\nD_{ai}=\\gamma \\frac{g^2}{\\Delta_a ^2}\\cos ^2(k_cx^{(0)}_i),\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\nD_{bi}=\\gamma \\frac{g^2}{\\Delta_a ^2}\\eta ^2 \\alpha ^2K_i ,\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n\\langle \\hat{f}_{ai}(t) \\hat{f}^\\dag_{ai}(t') \\rangle = \\delta(t-t'),\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n\\langle \\hat{f}_{bi}(t)\\hat{f}_{bi}(t') \\rangle = \\delta(t-t'),\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\n\\hat{f}^\\dag_{bi}(t)= \\hat{f}_{bi}(t),\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n\\langle \\sqrt{K_i}\\hat{f}_{bi}(t)\\hat{f}_{ai}^\\dag(t') \\rangle =\n\\langle \\hat{f}_{ai}(t) \\sqrt{K_i}\\hat{f}_{bi}(t')\\rangle=\\sin(k_cx^{(0)}_i)\\delta(t-t').\\end{aligned}$$ Here $\\alpha^2$ represents the mean cavity photon number in the zero order with respect to the Lamb-Dicke parameter $\\eta$. An order of unity coefficient $K_i=\\sin^2(k_cx^{(0)}_i)+C_{xi}\\cos^2(k_cx^{(0)}_i)$ depends on the atomic position along the cavity axes and on $C_{xi}= \\int_{-1}^1 d\\cos(\\theta) \\cos^2(\\theta)\\mathcal{N}_i(\\cos(\\theta))$, which gives the angular dispersion of the atom momentum and accounts for the dipole emission pattern $\\mathcal{N}_i(\\cos(\\theta))$ [@SteckDataWeb]. Equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_sp\\_em\\]) and correlation functions (\\[eq\\_cor\\_fun\\_sp\\_em\\]) are derived under the assumption that the inter-atomic distance $d$ is much larger that the cavity wavelength $k_cd\\gg1$ which allows one to consider atoms as independent scatterers.\n\nIn the case of a single atom, equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_sp\\_em\\]) correspond to the result reported in [@Vitali2008] where the rates to raise and lower the vibration quanta also compensate each other up to the second order in $1/\\Delta_a$ and only the diffusion effect remains. The difference with the result presented here accounts for the different pumping geometry - the atom is pumped from the side or the cavity is pumped through the mirror.\n\nNext assumption on the way to solve equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_sp\\_em\\]) is a large intracavity photon number with only small fluctuations around its steady state mean value: ${\\langle\\hat{A}^\\dag\\hat{A}\\rangle\\gg\\langle\\hat{a}^\\dag\\hat{a}\\rangle}$, with ${\\hat{a}=\\hat{A}-\\langle\\hat{A}\\rangle}$. The steady state mean values for the cavity field $\\langle\\hat{A}\\rangle$, atom displacement $\\langle\\hat{x}_{i}\\rangle$ and momentum $\\langle\\hat{p}_{i}\\rangle$ are the solutions of the nonlinear algebraic equations constructed by taking the mean values on the left- and right-hand sides in equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_sp\\_em\\]) and putting the derivatives to zero (assuming that the fluctuations are small) : $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{equations_mean_steady_state}\n\\langle\\hat{A}\\rangle=\\frac{\\eta_p}{(\\kappa_\\mathrm{eff}-i\\Delta_c'-iU_0 \\sum_{i=1}^{N}(s_ik_c\\langle\\hat{x}_{i}\\rangle+\nc_ik^2_c\\langle\\hat{x}_{i}^2\\rangle)},\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\nk_c\\langle\\hat{x}_{i}\\rangle=\n\\frac{2U_0 \\eta |\\langle\\hat{A}\\rangle|^2s_i}\n{\\nu-4U_0 \\eta |\\langle\\hat{A}\\rangle |^2c_i},\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\n\\langle\\hat{p}_{i}\\rangle=0.\\end{aligned}$$ Here $\\Delta'_c=\\Delta_c-U_0\\sum_{i=1}^N\\cos^2(k_cx_i^{0})$, $\\kappa_\\mathrm{eff}=\\kappa+\\sum_{i=1}^ND_{ai}/2$, and $c_i=\\cos(2k_c x^{(0)}_i)$ and $s_i=\\sin(2k_c x^{(0)}_i)$. Without any loss of generality we assume $\\langle\\hat{A}\\rangle$ to be real, which can be adjusted by choosing the phase of $\\eta_p$. In the Lamb-Dicke regime the cavity mean field can be seen as a power series in the Lamb-Dicke parameter $\\langle\\hat{A}\\rangle=\\alpha+O(\\eta)$ with the zero order term $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{mean_cavity_field}\n\\alpha=\\frac{\\eta_p}{\\kappa_\\mathrm{eff}-i\\Delta_c'}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe evolution of small fluctuations around the steady state mean values is well described by the linear system of equations.Substituting $\\hat{A}=\\langle\\hat{A}\\rangle+\\hat{a}$, $\\hat{x}_i=\\langle\\hat{x}_{i}\\rangle+\\tilde{\\hat{x}}_i $ and $\\hat{p}_i=\\langle\\hat{p}_{i}\\rangle+\\tilde{\\hat{p}}_i $ in to equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_sp\\_em\\]) and neglecting the nonlinear terms together with other terms of the same order of magnitude brings us to the following equations: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{H-L_equations_linearised}\n\\dot{\\hat{a}}=\\left(-\\kappa_\\mathrm{eff}+i\\Delta_c'\\right)\\hat{a}+i\\frac{U_0 \\eta \\alpha}{\\Delta x}\\sum_{i=1}^{N}s_i\\tilde{\\hat{x}}_i\n+\\sqrt{2\\kappa}\\hat{S}_{a}\n+i\\sum_{i=1}^N\\sqrt{D_{ai}}\\hat{f}_{ai},\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n\\dot{\\tilde{\\hat{p}}}_i=-m\\nu_i^2\\tilde{\\hat{x}}_i+2\\Delta p \\,U_0 \\eta \\alpha\\, s_i(\\hat{a}^\\dag+\\hat{a})\n-2\\Delta p\\sqrt{D_{bi}}\\hat{f}_{bi},\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\n\\dot{\\tilde{\\hat{x}}}_i=\\frac{\\tilde{\\hat{p}}_i}{m},\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\nu^2_i=\\nu(\\nu-4 U_0 (\\eta \\alpha)^2c_i)$ is a modified trap frequency. To be consistent with the Lamb-Dicke approximation and to ensure that $|k_c\\langle\\hat{x}_{i}\\rangle|\\ll1$ in equation (\\[equations\\_mean\\_steady\\_state\\]), the following inequality should be fulfilled: $$\\label{ineq_keep_LDL}\n6 U_0 (\\eta \\alpha)^2\\ll\\nu.$$\n\nFinally, linear equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_linearised\\]) allow to reconstruct the effective Hamiltonian governing the dynamics of the cavity field fluctuations and atomic motion in the traps: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Hammiltonian_effective}\nH_\\mathrm{eff}=-\\hbar \\Delta'_c \\hat{a}^\\dag \\hat{a}\n+\\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\left(\\frac{m \\nu_i^2 \\hat{\\tilde{x}}^2_i}{2}+\\frac{\\tilde{\\hat{p}}^2_i}{2m}\\right)\n-\\hbar \\frac{U_0\\eta \\alpha}{\\Delta x} (\\hat{a}^\\dag+\\hat{a}) \\sum_{i=1}^{N}s_i\\hat{\\tilde{x}}_i.\\end{aligned}$$ This expression shows the two main effects captured by our model: the optomechanical coupling responsible for the cooling mechanism (last term) and the modification of the trap frequencies as a mean field effect of the cavity potential. The trap inhomogeneity is an essential ingredient for cooling atoms to the ground state of motion. As only one collective mode of motion $\\hat{X}\\sim \\sum_{i=1}^{N}s_i\\tilde{\\hat{x}}_i$ couples to the cavity, the cooling mechanism takes place exclusively by removing the excitations from this mode [@Schleier-Smith2011]. If the frequencies of all the traps are identical, for example when the inter-atomic distance in the array is a multiple of the cavity wavelength, this collective mode is also an eigenmode of a free atomic system. Thus it will be decoupled from the remaining $N-1$ longitudinal modes of collective motion [@Genes2008], and these modes will stay excited. As the steady state energy of each atom is determined by the weights of all the collective modes, individual atoms will be only partially cooled. Alternatively, if the trap frequencies are different than the collective mode $\\hat{X}$ is no longer an eigenmode of a free atomic subsystem and it will be coupled to other $N-1$ longitudinal modes of collective atomic motion. This will allow a sympathetic cooling of all the collective modes, and all the atoms. The same principle is the basis for the sideband cooling of a trapped ion in three dimensions with a single laser beam [@Eschner2003]. In that case the requirements for cooling in all three dimensions are: different oscillation frequencies along each axes and a non-zero projection of the light wave vector on all the axes. The case of a one-dimensional cooling of many particles appears analogous to the cooling of a single particle in multiple directions. Similarly, in the case of an atomic array the conditions are: different trap frequencies and non-zero coupling of light to each atom.\n\nAnalytical results: cooling rates {#sec_anal_res}\n=================================\n\nThis section is devoted to the analyses of the atom-cavity evolution neglecting the effect of the spontaneous emission ($\\hat{f}_{ai}=\\hat{f}_{ai}=D_{ai}=D_{bi}=0$) and taking in to account only the cavity decay. Importantly, this simplification will not significantly effect the cooling rates in the far off-resonance regime, provided that the cavity decay is much faster than the spontaneous emission rate: $$\\label{ineq_cavity_decay_vs_sp_em}\n\\kappa\\gg \\frac{\\gamma g^2}{2\\Delta_a^2}\\sum_{i=1}^N\\cos^2(k_cx^{(0)}_i),$$ and $\\kappa_{\\mathrm{eff}}\\approx \\kappa$. In this regime the spontaneous emission will mainly cause a diffusion, the process in which the rate of adding and subtracting of a motion quantum are identical, and the contributions of both in to the final cooling rate cancel each other. Contrary the steady state phonon number for the atoms will increase due to the diffusion process and section \\[sec\\_spont\\_em\\] will be devoted to this issue.\n\nDirect cooling of collective mode $X$ and its exchange with the remaining collective modes may appear on different time scales and the slowest of them will correspond to the cooling time scale for individual atoms. This section presents the analytical limits for the cooling rates of different modes of motion and the scaling of the cooling dynamics with atom number $N$.\n\nThe cavity potential provides the trap inhomogeneity with a narrow distribution of the trap frequencies around $\\nu$ in the Lamb-Dicke regime: ${\\nu^2_i=\\nu\\left[\\nu-4 U_0 (\\eta \\alpha)^2\\cos(2k_cx^{(0)}_i)\\right]}$. Distributing the atoms such that ${2k_cx^{(0)}_i=i\\left(\\frac{\\pi}{N+1}+2n\\pi\\right)}$, $i=1,...N$, where $n$ is any integer will correspond to the following ratio between the inter-atomic distance $d$ and the cavity wavelength $\\lambda$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{equation_periodicity}\n\\frac{d}{\\lambda}=\\frac{n}{2}+\\frac{1}{4(N+1)}.\\end{aligned}$$ This configuration will simplify the calculation and will allow to find the analytical solutions for the cooling rates. More over, the results will capture the general properties of the cooling, regardless the atomic configuration.\n\nIt is convenient to introduce the collective modes in the following way: first mode $X$ coupled to the cavity and remaining modes $X_i$, $i=1,...N-1$, uncoupled from each other and coupled only to the first one. For the selected ratio $\\frac{d}{\\lambda}$ it can be done using the following transformation from the basis of individual atomic displacements: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{equations_collective_mode transformation}\nX=\\sqrt{\\frac{2}{N+1}}\\sum_{i=1}^N\\sin(\\frac{\\pi \\cdot i}{N+1})\\tilde{\\hat{x}}_i,\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\nX_i=\\sqrt{\\frac{2}{N}}\\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\\sin(\\frac{\\pi \\cdot i\\cdot k}{N})\\sqrt{\\frac{2}{N+1}}\\sum_{j=1}^N\\sin(\\frac{\\pi \\cdot j \\cdot (k+1)}{N+1})\\tilde{\\hat{x}}_j.\\end{aligned}$$ Identical transformations relate the momenta of the collective modes $P$ and $P_i$ with the momenta of the individual atoms $\\tilde{\\hat{p}}_i$. Substituting this transformation into the effective Hamiltonian (\\[Hammiltonian\\_effective\\]) and introducing the creation and anihilation operators $X=\\sqrt{\\frac{\\hbar}{2m\\nu}}(\\hat{B}^\\dag+\\hat{B})$, $P=i\\sqrt{\\frac{\\hbar m\\nu}{2}}(\\hat{B}^\\dag-\\hat{B})$, and $X_j=\\sqrt{\\frac{\\hbar}{2m\\omega_j}}(\\hat{B}_j^\\dag+\\hat{B}_j)$, $P_j=i\\sqrt{\\frac{\\hbar m\\omega_j}{2}}(\\hat{B}_j^\\dag-\\hat{B}_j)$ we get the Hamiltonian in the desired form: $$\\begin{aligned}\nH_\\mathrm{eff}=&-&\\hbar\\Delta'_c\\hat{a}^\\dag \\hat{a}\n       +\\hbar\\nu \\hat{B}^\\dag \\hat{B}\n       +\\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\\hbar\\omega_j \\,\\hat{B}_j^\\dag  \\hat{B}_j\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&-&\\hbar\\frac{\\epsilon}{2}\\left(\\hat{a}+\\hat{a}^\\dag \\right)(\\hat{B}+\\hat{B}^\\dag)\n-\\hbar\\sum_{j=1}^{N-1}\\frac{\\beta_j}{2}(\\hat{B}+\\hat{B}^\\dag)(\\hat{B}_j+\\hat{B}_j^\\dag).\\end{aligned}$$ The coupling strengths $\\epsilon$, between the cavity and collective mode $X$, and $\\beta_i$, between collective modes $X$ and $X_i$, and the collective mode frequencies $\\omega_i$ are: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq_collective_couplings}\n\\epsilon=U_0\\alpha\\eta\\sqrt{2(N+1)},\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n\\beta_j=2U_0(\\alpha\\eta)^2 \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{N}}\\sqrt{\\frac{\\nu}{\\omega_j}}\\sin\\left(\\pi\\frac{j}{N}\\right),\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\omega^2_j=\\nu\\left[\\nu-4U_0(\\eta\\alpha)^2\\cos\\left(\\pi\\frac{j}{N}\\right)\\right].\\end{aligned}$$ Thus the cavity coupling to the $X$ mode increases with $N$ while the coupling between $X_i$ and $X$ modes decreases with $N$. Such an opposite dependence will lead to the emergence of separate time scales when the atom number is sufficiently large. In this case the dynamic will consist of a fast excitation subtraction from the $X$ mode via the exchange with the cavity followed by the cavity decay, and a slow exchange between the modes $X_i$ and $X$.\n\nTo find separately the asymptotic expressions of the collective mode decay rates for the fast and slow processes for $N\\gg1$, at first only the interaction between cavity and $X$ mode is considered ($\\beta_i=0$). This single mode case was considered in the work [@Schleier-Smith2011] and it is analogous to the cavity cooling of a single trapped particle [@Vuletic2001; @Zippilli2005] as well as of an eigenmode of a mechanical cantilever [@Marquardt2007]. It can be be described by the rate equations for a mean phonon number $N_X=\\langle B^\\dag B\\rangle$ in the form: $\\dot{N}_X=-\\gamma_X\\left(N_X-N_X(t\\rightarrow\\infty)\\right)$ when the cavity mode is adiabatically eliminated [@Stenholm1986]. In this work the rate equation is derived by evaluating $\\langle\\dot{\\hat{B}^\\dag\\hat{B}}\\,\\,\\rangle=\\langle\\dot{\\hat{B}}^\\dag\\hat{B}\\rangle+\\langle\\hat{B}^\\dag\\dot{\\hat{B}}\\rangle$. The cooling rate and the steady state phonon number are found to be: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq_colective_cooling_rate}\n\\gamma_X=\\frac{\\epsilon^2}{2\\kappa}\\left[S_-(\\nu) -S_+(\\nu)\\right]=\\kappa\\, c_d^2\\,(\\eta\\alpha)^2(N+1)\\left[S_-(\\nu) -S_+(\\nu)\\right],\n\\\\\n\\label{eq_colective_cooling_occupation_number}\nN_X(t\\rightarrow\\infty)=\\frac{S_+(\\nu)}{S_-(\\nu)-S_+(\\nu)}.\\end{aligned}$$ Here ${c_d=\\frac{U_0}{\\kappa}=\\frac{g^2}{\\Delta_a\\kappa}}$ is an off-resonance single atom cooperativity which is the key parameter characterizing cavity-atom interaction and representing both: the cavity frequency shift due to the interaction with one atom and the atom resonance shift due to the interaction with the cavity in the units of the cavity lightweight. Spectral parameters ${S_\\pm(\\nu)=(1+(\\Delta_c'\\mp\\nu)^2/\\kappa^2)^{-1}}$ stand for the subtraction ($S_-$)/addition ($S_+$) of an energy quantum from/to the collective mode of motion and refer to the cooling and heating processes respectively. This description is applicable in the weak interaction regime when $\\epsilon\\ll\\kappa$ which imposes an upper limit for the atom number in the array, $N\\ll(c_d\\eta\\alpha)^{-2}$.\n\nEfficient cooling of collective mode $X$ will occur at the cooling side-band $\\Delta_c'=-\\nu$ and in the resolved side-band regime $\\kappa\\ll\\nu$. In this case $S_-(\\nu)=1$ and $S_+(\\nu)\\approx\\frac{\\kappa^2}{4\\nu^2}$ and the contribution of the heating processes is negligible. The cooling rate is then $\\gamma_X\\approx\\epsilon^2/(2\\kappa)=\\kappa(c_d\\eta\\alpha)^2(N+1)$ while the mean phonon number $N_X(t\\rightarrow\\infty)\\approx S_+(\\nu)$ is close to zero. Assuming this regime, we now consider the evolution of the remaining modes. If the exchange between modes $X$ and $X_i$ occurs at the time scale much slower than $\\gamma_X^{-1}$, mode $X$ will serve as a decay channel for the remaining modes.\n\nWe will look for the cooling rate for each $X_i$ mode independently, assuming that the effect of the presence of modes $X_j$ ($j\\neq i$), can be neglected for sufficiently large $N$. We shall note that the condition similar to the one providing the resolved side-band regime is automatically fulfilled: the decay rate of mode $X$ is much smaller that the frequency of the $i$-th mode $\\gamma_X\\ll\\omega_i$. Also the condition similar to the cooling side-band condition is fulfilled for each mode, $|\\nu-\\omega_i|\\ll\\gamma_X$ for sufficiently large atom number $(N+1)\\gg2/c_d$. The independent cooling rate for the $X_i$ mode in this resolved side-band regime is well approximated by the following expression: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq_colling_rates_analitical}\n\\gamma_{X_i} = \\frac{\\beta_i^2}{\\gamma_X}=\n\\kappa \\frac{8(\\alpha\\eta)^2}{(N+1)N}\\sin^2\\left(\\frac{\\pi\\cdot i}{N}\\right)\\frac{\\nu}{\\omega_i}.\\end{aligned}$$ In the derivation of the rate equation for the mean phonon number in mode $X_i$, the counter-rotating terms $\\hat{B}^\\dag\\hat{B}_i^\\dag$ and $\\hat{B}\\hat{B}_i$ in the Hamiltonian were neglected (rotating wave approximation). Then, in the frame rotating with frequency $\\nu$, the cavity mode $\\hat{a}$ and collective mode $\\hat{B}$ were subsequently eliminated to get the Heisenberg-Langevin equation for the $\\hat{B}_i$ mode alone. The rate equation for the mean phonon number in each mode was again derived by calculating the mean value $\\langle\\dot{\\hat{B}^\\dag_i\\hat{B}_i}\\,\\,\\rangle=\\langle\\dot{\\hat{B}}^\\dag_i\\hat{B}_i\\rangle+\\langle\\hat{B}^\\dag_i\\dot{\\hat{B}}_i\\rangle$. The rotating wave approximation allows to reconstruct only the decay term but not the steady state mean phonon number in the rate equation because the heating side-band is neglected. Apart from this drawback it allows one to find the cooling rate with a good accuracy in the resolved sideband regime.\n\nExpression (\\[eq\\_colling\\_rates\\_analitical\\]) shows a non-linear decrease of the independent cooling rates with increasing atom number. The smallest rate which will determine the cooling rate of individual atoms is $\\gamma_{X_1}\\sim N^{-4}$ when the atom number is much bigger than one. Here we shall recall that while changing the atom number we keep the modified cavity detuning fixed to the cooling side-band $\\Delta_c'=-\\nu$ which means that the pump frequency is adjusted for each atom number such that $\\Delta_c=-\\nu+U_0\\sum_{i=0}^Nc^2_i=-\\nu+U_0(N-1)/2$. Also, the choice of the array periodicity (\\[equation\\_periodicity\\]) made the ratio $d/\\lambda$ dependent on $N$.\n\nOne should note that the cooling rates (\\[eq\\_colling\\_rates\\_analitical\\]) in this collective cooling regime does not really depend on the interaction strength $U_0$, only weakly through $\\omega_i$. It is at first surprising, but reasonable, since the cooling is a trade-off between two processes: the exchange among different collective modes and the decay of the collective mode coupled to the cavity. These two processes are initially governed by the interaction of the same origin with strength $U_0$. When the collective mode decay rate increases the cooling slows down because less exchange events appear on the decay time scale, this is compensated by the simultaneous growth of the exchange rate. Thus the single atom interaction strength cancels out in the resulting cooling rate. This fact will crucially change the influence of the spontaneous emission on the cooling process in comparison with the single atom case which we will discuss in section \\[sec\\_spont\\_em\\].\n\nNumerical results: cooling rates and mean phonon numbers {#sec_num_res}\n========================================================\n\nThe exact evolution of $N$ atoms coupled to the cavity mode described by Hamiltonian (\\[Hammiltonian\\_effective\\]) cannot be found analytically and the cooling rates and mean phonon numbers are calculated numerically still neglecting the effect of the spontaneous emission ($\\hat{f}_{ai}=\\hat{f}_{ai}=D_{ai}=D_{bi}=0$).\n\nPerforming the transformations $\\tilde{\\hat{x}}_i=\\sqrt{\\frac{\\hbar}{2m\\nu_i}}(\\hat{b}^\\dag_i+\\hat{b}_i)$, $\\tilde{\\hat{p}}_i=i\\sqrt{\\frac{\\hbar m\\nu_i}{2}}(\\hat{b}^\\dag_i-\\hat{b}_i)$, where $\\hat{b}^\\dag$ and $\\hat{b}$ are the creation and annihilation operators of a vibrational excitation for individual atoms, the system of equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_linearised\\]) can be rewritten in the matrix form $$\\dot{Y}=MY+S.$$ Here we introduced the vectors of the system fluctuations and the noise operators: $$\\begin{aligned}\nY=(\\hat{a},\\hat{b}^{}_1,\\hat{b}^{}_2,...\\hat{b}^{}_{N},\\hat{a}^\\dag,\\hat{b}_1^\\dag,\\hat{b}_2^\\dag,...\\hat{b}_{N}^\\dag)^T,\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\nS=(\\sqrt{2\\kappa}\\hat{S}_{a},0,0,...0,\\sqrt{2\\kappa}\\hat{S}^\\dag_{a},0,0,...0)^T. \\end{aligned}$$ The dynamical matrix $M$ is non-Hermitian and its non-zero elements are $M_{aa}=M^*_{a^\\dag a^\\dag}=-\\kappa+i\\Delta_c'$, $M_{b_ib_i}=M^*_{b^\\dag_ib^\\dag_i}=-i\\nu_i$ and $M_{a b_i}=M_{a b_i^\\dag}=M^*_{a^\\dag b_i}=M^*_{a^\\dag b_i^\\dag}=M_{b_i a}=M_{b_i a^\\dag}=M^*_{b^\\dag_i a}=M^*_{b^\\dag_i a^\\dag}=iU_0\\eta\\alpha s_i$. The transformation diagonalizing this matrix will result in the new operators combining light and atomic variables. The decay rates of the population of these polaritonic modes, $\\Gamma_i$, are given by the real part of the eigenvalues $\\mu_i$ of matrix $M$. Since a steady state energy of individual atoms are determined by the weighted energies of all the polaritonic modes, the smallest of $\\Gamma_i$ will set the decay rate for individual atoms.\n\n![Scaling with the atom number. For each $N$ there are $N+1$ points representing polaritonic decay rates $\\Gamma_i=-2Re[\\mu_i]$ (a) and $N$ points representing the phonon numbers per atom (b). Dashed and solid lines correspond to the analytical results: collective cooling rates $\\gamma_X$ (\\[eq\\_colective\\_cooling\\_rate\\]) (blue, dashed-dotted line) and $\\gamma_{X_1}$ (\\[eq\\_colling\\_rates\\_analitical\\]) (red, dashed line) and independent decay rate $\\gamma_{x1}$ (\\[eq\\_independent\\_cooling\\_rate\\]) (green, solid line). Vertical dashed line marks the transition between independent and collective cooling regimes. In both regimes the steady state mean phonon number per atom is close to the limit of a single atom cavity cooling $\\kappa^2/(4\\nu^2)=0.0025$. The cavity detuning is adjusted to the cooling sideband $\\Delta_c'=-\\nu$ for each atom number and the $\\nu=10\\kappa$. Parameter values $\\eta=0.02$, $c_d=0.05$, $\\eta_p=150\\kappa$ result into $c_d(\\eta\\alpha)^2=4.8\\cdot 10^{-3}$.[]{data-label=\"fig_scaling_all_rates\"}](figure2a_2b.eps){width=\"0.95\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe decay rates of the polaritonic modes $\\Gamma_i=-2Re[\\mu_i]$, $i=1,...N+1$, are plotted in figure \\[fig\\_scaling\\_all\\_rates\\].a for different atom numbers in the array. The pump frequency was adjusted to keep the cooling sideband condition $\\Delta_c'=-\\nu$, and the atomic periodicity *vs* the cavity wavelength $d/\\lambda$ was also modified according to (\\[equation\\_periodicity\\]). Other parameters are selected such that $\\epsilon\\ll\\kappa$ and the cavity decay happens much faster than the phonon decay. In this case we clearly see the dominating decay rate $\\Gamma_1\\approx2\\kappa$ corresponding to the polaritonic modes mainly consisting of the cavity mode. Consequently the remaining polaritonic modes will mostly consist of atomic modes. For sufficiently large $N$ the decay rates are well approximated by the analytical expressions for the collective mode decay rates $\\gamma_X$ (blue, dashed-dotted line) and $\\gamma_{X_i}$ (red, dashed line for $\\gamma_{X_1}$ of figure \\[fig\\_scaling\\_all\\_rates\\].a) thus these modes are close to the collective modes introduced in the previous section.\n\nWhen the atom number is small, analytical results (\\[eq\\_colective\\_cooling\\_rate\\],\\[eq\\_colling\\_rates\\_analitical\\]) are no longer valid because the collective mode $X$ cannot be treated independently from the remaining modes $X_i$. It turns out that for $N\\ll 2/c_d$, the polaritonic decay rates $\\Gamma_i$ for $i=2,...N+1$ are well approximated by the independent decay rates of each atom (green, solid line for $\\gamma_{x1}$), found by putting $s_j=0$ for $j\\neq i$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq_independent_cooling_rate}\n\\gamma_{x_i}=\\frac{\\epsilon_i^2}{2\\kappa}\\left[S_-(\\nu_i) -S_+(\\nu_i)\\right]\n=2\\kappa\\,c_d^2(\\alpha\\eta_i)^2\\left[S_-(\\nu_i) -S_+(\\nu_i)\\right].\\end{aligned}$$ Here we introduce an effective coupling strength $\\epsilon_i=2U_0\\eta_i\\alpha s_i$ between the cavity mode and the motion of the $i$-th atom and a Lamb-Dicke parameter for each atom $\\eta_i=k_c\\sqrt{\\hbar/(2m\\nu_i)}$. From this we conclude that atoms do not feel the presence of each other and they are cooled down independently. This is due to the fact that the difference between the trap frequencies is larger than the mechanical damping rate of each atom $\\gamma_{x_i}$ and there is no interference effect between the cooling of different atoms. On the contrary, for a large atom number the frequencies $\\nu_i\\approx\\nu-2 U_0 (\\eta \\alpha)^2\\cos(i\\pi/(N+1))$ are close to each other and when the difference becomes smaller than $\\gamma_{x_i}$ the light mediated interaction between the traps slows down the cooling. A similar interference effect was previously found for two mechanical modes of a micromirror in an optical cavity [@Genes2008]. In figure \\[fig\\_scaling\\_all\\_rates\\].a the transition point between the two regimes in the atomic array when one collective decay rate splits from the others is clearly seen. Its position depends on the array geometry and is captured by $c_dN=\\mathrm{const}$ where $\\mathrm{const}=2$ in the present configuration.\n\nThe steady state mean occupation number of each atom, presented on \\[fig\\_scaling\\_all\\_rates\\].b, practically does not depend on the total number of atoms if the spontaneous emission is neglected. It is approximately the same for all atoms and it is close to the lowest value achievable for a single atom resolved side-band cooling $\\kappa^2/(4\\nu^2)$ (0.0025 for the selected parameters) when the diffusion due to spontaneous emission is negligible [@Vuletic2001]. This is due to the fact that the shifts of the trap frequencies are much smaller than the cavity bandwidth and the cooling sideband conditions are still fulfilled for all the atoms.\n\nComparison of the numerical and analytical results allows us to associate the collective modes of the atomic motion presented in the previous section with the normal polaritonic modes of the full system. It also revealed the transition between two different regimes when atoms are cooled independently or collectively. Comparing the smallest collective decay rate $\\gamma_{X_1}$ with the smallest independent decay rate $\\gamma_{x_1}$ for $N\\gg1$ we see the suppression by a factor $\\gamma_{x_1}/\\gamma_{X_1}=(c_dN/2)^2$. Thus, while the collective effects are favourable for the cooling of one mode shortening its cooling time linearly with $N$ [@Schleier-Smith2011], they destructively suppress the cooling of individual atoms and prolong their cooling time quadratically with N.\n\nOptimal array periodicity *vs* the cavity wavelength {#sec_optimization}\n====================================================\n\nSo far we analysed the configuration when the ratio between the lattice constant and the cavity wavelength was set by expression (\\[equation\\_periodicity\\]), which corresponds to the spread of the trap frequencies over the whole available interval $\\cos(i\\pi/(N+1))\\in(-1,1)$. This provides the largest frequency difference between the traps and supposedly fastest exchange between the collective modes. However, in this case, atoms on the edge of the chain are weakly coupled to the cavity due to the factor $\\sin(i\\pi/(N+1))$, which slows down the cooling. This section shows the existence of the optimal configuration of atoms in the cavity which maximizes the cooling rate due to the trade-off between the frequency separations and the coupling to the cavity.\n\n![Optimization of the cooling procedure. (a): Coupling strength $s_i=\\sin(2k_cx_i^{(0)})$ and frequency $c_i=\\cos(2k_cx_i^{(0)})$ distributions for 9 atoms and the optimization parameter $l=0,2,5$ with steps number $L=10$ (marked by the vertical dotted lines of figure \\[fig\\_optimization\\].b). (b): Minimal decay rate $\\mathrm{Min}\\{\\Gamma_i\\}$ *vs* optimization parameter $l$. Blue circles, magenta squares and yellow diamonds correspond to $N=20,40,60$ respectively. Reference dashed curve is a single atom cooling rate for $s_1=1$.[]{data-label=\"fig_optimization\"}](figure3a_3b.eps){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nConsidering the frequency spread to be symmetric around $\\nu$, the periodicity ratio $d/\\lambda$ and the array location along the cavity axes will be varied to decrease the interval along which the trap frequencies are spread. This will automatically increase the minimal coupling to the cavity. Such a change can be parametrized as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n2k_cx^{(0)}_i=\\frac{l}{L}\\cdot\\frac{\\pi}{2}+ i\\left(\\frac{L-l}{L}\\cdot\\frac{\\pi}{N+1}+2n\\pi\\right),\\,\\,\\,\\,\\, l=0,...L-1;\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\frac{d}{\\lambda}=\\frac{n}{2}+\\frac{1}{4(N+1)}\\cdot\\frac{L-l}{L}.\\end{aligned}$$ Here $L$ is the number of steps in the search for the optimal configuration. By changing the value of the optimization parameter $l$ from $0$ to $L-1$ we go from the largest to the smallest frequency spread. As an example, figure \\[fig\\_optimization\\].a shows the distribution of the frequencies $c_i=\\cos(2k_c x_i^{(0)})$ and couplings $s_i=\\sin(2k_c x_i^{(0)})$ for nine atoms and the optimization parameter $l=0,2,5$ with $L=10$.\n\nFigure \\[fig\\_optimization\\].b shows the change of the minimal cooling rate $\\mathrm{Min\\{\\Gamma_i\\}}$ with $l$ for three different atom numbers $N=20,40,60$. We find one order of magnitude improvement of the cooling rate as a result of the suggested optimization scheme. It is important to mention the role of the array location along the cavity axes. Displacement of the array away from the optimal location will be equivalent to the rotation of the selected segment shown on figure \\[fig\\_optimization\\].a around the origin. This would lead to the reduction of the cooling rate fro some atoms due to the decrease of the coupling to the cavity. Additionally if some $c_i$ become identical, some collective mode of motion will decouple and consequently the steady state phonon number per atom will increase.\n\nIt is experimentally convenient that the trap frequency inhomogeneity is provided by the cavity potential itself because no extra arrangements are needed to lift the trap degeneracy. Additionally, the key role of the array *vs* cavity field periodicity may be used to speed up the cooling by a factor ${\\sim N^2}$ by only displacing and stretching the array along the cavity. Alternatively additional external potentials can be considered to introduce an arbitrary trap inhomogeneity, however this is beyond the scope of this paper.\n\nEffect of spontaneous emission {#sec_spont_em}\n==============================\n\nUp to now only the exchange between the atoms and the cavity mode was considered, and the spontaneous emission of the cavity photons by the atoms into the free space was neglected. Spontaneous emission on a single atom causes diffusion [@Vuletic2001; @Bienert2012; @Zippilli2005a] and, thus, heating. This leads to a higher steady state phonon number than predicted by the model neglecting the spontaneous emission. Now it will be take in to account by considering the additional Langevin sources and decay terms in equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_linearised\\]) which were omitted in the previous sections. In general, the many atom case is different from the single atom configuration. Nevertheless, we can already guess that in the individual cooling regime, when the atom number is sufficiently small, the many- and single-atom cases will be similar and here it will be proven analytically. More importantly, in this section I will also treat in detail the effect of the spontaneous emission in the collective cooling regime. We will see that the destructive suppression of the cooling rates discussed in the previous sections leads yet to another problem when accounting for the spontaneous emission: as the cooling slows down, the diffusion due to the spontaneous scattering into the free space accumulates during a longer time. This increases the steady state photon number in the traps setting an additional limitation for the proposed cooling scheme. This section presents both the numerical and analytical studies of the effect including the results derived for the first time for the considered configuration: many atoms in a pumped cavity. The results will be used to find the guidelines on how to set the parameters to avoid undesirable heating and to achieve the proposed cooling scheme experimentally feasible.\n\nIn the regime of the independent cooling, i.e. when the atom number is sufficiently small, we shall compare the exact solution with the analytical result for a single atom. The rate equation for the mean occupation number in $i$-th trap is derived by putting $\\epsilon_ j$ ($j\\neq i$) to zero and adiabatically eliminating the cavity mode assuming that $\\kappa_\\mathrm{eff}\\gg\\epsilon_i$. The cooling rate remains the same (\\[eq\\_independent\\_cooling\\_rate\\]) and the steady state phonon number is found to be: $$\\label{eq_phonon_number_sp_em}\nn_{i}(t\\rightarrow\\infty)=\n\\frac{S_+(\\nu_i)}{S_-(\\nu_i)-S_+(\\nu_i)}\\left(1\n+\\frac{1}{2c_r}\\frac{K_i}{s^2_i}\\frac{1}{S_+(\\nu_i)}\\right).$$ In the expression for $S_\\pm(\\nu_i)$ the cavity decay rate $\\kappa$ should be replaced by the modified rate $\\kappa_\\mathrm{eff}$, although under the condition (\\[ineq\\_cavity\\_decay\\_vs\\_sp\\_em\\]) the dominating effects of the spontaneous emission will be captures if $\\kappa_\\mathrm{eff}\\approx\\kappa$, so will be assumed in the following. This expression clearly demonstrates the necessity of a large cooperativity $c_r$ to reach the ground state cooling. It is in agreement with the results reported in [@Vuletic2001; @Zippilli2005a] with the only difference being a numerical factor of the order of unity accounting for different pumping configuration. This result also coincides (up to the second order in $1/\\Delta_p$) with the the result reported in [@Bienert2012], there the cavity pump configuration was also considered. It is interesting to note that the initial assumption on the intra-cavity mean photon number made in this work ($|\\alpha|^2\\gg\\langle\\hat{a}^\\dag\\hat{a}\\rangle$) is essentially different to the one of [@Bienert2012] ($|\\alpha|^2\\ll1$). The exact agreement between the results underlines that the limit of a small intra-cavity photon number and the limit of a small fluctuation around a large inta-cavity photon number are two related approximations in the far off-resonance regime.\n\nFor the case of $N$ atoms inside a cavity the problem is now solved numerically and the results are compared with the a single atom case in figure \\[fig\\_occupation number\\_decay\\_rates\\_sp\\_em\\]. The scaling of the steady state phonon number with $N$ is presented for two different atomic configurations: the optimized configuration (figure \\[fig\\_occupation number\\_decay\\_rates\\_sp\\_em\\].a) and the one considered in figure \\[fig\\_scaling\\_all\\_rates\\] (figure \\[fig\\_occupation number\\_decay\\_rates\\_sp\\_em\\].b). In agreement with the cooling rate scaling presented on figure \\[fig\\_scaling\\_all\\_rates\\] the steady state phonon number scaling confirms that up to a certain atom number atoms cool down independently according to (\\[eq\\_phonon\\_number\\_sp\\_em\\]). Above this atom number the cooling slows down which causes the increase of the phonon number as more spontaneous emission events occur during a longer cooling time. Thus the transition from the individual to the collective cooling accompanied by the suppression of the cooling rate and the increase of the mean phonon number quadratically with the atom number is present in both configuration. For the selected parameters $c_d=0.05$ and $c_r=10$ up to $20$ atoms can be cooled close to the ground state with the phonon number less than $0.1$.\n\n![Steady state occupation numbers per atom vs the atom number N. (a): optimal configuration with $l=5$, $L=10$, (b): configuration corresponding to figure \\[fig\\_scaling\\_all\\_rates\\] with $l=0$. A resonance cooperativity $\\frac{g^2}{\\kappa\\gamma}=10$ and other parameters are identical to those of figure \\[fig\\_scaling\\_all\\_rates\\]. Analytical result for a single atom (\\[eq\\_phonon\\_number\\_sp\\_em\\]) reproduces the numerical calculation for small $N$ ($N$-th trap (red, solid line) and first (a) or middle (b) trap of the array (blue, dot-dashed line)). For the large atom number the numerical results are reproduced by expressions (\\[eq\\_phonon\\_number\\_col\\_sp\\_em\\]) found in the collective cooling regime (red and blue dashed lines in (b)). The geometric coefficient $C_{xi}$ is set to 2/5 (the case of a classical dipole parallel to $x$ axes).[]{data-label=\"fig_occupation number_decay_rates_sp_em\"}](figure4a_4b.eps){width=\"0.95\\columnwidth\"}\n\nIn the resolved side band limit $\\kappa\\ll\\nu$ expression (\\[eq\\_phonon\\_number\\_sp\\_em\\]) simplifies towards ${n_{i}\\approx\n\\frac{\\kappa^2}{4\\nu_i^2}\n+\\frac{1}{2c_r}\\frac{K_i}{s_i^2}\\left(1+\\frac{\\kappa^2}{4\\nu_i^2}\\right)}$ and it is possible to estimate the steady state phonon number in the regime of collective cooling by taking into account the ratio between the individual (\\[eq\\_independent\\_cooling\\_rate\\]) and collective (\\[eq\\_colling\\_rates\\_analitical\\]) cooling rates $\\gamma_{x_1}/\\gamma_{X_1}=(c_dN/2)^2$: $$\\label{eq_phonon_number_col_sp_em}\nn_{i}(N\\gg 2/c_d)=\n\\frac{\\kappa^2}{4\\nu_i^2}\n+\\frac{(c_dN/2)^2}{2c_r}\\frac{K_i}{s_i^2}\\left(1+\\frac{\\kappa^2}{4\\nu_i^2}\\right).$$ As can be seen in figure \\[fig\\_occupation number\\_decay\\_rates\\_sp\\_em\\].b, this expression reproduces the exact result for the atom number $N\\gg 2/c_d$ . To suppress the spontaneous emission effect (the second term) the single atom cooperativity should obey the inequality: $$\\label{ineq_cooperativity_sp_em}\nc_r\\gg c_d^2 N^2/(8 s_i^2).$$ This is fundamentally different from the condition in the case of a single atom $c_r \\gg1$ where $c_d$ does not enter and consequently the detuning does not play a role. It is because the cooling rate (\\[eq\\_colling\\_rates\\_analitical\\]) no longer depends on $c_d$ and thus on the detuning, while the spontaneous emission rate does. As we see from (\\[ineq\\_cooperativity\\_sp\\_em\\]), in the case of collective cooling the cooperativity $c_r$ is required to be larger than in a single atom, i.e. the positive effect of the cavity is corrupted by the destructive interference in the cooling dynamic. But at the same time the detuning is becoming a knob to reduce the diffusion caused by the spontaneous emission.\n\nInequality (\\[ineq\\_cooperativity\\_sp\\_em\\]) is equivalent to ${\\kappa\\gg\\gamma \\frac{g^2}{\\Delta_a^2}N^2/(8 s_i^2)}$. The optimization decreases the phonon number for the hottest atom ($s_i\\approx \\pi/N$) and improves the scaling by a factor ${\\sim N^2}$. In this case the condition sufficient to suppress the effect of spontaneous emission is found to be: $$\\label{ineq_supression_sp_em}\n{\\kappa\\gg\\gamma \\frac{g^2}{\\Delta_a^2}N^2}.$$ This inequality should be compared to the condition (\\[ineq\\_cavity\\_decay\\_vs\\_sp\\_em\\]) insuring that the spontaneous emission rate is much lower than the cavity decay rate, ${\\kappa\\gg\\gamma \\frac{g^2}{\\Delta_a^2}N}$, assumed through the derivations. Condition (\\[ineq\\_cavity\\_decay\\_vs\\_sp\\_em\\]) was also considered to be sufficient for neglect the spontaneous emission effect in the configuration different to the one presented here, i.e. homogeneour cold atomic cloud instead of the array [@Gangl1999; @Horak2000]. As we can see, an additional factor of $N$ makes condition (\\[ineq\\_supression\\_sp\\_em\\]) more strict than (\\[ineq\\_cavity\\_decay\\_vs\\_sp\\_em\\]). This is a special feature of the collective cooling regime, when the distructive interference suppresses the cooling effect.\n\nLets now estimate experimental accessibility of the proposed cooling scheme for a chain of $^{87}$Rb atoms using the limitation (\\[ineq\\_supression\\_sp\\_em\\]) as a guideline. Given the recoil frequency $\\omega_R=2\\pi\\cdot3.9$ kHz and demanding a Lamb-Dicke parameter of $\\eta=0.04$, the trap frequencies shall be set to $\\nu=2\\pi\\cdot 2.4$ MHz. The resolved side-band condition requires the cavity bandwidth to be at maximum $\\kappa=2\\pi\\cdot240$ kHz. From figure \\[fig\\_optimization\\].a the cooling rate for the array of 20 atoms is $10^{-4}\\kappa$ which gives a cooling time of about $6.6$ ms. This is a realistic time comparable with the stability of an optical trap which will form the array, and it is close to the single atom cooling time experimentally achieved via Raman side-band cooling [@Reiserer2013]. This rate can be achieved with the single atom-cavity coupling strength $g=2\\pi\\cdot 3.8$ MHz leading to cooperativity $c_r=10$ and the detuning from the atomic resonance $\\Delta_a=2\\pi\\cdot 1.2$ GHz. The diffusion due to the spontaneous emission will set the limit for the number of atoms which can be cooled to the ground state. The upper bound of this limit can be estimated form condition (\\[ineq\\_supression\\_sp\\_em\\]), ${N^2\\ll\\kappa\\left(\\gamma\\frac{g^2}{\\Delta_a^2}\\right)^{-1}}$, and it is about ten for the selected parameters. To push this limit without changing the cooling rate constant one could go further away from the atomic transition and simultaneously increase the coupling strength $g\\sim \\sqrt{\\Delta_a}$.\n\nThe cavity cooling protocol for an atomic array proposed in this work is shown to be limited by the presence of spontaneous emission. The Heisenberg-Langevin equations derived for the first time in the considered configuration were used to quantify this limitations and shown that the proposed scheme is experimentally feasible. Moreover the predicted cooling times for an array of tens of atoms at the reachable experimental is comparable with the best achived up to date for a single atom case [@Reiserer2013].\n\nConclusion {#sec_conclusion}\n==========\n\nCooling of the array of an atomic array via coupling to a single mode cavity is accessible when the inhomogeneity of the atomic trap frequencies is present. This work shows that the intra-cavity field with sufficiently large photon number is able to provide this inhomogeneity, simultaneously mediating the cooling of atoms to the ground state of the individual wells.\n\nThe cooling dynamics drastically changes with the size of the array from (i) the regime when atoms are cooled independently from each other to (ii) when the cooling happens via collective modes which increase the cooling time and the steady state mean phonon number by a factor $\\sim(c_dN)^2$. The main reason for the suppression of the cooling at the large atom number is the destructive interference occurring because the separations between the trap frequencies become comparable with mechanical damping rate (an analog of the linewidth). It results into the destructive suppression of the cooling which is a signature of an enhancement of the cavity mediated atom-atom interaction. Consequently the detrimental spontaneous emission effect increases with the atom number and a larger single atom cooperativity $c_r\\gg (c_dN)^2$ is necessary to suppress it.\n\nDue to the periodic nature of the inhomogeneity induced by the cavity field the periodicity of the array *vs* the cavity mode plays a crucial role in the cooling dynamics. It allows an optimization of the cooling by adjusting the lattice constant and the array position along the cavity axes offering one order of magnitude gain in the cooling speed. Cooling of a few tens of atoms to the ground state of motion within a few milliseconds is experimantaly feasible with the use of the suggested scheme. This demonstrates a controlability of the array motion with a single mode cavity and sets the basis for the further exploration of the quantum optomechanical interface and, possibly, generation of novel non-classical states of collective atomic motion. Moreover, our cooling scheme can also be extended to the case of an array of micro- or manometer scale mechanical oscillators which makes it a useful tool for different systems.\n\nI would like to thank Giovanna Morigi for the wise guidelines along the project and comments on the manuscript, Marc Bienert for the discussions, critical reading and comments on the manuscript, Cecilia Cormick, Endre Kajari, and Monika Schleier-Smith for the fruitful discussions of the work in progress, Thomas Fogarty for reading the manuscript and for the linguistic advising, and Pavel Bushev and Lars Madsen for the useful comments on the manuscript. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the FP7-ICT collaborative project AQUTE (grant number: 247687) and the individual Marie Curie IEF project AAPLQIC (grant number: 330004).\n\nHeisenberg-Langevin equations: atom motion and cavity light \n============================================================\n\nThe main ideas and the key steps of the derivation of equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_sp\\_em\\]) and (\\[eq\\_cor\\_fun\\_sp\\_em\\]) are presented in this appendix. The starting point is the full Hamiltonian of the system, which includes the cavity field, the atoms with their spin and mechanical degrees of freedom, and the reservoir containing the field modes outside of the cavity which interact directly with the atoms: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathrm{H}_\\mathrm{tot}=\\mathrm{H}_\\mathrm{sys}\n+\\sum_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\\hbar\\omega_{k}\\hat{a}^\\dag_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n- \\sum_{\n{ i=1} \\atop {\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n}\n    ^{N}\n    \\hbar g_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                            \\left(\n                            \\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}\\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon} e^{i\\vec{k}\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i}\n                        +\\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\\hat{a}^\\dag_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}e^{-i\\vec{k}\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i}\n                 \\right).\\end{aligned}$$ The creation $\\hat{a}^\\dag_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}$ and annihilation $\\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}$ operators of the reservoir modes are labeled by the wave vector $\\vec{k}$ and the polarization $\\epsilon$ indexes and the summation goes over all the free space modes excluding those entering through the cavity mirrors. The last term in the Hamiltonian represents the interaction between the atoms and the reservoir field modes in the rotating wave approximation with the interaction constant $g_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}=\\sqrt{\\frac{\\omega_k}{2 \\pi \\hbar V \\epsilon_0}}\\,\\,\\,\\vec{\\varepsilon}_\\epsilon\\cdot\\vec{d}_{eg}$. Here $\\vec{d}_{eg}$ is an atomic dipole moment, $V$ is the quantization volume and $\\epsilon_0$ the vacuum permittivity. The spin of the $i$-th atom is represented by the operators $\\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}=|g\\rangle_i\\langle e|$, $\\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}=|e\\rangle_i\\langle g|$ and $\\sigma^{(i)}_{z}=|g\\rangle_i\\langle g|-|e\\rangle_i\\langle e|$. The atom-cavity Hamiltonian $\\mathrm{H_{sys}}$ contains the non-interacting parts $H_\\mathrm{0}$, the interaction part $H_\\mathrm{int}$ and the cavity pumping $H_\\mathrm{p}$ : $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq_system_Hamiltonian}\n\\mathrm{H}_\\mathrm{sys}=H_\\mathrm{0}+H_\\mathrm{int}+H_\\mathrm{p},\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\nH_\\mathrm{0}=-\\hbar\\frac{\\omega_{eg}}{2} \\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\sigma^{(i)}_z-\\hbar \\omega_c \\hat{A}^\\dag \\hat{A}\n+\\sum_{i=1}^N \\left( \\frac{m \\nu^2}{2}\\hat{x}^2_i+\\frac{1}{2m}\\hat{p}^2_i\\right),\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\nH_\\mathrm{int}=-\\hbar g\\sum_{i=1}^{N} \\cos(k_c x^{(0)}_i+k_c\\hat{x}_i)\\left(\\sigma^{(i)}_{eg} \\hat{A}+\\hat{A}^\\dag \\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\\right)\n\\nonumber,\n\\\\\nH_\\mathrm{p}=i\\hbar\\left(\\eta_p\\hat{A}^\\dag e^{-i\\omega_p t}-\\eta_p^*\\hat{A}e^{i\\omega_p t}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ The Heisenberg-Langevin equations for the atom-cavity system and reservoir are: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq_HL_system+reservoir}\n\\dot{\\hat{a}}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}=-i \\omega_k \\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                                      - g_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\\sigma^{(i)}_{ge} \n                                        e^{-i\\vec{k}\\cdot\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i},\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\dot{\\hat{A}}=\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[\\mathrm{H_{sys}},\\hat{A}\\right]\n-\\kappa \\hat{A}\n+\\sqrt{2\\kappa}\\hat{A}_{in},\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\dot{\\sigma}^{(i)}_{ge}=\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[\\mathrm{H_{sys}},\\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\\right]\n+i \\sigma^{(i)}_{z}\\sum_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                   g_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                   e^{i\\vec{k}\\cdot\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i},\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\dot{\\sigma}^{(i)}_z=\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[\\mathrm{H_{sys}},\\sigma^{(i)}_{z}\\right]\n+2i\\sum_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                   \\left(\n                   g^*_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\\hat{a}^\\dag_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                   e^{-i\\vec{k}\\cdot\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i}\n                         -g_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}\\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                   e^{i\\vec{k}\\cdot\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i}\n                   \\right),\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\dot{\\hat{p}}_i=\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[\\mathrm{H_{sys}},\\hat{p}_i\\right]\n+i\\sum_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                  \\hbar k_x\n                   \\left(\n                  g^*_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\n                                          \\hat{a}^\\dag_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                                           e^{-i\\vec{k}\\cdot\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i}\n                 -g_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}\n                                           \\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                                            e^{i\\vec{k}\\cdot\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i}\n                   \\right),\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\dot{\\hat{x}}_i=\\hat{p}_i/m.\\end{aligned}$$ The first step on the way to the equation which contain only the atomic quantum motion and the cavity field is to eliminate the reservoir. It is done by formally solving the first equation of system (\\[eq\\_HL\\_system+reservoir\\]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}(t)=\\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}(0)e^{-i\\omega_k t}\n                       -ig^*_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\n                       \\int_0^t e^{-i\\omega_k(t-\\tau)}\\sum_{i=1}^N \\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}(\\tau)\n                                     e^{-i\\vec{k}\\cdot\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i}d\\tau,\\end{aligned}$$ and plugging this solution into the remaining equation of system (\\[eq\\_HL\\_system+reservoir\\]). Assuming a markovian memoryless reservoir [@Cohen-Tannoudji1992; @Gardinner2004] the system of equations can be developed to the following form: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq_HL_spin+motion+losses}\n\\dot{\\sigma}^{(i)}_{ge}=\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[\\mathrm{H_{sys}},\\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\\right]\n-\\frac{\\gamma}{2}\\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\n+i \\sigma^{(i)}_{z}\\hat{F}_i(t),\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\dot{\\sigma}^{(i)}_z=\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[\\mathrm{H_{sys}},\\sigma^{(i)}_{z}\\right] \n         -\\gamma \\left(\\sigma^{(i)}_z+\\mathrm{I}\\right)\n        +2i\\left(\n             \\hat{F}_i^\\dag(t) \\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\n             -\\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}\\hat{F}_i(t)\n              \\right),\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\dot{\\hat{p}}_i=\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\left[\\mathrm{H_{sys}},\\hat{p}_i\\right]\n+i\\left(\n             \\hat{F}_{pi}^\\dag(t) \\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}\n             -\\sigma^{(i)}_{eg}\\hat{F}_{pi}(t)\n              \\right),\\end{aligned}$$ with $\\mathrm{I}$ is the identity operator. Here the Langevin sources contain the operators ${\\hat{F}_i(t)=\\sum_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}g_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon} \n                                            e^{i\\left(\\vec{k}\\cdot\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i(t)-\\omega_k t\\right)}                                           \n                                            \\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}(0)}$ and ${\\hat{F}_{pi}(t)=\\sum_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}\\hbar k_xg_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon} \n                                            e^{i\\left(\\vec{k}\\cdot\\vec{\\hat{r}}_i(t)-\\omega_k t\\right)}                                           \n                                            \\hat{a}_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}(0)}$ accounting for the noise entering the atom-cavity system from the reservoir. Under the assumption that all the modes of the reservoir are in the vacuum state the only non zero correlation function of the operators $\\hat{F}_i$ and $\\hat{F}_i^\\dag$ is ${\\langle\\hat{F}_i(t)\\hat{F}_i^\\dag(t')\\rangle=g(t-t')e^{-i\\omega_{eg}(t-t')}}$. The function ${g(\\tau)=\\sum_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}|g_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}|^2e^{-i(\\omega_k-\\omega_{eg})\\tau}}$ is not exactly the delta-function although if the reservoir bandwidth is much larger than the inverse of the smallest time step considered in the problem then, it approaches a delta function ${\\int_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty} g(\\tau)d\\tau=2\\pi\\sum_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}|g_{\\vec{k},\\epsilon}|^2\\delta(\\omega_k-\\omega_{eg})=\\gamma}$ [@Cohen-Tannoudji1992]. Apart from the spontaneous decay rate $\\gamma$ also a negligibly small energy shift additional to $\\omega_{eg}$ appears due to the spontaneous emission which will further on be reabsorbed into the frequency.\n\nThe second step is the adiabatic elimination of the atomic excited state in the limit of the large detuning $\\Delta_a\\gg\\gamma,g\\sqrt{N_{ph}},\\kappa,\\nu$. This is done by formaly solving the first two equations of system (\\[eq\\_HL\\_spin+motion+losses\\]) and expanding the solution up to the second order in $1/\\Delta_a$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq_optical_coherence_2order}\n\\sigma^{(i)}_{ge}=\n&-&\\frac{g f(\\hat{x}_i)}{\\Delta_a}\\left[\n\\left(1+\\frac{\\Delta_c}{\\Delta_a}+i\\frac{\\frac{\\gamma}{2}-\\kappa}{\\Delta_a}\\right)\\hat{A}^\\dag\n+\\frac{i}{\\Delta_a}\\left(\\eta_p^*e^{i\\omega_p t} + \\sqrt{2\\kappa}\\hat{A}^\\dag_{in}\\right)\n\\right]\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n&-&i\\frac{g\\sqrt{\\omega_R\\nu}}{\\sqrt{2}\\Delta^2_a}f'(\\hat{x}_i)\\frac{\\hat{p}_i}{\\Delta p}\\hat{A}^\\dag\n+i\\frac{\\hat{F}^\\dag(t)}{i\\Delta_a+\\gamma/2}\n+O(\\frac{1}{\\Delta_a^3}).\\end{aligned}$$ The geometric functions depending on the positions of the atoms along the cavity are $f(\\hat{x}_i)=\\cos(k_cx_i^{(0)})-\\sin(k_cx_i^{(0)})k_c\\hat{x}_i-\\frac{1}{2}\\cos(k_cx_i^{(0)})(k_c\\hat{x}_i)^2$ and $f'(\\hat{x}_i)=-\\sin(k_cx_i^{(0)})-\\cos(k_cx_i^{(0)})k_c\\hat{x}_i$ up to the second order the Lamb-Dicke parameter.\n\nThe final point needed to arrive from equations (\\[eq\\_HL\\_spin+motion+losses\\]) to equation (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_sp\\_em\\]) and (\\[eq\\_cor\\_fun\\_sp\\_em\\]) is the relations between the functions $\\hat{F}_i(t)$ and $\\hat{F}_{p_i}(t)$ and the normalized Langevin sources $ \\hat{f}_{ai}(t)$ and $ \\hat{f}_{bi}(t)$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{f}_{ai}(t)=\\frac{1}{\\gamma}\\hat{F}_i e^{i\\omega_p t}\n\\\\\n\\nonumber\n\\hat{f}_{bi}(t)=\\frac{\\cos(k_c x_i^{(0)})}{\\sqrt{\\gamma}}\n                             \\left(\\hat{F}^\\dag_i e^{-i\\omega_p t}+\\hat{F}_i e^{i\\omega_p t}\\right)\n                       +\\frac{i\\sin(k_c x_i^{(0)})}{\\sqrt{\\gamma}\\hbar k_c}\n                             \\left(\\hat{F}^\\dag_{pi} e^{-i\\omega_p t}-\\hat{F}_{pi} e^{i\\omega_p t}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\\[H-L\\_equations\\_sp\\_em\\]) and (\\[eq\\_cor\\_fun\\_sp\\_em\\]) are then derived from equations (\\[eq\\_HL\\_spin+motion+losses\\]) using these relations, expression (\\[eq\\_optical\\_coherence\\_2order\\]) and keeping only the terms up to the second order in $1/\\Delta_a$.\n\nReferences\n==========\n\n[99]{}\n\nS.\u00a0Gupta, K.\u00a0Moore, K.\u00a0Murch, and D.\u00a0Stamper-Kurn 2007 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{} 213601\n\nM.\u00a0Schleier-Smith, I.\u00a0Leroux, H.\u00a0Zhang, M.\u00a0[Van Camp]{}, and V.\u00a0Vuleti\u0107 2011 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{} 143005\n\nL.\u00a0Brandt, C.\u00a0Muldoon, T.\u00a0Thiele, J.\u00a0Dong, E.\u00a0Brainis, and A.\u00a0Kuhn 2010 [*App. Phys. B*]{} [**102**]{} 443\n\nP.\u00a0F. Herskind, A.\u00a0Dantan, J.\u00a0P. Marler, M.\u00a0Albert, and M.\u00a0Drewsen, 2009 [*Nature Physics*]{} [**5**]{} 494\n\nD.\u00a0M. Stamper-Kurn, 2012 [*arXiv:1204.4351*]{}\n\nH.\u00a0Ritsch, P.\u00a0Domokos, F.\u00a0Brennecke, and T.\u00a0Esslinger 2013 [*Rev. of Mod. Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} 553\n\nD.\u00a0W.\u00a0C. Brooks, T.\u00a0Botter, S.\u00a0Schreppler, T.\u00a0P. Purdy, N.\u00a0Brahms, and D.\u00a0M. Stamper-Kurn 2012 [*Nature*]{} [**488**]{} 476\n\nA.\u00a0Peng and A.\u00a0Parkins 202 [*Phys.l Rev. A*]{} [**65**]{} 062323\n\nG.-X. Li 2006 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**74**]{} 055801\n\nC.\u00a0Cormick and G.\u00a0Morigi 2013 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**87**]{} 013829\n\nS.\u00a0Hamann, D.\u00a0Haycock, G.\u00a0Klose, P.\u00a0Pax, I.\u00a0Deutsch, and P.\u00a0Jessen, 1998 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{} 4149\n\nB.\u00a0Lev, A.\u00a0Vukics, E.\u00a0Hudson, B.\u00a0Sawyer, P.\u00a0Domokos, H.\u00a0Ritsch, and J.\u00a0Ye 2008 [*A.*]{} [**77**]{} 023402\n\nJ.\u00a0Cirac, M.\u00a0Lewenstein, and P.\u00a0Zoller 1995 [*A*]{} [**51**]{} 1650\n\nV.\u00a0Vuleti\u0107, H.\u00a0Chan, and A.\u00a0Black 2001 [*A*]{} [**64**]{} 033405\n\nS.\u00a0Zippilli and G.\u00a0Morigi 2005 [**]{} [**95**]{} 143001\n\nD.\u00a0Leibrandt, J.\u00a0Labaziewicz, V.\u00a0Vuleti\u0107, and I.\u00a0Chuang 2009 [**]{} [**103**]{} 103001\n\nT.\u00a0Els\u00e4sser, B.\u00a0Nagorny, and A.\u00a0Hemmerich 2003 [*A*]{} [**67**]{} 051401(R)\n\nA.\u00a0Xuereb, C.\u00a0Genes, and A.\u00a0Dantan 2012 [**]{}, [**109**]{} 223601\n\nP.\u00a0Domokos and H.\u00a0Ritsch 2003 [*B*]{} [**20**]{} 1098\n\nJ.\u00a0Larson, S.\u00a0Fern\u00e1ndez-Vidal, G.\u00a0Morigi, and M.\u00a0Lewenstein 2008 [**]{} [**10**]{} 045002\n\nM\u00a0Bienert and G.\u00a0Morigi 2012 [*A*]{} [**86**]{} 053402\n\nD.\u00a0Vitali, P.\u00a0Ca\u00f1izares, J.\u00a0Eschner, and G.\u00a0Morigi 2008 [**]{} [**10**]{} 033025\n\nDaniel A. Steck. Alkali D Line Data. http://steck.us/alkalidata/\n\nC.\u00a0Genes, D.\u00a0Vitali, and P.\u00a0Tombesi 2008 [**]{} [**10**]{} 095009\n\nJ.\u00a0Eschner, G.\u00a0Morigi, F.\u00a0Schmidt-Kaler, and R.\u00a0Blatt 2003 [*B*]{} [**20**]{} 1003\n\nF.\u00a0Marquardt, J.\u00a0Chen, A.\u00a0Clerk, and S.\u00a0Girvin 2007 [**]{} [**99**]{} 093902\n\nS.\u00a0Stenholm 1986 [**]{} [**58**]{} 699\n\nS.\u00a0Zippilli and G.\u00a0Morigi 2005 [*A*]{} [**72**]{} 053408\n\nM.\u00a0Gangl and H.\u00a0Ritsch 1999 [*A*]{} [**61**]{} 011402(R)\n\nP.\u00a0Horak, S.\u00a0Barnett, and H.\u00a0Ritsch 2000 [*A*]{} [**61**]{} 033609 A.\u00a0Reiserer, C.\u00a0N\u00f6lleke, S.\u00a0Ritter, and G.\u00a0Rempe 2013 [**]{} [**110**]{} 223003\n\nC. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg John [*Atom-photon interactions: Basic processes and applications*]{} Wiley and Sons, New York (1992) 656 pages\n\nC. Gardiner, P. Zoller [*Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics*]{} Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2004) 449 pages\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Stock prediction is a topic undergoing intense study for many years. Finance experts and mathematicians have been working on a way to predict the future stock price so as to decide to buy the stock or sell it to make profit. Stock experts or economists, usually analyze on the previous stock values using technical indicators, sentiment analysis etc to predict the future stock price. In recent years, many researches have extensively used machine learning for predicting the stock behaviour. In this paper we propose data driven deep learning approach to predict the future stock value with the previous price with the feature extraction property of convolutional neural network and to use Neural Arithmetic Logic Units with it.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Shangeth Rajaa[^1]\\\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    BITS Pilani Goa Campus\\\n    Goa, India 403725\\\n    `f20160442@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in`\\\n    Jajati Keshari Sahoo\\\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    BITS Pilani Goa Campus\\\n    Goa, India 403725\\\n    `jksahoo@goa.bits-pilani.ac.in`\\\nbibliography:\n- 'paper.bib'\ntitle: Convolutional Feature Extraction and Neural Arithmetic Logic Units for Stock Prediction\n---\n\nINTRODUCTION\n============\n\nA large number of people buy and sell stocks everyday in an aim to make maximum profit. Many mathematical methods and models have been developed which analyses the movement of the stock price. But its not sure if the future stock prices can actually be predicted due to its dependency on various factors and its dynamic nature. In recent years, machine learning and deep learning are being used in almost all the industries including finance. Machine learning in one way can be viewed as a function approximation(or a complex multiple dimensional curve fitting) for a given data. Machine learning can analyse and learn the complex multiple dimensional features of the data which humans cannot visualize or learn. Although there are several mathematical models and techniques for stock prediction, this paper focuses on data driven machine learning approach with least knowledge in finance.The future stock price is to be predicted given the past prices. This paper tries to use and analyse the complex feature extraction ability of deep learning to learn the pattern of the stock price movement and predict the future price.\n\nMACHINE LEARNING\n================\n\nIn recent times machine learning research in finance has been steadily increasing. There are generally 2 types of tasks in machine learning, classification and regression. Supervised machine learning regression model will be used for this stock prediction task.\n\nClassical Machine Learning Algorithms\n-------------------------------------\n\nClassical machine learning algorithms are much more easier to interpret and understand than deep learning as we have a thorough understanding of underlying algorithms. These algorithms works better even on smaller data set and are computationally cheaper than deep learning techniques. Many researches have been done in predicting the stock price using classical machine learning algorithms. The author of [@svm1] has used Support Vector Machine (SVM) for financial forecasting and also did experimental analysis of parameters for SVM. Random forest techniques are also used in financial data, in [@treemodel]. Random forest, Naive bayes and support vector machine are used for classification the direction of movement of financial data.\n\nDeep Learning\n-------------\n\nAlthough many machine learning algorithms exists and are successful, the evolution of deep learning marked a great milestone in the field of Artificial intelligence. The base work for deep learning started in 1940s, but it became more popular recently due to availability of more data and cheap computation devices. The performance of deep learning models increased exponentially every year and is projected to increase more. Image classification task is performed in [@annimage] using a Artificial Neural networks. After Neural Networks, many new models were invented to increase the performance of deep learning in images, videos and time series data such as text, voice, etc. Convolutional Neural Network [@alexnet] won the imagenet competition as it was good in extracting features of images/frames. Then Recurrent Neural networks [@rnn] were used for series data such as text and voice which needed a memory to remember the previous data features. Deep learning also performs very good in unsupervised models such as Auto Encoder [@ae] , General Adverserial Networks(GAN) [@gan] and in Reinforcement Learning.\n\nDeep Learning in Finance\n========================\n\nArtificial Neural Networks(ANN)\n-------------------------------\n\nANNs are models comprised of densely connected computation nodes(neurons). These neural networks have the ability to learn complex features of the input data and perform the task. ANNs are series of matrix multiplication with non-linear function to make the whole network non linear to learn more complex features. $$\\label{eq:1}\nh_1 = \\phi(X.W_1 + b_1)$$ $$\\label{eq:2}\nh_i = \\phi(h_{i-1}.W_i + b_i)$$ $$\\label{eq:3}\n\\hat{y} =  \\phi(h_{n}. W_n + b_n)$$\n\nwhere n is the number of layers in the network, h is the hidden unit , $\\hat{y}$ is the prediction in forward pass through the model abd $\\phi$ is the activation function. [@ann1] and [@ann2] uses Artificial Neural Networks to predict the stock price and direction of movement of the price. Dimensionality reduction techniques such as Principle Component Analysis(PCA) are used in [@drann] for stock prediction. Artificial neural networks are also experimented for the task of predicting close price after 5 time interval(days/hour/minute). Data got from data processing steps explained in PROPOSED APPROACH was used and Tensors of shape (n, 20) was used as input data , where n is the number of data. And tensor of shape (n,1) was the label. The model consists of 4 layers of Fully Connected Dense Layer with dropouts and ReLU Non Linearity.\n\nConvolutional Neural Network\n----------------------------\n\nConvolutional Neural Network(CNN)s are stacks of convolution operations between input which is passed through the network and filters(kernels) which extract the features of the input. The network is also activated with some activation function like ReLU for non linearity . The dimension of the layers are reduced with Pooling layers to reduce computation and it can also be viewed as increasing the feature concentration. [@convfin1] shows the potential of convolutional neural network for finance stock prediction. 1-d convolutional network [@convfin2] is also used to predict the stock movement as a classification model with 1 day close, open, high, low, volume data. For this experiment, since the data is 1 dimensional , Conv1d(1 dimensional convolutional layers) of Pytorch is used with 3 convolutional layers with MaxPooling and ReLU activation. Then the convolutional layers are flattened into tensor of shape (n, 1, -1), where n is the number of data in the batch and -1 represents length of the layer multiplied by number of channels in the last convolutional layer. Followed by 3 layers of Dense or Fully Connected Layers with ReLU activation and Dropouts to avoid over fitting of the data.\n\nRecurrent Neural Networks\n-------------------------\n\nRecurrent Neural network predicts an output given an input but in a sequential manner. The inputs and outputs are in sequence like text or audio. $$\\label{eq:4}\nh_t = \\phi(X_t . W_x + h_{t-1} . W_h)$$ $$\\label{eq:3}\n\\hat{y_t} = \\phi(h_t . W_y)$$\n\nwhere $W_x, W_y, W_y$ are the weights, $h_t$ is the hidden state or memory state of state/time t and $\\phi$ is the activation function. The financial data can be seen as a sequential data , the future stock price is predicted in [@lstm1] using LSTM network. A hybrid model RNN was used in [@lstm2] to predict the stock price.\n\nNeural Arithmetic Logic Units\n-----------------------------\n\nNeural Networks, although can perform several tasks nearly to human level accuracy, but they seem to fail when it encounters quantities outside the range of training data, like extrapolation. This shows that that the models actually try to fit the data rather than to generalize and learn it. [@nalu] proposed a new module Neural Accumulator and Neural Arithmetic Logic Units which can be added to any neural network architecture which helps in generalizing quantities to neural network and helps the model to generalize for tasks like extrapolation.\n\nStock prediction in one way can also be seen as an extrapolation task , where we are trying to predict the stock price in the future which can be above or below the range of out training data. In this paper we propose to use the ability of the Neural Arithmetic Logic Units to generalize and extrapolate to our task of stock prediction.\n\nProposed Approach\n=================\n\nData\n----\n\n![Closing Stock Prices data[]{data-label=\"close_data\"}](images/close_data.png){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\nHistorical stock price data of India from Feb, 2015 to Aug, 2018 was used for this research. The data contains columns like Date, Close, High, Low, Open, Volume. This data changes every 1 hour, a total of around 6200 price data. The data set is checked for missing data and removed. Only Close prices are taken. All the other columns such as Date, High, Low, Open, Volume are omitted in the data. The goal is to predict stock closing price after 5 interval, with the closing price of past 20 intervals. This is a regression task to predict the exact closing price. For computational reasons and faster convergence, the data is scaled to a range of 0-1. The stock values are scaled with $$\\label{eq:3}\nx_{scaled} = \\dfrac{x-x_{min}}{x_{max}-x_{min}}$$\n\n  **Close Price**    411.15   414.05   410.20   410.25   410.00\n  ------------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- --------\n  **Scaled Close**   0.1840   0.1874   0.1828   0.1829   0.1826\n\n  : Scaled Close Prices data[]{data-label=\"tab:scaled_price\"}\n\nAfter scaling, the data is split into input and label. Input contains past 20 scaled close prices and the label contains the scaled stock prices after 5 intervals.\n\nFacebook\u2019s PyTorch framework was used to design the computation graph and for training the model. The arrays of data are converted into tensors and are split into batches for faster computation using the advantage of Matrix operations. So the input X will be a vector of shape (20, 1) and label will be of shape (1, 1). The data was split into training and testing data in the ration of (8:2). And a batch size of 1232 was used to split the data into 5 equal batches. So 4 batches of 1232 data for training set and 1 batch for test set. Each batch of data will be a tensor of shape (1232, 20) for Artificial Neural network models and tensor of shape (1232, 1, 20) for Convolutional Neural Network models.\n\nNeural Arithmetic Logic Units(NALU) based model for Stock Prediction\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nInstead of PyTorch\u2019s nn.Linear layers, a self defined NALU module which is defined by\n\nNeural Accumulator(NAC): $$\\label{eq:3}\na = Wx$$ $$\\label{eq:3}\nW = \\tanh(\\hat{W})\\circledast \\sigma(\\hat{M}) \\\\$$\n\nNeural Arithmetic Logic Unit(NALU): $$\\label{eq:3}\ny = g\\circledast a + (1-g) \\circledast m$$ $$\\label{eq:3}\nm=\\sigma(\\ W(log(\\abs{x} +\\epsilon)))$$ $$\\label{eq:3}\ng=\\sigma(Gx)$$\n\nSigmoid function was used in the calculation of m instead of exponential function which was used originally in the Neural Arithmetic Logical units paper. Four layers of Neural Arithmetic Logic Units are stacked like fully connected layers using defined pytorch NALU module. Dropouts are added in between each layer as a regularization technique to avoid over fitting the data. Relu activation function is added in between the NALU layers.\n\n$$\\label{eq:3}\nReLU(x) =\\begin{cases}\n   0 & x \\leq 0\\\\    \n   x & x >  0\\\\  \n\\end{cases}$$\n\nFinally sigmoid activation is used to make the prediction in the desired range of 0-1 (as the data is scaled to 0-1 range). $$\\label{eq:3}\nSigmoid(x) =  \\dfrac{1}{1+e^{-x}}$$\n\n![Architecture of NALU Network[]{data-label=\"fig:naluarc\"}](images/NALU_ANN.jpg){height=\"5cm\" width=\"8cm\"}\n\nThe output of the network is compared with the true value using Squared L2 Norm(Mean Squared Error) loss function.\n\n$$\\label{eq:3}\nMSELoss(y, \\Hat{y}) = \\dfrac{1}{m}\\sum_{i=1}^{m}(y^{(i)} - \\Hat{y}^{(i)})^2$$\n\nwhere $ y^{(i)}$ is the true label value and $\\hat{y}^{(i)} $ is the model prediction for $i^{th}$ training data.To minimize the loss, back propagation algorithm is used with Adam optimizer. A cyclic learning rate [@clr] scheduler has been used with the optimizer as an attempt to escape the problem of local minimum of loss. When the algorithm is stuck in a local minimum or narrow minimum , increasing the learning rate help it escape the local space and reach a better or wider minimum space. Each data batch is has been used 500 times to learn and update the weight parameters of the model so as to reduce the total loss. As we use cyclic learning rate, the loss tends to go high when the learning rate increases, so we save the model state with lowest loss.\n\nConvolutional feature extraction and NALU based model for Stock Prediction\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nConvolutional Neural Network has been used to predict the stock in the past. This paper proposes a new model using the feature extraction ability of convolutional neural network with the Neural Arithmetic Logic Units. As the stock data is 1 dimensional series data, 1 dimensional convolutional layers using nn.Conv1d in Pytorch are used and stacked 3 layers of 1-d convolutional layers to extract the features of stock price movements. Kernel size of 4 has been used in the network for all the convolutional layers. The number of kernels/filters in each layers are 1, 16, 32 and 64. Max pooling layers are added in between every convolutional layer to reduce the dimension , kernel size of 1 or 2 is used and stride is also 2 , which will reduce the layer length to half. ReLU activation function is used to make the network non linear.\n\n![Architecture of CNN-NALU Network[]{data-label=\"fig:cnnnaluarc\"}](images/CNN-NALU.jpg){height=\"6cm\" width=\"10cm\"}\n\nConvolutional layers are followed by 2 layers of Neural Arithmetic Logic Units and 2 layers of Fully connected layers as the regressor. ReLU activation function is used in between the linear and NALU layers with dropouts to avoid overfitting of the data. we use sigmoid activation function in the last layer of the network to make the prediction in the range of 0-1 . Squared L2 Norm loss function was used to get the loss after the forward pass, Adam optimizer was used for optimization and Cyclic learning rate scheduler was used to change the learning rate in cycle from $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-2}$.\n\nResults\n=======\n\nDifferent models were used in this research to find which model is able to learn the trend of the stock price and predict the future price given the last 20 prices better. In each iteration after training the models using training set, the testing set is used to check how good the model has learned and how good it can predict unseen data. After training the model, the whole stock close data is predicted using the trained model and plotted to visualize how good the model performs on the data as a whole.\n\nTABLE 2 gives the training loss of each of the model. It can be observed that Models with Neural Arithmetic Logic Units learned better ANN and CNN models.TABLE 3 gives the loss of the models on testing set. Models with Neural Arithmetic Logic Units was able to predict the stock price better than ANNs and CNNs on unseen data.After the training and validating the testing set, the model was used to test the complete data . Previous 20 data points were given and the model predicted the close price after 5 intervals. The loss of the model with the whole data set is given by TABLE 4. This value has to be re scaled back to the original interval to compare with the actual price.\n\n  **Model**                                     **Training Loss**\n  --------------------------------------------- -------------------\n  Artificial Neural Network(ANN)                8.04649e-06\n  Convolutional Neural Network(CNN)             5.58822e-06\n  Neural Arithmetic Logic Units Network(NALU)   1.91356e-06\n  NALU CNN Network(NALU-CNN)                    5.58499e-07\n\n  : Training Loss of Models[]{data-label=\"tab:loss1\"}\n\n  **Model**                                     **Testing Loss**\n  --------------------------------------------- ------------------\n  Artificial Neural Network(ANN)                1.30709e-06\n  Convolutional Neural Network(CNN)             5.99638e-07\n  Neural Arithmetic Logic Units Network(NALU)   4.31875e-07\n  NALU CNN Network(NALU-CNN)                    3.05196e-07\n\n  : Testing loss of Models[]{data-label=\"tab:loss2\"}\n\n  **Model**                                     **Total Loss**\n  --------------------------------------------- ----------------\n  Artificial Neural Network(ANN)                1.29998e-06\n  Convolutional Neural Network(CNN)             1.07971e-06\n  Neural Arithmetic Logic Units Network(NALU)   3.97540e-07\n  NALU CNN Network(NALU-CNN)                    3.30627e-07\n\n  : Loss of Models in the whole data set[]{data-label=\"tab:loss3\"}\n\n![image](images/ANN.png){height=\"6cm\" width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\n![image](images/CNN.png){height=\"6cm\" width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\n![image](images/ANNNALUPred.png){height=\"6cm\" width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\n![image](images/NALUCNNPred.png){height=\"6cm\" width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nIn this paper we proposed to use the feature extraction property of convolutional neural networks and the extrapolation and arithmetic ability of Neural Arithmetic Logic Units to predict the stock price 5 days later.\n\nDuring the course of this experiment it was observed that the models with Neural Arithmetic Logic Units(NALU) converged faster than the other model not only in the task of Stock prediction but also on many other tasks. NALU models were able to learn the pattern and other features of the stock values and was able to predict the closing price better than ANNs and CNNs.\n\n[^1]: [shangeth.github.io](https://shangeth.github.io/)\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We report the results of a 100 square degree survey of the Taurus Molecular Cloud region in the J = 1 $\\rightarrow$ 0 transition of \u00a0and of . The image of the cloud in each velocity channel includes $\\simeq$ 3$\\times$10$^6$ Nyquist-\u2014sampled pixels, sampled on a 20grid. The high sensitivity and large linear dynamic range of the maps in both isotopologues reveal a very complex, highly structured cloud morphology. There are large scale correlated structures evident in \u00a0emission having very fine dimensions, including filaments, cavities, and rings. The \u00a0emission shows a quite different structure, with particularly complex interfaces between regions of greater and smaller column density defining the boundaries of the largest\u2013scale cloud structures. The axes of the striations seen in the \u00a0emission from relatively diffuse gas are aligned with the direction of the magnetic field. We have developed a statistical method for analyzing the pixels in which \u00a0but not \u00a0is detected, which allows us to determine the CO column in the diffuse portion of the cloud as well as in the denser regions in which we detect both isotopologues. Using a column density\u2013dependent model for the CO fractional abundance, we derive the mass of the region mapped to be 2.4$\\times$10$^4$ . This is more than a factor of two greater than would be obtained using a canonical fixed fractional abundance of and a factor three greater than would be obtained using this fractional abundance restricted to the high column density regions. We determine that half the mass of the cloud is in regions having column density below 2.1$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2. The distribution of young stars in the region covered is highly nonuniform, with the probability of finding a star in a pixel with a specified column density rising sharply for $N(H_2)$ = 6$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2. We determine a relatively low star formation efficiency (mass of young stars/mass of molecular gas), between 0.3 and 1.2 percent, and an average star formation rate during the past 3 Myr of 8$\\times$10$^{-5}$ stars yr$^{-1}$.'\nauthor:\n- 'Paul F. Goldsmith, Mark Heyer, Gopal Narayanan, Ronald Snell, Di Li, and Chris Brunt'\ntitle: 'Large\u2013Scale Structure of the Molecular Gas in Taurus Revealed by High Linear Dynamic Range Spectral Line Mapping'\n---\n\nINTRODUCTION\n============\n\nThe close association of young stars and concentrations within molecular clouds indicates that stars form in cloud cores, which are regions of increased density within the bulk of molecular clouds [cf. @beichman1986]. While the evolution from cloud core to protostar is dominated by gravity, the physics controlling the process in which the cores themselves, and the clouds in which they are embedded, are formed and evolve is still quite controversial. While on the scale of pc to tens of pc molecular clouds are close to satisfying virial equilibrium between gravitational and kinetic energies, the significance of this equality is not entirely clear. Furthermore, the role of magnetic field, while often postulated to be significant, remains uncertain [@shu1987; @heiles2005]. Finally, the formation of molecular clouds themselves, and their lifetime, remains very much a matter of discussion [e.g. @hartmann2001]\n\nMolecular clouds may be formed by compression of atomic gas, with the increased density and extinction enhancing the formation rate of molecules, starting with 2, for which self\u2013shielding enables the buildup of a substantial fraction of the total hydrogen density even when the visual extinction \u00a0is only a fraction of a magnitude. It has also been suggested that the large molecular cloud presence in galactic spiral arms is the result of the agglomeration of molecular material existing in the interarm region, as discussed by [@pringle2001]. While one viewpoint has held that molecular clouds have relatively long lifetimes, and are disrupted only by the energy injected by massive star formation and evolution, another picture is that molecular clouds are relatively transient objects, with the denser regions representing only turbulent fluctuations of density rather than well-defined gravitationally bound condensations [see e.g. review by @vazquez2007].\n\nThese issues have been discussed on global scale, addressing the distribution of clouds and the apportioning of molecular and atomic gas in the Galaxy. They are also very relevant to studies of specific molecular cloud complexes, with one of the best\u2013studied of these being that in Taurus. The structure of the interstellar gas in atomic and molecular form, the stellar population, the issue of star formation rate, and the role of different physical processes have all been the subject of numerous papers focused on the Taurus region, primarily because its proximity [140 pc; @elias1978][^1] allows very detailed studies of the morphology of the gas and the relationship between gas and stars. The sheer volume of the data that have been obtained and the number of analyses that have been carried out preclude giving a complete listing of the references to Taurus, so we will have to be selective rather than comprehensive, recognizing that we may have omitted many valuable contributions.\n\nThe very closeness of Taurus means that available instrumentation, particularly at radio frequencies, has faced a challenge to cover the entire region with angular resolution sufficient to reveal the morphology of the gas. The result has been that previous large\u2013scale surveys of molecular line emission at millimeter wavelengths have been limited to quite low angular resolution [@ungerechts1987]. The survey of [@ungerechts1987] covers essentially all of Taurus and part of Perseus, but the 30\u00a0angular resolution of the map (obtained by averaging multiple telescope pointings to obtain a larger effective beam size) yields only 3000 pixels in the 750 square degree region mapped. The pixel size corresponds to a linear size of 1.2 pc at a distance of 140 pc, which is sufficiently large to blur out structure at important astrophysical scales. In fact, the maps of [@ungerechts1987], while delineating the large\u2013scale structure quite well, show an almost complete absence of fine detail. This is in part due to the use exclusively of , which is sufficiently optically thick that significant variations in column densities can be entirely hidden, as well as to the low angular resolution.\n\nThere have been a number of investigations of molecular gas in the Taurus region with higher angular resolution, but these have typically been limited to small subregions within the overall gas distribution. These studies, with $\\simeq$1\u00a0to 2\u00a0angular resolution include a few thousand to $\\simeq$ 30,000 spatial pixels [@schloerb1984; @duvert1986; @heyer1987; @mizuno1995]. These studies, with the combination of higher angular resolution and use of the J = 1$\\rightarrow$0 transition of do reveal considerable structure in the molecular gas, but have not elucidated its relationship to larger\u2013scale features in the molecular gas distribution.\n\nA number of other studies have utilized yet higher angular resolution and different tracers to probe gas having different characteristic properties over limited regions. Some examples include [@langer1995] employing CCS, [@onishi1996] and [@onishi1998] using , [@onishi2002] using H$^{13}$CO$^+$, and [@tatematsu2004] employing N$_2$H$^+$. Many individual cores have been observed in ammonia, a tracer in which they appear relatively well\u2013defined, as indicated by compilation of @jijina1999. Most of the regions covered by these studies have been pre-selected based on the large\u2013scale surveys discussed above. In these maps, we see indications of finer\u2013scale structure, but the emission is generally quite spatially restricted compared to that seen in the more abundant isotopologues of carbon monoxide.\n\nIn this paper we present the initial results from a large\u2013scale high angular resolution study of the Taurus molecular clouds using \u00a0and . The data cover approximately 100 square degrees on the sky (11.5\u00a0in R.A. by 8.5\u00a0in decl.) corresponding to a region 28 pc by 21 pc. The reduced maps include 3.2$\\times$10$^6$ Nyquist\u2013sampled pixels in each isotopologue, with pixel size 20 corresponding to 0.014 pc. The linear dynamic range (LDR, defined as map size divided by Nyquist\u2013sampled interval) of the maps thus exceeds 1000, which is the largest of any molecular cloud study carried out to date. The good angular resolution and large LDR together allow us to examine in detail the relationship between the relatively fine structures seen, especially in , with the large\u2013scale distribution of the molecular material, the young stars in the region, and the magnetic field.\n\nThe region of Taurus studied here has been observed using a variety of other tracers. The Leiden/Dwingeloo 21 cm study [@burton1994] traced the atomic hydrogen in this direction, but with an angular resolution of 35. One investigation [@shuter1987] used the Arecibo radio telescope having an angular resolution of 4, but included only $\\sim$ 1300 positions to probe the self\u2013absorption seen in the 21 cm HI line. This cold atomic hydrogen appears to be associated with molecular gas [@li2003; @goldsmith2005], but the limited sampling of Shuter et al.\u00a0does not reveal much about its morphology. The far\u2013infrared emission from Taurus has been studied by [@abergel1995], who also compared it to moderate resolution maps of \u00a0J = 1$\\rightarrow$0 emission. The dust column density distribution has been examined by [@padoan2002] and does bear a quite close resemblance to the integrated intensity of and thus to the column density of gas in relatively high extinction regions.\n\nWe discuss the observations and data reduction procedure in \u00a7\\[observations\\]. Derivation of the column density in the different portions of the maps is presented in \u00a7\\[coldens\\], in which we also discuss the distribution of column density and mass in the region. We present a brief discussion of the large\u2013scale gas kinematics in \u00a7\\[kinematics\\]. We address the relationship of the molecular material and the magnetic field in \u00a7\\[magnetic\\], and discuss the relationship of the gas and the young stars in the region in \u00a7\\[youngstars\\]. We discuss some of the interesting features of the morphology of the gas in \u00a7\\[morphology\\]. We summarize our results in \u00a7\\[summary\\].\n\nOBSERVATIONS\n============\n\nThe observations were taken between 2003 November and 2005 May using the 13.7m radome\u2013enclosed Quabbin millimeter wave telescope. The 32 pixel SEQUOIA focal plane array[^2] receiver observed the J = 1$\\rightarrow$0 transition of \u00a0and simultaneously. Since the receiver uses amplifiers for the first stage, there is no issue of the sideband gain uncertainty and its effect on calibration. Sixteen pixels are arranged in a 4 x 4 array in two orthogonal linear polarizations. The main beam of the antenna pattern had a full width to half maximum angular width of 45for \u00a0and 47\u00a0for .\n\nThe data were obtained using an on\u2013the\u2013fly (OTF) mapping technique. A standard position was observed using position switching several times per observing session to verify calibration consistency. Details of the data\u2013taking, data reduction, and calibration procedures are given by [@narayanan2007]. The signals from a band of frequencies around each spectral line were sent to an autocorrelation spectrometer with 1024 lags covering 25 MHz for each spectral line. The lag spacing of the spectrometer system corresponds to 0.068 \u00a0for \u00a0and 0.065 \u00a0for . The data cube of each isotopologue employed in the subsequent analysis included 76 spectral channels for \u00a0and 80 channels for \u00a0covering approximately -5 \u00a0to +14.9 and thus included 2.4$\\times$10$^8$ voxels.\n\nAs discussed in detail by [@narayanan2007], the overall quality of the data was excellent. After calibration and combination of the 30\u00a0by 30\u00a0submaps which were the units in which the data was taken, the data were resampled onto a uniform grid of 20\u00a0spacing, which is very close to the Nyquist sampling interval $\\lambda/2D$ for the 13.7 m diameter telescope operating at a wavelength of 2.6 mm. The images produced by the combination of the submaps and regridding were 2069 pixels in RA by 1529 pixels in decl., thus comprising 3,163,501 spatial pixels resampled onto a uniform 20\u00a0grid. The final data set has a well\u2013behaved distribution of noise with a mean rms antenna temperature equal to 0.125 K for \u00a0and 0.28 K for \u00a0in channel widths of 0.27 and 0.26 , respectively.\n\n![\\[13co\\_tint\\] Antenna temperature of the \u00a0J = 1$\\rightarrow$0 transition integrated over the velocity range 2 to 9 . The scale is shown in the bar at the right; values have not been corrected for antenna efficiency.](f1.pdf)\n\nWe show the basic \u00a0data in Figure \\[13co\\_tint\\], which gives the intensity of the \u00a0J = 1$\\rightarrow$0 transition integrated over the velocity range 2 \u00a0to 9 . This interval encompasses almost all of the emission in the Taurus region, with the exception of some isolated areas with gas at $\\simeq$ 10 , which may well not be associated with Taurus, and a limited amount of emission in the velocity range 1 \u00a0to 2 . Figure \\[12co\\_tmax\\] displays the \u00a0J = 1$\\rightarrow$0 peak emission within this same velocity interval. Note that in both of these figures, the emission is not corrected for the antenna efficiency. [@narayanan2007] present images of the emission of both isotopologues in 1 \u00a0bins covering the range 0 \u00a0to 13 .\n\nIt is evident that the \u00a0is detectable over a significantly larger area than is the . Particularly in the northeast portion of the map, we see very extended \u00a0emission, where there is relatively little . There are also two interesting regions of quite strong \u00a0emission, at 422+2830\u00a0and 448+2940, which are among the warmest regions observed, and yet which do not show up as significant local maxima in the \u00a0(and hence column density). In general, the warmer gas as traced by \u00a0is seen in regions of high column density, but the amount of structure seen in the optically thick \u00a0with our angular resolution, sampling, and sensitivity, is very impressive.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\]**\n\n![image](f2.pdf)\n\nCOLUMN DENSITY, COLUMN DENSITY DISTRIBUTIONS, AND CLOUD MASS {#coldens}\n============================================================\n\nMask Regions\n------------\n\nIn order to facilitate analysis of the data to determine column densities, we have broken the Taurus data up into 4 regions, according to the detection or nondetection of \u00a0and . The detection thresholds are defined by the requirement that the integrated intensity over the velocity range extending from 0 \u00a0to 12 be a minimum of 3.5 times larger than the rms noise in an individual pixel over this 12 \u00a0velocity interval. The median values are $\\sigma_{T_{int}}$ = 0.18 \u00a0for \u00a0and $\\sigma_{T_{int}}$ = 0.40 \u00a0for . Since the peak values of the integrated intensity are 6 \u00a0for \u00a0and 18 \u00a0for , the peak integrated intensities are 30 to 50 $\\sigma_{T_{int}}$.\n\nWe define mask 0 to be the region in which neither \u00a0nor \u00a0is detected, mask 1 to be the region in which \u00a0is detected but is not, mask 2 to be the region in which both isotopologues are detected, and mask 3 to be the region in which \u00a0is detected but \u00a0is not. The different regions and the number of pixels in each are given in Table \\[maskregiontable\\].\n\n[ccc]{} 0 &neither \u00a0nor \u00a0 & 944,802\\\n1 &\u00a0but not \u00a0 & 1,212,271\\\n2 &both \u00a0and \u00a0& 1,002,955\\\n3 &\u00a0but not \u00a0 & 3,473\\\n\nThe average spectra of mask 0, mask 1, and mask 2 regions are shown in Figure \\[3masks\\_spectra\\]. These profiles are valuable for deducing general characteristics of the regions, but it must be kept in mind that the characteristics of the average profile are quite different from those of individual profiles. The difference is primarily due to systematic velocity shifts across the cloud; these result in the average spectra being much weaker and broader than individual spectra. The line width of the averaged mask 1 spectra is close to a factor of 2 greater than the average line width of spectra in this region. For mask 2, the ratio is $\\simeq$1.5. Along with this, the peak intensities are much weaker than those seen in individual spectra or even in spectra averaged over a restricted region. Consequently, in determining characteristics of the molecular gas, we have used individual spectra wherever possible to derive physical quantities.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f3.pdf)**\n\nAs expected, the lines are strongest in mask 2. The \u00a0to ratio at the line peak in mask 2 is just over 3, consistent with relatively high optical depth in the more abundant isotopologue. We do see that when an average over $\\sim$ 10$^6$ pixels of mask 1 is formed, we readily see emission in \u00a0as well as . The ratio of peak intensities is significantly larger in mask 1 than in mask 2. The value, about 10, is still much less than the presumed abundance ratio \\[\\]/\\], suggesting that the in mask 1, while optically thick, typically has lower opacity than in mask 2.\n\nThe mask 0 \u00a0and \u00a0spectra show two or three peaks, including velocities for which the emission in mask 2 is very weak compared to that in the range of the peak emission, 5 \u00a0to 8 . In particular, the 10 \u00a0emission feature comes from a fairly extended region in the northern portion of our map, but is so weak that only when averaging over modest-sized ($\\sim$1 square degree) regions in mask 0 can it be detected. Emission in this velocity range can be quite clearly seen in the mask 1 spectrum, but hardly can be detected in mask 2. This is consistent with it being relatively low average column density material, which is extended over quite large areas. Thus, even in what we consider largely \u201cempty\u201d regions between the major, well\u2013known subunits of the Taurus molecular cloud complex, there is molecular gas. This is discussed further in the following section. The overall composition of the mask 0 region, particularly the presence of atomic gas, is the subject of another study.\n\nThe mask 0, mask 1, and mask 2 regions have close to equal numbers of pixels. Their distribution, however, is very different. Figure \\[mask\\_regions\\] shows the four mask regions. It is evident that the mask 1 predominantly surrounds mask 2, which is consistent with the expectation that both isotopologues are detected in the regions of highest column density (mask 2) while in the periphery of these regions we detect in individual pixels the \u00a0but not the \u00a0emission.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f4.pdf)**\n\nThe pixels in mask 3 are unusual inasmuch as they exhibit detectable \u00a0emission but not . There are evidently very few such pixels ($\\simeq$ 0.1% of the total), although this number is considerably larger than would be expected purely on the basis of Gaussian noise statistics. On close inspection of these spectra, it appears that the problem is due to very low level baseline imperfections partially canceling the \u00a0integrated intensity, resulting in a \u201cnon\u2013detection\u201d of this isotopologue. We thus ignore the mask 3 pixels in further analysis of the emission from Taurus.\n\nCalculation of the Column Density\n---------------------------------\n\nWe wish to exploit the large linear dynamic range of our map to examine the structure in the column density, and thus wish to determine the column density for as many pixels as possible. This is also important for accurately determining the total molecular mass of the region. In what follows we divide the problem into two parts. The first is determination of the carbon monoxide column density. While subject to its own uncertainties due to excitation, optical depth, and limited signal to noise ratio, we can carry out this step of the analysis based only on data in hand. The second step is conversion of the carbon monoxide column densities to molecular hydrogen column densities, and finally to total cloud mass. This is evidently dependent on the processes which determine the fractional abundance of the various isotopologues observed. Since the additional uncertainties in the second step are large, we present results first in terms of the carbon monoxide distribution and subsequently give results for the molecular hydrogen distribution and the total molecular mass. This second step should benefit significantly from combination of our data with dust column density determined from e.g.\u00a02MASS data. This effort is in progress and will be reported in a subsequent publication.\n\n### Carbon Monoxide Column Density {#col_dens_calc}\n\nThe three different different regions of the cloud, defined by the detectability of each isotopologue, require different schemes to determine the carbon monoxide column density. We ignore mask 3 in determining the column density and to the mass of the cloud as we cannot readily correct for the artificial non\u2013detections of \u00a0(discussed above). Its extremely small area and weak \u00a0emission make its contribution negligible.\n\nMask 2 represents the portion of the cloud that is most conventional in terms of column density determination. Since we have both \u00a0and \u00a0in each pixel, we determine the kinetic temperature from the peak value of the \u00a0(with appropriate correction for antenna efficiency). Here (as well as for other mask regions), we use the maximum antenna temperature of \u00a0in the velocity interval between 0 \u00a0and 12 . The kinetic temperature is distributed from 3 K to 21 K, but with the vast majority of positions having kinetic temperatures between 6 K and 12 K. Since mask 2 is the densest portion of the cloud, we assume that the \u00a0levels are populated in LTE at the kinetic temperature, but we calculate a nominal value for the optical depth from the ratio of the peak \u00a0and \u00a0intensities using the usual equation of radiative transfer in a uniform medium. We assume a \u00a0to \u00a0abundance ratio of 65, very close to the average value for local clouds found by [@langer1993]. We use the value of optical depth obtained to make a saturation correction to the \u00a0column density derived assuming optically thin emission, with the usual formula N(\\^[13]{}[CO\u00a0corrected]{}) = N(\\^[13]{}[CO\u00a0assumed\u00a0optically\u00a0thin)]{}\n\nMask 1 presents the greatest challenge in terms of column density determination since it encompasses approximately one third of the area mapped and has reasonably strong \u00a0emission. However, since the \u00a0is not detected in individual pixels, we need a different scheme to extract the column density. We have developed a statistical approach, which should be applicable to other large maps in which only the more abundant isotopologue is detected in individual pixels. The procedure assumes that the \u00a0is optically thick at its peak, and that the value of the antenna temperature can directly be converted to the excitation temperature of the . Since mask 1 points lie at the periphery of the regions of high extinction and greater molecular column density (as witnessed by the detection of \u00a0in each mask 2 pixel), they encompass lower column density gas which is presumably characterized by lower volume density. Therefore we cannot assume that LTE applies as it does in mask 2. Approximately half of the mask 1 positions have an excitation temperature $\\le$ 7.5 K, and if in LTE the gas would have to be unusually cold. It is thus reasonable to assume that this gas is subthermally excited. To analyze positions in mask 1 we use a simple excitation/radiative transfer analysis employing a spherical cloud large velocity gradient (LVG) code to compute the line intensities [e.g. @snell1981; @goldsmith1983]. We are using an LVG model largely as a tool to characterize the effect of trapping, which is important for excitation of CO at lower density. We do not believe it necessarily represents any statement about the detailed kinematics of the gas. The sensitivity of our results to the details of the velocity field should be quite small.\n\nWe have assumed that the kinetic temperature of the mask 1 region is uniformly 15 K, somewhat higher than well-shielded dense gas, which is plausible in view of increased heating in the peripheral regions surrounding regions of high extinction. [e.g. @li2003b]. We take advantage of the large number of pixels in our map, and bin the data according to the excitation temperature of the determined as described above. In each bin, we have a sufficient number of pixels that the \u00a0J = 1$\\rightarrow$0 line is detected with good signal to noise ratio. For each $T_{ex}$ bin, we then have the \u00a0excitation temperature and the observed /\u00a0integrated intensity ratio. The data generally have the observed intensity ratio decreasing with increasing $T_{ex}$, from $\\simeq$ 22 for $T_{ex}$ = 4.5 K to $\\simeq$ 13 for $T_{ex}$ = 2.5 K. The free parameters are the \u00a0column density, the 2\u00a0density, and the /\u00a0abundance ratio. The latter cannot be assumed to be a fixed value (e.g. 65), due to the complicating presence of isotopic enhancement due to chemical and/or photo effects [e.g. @watson1976; @bally1982; @chu1983; @vandishoeck1988]. We thus consider $R$ = /\u00a0between 25 and 65.\n\n[cccccc]{} 4.5 &21.7 &32321 &125 &0.7 &30\\\n5.5 &21.7 &113923 &200 &1.0 &35\\\n6.5 &19.6 &202328 &250 &1.4 &38\\\n7.5 &16.7 &245949 &280 &2.0 &40\\\n8.5 &14.9 &211649 &325 &2.7 &42\\\n9.5 &13.9 &175431 &425 &3.1 &45\\\n10.5 &13.4 &122423 &550 &3.6 &50\\\n11.5 &13.0 &65428 &850 &3.7 &55\\\n12.5 &12.8 &27387 &1200 &4.3 &65\\\n\nWith three free parameters and only two observables, we cannot uniquely determine the properties of the gas in mask 1. Rather, we compute for each $T_{ex}$ bin, a family of $R$, density and CO column density per unit line width solutions. If we knew [*a priori*]{} the value of $R$, then we could compute a unique density and CO column density per unit line width for each $T_{ex}$. With no knowledge of $R$, then the values of density and CO column density per unit line width span a range of approximately a factor of 4, with density and CO column density per unit line width inversely correlated. The family of solutions for the physical parameters of the gas show some significant general characteristics. First, for higher values of $T_{ex}$, only solutions with $R\\geq50$ fit the data. This is encouraging as the higher excitation gas has on average the largest column density and we do not expect significant fractionation in the more shielded regions. On the other hand, for lower values of $T_{ex}$, values of $R$ as large as 65 are excluded, and the range of acceptable solutions gradually shifts from $R$ $\\leq$ 50 at $T_{ex}$ = 7.5 K to values of $R$ $\\leq$ 30 at $T_{ex}$ = 4.5 K. Correspondingly, the allowable solutions for the gas density and CO column density per unit line width decrease with decreasing excitation temperature. This trend again is consistent with increasing fractionation in the less well\u2013shielded regions at the periphery of the clouds (see Liszt 2007) for a discussion of this effect in diffuse clouds). These regions dominate the positions found within our mask 1. This result agrees with the behavior found in previous observational studies [e.g. @goldsmith1980; @langer1980; @young1982; @langer1989; @goldsmith2005; @kainulainen2006].\n\nIt is not possible to model the mask 1 observations with a fixed value of the [*in situ*]{} carbon monoxide isotopic ratio but rather require that the value of $R$ vary significantly with excitation temperature. We have chosen solutions such that $R$ varies smoothly from a value of 65 at $T_{ex}$ $\\geq$ 12.5 K to a value of 30 for $T_{ex}$ = 4.5 K. With this choice of $R$, we find that the gas density and CO column density per unit line width both increase monotonically with increasing excitation temperature. The solutions we have chosen are shown in Table \\[bestLVG\\_table\\] and in Figure \\[bestLVG\\_figure\\]. We emphasize that these solutions are not unique, but depend on our choice of $R$. However, the general behavior of the solutions are physically plausible, given that we expect the excitation temperature to increase as one moves from the cloud interior to the cloud periphery. This suggests that binning by $T_{ex}$ is a useful approach, and gives us a reasonable handle on how the physical conditions vary as a function of excitation temperature and position in the cloud.\n\nOur assumption of 15 K for the kinetic temperature is a potential source of error in determining the carbon monoxide column density. To assess this, we have carried out some calculations using a kinetic temperature of 25 K which seems an upper limit to what one might expect in a cloud edge in a region with modest UV intensity. We find that for this value of the kinetic temperature, the column density per unit velocity gradient is approximately a factor 1.5 larger than for a kinetic temperature of 15 K, and the derived 2\u00a0density is a factor of 2.5 lower, for an assumed value of $R$. The same trends of carbon monoxide column density and 2\u00a0density as a function of $R$ are seen for the higher kinetic temperature as for the lower. The uncertainty resulting from the assumption of a fixed kinetic temperature is thus of the same order as resulting from our choosing a best value of $R$, and combining these could yield a factor of 2 uncertainty in $N$(CO). Observations of multiple transitions of carbon monoxide isotopologues would provide a more accurate estimate of the molecular column density. However, observations of these transitions over a region of comparable size would pose a formidable challenge for currently available telescopes and receiver systems.\n\nTo obtain the column density for each line of sight, we utilize an analytic fit to the relationship between the CO column density per unit line width and the excitation temperature obtained for the set of $T_{ex}$ bins, $N(^{12}CO)/\\delta v = (-1.473\\times 10^{16}+4.672\\times 10^{15}T_{ex})$. We multiply the results by the observed FWHM \u00a0line width $\\Delta v$ from the data. The use of the LVG model introduces some uncertainty because the carbon monoxide excitation is quite subthermal, and the excitation temperature does depend on the optical depth, and is quite different for \u00a0and . Nevertheless, the likely error in the trapping predicted by the LVG and other models is relatively modest compared to other uncertainties inherent in this analysis.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f5.pdf)**\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f6.pdf)**\n\nIn mask 0, after averaging $\\simeq$ 10$^6$ spatial pixels, we are able to detect both isotopologues, and we thus analyze the emission for the region as if it were a single spatial entity. The general analysis follows the procedure described above for mask 1. The fact that the integrated /\u00a0ratio is $\\simeq$ 19 indicates that the \u00a0is almost certainly optically thin. This is also the case for mask 1, and here as well results in the \u00a0and \u00a0having quite different excitation temperatures due to the radiative trapping for the more abundant isotopologue.\n\nAgain, we fix the kinetic temperature to be 15 K, reflecting increased heating in regions of low extinction, and assume that the average line width is 2 , similar to that observed for the low excitation gas of mask 1. Note that the average mask 0 spectrum (Figure \\[3masks\\_spectra\\]) is much broader than 2 , but the large value of the line width reflects changes in the line center velocity over the entire region observed. Following the trend of $R$ from mask 1, we assume this ratio to have a value of 20.\n\nThe mask 0 data cannot be fit satisfactorily by larger values of $R$ thus confirming that relatively strong isotopic selective effects are at work in the low density/low column density regions of Taurus. With these assumptions, the parameters we derive, although again not unique as described above, are $n(H_2)$ = 75 , and $N$() = 7.5$\\times$10$^{15}$ 2. The carbon monoxide excitation in this region is evidently highly subthermal, consistent with the low derived H$_2$ density and the modest \u00a0optical depth. This very low value for the density of the mask 0 region gives a reasonably low column density for the extended component of the gas in Taurus. Taking a representative dimension for mask 0 of 1.5$\\times$10$^{19}$ 2, we obtain $N(H_2)$ = 1.1$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2. This corresponds to A$_v$ $\\simeq$ 1 for the extended component of the cloud, consistent with that determined from stellar reddening [@cernicharo1987].\n\nThe spatial distribution of column densities from the three mask regions is shown in Figure \\[co-coldens\\_dist\\]. The column density for mask 0 is a single value $<N(^{12}CO)>$ = 7.5$\\times$10$^{15}$ 2 as given above. The column density distribution in the mask 1 region is a relatively symmetric, fairly Gaussian distribution with a mean value $<N(^{12}CO)>$ = 3.6$\\times$10$^{16}$ 2. The column density distribution in the mask 2 region is flat\u2013topped with a mean value $<N(^{12}CO)>$ = 1.3$\\times$10$^{17}$ 2.\n\nThe distribution of carbon monoxide in the Taurus region is shown in Figure \\[co\\_coldens\\_map\\]. This figure dramatically illustrates the complexity of the molecular gas distribution. The impression given is quite different from that of studies with low angular resolution, in that instead of an ensemble of \u201crelaxed\", fairly smooth condensations one sees a great deal of highly filamentary structure, a strong suggestion of cavities and surrounding regions with enhanced column densities. The large size of the region covered also suggests relationships between the different portions of the Taurus molecular region. The most striking of these points will be addressed briefly later in this paper.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f7.pdf)**\n\n### Molecular Hydrogen Column Density and Mass\n\nMost studies of molecular regions using carbon monoxide have emphasized regions in which the column density is sufficiently large that dust shielding plus self\u2013shielding result in an \u201casymptotic\u201d \u00a0abundance between 0.9$\\times$10$^{-4}$ and 3.0$\\times$10$^{-4}$ relative to 2\u00a0[see e.g. @frerking1982; @lacy1994]. In our study of Taurus, only the mask 2 region is plausibly consistent with this assumption. The remainder of the cloud is characterized by lower densities and column densities, and the fractional abundance of carbon monoxide must be regarded as being significantly uncertain and likely to be dependent on the extinction.\n\nThere is considerable value in trying to make a self\u2013consistent model for the carbon monoxide as a tracer of total molecular (H$_2$) column density. To this end, we have used the theoretical modeling by [@vandishoeck1988]. We have utilized the curve for $I_{UV}$ = 1.0 (in units of Habings), carbon depletion $\\delta_C$ = 0.1, and models T1\u2013T6, which correspond to temperature range 40 K to 15 K and n$_H$ = 500 \u00a0to 1000 \u00a0throughout the model slab being considered. We have used a polynomial fit to the data from the appropriate curve in Figure 8 of [@vandishoeck1988] for the relationship between CO and H$_2$ column densities. This value of carbon depletion is recommended by [@vandishoeck1988] as agreeing with the available Taurus data. We also note that the carbon monoxide fractional abundance as given by these models of [@vandishoeck1988] agrees well at low column densities with the UV measurements of [@sonnentrucker2007] and [@burgh2007].\n\nThe lower CO lines in absorption from diffuse clouds lying in front of millimeter continuum sources have been observed by [@liszt1998]. The clouds, analyzed by [@liszt2007] have a range of 2\u00a0column density (determined by UV absorption; Federman et al. 1994) which extends from 5$\\times$10$^{20}$ 2\u00a0to just above 10$^{21}$ 2, and thus includes our mask 0 (and very low end of mask 1) results. While there is considerable scatter among various clouds having the same hydrogen column density, the best fit relationship gives $X$() = 5$\\times$10$^{-6}$ for $N$(2) = 10$^{21}$ 2. This is quite close to our results and again reinforces the general applicability of a reduced carbon monoxide fractional abundance for low extinction cloud material. The specific parameters we have adopted have been chosen, in addition to being consistent with the measurements of low column density diffuse clouds, to give good agreement at high column densities with the mm emission measurements of [@bachiller1986], [@cernicharo1987], and [@alves1999].\n\nThe strong dependence of CO column density on H$_2$ column density reflects the onset of self\u2013shielding when N(CO) reaches $\\simeq$10$^{15}$ 2. This produces a rapidly increasing CO fractional abundance as a function of H$_2$ column density in the range covered by the mask 0 and mask 1 regions of our study, and a gradual leveling out of N(CO)/N(2) in mask 2. The most significant difference is that using this approach we find that the low CO column densities correspond to considerably larger 2\u00a0column densities than would be found if a constant fractional abundance of CO were adopted. We convert our CO distribution to a molecular hydrogen distribution using the nonlinear relationship, and the result is given in histogram form in Figure \\[h2-dist-image\\].\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f8.pdf)**\n\nWhen compared to Figure \\[co-coldens\\_dist\\], it is evident that the varying fractional abundance has resulted in a significant compression in converting the carbon monoxide to 2\u00a0column densities. The drop in X(CO) in regions of lower extinction and lower density means that the relatively weak emission that we observe there implies a greater H$_2$ column density than would be derived assuming a constant fractional abundance. Taking mask 0 as an example, the CO column density of 7.5$\\times$10$^{15}$ 2, with fractional abundance 7.0$\\times$10$^{-6}$ corresponds to an H$_2$ column density equal to 1.1$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2\u00a0using the variable fractional abundance, more than an order of magnitude larger than would be obtained using the canonical high\u2013extinction fractional abundance of 10$^{-4}$.\n\nThis suggests that the majority of the area within the Taurus molecular cloud complex has a visual extinction from molecular hydrogen on the order of 1 magnitude. This is consistent with the hydrogen column density of mask 1 discussed in the previous section, as well as with the \u201dhalo\u201d component of the HCL2 region discussed by [@cernicharo1987]. There is certainly a high column density tail which reaches 10$^{22}$ 2, but this includes only a very small fraction of the cloud area and mass. While \u00a0is not the ideal tracer of the densest component of the cloud, this study makes it clear that only about 10$^{-3}$ of the pixels with detectable have $A_v$ $\\geq$ 5.\n\nDespite the relatively low density in mask 0 and mask 1 regions, the time scale to arrive at the the low fractional abundance of carbon monoxide found there is quite modest. Using the expression from Section 4.1 of [@liszt2007], we find that if we start with $X(e)$ = 10$^{-5}$ and $n$(2) = 100 , the characteristic time to reach $X$(CO) = 10$^{-5}$ is only $\\sim$ 10$^5$ yr. This is consistent with results obtained using explicit time\u2013dependent models with CO formation and destruction by E. Bergin (private communication). Thus, whatever the history of the diffuse surroundings of dense clouds, the low but significant abundance of carbon monoxide found there appears entirely plausible.\n\nWe show the spatial distribution of 2\u00a0column density in the Taurus region mapped in Figure \\[coldensmap\\]. The contributions of individual pixels in mask 1 and mask 2 are included. Approximately 50 percent of the total molecular mass of the region is in directions in which \u00a0cannot readily be detected in an individual map pixel. From the masses in each mask region, we compute the total mass of the region of Taurus mapped in the present study. The results (including correction for He and heavy elements) are given in Table \\[mask\\_mass\\]. For mask 0, we have considered the entire area it comprises to be characterized by the single set of conditions derived in the previous subsection, while the contribution of mask 3 has been neglected.\n\nTable \\[mask\\_mass\\] shows that assuming the physically plausible variable fractional abundance of carbon monoxide gives a total mass of the region a factor approximately 2.5 times larger than that obtained using a uniform high abundance characteristic of well\u2013shielded regions. We also see that the contributions from the low column density mask 0 and mask 1\u2018 regions are considerably enhanced and that their contribution to the total mass is no longer negligible as would be the case if a constant fractional abundance obtained.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f9.pdf)**\n\n[ccc]{} 0 &0.1 &4.1\\\n1 &1.7 &7.7\\\n2 &7.8 &11.8\\\n& &\\\nTotal &9.6 &23.6\\\n\nCloud Structure\n---------------\n\nValuable insight into the structure of the cloud can be obtained by examining the cumulative distribution of cloud mass and area as a function of column density. This information in shown in Figure \\[cum\\_mass\\_area\\]. Our survey focused on the region of the Taurus molecular cloud known to have most prominent high density regions with exceptional chemical diversity [TMC-1; @pratap1997] and prominent star formation (e.g. L1495). Nevertheless, we see that half of the cloud\u2019s mass is in material with N(H$_2$) less than 2.1$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2. Only about 5% of the cloud\u2019s mass occurs at 2\u00a0column densities above 5$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2, or visual extinction greater than 5. The column density we derive may be modestly underestimated due to incomplete correction for saturation in our \u00a0observations for large column densities, and as a consequence of molecular depletion at high densities, but even together these effects are unlikely to increase this fraction by a factor of 2 [see e.g. @alves1999]. The fraction of the cloud area with N(H$_2$) $\\geq$ 5$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2\u00a0is only 0.02.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f10.pdf)**\n\nAnother view of the mass distribution can be obtained by attempting to dissect the cloud by extracting the well\u2013recognized high column density regions from the remainder of the gas. In Figure \\[roi\\_boundaries\\] we show the division into eight regions, which together include approximately 25% of the area of the map. We have generally followed the region limits and designations given in Fig. 3 of @onishi1996.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f11.pdf)**\n\nWe give the mass of each of these regions in Table \\[roi\\_masses\\]. The total mass contained in these regions, 9807 , is 42% of the total mass included in the region we have studied, and their combined area is 21% of that of the region we have mapped. However, since we have made an unbiased map of \u00a0rather than a map restricted to regions of strong intensity [as @mizuno1995 did in their \u00a0survey], we include somewhat larger areas. The masses we derive for L1495/B213 and for B18 are approximately a factor of 3 larger than those obtained by [@mizuno1995], and that for HCl2 is a factor of 2 larger. It is evident that a large fraction of the mass even within the boundaries shown in Figure \\[roi\\_boundaries\\] is in relatively low\u2013density gas.\n\n[lcc]{}\n\nL1495 &2616 &31.7\\\nB213 &1095 &13.7\\\nL1521 &1584 &17.6\\\nHCl2 &1513 &15.8\\\nL1498 &373 &5.7\\\nL1506 &491 &7.7\\\nB18 &1157 &14.5\\\nL1536 &978 &16.6\\\n& &\\\nTotal &9807 &123.3\\\n\nHaving a well\u2013sampled \u00a0map of a large region and a mass determination allows us to examine the application of a CO luminosity to mass conversion factor [@dickman1986] to Taurus. In Table \\[mass\\_lum\\] we show the results for the different mask regions and the total. The entries in the third column are obtained using a conversion factor M() = 4.1L$_{CO}$(K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^2$). This value is obtained using the Egret $\\gamma$\u2013ray data [@strong1996], and a factor 1.36 for the total mass per H$_2$ molecule (including He and metals) in the gas. For mask 0, the CO luminosity drastically underestimates the mass, due to highly subthermal excitation of the CO and its modest optical depth. For the denser regions, the agreement is much better. The surprisingly close agreement for the complete Taurus region may, to a certain extent, be fortuitous, but it suggests that use of the \u00a0luminosity to derive total mass of molecular regions does appear to work reasonably well for regions with only low\u2013mass young stars, as well as for regions with young high\u2013mass stars.\n\n[lccc]{} mask 0 &4081 &193 &791\\\nmask 1 &7699 &2052 &8413\\\nmask 2 &11752 &3305 &13550\\\nTotal &23532 &5550 &22754\\\n\nLARGE SCALE KINEMATICS OF THE MOLECULAR GAS {#kinematics}\n===========================================\n\nPrevious studies have revealed a variety of motions on different scales within the Taurus complex. These include velocity gradients along individual filaments possibly indicative of rotation, along with a systematic East\u2013West velocity difference as one moves across the region. In Figure \\[gas\\_kin\\] we show a color\u2013coded image of the integrated intensities in three velocity intervals for the two isotopologues. There is a great deal of structure seen even in this relatively crude representation of the velocity field. Certain regions, and particularly the edges of particular regions, show up as having significantly shifted velocities relative to the surrounding gas.\n\nThis coarsely divided integrated intensity does not give the full measure of the complexity of the \u00a0and \u00a0line profiles in Taurus. An indication of this can be seen in Fig. 20 of [@narayanan2007], in which it is evident that in general the regions with multiply\u2013peaked lines exhibit this characteristic in both \u00a0and . Since the visibility of the multiple peaks is approximately equal in the two isotopologues, it is unlikely to be a result of self\u2013absorption, but rather an indication of multiple, kinematically distinct components. These are most prominent in several regions of Taurus, notably the western part of B18, north of L1521, in B213 and west thereof, and in the southern part of Heiles\u2019 Cloud 2. This indicates that some regions are characterized by a considerably greater degree of velocity multiplicity along lines of sight. There does not appear to be any correlation of this characteristic with e.g. star formation.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f12.pdf)**\n\nMOLECULAR GAS AND THE MAGNETIC FIELD {#magnetic}\n====================================\n\nThe Taurus Molecular Cloud has long been a target for investigations of the interstellar magnetic field and its role within the dynamics of the molecular gas component [@moneti1984; @heyer1987; @heyer1988; @goodman1992; @troland1996; @crutcher2000]. Many of these studies have compared the distribution of gas and dust with respect to the magnetic field geometry inferred from optical polarization measurements of background stars. The relationship of the cloud geometry to the magnetic field morphology is an essential aspect of models that have been developed for the formation of Taurus [@gomez1992; @ballesteros1999]. These have hypothesized an initial alignment of a more diffuse cloud with the Galactic magnetic field as part of the initial conditions for formation of the dense cloud, with the gas streaming along magnetic field lines.\n\nObservationally, at intermediate scales ($\\sim$1 pc), the situation has become more complex. In particular, toward the western end of the Taurus cloud, the long axis of the L1506 filament is oriented along the field in contrast to alignments of Heiles\u2019 Cloud 2 and the B216 and B217 filaments for which the field is essentially perpendicular to the axis of the filaments [@goodman1992]. Note that the latter structure is denoted B213 in Figure \\[roi\\_boundaries\\]. From this departure from rigorous alignment, @goodman1992 conclude that either the magnetic field does not dominate the cloud structure at these scales and densities, or that the optical polarization measurements probe a volume that is spatially distinct from the dense filaments. @goodman1992 demonstrate that polarization by selective absorption at optical and infrared wavelengths is produced by dust grains within the outer, low column density envelopes of the molecular clouds and provides little or no information on the magnetic field direction within the high density filaments.\n\nThe \u00a0and \u00a0data presented in this study afford an opportunity to extend these comparisons to lower column densities than these previous investigations. We have used the data assembled by @heiles2000, taken from other sources, and superimposed this on a figure showing the integrated intensities of \u00a0and . Figure \\[CO+B\\] shows the results. **![image](f13.pdf)**\n\nThis figure highlights the relationship between the field direction and the morphology of the dense filaments of gas discussed in the references given above.\n\nWe can use the \u00a0emission to probe the relationship between the lower column density portions of Taurus and the magnetic field. This comparison is shown in the top half of Figure \\[CO+B\\]. Within the faint, low surface brightness \u00a0emission, we see marked striations, which are discussed in more detail in \u00a7\\[striations\\]. Remarkably, these features within the Taurus Cloud follow the local orientation of the magnetic field even as the polarization angles vary from a mean of 53 degrees within the northeast corner of the surveyed area, to 81 degrees within the southwest corner. The alignment of these faint features points toward a strong coupling of the gas with the interstellar magnetic field. Such strong coupling may be expected in these low column density regions that are more exposed to the ambient, UV radiation field, which maintains a higher degree of ionization.\n\nThe origin of these threadlike features and the mechanism whereby they are aligned with the magnetic field are not established, but we can speculate on several processes that may be responsible. The channel maps of the molecular line emission identify regions of systematic motions over scales from the resolution limit up to 30\u00a0to 60. If the magnetic field is well coupled to the neutral gas by frequent ion-neutral collisions but the magnetic energy is small with respect to the kinetic energy of the gas, then the field can be carried by these large scale flows within the cloud. Correspondingly, the field lines would be stretched along the direction of the flow. Alternatively, the narrow emission threads may arise from successive compressions and rarefactions of the gas and magnetic field produced by magnetosonic waves that propagate perpendicular to the field. Within the subthermally excited regime, which likely prevails within these regions of low surface brightness, these column density perturbations would produce corresponding variations in the intensity.\n\nMOLECULAR GAS AND YOUNG STARS IN TAURUS {#youngstars}\n=======================================\n\nThe distribution of young stellar objects with respect to the molecular gas may offer valuable insights to the formation of stars within a dense interstellar cloud. For comparison with our molecular images, we adopted the set of pre-main sequence stars in the Taurus regions from S. Kenyon (2007 private communication, to be published in 2008). This list is comprised of data from many surveys in optical and infrared wavebands [^3]. The pre\u2013main sequence stars are divided into three populations according to their colors. If the R-K magnitude is larger than eight, the star is categorized as likely to be a Class I or younger source. If R-K is smaller than eight, the source is likely to be a T-Tauri star. If the source is not detected in either R or K, it is is likely to be extended/nebulous, in which case it is probably still a protostar, younger than a T-Tauri star. In the region covered by our map, there are a total of 230 stars, 18 of which are Class I or younger, 44 are extended, and 168 are likely to be T-Tauri stars. The stars are shown overlaid on the distribution of the 2\u00a0column density in Figure \\[taurus-stars\\]. The distribution of pre\u2013main sequence stars generally follows that of the dense gas, although a many of the stars in the older category are located in regions with only diffuse gas emission. As noted by [@hartmann2002], the young stars are grouped in three nearly parallel bands that are associated with Heiles\u2019 Cloud 2/L1521/B213/L1495, B18/L1506 and L1536.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f14.pdf)**\n\nThe relationship between 2\u00a0column density and stellar population is examined further in Fig.\u00a0\\[h2\\_stars\\]. **\\[!htpb\\] ![image](f15.pdf)**\n\nRoughly equal number of stars can be found in each of the column density bins spanning the range from 0 to $6.5\\times10^{21}$ 2(upper-left panel). Although the number of stars drops towards higher column density regions, such direct examination of the distribution of stars is somewhat misleading inasmuch as our map includes a substantial area with very weak or no carbon monoxide emission, as shown in the upper right panel of Figure \\[h2\\_stars\\]. The surface density of stars versus column density is plotted in the lower left panel. A significant jump in the surface density occurs at around $N(H_2) = 6\\times10^{21}$ 2, or roughly, A$_v$ = 6, suggestive of a threshold for star formation. Note that the same trend is visible even in a sample of mostly T-Tauri stars (lower right panel).\n\nIn Taurus, neither the dispersion of gas due to star formation nor the dispersion of stars due to stellar motion is likely to have altered the collocation of very dense gas and highly extincted young stars. The threshold in column density for star formation is consistent with the conclusion of @mizuno1995 with the difference being our finding a higher threshold of $6\\times10^{21}$ 2\u00a0instead of $3\\times10^{21}$ 2. Given the larger number of pre\u2013main sequence stars available for the present work, the significance of the change in the stellar surface density is also higher.\n\nWith our rather complete coverage of gas and stars, we can examine the relationship of the stellar mass to the gas mass, which defines the star formation efficiency (or SFE). From a very simplified point of view of the time evolution of the star formation process, we can define the star formation efficiency in three ways. In the first, the SFE is defined as the mass of all known young (pre\u2013main sequence) stars divided by the total gas mass. Assuming an average mass of 0.6 solar mass for each of the stars in our sample [following @palla2000] and the total molecular mass of 2.4$\\times10^4$ (Table \\[mask\\_mass\\]), the star formation efficiency thus defined is 0.6 percent.\n\nIn the second, we define the SFE more strictly for the current epoch, i.e., counting only the mass of protostars and of dense gas (that in our mask 2 region). The SFE thus defined in this more restricted sense is about 0.3 percent. For the third method, we adopt a less physically motivated but procedurally simple approach of defining the star formation efficiency to be the mass of all pre\u2013main sequence stars divided by the mass of dense gas, we obtain an SFE equal to 1.2 percent. These low values confirm that Taurus is a region of relatively low star formation efficiency.\n\nSince star formation is an ongoing process in Taurus the SFE as defined will evolve with time. A more meaningful quantity is the star formation rate per unit molecular gas mass. The star formation history of Taurus is a topic of some controversy [cf. @palla2000; @hartmann2001; @palla2002], particularly the issue regarding whether the star formation rate is presently accelerating or has already reached a peak and is declining. Nevertheless, there does seem to be agreement that star formation has been rapid. Star formation in Taurus began over 10 Myr ago, but most of the identified pre-main sequence stars have formed in the past 3 Myr [@palla2002]. The average star formation rate over the past 3 Myr within the region of Taurus included in this study has been $\\simeq$ 8$\\times10^{-5}$ stars yr$^{-1}$.\n\nAssuming as before an average mass of 0.6 solar masses, we derive a star formation rate of 5$\\times10^{-5}$ \u00a0yr$^{-1}$. Thus, the star formation rate per unit molecular gas mass is approximately 2$\\times10^{-9}$ per year per solar mass of molecular gas. If this rate were to continue, the gas consumption timescale would be over 400 Myr. However, most of the dense gas is likely to be dispersed by the winds from the newly forming stars long before a significant fraction of the cloud mass is converted into stars. It is intriguing that the star formation rate per unit molecular gas mass in Taurus is very similar to that found globally in the Milky Way (assuming a total molecular mass of 2$\\times10^9$ \u00a0and a star formation rate of 3 \u00a0yr$^{-1}$).\n\nMORPHOLOGY OF THE MOLECULAR GAS {#morphology}\n===============================\n\nGeneral Structure of the Gas\n----------------------------\n\nRegions of Interest\n-------------------\n\nIn this section we discuss several of the regions of particular interest that stand out in the carbon monoxide emission from Taurus. These are to some degree reflections of the complex structure seen on a large scale, but highlight some of the varied structures that can easily be identified. The present discussion is by no means complete but does illustrate the varied and complex structures found in this region in which only low mass star formation is taking place. These are grouped together by location within the cloud so that they can be highlighted by detailed images, but this does not necessarily reflect any physical relationship between different features.\n\n### Filamentary Structure Within the Dense Gas\n\nA very striking feature of the molecular gas within the dense portion of Taurus is the fact that the \u00a0emission is highly structured even in integrated intensity, as can be seen in Figure \\[13co\\_tint\\]. An impressive example is shown in Figure \\[filaments\\] which shows a several approximately parallel filaments at 427+2645, having a southeast to northwest orientation. The filaments are $\\simeq$ 20\u2019 to 25\u2019 (0.8 pc to 1.0 pc) long, with a $\\simeq$ 6:1 length to width ratio. These filaments are readily visible in individual velocity images [@narayanan2007] as well as the \u00a0integrated intensity image, but are invisible in the data. The peak H$_2$ column density of the filaments is 3$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2, about a factor of two greater than that of the region between them.\n\nAnother very interesting feature visible in Figure \\[filaments\\] is the almost complete ring\u2013like structure centered at 431+2801. It is fairly circular, having an angular diameter of 18, corresponding to 0.73 pc. The molecular hydrogen column density is typically 3$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2\u00a0around the periphery of the ring and 1.8$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2\u00a0in the center. This ring shows up quite clearly in the \u00a0integrated intensity image in which $\\int\nT_A dv$ increases from 7.5 \u00a0in the center to $\\simeq$ 11 \u00a0on the periphery. This features is not discernible in the \u00a0maximum intensity image, indicating that it is showing increased line width, although distinct kinematic structure is not evident.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f16.pdf)**\n\n### Cometary Globules and Ring in Large Cavity\n\nA structure that appears to be a large cavity is visible at the eastern end of B213, just to the north of B18, visible in the image, but more clearly in the \u00a0integrated intensity (Figure \\[13co\\_tint\\]). An enlarged image is shown in Figure \\[globules\\]. The center of the cavity is approximately 429+2530. Although the cavity is still clearly visible, it is considerably smaller, 40\u00a0(1.6 pc) in \u00a0compared to 70\u00a0(2.9 pc) in . The minimum H$_2$ column density of the cavity is 1.4$\\times$10$^{21}$ \u00a0(it is included in mask 1), but the \u00a0is detected when averaged over a reasonable number of pixels.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f17.pdf)**\n\nThe boundary of this cavity contains an impressive number of young stars, which in fact nearly completely surround it. To the north, these seem to be distributed around the periphery of the cavity, but at its western edge (the eastern end of B213), there are three prominent condensations, looking remarkably like cometary globules, projecting into the cavity. Some properties of the condensations are shown in Table \\[globule\\_properties\\]. The globules are undistinguished in terms of maximum \u00a0temperature. The maximum column density of each of the globules is close to 4$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2. We have not been able to identify any source that would be responsible for forming the cavity, but this may be a result of its relatively great age.\n\n[cc ccc]{} 1 &42649.8 &253906&5.9 &DF Tau\\\n2 &42706.3 &260607&8.3 &DG Tau\\\n& & & &FV Tau\\\n3 &42925.5 &261442&4.1 &FW Tau\\\n\nAs indicated in Table \\[globule\\_properties\\] (see also Figure \\[taurus-stars\\]), each of the globules contains a T Tauri star, with Globule 2 containing two stars. DF Tau is located slightly inwards (toward the cavity center) relative to Globule 1, while the stars in Globules 2 and 3 are located 3\u00a0away from the cavity center compared to the tip of the globule. There does not appear to be any readily discernible kinematic signature giving clues to the origin of the globules, or revealing an effect of the star formation. For example, although the star DG Tau B in Globule 2 has an optical jet which is presumed to be driving the observed red\u2013shifted molecular outflow [@mitchell1997], we do not see an effect on the quiescent gas distribution.\n\nThe stars in question range from 0.2 \u00a0to 2.2 , and have ages between 0.6 Myr (DG Tau) to 1.2 Myr (FW Tau). Stars of this age may well have moved a significant distance since their formation, so that it is not surprising that if they were formed in these globules by e.g. radiative implosion [@bertoldi1990], they may now appear displaced from their formation sites.\n\n### Irregular Filament or Boundary in L1536\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f18.pdf)**\n\nA very long filament having one end in the south\u2013central portion of L1536 and extending to the northwest is visible in the \u00a0emission, shown in an enlarged view in Figure \\[twisted\\_filament\\]. The filament center is at 423\u00a0+2345, and its length is 2, corresponding to 4.9 pc. The morphology of the filament is suggestive of its being a boundary between regions of lower (to the south) and higher (to the north) column density. The form of the filament is somewhat suggestive of a helix, but it could simply have an irregular shape. The 2\u00a0column density along the filament is typically 3$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2, but reaches 5$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2 in the regions of strongest emission. The region surrounding the filament has a 2\u00a0column density of 1.3 to 1.5 $\\times$10$^{21}$ 2, only slightly greater than our minimum value defined by mask 0 of 1.1$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2. This filament, is roughly parallel to the structure formed by B18 and L1506, to the filamentary part of B213, and also to the less well\u2013defined but still quite flattened structure formed by Heiles\u2019 Cloud 2 and L1521. This thin filament is the most southerly and furthest from the Galactic plane of all of these structures. The position angle of all four of these filamentary/elongated clouds is approximately 45\u00a0relative to the plane of the Milky Way.\n\n### Molecular Ring and Planar Boundary\n\nFigure \\[planar\\_boundary\\] includes several different structures. The first is the \u201cmolecular ring\u201d, studied in detail by [@schloerb1984]. This ring, 30\u00a0(1.2 pc) in diameter, centered at 44030\u00a0+2545, contains at least 6 dense condensations visible in the \u00a0integrated intensity image. The best\u2013studied of these is the chemically very interesting TMC-1 ridge, observed in detail by [@pratap1997] and many others. The ridge (the NH$_3$ peak is at 44121+2548) is not very prominent in the \u00a0integrated intensity image, which is presumably a result of the significant optical depth in the ring material, which may not be corrected for entirely by the simple process (described in \u00a7\\[col\\_dens\\_calc\\]) employed here. The peak 2\u00a0column density we derive is 7$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2 which is somewhat less than half of that which would be derived from the \u00a0observations of [@pratap1997]. Given the difficulties expected in deriving the column density in regions of optically thick emission in which significant temperature gradients may be present, this difference is not unreasonable. The ridge is more visible in our \u00a0map than in that of [@schloerb1984] due to the better sampling in the present work.\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f19.pdf)**\n\nThe second noticeable feature in Figure \\[planar\\_boundary\\] is the very straight boundary of the molecular emission seen in centered at 43830\u00a0+2650\u00a0and extending for over 1 degree (2.4 pc). The questions of the formation of this interface and how it is maintained are intriguing. In this region, the emission extends significantly beyond that of the \u00a0away from the high column density portion of the cloud, typically by 0.5 pc. As can be seen in Figures \\[12co\\_tmax\\] and \\[CO+B\\], the \u00a0emission is highly structured, particularly perpendicular to the interface direction. This behavior is not restricted to this portion of the cloud boundary, but in fact is a general characteristic of the emission in the mask 1 region surrounding the high column density portion of the cloud (mask 2) where \u00a0is detected in individual spectra.\n\nFinally, we note the intriguing feature to the west of the better\u2013known ring discussed above. With a center at 437+2645, this is again a slightly non circular ring having a diameter of 30\u00a0(1.2 pc). Given the complexity of the structure observed in our study of the molecular gas in Taurus, this could certainly be a superposition of filaments rather than a ring.\n\n### L1495 and B213\n\nThe L1495 region contains the greatest concentration of young stars within the region of the Taurus molecular cloud that we have mapped. Figure \\[L1495\\] shows the eastern part of L1495; the western part (seen in Figure \\[13co\\_tint\\]) is more diffuse. The enlarged image also shows the very narrow B213 filament which extends to the southeast from L1495. The \u00a0emission and the 2\u00a0column density we derive from it, are relatively continuous over the high column density portion of L1495 and the B213 filament. In \u00a0[@onishi1996] individual dense cores are better resolved, and in HCO$^+$ [@onishi2002] they stand out yet more clearly.\n\nThe central part of of L1495 contains over 20 young stars in Palla\u2019s compilation [@palla2008], and has a maximum 2\u00a0column density of 10$^{22}$ 2, which is the highest we see in our map. The mass of the L1495 region is (Table \\[roi\\_masses\\]) 2.6$\\times$10$^3$ , but a significant fraction of this is in the spatially extended, lower density material.\n\nThe B213 filament is approximately 75\u00a0or 3 pc in length, and only 4.5\u00a0or 0.2 pc thick. One of the curious features about this structure is that while there are dense cores seen along its entire length [@onishi1996; @onishi2002], young stars have apparently not yet formed in the northwestern 30\u00a0(1.2 pc) long portion closest to L1495. The magnetic field orientation at the boundaries of this filament is strikingly oriented perpendicular to its long axis, as seen dramatically in Figure \\[CO+B\\], and discussed in \u00a7\\[magnetic\\].\n\n**\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f20.pdf)**\n\n### Striations in \u00a0Emission {#striations}\n\nOne of the surprising features in the map of \u00a0is the prominent striations (or threads, or strands) seen in the lower level emission seen away from the main molecular condensations. These can be recognized in Figure \\[12co\\_tmax\\], but this effect is more visible in the enlarged image shown in Figure \\[12co\\_striations\\]. Another region in which this is very prominent is located at 415+2430. These are similar to structures seen within some infrared cirrus clouds. The striations are visible in images of maximum antenna temperature and also integrated antenna temperature. The characteristic values are $T_A$ = 3 K on the striations and 2 K between them, while $\\int T_A dv$ drops from $\\simeq$ 2.8 \u00a0on the striations to between 1 and 1.5 \u00a0between them. Given that the density in these regions is low, the \u00a0emission is almost certainly subthermally excited so that it is difficult to determine the kinetic temperature. Based on the procedure described in \u00a7 \\[col\\_dens\\_calc\\], which assumes $T_{kin}$ equal to 15 K, the 2column density of the striated features is 2$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2, approximately double that of the background emission. A striking feature of the striations is their alignment parallel to the direction of the magnetic field measured by optical starlight polarization, as shown in Figure \\[CO+B\\] and discussed in \u00a7\\[magnetic\\]. **\\[!htbp\\] ![image](f21.pdf)**\n\nSUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS {#summary}\n=======================\n\nWe have carried out a large\u2013scale survey of the molecular gas in Taurus by mapping a 100 square degree region with the 13.7 m Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory millimeter telescope. The J = 1 $\\rightarrow$ 0 transition of \u00a0and of \u00a0were observed simultaneously using the 32 pixel Sequoia focal plane array receiver. The observing and data reduction techniques are discussed by [@narayanan2007]. In this overview, we have discussed some of the highlights of the data that we have obtained, deferring detailed analyses to future papers.\n\nThe combination of an unbiased, high sensitivity survey with coverage of a relatively large area allows us to study the structure and properties of the molecular gas in new ways. With approximately 3 million independent spatial pixels, we have a linear dynamic range which is unequaled in previous studies of the Taurus region. While our angular resolution is inferior to that obtained with larger/higher frequency telescopes or interferometers, the strength of the present work is to show the relationship between structures on scales ranging from $\\simeq$ 1\u00a0or 0.04 pc to 10 degrees (approximately 25 pc). Our observations are sensitive to a range of column densities equivalent to a range in visual extinction between 1 and 10 magnitudes.\n\n**Cloud Morphology** One of our key conclusions is that the morphology of this region is very complex. In contrast to earlier large\u2013scale surveys carried out with low angular resolution in which clouds appeared largely smooth\u2013edged and having little structure, we find an astoundingly rich range of structures including filaments, ridges, blobs, and holes. The internal structure is more striking in \u00a0than in which is not surprising given the large optical depth of the former isotopologue. The filaments have lengths up to 3 pc, and axial to transverse dimension ratios as large as 15:1. Holes in the molecular emission appear on a large range of scales extending from 0.1 pc to 3 pc.\n\nThe edges of the dense molecular regions are generally very irregular, with structures on the order of 0.1 pc in size visible especially in \u00a0which traces cloud boundaries which are more extended than seen in the . This \u201chair\u2013like\u201d edge structure is found to be common in while the \u00a0cloud boundaries are relatively sharper but still quite irregular. There is one notable exception in which we find a sharp, straight boundary in \u00a0almost 2.5 pc in length.\n\n**Cloud Mass and Mass Distribution** Having both the \u00a0and \u00a0detected in regions of relatively large column density (mask 2, comprising about 1/3 of the map pixels), we have used the standard method to derive the kinetic temperature and molecular column density, including a correction for saturation of the \u00a0which becomes significant for the regions of greatest column density. To analyze portions of the image (mask 1 comprising about 1/3 of total area of the cloud mapped) in which we detect \u00a0but not \u00a0in individual pixels we use a different approach. With $\\simeq$ 1 million such pixels available, we have binned them by excitation temperature $T_{ex}$. When spectra within a bin are averaged, the \u00a0as well as the \u00a0is readily detectable, and we obtain the 2\u00a0density and the CO column density. We thus have a relationship which gives us n(H$_2$) and N(CO) as a function of $T_{ex}$(). Since the excitation temperature is available for each pixel, we can derive the CO column density for each line of sight. Averaging together all the pixels in mask 0 (in any one of which neither \u00a0nor \u00a0was detectable), we detect both isotopologues, and use the two spectra to derive the average density and column density for mask 0, the final third of the map. This procedure allows us to determine the CO column density throughout the region mapped, including even regions of relatively low column density.\n\nTo convert $N(CO)$ to total column density, we have used the results of [@vandishoeck1988] which are appropriate for Taurus. The essential point is that the fractional abundance of carbon monoxide drops as the total 2\u00a0column density is reduced, as a result of reduced dust shielding and self\u2013shielding. Inverting this argument, the column density of 2\u00a0corresponding to a low column density of carbon monoxide is larger than would be obtained assuming a constant fractional abundance for CO. The result is that the total mass for the region of Taurus mapped is close to 2.4$\\times$10$^4$ , compared to less than 1$\\times$10$^4$ \u00a0that would be found using a standard, uniform fractional abundance. We find that half the mass of the cloud is contained in regions having column density below 2.1$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2. This result reduces the fraction of mass found in dense cores by a factor greater than 2, and also confirms the presence of significant external pressure in the regions external to the dense regions. The total mass for the region we have mapped thus obtained agrees well with that predicted from the CO luminosity, 5.55$\\times$10$^3$ K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^2$, and a standard conversion M() = 4.1 L$_{CO}$ (K km s$^{-1}$ pc$^2$). It seems likely that our conclusion that a significant component of diffuse molecular gas accompanies the more widely studied high density regions is not restricted to Taurus. It reinforces the importance of observations which can study this diffuse molecular material, which is not readily detected in individual spectra with the sensitivity typically available in large\u2013scale molecular cloud surveys.\n\n**Cloud Structure and Star Formation** The structural complexity over a wide range of scale sizes hints at the richness of the physical processes which underly the formation and evolution of molecular cloud complexes such as Taurus. The present data set, both in terms of morphology and mass distribution, constitutes a potentially valuable resource for comparison with outputs from simulations of cloud formation. The large scale kinematic structure that we see confirms that identified in earlier studies. Along with the complexity of the line profiles observed along many lines of sight, this poses a real challenge for any detailed theoretical model of this region.\n\nWe see a varied relationship between the magnetic field as measured by polarization of background stars, and the distribution of the gas. In the more diffuse regions traced by we see large\u2013scale alignment between the field direction and striated structure in the gas. Although we have not been able to measure any kinematic signature, the appearance is strongly suggestive of flows along the field lines. In several of the very elongated filaments seen in the denser gas traced by , the magnetic field is oriented perpendicular, or nearly perpendicular, to the major axes of the filaments. Combined with the hair\u2013like appearance of the boundaries of these filaments seen in but more prominent in , this again suggests that motions of material along the field lines have been responsible for building up the regions of higher density within the overall molecular cloud.\n\nThe surface density of very young and moderately young stars shows a rapid increase at a H$_2$ column density of 6$\\times$10$^{21}$ 2, confirming the existence of a threshold for star formation. We have used new compilations of young stars in the Taurus region to calculate the star formation efficiency (SFE). Our large value for the gas mass, especially in regions of lower column density, results in the SFE, taken to be the mass of all young stars in the region divided by the total molecular mass, to be 0.6 percent. Taking the SFE for most recent star formation by comparing the mass of only the embedded protostars with that of the dense gas, gives an SFE equal to 0.3 percent. If we consider all of the young stars (whether embedded protostars or T-Tauri stars) in the region of high column density, we obtain a SFE equal to 1.2 percent. The average star formation rate over the past 3 Myr within the region of Taurus included in this study has been $\\simeq$ 8$\\times10^{-5}$ stars yr$^{-1}$, corresponding to a mass going into new stars of 5$\\times10^{-5}$ \u00a0yr$^{-1}$.\n\nThis work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through grant AST-0407019 to Cornell University, and by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology. The Five College Radio Astronomy Observatory is operated with support from the National Science Foundation through NSF grant AST 05 40852 and with permission of the Metropolitan District Commission. We thank Yvonne Tang for contributions to data taking and analysis of dense condensations in Taurus, and Marko Krco for assistance with observations. We thank Pierre Hily\u2013Blant for the suggestion to compare the magnetic field and integrated intensity maps in Taurus, and for many useful conversations about this and other topics. We are indebted to Francesco Palla and Scott Kenyon for providing compilations of young stars in the Taurus region and their properties. We thank Ted Bergin for carrying out time\u2013dependent calculations of the CO abundance in diffuse regions. We thank the anonymous reviewer for very carefully reading the lengthy manuscript, noting some problems, and making some suggestions for further work which has improved this study. This research has made use of NASA\u2019s Astrophysics Data System.\n\nAbergel, A., Boulanger, F., Fukui, Y., & Mizuno, A. 1995, , 111, 483\n\nAlves, J., Lada, C.J., & Lada, E.A. 1999, , 515, 265\n\nBachiller, R. & Cernicharo, J. 1986, , 168, 262\n\nBallesteros\u2013Paredes, J., Hartmann, L., & V\u00e1zquez\u2013Semadeni, E. 1999, , 527, 285\n\nBally, J. & Langer, W.D. 1982, , 255, 143\n\nBeichman, C.A., Myers, P.C., Emerson, J.P., Harris, S., Mathieu, R., Benson, P.J., & Jennings, R.E. 1986, , 307, 377\n\nBertoldi, F. & McKee, C.F. 1990, , 354, 529\n\nBurgh, E.B., France, K., & McCandliss, S.R. 2007, , 658, 446\n\nBurton, W.B. & Hartmann, D. 1994, in Unveiling Large\u2013Scale Structures Behind the Milky Way, ASP Conf. Series, Vol. 67, C. Balkowski & R.C. Kraan-Kortweg eds. (San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 31\n\nCernicharo, J., & Gu\u00e9lin, M. 1987, , 176, 299\n\nChu, W.\u2013H. & Watson, W.D. 1983, , 267, 151\n\nCrutcher, R. M., & Troland, T.H. 2000, , 537, L139\n\nDickman, R.L., Snell, R.L., & Schloerb, F.P. 1986, , 309, 326\n\nDuvert, G., Cernicharo, J., & Baudry, A. 1986, , 164, 349\n\nElias, J.H. 1978, , 224, 857\n\nErickson, N.R., Grosslein, R.M., Erickson, R.B., & Weinreb, S. 1999, IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., 47(12), 2212\n\nFederman, S.R., Strom, C.J., Lambert, D.L., Cardelli, J.A., Smith, V.V., & Joseph, C.L. 1994, , 424, 772\n\nFrerking, M.A., Langer, W.D., & Wilson, R.W. 1982, , 262, 590\n\nGoldsmith, P.F., Langer, W.D., Carlson, R.E., & Wilson, R.W. 1980, in Interstellar Molecules, IAU Symp. 87, B.H. Andrew ed. (Dordrecht: Reidel), 417\n\nGoldsmith, P.F., Young, J.S., & Langer, W.D. 1983, , 51, 203\n\nGoldsmith, P.F. & Li, D. 2005, , 622, 938\n\nGomez de Castro, A.I. & Pudritz, R.E. 1992, , 395, 501\n\nGoodman, A.A., Jones, J.T., Lada, E.A., & Myers, P.C. 1992, , 399, 108\n\nHartigan, P., & Kenyon, S.J. 2003, , 583, 334\n\nHartmann, L., Ballesteros\u2013Paredes, J., & Bergin, E. A. 2001, ,562, 852\n\nHartmann, L. 2002, , 578, 914\n\nHeiles, C. 2000, , 119, 923\n\nHeiles, C. & Crutcher, R. 2005, in Cosmic Magnetic Fields, R. Wielebinski & R. Beck ed. (Berlin: Springer), 137\n\nHeyer, M.H., Vrba, F.J., Snell, R.L., Schloerb, F.P., Strom, S.E., Goldsmith, P.F., & Strom, K.M. 1987, , 321, 855\n\nHeyer, M.H. 1988, , 324, 311\n\nJijina, J., Myers, P.C., & Adams, F.C. 1999, , 125, 161\n\nKainulainen, J., Lehtinen, K., & Harju, J. 2006, , 447, 597\n\nKenyon, S. 2007, private communication; to appear in The Handbook of Star Forming Regions, ASP Conference Series, B. Reipurth, ed., 2008\n\nLacy, J.H., Knacke, R., Geballe, T.R., & Tokunaga, A.T. 1994, , 428, L69\n\nLanger, W.D., Goldsmith, P.F., Carlson, E.R., & Wilson, R.W. 1980, , 235, L39\n\nLanger, W.D., Wilson, R.W., Goldsmith, P.F., & Beichman, C.A. 1989, , 337, 355\n\nLanger, W.D. & Penzias, A.A. 1993, , 408, 539\n\nLanger, W.D., Velusamy, T., Kuiper, T.B.H., Levin, S., Olsen, E., & Migenes, V. 1995, , 453, 293\n\nLi, D. & Goldsmith, P.F. 2003, , 585, 823\n\nLi, D., Goldsmith, P.F., & Menten, K.M. 2003, , 587, 262\n\nLiszt, H.S. & Lucas, R. 1998, , 339, 561\n\nLiszt, H.S. 2007, , 476, 291\n\nMitchell, G.F., Sargent, A.I., & Mannings, V. 1997, , 483, L127\n\nMizuno, A., Onishi, T., Yonekura, Y., Nagahama, T., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1995, , 445, L161\n\nMoneti, A., Pipher, J.L., Helfer, H.L., McMillan, R.S., & Perry, M.L. 1984, , 282, 508\n\nNarayanan, G., Heyer, M., Brunt, C., Snell, R.L., Goldsmith, P.F., & Li, D. 2007, submitted to\n\nOnishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1996, , 465, 815\n\nOnishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Ogawa, H., & Fukui, Y. 1998, , 502, 296\n\nOnishi, T., Mizuno, A., Kawamura, A., Tachihara, K., & Fukui, Y. 2002, , 575, 950\n\nPadoan, P., Cambr\u00e9sy, L., & Langer, W.D. 1992, , 580, L57\n\nPalla, F. & Stahler, S.W. 2000, , 540, 255\n\nPalla, F. & Stahler, S.W. 2002, , 58, 1194\n\nPalla, F. 2008, private communication\n\nPratap, P., Dickens, J.E., Snell, R. L., Miralles, M.P., Bergin, E.A., Irvine, W.M., & Schloerb, F.P. 1997, , 486, 862\n\nPringle, J.E., Allen, R.J., & Lubow, S.H. 2001, , 327, 663\n\nSchloerb, F.P., & Snell, R.L. 1984, , 283, 129\n\nShu, F.H., Adams, F.C., & Lizano, S. 1987, , 25, 23\n\nShuter, W.L.H., Dickman, R.L., & Klatt, C. 1987, , 322, L103\n\nSnell, R.L. 1981, , 45, 121\n\nSonnentrucker, P., Welty, D.E., Thorburn, J.A., & York, D.G. 2007, , 168, 58\n\nStrong, A.W. & Mattox, J.R. 1996, , 308, L21\n\nTamura, M., Gatley, I., Wall, W., & Werner, M.W. 1991, , 374, L25\n\nTatematsu, K., Umemoto, T., Kandori, R., & Sekimoto, Y. 2004, , 606, 333\n\nTroland, T., Crutcher, R.M., Goodman, A.A., Heiles, C., Kaz\u00e8s, I., & Myers, P.C. 1996, , 471, 302\n\nUngerechts, H. & Thaddeus, P. 1987, , 63, 645\n\nVan Dishoeck, E.F. & Black, J.H. 1988, , 334, 771\n\nV\u00e1zquez\u2013Semadeni, E. 2007, in Triggered Star Formation in a Turbulent ISM, Proc. IAU Symp. 237, B.G. Elmegreen & J. Palous, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 292\n\nWatson, W.D., Anicich, V.G., & Huntress, W.T. Jr. 1976, , 205, L165\n\nYoung, J.S., Goldsmith, P.F., Langer, W.D., & Wilson, R.W. 1982, , 261, 513\n\n[^1]: This value, from @elias1978, is so entrenched in the literature that we will use it despite the plausible suggestion by [@hartigan2003] that the distance should be reduced by about 10%, to $\\sim$126 pc.\n\n[^2]: A 16 pixel single\u2013polarization version of the array is described in [@erickson1999].\n\n[^3]: We obtain essentially the same results using the data compiled by F. Palla, which was also provided to us as a private communication.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We investigate $S$-arithmetic inhomogeneous Khintchine type theorems in the dual setting for nondegenerate manifolds. We prove the convergence case of the theorem, including, in particular, the $S$-arithmetic inhomogeneous counterpart of the Baker-Sprind\u017euk conjectures. The divergence case is proved for ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ but in the more general context of Hausdorff measures. This answers a question posed by Badziahin, Beresnevich and Velani [@BaBeVe].'\naddress: 'School of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, 400005, India'\nauthor:\n- Shreyasi Datta\n- Anish Ghosh\ntitle: '$S$-arithmetic Inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation on manifolds'\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIn this paper we are concerned with metric Diophantine approximation on nondegenerate manifolds in the $p$-adic, or more generally $S$-arithmetic setting for a finite set of primes $S$. To motivate our results we recall Khintchine\u2019s theorem, a basic result in metric Diophantine approximation. Let $\\Psi : {\\mathbb{R}}^n \\to {\\mathbb{R}}_{+} $ be a function satisfying $$\\label{defmultapp}\n\\Psi(a_1, \\dots, a_n) \\geq \\Psi(b_1, \\dots, b_n) \\text{ if } |a_i| \\leq |b_i| \\text{ for all } i = 1,\\dots, n.$$ Such a function is referred to as a *multivariable approximating function*. Given such a function, define ${\\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\\Psi)$ to be the set of ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in {\\mathbb{R}}^n$ for which there exist infinitely many ${\\mathbf{a}}\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}^{n}$ such that $$\\label{preKG}\n|a_0 +  {\\mathbf{a}}\\cdot {\\mathbf{x}}| < \\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})$$ for some $a_0 \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$. When $\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}}) = \\psi(\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|)$ for a non-increasing function $\\psi$, we write ${\\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\\psi)$ for ${\\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\\Psi)$. Khintchine\u2019s Theorem ([@Khintchine], [@Groshev]) gives a characterization of the measure of ${\\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\\psi)$ in terms of $\\psi$:\n\n\\[KG\\] $$|{\\mathcal{W}}_{n}(\\psi)| = \\left\\{ \n\\begin{array}{rl} \n0 & \\text{if } \\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty} k^{n-1} \\psi(k) < \\infty\\\\ \n\\\\\n\\text{ full } & \\text{if } \\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty}k^{n-1}  \\psi(k) = \\infty.\n\\end{array} \\right.$$\n\nHere, $\\|~\\|$ denotes the supremum norm of a vector and $|~|$ denotes the absolute value of a real number as well as the Lebesgue measure of a measurable subset of ${\\mathbb{R}}^n$; the context will make the use clear. The kind of approximation considered above is called \u201cdual\" approximation in the literature as opposed to the setting of simultaneous Diophantine approximation. In this paper, we will only consider dual approximation. Given an approximation function, one can consider the corresponding $S$-arithmetic question as follows, we follow the notation of Kleinbock and Tomanov [@KT]. Given a finite set of primes $S$ of cardinality $l$ we set ${\\mathbb{Q}}_S := \\prod_{\\nu \\in S}{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu$ and denote by $|~|_S$ the $S$-adic absolute value, $|{\\mathbf{x}}| = \\max_{v \\in S }|x^{(v)}|_v$. For ${\\mathbf{a}}= (a_1, \\dots, a_n) \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}^n$ and $a_0 \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$ we set $$\\widetilde{{\\mathbf{a}}} := (a_0, a_1, \\dots, a_n).$$ We say that ${\\mathbf{y}}\\in {\\mathbb{Q}}^{n}_S$ is $\\Psi$-approximable (${\\mathbf{y}}\\in {\\mathcal{W}}_{n}(S, \\Psi)$) if there are infinitely many solutions ${\\mathbf{a}}\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}^n$ to $$|a_0 + {\\mathbf{a}}\\cdot {\\mathbf{y}}|_{S}^{l}  \\leq \\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{rl} \n\\Psi(\\widetilde{{\\mathbf{a}}}) & \\text{ if } \\infty \\notin S\\\\ \n\\\\\n\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}}) & \\text{ if } \\infty \\in S.\n\\end{array} \\right.$$\n\nWe fix Haar measure on ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p$, normalized to give ${\\mathbb{Z}}_p$ measure $1$ and denote the product measure on ${\\mathbb{Q}}_S$ by $|~|_S$. Then, the following analogue of Khintchine\u2019s theorem can be proved. Namely,\n\n\\[S-KG\\] ${\\mathcal{W}}_{n}(S, \\psi)$ has zero or full measure depending on the convergence or divergence of the series $$\\left\\{ \n\\begin{array}{rl} \n\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty} k^{n}\\psi(k) & \\text{if } \\infty \\notin S \\\\ \n\\\\\n \\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty} k^{n-1}  \\psi(k) & \\text{if } \\infty \\in S.\n\\end{array} \\right.$$\n\nIndeed, the convergence case follows from the Borel-Cantelli lemma as usual and the divergence case can be proved using the methods in [@L].\n\nInhomogeneous approximation:\n----------------------------\n\nGiven a multivariable approximating function $\\Psi$ and a function $\\theta : {\\mathbb{R}}^n \\to {\\mathbb{R}}$, we set ${\\mathcal{W}}^{\\theta}_{n}(\\Psi)$ to be the set of ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in {\\mathbb{R}}^n$ for which there exist infinitely many ${\\mathbf{a}}\\in \\mathbb{Z}^n\\setminus \\{\\mathbf{0}\\}$ such that $$\\label{preKGinhom}\n|a_0 +  {\\mathbf{a}}\\cdot {\\mathbf{x}}+ \\theta({\\mathbf{x}})| < \\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})$$ for some $a_0 \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$. For $\\psi$ as above, the set ${\\mathcal{W}}^{\\theta}_{n}(\\psi)$ is often referred to as the (dual) set of \u201c$(\\psi, \\theta)$-inhomogeneously approximable\" vectors in ${\\mathbb{R}}^n$. The following inhomogeneous version of Theorem\u00a0\\[KG\\] is established in [@BaBeVe]. We denote by $C^n$ the set of $n$-times continuously differentiable functions.\n\n\\[KGinhom\\] Let $\\theta : \\mathbb{R}^n \\to \\mathbb{R}$ be a $C^2$ function. Then $$|{\\mathcal{W}}^{\\theta}_{n}(\\psi)| = \\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{rl}\n0 & \\text{if } \\ \\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty}  k^{n-1}\\psi(k) < \\infty\\\\\n\\\\\n\\text{ full } & \\text{if } \\ \\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty}  k^{n-1}\\psi(k) = \\infty.\n\\end{array} \\right.$$\n\nWe remark that the choice of $\\theta = \\text{constant}$ is the setting of traditional inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation and in that case the above result was well known, see for example [@Cassels]. Similarly inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation can be considered in the $S$-arithmetic setting.\n\nFor a multivariable approximating function $\\Psi$ and a function $\\Theta: {\\mathbb{Q}}^{n}_S \\to {\\mathbb{Q}}_S$, we say that a vector ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in  {\\mathbb{Q}}_S^n $ is $(\\Psi,\\Theta)$-approximable if there exist infinitely many $({\\mathbf{a}}, a_0)\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^n\\setminus\\{0\\}\\times {\\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$|a_0 + {\\mathbf{a}}\\cdot {\\mathbf{x}}+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|_{S}^l\\leq  \\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{rl} \n\\Psi(\\widetilde{{\\mathbf{a}}}) & \\text{ if } \\infty \\notin S\\\\ \n\\\\\n\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}}) & \\text{ if } \\infty \\in S.\n\\end{array} \\right.$$\n\nThe convergence case of Khintchine\u2019s theorem in this setting again follows from the Borel Cantelli lemma. The divergence Theorem when $S = \\{p\\}$ comprises a single prime $p$ is a consequence of the results in this paper.\n\nDiophantine approximation on manifolds\n--------------------------------------\n\nIn the theory of Diophantine approximation on manifolds, one studies the inheritance of generic (for Lebesgue measure) Diophantine properties by proper submanifolds of ${\\mathbb{R}}^n$. This theory has seen dramatic advances in the last two decades, beginning with the proof of the Baker-Sprind\u017euk conjectures by Kleinbock and Margulis [@KM] using non divergence estimates for certain flows on the space of unimodular lattices. Motivated by problems in transcendental number theory, K. Mahler conjectured in 1932 that almost every point on the curve $${\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}}) = (x, x^2, \\dots, x^n)$$ is not *very well approximable*, i.e. $\\psi$-approximable for $\\psi:= \\psi_{\\varepsilon}(k) = k^{-n-\\varepsilon}$. This conjecture was resolved by V. G. Sprind\u017euk [@Sp; @Sp3] who in turn conjectured that almost every point on a nondegenerate manifold is not very well approximable. This conjecture, in a more general, multiplicative form, was resolved by D. Kleinbock and G. Margulis in [@KM]. The following definition is taken from [@KT] and is based on [@KM]. Let $f : U \\to F^n$ be a $C^k$ map, where $F$ is any locally compact valued field and $U$ is an open subset of $F^d$, and say that $f$ is nondegenerate at $x_0 \\in U$ if the space $F^n$ is spanned by partial derivatives of $f$ at $x_0$ up to some finite order. Loosely speaking, a nondegenerate manifold is one in which is locally not contained in an affine subspace. Subsequent to the work of Kleinbock and Margulis, there were rapid advances in the theory of dual approximation on manifolds. In [@BKM] (and independently in [@Ber1]) the convergence case of the Khintchine-Groshev theorem for nondegenerate manifolds was proved and in [@BBKM], the complementary divergence case was established.\n\nAs for the $p$-adic theory, Sprind\u017euk [@Sp] himself established the $p$-adic and function field (i.e. positive characteristic) versions of Mahler\u2019s conjectures. Subsequently, there were several partial results (cf. [@Kov; @BK]) culminating in the work of Kleinbock and Tomanov [@KT] where the $S$-adic case of the Baker-Sprind\u017euk conjectures were settled in full generality. In [@G], the second named author established the function field analogue. The convergence case of Khintchine\u2019s theorem for nondegenerate manifolds in the $S$-adic setting was established by Mohammadi and Golsefidy [@MoS1] and the divergence case for ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ in [@MoS2].\n\nIn the case of inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation on manifolds, following several partial results (cf. [@Bu] and the references in [@BeVe; @BeVe2]), an inhomogeneous transference principle was developed by Beresnevich and Velani using which they resolved the inhomogeneous analogue of the Baker-Sprind\u017euk conjectures. Subsequently, Badziahin, Beresnevich and Velani [@BaBeVe] established the convergence and divergence cases of the inhomogeneous Khintchine theorem for nondegenerate manifolds. They proved a new result even in the classical setting by allowing the inhomogeneous term to vary. The divergence theorem is established in the same paper in the more general setting of Hausdorff measures.\n\nIn this paper, we will establish the convergence case of an inhomogeneous Khintchine theorem for nondegenerate manifolds in the $S$-adic setting, as well as the divergence case for ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p$. As in [@BaBeVe], the divergence case is proved in the greater generality of Hausdorff measures. Prior results in the $p$-adic theory of inhomogeneous approximation for manifolds focussed mainly on curves, cf. [@BDY; @BeK; @U1; @U2].\n\nMain Results\n------------\n\nTo state our main results, we introduce some notation following [@MoS1], recall some of the assumptions from that paper and set forth one further standing assumption. The assumptions are as follows.\n\n1.  $S$ contains the infinite place.\n\n2.  We will consider the domain to be of the form ${\\mathbf{U}}=\\prod_{\\nu\\in S} {\\mathbf{U}}_{\\nu}  $ where ${\\mathbf{U}}_\\nu\\subset{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu^{d_\\nu}  $ is an open box. Here, the norm is taken to be the Euclidean norm at the infinite place and the $L^{\\infty}$ norm at finite places.\n\n3.  We will consider functions ${\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})  =({\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu(x_\\nu)) _{\\nu\\in S}$, for ${\\mathbf{x}}=(x_\\nu) \\in{\\mathbf{U}}$ where ${\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu=(f_\\nu^{(1)},f_\\nu^{(2)},\\dots,f_\\nu^{(n)}): \n                      {\\mathbf{U}}_\\nu\\to {\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu^n $ is an analytic map for any $\\nu\\in S $, and can be analytically extended to the boundary of $ {\\mathbf{U}}_\\nu$.\n\n4.  We assume that the restrictions of $1 ,{f_\\nu^{(1)},f_\\nu^{(2)},\\dots,f_\\nu^{(n)}}$ to any open subset of ${\\mathbf{U}}_\\nu $ are linearly independent over ${\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu $ and that $\\|{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})\\|\\leq 1,\\|\\nabla{\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu(x_\\nu)\\| \\leq 1$ and $|\\Phi_\\beta {\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu(y_1,y_2,y_3)| \\leq \\frac{1}{2} $ for any $\\nu \\in S,$ second difference quotient $\\Phi_\\beta$ and $x_\\nu,y_1,y_2,y_3 \\in U_\\nu$. We refer the reader to Section $3$ for definitions.\n\n5.  \\[monotone\\_cond\\] We assume that the function $\\Psi :{\\mathbb{Z}}^n \\to {\\mathbb{R}}_{+ } $ is monotone decreasing componentwise i.e. $$\\Psi(a_1,\\cdots,a_i,\\cdots, a_n)\\geq \\Psi(a_1,\\cdots, a'_{i},\\cdots, a_n)$$ whenever $|a_i|_S\\leq |a'_i|_S $.\n\n6.  We assume that $\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})=(\\Theta_\\nu(x_\\nu)) $ where $\\Theta :{\\mathbf{U}}\\mapsto {\\mathbb{Q}}_S $ is also analytic and can be extended analytically to the boundary of ${\\mathbf{U}}_\\nu$.we will assume $\\|\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})\\|\\leq 1,\\|\\nabla\\Theta_\\nu(x_\\nu)\\| \\leq 1$ and $|\\Phi_\\beta \\Theta_\\nu(y_1,y_2,y_3)| \\leq \\frac{1}{2} $ for any $\\nu \\in S $ , second difference quotient $\\Phi_\\beta$ and $x_\\nu,y_1,y_2,y_3 \\in U_\\nu$.\n\nWe can now state the first main Theorem of the present paper.\n\n\\[thm:main\\] Let $S$ be as in (I0) and ${\\mathbf{U}}$ as in (I1). Suppose ${\\mathbf{f}}$ satisfies (I2) and (I3), that $\\Psi$ satisfies (I4) and $\\Theta$ satisfies (I5). Then $${\\mathcal{W}}_{\\Psi,\\Theta}^{{\\mathbf{f}}} := \\{ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}| \\ {\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})    \\text{  is   }     (\\Psi,\\Theta)-\\text{  approximable}\\}$$ has measure zero if $\\sum_{{\\mathbf{a}}\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}^n\\setminus\\{0\\}} \\Psi({\\mathbf{a}}) <\\infty$.\n\nThe divergence case of our Theorem is proved in the more general setting of Hausdorff measures. However, we need to impose some restrictions: we only consider the case when $S = \\{p\\}$ consists of a single prime, the inhomogeneous function is assumed to be analytic, and the approximating function is not as general as in Theorem \\[thm:main\\]. We will denote by $\\mathcal{H}^{s}(X) $ the $s$-dimensional Hausdorff measure of a subset $X$ of ${\\mathbb{Q}}^{n}_{S}$ and $\\dim X$ the Hausdorff dimension, where $s > 0$ is a real number.\n\n\\[thm:divergence\\] Let $S$ be as in (I0) and ${\\mathbf{U}}$ as in (I1). Suppose ${\\mathbf{f}}:{\\mathbf{U}}\\subset{\\mathbb{Q}}_p^m\\to {\\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$ satisfies (I2) and (I3). Let $$\\label{def:newpsi}\n        \\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})= \\psi(\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|), {\\mathbf{a}}\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$$ be an approximating function and assume that $s > m-1$. Let $\\Theta:{\\mathbf{U}}\\to {\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ be an analytic map satisfying (I5). Then $$\\mathcal{H}^s(\\mathcal{W}^{\\mathbf{f}}_{(\\Psi,\\Theta)}\\cap{\\mathbf{U}})=\\mathcal{H}^s({\\mathbf{U}}) \\text{    if   } \\sum_{{\\mathbf{a}}\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}^n \\backslash \\{0\\}} (\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}}))^{s+1-m}=\\infty.$$\n\nGiven an approximating function $\\psi$, the lower order at infinity $\\tau_{\\psi}$ of $1/\\psi$ is defined by $$\\tau_{\\psi} := \\liminf_{t \\to \\infty}\\frac{-\\log\\psi(t)}{\\log t}.$$ The divergent sum condition of Theorem \\[thm:divergence\\] is satisfied whenever $$s<m-1+\\frac{n+1}{\\tau_\\psi}.$$ Therefore, by the definition of Hausdorff measure and dimension, we get\n\n[\\[jar\\]]{} Let ${\\mathbf{f}}$ and $\\Theta$ be as in Theorem \\[thm:divergence\\]. Let $\\psi$ be an approximating function as in (\\[def:newpsi\\]) such that $n+1\\leq \\tau_\\psi<\\infty$. Then $$\\dim (\\mathcal{W}^{\\mathbf{f}}_{(\\Psi,\\Theta)}\\cap{\\mathbf{U}})\\geq m-1+\\frac{n+1}{\\tau_\\psi}.$$\n\nRemarks\n-------\n\n1.  We have assumed $S$ contains the infinite place in Theorem \\[thm:main\\]. This is not a serious assumption, the proof in the case when $S$ contains only finite places needs some minor modifications but follows the same outline, details will appear in [@Datta], the PhD thesis, under preparation, of the first named author. In [@MoS1], the (homogeneous) $S$-adic convergence case is proved in slightly greater generality than in the present paper. Namely, instead of ${\\mathbb{Q}}$, the quotient field of a finitely generated subring of ${\\mathbb{Q}}$ is considered. This, more general formulation will also be investigated in [@Datta].\n\n2.  Our proof for the convergence case, namely Theorem \\[thm:main\\] blends techniques from the homogeneous results, namely [@KT; @BKM; @MoS1] and uses the transference principle developed by Beresnevich and Velani in the form used in [@BaBeVe]. The structure of the proof is the same as in [@BaBeVe]. We also take the opportunity to clarify some properties of $(C, \\alpha)$-good functions in the $S$-adic setting which may be of independent interest.\n\n3.  The proof of Theorem \\[thm:divergence\\], follows the ubiquity framework used in [@BaBeVe] but needs new ideas to implement in the $p$-adic setting. At present, we are unable to prove the more general $S$-adic divergence statement. We note that the $S$-adic case remains open even in the homogeneous setting.\n\n4.  We now undertake a brief discussion of the assumptions (I1) - (I5). The conditions (I1)-(I4) are assumed in [@MoS1] and, as explained in loc. cit., are assumed for convenience. Namely, as mentioned in [@MoS1], the statement for any non-degenerate analytic manifold over ${\\mathbb{Q}}_S$ follows from Theorem \\[thm:main\\]. In [@BaBeVe], the inhomogeneous parameter $\\Theta$ is allowed to be $C^2$ when restricted to the nondegenerate manifold. However, we need to assume it to be analytic.\n\n5.  Theorem \\[thm:divergence\\] is slightly more general than Theorem 1.2 of [@MoS2] in the homogeneous setting. In [@MoS2], the approximating function is taken to be of the form $$\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})=\\frac{1}{\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|^{n}}\\psi(\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|), {\\mathbf{a}}\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$$ which is a more restrictive class of approximating functions. For an $n$-tuple $v = (v_1, \\cdots, v_n)$ of positive numbers satisfying $v_1 + \\cdots + v_n = n$, define the $v$-quasinorm $| ~ |_v$ on ${\\mathbb{R}}^n$ by setting $$\\|{\\mathbf{x}}\\|_v := \\max |x_i|^{1/v_i}.$$ Following [@BaBeVe] we say that a multivariable approximating function $\\Psi$ satisfies property $\\mathbf{P}$ if $\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}}) = \\psi(\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|_v)$ for some approximating function $\\psi$ and $v$ as above. As noted in loc. cit. when $v = (1, \\dots, 1)$ we have that $\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|_v = \\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|$ and any approximating function $\\psi$ satisfies property $\\mathbf{P}$, where $\\psi$ is regarded as the function ${\\mathbf{a}}\\to \\psi(\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|)$. The proof of Theorem \\[thm:divergence\\] can be modified to deal with the case of functions satisfying property $\\mathbf{P}$.\n\nStructure of the paper {#structure-of-the-paper .unnumbered}\n----------------------\n\nIn the next section, we recall the transference principle of Beresnevich and Velani. The subsequent section studies $(C, \\alpha)$-good functions in the $S$-adic setting. We then prove Theorem \\[thm:main\\] and then Theorem \\[thm:divergence\\]. We conclude with some open questions.\n\nInhomogeneous transference principle\n====================================\n\nIn this section we state the inhomogeneous transference principle of Beresnevich and Velani from [@BeVe Section 5] which will allow us to convert our inhomogeneous problem to the homogeneous one. Let $(\\Omega, d)$ be a locally compact metric space. Given two countable indexing sets $\\mathcal{A}$ and $\\mathbf{T}$, let H and I be two maps from ${\\mathbf{T}}\\times {\\mathcal{A}}\\times {\\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ into the set of open subsets of $\\Omega$ such that\n\n$$\\label{H_fn}\n H~:~(t, \\alpha, \\lambda) \\in {\\mathbf{T}}\\times {\\mathcal{A}}\\times {\\mathbb{R}}_{+} \\to H_{\\mathbf{t}}(\\alpha, \\lambda)$$\n\n\\\nand $$\\label{I_fn}\n I~:~ (t, \\alpha, \\lambda) \\in {\\mathbf{T}}\\times {\\mathcal{A}}\\times {\\mathbb{R}}_{+} \\to I_{\\mathbf{t}}(\\alpha, \\lambda)$$\\\nFurthermore, let $$\\label{defH}\n H_{{\\mathbf{t}}} (\\lambda) := \\bigcup_{\\alpha \\in {\\mathcal{A}}} H_{\\mathbf{t}}(\\alpha, \\lambda) \\text{ and }  I_{{\\mathbf{t}}} (\\lambda) := \\bigcup_{\\alpha \\in {\\mathcal{A}}} I_{\\mathbf{t}}(\\alpha, \\lambda).$$\n\nLet $\\Psi$ denote a set of functions $\\psi: {\\mathbf{T}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}_{+}~:~{\\mathbf{t}}\\to \\psi_{{\\mathbf{t}}}$. For $\\psi \\in \\Psi$, consider the limsup sets\n\n$$\\label{deflambda}\n\\Lambda_{H}(\\psi) = \\limsup_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}} H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}(\\psi_{{\\mathbf{t}}}) \\text{ and } \\Lambda_{I}(\\psi) = \\limsup_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}} I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}(\\psi_{{\\mathbf{t}}}).$$\n\nThe sets associated with the map $H$ will be called homogeneous sets and those associated with the map $I$, inhomogeneous sets. We now come to two important properties connecting these notions.\n\nThe intersection property {#the-intersection-property .unnumbered}\n-------------------------\n\nThe triple $(H, I, \\Psi)$ is said to satisfy the intersection property if, for any $\\psi \\in \\Psi$, there exists $\\psi^{*} \\in \\Psi$ such that, for all but finitely many ${\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}$ and all distinct $\\alpha$ and $\\alpha'$ in ${\\mathcal{A}}$, we have that $$\\label{inter}\nI_{{\\mathbf{t}}}(\\alpha, \\psi_{{\\mathbf{t}}}) \\cap  I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}(\\alpha', \\psi_{{\\mathbf{t}}}) \\subset H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}(\\psi^{*}_{{\\mathbf{t}}}).$$\n\nThe contraction property {#the-contraction-property .unnumbered}\n------------------------\n\nLet $\\mu$ be a non-atomic finite doubling measure supported on a bounded subset $\\mathbf{S}$ of $\\Omega$. We recall that $\\mu$ is doubling if there is a constant $\\lambda > 1$ such that, for any ball $B$ with centre in ${\\mathbf{S}}$, we have $$\\mu(2B) \\leq \\lambda \\mu(B),$$ where, for a ball $B$ of radius $r$, we denote by $cB$ the ball with the same centre and radius $cr$. We say that $\\mu$ is contracting with respect to $(I, \\Psi)$ if, for any $\\psi \\in \\Psi$, there exists $\\psi^{+}\\in \\Psi$ and a sequence of positive numbers $\\{k_{{\\mathbf{t}}}\\}_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}}$ satisfying $$\\label{conv}\n\\sum_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}}k_{{\\mathbf{t}}} < \\infty,$$ such that, for all but finitely ${\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}$ and all $\\alpha \\in {\\mathcal{A}}$, there exists a collection $C_{{\\mathbf{t}}, \\alpha}$ of balls $B$ centred at $\\mathbf{S}$ satisfying the following conditions: $$\\label{inter1}\n{\\mathbf{S}}\\cap I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}(\\alpha, \\psi_{{\\mathbf{t}}}) \\subset \\bigcup_{B \\in C_{{\\mathbf{t}}, \\alpha}} B$$\n\n$$\\label{inter2}\n{\\mathbf{S}}\\cap \\bigcup_{B \\in C_{{\\mathbf{t}}, \\alpha}} B \\subset  I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}(\\alpha, \\psi^{+}_{{\\mathbf{t}}})$$\n\nand\n\n$$\\label{inter3}\n\\mu(5B \\cap  I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}(\\alpha, \\psi_{{\\mathbf{t}}})) \\leq k_{{\\mathbf{t}}} \\mu(5B).$$\n\nWe are now in a position to state Theorem $5$ from [@BeVe]\n\n\\[transfer\\] Suppose that $(H, I, \\Psi)$ satisfies the intersection property and that $\\mu$ is contracting with respect to $(I, \\Psi)$. Then $$\\label{eq:transfer1}\n\\mu(\\Lambda_{H}(\\psi))=0 ~\\forall~\\psi \\in \\Psi  \\Rightarrow \\mu(\\Lambda_{I}(\\psi)) = 0 ~\\forall~\\psi \\in \\Psi.$$\n\n$(C, \\alpha)$-good functions\n============================\n\nIn this section, we recall the important notion of $(C, \\alpha)$-good functions on ultrametric spaces. We follow the treatment of Kleinbock and Tomanov [@KT]. Let $X$ be a metric space, $\\mu$ a Borel measure on $X$ and let $(F, |\\cdot|)$ be a local field. For a subset $U$ of $X$ and $C, \\alpha > 0$, say that a Borel measurable function $f : U \\to F$ is $(C, \\alpha)$-good on $U$ with respect to $\\mu$ if for any open ball $B \\subset U$ centred in ${\\operatorname{sup}}\\mu$ and $\\varepsilon > 0$ one has $$\\label{gooddef}\n\\mu \\left(\\{ x \\in B \\big| |f(x)| < \\varepsilon \\} \\right) \\leq\nC\\left(\\displaystyle \\frac{\\varepsilon}{\\sup_{x \\in\nB}|f(x)|}\\right)^{{\\alpha}}|B|,$$ The following elementary properties of $(C,\n{\\alpha})$-good functions will be used.\n\n1.  If $f$ is $(C,{\\alpha})$-good on an open set $V$, so is $\\lambda\n    f~\\forall~\\lambda \\in\n    F$;\\\n\n2.  If $f_i, i \\in I$ are $(C,{\\alpha})$-good on $V$, so is $\\sup_{i \\in\n    I}|f_i|$;\\\n\n3.  If $f$ is $(C,{\\alpha})$-good on $V$ and for some $c_1,c_2\\,\\textgreater \\,0,\\, c_1\\leq\n    \\frac{|f(x)|}{|g(x)|}\\leq c_2\n    \\text{ for all }x \\in V$, then g is $(C(c_2/c_1)^{{\\alpha}},{\\alpha})$-good on $V$.\\\n\n4.  If $f$ is $(C,{\\alpha})$-good on $V$, it is $(C',\\alpha')$-good on $V'$ for every $C' \\geq \\max\\{C,1\\}$, $\\alpha' \\leq \\alpha$ and $V'\\subset V$.\n\nOne can note that from (G2), it follows that the supremum norm of a vector valued function ${\\mathbf{f}}$ is $(C,{\\alpha})$-good whenever each of its components is $(C,{\\alpha})$-good. Furthermore, in view of (G3), we can replace the norm by an equivalent one, only affecting $C$ but not ${\\alpha}$.\n\nPolynomials in $d$ variables of degree at most $k$ defined on local fields can be seen to be $(C, 1/dk)$-good, with $C$ depending only on $d$ and $k$ using Lagrange interpolation. In [@KM], [@BKM] and [@KT] (for ultrametric fields), this property was extended to smooth functions satisfying certain properties. We rapidly recall, following [@S] (see also [@KT]), the definition of smooth functions in the ultrametric case. Let $U$ be a non-empty subset of $X$ without isolated points. For $n \\in \\mathbb{N}$, define $$\\nabla^{n}(U) = \\{(x_1,\\dots,x_n) \\in U, x_i \\neq x_j \\text{ for } i \\neq j   \\}.$$ The $n$-th order difference quotient of a function $f : U \\to X$ is the function $\\Phi_n(f) $ defined inductively by $\\Phi_0 (f) =\nf$ and, for $n \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, and $(x_1,\\dots,x_{n+1}) \\in \\nabla^n(U)$ by $$\\Phi_{n}f(x_1,\\dots,x_{n+1}) = \\frac{\\Phi_{n-1}f(x_1,x_3,\\dots,x_{n+1}) -\n \\Phi_{n-1}f(x_2,\\dots,x_{n+1})}{x_1-x_2}.$$\n\nThis definition does not depend on the choice of variables, as all difference quotients are symmetric functions. A function $f$ on $X$ is called a $C^n$ function if $\\Phi_n f$ can be extended to a continuous function $\\bar{\\Phi}_{n}f : U^{n+1} \\to X $. We also set $$D_n f(a) = \\overline{\\Phi_n}f(a,\\dots,a),~a \\in U.$$ We have the following theorem (c.f. [@S], Theorem $29.5$).\n\n\\[derivative\\] Let $f \\in C^{n}(U \\to X)$. Then, $f$ is $n$ times differentiable and $$j!D_j f = f^j$$ for all $1 \\leq j \\leq n$.\n\nTo define $C^{k}$ functions in several variables, we follow the notation set forth in [@KT]. Consider a multiindex $\\beta =\n(i_1,\\dots,i_d)$ and let $$\\Phi_{\\beta}f = \\Phi^{i_1}_{1}\\circ \\dots \\circ \\Phi^{i_d}_{d} f.$$ This difference order quotient is defined on the set $\n\\nabla^{i_1}U_1 \\times \\dots \\times \\nabla^{i_d}U_d$ and the $U_i$ are all non-empty subsets of $X$ without isolated points. A function $f$ will then be said to belong to $C^{k}(U_1\\times \\dots\n\\times U_d)$ if for any multiindex $\\beta$ with $|\\beta| = \\sum_{j =\n1}^{d} i_j \\leq k$, $\\Phi_{\\beta} f$ extends to a continuous function $\\bar{\\Phi}_{\\beta}f : U_{1}^{i_1 + 1} \\times \\dots \\times\nU_{d}^{i_d + 1}$. We then have $$\\label{multivanish}\n\\partial_{\\beta}f(x_1,\\dots,x_d) = \\beta!\n\\bar{\\Phi}_{\\beta}(x_1,\\dots,x_1,\\dots,x_d,\\dots,x_d)$$ where $\\beta ! = \\prod_{j = 1}^{d} i_{j}!$.\\\nWe are now ready to gather the results on ultrametric $(C, \\alpha)$-good functions that we need. We begin with Theorem $3.2$ from [@KT].\n\n\\[theorem 3.2\\] Let $V_1,V_2,\\cdots,V_3$ be nonempty open sets in F, ultrametric field. Let $ k\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, $A_1,\\cdots,A_d> 0 $ and $ f\\in C^k(V_1\\times\\cdots,\\times V_n) $ be such that $$\\label{eqn 3.3}\n                |\\Phi_j^kf|\\equiv A_j \\text{ on } \\nabla^{k+1}V_j\\times\\prod_{i\\neq j}V_j , j=1,\\cdots,d.$$ Then f is $(dk^{3-\\frac{1}{k}},\\frac{1}{dk})$-good on $V_1\\times\\cdots,\\times V_n$\n\nThe following is an ultrametric analogue of Proposition 1 from [@BaBeVe].\n\n\\[Calpha\\_Prop\\] Let $U_\\nu$ be an open subset of ${\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu ^d,$ ${\\mathbf{x}}_0 \\in U_\\nu$ and let $\\mathcal{F}\\subset C^l(U)$ be a compact family of functions $f: U\\to {\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu $ for some $l\\geq 2$. Also assume that $$\\label{3.4}\n                \\inf_{f\\in\\mathcal{F}}\\max_{0<|\\beta|\\leq l} \\ |\\partial_{\\beta}f({\\mathbf{x}}_0)|>0.$$\n\nThen there exists a neighbourhood $V_\\nu\\subset U_\\nu$ of ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ and $C, \\delta > 0$ satisfying the following property. For any $\\Theta\\in C^l(U)$ such that $$\\label{theta_cond}\n                \\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in U_\\nu} \\max_{0<|\\beta|\\leq l} \\ |\\partial_{\\beta}\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}}_0)|\\leq \\delta$$ and for any $f\\in \\mathcal {F}$ we have that\n\n1.  $f+\\Theta $ is $(C,\\frac{1}{dl})$-good on $V_\\nu$.\n\n2.  $|\\nabla(f+\\Theta)|$ is $ \\left(C,\\frac{1}{m(l-1)}\\right)$-good on $V_\\nu$\n\nWe follow the proof of [@BaBeVe], which in turn is a modification of the ideas used to establish Proposition 3.4 in [@BKM]. Here $\\nu=\\infty$ is exactly Proposition 1 of [@BaBeVe] so we assume that $\\nu\\neq\\infty$. By (\\[3.4\\]) there exists $C_1 > 0$ such that for any $f\\in \\mathcal{F}$ there exists a multiindex $\\beta$ with $0<|\\beta|=k\\leq l $ , where $k=k(f)$ such that $$\\label{3.6}\n                |\\partial_{\\beta} f ({\\mathbf{x}}_0)|\\geq C_1.$$ By the compactness of $\\mathcal{F}$, $\\inf_{f\\in\\mathcal{F}}\\max_{|\\beta|\\leq l} \\ |\\partial_{\\beta}f({\\mathbf{x}}_0)|$ will be actually attained for some f and we may take that value to be $C_1$. Since there are finitely many $\\beta$, we can consider the subfamily $\\mathcal{F}_\\beta:=\\{f\\in\\mathcal{F}\\ |\\ \\partial_{\\beta} f ({\\mathbf{x}}_0)|\\geq C_1\\} $, which is also compact in $C^l(U)$ and satisfies (\\[3.4\\]). Proving the theorem for $\\mathcal{F}_\\beta$ will yield sets $U_\\beta$ where (1) and (2) above hold. Setting $V_{\\nu} := \\bigcap_{\\beta} U_{\\beta}$ then proves the Proposition. We may therefore assume without loss of generality that $\\beta$ is the same for every $f\\in\\mathcal{F}$.\\\nWe wish to apply Theorem 3.2 of [@KT] and to do so we need to satisfy (\\[eqn 3.3\\]). We are going to show that there exists $A\\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O})$ such that $f\\circ A$ has the property (\\[eqn 3.3\\]). For $A\\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O})$ we have, by the chain rule that $$\\label{lin_sys1}\n                \\begin{array}{rcr}\n                \\partial_{1}^{k}f\\circ A(A {^{\\text{-}1}}{\\mathbf{x}}_0) &=& \\sum_{\\sum i_j=k, i_j\\geq 0} C_{(i_1,\\cdots,i_d)} a_{11}^{i_1}\\cdots a_{d1}^{i_d} \\ \\partial_{\\beta=(i_1,\\cdots,i_d)}^k f({\\mathbf{x}}_0) \\\\\n                    \n                    \\vdots       \\\\\n                    \n                    \\partial_{d}^{k}f\\circ A(A{^{\\text{-}1}}{\\mathbf{x}}_0) &=& \\sum_{\\sum i_j=k, i_j\\geq 0} C_{(i_1,\\cdots,i_d)} a_{1d}^{i_1}\\cdots a_{dd}^{i_d} \\ \\partial_{\\beta=(i_1,\\cdots,i_d)}^k f({\\mathbf{x}}_0). \n                    \\end{array}$$ We want $A=(a_{ij})$ such that every element in the left side of (\\[lin\\_sys1\\]) above is nonzero knowing that for at least one $\\beta ,\\  \\partial_{ \\beta=(i_1,\\cdots,i_k)}^k f({\\mathbf{x}}_0)\\neq 0 $. Namely, we wish to find $A\\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O}) $ such that $x'_i\\neq 0$ for every $i$ where $$\\begin{array}{rcr}\n                    x'_1 &= & \\sum C_{(i_1,\\cdots,i_d)} \\ a_{11}^{i_1}\\cdots a_{d1}^{i_d} \\ x_{(i_1,\\cdots,i_d)}\\\\\n                    \\vdots   \\\\\n                    x'_d &=& \\sum C_{(i_1,\\cdots,i_d)} \\ a_{1d}^{i_1}\\cdots a_{dd}^{i_d} \\ x_{(i_1,\\cdots,i_k)}\n                        \\end{array}$$ i.e. $$\\begin{array}{rcr}\n              x'_1&=& g(a_{11},\\cdots,a_{d1})  \\\\\n              \\vdots \\\\\n              x'_d&=& g(a_{1d},\\cdots,a_{dd}) \n              \\end{array}$$ and $g$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree k. We already know that $ \\partial_{ \\beta=(i_1,\\cdots,i_k)}^k f({\\mathbf{x}}_0)\\neq 0$ for at least one $\\beta$, so at least one $x_{(i_1,\\cdots,i_k)}\\neq 0$ and thus $g $ is a nonzero polynomial.\n\nNow $ g $ should have at least one nonzero value on $\\{1+\\pi\\mathcal{O}\\}\\times\\{\\pi\\mathcal{O}\\} \\times\\cdots\\times\\{\\pi\\mathcal{O}\\}$, otherwise $g$ is identically zero. So take $(a_{11},\\cdots,a_{1d})$ to be the point of the aforementioned set where $g(a_{11},\\cdots,a_{1d})\\neq 0$. Then by a similar argument choose $(a_{i1},\\cdots,a_{id})\\in \\{\\pi\\mathcal{O}\\}\\times\\cdots\\times\\{1+\\pi\\mathcal{O}\\} \\times\\cdots\\times\\{\\pi\\mathcal{O}\\}$ such that $g(a_{i1},\\cdots,a_{id})\\neq 0$. Choosing $A$ this way we will automatically get that $\\det(A)$ is a unit, which implies that $A\\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O})$. Thus we have that for $f\\in\\mathcal{F}$ there exists $A_f\\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O})$ depending on $f$ such that $$\\label{der_nonzero}\n              \\min_{i=1,\\cdots,d} |\\partial_i^k f\\circ A_f (A_f{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0) )|>0$$ in fact there exists a uniform $C>0$ such that $$\\min_{i=1,\\cdots,d} |\\partial_i^k f\\circ A_f (A_f{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0) )|>C.$$ This is because we can take $$C=\\inf_{f\\in\\mathcal{F}}\\sup_{A\\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O})}\\min_{i=1,\\cdots,d} |\\partial_i^k f\\circ A (A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0) )|,$$ which is nonzero. For if not, then there exists $\\{f_n\\} \\in\\mathcal{F}$ such that $$\\sup_{A\\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O})}\\min_{i=1,\\cdots,d} |\\partial_i^k f_n\\circ A (A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0) )|<\\frac{1}{n}.$$ Since $\\mathcal{F}$ is compact, $\\{f_n\\}$ has a convergent subsequence $\\{f_{n_k}\\}\\to f\\in\\mathcal{F}$. Taking limits, we get that $$\\min_{i=1,\\cdots,d} |\\partial_i^k f\\circ A (A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0) )|=0 \\ \\forall \\ A \\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O}),$$ which is a contradiction to (\\[der\\_nonzero\\]). Consider the following map $$\\Phi_1: {\\operatorname{GL}}_d({\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu)\\times C^l(U_\\nu)\\times U_\\nu \\longmapsto {\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu$$ $$(A,f,{\\mathbf{x}})\\mapsto \\min_{i=1,\\cdots,d} |\\partial_i^k f\\circ A (A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}})|.$$ It can be easily verified that $\\Phi_1$ is continuous. For every $f\\in\\mathcal{F}$ there exists $A_f \\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O}) $ such that $\\Phi_1(A_f,f,{\\mathbf{x}}_0)\\geq C>\\frac{C}{2},$ so by continuity we have an open neighbourhood $U_{A_f}\\times U_f\\times U_{({\\mathbf{x}}_0,f)}$ of $ (A_f,f,{\\mathbf{x}}_0)$ such that $$\\Phi_1(A,g,{\\mathbf{x}}) >\\frac{C}{2} \\  \n              \\forall \\  (A,g,{\\mathbf{x}}) \\in U_{A_f}\\times U_f\\times U_{({\\mathbf{x}}_0,f)}.$$ In particular, $$\\label{unicondition}\n              \\Phi_1(A_f,g,{\\mathbf{x}})>\\frac{C}{2} \\ \\forall g\\in U_f \\text{ and } \\forall \\ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in U_{({\\mathbf{x}}_0,f)}.$$ Now $\\mathcal{F}\\subset \\bigcup_{f} U_f,$ must have a finite subcovering $\\{U_{f_i}\\}_{i=1}^{r}$. So by (\\[unicondition\\]) we have that for every ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in  U_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}=\\bigcap_{i=1}^r U_{({\\mathbf{x}}_0f_i)} $ and $f\\in\\mathcal{F}$ there exists $A_{f_i}$ such that $$\\label{final_cond}\n              \\Phi_1(A_{f_i},f,{\\mathbf{x}}) >\\frac{C}{2}.$$\n\nChoose $\\delta=\\frac{C}{4u}$ where $ u $ is the constant coming from the inequality $$|\\partial_i^k\\Theta\\circ T(T{^{\\text{-}1}}{\\mathbf{x}})| \\leq u \\max_{|\\beta|\\leq l}|\\partial_{ \\beta} f({\\mathbf{x}}) |$$ for $T\\in {\\operatorname{GL}}_d(\\mathcal{O})$. Thus any $\\Theta $ satisfying (\\[theta\\_cond\\]) will also satisfy $$\\Phi_1(A_{f_i},f+\\Theta,{\\mathbf{x}})>\\frac{C}{4} \\ \\ \\forall \\ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in U_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}.$$ By the compactness of $\\mathcal{F}$ and (\\[theta\\_cond\\]) there is a uniform upper bound for every $f\\in\\mathcal{F}$ and $\\Theta $ of the aforementioned type. Now applying Theorem \\[theorem 3.2\\] we have that $f+(\\Theta\\circ A_{f_i})$ is $(dk^{3-\\frac{1}{k}},\\frac{1}{dk})$-good on $A_{f_i}^{-1} U_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$. Therefore, $f+\\Theta$ is $(dk^{3-\\frac{1}{k}},\\frac{1}{dk})$-good on $U_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$. This completes the proof of the first part.\\\nNow consider the set $\\mathcal{F}_{A_{f_i}}= \\{f\\in\\mathcal{F} \\ | \\ \\Phi_1(A_{f_i},f,{\\mathbf{x}}_0)\\geq \\frac{C}{2}\\}$. Clearly this is a closed subset of the compact set $\\mathcal{F}$, so it is also compact. Therefore $\\{\\partial_j(f\\circ A_{f_i}) | \\  f\\in\\mathcal{F}_{A_{f_i}} \\}$ is also compact being the image of a compact set under a continuous map. Since $\\mathcal{F} \\subset \\bigcup_{i=1,\\cdots,r} \\mathcal{F}_{A_{f_i}}$, we may, without loss of generality, take the same $A$ for every $f\\in \\mathcal{F}$. Now we want to apply the first part of this Proposition. Suppose $|\\beta| \\geq 2 $ in (\\[3.6\\]), then to apply part(1) we have to check condition (\\[3.4\\]) for the set $\\{\\partial_j(f\\circ A) | \\  f\\in\\mathcal{F} \\}$, where we know that $\\Phi_1(A,f,{\\mathbf{x}}_0)\\geq \\frac{C}{2}$. Suppose $$\\inf_{f\\in\\mathcal{F}}\\max_{|\\beta|\\leq l-1}|\\partial_{ \\beta}\\partial_{j}(f\\circ A)(A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0))|=0.$$ Then by compactness of $\\mathcal{F}$ we have that for some $f\\in\\mathcal{F}$, $$\\max_{|\\beta|\\leq l-1}|\\partial_{ \\beta}\\partial_{j}(f\\circ A)(A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0))|=0,$$ which implies that $\\Phi_1(A,f,{\\mathbf{x}}_0)=0,$ which is a contradiction. Thus by applying the first part of the Proposition we get that for every $j=1,\\cdots,d , \\partial_j((f+\\Theta)\\circ A)$ is $(C_\\star,\\frac{1}{d(l-1)})$-good on an open neighbourhood $B_{A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0)}$ of $A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0)$. So $(\\partial_j(f+\\Theta\\circ A))\\circ A{^{\\text{-}1}}$ is $(C_\\star,\\frac{1}{d(l-1)})$-good on $A(B_{A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0)})$. Therefore each $\\partial_j(f+\\Theta)$ is $(C_\\star,\\frac{1}{d(l-1)})$-good on $A(B_{A{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{x}}_0)})$ and so is $|\\nabla (f+\\Theta)|$. The case $|\\beta|=1$ in (\\[3.6\\]) is trivial (See property (G3) of $(C,\\alpha)$-good functions). This completes the proof.\n\nAs a Corollary, we have,\n\n\\[good\\_corollary\\] Let $U_\\nu$ be an open subset of ${\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu^{d\\nu}, {\\mathbf{x}}_0\\in U_\\nu$ be fixed and assume that ${\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu=(f_\\nu^{(1)},f_\\nu^{(2)},\\dots,f_\\nu^{(n)}): \n    U_\\nu\\to {\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu^n $ satisfies (I2) and (I3) and that $\\Theta_\\nu $ satisfies (I5). Then there exists a neighbourhood $V_\\nu\\subset U_\\nu$ of ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ and positive constants $ C > 0 $ and $l\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ such that for any $(a_0,{\\mathbf{a}})\\in \\mathcal{O}^{n+1},$\n\n1.  $a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}+\\Theta_\\nu$ is $(C,\\frac{1}{d_\\nu l})$-good on $V_\\nu,$ and\n\n2.  $|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu +\\Theta_\\nu)| $ is $ (C,\\frac{1}{d_\\nu(l-1)})$-good on $V_\\nu$.\n\nFor the case $\\nu=\\infty$, see Corollary $3$ of [@BaBeVe] and also [@BKM]. So we may assume $\\nu\\neq \\infty.$ Let $\\mathcal{F}:= \\{a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu+\\Theta_\\nu \\ |\\  (a_0,{\\mathbf{a}})\\in\\mathcal{O}^{n+1}\\}$. This is a compact family of functions of $C^l(U_\\nu)$ for every $l>0 $ since $\\mathcal{O}$ is compact in ${\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu$. Now if this family satisfies condition (\\[3.4\\]) for some $l\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, then the conclusion follows from the previous Proposition. Hence we may assume that the family does not satisfy (\\[3.4\\]) for every $l\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$. Then by the continuity of differential and the compactness of $\\mathcal{O}$, there exists ${\\mathbf{c}}_l\\in \\mathcal{O}^n$ such that for every $2 \\leq l\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ we have $$\\max_{|\\beta|\\leq l}|\\partial_{ \\beta}({\\mathbf{c}}_l.f_\\nu+\\Theta_\\nu)({\\mathbf{x}}_0)| > 0.$$ Now this sequence $\\{{\\mathbf{c}}_l\\} \\in\\mathcal{O}^n$ has a convergent subsequence $\\{{\\mathbf{c}}_{l_k}\\}$ converging to ${\\mathbf{c}}\\in \\mathcal{O}^n$ since $\\mathcal{O}^n$ is compact. By taking limits we get that $$|\\partial_{ \\beta}({\\mathbf{c}}.f_\\nu+\\Theta_\\nu)({\\mathbf{x}}_0)|=0 \\ \\forall \\ \\beta.$$ However, as each of the ${\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}$ and $\\Theta_\\nu$ are analytic on $U_\\nu,$ there exists a neighbourhood $V_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$ of ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ such that $$({\\mathbf{c}}.f_\\nu+\\Theta_\\nu)({\\mathbf{x}})=u\\ \\forall \\ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in V_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0},$$ where $u \\in {\\mathbb{Q}}_\\nu$ is a constant. Therefore replacing $\\Theta_\\nu$ by $u-{\\mathbf{c}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu},$ we get that $$\\mathcal{F}=\\{ a_0+u+({\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}).{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu} \\ | (a_0,{\\mathbf{a}})\\in \\mathcal{O}^{n+1} \\}.$$ First consider the case where $|a_0+u| < 2|{\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}|,$ then $$\\mathcal{F}_1= \\left\\{\\frac{a_0+u}{|{\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}|}+\\frac{{\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}}{|{\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}|}.{\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu |\\  (a_0,{\\mathbf{a}})\\in\\mathcal{O}^{n+1}\\right\\}$$ is compact in $C^l(U_\\nu)$ for every $l\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$. Then by linear independence of $1,f_\\nu^{(1)},\\cdots,f_\\nu^{(n)},$ $\\mathcal{F}_1$ satisfies (\\[3.4\\]) for some $l\\in{\\mathbb{N}}$. And then by Proposition \\[Calpha\\_Prop\\] we can conclude that every element in $\\mathcal{F}_1$ is $(C,\\frac{1}{d_\\nu l})$-good on some $V_\\nu\\subset V_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}\\subset U_\\nu$ together with conclusion (2) of the Corollary above. This also implies $ a_0+u+({\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}).{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu} $ are all $(C,\\frac{1}{d_\\nu l})$ good on $V_\\nu$ for all $(a_0,{\\mathbf{a}})\\in\\mathcal{O}^{n+1}$ with $|a_0+u| < 2|{\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}|$. Otherwise $$\\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in V_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+u+({\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}).{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}|\\leq 3.\\inf_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in V_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+u+({\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}).{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}|$$ as $|a_0+u|\\geq 2|{\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{c}}| $ and it turns out to be a trivial case. This implies that for $C\\geq 3$ and $0<\\alpha\\leq1$ the aforementioned functions are $(C,\\alpha)$-good.\n\nLet us recall the following Corollary from [@KT] (Corollary 2.3).\n\n[\\[product\\_good\\]]{} For $ j=1,\\cdots,n,$ let $X_j$ be a metric space, $\\mu_j$ be a measure on $X_j $. Let $ U_j\\subset X_j $ be open, $C_j,\\alpha_j >0 $ and let $f$ be a function on $U_1\\times\\cdots \\times U_d$ such that for any $j=1,\\cdots d$ and any $x_i\\in U_i$ with $i\\neq j,$ the function $${\\label{fun}}\n    y~~\\mapsto f(x_1,\\cdots,x_{j-1}, y, x_{j+1},\\cdots, x_d)$$ is $(C_j,\\alpha_j)$-good on $U_j$ with respect to $\\mu_j$. Then $f$ is $(\\widetilde{C},\\widetilde{\\alpha}) $ -good on $U_1\\times\\cdots\\times U_d $ with respect to $\\mu_1\\times\\cdots\\times\\mu_d,$ where $\\widetilde{C}=d,\\widetilde{\\alpha }$ are computable in terms of $C_j,\\alpha_j $. In particular, if each of the functions (\\[fun\\]) is $(C,\\alpha)$-good on $U_j$ with respect to $\\mu_j$, then the conclusion holds with $\\widetilde{\\alpha}=\\frac{\\alpha}{d}$ and $\\widetilde{C}=dC$.\n\nNow combining Corollary (\\[good\\_corollary\\]) and (\\[product\\_good\\]) we can state the following:\n\n\\[good\\_function\\] Let ${\\mathbf{f}}$ and $\\Theta$ be as in Corollary (\\[good\\_corollary\\]) and let ${\\mathbf{x}}_0\\in {\\mathbf{U}}.$ Then there exists a neighbourhood ${\\mathbf{V}}\\subset{\\mathbf{U}}$ of ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ and $C>0, k,k_1\\in{\\mathbb{N}}$ such that for any $(a_0,{\\mathbf{a}})\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} $ the following holds:\n\n1.  $ {\\mathbf{x}}~\\mapsto ~|(a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}+\\Theta )({\\mathbf{x}})|_S\\text{ is } (C,\\frac{1}{dk})-\\text{good on } {\\mathbf{V}}$,\n\n2.  ${\\mathbf{x}}~\\mapsto~\\|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}+\\Theta_\\nu)({\\mathbf{x}}_{\\nu})\\| \\text{ is } (C,\\frac{1}{dk_1})-\\text{ good on } {\\mathbf{V}}, \\forall ~\\nu\\in S$\n\nwhere $d=\\max{d_\\nu}$.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[thm:main\\]\n=============================\n\nWe set $\\phi(\\nu)=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{rl} -\\varepsilon & \\text{ if } \\nu\\neq\\infty \\\\\n                1-\\varepsilon & \\text{ if }\\nu=\\infty \n                \\end{array} \\right.\n                 $.\n\nFrom the definition, it follows that ${\\mathcal{W}}_{\\Psi,\\Theta}^{{\\mathbf{f}}}$ admits a description as a limsup set. Namely, $${{\\mathcal{W}}_{\\Psi,\\Theta}^{{\\mathbf{f}}}}=\\limsup_{{\\mathbf{a}}\\to \\infty}{\\mathbf{W}}_{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)$$ where $${\\mathbf{W}}_{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)=\\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}:| a_0+ {\\mathbf{a}}\\cdot {\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|_S^l\\leq \\Psi({\\mathbf{a}}) \\text{ for some } a_0 \\} .$$\n\nWe may now write $${\\mathbf{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)= \\left \\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in {{\\mathbf{W}}_{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)}~:~\\|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu)+\\Theta_\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu))\\|_\\nu>\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|_S^{\\phi(\\nu)} ~\\forall~\\nu \\right\\}$$ where $0<\\varepsilon <\\frac{1}{4(n+1)l^2},$ is fixed and $${{\\mathbf{W}}_{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)}\\setminus{{\\mathbf{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)}=\\bigcup_{\\nu\\in S}{\\mathbf{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}({\\mathbf{a}}, \\Psi,\\Theta)$$ where $${\\mathbf{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)=\\left\\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in{{\\mathbf{W}}_{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)}:\\|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu)+\\Theta_\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu))\\|_\\nu\\leq\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|_S^{\\phi(\\nu)} \\right\\}.$$ As the set $S$ is finite, we have\n\n$${{\\mathcal{W}}_{\\Psi,\\Theta}^{{\\mathbf{f}}}}={\\mathcal{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)\\bigcup_{\\nu\\in S}{\\mathcal{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)$$ where $${\\mathcal{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)={\\limsup_{{\\mathbf{a}}\\to\\infty}{{\\mathbf{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)}}$$ and $${\\mathcal{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)={\\limsup_{{\\mathbf{a}}\\to\\infty}{{\\mathbf{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)}}.$$ To prove Theorem \\[thm:main\\], we will show that each of these limsup sets has zero measure. Namely, the proof is divided into the \u201clarge derivative\" case where we will show $|{\\mathcal{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)|=0$, and the \u201csmall derivative\" case which involves $|{\\mathcal{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)|=0 \\ \\forall\\ \\nu\\in S.$\n\nThe small derivative\n--------------------\n\nWe begin by showing that $|{\\mathcal{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)|=0 \\ \\forall\\ \\nu\\in S$. From the assumed property (I4) of $\\Psi$, it follows that $$\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})<\\Psi_0({\\mathbf{a}}) :=\\prod_{\\substack{i=1,\\cdots,n \\\\ a_i\\neq 0}}|a_i|_S{^{\\text{-}1}}.$$ So ${\\mathcal{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)\\subset {\\mathcal{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}(\\Psi_0,\\Theta)$, which means that it is enough to show that $ |{\\mathcal{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}(\\Psi_0,\\Theta)|=0 \\ \\forall\\ \\nu\\in S $. Let us take $\\mathcal{A}={\\mathbb{Z}}\\times{\\mathbb{Z}}^n\\setminus\\{0\\} $ and ${\\mathbf{T}}={\\mathbb{Z}}_{\\geq 0}^n $ and define the function\n\n$$\\label{r_equation}\n         r_\\nu ({\\mathbf{t}})=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{rl}\n          2^{(|{\\mathbf{t}}|+1)(1-\\varepsilon)} & \\text{if } \\nu=\\infty\\\\\n            \\\\\n         2^{-(|{\\mathbf{t}}|+1)\\varepsilon} & \\text{if } \\nu\\neq\\infty\n         \\end{array} \\right .$$\n\nwhere $\\varepsilon$ is fixed as before. Now we define sets $ I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\lambda) $ and $H_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\lambda)$ for every $\\lambda>0,{\\mathbf{t}}\\in{\\mathbf{T}}\\text{ and } \\alpha=(a_0, {\\mathbf{a}})\\in \\mathcal{A} $ as follows:\\\n$$\\label{def_I}\n         I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\lambda)=\\left\\{ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}:\\begin{array}{l}\n        |a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|_S^l<\\lambda\\Psi_0(2^{\\mathbf{t}})\\\\\\\\\n        \\|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu)+\\Theta_\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu))\\|_\\nu<\\lambda r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})\\\\\\\\\n        2^{t_i}\\leq \\max{\\{1,|a_i|_S\\}}\\leq 2^{t_i+1} \\ \\forall \\ 1\\leq i\\leq n\n        \\end{array}  \n        \\right\\}$$ and $$\\label{def_H}\n         H_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\lambda)=\\left\\{ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}:\\begin{array}{l}\n         |a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})|_S^l<2^l\\lambda\\Psi_0(2^{\\mathbf{t}})\\\\\\\\\n        \\|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu))\\|_\\nu<2\\lambda r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})\\\\\\\\\n        |a_i|_S\\leq 2^{t_i+2} \\ \\forall\\  1\\leq i \\leq n \n        \\end{array} \n         \\right\\}$$ where $2^{\\mathbf{t}}=(2^{t_1},\\cdots,2^{t_n})$ and $|S|=l$. These give us the functions (\\[I\\_fn\\]) and (\\[H\\_fn\\]) required in the inhomogeneous transference principle. As in (\\[defH\\]) and (\\[deflambda\\]) we get $H_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\lambda)$, $I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\lambda)$, $\\Lambda_H^\\nu(\\lambda)$ and $\\Lambda_I^\\nu(\\lambda)$. Now define $\\phi_\\delta~:~{\\mathbf{T}}\\mapsto {\\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ as $\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}):=2^{\\delta|{\\mathbf{t}}|}$ for $\\delta\\in(0,\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2}] $. Clearly ${\\mathcal{W}}_{\\nu,{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{small}}(\\Psi_0,\\Theta)\\subset \\Lambda_I^\\nu(\\phi_\\delta) $ for every $\\delta\\in(0,\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2}]$. So to settle Case 2 it is enough to show that $$\\label{Inhomo_set}\n        |\\Lambda_I^\\nu(\\phi_\\delta)|=0 \\text{ for some } \\delta\\in(0,\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2}].$$\n\nNow we recall Theorem $1.3$ from [@MoS1].\n\n\\[&lt;\\] Let $S$ be as in (I0), ${\\mathbf{U}}$ be as in (I1), and assume that $\\mathbf{f}$ satisfies (I2) and (I3). Then for any ${\\mathbf{x}}=({\\mathbf{x}}_{\\nu})_{\\nu\\in S}\\in {\\mathbf{U}}$, one can find a neighborhood $\\mathbf{V}=\\prod V_{\\nu}\\subseteq {\\mathbf{U}}$ of ${\\mathbf{x}}$ and $\\alpha_1 >0$ with the following property: for any ball $\\mathbf{B}\\subseteq \\mathbf{V}$, there exists $E>0$ such that for any choice of $0<\\delta\\le 1$, $T_1,\\cdots,T_n\\ge 1$, and $K_{\\nu}>0$ with $\\delta{ (\\frac{T_1\\cdots\n                    T_n}{\\max_i T_i})}\\prod K_{\\nu}\\le 1$ one has\n\n$$\\label{<eqn}\\left|\\left\\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in\\mathbf{B}|\\hspace{1mm}\\exists\\ \n            {\\mathbf{a}}\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^n\\setminus\\{0\\}:\\begin{array}{l}|\\langle {\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}}) \\rangle|^{l}<\\delta\\\\\\\\\n            \\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\nabla {\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu)\\|_{\\nu}<K_{\\nu},\\hspace{2mm}\\nu\\in S\\\\\\\\\n            |a_i|_S<T_i, 1 \\leq i \\leq n\\end{array}\\right\\}\\right|\\le\n            E\\hspace{.5mm}\\varepsilon_1^{\\alpha_1}|\\mathbf{B}|,\\hspace{5mm}$$\n\nwhere $\\varepsilon_1=\\max\\{\\delta^\\frac{1}{l},(\\delta{ (\\frac{T_1\\cdots\n                    T_n}{\\max_i T_i})}\\prod K_{\\nu})^{\\frac{1}{\\l(n+1)}}\\},$ where $|S|=l$.\n\nThe Theorem above is an $S$-adic analogue of Theorem $1.4$ in [@BKM] and is proved using nondivergence estimates for certain flows on homogeneous spaces. We will denote the set in the LHS of (\\[&lt;eqn\\]) as $S(\\delta,K_{\\nu_1},\\cdots,K_{\\nu_l},T_1,\\cdots,T_n)$ for further reference.\n\nTo show (\\[Inhomo\\_set\\]) we want to use the Inhomogeneous transference principle (\\[transfer\\]). Assume that $(H_\\nu,I_\\nu,\\Phi)$ satisfies the intersection property and that the product measure is contracting with respect to $(I_\\nu,\\Phi)$ where, $\\Phi:=\\{\\phi_\\delta : 0\\leq \\delta <\\frac{\\varepsilon }{2}\\} $. Then by (\\[transfer\\]) it is enough to show that $$\\label{homo_condi}\n    |\\Lambda_H^\\nu(\\phi_\\delta)|=0 \\text{ for some } 0<\\delta \\leq\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2}.$$\n\nNote that $$\\Lambda_H^\\nu(\\phi_\\delta)=\\limsup_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in{\\mathbf{T}}} \\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}} H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})).$$ Using Theorem \\[&lt;\\], we will show that $$\\sum |\\cup_{\\alpha \\in \\mathcal{A}}H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))|<\\infty$$ for some $0<\\delta<\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2}$. This, together with Borel-Cantelli will give us $|\\Lambda_H^\\nu(\\phi_\\delta)|=0$.\\\nBy the definition \\[def\\_H\\] of $H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})),$ we get $$\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}}H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))\\subset S(2^l\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})\\Psi_0(2^{{\\mathbf{t}}}),1,\\cdots ,2.\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}}),\\cdots,1,2^{t_1+2}, \\dots, 2^{t_n +2})$$ i.e. here $K_\\nu=2\\cdot \\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}}), K_\\omega=1,$ where $\\omega\\neq\\nu$ and $T_i=2^{t_i+2}$.\n\nCase $1$ $(\\nu=\\infty)$\n-----------------------\n\nHere $r_\\infty({\\mathbf{t}})=2^{(1-\\varepsilon)(|{\\mathbf{t}}|+1)}$. So, $$2^l.2^{\\delta|{\\mathbf{t}}|}\\Psi_0(2^{{\\mathbf{t}}}).2.2^{\\delta|{\\mathbf{t}}|}2^{(1-\\varepsilon)(|{\\mathbf{t}}|+1)}.1.\\frac{2^{\\sum_{1}^n t_i+2}}{2 ^{|{\\mathbf{t}}|}}=2^{2n+l+2-\\varepsilon}.2^{|{\\mathbf{t}}|(2\\delta-\\varepsilon)}<1$$ for all large $ {\\mathbf{t}}$ as $2\\delta-\\varepsilon<0$. So by Theorem \\[&lt;\\] we have $$|\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}}H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\infty(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))|\\leq E\\varepsilon_1^{\\alpha_1}|\\mathbf{B}|,$$ where $\\varepsilon_1=\\max\\{2.2^{\\frac{\\delta|{\\mathbf{t}}|-\\sum t_i}{l}},2^{\\frac{2n+l+2-\\varepsilon}{l(n+1)}}.2^{\\frac{|{\\mathbf{t}}|(2\\delta-\\varepsilon)}{l(n+1)}}\\}\n=2^{\\frac{2n+l+2-\\varepsilon}{l(n+1)}}.2^{\\frac{|{\\mathbf{t}}|(2\\delta-\\varepsilon)}{l(n+1)}}$ for all large ${\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}_{\\geq 0}^n$. We note that $\\varepsilon_1$ is ultimately the 2nd term in the parenthesis. Because if not then for infinitely many ${\\mathbf{t}}$, $$\\frac{\\delta|{\\mathbf{t}}|-\\sum t_i}{l}>\\frac{|{\\mathbf{t}}|(2\\delta-\\varepsilon)}{l(n+1)} + O(1)$$ which implies that $$\\sum t_i<|{\\mathbf{t}}| + O(1),$$ a contradiction. Therefore we have $$|\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}}H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\infty(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))| \\ll 2^{-\\gamma|{\\mathbf{t}}|},$$ where $\\gamma=\\frac{(\\varepsilon-2\\delta)}{l(n+1)}\\alpha_1>0$. Hence $$\\sum_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}}|\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}}H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\infty(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))|\\ll\\sum_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in{\\mathbf{T}}} 2^{-\\gamma|{\\mathbf{t}}|}<\\infty.$$\n\nCase $2$ ($\\nu\\neq\\infty$)\n--------------------------\n\nThe argument proceeds as in Case $1$. In this case, $r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})=2^{-\\varepsilon (|{\\mathbf{t}}|+1)}$. So, $$2^l.2^{\\delta|{\\mathbf{t}}|}\\Psi_0(2^{{\\mathbf{t}}}).2.2^{\\delta|{\\mathbf{t}}|}2^{(-\\varepsilon)(|{\\mathbf{t}}|+1)}.1.\\frac{2^{\\sum_{1}^n t_i+2}}{2 ^{|{\\mathbf{t}}|}}=2^{2n+l+1-\\varepsilon}.2^{|{\\mathbf{t}}|(2\\delta-\\varepsilon-1)}<1$$ for large ${\\mathbf{t}}$ as $2\\delta-\\varepsilon<0$. Therefore, by Theorem \\[&lt;\\] we have $$|\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}}H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))|\\leq E\\varepsilon_1^{\\alpha_1}|\\mathbf{B}|,$$ where $\\varepsilon_1=\\max\\{2^{\\frac{\\delta|{\\mathbf{t}}|-\\sum t_i}{l}},2^{\\frac{2n+l+1-\\varepsilon}{l(n+1)}}.2^{\\frac{|{\\mathbf{t}}|(2\\delta-\\varepsilon-1)}{l(n+1)}}\\}\n =2^{\\frac{2n+l+1-\\varepsilon}{l(n+1)}}.2^{\\frac{|{\\mathbf{t}}|(2\\delta-\\varepsilon-1)}{l(n+1)}}$ for all large ${\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}_{\\geq 0}^n$. As in case $1$, $\\varepsilon_1$ is ultimately the 2nd term in the parenthesis. For if not, then for infinitely many ${\\mathbf{t}}$, $$\\frac{\\delta|{\\mathbf{t}}|-\\sum t_i}{l}>\\frac{|{\\mathbf{t}}|(2\\delta-\\varepsilon-1)}{l(n+1)}+ O(1)$$ which implies that $$\\sum t_i<2|{\\mathbf{t}}|+ O(1).$$\n\nThis gives a contradiction. Therefore we have $$|\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}}H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))|\\ll 2^{-\\gamma|{\\mathbf{t}}|},$$ where $\\gamma=\\frac{(\\varepsilon-2\\delta+1)}{l(n+1)}\\alpha_1>0$. Hence $$\\sum_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}}|\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}}H_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))|\\ll \\sum_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in{\\mathbf{T}}} 2^{-\\gamma|{\\mathbf{t}}|}<\\infty.$$\n\nConsequently the only thing left to verify are the intersection and contracting properties of the transference principle.\n\nWe will consider $|.|$ the measure to be restricted on some bounded open ball ${\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$ around ${\\mathbf{x}}_0\\in {\\mathbf{U}}$. Then we will get $|\\Lambda^\\nu_{I}(\\phi_\\delta)\\cap{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0} |=0$. But because the space is second countable, we eventually get $|\\Lambda^\\nu_{I}(\\phi_\\delta)|=0$.\n\nVerifying the intersection property:\n------------------------------------\n\nLet ${\\mathbf{t}}\\in{\\mathbf{T}}$ with $|{\\mathbf{t}}|> \\frac{l}{1-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2}}$. We have to show that for $\\phi_\\delta$ there exists $\\phi_\\delta^*$ such that for all but finitely many ${\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}$ and all distinct $\\alpha=(a_0,{\\mathbf{a}}),\\alpha'=(a_0',{\\mathbf{a}}_0')\\in\\mathcal{A},$ we have that $I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))\\cap I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha',\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))\\subset H_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\phi_\\delta^*({\\mathbf{t}}))$. Consider $${\\mathbf{x}}\\in I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))\\cap I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha',\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})),$$ then by Definition (\\[def\\_I\\]) we have $$\\label{eqn_1}\\left\\{\\begin{array}{l}\n  |a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|_S<{(\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})\\Psi_0(2^{\\mathbf{t}}))}^\\frac{1}{l}\\\\\\\\\n  \\|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu)+\\Theta_\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu))\\|_\\nu<\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}) r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})\\end{array}\\right.$$ and $$\\label{eqn_2}\\left\\{\\begin{array}{l}\n  |a'_0+{\\mathbf{a}}'.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|_S<{(\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})\\Psi_0(2^{\\mathbf{t}}))}^\\frac{1}{l}\\\\\\\\\n  \\|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}'.{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu)+\\Theta_\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu))\\|_\\nu<\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}) r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})\\end{array}\\right.$$ where $$|a_i|<2^{t_i+1}\\text{ for }1\\leq i\\leq n \\text{ and } |a_i'|<2^{t_i+1}\\text{ for } 1\\leq i\\leq n.$$ Now subtracting the respective equations of (\\[eqn\\_2\\]) from (\\[eqn\\_1\\]) we have $\\alpha''=(a_0-a_0',{\\mathbf{a}}-{\\mathbf{a}}')$ satisfying the following equations $$\\label{eqn_3}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{l}\n|a''_0+{\\mathbf{a}}''.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})|_S^l<2^l\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})\\Psi_0(2^{\\mathbf{t}})\\\\\\\\\n\\|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}''.{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu))\\|_\\nu<2\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}) r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})\\\\\\\\\n|a''_i|_S\\leq 2^{t_i+2} \\ \\forall\\  1\\leq i \\leq n .\n\\end{array} \\right.$$ Observe that ${\\mathbf{a}}''\\neq\\mathbf{0}$, because otherwise $$1\\leq|a_0''|^l<2^l\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})\\Psi_0(2^{\\mathbf{t}})<2^l.2^{-{(1-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2})}|{\\mathbf{t}}|},$$ which implies that $|{\\mathbf{t}}|\\leq\\frac{l}{1-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2}}$, which is true for the finitely many ${\\mathbf{t}}$\u2019s that we are avoiding. Therefore $\\alpha''\\in\\mathcal{A} $ and ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in H_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha'',\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))$. So here the particular choice of $\\phi_\\delta^*$ is $\\phi_\\delta$ itself. This verifies the intersection property.\n\nVerifying the Contraction Property :\n------------------------------------\n\nRecall that to verify the contraction property we need to verify the following: for any $\\phi_\\delta\\in \\Phi $ we need to find $\\Phi_\\delta^+\\in \\Phi$ and a sequence of positive numbers $\\{k_{{\\mathbf{t}}}\\}_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in{\\mathbf{T}}}$ satisfying $$\\sum_{{\\mathbf{t}}\\in{\\mathbf{T}}}k_{{\\mathbf{t}}}<\\infty$$ such that for all but finitely many ${\\mathbf{t}}\\in{\\mathbf{T}}$ and all $\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A},$ there exists a collection $C_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}$ of ball $B$ centred at a point in $\\mathbf{S}={\\mathbf{V}}={\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5mu{\\mathbf{V}}\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu}$ satisfying (\\[inter1\\]), (\\[inter2\\]) and (\\[inter3\\]).\\\nLet us consider the open set $5{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$ in Corollary \\[good\\_function\\]. So we have that for any ${\\mathbf{t}}\\in {\\mathbf{T}}$ and $\\alpha=(a_0,{\\mathbf{a}})\\in \\mathcal{A}$ $$\\mathbf{F}^\\nu_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}({\\mathbf{x}}) :~=\\max\\{\\Psi_0{^{\\text{-}1}}(2^{\\mathbf{t}})r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})|a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|_S^l,\\|\\nabla({\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}+\\Theta_\\nu)({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu)\\|\\}$$ is $(C,\\frac{1}{dk})$-good on $5{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$ for some $C>0,k\\in{\\mathbb{N}}$ and $d=\\max d_\\nu$. Using this new function $\\mathbf{F}^\\nu_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha},$ we can write the previous inhomogeneous sets as following :$$I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))=\\left\\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}:\\begin{array}{l}\n\\mathbf{F}^\\nu_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}({\\mathbf{x}})<\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})\\\\\n\\\\\n2^{t_i}\\leq\\max\\{1,|a_i|_S\\}<2^{t_i+1} ~~\\forall~ 1\\leq i\\leq n \n\\end{array}\\right\\}.$$\\[inhom\\_new\\] We also note that $$I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))\\subset I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi^+_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))$$ where $\\phi_\\delta^+({\\mathbf{t}})=\\phi_{\\frac{\\delta}{2}+\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4}} ({\\mathbf{t}})\\geq \\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}) ~\\forall~ {\\mathbf{t}}\\in{\\mathbf{T}}$. And $\\phi_\\delta^+({\\mathbf{t}})=\\phi_{\\frac{\\delta}{2}+\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4}}({\\mathbf{t}})\\in\\Phi $ because $\\frac{\\delta}{2}+\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4}<\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2} .$ If $I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))=\\emptyset$ then it is trivial. So without loss of generality we can assume that $ I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})) \\ne \\emptyset $. Because for every $\\phi_\\delta \\in \\Phi $ , $\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}) \\Psi_0(2^{\\mathbf{t}})<2^{-(1-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2})|{\\mathbf{t}}|}$, so in particular $$I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta^+({\\mathbf{t}}))\\subset \\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in {\\mathbf{U}}~:~|a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|^l<2^{-(1-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2})|{\\mathbf{t}}|}\\}.$$ We recall Corollary 4 of [@BaBeVe] , $$\\inf_{\\substack{({\\mathbf{a}}, a_0) \\in{\\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\\setminus\\{0\\} \\\\ \\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\| \\geq H_0}}\\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in5{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_\\infty({\\mathbf{x}}_\\infty)+\\Theta_\\infty({\\mathbf{x}}_\\infty)|_\\infty>0.$$ Therefore, $$\\inf_{\\substack{({\\mathbf{a}}, a_0)\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\\setminus\\{0\\} \\\\  \\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|\\geq H_0 }}\\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in5{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|_S >$$ $$\\inf_{\\substack{({\\mathbf{a}}, a_0)\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\\setminus\\{0\\} \\\\ \\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\| \\geq H_0}}\\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in5{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}}|a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}_\\infty({\\mathbf{x}}_\\infty)+\\Theta_\\infty({\\mathbf{x}}_\\infty)|_\\infty\n> 0.$$ Now by the $(C,\\frac{1}{dk})$-good property of the function $|a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|_S^l$ on $5{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$ we conclude $$|I_{\\mathbf{t}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta^+({\\mathbf{t}}))\\cap{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}|\\leq |\\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in {\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0} ~:~|a_0+{\\mathbf{a}}.{\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})|_S^l<2^{-(1-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2})|{\\mathbf{t}}|}\\}|$$ $$\\ll2^{-(1-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{2})(\\frac{1}{dk})|{\\mathbf{t}}|}|{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}|$$ for all sufficiently large $|{\\mathbf{t}}|.$ Therefore ${\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}\\not\\subset I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi^+_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}))$ for sufficiently large $|{\\mathbf{t}}|$ . The measure restricted to ${\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$ will be denoted as $|~~|_{{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}}$ and thus $\\mathbf{S}={\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5mu{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu}$. So $\\mathbf{S}\\cap I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi^+_\\delta{\\mathbf{t}}) $ is open and for every ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in \\mathbf{S}\\cap I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}}) $ there exists a ball $$B'({\\mathbf{x}})\\subset I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi^+_\\delta({\\mathbf{t}})).$$ So we can find $\\kappa\\geq 1$ such that the ball $B=B({\\mathbf{x}}):=\\kappa B'({\\mathbf{x}})$ satisfies $$5 B({\\mathbf{x}})\\subset 5V_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$$ and $$\\label{twosided_inclusion}\n B({\\mathbf{x}})\\cap \\mathbf{S}\\subset I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi^+_{\\delta}({\\mathbf{t}}))\\not\\supset {\\mathbf{S}}\\cap 5B({\\mathbf{x}})$$ holds for all but finitely many ${\\mathbf{t}}$ . The second inequality holds because we would otherwise have ${\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}\\subset I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi^+_{\\delta}({\\mathbf{t}}))$, a contradiction. Then take $C_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}:=\\{B({\\mathbf{x}})~:~ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in \\mathbf{S}\\cap I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_{\\delta}({\\mathbf{t}}))\\} $. Hence (\\[inter1\\]) and (\\[inter2\\]) are satisfied. By (\\[twosided\\_inclusion\\]) we have $$\\label{ineq_1}\n\\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in 5B}\\mathbf{F}_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}^\\nu({\\mathbf{x}})\\geq \\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in 5B\\cap S} \\mathbf{F}_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}^\\nu({\\mathbf{x}})\\geq \\phi_\\delta^+({\\mathbf{t}})r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})$$ for all but finitely many ${\\mathbf{t}}$. So in view of the definitions we get $$\\label{ineq_2}\n\\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in 5B\\cap  I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_{\\delta}({\\mathbf{t}})) }\\mathbf{F}_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}^\\nu({\\mathbf{x}})\\leq 2^{(\\frac{\\delta}{2}-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4})|{\\mathbf{t}}| }\\phi_\\delta^+({\\mathbf{t}})r_\\nu({\\mathbf{t}})\\leq_{\\ref{ineq_1}}2^{(\\frac{\\delta}{2}-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4})|{\\mathbf{t}}|}\\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in 5B}\\mathbf{F}_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}^\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}).$$ Therefore for all large $|{\\mathbf{t}}|$ and $\\alpha \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ we have $$\\begin{split}\n|5B\\cap I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_{\\delta}({\\mathbf{t}}))|\\leq_{\\ref{ineq_2}} &\n|\\{ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in 5B~:~\\mathbf{F}_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}^\\nu({\\mathbf{x}})\\leq\n 2^{(\\frac{\\delta}{2}-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4})|{\\mathbf{t}}|}\n \\sup_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in 5B}\\mathbf{F}_{{\\mathbf{t}},\\alpha}^\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}) \\} |\\\\ &\\leq  C2^{(\\frac{\\delta}{2}-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4})\\frac{1}{dk}|{\\mathbf{t}}|}|5B|.\\end{split}$$ Hence finally we conclude $$\\begin{split}\n|5B\\cap I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_{\\delta}({\\mathbf{t}}))|_{{\\mathbf{V}}}\\leq|5B\\cap I_{{\\mathbf{t}}}^\\nu(\\alpha,\\phi_{\\delta}({\\mathbf{t}}))|\n&\n\\\\\\leq C2^{(\\frac{\\delta}{2}-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4})\\frac{1}{dk}|{\\mathbf{t}}|}|5B|&\\\\ \\leq\nC_\\star C2^{(\\frac{\\delta}{2}-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4})\\frac{1}{dk}|{\\mathbf{t}}|}|5B|_{{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}},\n\\end{split}$$ since $5B\\subset5{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}$. Here we are using that the measure is doubling and the centre of the ball $5B$ is in ${\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5mu{\\mathbf{V}}_{{\\mathbf{x}}_0}\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu}$. So $C_\\star$ is only dependent on $d_\\nu$. We choose $k_{{\\mathbf{t}}}=C_\\star C2^{(\\frac{\\delta}{2}-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4})\\frac{1}{dk}|{\\mathbf{t}}|}$ and as $(\\frac{\\delta}{2}-\\frac{\\varepsilon}{4})<0$ we also have $\\sum k_{{\\mathbf{t}}}<\\infty$ as required in (\\[conv\\]). This verifies the contracting property.\n\nThe large derivative\n--------------------\n\nIn this section, we will show that $|{\\mathcal{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)|=0$. Let us recall Theorem 1.2 from [@MoS1].\n\nAssume that $\\mathbf{U}$ satisfies (I1), $\\mathbf{f}$ satisfies (I2), (I3) and $0<\\epsilon< \\frac{1}{4n|S|^2}.$ Let $\\mathcal{A}$ be $$\\left\\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}|~\\exists~{\\mathbf{a}}\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^n, \\frac{T_i}{2}\\leq~|a_i|_{S}<T_i,\n    \\begin{array}{l}|\\langle {\\mathbf{a}}. {\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}}) \\rangle|^{l}<\\delta(\\prod_{i} T_i)^{-1}\\\\\\\\\n    \\|{\\mathbf{a}}. \\nabla {\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu)\\|_{\\nu}>\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|_S^{-\\varepsilon},\\hspace{2mm}\\nu\\neq\\infty\\\\\\\\\n    \\|{\\mathbf{a}}. \\nabla {\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}({\\mathbf{x}}_\\nu)\\|_{\\nu}>\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|_S^{1-\\varepsilon},\\hspace{2mm}\\nu=\\infty\n    \\end{array}\n    \\right\\}.$$ Then $|\\mathcal{A}|<C \\delta\\hspace{1mm}|{\\mathbf{U}}|,$ for large enough $\\max (T_i)$ and a universal constant $C$.\n\nNote that the function $({\\mathbf{f}},\\Theta):{\\mathbf{U}}~\\mapsto {\\mathbb{Q}}_S^{n+1}$ satisfies the same properties as ${\\mathbf{f}}$. So as a Corollary of the previous theorem we get,\n\n\\[&gt;coro\\] Let $0<\\varepsilon< \\frac{1}{4(n+1)|S|^2}$ and $\\mathcal{A}_{(T_i)_{1}^n}$ be the set $$\\bigcup_{\\substack{({\\mathbf{a}},1)\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\\\\\\frac{T_i}{2}\\leq~|a_i|_{S}<T_i}}\\left\\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}~|\\\\\n    \\begin{array}{l}|\\langle {\\mathbf{a}}. {\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}}) \\rangle|_S^{l}<\\delta(\\prod_{i=1}^{n} T_i)^{-1}\\\\\\\\\n        \\|\\nabla( {\\mathbf{a}}{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}(x)+\\Theta_\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}_{\\nu}))\\|_{\\nu}>\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|_S^{-\\varepsilon},\\hspace{2mm}\\nu\\neq\\infty\\\\\\\\\n        \\|\\nabla ({\\mathbf{a}}{\\mathbf{f}}_{\\nu}(x_\\nu)+\\Theta_\\nu({\\mathbf{x}}_{\\nu}))\\|_{\\nu}>\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|_S^{1-\\varepsilon},\\nu=\\infty\n    \\end{array}\n    \\right\\}.$$ Then $|\\mathcal{A}_{(T_i)_{1}^n}\n|<C \\delta\\hspace{1mm}|{\\mathbf{U}}|,$ for large enough $\\max (T_i)$ and a universal constant $C$.\n\nNow take $T_i=2^{t_i+1}$ and $\\delta=2^{\\sum_{1}^n t_i+1}\\Psi(2^{{\\mathbf{t}}})$. As $2^{t_i}\\leq|a_i|_S<2^{t_i+1},$ this implies by (\\[monotone\\_cond\\]) that $\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})\\geq \\Psi(2^{{\\mathbf{t}}+1})$ and we have using (\\[&gt;coro\\]) that $$\\label{>measure_inq}\n |\\bigcup_{2^{t_i}\\leq|a_i|_S<2^{t_i+1}}{\\mathbf{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)|<C2^{\\sum_{1}^n t_i+1}\\Psi(2^{{\\mathbf{t}}}).$$ Note that $$\\sum\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})\\geq\\sum\\Psi(2^{t_1+1},\\cdots,2^{t_n+1})2^{\\sum_{1}^n t_i},$$ so the convergence of $\\sum\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})$ implies the convergence of the later. Therefore by (\\[&gt;measure\\_inq\\]) and by the Borel-Cantelli lemma we get that almost every point of ${\\mathbf{U}}$ are in at most finitely many ${\\mathbf{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}({\\mathbf{a}},\\Psi,\\Theta)$. Hence $|{\\mathcal{W}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\text{large}}(\\Psi,\\Theta)|=0$ completing the proof.\n\nThe divergence theorem for ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p$\n===========================================\n\nIn this section we prove Theorem \\[thm:divergence\\] using ubiquitous systems as in [@BaBeVe]. In [@BBKM], the related notion of regular systems was used. As mentioned in the introduction, the divergence case will be proved for a more restrictive choice of approximating function than the convergence case, namely for those satisfying property $\\mathbf{P}$. Indeed a more general formulation which includes the multiplicative case of the divergence Khintchine theorem remains an outstanding open problem even for submanifolds in ${\\mathbb{R}}^n$. Without loss of generality, and in an effort to keep the notation reasonable, we will prove the Theorem for the usual norm, i.e. we will assume ${\\mathbf{v}}= (1, \\dots, 1)$. The interested reader can very easily make the minor changes required to prove it for general ${\\mathbf{v}}$. For $\\delta > 0$ and $Q > 1$ we follow [@BaBeVe] in defining $\\Phi^{{\\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\\delta) := \\{x \\in U~:~ \\exists~{\\mathbf{a}}=(a_0,{\\mathbf{a}}_1)  \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}\\times{\\mathbb{Z}}^n\\backslash \\{0\\}$ such that $$|a_0+ {\\mathbf{a}}_1 \\cdot {\\mathbf{f}}({\\mathbf{x}})|_p < \\delta Q^{-{(n+1)}} \\text{ and } \\|(a_0,{\\mathbf{a}}_1)\\| \\leq Q\\}.$$ We now recall definition of a $\\mathit{nice}$ function.\n\n\\[nice\\] We say that ${\\mathbf{f}}$ is *nice* at ${\\mathbf{x}}_0\\in {\\mathbf{U}}$ if there exists a neighbourhood ${\\mathbf{U}}_0\\subset {\\mathbf{U}}$ of ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ and constants $0<\\delta, w<1$ such that for any sufficiently small ball ${\\mathbf{B}}\\subset {\\mathbf{U}}_0$ we have that $$\\limsup_{Q\\to \\infty}|\\Phi^{{\\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\\delta)\\cap {\\mathbf{B}}|\\leq w|{\\mathbf{B}}|.$$\n\nIf ${\\mathbf{f}}$ is *nice* at almost every ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ in ${\\mathbf{U}}$ then ${\\mathbf{f}}$ is called *nice*. The following Theorem from [@MoS2] plays a crucial role. It\u2019s proof involves a suitable adaptation of the dynamical technique in [@BKM].\n\n[[@MoS2]]{}\\[lemma:nice\\] Assume that ${\\mathbf{f}}:{\\mathbf{U}}\\to {\\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$ is nondegenerate at ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in {\\mathbf{U}}$. Then there exists a sufficiently small ball ${\\mathbf{B}}_0\\subset {\\mathbf{U}}$ centred at ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ and a constant $C>0$ such that for any ball ${\\mathbf{B}}\\subset {\\mathbf{B}}_0$ and any $\\delta>0 $, for sufficiently large $Q$, one has $$|\\Phi^{{\\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\\delta)\\cap {\\mathbf{B}}|\\leq C\\delta |{\\mathbf{B}}|.$$\n\nThis implies that if ${\\mathbf{f}}$ is nondegenerate at ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ then ${\\mathbf{f}}$ is nice at ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$. We will now state the main two theorems of this section. Let $\\psi : \\mathbb{N} \\to {\\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ be a decreasing function.\n\n\\[thm:nice\\] Assume that ${\\mathbf{f}}:{\\mathbf{U}}\\subset{\\mathbb{Q}}_p^m\\to {\\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$ is nice and satisfies the standing assumptions (I1 and I2) and that $s>m-1$. Let $\\Theta:{\\mathbf{U}}\\to {\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ be an analytic map satisfying assumption (I5). Let $\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})=\\psi(\\|{\\mathbf{a}}\\|) ,{\\mathbf{a}}\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} $ be an approximating function. Then, $$\\label{main sum}\n    \\mathcal{H}^s(\\mathcal{W}^{\\mathbf{f}}_{(\\Psi,\\Theta)}\\cap{\\mathbf{U}})=\\mathcal{H}^s({\\mathbf{U}}) \\text{    if   } \\sum (\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}}))^{s+1-m}=\\infty.$$\n\nIn view of Theorem \\[lemma:nice\\], Theorem \\[thm:nice\\] implies Theorem \\[thm:divergence\\]. Note that condition (I3) implies the nondegeneracy of ${\\mathbf{f}}$ at every point of ${\\mathbf{U}}$.\n\n Ubiquitous Systems in ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$\n-----------------------------------------\n\nLet us recall the the definition of Ubiquitous systems in ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$ following [@BaBeVe]. Throughout, balls in ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p^m$ are assumed to be defined in terms of the supremum norm $|\\cdot|$. Let ${\\mathbf{U}}$ be a ball in ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p^m$ and $\\mathcal{R}=(R_\\alpha)_{\\alpha\\in J}$ be a family of subsets $R_\\alpha\\subset {\\mathbb{Q}}_p^m$ indexed by a countable set $J$. The sets $R_\\alpha$ are referred to as *resonant sets*. Throughout, $\\rho\\;:\\;{\\mathbb{R}}^+\\to{\\mathbb{R}}^+$ will denote a function such that $\\rho(r)\\to0$ as $r\\to\\infty$. Given a set $A\\subset {\\mathbf{U}}$, let $$\\Delta(A,r):=\\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in {\\mathbf{U}}\\;:\\; {\\operatorname{dist}}({\\mathbf{x}},A)<r\\}$$ where ${\\operatorname{dist}}({\\mathbf{x}},A):=\\inf\\{|{\\mathbf{x}}-{\\mathbf{a}}|: {\\mathbf{a}}\\in A\\}$. Next, let $\\beta\\;:\\;J\\to {\\mathbb{R}}^+\\;:\\;\\alpha\\mapsto\\beta_\\alpha$ be a positive function on $J$. Thus the function $\\beta$ attaches a \u2018weight\u2019 $\\beta_\\alpha$ to the set $R_\\alpha$. We will assume that for every $t\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ the set $J_t=\\{\\alpha\\in J: \\beta_\\alpha\\le 2^t\\}$ is finite.\\\n\\\n**The intersection conditions:** There exists a constant $\\gamma$ with $ 0 \\leq \\gamma \\leq m$ such that for any sufficiently large $t$ and for any $\\alpha\\in J_t$, $c\\in{\\mathcal{R}}_\\alpha$ and $0< \\lambda \\le \\rho(2^t)$ the following conditions are satisfied: $$\\label{i1}\n \\big|{\\mathbf{B}}(c, {\\mbox{\\small\n        $\\frac{1}{2}$}}\\rho(2^t))\\cap\\Delta(R_\\alpha,\\lambda)\\big| \\geq c_1 \\,\n |{\\mathbf{B}}(c,\\lambda)|\\left(\\frac{\\rho(2^t)}{\\lambda}\\right)^{\\gamma}$$ $$\\label{i2}\n \\big|{\\mathbf{B}}\\cap\n {\\mathbf{B}}(c,3\\rho(2^t))\\cap\\Delta(R_\\alpha,3\\lambda)\\big| \\leq c_2 \\,\n |{\\mathbf{B}}(c,\\lambda)| \\left(\\frac{r({\\mathbf{B}})}{\\lambda}\\right)^{\\gamma} $$ where ${\\mathbf{B}}$ is an arbitrary ball centred on a resonant set with radius $r({\\mathbf{B}})\\le 3 \\, \\rho(2^t)$. The constants $c_1$ and $ c_2$ are positive and absolute. The constant $\\gamma$ is referred to as the *common dimension* of ${\\mathcal{R}}$.\n\nSuppose that there exists a ubiquitous function $\\rho$ and an absolute constant $k>0$ such that for any ball ${\\mathbf{B}}\\subseteq {\\mathbf{U}}$ $$\\label{coveringproperty} \n    \\liminf_{t\\to\\infty} \\left|\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\n        J_t}\\Delta(R_\\alpha,\\rho(2^t))\\cap {\\mathbf{B}}\\right| \\ \\ge \\ k\\,|{\\mathbf{B}}|.$$ Furthermore, suppose that the intersection conditions and are satisfied. Then the system $(\\mathcal{R}, \\beta)$ is called *locally ubiquitous in ${\\mathbf{U}}$ relative to $\\rho$.*\n\nLet $(\\mathcal{R},\\beta)$ be a ubiquitous system in ${\\mathbf{U}}$ relative to $\\rho$ and $\\phi$ be an approximating function. Let $\\Lambda(\\phi)$ be the set of points ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in {\\mathbf{U}}$ such that the inequality $$\\label{vb+}\n {\\operatorname{dist}}({\\mathbf{x}},R_{\\alpha})<\\phi(\\beta_\\alpha)$$ holds for infinitely many $\\alpha\\in J$.\\\nWe are going to use this following ubiquity lemma from [@BaBeVe] in our main proof.\n\n\\[ubi\\] Let $\\phi$ be an approximating function and $(\\mathcal{R},\\beta)$ be a locally ubiquitous system in ${\\mathbf{U}}$ relative to $\\rho$. Suppose that there is a $0<\\lambda<1$ such that $\\rho(2^{t+1})<\\lambda\\rho({2^t})~\\forall~ t \\in {\\mathbb{N}}.$ Then for any $s>\\gamma,$ $$\\mathcal{H}^s(\\Lambda(\\phi))=\\mathcal{H}^s({\\mathbf{U}}) \\text{ if }\\sum_{t=1}^\\infty \\frac{{\\phi(2^t)}^{s-\\gamma}}{{\\rho(2^t)}^{m-\\gamma}}=\\infty.$$\n\nWe will also need the strong approximation theorem mentioned in [@Zelo].\n\n\\[Strong\\] For any $\\bar \\epsilon = (\\epsilon_{\\infty},(\\epsilon_{p}))\n    \\in \\mathbb{R}_{>0}^{2}$ satisfying the inequality $$\\epsilon_{\\infty} \\geq\n    \\frac{1}{2} \\epsilon_{p}^{-1} p,$$ there exists a rational number $r \\in \\mathbb{Q}$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    &| r - \\xi_{\\infty} |_{\\infty} \\leq \\epsilon_{\\infty},\n    \\\\\n    &| r - \\xi_{p} |_{p} \\leq \\epsilon_{p}\n    ,\n    \\\\\n    &| r |_{q} \\leq 1\n    \\quad \\forall~q \\neq p.\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nBefore we start the proving the main theorem in this section we would like to calculate a covolume formula of certain lattices.\n\n\\[covolume\\] Suppose $|y_i|_p\\leq 1$ then $$\\Gamma=\\left\\{\n    (q_0, q_1,\\cdots, q_n)\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} :\n     \\begin{array}{l}\n     |q_0 + q_1y_1+\\cdots+ q_ny_n|_p\\leq\\frac{1}{p^j},\\\\\\\\\n    |q_i|_p\\leq \\frac{1}{p}\\\\\\\\\n     i=1,\\cdots n\n      \\end{array}\\right\\}.$$ is a lattice in ${\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} $ and ${\\operatorname{Vol}}({\\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}/\\Gamma)= p^{j+n}$.\n\nFirst of all $\\Gamma$ is a discrete subgroup of ${\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$. Clearly $(p^j,0,\\cdots,0)\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1} $ is in $\\Gamma$. Since $|y_i|_p\\leq 1$ we may take $q_i\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\\label{q_conditions}\n    |q_i-py_i|_p\\leq\\frac{1}{p^j},$$ which implies that $(q_i,0,\\cdots,-p,\\cdots,0)\\in \\Gamma$ where $-p$ is in $(i+1)$th position. We claim that $$\\{(p^j,0,\\cdots,0),(q_i,0,\\cdots,-p,\\cdots,0)\\ | \\ i=1,\\cdots,n\\}$$ is a basis of $\\Gamma$. The matrix comprising these elements as column vectors as follows $$A:= \\begin{bmatrix}\n    p^j & q_1 &   & \\dots &q_i &\\dots & q_n\\\\\n    0    &  -p &      &   \\dots     &0   &\\dots & 0  \\\\\n    \\vdots & \\vdots & &\\vdots&\\vdots &\\vdots &\\vdots,\\\\\n    0    &   0  &     &   \\dots &-p &\\dots & 0\\\\\n    \\vdots & \\vdots  & &\\vdots&\\vdots&\\vdots&\\vdots \\\\\n    0    &     0 & &\\dots &0  &\\dots   & -p\n    \\end{bmatrix}.$$ We want to show that if $\\mathbf{m}=(m_0,m_1,\\cdots,m_n)\\in \\Gamma $ then there exists $\\mathbf{s}=(s_o,s_1,\\cdots,s_n)\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}$ such that $A\\mathbf{s}=\\mathbf{m}$. Note that $$A{^{\\text{-}1}}\\mathbf{m} = \\left(\\frac{m_0p+q_1m_1+\\cdots+q_nm_n}{p^{j+1}},-\\frac{m_1}{p},\\cdots,-\\frac{m_n}{p}\\right).$$ As $\\mathbf{m}\\in \\Gamma$ we have that $p|m_i~\\forall~ i=1,\\cdots,n,$ hence $-\\frac{m_i}{p}$ is an integer for all $i$. Now it is enough to show that $p^{j+1} | (m_0p+q_1m_1+\\cdots+m_nq_n)$. Note that $$m_0p+m_1q_1+\\cdots+m_nq_n= p(m_0+m_1y_1+\\cdots+m_ny_n)+m_1(q_1-y_1p)+\\cdots+m_n(q_n-y_np).$$ Now conclusion follows from $\\mathbf{m}\\in\\Gamma$ and (\\[q\\_conditions\\]).\n\nNow we will construct a ubiquitous system which will give the main result of this section.\n\n\\[ubiquity\\] Let ${\\mathbf{x}}_0\\in {\\mathbf{U}}$ be such that ${\\mathbf{f}}$ is *nice* at ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ and satisfies (I3). Then there is a neighbourhood ${\\mathbf{U}}_0$ of ${\\mathbf{x}}_0,$ constants $\\kappa_0>0$ and $\\kappa_1>0$ and a collection ${\\mathcal{R}}:=(R_F)_{F\\in\\mathcal{F}_n}$ of sets $R_F\\subset \\widetilde{R_F}\\cap {\\mathbf{U}}_0$ such that the system $({\\mathcal{R}},\\beta)$ is locally ubiquitous in ${\\mathbf{U}}_0$ relative to $\\rho(r)=\\kappa_1r^{(n+1)} $ with common dimension $\\gamma:=m-1,$ where $$\\mathcal{F}_n:=\\left\\{F:{\\mathbf{U}}\\to{\\mathbb{R}}\\ |\\begin{array}{l} F({\\mathbf{x}})= a_0+a_1f_1({\\mathbf{x}})+\\cdots+a_nf_n({\\mathbf{x}}),\\\\\\\\\n     {\\mathbf{a}}=(a_0,a_1,\\cdots,a_n)\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\\setminus\\mathbf{0} \\end{array} \\right \\}$$ and given $F\\in\\mathcal{F}_n$ $$\\widetilde{R_F}:=\\{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}:\\ (F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}}) \\ =\\ 0\\}$$ and $$\\beta:\\ \\mathcal{F}_n\\to {\\mathbb{R}}^+\\ : F\\to \\ \\beta_F=\\kappa_0|(a_0,a_1,\\cdots,a_n)|=\\kappa_0|{\\mathbf{a}}|.$$\n\nLet $\\pi:\\ {\\mathbb{Q}}_p^m\\to{\\mathbb{Q}}_p^{m-1}$ be the projection map given by $$\\pi(x_1,x_2,\\cdots,x_m)=(x_2,\\cdots,x_m),$$ and let $$\\widetilde{\\mathbf{V}}:=\\pi(\\widetilde R_F\\cap{\\mathbf{U}}_0),\n \\\\\n  {\\mathbf{V}}=\\bigcup_{3\\rho(\\beta_F)-\\text{balls} B\\subset \\widetilde{{\\mathbf{V}}}}\\frac{1}{2}B$$ and $$R_F=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{l}\n \n\\pi{^{\\text{-}1}}({\\mathbf{V}})\\cap\\widetilde{R_F}  \\ \\text{if} \\ \\ |\\partial_1(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})|> \\lambda|\\nabla(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})| \\ \\forall \\ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in {\\mathbf{U}}_0\\\\\\\\\n\n\\emptyset  \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\  \\text{otherwise}.\n \\end{array}\\right \n.$$ where $0<\\lambda<1$ is fixed.\\\nWe claim that the $R_F$ are resonant sets. The intersection property, namely (\\[i1\\]) and (\\[i2\\]) can be checked exactly as in the case of real numbers as accomplished in [@BaBeVe], Proposition 5. We only need to note that implicit function theorem for $C^l(U)$ in ${\\mathbb{R}}^n$ was used in [@BaBeVe]. The Implicit function theorem in ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ holds for analytic maps and all our maps have been assumed analytic, so the proof in [@BaBeVe] goes through verbatim.\n\nIt remains to check the covering property (\\[coveringproperty\\]) to establish ubiquity. Without loss of generality we will assume that the ball ${\\mathbf{U}}_0$ in the definition of (\\[nice\\]) satisfies $${\\operatorname{diam}}{{\\mathbf{U}}_0}\\leq \\frac{1}{p}.$$ From the Definition \\[nice\\] of ${\\mathbf{f}}$ being nice at ${\\mathbf{x}}_0,$ there exist fixed $0<\\delta,w<1$ such that for any arbitrary ball ${\\mathbf{B}}\\subset{\\mathbf{U}}_0,$ $$\\limsup_{Q\\to \\infty}|\\Phi^{{\\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\\delta)\\cap \\frac{1}{2}{\\mathbf{B}}|\\leq w|\\frac{1}{2}{\\mathbf{B}}|.$$ So for sufficiently large $Q$ we have that $$|\\frac{1}{2}{\\mathbf{B}}\\setminus \\Phi^{{\\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\\delta)|\\geq \\frac{1}{2}(1-w)|\\frac{1}{2}{\\mathbf{B}}|=2^{-m-1}(1-w)|{\\mathbf{B}}|.$$ Therefore it is enough to show that $$\\frac{1}{2}{\\mathbf{B}}\\setminus \\Phi^{{\\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\\delta)\\subset\\bigcup _{F\\in\\mathcal{F}_n\\\\\n \\beta_F\\leq Q}\\Delta(R_F,\\rho(Q))\\cap{\\mathbf{B}}.$$ Suppose ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in \\frac{1}{2}{\\mathbf{B}}\\setminus \\Phi^{{\\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\\delta).$ Consider the lattice $$\\Gamma_{{\\mathbf{x}}}=\\left\\{(a_0,a_1,\\cdots,a_n)\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}: \\begin{array}{l}|a_0+a_1f_1({\\mathbf{x}})+\\cdots+a_nf_n({\\mathbf{x}})|_p<\\delta Q^{-(n+1)}\\\\\\\\\n |a_i|_p\\leq\\frac{1}{p}  \\ \\forall \\ {1\\leq i\\leq n}\\end{array}\\right\\},$$ and the convex set $K=[-Q,Q]^{n+1}$ in ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$. Note that $$|a_o+a_1f_1({\\mathbf{x}})+\\cdots+a_nf_n({\\mathbf{x}})|_p<\\delta Q^{-(n+1)}$$ if and only if $$|a_o+a_1f_1({\\mathbf{x}})+\\cdots+a_nf_n({\\mathbf{x}})|_p\\leq {p^{[\\log_p\\delta Q^{-(n+1)}]}}.$$ So by Lemma \\[covolume\\] we have that $${\\operatorname{Vol}}({\\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}/\\Gamma)=p.p^n.p^{-[\\log_pQ^{-(n+1)}\\delta]}\\leq p^{n+1}\\frac{1}{p^{log_p{\\delta Q^{-(n+1)}-1}}}\\leq Q^{n+1}\\frac{p^{n+2}}{\\delta}.$$ Using the fact that ${\\mathbf{x}}\\notin \\Phi^{{\\mathbf{f}}}(Q,\\delta) $ we get the first minima $\\lambda_1=\\lambda_1(\\Gamma_{{\\mathbf{x}}},K)>1$. Therefore using Minkowski\u2019s theorem on successive minima, we have that $$2^{n+1}Q^{n+1}\\lambda_1.\\lambda_2.\\cdots.\\lambda_{n+1}\\leq 2^{n+1}{\\operatorname{Vol}}({\\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}/\\Gamma_{{\\mathbf{x}}})\\leq 2^{n+1}Q^{n+1}\\frac{p^{n+2}}{\\delta}.$$ This implies that $\\lambda_{n+1}\\leq \\frac{p^{n+2}}{\\delta}.$ By the definition of $\\lambda_{n+1}$ we get $n+1$ linearly independent integer vectors ${\\mathbf{a}}_j=(a_{j,0},\\cdots,a_{j,n})\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}(0\\leq j\\leq n)$ such that the functions $F_j$ given by $$F_j({\\mathbf{y}})=a_{j,0}+a_{j,1}f_1({\\mathbf{y}})+\\cdots+a_{j,n}f_n({\\mathbf{y}})$$ satisfy $$\\label{conditions}\n\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l}\n|F_j({\\mathbf{x}})|_p<\\delta Q^{-(n+1)}\\\\\\\\\n|a_{j,i}|_\\infty\\leq Q.\\frac{p^{n+2}}{\\delta}\\\\\\\\\n|a_{j,i}|_p\\leq\\frac{1}{p} \\text{ for } 0\\leq i,j \\leq n.\n\\end{array}\\right.$$ As $\\lambda_1>1$ so for every $0\\leq j \\leq n$ there exists at least one $0\\leq j^\\star\\leq n$ such that $|a_{j,j^\\star}|_\\infty>Q$.\n\nNow consider the following system of linear equations,\\\n$$\\label{linear}\n\\begin{array}{l}\n\\eta_0F_0({\\mathbf{x}})+\\eta_1F_1({\\mathbf{x}})+\\cdots+\\eta_nF_n({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})=0\\\\\\\\\n\\eta_0\\partial_1F_0({\\mathbf{x}})+\\eta_1\\partial_1F_1({\\mathbf{x}})+\\cdots+\\eta_n\\partial_1F_n({\\mathbf{x}})+\\partial_1\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})=1\\\\\\\\\n\\eta_0a_{0,j}+\\cdots+\\eta_na_{n,j}=0 \\ \\  (2\\leq j \\leq n).\n\\end{array}$$ Since ${\\mathbf{f}}_1({\\mathbf{x}})=x_1 $, the determinant of this aforementioned system is $\\det(a_{j,i})\\neq 0$. Therefore there exists a unique solution to the system, say $(\\eta_0,\\eta_1,\\cdots,\\eta_n)\\in {\\mathbb{Q}}_p^n$. By the argument above, there is at least one $|a_{j,i} |_\\infty > Q$. Without loss of generality assume $|a_{0,0}|_\\infty >Q$. Using the strong approximation Theorem \\[Strong\\] we get $r_i\\in{\\mathbb{Q}}$ such that $$\\label{r_i}\n\\begin{aligned}\n& |r_i-2p|_\\infty\\leq p \\text{ if }  a_{i,0}>0 \\text{   otherwise  } |r_i+2p|_\\infty<p,\\\\\n&\n|r_i-\\eta_i|_p\\leq 1,\\\\\n& \n|r_i|_q\\leq 1\n\\quad \\text{for} \\ \\text{ prime }q\\neq p.\n\\end{aligned}$$ Now take the function $$\\begin{aligned}\nF({\\mathbf{y}})=r_0F_0({\\mathbf{y}})+r_1F_1({\\mathbf{y}})+\\cdots+r_nF_n({\\mathbf{y}})\\\\\\\\\n=a_0+a_1f_1({\\mathbf{y}})+\\cdots+a_nf_n({\\mathbf{y}}),\n\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\label{a_i}\na_i=r_0a_{0,i}+r_1a_{1,i}+\\cdots+r_na_{n,i},\n\\  \\forall \\ i=0,\\cdots,n.$$\n\nWe claim that\\\n**Claim $1$.**The $a_i$ are all integers.\\\nFrom (\\[r\\_i\\]) and (\\[a\\_i\\]) we get $$\\label{claim1.1}\n|a_i|_q\\leq 1, \\ \\forall \\ \\ {i}=0,\\cdots,n \\text{ for } q\\neq p$$ and by (\\[r\\_i\\]), (\\[linear\\]) and (\\[conditions\\]) we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n|a_i|_p\\leq \\max_{j=0,\\cdots,n} \\{|\\eta_j-r_j|_p|a_{j,i}|_p\\}\\leq 1\n\\quad \\text{ for } i=2,\\cdots,n.\n\\end{aligned}$$ So $a_i$ are all integers for $i=2,\\cdots,n$. Now note that $$F({\\mathbf{x}})+\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})\\\\\n=(r_0-\\eta_0)F_0({\\mathbf{x}})+\\cdots+(r_n-\\eta_n)F_n({\\mathbf{x}}).$$ Therefore we have $$\\label{condition1}\n|(F+\\theta)({\\mathbf{x}})|_p\\leq \\delta Q^{-(n+1)}.$$ Again $$\\partial_1(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})=(r_0-\\eta_0)\\partial_1F_0({\\mathbf{x}})+\\cdots+(r_n-\\eta_n)\\partial_1F_n({\\mathbf{x}})+1.$$ Since $|a_{j,i}|_p\\leq\\frac{1}{p}$ so $|\\partial_1F_j({\\mathbf{x}})|_p\\leq \\frac{1}{p}$ and thus by (\\[r\\_i\\]) we get $$\\label{partial_condition}\n1-\\frac{1}{p}\\leq|\\partial_1(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})|_p\\leq 1.$$\\\nNow we can show that $a_1$ and $a_0$ are also integers. Since $f_1({\\mathbf{y}})=y_1,$ we have $$a_1=\\partial_1(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})-\\partial_1\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})-\\sum_{j =2}^{n}a_j\\partial_1f_j({\\mathbf{x}})$$ which implies that $|a_1|_p\\leq 1$. This together with (\\[claim1.1\\]) proves that $a_1$ is an integer. We similarly prove that $a_0$ is an integer. We can write $$\\begin{aligned}\\label{a_0}\na_0=(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})-\\Theta({\\mathbf{x}})-\\sum_{j =1}^{n}a_jf_j({\\mathbf{x}}).\n\\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $|a_0|_p\\leq 1$ and thus by (\\[a\\_0\\]) and (\\[claim1.1\\]) we get that $a_0$ is integer. So the first claim is proved.\n\nNow we look at the infinity norm of the integers $a_i$. By (\\[a\\_i\\]), (\\[conditions\\]) and (\\[r\\_i\\]) we have $$\\label{a_infty}\n\\begin{aligned}\n|a_i|_\\infty\\leq|r_0a_{0,i}+\\cdots+r_na_{n,i}|_\\infty\\\\\n\\leq 3p(n+1)Q.\\frac{p^{n+2}}{\\delta}\n\\end{aligned}\n\\quad \\text{ for } i=0,1,\\cdots,n.$$ By the choice of $r_i$ we have $a_0>0$ and using the fact that $Q<|a_{0,0}|_\\infty$ we get that $|a_0|_\\infty>pQ$ and therefore $|{\\mathbf{a}}|>pQ$.\n\nSo by (\\[a\\_infty\\]) and the previous observation we get $$\\label{beta}\n\\frac{1}{3p(n+1)}p^{-(n+1)}\\delta.Q<\\beta_F=\\frac{1}{3p(n+1)}p^{-(n+2)}\\delta|{\\mathbf{a}}|\\leq Q,$$ here $\\kappa_0=\\frac{1}{3p(n+1)}p^{-(n+2)}\\delta$. Note that for all ${\\mathbf{y}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}_0$ we have $$\\partial_1(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})=\\partial_1(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{y}})+\\sum_{j=1}^m\\Phi_{j1}(\\partial_1(F+\\Theta))(\\star)(x_j-y_j)$$ where $\\star$ is from the coefficients of ${\\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\\mathbf{y}}$. By using (\\[partial\\_condition\\]) and by the fact that ${\\operatorname{diam}}({\\mathbf{U}}_0)\\leq \\frac{1}{p}$ we have $$|\\partial_1(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{y}})|_p\\geq 1-\\frac{2}{p} \\ \\ \\forall \\  {\\mathbf{y}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}_0.$$ So $F$ satisfies $|\\partial_1(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})|> (1-\\frac{2}{p})|\\nabla(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})| \\ \\forall \\ {\\mathbf{x}}\\in {\\mathbf{U}}_0$ and thus by the constructions $\\Delta(R_F,\\rho(Q))\\neq \\emptyset$.\\\n**Claim $2$.** ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in \\Delta(R_F,\\rho(Q))$.\\\nWe set $r_0 := {\\operatorname{diam}}({\\mathbf{B}})$ and define the function $$g(\\xi) :=(F+\\Theta)(x_1+\\xi,x_2,\\cdots,x_d), \\text { where } |\\xi|_p<r_0.$$ Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n |g(0)|_p=|(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})|_p<\\delta Q^{-(n+1)} \\\\\n \\text{ and } |g'(0)|_p=|\\partial_1(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})|_p>1-\\frac{1}{p}.\n\\end{aligned}$$ Now applying Newton\u2019s method there exists $\\xi_o$ such that $g(\\xi_0)=0$ and $|\\xi_0|_p<\\frac{p}{(p-1)}\\delta Q^{-(n+1)}$. For sufficiently large $Q$ we get ${\\mathbf{x}}_{\\xi_0}=(x_1+\\xi_0,x_1,\\cdots,x_n)\\in {\\mathbf{B}},$ that $(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}}_{\\xi_0})=0$ and that $|{\\mathbf{x}}-{\\mathbf{x}}_{\\xi_0}|_p\\leq \\frac{p}{(p-1)}\\delta Q^{-(n+1)}$. Then we will argue exactly same as in [@BaBeVe]. We recall the argument for the sake of completeness. By the Mean Value Theorem we will get $$\\begin{aligned}\n|(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{y}})|_p \\ll Q^{-(n+1)}\\\\\n    \\text{ for any } |{\\mathbf{y}}-{\\mathbf{x}}_{\\xi_0}|_p \\ll Q^{-(n+1)}.\n\\end{aligned}$$ Then by (\\[beta\\]) and using the same argument as above tells us that for sufficiently large $Q>0$ the ball of radius $\\rho(\\beta_F)$ centred at $\\pi{\\mathbf{x}}_{\\xi_0}$ is contained in $\\widetilde{{\\mathbf{V}}}$. This ultimately gives ${\\mathbf{x}}_{\\xi_0}\\in R_F$ . Since $$|{\\mathbf{x}}-{\\mathbf{x}}_{\\xi_0}|_p\\leq \\frac{p}{(p-1)}\\delta Q^{-(n+1)}$$ so ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in\\Delta(R_F,\\rho(Q))$ where $\\rho(Q)= \\frac{p}{(p-1)}\\delta Q^{-(n+1)}=\\kappa_1Q^{-(n+1)}$. Therefore ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in \\Delta(R_F,\\rho(Q))$ for some $F\\in\\mathcal{F}_n $ such that $\\beta_F\\leq Q$ and this completes the proof of the Theorem.\n\n Proof of the main divergence theorem\n-------------------------------------\n\nNow using Theorem \\[ubiquity\\] and lemma \\[ubi\\] we can complete the proof of Theorem \\[thm:nice\\].\n\nFix ${\\mathbf{x}}_0\\in {\\mathbf{U}}$ and let ${\\mathbf{U}}_0$ be the neighbourhood of ${\\mathbf{x}}_0$ which comes from (\\[ubiquity\\]). We need to show that $$\\mathcal{H}^s(\\mathcal{W}^{\\mathbf{f}}_{(\\Psi,\\Theta)}\\cap{\\mathbf{U}}_0)=\\mathcal{H}^s({\\mathbf{U}}_0)$$ if the series in (\\[main sum\\]) diverges. Consider $\\phi(r):=\\psi(\\kappa_0{^{\\text{-}1}}r) $. Our first aim is to show that $$\\Lambda(\\phi)\\subset \\mathcal{W}^{\\mathbf{f}}_{(\\Psi,\\Theta)}.$$ Note that ${\\mathbf{x}}\\in \\Lambda(\\phi)$ implies the existence of infinitely many $F\\in\\mathcal{F}_n $ such that ${\\operatorname{dist}}({\\mathbf{x}},R_F)<\\phi(\\beta_F)$. For such $F\\in\\mathcal{F}_n$ there exists ${\\mathbf{z}}\\in{\\mathbf{U}}_0$ such that $(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{z}})=0$ and $|{\\mathbf{x}}-{\\mathbf{z}}|_p<\\phi(\\beta_F)$. By Mean value theorem $$(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})=(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{z}})+ \\nabla(F + \\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})\\cdot ({\\mathbf{x}}- {\\mathbf{z}}) + \\sum_{i,j}\\Phi_{ij}(F+\\Theta)(\\star)(x_i - z_i)(x_j-z_j),$$ where $\\star$ comes from the coefficients of ${\\mathbf{x}}$ and ${\\mathbf{z}}$. Then we have that $$|(F+\\Theta)({\\mathbf{x}})|_p\\leq|{\\mathbf{x}}-{\\mathbf{z}}|_p<\\phi(\\beta_F)=\\phi(\\kappa_0 |{\\mathbf{a}}|)=\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}}).$$ Hence $\\Lambda(\\phi)\\subset \\mathcal{W}^{\\mathbf{f}}_{(\\Psi,\\Theta)} $. Now the Theorem will follow if we can show that $$\\sum_{t=1}^{\\infty} \\frac{\\phi(2^t)^{s-m+1}}{\\rho(2^t)}=\\infty.$$ Observe that $$\\sum_{t=1}^{\\infty} \\frac{\\phi(2^t)^{s-m+1}}{\\rho(2^t)}\\asymp \\sum_{t=1}^\\infty (\\psi(\\kappa_0{^{\\text{-}1}}2^t))^{s-m+1}\\frac{1}{\\rho(2^t)}\\\\\n\\asymp \\sum_{t=1}^\\infty (\\psi(\\kappa_0{^{\\text{-}1}}2^t))^{s-m+1}2^{t(n+1)}$$ $$\\gg \\sum_{t=1}^\\infty \\sum_{\\kappa_0{^{\\text{-}1}}2^t<|{\\mathbf{a}}|\\leq\\kappa_0{^{\\text{-}1}}2^{t+1} }(\\psi(\\kappa_0{^{\\text{-}1}}2^t))^{s-m+1}.$$ As $\\psi$ is an approximating function so we got that the above series $$\\gg\\sum_{t=1}^\\infty \\sum_{\\kappa_0{^{\\text{-}1}}2^t<|{\\mathbf{a}}|\\leq\\kappa_0{^{\\text{-}1}}2^{t+1} }(\\psi(|{\\mathbf{a}}|))^{s-m+1}\\asymp  \\sum_{{\\mathbf{a}}\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\\setminus{0}}(\\psi(|{\\mathbf{a}}|))^{s-m+1}\\\\$$ $$=\\sum_{{\\mathbf{a}}\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}^{n+1}\\setminus{0}}\\Psi({\\mathbf{a}})^{s-m+1}=\\infty.$$ This completes the proof of the Theorem.\n\nConcluding Remarks\n==================\n\nSome extensions\n---------------\n\nAn interesting possibility is an investigation of the function field case. In [@G], the function field analogue of the Baker-Sprind\u017euk conjectures were established and similarly it should be possible to prove the function field analogue of the results in the present paper.\n\nAffine subspaces\n----------------\n\nIn [@Kleinbock-extremal], analogues of the Baker-Sprind\u017euk conjectures were established for affine subspaces. In this setting, one needs to impose Diophantine conditions on the affine subspace in question. Subsequently, Khintchine type theorems were established (see [@G1; @G-Monat]), we refer the reader to [@G-handbook] for a survey of results. Recently, in [@BGGV], the inhomogeneous analogue of Khintchine\u2019s theorem for affine subspaces was established in both convergence and divergence cases. It would be interesting to consider the $S$-adic theory in the context of affine subspaces.\n\nFriendly Measures\n-----------------\n\nIn [@KLW] a category of measures called *Friendly* measures was introduced and the Baker-Sprind\u017euk conjectures were proved for friendly measures. Friendly measures include volume measures on nondegenerate manifolds, so the results of [@KLW] generalize those of [@KM], but also include many other examples including measures supported on certain fractal sets. In [@BeVe], the inhomogeneous version of the Baker-Sprind\u017euk conjectures were established for a class of measures called *strongly contracting* which include friendly measures. It should be possible to prove an $S$-adic inhomogeneous analogue of the Baker-Sprind\u017euk conjectures for strongly contracting measures.\n\n[99]{} V. Beresnevich, *A Groshev type theorem for convergence on manifolds*, Acta Math. Hungar. 94 (2002), no. 1-2, 99\u2013130. Bernik, V., Budarina, N., Dickinson, D.: Simultaneous Diophantine approximation in the real, complex and p-adic fields. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 149, 193\u2013216 (2010). V. Beresnevich, V. Bernik, H. Dickinson and M. M. Dodson, *On linear manifolds for which the Khintchin approximation theorem holds*, Vestsi Acad Navuk Belarusi. Ser. Fiz. - Mat. Navuk (2000), 14\u201317 (Belorussian). D. Badziahin, V. Beresnevich and S. Velani, *Inhomogeneous theory of dual Diophantine approximation on manifolds*, Advances in Mathematics **232** (2013) 1\u201335. V.V. Beresnevich, V.I. Bernik, E.I. Kovalevskaya, *On approximation of p-adic numbers by p-adic algebraic numbers*, Journal of Number Theory 111 (2005), 33\u201356. V. Beresnevich, V. Bernik, D. Kleinbock and G. Margulis, *Metric Diophantine approximation\u00a0:\u00a0the Khintchine-Groshev theorem for non-degenerate manifolds*, Moscow Mathematical Journal 2:2 (2002), 203\u2013225. V.V. Beresnevich, E.I. Kovalevskaya, *On Diophantine approximations of dependent quantities in the p-adic case*, Mat. Zametki 73:1 (2003), 22\u201337; translation: Math. Notes 73:1-2 (2003), 21\u201335. V. Bernik, H. Dickinson, M. M. Dodson, *Approximation of real numbers by values of integer polynomials*, Dokl. Nats. Akad. Nauk Belarusi 42 (1998), no. 4, 51\u201354, 123. V. Beresnevich, D. Dickinson and S. Velani, *Measure theoretic laws for lim sup sets*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., **179** (2006). V. Beresnevich, A. Ganguly, A. Ghosh and S. Velani, *Inhomogeneous dual Diophantine approximation on affine subspaces*, https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08559. V. Bernik, D. Kleinbock and G. A. Margulis, *Khintchine type theorems on manifolds : the convergence case for the standard and multiplicative versions*, Internat. Math. Res. Notices **9** (2001), pp. 453\u2013486. V. Beresnevich, S. Velani, An inhomogeneous transference principle and Diophantine approximation, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. **101** (2010) 821\u2013851. , Simultaneous inhomogeneous Diophantine approximations on manifolds. Fundam. Prikl. Mat. 16 (2010), no. 5, 3\u201317. V. Bernik, H. Dickinson, J. Yuan, *Inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation on polynomials in ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p$*, Acta Arith. 90 (1999), no. 1, 37\u201348. V.I. Bernik, E.I. Kovalevskaya, *Simultaneous inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation of the values of integral polynomials with respect to Archimedean and non-Archimedean valuations*, Acta Math. Univ. Ostrav. 14:1 (2006), 37\u201342. N. Budarina, D. Dickinson, *Inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation on integer polynomials with non-monotonic error function*, Acta Arith. 160 (2013), no. 3, 243\u2013257. N. Budarina and E. Zorin, *Non-homogeneous analogue of Khintchine\u2019s theorem in divergence case for simultaneous approximations in different metrics*, Siauliai Math. Semin. 4(12) (2009), 21\u201333. Y. Bugeaud, *Approximation by algebraic integers and Hausdorff dimension*, J. Lond. Math. Soc., 65 (2002), pp. 547\u2013559. J. W. S. Cassels, An introduction to Diophantine Approximation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1957. Shreyasi Datta, TIFR thesis, in preparation. H. Dickinson, M. M. Dodson, J. Yuan, *Hausdorff dimension and p-adic Diophantine approximation*, Indag. Math. (N.S.) 10 (1999), no. 3, 337\u2013347. A. Ghosh, *A Khintchine-type theorem for hyperplanes*, J. London Math.Soc. **72**, No.2 (2005), pp. 293\u2013304. A. Ghosh, *Metric Diophantine approximation over a local field of positive characteristic*, Journal of Number Theory, 124 (2007), no. 2, 454\u2013469. A. Ghosh, *Diophantine approximation and the Khintchine-Groshev theorem*, Monatsh. Math **163** (2011), no. 3, 281\u2013299. A. Ghosh, *Diophantine approximation on subspaces of $\\mathbb{R}^n$ and dynamics on homogeneous spaces*, to appear in the Handbook of Group Actions III/IV, Editors, L. Ji, A. Papadopoulos, S. T. Yau. A. Ghosh and A. Marnat, *On Diophantine transference principles*, https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02161. To appear in Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. A. Groshev, *Une th\u00e9or\u00e8me sur les syst\u00e8mes des formes lin\u00e9aires*, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR **9** (1938), pp. 151\u2013152. Alan Haynes, *The metric theory of p-adic approximation*, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2010, no. 1, 18\u201352. A. Khintchine, *Einige S\u00e4tze \u00fcber Kettenbr\u00fcche, mit Anwendungen auf die Theorie der Diophantischen Approximationen*, Math. Ann. **92**, (1924), pp. 115\u2013125. D. Kleinbock, *Extremal subspaces and their submanifolds*, Geom. Funct. Anal **13**, (2003), No 2, pp.437\u2013466. D. Kleinbock, E. Lindenstrauss, B. Weiss, *On fractal measures and Diophantine approximation*, Selecta Math. (N.S.) 10 (2004), no. 4, 479\u2013523. D. Kleinbock and G. A. Margulis, *Flows on homogeneous spaces and Diophantine Approximation on Manifolds*, Ann Math**148**, (1998), pp.339\u2013360. D. Kleinbock and G. Tomanov, *Flows on $S$-arithmetic homogeneous spaces and applications to metric Diophantine approximation*, Comm. Math. Helv. 82 (2007), 519\u2013581. E.I. Kovalevskaya, *A metric theorem on the exact order of approximation of zero by values of integer polynomials in ${\\mathbb{Q}}_p$*, Dokl. Nats. Akad. Nauk Belarusi 43:5 (1999), 34\u201336 (in Russian). S. Lang, *Algebra*, Second edition. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Advanced Book Program, Reading, MA, 1984. E. Lutz, *Sur les approximations diophantiennes lin\u00e9aires P-adiques*, Actualit\u00e9s Sci. Ind., no. 1224, Hermann $\\&$ Cie, Paris, 1955. A. Mohammadi, A. Salehi Golsefidy, *$S$-arithmetic Khintchine-type theorem*, Geom. Funct. Anal. 19 (2009), no. 4, 1147\u20131170. A. Mohammadi, A. Salehi Golsefidy, *Simultaneous Diophantine approximation on non-degenerate p-adic manifolds*, Israel J. Math. 188 (2012), 231\u2013258. W. Schmidt, *Metrische S\u00e4tze \u00fcber simultane Approximation abh\u00e4nginger Gr\u00f6ssen*, Monatsch. Math. 68 (1964), 154\u2013166. W.H. Schikhof, *Ultrametric Calculus. An Introduction to p-adic Analysis*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 4, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984). V. G. Sprind\u017euk, *Achievements and problems in Diophantine Approximation theory*, Russian Math. Surveys **35** (1980), pp. 1\u201380. V. G. Sprind\u017euk, *Metric theory of Diophantine approximations*, John Wiley & Sons, New York-Toronto-London, 1979. A. E. Ustinov, *Inhomogeneous approximations on manifolds in $\\mathbb{Q}_p$*, Vests\u00ef Nats. Akad. Navuk Belarus\u00ef Ser. F\u00efz.-Mat. Navuk 2005, no. 2, 30\u201334, 124. A. E. Ustinov, *Approximation of complex numbers by values of integer polynomials*, Vests\u00ef Nats. Akad. Navuk Belarus\u00ef Ser.F\u00efz.-Mat. Navuk 1 (2006) 9\u201314, 124. Zelo, Dmitrij *Simultaneous approximation to real and $p$-adic numbers*, Thesis (Ph.D.) \u20ac\u201cUniversity of Ottawa (Canada). 2009. 147 pp. ISBN: 978-0494-59539-8 ProQuest LLC\n\n[^1]: Ghosh acknowledges support of a UGC grant and a CEFIPRA grant.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In medical domain, data features often contain missing values. This can create serious bias in the predictive modeling. Typical standard data mining methods often produce poor performance measures. In this paper, we propose a new method to simultaneously classify large datasets and reduce the effects of missing values. The proposed method is based on a multilevel framework of the cost-sensitive SVM and the expected maximization imputation method for missing values, which relies on iterated regression analyses. We compare classification results of multilevel SVM-based algorithms on public benchmark datasets with imbalanced classes and missing values as well as real data in health applications, and show that our multilevel SVM-based method produces fast, and more accurate and robust classification results.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Talayeh Razzaghi\\\n    School of Computing\\\n    Clemson Univeristy\\\n    Clemson, SC 29634\\\n    Email: trazzag@clemson.edu\n- |\n    Oleg Roderick\\\n    Geisinger Health System\\\n    Danville, PA 17822\\\n    Email: oroderick@geisinger.edu\n- |\n    Ilya Safro\\\n    School of Computing\\\n    Clemson Univeristy\\\n    Clemson, SC 29634\\\n    Email: isafro@clemson.edu\n- |\n    Nick Marko\\\n    Geisinger Health System\\\n    Danville, PA 17822\\\n    Email: nmarko@geisinger.edu\nbibliography:\n- 'roderick\\_medical.bib'\n- 'paper.bib'\n- 'ilya.bib'\ntitle: Fast Imbalanced Classification of Healthcare Data with Missing Values\n---\n\n\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- |\n    \\\n    \u00a0\\\n    **\\\n    **\ntitle: '**[Dyson-Schwinger equation constraints on the gluon propagator in BRST quantised QCD]{}**'\n---\n\nSLAC-PUB-17219\n\nThe gluon propagator plays a central role in determining the dynamics of QCD. In this work we demonstrate for BRST quantised QCD that the Dyson-Schwinger equation imposes significant analytic constraints on the structure of this propagator. In particular, we find that these constraints control the appearance of massless components in the gluon spectral density.\n\nIntroduction \\[intro\\]\n======================\n\nUnderstanding the nature of confinement in QCD is crucial for explaining why quarks and gluons are absent from the physical spectrum of the theory\u00a0[@Alkofer_Greensite07]. Although there remains much debate surrounding the precise confinement mechanism, it has been understood for many years that the non-perturbative structure of the gluon propagator plays an important role\u00a0[@Mandula99]. An issue that has received significant focus in the literature is what happens to the propagator in the low momentum *infrared* regime. Motivated by the issues surrounding gauge fixing, Gribov\u00a0[@Gribov78] and Zwanziger\u00a0[@Zwanziger89] proposed a form for the gluon propagator that vanishes in the limit $p^{2} \\rightarrow 0$. Similar forms have also been proposed which suggest that the gluon propagator has an effective mass\u00a0[@Mandula_Ogilvie87]. In order to test both these and other hypotheses, a mixture of non-perturbative numerical and analytic techniques are often employed. In particular, the computation of the gluon propagator using lattice QCD and the Dyson-Schwinger equations remains a very active area of research\u00a0[@Alkofer_vonSmekal01; @Alkofer_Detmold_Fischer_Maris04; @Cucchieri_Mendes_Taurines05; @Cucchieri_Mendes08; @Strauss_Fischer_Kellermann12; @Oliveria_Silva12; @Dudal_Oliveira_Silva14]. Besides confinement, determining the structure of the gluon propagator is also important for describing other non-perturbative phenomena like the dynamics of quark-gluon plasma\u00a0[@Haas_Fister_Pawlowski14], a topic which is currently the focus of significant theoretical and experimental interest at facilities such as ALICE (CERN) and RHIC (Brookhaven).\\\nMany of the approaches to analysing the structure of the gluon propagator involve using the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) quantisation of QCD to work in specific Lorentz covariant gauges. BRST quantisation involves the introduction of additional auxiliary gauge-fixing and ghost degrees of freedom in such a way that the equations of motion are no longer gauge invariant, but remain invariant under a residual BRST symmetry. The physical states are then defined to be those that are annihilated by the conserved charge $Q_{B}$ associated with this symmetry\u00a0[@Nakanishi_Ojima90]. A key feature of BRST quantised QCD is that the space of states no longer possesses a positive-definite inner product, and hence negative norm states are permitted. This has the important implication that the momentum space correlation functions are no longer guaranteed to be non-negative\u00a0[@Bogolubov_Logunov_Oksak90]. Non-negativity violations of the gluon propagator are of particular relevance since this characteristic is often attributed to the absence of gluons from the physical spectrum\u00a0[@Alkofer_vonSmekal01; @Oehme_Zimmermann80_1; @Oehme_Zimmermann80_2; @Cornwall13], and recent numerical studies appear to indicate that these violations do indeed occur\u00a0[@Alkofer_Detmold_Fischer_Maris04; @Cucchieri_Mendes_Taurines05; @Strauss_Fischer_Kellermann12]. Although significant progress has been made in determining the structure of the BRST quantised gluon propagator, its behaviour remains far from understood. Part of the difficulty is that most of this progress has relied on functional techniques such as lattice QCD and the solution of the Dyson-Schwinger equations, both of which have significant uncertainties. A particularly prominant source of uncertainy concerns the non-perturbative definition of BRST symmetry, and whether this quantisation of QCD can in fact be implemented in spite of the Gribov problem\u00a0[@Gribov78; @Zwanziger89].\\\nIn Ref.\u00a0[@Lowdon17_1] a more formal analytic approach was developed in order to determine the most general non-perturbative features of vector boson propagators. This approach involves the application of a rigorous quantum field theory framework, the construction of which is based on a series of physically motivated axioms\u00a0[@Nakanishi_Ojima90; @Bogolubov_Logunov_Oksak90; @Streater_Wightman64; @Haag96; @Strocchi13]. The advantage of this approach is that the axioms are assumed to hold independently of the coupling regime, and this allows genuine non-perturbative features to be derived in a purely analytic manner[^1]. For example, since BRST quantised QCD involves a space of states with an indefinite inner product, this opens up the possiblity that the gluon propagator contains singular terms involving derivatives of $\\delta(p)$\u00a0[@Lowdon17_1], a feature which is indicative of confinement\u00a0[@Strocchi76; @Strocchi78; @Lowdon16]. Nevertheless, it remains an open question as to whether the solutions of the gluon propagator derived using functional methods are actually sensitive to this type of singular behaviour. In this paper we adopt an axiomatic framework in order to provide a complimentary probe of the BRST quantised gluon propagator. Instead of solving the Dyson-Schwinger equation explicitly, we use this equation to derive analytic constraints on the form of this propagator.\n\nThe gluon propagator in QCD {#QCD_prop}\n===========================\n\nBefore exploring the constraints that the Dyson-Schwinger equation imposes on the structure of the BRST quantised gluon propagator, it is important to first outline the dynamical characteristics of this theory, and the explicit form of the Dyson-Schwinger equation itself. The equations of motion of BRST quantised QCD are defined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&(D^{\\nu}F_{\\nu\\mu})^{a} +\\partial_{\\mu}\\Lambda^{a} = gj_{\\mu}^{a} -igf^{abc}\\partial_{\\mu}{\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5muC\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu}^{b}C^{c}, \\hspace{3mm} \\partial^{\\mu}A_{\\mu}^{a} = \\xi\\Lambda^{a}, \\label{eom1} \\\\\n&\\partial^{\\nu}(D_{\\nu}C)^{a}=0, \\hspace{5mm} (D^{\\nu}\\partial_{\\nu}{\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5muC\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu})^{a}=0, \\label{eom2}\\end{aligned}$$ where $C^{a}$ and ${\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5muC\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu}^{a}$ are the ghost and anti-ghost fields, $\\Lambda^{a}$ is an auxiliary field, and $\\xi$ is the renormalised gauge fixing parameter. It follows from Eq.\u00a0(\\[eom1\\]) that the renormalised gluon field satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left[ \\partial^{2}g_{\\mu}^{\\ \\alpha} - \\left(1 - \\frac{1}{\\xi_{0}} \\right)\\partial_{\\mu}\\partial^{\\alpha}  \\right]A_{\\alpha}^{a} = \\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a}, \n\\label{EOM_A}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\xi_{0}$ is the bare gauge fixing parameter and $\\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a}$ has the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a} =   gj_{\\mu}^{a} -igf^{abc}\\partial_{\\mu}{\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5muC\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu}^{b}C^{c} + (Z_{3}^{-1}-1)\\partial_{\\mu}\\Lambda^{a} - igf^{abc}A^{b \\nu}F_{\\nu\\mu}^{c} - gf^{abc}\\partial^{\\nu}(A_{\\nu}^{b}A_{\\mu}^{c}), \\end{aligned}$$ with $Z_{3}$ the gluon field renormalisation constant and $j_{\\mu}^{a}$ the matter current. Furthermore, one assumes that the renormalised fields satisfy the following equal-time commutation relations: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left[\\Lambda^{a}(x),\\Lambda^{b}(y)\\right]_{x_{0}=y_{0}} = 0, \\hspace{5mm} \\left[\\Lambda^{a}(x),A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)\\right]_{x_{0}=y_{0}} = i\\delta^{ab}g_{0\\nu}\\delta(\\mathbf{x}-\\mathbf{y}),  \\label{etcr1} \\\\\n&\\left[A_{\\mu}^{a}(x),A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)\\right]_{x_{0}=y_{0}} = 0, \\hspace{5mm} \\left[F_{0i}^{a}(x),A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)\\right]_{x_{0}=y_{0}} =  i\\delta^{ab}g_{i\\nu}Z_{3}^{-1}\\delta(\\mathbf{x}-\\mathbf{y}). \\label{etcr2}\\end{aligned}$$ Since the gluon propagator is defined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle 0|T\\{ A_{\\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)\\}|0\\rangle  = \\theta(x^{0}-y^{0}) \\langle 0| A_{\\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)|0\\rangle + \\theta(y^{0}-x^{0})\\langle 0| A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)A_{\\mu}^{a}(x)|0\\rangle,\n\\label{t_ordered_expl}\\end{aligned}$$ one can directly apply the dynamical conditions in Eqs.\u00a0(\\[EOM\\_A\\]),\u00a0(\\[etcr1\\]) and\u00a0(\\[etcr2\\]) to this definition, and in doing so this implies the Dyson-Schwinger equation $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left[ \\partial^{2}g_{\\mu}^{\\ \\alpha} - \\left(1 - \\frac{1}{\\xi_{0}} \\right)\\partial_{\\mu}\\partial^{\\alpha}  \\right]\\langle 0|T\\{ A_{\\alpha}^{a}(x)A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)\\}|0\\rangle = i\\delta^{ab} g_{\\mu  \\nu}Z_{3}^{-1} \\delta(x-y) + \\langle 0|T\\{ \\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)\\}|0\\rangle,\n\\label{SDE_x}\\end{aligned}$$ which in momentum space has the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n-\\left[ p^{2}g_{\\mu}^{\\ \\alpha} - \\left(1 - \\frac{1}{\\xi_{0}} \\right)p_{\\mu}p^{\\alpha}  \\right]\\widehat{D}_{\\alpha\\nu}^{ab\\, F}(p) = i\\delta^{ab} g_{\\mu  \\nu}Z_{3}^{-1} + \\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p),\n\\label{SDE_p}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p):= \\mathcal{F}\\left[\\langle 0|T\\{ \\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)\\}|0\\rangle  \\right]$. In what follows we will demonstrate that Eq.\u00a0(\\[SDE\\_p\\]) imposes non-trivial analytic constraints on the structure of the gluon propagator.\\\nIn order to explicitly understand the constraints imposed on the gluon propagator $\\widehat{D}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab\\, F}(p)$ by Eq.\u00a0(\\[SDE\\_p\\]), one must consider the spectral representation of both $\\widehat{D}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab\\, F}(p)$ and the current propagator $\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$ involving the non-conserved current $\\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a}$. In Ref.\u00a0[@Lowdon17_1] it was shown from Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eom1\\]),\u00a0(\\[etcr1\\]) and\u00a0(\\[etcr2\\]) that the momentum space gluon propagator has the general form $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widehat{D}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab\\, F}(p) &=   i\\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{ds}{2\\pi} \\, \\frac{\\left[ g_{\\mu\\nu}\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) + p_{\\mu}p_{\\nu}\\rho_{2}^{ab}(s) \\right]}{p^{2}-s +i\\epsilon} -i \\,g_{\\mu 0}g_{\\nu 0} \\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{ds}{2\\pi} \\, \\rho_{2}^{ab}(s) \\nonumber \\\\\n & \\hspace{10mm} +\\sum_{n=0}^{N} \\left[ c_{n}^{ab} \\, g_{\\mu\\nu} (\\partial^{2})^{n} + d_{n}^{ab} \\partial_{\\mu}\\partial_{\\nu}(\\partial^{2})^{n-1}\\right]\\delta(p),\n\\label{general_propagator_QCD_mom}\\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{n}^{ab}$ and $d_{n}^{ab}$ are complex coefficients which are linearly related[^2] for $n \\geq 1$, and the spectral densities $\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$ and $\\rho_{2}^{ab}(s)$ satisfy the following conditions\u00a0[@Lowdon17_1] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) + s \\rho_{2}^{ab}(s) = -2\\pi\\xi\\delta^{ab}\\delta(s), \\hspace{2mm} \\int_{0}^{\\infty} ds  \\, \\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)  = -2\\pi\\delta^{ab} Z_{3}^{-1}, \\hspace{2mm} \\int_{0}^{\\infty} ds  \\, \\rho_{2}^{ab}(s)  = 0.\n\\label{spectr_rel_gluon}\\end{aligned}$$ The conditions in Eq.\u00a0(\\[spectr\\_rel\\_gluon\\]) demonstrate that the gluon propagator contains only one independent spectral density[^3], and that the non-covariant term, which follows from the definition of the time-ordered product in Eq.\u00a0(\\[t\\_ordered\\_expl\\]), actually vanishes due to the sum rule for $\\rho_{2}^{ab}(s)$.\\\nNow one can consider the structure of the propagator $\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$. The first constraint on this propagator arises from the fact that one can write the equations of motion for the gluon field as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial^{\\nu}F_{\\nu\\mu}^{a} = gJ_{\\mu}^{a} + \\left\\{ Q_{B},(D_{\\mu}{\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5muC\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu})^{a} \\right\\},\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\partial^{\\mu}J_{\\mu}^{a}=0$, and $Q_{B}$ is the BRST operator\u00a0[@Nakanishi_Ojima90]. By combining this equation with Eq.\u00a0(\\[eom1\\]), the divergence of the current $\\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a}$ can be written $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial^{\\mu}\\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a} =  \\left\\{Q_{B},Z_{3}^{-1}\\partial^{2}{\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5muC\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu}^{a} +(\\partial^{\\mu}D_{\\mu}{\\mkern 1.5mu\\overline{\\mkern-1.5muC\\mkern-1.5mu}\\mkern 1.5mu})^{a}\\right\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Using Eq.\u00a0(\\[eom2\\]) together with the fact that $Q_{B}|0\\rangle=0$, it then follows that the correlator $\\langle 0| \\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)|0\\rangle$ satisfies the condition $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial^{\\mu}_{x}\\partial^{\\nu}_{y}\\langle 0| \\mathcal{J}_{\\mu}^{a}(x)A_{\\nu}^{b}(y)|0\\rangle = 0.\n\\label{vanish}\\end{aligned}$$ Using an analogous analysis as in the case of the gluon propagator\u00a0[@Lowdon17_1], this condition implies that $\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$ has the same overall structural form $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p) &=   i\\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{ds}{2\\pi} \\, \\frac{\\left[ g_{\\mu\\nu}\\widetilde{\\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) + p_{\\mu}p_{\\nu}\\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) \\right]}{p^{2}-s +i\\epsilon}  +\\sum_{n=0}^{\\widetilde{N}} \\left[ C_{n}^{ab} \\, g_{\\mu\\nu} (\\partial^{2})^{n} + D_{n}^{ab} \\partial_{\\mu}\\partial_{\\nu}(\\partial^{2})^{n-1}\\right]\\delta(p),\n\\label{J_propagator_QCD_mom}\\end{aligned}$$ where $C_{n}^{ab}$ and $D_{n}^{ab}$ are complex parameters which are related in the same manner as $c_{n}^{ab}$ and $d_{n}^{ab}$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[general\\_propagator\\_QCD\\_mom\\]). Moreover, Eq.\u00a0(\\[vanish\\]) implies that the spectral densities of this correlator are also not independent, and are in fact related as follows $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\widetilde{\\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) + s \\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) = \\widetilde{C}^{ab}\\delta(s), \\label{mix_rel}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\widetilde{C}^{ab}$ is a constant coefficient. In order to determine $\\widetilde{C}^{ab}$, one can consider the contracted propagator expression $p^{\\mu}p^{\\nu}\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$, which due to Eqs.\u00a0(\\[J\\_propagator\\_QCD\\_mom\\]) and\u00a0(\\[mix\\_rel\\]) can be written $$\\begin{aligned}\np^{\\mu}p^{\\nu}\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p) = \\frac{i}{2\\pi}p^{2}\\int_{0}^{\\infty} ds \\, \\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) + \\frac{i}{2\\pi}\\widetilde{C}^{ab}.\n\\label{contr}\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$ is defined by Eq.\u00a0(\\[SDE\\_p\\]), contracting this equation with $p^{\\mu}p^{\\nu}$ gives an explicit expression for $p^{\\mu}p^{\\nu}\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$. In doing so, it follows from the Slavnov-Taylor identity[^4] that $$\\begin{aligned}\n p^{\\mu}p^{\\nu}\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p) =0, \\end{aligned}$$ which in comparison with Eq.\u00a0(\\[contr\\]) therefore implies the spectral density constraints $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\widetilde{\\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) + s \\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) = 0 \\hspace{5mm} (\\widetilde{C}^{ab}=0), \\label{constr_rho3_1} \\\\\n& \\hspace{10mm} \\int_{0}^{\\infty}ds \\, \\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) = 0.\n\\label{constr_rho3_2}\\end{aligned}$$ \u00a0\\\nHaving derived the spectral structure of both the gluon and current propagators, one can now determine the explicit constraints imposed by Eq.\u00a0(\\[SDE\\_p\\]). Inserting Eqs.\u00a0(\\[general\\_propagator\\_QCD\\_mom\\]) and\u00a0(\\[J\\_propagator\\_QCD\\_mom\\]) into Eq.\u00a0(\\[SDE\\_p\\]), and separately equating[^5] the purely singular terms involving derivatives of $\\delta(p)$, one obtains $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left[ -p^{2}g_{\\mu}^{\\ \\alpha} + \\left(1 - \\frac{1}{\\xi_{0}} \\right)p_{\\mu}p^{\\alpha}  \\right]\\left[\\sum_{n=0}^{N} \\left[ c_{n}^{ab} \\, g_{\\alpha\\nu} (\\partial^{2})^{n} + d_{n}^{ab} \\partial_{\\alpha}\\partial_{\\nu}(\\partial^{2})^{n-1}\\right]\\delta(p) \\right] \\nonumber \\\\\n& \\hspace{50mm} = \\sum_{n=0}^{\\widetilde{N}} \\left[ C_{n}^{ab} \\, g_{\\mu\\nu} (\\partial^{2})^{n} + D_{n}^{ab} \\partial_{\\mu}\\partial_{\\nu}(\\partial^{2})^{n-1}\\right]\\delta(p), \\label{constr_2} \\\\\n&\\left[ -p^{2}g_{\\mu}^{\\ \\alpha} + \\left(1 - \\frac{1}{\\xi_{0}} \\right)p_{\\mu}p^{\\alpha}  \\right]\\left[i\\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{ds}{2\\pi} \\, \\frac{\\left[ g_{\\alpha\\nu}\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) + p_{\\alpha}p_{\\nu}\\rho_{2}^{ab}(s) \\right]}{p^{2}-s +i\\epsilon} \\right]  \\nonumber \\\\\n& \\hspace{50mm} = i\\delta^{ab} g_{\\mu  \\nu}Z_{3}^{-1} + \\left[ i\\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{ds}{2\\pi} \\, \\frac{\\left[ g_{\\mu\\nu}\\widetilde{\\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) + p_{\\mu}p_{\\nu}\\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) \\right]}{p^{2}-s +i\\epsilon} \\right]. \\label{constr_1}\\end{aligned}$$ Expanding out the left-hand-side of Eq.\u00a0(\\[constr\\_2\\]) it follows that the coefficients $c_{n}^{ab}$ and $d_{n}^{ab}$ are directly related to $C_{n}^{ab}$ and $D_{n}^{ab}$. In particular, one has the relation $$\\begin{aligned}\nc_{n+1}^{ab} = -\\frac{(2n+5)}{4(2n+3)(n+1)(n+3)}C_{n}^{ab}, \\hspace{5mm} n \\geq 0  \\label{c_constr_rel} \\end{aligned}$$ Since both $c_{n}^{ab}$, $d_{n}^{ab}$, and $C_{n}^{ab}$, $D_{n}^{ab}$ are separately linearly related, Eq.\u00a0(\\[c\\_constr\\_rel\\]) implies that all of these parameters must be linearly related to one another. The significance of these relations is that they demonstrate that the coefficients of terms involving derivatives of $\\delta(p)$ in the gluon propagator ($c_{n}^{ab}$ and $d_{n}^{ab}$ for $n \\geq 1$) are proportional to the coefficients of $\\delta(p)$ and derivatives of $\\delta(p)$ in $\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$. In particular, for $n=0$ Eq.\u00a0(\\[c\\_constr\\_rel\\]) implies that if $\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$ has a non-vanishing $\\delta(p)$ term, this is sufficient to prove that the gluon propagator contains a $\\partial^{2}\\delta(p)$ component. This characteristic is particularly relevant in the context of confinement, since the appearance of singular terms involving non-vanishing derivatives of $\\delta(p)$ is related to the violation of the cluster decomposition property\u00a0[@Strocchi76; @Strocchi78; @Lowdon16; @Nakanishi_Ojima90; @Roberts_Williams_Krein91]. Eq.\u00a0(\\[c\\_constr\\_rel\\]) therefore demonstrates that the singular structure of the interaction current propagator $\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$ plays an important role in understanding this phenomenon.\\\nIn order to derive the constraints imposed by Eq.\u00a0(\\[constr\\_1\\]), one must expand this equation and then separately equate the terms on both sides which depend on $g_{\\mu\\nu}$ and $p_{\\mu}p_{\\mu}$. In doing so, this implies the relations $$\\begin{aligned}\n&-p^{2}\\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{ds}{2\\pi} \\, \\frac{\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)}{p^{2}-s +i\\epsilon} = \\delta^{ab} Z_{3}^{-1} + \\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{ds}{2\\pi} \\, \\frac{\\widetilde{\\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s)}{p^{2}-s +i\\epsilon}, \\label{constr_1_1} \\\\\n&\\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{ds}{2\\pi} \\, \\frac{\\left(1 - \\frac{1}{\\xi_{0}} \\right)\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)  - \\frac{1}{\\xi_{0}}p^{2}\\rho_{2}^{ab}(s)     }{p^{2}-s +i\\epsilon} =  \\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{ds}{2\\pi} \\, \\frac{\\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s)}{p^{2}-s +i\\epsilon}. \\label{constr_1_2}\\end{aligned}$$ Using the constraints in Eq.\u00a0(\\[spectr\\_rel\\_gluon\\]), it follows from Eq.\u00a0(\\[constr\\_1\\_1\\]) that $\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$ satisfies the equality $$\\begin{aligned}\ns\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) + \\widetilde{\\rho}_{1}^{ab}(s) = 0,\n\\label{rho1_c}\\end{aligned}$$ which in combination with Eq.\u00a0(\\[constr\\_rho3\\_1\\]) implies $$\\begin{aligned}\ns\\left[\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) - \\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s)\\right] = 0.\n\\label{cond_zero}\\end{aligned}$$ In order to solve this equation it is important to recognise that because spectral densities are distributions, not functions, the solution is not necessarily continuous[^6]. In fact, the general solution of Eq.\u00a0(\\[cond\\_zero\\]) has the form: $\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) - \\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s) = A^{ab}\\delta(s)$, where $A^{ab}$ is a constant coefficient\u00a0[@Bogolubov_Logunov_Oksak90]. By applying the integral constraints in Eqs.\u00a0(\\[spectr\\_rel\\_gluon\\]) and\u00a0(\\[constr\\_rho3\\_2\\]) this fixes the coefficient to: $A^{ab}= -2\\pi \\delta^{ab}Z_{3}^{-1}$, and hence $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s) = -2\\pi \\delta^{ab}Z_{3}^{-1}\\delta(s) + \\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s).  \\label{constr_rho1} \\end{aligned}$$ Applying an analogous approach to Eq.\u00a0(\\[constr\\_1\\_2\\]) subsequently leads to the following constraint $$\\begin{aligned}\ns\\rho_{2}^{ab}(s) = 2\\pi \\delta^{ab}\\left( Z_{3}^{-1} -\\xi \\right) \\delta(s) - \\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s). \\label{constr_rho2}\\end{aligned}$$ \u00a0\\\nIn general, Eqs.\u00a0(\\[constr\\_rho1\\]) and\u00a0(\\[constr\\_rho2\\]) demonstrate that the behaviour of the gluon spectral densities is completely determined by the spectral densities of the current propagator $\\widehat{J}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab}(p)$. Moreover, Eq.\u00a0(\\[constr\\_rho1\\]) implies that $\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$ contains an explicit massless contribution, which has an overall $Z_{3}^{-1}$ coefficient. Since $Z_{3}^{-1}$ is expected to vanish in Landau gauge\u00a0[@Alkofer_vonSmekal01], massless gluons must therefore necessarily be absent from the spectrum in this gauge. However, because $Z_{3}^{-1}$ is gauge dependent, the absence of a massless gluon component is not necessarily guaranteed in other gauges[^7]. In the literature\u00a0[@Alkofer_Detmold_Fischer_Maris04; @Cucchieri_Mendes_Taurines05; @Strauss_Fischer_Kellermann12; @Dudal_Oliveira_Silva14; @Cornwall13] it is often argued that the violation of non-negativity of $\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$ in Landau gauge as a result of the sum rule[^8]: $\\int ds \\, \\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)=0$ is the reason why gluons do not appear in the spectrum. However, from the structure of Eq.\u00a0(\\[constr\\_rho1\\]) it is apparent that (continuous) non-negativity violations can only arise from the component $\\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}^{ab}(s)$, which has vanishing integral \\[Eq.\u00a0(\\[constr\\_rho3\\_2\\])\\]. Since the analogous component $\\widetilde{\\rho}_{2}(s)$ of the photon spectral density in QED turns out to also have vanishing integral, this implies that potential non-negativity violations are not QCD specific, and casts doubt on the hypothesis that these violations in Landau gauge are the reason why gluons are absent from the spectrum.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nIn this work we have demonstrated for the first time that the Dyson-Schwinger equation imposes non-trivial analytic constraints on the structure of the gluon propagator in BRST quantised QCD. These constraints imply that the gluon spectral density explicitly contains a massless component, but that the coefficient of this component is gauge-dependent. As well as the purely theoretical relevance of this result, these constraints could also provide important input for improving existing parametrisations of the gluon propagator.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nI thank Reinhard Alkofer for useful discussions and input. This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation under contract P2ZHP2\\_168622, and by the DOE under contract DE-AC02-76SF00515.\n\n[99]{}\n\nR. Alkofer and J. Greensite, \u201cQuark confinement: the hard problem of hadron physics,\u201d *J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys.* **34**, S3 (2007).\n\nJ. E. Mandula, \u201cThe gluon propagator,\u201d *Phys. Rep.* **315**, 273 (1999).\n\nV. N. Gribov, \u201cQuantization of Non-abelian Gauge Theories,\u201d *Nucl. Phys. B* **139**, 1 (1978).\n\nD. Zwanziger, \u201cLocal and renormalizable action from the Gribov horizon,\u201d *Nucl. Phys. B* **323**, 513 (1989).\n\nJ. E. Mandula and M. Ogilvie, \u201cThe gluon is massive: A lattice calculation of the gluon propagator in the Landau gauge,\u201d *Phys. Lett. B* **185**, 127 (1987).\n\nR. Alkofer and L. von Smekal, \u201cThe Infrared behavior of QCD Green\u2019s functions: Confinement dynamical symmetry breaking, and hadrons as relativistic bound states,\u201d *Phys. Rept.* **353**, 281 (2001).\n\nR. Alkofer, W. Detmold, C. S. Fischer and P. Maris, \u201cAnalytic properties of the Landau gauge gluon and quark propagators,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **70**, 014014 (2004).\n\nA. Cucchieri, T. Mendes, and A. R. Taurines, \u201cPositivity violation for the lattice Landau gluon propagator,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **71**, 051902(R) (2005).\n\nA. Cucchieri and T. Mendes, \u201cConstraints on the IR behavior of the gluon propagator in Yang-Mills theories,\u201d *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **100**, 241601 (2008).\n\nS. Strauss, C. S. Fischer and C. Kellermann, \u201cAnalytic Structure of the Landau-Gauge Gluon Propagator,\u201d *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **109**, 252001 (2012).\n\nO. Oliveira and P. J. Silva, \u201cThe lattice Landau gauge gluon propagator: lattice spacing and volume dependence,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **86**, 114513 (2012).\n\nD. Dudal, O. Oliveira and P. J. Silva, \u201cK\u00e4ll\u00e9n-Lehmann spectroscopy for (un)physical degrees of freedom,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **89**, 014010 (2014).\n\nM. Haas, L. Fister and J. M. Pawlowski, \u201cGluon spectral functions and transport coefficients in Yang-Mills theory,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **90**, 091501 (2014).\n\nN. Nakanishi and I. Ojima, *Covariant Operator Formalism of Gauge Theories and Quantum Gravity*, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd (1990).\n\nN. N. Bogolubov, A. A. Logunov and A. I. Oksak, *General Principles of Quantum Field Theory*, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1990).\n\nR. Oehme and W. Zimmermann, \u201cQuark and gluon propagators in quantum chromodynamics,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **21**, 471 (1980).\n\nR. Oehme and W. Zimmermann, \u201cGauge field propagator and the number of fermion fields,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **21**, 1661 (1980).\n\nJ. M. Cornwall, \u201cPositivity violations in QCD,\u201d *Mod. Phys. Lett. A* **28**, 1330035 (2013).\n\nP. Lowdon, \u201cThe non-perturbative structure of the photon and gluon propagators,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **96**, 065013 (2017).\n\nR. F. Streater and A. S. Wightman, *PCT, Spin and Statistics, and all that*, W. A. Benjamin, Inc. (1964).\n\nR. Haag, *Local Quantum Physics*, Springer-Verlag (1996).\n\nF. Strocchi, *An Introduction to Non-Perturbative Foundations of Quantum Field Theory*, Oxford University Press (2013).\n\nP. Lowdon, \u201cSpectral density constraints in quantum field theory,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **92**, 045023 (2015).\n\nF. Strocchi, \u201cLocality, charges and quark confinement,\u201d *Phys. Lett. B* **62**, 60 (1976).\n\nF. Strocchi, \u201cLocal and covariant gauge quantum theories. Cluster property, superselection rules, and the infrared problem,\u201d *Phys. Rev. D* **17**, 2010 (1978).\n\nP. Lowdon, \u201cConditions on the violation of the cluster decomposition property in QCD,\u201d *J. Math. Phys.* **57**, 102302 (2016).\n\nC. D. Roberts, A. G. Williams and G. Krein, \u201cOn the Implications of Confinement,\u201d *Int. J. Mod. Phys. A* [**[7]{}**]{}, 5607 (1992).\n\n[^1]: Analytic approaches to constraining the non-perturbative structure of propagators have been pursued before, but have often relied on additional input such as the operator product expansion\u00a0[@Lowdon15_1].\n\n[^2]: For $n=0$, $c_{n}^{ab}$ is unconstrained but $d_{n}^{ab}$ vanishes\u00a0[@Lowdon17_1]. As previously discussed, the possibility of non-vanishing terms involving derivatives of $\\delta(p)$ arises because the BRST space of states has an indefinite inner product.\n\n[^3]: Subtleties can arise if one attempts to express the gluon propagator exclusively in terms of $\\rho_{1}^{ab}(s)$\u00a0[@Lowdon17_1], and this is why we will keep both spectral densities explicit in the proceeding analysis.\n\n[^4]: In this notation, the Slavnov-Taylor identity has the form $p^{\\mu}p^{\\nu}\\widehat{D}_{\\mu\\nu}^{ab\\, F}(p) = -i\\xi\\delta^{ab}$.\n\n[^5]: Since the terms involving deriviatives of $\\delta(p)$ have support only at $p=0$, whereas the other terms are defined to have support outside $p=0$ (in the closed forward light cone)\u00a0[@Bogolubov_Logunov_Oksak90], this justifies why these terms can be separately equated.\n\n[^6]: See Ref.\u00a0[@Lowdon17_1] for a general discussion of this issue.\n\n[^7]: Performing the same analytic procedure for the photon propagator would also result in a massless spectral density component with a $Z_{3}^{-1}$ prefactor, where now $Z_{3}$ is the photon field renormalisation constant, which is gauge invariant.\n\n[^8]: This sum rule is often referred to as the Oehme-Zimmermann superconvergence relation\u00a0[@Oehme_Zimmermann80_1; @Oehme_Zimmermann80_2].\n"}
-{"text": "---\ntitle: 'Precise Measurements of Branching Fractions for $\\dsp$ Meson Decays to Two Pseudoscalar Mesons'\n---\n\nINTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nAmong the hadronic decays of the strange-charmed meson $D_s^+$, the theoretical treatment based on QCD-inspired models of its decays into two pseudoscalar mesons ($\\dstopp$) is the cleanest\u00a0[@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011]. Precision measurements of these decay rates can provide crucial calibrations to different theoretical models\u00a0[@Cheng:2019ggx; @Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012; @Di; @Wang2017]. For each decay branching fraction (BF) listed in Table\u00a0\\[tab:results\\_BFs\\_theo\\], the precision of current measurements listed by the Particle Data Group (PDG)\u00a0[@pdg2018] is still not good enough to test theoretical models. Hence, more precise and independent measurements are desired to further improve our understanding of QCD dynamics in charm physics.\n\nIn 2019, LHCb discovered $\\emph{CP}$ violation in $D^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-$ and $D^0\\to K^+K^-$ decays with a significance of 5.3$\\sigma$\u00a0[@Aaij:2019kcg], providing stringent constraints on theoretical approaches to $\\emph{CP}$ violation in the charm sector\u00a0[@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012]. For the strange-charmed meson $D_s^+$, there are theoretical predictions for the $\\emph{CP}$ asymmetries of the singly Cabibbo-suppressed (SCS) decay modes, which rely on the potential effect of SU(3) symmetry breaking\u00a0[@Cheng:2019ggx; @Buccella:2019kpn]. However, the current world average results, as shown in Table\u00a0\\[tab:results\\_BFs\\_theo\\], suffer from large uncertainties and are thus insensitive to SU(3) breaking. More precise measurements of the BFs for the SCS modes in $\\dstopp$ will help to explore SU(3) symmetry breaking in $D_s^+$ decays\u00a0[@Cheng:2019ggx; @Buccella:2019kpn]. As a result, more reliable theoretical predictions of $\\emph{CP}$ asymmetries in the $D_s^+$ SCS hadronic decays can be achieved.\n\nIn this work, we measure the BFs for seven two-body hadronic decays $\\dstopp$: $\\dstoketaprim$, $\\pietaprim$, $\\keta$, $\\pieta$, $\\kpipi$, $\\pipipi$ and $\\kpiz$. These decay modes were previously measured by CLEO\u00a0[@cleo2008; @cleo2010; @cleo2013]. The analysis is carried out in the process of $e^+e^-\\to D_s^+D_s^{*-} + c.c.\\to \\gamma D_s^+ D_s^-$ based on data samples collected at the center-of-mass energies $\\sqrt{s}$ = 4.178, 4.189, 4.199, 4.209, 4.219 and 4.226\u00a0$\\gev$, corresponding to the integrated luminosities of 3189.0, 526.7, 526.0, 517.1, 514.6 and 1091.7\u00a0pb$^{-1}$, respectively\u00a0[@Ablikim:2015zaa; @Ablikim:2015nan].\n\nA partial reconstruction technique is adopted: only one $D_s^{\\pm}$, decaying into the $PP^{\\,\\prime}$ mode, is detected along with a soft photon from $D_s^{*\\pm}(D_s^{*\\mp})$; the other $D_s^{\\mp}$ is not used. The BFs are measured relative to the normalization mode $D_s^+\\to K^+K^-\\pi^+$. In the context, charge conjugate modes are always implied, unless explicitly mentioned.\n\n[c|c c c c c c c]{} & && & & &\\\n&&SU(3)&\n\n  ----------------\n   SU(3)-breaking\n  ----------------\n\n&&&&\\\n$\\kaon^+\\eta'$ & $1.8\\pm0.6$ &\n\n  ---------------\n   $1.23\\pm0.06$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $1.49\\pm0.08$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $1.07\\pm0.17$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  -------------\n   $1.4\\pm0.4$\n  -------------\n\n& $1.92$ &\n\n  -------------\n   $3.1\\pm0.4$\n  -------------\n\n\\\n$\\eta'\\pi^+$ & $39.4\\pm2.5$ & - & - &\n\n  --------------\n   $38.2\\pm3.6$\n  --------------\n\n&\n\n  ----------\n   $46\\pm6$\n  ----------\n\n& $34.4$ &\n\n  --------------\n   $46.7\\pm6.2$\n  --------------\n\n\\\n$\\kaon^+\\eta$ & $1.77\\pm0.35$ &\n\n  ---------------\n   $0.91\\pm0.03$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $0.86\\pm0.03$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $0.78\\pm0.09$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $1.76\\pm0.36$\n  ---------------\n\n& $1.00$ &\n\n  ---------------\n   $0.91\\pm0.20$\n  ---------------\n\n\\\n$\\eta\\pi^+$ & $17.0\\pm0.9$ & - & - &\n\n  --------------\n   $18.2\\pm3.2$\n  --------------\n\n&\n\n  --------------\n   $18.4\\pm1.5$\n  --------------\n\n& $16.5$ &\n\n  --------------\n   $19.6\\pm4.4$\n  --------------\n\n\\\n$\\kaon^+\\ks$ & $15.0\\pm0.5$ & - & - &\n\n  ----------------\n   $14.85\\pm3.20$\n  ----------------\n\n&\n\n  --------------\n   $14.9\\pm0.8$\n  --------------\n\n& $15.0$ &\n\n  --------------\n   $15.0\\pm1.6$\n  --------------\n\n\\\n$\\ks\\pi^+$ & $1.22\\pm0.06$ &\n\n  ---------------\n   $1.20\\pm0.04$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $1.27\\pm0.04$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  -----------------\n   $1.365\\pm0.260$\n  -----------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $1.26\\pm0.27$\n  ---------------\n\n& $1.055$ &\n\n  ---------------\n   $1.04\\pm0.13$\n  ---------------\n\n\\\n$\\kaon^+\\pi^{0}$ & $0.63\\pm0.21$ &\n\n  ---------------\n   $0.86\\pm0.04$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $0.56\\pm0.02$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $0.86\\pm0.09$\n  ---------------\n\n&\n\n  ---------------\n   $0.62\\pm0.23$\n  ---------------\n\n& $0.67$ &\n\n  ---------------\n   $0.69\\pm0.03$\n  ---------------\n\n\\\n\nBESIII DETECTOR AND MONTE CARLO SIMULATION\n==========================================\n\nThe BESIII detector is a magnetic spectrometer\u00a0[@Ablikim:2009aa] located at BEPCII\u00a0[@Yu:IPAC2016-TUYA01]. The cylindrical core of the BESIII detector consists of a helium-based main drift chamber (MDC), a plastic scintillator time-of-flight system (TOF), and a CsI(Tl) electromagnetic calorimeter (EMC), which are all enclosed in a superconducting solenoidal magnet providing a 1.0\u00a0T magnetic field. The solenoid is supported by an octagonal flux-return yoke with resistive plate counter muon tracker modules interleaved with steel. The acceptance of charged particles and photons is 93% over $4\\pi$ solid angle. The charged-particle momentum resolution at $1~{\\rm GeV}/c$ is $0.5\\%$, and the ionization energy loss\u00a0$\\dedx$ resolution is $6\\%$ for the electrons from Bhabha scattering. The EMC measures photon energies with a resolution of $2.5\\%$ ($5\\%$) at $1$\u00a0GeV in the barrel (end cap) region. The time resolution of the TOF barrel part is 68\u00a0ps, while that of the end cap part is 110\u00a0ps. The end cap TOF system was upgraded in 2015 with multi-gap resistive plate chamber technology, providing a time resolution of 60\u00a0ps\u00a0[@etof]. Only the 4.226 GeV data was taken before this upgrade.\n\nSimulated data samples, produced with the [geant4]{}-based\u00a0[@geant4] Monte Carlo (MC) package which includes the geometric description of the BESIII detector and the detector response, are used to determine the detection efficiency and to estimate the backgrounds. The simulation includes the beam energy spread and initial state radiation in the $e^+e^-$ annihilations modelled with the generator [kkmc]{}\u00a0[@ref:kkmc]. In order to study the backgrounds, generic MC samples consisting of open-charm states, radiative return to $J/\\psi$ and $\\psi(2S)$, and continuum processes of $q\\bar{q}~(q=u, d, s)$, along with Bhabha scattering, $\\mu^+\\mu^-$, $\\tau^+\\tau^-$, and $\\gamma\\gamma$ events are generated. The known decay modes are modeled with [evtgen]{}\u00a0[@ref:evtgen] using BFs taken from PDG\u00a0[@pdg2018], and the remaining unknown decays from the charmonium states are treated with [lundcharm]{}\u00a0[@ref:lundcharm]. Final state radiation (FSR) from charged final state particles is incorporated with the [photos]{} package\u00a0[@photos]. The signal MC samples of $\\ee\\to D_s^{*\\pm}D_s^{\\mp}$ with a $\\dsp$ meson decaying to the signal decay modes together with a $\\dsm$ decaying inclusively are generated with [ConExc]{}\u00a0[@Ping:2013jka].\n\nMEASUREMENT METHOD {#sec:method}\n==================\n\nIn this analysis, a candidate $\\dsp$ meson is reconstructed by the combination of the detected final-state particles. With current precision, $\\emph{CP}$ violation is negligible, which means the BFs for $\\dsp$ decays to the mode $i^+$, $\\mathcal{B}^{i^+}\\equiv\\mathcal{B}(D_s^+ \\to i^+)$, and for $\\dsm$ decays to the mode $i^-$, $\\mathcal{B}^{i^-}$, are equal. Therefore, we denote $\\mathcal{B}^{i^+}=\\mathcal{B}^{i^-}=\\mathcal{B}^{i}$. The yield, $n^{i}$, of the observed $\\dsp\\to i$ signal events at all six energy points can be written as $$n^{i}=2N^{D_s^{*+}D_s^{-}} \\cdot\\mathcal{B}^i\\cdot\\mathcal{B}_{inter}^{i}\\cdot \\overline{\\varepsilon}^i,\n\\label{eq:signal}$$ where $N^{D_s^{*+}D_s^{-}}$ is the total number of $D_s^{*+}D_s^{-}$ pairs produced in all the data samples. For mode $i$, $\\mathcal{B}_{inter}^i$ is the product BFs of the involved intermediate states ($\\eta'$, $\\eta$, $\\ks$ and $\\piz$), and $\\overline{\\varepsilon}^i$ is average detection efficiency for the whole data set, which is given as $$\\overline{\\varepsilon}^i = \\frac{ \\sum\\limits_{k=1}^6  L_{k}\\cdot\\sigma_{k} \\cdot \\varepsilon_k^i}{\\sum\\limits_{k=1}^6L_{k} \\cdot \\sigma_{k}}.\n\\label{eq:eff_weight}$$ Here, $L_{k}$ is the integrated luminosity, $\\sigma_{k}$ is the observed cross section and $\\varepsilon_k^i$ is the detection efficiency at the $k$-th energy point.\n\nThe absolute BF of the normalization mode decay, $\\dstokkpi$, is denoted by $\\mathcal{B}^{\\kaon^+\\kaon^-\\pi^+}$ and is taken from PDG\u00a0[@pdg2018]. Based on Eq.\u00a0, the relative BF for the signal mode $D_s^+\\to i$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\emph{$R^{i}$}=\\frac{\\mathcal{B}^i}{\\mathcal{B}^{K^+K^-\\pi^+}}= \\frac{n^i \\cdot \\overline{\\varepsilon}^{K^+K^-\\pi^+}}{n^{K^+K^-\\pi^+} \\cdot \\overline{\\varepsilon}^i \\cdot \\mathcal{B}^i_{inter}}\\,.\n\\label{eq:relative_ratio}\n\\end{aligned}$$ The absolute BF $\\mathcal{B}^{i}$ is obtained by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathcal{B}^i=R^i\\cdot\\mathcal{B}^{K^+K^-\\pi^+}.\n\\end{aligned}$$\n\nEVENT SELECTION {#sec:event_selection}\n===============\n\nCharged tracks are reconstructed from hits in the MDC. Except for the tracks used to reconstruct the $\\ks$ meson, the distances of closest approach to the interaction point are required to satisfy $R_{xy}<1.0$\u00a0cm in the $xy$ plane perpendicular to the beam direction and $R_z<10.0$\u00a0cm along the average beam direction. The track polar angle $\\theta$ must satisfy $|\\costht|<0.93$. For particle identification\u00a0(PID) of charged tracks, measurements of $\\dedx$ and the flight time measured by the TOF are combined to form a likelihood $L(h)$ ($h=\\pi, K$) for each hadron hypothesis. Tracks are identified as charged pions when the PID likelihoods of pions are larger than those of kaons, $L(\\pi)>L(K)$, while tracks with $L(K)>L(\\pi)$ are identified as kaons.\n\nShower clusters with no association to any charged tracks in the EMC crystals will be identified as photon candidates when the following requirements are fulfilled: the measured EMC time is within $0\\leqslant t \\leqslant 700$ ns of the event start time to suppress the electronic noise and showers unrelated to the events; the deposited energy is larger than 25\u00a0$\\mev$ in the barrel\u00a0($|\\costht|<0.80$) and larger than 50\u00a0$\\mev$ in the end cap\u00a0($0.86<|\\costht|<0.92$). Additionally, the angle between a photon candidate and the nearest charged track must be larger than 10$^\\circ$ to prevent contamination from hadronic showers.\n\nThe $\\piz$ and $\\eta$ meson candidates are reconstructed from photon pairs with the invariant mass $M(\\gamma\\gamma)$ within \\[0.120, 0.145\\]\u00a0$\\gevcc$ and \\[0.510, 0.560\\]\u00a0$\\gevcc$, respectively. In order to improve the momentum resolution, a kinematic fit constraining the reconstructed $\\piz$\u00a0($\\eta$) mass to its nominal mass\u00a0[@pdg2018] is applied and the fitted four-momentum of the $\\piz$\u00a0($\\eta$) meson is used for further analysis. The $\\etaprim$ meson candidates are reconstructed from $\\pip\\pim\\eta$ with an $M(\\pip\\pim\\eta)$ invariant mass requirement of \\[0.945, 0.970\\]\u00a0$\\gevcc$.\n\nCandidate $\\ks$ mesons are reconstructed from two oppositely charged tracks, with no PID requirement; these tracks are required to satisfy the polar angle requirement $|\\cos\\theta|<0.93$ and $R_{xy}<20$\u00a0cm. Furthermore, there is usually a detectable displacement before the decay of $\\ks$ meson due to its relatively long lifetime. Therefore, the decay length and corresponding uncertainty of $\\ks$ candidates are required to satisfy $L/\\sigma_{L} > 2$, which suppresses prompt $\\pip\\pim$ combinatorial background. The $\\ks$ meson candidates with an invariant mass $M(\\pip\\pim)$ within the mass window \\[0.491, 0.505\\]\u00a0$\\gevcc$ are retained.\n\nFor a specific $\\dsp$ decay mode, the $\\dsp$ signal candidates are formed by combining all the detected final-state particles. In addition, a radiative photon from the $D_s^{*\\pm}$ decay must be detected. Among all the $\\gamma\\dsp$ combinations in the event, the one with the minimal $|\\deltaE|$ is kept for subsequent analysis only, where $\\deltaE$ is the difference between the center-of-mass energy $E_{0}\\equiv \\sqrt{s}$ and the total energy of $\\gamma\\dsp\\dsm$ in the center-of-mass frame of the $e^+e^-$ beams $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\deltaE =  (E_{\\dsp} + E_{\\gamma}+E_{\\rm rec}) - E_{0}.\n\\label{eq:deltaE}\n\\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_{\\dsp}$ and $E_{\\gamma}$ are the energies of reconstructed $\\dsp$ and $\\gamma$ from $D_s^{*\\pm}$, respectively. $E_{\\rm rec}$ is the energy of the recoiled $\\dsm$, defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\nE_{\\rm rec}=\\sqrt{\\left|-(\\overrightarrow{p}_{\\dsp}+\\overrightarrow{p}_{\\gamma})\\right|^2+m_{\\dsm}^2},\n\\label{eq:recoilE}\n\\end{aligned}$$ where **$\\overrightarrow{p}_{\\dsp}$** is the total momentum of the detected $\\dsp$, **$\\overrightarrow{p}_{\\gamma}$** is the momentum of the radiative photon $\\gamma$, and $m_{\\dsm}$ is the nominal mass of the $\\dsm$\u00a0[@pdg2018]. For a correctly reconstructed $\\dsp$ candidate, $\\deltaE$ is expected to be around zero. Therefore, candidates will be rejected when they fail the requirements of $\\deltaE$ for each decay mode, as shown in Table\u00a0\\[tab:deltaE\\_cross\\_cut\\_ranges\\], which correspond to the $\\pm3\\sigma$ regions of the signal $\\deltaE$ distributions. To further improve the kinematic resolutions of the final states, a kinematic fit is performed to constrain the recoil mass of the $\\dsp\\gamma$, $M_{\\rm rec}(\\dsp\\gamma)$, to the nominal mass of the $\\dsm$. According to the kinematic fit, the four momenta of all the final-state particles are updated.\n\nAs an example, data for $\\dstokpiz$ is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:crossCut\\_after\\_1c\\_kpi0\\]; the two-dimensional distribution of the recoil mass $\\mdsprec$ and the invariant mass $M(\\dsp\\gamma)$ depicts the two resonance structures of the processes. The horizontal band corresponds to $\\ee\\to\\dsstp\\dsm\\to\\gamma\\dsp\\dsm$, while the vertical band corresponds to $\\ee\\to\\dsp\\dsstm\\to\\dsp\\gamma\\dsm$. To improve the signal-to-background ratio, we further retain only events lying in the regions of the horizontal or vertical bands defined in Table\u00a0\\[tab:deltaE\\_cross\\_cut\\_ranges\\].\n\n       Decay        $\\deltaE$($\\gev$)   $\\mdsprec$($\\gevcc$)   $\\mdspgam$($\\gevcc$)\n  ---------------- ------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------\n   $\\kaon^+\\eta'$   ($-$0.040, 0.025)      (2.100, 2.130)         (2.095, 2.130)\n    $\\eta'\\pi^+$    ($-$0.040, 0.025)      (2.100, 2.130)         (2.095, 2.130)\n   $\\kaon^+\\eta$    ($-$0.045, 0.025)      (2.100, 2.130)         (2.095, 2.130)\n    $\\eta\\pi^+$     ($-$0.045, 0.025)      (2.100, 2.130)         (2.095, 2.130)\n    $\\kaon^+\\ks$    ($-$0.040, 0.020)      (2.100, 2.130)         (2.100, 2.130)\n     $\\ks\\pi^+$     ($-$0.040, 0.020)      (2.100, 2.130)         (2.100, 2.130)\n   $\\kaon^+\\piz$    ($-$0.050, 0.020)      (2.100, 2.130)         (2.100, 2.130)\n   $\\kp\\km\\pi^+$    ($-$0.030, 0.020)      (2.100, 2.130)         (2.100, 2.130)\n\n  : Summary of the requirements of $\\deltaE$, $\\mdsprec$ and $\\mdspgam$ for each $\\dstopp$ decay mode and the normalization mode.\n\n\\[tab:deltaE\\_cross\\_cut\\_ranges\\]\n\n![Two-dimensional distribution of the recoil mass of $\\dsp$ and the invariant mass of $\\dsp\\gamma$ for the decay $\\dstokpiz$, where the solid lines denote the boundaries for the horizontal and vertical band ranges.[]{data-label=\"fig:crossCut_after_1c_kpi0\"}](crosscut/canvPlane_1c.pdf){width=\"10.0cm\"}\n\nSIGNAL YIELD AND BRANCHING FRACTION\n===================================\n\nTo extract the signal yields for the signal $\\dstopp$ decay modes and the normalization decay mode, unbinned extended maximum likelihood fits are performed on the $\\mdsp$ distributions of the selected candidates in data. In each fit, the probability density function\u00a0(PDF) is parameterized as the sum of signal and background PDFs. The signal PDF is a template shape formed from the signal MC sample convolved with a Gaussian function to compensate the resolution difference between data and MC simulations. For the more common Cabibbo-favored (CF) decay modes $\\dstokkpi$, $\\dstokpipi$, $\\dstopieta$, $\\dstopietaprim$ and the SCS decay $\\dstokpiz$, the Gaussian parameters are left free. For the low-yield SCS decays $\\dstopipipi$, $\\dstoketa$ and $\\dstoketaprim$, the Gaussian parameters are fixed at the values obtained from the corresponding fits to the CF decay modes $\\dstokpipi$, $\\dstopieta$ and $\\dstopietaprim$, respectively, since the kaons and pions have almost the same kinematics. According to the background study using inclusive MC samples, peaking backgrounds are present for the modes of $\\dstopietaprim$, $\\dstokpipi$ and $\\dstopipipi$. The peaking backgrounds are modeled in the fit with the MC-determined shape and size. The fractions of the peaking background in the total event yields are estimated to be 2.0$\\%$, 1.4$\\%$ and 1.6$\\%$ for $\\dstopietaprim$, $\\dstokpipi$ and $\\dstopipipi$, respectively. The non-peaking background components are described with linear functions and second-order Chebychev functions for the CF and SCS decay modes, respectively. The fits are presented in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:data\\_yields\\], and the numerical results of the signal yields are listed in Table\u00a0\\[tab:yield\\_efficiency\\_ratio\\]. The relative and absolute BFs, calculated with the average detection efficiencies obtained from the signal MC simulations, are summarized in Table\u00a0\\[tab:yield\\_efficiency\\_ratio\\].\n\n       Decay           $n^{i}$       $\\overline{\\varepsilon}^i$\u00a0(%)        *$R^{i}$*\u00a0(%)            $\\mathcal{B}^i$\u00a0($10^{-3}$)\n  ---------------- ---------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------- -----------------------------------\n   $\\kaon^+\\eta'$     $675\\pm43$             $13.66\\pm0.20$            $ 4.83\\pm0.31\\pm0.30$        $2.63\\pm0.17\\pm0.16\\pm0.08$\n    $\\eta'\\pi^+$     $9912\\pm113$            $14.19\\pm0.04$              $68.3\\pm0.8\\pm3.7$          $37.2\\pm0.4\\pm2.0\\pm1.2$\n   $\\kaon^+\\eta$     $1841\\pm114$            $26.21\\pm0.17$            $ 2.98\\pm0.18\\pm0.05$        $1.62\\pm0.10\\pm0.03\\pm0.05$\n    $\\eta\\pi^+$     $19519\\pm192$            $25.86\\pm0.05$            $32.03\\pm0.33\\pm0.49$       $17.46\\pm0.18\\pm0.27\\pm0.54$\n    $\\kaon^+\\ks$    $35977\\pm206$            $31.47\\pm0.05$            $27.55\\pm0.18\\pm0.50$      $15.02\\pm 0.10\\pm0.27\\pm 0.47$\n     $\\ks\\pi^+$      $2724\\pm83$             $32.27\\pm0.16$           $ 2.035\\pm0.062\\pm0.042$   $1.109\\pm 0.034\\pm0.023\\pm 0.035$\n   $\\kaon^+\\piz$     $2275\\pm149$            $27.96\\pm0.18$           $ 1.373\\pm0.090\\pm0.034$   $0.748\\pm 0.049\\pm0.018\\pm 0.023$\n   $\\kp\\km\\pi^+$    $160262\\pm478$           $26.73\\pm0.02$                    $100$                       54.5$\\pm$1.7\n\n  : Summary of the signal yields, average detection efficiencies, relative BFs and absolute BFs of individual signal decay modes. The first uncertainty is statistical, the second is systematic, and the third is external, from the BF of the normalization mode $\\dstokkpi$\u00a0[@pdg2018]. The uncertainties on efficiencies are due to the limited MC event statistics.\n\n\\[tab:yield\\_efficiency\\_ratio\\]\n\nSYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTY\n======================\n\nThe sources of systematic uncertainties considered in obtaining the relative BFs include the MC statistics, $\\sigma$($e^+e^-\\to\\dsstpdsm$) lineshape, shapes of invariant mass distributions for signal and background, peaking background modeling, kinematic fit, $\\deltaE$ and invariant mass requirements, reconstruction efficiency estimation and quoted BFs. Table\u00a0\\[tab:sys\\_err\\] summarizes all of these systematic uncertainties. Some correlated uncertainties between the signal decay modes and the reference decay mode have been partially cancelled when extracting $\\emph{$R^{i}$}$ in Table\u00a0\\[tab:yield\\_efficiency\\_ratio\\].\n\n[c|c c c c c c c]{} Source & $\\kaon^+\\eta'$ & $\\eta'\\pi^+$ &$\\kaon^+\\eta$ & $\\eta\\pi^+$ & $\\kaon^+\\ks$ & $\\ks\\pi^+$ & $\\kaon^+\\pi^0$\\\nMC statistics & 0.7 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3\\\nLineshape & 1.0 & 0.5 & 1.1 & 0.9 & 0.1 & 1.0 & 1.8\\\nSignal shape & 1.0 & 1.0 & 0.7 & 0.7 & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.3\\\nBackground shape & 0.0 & 0.3 & 1.0 & 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.8 & 1.4\\\nPeaking background & - & 0.8 & - & - & 0.0 & 0.1 & -\\\nKinematic fit & 0.6 & 0.6 & 0.6 & 0.6 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.6\\\n$\\deltaE$ and invariant masses & 2.2 & 1.8 & 0.4 & 0.4 & 1.1 & 1.0 & 0.4\\\n\n  ---------------------------\n   Reconstruction efficiency\n  ---------------------------\n\n& 5.4 & 4.6 & 0.2 & 0.5 & 1.4 & 1.2 & 0.0\\\nQuoted BFs & 1.7 & 1.7 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.0\\\nTotal & 6.3 & 5.5 & 1.8 & 1.5 & 1.8 & 2.0 & 2.5\\\n\n\\[tab:sys\\_err\\]\n\n-   *MC Statistics.* Average detection efficiencies are evaluated using MC simulated samples. The uncertainties due to the limited sample sizes, obtained by propagating the statistical uncertainties of the individual efficiencies at different energy points according to Eq.\u00a0, are assigned as systematic uncertainties.\n\n-   *$\\sigma$[(]{}$e^+e^-\\to\\dsstpdsm$[)]{} lineshape.* Signal PDFs and detection efficiencies have slight dependencies on the input lineshape of $\\sigma$($e^+e^-\\to\\dsstpdsm$). To evaluate this uncertainty, different lineshapes are used to estimate the detection efficiencies and data yields. The resulting changes in BFs are taken as systematic uncertainties.\n\n-   *Signal shape.* The uncertainties related to the signal shapes are studied using the decays $\\dstokpiz$, $\\dstopietaprim$, $\\dstopieta$ and $\\dstokpipi$. In the nominal analysis, signal shape in the $\\mdsp$ distribution of the signal candidates is modelled by the signal PDF convolved with a Gaussian function. Double-Gaussian functions are used instead as convolution functions, and the resultant changes of BFs are taken as systematic uncertainties. For the low-yield SCS decays $\\dstopipipi$, $\\dstoketa$ and $\\dstoketaprim$ the uncertainties of the corresponding CF modes are used.\n\n-   *Background shape.* In the nominal analysis, the background shapes are described by first-order polynomial functions for the decays $\\dstopietaprim$, $\\dstopieta$, $\\dstokpipi$ and $\\dstokkpi$ and second-order polynomials for the decays $\\dstoketaprim$, $\\dstoketa$, $\\dstopipipi$ and $\\dstokpiz$. To estimate the uncertainties from the background shapes, higher-order polynomials are considered as alternatives: second-order and third-order, respectively. The resulting changes of the BFs are taken as systematic uncertainties.\n\n-   *Peaking background.* The contributions to the peaking backgrounds of $\\dstokpipi$, $\\dstopipipi$ and $\\dstopietaprim$ are from the decays of $D^+\\to\\ks\\pi^+$ (due to $\\kaon^{+}$ and $\\pi^{+}$ misidentification), $D_s^+\\to\\pi^+\\pi^+\\pi^-$ and $D_s^+\\to a_1(1260)^+\\eta$, respectively. Their shapes and sizes are fixed according to MC simulations in the fit. The input BFs of these background processes are varied by their uncertainties and the changes in results are taken as systematic uncertainties.\n\n-   *Kinematic fit.* High-yield CF decays of $\\dstokpipi$ and $\\dstopieta$ are used to study the uncertainty due to the kinematic fit. We perform the analysis without applying the kinematic fit. The differences from the nominal results are taken as systematic uncertainties. For the $\\dstopipipi$ mode the uncertainty from $\\dstokpipi$ is taken while the uncertainty from $\\dstopieta$ is assigned to the decays with photons in the final states.\n\n-   *$\\deltaE$ and invariant mass requirements.* To estimate potential bias on efficiency estimations by restricting the kinematics in the selected regions, the distributions of the kinematic variables in MC simulations are smeared with Gaussian functions. The parameters of the functions are obtained by fitting the smeared MC distributions to the corresponding distributions in data. The variables $\\deltaE$, ${\\it M}$($\\pip\\pim$), ${\\it M}$($\\gamma\\gamma$), ${\\it M}$($\\pip\\pim\\eta$), ${\\it M_{\\rm rec}}(D_{s}^{+})$ and ${\\it M}(D_{s}^{+}\\gamma)$ are studied. Updated efficiencies based on the Gaussian-smeared MC simulations are obtained and the relative changes from the nominal efficiencies are assigned as the systematic uncertainties.\n\n-   *Reconstruction efficiency.* We consider the efficiencies of tracking and PID\u00a0($K^{\\pm}$, $\\pi^{\\pm}$) and the efficiencies of intermediate particles\u00a0($\\pi^{0}$, $\\eta$, $\\ks$) reconstructions, which are studied based on a series of control samples. The $\\kaon^{\\pm}$ and $\\pi^{\\pm}$ tracking and PID efficiencies are studied using control samples of $e^+e^-\\to\\kaon^+\\kaon^-\\pi^+\\pi^-$, $\\kaon^+\\kaon^-\\kaon^+\\kaon^-$, $\\kaon^+\\kaon^-\\pi^+\\pi^-\\piz$, $\\pi^+\\pi^-\\pi^+\\pi^-$ and $\\pi^+\\pi^-\\pi^+\\pi^-\\piz$ events\u00a0[@Ablikim:2019whl]. A partial cancellation of the tracking and PID uncertainties in the ratio of the signal modes and the normalization mode is taken into account. The $\\piz$ and $\\eta$ reconstruction efficiencies are evaluated using the double-tag $D\\bar{D}$ hadronic decays $D^0\\to\\kaon^-\\pi^+$, $\\kaon^-\\pi^+\\pi^+\\pi^-$ versus $\\bar{D}^0\\to\\kaon^+\\pi^-\\piz$, $\\ks\\piz$\u00a0[@Ablikim:2016sqt; @Ablikim:2016xny] and approximating the $\\eta$ behavior as similar to the $\\pi^0$. The $\\ks$ reconstruction efficiency is studied with samples of $J/\\psi\\to\\kaon^{*}(892)^{\\pm}\\kaon^{\\mp}$, $\\kaon^{*}(892)^{\\pm}\\to\\ks\\pi^{\\pm}$ and $J/\\psi\\to\\phi\\ks\\kaon^{\\mp}\\pi^{\\pm}$\u00a0[@Ablikim:2015qgt]. To account for the different kinematics of the various signal modes, the nominal detection efficiencies are scaled based on event-by-event corrections according to the momentum-dependent efficiency differences between MC simulations and data. The appropriately averaged scaling factors are assigned as the corresponding systematic uncertainties, as given in Table\u00a0\\[tab:sys\\_err\\]. Here, the $\\dstoketaprim$ and $\\dstopietaprim$ decays suffer from large reconstruction uncertainties due to the low-momentum charged pions and $\\eta$ from $\\eta'$ decay.\n\n-   *Quoted BFs.* The nominal BFs of $\\ks\\to\\pi^{+}\\pi^{-}$, $\\pi^{0}\\to\\gamma\\gamma$, $\\eta\\to\\gamma\\gamma$ and $\\eta'\\to\\eta\\pi^{+}\\pi^{-}$ are used and their corresponding uncertainties\u00a0[@pdg2018] are propagated as systematic uncertainties.\n\n                        Relative BFs                              This work         PDG\u00a0[@pdg2018]\n  -------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- ----------------\n   $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta')$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta'\\pi^+)$    $7.07\\pm0.46\\pm0.11$     $4.2\\pm1.3$\n    $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta)$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta\\pi^+)$     $9.31\\pm0.58\\pm0.10$     $8.9\\pm1.6$\n     $\\mathcal{B}(\\ks\\pi^+)$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\ks)$      $7.38\\pm0.23\\pm0.09$    $8.12\\pm0.28$\n   $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta)$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta')$    $61.7\\pm5.5\\pm3.6$           \u2013\n     $\\mathcal{B}(\\eta\\pi^+)$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta'\\pi^+)$     $46.90\\pm0.71\\pm2.04$         \u2013\n\n  :  Results of the obtained relative BFs (in unit of $\\%$). The first uncertainty is statistical, and the second is systematic.[]{data-label=\"tab:other_branching_ratios\"}\n\nSUMMARY AND DISCUSSION\n======================\n\nThe BFs for $\\dstoketaprim$, $\\dstopietaprim$, $\\dstoketa$, $\\dstopieta$, $\\dstokpipi$, $\\dstopipipi$ and $\\dstokpiz$ are measured using $\\ee$ collision data collected at $\\sqrt{s}=4.178\\sim4.226~\\gev$ in the BESIII experiment. The results obtained in this work are listed in Table \u00a0\\[tab:yield\\_efficiency\\_ratio\\] and can be compared with the results from PDG\u00a0[@pdg2018] as well as with theoretical predictions [@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012; @Di; @Wang2017] (Table\u00a0\\[tab:results\\_BFs\\_theo\\]). Our results are consistent with the PDG values, while the precision is three to five times better than that of previous results. In addition, our results in general agree with the available theoretical calculations\u00a0[@Cheng:2019ggx; @Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012; @Di; @Wang2017] within about 3$\\sigma$. However, the discrepancies from our measurements are significant for the model calculations in Ref.\u00a0[@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010] for the modes $\\dstoketaprim$ and $\\dstoketa$, and from the model calculations in Ref.\u00a0[@Hsiang-nan; @Li2012] for the mode $\\dstoketa$. Investigating these discrepancies should aid in further developing these QCD-derived models in charm physics.\n\nThe ratios of the BFs, $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta')$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta'\\pi^+)$, $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta)$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta\\pi^+)$, $\\mathcal{B}(\\ks\\pi^+)$/ $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\ks)$, $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta)$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta')$, and $\\mathcal{B}(\\eta\\pi^+)$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta'\\pi^+)$, are also determined, as listed in Table\u00a0\\[tab:other\\_branching\\_ratios\\]. The partial cancellations of the systematic uncertainties from $\\sigma$($e^+e^-\\to\\dsstpdsm$) lineshape, signal shape, background shape, peaking background, kinematic fit, $\\deltaE$ and invariant mass requirements, and reconstruction efficiency between the pairs of decay modes are considered. Our results of $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta')$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta'\\pi^+)$, $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta)$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta\\pi^+)$, $\\mathcal{B}(\\ks\\pi^+)$/ $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\ks)$ are consistent with the PDG values within about 2$\\sigma$, but the precisions are improved. Our results are also in general accord with the theoretical calculations\u00a0[@Cheng:2019ggx; @Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012; @Di; @Wang2017] within about 3$\\sigma$. However, our measurements are in disagreement with the model calculations in Refs.\u00a0[@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Fu-Sheng; @Yu2011] for the ratio $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta')$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta'\\pi^+)$ and with those in Refs.\u00a0[@Hai-Yang; @Cheng2010; @Hsiang-nan; @Li2012] for the ratio $\\mathcal{B}(\\kaon^+\\eta)$/$\\mathcal{B}(\\eta\\pi^+)$. The theoretical uncertainties on these ratios are expected to be reduced as well, offering more meaningful comparisons between experimental measurements and theoretical calculations.\n\nThe BESIII collaboration thanks the staff of BEPCII and the IHEP computing center for their strong support. This work is supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Contracts Nos. 11625523, 11635010, 11675275, 11735014, 11775027, 11822506, 11835012, 11935015, 11935016, 11935018, 11975021, 11961141012; National Key Basic Research Program of China under Contract No. 2015CB856700; the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Large-Scale Scientific Facility Program; CAS Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences under Contracts Nos. QYZDJ-SSW-SLH003, QYZDJ-SSW-SLH040; Joint Large-Scale Scientific Facility Funds of the NSFC and CAS under Contracts Nos. U1932101, U1832207, U1732263; 100 Talents Program of CAS; National 1000 Talents Program of China; INPAC and Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology; The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences; The Beijing municipal government under Contract No. CIT$\\&$TCD201704047; ERC under Contract No. 758462; German Research Foundation DFG under Contracts Nos. Collaborative Research Center CRC 1044, FOR 2359; Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Italy; Ministry of Development of Turkey under Contract No. DPT2006K-120470; National Science and Technology fund; STFC (United Kingdom); The Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (Sweden) under Contract No. 2016.0157; The Royal Society, UK under Contracts Nos. DH140054, DH160214; The Swedish Research Council; U. S. Department of Energy under Contracts Nos. DE-FG02-05ER41374, DE-SC-0012069.\n\n[99]{} H.\u00a0Y.\u00a0Cheng and C.\u00a0W.\u00a0Chiang, *Two-body hadronic charmed meson decays*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**81**]{} (2010) 074021. \\[arXiv:1001.0987\\]\n\nF.\u00a0S.\u00a0Yu, X.\u00a0X.\u00a0Wang and C.\u00a0D.\u00a0Lu, *Nonleptonic Two Body Decays of Charmed Mesons*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**84**]{} (2011) 074019. \\[arXiv:1101.4714\\]\n\nH.\u00a0Y.\u00a0Cheng and C.\u00a0W.\u00a0Chiang, *Revisiting CP violation in $D\\to P\\!P$ and $V\\!P$ decays*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**100**]{} (2019) 093002. \\[arXiv:1909.03063\\]\n\nH.\u00a0n.\u00a0Li, C.\u00a0D.\u00a0Lu and F.\u00a0S.\u00a0Yu, *Branching ratios and direct CP asymmetries in $D\\to PP$ decays*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**86**]{} (2012) 036012. \\[arXiv:1203.3120\\]\n\nD.\u00a0Wang, F.\u00a0S.\u00a0Yu, P.\u00a0F.\u00a0Guo and H.\u00a0Y.\u00a0Jiang, *$K_{S}^{0}-K_{L}^{0}$ asymmetries in $D$-meson decays*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**95**]{} (2017) 073007. \\[arXiv:1701.07173\\]\n\nM.\u00a0Tanabashi [*et al.*]{} \\[Particle Data Group\\], *Review of Particle Physics*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**98**]{} (2018) 030001 and the 2019 online update.\n\nR.\u00a0Aaij [*et al.*]{} \\[LHCb Collaboration\\], *Observation of $CP$ violation in charm decays*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.* [**122**]{} (2019) 211803. \\[arXiv:1903.08726\\]\n\nF.\u00a0Buccella, A.\u00a0Paul and P.\u00a0Santorelli, *$SU(3)_F$ breaking through final state interactions and $CP$ asymmetries in $D \\to PP$ decays*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**99**]{} (2019) 113001. \\[arXiv:1902.05564\\]\n\nJ.\u00a0P.\u00a0Alexander [*et al.*]{} \\[CLEO Collaboration\\], *Absolute measurement of hadronic branching fractions of the ${D}_{s}^{+}$ meson*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0* [**100**]{} (2008) 161804. \\[arXiv:0801.0680\\]\n\nH.\u00a0Mendez [*et al.*]{} \\[CLEO Collaboration\\], *Measurements of D meson decays to two pseudoscalar mesons*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**81**]{} (2010) 052013. \\[arXiv:0906.3198\\]\n\nP.\u00a0U.\u00a0E.\u00a0Onyisi [*et al.*]{} \\[CLEO Collaboration\\], *Improved measurement of absolute hadronic branching fractions of the $D_s^+$ meson*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**88**]{} (2013) 032009. \\[arXiv:1306.5363\\]\n\nM.\u00a0Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \\[BESIII Collaboration\\], *Measurement of the center-of-mass energies at BESIII via the di-muon process*, *Chin.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0C* [**40**]{} (2016) 063001. \\[arXiv:1510.08654\\]\n\nM.\u00a0Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \\[BESIII Collaboration\\], *Precision measurement of the integrated luminosity of the data taken by BESIII at center of mass energies between 3.810 GeV and 4.600 GeV*, *Chin.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0C* [**39**]{} (2015) 093001. \\[arXiv:1503.03408\\]\n\nM.\u00a0Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \\[BESIII Collaboration\\], *Design and construction of the BESIII detector*, *Nucl.\u00a0Instrum.\u00a0Meth.\u00a0A* [**614**]{} (2010) 345. \\[arXiv:0911.4960\\]\n\nC.\u00a0Yu [*et al.*]{}, *BEPCII performance and beam dynamics studies on luminosity*, *JACoW-IPAC2016-TUYA01*.\n\nX.\u00a0Li [*et al.*]{}, *Study of MRPC technology for BESIII endcap-TOF upgrade*, *Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods* [**1**]{} (2017) 13; Y.\u00a0X.\u00a0Guo [*et al.*]{}, *The study of time calibration for upgraded end cap TOF of BESIII*, *Radiat. Detect. Technol. Methods* [**1**]{} (2017) 15.\n\nS.\u00a0Agostinelli [*et al.*]{} \\[GEANT4 Collaboration\\], *GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit*, *Nucl.\u00a0Instrum.\u00a0Meth.\u00a0A* [**506**]{} (2003) 250.\n\nS.\u00a0Jadach, B.\u00a0F.\u00a0L.\u00a0Ward and Z.\u00a0Was, *Coherent exclusive exponentiation for precision Monte Carlo calculations*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**63**]{} (2001) 113009; \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0012124\\] *The precision Monte Carlo event generator KK for two-fermion final states in $e^{+} e^{-}$ collisions*, *Comput.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0Commun.\u00a0* [**130**]{} (2000) 260. \\[arXiv:hep-ph/9912214\\]\n\nD.\u00a0J.\u00a0Lange, *The EvtGen particle decay simulation package*, *Nucl.\u00a0Instrum.\u00a0Meth.\u00a0A* [**462**]{} (2001) 152; R.\u00a0G.\u00a0Ping, *Event generators at BESIII*, *Chin. Phys. C* [**32**]{} (2008) 599.\n\nJ.\u00a0C.\u00a0Chen, G.\u00a0S.\u00a0Huang, X.\u00a0R.\u00a0Qi, D.\u00a0H.\u00a0Zhang and Y.\u00a0S.\u00a0Zhu, *Event generator for $J/\\psi$ and $\\psi(2S)$ decay*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**62**]{} (2000) 034003; R.\u00a0L.\u00a0Yang, R.\u00a0G.\u00a0Ping and H.\u00a0Chen, *Tuning and validation of the lundcharm model with $J/\\psi$ decays*, *Chin.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0* [**31**]{} (2014) 061301.\n\nE.\u00a0Richter-Was, *QED bremsstrahlung in semileptonic B and leptonic $\\tau$ decays*, *Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B* [**303**]{} (1993) 163.\n\nR.\u00a0G.\u00a0Ping, *An exclusive event generator for $e^+ e^-$ scan experiments*, *Chin.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0C* [**38**]{} (2014) 083001. \\[arXiv:1309.3932\\]\n\nM.\u00a0Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \\[BESIII Collaboration\\], *Study of the decays $D_{s}^{+} \\rightarrow K_{S}^{0}K^{+}$ and $K_{L}^{0}K^{+}$*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**99**]{} (2019) 112005. \\[arXiv:1903.04164\\]\n\nM.\u00a0Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \\[BESIII Collaboration\\], *Improved measurement of the absolute branching fraction of $D^{+}\\rightarrow \\bar{K}^0 \\mu ^{+}\\nu _{\\mu }$*, *Eur.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0J.\u00a0C* [**76**]{} (2016) 369. \\[arXiv:1605.00068\\]\n\nM.\u00a0Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \\[BESIII Collaboration\\], *Measurement of the absolute branching fraction of $D^{+}\\rightarrow\\bar K^0 e^{+}\\nu_{e}$ via $\\bar K^0\\to\\pi^0\\pi^0$*, *Chin.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0C* [**40**]{} (2016) 113001. \\[arXiv:1605.00208\\]\n\nM.\u00a0Ablikim [*et al.*]{} \\[BESIII Collaboration\\], *Study of decay dynamics and $CP$ asymmetry in $D^+ \\to K^0_L e^+ \\nu_e$ decay*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D* [**92**]{} (2015) 112008. \\[arXiv:1510.00308\\]\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Driven by a large number of potential applications in areas like bioinformatics, information retrieval and social network analysis, the problem setting of inferring relations between pairs of data objects has recently been investigated quite intensively in the machine learning community. To this end, current approaches typically consider datasets containing crisp relations, so that standard classification methods can be adopted. However, relations between objects like similarities and preferences are often expressed in a graded manner in real-world applications. A general kernel-based framework for learning relations from data is introduced here. It extends existing approaches because both crisp and graded relations are considered, and it unifies existing approaches because different types of graded relations can be modeled, including symmetric and reciprocal relations. This framework establishes important links between recent developments in fuzzy set theory and machine learning. Its usefulness is demonstrated through various experiments on synthetic and real-world data.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Willem Waegeman, Tapio Pahikkala, Antti Airola,\\\n    Tapio Salakoski, Michiel Stock, Bernard De Baets\nbibliography:\n- 'referenties.bib'\n- 'myBibliography.bib'\ntitle: |\n    A kernel-based framework for learning\\\n    graded relations from data\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nRelational data occurs in many predictive modeling tasks, such as forecasting the winner in two-player computer games [@Bowling2006], predicting proteins that interact with other proteins in bioinformatics [@Yamanishi2004], retrieving documents that are similar to a target document in text mining [@Yang2009], investigating the persons that are friends of each other on social network sites [@Taskar2004], etc. All these examples represent fields of application in which specific machine learning and data mining algorithms have been successfully developed to infer relations from data; pairwise relations, to be more specific.\n\nThe typical learning scenario in such situations can be summarized as follows. Given a dataset of known relations between pairs of objects and a feature representation of these objects in terms of variables that might characterize the relations, the goal usually consists of inferring a statistical model that takes two objects as input and predicts whether the relation of interest occurs for these two objects. Moreover, since one aims to discover unknown relations, a good learning algorithm should be able to construct a predictive model that can generalize for unseen data, i.e., pairs of objects for which at least one of the two objects was not used to construct the model. As a result of the transition from predictive models for single objects to pairs of objects, new advanced learning algorithms need to be developed, resulting in new challenges with regard to model construction, computational tractability and model assessment.\n\nAs relations between objects can be observed in many different forms, this general problem setting provides links to several subfields of machine learning, like statistical relational learning [@Deraedt2009], graph mining [@Vert2005], metric learning [@Xing2002] and preference learning [@Hullermeier2010a]. More specifically, from a graph-theoretic perspective, learning a relation can be formulated as learning edges in a graph where the nodes represent information of the data objects; from a metric learning perspective, the relation that we aim to learn should satisfy some well-defined properties like positive definiteness, transitivity or the triangle inequality; and from a preference learning perspective, the relation expresses a (degree of) preference in a pairwise comparison of data objects.\n\nThe topic of learning relations between objects is also closely related to recent developments in fuzzy set theory. This article will elaborate on these connections via two important contributions: (1) the extension of the typical setting of learning crisp relations to real-valued and ordinal-valued relations and (2) the inclusion of domain knowledge about relations into the inference process by explicit modeling of mathematical properties of these relations. For algorithmic simplicity, one can observe that many approaches only learn crisp relations, that is relations with only 0 and 1 as possible values, so that standard binary classifiers can be modified. In this context, consider examples as inferring protein-protein interaction networks or metabolic networks in bioinformatics [@Yamanishi2004; @Geurts2007].\n\nHowever, graded relations are observed in many real-world applications [@Doignon1986], resulting in a need for new algorithms that take graded relational information into account. Furthermore, the properties of graded relations have been investigated intensively in the recent fuzzy logic literature[^1], and these properties are very useful to analyze and improve current algorithms. Using mathematical properties of graded relations, constraints can be imposed for incorporating domain knowledge in the learning process, to improve predictive performance or simply to guarantee that a relation with the right properties is learned. This is definitely the case for properties like transitivity when learning similarity relations and preference relations \u2013 see e.g.\u00a0[@Switalski2000; @DeBaets2005; @DeBaets2006; @Diaz2007], but even very basic properties like symmetry, antisymmetry or reciprocity already provide domain knowledge that can steer the learning process. For example, in social network analysis, the notion \u201cperson A being a friend of person B\" should be considered as a symmetric relation, while the notion \u201cperson A defeats person B in a chess game\" will be antisymmetric (or, equivalently, reciprocal). Nevertheless, many examples exist, too, where neither symmetry nor antisymmetry necessarily hold, like the notion \u201cperson A trusts person B\".\n\nIn this paper we present a general kernel-based approach that unifies all the above cases into one general framework where domain knowledge can be easily specified by choosing a proper kernel and model structure, while different learning settings are distinguished by means of the loss function. Let ${Q}({v},{v}')$ be a binary relation on an object space ${\\mathcal{V}}$, then the following learning settings will be considered in particular:\n\nCrisp relations: when the restriction is made that $Q: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow \\{0,1\\}$, we arrive at a binary classification task with pairs of objects as input for the classifier.\n\n$[0,1]$-valued relations: here it is allowed that relations can take the form $Q: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$, resulting in a regression type of learning setting. The restriction to the interval $[0,1]$ is predominantly made because many mathematical frameworks in fields like fuzzy set theory and decision theory are built upon such relations, using the notion of a fuzzy relation, but in general one can account quite easily for real-graded relations by applying a scaling operation from ${\\mathbb{R}}$ to $[0,1]$.\n\nOrdinal-valued relations: situated somewhat in the middle between the other two settings, here it is assumed that the actual values of the relation do not matter but rather the provided order information should be learned.\n\nFurthermore, one can integrate different types of domain knowledge in our framework, by guaranteeing that certain properties are satisfied. The following cases can be distinguished:\n\nSymmetric relations. Applications arise in many domains and metric learning or learning similarity measures can be seen as special cases that require additional properties to hold, such as the triangle inequality for metrics and positive definiteness or transitivity properties for similarity measures. As shown below, learning symmetric relations can be interpreted as learning edges in an undirected graph.\n\nReciprocal or antisymmetric relations. Applications arise here in domains such as preference learning, game theory and bioinformatics for representing preference relations, choice probabilities, winning probabilities, gene regulation, etc. We will provide a formal definition below, but, given a rescaling operation from ${\\mathbb{R}}$ to $[0,1]$, antisymmetric relations can be converted into reciprocal relations. Similar to symmetric relations, transitivity properties typically guarantee additional constraints that are definitely required for certain applications. It is, for example, well known in decision theory and preference modeling that transitive preference relations result in utility functions [@Luce1965; @Bodenhofer2007]. Learning reciprocal or antisymmetric relations can be interpreted as learning edges in a directed graph.\n\nOrdinary binary relations. Many applications can be found where neither symmetry nor reciprocity holds. From a graph inference perspective, learning such relations should be seen as learning the edges in a bidirectional graph, where edges in one direction do not impose constraints on edges in the other direction.\n\nIndeed, the framework that we propose below strongly relies on graphs, where nodes represent the data objects that are studied and the edges represent the relations present in the training set. The weights on the edges characterize the values of known relations, while unconnected nodes indicate pairs of objects for which the unknown relation needs to be predicted. The left graph in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\] visualizes a toy example representing the most general case where neither symmetry nor reciprocity holds. Depending on the application, the learning algorithm should try to predict the relations for three types of object pairs:\n\n-   pairs of objects that are already present in the training dataset by means of other edges, like the pair (A,B),\n\n-   pairs of objects for which one of the two objects occurs in the training dataset, like the pair (E,F),\n\n-   pairs of objects for which none of the two objects is observed during training, like the pair (F,G).\n\nThe graphs on the right-hand side in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\] show examples of specific types of relations that are covered by our framework. The differences between these relations will become more clear in the following sections.\n\n![Left: example of a multi-graph representing the most general case, where no additional properties of relations are assumed. Right: examples of eight different types of relations in a graph of cardinality three. The following relational properties are illustrated: (C) crisp, (G) graded, (R) reciprocal, (S) symmetric, (T) transitive and (I) intransitive. For the reciprocal relations, (I) refers to a relation that does not satisfy weak stochastic transitivity, while (T) is showing an example of a relation fulfilling strong stochastic transitivity. For the symmetric relations, (I) refers a relation that does not satisfy $T$-transitivity w.r.t.\u00a0the \u0141ukasiewicz t-norm $T_{\\bf L}(a,b) = \\max(a+b-1,0)$, while (T) is showing an example of a relation that fulfills $T$-transitivity w.r.t.\u00a0the product t-norm $T_{\\bf P}(a,b) = ab$. See Section\u00a04 for formal definitions of transitivity.[]{data-label=\"fig:examples\"}](exampleMultiGen.pdf)\n\n\\\n\\\n\\\n\nGeneral framework\n=================\n\nNotation and basic concepts\n---------------------------\n\nLet us start with introducing some notations. We assume that the data is structured as a graph $G = ({\\mathcal{V}},{\\mathcal{E}},{Q})$, where ${\\mathcal{V}}$ corresponds to the set of nodes ${v}$ and ${\\mathcal{E}}\\subseteq {\\mathcal{V}}^2$ represents the set of edges ${e}$, for which training labels are provided in terms of relations. Moreover, these relations are represented by training weights ${y}_{{e}}$ on the edges, generated from an unknown underlying relation ${Q}: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$. Relations are required to take values in the interval $[0,1]$ because some properties that we need are historically defined for such relations, but an extension to real-graded relations ${h}: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}$ can always be realized. Consider $b \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^+$ and an increasing isomorphism $\\sigma : [-b,b] \\rightarrow [0,1]$ that satisfies $\\sigma(x) = 1 - \\sigma(-x)$, then we consider the ${\\mathbb{R}}\\rightarrow [0,1]$ mapping $\\nabla$ defined by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla(x) & = & \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{ll} 0, &\n\\textrm{if $ x \\le -b$}\\\\\n\\sigma(x), &  \\textrm{if $-b \\le x \\le b$} \\\\\n1, & \\textrm{if $b \\le x$}\n\\end{array} \\right.\\end{aligned}$$ and its inverse $\\nabla^{-1} = \\sigma^{-1}$.\n\nAny real-valued relation ${h}: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}$ can be transformed into a $[0,1]$-valued relation $Q$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:monmap}\nQ({v},{v}') = \\nabla(h({v},{v}')) \\,, \\quad \\forall ({v},{v}') \\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\,,\\end{aligned}$$ and conversely by means of $\\nabla^{-1}$. In what follows we tacitly assume that $\\nabla$ has been fixed.\n\nFollowing the standard notations for kernel methods, we formulate our learning problem as the selection of a suitable function ${h}\\in{\\mathcal{H}}$, with ${\\mathcal{H}}$ a certain hypothesis space, in particular a reproducing kernel Hilbert space (RKHS). More specifically, the RKHS supports in our case hypotheses $h: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}$ denoted as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:primalmodel}\nh({e}) =  {\\mathbf{w}}^T \\Phi({e}) \\,,\\end{aligned}$$ with ${\\mathbf{w}}$ a vector of parameters that needs to be estimated from training data, $\\Phi$ a joint feature mapping for edges in the graph (see below) and ${\\mathbf{a}}^T$ the transpose of a vector ${\\mathbf{a}}$. Let us denote a training dataset of cardinality ${q}= |{\\mathcal{E}}|$ as a set $T = \\{({e},{y}_{{e}}) \\mid {e}\\in {\\mathcal{E}}\\}$ of input-label pairs, then we formally consider the following optimization problem, in which we select an appropriate hypothesis ${h}$ from ${\\mathcal{H}}$ for training data\u00a0$T$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{regalgorithm}\n\\hat{{h}}=\\operatorname*{argmin}_{{h}\\in{\\mathcal{H}}} \\frac{1}{q} \\sum_{{e}\\in {\\mathcal{E}}} {\\mathcal{L}}({h}({e}),{y}_{{e}})\n+{\\lambda}\\Arrowvert {h}\\Arrowvert_{{\\mathcal{H}}}^2 \\,\\end{aligned}$$ with ${\\mathcal{L}}$ a given loss function, $\\Arrowvert \\cdot \\Arrowvert_{{\\mathcal{H}}}^2$ the traditional quadratic regularizer on the RKHS and ${\\lambda}>0$ a regularization parameter. According to the representer theorem [@Scholkopf2002], any minimizer ${h}\\in{\\mathcal{H}}$ of (\\[regalgorithm\\]) admits a dual representation of the following form: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:dualmodel}\n{h}({\\overline{{e}}})\n= {{\\mathbf{w}}}^T \\Phi({\\overline{{e}}}) = \\sum_{{e}\\in {\\mathcal{E}}}\n{a}_{{e}}{K}^{\\Phi}({e},{\\overline{{e}}}) \\,,\\end{aligned}$$ with ${a}_{{e}} \\in\\mathbb{R}$ dual parameters, ${K}^{\\Phi}$ the kernel function associated with the RKHS and $\\Phi$ the feature mapping corresponding to ${K}^{\\Phi}$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n{{\\mathbf{w}}}=\\sum_{{e}\\in {\\mathcal{E}}}\n{a}_{{e}}\\Phi({e}).\\end{aligned}$$ We will alternate several times between the primal and dual representation for ${h}$ in the remainder of this article.\n\nThe primal representation as defined in (\\[eq:primalmodel\\]) and its dual equivalent (\\[eq:dualmodel\\]) yield an RKHS defined on edges in the graph. In addition, we will establish an RKHS defined on nodes, as every edge consists of a couple of nodes. Given an input space $\\mathcal{V}$ and a kernel ${K}:\\mathcal{V}\\times\\mathcal{V}\\rightarrow\\mathbb{R}$, the RKHS associated with ${K}$ can be considered as the completion of $$\\left\\{ f \\in \\mathbb{R}^\\mathcal{V}  \\left\\arrowvert\nf({v})=\\sum_{i=1}^m\\beta_i{K}({v},{v}_i)\\right.\\right\\},$$ in the norm $$\\Arrowvert f\\Arrowvert_{K}=\\sqrt{\\sum_{i,j}\\beta_i\\beta_j{K}({v}_i,{v}_j)},$$ where $\\beta_i\\in\\mathbb{R},m\\in\\mathbb{N},{v}_i\\in\\mathcal{V}$.\n\nLearning arbitrary relations\n----------------------------\n\nAs mentioned in the introduction, both crisp and graded relations can be handled by our framework. To make a subdivision between different cases, a loss function needs to be specified. For crisp relations, one can typically use the hinge loss, which is given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathcal{L}}({h}({e}),{y}) = [1- {y}{h}({e})]_+ \\,,\\end{aligned}$$ with $[\\cdot]_+$ the positive part of the argument. Alternatively, one can opt to optimize a probabilistic loss function like the logistic loss: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathcal{L}}({h}({e}),{y}) = \\ln(1+\\exp(-{y}{h}({e}))) \\,.\\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, if in a given application the observed relations are graded instead of crisp, other loss functions have to be considered. Hence, we will run experiments with a least-squares loss function: $$\\label{regrloss}\n{\\mathcal{L}}({h}({e}),{y}) = ({y}_{e}-{h}({e}))^2 \\,,$$ resulting in a regression type of learning setting. Alternatively, one could prefer to optimize a more robust regression loss like the $\\epsilon$-insensitive loss, in case outliers are expected in the training dataset. So far, our framework does not differ from standard classification and regression algorithms. However, the specification of a more precise model structure for (\\[eq:primalmodel\\]) offers a couple of new challenges. In the most general case, when no further restrictions on the underlying relation can be specified, the following Kronecker product feature mapping is proposed to express pairwise interactions between features of nodes: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Phi({e}) = \\Phi({v},{v}') = \\phi({v}) \\otimes \\phi({v}')\\,,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\phi$ represents the feature mapping for individual nodes. A formal definition of the Kronecker product can be found in the appendix. As first shown in [@Ben-Hur2005], the Kronecker product pairwise feature mapping yields the Kronecker product edge kernel (a.k.a.\u00a0the tensor product pairwise kernel) in the dual representation: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:tppk}\n{K}_{\\otimes}^{\\Phi}({e},{\\overline{{e}}}) = {K}_{\\otimes}^{\\Phi}({v},{v}',{\\overline{{v}}},{\\overline{{v}}}')= {K}^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}) {K}^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}}') \\,,\\end{aligned}$$ with $K^{\\phi}$ the kernel corresponding to $\\phi$.\n\nThis section aims to formally prove that the Kronecker product edge kernel is the best kernel one can choose, when no further domain knowledge is provided about the underlying relation that generates the data. We claim that with an appropriate choice for $K^{\\phi}$, such as the Gaussian RBF kernel, the kernel $K^{\\Phi}$ generates a class ${\\mathcal{H}}$ of universally approximating functions for learning any type of relation. Armed with the definition of universality for kernels and the Stone-Weierstra[\u00df]{} theorem [@Steinwart2002consistency], we arrive at the following theorem concerning the Kronecker product pairwise kernels:\n\n\\[unikrontheorem\\] Let us assume that the space of nodes ${\\mathcal{V}}$ is a compact metric space. If a continuous kernel ${K}^\\phi$ is universal on ${\\mathcal{V}}$, then ${K}_{\\otimes}^\\Phi$ defines a universal kernel on ${\\mathcal{E}}$.\n\nThe proof can be found in the appendix. We would like to emphasize that one cannot conclude from the theorem that the Kronecker product pairwise kernel is the best kernel to use in all possible situations. The theorem only shows that the Kronecker product pairwise kernel makes a reasonably good choice, if no further domain knowledge about the underlying relation is known. Namely, the theorem says that given a suitable sample of data, the RKHS of the kernel contains functions that are arbitrarily close to any continuous relation in the uniform norm. However, the theorem does not say anything about how likely it is to have, as a training set, such a data sample that can represent the approximating function. Further, the theorem only concerns graded relations that are continuous and therefore crisp relations and graded, discontinuous relations require more detailed considerations.\n\nOther kernel functions might of course outperform the Kronecker product pairwise kernel in applications where domain knowledge can be incorporated in the kernel function. In the following section we discuss reciprocity, symmetry and transitivity as three relational properties that can be represented by means of more specific kernel functions. As a side note, we also introduce the Cartesian pairwise kernel, which is formally defined as follows $$K_{C}^{\\Phi}({v},{v}',{\\overline{{v}}},{\\overline{{v}}}') = K^{\\phi}({v}', {\\overline{{v}}}') [{v}= {\\overline{{v}}}] + K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}) [{v}' = {\\overline{{v}}}'] \\,,$$ with $[.]$ the indicator function, returning one when both elements are identical and zero otherwise. This kernel was recently proposed by [@Kashima2009] as an alternative to the Kronecker product pairwise kernel. By construction, the Cartesian pairwise kernel has important limitations, since it cannot generalize to couples of nodes for which both nodes did not appear in the training dataset.\n\nSpecial relations\n=================\n\nThus, if no further information is available about the relation that underlies the data, one should definitely use the Kronecker product edge kernel. In this most general case, we allow that for any pair of nodes in the graph several edges can exist, in which an edge in one direction does not necessarily impose constraints on the edge in the opposite direction. Multiple edges in the same direction can connect two nodes, leading to a multi-graph as in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\], where two different edges in the same direction connect nodes $D$ and $E$. This construction is required to allow repeated measurements. However, two important subclasses of relations deserve further attention: reciprocal relations and symmetric relations.\n\nReciprocal relations\n--------------------\n\nThis subsection briefly summarizes our previous work on learning reciprocal relations [@Pahikkala2010]. Let us start with a definition of this type of relation.\n\nA binary relation ${Q}: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$ is called a reciprocal relation if for all $({v},{v}') \\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that ${Q}({v},{v}') = 1 - {Q}({v}',{v})$.\n\nA binary relation ${h}: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}$ is called an antisymmetric relation if for all $({v},{v}') \\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that ${h}({v},{v}') = - {h}({v}',{v})$.\n\nFor reciprocal and antisymmetric relations, every edge ${e}=({v},{v}')$ in a multi-graph like Figure\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\] induces an unobserved invisible edge ${e}_R = ({v}',{v})$ with appropriate weight in the opposite direction. The transformation operator $\\nabla$ transforms an antisymmetric relation into a reciprocal relation. Applications of reciprocal relations arise here in domains such as preference learning, game theory and bioinformatics for representing preference relations, choice probabilities, winning probabilities, gene regulation, etc. The weight on the edge defines the real direction of such an edge. If the weight on the edge ${e}= ({v},{v}')$ is higher than 0.5, then the direction is from $v$ to $v'$, but when the weight is lower than 0.5, then the direction should be interpreted as inverted, for example, the edges from $A$ to $C$ in Figures\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\] (a) and (e) should be interpreted as edges starting from $A$ instead of $C$. If the relation is $3$-valued as $Q: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow \\{0,1/2,1\\}$, then we end up with a three-class ordinal regression setting instead of an ordinary regression setting.\n\nInterestingly, reciprocity can be easily incorporated in our framework.\n\nLet $\\Psi$ be a feature mapping on ${\\mathcal{V}}^2$ and let ${h}$ be a hypothesis defined by (\\[eq:primalmodel\\]), then the relation $Q$ of type (\\[eq:monmap\\]) is reciprocal if $\\Phi$ is given by $$\\Phi_R({e})=\\Phi_R({v},{v}')=\\Psi({v},{v}')-\\Psi({v}',{v}) \\,.$$\n\nThe proof is immediate. In addition, one can easily show that reciprocity as domain knowledge can be enforced in the dual formulation. Let us in the least restrictive form now consider the Kronecker product for $\\Psi$, then one obtains for $\\Phi_R$ the kernel $K_{\\otimes R}^{\\Phi}$ given by $K_{\\otimes R}^{\\Phi}({e},{\\overline{{e}}})=$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:recedgekernel}\n2 \\big(K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}) K^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}}') - K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}') K^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}})\\big)\\,.\\end{aligned}$$ The following theorem shows that this kernel can represent any type of reciprocal relation.\n\n\\[antisymmetrictheorem\\] Let $$R({\\mathcal{V}}^2)=\\{ t \\mid t \\in C({\\mathcal{V}}^2),t({v},{v}')= - t({v}',{v})\\}$$ be the space of all continuous antisymmetric relations from ${\\mathcal{V}}^2$ to $\\mathbb{R}$. If $K^\\phi$ on ${\\mathcal{V}}$ is universal, then for every function $t\\in R({\\mathcal{V}}^2)$ and every $\\epsilon > 0$, there exists a function $h$ in the RKHS induced by the kernel $K_{\\otimes R}^{\\Phi}$ defined in (\\[eq:recedgekernel\\]), such that $$\\label{recclaim}\n\\max_{({v},{v}')\\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-{h}({v},{v}')\\right\\arrowvert\\right\\}\\leq\\epsilon \\,.$$\n\nThe proof can be found in the appendix.\n\nSymmetric relations\n-------------------\n\nSymmetric relations form another important subclass of relations in our framework. As a specific type of symmetric relations, similarity relations constitute the underlying relation in many application domains where relations between objects need to be learned. Symmetric relations are formally defined as follows.\n\nA binary relation ${Q}: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$ is called a symmetric relation if for all $({v},{v}') \\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that ${Q}({v},{v}') = {Q}({v}',{v})$.\n\nA binary relation ${h}: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}$ is called a symmetric relation if for all $({v},{v}') \\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that ${h}({v},{v}') = {h}({v}',{v})$.\n\nNote that $\\nabla$ preserves symmetry. For symmetric relations, edges in multi-graphs like Figure\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\] become undirected. Applications arise in many domains and metric learning or learning similarity measures can be seen as special cases. If the relation is $2$-valued as $Q: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow \\{0,1\\}$, then we end up with a classification setting instead of a regression setting.\n\nJust like reciprocal relations, it turns out that symmetry can be easily incorporated in our framework.\n\nLet $\\Psi$ be a feature mapping on ${\\mathcal{V}}^2$ and let ${h}$ be a hypothesis defined by (\\[eq:primalmodel\\]), then the relation $Q$ of type (\\[eq:monmap\\]) is symmetric if $\\Phi$ is given by $$\\Phi_S({e})=\\Phi_S({v},{v}')=\\Psi({v},{v}')+\\Psi({v}',{v}) \\,.$$\n\nIn addition, by using mathematical properties of the Kronecker product, one obtains in the dual formulation an edge kernel that looks very similar to the one derived for reciprocal relations. Let us again consider the Kronecker product for $\\Psi$, then one obtains for $\\Phi_S$ the kernel $K_{\\otimes S}^{\\Phi}$ given by $K_{\\otimes S}^{\\Phi}({e},{\\overline{{e}}})=$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n2 \\big(K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}) K^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}}') + K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}') K^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}})\\big) \\,.\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the substraction of kernels in the reciprocal case becomes an addition of kernels in the symmetric case. The above kernel has been used for predicting protein-protein interactions in bioinformatics [@Ben-Hur2005] and it has been theoretically analyzed in [@Hue2010]. More specifically, for some methods one has shown in the latter paper that enforcing symmetry in the kernel function yields identical results as adding every edge twice to the dataset, by taking each of the two nodes once as first element of the edge. Unlike many existing kernel-based methods for pairwise data, the models obtained with these kernels are able to represent any reciprocal or symmetric relation respectively, without imposing additional transitivity properties of the relations.\n\nWe also remark that for symmetry as well, one can prove that the Kronecker product edge kernel yields a model that is flexible enough to represent any type of underlying relation.\n\nLet $$S({\\mathcal{V}}^2)=\\{t \\mid t\\in C({\\mathcal{V}}^2),t({v},{v}')=t({v}',{v})\\}$$ be the space of all continuous symmetric relations from ${\\mathcal{V}}^2$ to $\\mathbb{R}$. If $K^\\phi$ on ${\\mathcal{V}}$ is universal, then for every function $t\\in S({\\mathcal{V}}^2)$ and every $\\epsilon > 0$, there exists a function $h$ in the RKHS (\\[eq:primalmodel\\]) induced by the kernel (\\[eq:recedgekernel\\]), such that $$\\max_{({v},{v}')\\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-{h}({v},{v}')\\right\\arrowvert\\right\\}\\leq\\epsilon.$$\n\nThe proof is analogous to that of Theorem\u00a0\\[antisymmetrictheorem\\] (see appendix).\n\nAs a side note, we remark that a symmetric and reciprocal version of the Cartesian kernel can be introduced as well.\n\nRelationships with fuzzy set theory\n===================================\n\nThe previous section revealed that specific Kronecker product edge kernels can be constructed for modeling reciprocal and symmetric relations, without requiring any further background about these relations. In this section we demonstrate that the Kronecker product edge kernels $K_{\\otimes}^{\\Phi}$, $K_{\\otimes R}^{\\Phi}$ and $K_{\\otimes S}^{\\Phi}$ are particularly useful for modeling intransitive relations. Intransitive relations occur in a lot of real-world scenarios, like game playing [@DeSchuymer2003; @Fisher2008], competition between bacteria [@Kerr2002; @czaran2002chemical; @nowak2002; @Kirkup2004; @karolyi2005rps; @reichenbach2007] and fungi [@Boddy2000], mating choice of lizards [@Sinervo1996] and food choice of birds [@Waite2001], to name just a few. In an informal way, Figure\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\] shows with the help of examples what transitivity means for symmetric and reciprocal relations that are crisp and graded.\n\nDespite the occurrence of intransitive relations in many domains, one has to admit that most applications are still characterized by relations that fulfill relatively strong transitivity requirements. For example, in decision making, preference modeling and social choice theory, one can argue that reciprocal relations like choice probabilities and preference judgments should satisfy certain transitivity properties, if they represent rational human decisions made after well-reasoned comparisons on objects [@Luce1965; @Fishburn1991; @Tversky1998]. For symmetric relations as well, transitivity plays an important role [@Gower1986; @Jakel2008], when modeling similarity relations, metrics, kernels, etc.\n\nIt is for this reason that transitivity properties have been studied extensively in fuzzy set theory and related fields. For reciprocal relations, one traditionally uses the notion of stochastic transitivity [@Luce1965].\n\nLet $g$ be an increasing $[1/2,1]^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$ mapping. A reciprocal relation $Q: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$ is called $g$-stochastic transitive if for any $({v}_1,{v}_2,{v}_3)\n\\in {\\mathcal{V}}^3$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\big( Q({v}_1,{v}_2) \\geq 1/2 \\wedge Q({v}_2,{v}_3) \\geq 1/2 \\big)\n\\Rightarrow Q({v}_1,{v}_3) \\geq\ng(Q({v}_1,{v}_2),Q({v}_2,{v}_3))\\,.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nImportant special cases are weak stochastic transitivity when $g(a,b) =\n1/2$, moderate stochastic transitivity when $g(a,b) =\n\\min(a,b)$ and strong stochastic transitivity when $g(a,b) =\n\\max(a,b)$. Alternative (and more general) frameworks are FG-transitivity [@Switalski2003] and cycle transitivity [@DeBaets2005; @DeBaets2006]. For graded symmetric relations, the notion of $T$-transitivity has been put forward [@DeBaets2002; @Moser2006].\n\nA symmetric relation $Q: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$ is called $T$-transitive with $T$ a t-norm if for any $({v}_1,{v}_2,{v}_3) \\in {\\mathcal{V}}^3$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nT(Q({v}_1,{v}_2),Q({v}_2,{v}_3)) \\leq\nQ({v}_1,{v}_3)\\,.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThree important t-norms are the minimum t-norm $T_{\\bf M}(a,b) = \\min(a,b)$, the product t-norm $T_{\\bf P}(a,b) = ab$ and the \u0141ukasiewicz t-norm $T_{\\bf\nL}(a,b) = \\max(a+b-1,0)$.\n\nIn addition, several authors have shown that various forms of transitivity give rise to utility representable or numerically representable relations, also called fuzzy weak orders \u2013 see e.g.\u00a0[@Luce1965; @Billot1995; @Koppen1995; @Fono2007; @Bodenhofer2007]. We will use the term ranking representability to establish a link with machine learning. We give a slightly specific definition that unifies reciprocal and symmetric relations.\n\nA reciprocal or symmetric relation ${Q}: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$ is called ranking representable if there exists a ranking function ${f}: {\\mathcal{V}}\\rightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}$ such that for all $({v},{v}')\n\\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2$ it respectively holds that\n\n${Q}({v},{v}') = \\nabla ({f}({v}) - {f}({v}')) \\,$ (reciprocal case) ;\n\n${Q}({v},{v}') = \\nabla ({f}({v}) + {f}({v}')) \\,$ (symmetric case) .\n\nThe main idea is that ranking representable relations can be constructed from a utility function $f$. Ranking representable reciprocal relations correspond to directed acyclic graphs, and a unique ranking of the nodes in such graphs can be obtained with topological sorting algorithms. The ranking representable reciprocal relations of Figures\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\] (a) and (e) for example yield the global ranking $A \\succ B \\succ C$. Interestingly, ranking representability of reciprocal relations and symmetric relations can be easily achieved in our framework by simplifying the joint feature mapping $\\Psi$. Let $\\Psi({v},{v}') = \\phi({v})$ such that $K^{\\Phi}$ simplifies to $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\arraycolsep=2pt\nK_{{f}R}^{\\Phi}({e},{\\overline{{e}}})&=&K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}) + K^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}}')  -K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}') -\nK^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}}) \\,, \\\\\nK_{{f}S}^{\\Phi}({e},{\\overline{{e}}})&=&K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}) + K^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}}') +K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}') +\nK^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}}) \\,,\\end{aligned}$$ when $\\Phi({v},{v}') = \\Phi_R({v},{v}')$ or $\\Phi({v},{v}') = \\Phi_S({v},{v}')$, respectively, then the following proposition holds.\n\nThe relation $Q: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$ given by (\\[eq:monmap\\]) and $h$ defined by (\\[eq:primalmodel\\]) with $K^{\\Phi} = K_{{f}R}^{\\Phi}$ (respectively $K^{\\Phi} = K_{{f}S}^{\\Phi}$) is a ranking representable reciprocal (respectively symmetric) relation.\n\nThe proof directly follows from the fact that for this specific kernel, ${h}({v},{v}')$ can be respectively written as ${f}({v}) - {f}({v}')$ and ${f}({v}) + {f}({v}')$. The kernel $K_{{f}R}^{\\Phi}$ has been initially introduced in [@Herbrich2000] for ordinal regression and during the last decade it has been extensively used as a main building block in many kernel-based ranking algorithms. Since ranking representability of reciprocal relations implies strong stochastic transitivity of reciprocal relations, $K_{{f}R}^{\\Phi}$ can represent this type of domain knowledge.\n\nThe notion of ranking representability is powerful for reciprocal relations, because the majority of reciprocal relations satisfy this property, but for symmetric relations it has a rather limited applicability. Ranking representability as defined above cannot represent relations that originate from an underlying metric or similarity measure. For such relations, one needs another connection with its roots in Euclidean metric spaces [@Gower1986].\n\nA symmetric relation ${Q}: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$ is called Euclidean representable if there exists a ranking function $f: {\\mathcal{V}}\\rightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}$ such that for all pairs $({v},{v}')\n\\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2$ it holds that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:rrsym}\n{Q}({v},{v}') = \\nabla (({f}({v}) - {f}({v}'))^T({f}({v}) - {f}({v}'))) \\,,\\end{aligned}$$ with $\\vec{a}^T$ the transpose of a vector $\\vec{a}$.\n\nEuclidean representability as defined here basically can be seen as Euclidean embedding or Multidimensional Scaling in a $z$-dimensional space [@Zhang2003]. In its most restrictive form, when $z=1$, it implies that the symmetric relation can be constructed from the Euclidean distance in a one-dimensional space. When such a one-dimensional embedding can be realized, one global ranking of the objects can be found, similar to reciprocal relations. Nevertheless, although models of type (\\[eq:rrsym\\]) with $z=1$ are sometimes used in graph inference [@Vert2005] and semi-supervised learning [@Belkin2006], we believe that situations where symmetric relations become Euclidean representable in a one-dimensional space occur very rarely, in contrast to reciprocal relations. The extension to $z > 1$ on the other hand does not guarantee the existence of one global ranking, then Euclidean representability still enforces some interesting properties, because it guarantees that the relation $Q$ is constructed from a Euclidean metric space with a dimension upper bounded by the number of nodes ${p}$. Moreover, this type of domain knowledge about relations can be incorporated in our framework. To this end, let $\\Phi({v},{v}') = \\Phi_S({v},{v}')$ and let $\\Psi({v},{v}') = \\phi({v}) \\otimes (\\phi({v}) - \\phi({v}'))$ such that $K^{\\Phi}$ becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\arraycolsep=2pt\nK_{\\rm MLPK}^{\\Phi}({e},{\\overline{{e}}}) &=& (K_{fR}^{\\Phi}({e},{\\overline{{e}}}))^2 \\\\\n&=& \\big(K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}) + K^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}}') -K^{\\phi}({v},{\\overline{{v}}}') -\nK^{\\phi}({v}',{\\overline{{v}}})\\big)^2 \\,.\\end{aligned}$$ This kernel has been called the metric learning pairwise kernel by [@Vert2007]. As a consequence, the vector of parameters ${{\\mathbf{w}}}$ can be rewritten as an ${r}\\times {r}$ matrix ${\\mathbf{W}}$ where ${\\mathbf{W}}_{ij}$ corresponds to the parameter associated with $(\\phi_i({v}) - \\phi_i({v}'))(\\phi_j({v}) - \\phi_j({v}'))$ such that ${\\mathbf{W}}_{ij} = {\\mathbf{W}}_{ji}$.\n\n\\[thm:mlpk\\] If ${\\mathbf{W}}$ is positive semi-definite, then the symmetric relation $Q: {\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\rightarrow [0,1]$ given by (\\[eq:monmap\\]) with $h$ defined by (\\[eq:primalmodel\\]) and $K^{\\Phi} = K_{\\rm MLPK}^{\\Phi}$ is an Euclidean representable symmetric relation.\n\nSee the appendix for the proof. Although the model established by $K_{\\rm MLPK}^{\\Phi}$ does not result in a global ranking, this model strongly differs from the one established with $K_{\\otimes S}^{\\Phi}$, since $K_{\\rm MLPK}^{\\Phi}$ can only represent symmetric relations that exhibit transitivity properties. Therefore, one should definitely use $K_{\\rm MLPK}^{\\Phi}$ when, for example, the underlying relation corresponds to a metric or a similarity relation, while the kernel $K_{\\otimes S}^{\\Phi}$ should be preferably used for symmetric relations for which no further domain knowledge can be assumed beforehand.\n\nRelationships with other machine learning algorithms\n====================================================\n\nAs explained in Section\u00a02, the transition from a standard classification or regression setting to the setting of learning graded relations should be rather found in the specification of joint feature mappings over couples of objects, thereby naturally leading to the introduction of specific kernels. Any existing machine learning algorithm for classification or regression can in principle be adopted if joint feature mappings are constructed explicitly. Since kernel methods avoid this explicit construction, they can often outperform non-kernelized algorithms in terms of computational efficiency [@Scholkopf2002]. As a second main advantage, kernel methods allow to express similarity scores for structured objects, such as strings, graphs and trees and text [@Shawetaylor2004]. In our setting of learning graded relations, this implies that one should plug these domain-specific kernel functions into (\\[eq:tppk\\]) or the other pairwise kernels that are discussed in this paper. Such a scenario is in fact common practice in some applications of Kronecker product pairwise kernels, such as predicting protein-ligand compatibility in bioinformatics [@Jacob2008]. String kernels or graph kernels can be defined on various types of biological structures [@Vishwanathan2010] and Kronecker product pairwise kernels then combine these object-based kernels into relation-based kernels (thus, node kernels versus edge kernels).\n\nThe edge kernels we discussed in this article can be utilized within a wide variety of kernel methods. Since we focus on learning graded relations, one naturally arrives at a regression setting. In the following section, we run some experiments with regularized least-squares methods, which optimize (\\[regrloss\\]) using a hypothesis space induced by kernels. The solution is found by simply solving a system of linear equations [@Saunders1998; @Suykens2002; @Shawetaylor2004; @pahikkala2009preferences].\n\nApart from kernel methods, we briefly mention a number of other algorithms that are somewhat connected, even though they provide solutions for different learning problems. If pairwise relations are considered between objects of two different domains, one arrives at a learning setting that is referred to as predicting labels for dyadic data [@Menon2010]. Examples of such settings include link prediction in bipartite graphs and movie recommendation for users. As such, one could also argue that specific link prediction and matrix factorization methods could be applied in our setting as well, see e.g.\u00a0[@Srebro2005; @Miller2009; @Lawrence2009]. However, these methods have been primarily designed for exploiting relationships in the output space, whereas feature representations of the objects are often not observed or simply irrelevant. Moreover, similar to the Cartesian pairwise kernel, these methods cannot be applied in situations where predictions need to be made for two new nodes that were not present in the training dataset.\n\nAnother connection can be observed with multivariate regression and structured output prediction methods. Such methods have been occasionally applied in settings where relations had to be learned [@Geurts2007]. Also recall that structured output prediction methods use Kronecker product pairwise kernels on a regular basis to define joint feature representations of inputs and outputs [@Tsochantaridis2005; @Weston2007].\n\nIn addition to predictive models for dyadic data, one can also detect connections with certain information retrieval and pattern matching methods. However, these methods predominantly use similarity as underlying relation, often in a purely intuitive manner, as a nearest neighbor type of learning, so they can be considered as much more restrictive. Consider the example of protein ranking [@Weston2004] or algorithms like *query by document* [@Yang2009]. These methods simply look for rankings where the most similar objects w.r.t.\u00a0the query object appear on top, contrary to our approach, which should be considered as much more general, since we learn rankings from any type of binary relation. Nonetheless, similarity relations will of course still occupy a prominent place in our framework as an important special case.\n\nExperiments\n===========\n\nIn the experiments, we test the ability of the pairwise kernels to model different types of relations, and the effect of enforcing prior knowledge about the properties of the learned relations. To this end, we train the regularized least-squares (RLS) algorithm to regress the relation values [@pahikkala2009preferences]. We perform experiments on both symmetric and reciprocal relations, considering both synthetic and real-world data. In addition to the standard, symmetric and reciprocal Kronecker product pairwise kernels, we also consider the Cartesian kernel, the symmetric Cartesian kernel and the metric learning pairwise kernel.\n\n  Abbreviation             Method\n  ------------------------ ----------------------------------------------\n  MPRED                    Predicting the mean\n  $K_{\\otimes}^{\\Phi}$     Kronecker Product Pairwise Kernel\n  $K_{\\otimes S}^{\\Phi}$   Symmetric Kronecker Product Pairwise Kernel\n  $K_{\\otimes R}^{\\Phi}$   Reciprocal Kronecker Product Pairwise Kernel\n  $K_{\\rm MLPK}^{\\Phi}$    Metric Learning Pairwise Kernel\n  $K_{C}^{\\Phi}$           Cartesian Product Pairwise Kernel\n  $K_{C S}^{\\Phi}$         Symmetric Cartesian Pairwise Kernel\n\n  : Methods considered in the experiments[]{data-label=\"abbreviations\"}\n\nSynthetic data: learning similarity measures\n--------------------------------------------\n\nExperiments on synthetic data were conducted to illustrate the behavior of the different kernels in terms of the transitivity of the relation to be learned. A parametric family of cardinality-based similarity measures for sets was considered as the relation of interest [@DeBaets2001]. For two sets $A$ and $B$, let us define the following cardinalities: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\arraycolsep=2pt\n\\Delta_{A,B} &=& |A \\setminus B| + |B \\setminus A| \\,, \\\\\n\\delta_{A,B} &=& |A \\cap B| \\,, \\\\\n\\nu_{A,B} &=& |(A \\cup B)^c| \\,,\\end{aligned}$$ then this family of similarity measures for sets can be expressed as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:simfamily}\nS(A,B) = \\frac{t \\Delta_{A,B} + u \\delta_{A,B} + v \\nu_{A,B}}{t' \\Delta_{A,B} + u \\delta_{A,B} + v \\nu_{A,B}} \\,,\\end{aligned}$$ with $t$, $t'$, $u$ and $v$ four parameters. This family of similarity measures includes many well-known similarity measures for sets, such as the Jaccard coefficient [@Jaccard1908], the simple matching coefficient [@Sokal1958] and the Dice coefficient [@Dice1945].\n\nThree members of this family are investigated in our experiments. The first one is the Jaccard coefficient, corresponding to $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,1,0)$. The Jaccard coefficient is known to be $T_{\\bf L}$-transitive. The second member that we investigate was originally proposed by [@Sokal1963]. It corresponds to $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,2,2)$ and it does not satisfy $T_{\\bf L}$-transitivity, which is considered as a very weak transitivity condition. Conversely, the third member that we analyse has rather strong transitivity properties. It is given by $(t,t',u,v) = (1,2,1,1)$ and it satisfies $T_{\\bf P}$-transitivity.\n\nFeatures and labels for all three members are generated as follows. First we generate 20-dimensional feature vectors consisting of statistically independent features that follow a Bernoulli distribution with $\\pi=0.5$. Subsequently, the above-mentioned similarity measures are computed for each pair of features, resulting in a deterministic mapping between features and labels. Finally, to introduce some noise in the problem setting, 10% of the features are swapped in a last step from a zero to a one or vice versa. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:heatmaps\\] illustrates the distribution of the obtained similarity scores for a 100 $\\times$ 100 matrix.\n\n![The distribution of similarity scores obtained on a 100 by 100 matrix for all three members of the family. From top to bottom: $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,2,2)$, $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,1,0)$ and $(t,t',u,v) = (1,2,1,1)$.[]{data-label=\"fig:heatmaps\"}](simsInt.pdf \"fig:\")\\\n![The distribution of similarity scores obtained on a 100 by 100 matrix for all three members of the family. From top to bottom: $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,2,2)$, $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,1,0)$ and $(t,t',u,v) = (1,2,1,1)$.[]{data-label=\"fig:heatmaps\"}](simsTL.pdf \"fig:\")\\\n![The distribution of similarity scores obtained on a 100 by 100 matrix for all three members of the family. From top to bottom: $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,2,2)$, $(t,t',u,v) = (0,1,1,0)$ and $(t,t',u,v) = (1,2,1,1)$.[]{data-label=\"fig:heatmaps\"}](simsTP.pdf \"fig:\")\n\nIn the experiments, we always generate three data sets, a training set for building the model, a validation set for hyperparameter selection, and a test set for performance evaluation. We perform two kinds of experiments. In the first experiment, we have a single set of $100$ nodes. $500$ node pairs are randomly sampled without replacement to the training, validation and test sets. Thus, the learning problem here is, given a subset of the relation values for a fixed set of nodes, to learn to predict missing relation values. This setup allows us to test also the Cartesian kernel, which is unable to generalize to completely new pairs of nodes. In the second experiment, we generate three separate sets of $100$ nodes for the training, validation and test sets, and sample from each of these $500$ edges. This experiment allows us to test the generalization capability of the learned models with respect to new couples of nodes (i.e., previously unseen nodes). Here, the Cartesian kernel is not applicable, and thus not included in the experiment. The experiments are repeated 100 times, the presented results are means over the repetitions. For statistical significance testing, we use the paired Wilcoxon-signed-rank test with significance level $0.05$. All pairs of kernels are compared, and the conservative Bonferroni correction is applied to take into account multiple hypothesis testing, meaning that the required p-value is divided by the number of comparisons. The Gaussian RBF kernel was considered at the node level. The used performance measure is the mean squared error (MSE). For training RLS we solve the corresponding system of linear equations using matrix factorization, by considering an explicit regularization parameter. A grid search is conducted to select the width of the Gaussian RBF kernel and the regularization parameter of the RLS algorithm. Both parameters are selected from the range $2^{-20}, \\ldots, 2^1$.\n\n  Setting                    $(t,t',u,v)$   MPRED    $K_{\\otimes}^{\\Phi}$   $K_{\\otimes S}^{\\Phi}$   $K_{\\rm MLPK}^{\\Phi}$   $K_{C}^{\\Phi}$   $K_{C S}^{\\Phi}$  \n  ------------------------ -------------- --------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- ---------------- ------------------ --\n  Intransitive                  (0,1,2,2)  0.01038         0.00908                 0.00773                  0.00768             0.00989           0.00924       \n  $T_{\\bf L}$-transitive        (0,1,1,0)  0.01514         0.00962                 0.00781                  0.00805             0.01155           0.00941       \n  $T_{\\bf P}$-transitive        (1,2,1,1)  0.00259         0.00227                 0.00192                  0.00188             0.00248           0.00231       \n\n  : The predictive performance on test data for the different types of relations and kernels. In this experiment, the task is to predict relation values for unknown edges in a partially observed relational graph. The performance measure is the mean squared error.[]{data-label=\"table:artificial1\"}\n\n  Setting                    $(t,t',u,v)$   MPRED    $K_{\\otimes}^{\\Phi}$   $K_{\\otimes S}^{\\Phi}$   $K_{\\rm MLPK}^{\\Phi}$  \n  ------------------------ -------------- --------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --\n  Intransitive                  (0,1,2,2)  0.01032         0.00995                 0.00936                  0.00971         \n  $T_{\\bf L}$-transitive        (0,1,1,0)  0.01515         0.01236                 0.01166                  0.01453         \n  $T_{\\bf P}$-transitive        (1,2,1,1)  0.00259         0.00251                 0.00236                  0.00242         \n\n  : The predictive performance on test data for the different types of relations and kernels. In this experiment, the task is to predict relation values for a completely new set of nodes. The performance measure is the mean squared error.[]{data-label=\"table:artificial2\"}\n\nThe results for the experiments are presented in Tables\u00a0\\[table:artificial1\\] and\u00a0\\[table:artificial2\\]. In both cases all the kernels outperform the mean as prediction, meaning that they are able to model the underlying relations. For all the learning methods, the error is lower in the first experiment than in the second one, demonstrating that it is easier to predict relations between known nodes, than to generalize to a new set of nodes. Enforcing symmetry is clearly beneficial, as the symmetric Kronecker product pairwise kernel always outperforms the standard Kronecker product pairwise kernel, and the symmetric Cartesian kernel always outperforms the standard one. Comparing the Kronecker and Cartesian kernels, the Kronecker one leads to clearly lower error rates. With the exception of the $T_{\\bf L}$-transitive case in the second experiment, MLPK turns out to be highly successful in modeling the relations, probably due to enforcing symmetry of the learned relation. In the first experiment, all the differences are statistically significant, apart from the difference between the symmetric Kronecker product pairwise kernel and MLPK for the intransitive case. In the second experiment, all the differences are statistically significant. We can conclude that including prior knowledge about symmetry really helps boosting the predictive performance in this problem.\n\nLearning the similarity between documents\n-----------------------------------------\n\nIn the second experiment, we compare the ordinary and symmetric Kronecker pairwise kernels on a real-world data set based on newsgroups documents[^2]. The data is sampled from 4 newsgroups: rec.autos, rec.sport.baseball, comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware and comp.windows.x. The aim is to learn to predict the similarity of two documents as measured by the number of common words they share. The node features correspond to the number of occurrences of a word in a document. Unlike the previous experiment, the feature representation is very high-dimensional and sparse, as there are more than $50000$ possible features, the majority of which are zero for any given document. First, we sample separate training, validation and test sets each consisting of $1000$ nodes. Second, we sample edges connecting the nodes in the training and validation set using exponentially growing sample sizes to measure the effect of sample size on the differences between the kernels. The sample size grid is $[ 100, 200, 400, \\ldots ,102400 ]$. Again, we sample only edges with different starting and end nodes. When computing the test performance, we consider all the edges in the test set, except those starting and ending at the same node. The linear kernel is used at the node level. We train the RLS algorithm using conjugate gradient optimization with early stopping [@Pahikkala2010conditional], optimization is terminated once the MSE on the validation set has failed to decrease for 10 consecutive iterations. Since we rely on the regularizing effect of early stopping, a separate regularization parameter is not needed in this experiment. We do not include other types of kernels than the Kronecker product pairwise kernels in the experiment. To the best of our knowledge, no algorithms that scale to the considered experiment size exist for the other kernel functions. Hence, this experiment mainly aims to illustrate the computational advantages of the Kronecker product pairwise kernel. The mean as prediction achieves an MSE around $145$ on this dataset.\n\nThe results are presented in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:newsgroups\\]. Even for $100$ pairs the errors are for both kernels much lower than the results for the mean as prediction, showing that the RLS algorithm succeeds with both kernels in learning the underlying relation. Increasing the training set size leads to a decrease in test error. Using the prior knowledge about the symmetry of the learned relation is clearly helpful. The symmetric kernel achieves for all sample sizes a lower error than the ordinary Kronecker product pairwise kernel and the largest differences are observed for the smallest sample sizes. For $100$ training instances, the error is almost halved by enforcing symmetry.\n\n![The comparison of the ordinary Kronecker product pairwise kernel $K_{\\otimes}^{\\Phi}$ and the symmetric Kronecker product pairwise kernel $K_{\\otimes S}^{\\Phi}$ on the Newsgroups dataset. The mean squared error is shown as a function of the training set size.[]{data-label=\"fig:newsgroups\"}](ngroups.pdf \"fig:\"){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\\\n\nCompetition between species\n---------------------------\n\nIn this final experiment we evaluate the performance of the ordinary and reciprocal Kronecker pairwise kernels and the metric learning pairwise kernel on simulated data from an ecological model. The setup is based on the one described in [@allesina2011competitive]. This model provides an elegant explanation for the coexistence of multiple species in the same habitat, a problem that has puzzled ecologists for decades [@hutchinson1961paradox].\n\nImagine $n$ species sharing a habitat and struggling for their share of the resources. One species can dominate another species based on $k$ so-called limiting factors. A limiting factor defines an attribute that can give a fitness advantage, for example in plants, such as the ability to photosynthesize, the ability to draw minerals from the soil, resistance to diseases, etc. Each species can score better or worse on each of its $k$ limiting factors. The degree to which one species can dominate a competitor is relative to the number of limiting factors for which it is superior. All possible interactions can thus be represented in a tournament. In this framework relations are reciprocal and often intransitive.\n\nFor this simulation 400 species were simulated with 10 limiting factors. The value of each limiting factor is for each species drawn from a random uniform distribution between 0 and 1. Thus, any species $v$ can be represented by a vector $\\mathbf{f}$ of length $k$ with the limiting factors as elements. The probability that a species $v$ dominates species $v'$ can easily be calculated: $$Q(v,v')=\\frac{1}{k}\\sum_{i=1}^{k} H(f_i-f_i'), \\label{lf}$$ where $H(x)$ is the Heaviside step function.\n\nOf the 400 species, 200, 100 and 100 were used for generating training, validation and testing data. For each subset, the complete tournament matrix was determined using (\\[lf\\]). From those matrices 1200 interactions were sampled for training, 600 for model validation and 600 for testing. No combination of species was used more than once. Using the limiting factors as features, we try to regress the probability that one species dominates another one using the ordinary and reciprocal Kronecker product pairwise kernels and the metric learning pairwise kernel. Again, the Gaussian kernel is applied as the node kernel. The validation set is used to determine the optimal regularization parameter and kernel width parameter from the grids $ 2^{-20}$, $2^{-19}$ $\\ldots$, $2^4$ and $2^{-10}$, $2^{-9}$ $\\ldots$, $2^1$. To obtain statistically significant results the setup is repeated 100 times.\\\n\n  Kernel     MPRED    $K_{\\otimes}^{\\Phi}$   $K_{\\otimes R}^{\\Phi}$   $K_{\\rm MLPK}^{\\Phi}$  \n  -------- --------- ---------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- --\n  MSE       0.02795         0.01082                 0.01067                  0.02877         \n\n  : The predictive performance on test data for the different types of kernels. The performance measure is the mean squared error.[]{data-label=\"ecores\"}\n\nThe results are shown in Table\u00a0\\[ecores\\]. The Wilcoxon-signed-rank test with significance level 0.05 is used for significance testing, and a conservative Bonferroni correction is applied for multiple hypothesis testing. All differences are statistically significant.\n\nThe metric learning pairwise kernel gives rise to worse predictions than the mean as prediction. This is not surprising, as the MLPK cannot learn reciprocal relations. The ordinary Kronecker product pairwise kernel performs good and the reciprocal Kronecker product pairwise kernel performs even better. All the differences are statistically significant. The results show that using the information on the types of relations to be learned can boost the accuracy of the predictions.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nA general kernel-based framework for learning various types of graded relations was presented in this article. This framework extends existing approaches for learning relations, because it can handle crisp and graded relations. A Kronecker product feature mapping was proposed for combining the features of pairs of objects that constitute a relation (edge level in a graph), and it was shown that this mapping leads to a class of universal approximators, if an appropriate kernel is chosen on the object level (node level in a graph).\n\nIn addition, we clarified that domain knowledge about the relation to be learned can be easily incorporated in our framework, such as reciprocity and symmetry properties. Experimental results on synthetic and real-world data clearly demonstrate that this domain knowledge really helps in improving the generalization performance. Moreover, important links with recent developments in fuzzy set theory and decision theory can be established, by looking at transitivity properties of relations.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nW.W. is supported as a postdoc by the Research Foundation of Flanders (FWO Vlaanderen) and T.P. by the Academy of Finland (grant 134020).\n\nAppendix {#appendix .unnumbered}\n========\n\nFormal definitions\n------------------\n\nThe Kronecker product of two matrices ${{\\mathbf{M}}}$ and ${{\\mathbf{N}}}$ is defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\n{{\\mathbf{M}}}\\otimes{{\\mathbf{N}}}=\\left(\n\\begin{array}{ccc}\n{{{\\mathbf{M}}}}_{1,1}{{\\mathbf{N}}}&\\cdots&{{\\mathbf{M}}}_{1,n}{{\\mathbf{N}}}\\\\\n\\vdots&\\ddots&\\vdots\\\\\n{{{\\mathbf{M}}}}_{m,1}{{\\mathbf{N}}}&\\cdots&{{\\mathbf{M}}}_{m,n}{{\\mathbf{N}}}\\end{array}\n\\right),\\end{aligned}$$\n\nA continuous kernel ${K}$ on a compact metric space $\\mathcal{V}$ (i.e. $\\mathcal{V}$ is closed and bounded) is called universal if the RKHS induced by ${K}$ is dense in $C(\\mathcal{V})$, where $C(\\mathcal{V})$ is the space of all continuous functions $f : \\mathcal{V} \\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}$. That is, for every function $f\\in C(\\mathcal{V})$ and every $\\epsilon > 0$, there exists a set of input points $\\{{v}_i \\}_{i=1}^m \\in \\mathcal{V}$ and real numbers $\\{\\alpha_i\\}_{i=1}^m$, with $m\\in \\mathbb{N}$, such that $$\\max_{x\\in \\mathcal{V}}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert f({v})-\\sum_{i=1}^m\\alpha_i{K}({v}_i,{v})\\right\\arrowvert\\right\\}\\leq\\epsilon.$$ Accordingly, the hypothesis space induced by the kernel ${K}$ can approximate any function in $C(\\mathcal{V})$ arbitrarily well, and hence it has the universal approximating property.\n\nThe following result is in the literature known as the Stone-Weierstra[\u00df]{} theorem (see e.g [@rudin1991functional]):\n\n\\[stoneweierstrass\\] Let $\\mathcal{V}$ be a compact metric space and let $C(\\mathcal{V})$ be the set of real-valued continuous functions on $\\mathcal{V}$. If $\\mathcal{A}\\subset C(\\mathcal{V})$ is a subalgebra of $C(\\mathcal{V})$, that is, $$\\begin{array}{l}\n\\forall {f({v}),g({v})\\in\\mathcal{A}}, {r\\in\\mathbb{R}}:\n{f({v})+rg({v})\\in\\mathcal{A}, f({v})g({v})\\in\\mathcal{A}}\n\\end{array}$$ and $\\mathcal{A}$ separates points in $\\mathcal{V}$, that is, $$\\forall {v},{v}'\\in\\mathcal{V},{v}\\neq {v}':\\exists g\\in\\mathcal{A}:g({v})\\neq g({v}'),$$ and $\\mathcal{A}$ does not vanish at any point in $\\mathcal{V}$, that is, $$\\forall {v}\\in\\mathcal{V}:\\exists g\\in\\mathcal{A}:g({v})\\neq 0,$$ then $\\mathcal{A}$ is dense in $C(\\mathcal{V})$.\n\nProofs\n------\n\n([**Theorem\u00a0\\[unikrontheorem\\]**]{}) Let us define $$\\label{funckron}\n\\begin{array}{l}\n\\mathcal{A}\\otimes\\mathcal{A}\n=\\left\\{t\\mid t({v},{v}')=g({v})u({v}'),g,u\\in \\mathcal{A}\\right\\}\n\\end{array}$$ for a compact metric space $\\mathcal{V}$ and a set of functions $\\mathcal{A}\\subset C(\\mathcal{V})$. We observe that the RKHS of the kernel ${K}_{\\otimes}^\\Phi$ can be written as $\\mathcal{H}\\otimes\\mathcal{H}$, where $\\mathcal{H}$ is the RKHS of the kernel ${K}^\\phi$.\n\nLet $\\epsilon>0$ and let $t\\in C({\\mathcal{V}})\\otimes C({\\mathcal{V}})$ be an arbitrary function which can, according to (\\[funckron\\]), be written as $t({v},{v}')=g({v})u({v}')$, where $g,u\\in C({\\mathcal{V}})$. By definition of the universality property, $\\mathcal{H}$ is dense in $C({\\mathcal{V}})$. Therefore, $\\mathcal{H}$ contains functions $\\overline{g},\\overline{u}$ such that $$\\max_{{v}\\in{\\mathcal{V}}}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert \\overline{g}({v})-g({v})\\right\\arrowvert\\right\\}\\leq \\overline{\\epsilon},\\ \\max_{{v}\\in{\\mathcal{V}}}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert \\overline{u}({v})-u({v})\\right\\arrowvert\\right\\}\\leq \\overline{\\epsilon} \\,,$$ where $\\overline{\\epsilon}$ is a constant for which it holds that $$\\max_{{v},{v}'\\in{\\mathcal{V}}}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert \\overline{\\epsilon} \\, \\overline{g}({v})\\right\\arrowvert+\\left\\arrowvert\\overline{\\epsilon} \\,\\overline{u}({v}')\\right\\arrowvert+\\overline{\\epsilon}^2\\right\\}\\leq \\epsilon \\,.$$ Note that, according to the extreme value theorem, the maximum exists due to the compactness of ${\\mathcal{V}}$ and the continuity of the functions $g$ and $u$. Now we have $$\\begin{array}{l}\n\\displaystyle\n\\max_{{v},{v}'\\in{\\mathcal{V}}}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-\\overline{g}({v})\\overline{u}({v}')\\right\\arrowvert\\right\\}\\\\\n\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\max_{{v},{v}'\\in{\\mathcal{V}}}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-g({v})u({v}')\\right\\arrowvert+\\left\\arrowvert \\overline{\\epsilon} \\,\\overline{g}({v})\\right\\arrowvert+\\left\\arrowvert\\overline{\\epsilon}\\,\\overline{u}({v}')\\right\\arrowvert+\\overline{\\epsilon}^2\\right\\}\\\\\n\\displaystyle\n=\\max_{{v},{v}'\\in{\\mathcal{V}}}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert \\overline{\\epsilon} \\,\\overline{g}({v})\\right\\arrowvert+\\left\\arrowvert\\overline{\\epsilon} \\,\\overline{u}({v}')\\right\\arrowvert+\\overline{\\epsilon}^2\\right\\}\\\\\n\\displaystyle\\leq \\epsilon,\n\\end{array}$$ which confirms the density of $\\mathcal{H}\\otimes\\mathcal{H}$ in $C({\\mathcal{V}})\\otimes C({\\mathcal{V}})$.\n\nAccording to Tychonoff\u2019s theorem, ${\\mathcal{V}}^2$ is compact if ${\\mathcal{V}}$ is compact. It is straightforward to see that $C({\\mathcal{V}})\\otimes C({\\mathcal{V}})$ is a subalgebra of $C({\\mathcal{V}}^2)$, it separates points in ${\\mathcal{V}}^2$, it vanishes at no point of $C({\\mathcal{V}}^2)$, and it is therefore dense in $C({\\mathcal{V}}^2)$ due to Theorem\u00a0\\[stoneweierstrass\\]. Consequently, $\\mathcal{H}\\otimes\\mathcal{H}$ is also dense in $C({\\mathcal{V}}^2)$, and ${K}_{\\otimes}^\\Phi$ is a universal kernel on ${\\mathcal{E}}$.\n\n([**Theorem\u00a0\\[antisymmetrictheorem\\]**]{}) Let $\\epsilon>0$ and $t\\in R({\\mathcal{V}}^2)$ be an arbitrary function. According to Theorem\u00a0\\[unikrontheorem\\], the RKHS of the kernel ${K}_{\\otimes}^\\Phi$ defined in (\\[eq:tppk\\]) is dense in $C({\\mathcal{V}}^2)$. Therefore, we can select a set of edges and real numbers $\\{\\alpha_i\\}_{i=1}^m$, such that the function $$u({v},{v}')=\\sum_{i=1}^m\\alpha_i{K}^{\\phi}({v},{v}_i) {K}^{\\phi}({v}',{v}_i')$$ belonging to the RKHS of the kernel (\\[eq:tppk\\]) fulfills $$\\label{tempapproxone}\n\\max_{({v},{v}')\\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert t({v},{v}')-4u({v},{v}')\\right\\arrowvert\\right\\}\\leq\\frac{1}{2}\\epsilon \\,.$$ We observe that, because $t({v},{v}')=-t({v}',{v})$, the function $u$ also fulfills $$\\max_{({v},{v}')\\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert t({v},{v}')+4u({v}',{v})\\right\\arrowvert\\right\\}\\leq\\frac{1}{2}\\epsilon$$ and hence $$\\label{tempapproxthree}\n\\max_{({v},{v}')\\in {\\mathcal{V}}^2}\\left\\{\\left\\arrowvert 4u({v},{v}')+4u({v}',{v})\\right\\arrowvert\\right\\}\\leq\\epsilon \\,.$$ Let $$\\gamma({v},{v}')=2u({v},{v}')+2u({v}',{v}) \\,.$$ Due to (\\[tempapproxthree\\]), we have $$\\label{gammaineq}\n\\arrowvert\\gamma({v},{v}')\\arrowvert\\leq\\frac{1}{2}\\epsilon,\\phantom{\\qed}\\forall({v},{v}')\\in{\\mathcal{V}}^2 \\,.$$ Now, let us consider the function ${h}({v},{v}')=$ $$\\sum_{i=1}^m\\alpha_i 2\\left({K}^{\\phi}({v},{v}_i) {K}^{\\phi}({v}',{v}_i')-{K}^{\\phi}({v}',{v}_i) {K}^{\\phi}({v},{v}_i')\\right) \\,,$$ which is obtained from $u$ by replacing kernel (\\[eq:tppk\\]) with kernel (\\[eq:recedgekernel\\]). We observe that [ $$\\begin{aligned}\n{h}({v},{v}')&=&2u({v},{v}')-2u({v}',{v})\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&4u({v},{v}')-\\gamma({v},{v}')\\label{fgammaeq}.\\end{aligned}$$ ]{} By combining (\\[tempapproxone\\]), (\\[gammaineq\\]) and (\\[fgammaeq\\]), we observe that the function ${h}$ fulfills (\\[recclaim\\]).\n\n([**Proposition\u00a0\\[thm:mlpk\\]**]{}) The model that we consider can be written as: $$Q({v},{v}') = \\nabla \\big((\\phi({v}) - \\phi({v}'))^T {\\mathbf{W}} (\\phi({v}) - \\phi({v}')) \\big) \\,.$$ The connection with (\\[eq:rrsym\\]) then immediately follows by decomposing ${\\mathbf{W}}$ as ${\\mathbf{W}} = {\\mathbf{U}}^T {\\mathbf{U}}$ with ${\\mathbf{U}}$ an arbitrary matrix. The specific case of $z=1$ is obtained when ${\\mathbf{U}}$ can be written as a single-row matrix.\n\n[^1]: Often the term fuzzy relation is used in the fuzzy set literature to refer to graded relations. However, fuzzy relations should be seen as a subclass of graded relations. For example, reciprocal relations should not be considered as fuzzy relations, because they often exhibit a probabilistic semantics rather than a fuzzy semantics.\n\n[^2]: Available at: <http://people.csail.mit.edu/jrennie/20Newsgroups/>\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We propose Hybridizable Discontinuous Galerkin (HDG) methods for solving the frequency-domain Maxwell\u2019s equations coupled to the Nonlocal Hydrodynamic Drude (NHD) and Generalized Nonlocal Optical Response (GNOR) models, which are employed to describe the optical properties of nano-plasmonic scatterers and waveguides. Brief derivations for both the NHD model and the GNOR model are presented. The formulations of the HDG method are given, in which we introduce two hybrid variables living only on the skeleton of the mesh. The local field solutions are expressed in terms of the hybrid variables in each element. Two conservativity conditions are globally enforced to make the problem solvable and to guarantee the continuity of the tangential component of the electric field and the normal component of the current density. Numerical results show that the proposed HDG methods converge at optimal rate. We benchmark our implementation and demonstrate that the HDG method has the potential to solve complex nanophotonic problems.'\naddress:\n- 'School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, 611731, Chengdu, P.R. China'\n- 'INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France'\n- 'Department of Photonics Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, [\u00d8]{}rsteds Plads 343, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.'\n- 'Center for Nanostructured Graphene, Technical University of Denmark, [\u00d8]{}rsteds Plads 343, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark'\nauthor:\n- Liang Li\n- St\u00e9phane Lanteri\n- 'N. Asger Mortensen'\n- Martijn Wubs\ntitle: A hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method for solving nonlocal optical response models\n---\n\nMaxwell\u2019s equations; nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model; general nonlocal optical response theory; hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nNanophotonics is the active research field field concerned with the study of interactions between nanometer scale structures/media and light, including near-infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light. It bridges the micro and the macro worlds, and there are many connections between theoretical studies and feasible engineering. The many fascinating (potential) applications include invisibility cloaking, nano antennas, metamaterials, novel biological detection and treatment technologies, as well as new storage media\u00a0[@Maier].\n\nAll of the above applications of nanophotonics require elaborate control of the propagation of light waves. In order to do so, appropriate mathematical models are needed to predict the behavior of light-matter interactions. Metals are interesting for nanophotonics because they can both enhance and confine optical fields, making plasmonics of interest to emerging quantum technologies\u00a0[@Tame; @Bozhevolnyi; @Fitzgerald]. This is enabled by the existence of Surface Plasmons (SPs). SPs are coherent oscillations that exist as evanescent waves at both sides of the interface between any two materials where the real part of the dielectric function changes sign across the interface. The typical example is a metal-dielectric interface, such as a metal sheet in air\u00a0[@SaridChallener]. Maxwell\u2019s equations can be employed to model the macroscale electromagnetic waves and armed with classical electrodynamics there are numerous approaches ranging from classical electrodynamics to ab initio treatments\u00a0[@Gallinet2015; @Varas2016]. Ab initio techniques can be used to simulate the microscopic dynamics on the atomic scale, but with ab initio methods one can only deal with systems with up to about ten thousand atoms\u00a0[@Varas2016], thus calling for semiclassical treatments\u00a0[@MortensenGNOR; @ToscanoEtal2015] or more effective inclusions of quantum phenomena into classical electrodynamics\u00a0[@Luo2013; @Yan2015; @Christensen2016; @Zhu2016].\n\nIf one models the interaction of light with metallic nanostructures classically or semiclassically, then this calls for appropriate modelling of the material response as described for example by the Drude model\u00a0[@Drude1900; @DresselScheffler2006], the Nonlocal Hydrodynamic Drude (NHD) model\u00a0[@Bloch1933a; @RazaEtal2015JPCM], or the Generalized Nonlocal Optical Response (GNOR) theory\u00a0[@MortensenGNOR], all in combination with and coupled to Maxwell\u2019s equations. Except for some highly symmetric geometries, analytical solutions to the resulting systems of differential equations are not available. Thus, numerical treatment of these systems of PDEs is an important aspect of nanophotonics research. Numerical experiments help to find promising systems and geometries before real fabrication, to obtain optimized parameters, to visualize field distributions, to investigate the dominant contribution to a phenomenon, to explain experimental observations, and so on\u00a0[@Busch2011].\n\nSeveral numerical methods exist for computing the solution of Maxwell\u2019s equations\u00a0[@Gallinet2015]. For time-dependent problems, the Finite-Difference Time-Domain (FDTD) algorithm is the most popular method\u00a0[@Taflove2005] among physicists and engineers. More recently, the Discontinuous Galerkin Time-Domain (DGTD) method has drawn a lot of attention because of several appealing features, for example, easy adaptation to complex geometries and material composition, high-order accuracy, and natural parallelism\u00a0[@HesthavenWarburton2002]. For time-harmonic problems, the Finite Element Method (FEM) is most widely used for the solution of Maxwell\u2019s equations. In very recent years, the Hybridizable Discontinuous Galerkin (HDG) method appears as a promising numerical method for time-harmonic problems because it inherits nearly all the advantages of the DG methods while leading to a computational complexity similar to FEM\u00a0[@CGL2009; @NPC2011; @LLP2014; @HLLH2016].\n\nCurrently, FDTD (for time-dependent problems) and FEM (for time-harmonic problems) methods are still the methods most commonly adopted for the simulation of light-matter interactions. Most often, commercial simulation software (such as Lumerical FDTD[^1] and Comsol Multiphysics[^2]) is used for that purpose. However, these methods and computer codes do not always offer the required capabilities for addressing accurately and efficiently the complexity of the physical phenomena underlying nanometer scale light-matter interactions. In the academic community, also the DGTD method has recently been considered in this context\u00a0[@Busch2011; @Viquerat2015; @HuangYQ2016]. In Ref.\u00a0[@Schmittetal2016], some numerical results are presented for the NHD model using the DGTD method. In the present paper we are employing the HDG method to solve the frequency-domain NHD and GNOR models. The development of accurate and efficient numerical methods for computational nanophotonics is expected to be a long-lasting demand, both because new models are regularly proposed that require innovative numerical methods, and because there is demand for more accurate and faster simulation methods for existing models.\n\nThis paper introduces a HDG method for the solution the NHD and GNOR models. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section\u00a0\\[sec:models\\], we briefly introduce mathematical aspects both of the NHD model and of the GNOR model. HDG formulations are given in section\u00a0\\[sec:hdg\\]. Numerical results are presented in section\u00a0\\[sec:tests\\] to show the effectiveness of high-order HDG methods for solving problems in nanophotonics. We draw conclusions in section\u00a0\\[sec:con\\].\n\nPhysics problem: nonlocal optical response by nanoparticles {#sec:models}\n===========================================================\n\nThe problem considered is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:struct\\] where the nanometer-size metal $\\Omega_S$ is illuminated by an incident plane wave of light. The infinite scattering domain is truncated as a finite computational domain $\\Omega$ by employing an artificial absorbing boundary condition, which is designed to absorb outgoing waves.\n\n![Sketch of the incident electromagnetic wave illuminating the scatterer $\\Omega_S$ that has a subwavelength size and is surrounded by free space. $\\Omega_S$ is usually filled with metals, such as gold, silver or sodium. An artificial absorbing boundary $\\partial\\Omega$ is introduced to make a computational domain $\\Omega$.[]{data-label=\"fig:struct\"}](./struct.pdf)\n\nNonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model\n---------------------------------\n\nThere are a number of theories for the modeling of the light-matter interactions which are used under different settings. In this subsection, we briefly introduce the NHD model. The incoming light is described as a propagating electromagnetic wave that satisfies Maxwell\u2019s equations. Without external charge and current, Maxwell\u2019s equations of macroscopic electromagnetism for non-magnetic materials can be written as $$\\label{eq:max}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{l}\n\\nabla\\times {\\mathbf{H}}=   \\varepsilon_0\\varepsilon_{\\text{loc}}\\partial_t{\\mathbf{E}}+{\\mathbf{J}},\\\\\n\\nabla\\times{\\mathbf{E}}= -\\mu_0\\partial_t\\mathbf{H},\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $\\mathbf{H}$ and ${\\mathbf{E}}$ are respectively the magnetic and electric fields, $ \\varepsilon_0$ is the permittivity constant, $\\mu_0$ is the permeability constant, $\\varepsilon_{\\text{loc}}=\\varepsilon_{\\infty}+\\varepsilon_{\\text{inter}}$ is introduced to account for the local response, and ${\\mathbf{J}}$ is the nonlocal hydrodynamic polarization current density which is due to the nonlocal material on the plasmonic scatterers\u00a0[@HiremathEtal2012]. In this paper, we will for simplicity set $\\varepsilon_{\\text{inter}}=0$ and $\\varepsilon_{\\infty}=1$, thereby focusing solely on the free-electron response to light. Equations need to be completed to solve electromagnetic fields ${\\mathbf{E}}$ and $\\mathbf{H}$ because of the unknown polarization current density ${\\mathbf{J}}$. The models that we will consider in this paper differ only in the assumed dynamics of the polarization current density, which we will now discuss in more detail.\n\nThe polarization current density ${\\mathbf{J}}$ due to the motion of the free-electron gas can be written as $$\\label{eq:jHD}\n{\\mathbf{J}}= -en{\\mathbf{v}},$$ where $e$ is the charge of the electron, $n$ is the density of the electron gas (a scalar field), and ${\\mathbf{v}}$ is its hydrodynamic velocity (a vector field). Within the hydrodynamic model, the dynamics of the velocity field is given by\u00a0[@Schmittetal2016; @RazaEtal2015] $$\\label{eq:hd}\nm_e(\\partial_t+{\\mathbf{v}}\\cdot\\nabla){\\mathbf{v}}=-e({\\mathbf{E}}+{\\mathbf{v}}\\times\\mathbf{B}) - m_e\\gamma{\\mathbf{v}}-\\nabla\\left(\\frac{\\delta g[n]}{\\delta n}\\right),$$ where $m_e$ is the mass of an electron, $-e({\\mathbf{E}}+{\\mathbf{v}}\\times\\mathbf{B})$ is the Lorentz force with $\\mathbf{B}$ being the magnetic flux density, $\\gamma$ is a damping constant, $g[n]$ is an energy functional of the fluid, and the term $\\nabla\\left(\\frac{\\delta g[n]}{\\delta n}\\right)$ denotes the quantum pressure. Complementary to Eq.\u00a0\\[eq:hd\\], the dynamics of the free-electron density is given by $$\\partial_t n+\\nabla\\cdot(n{\\mathbf{v}})=0,$$ which is the well-known continuity relation that relates the velocity ${\\mathbf{v}}$ and the density $n$.\n\nThe hydrodynamic dynamics described by Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:hd\\]) is obviously nonlinear in ${\\bf v}$, but in the following we only consider the linear response of the electron gas on external fields. One can write a perturbation expansion ${\\bf v} \\simeq {\\bf v}_{0} + {\\bf v}_{1}$ and similarly for the electric and magnetic fields and for the density. Since in the absence of an external field ${\\bf v} = {\\bf v}_{0} = {\\bf 0}$, both the nonlinear term ${\\mathbf{v}}\\cdot\\nabla{\\mathbf{v}}$ and the magnetic induction field $\\mathbf{B}$ disappear due to the linearization\u00a0[@ToscanoEtal2015]. If we furthermore assume the energy functional to be of the Thomas-Fermi form, then we obtain for the linearized quantum pressure $$\\label{eq:qpressure}\n-\\nabla\\left(\\frac{\\delta g[n]}{\\delta n}\\right)= -m_e\\beta^2\\frac{1}{n_0}\\nabla n,$$ where $\\beta^2=\\frac{3}{5}v_F^2$ with $v_F$ being the Fermi velocity. The zero-order (i.e. equilibrium) density $n_0$ is constant within the plasmonic medium\u00a0[@ToscanoEtal2015]. Here in Eq.\u00a0 and below, we write $n$ for the linearized density ${n}_{1}$ and similarly we will from now on simply write ${\\bf v}$ for the linearized velocity ${\\bf v}_{1}$. As a result, we obtain the linearized hydrodynamic equation\u00a0[@RazaEtal2015JPCM; @Schmittetal2016] $$\\label{eq:hds} \nm_e\\partial_t{\\mathbf{v}}=-e{\\mathbf{E}}-m_e\\gamma{\\mathbf{v}}-m_e\\beta^2\\frac{1}{n_0}\\nabla n,$$ as well as the linearized continuity relation $$\\label{eq:nv}\n\\partial_t n = -n_0 \\nabla\\cdot {\\mathbf{v}}.$$ Inserting Eqs.\u00a0 (linearized as ${\\mathbf{J}}=-en_0{\\mathbf{v}}$) and into , and taking the time-derivative $\\partial_t$, we obtain $$\\label{eq:hdT} \n\\partial_{tt} {\\mathbf{J}}+\\gamma\\partial_t{\\mathbf{J}}-\\beta^2\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}})-\\omega_p^2\\varepsilon_0\\partial_t{\\mathbf{E}}=0,$$ where $\\omega_p$ is the plasma frequency with $\\omega_p^2=n_0e^2/(m_e\\varepsilon_0)$. By Fourier transformation we replace $\\partial_t$ with $-{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega$, where ${\\mathrm{i}}$ is the imaginary unit and $\\omega$ is the angular frequency, and obtain the frequency-domain relation between polarization current density and the electric field within the hydrodynamic model as $$\\label{eq:hdFre}\n\\omega(\\omega+{\\mathrm{i}}\\gamma){\\mathbf{J}}+\\beta^2\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}})={\\mathrm{i}}\\omega\\omega^2_p\\varepsilon_0{\\mathbf{E}}.$$ This equation describes electron-field interaction within the plasmonic nanostructure $\\Omega_S$. We will neglect spill-out of electrons outside the classical geometric surface of the structure, which for our purposes is a good assumption for noble metals such as silver and gold\u00a0[@ToscanoEtal2015]. Mathematically, this is arranged by imposing a hard-wall condition on the boundary $\\partial\\Omega_S$, namely ${\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}=0$ on $\\partial\\Omega_S$\u00a0[@Jewsbury:1981a; @Yan:2013a].\n\nGeneral nonlocal optical response model\n---------------------------------------\n\nWe also briefly present the mathematical derivation of the central equations of the GNOR model, based on Ref.\u00a0[@MortensenGNOR]. In the GNOR model, also diffusion of the electron gas is taken into consideration. Let the density $n({\\mathbf{r}},t)=n_0+n_1({\\mathbf{r}},t)$, where the last term is the induced density variation caused by a non-vanishing electric field ${\\mathbf{E}}$, which we assume sufficiently small that $n_1\\ll n_0$ holds. Instead of\u00a0, we now consider the linearized convection-diffusion equation\u00a0[@MortensenGNOR] $$\\label{eq:cd}\n\\partial_t (-e_1) n_1 = D\\nabla^2(-e)n_1-\\nabla\\cdot[(-e)n_0{\\mathbf{v}}]=-\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}},$$ where $D$ is the diffusion constant for the charge-carrier diffusion. Then the current density is given by Fick\u2019s law $$\\label{eq:current}\n{\\mathbf{J}}= (-e)n_0{\\mathbf{v}}-D\\nabla(-e)n_1.$$ Multiplying by the charge of the electron $-e$, the equilibrium density $n_0$ and taking the time-derivative we have $$\\label{eq:hddv}\nm_e(\\partial_t+\\gamma)\\partial_t[(-e)n_0{\\mathbf{v}}]=n_0e^2\\partial_t{\\mathbf{E}}-m_e\\beta^2\\nabla[\\partial_t(-e)n_1].$$ Dividing by $m_e$ and combining with Fick\u2019s law\u00a0 results in $$\\label{eq:hddj}\n(\\partial_t+\\gamma)\\{\\partial_t{\\mathbf{J}}+D\\nabla[\\partial_t(-e)n_1]\\}=\\frac{n_0e^2}{m_e}\\partial_t{\\mathbf{E}}-\\beta^2\\nabla[\\partial_t(-e)n_1].$$ From the convection-diffusion equation\u00a0, we have $$\\label{eq:hdd}\n(\\partial_t+\\gamma)[\\partial_t{\\mathbf{J}}+D\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}})]=\\frac{n_0e^2}{m_e}\\partial_t{\\mathbf{E}}-\\beta^2\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}).$$ Like what we did for\u00a0, transforming to the frequency domain gives $$\\label{eq:gnor}\n\\omega(\\omega+{\\mathrm{i}}\\gamma){\\mathbf{J}}+[\\beta^2+D(\\gamma-{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega)]\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}})={\\mathrm{i}}\\omega\\omega^2_p\\varepsilon_0{\\mathbf{E}}.$$ The physical predictions obtained by the GNOR and NHD models often differ substantially, as illustrated below. However, from a computational point of view the GNOR model only differs by the replacement $\\beta^2\\rightarrow\\beta^2+D(\\gamma-{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega)$ in the frequency domain, whereby the nonlocal hydrodynamic parameter acquires an often non-negligible imaginary part. In the GNOR model we have the same additional boundary condition ${\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}=0$ on $\\partial\\Omega_S$ as in the NHD model.\n\nSpecification to 2D TM mode\n---------------------------\n\nNow we can couple Maxwell\u2019s equation with for the NHD model, or similarly with for the GNOR model. We will compute light extinction by infinitely long nanowires. We take the wire axes along the $z$-direction and consider TM-polarized incident light, i.e. polarized in the $(x,y)$-plane. In this 2D setting, we can define ${\\mathbf{E}}= (E_x, E_y)^T$ to be a vector and $H = H_z$ a scalar function. Coupling the time-harmonic Maxwell\u2019s equations and hydrodynamic Drude model , we have in 2D $$\\label{eq:hyd}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla\\times H & =  -{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega\\varepsilon_0{\\mathbf{E}}+{\\mathbf{J}}, \\text{ in } \\Omega, \\\\\n\\nabla\\times{\\mathbf{E}}& = {\\mathrm{i}}\\omega\\mu_0 H, \\text{ in } \\Omega,\\\\\n\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}) + \\frac{\\omega(\\omega+{\\mathrm{i}}\\gamma)}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{J}}& =\\frac{{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega\\omega^2_p\\varepsilon_0}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{E}}, \\text{ in } \\Omega_S.\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ If the Silver-M[\u00fc]{}ller boundary condition (first-order absorbing boundary condition) [@Stupfel1994] is applied on the boundary $\\partial\\Omega$ of the computational domain, then we have the boundary conditions $$\\label{eq:bc}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{E}}-H & = {\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{E}}^{\\text{inc}}-H^{\\text{inc}} = g^{\\text{inc}}, \\text{ on } \\partial\\Omega, \\\\\n{\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}& =0, \\text{ on } \\partial\\Omega_S,\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ where ${\\mathbf{E}}^{\\text{inc}}$ and $H^{\\text{inc}}$ stand for the electromagnetic fields of the incoming light.\n\nHDG formulations of nonlocal optical response models  {#sec:hdg}\n=====================================================\n\nThe promise of hybridizable DG methods {#Sec:promiseHDG}\n--------------------------------------\n\nIn the Introduction some properties and advantages of DG and HDG methods were briefly mentioned, which we here explain in more detail. The classic DG method is seldomly employed for solving stationary problems, because it duplicates degrees of freedom (DOFs) on every internal edge. Thus the number of globally coupled DOFs is much greater than the number of DOFs required by conforming finite element methods for the same accuracy. Consequently, DG methods are expensive in terms of both CPU time and memory consumption. Hybridization of DG methods\u00a0[@CGL2009] is devoted to addressing this issue while at the same time keeping all the advantages of DG methods. HDG methods introduce additional hybrid variables on the edges of the elements. Then we define the numerical traces arising from partial integration in the DG formulations through the hybrid variables. We can thus define the local (element-wise) solutions by hybrid variables. Conservativity conditions are imposed on numerical traces to ensure the continuity of the tangential component of the electric field and the normal component of the current density and to make the problem solvable. As a result, HDG methods produce a linear system in terms of the DOFs of the additional hybrid variables only. In this way, the number of globally coupled DOFs is greatly reduced as compared to the classic DG method. In a recent study\u00a0[@Yakovlev:2016], the authors showed that HDG methods outperform FEM in many cases.\n\nComputational concepts and notations\n------------------------------------\n\nIn order to give a clear presentation of the HDG method, here we introduce some computational concepts and notations. We divide the computational domain $\\Omega$ into triangle elements. The union of all the triangles is denoted by ${\\mathcal{T}}_h$. By ${\\mathcal{F}}_h$ we denote the union of all edges of ${\\mathcal{T}}_h$. Furthermore, ${\\mathcal{F}}^I_h$ stands for the union of all the edges associated with the nanostructure. For an edge associated with two elements $F =\\overline{K^+}\\cap\\overline{K^-}\\in{\\mathcal{F}}_h$, let $({\\mathbf{v}}^\\pm, v^\\pm)$ be the *traces* of $({\\mathbf{v}}, v)$ on $F$ from the interior of $K^{\\pm}$, see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:interEdge\\], where we use the term *trace* to denote the restriction of a function on the boundaries of the elements\u00a0[@Arnold2002]. Note that from now on ${\\mathbf{v}}$ is used to describe a general vector function instead of velocity.\n\n![Two neighboring discretization elements (here: triangles) within the computational domain. An edge $F$ is shared by two elements $K^+$ and $K^-$. The outward normal vectors $n^+$ and $n^-$ point in opposite directions. A characteristic property of the DG method is that computed functions are allowed to be discontinuous across $F$ (hence the \u201cD\u201d in DG). For example, for a function $v$, be it a scalar or a vector, its value on $F$ from $K^+$ is $v^+$, while its value on $F$ from $K^-$ is $v^-$, and these $v^+$ and $v^-$ are not necessarily equal. By contrast, the hybrid variables in the HDG method [*are*]{} single-valued on\u00a0$F$.[]{data-label=\"fig:interEdge\"}](./traceDem.pdf)\n\nOn every face, we define *mean* (*average*) *values* ${\\left\\{ \\cdot \\right\\}}$ and *jumps* ${\\llbracket \\cdot \\rrbracket}$ as $$\\left\\{\n    \\begin{aligned}\n      {\\left\\{ {\\mathbf{v}}\\right\\}}_F  & = \\dfrac{1}{2} ({\\mathbf{v}}^+ + {\\mathbf{v}}^-),\n      \\\\\n      {\\left\\{ v \\right\\}}_F &  = \\dfrac{1}{2}(v^+ + v^-),\n      \\\\\n      {\\llbracket {\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{v}}\\rrbracket}_F &  = {\\mathbf{n}}^+\\times{\\mathbf{v}}^+ +\n      {\\mathbf{n}}^-\\times{\\mathbf{v}}^-, \\\\\n       {\\llbracket {\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{v}}\\rrbracket}_F &  = {\\mathbf{n}}^+\\cdot{\\mathbf{v}}^+ +\n      {\\mathbf{n}}^-\\cdot{\\mathbf{v}}^-,\n      \\\\\n      {\\llbracket v{\\mathbf{t}}\\rrbracket}_F &  = v^+ {\\mathbf{t}}^+ + v^- {\\mathbf{t}}^-,\n    \\end{aligned}\n  \\right.$$ where ${\\mathbf{n}}^{\\pm}$ denotes the outward unit norm vector to $K^\\pm$ and ${\\mathbf{t}}^{\\pm}$ denotes the unit tangent vectors to the boundaries $\\partial    K^{\\pm}$ such that ${\\mathbf{t}}^+\\times{\\mathbf{n}}^+=1$ and ${\\mathbf{t}}^-\\times{\\mathbf{n}}^-=1$. For the boundary edges, either on $\\partial\\Omega$ or on $\\partial\\Omega_S$, these expressions are modified as $$\\left\\{\n    \\begin{aligned}\n      {\\left\\{ {\\mathbf{v}}\\right\\}}_F &  = {\\mathbf{v}}^+,\n      \\\\\n      {\\left\\{ v \\right\\}}_F &  = v^+,\n      \\\\\n      {\\llbracket {\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{v}}\\rrbracket}_F &  = {\\mathbf{n}}^+ \\times{\\mathbf{v}}^+, \\\\\n       {\\llbracket {\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{v}}\\rrbracket}_F & = {\\mathbf{n}}^+ \\cdot{\\mathbf{v}}^+,\n      \\\\\n      {\\llbracket v{\\mathbf{t}}\\rrbracket}_F & = v^+ {\\mathbf{t}}^+.\n    \\end{aligned}\n  \\right .$$ Let $\\mathbb{P}_p(D)$ denote the space of polynomial functions of degree at most $p$ on a domain $D$. For any element $K\\in{\\mathcal{T}}_h$, let $V^p(K)$ be the space $\\mathbb{P}_p(K)$ and ${\\mathbf{V}}^p(K)$ the space $(\\mathbb{P}_p(K))^2$. The discontinuous finite element spaces are then defined by $$\\label{eq:dgSpace}\n  \\begin{aligned}\n    V^p_h & = \\left\\{ v \\in L^{2}(\\Omega) \\ \\lvert \\ v|_K\\in\n    V^p(K), \\ \\forall K\\in{\\mathcal{T}}_h\\right\\},\n    \\\\\n    {\\mathbf{V}}^p_h & = \\left\\{ {\\mathbf{v}}\\in (L^2(\\Omega))^2 \\ \\lvert \\\n    {\\mathbf{v}}|_K\\in {\\mathbf{V}}^p(K), \\ \\forall K\\in{\\mathcal{T}}_h \\right\\},\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where $L^2(\\Omega)$ is the space of square integrable functions on the domain $\\Omega$. We also introduce a traced finite element space $$\\label{SpaceM}\nM^p_h = \\left\\{ \\eta \\in L^2({\\mathcal{F}}_h) \\ \\lvert\n  \\ \\eta|_F \\in\\mathbb{P}_p(F),\n  \\ \\forall F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}_h  \\right\\}.$$ Note that $M^p_h$ consists of functions which are continuous on an edge, but discontinuous at its ends. The restrictions of $V^p_h$, ${\\mathbf{V}}^p_h$ and $M^p_h$ in $\\Omega_S$ are denoted by $\\widetilde{V}^p_h$, $\\widetilde{{\\mathbf{V}}}^p_h$ and $\\widetilde{M}^p_h$. For two vectorial functions $\\mathbf{u}$ and ${\\mathbf{v}}$ in $(L^2(D))^2$, we introduce the inner product $(\\mathbf{u},{\\mathbf{v}})_{D}   =   {\\displaystyle}\\int_D\\mathbf{u}\\cdot\\overline{{\\mathbf{v}}}  \\,  {\\rm d}x$, where $\\overline{\\cdot}$ denotes the complex conjugation. Likewise for scalar functions $u$ and $v$ in $L^2(D)$, the inner product is defined as $(u,v)_D = {\\displaystyle}\\int_D u  \\overline v \\,{\\rm d}x$ provided $D$ is a domain in $\\mathbb{R}^2$. Finally we define the edge overlap $\\langle  u,v\\rangle_F ={\\displaystyle}\\int_F u \\overline v \\, {\\rm d}s$, where $F$ is a specific edge. Accordingly, we can define the total edge overlap for the whole triangulation or for relevant subsets of edges. Important cases are $$\\langle\\cdot,\\cdot\\rangle_{{\\mathcal{F}}_h}  =\n    \\sum_{F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}_h}\\langle\\cdot,\\cdot\\rangle_F, \\qquad\n     \\langle\\cdot,\\cdot\\rangle_{\\partial\\Omega}  =\n    \\sum_{F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}_h\\cap\\partial\\Omega}\\langle\\cdot,\\cdot\\rangle_F,\n     \\qquad\n    \\langle\\cdot,\\cdot\\rangle_{{\\mathcal{F}}^I_h}  =\n    \\sum_{F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}^I_h}\\langle\\cdot,\\cdot\\rangle_F.$$ denoting, respectively, the total edge overlap on the computational domain, the cumulative edge overlap on the absorbing boundary of the computational domain, and finally the cumulative edge overlap on the nanostructure.\n\nDG formulation of the coupled electrodynamical equations  {#subsec:dg}\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe begin the construction of a DG implementation of the hydrodynamic Drude model by rewriting the coupled electrodynamical equations\u00a0 into a system of first-order equations $$\\label{eq:MaxHyd}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega \\varepsilon_0{\\mathbf{E}}+ \\nabla\\times H -{\\mathbf{J}}&= 0 \\qquad \\text{ in } \\Omega, \\\\\n{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega\\mu_0 H - \\nabla\\times{\\mathbf{E}}& =0 \\qquad \\text{ in } \\Omega, \\\\\n\\nabla q +\\frac{ \\gamma-{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{J}}- \\frac{\\omega_p^2\\varepsilon_0}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{E}}& = 0 \\qquad \\text{ in } \\Omega_S, \\\\\n{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega q - \\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}& = 0 \\qquad \\text{ in } \\Omega_S,\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ where we introduced the scalar function $q = ({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega)^{-1}\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}$ which coincides with a scaled charge density. In general, a DG method seeks an approximate solution $({\\mathbf{E}}_h, H_h, {\\mathbf{J}}_h, q_h)$ in the space ${\\mathbf{V}}^{p}_{h}\\times V^{p}_{h}\\times\\widetilde{{\\mathbf{V}}}^{p}_{h}\\times \\widetilde{V}^{p}_{h}$ that for each element $K$ (in our case: for each discretization triangle) satisfies\u00a0[@ElBouajaji2013] $$\\label{eq:MaxHydInt}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega \\varepsilon_0{\\mathbf{E}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} + (\\nabla\\times H_h, {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} - ({\\mathbf{J}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} & = 0 \\qquad \\forall {\\mathbf{v}}\\in {\\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\\\\n({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega\\mu_0 H_h, v)_{K} - (\\nabla\\times{\\mathbf{E}}_h, v)_{K} & =0 \\qquad \\forall v\\in V^{p}(K), \\\\\n(\\nabla q_h, {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} + \\Big(\\frac{\\gamma-{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{J}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}}\\Big)_{K} - \\Big(\\frac{\\omega_p^2\\varepsilon_0}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{E}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}}\\Big)_{K} & = 0 \\qquad \\forall {\\mathbf{v}}\\in \\widetilde{{\\mathbf{V}}}^{p}(K), \\\\\n({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega q_h, v)_{K} - (\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}_h, v)_{K} & = 0 \\qquad \\forall v\\in \\widetilde{V}^{p}(K).\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ The application of appropriate Green\u2019s formulas to this system of equations leads to terms on the element boundaries\u00a0[@Arnold2002]. These boundary terms are the keys to connect the elements, since the elements themselves are independent due to the nature of the discontinuous finite elements spaces of Eq.\u00a0. In a DG method, one replaces the boundary terms by so-called *numerical traces* $\\hat{{\\mathbf{E}}}_{h}, \\hat{H}_h, \\hat{{\\mathbf{J}}}_{h}$ and $\\hat{q}_{h}$\u00a0[@CGL2009; @LLP2013], which are also known as \u2018numerical fluxes\u2019 in the literature\u00a0[@Busch2011]. These numerical traces are defined as $$\\label{eq:dgNumericalTrace}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{H}_h & ={\\left\\{ H_h \\right\\}} + \\alpha_{E}{\\llbracket {\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{E}}_h \\rrbracket}, \\\\\n{\\mathbf{n}}\\times\\hat{{\\mathbf{E}}}_h & = {\\left\\{ {\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{E}}_h \\right\\}}+\\alpha_{H}{\\llbracket H_h \\rrbracket},\\\\\n\\hat{q}_h & = {\\left\\{ q_h \\right\\}}+\\alpha_J{\\llbracket {\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}_h \\rrbracket},\\\\\n{\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot\\hat{{\\mathbf{J}}}_h & ={\\left\\{ {\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}\\right\\}}+\\alpha_q{\\llbracket q_h \\rrbracket}.\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ In these definitions there is still freedom to choose values for the $\\alpha$ parameters, and this corresponds to different DG schemes: by setting $\\alpha_{E}=\\alpha_{H}=\\alpha_{J}=\\alpha_{q}=0$, one obtains the *centered flux* DG scheme. With $\\alpha_{E}=\\alpha_{H}=\\alpha_{J}=\\alpha_{q}=1$, one obtains the *upwind flux* DG scheme\u00a0[@ElBouajaji2013]. For more validated DG schemes, we refer the interested readers to Ref.\u00a0[@Arnold2002]. Having defined the numerical traces, we finally form a global system of linear equations involving all the DOFs on all the elements $$\\label{eq:MaxHydIntGreen}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega \\varepsilon_0{\\mathbf{E}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} + (H_h, \\nabla\\times {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} -  \\langle\\hat{H}_{h},{\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{v}}\\rangle_{\\partial K} - ({\\mathbf{J}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} & = 0 \\quad  \\forall {\\mathbf{v}}\\in {\\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\\\\n({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega\\mu_0 H_h, v)_{K} - ({\\mathbf{E}}_h, \\nabla\\times v)_{K} - \\langle{\\mathbf{n}}\\times\\hat{{\\mathbf{E}}}_{h}, v\\rangle_{\\partial K} & =0 \\quad \\forall v\\in V^{p}(K), \\\\\n-(q_h, \\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{v}})_{K} + \\langle \\hat{q}_{h}, {\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{v}}\\rangle_{\\partial K} +  \\Big(\\frac{\\gamma-{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{J}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}}\\Big)_{K} - \\Big(\\frac{\\omega_p^2\\varepsilon_0}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{E}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}}\\Big)_{K} & = 0 \\quad \\forall {\\mathbf{v}}\\in \\widetilde{\\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\\\\n({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega q_h, v)_{K} + ({\\mathbf{J}}_h, \\nabla v)_{K} -\\langle{\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot\\hat{{\\mathbf{J}}}_{h}, v\\rangle_{\\partial K} & = 0 \\quad \\forall v\\in\\widetilde V^{p}(K),\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ which are coupled equations that are valid whatever DG scheme is adopted.\n\nHybridizable DG implementation of the electrodynamical equations  {#subsec:hdg}\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn Sec.\u00a0\\[Sec:promiseHDG\\] we mentioned that hybridized DG methods have advantages as compared to the classic DG schemes, and here we discuss the hybridized approach in more detail. Unlike in the above classic DG formulations where the numerical traces directly couple the values from the elements on both sides of the edges, in a HDG formulation the numerical traces are defined through hybrid variables. Introducing two hybrid variables $\\lambda_h$ and $\\eta_h$ which live only on the boundaries of the elements, we define the numerical traces by $$\\label{eq:numTrac}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{H}_h & = \\lambda_h, \\\\\n\\hat{{\\mathbf{E}}}_h & = {\\mathbf{E}}_h + \\tau_{\\lambda}(\\lambda_h-H_h){\\mathbf{t}}, \\\\\n\\hat{q}_h & = \\eta_h, \\\\\n\\hat{{\\mathbf{J}}}_h & = {\\mathbf{J}}+ \\tau_{\\eta}(q_h-\\eta_h){\\mathbf{n}},\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ where $\\tau_{\\lambda}$ and $\\tau_{\\eta}$ are two stabilization parameters. Replacing the numerical traces in with the expressions in and applying Green\u2019s formulas to the first and fourth equations in , we obtain the local formulation of the HDG method as $$\\label{eq:MaxHydIntGreen2}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega \\varepsilon_0{\\mathbf{E}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} + (H_h, \\nabla\\times {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} - \\langle\\lambda_{h},{\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{v}}\\rangle_{\\partial K} - ({\\mathbf{J}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}})_{K} & = 0, \\ \\forall {\\mathbf{v}}\\in {\\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\\\\n({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega\\mu_0 H_h, v)_{K} - (\\nabla\\times{\\mathbf{E}}_h, v)_{K} + \\langle\\tau_{\\lambda}(H_h-\\lambda_h), v\\rangle_{\\partial K} & =0, \\ \\forall v\\in V^{p}(K), \\\\\n-(q_h, \\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{v}})_{K} + \\langle\\eta_{h}, {\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{v}}\\rangle_{\\partial K} +  \\Big(\\frac{\\gamma-{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{J}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}}\\Big)_{K} - \\Big(\\frac{\\omega_p^2\\varepsilon_0}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{E}}_h, {\\mathbf{v}}\\Big)_{K} & = 0, \\ \\forall {\\mathbf{v}}\\in\\widetilde {\\mathbf{V}}^{p}(K), \\\\\n({\\mathrm{i}}\\omega q_h, v)_{K} - (\\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}_h, v)_{K} -\\langle\\tau_{\\eta}(q_h-\\eta_h), v\\rangle_{\\partial K} & = 0, \\ \\forall v\\in\\widetilde V^{p}(K)  .\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ One can solve the local fields element by element once the solutions for $\\lambda_h$ and $\\eta_h$ are obtained. In order to make the problem solvable, we need to employ global conditions $$\\label{eq:globalRaw}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle{\\llbracket {\\mathbf{n}}\\times\\hat{{\\mathbf{E}}}_h \\rrbracket}, v\\rangle_{{\\mathcal{F}}_h} - \\langle\\lambda_h, v\\rangle_{\\partial\\Omega} & = \\langle g^{\\text{inc},v}\\rangle_{\\partial\\Omega}, \\ \\forall v\\in M^p_h, \\\\\n\\langle{\\llbracket {\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot\\hat{{\\mathbf{J}}}_h \\rrbracket}, v\\rangle_{{\\mathcal{F}}_h^I} & = 0, \\ \\forall v\\in\\widetilde M^p_h.\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ The first relation in\u00a0 weakly enforces the continuity condition for the tangential component of the electric field across any edges, and also takes into account the Silver-M[\" u]{}ller absorbing boundary condition. The other global condition in Eq.\u00a0 weakly enforces the continuity condition for the normal component of the current density across any edges. The additional boundary condition on the surface of the nanostructure is implicitly contained in this relation.\n\nSubstituting $\\hat{{\\mathbf{E}}}_h$ and $\\hat{{\\mathbf{J}}}_h$ in with the definitions in , we arrive at the global reduced system of equations $$\\label{eq:global}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle{\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{E}}_h-\\tau_{\\lambda}(\\lambda_h-H_h), v\\rangle_{{\\mathcal{F}}_h} - \\langle\\lambda_h, v\\rangle_{\\partial\\Omega} & =  \\langle g^{\\text{inc}},v\\rangle_{\\partial\\Omega}, \\ \\forall v\\in M^p_h, \\\\\n\\langle{\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}_h+\\tau_\\eta(q_h-\\eta_h), v\\rangle_{{\\mathcal{F}}_h^I} & = 0, \\ \\forall v\\in\\widetilde M^p_h.\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ Note that we used the fact that ${\\mathbf{n}}\\times{\\mathbf{t}}=-1$ in . The two relations in Eq.\u00a0 are not independent. They are coupled through the local solutions of ${\\mathbf{E}}$, $H$, ${\\mathbf{J}}$ and $q$ of the local equations\u00a0.\n\n**Remark I.** The proposed HDG formulation for the global system is naturally consistent with the boundary conditions, both on the artificial boundary and on the medium boundary.\n\n**Remark II.** Globally, we only need to solve Eq.\u00a0, in which the fields ${\\mathbf{E}}_h$, $H_h$, ${\\mathbf{J}}_h$ and $q_h$ are replaced by the solutions in terms of $\\lambda_h$ and $\\eta_h$ from the local problems\u00a0. So the global DOFs are associated with $\\lambda_h$ in the whole computational domain, while they are associate with $\\eta_h$ only within in the material medium. The discretization leads to a system of linear equations $$\\label{eq:linSys}\nA\\begin{bmatrix}\n\\underline{\\lambda}_h \\\\[5pt]\n\\underline{\\eta}_h\n\\end{bmatrix}=\\begin{bmatrix}\n\\underline{g}^\\text{inc}_h \\\\[5pt]\n0\n\\end{bmatrix},$$ where $\\underline{\\lambda}_h$ and $\\underline{\\eta}_h$ are vectors accounting for the degrees of freedom of the hybrid variables $\\lambda$ and $\\eta$ respectively, and the coefficient matrix $A$ is large and sparse.\n\nNumerical results {#sec:tests}\n=================\n\nIn this section we present numerical results to validate the proposed HDG formulations. All HDG methods have been implemented in Fortran 90. All our tests are performed on a Macbook with a 1.3 GHz Inter Core i5 CPU and 4 GB memory. We employ the multifrontal sparse direct solver MUMPS\u00a0[@AmestoyEtal2000] to solve the discretized systems of linear equations.\n\nIn HDG methods, we calculate the total fields ${\\mathbf{E}}^\\text{tot}$ and $H^\\text{tot}$. The scattered fields are then calculated by subtracting the incident field from the total fields. We use HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_p$ to denote the HDG method with interpolation order $p$. Here we choose fixed values $\\tau_{\\lambda}= \\tau_{\\eta}=1$ for the stabilization parameters. Different choices are discussed in Ref.\u00a0[@Gopalakrishnan2015].\n\nConvergence study: Wave propagation in a cavity\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nWhile elsewhere in this article we focus on nanowire structures, here we first study the convergence of our method by considering wave propagation in a cavity. This cavity is assumed to be a square domain $\\Omega_{\\Box}=\\{(x,y)\\in[0,L]\\times[0,L]\\}$ with the PEC boundary condition and hard-wall condition $${\\mathbf{n}}\\times {\\mathbf{E}}= 0, \\text{ and } {\\mathbf{n}}\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}=0, \\text { on } \\partial\\Omega_{\\Box}.$$ This test case can be viewed as the frequency-domain version of the first test case in\u00a0[@Schmittetal2016]. The simplicity is achieved by introducing artificial current density and electric field, such that the analytical solutions coincide with Maxwell\u2019s equations and with the hydrodynamic equation $$\\label{eq:MaxHydArt}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathrm{i}}k{\\mathbf{E}}+ \\nabla\\times H & = {\\mathbf{J}}-{\\mathbf{J}}^{a}, \\\\\n{\\mathrm{i}}k H - \\nabla\\times{\\mathbf{E}}& =0, \\\\\n\\nabla q -\\frac{ {\\mathrm{i}}\\omega}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{J}}&  = -\\frac{\\gamma}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{J}}+\\frac{\\gamma}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{J}}^{a} + \\frac{\\omega_p^2\\varepsilon_0}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{E}}-\\frac{\\omega_p^2\\varepsilon_0}{\\beta^2}{\\mathbf{E}}^{a}, \\\\\n{\\mathrm{i}}\\omega q - \\nabla\\cdot{\\mathbf{J}}&  = 0,\n\\end{aligned}\n\\right.$$ where $k=\\frac{\\omega}{c}$ is the wave number, with $c$ being the light speed. We make this modification to unify the scale of the electric and magnetic fields. The artificial terms ${\\mathbf{J}}^a$ and ${\\mathbf{E}}^a$ are also the analytical solution to this equation\u00a0: $$\\label{eq:anaSol}\n\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathbf{E}}^a & = \\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}{\\mathrm{i}}\\begin{bmatrix}\n-\\cos(\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}kx)\\sin(\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}ky)\\\\[5pt]\n\\sin(\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}kx)\\cos(\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}ky)\n\\end{bmatrix},\\\\{\\mathbf{J}}^a & = -\\frac{\\sqrt{2}\\mu_0 k\\beta^2}{2\\omega}\\begin{bmatrix}\n\\sin(\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}kx)\\cos(\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}ky)\\\\[5pt]\n\\cos(\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}kx)\\sin(\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}ky)\n\\end{bmatrix} .\n\\end{aligned}$$ We only take the real part of $H$ and ${\\mathbf{J}}$ and the imaginary part of ${\\mathbf{E}}$ and $q$ into consideration. In order to have this analytical solution , one needs to set the length of the square $L=\\frac{\\sqrt{2}\\pi}{k}$ and $\\beta^2=\\frac{\\omega^2}{k^2}$. The convergence history of the HDG method with interpolation order $\\mathbb{P}_p \\ (p=1,2,3)$ is given in Table \\[tbl:convRect\\] and Figure \\[fig:convRect\\]. Mesh size $h$ is the edge length of elements associated to the boundary $\\partial\\Omega_{\\Box}$. The convergence orders are calculated by $$\\frac{\\log(\\|{\\mathbf{E}}^a-{\\mathbf{E}}^h\\|_{\\Omega_{\\Box}}^{h_2}/\\|{\\mathbf{E}}^a-{\\mathbf{E}}^h\\|_{\\Omega_{\\Box}}^{h_1})}{\\log(h_2/h_1)},$$ where $h_1$ and $h_2$ denote a coarse and a refined mesh size, respectively. From Table\u00a0\\[tbl:convRect\\] and Figure\u00a0\\[fig:convRect\\], we observe that the proposed HDG method has an optimal convergence order which is $p+1$ for HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_p$.\n\n    \\[tbl:convRect\\]                                                                                        \n  -------------------- ---------------------- ------- ---------------------- ------- ---------------------- -------\n                                                                                                            \n          $h$                  error           order          error           order          error           order\n    $5\\time10^{-8}$     $1.67\\times10^{-9}$      -     $4.52\\times10^{-10}$     -     $2.04\\times10^{-11}$     -\n   $2.5\\time10^{-8}$    $4.10\\times10^{-10}$    2.0    $5.61\\times10^{-11}$    3.0    $1.28\\times10^{-12}$    4.0\n   $1.25\\time10^{-8}$   $9.98\\times10^{-11}$    2.0    $7.52\\times10^{-12}$    3.0    $7.78\\times10^{-14}$    4.0\n   $6.25\\time10^{-9}$   $2.40\\times10^{-12}$    2.1    $9.11\\times10^{-13}$    3.0    $5.03\\times10^{-15}$    4.0\n\n  : Convergence results for the cavity problem.\n\n![Convergence history of the proposed HDG method for the cavity problem.[]{data-label=\"fig:convRect\"}](./convRect.pdf)\n\nBenchmark problem: a cylindrical plasmonic nanowire\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nAs our benchmark problem we consider the plasmonic behavior of a cylindrical nanowire. This has been used as a convenient benchmark problem for other numerical methods before\u00a0[@ToscanoEtal2012; @HiremathEtal2012] because analytical solutions exist both for the local and for the NHD models, see the derivation in Ref.\u00a0[@Ruppin2001]. We make use of the fact that the analytical Mie solution of Ref.\u00a0[@Ruppin2001] allows making the nonlocal parameter $\\beta$ complex-valued. This enables us to benchmark our HDG simulations against exact analytical results for the GNOR model as well. (For comparison, optical properties of a sphere in the GNOR model, based on exact Mie results, are discussed in Ref.\u00a0[@RazaEtal2015JPCM].)\n\nFor the NHD model, the configuration of the nanowire is taken to be the same as that in the first test in\u00a0[@HiremathEtal2012]: the radius of the cylinder is 2nm, no interband transitions are considered, the plasma frequency $\\omega_p=8.65\\times10^{15}$, the damping constant $\\gamma=0.01\\omega_p$, the Fermi velocity $v_F=1.07\\times 10^{6}$, and $\\beta^2=\\frac{3}{5}v_F^2$. For the GNOR model, we use the same parameters and furthermore we take $D=2.04\\times10^{-4}$ \u00a0[@MortensenGNOR]. An artificial absorbing boundary is set to be a concentric circle with a radius of $100$nm.\n\nAs our benchmark observable we will calculate the Extinction Cross Section (ECS, $\\sigma_{\\text{ext}}$), which is given by the sum of the scattering cross section $\\sigma_\\text{sca}$ and the absorption cross section $\\sigma_\\text{abs}$\u00a0[@BergEtal2009], $$\\sigma_\\text{ext} = \\sigma_\\text{sca} + \\sigma_\\text{abs}.$$ More precisely, for the cylindrical nanowire we consider the extinction cross section per wire length, which actually has the units of a length. We scale this quantity by the diameter $2 r$ of the nanowire to obtain a dimensionless normalized extinction cross section that we denote by $\\sigma_\\text{ext}$. It can be expressed as the sum of scaled scattering and absorption cross sections, $$\\sigma_\\text{sca} = \\frac{1}{2r}Re \\oint_S({\\mathbf{E}}^\\text{sca}\\times \\overline{H}^\\text{sca})\\cdot{\\mathbf{n}}\\, dS, \\ \\text{ and } \\ \\sigma_\\text{abs} = -\\frac{1}{2r}Re \\oint_S({\\mathbf{E}}^\\text{tot}\\times \\overline{H}^\\text{tot})\\cdot{\\mathbf{n}}\\, dS.$$ Here the integrations are performed along a closed path around the nanowire, and $Re$ denotes the real part.\n\nThe simulations are performed on a mesh with 4,513 nodes, 8,896 elements and 13,280 edges of which 722 edges are located inside the nanostructure. The ECS is presented in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Cext\\_nanowire\\]. Curvilinear treatment is employed for high-order accuracy, where the curved edges are geometrically approximated by second-order curves instead of straight lines\u00a0[@LLP2013]. From Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Cext\\_nanowire\\] we can observe that the fourth-order HDG method produces an ECS curve that matches the analytical solution very well. By contrast, the first-order method is not accurate enough on this mesh. Contour plots of the electric field and the current density are presented in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Fields\\_nanowire\\]. These results match well with corresponding results in Ref.\u00a0[@HiremathEtal2012] despite the lower resolution, probably because our simulation is performed on a coarser mesh. Comparing the two subfigures in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Cext\\_nanowire\\], we also find that the ECS curve for the GNOR model is smoother than for the NHD model. But this has a physical rather than a numerical origin. In particular the standing bulk plasmon resonances above the plasma frequency in the NHD model are essentially washed out by the introduced diffusion in the GNOR model. The ECS curves of HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_2$ and HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_3$ are are not presented in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Cext\\_nanowire\\], but we found that they they lie in between the displayed curves of HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_1$ and HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_4$.\n\n![The electric-field and current-density distributions of the light-matter interaction of a Na nanowire. In the upper row, we show the distributions on the fourth-order nonlocal resonance at $\\omega/\\omega_p=1.227$ for the NHD model. For comparison, in the bottom row we show the corresponding distributions for the GNOR model.[]{data-label=\"fig:Fields_nanowire\"}](./FieldsNanoWire.pdf){width=\"95.00000%\"}\n\nIn our 2D simulations, we use a sparse direct solver MUMPS\u00a0[@AmestoyEtal2000] to solve the resulting systems of linear equations. We need to solve a linear system at each frequency. The computational performance mainly relies on the size of the coefficient matrices, *i.e.* the number of degrees of freedom (\\#DOF). The computational performance for one frequency is given in Table\u00a0\\[tbl:perf\\], where $t_\\text{construction}$ denotes the CPU time for construction the matrices, $t_\\text{factorization}$ denotes the CPU time used by MUMPS for the factorization of the coefficient matrix $A$ , and memory denotes the memory consumed by MUMPS. From Table\u00a0\\[tbl:perf\\] we can see that the HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_4$ is more expensive than HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_1$ in CPU time for both construction and factorization. However, high-order methods are preferable because they costs less for the same accuracy\u00a0[@LLP2013].\n\n      \\[tbl:perf\\]                                                                                     \n  -------------------- -------- ---------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------\n                        \\#DOF    $t_\\text{construction}$ (second)   $t_\\text{factorization}$ (second)   memory (MB)\n   HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_1$   28,260                0.067                               0.36                      74\n   HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_4$   70,650                 2.4                                 3.3                      418\n\n  : Computational performance of the nanowire problem.\n\nDimer of cylindrical nanowires {#sec:dimer}\n------------------------------\n\nPlasmonic dimer structures with small gaps are both experimentally interesting and computationally challenging because of high field enhancements in the gap region\u00a0[@ToscanoEtal2012; @Gallinet2015; @RazaEtal2015JPCM]. Here we present our HDG simulations of a cylindrical gold dimer geometry as shown in Figure \\[fig:dimerConfig\\](a), and this particular configuration is from Ref.\u00a0[@RazaEtal2015]. A typical mesh is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dimerConfig\\](b). On a mesh with 5,829 nodes, 11,520 triangles and 17,348 edges with 3,712 edges inside the nanostructure, we calculate the ECS curve by HDG-$\\mathbb{P}_4$. The size of matrix for HDG-$P1$ is $105,300\\times105,300$, the matrix construction CPU time is 5.2 seconds, the factorization CPU time is 6.9 seconds for one frequency, and the memory cost is 717 MB.\n\nFor the material properties gold we use the same values as in Ref.\u00a0[@ToscanoEtal2012]: the plasma frequency $\\omega_p=1.34\\times10^{16}$, damping constant $\\gamma=1.14\\times 10^{14}$, the Fermi velocity $v_F=1.39\\times 10^{6}$, and the nonlocal parameter $\\beta$ is determined by $\\beta^2=\\frac{3}{5}v_F^2$. The incoming plane wave of light is incident perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the two circles, with a linear polarization parallel to this line (TM- or $p$-polarization). A comparison of the ECS curves is presented in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dimECS\\]. Overall, there are small but clear differences, illustrating that nonlocal response effects occur even for dimer structures for which the corresponding monomers ($r= 30$nm nanowires) would show essentially no nonlocal effects\u00a0[@ToscanoEtal2012]. Both nonlocal models have blueshifted resonances as compared to the local model, and resonances in the GNOR model are less pronounced than in the local and NHD models. For smaller gap sizes, nonlocal blueshifts are larger and resonances are broadened more (the latter only in the GNOR model). Field distributions at the same particular frequency for the NHD and the GNOR models are compared in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dimerFields\\]. The figure illustrates the generic features that the GNOR model washes out some finer details of the field distributions, and also that minimal and maximal field values lie closer together in the GNOR model.\n\n![Comparison of extinction cross sections of a gold dimer as calculated with the local Drude model, the NHD model and the GNOR model. The configuration is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dimerConfig\\] and the material parameters are given in subsection\u00a0\\[sec:dimer\\]. []{data-label=\"fig:dimECS\"}](./dimerECS.pdf){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n![Various field distributions in the gold dimer when illuminated by a plane wave of light. On the top line we show the distributions at the third SPR of the NHD model, at $\\omega/\\omega_p=0.66$. On the second line we show the corresponding distributions in the GNOR model at the same frequency.[]{data-label=\"fig:dimerFields\"}](./FieldsDimer.pdf){width=\"95.00000%\"}\n\nConclusions {#sec:con}\n===========\n\nThis paper introduces a HDG method to solve the nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model and the GNOR model, both of which are often employed to describe light-matter interactions of nanostructures. The numerical fluxes are expressed in terms of two newly introduced hybrid terms. Only the hybrid unknowns are involved in the global problem. The local problems are solved element-by-element once the hybrid terms are obtained. The proposed HDG formulations naturally couple the hard-wall boundary condition. Numerical results indicate that the HDG method converges at the optimal rate. Our benchmark simulations for a cylindrical nanowire and our calculations for a dimer structure show that the HDG method is a promising method in nanophotonics. Building on these results, in the near future we plan to generalize our computations to 3D structures, and to introduce domain decomposition and model order reduction into nanophotonic computations.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThe first author was supported by the NSFC (11301057) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (ZYGX2014J082). N. A. M. and M. W. acknowledge support from the Danish Council for Independent Research (FNU 1323-00087). M. W. acknowledges support from the Villum Foundation via the VKR Centre of Excellence NATEC-II. The Center for Nanostructured Graphene is sponsored by the Danish National Research Foundation, Project DNRF103.\n\nReferences {#references .unnumbered}\n==========\n\n[10]{} S.A. Maier, *Plasmonics: Fundamentals and Applications*, Springer, New York, 2007.\n\nM.S. Tame, K.R. McEnery, S.K. [\u00d6]{}zdemir, J. Lee, S.A. Maier, M.S. Kim, Quantum Plasmonics, *Nature Physics* 9(6): 329-340, 2013.\n\nS.I. Bozhevolnyi, N.A. Mortensen, Plasmonics for emerging quantum technologies, *Nanophotonics* 2016. doi: 10.1515/nanoph-2016-0179\n\nJ.M. Fitzgerald, P. Narang, R.V. Craster, S.A. Maier, V. Giannini, Quantum Plasmonics, *Proceedings of the IEEE* PP(99): 1-16, 2016. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2016.2584860\n\nD. Sarid, W.A. Challener, *Modern Introduction to Surface Plasmons: Theory, Mathematica Modeling, and Applications*, Cambridge University Press, 2010.\n\nB. Gallinet, J. Butet, O. J. F. Martin, Numerical methods for nanophotonics: standard problems and future challenges *Laser Photonics Rev.* 9(6): 577\u2013603, 2015.\n\nA. Varas and P. Garc[\u00ed]{}a-Gonz[\u00e1]{}lez, J. Feist, F.J. Garc[\u00ed]{}a-Vidal, A. Rubio, Quantum plasmonics: from jellium models to ab initio calculations, *Nanophotonics* 5(3): 409-426, 2016.\n\nN.A. Mortensen, S. Raza, M. Wubs, T. S\u00f8ndergaard, S. I. Bozhevolnyi, A generalized non-local optical response theory for plasmonic nanostructures, *Nature Communications*, 5:3809, 2014.\n\nG. Toscano, J. Straubel, A. Kwiatkowski, C. Rockstuhl, F. Evers, H. Xu, N.A. Mortensen, M. Wubs, Resonance shifts and spill-out effects in self-consistent hydrodynamic nanoplasmonics, *Nature Communications*, 6:7132, 2015.\n\nY. Luo, A.I. Fernandez-Dominguez, A. Wiener, S.A. Maier, J.B. Pendry, Surface plasmons and nonlocality: a simple model, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 111(9): 093901, 2013.\n\nW. Yan, M. Wubs, N.A. Mortensen, Projected dipole model for quantum plasmonics, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* 115(13): 137403. 2015.\n\nT. Christensen, W. Yan, A.-P. Jauho, M. Solja[\u010d]{}i[\u0107]{}, N.A. Mortensen, Quantum corrections in nanoplasmonics: shape, scale, and material, arXiv:1608.05421.\n\nW. Zhu, R. Esteban, A.G. Borisov, J.J. Baumberg, P. Nordlander, H.J. Lezec, J. Aizpurua, K.B. Crozier, Quantum mechanical effects in plasmonic structures with subnanometre gaps, *Nature Communications* 7:11495, 2016.\n\nP. Drude, Zur Elektronentheorie der Metalle, *Annalen der Physik*, 306(3):566-613, 1900.\n\nM. Dressel, M. Scheffler, Verifying the Drude response. *Ann. Phys.*, 15(7-8): 535-544, 2006.\n\nF. Bloch, Bremsverm[\" o]{}gen von Atomen mit mehreren Elektronen, Z. Physik 81:363, 1933.\n\nS. Raza, S. I. Bozhevolnyi, M. Wubs, N.A. Mortensen, Nonlocal optical response in metallic nanostructures, *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*, 27: 183204, 2015.\n\nK. Busch, M. K\u00f6nig, J. Niegemann, Discontinuous Galerkin methods in nanophotonics, *Laser Photonics Rev.*, 5(6): 773-809, 2011.\n\nA. Taflove, S.C. Hagness, *Computational Electrodynamics - The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method*, Third Edition, Artech House Publishers, 2005.\n\nJ.S. Hesthaven, T. Warburton, Nodal high-order methods on unstructured grids: I. Time-domain solution of Maxwell\u2019s equations, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 181(1):186-221, 2002.\n\nB. Cockburn, J. Gopalakrishnan, R. Lazarov, Unified hybridization of discontinuous [Galerkin]{}, mixed, and continuous [Galerkin]{} methods for second order elliptic problems, *SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*, 47(2):1319-1365, 2009.\n\nN.C. Nguyen, J. Peraire, B. Cockburn, Hybridizable discontinuous [Galerkin]{} methods for the time-harmonic [Maxwell\u2019s]{} equations, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 230(19): 7151-7175, 2011.\n\nL. Li, S. Lanteri, R. Perrussel, A hybridizable discontinuous [G]{}alerkin method combined to a Schwarz algorithm for the solution of 3d time-harmonic Maxwell\u2019s equation, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 256(1): 563-581, 2014.\n\nY.X. He, L. Li, S. Lanteri, T.Z. Huang, Optimized Schwarz algorithms for solving time-harmonic Maxwell\u2019s equations discretized by a hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method, Comput. Phys. Commun., 200: 23-31, 2016.\n\nJ. Viquerat, Simulation of electromagnetic waves propagation in nano-optics with a high-order discontinuous Galerkin time-domain method, PhD thesis, University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis, December 2015.\n\nY.\u00a0Q. Huang, J.\u00a0C. Li, W. Yang, Theoretical and numerical analysis of a non-local dispersion model for light interaction with metallic nanostructures, *Comput. Math. Appl.*, 72: 921-932, 2016.\n\nN. Schmitt, C. Scheid, S. Lanteri, A. Moreau, J. Viquerat, A DGTD method for the numerical modeling of the interaction of light with nanometer scale metallic structures taking into account non-local dispersion effects, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 316(1): 396-415, 2016.\n\nK.R. Hiremath, L. Zschiedrich, F. Schmidt, Numerical solution of nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model for arbitrary shaped nano-plasmonic structures using N\u00e9d\u00e9lec finite elements, *J. Comput. Phys.*, 231: 5890-5896, 2012.\n\nS. Raza, M. Wubs, S. I. Bozhevolnyi, N. Asger Mortensen, Nonlocal study of ultimate plasmon hybridization, *Opt. Lett.*, 40 (5): 839-842, 2015.\n\nP. Jewsbury, Electrodynamic boundary conditions at metal interfaces, *J. Phys. F: Met. Phys.* 11(1): 195, 1981.\n\nW. Yan, N. A. Mortensen, M. Wubs, Green\u2019s function surface-integral method for nonlocal response of plasmonic nanowires in arbitrary dielectric environments, *Phys. Rev. B* 88: 155414, 2013.\n\nB.\u00a0Stupfel, Absorbing boundary conditions on arbitrary boundaries for the scalar and vector wave equations, *IEEE T. Antenn. Propag.*, 42(6): 773-780, 1994.\n\nS. Yakovlev, D. Moxey, R. M. Kirby, S. J. Sherwin, To CG or to HDG: A Comparative Study in 3D, *J. Sci. Comput.*, 67(1): 192\u2013220, 2016.\n\nD.N. Arnold, B. Brezzi, B. Cockburn, L.D. Marini, Unified analysis of discontinuous [Galerkin]{} methods for elliptic problems, *SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*, 39(5): 749-1779, 2002.\n\nM. El Bouajaji and S. Lanteri, High order discontinuous Galerkin method for the solution of 2D time-harmonic Maxwell\u2019s equations, *Appl. Math. Comput.*, 219(13): 7241-7251, 2013.\n\nL. Li, S. Lanteri, R. Perrussel, Numerical investigation of a high order hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method for 2d time-harmonic Maxwell\u2019s equations, COMPEL. 32: 1112-1138, 2013.\n\nP. Amestoy, I. Duff, J. L\u2019Excellent, Multifrontal parallel distributed symmetric and unsymmetric solvers, *Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng.* 184: 501-520, 2000.\n\nJ. Gopalakrishnan, S. Lanteri, N. Olivares, and R. Perrussel, Stabilization in relation to wavenumber in HDG methods, *Adv. Model. and Simul. in Eng. Sci.* 2(13), 2015.\n\nG. Toscano, S. Raza, A.P. Jauho, N.A. Mortensen, M. Wubs, Modified field enhancement and extinction by plasmonic nanowire dimers due to nonlocal response, *Opt. Express*, 20 (4): 4176-4188, 2012.\n\nR. Ruppin, Extinction properties of thin metallic nanowires, *Opt. Commun.*, 190: 205-209, 2001.\n\nM.J. Berg, A. Chakrabarti, C.M. Sorensen, General derivation of the total electromagnetic cross sections for an arbitrary particle, *J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer*, 10: 43-50, 2009.\n\n[^1]: https://www.lumerical.com/\n\n[^2]: http://www.comsol.com/\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'P. Karpov'\n- 'F. Piazza'\ndate: 'September 30, 2019'\ntitle: 'Supplemental Material for \u201cCrystalline droplets with emergent topological color-charge in many-body systems with sign-changing interactions\u201d'\n---\n\nDensity-wave phase transition: mean-field theory {#Appendix Density-wave transition}\n================================================\n\nIn this Supplementary Section we construct a mean-field theory for density-wave phase transition and find the temperature dependence of the order parameter. This can be done if the number of atoms inside a $D$-dimensional sphere with radius $\\xi$ is much greater than one: $n \\xi^D \\gg 1$.\n\nLet $n_A$ and $n_B$ be the average concentrations of particles per cite at the two checkerboard sublattices $A$ and $B$. We define the sublattice imbalance order parameter as $$\\begin{aligned}\nm(T)= \\frac{n_A-n_B}{2n}\n\\label{eq:order_param_Z2}\\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $n = N/L^D$ is average number of particles per site in the uniform phase. We start from the density-wave phase $n_A\\approx 2n$, $n_B \\approx 0$, so $m\\approx 1$ and want to describe a transition to the uniform state $n_A\\approx n_B\\approx n$, $m\\approx 0$.\n\nConsider a particle in the effective mean field potential created by other particles. The particle can be treated as an effective two-level system, where two states correspond to sublattices $A$ and $B$. The ground-state energy of the chosen particle is reached when it sits at the sublattice $A$: $$\\begin{aligned}\nE_0 = -n_A U_A + n_B U_B\\end{aligned}$$ The particle is in the excited state, when it sits at the sublattice $B$, then its energy is $$\\begin{aligned}\nE_1 = -n_B U_A + n_A U_B\\end{aligned}$$ The excitation energy of the particle is $$\\begin{aligned}\nE_1-E_0 = (n_A-n_B) [U_A+U_B]=2n\\, m(T) [U_A+U_B]\\end{aligned}$$ Let $n_0$ be the occupation number for the considered particle of sublattice $A$ and $n_1$ for sublattice $B$, so only one of $n_0, n_1$ is non-zero and $n_0+n_1=1$. Now we are dealing with a simple statistical-mechanics problem of a classical two-level system with Hamiltonian $H=n_0 E_0 + n_1 E_1$, but with additional self-consistency conditions $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\langle n_0 \\rangle = n_A/2n \\nonumber\\\\\n& \\langle n_1 \\rangle = n_B/2n\\end{aligned}$$ where average is defined as $\\langle O \\rangle = (O_0 \\cdot e^{-E_0/T} + O_1 \\cdot e^{-E_1/T})/Z$, and $Z$ is the single-particle partition function $Z=e^{-E_0/T}+e^{-E_1/T}$. Subtracting these two equations we get the self-consistency condition in a compact form $$\\begin{aligned}\nm(T) = 2\\langle n_0 \\rangle -1\n\\label{eq:self-consistency}\\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $\\langle n_0 \\rangle =  e^{-E_0/T}/Z$ to (\\[eq:self-consistency\\]) we get $$\\begin{aligned}\nm = \\frac{2}{1+e^{-2n[U_A+U_B] m/T}} - 1\n\\label{eq:self-consistency-full}\\end{aligned}$$ Figure \\[fig:plot\\_m\\_T\\_analytical\\] shows the dependence $m(T)$, implicitly defined by eq. (\\[eq:self-consistency-full\\]) (this equation is used in order to construct Fig. 2a of the main text). Expanding its RHS to the first order in $m$ we find $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{\\mathrm{DW}} = \\frac{N [U_A + U_B ]}{L^D}\n\\label{eq:T_CDW_mean_field}\\end{aligned}$$ The third-order expansion gives also the mean-field critical exponent $m(T)\\sim |T-T_c|^{1/2}$).\n\nComparing the mean-field value of $T_{\\mathrm{DW}}$ (\\[eq:T\\_CDW\\_mean\\_field\\]) with the estimate obtained from the free energy arguments (\\[eq:T\\_CDW-arbitrary-D-N\\]) we see that they indeed differ only by a numerical factor $2\\ln2\\approx 1.4$, with mean-field result giving higher value of the critical temperature.\n\nWe also note that the expression in the square brackets in (\\[eq:T\\_CDW\\_mean\\_field\\]) is the integrated \u201cstaggered\u201d strength of the interaction potential: $U_{stag} = -\\sum (-1)^{i_x+i_y} U_{i_x,i_y} = U_A + U_B$. Therefore the mean-field expression for the DW-transition critical temperature can be expressed as $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{\\mathrm{DW}} = \\frac{N U_{stag}}{L^D}\n\\label{eq:T_CDW_mean_field}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n![Analytical mean-field temperature dependence of the sublattice imbalance order parameter; $m(T)$ is implicitly defined by eq. (\\[eq:self-consistency-full\\]). []{data-label=\"fig:plot_m_T_analytical\"}](figAppA_plot_m_T_mean_field_Z2.png){width=\"0.45\\linewidth\"}\n\nWe can estimate the limits of applicability of the mean-field theory using the Ginzburg criterion $t_G = |T_G-T_{\\mathrm{DW}}|/T_{\\mathrm{DW}} \\sim a^2/(n \\xi^2)$, where the Ginzburg temperature $T_G$ is the temperature above which fluctuation effects become important, $\\xi$ is the range of the potential. The mean-field theory works better and better with the growing number of particles in $\\xi \\times \\xi$ region, $n (\\xi/a)^2$, ultimately becoming exact when the latter quantity goes to infinity.\n\nDroplet-formation phase transition: exactly-solvable toy model and numerical tests {#Appendix Collapse transition}\n==================================================================================\n\nIn this Supplementary Section we, first, consider a toy model for the droplet-formation phase transition and.\n\nConsider $N$ particles occupying $L$ lattice sites in 1D. If two particles sit on the same lattice site they interact with energy $-U_0<0$ (on-site attraction) and particles at different sites don\u2019t interact with each other. Let $n_i$ be the occupation number of site $i$. The Hamiltonian of the system is $$\\begin{aligned}\nH = -\\frac{U_0}{2}\\sum_{i=1}^L n_i (n_i-1) \\approx -\\frac{U_0}{2}\\sum_{i=1}^L n_i^2\\end{aligned}$$ Such model is equivalent to the fully-connected (mean-field) Potts model with $L$ states, which possesses a phase transition from disorder (uniform occupation of all sites) to order (all particles occupy the single site): for $L=2$ it is of the second order and for $L>2$ it is of the first order [@Wu:1982]. The exact solution[@Wu:1982] gives the critical temperature: $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{\\mathrm{dr}}  = \\frac{L-2}{L-1} \\frac{N U_0}{2\\ln(L-1)}\n\\label{eq:Potts}\\end{aligned}$$ In case $L \\gg 1$ this gives us $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{\\mathrm{dr}} \\approx \\frac{N U_0}{2 \\ln L}\n\\label{eq:Tc=NU0/2lnL}\\end{aligned}$$ The simplest model described here works for the case when on-site interaction is much greater then the interaction at nearest-neighboring sites, which corresponds to the case of infinitely many degenerate modes in the optical cavity. Alternatively it can be viewed as a coarse-grained model for interaction with range $\\xi$, where one site corresponds a coarse-grained cell of the size $\\xi$, so we should substitute $L\\rightarrow L/\\xi$. Additional substitution $L/\\xi \\rightarrow (L/\\xi)^D$ trivially generalizes eq. (\\[eq:Tc=NU0/2lnL\\]) to the $D$-dimensional case, thus we arrive to the formula (2) of the main text.\n\nIn order to test eq. (2) of the main text we perform Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of the 1D system with the same Gaussian potential with the range $\\xi$ as we use in the main text. Since eq. (2) works only qualitatively, we check the linear dependence of $T_{\\mathrm{dr}}$ on the number of particles $N$ (Fig. \\[fig:plots\\_Tdr\\]a) and the dependence of the form $T_{\\mathrm{dr}} = A / \\ln(B/\\xi)$ (Fig. \\[fig:plots\\_Tdr\\]b).\n\nSimulation of interaction of color-charged droplets {#Appendix Droplets interaction}\n===================================================\n\nDerivation of the light-mediated interaction of atoms and mapping to the classical lattice gas problem {#Appendix Derivation of the model}\n======================================================================================================\n\n![Geometry of the system. Cavity axis is parallel to $z$; both lasers and the atomic gas are in the $xy$ plane. []{data-label=\"fig:geometry\"}](figAppGeometry.png){width=\"0.5\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn this Supplementary Section we describe the setting we propose for the experimental realization of the interaction we use in the main text. We consider an ensemble of atoms in a multimode cavity pumped transverse to the cavity axis by a pair of lasers with a frequency $\\omega_L$ and mode functions $\\mathbf{\\Omega}(\\mathbf{r}) = \\mathbf{e}_z \\Omega(\\mathbf{r}) \\equiv\n\\mathbf{e}_z (\\Omega_1(\\tilde{x}) + \\Omega_2(\\tilde{y})) \\equiv  \\mathbf{e}_z\n(\\cos(2\\pi \\tilde{x}/\\lambda) + \\cos(2\\pi \\tilde{y}/\\lambda))$ (here $\\tilde{x}=(x-y)/\\sqrt{2}$, $\\tilde{y}=(x+y)/\\sqrt{2}$, Fig. \\[fig:geometry\\]). The cavity possesses (nearly) degenerate modes with frequencies $\\omega_{c\\alpha}$ (where $\\alpha$ is the mode index). The atoms are treated as two-level systems with the level splitting $\\omega_A$ and the transition dipole moment connecting the ground and excited state being parallel to $\\mathbf{e}_x+\\mathbf{e}_z$ (spatial isotropy can be broken by external magnetic field), which allows to couple the atomic dipole transitions to both pump and cavity modes. For more realistic experimental settings with many-level atoms such coupling can be achieved by employing vector polarizability of the atoms[@LeKien:2013].\n\nFor low density of atoms we can neglect their contact interaction and describe the light-mediated interaction in a multimode cavity by the following effective action [@Gopalakrishnan:2009]: $$\\begin{aligned}\nS = S_{at} + S_{int} + S_{em}\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{at} =  \\int d\\mathbf{r} d\\tau \\left[ \\Psi_g^*(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) \\left( \\partial_{\\tau} -\\frac{\\hbar\\nabla^2}{2M} -\\frac{\\mu}{\\hbar} \\right) \\Psi_g(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) +\n    \\Psi_e^*(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) \\left( \\partial_{\\tau} -\\frac{\\hbar\\nabla^2}{2M} -\\frac{\\mu}{\\hbar} + \\Delta_a \\right) \\Psi_e(\\mathbf{r},\\tau)  \\right]\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{int} = \\int d\\mathbf{r} d\\tau \\left[ \\sum_{\\alpha} i g_{\\alpha}(\\mathbf{r}) \\Psi^*_e(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) \\Psi_g(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) a_{\\alpha}(\\tau) + i\\Omega(\\mathbf{r}) \\Psi^*_e (\\mathbf{r},\\tau) \\Psi_g(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) + h.c.\\right]\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{em} = \\int d\\tau \\sum_{\\alpha} a^*_{\\alpha}(\\tau) (\\partial_{\\tau}+\\Delta_{c\\alpha}) a_{\\alpha}(\\tau)\\end{aligned}$$ Here $\\Psi_g$ and $\\Psi_e$ are the bosonic second-quantized fields corresponding to the ground and excited states of the atoms with mass $M$. We work in the reference frame rotating at the laser frequency $\\omega_L$ and denote $\\Delta_a = \\omega_A - \\omega_L$, $\\Delta_{c\\alpha} = \\omega_{c\\alpha} - \\omega_L$. $g_{\\alpha} (\\mathbf{r}) = g_{0} \\Xi_{\\alpha}(\\mathbf{r})$ where $g_0$ is the atom-cavity coupling strength and $\\Xi_{\\alpha}(\\mathbf{r})$ is the normalized mode function of the cavity mode $\\alpha$. Integrating out excited state $\\Psi_e$ and cavity modes $a_{\\alpha}$ we get the following effective action $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{\\text{eff}}[\\Psi_g,\\Psi_g^*]&=\\int d\\mathbf{r} d\\tau \\Psi_g^*(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) \\left( \\partial_{\\tau} -\\frac{\\nabla^2}{2M} +(V(\\mathbf{r})-\\mu) \\right ) \\Psi_g(\\mathbf{r},\\tau)-\\nonumber \\\\\n&+ \\int d\\tau d\\mathbf{r} d\\mathbf{r}'\n|\\Psi_g(\\mathbf{r},\\tau)|^2 U(\\mathbf{r},\\mathbf{r}')  |\\Psi_g(\\mathbf{r}',\\tau)|^2\n\\label{eq:eff-action-simplified}\\end{aligned}$$ The external optical potential $V(\\mathbf{r})$ and the cavity-mediated interaction $U(\\mathbf{r}, \\mathbf{r}')$ are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nV(\\mathbf{r}) &= -\\frac{1}{\\Delta_a} |\\Omega(\\mathbf{r})|^2 \\label{eq:ExternalPotential}\\\\\nU(\\mathbf{r},\\mathbf{r}') &=- \\frac{g_0^2}{\\Delta_a^2} \\Omega^*(\\mathbf{r}) \\Omega(\\mathbf{r}') \\sum_{\\alpha}  \\frac{\\Xi^*_{\\alpha}(\\mathbf{r}) \\Xi_{\\alpha}(\\mathbf{r}')}{\\Delta_{c\\alpha}} \\label{eq:InteractionPotential}\\end{aligned}$$ We consider the case of red-detuned laser frequency with respect to both atom splitting and to cavity nearly degenerate modes $\\Delta_a, \\Delta_{c\\alpha}>0$. In this case the atoms are attracted to maxima of $|\\Omega(\\mathbf{r})|^2$; the interaction is attractive at small distances $\\mathbf{r}'\\rightarrow \\mathbf{r}$ i.e. $U(\\mathbf{r},\\mathbf{r})<0$, which creates a possibility for a peculiar droplet-formation phase transition.\n\n[*Mapping to a classical lattice-gas problem.*]{} We consider the classical limit of the action (\\[eq:eff-action-simplified\\]), which bounds of applicability we find below. For a large number of particles $N\\gg1$ we can use the canonical ensemble ($N=const$) instead of the grand canonical one ($\\mu=const$), and describe the system of atoms by a classical Hamiltonian $H = \\sum_i V(\\mathbf{r}_i) + \\sum_{i ,j} U(\\mathbf{r}_i, \\mathbf{r}_j)$.\n\nWe study the case when the external optical potential $V$ confines all the particles to the plane $z=0$. For the pump mode function chosen as $\\Omega(\\mathbf{x}) = \\Omega_0 (\\cos(2\\pi \\tilde{x}/\\lambda)+ \\cos(2\\pi \\tilde{y}/\\lambda))$, the external optical potential (\\[eq:ExternalPotential\\]) becomes $V(\\mathbf{x})= -V_0 (\\cos(2\\pi \\tilde{x}/\\lambda)+\\cos (2\\pi \\tilde{y}/\\lambda))^2$, with $V_0 = \\Omega_0^2/\\Delta_a^2$. The interaction potential (\\[eq:InteractionPotential\\]) takes the form $U(\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{x}') \\sim - (\\cos\\frac{2\\pi \\tilde{x}}{\\lambda}+\\cos\\frac{2\\pi \\tilde{y}}{\\lambda}) (\\cos\\frac{2\\pi \\tilde{x}'}{\\lambda}+\\cos\\frac{2\\pi \\tilde{y}'}{\\lambda})$, see Fig. 1. The interaction potential $U(\\mathbf{x}, \\mathbf{x}')$ is sign-alternating and attractive at short distances, as considered in the main text. For $V_0 \\gg|U|$ it is convenient to define the lattice version of the interaction potential $U_{i, j}=U(0,i \\,\\mathbf{a}_1+j  \\,\\mathbf{a}_2)$ where $\\mathbf{a}_1, \\mathbf{a}_2$ are the basis vectors of the optical lattice, with $|\\mathbf{a}_1|=|\\mathbf{a}_2|=a=\\lambda/\\sqrt{2}$ (Fig. 1a).\n\nExperimental realization and results for the 4-color case. {#Appendix Z4}\n==========================================================\n\nIn this Supplementary Section we show how to modify the experimental scheme in order to have 4 types of color-charges and present the results of the simulations in this case.\n\nWe consider a pair of transverse to the cavity axis lasers with orthogonally-polarized pump modes $\\mathbf{\\Omega}(\\mathbf{r}) =  (\\mathbf{e}_y\\Omega_1(x) + \\mathbf{e}_x\\Omega_2(y)) \\equiv  (\\mathbf{e}_y\\cos(2\\pi x/\\lambda) + \\mathbf{e}_x\\cos(2\\pi y/\\lambda))$, with each polarization being coupled to one of the two degenerate excited states $\\Psi_{e,1}$, $\\Psi_{e,2}$, which scatter the light into two families of orthogonally-polarized cavity modes $a_{\\alpha,1}$, $a_{\\alpha,2}$ degenerate with respect to polarization. Analogously to the previous section we have\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{at} =  \\int d\\mathbf{r} d\\tau \\left[ \\Psi_g^*(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) \\left( \\partial_{\\tau} -\\frac{\\hbar\\nabla^2}{2M} -\\frac{\\mu}{\\hbar} \\right) \\Psi_g(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) +\n    \\sum_{i=1,2}  \\Psi_{e,i}^*(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) \\left( \\partial_{\\tau} -\\frac{\\hbar\\nabla^2}{2M} -\\frac{\\mu}{\\hbar} + \\Delta_a \\right) \\Psi_{e,i}(\\mathbf{r},\\tau)  \\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{int} = \\int d\\mathbf{r} d\\tau \\left[ i \\sum_{\\alpha,i} g_{\\alpha}(\\mathbf{r}) \\Psi^*_{e,i}(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) \\Psi_g(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) a_{\\alpha,i}(\\tau) + i\\sum_{i=1,2}\\Omega_i(\\mathbf{r}) \\Psi^*_{e,i} (\\mathbf{r},\\tau) \\Psi_g(\\mathbf{r},\\tau) + h.c.\\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{em} = \\int d\\tau \\sum_{\\alpha,i} a^*_{\\alpha,i}(\\tau) (\\partial_{\\tau}+\\Delta_{c\\alpha}) a_{\\alpha,i}(\\tau)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAfter integrating out excited state $\\Psi_e$ and cavity modes $a_{\\alpha}$ we get the effective action (\\[eq:eff-action-simplified\\]) with the external and interaction potentials $$\\begin{aligned}\nV(\\mathbf{r}) &= -\\frac{1}{\\Delta_a} \\left(|\\Omega_1(\\mathbf{r})|^2 +|\\Omega_2(\\mathbf{r})|^2 \\right) \\label{eq:ExternalPotential}\\\\\nU(\\mathbf{r},\\mathbf{r}') &= -\\frac{g_0^2}{\\Delta_a^2} \\left(\\Omega_1^*(\\mathbf{r}) \\Omega_1(\\mathbf{r}') + \\Omega_2^*(\\mathbf{r}) \\Omega_2(\\mathbf{r}')\\right)\\sum_{\\alpha}  \\frac{\\Xi^*_{\\alpha}(\\mathbf{r}) \\Xi_{\\alpha}(\\mathbf{r}')}{\\Delta_{c\\alpha}} \\label{eq:InteractionPotential}\\end{aligned}$$ Periodicity of the external potential $V$ and the sign-changing nature of the interaction $U$ is shown in Fig. \\[fig:potential\\_orthogonal\\_polarizations\\]. DW-state here breaks the translational $\\mathbb{Z}_2 \\times \\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry.\n\n![Contour plot of the external potential $V(x,y)$ (blue contours) and signs of the interaction potential $U(0,0,x,y)$ ($+,-,0$) for the 4-color case. The contours encircle the local minima of the potential $V$. The interaction potential $U$ favors the formation of density-wave corresponding to one of the four sublattices $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ (marked by red, green, black, and blue colors) and endows the droplets with $\\mathbb{Z}_2 \\times \\mathbb{Z}_2$ color-charge.[]{data-label=\"fig:potential_orthogonal_polarizations\"}](figAppZ4_potential_orthogonal_polarizations.png){width=\"5cm\"}\n\nFigures \\[fig:Z4\\_modeling\\_plots\\]-\\[fig:quench\\_Z4\\] show the results of the numerical simulations for the $\\mathbb{Z}_2 \\times \\mathbb{Z}_2$ case analogous to Figures 3-5 for $\\mathbb{Z}_2$ case presented in the main text.\n\n\\\n\n[99]{}\n\nF.Y. Wu, *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **54**, 235 (1982).\n\nF. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Dynamical polarizability of atoms in arbitrary light fields: general theory and application to cesium, *Eur. Phys. J. D* [**67**]{}, 92 (2013).\n\nS. Gopalakrishnan, B. Lev, and P. Goldbart, Emergent crystallinity and frustration with BECs in multimode cavities, *Nature Physics* [**5**]{}, 845 (2009).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The multiscaling properties of the mixed Obukhov-Novikov shell model of turbulence are investigated numerically and compared with those of the complex GOY model, mostly studied in the recent years. Two types of generic singular fluctuations are identified\u00a0: first, self-similar solutions propagating from large to small scales and building up intermittency, second, complex time singularities inhibiting the cascade and promoting chaos. A simple and robust method is proposed to track these objects. It is shown that the scaling exponent of self-similar solutions selected by the dynamics is compatible with large order statistics whenever it departs enough from the Kolmogorov value. Complex time singularities on the other hand get trapped on the last shells, when the proportion of Novikov interactions exceeds a critical value which is argued to mark the boundary between chaotic and regular dynamics in the limit of infinite Reynolds number.'\naddress: 'Centre de Recherches sur les Tr\u00e8s Basses Temp\u00e9ratures, CNRS, BP166, 38042 Grenoble Cedex\u00a09, France'\nauthor:\n- 'Thierry Dombre and Jean-Louis Gilson'\ntitle: 'Intermittency, chaos and singular fluctuations in the mixed Obukhov-Novikov shell model of turbulence'\n---\n\npsfig\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe shell models of turbulence have recently attracted a lot of interest as a useful tool for mimicking the Navier-Stokes dynamics. In the simplest scalar models, one places velocity variables on a one-dimensional array of wavevectors of the form $k_{n}=k_{0} Q^{n}$, where the integer $n$ labels the shell from 0 to, ideally, $+\\infty$ and $Q$ is a scale parameter fixing the step of the cascade. The time evolution of shell-velocities is governed by ordinary differential equations with quadratic non-linearities, whose strength grows like $k_{n}$, deterministic forcing at large scales and viscous dissipation at small ones. The couplings between shells are usually local and chosen in such a way that the total kinetic energy is conserved in the absence of forcing and viscous effects. These hydrodynamic systems display strong departure from the naive scaling expected on the basis of Kolmogorov- like dimensional analysis, which shows up in particular in the higher order moments of velocity. Following the seminal work of Okhitani and Yamada [@YO; @OY], Jensen, Paladin and Vulpiani [@JPV] found in a particular shell model, nowadays referred to as the GOY model, multiscaling properties very close to those of real turbulent flows. Most subsequent studies in this field have therefore concentrated on the GOY model and important progress was made towards a deeper understanding of its behaviour in recent publications [@BBP; @BLLP; @KLWB] (we shall go back to some of these results in the bulk of the paper).\\\nThe GOY model uses complex velocity variables and interactions among all triads made up of three different neighbouring shells. One may wonder whether these two features are necessary to produce \u201cgood\u201d chaotic properties. In order to clarify this question, we report in this paper a mostly numerical investigation of the scaling properties of a simpler class of shell models, which results from the linear superposition of two chains introduced in the early $70'$s by Obukhov [@O] and Novikov [@DN] (for an historical insight into the field and a comprehensive review of the huge russian litterature concerned with cascade-like systems under various disguises, see for instance [@GGO]). In the Obukhov-Novikov model, hereafter referred to as the ON model, the velocity variables are real and interacting triads involve only two neighbouring shells. The structure of non-linearities depends as in the GOY model on a single parameter (together with the scale parameter $Q$), which fixes in that case the relative proportion of the two basic chains. Both models exhibit qualitatively the same phenomenology. When the proportion of Novikov-like interactions (favouring the transfer of energy towards small scales) is high enough, the system relaxes to a time independent state with Kolmogorov scaling properties. As Obukhov-like interactions (favouring on the contrary the backflow of energy towards large scales) take over, the system transits through a Ruelle-Takens scenario into a chaotic state with stochastic fluctuations. There is clearly multifractality close to the transition, even if it looks less pronounced than the one observed in the GOY model for usual values of parameters.\\\nWe switch to more deterministic concerns in the second part of this paper, which aims at characterizing singular fluctuations able to form in the ON model or more generally in any one-dimensional shell model. We shall argue that self-similar or soliton-like solutions of the equations of motion in the inertial range are the building blocks of intermittency, while movable singularities occuring at complex times induce chaos by inhibiting the energy cascade. We are not aware of any previous study of the structure of complex time singularities in shell models. In contrast, self-similar solutions were already considered within the context of the ON model by Siggia [@S78] and later on in more details by Nakano [@N88]. They are curiously absent of more recent works. We propose here an efficient method for identifying such solutions without any [*a priori*]{} assumption on their shape. We find that the set of dynamically accessible self-similar solutions is in fact limited to one single object (as Nakano\u2019s results suggested it). This proves that multiscaling properties should not be ascribed to the existence of a large manifold of singular behaviours. The exponent $z$ controlling the multiplicative growth of these particular solutions, accounts in a satisfying way for the asymptotic scaling properties of high order velocity or energy transfer moments. It is easy to extend this analysis to the GOY model, where basically the same conclusions concerning the unicity of solutions can be drawn. However self-similar solutions in that case are very mild and do not seem to play a major role in the statistics at high orders.\\\nThe paper is organized as follows : in Section 2 we specify the conventions used in our computations for normalizing variables and parameters and describe some general properties of the ON model. Section 3 presents statistical results obtained from numerics. The emphasis is put on scaling exponents of the moments of energy transfer and their evolution with the relative proportion of Obukhov and Novikov interactions. Our goal here is to provide the reader with data and facts, disentangled from any theoretical interpretation. An attempt of comparison with the GOY model is made. Section 4 is devoted to the hunt for self-similar solutions and a confrontation of their scaling properties with the statistics of the model at large orders. Complex time singularities are introduced and studied in Section 5, while perspectives and conclusions are briefly outlined in Section 6.\n\nGeneral properties of the model\n===============================\n\nDefinitions and basic considerations\n------------------------------------\n\nAs already said in the Introduction, scalar shell models define a velocity variable $u_{n}$, real or complex, on a one-dimensional array of wave-vectors $k_{n}=k_{0}Q^{n}$ where the integer $n$ runs from $0$ to $N$. In most of the paper we shall restrict ourselves to the case of real variables. It simplifies notations to consider that the $u_{n}$ form a ($N+1$)-dimensional vector $\\vec u$. The equation of motion then takes the following form $$\\frac{d}{dt}\\vec{u} =\\vec{N}[\\vec{u}]+\\vec{F}-\\vec{D}\n\\label{equmod1}$$ where the three vectors $\\vec N$, $\\vec F$, $\\vec D$ embody respectively the non-linearities, the external forcing and the dissipation. We only considered a deterministic forcing acting on the $\\mbox{zero}^{th}$ shell and usual viscous dissipation, which means $$F_{n}=f\\delta _{n,0}\\;\\;\\;,\\;\\;\\; D_{n}=\\nu k_{n}^{2}u_{n}$$ where $\\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity. The nonlinear kernel $\\vec N$ is quadratic in the $u_{n}$, with a coupling constant growing like $k_{n}$ in order to reproduce the hierarchy of characteristic times of the Navier-Stokes dynamics. It must also conserve the total kinetic energy $E=\\displaystyle{1\\over 2}\\sum_{n=0}^{N} u_{n}^{2}$. If interactions between shells (which are always supposed to be local) do not extend beyond nearest neighbours, the most general expression for the $n^{th}$ component of $\\vec N$ is $$N_{n}[\\vec u] = \\alpha Q^{2\\over 3} [k_{n}u_{n-1}u_{n}-k_{n+1}u_{n+1}^2]\n+\\beta [k_{n}u_{n-1}^2-k_{n+1}u_{n}u_{n+1}]$$ (this formula remains valid on the two boundaries $n=0$ and $n=N$, provided $u_{-1}=u_{N+1}=0$ is assumed).\\\nThe model appears like the linear superposition of the Obukhov-Gledzer (OG) and Novikov-Desniansky (ND) chains, with respective weights $\\alpha Q^{2/3}$ and $\\beta$. We shall assume $\\alpha,\\beta >0$ and, without loss of generality, $\\alpha +\\beta =1$. Since, on the average, the $u_{n}$ decrease like $k_{n}^{-1/3}$ according to Kolmogorov-scaling, it is convenient to introduce a new set of variables $\\phi_{n}$ by the relation $$u_{n}=Q^{-{n\\over 3}} \\phi_{n}\n\\label{defphi}$$ The equations for $\\vec \\phi$ read $$\\frac{d}{dt}\\vec{\\phi} = k_{0} Q^{2\\over 3} \\vec{N}[\\vec{\\phi}]+\\vec{F}-\\vec{D}$$ where the expression of the $n^{th}$ component of $\\vec N$ is now $$N_{n}[\\vec{\\phi}]=Q^{2n\\over 3}[(\\alpha \\phi_{n-1}\\phi_{n}+\\beta \\phi_{n-1}^2)\n - (\\alpha \\phi_{n+1}^2+\\beta \\phi_{n}\\phi_{n+1})]\n\\label{nlphi_n}$$ We still have the freedom to set to unity the forcing amplitude and the coefficient in front of $\\vec N$ by non-dimensionalizing in the proper way time and velocities. The final form of the equations (as they were used in the numerical investigations reported in Section 3) is $$\\frac{d}{dt} \\phi_{n} =N_{n}[\\vec{\\phi}] +\\delta_{n,0}-\n{1\\over R} Q^{2n} \\phi_{n}\n\\label{equphi_n}$$ The Reynolds number $R$ has been defined as $\\displaystyle{R={1\\over \\nu} \\sqrt{{f Q^{2\\over 3}}\\over k_{0}^{3}}}$. Equations (\\[nlphi\\_n\\]) and (\\[equphi\\_n\\]) make energy conservation quite obvious. Indeed, in the limit $R=+\\infty$ and for $n\\geq 1$, the energy $E_{n}=\\displaystyle{u_{n}^{2}\\over 2}=\n\\displaystyle{{1\\over 2}{\\phi_{n}^{2} Q^{-{2n\\over 3}}}}$ carried by the $n^{th}$ shell obeys the equation $$\\frac{d}{dt} E_{n}= \\epsilon_{n}-\\epsilon_{n+1}$$ where $$\\epsilon_{n}= \\phi_{n-1} \\phi_{n} (\\alpha \\phi_{n} +\\beta \\phi_{n-1})\n\\label{flux_n}$$ is the energy flux from the $(n-1)^{th}$ to the $n^{th}$ shell. Kolmogorov scaling corresponds to $\\phi_{n}=C^{te}$ or more fundamentally to $\\epsilon_{n}=C^{te}$ throughout the cascade.\\\nThe physics of the model, as defined by equation (\\[equphi\\_n\\]), depends on three parameters, namely : the step of the cascade Q, the proportion of Novikov interactions $\\beta$, and the Reynolds number $R$. The number of shells will not matter, provided the truncation is done far beyond the Kolmogorov dissipative scale, where viscous effects become of the same order as inertial ones. Assuming $\\phi_{n}=O(1)$, the index $N_{d}$ of the dissipative shell is given by the condition $\\displaystyle{{Q^{2N_{d}}\n\\over R}\\sim Q^{2N_{d}\\over 3}}$. One should however pay attention to the fact that the stronger the fluctuation, the smaller the scale at which it will be effectively dissipated. Since $\\phi_{n}$ can grow at most like $Q^{n\\over 3}$ (this corresponds to the extreme case of a fluctuation carrying a constant energy through the cascade), we conclude that $N$ should be an integer between $n_{d}$ and $\\displaystyle{{4\\over 3} n_{d}}$, where we have defined $n_{d}$ as $$n_{d}={3\\over 4} \\frac{\\mbox{Log} R}{\\mbox{Log} Q}\n\\label{defn_d}$$ In our numerical study of the statistical properties of the model, we took $Q=2$, $R=10^{5}$ and let vary $\\beta$ between 0 and 1. The choice of 18 shells ($N=17$) turned out to ensure the absence of any spurious boundary effect.\\\nSince we shall allude sometimes to the complex GOY model, we close this section by writing down the version of it we used in our computations. With complex variables $\\phi_{n}$ rescaled in the way described just before, the equations read :\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d}{dt}\\phi_{0} & = & (2-\\epsilon)[1-\\phi^{*}_1\\phi^{*}_2]-{\\phi_0\\over\nR}\\\\\n\\frac{d}{dt}\\phi_{1} & = & Q^{2\\over\n3}[\\phi^{*}_0\\phi^{*}_2-\\phi^{*}_2\\phi^{*}_3]\n -{Q^2\\over R} \\phi_1\\\\\n\\frac{d}{dt}\\phi_{n} & = & Q^{2n\\over\n3}[(1-\\epsilon)\\phi^{*}_{n-1}\\phi^{*}_{n-2}\n+ \\epsilon \\phi^{*}_{n-1}\\phi^{*}_{n+1} - \\phi^{*}_{n+1}\\phi^{*}_{n+2}]\n -{Q^{2n}\\over R}\\phi_{n}\\quad 2\\leq n \\leq N\\\\\n\\phi_{N+1} & = & \\phi_{N+2}=0\\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\[GOYmod\\]\n\nHere again the structure of non-linearities is fixed by a single parameter $\\epsilon$, varying as $\\beta$ between 0 and 1. We put for simplicity the forcing on the $\\mbox{zero}^{th}$ shell, as first tried in [@BLLP]. The factor $-i$, which is usually kept in front of the non-linear terms, as a remnant of the Navier-Stokes equation, has been absorbed in an innocuous redefinition of variables ($u_{n} \\rightarrow\niu_{n}$). The forcing also can be assumed to be real (here $F_{n}=(2-\\epsilon) \\delta\n_{n,0}$), without loss of generality, thanks to the invariance of equations under the following phase transformation (see for instance [@BBP])\n\n\\[GOYsym\\] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\phi_{3n} & \\rightarrow & e^{i\\theta_{0}} \\phi_{3n}\\\\\n\\phi_{3n+1} & \\rightarrow & e^{i\\theta_{1}} \\phi_{3n+1}\\\\\n\\phi_{3n+2} & \\rightarrow & e^{-i(\\theta_{0}+\\theta_{1})} \\phi_{3n+2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $\\theta_{0}$ and $\\theta_{1}$ are arbitrary angles. There are obvious differences between the real ON model and the complex GOY model, which make their comparison interesting in its own right. The phase space which may be explored by the GOY model is [*a priori*]{} larger, at least for initial conditions not purely real. Also the range of non-linear interactions is wider than in the first model. Lastly, the GOY model admits a second quadratic invariant besides kinetic energy, which is thought to play a prominent role in fixing its statistical properties [@KLWB; @GPZ]. Such an extra invariant is definitely absent in the ON model.\\\n\nFixed points and qualitative description of the phase diagram\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n\nFirst of all, let us say a few words about the existence and the nature of the fixed points of the model, which lead to Kolmogorov scaling. In the absence of dissipation and for an infinite number of shells, $\\phi_{n}=1$ is an obvious solution for any value of $\\beta$. However, once viscous dissipation is introduced, it is easy to see that static solutions making physical sense can exist only for $\\beta \\neq 0$. Indeed for $\\alpha =1$ (OG chain), one has to solve for every $n>0$ $$Q^{2n\\over 3}(\\phi_{n-1}\\phi_{n} - \\phi_{n+1}^2)=\\frac{Q^{2n}}{R} \\phi_{n}\n\\label{pfobu_n}$$ In order to balance the leading order terms of this equation for $n \\rightarrow\n+\\infty$, $\\phi_{n}$ must behave like $-\\displaystyle{Q^{4n\\over 3}\\over R}$ which is not acceptable. This absence of any fixed point in the presence of dissipation for the Obukhov chain is consistent with the dynamical behaviour one observes in this case. A solitary wave of negative amplitude appears invariably at the end of the cascade, which carries back energy towards large scales. In the final state, energy oscillates back and forth between the first two shells, the other ones being inactive.\\\nThings are different, as soon as a finite amount of Novikov interactions is introduced. This is because the term $\\phi_{n-1}^{2}$ in equation (\\[nlphi\\_n\\]) favours energy transfer to small scales. At a static level, assuming a rapid decay of the spectrum on the ultraviolet side (i.e. $\\phi_{n-1}>>\n\\phi_{n}>>\\phi_{n+1}$), one has now to achieve the balance $$\\beta \\phi_{n-1}^{2} \\sim {Q^{4n\\over 3}\\over R}\\phi_{n}$$ This yields the following general solution $\\phi_{n}=\\displaystyle{{Q^{4(n+2)\\over 3}\\over \\beta R}}\n\\mbox{exp}(-b\\,2^{n})$ with $b>0$ otherwise arbitrary. More physically, we may rewrite $\\phi_{n}$ in the dissipative range as $$\\phi_{n}={Q^{4(n-n_{d}+2)\\over 3}\\over \\beta}\\:\\mbox{exp}(-a\\,2^{(n-n_{d})})\n \\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\; \\mbox{for} \\;n>n_{d}\n\\label{pfdiss_n}$$ with $n_{d}$ given by (\\[defn\\_d\\]). These considerations suggest the following procedure for computing the fixed point $\\phi_{n}^{e}$ in the presence of dissipation. The condition of equilibrium for the $n^{th}$ shell being quadratic in $\\phi_{n-1}$, it can be used to express $\\phi_{n-1}$ in terms of $\\phi_{n}$ and $\\phi_{n+1}$. Going from the last shell with $\\phi_{N}$ parameterized as in (\\[pfdiss\\_n\\]) to the first one, and keeping at each step the positive root, one ends up with $N+1$ numbers $\\phi_{N}(a),\\ldots,\n\\phi_{1}(a),\\phi_{0}(a)$. The last equation on the $\\mbox{zero}^{th}$ shell yields then a solvability condition for the parameter $a$ $$F(a)=1-(\\alpha \\phi_{1}^{2}(a)+\\beta \\phi_{0}(a) \\phi_{1}(a))=0\n\\label{pfsolva}$$ Figures \\[shellsta\\] and \\[IRbound\\] show how things work for $Q=2$, $R=10^{5}$ and $\\beta =0.348$. At least in the range of Reynolds numbers investigated here, there exists only one solution and the resulting fixed point is drawn on Fig.\\[ptfix\\]. The emergence of oscillations of period 2 and growing amplitude on the infrared side of the spectrum, is a generic feature of the ON model. Similar phenomena involving period 3 are known to plague the GOY model. Here the explanation is the following : in the inertial range (i.e. $1\\ll n\\ll n_{d}$), the equation to be solved reduces to $$q_n^{-1}(1+Cq_n^{-1})-q_{n+1}(q_{n+1}+C)=0\n\\label{itermap}$$ where one has introduced the ratio $q_n={\\phi_n\\over \\phi_{n-1}}$ and $C={\\beta\n\\over \\alpha}$. Equation (\\[itermap\\]) defines a map $q_{n}=g(q_{n+1})$, whose fixed point $q_{n}=1$ is easily seen to be unstable for $C\\leq 1$. Only for discrete values of the Reynolds number (such that one of the crossing points in Fig.\\[shellsta\\] has ordinate 1), can one hope to get rid of these oscillations. We should say that this odd-even disymmetry, though a pathology of the ON model, is less visible in the chaotic state to be described below. Furthermore, it does not affect other physical quantities like the energy transfer $\\epsilon_{n}$ defined in (\\[flux\\_n\\]).\\\nWe turn now to a qualitative discussion of the phase diagram of the model, which is observed as $\\beta$ varies (for the particular values $Q=2$ and $R=10^{5}$). Although the static solution exists for every strictly positive $\\beta$, it becomes unstable for $\\beta \\leq 0.355 \\pm 10^{-3}$ and evolves towards a periodic limit cycle through a first Hopf bifurcation. A scenario \u00e0 la Ruelle Takens, similar to the one already discovered in the GOY model [@BLLP], leads then to chaos for $\\beta \\leq \\beta^{*} = 0.349 \\pm\n 10^{-3}$. We did not try to get very precise estimates of these two thresholds, whose position is expected to vary with $R$. From a slightly unrelated analysis of movable singularities of the ON model, presented in Section 5, we shall speculate later in the paper that the asymptotic value of $\\beta^{*}$ in the limit of infinite Reynolds number is of order 0.394. In the quasiperiodic regime, the shells oscillate in a coherent way around the static fixed point discussed above. Their oscillations remain of moderate amplitude even close to the transition, and one has with a very good accuracy, for all integers $n$ and $p$, $\\langle \\phi_{n}^{p}(t)\\rangle =(\\phi_{n}^{e})^{p}$ (where $\\langle  \\ldots \\rangle$ denotes a temporal average).\\\nThe behaviour in the chaotic phase is rather simple to understand, far from the transition. For values of $\\beta$ not greater than say 0.28, the dynamics consists in well isolated pulses emitted from the forced shell, after it has reached a significant level. The pulse propagates down the scales, through almost inactive shells, leaving behind a finite amount of energy. After being stopped by dissipation, it gives rise to a rather well characterized pulse of negative amplitude, which carries back to the large scales most of the energy that dissipation failed to absorb. This is quite close to what is observed in the Obukhov limit, although here things repeat themselves in a slightly disordered manner. The picture gets more complicated as $\\beta$ gets closer to $\\beta^{*}$ (typically for $0.30\\leq \\beta \\leq 0.349$). Shells in the inertial range remain almost always active and they form a noisy background out of which only the biggest fluctuations develop like singular pulses. Negative excursions of variables, triggering backflow of energy, occur very rarely. Splitting of pulses as well as partial reflection of some of them may be observed all the way along the cascade. The next Section will help to quantify a bit these statements.\\\n\nMultiscaling properties of the chaotic phase\n============================================\n\nMoments of the variables $\\phi_{n}$, defined as $S_{n,p}=\\langle\\phi_{n}^{p}\\rangle$, are good tools for characterizing the intermittency of shell models. According to (\\[defphi\\]), exponential growth of any of the $S_{n,p}$\u2019s with $n$ in the inertial range is the sign of deviations from K41-scaling. However we shall rather concentrate on moments of the energy flux $\\epsilon_{n}$ defined in (\\[flux\\_n\\]), namely on quantities $\\Sigma _{n,p}=\\langle |\\epsilon _{n}|^{p\\over 3}\\rangle$ The reason for this choice has already been discussed in [@KLWB] within the context of the GOY model. The point is that for moderate $p$, the oscillations we found in the static solution still contaminate $S_{n,p}$. Although they are much smaller, they prevent us from an accurate determination of the scaling exponents. As far as scaling properties are concerned, the $\\Sigma_{n,p}$\u2019s provide a valuable alternative, because they are free from any spurious oscillations.\\\nOn the other hand one must be aware that the absolute value introduces a considerable bias for the lowest moments if the energy cascade has a poor positive \u201csmooth component\u201d, as it is the case far away from the transition where the mean energy transfer is very small. When on the contrary the smooth component is important, $\\epsilon _n$ is almost always positive and $\\langle |\\epsilon_{n}|\\rangle$ is very close to a constant in the inertial range as $\\langle \\epsilon_{n}\\rangle $ should be in a statistically stationnary state. In any case the bias disappears at higher values of $p$ since the strongest fluctuations are always positive.\\\nWe have calculated $\\Sigma_{n,p}$ for $p$ up to $12$. For each run we integrated the equations over $1000$ turn-over or unit times and sampled the signal with a step much smaller than the characteristic time-scales of the more intense structures (in practice we took $\\Delta t =10^{-4})$. The length of each run was enough to ensure the stationarity of the statistics, at least for moments of order $p$ smaller than $7-8$. As shown on Fig. \\[exscal\\] for $\\beta =0.33$, these quantities obey nice power laws on a rather wide range of shell numbers. We may thus define exponents $\\sigma_{p}$ such that in the inertial range $\\Sigma_{n,p}\\sim {k_{n}}^{\\sigma_{p}}$ (the relation between $\\sigma_{p}$ and the usual exponent $\\zeta_{p}$ associated to the velocity field is : $\\zeta_{p}={p\\over 3}-\\sigma_{p}$).\\\nTo extract values of the scaling exponents $\\sigma_{p}$ from our data, we again followed the procedure outlined in [@KLWB] (though not with the same refinement!). The inertial or fitting range was determined as the interval of values of $n$, for which a least square fit of the data to a straight line, give $\\sigma_{1}$ the closest to zero. A fitting range $5\\leq n \\leq 10$ proved to be the best for all values of $\\beta$ we looked at, with $\\sigma_{1}$ as small as $0.01$ for $\\beta \\sim\n 0.33$. Actually the highest moments ($p\\geq7$) allow a wider range for an estimation of the exponents, whereas the lowest depend only slightly on this length. In order to get a rough estimate of statistical errors due to the finite length of our temporal signal, we repeated the same operations many times (typically $5$), taking as new initial conditions the state obtained at the end of the precedent run. Error bars drawn in the next figures take into account this only source of uncertainty. Our results for the scaling exponents $\\sigma_{p}$ are summarized in Fig.\u00a0\\[tp1\\] for three typical values of $\\beta $ : $\\beta =0.28$, $\\beta =0.33$, and $\\beta\n=0.343$.\\\nAs concerning the scattering of data, we see that it remains small for $p\\leq 8$, except when we get very close to the transition, a not too surprising fact. The overall shape of the $\\sigma_{p}$-curve illustrates the distinction made at the end of Section 2 between two chaotic regimes. For $\\beta =0.28$, i.e. rather far from the transition, one crosses over rapidly ($p\\geq 5$) towards a linear growth of exponents with $p$. The exponents take rather big negative values for $p\\leq 3$, presumably because of the important role played by energy backflows in this case. For the two other values of $\\beta$ we investigated, the cross-over region is significantly wider. There is clearly curvature and henceforth multifractality, even if for $p \\geq 7-8$ an asymptotic linear regime ultimately sets in. Figure \\[tp2\\] offers a magnified view on the cross-over region. The fact that exponents still vary strongly between $\\beta =0.33$ and $\\beta =0.343$ proves the influence of the proximity of the transition on the physics probed by the moments of corresponding order. On the other hand, it can be noted that the asymptotic slope remains almost the same. This feature will be explained in the next Section in terms of self-similar solutions parameterizing the biggest fluctuations of our hydrodynamic system.\\\nAs a way of checking our numerics, and also in order to get some insight into the differences between the two models, we have performed strictly analogous computations on the complex GOY model for two different values of $\\epsilon$ (with $Q=2$, $R=10^{5}$ and $N=17$). The first one, $\\epsilon =0.75$, lies far from the transition, which was found in [@BLLP] to occur at $\\epsilon^{*}=0.395..$ for a Reynolds number roughly the halfth of ours. The second one is the standard $\\epsilon=0.5$, known to lead to scaling properties in good agreement with experiment [@JPV]. Figure \\[GOYON1\\] shows on the same graph the scaling exponents for the ON model with $\\beta =0.28$ and the GOY one for $\\epsilon =0.75$. The resemblance is striking, apart from from slightly different asymptotic slopes of the two curves and a cross-over region a bit wider for the GOY model. In Fig. \\[GOYON2\\], the same comparison is made between the two models, this time for $\\beta =0.33$ and $\\epsilon =0.5$. Now differences show up, especially at large orders. While a linear monofractal behaviour has definitely set in for $p\\geq 7$ in the case of the ON model, the local slope of the $\\sigma_{p}$ does not stop increasing in the GOY model, even though this is hardly perceptible to the eye. Also significant is the lack of convergence for $p\\geq 8$. We note that the points marking the upper error bars, which were obtained from one particular run among six of equal temporal length, are surprisingly well fitted by the formula proposed by She and Leveque [@SL] for real Navier-Stokes turbulence $$\\sigma_{p}=\\frac{2p}{9} -2[1-(\\frac{2}{3})^{p\\over 3}]\n\\label{SheLev}$$ up to the highest values of $p$ investigated here. A physical reason for this good agreement observed by many others is missing. We did not try to tighten our error bars by increasing the length of numerical integration since this was beyond the scope of this work. The results of the next Section will somehow confirm the peculiar nature of intermittency in the GOY model for such values of parameters as $\\epsilon =0.5$ and $Q=2$.\\\n\nStudy of self-similar solutions\n===============================\n\nLet us take for granted from the results of the preceding Section that the scaling exponents $\\sigma_{p}$ grow asymptotically like $\\gamma p$ at large $p$, with $\\gamma $ a positive number depending on the parameter $\\beta $ only. This means that the amplitude of fluctuations carrying the system away from the K41 fixed point cannot grow from shell to shell more rapidly than $Q^{\\gamma n}$. On the other hand, the fact that $\\gamma$ takes a finite value even close to the transition suggest that such fluctuations are efficient as soon as the instability threshold is passed. It is the purpose of this Section to identify the set of singular fluctuations that the ON model can admit.\\\nSince we are now interested in nonlinear instabilities occuring in the inertial range, we may forget about forcing and dissipation, and think of the shell number $n$ as running from $-\\infty$ to $+\\infty$. Let us rewrite the equation of motion in terms of new variables $b_{n}=Q^{n}u_{n}=Q^{2n\\over 3}\\phi_{n}$ ($b_{n}$ is nothing dimensionally but the gradient of the velocity field). We get from (\\[nlphi\\_n\\]) and (\\[equphi\\_n\\]), after absorbing the factor $\\alpha Q^{2\\over 3}$ into a rescaling of time : $$\\frac{d}{dt} b_{n}= N_{n}[\\vec{b}]=(b_{n-1}b_{n}+{\\beta\\over \\alpha}\nQ^{2\\over 3} b_{n-1}^2) - {1\\over Q^{2}}(b_{n+1}^2+{\\beta\\over \\alpha}\nQ^{2\\over 3}b_{n}b_{n+1})\n\\label{nlb_n}$$ Since ${\\vec N}[\\vec b]$ does not depend explicitely on $n$ and is quadratic in $\\vec b$, the set of equations (\\[nlb\\_n\\]), for $-\\infty\n< n< +\\infty$, support formally self-similar solutions of the type : $$b_{n}(t)={1\\over {t^{*}-t}} f(Q^{nz}(t^{*}-t))\\;\\equiv\nQ^{nz} g(Q^{nz}(t^{*}-t))\n\\label{selfsim_1}$$ In the equation above, $t^{*}$ is the critical time at which, in the absence of dissipation, the fluctuation reaches the end of the cascade. The scaling exponent $z$ is [*a priori*]{} arbitrary. However $z={2\\over 3}$ gives back Kolmogorov scaling, while $z=1$ corresponds to the extreme situation of a fluctuation carrying a constant energy. One expects therefore ${2\\over 3}\\leq z \\leq 1$ on physical grounds.\\\nSelf-similar solutions, if they exist, are obviously good candidates for describing the growth of singular fluctuations. The question then arises whether many values of $z$ are dynamically accessible, which would be a natural source of multifractality, or whether on the contrary a single $z$ is selected. In that case, one should check that $\\gamma =(z-{2\\over 3})$, since moments $\\Sigma_{n,p}$ are dominated by extreme fluctuations for high values of $p$. Self-similar solutions together with their exponent $z$ have already been determined by Nakano for the ON model [@N88]. He used a rather cumbersome iterative method to find them and we were not convinced he had exhausted the whole set of possibilities in his work. This is why we came back to this problem and were led to develop a procedure to be described below, which is quite efficient and easily extended to any shell model. It should however be said from the beginning that our results about the ON model are in complete agreement with the conclusions reached in [@N88].\\\nBy plugging the Ansatz (\\[selfsim\\_1\\]) into (\\[nlb\\_n\\]) and introducing the logarithmic variable $\\xi =n+{1\\over z \\log Q}\\log (t^{*}-t)$, one arrives at the following equation for $f$ ($f$ is actually divided by $z \\log Q$ to make the result a bit simpler) $$f'(\\xi )-z\\log Q f(\\xi )=(f(\\xi -1)f(\\xi )+{\\beta\\over \\alpha}\nQ^{2\\over 3} f(\\xi-1)^{2}) - {1\\over Q^{2}}(f(\\xi+1)^{2}+{\\beta\\over \\alpha}\nQ^{2\\over 3}f(\\xi )f(\\xi+1))\n\\label{selfsimequ}$$ If square integrability of $f$ is required, Eq.\u00a0(\\[selfsimequ\\]) is nothing but a non-linear eigenvalue problem for the unknown $z$, which is very difficult to solve directly, either analytically or numerically. To make progress, we can try to approach $f$ dynamically. Rather than coming back to the original equations of the model, let us introduce a fictitious dynamics leaving the norm of the $(N+1)$-dimensional vector $\\vec b$ invariant $$\\frac{d}{d\\tau} \\vec{b}= \\vec{N}[\\vec{b}]-\\frac{<\\vec{N}[\\vec{b}],\\vec{b}>}\n{<\\vec{b},\\vec{b}>}\\, \\vec{b}\n\\label{projdyn}$$ In the equation above, $\\vec{N}[\\vec{b}]$ is the vector of components $N_{n}[\\vec{b}]$, whose expression was given in Eq. (\\[nlb\\_n\\]) and $\\langle \\vec{A},\\vec{B}\\rangle =\\sum_{n=0}^{N} A_{n}B_{n}$ is the usual euclidean scalar product. The projection factor, which intervenes in the r.h.s. of (\\[projdyn\\]) to keep $\\vec b$ on a sphere\u00a0: $$A(\\tau)=\\frac{<\\vec{N}[\\vec{b}](\\tau),\\vec{b}(\\tau)>}\n{<\\vec{b}(\\tau),\\vec{b}(\\tau)>}\n\\label{defA}$$ will be of central importance in the following.\\\nCharacteristic time scales on shell $n$ are in first approximation proportional to $b_{n}$ but now $b_{n}$ cannot exceed the initial value of $\\sqrt{<\\vec{b},\\vec{b}>}$. It follows that within the \u201cprojected dynamics\u201d defined by Eq.\u00a0(\\[projdyn\\]), the cascade towards small scales is not accompanied by an acceleration of motion as in the original equations. There is now no impediment against taking a very large number of shells since the required time resolution does not grow anymore exponentially with $N$. By integrating numerically (\\[projdyn\\]), we observed that any initial condition of finite support (i.e. $b_{n}(0)\\neq 0$ for $0\\leq n \\leq\nn_{0}$, with $n_{0}\\ll N$) gives birth at large times $\\tau$ to a solitary wave moving with a constant velocity towards small scales. In other words, a period $T$ may be defined such that asymptotically, for $\\tau\n\\rightarrow +\\infty$ (a more precise condition reads $1\\ll \\tau \\ll NT$, because some reflection will ultimately occur on the ultraviolet boundary), $$b_{n+1}(\\tau +T) =  b_{n}(\\tau) \\;\\;\\equiv \\;\\;\nb_{n}(\\tau)=b(n-\\frac{\\tau}{T})\n\\label{asymptb_n}$$ Note that (\\[asymptb\\_n\\]) implies $A(\\tau +T)= A(\\tau)$. The shape of the final solitary wave is found to be always the same, up to the scaling symmetry $$b(n-{\\tau \\over T}) \\rightarrow \\lambda b(n-\\lambda{\\tau \\over T})\n\\label{scalesym}$$ and it is remarkably stable, as demonstrated by Figs.\u00a0\\[selfsim1\\] and \\[selfsim2\\].\\\nLet us now make the connection between this finding and self-similar solutions in shell models. This is easily done by writing any solution $\\vec{b}(\\tau)$ of Eq. (\\[projdyn\\]) in the form $$\\vec{b}(\\tau)=\\exp \\bigl(-\\int_{0}^{\\tau} \\! A(\\tau ') d\\tau '\\bigr)\\,\n \\vec{c}(\\tau)=B(\\tau) \\vec{c}(\\tau)\n\\label{transfproj}$$ Since the non-linear kernel is quadratic, one gets for $\\vec{c}(\\tau)$ $$\\frac{d}{d\\tau}\\vec{c}=B(\\tau) \\vec{N}[\\vec{c}\\,]$$ The original dynamics : $\\displaystyle{\\frac{d}{dt}\\vec{c}}=\\vec{N}[\\vec{c}\\,]$ is recovered, after defining the physical time $t$ as $$t(\\tau)=\\int_{0}^{\\tau} \\! B(\\tau ') d\\tau '\n\\label{transftime}$$ These straightforward manipulations prove that every solution $\\vec{b}(\\tau)$ of Eq. (\\[projdyn\\]) can be mapped onto a solution $\\vec{c}(t)$ of the real physical problem in the inertial range, according to the transformation law\u00a0: $$\\vec{c}(t)=\\exp \\bigl(\\int_{0}^{\\tau (t)} \\! A(\\tau ') d\\tau '\\bigr)\\,\n \\vec{b}(\\tau (t))\n\\label{transfsol}$$ where $\\tau (t)$ is obtained from the inversion of Eq. (\\[transftime\\]). It can now be seen that a travelling wave in the projected dynamics, of period $T$ and average value in time $\\langle A(\\tau)\\rangle >0$, is the signature of a self-similar solution in the true dynamics. Indeed, according to (\\[transfsol\\]), each time the component of $\\vec{b}$ of maximal amplitude moves from one shell to the next, $\\vec{c}$ is multiplied by $\\exp (\\langle A\\rangle T)$. From a comparison with the initial Ansatz (\\[selfsim\\_1\\]), one gets : $$Q^{z} = \\exp (\\langle A\\rangle T)$$ or $$z=\\frac{\\langle A\\rangle T}{\\log Q}\n\\label{computz}$$ This formula allows one to obtain accurate estimates for $z$, since both quantities $\\langle A\\rangle $ and $T$ are easily measurable (and their product is left invariant as it should by the scaling symmetry (\\[scalesym\\])).\\\nThe method was first used to compute $z$ for various values of $\\beta$ in the ON model. Results are summarized in table \\[tab:1\\], where a comparison between $z-{2\\over 3}$ and the asymptotic slope $\\gamma$ of the $\\sigma_{p}$- curve is also made. We find a reasonable agreement between these last two quantities, in view of the comparatively large errors in the estimate for $\\gamma$. It is important to realize that the existence of self-similar solutions has nothing to do with the presence of chaos. In the ON model, the exponent $z$ decreases gently from 1 to $\\displaystyle{2\\over 3}$, as $\\beta$ varies between 0.145.. and 1 (as already noticed in [@S78; @N88], one has $z=1$ for $\\beta \\leq\n 0.145..$). The analytic stucture of the solitary wave remains the same. The scaling function $f$ of Eq. (\\[selfsimequ\\]) presents an essential singularity $f(\\xi) \\sim 2^{\\xi} \\exp (-2^{\\xi})$ for $\\xi \\rightarrow +\\infty$ (up to subdominant multiplicative corrections), and an exponential tail $f(\\xi) \\sim Q^{z\\xi}$ for $\\xi \\rightarrow -\\infty$. In the case where $z=1$, the exponential tail is replaced by a second essential singularity $f(\\xi) \\sim 2^{-\\xi} \\exp (-2^{-\\xi})$. Table \\[tab:1\\] shows that $z \\sim 0.88$ at the transition between the regular and chaotic regimes, located near $\\beta =0.349$. This high value explains why the ON model (at least for $Q=2$) is bound to exhibit rather strong intermittency in the chaotic part of its phase diagram.\\\nWe were curious to extend this analysis to the complex GOY model. It is a simple matter to generalize Eq.\u00a0(\\[projdyn\\]) to the case of a complex vector. Details will not be given here. The conclusion of our (partial) investigations is that the GOY model also possesses only one ideal self-similar solution for a given value of $\\epsilon$. Furthermore, this self-similar solution is purely real and positive, up to the phase symmetry (\\[GOYsym\\]) of the model. This means that the complex amplitudes $b_{n}(\\tau)$ take the asymptotic form $b_{n}(\\tau)=e^{i\\theta (n)}b(n-{\\tau \\over T})$, where the phase $\\theta (n)$, subject to the constraint $\\theta(n)+\\theta(n+1)+\\theta(n+2)=0$, is the only footprint of the initial condition and the amplitude $b$ presents a shape quite similar to the one obtained for the ON model. Quantitative results are presented in the table \\[tab:2\\]. The comparison between large order statistics and scaling properties of self-similar solutions was done only for two values of $\\epsilon$\u00a0: $\\epsilon=0.75$ and $\\epsilon =0.5$. While in the former case the same agreement is obtained as for the ON model, we find in the latter a discrepancy by a factor 2 between $\\gamma $ and $z-{2\\over 3}$. The discrepancy is even bigger if one extrapolates from the She-Leveque formula (\\[SheLev\\]) $\\gamma =2/9=0.222$. We think that the failure of self-similar solutions to explain intermittency at high orders in this case, lies in the closeness to the Kolmogorov value $2\\over 3$ of their scaling exponent $z$. After all, with $z-{2\\over 3}$ as small as 0.052 and a Reynolds number $R=10^{5}$ as in our computations, the amplitude of singular fluctuations grows, upon propagating from the integral scale to the dissipative one, by a factor $Q^{(z-{2\\over 3})n_{d}}\n=R^{{3\\over 4}(z-{2\\over 3})}$, which does not exceed 1.5 ! This gives very little chance to such a fluctuation to survive collisions with the turbulent background and to govern statistics at large orders. We find it plausible that the mildness of singular fluctuations and the finite length of the cascade combine to produce a new kind of intermittency with a more pronounced multifractal character. It is an interesting issue, left for further investigation, to understand how the system is then able to develop an asymptotic growth of the $\\sigma_{p}$ with $p$ steeper than the one expected on the basis of self-similar solutions.\\\n\nMovable singularities as a signature of chaos\n=============================================\n\nFrom a formal point of view, self-similar solutions studied in the previous Section describe the approach of the system towards blowing-up, which, in the absence of dissipation, happens in finite time. It is also of interest in the context of nonlinear o.d.e.\u2019s to consider movable singularities taking place at complex times. The local structure of such objects is intimately linked to the non-linearity, while their distribution in the complex $t$-plane may help to understand such physical properties as high-frequency intermittency [@FM]. Besides, according to Painlev\u00e9\u2019s criterion, non algebraic singularities indicate usually lack of integrability. This yields a very economical way to detect analytically the presence of chaos in any dynamical system (see for instance [@DFHGMS] and the references therein related to this topic). There are two main reasons why we report in this Section a study of movable singularities in the ON model, which at first sight is disconnected from the rest of the paper. The first one is purely technical : it turns out that the method used to determine the local structure of movable singularities (and possibly their position) is quite close to the one developed in Section 4 for tracking self-similar solutions. The second reason has more to do with physics\u00a0: whereas self-similar solutions by themselves had nothing to tell us about the chaotic properties of the model, we shall see that movable singularities in the complex $t$-plane disappear (or better said, get trapped on the last shells near the ultraviolet boundary) as $\\beta$ exceeds a value of order $0.394\\pm 10^{-3}$. It is tempting to speculate that this threshold marks the ultimate boundary between chaotic and regular dynamics, the one reached in the limit of infinite Reynolds number. We shall also get strong indications that movable singularities in shell models parameterize energy backflows and as such could be responsible for the peeling off of coherent structures as they cascade downwards to small scales. It will become rapidly clear to the reader that the analysis to be presented below, though restricted to the ON model, can easily be applied to any shell model with presumably similar conclusions at the end.\\\nWe shall work with the vector $\\vec b$ defined in Section 4. The quadratic degree of non-linearities implies that the only movable singularities are poles so that\u00a0: $$b_{n}(t) \\sim \\frac{a_{n}}{t-t^{*}} \\;\\;\\; \\mbox{for}\\;\\;\\;\n t\\rightarrow t^{*}\\;\\;\\;\\mbox{and}\\;\\;\\; 0\\leq n\\leq N\n\\label{defpole}$$ where $t^{*}$ is an arbitrary complex critical time. The $N+1$ residues $a_{n}$ form a vector $\\vec a$, which after substituting (\\[defpole\\]) into (\\[projdyn\\]) is seen to obey the condition\u00a0: $$- \\vec{a}=\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}\\,]\n\\label{equapole}$$ The problem now is to solve (\\[equapole\\]). This is a much more difficult task than computing fixed points as in Section 2. First, $\\vec a$ is necessarily complex (it is easy to check that (\\[equapole\\]) implies $\\sum_{n=0}^{N} a_{n}^{2} Q^{-2n} =0$). Second, we expect on physical grounds the vector $\\vec a$ to be localized in shell space. This means that we are looking for solutions of Eq. (\\[equapole\\]) which would be square-summable ($\\sum_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty} |a_{n}|^{2} < +\\infty $), were the range of shell numbers extended to the whole set of relative integers. Any \u201cshooting\u201d method of the type outlined in Section 2, which would start from one endpoint and try to join the other one with the appropriate asymptotic behaviour, is in fact doomed to failure because of strong numerical instabilities.\\\nAs in the preceding Section the idea will be to approach dynamically the desired solutions to (\\[equapole\\]). Before doing so, we must say a few words about the notion of \u201cgenericity\u201d of movable singularities. Consider a singularity at time $t^{*}$ and assume $\\vec a$ is known. Equation (\\[defpole\\]) gives only the leading order term in the expansion of $\\vec b$ near $t^{*}$, which may be pursued order by order just from local analysis. Writing $\\vec b$ as $\\displaystyle{{\\vec{a}\\over t-t^{*}} + \\delta \\vec{b}}$, where the correction $\\delta \\vec{b}$ is small compared to the $\\mbox{zero}^{th}$ order term, one gets to linear order in $\\delta \\vec{b}$ $$\\frac{d}{dt} \\delta \\vec{b}=\\frac{1}{t-t^{*}} M \\delta \\vec{b} +\\vec{F}\n-\\frac{\\vec{D}[\\vec{a}]}{t-t^{*}}\n\\label{equacorr}$$ In the equation above, $M=\\left[\\displaystyle{{\\partial N_{i}\\over \\partial\n b_{j}}}\\right]$ is the Jacobian matrix of the nonlinear kernel $\\vec{N}[\\vec{b}]$ evaluated at point $\\vec a$. Forcing and dissipation were kept for completeness in the right hand side of (\\[equacorr\\]) but only the homogeneous part of the equation really matters in what follows. It has (N+1) independent solutions of the form $(t-t^{*})^{\\mu_{i}} \\vec{b}_{i}$, where $\\mu_{i}$ is the $i^{th}$ eigenvalue of $M$ and $\\vec{b}_{i}$ the corresponding eigenvector. Provided $Re\\, \\mu_{i} >-1$, a correction of the type $\\lambda_{i}\n(t-t^{*})^{\\mu_{i}} \\vec{b}_{i}$ with $\\lambda_{i}$ an arbitrary complex number, is free to appear in the expansion of $\\vec b$ around $t^{*}$, since it is indeed smaller than the $\\mbox{zero}^{th}$ term. Actually, $\\vec N$ being quadratic, $\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}]=-\\vec{a}$ implies $M\\vec{a}=-2\\vec{a}$. Therefore, one of the $\\mu_{i}$ (say $\\mu_{0}$) equals by construction -2. The eigenvalue -2 and the corresponding eigendirection $\\vec{a}$ are associated to the arbitrary position of $t^{*}$ and as such must be excluded from the expansion of $\\vec{b}$. It follows that the most general expression of $\\vec{b}$ around a singularity reads\u00a0: $$\\vec{b}(t)=\\frac{\\vec{a}}{t-t^{*}} +\\sum_{i=1}^{N_{s}} \\lambda_{i}\n(t-t^{*})^{\\mu_{i}} \\vec{b}_{i} +\\mbox{h.o.t.}\n\\label{genexp}$$ where $N_{s}$ is the number of eigenvalues of $M$, whose real part is bigger than -1. It is not difficult to check that, once the $N_{s}$ complex numbers $\\lambda_{i}$ are given, there is no arbitrariness left in the rest of the expansion (denoted as h.o.t. in (\\[genexp\\])). What we have in our hands is a local expression of our solution which depends on $(N_{s}+1)$ parameters ($t^{*},\n\\lambda_{1},\\ldots \\lambda_{N_{s}}$), whereas $(N+1)$ initial conditions are necessary to specify entirely the evolution of the dymamical system. Therefore a singularity will be generic (i.e.\u00a0it will not result from a set of initial conditions of zero measure), if and only if $N_{s}=N$. In other words, we are interested only in solutions to (\\[equapole\\]) with $N$ eigenvalues $\\mu_{i}$ of real part bigger than -1, besides the trivial one $\\mu_{0}=-2$.\\\nThe previous considerations suggest the introduction of the following dynamics\u00a0: $$\\frac{d}{d\\tau}\\vec{a}=-\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}]+\\bigl(Re \\frac{\\langle \\vec{a},\n\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}]\\rangle }{\\langle \\vec{a},\\vec{a}\\rangle } + i\\delta\\,Im\n\\frac{\\langle \\vec{a},\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}]\\rangle}{\\langle \\vec{a},\\vec{a}\\rangle}\n\\bigr) \\vec{a}\n\\label{residyn}$$ where, since we are dealing now with complex-valued vectors, $\\langle \\vec{A},\\vec{B}\\rangle =\\sum_{n=0}^{N} A^{*}_{n}B_{n}$ The second term in the r.h.s.\u00a0of (\\[residyn\\]) keeps the norm of $\\vec{a}$ constant. The last one affects only its phase and one is in principle free to choose any value for the parameter $\\delta$. It may be shown that there is a one-to-one correspondance between fixed points of the dynamics (\\[residyn\\]) with a basin of attraction of finite measure, and generic solutions (in the sense of the previous paragraph) to the initial problem. A proof of this almost intuitive statement is given in the Appendix. It has nice consequences : in order to determine the possible arrangements of residues $a_{n}$, it suffices to integrate (\\[residyn\\]) for initial conditions which are not purely real (otherwise they remain so forever). If after a long enough time, a stationary state $\\vec{a}_{f}$ is reached, then\u00a0: $$\\vec{a}=-\\vec{a}_{f} \\displaystyle{\\frac{\\langle\n \\vec{a}_{f},\\vec{a}_{f} \\rangle}{\\langle\n \\vec{N}[\\vec{a}_{f}],\\vec{a}_{f}\\rangle}}\n\\label{resirescal}$$ contains the desired information. Note that the computational cost of the method increases only linearly with the number of shells $N+1$. It is therefore easy to get rid of finite size effects if necessary.\\\nWe have applied this technique to the ON model and made the following observations. As anticipated on the basis of the preceding considerations, the vector $\\vec{a}$ evolves systematically towards a fixed point provided the condition $\\delta \\geq 1$ is met (actually, the marginal case $\\delta =1$ still works but requires longer times of integration). After performing the rescaling (\\[resirescal\\]), the final state of $\\vec{a}$ (giving access to the residues $a_{n}$) was found to be always the same, up to complex conjugation (which is an obvious symmetry of (\\[equapole\\])) and translation along the shell number axis. This last property, which is crucial to ensure the \u201cmobility\u201d of the singularity in momentum space, holds for $\\beta < \\beta^{*}=0.394\\,\\pm\n 10^{-3}$. For $\\beta \\geq \\beta^{*}$ we find only one solution, rigidly attached to the last shell. Figures \\[resi\\_1\\] and \\[resi\\_2\\] summarize the phenomenon by showing the modulus and the real part of $a_{n}$ for respectively $\\beta =0.39$ and $\\beta =0.40$. They were deduced from a numerical integration of (\\[residyn\\]) with $N=29$, $\\delta =2$ and the initial condition $a_{n}=i \\delta_{n,0}$. The imaginary part of $a_{n}$ has not been represented in order not to burden the figures. For $\\beta =0.39$, a change in the initial conditions or in the value of $\\delta$ most likely leads to a displacement of the peak of the final structure along the horizontal axis. In contrast, for $\\beta =0.40$, the peak resides always on the last shell. A perfect convergence onto a true fixed point of (\\[residyn\\]) is difficult to achieve because of slow transients near the transition. Thus we cannot exclude some minor adjustments of residues with respect to the picture shown here, especially at the rear end of the structure ($n\\geq 10$ in Fig.\u00a0\\[resi\\_1\\]). Note the characteristic pattern at the front ($5\\leq n\n\\leq 7$ in Fig.\u00a0\\[resi\\_1\\]) with a large negative excursion of $Re(a_{n})$, which by the way may be still recognized in Fig.\u00a0\\[resi\\_2\\], i.\u00a0e. beyond the threshold. From a mathematical point of view, solutions in the inertial range, as depicted by Fig.\u00a0\\[resi\\_1\\], disappear when one of the eigenvalues $\\mu_{i}$ of the Jacobian matrix $M$ gets a real part smaller than -1. Apparently, the only place where they manage to survive is near the ultraviolet boundary, where the nonlinear kernel is strongly modified.\\\nWe shall not expand too much on these findings. At least they prove that complex time singularities are not involved in the building-up of self-similar solutions, because in contrast to the former, the latter were found to exist for any value of $\\beta$. Just from this obvious remark, it is tempting to infer that complex time singularities in shell models, when sufficiently close to the real time axis, encode the occurence of \u201cblockades\u201d in the energy cascade, leading possibly to negative excursions of shell amplitudes and more or less developed energy backflows. This interpretation is corroborated by the wild oscillations displayed by the phase of residues and also the fact that such objects form most naturally at the ultraviolet boundary as suggested by Fig.\u00a0\\[resi\\_2\\]. The system is bound to exhibit regular dynamics for $\\beta \\geq \\beta ^{*}$ because it has lost these agents of disorder.\\\nBefore closing this Section, we would like to mention that equations (\\[residyn\\]), which were introduced as an abstract auxiliary tool, may also be used more concretely for locating singularities of a real solution of the shell model (neglecting forcing and dissipation). Consider indeed initial conditions of the form $\\vec{a}=i\\vec{b}_{0}$ where $\\vec{b}_{0}$ is arbitrary but real. It may be checked, by using manipulations similar to those leading in Section 4 to Eq.\u00a0(\\[transfsol\\]), that stepping forward the fictitious dynamics (\\[residyn\\]) is in fact equivalent to integrating the original dynamics $\\displaystyle{\\frac{d}{dt}}\\vec{b}=\\vec{N}[\\vec{b}]$ (from the initial condition $\\vec{b}_{0}$) along a trajectory in time space parameterized as\u00a0: $$t=-i \\int_{0}^{\\tau }\\! \\mbox{exp}\\bigl(\\int_{0}^{\\tau '} A(\\tau '')d\\tau ''\n\\bigr) d\\tau '\n\\label{cmplxtrajec}$$ where $A(\\tau )$ reads\u00a0: $$A(\\tau )=Re \\frac{\\langle \\vec{a}(\\tau ),\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}](\\tau )\\rangle }\n{\\langle \\vec{a}(\\tau ),\\vec{a}(\\tau )\\rangle } + i\\delta\\,Im\n\\frac{\\langle \\vec{a}(\\tau ),\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}](\\tau )\\rangle}\n{\\langle \\vec{a}(\\tau ),\\vec{a}(\\tau )\\rangle}$$ For $\\delta =0$, $A(\\tau )$ is real and according to (\\[cmplxtrajec\\]) the path followed in the complex time plane is parallel to the imaginary axis. The probability of crossing a singularity in this way is obviously null for arbitrary initial conditions. For finite values of $\\delta $, the trajectory gets curved in such a way that, for $\\delta > 1$, it finds with probability one a singularity of $\\vec{b}(t)$ at the end.\\\n\n**Conclusion**\n==============\n\nStarting from a numerical investigation of the ON model, we were led to identify elementary bricks in its dynamics, which must exist more generally in any scalar shell model. Interestingly enough, they appear to have rather constrained structures. Naturally the construction of a statistical theory from these deterministic objects remains a hard task. But we think that a precise knowledge of their properties may help to formulate new questions. For instance the discrepancy found in the case of the GOY model for $\\epsilon =0.5$ between the asymptotic growth of scaling exponents of statistical moments and the strength of extreme fluctuations is a puzzling fact, which clearly deserves further investigation. Another isssue concerns the selection mechanism of the scaling exponent $z$ of self-similar solutions whose present understanding is still poor. One must remember that the method developed in the paper is in essence dynamical. We cannot therefore exclude the existence of a larger manifold of solutions, out of which only the element with the smallest $z$ would be systematically observed. Clearly more mathematically oriented work would be welcome to elucidate this technical point, which may be of some physical relevance.\\\n[**Acknowledgment**]{}\\\nWe are grateful to E. Gledzer for suggesting us to revisit the ON model. He was a constant source of inspiration during the course of this work, which benefitted also from many discussions with B. Castaing and Y. Gagne.\\\n\n  ------- ------- ------- ---------- -----------------\n  0.15    0.996   0.329   $\\cdots$   $\\cdots$\n  0.28    0.921   0.245   0.24       $\\pm 10^{-2}$\n  0.33    0.889   0.223   0.213      $\\pm 10^{-2}$\n  0.343   0.881   0.214   0.20       $\\pm 2 10^{-2}$\n  0.348   0.878   0.212   $\\cdots$   $\\cdots$\n  0.7     0.721   0.054              \n  0.8     0.692   0.025              \n  ------- ------- ------- ---------- -----------------\n\n  : Exponents $z$ of self-similar solutions in the ON model for various values of $\\beta$. The left columns present estimates obtained from Eq.\u00a0(\\[computz\\]) after a numerical integration of Eq.\u00a0(\\[projdyn\\]). The last digit is given with an $\\pm 1$ accuracy. The last two columns present data extracted from statistical analysis. The comparison between columns 3 and 4 show that scaling properties of self-similar solutions account in a satisfying way for large order statistics in the chaotic part of the phase diagram, even close to the transition where $z$ remains rather big.[]{data-label=\"tab:1\"}\n\n  ------- ------- ------- ---------- -----------------\n  0.398   0.684   0.018              \n  0.5     0.719   0.052   0.12       $\\pm 3 10^{-2}$\n  0.75    0.888   0.222   0.23       $\\pm 10^{-2}$\n  0.8     0.946   0.279   $\\cdots$   $\\cdots$\n  ------- ------- ------- ---------- -----------------\n\n  : Same quantities as in table \\[tab:1\\] but for the GOY model. One observes that $z$ takes rather small values everywhere in the chaotic part of the phase diagram ($\\epsilon > 0.398$). The disagreement between columns 3 and 4 for $\\epsilon =0.5$ is too large to be imputable to a lack of statistics. []{data-label=\"tab:2\"}\n\n {#section .unnumbered}\n\nIn this Appendix we establish the equivalence between stable fixed points of the dynamical system (\\[residyn\\]) introduced in the Section 5 and generic movable singularities in shell models.\\\nFirst, we observe that static solutions of (\\[residyn\\]), if they exist, are such that $\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}_{f}]=\\lambda \\vec{a}_{f}$ where the coefficient of proportionality $\\lambda =\\displaystyle{\\frac{\\langle \\vec{a}_{f},\n\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}_{f}]\\rangle }{\\langle \\vec{a}_{f}, \\vec{a}_{f} \\rangle }}$ obeys\u00a0: $$\\lambda =Re(\\lambda )+i\\delta Im(\\lambda )$$ If $\\delta \\neq 1$, $\\lambda$ is bound to be real. The case $\\lambda =0$ corresponds to $\\vec{a}_{f}$ being an inertial fixed point ($\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}_{f}]= \\vec{0}$). We discard this possibility (whose occurence would be easily identified in practice) and concentrate on the more interesting case of a finite value of $\\lambda $. Then $\\vec{a}=-\\displaystyle{\\frac{\\vec{a}_{f}}{\\lambda }}$ verifies as it should $\\vec{N}[\\vec{a}]=-\\vec{a}$.\\\nNow we must ask about stability properties of $\\vec{a}_{f}$. By linearizing the system of differential equations (\\[residyn\\]) around their fixed point, one finds the following evolution of small perturbations $\\delta \\vec{a}$\u00a0: $$\\frac{d}{dt} \\delta \\vec{a} = \\lambda (M+1) \\delta \\vec{a} + \\ldots$$ where the terms hidden behind the dots are all directed in the direction of $\\vec{a}_{f}$ and have been omitted for simplicity. As in Eq.(\\[equacorr\\]) of Section 5, $M$ is the Jacobian matrix of first order derivatives of the non linear kernel $\\vec{N}$ evaluated at point $\\vec{a}$ defined above. It appears that the space \u201ctransverse\" to $\\vec{a}_{f}$ belongs as a whole to the stable manifold of $\\vec{a}_{f}$, if and only if all the eigenvalues $\\mu_{i}$ of $M$ for $1\\leq i \\leq N$ have a real part bigger (resp.\u00a0smaller) than -1 with $\\lambda$ negative (resp.\u00a0positive). The second possibility would lead to a divergence of the trace of $M$ in the limit $N\\rightarrow +\\infty$, which contradicts the assumption of a finite norm for $\\vec{a}$. We are thus left with $\\lambda <0$ and by the same token N eigenvalues $\\mu_{i}$ of real part bigger than -1, which is nothing but the criterion for genericity established in Section 5.\\\nFinally, let us consider perturbations along the direction of $\\vec{a}_{f}$ or $\\vec{a}$. Since the dynamics (\\[residyn\\]) preserves the norm of $\\vec{a}(\\tau )$, they reduce to phase fluctuations which may be parameterized as $\\vec{a}(\\tau ) = e^{i\\theta (\\tau )} \\vec{a}_{f}$. The phase $\\theta (\\tau )$ is found to obey the equation of motion\u00a0: $$\\frac{d}{d\\tau } \\theta =\\lambda (\\delta -1) \\sin \\theta$$ Therefore complete stability of $\\vec{a}_{f}$ requires $\\delta > 1$ (since $\\lambda < 0$), as announced in the main text of Section 5.\n\nM. Yamada and K. Okhitani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 983 (1988). K. Okhitani and M. Yamada, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**81**]{}, 329 (1989). M. H. Jensen, G. Paladin, and A. Vulpiani, Phys. Rev. A [**43**]{}, 798 (1991). R. Benzi, L. Biferale, and G. Parisi, Physica D [**65**]{}, 163 (1993). L. Biferale, A. Lambert, R. Lima, and G. Paladin, Physica D [**80**]{}, 105 (1995). L. Kadanoff, D. Lohse, J. Wang, and R. Benzi, Phys Fluids [**7**]{}, 617 (1995). A. M. Obukhov, Atmos. Oceanic Phys. [**7**]{}, 41 (1971). V. I. Desnyansky and E. A. Novikov, Sov. J. Appl. Mech. [**38**]{}, 507 (1974). E. B. Gledzer, A. B. Glukhovsky, and A. M. Obukhov, J. Theor. Appl. Mech. [**7**]{}, 111 (1988). E. D. Siggia, Phys. Rev. A [**17**]{}, 1166 (1978). T. Nakano, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**79**]{}, 569 (1988). O. Gat, I. Procaccia, and R. Zeitak, Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{}, 1148 (1995). Z. S. She and E. Leveque, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 336 (1994). U. Frisch and R. Morf, Phys. Rev. A [**23**]{}, 2673 (1981). T. Dombre, U. Frisch, J. M. Greene, M. H\u00e9non, A. Mehr, and A. M. Soward, J. Fluid Mech. [**167**]{}, 353 (1986).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'An article usually includes an abstract, a concise summary of the work covered at length in the main body of the article. It is used for secondary publications and for information retrieval purposes.'\nauthor:\n- 'A. Author'\n- 'B. Author'\n- 'C. Author'\nbibliography:\n- 'aipsamp.bib'\nnocite: '[@*]'\ntitle: |\n    Sample Title:\\\n    with Forced Linebreak[^1]\n---\n\n[^2]\n\n> The \u201clead paragraph\u201d is encapsulated with the LaTeX\u00a0 `quotation` environment and is formatted as a single paragraph before the first section heading. (The `quotation` environment reverts to its usual meaning after the first sectioning command.) Note that numbered references are allowed in the lead paragraph. The lead paragraph will only be found in an article being prepared for the journal *Chaos*.\n\n\\[sec:level1\\]First-level heading:\\\nThe line break was forced \\\\\\\\\n===================================\n\nThis sample document demonstrates proper use of REVTeX\u00a04.2 (and ) in manuscripts prepared for submission to AIP journals. Further information can be found in the documentation included in the distribution or available at <http://authors.aip.org> and in the documentation for REVTeX\u00a04.2 itself.\n\nWhen commands are referred to in this example file, they are always shown with their required arguments, using normal TeX format. In this format, `#1`, `#2`, etc. stand for required author-supplied arguments to commands. For example, in `\\section{#1}` the `#1` stands for the title text of the author\u2019s section heading, and in `\\title{#1}` the `#1` stands for the title text of the paper.\n\nLine breaks in section headings at all levels can be introduced using \\\\\\\\. A blank input line tells TeX\u00a0that the paragraph has ended.\n\n\\[sec:level2\\]Second-level heading: Formatting\n----------------------------------------------\n\nThis file may be formatted in both the `preprint` (the default) and `reprint` styles; the latter format may be used to mimic final journal output. Either format may be used for submission purposes; however, for peer review and production, AIP will format the article using the `preprint` class option. Hence, it is essential that authors check that their manuscripts format acceptably under `preprint`. Manuscripts submitted to AIP that do not format correctly under the `preprint` option may be delayed in both the editorial and production processes.\n\nThe `widetext` environment will make the text the width of the full page, as on page\u00a0. (Note the use the `\\pageref{#1}` to get the page number right automatically.) The width-changing commands only take effect in `twocolumn` formatting. It has no effect if `preprint` formatting is chosen instead.\n\n### \\[sec:level3\\]Third-level heading: Citations and Footnotes\n\nCitations in text refer to entries in the Bibliography; they use the commands `\\cite{#1}` or `\\onlinecite{#1}`. Because REVTeX\u00a0uses the `natbib` package of Patrick Daly, its entire repertoire of commands are available in your document; see the `natbib` documentation for further details. The argument of `\\cite` is a comma-separated list of *keys*; a key may consist of letters and numerals.\n\nBy default, citations are numerical; [@feyn54] author-year citations are an option. To give a textual citation, use `\\onlinecite{#1}`: (Refs.\u00a0). REVTeX\u00a0\u201ccollapses\u201d lists of consecutive numerical citations when appropriate. REVTeX\u00a0provides the ability to properly punctuate textual citations in author-year style; this facility works correctly with numerical citations only with `natbib`\u2019s compress option turned off. To illustrate, we cite several together [@feyn54; @witten2001; @epr; @Berman1983], and once again (Refs.\u00a0). Note that, when numerical citations are used, the references were sorted into the same order they appear in the bibliography.\n\nA reference within the bibliography is specified with a `\\bibitem{#1}` command, where the argument is the citation key mentioned above. `\\bibitem{#1}` commands may be crafted by hand or, preferably, generated by using BibTeX. The AIP styles for REVTeX\u00a04 include BibTeX\u00a0style files `aipnum.bst` and `aipauth.bst`, appropriate for numbered and author-year bibliographies, respectively. REVTeX\u00a04 will automatically choose the style appropriate for the document\u2019s selected class options: the default is numerical, and you obtain the author-year style by specifying a class option of `author-year`.\n\nThis sample file demonstrates a simple use of BibTeX\u00a0 via a `\\bibliography` command referencing the `aipsamp.bib` file. Running BibTeX\u00a0(in this case `bibtex aipsamp`) after the first pass of LaTeX\u00a0produces the file `aipsamp.bbl` which contains the automatically formatted `\\bibitem` commands (including extra markup information via `\\bibinfo` commands). If not using BibTeX, the `thebibiliography` environment should be used instead.\n\n#### Fourth-level heading is run in.\n\nFootnotes are produced using the `\\footnote{#1}` command. Numerical style citations put footnotes into the bibliography[^3]. Author-year and numerical author-year citation styles (each for its own reason) cannot use this method. Note: due to the method used to place footnotes in the bibliography, *you must re-run BibTeX every time you change any of your document\u2019s footnotes*.\n\nMath and Equations\n==================\n\nInline math may be typeset using the `$` delimiters. Bold math symbols may be achieved using the `bm` package and the `\\bm{#1}` command it supplies. For instance, a bold $\\alpha$ can be typeset as `$\\bm{\\alpha}$` giving $\\bm{\\alpha}$. Fraktur and Blackboard (or open face or double struck) characters should be typeset using the `\\mathfrak{#1}` and `\\mathbb{#1}` commands respectively. Both are supplied by the `amssymb` package. For example, `$\\mathbb{R}$` gives $\\mathbb{R}$ and `$\\mathfrak{G}$` gives $\\mathfrak{G}$\n\nIn LaTeX\u00a0there are many different ways to display equations, and a few preferred ways are noted below. Displayed math will center by default. Use the class option `fleqn` to flush equations left.\n\nBelow we have numbered single-line equations, the most common kind: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\chi_+(p)\\alt{\\bf [}2|{\\bf p}|(|{\\bf p}|+p_z){\\bf ]}^{-1/2}\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{c}\n|{\\bf p}|+p_z\\\\\npx+ip_y\n\\end{array}\\right)\\;,\n\\\\\n\\left\\{%\n \\openone234567890abc123\\alpha\\beta\\gamma\\delta1234556\\alpha\\beta\n \\frac{1\\sum^{a}_{b}}{A^2}%\n\\right\\}%\n\\label{eq:one}.\\end{aligned}$$ Note the open one in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:one\\]).\n\nNot all numbered equations will fit within a narrow column this way. The equation number will move down automatically if it cannot fit on the same line with a one-line equation: $$\\left\\{\n ab12345678abc123456abcdef\\alpha\\beta\\gamma\\delta1234556\\alpha\\beta\n \\frac{1\\sum^{a}_{b}}{A^2}%\n\\right\\}.$$\n\nWhen the `\\label{#1}` command is used \\[cf. input for Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:one\\])\\], the equation can be referred to in text without knowing the equation number that TeX\u00a0will assign to it. Just use `\\ref{#1}`, where `#1` is the same name that used in the `\\label{#1}` command.\n\nUnnumbered single-line equations can be typeset using the `\\[`, `\\]` format: $$g^+g^+ \\rightarrow g^+g^+g^+g^+ \\dots ~,~~q^+q^+\\rightarrow\nq^+g^+g^+ \\dots ~.$$\n\nMultiline equations\n-------------------\n\nMultiline equations are obtained by using the `eqnarray` environment. Use the `\\nonumber` command at the end of each line to avoid assigning a number: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal M}=&&ig_Z^2(4E_1E_2)^{1/2}(l_i^2)^{-1}\n\\delta_{\\sigma_1,-\\sigma_2}\n(g_{\\sigma_2}^e)^2\\chi_{-\\sigma_2}(p_2)\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\times\n[\\epsilon_jl_i\\epsilon_i]_{\\sigma_1}\\chi_{\\sigma_1}(p_1),\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum \\vert M^{\\text{viol}}_g \\vert ^2&=&g^{2n-4}_S(Q^2)~N^{n-2}\n        (N^2-1)\\nonumber \\\\\n & &\\times \\left( \\sum_{i<j}\\right)\n  \\sum_{\\text{perm}}\n \\frac{1}{S_{12}}\n \\frac{1}{S_{12}}\n \\sum_\\tau c^f_\\tau~.\\end{aligned}$$ **Note:** Do not use `\\label{#1}` on a line of a multiline equation if `\\nonumber` is also used on that line. Incorrect cross-referencing will result. Notice the use `\\text{#1}` for using a Roman font within a math environment.\n\nTo set a multiline equation without *any* equation numbers, use the `\\begin{eqnarray*}`, `\\end{eqnarray*}` format: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum \\vert M^{\\text{viol}}_g \\vert ^2&=&g^{2n-4}_S(Q^2)~N^{n-2}\n        (N^2-1)\\\\\n & &\\times \\left( \\sum_{i<j}\\right)\n \\left(\n  \\sum_{\\text{perm}}\\frac{1}{S_{12}S_{23}S_{n1}}\n \\right)\n \\frac{1}{S_{12}}~.\\end{aligned}$$ To obtain numbers not normally produced by the automatic numbering, use the `\\tag{#1}` command, where `#1` is the desired equation number. For example, to get an equation number of (\\[eq:mynum\\]), $$g^+g^+ \\rightarrow g^+g^+g^+g^+ \\dots ~,~~q^+q^+\\rightarrow\nq^+g^+g^+ \\dots ~. \\tag{2.6$'$}\\label{eq:mynum}$$\n\nA few notes on `\\tag{#1}`. `\\tag{#1}` requires `amsmath`. The `\\tag{#1}` must come before the `\\label{#1}`, if any. The numbering set with `\\tag{#1}` is *transparent* to the automatic numbering in REVTeX; therefore, the number must be known ahead of time, and it must be manually adjusted if other equations are added. `\\tag{#1}` works with both single-line and multiline equations. `\\tag{#1}` should only be used in exceptional case - do not use it to number all equations in a paper.\n\nEnclosing single-line and multiline equations in `\\begin{subequations}` and `\\end{subequations}` will produce a set of equations that are \u201cnumbered\u201d with letters, as shown in Eqs.\u00a0(\\[subeq:1\\]) and (\\[subeq:2\\]) below:\n\n\\[eq:whole\\] $$\\left\\{\n abc123456abcdef\\alpha\\beta\\gamma\\delta1234556\\alpha\\beta\n \\frac{1\\sum^{a}_{b}}{A^2}\n\\right\\},\\label{subeq:1}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal M}=&&ig_Z^2(4E_1E_2)^{1/2}(l_i^2)^{-1}\n(g_{\\sigma_2}^e)^2\\chi_{-\\sigma_2}(p_2)\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\times\n[\\epsilon_i]_{\\sigma_1}\\chi_{\\sigma_1}(p_1).\\label{subeq:2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nPutting a `\\label{#1}` command right after the `\\begin{subequations}`, allows one to reference all the equations in a subequations environment. For example, the equations in the preceding subequations environment were Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:whole\\]).\n\n### Wide equations\n\nThe equation that follows is set in a wide format, i.e., it spans across the full page. The wide format is reserved for long equations that cannot be easily broken into four lines or less:\n\n$${\\cal R}^{(\\text{d})}=\n g_{\\sigma_2}^e\n \\left(\n   \\frac{[\\Gamma^Z(3,21)]_{\\sigma_1}}{Q_{12}^2-M_W^2}\n  +\\frac{[\\Gamma^Z(13,2)]_{\\sigma_1}}{Q_{13}^2-M_W^2}\n \\right)\n + x_WQ_e\n \\left(\n   \\frac{[\\Gamma^\\gamma(3,21)]_{\\sigma_1}}{Q_{12}^2-M_W^2}\n  +\\frac{[\\Gamma^\\gamma(13,2)]_{\\sigma_1}}{Q_{13}^2-M_W^2}\n \\right)\\;. \\label{eq:wideeq}$$\n\nThis is typed to show the output is in wide format. (Since there is no input line between `\\equation` and this paragraph, there is no paragraph indent for this paragraph.)\n\nCross-referencing\n=================\n\nREVTeX will automatically number sections, equations, figure captions, and tables. In order to reference them in text, use the `\\label{#1}` and `\\ref{#1}` commands. To reference a particular page, use the `\\pageref{#1}` command.\n\nThe `\\label{#1}` should appear in a section heading, within an equation, or in a table or figure caption. The `\\ref{#1}` command is used in the text where the citation is to be displayed. Some examples: Section\u00a0\\[sec:level1\\] on page\u00a0, Table\u00a0\\[tab:table1\\],\n\n  Left[^4]    Centered[^5]    Right\n  ---------- -------------- -------\n  1                2              3\n  10               20            30\n  100             200           300\n\n  : \\[tab:table1\\]This is a narrow table which fits into a text column when using `twocolumn` formatting. Note that REVTeX\u00a04 adjusts the intercolumn spacing so that the table fills the entire width of the column. Table captions are numbered automatically. This table illustrates left-aligned, centered, and right-aligned columns.\n\nand Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:epsart\\].\n\nFigures and Tables\n==================\n\nFigures and tables are typically \u201cfloats\u201d; LaTeX\u00a0determines their final position via placement rules. LaTeX\u00a0isn\u2019t always successful in automatically placing floats where you wish them.\n\nFigures are marked up with the `figure` environment, the content of which imports the image (`\\includegraphics`) followed by the figure caption (`\\caption`). The argument of the latter command should itself contain a `\\label` command if you wish to refer to your figure with `\\ref`.\n\nImport your image using either the `graphics` or `graphix` packages. These packages both define the `\\includegraphics{#1}` command, but they differ in the optional arguments for specifying the orientation, scaling, and translation of the figure. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:epsart\\]\n\n![\\[fig:epsart\\] A figure caption. The figure captions are automatically numbered.](fig_1)\n\nis small enough to fit in a single column, while Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:wide\\]\n\n![image](fig_2)\n\nis too wide for a single column, so instead the `figure*` environment has been used.\n\nThe analog of the `figure` environment is `table`, which uses the same `\\caption` command. However, you should type your caption command first within the `table`, instead of last as you did for `figure`.\n\nThe heart of any table is the `tabular` environment, which represents the table content as a (vertical) sequence of table rows, each containing a (horizontal) sequence of table cells. Cells are separated by the `&` character; the row terminates with `\\\\`. The required argument for the `tabular` environment specifies how data are displayed in each of the columns. For instance, a column may be centered (`c`), left-justified (`l`), right-justified (`r`), or aligned on a decimal point (`d`). (Table\u00a0\\[tab:table4\\]\n\n[ccddd]{} One&Two&&&\\\none&two&&&\\\nHe&2& 2.77234 & 45672. & 0.69\\\nC[^6] &C[^7] & 12537.64 & 37.66345 & 86.37\\\n\nillustrates the use of decimal column alignment.)\n\nExtra column-spacing may be be specified as well, although REVTeX\u00a04 sets this spacing so that the columns fill the width of the table. Horizontal rules are typeset using the `\\hline` command. The doubled (or Scotch) rules that appear at the top and bottom of a table can be achieved by enclosing the `tabular` environment within a `ruledtabular` environment. Rows whose columns span multiple columns can be typeset using LaTeX\u2019s `\\multicolumn{#1}{#2}{#3}` command (for example, see the first row of Table\u00a0\\[tab:table3\\]).\n\n  ----- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------\n                                                                    \n   Ion    1st alternative     2nd alternative     lst alternative     2nd alternative\n    K       $(2e)+(2f)$           $(4i)$            $(2c)+(2d)$           $(4f)$\n   Mn       $(2g)$[^8]       $(a)+(b)+(c)+(d)$        $(4e)$            $(2a)+(2b)$\n   Cl    $(a)+(b)+(c)+(d)$      $(2g)$[^9]       $(4e)^{\\text{a}}$  \n   He    $(8r)^{\\text{a}}$   $(4j)^{\\text{a}}$   $(4g)^{\\text{a}}$  \n   Ag                        $(4k)^{\\text{a}}$                       $(4h)^{\\text{a}}$\n  ----- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------\n\nThe tables in this document illustrate various effects. Tables that fit in a narrow column are contained in a `table` environment. Table\u00a0\\[tab:table3\\] is a wide table, therefore set with the `table*` environment. Lengthy tables may need to break across pages. A simple way to allow this is to specify the `[H]` float placement on the `table` or `table*` environment. Alternatively, using the standard \u00a0package `longtable` gives more control over how tables break and allows headers and footers to be specified for each page of the table. An example of the use of `longtable` can be found in the file `summary.tex` that is included with the REVTeX\u00a04 distribution.\n\nThere are two methods for setting footnotes within a table (these footnotes will be displayed directly below the table rather than at the bottom of the page or in the bibliography). The easiest and preferred method is just to use the `\\footnote{#1}` command. This will automatically enumerate the footnotes with lowercase roman letters. However, it is sometimes necessary to have multiple entries in the table share the same footnote. In this case, create the footnotes using `\\footnotemark[#1]` and `\\footnotetext[#1]{#2}`. `#1` is a numeric value. Each time the same value for `#1` is used, the same mark is produced in the table. The `\\footnotetext[#1]{#2}` commands are placed after the `tabular` environment. Examine the LaTeX\u00a0source and output for Tables\u00a0\\[tab:table1\\] and \\[tab:table2\\]\n\n        $r_c$ (\u00c5)   $r_0$ (\u00c5)   $\\kappa r_0$        $r_c$ (\u00c5)   $r_0$ (\u00c5)   $\\kappa r_0$\n  ---- ----------- ----------- -------------- ---- ----------- ----------- --------------\n   Cu     0.800       14.10        2.550       Sn     0.680       1.870        3.700\n   Ag     0.990       15.90        2.710       Pb     0.450       1.930        3.760\n   Au     1.150       15.90        2.710       Ca     0.750       2.170        3.560\n   Mg     0.490       17.60        3.200       Sr     0.900       2.370        3.720\n   Zn     0.300       15.20        2.970       Li     0.380       1.730        2.830\n   Cd     0.530       17.10        3.160       Na     0.760       2.110        3.120\n   Hg     0.550       17.80        3.220       K      1.120       2.620        3.480\n   Al     0.230       15.80        3.240       Rb     1.330       2.800        3.590\n   Ga     0.310       16.70        3.330       Cs     1.420       3.030        3.740\n   In     0.460       18.40        3.500       Ba     0.960       2.460        3.780\n   Tl     0.480       18.90        3.550                                   \n\n  : \\[tab:table2\\]A table with more columns still fits properly in a column. Note that several entries share the same footnote. Inspect the LaTeX\u00a0input for this table to see exactly how it is done.\n\nfor an illustration.\n\nAll AIP journals require that the initial citation of figures or tables be in numerical order. LaTeX\u2019s automatic numbering of floats is your friend here: just put each `figure` environment immediately following its first reference (`\\ref`), as we have done in this example file.\n\nWe wish to acknowledge the support of the author community in using REVTeX, offering suggestions and encouragement, testing new versions, \u2026.\n\nAppendixes\n==========\n\nTo start the appendixes, use the `\\appendix` command. This signals that all following section commands refer to appendixes instead of regular sections. Therefore, the `\\appendix` command should be used only once\u2014to set up the section commands to act as appendixes. Thereafter normal section commands are used. The heading for a section can be left empty. For example,\n\n    \\appendix\n    \\section{}\n\nwill produce an appendix heading that says \u201cAPPENDIX A\u201d and\n\n    \\appendix\n    \\section{Background}\n\nwill produce an appendix heading that says \u201cAPPENDIX A: BACKGROUND\u201d (note that the colon is set automatically).\n\nIf there is only one appendix, then the letter \u201cA\u201d should not appear. This is suppressed by using the star version of the appendix command (`\\appendix*` in the place of `\\appendix`).\n\nA little more on appendixes\n===========================\n\nObserve that this appendix was started by using\n\n    \\section{A little more on appendixes}\n\nNote the equation number in an appendix: $$E=mc^2.$$\n\n\\[app:subsec\\]A subsection in an appendix\n-----------------------------------------\n\nYou can use a subsection or subsubsection in an appendix. Note the numbering: we are now in Appendix\u00a0\\[app:subsec\\].\n\n### \\[app:subsubsec\\]A subsubsection in an appendix\n\nNote the equation numbers in this appendix, produced with the subequations environment:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nE&=&mc, \\label{appa}\n\\\\\nE&=&mc^2, \\label{appb}\n\\\\\nE&\\agt& mc^3. \\label{appc}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThey turn out to be Eqs.\u00a0(\\[appa\\]), (\\[appb\\]), and (\\[appc\\]).\n\n[^1]: Error!\n\n[^2]: Footnote to title of article.\n\n[^3]: Automatically placing footnotes into the bibliography requires using BibTeX to compile the bibliography.\n\n[^4]: Note a.\n\n[^5]: Note b.\n\n[^6]: Some tables require footnotes.\n\n[^7]: Some tables need more than one footnote.\n\n[^8]: The $z$ parameter of these positions is $z\\sim\\frac{1}{4}$.\n\n[^9]: This is a footnote in a table that spans the full page width in `twocolumn` mode. It is supposed to set on the full width of the page, just as the caption does.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'While there are a number of models that tackle the problem of calculating friction forces on the atomic level, providing a completely parameter-free approach remains a challenge. Here we present a quasi-static model to obtain an approximation to the nanofrictional response of dry, wearless systems based on quantum mechanical all-electron calculations. We propose a mechanism to allow dissipative sliding, which relies on atomic relaxations. We define two different ways of calculating the mean nanofriction force, both leading to an exponential friction-versus-load behavior for all sliding directions. Since our approach does not impose any limits on lengths and directions of the sliding paths, we investigate arbitrary sliding directions for an fcc Cu(111) interface and detect two periodic paths which form the upper and lower bound of nanofriction. For long aperiodic paths the friction force convergences to a value in between these limits. For low loads we retrieve the Derjaguin generalization of Amontons-Coulomb kinetic friction law which appears to be valid all the way down to the nanoscale. We observe a non-vanishing Derjaguin-offset even for atomically flat surfaces in dry contact.'\nauthor:\n- M Wolloch\n- G Feldbauer\n- P Mohn\n- J Redinger\n- A Vernes\nbibliography:\n- '../../PhD\\_Papers/Bib.bib'\ntitle: '*Ab-initio* friction forces on the nanoscale: A DFT study of fcc Cu(111).'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:Int}\n============\n\nIn the $17^{th}$ and $18^{th}$ century Amontons and Coulomb formulated the basic laws of friction, which state that the macroscopic friction force is independent of the apparent contact area and varies linearly with the external load at moderate constant sliding velocities [@amonton:1699; @coulomb:1773]. These friction laws have been further extended by Derjaguin for adhesive surfaces, so that a non-vanishing friction force can occur even for zero load [@derjaguin:34b]. Although generally very successful, on the nano-scale deviations from this classical behavior have sometimes been observed depending on the sliding conditions. If the contacting surfaces are aligned incommensurately, friction can be reduced by several orders of magnitude and structural superlubricity may occur [@hirano:90; @hirano:97; @dienwiebel:04; @dietzel:13; @zhang:13], though this phenomenon is suspected to be unstable at least for graphene flakes on graphite [@filippov:08; @feng:13]. It has also been proposed that the drastic reduction of frictional forces may not stem from incommensurability but from thermal effects and the low effective mass of the nanocontact [@krylov:05; @maier:05]. Inclusion of third bodies between incommensurate contacts hinders structual superlubricity and leads to a linear behavior of friction on load [@he:99; @mueser:01], which is also recovered from thermodynamic considerations [@gao:04]. Other studies report a greater than linear [@gosvami:10], or sublinear dependence of the friction force on load [@wenning:01; @luan:05; @mo:09] where the latter is consistent with classic Hertzian contact mechanics [@hertz:1881]. Also even more complex dependencies of the friction force on the load have been reported\u00a0[@eder:11; @vernes:12]. A more general overview on friction simulations on the nanoscale may be found in two recent reviews [@dong:13; @vanossi:13b]. Friction forces can also depend on the sliding direction as shown in experiments on rather complex geometries\u00a0[@overney:94; @park:05], and recently by Weymouth et al.\u00a0for a single atom asperity [@weymouth:13].\n\nWhile the conventional method of choice for simulating atomic scale friction is classical molecular dynamics (MD), see Ref.\u00a0 and references therein, *ab-initio* density-functional-theory (DFT) apporaches [@hohenberg:64; @kohn:65] have become more common during recent years [@garvey:11a; @garvey:11b; @garvey:11c; @zibilotti:11; @cahangirov:12; @lf_wang:12; @j_wang:12; @kwon:12]. This is due to advantages in accuracy and the increasing power of computers which retain the simulation time manageable. In classical MD simulations, energy becomes dissipated to a heat bath via a thermostat, a method which is in principle also possible for DFT calculations. As simulation times for *ab-initio* MD are very short and thermostating is difficult due to a rapid heating of the electronic system, it is desirable to formulate a different way to describe dissipative sliding and to predict coefficients of friction within DFT. This may be done by computing potential energy landscapes and fitting the resulting energy barriers to mechanical models, for example the well known Prandtl-Tomlinson model [@prandtl:28; @tomlinson:29]. Another approach was suggested by Zhong and Tom\u00e1nek, who, in their \u201cmaximum-friction microscope\u201d model, assume a complete dissipation of the potential energy into phonons and electronic excitations for each slip\u00a0[@zhong:90; @tomanek:91].\n\nConsidering all these different concepts and methods, we attempt to formulate the problem of dry sliding friction on the basis of parameter-free (*ab-initio*) calculations, which rely only on the quantum-mechanical interactions of the sliding bodies. To this end we propose energy dissipation via the relaxations in the sliding materials themselves as calculated *ab-initio*. We will show that the concept allows to analyse arbitrary sliding directions and sliding paths up to $\\mu m$ scale in length with a single initial set of DFT calculations. This permits us to gain insight into the different behavior of periodic and aperiodic (defined below) sliding directions by bridging four orders of magnitude in length scale.\n\nMethods {#sec:Meth}\n=======\n\nAs a prototype system to study our nanofriction model we consider two atomically flat slabs of fcc(111) copper in dry contact, represented by a $1\\times 1$ hexagonal unit cell (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:0\\]). Both slabs are described by two rigid Cu layers (grey spheres) representing the transition to Cu-bulk followed by a tribologically active zone consisting of four Cu layers (red spheres) which are allowed to relax in 3 dimensions. In preliminary calculations the addition of an additional free layer was found to not significantly change the resulting geometries even at the positions with the highest stresses. External loads are imposed by keeping the rigid layers at a given distance smaller than the equilibrium one. The full simulation box consists of 12 atoms using a bulk lattice constant $a=\\unit[3.634]{\\AA}$ determined from DFT equilibration, cf. in experiments $a=\\unit[ 3.615]{\\AA}$ [@wyckoff:63]. Due to the inherent periodicity of our supercell, a vacuum layer of about is included on top of the upper slab to decouple the periodically repeated simulation cell in the z direction. This 12 layer thick arrangement is comparable to a number of previous studies using *ab-initio* methods\u00a0[@dag:04; @neitola:06; @wieferink:11; @zhang:11; @garvey:11a; @garvey:11b; @garvey:11c; @cahangirov:12; @j_wang:12; @cahangirov:13], and is sufficiently thick to approximate the elastic properties of copper while retaining computational efficiency.\n\n![Sketch of the simulation cell containing 12 Cu atoms, tripled in the x and y direction for clarity. The top slab is displaced vertically to simulate several load conditions and in the x and y direction to collect data on energies and forces. Red atoms are allowed to relax, while grey atoms are kept rigid at their bulk-like positions. The gap at the interface is included for visual clarity and is of course not present under load when the slabs are compressed beyond their equilibrium distance.[]{data-label=\"fig:0\"}](Fig0.pdf){width=\"0.51\\linewidth\"}\n\nTo investigate nanofrictional forces for sliding paths of different lengths and directions we apply a quasi-static grid approach, which means that the unit cell is sampled by choosing points on a regular grid for which the energies and forces are calculated (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\]). In addition to the advantage of being a parameter-free method, this concept ensures that the sliding direction can be chosen arbitrarily without recalculating energies and forces. The same holds for the length of the sliding path which can easily be extended to $\\sim\\unit[1]{\\mu m}$, four orders of magnitude larger than the dimensions of the unit cell. To calculate the energies and forces for each lateral position a $10\\times10$ grid is constructed in the x-y plane, resulting in a spacing of $\\unit[\\sim0.25]{\\AA}$ between the grid points. A cubic spline interpolation is applied to refine this grid by a factor of 10 and create smooth energy- and force-surfaces. To simulate the usual experimental setup, we perform our scans keeping the load at a constant value which implies that the distance of the slabs needs to adapt. To this end the distance between the slabs is varied in 6 steps for each of the 100 grid-points, recording the respective volume $V$ and the total energy of the relaxed cell $E^{\\mathrm{R}}$ which are fitted to a second order polynomial. The uniaxial pressure on the cell can now be evaluated by calculating the first derivative of $E^{\\mathrm{R}}$ with respect to $V$ at each lateral position, namely $p=-\\partial E^{\\mathrm{R}}\\,/\\,\\partial V$. The corresponding loading force $L$ is then obtained by multiplying the pressure with the cross-section area $A$ of the unit cell, $L=p\\,A$. Choosing a load (given derivative of the energy vs. volume functions) we recalculate the respective energies and forces at each of the 100 grid points and obtain energy surfaces at that given constant load. Evidently that means, that the distance between the slabs has to be adjusted accordingly. Employing this process, which was also used in a very similar way by Cahangirov et al.\u00a0[@cahangirov:12], we construct quantum mechanical energy- and force-maps for the quasi-static sliding system, both with and without relaxation of atoms.\n\nIt has to be pointed out that this model is not intended to simulate a macroscopic copper on copper system which would feature multiple grains, oxidation, impurities, and other imperfections. The aim is rather to study a model for dissipative sliding under idealized and controlled conditions. We believe that the modeled system and the computational method are ideally suited for this endeavor for the following reasons: i) commensurate sliding of a Cu(111) tip on Cu(111) was previously found to exhibit wearless atomic stick-slip motion, both in molecular dynamics simulations [@sorensen:96; @martini:09], and experiments in ultra-high vacuum\u00a0[@bennewitz:99]. This is in contrast to results for Cu(100) on Cu(100) where both plastic deformations and wear play an important role [@sorensen:96; @nieminen:92]. ii) Garvey et al. showed in a recent series of papers on KCl sliding on Fe(100) that the investigation of shearing interfaces and the prediction of friction coefficients for such systems require very high accuracy in the calculated energies [@garvey:11a; @garvey:11b; @garvey:11c]. The Vienna Ab-Initio Simulation Package *VASP*\u00a0[@kresse1993; @kresse1994a; @kresse1996a; @kresse1996b] applied to the copper system seems to be ideally suited for our study. The Projector Augmented Wave (PAW) code\u00a0[@bloechl1994; @kresse:98] is much more accurate as for example embedded atom potentials but not as computationally expensive as highly accurate full-potential linearized augmented plane-wave (FLAPW) method which is needed sometimes for systems where the local bonding environment changes significantly [@garvey:11a]. We found that, while the considered system is small enough that the large number of calculations needed for the construction of accurate energy surfaces for various loads is still feasible, it is also realistic enough to work as a proof of concept for the proposed scheme to calculate friction forces on the nanoscale.\n\nOne of the main goals of this work is to examine the differences in nanofriction for different sliding directions, especially the differences between periodic and quasi aperiodic sliding paths. For all sliding directions we start in an energy minimum configuration corresponding to perfect fcc stacking. Different paths are distinguished by their angle with respect to the x-axis, see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\]. When a sliding path exits at a unit cell boundary, the underlying lattice periodicity demands that it reenters on the opposite side. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\] we show two periodic paths with 0 and 30 degrees, respectively. The first (red path) in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\] dissects the unit cell once along the Cartesian x-axis before returning to its starting point, whereas the second one (blue path) in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\] cuts the unit cell twice. As can be seen from Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\] the energy variations along these two paths are distinctly different representing two extremal cases. Additional to these periodic paths we also consider 10 quasi aperiodic ones, namely for $-33$, $-29$, $-15$, $-10$, $3$, $5$, $10$, $21.13$, $45$, and $50$ degrees. We note that due to the inevitable representation of irrational numbers by rational fractions in a computer these paths are essentially also periodic, however, with very long periods. The forces acting on the upper slab have a parallel (friction) and an in-plane perpendicular (reaction) component with respect to the direction of the path. Since our model allows for both positive and negative contributions to the friction force, we use the convention that friction forces pointing against the sliding direction for a given sliding path are counted as positive.\n\nAs already mentioned all energies and forces are calculated with the DFT package *VASP* using the PAW method with an energy cut-off of . For the exchange and correlation potential, the Generalized Gradient Approximation (GGA) in the version devised by Perdew, Burke and Ernzerhof (PBE) is applied\u00a0[@perdew:97]. As the strong chemical bonds in copper are well described with PBE and our results rely on the calculation of total energies, there is no need to explicitly consider van der Waals forces or meta-GGA. The Brillouin zone sampling is performed on a $\\Gamma$-centered $24\\times24\\times1$ k-grid ensuring a total energy convergence better than per simulation cell. Atomic relaxations were converged to in total energy, with each electronic calculation being converged to .\n\n![(color online) Energy landscape of a constant load scan for two fcc Cu(111) slabs displaced relativ to each other. In addition, two periodic sliding paths with $0^\\circ$ (red) and $30^\\circ$ (blue) are shown. The angles are defined with respect to the Cartesian x-direction. The arrows $a_1$ and $a_2$ are two basis vectors of the rhombohedral unit cell. The x-direction dissects the plane spanned by $a_1$ and $a_2$ and points into the $[\\,1\\,1\\,\\overline{1}\\,]$ direction. The y-direction points into the $[\\,\\overline{1}\\,1\\,0\\,]$ direction and is in the plane spanned by $a_1$ and $a_2$ and orthogonal to the x-axis.[]{data-label=\"fig:1\"}](Fig1.pdf){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nA central feature in the description of friction is to allow dissipative sliding. In principle, any modeling that involves smooth continuous energy surfaces, such as we get from our grid approach when using only the fully relaxed system, means that one moves on a conservative energy landscape, resulting in energy neutral displacements and frictionless sliding. An earlier *ab-initio* attempt to tackle this problem has been developed by Zhong and Tom\u00e1nek et al.\u00a0[@zhong:90; @tomanek:91] who studied the stick-slip motion of single atom tips over graphite. In contrast to their approach and in order to describe the portion of energy lost into heat, we propose the following mechanism. Along each path we identify the local minima and maxima on the energy curve of the unrelaxed system. We assume static sliding without relaxations until a maximum in the energy is encountered, which in our model is representative of the \u201cstick\u201d phase of stick-slip sliding. At this point we allow the built up strain to be released by relaxing the tribologically active zone (the first part of the \u201cslip\u201d phase). The resulting energy difference is now assumed to be dissipated into the bulk crystal via phononic excitations and is ultimately lost as heat. Although the method is quasi-static the resulting frictional forces can be predicted sufficiently well, if the amount of energy that is lost during sliding is estimated correctly. The relaxed energy surface is also corrugated, thus, the movement to the next minimum may result in small gains or losses in the energy leading to small negative or positive friction forces along this portion of the path. This is the second part of the \u201cslip\u201d phase. When the next minimum in the unrelaxed surface is encountered the cycle is repeated until the desired path length is reached. If the local minimum of the unrelaxed energy curve is not at the same energy as the relaxed curve, an appropriate portion of the released energy from the last slip is used to bring the system back to the unrelaxed sliding position. With this method we avoid the use of springs to model the elasticity of the system, which is instead included implicitly in the relaxations. The process is visualized in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\].\n\n![Illustration of the energy dissipation model along a $50^\\circ$ sliding path. The solid (cyan) line gives the energy for the unrelaxed slabs with the open (black) circles denoting local minima and maxima. The dashed (magenta) line shows the energy for the relaxed slabs with open (black) triangles marking the positions of the extrema of the unrelaxed slabs. The dotted (black) line is a schematic route for the calculation of the energy differences between the open circles and triangles, see equation\u00a0(\\[eq:F2\\]).[]{data-label=\"fig:2\"}](Fig2.pdf){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe use of unrelaxed energy curves, where the two bodies slide over each other statically, only adjusting their vertical distance to keep the load constant, is of course a rather crude assumption. However, for the two periodic sliding directions at $0^\\circ$ and $30^\\circ$ we also carried out more realistic shearing calculations that support our approach. In these calculations we use the same unit cell and drag the uppermost two (fixed) layers in small ($\\sim\\unit[0.1]{\\AA}$) steps along the chosen sliding direction while holding the two bottom-most layers still. At each step the 8 free layers in the middle are allowed to relax and, in contrast to the quasi-static approach, these relaxed positions are the starting configuration for the next step. This method is only computationally practical for short path lengths and becomes extremely time consuming for long aperiodic paths. The vertical distance between the two fixed regions of the slab was kept constant during these calculations and at the equilibrium distance of the non-sheared slab, i.e.\u00a0corresponding roughly to zero load. The results for the $0^\\circ$ path are shown in figure\u00a0\\[fig:3\\].\n\n![A comparison between our friction model and a shearing simulation for the periodic $0^\\circ$ sliding path at zero load. The entire period is shown. The solid (cyan) line and the dashed (magenta) line give the unrelaxed and relaxed energy curves for the quasi-static model, as seen also in figure\u00a0\\[fig:2\\]. The black circles are fully relaxed data points of the shearing calculation.[]{data-label=\"fig:3\"}](shear_0.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn the beginning the energy of the sheared slabs follows the relaxed energy curve from our proposed quasi-static model, but starts to deviate in the vicinity of its first maximum at about $l=\\unit[1]{\\AA}$. The sheared system is not fully relaxing into the total energy minimum but is still pinned in the potential well of the starting position, a common feature in stick-slip sliding. The slip is initiated only at the end of the period, where the built up stain energy of $E_{\\mathrm{shear}}(0^\\circ)=\\unit[207]{meV}$ is dissipated and the system slips into the next minimum. This energy is actually underestimated by $\\sim 25\\%$ within our proposed quasi-static friction model at $E_{\\mathrm{qs}}(0^\\circ)=\\unit[156]{meV}$ although we include contributions of the unrelaxed energy curve (see figure\u00a0\\[fig:2\\] and equation\u00a0(\\[eq:F2\\])). In contrast, applying the model by Zhong and Tom\u00e1nek\u00a0[@zhong:90; @tomanek:91] to the relaxed energy curve underestimates the dissipated energy during shearing by more than 80% at $E_{\\mathrm{ZT}}(0^\\circ)=\\unit[38]{meV}$.\n\nFor the $30^\\circ$ (see figure\u00a0\\[fig:shear\\_30\\]) sliding direction the situation is different, as the shearing appears to become periodic only after the first slip with a much shorter period than in our quasi static model. Three small slips of roughly equal size happen during a sliding distance of $\\sim\\unit[4.2]{\\AA}$ (from $l\\sim\\unit[2.0]{\\AA}$ to $l\\sim\\unit[6.2]{\\AA}$ in figure\u00a0\\[fig:shear\\_30\\]), which is comparable to one period in our quasi-static model of $\\sim\\unit[4.4]{\\AA}$ where one small and one large slip occur. While the predicted slipping process is different the energetics are in excellent agreement, with $E_{\\mathrm{qs}}(30^\\circ)=\\unit[286]{meV}$ being lost per period in our model and $E_{\\mathrm{shear}}(30^\\circ)=\\unit[287]{meV}$ dissipated in three slips during shearing. Using the model of Zhong and Tom\u00e1nek underestimates the energy severely again at $E_{\\mathrm{ZT}}(30^\\circ)=\\unit[104]{meV}$.\n\n![A comparison between our friction model and a shearing simulation for the periodic $30^\\circ$ sliding path at zero load. Two periods of the quasi static model are shown. The solid (cyan) line and the dashed (magenta) line give the unrelaxed and relaxed energy curves for the quasi-static model, as seen also in figure\u00a0\\[fig:2\\]. The black circles are fully relaxed data points of the shearing calculation which shows periodic behavior after the first slip with a considerably shorter period than the quasi-static calculation.[]{data-label=\"fig:shear_30\"}](shear_30.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nThis good agreement of our quasi-static results with the shearing calculations adds a convincing argument in favor of our model and justifies the seemingly *ad-hoc* application of unrelaxed energy surfaces. As the periodic paths that were tested in this way turn out to bound the friction force from below and above (see section\u00a0\\[sec:Res\\]), it is reasonable to assume that the method will also yield plausible results for aperiodic paths for which the shearing calculations become extremely time consuming. The shearing was carried out at constant distance and not constant load, which would allow to adjust the distance between the slabs. This would decrease the pinning and lower the energy barrier, bringing $E_{\\mathrm{shear}}$ even closer to the values obtained with our quasi-static model. We want to mention that our energies are calculated at ; finite temperature would of course reduce the effective potential corrugation so that a slip process could occur earlier, but this is equally true for both the quasi-static and shear model.\n\nWe want to point out, however, that the specific nature of the stick-slip process shown in the shearing calculation is not directly reproduced by our proposed quasi static model (see figures\u00a0\\[fig:3\\] and\u00a0\\[fig:shear\\_30\\]). While the period lengths of the stick-slip cycle are in good agreement for the $0^\\circ$ direction, they differ for the $30^\\circ$ sliding path. Furthermore, the positions of the slip instabilities in the shearing calculations are of course not reproduced in our model, which allocates the slip points to the maxima of the unrelaxed energy curve. Thus, our new approach is not describing the \u201ctrue\u201d physical dynamics of the slip system, but rather provides a tool to arrive at much better estimates for the dissipated energy than the established model by Zhong and Tom\u00e1nek\u00a0[@zhong:90; @tomanek:91], at considerable reduced computational effort compared to shearing calculations.\n\nFor the data containing the relaxed and the unrelaxed energy curves as well as the positions of the minima and maxima we propose two distinctively different ways to calculate the mean friction force denoted by $F^{(1)}$ and $F^{(2)}$. To calculate $F^{(1)}$ we determine the Hellmann-Feynman forces acting on the individual atoms in our *ab-initio* calculation [@feynman:39]. We perform an arithmetic average of all force components of the upper slab parallel to the sliding direction following the path described above, e.g., as indicated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\] by the dotted line. The contributions of the unrelaxed and the relaxed forces to $F^{(1)}$ are marked by the superscripts $U$ and $R$ while $N_{\\mathrm{U}}$ and $N_{\\mathrm{R}}$ are the total numbers of sampling points on the unrelaxed and relaxed energy curves yielding $$F^{(1)}= \\frac{1}{N_\\mathrm{U}} \\sum_{i=1}^{N_\\mathrm{U}} F^{\\mathrm{U}}_{i} + \\frac{1}{N_\\mathrm{R}} \\sum_{j=1}^{N_\\mathrm{R}} F^{\\mathrm{R}}_{j} \\quad .\n\\label{eq:F1}$$ In contrast, $F^{(2)}$ is defined via the sum over the gains and losses of energy along the sliding path divided by the path length $l$, $$\\begin{aligned}\nF^{(2)} & = & \\frac{1}{l}\\Bigg[ \\sum_{i^{\\prime}=1}^{N_{\\mathrm{max}}} \\left(E^{\\mathrm{U}}_{i^{\\prime}} - E^{\\mathrm{R}}_{i^{\\prime}} \\right) - \\sum_{j^{\\prime}=2}^{N_{\\mathrm{min}}} \\left(E^{\\mathrm{U}}_{j^{\\prime}} - E^{\\mathrm{R}}_{j^{\\prime}}\\right) - \\nonumber \\\\\n & & - \\sum_{i^{\\prime}=1}^{N_{\\mathrm{max}}} \\sum_{j^{\\prime}=2}^{N_{\\mathrm{max}}} \\left(E^{\\mathrm{R}}_{i^{\\prime}}-E^{\\mathrm{R}}_{j^{\\prime}}\\right) \\Bigg] \\quad .\n\\label{eq:F2}\\end{aligned}$$ The index $i^{\\prime}$ iterates over all maxima in the unrelaxed energy curve and $j^{\\prime}$ covers the minima while the energies are denoted by $E^{\\mathrm{U}}$ (unrelaxed) and $E^{\\mathrm{R}}$ (relaxed). $N_{\\mathrm{min}}$ ($N_{\\mathrm{max}}$) is the number of minima (maxima) encountered along the chosen sliding path such that $N_{\\mathrm{max}}=N_{\\mathrm{min}}-1$, as we always start and terminate our path in a minimum of the unrelaxed energy curve for both approaches.\n\nResults and discussion {#sec:Res}\n======================\n\nWith the methods described above we calculate the friction-versus-load behavior of fcc Cu(111). All averages are collected on paths of $\\unit[1]{\\mu m}$ length to get reliable values for the constitutive system parameters and to make sure that in the case of quasi aperiodic paths the whole unit cell becomes sampled. For both definitions of the mean friction force, $F^{(1)}$ and $F^{(2)}$, we observe an exponential friction law along all path directions, see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:4\\], given by $$\\label{eq:exp}\nF(L) = F_0 \\exp \\left( \\frac{\\mu}{F_0} L \\right) \\quad .$$ This result can be traced back to the exponential form for the binding energy in transition metals e.g.\u00a0as given by Pettifor [@book:pettifor]. In a very general way the energy of bond breaking follows the *universal binding energy relation* (UBER) which also shows an exponential dependence on distance [@rose:83] which in our case depends linearly on load.\n\n![Semi-logarithmic plot of the friction force $F^{(1)}$ versus load $L$ for the slip plane of fcc Cu(111). Both periodic paths $0^\\circ$ (red circles) and $30^\\circ$ (blue crosses) are shown alongside the quasi aperiodic $10^\\circ$ path (green squares) which serves as a prototype for all other quasi aperiodic paths. The dashed black lines are linear fits.[]{data-label=\"fig:4\"}](Fig4.pdf){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe form of the exponent in equation\u00a0(\\[eq:exp\\]) incorporates the coefficient of friction (COF) $\\mu$. Expanding equation\u00a0(\\[eq:exp\\]) in a Taylor series around $L=0$ we retrieve a kinetic friction law of Derjaguin-form [@derjaguin:34b; @vernes:12]: linear in load $L$ plus the Derjaguin-offset $F_0$, $$\\label{eq:taylor}\nF(L)=F_0 + \\mu L + \\mathcal{O} \\left( L^2 \\right) \\quad .$$ This behavior is well known in lubricated systems where the offset $F_0$ is attributed to adhesion resulting from the lubricant, see e.g. Refs.\u00a0. In our dry system the strength of the adhesion, which for frictional purposes acts like an internal load $L_0$, can be estimated by simply lowering one slab down onto the other and registering the forces on the surface atoms. The resulting internal load $L_0$ is the maximum in this force curves depending on the lateral positions of the slabs. It ranges between $\\unit[0.8]{nN}$ and $\\unit[1]{nN}$ which is of the same order of magnitude as the maximum applied external loads. Of course the approximation of the exponential law with this linear expansion is only valid in the low load regime. For averaged values of all aperiodic paths the relative error reaches $10\\%$ at a load of $\\unit[90]{pN}$ which corresponds to a pressure of and should be regarded as the uttermost limit for the Taylor expansion. This low load regime is discussed in more detail later in the paper.\n\nWhile all quasi aperiodic paths investigated for sufficiently long paths converge to the same friction force, there is a clear difference with respect to periodic ones, see Figs.\u00a0\\[fig:4\\] and \\[fig:5\\]. As expected the $30^\\circ$ path exhibits the largest friction as for each period it traverses the global maximum of the unrelaxed energy surface created by the on-top position of the contact atoms. This is in contrast to the $0^\\circ$ path, which shows the least friction force at zero load and also the slowest increase with rising load.\n\nAs the energy loss for the $0^\\circ$ path at zero load is underestimated by about 25% within our model compared to the shearing calculations, the difference between the aperiodic and the $0^\\circ$ paths might actually be smaller than predicted. However, even if $F_0(0^\\circ)$ is underestimated by our approach, in case that this discrepancy stays approximately the same over the whole range of loads, the predicted coefficients of friction should remain valid anyway. Nevertheless, the existence of a \u201chard\u201d sliding direction at $30^\\circ$, as predicted by our model, is supported by the shearing calculations.\n\n![Plot of the mean friction force $F^{(1)}$ versus the path length $l$ for a load $L=\\unit[183]{pN}$. Both periodic paths $0^\\circ$ (red circles) and $30^\\circ$ (blue crosses) are shown alongside three quasi aperiodic ones (green diamonds for $-10^\\circ$, green triangles for $3^\\circ$ and green squares for $10^\\circ$). Dashed lines are plotted to guide the eye.[]{data-label=\"fig:5\"}](Fig5.pdf){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:5\\] the reason why long paths are required ($\\sim~\\unit[1]{\\mu m}$) becomes apparent. While the friction force for the $0^\\circ$ path (red circles) shows essentially no dependence on the length of the path, for the $30^\\circ$ one (blue crosses) the friction force oscillates in the beginning before converging to a constant value. This is due to the fact that the summation in equations\u00a0(\\[eq:F1\\]) and (\\[eq:F2\\]) terminates at the last minimum encountered. For $0^\\circ$ this happens always after a full period, while along the $30^\\circ$ direction one has two minima per period (fcc and the hcp position), so that the total friction force average depends on the termination of the summation. It is obvious that with increasing path length the influence of the termination point becomes less and less important for the calculation of the average. In the quasi aperiodic case, where a short path length would only sample fractions of the energy landscape, it is evident that the friction force only converges for sufficiently long paths.\n\nBoth $F^{(1)}$ and $F^{(2)}$ lead to an exponential friction law, however, the calculated values of the Derjaguin-offset $F_0$ and the COF $\\mu$, while showing the same trend, differ slightly (see Tab.\u00a0\\[tab:coefficients\\]). However, this is not surprising given the two different approaches, see equations\u00a0(\\[eq:F1\\]) and (\\[eq:F2\\]). Plotting both friction forces versus load curves for a given sliding path, one finds that $F^{(1)}$ and $F^{(2)}$ do agree well in the low to medium load regime while for loads larger than $L=\\unit[150]{pN}$ higher deviations occur, as seen in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:6\\]. We attribute this discrepancy to the increasing influence of the reaction forces for large loads which are not considered in the calculation of $F^{(1)}$, but play a role in the dissipation mechanism and hence enter implicitly in $F^{(2)}$.\n\n![Friction forces $F^{(1)}$ (green circles) and $F^{(2)}$ (green crosses) versus load $L$ for fcc Cu(111) slabs sliding along a $10^\\circ$ path. The insert (black crosses) shows the difference $F^{(2)}-F^{(1)}$. At low to medium loads the difference is constant and corresponds to the disparity of the friction at zero load $F_0$[]{data-label=\"fig:6\"}](Fig6.pdf){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe largest load considered in our simulations is $\\unit[367]{pN}$, given the cross-section area of the unit cell $\\unit[5.7]{\\AA^2}$, this is equivalent to a static pressure of $\\unit[6.4]{GPa}$ which is well beyond any realistic technological applications. Thus, it is important to analyze the low load regime of up to () separately. In this range the exponential law can be approximated reasonably well by a linear relation $F_{\\mathrm{lin}}(L)=F_0+\\mu_{\\mathrm{lin}} L$ so that the COF $\\mu_{\\mathrm{lin}}$ is given by the slope, see Tab.\u00a0\\[tab:coefficients\\]. It should be noted that the $\\mu_{\\mathrm{lin}}$ obtained in this manner are systematically larger than the values of $\\mu$, since the slope of a linear fit to a segment of an exponential function is always steeper than the tangent of the function at the beginning of the segment. Since the ultimate tensile strength for annealed copper is approximately $\\unit[160]{MPa}$ [@yu:04] an uniaxial pressure of more than will already deform the sample. However, it remains computationally feasible to study extremely high loads because the periodic boundary conditions imposed on our simulations restrict the horizontal movement of the atoms and the fcc (111) symmetry of the sample is preserved at all times.\n\nDepending on direction and method we obtain a COF between $0.6 - 1.46$ which is one order of magnitude larger compared to the MD study by S[\u00f8]{}rensen et al.\u00a0[@sorensen:96]. This large difference can be explained at least in part by the small contact size in S[\u00f8]{}rensen\u2019s work that leads to slips mediated by a dislocation mechanism which is suppressed in our model due to the periodic boundary conditions. In 2006 Zhang et al.\u00a0[@zhang:06] experimentally determined the friction coefficient for dry copper to be $\\mu^{\\mathrm{nc}}_{\\mathrm{exp}}=0.78$ (nanocrystalline sample) and $\\mu^{\\mathrm{an}}_{\\mathrm{exp}}=0.92$ (annealed sample). These values were found in the zero wear regime for a load of $\\sim\\unit[5]{N}$. The obtained COFs in the low load regime agree fairly well with our values for aperiodic sliding ($\\mu^{(1)}=0.94 \\pm 0.06$, $\\mu^{(2)}=0.88 \\pm 0.05$).\n\n  ------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------\n                $F_0^{(1)}[\\mathrm{pN}]$   $F_0^{(2)}[\\mathrm{pN}]$     $\\mu^{(1)}$       $\\mu^{(2)}$     $\\mu^{(1)}_{\\mathrm{lin}}$   $\\mu^{(2)}_{\\mathrm{lin}}$    $\\mu_{\\mathrm{exp}}$\n  $0^\\circ$               127                        101                   0.74              0.60                    1.06                         0.87                        -\n  $30^\\circ$              159                        109                   1.03              0.91                    1.45                         1.46                        -\n  aperiodic          $157 \\pm 4.4$              $121 \\pm 2.7$         $0.94 \\pm 0.06$   $0.88 \\pm 0.05$        $1.33 \\pm 0.14$              $1.25 \\pm 0.04$         $0.78^{a}$, $0.92^{b}$\n  ------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------\n\n\\[sec:Con\\]Conclusion\n=====================\n\nWe present a novel approach to construct nanofriction vs.\u00a0load curves from total energy landscapes generated by DFT calculations. The method is parameter-free as no external input is needed to compute the friction force since internal relaxations of the system are assumed to dissipate the energy. We are able to study very long sliding paths and find that the friction force on the nanoscale converge for all aperiodic paths to a value between the limits set by two paths along high symmetry directions (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:5\\]). Comparisons with more realistic but computationally more demanding shearing calculations, that were carried out for the limiting cases of low and high friction, show that, while the exact dynamics of the sliding system are not reproduced well, the estimation of the energy loss is significantly improved compared to established methods. We define two distinct ways to estimate the mean friction force which both lead to comparable results and yield an exponential friction law which in the low load regime can be expanded to a linear relation of Derjaguin form. These two methods serve primarily as an internal test of consistency of our model, however, since total energies can be calculated with a higher accuracy than forces, we would give preference to $F^{(2)}$ (as given by equation\u00a0\\[eq:F2\\]). The exponential increase of friction with applied load is comparable to the experimental findings of Gosvami et al.\u00a0[@gosvami:10] where a strong increase of friction at high loads was found for Au(111) and Cu(100). A similar behavior is found in Fig.\u00a012 of Ref.\u00a0 by performing classical MD simulations. However, both groups attribute this strong increase in friction to the onset of wear at high loads, which is not considered in our work. We show that we can obtain good linear dependence of the friction force on the load in the low load regime (which is still under a high internal load due to adhesion) reminiscent of the Amontons-Coulomb law and also often found on the nanoscale [@he:99; @mueser:01; @gao:04]. The calculated coefficients of friction fit well to the measured values in macroscopic experiments, but there remains the possibility of a coincidental agreement which would require further studies, both theoretically and experimentally, to be ruled out.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThis work was funded by the \u201cAustrian COMET-Program\u201d (project XTribology, no. 824187) via the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) and the Province of Nieder\u00f6sterreich, Vorarlberg and Wien and has been carried out within the \u201cExcellence Centre of Tribology\u201d (AC2T research GmbH) and at Vienna University of Technology. P.M., J.R., and G.F. acknowledge the support by the Austrian science fund (FWF) \\[SFB ViCoM F4109-N13\\]. The authors want to thank Florian Mittendorfer for fruitful discussions and also appreciate the ample support of computer resources by the Vienna Scientific Cluster (VSC). Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:0\\] in this paper was created with the help of the VESTA code\u00a0[@vesta:11].\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Contrary to a widespread belief, measures of velocity can yield a value larger than $c$, the instantaneous light speed in vacuum, without contradicting Einstein\u2019s relativity. Nevertheless, the effect turns out to be too small to explain the recently claimed superluminal velocity by the OPERA collaboration. Several other general relativistic effects acting on the OPERA neutrinos are also analyzed. All of them are unable to explain the OPERA result.'\naddress: 'INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy'\nauthor:\n- 'B. All\u00e9s'\ntitle: Relativity accommodates superluminal mean velocities\n---\n\n[2]{}\n\n\\#1[to 0pt[\\#1]{}]{}\n\nThe recent observation of superluminal neutrinos by the OPERA team\u00a0[@adam] (see also the MINOS collaboration\u00a0[@adamson]) has prompted an intense discussion. Particle physics arguments\u00a0[@cohen; @bi] or astrophysics data\u00a0[@gonzalez; @fargion] seem to indicate that neutrinos could hardly attain such velocities. Moreover, and generally speaking, it is accepted that within the present physics knowledge, such velocities cannot be contemplated if the validity of the basic laws of relativity is to be maintained. In particular the causal structure of spacetime would be badly violated if superluminal particles existed.\n\nHowever it should not be forgotten that such a causal structure holds good in special relativity, namely, in an ideal world where gravity is absent. When instead gravity is taken into account, a special relativistic spacetime arises only locally, in a close neighbourhood of every spacetime event $P$. Strictly speaking, with infinite mathematial precision, this is true exactly at $P$ (although, considering the inevitable inaccuracy of measurement devices, the region of validity of such an approximation turns out to be more or less extended, depending on the magnitude of the spacetime curvature at $P$). Thus, it should not come as a surprise that measurements carried out in a non\u2013local way may apparently violate the main tenets of special relativity.\n\nWe are going to show that, although the [*instantaneous velocity*]{} of a particle cannot be larger than $c$, relativity consents that the [*mean velocity*]{} of the same particle may well exceed $c$. The interesting and appealing aspect of the above statement is that what the OPERA collaboration has measured is precisely the neutrino mean velocity.\n\nTo illustrate the above effect it will be assumed that the spacetime is satisfactorily described by the metric $ds^2=g_{00}dt^2-g_{ij}dx^idx^j$ where $(x^1,x^2,x^3)$ are general spatial coordinates and $t$ is the coordinate time. Throughout the paper mass and time units will be chosen such that $c$ and the Newton constant $G$ are\u00a01. Also, the Einstein summation convention for pairs of repeated indices will be used with Latin indices indicating spatial components and Greek indices referring indistinctly to both spatial and time components. It will be also supposed that all metric components are time independent, $\\partial g_{\\mu\\nu}/\\partial t=0$, and that the time\u2013space ones vanish, $g_{0i}=0$. This last condition is not essential (we include it to avoid lengthy mathematical expressions) and can be omitted without changing the conclusions of the paper\u00a0[@explanationsynchro].\n\nConsider a massless (or nearly massless) particle travelling along a spatial trajectory parametrized by a variable $\\lambda$ and described by the three functions $(x^1(\\lambda),x^2(\\lambda),x^3(\\lambda))$. It travels from the spatial point $P_1$ (where the parameter takes the value $\\lambda_1$) to the spatial point $P_2$ (value $\\lambda_2$). After having measured the physical distance $\\Delta\\ell$ between the two points (the metric is time independent), an observer at $P_2$ registers the time $\\Delta\\tau$ used by the particle to complete the trip. By physical distance we understand what one obtains for instance by lying rods in succession between $P_1$ and $P_2$ (a more realistic procedure to extract $\\Delta\\ell$ will be described in the discussion of the OPERA experiment). The time reading requires a previous synchronization among the clocks at $P_1$ and $P_2$. Then, the observer at $P_2$ defines the mean velocity of the particle as $$\\frac{\\overline{v}}{c}\\equiv\\frac{\\Delta\\ell}{\\Delta\\tau}\\;.\n\\label{0}$$ Let us see what general relativity predicts for this quantity.\n\nThe physical distance $\\Delta\\ell$ is given by $$\\Delta\\ell=\\int_{\\lambda_1}^{\\lambda_2}d\\lambda\\,\\sqrt{g_{ij}\\dot{x}^i\\dot{x}^j}\\;,\n\\label{1}$$ where $\\dot{x}^i\\equiv dx^i/d\\lambda$. Viewed as a quadratic form, $g_{\\ij}$ is positive definite. On the other hand, one of the several equations that govern the motion of the particle stems from the nullification of its proper time, $ds^2=0=g_{00}dt^2-g_{ij}dx^idx^j$, whence $$\\Delta t=\\int_{\\lambda_1}^{\\lambda_2}d\\lambda\\,\\frac{\\sqrt{g_{ij}\\dot{x}^i\\dot{x}^j}}{\\sqrt{g_{00}}}\\;.\n\\label{2}$$ Expression (\\[2\\]) gives the coordinate time interval employed by the particle during the trip from $P_1$ to $P_2$. To recover the time reading $\\Delta\\tau$ on the observer\u2019s clock at $P_2$ one has to multiply $\\Delta\\tau=\\sqrt{g_{00}(\\lambda_2)}\\Delta t$. Therefore the mean velocity recorded by the observer is $$\\frac{\\overline{v}}{c}=\\frac{\\Delta\\ell}{\\Delta\\tau}=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{g_{00}(\\lambda_2)}}\\frac{\\int_{\\lambda_1}^{\\lambda_2}d\\lambda\\,\\sqrt{g_{ij}\\dot{x}^i\\dot{x}^j}}\n{\\int_{\\lambda_1}^{\\lambda_2}d\\lambda\\,\\sqrt{g_{ij}\\dot{x}^i\\dot{x}^j/g_{00}}}\\;.\n\\label{3}$$ The dependence of $g_{\\mu\\nu}$ in (\\[1\\])\u2013(\\[3\\]) on $\\lambda$ comes through their dependence on the spatial coordinates.\n\nThe relevant fact that we wish to emphasize is that the mathematical framework of general relativity does not contain any mechanism whatsoever able to oblige (\\[3\\]) to stay equal or less than\u00a0$1$. Rather, as remarked above, (\\[3\\]) tends to\u00a01 only when the velocity measurement becomes local, to wit, when points $P_1$ and $P_2$ tend to coincide. Indeed, since $\\sqrt{g_{ij}\\dot{x}^i\\dot{x}^j}$ is positive, the mean value theorem can be applied and it states that a value $\\lambda_\\xi$, comprised between $\\lambda_1$ and $\\lambda_2$, exists such that $\\int_{\\lambda_1}^{\\lambda_2}d\\lambda\\,\\sqrt{g_{ij}\\dot{x}^i\\dot{x}^j/g_{00}}=(1/\\sqrt{g_{00}(\\lambda_\\xi)})\n\\int_{\\lambda_1}^{\\lambda_2}d\\lambda\\,\\sqrt{g_{ij}\\dot{x}^i\\dot{x}^j}$. Inserting this expression in the denominator of (\\[3\\]) we obtain $$\\frac{\\overline{v}}{c}=\\frac{\\sqrt{g_{00}(\\lambda_\\xi)}}{\\sqrt{g_{00}(\\lambda_2)}}\\;,\n\\label{4}$$ which tends to unity as $P_1\\to P_2$ because in this limit $\\lambda_\\xi\\to\\lambda_2$ also.\n\nLet us consider an instance of the effect just exposed by studying the radial motion of a particle in a Schwarzschild metric (it characterizes the vacuum outside a spherically symmetric mass distribution with total mass $m$) in standard coordinates, $ds^2=g_{00}dt^2-g_{rr}dr^2-r^2d\\Omega^2$ where $d\\Omega$ is the solid angle and $g_{00}=1/g_{rr}=1-2m/r$. The massless or almost massless particle will travel radially from $r_1$ to $r_2$ (we do not specify yet whether $r_1<r_2$ or $r_2<r_1$). Because $g_{00}$ increases with $r$, following (\\[4\\]), we deduce $\\overline{v}<c$ if $r_2>r_1$ and $\\overline{v}>c$ if $r_2<r_1$. The detachment from the light speed can be better appreciated by plotting $\\overline{v}/c$ against $r_1$ and $r_2$. Specifically, for the Schwarzschild metric we have (calling $\\rho_{_A}\\equiv r_{_A}/(2m)$, $A=1,2$) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\Delta\\ell}{2m}&=&\\Bigg\\vert\\sqrt{\\rho_2^2-\\rho_2}-\\sqrt{\\rho_1^2-\\rho_1}\\nonumber\\\\\n                      &&+\\frac{1}{2}\\log\\frac\n{(\\sqrt{1-1/\\rho_2}+1)(\\sqrt{1-1/\\rho_1}-1)}{(\\sqrt{1-1/\\rho_2}-1)(\\sqrt{1-1/\\rho_1}+1)}\\Bigg\\vert\\;,\\nonumber\\\\\n\\frac{\\Delta\\tau}{2m}&=&\\sqrt{1-1/\\rho_2}\\;\\left\\vert\\rho_2-\\rho_1+\\log\\frac{\\rho_2-1}{\\rho_1-1}\\right\\vert\\;.\n\\label{5}\\end{aligned}$$ The absolute values in (\\[5\\]) make these expressions valid for both cases, $r_2>r_1$ and $r_2<r_1$. This is an important remark because the fact that the time intervals for the particle to go from $r_1$ to $r_2$ or for coming from $r_2$ to $r_1$ are the same allows to reliably synchronize clocks with the exchange of light signals.\n\nIn Figs.\u00a01 and\u00a02 the mean velocity $\\overline{v}/c$ is plotted against $1/\\rho_1$ for various values of $\\rho_2$. Note [*(i)*]{} that we have deliberately excluded the region $1/\\rho_1>1$ because otherwise the particle would enter the horizon of the corresponding black hole and [*(ii)*]{} that all plots touch the line $\\overline{v}/c=1$ when $\\rho_1$ coincides with $\\rho_2$, confirming the validity of special relativity at short distances.\n\nThe case $r_1>r_2$ (the particle approaching the spherical distribution of mass) is shown in Fig\u00a01. As viewed by the observer in $r_2$, $\\overline{v}$ turns out to be always larger than $c$. This effect is particularly pronounced when the observer is close to the Schwarzschild radius $r_s\\equiv2m$ (lower values of $\\rho_2$) and for large separations $r_1-r_2$. For $\\rho_2>100$ the resulting $\\overline{v}/c$ is so close to\u00a01 that the related plots cannot be seen within the scale of the vertical axis.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a02 the case $r_1<r_2$ (the particle going away from the spherical massive object) is treated. Now all mean velocities come smaller than $c$, which looks quite surprising for massless particles. Again $\\overline{v}$ tends to $c$ whenever the radial coordinate $r_1$ of the position of the particle\u2019s departure is close to the radial coordinate $r_2$ of the position of arrival. Note the tendency of $\\overline{v}$ to become null as $r_1$ approaches $r_s$ for every $r_2$.\n\n![Mean velocity $\\overline{v}/c$ of the particle travelling from $r_1=2m\\rho_1$ to $r_2=2m\\rho_2$ in a Schwarzschild metric for several values of $\\rho_2$ as a function of $1/\\rho_1$ and always with $r_1>r_2$.[]{data-label=\"Fig1\"}](Figure_1.eps)\n\n![Mean velocity $\\overline{v}/c$ of the particle travelling from $r_1=2m\\rho_1$ to $r_2=2m\\rho_2$ in a Schwarzschild metric for several values of $\\rho_2$ as a function of $1/\\rho_1$ and always with $r_2>r_1$.[]{data-label=\"Fig2\"}](Figure_2.eps)\n\nAs shown in the above plots, the superluminality or subluminality of the particle\u2019s mean velocity is dramatically enhanced in regions of large curvature (near the Schwarzschild radius $r_s$). This stresses the general relativistic character of the the described effect.\n\nA terrestrial experiment prepared to detect values for the radial velocity $\\overline{v}$ different from $c$ cannot approach any Schwarzschild radius. If such an experimental set\u2013up was constrained to use $r_1,r_2\\geq r_\\oplus$, the Earth\u2019s radius, then $\\Delta\\ell$ and $\\Delta\\tau$ in (\\[5\\]) could be approximated with excellent accuracy to linear order in $m_\\oplus/r_{_A}$ ($m_\\oplus$ is the Earth mass) and (\\[0\\]) would barely differ from\u00a01, $$\\frac{\\overline{v}}{c}\\approx1+\\frac{m_\\oplus}{r_\\oplus}-\\frac{m_\\oplus}{r_1-r_\\oplus}\\log\\frac{r_1}{r_\\oplus}>1\\;,\n\\label{6}$$ where the observer has been put on the Earth\u2019s surface, $r_2=r_\\oplus$, and we have taken $r_1>r_\\oplus$. For $r_1$ not much larger than $r_\\oplus$, the percentage of excess of velocity is a meagre $(\\overline{v}-c)/c\\sim10^{-10}$.\n\nTo exemplify the above findings, we apply them in two cases: first, to the already mentioned OPERA experiment and, second, to the determination of the distance from the Earth to the Moon by exchange of light pulses.\n\nIn the OPERA experiment a beam of muon neutrinos was produced at CERN SPS and sent to the Gran Sasso underground laboratories (LNGS) in Italy where they were revealed\u00a0[@adam]. The baseline distance $\\Delta\\ell$ was counted from the place at CERN where the proton beam time\u2013structure is being ascertained (it is the so-called Beam Current Transformer or BCT) to the origin of the OPERA detector at LNGS. The coordinates in the Universal reference frame ETRF2000 [@boucher] of the two locations were obtained by two steps: firstly the coordinates of ancillary benchmarks placed outside the two laboratories were determined by a GPS campaign and secondly the distance between these benchmarks and the BCT at CERN or the OPERA detector at LNGS was directly measured by geodetic survey. The value of $\\Delta\\ell$ was then derived from the coordinates by usual Euclidean geometry [@colosimo] yielding $731278.0\\pm0.2$ m (deriving it from the spatial part of the metric as in (\\[1\\]) would add a neglibible correction). Effects from geoid undulation, crust tides and continental drift (including earthquakes) do not significantly modify the above result. After an accurate synchronization between clocks of both laboratories\u00a0[@tedesc], the baseline length was divided by the time of flight of neutrinos to obtain their average velocity. The result was larger than $c$ by an amount $[(\\overline{v}-c)/c]_{\\rm experiment}=2.48\\pm0.28({\\rm stat})\\pm0.30({\\rm syst})\\cdot10^{-5}$. However, the mechanism described in the paper is unable to explain this excess. This can be easily seen by adopting the simplifying hypothesis that neutrinos travel over the sphere of the Earth\u2019s surface and taking advantage of the fact that the angular sector of the Schwarzschild metric in standard coordinates is flat. Then $\\Delta\\ell$ equals the Euclidean result $r_\\oplus\\Delta\\theta$ ($\\Delta\\theta$ is the angular separation between CERN and LNGS\u00a0[@obtain]) while $\\Delta t$ is $r_\\oplus\\Delta\\theta/\\sqrt{1-2m_\\oplus/r_\\oplus}$. Hence $\\overline{v}/c$ is always\u00a01. Eliminating the previous simplifying hypothesis (neutrinos actually traversed the Earth\u2019s crust following the imaginary chord that joins CERN and LGNS) adds a negligible contribution of opposite sign (to verify this assertion an interior metric was derived at first order in $m_\\oplus$ assuming a planet Earth with uniform mass density). The inclusion of the spin of Earth (for example by using the Lense\u2013Thirring metric) produces an even smaller contribution (while $m_\\oplus/r_\\oplus\\sim7\\cdot10^{-10}$, $J_\\oplus/r_\\oplus^2\\sim4\\cdot10^{-16}$, $J_\\oplus$ being the Earth\u2019s angular momentum). Only the rotation of the observer\u2019s laboratory at Gran Sasso induces a revealable effect but it affects the synchronization of clocks and therefore it has nothing to do with the topic described in this paper\u00a0[@synchroCERN].\n\nThese considerations seem to imply that the observation of a superluminal velocity for the neutrinos of OPERA must be likely ascribable to other reasons: either purely experimental oversights\u00a0[@bergeron; @dado] or really new physics peeping out (see\u00a0[@amelino; @tamburini; @klinkhamer1; @giudice; @dvali; @mann; @drago; @li; @iorio; @alexandre; @nicolaidis; @klinkhamer2; @ciuffoli; @anber; @nojiri; @mecozzi; @morris1; @morris2; @pavsic; @bramante; @schreck] for a partial list of theoretical suggestions and criticisms).\n\nConsider now the lunar laser ranging experiment (LLR) [@dickey; @williams] in which, among other ephemeris, the Earth\u2013Moon distance is determined. It consists in sending a laser pulse from the Earth to the lunar surface where it is reflected (several manned missions in the past left corner reflectors on the Moon\u2019s surface) and received back on Earth. Multiplying the time employed by the light in its round trip by the speed of light yields the Earth\u2013Moon distance. However, assuming that the metric is well\u2013approximated by the Schwarzschild one at linear order in $m_\\oplus/r_\\oplus$, the mean speed of the light ray turns out to be larger than $c$ and so, the distance should come out less than what it really is. To remedy this inconvenient and obtain at least an order of magnitude of the necessary correction, we resort again to expressions (\\[5\\]).\n\nEstablishing that the radial coordinate of the laboratory is the Earth\u2019s radius $r_\\oplus$, it has yet to find the radial coordinate on the Moon, $r_1$. This is achieved by inverting the formula for $\\Delta\\tau$ in (\\[5\\]). After some algebra we get the equation $$\\exp\\left[\\left(\\frac{\\Delta\\tau}{r_\\oplus-m_\\oplus}+1\\right)\\;\\rho_\\oplus\\right]=\\xi\\;e^{\\xi\\rho_\\oplus}\\;,\n\\label{7}$$ where $\\xi\\equiv r_1/r_\\oplus$, $\\rho_\\oplus\\equiv r_\\oplus/(2m_\\oplus)$ and $\\Delta\\tau$ is half of the time (measured by terrestrial clocks) spent during the round trip. Eq.(\\[7\\]) can be solved for $\\xi$ in terms of the Lambert $W$\u2013function\u00a0[@corless]. However, on account of the fact that $\\rho_\\oplus\\gg1$, we can approximately set $\\xi\\approx1+\\Delta\\tau/(r_\\oplus-m_\\oplus)$. Inserting it into the first of (\\[5\\]) leads to $$\\hbox{Earth--Moon distance}\\approx\\Delta\\tau+\\frac{2m_\\oplus}{r_\\oplus}\\Delta\\tau\\;,\n\\label{8}$$ the correction being $2m_\\oplus\\Delta\\tau/r_\\oplus\\approx53$ cm. It must be stressed that the above exercise has been presented in order to display an instance where the issue discussed in this paper yields a not insignificant contribution. With another name, this effect has surely been taken into account by the LLR collaboration. Indeed, the time lapse during the round trip of the laser pulse was evaluated in barycentric reference frame coordinates\u00a0[@williams; @moyer] by including all general relativistic effects and leading to the Shapiro formula\u00a0[@shapiro]. Moreover, in the original calculation of the LLR collaboration, the effects from all main Solar System bodies are included.\n\nIn conclusion we have seen that mean velocities in general do not conform to well\u2013known special relativity principles. In particular, albeit amazing, the average velocity at which a particle has travelled for a long time can be different from the instantaneous velocities that the particle attained at every point along the trajectory, even when the latter was the same at all points. Indeed, special relativity adequately describes physics only locally while the average over large distances of a velocity must necessarily be introduced as a non\u2013local quantity. Utilizing these considerations for understanding the results from the OPERA collaboration, we conclude that the real anomaly is [*not*]{} that $(\\overline{v}-c)/c$ be positive but that it is a rather large number.\n\nThe discussion about mean velocities can be straightforwardly generalized to time dependent metrics as sensible definitions of proper time and length are also admissible on such metrics. An instance is the Friedmann\u2013Robertson\u2013Walker metric.\n\nFor the Schwarzschild metric, the effect described in the paper is driven mainly by the curvature dependence of the proper time $\\Delta\\tau$. Indeed, note that as $\\rho_1$ approaches\u00a01, the value of $\\Delta\\tau$ diverges while that of $\\Delta\\ell$ stays finite for any values of $\\rho_1$ and $\\rho_2$. This property is not general. For example, in a conformally flat metric $g_{\\mu\\nu}=f(x)\\eta_{\\mu\\nu}$, $\\Delta\\tau=\\sqrt{f(x_2)}\\Delta t$ while $\\Delta\\ell=\\int dx\\sqrt{f(x)}$, which shows that any divergent behavior of the function $f(x)$ may influence both $\\Delta\\tau$ and $\\Delta\\ell$. An example of a conformally flat metric is again the Friedmann\u2013Robertson\u2013Walker metric, although it is more usually presented in Gaussian coordinates.\n\nWe have analyzed the case in which the observer stays at rest at one end of the particle\u2019s trajectory. But of course other experimental dispositions are possible: the observer staying in the middle of the particle\u2019s trajectory or even at a point outside it; the observer not at rest, etc. Also many possible definitions of mean velocity, other than the one used by OPERA (\\[0\\]), can be conceived. In all cases bizarre results should be carefully interpreted.\n\nIt is a pleasure to thank Mihail Mintchev and Giancarlo Cella for stimulating discussions.\n\n[*Note added:*]{} During the refereeing of the paper we became aware of the existence of Ref.\u00a0[@lust] where a similar analysis is performed. However the study presented here is more general and detailed.\n\nT. Adam et al., arXiv:1109.4897. P. Adamson et al., Phys. Rev. D76, 072005, (2007). A. G. Cohen, S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 181803, (2011). X.\u2013J. Bi, P.\u2013F. Yin, Z-.-H. Yu, Q. Yuan, arXiv:1109.6667. L. Gonzalez\u2013Mestres, arXiv:1109.6630. D. Fargion, arXiv:1109.5368. If the metric contained non\u2013zero time\u2013space terms $g_{0i}$ then, the spatial distance in (\\[1\\]) would be evaluated with the positive definite quadratic form $g_{0i}g_{0j}/g_{00}+g_{ij}$\u00a0[@moller] and the synchronization of coordinate times at distant points would require the inclusion of a lag defined by $-\\int_{\\lambda_1}^{\\lambda_2}d\\lambda\\,g_{0i}\\dot{x}^i/g_{00}$. Apart from these complications, the effect presented in the text would be, [*mutatis mutandis*]{}, qualitatively the same. C. M[\u00f8]{}ller, \u201cThe theory of relativity\u201d, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1972). C. Boucher, Z. Altamimi, \u201cMemo: Specifications for reference frame fixing in the analysis of a EUREF GPS campaign\u201d, http://etrs89.ensg.ign.fr/memo-V7.pdf. G. Colosimo, M. Crespi, A. Mazzoni, F. Riguzzi, M. Jones, D. Missiaen, \u201cDetermination of the CNGS global geodesy\u201d, OPERA public note 132 (2011), http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it:2080/Opera/publicnotes/note132.pdf. T. Feldmann, \u201cRelative calibration of the GPS time link between CERN and LNGS\u201d, Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) Report (2011), http://operaweb.lngs.infn.it/Opera/publicnotes/note134.pdf. An event occurring at coordinate time $t_{\\rm CERN}$ at CERN is simultaneous with another event occurring at Gran Sasso at coordinate time $t_{\\rm LNGS}$ if $t_{\\rm LNGS}-t_{\\rm CERN}\\approx-\\omega_\\oplus\n(r_\\oplus\\cos\\alpha)^2\\Delta\\varphi\\approx-2.3$ ns ($\\omega_\\oplus$ is the angular speed of the Earth\u2019s rotation, $\\alpha$ is the latitude of the CERN or Gran Sasso \u2014assumed equal\u2014 and $\\Delta\\varphi$ is the difference in longitude of both laboratories). This time lag is related to the Sagnac effect and it has been discussed in\u00a0[@colosimo]. $-2.3\\pm0.9$ ns is precisely the systematic error identified in\u00a0[@tedesc]. $\\Delta\\theta$ is obtainable from the geographical coordinates of Geneva (latitude=46$^{\\rm o}$ $12^\\prime$, longitude=$6^{\\rm o}$ $9^\\prime$) and Gran Sasso (latitude=42$^{\\rm o}$ $28^\\prime$, longitude=$13^{\\rm o}$ $33^\\prime$). H. Bergeron, arXiv:1110.5275. S. Dado, A. Dar, arXiv:1110.6408. G. Amelino\u2013Camelia et al., arXiv:1109.5172. F. Tamburini, M. Laveder, arXiv:1109.5445. F. R. Klinkhamer, arXiv:1109.5671. G. J. Giudice, S. Sibiryakov, A. Strumia, arXiv:1109.5682. G. Dvali, A. Vikman, arXiv:1109.5685. R. B. Mann, U. Sarkar, arXiv:1109.5749. A. Drago, I. Masina, G. Pagliara, R. Tripiccione, arXiv:1109.5917. M. Li, T. Wang, arXiv:1109.5924. L. Iorio, arXiv:1109.6249. J. Alexandre, J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, arXiv:1109.6296. A. Nicolaidis, arXiv:1109.6354. F. R. Klinkhamer, G. E. Volokik, JETP Letters 94, 673, (2011). E. Ciuffoli, J. Evslin, J. Liu, X. Zhang, arXiv:1109.6641. M, M. Anber, J. F. Donoghue, arXiv:1110.0132. S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, arXiv:1110.0889. A. Mecozzi, M. Bellini, arXiv:1110.1253. T. R. Morris, arXiv:1110.2463. T. R. Morris, arXiv:1110.3266. M. Pav$\\check{\\rm s}$i$\\check{\\rm c}$, arXiv:1110.4754. J. Bramante, arXiv:1110.4871. M. Schreck, arXiv:1111.7268. J. O. Dickey et al., Science, 265, 482, (1994). J. G. Williams, X. X. Newhall, J. O. Dickey, Phys. Rev. D53, 6730, (1996). R. M. Corless et al., Adv. Comput. Math., 5, 329, (1996) and references therein. T. D. Moyer, JPL Internal Memorandum 314.7\u2013122, (1977) unpublished. I. I. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 789, (1964). D. L\u00fcst, M. Petropoulos, arXiv:1110.0813.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Using the fluctuational electrodynamics and nonequilibrium Green\u2019s function methods, we demonstrate the existence of a current-induced heat transfer in double-layer graphene even when the temperatures of the two sheets are the same. The heat flux is quadratically dependent on the current. When temperatures are different, external voltage bias can reverse the direction of heat flow. The drift effect can exist in both macroscopic and nanosized double-layer graphene and extend to any other 2D electron systems. These results pave the way for a different approach to the thermal management through radiation in nonequilibrium systems.'\nauthor:\n- Jiebin Peng\n- 'Jian-Sheng Wang'\nbibliography:\n- 'MWref.bib'\ndate: 28 January 2019\ntitle: 'Current-Induced Heat Transfer in Double-Layer Graphene'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nUnderstanding and controlling the heat flow is a significant endeavor both in nonequilibrium statistical physics and in practical applications. Managing radiative heat transfer (RHT) at small scales is essential for the development of a wide variety of technologies, including phononics [@bLi2012], near-field thermophotovoltaics [@basu2009review] and thermal photonic analog of electronic devices [@PhysRevLett.112.044301]. In the last decades, near-field radiative heat transfer (NFRHT) [@song2015near], where the separation distance is smaller than Wien\u2019s wavelength, has been proposed to enhance the RHT through surface-plasmon polariton [@joulain2005surface], surface-phonon polariton [@RN14], and so on. The NFRHT between different materials, such as semiconductor or bilayer graphene, can be electronically controlled by the photon chemical potential or gate voltage bias [@PhysRevB.91.134301; @PhysRevB.85.155422; @yu2017ultrafast; @peng2015thermal]. Moreover, the novel electrically manipulated properties of 2D materials can give an additional knob to tune the RHT in nonequilibrium conditions.\n\nHere we explore the RHT between two graphene layers (double-layer graphene) across a separation gap by drifting one of the layers with a constant drift velocity or voltage bias, through modeling by the fluctuational electrodynamics (FE) and nonequilibrium Green\u2019s function (NEGF), respectively. We demonstrate the existence of drift-induced RHT in double-layer graphene, with intensity depending quadratically on the drift velocities or voltage bias. The RHT produced by the temperature imbalance can even be suppressed by drift-induced RHT, and the heat flux can be switched off by the voltage bias. We interpret that this drift effect is related to the negative Landau damping in graphene[@morgado2017negative]. The physics is generic and it appears in between bulk graphene sheets or nanosized flecks.\n\nWe consider a two-layer graphene system, where the bottom and top layer are labeled by 1 and 2 respectively, separated by a vacuum gap of distance $d$, and emitting thermal radiation at temperatures $T_{1(2)}$. Figure 1 schematically illustrates the configuration under our investigation. There is an electric current induced by a static voltage applied across the bottom layer of graphene. Due to the high mobility of graphene, the drift velocity of electrons in graphene can be on the order of the Fermi velocity of graphene, i.e., $10^6\\, \\mathrm{m/s}$.\n\n![Scheme of a double-layer system under investigation: two graphene layers separated with a vacuum gap $d$. The chemical potential difference ($\\mu_{1R}-\\mu_{1L}$) induces electron drift in the bottom graphene layer, (a) perspective view, (b) top view.[]{data-label=\"figure1\"}](Figure1.pdf)\n\nFluctuational electrodynamics description\n=========================================\n\nWe generalize the usual formula for heat transfer, for which local equilibrium in each layer is assumed. Due to the current in the bottom layer, the system is intrinsically not in local thermal equilibrium. This nonequilibrium situation is taken care by a simple hypothesis of an energy shift in the distribution functions. When the bottom layer 1 is driven by a drift velocity $v_1$ in $x$ direction and there is no drift in the top layer, the photon distribution is Doppler shifted on the bottom layer. Thus, the Bose function becomes: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    N_1(\\omega, k_x) = \\frac{1}{e^{\\frac{\\hbar (\\omega-k_xv_1)}{k_b T_1}}-1},\\end{aligned}$$ where $k_x$ is the wave number along $x$ direction. $k_b$ is the Boltzmann constant. Under the relaxation time approximation, the drift-induced distribution is similar to the distribution with chemical potential of photon in semiconductors. The heat transfer rate per unit area between the layers of graphene is then given under FE as [@rytov1959theory; @RN7]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{RHT_general}\n    H=\\int_0^{\\infty} \\frac{d\\omega}{2\\pi}  \\int \\frac{d^2 {\\bf k}_\\perp}{(2\\pi)^2} \n    \\Theta_{12}(\\omega, k_x) \\mathrm{T}_{12} (\\omega, {\\bf k}_\\perp),\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\omega$ is the frequency of electromagnetic wave. ${\\bf k}_\\perp = (k_x, k_y)$ is the wavevector in the graphene plane. $\\Theta_{12}(\\omega,k_x) \\equiv \\hbar \\omega\\bigl[ N_1(\\omega, k_x) - N_2(\\omega) \\bigr] $. $N_2(\\omega)$ is the usual Bose function at temperature $T_2$. $\\mathrm{T}_{12}(\\omega,{\\bf k}_\\perp)$ is the transmission coefficient.\n\nFor an infinitely large suspended double-layer graphene with nanoscale separation, the $p$-polarized wave is the dominant channel for RHT [@PhysRevB.85.155422]. Based on FE, the transmission for evanescent $p$-polarized modes between a pair of two-dimensional materials in a parallel plate geometry can be written as (in the non-retardation limit, the speed of light $c \\to \\infty$) [@polder1971theory; @pendry1999radiative; @RN7]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{Transmisson_p}\n    \\mathrm{T}_{12} (\\omega,{\\bf k}_\\perp)=\\frac{4\\,\\mathrm{Im}(r_1)\\, \\mathrm{Im}(r_2)}{|1-r_1r_2e^{-2\\gamma d}|^2} e^{-2\\gamma d},\\end{aligned}$$ where $r_1$ and $r_2$ are the reflection coefficients at the bottom and top interface of the vacuum gap. $d$ is the distance of the vacuum gap. $\\gamma = \\sqrt{k_x^2+k_y^2} $. The drifted reflection coefficient is computed according to $r_1= v_{{\\bf k}_\\perp} \\Pi(\\omega, {\\bf k}_\\perp, v_1) / \\bigl[1-  v_{{\\bf k}_\\perp} \\Pi(\\omega, {\\bf k}_\\perp, v_1)\\bigr]$. The bare Coulomb interaction in wavevector space in two dimensions is $v_{{\\bf k}_\\perp} = 1/(2\\epsilon_0 \\gamma)$. $r_2$ is computed at no drift ($v_1=0$). We calculate the drifted polarization function following the approximation of Svintsov et al.[@svintsov18]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Pi_{{\\bf k}_\\perp}(\\omega, v_1) &=& \n\\frac{e^2 \\mu(T_i)}{ (\\pi \\hbar v_F)^2} \\int_0^{2\\pi}\\! d\\theta\\, \n\\frac{1}{(1 - \\beta \\cos\\theta)^2}\\times \\qquad \\nonumber \\\\\n&&  \\frac{ k_x (\\cos\\theta - \\beta) + k_y \\sin\\theta}{ (\\hbar \\omega + i \\eta)/(\\hbar v_F)\n- k_x \\cos\\theta - k_y \\sin\\theta},\\quad\\end{aligned}$$ where we define $\\beta = v_1/v_F$, the Fermi velocity is $v_F = \\frac{3}{2} a t/\\hbar$ with carbon bond length $a = 1.42\\,$\u00c5\u00a0and hopping parameter $t=2.8\\,$eV, and $\\eta$ is a small electron damping parameter, which gives graphene a finite DC conductivity. Finally, $\\mu(T) = 2 k_b T \\ln [ 2\\cosh\\frac{\\mu}{2 k_b T} ]$. The long-wave approximation (${\\bf k}_\\perp$ small) is valid as the contribution of the transmission is concentrated around $\\gamma \\sim O(1/d)$. The appendices further discuss details of the approximations and calculations.\n\n![ (a) Integrated spectral transfer function $f(\\omega)$ as a function of frequency and (b) $g(k_x)$ as a function of wave vector, with different drift velocities: no drift (blue dash-dot line), total heat current density $H=-0.84\\,$MW/m$^2$, $v_1=5.0 \\times 10^5 \\ \\mathrm{m/s}$ (red dash line), $-0.30\\,$MW/m$^2$, and $v_1=9.0 \\times 10^5 \\ \\mathrm{m/s}$ (black solid line), $+0.09\\,$MW/m$^2$. The temperatures are $T_1=300\\,$K and $T_2=320\\,$K. The chemical potential of graphene $\\mu$ is set as 0.1eV. Gap distance $d$ is set as 10nm. The damping parameter is $\\eta = 9\\,$meV.[]{data-label=\"figure2\"}](figure2){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nTo understand the drift effects quantitatively, we define two integrated spectral transfer functions as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{ISF}\n    &f(\\omega) =  \\int \\frac{d^2{\\bf k}_\\perp}{(2\\pi)^3} \\Theta_{12}(\\omega,k_x)  \\mathrm{T}_{12} (\\omega,{\\bf k}_\\perp), \\\\\n    &g(k_x)=\\int_0^\\infty \\frac{d\\omega}{2\\pi} \\int \\frac{dk_y}{(2\\pi)^2} \\Theta_{12}(\\omega,k_x)  \\mathrm{T}_{12} (\\omega, {\\bf k}_\\perp).\\end{aligned}$$ Figure\u00a0\\[figure2\\](a) shows the spectral transfer function $f(\\omega)$ as a function of frequency with different drift velocities. In the undriven case (blue dash-dot), $f(\\omega)$ is strictly negative and the heat current flows from top layer to bottom layer due to the temperature difference ($T_1 =300$K and $T_2=320$K). It is the usual RHT between two graphene layers and the RHT can be tuned by doping or top gating (varying $\\mu$). However, when the electrons in the bottom layer are drifted with a velocity $v_1=5.0\\times 10^5 \\mathrm{m/s}$ (red dash line) in Fig.\u00a0\\[figure2\\](a), corresponding to an electric line current density $j_1 = (-e)n_1v_1 = 486$A/m, there is a small positive peak in $f(\\omega)$. That means that part of the high-frequency modes can spontaneously emit external thermal radiation from bottom layer to top layer due to the drift velocity. Remarkably, with a higher drift velocity (black solid line), the height of the peak in the high-frequency region grows higher, and there is more heat transferred from bottom layer to the top layer. Qualitatively, the heat flux generated by a temperature difference can be suppressed or even reversed by the high drift velocity.\n\nThe above mentioned drift-induced effects in suspended layers can be further understood in Fig.\u00a0\\[figure2\\](b): the distribution over the wavevector in the $\\hat x$ (the driven) direction. In no drift case, $g(k_x)$ is negative and has the space inversion symmetry in $x$ direction. However, when we drift the electrons in $x$ direction, the $k_x$ symmetry is broken and the drift induced mode appears. In the $k_x < \\omega/{v_1}$ and $\\omega>0$ region, it is negative and the system locates at the normal Landau damping region. However, when $k_x > \\omega/{v_1}$ and $\\omega>0$, the drift induced modes carry positive value due to negative Landau damping. The total heat current is from contributions of all those modes. In low frequency region ($\\omega<0.1$eV), the heat flux is dominated by the normal Landau damping modes. In high frequency region ($\\omega> 0.1$eV), the negative Landau damping modes can be the dominant modes for heat transfer. Due to the unsymmetric nature with an $x$-direction drift current, heat can be transferred from low temperature layer to high temperature layer through the negative Landau damping modes.\n\n![Heat current density as a function of $T_2$ (temperature of the top layer) with drift velocity $v_1=9.0 \\times 10^5 \\ \\mathrm{m/s}$ (red solid line). Dotted line is the reference line for zero current density. The green circle indicates the point for \u201coff temperature\u201d. The chemical potential of graphene $\\mu$ is set as 0.1eV. Temperature of bottom layer of graphene $T_1$ is set as 300K. Vacuum gap distance $d$ is set as 10nm. []{data-label=\"figure3\"}](figure3){width=\"0.85\\columnwidth\"}\n\nWith the help of drift effects, we have demonstrated that the RHT in double-layer graphene can be tuned by the drift velocity, even shutting off or changing sign. To gain a detailed picture of the drift effects, we calculate the heat current density as a function of ${T_2}$ with fixed drift velocity $v_1=9.0\\times 10^5$m/s. As seen in Fig.\u00a0\\[figure3\\], the heat current density is almost linearly decreasing as the temperature $T_2$ increases. When $T_2$ equals 331K, there is no heat current between the layers and the \u201coff temperature\u201d for RHT is reached.\n\nNonequilibrium Green\u2019s function calculation\n===========================================\n\nThe above calculation is based on FE for the infinite suspended double-layer graphene. To extend drift induced effect in the nanoscale system, we consider a small graphene nano-ribbon of 72 atoms in each layer (see Fig.\u00a01), connected to two baths, in each layer. The chemical potential difference ($\\mu_{1R}-\\mu_{1L}$) between bath 1L and bath 1R produces the drift electrons in layer 1. In such a nanoscale system, the Coulomb interaction (virtual photon or scalar photon) will be the dominant mechanism for RHT.\n\nThe calculation is based on a tight-binding model with a nearest neighbor hopping parameter $t=2.8$eV and Coulomb interactions between the electrons [@zhang2018energy; @wang2018coulomb; @peng2017scalar]. The energy transfer out of layer 1 to layer 2 of a nanoscale double-layer graphene due to the Coulomb interaction can be calculated through the Meir-Wingreen formula [@lu2016; @lu-AIP-2015; @MeirWingreen] under a lowest order expansion of the Coulomb interaction (see Appendix\u00a0\\[app-e\\] for a derivation): $$\\begin{aligned}\nH =- \\frac{1}{A} \\int_{0}^{+\\infty} \\frac{d\\omega}{2\\pi} \\hbar \\omega {\\rm Tr} (D^> \\Pi^<_1 - D^< \\Pi^>_1 ). \\end{aligned}$$ Here $D^{>,<}$ is the greater/lesser Green\u2019s function for the scalar photon, which is calculated from the Keldysh equation, $D^{<,>} = D^r \\Pi^{<,>} D^a$, and retarded Green\u2019s function is obtained by solving the Dyson equation, $D^r = v + v \\Pi^r D^r$ ($v$ is the bare Coulomb potential with matrix element $1/(4\\pi\\epsilon_0 r_{ij})$ between the tight-binding sites $i$ and $j$ of a distance $r_{ij}$). $\\Pi^{<,>} = \\Pi^{<,>}_1 + \\Pi^{<,>}_2$ is block-diagonal and is obtained with the random phase approximation (RPA). $A$ is the area of the graphene. Further computational details will be presented in Appendix\u00a0\\[app-d\\].\n\nComparing with the calculation based on FE, the NEGF method provides a rigorous way to extend the drift effects into nanoscale ballistic systems without any phenomenological assumptions. Due to the smallness of the sample, the transport is ballistic with the electric current at the bottom driven layer given by $I_1 = (4 e/h) (\\mu_{1R} - \\mu_{1L})$, independent of the sample width or length. We do not observe Coulomb drag effect [@narozhny2016coulomb], as the electric current in the top unbiased layer is very close to 0, while the thermal current going into it is quite large, see Fig.\u00a04(b). From the view of energy transport, the energy can be transferred from an electrically driven layer to the closely spaced but electrically isolated layer: the drift electrons are dragged by the Coulomb interaction between two layers, and the energy can be transferred at the cost of the kinetic energy of drift electrons.\n\n![(a) FE calculation of drift-induced heat current density as a function of drift velocity. Vacuum gap distance $d$ is set as 10nm. The chemical potential of graphene $\\mu$ is set as 0.1eV. (b) NEGF calculation of drift-induced heat current density as a function of chemical potential difference $\\mu_{1R}-\\mu_{1L}$ symmetrically biased and $\\mu_{2L}=\\mu_{2R}=0.1\\,\\mathrm{eV}$. Vacuum gap distance $d$ is set as 1nm. (c) FE drift-induced heat current density as a function of gap distance with drift velocity $v_1=7.0 \\times 10^5\\,$m/s. (d) NEGF drift-induced heat current density as a function of gap distance with $\\mu_{1R}=0.15$eV, $\\mu_{1L}=0.05\\,$eV and $\\mu_{2L}=\\mu_{2R}=0.1\\,$eV. There is no temperature difference between the double-layer graphene, $T_1=T_2=300\\,$K.[]{data-label=\"figure4\"}](figure4){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nHuge heat transfer appears even for $T_1 = T_2$, which is clearly due to strong Coulomb interactions at short distances. A comparison of FE and NEGF results is presented in Fig.\u00a0\\[figure4\\]. Using FE method, Fig.\u00a0\\[figure4\\](a) indicates the drift-induced heat current density as a function of drift velocity with both layers at the same temperature. A parabolic dependence between drift-induced heat current and drift velocity is found numerically for small $v_1$. For large drift exceeding $|v_1| > 7.0\\times 10^5\\,$m/s, we see non-monotonic behavior. From the NEGF point of view, the chemical potential difference between left and right bath can produce an electric current and it is similar to the drift electron one in FE calculation. In Fig.\u00a0\\[figure4\\](b), we found that the heat current density also quadratically depends on the chemical potential difference $\\mu_{1R}-\\mu_{1L}$. In our symmetric setup, we do not expect that the heat transfer will be different if we reverse the direction of the drift velocity or voltage bias, so it must depend on them quadratically. It is tempting to assume that the heat transfer is given by Joule heating caused by Coulomb drag. Unfortunately, this is not quite true (see Appendix\u00a0\\[app-c\\]).\n\nFurther numerical evidence is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[figure4\\](c) and (d): the distance dependence of drift-induced heat current. Fig.\u00a0\\[figure4\\](c) depicts the drift-induced heat current density as a function of distance under FE calculation with fixed drift velocity. We observe that the drift induced heat current decays initially as $d^{-4}$ when the gap distance is smaller than 10nm and decreases as $d^{-2}$ when $d>10$nm. A similar distance dependence is also observed in Fig.\u00a0\\[figure4\\](d) for the nanosize sample with a larger range of $d^{-2}$ behavior. In summary, we proposed methods to describe heat transport without the assumption of local equilibrium. With FE method, the Bose function and Fermi function need to be shifted due to the drift velocity. For NEGF, we give a Meir-Wingreen formula with the input from a RPA calculation for $\\Pi^r$ where the electron Green\u2019s function is current-carrying and not in thermal equilibrium. We have demonstrated a drift induced radiative heat transfer in double-layer graphene. Such effects can be extended to any other 2D electron systems with large drift velocity or current. The drift induced heat current can even shut off the heat current produced by a temperature difference. It enables possibilities to exploit RHT through electronic control. Further, the proposed drift effects can exist in both large and microscopical systems. With wide-band tunability and nano-scale characteristic dimensions, the proposed drift effects appear very charming for the application in radiative thermal management.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nWe thank Han Hoe Yap for comments, and Jia-Huei Jiang for the codes. This work is supported by FRC grant R-144-000-402-114 and MOE grant MOE2018-T2-1-096.\n\nDoppler shift\n=============\n\nIn the appendices, we clarify some points made in the main texts and give some further details.\n\nWe first note that the function $\\Pi^r_{\\bf k}(\\omega)$ is a description of the bosonic charge density plasmon. In particular, we consider a plasmon planewave $e^{i( {\\bf k} \\cdot {\\bf r}-\\omega t)}$ with frequency $\\omega$ and wavevector ${\\bf k}$. Let ${\\bf v}_1$ describe the drift velocity of the electrons. If the wave ${\\bf k}$ of the plasmon and the electron drift velocity ${\\bf v}_1$ are in the same direction, electrons will \u201csee\u201d less vibrations, thus $\\omega$ decreases. So the Doppler shift is, $\\omega \\rightarrow \\omega + \\delta \\omega =  \\omega - {\\bf k} \\cdot {\\bf v}_1 = \\omega - k_x v_1$.\n\nDoppler shift or not for scalar photon self-energy\n==================================================\n\nThe scalar photon self energies or polarization functions under the random phase approximation are, in time domain and real space, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Pi_{jk}^>(t) &=& (-i\\hbar)e^2 G_{jk}^>(t) G_{kj}^<(-t),\\\\\n\\Pi_{jk}^<(t) &=& (-i\\hbar)e^2 G_{jk}^<(t) G_{kj}^>(-t),\\\\\n\\Pi_{jk}^r(t) &=& \\theta(t) \\bigl( \\Pi_{jk}^>(t) - \\Pi_{jk}^<(t)  \\bigr).\\end{aligned}$$ We obtain the frequency and wavevector domain quantities if we Fourier transform the time and space. For simplicity of notation, we consider spinless electrons with a single band, $\\epsilon_{\\bf k}$. Since the system is not in thermal equilibrium, we cannot evoke the usual fluctuation-dissipation theorem, but something very close to it. We use the Kadanoff-Baym ansatz [@kadanoffbaym], i.e., $$G^< = -f (G^r - G^a),\\quad  G^> = (1 -f) (G^r - G^a),$$ where $f$ is given by the solution of Boltzmann equation. The spectrum function, $A = i (G^r - G^a)$, is assumed to be evaluated in thermal equilibrium. In wavevector and angular frequency domain, we can write [@mahan00; @duppen16] $$\\label{eqpir}\n\\Pi^r_{\\bf k}(\\omega) = - e^2 \\int \\frac{d^2\\bf p}{(2\\pi)^2} \\frac{ f_{\\bf p} - f_{{\\bf p} - {\\bf k}}}{\\hbar \\omega + i \\eta - \n\\epsilon_{\\bf p} + \\epsilon_{{\\bf p} - {\\bf k}}}.$$ Here the integration is over the first Brillouin zone, and $\\eta$ is a small damping parameter inversely proportional to the relaxation time.\n\nAs the relaxation mechanism for the electrons can be very complicated due to different scattering possibilities \u2013 impurity scatterings, electron-electron and electron-phonon scatterings \u2013 we do not attempt to solve the Boltzmann equation, and just use a single-mode relaxation time approximation [@ziman60]. In such a framework, we can write $$f = f^0 - \\frac{df^0}{d \\epsilon} \\Phi \\approx f^0(\\epsilon - \\Phi),$$ here $\\Phi \\equiv \\Phi_{\\bf k}$ is mode ${\\bf k}$ dependent, and $f^0 = 1/\\bigl[\\exp((\\epsilon - \\mu)/(k_bT)) + 1\\bigr]$ is the equilibrium Fermi distribution at temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\\mu$.\n\nThe effect of the current drift is to introduce anisotropy to the problem, thus we expect $\\Phi$ should be angle and magnitude dependent, $\\Phi_{\\bf k} = \\Phi(\\theta, k)$, here $\\theta$ is the angle between ${\\bf k}$ and the drift velocity ${\\bf v}_1$ and $k = | {\\bf k}|$ is the magnitude of the wavevector. We make a Legendre polynomial expansion of the angular dependence and keep only the lowest non-trivial term, i.e., we write, $\\Phi \\propto \\cos(\\theta)$. It is convenient to assume $$\\label{eqphik}\n\\Phi_{\\bf k} =  \\hbar k_x v_1 =  \\hbar v_1 k \\cos\\theta.$$ If $\\Phi$ does take this linear dependence on $k_x$, the nonequilibrium distribution might be transformed back to the equilibrium one of $f^0$ by a change of reference frame. That is, $$\\label{noneq-eq}\n\\Pi^{>,<,r}_{{\\bf k}, \\rm noneq}(\\omega) \\approx \\Pi^{>,<,r}_{{\\bf k}, \\rm eq}(\\omega - k_x v_1).$$ In steady state, the fluctuation-dissipation like relation for photon self-energy can be obtained from Eq.\u00a0(\\[noneq-eq\\]) even if there is drifted electron current: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    &\\Pi^{<}_{{\\bf k}, \\rm noneq}(\\omega) = 2 i N_{{\\bf k}, \\rm noneq}(\\omega) \\mathrm{Im} \\Pi^{r}_{{\\bf k}, \\rm noneq}(\\omega),\\\\\n    &N_{{\\bf k}, \\rm noneq}(\\omega)\\approx N(\\omega-k_x v_1),\\end{aligned}$$ where $N(\\omega) = 1/(e^{\\hbar \\omega/(k_bT)}-1)$ is the Bose distribution.\n\nThe reflection coefficient needed for the heat transfer calculation is then obtained from the relation $r = v \\Pi^r/( 1 - v \\Pi^r)$ with bare Coulomb potential in two dimensions $v = 1/(2 \\epsilon_0 k)$. The optical conductivity is related to the retarded self energy by $\\sigma = i \\frac{\\omega}{k^2} \\Pi^r_{\\bf k}(\\omega)$.\n\n![Imaginary part of $\\Pi^r({\\bf k}, \\omega, v_1) - \\Pi^r({\\bf k}, \\omega, 0)$, with ${\\bf k} = (k_x,0)$, $v_1 = 5 \\times 10^5$m/s, at chemical potential $\\mu = 0.1\\,$eV. Left graph has $k_x = K/1000$ and right 10 time larger, $K = 4\\pi/(3 \\sqrt{3} a)$ is the magnitude of the K-point vector from the $\\Gamma$ point, $a=1.42\\,$\u00c5\u00a0is carbon bond length. Temperature is set at 100K. A damping parameter in $\\hbar \\omega \\to \\hbar \\omega + i\\eta$ is set to $\\eta  = 3.3\\,$meV. The legends apply to both graphs, full black solid line: tight-binding lattice model with nearest neighbor hopping parameter $t=2.8\\,$eV, red dash line: Doppler shifted Wunsch et al.\u00a0expression, green dot-dash line: Doppler shifted Falkovsky\u2019s expression, blue circles: Svintsov et al expression, orange pluses: numerical integration of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eqpir\\]).[]{data-label=\"figurePi\"}](figurePi){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nFor a quadratic dispersion relation, $\\epsilon_{\\bf k} = \\hbar^2 k^2/(2m)$, the claim, Eq.\u00a0(\\[noneq-eq\\]), is easily verified using the explicit expression for $\\Pi^r$, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eqpir\\]), by a change of integration variable with a constant shift, ${\\bf p} \\to {\\bf p} + m{\\bf v}_1/\\hbar$. For graphene with Dirac cone, $\\epsilon_{\\bf k} = v_F\\, \\hbar k$, this is no longer true. A variable transform cannot eliminate both $\\Phi_{\\bf p}$ and $\\Phi_{{\\bf p}-{\\bf q}}$ simultaneously. As a result, Doppler shift of the equilibrium result and nonequilibrium distribution in the Fermi function becomes inequivalent[@svintsov18]. The energy shift needs to be momentum dependent. The linear dependence on $k_x$ times a constant requires a specific assumption on the energy dependence of the relaxation times. According to the usual relaxation time approximation, $\\Phi$ is given by (near $K$ or $K'$ points) $$\\Phi = - e E \\tau_{k} \\frac{\\partial \\epsilon_{\\bf k}}{\\partial ( \\hbar k_x )},$$ where electron carries charge $-e$, $E$ is the applied electric field in $x$ direction, $\\tau_k$ is the relaxation time assumed to only depend on the magnitude of ${\\bf k}$, and the last factor is the group velocity. For a metal with the usual quadratic dispersion, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eqphik\\]) is true if we use constant relaxation time, which turns out to be very good approximation for metal. For graphene, the group velocity in $x$-direction is $v_F \\cos(\\theta)$ with the Fermi velocity a constant, thus we must demand a relaxation time proportional to $k$, which turns out in agreement with experiments [@antonio-RMP2009]. For a full lattice model numerical calculation such that $\\Phi_{\\bf k}$ respects the lattice symmetry, we take the drift term to be $\\Phi_{\\bf k} = v_1 {\\rm Re} \\left[ z^{*} \\frac{\\partial z}{\\partial k_x} \\right]/ (\\hbar v_F^2)$, where $v_F = 3 a t/(2\\hbar)$ is the graphene Fermi velocity, and $z = \n-t ( e^{-i k_x a} + e^{i (k_x a/2 + k_y a \\sqrt{3}/2)} + e^{i (k_x a/2 - k_y a \\sqrt{3}/2)} )$. In Fig.\u00a0\\[figurePi\\], we compare Doppler shifted Wunsch et al.\u00a0expression [@guinea06] (or that of Hwang and Sarma [@hwang-sarma07]) which is a nonlocal result at zero temperature or that of Falkovsky\u2019s small $q$ (local) result[@falkovsky08] at $T=100\\,$K. As we can see they differ a lot and do not agree with the correct way of evaluating the drifted polarization function. On this scale of vertical axis, they also tend to diverge to plus or minus infinity. However, Svintsov et al.\u00a0expression [@svintsov18] (with a correction of a sign error in the denominator), $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Pi^r_{(k_x, k_y \\!=\\! 0)}(\\omega, v_1) &=& \n-\\frac{2}{\\pi} \\frac{e^2 \\mu}{(\\hbar v_F)^2} \\frac{1}{(1-s\\beta)^2}\\Bigg(\\qquad\\qquad\\qquad \\\\\n &&\\qquad \\sqrt{1-\\beta^2}  - \\frac{s-\\beta}{\\sqrt{s^2-1}}\\Bigg), \\\\\n\\beta &=& {\\rm sgn}(k_x) \\frac{v_1}{v_F}, \\quad s = \\frac{\\hbar \\omega + i\\eta}{\\hbar |k_x| v_F},\\end{aligned}$$ agrees very well with a full lattice model calculation [@jia-huei17]. When the chemical potential is much larger than $k_b T$ and at $\\omega > v_F k \\to 0$, we have an excellent approximation for the equilibrium polarization $$\\Pi^r_{\\bf k}(\\omega) \\approx \\frac{e^2 \\mu}{\\pi} \\frac{k^2}{(\\hbar \\omega + i \\eta)^2}.$$ Doppler shift of this expression in the small $v_1$ limit gives $\\Delta \\Pi^r = \\Pi^r(v_1) - \\Pi^r(0) \\approx\n2 D$, while Svintsov et al.\u00a0expression in this limit is $-D$, where $D= (e^2 \\mu/\\pi)\\hbar v_1 [k/(\\hbar \\omega + i \\eta)]^3$. Both the sign and magnitude are different, contrary to the claim in ref.\u00a0.\n\nPossible connection to Coulomb drag\\[app-c\\]\n============================================\n\nSince we expect that the drift velocity $v_1$ is a small quantity, we can make linear, or rather, quadratic response calculations. Taylor expanding in variable $\\delta \\omega = - k_x v_1$ of the distribution $N_1$ of Eq.\u00a0(1) in the main text to second order and the transmission function to first order, and then substituting into Eq.\u00a0(2), and setting the temperatures $T_1 = T_2 = T$, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nH &=&  \\int_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty}\\!\\! \\frac{d\\omega}{4\\pi} \\hbar \\omega \n\\int \\frac{d^2 {\\bf k}}{(2\\pi)^2}  T_{12}({\\bf k}, \\omega)\\Big|_{v_1=0} \\frac{1}{2} \\frac{\\partial^2 N}{\\partial \\omega^2} \n\\bigl( \\delta  \\omega \\bigr)^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n&+& \\int_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty}\\!\\! \\frac{d\\omega}{4\\pi} \\hbar \\omega \n\\int \\frac{d^2 {\\bf k}}{(2\\pi)^2}  \\frac{\\partial T_{12}({\\bf k}, \\omega)}{\\partial v_1}\\Big|_{v_1 =0}   \\frac{\\partial N}{\\partial \\omega} \n\\bigl( v_1 \\delta  \\omega \\bigr) \\nonumber.\\end{aligned}$$ The first order term proportional to $\\delta \\omega$ is 0 because it is an odd function in $k_x$. We will write this long expression as $H = a\\, v_1^2 = (a_1 +a_2) v_1^2$ where $a_1$ is from the $(\\delta \\omega)^2$ term and $a_2$ from the cross term. The coefficient $a_2$ is complicated, hence we focus only on $a_1$. Since the integral over $k_x^2$ and $k_y^2$ factor is the same, we symmetrize the formula about $x$ and $y$ and divide by two. With further simplification of the second derivation of the Bose function, we obtain $$a_1 = \\int_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty} \\frac{d\\omega}{4\\pi} \\int \\frac{d^2 {\\bf k}}{(2\\pi)^2}\n \\frac{ T_{12}({\\bf k}, \\omega)\\, k^2 (\\beta \\hbar)^2 \\hbar \\omega }{ 16 \\sinh^2(\\frac{\\beta \\hbar \\omega}{2}) \n\\tanh(\\frac{\\beta \\hbar \\omega}{2}) }.$$ Here $T_{12}$ is defined in the main text by Eq.\u00a0(\\[Transmisson\\_p\\]), evaluated at $v_1=0$, $\\beta = 1/(k_b T)$. Finally, we make one approximation, that is to assume $\\tanh(x) \\approx x$ valid if frequency is small in comparison with temperature. Then, we find $$a_1 \\approx e^2 n_1^2 \\rho_D,$$ if we compare our formula with that of Jauho and Smith[@jauho-smith1993] (Eq.\u00a0(5) and (27)) and that of Flensberg and Hu[@flensberg-hu1995] (Eq.\u00a0(2) and (20)). Here $n_1$ is the carrier surface density and $\\rho_D$ is the Coulomb drag coefficient. Because of the existence of the second term, $a_2$, we don\u2019t have a simple interpretation of Joule heating due to Coulomb drag. Numerically, for the parameters used for Fig.\u00a04(a) in the main texts, we find $a_1 = 5.5 \\times 10^{-6}\\,$Ws$^2$/m$^4$, while $a_2 = - 4.3 \\times 10^{-6}\\,$Ws$^2$/m$^4$. There is a cancellation effect, given a smaller overall $a$.\n\nNumerical calculation of the NEGF conjunction system\\[app-e\\]\n=============================================================\n\nFor the 4-terminal junction double-layer system discussed in the main texts, wave-vector is not a good quantum number and we cannot study finite size transport in ${\\bf k}$ space. As a result, we do calculation in real space with the electron Green\u2019s functions $G_{jk}^{>,<,r}$ where $j$ and $k$ runs over the sites of top and bottom layers of graphene. The retarded Green\u2019s function is calculated in energy space with $G^r(E) = ( E I - H_C - \\Sigma^r)^{-1}$ where $\\Sigma^r$ is the sum of total self energies due to the four leads. Actually, both $H_C$ and $\\Sigma^r$ are block diagonal with respect to the layer index since there is no direct electronic coupling. As a result, $G^{>,<,r}$ is also block diagonal. The lead self energies are calculated by standard iterative algorithms of surface Green\u2019s functions.\n\nThe polarization functions $\\Pi^{>,<,r}$ are calculated according to the time-domain formulas and then Fourier transformed to frequency domain. This appears very fast computationally, but it brings about numerical instability for large systems. $4 \\times 4$ system with about 200 atoms is probably the largest system we can obtain reliable result from. We have used 23000 fast Fourier transform points with a spacing $\\hbar \\Delta \\omega =\n22$meV. The nonequilibrium information is incorporated through the lead temperatures and chemical potentials by the Keldysh equation, $G^< = G^r \\Sigma^< G^a$, at the very beginning when calculating the polarization function $\\Pi^{>,<}$, and not through somewhat ad hoc procedure such as Doppler shifting the Bose function. $D^r$ is obtained with the Dyson equation, $D^r = v + v \\Pi^r D^r$, and $D^{>,<}$ is obtained by the corresponding Keldysh equation. Since we are in real space, we have used periodic boundary conditions in the $y$ direction perpendicular to the transport direction, and have set the diagonal $v_{ii} = 0$. Finally, the heat current is calculated according to the formula given in the main texts, Eq.\u00a0(7). The electric current can also be calculated, using the lowest order expansion formula for the interacting Green\u2019s function given in the next section, with the Meir-Wingreen formula for electric current.\n\nProof of the scalar photon Meir-Wingreen formula, Eq.\u00a0(7)\\[app-d\\]\n==================================================================\n\nWe give a derivation of the Meir-Wingreen formula for scalar photon in terms of the Meir-Wingreen formula for the electrons under the lowest order of expansion approximation [@paulsson2005; @lu2016]. We consider a two-layer setup with four leads, layer 1 with left and right lead, and layer 2 left and right lead. The energy current out the layer $\\alpha$ is [@MeirWingreen; @lu-AIP-2015] $$\\label{MWeq1}\nI_\\alpha = \\int_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty} \\frac{dE}{2\\pi \\hbar} E\\, {\\rm Tr} \\bigl( G^> \\Sigma_\\alpha^< \n- G^< \\Sigma_\\alpha^> \\bigr).$$ Here $G^>$ and $G^<$ are the full interacting greater and lesser Green\u2019s functions of the electrons and $\\Sigma_{\\alpha}^{>,<} = \\Sigma_{\\alpha,L}^{>,<} + \\Sigma_{\\alpha,R}^{>,<}$ are the total lead self energies. They are functions of energy $E$. This formula is exact provided that the electron Green\u2019s function is obtained exactly. However, such a goal for the Coulomb system is not attainable. Thus, we use the lowest order expansion approximation in terms of the Coulomb interaction. Such approximation preserves energy conservation exactly. Since the two layers are not coupled directly, the Green\u2019s functions for the electrons and self energies are block diagonal, and the Meir-Wingreen formula needs only the block $\\alpha$. We focus on layer 1, and Green\u2019s function $G_{1}^>$, can be expressed by the Keldysh equation as $$G_1^> = \\bigl[ G^r( \\Sigma_1^> +\\Sigma_2^> + \\Sigma_n^> ) G^a \\bigr]_{11}.$$ Here $\\Sigma_{1,2}^>$ are the lead self energies, and $\\Sigma_n^>$ is the Fock term of Coulomb interaction, all of them block diagonal. For the 11-subblock, $\\Sigma_2$ is 0. Putting this result into the Meir-Wingreen formula, noting that ${\\rm Tr}( G_1^> \\Sigma_1^< - G_1^< \\Sigma_1^>)=0$ as a consequence of charge and energy conservation when Coulomb interaction is turned off, we obtain $$I_1 = \\int_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty} \\frac{dE}{2\\pi \\hbar} E\\, {\\rm Tr} \\bigl[ G^r_1 \\Sigma_n^> G_1^a \n\\Sigma_1^< - ({\\rm swap\\ } {}^> \\leftrightarrow {}^< ) \\big].$$ From now on we will drop the subscript 1 for notational simplicity.\n\nA key approximation we use is the lowest order expansion, $$\\label{LOEeq}\nG^> \\approx G_0^> + G_0^r \\Sigma_n^r G_0^> + G_0^r \\Sigma_n^> G_0^a + G_0^> \\Sigma_n^a G_0^a.$$ We obtain such terms if we expand the contour ordered Dyson equation, $G = G_0 + G_0 \\Sigma_n G\n\\approx G_0 + G_0 \\Sigma_n G_0 + \\cdots$, and then take the greater component using the Langreth rule [@haug-jauho-book]. We also drop the subscript 0 from now on.\n\n![Diagrams for heat current in lowest order expansion.[]{data-label=\"feynman-Diagrams\"}](Diagram2.pdf)\n\nIt is useful for symmetry reasons we express the current by vacuum diagrams in time domain. We use the inverse Fourier transform to change the integral in energy to time, and also the Fock diagram result, $\\Sigma_n^>(t,t') = i \\hbar \\sum_{l,l'}\nM^l G^>(t,t') M^{l'} D_{l,l'}^>(t,t')$. Similar expressions are given for retarded and advanced self energies as $\\Sigma_n^r \\propto D^< G^r + D^r G^>$, and $\\Sigma_n^a \\propto \nD^< G^a + D^a G^>$. Here for generality, we assume the interaction bare vertex takes the form $\\sum_{l} c^+ M^l c \\phi_l$, where $c$ is a column vector of electron annihilation operators and $c^\\dagger$ is row vector of hermitian conjugate, and $\\phi_l$ is scalar field at site $l$, and $M^l$ is a hermitian matrix. A matrix multiplication, $M G M$, is implied in the electron space index. By plugging in Eq.\u00a0(\\[LOEeq\\]) into (\\[MWeq1\\]), the expansion leads to 10 terms, represented by the 10 diagrams in Figure \\[feynman-Diagrams\\]. We will label these diagrams as 1 to $5$, and $1'$ to $5'$ as shown. The diagrammatic rule follows the usual convention with all the (real) times as dummy integration variables and space indices summed. The current is obtained by $(i\\hbar)^2/T$ times the value of the diagram. Since all the times are integration variables on equal footing, the integral actually diverges, the $1/T$ factor cancels the last integral interpreted as $\\int_{-T/2}^{T/2} dt \\cdots$. As an example, the graph 3 represents the contribution to current as $$\\begin{aligned}\n3) &=& \\frac{(i\\hbar)^2}{T} \\int dt dt' dt_1 dt_2 \\sum_{l,l'} D_{ll'}^>(t,t') \\times \\\\\n &&{\\rm Tr}\\left[ M^l G^{>}(t,t') M^{l'} G^a(t',t_1) \n\\frac{\\partial \\Sigma^<(t_1, t_2)}{\\partial t_1}  G^r(t_2, t) \\right]. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Note the partial derivative on the first argument of $\\Sigma^<$, which is represented by a dot in the diagram. The partial derivative can be moved around with repeated integration by part.\n\nA key identity [@datta-book], $$G^r( \\Sigma^> - \\Sigma^< ) G^a = \nG^a( \\Sigma^> - \\Sigma^< ) G^r = G^r - G^a = G^>  - G^<,$$ is needed to show that the 10 diagrams cancel and reduce to only two. Here the self energies are total lead self energy (for layer 1 only). This identity is a simple consequence of the Dyson equation $(G^r)^{-1} = (g_c^r)^{-1} - \\Sigma^r$, where $g_c^r$ is the Green\u2019s function of isolated center. From the above equation we can show that $$G^a \\Sigma^{>} G^r = G^{>}  + C,$$ here we define $C = G^a \\Sigma^{>,<} G^r - G^r \\Sigma^{>,<} G^a$, and is the same for greater and lesser components. $C$ is anti-hermitian, $C^\\dagger = - C$. $C=0$ if matrices are actually 1 by 1, or if system is time-reversal symmetric [@zhang2018energy], but not so in general. From this, ignoring the proportionality constant, integration variables, and $M$ factors, we can write, symbolically, $$\\label{eq-delta3}\n\\Delta 3 + \\Delta 3') = {\\rm Tr} \\bigl[ (D^> G^> - D^< G^< ) C\\bigr].$$ Here the notation $\\Delta$ means that the term when $G^a$ and $G^r$ are swapped to form $G^>$ or $G^<$ has been subtracted off. We show that Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq-delta3\\]) cancels all the other 8 diagrams. To this end, we define $$B = G^> \\Sigma^< - G^< \\Sigma^>.$$ Using the same identities, we have $B G^r = - C$, thus $BG^r - G^a B^\\dagger = -2C$, and $B G^r + G^a B^\\dagger = 0$.\n\nWe can factor out common factors in the remaining diagrams. Using $B$, we can write $$\\begin{aligned}\n1\\!+\\!1') + 2 \\!+\\!2') &=& D^< {\\rm Tr}(G^r B G^r) + D^r {\\rm Tr}(G^> B G^r), \\nonumber \\\\\n4\\!+\\!4') + 5\\! +\\!5') &=& D^< {\\rm Tr}(G^a D^a B^\\dagger) + D^a {\\rm Tr}(G^> G^a B^\\dagger).\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Further simplification is possible because $$D^< G^r + D^r G^> = D^> G^> - D^< G^< + D^< G^a + D^a G^>. \\nonumber$$ Now, putting all the terms together, and using the identities obtained, we see $\\Delta 3 + \\Delta 3')$ cancels all the rest as claimed.\n\nThe remaining two terms can be transformed into the desired form. First, we need to move the derivative to other places, for example, from graph $3  - \\Delta 3)$, we can write $$- D^>(t,t') {\\rm Tr}\\bigl[ G^>(t,t') {\\partial \\over \\partial t} G^<(t',t) \\bigr].$$ The extra minus sign is due to the integration by part. We can combine a similiar term from $3' - \\Delta 3')$ so that it becomes $\\partial \\Pi^<(t',t)/\\partial t$, using integration by part and cyclic permutation of trace whenever is needed. Using the definition of polarization $$\\Pi^{<}_{l'l}(t',t) = - i\\hbar\\, {\\rm Tr}\\bigl[  M^{l'} G^<(t',t) M^{l} G^{>}(t,t') \\bigr],$$ and then Fourier transform the final expression to frequency domain, we obtain $$I_1 =- \\frac{1}{4\\pi} \\int_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty}\\!\\!\nd\\omega\\, \\hbar \\omega\\, {\\rm Tr} \\bigl(D^> \\Pi^<_1 - D^< \\Pi^>_1 \\bigr).$$ The heat current density is given by $H = I_1/A$ where $A$ is the area of one layer surface.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We address the two fundamental problems of *spatial field reconstruction* and *sensor selection* in heterogeneous sensor networks: (i) how to efficiently perform *spatial field reconstruction* based on measurements obtained simultaneously from networks with both high and low quality sensors; and (ii) how to perform *query based sensor set selection with predictive MSE performance guarantee*. For the first problem, we developed a low complexity algorithm based on the *spatial best linear unbiased estimator* (S-BLUE). Next, building on the S-BLUE, we address the second problem, and develop an efficient algorithm for *query based sensor set selection with performance guarantee*. Our algorithm is based on the Cross Entropy method which solves the combinatorial optimization problem in an efficient manner.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Pengfei Zhang\\\n    University of Oxford\\\n    Oxford, UK\\\n    Ido Nevat\\\n    TUM CREATE\\\n    Singapore\\\n    Gareth W. Peters\\\n    Heriot-Watt University\\\n    Scotland, UK\\\n    Wolfgang Fruehwirt\\\n    University of Oxford\\\n    Oxford, UK\\\n    Yongchao Huang\\\n    University of Oxford\\\n    Oxford, UK\\\n    Ivonne Anders\\\n    ZAMG\\\n    Vienna, Austria\\\n    Michael Osborne\\\n    University of Oxford\\\n    Oxford, UK\\\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\ntitle: 'Sensor Selection and Random Field Reconstruction for Robust and Cost-effective Heterogeneous Weather Sensor Networks for the Developing World'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nWe consider the case where two types of sensors are deployed: the first consists of expensive, high quality sensors; and the second, of cheap low quality sensors, which are activated only if the intensity of the spatial field exceeds a pre-defined activation threshold (eg. wind sensors). This type of *heterogeneous sensor networks* approach has gained attention in the last few years due to the vision of the Internet of Things (IoT) where networks may share their data over the internet [@gubbi2013internet; @vermesan2011internet].\n\nTwo practical scenarios [^1] that are of importance are: firstly, high-quality sensors may be deployed by government agencies (eg. weather stations). These are sparsely deployed due to their high costs, limited space constraints, high power consumption etc. To improve the coverage of the WSN, low-quality cheap sensors can be deployed to augment the high-quality sensor network [@rajasegarar2014high]; Secondly, High-quality sensors cannot be easily deployed in remote locations, for example in oceans, lakes, mountains and volcanoes. In these cases, battery operated low-quality cheap sensors can be deployed [@werner2006deploying].\n\nMore specifically, the following two fundamental problems are the focus of this paper: Firstly, ***Spatial field reconstruction**:* the task is to accurately estimate and predict the intensity of a spatial random field, not only at the locations of the sensors, but at all locations [@peters2015utilize; @nevat2015estimation; @nevat2013random], given heterogeneous observations from both sensor networks; Secondly, ***Query based sensor set selection with performance guarantee***: the task is to perform on-line sensor set selection which meets the QoS criterion imposed by the user, as well as minimises the costs of activating the sensors of these networks [@calvo2016sensor; @joshi2009sensor; @chepuri2015sparsity].\n\nSystem model {#system_model}\n============\n\nWe now present the system model for the physical phenomenon observed by two types of networks.\n\n1.  Consider a random spatial phenomenon (eg. wind) to be monitored defined over a $2$-dimensional space $\\mathcal{X} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{2}$. The mean response of the physical process is a smooth continuous spatial function $f\\left(\\cdot\\right):\\mathcal{X} \\mapsto  \\mathbb{R}$, and is modelled as a Gaussian Process (GP) according to $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f\\left({\\mathbf{x}}\\right) \\sim {\\mathcal{GP}}\\left(\\mu_f \\left({\\mathbf{x}};{\\bm{\\theta}}_f\\right)\n    ,{\\mathcal{C}}_f\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_1,{\\mathbf{x}}_2;{\\bm{\\Psi}}_f\\right)\n    \\right),\\end{aligned}$$ where the mean and covariance functions $\\mu_f \\left({\\mathbf{x}};{\\bm{\\theta}}_f\\right),{\\mathcal{C}}_f\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_1,{\\mathbf{x}}_2;{\\bm{\\Psi}}_f\\right)$ are assumed to be known.\n\n2.  Let $N$ be the total number of sensors that are deployed over a $2$-D region $\\mathcal{X} \\subseteq \\mathbb{R}^2$, with ${\\mathbf{x}}_{n} \\in \\mathcal{X}, n=\\left\\{1,\\cdots, N\\right\\}$ being the physical location of the $n$-th sensor, assumed known by the FC. The number of sensors deployed by Network $1$ and Network $2$ are ${N_\\text{\\tiny{H}}}$ and ${N_\\text{\\tiny{L}}}$, respectively, so that $N={N_\\text{\\tiny{H}}}+{N_\\text{\\tiny{L}}}$ .\n\n3.  **Sensor network $1$ includes high quality sensors.** The sensors have a $0$-threshold activation and each of the sensors collects a noisy observation of the spatial phenomenon $f\\left(\\cdot\\right)$. At the $n$-th sensor, located at ${\\mathbf{x}}_n$, the observation is given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    Y^{H}\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right)= f\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right) + W\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right),  \\;n=\\left\\{1,\\cdots,{N_\\text{\\tiny{H}}}\\right\\}\\end{aligned}$$ where $W\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right)$ is i.i.d Gaussian noise $W\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right) \\sim N\\left(0,{\\sigma^2_\\text{\\tiny{W}}}\\right)$. **Sensor network $2$ includes low quality sensors.** The sensors have a $T$-threshold activation and each of the sensors collects a noisy observation of the spatial phenomenon $f\\left(\\cdot\\right)$, only if the intensity of the field at that location exceeds the pre-defined threshold $T$, (eg. anemometer sensors for wind monitoring [@adafruit; @Anemo4403]). At the $n$-th sensor, located at ${\\mathbf{x}}_n$, the observation is given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    Y^{L}\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right)=\n    \\left\\{\n    \\begin{array}{ll}\n    f\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right)+V\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right),&f\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right)\\geq T\\\\\n    V\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right),&f\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right)<T\n    \\end{array}\n    \\right.\\end{aligned}$$ where $V\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right)$ is i.i.d Gaussian noise $V\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_n\\right) \\sim N\\left(0,{\\sigma^2_\\text{\\tiny{V}}}\\right)$.\n\nField Reconstruction via Spatial Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (S-BLUE) {#S-BLUE}\n========================================================================\n\nTo perform inference in our Bayesian framework, one would typically be interested in computing the predictive posterior density at any location in space, ${\\mathbf{x}}_* \\in  \\mathcal{X} $ , denoted $p\\left(f_*|{{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\right)$. Based on this quantity, a point estimator, like the Minimum Mean Squared Error (MMSE) estimator can be derived: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widehat{f_*}^{\\text{MMSE}} = \\int \\limits_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}\np\\left(f_*|{{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } },{{\\mathbf{x}}_{\\text{\\tiny{1:N} } } },{\\mathbf{x}}_*\\right) f_* {\\text{d}}f_*\\end{aligned}$$ We develop the spatial field reconstruction via Best Linear Unbiased Estimator (S-BLUE), which enjoys a low computational complexity [@kay:1998]. The S-BLUE does not require calculating the predictive posterior density, but only the first two cross moments of the model. The S-BLUE is the optimal (in terms of minimizing Mean Squared Error (MSE)) of all linear estimators and is given by the solution to the following optimization problem: $$\\label{S_BLUE_objective}\n\\widehat{f}_* :=\\widehat{a} + \\widehat{{\\mathbf{B}}} {{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }= \\arg \\min_{a, {\\mathbf{B}}} {\\mathbb{E}}\\left[\\left(f_*- \\left(a + {\\mathbf{B}}{{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\right)\\right)^2\\right],$$ where $\\widehat{a} \\in \\mathbb{R}$ and $\\widehat{{\\mathbf{B}}} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{1 \\times N}$.\n\nThe optimal linear estimator that solves (\\[S\\_BLUE\\_objective\\]) is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{split}\n\\label{s_blue_estimate}\n\\hat{f_*}&={\\mathbb{E}}_{f_*\\; {{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }}\\left[f_* \\; {{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\right]{\\mathbb{E}}_{{{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }}\\left[ {{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\; {{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\right]^{-1}\\left({{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }-{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[{{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\right]\\right),\n\\end{split}\\end{aligned}$$ and the Mean Squared Error (MSE) is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{split}\n\\label{s_blue_estimate_MSE}\n\\sigma^2_{*}&=k\\left({\\mathbf{x}}_*,{\\mathbf{x}}_*\\right)-\n{\\mathbb{E}}_{f_*\\; {{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }}\\left[f_*\\; {{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\right]{\\mathbb{E}}_{{{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }}\\left[{{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\; {{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\right]^{-1}\n{\\mathbb{E}}_{{{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\;f_*}\\left[{{\\mathbf{Y}}_{\\mathcal{N}  } }\\; f_*\\right].\n\\end{split}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nQuery Based Sensor Set Selection with Performance Guarantee {#cross_entropy}\n===========================================================\n\nIn this Section we develop an algorithm to perform on-line sensor set selection in order to meet the requirements of a query made by users of the system. In this scenario users can prompt the system and request the system to provide an estimated value of the spatial random field at a location of interest ${\\mathbf{x}}_*$. We defined the activation sets of the sensors in both networks by $\\mathcal{S}_1 \\in \\left\\{0,1\\right\\}^{\\left|{N_\\text{\\tiny{H}}}\\right|}, \\mathcal{S}_2 \\in \\left\\{0,1\\right\\}^{\\left|{N_\\text{\\tiny{L}}}\\right|}$. Then the sensor selection problem can be formulated as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{SSO}\n\\begin{split}\n\\mathcal{S} &= \\operatorname*{arg\\,min}_{\n\\left(\n\\stackrel{\\mathcal{S}_1 \\in \\left\\{0,1\\right\\}^{\\left|{N_\\text{\\tiny{H}}}\\right|}}{\\mathcal{S}_2 \\in \\left\\{0,1\\right\\}^{\\left|{N_\\text{\\tiny{L}}}\\right|}}\n\\right)}\nw_h \\left|\\mathcal{S}_1\\right|+w_l \\left|\\mathcal{S}_2\\right|,\n\\\\\n&\\text{s.t.} \\;\\;\\sigma^2_*< \\sigma^2_q,\n\\end{split}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\sigma^2_q$ is the maximal allowed uncertainty at the query location ${\\mathbf{x}}_*$, and $w_h$ and $w_l$ are the known costs of activating a sensor from Network $1$ and Network $2$, respectively.\n\nSuppose we wish to maximize a function $U\\left({\\mathbf{x}}\\right)$ over some set $\\mathscr{X}$. Let us denote the maximum by $\\gamma^*$; thus, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{CEMO}\n\\gamma^*=\\max_{{\\mathbf{x}}\\in\\mathscr{X}}U({\\mathbf{x}}).\\end{aligned}$$ The Cross Entropy Method (CEM) solves this optimization problem by casting the original problem (\\[CEMO\\]) into an estimation problem of rare-event probabilities. By doing so, the CEM aims to locate an optimal parametric sampling distribution, that is, a probability distribution on $\\mathscr{X}$, rather than locating the optimal solution directly. To apply the CEM to solve our optimization problem in (\\[SSO\\]), we need to choose a parametric distribution. Since the activation of the sensors is a binary variable (eg. $0 \\rightarrow \\text{don't activate},1 \\rightarrow \\text{activate}$), we choose an independent Bernoulli variable as our parametric distribution, with a single parameter $p$ (ie. ${\\mathbf{V}}=p$). The Bernoulli distribution is a member of the NEF of distributions, hence, an analytical solution of the stochastic program is available in closed form as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\np_{t,j} =\\frac{\n                        \\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{K}\n                        \\mathds{1}\\left(\\mathbf{\\Gamma^H_{i,j}}=1\\right)\n                        \\mathds{1}\\left(U\\left(k\\right) \\geq \\beta_t \\right)\n                                    }\n                        {\\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{K}\n                        \\mathds{1}\\left(U\\left(k\\right) \\geq \\beta_t \\right)}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since the optimization problem in Eq. (\\[SSO\\]) is a constrained optimization problem, we introduce an Accept$\\setminus$Reject step which rejects samples which do not meet the QoS criterion $\\sigma^2_*< \\sigma^2_q$, as follows $$\\begin{aligned}\nU\\left(k\\right)=\n\\begin{cases}\n-\\left(w_h \\left|\\mathcal{S}^H\\right|+w_l \\left|\\mathcal{S}^L\\right|\\right),&\\sigma^2_*\\left(k\\right) <\\epsilon\\\\\n-\\infty,&\\text{Otherwise}\n\\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nExperimental Results and Discussion\n===================================\n\n[.55]{} ![Left panel: map of region of interest with sensors locations. Right panel: Storm wind intensity map[]{data-label=\"fig:google_true_storm\"}](google_map_roi2.eps \"fig:\"){height=\"4.5cm\"}\n\n[.55]{} ![Left panel: map of region of interest with sensors locations. Right panel: Storm wind intensity map[]{data-label=\"fig:google_true_storm\"}](wind_field.eps \"fig:\"){height=\"4.5cm\"}\n\n[.55]{} ![Left panel: MSE with effect of different number of high and low quality sensors. Right panel: Comparison of U values between optimal scheme and CE method with effect of number of iterations.[]{data-label=\"fig:CompareRMSECost\"}](nips2_true_storm_MSE.eps \"fig:\"){height=\"4.5cm\"}\n\n[.55]{} ![Left panel: MSE with effect of different number of high and low quality sensors. Right panel: Comparison of U values between optimal scheme and CE method with effect of number of iterations.[]{data-label=\"fig:CompareRMSECost\"}](nips_europe1_convergence.eps \"fig:\"){height=\"4.5cm\"}\n\nIn order to test our algorithm on real data sets, we use fine grained datasets available from Hans-Ertel-Centre for Weather Research (HErZ) project[^2]. Particularly, we choose Feb 23, 2015 as testing data since it has the highest wind speed across the whole year. The left panel of Fig. \\[fig:google\\_true\\_storm\\] shows the region of interest on the map. Both high and low quality sensors are selected randomly within the region. In this figure we randomly deployed $50$ high quality and $50$ low quality sensors. The right panel of Fig. \\[fig:google\\_true\\_storm\\] shows daily wind speed intensity across the region. In left panel of Fig. \\[fig:CompareRMSECost\\] we present a quantitative comparison of the MSE for various values of high and low quality sensors. The result shows a clear trend of MSE with the increasing of high and low quality sensors. We also illustrate how our sensor selection algorithm performs. For comparison, we use an optimal selection method which only selects the sensor set collections that minimize the U values and ensures that the QoS criterion is being met. The simulation parameters we have are: $\\{N_h=5, N_l=10, T=0, w_h=150, w_l = 30, \\sigma_w=0.001, \\sigma_g=0.003, k_f(x_*,x_*)=5.8, x_*=10, y_*=50, \\epsilon=\\{3.4, 3.6, 3.8, 4, 4.2, 4.4\\}\\}$. We fix the $N_h=5, N_l=10$. The comparison is shown in right panel of Fig. \\[fig:CompareRMSECost\\]. We also increase the number of iterations in CE method from 1 to 10. It shows CE method converges quickly to the optimal selection algorithm within 10 iterations for all the $\\epsilon$ values.\n\n[^1]: In particular, developing world countries are constrained by their budget when purchasing equipment. Meanwhile, these countries are heavily effected by climate change. This combination makes the robust and cost-effective sensor selection in weather sensor networks a major concern for the developing world.\n\n[^2]: https://www.herz-tb4.uni-bonn.de/index.php/hans-ertel-centre-for-weather-research/funding\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'For a group $G$ definable in a first order structure $M$ we develop basic topological dynamics in the category of definable $G$-flows. In particular, we give a description of the universal definable $G$-ambit and of the semigroup operation on it. We find a natural epimorphism from the Ellis group of this flow to the definable Bohr compactification of $G$, that is to the quotient $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ (where $G^*$ is the interpretation of $G$ in a monster model). More generally, we obtain these results locally, i.e. in the category of $\\Delta$-definable $G$-flows for any fixed set $\\Delta$ of formulas of an appropriate form. In particular, we define local connected components ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ and ${G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$, and show that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is the $\\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification of $G$. We also note that some deeper arguments from [@KrPi] can be adapted to our context, showing for example that our epimorphism from the Ellis group to the $\\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification factors naturally yielding a continuous epimorphism from the $\\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification to the $\\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification of $G$. Finally, we propose to view certain topological-dynamic and model-theoretic invariants as Polish structures which leads to some observations and questions.'\naddress: |\n     Instytut Matematyczny, Uniwersytet Wroc\u0142awski\\\n    pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4\\\n    50-384 Wroc\u0142aw, Poland \nauthor:\n- Krzysztof Krupi\u0144ski\ntitle: Definable topological dynamics\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nTopological dynamics was introduced to model theory by Newelski in [@Ne1; @Ne2] and then further developed by various authors, e.g. in [@GiPePi], [@Ja], [@YaLo], [@ChSi], [@KrPi] and [@KrPiRz]. There are several natural categories to develop topological dynamics in model theory. The most natural are the categories of definable and externally definable \u201cobjects\u201d. So far, however, mostly the externally definable category has been studied (the definable one was investigated under the extra assumption of definability of types, which makes both categories the same). In this paper, we develop basic topological dynamics in the category of definable flows, without the definability of types assumption.\n\nRecall that a [*$G$-flow*]{} is a pair $(G,X)$, where $G$ is a group acting on a compact, Hausdorff space by homeomorphisms. We always consider discrete flows, i.e. with no topology on $G$ (or, if one prefers, with the discrete topology on $G$). A [*$G$-ambit*]{} is a $G$-flow $(G,X,x_0)$ with a distinguished point $x_0$ whose $G$-orbit is dense. With the obvious notion of a homomorphism of $G$-ambits, a universal $G$-ambit always exists and is unique; this universal ambit is exactly $(G,\\beta G, e)$ (see [@Gl Chapter 1, Proposition 2.6]), where $\\beta G$ is the Stone-$\\check{\\mbox{C}}$ech compactification of $G$.\n\nNow, we recall some flows which have been investigated in model theory.\n\nLet $G$ be a group $\\emptyset$-definable in a first order structure $M$. By $S_G(M)$ we denote the space of complete types over $M$ containing the formula defining $G$; equivalently, this is the space of ultrafilters in the Boolean algebra of all definable (with parameters from $M$) subsets of $G$, equipped with the Stone topology. By $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ we denote the space of all externally definable complete types over $M$ containing $G$, that is the space of ultrafilters in the Boolean algebra of all externally definable subsets of $G$ (i.e. subsets which are intersections with $G$ of sets definable in arbitrary elementary extensions of $M$).\n\nFollowing [@GiPePi] and [@KrPi], we will use the notion of \\[externally\\] definable $G$-flows. Namely, let $C$ be a compact, Hausdorff space. A map $f\\colon G \\to C$ is said to be [*\\[externally\\] definable*]{} if for all disjoint, closed subsets $C_1$ and $C_2$ of $C$ the preimages $f^{-1}[C_1]$ and $f^{-1}[C_2]$ can be separated by an \\[externally\\] definable subset of $G$. An [*\\[externally\\] definable $G$-flow*]{} is a $G$-flow $(G,X)$ such that for every $x \\in X$ the map $f_x\\colon G \\to X$ defined by $f_x(g)=gx$ is \\[externally\\] definable. An [*\\[externally\\] definable $G$-ambit*]{} is an \\[externally\\] definable $G$-flow $(G,X,x_0)$ with a distinguished point $x_0$ such that the orbit $Gx_0$ is dense in $X$.\n\nNow, $G$ acts by translations as groups of homeomorphisms of the compact spaces $S_{G}(M)$, $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ and $\\beta G$, turning them into $G$-flows. As mentioned before, $(G,\\beta G, e)$ is the universal $G$-ambit. Similarly, $(G,S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M),\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}(e/M))$ is the universal externally definable $G$-ambit. In particular, by the universality, there is a left-continuous semigroup operation on $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ turning it into a semigroup isomorphic to the Ellis semigroup $E(S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M))$ (for the definitions of Ellis \\[semi\\]groups see Section \\[section: preliminaries\\]). So one can consider both the minimal ideals and the Ellis group inside $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ instead of in $E(S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M))$. However, the ambit $(G,S_G(M),\\operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is not necessarily definable (it is so if all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable in which case $S_G(M)=S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$), and we do not have a natural semigroup operation on $S_G(M)$. This makes $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ and the category of externally definable $G$-flows easier to work with, and that is why topological dynamics has been developed in this context. On the other hand, $S_G(M)$ and definable flows are simpler and more natural objects from the point of view of model theory. This motivates our interest in the category of definable $G$-flows. Another, more concrete motivation stems from the fact that even if the language and the model $M$ are both countable, the universal externally definable $G$-ambit $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ may be \u201cbig\u201d (e.g. not metrizable) which causes some difficulties in the application of topological dynamics to Borel cardinalities of bounded invariant equivalence relations [@KrPiRz]. In contrast, as we explain in this paper, under such a countability assumption, the universal definable $G$-ambit is always metrizable, which may lead to simplifications of some proofs concerning Borel cardinalities or even to new results. On the other hand, our research leads to interesting questions and relations with Polish structures introduced in [@Kr] and further developed by several authors, e.g. in [@KrWa].\n\nIn this paper, we will consider even a more general category than that of definable $G$-flows, namely the category of $\\Delta$-definable $G$-flows, where $\\Delta$ is an arbitrary set of formulas $\\delta(x;y,z,\\bar t)$ of the form $\\varphi(y\\cdot x \\cdot z, \\bar t)$ which contains a formula defining $G$. The definitions of $\\Delta$-formulas, the space $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$, and $\\Delta$-definable $G$-flows are given in Section \\[section: preliminaries\\].\n\nIn Section \\[section: definable ambit\\], we present the universal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit as the quotient of $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ by some closed equivalence relation $E_\\Delta$, we describe the semigroup operation on $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$, and, using it, we give a description of the relation $E_\\Delta$.\n\nIn Section \\[section: connected components\\], we define local versions of the connected components ${G^*}^{00}_M$ and ${G^*}^{000}_M$, namely ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ and ${G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$, and we show that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is the $\\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification of $G$. The proof follows the lines of the argument from [@GiPePi] showing that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{M}$ is the definable Bohr compactification, but it also requires some additional observations (in particular, the fact that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a normal subgroup is not completely obvious, and we need Lemma \\[lemma: mu is contained\\] in order to show that the quotient map $G \\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is $\\Delta$-definable). Using results from Section \\[section: definable ambit\\], we find an explicitly given epimorphism $\\theta$ from the universal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$, whose restriction to the Ellis group is also an epimorphism. We formulate interesting questions concerning an analogous statement for ${G^*}/{G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$.\n\nIn Section \\[section: results from KrPi\\], we explain that some deeper arguments from [@KrPi] can be adapted to the $\\Delta$-definable context, which results in Theorems \\[theorem: gen. Bohr comp.\\], \\[theorem: factorization by H(uM)\\] and \\[theorem: strong amenability\\]. We also use [@ChSi Theorem 5.6] to get a variant of this theorem in our definable context (see Corollary \\[corollary: from ChSi\\]).\n\nIn Section \\[section: Polish structures\\], we explain how to treat various invariants (e.g. the Ellis group or the $\\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification of $G$) as Polish structures, which suggests that in some situations one could expect to get structural and topological theorems about these invariants via application of theorems on small Polish structures. We make a few observations in this direction and formulate some questions.\n\nPreliminaries {#section: preliminaries}\n=============\n\nDetailed preliminaries concerning topological dynamics in model theory were given in several papers, so here we only recall a few things. For more details, see e.g. [@KrPi Section 1]. A good reference for classical topological dynamics is for example [@Au] or [@Gl].\n\nThe [*Ellis semigroup*]{} of the flow $(G,X)$, denoted by $E(X)$, is the closure of the collection of functions $\\{\\pi_g \\colon g \\in G\\}$ (where $\\pi_g\\colon X \\to X$ is given by $\\pi_g(x)=gx$) in the space $X^X$ equipped with the product topology, with composition as semigroup operation.\n\nThis semigroup operation is continuous in the left coordinate, $E(X)$ is also a $G$-flow, and minimal subflows of $E(X)$ are exactly minimal left ideals with respect to the semigroup structure on $E(X)$, in particular they are cosed and so compact. The following was proved by Ellis (e.g. see [@El Propositions 3.5, 3.6] and [@Gl Chapter 1, Propositions 2.3, 2.5]).\n\n\\[Ellis theorem\\] Let ${{{\\mathcal M}}}$ be a minimal left ideal in $E(X)$, and let $J({{{\\mathcal M}}})$ be the set of all idempotents in ${{{\\mathcal M}}}$. Then:\\\ni) For any $p \\in {{{\\mathcal M}}}$, $E(X)p={{{\\mathcal M}}}p={{{\\mathcal M}}}$.\\\nii) ${{{\\mathcal M}}}$ is the disjoint union of sets $u{{{\\mathcal M}}}$ with $u$ ranging over $J({{{\\mathcal M}}})$.\\\niii) For each $u \\in J({{{\\mathcal M}}})$, $u{{{\\mathcal M}}}$ is a group with the neutral element $u$, where the group operation is the restriction of the semigroup operation on $E(X)$.\\\niv) All the groups $u{{{\\mathcal M}}}$ (for $u \\in J({{{\\mathcal M}}})$) are isomorphic, even when we vary the minimal ideal ${{{\\mathcal M}}}$.\n\nFor a given group $G$ we say that a $G$-ambit $(G,X,x_0)$ is [*universal*]{} if for every $G$-ambit $(G,Y,y_0)$ there exists a (unique) homomorphism $h \\colon X \\to Y$ of $G$-flows mapping $x_0$ to $y_0$. The following fact is fundamental [@Gl Chapter 1, Proposition 2.6].\n\n\\[universality of beta G\\] $(G,\\beta G, e)$ is the unique up to isomorphism universal $G$-ambit.\n\nUsing this fact, one gets an \u201caction\u201d of $\\beta G$ on any $G$-flow $(G,X)$, namely for $x \\in X$ there is a unique flow homomorphism $h_x\\colon (G,\\beta G, e) \\to (G,X,x)$, and for $p \\in \\beta G$ we define $px=h_x(p)$. More explicitly, this action is given by $px=\\lim g_ix$ for any net $(g_i)$ of elements of $G$ converging to $p$ in $\\beta G$. In particular, $\\beta G$ acts on itself, and denoting this action by $*$, one has $(p*q)x=p(qx)$ for all $p,q \\in \\beta G$ and $x \\in X$. In particular, $*$ is a semigroup operation on $\\beta G$ which is continuous on the left and whose restriction to $G \\times G$ is the original group operation on $G$. One easily checks that $(\\beta G,*) \\cong E(\\beta G)$ (by sending $p \\in \\beta G$ to the function $(x \\mapsto px) \\in E(\\beta G)$). In particular, Fact \\[Ellis theorem\\] applies to $(\\beta G, *)$ in place of $E(\\beta G)$.\\\nIn this paper, $M$ denotes a model of a first order theory in a language $\\mathcal L$, and ${{\\mathfrak C}}\\succ M$ is a monster model; $G$ will be a group $\\emptyset$-definable in $M$, and $G^*$ its interpretation in ${{\\mathfrak C}}$. Group multiplication, denoted by $\\cdot$, will be often skipped for simplicity, but sometimes we will write it explicitly.\\\nAs above, a [*universal \\[externally\\] definable $G$-ambit*]{} is defined as an \\[externally\\] definable $G$-ambit which maps homomorphically (by a (unique) homomorphism of $G$-ambits) to an arbitrary \\[externally\\] definable $G$-ambit. It is clear (by general category theory reasons) that, in each of these two categories, if a universal $G$-ambit exists, then it is unique up to isomorphism. As mentioned in the introduction, $(G,S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M),\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}(e/M))$ is the unique up to isomorphism universal externally definable $G$-ambit, so, in the same way as above, we get a semigroup operation on $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$. The existence of the universal definable $G$-ambit is justified in Remark \\[remark: existence of universal definable G-ambit\\]. The main point of the current paper is to describe the universal definable $G$-ambit as well as its local versions.\n\nLet $\\Delta$ be a subset of the set of all formulas (without parameters) in the language $\\mathcal L$ in the variable $x$ of the same sort as $G$ and some parametric variables. By a [*$\\Delta$-formula*]{} over $M$ we mean a Boolean combination of instances of formulas from $\\Delta$ with parameters from $M$. By $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ we denote the compact space of complete $\\Delta$-types over $M$ concentrating on $G$, equivalently, the space of ultrafilters of relatively $\\Delta$-definable over $M$ subsets of $G$. In the case when $\\Delta$ is the collection of all formulas in the variable $x$ of the same sort as $G$ and arbitrary parametric variables, $\\Delta$-formulas over $M$ are just all formulas over $M$ in the variable $x$, and $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)=S_G(M)$.\n\nSometimes we will be using $\\Delta$-types over sets of parameters other than $M$. In such situations, all the definitions of \u201c$\\Delta$-objects\u201d are analogous, except we take the convention that by a $\\Delta$-formula over $A$ we mean a formula over $\\operatorname{{dcl}}(A)$ which is equivalent to a Boolean combination of instances of formulas from $\\Delta$ with parameters from $\\operatorname{{dcl}}(A)$ (we do it in order to avoid writing \u201c$\\operatorname{{dcl}}$\u201d many times in the paper). Another option is to define $\\Delta$-formulas over $A$ as those formulas over $A$ which are equivalent to Boolean combinations of instances of formulas from $\\Delta$ with arbitrary parameters (but then some statements would be slightly less general).\n\nWe naturally extend the definition of a definable function from $G$ to a compact space $C$ to a $\\Delta$-definable context.\n\n\\[definable functions\\] Let $C$ be a compact space. A map $f\\colon G \\to C$ is [*$\\Delta$-definable*]{} if for all disjoint, closed subsets $C_1$ and $C_2$ of $C$ the preimages $f^{-1}[C_1]$ and $f^{-1}[C_2]$ can be separated by a $\\Delta$-definable subset of $G$.\n\nNow, we recall the definition of a definable map defined on the monster model and we extend it to local versions.\n\nLet $C$ be a compact space.\\\ni) A function $f\\colon G^* \\to C$ is [*$M$-definable*]{} if for every closed $C_1 \\subseteq C$ the preimage $f^{-1}[C_1]$ is type-definable over $M$.\\\nii) A function $f\\colon G^* \\to C$ is [*$\\Delta$-definable over $M$*]{} if for every closed $C_1 \\subseteq C$ the preimage $f^{-1}[C_1]$ is $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ (i.e. the intersection of sets defined by $\\Delta$-formulas over $M$).\n\nThe first item of the next fact is [@GiPePi Lemma 3.2], and the second one (generalizing the first one) can be proved analogously. As usual, $C$ denotes a compact, Hausdorff space.\n\n\\[prolongation\\] 1) Definable context:\\\ni) If $f\\colon G \\to C$ is definable, then it extends uniquely to an $M$-definable function $f^*\\colon G^* \\to C$. Moreover, $f^*$ is given by the formula $\\{f^*(a)\\}=\\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in \\operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\varphi(M)])$.\\\nii) Conversely, if $f^*\\colon G^* \\to C$ is an $M$-definable function, then $f^*|_G\\colon G \\to C$ is definable.\\\n2) $\\Delta$-definable context:\\\ni) If $f\\colon G \\to C$ is $\\Delta$-definable, then it extends uniquely to a function $f^*\\colon G^* \\to C$ which is $\\Delta$-definable over $M$. Moreover, $f^*$ is given by the formula $\\{f^*(a)\\}=\\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in \\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(a/M)} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\varphi(M)])$.\\\nii) Conversely, if a function $f^*\\colon G^* \\to C$ is a $\\Delta$-definable over $M$, then $f^*|_G\\colon G \\to C$ is $\\Delta$-definable.\n\n\\[rem: prolongation\\] If $f\\colon G \\to C$ is $\\Delta$-definable, then the unique function $f^*\\colon G^* \\to C$ which extends $f$ and is $\\Delta$-definable over $M$ is also given by $\\{f^*(a)\\}=\\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in \\operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\varphi(M)])$.\n\nThis follows from the formula in point 2)(i) of Lemma \\[prolongation\\] and the observations that $\\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in \\operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\varphi(M)])$ is non-empty (which follows from the compactness of $C$) and contained in $\\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in \\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(a/M)} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\varphi(M)])$.\n\nThe following remark follows easily from definitions.\n\n\\[remark: factorization\\] A function $f\\colon G^* \\to C$ is $\\Delta$-definable over $M$ if and only if there is a continuous function $h: S_{G,\\Delta}(M) \\to C$ such that $f=h\\circ r$, where $r\\colon G^* \\to S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ is the obvious map $a \\mapsto \\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(a/M)$. In particular, a function $f\\colon G^* \\to C$ is $M$-definable if and only if there is a continuous function $h: S_{G}(M) \\to C$ such that $f=h\\circ r$, where $r\\colon G^* \\to S_{G}(M)$ is the obvious map.\n\nWe extend the notion of the definable flow in a natural way. Namely, a flow $(G,X)$ will be called [*$\\Delta$-definable*]{} if for every $x \\in X$ the map $f_x\\colon G \\to X$ given by $f_x(g)=gx$ is $\\Delta$-definable.\n\nThe first part of the following observation was made in [@KrPi Remark 1.12], and the generalization to the second part can be obtained analogously.\n\n\\[definability of products\\] i) A product of definable $G$-flows is a definable $G$-flow.\\\nii) A product of $\\Delta$-definable $G$-flows is a $\\Delta$-definable $G$-flow.\n\nWhenever we consider the quotient of $G^*$ by a bounded, $M$-invariant equivalence relation $E$, we can equip it with the [*logic topology*]{} which is defined by saying that a subset of the quotient is closed if its preimage in $G^*$ is type-definable (equivalently, type-definable over $M$). If $E$ is type-definable, then $G^*/E$ is a compact, Hausdorff space; if $E$ is only invariant, then $G^*/E$ is only quasi-compact. The definition of the logic topology applies in particular to the quotient $G^*/H$, where $H$ is an arbitrary bounded index, $M$-invariant subgroup of $G^*$. If $H$ is type-definable, then $G^*/H$ is a compact, Hausdorff group. For details on the logic topology see e.g. [@KrNe] and [@Pi1 Section 2]. The following basic remark will be useful later.\n\n\\[remark: denseness very basic\\] Let $E$ be an bounded, $M$-invariant equivalence relation on $G^*$. Then $G/E$ is dense in $G^*/E$\n\nConsider any non-empty, open subset $U$ of $G^*/E$, and let $\\pi \\colon G^* \\to G^*/E$ be the quotient map. Then $\\pi^{-1}[U]$ is a non-empty, $\\bigvee$-definable over $M$ subset of $G^*$, and as such it has a point in $G$.\n\nUniversal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit {#section: definable ambit}\n======================================\n\nFrom now on, we fix a set $\\Delta$ of formulas about which we assume that:\n\n1.  It consists of some formulas $\\delta(x;y,z,\\bar t)$ of the form $\\psi(y\\cdot x \\cdot z; \\bar t)$.\n\n2.  The formula $G(y \\cdot x\\cdot z)$ is in $\\Delta$, where $G(x)$ is a formula over $\\emptyset$ which defines $G$.\n\nThis makes sure that any left or right translate of a $\\Delta$-formula by an element of $G$ is still a $\\Delta$-formula. Note that if all formulas as in (1) are included in $\\Delta$, then being \u201ca subset of $G$ which is $\\Delta$-definable over $M$\u201d is the same thing as being \u201ca subset of $G$ which is definable over $M$\u201d, so we are in the definable context.\n\n\\[remark: existence of universal definable G-ambit\\] There exists a unique (up to isomorphism) universal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.\n\nUniqueness is clear. To show existence, consider a set $(G,X_i,x_i)_{i \\in I}$ of all up to isomorphism $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambits (such a set exists, as there is a common bound on the cardinalities of all $G$-ambits). Now, let $X'=\\prod_{i} X_i$, $x=(x_i)_i$, and let $X$ be the closure of the orbit of $x$ under the coordinatewise action of $G$. Then $(G,X')$ is $\\Delta$-definable by Remark \\[definability of products\\], and so $(G,X,x)$ is a $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit. From the construction, we see that $(G,X,x)$ maps on any $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit, i.e. it is universal.\n\nBy the assumption on the form of the formulas in $\\Delta$, we see that $G$ acts on $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ by $$g \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ga/M)$$ so that $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M), \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M))$ is a $G$-ambit.\n\nLet $(G,{\\mathcal U}, x)$ be the universal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit. Then, $f_x \\colon G \\to {\\mathcal U}$ given by $f_x(g)=gx$ is $\\Delta$-definable. Thus, by Fact \\[prolongation\\], it extends to the function $f^*_x \\colon G^* \\to {\\mathcal U}$ which is $\\Delta$-definable over $M$. Hence, by Remark \\[remark: factorization\\], there exists a continuous function $h\\colon S_{G,\\Delta}(M) \\to {\\mathcal U}$ such that $f^*_x=h \\circ r$, where $r \\colon G^* \\to S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ is the obvious map (namely $a \\mapsto \\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(a/M)$). The function $h$ is uniquely determined by $f^*_x$, and we see that $h(\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M))=x$.\n\n\\[remark: homomorphism of ambits\\] The above map $h$ yields a homomorphism from the $G$-ambit $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M), \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M))$ to $(G,{\\mathcal U}, x)$.\n\nIt remains to show that $h(gp)=gh(p)$ for any $g \\in G$ and $p \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$. By the explicit formula for $f^*_x$, we have $$\\{gh(p)\\}=g\\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in p} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f_x[\\varphi(M)])=\\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in p} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f_x[g\\varphi(M)]) = \\bigcap_{\\psi \\in gp} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f_x[\\psi(M)])=h(gp).$$\n\nIf $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M), \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M))$ was a $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit, we could proceed with the development of the theory exactly as in the well-understood externally definable context. However, in general, this ambit is not necessarily $\\Delta$-definable (see Example \\[example: E non-trivial\\]). Recall that if all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable, then $(G,S_{G}(M), \\operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is definable and coincides with $(G,S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M),\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}(e/M))$, and the categories of definable and externally definable $G$-flows coincide. Our goal is to start to develop a theory of definable $G$-flows without the definability of types assumption.\n\nLet $E_\\Delta$ be the equivalence relation on $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ given by $$E_\\Delta(p,q) \\iff h(p)=h(q).$$ In the definable context (i.e. when $\\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form), we will write $E$ instead of $E_\\Delta$.\n\n\\[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\\] $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta,\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M)/E_\\Delta)$ is the universal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.\n\nBy Remark \\[remark: homomorphism of ambits\\], $E_\\Delta$ is closed and invariant under the action of $G$. This implies that $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta,\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M)/E_\\Delta)$ naturally becomes a $G$-ambit. From the very definition of $E_\\Delta$, we get that $h$ factors through the quotient map $S_{G,\\Delta}(M) \\to S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ yielding an isomorphism from the $G$-ambit $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta,\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M)/E_\\Delta)$ to $(G,{\\mathcal U}, x)$. This completes the proof as $(G,{\\mathcal U}, x)$ was chosen to be the universal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.\n\n\\[remark: uniqueness of E\\] i) $E_\\Delta$ is the unique equivalence relation $F$ on $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ for which $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/F,\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M)/F)$, with the action of $G$ defined by $g(p/F):=(gp)/F$, is the universal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.\\\nii) In the definable context (i.e. when $\\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form), if all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable, then $E$ is trivial (i.e. it is the equality).\n\ni\\) Suppose $F_1$ and $F_2$ are two such relations. It is enough to show that $F_1 \\subseteq F_2$. By the universality of $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/F_1,\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M)/F_1)$, there is $f\\colon S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/F_1 \\to S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/F_2$ which is a homomorphism of $G$-ambits. Let $f'\\colon S_{G,\\Delta}(M) \\to S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/F_2$ be the composition of $f$ with the quotient map $S_{G,\\Delta}(M) \\to S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/F_1$. We see that $f'$ is a homomorphism from the $G$-ambit $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M), \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M))$ to $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/F_2, \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M)/F_2)$. But there is only one such homomorphism, and it is given by $p \\mapsto p/F_2$. Therefore, $f(p/F_1)=p/F_2$ for any $p$, hence $F_1 \\subseteq F_2$.\\\nii) By assumption, $(G,S_G(M), \\operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is a definable $G$-ambit. Hence, Corollary \\[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\\] implies that $(G,S_G(M), \\operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is the universal definable $G$-ambit (literally, the quotient $S_G(M)/E$ is universal definable, but this implies the universal property of $S_G(M)$). And we finish using (i).\n\nDefine an equivalence relation $E_\\Delta'$ on $G^*$ by $$E_\\Delta'(a,b) \\iff E_\\Delta(\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M),\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(b/M)).$$ In the definable context, we will skip $\\Delta$ and write $E'$. We see that $E_\\Delta'$ is a type-definable over $M$, bounded equivalence relation on $G^*$ which is coarser than the relation of having the same complete $\\Delta$-type over $M$. We have a natural topological identification of $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ with $G^*/E_\\Delta'$, which we will be using freely.\n\nOur main goal is to give an explicit description of the relation $E_\\Delta$, equivalently of $E_\\Delta'$.\n\nBy Corollary \\[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\\], a standard argument (a sketch of which we give below for the reader\u2019s convenience) shows that there is a left continuous semigroup operation $*$ on $S_G(M)/E_\\Delta$ which is given by $$p/E_\\Delta * q/E_\\Delta = \\lim_{g \\rightarrow p/E_\\Delta} g(q/E_\\Delta),\\label{eq: 0}$$ equivalently, $$a/E_\\Delta' * b/E_\\Delta'= \\lim_{g \\rightarrow a/E_\\Delta'} g(a/E_\\Delta').$$ (When we write \u201c$g$ tends to $p/E_\\Delta$\u201d, we mean \u201c$\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(g/M)/E_\\Delta$ tends to $p/E_\\Delta$ with $g$ ranging over $G$\u201d, i.e. $\\lim_{g \\rightarrow p/E_\\Delta} g(q/E_\\Delta)=r/E_\\Delta$ if and only if for every open neighborhood $U$ of $r/E_\\Delta$ there is an open neighborhood $V$ of $p/E_\\Delta$ such that for all $g \\in G$ such that $\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(g/M)/E_\\Delta \\in V$ one has $g(q/E_\\Delta) \\in U$. And analogously in the equivalent definition.)\n\nTo simply notation, denote $(G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta,\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(e/M)/E_\\Delta)$ by $(G,\\mathcal U,x_0)$. By the universality of $(G,{\\mathcal U},x_0)$, for every $x \\in {\\mathcal U}$ there is a unique $f_x \\colon {\\mathcal U} \\to {\\mathcal U}$ which is a $G$-flow homomorphism mapping $x_0$ to $x$. For $p \\in {\\mathcal U}$ put $$p * x = f_x(p).$$ From the choice of $f_x$, the following properties follow immediately.\n\n1.  $*$ is continuous in the left coordinate.\n\n2.  $*$ extends the action of $G$, i.e. $(gx_0) * x = gx$ for all $g \\in G$ and $x \\in {\\mathcal U}$.\n\n3.  $\\lim_{g \\rightarrow p} gq = p * q$ for all $p,q \\in {\\mathcal U}$ (here $g \\rightarrow p$ means that $gx_0$ tends to $p$).\n\nFinally, we leave as an exercise (using nets and limits) to check that $*$ is associative.\n\nNext, we give an explicit formula for $*$, which is similar to the one in the externally definable case.\n\n\\[proposition: formula for \\*\\] For any $p,q \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$, $p/E_\\Delta * q/E_\\Delta=\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(a\\cdot b/M)/E_\\Delta$, where $b \\models q$ and $a$ realizes a $\\Delta$-coheir extension of $p$ over $M,b$ (i.e. $\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(a/M,b)$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$).\n\nNote that a basis of open neighborhoods of $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\\Delta \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ consists of the sets\n\n$$U_\\varphi:=\\{ r/E_\\Delta : [r]_{E_\\Delta} \\subseteq [\\varphi]\\}$$ with $\\varphi$ ranging over all $\\Delta$-formulas over $M$ such that $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\\Delta \\in U_\\varphi$, where $[r]_{E_\\Delta}=\\{ q \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M): E_\\Delta(r,q)\\}$ and $[\\varphi]=\\{ q \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M) : \\varphi \\in q\\}$. Indeed, first of all, each set $U_{\\varphi}$ is open in the quotient topology, because the preimage of the complement of $U_{\\varphi}$ under the quotient map consists of all the types $r \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ for which there exists a type $r' \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ such that $E_\\Delta(r,r')$ and $\\neg \\varphi(x) \\in r'$ (and so we see that this preimage is closed as a projection of a closed set in a product of compact, Hausdorff spaces). Secondly, take any open neighborhood $U$ of $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\\Delta$. Then $[\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)]_{E_\\Delta}$ is contained in the preimage $U'$ of $U$ under the quotient map. Since $[\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)]_{E_\\Delta}$ is closed and $U'$ is open, by the compactness of $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$, we can find a $\\Delta$-formula (over $M$) $\\varphi(x)$ such that $[\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)]_{E_\\Delta} \\subseteq [\\varphi(x)] \\subseteq U'$, and so $U_\\varphi$ is an open neighborhood of $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\\Delta$ contained in $U$.\n\nConsider any $\\varphi$ as above. Then $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M) \\vdash E_\\Delta'(ab,x) \\vdash \\varphi(x)$. So there is $\\psi(x) \\in \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)$ such that\n\n$$(\\exists y)(\\psi(y) \\wedge E_\\Delta'(x,y)) \\vdash \\varphi(x).\\label{eq: 1}$$\n\nClearly $\\models \\psi(ab)$.\n\nConsider any $\\delta(w) \\in p$. As $\\models \\delta(a) \\wedge \\psi(ab)$, we get $\\delta(w) \\wedge \\psi(wb) \\in \\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(a/M,b)$. (Note that in order to have that $\\psi(wb)$ is a $\\Delta$-formula over $M,b$, we use our convention which allows Boolean combinations of instances of formulas from $\\Delta$ with parameters from $\\operatorname{{dcl}}(M,b)$; namely, we have to use parameters which are products of the form $b\\cdot g \\in \\operatorname{{dcl}}(M,b)$ where $g \\in G$.) By the assumption that $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M,b)$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$, there exists $g_{\\delta,\\varphi} \\in G$ such that $\\models \\delta(g_{\\delta,\\varphi}) \\wedge \\psi(g_{\\delta,\\varphi} \\cdot b)$. By (\\[eq: 1\\]), we conclude that $E_\\Delta'(g_{\\delta,\\varphi} \\cdot b, x) \\vdash \\varphi(x)$, and so $$g_{\\delta,\\varphi} (q/E_\\Delta)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(g_{\\delta,\\varphi} \\cdot b/M)/E_\\Delta \\in U_\\varphi.\\label{eq: 2}$$\n\nThe collection of all formulas $\\varphi$ as above forms a directed set (with $\\varphi_1\\leq \\varphi_2$ iff $\\varphi_2 \\vdash \\varphi_1$) and similarly the collection of all $\\delta$\u2019s from $p$ forms a directed set; the product of these two directed sets is also a directed set with the product preorder, and the limits below are computed with respect to this product preorder.\n\nBy (\\[eq: 2\\]), we conclude that\n\n$$\\lim_{\\delta,\\varphi} g_{\\delta,\\varphi}  (q/E_\\Delta)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\\Delta.\\label{eq: 3}$$\n\nOn the other hand, $$\\lim_{\\delta,\\varphi} \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(g_{\\delta,\\varphi}/M) = p,$$ so $$\\lim_{\\delta,\\varphi} \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(g_{\\delta,\\varphi}/M)/E_\\Delta = p/E_\\Delta,$$ which by virtue of (\\[eq: 0\\]) implies that\n\n$$\\lim_{\\delta,\\varphi} g_{\\delta,\\varphi} (q/E_\\Delta) = p/E_\\Delta * q/E_\\Delta. \\label{eq: 4}$$\n\nFrom (\\[eq: 3\\]) and (\\[eq: 4\\]), we get $p/E_\\Delta * q/E_\\Delta = \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)/E_\\Delta$.\n\nDefine a relation ${F_0}_\\Delta$ on $G^*$ as follows. ${F_0}_\\Delta(\\alpha,\\beta)$ holds if there exist $a, b, a_1, b_1 \\in G^*$ such that the following conditions hold:\n\n1.  $\\alpha=a\\cdot b$ and $\\beta=a_1\\cdot b_1$,\n\n2.  $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a_1/M)$ and $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(b/M)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(b_1/M)$,\n\n3.  $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M,b)$ and $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a_1/M,b_1)$ are both finitely satisfiable in $M$.\n\nThe relation ${F_0}_\\Delta$ is clearly reflexive and symmetric, but there is no obvious reason why it should be transitive. Let $F_\\Delta$ be the transitive closure of ${F_0}_\\Delta$. We see that ${F_0}_\\Delta$ and $F_\\Delta$ are $M$-invariant. Finally, let ${\\bar F}_\\Delta$ be the finest type-definable over $M$ equivalence relation on $G^*$ containing the relation $F_\\Delta$. We easily see that all the relations ${F_0}_\\Delta$, $F_\\Delta$ and ${\\bar F}_\\Delta$ are coarser than the relation of having the same complete $\\Delta$-type over $M$, so the last two are bounded equivalence relations.\n\nAs usual, in the definable context (i.e. when $\\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form), we skip the index $\\Delta$ and write $F_0$, $F$ and $\\bar F$.\n\nThe relations ${F_0}_\\Delta$, $F_\\Delta$ and ${\\bar F}_\\Delta$ are all invariant under the action of $G$, so $(G,G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta,e/{\\bar F}_\\Delta)$ is a $G$-ambit.\n\nFirst, we check that ${F_0}_\\Delta$ is invariant under $G$. Consider any $g \\in G$ and $\\alpha,\\beta \\in G^*$ such that ${F_0}_\\Delta(\\alpha,\\beta)$. Take $a,b,a_1,b_1$ from the definition of ${F_0}_\\Delta$ witnessing that ${F_0}_\\Delta(\\alpha,\\beta)$ holds. Since $g \\in G \\subseteq M$, one easily checks that $ga,b,ga_1,b_1$ witness that ${F_0}_\\Delta(g\\alpha,g\\beta)$ holds.\n\nSince ${F_0}_\\Delta$ is invariant under $G$, so is $F_\\Delta$. For any $g \\in G$, the equivalence relation $g{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ is type-definable over $M$ and contains $gF_\\Delta=F_\\Delta$, so $\\bar F_\\Delta \\subseteq  g \\bar F_\\Delta$. This implies that ${\\bar F}_\\Delta$ is invariant under $G$, which yields the natural action of $G$ on $G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ given by $g(h/{\\bar F}_\\Delta):= (gh)/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$. By the definition of the logic topology, we see that this is an action by homeomorphisms. Finally, the $G$-orbit of $e/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ equals $G/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$, which is dense in the logic topology by Remark \\[remark: denseness very basic\\].\n\nWe will also need the following general remark.\n\n\\[remark: added because of the Referee\\] If $D$ is a type-definable subset of $G^*$ which is a union of sets of realizations of complete $\\Delta$-types over $M$, then $D$ is $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$.\n\nLet $\\pi \\colon G^* \\to S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ be the map given by $\\pi(a):= \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M)$, and let $p(x)$ be a partial type defining $D$. Then $\\pi[D]$ is the subset of $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ consisting off all types consistent with $p(x)$, so $\\pi[D]$ is closed, i.e. it is the set of all types in $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ extending some partial $\\Delta$-type $p'$ over $M$. Since $D$ is a union of sets of realizations of complete $\\Delta$-types over $M$, we see that $D=\\pi^{-1}[\\pi[D]]$, so $D=p'(G^*)$ is $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$.\n\n\\[theorem: main theorem\\] ${\\bar F}_\\Delta=E_\\Delta'$, so $(G,G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta, e/{\\bar F}_\\Delta)$ is the universal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit.\n\nFirst, we prove that ${\\bar F}_\\Delta \\subseteq E_\\Delta'$. For this, it is enough to show that ${F_0}_\\Delta \\subseteq E_\\Delta'$, because then clearly $F_\\Delta \\subseteq E_\\Delta'$ which implies that ${\\bar F}_\\Delta \\subseteq E_\\Delta'$ by the definition of ${\\bar F}_\\Delta$ and the fact that $E_\\Delta'$ is type-definable over $M$.\n\nSo, consider any $\\alpha, \\beta \\in G^*$ such that ${F_0}_\\Delta(\\alpha,\\beta)$. Then we have $a,b,a_1,b_1$ satisfying (1), (2) and (3) from the definition of ${F_0}_\\Delta$. Let $p=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M)$ and $q=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(b/M)$. By Proposition \\[proposition: formula for \\*\\], we get $ \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(\\alpha/M)/E_\\Delta=\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(a\\cdot b/M)/E_\\Delta=p/E_\\Delta*q/E_\\Delta=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a_1\\cdot b_1/M)/E_\\Delta=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(\\beta/M)/E_\\Delta.$ Hence, $E_\\Delta'(\\alpha,\\beta)$.\n\nNow, we will prove that $E_\\Delta'\\subseteq {\\bar F}_\\Delta$. Note that it is enough to show that $(G,G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta,e/{\\bar F}_\\Delta)$ is a $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit. Indeed, if we know that $(G,G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta,e/{\\bar F}_\\Delta)$ is $\\Delta$-definable, then, by the universality of $(G,G^*/E_\\Delta',e/E_\\Delta')$ (see Corollary \\[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\\]), there exists a $G$-flow homomorphism $\\sigma_1\\colon G^*/E_\\Delta' \\to G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ such that $\\sigma_1(g/E_\\Delta')=g/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ for all $g \\in G$. On the other hand, by the already proven fact that ${\\bar F}_\\Delta \\subseteq E_\\Delta'$, there is a $G$-flow homomorphisms $\\sigma_2 \\colon G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta \\to G^*/E_\\Delta'$ given by $\\sigma_2(a/{\\bar F}_\\Delta):=a/E_\\Delta'$. Therefore, $(\\sigma_1 \\circ \\sigma_2)|_{G/{\\bar F}_\\Delta} = \\operatorname{{id}}_{G/{\\bar F}_\\Delta}$, hence $\\sigma_1 \\circ \\sigma_2 =\\operatorname{{id}}_{G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta}$, so $\\sigma_2$ is injective which implies that ${\\bar F}_\\Delta=E_\\Delta'$.\n\nSo, our goal is to prove that $(G,G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta,e/{\\bar F}_\\Delta)$ is $\\Delta$-definable. This means that for any $a \\in G^*$ the function $f_a \\colon G \\to G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ given by $f_a(g)=(g \\cdot a)/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ is $\\Delta$-definable. Fix any $a \\in G^*$.\n\nDefine ${\\bar f}_a \\colon G^* \\to G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ by ${\\bar f}_a(\\alpha)=(\\alpha'\\cdot a)/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ for any (equivalently, some) $\\alpha' \\in G^*$ such that $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(\\alpha'/M)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(\\alpha/M)$ and $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(\\alpha'/M,a)$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$. By the definition of ${\\bar F}_\\Delta$, this function is well-defined. We see that ${\\bar f}_a$ extends $f_a$. Hence, it remains to show that ${\\bar f}_a$ is $\\Delta$-definable over $M$.\n\nSo, consider any $D \\subseteq G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ which is closed. Let $\\pi \\colon G^* \\to G^*/{\\bar F}_\\Delta$ be the quotient map. Then $\\pi^{-1}[D]$ is type-definable over $M$ by a partial type $p(x)$. We see that ${\\bar f}_a^{-1}[D]$ is the set of all $\\alpha \\in G^*$ for which there exists $\\alpha' \\in G^*$ such that $$\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(\\alpha'/M)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(\\alpha/M) \\; \\mbox{and}\\; \\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(\\alpha'/M,a)\\; \\mbox{finitely satisfiable in}\\; M\\; \\mbox{and}\\; \\models p(\\alpha'a).$$ Hence, ${\\bar f}_a^{-1}[D]$ is type-definable (over $M \\cup\\{a\\}$) and it is also a union of sets of realizations of complete $\\Delta$-types over $M$. Therefore, it is $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ by Remark \\[remark: added because of the Referee\\].\n\n1\\) Is ${F_0}_\\Delta$ type-definable?\\\n2) Is $F_\\Delta$ generated by ${F_0}_\\Delta$ in finitely many steps?\\\n3) Is $\\bar{F}_\\Delta$ equal to $F_\\Delta$?\n\nThe answers are probably negative in general and the problem is to find appropriate counter-examples. It would be also interesting to understand when the answers are positive. Note that they are trivially positive when we work in the definable context and all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable, as then $F_0(\\alpha,\\beta) \\iff \\alpha \\equiv_M \\beta$.\n\nConnected components and $\\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification {#section: connected components}\n=================================================================\n\nA very important aspect of the topological-dynamic approach to model theory have been connections of some topological-dynamic invariants (e.g. the Ellis group) with model-theoretic invariants (such as quotients by various connected components of groups). Here, we try to say something about such connections in our $\\Delta$-definable context. In particular, we introduce two $\\Delta$-definable connected components and relate one of them to the Ellis group of the universal $\\Delta$-definable ambit. We also give a desciption of the $\\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification.\n\nRecall that:\n\n-   ${G^*}^{00}_M$ is the smallest $M$-type-definable subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index,\n\n-   ${G^*}^{000}_M$ is the smallest $M$-invariant subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index.\n\nTake $\\Delta$ as in the previous section. We extend the first definition to the local context in the following way.\n\n${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is the smallest $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index.\n\nNote that $G^*$ is $\\Delta$-definable over $M$ (even over $\\emptyset$) by the formula defining $G$, so ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ exists as the intersection of all $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ subgroups of $G^*$ of bounded index.\n\nAnother definition of ${G^*}^{00}_\\Delta$ has been proposed by E. Hrushovski in his lecture notes on approximate equivalence relations, but the above definition is more appropriate in our current situation of $\\Delta$-definable topological dynamics. Later, we will also propose a local version of ${G^*}^{000}_M$, which leads to some questions.\n\nIt is well-known that ${G^*}^{000}_{M} \\leq {G^*}^{00}_M$ are both normal subgroups of $G^*$ (e.g. see [@Gi Lemma 2.2]).\n\n\\[proposition: G00 is normal\\] ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a normal subgroup of $G^*$.\n\nNote that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is normalized by $G$, which follows from the fact that the conjugate of a $\\Delta$-formula over $M$ by any element of $G$ remains a $\\Delta$-formula over $M$. Therefore, $${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}=\\bigcap_{\\varphi(x) \\in {{\\mathcal A}}} \\varphi(G^*)$$ for some family ${{\\mathcal A}}$ of formulas over $M$ which is closed under conjugations by elements of $G$.\n\nLet $\\{ g _i: i \\in I\\}$ be a bounded set of representatives of right cosets of ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ in $G^*$. Then clearly $$\\bigcap_{g \\in G^*} ({G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})^g= \\bigcap_{i \\in I} ({G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})^{g_i}.$$ So this intersection is invariant over $M$ and also type-definable, and hence it is type-definable over $M$. Thus, $$\\bigcap_{g \\in G^*} ({G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})^g = \\bigcap_{\\varphi(x) \\in {{\\mathfrak B}}} \\varphi(G^*)$$ for some family ${{\\mathfrak B}}$ of formulas over $M$. It is enough to show that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M} \\subseteq \\bigcap_{g \\in G^*} ({G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})^g$. So take any $\\varphi(x) \\in {{\\mathfrak B}}$. Then there are $\\varphi_1(x),\\dots,\\varphi_n(x) \\in {{\\mathcal A}}$ and $a_1,\\dots, a_n \\in \\{g_i: i \\in I\\}$ such that $\\varphi_1(G^*)^{a_1} \\cap \\dots \\cap \\varphi_n(G^*)^{a_n} \\subseteq \\varphi(G^*)$. Since $M \\prec {{\\mathfrak C}}$, there are $h_1,\\dots,h_n \\in G$ for which $\\varphi_1(G^*)^{h_1} \\cap \\dots \\cap \\varphi_n(G^*)^{h_n} \\subseteq \\varphi(G^*)$. Since ${{\\mathcal A}}$ is closed under conjugations by elements of $G$, we get ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M} \\subseteq  \\varphi_1(G^*)^{h_1} \\cap \\dots \\cap \\varphi_n(G^*)^{h_n}$. We conclude that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M} \\subseteq \\varphi(G^*)$, and the proof is complete.\n\nLet $\\mu$ be the subgroup of $G^*$ generated by all elements of the form $a^{-1}b$ for $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(b/M) \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$. Since there are only boundedly many complete $\\Delta$-types over $M$, we get\n\n\\[rem: mu of bounded index\\] $\\mu$ has bounded index in $G^*$.\n\n\\[lemma: mu is contained\\] $\\mu \\leq  {G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$.\n\nBy compactness and the fact that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a group $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$, we can present ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ as the intersection of some family $\\{ \\varphi_i(G^*)\\}_{i \\in I}$ of sets $\\Delta$-definable over $M$ such that for every $i \\in I$:\n\n1.  $\\varphi_i(G^*)$ is symmetric, i.e. $e \\in \\varphi_i(G^*)=\\varphi_i(G^*)^{-1}$,\n\n2.  there is $j \\in I$ for which $\\varphi_j(G^*)\\cdot \\varphi_j(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi_i(G^*)$.\n\nSince ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is of bounded index, each $\\varphi_i(G^*)$ is left generic, i.e. there exist $g_{i,1},\\dots,g_{i,n_i} \\in G$ such that $g_{i,1}\\varphi(G^*) \\cup \\dots \\cup g_{i,n_i}\\varphi_i(G^*)=G^*$.\n\nWe need to show that if $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(b/M)$, then $a^{-1}b \\in {G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$. For this it is enough to show that for any $i \\in I$, $a^{-1}b \\in \\varphi_i(G^*)$. Choose $j \\in I$ for which $\\varphi_j(G^*)\\cdot \\varphi_j(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi_i(G^*)$. Since each $g_{j,k}\\varphi_j(x)$ is a $\\Delta$-formula over $M$, we get that $g_{j,k}\\varphi_j(x) \\in \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M)$ for some $k \\in \\{1,\\dots,n_j\\}$. But then $g_{j,k}\\varphi_j(x) \\in \\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(b/M)$. Hence, $a^{-1}b \\in \\varphi_j(G^*)^{-1}\\varphi_j(G^*)=\\varphi_j(G^*)\\varphi_j(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi_i(G^*)$.\n\nThe quotients $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ and $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ will be always equipped with the logic topology (see the end of Section \\[section: preliminaries\\]). Recall that a [*definable compactification*]{} of $G$ is a definable homomorphism from $G$ to a compact, Hausdorff group with dense image. The [*definable Bohr compactification*]{} of $G$ is a unique (up to $\\cong$) [*universal definable compactification*]{} $G$, that is a definable compactification $f \\colon G \\to H$ such that for an arbitrary definable compactification $f_1 \\colon G \\to H_1$ there is a unique morphism from $f$ to $f_1$ (i.e. a group homomorphism $h\\colon H \\to H_1$ such that $h\\circ f = f_1$).\n\nIn [@GiPePi Proposition 3.4], it was proven that the natural homomorphism from $G$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is the definable Bohr compactification of $G$. Here, we extend this result to the $\\Delta$-definable context.\n\nBy a [*$\\Delta$-definable compactification of $G$*]{} we mean a $\\Delta$-definable homomorphism from $G$ to a compact, Hausdorff group with dense image. A universal $\\Delta$-definable compactification of $G$ is defined analogously to the universal definable compactification.\n\n\\[proposition: Delta-definable Bohr compactification\\] The natural homomorphism from $G$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a unique (up to $\\cong$) universal $\\Delta$-definable compactification of $G$, which we call the $\\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification of $G$.\n\nFirst, we check that the natural homomorphism $\\pi \\colon G \\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ (given by $\\pi(g)=g/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$) is a $\\Delta$-definable compactification of $G$. Density of $\\pi[G]$ in $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ (equipped with the logic topology) follows from Remark \\[remark: denseness very basic\\]. Let $\\bar \\pi\\colon G^* \\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ be the quotient map. For $\\Delta$-definability of $\\pi$ it is enough to show that $\\bar \\pi$ is $\\Delta$-definable over $M$ (as $\\bar \\pi$ extends $\\pi$ and we can use Lemma \\[prolongation\\]). Consider any closed $D \\subseteq  G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$. Then, ${\\bar \\pi}^{-1}[D]$ is type-definable over $M$, and, by Lemma \\[lemma: mu is contained\\], it is a union of sets of realizations of complete $\\Delta$-types over $M$. By Remark \\[remark: added because of the Referee\\], this implies that ${\\bar \\pi}^{-1}[D]$ is $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$.\n\nNow, we check universality of $\\pi$. We adapt the proof of [@GiPePi Proposition 3.4]. Consider any $\\Delta$-definable compactification $f\\colon G \\to C$. By Lemma \\[prolongation\\], there is a unique $\\Delta$-definable over $M$ function $f^*\\colon G^* \\to C$ extending $f$. We check that $f^*$ is a homomorphism. Consider any $a,b \\in G^*$, and let $p:=\\operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)$, $q:= \\operatorname{{tp}}(b/M)$, and $r:=\\operatorname{{tp}}(ab/M)$. Then, by Remark \\[rem: prolongation\\] and compactness,\n\n$$\\begin{array}{lll}\n\\{f^*(ab)\\} &= &\\bigcap_{\\theta \\in r} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\theta(G)]) \\subseteq \\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in p,\\psi \\in q} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\varphi(G) \\cdot \\psi(G)])\\\\\n &= &\\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in p, \\psi \\in q} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\varphi(G)]) \\cdot \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\psi(G)]) \\\\\n&= &\\bigcap_{\\varphi \\in p} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\varphi(G)])\\cdot \\bigcap_{\\psi \\in q} \\operatorname{{cl}}(f[\\psi(G)])\\\\\n& = &\\{f^*(a)f^*(b)\\}.\n\\end{array}$$\n\nSince $f^*$ is $\\Delta$-definable over $M$, $\\ker (f^*)$ is a normal subgroup of bounded index which is an intersection of some sets $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$. Since ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is the smallest such group, we finish as in the proof of [@GiPePi Proposition 3.4]. Namely, there is a natural continuous homomorphism from $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ to $G^*/\\ker(f^*)$, and $G^*/\\ker(f^*)$ is naturally topologically isomorphic with $C$, so we get a continuous homomorphism $h \\colon G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M} \\to C$ such that $h \\circ \\pi = f$.\n\ni\\) ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is the smallest type-definable over $M$ subgroup of $G^*$ containing $\\mu$.\\\nii) ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M} \\geq\\mu \\cdot {G^*}^{00}_{M}$.\n\ni\\) Let $H$ be this smallest subgroup. Then $H$ is type-definable over $M$ and it is a union of sets of realizations of complete $\\Delta$-types over $M$, so it is $\\Delta$-type-definable over $M$ by Remark \\[remark: added because of the Referee\\]. Thus, by Remark \\[rem: mu of bounded index\\], ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M} \\leq H$. The opposite inclusion follows from Lemma \\[lemma: mu is contained\\].\\\nii) follows from Lemma \\[lemma: mu is contained\\] and the definitions of ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ and ${G^*}^{00}_{M}$.\n\nThis suggests the following generalization of the component ${G^*}^{000}_M$ to the local context.\n\n${G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$ is the smallest normal, invariant over $M$ subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index containing $\\mu$.\n\nWe know that ${G^*}^{000}_M$ is generated by all elements $a^{-1}b$ for $a\\equiv_M b$. Therefore, ${G^*}^{000}_M \\leq \\mu$, and so $\\mu$ has bounded index in $G^*$ (which was already noted in Remark \\[rem: mu of bounded index\\]). So, by the obvious observation that $\\mu$ is invariant over $M$, we get\n\n${G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}=\\langle \\mu^{G^*} \\rangle$, where $\\langle \\mu^{G^*} \\rangle$ denotes the normal closure of $\\mu$.\n\nIt is clear that when we are in the definable context, i.e. $\\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form, then ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}= {G^*}^{00}_M$ and ${G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}={G^*}^{000}_M=\\mu$.\n\nIs it true that ${G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M} = \\mu$? Equivalently, is $\\mu$ a normal subgroup of $G^*$?\n\nTake the notation from Section \\[section: definable ambit\\]. Now, we define a counterpart of Newelski\u2019s map defined in the externally definable context (see [@Ne1 Proposition 4.4] or [@KrPi Proposition 3.1]).\n\n\\[proposition: theta is onto\\] The map $\\hat{\\theta} \\colon G^*/E'_{\\Delta} \\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ given by $\\hat{\\theta}(a/E'_{\\Delta})=a/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a well-defined, continuous semigroup epimorphism.\n\nFirst, we check that $\\hat{\\theta}$ is well-defined. Theorem \\[theorem: main theorem\\] tells us that $E'_\\Delta ={\\bar F}_\\Delta$. So, by the definition of ${\\bar F}_\\Delta$ and the fact that the relation of lying in the same left coset of ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is type-definable over $M$, we see that it is enough to show that whenever ${F_0}_{\\Delta}(\\alpha,\\beta)$, then $\\beta ^{-1}\\alpha\\in {G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$.\n\nSo, take any $\\alpha, \\beta$ with ${F_0}_{\\Delta}(\\alpha,\\beta)$. Then $\\alpha=ab$ and $\\beta= a_1b_1$ for some $a,b,a_1,b_1$ such that $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a/M)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(a_1/M)$ and $\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(b/M)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(b_1/M)$. Then $\\beta^{-1}\\alpha=b_1^{-1}a_1^{-1}ab \\in b_1^{-1} \\mu b =b_1^{-1}b\\mu^b \\subseteq \\mu \\cdot \\mu^b$. The last set is contained in ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$, because ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is normal and contains $\\mu$ (by Proposition \\[proposition: G00 is normal\\] and Lemma \\[lemma: mu is contained\\]).\n\nThe fact that $\\hat{\\theta}$ is onto is clear from the definition of $\\hat{\\theta}$. Continuity follows from the definition of the logic topology. It remains to check that $\\hat{\\theta}$ is a homomorphism. Identifying $G^*/E'_{\\Delta}$ with $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$, we see that $\\hat{\\theta}(p/E_\\Delta)=a/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ for any $a\\models p$. Consider any $p,q \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ and choose $b \\models q$ and $a$ satisfying a $\\Delta$-coheir extension of $p$ over $M,b$. By Proposition \\[proposition: formula for \\*\\], $p/E_\\Delta * q/E_\\Delta=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M)$. Thus, $\\hat{\\theta}(p/E_\\Delta * q/E_\\Delta)=ab/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}=\\hat{\\theta}(p/E_\\Delta) \\cdot \\hat{\\theta}(q/E_\\Delta)$.\n\nLet ${{\\mathcal M}}$ be a minimal left ideal in $G^*/E'_\\Delta$ and $u$ an idempotent in ${{\\mathcal M}}$. Let $\\theta \\colon u{\\mathcal M} \\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ be the restriction of $\\hat{\\theta}$ to $u{{\\mathcal M}}$. By Proposition \\[proposition: theta is onto\\] and the fact that $u{{\\mathcal M}}=u * G^*/E'_\\Delta * u$, we get that $\\theta$ is a group epimorphism.\n\nIn the externally definable case, a very important ingredient of the theory was the fact that there is also an epimorphism from the universal externally definable $G$-ambit and from its Ellis group to $G^*/{G^*}^{000}_M$. In the current context, we leave it as an open problem.\n\n1\\) Is $\\hat{f} \\colon G^*/E'_{\\Delta} \\to G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$ given by $\\hat{f}(a/E'_{\\Delta})=a/{G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$ a well-defined semigroup epimorphism? Notice that whenever it is well-defined, then it is an epimorphism (as in the proof of Proposition \\[proposition: theta is onto\\]).\\\n2) If the answer to the above question in general is no, the problem is to understand when $\\hat{f}$ is well-defined. This may lead to a new dividing line (motivated by topological dynamics and model theory together) in the class of groups definable in first order structures.\\\n3) If $\\hat{f}$ is well-defined, then its restriction $f$ to the Ellis group $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ is also an epimorphism. If, however, it turns out that $f$ is not always well-defined, an interesting question is whether always there exits a (natural) epimorphism from $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$.\\\n4) It is very interesting to consider the above questions in the definable context, i.e. when $\\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form. For example, the first question asks if $\\hat{f} \\colon G^*/E'  \\to G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$ given by $\\hat{f}(a/E')=a/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$ is well-defined.\n\nLet us look at the definable context. Notice that any counter-example to the statement that $\\hat{f} \\colon G^*/E'  \\to G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$ given by $\\hat{f}(a/E')=a/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$ is well-defined must satisfy ${G^*}^{000}_{M} \\ne {G^*}^{00}_{M}$ and not all types in $S_G(M)$ are definable (the later property follows from Remark \\[remark: uniqueness of E\\](ii) and the fact that $a \\equiv_M b$ implies $a^{-1}b \\in {G^*}^{000}_M$). So a (simplest) natural candidate is the universal cover of $\\operatorname{{SL}}_2(\\mathbb{R})$ interpreted in the model $((\\mathbb{Z},+),(K,+,\\cdot))$, where $K$ is the real closure of the rationals. (For a model-theoretic analysis of the universal cover of $\\operatorname{{SL}}_2({{\\mathbb{R}}})$ (in particular, for the proofs that the two connected components differ) see [@CoPi] and [@GiKr]). However, an analysis of this example from the point of view of the definable topological dynamics seems quite complicated. Below we describe what happens in a much simpler example, namely in the unit circle $S^1(K)$.\n\nThe following remark follows easily from definitions by an argument as in the second paragraph of the proof of Proposition \\[proposition: theta is onto\\].\n\n$\\hat{f}^- \\colon G^*/F_\\Delta \\to G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$ given by $\\hat{f}^- (a/F_\\Delta)=a/{G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a well-defined function. So, if $F_\\Delta={\\bar F}_\\Delta$ (which is unlikely in general), then $\\hat{f}$ is well-defined.\n\n\\[example: E non-trivial\\] Let $M:=(K,+,\\cdot) $ be the real closure of the rationals, $\\Delta$ consist of all formulas of the appropriate form, and let $G:=S^1(K)$ be the unit circle computed in $K \\times K$. Then $$S_{G}(M)=\\{p_a: a\\in S^{1}({{\\mathbb{R}}}) \\setminus S^1(K)\\} \\cup \\{p_a^-,p_a^+,q_a: a \\in S^1(K)\\},$$ where $q_a:=\\operatorname{{tp}}(a/M)$ is the algebraic type isolated by $x=a$, $p_a$ is the cut at $a$, and $p_a^-$ and $p_a^+$ are the left and right cuts at $a$, respectively.\n\nIt is well-known that $\\mu={G^*}^{000}_M={G^*}^{00}_M$ is the subgroup of all infinitesimal elements (i.e. the monad of $1$ in $S^1({{\\mathfrak C}})$). Moreover, $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is homeomorphic with the real circle $S^1$.\n\nWe will show that for any $\\alpha,\\beta \\in S^1({{\\mathfrak C}})$ $$\\label{equation: new in example}\nF_0(\\alpha,\\beta) \\iff (\\beta \\cdot \\alpha^{-1} \\in \\mu \\wedge \\alpha \\notin S^1(K) \\wedge \\beta \\notin S^1(K)) \\lor \\alpha=\\beta.$$ $(\\Rightarrow)$ First, consider the case when $\\alpha \\in S^1(K)$ or $\\beta \\in S^{1}(K)$. Without loss $\\alpha \\in S^1(K)$. Take $a,b,a_1,b_1$ witnessing that $F_0(\\alpha,\\beta)$. Then $a=\\alpha \\cdot b^{-1}$ and $\\operatorname{{tp}}(a/K,b)$ is finitely satisfiable in $K$, so $b \\in S^1(K)$, and hence $a \\in S^1(K)$. Since $\\operatorname{{tp}}(a_1/K)= \\operatorname{{tp}}(a/K)$ and $\\operatorname{{tp}}(b_1/K)=\\operatorname{{tp}}(b/K)$, we conclude that $a_1=a$ and $b_1=b$. Therefore, $\\alpha = \\beta$.\n\nNow, consider the case when $\\alpha \\notin S^1(K)$ and $\\beta \\notin S^{1}(K)$. Take $a,b,a_1,b_1$ witnessing that $F_0(\\alpha,\\beta)$. Then the computation from the second paragraph of the proof of Proposition \\[proposition: theta is onto\\] shows that $\\beta\\cdot \\alpha^{-1} \\in \\mu$.\\\n$(\\Leftarrow)$ If $\\alpha =\\beta$, then clearly $F_0(\\alpha,\\beta)$. So assume that $\\beta \\cdot \\alpha^{-1} \\in \\mu$, $\\alpha \\notin S^1(K)$, and $\\beta \\notin S^1(K)$. Then $\\xi_0:=\\operatorname{{st}}(\\alpha)=\\operatorname{{st}}(\\beta)$, where $\\operatorname{{st}}$ is the standard part map computed on the circle. Since $K$ is countable, we can find $\\xi_1 \\in S^1({{\\mathbb{R}}}) \\setminus \\operatorname{{acl}}(K,\\alpha,\\beta,\\xi_0)$, and put $\\xi:=\\xi_0\\cdot \\xi_1$. Then $\\xi \\in S^1({{\\mathbb{R}}}) \\setminus S^1(K)$, and since $\\alpha, \\beta \\notin S^1(K)$, the exchange property for $\\operatorname{{acl}}$ implies that $\\alpha, \\beta \\notin \\operatorname{{acl}}(K,\\xi_1)$. Define $a=\\alpha \\cdot \\xi_1$, $b=\\xi_1^{-1}$, $a_1=\\beta \\cdot \\xi_1$, $b_1 = \\xi_1^{-1}$. We check that $a,b,a_1,b_1$ witness that $F_0(\\alpha,\\beta)$. The equalities $\\alpha =a \\cdot b$, $\\beta =a_1 \\cdot b_1$, and $\\operatorname{{tp}}(b/K)=\\operatorname{{tp}}(b_1/K)$ are obvious. Since $\\operatorname{{st}}(a) = \\operatorname{{st}}(a_1) = \\xi \\notin S^1(K)$, we get $\\operatorname{{tp}}(a/K)=\\operatorname{{tp}}(a_1/K)=p_\\xi$. It remains to check that $\\operatorname{{tp}}(a/K,\\xi_1)$ and $\\operatorname{{tp}}(a_1/K,\\xi_1)$ are finitely satisfiable in $K$. As $\\xi_1,\\xi_2 \\in S^1({{\\mathbb{R}}})$ and $S^1(K)$ is dense in $S^1({{\\mathbb{R}}})$, it is enough to check that $a,a_1 \\notin \\operatorname{{acl}}(K,\\xi_1)$. But this is clear, as otherwise $\\alpha \\in \\operatorname{{acl}}(K,\\xi_1)$ or $\\beta \\in \\operatorname{{acl}}(K,\\xi_1)$, a contradiction.\\\nBy (\\[equation: new in example\\]), $F_0$ is already an $M$-type-definable equivalence relation, so, by Theorem \\[theorem: main theorem\\], we conclude that $F_0=F={\\bar F}=E'$. This in turn implies that the classes of $E$ are the singletons $\\{p_a\\}$, $a \\in S^1({{\\mathbb{R}}}) \\setminus S^1(K)$, the singletons $\\{q_a\\}$, $a \\in S^1(K)$, and the pairs $\\{p_a^-,p_a^+\\}$, $a \\in S^1(K)$. Hence, $E$ is non-trivial, which implies that the ambit $(G,S_G(M),\\operatorname{{tp}}(e/M))$ is not definable by Remark \\[remark: uniqueness of E\\].\n\nOne can check that $S_G(M)/E$ is the real circle $S^1$ with an additional copy of each point from $S^1(K)$, with the usual circle topology expanded by new subbasic open sets which are the singletons of the additional points of the circle and their complements (in particular, each additional point is clopen). Then there is a unique minimal left ideal ${{\\mathcal M}}$ in $S_G(M)/E$ and it consists of $E$-classes of the non-algebraic types (which follows from the observations that the $G$-orbit of each algebraic type is dense and that each non-algebraic type lies in the closure of an arbitrary $G$-orbit). Moreover, there is a unique idempotent $u \\in {{\\mathcal M}}$, namely the $E$-class $\\{p_1^-,p_1^+\\}$. In particular, ${\\mathcal M}=u{\\mathcal M}$ by Fact \\[Ellis theorem\\](ii). One easily sees that $\\theta \\colon u{{\\mathcal M}}\\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is an isomorphism. In contrast, $\\hat{\\theta}\\colon S_G(M)/E \\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is not injective, as it glues $\\{p_a^-,p_a^+\\}$ with $\\{q_a\\}$ for every $a \\in S^1(K)$.\n\nNote also that in this example the universal definable $G$-ambit is different (i.e. non-isomorphic) from the universal externally definable $G$-ambit, which follows from the more general observation that if $E$ in non-trivial, then the universal externally definable $G$-ambit is not definable. Indeed, if $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ was a definable $G$-ambit, then its homomorphic image $S_G(M)$ would be also definable, so $E$ would be trivial by Remark \\[remark: uniqueness of E\\]. One can check that $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ can be identified with the collection of all points of $S^1(K)$ and all left and right cuts at all points of $S^1({{\\mathbb{R}}})$ with the topology whose description is left as an exercise.\n\nOn some results from [@KrPi] in the $\\Delta$-definable context {#section: results from KrPi}\n==============================================================\n\nMost of the main results of [@KrPi] are about connections of the Ellis group and the externally definable generalized Bohr compactification of $G$ with quotients of $G^*$ by connected components. It is very important in there that we have a natural epimorphism from the Ellis group of the universal externally definable $G$-ambit to $G^*/{G^*}^{000}_M$. As we saw in the previous section, in the definable context, we do not know whether such an epimorphism exists. However, we have the natural epimorphism $\\theta$ from the Ellis group of the universal definable $G$-ambit to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$.\n\nIn this section, we formulate variants of some results from [@KrPi] in our $\\Delta$-definable context (with $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ in place of ${G^*}/{G^*}^{000}_M$) whose proofs are obvious adaptations of the proofs from [@KrPi], so they will be omitted. It would be really interesting, however, to get these kind of results with $G^*/{G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$ in place of $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$, which would allow us to extend or strengthen some results from [@KrPi], and, in the case of a countable language, maybe apply to get information on the Borel cardinality of ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}/{G^*}^{000}_{\\Delta,M}$ and simplify the proofs from [@KrPiRz] for the quotient ${G^*}^{00}_{M}/{G^*}^{000}_{M}$.\n\nIn the final part of this section, we analyze connections with the externally definable topological dynamics, and, using [@ChSi Theorem 5.7], we obtain a variant of this result in the definable context.\n\nThe key role in [@KrPi] is played by the so-called $\\tau$-topology introduced by Ellis. Basic theory related to this notion is described in [@Gl Chapter IX] for the Ellis group of the universal $G$-ambit $\\beta G$, but it works similarly for the Ellis group of universal $G$-ambits in many other categories. In [@KrPi Section 2], we described how to work with the universal externally definable $G$-ambit. In our new, $\\Delta$-definable context, everything works analogously, so we will skip all the discussions, sending the reader to [@Gl] and [@KrPi] for details. Let us only recall the main definitions.\n\nWe take the notation as in previous sections. In particular, ${{\\mathcal M}}$ is a minimal left ideal in $G^*/E'_\\Delta$, and $u \\in {{\\mathcal M}}$ is an idempotent.\n\nFor $A \\subseteq G^*/E'_\\Delta$ and $p\\in G^*/E'_\\Delta$, $p \\circ A$ is defined as the set of all points $x \\in G^*/E'_\\Delta$ for which there exist nets $(x_i)$ in $A$ and $(g_i)$ in $G$ such that $\\lim_i g_i=p$ (here by $g_i$ we mean $g_i/E'_\\Delta$) and $\\lim_i g_ix_i=x$.\n\n\\[Def: tau topology\\] For $A \\subseteq u{{\\mathcal M}}$, define $\\operatorname{{cl}}_\\tau (A) = (u \\circ A) \\cap u{{\\mathcal M}}$.\n\nThe proofs of 1.2-1.12 (except 1.12(2)) from [@Gl Chapter IX] go through (with some slight modifications) in our context. In particular, $\\operatorname{{cl}}_\\tau$ is a closure operator on subsets of $u{{\\mathcal M}}$, and it induces the so-called [*$\\tau$-topology*]{} on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$. This topology is compact and $T_1$, and multiplication is continuous in each coordinate separately. It is easy to see that $p \\circ A$ is always closed, and so the $\\tau$-topology on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ is weaker than the topology inherited from $G^*/E'_\\Delta$.\n\n$H(u{{{\\mathcal M}}})$ is the intersection of the sets $\\operatorname{{cl}}_\\tau(V)$ with $V$ ranging over all $\\tau$-neighborhoods of $u$ in the group $u{{\\mathcal M}}$.\n\nThen $H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ is a $\\tau$-closed, normal subgroup of $u{{\\mathcal M}}$, and $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ is a compact, Hausdorff group (see [@Gl Chapter IX, Theorem 1.9]).\n\nThe notion of [*generalized Bohr compactification*]{} was introduced in [@Gl Chapter VIII]. It is recalled in [@KrPi Definition 1.23] in the externally definable context. In the $\\Delta$-definable situation, we take the same definition, replacing the expression \u201cexternally definable\u201d by \u201c$\\Delta$-definable\u201d. The reader is referred to 1.13, 1.14, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23 from [@KrPi] for details.\n\nIt was proven in [@Gl Chapter IX, Theorem 4.2] that the generalized Bohr compactification of a discrete group $G$ equals $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ (everything computed in $\\beta G$). In [@KrPi Theorem 2.5], this was extended to the externally definable context. Since the class of $\\Delta$-definable $G$-flows is closed under taking both products and quotients by closed, $G$-invariant equivalence relations, the proof from [@KrPi] yields\n\n\\[theorem: gen. Bohr comp.\\] $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ is the $\\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification of $G$.\n\nThe following fact is folklore in general topology, but we give a justification.\n\n\\[fact: from Engelking\\] If $f\\colon X \\to Y$ is a continuous epimorphism, where $X$ is a second-countable (i.e. with a countable basis of open sets) space and $Y$ is a compact, Hausdorff space, then $Y$ is also second-countable.\n\nIf $Z$ is a topological space, then a family ${\\mathcal N}$ of subsets of $Z$ is said to be a [*network*]{} for $Z$ if for every $z \\in Z$ and its open neighborhood $U$, there is $N \\in {\\mathcal N}$ with $z \\in N \\subseteq U$. The smallest possible cardinality of a network for $Z$ is called the [*network weight*]{} of $Z$ and is denoted by $nw(Z)$. For every space $Z$ we clearly have $nw(Z) \\leq w(Z)$ (where $w(Z)$ is the [*weight*]{} of $Z$, i.e. the smallest cardinality of a basis of open sets). [@En Theorem 3.1.19] tells us that if $Z$ is compact, Hausdorff, then $nw(Z)=w(Z)$.\n\nNow, take a countable basis $\\{B_i : i \\in \\omega\\}$ of $X$. It is clear, by the continuity of $f$, that $\\{f[B_i] : i \\in \\omega \\}$ is a network for $Y$. Hence, $w(Y) = nw(Y) \\leq \\aleph_0$.\n\nIf both the language and the model $M$ are countable, then $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ is a Polish, compact group.\n\nWe know that it is a compact, Hausdorff group, so it remains to show that it is metrizable. For this, it is enough to show that it is second-countable (see [@En Theorem 4.2.8]).\n\nWe know that $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ is second-countable, and so is $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ (by Fact \\[fact: from Engelking\\] and the observations that $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ is compact, Hausdorff and is the image of $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ under a continuous map).\n\nSince the $\\tau$-topology on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ is weaker than the topology inherited on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ from $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$, we have that for $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ equipped with this inherited topology (and $u{{\\mathcal M}}/ H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ equipped with its usual quotient topology coming from the $\\tau$-topology on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$) the quotient function $u{{\\mathcal M}}\\to u{{\\mathcal M}}/ H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ is continuous. But this inherited topology on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ has a countable basis (by the second paragraph of the proof). Thus, since $u{{\\mathcal M}}/ H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ is compact, Hausdorff, we get that it is second-countable by Fact \\[fact: from Engelking\\].\n\nThis corollary shows an advantage of $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ computed in the definable category in comparison with the same object computed in the externally definable category (where it does not have to be metrizabe). In [@KrPi], ${G^*}^{00}_M/{G^*}^{000}_M$ is presented as a quotient of a closed subgroup of the group $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ computed in the externally definable context, and in [@KrPiRz], it was used to get new information on the Borel cardinality of ${G^*}^{00}_M/{G^*}^{000}_M$. If we were able to present ${G^*}^{00}_M/{G^*}^{000}_M$ as a quotient of closed subgroup of the group $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ computed in the definable context, by the above remark, we would be immediately within a nice descriptive set-theoretic setting, which could simplify some arguments from [@KrPiRz] (for the objects that we are considering now) and maybe lead to new results. But in this paper, we only describe connections between $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ and $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$.\n\nProposition \\[proposition: theta is onto\\] gives us the epimorphism $\\hat{\\theta} \\colon G^*/E'_\\Delta \\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ whose restriction $\\theta$ to $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ is also an epimorphism. Using the explicit definition of $\\hat{\\theta}$, one can adapt the proof of [@KrPi Theorem 0.1] to get the next theorem. In fact, the proof of (2) is even simpler now, because we do not use the $F_n$\u2019s.\n\n\\[theorem: factorization by H(uM)\\] Suppose that $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ is equipped with the $\\tau$-topology and $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ \u2013 with the induced quotient topology. Then:\n\n1.  $\\theta$ is continuous,\n\n2.  $H(u{{\\mathcal M}}) \\leq \\ker(\\theta)$,\n\n3.  the formula $p*H(u{{\\mathcal M}}) \\mapsto \\theta(p)$ yields a well-defined continuous epimorphism $\\bar \\theta$ from $uM/H(uM)$ to $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$.\n\nIn particular, we get the following sequence of continuous epimorphisms $$u{{\\mathcal M}}\\twoheadrightarrow u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}}){    \\operatorname{{ext}}@arrow 0579{    \\arrowfill@\\relbar\\relbar\\twoheadrightarrow\n}{}{\\bar \\theta}}{}{G^*}/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}.$$\n\nWe say that $G$ is [*$\\Delta$-definably strongly amenable*]{} if it has no non-trivial $\\Delta$-definable [*proximal*]{} $G$-flows (i.e. flows in which any two points $x$ and $y$ are [*proximal*]{} which means that there exists a net $(g_i)$ in $G$ such that $\\lim g_i x = \\lim g_i y$). This extends the notion of strongly amenable group from [@Gl]. For example, [@Gl Chapter II, Theorem 3.4] tells us that all nilpotent groups are strongly amenable so also $\\Delta$-definably strongly amenable. Now, we significantly generalize Corollary 0.4 from [@KrPi] (by dropping the definability of types assumption and by extending the context to the local, $\\Delta$-definable one). The same proof as the one from [@KrPi] works, once we use Proposition \\[proposition: Delta-definable Bohr compactification\\] and (in the final part of the proof) the explicit formula for $*$ obtained in Proposition \\[proposition: formula for \\*\\].\n\n\\[theorem: strong amenability\\] Suppose $G$ is $\\Delta$-definably strongly amenable. Then the natural epimorphism $\\bar \\theta \\colon u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(uM) \\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is an isomorphism.\n\nThe theorem implies that for $\\Delta$-definably strongly amenable groups, the $\\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification is isomorphic with the $\\Delta$-definable Bohr compactification.\n\nLet us finish this section with a comparison of externally definable and definable objects.\n\nLet ${{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}$ be a minimal left ideal of the universal externally definable $G$-flow $S_{G,{\\operatorname{{ext}}}}(M)$, and let $u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}\\in {{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}$ be an idempotent. Since each $\\Delta$-definable $G$-flow is externally definable, there is a unique epimorphism $\\hat{h}\\colon (G,S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M),\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}(e/M)) \\to (G,S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta,\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(e/M)/E_\\Delta)$. Then $\\hat{h}$ is an epimorphism of semigroups. Put ${{\\mathcal M}}:=\\hat{h}[{{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}]$ and $u:=\\hat{h}[u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}]$ (so far ${{\\mathcal M}}$ and $u$ were chosen arbitrarily at the beginning, but now we define them in this particular way). We easily get that ${{\\mathcal M}}$ is a minimal left ideal, $u \\in {{\\mathcal M}}$ is an idempotent, and $h:=\\hat{h}|_{u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}}$ is an epimorphism from $u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}} {{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}$ to $u{{\\mathcal M}}$.\n\n$h$ is continuous, where both Ellis groups are equipped with the $\\tau$-topologies.\n\nLet $D \\subseteq u{{\\mathcal M}}$ be $\\tau$-closed. Let $D'=h^{-1}[D]$. The goal is to show that $D'$ is $\\tau$-closed. Take $p \\in \\operatorname{{cl}}_\\tau(D')$. There are nets $(g_i)$ in $G$ and $(x_i)$ in $D'$ such that $\\lim_i g_i =u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}$ and $\\lim_i g_ix_i = p$. Then $\\lim_i \\hat{h}(g_i) = \\hat{h}(u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}})=u$ and $\\lim_i \\hat{h}(g_i) \\hat{h}(x_i)=\\lim_i \\hat{h}(g_ix_i)=\\hat{h}(p)$. Moreover, $\\hat{h}(g_i) =g_i/E'_{\\Delta}$ and $\\hat{h}(x_i) \\in D$. Therefore, $h(p)=\\hat{h}(p) \\in \\operatorname{{cl}}_\\tau(D)=D$, hence $p \\in D'$.\n\nBy this remark, we see that $h[H(u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}})] \\leq H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$. Therefore, $h$ induces a continuous epimorphism from $u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}/H(u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}})$ to $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$.\n\nLet $N\\succ M$ be an $|M|^+$-saturated elementary extension, and let $S_{G,M}(N)$ be the space of all types in $S_{G}(N)$ finitely satisfiable in $M$. Then $S_{G,\\operatorname{{ext}}}(M)$ can be naturally identified with $S_{G,M}(N)$, which we will be using freely. Newelski was considering the epimorphism $\\hat{\\theta}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}} \\colon S_{G,M}(N) \\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ given by $\\hat{\\theta}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}(\\operatorname{{tp}}(a/N))=a/{G^*}^{00}_M$ and conjectured that $\\theta_{ext}:=\\hat{\\theta}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}|_{u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}}\\colon u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}{{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}} \\to {G^*}/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is an isomorphism (at least in nice situations), e.g. see the comment after [@Ne1 Proposition 4.4]. In general, such a conjecture is false, but it turned out to be true for definably amenable groups in NIP theories [@ChSi Theorem 5.6]. Using this result, we easily get that the same is true in our definable category.\n\n\\[corollary: from ChSi\\] Assume we are in the definable case (i.e. $\\Delta$ consists of all formulas of the appropriate form). If $G$ is definable amenable and $T:=\\operatorname{{Th}}(M)$ has NIP, then $\\theta\\colon u{{\\mathcal M}}\\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_M$ is an isomorphism.\n\nConsider first the case as above, namely with ${{\\mathcal M}}:=\\hat{h}[{{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}]$ and $u:=\\hat{h}[u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}]$. Note that $\\hat{h}(\\operatorname{{tp}}(a/N))= a/E'$ for any $\\operatorname{{tp}}(a/N) \\in S_{G,M}(N)$. Therefore, using the definitions of $\\hat{\\theta}$ and $\\hat{\\theta}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}$, we get $\\hat{\\theta}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}=\\hat{\\theta} \\circ \\hat{h}$. Hence, $\\theta_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}=\\theta \\circ h$. On the other hand, [@ChSi Theorem 5.6] tells us that $\\theta_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}$ is an isomorphism, and, by the above observations, we know that $h$ is an epimorphism. Therefore, $\\theta$ is an isomorphism.\n\nNow, consider an arbitrary minimal left ideal ${{\\mathcal M}}$ and an idempotent $u \\in {{\\mathcal M}}$. Let ${{\\mathcal M}}_0:=\\hat{h}[{{\\mathcal M}}_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}]$ and $u_0:=\\hat{h}[u_{\\operatorname{{ext}}}]$. By [@Gl Chapter I, Proposition 2.5], there is an idempotent $v \\in {{\\mathcal M}}$ such that $vu_0=u_0$ and $u_0  v=v$. Then $f \\colon u{{\\mathcal M}}\\to u_0{{\\mathcal M}}_0$ given by $f(x)=u_0vxu_0=vxu_0$ is a group isomorphism (even $\\tau$-continuous). Indeed, $f(x)f(y)=vxu_0vyu_0=vxvyu_0=vxyu_0=f(xy)$ (the fact that $xv=x$ follows from the fact that $u \\in {{\\mathcal M}}={{\\mathcal M}}v$ (as $v \\in {{\\mathcal M}}$), $x \\in {{\\mathcal M}}={{\\mathcal M}}u$ and $v$ is an idempotent), so $f$ is a homomorphism; to see that it is an isomorphism, one should check, by similar computations, that $g \\colon u_0{{\\mathcal M}}_0 \\to u{{\\mathcal M}}$ given by $g(y)=uyv$ is the inverse of $f$. Let $\\theta_0 \\colon u_0{{\\mathcal M}}_0 \\to {G^*}/{G^*}^{00}_M$ be $\\hat{\\theta}|_{u_0{{\\mathcal M}}_0}$. By Proposition \\[proposition: theta is onto\\] and the definitions of $\\theta$, $\\theta_0$ and $f$, we get $\\theta = \\theta_0 \\circ f$. Indeed, $\\theta_0(f(x))=\\hat{\\theta}_0(vxu_0)=\\hat{\\theta}(v) \\hat{\\theta}(x) \\hat{\\theta}(u_0)=\\hat{\\theta}(x)=\\theta(x)$. By the first paragraph of the proof, $\\theta_0$ is an isomorphism. Hence, we conclude that $\\theta$ is an isomorphism, too.\n\nSimilarly to the externally definable case, also in the $\\Delta$-definable category there is a general question about the impact of changing the ground model $M$ on the topological-dynamic invariants $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ and $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$. In particular, if we compute these invariants for a bigger model, does there exist epimorphisms to the corresponding objects for the smaller model? If we assume NIP, is $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ independent of the choice of $M$?\n\nAnother interesting direction concerns some weaker versions of the notion of definable \\[extremal\\] amenability that naturally arise in our $\\Delta$-definable category, but we leave this for the future.\n\nTopological-dynamic invariants as Polish structures {#section: Polish structures}\n===================================================\n\nIn [@Kr], the following notion was introduced.\n\nA [*Polish structure*]{} is a pair $(G,X)$, where $G$ is a Polish group acting on a set $X$ so that the stabilizer of any singleton is a closed subgroup of $G$. We say that $(G,X)$ is [*small*]{} if for every $n\\in \\omega$ there are only countably many orbits on $X^n$ under the action of $G$.\n\nIn [@Kr], it is assumed that the action of $G$ on $X$ is faithful, but this assumption is purely cosmetic. The notion of [*$nm$-independence*]{} was introduced in [@Kr Definition 2.2], and it was proven that it has some nice properties (as forking independence in stable or simple theories), but the existence of $nm$-independent extensions requires the assumption of smallness of the Polish structure in question. Then a counterpart of basic stability theory was developed for small Polish structures. In particular, a counterpart of a superstable structure was introduced and called an [*$nm$-stable*]{} Polish structure. The following, particular case of Polish structures was studied deeply in [@Kr] and [@KrWa].\n\ni\\) A [*compact $G$-space*]{} is pair $(G,X)$, where $G$ is a Polish group acting continuously on a compact, Hausdorff space $X$.\\\nii) A [*compact $G$-group*]{} is pair $(G,H)$, where $G$ is a Polish group acting continuously and by automorphisms on a compact, Hausdorff group $H$.\n\nVarious structural theorems on compact groups in the context of small Polish structures were proved in [@Kr] and [@KrWa], e.g.\n\n\\[fact: nm-stability implies nilpotency\\] If $(G,H)$ is a small, $nm$-stable compact $G$-group, then $H$ is nilpotent-by-finite.\n\nThe main motivation to introduce Polish structures was to apply model-theoretic ideas to study purely topological objects. There is a variety of examples of classical small Polish structures, e.g. various compact metric spaces considered with the full group of homeomorphisms are always Polish structures which are often small. On the other hand, it would be interesting to use small Polish structures to get new results in pure model theory. A joint idea with Jan Dobrowolski is to view some spaces of types as Polish structures. For example, if $M$ is a countable first order structure, then $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ is naturally a Polish group and $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M),S(M))$ becomes a Polish structure (note that the action of $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ on the type space $S(M)$ is continuous). However, even if $M$ is $\\omega$-categorical (in particular, if its theory is small), this Polish structure is not necessarily small (e.g. for the random graph it is not small). However, one can formulate the following conjecture. Note before that a small, complete theory in a countable language has a unique (up to $\\cong$) countable saturated model.\n\n\\[conjecture: chernikov\\] Assume that $M$ is a countable, saturated model of a small, NIP theory in a countable language. Let $\\Delta$ be a finite set of formulas without parameters. Then:\\\ni) $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M),S(M))$ is a small Polish structure,\\\nii) $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M),S_{\\Delta}(M))$ is a small Polish structure.\n\nAs both pairs are Polish structures, only smallness requires a proof. Clearly, (i) implies (ii). Artem Chernikov suggested that maybe some ideas from [@Sh] could be used to prove (ii).\n\nAs we will see in a moment, this conjecture is very important for potential applications of small Polish structures to say something new about topological-dynamic invariants, but it is also interesting in its own right.\\\nIn this section, we explain how to view various invariants as Polish structures. Take the context and notation from previous sections. We start from a corollary of Theorem \\[theorem: main theorem\\].\n\n$E_\\Delta$ is $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$-invariant.\n\nThis is equivalent to the statement that $E'_{\\Delta}$ is $\\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\\mathfrak C}}/\\{ M\\})$-invariant. By Theorem \\[theorem: main theorem\\], $E'_{\\Delta}={\\bar F}_\\Delta$. Since ${\\bar F}_\\Delta$ is the finest type-definable over $M$ equivalence relation containing $F_\\Delta$, it is enough to show that $F_\\Delta$ is $\\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\\mathfrak C}}/\\{M\\})$-invariant. Since $F_\\Delta$ is the transitive closure of ${F_0}_\\Delta$, this boils down to showing that ${F_0}_\\Delta$ is $\\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\\mathfrak C}}/\\{ M\\})$-invariant. But this follows immediately from the definition of ${F_0}_\\Delta$, namely, items (1)-(3) from the definition of ${F_0}_\\Delta$ are clearly preserved under all automorphisms which fix $M$ setwise.\n\nThus, $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ acts on $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ in the natural way, namely $f (p/E_\\Delta):=f(p)/E_\\Delta$; denote this action by $\\Phi \\colon \\operatorname{{Aut}}(M) \\times S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta \\to S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$.\n\n\\[proposition: the action of aut(M) is continuous\\] $\\Phi$ is continuous.\n\nA basic open set in $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ is of the form $U_\\varphi:=\\{ p/{E_\\Delta} : [p]_{E_\\Delta} \\subseteq [\\varphi]\\}$ for a $\\Delta$-formula $\\varphi=\\varphi(x,\\bar m)$ with parameters $\\bar m$ from $M$. Let $o(\\bar m)$ be the orbit of $\\bar m$ under $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$. We compute $$\\Phi^{-1}[U_\\varphi]= \\bigcup_{{\\bar m}' \\in o(\\bar m)} \\{ f \\in \\operatorname{{Aut}}(M): f({\\bar m}')=\\bar m\\} \\times U_{\\varphi(x,{\\bar m}')},$$ which is clearly open in $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M) \\times S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$.\n\n\\[proposition: the action preserves \\*\\] The action $\\Phi$ preserves $*$.\n\nConsider any $f \\in \\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ and $p,q \\in S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$. By Proposition \\[proposition: formula for \\*\\], $$p/E_\\Delta * q/E_\\Delta=\\operatorname{{tp}}_{\\Delta}(ab/M),$$ where $b \\models q$ and $a$ satisfies a $\\Delta$-coheir extension of $p$ over $M,b$. Let $\\bar{f}$ be an extension of $f$ to an automorphism of ${{\\mathfrak C}}$. Then $f(p) = \\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta({\\bar f}(a)/M)$, $f(q)=\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta({\\bar f}(b)/M)$, and $\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta({\\bar f}(a)/M,{\\bar f}(b))$ is finitely satisfiable in $M$. Therefore, $$\\begin{array}{lll}\nf(p/E_\\Delta) * f(q/E_\\Delta) &= & f(p)/E_\\Delta * f(q)/E_\\Delta=\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta({\\bar f} (a){\\bar f} (b)/M)/E_\\Delta\\\\\n&= & \\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta ({\\bar f}(ab)/M)/E_\\Delta= f(\\operatorname{{tp}}_\\Delta(ab/M)/E_\\Delta)\\\\\n&=& f(p/E_\\Delta * q/E_\\Delta).\n\\end{array}$$\n\nLet ${{\\mathcal M}}$ be a minimal left ideal in $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ and $u \\in {{\\mathcal M}}$ an idempotent. We will need the following observation [@Gl Chapter IX, Lemma 1.5].\n\n\\[fact: lim i tau-lim\\] If $(p_i)$ is a net in $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ converging (in the usual topology on ${{\\mathcal M}}$) to $p$, then $\\tau\\mbox{-}\\lim_i p_i= up$.\n\nLet $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ be the stabilizer of $u$ under the action $\\Phi$. By Proposition \\[proposition: the action of aut(M) is continuous\\] and the fact that $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta$ is Hausdorff, $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ is a closed subgroup of $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$.\n\nThe action $\\Phi$ induces a $\\tau$-continuous action of $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$.\n\nBy Proposition \\[proposition: the action preserves \\*\\] and the fact that ${{\\mathcal M}}= S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta *u$, we see that any automorphism $f \\in \\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ fixes both ${{\\mathcal M}}$ and $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ setwise. Thus, the action $\\Phi$ induces an action of $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ on ${{\\mathcal M}}$, and further on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$. Now, we want to show the continuity of this action of $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$.\n\nConsider arbitrary nets $(f_i)$ in $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ and $(p_i)$ in $u{{\\mathcal M}}$ such that $\\lim_i f_i = f \\in \\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ and $\\tau\\mbox{-}\\lim_i p_i = p \\in u{{\\mathcal M}}$. We need to show that $\\tau\\mbox{-}\\lim_if_i(p_i) = f(p)$. For this it is enough to prove that any subnet $(f_k'(p_k'))$ of $(f_i(p_i))$ has a subnet which is $\\tau$-convergent to $f(p)$. Hence, we see that it is enough to show that, for any data as in the first sentence of this paragraph, the net $(f_i(p_i))$ has a subnet which is $\\tau$-convergent to $f(p)$.\n\nBy the compactness of ${{\\mathcal M}}$, there is a subnet $(p_k')$ of $(p_i)$ converging, in the usual topology on ${{\\mathcal M}}$, to some $p'$, i.e. $\\lim_k p_k'=p'$. The corresponding subnet $(f_k')$ of $(f_i)$ still converges to $f$, i.e. $\\lim_k f_k'=f$.\n\nBy Proposition \\[proposition: the action of aut(M) is continuous\\], $\\lim_k f_k'(p_k')=f(p')$. Hence, by Fact \\[fact: lim i tau-lim\\] and Proposition \\[proposition: the action preserves \\*\\], we get $\\tau\\mbox{-}\\lim_k f_k'(p_k')=uf(p')=f(u)f(p')=f(up')$.\n\nOn the other hand, by Fact \\[fact: lim i tau-lim\\] applied to the net $(p_k)$, we get $p=\\tau\\mbox{-}\\lim_i p_i=\\tau\\mbox{-}\\lim_k p_k'=up'$.\n\nBy the last two paragraphs, $\\tau\\mbox{-}\\lim_k f_k'(p_k')=f(p)$, and the proof is finished.\n\n$\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$ acts continuously on $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$, i.e. on the $\\Delta$-definable generalized Bohr compactification of $G$ (see Theorem \\[theorem: gen. Bohr comp.\\]).\n\nNote that $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ also acts on $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$. Namely, for $f \\in \\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$, take any $\\bar f \\in \\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\\mathfrak C}})$ extending $f$ and define $f \\cdot (a/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}):= {\\bar f}(a)/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$. (The fact that this action is well-defined follows easily from the observation that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is invariant under $\\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\\mathfrak C}}/\\{ M\\})$ and contains all $a^{-1}b$ for $a \\equiv_M b$.) By a similar argument to the proof of Proposition \\[proposition: the action of aut(M) is continuous\\], one can show\n\nThe action of $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$ on $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is continuous.\n\nBy the above observations, we get\n\n\\[corollary: Polish structures\\] Assume that the model $M$ is countable. The following are Polish structures: $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), S_{G,\\Delta}(M))$, $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), S_{G,\\Delta}(M)/E_\\Delta)$, $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\\mathcal M}})$, $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}}))$, and $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})$. More precisely, all these are compact $G$-spaces (except the third one, which is not necessarily Hausdorff). Moreover, the second one is a compact $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$-semigroup with left-continuous semigroup operation, the fourth one is a compact $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u)$-group, and the last one is a compact $\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M)$-group.\n\nFrom now on, we always assume that $M$ is countable. In order to apply some knowledge on small Polish structures, first one would have to describe interesting classes of theories for which some of the above Polish structures are small. Conjecture \\[conjecture: chernikov\\] may provide such classes.\n\nUsing Proposition \\[proposition: theta is onto\\], we easily get\n\nIf $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), S_{G,\\Delta}(M))$ is small, then all other Polish structures from Corollary \\[corollary: Polish structures\\] are small, too.\n\nBy Theorem \\[theorem: factorization by H(uM)\\], we easily get\n\nIf $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}}))$ is small, then $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})$ is small as well.\n\nThere are two kinds of possible applications of small Polish structures. First of all, [@Kr Corollary 5.9] tells us that small compact $G$-groups are profinite.\n\ni\\) If $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}}))$ is small, then $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ is a profinite group.\\\nii) If $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})$ is small, then $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a profinite group.\n\nSecondly, we would like to describe the algebraic structure of $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ and $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$, but for this we would have to know that the corresponding Polish structures are not only small, but also $nm$-stable (e.g. to apply Fact \\[fact: nm-stability implies nilpotency\\]).\n\ni\\) If $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M/u), u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}}))$ is small and $nm$-stable, then $u{{\\mathcal M}}/H(u{{\\mathcal M}})$ is nilpotent-by-finite.\\\nii) If $(\\operatorname{{Aut}}(M), G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})$ is small and $nm$-stable, then $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is nilpotent-by-finite.\n\nWe finish with a discussion on NIP and stable situations, but before that we need to make one general observation.\n\nRecall that by ${G^*}^{00}$ we denote the smallest type-definable (over arbitrary parameters from ${{\\mathfrak C}}$) subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index, if it exists. Note if ${G^*}^{00}$ exists, then it is type-definable over $\\emptyset$, so ${G^*}^{00}={G^*}^{00}_\\emptyset$. Therefore, ${G^*}^{00}$ exists if and only if ${G^*}^{00}_A$ does not depend on the choice of the parameter set $A$.\n\n\\[rem:existence of G00\\] If ${G^*}^{00}$ exists, then for any set $\\Delta$ of formulas of the appropriate form, ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ does not depend on the choice of the model $M$ and it is type-definable over $\\emptyset$; in fact, ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is the smallest $\\Delta$-type-definable (over arbitrary parameters from ${{\\mathfrak C}}$) subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index\n\nBy the existence of ${G^*}^{00}$, there exists the smallest $\\Delta$-type-definable (over arbitrary parameters from ${{\\mathfrak C}}$) subgroup of $G^*$ of bounded index, which we denote by ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta}$. This component is clearly invariant under $\\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\\mathfrak C}})$, so it is type-definable over $\\emptyset$ by a collection of formulas $\\{\\varphi_i(x): i \\in I\\}$ closed under (finite) conjunctions. We will show that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta}={G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ for any model $M \\prec {{\\mathfrak C}}$.\n\nThe inclusion $(\\subseteq)$ is clear. For the other inclusion it is enough to show that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta}$ is the intersection of a family of sets which are $\\Delta$-definable over $M$. Consider any $i \\in I$. We will be done if we show that there exist a $\\Delta$-formula $\\varphi(x)$ over $M$ and $j \\in I$ such that $\\varphi_j(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi_i(G^*)$. By the definition of ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta}$ and compactness, there is a $\\Delta$-formula $\\varphi^*(x)$ over ${{\\mathfrak C}}$ such that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta} \\subseteq \\varphi^*(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi_i(G^*)$. By compactness, there is $j \\in I$ such that $\\varphi_j(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi^*(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi_i(G^*)$. Since $M \\prec {{\\mathfrak C}}$, we can replace the parameters of $\\varphi^*(x)$ by some parameters from $M$, obtaining a $\\Delta$-formula $\\varphi(x)$ over $M$ for which $\\varphi_j(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi(G^*) \\subseteq \\varphi_i(G^*)$.\n\nWhen the theory $T:=\\operatorname{{Th}}(M)$ has NIP, we know that ${G^*}^{00}$ exists (see [@Sh-1] or [@Si Theorem 8.4]). By Remark \\[rem:existence of G00\\], this implies that ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is type-definable over $\\emptyset$. Thus, if we assume that the language of $T$ is countable, then $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a compact, metrizable group and $\\operatorname{{Aut}}({{\\mathfrak C}})$ induces a compact group, say $\\operatorname{{AUT}}$, acting continuously on $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ as a group of automorphisms (see [@LaPi Lemma 3.11] and [@KrNe Fact 1.3]). So $(\\operatorname{{AUT}}, G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})$ is a compact structure interpretable in $T$ over $\\emptyset$, according to [@Kr-1 Definition 1.3]. It is very easy to see that if $T$ is small, then this compact structure is also small, and then [@Kr-1 Remark 2.1] tells us that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a profinite space (i.e. a totally disconnected, compact, Hausdorff space (see [@RiZa Theorem 1.1.12] for equivalent definitions of a profinite space)) which implies that it is a profinite group (see [@RiZa Theorem 2.1.3]). In fact, the assumption that the language is countable can be dropped in the last conclusion, as each small theory is a definitional extension of its reduct to a certain countable sublanguage. Alternatively, in the very simple proof of [@Kr-1 Remark 2.1], the fact that the underlying space (in our case, $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$) of the small compact structure in question is metrizable is irrelevant to conclude that it is profinite, hence the countability of the language can be dropped. So we have justified the following\n\nIf $T:=\\operatorname{{Th}}(M)$ is small and has NIP, then $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a profinite group.\n\nAssume that $T:=\\operatorname{{Th}}(M)$ is stable. We will be using fundamental knowledge on stability and stable groups (e.g. see [@Pi Chapter 1]). By [@Pi Chapter 1, Lemma 2.2(i)] and the shape of the formulas in $\\Delta$, one easily gets that the $G$-ambit $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ is $\\Delta$-definable, so it is the universal $\\Delta$-definable $G$-ambit and the relation $E_\\Delta$ is trivial (by Corollary \\[cor: definable ambit is a quotient\\] and Remark \\[remark: uniqueness of E\\]). Since (by stability) there is a generic type in $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$, Corollary 1.9 of [@Ne1] implies that there is a unique minimal left ideal (equivalently, minimal subflow) ${{\\mathcal M}}$ of $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ and it consists of all the generic types. Another consequence of stability and the shape of the formulas in $\\Delta$ is that any coset of ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ determines a unique generic type in $S_{G,\\Delta}(M)$ (which is the $\\Delta$-type over $M$ of some element of this coset). Together with Proposition \\[proposition: formula for \\*\\], this implies that there is a unique idempotent $u \\in {{\\mathcal M}}$ which is exactly the unique generic type containing all $\\Delta$-formulas over $M$ defining ${G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$. Thus, ${{\\mathcal M}}=u{{\\mathcal M}}$, $\\theta \\colon u{{\\mathcal M}}\\to G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is a topological isomorphism, the usual topology on ${{\\mathcal M}}$ coincides with the $\\tau$-topology on $u{{\\mathcal M}}$, and $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is profinite.\n\nBy work of Newelski (e.g. see [@Ne-2 Proposition 1.6] and [@Ne-1 Example 3]), it follows that if the language is countable and $T$ is superstable with few countable models (so $T$ is small), then $(\\operatorname{{AUT}}, G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M})$ is a small, $m$-stable profinite structure (in the sense of [@Ne-1]), which in turn implies, by [@Wa], that $G^*/{G^*}^{00}_{\\Delta,M}$ is abelian-by-finite.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThe author would like to thank the Referee for careful reading and comments which helped to improve presentation.\n\n[lll]{} J. Auslander, [*Minimal flows and their extensions*]{}, Mathematics Studies 153, North-Holland, The Netherlands, 1988.\n\nA. Chernikov, P. Simon. *Definably amenable NIP groups*, submitted.\n\nA. Conversano, A. Pillay, *Connected components of definable groups and $o$-minimality I*, Adv. Math. 231 (2012), 605-623.\n\nR. Ellis, *Lectures on topological dynamics*, W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1969.\n\nR. Engelking, *General topology*, Sigma Series in Pure Mathematics, Heldermann Verlag, Berlin, 1989.\n\nJ. Gismatullin, *Model theoretic connected components of groups*, Israel J. Math. 184 (2011), 251-274.\n\nJ. Gismatullin, K. Krupi\u0144ski, *On model-theoretic connected components in some group extensions*, J. Math. Log. 15 (2015), 1550009 (51 pages).\n\nJ. Gismatullin, D. Penazzi, A. Pillay, *On compactifications and the topological dynamics of definable groups*, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 165 (2014), 552-562.\n\nS. Glasner, *Proximal Flows*, LNM 517, Springer, Germany, 1976.\n\nG. Jagiella, *Definable topological dynamics and real Lie groups*, Math. Log. Quart. 61 (2015), 45-55.\n\nK. Krupi\u0144ski, [*Generalizations of small profinite structures*]{}, J. Symbolic Logic 75 (2010), 1147-1175.\n\nK. Krupi\u0144ski, *Some model theory of Polish structures*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), 3499-3533.\n\nK. Krupi\u0144ski, L. Newelski, *On bounded type definable equivalence relations*, Notre Dame J. Form. Log. 43 (2002), 231-242.\n\nK. Krupi\u0144ski, A. Pillay, *Generalized Bohr compactification and model-theoretic connected components*, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., to appear. Published on-line, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004116000967.\n\nK. Krupi\u0144ski, A. Pillay, T. Rzepecki, *Topological dynamics and the complexity of strong types*, submitted.\n\nK. Krupi\u0144ski, F. Wagner, *Small, nm-stable compact G-groups*, Israel J. Math. 194 (2013), 907-933.\n\nD. Lascar, A.Pillay, *Hyperimaginaries and automorphism groups*, J. Symbolic Logic 66 (2001), 127-143.\n\nL. Newelski, *${{\\mathcal M}}$-gap conjecture and $m$-normal theories*, Israel J. Math. 106 (1998), 285-311.\n\nL. Newelski, *Small profinite structures*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354 (2001), 925-943.\n\nL. Newelski, *Topological dynamics of definable groups actions*, J. Symbolic Logic 74 (2009), 50-72.\n\nL. Newelski, *Model theoretic aspects of the Ellis semigroup*, Israel J. Math. 190 (2012), 477-507.\n\nA. Pillay, *Geometric stability theory*, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996.\n\nA. Pillay, *Type-definability, compact Lie groups, and $o$-minimality*, J. Math. Log. 4 (2004), 147-162.\n\nL. Ribes, P. Zalesskii, [*Profinite groups*]{}, volume 40, Springer, 2000.\n\nS. Shelah, *Minimal bounded index subgroup for dependent theories*, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 136 (2008), 1087-1091.\n\nS. Shelah, *Dependent dreams: recounting types*, preprint Sh:950.\n\nP. Simon, *A guide to NIP theories (Lecture Notes in Logic)*, Cambridge University Press, 2015.\n\nF. Wagner *Small $m$-stable profinite groups*, Fund. Math. 176 (2003), 181-191.\n\nN. Yao, D. Long, *Topological dynamics for groups definable in real closed field*, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 166 (2015), 261\u2013273.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We report on [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of three U Gem-type, long period, dwarf novae, UU Aql, BV Cen and CH UMa taken during their quiescence intervals. We discuss the line identifications in their spectra and attempt to characterize the source(s) of their FUV flux distribution. Archival [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum of CH UMa and BV Cen in quiescence were identified as having a matching flux level with the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra and these were combined with each [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum to broaden the wavelength coverage and further constrain model fits. Multi-component synthetic spectral fits from our model grids, consisting of single temperature white dwarfs, two-temperature white dwarfs, accretion disks and white dwarfs plus accretion disks, were applied to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra alone and to the combined [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra. We present the results of our model analyses and their implications.'\nauthor:\n- 'Edward M. Sion, Patrick Godon, Fuhua Cheng'\n- Paula Szkody\ntitle: '[*[FUSE]{}*]{} Observations of the Dwarf Novae UU Aql, BV Cen, and CH UMa in Quiescence'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nDwarf novae (DNe) are close interacting binaries in which a Roche-lobe filling main sequence-like dwarf transfers matter with angular momentum through a disk onto a white dwarf (WD). The rapid disk accretion during outburst, due to a thermal instability that causes cyclic changes of the accretion rate, releases gravitational potential energy identified as the DN outburst. The high accretion rate ($\\sim 10^{-8}$ to $10^{-9}$ $M_{\\odot}$/yr) outburst phase (which lasts a few days to weeks) is preceded and followed by a low accretion rate ($\\sim 10^{-11} \nM_{\\odot}$/yr) quiescence stage. This DN behavior is believed to be punctuated every few thousand years or more by episodes of catastrophically unstable thermonuclear burning, the classical nova explosion. Perhaps the least understood topic in CV/DN research (along with what drives the wind outflow in outburst) is the state and structure of the boundary layer and accretion disk during quiescence and the physics of how long term accretion of mass, angular momentum and energy affects the WD. Our studies with archival [*[IUE]{}*]{}, and [*[HST]{}*]{}/STIS have found that $\\sim$50% of the DNe in quiescence are dominated (i.e., $>$ 60% of UV flux) by a component of FUV flux other than the WD called the \u201caccretion disk\u201d; $\\sim$25% are dominated by the WD and $\\sim$25% have nearly equal contribution of WD and accretion disk (40-60% each) [@urb06].\n\nA number of studies [@ara03; @sio91; @sio99; @urb06] have shown that CV WDs above the gap are typically on-average \u00a0 10,000K hotter than CV WDs below the period gap (almost certainly a consequence of higher time-averaged accretion rates of systems above the gap but possibly with system total age also being a factor). Since the white dwarf surface temperature is crucial for understanding CV evolution and whether CVs evolve across the period gap, the use of cooling ages and long term evolutionary model sequences with accretion (including the effects of nova explosions, @tow03) must rely on the empirical WD temperature of the photosphere in equilibrium with long term compressional heating from accretion. The work of @tow02 [@tow03] allows measured T$_{eff}$\u2019s of CV WDs to be converted to the accretion rate per unit WD surface area averaged over the thermal time of the WD envelope.\n\nUnfortunately, there are far fewer systems with reliably known WD properties above the period gap compared with below the gap, thus impeding detailed comparisons between the two groups. For example, among CVs below the gap, there are now roughly 20 systems with reliable WD temperatures but only 5 systems above the gap with reliable WD temperatures. The primary reason for this disparity is that in long period CVs with higher mass transfer rates, the disks may remain optically thick even during quiescence, making the disk contribution to the total flux typically larger in systems above the gap. Hence, it is more difficult to disentangle the white dwarf flux contribution from that of the accretion disk.\n\nAs part of our effort to increase the sample of CV degenerates with known properties above the gap, we have used [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} archival spectra to analyze three long period dwarf novae, UU Aql, BV Cen, and CH UMa. For UU Aql, system properties were adopted from @rit03 and from @szk87. For BV Cen parameters were adopted from @rit03. For CH UMa, we adopted values from @fri90. For all three systems, the distances were the same as those in @urb06 where the @war95 and @har04 M$_{v(max)}$ versus P$_{orb}$ relations, calibrated with trigonometric parallaxes, were used. The reddening values were the same as those quoted in @urb06 which were from @ver87, @lad91 and @bru94.\n\nThe dwarf nova systems analyzed in this work are UU Aql, BV Cen, and CH UMa. In Table 1, the observed properties of these dwarf novae are summarized by column as follows: (1) system name; (2) dwarf nova subclass with UG denoting a U Gem-type system; (3) orbital period in days; (4) the recurrence time of dwarf nova outbursts in days; (6) the apparent magnitude at minimum (quiescence); (7) the apparent magnitude in outburst; (8) secondary spectral type; (9) orbital inclination in degrees; (10) white dwarf mass in solar masses; (11) secondary star mass in solar masses; (12) adopted reddening value and ; (13) distance in parsecs.\n\nObservations and Data Reduction\n===============================\n\nThe instrumental setup and exposure details of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of BV Cen, CH UMa and UU Aql in quiescence are provided in Table 2. The LWRS was used in all cases since it is least prone to slit losses due to the misalignment of the four [*[FUSE]{}*]{} telescopes. All the spectra were obtained in time tag (TTAG) mode, and each one of them consists of 7 individual exposures (corresponding to 7 [*[FUSE]{}*]{} orbits). It is clear that the relatively poor [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectral quality of the spectra speaks to the requirement for more observing time. Nevertheless, we deemed that there was sufficient S/N to warrant a first attempt multi-component FUV analysis of each system\n\nAll the data were reduced using CalFUSE version 3.0.7. In this version of CalFUSE the data are maintained as a photon list: the intermediate data file - IDF. Bad photons are flagged but not discarded, so the user can examine and combined data without re-running CalFUSE. For each target, we combined the individual exposures (using the IDF files) and channels to create a time-averaged spectrum weighted in the flux in each output datum by the exposure time and sensitivity of the input exposure and channel of origin. The details are given here. The spectral regions covered by the spectral channels overlap, and these overlap regions are then used to renormalize the spectra in the SiC1, LiF2, and SiC2 channels to the flux in the LiF1 channel. We then produce a final spectrum that covers almost the full [*[FUSE]{}*]{} wavelength range $905-1182$\u00c5. The low sensitivity portions of each channel are discarded. In most channels there exists a narrow dark stripe of decreased flux in the spectra running in the dispersion direction. This stripe has been affectionately known as the \u201dworm\u201d and it can attenuate as much as 50% of the incident light in the affected portions of the spectrum. The worm has been observed to move as much as 2000 pixels during a single orbit in which the target was stationary. The \u201cworm\u201d appears to be present in every exposure and, at this time, there is no explanation for it. Because of the temporal changes in the strength and position of the worm, CalFUSE cannot correct target fluxes for its presence. Here we take particular care to discard the portion of the spectrum where the so-called *worm* \u2019crawls\u2019, which deteriorates LiF1 longward of 1125\u00c5\u00a0. Because of this the $1182 - \n1187$\u00c5\u00a0region is lost. We then rescale and combine the spectra. When we combine, we weight according to the area and exposure time for that channel and then rebin onto a common wavelength scale with a $0.1$\u00c5, $0.2$\u00c5, and $0.5$\u00c5\u00a0 resolution.\n\nIn the observing log given in Table 2, the entries are by column: (1) gives the target, (2) [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectral data ID, (3) the aperture used, (4) the date and time of observation, (5) the (good) exposure time in seconds, (6) central wavelength, and (7) S/N.\n\nThe [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra for the three systems, UU Aql, BV Cen and CH Uma are displayed in Figures 1, 2, and 3 respectively. A quantitative sense of the relative data quality is provided by the signal to noise for the three [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra. We binned the data by 0.1\u00c5\u00a0for which the S/N of UU Aql, BV Cen, and CH UMa is 5.15, 5.9, and 3.6, respectively.\n\nFor UU Aql, Fig. 1 reveals a rich line spectrum with numerous lines of molecular hydrogen, interstellar species and possible accretion disk or photospheric absorption features. The spectrum reveals a downturn in the continuum shortward of 1000\u00c5. The spectrum does not exhibit any evidence of emission lines from the source, the only emission lines are from air glow and heliocoronal (e.g. sharp emissions lines from C[iii]{} (around 977\u00c5) and the O[vi]{} doublet).\n\nIn figure 2, the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum of BV Cen has a variety of interstellar and stellar features but has a continuum shape distinctly different from UU Aql. The broad C[iii]{} absorption feature around 1175\u00c5\u00a0 is definitely from the source, and the C[iii]{} (around 977\u00c5) and the O[vi]{} doublet broad emission features could also possibly be associated with one of the FUV components in BV Cen. All the other sharp emission features are either heliocoronal or geocoronal in origin.\n\nIn figure 3, CH UMa reveals numerous absorption lines due to highly ionized and singly ionized metals. It has a continuum energy distribution similar to UU Aql. There are definitely some broad emission lines from the source itself. The most prominent one is the O[vi]{} doublet (the right component being strongly attenuated by molecular hydrogen sharp absorption lines), C[iii]{} (both around 977\u00c5\u00a0and 1175\u00c5) which also seems to be in emission and a tentative identification of N[iv]{} emission in the short wavelengths. The source is also contaminated with sharp emission lines due to air glow. Here too the N[i]{} & N[ii]{} are geocoronal in origin, and the sharp peaks on top of the broad C[iii]{} (977\u00c5) and O[vi]{} emissions are heliocoronal in origin. We note that ISM molecular hydrogen absorption is affecting the continuum.\n\nSince the wavelength range covered by [*[FUSE]{}*]{} overlaps with [*[HST]{}*]{}/STIS or [*[IUE]{}*]{} in the region of C[iii]{} between 1170\u00c5\u00a0and 1180\u00c5, a much broader FUV wavelength coverage is afforded by combining the spectra when the flux levels of the two spectra in the wavelength overlap region match closely enough. We found archival [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra matching the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of two of the three systems (CH UMa and BV Cen) but unfortunately no [*[HST]{}*]{} spectra exist for the three systems.\n\nThe [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} combination of spectra rests on the assumptions that (1) differences between the two spectra in orbital phase and (2) in time after the last outburst can be ignored. Given the long exposure times of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra, the questionable reliability of the orbital ephemerides, including UU Aql\u2019s and (3) the limited S/N of the quiescent spectra, the influence of phase-dependent variations is not considered. However, the time since the last outburst as well as the brightness state of the system at the times of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} observations for the three systems is considered in detail using AAVSO archival light curve data. For UU Aql, the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum was obtained approximately 50 days after its last major dwarf nova outburst, however, the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum was obtained during the transition to a brightening that appeared not to be a major outburst. Therefore, we have excluded the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum from use in combination with the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} data for UU Aql. For BV Cen both the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra were obtained during quiescence but the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum was acquired approximately 159 days after the last outburst while the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum was taken roughly 50 days after the last outburst. Thus, the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum probably recorded a greater degree of white dwarf cooling than the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum obtained closer to the last outburst. Likewise for CH UMa, both the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra were obtained during quiescence but the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum appears to have been obtained roughly 125 days after the last outburst while the [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra were acquired about 83 days after the last outburst. Since the e-folding times for white dwarf cooling in both of these systems following the outburst heating episode is typically shorter than the above two post-outburst intervals, it is probably acceptable to combine the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra for BV Cen and CH UMa.\n\nIn Table 3 we present the observing log of [*[IUE]{}*]{} observations which matched the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} flux level in the wavelength overlap region of these two systems. The entries by column are (1) the target name, (2) the observation ID, (3) aperture, (4) dispersion mode, (5) date of the observation, (6) time of mid-exposure, and (6) the exposure time in seconds.\n\nThus, our analysis was carried out first for the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of the three systems and then separately for the combined [*[FUSE]{}*]{} plus [*[IUE]{}*]{} data of BV Cen and CH UMa.\n\nMulti-Component Synthetic Spectral Fitting\n==========================================\n\nOur data analysis and modeling involves the full suite of multi-component (accretion disk, white dwarf photosphere, accretion belt) synthetic spectral codes, which we have utilized in our spectral fitting of [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} data. Based upon our expectation that the accreting white dwarf is an important source of FUV flux in these systems during quiescence, we carried out a high gravity photosphere synthetic spectral analysis first. The model atmosphere (TLUSTY200; @hub88), and spectrum synthesis codes (SYNSPEC48 and ROTIN4 @hub95) and details of our $\\chi^{2}_{\\nu}$ ($\\chi^2$ per degree of freedom) minimization fitting procedures are discussed in detail in @sio95 and will not be repeated here. To estimate physical parameters, we generally took the white dwarf photospheric temperature T$_{eff}$, log $g$, and rotational velocity $v_{rot}$ and chemical abundances as free parameters.\n\nWe normalize our fits to 1 solar radius and 1 kiloparsec such that the distance of a source is computed from $d = \n1000(pc)*(R_{wd}/R_{\\sun})/\\sqrt{S}$, or equivalently the scale factor $S \n= \\left( \\frac{R_{wd}}{R_{\\odot}} \\right)^{2} \\left( \\frac{d}{kpc} \n\\right)^{-2}$, is the factor by which the theoretical flux (integrated over the entire wavelength range) has to be multiplied to equal the observed (integrated) flux.\n\nThe grid of WD models extended over the following range of parameters: log $g \n= 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 9.0$; T$_{eff}/1000$ (K) = 22, 23, ..., 75; Si = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0; C = 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0; and $v_{rot} \\sin{i}$ (km\u00a0s$^{-1}$) = 100, 200, 400, 600, 800.\n\nFor the synthetic accretion disk models, we used the latest accretion disk models from the optically thick disk model grid of @wad98. The range of disk model parameters varies as follows: WD mass (in solar units) value of 0.35, 0.55, 0.80, 1.03, and 1.21; orbital inclination (in degrees) of 18, 41, 60, 75 and 81. The accretion rate ranges from $10^{-10.5}M_{\\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ to $10^{-8.0}M_{\\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ by increments of 0.5 in $log{\\dot{M}}$.\n\nFor each dwarf nova, we adopted the following procedure. First, we masked out all of the obvious emission features and artifacts in both the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra of each object. Second, we carried out synthetic spectral fits using and/or combining model components in this order: a white dwarf model alone, accretion disk model alone, combination white dwarf plus accretion disk model, and two-temperature white dwarf model (the latter to simulate a hotter equatorial region as well as a cooler photosphere at higher latitudes). For accretion disk fits, we \u201cfine-tuned\u201d the derived accretion rate of the best-fitting disk model by changing the accretion rate in increments of 0.1 over the range 0.1 to 10, on the assumption that the disk fluxes scale linearly over that range.\n\nIn Table 4, we indicate where we masked any strong emission features, artifacts, or negative fluxes in the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra of each object.\n\nSynthetic Spectral Fitting Results\n==================================\n\nThe noise level of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra precludes the opportunity to extract reliable parameters for the accreting white dwarfs in these three systems. This is especially true for deriving rotational velocities which rely on well-resolved, strong absorption lines arising in the photosphere. The rotational velocity is also affected by underlying emission filling of absorption features and by the chemical abundances one uses. With these caveats in mind, we proceeded to apply our grid of WD photosphere models (keeping the chemical abundance fixed at solar) and accretion disk synthetic spectra.\n\nFor any dwarf nova in quiescence, a single temperature white dwarf model should be a reasonable first approximation as the source of the FUV flux. For UU Aql, we adopted two possible distances, 150 pc and 350 pc and carried out detailed fits for both values. For a distance of 350 pc, the best-fit WD model to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum gave T$_{eff} = 27,000$K, R$_{wd}$/R$_{\\sun} = 1.13 \\times \n10^{-2}$ and a $\\chi^{2} = 0.963$. This best-fitting model is shown in figure 4. The continuum of the model gives a fair representation of the observed continuum down to about 1060\u00c5\u00a0but there is a shortfall of model flux relative to the data at wavelengths shorter than 1030\u00c5. For the same distance, an accretion disk alone yielded a best fit with $\\chi^{2} = \n1.14$, an accretion rate of $5\\times 10^{-11} M_{\\sun}$/yr and inclination $i = 41$ degrees, M$_{wd} = 0.8 M_{\\sun}$. This disk fit is shown in figure 5. The model disk continuum, unlike the WD, fails to match the flux level of the data between about 1090\u00c5\u00a0and 1180\u00c5\u00a0and the solar abundance accretion disk model fails to provide a sharp absorption features.\n\nA combination white dwarf plus accretion disk yielded a modest improvement with $\\chi^{2} = 0.71$, $\\dot{M} = 1.6 \\times 10^{-11} M_{\\sun}$/yr, $i = \n41$ degrees and $M_{wd} = 0.8 M_{\\sun}$. Finally we tried two temperature (WD + belt) fits. The best fit two temperature WD yields $\\chi^{2} = 0.74$ with the cooler white dwarf portion ( T$_{eff} = 24,000$K) giving 57% of the flux and the hotter belt (T$_{belt} = 33,000$K) providing 43% (figure 6).\n\nIn general, for a distance d = 150 pc, the model fits to UU Aql\u2019s [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum are worse than for 350 pc. Applying single temperature white dwarf fits, we obtained T$_{eff} = 17,000$K, $R_{wd}/R_{\\sun} = 1.06 \n\\times 10^{-2}$ and a $\\chi^{2} = 1.13$. An accretion disk alone yielded a best fit with $\\chi^{2} = 1.23$, an accretion rate of $1.3 \\times 10^{-11} \nM_{\\sun}$/yr and inclination $i = 41$ degrees and M$_{wd} = 0.8 M_{\\sun}$. A combination white dwarf plus accretion disk yielded a modest improvement with $\\chi^{2} = 1.13$, $\\dot{M} = 1.6\\times10^{-11} M_{\\sun}$/yr, $i = \n41$ degrees and $M_{wd} = 0.8 M_{\\sun}$. A two temperature white dwarf (WD + belt) gives a best-fit with a $\\chi^{2} = 1.02$, with a 17,000K white dwarf providing 77% of the FUV flux and the belt giving 23% of the flux. In view of the much better agreement of the models with the observations of UU Aql for our assumed distance of 350 pc than for a distance of 150 pc, the closer distance can be ruled out.\n\nFor CH UMa, the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum is very noisy and underexposed. We took into account our adopted distance of 300 pc in the model fitting, we fixed the WD mass at M$_{wd} = 1.2 M_{\\sun}$ (Log $g = 9.0$, with a radius of $\\approx 4,000$km), and fixed the disk inclination at the published value of 18 degrees. A single temperature white dwarf fit to CH UMa had $\\chi^{2} = 0.227$, and yielded a best fit T$_{eff} = 29,000$K, and a distance of 310pc. This model however did not fit very well in the shorter wavelengths ($<$1020\u00c5). A lowest $\\chi^{2}$ fit for this same WD mass was obtained for T=40,000K, with $\\chi^{2} = 0.208$, but it yielded a distance of 600pc, twice the adopted estimate of the distance. Since the Ritter catalog give a mass of 1.95$M_{\\odot}$ (well above the Chandraskhar mass limit for a WD), we decided to try a larger mass with a correspondingly smaller radius which lead to a smaller emitting surface area and therefore a shorter distance. We assumed $M=1.38M_{\\odot}$ ($log {g} = 9.5$, with a radius of $\\approx 2,000$km) and found that the best fit was for $T=40,000$K. This model yielded a distance of 307pc with $\\chi^{2} = 0.199$. Since the absorption features around 1120\u00c5\u00a0- 1150\u00c5\u00a0are not pronounced in the observed spectrum, we decided to increase the rotational velocity to improve the fit of this model. However, a better result was obtained by simply reducing the abundances of Si and C to 0.01 their solar value. This low Si and C model had a $\\chi^{2} = 0.184$ and a distance of 314pc. This model is shown in Figure 7. Because of the low S/N of the spectrum the assessment of the error on the temperature estimate is of the order of 5,000K, namely $T_{wd}=40,000\\pm 5,000$K.\n\nThough the WD fit yielded the lowest value of $\\chi^2$, we tried accretion disk fits alone to CH UMa\u2019s [*[FUSE]{}*]{} data. The best fit gave a $\\chi^{2} = 0.213$, an accretion rate of $5 \\times 10^{-12} M_{\\sun}$/yr for $M_{wd} = 1.2 M_{\\sun}$ and $i = 18$ degrees.\n\nVarious attempts to fit the combined [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra of CH UMa met with limited success as summarized in Table 5. The best combination fit was for an accretion disk plus WD with the disk contributing 79% of the FUV flux. However, these fits were less satisfactory than the fits to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum alone.\n\nBecause the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum of CH UMa is very noisy, and because of the broad emission lines and the absence of strong absorption lines, it is difficult to assess which model (disk or WD) is the best solution. However, the absence of strong absorption lines would favor the accretion disk model because of Keplerian broadening. Also because of the poor quality of the spectrum, composite models (WD+accretion disk, two-temperature WD) did not improve the fit. In view of all of the above, we cannot be confident that we have determined the temperature of the white dwarf in CH UMa.\n\nNext we analyzed the combined [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra of CH UMa. The best white dwarf-only fit yielded T$_{eff} = 31,000$K, log $g = 9$ a $\\chi^{2} = 3.02$ and $R_{wd}/R_{\\sun} = 6.02 \\times 10^{-3}$. For accretion disk models only, the best fit occurred with a $\\chi^{2} = \n2.02$, corresponding to $\\dot{M} = 3 \\times 10^{-9} M_{\\sun}$/yr. This disk fit is a modest improvement of the fit to CH UMa since the $\\chi^{2}$ value was lowered to 2.02. The best-fitting white dwarf + accretion disk model resulted in only a modest, statistically insignificant improvement. The $\\chi^{2}$ value was lowered to 1.87, the accretion rate was $6.4 \\times 10^{-11} M_{\\sun}$/yr with the WD T$_{eff} \n= 22,000$K and the scale factor yielding a white dwarf radius of $5.84 \n\\times 10^{-3} R_{\\sun}$. In this composite disk plus white dwarf fit, the WD contributes 21% of the FUV flux while the accretion disk contributes 79% of the FUV flux. We also tried a two-temperature WD solutions with the best-fitting model consisting of a 26,000K WD providing 77% of the flux and a hot accretion belt/ring with T$_{belt} = \n50,000$K giving 23% of the UV flux. However, this two-temperature fit was no better than the WD + accretion disk fit.\n\nFor BV Cen we dereddened the spectrum assuming E(B-V)=0.10, and first tried single temperature white dwarf fits with a white dwarf mass $= 0.83 M_{\\sun}$, and used solar chemical abundances. We found the best-fitting white dwarf model to have T$_{eff} = 40,000\\pm 1000$K, log $g= 8.3$, $V \\sin i = 500$ km/s $\\pm 100$ km/s. This fit yielded $\\chi^{2} = 0.2701$ and a distance d=435pc (see figure 8). We note here that the WD solution fits the following absorption features quite accurately: C[ii]{} (1066\u00c5), S[iv]{} (1073\u00c5), N[ii]{} (1084\u00c5), Si[iv]{} (1122.5\u00c5, 1128.3\u00c5), and Si[iii]{} (1140\u00c5- 1146\u00c5).\n\nFor an optically thick, steady state accretion disk alone, we chose $M_{wd} = 0.80 M_{\\sun}$, $i = 60 $ degrees. The best fit we obtained has a mass accretion rate of $10^{-8.5}M_{\\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, too large for dwarf nova quiescence. Moreover, the longer wavelength part of the spectrum is rather flat and unable to fit the absorption features around 1120\u00c5\u00a0and 1130\u00c5. This fit, with i=60deg, leads to a distance of 1255pc. In order to fit these absorption features, one needs to assume an inclination of 18 degrees, inconsistent with the known inclination of the system (62 degrees). Such a model leads to a distance of more than 2000pc, again inconsistent with all estimates of the system distance (500pc). Therefore, based on the parameters of the system, the disk solution is completely inconsistent. We tried composite model fits, but they also led to very poor results. We also combined BV Cen\u2019s [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra but they led to very poor fits, much worse than the fits to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum alone. Since the WD solution is consistent with the parameters of the system and fits the absorption features of the spectra, it is clear that the favored solution of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum of BV Cen is $T_{wd}=40,000\\pm 2,000$K.\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nOur principal objective of determining the surface temperatures of the white dwarfs in these three dwarf novae during quiescence has met with mixed results. From synthetic spectral fits to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra of the three long period dwarf novae, UU Aql, CH UMa and BV Cen, and the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} archival SWP spectra of CH UMa we have presented preliminary evidence that during quiescence, their accreting white dwarfs all have surface temperatures hotter than 20,000K. Unfortunately, all three temperatures have considerable uncertainty due to the low S/N of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectra and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra as well as the difficulty of disentangling the flux contribution of the second component of FUV flux or \u201caccretion disk\u201d during quiescence. Of the three systems in this study, we regard our estimate of the $T_{eff}$ of the WD in UU Aql to be the most reliable since that system appears to be dominated in the FUV by the white dwarf flux.\n\nFor UU Aql, we used both assumed distances, 150 pc and 350 pc, and tried the composite fits (WD + disk) to UU Aql\u2019s [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum. However, the quality of the fits for WD-only, disk-only, WD + disk, and WD + \u201cbelt\u201d were all roughly comparable and thus it is difficult to distinguish the best-fit case. For both distances, statistically insignificant improvements in the fits result when a white dwarf and accretion disk are combined or a two-temperature WD (WD + belt) is applied to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} data. The results in Table 5 illustrate the difficulty. Qualitatively, the composite fits involving combinations of white dwarf plus accretion disk or accretion belt models look marginally more reasonable than the fits that involve single component (WD or Disk). It appears that for both distances, the white dwarf component is the dominant source of FUV flux and that the $T_{eff}$ of the WD is probably between 17,000K and 27,000K (say 22,000$\\pm$5,000K).\n\nFor BV Cen, the WD model fit to the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum gave the best result, both in fitting actual features of the observed spectrum and in leading to consistent values of the system parameters. This was not the case for the disk model and the composite models. From the best WD model fit we obtained that the WD of BV Cen must have a temperature of about 40,000K.\n\nFor CH UMa, the broad and dominant emission lines together with the poor S/N (and possible detector noise at very short wavelengths) of the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} and [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectra precluded the opportunity to obtain conclusive results. However, the results for the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectrum were of a much higher quality than for the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} + [*[IUE]{}*]{} combined spectrum. Therefore we adopt the [*[FUSE]{}*]{} results for CH UMa with the possibility that the WD temperature could be as high as 40,000K.\n\nIn Table 6, we list the dwarf novae above the period gap whose white dwarfs have surface temperature determinations. In Column (1) we give the system name, column (2) the orbital period; column (3) the surface temperature and column (4) the temperature reference. As seen in Table 6, there is now a sample of eight long period dwarf novae of which roughly seven have relatively secure white dwarf temperatures obtained during quiescence. In the case of BV Cen, the inclination is expected to be high. Thus, it is plausible to expect that the quiescent accretion disk may be blocking the direct radiation from the accreting white dwarf.\n\nThe relatively poor [*[FUSE]{}*]{} spectral quality of CH UMa underscores the need for re-observation with longer exposure times. However, analysis will remain hindered until more reliable information on white dwarf masses and distances becomes available. Until then, the conclusions in this work must be regarded as preliminary.\n\nAcknowledgements\n================\n\nWe thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments and corrections. PG wishes to thank the Space Telescope Science Institute for its kind hospitality. This work was supported by NSF grant AST05-07514 and NASA grants NAG5-12067 and NNG04GE78 to Villanova University. This research was based on observations made with the NASA-CNES-CSA Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer. [*[FUSE]{}*]{} is operated for NASA by the Johns Hopkins University under NASA contract NAS5-32985.\n\nAraujo-Betancor, S., et al. 2003, , 583, 437\n\nBruch, A., & Engel, A.1994, , 68, 41\n\nFriend, M.T., Martin, J.S., Connon-Smith, R., & Jones, D.H.P. 1990, , 246, 654\n\nGilliland, R. 1982, , 263, 302\n\nGodon, P., Seward, L., Sion, E.M., & Szkody, P. 2006, , 131, 2634\n\nHarrison, T.E., Johnson, J.J., McArthur, B.E., Benedict, G.F., Szkody, P., Howell, S.B., Gelino, D.M. 2004, , 127, 460\n\nHartley, L.E., Long, K.S., Froning, C.S., & Drew, J.E. 2005, , 623, 425\n\nHubeny, I. 1988, Comput. Phys. Comm., 52, 103\n\nHubeny, I., & Lanz, T. 1995, , 439, 875\n\nlaDous, C. 1991, , 252, 100\n\nRitter, H., & Kolb, U. 2003, , 404, 301\n\nSion, E.M. 1991, , 102, 295\n\nSion, E.M. 1999, , 111, 532\n\nSion, E.M., Cheng, F., Godon, P., Urban, J.A., & Szkody, P. 2004, , 128, 1834\n\nSion, E.M., Cheng, F., Long, K.S., Szkody, P., Huang, M., Gilliland, R., Hubeny, I. 1995, , 439, 957\n\nSion, E.M., Cheng, F., Szkody, P., Sparks, W.M., G\u00e4nsicke, B.T., Huang, M., & Mattei, J. 1998, , 496, 449\n\nSion, E.M., Szkody, P., G\u00e4nsicke, B.T., Cheng, F., LaDous, C., Hassall, B. 2001, , 555, 834\n\nSzkody, P. 1987, , 63, 685\n\nTownsley, D., & Bildsten, L. 2002, , 565, 35\n\nTownsley, D., & Bildsten, L. 2003, , 596, L227\n\nUrban, J., & Sion, E.M. 2006, , 642, 1029\n\nVerbunt, F. 1987, , 71, 339\n\nWade, R.A., & Hubeny, I. 1998, , 509, 350\n\nWarner, B. 1995, Cataclysmic Variable Stars (Cambridge University Press)\n\n[llllllcccc]{}\\\nSystem & $P_{orb}$ &$t_{rec}$&V$_{q}$ &V$_{o}$ & Sec. & i & $M_{wd}$ &$E_{B-V}$& Distance\\\nName & (days) & (days) & & & & (deg) &$(M_{\\odot})$& & (pc)\\\nBV Cen & 0.610108 & 150 & 12.6 & 10.5 & G5-8V &$62 \\pm5$&$0.83\\pm 0.1$ & 0.10 & 500\\\nCH UMa & 0.343 & 204 & 15.3 & 10.7 & K4-M0V&$21 \\pm4$& & & 300\\\nUU Aql & 0.14049 & 71 & 16.0 & 11.0 & M2-4V & & & & 150-350\\\n\n[lccccccc]{} UU Aql & C1100301000 & LWRS 30x30 & 2004-05-16 & 13h:48m:00s & 16,121s & 1035\u00c5& 5.15\\\nBV Cen & D1450301000 & LWRS 30x30 & 2003-04-13 & 20h:26m:00s & 26,545s & 1035\u00c5& 5.9\\\nCH UMa & D1450201000 & LWRS 30x30 & 2003-04-02 & 22h:00m:00s & 17,311s & 1035\u00c5& 3.6\\\n\n[lcccccc]{} BV Cen & 26623 & Lg & Low & 08/16/85& 17:17:00& 14,400\\\nCH UMa & 56270 & Lg & Low & 12/06/95& 12:15:49& 13,800\\\n\n[ll]{} UU Aql & for $ \\lambda <$ 1050\u00c5\u00a0if $F_{\\lambda}>6   \\times 10^{-15}$ergs$~$s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$\u00c5$^{-1}$\\\n& for 1050 \u00c5\u00a0$ < \\lambda <$ 1185\u00c5\u00a0if $F_{\\lambda}>1.8 \\times 10^{-14}$ergs$~$s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$\u00c5$^{-1}$\\\n& 975-985\u00c5\\\nCH UMa & for $\\lambda < 957$\u00c5\u00a0if $F_{\\lambda} > 1 \\times 10^{-14}$ergs$~$s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$\u00c5$^{-1}$\\\n& 970-980, 987-994, 1023-1042, 1071-1090, 1107-1136, 1167-1180, 1200-1260,\\\n& 1285-1315, 1380-420, 1532-1560, 1630-1650, 1846-1940\u00c5\\\nBV Cen & for $\\lambda < 1185$\u00c5\u00a0if $F_{\\lambda} > 2.5 \\times 10^{-14}$ergs$~$s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$\u00c5$^{-1}$\\\n& 1190-1220, 1320-1340, 1375-1415, 1530-1570, 1625-1650, 1835-1880\u00c5\\\n\n[llclccccc]{} UU Aql & [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 350 & 0.96 & 27 & - & - & 100(WD) & 4\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 150 & 1.13 & 17 & - & - & 100(WD) & -\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 350 & 1.13 & - & - & $5 \\times 10^{-11}$ & 100(Disk) & 5\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 150 & 1.24 & - & - & $1 \\times 10^{-11}$ & 100(Disk) & -\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 350 & 0.714 & 24 & - & $2 \\times 10^{-11}$ & 73(WD)/27(Disk) & -\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 150 & 1.13 & 17 & - & $3 \\times 10^{-11}$ & 60(WD)/40(Disk) & -\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 350 & 0.738 & 24 & 33 & - & 57(WD)/43(Belt) & 6\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 150 & 1.021 & 16 & 29 & - & 77(WD)/23(Belt) & -\\\nCH UMa & [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 314 & 0.184 & 40 & - & - & 100(WD) & 7\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 313 & 0.213 & - & - & $5 \\times 10^{-12}$ & 100(Disk) & -\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{}+[*[IUE]{}*]{} & 300 & 3.02 & 31 & - & - & 100(WD) & -\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{}+[*[IUE]{}*]{} & 300 & 2.02 & - & - & $3 \\times 10^{-9}$ & 100(Disk) & -\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{}+[*[IUE]{}*]{} & 300 & 1.87 & 22 & - &$6.4\\times 10^{-11}$ & 21(WD)/79(Disk)& -\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{}+[*[IUE]{}*]{} & 300 & 2.00 & 26 & 50 & - & 77(WD)/23(Belt)& -\\\nBV Cen & [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 435 & 0.27 & 40 & - & - & 100(WD) & 8\\\n& [*[FUSE]{}*]{} & 1255& 0.27 & - & - & $3 \\times 10^{-9}$ & 100(Disk) & -\n\n  ------------- -------- ----------- ------------\n  System Name    Period   $T_{eff}$  References\n                 (min)    (Kelvin)   \n  BV Cen         878.6     40,000:   This paper\n  RU Peg         539.4     49,000    @sio04\n  Z Cam          417.4     57,000    @har05\n  RX And         302.2     34,000    @sio01\n  SS Aur         263.2     31,000    @sio04\n  U Gem          254.7     31,000    @sio98\n  WW Ceti        253.1     26,000    @god06\n  UU Aql         202.3     27,000:   This paper\n  ------------- -------- ----------- ------------\n\n  : Surface Temperatures of White Dwarfs in Dwarf Novae above the Period Gap\n\nFigure Captions\n\nthe [*[FUSE]{}*]{} plus [*[IUE]{}*]{} spectrum of UU\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The Klein group contains only four elements. Nevertheless this little group contains a number of remarkable entry points to current highways of modern representation theory of groups. In this paper, we shall describe all possible ways in which the Klein group can act on vector spaces over a field of two elements. These are called representations of the Klein group. This description involves some powerful visual methods of representation theory which builds on the work of generations of mathematicians starting roughly with the work of K. Weiestrass. We also discuss some applications to properties of duality and Heller shifts of the representations of the Klein group.'\naddress:\n- |\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    Illinois State University\\\n    Normal, IL 61761 USA\n- |\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    University of Western Ontario\\\n    London, ON, N6A 5B7, Canada\nauthor:\n- Sunil Chebolu\n- J\u00e1n Min\u00e1c\nbibliography:\n- 'lit.bib'\ntitle: Representations of The miraculous Klein group\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nConsider the familiar complex plane $\\mathbb{C} = \\{ x+ iy \\, | \\, x, y \\text{ are real numbers} \\}$ with two reflections $\\sigma$ and $\\tau$ in the standard axes $X$ and $Y$ respectively. Precisely, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sigma(x+iy) & =  & x - iy, \\text{ and } \\\\\n \\tau(x+iy) &  = &  -x+iy.\n \\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\\sigma$ is the complex conjugation and $\\tau$ is like a real brother of $\\sigma$. Note that if we apply $\\sigma$ or $\\tau$ twice, we get the identity map: $\\sigma^{2} = 1 = \\tau^{2}$. Also, we see that $\\sigma \\tau = \\tau \\sigma = - 1$. Geometrically, the maps $\\sigma \\tau$ and $\\tau \\sigma$ are rotations by $180$ degrees in the complex plane. The set of maps $$\\{1, \\sigma, \\tau, \\sigma \\tau\\}$$ forms a group under composition and is called the Klein four group or just Klein group, often denoted by $V_{4}$. One would guess that the letter $V$ here is a sign of victory but the reason is that \u201c*Vier*\u201d in German means \u201cfour.\u201d \u201cKlein\u201d in German also means \u201csmall\u201d and indeed Klein group $V_{4}$ having only four elements is quite small. It is an absolutely amazing fact that this small and ostensibly innocent group contains remarkable richness and that important mathematics can be developed by just studying this one group. The world\u2019s smallest field is ${\\mathbb{F}_2}= \\{ 0, 1\\}$, and one can think of this as a toy model of complex numbers. The problem to be investigated in this paper is the following: What are all the finite dimensional representations of $V_{4}$ over ${\\mathbb{F}_2}$? That is, can one describe all possible actions of the group $V_{4}$ on finite dimensional vector spaces $W$ over ${\\mathbb{F}_2}$. Although, we work over an arbitrary field of characteristic two, not much is lost if the reader assumes through out that the ground field $k$ is ${\\mathbb{F}_2}$. The reason for restricting to fields of characteristic $2$ is due to the fact that when the characteristic of the ground field $k$ is either zero or odd, the finite dimensional representations $W$ of $V_{4}$ have a very simple nature. Namely, $W$ is a sum of one dimensional representations. One each of these one-dimensional subspaces, the generators $\\sigma$ and $\\tau$ act as multiplication by $1$ or $-1$. We therefore stick with fields of characteristic $2$. This bring us to the world of modular representations. (That is, the characteristic of the field is a positive divisor of the order of the group.)\n\nNote that $V_4$ is a product of two cyclic groups of order two. In terms of generators and relations, $V_4$ has the following presentation. $$V_4 =   \\langle \\sigma, \\tau \\; | \\; \\sigma^2 = \\tau^2 = 1,  \\sigma \\tau = \\tau \\sigma  \\rangle .$$ The group algebra $kV_4$ is then isomorphic to $$k[a , b]/(a^2, b^2),$$ where $a$ corresponds to $1+ \\sigma$ and $b$ to $1+\\tau$. We define an ideal $U$ of the $kV_4$ as the ideal generated by $a$ and $b$. This is an extremely important ideal called the augmentation ideal of our group ring. Sometime it will be convenient to divide $kV_4$ by ideal generated by $ab$. This simply amounts adding further relation $ab = 0$. The reason for this is that often $ab$ acts on our vector spaces as $0$ and therefore why not simplify our ring even further and add the relation $ab= 0$? We still call the image of $U$ in this new ring $U$ as we do not want to make our notation too complicated. In this paper we present a rather accessible proof of the well-known classification of all the finite dimensional representations of $V_{4}$, or equivalently, of the finitely generated indecomposable $kV_{4}$-modules. These are also known as the modular representations of $V_{4}$. Note that a $V_{4}$ representation where $ab$ acts as zero can be viewed as a finite dimensional $k$-linear space equipped with a pair commuting linear maps $a$ and $b$ both of which square to zero.\n\nHaving explained what a representation of $V_{4}$ is, the following two questions have to be answered.\n\n1.  Why do we care about the representations of $V_{4}$?\n\n2.  What is unique about our approach?\n\nIn answer to the first question, first note that groups act naturally on various algebraic objects including vector spaces, rings, algebraic varieties and topological spaces. These actions tend to be quite complex in general. Therefore it is important to find simple pieces of this action and find ways to glue these pieces together to reconstruct the original action. Often this is related to other invariants of the group or our given representation like cohomology groups and support varieties. Amazingly, this goal in modular representation theory turns out to be exceedingly difficult. It turns out that besides the cyclic groups whose representations are very easily understood, Klein four group is one of the very few (other groups are the dihedral groups) interesting yet non-trivial examples for which representation theorists are able to completely classify all the finite dimensional modular representations. There is a lot to be learned by studying the representation theory of this one group and it goes to tell how complex the study of modular representations can be for an arbitrary group.\n\nNow we turn to the second question. Although the classification of the finite dimensional representations of $V_{4}$ is well-known and many proofs can be found in the literature, we could not find a proof to our heart\u2019s content. This is what motivated us to write up one \u2013 one that is transparent and which takes a minimal background. Furthermore, our approach is diagrammatic, so the reader can see what is happening through pictures. These methods, besides making the statements of theorems and proofs elegant and conceptual, give a better insight into the subject. We mostly follow Benson\u2019s approach [@ben-1] but we approach some parts of his proof from a different point of view and simplify them and in particular we make our proof accessible for a general reader. One ingredient that is new in our approach is Auslander-Reiten sequences which will be introduced later in the paper.\n\nThe subject of classifying the indecomposable representations of the Klein group has a long and rich history that can be traced all the way back to V. A. Ba\u0161ev [@basev], a student of I.R. \u0160afarevi\u010d, who observed that an old result of L. Kronecker on pairs of matrices can be used effectively in the classification, but over algebraically closed fields. This result of L. Kronecker on pairs of matrices was actually a completion of the work of K. Weierstrass. Then later on I. M. Gelfand and V. Ponomarev [@Gel-Pon] observed in their analysis of the representations of the Lorentz group that quiver techniques were quite useful and they both knew that G.Szekeres had a result in this direction. However, they did not know enough details about Szekeres\u2019s techniques and therefore they invented their new innovative and influencial quiver method which is influenced by Maclane\u2019s notion of relations \u2013 a generalization of a linear map. In [@hell-rei] A. Heller and I. Reiner provided another nice approach to the classification where they also worked over fields that are not necessarily algebraically closed. Finally D. Benson [@ben-1] wrote a modern treatment of the classification of the indecomposable representations of the Klein group in which he combined some of the crucial ideas in the works of the aforementioned people. The diagrammatic methods in our paper are inspired by S. B. Conlon who introduced these in [@conlon]. It is quite remarkable that a complete understanding of an innocent looking group on four elements would take the works of some of the great minds of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.\n\nBefore going further, we remind the reader some basis facts and terminology. We refer the reader to Carlson lecture notes for basic representation theory [@carlson-modulesandgroupalgebras]. In the category of modules over a the Klein group (or more generally, over a $p$-group), the three terms \u201cinjective\", \u201cprojective\" and \u201cfree\" are synonymous. Given a $V_{4}$-module $M$, its Heller shift $\\Omega( M)$ is defined to be the kernel of a minimal projective cover of $M$. It can be shown that minimal projective covers are unique up to isomorphism and from that it follows that $\\Omega(M)$ is well-defined. Inductively one defines $\\Omega^n (M)$ to be $\\Omega( \\Omega^{n-1} M)$. Similarly, $\\Omega^{-1} M$ is defined to be the cokernel of an injective envelope of $M$, and $\\Omega^{-n}\n(M)$ to be $\\Omega^{-1}( \\Omega^{-n+1} M)$. Again one can shown that these are well-defined modules. The modules $\\Omega^i M$ are also known as the syzygies of $M$. By the classical Krull-Remak-Schmidt theorem, one knows that every representation of a finite group decomposes as a direct sum of indecomposable ones. Thus it suffices to classify the indecomposable representations.\n\nAdvice for the novice: some arguments in our paper are only sketched and some notions maybe still unfamiliar for a novice. If that is the case, we advice readers to skip these parts on the first reading as they may became more clear later on and they most likely will not influence the basic understanding of the key ideas. The main point of this article is to provide overview of the remarkable proof of classification of representations of Klein group $V_4$ with appreciation of the works of number of people and to show that this proof open doors to study modern group representation where Auslander-Reiten sequences play increasingly important role. We hope that after reading our article a reader will read more texts in the references and possibly go on to further exciting heights in group representation theory.\n\nIndecomposable Representations of Klein\u2019s four group\n====================================================\n\nWe list all the indecomposable representations of $V_4$ below. Note that these are just the finitely generated modules over the group algebra $$kV_{4} \\cong k[a, b]/(a^{2}, b^{2})$$ which cannot be written as a sum of strictly smaller modules (much the same way prime numbers cannot be written as product of smaller numbers). Since we take a diagrammatic approach, we first explain the diagrams that follow. Each bullet represents a one dimensional $k$ vector space, a southwest arrow \u201c$\\swarrow$\u201d connecting two bullets corresponds to the action of $a$ and maps one bullet to the other in the indicated direction, and similarly the south east arrows \u201c$\\searrow$\u201d correspond to the action of $b$. If no arrow emanates from a bullet in given direction, then the corresponding linear action is understood to be zero.\n\n*(Kronecker, Weierstrass, Basev, Gelfand, Ponomarev, Conlon, Heller, Reiner, Benson)* [@Gel-Pon; @conlon; @hell-rei; @basev; @ben-1] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic $2$. Every isomorphism class of an indecomposable $V_4$ representation over $k$ is precisely one of the following.\n\n1.  The projective indecomposable module $kV_4$ of dimension 4. $$\\xymatrix@=2em{\n         & \\bullet \\ar[dl]_a \\ar[dr]^b & \\\\\n         \\bullet \\ar[dr]&  & \\bullet \\ar[dl]\\\\\n         & \\bullet &\n        }$$\n\n2.  The (non-projective) indecomposable even dimensional modules:\n\n    1.  For each even dimension $2n$ and an indecomposable rational canonical from corresponding to the power of an irreducible monic polynomial $f(x)^l = \\sum_{i=0}^n \\theta_i x^i$, $(\\theta_n = 1)$ there is an indecomposable representation given by $$\\xymatrix@=1.5em{\n            &  & \\overset{g_{n-1}}{\\bullet} \\ar@{..>}[d] \\ar[dr]& & \\overset{g_{n-2}}{\\bullet}\\ar[dl]^a \\ar[dr] &  & \\overset{g_{n-3}}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl]  & \\bullet  \\hspace{1 mm}\n              \\bullet \\hspace{1 mm} \\bullet\n              & & \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] \\\\\n            &  & & \\underset{f_{n-1}}{\\bullet} & & \\underset{f_{n-2}}{\\bullet} &  & &  \\underset{f_1}{\\bullet} & &\n              \\underset{f_0}{\\bullet}\n            }$$ where $a(g_{n-1}) = \\sum_{i = 0}^{n-1} \\theta_i f_i$, as represented by the vertical dotted arrow emanating from $g_{n-1}$ above.\n\n    2.  For each even dimension $2n$ there is an indecomposable representation given by $$\\xymatrix@=2em{\n        & & \\bullet \\ar[dr]^b \\ar[dl]_a & & \\bullet \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] & & &\n             \\bullet \\ar[dr] & & \\bullet \\ar[dl]   \\\\\n         &     \\bullet &  & \\bullet & & \\bullet & \\bullet  \\hspace{1 mm}\n              \\bullet \\hspace{1 mm} \\bullet & &  \\bullet &\n        }$$\n\n3.  The (non-projective) indecomposable odd dimensional modules:\n\n    1.  The trivial representation $k$. $$\\bullet$$\n\n    2.  For each odd dimension $2n+1$ greater than one, there is an indecomposable representation given by $$\\xymatrix@=2em{\n            &  \\bullet \\ar[dr]_b & & \\bullet\\ar[dl]^a \\ar[dr] &  & \\bullet \\ar[dl]  & \\bullet  \\hspace{1 mm}\n              \\bullet \\hspace{1 mm} \\bullet & \\bullet \\ar[dr]\n              & & \\bullet \\ar[dl] \\\\\n            &   & \\bullet & & \\bullet &  & &  & \\bullet &\n            }$$\n\n    3.  For each odd dimension $2n+1$ greater than one, there is an indecomposable representation given by $$\\xymatrix@=2em{\n        & & \\bullet \\ar[dr]^b \\ar[dl]_a & & \\bullet \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] & &\n              & & \\bullet \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] &  \\\\\n         &    \\bullet &  & \\bullet & & \\bullet & \\bullet  \\hspace{1 mm}\n              \\bullet \\hspace{1 mm} \\bullet  &  \\bullet & & \\bullet\n        }$$\n\nThe reader may decide to make a pleasant check that the above diagrams are indeed representations of $V_{4}$. For each $V_{4}$-module $M$, one can define the dual $V_{4}$-module $M^{*}$, where $M^{*}$ is the dual $k$-vector space of $M$, and a group element $\\sigma$ of $V_{4}$ acts on $f$ in $M$ via the rule $\\sigma f(m) = f(\\sigma^{-1} m)$. Then, as a fun exercise we ask the reader to verify that the diagrams in 3(a) and 3(b) are dual to each other. This will help the reader to get acquainted with some of the diagrammatic methods that will appear later on. We now begin by proving the easy part of the theorem.\n\n\\[lemma0\\] All representations of $V_4$ that appear in the above theorem are indecomposable and pair-wise non-isomorphic.\n\nItem (1) is not isomorphic to the rest because it is the only module that contains a non-zero element $x$ such that $(ab)x \\ne 0$. Modules in item (2) are even dimensional and those in (3) are odd dimensional and hence there is no overlap between the two. To see that all the $2n$ dimensional representations of item $2(a)$ are distinct, it is enough to observe that the rational canonical forms of the linear transformations on the co-invariant submodules, $$b^{-1}a : M/UM {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}M/UM$$ are distinct, where $U$ is the ideal generated by $a$ and $b$. To see that the $2n$ dimensional representation of item $2(b)$ does not occur in item $2(a)$ observe that kernel of the $b$-action in both cases have different dimensions: $n$ for the module in $2(a)$ and $n+1$ for that in 2$(b)$. The two $2n+1$ dimensional modules in items $3(b)$ and $3(c)$ are non-isomorphic because it is clear from the diagrams that the dimensions of the invariant submodules in both cases are different: $n$ for those in item $3(b)$, and $n+1$ for those in item $3(c)$.\n\nOf course the hard thing is to show that every indecomposable representation of $V_4$ is isomorphic to one in the above list. Since projective modules over $p$-groups are free, there is only one indecomposable projective $V_4$-module, namely $kV_4$ which occurs as item (1) in the list. Therefore we only consider indecomposable projective-free (modules which do not have projective summands) $V_4$-modules.\n\nOne can get a better handle on the projective-free representations of $V_4$ by studying the representations of the so called Kronecker Quiver, which is a directed graph $Q$ on two vertices as shown below. $$\\xymatrix{\n u_1 \\bullet \\ar@/^10pt/[rr]^f   \\ar@/_10pt/[rr]_g &  & \\bullet u_2\n}$$ A representations of the above quiver is just a pair of finite dimensional $k$-vector spaces $V$ and $W$ and a pair of $k$-linear maps $\\psi_1$ and $\\psi_2$ from $V$ to $W$. Such a representation will be denoted by the four tuple $[V, W ; \\psi_1, \\psi_2]$, and given two such representations, the notion of direct sum, and morphisms between them are defined in the obvious way. Thus it makes sense to talk about the isomorphism class of an indecomposable representation of $Q$. Let us call a representation of $Q$ special if the following conditions hold: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\operatorname{Ker}(\\psi_1) \\;  \\bigcap \\; \\operatorname{Ker}(\\psi_2)  & = & 0 \\\\\n{\\text{Image}}(\\psi_1) + {\\text{Image}}(\\psi_2) & = & V_2.\\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\[prop1\\] [@hell-rei] There is a one-one correspondence between the isomorphism classes of (indecomposable) projective-free representations of $V_4$ and those of the special (indecomposable) representations of the Kronecker quiver. Under this correspondence, an (indecomposable) projective-free representation $M$ of $G$ corresponds to the (indecomposable) representation of $Q$ that is given by $[M/UM, UM; a, b]$. Conversely, given an (indecomposable) special representation $[V, W ; \\psi_1, \\psi_2]$ of $Q$, the corresponding (indecomposable) $G$-module $M$ is given by $M = V\n\\oplus W$ where $a(\\alpha, \\beta) := (0, \\psi_1(\\alpha))$ and $b(\\alpha, \\beta) := (0, \\psi_2(\\alpha)).$\n\nWe will use this translation between the representations of the Klein group and the Kronecker Quiver freely through out the paper.\n\nIf $M = [V_1, V_2; a, b]$ is an indecomposable projective-free representation, then we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nV_1 &= 0 \\; \\Leftrightarrow \\; M = 0 \\\\\n   V_2 &= 0\\; \\Leftrightarrow \\; M = k.\\end{aligned}$$ So henceforth it will be assumed that the spaces $V_1$ and $V_2$ are non-zero, i.e., $M$ is an indecomposable projective-free and a non-trivial representation of $V_4$.\n\nWe begin with some lemmas that will help streamline the proof of the classification theorem. The proofs of these lemmas will be deferred to the last section. It should be noted that these lemmas are also of independent interest.\n\n[@ben-1]\\[lemma1\\] Let $M$ be a projective-free $V_4$-module given by $[V_1, V_2; a, b]$. Then we have the following.\n\n1.  $M$ contains a copy of $\\Omega^l(k)$ for some positive integer $l$ if and only if the transformation $$a + \\lambda b : V_1 \\otimes_k k[\\lambda] {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}V_2 \\otimes_k k[\\lambda]$$ is singular, i.e, $det( a + \\lambda b) = 0$.\n\n2.  Dually, $\\Omega^{-l} (k)$ is a quotient of $M$ for some positive integer $l$ if and only if the transformation $$a^* + \\lambda b^* : V_2^* \\otimes_k k[\\lambda] {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}V_1^* \\otimes_k k[\\lambda]$$ is singular.\n\nThe next lemma is very crucial to the classification. To the best of our knowledge, nowhere in the literature is this lemma stated explicitly, although it is secretly hidden in Benson\u2019s proof of the classification [@ben-1]. We use Auslander-Reiten sequences to give a transparent proof of this lemma in the last section.\n\n\\[lemma2\\] Let $M$ be a projective-free $V_4$-module. Then we have the following.\n\n1.  If $l$ is the smallest positive integer such that $\\Omega^l(k)$ is isomorphic to a submodule of $M$, then $\\Omega^l(k)$ is a summand of $M$.\n\n2.  Dually, if $l$ is the smallest positive integer such that $\\Omega^{-l}(k)$ is isomorphic to a quotient module of $M$, then $\\Omega^{-l}(k)$ is a $G$-summand of $M$.\n\n[@johnson-1]\\[lemma3\\] For all integers $n$, $\\Omega^n (k)$ is isomorphic to the dual representation $\\Omega^{-n} (k) ^*$. Furthermore,\n\n1.  If $n$ is positive, then $\\Omega^n (k)$ is a $2n+1$ dimensional indecomposable representation given by $$\\xymatrix@=2em{\n        &  \\bullet \\ar[dr]_b & & \\bullet\\ar[dl]^a \\ar[dr] &  & \\bullet \\ar[dl]  & \\bullet  \\hspace{4 mm}\n          \\bullet \\hspace{4 mm} \\bullet & \\bullet \\ar[dr]\n          & & \\bullet \\ar[dl] \\\\\n        &   & \\bullet & & \\bullet &  & &  & \\bullet &\n        }$$\n\n2.  If $n$ is a negative integer, then $\\Omega^n (k)$ is a $2n+1$ dimensional indecomposable representation given by $$\\xymatrix@=2em{\n    & & \\bullet \\ar[dr]^b \\ar[dl]_a & & \\bullet \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] & &\n          & & \\bullet \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] &  \\\\\n     &    \\bullet &  & \\bullet & & \\bullet & \\bullet  \\hspace{4 mm}\n          \\bullet \\hspace{4 mm} \\bullet  &  \\bullet & & \\bullet\n    }$$\n\nWe now give the proof of the classification theorem assuming these lemmas. The lemmas will be proved in the last section. Let $M = (V_1,\nV_2; a, b)$ be an indecomposable projective-free representation of $V_4$. We will show that $M$ is isomorphic to one of the representation that appear in items (2) it is even dimensional, and to those in item (3) if it odd dimensional.\n\nEven dimensional representations\n--------------------------------\n\nLet $M$ be an even dimensional ($2n$ say) indecomposable representation. We break the argument into cases for clarity.\\\n*Case 1:* $\\det (a + \\lambda b)$ is non-zero. We have two subcases. First assume that $\\det b \\ne 0$. Then consider the map $$b^{-1}a : V_1 \\longrightarrow V_1.$$ We claim that this map is indecomposable. Suppose we have a decomposition $f \\oplus g$ of $b^{-1}a$ as follows $$\\xymatrix{ V_1 \\ar[r]^{b^{-1}a} \\ar[d]_{\\cong} & V_1 \\ar[d]^{\\cong}\\\\\nA \\oplus B \\ar[r]_{f \\oplus g} & A \\oplus B\n }$$ Set $C:= b(A)$ and $D:= b(B)$. Then it is straightforward to verify that $M = (V_1, V_2; a, b)$ decomposes as $$(A, C; a|_{A}, b|_{A}) \\; \\bigoplus \\; (B, D; a|_{B}, b|_{B}).$$ Since $M$ is indecomposable it follows that the map $b^{-1}a$ is indecomposable. Now since $b^{-1}a$ is indecomposable we can choose a basis $\\{g_0, g_1, \\cdots, g_{n-1}\\} $ of $V_1$ such that the rational canonical form of $b^{-1}a$ has only one block which corresponds to some power of an irreducible polynomial $f(x)^r =\n\\sum_{i = 0}^{n-1} \\theta_i x^i$. This means we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nb^{-1}a \\; (g_i) &= & g_{i+1}  \\hspace{3 mm} \\text{for} \\;\\; 0 \\le i \\le n-2, \\\\\nb^{-1}a \\; (g_{n-1}) &=& \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \\theta_i g_i. \\hspace{3\nmm} (*)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNow the vectors $f_i := b(g_i)$ for $0 \\le i \\le n-1$ define a basis for $V_2$ because $b$ is non-singular. With respect to the bases $(g_i)$ of $V_1$ and $(f_i)$ of $V_2$, it is now clear that $M$ has the description $$\\xymatrix@=1.9em{\n       \\overset{g_{n-1}}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr]_b & & \\overset{g_{n-2}}{\\bullet}\\ar[dl]^a \\ar[dr] &  &\n      \\overset{g_{n-2}}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl]  & \\bullet  \\hspace{4 mm}\n      \\bullet \\hspace{4 mm} \\bullet\n      & & \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] \\\\\n       & \\underset{f_{n-1}}{\\bullet} & & \\underset{f_{n-2}}{\\bullet} &  & &  \\underset{f_1}{\\bullet} & &\n      \\underset{f_0}{\\bullet}\n    }$$ The action of $a$ on $g_{n-1}$ can be seen by applying $b$ on both sides of the equation (\\*) above: $a(g_{n-1}) = \\sum_{i=0}^{n-2}\nb(g_i) = \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} f_i$. These representations are the exactly ones in item 3(a).\n\nNow if $\\det(b)  = 0$, we do a change of coordinate trick. We assume that $k$ is an infinite field. If $k$ is finite, we can pass to an extension field and do a descent argument; see [@ben-1] for details. Then there exists some $\\lambda_0$ in $k$ such that $\\det(a + \\lambda_0 b) \\ne 0$. Now consider the tuple $(V_1, V_2; b, a+\\lambda_0 b)$. By case (i), we know that there exist bases for $V_1$ and $V_2$ such that $a +\n\\lambda_0 b = I$ and $b = J_0$ (the rational canonical form [@LinearAlgebra] [^1] corresponding to any indecomposable singular transformation). This gives the representation in item 2(b).\\\n*Case 2:* $\\det (a + \\lambda b) = 0$. We will show that this case cannot arise. First suppose that there is a copy of $\\Omega^{l} (k)$ in $M$ for some positive integer $l$. Now pick $l$ to be the smallest such integer, then by lemma \\[lemma2\\] we know that $\\Omega^l (k)$ is a direct summand of $M$. Since $M$ is indecomposable, this means $M$ has to be isomorphic to $\\Omega^l(k)$, which is impossible since the latter is odd dimensional while $M$ was assumed to be even dimensional. So the upshot is that $M$ does not contain $\\Omega^l(k)$ for any positive $l$. By lemma \\[lemma1\\] this is equivalent to the fact $\\det (a +\n\\lambda b) \\ne 0$ in the ring $k[\\lambda]$ which contradicts our hypothesis.\n\nOdd dimensional representations\n-------------------------------\n\nIf $M$ is odd dimensional, then clearly $\\dim V_1 \\ne \\dim V_2$. We consider the two cases.\\\n*Case 1:* $\\dim V_1 > \\dim V_2$. Then there is a non-zero vector $\\omega( \\lambda)$ in $ V_1 \\otimes_k K[\\lambda]$ such that $(a + \\lambda b) (\\omega (\\lambda)) = 0$ which then implies, by lemma \\[lemma1\\], the existence of a copy of $\\Omega^l(k)$ inside $M$ for some $l > 0$. Picking $l$ to be minimal, we can conclude from lemma \\[lemma2\\] that $\\Omega^l(k)$ is a direct summand of $M$. Since $M$ is indecomposable, we have $M \\cong \\Omega^l(k)$. This gives the modules in item 3(b).\\\n*Case 2 :* $\\dim V_1 < \\dim V_2$. Dualising $M = (V_1, V_2;\na , b)$, we get the dual representation $M^* = (V_2^*, V_1^*; a^*,\nb^*)$ which is also indecomposable. Now $\\dim V_2^* > \\dim V_1^*$, so by Case(1) we know that $M^* \\cong \\Omega^l(k)$ for some $l$ positive. Taking duals on both sides and invoking lemma $\\ref{lemma3}$, we get $M \\cong \\Omega^{-l}(k)$. This recovers the modules in item 3(c).\n\nThis completes the proof of the classification of the indecomposable representations of $V_4$.\n\nSome applications\n=================\n\nHaving a good classification of the indecomposable representations of a finite group helps a great deal in answering general module theoretic questions. In this section, we illustrate this by proving some facts about module over the Klein group. Note that we don\u2019t know of any direct proofs of the statements below that do not depend on the classification of the indecomposable representations.\n\nHeller Shifts of the $V_4$-representations.\n-------------------------------------------\n\nWe will show how our knowledge of the representations of $V_4$ can be used to give a homological characterisation of the parity of the dimensions of the representations. Proofs of the propositions are given in the last section.\n\n\\[prop:heller\\] [@ring] If $M$ is an even dimensional indecomposable projective-free representation of $V_4$, then $\\Omega(M) \\cong M$.\n\nA finite dimensional projective-free representation $M$ of $V_4$ is even dimensional if and only if $\\Omega(M) \\cong M$.\n\nWe only have to show that if $M$ is an odd dimensional indecomposable then $\\Omega(M) \\ncong M$. By the classification theorem, we know that $M$ is isomorphic to $\\Omega^l(k)$ for some integer $l$. Then $\\Omega(M) \\cong \\Omega(\\Omega^l(k)) \\cong\n\\Omega^{l+1}(k)$, which is clearly not isomorphic to $M$ just for dimensional reasons: just note that dimension of $\\Omega^{n} (k)$ is $2n+1$.\n\nDual representations of $V_4$\n-----------------------------\n\nWe will use our knowledge of the representations of $V_4$ to characterise the parity of the dimension of a representation using the concept of self-duality.\n\nRecall that if $M$ is a finite dimensional representation of a group $G$, then one can talk about the dual representation $M^* := \\operatorname{Hom}(M,\nk)$, where a group element $g$ acts on a linear functional $\\phi$ by $(g \\cdot \\phi)(x) := \\phi(x g^{-1})$. A representation of $G$ is self-dual if it is isomorphic to its dual.\n\nWhen $G = V_4$, it is not hard to see that if $M = (V_1, V_2; a,\nb)$ is a projective-free representation of $V_4$, then $M^* =\n(V_2^*, V_1^*; a^*, b^*)$.\n\n\\[prop:dual\\] Even dimensional indecomposable representations of $V_4$ are self-dual.\n\nA non-trivial indecomposable representation of $V_4$ is even dimensional if and only if it is self-dual.\n\nIf $M$ is a non-trivial odd dimensional representation of $V_4$, then we know that $M \\cong \\Omega^l(k)$ for some $l \\ne\n0$. Then $M^* \\cong (\\Omega^l(k))^* \\cong \\Omega^{-l}(k)$. In particular, $M^* \\ncong M$.\n\nProofs\n======\n\nIn this section we give the proofs of the lemmas and propositions that were used in the classification theorem and applications.\n\nProof of proposition \\[prop1\\]\n------------------------------\n\nLet $M$ be a projective-free $V_4$ module. Then we have we have $ab(M) = 0$, it follows that $UM$ is included in $U^V_4$. Remarkably one can show that if $M$ is additionally not trivial representation and $M$ is indecomposable then $UM$ is actually equal $M^V_4$, the $V_4$ invariant submodule of $M$. Consider short exact sequence of $V_4$ modules $$0 {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}UM {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}M {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}M/UM {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}0.$$ Let $\\pi: M {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}UM$ be a vector space retraction of the inclusion $UM \\hookrightarrow M$. Define a $V_4$ action on the vector space $M/UM \\oplus M$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\na(x, y) := (0, ax) \\\\\nb(x, y) := (0, by).\\end{aligned}$$ Then it is easy to verify that the map $x \\mapsto (x, \\pi(x))$ establishes an isomorphism of $V_4$ modules between $M$ and $M/UM\n\\oplus UM$. Thus $M$ is determined by the vector spaces $M/UM$ and $UM$ and the linear maps $a, b: M/UM {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}M$. This data amounts to giving a special representation of $Q$.\n\nIn the other direction, suppose $[V_1, V_2; \\psi_1, \\psi_2]$ is a special representation of $Q$. Define a $V_4$ action on the vector space $V_1 \\oplus V_2$ by setting $a(x, y):=(0, \\psi_1(x))$ and $b(x, y):= (0, \\psi_2(x))$. This is easily shown to be a projective free $V_4$ module.\n\nWe leave it as an exercise to the reader to verify that the recipes are inverses to each other.\n\nIt is also clear that these recipes respect direct sum of representations. Thus the indecomposables are also in 1-1 correspondence.\n\nProof of lemma \\[lemma1\\]\n-------------------------\n\nSuppose $M$ contains a copy of $\\Omega^{l}(k)$, for some $l \\ge 1$. $$\\xymatrix@=2em{\n    &  \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr]_b & & \\overset{g_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl]^a \\ar[dr] &  & \\overset{g_2}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl]  & \\bullet  \\hspace{1 mm}\n      \\bullet \\hspace{1 mm} \\bullet & \\overset{g_{l-1}}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr]\n      & & \\overset{g_l}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\\\\n    &   & \\underset{f_0}{\\bullet} & & \\underset{f_1}{\\bullet} &  & &  & \\underset{f_{l-1}}{\\bullet} &\n    }$$ Define a vector $V(\\lambda): = g_0 + g_1 \\lambda + g_2 \\lambda^2 +\n\\cdots + g_l  \\lambda^l$. A trivial verification shows that $(a +\n\\lambda b) (V(\\lambda)) = 0$ and therefore $a + \\lambda b$ is a singular transformation as desired.\n\nConversely, suppose $a + \\lambda b$ is singular. Then there is a non-zero vector $V(\\lambda) =  g_0 + g_1 \\lambda + g_2 \\lambda^2\n\\cdots g_l \\lambda^l$ of smallest degree $l$ in $V_1 \\otimes\nk[\\lambda]$ (so $g_l \\ne 0$) such that $(a + b \\lambda) (V(\\lambda))\n= 0$. This means: $a(g_0) = 0$, $b(g_i) = a(g_{i+1})$ for $0 \\le i\n\\le l-1$, and $b(g_l) = 0$. We now argue that these equations give a copy of $\\Omega^l(k)$ inside $M$. To this end, it suffices to show that the vectors $\\{g_0, g_1, g_2, \\cdots, g_l \\}$ are linearly independent. As a further reduction, we claim that it suffices to show that $\\{ a(g_1),  a(g_2), \\cdots, a(g_l) \\}$ are linearly independent. For, then it will be clear that $\\{ g_1, g_2, \\cdots,\ng_l \\}$is linearly independent, and moreover if $g_0 = \\sum_{i=1}^l\nc_i \\, g_i$, applying $a$ on both sides we get $a(g_0) = 0 = \\sum_{i\n= 1}^l c_i \\, a(g_i)$. Linear independence of $a(g_i)$ forces all the $c_i = 0$. Thus we will have shown that $\\{g_0, g_1, g_2,\n\\cdots, g_l \\}$ is linearly independent. So it remains to establish our claim that $\\{ a(g_1), a (g_2), \\cdots, a (g_l) \\}$ is a linearly independent set. Suppose to the contrary that there is a non-trivial linear combination of $a(g_i)$\u2019s which is zero: say $\\sum_{i=1}^l \\gamma_i \\, a (g_i) = 0$ (\\*). We will get a contradiction by showing that there is a vector of smaller degree ($\n< l$) in $\\operatorname{Ker}(a + \\lambda b)$. It suffices to produce elements $(\\tilde{g}_i)_{0 \\le i \\le l-1}$ such that $a(\\tilde{g}_0) = 0 $, $b(\\tilde{g_{l-1}}) = 0$, and for $0 \\le i \\le l-2$, $b(\\tilde{g}_i)\n= a (\\tilde{g_{i+1}})$ ($\\diamond$). For then the vector $\\sum_{i=0}^{l-1} \\tilde{g}_i \\lambda^i$ will be of degree less than $l$ belonging to the kernel of $a + \\lambda b$. To start, we set $\\tilde{g}_0 = \\sum_{i=0}^l \\gamma_i\\, g_i$. The condition $a\n(\\tilde{g}_0) = 0$ is satisfied by assumption (\\*). Now define $\\tilde{f_0} := b( \\tilde{g}_0) = \\sum_{i=1}^l \\gamma_i \\, b(g_i) =\n\\sum_{i = 1}^{l-1} \\gamma_i \\, b(g_i)$ (since $b(g_l) = 0$). Then we define $\\tilde{g}_1 = \\sum_{i=0}^{l-1} \\gamma_i \\, g_{i+1}$ so that we have the required condition $a(\\tilde{g}_1) = b(\\tilde{g}_0)$. Now we simply repeat this process: Inductively we define, for $ 0\n\\le t \\le l-1 $, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\tilde{g}_t &= &\\sum_{i=1}^{l-t} \\gamma_i \\;g_{i+t}, \\\\\n\\tilde{f}_t &= & \\sum_{i=1}^{l-t} \\gamma_i\\; b(g_{i+t}).\\end{aligned}$$ When $t = l-1$, we have $\\tilde{g}_{l-1} = \\gamma_1 g_l$ and $\\tilde{f}_{l-1} = 0$. So this inductive process terminates at $t=\nl-1 (< l) $ and the requirements $(\\diamond)$ are satisfied by construction. Thus we have shown that the vector $\\sum_{i=0}^{l-1}\n\\tilde{g}_{i}\\, \\lambda^i$ is of smaller degree in the kernel of $a\n+ \\lambda b$ contradicting the minimality of $l$. Therefore the vectors $\\{a(g_1), a(g_2), \\cdots, a(g_l) \\}$ should be linearly independent. This completes the proof of the first statement in the lemma. The second statement follows by a straightforward duality argument.\n\nProof of lemma \\[lemma2\\]\n-------------------------\n\nFirst note that the second part of this lemma follows by dualising the first part; here we also use the fact that $(\\Omega^l\\,k)^*\\cong \\Omega^{-l}\\,k$ which will be proved in the next lemma. So it is enough to prove the first part. Although this lemma is secretly hidden in Benson\u2019s treatment [@ben-1 Theorem 4.3.2], it is hard very to extract it. So we give a clean proof of this lemma using almost split sequences, a.k.a Auslander-Reiten sequences. Recall that a short exact sequence $$0 {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}A {\\stackrel{f}{\\longrightarrow}} B {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}C {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}0$$ of finitely generated modules over a group $G$ is an almost split sequence if it is a non-split sequence with the property that every map out of $A$ which is not split injective factors through $f$. It has been shown in [@aus-rei-sma] that given an finitely generated indecomposable non-projective $kG$-module $C$, there exists a unique (up to isomorphism of short exact sequences) almost split sequence terminating in $C$. In particular, if $G = V_4$ and $C = \\Omega^l\\,k$, these sequences are of the form; see [@ben-trends Appendix, p 180]. $$0 {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\Omega^{l+2}\\,k {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\Omega^{l+1}\\, k \\oplus \\Omega^{l+1}\\, k {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\Omega^l\\,k {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}0   \\hspace{9 mm}   l \\ne -1$$ $$0 {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\Omega^1\\,k {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}kV_4 \\oplus k \\oplus k {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\Omega^{-1}\\,k {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}0  \\hspace{20 mm}$$ To start the proof, let $l$ be the smallest positive integer such that $\\Omega^l\\,k$ embeds in a projective-free $V_4$-module $M$. If this embedding does not split, then by the property of an almost split sequence, it should factor through $\\Omega^{l-1}\\,k \\oplus \\Omega^{l-1}\\,k$ as shown in the diagram below. $$\\xymatrix{ 0 \\ar[r] & \\Omega^{l}\\,k \\ar[r] \\ar@{^{(}->}[d] & \\Omega^{l-1}\\,k\n\\oplus \\Omega^{l-1}\\,k\n\\ar[r] \\ar@{..>}[dl]^{f \\oplus g} \\ar[r]& \\Omega^{l-2}\\,k \\ar[r] & 0 \\\\\n& M & & & & }$$ Now if either $f$ or $g$ is injective, that would contradict the minimality of $l$, so they cannot be injective. So both $f$ and $g$ should factor through $\\Omega^{l-2}\\,k\n\\oplus \\Omega^{l-2}\\,k$ as shown in the diagrams below. $$\\xymatrix{ 0 \\ar[r] & \\Omega^{l-1}\\,k \\ar[r] \\ar[d]_f & \\Omega^{l-2}\\,k \\oplus\n\\Omega^{l-2}\\,k\n\\ar[r] \\ar@{..>}[dl]^{(f_1 \\oplus f_2)} \\ar[r] & \\Omega^{l-3}\\,k \\ar[r] & 0 \\\\\n& M & & & & }$$ $$\\xymatrix{ 0 \\ar[r] & \\Omega^{l-1}\\,k \\ar[r] \\ar[d]_g & \\Omega^{l-2}\\,k \\oplus\n\\Omega^{l-2}\\,k\n\\ar[r] \\ar@{..>}[dl]^{(g_1 \\oplus g_2)} \\ar[r] & \\Omega^{l-3}\\,k \\ar[r] & 0 \\\\\n& M & & & & }$$\n\nProceeding in this way we can assemble all the lifts obtained using the almost split sequences into one diagram as shown below. $$\\xymatrix{\n\\Omega^l\\, k \\ar@{^{(}->}[rrrrrr] \\ar@{^{(}->}[d] & &&&&& M \\\\\n\\Omega^{l-1}\\,k \\oplus \\Omega^{l-1}\\,k \\ar@{..>}[urrrrrr]  \\ar@{^{(}->}[d]& &&&&& \\\\\n(\\Omega^{l-2}\\,k \\oplus \\Omega^{l-2}\\,k)\\oplus(\\Omega^{l-2}\\,k \\oplus\n\\Omega^{l-2}\\,k) \\ar@{..>}[uurrrrrr] \\ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\\\\n\\vdots \\ar@{^{(}->}[d] \\\\\n(\\Omega^1\\, k \\oplus \\Omega^l\\,k)\\oplus \\cdots \\oplus(\\Omega^1\\, k \\oplus\n\\Omega^l\\,k) \\ar@{..>}[uuuurrrrrr]  \\ar@{^{(}->}[dd]\\\\\n\\\\\n (kV_4 \\oplus k \\oplus k) \\oplus \\cdots \\oplus (kV_4 \\oplus k \\oplus k)\n\\ar@{..>}[uuuuuurrrrrr]}$$ So it suffices to show that for a projective-free $M$ there cannot exist a factorisation of the form $$\\xymatrix{\n \\Omega^l\\, k \\ar@{^{(}->}[r] \\ar@{^{(}->}[d] & M \\\\\n (kV_4)^s \\oplus k^t \\ar@{.>}[ur]_{\\phi} & }$$ where $l$ is a positive integer. It is not hard to see that the invariance $(\\Omega^l\\,k)^G$ of $\\Omega^l\\,k$ maps into $((kV_4)^s)^G$. We will arrive at a contradiction by showing $((kV_4)^s)^G$ maps to zero under the map $\\phi$. Since $((kV_4)^s)^G \\cong\n((kV_4)^G)^s$ it is enough to show that $\\phi$ maps each $(kV_4)^G$ to zero. $(kV_4)^G$ is a one-dimensional subspace, generated by say $v$. It $v$ maps to a non-zero element, then it is easy to see that the restriction of $\\phi$ on the corresponding copy of $kV_4$ is injective, but $M$ is projective-free, so this is impossible. In other words $\\phi(v) = 0$ and that completes the proof of the lemma.\n\nProof of lemma \\[lemma3\\]\n-------------------------\n\nRecall that $\\Omega^1(k)$ is defined to be the kernel of the augmentation map $kV_4 {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}k$. Dualising the short exact sequence $$0 {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\Omega^1(k) {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}kV_4 {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}k {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}0,$$ we get $$0 \\leftarrow \\Omega^1(k)^* \\leftarrow kV_4 \\leftarrow k \\leftarrow 0$$ because $kV_4$ and $k$ are self-dual. This shows that $\\Omega^{-1}(k\n) \\cong \\Omega^1(k)^*$. Now a straightforward induction gives $\\Omega^{-l}(k ) \\cong \\Omega^l(k)^*$ for all $l \\ge 1$.\n\nSo it is enough to prove the part (1) of the lemma because it is not hard to see that the representations in part (2) are precisely the duals of those in part (1). We leave this as an easy exercise to the reader.\n\nAs for (1) we will prove the cases $n =1$ and $n=2$. The general case will then be abundantly clear. For $n=1$, we have to identify the kernel of the augmentation map $kV_4 {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}k$ which is defined by mapping the generator $e_0$ of $kV_4$ to the basis element $g_0$ of $k$, so the kernel $\\Omega^1(k)$ is a three dimensional representation as shown in the diagram below $$\\xymatrix{ \\\\ 0 \\\\  } \\xymatrix{\\\\ \\longrightarrow \\\\}\n\\xymatrix@=2em{                   \\\\\n\\overset{a_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr] & & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\\\\n & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} &\n} \\xymatrix{\\\\ \\longrightarrow \\\\} \\xymatrix@=2em{\n     & \\overset{e_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] & \\\\\n     \\overset{a_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr]&  & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl]\\\\\n     & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} &\n    }\n\\xymatrix{\\\\ \\longrightarrow \\\\} \\xymatrix{\\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\\\ \\\\ } \\xymatrix{\\\\\n\\longrightarrow\n\\\\}\n\\xymatrix{\\\\ 0\n \\\\}$$ Now consider the case $n=2$. Note the $\\Omega^1(k)$ is generated by two elements $g_0$ and $g_1$. So a minimal projective cover will be $kV_4 \\oplus kV_4$ generated by $e_0$ and $e_1$. The projective covering maps $e_i$ to $g_i$, $i = 0, 1$. The kernel $\\Omega^2(k)$ of this projective covering will be $5$-dimensional and can be easily seen in the diagram below. $$\\xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\\\ \\\\  0 \\\\ \\\\  } \\xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\\\ \\\\  {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\\n\\\\ }\\xymatrix@=0.5em{ & & & & \\\\ \\\\\n \\overset{a_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr] &         & \\overset{b_1 + a_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] &   & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl]\n \\\\ \\\\\n                 &\\underset{c_1}{\\bullet} &                         & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} &\n} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\ \\\\ {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\ \\\\}\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\n     & \\overset{e_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] & \\\\  \\\\\n     \\overset{a_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr]&  & \\overset{b_1}{\\bullet}\n     \\ar[ddl]\\\\ \\\\\n     & \\underset{c_1}{\\bullet} &\n    }\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\  \\\\ \\bigoplus \\\\ \\\\} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\n     & \\overset{e_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] & \\\\ \\\\\n     \\overset{a_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr]&  & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet}\n     \\ar[ddl]\\\\ \\\\\n     & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} & }\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\ \\\\ {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\ \\\\} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\n\\overset{g_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr] & & \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl]\n\\\\ \\\\\n & \\underset{f_0}{\\bullet} & \\\\ \\\\\n} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\ \\\\ {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\ \\\\}\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\  \\\\ 0\n \\\\ \\\\}$$ Now it is clear that in general $\\Omega^l(k)$ for $l \\ge 1$ will be a $2l+1$ dimensional representation and has the shape of the zig-zag diagram as shown in the statement of the lemma.\n\nProof of proposition \\[prop:heller\\].\n-------------------------------------\n\nWe begin by showing the modules in item 2(b) are fixed by the Heller shift operator. Recall that these have the form $$\\xymatrix@=2em{\n& & \\overset{g_{n-1}}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr]^b \\ar[dl]_a & &\n\\overset{g_{n-2}}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] & & &\n     \\overset{g_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr] & & \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl]   \\\\\n &     \\bullet &  & \\bullet & & \\bullet & \\bullet  \\hspace{1 mm}\n      \\bullet \\hspace{1 mm} \\bullet & &  \\bullet &\n}$$ It is clear that the $\\{g_0, g_1, g_2, \\cdots g_{n-1} \\}$ is a minimal generating set for the above module, $M$ say. So a minimal projective cover of this module will be a free $V_4$-module of rank $n$ generated by basis elements $\\{e_0, e_1, e_2, \\cdots ,e_{n-1}\n\\}$, and the covering map sends $e_i$ to $g_i$, for all $i$. Counting dimensions, it is then clear that the dimension of the kernel ($\\Omega(M)$) of this projective cover is of dimension $2n$. We only have to show that the $V_4$-module structure on the kernel is isomorphic to the one on $M$. This will be clear from the following diagrams. We consider the cases $n=2$ and $3$, the general case will then be clear. $$\\xymatrix{ \\\\ 0 \\\\  } \\xymatrix{\\\\ \\longrightarrow \\\\}\n\\xymatrix@=2em{                   \\\\\n                 & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\\\\n  \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} &\n} \\xymatrix{\\\\ \\longrightarrow \\\\} \\xymatrix@=2em{\n     & \\overset{e_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] & \\\\\n     \\overset{a_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr]&  & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl]\\\\\n     & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} &\n    }\n\\xymatrix{\\\\ \\longrightarrow \\\\} \\xymatrix{& \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\\\ \\underset{f_0}\\bullet & \\\\ } \\xymatrix{\\\\\n\\longrightarrow\n\\\\}\n\\xymatrix{\\\\ 0\n \\\\}$$ $$\\xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\\\ \\\\  0 \\\\ \\\\  } \\xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\\\ \\\\  {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\\n\\\\ }\\xymatrix@=0.5em{  & & & \\\\ \\\\\n          & \\overset{b_1 + a_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] &   & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl]\n \\\\ \\\\\n                 \\underset{c_1}{\\bullet} &                         & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} &\n} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\ \\\\ {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\ \\\\}\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\n     & \\overset{e_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] & \\\\  \\\\\n     \\overset{a_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr]&  & \\overset{b_1}{\\bullet}\n     \\ar[ddl]\\\\ \\\\\n     & \\underset{c_1}{\\bullet} &\n    }\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\  \\\\ \\bigoplus \\\\ \\\\} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\n     & \\overset{e_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] & \\\\ \\\\\n     \\overset{a_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr]&  & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet}\n     \\ar[ddl]\\\\ \\\\\n     & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} & }\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\ \\\\ {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\ \\\\} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{ &\n\\overset{g_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] & & \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet}\n\\ar[ddl]\n\\\\ \\\\\n \\underset{f_1}{\\bullet} & & \\underset{f_0}{\\bullet} & \\\\ \\\\\n} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\ \\\\ {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\ \\\\}\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\  \\\\ 0\n \\\\ \\\\}$$ We now show that the modules in item 2(a) are fixed under the Heller. Recall that in each even dimension $2n$, these modules correspond to indecomposable rational canonical forms given by powers of an irreducible polynomials $f(x)^l = \\sum_{i=0}^n \\theta_i\nx^i$, schematically: $$\\xymatrix@=1.9em{\n      \\overset{g_{n-1}}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr]_b & & \\overset{g_{n-2}}{\\bullet}\\ar[dl]^a \\ar[dr] &  & \\overset{g_{n-3}}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl]  & \\bullet  \\hspace{1 mm}\n      \\bullet \\hspace{1 mm} \\bullet\n      & & \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] \\\\\n      & \\underset{f_{n-1}}{\\bullet} & & \\underset{f_{n-2}}{\\bullet} &  & &  \\underset{f_1}{\\bullet} & &\n      \\underset{f_0}{\\bullet}\n    }$$ where $a(g_{n-1}) = \\sum_{i = 0}^{n-1} \\theta_i f_i$. It is again clear that $\\{g_0, g_1, g_2, \\cdots g_{n-1} \\}$ is a minimal generating set, and hence a projective cover can be taken to be a free $V_4$-module of rank $n$ with basis elements $\\{e_0, e_1, e_2,\n\\cdots e_{n-1} \\}$, and the mapping sends the elements $e_i$ to the generators $g_i$. We will again convince the reader that these modules are fixed under the Heller by examining the cases $n=1$ and $n=2$. We begin with the case $n=1$. Here the rational canonical form is determined by constant $\\theta_0$, and $a(g_0) = \\theta_0\nf_0$. The following diagram shows that the Heller fixes these two dimensional modules.\n\n$$\\xymatrix{ \\\\ 0 \\\\  } \\xymatrix{\\\\ \\longrightarrow \\\\}\n\\xymatrix@=2em{                   \\\\\n                  \\overset{a_0 + \\theta_0 b_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr] & \\\\\n  & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet}\n} \\xymatrix{\\\\ \\longrightarrow \\\\} \\xymatrix@=2em{\n     & \\overset{e_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl] \\ar[dr] & \\\\\n     \\overset{a_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr]&  & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dl]\\\\\n     & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} &\n    }\n\\xymatrix{\\\\ \\longrightarrow \\\\} \\xymatrix{ \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[dr] & \\\\ & \\underset{f_0}\\bullet  \\\\ } \\xymatrix{\\\\\n\\longrightarrow\n\\\\}\n\\xymatrix{\\\\ 0\n \\\\}$$ Now consider the four dimensional modules: $n=2$ and the rational conical form corresponds to a polynomial $x^2 + \\theta_1 x +\n\\theta_0$. In the diagram below $a(g_1) = \\theta_0 f_0  + \\theta_1\nf_1.$ $$\\xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\\\ \\\\  0 \\\\ \\\\  } \\xymatrix@=0.5em{ \\\\ \\\\  {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\\n\\\\ }\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{  & & & \\\\ \\\\\n           \\overset{\\gamma}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr] &   & \\overset{b_1 + a_0}{\\bullet}\n\\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] &\n \\\\ \\\\\n &                 \\underset{c_1}{\\bullet} &   & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet}\n} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\ \\\\ {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\ \\\\}\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\n     & \\overset{e_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] & \\\\  \\\\\n     \\overset{a_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr]&  & \\overset{b_1}{\\bullet}\n     \\ar[ddl]\\\\ \\\\\n     & \\underset{c_1}{\\bullet} &\n    }\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\  \\\\ \\bigoplus \\\\ \\\\} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\n     & \\overset{e_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddl] \\ar[ddr] & \\\\ \\\\\n     \\overset{a_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr]&  & \\overset{b_0}{\\bullet}\n     \\ar[ddl]\\\\ \\\\\n     & \\underset{c_0}{\\bullet} & }\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\ \\\\ {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\ \\\\} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\n\\overset{g_1}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr] & & \\overset{g_0}{\\bullet} \\ar[ddr]\n\\ar[ddl] &\n\\\\ \\\\\n & \\underset{f_1}{\\bullet} & & \\underset{f_0}{\\bullet}  \\\\ \\\\\n} \\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\ \\\\ {\\ensuremath{\\rightarrow}}\\\\ \\\\}\n\\xymatrix@=0.5em{\\\\  \\\\ 0\n \\\\ \\\\}$$ where $\\gamma = a_1 + \\theta_0 b_0 + \\theta_1 b_1$. Note that $a(\\gamma) = \\theta_0 c_0 + \\theta_1 c_1$, as desired.\n\nProof of proposition \\[prop:dual\\].\n-----------------------------------\n\nNote that it suffices to show that the indecomposable representations in item 2(a) are self-dual; for that forces the representations in item 2(b) to be self-dual, and it is well known that $kV_4$ is self-dual.\n\nA $2n$ dimensional representation $M$ of item 2(a) can be chosen to be of the form (after a suitable choice of bases) $$M = (V, V; I, J)$$ where $V$ is an $n$-dimensional vector space, $I$ denotes the identity transformation, and $J$ an indecomposable rational canonical form. It is then clear that the dual of $M$ is given by $$M^* = (V^*, V^*; I , J^T )$$ It is a interesting exercise [^2] to show that a square matrix is similar to its transpose, so there exists an invertible matrix $D$ such that $J^T = D J D^{-1}$. The following commutative diagram then tells us that $M$ is isomorphic to $M^*$. $$\\xymatrix{\n  V \\ar[r]^J \\ar[d]_D^{\\cong}  & V  \\ar[d]^D_{\\cong} \\\\\n  V^* \\ar[r]_{J^T} &   V^*  }$$\n\nThe quest continues\n===================\n\nIn our paper we concentrated on Klein group but what about $C_{3} \\oplus C_{3}$? What are all the representation of this group? Interestingly enough this is an extremely difficult question. Yet, some progress has be made very recently which involves more sophisticated machinery of representation theory. For the curious reader we refer to a recent paper [@CFP].\n\n[^1]: Most readers are familiar with the Jordan canonical form of an operator acting on a vector space over $\\mathbb{C}$ or other algebraically closed fields. These forms use critically the fact that non-constant polynomials have roots. However, a parallel and beautiful theory also exists when the field is not algebraically closed, and this is not so well-known. One often thinks about the base field as the field of rational numbers and the name \u201cThe rational canonical form\u201d stick also to completely different fields including ${\\mathbb{F}_2}$.\n\n[^2]: Hint: Use Jordan decomposition\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Weak gravitational lensing is one of the most promising cosmological probes to constrain dark matter, dark energy and the nature of gravity at cosmic scales. Intrinsic alignments (IA) of galaxies have been recognized as one of the most serious systematic effects facing gravitational lensing. Such alignments must be isolated and removed to obtain a pure lensing signal. Furthermore, the alignments are related to the processes of galaxy formation, so their extracted signal can help in understanding such formation processes and improving their theoretical modeling. We report in this letter the first detection of the gravitational shear\u2013intrinsic shape (GI) correlation and the intrinsic shape\u2013galaxy density (Ig) correlation in a photometric redshift survey using the self-calibration method. These direct measurements are made from the KiDS-450 photometric galaxy survey with a significance of 2.74$\\sigma$ in the third bin for the Ig correlation, and 2.73$\\sigma$ for the GI cross-correlation between the third and fourth bins. The self-calibration method uses the information available from photometric surveys without needing to specify an IA model and will play an important role in validating IA models and IA mitigation in future surveys such as LSST, Euclid and WFIRST.'\nauthor:\n- 'Eske M. Pedersen$^{1}$'\n- 'Ji Yao$^{1,2}$'\n- 'Mustapha Ishak$^{1}$'\n- 'Pengjie Zhang$^{2}$'\nbibliography:\n- 'bibliography.bib'\ntitle: 'First detection of the GI-type of intrinsic alignments of galaxies using the self-calibration method in a photometric galaxy survey'\n---\n\n[***Introduction.***]{} In the last few decades, cosmology has entered a flourishing era of high precision made possible by the advancement of astronomical surveys and missions. These will continue to provide large volume, high quality observational data that will allow the scientific community to put stringent constraints on cosmological models of the universe. With such an abundance of data, it has become clear that the challenges facing modern cosmology lie in systematic uncertainties associated with the data rather than statistical ones.\n\nOne of the most powerful cosmological probes of large-scale structure and matter in the universe is weak gravitational lensing, also known as cosmic shear. Weak gravitational lensing is the physical phenomenon where images of billions of background galaxies are distorted and harmonically aligned by the foreground dark matter and galaxies. These distorted images encode valuable cosmological information about the intervening cosmos that light traveled through. Depending on the position of the sources, lenses and the observer, gravitational lensing occurs: in a strong regime giving, astonishing multiple images; an intermediate regime, giving arcs and arclets; and a weak regime, giving small distortions of the images of background galaxies. For more details see the reviews [@1992grle.book.....S; @2015RPPh...78h6901K] and references therein.\n\n  -- --\n     \n  -- --\n\n\\[fig:IAmodel\\]\n\nThe effect in the weak regime is tiny but overwhelmingly abundant and is collected by surveys using statistical methods to build a powerful signal to constrain cosmological model parameters. Weak lensing is sensitive to the amount and distribution of matter in the universe as well as the parameters of the dark energy driving the acceleration of the universe. Weak lensing also probes the growth rate of large scale structures in the universe which allows it to test the theory of gravity at cosmological scales. A number of weak lensing surveys such as CFHTLens, KiDS-450, and Dark Energy Survey have already delivered \u2013 in combination with other probes \u2013 very tight constraints on the amount of matter, the amplitude of matter clustering, and equation of state of dark energy, see e.g. [@2012MNRAS.427..146H; @2017MNRAS.465.1454H; @2018PhRvD..98d3528T]. Weak lensing is thus found to be one of the most promising cosmological probes, and a number of ambitious surveys are being built and scheduled to start taking data in the upcoming decade, including LSST, Euclid, and WFIRST. Again, all these surveys will be dominated by systematic uncertainties and the scientific community is working on such systematics as uncertainties on photometric redshifts, intrinsic alignments of galaxies, baryonic effects, and modeling of non-linear regimes, among others, for more details see, for example, the reviews and references therein.\n\nUndoubtedly, one of the most serious systematic effects that weak lensing surveys face is the so-called Intrinsic Alignments (IA) of galaxies that act as a contaminant to the weak gravitational lensing signal. Galaxies in the universe are not randomly aligned but rather possess an intrinsic alignment due to how they formed and the environment they formed into. More detail can be found in, for example, [@2015PhR...558....1T; @2015SSRv..193....1J] and references therein. indeed these IA generate additional signals that contaminate the pure cosmic gravitational shear and significantly affect the values of cosmological parameters. Studies have shown, e.g. [@2007NJPh....9..444B], that IA, if not accounted for in weak lensing cosmological analyses, leads to biases (shifts) of up to 30% in the amplitude parameter of matter fluctuations in the universe and up to 50% in the equation of state of dark energy.\n\nTo complicate the issue, there are two types of IA that require different methods of mitigation. First, a collection of galaxies formed around a massive dark matter structure will tend to be radially aligned toward such a structure. This type of IA is called the Intrinsic shape\u2013Intrinsic shape correlation and is referred to as II. The other type of intrinsic alignment is slightly more subtle and comes from the fact that the same massive matter structure will not only radially align a galaxy close to it but also lenses the image of a background galaxy. This creates an anti-correlation between the images of the two galaxies on the observed sky. This effect is called the gravitational shear\u2013intrinsic shape correlation and is referred to as GI (or IG) signal. The two effects, II and IG, are illustrated in Fig. \\[fig:IAmodel\\].\n\nThe scientific community working on weak lensing cosmology and the communities working on preparing software pipelines for upcoming photometric surveys have a strong need of efficient methods to mitigate and control the IA nuisance effect. While the effect of the II signal of IA can be reduced by not considering pairs of galaxies close to each other along the line of sight (i.e. not the same redshift bins), the GI signal cannot be reduced in the same way as it is present at long distances. One method used to try to account for GI is to assume a model of IA with a few parameters and then add those parameters to the cosmological analysis such that the parameters can be constrained from the photometric survey data. This technique relies on the knowledge and specification of an IA model which is still an area of active development itself; see, e.g., [@2017arXiv170809247B; @2019arXiv191008085V]. Another proposed mitigation method is the nulling technique that uses different redshift dependencies of lensing and intrinsic alignments but it was found to throw away too much of precious lensing signal [@2010arXiv1009.2024J]. A third scheme that was proposed in [@Zhang:2008pw] for the 2-point correlations and later re-studied and extended to 3-point correlations in [@Troxel:2011za] is called the self-calibration method. As we describe in the next section, we use all the observed correlations between shapes and densities of galaxies in a photometeric survey and put them into a procedure that will separate the GG and GI signals. This separation is based on using the dependencies of GG and GI on the respective positions of the sources and lenses in small redshift bins but still allowing the use of the whole redshift extent of the survey. Ref. [@2017JCAP...10..056Y] showed how such a method can mitigate biases on the dark energy parameters. Therefore, self-calibration complements the marginalization method as it does not rely on the specification of an IA model. It allows one to extract the GI signal that can be then subtracted from the GG signal before performing cosmological analyses. Additionally, self-calibration provides the extracted GI signal that can be fit to models of IA and help study and improve such models.\n\nIn this letter, we report first detections of intrinsic shape\u2013gravitational shear (IG) and intrinsic shape\u2013galaxy density (Ig) in a photometric redshift survey using the self-calibration method where no IA model has been assumed. We provide a concise description of intrinsic alignment, the self-calibration method, the steps that directly lead to the detections, and the results obtained. A more detailed description of the Ig part of the results and related methods, as well as other developments can be found in a companion paper [@JietAl2019].\\\n[***Intrinsic alignments of galaxies and basic elements of the self-calibration method.***]{} In photometric galaxy surveys, the total measured shear is given by $\\gamma^{obs}=\\gamma^G+\\gamma^I+\\gamma^N$, where the superscript G stands for gravitational shear, I for intrinsic alignment, and N for shot noise. Thus, the observed angular cross-correlation, $<\\gamma^{obs,i},\\gamma^{obs,j}>$, between two redshift bins $i$ and $j$ includes: a GG term that corresponds to the genuine gravitational shear signal; GI, II, and IG terms that represent intrinsic alignment components; and a noise term. This can be written in terms of the corresponding shape-shape power spectrum as follows: $$C^{\\gamma\\gamma}_{ij}(\\ell)=C^{GG}_{ij}(\\ell)+C^{IG}_{ij}(\\ell)+C^{GI}_{ij}(\\ell)+C^{II}_{ij}(\\ell)+\\delta_{ij}C^{GG,N}_{ii}.$$ Fig. \\[fig:IAmodel\\] shows the physical mechanisms behind the correlation giving the terms $C^{II}_{ij}(\\ell)$ and $C^{IG}_{ij}(\\ell)$. Note that we use here the convention that IG term represents the intrinsic alignment signal and that the GI term should become negligible.\n\nThe components $C^{GI}_{ij}(\\ell)$ and $C^{II}_{ij}(\\ell)$ can be minimized by choosing bins with $i<j$. $C^{GI}_{ij}(\\ell)$ will be minimal due to G being in front of I so no such correlation can be present, while the $C^{II}_{ij}(\\ell)$ term is negligible since it is present only for close galaxies but not between galaxies in distinct bins.\n\n  ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------\n   [![image](IGcorr34.png){width=\"48.00000%\"}]{}   [![image](GammaIgGg_3.png){width=\"48.00000%\"}]{}\n  ----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------\n\nNow, the self-calibration is used to separate the two remaining terms, $C^{GG}_{ij}(\\ell)$ and $C^{IG}_{ij}(\\ell)$. First, in the small redshift bin approximation, a scaling relation was derived to relate the IG term to the Ig term [@Zhang:2008pw]: $$\\vspace{-0.2cm}\n    \\label{eq:scaling}\n    C_{ij}^{IG}\\left(\\ell\\right) \\simeq \\frac{W_{ij}\\Delta_i}{b_i\\left(\\ell\\right)} C_{ii}^{Ig}\\left(\\ell\\right)\n    \\vspace{-0.2cm}$$ where $W_{ij}$ is the weighted lensing kernel, $\\Delta_i$ is the effective width of the $i$th bin, and $b_i$ is the galaxy bias in the $i$th bin.\n\nWe use the self-calibration method including the Hankel transform of Eq. \\[eq:scaling\\] to measure the $w_{GI}$ correlation signal in the KiDS-450 photometric survey. Following the approach outlined in [@Zhang:2008pw; @Troxel:2011za], we start by defining the selection function $(S)$, which selects only pairs of galaxies with photometric redshifts $z_G^P < z_g^P$, for the photometric bin. This leads to defining the parameter $Q$ for how well we can actually distinguish the galaxy shear\u2013galaxy density signal Gg with or without the selection function: $$\\vspace{-0.2cm}\n    \\label{eq:Q}\n    Q\\left( \\ell \\right) = \\frac{\\left.C^{Gg}_{ii}\\left(\\ell\\right)\\right|_S}{C^{Gg}_{ii}\\left(\\ell\\right)}$$ To calculate this we use the following spectra: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    C_{ii}^{Gg}\\left(\\ell\\right) &= \\int_0 ^\\infty \\frac{W_i\\left(\\chi\\right)n_i\\left(\\chi\\right)}{\\chi^2}b_g P_\\delta \\left(k=\\frac{\\ell}{\\chi};\\chi\\right) d\\chi \\label{eq:CGg}\\\\\n    \\left.C^{Gg}_{ii}\\left(\\ell\\right)\\right|_S &= \\int_0 ^\\infty \\frac{W_i\\left(\\chi\\right)n_i\\left(\\chi\\right)}{\\chi^2}b_g P_\\delta \\left(k=\\frac{\\ell}{\\chi};\\chi\\right) \\eta_i\\left(z\\right)d\\chi\\label{eq:CGgS}\n$$ where $W_i$ is the lensing efficiency, $n_i$ is the true redshift distribution, $\\chi$ is the co-moving distance, $b_g$ is the galaxy bias that we assume is approximately constant over the bin, $P_\\delta$ is the matter power-spectra, and $\\eta_i$ is a function of the selection function that was defined in [@Zhang:2008pw] as:\n\n$$\\eta_i(z) =\\frac \n    {2\\int_{z^P_{ i, \\rm min}}^{z^P_{ i, \\rm max}}dz^P_{G}\\int_{z^P_{ i, \\rm min}}^{z^P_{ i, \\rm max}}dz^P_g\\int_{0}^{\\infty}dz_G W_L(z,z_G)p(z_G|z^P_G)p(z|z^P_g)S(z^P_G,z^P_g)n^P_i(z^P_G)n^P_i(z^P_g)}\n    {\\int_{z^P_{ i, \\rm min}}^{z^P_{ i, \\rm max}}dz^P_{G}\\int_{z^P_{ i, \\rm min}}^{z^P_{ i, \\rm max}}dz^P_g\\int_{0}^{\\infty}dz_G W_L(z,z_G)p(z_G|z^P_G)p(z|z^P_g)n^P_i(z^P_G)n^P_i(z^P_g)}  \\label{eta}$$\n\nwhere $W_L$ is the lensing kernel, the superscript $P$ denotes photometric redshift, $p(z_G|z^P_G)$ is the photometric probability distribution function (PDF), $n^P_i$ are the photometric redshift distribution in the $i$th tomographic bin, and $S$ is the selection function: $$\\label{selection}\n    S(z^P_G,z^P_g)=\\begin{cases}\n    1 &\\text{for $z^P_G<z^P_g$}\\\\\n    0 &\\text{otherwise.}\n    \\end{cases}$$ For this work we have assumed that the PDF is Gaussian of the form: $$p(z|z^P) = \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2\\pi}\\sigma_z\\left(1+z\\right)}\\exp\\left( -\\frac{\\left(z-z^P\\right)^2}{2\\left(\\sigma_z\\left(1+z\\right)\\right)^2}\\right)$$ In this paper we have used $\\sigma_z = 0.082$. With these tools in mind, we can move on to the separation of the correlation functions. In [@Zhang:2008pw] the work is done in $\\ell$ space, but here we will instead focus on real space, to do this we define a constant $\\hat{Q}_i$ as the average of $Q\\left(\\ell\\right)$ over a reasonable range of $\\ell$. With this, we can then perform a Hankel transform as outlined in [@Joudaki:2017zdt] to get: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    w^{Ig}\\left(\\theta\\right) &= \\frac{\\left.w^{\\gamma g}\\right|_S \\left(\\theta\\right) - \\hat{Q}_i w^{\\gamma g}\\left(\\theta \\right)}{1-\\hat{Q}_i}\\\\\n    w^{Gg}\\left(\\theta\\right) &= \\frac{ w^{\\gamma g}\\left(\\theta \\right)-\\left.w^{\\gamma g}\\right|_S \\left(\\theta\\right)}{1-\\hat{Q}_i}\\end{aligned}$$ The terms here can be obtained via the Treecorr code [@Jarvis:2003wq], and the $\\hat{Q}_i$ can be obtained separately for each bin as seen in the right panel of Fig \\[fig:IAmodel\\].\\\n\\\n[***Detection of GI-type intrinsic alignment using the self-calibration method.*** ]{} We have designed two pipelines for the separation of the $Ig$ and $Gg$ signals, as a way to cross-validate our results. Pipeline-1 was designed as a tool using AstroPy and SciPy [@scipy] to calculate the integrals needed to obtain the Qs as given in . The correlations shown in the right panel of Fig. \\[fig:IG-signal\\] for this pipeline are calculated using version 3 of Treecorr [@Jarvis:2003wq], with jackknife-regions obtained using the tiles from KiDS-450 [@2017MNRAS.465.1454H]. A first separation of the Ig correlation using the self-calibration method was obtained with Pipeline-1 [@Yao_dissertation] in the third redshift bin of KiDS-450 data.\n\nPipeline-2 was designed to be compatible with future surveys as well. For the Q calculation, we use the Core Cosmology library (CCL) [@Chisari:2018vrw] for calculating the linear power-spectra needed in and . Single and double integrals, was calculated using SciPy [@scipy], to solve triple integrals we use Monte-Carlo integration to obtain a reliable result in a reasonable time, using the SciKit-Monaco code [^1]. Treecorr 4.0.8 [@Jarvis:2003wq] with jackknife regions obtained via the K-means algorithm designed by E. Sheldon [^2] were utilized for correlation functions. For the detection we used a fixed-size, random catalog containing $10^8$ objects generated with the help of Healpix\\_Util [^3]. A measurement of the Ig correlation was obtained with a significance of 2.74$\\sigma$ and 1.53$\\sigma$ in the third and fourth bin of the KiDS-450 photometric galaxy survey, respectively. The two independent pipelines have been used to extract the Ig correlations separately.\n\nWe used the scaling relation to obtain a 2.73$\\sigma$ measurement of the IG signal by cross-correlating bin 3 and bin 4. The IG result is depicted in the left panel of Fig. \\[fig:IG-signal\\]. For this, we used the Hankel transform of Eq. , where the scaling coefficient can be assumed to have very little variation throughout the bin with a constant averaged value. We used error-propagation as described in the appendix of Ref. [@Yao:2017dnt] to obtain the errors on IG correlation. To get an estimate of error on the galaxy bias, we have calculated the average bias over the bin as $b_{i\\text{avg}} = \\int b_i(z) n_i (z) dz$, using the galaxy bias model suggested in [@Yao:2018pgk]. We considered the error between this average and the bias obtained for the model over the bin width. We have also included the numerical errors on the $W_{ij}$ and $\\Delta_i$. We find here a negative IA signal from the self-calibration method in the third and forth bins, using the best redshift estimate of [@2017MNRAS.465.1454H] from the Bayesian Photometric Redshift (BPZ) Code and stacking the PDF\u2019s. This is in agreement with the negative IA amplitude found in KIDS450 [@2017MNRAS.465.1454H] where they used the marginalization method and their stacked estimated redshift distribution from BPZ method. But we concentrated here the analysis to the individual third bin and fourth bin and their cross-correlation where we obtained a better signal to noise than in the first and second bin.\\\n\\\n[***Conclusion.***]{} A first detection of Intrinsic shape\u2013Gravitational shear (IG) and the Intrinsic shape\u2013galaxy density (Ig) in a photometric redshift survey using the self-calibration method is reported. This was measured with a 2.74$\\sigma$ and 1.53$\\sigma$ significance in the third and fourth bin of the KiDS-450 photometric survey for the Ig correlations. The significance of the IG cross-correlation between the two bins is 2.73$\\sigma$. The negative IA signal we find here from the self-calibration method in the third and forth bins, using the BPZ-determined best redshift estimate of [@2017MNRAS.465.1454H] is in agreement with the negative sign IA amplitude found there using the marginalization approach and the BPZ method. We focused here on the third and fourth bins in KiDS-450 and their cross-correlation where we found a better IA signal to noise than in the first and second bins. The self-calibration method has the advantage of not requiring the specification of an intrinsic alignment model. On the contrary, when an IA signal is extracted, it can be used to test and validate such models. It is worth noting that two independent pipelines have been used to derive the results for Ig correlations and were found to be in good agreement. These results also confirm that the self-calibration method works and shows that it provide a means of extracting intrinsic alignment signals from important future photometric surveys such as LSST, Euclid and WFIRST.\\\n\\\n[***Acknowledgment.***]{} We thank Anish Agashe, Hendrik Hildebrandt, Mike Jarvis, Lindsay King, Huanyuan Shan, Michael A. Troxel, and Haojie Xu for useful discussions. EP thanks his wife Shelbi Parker for proofreading the manuscript. MI acknowledges that this material is based upon work supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant AST-1517768 and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, under Award Number DE-SC0019206. The authors acknowledge the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas for providing HPC resources that have contributed to the research results reported within this paper. URL: http://www.tacc.utexas.edu.\n\n[^1]: https://pypi.org/project/scikit-monaco/\n\n[^2]: https://github.com/esheldon/kmeans\\_radec\n\n[^3]: https://github.com/esheldon/healpix\\_util\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    We present 30GHz Sunyaev Zel\u2019dovich observations of a statistically complete sample of galaxy clusters with OCRA-p. The clusters are the 18 most X\u2013ray luminous clusters at $z > 0.2$ in the ROSAT Brightest Cluster Sample. We correct for contaminant radio sources via supplementary observations with the Green Bank Telescope, also at 30GHz, and remove a cluster that is contaminated by an unresolved X-ray source. All 17 remaining clusters have central SZ effects with Comptonisation parameter $y_0$ exceeding $1.9\\times10^{-4}$, and 13 are detected at significance $\\ge 3\n    \\sigma$. We use our data to examine scalings between $y_0$ and X-ray temperature, X-ray luminosity, and the X-ray mass proxy $Y_\\mathrm{X}$, and find good agreement with predictions from self\u2013similar models of cluster formation, with an intrinsic scatter in $y_0$ of about 25%. We also comment on the success of the observations in the face of the contaminant source population, and the implications for upcoming cm-wave surveys.\nauthor:\n- |\n    Katy Lancaster$^1$, Mark Birkinshaw$^1$, Marcin P. Gawro\u0144ski$^2$, Richard Battye$^3$, Ian Browne$^3$, Richard Davis$^3$, Paul Giles$^1$, Roman Feiler$^2$, Andrzej Kus$^2$, Bartosz Lew$^2$, Stuart Lowe$^3$, Ben Maughan$^1$, Abdulaziz Mohammad$^1$, Bogna Pazderska$^2$, Eugeniusz Pazderski$^2$, Mike Peel$^3$, Boud Roukema$^2$ and Peter Wilkinson$^3$\\\n    $^1$ H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol BS8 1TL\\\n    $^2$ Toru\u0144 Centre for Astronomy, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ul. Gagarina 11, 87-100 Toru\u0144, Poland\\\n    $^3$ Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, The University of Manchester, Alan Turing Building, Manchester M13 9PL\\\nbibliography:\n- 'ref\\_lancaster.bib'\ndate: 'Received \\*\\*insert\\*\\*; Accepted \\*\\*insert\\*\\*'\ntitle: 'Sunyaev Zel\u2019dovich observations of a statistically complete sample of galaxy clusters with OCRA-p'\n---\n\n\\[firstpage\\]\n\ncosmology: observations \u2013 cosmic microwave background \u2013 galaxies: clusters: individual (A1835, ZWCL1953, A689, ZWCL3146, RXJ1532.9+3021, A2390, A2219, RXJ2129.6+0005, A2261, A781, A697, A1763, A68, A520, A267, RXJ0439.0+0715, ZWCL7160, A773) \u2013 methods: observational\n\nINTRODUCTION {#intro}\n============\n\nThe thermal Sunyaev Zel\u2019dovich (SZ) effect ([@SZ]) is a spectral distortion of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation due to inverse Compton scattering by the hot gas in galaxy clusters. It has long been exploited in cosmological and cluster studies in order to derive, for example, the Hubble constant (e.g. [@Hughes1998], [@Mason_obs], [@Reese2002], [@Saunders2003], [@Bonamente2006]) and the gas mass fraction (e.g. [@Grego2001], [@Lancaster2005], [@LaRoque2006]). Thanks to well developed techniques, detections are becoming routine although signal\u2013to\u2013noise remains quite poor. However, we are entering an era of purpose\u2013built instruments so this is set to improve dramatically, enabling SZ research to reach its evident potential.\n\nThe main focus of the SZ community at present is to utilise the redshift\u2013independence of the SZ surface brightness in order to perform blind surveys for galaxy clusters. While other techniques suffer from large intrinsic biases and complex selection effects, SZ surveys will produce almost *mass\u2013limited* catalogues and thus far superior datasets for constraining cosmological models. The dedicated SZ surveys, for example Planck ([@Ade2011]), SPT ([@Stan2009], [@Vanderlinde2010s]), ACT ([@Menanteau2010], [@Marriage2010]) and the SZA [@Muchovej2011] are now generating results. Many more are expected in the near future, e.g. from AMI [@Zwart2008s]. In order to fully exploit the results of these surveys, it will be necessary to improve understanding of both the \u2018selection effect\u2019 due to the presence of unsubtracted radio sources, and also the scalings between cluster SZ observables and various physical quantities, especially the cluster mass. Various groups have undertaken similar studies (e.g. [@Benson2004], [@Morandi2007], [@Bonamente2008], [@Huang2010]). To make further advances, reliable observations of large, well\u2013selected samples are required.\n\nThe One Centimetre Receiver Array prototype, OCRA-p, is a two\u2013element receiver mounted on the 32-m telescope at the Toru\u0144 Centre for Astronomy of the Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland. OCRA\u2013p proved its SZ capabilities by detecting four well known clusters at high significance [@Lancaster2007]. We present the first in a series of papers discussing an X\u2013ray selected sample of 33 clusters with well understood selection effects. This paper contains details of our OCRA\u2013p observations of a statistically complete subsample of 18 clusters. The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we give a brief description of the Toru\u0144 32-m telescope and the OCRA-p receiver. Section 3 contains details of the cluster sample. The observations and data reduction are described in Section 4, and the problem of radio source contamination is detailed in Section 5. Section 6 gives a brief overview of our X-ray analysis, and Section 7 presents our results. We discuss these results and conclude in Section 8. Throughout the paper we adopt the following cosmological parameter values: $H_0 = 70 \\, \\mathrm{km} \\, \\mathrm{s}^{-1} \\,\n\\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, $\\Omega_{\\mathrm{m}0} = 0.3$, $\\Omega_{\\Lambda 0}\n= 0.7$.\n\nTHE TORUN TELESCOPE AND OCRA-p\n==============================\n\nThe Toru\u0144 observatory is located in Piwnice, 15km outside Toru\u0144 in northern Poland. The telescope consists of a 32-m parabolic dish and 3.2-m sub-reflector, with a fully steerable classical Alt\u2013Az mount. It has receivers operating at 1.4-1.7, 5, 6.8, 12 and 30GHz. The telescope is used for a variety of studies including interstellar molecular spectroscopy (e.g. [@Blaszkiewicz2004]) and VLBI (e.g. [@Bartkiewicz2005]).\n\nOCRA is a planned 30GHz 100\u2013element continuum receiver (see [@Browne2000]). A prototype receiver, OCRA-p, funded by a grant from the Royal Society Paul Instrument fund, has been on the telescope since 2004. The instrument is described in detail in [@LowePhD] and [@Lowe2007]; here we present a short summary. The basic radiometer design is based on the prototype for the Planck Low Frequency Instrument (LFI, [@Mandolesi2000]), and is similar to the WMAP K-band receivers [@Jarosik2003]. OCRA-p provides only two horn\u2013feeds, the beams of which are separated by $3'.1$ and have FWHM $1'.2$. As the beam separation is small, it is possible to reduce the effects of atmospheric and gain fluctuations by switching between the beams and taking the difference. This can be improved upon by further levels of switching. The full switching strategy for SZ observations is described in Section \\[sec:obs\\]. In addition to the SZ program, OCRA\u2013p has been used to study planetary nebulae ([@Pazderska2009]) and for various radio source studies including flux density measurements to support the Very Small Array CMB program (see [@Gawronski2010] for details of the OCRA measurements, and Genova\u2013Santos et al. (in preparation) for the details of the CMB work). The next phase of the project is an 8\u2013element array, OCRA\u2013Faraday ([@Peel2009]), which was mounted on the telescope in late 2009. This is still in the commissioning phase but is expected to be fully operational in autumn 2011, and can be upgraded to 16 elements in the future.\n\nTHE CLUSTER SAMPLE {#sec:clusters}\n==================\n\nIn order to derive meaningful cosmological results, or indeed to comment on universal cluster properties, it is necessary to use a \u2018fair\u2019 sample, or at least one where the selection biases are clear and well understood. Large samples fulfilling these criteria are rare in SZ astronomy, largely due to the various practical challenges which observers must overcome. In this work, we attempt to select and observe such a sample, and turn to the ROSAT All\u2013Sky Survey in the first instance.\n\nThe Brightest Cluster Sample (BCS, [@Ebeling1998]) is derived from a careful analysis of the ROSAT All-Sky Survey (RASS, [@Voges1999]) data at $\\delta > 0^{\\circ}$. The resulting catalogue is 90% flux complete to a limit of $f_{\\mathrm{X}} = 4.4\n\\times 10^{-12}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ in the 0.1-2.4keV energy band. Since the SZ surface brightness of a cluster is essentially unaffected by redshift, we select on luminosity, imposing a limit of $L_{\\mathrm{X}} \\geqslant 13.08\\times10^{44}\\mathrm{erg\\,s^{-1}}$ (the luminosity of A773 in the BCS catalogue). In addition, we impose the criterion $z>0.2$ due to the $3'.1$ beam\u2013throw of OCRA; observations at lower redshift are inefficient with this instrument. Our basic sample then consists of 18 clusters. We do not reject any clusters based on their radio\u2013source environments at this stage, even though we appreciate the difficulties which this policy may introduce. This has the advantage of allowing us to investigate any correlation between gas properties and those of a central radio galaxy.\n\nWe reject one cluster from the basic 18\u2013cluster sample, A689, as on further investigation we have found that the ROSAT data are contaminated by a bright central point source (Giles et al., in preparation). After removing this source from the *Chandra* data, the luminosity is just $(1.66\\pm0.24)\\times10^{44} \\mathrm{erg\n \\,s}^{-1}$, more than a factor 8 below the limiting luminosity of the cluster sample. The sample is summarised in Table \\[tab:coord\\]. These clusters appear not to be exceptional in their X\u2013ray structures, and, indeed, follow the expected X-ray scaling relations (see Section \\[sec:Xscale\\]).\n\n  ---------------- --------------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------- ------------------------\n  Cluster                RA             Dec        $\\Delta$RA   $\\Delta$Dec    $z$         $L_\\mathrm{x}$\n                       (J2000)        (J2000)       (arcmin)     (arcmin)              ($10^{44}$ergs$^{-1}$)\n  A1835              14 01 01.99     02 53 12.8       0.02         0.53        0.25            38.53\n  ZWCL1953           08 50 03.00     36 04 16.0      -0.80         -0.04       0.32            34.12\n  *A689*            *08 37 25.01*   *14 59 40.9*      *-*           *-*       *0.28*       *30.41 (1.66)*\n  ZWCL3146           10 23 35.98     04 11 56.0      -0.90         0.75        0.29            26.47\n  RXJ1532.9+3021     15 32 58.99     30 21 11.2       1.13         0.20        0.35            24.40\n  A2390              21 53 34.61     17 40 10.9      -0.50         -1.56       0.23            21.44\n  A2219              16 40 21.80     46 42 47.8       0.24         0.30        0.23            20.40\n  RXJ2129.6+0005     21 29 40.50     00 05 49.9       0.11         0.51        0.24            18.59\n  A2261              17 22 27.00     32 07 04.1      -0.03         -0.88       0.22            18.18\n  A781               09 20 25.99     30 29 57.8      -0.04         -0.11       0.30            17.22\n  A697               08 42 58.01     36 21 45.0       0.03         -0.20       0.28            16.30\n  A1763              13 35 23.21     41 00 04.0       0.04         0.08        0.22            14.93\n  A68                00 37 05.30     09 09 10.8      -0.20         -0.38       0.26            14.89\n  A520               04 54 19.01     02 56 48.1       0.00         0.00        0.20            14.44\n  A267               01 52 42.00     01 00 25.9      -0.02         -0.24       0.23            13.71\n  RXJ0439.0+0715     04 39 01.01     07 16 54.8       0.08         0.85        0.23            13.25\n  ZWCL7160           14 57 19.99     22 20 35.9       1.13         0.03        0.26            13.19\n  A773               09 17 51.00     51 43 19.9      -0.32         -0.34       0.22            13.08\n  ---------------- --------------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------- ------------------------\n\n\\[tab:coord\\]\n\nOCRA DATA\n=========\n\nObserving Strategy {#sec:obs}\n------------------\n\nThe clusters were observed in good weather periods between September 2005 and January 2009. We aimed to achieve a uniform noise level $<0.5$mJy, which required $\\sim 220$ minutes of data at each pointing centre. Trail fields, blank patches of sky separated from the target fields by 15\u201320m in RA, were observed over the same range of hour angle after each cluster observation, using the same position switching routine (described below) as for the cluster fields. The integration times for the target and trail fields are identical.\n\nFor each observation, whether the cluster or its corresponding trail field, we employ a position switching strategy to remove atmospheric contamination from our data. The feeds are positioned such that one beam, beam $B$, is coincident with the cluster centre and the other, beam $A$, provides a measure of the blank sky signal. (For extended sources, beam $A$ may measure a small signal itself. This must be properly accounted for - see Section \\[sec:beta\\].) We switch between the $A$ and $B$ beams at a rate of 277kHz, recording the $A-B$ difference every second. We integrate in this position for 25 seconds. The telescope then slews to reposition the beams such that beam $A$ measures the cluster and beam $B$ measures the sky background, and the differencing is repeated, this time integrating for 50 seconds. We then return to the starting position and integrate for another 25 seconds. The differenced signals from the first and third positions, $(A_1-B_1)$ and $(A_3-B_3)$ are summed, and then subtracted from the differenced signal from the second position $(A_2-B_2)$. This recovers twice the cluster signal relative to the background regions. The symmetric nature of the switching pattern ensures proper subtraction of most atmospheric emission and other contaminants such as ground pick-up, provided that the target region is not rapidly changing in azimuth and elevation.\n\nCalibration\n-----------\n\nThe data are calibrated against an internal noise source, which is itself calibrated via observations of the well\u2013known bright radio source NGC7027 of flux density 5.37Jy. We observe significant changes in the level of the noise source in the form of: (a) sudden \u2018jumps\u2019, sometimes due to the telescope reconfiguration and (b) additional smaller amplitude fluctuations which appear random in nature. We note that other than the low\u2013amplitude random fluctuations, the voltage level is generally stable on timescales of a few days. By performing regular calibration ($\\approx$daily) we reduce the effects of the larger fluctuations. In addition, we adopt a conservative approach by comparing the total powers for the NGC7027 and cluster observations and rejecting any data for which they differ significantly, although a study suggests the calibration often stays virtually the same as the total power drifts. Residual uncertainties in the calibration of the system at the level of 5% may be expected.\n\nThe telescope pointing is calibrated via azimuth and elevation scans across a bright source close to each cluster. Where an acceptable pointing calibration does not exist within 60minutes of a cluster observation, the cluster data are rejected.\n\nStatistical Data Analysis\n-------------------------\n\nAfter combination of the second-by-second average data into double\u2013differenced measurements of the brightness of the sky, and calibration, the data are examined for periods of increased noise (which might arise from receiver instabilities or bad weather conditions) or individual anomalous points. The combination of the data into final averages was performed including statistical tests for outlier data. The fractions of the data points rejected by $3\\sigma$ or $5\\sigma$ cuts were small in all cases, and no cut-dependent changes larger than a small fraction of the error on the mean were seen. The distributions of data values in the double-difference data are close to Gaussian, with a slight tendency to show elevated wings in the distributions: the estimates of the error on the mean (Table \\[tab:res\\]) take account of the full distribution, and not the distribution after truncation of outliers.\n\nRADIO SOURCE CONTAMINATION {#sec:src}\n==========================\n\nRadio source contamination remains a significant problem for observations of the Sunyaev Zel\u2019dovich effect. If we know the positions and 30GHz flux densities of all sources near our observing locations, we can correct the data and establish the true magnitude of the SZ effect for each cluster. Ideally, we would consult a survey of the radio sky at a frequency close to 30GHz in order to identify contaminant radio sources. The only such survey currently available is the WMAP point source catalogue ([@Wright2009]), but this is complete only to the 2Jy level and so is three orders of magnitude too shallow for our purposes. We consult the all\u2013sky NVSS ([@NVSS], 1.4GHz) and GB6 ([@GB6], 4.85GHz) catalogues and retain all sources within $5'$ of the pointing centre for each cluster. In addition, we include any sources found in similar projects and reported in the literature. The list of 58 contaminating sources is presented in Table \\[table:sources\\].\n\nGBT observations\n----------------\n\nWe observed the 58 sources over the course of several sessions at the Green Bank Telescope (GBT) in January 2008 (observations limited due to poor weather conditions), then January and May 2009 (re-scheduled time, again compromised in part by non-ideal conditions). We used the GBT Ka\u2013band receiver and the Caltech Continuum Backend (CCB). For a detailed description of this configuration of equipment and the observing methods used, see [@Mason2009]; we will describe the salient points.\n\n### Calibration\n\nEvery observing session included at least one flux calibration observation, using the most accessible of the GBT standard calibrators 3C\u00a0147, 3C\u00a048 or 3C\u00a0286. We observed sources cluster by cluster, and thus they tend to lie in small regions. The GBT pointing is stable for up to 40minutes for night time observing, but we rarely required re-pointing near a field because slews tended to occur after only a few source integrations. We chose one pointing calibrator per cluster (and hence its associated sources). We took pointing calibrators from the GBT database, choosing the brightest available within 10degrees of the cluster centre. We also performed at least one sky dip per observing session to establish the sky temperature and opacity.\n\n\\[table:sources\\]\n\n  ---------------- ------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------- -------------- ------ ---------- ------- ----------- --------------- --------------- -----------\n  Cluster          Src            RA               Dec                                                      Notes                                             \n                   \\#           (J2000)          (J2000)                                                                                                      \n  A1835            1\\*        14 01 02.1        02 52 41.0          39.3 $\\pm1.6$            -               3.31 $\\pm0.14$              2.93 $\\pm0.18$       OB N\n                                                                                                             2.88 $\\pm0.07$                                   \n                   2\\*        14 01 00.5        02 51 53.0           1.6 $\\pm0.1$            -               1.26 $\\pm0.14$              1.33 $\\pm0.07$       OB F\n                                                                                                             1.36 $\\pm0.08$                                   \n  ZWCL1953         [1]{}    [08 50 07.8]{}    [36 04 21.7]{}    [19.4]{} ${\\pm1.2}$          -                  -                    [0.79]{} [$\\pm0.70$]{}   [GBT]{}\n                   2          08 50 13.4        36 04 22.4          20.8 $\\pm1.0$         19.0 $\\pm4.0$      1.19 $\\pm0.17$              1.28 $\\pm0.16$       GBT OB\n  ZW3146           1          10 23 37.2        04 09 06.4          31.5 $\\pm1.0$            -               2.03 $\\pm0.22$              2.35 $\\pm0.81$       GBT OB\n                                                                                                             2.12 $\\pm0.15$                                   \n                   2          10 23 39.6        04 11 15.4           7.1 $\\pm0.5$            -               0.41 $\\pm0.07$              0.33 $\\pm0.07$       GBT OB\n                   3          10 23 45.1        04 10 40.7          95.8 $\\pm3.4$         42.0 $\\pm7.0$      5.35 $\\pm0.18$              5.27 $\\pm0.11$       GBT OB\n                                                                                                             5.70 $\\pm0.10$                                   \n                   4          10 23 45.2        04 11 39.7           3.6 $\\pm0.4$            -               0.85 $\\pm0.10$              0.80 $\\pm0.10$       GBT OB\n  RXJ1532.9+0005   1          15 32 47.4        30 18 46.0          18.0 $\\pm1.0$            -                  -                        1.18 $\\pm0.21$       GBT\n                   2          15 32 50.7        30 19 47.6           7.9 $\\pm0.5$            -               6.58 $\\pm0.20$              6.56 $\\pm0.21$       OB N\n                   3          15 32 53.8        30 20 59.8          22.8 $\\pm0.8$         20.0 $\\pm4.0$      3.25 $\\pm0.18$              3.27 $\\pm0.12$       GBT OB\n                   4          15 32 54.31       30 23 01.5           4.4 $\\pm0.4$            -                  -                        0.92 $\\pm0.21$       GBT\n                   5          15 33 03.42       30 23 47.2           2.6 $\\pm0.4$            -                  -                        1.12 $\\pm0.50$       GBT\n  A2390            1          21 53 32.4        17 42 19.8          20.9 $\\pm1.6$            -                    0.23              $\\pm0.12$ GBT             \n                   2          21 53 36.8        17 41 44.8         235.3 $\\pm8.3$          220 $\\pm20$            45.77             $\\pm0.10$ GBT             \n                   *3*       *21 53 40.3*      *17 42 56.7*       *12.2* $\\it \\pm1.0$        -                    -*0.14*       $\\it \\pm0.09$ *GBT*           \n  A2219            1          16 40 21.83       46 42 47.8         239.1 $\\pm8.3$         84.8 $\\pm8.0$     14.87 $\\pm0.17$             13.74 $\\pm1.00$       GBT OB\n                   2\\*        16 40 23.83       46 41 47.3           7.9 $\\pm1.0$            -               0.97 $\\pm0.17$              0.94 $\\pm0.17$       OB N\n                   3          16 40 14.98       46 42 28.7           6.1 $\\pm0.5$            -                  -                        0.42 $\\pm0.09$       GBT\n                   4          16 39 58.07       46 40 37.2          14.1 $\\pm0.5$            -                  -                        0.96 $\\pm0.09$       GBT\n  RXJ2129.6+0005   *1*       *21 29 36.61*     *00 02 35.4*        *2.2* $\\it \\pm0.4$        -                  -                     -*0.13* $\\it \\pm0.21$   *GBT*\n                   2          21 29 40.00       00 05 22.9          25.4 $\\pm1.2$            -               2.33 $\\pm0.10$              2.04 $\\pm0.06$       GBT OB\n                   [3]{}    [21 29 40.14]{}   [00 01 44.4]{}     [4.5]{} $ \\pm0.5$           -                  -                    [0.11]{} $ \\pm0.13$      [GBT]{}\n                   4          21 29 55.24       00 07 56.9          34.3 $\\pm1.8$            -                  -                        2.82 $\\pm0.11$       GBT\n  A2261            1          17 22 16.9        32 09 10.5          23.0 $\\pm1.5$            -               9.32 $\\pm0.22$             15.58 $\\pm3.89$       GBT OB(V)\n                                                                                                            10.48 $\\pm0.16$                                   \n                   2          17 22 27.7        32 07 57.8           5.3 $\\pm0.5$            -                  -                        0.13 $\\pm0.08$       GBT\n                   3          17 22 45.3        32 09 27.0          4.85 $\\pm0.5$            -                  -                        0.14 $\\pm0.10$       GBT\n                   4          17 22 06.55       32 07 01.7           5.8 $\\pm0.4$            -                  -                        0.14 $\\pm0.08$       GBT\n  A781             1          09 20 08.51       30 32 14.3          19.9 $\\pm0.9$            -                  -                        1.42 $\\pm0.60$       GBT\n                   2          09 20 14.12       30 29 02.8          17.9 $\\pm0.7$            -                  -                        1.22 $\\pm0.53$       GBT\n                   3          09 20 21.75       30 32 27.0           2.7 $\\pm0.5$            -                  -                        0.11 $\\pm0.18$       GBT\n                   4          09 20 22.90       30 29 45.6          73.1 $\\pm2.6$         32.0 $\\pm5.0$      5.33 $\\pm0.18$              5.35 $\\pm0.30$       GBT OB\n                   *5*       *09 20 30.83*     *30 28 02.1*       *15.8* $\\it\\pm1.6$         -                  -                     *-0.07* $\\it\\pm0.16$    *GBT*\n                   6          09 20 47.35       30 28 21.3           5.4 $\\pm0.6$            -                  -                        0.08 $\\pm0.17$       GBT\n  A697             1          08 42 40.22       36 19 16.4           5.4 $\\pm0.5$            -                  -                        1.64 $\\pm0.54$       GBT\n                   2          08 42 59.67       36 17 43.7          32.5 $\\pm1.4$            -                  -                        1.71 $\\pm0.65$       GBT\n  ---------------- ------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------- -------------- ------ ---------- ------- ----------- --------------- --------------- -----------\n\n[llccr@lr@lr@lr@ll]{} Cluster &Src &RA &DEC & & & & &Notes\\\n&\\# &(J2000) &(J2000) & & & &\\\n& & & & & & &\\\nA1763 &*1* &*13 35 15.60* &*41 00 25.8* &*7.9*&$\\it\\pm0.5$ &-& &-& &*-0.10*&$\\it\\pm0.14$ &*GBT*\\\n&2\\* &13 35 19.86 &41 00 04.0 &859.2&$\\pm29.5$ &225&$\\pm20$ &31.30&$\\pm0.41$ &29.49&$\\pm0.38$ &OB G N\\\nA68 &1 &00 36 52.94 &09 05 21.7 &22.8&$\\pm0.8$ &-& &-& &1.57&$\\pm0.05$ &GBT\\\n&2 &00 37 05.21 &09 13 33.6 &4.4&$\\pm0.4$ &-& &-& &0.60&$\\pm0.05$ &GBT\\\n&3 &00 37 06.35 &09 07 30.4 &40.2&$\\pm1.3$ &-& &1.20&$\\pm0.12$ &1.21&$\\pm0.06$ &GBT OB\\\n&4 &00 37 07.71 &09 08 24.0 &59.1&$\\pm2.2$ &-& &1.60&$\\pm0.10$ &1.65&$\\pm0.05$ &GBT OB\\\n&*5* &*00 37 17.93* &*09 06 30.5* &*3.2*&$\\it\\pm0.6$ &-& &-& &*-0.05*&$\\it\\pm0.04$ &*GBT*\\\n&6\\* &00 37 07.00 &09 07 58.7 &-& &-& &1.38&$\\pm0.11$ &-& &OB\\\nA520 &1 &04 54 01.11 &02 57 45.6 &6.3&$\\pm0.5$ &-& &7.83&$\\pm0.25$ &5.75&$\\pm1.74$ &GBT OB (V)\\\n&&&&&&& &4.42&$\\pm0.88$ & &\\\n&2 &04 54 03.72 &02 56 01.9 &7.7&$\\pm1.7$ &-& &-& &0.49&$\\pm0.15$ &GBT\\\n&*3* &*04 54 12.41* &*02 57 52.3* &*7.1*&$\\it\\pm0.5$ &-& &-& &*-0.15*&$\\it\\pm0.16$ &*GBT*\\\n&4 &04 54 17.14 &02 55 33.5 &14.1&$\\pm1.0$ &-& &0.84&$\\pm0.11$ &0.90&$\\pm0.08$ &GBT OB\\\n&&&&&&& &1.09&$\\pm0.09$\\\n&5 &04 54 21.16 &02 55 01.4 &26.5&$\\pm1.6$ &-& &1.00&$\\pm0.13$ &0.63&$\\pm0.10$ &GBT OB\\\n&&&&&&& &0.74&$\\pm0.14$\\\nA267 &1 &01 52 29.46 &00 59 31.8 &30.0&$\\pm1.0$ &-& &2.75&$\\pm0.20$ &3.12&$\\pm0.23$ &GBT OB\\\n&2 &01 52 54.58 &01 02 08.2 &4.2&$\\pm0.5$ &-& &7.55&$\\pm0.24$ &7.05&$\\pm1.12$ &GBT OB(V)\\\n&&&&&&& &5.53&$\\pm0.73$\\\n&3 &01 52 34.35 &01 01 20.5 &-& &-& &-& &0.59&$\\pm0.32$ &GBT\\\nRXJ0439.0+0715 &1 &04 39 01.26 &07 15 42.6 &30.6&$\\pm1.4$ &-& &1.18&$\\pm0.16$ &0.89&$\\pm0.22$ &GBT OB\\\nZWCL7160 &1 &14 57 08.06 &22 20 11.2 &13.2&$\\pm0.6$ &-& &0.95&$\\pm0.05$ &0.90&$\\pm0.06$ &GBT OB\\\n&2 &14 57 08.06 &22 20 11.2 &3.9&$\\pm0.4$ &-& &0.99&$\\pm0.07$ &0.91&$\\pm0.08$ &GBT OB\\\n&3 &14 57 15.18 &22 20 36.0 &16.5&$\\pm1.3$ &-& &0.96&$\\pm0.04$ &0.90&$\\pm0.06$ &GBT OB\\\nA773 &1\\* &09 17 45.39 &51 43 11.2 &2.7&$\\pm0.5$ &-& & &-& &*Negligible*\\\n&2\\* &09 18 01.81 &51 44 11.4 &3.1&$\\pm0.5$ &-& & &-& &*Negligible*\\\n\\\n\n### Differencing\n\nWe employed the standard GBT nodding strategy, which is similar to the OCRA differencing scheme, in order to remove atmospheric contamination. A complete nod (ie the sequence of beam 1 on source, beam 2 on source, beam 2 on source, beam 1 on source) takes 1.5minutes. Each source was observed for at least one complete nod. The number of nods was governed by telescope scheduling, though we tried to include extra nods for sources expected to have lower flux densities.\n\n### GBT flux density determinations\n\nThe CCB has a 14GHz bandwidth, split into four frequency sub\u2013bands centred at 27.75, 31.25, 34.75 and 38.25GHz. We can thus measure simultaneously four separate flux densities for each source, from which we can derive a 30GHz value by fitting a power law to the available data. We use a Monte\u2013Carlo method to estimate the uncertainties on the interpolated flux densities. For poor\u2013quality data, we were unable to derive accurate 30GHz flux densities from the GBT data alone, as discussed in Section \\[sec:add\\]\n\nDetermining the 30GHz flux densities {#sec:add}\n------------------------------------\n\nThe quality of our GBT data is rather mixed due to the wide range of observing conditions experienced. As most sources were only observed once, we are also unable to constrain source variability with GBT data alone. In order to supplement our 30GHz measurements, we make use of the flux densities reported in [@Coble2007] who observed all of our clusters except Abell 2390 at 28.5GHz with the OVRO and BIMA interferometers. Such interferometric data not only measure the SZ effect but also enable identification of point sources via the longest baselines, where the SZ signal will be negligible. The uncertainties on the @Coble2007 flux densities are generally a few tenths of a mJy, so given the proximity of the two observing frequencies, we are able to place tighter constraints on our 30GHz source flux densities by fitting to both datasets, which is particularly useful for sources with poor GBT data. In addition, we are able to identify variable sources and estimate the effect on our SZ measurements.\n\nMost source flux densities are well constrained by a combination of GBT and OVRO/BIMA data. We fit a power law to the measurements in the four GBT frequency sub-bands, plus the interferometer data at 28.5GHz. For sources with good GBT data, the @Coble2007 points serve as a valuable check for variability, but otherwise have minimal effect. In the three cases where significant variability is found, we take the two differing flux density measurements, and use half the difference as an estimate of the uncertainty in our measurement due to variability. We then add this in quadrature to the measurement error. The source exhibiting the greatest variability, source\u00a01 in Abell\u00a02261, has little effect on our results since it lies well away from the cluster centre and data where it lies close to a reference arc are flagged out (Section \\[sec:corr\\]). Where no 28.5GHz flux density is available, we proceed with the GBT data alone. Such cases are unlikely to be crucial, as the non detection by OVRO/BIMA suggests the source is either rather faint, or well away from the central regions of the cluster. Many sources have GBT data which are usable but rather noisy. In such cases, the 28.5GHz data are invaluable in tying down the 30GHz flux density due to their comparatively small uncertainties.\n\nSeven sources have no usable GBT data: two in A1835, one in A2219, one in A1763, one in A68 and two in A773. We now discuss our method for each source in turn. Source 1 in A1835 was measured twice by OVRO/BIMA, and also appears in NVSS. We fit a power law to the three measurements. As our observing frequency is close to that of OVRO/BIMA, assuming a constant spectral index is unlikely to have a large impact. We rule out significant variability. Source 2 in A1835 was also measured twice at 28.5GHz, but does not appear in NVSS. We consult FIRST for a lower frequency measurement, and proceed as for source 1. For source 2 in A2219, we again fit a power law to the OVRO/BIMA and NVSS datapoints. Source 6 in A68 does not appear in any of the lower frequency catalogues but is well measured by OVRO/BIMA. It is outside the OCRA beams so its flux density has only a small effect on the SZ measurement. Both sources in A773 are faint in NVSS and are not detected by OVRO/BIMA. The noise on the OVRO map is $0.078$mJy, giving a $5 \\sigma$ upper limit of $0.39$mJy. As the sources in A773 lie well away from the OCRA beams, we are confident that their effects on our data are negligible.\n\nSource corrections {#sec:corr}\n------------------\n\nDue to OCRA-p\u2019s position switching strategy, contaminant radio sources can affect the data by producing a *positive* signal when they lie close to the cluster centre, or a rogue *negative* signal when they lie in the reference beam of the telescope. We simulate the effects of the sources based on their measured positions and flux densities, and the OCRA beam response. We then use the resulting effective flux density to correct the SZ data. Contamination through sources at 30GHz is generally low for bright clusters, producing only small corrections to the SZ data, and thus introduces little bias as a result of the limitations of the method employed. Although we are confident that residual biases are below the level of our errors, we recognise that the absence of 30GHz data is a limitation in some cases, and there may be additional issues to do with source variability. For clusters where radio sources fall in the OCRA reference beams, we are able to perform an additional check by flagging out contaminated data based on the range of parallactic angles affected by the source in question. We compare the flagged data with the corrected data, and adjust our final measurement error accordingly.\n\nWe recognise that our strategy may miss sources which are important at 30GHz. The flux limit of NVSS is $\\sim2.5$mJy. If we consider a source of flux density $\\sim2.4$mJy at 1.4GHz, and assume a typical spectral index of $-0.7$, extrapolating to 30GHz gives a flux density of $0.34$mJy. Even if such a source were to be located in the central regions of a cluster, the effect on our measurement would still be small relative to random errors. Not all sources have typical spectral indices, but we note that in the 16 clusters additionally observed by [@Coble2007], only 1 \u2018new\u2019 source, i.e. a source not previously identified in NVSS, was found. However, the quality of our knowledge of the population of sources with mJy flux densities at 30GHz is poor. We were able to run an additional check for \u2018new\u2019 sources lying in OCRA\u2013p\u2019s reference arcs. We binned the data by parallactic angle to look for contaminating sources that might produce false SZ effects. Although this subdivides the data, and so leads to a noise level that is higher by a factor of $2 - 3$ than the central measured flux density averaged over all parallactic angles, no previously uncatalogued sources were detected.\n\nX-RAY DATA\n==========\n\nDeriving cluster parameters {#sec:X}\n---------------------------\n\nOur sample has 15 clusters in common with an upcoming X-ray paper, Giles et al. (in prep), some results from which were made available in advance for this work. The remaining two clusters (ZWCL1953 and RXJ1532.9+3021, which lie outside Giles et al.\u2019s specified redshift range of $0.15<z<0.30$) were analysed using an identical method. The authors use *Chandra* ACIS\u2013I and ACIS\u2013S imaging and spectroscopy for each cluster as available via the archive. For the data preparation, they follow closely the method outlined in @Maughan2008. The *Chandra* analysis package used was CIAO[^1] version 4.2 and calibration database CALDB 4.1.4. As in @Maughan2008, blank sky, rather than local, backgrounds are used because the clusters fill a large fraction of the field of view.\n\nWe fit a gas density model by converting the observed surface brightness profile into a projected emissivity profile, which was then modelled by projecting the modifed $\\beta$\u2013model of [@Vikhlinin2006] along the line of sight (see [@Maughan2008] for details). Gas parameters and errors were determined from Monte Carlo realisations of the projected emissivity profile. At each data point a new randomised point was drawn from a Gaussian distribution centered on the model value at that point, with a standard deviation equal to the fractional measurement error on the original data point, multiplied by the model value. The error bar on this new randomised point was set to the same fractional size as the error bar on the original observed point.\n\nThe cluster temperature, gas mass and $R_{500}$ (the radius enclosing a mean density of 500 times the critical density at the cluster\u2019s redshift) were then determined iteratively. The procedure followed was to extract a spectrum from within an estimated $R_{500}$ (with the central $15\\%$ of that radius excluded), integrate the gas density profile to determine the gas mass within the estimated $R_{500}$, and thus calculate $Y_\\mathrm{X}$ which is the product of $kT$ and the gas mass, and a low scatter proxy for total mass [@Kravtsov2006]. A new value of $R_{500}$ was then estimated from the $Y_\\mathrm{X}$-$M$ scaling relation of @Vikhlinin2009,\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{e.ym}\nM_{500} & = & E(z)^{-2/5}\\,A_\\mathrm{YM}\\left(\\frac{Y_X}{3\\times10^{14}\nM_{\\odot}\\mathrm{keV}}\\right)^{B_\\mathrm{YM}},\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwith $A_\\mathrm{YM}=5.77\\times10^{14}h^{1/2}M_{\\odot}$ and $B_\\mathrm{YM}=0.57$. Here, $M_{500}$ is the mass within $R_{500}$ (allowing $R_{500}$ to be trivially computed), and\n\n$$E(z)=\\sqrt{\\Omega_{\\mathrm{M}}(1+z)^3 +\n(1-\\Omega_{\\mathrm{M}}-\\Omega_\\Lambda)(1+z)^2 + \\Omega_\\Lambda}\n\\label{eqn:E}$$\n\ndescribes the redshift evolution of the Hubble parameter. This $Y_{\\mathrm{X}}$\u2013$M$ relation assumes self-similar evolution (as $E^{-2/5}$), which has been shown to be a good description of observed clusters to $z\\approx0.6$ [@Maughan2007]. The process was repeated until $R_{500}$ converged. In these spectral fits, the source emission was modelled with an absorbed thermal plasma APEC model in the 0.6\u20139keV band, with the absorbing column fixed at the Galactic value. $N_\\mathrm{H}$ values were taken from the HI map by @Kalberla2005.\n\nOur final cluster parameters, with $T_\\mathrm{X}$, $L_\\mathrm{X}$ and $Y_\\mathrm{X}$ determined within a radius of $R_{500}$ are given in Table \\[tab:X\\].\n\n  ---------------- ------- ---------------------- ------ ------------- ------ ---------------------- ------\n  Cluster                                                $R_{500}$                                   \n                                                         Mpc                                         \n  A1835               8.41 ${}^{+0.32}_{-0.26}$     2.14 $\\pm0.01$       1.20 ${}^{+0.05}_{-0.04}$    1.40\n  ZW1953              6.05 $^{+0.51}_{-0.50}$       1.45 $\\pm0.05$       0.58 ${}^{+0.05}_{-0.05}$    1.19\n  ZW3146              7.09 $^{+0.35}_{-0.37}$       1.62 $\\pm0.02$       0.77 $^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$      1.27\n  RXJ1532.9+3021      5.62 $^{+0.72}_{-0.58}$       1.23 $\\pm{0.05}$     0.45 $^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$      1.11\n  A2390              10.20 $^{+0.35}_{-0.35}$       2.87 $\\pm0.05$       1.79 $^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$      1.53\n  A2219              10.33 $^{+0.43}_{-0.44}$       3.32 $\\pm0.04$       2.10 $^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$      1.58\n  RXJ2129.6+0005      6.04 $^{+0.53}_{-0.52}$       1.03 $\\pm0.04$       0.52 $^{+0.05}_{-0.06}$      1.20\n  A2261               6.56 $^{+0.28}_{-0.28}$       1.46 $\\pm0.02$       0.77 $^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$      1.31\n  A781                5.32 $^{+0.66}_{-0.43}$       1.02 $\\pm0.05$       0.53 $^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$      1.18\n  A697                9.22 $^{+0.66}_{-0.65}$       2.70 $\\pm0.05$       1.55 $^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$      1.45\n  A1763               7.31 $^{+0.47}_{-0.47}$       1.48 $\\pm0.03$       0.89 $^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$      1.34\n  A68                 7.14 $^{+0.88}_{-0.78}$       1.09 $\\pm0.04$       0.60 $^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$      1.23\n  A520                6.78 $^{+0.29}_{-0.16}$       1.49 $\\pm0.02$       0.74 $^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$      1.31\n  A267                4.53 $^{+0.49}_{-0.38}$       0.75 $\\pm0.05$       0.29 $^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$      1.08\n  RXJ0439.0+0715      5.32 $^{+0.38}_{-0.29}$       1.58 $\\pm0.04$       0.57 $^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$      1.23\n  ZW7160              4.64 $^{+0.18}_{-0.18}$       0.69 $\\pm0.01$       0.28 $^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$      1.06\n  A773                6.75 $^{+0.40}_{-0.26}$       1.13 $\\pm0.02$       0.65 $^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$      1.27\n  ---------------- ------- ---------------------- ------ ------------- ------ ---------------------- ------\n\n\\[tab:X\\]\n\n$\\beta$\u2013model fitting {#sec:beta}\n---------------------\n\nAs mentioned in Section \\[sec:obs\\], the small separation of the OCRA-p beams relative to the extent of a cluster\u2019s SZ decrement implies that we subtract out a fraction of the SZ signal due to our differencing method. This significantly reduces the measured signal compared to the intrinsic central signal. This is further exaggerated in cases where we have adjusted the pointing centre to avoid bright radio sources. In order to remove this effect and recover the \u2018true\u2019 SZ signal, we model the cluster atmosphere and estimate the fraction of the signal \u2018missed\u2019. (Note: this analysis was conducted purely to correct the SZ measurements and is separate from the derivation of X\u2013ray cluster parameters discussed in Section \\[sec:X\\]). In our previous work ([@Lancaster2007]), we assumed that the gas density distribution, $n_{\\mathrm{e}}(r)$ was well fit by a standard spherical $\\beta$\u2013model [@beta1]:\n\n$$n_{\\mathrm{e}}(r) = n_{\\mathrm{e0}}\\left(1+ \\frac{r^2}{r^2_c}\n\\right)^{-3\\beta/2}\n\\label{eq:single}$$\n\nHere, we improve on this approach by also considering the double $\\beta$\u2013model, which may provide a better fit to clusters which exhibit peaked central emission due to their cool cores. We follow @Bonamente2006 in adopting the form\n\n$$n_{\\mathrm{e}}(r) = n_{\\mathrm{e0}} \\left[p\\left(1+\n\\frac{r^2}{r^2_{c1}}\\right)^{-3\\beta_1/2} +(1-p)\\left(1+\n\\frac{r^2}{r^2_{c2}}\\right)^{-3\\beta_2/2} \\right]\n\\label{eq:double}$$\n\nalthough in our analysis, we allow different $\\beta$ for the two components. Using the *SHERPA*[^2] modelling and fitting application for each set of cluster data, we fit the 1\u2013D radial profiles of the X\u2013ray surface brightness by three models:\n\n1.  [The standard single $\\beta$\u2013model]{}, (\\[eq:single\\])\n\n2.  [A double $\\beta$\u2013model, (\\[eq:double\\]), with $\\beta_1 = \\beta_2$]{}\n\n3.  [A double $\\beta$\u2013model, (\\[eq:double\\]), allowing $\\beta_1$ and $\\beta_2$ to assume different values.]{}\n\nChi squared ($\\chi ^2$) statistics are used to compare the fits, since each radial bin is based on a large number of X\u2013ray counts. For each cluster, we accept the simplest model for which the fit statistic implies a probability of getting a greater $\\chi ^2$ by chance, $Q \\ge 6$ per cent. For some clusters, the gas distribution is sufficiently disturbed that $Q < 6 $ per cent for all models fitted: in such cases we adopt the best fit. This is not ideal, but we expect the additional error to be at a low level in comparison with the random errors on the SZ data. We do not observe any systematic effect on our results due to the type of $\\beta$\u2013model used to correct the SZ data.\n\n$\\beta$\u2013model parameters are presented in Table \\[tab:beta\\]. We return briefly to the analysis of [@Bonamente2006], with whom we have eight clusters in common, for comparison of results. For A697, A68, A267 and A773, both groups find that a single $\\beta$\u2013model provides an acceptable fit, and the derived parameters are in broad agreement. For their double $\\beta$\u2013model fits, @Bonamente2006 fix the two values to $\\beta$ to be equal, whereas ours were allowed to vary. For RXJ2129.6+0005 and A2261, we find that a model with $\\beta_1=\\beta_2$ gives the best fit, and the model parameters are again in broad agreement with @Bonamente2006 For ZWCL3146, our two $\\beta$\u2013values differ but are very similar, meaning the overall model fit is in broad agreement with @Bonamente2006, and indeed our $\\beta_1=\\beta_2$ fit is also consistent. The exception is A1835, where we find the best fitting model to be a double $\\beta$\u2013model with $\\beta_1=0.675$, $\\beta_2=1.059$, $\\theta_1=35.6$arcsec and $\\theta_2=13.2$arcsec, whereas @Bonamente2006 find $\\beta=0.797$, $\\theta_1=63.6$arcsec and $\\theta_2=13.2$arcsec. Our model with $\\beta_1=\\beta_2$ is also slightly discrepant, as our best fit parameters are $\\beta=0.695$, $\\theta_1=92.1$arcsec and $\\theta_2=19.1$arcsec. The source of discrepancy may well be in the use of differing data sets. We use ACIS-I observations totalling 200ks, whereas @Bonamente2006 only had access to 30ks of ACIS-S data which has a significantly smaller field of view.\n\nWe use the model gas distribution to simulate an OCRA observation. Many clusters were observed at positions slightly shifted from their X-ray maxima in order to avoid bright radio sources as far as possible. We consult our OCRA data for the range of parallactic angles sampled, and include the convolution with the OCRA beam response. We can thus estimate the fraction $F$ of the \u2018true\u2019 SZ signal measured in the real observations, and \u2018correct\u2019 our measurement (multiply by $1/F$) to recover the SZ surface brightness that would be measured by an ideal instrument with narrow beams at infinite separation. We note for clusters where the double $\\beta$\u2013model provides an improved fit, the value of F varies from the simpler single $\\beta$\u2013model by $\\sim10$ per cent. This change is thus significant for the scientific interpretation of our results. Correction factors are presented in Table \\[tab:res\\]. Asymmetries in the SZ signal are assumed small in our analysis. Checks for such asymmetries by binning the SZ data by parallactic angle provide only a low signal\u2013to\u2013noise control against such effects which would cause our estimates of $F$ to be incorrect. The X\u2013ray isophotes of these clusters are not always circular, but are most sensitive to asymmetry towards the cluster centre, where a relatively small fraction of the SZ effect originates. We estimate that the value of $F$ could be systematically uncertain by $20\\%$ from this effect. This uncertainty dominates over that from varying the density model from $\\beta$ or double-$\\beta$ form to the [@Vikhlinin2006] form.\n\n  ---------------- ------- ---------------------- ------- -------------------- ------- ---------------------- ------ ------------------ ------\n  Cluster                                                                          $p$                                                  \n                                                                                                                                        \n  A1835              0.675 $^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$      35.6 $^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$       1.059 $^{+0.010}_{-0.010}$     13.2 $^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$    0.10\n  ZWCL1953           0.972 $^{+0.147}_{-0.122}$     171.6 $^{+22.3}_{-21.9}$     0.972 $^{+0.147}_{-0.122}$     43.3 $^{+5.7}_{-5.1}$    0.04\n  ZWCL3146           0.700 $^{+0.008}_{-0.007}$      23.6 $^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$       0.652 $^{+0.032}_{-0.023}$      4.8 $^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$    0.14\n  RXJ1532.9+3021     0.650 $^{+0.011}_{-0.010}$      12.0 $^{+3.6}_{-1.7}$       0.650 $^{+0.011}_{-0.010}$      6.3 $^{+1.6}_{-1.8}$    0.40\n  A2390              0.831 $^{+0.010}_{-0.009}$      92.9 $^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$       0.831 $^{+0.010}_{-0.009}$     18.5 $^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$    0.10\n  A2219              0.725 $^{+0.015}_{-0.013}$      85.6 $^{+6.2}_{-5.0}$       0.725 $^{+0.015}_{-0.013}$     42.0 $^{+5.4}_{-5.6}$    0.58\n  RXJ2129.6+0005     0.609 $^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$      24.4 $^{+2.9}_{-2.5}$       0.609 $^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$      5.0 $^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$    0.12\n  A2261              0.598 $^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$      30.7 $^{+1.4}_{-1.4}$       0.598 $^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$     11.8 $^{+0.8}_{-0.8}$    0.33\n  A781               0.706 $^{+0.041}_{-0.035}$      79.5 $^{+7.5}_{-6.6}$           -                             -                      -\n  A697               0.648 $^{+0.008}_{-0.008}$      48.7 $^{+1.5}_{-1.5}$           -                             -                      -\n  A1763              0.586 $^{+0.007}_{-0.006}$      48.0 $^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$           -                             -                      -\n  A68                0.742 $^{+0.003}_{-0.002}$      54.5 $^{+3.5}_{-3.3}$           -                             -                      -\n  A520               0.831 $^{+0.003}_{-0.003}$     117.5 $^{+0.6}_{-0.6}$           -                             -                      -\n  A267               0.633 $^{+0.011}_{-0.011}$      34.4 $^{+1.5}_{-1.4}$           -                             -                      -\n  RXJ0439.0+0715     0.735 $^{+0.022}_{-0.020}$      52.6 $^{+4.3}_{-3.9}$       0.735 $^{+0.022}_{-0.020}$     13.0 $^{+1.6}_{-1.5}$    0.23\n  ZWCL7160           0.850 $^{+0.112}_{-0.077}$      22.2 $^{+4.3}_{-3.4}$       0.580 $^{+0.005}_{-0.006}$      7.2 $^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$    0.09\n  A773               0.769 $^{+0.041}_{-0.035}$     129.6 $^{+14.3}_{-14.4}$     0.769 $^{+0.041}_{-0.035}$     48.2 $^{+2.7}_{-2.6}$    0.11\n  ---------------- ------- ---------------------- ------- -------------------- ------- ---------------------- ------ ------------------ ------\n\n\\[tab:beta\\]\n\nRESULTS AND SCALING RELATIONS {#sec:res}\n=============================\n\nSunyaev Zel\u2019dovich Results\n--------------------------\n\nWe present our measurements for the Sunyaev Zel\u2019dovich effects in our 17-cluster sample in Table \\[tab:res\\]. For each cluster, we first give the raw OCRA flux density as measured directly by the telescope, followed by the revised figure once all radio source contamination has been corrected for. We then give our estimate of the fraction of total signal measured due to the instrumental response. Finally, we give the fully\u2013corrected temperature decrement expressed in brightness temperature units, and the corresponding central Comptonisation parameter, $y_0 = -0.19 \\times (\\Delta T/K)$. We detect 13 clusters at significance $\\ge 3 \\sigma$.\n\nOur trail fields serve as a valuable test of our observing strategy. We present differential and cumulative distributions for both the source corrected cluster target and trail fields in Figure \\[fig:hist\\]. The flux densities of the trail fields are distributed around zero with small scatter, and their distribution is clearly distinct from that of the SZ data, confirming that our observing strategy is effective.\n\n![image](histogram.ps){width=\"0.6\\linewidth\"}\n\n  ---------------- ------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ------- ----------- ---------------\n  Cluster                                Fraction                 $y_0$                          \n                                         Measured              $\\times10^4$                      \n  A1835              -2.05 $\\pm0.46$        -3.82 $\\pm0.47$       0.363        -4050 $\\pm500$     7.70$\\pm$0.95\n  ZW1953             -1.65 $\\pm0.37$        -1.65 $\\pm0.37$       0.404        -1570 $\\pm350$     2.98$\\pm$0.67\n  ZW3146             -1.06 $\\pm0.39$        -0.78 $\\pm0.41$       0.181        -1660 $\\pm870$     3.15$\\pm$1.65\n  RX1532.9+3021      -1.41 $\\pm0.33$        -1.11 $\\pm0.34$       0.166        -2540 $\\pm790$     4.83$\\pm$1.50\n  A2390              -0.78 $\\pm0.20$        -1.02 $\\pm0.22$       0.176        -2230 $\\pm480$     4.24$\\pm$0.91\n  A2219              11.10 $\\pm0.38$        -2.76 $\\pm0.40$       0.379        -2810 $\\pm400$     5.34$\\pm$0.76\n  RXJ2129.6+0005     -0.13 $\\pm0.37$        -1.46 $\\pm0.37$       0.329        -1710 $\\pm430$     3.25$\\pm$0.82\n  A2261              -3.19 $\\pm0.30$        -1.35 $\\pm0.32$       0.321        -1610 $\\pm390$     3.06$\\pm$0.74\n  A781                0.68 $\\pm0.42$        -1.19 $\\pm0.53$       0.330        -1390 $\\pm620$     2.64$\\pm$1.18\n  A697               -3.01 $\\pm0.46$        -3.01 $\\pm0.46$       0.422        -2740 $\\pm420$     5.21$\\pm$0.80\n  A1763              10.58 $\\pm0.80$        -3.11 $\\pm0.82$       0.296        -4040 $\\pm1070$    7.68$\\pm$2.03\n  A68                -0.89 $\\pm0.48$        -1.22 $\\pm0.48$       0.451        -1040 $\\pm410$     1.98$\\pm$0.78\n  A520               -1.97 $\\pm0.47$        -1.80 $\\pm0.48$       0.268        -2580 $\\pm680$     4.90$\\pm$1.29\n  A267               -2.73 $\\pm0.43$        -1.99 $\\pm0.57$       0.471        -1620 $\\pm470$     3.08$\\pm$0.89\n  RX0439.0+0715      -1.22 $\\pm0.43$        -1.27 $\\pm0.43$       0.351        -1390 $\\pm470$     2.64$\\pm0.89$\n  ZWCL7160           -1.10 $\\pm0.34$        -1.14 $\\pm0.34$       0.188        -2330 $\\pm700$     4.43$\\pm$1.33\n  A773               -1.20 $\\pm0.32$        -1.21 $\\pm0.32$       0.382        -1210 $\\pm330$     2.30$\\pm$0.63\n  ---------------- ------- ----------- ---------- ----------- -------------- ------- ----------- ---------------\n\n\\[tab:res\\]\n\nSZ\u2013X-ray scaling relations {#sec:scaling}\n--------------------------\n\nAccording to the self-similar model of galaxy cluster formation, which assumes evolution solely under gravity, we expect simple scalings between various cluster parameters. Following [@Morandi2007] we derive the following relations, each of which may be tested using OCRA data. We note that while it is advantageous to use the integrated Compton parameter for such studies (e.g. [@Benson2004], [@Bonamente2008]), deriving this from OCRA data would introduce further uncertainty since we have measured the cluster structures from the X\u2013ray data alone. Thus, we restrict ourselves to discussing the central Comptonisation, $y_0$. The scalings of interest are first, the relation between central Comptonisation and X-ray temperature\n\n$$y_0 \\propto T_{\\mathrm{X}}^{3/2} E(z),$$\n\nsecond, that between the Comptonisation and X-ray luminosity\n\n$$y_0 \\propto L_{\\mathrm{X}}^{3/4} E(z)^{1/4},\n\\label{eq:yL}$$\n\nand finally, that between Comptonisation and $Y_{\\mathrm{X}}$, the product of gas mass and X-ray temperature\n\n$$y_0 \\propto Y_{\\mathrm{X}}^{3/5} E(z)^{8/5},$$\n\nwhere $E(z)$ is as given in Equation \\[eqn:E\\]. Deviation from the expected scalings would suggest contributions from non-gravitational processes, and redshift dependence in the slope or amplitude of the scalings should provide evidence on the nature of these processes.\n\nWe present our scaling relations in figures \\[yT\\] to \\[yY\\]. For each plot, we colour\u2013code the datapoints based on the reliability of the OCRA data. The most reliable points, i.e. those with no obvious issues, are shown as red circles. Points which have a signal to noise ratio of less than 3 are black squares. This is an arbitrary cut\u2013off, and we see no reason to exclude these points from our analysis; however as an aid to the reader we choose to mark them clearly. Blue crosses represent clusters which may suffer from residual source contamination, i.e. those which contain a bright ($> 3$mJy) source, for which we have corrected, in their central regions. Due to the unavoidable 10 per cent uncertainty in the calibration of the GBT data, we cannot be confident that the effects of these sources have been accurately removed, and thus choose to ignore these three clusters in our subsequent analyses.\n\n             Correlation              Expected slope  Data used                           Best-fit slope   Fit statistic  \n  ---------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------------- ---------------- --------------- --\n        $y_0, T_{\\mathrm{X}}$              1.5        SZ, X-ray                           $1.82\\pm0.72$        2.39       \n                                                      SZ (no source correction), X-ray    $1.94\\pm1.10$        6.64       \n        $y_0, L_{\\mathrm{X}}$              0.75       SZ, X-ray                           $0.77\\pm0.21$        2.46       \n                                                      SZ (no source correction), X-ray    $0.71\\pm0.19$        6.86       \n        $y_0, Y_{\\mathrm{X}}$              0.6        SZ, X-ray                           $0.65\\pm0.21$        2.50       \n                                                      SZ (no source correction), X-ray    $0.55\\pm0.21$        7.23       \n   $L_{\\mathrm{X}}, T_{\\mathrm{X}}$        0.5        X-ray only                          $0.49\\pm0.04$        3.40       \n   $Y_{\\mathrm{X}}, T_{\\mathrm{X}}$        2.5        X-ray only                          $2.19\\pm0.16$        1.85       \n   $Y_{\\mathrm{X}}, L_{\\mathrm{X}}$        1.25       X-ray only                          $1.24\\pm0.05$        4.29       \n           \\[tab:summary\\]                                                                                                \n\nThe fitting was performed in the linear space of observables, rather than log\u2013log space, and involved the minimisation of the squared and error\u2013weighted residuals from a power law of the form $y=Ax^{\\mathrm{B}}$, where $A$ and $B$ are to be estimated. The space of acceptable values of $A$ and $B$ was sampled by taking $10^5$ datapoint realisations, distributed according to their errors, assumed Gaussian. The best\u2013fit slopes are summarised in Table \\[tab:summary\\], with the values of the fit statistic. Figure \\[yT\\] shows the scaling between $y_0$ and $T_{\\mathrm{X}}$. For this relation, the space of acceptable $(A,B)$ parameters extends over a wide range in both parameters, so that the slope should be regarded as essentially unconstrained, although the best fit value $B = 1.82\\pm0.72$ is in agreement with the predicted value $B = 1.5$ from self\u2013similar models. The other two relations show modest covariances between $A$ and $B$ and are more robust. Figure \\[yL\\] shows the scaling between $y_0$ and $L_{\\mathrm{X}}$. We obtain a slope of $0.77\\pm0.21$ in good agreement with self\u2013similarity, for which Equation \\[eq:yL\\] predicts 0.75. Finally, Figure \\[yY\\] depicts the scaling between $y_0$ and $Y_{\\mathrm{X}}$. We derive a slope of $0.65\\pm0.21$ which is in good agreement with the predicted $B = 0.6$. For all three cases, the intrinsic scatter in $y_0$ can be estimated by the additional error required to bring the fit statistic down to a statistically acceptable level $\\sim1.0$ We find that the intrinsic scatter in $y_0$ is about 25 per cent. The errors on $B$ are large for all fits because of the modest range of cluster masses in our sample, but we see no evidence for departure from self\u2013similar models of cluster evolution. Our results for the $y_0/L_{\\mathrm{X}}$ and $y_0/T_{\\mathrm{X}}$ scalings are consistent with those obtained by [@Morandi2007], although their gas masses and temperatures were defined over significantly different regions of the clusters (within $R_{2500}$), and their scalings have smaller slope errors because of the wider range of $T_{\\mathrm{X}}$ of their clusters.\n\nIt is interesting to compare our scalings with those that we would have obtained if source corrections were not available to us, since blank\u2013sky surveys for cluster SZ effects could attempt to constrain the scalings with inadequate source data. We find that the scatter induced by the radio sources degrades the fit quality for each correlation significantly, as illustrated by the fit statistics shown in Table \\[tab:summary\\]. Although the results broadly agree with self\u2013similar predictions, the residual contamination tends to cause the scalings to appear too flat. For instance, in the high signal to noise sub\u2013sample where the effect of sources is clearest, the slope of the $y_0/L_\\mathrm{X}$ relation is found to be flatter by 0.27 if a fit is attempted before source corrections are made. A similar result is found for the $y_0/Y_{\\mathrm{X}}$ scaling relation.\n\nX-ray only scaling relations {#sec:Xscale}\n----------------------------\n\nWe check the consistency of the set of clusters with the more usual X\u2013ray scaling relations between $L_{\\mathrm{X}}$ and $T_{\\mathrm{X}}$, $Y_{\\mathrm{X}}$ and $T_{\\mathrm{X}}$, and $Y_{\\mathrm{X}}$ and $L_{\\mathrm{X}}$ (e.g. [@Morandi2007]) in the same way as for the SZ / X\u2013ray scaling relations (results also summarised in Table \\[tab:summary\\]). The slopes that we measure, of $0.49 \\pm 0.04$, $2.19 \\pm 0.16$, and $1.24 \\pm 0.05$, are consistent with the similarity expectations of 0.5, 2.5 and 1.25. As the slight discrepancy for the correlation between $Y_{\\mathrm{X}}$ and $T_{\\mathrm{X}}$ is not of high statistical significance, this study shows our sample to be representative of the population of hot ($T\n\\gtrsim 6$keV) clusters.\n\nDISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION\n=========================\n\nWe have observed a complete sample of galaxy clusters using OCRA\u2013p, and studied the scaling of the central Compton parameter, $y_0$, with various X\u2013ray quantities. For each relation, we find slopes in good agreement with the predictions from self\u2013similar models.\n\nOur study has similarities to that of [@Morandi2007], and the two samples have 7 clusters in common, although we imposed stricter initial selection criteria. @Morandi2007 consider scalings with $y_0$, so we are able to perform a direct comparison. They find that the $y_0/T_{\\mathrm{X}}$ relation deviates by $\\sim3\\sigma$ from the self\u2013similar prediction, in the sense of being steeper. While our data are consistent with this result, we note that they are essentially unable to constrain this relation at any level. Regarding the $y_0/L_{\\mathrm{X}}$ scaling, they find a slope of $0.61\\pm0.05$, which is in good agreement with our work. Thus we see no sign of the flattening that would have resulted from the presence of an undetected set of contaminating sources (Section \\[sec:scaling\\]).\n\nMore recently, [@Bonamente2008] studied a sample of 38 clusters observed with OVRO/BIMA and *Chandra*. They considered the integrated Comptonisation, $Y$, and in particular its scaling with $T_{\\mathrm{X}}$, $M_{\\mathrm{tot}}$ and $M_{\\mathrm{gas}}$. They find good consistency with predictions from self\u2013similar models for all scaling relations.\n\nOur analysis has been limited by the narrow region of parameter space sampled, particularly for the scalings with $T_{\\mathrm{X}}$. Based on our results, a sample double the size would provide a good test of the $y_0/Y_{\\mathrm{X}}$ scaling; this will be presented in an upcoming paper in which we extend our sample to 33 clusters. To fully test the other relations, a sample four times larger is required. Thinking forwards to the prospects for blind cluster surveys, it is interesting to note that in this study we would have detected Sunyaev Zel\u2019dovich effects for 14 out of 17 clusters in our sample with no source information. Of course, to accurately determine the strength of the SZ effect in each case, and indeed to derive any cluster parameters, good knowledge of the radio source environment is essential, and any attempt to test the scaling relations without taking sources into account will fail (see Section \\[sec:scaling\\]). That this is true for sub\u2013mm sources, as well as cm\u2013wave studies, is clear from the large population of sub\u2013mm sources known to be lensed by massive clusters (e.g. [@Johansson2010]).\n\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nWe acknowledge support for the design and construction of OCRA-p from the Royal Society Paul Instrument Fund, and funds for the data acquisition system and operation on the telescope from the Ministry of Science in Poland via grant number N N203 39043 who, along with STFC, also supported the scientific exploitation of the completed system. The GBT is a National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) instrument, a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. We extend special thanks to all the staff at the GBT, particularly Brian Mason and Carl Bignell, for their essential support and prompt re\u2013scheduling.\n\n\\[lastpage\\]\n\n[^1]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/\n\n[^2]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/sherpa/\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The \u201cclassic\u201d analogy of classical repulsive interactions via exchange of particles is revisited with a quantitative model and analyzed. This simple model based solely upon the principle of momentum conservation yields a nontrivial, conservative approximation at low energies while also including a type of \u201crelativistic\u201d regime in which the conservative formulation breaks down. Simulations are presented which are accessible to undergraduate students at any level in the physics curriculum as well as analytic treatments of the various regimes which should be accessible to advanced undergraduate physics majors.'\nauthor:\n- 'Jarrett L. Lancaster'\n- Colin McGuire\n- 'Aaron P. Titus'\ntitle: 'Classical particle exchange: a quantitative treatment'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nCountless students in introductory physics learn that the \u201cexchange of virtual particles\u201d is responsible for the fundamental forces of nature. Several popular introductory textbooks contain diagrams which sketch how classical particle exchange could plausibly explain the qualitative nature of repulsive forces.[@BauerWestfall; @Mazur] Furthermore, some texts even attempt to construct analogies for how attractive forces could arise from complicated exchanges of classical objects.[@Giancoli; @YoungFreedman] In this paper, we wish to address the gaping hole in the literature regarding how such pictures may be quantitatively useful in understanding the connection between fundamental interactions and momentum transfer through mediating particles.\n\nJust as physical theories are only useful within certain domains of validity, analogies are only helpful until their meanings are stretched to a point at which the usefulness breaks down. To properly analyze fundamental interactions, the methods of quantum field theory provide the tools necessary for obtaining quantitatively accurate results. Ref.\u00a0 provides a particularly illuminating discussion of how gravitational, electrostatic and nuclear potentials arise as either attractive or repulsive interactions by using the path integral formualtion of quantum field theory. Additionally, by casually invoking the energy-time version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, one may obtain surprisingly accurate information regarding the force laws resulting from electromagnetic and nuclear interactions.[@Harney] The focus of the present work is not to require an idealized analysis within classical mechanics to describe the nature of fundamental interactions, but to explore how effective forces between particles which are spatially separated [*can*]{} arise within classical dynamics.\n\nA student needs only very basic tools to explore the implications of a particular particle exchange model. With easily acquired numerical results, an advanced student may apply the mathematical analysis required to obtain both exact and asymptotic results. The goal of the present work is to present a quantitative approach, accessible at both introductory and advanced levels, which thoroughly analyzes a particular model for interactions based on classical physics.\n\nIn particular, we consider a system of two massive particles, each of mass $M$, which interact with each other via the exchange of two mediating particles, each of mass $m \\ll M$, which are taken to always move at speed $c\\,$ and interact with the heavier particles through inelastic collisions, always emerging with speed $c\\,$ relative to a stationary lab (or \u201cground\u201d) frame. Though this model is admittedly artificial compared to the quantum field theories describing the known fundamental interactions, the reasoning required for a careful, quantitative analysis are quite useful in understanding the realistic interactions that do occur in nature through mediating quantum fields.[@Zee]\n\nA notable shortcoming of the classical particle-exchange analogy is its inability to describe attractive forces.[@GriffithsPart] While it is possible to invoke quantum fluctuations in energy to explain attractive nuclear forces in a qualitative manner,[@Dunne] we emphasize that attractive interactions emerge naturally from classical scalar field theory.[@Rubakov] Such a rigorous discussion of the origin of attractive forces implicitly requires a discussion of quantum theory, as these interactions rely on the wave-like nature of matter. Consequently, such treatment is beyond the scope of the present work, as we wish to present a model which may be thoroughly analyzed classically.\n\nThis paper is arranged as follows: in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:model\\] we present a model for classical particle exchange and explore some basic consequences through simulations and physical reasoning, both of which are appropriate for students in introductory physics courses. Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:analytic\\] contains a thorough analysis of the model employing advanced physical reasoning and special functions to verify the speculative results obtained through careful estimation in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:model\\]. Finally, we summarize the results in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:summary\\].\n\nModel {#sec:model}\n=====\n\nWe wish to investigate the classical picture of particle exchange as a mechanism for interaction between two massive particles. We imagine two particles each of mass $M\\,$ exchanging small particles, each of mass $m\\ll M$ as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:collisionfig\\]. The analogy is often made to a pair of ice skaters (or rollerbladers) tossing a ball back and forth.[@BauerWestfall; @Mazur; @Giancoli; @YoungFreedman] Each time one skater catches the ball and throws it back, a small amount of momentum is imparted to the skater, resulting in an effective repulsive force between the skaters which is mediated by the ball being tossed. We construct a quantitative model for this type of interaction by taking the smaller particle\u2019s velocity to be a constant, given speed $c$. We choose the label $c\\,$ with no reference whatsoever to the speed of light, though we will see that our $c\\,$ plays a role in our model which is rather similar to that of the actual speed of light in electromagnetism, allowing us to explore a sort of \u201cnon-relativistic\u201d limit of the model for speeds $v \\ll c$. In order to keep the system\u2019s center of mass at rest, we shall consider a symmetric setup in which two small particles are exchanged. When the smaller, mediating particles approach each other we assume that they pass through one another without interaction or collide elastically.[@note1]\n\n![Two particles of mass $M\\,$ experience a repulsive \u201cforce\u201d which is mediated by the exchange of a smaller particle of mass $m\\ll M$.[]{data-label=\"fig:collisionfig\"}](collisionfig.pdf)\n\nSince the mediating particles always move at speed $c$, the collisions involving the massive[@note1a] particles with the mediating particles would not result in momentum transfer if the collisions were elastic. To obtain nontrivial momentum transfer, we must consider inelastic collisions which result in an incremental increase in the system\u2019s kinetic energy after each collision. We shall explore whether the work required for this change in kinetic energy may be associated with an effective potential energy for the system. Taking the large, right-moving particle to be moving at speed $v$, momentum conservation applied to a single collision gives $$Mv_{n} + mc = Mv_{n+1} - mc,\n\\label{Eq:momentumconservation}$$ or $\\delta v \\equiv v_{n+1}-v_{n} = 2\\frac{mc}{M}$. With repeated collisions of this form, the two massive particles will accelerate away from their common center of mass in a manner qualitatively similar to the motion experienced by two like charges placed near each other and released. We employ two approaches to investigate the quantitative nature of this effective force law. First, we simulate the system as described, obtaining numerically an effective force law which decreases as $r^{-1}\\,$ for small velocities $v\\ll c$, where $r\\,$ is the instantaneous separation between the two massive particles. Second, the discrete sequence of collisions leads to a recursion relation which allows us to obtain a closed-form expression for $r_{n}$, the separation distance immediately preceeding the $n^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize th}}\\,$ collision. While exact, this closed-form expression for $r_{n}\\,$ is less than transparent regarding the physics of the system. In the following section, we apply continuum approximation to uncover the effective dynamics analytically in various limits.\n\nFull simulation\n---------------\n\nThe full simulation consists of integrating the Newtonian equations of motion for free particles moving at constant speeds and monitoring for a \u201ccollision\u201d at which point each massive particle is given a boost in speed $\\delta v = 2mc/M\\,$ and the mediating particles are reflected with equal momenta in the opposite directions. Letting $x^{(1)}\\,$ ($x^{(2)}$) denote the position of the right-moving (left-moving) particle and $v^{(1)}\\,$ ($v^{(2)}$) its velocity, we consider the following initial conditions: $$\\begin{aligned}\nx^{(1)}(0) & = & -x^{(2)}(0) = \\frac{r_{0}}{2},\\\\\nv^{(1)}(0) & = & v^{(2)}(0) = 0.\\end{aligned}$$ The mediating particles are initially located at the origin and begin moving in opposite directions toward the massive particles at $t = 0\\,$ with speed $c$. Letting the positions of the mediating particles be given by $X^{(i)}\\,$ for $i=1,2$, it is an instructive exercise to numerically integrate the equations of motion $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{dx^{(i)}}{dt} & = & v^{(i)},\\\\\n\\frac{dX^{(i)}}{dt} & = & V^{(i)}.\\end{aligned}$$ with $V^{(1)} = +c\\,$ and $V^{(2)} = -c\\,$ at $t=0$. To monitor for collisions, at each time step $\\Delta t\\,$ we check for the following condition: $$\\left| x^{(i)} - X^{(j)} \\right| < \\epsilon,$$ indicating that the mediating particle nearest the $i^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize th}}\\,$ particle has come within a small distance $\\epsilon\\,$ of the massive particle\u2019s location. When this occurs, we make the following adjustment to the equations of motion: $$\\begin{aligned}\nv^{(i)} & \\rightarrow & v^{(i)} + \\frac{2mc}{M}\\mbox{sign}\\left(V^{(j)}\\right),\\\\\nV^{(j)} & \\rightarrow & - V^{(j)},\\end{aligned}$$ indicating that a collision has occurred, resulting in momentum transfer. Results are generally insensitive to the time-step size, provided $\\epsilon \\precsim c\\Delta t$. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:loglog\\] depicts the numerically computed average acceleration as a function of separation distance for $m = 0.005M$. For the computation of acceleration, we only use the separation distance and corresponding time just after collision events, since each massive particle\u2019s acceleration is formally zero between collisions. Note that for position measurements which are taken at unequal time increments, we require the following discrete representation[@Abramowitz] of its second temporal derivative $$\\left.\\frac{d^{2}r}{dt^{2}}\\right|_{r=r_{n}} \\approx \\frac{\\frac{r_{n+1}-r_{n}}{t_{n+1}-t_{n}}-\\frac{r_{n}-r_{n-1}}{t_{n}-t_{n-1}} }{t_{n+1}-t_{n-1}}.$$\n\n![Numerically computed acceleration plotted against separation distance for the right-moving mass with logarithmic scales on axes. Also shown is a linear regression for the logarithmic data.[]{data-label=\"fig:loglog\"}](loglog.pdf)\n\nA strong linear trend on a log-log plot demonstrates the power-law nature of the force law, $$\\frac{d^{2}x^{(2)}}{dt^{2}} \\propto r^{b_{1}},$$ with $b_{1} \\approx -1$. This result is consistent with a rough estimation of the rate of momentum transfer for $v \\ll c$. Each collision is associated with transfer of momentum $$\\delta p = 2mc.$$ For $v \\ll c$, the massive particles do not move appreciably during one collision cycle. Let $r\\,$ denote the instantaneous separation distance between the massive particles. Beginning with the mediating particles at the origin, one cycle requires each particle to cover a distance $\\frac{r}{2}\\,$ to collide with the massive particles and then another distance of $\\frac{r}{2}\\,$ to return to the origin. Thus, a single collision cycle associated with a momentum transfer $\\delta p\\,$ requires a time $$\\delta t = \\frac{r}{c}.$$ The average force experienced by each massive particle is then $$F_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize ave}} \\simeq \\frac{\\delta p}{\\delta t} = \\frac{2mc^{2}}{r}.\\label{eq:force}$$ The validity of this crude estimate will be examined more carefully in the next section, but for now it serves to make the results in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:loglog\\] appear rather plausible. One might worry about the implications of an inverse-linear force law, since this could potentially be associated with a logarithmic potential energy function, just as in the case of two uniformly charged wires of infinite length.[@GriffithsEM] In the case of point particles, the potential does not asymptotically approach a constant value at large distances and should result in ever-increasing speeds as the massive particles move farther away from each other. This does not appear consistent with the model, as the mechanism for momentum does not allow the mediating particles to travel faster than speed $c$, so the speeds of the massive particles should be bounded by this limit. The resolution of this apparent paradox will be addressed below where we must refine the simulation method in order to access much longer times.\n\nCalculation of collision times\n------------------------------\n\nThe results so far suggest a disconnect between the low-energy behavior of the model and the high-energy \u201cspeed limit\u201d of $c$, which should be enforced by the mediating particles. To obtain some resolution, we must explore extremely large timescales, thus allowing the massive particles to approach high speeds, $v^{(1,2)}\\sim c$. Because the time between subsequent collisions grows at an accelerated rate as the massive particles spread apart and speed up, the basic scheme outlined above becomes impractical. In fact, most of the computation is entirely unnecessary since all particles move with constant velocities until a collision occurs. Starting from one collision event, the time for the next collision may be computed using the instantaneous velocities of all particles, and this process may be repeated. Though the time between collisions grows rapidly, the computation time of this scheme grows linearly with number of collisions, not with the elapsed time as before.\n\nTo proceed, let us consider a single collision event shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:collisionfig\\]. With both mediating particles at the origin and instantaneous separation $r_{n}\\,$ between the outwardly moving massive particles, the next collision will occur after the mediating particles have reached the massive particles, requiring a time $$\\delta t_{n} = \\frac{r_{n}/2}{c-v_{n}},\\label{eq:dt}$$ corresponding to traveling a distance of $\\frac{r_{n}}{2}\\,$ with speed $c-v_{n}\\,$ relative to the outwardly moving, massive particles. After time $\\delta t_{n}\\,$ has elapsed, collisions occur resulting in the mediating particles reversing directions and $$v_{n}\\rightarrow v_{n+1} \\equiv v_{n} + \\frac{2mc}{M}.\\label{eq:vn}$$ The cycle completes when the mediating particles return to the origin. By symmetry, this also requires time $\\delta t_{n}$, so the entire elapsed time for a complete cycle is $2\\delta t_{n}$, or $$t_{n+1} = t_{n} + \\frac{r_{n}}{c-v_{n}}.\\label{eq:tn}$$ To update the positions of the massive particles, we note that before the collision, each particle was moving away with speed $v_{n}$ with respect to the ground for time $\\delta t_{n}$. After the collision, each particle moves away from the system\u2019s center of mass for time $\\delta t_{n}\\,$ with the updated speed, $v_{n+1}$. Thus, the separation distance increases by an amount $2v_{n}\\delta t_{n} + 2v_{n+1}\\delta t_{n}$, or $$r_{n+1} = r_{n} + 2v_{n}\\delta t_{n} + 2v_{n+1} \\delta t_{n}.\\label{eq:rn}$$ Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:dt\\])-(\\[eq:rn\\]) constitute a closed recursion relation which may be iteratively advanced to obtain the velocity, separation distance and time corresponding to the beginning of each collision cycle.\n\n![Long-time, large-distance behavior of massive particle speed (blue circles) computed from Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:dt\\])-(\\[eq:rn\\]) and compared to low-speed, non-relativistic (NR) approximation in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:nrap\\]), which provides excellent agreement with the simulation for $v \\ll c$.[]{data-label=\"fig:logplot1\"}](logplot1.eps)\n\nFor a point of comparison, we may take the approximate force law in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:force\\]) and write Newton\u2019s second law for the motion of the right-moving particle, $$M\\frac{d^{2}x^{(1)}}{dt^{2}} = \\frac{2mc^{2}}{r}.$$ Applying the symmetry of the system, we have $r = 2x^{(1)}\\,$ and may change variables, $$\\frac{d^{2}x^{(1)}}{dt^{2}} = \\frac{d^{2}r}{dt^{2}} = \\frac{1}{2}\\frac{d}{dr}\\left(\\dot{r}^{2}\\right).$$ Writing $\\dot{r} = 2v$, where $v\\,$ represents the speed of each massive particle, we may integrate both sides to obtain $$v^{2}(r) = v_{0}^{2} + \\frac{2mc^{2}}{M}\\ln\\frac{r}{r_{0}},\\label{eq:nrap}$$ which represents a statement of conservation of energy with a potential energy given by $$U(r) = \\frac{2mc^{2}}{M}\\ln \\frac{a}{r},\n\\label{Eq:potentialenergy}$$ for some arbitrary length scale $a$. We refer to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:nrap\\]) as the [*non-relativistic approximation*]{}, as its derivation relies on assuming $v\\ll c$. The term \u201cnon-relativistic\u201d (NR) as used here does not refer to speeds much less than the actual speed of light but those significantly smaller than the mediating particle speed $c$. The role played by $c\\,$ in this model is similar to that of the actual speed of light in electrodynamics, but we stress that special relativity and the actual speed of light play no role in this model. Improvements to this low-energy approximation will be explored in the next section, but we are in a position to compare its predictions to the full simulation. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:logplot1\\] depicts the predictions of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:nrap\\]) compared to the actual simulation information contained in Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:dt\\])-(\\[eq:rn\\]). As expected, the non-relativistic approximation breaks down as the massive particles\u2019 speeds approach $c$. For large separation distances, the massive particle speeds do not increase as sharply with increasing distance as the non-relativistic approximation predicts. Indeed, once the massive particles reach a speed of $c$, the mediating particles, also traveling at speed $c$, are unable to catch up to the massive particles. Correspondingly the recursion relations break down and no more collisions are found. Specifically, as $v_{n}\\rightarrow c\\,$ from below, we have $\\delta t_{n}\\rightarrow \\infty$. If the massive particle speed becomes exactly[@note2] $c$, $\\delta t_{n}\\,$ does not exist and no further collisions occur. Another possibility is that a single collision changes $v_{n}\\,$ from just below $c\\,$ to just above $c$. In this case, $\\delta t_{n}\\,$ formally becomes negative and we conclude similarly that no further collisions occur.\n\nThe behavior of the system explored thus far can be summarized as follows: for arbitrary initial separations, the massive particles are repelled from each other by the effective force provided by the mediating particles. At long times, the speeds (with respect to the ground) of the massive particles approach $c$, the speed of the mediating particles. While an approximate statement of energy conservation has been derived (see Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:nrap\\])) for low speeds $v \\ll c$, the associated potential is problematic as it has no lower bound for $r\\rightarrow \\infty$. An unlimited amount of potential may be converted into the massive particle\u2019s kinetic energy resulting in the erroneous prediction that for any initial separation, both massive particles will continue to accelerate rather than asymptotically approach finite speeds. That the initial separation distance has no effect on the final speeds of the massive particles suggests that the system is not conservative. In the next section, we will carefully examine this system using analytic tools to quantitatively explore some of these issues.\n\nAnalytic approach {#sec:analytic}\n=================\n\nExact solution to recursion relation\n------------------------------------\n\nThe discrete sequence of collisions described by Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:dt\\])-(\\[eq:rn\\]) can be analyzed exactly, yielding a closed-form expression for $r_{n}$, the separation distance after $n\\,$ collisions. Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:vn\\]) simply states that the velocity increases by a constant amount after each collision, or $$v_{n} = \\frac{2mnc}{M}.\\label{eq:vnsol}$$ Inserting Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:vnsol\\]) into Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rn\\]) and using Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:dt\\]), we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nr_{n+1} & = & r_{n} + 2\\left[v_{n} + \\frac{mc}{M}\\right]\\frac{r_{n}}{c-v_{n}},\\\\\n& = & \\left(\\frac{1 + \\frac{2m(n+1)}{M}}{1 - \\frac{2mn}{M}}\\right)r_{n}.\\end{aligned}$$ Proceeding iteratively, $$\\begin{aligned}\nr_{1} & = & \\left(1 + \\frac{2m}{M}\\right)r_{0},\\\\\nr_{2} & = & \\frac{\\left(1 + \\frac{4m}{M}\\right)\\left(1 + \\frac{2m}{M}\\right)}{\\left(1-\\frac{2m}{M}\\right)}r_{0},\\\\\n& \\vdots & \\\\\nr_{n} & = & \\left(1 + \\frac{2nm}{M}\\right)\\prod_{k=0}^{n-1}\\left(\\frac{1 + \\frac{2km}{M}}{1 - \\frac{2km}{M}}\\right)r_{0}.\\label{eq:rn1}\\end{aligned}$$ By employing the Gamma function, which satisfies[@ArfkenWeber] $$\\Gamma(x+1) = x\\Gamma(x),\\label{eq:gamma1}$$ and reduces to the factorial for integer arguments, $n! = \\Gamma(n+1)$, we may write this as $$r_{n} = \\frac{\\Gamma\\left(\\frac{M}{2m} + n\\right)\\Gamma\\left(\\frac{M}{2m}-n\\right)}{\\left[\\Gamma\\left(\\frac{M}{2m}\\right)\\right]^{2}}\\left(1 - \\left(\\frac{2mn}{M}\\right)^{2}\\right)r_{0}.\\label{eq:rn2}$$ The derivation of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rn2\\]) from Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rn1\\]) requires use of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:gamma1\\]), the property,[@ArfkenWeber] $$\\Gamma(x)\\Gamma(1-x) = \\frac{\\pi}{\\sin(\\pi x)},$$ and their mathematical offspring, $$\\Gamma(x)\\Gamma(-x) = -\\frac{\\pi}{x\\sin(\\pi x)}.$$\n\nLimiting cases\n--------------\n\nAs an exact, closed-form solution, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rn2\\]) contains all of the physics we have encountered up to this point. The low-energy force law in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:force\\]) was previously derived using physical reasoning, but we can demonstrate that it also follows from the exact solution rather than appealing to comparisons such as Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:loglog\\]). To this end, let us define $\\alpha \\equiv \\frac{M}{2m}\\,$ and take the natural logarithm of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rn2\\]), obtaining $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ln \\frac{r}{r_{0}} & = & \\ln \\Gamma\\left(\\alpha-n\\right) + \\ln \\Gamma \\left(\\alpha - n\\right) - 2\\ln\\Gamma \\left(\\alpha\\right)\\nonumber\\\\ \n& +&  \\ln\\left[1 - \\left(\\frac{n}{\\alpha}\\right)^{2}\\right].\\end{aligned}$$ To investigate the dynamics for $m \\ll M\\,$ and $v \\ll c$, we examine the limit $\\alpha \\rightarrow \\infty\\,$ with $n \\ll \\alpha$. We first apply Stirling\u2019s approximation[@ArfkenWeber] to the Gamma functions, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ln \\Gamma\\left(\\alpha \\pm n\\right) & \\simeq & \\left(\\alpha \\pm n\\right)\\ln\\left[\\alpha \\pm n\\right],\\\\\n\\ln \\Gamma (\\alpha) & \\simeq & \\alpha \\ln \\alpha.\\end{aligned}$$ Applying the limit $n \\ll \\alpha\\,$ and expanding the logarithms according to $$\\left(1\\pm x\\right)\\ln \\left[1 \\pm x\\right] \\simeq x + \\frac{x^{2}}{2},$$ we recover the result $$\\ln \\frac{r}{r_{0}} \\simeq \\frac{n^{2}}{\\alpha},$$ which is equivalent to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:nrap\\]) with $v_{0} = 0\\,$ upon the identification $n\\rightarrow \\frac{M}{2m}\\frac{v}{c}\\,$ (see Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:vnsol\\])).\n\nAlternatively, we may consider the limit $v\\rightarrow c$. Note that Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rn2\\]) diverges as $n\\rightarrow \\alpha$, indicating that this only occurs as $r\\rightarrow \\infty$. Implicit in this relation is the upper limit on number of collisions before the massive particles reach terminal velocity, $$n_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize max}} = \\frac{M}{2m}.$$ We may probe the system at long times by letting $n = \\alpha - \\epsilon\\,$ for $\\epsilon \\ll 1$. Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rn2\\]) then becomes $$\\frac{r_{n}}{r_{0}} = \\frac{\\Gamma\\left(2\\alpha\\right)}{\\left[\\Gamma\\left(\\alpha\\right)\\right]^{2}}\\Gamma\\left(\\epsilon\\right)\\cdot \\frac{2\\epsilon}{\\alpha}.\\label{eq:smallv1}$$ Employing the small-argument expansion[@PeskinSchroeder] $$\\Gamma\\left(\\epsilon\\right) = \\frac{1}{\\epsilon} - \\gamma +\\mathcal{O}(\\epsilon),$$ where $\\gamma \\simeq 0.577\\,$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant, we may expand Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:smallv1\\]) to obtain $$\\frac{r}{r_{0}} \\simeq \\frac{2\\Gamma\\left(2\\alpha\\right)}{\\alpha\\left[\\Gamma(\\alpha)\\right]^{2}}\\left(1-\\gamma\\epsilon\\right).$$ Taking $\\epsilon\\rightarrow 0\\,$ is equivalent to letting $v\\rightarrow c$, and we obtain $$r \\rightarrow r_{c}\\equiv \\frac{4m\\Gamma\\left(\\frac{M}{m}\\right)}{M\\left[\\Gamma\\left(\\frac{M}{2m}\\right)\\right]^{2}}r_{0}\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\mbox{ as }v\\rightarrow c.\\label{eq:rc}$$ For $r>r_{c}$, each massive particle is moving at the same speed as the mediating particles and experiences no subsequent collisions with the mediating particles. Some mystery may be removed from Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rc\\]) by taking the natural logarithm of both sides and applying Stirling\u2019s approximation, this time keeping several terms $$\\ln \\Gamma (x) \\simeq x\\ln x - x - \\frac{1}{2}\\ln \\frac{x}{2\\pi}.$$ When the smoke clears, we have the compact result $$r_{c} = \\sqrt{\\frac{2m}{\\pi M}}2^{\\frac{M}{m}}r_{0}.$$ That is, at a finite separation distance, the massive particles attain their maximum speeds $v = c$. We note that since the massive particles always evolve to this state regardless of initial separation ([*i.e.*]{}, various amounts of supposed \u201cpotential energy\u201d in the initial state with no kinetic energy) energy cannot be conserved in this system. States with different energies all evolving into a single high-energy state requires sources or sinks in energy. However, the low-energy, non-relativistic approximation is quite useful for describing the dynamics at low energies. Unfortunately, unlike the Coulomb repulsion, there exist no initial conditions for which the relativistic limit is avoided.\n\nRelativistic corrections\n------------------------\n\nThe discrete relations in Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:vn\\])-(\\[eq:tn\\]) may be formally interpreted as differential equations by applying the convention $$v_{n+1}-v_{n} = \\frac{\\Delta v}{\\Delta n} \\rightarrow \\frac{dv}{dn},$$ with a similar relation for $t_{n}\\rightarrow t(n)$. One then obtains $$\\frac{dv}{dt} = \\frac{\\frac{dv}{dn}}{\\frac{dt}{dn}} = \\frac{2mc}{Mr}\\left(c-v\\right).$$ Note that this corresponds to an acceleration given by the force in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:force\\]) with corrections which are first-order in $\\beta \\equiv \\frac{v}{c}$. Unlike the non-relativistic limit, this acceleration explicitly drops to zero as $v\\rightarrow c$. Furthermore the explicit appearance of $v\\,$ in the force indicates a non-conservative nature to this force. Employing the chain rule as for the non-relativistic limit, we obtain the following equation for $\\beta(r)$, $$r\\beta \\frac{d\\beta}{dr} = \\frac{m}{M}\\left(1-\\beta\\right).\\label{eq:ur}$$ Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:ur\\]) is separable and admits the closed-form solution $$\\left(\\frac{r}{r_{0}}\\right)^{\\frac{m}{M}} = \\frac{e^{-\\beta}}{1-\\beta}.$$ This may be inverted to yield a formula for $v = \\beta c\\,$ $$v(r) = c\\left[1 + W\\left(-\\frac{(r_{0}/r)^{m/M}}{e}\\right)\\right],\\label{eq:ursol}$$ where $W(z)\\,$ is the Lambert-W function,[@Corless] defined as the principal value of $$z = W(z)e^{W(z)}.$$ While the solution clearly satisfies $v(r_{0}) = 0$ and $$\\lim_{r\\rightarrow \\infty}v(r) = c\\left[1 + 0\\right] = c,$$\n\n![Comparison of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:ursol\\]) to the simulation/exact solution and non-relativistic limit. Surprisingly, this \u201cimproved\u201d approximation breaks down long before the NR limit ceases to accurately describe the physics.[]{data-label=\"fig:urlimit\"}](urlimit.eps)\n\nthe time required for this to happen (rigorously, for $|c-v|<2mc/M$) is quite large, and unfortunately for the theory, this does not appear to agree very well with the simulation or exact solution (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:urlimit\\]), breaking down even before the non-relativistic approximation breaks down. There is an equally curious situation that occurs in electromagnetism. The general solutions to Maxwell\u2019s equations for known sources rely on fairly complex expressions involving evaluation of physical quantities at retarded times. However, by expanding these expressions the lowest-order term is the [*instantaneous*]{} Coulomb term. This appears to be a rather deep result also showing up in quantum electrodynamics[@Feynman1] and quantum gravity.[@FeynmanGrav] The refined approximation in this section is only part of the required correction to the non-relativistic limit, and some potentially \u201cfortuitous\u201d cancellation between this modification and the rest of the terms being neglected is required to obtain a result more accurate than the NR approximation. An example of this sort of fortunate cancellation from classical physics may be observed by considering the electric field due to an arbitrary configuration of currents and charges, given by one of Jefimenko\u2019s equations,[@GriffithsEM] $${\\bf E}\\left({\\bf r},t\\right) = \\frac{1}{4\\pi \\epsilon_{0}}\\int \\left[\\frac{\\rho\\left({\\bf r}',t_{r}\\right)}{R^{2}}\\hat{\\bf R} + \\frac{\\dot{\\rho}\\left({\\bf r}',t_{r}\\right)}{cR}\\hat{\\bf R} - \\frac{\\dot{\\bf J}\\left({\\bf r}',t_{r}\\right)}{c^{2}R}\\right]d\\tau ',\n\\label{eq:efield}$$ where $\\rho\\,$ is charge density, ${\\bf J}\\,$ is current density, $R = \\left|{\\bf r} - {\\bf r}'\\right|$, and the retarded time is given by $t_{r} \\equiv t - R/c$. Following an exercise in a popular text on electrodynamics,[@GriffithsEM] one may consider constant currents for which $\\dot{\\bf J} =0\\,$ ([*i.e.*]{}, the third term in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:efield\\]) disappears). In this case, a miraculous cancellation occurs, yielding $${\\bf E}({\\bf r},t) = \\frac{1}{4\\pi \\epsilon_{0}}\\int \\frac{\\rho({\\bf r}',t)}{R^{2}}d\\tau'$$ where the correction to the instantaneous Coulomb potential and the second term in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:efield\\]) cancel perfectly. That is, despite the explicit appearance of corrections of order $\\beta\\,$ and evaluation of functions at $t_{r}\\,$ instead of instantaneous time $t$, the field turns out to be the instantaneous Coulomb-like contribution. The \u201crelativistic correction\u201d in the particle-exchange model appears to be analogous to evaluating the field at retarded times without including the additional corrections, resulting in a less-accurate result at short times.\n\nSummary {#sec:summary}\n=======\n\nIn this paper we thoroughly examined a simple model for classical interactions through the exchange of mediating particles in which momentum conservation is enforced for each collision. As demonstrated in simulations and analytic reasoning, the resulting interactions yield an effectively conservative theory at low energies with a $1/r$ force. The conservative approximation breaks down at high energies, and regardless of initial separation, the massive particles both eventually reach the maximum speed allowed by the physical mechanism of energy transfer within the system.\n\nThe classical particle exchange analogy of ice skaters throwing a ball back and forth has typically been used as an illustration in public outreach presentations and in teaching, from general education science courses to introductory and advanced physics courses. However, the analogy has value as a physical system for students to investigate quantitatively. The phenomenon can be used in various contexts including homework, an in-class activity, a computational physics exercise, or assessment. Furthermore, it can be used at both the introductory and advanced level in the undergraduate curriculum.\n\nIn introductory physics, students learning computational modeling[@Chabay] can investigate the phenomenon numerically. Derivation of the change in speed of a massive particle, $\\delta v = 2mc/M\\,$, using Conservation of Momentum (Eq. \\[Eq:momentumconservation\\]) is a straightforward exercise in introductory physics. Students can also explore and describe the position-time and velocity-time graphs. Because position and velocity change abruptly, introductory students have the opportunity to fit a smooth function to values that change discretely. Furthermore, teachers can use this system to assess understanding of potential energy functions (Eq. \\[Eq:potentialenergy\\]) and conservation of energy. Having already studied systems of particles interacting via the inverse-square law, students can practice applying a similar analysis to the $1/r$ force, possibly preparing them for similar forces that arise in an E&M course. Finally, as shown in this paper, teachers can also use the system as an application in a junior/senior level course in mechanics[@Timberlake] or mathematical physics where students are expected to explore the model in its limit using more advanced computational and analytical techniques.\n\n[15]{}\n\nW. Bauer and G. D. Westfall, [*University Physics with Modern Physics*]{}, 1st ed., (McGraw-Hill, New York, 2011).\n\nE. Mazur, [*Principles and Practice of Physics*]{}, (Pearson, Boston, 2015).\n\nD. C. Giancoli, [*Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics*]{}, 3rd ed., (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2000).\n\nH. D. Young and R. A. Freedman, [*Sears and Zemansky\u2019s University Physics*]{}, 12th ed., (Pearson, San Francisco, 2008).\n\nA. Zee, [*Quantum field theory in a nutshell*]{}, 2$^{nd}\\,$ ed., (Princeton U Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010).\n\nR. C. Harney, \u201cA Method for Obtaining Force Law Information by Applying the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,\u201d Am. J. Phys. [**41**]{}, 67 (1973).\n\nD. J. Griffiths, [*Introduction to Elementary Particles*]{}, (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1987).\n\nP. Dunne, \u201cA reappraisal of the mechanism of pion exchange and its implications for the teaching of particle,\u201d Phys. Ed. [**37**]{}(3), 211-222 (2002).\n\nV. Rubakov, [*Classical Theory of Gauge Fields*]{}, (Princeton U Press, Princeton, NJ, 2002).\n\nThe physics is unchanged if we interpret this lack of interaction as a perfectly elastic collision between the mediating particles. In fact, in one dimension energy conservation and momentum conservation only allow for exchange of incoming momenta in two-particle scattering events.[@Sutherland]\n\nWe use the term \u201cmassive\u201d to describe the particles of mass $M \\gg m$, but this convenient terminology is not meant to suggest that the mediating particles are massless. While we take $m \\ll M$, the model [*requires*]{} a nonzero mediating particle mass $m$.\n\nB. Sutherland, [*Beautiful Models: 70 Years of Exactly Solved Quantum Many Body Problems*]{}, (World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ, 2004).\n\nNote that the ultimate fate of the massive particles is determined by the mass ratio $\\frac{2m}{M}\\,$ and initial conditions. For $v_{0}=0$, if $M\\,$ divides $2m\\,$ exactly, then the massive particles will ultimately be accelerated to exactly $v=c$. If $M\\,$ does not exactly divide $2m$, then the final collisions will propel each mass to a speed larger than $c$, but with a difference bounded by $v_{\\infty} - c < \\frac{2mc}{M}$.\n\n, ed. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, pp. 877, (Dover, New York, 1965).\n\nD. J. Griffiths, [*Introduction to Electrodynamics*]{}, 3$^{rd}\\,$ ed., (Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, 1999).\n\nG. B. Arfken and H. J. Weber, [*Mathematical Methods for Physicists*]{}, 7th ed., (Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 2012).\n\nM. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, [*An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory*]{}, (Perseus, New York, 1995).\n\nR. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey and D. E. Knuth, \u201cOn the Lambert W function,\u201d Adv. Comp. Math. [**5**]{} 329-359 (1996).\n\nR. P. Feynman, [*The Theory of Fundamental Processes*]{}, (Westview Press, Boulder, C.O., 1998).\n\nR. P. Feynman, F. B. Morinigo and W. G. Wagner, [*Feynman Lectures on Gravitation*]{}, (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 2002).\n\nR. Chabay and B. Sherwood, \u201cComputational physics in the introductory calculus-based course,\u201d Am. J. Phys. [**76**]{}, 307 (2008).\n\nT. Timberlake and J. Hasbun, \u201cComputation in classical mechanics,\u201d Am. J. Phys. [**76**]{}, 334 (2008).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present an experimental and theoretical investigation of spontaneous pattern formation in the transverse section of a single retro-reflected laser beam passing through a cloud of cold Rubidium atoms. In contrast to previously investigated systems, the nonlinearity at work here is that of a 2-level atom, which realizes the paradigmatic situation considered in many theoretical studies of optical pattern formation. In particular, we are able to observe the disappearance of the patterns at high intensity due to the intrinsic saturable character of 2-level atomic transitions.'\nauthor:\n- 'A. Camara, R. Kaiser, G. Labeyrie[^1]'\n- 'W.J. Firth, G.-L. Oppo, G.R.M. Robb, A.S. Arnold, T. Ackemann'\ntitle: 'Optical pattern formation with a 2-level nonlinearity'\n---\n\nSpontaneous pattern formation from a homogeneous state is a widespread phenomenon in nonlinear systems out of equilibrium\u00a0[@Cross1993; @Meinhardt1992]. Originating from fields such as chemistry\u00a0[@Turing1952; @Ouyang1991] and hydrodynamics\u00a0[@Rayleigh1916; @Benard1900; @Cross1993], the study of pattern formation has known a rapid development in optics starting from the 80\u2019s\u00a0[@Lugiato1999; @Arecchi1999]. Paradigmatic examples such as a Kerr medium\u00a0[@Yariv1977; @Firth1990] or a collection of 2-level atoms at rest\u00a0[@GrynbergTh1988] were considered in early theoretical studies. Various nonlinear systems, either active such as lasers or photorefractive oscillators\u00a0[@Tamm1988; @Arecchi1999; @Arecchi1990], or passive such as liquid crystals\u00a0[@LiquidCrystals; @Neubecker1995], were used to realize the first experiments. In some range of experimental conditions, these nonlinear materials mimic ideal systems such as the Kerr medium but one usually lacks a complete theoretical description of the light-matter interaction. Hot atomic vapors were also extensively employed to study various optical instabilities\u00a0[@GrynbergExp1988; @Grynberg1994; @Ackemann1994; @Ackemann2001; @Dawes2005]. There, a theoretical description of the light-atom interaction is available, but the specific experimental conditions (Doppler broadening, hyperfine structure, ballistic or diffusive motion of the atoms) considerably complicate the interpretation. Finally, cold atomic samples started recently to be employed in optical pattern formation\u00a0[@Greenberg2011; @Greenberg2012; @Labeyrie2014].\n\n![(Color on line) Observation of patterns. (a) Experimental scheme. (b) Typical single-shot light distributions observed in the transverse instability regime, in the near (left) and far (right) field. The pump parameters are: $ I = 0.47$ W/cm$^2$ and $\\delta = + 6.5~\\Gamma$.[]{data-label=\"fig1\"}](fig1.eps){width=\"1\\columnwidth\"}\n\nWe have identified in our single feedback mirror experiments three distinct mechanisms that lead to the spontaneous formation of patterns. The first one, the optomechanical mechanism, is specific to cold atoms and relies on the spatial bunching of the atoms under the action of dipole forces. This mechanism is very efficient at ultracold temperature and leads to spectacular self-organization phenomena\u00a0[@Baumann2010]. The presence of a Zeeman structure in the atomic ground state (spin degree of freedom) allows for optical pumping, i.e. a redistribution between populations or creation of coherences between Zeeman substates, in particular within the ground-state. This mechanism is responsible for the polarization instabilities studied in hot atomic vapors\u00a0[@Gauthier1988; @Grynberg1994; @Aumann1997; @Ackemann2001; @Dawes2005]. Finally, under specific experimental conditions the atoms behave as 2-level systems and the optical nonlinearity is only due to the saturation of the electric dipole transition i.e population transfer between ground and excited states. This is the situation studied in this paper, which realizes the paradigmatic theoretical description of a homogeneously-broadened 2-level atomic transition\u00a0[@GrynbergTh1988]. To our knowledge, the only previous experimental investigation of patterns due to a saturable nonlinearity was achieved in a hot sodium vapor\u00a0[@GrynbergExp1988], and did not report the observation of the vanishing of the effect at large saturations. We present in this paper a detailed experimental investigation of this 2-level instability, and obtain a qualitative and quantitative agreement with a theoretical model based only on the microscopic description of the atom-light interaction.\n\nThe experimental setup, sketched in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\](a), exploits the single-mirror feedback scheme\u00a0[@Firth1990] (see\u00a0[@Labeyrie2014] for details). A Gaussian laser beam (referred to as \u201cthe pump\u201d in the following) of waist $w = 1.47$ mm and wavelength $\\lambda = 780.2$ nm is sent through a cold ($T = 200~\\mu$K) cloud of Rb$^{87}$ atoms, released from a large magneto-optical trap (MOT). The cloud has a typical size of 9 mm FWHM along the pump propagation axis and contains 10$^{11}$ atoms. The resulting optical density (OD), for a weak beam on resonance with the $F = 2 \\rightarrow F^{\\prime} = 3$ transition, is around 210. The linearly-polarized pump beam is retro-reflected by a mirror located at a distance $d$ after the cloud (the vertical arrows in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\](a) indicate the polarization of the beams). We use an imaging telescope (not represented in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\](a)) located between the MOT and the mirror to create a \u201cvirtual mirror\u201d, which provides an access to negative values of $d$\u00a0[@Ciaramella1993]. The overall reflectivity of the feedback system is around $95\\%$ (cloud absorption not included).\n\nBy selecting a short (duration $\\leq 1~\\mu$s) pump pulse, we can neglect the optomechanical nonlinearity which requires tens of $\\mu$s since the atoms have to move over distances of the order of $\\approx 100 \\mu$m\u00a0[@Labeyrie2014]. Other mechanisms, relying on Zeeman internal degrees of freedom, also lead to a transverse instability and are currently under study in our groups. However, in the setup studied in the present paper a polarizer placed inside the feedback loop (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\](a)) guarantees that the feedback only occurs in the polarization channel parallel to the incident pump polarization, and prevents the occurrence of a polarization instability linked to Zeeman degrees of freedom. This is confirmed by the fact that almost no light is detected in the polarization channel orthogonal to the pump polarization. Throughout this work we are thus left with the simplest, 2-level nonlinearity corresponding to the following expression for the refractive index of our cloud of cold atoms: $$n = 1 - \\frac{3\\lambda^3}{4\\pi^2} \\, \\frac{\\delta/\\Gamma}{1+ (2\\delta/\\Gamma)^2} \\, \\frac{\\rho}{1+s}\n\\label{index}$$ where $\\delta = \\omega_l -\\omega_0$ is the detuning between the laser and atomic frequencies, $\\Gamma = 2\\pi \\times 6.06$ MHz is the natural width and $\\rho$ denotes the spatial atomic density. The nonlinearity arises from the presence in this expression of the saturation parameter $s = \\frac{I}{I_{sat}} \\frac{1}{1+4 (\\delta / \\Gamma)^2}$, where $I_{sat} = 1.67$ mW/cm$^2$ is the saturation intensity. For $s \\ll 1$, the gas exhibits a Kerr-like behavior $n \\simeq n_0 + n_2~I$, where $n_0$ is the linear refractive index and $n_2$ the nonlinear one. Importantly, for $s \\gg 1$ the nonlinearity vanishes and the instability is expected to disappear. In the Kerr regime, the nonlinearity is \u201cself-focusing\u201d ($n_2 > 0$) for $\\delta > 0$ and \u201cself-defocusing\u201d for $\\delta < 0$. Note that Eq.\u00a0\\[index\\] only describes the real part of the complex refractive index, which is responsible for the instability. However, (nonlinear) absorption is also present and included in our theoretical analysis.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\](b) shows images of the transverse intensity distribution of the transmitted pump beam, in the near field (left) and the far-field (right). We observe for these parameters contrasted patterns with a clear hexagonal symmetry. However, here the near-field patterns are always divided into several domains with different orientations of the hexagons, and we never observe the long-range order typically associated with the optomechanical nonlinearity\u00a0[@Labeyrie2014]. Using parameters different from the optimal set increases the number of such domains, rendering the hexagonal symmetry less obvious (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig2\\]).\n\nA key feature of the observed instability is the disappearance of the patterns for large pump intensity (typically $> 2$ W/cm$^2$). This behavior is illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig2\\]. Just above threshold (a), the patterns appear in a restricted area around beam center. When the pump power is increased, the patterns gain in contrast and spatial extent (b). A further increase of the intensity leads to a progressive blurring of the patterns inside an area around beam center, (c) and (d). Note that heating effects due to the increase of pump intensity are negligible because of the short duration of the pump pulse. This pattern blurring is qualitatively different from what is observed e.g. for the polarization instabilities in hot vapors where no saturation is observed\u00a0[@Lange1998]. In our situation, this saturation is intrinsic to the 2-level description of the atom-light interaction as can be seen in Eq.\u00a0\\[index\\] where $n \\rightarrow 1$ as $s \\rightarrow \\infty$.\n\nWe have investigated the range of parameters where the instability can be observed. The result of this study is summarized in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\](a), where we plot the \u201cdiffracted power\u201d $P_d$ as a function of pump detuning ($\\delta > 0$) and intensity. $P_d$ is obtained through the following procedure. We first record 30 successive near-field images of the patterns like that shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\](b), to collect a representative sample of shot-to-shot pattern fluctuations. We then select an area around beam center (of diameter $w/2$) and perform a 2D numerical Fourier Transform (FT). The FT images are then summed, and we extract from the resulting averaged FT image the power in the pattern mode. This quantity is normalized to the power inside the undiffracted beam (central peak in the FT image). We then perform the same operation on images of the pump beam, obtained without atoms. This yields the background power in the pattern mode, due to the residual rugosity in the pump\u2019s intensity profile, which is subtracted from the data obtained in the presence of atoms. In addition, in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\] $P_d$ values are scaled such that the maximal value (obtained for $\\delta = 6.5~\\Gamma$ and $ I = 0.47$ W/cm$^2$) is 1.\n\nOn the blue side of the transition, we observe the patterns between roughly $\\delta = 3.5~\\Gamma$ and $17~\\Gamma$ (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\](b)). For smaller values of $\\delta$, the patterns vanish quite abruptly. In this small-$\\delta$ regime, the cloud is optically-thick with two important consequences: first, the strong absorption considerably reduces the magnitude of the feedback; second, there is a large amount of *scattered light* with a quite homogeneous spatial distribution, which is expected to blur the transverse field modulation responsible for the instability. For large detunings the patterns also disappear but much more gradually, because of the decrease $\\propto 1/\\delta$ of the refractive index. We observe a well-defined lower-intensity threshold for the instability, around 0.16 W/cm$^2$ for $\\delta = 6.5~\\Gamma$ (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\](c)). This threshold is substantially higher than observed for longer pump pulses, where the optomechanical mechanisms sets in\u00a0[@Labeyrie2014]. Also, we found that a minimum OD of around 100 is required to observe the 2-level patterns, while this threshold can be considerably lower for optomechanical patterns\u00a0[@Labeyrie2014]. The saturation of the nonlinearity results in a gradual vanishing of the instability for large pump intensity ($I > 2$ W/cm$^2$ for $\\delta = 6.5~\\Gamma$, which corresponds to $s \\approx 7$).\n\nWe compare in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\](a) our experimental data with the theoretical instability threshold (dots) as obtained using a 2-level, thin-medium model. This model is based on the approach of\u00a0[@Muradyan2005], extended to the case of the feedback mirror configuration and with the inclusion of absorption. We also included in our model the longitudinal intensity modulation due the interference of the incident and retro-reflected pumps, but without the approximation used in\u00a0[@Muradyan2005]. As can be seen, the qualitative and quantitative agreement is rather satisfactory. We speculate that the discrepancy at small $\\delta$ may come from the scattered light (not included in the model), as discussed above.\n\nOn the red side of the transition ($\\delta < 0$), we only observe poorly-contrasted structures without clear symmetry. The characteristic spatial scale of these structures is roughly twice that on the blue side. Their domain of observation in ($\\delta$, $I$) space approximately mirrors that of the patterns on the blue side. A full theoretical explanation for this red-blue asymmetry is still lacking. We believe that its origin lies in nonlinear propagation effects taking place *inside* the cloud. This may not come as a surprise since such effects have been observed in the past in such large cold atom clouds\u00a0[@Labeyrie2011]. In that work, we investigated the self-trapping of a Gaussian beam of small waist (20 $\\mu$m) for $\\delta > 0$, which resulted in a roughly constant transverse size of the beam as it propagated inside the cloud. It is thus reasonable to speculate that if an array of bright spots such as seen in the transverse intensity distribution of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\](b) forms inside the medium, it will be stabilized by self-focusing for $\\delta > 0$. On the contrary, for $\\delta < 0$ self-defocusing will tend to blur these structures. For these effects to play a role, one requires the Rayleigh length corresponding to the transverse size of the bright intensity spots to be smaller than the length of the medium. This condition imposes a size for the spots of a few tens of microns, which is what we typically observe.\n\nThe Talbot effect and the associated periodic passage between phase and intensity modulation\u00a0[@d'Alessandro1991] is at the heart of the transverse instability discussed in this paper. Since we operate well detuned from resonance, a transverse intensity pattern mainly induces a transverse phase modulation. Propagation to the mirror and back can convert this into transverse intensity modulation of the backward field, hence phase-modulating the forward field, and so on. For a mirror distance $d$, the transverse pattern wavelength $\\Lambda$ for which this is optimum obeys $\\Lambda^2 = \\lambda d / (N + 1/4)$ in the case of a thin medium and of a self-focusing nonlinearity\u00a0[@Firth1990; @Ciaramella1993]. In this expression, $N$ is an integer of same sign as $d$. Furthermore, the Talbot effect implies that instability thresholds are periodic in mirror distance $d$ with period $\\Lambda^2 / \\lambda$.\n\nThis tunability and $d$-periodicity of the pattern scale, features specific to the single-mirror feedback scheme, are illustrated with Fig.\u00a0\\[fig4\\] where we plot $\\Lambda$ (measured by far-field imaging of the transmitted pump, see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\](b)) versus $d$. The dots correspond to the lowest-q mode, where $q = 2 \\pi / \\Lambda$. The circles correspond to the next higher-q mode, which is observed only for large $\\left|d\\right|$. The bold lines are predictions of a thick-medium model, similar to that of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\](a) but including the propagation inside the cloud and neglecting absorption. The Talbot periodicity appears through the fact that the same $q$, and hence $\\Lambda$, is observed for periodically-spaced values of $d$, the $d$-period being $\\Lambda^2 / \\lambda$. This is verified in the insert, where the experimentally observed $d$-period is plotted against $\\Lambda$ (dots) and compared to the expression above (line). The overall agreement between experiment and theory is very satisfactory, for all instability branches, confirming the validity of the Talbot picture in our situation.\n\nWe demonstrated in this paper the existence of a pattern-forming optical instability in a cloud of cold atoms, based only on the 2-level electronic nonlinearity. In this paradigmatic situation, we were able to observe the disappearance of the instability at high optical power, due to the saturation of the nonlinearity. This work demonstrates the interest of cold atomic samples for the field of nonlinear optics and pattern formation, motivated by the fact that several nonlinear mechanisms coexist and can be selected and studied independently. Understanding and controlling these various mechanisms constitutes an important step in the future prospect of extending these experiments to degenerate quantum gases, where the simultaneous self-organization of light and matter can lead to a rich class of physical phenomena\u00a0[@Gopalakrishnan2009].\n\n[10]{}\n\nM.C. Cross and P.C. Hohenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. **65**, 851 (1993).\n\nM. Meinhardt, Rep. Prog. Phys. **55**, 797 (1992).\n\nA.M. Turing, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B **237**, 37 (1952).\n\nQ. Ouyang and H.L. Swinney, Nature **352**, 610 (1991).\n\nLord Rayleigh, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A **93**, 148 (1916).\n\nH. B\u00e9nard, Ann. Chim. Phys. **7**, 62 (1900).\n\nL.A. Lugiato, M. Brambilla and A. Gatti, Adv. Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys. **40**, 229 (1999).\n\nF.T. Arecchi, S. Boccaletti and P.L. Ramazza, Phys. Rep. **318**, 1 (1999).\n\nA. Yariv and D.M. Pepper, Opt. Lett. **1**, 16 (1977).\n\nW.J. Firth, J. Mod. Opt. **37**, 151 (1990).\n\nG. Grynberg, Optics Comm. **66**, 321 (1988).\n\nF.T. Arecchi, G. Giacomelli, P.L. Ramazza and S. Residori, Phys. Rev. Lett. **65**, 2531 (1990).\n\nChr. Tamm, Phys. Rev. A **38**, R5960 (1988).\n\nR. Macdonald and H.J. Eicher, Opt. Commun. **89**, 289 (1992); M. Tamburrini, M. Bonavita, S. Wabnitz and E. Santamato, Opt. Lett. **18**, 855 (1993); E. Pampaloni, S. Residori and F.T. Arecchi, Europhys. Lett. **24**, 647 (1993).\n\nR. Neubecker, G.-L. Oppo, B. Thuering and T. Tschudi, Phys. Rev. A **52**,791 (1995).\n\nG. Grynberg, E. Le Bihan, P. Verkerk, P. Simoneau, J.R.R. Leite, D. Bloch, S. Le Boiteux and M. Ducloy, Optics Comm. **67**, 363 (1988).\n\nG. Grynberg, A. Ma\u00eetre and A. Petrossian, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 2379 (1994).\n\nT. Ackemann and W. Lange, Phys. Rev. A **50**, R4468 (1994).\n\nT. Ackemann and W. Lange, Appl. Phys. B **21**, 21 (2001).\n\nA.M.C. Dawes, L. Illing, S.M. Clark and D.J. Gauthier, Science **308**, 672 (2005).\n\nJ.A. Greenberg, B.L. Schmittberger and D. Gauthier, Opt. Exp. **19**, 22535 (2011).\n\nJ.A. Greenberg and D.J. Gauthier, Phys. Rev. A **86**, 013823 (2012); J.A. Greenberg and D.J. Gauthier, EPL **98**, 24001 (2012).\n\nG. Labeyrie, E. Tesio, P.M. Gomes, G.-L. Oppo, W.J. Firth, G.R.M. Robb, A.S. Arnold, R. Kaiser and T. Ackemann, Nature Photonics **8**, 321 (2014).\n\nK. Baumann, C. Guerlin, F. Brennecke and T. Esslinger, Nature **464**, 1301 [2010]{}.\n\nD.J. Gauthier, M.S. Malcuit and R.W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. **61**, 1827 (1988).\n\nA. Aumann, E. B\u00fcthe, Yu.A. Logvin, T. Ackemann and W. Lange, Phys. Rev. A **56**, R1709 (1997).\n\nE. Ciaramella, M. Tamburrini and E. Santamato, Appl. Phys. Lett. **63**, 1604 (1993).\n\nW. Lange, A. Aumann, T. Ackemann and E. B\u00fcthe, Quantum Semiclass. Opt. **10**, R23 (1998).\n\nG.A. Muradyan, Y. Wang, W. Williams and M. Saffman, Nonlinear Guided Waves topical meeting technical digest, paper ThB29 (2005).\n\nG. Labeyrie and U. Bortolozzo, Opt. Lett. **36**, 2158 (2011).\n\nG. d\u2019Alessandro and W.J. Firth, Phys. Rev. Lett. **66**, 2597 (1991).\n\nS. Gopalakrishnan, B.L. Lev and P.M. Goldbart, Nature Phys. **5**, 845 (2009); S. Gopalakrishnan, B.L. Lev and P.M. Goldbart, Phys. Rev. A **82**, 043612 (2010).\n\n[^1]: To whom correspondence should be addressed.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this paper we will consider new bounds on the smallest primitive root modulo a prime. we will make more judicious use of the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov and Burgess inequalities, and use them to prove that the smallest primitive root is smaller than $p^{0.68}$ for all primes $p$.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Jana Pretorius\\\n    School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences\\\n    The University of New South Wales Canberra, Australia\\\n    u5783790@anu.edu.au\ntitle: The smallest primitive root modulo a prime\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThis paper will detail new research on upper bounds on the smallest primitive root modulo a prime, which will be referred to at $g(p)$. In [@B], Burgess showed that the smallest possible bound is $$\\label{sweep}\ng(p) \\ll p^{1/4+\\epsilon} \\quad \\textrm{for any} \\quad \\epsilon>0.$$\n\nSince any case of $\\epsilon< \\frac{1}{4}$ has been too difficult to prove to date, some previous research has focused on the Grosswald conjecture,\n\n$$g(p)< \\sqrt{p}-2,$$\n\nwhich Cohen, Oliveira e Silva and Truigian proved for all $409<p<2.5\\times10^{15}$ and $p>10^{71}$ (Theorem 1.1 in [@COT]). Others, including Hunter, have instead attempted to find the lowest value of $\\epsilon$ for which (\\[sweep\\]) holds for all primes. This paper will lower the universal bound.\n\nCurrent literature has focused primarily on using the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov inequality and Burgess bound on Dirichlet characters separately, but never in conjunction. We will be using both in order to minimise the bounds further. The smallest power $\\alpha$ of $p$ which could possibly be proven for all primes is $\\alpha =\\log2/\\log3 = 0.63093...$ as this corresponds to the smallest primitive root of $3$, which is $2$.\n\nThis paper will prove two main theorems.\n\nLet $g(p)$ denote the least primitive root modulo $p$, prime. Then $$\\label{single} g(p)<p^{0.6309}\\quad \\textrm{for all}\\quad p>2.67\\times10^{32}.$$\n\nThe first theorem takes the power of $p$ slightly smaller that the minimum possible ($\\log2/\\log3$), $0.6309$, and identifies the range of $p$ over which we can prove that the bound holds. As we cannot prove that this holds for all $p$, we have found the lowest exponent which can be proven for all $p$, given in Theorem 2.\n\n$$g(p)<p^{0.68}\\quad \\textrm{for all primes}\\quad p.$$\n\nThis new bound represents significant improvement on previous findings. Hunter proved that the bound on the least *square-free* primitive root was $p^{0.88}$ for all primes $p$, and showed that $\\alpha=0.6309$ holds for all $p> 9.63\\times 10^{65}$ (Theorems 0.1 and 0.2 in [@H]).\n\nThese bounds will be shown using the same methods employed by Hunter. In \u00a72 and \u00a73, we will the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov and Burgess inequalities to establish over which values of $p$ each bound is most useful. We will also identify the ranges of $p$ over which various values of $\\alpha$ hold. A sieving inequality will be used in \u00a75 to tighten these bounds further. Finally, in \u00a76, computations using a prime divisor tree will provide some small improvements.\n\nComparing the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov and Burgess inequalities\n=======================================================\n\nThe first step towards lowering the bound on primitive roots is to use improved bounds on the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov and Burgess Inequalities. Both inequalities place an upper bound on the sum on $\\chi (p)$, the non-principal Dirichlet characters modulo $p$, defined as $$\\label{bound}\n{S_H(N)} = \\abs{\\sum_{n=N+1}^{N+H}\\chi(n)} \\quad \\text{for some} \\quad H<p.$$ Theorem 2.1 in [@COT], quoting Trevi\u00f1o [@T] gives the Burgess bound: $$\\label{burgess}\nC(r)H^{1-\\frac{1}{r}}p^{\\frac{r-1}{4r^{2}}}(\\log{p})^{\\frac{1}{2r}},$$ where $r$ is an integer of our own choosing. Below, we will discuss which value of $r$ returns the tightest bound. Hunter gives the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov inequality as follows (Theorem 1.2 in [@H]): $$\\label{PV}\nc\\sqrt{p}\\log{p},$$ where $c$ is a constant. The Burgess bound (\\[burgess\\]), unlike P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov, is dependent on the length of the sum, $H$.\n\nIn order to compare these two inequalities, it is first necessary to determine what value of $r$ to use in the Burgess bound. The values of $C(r)$ were taken from \u00a71 of Trevi\u00f1o for the case of $H=10^{15}$ [@T]. This value of $H$ was chosen as this was the closest value to $2.5\\times10^{15}$, below which Theorem 1.1 in [@COT] holds.\n\nBy substituting $H=p^\\alpha$, we can compute that as $\\alpha$ increases, $r=2$ gives the smallest bound for an increasing range of primes. At $\\alpha=0.7$, $r=2$ is the preferred value of $r$ for all $p>1.5\\times 10^{6}$.\n\nSince $r=2$ provides the smallest Burgess bound within the desired range of $\\alpha$\u2019s under consideration, this value will be used to compare the Burgess and P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov bounds, by solving: $$\\label{kimmyb}\nC(2)p^{\\frac{\\alpha}{2}+\\frac{3}{16}}(\\log p)^{\\frac{1}{4}} \\leq cp^{\\frac{\\alpha}{2}}\\log p.$$\n\nFrom this, it follows that for values of $\\alpha>\\frac{5}{8}$, the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov inequality (on the right hand side of the above equation) will always give a smaller bound than Burgess. i.e.\u00a0The equation is not true for any $p$. Below $\\frac{5}{8}$, Burgess becomes the better bound for a range of $p$ dependent on $\\alpha$. For example, at $\\alpha=0.6$, Burgess gives a smaller bound for all $p>10^{22}$.\n\nFrom this, it is clear that for the range of $\\alpha$ under consideration in this paper, the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov bound is the better choice. recall that the smallest $\\alpha$ which may be proven for all primes is $\\frac{\\log2}{\\log3}>\\frac{5}{8}$.\n\nResults without sieving\n=======================\n\nUsing the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov inequality, we now make use of improvements to the constant, $c$. While Hunter used $c=\\frac{1}{2\\pi}+\\frac{1}{\\log p}+\\frac{1}{\\sqrt p \\log p}$, Frolenkov and Soundararajan found an improved constant (\u00a74 of [@FS]):\n\n$$\\label{redgrave}\nc(p)=\\frac{1}{2\\pi}+\\frac{0.8203}{\\log p}+\\frac{1.0284}{\\log p\\sqrt p}.$$\n\nFrolenkov and Soundararajan, however, optimised their constant to be the smallest over all primes. For the purposes of this research, it is better to optimise the constant for $p=2.5 \\times 10^{15}$. Following the derivation in \u00a74 of [@FS], we chose a generic value for the constant $L$ of the form $\\alpha q^{\\beta}$ and find the values of each variable which give the minimum bound. From this, we ascertain that the smallest, and hence best, $c$ to use is:\n\n$$c(p)=\\frac{1}{2\\pi}+\\frac{1}{\\pi \\log p}\\left(0.4325+\\frac{10.15 + \\sqrt{p}}{1+ \\sqrt{p}}+\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{p}}\\right).$$\n\nSince $c(p)$ is slowly decreasing in $p$, we can set $c=c(p_0)$ which will hold for all $p>p_0$ Following the derivation in \u00a72 of [@H], we sum the following indicator function over $x$.\n\ngiven a prime $p$, and provided that $p\\nmid x$, we can define the function $$\\label{pair}f(x)=\\frac{\\phi(p-1)}{p-1}\\left\\{1+\\sum_{d|p-1,d>1}\\frac{\\mu(d)}{\\phi(d)}\\sum_{\\chi_d}\\chi_d(x)\\right\\} = \\begin{cases}&1\\, \\textrm{if n is a primitive root}\\\\&0\\, \\textrm{otherwise,} \\end{cases}$$ where $\\phi$ is Euler\u2019s function, $\\mu$ is the M\u00f6bius function, and $\\chi_d$ are the characters of order $d$ (Lemma 2.1 in [@H]).\n\nThis sum will be greater than $0$ once we have found a primitive root. We apply the P\u00f3lya-Vinogradov inequality to (\\[pair\\]) and proceed according to the derivations in [@COT],[@H],[@CST]. We conclude that a primitive root exists below $g(p)=p^{\\alpha}$ if and only if\n\n$$p^{\\alpha} -(2^{\\omega (p-1)}-1)c \\sqrt{p}  \\log p  > 0.$$\n\nWe make use of the following estimate for the value of $\\omega(n)$ from Robin (Theorem 16 in [@R]) to obtain an equation wholly in terms of $p$ and $\\alpha$\n\n$$\\label{pinsent}\n\\omega(n) \\leq \\frac{\\log n}{\\log\\log n} \\left(1 + \\frac{1}{\\log\\log n} + \\frac{2.8973}{(\\log\\log n)^2}\\right),$$\n\nwhere $\\omega (n)$ denotes the number of distinct prime divisors of $n$. Following this substitution, we compute the value $p$ above which the inequality holds for a range of $\\alpha$. We then calculate the corresponding value of $\\omega(p)$. For $\\alpha=0.7$, the inequality holds for all $p>5\\times 10^{1295}$, and so $\\omega(n)=554$. From this we calculate the smallest product of primes (the smallest $\\omega(n)$) which exceeds $p=5\\times 10^{1295}$, knowing that it must be smaller than 554. Any values up to and including this $\\omega(n)$ cannot make the inequality hold, and hence must be checked through other means.\n\nTable 1 identifies the values of $w(n)$ which remain to be checked after initial use of the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov inequality.\n\n  --------------- ------------------------- -------------------------\n     $\\alpha$      Lower bound on $w(p-1)$   Upper bound on $w(p-1)$\n   \\[0.5ex\\] 0.8              5                        30\n       0.75                   5                        46\n        0.7                   5                        85\n       0.65                   5                        237\n      0.6309                  5                        437\n      \\[1ex\\]                               \n  --------------- ------------------------- -------------------------\n\n  : Exceptions of $\\omega (p-1)$\n\nImprovements using a sieve\n==========================\n\nThe sieve used in [@COT], [@CST], [@H], and [@MTT] makes use of the number of small primes dividing $p-1$ in order to eliminate most values of $\\omega(n)$ identified as possible exceptions in \u00a73. The sieve relies on the use of e-free integers:\n\nLet $p$ be a prime and let $e$ be a divisor of $p-1$. Suppose $p\\nmid n$ then $n$ is **e-free** if, for any divisor $d$ of $e$, such that $d>1$, $n\\equiv y^{d}$ (mod $p$) is insoluble.\n\nFollowing Proposition 3.2 in \u00a73 of [@H], it can be shown that $n$ is a primitive root if and only is it is $(p-1)$ free.\n\nConsequently, an indicator function has been developed to test whether any particular number $n$ is $p-1$ free (\u00a73 of [@H]).\n\n$$\\label{efree} f(x) = \\frac{\\phi(e)}{e} \\sum_{d|e}\\frac{\\mu(d)}{\\phi(d)} \\sum_{\\chi \\in \\Gamma_{d}}{\\chi (n)}=\\begin{cases}&1\\quad \\textrm{if n is e-free}\\\\&0\\quad \\textrm{otherwise.} \\end{cases}$$\n\nAgain, we apply the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov bound the indicator function. Following the derivation in \u00a73 of [@H], we obtain a new inequality (Theorem 3) to solve. This inequality differs from that in [@H] as the square-free conditions on the primitive roots are removed.\n\nLet $\\delta>0$ be defined as $$\\delta = 1-\\sum_{i=1}^{s}p_i^{-1}$$ and let $\\Delta$ be defined as $$\\Delta = \\frac{s-1}{\\delta}+2,$$ where $1 \\leq s \\leq \\omega (p-1)$. Then we are able to find a primitive root $g(p)<p^{\\alpha}$ if the following inequality holds: $$\\frac{p^{\\alpha-0.5}}{\\log(p)}>c(2^{n-s}\\Delta -1).$$\n\nThe value of $s$ denotes the number of sieving primes $p_1,p_2,p_3,\\ldots ,p_s$ which divide $p-1$ but not $e$, an integer of our own choosing. This $e$ is an even divisor of $p-1$ and must be chosen so that $\\delta>0$ and $(2^{n-s}\\Delta -1)$ is minimised. Once this $e$ is chosen to give our optimal value of $s$, we can proceed to solve the inequality for $p$.\n\nFirstly, for each value of $\\omega(p-1)$, $p-1=\\prod_{i \\leq \\omega(p-1)}{p_i}$, the product of the first $\\omega(p-1)$ primes, is checked to see if it satisfies the inequality. For values of $p-1=\\prod_{i \\leq \\omega(p-1)}{p_i}<2.5 \\times 10^{15}$, the larger value is used as we know all primes below $2.5 \\times 10^{15}$ satisfy the values of $\\alpha$ being tested. The values of $\\omega(p-1)$ which still do not satisfy this equality must be tested further using the prime divisor tree.\n\nFor each of these, the value of $p$ which does make the inequality true is set as an upper bound $p_u$, leaving all $p \\in[{2.5 \\times 10^{15}, p_u}]$ as exceptions which must be checked to see if they have sufficiently small primitive roots. After use of the sieve, we have proven \\[single\\]. $\\alpha=0.6309$ holds for all values of $\\omega(p-1) <22$, and the minimum value of $p$ with $\\omega(p-1)=23$ is $p=2.67 \\times 10^{32}$. Applying the prime divisor tree (described in \u00a76) to $\\alpha=0.6309$ generated too many exceptions for the computation to be completed on a standard laptop, and so no further investigation into $\\alpha=0.6309$ was completed.\n\n  ---------------- ----------------------- -----------------------\n      $\\alpha$      Lower bound on $w(n)$   Upper bound on $w(n)$\n   \\[0.5ex\\] 0.69             -                       -\n        0.68                 13                      13\n        0.65                  5                      18\n       0.6309                 5                      22\n      \\[1ex\\]                              \n  ---------------- ----------------------- -----------------------\n\n  : Exceptions of $\\omega (p-1)$ after use of sieve\n\nComputation: the prime divisor tree\n===================================\n\nThe prime divisor tree relies on the same sieve developed in \u00a74, but recalculates the optimal $s$ and $\\delta$ at each node on a tree. This tree splits up the remaining primes $p$ to be checked according to the specific primes dividing $p-1$. The program was run in SageMath, based on code developed by McGown, Trevi\u00f1o and Trudgian [@MTT], and Hunter [@H].\n\nThe prime divisor tree branches off from each point according to whether the next sequential prime divides $p-1$. Since we know $2$ already divides, the first two branches of the tree split up primes according to whether $3$ does or does not divide $p-1$. Each of these nodes may branch further according to whether $5$ does or does not divide $p-1$, and so on.\n\nAt the nodes where the prime does not divide $p-1$, this prime can be removed from the calculation of $\\delta$, and the next sequential prime, the $\\omega(p-1)+1$th prime is included. This increases $\\delta$ and so the upper bound on the primes which must still be checked is reduced. In some cases, the upper and lower bounds overlap, and so all possible exceptions are eliminated. In this case, this particular branch of the tree terminates and no further nodes are introduced. If the bounds do not overlap, we check how many prime numbers are in the new reduced interval, and hence how many times we need to check for a primitive root.\n\nAt nodes where the prime in question *does* divide $p-1$, we know that all primes must be of the form $(p-1)= k \\times m$ where $k$ is the product of those primes that *do* divide $p-1$, and $m$ is the product of the still unknown prime divisors of $p-1$. For example, if we know that $2,3$ and $5$ all divide $p-1$, then $k= 2 \\times 3 \\times 5 = 30$ Since the first few prime divisors are now known, this eliminates many of the primes within the interval determined by the sieve, reducing the number of primes where we must search for a small primitive root.\n\nThrough this process, each branches reduces the number of primes to be checked. If the number to be checked is sufficiently small ($<10^{5}$), the primes are enumerated and primitive roots found using the inbuilt primitive root finder in SageMath. If the interval of exceptions is still too large, the tree branches further until all exceptions have been enumerated.\n\nThrough the use of the prime divisor tree, the value of $\\alpha$ that holds for all $p$ can be reduced slightly to $0.68$. This improvement is the last step in establishing Theorem 2. Like Hunter, I found that the number of exceptions to be checked increases very rapidly with small reductions in $\\alpha$ below $0.68$, and so run times for the code expand to impractical lengths. Below $\\alpha=0.68$, my computer unable to run the code to completion, and hence could not lower the value of $\\alpha$ further.\n\nFuture work\n===========\n\nThrough the combined use of the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov and Burgess bounds, we have improved the bounds on the least primitive root modulo a prime. Specifically, we have reduced the universal bound on the smallest primitive roots for all primes to $g(p) = p^{0.68}$ (Theorem 2). We have also lowered the minimum prime for which $g(p)=p^{0.6309}$ holds, to $p=2.67 \\times 10^{32}$ (Theorem 1). While this marks a significant improvement on previous results, as discussed above, it leaves room for future work to lower the bound further.\n\nThe largest improvements are likely to come from a tighter constant for the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov Inequality, as this will increase the strength of the sieve. Due to the number of computations required to run the prime divisor tree, it is only capable of eliminating $2-4$ value of $\\omega(p-1)$ in a reasonable time frame. It is therefore preferable to eliminate as many values of $\\omega(p-1)$ as possible before we reach the prime divisor tree. One possible source of improvement would be to develop a means of splitting the Dirichlet character sum into odd and even cases. As outlined in Theorem 2 of [@FS], different bounds exist for odd and even Dirichlet characters. In this paper, the weaker bound was taken for all characters as we had no means to systematically split the character sum.\n\nRunning the code on a more powerful computer would likely also deliver some benefit. If the values of $\\omega(p-1)$ that could be easily checked could be increased, proving that $\\alpha = 0.6309$ holds for all $p$ could become feasible.\n\nAcknowledgments\n===============\n\nI\u2019d like to thank Dr Tim Trudgian for his help developing a research topic and providing invaluable guidance as my supervisor. I\u2019d also like to thank UNSW Canberra for providing funding through the Summer Scholarship program and Dr Kevin McGowan for providing feedback on the Sage code.\n\n[9]{} D.A. Burgess, *On character sums and primitive roots*, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 12(3) (1962), 179-192. S.D. Cohen, T. Oliveira e Silva, T. Trudgian, *On Grosswald\u2019s conjecture on primitive roots*, Acta Arith., 172(3) (2016), 263-270. S.D. Cohen and T. Trudgian, *On the least square-free primitive root modulo p*, J. Number Theory, 170 (2017), 10-16. D.A. Frolenkov and K. Soundararajan, *A generalization of the P\u00f3lya\u2013Vinogradov inequality*, Ramanujan J. 31(3) (2013), 271-279. M. Hunter, *The Least Square-free Primitive Root Modulo a Prime*, ANU, Honours Thesis, (2016). K. McGown, E. Trevi\u00f1o, and T. Trudgian, *Resolving Grosswald\u2019s conjecture on GRH*, Funct. Approx. Comment. Math. 55(2), (2016), 215-225. G. Robin, *Estimation de la fonction de Tchebychef* $\\theta$ *sur le k-i\u00e8me nombre premier et grandes valeurs de la fonction* $\\omega(p-1)$ *nombre de diviseurs premiers de n*, Acta Arith. 42 (1983), 367-369. E. Trevi\u00f1o, *The Burgess inequality and the least* k*th power non-residue*, Intl. Journal of Number Theory 11(5) (2015) 1653-1678.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We have obtained Fourier-resolved spectra of the black-hole binary u in the canonical states (high/soft, very high, intermediate and low/hard) observed in this source during the decay of an outburst that took place in 2002. Our objective is to investigate the variability of the spectral components generally used to describe the energy spectra of black-hole systems, namely a disk component, a power-law component attributed to Comptonization by a hot corona and the contribution of the iron line due to reprocessing of the high energy ($E \\simmore 7$ keV) radiation. We find that [*i)*]{} the disk component is not variable on time scales shorter than $\\sim$ 100 seconds, [*ii)*]{} the reprocessing emission as manifest by the variability of the Fe K$\\alpha$ line responds to the primary radiation variations down to time scales of $\\sim 70$ ms in the high and very-high states, but longer than 2 s in the low state, [*iii)*]{} the low-frequency QPOs are associated with variations of the X-ray power law spectral component and not to the disk component and [*iv)*]{} the spectra corresponding to the highest Fourier frequency are the hardest (show the flatter spectra) at a given spectral state. These results question models that explain the observed power spectra as due to modulations of the accretion rate alone, as such models do not provide any apparent reason for a Fourier frequency dependence of the power law spectral indices.'\nauthor:\n- 'P. Reig and I. E. Papadakis'\n- 'C. R. Shrader and D. Kazanas'\ntitle: Fourier resolved spectroscopy of u during the 2002 outburst\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nu\u00a0belongs to the group of black-hole X-ray novae [@tana96; @cher00]. These are transient X-ray binaries in which the compact companion is a black hole and the optical companion a late-type star. They owe their name to the fact that they occasionally exhibit a large increase of their X-ray luminosity (i.e. outbursts), presumably due to a sudden increase of the mass accretion rate onto the black hole. At the peak of the outburst the X-ray luminosity may reach the Eddington limit. In u\u00a0these outbursts are recurrent with a quasiperiod of 10-12 years. Previous outbursts have been observed in 1971 [@mati72], 1983 [@kita84; @woer89], 1992 [@harm92] and 2002 [@park04; @kale05].\n\nThe first report on the observation of the optical counterpart to u\u00a0was given by @pede83. @oros98 measured the radial velocity curve of the system and derived a mass function $f(M)=0.22\\pm0.02$, an orbital period of $P_{\\rm orb}=1.123\\pm0.008$ days and estimated the distance to be 9.1$\\pm$0.1 kpc. They argued that if the secondary star has a mass near the main sequence values for early A stars [@chev92] then the mass of the primary must be in the range 2.7-7.5 $\\msun$. Recently, @park04 gave a value of $9.4\\pm 2 \\msun$ (based on work in preparation by J. Orosz). Thus u\u00a0is very likely to contain a black hole.\n\nAdditional evidence of the presence of a black hole in u\u00a0 is provided by the specific sequence of X-ray spectral states that the system follows as its outbursts evolve, usually associated with accretion onto black holes. At the peak of its recent outburst, while the $2-10$ keV flux was a large fraction of the Eddington luminosity, the source exhibited a soft, thermally dominated spectrum and little variability, i.e. it was in the High/Soft or thermally dominated state (HS; @klis05 [@mcli04]). As the flux decreased, the source entered the Very High or steep power-law dominated state (VHS), characterized by broad-band variability, increased contribution of the power-law flux and the presence of QPOs. At the end of the VHS the source showed a sharp increase in the power-law flux and rms amplitude of variability without a noticeable change in the photon index. According to @kale05, u\u00a0entered the intermediate state (IS). Just before the quiescent state the source went through the Low/Hard state (LS). At this state the thermal component was almost absent, the spectrum was dominated by the power-law, and the power spectrum displayed a simple broken power-law shape with rms of $\\sim$20-30%.\n\nThe X-ray spectral and timing evolution of the source during its 2002 outburst has been studied in detail by @park04 (HS, VHS and IS), @kale05 (IS and LS) and @palo05 (quiescent state). The outburst started around June 15, 2002, and lasted for over one and a half months. @park04 used 49 RXTE observations that were obtained during the first 35 days of the outburst, while @kale05 used 39 observations that were taken $\\sim 25$ days after the onset of the outburst.\n\nIn the present work we use archival RXTE data collected at various epochs during the latest outburst of u. Our aim is to study its Fourier resolved spectra at various frequency bands during the different spectral states which the source attains during the evolution of the outburst. This latter fact provides the opportunity of studying the variability properties of the different spectral components of accreting compact objects (i.e. power law, disk emission and iron line) in different spectral states of the same object, thus eliminating the ambiguities of referring to specific states at different objects with different masses and different Eddington ratios at specific luminosities.\n\nOur study explores the variability properties on short time scales ($\\sim 100$ sec) compared to those of recent studies [@park04; @kale05] that investigated the variability properties of the above spectral components on time scales of $\\sim 1$ day (the typical time interval between successive RXTE observations). Our work follows the lines of a similar study by @revn99 and @gilf00 who explored the spectral variability of Cyg X-1 over similar time scales ($\\sim 0.01 - 100$ sec) during the different spectral states of the source. A similar approach was also used by @papa05, who studied the spectra of the AGN MCG 6-30-15.\n\nWhile we examine the variability properties of the entire spectrum, we pay particular emphasis on those of the Fe K$\\alpha$ line; the variation of this feature, due almost exclusively to the reprocessing of the harder X-ray radiation, is most sensitive to the geometry of reprocessing matter in the vicinity of the accreting object and it can be used to infer its structure.\n\nIn \u00a72 we outline the details of our observations and data reduction procedure, while in \u00a73 we present the results of our analysis. In \u00a74 we discuss in detail the results of the variability of each spectral component and we comment on its significance and implications on the dynamics and geometry of the accreting matter while in \u00a75 we outline our general conclusions.\n\nObservations and Data Reduction\n===============================\n\nWe obtained a total of approximately 60 ksec of data from the RXTE archives spanning June 18 to August 4, 2002, thus sampling the outburst from near its peak to well into the late decline stages. Typical count rates (PCA instrument) ranged $\\sim 10^4$ near outburst peak to $\\sim10^2$ at the late decline phase. All the data were obtained from RXTE program IDs P70133 and P70124, the latter covering the decline phase of the outburst.\n\nData recording and packing in RXTE can be done in many different ways depending on the brightness of the source and the spectral and timing resolution requested. The specific observational modes are selected by the observer and may change during the overall observation. In order to ensure homogeneity in the reduction process the energy resolution was restricted to be 16 channels covering the energy band 2-15 keV, as this configuration could be achieved during the entire duration of the outburst.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[lc\\] shows a plot of the daily average, $2-12$ keV, ASM light curve of the source during its outburst. For the purposes of the present work we have selected five observing intervals corresponding to four different spectral states of the source, according to the classification of @park04 and @kale05. These are shown with the shaded boxes in Fig.\u00a0\\[lc\\].\n\nThe first interval includes the two time ranges MJD 52443.7-52446.1 and MJD 52453.5-52455.1 (which we refer to as HS1 and HS2, respectively), during which the source was in its HS. The total on-source times were $\\sim 18.4$ ksec and $\\sim 7.6$ ks respectively. Note that the HS2 period is rather close to the chosen VHS time interval, while the HS1 period covers part of the rise. In this way we can investigate possible differences in the variability behavior of the source while in its high state. The second interval spans MJD 52457.8-52460.5 and corresponds to a period when the source was at its VHS. It contained 6 observations, amounting to 10.9 ks. We also considered four observations between MJD 52474.2 and 52477.2, which correspond to the IS between the VHS and the LS. Note, however, that the three observing intervals on July 21 2002 (MJD 52476; program ID P70132) were not included in our analysis because a different onboard spectral (and time) binning was used. Finally, ten observations between MJD 52481.1 and 52491.5 which corresponds to the LS of the source. The observing time for the IS and LS were 6.9 and 13.3 ksec, respectively.\n\nLight curves were extracted for each onboard channel range using the current RXTE software[^1], binned at a resolution of 0.015625 s. We then divided the data into 128-s segments and, following the prescription of @revn99, we obtained the Fourier resolved spectra of the source in the following broad frequency bands: 0.008-0.5 Hz, 0.5-5 Hz and 5-15 Hz.\n\nContrary to typical temporal studies which provide the Power Spectral Densities (PSD) of the source in an entire energy band, Fourier resolved spectra provides instead the source spectra at different Fourier frequency ranges. This method consists of producing the PSD for every energy bin of the spectrum (i.e. the energy-dependent rms amplitude) and then weighing each bin in the energy spectrum with the corresponding rms amplitude.\n\nEnergy spectral analysis\n------------------------\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[sp\\] shows typical $2-20$ keV energy spectra of the source corresponding to the observational periods selected. The spectra were extracted from PCA [*Standard 2*]{} mode data. The response matrix and background models were created using the standard HEADAS software, version 5.3. The number of detectors (PCU) that were switched on varied for each observation, and, in order to be able to compare the spectra, they were divided by the respective number of PCUs.\n\nThe filled squares and open circles in Fig.\u00a0\\[sp\\] show the spectrum of the source in the HS (HS1 and HS2, respectively), using data from the observations June 19 (when the source reached its maximum flux) and June 28, 2002 [Obs. No. 5 and 16 in @park04]. Open circles and open squares in the same figure show representative spectra of the source during the VHS and IS, respectively, using data from the observations performed in July 4 and 19, 2002 [Obs. No. 22 and 44 in @park04]. Finally, the open triangles show a representative LS spectrum, using data taken in August 1, 2002 [Obs. No. 19B in @kale05]. The spectral evolution with time is apparent in this figure. The HS spectra are characterized by a dominant thermal black body and a weak, steep power law component. The power-law flux increases during the VHS, and becomes the dominant component in the LS. As the total flux of the source decreases, the power-law slope becomes harder.\n\nAlthough the spectral evolution of the source has been studied extensively in the past, we fitted the spectra using the same model components as in @park04 [@kale05], i.e. a [wabs]{} model, to take account of the interstellar absorption effects (with $N_H=4.1 \\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ that was kept fixed, @park04), a multicolor blackbody accretion disk model [@mits84; @maki86], a power-law model, a narrow Gaussian line (i.e. $\\sigma$ fixed at 0.1 keV, smaller than the spectral resolution of RXTE) to account for the iron K$\\alpha$ line emission, and a broad smeared absorption edge model ([smedge]{} in [XSPEC]{}, with the width fixed at 7 keV, like in @park04). The main reason to analyze the energy spectra is to reduce the spectral resolution of the [*Standard 2*]{} spectra to match that of our Fourier-resolved spectra (i.e. 16 bins, in the 2-15 keV band, compared to $\\sim$ 50 of the [*Standard 2*]{} mode). This is a necessary step in order to be able to compare the results from the model fitting of the energy spectra with those from the model fitting of the Fourier-resolved spectra (presented in the following section).\n\nThe spectral analysis was performed using XSPEC version 11.3.1. We have added systematic errors of 1% to all channels and have restricted our analysis to the 2-15 keV band only (to match the energy band used in the case of the Fourier-resolve spectra). Our results are listed in Table\u00a0\\[enespec\\]. The errors quoted for the best fit values correspond to the 90% confidence limit for one interesting parameter. In the case when the error is large enough and the best-fit parameter value is consistent with being zero, we simply note the best-fit value plus upper error, and we accept it as the upper 90% limit for the respective parameter.\n\nOur results are entirely consistent with those reported by @park04 [@kale05] for the respective observations. In the case of the HS, VHS and IS spectra, our best-fit estimate of the equivalent width (EW) of the iron emission line is systematically smaller than that reported by @park04, the main reason being the use of a narrow Gaussian line model in our case (which fits well the reduced resolution spectra that we are using).\n\nNote that in the case of the LS spectrum, the addition of a narrow Gaussian line at $\\sim 6.4$ keV to the single power-law fit reduces the $\\chi^{2}$ by 9.7 (for two additional parameters), which is significant at the 91% level.\n\nFourier resolved spectral analysis\n==================================\n\nThe usefulness of the frequency-resolved spectra lies on the fact that they receive significant contribution only from the spectral components that are variable on the time scales sampled by the observations. Therefore by performing Fourier-resolved spectroscopy we can investigate whether the various spectral components in the overall spectrum of the source (i.e. disk black-body, power-law, iron line) are variable at each frequency range considered. In general, the interpretation of the Fourier resolved spectra is not unique and requires additional assumption about the cause of variability. However, for the case of the iron Fe K$\\alpha$ line and the Compton reflection components which are thought to result from the reprocessing of higher energy ($E \\ge 7$ keV) radiation and are filtered by the well understood light travel-time effects, the Fourier-resolved analysis can provide meaningful constraints on the geometry of reprocessing matter with respect to the source of the hard radiation.\n\nIn this section we present the results of our Fourier spectral fitting analysis for each spectral state and compare the resulting best-fit parameters to those of the previous section (i.e, those obtained from the average energy spectra). As before, [XSPEC]{} version 11.3.1 was used for the model fitting. Most spectral fits yielded residuals attributable to absorption from the Xenon L edge at 4.78 keV. In order to account for this instrumental feature, we included in all model fits a Gaussian line model with central peak at 4.5\u20135 keV and fixed width ($\\sigma=0.1$). We have also added, in all cases, an absorption component ($N_H=4.1 \\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$). A uniform systematic error of 1% was added quadratically to the statistical error of all Fourier spectra in each energy channel. Errors quoted for the best-fit values correspond to the 90% confidence limit for one interesting parameter (or to 90% upper limits in the case when the errors are too large). We describe the results of our analysis for each of the source\u2019s spectral states below.\n\nThe High/Soft State\n-------------------\n\nWe first fitted the HS1 and HS2 Fourier spectra with a simple power-law model. We found that this model did not provide an acceptable fit to any of the Fourier spectra (note that, due to the low variability amplitude during the high state, we could not estimate a high frequency Fourier spectrum for the HS1 data). In both cases, the residuals reveal the presence of an emission and absorption feature at $\\sim 6-7$ and $\\sim 7-9$ keV, respectively. We then fitted the Fourier spectra with a model that consists of a power law, a Gaussian line and an edge (a simple [*edge*]{} model provided a better fit than the [*smedge*]{} that was used in the case of the energy spectrum). The energy and depth of the edge and the line energy were allowed to float as free parameters, but were forced to be identical in all three Fourier spectra. The line normalization was allowed to float in the three spectra.\n\nThe best-fit parameter values for this model in the case of the HS1/HS2 spectra are listed in Table\u00a0\\[simulfit\\]. Since they are consistent within the errors, we combined the individual HS1 and HS2 Fourier spectra and estimated the overall HS Fourier spectra. A simple power law model does not fit the data well ($\\chi^2$ of 517 for 37 dof). The left panel in Fig.\u00a0\\[hs\\] shows the overall HS Fourier spectra, with the best-fit power-law model and the model residuals. The residuals clearly indicate the presence of a line emission and absorption edge features in the spectra. When these components are added to the model (see Fig.\u00a0\\[hs\\], right panel) the fit improves considerably ($\\chi^2=31$ for 24 dof). The best-fit parameter values for this model are also listed in Table\u00a0\\[simulfit\\].\n\nWhen the presence of the iron line is significant the equivalent width measured in the frequency-resolved spectra is larger than that found in the corresponding HS energy spectrum (listed in Table\u00a0\\[enespec\\]). Similarly, the best-fit edge energy of $\\sim 9$ keV (a value representative of material with a high degree of ionization) appears to be significantly higher than the estimate of $7.5-8$ keV, reported in Table\u00a0\\[enespec\\].\n\nAs for the best-fit power-law slopes, we observe a significant hardening with increasing frequency. Compared to the overall spectral slope of $\\sim\n2.5$ that characterizes the power-law component in the high state [@park04], the low- and medium-frequency spectra are significantly steeper, while the high-frequency Fourier-spectrum slope is consistent with it.\n\nThe Very High State\n-------------------\n\nThe left panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[vhs\\] shows the best-fit power-law model to the VHS Fourier spectra. As with the HS spectra, it does not fit the data well ($\\chi^2=210$ for 33 dof). Significant emission and absorption features appear at energies above $\\sim 5-6$ keV. The right panel in Fig.\u00a0\\[vhs\\] shows the three VHS frequency-resolved spectra with the best-fit \u201cpower-law+Gaussian+absorption edge\u201d model, which does provide a significantly better fit to the data ($\\chi^2=29$ for 24 dof). The best-fit parameter values are listed in Table\u00a0\\[simulfit\\].\n\nThe iron line is clearly detected in the medium- and high-frequency spectra. Interestingly, the line energy is larger than the corresponding value in both the HS Fourier-spectra, and the VHS energy spectrum. The best-fit edge energy value is also larger than that in the VHS energy spectrum. In contrast, the edge optical depth in the VHS Fourier spectra appears to be smaller than in the VHS energy spectrum.\n\nThe power-law slope becomes harder as the frequency of the Fourier spectra increases. Compared to the overall power-law spectral slope, the low- and medium-frequency values are steeper by $\\Delta\\Gamma\\sim 0.9-1$, while the high-frequency spectral slope is harder by $\\Delta\\Gamma\\sim 0.2$.\n\nThe Intermediate and Low States\n-------------------------------\n\nThe right and left panels in Fig.\u00a0\\[lhis\\] show the best power-law model fits to the IS and LS Fourier spectra. In these cases, the model provides an acceptable fit ($\\chi^2=30$ for 30 dof, and 32.6 for 24 dof, respectively). During the IS and LS observations the strength of the power law component increased, while its slope flattened reaching $\\Gamma\\sim 1.7$ during the LS period. Although the iron line and absorption edge are still present in the IS energy spectrum of the source, and the line may also be detectable in the energy spectrum during the LS (Table\u00a0\\[enespec\\]), these features are no longer evident in the Fourier resolved spectra, in marked contrast with the Fourier resolved spectra of the HS and VHS described above.\n\nLooking at the residuals in the left panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[lhis\\], one can see the same structure as in the HS and VHS, namely, the characteristic \u201cwiggle\u201d in the 5-12 keV energy range (i.e., an excess of flux at about $6-8$ keV and a deficit at about 9 keV). For that reason we added a Gaussian line component in the IS model spectrum and we repeated the model fitting, keeping the line energy fixed to 6.4 keV. However, the quality of the fit did not improve significantly. We conclude that, if present, the strength of the iron line and the absorption edge must be significantly decreased, compared to that of the same features in the HS and VHS Fourier-spectra.\n\nThe spectral slope of the IS Fourier spectra is significantly steeper than the power-law slope in the respective Fourier spectra of the HS and VHS (by a factor of $\\Delta \\Gamma \\sim 0.5-1$). The low- and medium-frequency IS Fourier spectra are steeper than the overall spectrum by $\\Delta\\Gamma\\sim 1.5$. The high-frequency slope is flatter, but still steeper than the overall spectrum by $\\Delta\\Gamma\\sim 0.6$. Finally, in the LS case, the flux of the source is too low to obtain a meaningful high-frequency (5\u201315 Hz) Fourier spectrum. The low- and medium-frequency spectra are slightly steeper than the overall energy spectrum ($\\Delta\\Gamma\\sim 0.3-0.5$).\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nIn the previous sections we discussed our analysis and results of the Fourier Resolved Spectroscopy of 4U 1543-73 during the entire evolution of its 2002 outburst. The main goal of our work is to enlarge the sample of objects analyzed in this specific way, in an attempt to uncover and establish systematics associated with their spectro-temporal properties, different from the usual ones provided by simply their power spectral density (PSD). We found that a single power-law component does not provide good fits to most of the Fourier-resolved spectra and that the signatures typical of X-ray radiation reprocessing (such as iron line and edge) were required in order to obtain acceptable fits. In addition, no disk component was found in the Fourier-resolved spectra whose hardening with increasing frequency appears to be a general characteristic in all states. In this section we discuss the implications of these results and investigate the temporal properties of the model components that are generally used in black-hole spectral analysis.\n\nThe disk component\n------------------\n\nOne of the most striking results of our analysis is the absence of variability in the multicolor blackbody disk component that provides the dominant flux in the observed HS and VHS spectra. The absence of variability in this component is manifest by the fact that the Fourier-resolved spectra are well fitted by a power law component only (plus an iron line and edge) when the system is in the HS and VHS. The fact that the contribution of the disk multicolor blackbody component is negligible in all Fourier-resolved spectra suggests that the disk is not variable on time scales shorter than $\\sim$ 100 s. Even in the HS, when the disk is believed to extend down to the last stable orbit (and the variability time scales could indeed be short), the disk component is not required in the Fourier-resolved spectra at any of the frequency bands we examined.\n\nThis absence of variability is consistent with the magnitude of the viscous time scale of a disk with temperature $\\simeq 1$ keV, estimated to be $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\tau_{\\rm vis} & \\simeq & \\frac{R_S}{c} x^{5/2} \\frac{m_pc^2}{kT} \\alpha^{-1}  \\\\\n&\\simeq & 1.5 \\times 10^3 \\left(\\frac{M}{10 M_{\\odot}}\\right)\n\\left(\\frac{T}{1\\; {\\rm keV}}\\right)^{-1} \\alpha^{-1} \\, {\\rm sec}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $x \\simeq 3$ is the disk inner edge radius in units of the Schwarzschild radius ($R_S$) and $m_p$ is the proton mass. We conclude therefore that although the disk blackbody flux changes from day to day [see Fig.\u00a02 in @park04], the disk is stable on much shorter time scales (i.e. less than 100 sec). A similar result was also reported in the case of Cyg X\u20131 [@gilf00], who found that the Fourier-resolved spectra of Cyg X\u20131 too are well fitted by a simple power-law component at all frequency bins, with no indication for a multi-color disk component, both when the system is in the High and Low States. The absence of rapid variability of the disk component, a result already noted by @miya94, appears to be a general trend in this class of objects.\n\nThis lack of disk variability puts constraints on models that attempt to attribute the observed PSDs as due to modulation of the accretion rate onto the compact object alone. At a minimum one would expect some variability of this component due to the reprocessing of the variable X-ray component on the disk and its re-emission as disk radiation. However, since the variable power law component represents only a small fraction of the disk luminosity, such variations, while presumably present, are hard to discern because of their small amplitude. For the same reason, we also believe that, at least in HS1, variations intrinsic to the disk, necessary for the dissipation of its kinetic energy, are too small to cause significant variations in its flux over the sampled time scales.\n\nThe iron line and edge\n----------------------\n\nThe results presented in \u00a72.1 indicate the presence of a fluorescent K$\\alpha$ iron line at $\\sim$ 6.4 keV and an edge at $\\sim 7-7.5$ keV in the HS, VHS and IS energy spectra, in agreement with the results of @park04. These features constitute the main signatures for reflection in cold material of the primary source of X-rays. Our results presented in \u00a73 exhibit the presence of similar features in the Fourier spectra for all frequencies (even the highest), when the source is in the HS and VHS (the fact that the line is not clearly detected in the low-frequency Fourier spectrum is almost certainly due to the fact that this spectrum has the lowest signal-to-noise among the three Fourier spectra). The Fourier-resolved spectra in the IS and LS are well fitted by a single power law model only. This implies that either the reflection features are absent or, if present, their strength must be significantly reduced when the system is in these states.\n\nIn the case of a conventional (i.e. non-Fourier resolved) energy spectrum, the equivalent width of the iron line (assuming that the reprocessing matter is neutral) is proportional to the ratio of the reflection component amplitude to that of primary radiation. However, the equivalent width of the iron line determined from a Fourier frequency resolved spectrum corresponds to the ratio of the rms variability amplitude of the reflected component to that of the primary emission variations in a given Fourier frequency range $\\Delta \\nu$, i.e., to the solid angle of the X-ray source subtended by reprocessing surface up to a length scale $L \\simless c/ \\Delta \\nu$.\n\nOur results show that the equivalent width of the line is $\\sim 250-450$ eV at all frequency bins when the system is in the HS and VHS. This suggests that the reflected emission is fully responding to the primary radiation variations up to frequencies $\\sim 15$ Hz, or to to time scales of $\\simeq 70$ ms. On the other hand, our results also show that, when the system is in the IS and LS, the reflected component does not follow the primary emission variations on time scales shorter than 2 s (and perhaps even longer).\n\n@gilf00 reported similar results for Cyg X\u20131, when the source was in its HS and LS. They suggested that the most straightforward explanation of their results (and hence of ours as well) is in terms of a finite light-crossing time to the distance of the reflector. The equivalent width of the line in the Fourier-resolved spectra should remain roughly constant up to a frequency which corresponds to the inverse of the light travel time between the hard X-ray emitting corona and the inner radius of the disk that can reprocess the X-ray radiation into Fe K$\\alpha$. Using Fig.\u00a06 in @gilf00, and the fact that the line equivalent width remains roughly constant up to frequencies $\\sim 15$ Hz when the system is in the HS and VHS, we conclude that the innermost radius of the reflective material could be as low as $\\sim 10 R_{g}$ for a 10 M$_{\\odot}$ black hole. The decrease of the line equivalent width in the IS and LS is consistent with the assumption that the accretion disk does not extend to small radii any longer.\n\nIn addition to the light travel time effect on the response of the iron line, the latter can be also influenced by the ionization sate of the reprocessing medium. As the latter increases, the energy of the iron line and associated edge increases [@geor91 and references therein]. The larger values of the line energy in the VHS Fourier-spectra, $\\sim 6.8$ keV, with respect to the VHS energy spectrum and the HS Fourier-spectra ($\\sim 6.4$ keV in both cases) could then imply a higher degree of ionization in the innermost parts of the disk when the system is in the VHS. This is perhaps expected, since the power law component, which presumably illuminates the disk, has a larger luminosity during the VHS. Eventually, for sufficiently large values of the X-ray flux (more correctly of the ionization parameter) the reprocessing medium becomes highly ionized, resulting in suppression of both the Fe K$\\alpha$ line and the Compton reflection features [@naya00].\n\nThe QPO\n-------\n\nDuring the time interval MJD 52456\u201352461 [@park04] reported the detection of a QPO. The central frequency of the QPO varied in the range 7\u201310 Hz and the Q (coherence) parameter in 5-9 (i.e, a FWHM of $\\simless$ 2 Hz). However, when obtaining the average over the entire period when the QPO is present, the QPO extends over a wider frequency interval. In fact, we chose the high-frequency interval, namely 5\u201315 Hz, so as to cover all the frequency range of the QPO that appeared when the system was in the VHS. Therefore, the High-Frequency Fourier-resolved spectrum when the system is in the VHS should be representative of the energy spectrum of the variability components that \u201cproduce\" the QPO in the system. The fact that no disk component is statistically required to fit this spectrum, implies that the QPO is not associated with the disk emission.\n\nThis result is in accordance with the behavior seen in most black hole systems [see e.g. @swan01; @mcli04; @klis05], namely that the QPO usually appears when the flux is dominated by the hard power-law component (there are no detected QPOs in the HS). The association between the QPO and the hard power-law is substantiated by the fact that the QPO amplitude increases with photon energy, when energy bands beyond the characteristic energy range of a multicolor blackbody with $kT\\sim 1$ keV are considered [@bell97; @morg97]. @muno99 found that when the QPO is present, the power-law flux is much more variable than the disk flux. Only when the QPO is absent, the blackbody component is much more variable than the power law. In the case of u, @kale05 show that the QPO frequency does depend on the power law slope, and decreases with decreasing $\\Gamma$, a correlation found to be generally present in accretion powered sources [@titfior04].\n\nThe power-law component\n-----------------------\n\nA common effect seen in all three spectral states is the hardening of the power-law component with increasing frequency. That is, the X-ray emission associated with the variability of the shortest time scales is harder than that associated with the variability at longer time scales. Such a behavior is at first glance inconsistent with a model that attributes all variations to modulation of the accretion rate in a fashion that reproduces the observed PSDs. We do not see any obvious reason for such a behavior in the context of this type of model. This type of behavior is consistent with that observed by @revn99 and [@gilf00] in Cygnus X-1 in its low-hard state. However, as pointed out in the latter work, the variable power law component of this source in its soft state is independent of the Fourier frequency, a fact not in complete agreement with the results of the present work.\n\nA closer look at the results listed in Table 2 shows that at all states (except HS1) the high-frequency (HF) spectra are the hardest, while the power-law index of the low-frequency (LF) spectra is similar to that of the medium-frequency (MF) spectra, that is, $\\Gamma_{\\rm LF}\\sim \\Gamma_{\\rm\nMF}$, while $\\Gamma_{\\rm {LF,MF}} > \\Gamma_{\\rm HF}$. In other words, we observe a rather large $\\Delta \\Gamma$ jump at frequencies higher than 5 Hz. This is the frequency at which the QPO appears. Furthermore, the 2-30 keV power spectrum during the HS and LS show a slope change at $\\sim 5$ Hz - see upper left and bottom right plots in Fig.8 of @park04. This feature is probably related to the dynamics of accretion, whose significance we are not able to assess at this point. However, it appears that the frequency range where the QPO lies presents a characteristic scale for this system that provides a demarcation of its spectral and timing properties.\n\nFinally, we also observe that $\\Gamma_{\\rm LS}<\\Gamma_{\\rm{HS,VHS}}$ in the low and medium frequency bins. This correlation is generally observed among the different spectral states of accreting black holes, and is attributed to cooling of the corona temperature with the increased soft photon flux associated with the HS and VHS.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nu is the third (besides Cygnus X-1 and GX 339-4, @revn01) source amongst Galactic Black-Hole binaries for which Fourier resolved spectra have been calculated. The results from the energy spectral analysis of the three sources reveal several common characteristics, most importantly different spectral states characterized by soft and hard components, the former at higher luminosity than the latter.\n\nTheir Fourier resolved spectra at the corresponding spectral states exhibit also similarities: a) in the low/hard state the Fourier spectra tend to be harder with increasing Fourier frequency, while the Fe K$\\alpha$ line is more prominent at lower Fourier frequencies. This result has been attributed to the size of the accretion disk inner radius, which may be set at distances $R \\simeq 100 R_S$ when the systems are in their LS. While this explanation can account for the absence of Fe line at high frequencies, it cannot account for the large value of the Fe line EW (in the case of Cyg X-1 for example) if the size of the X-ray emitting region is $\\sim 10R_S$, as it is usually assumed. b) In the soft spectral states, the Fe line is present independent of the Fourier frequency. In the case of u, we also observe a general hardening of the spectra with Fourier frequency in these states (different to Cyg X-1). c) A common characteristic of all Fourier resolved spectra (in all states) is the absence of the multicolor disk component in the Fourier resolved spectra, indicating that this component, while present, is not variable on time scales as short as a few hundred seconds. This results is in agreement with the viscous time scales of such disks.\n\nIn the case of u, we also find evidence of an increased ionization state of the reflector when the system is in the VHS, while the absence of the disk component even in the QPO frequency range during the VHS, implies that the QPO emission is not associated with the disk emission.\n\nThe FRS technique provides a novel look at the structure of accretion powered sources. The general trends observed in the to-date analyses suggest common underlying systematics which are not fully yet understood. We believe that further analysis and modeling along the same lines for other sources is highly warranted.\n\nPart of this work was supported by the General Secretariat of Research and Technology of Greece.\n\nBelloni, T., van der Klis, M., Lewin, W. H. G., et al. 1997, A&A, 322, 857\n\nCherepashchuk A.M. 2000, SSRv, 93, 473\n\nChevalier, C. & Ilovaisky, S. A 1992, IAUC, 5520\n\nGeorge, I.M. & Fabian, A.C. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 352\n\nGilfanov, M., Churazov, E. & Revnivtsev, M. 2000, MNRAS, 316, 923\n\nHarmon, B. A., Wilson, R. B., Finger, M. H., Paciesas, W. S., Rubin, B. C., & Fishman, G. J. 1992, IAUC, 5504, 1\n\nHoman, J, Wijnands, R., van der Klis et al. 2001, ApJSS, 132, 377\n\nKalemci, E., Tomsick, J. A., Buxton, M. M., Rothschild, R. E., Pottschmidt, K., Corbel, S., Brocksopp, C., & Kaaret, P. 2005, APJ, 622, 508\n\nKitamoto, S., Miyamoto, S., Tsunemi, H., Makishima, K., & Nakagawa, M. 1984, PASJ, 36, 799\n\nLa Palombara, N. & Mereghetti, S. 2005, A&A, 430, L53\n\nMakishima, K, Maejima, Y., Mitsuda, K., brandt, H.V., Remillard, R.A., Tuohy, I.R., Hoshi, R., & Nakagawa, M. 1986, ApJ, 308, 635\n\nMatilsky, T. A., Giacconi, R., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E. M., & Tananbaum, H. D. 1972, ApJ, 174, L53\n\nMcClintock, J.E. & Remillard, R. A, 2004, in [*Compact stellar X-ray sources*]{}, ed. W.H.G. Lewin, & M. van der Klis, Cambridge University Press.\n\nMitsuda, K.,Inoue, H., Koyama, K. et al. 1984, PASJ, 36, 741\n\nMiyamoto, S., Kitamoto, S., Iga, S., Hayashida, K., & Terada, K. 1994, ApJ, 435, 398\n\nMorgan, E.H., Remillard, R.A., & Greiner, J. 1997, ApJ,482, 993\n\nMuno, M.P., Morgan, E.H., & Remillard, R.A. 1999, ApJ, 527, 321\n\nNayakshin, S., Kazanas, D. & Kallman, T. R. 2000, ApJ, 537, 833\n\nOrosz, J. A., Jain, R. K., Bailyn, C. D., McClintock, J. E., & Remillard, R. A. 1998, ApJ, 499, 375\n\nPark, S.Q., Miller, J.M., McClintock, R.A., et al. 2004, ApJ, 610, 378\n\nPedersen, H. 1983, Messenger, 34, 21\n\nPapadakis, I. E., Kazanas, D., & Akylas, A. 2005, ApJ, 631, 727\n\nRevnivtsev, M., Gilfanov, M., & Churazov, E. 1999, A&A, 347, L23\n\nRevnivtsev, M., Gilfanov, M., & Churazov, E. 2001, A&A, 380, 502\n\nSwank, J. 2001, ApSSS, 276, 201\n\nTanaka, Y., & Shibazaki, N. 1996, ARA&A, 34, 607\n\nTitarchuk, L. G. & Fiorito, R. 2004, ApJ, 612, 988\n\nvan der Klis, M. 2005, in Compact Stellar X-ray sources, eds. W.H.G. Lewin, M. van der Klis,CUP, astro-ph/0410551\n\nvan der Woerd, H., White, N. E., & Kahn, S. M. 1989, ApJ, 344, 320\n\n[lccccc]{} $T_{\\rm col}$ (keV) &$0.99\\pm 0.01$ & $0.88\\pm0.02$ &$0.87^{+0.02}_{-0.05}$ &$0.6\\pm 0.1$ &$0.35^b$\\\n$\\Gamma$ &$3.6\\pm 0.2$ &$2.6^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ &$2.7\\pm0.2$ &$2.5\\pm 0.1$ &$1.73^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$\\\nE$_{\\rm Fe}$ (keV) &$6.2\\pm 0.2$ &$6.4\\pm 0.2$ &$6.3^{+0.2}_{-0.3}$ &$6.5^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & $6.3^{+0.2}_{-0.4}$\\\nE$_{\\rm edge}$ (keV) &$7.5\\pm 0.1$ &$7.8^{+0.7}_{-0.5}$ &$7.5^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ &$7.1^{+0.3}_{-0.0}$ & \u2013\\\n$\\tau$ &$1.4^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ &$0.8\\pm 0.4$ &$1.3^{+0.9}_{-0.2}$ & $1.9^{+0.5}_{-1.2}$ & \u2013\\\nEW(Fe) (eV) &$92\\pm 8$ &$91^{+8}_{-11}$ &$90^{+22}_{-17}$ &$210^{+195}_{-120}$ & $<260$\\\n$\\chi^2_{\\rm red}$/dof/prob &1.5/6/0.16 &0.69/6/0.66 &1.3/6/0.75 & 2.4/6/0.025 &1.5/9/0.14\\\n\n[lcccccc]{}\\\n$\\Gamma$ &3.8$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &3.2$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ &3.6$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &3.6$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ &4.0$^{+1.2}_{-0.9}$ &2.2$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$\\\nE$_{\\rm Fe}$ (keV) &6.8$^{+ 0.4}_{-0.6}$ &6.4$^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ &6.4$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ &6.8$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ & \u2013 & \u2013\\\nnorm ($\\times 10^{-4}$) &4$^{+3}_{-3}$ &$<4.7$ &$<3.5$ &$<7.3$ & \u2013 & \u2013\\\nE$_{\\rm edge}$ (keV) &9.2$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ &9.0$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &9.0$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &9.1$^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ & \u2013 & \u2013\\\n$\\tau$ &0.8$^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ &$<1.4$ &1.1$^{+0.5}_{-0.5}$ &0.6$^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ & \u2013 & \u2013\\\nEW(Fe) (eV) &$<1000$ &$<1350$ &$<575$ &$<900$ & \u2013 & \u2013\\\n\\\n$\\Gamma$ &3.1$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ &2.8$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &3.0$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &3.7$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &4.2$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &2.0$^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$\\\nE$_{\\rm Fe}$ (keV) &6.8$^b$ &6.4$^b$ &6.4$^b$ &6.8$^b$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\nnorm ($\\times 10^{-4}$) &9$^{+7}_{-8}$ &13$^{+5}_{-5}$ &19$^{+6}_{-5}$ &9$^{+6}_{-6}$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\nE$_{\\rm edge}$ (keV) &9.2$^b$ &9.0$^b$ &9.0$^b$ &9.1$^b$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\n$\\tau$ &1.0$^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ &1.1$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &1.4$^{+0.3}_{-0.3}$ &$<0.56$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\nEW(Fe) (eV) &$<1000$ &450$^{+175}_{-175}$ &435$^{+205}_{-175}$ &270$^{+190}_{-165}$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\n\\\n$\\Gamma$ &\u2013 &2.4$^{+0.2}_{-0.2}$ &2.5$^{+0.5}_{-0.7}$ &2.5$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &3.1$^{+0.1}_{-0.1}$ &\u2013\\\nE$_{\\rm Fe}$ (keV) &\u2013 &6.4$^b$ &6.4$^b$ &6.8$^b$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\nnorm ($\\times 10^{-4}$) &\u2013 &10$^{+8}_{-7}$ &$<25$ &20$^{+5}_{-5}$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\nE$_{\\rm edge}$ (keV) &\u2013 &9.0$^b$ &9.0$^b$ &9.1$^b$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\n$\\tau$ &\u2013 &1.0$^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ &1.0$^{+0.4}_{-0.4}$ &0.3$^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\nEW(Fe) (eV) &\u2013 &600$^{+690}_{-390}$ &\u2013 &390$^{+160}_{-150}$ &\u2013 &\u2013\\\n$\\chi^2_{\\rm red}$/dof/prob &0.54/17/0.93 &1.30/24/0.15 &1.22/25/0.21 & 1.21/24/0.22 & 1.01/30/0.45 &1.36/24/0.11\\\n\n  -- --\n     \n  -- --\n\n  -- --\n     \n  -- --\n\n  -- --\n     \n  -- --\n\n[^1]: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/software/lheasoft/\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We report here a study of the long term properties of Quasi Periodic Oscillations (QPO) in an unusual accreting X-ray pulsar, 4U 1626\u201367. This is a unique accretion powered X-ray pulsar in which we have found the QPOs to be present during all sufficiently long X-ray observations with a wide range of X-ray observatories. In the present spin-down era of this source, the QPO central frequency is found to be decreasing. In the earlier spin-up era of this source, there are only two reports of QPO detections, in 1983 with EXOSAT and 1988 with GINGA with an increasing trend. The QPO frequency evolution in 4U 1626\u201367 during the last 22 years changed from a positive to a negative trend, somewhat coincident with the torque reversal in this source. In the accretion powered X-ray pulsars, the QPO frequency is directly related to the inner radius of the accretion disk, as per Keplerian Frequency Model (KFM) and Beat Frequency Model (BFM). A gradual depletion of accretion disk is reported earlier from the X-ray spectral, flux and pulse profile measurements. The present QPO frequency evolution study shows that X-ray flux and mass accretion rate may not change by the same factor, hence the simple KFM and BFM are not able to explain the QPO evolution in this source. This is the only X-ray pulsar to show persistent QPOs and is also the first accreting X-ray pulsar in which the QPO history is reported for a long time scale relating it with the long term evolution of the accretion disk.'\nauthor:\n- 'Ramanpreet Kaur, Biswajit Paul, Brijesh Kumar, Ram Sagar'\ntitle: 'A study of the long term evolution of quasi periodic oscillations in the accretion powered X-ray pulsar 4U 1626\u201367'\n---\n\n\\[firstpage\\]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe X-ray source 4U 1626\u201367 was discovered with the Uhuru satellite (Giacconi et al. 1972) in 2-6 keV band. Pulsations, with a period of 7.68 s were first discovered by Rappaport et al. (1977) with SAS-3 observations and has been extensively monitored since then, especially with the BATSE detectors onboard CGRO (Chakrabarty et al 1997; Bildsten et al 1997). Optical counterpart of the pulsar was identified as KZ TrA, a faint blue star (V $\\approx$ 18.5) with little or no reddening (McClintock et al. 1977; Bradt and McClintock 1983). Optical pulsations with 2% amplitude were detected at the same frequency as the X-ray pulsations (Ilovaisky, Motch, & Chevalier 1978) and are understood to be due to reprocessing of the pulsed X-ray flux by the accretion disk (Chester 1979). A faint optical counterpart and the observed optical pulsed fraction requires the companion star to be of very small mass (McClintock et al. 1977, 1980). The X-ray light curve does not show any orbital modulation or eclipse. However, from the reprocessed pulsed optical emission and a close sideband in the power-spectrum of optical light curve, an orbital period of 42 minutes was inferred (Middleditch et al. 1981). Therefore, it falls under the category of ultra compact binaries (P$_{orb}$ $<$ 80 minutes), which have hydrogen-depleted secondaries to reach such short periods (Paczynski & Sienkiewicz 1981; Nelson et al. 1986).\n\nDespite extensive searches, the orbital motion of this binary has never been detected in the X-ray pulse timing studies (Rappaport et al, 1977; Levine et al. 1988; Jain et al. 2007). A very low mass secondary, in a nearly face on orbit can possibly account for the lack of pulse arrival time delay. Recently Jain et al (2007) have also proposed this source to be a candidate for a neutron star with a supernova fall back accretion disk. From the extensive timing and spectral observations both in optical and X-ray bands, it has not yet been possible to establish the presence of a binary companion, and the upper limit of the companion mass has been determined to be very low. However, the presence of an accretion disk in 4U 1626\u201367 is beyond any doubt. Optical spectral and timing studies confirm that most of the optical emission is strongly dominated by the accretion disk (Grindlay 1978; McClintock et al. 1980). The X-ray spectrum also shows bright hydrogen-like and helium-like oxygen and neon emission lines with red and blue shifted components, a certain sign for accretion disk origin (Schulz et al. 2001, Krauss et al. 2007). Another direct evidence of an accretion disk in 4U 1626\u201367 is found from the detection of quasi-periodic oscillations, at a frequency of 40 mHz, from Ginga observations (Shinoda et al. 1990) and subsequently at a higher frequency of about 48 mHz from Beppo-SAX, ASCA, RXTE and XMM-Newton (Owens et al. 1997; Angelini et al. 1995; Kommers et al. 1998, Krauss et al. 2007). The QPOs have also been detected in reprocessed optical emission from both ground based and HST observations (Chakrabarty et al. 1998, 2001).\n\nFor more than a decade since its discovery, 4U 1626\u201367 was found to be spinning up with a characteristic timescale P/P $\\approx$ 5000 yr. It was found to be spinning down at about the same rate by BATSE onboard CGRO in the beginning of 1991 (Chakrabarty et al. 1997). Even though the torque reversal was abrupt, the decrease in bolometric X-ray flux has been gradual and continuous over the past $\\approx$ 30 yr (Chakrabarty et al. 1997, Krauss et al 2007). Recently, from a set of Chandra monitoring observations Krauss et al (2007) have established that the bolometric X-ray flux and various emission line fluxes have decreased continuously over the last few years, indicating a gradual depletion of the accretion disk. The X-ray flux and mass accretion rate are directly related and these are likely to be related to the mass and extent of the material in the accretion disk. Therefore, the observed gradual decrease in X-ray flux indicates a depletion of material in the accretion disk of the pulsar. Another signature of this is seen by Krauss et al. (2007) as a change in the pulse profile of the pulsar as compared to the earlier observations.\n\nIn the present work, we have investigated the QPO frequency evolution of 4U 1626\u201367 over a long period and discuss the relation of the change in QPO frequency with the a possible recession of the inner accretion disk.\n\nObservations and Analysis\n=========================\n\n4U 1626\u201367 has been observed with various X-ray telescopes over different epochs of time. Table 1 lists the log of observations of 4U 1626\u201367 that were found to be useful for the present study. Details of individual observations described below are in chronological order. Detection of QPOs at around 48 mHz have been mentioned from some of these observations, sometimes from a different instrument also (Ginga - Shinoda et al. 1990; ASCA - Angelini et al. 1995; Beppo-SAX - Owens et al. 1997, RXTE - Kommers et al. 1998, Chakrabarty 1998; XMM-Newton - Krauss et al. 2007). However, the QPO frequencies measured from these observations are often not reported with good enough accuracy to investigate a slow frequency evolution. For the present study, we have therefore reanalysed the data and measured the QPO parameters with the highest possible accuracy.\\\nEXOSAT Medium Energy (ME) proportional counter lightcurve of 4U 1626\u201367 was obtained from HEASARC archive with the time resolution of 0.3125 s for an observations made on August 30, 1983 for 27 ks. ME lightcurve of another observations made by EXOSAT on March 30, 1986 for $\\approx$ 84 ks that was reported earlier by Levine et al. (1988) is not available in the HEASARC Archive.\\\nASCA observations of 4U 1626\u201367 were made on August 11, 1993 with the two Gas Imaging Spectrometers (GIS2 and GIS3) and the two Solid-state Imaging Spectrometers (SIS0 and SIS1) and light curves with total useful exposures of 40 ks and 25 ks were obtained for the GIS and SIS respectively. During the ASCA observation, the GIS detectors were operated in Pulse Height mode and SIS detectors were operated in Fast mode and the lightcurves were extracted from the unscreened high bit mode data with the minimum time resolution of 0.125 s for both GIS and SIS detectors. The light curves from the pairs of GIS and SIS instruments were added and a single power spectra is generated with the summed lightcurves.\\\n4U 1626\u201367 was observed with BeppoSAX on August 09, 1996 for 116 ks by the three units of Medium Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (MECS) and for 35 ks by the Low Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (LECS). Lightcurves were extracted from all the instruments with 0.125 s. Single summed lightcurve was generated from three lightcurves of the MECS instruments to increase the signal-to-noise ratio.\\\nRXTE-PCA pointed observations of the source were made from February 1996 to August 1998. In 1996, the observations were made in the beginning of the year and at the end of the year under obs ID P10101 and P10144 respectively. The observations made under obs IDs P10101 covers time span of almost 5 days from MJD 50123 to 50128. There were nine observations in this obs ID each lasting for 4-8 hrs. A single observation was made under obs ID P10144 for $\\approx$ 5 hrs on MJD 50445. In 1997, all the observations were made under obs ID P20146 covers a time range of almost a year from MJD 50412 to MJD 50795 but individual observations were made only for a few minutes. In 1998, RXTE-PCA made observations under two obs ID P30058 and P30060. There were three observations made under obs ID P30058, out of which two observations were made on MJD 50926 and the third observation was made on MJD 51032. In obs ID P30060, there were 10 short observations each for about an hour. For almost all the observations of RXTE, all five PCUs were on. Lightcurves were extracted from observations of 4U 1626\u201367 with a time resolution of 0.125 s using the Standard-1 data that covers the entire 2-60 keV energy range of the PCA detectors. We divided the whole RXTE-PCA observations from 1996 to 1998 into three segments from MJD 50123 to 50128, 50412 to 50795 and 50926 to 51032. The signal-to-noise ratio of the power spectra generated from the individual observations made between MJD 50412 to 50795 was poor to detect QPO except on MJD 50445, thus a single power spectrum was produced by combining powerspectra of all observations made between MJD 50412 to 50795.\\\nXMM-Newton has observed 4U 1626\u201367 four times, but significant amount of science data was present only in two of these observations, made under obs IDs 0111070201 and 0152620101, listed in Table 1. We have analysed data only from PN detector of European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) onboard XMM-Newton. PN operates in the energy band of 0.15-15 keV. Lightcurves were extracted with a time resolution of 0.125 s for both the observations.\\\nAll the lightcurves were divided into small segments each of length 1024 s and a power density spectrum of each segment was generated. The power spectra were normalized such that their integral gives the standard rms fractional variability and the expected white noise was subtracted. Final power spectra was generated with the average of all the power spectra generated for each of the observations listed in Table 1. Flares with duration of 1000 s are clearly seen in the EXOSAT data as mentioned by Levine et al. (1988). However these flares are not detected in rest of the data mentioned in Table 1. QPO at a frequency of $\\sim$ 48 mHz is clearly seen in the power spectra of all the data sets except from EXOSAT observations during which it is detected at $\\sim$ 36 mHz. Figure 1 shows the QPO detection from the EXOSAT observations made on August 30, 1983 in the range of 15 mHz to 100 mHz. A Gaussian model is fitted to the QPO feature to determine its central frequency and width (FWHM of Gaussian) for all the datasets. The continuum of the power spectrum in the band of 20 mHz to 80 mHz is fitted with a constant or a linear model. The uncertainty of the Gaussian model peak at 1 $\\sigma$ confidence interval is quoted as an error on the Gaussian centre.\n\nThe QPO feature detected in the power spectrum of EXOSAT data is quite narrow $\\sim$ 2 mHz as compared to the QPOs seen in rest of the data with a width of $\\sim$ 4 to 5 mHz. Figure 2 shows powerspectra in the frequency range 26 mHz to 72 mHz for the observations listed in Table 1 except the EXOSAT observations. Different constant numbers were added to each plot for clarity. A best-fitted Gaussian model for the QPOs and a constant model or a linear model for the continuum is shown on each plot with a solid line. A dotted vertical line at the best fitted Gaussian center to the ASCA 1993 data is plotted in the same figure. A shift of $\\sim$ 2 mHz is clearly seen from bottom to the top plot shown in Figure 2.\n\nThe evolution of the QPO central frequency as observed by various X-ray telescopes in both spin-up and spin down era is shown in Figure 3. An error bar plotted on each point in Fig 3 represents 1$\\sigma$ error estimates. We couldn\u2019t find GINGA observations of 4U 1626\u201367 made in July, 1988 from archive data, thus the central frequency of QPOs and error estimate on it is taken from Shinoda et al. 1990 and is also shown in Fig 3. To confirm the consistency of QPO frequency for each data set listed in Table 1, the QPO frequencies were measured from smaller segments of the data, 10 each for the 1996 RXTE observation and the 2004 XMM observation. The values determined from smaller segments have larger uncertainties but within uncertainties, these values are consistent with the QPO frequency measured using the complete data sets in each case. It can be clearly seen in Figure 3 that the QPO central frequency has increased from 1983 to 1993 and after that it gradually decreased from 1993 to 2004. However the lack of observations doesn\u2019t allow us to define an exact time when the QPO frequency evolution changed from an increasing trend to a decreasing trend. The observations from 1993 to 2004 showed frequency decrease of $\\sim$ 2.3 mHz while the error bars on all the data points during this era are within 0.4 mHz except the ASCA 1993 data point for which the error bar is 0.6 mHz, confirms the real decrease in QPO frequency with time. The QPO frequency derivative during spin-down era is $\\sim$ (0.2 $\\pm$ 0.05) mHz/yr. A linear fit is shown on the data points with a solid line in the spin-down era in Figure 3. The reduced $\\chi^2$ of the linear fit is 1.07 for 5 degrees of freedom. To further confirm the linearity, a constant model is also fitted to the data from 1993 to 2004. The reduced $\\chi^2$ for a constant model is 3.22 for 6 degrees of freedom, indicates poor fit as compared to the linear fit.\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nIn high magnetic field X-ray pulsars, the QPO frequency is in the range of a few mHz to a few Hz (Kaur et al. 2007). The QPOs are known to occur sporadically, only in a few percent of the X-ray observations. For example, QPOs are detected in only 15% of the out-of-eclipse observations of Cen X-3 (Raichur et al. 2007). Our independent investigation of the RXTE-PCA lightcurves of several persistent sources show that the QPOs are quite rare. Exception to this are some of the transient sources, like 3A 0535+262 (Finger et al. 1996), and XTE J1858+034 (Paul & Rao 1998) which showed QPOs during most of the observations made during their outbursts. In the present study, using lightcurves of 4U 1626\u201367 taken with various observatories over a period of more than 20 years we have detected QPOs in every single observation of sufficient length. This is the first accretion powered pulsar for which the QPO study has been made over a long time scale. In this regard, 4U 1626\u201367 is unique among persistent high magnetic field accreting X-ray pulsars. It shows that the accretion disk of the pulsar is quite stable to hold this feature for years. However, in a few cases, the observation duration was not long enough to make accurate measurement of the QPO parameters.\n\nQPOs in accretion powered X-ray sources are widely believed to arise due to inhomogeneities near the inner accretion disk. The QPO frequency is the Keplerian frequency at the inner disk radius and is therefore positively related to the mass accretion rate or the X-ray luminosity. If the compact object is a neutron star, the inner disk is coupled with the central object through the magnetic field lines and QPOs corresponding to the beat frequency between the spin frequency and the Keplerian frequency of the inner disk can also be seen. In accretion powered high magnetic field X-ray pulsars, the two different QPOs are never seen to occur in the same source. In some of the sources, like 4U 1626\u201367, the QPO frequency is lower than the spin frequency and therefore the QPOs can only be explained by the BFM.\n\nAccording to both KFM and BFM, the radius of the QPO production area, r$_{qpo}$, is defined as $$r_{qpo} = \\left(\\frac{GM_{NS}}{4\\pi^2\\nu_k^2}\\right)^{1/3}$$ where G is the Gravitational constant, M$_{NS}$ is the mass of the neutron star and $\\nu_k$ is the keplerian frequency of the inner accretion disk.\n\nThe radius of the inner accretion disk, r$_M$ can be defined as $$r_M = 3 \\times 10^8 L_{37}^{-2/7}\\mu_{30}^{4/7}$$ where L$_{37}$ is the X-ray luminosity in units of 10$^{37}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ and $\\mu_{30}$ is magnetic moment in units of 10$^{30}$ cm$^3$Gauss. If the QPOs are as per Keplerian frequency model ($\\nu_k$ = $\\nu_{qpo}$, where $\\nu_{qpo}$ is QPO frequency of the pulsar), then we expect $\\nu_k$ $\\propto$ $L_{37}^{3/7}$ or $\\nu_{qpo}$ $\\propto$ $L_{37}^{3/7}$. The flux of 4U 1626\u201367 has decreased from 0.32 to 0.15 units from 1993 to 2004 (Krauss et al. 2007), implies that the change in QPO frequency is expected to be $\\sim$ 27% from 1993 to 2004. The present QPO observations have shown only 4 % decrease in QPO frequency during the same time. However, Keplerian frequency model is not valid in this source. In the BFM ($\\nu_k$ = $\\nu_{qpo}$ + $\\nu_s$, where $\\nu_s$ is pulsar spin frequency), the inner disk frequency is higher as compared to KFM, and the relative change in QPO frequency is expected to be even larger. Therefore, we see that the evolution of QPO frequency and the decrease of X-ray flux cannot be explained in the standard QPO generation mechanism and usual relation between inner disk and X-ray luminosity. We can consider two possibilities : One is that the QPOs are not generated from the inner disk, these are generated due to reprocessing in some outer structure of the disk. This is not very likely due to the large (upto 15%) rms in the QPO feature. Second possibility is that the observed X-ray flux change is not due to change of mass accretion rate by the same factor. Many X-ray sources show X-ray flux variation at long time scale upto a few months due to obstruction provided by complex accretion disk mechanism.\n\nThe earlier study by Chakrabarty et al. (1997) has concluded that there was an abrupt torque reversal in 1990 and the system moved from spin-up to spin-down era with a characteristic time scale P/P of $\\sim$ 5000 yr. The two QPO detections with EXOSAT (35 mHz in 1983) and GINGA (40 mHz in 1988) are during the spin-up era of this pulsar, with increasing trend while the observations from 1993 to 2004, in the spin-down era, showed a slow decreasing trend in QPO frequency with time, somewhat coincident with the torque reversal in this source, shown in Fig 3. QPO frequency is found to be decreasing in the spin-down era with a frequency derivative of $\\sim$ (0.2 $\\pm$ 0.05) mHz/yr. The X-ray spectral and flux evolution study along with pulse profile changes of 4U 1626\u201367 by Krauss et al (2007) have concluded that the accretion disk in this source is depleting with a time scale of 30-70 years. Krauss et al. (2007) has also estimated the long term average accretion rate to be 3 $\\times$ 10$^{-11}$ M$_\\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ for a distance $\\ge$ 3kpc. However, a gradual change in mass accretion rate can not explain the unique torque reversal phenomena of this source (Li et al. 1980).\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\n-   We have detected very persistent quasi-periodic oscillations in the unique accretion powered X-ray pulsar 4U 1626\u201367.\n\n-   Using data from several observatories, we have detected a gradual evolution of the oscillation frequency over a period of 22 years.\n\n-   The frequency evolution indicates a possible recession of the accretion disk of the pulsar during the present spin-down era.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThis research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.\n\nAngelini, L., White, N. E., Nagase, F., Kallman, T. R., Yoshida, A., Takeshima, T., Becker, C. M., & Paerels, F. 1995, ApJ, 449, L41 Bildsten, L., Chakrabarty, D., Chiu, J., et al. 1997, ApJS, 113, 367 Bradt, H. V. D., McClintock, J. E. 1983, 21, 13 Chakrabarty, D., Bildsten, L., Grunsfeld J.M. et al. 1997 ApJ, 474, 414 Chakrabarty, D. 1998, ApJ, 492, 342 Chakrabarty, D., Homer. L., Charles, P. A., & O\u2019Donoghue, D. 2001, ApJ, 562, 985 Chester, T. J. 1979, ApJ, 227, 569 Finger, M.H., Wilson, R.B., Harmon, B.A. 1996, ApJ, 459, 288 Giacconi, R., Murray, S., Gursky, H., Kellogg, E., Schreier, E., & Tananbaum, H. 1972, ApJ, 178, 281 Grindley, J.E. 1978, ApJ, 225, 1001 Ilovaisky, S. A., Motch, C., & Chevalier, C. 1978, A&A, 70, L19 Jain, C., Paul, B., Joshi, K., Dutta, A., & Raichur, H. 2007, Submitted to JApA Joss, P. C., Avni, Y., & Rappaport, S. 1978, ApJ, 221, 645 Kaur, R., Paul, B., Raichur, H., Sagar, R. 2007, ApJ, 660, 1409 Kommers, J. E., Chakrabarty, D., & Lewin, W. H. G. 1998, 497, L33 Krauss, M.I., Schulz, N.S., Chakrabarty, D. 2007, ApJ, 660, 605 Levine, A., Ma, C. P., McClintock, J., Rappaport, S., van der Klis, M., & Verbunt, F. 1988, ApJ, 327, 732 Li, F. K., Joss, P.C., McClintock, J. E., Rappaport, S., & Wright, E. L. 1980, ApJ, 240, 628 McClintock, J. E., Bradt, H. V., Doxsey, R. E., Jernigan, J. G., Canizares, C. R., & Hiltner, W. A. 1977, Nature, 270, 320 McClintock, J. E., Li, F. K., Canizares, C. R., & Grindlay, J. E. 1980, ApJ, 235, L81 Middleditch, J., Mason, K. O., Nelson, J. E., & White, N. E. 1981, ApJ, 244, 1001 Nelson, L. A., Rappaport, S. A., & Joss, P. C. 1986, ApJ, 311, 226 Owens, A., Oosterbroek, T., Parmar, A.N. 1997, A&A, 324, L9 Paczynski, B., & Sienkiewicz, R. 1981, ApJ, 248, L27 Paul. B., Rao, A.R. 1998, A&A, 337, 815 Raichur, H., & Paul, B. 2007, Submitted to ApJ Rappaport, S., Markert, T., Li, F. K., Clark, G. W., Jernigan, J. G., & McClintock, J. E. 1977, ApJ, 217, L29 Schulz, N.S., Chakrabarty, D., Marshall, H.L., Canizares, C.R., Lee, J.C., Houck, J. 2001, ApJ, 563, 941 Shinoda, K., Kii, T., Mitsuda, K., Nagase, F., Tanaka, Y., Makishima, K., & Shibazaki, N. 1990, PASJ, 42, L27\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: '[ Image reconstruction from computed tomography (CT) measurement is a challenging statistical inverse problem since a high-dimensional conditional distribution needs to be estimated. Based on training data obtained from high-quality reconstructions, we aim to learn a conditional density of images from noisy low-dose CT measurements. To tackle this problem, we propose a hybrid conditional normalizing flow, which integrates the physical model by using the filtered back-projection as conditioner. We evaluate our approach on a low-dose CT benchmark and demonstrate superior performance in terms of structural similarity of our flow-based method compared to other deep learning based approaches. ]{}'\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:introduction}\n============\n\nMany important applications in medical imaging, such as computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), can be formulated as an inverse problem. The inverse problem consists in the reconstruction of an internal image of a patient based on radiological data. Many of these applications are ill-posed inverse problems, as small measurement errors can result in large errors in the reconstruction. In a classical way, an inverse problem is often formulated as follows: A forward operator $A: X \\rightarrow Y$ maps the image $x^\\dagger$ to (noisy) measurements $$\\begin{aligned}\n    y^\\delta = Ax^\\dagger + \\mu,\n    \\label{eq:inverse_problem}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mu$ describes the noise. The research in inverse problems is focused in particular on developing algorithms for obtaining stable approximations of the true solution $x^\\dagger$. In order to cover the uncertainties that occur especially with ill-posed problems, the theory of Bayesian inversion considers the posterior distribution $p(x|y^\\delta)$ [@Dashti.2272013]. This posterior is the conditional density of the image $x$ conditioned on the measurements $y^\\delta$.\n\nThe main task in statistical inverse problems is to approximate this high-dimensional conditional distribution. For high-dimensional, structured images, like they arise in CT, this is a challenging process. In the field of density estimation, conditional normalizing flows (NF) [@Winkler.11292019; @Ardizzone.742019] allow to learn expressive conditional densities by maximum likelihood training. Since the physical model is known in CT (Eq.\u00a0\\[eq:radon\\_trafo\\]), we propose a hybrid approach which integrates model-based reconstruction with conditional NFs.\n\n![Ground truth samples from the LoDoPaB-CT dataset containing artifacts. These errors stem from the reconstruction technique that was used on the normal-dose measurements.[]{data-label=\"fig:ArtifactSamples\"}](figures/lodopab_artifact_samples.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nIn many CT image reconstruction tasks the mean squared error (MSE) is used [@chen2017convnet_ct; @he2020iradon], which, however, has many known limitations [@Zhao.2017]. In the context of maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), the MSE loss arises from the assumption of i.i.d. standard Gaussian noise. However, this assumption is violated in CT training data since they are often obtained from reconstructions of high-dose or normal-dose measurements. E.g. the choice of the reconstruction algorithm can lead to artifacts, as shown in Figure \\[fig:ArtifactSamples\\]. This implies that the reconstruction error for individual pixels is no longer independent. We argue that these dependencies can be better captured by a flow-based model.\n\nOur contributions are twofold: 1) We apply conditional normalizing flows to CT image reconstruction. 2) We propose a hybrid approach, which integrates the physical model by using the filtered back-projection as conditioner.\n\nThere are several deep learning approaches for implementing conditional generative models. Besides conditional generative adversarial networks (cGANs, [@Mirza.1162014]) and conditional variational autoencoders (cVAE, [@cVAE]) there are conditional normalizing flows [@Ardizzone.14.08.2018; @Winkler.11292019], which we will explore in this paper. These models can be understood as an extension of normalizing flow models [@Papamakarios.1252019]. Normalizing flows define a bijective mapping and have a tractable Jacobian determinant. Depending on the specific implementation, the inverse can be determined analytically (e.g. [@Dinh.27.05.2016], [@Kingma.792018]) or numerically (e.g. [@Behrmann.], [@Chen.20191207]). These models have in common that they define an invertible, differentiable transformation of the complex distribution $p(x)$ in image space into a base distribution $p(z)$. Using the change of variables formula, it is possible to evaluate the density of $p(x)$ using this transformation. This allows for training the model with the exact likelihood.\n\nRelated Work\n------------\n\nDeep learning methods have been successfully applied to many ill-posed inverse problems such as CT [@Arridge.2019]. In particular, end-to-end learned methods have been used. Those methods can be classified in three main groups: post-processing [@chen2017convnet_ct], fully-learned [@he2020iradon] and learned iterative algorithms [@adler2017]. These end-to-end methods have in common that they learn a parameterized operator ${T_\\theta:Y \\rightarrow X}$ by optimizing the parameters $\\theta$ using training data $\\{ (y_i^\\delta, x_i^\\dagger) \\}_{i=1}^N$. Usually, this is done by minimizing the MSE between the ground truth data $x_i^\\dagger$ and the reconstruction $T_\\theta(y_i^\\delta)$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\hat{\\theta} \\in \\arg \\min_{\\theta \\in \\Theta} \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\Vert T_\\theta(y_i^\\delta) - x_i^\\dagger \\Vert^2.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nRecently, Deep Image Priors were used for CT, achieving promising results in the low-data regime [@baguer2020computed]. Similar to our approach is the work of [@Adler.11142018], who employed a Wasserstein GAN to draw samples from the conditional distribution. However, in this approach it is not possible to evaluate the likelihood of the generated samples. [@Ardizzone.14.08.2018] have used invertible neural networks to approximate the conditional distribution and to analyze inverse problems. In a subsequent paper this concept was extended to conditional invertible neural networks (cINNs) which yielded good performance in the field of conditional image generation [@Ardizzone.742019].\n\nBackground on Computed Tomography {#sec:Background}\n=================================\n\nComputed tomography allows for a non-invasive acquisition of the inside of the human body, which makes it one of the most important tools in modern medical imaging [@buzug2008computed_tomography]. CT is a primary example of an inverse problem. The determination of the interior distribution cannot be achieved directly. It has to be inferred from the measured attenuation of X-rays sent through the body.\n\nCurrent research focuses on reconstruction methods for low-dose CT measurements to reduce the health risk from radiation [@shan2019nn_vs_vendor_ct; @baguer2020computed]. One strategy to reduce the dose is to measure at fewer angles. This can result in undersampled measurements and therefore in the existence of ambiguous solutions to the inverse problem. Another option is to lower the intensity of the X-ray. This leads to increased Poisson noise on the measurements and adds to the instability of the inversion. In this paper, we test our reconstruction model for the lower intensity case.\n\nThe basic principle of a CT machine with a parallel beam geometry can be described by the 2D Radon transform [$A: X \\rightarrow Y$]{} [@radon1986radon_trafo]: $$A x(s,\\varphi) = \\int_{\\mathbb{R}} x\\left( s \\begin{bmatrix} \\cos(\\varphi) \\\\ \\sin(\\varphi) \\end{bmatrix} + t \\begin{bmatrix} -\\sin(\\varphi) \\\\ \\phantom{-}\\cos(\\varphi) \\end{bmatrix} \\right) \\, \\mathrm{d}t.\n    \\label{eq:radon_trafo}$$ It is an integration along a line, which is parameterized by the distance $s \\in \\mathbb{R}$ and angle $\\varphi \\in [0,\\pi]$ (cf.\u00a0Figure \\[fig:parallel\\_beam\\]). For a fixed pair $(s,\\varphi)$ this results in the log ratio of initial and final intensity at the detector for a single X-ray beam (Beer-Lambert\u2019s law). The whole measurement, called *sinogram*, is the collection of the transforms for all pairs $(s,\\varphi)$. The task in CT is to invert this process to get a reconstruction of the body. The inversion of the Radon transform is an ill-posed problem since the operator is linear and compact [@natterer2001math_tomography]. The consequences is an instable inverse mapping, which amplifies even small measurement noise.\n\nA common inversion model is the filtered back-projection (FBP) [@Shepp1974FBP]. The reconstruction for position $(i,j)$ is calculated by a convolution over $s$ and an integration along $\\varphi$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    x(i,j) = \\int_0^{\\pi} y(s, \\varphi) \\star h(s) \\vert_{s = i \\cos(\\varphi) + j \\sin(\\varphi)} \\, \\mathrm{d}\\varphi.\\end{aligned}$$ In general, $h$ is chosen as a high-pass filter such as the Ram-Lak filter [@Ramachandran2236]. In reality, we can only measure for a finite number of angles and distances. In this discrete setting the FBP only works well for a high number of measurement angles. Otherwise severe streak artifacts can appear in the reconstruction.\n\nNormalizing Flow\n----------------\n\nNormalizing flows are a special class of probabilistic models, which transform a simple base distribution via a number of invertible transformations into a desired target density [@Papamakarios.1252019]. They have been used for variational inference [@Rezende.5212015], density estimation [@Dinh.27.05.2016] and generative modeling [@Kingma.792018; @Chen.20191207]. Recently the field of application was extended to inverse problems [@Ardizzone.14.08.2018]. Normalizing flows offer the possibility of exact likelihood training.\n\nNormalizing flows can be implemented using deep invertible neural networks. Research on these invertible networks has developed a number of different building blocks. [@Behrmann.] define a class of invertible transformations based on the architecture of residual networks [@He.10.12.2015]. We focus on models based on affine coupling layers [@Dinh.30.10.2014; @Dinh.27.05.2016]. In particular, we focus on the Glow architecture [@Kingma.792018]. This model extends the coupling layer approach by two components, ActNorm and invertible 1x1 Convolutions. These components are arranged in a multi-scale architecture [@Dinh.27.05.2016]: Every $L$ layers an invertible squeeze operation is applied to reduce the spatial dimension, and a part of the channels is split off to reduce the computational cost.\n\nMethods {#sec:methods}\n=======\n\nProblem Setting {#sec:probSetting}\n---------------\n\nTo estimate conditional densities, data pairs from measurements $y^\\delta$ and ground truth images $x^\\dagger$ are required. In computed tomography (CT) it is not possible to obtain actual ground truth data, because no picture can be taken of the interior of the human body. Instead of using ground truth images we use reconstructions based on high-dose measurements $y^{\\delta_1} = A x^\\dagger + \\mu_1$, i.e.\u00a0$x^{\\delta_1} = T_\\text{FBP}(y^{\\delta_1})$. Because $x^{\\delta_1}$ is the output of an reconstruction algorithms, it can contain artifacts and differ from the actual image $x^\\dagger$, see Figure \\[fig:ArtifactSamples\\] for an example. In the next step we simulate low-dose CT measurements using this reconstruction as $y^{\\delta_2} = A x^{\\delta_1} + \\mu_2$, where $\\mathrm{Var}[\\mu_2] \\geq \\mathrm{Var}[\\mu_1]$, since low-dose measurements are more prone to measurement noise. The training set then consists of data pairs $\\{y^{\\delta_2}, x^{\\delta_1} \\}$. An example of such a dataset is LoDoPaB-CT\u00a0[@leuschner2019lodopabct], which we use to benchmark our proposed conditional flow.\n\nNormalizing Flow with FBP Conditioning\n--------------------------------------\n\nFrom a statistical point-of-view, an inverse problem can also be seen as a generating process $x \\sim p(x|y)$ [@Dashti.2272013; @Arridge.2019]. The task in such a statistical inverse problem is to estimate this conditional distribution. We are using conditional normalizing flows (NF) [@Winkler.11292019] to approximate the target density $p(x|y)$. The conditional NF is composed of a series of invertible transformations $F= f_K \\circ \\dots \\circ f_1$. Here, every individual transformation is parameterized by $\\theta$ and receives a conditional input $y$: $f_i = f_{\\theta_i}(\\cdot, y)$. This transformation defines a transport map, which converts the initial density into a simple, easy-to-sample density $p_Z$. This model defines a conditional density $q(x|y,\\theta)$ and using the change-of-variables formula the conditional density can be calculated: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    q(x|y;\\theta) = p_{Z}(F_\\theta(x;y)) \\left\\vert \\det\\left(\\frac{\\partial F_\\theta(x;y)}{\\partial x}\\right) \\right\\vert.\\end{aligned}$$ We denote the Jacobian for one data point $x_i, y_i$ with $J_i = \\frac{\\partial F_\\theta(x_i;y_i)}{\\partial x}$. Instead of directly using the measurements $y_i$ as conditional inputs, we propose to employ a reconstruction, e.g. the filtered back-projection $\\hat{x}_i = T_{\\text{FBP}}(y)$.\n\nAssume a dataset $\\{(x_i, y_i)\\}_{i=1}^N$ of measurements $y_i$ and reconstructions $x_i$. To approximate the target density $p(x|y)$ a conditional NF $q(x|y, \\theta)$ can be trained using the negative log-likelihood as a loss function. Using a standard normal distribution, i.e.\u00a0$p_Z \\sim \\mathcal{N}(0, I)$, this amounts to minimizing $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\mathcal{L}(\\theta) = \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\frac{\\Vert F_\\theta(x_i;T_{\\text{FBP}}(y_i))\\Vert_2^2}{2}  - \\log \\left\\vert \\det J_i \\right\\vert .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nConditional coupling layers\n---------------------------\n\nWe are using the conditional coupling layer from [@Ardizzone.742019] to construct a conditional invertible neural network (cINN), which is an extension of the affine coupling layer from [@Dinh.27.05.2016]. We propose to integrate the model-driven approach of inverse problems by using the filtered back-projection $\\hat{x} = T_\\text{FBP}(y)$ as conditional input instead of the raw sinogramm measurements $y$. The input $u=[u_1, u_2]$ to an affine coupling layer is split into two parts and both parts are transformed individually: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    v_1 &= u_1 \\odot \\exp(s_1(u_2, \\hat{x})) + t_1(u_2, \\hat{x}) \\\\ \\newline\n    v_2 &= u_2 \\odot \\exp(s_2(v_1, \\hat{x})) + t_2(v_1, \\hat{x}).\\end{aligned}$$ The transformations $s_1, s_2, t_1, t_2$ do not need to be invertible and are modelled as convolutional neural networks (CNNs). The inverse of an affine coupling layer is: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    u_1 &= (v_1 - t_1(u_2,\\hat{x})) \\odot \\exp(-s_1(u_2, \\hat{x})) \\\\ \\newline\n    u_2 &= (v_2 - t_2(v_1,\\hat{x})) \\odot \\exp(-s_2(v_1,\\hat{x})).\\end{aligned}$$ The log-determinant of the Jacobian for one affine coupling layer can be calculated as the sum over $s_i$, i.e.\u00a0$\\sum_j s_1(u_2, \\hat{x})_j + \\sum_j s_2(v_1, \\hat{x})_j$. A deep invertible network can be built as a sequence of multiple such layers, with a permutation of the dimensions after each layer.\n\nThe conditional input $\\hat{x}$ is added as an extra input to each transformation in the coupling layer. In practice, an additional conditioning network $H$ is added, so instead of $\\hat{x}$ the output $H(\\hat{x})$ is used. This conditioning network $H$ is under no architectural constraints and can contain all usual elements (i.e.\u00a0BatchNorm, pooling layer, etc.) of a CNN.\n\n![Reconstruction and standard deviation of cINN. $1000$ Samples were used for the reconstruction. The top row shows the ground truth image and the corresponding FBP.[]{data-label=\"fig:Reconstruction\"}](figures/ConditionedMean.pdf)\n\nResults {#sec:results}\n=======\n\nSampling from the model is a two-step process: First, a sample $z$ is drawn from the base density $p_Z$. Second, this sample is transformed by the inverse to obtain an image. By repeatedly sampling $z_j$ for a fixed input $y^\\delta$ we thus estimate the conditional mean as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\hat{x} = \\mathbb{E}_{z}[F^{-1}(z,T_{\\text{FBP}}(y^\\delta))] \\approx \\frac{1}{n} \\sum_{j=1}^n F^{-1}(z_j, T_{\\text{FBP}}(y^\\delta)).\\end{aligned}$$ We evaluate our model on the LoDoPaB-CT dataset [@leuschner2019lodopabct]. For this dataset we are in the case of oversampling, so we expect a uni-modal distribution. This enables the choice of the conditional mean as the reconstruction method. If a highly multi-modal distribution is expected, the conditional mean is not the optimal choice. To measure the error between reconstruction and ground truth, the PSNR and the SSIM [@wang2004ssim] are evaluated. Both are common quality metrics for the evaluation of CT and MRI reconstructions [@joemai2017ssim_in_ct; @adler2017; @zbontar2018dataset_fastmri]. The PSNR is a pixel-wise metric which is defined via the MSE. The SSIM is a structural metric, which compares local patterns of pixels and is not calculated on a per pixel basis.\n\nImplementation {#subsec:implementation}\n--------------\n\nWe follow the multi-scale architecture design of RealNVP [@Dinh.27.05.2016]. After each block, consisting of 6 coupling layers, downsampling is performed. The downsampling is done using the Haar downsampling from [@Ardizzone.742019] and the variant used in [@Jacobsen.2018]. The dimensions have to be permuted after each coupling layer. This is done using the invertible 1x1 convolutions from [@Kingma.792018]. The model is implemented using the library FrEIA[^1]. A conditioning network was used to further extract features from the filtered back-projection. This conditioning network was trained together with the full flow-based model. Details on the implementation can be found in the supplementary material.\n\nLoDoPaB-CT Dataset {#subsec:lodopab}\n------------------\n\nWe evaluate our method on the low-dose parallel beam (LoDoPaB) CT dataset [@leuschner2019lodopabct], which contains over two-dimensional CT images and corresponding simulated low photon count measurements. The ground truth images $x^{\\delta_1}$ are human chest CT reconstructions from the LIDC/IDRI database [@armato2011lidc_idri], cropped to $\\num{362}\\times\\num{362}$ pixels. Projections are computed using parallel beam geometry with angles and beams. Poisson noise is applied to model a low photon count ($\\mu_2$ in Section \\[sec:probSetting\\]).\n\nEvaluation on LoDoPaB-CT\n------------------------\n\nWe have evaluated our model on the LoDoPaB-CT dataset. First we examined the dependence of PSNR and SSIM on the number of samples for the conditional mean. The results are shown in Figure \\[fig:SSIMPSNR\\] (appendix). Both PSNR and SSIM increase with a higher number of samples. This allows for a trade-off between quality of reconstruction and time. For our evaluation we have chosen a conditional mean with 1000 samples. Table \\[tab:results\\_lodopab\\] shows the scores on the test dataset. The comparison includes several classical and deep learning approaches.\n\nThe Filtered Backprojection (FBP), TV regularization and Deep Image Prior (DIP) + TV [@baguer2020computed] work without additional training. The FBP can also be combined with a U-Net, which acts as post-processing network [@jin2017cnn_imaging]. The approach to fully learn the inversion process is followed by the iRadonMap [@he2020iradon]. Learned Primal Dual [@adler2017] and Learned Gradient Descent [@adler2017iterative_nn] are learned iterative schemes.\n\nIn terms of PSNR our model is comparable to other state-of-the-art deep learning approaches, despite not explicitly trained to minimize the MSE between the prediction and the ground truth images. Regarding the SSIM our model outperforms all other approaches. This further underlines our hypothesis that using the more flexible flow objective enable to incorporate structural properties.\n\nConclusion {#sec:conclusion}\n==========\n\nWe have investigated how flow-based models can be applied as a conditional density estimator for the reconstruction of low-dose CT images. Using this generative approach, we were able to obtain high-quality reconstructions that outperformed all other deep learning approaches in terms of structural similarity. So far only coupling-based INNs were used, but future work should explore other architectures such as i-ResNets [@Behrmann.] for this conditional density estimation task. Furthermore, our hybrid approach that integrates the physical model into the conditioning could enable the use of more advanced reconstruction algorithms. Thus, conditional flows are a promising avenue for statistical model-based inverse problems such as CT reconstruction.\n\nAcknowledgements {#sec:acknowledgements}\n================\n\nJohannes Leuschner and Maximilian Schmidt acknowledge the support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the framework of GRK 2224/1 \u201c$\\pi^3$: Parameter Identification \u2013 Analysis, Algorithms, Applications\u201d.\n\nAppendix\n========\n\nModel Architecture\n------------------\n\nThe model was trained for stochastic gradient steps of batchsize with the Adam-Optimizer [@kingma2014adam] using a weight decay of . The last layer in the subnetworks of each coupling layer is initialized with zero. This initializes the model as a whole with the identity.\n\nA multiscale architecture was used for implementation of the cINN. The model includes 6 resolution levels. After each level a part of the channels is split off and passed on to the output. After each resolution level downsampling is performed. Downsampling was performed using the iRevNet variant [@Jacobsen.2018] as well as the Haar Downsampling by [@Ardizzone.742019]. The input size of the CT-images is $1 \\times 352 \\times 352$. The full cINN was build as follows.\n\n  cINN                                        Output size\n  ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------\n  iRevNet-Downsampling                        $4 \\times 176 \\times 176$\n  level 1 conditional section                 $4 \\times 176 \\times 176$\n  iRevNet-Downsampling                        $16 \\times 88 \\times 88$\n  Split: $8 \\times 88 \\times 88$ to output    $8 \\times 88 \\times 88$\n  level 2 conditional section                 $8 \\times 88 \\times 88$\n  iRevNet-Downsampling                        $32 \\times 44 \\times 44$\n  Split: $16 \\times 44 \\times 44$ to output   $16 \\times 44 \\times 44$\n  level 3 conditional section                 $16 \\times 44 \\times 44$\n  iRevNet-Downsampling                        $64 \\times 22 \\times 22$\n  Split: $32 \\times 22 \\times 22$ to output   $32 \\times 22 \\times 22$\n  level 4 conditional section                 $32 \\times 22 \\times 22$\n  Haar-Downsampling                           $128 \\times 11 \\times 11$\n  Split: $96 \\times 11 \\times 11$ to output   $32 \\times 11 \\times 11$\n  level 5 conditional section                 $32 \\times 11 \\times 11$\n  Split: $28 \\times 11 \\times 11$ to output   $4 \\times 11 \\times 11$\n  level 6 Dense-conditional section           $484$\n\nA conditioning network was used to extract features from the conditional input. Similar to the cINN, this network consists of 6 resolution levels. The output from the resolution level of the conditioning network is used as the conditioning input for the respective resolution level in the cINN. If not specified otherwise, a kernel size of $k=3$ is used. In addition, batch normalization (BN) is applied.\n\n  Conv2d: $1 \\rightarrow 3$, stride=2 + LeakyReLU\n  -----------------------------------------------------------\n  Conv2d: $32 \\rightarrow 64$ + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $64 \\rightarrow 128$ + BN + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $128 \\rightarrow 64$ + BN + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $64 \\rightarrow 32$ + BN + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $32 \\rightarrow 4$ + BN ($\\rightarrow$ level $1$)\n\n  LeakyRelu\n  -----------------------------------------------------------\n  Conv2d: $4 \\rightarrow 32$, stride=2 + BN + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $32 \\rightarrow 32$ (k=1) + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $32 \\rightarrow 32$ + BN + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $32 \\rightarrow 8$ + BN ($\\rightarrow$ level $2$)\n\n  LeakyRelu\n  ------------------------------------------------------------\n  Conv2d: $8 \\rightarrow 32 $ (k=1) + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $32 \\rightarrow 64$, stride = 2+ LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $64 \\rightarrow 16$ + BN ($\\rightarrow$ level $3$)\n\n  LeakyRelu\n  ------------------------------------------------------------\n  Conv2d: $16 \\rightarrow 64 $ (k=1) + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $64 \\rightarrow 64$, stride = 2+ LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $64 \\rightarrow 32$ + BN ($\\rightarrow$ level $4$)\n\n  LeakyRelu\n  -------------------------------------------------------------------\n  Conv2d: $32\\rightarrow 96 $ (k=1) + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $96 \\rightarrow 128$, stride = 2+ LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $128 \\rightarrow 32$ (k=1) + BN ($\\rightarrow$ level $5$)\n\n  LeakyRelu\n  ----------------------------------------------------------\n  Conv2d: $32\\rightarrow 64 $, stride=2 + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $64 \\rightarrow 256$, stride = 2+ LeakyReLU\n  Average Pooling + Flatten + BN ($\\rightarrow$ level $6$)\n\nTo implement the subnetworks in the coupling layers a CNN variant and a fully connected variant were used. The input channels are denoted by $c_{in}$ and the output channels by $c_{out}$.\n\n  CNN-subnetwork (k=1) or (k=3)\n  ----------------------------------------------\n  Conv2d: $c_{in}\\rightarrow 64 $, + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $64 \\rightarrow 92$ + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $92 \\rightarrow c_{out}$\n\n  Dense-subnetwork\n  ----------------------------------------------\n  Dense: $c_{in}\\rightarrow 512 $, + LeakyReLU\n  Dense: $512 \\rightarrow 512$ + LeakyReLU\n  Dense: $512 \\rightarrow c_{out}$\n\nUsing this two variants of subnetworks the conditional sections are implemented as follows.\n\n[|l|l|]{}\\\nCoupling (CNN-subnet k=1) &\\\nGlow $1 \\times 1$ convolution &\\\nCoupling (CNN-subnet k=3) &\\\nGlow $1 \\times 1$ convolution &\\\n\n[|l|l|]{}\\\nRandom permutation &\\\nDense-subnetwork &\\\n\nAfter each downsampling a small unconditioned subnetwork is used:\n\n  CNN-subnetwork (without conditional input)\n  ---------------------------------------------------\n  Conv2d: $c_{in}\\rightarrow 64$ (k=1), + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $64 \\rightarrow 64$ (k=1) + LeakyReLU\n  Conv2d: $64 \\rightarrow c_{out}$ (k=1)\n\nThe downsampling section is built as follows:\n\n  Downsample section (Haar or iRevNet)\n  -----------------------------------------\n  Haar or iRevNet downsampling\n  Glow $1 \\times 1$ convolution\n  Coupling (unconditional CNN-subnetwork)\n  Glow $1 \\times 1$ convolution\n  Coupling (unconditional CNN-subnetwork)\n\nEvaluation of the Conditional Mean\n----------------------------------\n\nWe have used the conditional mean as a reconstruction for the CT image. Figure \\[fig:SSIMPSNR\\] shows the performance in relation to the number of samples used.\n\n![ PSNR and SSIM for the validation set of the LoDoPaB-CT dataset. The PSNR is colored in red and the SSIM is colored in blue.[]{data-label=\"fig:SSIMPSNR\"}](figures/PSNR_SSIM_bySample.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nAdditional Examples\n-------------------\n\n![image](figures/Reconstruction.pdf) \\[fig:Reconstruction2\\]\n\n[^1]: https://github.com/VLL-HD/FrEIA\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We use the complexity equals action proposal to calculate the rate of complexity growth for field theories that are the holographic duals of asymptotically flat spacetimes. To this aim, we evaluate the on-shell action of asymptotically flat spacetime on the Wheeler-DeWitt patch. This results in the same expression as can be found by taking the flat-space limit from the corresponding formula related to the asymptotically AdS spacetimes. For the bulk dimensions that are greater than three, the rate of complexity growth at late times approaches from above to Lloyd\u2019s bound. However, for the three-dimensional bulks, this rate is a constant and differs from Lloyd\u2019s bound by a logarithmic term.'\n---\n\n``\n\n****\n\n[Reza Fareghbal, Pedram Karimi ]{}\n\n[*Department of Physics, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., Evin, Tehran 19839, Iran.* ]{}\\\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIt was proposed in [@Bagchi:2010zz; @Bagchi:2012cy] that the holographic dual of asymptotically flat spacetimes in $d+1$ dimensions is a $d$-dimensional field theory that has BMS symmetry. These field theories are known as BMSFT. From the point of view of the bulk theory, BMS symmetry is the asymptotic symmetry of the asymptotically flat spacetimes [@BMS]-[@aspects]. In three and four dimensions these symmetries are infinite dimensional. In the one-dimension lower boundary theory, this symmetry is given by contraction of conformal symmetry. In this view, one can study flat-space holography by starting from AdS/CFT and takeing the appropriate limit. The flat-space limit of the bulk theory corresponds to the ultrarelativistic limit of the boundary CFT [@Bagchi:2012cy].\n\nSince BMS symmetry is infinite dimensional, it is possible to find the universal aspects of BMSFTs that are independent of the action and details of the theory. In [@Bagchi:2012xr], a Cardy-like formula has been proposed for BMSFT$_2$. This formula gives an estimation for the degeneracy of the states of this field theory. The interesting point is that this formula yields the entropy of three-dimensional flat space cosmology (FSC), which is given by taking the flat space limit from the BTZ black holes. The universal structure of the correlation functions of BMSFT$_2$ and BMSFT$_3$ has been studied in [@Bagchi:2015wna]-[@Fareghbal:2018xii]. The entanglement entropy formula and also the holographic interpretation of this formula in the context of flat/BMSFT have been studied in [@Bagchi:2014iea]-[@Hijano:2018nhq] . In all of the above mentioned works, the calculations that are done in asymptotically flat spacetimes nicely fit to the results given by taking the ultrarelativistic limit of CFTs. For an almost complete list of papers related to the flat-space holography see the references of [@Riegler:2017fqv] and [@Prohazka:2017lqb].\n\nAfter the remarkable work of Ryu and Takayanagi [@Ryu:2006bv] (which proposes a holographic description for the entanglement entropy of CFT in the context of AdS/CFT), it seems that we can translate all of the information physics to the gravitational counterpart by the virtue of holography. There are other aspects of information physics that seem natural to find their holographic picture. One of the most important physical quantities in information physics is complexity (see [@complexity; @1; @Aaronson:2016vto] for reviews). The complexity measures the number of gates that are needed to achieve a desirable state from an initial state. There are two different proposals for the holographic complexity. Here, we will focus on the complexity equals action (CA) conjecture that was proposed in [@Brown:2015bva; @Brown:2015lvg]. According to this proposal, the boundary complexity is given by the bulk gravitational action that is evaluated on a region of spacetime known as the Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) path. It is a portion of space-time bounded by null surfaces anchored at the related time on the boundary. There is a different proposal that relates the complexity to the volume of an anchored region [@Stanford:2014jda; @Alishahiha:2015rta; @Barbon:2015ria; @Barbon:2015soa] (complexity=volume (CV) proposal) . Both of these conjectures have been proposed in the context of AdS/CFT correspondence.\n\nIn this paper, we want to use the CA conjecture and calculate the rate of complexity growth in BMSFT by using flat-space holography. As mentioned above, an approach for improving flat-space holography is given by taking the flat-space limit from the AdS/CFT calculations[^1]. The corresponding computation of the rate of complexity growth in the context of AdS/CFT has been done in [@Carmi:2017jqz] (see also [@Cai:2016xho]-[@Moosa:2017yiz]). Therein, the gravitational action is evaluated in the background of eternal two-sided black holes. It was assumed that these geometries are the holographic duals of thermofield double states in the boundary theory [@Maldacena:2001kr].\n\nThe final answer of [@Carmi:2017jqz] for the rate of complexity growth is given in terms of bulk parameters. It is not difficult to take the flat-space limit from these results. One can check that taking the flat-space limit from the results of [@Carmi:2017jqz] yields the following expressions for the rate of complexity growth: [^2]\n\n$$\\label{result for d4}\n\\dot{\\mathcal{C}} = \\frac{1}{\\pi}\\frac{d I}{d \\mu}=\\frac{1}{\\pi}\\left[ 2 M - \\frac{r_M^{d-2} \\Omega_{d-1} (d-1)}{16 \\pi G_{N}  }f(r_M)\\log \\frac{-\\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\\right], \\qquad d\\geq 3,$$\n\n$$\\label{result d3}\n\\dot{\\mathcal{C}}= \\frac{1}{\\pi} \\left( 2 M+ M \\log \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}^2}{8 G_{N} M}\\right), \\qquad d=2.$$\n\nThe parameters appearing in these formulas are explained in section 3. According to flat/BMSFT correspondence, Eq. is the rate of complexity growth for BMSFT$_{d}$, $d \\geq 3$, and Eq. is the same rate for BMSFT$_2$. Our goal in this paper is to directly calculate both of these formulas by using the CA proposal in asymptotically flat spacetimes. The background geometries that we use in this paper are asymptotically flat two-sided black holes in spacetime dimensions greater than three and two-sided FSC in three dimensions. All of these geometries are given by taking the flat-space limit from their corresponding asymptotically AdS counterparts. The on-shell action in the flat case is evaluated on a particular region of spacetime, which is given by the intersection of two WDW patches. The null surfaces bounding these patches are anchored on the future or past null infinity. However, their intersection points meet neither past nor future null infinity. We show that despite the vanishing bulk term in the on-shell action, the results and are deducible from the boundary and joint terms.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows: In section two we start from preliminaries. Section three and four include the main part of our calculations, and we directly evaluate the rate of complexity growth in BMSFTs by using flat space holography in, respectively, $d\\geq 3$ and $d=2$ dimensions. The last section is devoted to discussions.\n\nPreliminaries\n=============\n\nIn this section we use the flat-space holography to compute the rate of complexity growth of BMSFT. We use the CA proposal for BMSFT$_2$ and BMSFT$_3$, which requires computation of the on-shell action for, respectively, three- and four- dimensional asymptotically flat geometries. In this paper we consider static solutions with line element $$ds^2 = - f(r) dt^2+\\frac{dr^2}{f(r)} +r^2 d \\Omega^2_{d-1},$$ where $f(r)=-8 G_N M$ for $d=2$ and for $d\\geq 3$ it is given by $$\\label{schwmet}\nf(r) = 1 - \\frac{\\omega^{d-2}}{r^{d-2}}, \\qquad M= \\frac{d-1}{16 \\pi G_{N}} \\Omega_{d-1} \\omega^{d-2},$$ where M is the mass parameter and $\\Omega_{d-1}$ is the volume of a $(d-1)$-dimensional unit sphere. It will prove convenient to use $(u,r^{\\ast})$ or $(v,r^{\\ast})$ coordinates instead of $(t,r)$ where\n\n$$\\label{tort}\nr^{\\ast}(r) = \\int \\frac{dr}{f(r)},\\qquad v= t + r^{\\ast}, \\qquad u= t-r^{\\ast}.$$\n\n$v$ and $u$ are, respectively, the advanced and retarded times, and $r^{\\ast}$ is the tortoise coordinate. It is important to note here that at $r=r_{h}$ where $r_h$ is the root of $f(r)$, $r^{\\ast}$ gets its minimum value, $$\\label{rmin}\nr^{\\ast}(r_h) = r_{min} \\simeq -\\infty.$$\n\nAccording to the proposal of [@Brown:2015lvg], the complexity of dual theory is given by the gravitational action evaluated on a region of spacetime known as the WDW patch. The WDW patch is given by the union of all the spatial slices anchored at a given boundary time [@Susskind:2014rva]. Here we use this definition and impose it in the flat space. In the flat space, as it was shown in figure 1, the WDW patch is the intersection of spatial slices anchored at future or null infinity. It is clear that the WDW patch in the flat scenario connects to the infinity via the null geodesics and does not reach it. A similar situation happens in the holographic description of the BMSFT entanglement entropy where the minimal surface does not reach the boundary and connects to it via two null geodesics [@Jiang:2017ecm]. Thus our prescription is a natural extension of the WDW patch definition and also is consistent with the holographic description of the entanglement entropy in flat spacetimes.\n\nIn this paper we consider asymptotically flat geometries which are given by taking the flat space limit from the asymptotically AdS eternal two-sided black holes. Thus we have right and left null infinities in the Penrose diagram of these spacetimes. In order to control divergent terms we need to restrict the WDW patch by using some cutoffs. Therefore the boundary of space-time on which the on-shell action must be computed consists of null surfaces besides timelike ones and their joint points. A complete computation requires that we accompany boundary terms to the bulk action. Hence we use the following generic action: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nonumber\nI =& \\frac{1}{16 \\pi G_{N}} \\int_{\\mathcal{M}} d^{d+1} x \\sqrt{-g}~\\mathcal{R}\n\\\\\\nonumber\n &+ \\frac{1}{8 \\pi G_{N}} \\int_{\\mathcal{B}} d x^d  \\sqrt{|h|} ~K + \\frac{1}{8 \\pi G_{N}} \\int _{\\Sigma}d^{d-1}x \\sqrt{\\sigma} ~\\eta\n \\\\\\label{action}\n &+\\frac{1}{8 \\pi G_{N}} \\int_{\\mathcal{B'}} d x^d \\sqrt{\\gamma} ~\\kappa + \\frac{1}{8 \\pi G_{N}} \\int _{\\Sigma}d^{d-1}x \\sqrt{\\sigma} ~a\\end{aligned}$$ The first term is related to the volume of the WDW patch and is vanishing in the flat scenario. The Vanishing of the bulk term in the on-shell action is the most important technical difference between the AdS case and the flat case.\n\nThe second line of action belongs to the non-null boundaries. The first term is known as the Gibbons-Hawking-York (GHY) term in the spacelike and timelike sector of the boundary. The GHY term guarantees a well-defined variation principle with the Dirichlet boundary term. The second term belongs to the joint term that is evaluated at the intersection of two non-null hypersurfaces.\n\nIn the third line, we encounter null hypersurfaces. The null boundary term gained some attention recently. The first term is the counterpart of the GHY term in the null boundary. This term can always be ignored by assuming an affine null parameter. The second term evaluates joint terms in the intersection of two hypersurfaces where at least one of the hypersurfaces is null.\n\nWe use the instruction of [@Carmi:2016wjl] to evaluate terms of . The boundary terms for null hypersurfaces were discussed in several works [@Parattu:2015gga; @Lehner:2016vdi]. The joint terms first introduced by Hayward [@Hayward:1993my] for spacelike and timelike boundaries were extended by [@Lehner:2016vdi] to the null hypersurfaces. It is notable that neither the boundary terms nor the joint terms depends on the cosmological constant. It is worth mentioning that in the context of holographic renormalization the counterterms that cancel the divergent terms in the action are related extremely to the existence of the cosmological constant[@Skenderis:2002wp; @Costa:2013vza]. As [@Costa:2013vza] observed, local counterterms in asymptotically AdS spacetimes become nonlocal in the asymptotically flat spacetimes. To our knowledge, the holographic renormalization of asymptotically flat spacetimes is still an open problem.\n\nUsing we can calculate the terms of . The null boundary term vanishes because we can always choose a null parameter to be affine, and then the null boundary terms in do not contribute to the on-shell action. It remains the GHY term that has its contribution from the timelike or the spacelike surfaces $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{GHYspace}\nI_{GHY}^{spacelike} &= -\\int dt~ \\frac{r^{d-1}~ \\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \\pi G_{N}} \\left( f'(r) +\\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r) \\right)\\Bigg|_{\\text{r=const}},\n\\\\\n\\label{GHYtime}\nI_{GHY}^{timelike} &= \\int dt~ \\frac{r^{d-1} ~\\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \\pi G_{N}} \\left( f'(r) +\\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r) \\right)\\Bigg|_{\\text{r=const}}.\\end{aligned}$$ In our calculation in the rest of this paper, all of the joint terms have at least one null part. Hence, it is adequate to compute the last term of , $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{jointspace}\nI_{J}^{spacelike} &= \\frac{\\Omega_{d-1} ~r^{d-1}}{16 \\pi G_{N}} \\log |f(r)|,\n\\\\\n\\label{jointtime}\nI_{J}^{timelike} &= \\frac{-\\Omega_{d-1}~ r^{d-1}}{16 \\pi G_{N}} \\log |f(r)|,\n\\\\\n\\label{jointnull}\nI_{J}^{null} &= \\frac{-\\Omega_{d-1} ~r^{d-1}}{8 \\pi G_{N}} ~\\text{Sign}(f(r)) ~\\log \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r)|},\\end{aligned}$$ where all of the joint points are labeled by their second non-null leg. The null joint term has an ambiguity due to the normalization constant of the null vectors $\\mathfrak{a}$. This ambiguity is the same as the ambiguity in the AdS case [@Carmi:2017jqz] and reveals the existence of the new length in BMSFT.\n\nBMSFT Complexity Gowth in $d\\geq3$ \n===================================\n\nInitial time\n------------\n\nThe Penrose-Cartan diagram of the asymptotically flat two sided black hole is depicted in figure 1. The region of spacetime on which gravitational action is evaluated is shown by the gray color. We impose some cutoffs to the problem. The first type is a cutoff surface at $r^{\\ast}=\\epsilon_{0}$, which takes place near two singularities. The second type of cutoffs mentioned as UV cutoffs take place at $r^{\\ast}= r_\\text{max}$ near the position of the dual field theories. It is clear from the Penrose-Cartan diagram that the intersection of WDW patches (depicted by gray) never meets UV cutoffs. This is another difference between the computation of the complexity growth in the AdS holography and the flat-space holography.\n\nThe geometry of the Penrose diagram reveals that the boundary times on the left- and right-hand sides are minus each other. We denote the times of relevant points in the null infinities as $$\\begin{aligned}\n{{\\mathscr I}}^{+} \\Rightarrow\\begin{cases}\n                                             \\beta=  u^{+}_{R},\n                                              \\\\\n                                               \\alpha= v^{+}_{L} \n                                             \\end{cases} \\qquad {{\\mathscr I}}^{-} \\Rightarrow\\begin{cases}\n                                             \\lambda= v^{-}_{R},\n                                              \\\\\n                                              \\sigma= u^{-}_{L}.\n                                             \\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$ From now on the indices $\\pm$ refer, respectively, to ${{\\mathscr I}}^+$ and ${{\\mathscr I}}^-$.\n\nIn order to compute the complexity growth, we need to consider evolution of the gray region. Since we want to compare our results with which is given by taking the flat-space limit from the AdS case, we assume that the BMSFT on the right- and left-hand sides develop symmetrically. This requires a symmetric evolution of the advanced and retarded coordinates on the different null infinities as $$u^{+}_{R}= - v^{+}_{L} =\\mu^+,\n\\qquad  v^{-}_{R}= - u^{-}_{L} = \\mu^-.$$\n\nThere is a critical time when the gray region leaves the cutoff near the past singularity. For the simplicity of calculation and avoiding unnecessary shifts in the origin of boundary times, we assume that this cross occurs at $t=0$. The symmetric evolution guarantees that the last crossing point remains permanently on $t=0$. The initial times are those before this time. It is clear from the Penrose diagram that for the symmetric evolution the initial and late times are, respectively, given by $\\mu^{\\pm} < \\mu^{\\pm}_{c}$ and $\\mu^{\\pm} > \\mu^{\\pm}_{c}$ where $$\\label{criticaltime}\n\\mu^+_{c} =- r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0}).$$\n\nAll of the relevant points in the Penrose diagram are collected in the next table:\\\n\n[ |p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[2cm]{}|p[3.7cm]{}| ]{}\n\n\\\n& && [[Sign of $f(r)$]{}]{}\\\nX &$r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0}) - \\mu^-$ & $r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})$ &-\\\nW &$-r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0}) +\\mu^-$ &$r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})$ &-\\\nY &$r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0}) + \\mu^+$ & $r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})$ &-\\\nZ &$-r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0}) - \\mu^+$ &$r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})$ &-\\\nP &$\\frac{-1}{2}( \\mu^+ + \\mu^-)$ &$\\frac{1}{2}( \\mu^- - \\mu^+)$ &+\\\nQ &$\\frac{1}{2}(\\mu^+ + \\mu^-)$ &$\\frac{1}{2}( \\mu^- - \\mu^{+})$ &+\\\n\nIn the calculation of [@Carmi:2017jqz] for the asymptotically AdS black holes the complexity growth is evaluated in the time that is given by adding left and right times. For the asymptotically flat cases, besides left and right development, the lower and upper sides of the WDW path can develop independently. The origin of this difference is that the times of past and future null infinities are given by advanced and retarded times. In order to reproduce the results that are given by taking the flat space limit, we have to consider symmetric evolution on the future and past null infinities. Precisely, we need to calculate the rate of complexity growth with respect to $\\mu$ where $$\\label{symmetricquantity}\n  \\mu^+ = \\mu^- + \\chi,  \\qquad \\mu^+ +\\mu^- =\\mu,$$ where $\\chi$ is a constant. In Appendix A we calculate the nonsymmetric evolution by considering the $\\mu^+ = \\gamma \\mu^-+\\chi$ case. The results of taking the flat space limit are given when $\\gamma=1$.\n\nAt this point, we have all of the requirements to evaluate on-shell action for the gray part of figure 1. There are six different GHY terms and four different joint terms:\n\n\\[fig:fig1\\]\n\n![ Initial time for $d>3$. Gravitational action is evaluated on the gray region. ](a1.png)\n\n-   Both of the surfaces at $r^{\\ast}=\\epsilon_{0}$ are spacelike. Using we find $$\\begin{aligned}\n    I_{GHY}^{XW} &=   \\frac{-r^{d-1} ~\\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \\pi G_{n}} ~\\left( f'(r) +\\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r) \\right) ~\\left(t(W)-t(X)\\right),\n    \\\\\n    I_{GHY}^{YZ} &=   \\frac{-r^{d-1} ~\\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \\pi G_{n}} ~\\left( f'(r) +\\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r) \\right) ~\\left(t(Z)-t(Y)\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Summing these two terms results in the contribution of $r^{\\ast} = r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})$ surfaces, $$I_{GHY}^{sing}= \\frac{r^{d-1} ~\\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \\pi G_{n}} ~\\left( f'(r) +\\frac{2(d-1)}{r} f(r)\\right) ~ (4 r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})+ 2 \\mu^+-2\\mu^-).$$ Using and we have $$\\frac{d I_\\text{GHY}^\\text{sing}}{d \\mu}=0.$$ Thus, in the symmetric case, the GHY terms of the near singularities cancel each other and are independent of the boundary time.\n\n-   Null joint terms take place at $P$ and $Q$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{pointP}\n    I_{J}^{P} &= \\frac{-\\Omega_{d-1}~ r_P^{d-1}}{8 \\pi G_{N}} ~\\log \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r_P)|},\n    \\\\\n    \\label{pointQ}\n    I_{J}^{Q} &= \\frac{-\\Omega_{d-1} ~r_Q^{d-1}}{8 \\pi G_{N}} ~\\log \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r_Q)|}.\\end{aligned}$$ Using $r_P^{\\ast}=r_Q^{\\ast}=0$ and we have $\\frac{d~ r_P}{d \\mu}=\\frac{d~ r_Q}{d \\mu}=0$. Therefore the time derivative of null-joint terms at these points vanishes $$\\frac{d I_{J}^\\text{null}}{d \\mu}=0.$$\n\n-   There are four spacelike joint terms. All of these joint terms take place near the singularities and are independent of the boundary time $$\\begin{aligned}\n    I_{J}^{X}&= \\frac{\\Omega_{d-1}~ r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon)^{d-1}}{16 \\pi G_{N}} ~\\log \\big| f(r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon))\\big|,\n    \\\\\n    I_{J}^{W}&=I_{J}^{Y}=I_{J}^{Z}=I_{J}^{X}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nPutting all together we find $$\\frac{d I}{d \\mu}=0 \\Rightarrow \\dot{\\mathcal{C}}=0.$$ Hence the rate of complexity growth for the initial time is zero.\n\nLate time\n---------\n\nFor the late times that are after critical time , the Penrose diagram is depicted in figure 2. Similar to the initial time we want to calculate on-shell action in a region of spacetime that is determined by the gray area in figure 2. This region is still the intersection of four WDW patches with UV and IR cutoffs. The distinct difference with the initial time is that the cutoff surface at the past singularity does not exist, and we have to consider the null joint term in the action at a new point $M$:\n\n\\[fig:a1\\]\n\n![ Late time for $d>3$. Gravitational action is evaluated on the gray region.](a2.png)\n\n-   The only GHY term that contributes to our problem takes place near the future singularity $$\\label{GHYlate}\n    I_{GHY}^{sing}=\\frac{\\Omega_{d-1} ~d ~\\omega^{d-2}}{16 \\pi G_{N}}~ (\\mu - \\chi)$$\n\n-   The contribution of points $P$ and $Q$ is similar to the initial time, and it is vanishing.\n\n-   For the null joint term at point $M$ we have $$\\label{jointM}\n    I_{J}^{null}(M) =  \\frac{r_M^{d-1} ~\\Omega_{d-1}}{8 \\pi G_{N}} \\log  \\left| \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)} \\right|$$ It is assumed that $t(M)=0$ at this point, which yields $r ^{\\ast}(M)=-\\mu^+ = -\\frac{\\mu+\\chi}{2}$. The sign of $f(r_M)$ is negative, and using it is not hard to find $$\\label{mtime}\n    \\frac{d r_M}{d \\mu} = -\\frac{ f(r_M)}{2}.$$ Using the previous equation we find $$\\frac{d I_{J}^\\text{null}(M)}{d\\mu} = \\frac{r_M^{d-2} ~\\Omega_{d-1}  }{16 \\pi G_{N}} \\left( r_M ~f'(r_M)-(d-1)f(r_M) \\log \\frac{-\\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\\right).$$ Using we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{pointM}\n    \\frac{d I_{J}^\\text{null}(M)}{d\\mu} = \\frac{(d-2) ~\\omega^{d-2}~ \\Omega_{d-1}}{16 \\pi G_{N}}-\\frac{r_M^{d-2} ~\\Omega_{d-1} }{8 \\pi G_{N}} \\left((d-1)~f(r_M) ~\\log \\frac{-\\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Using , the boundary contribution is given by $$\\label{lateboundary}\n    \\frac{d I_\\text{GHY}^\\text{sing}(M)}{d\\mu} =\\frac{\\Omega_{d-1} ~d ~\\omega^{d-2}}{16 \\pi G_{N}}.$$ Finally, the rate of complexity growth in the flat case can be found by adding the last two terms and , $$\\label{Scwlate}\n    \\dot{\\mathcal{C}} = \\frac{1}{\\pi}\\frac{d I}{d \\mu}=\\frac{1}{\\pi}\\left[ 2 M - \\frac{r_M^{d-2} ~\\Omega_{d-1} (d-1)}{16 \\pi G_{N}  }~f(r_M)\\log \\frac{-\\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\\right]$$ This is exactly which is given by taking the flat-space limit.\n\nIn the symmetric evolution $r_M$ is always less than the horizon radius and $-\\infty<f(r_M)<0$. Using this fact, we find that $\\dot{\\mathcal{C}}$ given by starts from $-\\infty$ and increases to a maximum value that is greater than $2M/\\pi$ but finally at late times approaches $2M/\\pi$. In this view, the Lloyd\u2019s bound [@Lloyd:limit; @Margolus:1997ih] is approached from above for all values of parameter $\\mathfrak{a}$.\n\n### Numerical results for the Schwarzschild black hole\n\nIn this subsection we present the numerical analysis of the complexity growth for the four-dimensional Schwarzschild metric. The critical time in this case can be found through the relations , and , $$\\mu_c = -\\omega \\log( \\omega ).$$ $r_M$ can be calculated using where for $d=3$ we have $$r_{M} + \\omega ~\\log ( r_{M} - \\omega ) = -\\frac{\\mu+\\chi }{2}.$$ Using this equation we find $r_M$ as $$r_{M} = \\omega ~\\left( 1 + W\\left( \\frac{-1}{\\omega ~e^{1+ \\frac{\\mu + \\chi}{2\\omega}}}\\right ) \\right),$$ where $W$ is the Lambert $W$ function. The rate of complexity growth at late time can be read from by putting $d=3$, $$\\dot{\\mathcal{C}} =\\frac{1}{\\pi}\\left( 2 M - \\frac{r_{M}}{2 G_{N}} f(r_M) \\log \\frac{-\\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\\right).$$ For a fixed value of horizon parameter $\\omega$ but different values of $\\mathfrak{a}$ the complexity growth with respect to the boundary time is plotted in figure 3. For all values of the parameters, the rate of the complexity growth at late time approaches Lloyd\u2019s bound [@Lloyd:limit; @Margolus:1997ih] from above.\n\n![The rate of complexity growth for different $\\mathfrak{a}$.](gr2)\n\n BMSFT Complexity Growth in $d=2$\n=================================\n\nAsymptotically flat black hole solutions, which were studied in the previous section, are given by taking the flat-space limit from the asymptotically AdS black holes. In the three-dimensional Einstein gravity, there is no black hole solution [@Ida:2000jh]. The flat space limit of BTZ black holes are three-dimensional cosmological spacetimes [@Cornalba:2002fi; @Cornalba:2003kd]. These solutions, which are known as flat space cosmology (FSC), have recently been studied in the context of flat-space holography [@Bagchi:2012xr; @Barnich:2012xq]. In this section, we find the exact formula for the growth rate of the BMSFT complexity in $d=2$ [^3]. To do so, we apply the CA conjecture for the nonrotating FSC given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{FSCmetric}\nds^2 &= \\hat{r}_{+}^2 d t^2 - \\frac{d r^2}{\\hat{r}_{+}^2} +r^2 d \\phi^2,\n\\\\\nM&=\\frac{\\hat{r}_{+}^2}{8 G_{N}},\\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ is the mass parameter. For this metric the tortoise coordinate is given by $$\\label{tortoisefsc}\nr^{\\ast} = - \\frac{r}{\\hat{r}_{+}^2}.$$ The Penrose-Cartan diagram of FSC has been shown in figure 4. We note that all of the $r=\\text{const}$ surfaces are spacelike in FSC. Similar to the higher dimensional cases, we impose a symmetric dynamic for the right- and left-hand sides of the Penrose-Cartan diagram. The necessary information for all of the relevant points in FSC are collected in the following table:\n\n[ |p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[2cm]{}|p[3.7cm]{}| ]{}\\\nPoint name & $t$ &$r ^{\\ast}$ & Sign of $f(r)$\\\nX &$r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0}) - \\mu^-$ & $r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})$ &-\\\nW &$-r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0}) + \\mu^-$ &$r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})$ &-\\\nY &$r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0}) + \\mu^+$ &$r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})$ &-\\\nZ &$-r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0}) - \\mu^{+}$ &$r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_{0})$ &-\\\n\nThe bulk action and also the boundary terms and the joint terms are exactly the same as in . The definition of the initial and the late times are also the same as for higher dimensional cases.\n\nInitial time\n------------\n\n\\[fig:22\\]\n\n![Initial time for FSC. Gravitational action is evaluated on the gray region.](FSCI.png)\n\nThe GHY term for the spacelike surfaces in the FSC are $$I_{GHY}^{FSC}= \\int \\frac{\\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} dt \\Bigg{|}_{r^{\\ast} = \\text{const}}.$$ For the surfaces near $r^{\\ast} = \\epsilon_{0}$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nI_{GHY}(WX) &= \\frac{\\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} \\left( t(W)- t(X)\\right ),\n\\\\ \nI_{GHY}(ZY) &= \\frac{\\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} \\left( t(Z)- t(Y)\\right ).\\end{aligned}$$ Adding these two terms yields $$I_{GHY}^{sing} = \\frac{\\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}}\\left ( -4 r^{\\ast}(\\epsilon_0) + 2 \\mu^- -2 \\mu^+ \\right).$$ Hence for the symmetric evolution where $\\mu^+ - \\mu^-$ is fixed, the rate of complexity growth for the initial time vanishes, $$\\dot{\\mathcal{C}}_{initial}^{FSC} = 0.$$\n\nLate time\n---------\n\n\\[fig:22\\]\n\n![Late time for FSC. Gravitational action is evaluated on the gray region.](FSCL.png)\n\nAt the late time a new null joint term appears at the point $M$ (Figure 5). At this point $t(M)=0$, $r ^{\\ast}(M)=- \\mu^+$, and the sign of $f(r_M)$ is negative. Thus we have $$\\frac{d I_{J}(M)}{d \\mu^+} = -\\frac{\\hat{r}_{+}^2}{8 G} \\log |\\frac{\\hat{r}_{+}}{\\mathfrak{a}}|.$$ Imposing the symmetric evolution, $$\\mu^+ - \\mu^- = \\text{const}, \\qquad \\mu^+ + \\mu^-={\\mu},$$ the complexity growth at the late time is found, $$\\label{final FSC}\n\\dot{\\mathcal{C}}=\\frac{1}{\\pi}\\frac{d I}{d \\mu} = \\frac{1}{\\pi} \\left( \\frac{\\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} + \\frac{\\hat{r}_{+}^2}{4 G_{N}} \\log |\\frac{\\mathfrak{a}}{\\hat{r}_{+}}|\\right).$$ We can rewrite in terms of the FSC mass as $$\\dot{\\mathcal{C}}= \\frac{1}{\\pi} \\left( 2 M+ M \\log \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}^2}{8 G_{N} M}\\right).$$ It is a constant and differs from Lloyd\u2019s bound by a logarithmic term. This result is exactly the same as , which is given by taking the flat space limit. Similar to the higher dimensional cases, $\\mathfrak{a}$ is a new length parameter in the field theory. However, if we demand that Lloyd\u2019s bound [@Lloyd:limit] is not violated, then $\\mathfrak{a}$ must be restricted by $\\mathfrak{a}< \\hat{r}^{+}$.\n\nDiscussion \n===========\n\nIn this paper we calculate the rate of complexity growth for BMSFT$_d$. Our main goal is generalizing the CA proposal for the flat/BMSFT correspondence. To do so, we need to define a portion of spacetime in which the gravitational action is evaluated. Since the final formulas for the growth rate are simply given by taking the flat space limit from the AdS/CFT calculation, we can check the results of various potential regions. Our main achievement in this paper is that the evaluation of the gravitational action must be done on a region that is given by the intersection of four WDW patches. The boundary of two of these patches connects past singularity to the future one by crossing from past null infinity. The boundary of other patches starts from past null infinity and using future null infinity eventually reaches to the future singularity. Using this portion of spacetime we show that the rate of complexity growth is zero for the initial times and for the late times is exactly the same as what one finds by taking the flat-space limit from the AdS/CFT calculation.\n\nDespite CFT$_2$, the rate of complexity growth is a constant for the BMSFT$_2$ and differs from Lloyd\u2019s bound [@Lloyd:limit] by a logarithmic term. In higher dimensions, this rate is not a constant and approaches Lloyd\u2019s bound from above. This result is similar to the higher dimensional asymptotically AdS black holes and different from the Lifshitz and the hyperscaling violating geometries that this bound has violated [@Alishahiha:2018tep]. This shows that although BMSFTs are ultrarelativistic theories, they are more similar to the relativistic theories than to the nonrelativistic ones.\n\nThe idea presented in this paper for the definition of the suggested spacetime region on which the gravitational action is evaluated may help us to study the complexity of formation [@Brown:2015bva; @Brown:2015lvg; @Chapman:2016hwi] in the context of flat/BMSFT correspondence. This is a potentional open problem that could be addressed in future works.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThe authors thank S.\u00a0M.\u00a0Hosseini and Sh. Karimi for useful comments on the manuscript. We are also grateful to M.\u00a0R.\u00a0Mohammadi Mozaffar, A.\u00a0Faraji Astaneh and Yang Run Qiu for the useful comments. We have used xAct [@xAct] and its package[@Nutma:2013zea] during this work and for Penrose-Cartan diagrams we have used the code by E. Gourgoulhon [@sage].\n\n Non-symmetric evolutions in past and future null infinities\n============================================================\n\nIn this appendix, we discuss the nonsymmetric scenario when the boundary times on future and past null infinities develop individually. We show the parameter that render nonsymmetricity by $\\gamma$. Hence we define $$\\mu^+ = \\gamma \\mu^- + \\chi  \\qquad \\mu^+ + \\mu^- =\\mu,$$ where $\\chi$ is a constant. Using nonsymmetric parametrization, the rate of complexity growth is given by $$\\label{deriv}\n\\dot{\\mathcal{C}}=\\frac{1}{\\pi}\\left(\\frac{d I}{d \\mu}\\right) = \\frac{1}{\\pi}\\left(\\frac{\\gamma}{1+\\gamma}\\frac{d I}{d \\mu^+}  + \\frac{1}{1+\\gamma}\\frac{d I}{d \\mu^-}\\right).$$\n\nA1 Initial time {#a1-initial-time .unnumbered}\n---------------\n\nIn this case the GHY terms near the singularities change as $$I_{GHY}^{sing}=\\frac{\\Omega_{d-1} ~d~ \\omega^{d-2}}{8 \\pi G_{N}}\\left( \\mu^{-} - \\mu^+\\right).$$ Using the fact that $r_P=r_Q$ and also and the null joint terms become $$I_{J}^{null} = -\\frac{\\Omega_{d-1} ~(r_P )^{d-1}}{4 \\pi G_{N}} \\log \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r_P)|}.$$ Using the definition of the tortoise coordinate , one can find $$\\frac{d r_P}{d \\mu^+}= \\frac{-f(r_P)}{2}, \\qquad \\frac{d r_P}{d \\mu^-}= \\frac{f(r_P)}{2}.$$ Hence we find the rate of complexity growth for nonsymmetric boundary times as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\dot{\\mathcal{C}} =\\frac{1}{\\pi} ~\\frac{d I}{d \\mu}=\\frac{1-\\gamma}{1+\\gamma} ~\\frac{1}{\\pi} ~ \\left(4 M+ \\frac{\\Omega_{d-1} ~(d-1)~r_P^{d-2}}{8 \\pi G_{N}} f(r_P) ~\\log \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_P)}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that for the symmetric case, i.e., $\\gamma=1$, the growth rate is zero.\n\nA2 Late time {#a2-late-time .unnumbered}\n------------\n\nNow the boundary term near the future singularity results in $$\\label{GHYlateap}\nI_{GHY}^{sing}=\\frac{\\Omega_{d-1} ~d~ \\omega^{d-2}}{8 \\pi G_{N}}( \\mu^-).$$ The contribution of the joint terms at $P$ and $Q$ is similar to the initial time where we have $$I_{J}^{null} = -\\frac{\\Omega_{d-1} ~r_P ^{d-1}}{4 \\pi G_{N}} \\log \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}^2}{|f(r_P)|}.$$ The contribution of the null-joint term at point $M$ is given by . Using it is not hard to find that for the nonsymmetric case we have $$\\frac{d r_M}{d \\mu^+} = -f(r_M).$$ Hence we find $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d I_{J}^\\text{null}(M)}{d \\mu^+} = \\frac{(d-2) ~\\omega^{d-2} ~\\Omega_{d-1}}{8 \\pi G_{N}}-\\frac{r_M^{d-2}~\\Omega_{d-1}}{8 \\pi G_{N}} ~\\left((d-1)f(r_M) \\log \\frac{-\\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Finally using we find the rate of complexity growth as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nonumber\\dot{\\mathcal{C}} =  \\frac{1}{\\pi} ~\\Big[ \\frac{4 M}{1+\\gamma}  &- \\frac{r_M^{d-2}~ \\Omega_{d-1}}{8 \\pi G_{N}} \\frac{\\gamma}{1+\\gamma}~(d-1)f(r_M) \\log \\frac{-\\mathfrak{a}^2}{f(r_M)} \n\\\\\n&+\\frac{1-\\gamma}{1+\\gamma} \\frac{\\Omega_{d-1} ~(d-1)~r_P^{d-2}}{8 \\pi G_{N}} f(r_P) \\log \\frac{\\mathfrak{a}    ^2}{f(r_P)} \\Big].\\end{aligned}$$ For $\\gamma=1$ the result is exactly the same as the symmetric case. Moreover, in the nonsymmetric case, the complexity growth depends not only on $r_M$ but also on $r_P$.\n\nA.\u00a0Bagchi, \u201cCorrespondence between Asymptotically Flat Spacetimes and Nonrelativistic Conformal Field Theories,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0 [**105**]{}, 171601 (2010). A.\u00a0Bagchi, \u201cThe BMS/GCA correspondence,\u201d arXiv:1006.3354 \\[hep-th\\]. A.\u00a0Bagchi and R.\u00a0Fareghbal, \u201cBMS/GCA Redux: Towards Flatspace Holography from Non-Relativistic Symmetries,\u201d \\[arXiv:1203.5795 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nH.\u00a0Bondi, M.\u00a0G. van\u00a0der Burg, and A.\u00a0W. Metzner, \u201cGravitational waves in general relativity. 7. [W]{}aves from axisymmetric isolated systems,\u201d [ *Proc.\u00a0Roy.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0Lond. A*]{} [**269**]{} (1962) 21. R.\u00a0K. Sachs, \u201cGravitational waves in general relativity. 8. [W]{}aves in asymptotically flat space-times,\u201d [*Proc.\u00a0Roy.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0Lond.\u00a0A*]{} [ **270**]{} (1962) 103. R.\u00a0K. Sachs, \u201cAsymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory,\u201d [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**128**]{} (1962) 2851.\n\nA.\u00a0Ashtekar, J.\u00a0Bicak and B.\u00a0G.\u00a0Schmidt, \u201cAsymptotic structure of symmetry reduced general relativity,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**55**]{}, 669 (1997) \\[gr-qc/9608042\\].\n\nG.\u00a0Barnich and G.\u00a0Compere, \u201cClassical central extension for asymptotic symmetries at null infinity in three spacetime dimensions,\u201d Class.\u00a0Quant.\u00a0Grav.\u00a0 [**24**]{}, F15 (2007) \\[gr-qc/0610130\\].\n\nG.\u00a0Barnich and C.\u00a0Troessaert, \u201cSymmetries of asymptotically flat 4 dimensional spacetimes at null infinity revisited,\u201d arXiv:0909.2617 \\[gr-qc\\].\n\nG.\u00a0Barnich and C.\u00a0Troessaert, \u201cAspects of the BMS/CFT correspondence,\u201d JHEP [**1005**]{}, 062 (2010) \\[arXiv:1001.1541 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Bagchi, S.\u00a0Detournay, R.\u00a0Fareghbal and J.\u00a0Sim\u00f3n, \u201cHolography of 3D Flat Cosmological Horizons,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0 [**110**]{}, no. 14, 141302 (2013) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.141302 \\[arXiv:1208.4372 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Bagchi, D.\u00a0Grumiller and W.\u00a0Merbis, \u201cStress tensor correlators in three-dimensional gravity,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**93**]{}, no. 6, 061502 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.061502 \\[arXiv:1507.05620 \\[hep-th\\]\\]. M.\u00a0Asadi, O.\u00a0Baghchesaraei and R.\u00a0Fareghbal, \u201cStress tensor correlators of CCFT$_2$ using flat-space holography,\u201d Eur.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0J.\u00a0C [**77**]{}, no. 11, 737 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5333-4 \\[arXiv:1701.00063 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nO.\u00a0Baghchesaraei, R.\u00a0Fareghbal and Y.\u00a0Izadi, \u201cFlat-Space Holography and Stress Tensor of Kerr Black Hole,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**760**]{}, 713 (2016) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.07.062 \\[arXiv:1603.04137 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nR.\u00a0Fareghbal and I.\u00a0Mohammadi, \u201cFlat-space Holography and Correlators of Robinson-Trautman Stress tensor,\u201d arXiv:1802.05445 \\[hep-th\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Bagchi, R.\u00a0Basu, D.\u00a0Grumiller and M.\u00a0Riegler, Entanglement entropy in Galilean conformal field theories and flat holography, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0 [**114**]{}, no. 11, 111602 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.111602 arXiv:1410.4089 \\[hep-th\\].\n\nS.\u00a0M.\u00a0Hosseini and \u00c1.\u00a0V\u00e9liz-Osorio, Gravitational anomalies, entanglement entropy, and flat-space holography, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**93**]{}, no. 4, 046005 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.046005 arXiv:1507.06625 \\[hep-th\\].\n\nR.\u00a0Basu and M.\u00a0Riegler, Wilson Lines and holographic entanglement entropy in galilean conformal field theories, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**93**]{}, no. 4, 045003 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.045003 arXiv:1511.08662 \\[hep-th\\].\n\nH.\u00a0Jiang, W.\u00a0Song and Q.\u00a0Wen, \u201cEntanglement Entropy in Flat Holography,\u201d JHEP [**1707**]{}, 142 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2017)142 \\[arXiv:1706.07552 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nR.\u00a0Fareghbal and P.\u00a0Karimi, \u201cLogarithmic Correction to BMSFT Entanglement Entropy,\u201d Eur.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0J.\u00a0C [**78**]{}, no. 3, 267 (2018) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5760-x \\[arXiv:1709.01804 \\[hep-th\\]\\]. E.\u00a0Hijano and C.\u00a0Rabideau, \u201cHolographic entanglement and Poincar\u00e9 blocks in three-dimensional flat space,\u201d JHEP [**1805**]{}, 068 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2018)068 \\[arXiv:1712.07131 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nM.\u00a0Asadi and R.\u00a0Fareghbal, \u201cHolographic Calculation of BMSFT Mutual and 3-partite Information,\u201d arXiv:1802.06618 \\[hep-th\\].\n\nE.\u00a0Hijano, \u201cSemi-classical BMS$_3$ blocks and flat holography,\u201d arXiv:1805.00949 \\[hep-th\\]. M.\u00a0Riegler and C.\u00a0Zwikel, \u201cCanonical Charges in Flatland,\u201d PoS Modave [**2017**]{}, 004 (2018) doi:10.22323/1.323.0004 \\[arXiv:1709.09871 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nS.\u00a0Prohazka and M.\u00a0Riegler, \u201cHigher Spins Without (Anti-)de Sitter,\u201d Universe [**4**]{}, no. 1, 20 (2018) doi:10.3390/universe4010020 \\[arXiv:1710.11105 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nS.\u00a0Ryu and T.\u00a0Takayanagi, \u201cHolographic derivation of entanglement entropy from AdS/CFT,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0 [**96**]{}, 181602 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.181602 \\[hep-th/0603001\\].\n\nJ. Watrous, \u201cQuantum Computational Complexity,\u201d pp 7174-7201 in Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science, ed., R. A. Meyers (Springer, 2009) quant-ph/0804.3401.\n\nS.\u00a0Aaronson, \u201cThe Complexity of Quantum States and Transformations: From Quantum Money to Black Holes,\u201d arXiv:1607.05256 \\[quant-ph\\].\n\nA.\u00a0R.\u00a0Brown, D.\u00a0A.\u00a0Roberts, L.\u00a0Susskind, B.\u00a0Swingle and Y.\u00a0Zhao, \u201cHolographic Complexity Equals Bulk Action?,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0 [**116**]{}, no. 19, 191301 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.191301 \\[arXiv:1509.07876 \\[hep-th\\]\\]. A.\u00a0R.\u00a0Brown, D.\u00a0A.\u00a0Roberts, L.\u00a0Susskind, B.\u00a0Swingle and Y.\u00a0Zhao, \u201cComplexity, action, and black holes,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**93**]{}, no. 8, 086006 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.086006 \\[arXiv:1512.04993 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nD.\u00a0Stanford and L.\u00a0Susskind, \u201cComplexity and Shock Wave Geometries,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**90**]{}, no. 12, 126007 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.126007 \\[arXiv:1406.2678 \\[hep-th\\]\\]. M.\u00a0Alishahiha, \u201cHolographic Complexity,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**92**]{}, no. 12, 126009 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.126009 \\[arXiv:1509.06614 \\[hep-th\\]\\]. J.\u00a0L.\u00a0F.\u00a0Barbon and E.\u00a0Rabinovici, \u201cHolographic complexity and spacetime singularities,\u201d JHEP [**1601**]{}, 084 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2016)084 \\[arXiv:1509.09291 \\[hep-th\\]\\]. J.\u00a0L.\u00a0F.\u00a0Barbon and J.\u00a0Martin-Garcia, \u201cHolographic Complexity Of Cold Hyperbolic Black Holes,\u201d JHEP [**1511**]{}, 181 (2015) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2015)181 \\[arXiv:1510.00349 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nL.\u00a0Susskind, \u201cEntanglement is not enough,\u201d Fortsch.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**64**]{}, 49 (2016) doi:10.1002/prop.201500095 \\[arXiv:1411.0690 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nD.\u00a0Carmi, S.\u00a0Chapman, H.\u00a0Marrochio, R.\u00a0C.\u00a0Myers and S.\u00a0Sugishita, \u201cOn the Time Dependence of Holographic Complexity,\u201d JHEP [**1711**]{}, 188 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2017)188 \\[arXiv:1709.10184 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nR.\u00a0G.\u00a0Cai, S.\u00a0M.\u00a0Ruan, S.\u00a0J.\u00a0Wang, R.\u00a0Q.\u00a0Yang and R.\u00a0H.\u00a0Peng, \u201cAction growth for AdS black holes,\u201d JHEP [**1609**]{}, 161 (2016) doi:10.1007/JHEP09(2016)161 \\[arXiv:1606.08307 \\[gr-qc\\]\\]. R.\u00a0Q.\u00a0Yang, \u201cStrong energy condition and complexity growth bound in holography,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**95**]{}, no. 8, 086017 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.086017 \\[arXiv:1610.05090 \\[gr-qc\\]\\].\n\nR.\u00a0Q.\u00a0Yang, C.\u00a0Niu, C.\u00a0Y.\u00a0Zhang and K.\u00a0Y.\u00a0Kim, \u201cComparison of holographic and field theoretic complexities for time dependent thermofield double states,\u201d JHEP [**1802**]{}, 082 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)082 \\[arXiv:1710.00600 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nM.\u00a0Moosa, \u201cEvolution of Complexity Following a Global Quench,\u201d JHEP [**1803**]{}, 031 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2018)031 \\[arXiv:1711.02668 \\[hep-th\\]\\]. M.\u00a0Moosa, \u201cDivergences in the rate of complexification,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**97**]{}, no. 10, 106016 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.106016 \\[arXiv:1712.07137 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nJ.\u00a0M.\u00a0Maldacena, \u201cEternal black holes in anti-de Sitter,\u201d JHEP [**0304**]{}, 021 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/04/021 \\[hep-th/0106112\\].\n\nL.\u00a0Susskind, \u201cComputational Complexity and Black Hole Horizons,\u201d \\[Fortsch.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**64**]{}, 24 (2016)\\] Addendum: Fortsch.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**64**]{}, 44 (2016) doi:10.1002/prop.201500093, 10.1002/prop.201500092 \\[arXiv:1403.5695 \\[hep-th\\], arXiv:1402.5674 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nD.\u00a0Carmi, R.\u00a0C.\u00a0Myers and P.\u00a0Rath, \u201cComments on Holographic Complexity,\u201d JHEP [**1703**]{}, 118 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2017)118 \\[arXiv:1612.00433 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nK.\u00a0Parattu, S.\u00a0Chakraborty, B.\u00a0R.\u00a0Majhi and T.\u00a0Padmanabhan, \u201cA Boundary Term for the Gravitational Action with Null Boundaries,\u201d Gen.\u00a0Rel.\u00a0Grav.\u00a0 [**48**]{}, no. 7, 94 (2016) doi:10.1007/s10714-016-2093-7 \\[arXiv:1501.01053 \\[gr-qc\\]\\].\n\nL.\u00a0Lehner, R.\u00a0C.\u00a0Myers, E.\u00a0Poisson and R.\u00a0D.\u00a0Sorkin, \u201cGravitational action with null boundaries,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**94**]{}, no. 8, 084046 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.084046 \\[arXiv:1609.00207 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nG.\u00a0Hayward, \u201cGravitational action for space-times with nonsmooth boundaries,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**47**]{}, 3275 (1993). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.47.3275 K.\u00a0Skenderis, \u201cLecture notes on holographic renormalization,\u201d Class.\u00a0Quant.\u00a0Grav.\u00a0 [**19**]{}, 5849 (2002) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/22/306 \\[hep-th/0209067\\]. R.\u00a0N.\u00a0Caldeira Costa, \u201cAspects of the zero $\\Lambda$ limit in the AdS/CFT correspondence,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**90**]{}, no. 10, 104018 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.104018 \\[arXiv:1311.7339 \\[hep-th\\]\\]. S.\u00a0Lloyd, \u201cUltimate physical limits to computation,\u201d Nature 406 (2000), no. 6799 1047\u20131054\n\nN.\u00a0Margolus and L.\u00a0B.\u00a0Levitin, \u201cThe Maximum speed of dynamical evolution,\u201d Physica D [**120**]{}, 188 (1998) doi:10.1016/S0167-2789(98)00054-2 \\[quant-ph/9710043\\].\n\nD.\u00a0Ida, \u201cNo black hole theorem in three-dimensional gravity,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0 [**85**]{}, 3758 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3758 \\[gr-qc/0005129\\].\n\nL.\u00a0Cornalba and M.\u00a0S.\u00a0Costa, \u201cA New cosmological scenario in string theory,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**66**]{}, 066001 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.066001 \\[hep-th/0203031\\]. L.\u00a0Cornalba and M.\u00a0S.\u00a0Costa, \u201cTime dependent orbifolds and string cosmology,\u201d Fortsch.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**52**]{}, 145 (2004) doi:10.1002/prop.200310123 \\[hep-th/0310099\\].\n\nG.\u00a0Barnich, \u201cEntropy of three-dimensional asymptotically flat cosmological solutions,\u201d JHEP [**1210**]{}, 095 (2012) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2012)095 \\[arXiv:1208.4371 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nM.\u00a0Alishahiha, A.\u00a0Faraji Astaneh, M.\u00a0R.\u00a0Mohammadi Mozaffar and A.\u00a0Mollabashi, \u201cComplexity Growth with Lifshitz Scaling and Hyperscaling Violation,\u201d arXiv:1802.06740 \\[hep-th\\].\n\nS.\u00a0Chapman, H.\u00a0Marrochio and R.\u00a0C.\u00a0Myers, \u201cComplexity of Formation in Holography,\u201d JHEP [**1701**]{}, 062 (2017) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2017)062 \\[arXiv:1610.08063 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nJ.\u00a0M.\u00a0Martin-Garcia, \u201cxAct: Efficient tensor computer algebra for Mathematica,\u201d 2002-2015. \\[http://www.xact.es\\].\n\nT.\u00a0Nutma, \u201cxTras : A field-theory inspired xAct package for mathematica,\u201d Comput.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0Commun.\u00a0 [**185**]{}, 1719 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2014.02.006 \\[arXiv:1308.3493 \\[cs.SC\\]\\]. E.\u00a0Gourgoulhon, \u201cCarter-Penrose diagram of Schwarzschild spacetime.\u201d \\[http://nbviewer.jupyter.org/github/sagemanifolds/SageManifolds/blob/master/Worksheets/ v1.1/SMCarter-Penrosediag.ipynb\\]\n\n[^1]: For the CV conjecture in $d>2$, the flat-space limit was already shown to work by Susskind (see [@Susskind:2014moa]). Consequently, one may expect that the CA conjecture admits a regular flat-space limit.\n\n[^2]: For obtaining we have assumed that $R=L$ where $L$ is the AdS radius and $R$ is the radius of periodic coordinate in the boundary geometry. Without this choice for the parameter $R$, the flat space limit of (2.60) in [@Carmi:2017jqz] is not well-defined.\n\n[^3]: As mentioned in section 1, for $d>2$ the flat-space limit of the complexity growth rate has already been discussed in the context of the CV conjecture [@Susskind:2014moa]. Consequently, this section is the most original part of the paper where the details of the calculations are quite different from those of the AdS case.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We consider the original $\\beta$-Fermi-Pasta-Ulam-Tsingou ($\\beta$-FPUT) system; numerical simulations and theoretical arguments suggest that, for a finite number of masses, a statistical equilibrium state is reached independently of the initial energy of the system. Using ensemble averages over initial conditions characterized by different Fourier random phases, we numerically estimate the time scale of equipartition and we find that for very small nonlinearity it matches the prediction based on exact wave-wave resonant interactions theory. We derive a simple formula for the nonlinear frequency broadening and show that when the phenomenon of overlap of frequencies takes place, a different scaling for the thermalization time scale is observed. Our result supports the idea that Chirikov overlap criterium [ identifies]{} a transition region between two different relaxation time scaling.'\nauthor:\n- 'Yuri V. Lvov$^{1}$'\n- 'Miguel Onorato$^{2,3}$'\ntitle: 'Double scaling in the relaxation time in the $\\beta$-FPUT model'\n---\n\nIn 1923 at the age of 22 E. Fermi published one of his first papers [@fermi1923dimostrazione] in which the goal was to show that Hamiltonian systems are in general quasi-ergodic. At that time, the paper was considered interesting by the scientific community; however, it appeared later that the hypotheses needed for the proof are very restrictive ([@fermi1962collected; @gallavotti2001meccanica]). About thirty years later Fermi, in collaboration with Pasta, Ulam and Tsingou (see [@dauxois2008fermi] for a discussion on the role played by Tsingou), came back to the problem using a numerical approach. The goal was to study a simple mechanical system and verify that a small nonlinearity would be enough to let the system reach a thermalized state. Their research was also motivated by the work of Debye who in 1914 conjectured that normal (in accordance to the macroscopic Fourier law) heat conduction in solids could be obtained only in the presence of nonlinearity, see [@lepri2016thermal] for recent developments. They simulated a system of harmonic oscillators perturbed by a cubic ($\\alpha$-FPUT) or quartic potentials ($\\beta$-FPUT). The results they obtained numerically [@fermi1955studies] were very different from expectations: instead of observing the equipartition of linear energy, they observed a recurrent phenomena known as the FPUT-recurrence. This unexplained result triggered a surge of scientific activity and lead to the discovery of solitons [@zabusky1965] and integrability in infinite dimensional systems [@gardner1967method]. However, the FPUT system is only close to an integrable one [@benettin2013fermi] and soliton interactions are not elastic.\n\nAt the same time the simulations of the FPUT system were performed, Kolmogorov enunciated the KAM theorem which loosely speaking describes how in a perturbed integrable Hamiltonian system the KAM tori survive if the perturbation is sufficiently small. Chirikov and Izraielev [@izrailev1966statistical] developed a method for estimating the threshold of initial energy above which the KAM tori are destroyed. The basic idea is the following: in the presence of nonlinearity, linear frequencies are perturbed and, if the perturbation is larger than the frequency spacing (distance between two adjacent linear frequencies), then the trajectory may oscillate chaotically between the two frequencies. This idea, known also as the Chirikov overlap criterium, is very helpful but not rigorous. Indeed, for example, there exists a counter example: for the Toda lattice (or other integrable system) a threshold can be derived but the system is integrable, therefore never chaotic. The idea of Chirikov and Izrailev has been followed and different numerical studies confirmed the presence of a threshold above which the FPUT system reaches a fast thermalized state (see for example [@livi1985equipartition; @casetti1997fermi; @DeLuca1999] for a study on $\\beta$-FPUT). However, more recently, numerical simulations of the $\\alpha$-FPUT [@ponno2011two; @onorato2015] have shown that even for small nonlinearity the system does reach a thermalized state. The explanation of this result was given in [@onorato2015] where it has been shown that for the finite dimensional system of certain size, six-wave resonant interactions are responsible for equipartition and only after very long time the system reaches a thermalized state.\n\nIn this Letter we perform a detailed study of the $\\beta$-FPUT with a finite number of masses and, as a first result, we show that, as for the $\\alpha$-FPUT, the weak nonlinear regime is dominated by discrete six-wave resonant interactions which are responsible for thermalization. Such thermalization seems to occurs for any, even extremely small, levels of nonlinearity. We then estimate the time scale it takes to reach equipartition, and we confirm the result numerically. Moreover, we construct numerically the dispersion relation curve and show that equipartition is observed also in the condition of no-overlap of frequencies. By writing the equation of motion in angle-action variables and by using the Wick decomposition, we find an explicit formula for the broadening of the frequencies. When such broadening is larger than the spacing between frequencies, the Chirikov regime is observed. Therefore, the Chirikov criteria [ identifies a threshold for a more effective mechanism of thermalization.]{} Consequently, there is a double time scaling to reach equipartition as a function of the nonlienarity parameter. Our results are fully supported by numerical simulations.\n\n[*The model-*]{} We consider the Hamiltonian for a chain of $N$ identical particles of mass $m$ of the type: $$H=H_2+H_4$$ with $$\\begin{split}\n&H_2=\\sum_{j=1}^N\\left(\\frac{1}{2 }p_j^2+\\frac{1}{2}(q_j-q_{j+1})^2\\right),\\\\\n&H_4=\\frac{\\beta}{4}\\sum_{j=1}^N(q_j-q_{j+1})^4.\n\\label{H_FPU}\n\\end{split}$$ $q_j(t)$ is the displacement of the particle $j$ from its equilibrium position and $p_j(t)$ is the associated momentum; $\\beta$ is the nonlinear spring coefficient (without loss of generality, we have set the masses and the linear spring constant equal to 1).\n\n[*Analytical Results-*]{} Before performing numerical simulations of the equations associated to the Hamiltonian (\\[H\\_FPU\\]), we first outline the derivation of some important theoretical predictions: i) the nonlinear correction to the linear frequency, ii) the broadening of the frequencies in the presence of nonlinearity, iii) the time scale of equipartition. Those ingredients will help us in interpreting the numerical results.\n\nAssuming periodic boundary conditions and the standard definition of the Discrete Fourier Transform, we introduce the following normal variable as $$a_k=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2 \\omega_k}}(\\omega_k Q_k+i P_k),\\label{NormalMode}$$ where $\\omega_k=2|\\sin(\\pi k/{N})|$ and $Q_k$ and $P_k$ are the Fourier coefficients of $q_j$ and $p_j$. Then, assuming small nonlinearity, we perform a near identity transformation to remove nonresonant four-wave interactions (such procedure, is well documented in the general case in [@falkovich1992kolmogorov] and in the $\\alpha$-FPUT case in [@onorato2015]). The following reduced Hamiltonian is obtained (the new variable has been renamed $a_k$ and higher order terms have been neglected):\n\n$$\\begin{split}\n&\\tilde H_{2}=N \\sum_{k=0}^{N-1}\\omega_k|a_k|^2 \\\\\n  &\\tilde H_4=\\frac{N}{2}\\beta \\sum_{k_1 k_2 k_3 k_4}^{N-1} T_{k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}a_{k_1}^*a_{k_2}^* a_{k_3} a_4 \\delta_{1+2,3+4},\n\\end{split}$$\n\n[where all wave numbers $k_1, k_2, k_3$ and $k_4$ are summed from $0$ to $N-1$]{}; $$T_{k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}= \\frac{3 }{4} e^{i \\pi \\Delta k/N}\\prod_{j=1}^{4}\n \\frac{2 \\sin(\\pi k_j/N)}{\\sqrt{\\omega(k_j)} }\n\\label{eq:coup_coef}$$ with $\\Delta k=k_1+k_2-k_3-k_4$ and $\\delta_{i,j}$ is the generalized Kronecker Delta that accounts for a periodic Fourier space. [ We then introduce scaled amplitudes $a_k'=a_k/\\sqrt{H_2(t=0)/N}$ so that the equation of motion in the new variable read]{}: $$i \\frac{d a_{k_1}}{\\partial t}=\\omega_{k_1} a_{k_1}+\n{\\epsilon} \\sum_{k_i}^{N-1}T_{k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}a_{k_2}^*a_{k_3}a_{k_4}\\delta_{1+2,3+4},\n\\label{zakh_eq}$$ where primes have been omitted for brevity, the sum on $k_i$ implies a sum on $k_2, k_3, k_4$ from 0 to $N-1$ and [ $$\\epsilon = \\beta H_2(t=0)/N,$$ that implies that our nonlinear parameter is proportional to the linear energy density of the system at time $t=0$ and to the nonlinear spring constant $\\beta$.]{} In terms of the angle-action variables $\na_k=\\sqrt{I_k}\\phi_k\\;\\;\\; {\\rm with}\\;\\;\\; \\phi_k=\\exp[-i \\theta_k],\n$ the equation for $\\theta$ reads: $$\\begin{split}\n&\\frac{d \\theta_{k_1}}{\\partial t}=\\omega_{k_1}\n+ {\\epsilon}\\sum_{k_i}T_{k_1,k_2,k_3,k_4}\\frac{\\sqrt{I_{k_2}I_{k_3}I_{k_4}}}{\\sqrt {I_{k_1}}}\\times\\\\\n&\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\Re[\\phi_{k_1}^*\\phi_{k_2}^*\\phi_{k_3}\\phi_{k_4}]\\delta_{1+2,3+4},\n\\label{angle}\n\\end{split}$$ where $\\Re[...]$ implies the real part. From this equation we obtain the frequency by applying the averaging operator $\\langle...\\rangle$ over random frequencies and using the Wick\u2019s contraction rule,\n\n$$\\langle\\phi_{k_1}^*\\phi_{k_2}^*\\phi_{k_3}\\phi_{k_4}\\rangle=\\delta_{1,3}\\delta_{2,4}+\\delta_{1,4}\\delta_{2,3},\n%-\n%\\delta_{1,2}\\delta_{1,3}\\delta_{1,4},$$\n\nwe get the instantaneous frequency: $$\\tilde \\omega_{k_1}=\\langle\n\\frac{d\\theta_k}{dt}\\rangle\\simeq\\omega_{k_1}+ {\\epsilon}\n2\\sum_{k_2\\neq k_1}T_{k_1,k_2,k_1,k_2}I_{k_2}\n%-\\beta T_{k_1,k_1,k_1,k_1}I_{k_1},\n\\label{eq:nonlindisprel}$$ i.e. the nonlinear dispersion relation given by the linear dispersion relation plus amplitude corrections (recall that $I_k=|a_k|^2$), see also [@gershgorin2005; @gershgorin2007interactions]. More interestingly, one can estimate half-width $\\Gamma_k$ of the frequency by calculating the second centred moment of the equation (\\[angle\\]) as: $$\\Gamma_{k}=\\sqrt{\\big\\langle\\left(\\frac{d \\theta_{k_1}}{\\partial t}-\\tilde \\omega_{k}\\right)^2\\big\\rangle}.\n\\label{eq:width}$$ [ Using equations (\\[angle\\]), (\\[eq:nonlindisprel\\]), the Wick\u2019s decomposition and under the assumption of thermal equilibrium (equipartition of linear energy), we obtain: $$\\Gamma_k= \\frac{3}{4}\\epsilon  \\omega_k=\\frac{3}{4}\\frac{1}{N} \\beta\nH_2(t=0) \\omega_k$$ ]{}\n\n[ Once the broadening of the frequency is estimated, the Chirikov overlap parameter can be defined as: $$R_k=2 \\frac{\\Gamma_k}{\\tilde\\omega_{k+1}-\\tilde\\omega_{k}} \\eqsim\n\\frac{3}{2} \\frac{\\omega_k}{\\omega_{k+1}-\\omega_k} \\epsilon.$$ According to Chirikov, the stochastization takes place when $R_k=1$. If we define $\\epsilon_{\\rm cr}$ as the value for which $R_k=1$, then it is straightforward to observe that $\\epsilon_{\\rm\n  cr}$ is $k$ dependent and $\\epsilon_{\\rm cr}$ becomes large for small values of $k$. This implies that a transition region between two regimes cannot be sharp. In the long wave limit the critical energy takes the following form $H_{2\\rm cr}(t=0)= {2 N}/({3\\beta k})$. Full stochasticization of all wave numbers takes place for $\\epsilon_{\\rm\n  cr}\\simeq0.6$ (as we will see below, for this value of $\\epsilon$ we observe a new scaling of the equipartition time as a function of time). ]{}\n\nWe now turn our attention to the estimation of the time scale needed to reach equipartition. The theoretical predictions that follows are based on the assumption that an irreversible dynamics can be obtained only if waves interact in a resonant manner, i.e. for some $n$ and $l$ the following system has solution for integer values of $k$: $$\\begin{split}\nk_1+k_2+...+ k_l=k_{l+1}+k_{l+2}+...+k_n\\\\\n\\omega_{k_1}+\\omega_{k_2}+...+ \\omega_l=\\omega_{l+1}+\\omega_{l+2}+...+\\omega_n.\\\\\n\\end{split}$$ Just like for a forced harmonic oscillator, non resonant interactions lead to periodic solutions, i.e. to recurrence. Based on the methodology developed in [@onorato2015], we can state that for $N=32$ (the number of masses in original simulations of Fermi et al) there are four-wave resonant interactions; however, those resonances are isolated and can not lead to thermalization (see also [@henrici2008results; @rink2006proof]). Following the results in [@onorato2015], efficient resonant interactions for the $\\beta$-FPUT take place for $l=3$ and $n=6$, i.e. six-wave resonant interactions is the lowest order resonant process for the discrete system. This implies that a new canonical transformation needs to be performed to remove non resonant four-wave interactions and obtain a deterministic six-wave interaction equation whose time scale is $1/\\epsilon^2$, see [@laurie2012one] for details on the canonical transformation.\n\nAn estimation of the time scale of such interactions can be obtained following the argument developed in [@onorato2015] based on the construction of an evolution equation for the wave action spectral density $ N_k=\\langle |a_k|^2 \\rangle$, $a_k$ being the new canonical variable [@onorato2015]. Using the Wick\u2019s rule to close the hierarchy of equations, it turns out $ \\partial N_k/\\partial t\\sim\n \\epsilon^4$ The result is that the time of equipartition scales like $t_{eq}\\sim 1 / \\epsilon^4$ (this coincides precisely with the time scale, $1/\\alpha^8$, given in [@onorato2015] for the $\\alpha$-FPUT model). In the continuum limit (thermodynamic limit) in which the number of particles $N$ and the length of the chain both tend to infinite, keeping constant the linear density of masses, then it can be shown that [ the Fourier space becomes dense ($k \\in\n \\mathbb{R}$): four-wave exact resonances exists and the standard four-Wave Kinetic Equation can be recovered (see [@Spohn2006; @lukkarinen2016kinetic; @aoki2006energy; @pereverzev2003fermi]). In this latter case the time scale for equipartition should be $1/\\epsilon^2$.]{}\n\n[*Numerical experiments-*]{} We now consider numerical simulations of the $\\beta$-FPUT system in the original $q_j$ and $p_j$ variables to verify our predictions. We integrate the equations with $N=32$ particles using the sixth order symplectic integrator scheme described in [@yoshida1990construction]. We run the simulations for different values of $\\beta$, keeping always the same initial conditions which is formulated in Fourier space in normal variables as $$a_k(t=0)=\n    \\begin{cases}\n      e^{i \\phi_k}/(N \\sqrt{\\omega_k}) & \\text{if}\\ k=\\pm 1,\\pm 2,\\pm 3,\\pm 4,\\pm 5 \\\\\n      0 & \\text{otherwise},\n    \\end{cases}$$ related to the original variables by equation (\\[NormalMode\\]). $\\phi_k$ are uniformly distributed phases. By changing $\\beta$, different values of the nonlinear parameter $\\epsilon$ are experienced.\n\nWe found out that a successful way of estimating the time of equipartition is to run, for each initial condition, different simulations characterized by a different set of random phases: our typical ensemble is composed by 2000 realizations. In order to establish the time of thermalization, we have considered the following entropy [@livi1985equipartition]: $$s(t)={-}\\sum\\limits_{k} f_k \\log f_k\\;\\; {\\rm with}\\;\\;\\; f_k = \\frac{N-1}{H_2}\\omega_k \\langle |a_k(t)|^2 \\rangle,\\;\\;\\;$$ and $\\langle...\\rangle$ defines the average over the realizations. Note that the larger is the number of the members of the ensemble, the lower is the stationary values reached by $s$. In our numerics we have followed the procedure outlined in [@onorato2015] to identify the time of equipartition. We present in Figure \\[fig:scaling\\] such time, $t_{eq}$, as a function of $\\epsilon$ for the simulations considered in a Log-Log plot.\n\n![Equilibrium time $t_{eq}$ as a function of $\\epsilon$ in Log-Log coordinates. Dots represent numerical experiments The straight line corresponds to power law of the type $1/\\epsilon^{4}$, red line, and $1/\\epsilon$, black dashed line.[]{data-label=\"fig:scaling\"}](figure_1){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\n![$\\langle |a(k,\\Omega)|^2 \\rangle$ for a) $\\epsilon$=0.12 and b) $\\epsilon$=1 obtained from numerical simulations.[]{data-label=\"fig:disp_rel\"}](figure_2.png){width=\"1\\linewidth\"}\n\n![$\\langle |a(\\Omega)|^2 \\rangle$ for $k=4$ and $5$ for a) $\\epsilon$=0.12 where there is no overlapping of the resonances of two nearby wave numbers and b) $\\epsilon$=1 where there is a [ noticeable]{} overlapping of the resonances of the nearby wave numbers[]{data-label=\"fig:freq_overlap\"}](figure_3.png){width=\"1\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe figure also shows two straight lines (power laws) with slope -4 and -1. The steepest one (in red color) is consistent with the six-wave interaction theory, while the blue one corresponds to the time scale associated with the nonlinearity in the dynamical equation. A clear transition between the two scalings is observed. Similar transition has also been observed in [@Danieli2017] where the $\\alpha$-FPUT has been integrated.\n\nIn order to understand such behaviour, we build the dispersion relation curve from numerical data and measure the shift and the width of the frequencies as a function of the parameter $\\epsilon$. After reaching the thermalized state, the procedure adopted consists in constructing the variable $a_k(t)$ from eq. (\\[NormalMode\\]) and let the simulation run on a time window over which, for each mode, a Fourier transform (from variable $t$ to $\\Omega$) is taken. This is done for all the members of the ensemble. Then $\\langle\n|a(k,\\Omega)|^2 \\rangle$ is normalized by its maximum for each value of $k$ and then plotted as a function of $k$ and $\\Omega$.\n\n![Frequency shift as a function of the nonlinear parameter $\\epsilon$ for $k$=15. The solid line corresponds to equation (\\[eq:nonlindisprel\\]), dots correspond to the position of the peak of the distribution $\\langle |a(\\Omega)|^2 \\rangle$ for $k=15$ computed numerically.[]{data-label=\"fig:shift\"}](figure_4){width=\"0.8\\linewidth\"}\n\n![Width of the distribution of the frequencies shift as a function of the nonlinear parameter $\\epsilon$ for $k$=15. The solid line corresponds to equation (\\[eq:width\\]), dots correspond to the standard deviation of the distribution $\\langle |a(\\Omega)|^2\n  \\rangle$ for $k=15$ computed numerically.[]{data-label=\"fig:width\"}](figure_5){width=\"0.8\\linewidth\"}\n\nWould the system be linear, only discrete Kronecker Deltas would appear, placed exactly on the linear dispersion relation curve, i.e. $\\langle |a(k,\\Omega)|^2 \\rangle=\\delta_{\\Omega,\\omega_k}$. In Figure \\[fig:disp\\_rel\\] we show two examples of the ($\\Omega-k$) plot: the first is calculated on the transition region, $\\epsilon=0.12$, and the other one in stronger nonlinear regime, $\\epsilon=1$. The plots appear to be very different: first we notice that for the stronger nonlinear case the dispersion curved is shifted towards higher frequencies. The shift is less pronounced for the smaller nonlinearity case, $\\epsilon=0.12$ (in the linear case, the curve touches $\\Omega=2$).\n\nThe other important aspect is that a [ noticeable]{} frequency broadening is observed for $\\epsilon=1$; that implies that for a single wavenumber, there is a distribution of frequencies characterized by some width. Due to such width, for two adjacent discrete wavenumbers, the frequencies overlaps (Chirikov criterium). In order to have a clearer picture of such overlap, we show a slice of Figure \\[fig:disp\\_rel\\] taken at $k=4$ and $k=5$ for both cases, see Figure \\[fig:freq\\_overlap\\]. The distribution of the frequencies are separated for the weakly nonlinear case and visibly overlap for the stronger nonlinear case. Note that also for the weakly nonlinear case, for larger wave numbers an overlap starts to appear (not shown in the figure). This is the reason why the prediction made on exact six-wave resonant interaction starts failing and an other scaling is observed (see Figure \\[fig:disp\\_rel\\]).\n\nWe compare the shifts and the broadening of the frequencies of our theoretical predictions with the one obtained from numerical simulations, see Figures \\[fig:shift\\] and \\[fig:width\\]. Results are overall in agreement in the very weak nonlinear regime: the predictions are obtained by assuming the random phase approximation which does not hold as soon as the nonlinearity starts creating correlation between wave numbers. Such departure of the theory is consistent also with the one observed in Figure \\[fig:scaling\\].\n\n[*Conclusions-*]{} In this Letter we have considered the original $\\beta$-FPUT model and found that the system reaches a thermalized state, even for very small nonlinearity. In this regime and for small number of modes, three time scales may be identified: the linear time scale $1/\\omega_k$, the nonlinear time scale of four wave interactions, and the time scale of irreversible six wave interactions, $1/\\epsilon^4$. In order to observe equipartition one needs to wait up to the $1/\\epsilon^4$ time scale. If one is observing the system on a shorter time scale, using the original variables, then only reversible dynamics is seen, which might be an explanation for the celebrated FPUT recurrence. Such reversible dynamics can be possibly captured directly as is done in [@guasoni2017incoherent], where a nonequilibrium spatiotemporal kinetic formulation that accounts for the existence of phase correlations among incoherent waves is developed.\n\nFor $\\epsilon\\gtrsim0.1$ a different scaling, $t_{eq}\\sim \\epsilon^{-1}$, starts which is consistent with the time scale of the nonlinearity of the dynamical equation. The transition region has been investigated by measuring the broadening of the frequencies: we observe that the phenomenon of frequency overlap suggested by Chirikov starts in the transition region; the breakdown of the prediction of the discrete weak wave turbulence theory is then observed for such values of nonlinearities. [Chirikov criterion approximately separates regimes of slow equipartition due to six-wave resonant interactions to the other, more effective mechanism for reaching thermal equilibrium. ]{} The mechanism that leads to equipartition for weakly nonlinear initial conditions seems to be universal; indeed, the $\\alpha$-FPUT behaves exactly in the same way and we expect that the same mechanism be responsible for explaining the equipartition in systems where metastable states has been observed as in the Nonlinear Klein-Gordon equation [@fucito1982approach].\n\n[**Acknowledgments**]{} M.O. has been funded by Progetto di Ricerca d\u2019Ateneo CSTO160004 . The authors are grateful to D. Proment and Dr. B. Giulinico for discussions.\n\n[29]{} natexlab\\#1[\\#1]{}bibnamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}bibfnamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}citenamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}url \\#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\\[2\\][\\#2]{} \\[2\\]\\[\\][[\\#2](#2)]{}\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, **, vol.\u00a0 (, ).\n\n, p.\u00a0 ().\n\n, pp. ().\n\n, **, vol. (, ).\n\n, , , , ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , pp. ().\n\n, in ** (), vol.\u00a0, pp. .\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , ****, (), ISSN , .\n\n, , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , **** (), ISSN .\n\n, , , ** (, ).\n\n, , , ****, ().\n\n, , , ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , , ****, ().\n\n, ****, (), ISSN , .\n\n, in ** (, ), pp. .\n\n, , , ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , ****, (), ISSN .\n\n, , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , ****, ().\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'Davide G. Cavezza'\n- Dalal Alrajeh\nbibliography:\n- 'MyCollection.bib'\ntitle: 'Interpolation-Based GR(1) Assumptions Refinement[^1] '\n---\n\n### Acknowledgments\n\nThe support of the EPSRC HiPEDS CDT (EP/L016796/1) and Imperial College Junior Research Fellowship is gratefully acknowledged.\n\n[^1]: To appear in TACAS 2017\n"}
-{"text": "\\#1\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe dynamics of supercooled liquids approaching the glass transition remains one of the most fundamental problems in condensed matter physics [@review]. Some of the prominent dynamic features in supercooled liquids include the enormous increase in relaxation time scale with lowering temperature, and the nonexponential relaxation in the response to an external perturbation. In addition to these features, an anomaly in transport properties such as breakdown of the Stokes-Einstein (SE) relation in highly supercooled liquids has been observed in experiments [@fujara] and simulations [@mount; @harrowell; @onuki]. Although there exist some theoretical attempts [@stilinger; @tarkiv; @liuopp; @bb; @xia], the underlying microscopic mechanism for the violation of the SE relation is not well understood. Recently, there have been many experimental and simulational studies of supercooled liquids that demonstrate the existence of kinetic heterogeneity which was often invoked to explain the origin of the non-exponential relaxation as well as the breakdown of the SE relation [@sillescu].\n\nIn relation to these questions on microscopic slow dynamic features in supercooled liquids, we deemed it worthwhile to investigate whether similar dynamic features can be found in simpler lattice spin systems or lattice gas systems. In this work, we show that the aforementioned features of supercooled liquids, [*i.e.*]{}, slowing-down, non-exponential relaxation and the (analogue) of the breakdown of the SE relation, are also observed in a two-dimensional (2D) lattice Coulomb gas (LCG) system. We also find that the relaxation of the system exhibits a spontaneous appearance of spatial heterogeneity, which we argue is the underlying cause for the non-exponential relaxation and the breakdown of the SE relation.\n\nIn recent years, there have been some efforts to find glassy dynamic features in the lattice spin systems with nonrandom interactions [@bulbul]. One of the well-known examples of disorder-free lattice model system is uniformly frustrated XY (UFXY) models in two dimensions, which serve as a model for two dimensional arrays of Josephson junctions under the influence of uniform transverse magnetic fields. Recent work [@kl] has shown that, irrespective of the true nature of the low temperature phase of this system, the equilibrium dynamics of UFXY model in the intermediate range of the temperature for frustration parameter $f$ near $1-g \\equiv (3-\\sqrt{5})/2 \\simeq 0.382$, exhibits a close analogy to that of supercooled liquids. Both spin and vortex dynamics show stretched exponential relaxations with temperature dependent stretched exponents. In order to investigate the dynamics of this system in more detail, we attempted to calculate the self diffusion properties of vortices. However, it turned out to be numerically ambiguous and tricky to trace the trajectories of individual vortices. This is beacause individual vortex around a plaquette is defined in terms of phase angles and one probes the movement of individual vortices not directly but only indirectly through changes of phases, which, at times especially when multi-vortex motion occurs, makes it ambiguous to determine the original position of a vortex corresponding to a new neighboring vortex.\n\nOne way to overcome this difficulty was to map the UFXY model onto a LCG via Villain transformation [@villain], where the positive charges in the LCG correspond to the positive current vortices in UFXY models. One can readily probe the diffusive dynamics of charges without ambiguity in the LCG unlike the case of UFXY model. Hence we can investigate both the structural relaxation dynamics and self diffusion dynamics of individual vortices in LCG with relative ease.\n\nWith this advantage, we have numerically investigated the equilibrium relaxation dynamics and diffusion characteristics of LCG with charge density factor $f$ near $1-g \\simeq 0.382$. We observe that for some range of temperatures above the first order transition, the equilibrium relaxation exhibits slow dynamic features such as stretched exponential relaxation and breakdown of proportionality between diffusive time scale and structural relaxation time scale.\n\nIt was a common belief that the 2D UFXY model and the corresponding LCG belong to the same universality class with essentially the same phase transition properties, ground state symmetry, for example. However, recent work on LCG by Gupta, Teitel, and Gingras (GTG)[@gtg] and also another work on UFXY model by Denniston and Tang (DT)[@dt], showed that there exist some difference between the two model systems especially in the case of dense frustration. Both model systems exhibit first order transition but the low temperature vortex configurations in UFXY models are different from the charge configurations of the corresponding LCG for $f$ near $1-g \\simeq 0.382$. The underlying cause for this breakdown of Villain approximation in the limit of dense frustration is not known, but probably it is related to application of spin-wave integration to systems having many metastable states with similar energies, that may cause neglect of multi-vortex correlations.\n\nSpecial interest has been given to the case of $f$ approaching $1-g$ [@halsey; @mychoi]. Consider a system where $f$ equals $p_0 /q_0$ ($p_0$ and $q_0$ are relative primes) which is a rational approximant to $1-g$. Here, in the case of UFXY model, DT argues that the low temperature vortex configuration has lattice periodicity which is of order $q_{0}^{2}$, [*i.e.*]{}, much larger than $q_0$. On the other hand, in the case of LCG, GTG [@gtg] showed, via Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, that the low temperature charge configurations are characterized by arrangements of diagonal stripes that are either completely filled, completely empty, or partially filled with charges that are quite different from those vortex configurations in the corresponding UFXY model. However, GTG did not enumerate the exact patterns of low temperature charge configurations (such as spatial periodicity) for general cases of dense charge filling. In this work, we find that, for the values of $f$ between $1/3$ and $2/5$, there exist a simple regularity in the low temperature charge configuration which consists of periodic arrangements of combinations of two out of three types of striped charge patterns (see Section III).\n\nFor wide range of quenching temperatures above the first order transition $T_c$, the equilibrium relaxation continues to slow down with lowering temperature, and the form of the relxations are characterized by the stretched exponential with temperature-dependent exponents. Moreover, we observe that the model exhibits a separation of the two characteristic time scales, i.e., the time scale of single particle diffusion and that of structural relaxation. This feature is quite analogous to the breakdown of the SE relation observed in supercooled liquids. Stretched exponential relaxation is observed to be accompanied by interesting dynamic heterogeneity in the system. It appears that the kinetic heterogeneity is the underlying reason for both the stretched exponetial relaxation and the separation of the relaxation and diffusion time scales.\n\nA convenient measure for dynamic heterogeneity is the so called dynamic cooperativity [@doliwa] of the particle motions. This measures reduction of the effective degrees of freedom. One interesting result from our simulations is that the magnitude of the velocity (or displacement vector) exhibits strong increase in cooperativity of the particle motions. On the other hand, the displacement vector itself shows cooperativity a little smaller than unity due to anti-correlations in the direction of particle motions. This means that the system can be divided into highly mobile regions and relatively inert regions resulting in highly inhomogeneous local mobility distribution. However, there is no macroscopic flow of particles that will generate long range positive correlations between the directions of flows of particles.\n\nWhen quenched to a temperature below $T_c$, the system is always found to undergo phase ordering via slow coarsening processes. The system therefore does not remain in a supercooled state. Rather it becomes slowly crystalized. It should be emphasized that in this system it is the relaxation for the temperatures [*above*]{} $T_c$ that exhibits slow dynamic behavior which shares some common features with that of supercooled liquids.\n\nModel and Simulation Methods\n============================\n\nGeneral 2D LCG [@teitel] is described by the following Hamiltonian that can be mapped from UFXY model by means of Villain transformation [@villain],\n\n$${\\cal H}_{CG}={1 \\over 2}\\sum_{ij}Q_iG(r_{ij})Q_j \\label{eq:Hcg}$$\n\nwhere $r_{ij}$ is the distance between the sites $i$ and $j$, and the magnitude of charge $Q_i$ at site $i$ can take either $1-f$ or $-f$ , where $f$ corresponds to the frustration parameter in the related XY models. Charge neutrality condition $\\sum_iQ_i=0$ implies that the number density of the positive charges is equal to $f$. As was mentioned above, we can thus view the system as a lattice gas of $N \\cdot f$ charges of unit magnitude upon uniform negative background charges of charge density $-f$ ($N= L^2$ is the total size of the system with the linear dimension $L$). The lattice Green\u2019s function $G(r_{ij})$ solves the equation\n\n$$(\\Delta^2 - { 1 \\over {\\lambda^2}}) G(r_{ij})=-2\\pi\\delta_{r_{ij},0}$$\n\nwhere $\\Delta^2$ is the discrete lattice Laplacian and $\\lambda$ is the screening length which, in normal case of no screening, is set to an infinity. For the case of usual Villain transformation of UFXY model, we have $\\lambda = \\infty$. But it is included in this equation for generality. Since, in this work, we restrict our attention to only square lattice with periodic boundary conditions, $G(r)$ is given by\n\n$$G(\\vec{r})={\\pi \\over N} \\sum_{\\vec k \\neq 0} { e^{i\\bf{k} \\cdot r}-1 \\over \n{2 - \\cos k_x -\\cos k_y + 1/\\lambda^2} } ,$$\n\nwhere $\\bf{k}$ are the allowed wave vectors with $k_{\\mu} = (2 \\pi n_{\\mu}/ L)$, with $n_{\\mu} = 0, 1, \\dots, L-1 $. In the case of infinite screening length, for large separation $r$, one gets $G(\\vec r)\\simeq -\\ln r$ [@jrl]. In this work, we consider the limiting case of $ \\lambda \\rightarrow \\infty $ only.\n\nIn our MC simulations, the initial disordered random configuration is updated according to the standard Metropolis algorithm by selecting a positive charge at random and moving it over to one of the [*nearest neighbor (NN)*]{} or [*next nearest neighbor (NNN)*]{} sites [@gtg]. We find that this [*NNN*]{} hopping algorithm is particularly effective in terms of simulation time as compared with [*NN*]{} hopping alone, as was emphasized in [@gtg]. Moreover, at low temperature, [*NN*]{} hopping alone presented severe energy barriers to the motions of charges in the case of relatively dense Coulomb gas, [*i.e.*]{}, $f$ approximately larger than $1/3$.\n\nThe presented results are averages over $100 \\sim 500$ different random initial configurations depending on the temperature. In order to ensure that equilibration is achieved, we calculate the two-time charge density autocorrelation function and locate the waiting time beyond which the autocorrelation function no longer depends on the waiting time. As for the values of the charge density parameter $f$, we chose $f = 55/144 \\simeq 0.3819$ that is close to $f=1-g$, and square lattices of linear size $L=36$ is chosen with periodic boundary conditions. This value of $f$ is chosen as a simple rational value that satisfies the two conditions of both being close to $1-g$ and being commensurate with the lattice periodicity $12$ as explained in Section III. We found that qualitative features of relaxation dynamics are the same for other nearby values of the frustration $f$.\n\nSimulation Results and Discussions\n==================================\n\nFirst order transition and low temperature configuration\n--------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe first discuss the equilibrium phase transition and charge configuration of the system. As was first shown by GTG, we also find that there exist a first order transition in LCG with $f$ near $1-g$. Figure\u00a01 shows temporal snapshots of charge configurations evolving from disordered state into ordered configuration after being quenched to a temperature $T=0.026$. First order nature of the phase transition can easily be confirmed by enumerating the histogram of energies $P(E)$ near the transition temperature [@sw]. $P(E)$ is obtained by counting the occurrences of energies for each of the equally spaced energy bins while performing the equilibrium Monte Carlo simulations (via simple Metropolis algorithm). For a system with first order transition, the energy histogram $P(E)$ becomes bimodal near the transition temperature corresponding to a mixture of ordered state (with lower energy) and a disordered state (with higher energy). The transition temperature $T_c$ can be determined by locating the temperature where the subareas under the two peaks are equal. Figure\u00a02 shows two histograms near the transition temperature, where we could estimate the transition temperature approximately as $T_c \\simeq 0.0316$. Since we did not attempt a detaled analysis (including a finite size scaling) of the histogram, we think that this estimate value of the transition temperature should not be considered too seriously for its precision.\n\nWe find empirically that there exist a simple regularity in the low temperature charge configuration in LCG (Fig.\u00a03). For the case of values of $f$ in the range $1/3 \\leq f \\leq 2/5$, it is found that the low temperature configuration becomes quasi-one-dimensional with periodic striped patterns. In the cases of $f=1/3$ and $f=2/5$ the ground state configurations are identical to the low temperature vortex configurations in the UFXY model. However, for values of $f$ in between $1/3$ and $2/5$, the low temperature patterns are found to be, unlike the case of corresponding UFXY model, consisting of periodic arrangements of combinations of two out of three types of striped charge patterns as follows.\n\nFirst component pattern (type I pattern) is a sequence of three diagonals which are [*empty, filled*]{}, and [*empty*]{} respectively (that may be denoted by [**(010)**]{} in our notation where [**1**]{} refers to a filled diagonal and [**0**]{} refers to an empty diagonal). In other words, it is a pattern with single isolated diagonal filled with charges, that is neighbored by empty diagonals on both sides. Repetition of this pattern alone produces the ground state configuration for the case of $f=1/3$ with spatial periodicity three.\n\nSecond component pattern (type II pattern) consists of a sequence of five diagonals that are [*empty, filled, empty, filled*]{}, and [*empty* ]{} respectively, or [**(01010)**]{} in our notation. This may be termed as a double filled diagonal because two filled diagonals are positioned in parallel at second neighbor. This forms the basis of the ground state configuration for the case of $f=2/5$ with lattice periodicity five.\n\nLastly, the third component pattern (type III pattern) consists of a sequence of seven diagonals that are sequentially [*empty, filled, empty, partially filled, empty, filled*]{}, and [*empty* ]{} [*i.e.*]{}, [**(010p010)**]{} in our notation where [**p**]{} refers to a partially filled diagonal where only part of the diagonal sites are occupied by positive charges. This pattern is essentially a partially filled diagonal enveloped by two filled diagonals on both sides at second neighbor diagonal position, which may be termed as a [*channel*]{} structure. This can form a basis with spatial lattice periodicity seven.\n\nWe leave the detailed description of the low temperature charge patterns for the full range of $f$ values between $1/3$ and $2/5$ to the forthcoming publication [@config_cg]. And we describe in this work the low temperature ordered patterns for values of $f$ around $1-g$ only. Near the value of the filling ratio $f=1-g \\simeq 0.382$, we find that, among the three patterns above, only two types (type II and type III patterns) participate in the stable charge configurations with the resulting spatial lattice periodicity depending on the combination of the two component patterns.\n\nWe find that there exist a value $f=f_c \\simeq 0.381$ which separates two regimes with distinct low temperature striped patterns. For values of $f$ in the range $0.36 \\lsim f \\lsim 0.381$, the stable striped patterns turn out to have periodicity $l_p = 7$ which consists of simple repetitions of channel structures (type III pattern). Note that this periodicity seven refers to the periodicity of the filled diagonals only (neglecting the true periodicity including the charge configurations within the partially filled diagonals).\n\nOn the other hand, for values of $f$ in the range $0.381 \\lsim f \\lsim 0.39$, the stable configuration exhibits a periodicity $l_p=12$, which consists of double filled diagonals (type II) and channels (type III) alternatingly placed. As the value of $f$ continuously increases within the two regimes (in the above), the system in the low temperature stable configuration simply adjusts itself by accomodating the extra charges into the partially filled diagonal channels and thereby changing the charge filling within the channels. The dividing value of $f=f_c \\simeq 0.381$ between the two regimes appears to correspond to the value $8/21$ in which case the partially filled diagonals have filling density exactly equal to $2/3$. Our simulations show that the filling density $2/3$ inside the partially filled diagonal plays as a stability limit for the channel structures. Beyond this limit, electrostatic instability probably begins to set in, and rearrangement of the whole charge configuration occurs in order to form a new stable ordered patterns. As was also argued by GTG, in general, at much lower temperature $T_p$ (below $T_c$) the charges within the partially filled channels are expected to exhibit ordering, which would depend sensitively on rationality of the exact filling ratio of charges inside the partially filled diagonals.\n\nAn important aspect of our simulations is that one has to choose the lattice size appropriately in order to match the periodicity of the true low temperature configuration in the thermodynamic limit. If, otherwise, one chooses a lattice size that is incommensurate with the periodicity (of striped patterns), then one ends up with defective charge configurations with patches of local ground state configurations. We think that this is probably why GTG got two different equilibrium configurations when two different lattice sizes $L=26$ and $L=52$ are used for $f=5/13$ since these $L$\u2019s turn out to be incommensurate with the true periodicity $l_p =12$.\n\nWhen the screening length $\\lambda$ is finite, then we find the low temperature configuration becomes different from the case of no screening ($\\lambda \\rightarrow \\infty$) in such a way that the partially filled diagonals gets rarer. The influence of the screening effect on the statics and the relaxation dynamics needs further study.\n\nEquilibrium relaxation dynamics\n-------------------------------\n\nWe now discuss the equilibrium relaxation dynamics of the model above first order transition. In order to probe the structural relaxation of charges, we measured the on-site charge autocorrelation functions,\n\n$$C(t)=\\langle \\sum_{i=1}^{N} Q_i(0)Q_i(t) \\rangle / N,$$\n\nwhere the bracket $< \\cdots >$ represents an average over different random initial configurations.\n\nShown in Fig.\u00a04a is the on-site charge autocorrelation function $C(t)$ for temperatures from $T=0.1$ down to $T=0.033$. From this figure, we observe a slowing down in the structural relaxation for this temperature range. One can extract a characteristic time scale $\\tau(T)$ which, for example, is defined as $C(t=\\tau(T))=1/e$ for each temperature $T$. As Fig.\u00a04b clearly shows, the temperature dependence of the relaxation time exhibits a non-Arrhenius behavior. We also checked whether the so-called time-temperature superposition holds for the above autocorrelation functions, which is shown in Fig.\u00a04c. We clearly see that time-temperature superposition is systematically broken by the autocorrelation functions. This is consistent with the fact that the stretched exponents have dependence on temperature as is shown just below.\n\nWe find that the relaxation pattern of the correlation function $C(t)$ can be characterized by a power law relaxation $C(t)=1-A t^{b(T)}$ (known as the von Schweidler relaxation) in the early time regime and a stretched exponential relaxation $C(t)=C_0(T) \\exp(-A't^{\\beta(T)})$ in the late time regime. However, as the temperature gets higher, the regime of validity for early time power law relaxation was significantly reduced and we could better fit the early time relaxation with another stretched exponential form $C(t)=\\exp(-A''t^{b'(T)})$. Of course for low temperature regime, we could get $b(T) \\simeq b'(T)$.\n\nFig.\u00a04d shows the temperature dependence of the fitted exponents. We see that non-exponentiality increases as the temperature decreases. These results clearly indicate that the equilibrium relaxation in the 2D LCG above $T_c$ closely resembles the primary relaxation of typical fragile liquids.\n\nOne of the main characteristic features of the single particle dynamics is described by the mean square displacement $\\langle (\\Delta \\vec r)^2 \\rangle$, which is defined as\n\n$$\\langle (\\Delta \\vec r)^2 \\rangle = \\langle \\sum_{j=1}^{N_Q}\n (\\vec{r}_j(t)-\\vec{r}_j(0))^2 \\rangle / N_Q,$$\n\nwhere $\\vec{r}_j(t)$ is the position vector of the $j$-th charge at time $t$ and $N_Q$ the total number of charges. Figure 5 shows $ \\langle (\\Delta \\vec r)^2 \\rangle $ for various temperatures. It exhibits an early time subdiffusive regime and crosses over into late time diffusive regime. Early time subdiffusive behavior is thought to be coming from local frustrated motions of charges before reaching an average displacement of unit lattice spacing. To test the proportionality of the two time scales, the structural relaxation time scale $\\tau$ and the diffusion time scale $D^{-1}$, we plot the temperature dependence of the product $4 D\\tau$ in Fig.\u00a06. Here, we clearly see that the breakdown of the proportionality between the two time scales is observed for wide range of temperatures below $T=0.1$ and becomes stronger as the temperature is lowered. This separation of the two time scales is due to the weaker temperature dependence of the diffusion coefficient. That is, diffusion is relatively enhanced at lower temperatures. This is quite analogous to the violation of the SE relation ($D=T/a \\eta$, where $a$ is a molecular length and $\\eta$ is the viscosity of the liquid) observed in experiments on supercooled liquids [@fujara]. Here, we mention that there exists a correlation between the increase of non-exponentiality (as the temperature is lowered) and the increase of the product $4 D\\tau$ at low temperatures [@ediger].\n\nIf we suppose that there exists a single dominant relaxation mode in the system (and hence one relaxation time scale $\\tau$), then we would obtain a simple exponential behavior for the relaxation function $C(t) \\sim e^{-t/\\tau}$. On the other hand, if the system consists of many regions with different relaxation times, then the relaxation function would be roughly some superposition of exponentials with a broad distribution of relaxation times, which would be in general not expressible in a simple exponential form, but in stretched exponetial form or other more complicated forms.\n\nThe fact that there exists a breakdown of proportionality between $\\tau$ and $D^{-1}$ can be interpreted in the following way that invokes dynamic heterogeneity. As the temperature is lowered, the system consists of many regions with different relaxation time that comes from different local mobilities. We can easily see that the structural relaxation time is dominated by the least mobile regions, that is, by the regions with the longest relaxation time. On the contrary, the average (long time) diffusion characteristics is dominated by the most mobile regions. In other words, the structural relaxation function and the self-diffusion function, respectively, are probing more or less opposite aspects of the relaxation behavior of the system. For an extreme example, one can imagine a system where half of the whole system is frozen (no motion of the component particles) while the remaining half of the system has finite relaxation time with uniformly distributed mobile particles. For this system, the structural relaxation time $\\tau$ would be infinite due to the frozen half of system, but inverse of the average diffusion constant $D^{-1}$ is finite due to the mobile part of the system, leading to an extreme breakdown of SE relation. Above simulation result, thus, can be interpreted as an evidence pointing toward the existence of a kinetic heterogeneity in the relaxation dynamics and mobility of the system.\n\nIn fact, the kinetic heterogeneity can be visualized in our system. Typical charge configuration at $T=0.033$, as shown in Fig.\u00a07, exhibits local striped patterns (ordered domains) and interfacial regions due to mismatch between adjacent domains. For a fixed quenching temperature, the average size of these local domains reaches a certain length scale when the system equilibrates. After equilibration, the system structurally rearranges itself going from one configuration to another with local domains of similar length scale. Figure 8 shows the trajectories of moving positive charges over a time interval of 500 MC steps for $T=0.033$ (corresponding to Fig.\u00a07). We can see that there exist local regions with actively moving charges and other regions with relatively immobile charges. Among the active regions, we can find those charges moving along partially filled diagonal channels. We also find some extended interfacial regions where no discernible local order can be identified, that exhibit relatively high mobility. Enhancement of particle diffusion is probably due to the motions of charges along the partially filled diagonals as well as those fluidized motions in the extended interfacial regions. These fastly moving regions in surroundings of very slowly moving regions offer a specific example for spatial heterogeneity in glassy systems [@harrowell; @onuki], which was often thought of as the physical mechanism for breakdown of the SE relation.\n\nOne simple way to quantify the degree of dynamic heterogeneity directly from the local motions of particles is to calculate the dynamic cooperativity [@doliwa] for one particle dynamic quantities such as [*e.g.*]{}, displacement vectors $X_i \\equiv |\\vec{r}_i (t+ \\Delta t) - \\vec{r}_i (t) | $ between the time $t$ and $t+\\Delta t$ for some fixed time interval $\\Delta t$. We can also choose $X_i$ to be the vector displacement itself $X_i \\equiv \\vec{r}_i (t+ \\Delta t) - \\vec{r}_i (t) $. If there are no correlations between the motions of particles, then the variations of the $X_i$\u2019s will satisfy\n\n$$\\sigma [ \\sum_{i} X_i ] = \\sum_{i} \\sigma [X_i ],$$\n\nwhere $\\sigma[x]$ denotes the mean square deviations of the random number $x$, $\\sigma [x] \\equiv \\langle (x-<x>)^2 \\rangle$. However, some correlations between the particle motions will increase $\\sigma [ \\sum_{i} X_i ]$ or anti-correlations will decrease it. Following Doliwa and Heuer, we can define the dynamic cooperativity as $$N_{X}^{coop} \\equiv {{\\sigma [ \\sum_{i} X_i ] } \\over \n{ \\sum_{i} \\sigma [X_i ]}}.$$ In the case of no correlations between the motions of particles, as in (6), we get $N_X^{coop} =1$. If there exist some positive correlated motions between particles, we would get $N_X^{coop} > 1$, while anti-correlations between the motions of particles would result in $N_X^{coop} < 1$. Doliwa and Heuer investigated the dynamic cooperativity of hard sphere systems in 2D and 3D, where they found finite cooperativity ($N_X^{coop} > 1$) for both vector displacement and the scalar magnitude of the displacement, which is consistent with the snapshots of the particle motions in their work. They argue that the dynamic cooperativity measures the total reduction of degrees of freedom due to the correlations. Here we also studied the dynamic cooperativity of the lattice gas particles by calculating $N_{X}^{coop}$ for both the scalar displacement and the vector displacement itself. Interestingly, we found that the scalar displacement exhibited finite dynamic cooperativity (Fig.\u00a09a), while the vector displacement itself showed weak anti-correlations between particles. as shown in Fig.\u00a09b. In the case of scalar displacement, the cooperativity increases at first as the time interval $\\Delta t$ increases and reaches its maximum near the $\\alpha$-relaxation time scale $\\tau$. Then it decrease back to values around unity (corresponding to no correlations) at large $\\Delta t$.\n\nContrasting features of cooperativity for our LCG system and that for the hard sphere systems may be interpreted as follows. In the case of hard sphere systems near the glass transition, the packing density is very high and the inter-particle interaction is a short ranged one. Therefore, the local motions of particles in hard sphere systems are naturally highly correlated in both its direction and magnitude due to the continuity constraint of particles resulting in a large scale flow with directional correlations.\n\nIn contrast, in the case of the LCG, the density of particles is relatively low ($f \\simeq 0.38 $) as compared with the case of hard sphere systems near the glass transition. In addition to that, charge motions in the LCG is driven by thermal effect. From the snapshots of charge configurations, we see that there exist locally mobile regions as well as locally immobile regions. Locally immobile regions consist of charge configurations that are close to the low temperature striped patterns. Mobile regions, however, consist of charges that are agitated in random directions due to the thermal effect. Thus we do not observe positive dynamic cooperativity in vector displacement, but only the scalar displacement exhibits appreciable positive cooperativity due to the local regions with high mobilities. Hence, heterogeneity still exists in our lattice Coulomb gas in terms of local mobility distribution, but unlike the case of hard sphere systems, there is no appreciable average local flow.\n\nAlso, we may look into the nature of the equilibrium dynamics of the system in wave-vector space. Figure\u00a010 shows the structure factor $S(q) \\equiv \\langle |\\rho_q|^2 \\rangle $ at equilibrium where $\\rho_q \\equiv \\sum_j \\exp [i \n\\vec{q} \\cdot \\vec{r}_j ]/N $ where $q= {{2 \\pi }  \\over L} n $, $n=1,2, \\cdots 2/L $. We see that the structure factor of our LCG shows some similarity to those of dense liquids with first peak corresponding roughly to the inverse of the average distance between charges. Due to the lattice nature of the LCG, the wave vector has cutoff value at $q_{max}=\\pi$ as in the figure.\n\nThe diffusive properties of the system can be probed by calculating the incoherent scattering function (ISF) $F_S(q,t)$ which is defined as in our model of LCG\n\n$$F_S (q,t) \\equiv \\langle \\sum_{j=1}^{N_Q} \\exp i \\vec q \n\\cdot [\\vec r_j(t)- \\vec r_j (0)]\n\\rangle / N_Q,$$\n\nwhere $\\vec r_j(t)$ denotes the position of $j$-th particle on the lattice. Due to the discrete lattice nature of our model sytem, we need to consider the wave-vectors within the first Brillouin zone $q= {{2 \\pi }  \\over L} n $, $n=0,1,2, \\cdots L-1 $. Figure\u00a011 shows the $q$-dependence of $F_S(q,t)$ at temperature $T=0.033$. We find that the long-time behavior of $F_S(q,t)$ also can be fitted to stretched exponential form. For low $q$, the late time $\\beta$ exponents were close to one (pure exponential relaxation) but as $q$ increases the exponents decreased down to $\\beta \\approx 0.73$ for $q = 18 \\times 2 \\pi /36 $, and $T=0.033$ (Fig.\u00a012). As can be seen from the definition of $F_S(q,t)$, for gaussian distribution for the displacement vector $\\Delta \\vec{r}_i$, we would get $$F_{G} (q,t) \\equiv \\langle \\exp iq [\\Delta r ] \\rangle \n= \\exp [ -{{q^2} \\over 2} \\langle (\\Delta r )^2 \\rangle ].$$ Figure 13 shows that the gaussian approximation is quite good for low $q$. That is, for long distance diffusion, the distribution gets closer to gaussian. However, as $q$ becomes larger, the gaussian approximation gets worse as shown in the figure. Similar features were reported in molecular dynamics simulations on the dynamics of supercooled water [@sciortino].\n\nIn summary, we have shown that the 2D LCG with fractional filling of charges exhibits an equilibrium relaxation behavior, above first order melting transition, characterized by two time-regimes of stretched exponetial form with temperature dependent exponents, which is quite similar to the primary relaxation of typical supercooled liquids. We found a strong deviation from proportionality between the diffusive time scale and the structural relaxation time scale resembling the breakdown of SE relation in supercooled liquids. This is accompanied by a characteristic dynamic cooperativity, where the scalar displacement exhibits positive cooperativity while the vector displacement shows anti-correlations leading to the vector cooperativity less than unity. We have identified the microscopic heterogeneous structure which is responsible for this phenomena.\n\nWe thank M. D. Ediger, P. Harrowell, K. Kawasaki and S. Teitel for discussions. This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-1999-015-DP0098) (SJL, BK) and (KRF-1998-15-D00089) (JRL).\n\n[99]{} M. D. Ediger, C. A. Angell, and S. R. Nagel, J. Phys. Chem. [**100**]{}, 13200 (1996); most recent developments on the subject can be found in the collection of papers in the conference proceedings such as J. Non-Cryst. Solids [**235-237**]{} (1998), J. Phys. C: Condens. Matter [**10A**]{} (1999), and J. Phys. C: Condens. Matter [**12**]{} (2000).\n\nF. Fujara, B. Geil, H. Sillescu, and G. Fleischer, Z. Phys. B [**88**]{}, 195 (1992); N. Menon, S. R. Nagel, and D. C. Venerus, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 963 (1994); M. T. Cicerone and M. D. Ediger, J. Chem. Phys. [**104**]{}, 7210 (1996) and references therein.\n\nD. Thirumalai and R. D. Mountain, Phys. Rev. E [**47**]{}, 479 (1993).\n\nD. N. Perera and P. Harrowell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 120 (1998).\n\nR. Yamamoto and A. Onuki, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 3515 (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 4915 (1998).\n\nJ. A. Hodgdon, and F. H. Stillinger, Phys. Rev. E [**48**]{}, 207 (1993); F. H. Stillinger and J. A. Hodgdon, [ibid]{}, [**50**]{}, 2064 (1994).\n\nG. Tarjus and D. Kivelson, J. Chem. Phys. [**103**]{}, 3071 (1995).\n\nC. Z.-W. Liu and I. Oppenheim, Phys. Rev. E [**53**]{}, 799 (1996).\n\nS. Bhattacharyya and B. Bagchi, J. Chem. Phys. [**107**]{}, 5852 (1997).\n\nX. Xia and P. G. Wolynes, cond-mat/0101053.\n\nFor recent review on the heterogeneity, see H. Sillescu, J. Non-Cryst. Solids [**243**]{}, 81 (1999) and references therein.\n\nFor some of the most recent works, see B. Chakraborty, L. Gu, and H. Yin, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**12**]{}, 6487 (2000); A. Lipowski and D. A. Johnson, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 6375 (2000); M. Swift, H. Bokil, R. D. M. Travasso, and A. J. Bray, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 11494 (2000).\n\nB. Kim and S. J. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3709 (1997); S. J. Lee and B. Kim, Phys. Rev. E [**60**]{}, 1503 (1999).\n\nJ. Villain, J. Phys. (Paris) [**36**]{}, 581 (1975); J. V. Jos\u00e9, L. P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B [**16**]{}, 1217 (1977).\n\nP. Gupta, S. Teitel, and M. J. P. Gingras, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 105 (1998).\n\nC. Denniston and C. Tang, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 3163 (1999).\n\nT. C. Halsey, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{}, 1018 (1985); Physica B [**152**]{}, 22 (1988).\n\nM. Y. Choi and D. Stroud, Phys. Rev. B [**32**]{}, 7532 (1985); Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 7109 (1987); J. S. Chung, M. Y. Choi, and D. Stroud, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 11476 (1988); S. Y. Park, M. Y. Choi, B. J. Kim, G. S. Jeon, and J. S. Chung, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3484 (2000).\n\nB. Doliwa and A. Heuer Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 6898 (2000).\n\nS. Teitel, [*Equilibrium Phase Transitions in Josephson Junction Arrays*]{} in Proceedings of the Sitges Conference on Glassy Systems, E. Rubi, Springer, Berlin (1996); J. P. Straley and G. M. Barnett, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 3309 (1993).\n\nFor further details, see J.-R. Lee and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 3247 (1992).\n\nA. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 2635 (1988); C. Borgs and R. Koteck\u00fd, J. Stat. Phys. [**61**]{}, 79 (1990).\n\nS. J. Lee, B. Kim, and J.-R. Lee unpublished.\n\nM. Cicerone and M. D. Ediger, J. Chem. Phys. [**104**]{}, 7210 (1996).\n\nF. Sciortino, L. Fabbian, S. H. Chen, and P. Tartaglia, Phys. Rev. E [**56**]{}, 5397 (1997).\n\n**FIGURE CAPTIONS**\n\n1.  Snapshots of charge configuration at time steps (a) t=16 MCS, (b) t=4096 MCS, (c) t=65536 MCS, and (d) t=1048576 MCS, for temperature $T = 0.026$ and $f=55/144$, exhibiting coarsening toward an ordered striped state. Positive charges are represented by filled squares.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  Energy histogram near the first order transition temperature (for $T = 0.03165$ and $T=0.0317$).\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  Regimes of charge patterns for the range of value of $f$ between $1/3$ and $2/5$. See the text for details.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  \\(a) The charge autocorrelation functions for temperatures $T = 0.1$, $0.08$, $0.06$, $0.05$, $0.042$, $0.037$, $0.035$, $0.033$. (b) Arrhenius plot for the relaxation time ($\\log (\\tau)$ versus $1/T$). (c) Charge autocorrelation functions in (a) replotted in terms of the rescaled time $t/ \\tau (T)$ which shows that the time-temperature superposition is broken. (d) Temperature dependence of the $b$ and $\\beta$ exponents for charge autocorrelation functions.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  Squared displacement $W(t)$ versus time $t$ for the same temperatures as in Fig.\u00a04a.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  Comparison of the two time scales $D^{-1}$ and $\\tau$ ($4D \\tau $ versus $T$), which clearly shows that the diffusive time scale increases slowly (as the temperature is lowered) as compared with the structural relaxation time.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  Typical charge configurations at $T=0.033$. Positive charges are represented by filled squares.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  Trajectories of moving positive charges at $T=0.033$ over a time interval of $500$ MC steps. Arrows indicate the directions of single charge motions.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  Dynamic cooperativity for (a) scalar displacement and (b) vector displacement respectively for varying time intervals at various temperatures.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  The structure factor $S(q)$ at $T=0.033$ and $T=0.037$.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  The incoherent intermediate scattering functions at temperature $T = 0.033$ for various wave vectors $q$.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  $q$-dependence of the $b$ and $\\beta$ exponents for the intermediate scattering functions at temperature $T = 0.033$.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  Comparison of the Gaussian approximations and the incoherent intermediate scattering functions at temperature $T = 0.033$ for various wave vectors $q$. We can see that the gaussian approximation is worse at large wave vectors.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We theoretically study the proximity spin-orbit coupling in graphene on transition-metal dichalcogenides monolayer stacked with arbitrary twist angles. We find that the relative rotation greatly enhances the spin splitting of graphene, typically by a few to ten times compared to the non-rotated geometry, and the maximum splitting is achieved around $20^\\circ$. The induced SOC can be changed from the Zeeman-type to the Rashba-type by rotation. The spin-splitting is also quite sensitive to the gate-induced potential, and it sharply rises when the graphene\u2019s Dirac point is shifted toward the TMDC band. The theoretical method does not need the exact lattice matching and it is applicable to any incommensurate bilayer systems. It is useful for the twist-angle engineering of a variety of van der Waals proximity effects.'\nauthor:\n- Yang Li\n- Mikito Koshino\nbibliography:\n- 'reference.bib'\ntitle: 'Twist-angle dependence of the proximity spin-orbit coupling in graphene on transition-metal dichalcogenides'\n---\n\nThe physical properties of 2D material are generally sensitive to the interference with other materials placed in contact. In recent years, a great deal of experimental and theoretical efforts have been made to explore the proximity-induced phenomena in van der Waals heterostructures consisting of different 2D crystals.[@geim2013van] In particular, it was shown that the negligibly small spin-orbit coupling (SOC) of intrinsic graphene can be significantly enhanced by superimposing on the surface of transition-metal dichalcogenides (TMDC), [@avsar2014spin; @kaloni2014quantum; @gmitra2015graphene; @wang2015strong] and it is expected to be useful to realize spintronic manipulation in graphene. In the studies on the proximity effect on 2D materials, however, the importance of the relative lattice orientation has often been overlooked. The previous theoretical calculations of proximity spin-orbit effects of graphene/TMDC system are limited to the non-rotated geometry. [@kaloni2014quantum; @gmitra2015graphene; @wang2015strong] On the other hand, the sensitive dependence on the relative twist angle $\\theta$ was noticed in various 2D hetrostructures, and controlling $\\theta$ is expected to be powerful means of manipulating their electronic properties. [@carr2017twistronics; @palau2018twistable] In graphene on hexagonal BN system, for instance, the moir\u00e9 interference pattern gives rise to the formation of the secondary Dirac points and the miniband structure. [@kindermann2012zero; @wallbank2013generic; @mucha2013heterostructures; @jung2014ab; @moon2014electronic; @dean2013hofstadter; @ponomarenko2013cloning; @hunt2013massive; @yu2014hierarchy] The twisted bilayer graphene also exhibits the dramatic angle-dependent phenomena, such as the flat band formation [@lopes2007graphene; @mele2010commensuration; @trambly2010localization; @shallcross2010electronic; @morell2010flat; @bistritzer2011moire; @moon2012energy; @de2012numerical] and the emergent superconductivity. [@cao2018unconventional; @cao2018mott] For graphene/TMDC hetrostructure, the twist-angle dependent band structure was theoretically simulated for several commensurate angles by the density functional theory (DFT) [@wang2015electronic; @di2017angle; @hou2017robust], and it is also experimentally probed. [@jin2015tuning; @pierucci2016band; @du2017h; @lu2017moire] However, the $\\theta$-dependence of spin-orbit coupling induced on graphene remains still unclear. It is generally hard to consider arbitrary twist angles in the DFT calculation, because it requires exact lattice matching to have a finite unit cell.\n\nIn this letter, we theoretically study the proximity SOC effect in graphene-TMDC heterostructures with arbitrary twist angles $\\theta$, and reveal the angle dependence of SOC for various different TMDCs. Using the tight-binding model and the perturbational approach, which do not need the commensurate lattice matching, we obtain the effective Hamiltonian of graphene as a continous function of $\\theta$. We find that the relative rotation greatly enhances the spin splitting, typically by a few to ten times compared to the non-rotated geometry $(\\theta=0)$, and the maximum splitting is achieved around $\\theta \\sim 20^\\circ$. We also show that the induced SOC is composed of the Zeeman-like term and the rotated Rashba-like term, and the relative magnitude can be controlled by rotation. Finally, we demonstrate that the spin-splitting is quite sensitive to the relative band energy between graphene and TMDC, and it sharply rises when the graphene\u2019s Dirac point is shifted toward TMDC band by applying the gate voltage. The theoretical method proposed here is applicable to any incommensurate bilayer systems where the DFT calculation cannot be used, and therefore it considerably extends the applicability of the theoretical framework to a wide variety of van der Waals heterostructures.\n\nWe consider monolayer graphene placed on the top of a TMDC monolayer. Graphene and TMDC are two dimensional honeycomb lattices with different lattice periods, $a_G = 2.46$\u00c5 for graphene and $a_T$ for TMDC given in table \\[tab:table1\\]. We define the stacking geometry starting from non-rotated arrangement with parallel bond directions, and then rotating TMDC by the twist angle $\\theta$ around the common center of hexagon as in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:atomic structure\\](a). The lattice structure has the $C_3$ (120$^\\circ$) rotational symmetry with respect to the rotation center. We neglect the degree of freedom of the in-plane parallel translation between TMDC and graphene, since in an incommensurate system it can always be incorporated with the shift of the origin. [@koshino2015interlayer]\n\nThe lattice vectors of graphene are then given by $\\mathbf{a}_1 = a_G(1, 0)$ and $\\mathbf{a}_2 = a_G(1/2, \\sqrt{3}/2)$, and those of TMDC are by $\\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}_1 = R a_T(1, 0)$ and $\\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}_2 = R a_T(1/2, \\sqrt{3}/2)$, where $R= R(\\theta)$ is the rotation matrix. The unit cell area is $S = |\\mathbf{a}_1 \\times \\mathbf{a}_2|$ and $\\tilde{S} = |\\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}_1 \\times \\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}_2|$ for graphene and TMDC, respectively. The reciprocal lattice vectors, $\\mathbf{a}^*_1, \\mathbf{a}^*_2, \\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}^*_1, \\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}^*_2$, are defined by $\\mathbf{a}_i \\cdot \\mathbf{a}^*_j = \\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}_i \\cdot \\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}^*_j = 2 \\pi \\delta_{ij}$. We define $d$ as the distance between the graphene layer and the top chalcogen layer, and $w$ as the distance between top and bottom chalcogen layers. The values of $d$ and $w$ depend on TMDCs as shown in table \\[tab:table1\\].\n\nWe model graphene by the tight-binding model of carbon $p_z$ orbitals, where the sublattice is labeled as $X= p_z^{A}, p_z^{B}$ for A and B sites, respectively. For TMDC, we adopt the tight-binding model including three $p$ orbitals for a chalcogen atom and five $d$ orbitals for a transition metal atom [@fang2015ab]. The orbitals in a TMDC unit cell is labeled by $\\tilde{X}= d_{z^2},d_{xy},d_{x^2-y^2},d_{xz},d_{yz}, p_x^{t},  p_y^{t},  p_z^{t}, p_x^{b}, p_y^{b}, p_z^{b}$, where $t$ and $b$ represent top and bottom chalcogen layers. The positions of the orbitals are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\Vec{R}_{X}=n_1\\Vec{a}_{1}+n_2\\Vec{a}_{2}+\\GVec{\\tau}_X\n\\quad (\\mbox{graphene}), \\nonumber\\\\\n&\\Vec{R}_{\\tilde{X}}=\\tilde{n}_1\\tilde{\\Vec{a}}_{1}+\\tilde{n}_2\\tilde{\\Vec{a}}_{2}+\\GVec{\\tau}_{\\tilde{X}}\n\\quad (\\mbox{TMDC}),\\end{aligned}$$ where $n_i$ and $\\tilde{n}_i$ are integers, and $\\GVec{\\tau}_X$ and $\\GVec{\\tau}_{\\tilde{X}}$ are the sublattice position inside the unit cell. Specifically, they are expressed as $\\boldsymbol{\\tau}_{p_z^{A}} =  - \\boldsymbol{\\tau}_1$, $\\boldsymbol{\\tau}_{p_z^{B}} = \\boldsymbol{\\tau}_1 $ for graphene, and $\\boldsymbol{\\tau}_{\\tilde{X}}  =  -\\tilde{\\boldsymbol{\\tau}}_1 - (d+w/2)  \\Vec{e}_z$ for the transition metal $d$-orbitals and $\\boldsymbol{\\tau}_{\\tilde{X}}  = \\tilde{\\boldsymbol{\\tau}}_1 -d \\Vec{e}_z, \\tilde{\\boldsymbol{\\tau}}_1 -(d+w) \\Vec{e}_z$ for the top and bottom charcogen $p$-orbitals, respectively, where $\\boldsymbol{\\tau}_1=(-\\mathbf{a}_1 + 2 \\mathbf{a}_2)/ 3$ and $\\tilde{\\boldsymbol{\\tau}}_1=(-\\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}_1 + 2 \\tilde{\\mathbf{a}}_2)/ 3$.\n\nThe Hamiltonian is spanned by the Bloch bases, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    & |\\Vec{k},X,s\\rangle = \n    \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{N}}\\sum_{\\Vec{R}_{X}} e^{i\\Vec{k}\\cdot\\Vec{R}_{X}}\n    |\\Vec{R}_{X}, s \\rangle\\quad (\\mbox{graphene}), \\nonumber\\\\\n    & |\\tilde{\\Vec{k}},\\tilde{X},\\tilde{s}\\rangle = \n    \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\tilde{N}}}\\sum_{\\Vec{R}_{\\tilde{X}}} e^{i\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}\\cdot\\Vec{R}_{\\tilde{X}}}\n    |\\Vec{R}_{\\tilde{X}},\\tilde{s}\\rangle \\quad (\\mbox{TMDC}),\n    \\label{eq_bloch_base}\\end{aligned}$$ where $s, \\tilde{s}$ are the spin indexes, $\\Vec{k}$ and $\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}$ are the two-dimensional Bloch wave vectors parallel to the layer, and $N = S_{\\rm tot}/S$ and $\\tilde{N}=S_{\\rm tot}/\\tilde{S}$ are the number of unit cells of TMDC and graphene, respectively, in the total system area $S_{\\rm tot}$.\n\n  --------------- --------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------\n                                                                                              \n     $a_T$(\u00c5)          3.18[@fang2015ab]       3.32[@fang2015ab]       3.18[@fang2015ab]                      3.32[@fang2015ab]\n      $w$(\u00c5)           3.13[@fang2015ab]       3.34[@fang2015ab]       3.14[@fang2015ab]                      3.35[@fang2015ab]\n      $d$(\u00c5)           3.37[@fang2015ab]       3.41[@ma2011first]   3.41[@kaloni2014quantum]              3.42[@kaloni2014quantum]\n   $E_T-E_G$(eV)   0.02[@gmitra2015graphene]   0.6[@ma2011first]    0.12[@kaloni2014quantum]   1.06[@agnoli2018unraveling; @kaloni2014quantum]\n  --------------- --------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------\n\n  : \\[tab:table1\\] List of parameters for TMDCs and graphene-TMDC bilayers used in this work (see the text).\n\n![Spin-orbit parameters $\\lambda$, $\\lambda_R$, the central energy gap $E_{\\rm gap}$ and the spin splitting $E_{\\rm split}$, as a function of the twist angle $\\theta$ in graphene-TMDC bilayers.[]{data-label=\"fig_lambda\"}](fig_lambda.png){width=\"1.\\hsize\"}\n\nThe total tight-binding Hamiltonian is expressed as $H = H_{\\rm G} + H_{\\rm T} + H_{\\rm int},$ where $H_{\\rm G}$ and $H_{\\rm T}$ are the Hamiltonian for the intrinsic graphene monolayer and TMDC monolayer, respectively, and $H_{\\rm int}$ is for the coupling between graphene and TMDC. For $H_{\\rm T}$, we adopt the hopping parameters based on the first principles calculation [@fang2015ab] where the spin-orbit coupling is included by on-site $\\Vec{L}\\cdot\\Vec{S}$ term for each atom. The on-site energy of the TMDC atoms relative to the carbon atoms is extracted from the relative energy $E_T-E_G$ from the graphene Dirac point to TMDC conduction band edges in the first principles calculations[@gmitra2015graphene; @agnoli2018unraveling; @ma2011first; @ma2011first; @kaloni2014quantum], which are listed in Table \\[tab:table1\\].\n\nFor the interlayer interaction, we assume that the transfer integral from $\\Vec{R}_{X}$ to $\\Vec{R}_{\\tilde{X}}$ is expressed as $-T_{\\tilde{X}X}(\\Vec{R}_{\\tilde{X}} - \\Vec{R}_{X})$, with the Slater-Koster parameterization [@slater1954simplified] and the exponential decay in the distance. Here the hopping amplitude and the decay length are determined to fit the first principles calculations. The detailed method is described in the supplementary materials. The coupling between the Bloch state of graphene and that of TMDC is then given by [@bistritzer2011moire; @koshino2015interlayer] $$\\begin{aligned}\n                && \\braket{\\tilde{\\mathbf{k}}, \\tilde{X}, \\tilde{s} | H_{\\rm int} | \\mathbf{k}, X, s} = \\nonumber\\\\ \n        && -\\sum_{\\mathbf{G}, \\tilde{\\mathbf{G}}}  t_{\\tilde{X}X}(\\mathbf{k} + \\mathbf{G}) e^{-i \\mathbf{G} \\cdot \\boldsymbol{\\tau}_X + i \\tilde{\\mathbf{G}} \\cdot \\boldsymbol{\\tau}_{\\tilde{X}}} \\delta_{\\mathbf{k} + \\mathbf{G}, \\tilde{\\mathbf{k}} + \\tilde{\\mathbf{G}}} \\delta_{\\tilde{s}s} .\n        \\label{eq:interlayer coupling hamiltonian}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Here $\\Vec{G}=m_1\\Vec{a}^*_1+m_2\\Vec{a}^*_2$ and $\\tilde{\\Vec{G}}=\\tilde{m}_1\\tilde{\\Vec{a}}^*_1+\\tilde{m}_2\\tilde{\\Vec{a}}^*_2$ are reciprocal lattice vectors of graphene and TMDC, respectively, ${t}_{\\tilde{X}X}(\\Vec{q})$ is the in-plane Fourier transform of the transfer integral defined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n{t}_{\\tilde{X}X}(\\Vec{q}) = \n\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{S\\tilde{S}}} \\int\nT_{\\tilde{X}X}(\\Vec{r}+ z_{\\tilde{X}X}\\Vec{e}_z) \ne^{-i \\Vec{q}\\cdot \\Vec{r}} d^2r,\n\\label{eq_ft}\\end{aligned}$$ where $z_{\\tilde{X}X} = (\\GVec{\\tau}_{\\tilde{X}}-\\GVec{\\tau}_{X})\\cdot\\Vec{e}_z$.\n\n![Band structures for graphenes on (a)MoS$_2$, (b)WS$_2$, (c)MoSe$_2$ and (d)WSe$_2$ at the twist angles $\\theta =0^\\circ, 15^\\circ$, and $30^\\circ$, where color indicates the expectation value of $s_z$. In the band plots of MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ at $\\theta =0^\\circ$, the dotted green line indicates the DFT calculations.[]{data-label=\"fig_band_all\"}](fig_band_all.png){width=\"1.\\hsize\"}\n\nThe Hamiltonian of graphene including the TMDC proximity effect can be obtained by the second order perturbation as $H_{\\rm eff} (\\Vec{k})= H_G (\\Vec{k})  + V_{\\rm eff} (\\Vec{k})$, where $$\\begin{aligned}\n& [V_{\\rm eff} (\\Vec{k})]_{X's',Xs}   =\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\quad  \n\\sum_{\\tilde{n},\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}} \n \\frac{\n\\braket{\\mathbf{k}, X', s' | H_{\\rm int} | \\tilde{n},\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}}\n\\braket{\\tilde{n},\\tilde{\\Vec{k}} | H_{\\rm int} | \\mathbf{k}, X, s}\n }\n {E_G - E_{\\tilde{n},\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}}}.\n\\label{eq_V_eff}\\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_G$ is the energy of the graphene\u2019s Dirac point, and $E_{\\tilde{n},\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}}$ and $|\\tilde{n},\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}\\rangle$ are the eigen energy and eigen state of $H_{\\rm T}$, respectively, with the band index $\\tilde{n}$ (including the spin degree of freedom) and the Bloch vector $\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}$. Note that $|\\tilde{n},\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}\\rangle$ is written as a linear combination of $|\\tilde{\\mathbf{k}}, \\tilde{X}, \\tilde{s} \\rangle$ of the same $\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}$. The summation over $\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq\\_V\\_eff\\]) is taken according to the condition Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:interlayer coupling hamiltonian\\]).\n\nThe low-energy Hamiltonian is obtained by expanding $H_{\\rm eff} (\\Vec{k})$ around the valley center $\\mathbf{K}_\\xi \\equiv -\\xi(2\\mathbf{a}^*_1 + \\mathbf{a}^*_2) / 3$, where $\\xi = \\pm 1$ is the valley index. Within the linear term, $H_{\\rm G}$ is approximated by $H^{(\\xi)}_G(\\Vec{k}) = -\\hbar v (\\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{K}_\\xi) \\cdot (\\xi \\sigma_x, \\sigma_y)$, where $v$ is the band velocity of graphene, and $\\sigma_x$ and $\\sigma_y$ are Pauli matrices for the sublattice space $X= p_z^{A}, p_z^{B}$. [@ando2009electronic]. For the proximity SOC term, we only take the zero-th order $V_{\\rm eff}(\\Vec{K}_\\xi) \\equiv V^{(\\xi)}_{\\rm eff}$. Now that the transfer integral $T_{\\tilde{X}X}(\\Vec{R})$ attenuates exponentially and so does its Fourier transform $t_{\\tilde{X}X}(\\mathbf{q})$, it suffices to keep only a few $\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}$\u2019s in the summation of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq\\_V\\_eff\\]). For $\\Vec{k}=\\Vec{K}_\\xi$, the dominant contribution comes from three points, $\\tilde{\\mathbf{k}} = \\mathbf{K}_\\xi  + \\xi \\tilde{\\Vec{a}}^*_1, \\mathbf{K}_\\xi  + \\xi (\\Vec{a}^*_1 + \\tilde{\\Vec{a}}^*_2), \n\\mathbf{K}_\\xi  + \\xi (\\Vec{a}^*_1 + \\Vec{a}^*_2 -  \\tilde{\\Vec{a}}^*_1 - \\tilde{\\Vec{a}}^*_2)$, while the effect of other $\\tilde{\\Vec{k}}$\u2019s are negligibly small. In this way, the effective proximity potential can be obtained by considering TMDC Bloch states at only three wave points, and the corresponding computing cost is considerably low.\n\nWe can show that $V^{(\\xi)}_{\\rm eff}$ can be written as, $$V^{(\\xi)}_{\\rm eff}  = \\frac{\\lambda}{2} \\xi s_z +  \\frac{\\lambda_R}{2} e^{-i \\phi s_z/2}(\\xi \\sigma_x s_y - \\sigma_y s_x)e^{i \\phi s_z/2},\n\\label{eq:V_eff_short}$$ where $s_i \\, (i=x,y,z)$ is the Pauli matrix for spin. It is explicitly written in a matrix form, $$\\begin{aligned}\n&V^{(+)}_{\\rm eff}\n          = \\left( \\begin{array}{cccc}\n           \\lambda/2 & & & \\\\\n            &  \\lambda/2 & -i \\lambda_R e^{-i\\phi} & \\\\\n            & i \\lambda_R e^{i\\phi}  & - \\lambda/2 & \\\\\n            & & & - \\lambda/2\n\\end{array} \\right),\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&V^{(-)}_{\\rm eff}          = \\left( \\begin{array}{cccc}\n           - \\lambda/2 & & & i \\lambda_R e^{-i\\phi}  \\\\\n            & - \\lambda/2 &  & \\\\\n            && \\lambda/2 & \\\\\n            -i \\lambda_R e^{i\\phi} & & &  \\lambda/2\n\\end{array} \\right),\n\\label{eq: effective hamiltonian-2}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ where the bases are arranged by order of $(X,s)=(A, \\uparrow)$, $(B, \\uparrow)$, $(A, \\downarrow)$ and $(B, \\downarrow)$. The difference in the diagonal elements $\\lambda$ leads to the spin splitting between spin up and spin down, and the off-diagonal term $\\lambda_R$ mixes the different spins. The term with $\\lambda_R$ is similar to the Rashba spin-orbit coupling [@kane2005quantum; @wang2015strong] but here the spin axis can be rotated by an angle $\\phi$ on $xy$-plane. The energy gap at the charge neutral point is given by $E_{\\rm gap} = |\\lambda\\lambda_R|/(\\lambda^2+\\lambda_R^2)^{1/2}$. The spin splitting width in large $k$ is given by $E_{\\rm split} = (\\lambda^2+\\lambda_R^2)^{1/2}$. The effective Hamiltonian $H^{(\\xi)}_{\\rm eff} = H^{(\\xi)}_G(\\Vec{k}) + V^{(\\xi)}_{\\rm eff}$ is formally equivalent with that of the asymmetric bilayer graphene, [@mccann2006asymmetry; @mccann2013electronic] where the spin up and down correspond to layer 1 and 2, respectively, and $\\lambda_R$ and $\\lambda$ to the interlayer coupling and the interlayer asymmetric potential, respectively.\n\nThe form of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:V\\_eff\\_short\\]) is forced by the symmetry of the system. The terms in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:V\\_eff\\_short\\]) are generally allowed in the time reversal symmetry $\\cal{T}$ and the $C_3$ symmetry. Actually, the term proprotional to $\\sigma_z$ (different on-site energies at $A$ and $B$ sites) is also possible under $\\cal{T}$ and $C_3$ [@wang2015strong], while it is prohibited by the incommesurability between graphene and TMDC, as explained in Supplementary Material. An additional space symmetry imposes a constraint on $V^{(\\xi)}_{\\rm eff}$. At $\\theta =0$, the reflection symmetry $R_x:(x,y,z)\\to (-x,y,z)$ requires $e^{i\\phi}$ is real. At $\\theta =30^\\circ$, the reflection symmetry $R_y:(x,y,z)\\to (x,-y,z)$ requires real $e^{i\\phi}$ and also $\\lambda = 0$, i.e., the SOC is dominated by the Rashba term. The detailed argument of the symmetry consideration is presented in Supplementary Material.\n\n![(Top) Position of three dominant $\\tilde{\\mathbf{k}}$ points for $\\xi = +$, in WS$_2$ with $\\theta = 0^\\circ, 17.9^\\circ$, and $30^\\circ$. Blue (green) hexagon represents the first Brillouin zone of graphene (WS$_2$). (Bottom left) Band structure of WS$_2$, where the vertical dashed lines indicate the $\\tilde{\\mathbf{k}}$ for the three rotation angles, and the black horizontal line is the energy of graphene\u2019s Dirac cone without gate voltage. (Bottom Right) Plot similar to Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_lambda\\], calculated for WS$_2$ with $E_T-E_G = -0.08$ eV, indicated by the blue dashed horizontal line in (b)[]{data-label=\"fig_WS2_band\"}](fig_WS2_band.png){width=\"\\hsize\"}\n\nWe numerically calculate $V^{(\\xi)}_{\\rm eff}$ for MoS$_2$, WS$_2$, MoSe$_2$ and WSe$_2$. Figure \\[fig\\_lambda\\] summarizes the results, where $\\lambda$, $\\lambda_R$, the central energy gap $E_{\\rm gap}$ and the spin splitting $E_{\\rm split}$ are plotted against the twist angle $\\theta$. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_band\\_all\\], we present the band structures for each system at the rotation angles $\\theta =0^\\circ, 15^\\circ$, and $30^\\circ$. In the band plots of MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ at $\\theta =0^\\circ$, the dotted green line indicates the first DFT calculations, from which we extract the interlayer hopping parameters. For the DFT calculation, we assume the approximate commensurate lattice structure of which unit cell is comprised of 3$\\times$3 supercell of MoS$_2$ and 4$\\times$4 of graphene, and use Quantum Espresso[@giannozzi2009quantum; @giannozzi2017advanced] with the generalized gradient approximation[@perdew1996generalized]. We can see that the effective model well reproduces the DFT band structure. For the angle dependence, we find that $\\lambda$ and $\\lambda_R$ are greatly enhanced by rotation, and they take the maximum around $\\theta \\sim 20^\\circ$. For WS$_2$, in particular, the maximum splitting is about 5 times as large as that of 0$^\\circ$. At 30[$^{\\circ}$]{}, the parameter $\\lambda$ vanishes and the $V_{\\rm eff}$ is dominated by $\\lambda_R$ as expected. There the band structure is formally equivalent to the symmetric AB-stacked bilayer graphene, and the expectation value of spin lies on the $xy$-plane.\n\nThe enhancement of the spin-splitting near $20^\\circ$ can be understood by considering the second-order process, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq\\_V\\_eff\\]). The amplitude of $V_{\\rm eff}$ is related to the spin splitting of the TMDC bands at $\\tilde{\\mathbf{k}}$ points which are hybridized with the graphene\u2019s Dirac point. Figure \\[fig\\_WS2\\_band\\](a) illustrates the positions of the three dominant $\\tilde{\\mathbf{k}}$\u2019s for $\\xi = +$, in WS$_2$ with $\\theta = 0^\\circ, 17.9^\\circ$, and $30^\\circ$. Figure \\[fig\\_WS2\\_band\\](b) presents the band structure of WS$_2$ with the vertical dashed lines indicating the $\\tilde{\\mathbf{k}}$\u2019s for the three rotation angles. Now the lowest valence band of TMDC makes the greatest contribution to $V_{\\rm eff}$, as it is the closest to the graphene\u2019s Dirac point energy (black horizontal line), leading to a small denominator in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq\\_V\\_eff\\]). We can see that the $\\tilde{\\mathbf{k}}$ point for $17.9^\\circ$ happens to be very close to the $Q$-valley, where the magnitude of the spin splitting much greater than in other angles. This qualitatively explains the sharp rise of $\\lambda$ and $\\lambda_R$ around $20^\\circ$. Actually, the spin splitting can be even enhanced by shifting the relative energy between graphene and TMDC. Figure \\[fig\\_WS2\\_band\\](c) plots the angle dependence of the spin-splitting of WS$_2$ with $E_T-E_G =  -0.08$ eV, where the graphene\u2019s Fermi energy (blue horizontal line) hits the bottom of the Q-valley. Although the Fermi energy is just a little higher than in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_lambda\\](b), the maximum spin splitting sharply increases to 20 meV, about 10 times as big as in $\\theta =0$, because the denominator in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq\\_V\\_eff\\]) becomes very small. This suggests that tuning of the spin-orbit coupling would be possible using the external gate voltage.\n\nFinally, the graphene under the proximity potential has the non-zero valley Hall conductivity when the Fermi energy lies in the central gap. The Hall conductivity of each valley sector can be calculated using the Berry curvature as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sigma^{(\\xi)}_{xy} = \\frac{e^2}{h} \\sum_{n \\in {\\rm occ.}} \\int \\frac{d^2\\Vec{k}}{2\\pi} \\nabla_\\Vec{k}\\times \\Vec{a}_n(\\Vec{k})\n= -\\frac{e^2}{h} \\, \\xi \\, {\\rm sgn}(\\lambda),\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Vec{a}_n(\\Vec{k}) = -i \\langle u_{n\\Vec{k}}| \\nabla_\\Vec{k} | u_{n\\Vec{k}}\\rangle$ is the Berry connection, $u_{n\\Vec{k}}$ is the Bloch function (eigenvector of $H^{(\\xi)}_{\\rm eff}$) of the band $n$, and occ. stands for the occupied valence bands ($n=1,2$). As a result, the valley Hall conductivity becomes $\\sigma^{(+)}_{xy} - \\sigma^{(-)}_{xy} = -(2e^2/h){\\rm sgn}(\\lambda)$.\n\nTo conclude, we have studied the proximity spin-orbit interaction in graphene-TMDC bilayers stacked with arbitrary twist angles. By using the perturbational approach based on the tight-binding model, we derived the effective Hamiltonian of graphene as a continuous function of the twist angle $\\theta$, and found that the magnitude of SOC is greatly enhanced by the rotation. We also show that the SOC sharply rises when the graphene\u2019s Dirac point is shifted toward TMDC band, by applying the gate voltage. The theoretical method proposed here does not need the exact lattice matching, so that it is applicable to any incommensurate bilayer systems which cannot be treated by the DFT calculation. It would be useful for the twist-angle engineering of a wide variety of van der Waals proximity effects, including ferromagnetism and superconductivty. M. K. acknowledges the financial support of JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. JP17K05496.\n"}
-{"text": "\\\n\n[**Dois Problemas em Equa\u00e7\u00f5es Diferenciais Parciais**]{}\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[Paulo R. Zingano]{}\\\n\\\n[Departamento de Matem\u00e1tica Pura e Aplicada]{}\\\n\\\n[Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul]{}\\\n\\\n[Porto Alegre, RS 91509-900, Brazil]{}\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n*Trabalho in\u00e9dito submetido para avalia\u00e7\u00e3o*\\\n*para fins de progress\u00e3o funcional \u00e0 Classe E*\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[**Abstract**]{}\\\n\\\n\n[ In this work, we examine two important problems in the theory of nonlinear partial differential equations. In [Part I]{}, we propose and solve a more general and complete version of the celebrated Leray\u2019s problem for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in $ \\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!$, which in its simplest form was suggested by J.$\\;$Leray in 1934 (and solved only in the 1980s by T.$\\;$ Kato, K.$\\;$Masuda and other authors). A number of related new results of clear interest to the theory of Leray\u2019s solutions are also given here.\\\nIn [Part II]{}, which is independent of [Part I]{} and can be read separately, we introduce an important new collection of problems concerning global existence results and blow-up phenomena for solutions of conservative advection-diffusion equations in $ \\mathbb{R}^{n} $ where heterogeneities in the lower order terms tend to destabilize the solution (everywhere or in certain regions), strongly competing with the viscous dissipation effects to determine the overall solution behavior. This work extends some recent contributions led by the author [@Zingano2010; @Zingano2011] (see also [@BarrionuevoOliveiraZingano2014; @BrazMeloZingano2015]) where the analysis was confined to one-dimensional problems, primarily in the case of linear advection, for which solutions are automatically global and can only misbehave by increasing unboundedly as $ t \\rightarrow \\infty $. Here, we consider the much more challenging case of superlinear advection (and arbitrary dimension), which may cause finite-time blow-up in several important spaces. We then point out a new kind of phenomena \u2014 one that may be properly named \u201canti-Fujita\" for its vivid contrast to the type of blow-up behavior discovered by Fujita in the 1960s, and which has been investigated ever since \u2014 that has apparently been completely overlooked in the literature. For better clarity, we restrict ourselves here to the case of linear nondegenerate diffusion, but similar properties and behavior are also to be found in much more general diffusion phenomena, as will be reported shortly. ]{}\n\n\\\n[**\u00cdndice**]{}\\\n[\\\n]{}[Parte I: Problema de Leray]{}\\\n\\\n1. Introdu\u00e7\u00e3o $\\;$1\\\n2. Preliminares, I $\\;$7\\\n3. Preliminares, II $\\;$12\\\n4. Prova de (1.12$a$) $\\;$16\\\n5. Prova de (1.12$b$) $\\;$23\\\nAp\u00eandice A $\\;$28\\\n[\\\n]{}[Parte II: Problema de Exist\u00eancia Global para Equa\u00e7\u00f5es de Advec\u00e7\u00e3o-Difus\u00e3o Conservativas]{}\\\n\\\n1. Introdu\u00e7\u00e3o $\\;$31\\\n2. Preliminares $\\;$35\\\n3. Prova de (1.10) $\\;$40\\\n4. Condi\u00e7\u00f5es de exist\u00eancia global $\\;$48\\\n[\\\n]{}[Refer\u00eancias]{} $\\;$51\\\n[\\\n]{}[\\\n]{}[**Contribui\u00e7\u00f5es Principais**]{}\\\n[\\\n]{}[Parte I]{}\\\n\\\nTeorema 3.1 $\\;$12\\\nTeorema 4.1 $\\;$16\\\nTeorema 5.1 $\\;$23\\\nTeorema A.1 $\\;$30\\\n[\\\n]{}[Parte II]{}\\\n\\\nTeorema A $\\;$33\\\nTeorema B $\\;$34\\\nTeorema 3.1 $\\;$40\\\nTeorema 4.1 $\\;$48\\\n\n\\\n\n[Parte I]{}\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[**Problema de Leray**]{}\\\n\n\\\n[**1. Introdu\u00e7\u00e3o**]{}\\\nEm seu trabalho seminal [@Leray1934], Leray construiu solu\u00e7\u00f5es (fracas) globais de energia finita $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\in $ $ {\\displaystyle\nL^{\\infty}([\\;\\!0, \\infty), \\:\\!L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}))\n\\cap\nC_{\\!\\;\\!w}([\\;\\!0, \\infty), \\:\\!L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}))\n\\cap\nL^{2}([\\;\\!0, \\infty), \\;\\!\\dot{H}^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}))\n} $ para as equa\u00e7\u00f5es de Navier-Stokes em $ \\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\:\\!$,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.1$a$}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{t} +\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\!\\;\\!\\cdot\\!\\;\\! \\nabla\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n\\,+\\,\n\\nabla p\n\\,=\\;\n\\nu \\,\n\\Delta \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$},\n\\qquad\n\\nabla \\!\\cdot\\!\\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\,=\\,0,$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.1$b$}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,0) \\,=\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\in L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}),\n$$\\\nonde $ \\nu > 0 $ \u00e9 constante, e $ {\\displaystyle\nL^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})\n} $ denota o espa\u00e7o de fun\u00e7\u00f5es $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\bf u} =\n(\\:\\! \\mbox{u}_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\:\\!,\n \\:\\! \\mbox{u}_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\!\\:\\!,\n \\:\\! \\mbox{u}_{\\mbox{}_{3}} \\!\\;\\!)\n\\in L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})\n\\;\\!\n} $ com $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\nabla \\!\\cdot \\mbox{\\bf u}\n= 0\n} $ em $ {\\cal D}^{\\prime}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $. Ademais, estas solu\u00e7\u00f5es reproduzem o estado inicial $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\!\\;\\!$ em $ L^{2} \\!\\;\\!$ (i.e., $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) - \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\!\\,\\!\\rightarrow 0\n\\;\\!\n} $ ao $\\;\\! t \\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\,\\searrow\\,$} 0 $) e satisfazem a desigualdade de energia\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.2}\n\\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\:\\!+\\;\n2 \\;\\!\\nu \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}} \\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\;\\!ds\n\\;\\leq\\;\n\\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n$$\\\npara todo $ t > 0 $ [@Galdi2000; @KreissLorenz1989; @Leray1934; @Serrin1963]. Enquanto a [*unicidade*]{} das solu\u00e7\u00f5es de Leray correspondentes a um estado inicial $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\in L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $ qualquer permanece fundamentalmente em aberto at\u00e9 hoje, Leray mostrou que existe um instante de tempo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n0 < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast}\n\\!\\;\\!< \\infty\n\\:\\!\n} $ (dependendo dos dados $ \\nu, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 $ fornecidos) tal que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\in\nC^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\times\\!\\:\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast}\\!\\;\\!, \\infty))\n} $[^1] e\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.3}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\in\nL^{\\infty}_{\\tt loc}\n([\\;\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast},\\infty),\nH^{m}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}))\n$$\\\npara cada $ m \\geq 0 $, onde $ H^{m}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $ denota o espa\u00e7o de Sobolev das fun\u00e7\u00f5es (neste caso, com valores em $ \\mathbb{R}^{3} $) em $ L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $ com derivadas (espaciais) fracas de ordem at\u00e9 $m$ em $ L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $. Um problema b\u00e1sico importante deixado aberto por Leray em 1934 foi (denotando $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nW(t) := \\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $, como em [@Leray1934]):\\\n\\\n\n\\\nou seja, se vale (ou n\u00e3o) que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.4}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n=\\; 0.$$\\\nEsta quest\u00e3o somente foi resolvida (positivamente) 50 anos mais tarde por Kato [@Kato1984] e subsequentemente tamb\u00e9m por outros autores [@KajikiyaMiyakawa1986; @Masuda1984; @Wiegner1987]. V\u00e1rios desenvolvimentos e extens\u00f5es importantes de (1.4) vem sendo estabelecidos (ver e.g.$\\;$[@BenameurSelmi2012; @BrazLorenzMeloZingano2014; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @OliverTiti2000; @SchonbekWiegner1996; @SchutzZinganoZingano2014] e a discuss\u00e3o abaixo). Em particular, uma prova extremamente simples para (1.4) foi obtida em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], com base no m\u00e9todo em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003], utilizando somente t\u00e9cnicas j\u00e1 conhecidas em 1934!$\\:\\!$[^2] $\\!$($\\,\\!$Para uma descri\u00e7\u00e3o detalhada do m\u00e9todo em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], ver [@Perusato2014].)\\\nDado $ t_0 \\!\\geq 0 $, \u00e9 natural que se tente aproximar as solu\u00e7\u00f5es $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ de (1.1) para $ t > t_0 $ pelas solu\u00e7\u00f5es $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t) =\ne^{\\nu \\:\\! \\Delta \\:\\!(t - t_0)} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n} $ dos problemas lineares associados\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.5}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}_{t}\n\\,=\\;\n\\nu \\,\n\\Delta \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$},\n\\qquad\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,=\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0).$$\\\nPara estas solu\u00e7\u00f5es, \u00e9 f\u00e1cil obter v\u00e1rias estimativas de decaimento, como e.g.\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.6$a$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\,=\\;\n0,$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.6$b$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\:\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{\\scriptstyle 4}}}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\,=\\;\n0,$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.6$c$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\:\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle s}{\\scriptstyle 2}}}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\;\\!s}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\,=\\;\n0,\n\\qquad\ns \\geq 0,$$\\\nv\u00e1lidas para todo $n$. (Em (1.6$c$) acima, $ \\!\\:\\!\\dot{H}^{\\!\\;\\!s}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n}) $ denota o espa\u00e7o de Sobolev homog\u00eaneo formado pelas fun\u00e7\u00f5es $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$} = (v_{\\scriptscriptstyle 1}\\!\\;\\!,\\!...,v_{n})\n\\in L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n} $ tais que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n| \\cdot |^{\\,\\!s}_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\:\\!\n|\\,\\hat{\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}}(\\cdot)\\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\in\\!\\;\\! L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n} $, onde $ \\hat{\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}}(\\cdot) $ denota a transformada de Fourier de $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot) $, com norma $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\\!\n\\| \\cdot\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\:\\!s}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\n} $ dada por\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.7}\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\:\\!s}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n=\\,\n\\Bigl\\{\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}} \\!\\!\n|\\,\\xi\\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}^{\\:\\!2\\:\\!s}\n\\;\\!\n|\\, \\hat{\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}}(\\xi)\\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}^{2}\n\\,d\\xi\n\\:\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\;\\!1/2}\n\\!\\!.$$\\\nPodemos assim esperar que estimativas similares a (1.6) sejam tamb\u00e9m v\u00e1lidas para as solu\u00e7\u00f5es de Leray $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ de (1.1), ao menos para $ n = 3 $, dado $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $ u $}_0 \\in L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}) $ qualquer. Este \u00e9 essencialmente o [Problema de Leray]{} para as equa\u00e7\u00f5es de Navier-Stokes, com sua vers\u00e3o mais b\u00e1sica dada em (1.4) acima. Outras quest\u00f5es se p\u00f5em aqui naturalmente; por exemplo, a respeito do comportamento da diferen\u00e7a (ou erro) $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) - \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t) $ para $ t \\gg 1 $. Na norma $L^{2}\\!\\;\\!$, esta quest\u00e3o sobre o erro foi respondida por Wiegner [@Wiegner1987], tendo-se, para $ t_0 \\geq 0 $ qualquer,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.8}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\,\nt^{\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle n - 2}{\\scriptstyle 4}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) -\\,\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\:\\! \\Delta \\:\\!(t - t_0)}\n\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\:\\!=\\;\n0.$$\\\nComo com (1.4), uma prova mais simples para (1.8) foi recentemente dada em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], supondo $ n \\leq 3 $, tendo-se tamb\u00e9m mostrado os resultados correspondentes a (1.6$b$):\\\n$$\\tag{1.9$a$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty} \\,\nt^{\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{\\scriptstyle 4}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\:\\!=\\;\n0,$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.9$b$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\,\nt^{\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle n - 1}{\\scriptstyle 2}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) -\\,\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\:\\! \\Delta \\:\\!(t - t_0)}\n\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\:\\!=\\;\n0,$$\\\nem dimens\u00e3o $ n = 2, 3 $ (cf.$\\;$[@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], Section 4). No presente trabalho, vamos estabelecer as estimativas (mais dif\u00edceis) correspondentes a (1.6$c$) no caso das solu\u00e7\u00f5es de Leray do problema (1.1), al\u00e9m de estimativas similares sobre o erro (ver (1.10$b$) abaixo). Os resultados s\u00e3o simples de descrever: dados $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $ u $}_0 \\!\\;\\!\\in L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}) $, $ t_0 \\!\\;\\!\\geq 0 $ quaisquer,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.10$a$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\:\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle s}{2} }}\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\:\\!s}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\:0,$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.10$b$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\:\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n} - 2}{4} \\;\\!+\\;\\!\\frac{\\scriptstyle s}{2}\n}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\:\\!-\\:\\!\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\:\\!\\Delta (t - t_0)} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\:\\!s}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\:0,$$\\\npara todo $ s \\geq 0 $ ($s$ real), e $ \\;\\!n = 2, 3 $. Note-se que (1.4), (1.8) e (1.9) tornam-se agora consequ\u00eancias simples de (1.10), que pode assim ser considerada como a forma geral completa do problema de Leray, resolvida neste trabalho (exceto que, no caso especial $ n = 2 $, tem-se (1.10$a$) derivada previamente em [@BenameurSelmi2012], usando um procedimento diferente). A obten\u00e7\u00e3o de (1.10$b$) \u00e9 particularmente delicada, e utiliza a estimativa\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.11}\n\\|\\, e^{\\:\\!\\nu \\:\\!\\Delta (t - t_0)}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\;\\!-\\,\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\:\\!\\Delta (\\:\\!t - t_1\\!\\;\\!)}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_1) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\:\\!s}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\nK\\;\\! \\nu^{\\scriptstyle \\,-\\,\n\\frac{1}{2} \\,-\\, \\gamma} \\,\n( t_1 \\!\\;\\!-\\;\\! t_0 )^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\frac{1}{2}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n(t - t_{1} \\!\\;\\!)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!-\\, \\gamma}}\n$$\\\npara $ t > t_1 > t_0 \\geq 0 $ arbitr\u00e1rios, derivada na Se\u00e7\u00e3o 3 abaixo, onde $ \\gamma = n/4 \\;\\!+\\;\\! s/2 $, e $ \\:\\!K \\!= K\\!\\;\\!(n,s) > 0 \\;\\!$ \u00e9 uma constante (cujo valor depende apenas dos par\u00e2metros $\\;\\!n, s $ considerados). Leitores interessados prioritariamente nas novas contribui\u00e7\u00f5es do presente trabalho podem neste ponto consultar diretamente os seguintes resultados: Teorema 3.1, Teorema 4.1 (e Lema 4.1), Teorema 5.1 e Teorema A.1 (Ap\u00eandice A). Tamb\u00e9m pode ser conveniente rever rapidamente os Teoremas 4.2 e 4.3 e os resultados revisados na Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2 a seguir.\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Observa\u00e7\u00e3o 1.1.**]{} Tomando-se $ s = m $ (inteiro) em (1.10), resulta (por (1.7) e do fato de se ter$\\;\\!$[^3] $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\:\\!m}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m} \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $, por Parseval):\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.12$a$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\:\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\|\\, D^{m} \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\:0,$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.12$b$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\:\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n} - 2}{4} \\;\\!+\\;\\!\\frac{|\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle \\alpha}\\;\\!|}{2}\n}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\:\\!-\\:\\!\nD^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\:\\!\\Delta (t - t_0)} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\;\\!] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\:0,$$\\\npara todo $ m \\geq 0 $, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\alpha = (\\:\\! \\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\,\\!, \\:\\!\n\\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\\!\\;\\!,\\!\\;\\!...,\\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle n}})\n} $, sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n|\\,\\alpha\\,| =\n\\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!+\n\\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\\!\\:\\!+ ... +\n\\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle n}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ a ordem de $ \\alpha $. Assim, (1.10) descreve o comportamento de $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $, $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) - \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t) $ e suas derivadas (espaciais) de qualquer ordem. Na verdade, (1.10) e (1.12) s\u00e3o equivalentes: tendo-se (1.12), obt\u00e9m-se (1.10) aplicando-se a propriedade de interpola\u00e7\u00e3o\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.13}\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\:\\!s}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\leq\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\:\\!s_{\\mbox{}_{1}}}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{1}}}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\dot{H}^{\\!\\:\\!s_{\\mbox{}_{2}}}\\!\\;\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{2}}}}\n\\!,\n\\qquad\ns_{\\mbox{}_{1}} <\\:\\! s <\\:\\! s_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\!\\;\\!,$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!=\\:\\!\n\\theta_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\:\\!s \\:\\!/\ns_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\:\\!\n\\alpha_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\!=\\:\\!\n\\theta_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\:\\!s \\:\\!/\ns_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\theta_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\:\\!,\n\\:\\!\\theta_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\in (\\:\\!0, 1)\n\\:\\!\n} $ dados por $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\ns^{-\\;\\!1} \\!\\:\\!=\n\\theta_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\ns_{\\scriptscriptstyle 1}^{-\\;\\!1}\n\\!\\;\\!+\\;\\!\n\\theta_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\ns_{\\scriptscriptstyle 2}^{-\\;\\!1}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $. A obten\u00e7\u00e3o de (1.10) nas Se\u00e7\u00f5es 2, 3 abaixo ser\u00e1 feita considerando-se a forma (1.12) destas propriedades. Se desejado, seria tamb\u00e9m suficiente derivar o resultado no caso particular $ \\nu = 1 $; uma vez obtido, os resultados (1.10), (1.11), (1.12) para $ \\nu > 0 $ geral decorreriam ent\u00e3o de argumentos simples de escala (dado que, sendo $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(x,t) $, $ p(x,t) $ uma solu\u00e7\u00e3o de Leray do sistema (1.1) para dado $ \\nu > 0 $, ent\u00e3o $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $U$}(x,t) :=\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\nu \\;\\!x, \\nu \\;\\!t)\n} $, $ {\\displaystyle\nP(x,t) := p(\\nu \\;\\!x, \\nu \\;\\!t)\n} $ definem uma solu\u00e7\u00e3o de Leray para (1.1) com $ \\nu = 1 $).\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Observa\u00e7\u00e3o 1.2.**]{} A an\u00e1lise e resultados a seguir podem tamb\u00e9m ser adaptados/estendidos para o problema de Navier-Stokes com for\u00e7as externas, ou seja,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.14$a$}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{t} +\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\!\\;\\!\\cdot\\!\\;\\! \\nabla\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n\\,+\\,\n\\nabla p\n\\,=\\;\n\\nu \\,\n\\Delta \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n\\,+\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(\\cdot,t),\n\\qquad\n\\nabla \\!\\cdot\\!\\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\,=\\,0,$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.14$b$}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,0) \\,=\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\in L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}),\n$$\\\nonde se sup\u00f5e, no caso mais simples, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$} \\in\nC^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!\\times \\!\\:\\![\\,0, \\infty))\n\\cap\\,\nL^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!\\times \\!\\:\\![\\,0, \\infty))\n} $ satisfazendo (1.15) abaixo: considerando-se a proje\u00e7\u00e3o de Helmholtz $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $g$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\:\\!=\\,\n\\mathbb{P}_{\\mbox{}_{\\!H}}[\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(\\cdot,t)\\,]\n\\;\\!\n} $ de $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(\\cdot,t) $ em $ L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}) $, a suposi\u00e7\u00e3o\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.15}\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}^{\\infty}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n(1 + t)^{\\:\\!m/2} \\:\n\\|\\,D^{m} \\,\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $g$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!dt\n\\;<\\, \\infty,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\, m \\geq 0$$\\\npermite a validade de (1.6), (1.10), (1.11), (1.12) acima, onde agora $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\equiv\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t\\:\\!; \\:\\! t_0)\n} $ deve ser definida como a solu\u00e7\u00e3o (\u00fanica) em $ L^{\\infty}(\\:\\![\\,t_0,\\infty), L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})) $ do problema\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.16}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}_{t}\n\\;=\\;\n\\nu \\;\\! \\Delta \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}\n\\,+\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $g$}(\\cdot,t),\n\\qquad\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,=\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0).$$\\\nHip\u00f3teses mais fracas sobre $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $g$}(\\cdot,t) $ podem tamb\u00e9m ser adotadas no lugar de (1.15), com resultados correspondentes mais fracos; por exemplo, tendo-se apenas\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.17}\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}^{\\infty}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n(1 + t)^{\\:\\!m/2} \\:\n\\|\\,D^{m} \\,\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $g$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!dt\n\\;<\\, \\infty,\n\\qquad\nm = 0, 1,$$\\\nobt\u00e9m-se (adaptando-se a prova em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], como feito em [@BrazLorenzMeloZingano2014]) que as estimativas (1.4), (1.6$a$), (1.6$b$), (1.8) e (1.9) acima permanecem v\u00e1lidas. Para mais detalhes, ver [@BrazLorenzMeloZingano2014]. Em [@Wiegner1987], obt\u00e9m-se (1.4) e (1.8) para as solu\u00e7\u00f5es de (1.14) supondo-se (1.17) para $ m = 0 $ apenas, e adicionalmente\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.18}\n\\limsup_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\;\nt^{\\;\\!n/4 \\,+\\, 1/2} \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $g$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{n}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!<\\;\n\\infty.$$\\\n[\\\n]{} Descrevendo sucintamente o conte\u00fado das se\u00e7\u00f5es seguintes, apresentamos na Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a02 v\u00e1rios resultados conhecidos que ser\u00e3o relevantes na deriva\u00e7\u00e3o das estimativas (1.10), (1.11) e (1.12) a seguir. Esta discuss\u00e3o \u00e9 baseada em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @Leray1934]. Na Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a03, estabelecemos (1.11), que ser\u00e1 importante para simplificar a prova de (1.10$b$), (1.12$b$) mais adiante. A Se\u00e7\u00e3o 4 \u00e9 inteiramente voltada \u00e0 obten\u00e7\u00e3o das estimativas (1.10$a$) e (1.12$a$), enquanto a Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a05 \u00e9 dedicada a (1.10$b$), (1.12$b$). Com exce\u00e7\u00f5es ocasionais, apresentaremos os detalhes no caso espec\u00edfico $ n = 3 $ apenas, j\u00e1 que as provas correspondentes em dimens\u00e3o $ n = 2 $ podem ser feitas seguindo um procedimento inteiramente an\u00e1logo (e, em alguns casos, bem mais simples).\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[**Nota\u00e7\u00e3o.**]{} Como j\u00e1 visto acima, usaremos (em geral) letras em negrito para grandezas vetoriais, e.g. $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(x,t)\n=\n} $ $ {\\displaystyle\n(\\:\\! u_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!1}}\\!\\;\\!(x,t),...,\n \\:\\! u_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\scriptstyle n}}\\!\\;\\!(x,t) \\:\\!)\n} $, denotando por $ | \\cdot |_{\\mbox{}_{2}} $ (ou simplesmente $ | \\cdot | $) a norma Euclideana em $ \\mathbb{R}^{n}\\!\\;\\!$, ver e.g.$\\;$(1.7). $\\!$Como \u00e9 usual, $ \\nabla p \\equiv \\nabla p(\\cdot,t) $ denota o gradiente (espacial) de $ \\;\\!p(\\cdot,t) $, $ D_{\\!\\;\\!j} \\!\\;\\!=\\:\\! \\partial / \\partial x_{\\!\\;\\!j} \\!\\;\\! $, e $ {\\displaystyle\n\\:\\!\n\\nabla \\!\\cdot \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n\\:\\!=\n  D_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!1}} u_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!1}} \\!\\;\\!+\n  ... +\n  D_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!n}} \\:\\! u_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!n}} )\n} $ \u00e9 o divergente (espacial) de $ \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $; analogamente, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\cdot \\nabla \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n\\;\\!=\\;\\!\nu_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!1}} D_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!1}} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n+ ... +\nu_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!n}}\nD_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!n}} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n} $, etc. $ {\\displaystyle\n\\| \\;\\!\\cdot\\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, $ 1 \\leq q \\leq \\infty $, denota a norma tradicional do espa\u00e7o de Lebesgue $ L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}) $, pondo-se, para $ 1 \\leq q < \\infty $:\n\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.19$a$}\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!=\\;\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n\\sum_{i\\,=\\,1}^{n} \\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}} \\!\n|\\:u_{i}(x,t)\\,|^{q} \\;\\!dx\n\\,\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/q}$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.19$b$}\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!=\\;\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n\\sum_{i, \\,j \\,=\\,1}^{n} \\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}} \\!\n|\\, D_{\\!\\;\\!j} \\;\\!u_{i}(x,t)\\,|^{q} \\;\\!dx\n\\,\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/q}$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.19$c$}\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!=\\;\n\\Bigl\\{\\!\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{} \\;\\;i, \\,j, \\,\\ell \\,=\\,1}^{n}\n\\!\\;\\! \\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}} \\!\n|\\, D_{\\!\\;\\!j} \\:\\!D_{\\ell} \\, u_{i}(x,t)\\,|^{q} \\;\\!dx\n\\,\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/q}$$\\\ne, mais geralmente, para $ m \\geq 1 $ qualquer:\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.19$d$}\n\\|\\, D^m \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot, t)\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n=\n\\biggl(\\;\\! \\sum_{i\\,=\\,1}^{n}\n\\sum_{\\;\\!j_{\\mbox{}_{1}}=\\,1}^{n}\n\\!\\cdots\\!\n\\sum_{j_{\\mbox{}_{m}}=\\,1}^{n}\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}$}}}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\;\\!D_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!j_{\\mbox{}_{1}}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\\cdots\nD_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!j_{\\mbox{}_{m}}}\nu_{i}(x,t)\\:|^q\\, dx\\:\\!\\biggr)^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/q}\\!\\!\\!\\!,$$\\\ndenotando-se por $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!=\\;\\!\n\\max \\, \\bigl\\{\\,\n\\|\\,u_{i}(\\cdot,t)\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\!: \\, 1 \\leq i \\leq n\n\\,\\bigr\\}\n} $ o supremo (essencial) de $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $, e similarmente para $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\,\\!\n} $, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\,\\!\n} $, etc. (Com estas defini\u00e7\u00f5es, tem-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\rightarrow\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ ao $ q \\rightarrow \\infty $, assim como, mais geralmente, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D^m \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\rightarrow \\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^m \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, para todo $m$.)$\\:\\!$[^4] Ocasionalmente, resulta tamb\u00e9m conveniente usar a seguinte defini\u00e7\u00e3o alternativa para a norma do sup de $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.20}\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}\n=\\;\n\\mbox{ess}\\,\\sup\\; \\bigl\\{\\:\n|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(x,t) \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!: \\: x \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n}\n\\,\\bigr\\}.$$\\\nPodemos tamb\u00e9m utilizar $ \\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^q}}\\!\\;\\!$ no lugar de $\\;\\! \\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^q(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\\!\\;\\!$, etc, por simplicidade. Constantes ser\u00e3o usualmente representadas pelas letras $ C \\!\\,\\!$, $\\!\\:\\!c$, $\\!\\:\\!K$; escrevemos $ \\:\\!C(\\lambda_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!, ...,\n\\lambda_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle k}})\\!\\;\\! $ para observar que o valor da constante $C$ em quest\u00e3o depende apenas dos par\u00e2metros $ \\;\\!\\{\\;\\!\\lambda_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!, ...,\n\\lambda_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle k}} \\}\\;\\!$ indicados (a menos que explicitamente mencionado em contr\u00e1rio). Por conveni\u00eancia e economia, usamos tipicamente o mesmo s\u00edmbolo para denotar constantes com diferentes valores num\u00e9ricos (por exemplo, escrevemos $ C^2 \\!\\;\\!$ ou $ 10 \\,C + 1 $, $ \\mbox{cosh}\\;C $, etc, novamente como $C\\!\\;\\!$, e assim por diante), como usualmente feito na literatura.\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Agradecimentos.**]{} Parte das contribui\u00e7\u00f5es feitas na [Parte I]{} n\u00e3o teria provavelmente sido poss\u00edvel sem v\u00e1rias ideias e m\u00e9todos introduzidos em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003]. O autor \u00e9 especialmente grato a Thomas Hagstrom e Jens Lorenz pelas in\u00fameras discuss\u00f5es ocorridas durante sua visita \u00e0 Universidade do Novo M\u00e9xico em 2001$\\;\\!$-$\\;\\!$2002.\n\n\\\n[**2. Preliminares, I**]{}\\\n\\\nNesta se\u00e7\u00e3o, reunimos por conveni\u00eancia v\u00e1rios resultados b\u00e1sicos dados em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @Leray1934] que ter\u00e3o papel relevante na deriva\u00e7\u00e3o das estimativas (1.10), (1.11), (1.12) nas se\u00e7\u00f5es seguintes. No texto, restringiremos nossa aten\u00e7\u00e3o ao caso (fundamental) de dimens\u00e3o $ n = 3 $, mas todos os argumentos usados podem ser facilmente estendidos/adaptados de modo a se aplicarem a $ n = 2 $ igualmente, com apenas pequenas mudan\u00e7as \u00f3bvias. Em todo o texto, $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ sempre denotar\u00e1 uma solu\u00e7\u00e3o de Leray (dada, qualquer) para as equa\u00e7\u00f5es (1.1), mesmo que nada seja dito explicitamente.\\\nPara a constru\u00e7\u00e3o das solu\u00e7\u00f5es de Leray $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ do problema (1.1), ver e.g.$\\;$[@Galdi2000; @Leray1934] e a discuss\u00e3o abaixo. Estas solu\u00e7\u00f5es foram obtidas em [@Leray1934] usando um procedimento de regulariza\u00e7\u00e3o engenhoso revisado a seguir. Tomando $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nG \\in C^{\\infty}_{0}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\;\\!\n} $ n\u00e3o negativa (qualquer) com $ \\!\\;\\!\\int_{\\mathbb{^R}^{3}} \\!\\:\\!G(x) \\,dx \\:\\!=\\:\\! 1 $, e definindo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!0, \\,\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot)\n\\in C^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})\n} $ pela convolu\u00e7\u00e3o de $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0}(\\cdot)\n\\;\\!\n} $ com $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nG_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}(x)\n\\:\\!=\\:\\!\n\\delta^{\\;\\!-\\,n} \\;\\!G(x/\\delta)\n} $, $ \\;\\!\\delta > 0 $, introduz-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}},\n\\,\np_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}}\n\\in\nC^{\\infty}(\\:\\!\\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\times\\!\\;\\! [\\,0, \\infty\\:\\!)\\:\\!)\n} $ como a solu\u00e7\u00e3o (\u00fanica, cl\u00e1ssica, globalmente definida e em $L^{2}$) do problema regularizado\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.1$a$}\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\;\\!t} }$}\n\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}}\n\\:\\!+\\:\n\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}}\n(\\cdot,t) \\!\\;\\!\n\\cdot\\!\\;\\! \\nabla\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}}\n\\:\\!+\\,\n\\nabla \\:\\!p_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}}\n\\;=\\;\n\\nu \\,\n\\Delta \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}},\n\\qquad\n\\nabla \\!\\cdot\\!\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}}(\\cdot,t)\n\\,=\\,0,$$\\\n$$\\tag{2.1$b$}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}}(\\cdot,0)\n\\,=\\,\n\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!0, \\,\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!:=\\,\nG_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!\\ast\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0}\n\\;\\!\n\\in\\!\n\\bigcap_{m\\,=\\,1}^{\\infty}\n\\! H^{m}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}),$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,t)\n\\!\\;\\!:=\\:\\!\nG_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}} \\!\\,\\!\\ast\n{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,t)\n} $. Em [@Leray1934], Leray logrou mostrar que, para uma sequ\u00eancia $ {\\displaystyle\n\\delta^{\\;\\!\\prime}\n\\!\\rightarrow\n\\:\\!0\n} $ apropriada, tem-se a converg\u00eancia fraca (em $L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})$)\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.2}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta^{\\;\\!\\prime}}}(\\cdot,t)\n\\,\\rightharpoonup \\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\quad \\;\\,\n\\mbox{as } \\;\\,\\delta^{\\;\\!\\prime}\n\\!\\rightarrow\n\\:\\!0,\n\\qquad \\;\\;\\;\n\\forall \\;\\, t \\geq 0,$$\\\ni.e., $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\delta^{\\;\\!\\prime}}}(\\cdot,t)\n\\,\\rightarrow \\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!\n} $ fracamente em $L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, para cada $ \\;\\! t \\geq 0 $ (ver [@Leray1934], p.$\\;$237), com $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\in\nL^{\\infty}([\\;\\!0, \\infty \\:\\!), L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}))\n\\cap\nL^{2}([\\;\\!0, \\infty \\:\\!), \\mbox{$\\stackrel{.}{H}$}\\mbox{}^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}))\n\\cap\nC^{0}_{w}([\\;\\!0, \\infty \\:\\!), L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}))\n\\:\\!\n} $ cont\u00ednua em $L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})\\!\\;\\! $ no instante $ t = 0 $ e resolvendo a equa\u00e7\u00e3o (1.1$a$) no sentido de distribui\u00e7\u00f5es. Ademais, (1.2) \u00e9 satisfeita para todo $ t \\geq 0 $, de modo que, em particular, tem-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.3}\n\\int_{0}^{\\:\\!\\infty} \\!\\!\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\:\\!dt\n\\;\\leq\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{1}{\\:\\!2\\;\\!\\mbox{\\normalsize $\\nu$}\\:\\!} }$} \\:\n\\|\\: \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!.\n$$\\\nOutra propriedade importante obtida em [@Leray1934] \u00e9 que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\in\nC^{\\infty}(\\:\\!\\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\times \\!\\;\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}\\!\\;\\!, \\infty\\:\\!)\\:\\!)\n\\;\\!\n} $ para certo $ \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\gg 1 $, com $ {\\displaystyle\nD^{m} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\in L^{\\infty}_{\\tt loc}\n(\\:\\![\\, \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast}\\!\\;\\!,\n \\infty \\:\\!), L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})\\:\\!)\n\\;\\!\n} $ para cada $ \\:\\! m \\geq 1 $. Este fato permite simplificar significativamente o argumento desenvolvido para (1.10)$\\,-\\,$(1.12) mais adiante. Outros resultados importantes referem-se \u00e0 proje\u00e7\u00e3o de Helmholtz de $ {\\displaystyle\n-\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\!\\;\\!\\cdot\\!\\;\\! \\nabla \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n} $ em $ L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, ou seja, o campo $ \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,t) \\in L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) \\:\\!$ dado por\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.4}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\! := \\;\n-\\:\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\!\\;\\!\\cdot\\!\\;\\! \\nabla \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\,-\\;\\! \\nabla \\:\\!p\\:\\!(\\cdot,t),\n\\qquad\n\\mbox{a.e. }\\;\\! t > 0.$$ As estimativas que precisaremos de $ \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,t) \\in L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) \\:\\!$ acima s\u00e3o revisadas a seguir. [\\\n]{}[**Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.1.**]{} *Para quase todo $ \\;\\! s > 0 $ $($e todo $\\;\\!s \\geq \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast})$, tem-se*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.5}\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta\n(\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\leq\\:\nK \\,\n\\nu^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\,\\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n( t - s )^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\! -\\,\\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}$$\\\n*para todo $ \\,t > s $, onde $ \\:\\!K \\!\\:\\!=\\:\\! (\\:\\! 8 \\:\\!\\pi )^{-\\,3/4} \\!\\:\\!$.*\\\n[\\\n]{}[[**Prova:**]{} O argumento a seguir \u00e9 adaptado de [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003]. Seja $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{F}\\:\\![\\;\\!f\\;\\!]\n\\equiv\n\\hat{f}\n\\;\\!\n} $ a transformada de Fourier de uma dada fun\u00e7\u00e3o $ \\!\\;\\!f \\!\\;\\!\\in L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, viz.,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.6}\n\\mathbb{F}\\:\\![\\;\\!f\\;\\!]\\:\\!(k)\n\\:\\equiv\\;\n\\hat{f}(k)\n\\,:=\\;\n(\\:\\!2\\:\\!\\pi)^{-\\,3/2} \\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\mathbb{R}^{3}}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\ne^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $- \\!\\;\\!\n\\stackrel{\\mbox{\\tiny $\\circ$}}{\\mbox{\\sf \\i$\\!\\;\\!$\\i}}\n\\!\\:\\! k \\!\\;\\!\\cdot\\!\\;\\! x$}}\nf(x) \\: dx,\n\\qquad\nk \\in \\mathbb{R}^{3}\n$$\\\n(onde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\:\\!\n\\stackrel{\\mbox{\\tiny $\\circ$}}{\\mbox{\\sf \\i$\\!\\;\\!$\\i}}\n\\mbox{}\\!\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{}^{2}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\;\\! - \\;\\!1\n} $). Dada $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\bf v}(\\cdot,s) =\n(\\:\\! \\mbox{v}_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!1}}\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,s),\n      \\mbox{v}_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!2}}\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,s),\n      \\mbox{v}_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!3}}\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,s)\\:\\! )\n\\in\nL^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) \\cap L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})\n\\:\\!\n} $ arbitr\u00e1ria, obt\u00e9m-se, pela identidade de Parseval,\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\begin{split}\n\\|\\:  e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\:\\!\\Delta \\mbox{\\scriptsize $(t-s)$}} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\bf v}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\;\\!&=\\;\\;\\!\n\\|\\; \\mathbb{F}\\;\\![\\, e^{\\;\\! \\nu \\:\\!\\Delta \\mbox{\\scriptsize $(t-s)$}}\n\\;\\!\\mbox{\\bf v}(\\cdot,s) \\: ] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2} \\\\\n&=\\,\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{3}} \\!\\!\ne^{-\\,2\\,\\nu \\;\\!|\\,\\mbox{\\scriptsize $k$}\\,\n|_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!2}}^{\\:\\!\\scriptstyle 2} \\:\\!(t \\,-\\, s)}\n\\;\\!\n|\\, \\hat{\\mbox{\\bf v}}(k,s) \\,\n|_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!2}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\, dk \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, \\hat{\\mbox{\\bf v}}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}^{\\:\\!2} \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{3}} \\!\\!\ne^{-\\,2\\,\\nu \\;\\!|\\,\\mbox{\\scriptsize $k$}\\,\n|_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!2}}^{\\:\\!\\scriptstyle 2} \\:\\!(t \\,-\\, s)}\n\\, dk \\\\\n&=\\;\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\frac{\\;\\!\\pi\\;\\!}{2} \\,\\Bigr)^{\\!\\!\\;\\!3/2}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\nu^{-\\,3/2}\n\\,( t - s )^{- \\,3/2}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\hat{\\mbox{\\bf v}}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\;\\!,\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\nou seja,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.7}\n\\|\\:  e^{\\;\\!\\nu\\:\\!\\Delta \\mbox{\\scriptsize $(t-s)$}} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\bf v}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\frac{\\;\\!\\pi\\;\\!}{2} \\,\\Bigr)^{\\!\\!\\;\\!3/4}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\nu^{-\\,3/4} \\,( t - s )^{- \\,3/4}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\hat{\\mbox{\\bf v}}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}\n\\!\\;\\!,$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n|\\;\\!\\cdot\\;\\!|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n} $ denota a norma Euclideana em $ \\mathbb{R}^{3}\\!\\;\\!$, e $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\hat{\\mbox{\\bf v}}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}\n\\!=\\,\n\\sup \\;\\{\\:\n|\\, \\hat{\\mbox{\\bf v}}(k,s) \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\!: \\, k\\,\\in\\,\\mathbb{R}^{3} \\:\\!\\}\n} $. Como ser\u00e1 mostrado abaixo, (2.5) segue de uma aplica\u00e7\u00e3o direta de (2.7) a $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\bf v}(\\cdot,s) =\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n} $. Para isso, \u00e9 preciso que se estime $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\hat{\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $: como tem-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{F}\\:\\![\\,\\nabla \\!\\:\\!\nP(\\cdot,s)\\,]\\:\\!(k) \\;\\!=\\;\\;\\!\n\\stackrel{\\mbox{\\tiny o}}{\\mbox{\\sf \\i$\\!\\;\\!$\\i}} \\!\\:\\!\n\\hat{p}(k,s) \\;\\!k\n\\,\n} $ e $ {\\displaystyle\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $\\sum$}_{j\\,=\\,1}^{3} k_{j}\n\\hat{Q}_{j}(k,s)\n=\\;\\!0\n} $ (pois $ \\nabla \\!\\:\\!\\cdot \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) =\\;\\! 0 $), segue que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{F}\\:\\![\\,\\nabla \\!\\:\\!\nP(\\cdot,s)\\,]\\:\\!(k)\n} $ e $ {\\displaystyle\n\\:\\!\n\\hat{\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}}(k,s)\n\\;\\!\n} $ s\u00e3o vetores ortogonais em $\\mathbb{C}^{3}\\!$, para todo $k \\in \\mathbb{R}^{3}\\!$. Lembrando, por (2.4), que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\hat{\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}}(k,s)\n+\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{F}\\:\\![\\,\\nabla \\!\\:\\!\nP(\\cdot,s)\\;\\!]\\:\\!(k)\n=\n} $ $ {\\displaystyle\n-\\:\n\\mathbb{F}\\;\\![\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\!\\;\\!\\cdot \\!\\;\\!\\nabla\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s)\\;\\!]\\:\\!(k)\n} $, obt\u00e9m-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.8}\n|\\,\\hat{\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}}(k,s) \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\,\\leq\\;\\,\\!\n|\\: \\mathbb{F}\\;\\![\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s)\\!\\;\\!\\cdot \\!\\;\\!\\nabla\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\\;\\!(\\cdot,s)\\;\\!]\\:\\!(k)\n\\:|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n$$\\\npara todo $\\;\\! k \\in \\mathbb{R}^{3}\\!$, de modo que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.9}\n\\|\\:\n\\hat{\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n\\|\\;\n\\mathbb{F}\\;\\![\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n\\!\\;\\!\\cdot \\!\\;\\!\\nabla\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\\,]\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\:\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}.$$\\\nPor outro lado, tem-se, para $ 1 \\leq i \\leq 3 $,\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\begin{split}\n|\\; \\mathbb{F}\\;\\![\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\!\\;\\!\\cdot \\!\\;\\!\\nabla\n\\;\\!u_{{\\scriptstyle i}}(\\cdot,s)\\,]\\:\\!(k) \\:|\n\\;\\,&\\leq\\;\n\\sum_{j\\,=\\,1}^{3} \\;\\!\n|\\; \\mathbb{F}\\;\\![\\, u_{{\\scriptstyle j}}(\\cdot,s) \\;\\!\nD_{{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!j}} \\:\\! u_{{\\scriptstyle i}}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,]\\:\\!\n(k) \\:| \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\n(\\:\\!2\\:\\!\\pi)^{-\\,3/2} \\;\\!\n\\sum_{j\\,=\\,1}^{3} \\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_{{\\scriptstyle j}}(\\cdot,s) \\;\\!\nD_{{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!j}} \\:\\! u_{{\\scriptstyle i}}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}} \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\n(\\:\\!2\\:\\!\\pi)^{-\\,3/2} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\nabla \\!\\;\\! u_{{\\scriptstyle i}}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!,\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\nusando Cauchy-Schwarz. $\\!$($\\;\\!$Aqui, como sempre, $ D_{\\!\\;\\!j} \\!\\;\\!=\\,\\! \\partial/\\partial x_{\\!\\;\\!j} \\!\\;\\!$.) Isso fornece\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.10}\n\\|\\; \\mathbb{F}\\;\\![\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\!\\;\\!\\cdot \\!\\;\\!\\nabla\n\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\\,]\\:\\!(\\cdot,s) \\:\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}\n\\:\\leq\\;\n(\\:\\!2\\:\\!\\pi)^{-\\,3/2} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\:\\!.$$\\\nDe (2.7), (2.9) and (2.10), obt\u00e9m-se (2.5), concluindo a prova da Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.1. ]{} $\\Box$\\\n\\\nNote-se que, repetindo o argumento acima para as solu\u00e7\u00f5es das equa\u00e7\u00f5es regularizadas (2.1), obt\u00e9m-se de modo an\u00e1logo que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.11}\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\Delta$} \\mbox{\\scriptsize $(t - s)$}} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\leq\\,\nK \\,\n\\nu^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{3}{4}}}\n(t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{4}}}\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}$$\\\npara cada $\\;\\!t > s > 0 $, sendo $ K \\!\\;\\!=\\:\\! (\\:\\!8 \\:\\!\\pi)^{-\\,3/4} \\!$, como antes, e\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.12}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\;=\\; -\\:\n\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\!\\;\\!\\cdot \\!\\;\\!\\nabla\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\,-\\;\\!\n\\nabla p_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,s).$$\\\nA estimativa (2.11) \u00e9 muito \u00fatil, visto que as solu\u00e7\u00f5es regularizadas $ {\\displaystyle\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,t)\n\\:\\!\n} $ definidas em\u00a0(2.1) satisfazem a desigualdade de energia\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.13}\n\\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\;\n2 \\, \\nu \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}} \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\;\\!ds\n\\;\\;\\!\\leq\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n$$\\\npara todo $\\;\\! t > 0 $ (e todo $ \\delta > 0 $), de modo que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, $\n\\int_{0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}} \\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\;\\!ds\n$\\\npodem ser estimadas independentemente de $ \\:\\!\\delta > 0 $. Isso ser\u00e1 usado no Teorema 3.1 (Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a03) para mostrar que a escolha particular de $\\;\\!t_0 \\!\\;\\!\\geq 0 \\;\\!$ ao se definir as aproxima\u00e7\u00f5es (1.5) n\u00e3o \u00e9 relevante com respeito \u00e0s propriedades (1.10$b$), (1.12$b$). Conv\u00e9m tamb\u00e9m generalizar a estimativa (2.5) para derivadas de ordem superior. No caso da equa\u00e7\u00e3o do calor, ser\u00e1 \u00fatil lembrarmos a seguinte estimativa (bem conhecida):\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.14}\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\,\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\:\\!\\Delta \\tau} \\,\\!\n\\mbox{u} \\,]\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(n,\\:\\!m)\n\\;\n\\|\\: \\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{r}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\:\\!\n(\\;\\!\\nu \\;\\!\\tau\\:\\!)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\! -\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{2}\n\\left( \\frac{1}{\\scriptstyle r} \\;\\!-\\;\\! \\frac{1}{2} \\right)\n\\,-\\, \\frac{|\\:\\!{\\scriptstyle \\alpha}\\:\\!|}{2} }}\n$$\\\npara todo $ \\tau > 0 $, e quaisquer $ \\alpha $ (multi-\u00edndice), $ 1 \\leq r \\leq 2 $, $ \\mbox{u} \\in L^{r}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}) $ considerados, $ n \\geq 1 $ arbitr\u00e1rio, e onde $ \\;\\!m = |\\;\\!\\alpha\\:\\!| $. ($\\:\\!$Para uma deriva\u00e7\u00e3o de (2.14), ver e.g.$\\;$[@KreissLorenz1989; @LorenzZingano2012].) [**Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.2.**]{} *Para quase todo $ \\;\\! s > 0 $ $($e todo $\\;\\!s \\geq \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast})$, tem-se*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.15}\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\{\\, e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta\n(\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\\}\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m) \\,\\;\\!\n\\nu^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\,\\gamma }}\n\\:\\!\n( t - s )^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\! -\\,\\gamma}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}$$\\\n*para todo $ \\,t > s $, onde $ m = |\\;\\!\\alpha\\;\\!| $, $ \\gamma = m/2 + 3/4 $, e $ \\:\\!K\\!\\;\\!(m) $ depende apenas de $\\;\\!m$.*\\\n\\\n[[**Prova:**]{} Este resultado \u00e9 uma consequ\u00eancia direta de (2.5) e (2.14) acima. De fato, tem-se:\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\{\\, e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta\n(\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\\}\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\leq\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq \\:\nK\\!\\:\\!(m)\n\\,\\;\\!\n\\nu^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{m}{2} }}\n(t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{m}{2} }}\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta\n(\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})/2}\n\\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\\}\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n} $ $\\;\\!$por (2.14)$\\;\\!$\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq \\:\nK\\!\\:\\!(m)\n\\,\\;\\!\n\\nu^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n(t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $. $\\;\\!$(2.5)$\\;\\!$\\\n]{} $ \\Box $\\\n\\\nPara fins do pr\u00f3ximo resultado a ser revisado nesta se\u00e7\u00e3o, dado na Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a02.3, precisaremos das seguintes desigualdades elementares de Nirenberg-Gagliardo () para fun\u00e7\u00f5es $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{u} \\in H^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})\n} $ quaisquer:\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.16$a$}\n\\|\\: \\mbox{u} \\:\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!0}} \\,\n\\|\\: \\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\: D^{2} \\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\!\\:\\!,\n\\qquad\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!0}} \\!\\;\\!<\\;\\! 0.678,$$\\\nver e.g.$\\;$$\\,$[@Taylor2011], Proposition 2.4, p.$\\;$5$\\,$, ou $\\,$[@Schutz2008], Teorema 4.5.1, p.$\\;$52$\\,$; $\\;\\!$e\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.16$b$}\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\leq\\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!1}} \\;\\!\n\\|\\: \\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\: D^{2} \\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!,\n\\qquad\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!1}} \\!\\;\\!=\\;\\! 1,$$\\\nfacilmente obtida usando a transformada de Fourier. De (2.16$a$), (2.16$b$), obt\u00e9m-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.17}\n\\|\\: \\mbox{u} \\:\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\,\\!\\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\leq\\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!2}} \\;\\!\n\\|\\: \\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\: D^{2} \\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\:\\!,\n\\quad \\;\\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!2}} \\!\\;\\!=\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!0}} \\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!1}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\!\\:\\!< 1.$$\\\nLembramos tamb\u00e9m a defini\u00e7\u00e3o de $ \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast} $ dada pela propriedade (1.3) na Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a01.\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.3.**]{} *Seja $ \\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ solu\u00e7\u00e3o de Leray para $\\;\\!(1.1)$. Ent\u00e3o, existe $ \\,t_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\!\\geq \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast}$ $($com $\\:\\!t_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}\\!\\:\\!$ dependendo da solu\u00e7\u00e3o $\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}$$)$ suficientemente grande tal que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $ \u00e9 uma fun\u00e7\u00e3o suave e monotonicamente decrescente de $ \\, t $ no intervalo $\\:\\! [\\,t_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}\\!\\;\\!, \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $\\infty$}\\:\\!)$.*\\\n\\\n\n[**Prova:**]{} O argumento abaixo \u00e9 adaptado da prova de $\\,$[@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002], Lemma 2.2$\\,$. Considere-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nt_{0}\n\\geq\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast}\n} $ (a ser escolhido abaixo), e seja $ \\;\\! t > t_{0} $. Aplicando $ {\\displaystyle\nD_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\ell}} \\!\\;\\!=\\:\\!\n\\partial/\\partial \\:\\!x_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\ell}}\n} $ \u00e0 primeira equa\u00e7\u00e3o em (1.1$a$), tomando o produto escalar com $ {\\displaystyle\n\\:\\!D_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\ell}}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n} $ e integrando em $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\times\\!\\;\\!\n[\\, t_{0}, \\;\\!t\\;\\!]\n} $, obt\u00e9m-se, somando em $ 1 \\leq \\ell \\leq 3 $,\\\n\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\:\n2 \\: \\nu\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\nds\n\\;\\;\\!=\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\;\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_{0}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\;\\!+\\:\n2\n\\sum_{i, \\, j, \\, \\ell}\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{3}}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\nu_{i}(x,s) \\;\\!\nD_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\;\\!\\ell}} u_{j}(x,s)\n\\;\\!\nD_{\\scriptstyle \\!j}\nD_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\;\\!\\ell}}\nu_{i}(x,s) \\,\ndx \\: ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_{0}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\:\n2 \\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\infty}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_{0}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\:\n2 \\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\;\\!\nds\n} $,\\\n\\\npor (2.17), lembrando (1.19) e (1.20). Em particular, tem-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\:\n2 \\, \\nu \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\nds\n\\;\\;\\!\\leq\n} $\\\n\\\n(2.18)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n(\\cdot,t_{0}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\:\n2 \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_{0} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\Bigl[\\;\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\Bigr]^{\\!1/2}\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\nds\n} $\\\n\\\npara todo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nt \\geq t_{0}\n} $. $\\!$Seja ent\u00e3o $ \\;\\! t_{0} \\geq t_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\;\\!$ tal que, por (1.2): $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_{0}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!< \\nu\n} $.\\\nDe fato, com esta escolha, segue de (2.18) que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.19$a$}\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n<\\;\\! \\nu\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\;\\!s \\geq t_0.$$\\\nProva de (2.19$a$): sendo falso, existiria $\\;\\! t_{1} \\!\\;\\!> t_{0} \\;\\!$ tal que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!< \\nu\n} $\\\npara todo $ \\;\\!t_0 \\leq s < t_{1}$, com $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_{1}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!= \\;\\!\\nu\n} $. Tomando $\\;\\! t = t_{1} $ em (2.18),\\\nresultaria $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_1) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\leq\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $, e, ent\u00e3o, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_1) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\,\\!\\leq\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!< \\;\\!\\nu\n} $. $\\!$Esta contradi\u00e7\u00e3o mostra (2.19$a$), como afirmado. $\\,]$\\\nDe (2.18) e (2.19$a$), segue que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.19$b$}\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\:\n2 \\, \\gamma\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_{2} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\nds\n\\;\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\n(\\cdot,t_{2}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}$$\\\npara todo $\\;\\! t \\geq t_{2} \\geq t_{0} $, onde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\n\\gamma \\:\\! := \\:\n\\nu \\,-\\: \\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\!\n} $ \u00e9 uma constante positiva. Isto conclui a prova, em vista de resultados cl\u00e1ssicos de regularidade de $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ (ver e.g.$\\;$[@KreissLorenz1989; @Leray1934; @LorenzZingano2012]), tendo-se $ \\:\\!t_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\:\\!=\\;\\! t_{0} \\:\\!$ com $\\;\\!t_{0} \\geq \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast} $ escolhido em (2.19$a$) acima.\n\n$\\Box$\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Observa\u00e7\u00e3o 2.1.**]{} Como mostrado em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002], uma consequ\u00eancia da prova acima \u00e9 que tem-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\nt_{\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\!<\n0.212 \\cdot\\:\\! \\nu^{-\\;\\!5} \\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}\n  ^{\\:\\!4}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ sempre. Um argumento mais elaborado desenvolvido no do presente texto produz a estimativa mais fina\\\n\\\n\\\n(2.20)\\\n[**3. Preliminares, II**]{}\\\nNesta se\u00e7\u00e3o, vamos utilizar os resultados revisados acima para estabelecer (1.11). Al\u00e9m disso, vamos tamb\u00e9m obter (1.12$a$) para $ m = 1 $ (Teorema 3.2 abaixo) e $ m = 0 $ (Teorema 3.3), revisando as provas dadas em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003] e [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], respectivamente.\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[[**Prova:**]{} Come\u00e7amos escrevendo $ \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t) \\:\\!$ na forma\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;=\\;\\:\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!\n(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})} \\;\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) -\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,t_0) \\,]\n\\:+\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!\n(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,t_0),\n\\qquad\nt > t_0,\n$$\\\nsendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!\n} $ dada em (2.1), $ \\delta > 0 $. Como\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\;=\\;\\:\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$}}\n\\;\\!\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{0, \\,\\delta}\n\\:+\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $0$}}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$}}\n\\!\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$} \\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\,ds,\n$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!0, \\,\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\;\\!\nG_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!\\ast\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0}\n} $, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n= -\\,\n\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\!\\;\\!\\cdot \\!\\;\\!\\nabla\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\;\\!-\\:\\!\n\\nabla p_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,s)\n} $, dados em (2.1$b$) e (2.12), obt\u00e9m-se\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;=\\;\\:\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})} \\;\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,t_0) \\,]\n\\;+\\;\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}} \\:\\!\n\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{0,\\,\\delta}\n\\;+\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $0$}}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$}}\n\\!\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\; ds,\n$$\\\npara $ \\;\\!t > t_0 $. Analogamente, tem-se, para $\\;\\! t > \\tilde{t}_0 $:\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\tilde{\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;=\\;\\:\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tilde{t}_0$})} \\;\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,\\tilde{t}_0) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,\\tilde{t}_0) \\,]\n\\;+\\;\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}} \\:\\!\n\\bar{\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}}_{0,\\,\\delta}\n\\;+\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $0$}}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tilde{t}_0$}}\n\\!\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\; ds.\n$$\\\nSegue ent\u00e3o, para a diferen\u00e7a $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!-\\;\\!\n\\tilde{\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}}(\\cdot,t)\n} $, sendo $\\:\\! t > \\tilde{t}_0 $ qualquer, que\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nD^{\\alpha} \\:\\!\n\\tilde{\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}}(\\cdot,t)\n\\,-\\,\nD^{\\alpha} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\;\\!=\\;\\;\\;\\!\nD^{\\alpha} \\:\\!\n\\bigl\\{\\,\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}\n\\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tilde{t}_0$})} \\;\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,\\tilde{t}_0) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,\\tilde{t}_0) \\,]\n\\,\\bigr\\}\n\\;\\,+\n} $\\\n\\\n(3.2)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\;-\\;\nD^{\\alpha} \\:\\!\\bigl\\{\\,\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})} \\;\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,t_0) \\,]\n\\,\\bigr\\}\n\\:+\\,\nD^{\\alpha} \\!\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tilde{t}_0$}}\n\\!\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu\\,\\!\\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\; ds\n} $.\\\n\\\nPortanto, dado $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\\mathbb{K} \\subset \\mathbb{R}^{3}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $ compacto qualquer, tem-se, para cada $ \\;\\! t > \\tilde{t}_0 $, $ \\;\\! \\delta > 0 $:\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\tilde{\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}}(\\cdot,t)\n\\,-\\, D^{\\alpha} \\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{K})}}\n\\,\\leq\\;\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\alpha, \\;\\!\\delta}}(t)\n\\;+\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tilde{t}_0$}}\n\\!\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\bigl\\{\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\;\\!\\bigr\\}\n\\;\\!\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{K})}}\n\\, ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\alpha, \\;\\!\\delta}}(t)\n\\;+\\,\nK\\!\\;\\!(m)\n\\:\n\\nu^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tilde{t}_0$}}\n\\!\n\\Bigl(\\, \\frac{t - s}{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $2$}}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\!\\!-\\,\\frac{m}{2}}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})/2} \\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s)\n\\;\\!\\bigr\\}\n\\;\\!\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\, ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\alpha, \\;\\!\\delta}}(t)\n\\;+\\,\nK\\!\\;\\!(m)\n\\:\n\\nu^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\!\\;\\!\n(\\,\\!t - \\tilde{t}_0\n)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\,\\frac{m}{2}}}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tilde{t}_0$}}\n\\!\n\\Bigl(\\, \\frac{t - s}{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $2$}}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\!-\\,\\frac{3}{4}}}\n\\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\:\\!(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\alpha, \\;\\!\\delta}}(t)\n\\;+\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(m)\n\\:\n\\nu^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{5}{4} }}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\bigl(\\;\\!t - \\tilde{t}_0\n\\bigr)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\,\\frac{m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4}}}\n\\bigl(\\;\\! \\tilde{t}_0 \\!\\;\\!-\\;\\! t_0\n\\bigr)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\! \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\! 2}}\n} $ (3.3)\\\n\\\npor (2.11), (2.13) e (2.14) acima (e Cauchy-Schwarz), onde\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\alpha, \\;\\!\\delta}}(t)\n\\;=\\;\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\bigl\\{\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}\n\\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tilde{t}_0$})} \\;\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,\\tilde{t}_0) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,\\tilde{t}_0) \\,]\n\\;\\!\\bigr\\}\n\\;\\!\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{K})}}\n\\;+\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n+\\;\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\bigl\\{\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta \\:\\!(\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}\n\\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})} \\;\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,t_0) \\,]\n\\;\\!\\bigr\\}\n\\;\\!\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{K})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $.\\\n\\\nTomando $ \\;\\!\\delta = \\delta^{\\prime} \\!\\rightarrow  0 \\;\\! $ conforme (2.2), obt\u00e9m-se $ J_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\alpha, \\;\\!\\delta}}(t) \\rightarrow 0 $, pois, pelo teorema da converg\u00eancia dominada e (2.2), tem-se, para cada $ \\sigma \\!\\:\\!, \\, \\tau > 0 \\:\\!$:\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.4}\n\\|\\: D^{\\alpha} \\bigl\\{\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\! \\nu \\Delta \\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tau$}}\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,\\sigma) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta^{\\prime}}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,\\sigma) \\,]\n\\;\\!\\bigr\\}\n\\;\\!\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{K})}}\n\\rightarrow\\; 0\n\\qquad\n\\mbox{ao }\n\\;\\; \\delta^{\\prime} \\!\\rightarrow 0.$$\\\n$\\,$De fato, sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nF_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\delta}}(\\cdot,\\tau) :=\nD^{\\alpha} \\bigl\\{\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\! \\nu \\Delta \\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\tau$}}\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,\\sigma) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,\\sigma) \\,]\n\\;\\!\\bigr\\}\n} $, tem-se\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\nF_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\delta}}(\\cdot,\\tau)\n\\,=\\,\nH_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\alpha}}(\\cdot,\\tau) \\ast\n[\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,\\sigma) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,\\sigma) \\,]$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\nH_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\alpha}}(\\cdot,\\tau)\n\\in\nL^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) \\cap L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})\n\\;\\!\n} $ \u00e9 independente de $ \\delta $. Como $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,\\sigma) -\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta^{\\prime}}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,\\sigma)\n\\;\\!\\rightharpoonup \\;\\!0\n\\;\\!\n} $ em $ L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, ver (2.2), segue que $ {\\displaystyle\nF_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!\\delta^{\\prime}}}(x,\\tau)\n\\rightarrow 0\n} $ (ao $ \\delta^{\\prime} \\rightarrow 0 $) para cada $ x \\in \\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\;\\!$; por outro lado, por (2.13) e Cauchy-Schwarz, tem-se\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\begin{split}\n|\\, F_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\delta}}(x,\\tau) \\,|\n\\;&\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, H_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\alpha}}(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,\\sigma) -\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!\\delta}}\n\\!\\;\\!(\\cdot,\\sigma) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}} \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\n2 \\:\n\\|\\, H_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\alpha}}(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\npara todo $ x \\in \\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\;\\!$. Por converg\u00eancia dominada, segue ent\u00e3o que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, F_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!\\delta^{\\prime}}}(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{K})}}\n\\!\\rightarrow\\;\\! 0\n\\;\\!\n} $ ao $ \\delta^{\\:\\!\\prime} \\!\\;\\!\\rightarrow 0 $, visto que $ \\mathbb{K} $ \u00e9 compacto, o que conclui a demonstra\u00e7\u00e3o da afirma\u00e7\u00e3o (3.4) acima.$\\;\\!$ Assim, fazendo $ \\;\\! \\delta = \\delta^{\\prime} \\!\\rightarrow 0 \\;\\!$ em (3.3), resulta\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\! \\tilde{\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!-\\;\\! D^{\\alpha} \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $v$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{K})}}\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m)\n\\:\n\\nu^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{5}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\! 2}}\n\\bigl(\\;\\! \\tilde{t}_0 \\!\\;\\!-\\;\\! t_0\n\\bigr)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\! \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\bigl(\\;\\!t - \\tilde{t}_0\n\\bigr)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\,\\frac{m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4}}}$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! t > \\tilde{t}_0 $ (sendo $ \\;\\!\\mathbb{K} \\subset \\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\;\\!$ compacto [*arbitr\u00e1rio*]{}), o que \u00e9 equivalente a (3.1). ]{} $\\Box$\\\n\\\nO Teorema 3.1 estabelece (1.11) para todo $ s = m \\geq 0 $ inteiro. Utilizando (1.13), segue a validade de (1.11) para todo $ \\;\\!s \\geq 0 $ ($s$ real), como afirmado.\n\nPara a obten\u00e7\u00e3o das estimativas (1.12), que ser\u00e1 feito nas Se\u00e7\u00f5es 4 e 5 a seguir, precisaremos ter anteriormente estabelecido (1.12$a$) nos casos particulares $ m = 0, 1 $. Estes dois resultados j\u00e1 foram obtidos por outros autores; as provas mais simples s\u00e3o fornecidas em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014] ($ m = 0 $) e [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003] ($ m = 1 $), repetidas abaixo por conveni\u00eancia. O resultado mais f\u00e1cil \u00e9 o segundo, por seguir imediatamente da desigualdade de energia (1.2) e do fato de $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ ser eventualmente monot\u00f4nica, conforme a Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.3 da Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2 acima:\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Teorema 3.2.**]{} *Sendo $ \\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ solu\u00e7\u00e3o de Leray para as equa\u00e7\u00f5es $\\;\\!(1.1)$, tem-se*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.5}\n\\lim_{\\;t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\,\nt^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\,\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n=\\; 0.\n$$ [\\\n]{}\\\n[[**Prova:**]{} O argumento seguinte \u00e9 obtido de [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003]. Se a propriedade (3.5) fosse falsa, existiria uma sequ\u00eancia crescente $ \\;\\! t_{\\ell} \\;\\!\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\nearrow$}\\;\\! \\infty $ (com $ \\:\\! t_{\\ell} \\geq t_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} $ e $ \\;\\! t_{\\ell} \\geq 2 \\;\\! t_{\\ell - 1} $ para todo $\\ell $, digamos) e algum $ \\;\\!\\eta > 0 \\;\\!$ fixo tais que\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\mbox{} \\;\\;\\;\nt_{\\ell} \\:\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_{\\ell}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\:\\!\\geq\\; \\eta\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\;\\! \\ell.$$\\\nEm particular, ter\u00edamos de ter\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\!\\:\\!t_{\\ell - 1}$}}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t_{\\ell}$}}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\:\\!dt\n\\:\\,\\!\\geq\\:\n(\\:\\!t_{\\ell} -\\;\\! t_{\\ell - 1})\n\\,\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_{\\ell}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\:\\!\\geq\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{1}{2} }$}\n\\: t_{\\ell} \\,\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_{\\ell}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\:\\!\\geq\\,\n\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{1}{2} }$}\n\\, \\eta$$\\\npara todo $\\ell $, em contradi\u00e7\u00e3o com (1.2), (2.3). Portanto, (3.5) tem de ser verdadeira. ]{} $\\Box$\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[**Teorema 3.3**]{} ([Solu\u00e7\u00e3o do Problema Cl\u00e1ssico de Leray]{}). *Tem-se*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.6}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n=\\;0.$$ [\\\n]{}\\\n[[**Prova:**]{} Seguindo o argumento em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], seja $ t_{\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$ definido na Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.3 da Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2. Dado $ \\:\\!\\epsilon > 0 $, tomemos $ \\;\\!t_0 \\!\\;\\!\\geq t_{\\ast\\ast} $ suficientemente grande tal que, pelo Teorema 3.2, tenha-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.7}\n\\mbox{} \\hspace{+0.500cm}\nt^{\\:\\!1/2} \\,\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\leq\\: \\epsilon\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\;\\!\nt \\geq t_0.$$\\\nComo $ \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\:\\!$ \u00e9 suave em $ [\\,t_0, \\infty) $, podemos escrever (pelo princ\u00edpio de Duhamel)\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.8}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;=\\;\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\;+\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\!\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\: ds,\n\\qquad\nt \\geq t_0,$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\;\\!\n} $ \u00e9 dada em (2.4), Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2.. Usando a representa\u00e7\u00e3o (3.8) para $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $, obt\u00e9m-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (t \\;\\!-\\, t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!+\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (t \\;\\!-\\, s)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (t \\;\\!-\\, t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!+\\:\nK \\;\\!\n\\nu^{-\\,3/4} \\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t$}}\n\\!\n(t - s)^{-\\,3/4} \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (t \\;\\!-\\, t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!+\\:\nK \\;\\!\n\\nu^{-\\,3/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t$}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n(t - s)^{-\\,3/4} \\:\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n+\\,\nK \\;\\! \\nu^{-\\,3/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\epsilon\n\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t$}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n(t - s)^{-\\,3/4} \\, s^{-\\,1/2}\n\\,ds\n} $ \\[$\\,$por (3.7)$\\;\\!$\\]\\\n\\\npara todo $ \\:\\!t > t_0 $, onde $ \\:\\!K \\!\\:\\!=\\:\\! (\\:\\!8 \\:\\!\\pi )^{-\\,3/4} \\!\\:\\!$, usando (1.2) e (2.5). Observando que\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t$}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n(t - s)^{-\\,3/4} \\, s^{-\\,1/2}\n\\,ds\n\\;\\leq\\;\n6 \\: \\sqrt[4]{\\;\\!2\\;}\n\\qquad\n\\forall\n\\;\\,\nt \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! t_0 + 1,$$\\\nobt\u00e9m-se, ent\u00e3o, para todo $ \\:\\! t \\geq\\;\\! t_0 +\\;\\! 1 $:\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\! \\nu \\Delta (t \\;\\!-\\, t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!+\\:\n\\nu^{-\\,3/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\epsilon.$$\\\nComo, para o semigrupo do calor, tem-se que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\: e^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (t \\;\\!-\\, t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\rightarrow \\;\\!0\n\\;\\!\n} $ ao $ \\;\\!t \\rightarrow \\infty $,\\\nsegue que\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n(\\;\\! 1 \\,+\\, \\nu^{-\\,3/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}})\n\\: \\epsilon$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! t \\gg 1 $. Dado que $ \\;\\!\\epsilon > 0 \\;\\!$ \u00e9 arbitr\u00e1rio, isto mostra (3.6), como afirmado. ]{} $\\Box$\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[**Observa\u00e7\u00e3o 3.1.**]{} De modo similar, poder\u00edamos tamb\u00e9m estabelecer (1.8), ou seja,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.9}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\,\nt^{\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle 3}{\\scriptstyle 4}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) -\\,\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\:\\! \\Delta \\:\\!(t - t_0)}\n\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!=\\;\n0,$$\\\nmas este resultado n\u00e3o ser\u00e1 necess\u00e1rio na an\u00e1lise a seguir. (Para uma prova de (3.9), ver [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], Section 3.) O mesmo vale para as propriedades (1.9), i.e.,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.10$a$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty} \\,\nt^{\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle 3}{\\scriptstyle 4}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!=\\;\n0,$$\\\n$$\\tag{3.10$b$}\n\\lim_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\,\nt\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) -\\,\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\:\\! \\Delta \\:\\!(t - t_0)}\n\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!=\\;\n0,$$\\\nobtidas em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014], Section 4. Um ponto a destacar sobre as provas de (3.6), (3.9), (3.10) apresentadas em [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014] \u00e9 que *elas utilizam apenas resultados obtidos por Leray* [@Leray1934] [*e*]{} *m\u00e9todos matem\u00e1ticos conhecidos at\u00e9 aquela \u00e9poca*. O mesmo [*n\u00e3o*]{} vale para as estimativas (bem mais dif\u00edceis) em (1.10) ou (1.12), como se ver\u00e1 nas Se\u00e7\u00f5es 4 e 5 seguir.\\\n[**4. Prova de (1.12[*a*]{})**]{}\\\nNesta se\u00e7\u00e3o, vamos demonstrar o seguinte resultado, dada uma solu\u00e7\u00e3o de Leray (qualquer) $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ para as equa\u00e7\u00f5es de Navier-Stokes (1.1).\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\nA prova do Teorema 4.1 ocupar\u00e1 toda a discuss\u00e3o a seguir. Novamente, o ponto de partida \u00e9 dado pela representa\u00e7\u00e3o (3.8) para $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $, ou seja: considerando $ t_0 \\geq \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast} $ ($ \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast} $ dado em (1.3), Se\u00e7\u00e3o 1), podemos escrever, como $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ \u00e9 suave em $ [\\,t_0, \\infty ) $:\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.2}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;=\\;\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\;+\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\!\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\: ds,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\geq t_0,$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\;\\!\n} $ \u00e9 dada em (2.4), Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2. Em particular, segue que, para cada $\\alpha$,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.3$a$}\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\leq\\:\nI_{\\alpha}(\\:\\!t\\:\\!; t_0)\n\\;+\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\!t \\geq t_0 $, onde\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.3$b$}\n\\mbox{} \\;\\;\nI_{\\alpha}(\\:\\!t\\:\\!; t_0)\n\\;=\\;\n\\|\\: D^{\\alpha} \\;\\![\\;\\!\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\:\\!,\n\\quad \\;\\;\nt \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! t_{0}.$$\\\nNote-se que (4.1) j\u00e1 foi obtido se $ m = 0 $ (Teorema 3.3) e $ m = 1 $ (Teorema 3.2), seguindo [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2002; @KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @SchutzZinganoZingano2014]. Em particular, tem-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.4}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\:\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\n\\!\\:\\!,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\,\\geq\\, \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast}$$\\\npara certa constante $ M_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\;\\!> 0 $ dependendo da solu\u00e7\u00e3o $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ considerada. Mais geralmente, tem-se o seguinte resultado.\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Lemma 4.1.**]{} *Sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nU_{m}(t) :=\\,\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m} \\,\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, tem-se, para cada $\\;\\!m \\geq 0 \\!\\!\\;\\!:$*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.5}\nU_{m} \\in\nL^{\\infty}(\\:\\![\\,\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast}, \\infty)\\,\\!).$$. [\\\n]{}\n\n[**Prova:**]{} Para $ m = 0, 1 $, (4.5) segue de (1.2), (4.4); assim, resta provar (4.5) para $ m \\geq 2 $. Dados $ \\;\\! t_0 \\!\\;\\!\\geq \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast} \\:\\!$ e $ \\;\\!\\alpha \\;\\!$ multi-\u00edndice com $ \\;\\!|\\;\\!\\alpha\\;\\!| = m $, tem-se, de (4.3) acima, para $ \\;\\! t \\geq t_0 $:\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.6}\nV_{\\alpha}(t) \\;\\equiv\\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\,\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\nI_{1}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t) \\,+\\,\nI_{2}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t) \\,+\\,\nJ_{\\alpha}(t),$$\\\nonde\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.7$a$}\nI_{1}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\: D^{\\alpha} \\;\\![\\;\\!\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\:\\!,$$\\\n$$\\tag{4.7$b$}\nI_{2}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!\\mu(t)$}}\n\\!\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds,$$\\\n$$\\tag{4.7$c$}\nJ_{\\alpha}(t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds,$$\\\nsendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mu(t) = (\\:\\!t_0 + \\;\\!t)/2\n} $. Estimar $ I_{1}(t) $, $ I_{2}(t) $ \u00e9 simples: obt\u00e9m-se, de (2.14) e (4.7$a$),\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.8}\n|\\: I_{1}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t) \\,|\n\\;\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu) \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\!\n(\\:\\! t - t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!-\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0) \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! t \\geq t_0 + 1 $, enquanto, por (2.15), (4.4) e (4.7$b$),\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\begin{split}\n|\\: I_{2}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t) \\,|\n\\;&\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu) \\:\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!\\mu(t)$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\! t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\n-\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds \\\\\n&\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu) \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!\\mu(t)$}}\n\\!\\!\ns^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!- \\, \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\;\\!\n(\\:\\! t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\n-\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\bigl\\{\\, s^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\\bigr\\}\n\\, ds \\\\\n&\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu) \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\:\\!\n(\\:\\! t - t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\n-\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!\\mu(t)$}}\n\\!\\!\ns^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle -\\, \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\;\\!\nds \\\\\n&\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0)\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\n\\;\\!\n(\\:\\! t - t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n(\\:\\! t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{2} }} \\\\\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\n(4.9$a$)\\\n\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! t \\geq t_0 + 1 $, ou seja,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.9$b$}\n|\\: I_{2}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t) \\,|\n\\;\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, \\;\\!M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0),\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\;\nt \\,\\geq\\, t_0 \\;\\!+\\;\\! 1,$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, \\:\\!M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!,\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0) > 0\n\\;\\!\n} $ depende dos dados $ (m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, \\:\\!M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!,\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0) $. Assim, por (4.6), (4.8) e (4.9), tem-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.10}\nV_{\\alpha}(t)\n\\;\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\:\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, \\:\\!M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!,\n\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\,+\\;\\!\nJ_{\\alpha}(t),\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\;\nt \\,\\geq\\, t_0 \\;\\!+\\;\\! 1,$$\\\nonde $ J_{\\alpha}(t) $ \u00e9 dada em (4.7$c$). Para estimar $ J_{\\alpha}(t) $, que \u00e9 o termo mais complicado, podemos proceder do modo seguinte. Ilustraremos o m\u00e9todo considerando inicialmente o caso mais simples $ |\\,\\alpha\\,| = 2 $, ou seja, $ D^{\\alpha} \\!\\;\\!=\\,\\! D_{j} \\:\\!D_{\\ell} $, procedendo depois por indu\u00e7\u00e3o em $ \\;\\!m = |\\,\\alpha\\,| $.\n\nConsiderando $ D^{\\alpha} = D_{j} \\:\\!D_{\\ell} $, tem-se, por (4.7$c$) e (2.14),\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\begin{split}\nJ_{j,\\,\\ell}(t)\n\\;&\\equiv\\;\\;\\!\nt \\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D_{j} \\:\\!D_{\\ell} \\;\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds, \\\\\n&=\\;\\;\\!\nt \\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D_{j} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\nD_{\\ell} \\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds, \\\\\n&\\leq\\,\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\\;\\!\nt \\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds.\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\nPara prosseguir, \u00e9 preciso estimar $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, o que \u00e9 feito usando a teoria de Calderon-Zygmund de operadores integrais singulares (ver e.g.$\\;\\!$[@Stein1970], Ch.$\\;$2, ou [@DunfordSchwartz1963], Ch.$\\;$11). Por conveni\u00eancia, revisamos brevemente como isso \u00e9 feito, considerando o caso geral em $ \\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!\\;\\!$. Por (2.4), Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2, tem-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nD_{\\ell} \\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!=\\;\\!\n-\\, D_{\\ell} \\,[\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\\;\\!(\\cdot,t) \\,]\n\\;\\!-\\;\\! \\nabla \\:\\! q_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(\\cdot,t)\n} $, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nq_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(\\cdot,t)\n=\nD_{\\ell} \\,p(\\cdot,t)\n} $. Tomando o divergente em $x$, resulta que $ \\;\\!q_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(\\cdot,t) \\;\\!$ \u00e9 a solu\u00e7\u00e3o (\u00fanica) do problema de Poisson\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n-\\, \\Delta \\;\\!\nq_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;=\\;\n\\mbox{div}\\;\n\\bigl\\{\\, D_{\\ell} \\,[\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\\;\\!(\\cdot,t) \\,]\n\\,\\bigr\\},\n\\quad \\;\\;\nq_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(\\cdot,t)\n\\in L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}).$$\\\nAplicando a teoria de Calderon-Zygmund (cf.$\\;$[@Guterres2014], Ch.$\\;$5), obt\u00e9m-se, para cada $ 1 < r < \\infty $:\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\|\\, \\nabla \\:\\!\nq_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{r}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\,\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(r,n) \\:\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\,[\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\\;\\!(\\cdot,t) \\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{r}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}$$\\\npara certa constante $ K\\!\\;\\!(r,n) > 0 $ dependendo de $ \\;\\!r, \\;\\!n $ somente. Isso implica, por (2.4), que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.11}\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{r}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\,\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(r,n) \\:\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\,[\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\\;\\!(\\cdot,t) \\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{r}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}$$\\\npara cada $ 1 < r < \\infty $, onde, novamente, $ K\\!\\;\\!(r,n) $ depende de $ \\;\\!r, \\;\\!n $. (Por exemplo, repetindo o argumento usado na prova da Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.1, tem-se $ K\\!\\;\\!(2,n) = 1 $, para todo $n$.) Assim, com $ \\;\\!r = 4/3 $, $ n = 3 $, obt\u00e9m-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\nK \\:\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\,[\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\n} $, de modo que\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nJ_{j,\\,\\ell}(t)\n\\;\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\![\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,]\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\;\\!\\cdot\\;\\!\n\\nabla \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:+\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n+\\;\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\;\\!\\cdot\\;\\!\n\\nabla \\:\\! D_{\\ell} \\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! \\Bigr\\}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:+\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n+\\;\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! \\Bigr\\}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $,\\\n\\\npela desigualdade de H\u00f6lder (no \u00faltimo passo acima). Utilizando agora a desigualdade de Nirenberg-Gagliardo\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.12}\n\\|\\, \\mbox{u} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\nK \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{u} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{1/4}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\! \\mbox{u} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{3/4}$$\\\npara $ \\;\\!\\mbox{u} \\in H^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) \\;\\!$ arbitr\u00e1ria, obt\u00e9m-se, ent\u00e3o,\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nJ_{j,\\,\\ell}(t)\n\\;\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!5/4}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\,\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\:+\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n+\\;\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! \\Bigr\\}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $,\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\ns^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{11}{8} }}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\;\\!\n\\bigl[\\, s^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\\bigr]^{\\:\\!5/4}\n\\;\\!\n\\bigl[\\, s \\,\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\,\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\bigr]^{\\:\\!3/4}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n+\\;\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\:\\!\n\\bigl[\\, s^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\bigr]^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\:\\!\n\\bigl[\\, s \\,\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\bigr]\n\\;\\! \\Bigr\\}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $,\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq \\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{5}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\nt \\;\\!\\;\\!\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{11}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\! ds\n\\;\\,+\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n+\\;\\;\\!\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\nt \\;\\!\\;\\!\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{11}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s)\n\\;\\!\\;\\! ds\n} $,\\\n\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)\n\\;\\!=\\;\\!\nt \\;\n\\|\\,D^{2} \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n} $. Portanto, para cada $ 1 \\leq j, \\;\\!\\ell \\leq 3 $ (e cada $ t \\geq t_0 + 1$), obt\u00e9m-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nJ_{j,\\,\\ell}(t)\n\\;\\leq \\;\\!\\;\\!\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{5}{4} }}\n\\,\\!\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\! ds\n\\;\\,+\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n+\\;\\;\\!\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s)\n\\;\\!\\;\\! ds\n} $,\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq \\;\\!\\;\\!\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{5}{4} }}\n\\,\\!\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n+\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s)\n\\: ds\n} $,\\\n\\\npelo fato de se ter $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\!\\:\\!\\leq\\,\\! 1 + U_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s)\n} $, e onde $ \\;\\!K\\!\\;\\!(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0) > 0 \\;\\!$ depende apenas de $ \\nu $, $ M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\! $ e $ \\;\\!\\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\! \\|_{L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})} $. Assim, por (4.6) e (4.10), obt\u00e9m-se, para $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nV_{j,\\;\\!\\ell}(t)\n\\;\\!=\\;\\!\nt \\:\n\\|\\, D_{j} \\:\\! D_{\\ell} \\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $:\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\nV_{j,\\;\\!\\ell}(t)\n\\;\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, \\;\\!M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\;+\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s)\n\\: ds$$\\\npara todos $ j, \\;\\!\\ell $ (e todo $ \\;\\! t \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! t_0 + 1 $), de modo que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.13}\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)\n\\;\\leq\\;\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, \\;\\!M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\;+\\;\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s)\n\\: ds$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! t \\geq t_0 + 1 $, onde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0) > 0\n\\;\\!\n} $ depende apenas de $ \\nu $, $ M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\! $ e $ \\;\\!\\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\! \\|_{L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})} $. Tomemos ent\u00e3o $ \\;\\!t_{2} $, $ \\mathbb{M}_{2} $ dados por\\\n$$\\tag{4.14}\nt_{2}\\;\\!:=\\;\n1 +\\;\\! t_0 +\\, 2^{16} \\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}}^{\\:\\!4}\n\\!\\;\\!,\n\\qquad\n\\mathbb{M}_{2} \\;\\!\\!:=\\;\n\\sup \\,\\{\\, U_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s) \\!:\\;\nt_0 \\leq s \\leq t_2 \\;\\!\\},$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}}\\!\\:\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\;\\!\n} $ \u00e9 a constante definida em (4.13) acima. Afirmamos que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.15}\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \\;\\leq\\;\n2 \\, K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, \\;\\!M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\;+\\;\n16 \\: K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0) \\,\n\\mathbb{M}_{\\mbox{}_{2}},\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! t_{2},$$\\\nonde $ \\;\\! K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast}} \\!\\;\\! $, $ K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}} $ s\u00e3o as constantes dadas em (4.13). $\\,$De fato, sendo $ t \\geq t_{2} $, definamos $ \\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t) $ pondo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t) :=\\,\n\\sup\\,\\{\\;\\! U_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(s) \\!:\\; t_{2} \\leq s \\leq t \\,\\}\n} $. Se $ \\;\\!\\mu(t) \\geq t_{2} $, ent\u00e3o, por (4.13), obt\u00e9m-se\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\begin{split}\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)\n\\;&\\leq\\;\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, \\;\\!M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\;+\\;\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nds\n\\;\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, \\;\\!M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\;+\\;\n8 \\, K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0)\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t),\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\nde modo que, pela defini\u00e7\u00e3o de $\\;\\!t_{2} $, tem-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\n\\!\\;\\!+\\;\\! \\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)/2\n} $. Se $ \\;\\!\\mu(t) < t_{2} $, ent\u00e3o\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\begin{split}\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)\n\\;&\\leq\\;\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n\\;\\!+\\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\!\n\\cdot\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nds\n\\;\n\\bigl(\\, \\mathbb{M}_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\;\\!+\\,\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \\;\\!\\bigr) \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n\\;\\!+\\;\n8 \\, K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{M}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\,+\\,\n8 \\, K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\;\\!\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t),\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\nde modo que, pela defini\u00e7\u00e3o de $\\;\\!t_{2} $, obt\u00e9m-se neste caso $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\n\\!\\;\\!+\\;\\!\n8 \\, K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}} \\,\n\\mathbb{M}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n+\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)/2\n} $. Portanto, tem-se sempre\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)\n\\;\\leq\\;\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\n\\!\\;\\!+\\,\n8 \\, K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{M}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\;\\!+\\,\n\\frac{1}{2} \\;\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t),\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! t_{2}.$$\\\nLogo, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\n\\!\\,\\!+\\;\\!\n8 \\, K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{M}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n+\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)/2\n\\;\\!\n} $ para todo $ \\;\\!t \\geq t_{2} $, que \u00e9 equivalente a (4.15).$\\;\\!$ De (4.15), segue imediatamente que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\in L^{\\infty}(\\:\\![\\, t_2, \\infty) )\n} $. Como, por (1.3), tem-se tamb\u00e9m $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\in L^{\\infty}(\\:\\![\\, \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}, \\;\\!t_2\\;\\!]\\:\\! )\n} $, resulta que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\in L^{\\infty}(\\:\\![\\,\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}, \\infty) )\n} $, provando assim (4.5) no caso $ m = 2 $.\\\n\\\nMais geralmente, podemos mostrar (4.5) para $ m \\geq 2 $ qualquer usando indu\u00e7\u00e3o em $m$. Assim, dado $ m \\geq 3 $, suponha-se que (4.5) j\u00e1 tenha sido obtida para os valores anteriores de $m$. Tomando-se, ent\u00e3o, $ \\alpha $ (multi-\u00edndice) com $ \\;\\!|\\,\\alpha\\,| = m $, e escrevendo-se $ D^{\\alpha} \\!\\;\\!= D_{j} \\;\\! D^{\\alpha^{\\prime}} \\!$ (para certo multi-\u00edndice $ \\alpha^{\\prime} $ com $ |\\,\\alpha^{\\prime} \\,| = m - 1 $), tem-se, lembrando (4.7$c$) acima,\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\begin{split}\nJ_{\\alpha}(t)\n\\;&=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\;\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds, \\\\\n&=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D_{j} \\,[\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\nD^{\\alpha^{\\prime}} \\!\\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds, \\\\\n&\\leq\\,\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha^{\\prime}} \\!\\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds \\\\\n&\\leq\\,\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha^{\\prime}} \\!\\;\\![\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,]\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds \\\\\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\nusando (2.14) e a estimativa (4.16) abaixo (que segue novamente por Calderon-Zygmund),\n\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.16}\n\\|\\, D^{\\beta} \\,\\!\\,\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{r}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\,\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(r,n) \\:\n\\|\\, D^{\\beta} \\:\\! [\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,]\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{r}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!,$$\\\npara cada $ 1 < r < \\infty $, e qualquer multi-\u00edndice $ \\beta $, que \u00e9 mostrada de modo an\u00e1logo a (4.11). Resulta, ent\u00e3o, por H\u00f6lder e (4.12), como antes,\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\begin{split}\nJ_{\\alpha}(t)\n\\;\\;\\!&\\leq\n\\hspace{-1.250cm}\n\\sum_{\\mbox{} \\hspace{+1.250cm} |\\,\\beta\\,| \\,+\\, |\\,\\gamma\\,| \\:=\\:\nm \\,-\\, {\\scriptscriptstyle 1}}\n\\hspace{-1.400cm}\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\beta} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\!  D^{\\gamma} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,]\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\!\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\,0}^{m\\,-\\,{\\scriptscriptstyle 1}}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m - \\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\!\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\,0}^{m\\,-\\,{\\scriptscriptstyle 1}}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\ell + 1} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m - \\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n\\, ds, \\\\\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\nou seja, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nJ_{\\alpha}(t)\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{1}}(t) \\;\\!+\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t) \\;\\!+\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{3}}(t)\n} $, onde\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.17$a$}\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{1}}(t)\n\\;=\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n\\, ds,$$\\\n$$\\tag{4.17$b$}\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)\n\\;=\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\!\\;\\!\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\,1}^{m\\,-\\,{\\scriptscriptstyle 2}}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\ell + 1} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m - \\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n\\, ds,$$\\\n$$\\tag{4.17$c$}\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{3}}(t)\n\\;=\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m - 1} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\, ds.$$\\\nEscrevendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n\\!=\\;\\!\ns^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle -\\, \\frac{1}{2} }}\nU_{\\mbox{}_{1}}(s)\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\,\\!\ns^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle -\\, \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n} $, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\;\\!\ns^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}\\!\\;\\!(s)\n} $, obt\u00e9m-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.18$a$}\n\\begin{split}\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{1}}(t)\n\\;&\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\,\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\ns^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} \\,-\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(s)\n\\: ds \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(s)\n\\: ds.\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\nAnalogamente, tem-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.18$b$}\n\\begin{split}\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{2}}(t)\n\\;&\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\\!\n\\sum_{\\ell\\,=\\,{\\scriptscriptstyle 1}}^{m - {\\scriptscriptstyle 2}}\n\\;\\!\nM_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\nM_{\\mbox{}_{{\\scriptstyle \\ell} + 1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\nM_{\\mbox{}_{{\\scriptstyle m} - {\\scriptstyle \\ell}}}\n\\:\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\ns^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} \\,-\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\, ds \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\:\\!\n\\sum_{\\ell\\,=\\,{\\scriptscriptstyle 1}}^{m - {\\scriptscriptstyle 2}}\n\\;\\!\nM_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\nM_{\\mbox{}_{{\\scriptstyle \\ell} + 1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\nM_{\\mbox{}_{{\\scriptstyle m} - {\\scriptstyle \\ell}}}\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\end{split}\n$$\\\ne\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.18$c$}\n\\begin{split}\nJ_{\\mbox{}_{3}}(t)\n\\;&\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\n\\,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{{\\scriptstyle m} - 1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\,\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\ns^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} \\,-\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(s)\n ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\: ds \\\\\n&\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\n\\,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{{\\scriptstyle m} - 1}}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(s)\n ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\: ds.\n\\end{split}\n$$\n\n\\\nObservando novamente que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\!\\:\\!\\leq\\,\\! 1 + U_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(s)\n} $, resulta de (4.6), (4.10), (4.17) e (4.18) que, para todo $ \\;\\! t \\geq t_0 + 1 $, tem-se ($\\:\\!$sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nM_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!\\equiv\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $):\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\nV_{\\alpha}(t)\n\\,\\leq\\,\nK\\!\\;\\!(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, M_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\;\\!,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!, ...,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{{\\scriptstyle m} - 1}}\\!\\;\\!)\n\\,+\\,\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\;\\!, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!)\n\\,\n(t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\,\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(s)\n\\, ds$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\!\\alpha \\;\\!$ com $ \\;\\!|\\;\\!\\alpha\\;\\!|\\;\\!=\\;\\!m $, $\\;\\!$onde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nV_{\\alpha}(t)\n\\;\\!=\\,\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\,\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\,\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $. Portanto, tem-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.19}\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(t)\n\\,\\leq\\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, M_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\;\\!, ...,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{{\\scriptstyle m} - 1}}\\!\\;\\!)\n\\;+\\;\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\;\\!, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!)\n\\,\n(\\,\\!t + t_0)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\, \\frac{3}{8} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\n(\\,\\!t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\, \\frac{7}{8} }}\n\\;\\!\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(s)\n\\: ds$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! t \\geq t_0 + 1 $, onde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\:\\!, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!) > 0\n\\;\\!\n} $ depende apenas de $ \\nu $, $ M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\! $ e $ {\\displaystyle\nM_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!=\\,\\!\n\\|\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\! \\|_{L^{2}}\n} $. Como no caso $ m = 2 $, tomemos agora $ \\;\\!t_{m} $, $ \\mathbb{M}_{{\\scriptstyle m}} \\!\\;\\!$ dados por\\\n$$\\tag{4.20}\nt_{m}\\;\\!:=\\;\n1 +\\;\\! t_0 +\\, 2^{16} \\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}}^{\\:\\!4}\n\\!\\;\\!,\n\\qquad\n\\mathbb{M}_{{\\scriptstyle m}} \\;\\!\\!:=\\;\n\\sup \\,\\{\\, U_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}(s) \\!:\\;\nt_0 \\leq s \\leq t_{m} \\;\\!\\},$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}}\n\\!\\,\\!=\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}}\\!\\:\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\:\\!, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\:\\!)\n\\;\\!\n} $ \u00e9 a constante definida em (4.19) acima. Obt\u00e9m-se, ent\u00e3o,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.21}\nU_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}\\!\\;\\!(t)\n\\:\\leq\\:\n2 \\, K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(m,\\;\\!\\nu, \\;\\!t_0, M_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\;\\!,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!, ...,\nM_{\\mbox{}_{{\\scriptstyle m} - 1}}\\!\\,\\!)\n\\;+\\;\n16 \\: K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast\\ast}}\\!\\;\\!\n(\\nu, M_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\;\\!, M_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\,\\!) \\,\n\\mathbb{M}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}},\n\\quad \\;\\;\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! t_{m},$$\\\nonde $ \\;\\! K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast}} \\!\\;\\! $, $ K_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}} $ s\u00e3o as constantes dadas em (4.19). $\\,$A prova de (4.21) \u00e9 exatamente an\u00e1loga \u00e0 de (4.15).$\\;\\!$ Isso mostra que $ U_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}\\!\\;\\! $ \u00e9 limitada em $\\,[\\,t_{m}, \\infty) $; como $ U_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}\\!\\;\\! $ \u00e9 limitada em $\\,[\\,t_{0}, \\;\\!t_{m}\\;\\!] $ (por (1.3)), segue ent\u00e3o que $ U_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle m}}\\!\\;\\! \\in L^{\\infty}(\\:\\![\\,t_0, \\infty)\\,\\!) $, concluindo a prova do Lema 4.1.\n\n$\\Box$\\\n\\\nUsando o Lema 4.1, obt\u00e9m-se o Teorema 4.1 sem dificuldade. De fato, sendo $ m \\geq 2 $, $ t_0 \\geq \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$ quaisquer, pode-se proceder como segue. Dado $ \\;\\!\\epsilon > 0\\;\\!$ (arbitr\u00e1rio), seja $ \\;\\! t_{\\epsilon} \\gg t_0 $ suficientemente grande tal que, por (1.6$c$) e (4.7$b$), (4.9$a$) acima, tenha-se, para todo $ \\;\\! t \\geq t_{\\epsilon} $:\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.22$a$}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0)}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\leq\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{1}{3} }$} \\:\n\\epsilon$$\\\ne\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.22$b$}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!\\mu(t)$}}\n\\!\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m} \\;\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n\\;\\;\\! \\leq\\;\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{1}{3} }$} \\,\n\\epsilon,$$\\\nonde, como antes, $ \\;\\!\\mu(t) = (\\:\\!t + t_0)/2 $. Por (4.5), Lema 4.1, e lembrando (4.6), (4.7$c$) e (4.18), obtemos (aumentando $ \\:\\!t_{\\epsilon}$ se necess\u00e1rio)\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.22$c$}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m} \\;\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n\\;\\;\\! \\leq\\;\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{1}{3} }$} \\,\n\\epsilon$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! t \\geq t_{\\epsilon} $. $\\!$Por (4.2), v\u00ea-se que (4.22) implica termos $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\nt^{\\:\\!m/2} \\;\\!\n\\|\\, D\\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\,\\!\\leq\\,\\! \\epsilon\n} $ para todo $ \\:\\! t \\geq t_{\\epsilon} $, estabelecendo (4.1), como afirmado. $\\Box$\n\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[**5. Prova de (1.12[*b*]{})**]{}\\\nNesta se\u00e7\u00e3o, provaremos a estimativa (1.12$b$), para todo $ m \\geq 0 $. Este fato, combinado com a propriedade de interpola\u00e7\u00e3o (1.13) $\\,$tomando-se, por exemplo, $ s_{\\mbox{}_{1}} = m $, $ s_{\\mbox{}_{2}} = m + 1\\,$, estabelece o resultado mais geral dado em (1.10$b$), v\u00e1lido para todo $ s \\in \\mathbb{R} $ n\u00e3o negativo. Como sempre, $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ denota uma solu\u00e7\u00e3o de Leray (qualquer) para as equa\u00e7\u00f5es de Navier-Stokes (1.1); tal solu\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e9 suave em $ \\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\times \\!\\;\\!\n[\\,\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}\\!\\;\\!, \\infty) $, para certo $ \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\! \\gg 1 $, e satisfaz: $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\in L^{\\infty}_{\\tt loc}\n(\\:\\![\\,\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\!, \\infty),\nH^{m}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})\\:\\!)\n} $, para todo $ m $ $\\,$ver (1.3)$\\,$. O ponto de partida para obter (1.12$b$) envolve v\u00e1rios resultados anteriores, particularmente (2.5), (2.14), (2.15) e os Teoremas 3.1, 3.2 e 4.1 acima.\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n\n[**Prova:**]{} Pelo Teorema 3.1, \u00e9 suficiente mostrar (5.1) supondo-se $ t_0 \\geq \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$. $\\!$$\\,$Com efeito, tendo-se j\u00e1 estabelecido o resultado neste caso, ent\u00e3o se poderia estend\u00ea-lo para $ t_0 < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$ do seguinte modo: tomando-se $ t_0^{\\;\\!\\prime} \\geq \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$, ter\u00edamos\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\limsup_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!-\\;\\!\nD^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\:\\! \\nu \\Delta (t - t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\limsup_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!-\\;\\!\nD^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\:\\! \\nu \\Delta (t - t_0^{\\;\\!\\prime})} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0^{\\;\\!\\prime}) \\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!+\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n+\\;\n\\limsup_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\,\nD^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\:\\! \\nu \\Delta (t - t_0^{\\;\\!\\prime})} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0^{\\;\\!\\prime})\n\\;\\!-\\,\ne^{\\:\\! \\nu \\Delta (t - t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\;\n\\limsup_{t\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!-\\;\\!\nD^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\:\\! \\nu \\Delta (t - t_0^{\\;\\!\\prime})} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0^{\\;\\!\\prime}) \\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n} $ $\\,$por (3.1)$\\,$\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\; 0\n} $,\\\n\\\nonde no \u00faltimo passo se teria usado o resultado (5.1), j\u00e1 mostrado neste caso ($ \\:\\!t_0^{\\;\\!\\prime} \\geq\n\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast}$).$\\;\\!$\\\nSupondo-se, ent\u00e3o, $ \\:\\!t_0 \\geq\n\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$, podemos escrever $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ na forma (4.2), para $ t \\geq t_0 $, ou seja,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{5.2}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;=\\;\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\;+\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\!\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\: ds,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\geq t_0,$$\\\nonde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\;\\!\n} $ \u00e9 dada em (2.4), Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2. Considerando inicialmente os casos $ m = 0 $ e $ m = 1 $, podemos proceder do seguinte modo. Dado $ \\;\\!\\epsilon > 0 $, seja $ \\:\\!t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon} \\!\\:\\!> t_{0} \\!\\;\\!$ suficientemente grande tal que, pelo Teorema 3.2, se tenha\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{5.3}\n\\mbox{} \\hspace{+0.500cm}\nt^{\\:\\!1/2} \\,\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\leq\\: \\epsilon\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\;\\!\nt \\geq t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon}.$$\\\nPor (5.2) e (1.2), (2.5), tem-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nt^{\\:\\!1/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,-\\:\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\Delta (t \\;\\!-\\, t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\leq\\;\\:\\!\nt^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\|\\: e^{\\:\\!\\nu \\Delta (t \\;\\!-\\, s)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nI(\\:\\!t, \\:\\!t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})\n\\;+\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\: t^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t$}}\n\\!\n(t - s)^{-\\,3/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nI(\\:\\!t, \\:\\!t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})\n\\;+\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\epsilon\n\\:\nt^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t$}}\n\\!\n(t - s)^{-\\,3/4} \\, s^{-\\,1/2}\n\\,ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nI(\\:\\!t, \\:\\!t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})\n\\;+\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\epsilon\n\\;\nt^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\,\n(\\:\\! t - t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})^{-\\,1/4}\n} $\\\n\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! t > t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon}$, onde $ \\:\\!K\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) > 0 \\;\\! $ \u00e9 independente de $ \\epsilon $, e\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nI(\\:\\!t, \\:\\!t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})\n\\;\\!:=\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\; t^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{0}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n\\!\n(t - s)^{-\\,3/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t - t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})^{-\\,3/4}\n\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{0}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\,\n( t_{\\epsilon} -\\;\\! t_0 )^{1/2}\n\\:\nt^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t - t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})^{-\\,3/4}\n} $\\\n\\\nPortanto, temos\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\nt^{\\:\\!1/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,-\\:\ne^{\\:\\! \\nu \\,\\!\\Delta (t \\;\\!-\\, t_0)} \\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\\leq\\\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\n(\\;\\! 1 \\,+\\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}})\n\\: \\epsilon$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! t > t_{\\epsilon} $ grande, com $ \\:\\!K\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\\!$ independente de $ \\epsilon $. Isto mostra (5.1) no caso $ m = 0 $.\\\nConsiderando, agora, $ m = 1 $, seja novamente $ \\;\\!t_{\\epsilon} > t_0 $ como em (5.3), para $ \\;\\!\\epsilon > 0 \\;\\!$ dado. Por (5.2), tem-se, para cada $ \\:\\!1 \\leq \\ell \\leq 3 \\;\\!$ e $ \\;\\! t > t_{\\epsilon} $:\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{5.4}\n\\;\\!\n{\\cal V}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(t)\n\\:\\equiv\\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!-\\;\\!\nD_{\\ell} \\;\\![\\;\\!\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,]\n\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\leq\\;\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 1}}(t) \\,+\\,\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 2}}(t) \\,+\\,\n{\\cal J}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(t),$$\\\nonde\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{5.5$a$}\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 1}}(t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\,[\\:\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds,$$\\\n$$\\tag{5.5$b$}\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 2}}(t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n\\!\\!\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\,[\\:\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds,$$\\\n$$\\tag{5.5$c$}\n{\\cal J}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\,[\\:\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds,$$\\\nsendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t) := (\\:\\!t_{\\epsilon} + \\;\\!t)/2\n} $. Come\u00e7ando com $ {\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 1}}(t) $, tem-se, por (1.2), (2.3) e (2.15):\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 1}}(t)\n\\;\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\; t^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{0}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n\\!\n(t - s)^{-\\,5/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\:\n(\\:\\!t - t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})^{-\\,5/4}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{0}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\,\\!\n( t_{\\epsilon} -\\;\\! t_0 )^{1/2}\n\\;\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t - t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})^{-\\,5/4}\n} $ (5.6$a$)\\\n\\\npara todo $\\;\\!t > t_{\\epsilon} $, onde $ \\:\\!K\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) $ independe de $ \\:\\!\\epsilon $. Para $ {\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 2}}(t) $, tem-se, por (1.2), (2.15) e (5.3):\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 2}}(t)\n\\;\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\; t^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $ t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\:\\!\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n\\hspace{-0.350cm}\n(t - s)^{-\\,5/4} \\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\epsilon \\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t - t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})^{-\\,3/4}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n\\hspace{-0.350cm}\n( t - s )^{-\\,1/2}\n\\:\ns^{-\\,1/2}\n\\:\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\epsilon \\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\,\n(\\:\\!t - t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})^{-\\,3/4}\n} $ (5.6$b$)\\\n\\\npara todo $\\;\\!t > t_{\\epsilon} $, onde $ \\:\\!K\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) $ independe de $ \\:\\!\\epsilon $. Finalmente, considerando $ {\\cal J}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(t) $, tem-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n{\\cal J}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ell}}(t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.325cm}\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\,[\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\;\\:\\!\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\, 7/8}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\;\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\, 7/8}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\cdot\n\\nabla \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\;\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\, 7/8}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\;\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\,7/8}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!7/4}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\:\\!\n\\epsilon^{\\:\\! 7/4}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\,7/8}\n\\:\ns^{-\\,7/8}\n\\:\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\:\\!\n\\epsilon^{\\:\\! 7/4}\n\\;\nt^{\\:\\! 3/4}\n\\,\n(\\:\\! t + t_{\\epsilon})^{-\\,3/4}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\,7/8}\n\\:\ns^{-\\,1/8}\n\\:\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\;\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!1/4}\n\\;\\!\n\\epsilon^{\\:\\! 7/4}\n} $ (5.6$c$)\\\n\\\npara todo $ \\:\\! t > t_{\\epsilon} $, usando (2.14), (4.16), desigualdade de H\u00f6lder, (4.12) e o fato de se ter\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\int_{t_0}^{\\:\\!t}\n(t - s)^{-\\,7/8}\n\\,\ns^{-\\,1/8}\n\\:\nds\n\\;\\;\\!\\leq\\;\nK \\,=\\;\n\\frac{\\pi}{\\,\\mbox{sen}\\,(\\pi/8)\\,}\n\\;\\!.$$\n\n\\\nClaramente, obtemos de (5.4) e (5.6$a$), (5.6$b$), (5.6$c$) acima que\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\nt^{\\:\\!3/4}\n\\,\n\\|\\, D_{\\ell} \\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!-\\;\\!\nD_{\\ell} \\,[\\;\\!\\;\\!\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,]\n\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\leq\\:\n\\bigl(\\;\\! 1 + \\epsilon +\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\;\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\!\n\\bigr)\n\\,\n\\epsilon\n$$\\\npara todo $ t > t_{\\epsilon} $ suficientemente grande, para cada $ \\;\\! 1 \\leq \\ell \\leq 3 $, o que prova (5.1) se $ m = 1 $.\\\n\\\nFinalmente, consideramos o caso geral $ m \\geq 2 $, procedendo de modo similar ao caso anterior. Dado $ \\epsilon > 0 $ (arbitr\u00e1rio), tomamos $ t_{\\epsilon} > t_0 $ suficientemente grande tal que, por (4.1) $\\,$Teorema 4.1$\\,$, tenhamos\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{5.7}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle k}{2} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{k} \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\leq\\;\n\\epsilon,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\geq t_{\\epsilon}$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\!0 \\leq k \\leq m $. Dado $\\;\\!\\alpha\\;\\!$ multi-\u00edndice com $ \\;\\!|\\;\\!\\alpha\\;\\!| = m $, definimos (para $ t > t_{\\epsilon} $)\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{5.8}\n{\\cal V}_{\\alpha}(t)\n\\;\\equiv\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!-\\;\\!\nD^{\\alpha} \\;\\![\\:\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}},$$\\\nescrevendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n{\\cal V}_{\\alpha}(t)\n\\;\\!\\leq\\,\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 1}}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t) \\,+\\,\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 2}}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t) \\,+\\,\n{\\cal J}(\\alpha, t)\n} $, onde\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{5.9$a$}\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 1}}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n\\!\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds,$$\\\n$$\\tag{5.9$b$}\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 2}}(\\alpha, \\:\\!t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t_0$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n\\hspace{-0.570cm}\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds,$$\\\n$$\\tag{5.9$c$}\n{\\cal J}(\\alpha, t)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.350cm}\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds,$$\\\nsendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t) = (\\:\\!t_{\\epsilon} + \\;\\!t)/2\n} $. Com rela\u00e7\u00e3o a $ {\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 1}}(\\alpha, t) $, tem-se, por (1.2), (2.3) e (2.15):\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 1}}(\\alpha, t)\n\\;\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{0}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n\\!\n(t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\! -\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\,\\!\n(t - t_{\\epsilon})^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\! -\\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{0}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\:\\!\n( t_{\\epsilon} -\\;\\! t_0 )^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{2} }}\n\\,\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\,\\!\n(t - t_{\\epsilon})^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\! -\\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n} $ (5.10$a$)\\\n\\\npara todo $\\;\\!t > t_{\\epsilon} $, onde $ \\:\\!K\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) $ independe de $ \\:\\!\\epsilon $. Para $ {\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 2}}(\\alpha, t) $, tem-se, de (1.2), (2.15) e (5.7):\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n{\\cal I}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle 2}}(\\alpha, t)\n\\;\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $ t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\:\\!\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n\\hspace{-0.425cm}\n(t - s)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\! -\\,\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\n\\:\\!\n\\epsilon^{\\:\\!2}\n\\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n(\\:\\!t - t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!- \\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\!\\;\\!t_{\\epsilon}$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n\\hspace{-0.350cm}\n( t - s )^{-\\,1/2}\n\\:\ns^{-\\,1/2}\n\\:\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\n\\:\\!\n\\epsilon^{\\:\\!2}\n\\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\;\\!\n(\\:\\!t - t_{\\!\\;\\!\\epsilon})^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!- \\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n} $ (5.10$b$)\\\n\\\npara todo $\\;\\!t > t_{\\epsilon} $, onde $ \\:\\!K\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) $ independe de $ \\:\\!\\epsilon $. Finalmente, para $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n{\\cal J}(\\alpha,t)\n} $, tem-se, escrevendo $ D^{\\alpha} \\!\\;\\!= D_{j} \\;\\! D^{\\alpha^{\\prime}} \\!\\!$, sendo $ \\alpha^{\\prime} $ multi-\u00edndice de ordem $ m - 1 $,\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n{\\cal J}(\\alpha, t)\n\\;=\\;\\:\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.325cm}\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\;\\![\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\;\\:\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.325cm}\n\\|\\, D_{j} \\,[\\:\ne^{\\;\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $s$})}\n\\:\\!\nD^{\\alpha^{\\prime}} \\!\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s)\n\\,] \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\;\\:\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\, 7/8}\n\\:\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha^{\\prime}} \\!\\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $Q$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu)\n\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\, 7/8}\n\\:\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha^{\\prime}} \\!\\;\\![\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\cdot\n\\nabla \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\n\\hspace{-1.350cm}\n\\sum_{\\mbox{} \\hspace{+1.250cm} |\\,\\beta\\,| \\,+\\, |\\,\\gamma\\,| \\:=\\:\nm \\,-\\, {\\scriptscriptstyle 1}}\n\\hspace{-1.400cm}\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\, 7/8}\n\\:\n\\|\\, D^{\\beta} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\cdot\n\\nabla \\:\\!  D^{\\gamma} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,]\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4/3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\;\\! ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\!\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\,0}^{m\\,-\\,{\\scriptscriptstyle 1}}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4}}}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\, 7/8}\n\\:\n\\|\\, D^{\\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{4}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m - \\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\!\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\,0}^{m\\,-\\,{\\scriptscriptstyle 1}}\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{- \\,7/8}\n\\:\n\\|\\, D^{\\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\ell + 1} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{3}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{m - \\ell} \\,\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2} }}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(\\nu) \\!\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\,0}^{m\\,-\\,{\\scriptscriptstyle 1}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\epsilon^{\\:\\!2}\n\\;\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\,7/8}\n\\:\ns^{-\\,m/2 \\,-\\, 9 \\,\\ell/8 \\,-\\, 3/8}\n\\:\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m, \\nu)\n\\;\n\\epsilon^{\\:\\! 2}\n\\;\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\,\n(\\:\\! t + t_{\\epsilon})^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\! -\\, \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,-\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\mu_{\\epsilon}(t)$}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\;\\!t$}}\n\\hspace{-0.300cm}\n(\\:\\!t - s)^{-\\,7/8}\n\\:\ns^{-\\,1/8}\n\\:\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(m, \\nu)\n\\;\n\\epsilon^{\\:\\! 2}\n} $ (5.10$c$)\\\n\\\npara todo $ \\:\\! t > t_{\\epsilon} $, usando-se (2.14), (4.16), desigualdade de H\u00f6lder, (4.12) e (5.7), tendo-se que a constante $ K\\!\\;\\!(m, \\nu) > 0 \\;\\!$ em (5.10$c$) independe de $ \\;\\!\\epsilon\\:\\! $ (e $\\;\\!t_{\\epsilon}$). $\\,$Foi suposto tamb\u00e9m, no pen\u00faltimo passo acima, que $ \\;\\!t_{\\epsilon} $ tenha sido tomado em (5.7) de modo a satisfazer: $ \\:\\!t_{\\epsilon} \\geq 1 $.$\\;\\!$\\\nPor (5.8) e (5.10$a$), (5.10$b$), (5.10$c$), segue em particular que se tem\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle m}{2} \\,+\\, \\frac{1}{4} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D^{\\alpha} \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\n\\;\\!-\\;\\!\nD^{\\alpha} \\;\\![\\:\ne^{\\:\\!\\nu \\Delta (\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$} \\;\\!-\\, \\mbox{\\footnotesize $t_0$})}\n\\:\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0)\n\\,] \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\leq\\;\n(\\;\\! 1 + K\\!\\;\\!(m,\\nu) \\,\\epsilon \\,)\n\\; \\epsilon\n$$\\\npara todo $ t > t_{\\epsilon} $ suficientemente grande, para cada $ \\alpha  $ com $ |\\;\\!\\alpha\\;\\!| = m $, sendo $ \\epsilon > 0 $ arbitr\u00e1rio, e $ m \\geq 2 $ qualquer (com $ K\\!\\;\\!(m,\\nu) $ independente de $\\:\\!\\epsilon $). Somado aos casos $m = 0$ e $ m = 1 $ considerados antes, isso conclui a prova de (5.1) para todo $ m \\geq 0 $, como afirmado.\n\n$\\Box$\\\nDeixamos em aberto a obten\u00e7\u00e3o de (1.10), (1.12) para $ n \\geq 4 $, $ m \\geq 0 $ arbitr\u00e1rios.\n\n\\\n\n[Ap\u00eandice A]{}\\\n\n\\\nNeste ap\u00eandice, vamos mostrar como obter a estimativa (2.20) para o valor $ t_{\\ast\\ast} $ dado na Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.3 da Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2. O ponto de partida \u00e9 a seguinte estimativa,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{A.1}\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\mathbb{R}^{3}}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\\Bigl\\{\\!\\!\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{}\\;\\;\\,i, \\,j, \\,\\ell \\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!| \\:\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{j} \\;\\!| \\:\n|\\, D_{j} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|\n\\,\\Bigr\\}\n\\;\\!dx\n\\:\\leq\\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{3} \\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{3/2}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n  ^{3/2}\n\\!\\:\\!,$$\\\nonde $ \\:\\!K_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}} \\!< 0.581\\,862\\,001\\,307 $ (ver [@Agueh2008], Theorem 2.1) \u00e9 a constante na desigualdade de Nirenberg-Gagliardo [@Agueh2008]\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{A.2}\n\\|\\: \\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\leq\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\: \\mbox{u} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{u} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}\n\\!\\:\\!.$$\\\n$\\,$Prova de (A.1): aplicando-se repetidamente a desigualdade de Cauchy-Schwarz, tem-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\sum_{\\mbox{}\\;\\;\\,i, \\,j, \\,\\ell \\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!| \\:\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{j} \\;\\!| \\:\n|\\, D_{j} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|\n\\,\\Bigr\\}\n\\:\\leq\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{}\\;\\, i, \\,\\ell \\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|\n\\:\n\\Bigl\\{\\;\\!\n\\sum_{j\\,=\\,1}^{3}\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{j} \\;\\!|^{2}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/2}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n\\sum_{j\\,=\\,1}^{3}\n|\\, D_{j} \\:\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|^{2}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/2}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\n\\sum_{i\\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\;\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n\\sum_{j\\,=\\,1}^{3}\n|\\, D_{j} \\:\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|^{2}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/2}\n\\,\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n\\sum_{\\ell\\,=\\,1}^{3}\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|^{2}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/2}\n\\,\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{}\\;\\,j,\\,\\ell\\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{j} \\;\\!|^{2}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/2}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\Bigl\\{\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{}\\;j,\\,\\ell\\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{j} \\;\\!|^{2}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/2}\n\\:\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{}\\;i,\\,j\\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, D_{j} \\:\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|^{2}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/2}\n\\:\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{}\\;i,\\,\\ell\\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|^{2}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\:\\!1/2}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\n} $, $\\;\\!$\\\n\\\nde modo que\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\mathbb{R}^{3}}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\\Bigl\\{\\!\\!\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{}\\;\\;\\,i, \\,j, \\,\\ell \\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!| \\:\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{j} \\;\\!| \\:\n|\\, D_{j} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|\n\\,\\Bigr\\}\n\\;\\!dx\n\\:\\leq\\;\n\\|\\: \\mbox{w} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{3}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3}\n\\!,\n\\quad \\;\\,\n\\mbox{w}(x) :=\n\\Bigl\\{\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{} \\;i, \\,j, \\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\n|\\, D_{j} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|^{\\:\\!2}\n\\,\n\\Bigr\\}^{\\!\\!\\;\\!1/2}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!.$$\\\nIsso fornece\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\notag\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\mathbb{R}^{3}}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\\Bigl\\{\\!\\!\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\sum_{\\mbox{}\\;\\;\\,i, \\,j, \\,\\ell \\,=\\,1}^{3}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!| \\:\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\;\\!u_{j} \\;\\!| \\:\n|\\, D_{j} \\;\\!u_{i} \\;\\!|\n\\,\\Bigr\\}\n\\;\\!dx\n\\:\\leq\\:\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{3}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\: \\mbox{w} \\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3/2}\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{w} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3/2}\n} $ $\\;\\!$por (A.2)$\\;\\!$\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{3}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3/2}\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{3/2}\n} $\\\n\\\npois, por (1.19), tem-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\,\\mbox{w}\\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!=\n\\|\\,D\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n} $ e $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\n\\|\\,D\\:\\!\\mbox{w}\\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\n\\|\\,D^{2}\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}\\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $.$\\;\\!$\\\nAgora, considere $ \\;\\!\\hat{t} > 0 \\;\\!$ qualquer satisfazendo\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{A.3}\n\\hat{t} \\;>\\:\n\\frac{\\;\\!1\\;\\!}{2} \\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{12}\n\\,\n\\nu^{-\\,5}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{4}\n\\!\\!:$$\\\nComo (por (1.2)) $ {\\displaystyle\n\\!\n\\int_{0}^{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\hat{t}$}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{2}\ndt\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{1}{2\\;\\!\\nu} }$}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{2}\n\\!\n} $, $\\;\\!$tem de existir $ \\;\\!t^{\\prime} \\!\\in (\\:\\!0,\\;\\!\\hat{t}\\,] $\\\ntal que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{A.4}\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t^{\\prime}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\,\\leq\\;\n\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\:\\!2\\:\\!\\nu\\,}\\,}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_{0} \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\\cdot\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\mbox{} \\;1\\,}{\\!\\sqrt{\\:\\!\\hat{t}^{\\mbox{}}\\:}\\;}\n.\n$$\\\nPortanto, por (A.3), tem-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{A.5}\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{3}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}\n<\\, \\nu$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\!s \\geq t^{\\prime} $ pr\u00f3ximo do ponto $ t^{\\prime} \\!\\:\\!$. Isso fornece, diferenciando (1.1$a$) com respeito \u00e0 vari\u00e0vel $ x_{\\ell} $, tomando o produto escalar com $ D_{\\ell}\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) $ e somando para $ \\ell = 1, 2, 3$,\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\:\n2 \\,\\nu \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t^{\\prime} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n(A.6)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t^{\\prime}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\;\\!+\\:\n2\n\\sum_{i, \\, j, \\, \\ell}\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t^{\\prime} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{3}}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\:\\! u_{i}(x,s) \\,|\n\\;\n|\\, D_{\\ell} \\:\\! u_{j}(x,s) \\,|\n\\;\n|\\, D_{\\scriptstyle \\!j} \\:\\!u_{i}(x,s) \\,|\n\\;\ndx \\: ds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t^{\\prime}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\:\n2 \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t^{\\prime} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{3}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!3/2}\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!3/2}\n\\,\\!\nds\n} $ $\\,$por (A.1)$\\,$\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t^{\\prime}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!+\\,\n2 \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t^{\\prime} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\bigl[\\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{3}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\:\\!\n\\bigr]\n\\:\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}}}^{2}\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t^{\\prime}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!+\\,\n2 \\, \\nu \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t^{\\prime} $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{2}\nds\n} $ $\\,$por (A.5)$\\,$\\\n\\\npara todo $ \\;\\!t \\geq t^{\\prime} \\!\\;\\!$ pr\u00f3ximo a $ t^{\\prime} \\!\\:\\!$, onde na quarta linha acima usamos a desigualdade (2.16$b$) da Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2. Segue da\u00ed que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}\n\\!\n} $ \u00e9 limitada por $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t^{\\prime}) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, e como $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ n\u00e3o pode crescer (por (1.2)), resulta que\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{A.7}\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{3}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, D\\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{1/2}\n\\;\\!<\\: \\nu,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\geq t^{\\prime}\n\\!\\:\\!.$$\\\nEm particular, podemos repetir a deriva\u00e7\u00e3o de (A.6) acima no intervalo $ [\\;\\!t_0, t\\;\\!] $, para $ t_0 < t \\in [\\,t^{\\prime}\\!\\:\\!, \\infty) $ arbitr\u00e1rio, obtendo\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\:\n2 \\, \\nu \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_0 $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\,\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t^{\\prime}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!+\\,\n2 \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_0 $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\bigl[\\,\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{3}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\|\\, D \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!1/2}\n\\:\\!\n\\bigr]\n\\:\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}}}^{2}\nds\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\:\n\\|\\, D \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!+\\,\n2 \\, \\nu \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $ t_0 $}}\n    ^{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\:\\!t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\, D^{2} \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,s) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{2}\nds\n} $. $\\,$por (A.7)$\\,$\\\n\\\nPortanto, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, D\\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}\n\\!\n} $ \u00e9 monotonicamente decrescente em $ {\\displaystyle\n[\\,t^{\\prime}\\!, \\:\\!\\infty\\:\\!)\n\\supseteq\n[\\,\\hat{t}, \\:\\!\\infty\\:\\!)\n} $, de modo que, pela teoria cl\u00e1ssica de Leray [@Leray1934], tem-se de ter $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\in\nC^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\times \\!\\;\\!\n(\\;\\!t^{\\:\\!\\prime} \\!\\;\\!, \\:\\! \\infty))\n} $. Lembrando a desigualdade (A.3) definindo $ \\;\\!t^{\\:\\!\\prime} \\!\\;\\!$, isto completa a prova de (2.20), visto que tem-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n1/2\n\\:\nK_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!3}}^{12}\n\\!\\;\\!<\\:\\!\n0.000\\,753\\,026\n} $. $\\Box$\\\n\\\nEm resumo, pelo argumento acima, tem-se demonstrado o seguinte resultado:\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}\n\n\\\n\n[Parte II]{}\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[**Problema de Exist\u00eancia Global para**]{}\\\n\\\n[**Equa\u00e7\u00f5es de Advec\u00e7\u00e3o-Difus\u00e3o Conservativas**]{}\\\n\\\n\n\\\n[**1. Introdu\u00e7\u00e3o**]{}\\\nNa segunda parte deste trabalho, estenderemos um procedimento de an\u00e1lise introduzido pelo autor para a deriva\u00e7\u00e3o de v\u00e1rias estimativas b\u00e1sicas importantes para as solu\u00e7\u00f5es $ u(\\cdot,t) $ de equa\u00e7\u00f5es de advec\u00e7\u00e3o-difus\u00e3o conservativas em meios heterog\u00eaneos [@Zingano2010]. O m\u00e9todo foi inicialmente aplicado a equa\u00e7\u00f5es (ou sistemas de equa\u00e7\u00f5es) em uma dimens\u00e3o espacial ($ n = 1 $), no caso mais simples de velocidades advectivas limitadas (i.e., $ \\kappa = 0 $ em (1.1) a seguir), ver [@BarrionuevoOliveiraZingano2014; @BrazMeloZingano2015; @Melo2011; @Oliveira2013]. Posteriormente, o autor estendeu os resultados para equa\u00e7\u00f5es mais gerais\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\nu_t \\,+\\;\n\\bigl(\\;\\! b(x,t,u) \\, |\\;\\!u\\;\\!|^{\\:\\!\\kappa} \\:\\! u \\;\\!\n\\bigr)_{\\!x}\n\\;\\!=\\;\nu_{xx},\n\\qquad\nx \\in \\mathbb{R}, \\;\\, t > 0,$$\\\ncom $ \\kappa > 0 $ constante, $ b(x,t,u) $ limitada [@Zingano2011], tendo orientado trabalhos de doutorado na aplica\u00e7\u00e3o do m\u00e9todo a equa\u00e7\u00f5es unidimensionais similares no caso de difus\u00e3o n\u00e3o linear [@Chagas2015; @Diehl2015; @Fabris2013; @Guidolin2015]. No presente trabalho, consideraremos finalmente o desenvolvimento destas t\u00e9cnicas em dimens\u00e3o $n$ arbitr\u00e1ria, adotando (por simplicidade) como prot\u00f3tipo o problema\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.1$a$}\nu_t \\,+\\;\n\\mbox{div}\\,\n\\bigl(\\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \\, |\\;\\!u\\;\\!|^{\\:\\!\\kappa} \\:\\! u \\;\\!\n\\bigr)\n\\:+\\:\n\\mbox{div} \\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(t,u)\n\\;=\\;\n\\mbox{div}\\,\\bigl(\\;\\!\nA(x,t,u) \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr),\n$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.1$b$}\nu(\\cdot,0) \\,=\\,\nu_0 \\in L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\cap L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}),$$\\\nsendo $ A(x,t,\\mbox{u}) $ matriz suave satisfazendo $ A(x,t,\\mbox{u}) \\geq \\mu(t) \\:\\!I $ para $ \\mu \\in C^{0}([\\,0, \\infty)) $ positiva, ou seja,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.2}\n\\left<\\;\\! A(x,t,\\mbox{u}) \\;\\! \\mbox{\\bf v},\n\\, \\mbox{\\bf v} \\;\\!\\right>\n\\;\\geq\\;\n\\mu(t) \\, |\\:\\mbox{\\bf v} \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\quad \\;\\;\n\\forall \\;\\,\n\\mbox{\\bf v} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n}$$\\\npara todo $ x \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!\\;\\!$, $ t \\geq 0 $, $ \\mbox{u} \\in \\mathbb{R} $, e onde $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$} = (\\;\\! b_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\;\\!,\n..., b_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle n}} )\n} $, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$} = (\\:\\! f_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\;\\!,\n..., f_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle n}} )\n} $ s\u00e3o fun\u00e7\u00f5es suaves, com $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}\n\\;\\!\n} $ satisfazendo\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.3}\n\\mbox{} \\hspace{+3.500cm}\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$} \\in\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!\\times\\!\\;\\!\n[\\,0,\\mbox{\\small $T$}\\:\\!] \\!\\;\\!\\times\\:\\! \\mathbb{R})\n\\qquad\n\\mbox{\\mbox{[}$\\,$para cada $\\;\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$} > 0 \\,]$.}$$\n\n\\\n\u00c9 conhecido (ver e.g.$\\;$[@LadyzhenskayaSolonnikovUralceva1968; @Serre1999] e Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a02 abaixo) que o problema (1.1)-(1.3) possui solu\u00e7\u00e3o (cl\u00e1ssica, limitada, \u00fanica) $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nu(\\cdot,t) \\in\nC^{0}([\\,0, \\mbox{\\small $T$}\\:\\!],\nL^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}))\n\\cap\nL^{\\infty}([\\,0, \\mbox{\\small $T$}\\:\\!],\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}))\n} $ para certo $ 0 < \\mbox{\\small $T$} < \\infty $ (ou seja, exist\u00eancia [*local*]{} est\u00e1 bem estabelecida); esta solu\u00e7\u00e3o pode ser continuada (i.e., estendida) a intervalos de exist\u00eancia mais amplos enquanto permanecer limitada. Assim, \u00e9 importante examinar o comportamento das normas altas (especialmente $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n} $) no intervalo de exist\u00eancia da solu\u00e7\u00e3o. Por\u00e9m, sob hip\u00f3teses t\u00e3o gerais como (1.3) acima, esta quest\u00e3o pode tornar-se [*muito*]{} dif\u00edcil, como explicamos intuitivamente a seguir. Considere-se, por exemplo, solu\u00e7\u00f5es $ v(\\cdot,t) $ n\u00e3o negativas da equa\u00e7\u00e3o\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.4}\nv_t \\,+\\; \\mbox{div}\\,(\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x) \\, v^{\\kappa \\;\\!+\\;\\! 1}\n\\:\\!)\n\\,=\\,\n\\Delta \\;\\!v,$$\\\nque reescrevemos na forma\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{$1.4^{\\prime}$}\nv_t \\,+\\: (\\kappa + 1) \\,\nv^{\\kappa} \\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x) \\cdot \\nabla v\n\\;=\\;\n\\Delta \\;\\!v\n\\,+\\, \\beta(x) \\, v^{\\kappa \\;\\!+\\;\\! 1}$$\\\nonde $ \\beta(x) \\!\\:\\!:= -\\,\\mbox{div}\\:\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x) $. Supondo que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Omega \\equiv\n\\{\\, x \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!\\!\\;\\!:\\;\\!\\beta(x) > 0 \\,\\}\n} $ seja n\u00e3o vazio, v\u00ea-se de (1.4$^\\prime$) que $ v(x,t) $ \u00e9 estimulada a crescer nos pontos $ x \\in \\Omega $, particularmente onde ocorrer $ \\;\\!\\beta(x) \\gg 1 $. Como (1.4) conserva massa, se $ v(\\cdot,t) $ crescer pronunciadamente em alguma parte de $ \\Omega $ ent\u00e3o o perfil de $ v(\\cdot,t) $ ter\u00e1 de afinar-se, tornando-se assim mais suscet\u00edvel aos efeitos dissipativos do termo difusivo presente em (1.4). O efeito final sobre a solu\u00e7\u00e3o (i.e., ocorr\u00eancia de blow-up ou n\u00e3o, supondo $ \\kappa > 0 $) resultante desta competi\u00e7\u00e3o entre os termos do lado direito em (1.$4^{\\prime}$) \u00e9 dif\u00edcil de ser previsto. A situa\u00e7\u00e3o pode \u00e0 primeira vista parecer (equivocadamente) similar \u00e0 das solu\u00e7\u00f5es n\u00e3o negativas da equa\u00e7\u00e3o\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.5}\nw_t \\,=\\; \\Delta \\:\\!w\n\\,+\\, w^{\\kappa \\;\\!+\\;\\!1}\n\\!,\n\\qquad\nx \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!\\;\\!, \\;\\, t > 0,$$\\\nexaminada originalmente por Fujita [@Fujita1966] e subsequentemente generalizada por outros (ver e.g.$\\;$[@BandleBrunner1998; @DengLevine2000; @Levine1990; @Pinsky1997; @QuittnerSouplet2007]), onde [*todas as solu\u00e7\u00f5es n\u00e3o negativas*]{} (exceto $ w(\\cdot,t) \\equiv 0 $) [*explodem em tempo finito se*]{} $ \\:\\!0 < \\kappa \\leq 2/n $ (e tamb\u00e9m para $ \\kappa > 2/n \\:\\!$ se $ w(\\cdot,0) $ for apropriadamente grande) [@Fujita1966; @Hayakawa1973]. Como ficar\u00e1 mostrado nos resultados a seguir, a situa\u00e7\u00e3o em (1.4) tem natureza oposta: [*todas as solu\u00e7\u00f5es de*]{} (1.4) [*s\u00e3o globalmente de- finidas se*]{} $ \\;\\!0 \\leq \\kappa < 1/n $ (e tamb\u00e9m para $ \\kappa \\geq 1/n \\;\\!$ se $ v(\\cdot,0) $ for apropriadamente pequena). Esta diferen\u00e7a not\u00e1vel entre os dois sistemas \u00e9 devida ao fato de (1.4) conservar massa, o que n\u00e3o acontece com (1.5). Considera\u00e7\u00f5es an\u00e1logas podem ser feitas no caso geral do problema (1.1)-(1.3): todas as solu\u00e7\u00f5es v\u00e3o existir globalmente se $ \\;\\!0 \\leq \\kappa < 1/n $ (pela raz\u00e3o de se ter conserva\u00e7\u00e3o de massa e, melhor ainda, no caso de solu\u00e7\u00f5es $ u(\\cdot,t) $ sem sinal definido, a propriedade dada em (1.11) abaixo).\n\n\\\nComo sugerido em (1.4$^{\\prime}$), a [*magnitude*]{} do coeficiente $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) $ n\u00e3o deve desempenhar papel importante, ao contr\u00e1rio de suas derivadas \u2014 ou, mais propriamente, a [*varia\u00e7\u00e3o*]{} de $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) $ em $ \\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!\\,\\!$, dada pela quantidade $ B(t) $ definida do seguinte modo. Para cada $ 1 \\leq j \\leq n $, introduzimos $ B_{j}(t) $ dada por\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.6$a$}\nB_{j}(t) \\;\\!:= \\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{1}{2} } $}\n\\:\n\\Bigl[\\,\n\\sup_{\\;x \\,\\in\\, \\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!b_{j}(x,t,u(x,t))\n\\;\\;\\!-\\!\\;\\!\n\\inf_{\\;x \\,\\in\\, \\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!b_{j}(x,t,u(x,t))\n\\;\\Bigr],\n\\qquad\n0 \\leq t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!,$$\\\ne ent\u00e3o definimos\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.6$b$}\nB(t) \\:=\\:\n|\\: (\\:\\!\nB_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!(t), ..., B_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle n}}\\!\\;\\!(t)\n\\:\\!) \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\;\\!=\\:\n\\Bigl\\{\\:\\! B_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!(t)^{\\:\\!2} \\!\\;\\!+ ... +\nB_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle n}}\\!\\;\\!(t)^{\\:\\!2} \\:\\!\n\\Bigr\\}^{\\!1/2}$$\\\npara cada $ \\:\\! 0 \\leq t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} $ $\\,$acima, e em todo o texto que segue, $ [\\,0, \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!) $ denota sempre o intervalo m\u00e1ximo de exist\u00eancia da solu\u00e7\u00e3o $ u(\\cdot,t) $ considerada$\\,$. Para a descri\u00e7\u00e3o dos resultados principais a serem obtidos neste trabalho, precisamos ainda introduzir as quantidades $ \\;\\!\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t) \\;\\!$ e $ \\;\\!\\mathbb{U}_{p}(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t) $, $ 1 \\leq p \\leq \\infty $, definidas por\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.7}\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t)\n\\,:=\\;\n\\sup \\;\\Bigl\\{\\,\n\\frac{B(\\tau)}{\\mu(\\tau)} \\!\\;\\!:\n\\; 0 \\,\\leq\\,\\tau \\,\\leq\\, t\n\\,\\Bigr\\},$$\\\n$$\\tag{1.8}\n\\mathbb{U}_{p}(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t)\n\\,:=\\;\n\\sup \\;\\Bigl\\{\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!:\n\\; 0 \\,\\leq\\,\\tau \\,\\leq\\, t\n\\,\\Bigr\\},$$\\\npara $ \\;\\!0 \\leq t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$, $ \\:\\!1 \\leq p \\leq \\infty $. Na Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a03, ap\u00f3s alguns preliminares coletados (por conveni\u00eancia) na Se\u00e7\u00e3o 2 anterior, as seguintes propriedades fundamentais das solu\u00e7\u00f5es do problema (1.1)$\\;\\!$-$\\;\\!$(1.3) ser\u00e3o mostradas. A primeira delas estabelece o importante fato de suas solu\u00e7\u00f5es serem todas globais quando $ \\kappa > 0 $ n\u00e3o for grande (sendo o valor cr\u00edtico, no caso do problema (1.1), dado por $ 1/n $).\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\nNo caso $ \\kappa \\geq 1/n $, uma solu\u00e7\u00e3o ser\u00e1 garantidamente global quando conseguir ser mostrado que alguma (e ent\u00e3o todas) de suas normas altas $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, $ \\;\\! p > n \\:\\!\\kappa $, n\u00e3o puder explodir em tempo finito, como consequ\u00eancia do seguinte resultado:\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\nNote-se que o [Teorema A]{} \u00e9 um corol\u00e1rio do [Teorema B]{} acima (tomando-se $ p = 1 $), em virtude da seguinte propriedade b\u00e1sica (conhecida) das solu\u00e7\u00f5es da equa\u00e7\u00e3o (1.1):\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.11}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt > 0,$$\\\nou seja, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $ decresce monotonicamente em $\\:\\!t$. Esta propriedade \u00e9 tamb\u00e9m satisfeita pelas demais normas $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $, $ \\,\\!p > 1 $, quando o termo $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$} $ em (1.1$a$) n\u00e3o depender explicitamente de $\\:\\!x$, ou, mais geralmente, se tivermos [@SchutzZinganoZingano2014]\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.12$a$}\n\\sum_{j\\,=\\,1}^{n}\n\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\partial \\:\\!b_{\\:\\!j}}\n{\\partial \\:\\!x_{\\!\\;\\!j}}\n\\:\\!\n(x,t,\\mbox{u})\n\\;\\geq\\;0,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nx \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!, \\;\nt \\geq 0, \\;\n\\mbox{u} \\in \\mathbb{R}.$$\\\nNeste caso, n\u00e3o apenas estar\u00e3o as solu\u00e7\u00f5es de (1.1$a$), (1.1$b$) definidas para todo $t > 0 $, como tamb\u00e9m decair\u00e3o ao $ \\;\\!t \\rightarrow \\infty $, tendo-se ([@BrazSchutzZingano2013], Theorem 3.2)\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{1.12$b$}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\:\n(\\;\\! 2 \\:\\!e \\;\\!)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{2} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\nt^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!-\\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{2} }}\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt > 0.$$\\\nNeste trabalho, estamos justamente interessados na situa\u00e7\u00e3o (muito mais dif\u00edcil) em que (1.12$a$) n\u00e3o \u00e9 v\u00e1lida, quando (em geral) n\u00e3o se tem decaimento, podendo existir solu\u00e7\u00f5es estacion\u00e1rias, etc. Mesmo quando $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\n\\rightarrow 0\n} $, a taxa de decaimento n\u00e3o \u00e9 conhecida, em geral. Experimentos num\u00e9ricos parecem indicar o seguinte comportamento, quando $ \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}, \\,\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$} \\,\\!$ na equa\u00e7\u00e3o (1.1$a$) independem do tempo $\\:\\!t\\;\\!$:\\\n\\\n[*Conjectura A*]{}: as solu\u00e7\u00f5es estacion\u00e1rias, quando existem, s\u00e3o est\u00e1veis (atratoras);\\\n[*Conjectura B*]{}: na aus\u00eancia de solu\u00e7\u00f5es estacion\u00e1rias (exceto $ u \\equiv 0$) tem-se sempre $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\n\\rightarrow 0\n\\;\\!\n} $ ao $ \\:\\! t \\rightarrow \\infty $.\\\n\\\nComo estas, muitas quest\u00f5es de interesse para (1.1)$\\;\\!$-$\\;\\!$(1.3) permanecem em aberto.\n\n\\\n[**2. Preliminares**]{}\\\nNesta se\u00e7\u00e3o, revisaremos resumidamente alguns resultados b\u00e1sicos para as solu\u00e7\u00f5es $ u(\\cdot,t) $ do problema (1.1)$\\;\\!$-$\\;\\!$(1.3), que ser\u00e3o usadas na an\u00e1lise a seguir (Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a03). Estas propriedades podem ser estabelecidas, sem esfor\u00e7o adicional, para o problema levemente mais geral\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.1$a$}\nu_t \\,+\\;\n\\mbox{div}\\,\n\\bigl(\\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \\, |\\;\\!u\\;\\!|^{\\:\\!\\kappa} \\:\\! u \\;\\!\n\\bigr)\n\\:+\\:\n\\mbox{div} \\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(t,u)\n\\;=\\;\n\\mbox{div}\\,\\bigl(\\;\\!\nA(x,t,u) \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr),\n$$\\\n$$\\tag{2.1$b$}\nu(\\cdot,0) \\,=\\,\nu_0 \\in L^{p_{\\mbox{}_{0}}}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\cap L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}),$$\\\npara $ \\:\\! 1 \\leq p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!< \\infty \\;\\!$ dado (e n\u00e3o somente $ \\:\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!= 1 $, como em (1.1$b$)), onde a matriz $A$ satisfaz a condi\u00e7\u00e3o de elipticidade (1.2) acima (para certa $ \\mu \\in C^{0}([\\,0,\\infty)) $ positiva) e $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$} $ satisfaz (1.3).[^5] $\\!\\!\\;\\!$Em (2.1), a condi\u00e7\u00e3o (2.1$b$) \u00e9 entendida no sentido de $ L^{1}_{\\tt loc}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}) $, ou seja,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.2}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\;\\!-\\;\\! u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{K})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\rightarrow\\, 0\n\\quad \\;\\;\n\\mbox{ao }\\,\nt \\rightarrow 0$$\\\npara cada conjunto compacto $ \\:\\!\\mathbb{K} \\subset \\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!\\:\\!$ considerado. Por [*solu\u00e7\u00e3o*]{} de (2.1$a$), (2.1$b$) em um dado intervalo $ \\,\\![\\,0, \\,\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\,\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!) $ entende-se uma fun\u00e7\u00e3o suave $ {\\displaystyle\nu(\\cdot,t)\n\\in\nL^{\\infty}_{\\tt loc}(\\:\\!\n[\\;\\!0, \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\,\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!),\n\\:\\!\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\,\\!)\n} $ que satisfaz a equa\u00e7\u00e3o (2.1$a$) classicamente para $ 0 < t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$ e verifica (2.2) ao $ t \\rightarrow 0 $. A [*exist\u00eancia*]{} (local) de tais solu\u00e7\u00f5es decorre da teoria geral de equa\u00e7\u00f5es parab\u00f3licas (ver e.g.$\\;$[@LadyzhenskayaSolonnikovUralceva1968], ou [@Serre1999], Ch.$\\;$7); sabe-se tamb\u00e9m que as solu\u00e7\u00f5es s\u00e3o [*\u00fanicas*]{}, como pode ser mostrado usando princ\u00edpios de compara\u00e7\u00e3o (ver e.g.$\\;$[@DiehlFabrisZingano2014], Theorem\u00a02.1).\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.1.**]{} *Sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nu(\\cdot,t)\n\\in\nL^{\\infty}_{\\tt loc}(\\:\\!\n[\\,0, \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}),\n\\:\\!\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\,\\!)\n} $ solu\u00e7\u00e3o do problema $\\;\\!(2.1)$, onde $ 0 < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!\\leq \\infty $, ent\u00e3o tem-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nu(\\cdot,t) \\in\nC^{0}(\\:\\!\n[\\,0, \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}),\n\\:\\!\nL^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\,\\!)\n} $ para cada $ \\;\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!\\leq p < \\infty $. Al\u00e9m disso, tem-se, para cada $ \\;\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!\\leq p < \\infty \\!\\!\\;\\!:$*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.3}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\cdot\\;\\!\\;\\!\n\\exp\\,\\Bigl\\{\\:\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{1}{4} }$} \\,\n(p - 1) \\:\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)^{\\:\\!2} \\:\n\\mathbb{U}_{p}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)^{\\:\\!2\\;\\!\\kappa}\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n\\mu(\\tau) \\, d\\tau\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}$$\\\n*para todo $\\;\\! 0 \\leq t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$, com $ \\;\\! \\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t) $, $ \\mathbb{U}_{p}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t) $ definidas em $\\;\\!(1.7) $, $(1.8)$ acima.\\\n*\\\nA prova da Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.1 pode ser feita adaptando-se o argumento usado em ([@BarrionuevoOliveiraZingano2014], Theorem 1), ou ([@BrazSchutzZingano2013], Theorem 2.1). Em particular, com $ \\;\\!p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!= 1 $, $ p = 1 $ em (2.3), obt\u00e9m-se a estimativa (1.11) referida na Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a01, ou seja,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.4}\n\\mbox{} \\hspace{+0.750cm}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt > 0.$$\n\n\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.2.**]{} *Sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nu(\\cdot,t)\n\\in\nL^{\\infty}_{\\tt loc}(\\:\\!\n[\\,0, \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}),\n\\:\\!\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\,\\!)\n} $ solu\u00e7\u00e3o do problema $\\;\\!(2.1) \\!\\;\\!$ em um dado intervalo $ \\:\\![\\,0, \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}) $, ent\u00e3o tem-se, para cada $ \\;\\! q \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\:\\!+ 1 \\!\\!\\:\\!:$\\\n*\\\n$$\\tag{2.5}\n\\int_{0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,\\tau)\\,|^{\\:\\!q \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2}\n\\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{\\:\\!2}\n\\:dx\\, d\\tau\n\\;<\\; \\infty,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\n0 < t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\n\\!\\;\\!.$$\\\n[\\\n]{}[[**Prova:**]{} Para $ q > 2 $, considere $ \\;\\!\\Phi(\\mbox{u}) \\!\\:\\!:= L_{\\delta}(\\mbox{u})^{q} \\!\\;\\!$, onde $ L_{\\delta}(\\cdot) $ \u00e9 uma fun\u00e7\u00e3o sinal regularizada (ver e.g.$\\;$[@BrazSchutzZingano2013; @DiehlFabrisZingano2014; @KreissLorenz1989]), sendo $ \\delta > 0 $ dado. Seja tamb\u00e9m, para $ R > 0 $ grande, $ \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}} \\in C^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}) $ uma fun\u00e7\u00e3o de corte satisfazendo $ \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) = 1 $ se $ |\\,x\\,| \\leq R - 1 $, $ \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) = 0 $ se $ |\\,x\\,| \\geq R $, $ 0 \\leq \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \\leq 1 $ para todo $x$, $ |\\,\\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \\,| \\leq C $ para certa constante $C$ independente de $x$ e $R$. Multiplicando-se a equa\u00e7\u00e3o (2.1$a$) por $ \\;\\!\\Phi^{\\prime}(u(x,t)) \\, \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) $ e integrando-se em $ [\\,t_0, \\:\\!t\\;\\!] $ (dado $ 0 < t_0 < t $ arbitr\u00e1rio), obt\u00e9m-se, integrando-se por partes e fazendo $ \\delta \\rightarrow 0 $:\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{q} \\,\n\\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n\\:+\\:\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u(x,\\tau) \\,|^{q - 2} \\,\n\\bigl<\\,A(x,\\tau,u) \\, \\nabla u, \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n\\;=\n} $\\\n\\\n(2.6)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u(x,t_0) \\,|^{q} \\,\n\\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n\\:+\\:\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q - 2 + \\kappa} \\, u \\,\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,\\tau,u) -\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau), \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n-\\;\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\, |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\nG_{q}(u) \\:\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n\\;\\!+\\,\nq \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\,|\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\n|\\,u\\,|^{q + \\kappa} \\,\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,\\tau,u),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n-\\;\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\, |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $F$}_{\\!\\!\\;\\!q}(\\tau,u),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n\\;\\!+\\,\nq \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\,|\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\n|\\,u\\,|^{q - 2} \\;\\!u \\:\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(\\tau,u),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n-\\;\nq \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\, |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\n|\\,u\\,|^{q - 2} \\;\\!u \\:\n\\bigl<\\,A(x,\\tau,u) \\,\\nabla u,\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $,\\\n\\\nonde\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.7$a$}\nG_{q}(\\mbox{u})\n\\,:=\\:\\!\n\\int_{0}^{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\scriptsize u}}\n\\!\n|\\,\\mbox{v}\\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2 + \\kappa}\n\\;\\! \\mbox{v} \\:\nd\\mbox{v},\n\\qquad\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $F$}_{\\!\\!\\;\\!q}(t,\\mbox{u})\n\\,:=\\:\\!\n\\int_{0}^{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\scriptsize u}}\n\\!\n|\\,\\mbox{v}\\,|^{q - 2} \\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(t,\\mbox{v}) \\:\nd\\mbox{v},$$\\\ne $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(t)\n\\;\\!=\\;\\!\n(\\;\\!\\beta_{\\mbox{}_{1}}(t),\\!\\;\\!..., \\beta_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle n}}(t)\n\\:\\!)\n} $, com $ \\beta_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle j}}(t) $, $ 1 \\leq j \\leq n $, dado por\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.7$b$}\n\\beta_{\\scriptstyle j}(t) \\;\\!:= \\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{1}{2} } $}\n\\:\n\\Bigl[\\,\n\\sup_{\\;x \\,\\in\\, \\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!b_{j}(x,t,u(x,t))\n\\;\\;\\!+\\!\\;\\!\n\\inf_{\\;x \\,\\in\\, \\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!b_{j}(x,t,u(x,t))\n\\;\\Bigr].$$\\\nPara obter (2.6), observamos que\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q - 2 + \\kappa} \\, u \\,\n\\bigl<\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,\\tau,u), \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n\\;=\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q - 2 + \\kappa} \\, u \\,\n\\bigl<\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,\\tau,u) -\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau), \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n\\;+\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n\\bigl<\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau),\n\\;\\! \\nabla G_{q}(u) \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q - 2 + \\kappa} \\, u \\,\n\\bigl<\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,\\tau,u) -\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau), \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n\\;-\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\, |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\nG_{q}(u) \\:\n\\bigl<\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: dx\n} $\\\ne tamb\u00e9m\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q - 2} \\,\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(\\tau,u), \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n\\;=\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.715cm}\n[\\; \\mbox{div} \\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $F$}_{\\!\\!\\;\\!q}(\\tau,u) \\:]\n\\:\n\\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\;\n-\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\, |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.650cm}\n\\bigl<\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $F$}_{\\!\\!\\;\\!q}(\\tau,u),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: dx\n} $.\\\n\\\nComo, por (1.6), tem-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q - 2 + \\kappa} \\, u \\,\n\\bigl<\\,\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,\\tau,u) -\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau), \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr>\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nB(\\tau) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q - 1 + \\kappa} \\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\frac{1}{2} \\;\n\\mu(\\tau) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q - 2} \\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{\\:\\!2}\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n\\;+\\;\n\\frac{1}{2} \\:\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q + 2\\;\\! \\kappa}\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n} $,\\\n\\\nresulta de (1.2), (2.6) que\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{q} \\,\n\\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n\\:+\\:\n\\frac{1}{2} \\;\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\n\\mu(\\tau)\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u(x,\\tau) \\,|^{q - 2} \\:\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{2}\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u(x,t_0) \\,|^{q} \\,\n\\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx\n\\:+\\:\n\\frac{1}{2} \\;\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-0.750cm}\n|\\, u \\,|^{q + 2\\;\\! \\kappa}\n\\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n-\\;\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\, |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\nG_{q}(u) \\:\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n\\;\\!+\\,\nq \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\,|\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\n|\\,u\\,|^{q + \\kappa} \\,\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,\\tau,u),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n-\\;\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\, |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $F$}_{\\!\\!\\;\\!q}(\\tau,u),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n\\;\\!+\\,\nq \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\,|\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\n|\\,u\\,|^{q - 2} \\;\\!u \\:\n\\bigl<\\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(\\tau,u),\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n-\\;\nq \\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!\\:\\!R - 1 \\,<\\, |\\,x\\,| \\,<\\,R}}\n\\hspace{-1.675cm}\n|\\,u\\,|^{q - 2} \\;\\!u \\:\n\\bigl<\\,A(x,\\tau,u) \\,\\nabla u,\n\\;\\! \\nabla \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x)\n\\,\\bigr>\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $,\\\n\\\npara todo $ R > 1 $. Fazendo $ R \\rightarrow \\infty $, obt\u00e9m-se, ent\u00e3o,\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!q}\n\\,\\!+\\;\n\\frac{1}{2} \\;\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\mu(\\tau)\n\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\n|\\, u(x,\\tau) \\,|^{q - 2} \\:\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{2}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n(2.8)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!q}\n\\,\\!+\\;\n\\frac{1}{2} \\;\nq \\,(q - 1) \\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\n|\\, u \\,|^{q + 2\\;\\! \\kappa}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $,\\\n\\\nde onde (2.5) pode ser derivado sem dificuldade. De fato, (2.8) produz\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\n\\mu(\\tau)\n\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,\\tau) \\,|^{q - 2} \\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{2}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n\\;\\leq\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u \\,|^{q + 2\\;\\! \\kappa}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau,$$ de modo que, fazendo $\\:\\!t_0 \\!\\;\\!\\rightarrow\\;\\!0 $, tem-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\n\\mu(\\tau)\n\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u \\,|^{q - 2} \\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{2}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n\\;\\leq\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,\\tau) \\,|^{q + 2\\;\\! \\kappa}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\infty}(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)^{\\:\\!2 \\;\\!\\kappa}\n\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\n|\\, u(x,\\tau) \\,|^{q}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{q}(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)^{\\:\\!q} \\;\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\infty}(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)^{\\:\\!2 \\;\\!\\kappa}\n\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\; d\\tau\n} $,\\\n\\\npara cada $ \\;\\!0 < t < T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$, o que conclui a prova de (2.5) se $ \\;\\!q > 2 $. Considerando, agora, $ q = 2 $, pode-se obter (2.5) de modo inteiramente an\u00e1logo, com a diferen\u00e7a de se multiplicar desta vez a equa\u00e7\u00e3o (2.1$a$) por $ \\;\\! u(x,t) \\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) $, em vez de $ \\;\\! \\Phi_{\\delta}^{\\prime}(u(x,t)) \\: \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) $ como feito antes. Integrando-se, ent\u00e3o, o resultado em $\\;\\![\\,t_0, \\;\\!t\\;\\!] $, para $ 0 < t_0 < t $ dado, obt\u00e9m-se, seguindo marcha inteiramente similar a (2.6)$\\;\\!$-$\\;\\!$(2.8) acima,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.$8^{\\prime}$}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\;\\!+\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\mu(\\tau)\n\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{2}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n\\;\\leq\\;\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t_0) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\;\\!+\n\\int_{\\:\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}_0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\n|\\, u \\,|^{2 + 2\\;\\! \\kappa}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau$$\\\n(sendo $ q = 2 $, $ p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\:\\!= 1 $), de onde resulta, como antes,\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\n\\mu(\\tau)\n\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{2}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n\\;\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\scriptstyle \\;\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,\\tau) \\,|^{2 + 2\\;\\! \\kappa}\n\\: dx \\, d\\tau\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\scriptscriptstyle 2}(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)^{\\:\\!2} \\;\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\infty}(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)^{\\:\\!2 \\;\\!\\kappa}\n\\!\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}\n    ^{\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\,B(\\tau)^{2}}{\\mu(\\tau)}\n\\; d\\tau\n} $,\\\n\\\no que estabelece (2.5) no caso $ \\:\\!q = 2 $. Isso conclui a demonstra\u00e7\u00e3o da Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.2. ]{} $\\Box$\\\n[\\\n]{}Observe-se que, da Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.2, segue imediatamente que, para todo $ \\;\\!0 < t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$:\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.9$a$}\n\\int_{0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\bigl<\\, A(x,\\tau,u) \\, \\nabla u, \\;\\! \\nabla u \\,\\bigr>\n\\:dx\\, d\\tau\n\\;<\\; \\infty$$\\\nse $ \\;\\!p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\:\\!= 1 $ ($ q = 2 $), e\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{2.9$b$}\n\\int_{0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,\\tau)\\,|^{\\:\\!q \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2}\n\\,\n\\bigl<\\, A(x,\\tau,u) \\, \\nabla u, \\;\\! \\nabla u \\,\\bigr>\n\\:dx\\, d\\tau\n\\;<\\; \\infty$$\\\nsendo $ \\:\\! q \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\:\\!+ 1 $, $ \\:\\!q > 2 $. Outra consequ\u00eancia importante de (2.5) acima \u00e9 dada na Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.3 a seguir, que representa o ponto de partida para a an\u00e1lise na Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a03 estabelecendo o resultado principal ([Teorema B]{}) anunciado na Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a01.\n\n\\\n[**Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.3.**]{} *Sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nu(\\cdot,t)\n\\in\nL^{\\infty}_{\\tt loc}(\\:\\!\n[\\,0, \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}),\n\\:\\!\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\,\\!)\n} $ solu\u00e7\u00e3o do problema $\\;\\!(2.1) \\!\\;\\!$ em um dado intervalo $ \\:\\![\\,0, \\:\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}) $, tem-se, para cada $ \\;\\! q \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\:\\!+ 1 \\!\\!\\:\\!:$\\\n*\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{d}{d \\:\\!t} \\;\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!q}\n\\:\\!+\\;\nq \\, (q - 1)\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2}\n\\:\n\\bigl<\\, A(x,t,u) \\, \\nabla u, \\;\\! \\nabla u \\,\\bigr>\n\\:dx\n} $\\\n\\\n(2.10)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\;\nq \\, (q - 1)\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2 + \\kappa}\n\\;\\!\nu(x,t) \\:\n\\bigl<\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \\;\\!-\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(t), \\;\\! \\nabla u \\,\\bigr>\n\\:dx\n} $\\\n\\\n*para todo $ \\;\\! t \\in (\\,0, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast})\n\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\setminus$}\\, E_{q} $, sendo $ E_{q} \\!\\;\\!\\subset\\!\\;\\! (\\;\\!0, \\infty) $ de medida zero e $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(t) $ dada em $(2.7b)$.*\\\n[\\\n]{}[[**Prova:**]{} Na nota\u00e7\u00e3o da prova anterior, multiplicando-se (2.1$a$) por $ u(x,t) \\, \\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) $ se $ q = 2 $, e por $ \\;\\! \\Phi_{\\delta}^{\\prime}(u(x,t)) \\:\n\\zeta_{\\mbox{}_{R}}(x) \\;\\!$ se $ q > 2 $, e integrando-se o resultado em $ \\:\\![\\,t_0, \\;\\!t\\;\\!] $, obt\u00e9m-se, fazendo $ \\delta \\rightarrow 0 $, $ t_0 \\!\\;\\!\\rightarrow 0 $ e $ R \\rightarrow \\infty $, por (2.5), (2.6) e (2.7),\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!q}\n\\:\\!+\\;\nq \\, (q - 1)\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2}\n\\:\n\\bigl<\\, A(x,\\tau,u) \\, \\nabla u, \\;\\! \\nabla u \\,\\bigr>\n\\;dx\n\\, d\\tau\n\\;=$$\\\n$$\\notag\n=\\;\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!q}\n\\:\\!+\\;\nq \\, (q - 1)\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,\\tau) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2 + \\kappa}\n\\;\\!\nu(x,\\tau) \\:\n\\bigl<\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,\\tau,u) \\;\\!-\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau), \\;\\! \\nabla u \\,\\bigr>\n\\;dx\n\\,d\\tau$$\\\nse $ \\;\\!q > 2 $, para todo $ \\;\\! 0 < t < T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$. Sendo $\\;\\!q = 2 $, o resultado correspondente obtido \u00e9\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n+\\;\n2\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\n\\bigl<\\, A(x,\\tau,u) \\, \\nabla u, \\;\\! \\nabla u \\,\\bigr>\n\\;dx\n\\, d\\tau\n\\;=$$\\\n$$\\notag\n=\\;\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\:\\!+\\;\n2\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\:\\!0}^{\\;\\!\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t$}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,\\tau) \\,|^{\\:\\!\\kappa}\n\\;\\!\nu(x,\\tau) \\:\n\\bigl<\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,\\tau,u) \\;\\!-\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(\\tau), \\;\\! \\nabla u \\,\\bigr>\n\\;dx\n\\,d\\tau,$$\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! 0 < t < T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$. Nas express\u00f5es acima, todas as integrais s\u00e3o bem definidas e finitas $\\,$por (2.5), Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.2, e (2.9)$\\,$, envolvendo fun\u00e7\u00f5es integr\u00e1veis (no sentido de Lebesgue) nas regi\u00f5es indicadas. $\\!$($\\,\\!$Para o termo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\:\\!\nz(x,t)\n\\:\\!=\\:\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2 + \\kappa}\n\\,\\!\nu(x,t) \\,\n\\bigl<\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \\;\\!-\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(t), \\,\\! \\nabla u \\,\\bigr>\n} $, por exemplo, tem-se, por (1.6) e (2.7$b$):\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n|\\, z(x,t) \\,|\n\\;\\leq\\;\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 1 + \\kappa}\n\\;\\!\n|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \\;\\!-\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}(t) \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\;\\!\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nB(t) \\:\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 1 + \\kappa}\n\\;\\!\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\frac{\\,B(t)^{2}}{\\mu(t)} \\;\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q + 2 \\;\\!\\kappa}\n\\,+\\;\n\\mu(t) \\:\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2}\n\\;\\!\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}^{\\:\\!2}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\\:\\!\n\\mu(t) \\:\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)^{2}\n\\:\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\infty}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)^{2\\;\\!\\kappa}\n\\,\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q}\n\\,+\\:\n\\mu(t) \\:\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2}\n\\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $,\\\n\\\nde modo que $ {\\displaystyle\nz \\in L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\\times\\!\\;\\! [\\,0, \\;\\!t\\;\\!])\n} $ para cada $ \\;\\! 0 < t < T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$, como afirmado.) O resultado (2.10) segue, ent\u00e3o, aplicando o teorema de diferencia\u00e7\u00e3o de Lebesgue, para cada $ \\;\\!q \\:\\!\\geq\\;\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\:\\!+ 1 $. ]{} $\\Box$\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Observa\u00e7\u00e3o 3.1.**]{} Na verdade, por (2.1), tem-se (2.10) v\u00e1lida para todo $ 0 < t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$.\n\n\\\n[**3. Prova de (1.10)**]{}\\\nNesta se\u00e7\u00e3o, vamos obter o resultado principal ([Teorema B]{}), reescrito na forma mais geral a seguir para as solu\u00e7\u00f5es do problema (2.1), sob as hip\u00f3teses de trabalho (1.2) e (1.3) descritas na Se\u00e7\u00e3o 1.\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\nA prova do Teorema 3.1 ser\u00e1 feita a partir da Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o 2.3, com o aux\u00edlio de v\u00e1rios resultados auxiliares apresentados nos lemas abaixo. Tamb\u00e9m ser\u00e3o necess\u00e1rias diversas desigualdades de Nirenberg-Gagliardo, incluindo a desigualdade de Nash [@Nash1958]\\\n\\\n$$\\label{Nash}\n\\tag{3.2}\n\\|\\:\\mbox{v}\\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\\;\\!\nK\\!\\;\\!(n) \\:\n\\|\\:\\mbox{v}\\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{2}{{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!+\\;\\! 2} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\nabla \\mbox{v}\\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!+\\;\\! 2} }}\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\n\\mbox{v} \\in\nL^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\cap\n\\dot{H}^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}),$$\\\npara certa constante $ \\:\\!K\\!\\;\\!(n) < 1 $ (ver [@CarlenLoss1993] para a determina\u00e7\u00e3o de seu valor optimal). Esta desigualdade ser\u00e1 importante mais adiante para se estimar $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n} $ em termos de $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{q/2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, dado $ \\:\\!q \\:\\!\\geq\\:\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}}/2 $ (Lema 3.2), na vers\u00e3o desenvolvida pelo autor para o cl\u00e1ssico m\u00e9todo $ L^{p}$-$\\,\\!L^{q}$ em ordem a se aplicar \u00e0 investiga\u00e7\u00e3o de problemas da forma (2.1) acima. Em particular, dado $ \\;\\!q \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!p_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\\!\\;\\! $, resulta desde j\u00e1 conve- niente introduzir a fun\u00e7\u00e3o auxiliar $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nv^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t)\n\\in\nL^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\cap\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\:\\!\n} $ definida por\\\n\\\n$$\\label{vq}\n\\tag{3.3}\nv^{[\\,q\\,]}(x,t)\n\\,:=\\:\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\!\\;\\,u(x,t) \\; &\n\\mbox{se }\\, q = 2, \\\\\n\\mbox{} \\vspace{-0.200cm} \\\\\n\\! |\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle q/2}} \\; &\n\\mbox{se }\\, q > 2.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.\n$$\\\nEm termos de $ v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) $, tem-se\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.4$a$}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\;\\!q}\n\\:\\!=\\;\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\;\\!2}\n\\!\\;\\!,$$\\\n$$\\tag{3.4$b$}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q/2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\;\\!q/2}\n=\\;\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!,$$\\\ne tamb\u00e9m\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.5}\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2}\n\\:\n|\\, \\nabla u\\;\\!(x,t) \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\: dx\n\\;=\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{4}{\\,q^{2}} }$}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!.$$\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Lema 3.1.**]{} *Seja $\\;\\! q \\:\\!\\geq\\:\\!2 \\;\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!$. Sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nv^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t)\n\\in\nL^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\cap\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n} $ dada em $\\;\\!(3.3) $ acima, tem-se\\\n*\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{d}{d \\:\\!t} \\:\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\:\\!+\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n4 \\;\\! \\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr)\n\\, \\mu(t)\n} $}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n} $\\\n\\\n(3.6)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n2 \\, q \\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr) \\,\nB(t)\n} $}\n\\:\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2 \\;\\!+\\;\\!\\frac{4\\:\\!\\kappa}{q}}\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle 1 \\;\\!+\\;\\! \\frac{2\\:\\!\\kappa}{q} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n} $\\\n\\\n*para todo $ \\;\\! t \\in (\\,0, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast})\n\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\setminus$}\\, E_{q} $, sendo $ E_{q} \\!\\;\\!\\subset\\!\\;\\! (\\;\\!0, \\infty) $, $ |\\,E_{q} \\;\\!|_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\;\\!=\\;\\! 0 $, dado na Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a0$2.3$.* [\\\n]{}[[**Prova:**]{} De (2.10), tem-se, por (1.2) e (1.3), (1.6), (2.7$b$), para $ t \\in (\\,0, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast})\n\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\setminus$}\\, E_{q} $:\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{d}{d \\:\\!t} \\;\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!q}\n\\:\\!+\\;\nq \\, (q - 1)\n\\:\n\\mu(t)\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 2}\n\\:\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\:dx\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nq \\,(q - 1)\\,\nB(t) \\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q - 1 + \\kappa}\n\\:\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\n\\:dx\n} $ $\\,$por (1.2), (1.6), (2.10)$\\,$\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nq \\,(q - 1)\\,\nB(t) \\;\n\\biggl\\{\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q \\;\\!+\\;\\! 2\\;\\! \\kappa}\n\\:dx\n\\;\\!\\biggr\\}^{\\!\\!\\;\\!1/2}\n\\;\\!\n\\biggl\\{\\:\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!q \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2}\n\\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|_{\\mbox{}_{2}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\:dx\n\\;\\!\\biggr\\}^{\\!\\!\\;\\!1/2}\n\\!\\!\\!\\!,\n} $\\\n\\\nque, em termos da fun\u00e7\u00e3o $ \\:\\!v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\:\\!$ definida em (3.3), equivale a (3.6), como afirmado. ]{} $\\Box$\\\n[\\\n]{}De (3.6), resulta a importante estimativa (3.8) abaixo, para $ \\:\\!q \\:\\!\\geq\\:\\! 2 \\;\\!p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!$ com $ \\:\\! q > 2 \\;\\!n\\;\\!\\kappa $, usando-se as desigualdades de Nirenberg-Gagliardo\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.7}\n\\|\\:\\mbox{v}\\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{r}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\:\\!\\leq\\;\n\\|\\:\\mbox{v}\\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{1 - \\theta}\n\\|\\, \\nabla \\mbox{v}\\:\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!\\theta}\n\\!\\;\\!,\n\\qquad\n\\theta \\;=\\;\n\\frac{\\mbox{\\small 1} \\:\\mbox{\\small $-$}\\: \\mbox{\\small 1/}r}\n{\\mbox{\\small 1/2} \\;\\mbox{\\small +}\\:\\mbox{\\small 1/}n}$$\\\n(ver e.g.$\\;$[@Friedman1969], p.$\\;$24), nos casos $ \\;\\!\\mbox{\\small $2$} \\leq r < \\mbox{\\small $2$} + \\mbox{\\small $2$}/n $. Aplicando-se\u00a0(3.7) para estimar $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2 \\;\\!+\\;\\!\\frac{4\\:\\!\\kappa}{q}}\\!(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n\\!\n} $ no lado direito da desigualdade (3.6), Lema\u00a03.1, obt\u00e9m-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{d}{d \\:\\!t} \\:\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\:\\!+\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n4 \\;\\! \\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr)\n\\, \\mu(t)\n} $}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n} $\\\n\\\n(3.8)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n2 \\, q \\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr)\n\\;\\!\nB(t)\n} $}\n\\:\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\n\\frac{2}{{\\scriptstyle n}\\;\\!+\\;\\!2} \\:\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\!\n({\\scriptstyle n} - 2) \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q}} }}\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\n\\frac{2}{{\\scriptstyle n}\\;\\!+\\;\\!2} \\:\n\\frac{({\\scriptstyle n} + 1)\\,{\\scriptstyle q}\n\\,+\\, 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q}} }}\n\\hspace{-1.625cm},\n} $\\\n\\\npara $ \\:\\! q \\:\\!\\geq\\:\\! 2 \\;\\!p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\:\\!$ satisfazendo $ \\;\\! q > 2 \\;\\!n \\;\\!\\kappa $. (Esta \u00faltima condi\u00e7\u00e3o foi feita de modo a (3.8) poder ser \u00fatil: ela torna o expoente do termo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\n} $ no lado direito da express\u00e3o (3.8) menor que 2 $\\,$que \u00e9 o expoente do mesmo termo no lado esquerdo$\\,$. Posto de outra forma (equivalente): vamos deste ponto em diante supor sempre que se tenha $ q $ verificando $ \\;\\!q \\geq 2 \\;\\!p $, com $ p \\:\\!\\geq\\:\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!$ dado (fixo) satisfazendo$\\;\\!$[^6] [\\\n]{}\\\n$$\\tag{3.9}\np \\;\\!\\geq\\;\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}}\n\\!\\;\\!,\n\\quad\n\\;\\,\np \\;\\!>\\;\\!\nn \\;\\! \\kappa.$$\\\nEsta condi\u00e7\u00e3o sobre $q$ permite que se prossiga a an\u00e1lise al\u00e9m da estimativa (3.8), como mostram os seguintes resultados.\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Lema 3.2.**]{} *Seja $\\;\\! q \\:\\!\\geq\\:\\!2 \\;\\! p$, com $ \\;\\!p $ dado em $\\;\\!(3.9)$. Sendo $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nv^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t)\n\\in\nL^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\cap\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n} $ definida em $\\;\\!(3.3) $, tem-se\\\n*\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{d}{d \\:\\!t} \\;\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n\\!\\:\\!+\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{4}{n + 2} \\,\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr) \\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{2 \\;\\!n \\:\\! \\kappa}{q} \\;\\!\\Bigr)\n} $}\n\\,\n\\mbox{\\small $\\mu(t)$}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n} $\\\n\\\n(3.10)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{4}{n + 2} \\,\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr) \\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{2 \\;\\!n \\:\\! \\kappa}{q} \\;\\!\\Bigr)\n} $}\n\\,\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\frac{\\;\\!q\\;\\!}{2} \\;\\! \\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\n\\frac{({\\scriptstyle n} + 2) \\,{\\scriptstyle q}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\;\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.700cm}\n\\cdot\n\\hspace{+0.300cm}\n\\mbox{\\small $\\mu(t)$}\n\\;\\!\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\, \\frac{B(t)}{\\mu(t)} \\,\\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\!\n\\frac{({\\scriptstyle n} + 2) \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle q}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.650cm}\n\\cdot\n\\hspace{+0.300cm}\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!  2 \\,\\cdot\\,\n\\left[\\,\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\!\n({\\scriptstyle n} - 2) \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n\\,\\right]}}\n\\hspace{-1.200cm},\n} $\\\n\\\n*para todo $ \\;\\! t \\in (\\,0, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast})\n\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\setminus$}\\, E_{q} $, sendo $ E_{q} \\!\\;\\!\\subset\\!\\;\\! (\\;\\!0, \\infty) $, $ |\\,E_{q} \\;\\!|_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\;\\!=\\;\\! 0 $, dado na Proposi\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a0$2.3$.* [\\\n]{}[[**Prova:**]{} Considerando o termo no lado direito de (3.8), tem-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n2 \\, q \\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr)\n\\;\\!\nB(t)\n} $}\n\\:\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\n\\frac{2}{{\\scriptstyle n}\\;\\!+\\;\\!2} \\:\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\,-\\,\n({\\scriptstyle n} - 2) \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q}} }}\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\n\\frac{2}{{\\scriptstyle n}\\;\\!+\\;\\!2} \\:\n\\frac{({\\scriptstyle n} + 1)\\,{\\scriptstyle q}\n\\,+\\, 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q}} }}\n\\hspace{-1.625cm}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n=\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n4 \\,\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr)\n} $}\n\\;\n\\Bigl[\\;\\,\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{q}{2} \\:\nB(t) \\;\n\\mu(t)}$}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!-\\,\n\\frac{({\\scriptstyle n} + 1)\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle q}\n\\,+\\, 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n{({\\scriptstyle n} + 2)\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle q}} }\n\\,\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\n\\frac{2}{{\\scriptstyle n}\\;\\!+\\;\\!2} \\:\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\,-\\,\n({\\scriptstyle n} - 2) \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q}} }}\n\\;\\Bigr]\n\\;\\times\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\times \\;\n\\Bigl[\\;\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $\\mu(t)$}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\n\\frac{({\\scriptstyle n} + 1)\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle q}\n\\,+\\, 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n{({\\scriptstyle n} + 2)\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle q}} }}\n\\,\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\n\\frac{2}{{\\scriptstyle n}\\;\\!+\\;\\!2} \\:\n\\frac{({\\scriptstyle n} + 1)\\,{\\scriptstyle q}\n\\,+\\, 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q}} }}\n\\;\\Bigr]\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq \\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{4}{n + 2} \\,\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr) \\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{2 \\;\\!n \\:\\! \\kappa}{q} \\;\\!\\Bigr)\n} $}\n\\,\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\frac{\\;\\!q\\;\\!}{2} \\;\\! \\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\n\\frac{({\\scriptstyle n} + 2) \\,{\\scriptstyle q}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\;\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.700cm}\n\\cdot\n\\hspace{+0.300cm}\n\\mbox{\\small $\\mu(t)$}\n\\;\\!\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\, \\frac{B(t)}{\\mu(t)} \\,\\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\!\n\\frac{({\\scriptstyle n} + 2) \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle q}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.650cm}\n\\cdot\n\\hspace{+0.300cm}\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!  2 \\,\\cdot\\,\n\\left[\\,\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\!\n({\\scriptstyle n} - 2) \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n\\,\\right]}}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n+ \\;\\,\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n4 \\,\n\\Bigl(\\:\\! 1 - \\frac{1}{q} \\,\\Bigr)\n\\;\n\\frac{(n + 1)\\;\\!q \\,+\\, 2 \\;\\!n\\;\\!\\kappa}\n{(n + 2)\\;\\!q}\n\\;\n\\mu(t)\n} $}\n\\:\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n} $\\\n\\\naplicando-se (no \u00faltimo passo) a desigualdade elementar de Young (ver e.g.$\\;$[@Evans2002], p.$\\;$622). Estimando-se em (3.8) seu termo direito como realizado nesta prova, obt\u00e9m-se (3.10). ]{} $\\Box$ [\\\n]{}\\\n[**Lema 3.3.**]{} *Seja $\\;\\! q \\:\\!\\geq\\:\\!2 \\;\\! p$, com $ \\;\\!p $ dado em $\\;\\!(3.9)$, e seja $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\nv^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t)\n\\in\nL^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\cap\nL^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n} $ dada em $\\;\\!(3.3) $. Se $ \\;\\! \\hat{t} \\in (\\,0, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast})\n\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\setminus$}\\, E_{q} $ for tal que\\\n*\\\n$$\\tag{3.11$a$}\n\\frac{d}{d \\:\\!t} \\;\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!2}\n{\\mbox{}_{\\bigr|}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t = \\:\\!\\hat{t}$}}}\n\\hspace{-0.700cm}\n\\geq\\: 0,$$\\\n*ent\u00e3o*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.11$b$}\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,\\hat{t}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\nK\\!\\;\\!(n) } $}\n\\:\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\frac{\\;\\!q\\;\\!}{2} \\;\\! \\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{2} \\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle q}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\;\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.810cm}\n\\cdot\n\\hspace{+0.445cm}\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\, \\frac{B(\\hat{t})}{\\mu(\\hat{t})} \\,\\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{2} \\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle q}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\;\\!\\kappa}} }\n\\hspace{-0.775cm}\n\\cdot\n\\hspace{+0.500cm}\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,\\hat{t}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\! \\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.100cm},$$\\\n*onde $\\,\\!K\\!\\;\\!(n) > 0 $ \u00e9 a constante de Nash dada em $\\;\\!(3.2) $.\\\n* [\\\n]{}[[**Prova:**]{} De (3.10), Lema 3.2, obt\u00e9m-se, usando a hip\u00f3tese (3.11$a$) acima, a estimativa\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.12}\n\\|\\, \\nabla v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,\\hat{t}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\frac{\\;\\!q\\;\\!}{2} \\;\\! \\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n} + 2}{2} \\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle q}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\;\\!\\kappa}} }\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\, \\frac{B(\\hat{t})}{\\mu(\\hat{t})} \\,\\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\!\\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n} + 2}{2} \\,\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle q}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\;\\!\\kappa}} }\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,\\hat{t}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\!({\\scriptstyle n} - 2) \\;\\! {\\scriptstyle \\kappa} }\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.500cm},$$\\\nde onde segue o resultado (3.11$b$) aplicando-se a desigualdade (3.2) para $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{v} = v^{[\\,q\\,]}(\\cdot,\\hat{t})\n} $. ]{} $\\Box$\\\n[\\\n]{}Em termos da solu\u00e7\u00e3o $ u(\\cdot,t) $ do problema (2.1), o Lema 3.3 \u00e9 escrito como segue.\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Lema 3..**]{} *Seja $\\;\\! q \\:\\!\\geq\\:\\!2 \\;\\! p$, com $ \\;\\!p $ dado em $\\;\\!(3.9)$. Se $ \\;\\! \\hat{t} \\in (\\,0, \\;\\!\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast})\n\\,\\mbox{\\footnotesize $\\setminus$}\\, E_{q} $ for tal que\\\n*\\\n$$\\tag{3.13$a$}\n\\frac{d}{d \\:\\!t} \\;\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!q}\n{\\mbox{}_{\\bigr|}}_{\\mbox{}_{\\mbox{\\footnotesize $t = \\:\\!\\hat{t}$}}}\n\\hspace{-0.700cm}\n\\geq\\: 0,$$\\\n*ent\u00e3o*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.13$b$}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\hat{t}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\:\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\nK\\!\\;\\!(n) } $}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{2}{\\scriptstyle q} }}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\frac{\\;\\!q\\;\\!}{2} \\;\\! \\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\;\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.700cm}\n\\cdot\n\\hspace{+0.300cm}\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\Bigl(\\, \\frac{B(\\hat{t})}{\\mu(\\hat{t})} \\,\\Bigr)\n} $}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\;\\!\\kappa}} }\n\\hspace{-0.630cm}\n\\cdot\n\\hspace{+0.350cm}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\hat{t}) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q/2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\:\\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\! \\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.050cm},$$\\\n*onde $\\,\\!K\\!\\;\\!(n) > 0 $ \u00e9 a constante de Nash dada em $\\;\\!(3.2) $.\\\n*\\\nOs lemas acima indicam intuitivamente um caminho b\u00e1sico para a obten\u00e7\u00e3o de resultados como (3.1) usando argumentos tipo $ L^{p}$-$\\;\\!L^{q}$: para cada $ \\;\\!q \\geq 2 \\,p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!$, $ \\:\\!q > 2 \\;\\! n \\:\\!\\kappa $, examina-se o comportamento (local) em $t$ de $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $. Caso esteja [*crescendo*]{}, ent\u00e3o $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n} $ pode ser estimada (localmente) em termos de $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{L^{q/2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, por meio da desigualdade de energia (3.10), de acordo com o Lema 3.3$^{\\prime}$; se estiver [*decrescendo*]{}, ent\u00e3o (3.10) torna-se neste caso in\u00fatil, mas possivelmente esta situa\u00e7\u00e3o possa ser compensada pelo fato de se saber que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{L^{q/2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ n\u00e3o esteja crescendo (momentaneamente, pelo menos). Em qualquer dos casos, sempre se possui alguma informa\u00e7\u00e3o aparentemente importante sobre $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, embora varie (de modo complicado, provavelmente) com $q $ e $t$. Assim, n\u00e3o \u00e9 evidente uma estrat\u00e9gia simples que indique como utilizar a informa\u00e7\u00e3o dispon\u00edvel de modo eficaz. O pr\u00f3ximo lema mostra precisamente como isso pode ser feito.\n\n\\\n[**Lema 3.4.**]{} *$\\!$Seja $\\;\\! q \\:\\!\\geq 2 \\;\\! p$, com $ \\:\\!p $ dado em $\\:\\!(3.9)$. $\\!$Sendo $\\:\\!u(\\cdot,t) $, $ 0 \\leq t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!$, $\\!\\;\\!$solu\u00e7\u00e3o do problema $\\,\\!(2.1) $, tem-se*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.14}\n\\mathbb{U}_{q}(0; t)\n\\;\\!\\leq\\,\n\\max\\,\\biggl\\{\\,\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\,\\!;\n\\;\\!\\,\\!\nK\\!\\;\\!(n)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\frac{2}{\\scriptstyle q} }}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{q}{2} }$}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr)^{\\!\\!\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle n}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }\n\\,\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n}}{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\frac{\\scriptstyle q}{2}}}\\!\n(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! {\\scriptstyle n\\:\\!\\kappa} }\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\biggr\\}$$\\\n*para todo $ \\:\\!0 \\leq t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!$, $\\!\\;\\!$onde $ \\;\\!\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t) $, $ \\!\\;\\!\\mathbb{U}_{q}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t) $, $ \\!\\;\\!\\mathbb{U}_{\\frac{\\scriptstyle q}{2}}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t) $ s\u00e3o definidas em $\\:\\!(1.7)$ e $(\\:\\!1.8)$,\\\ne $K\\!\\;\\!(n) $ \u00e9 dada na desigualdade $\\:\\!(3.2)$.\\\n* [\\\n]{}\\\n\n[**Prova:**]{} Dado $ \\;\\!0 \\leq t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}$, fixo no que segue, seja (por conveni\u00eancia) $ \\,\\!\\gamma_{q} \\in \\mathbb{R}^{\\mbox{}^{+}}\\!\\!\\;\\!$ definido por\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\gamma_{q}\n\\,=\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(n)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\frac{2}{\\scriptstyle q} }}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{q}{2} }$}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr)^{\\!\\!\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle n}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }\n\\,\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n}}{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\frac{\\scriptstyle q}{2}}}\\!\n(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! {\\scriptstyle n\\:\\!\\kappa} }\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}$$\\\ne consideremos os casos poss\u00edveis para os valores de $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $ no intervalo $ 0 \\leq \\tau \\leq t $:\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n>\\;\\!\n\\gamma_{q}\n} $ para todo $ \\;\\!0 \\leq \\tau < t $.\\\n\\\nNeste caso, segue do Lema 3.$3^{\\prime}$ que temos de ter $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\nd/d\\tau \\,\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}^{\\:\\!q}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!<\\:\\!0\n\\;\\!\n} $ para quase todo\\\n$ \\tau \\in I \\equiv [\\,0, \\:\\!t\\,] $, de modo que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n} $ \u00e9 (estritamente) decrescente neste intervalo. Em particular, segue que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ para todo $ \\tau $ em $I$, ou seja, tem-se\\\nneste caso\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\mathbb{U}_{q}(0; t)\n\\,=\\,\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!.$$\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n>\\;\\!\n\\gamma_{q}\n} $, $\\;\\!$tendo-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}}\\!\\;\\!) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n\\leq\\;\\!\n\\gamma_{q}\n} $ para algum $ \\;\\!0 < t_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}} < t $.\\\n\\\nNeste caso, existe $ \\;\\!0 < t_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\:\\! \\leq t_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\ast}} $ tal que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n>\n\\gamma_{q}\n} $ em $ [\\,0, \\:\\!t_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\;\\!) $, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot, t_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\;\\!)\\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n=\n\\gamma_{q}\n} $. Pelo Lema 3.$3^{\\prime}\\!\\;\\!$, segue repetindo o argumento acima que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\n} $ tem de ser decrescente em $[\\,0, \\:\\!t_{\\mbox{}_{1}}] $. Por outro lado, no intervalo $ J \\equiv [\\, t_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\;\\!, \\:\\! t\\;\\!] \\;\\!$ temos de ter $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\leq\n\\gamma_{q}\n} $ para todo $ \\tau \\in J $. $\\,$De fato, se assim n\u00e3o fosse, teriam de existir $ \\;\\!t_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\!\\:\\!< t_{\\mbox{}_{3}} \\in\n[\\;\\!\\:\\!t_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!, \\:\\!t\\,] $ tais que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot, \\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!>\n\\gamma_{q}\n} $ para todo $ t_{\\mbox{}_{2}} \\!< \\tau \\leq t_{\\mbox{}_{3}} \\!\\;\\!$, tendo-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\\!\\;\\!) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!=\n\\gamma_{q}\n} $. Assim, teria de existir $ t_{\\mbox{}_{\\ast\\ast}} \\!\\!\\:\\!\\in\n(\\,t_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\\!\\;\\!, \\;\\! t_{\\mbox{}_{3}})\n\\setminus E_{q} $ com $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\nd/d\\tau \\,\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot, \\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!q}\n\\!\n} $ positiva em $ \\:\\!\\tau = t_{\\mbox{}_{\\ast\\ast}} \\!\\:\\!$, de modo que, pelo\\\nLema 3.$3^{\\prime}\\!\\;\\!$, valeria $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot, t_{\\mbox{}_{\\ast\\ast}}\\!) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\leq \\gamma_{q}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, contradizendo o fato de ter-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot, \\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!> \\gamma_{q}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ em todo o intervalo $ (\\;\\!t_{\\mbox{}_{2}}\\!\\;\\!, \\:\\!t_{\\mbox{}_{3}}) $.$\\,$ $\\;\\!$Portanto, tem-se tamb\u00e9m aqui $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ para todo $ \\tau \\in [\\,0, \\:\\!t\\;\\!] $, ou seja, obt\u00e9m-se novamente $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{q}(0; t)\n\\,=\\,\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $.\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n\\leq\\;\\!\n\\gamma_{q}\n} $.\\\n\\\nNeste caso, repetindo-se o argumento aplicado no [Caso]{} [II]{} acima para o intervalo $J\\!\\;\\!$, resulta que se tem $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,\\tau) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{q}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\,\\!\\leq\n\\gamma_{q}\n\\:\\!\n} $ em todo o intervalo $ \\;\\![\\;\\!0, \\;\\!t\\;\\!\\,\\!] $, de modo que, neste caso, tem-se\n\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\mathbb{U}_{q}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t)\n\\:\\leq\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(n)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\frac{2}{\\scriptstyle q} }}\n\\!\\;\\!\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{q}{2} }$}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr)^{\\!\\!\\;\\! \\frac{\\scriptstyle n}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }\n\\,\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n}}{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\frac{\\scriptstyle q}{2}}}\\!\n(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! {\\scriptstyle n\\:\\!\\kappa} }\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\hspace{-0.960cm}.$$\\\nEm todos os casos, tem-se sempre (3.14) acima, o que conclui a prova do Lema 3.4.\n\n$\\Box$\\\n\\\nPara os resultados seguintes, ser\u00e1 conveniente introduzir, para cada $ 1 \\leq j \\leq m $, $ p \\geq p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!$, $ p > n \\:\\!\\kappa $, a constante $ \\:\\!C(j,m) \\,\\equiv\\, C(j,m\\:\\!; n,p,\\kappa) > 0 \\;\\!$ definida por\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.15$a$}\nC(j,m)\n\\,:=\\;\n\\prod_{\\ell\\,=\\,j}^{m}\n\\,\n\\lambda(\\,\\!2^{\\ell}p\\,\\!)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\,{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\:\n2^{\\mbox{}^{-\\;\\!m}} \\!\\:\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n{{\\scriptstyle p} \\;-\\;\n2^{\\mbox{}^{-\\;\\!\\ell}} \\!\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n$$\\\nsendo\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.15$b$}\n\\lambda(q)\n\\,\\equiv\\,\n\\lambda(n, \\:\\!\\kappa, \\:\\!q)\n\\;\\!:=\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(n)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\frac{2}{\\scriptstyle q} }}\n\\Bigl(\\;\\! \\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle \\frac{\\mbox{\\normalsize $q$}}{2} }$}\n\\;\\!\\Bigr)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\\!\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}\n{{\\scriptstyle q} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n$$\\\npara todo $ q \\geq 2 \\,\\!\\,\\!p $, onde $ K\\!\\;\\!(n) > 0 $ denota a constante de Nash na desigualdade (3.2).\\\n[\\\n]{}[**Lema 3.5.**]{} *$\\!$Seja $\\;\\! p \\:\\!\\geq\\;\\! p_{\\mbox{}_{0}} \\!\\;\\!$, $ \\:\\!p > n \\:\\! \\kappa $. $\\!$Sendo $\\:\\!u(\\cdot,t) $, $ 0 \\leq t < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!$, $\\!\\;\\!$solu\u00e7\u00e3o de $\\,\\!(2.1) $, tem-se*\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.16$a$}\n\\mathbb{U}_{2\\:\\!p}(0; t)\n\\;\\!\\leq\\,\n\\max\\,\\biggl\\{\\,\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\:\\!p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\,\\!;\n\\;\\!\\,\\!\n\\lambda(2\\:\\!p)\n\\:\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n}}{2\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!p}}\n(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\;\\!-\\;\\! {\\scriptstyle n\\:\\!\\kappa} }\n{2\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\biggr\\}$$\\\n*e, mais geralmente, para todo $ \\;\\! m \\geq 2 \\!:$*\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\mathbb{U}_{2^{\\mbox{}^{m}}\\!p}(0; t)\n\\;\\!\\leq\\,\n\\max\\;\\biggl\\{\\;\\!\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!;\n\\;\\;\\!\nC(j,m)\n\\;\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{{\\scriptstyle p}}\n\\;\\!\n\\left[\\;\n\\frac{2\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n}}{\\;\\!2^{j}{\\scriptstyle p}\n\\,-\\, 2{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n\\:-\\;\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{2^{m}{\\scriptstyle p}\n\\,-\\, {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} \\,\n\\right] }}\n\\,\n\\times\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\times\n\\;\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{{\\scriptstyle L^{2^{j}p/2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{\\:\\!j}}\n}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!,\n\\hspace{+0.400cm}\n2 \\;\\!\\leq\\;\\! j \\;\\!\\leq\\;\\! m\n\\;\\!;\n} $ (3.16$b$)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nC(1,m)\n\\;\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n}\n\\,(\\;\\!1 \\:-\\; 2^{-\\;\\!m})}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\,-\\: {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{p}(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\;\n\\biggr\\}\n\\:\\!\n} $,\\\n\\\n*onde $\\:\\! C(j,m) $, $ 1 \\leq j \\leq m $, s\u00e3o as constantes dadas em $\\;\\!(3.15)$, com $ \\;\\!\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t) $, $ \\mathbb{U}_{q}\\!\\;\\!(0; t) $ definidas em $\\;\\!(1.7) $, $(1.8)$.\\\n* [\\\n]{}[[**Prova:**]{} A express\u00e3o (3.16$a$) corresponde a (3.14) do Lema 3.4 acima, tomando-se simplesmente $ q = 2 p $; a prova de (3.16$b$) \u00e9 realizada por indu\u00e7\u00e3o em $m$, como indicado a seguir. Para $ m = 2 $, (3.16$b$) \u00e9 obtida combinando-se (3.16$a$) e $\\,$(3.14), com $ q = 4 \\:\\!p \\,$. Dado $ m \\geq 3 $ arbitr\u00e1rio, supondo-se que (3.16$b$) seja v\u00e1lida para inteiros menores que $m$, obt\u00e9m-se, pelo Lema 3.4, tomando-se $ q = 2^{m} p $ em (3.14),\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\mathbb{U}_{2^{m}p}(0; t)\n\\;\\!\\leq\\,\n\\max\\,\\biggl\\{\\,\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\,\\!;\n\\;\\:\\!\n\\lambda(2^{m}p)\n\\;\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n}}{\\;\\!2^{m}p \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} }}\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!2^{m-1}p}}\\!\n(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n}}\n\\:\\!\n\\biggr\\},$$\\\nde onde a express\u00e3o (3.16$b$) segue aplicando-se a hip\u00f3tese de indu\u00e7\u00e3o para $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle \\!2^{m-1}p}}\\!\n(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t)\n} $. ]{} $\\Box$\\\n\\\nAntes de prosseguir, ser\u00e1 \u00fatil estimar as constantes $ C(j,m) $ definidas em (3.15). Observando as somas elementares abaixo,\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.17$a$}\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\, 1}^{m}\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{2^{\\ell} \\:\\!p}\n{\\;\\!(\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\n\\, (\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\\;\\!}\n\\;\\;\\!=\\;\\;\\!\n\\frac{1}{\\;\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\!\\kappa \\;\\!}\n\\;-\\;\n\\frac{1}{\\;\\!2^{m}\\:\\! p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\!\\kappa \\;\\!}\n} $}\n\\;\\!,\n\\mbox{} \\hspace{+0.200cm}$$\n\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.17$b$}\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\, 1}^{m}\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{\\ell \\;\\!\\cdot\\, 2^{\\ell} \\:\\!p}\n{\\;\\!(\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\n\\, (\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\\;\\!}\n\\;\\;\\!=\\;\\;\\!\n\\frac{1}{\\;\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\!\\kappa \\;\\!}\n\\;-\\;\n\\frac{m \\;\\!+\\;\\!1}{\\;\\!2^{m}\\:\\! p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\!\\kappa \\;\\!}\n} $}\n\\;+\\,\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\, 1}^{m}\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{1}{\\;\\!2^{j}\\:\\! p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\!\\kappa \\;\\!}\n} $}\n\\;\\!,\n\\mbox{} \\hspace{+0.200cm}$$\\\nresulta a seguinte estimativa b\u00e1sica para os coeficientes $ C(j,m) $ em (3.15), (3.16).\\\n[**Lema 3.6.**]{} *$\\!$Sejam $ \\;\\!p > n \\:\\! \\kappa $, $ m \\geq 2 $. Ent\u00e3o, para $\\:\\!C(j,m) $ dado em $\\;\\!(3.15)$, tem-se\\\n*\\\n$$\\tag{3.18}\nC(j,m)\n\\;\\leq\\;\n\\bigl(\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!p \\;\\!\n\\bigr)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle n}}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\;\\!-\\;\\! {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\equiv\\:\nK\\!\\;\\!(n, \\,\\!\\kappa, \\,\\!p),\n\\qquad \\,\n\\forall \\;\\,\n1 \\;\\!\\leq\\;\\!j \\;\\!\\leq\\;\\! m.$$\\\n[[**Prova:**]{} Como $ K\\!\\;\\!(n) < 1 $ para todo $n$ $\\;\\!$(cf.$\\;$[@CarlenLoss1993], p.$\\;$213) obt\u00e9m-se, de (3.15):\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\nC(j,m)\n\\;\\;\\!\\leq\\;\\;\\!\np^{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\n\\frac{\\,\\!(\\:\\!2^{m}\\:\\!{\\scriptstyle p}\n\\,-\\, {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!)\\,\\!}\n{2^{\\mbox{}^{m}} \\!\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p}}\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\scriptsize\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\sum_{\\ell\\,=\\,j}^{m}\n\\;\\!\n\\frac{2^{\\ell} \\:\\!{\\scriptstyle p \\, n}}\n{\\,\\!(\\:\\!2^{\\ell} {\\scriptstyle p} -\n2 \\;\\! {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\! \\kappa}\\:\\!)\n\\, (\\:\\!2^{\\ell} {\\scriptstyle p} -\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\! \\kappa}\\:\\!)\\,\\!}\n} $}\n}}\n\\;\\!\\times\\;\n2^{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\n\\frac{\\,\\!(\\:\\!2^{m}\\:\\!{\\scriptstyle p}\n\\,-\\, {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!)\\,\\!}\n{2^{\\mbox{}^{m}} \\!\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p}}\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\scriptsize\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\sum_{\\ell\\,=\\,j}^{m}\n\\;\\!\n\\frac{{\\scriptstyle \\ell} \\cdot\n2^{\\ell} \\:\\!{\\scriptstyle p \\, n}}\n{\\,\\!(\\:\\!2^{\\ell} {\\scriptstyle p} -\n2 \\;\\! {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\! \\kappa}\\:\\!)\n\\, (\\:\\!2^{\\ell} {\\scriptstyle p} -\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\! \\kappa}\\:\\!)\\,\\!}\n} $}\n}}\n,\n$$\\\nde onde segue a estimativa (3.18), visto que\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{\\,\\!2^{m} \\,\\!p - n \\:\\!\\kappa \\,\\!}\n{2^{m} p}\n\\,\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\, j}^{m}\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{2^{\\ell} \\:\\!p}\n{\\;\\!(\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\n\\, (\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\\;\\!}\n\\;\\,\\!\\leq\\,\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\, 1}^{m}\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{2^{\\ell} \\:\\!p}\n{\\;\\!(\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\n\\, (\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\\;\\!}\n} $}\n\\;\\,\\!\\leq\\;\\,\\!\n\\frac{1}{\\,\\!p - n \\:\\!\\kappa\\,\\!}\n} $}\n} $\\\n\\\ne\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{\\,\\!2^{m} \\,\\!p - n \\:\\!\\kappa \\,\\!}\n{2^{m} p}\n\\,\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\, j}^{m}\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{\\ell \\;\\!\\cdot\\, 2^{\\ell} \\:\\!p}\n{\\;\\!(\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\n\\, (\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\\;\\!}\n\\;\\,\\!\\leq\\,\n\\sum_{\\ell \\,=\\, 1}^{m}\n\\;\\!\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{\\ell \\;\\!\\cdot\\, 2^{\\ell} \\:\\!p}\n{\\;\\!(\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\n\\, (\\:\\!2^{\\ell}\\:\\!p \\:\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa\\:\\!)\\;\\!}\n} $}\n\\;\\,\\!\\leq\\;\\,\\!\n\\frac{1}{\\,\\!p - n \\:\\!\\kappa\\,\\!}\n} $}\n} $\\\n\\\n(devido a (3.17) acima). $\\,$Note-se que estimativas mais finas para $ C(j,m) $ tamb\u00e9m podem ser obtidas, de modo an\u00e1logo, mas este ponto n\u00e3o \u00e9 essencial no argumento a seguir.$\\,$ ]{} $\\Box$\\\n\\\nUsando-se as express\u00f5es (3.15), (3.16$b$) e (3.18) acima, obt\u00e9m-se uma estimativa mais simples para $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{2^{\\mbox{}^{m}}\\!p}(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t)\n} $, descrita em (3.19) abaixo. Esta estimativa representa o passo final para estabelecermos o Teorema 3.1.\\\n\\\n[\\\n]{}\\\n[[**Prova:**]{} Se $ m = 1 $, o resultado segue imediatamente de (3.15$b$), (3.16$a$), j\u00e1 que $ \\lambda(2\\:\\!p) \\leq K\\!\\;\\!(n,\\kappa,p) $. Consideremos, assim, $ m \\geq 2 $. Dado $ 2 \\leq j \\leq m $, obt\u00e9m-se, ent\u00e3o, estimando-se $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{L^{2^{j}p/2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ por interpola\u00e7\u00e3o com respeito \u00e0s duas normas $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ e $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ (e usando (3.18) acima):\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nC(j,m)\n\\;\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{{\\scriptstyle p}}\n\\;\\!\n\\left[\\;\n\\frac{2\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n}}{\\;\\!2^{j}{\\scriptstyle p}\n\\,-\\, 2{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n\\:-\\;\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{2^{m}{\\scriptstyle p}\n\\,-\\, {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} \\,\n\\right] }}\n\\,\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{{\\scriptstyle L^{2^{j}p/2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{\\:\\!j}}\n}}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nK\\!\\;\\!(n,\\kappa,p)\n\\;\n\\biggl[\\;\\,\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{{\\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{\\:\\!j}}\n\\,\n\\frac{\\,\\!1 - 2^{-j + 1}}\n{1 \\,-\\, 2^{-m}}\n}}\n\\;\n\\biggr]\n\\;\\times\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\times \\;\n\\biggl[\\;\\,\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{{\\scriptstyle p}}\n\\;\\!\n\\left[\\;\n\\frac{2\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n}}{\\;\\!2^{j}{\\scriptstyle p}\n\\,-\\, 2{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n\\:-\\;\n\\frac{\\scriptstyle n}{2^{m}{\\scriptstyle p}\n\\,-\\, {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}} \\,\n\\right]\n}}\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{{\\scriptstyle L^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; 2 \\;\\!\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{\\:\\!j}}\n\\,\n\\frac{\\,\\!2^{-j + 1} -\\, 2^{-m}}\n{1 \\,-\\, 2^{-m}}\n}}\n\\;\n\\biggr]\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\n\\theta \\,\\!\\cdot\\;\\!\nK\\!\\;\\!(n,\\kappa,p) \\;\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle\nL^{2^{m}p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!+\\,\n(1 - \\theta)\n\\,\\!\\cdot\\;\\!\nK\\!\\;\\!(n,\\kappa,p) \\;\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n}\n\\,(\\;\\!1 \\:-\\; 2^{-\\;\\!m})}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\,-\\: {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle\nL^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n} $\\\n\\\npela desigualdade de Young ([@Evans2002], p.$\\;$622), onde $ \\;\\! \\theta \\in (\\;\\!0, 1\\,\\!) \\;\\!$ \u00e9 dado por\\\n\\\n$$\\notag\n\\theta\n\\;=\\;\n\\frac{\\,\\! 1 - 2^{-\\;\\!j + 1}}\n{1 - 2^{-\\;\\!m}}\n\\:\n\\frac{\\,\\!p \\;\\!-\\;\\! n \\:\\!\\kappa/2^{m}}\n{\\,\\!p \\;\\!-\\;\\! 2 \\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa/2^{j}}\n\\:\\!.$$\\\nAssim, de (3.16$b$) e (3.18), segue que, denotando $ K \\!\\;\\!\\equiv K\\!\\;\\!(n,\\kappa,p) $:\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\mathbb{U}_{2^{m}p}(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!t)\n\\;\\leq\\;\n\\max \\;\n\\biggl\\{\\;\\:\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\:\\!;\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\theta \\,\\!\\cdot\\;\\!\nK \\;\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle\nL^{2^{m}p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!+\\,\n(1 - \\theta)\n\\,\\!\\cdot\\;\\!\nK \\;\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n}\n\\,(\\;\\!1 \\:-\\; 2^{-\\;\\!m})}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\,-\\: {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle\nL^{p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\:\\!;\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nK \\;\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n}\n\\,(\\;\\!1 \\:-\\; 2^{-\\;\\!m})}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\,-\\: {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{p}(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)\n^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\;\n\\biggr\\}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nK\n\\cdot\\;\n\\max \\;\n\\biggl\\{\\;\\:\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2^{m}p}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\:\\!;\n\\;\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0; t)^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n}\n\\,(\\;\\!1 \\:-\\; 2^{-\\;\\!m})}\n{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\,-\\: {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\:\\!\n\\mathbb{U}_{p}(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)\n^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n\\!\\!\\!\\;\\!\n\\frac{\\;\\!{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\;\n{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}\\:\\!/\\;\\!2^{m}}\n{{\\scriptstyle p} \\:-\\; {\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa}}\n}}\n\\;\n\\biggr\\}\n} $\\\n\\\npara todo $ \\;\\! 0 \\leq t < T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\! $, como afirmado. Isso conclui a prova do Lema 3.7. ]{} $\\Box$\\\n\\\nDo Lema 3.7, pode-se finalmente obter a estimativa (3.1), sendo apenas necess\u00e1rio que se tome $ \\;\\!m \\rightarrow \\infty \\;\\!$ em (3.19), pelo fato de se ter\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{3.20}\n\\lim_{q\\,\\rightarrow\\,\\infty}\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\!\\;\\!q}(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t)\n\\;=\\;\n\\mathbb{U}_{\\infty}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!;\\:\\!t).$$\\\nIsso conclui a prova do Teorema 3.1, que ocupou toda a discuss\u00e3o da presente se\u00e7\u00e3o.\n\n\\\n[**4. Condi\u00e7\u00f5es de exist\u00eancia global**]{}\\\nNesta se\u00e7\u00e3o, vamos aplicar a an\u00e1lise acima de modo a obter condi\u00e7\u00f5es garantindo exist\u00eancia global (i.e., $ \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\! = \\infty $) das solu\u00e7\u00f5es $ u(\\cdot,t) $ do problema (1.1)$\\;\\!$-$\\;\\!$(1.3), ou seja,\\\n$$\\tag{4.1$a$}\nu_t \\,+\\;\n\\mbox{div}\\,\n\\bigl(\\;\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}(x,t,u) \\, |\\;\\!u\\;\\!|^{\\:\\!\\kappa} \\:\\! u \\;\\!\n\\bigr)\n\\:+\\:\n\\mbox{div} \\,\n\\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}(t,u)\n\\;=\\;\n\\mbox{div}\\,\\bigl(\\;\\!\nA(x,t,u) \\;\\! \\nabla u \\;\\!\\bigr),\n$$\\\n$$\\tag{4.1$b$}\nu(\\cdot,0) \\,=\\,\nu_0 \\in L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})\n\\cap L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n}),$$\\\nsendo $ A $ (tensor difusivo) e $ \\;\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}, \\mbox{\\boldmath $f$} \\!\\;\\!$ (campos vetoriais) suaves satisfazendo (1.2) e (1.3). Um exemplo de condi\u00e7\u00f5es de exist\u00eancia global \u00e9 dado no Teorema 4.1 a seguir, onde (ver (1.7), Se\u00e7\u00e3o 1)\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.2}\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\:\\!\\infty)\n\\;=\\;\\;\\!\n\\sup_{t \\,\\geq\\,0} \\;\n\\mbox{\\small $ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{B(t)}{\\mu(t)}\n} $}\n\\:\\leq\\;\\! \\infty.$$\\\n[\\\n]{}[\\\n]{}\n\n[**Prova:**]{} O caso ([*i*]{}), j\u00e1 considerado no [Teorema A]{} da Se\u00e7\u00e3o\u00a01, \u00e9 consequ\u00eancia imediata da propriedade (2.4) e do Teorema 3.1 (tomando-se $ \\;\\!p = 1 $ em (3.1)). Nos casos ([*ii*]{}) e ([*iii*]{}), podemos proceder do seguinte modo. Da desigualdade (3.8) $\\,$reescrita em termos de $ u(\\cdot,t) $, usando (3.4), (3.5)$\\,$, obt\u00e9m-se, considerando $ \\;\\! q = 2 \\;\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa \\geq 2 $,\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\frac{d}{d\\:\\!t} \\;\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\;\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\:\\! 2 \\;\\! n \\:\\!\\kappa}\n\\!+\\,\n 2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa \\,\n(2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa - 1) \\;\n\\mu(t)\n\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n\\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{\\:\\!2}\n\\: dx\n} $ (4.4)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\;\n\\frac{B(t)}{\\mu(t)} \\;\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!\\kappa}\n\\;\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n 2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa \\,\n(2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa - 1) \\;\n\\mu(t)\n\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n\\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{\\:\\!2}\n\\: dx\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\;\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!\\kappa}\n\\;\\!\n\\Bigl\\{\\,\n 2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa \\,\n(2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa - 1) \\;\n\\mu(t)\n\\!\n\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{n}}\n\\!\\!\\:\\!\n|\\, u(x,t) \\,|^{\\:\\!2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n\\,\n|\\, \\nabla u \\,|^{\\:\\!2}\n\\: dx\n\\;\\!\\Bigr\\}\n} $\\\n\\\npara todo $ \\;\\!t \\in (\\:\\!0, \\:\\!T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!) \\setminus\nE_{2\\;\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa} $, de modo que temos $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2 \\;\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\n} $ decrescente em $\\;\\![\\,0, \\:\\!T\\;\\!] $\n\n\\\nsempre que tivermos\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.5}\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!\\kappa}\n\\;\\!\\leq\\:\n1,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\in [\\,0, \\;\\!T\\;\\!].$$\\\nNo caso ([*ii*]{}), esta condi\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e9 simplesmente $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)^{\\:\\!n}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\leq\\:\\!\n1\n} $, que \u00e9 automaticamente satisfeita em qualquer intervalo $ \\,\\![\\,0, \\:\\!T\\:\\!]\\,\\! $ se for satisfeita em $ \\:\\!t = 0 $, devido a (2.4). Isso mostra que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ \u00e9 monotonicamente decrescente em $ \\,\\![\\,0, \\:\\!T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!) \\,\\! $ caso se tenha $ {\\displaystyle\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)^{\\:\\!n}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\\leq\\:\\!\n1\n} $. Pelo Teorema 3.1, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n} $ \u00e9 controlada (como $ \\:\\!n \\:\\!\\kappa = 1 $)\\\npor $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $, e, assim sendo, $ {\\displaystyle\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\!\\;\\!\n} $ tem de permanecer limitada em qualquer intervalo limitado. Logo, n\u00e3o se pode ter $ \\;\\!T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} < \\infty \\:\\!$ neste caso, como afirmado em\u00a0([*ii*]{}).\\\nFinalmente, consideremos o caso ([*iii*]{}). Observando que (por interpola\u00e7\u00e3o) tem-se\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!\\kappa}\n\\:\\!\\leq\\,\\:\\!\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{1}{\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\:\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa} \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n       {\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n} $ (4.6)\\\n\\\ne tamb\u00e9m (novamente, por interpola\u00e7\u00e3o)\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{1}{\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\:\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa} \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n       {\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\!\\;\\!<\\:\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\frac{1}{\\scriptstyle n} }}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle \\kappa \\;\\!-\\;\\! \\frac{1}{\\scriptstyle n} }}\n} $\\\n\\\n(4.7)\\\n\\\npara todo $\\;\\!t \\in [\\,0, T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!) $, obtemos, por (4.3) e (4.7),\\\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.8}\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{1}{\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\:\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa} \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n       {\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\!\\;\\!<\\:\n1$$\\\npara todo $\\;\\!t \\in [\\,0, T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!) $ suficientemente pr\u00f3ximo de zero. Afirmamos que (4.8) acima tem de ser verdadeira para todo $\\;\\!t \\in [\\,0, T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!) $. $\\,$De fato, se n\u00e3o fosse, existiria $\\;\\!T_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!\\in (\\:\\!0, T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}\\!\\;\\!) $ tal que se teria\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{1}{\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\:\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa} \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n       {\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\!\\;\\!<\\:\n1,\n\\quad \\;\\;\\,\n\\forall \\;\\,\n0 \\;\\!\\leq\\;\\! t \\;\\!<\\;\\! T_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\!\\;\\!\n} $, (4.9)\\\n\\\nenquanto $ {\\displaystyle\n\\,\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,T_{\\mbox{}_{1}}) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{1}{\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,T_{\\mbox{}_{1}}) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\:\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa} \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n       {\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\!\\;\\!=\\;\\!\n1\n} $. Por (4.6), ter\u00edamos ent\u00e3o (4.5) satisfeita para $ T = T_{\\mbox{}_{1}} $, de modo que, por (4.4), $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{L^{2\\;\\!n\\;\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n\\!\\;\\!\n} $ seria decrescente no intervalo $ \\;\\![\\,0, \\;\\!T_{\\mbox{}_{1}}\\:\\!] $. Assim, ter\u00edamos\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n1\n\\;\\;\\!=\\;\\;\\!\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,T_{\\mbox{}_{1}}) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{1}{\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,T_{\\mbox{}_{1}}) \\,\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\:\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa} \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n       {\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n} $\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{1}{\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\:\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n  \\frac{2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n \\:\\!\\kappa} \\;\\!-\\;\\!2}\n       {\\,\\!2 \\;\\!{\\scriptstyle n} \\;\\!-\\;\\!1/{\\scriptstyle \\kappa}}}}\n} $ $\\,$por (2.4)$\\,$\\\n\\\n$ {\\displaystyle\n\\leq\\;\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{1}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n    \\frac{1}{\\scriptstyle n}}}\n\\:\\!\n\\|\\, u_0 \\;\\!\n\\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n  ^{\\mbox{}^{\\scriptstyle\n    {\\scriptstyle \\kappa} \\;\\!-\\;\\! \\frac{1}{\\scriptstyle n}}}\n\\;<\\, 1\n} $. $\\,$por (4.7), (4.3)$\\,$\\\n\\\nEsta contradi\u00e7\u00e3o mostra que (4.8) tem ser v\u00e1lida para todo $ \\;\\!0 \\leq t < T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$, como afirmado.$\\,$ Sendo (4.8) verdadeira para todo $ \\;\\!0 \\leq t < T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} \\!\\;\\!$, resulta ent\u00e3o, por (4.6), que\n\n\\\n$$\\tag{4.10}\nn \\:\\! \\kappa \\:\\,\\!\n\\mathbb{B}_{\\!\\;\\!\\mu}\\!\\;\\!(0\\:\\!; \\infty)\n\\:\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{n\\:\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n  ^{\\:\\!\\kappa}\n\\,<\\; 1,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\;\\,\nt \\in [\\,0, \\;\\!T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}).$$\\\nIsso mostra, por (4.4), que $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{2\\:\\!n\\;\\!\\kappa}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\,\\!\n} $ \u00e9 decrescente no intervalo de exist\u00eancia $\\;\\![\\,0, \\;\\!T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}) $. Portanto, pelo Teorema 3.1 $\\,$aplicado a $ \\;\\!p = 2\\:\\!n\\:\\!\\kappa \\,$, temos de ter $ {\\displaystyle\n\\;\\!\n\\|\\, u(\\cdot,t) \\,\n\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}}\n\\!\\:\\!\n} $ limitada em todo o intervalo $\\;\\![\\,0, \\;\\!T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast}) $, de modo que, como no caso ([*ii*]{}), $ T_{\\!\\;\\!\\ast} $ n\u00e3o pode ser finito.\n\n$\\Box$\\\n\n\\\n\n[999]{}\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">M. Agueh</span>, [*Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequalities involving the gradient $L^{2}\\!$-norm*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I [**346**]{} (2008), 757-762.\n\n, [*Blow-up in diffusion equations: a survey*]{}, J. Comp. Appl. Math. [**97**]{} (1998), 3-22.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">J.$\\;$A.$\\;$Barrionuevo, L.$\\;$S.$\\;$Oliveira and P.$\\;$R.$\\;$Zingano</span>, [*General asymptotic supnorm estimates for solutions of one-dimensional advection-diffusion equations in heterogeneous media*]{}, Intern. J. Partial Diff. Equations (2014), 1-8 (freely available at: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijpde/2014/450417).\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">J. Benameur</span>, [*On the blow-up criterion of Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**371**]{} (2010), 719-727.\n\n, [*Long time decay to the Leray solution of the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, Bull. London Math. Soc. [**44**]{} (2012), 1001-1019.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">P.$\\;$Braz e Silva, W.$\\;$G.$\\;$Melo and P.$\\;$R.$\\;$Zingano</span>, [*An asymptotic supnorm estimate for solutions of systems of convection-diffusion equations*]{}, J. Diff. Eqs. [**258**]{} (2015), 2806-2822.\n\n, [*On the large time approximation of the Navier-Stokes equations in $\\:\\!\\mathbb{R}^{n}\\!$ by Stokes flows*]{} (in preparation).\n\n, [*On some energy inequalities and supnorm estimates for advection-diffusion equations in $\\mathbb{R}^{n}\\!\\;\\!$*]{}, Nonlin. Anal. [**93**]{} (2013), 90-96.\n\n, [*Sharp constant in Nash\u2019s inequality*]{}, Intern. Math. Res. Notices, 1993, 213-215.\n\n, *Some results for doubly nonlinear equations with advection*, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (work in progress).\n\n, [*Some open problems and research directions in the mathematical study of fluid dynamics*]{}, in: B. Engquist and W. Schmid (Eds.), [Mathematics Unlimited \u2014 2001 and Beyond]{}, Springer, New York, 2001, pp.$\\;$353-360.\n\n, [*The role of critical exponents in blow-up theorems: the sequel*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**243**]{} (2000), 85-126.\n\n, [*Comparison results for smooth solutions of quasilinear parabolic equations*]{}, Adv. Diff. Eqs. Control Proc. [**14**]{} (2014), 11-22.\n\n, *Some results for unsigned porous medium equations with advection*, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (work in progress).\n\n, [Linear Opeartors]{}, vol.$\\;$2, Interscience, New York, 1963.\n\n, [Partial Differential Equations]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2002.\n\n, *On global existence and supnorm results for nonnegative solutions of the porous medium equation with arbitrary advection terms* (Portuguese), PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, October 2013 (available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/88277).\n\n, [*Existence and smoothness of the Navier\u2013Stokes equations*]{}, in: A.$\\;$M.$\\;$Jaffe and A.$\\;$J.$\\;$Wiles (Eds.), [The Millenium Prize Problems]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2006, pp.$\\;$57-70 ($\\,\\!$freely available at http:// www.claymath.org/millenium/Navier-Stokes\\_Equations/NavierStokes.pdf.)\n\n, [Partial Differential Equations]{}, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1969.\n\n, [*On the blowing up of solutions of the Cauchy problem for $ \\,\\!u_t \\!= \\Delta u + u^{1 + \\alpha}\\!\\;\\!$*]{}, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, Sect. IA Math., [**13**]{} (1966), 109-124.\n\n, [*An introduction to the Navier\u2013Stokes initial\u2013boundary problem*]{}, in: G. P. Galdi, J. G. Heywood and R. Rannacher (Eds.), [Fundamental Directions in Mathematical Fluid Dynamics]{}, Birkhauser, Basel, 2000, pp.$\\;$1-70.\n\n, *Some results for p-Laplacian evolution equations with advection*, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (work in progress).\n\n, [*On singular integral operators, with applications to partial differential equations*]{} (Portuguese), M. Sc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, September 2014 (available at http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/115175).\n\n, [*On the non-existence of global solutions of some semilinear parabolic differential equations*]{}, Proced. Japan Acad. Sci., Ser. A, [**49**]{} (1973), 503-505.\n\n, [*On the $L^2$ decay of weak solutions of the Navier\u2013Stokes equations in $\\mathbb{R}^{n}\\!\\;\\!$*]{}, Math. Z. [**192**]{} (1986), 135-148.\n\n, [*Strong $L^p$-solutions of the Navier\u2013Stokes equations in $\\mathbb{R}^{m}\\!$, with applications to weak solutions*]{}, Math. Z. [**187**]{} (1984), 471-480.\n\n, [*Decay in time of the solutions of the Navier\u2013Stokes equations for incompressible flows*]{}, unpublished note, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 2002.\n\n, [*Decay in time of incompressible flows*]{}, J. Math. Fluid Mech. [**5**]{} (2003), 231-244.\n\n, [Initial\u2013boundary value problems and the Navier\u2013Stokes equations]{}, Academic Press, New York, 1989. (Reprinted in the series SIAM Classics in Applied Mathematics, Vol. 47, 2004.)\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">O.$\\;$A.$\\;$Ladyzhenskaya, V.$\\;$A.$\\;$Solonnikov and N.$\\;$N.$\\;$Uralceva</span>, [Linear and Quasilinear Equations of Parabolic Type]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1968.\n\n, [*The role of critical exponents in blow-up theorems*]{}, SIAM Rev. [**32**]{} (1990), 262-288.\n\n, [*The Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible flows: solution properties at potential blow-up times*]{}, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, July 2012 (available at http://www.arXiv.org/abs/1503.01767).\n\n, [*Essai sur le mouvement d\u2019un fluide visqueux emplissant l\u2019espace*]{}, Acta Math. [**63**]{} (1934), 193-248.\n\n, [*Weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, T\u00f4hoku Math. Journal [**36**]{} (1984), 623-646.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">W.$\\;$G.$\\;$Melo</span>, [*A-priori estimates for systems of advection-diffusion equations*]{} (Portuguese), PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil, 2011 (available at: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/7355).\n\n, [*Continuity of solutions of parabolic and elliptic equations*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**80**]{} (1958), 931-954.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">L.$\\;$S.$\\;$Oliveira</span>, [*Two results in classical analysis*]{} (Portuguese), PhD Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, 2013 (available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10183/70212).\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">M. Oliver and E. S. Titi</span>, [*Remark on the rate of decay of higher order derivatives for solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations in $ \\mathbb{R}^{n} \\!$*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. [**172**]{} (2000), 1-18.\n\n, [*On the Leray\u2019s problem for the Navier-Stokes equations and some generalizations*]{} (Portuguese), M. Sc. Dissertation, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, September 2014 (available at http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/handle/10183/115208).\n\n, [*Existence and non-existence of global solutions for $u_t = \\Delta u + a(x) \\;\\!u^p \\!\\;\\!$ in $ \\mathbb{R}^{d}\\!$*]{}, J. Diff. Eqs. [**133**]{} (1997), 152-177.\n\n, [Superlinear Parabolic Problems: blow-up, global existence and steady states]{}, Birkh\u00e4user, Basel, 2007.\n\n, [*Lower bounds on blow up solutions of the three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in homogeneous Sobolev spaces*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**53**]{} (2012), no.$\\;$11, 115618, 15 pp.\n\n, [*On the decay of higher-order norms of the solutions of Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh [**126A**]{} (1996), 677-685.\n\n, [*Some results on advection-diffusion equations, with applications to the Navier-Stokes equations*]{} (in Portuguese), Doctorate Thesis, Graduate Program in Mathematics (http://www.mat.ufrgs.br/${\\sim}$ppgmat), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, June 2008 (available at http://hdl.handle.net/10183/13714).\n\n, [*On the supnorm form of Leray\u2019s problem for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations*]{} (submitted).\n\n, [*A certain necessary condition of potential blow\u2013up for Navier-Stokes equations*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [**312**]{} (2012), 833-845.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">D. Serre</span>, [Systems of Conservation Laws]{}, vol.$\\;$1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999.\n\n, [*The initial value problem for the Navier\u2013Stokes equations*]{}, in: R. Langer (Ed.), [Nonlinear Problems]{}, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1963, pp.$\\;$69-98.\n\n, [Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1970.\n\n, [Partial Differential Equations]{} (2nd ed.), vol.$\\;$III, Springer, New York, 2011.\n\n, [*Existence theorem and blow-up criterion of the strong solutions to the magneto-micropolar fluid equations*]{}, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. [**31**]{} (2008), 1113-1130.\n\n, [*Decay results for weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations on $ \\mathbb{R}^{n}\\!$*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. [**35**]{} (1987), 303-313.\n\n, [*$\\,\\!$New $\\,\\!L^{p}\\,\\!$-$\\;\\!L^{q}\\!\\,\\!$ procedures for advection-diffusion equations, I*]{} ($n = 1, \\;\\!\\kappa = 0$), unpublished notes, Porto Alegre, RS, 2010. , [*$\\,\\!$New $\\,\\!L^{p}\\:\\!$-$\\;\\!L^{q}\\!\\,\\!$ procedures for advection-diffusion equations, II*]{} ($n = 1, \\;\\!\\kappa > 0$), unpublished notes, Porto Alegre, RS, 2011.\n\n[^1]: \u00c9 conhecido tamb\u00e9m que se tem $ {\\displaystyle\n    \\;\\!\n    T_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast} \\!\\;\\! <\\;\\!\n    K \\;\\! \\nu^{-\\,5} \\,\n    \\|\\, \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\;\\!\n    \\|_{{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{3})}}^{\\:\\!4}\n    \\!\n    } $ para certa constante absoluta $ K > 0 $,\\\n    ver e.g.$\\;$[@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003; @LorenzZingano2012; @Leray1934]. ($\\:\\!$No [Ap\u00eandice A]{} a seguir, melhoraremos o valor dado para $K\\!\\:\\!$, mostrando que $ \\:\\!K \\!\\;\\!< 0.000\\,753\\,026 \\:\\!$.) Condi\u00e7\u00f5es adicionais sobre o estado inicial $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\in L^{2}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $ \u2014 por exemplo, $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}_0 \\in H^{s}_{\\sigma}(\\mathbb{R}^{3}) $, $ s > 3/2 $ \u2014 garantem al\u00e9m disso $ {\\displaystyle\n    \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} \\in\n    C^{\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{3} \\!\\times\\!\\;\\!(\\:\\!0,\\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast}])\n    } $ para certo $ {\\displaystyle\n    0 < \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast} \\leq\n    \\mbox{\\small $T$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\ast\\ast}\n    } $ [@Yuan2008].\n\n[^2]: Como em [@KreissHagstromLorenzZingano2003], esta prova faz uso tradicional de t\u00e9cnicas cl\u00e1ssicas como estimativas de energia e transformadas de Fourier, mas \u00e9 v\u00e1lida apenas em dimens\u00e3o $ n = 2, 3$. Em contraste, a prova de (1.4) em [@Kato1984] pode ser estendida a $ n = 4 $, e o argumento (muito envolvente) desenvolvido em [@Wiegner1987] consegue estabelecer (1.4) para $ n \\geq 2 $ qualquer.\n\n[^3]: Para a defini\u00e7\u00e3o de $ {\\displaystyle\n    \\;\\!\n    \\| \\, D^{m} \\:\\!\\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t) \\,\n    \\|_{\\scriptstyle L^{2}(\\mathbb{R}^{n})}\n    \\!\\:\\!\n    } $ e outras normas aqui usadas, ver (1.19), (1.20) a seguir. De modo geral, o s\u00edmbolo $ D^{m} $ refere-se coletivamente a todas as derivadas espaciais de ordem $m$, enquanto $ \\:\\!D^{\\alpha} \\!\\:\\!$ denota uma derivada particular, correspondente ao multi-\u00edndice $\\:\\!\\alpha\\:\\!$ indicado.\n\n[^4]: Mais seriamente, conv\u00e9m observar que, com as defini\u00e7\u00f5es (1.19), (1.20), se uma desigualdade de tipo Nirenberg-Gagliardo $ {\\displaystyle\n    \\|\\,{\\sf u}\\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\!q}}}\n    \\!\\leq\\!\\;\\!K\\;\\!\n    \\|\\,{\\sf u}\\,\\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\!r_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!1}}}}}^{1 - \\theta}\n    \\|\\;\\!\\nabla {\\sf u}\\,\n    \\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\!r_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!2}}}}}^{\\:\\!\\theta}\n    \\!\n    } $, $ 0 \\leq \\theta \\leq 1 $, valer para fun\u00e7\u00f5es [*escalares*]{} $ {\\sf u} $ ($K \\!> 0$ constante), ent\u00e3o ela ser\u00e1 automaticamente v\u00e1lida para fun\u00e7\u00f5es [*vetoriais*]{} $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$} $ com a [*mesma*]{}\\\n    constante $K\\!\\;\\!$ do caso escalar. Ademais, tem-se $ {\\displaystyle\n    \\;\\!\n    \\|\\, D^m \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\\,\n    \\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\!q}}}\n    \\!\\:\\!\\leq\\:\\!\n    \\|\\, D^m \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\\,\n    \\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\!q_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!1}}}}}^{1 - \\theta}\n    \\|\\, D^m \\:\\! \\mbox{\\boldmath $u$}(\\cdot,t)\\,\n    \\|_{\\mbox{}_{\\scriptstyle L^{\\!q_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\:\\!2}}}}}^{\\:\\!\\theta}\n    \\!\\!\\;\\!\n    } $ se $ 1/q = (1 - \\theta)/q_{\\mbox{}_{1}} \\!+ \\theta/q_{\\mbox{}_{2}} $, $ 0 \\leq \\theta \\leq 1 $, e assim por diante.\n\n[^5]: Al\u00e9m disso, supo\u00f5e-se $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$} $ suave (mais precisamente: $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$} $, $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $x_{\\mbox{}_{\\!\\;\\!1}}$}} \\!\\,\\!,\n    \\!\\:\\!..., \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize $x_{\\mbox{}_{n}}$}} \\!\\!\\!\\,\\!$ e $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $b$}_{\\mbox{\\scriptsize u}} $ s\u00e3o supostas cont\u00ednuas). Sobre o termo de fluxo $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $f$} \\!\\;\\!$, por n\u00e3o depender de $x$, s\u00f3 ser\u00e1 preciso supor que $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $f$} \\!\\:\\!$, $ \\mbox{\\boldmath $f$}_{\\!\\:\\!\\mbox{\\scriptsize u}} $ sejam cont\u00ednuas.\n\n[^6]: A condi\u00e7\u00e3o $ \\;\\! p > \\:\\! n \\:\\! \\kappa \\;\\! $ imposta em (3.9) acima n\u00e3o \u00e9 resultado de limita\u00e7\u00e3o do m\u00e9todo de an\u00e1lise apresentado, mas uma condi\u00e7\u00e3o [*natural*]{}, prevista por argumentos de escala aplicados a (2.1).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Classical results for exchangeable systems of random variables are extended to multi-class systems satisfying a natural partial exchangeability assumption. It is proved that the conditional law of a finite multi-class system, given the value of the vector of the empirical measures of its classes, corresponds to *independent* uniform orderings of the samples within *each* class, and that a family of such systems converges in law *if and only if* the corresponding empirical measure vectors converge in law. As a corollary, convergence within *each* class to an infinite i.i.d.\u00a0system implies asymptotic independence between *different* classes. A result implying the Hewitt-Savage 0\u20131 Law is also extended.'\naddress: 'CMAP, [\u00c9]{}cole Polytechnique, CNRS, 91128 Palaiseau France.'\nauthor:\n- Carl Graham\ntitle: |\n    Chaoticity for multi-class systems\\\n    and exchangeability within classes\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nAmong many others, Kallenberg\u00a0[@Kallenberg], Kingman\u00a0[@Kingman], Diaconis and Freedman\u00a0[@Diaconis], and Aldous\u00a0[@Aldous] study exchangeable random variables (r.v.)\u00a0with Polish state space. The related notion of chaoticity (convergence in law to i.i.d.\u00a0random variables) appears in many contexts, such as statistical estimation, or the asymptotic study of interacting particle systems or communication networks. It is behind many fruitful heuristics, such as the \u201cmolecular chaos assumption\u201d (*Stosszahlansatz*) used by Ludwig Boltzmann to derive the Boltzmann equation, see Cercignani *et al.*\u00a0[@Cercignani Sect.\u00a02, 4].\n\nA sequence of finite exchangeable systems converges in law to an infinite system if and only if the corresponding sequence of empirical measures converges to the directing measure of the limit infinite system, given by the de Finetti Theorem. Hence, chaoticity is equivalent to the fact that the empirical measures satisfy a weak law of large numbers, for which A.S. Sznitman developed a compactness-uniqueness method of proof yielding propagation of chaos results for varied models of interest. Sznitman also devised a coupling method for proving chaoticity directly. See Sznitman\u00a0[@Sznitman] for a survey, and M[\u00e9]{}l[\u00e9]{}ard\u00a0[@Meleard:96] and Graham\u00a0[@Graham:00; @Graham:92] for some developments.\n\nThe above notions pertain to the study of *similar* random objects, but many systems in stratified sampling, statistical mechanics, chemistry, communication networks, biology, etc., involve *varied* classes of similar objects (which we call \u201cparticles\u201d). See for instance Cercignani *et al.*\u00a0[@Cercignani] (\u201cMixtures\u201d, Subject index p.\u00a0454) and the review papers [@Bellomo:00; @Graham:00; @Grunfeld:00; @Struckmaier:00] in a recent book.\n\nOur paper considers natural notions of multi-exchangeability and chaoticity for such multi-class systems, and extends the above results. These notions are explicit in Graham\u00a0[@Graham:92 pp.\u00a078,\u00a081], and implicit in [@Cercignani; @Bellomo:00; @Grunfeld:00; @Struckmaier:00] where the corresponding limit equations are directly considered. Graham and Robert\u00a0[@GrahamRobert] extend Sznitman\u2019s coupling method in this context. For infinite classes, Aldous calls multi-exchangeability \u201cinternal exchangeability\u201d just before [@Aldous Corollary\u00a03.9].\n\nWe prove that the conditional law of a finite multi-class system, given the value of the vector of the empirical measures of its classes, corresponds to choosing *independent* uniform orderings of the samples within *each* class, and that a family of such systems converges in law *if and only if* the corresponding empirical measure vectors converge in law. We conclude by extending a result implying the Hewitt-Savage 0\u20131 Law.\n\nAs a corollary, for a multi-exchangeable system, chaoticity *within* classes implies asymptotic independence *between* classes, see Theorem\u00a0\\[main\\] below. This striking result allows rigorous derivation of limit macroscopic models from microscopic dynamics using Sznitman\u2019s compactness-uniqueness methods, and was a major goal of this paper.\n\nWe state as a \u201cProposition\u201d any known result, and a \u201cTheorem\u201d any result we believe to be new. All state spaces $\\mathcal{S}$ are Polish, and the weak topology is used for the space of probability measures $\\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S})$ which is then also Polish, as are products of Polish spaces. For $k \\ge1$ we denote by $\\Sigma(k)$ the set of permutations of $\\{1,\\ldots,k\\}$.\n\nSome classical results {#sclares}\n======================\n\nFinite and infinite exchangeable systems\n----------------------------------------\n\nFor $N \\ge 1$, a finite system $(X^N_n)_{1\\le n \\le N}$ of random variables (r.v.) with state space $\\mathcal{S}$ is *exchangeable* if $$\\mathcal{L}(X^N_{\\sigma(1)}, \\ldots, X^N_{\\sigma(N)}) \n= \\mathcal{L}(X^N_1, \\ldots, X^N_N)\\,,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\sigma \\in \\Sigma(N)\\,.$$ Then, the conditional law of such a system given the value of its empirical measure $$\\label{emplaw}\n \\Lambda^N = {1\\over N} \\sum_{n=1}^{N} \\delta_{X^N_n}$$ corresponds to a uniform ordering of the $N$ (possibly repeated) values occurring in $\\Lambda^N$ (its atoms, counted according to their multiplicity), see Aldous\u00a0[@Aldous Lemma 5.4 p.\u00a038].\n\nAn *infinite* system $(X_n)_{n \\ge 1}$ is *exchangeable* if every finite subsystem $(X_n)_{1 \\le n \\le N}$ is exchangeable. The de Finetti Theorem, see *e.g.* [@Kallenberg; @Kingman; @Diaconis; @Aldous], states that such a system is a mixture of i.i.d.\u00a0sequences: its law is of the form $$\\int P^{\\otimes \\infty} \\mathcal{L}_\\Lambda(dP)$$ where $\\mathcal{L}_\\Lambda$ is the law of the (random) *directing measure* $\\Lambda$ which can be obtained as $$\\label{dirmeas}\n\\Lambda = \\lim_{N \\to \\infty} {1\\over N} \\sum_{n=1}^{N} \\delta_{X_n}\n\\;\\;\n\\textrm{a.s.}$$ Thus, laws of infinite exchangeable systems with state space $\\mathcal{S}$ and laws of random measures with state space $\\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S})$ are in one-to-one correspondence.\n\nAll this leads to the following fact, see Kallenberg\u00a0[@Kallenberg Theorem\u00a01.2 p.\u00a024] and Aldous\u00a0[@Aldous Prop.\u00a07.20 (b) p.\u00a055].\n\n\\[sznigen\\] Let $(X^N_n)_{1\\le n \\le N}$ for $N \\ge1$ be finite exchangeable systems, and $\\Lambda^N$ their empirical measures . Then $$\\lim_{N \\to \\infty} (X^N_n)_{1\\le n \\le N} = (X_n)_{n \\ge 1} \\;\\;\\textrm{in law},$$ where the (infinite exchangeable) limit has directing measure $\\Lambda$, if and only if $$\\lim_{N \\to \\infty} \\Lambda^N = \\Lambda\n\\;\\;\\textrm{in law}.$$\n\nA sequence $(X^N_n)_{1\\le n \\le N}$ for $N \\ge1$ is $P$-*chaotic*, where $P\\in \\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S})$, if $$\\lim_{N \\to \\infty} \\mathcal{L}(X^N_1, \\ldots, X^N_k) = P^{\\otimes k}\\,,\n\\qquad\n\\forall k\\ge1\\,,$$ *i.e.*, if it converges in law to an i.i.d.\u00a0system of r.v.\u00a0of law $P$. The following corollary of Proposition\u00a0\\[sznigen\\] is proved directly in [@Sznitman Prop.\u00a02.2 p.\u00a0177] and [@Meleard:96 Prop.\u00a04.2 p.\u00a066].\n\n\\[szni\\] Let $(X^N_n)_{1\\le n \\le N}$ for $N \\ge1$ be finite exchangeable systems, $\\Lambda^N$ their empirical measures , and $P\\in \\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S})$. Then, the sequence is $P$-chaotic if and only if $$\\lim_{N \\to \\infty} \\Lambda^N = P\n\\;\\;\\textrm{in law}$$ and hence in probability, since the limit is deterministic.\n\nMulti-exchangeable systems\n--------------------------\n\nWe assume that $C \\ge 1$ and state spaces $\\mathcal{S}_i$ for $1 \\le i \\le C$ are fixed. For a multi-index $\\mathbf{N}=(N_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C} \\in \\mathbb{N}^C$ we consider a multi-class system $$\\label{eq:mcys}\n(X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\\le n \\le N_i,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\\,,\n\\qquad\nX^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i}\n\\textrm{ with state space $\\mathcal{S}_i$},$$ where $X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i}$ is the $n$-th particle, or object, of class $i$, and say that it is *multi-exchangeable* if its law is invariant under permutation of the particles *within* classes: $$\\mathcal{L}\\bigl( (X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma_i(n),i})_{1\\le n \\le N_i,\\, 1\\le i \\le C} \\bigr)\n=\n\\mathcal{L}\\bigl( (X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\\le n \\le N_i,\\, 1\\le i \\le C} \\bigr)\\,,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\sigma_i \\in \\Sigma(N_i)\\,.$$ This natural assumption means that particles of a class are statistically indistinguishable, and obviously implies that $(X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\\le n \\le N_i}$ is exchangeable for $1\\le i \\le C$. It is sufficient to check that it is true when all $\\sigma_i$ but one are the identity. We introduce the *empirical measure vector*, with samples in $\\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S}_1) \\times \\cdots \\times \\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S}_C)$, $$\\label{eq:emmeve}\n(\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)_{1\\le i \\le C}\\,,\n\\qquad\n\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i = {1 \\over N_i}\\sum_{n=1}^{N_i} \\delta_{X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i}}\\,.$$\n\nWe say that the multi-class system $(X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1, 1\\le i \\le C}$ with *infinite* classes is *multi-exchangeable* if every finite sub-system $(X_{n,i})_{1 \\le n \\le N_i,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}$ is multi-exchangeable. Particles of class\u00a0$i$ form an exchangeable system, which has a directing measure $\\Lambda_i$, and we call $(\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}$ the *directing measure vector*.\n\nThe following result is given in Aldous\u00a0[@Aldous Cor.\u00a03.9 p.\u00a025] and attributed to de Finetti. A remarkable fact is conditional independence between *different* classes.\n\n\\[conind\\] Let $(X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}$ be an infinite multi-exchangeable system, and $\\Lambda_i$ be the directing measure of $(X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1}$. Given the directing measure vector $(\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}$, the $X_{n,i}$ for $n \\ge 1$ and $1\\le i \\le C$ are conditionally independent, and $X_{n,i}$ has conditional law $\\Lambda_i$.\n\nThe extended results\n====================\n\nWe shall extend to multi-exchangeable systems the main results for exchangeable systems, which hold even though the symmetry assumption and resulting structure is much weaker. Indeed, the symmetry order of the multi-exchangeable system is $N_1! \\cdots N_C!$ whereas the symmetry order of an exchangeable system of same size is the much larger $(N_1 + \\cdots + N_C)!$.\n\nThe following extension of [@Aldous Lemma\u00a05.4 p.\u00a038] (stated in words at the beginning of Section\u00a0\\[sclares\\]) shows that, for a finite multi-exchangeable system, the classes are *conditionally independent* given the vector of the empirical measures within each class. Hence, *no further information* can be attained on its law by cleverly trying to involve what happens for different classes.\n\nA statistical interpretation of this remarkable fact is that the empirical measure vector is a *sufficient statistic* for the law of the system, the family of all such laws being trivially parameterized by the laws themselves.\n\n\\[suffstat\\] Let $(X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\\le n \\le N_i,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}$ be a finite multi-exchangeable system as in . Then its conditional law, given the value of the empirical measure vector $(\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)_{1\\le i \\le C}$ defined in , corresponds to *independent* uniform orderings for $1 \\le i \\le C$ of the $N_i$ values of the particles of class\u00a0$i$ (possibly repeated), which are the atoms of the value of $\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i$ (counted with their multiplicities).\n\nMulti-exchangeability and the obvious fact that $$\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_j \n= {1 \\over N_j}\\sum_{n=1}^{N_j} \\delta_{X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,j}}\n= {1 \\over N_j}\\sum_{n=1}^{N_j} \\delta_{X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma(n),j}}\\,,\n\\qquad\n\\forall \\sigma \\in \\Sigma(N_j)\\,,$$ imply that for all $g : \\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S}_1) \\times \\cdots \\times \\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S}_C) \\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}_+$ and $f_i : \\mathcal{S}_i^{N_i} \\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}_+$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{cenfor}\n&&\\kern-6.5mm\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\left[\ng\\bigl((\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_j)_{1 \\le j \\le C}\\bigr)\n\\prod_{i=1}^C \nf_i(X^\\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \\ldots X^\\mathbf{N}_{N_i,i})\n\\right]\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\kern-5.5mm{}\n= {1 \\over N_1 !}\\sum_{\\sigma_1 \\in \\Sigma(N_1)} \\cdots {1 \\over N_C !}\\sum_{\\sigma_C \\in \\Sigma(N_C)}\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\left[\ng\\bigl((\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_j)_{1 \\le j \\le C}\\bigr)\n\\prod_{i=1}^C \nf_i(X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma_i(1),i}, \\ldots X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma_i(N_i),i})\n\\right]\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\kern-5.5mm{}\n=\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\!\\left[\ng\\bigl((\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_j)_{1 \\le j \\le C}\\bigr)\n\\prod_{i=1}^C  \n{1 \\over N_i !} \n\\sum_{\\sigma \\in \\Sigma(N_i) }\nf_i(X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma(1),i}, \\ldots, X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma(N_i),i})\n\\right]\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\kern-5.5mm{}\n=\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\!\\left[\ng\\bigl((\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_j)_{1 \\le j \\le C}\\bigr)\n\\prod_{i=1}^C  \n\\left\\langle f_i,\n{1 \\over N_i !} \n\\sum_{\\sigma \\in \\Sigma(N_i) }\n\\delta_{ (X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma(1),i}, \\ldots, X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma(N_i),i}) }\n\\right\\rangle\n\\right]\\end{aligned}$$ where the empirical measure $${1 \\over N_i !} \n\\sum_{\\sigma \\in \\Sigma(N_i) }\n\\delta_{ (X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma(1),i}, \\ldots, X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma(N_i),i}) }$$ corresponds to exhaustive uniform draws without replacement among the atoms $X^\\mathbf{N}_{1,i}$, \u2026, $X^\\mathbf{N}_{N_i,i}$ of $\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i$ counted according to multiplicity, and hence is a function of $\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i$. Since $g$ is arbitrary, the characteristic property of conditional expectation yields that $${\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\Biggl[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C \nf_i(X^\\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \\ldots X^\\mathbf{N}_{N_i,i})\n\\,\\bigg |\\,(\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}\n\\Biggr]\n= \\prod_{i=1}^C  \n\\left\\langle f_i,\n{1 \\over N_i !} \n\\sum_{\\sigma \\in \\Sigma(N_i) }\n\\delta_{ (X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma(1),i}, \\ldots, X^\\mathbf{N}_{\\sigma(N_i),i}) }\n\\right\\rangle$$ which finishes the proof, since the $f_i$ are arbitrary and the spaces Polish.\n\nThis result and Proposition\u00a0\\[conind\\] lead to the following extension of Proposition\u00a0\\[sznigen\\]. We denote by $\\lim_{\\mathbf{N} \\to \\infty}$ the limit along a fixed arbitrary subsequence of $\\mathbf{N} \\in \\mathbb{N}^C$ such that $\\min_{1 \\le i \\le C} N_i$ goes to infinity.\n\n\\[maingen\\] We consider a family of finite multi-exchangeable multi-class systems $$(X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\\le n \\le N_i,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\\,,\n\\qquad\n\\mathbf{N} \\in \\mathbb{N}^C\\,,$$ all of the form with the same $C\\ge1$ and state spaces $\\mathcal{S}_i$, and the corresponding empirical measure vectors $(\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)_{1\\le i \\le C}$ given in . Then $$\\lim_{\\mathbf{N} \\to \\infty} (X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\\le n \\le N_i,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\n= (X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\n\\;\\; \\textrm{in law},$$ where the (infinite multi-exchangeable) limit has directing measure vector $(\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}$, if and only if $$\\lim_{\\mathbf{N} \\to \\infty} (\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C} = (\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}\n\\;\\; \\textrm{in law.}$$\n\nSince the state spaces are Polish, it is enough to prove that for arbitrary $k \\ge1$ and bounded continuous $f_i : \\mathcal{S}_i^k \\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}$ for $1 \\le i \\le C$ we have $$\\label{oneway}\n\\lim_{\\mathbf{N} \\to \\infty} \n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\left[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C \nf_i(X^\\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \\ldots X^\\mathbf{N}_{k,i})\n\\right]\n= \n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\left[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C \nf_i(X_{1,i}, \\ldots X_{k,i})\n\\right]$$ if and only if $$\\label{theother}\n\\lim_{\\mathbf{N} \\to \\infty} \n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\!\\left[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C  \n\\left\\langle f_i, (\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)^{\\otimes k} \\right\\rangle\n\\right]\n= \n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\!\\left[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C  \n\\left\\langle f_i, \\Lambda_i^{\\otimes k} \\right\\rangle\n\\right].$$ Let $(m)_k = \\frac{m!}{(m-k)!} = m(m-1)\\cdots(m-k+1)$ for $m\\ge 1$ and, for $N_i \\ge k$, $$\\Lambda^{\\mathbf{N},k}_i \n=\n{1 \\over (N_i)_k} \n\\sum_{ \\substack{ 1 \\le n_1,\\ldots, n_k \\le N_i \\\\ \\textrm{distinct} }}\n\\delta_{ (X^\\mathbf{N}_{n_1,i}, \\ldots, X^\\mathbf{N}_{n_k,i}) }$$ denote the empirical measure for distinct $k$-tuples in class\u00a0$i$, corresponding to sampling $k$ times *without* replacement among $X^\\mathbf{N}_{1,i}$, \u2026, $X^\\mathbf{N}_{N_i,i}$. Theorem\u00a0\\[suffstat\\] implies that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{prf1}\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\left[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C \nf_i(X^\\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \\ldots X^\\mathbf{N}_{k,i})\n\\right]\n&=&\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\left[\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\left[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C \nf_i(X^\\mathbf{N}_{1,i}, \\ldots X^\\mathbf{N}_{k,i})\n\\,\\bigg|\\, (\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}\n\\right]\n\\right]\n\\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\!\\left[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C  \n\\left\\langle f_i,\n\\Lambda^{\\mathbf{N},k}_i \n\\right\\rangle\n\\right]\n\\quad\\end{aligned}$$ (which follows directly from with $g=1$ and the extensions of $f_i$ on $\\mathcal{S}_i^{N_i}$) and Proposition\u00a0\\[conind\\] similarly implies that $$\\label{conddec}\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\left[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C \nf_i(X_{1,i}, \\ldots X_{k,i})\n\\right]\n=\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{E}\\kern1pt}\\!\\left[\n\\prod_{i=1}^C  \n\\left\\langle f_i, \\Lambda_i^{\\otimes k} \\right\\rangle\n\\right]\\,.$$ The corresponding empirical measure for sampling *with* replacement is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)^{\\otimes k}\n&=&\n{1 \\over N_i^k} \\sum_{1 \\le n_1,\\ldots, n_k \\le N_i}\n\\delta_{ (X^\\mathbf{N}_{n_1,i}, \\ldots, X^\\mathbf{N}_{n_k,i}) }\n\\\\\n&=& \n\\frac{(N_i)_k}{N_i^k}\\,\n\\Lambda^{\\mathbf{N},k}_i \n+ \n{1 \\over N_i^k} \\sum_{ \\substack{ 1 \\le n_1,\\ldots, n_k \\le N_i \\\\ \\textrm{not distinct} }}\n\\delta_{ (X^\\mathbf{N}_{n_1,i}, \\ldots, X^\\mathbf{N}_{n_k,i}) }\\end{aligned}$$ and in total variation norm $\\Vert \\mu \\Vert = \\sup\\{\\,\\langle \\phi, \\mu \\rangle : \\Vert \\phi \\Vert_\\infty \\le 1\\,\\}$ we have $$\\label{tveq}\n\\left\\Vert \n(\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)^{\\otimes k}\n-\n\\Lambda^{\\mathbf{N},k}_i \n\\right\\Vert\n\\le 2 {N_i^k - (N_i)_k  \\over N_i^k}  \\le {k(k-1) \\over N_i}$$ where we bound $N_i^k - (N_i)_k$ by counting $k(k-1)/2$ possible positions for two identical indices with $N_i$ choices and $N_i^{k-2}$ choices for the other $k-2$ positions. Hence, if holds then , and imply , and conversely, if holds then , and imply , which concludes the proof.\n\nLet $P_i \\in \\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S}_i)$ for $1\\le i \\le C$. We say that the family of finite multi-class systems such as in Theorem\u00a0\\[maingen\\] is $(P_1,\\ldots, P_C)$-*chaotic* if $$\\lim_{\\mathbf{N} \\to \\infty}\n\\mathcal{L}\\bigl( (X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\\le n \\le k,\\, 1\\le i \\le C} \\bigr)\n= P_1^{\\otimes k}\\otimes \\cdots \\otimes P_C^{\\otimes k}\\,,\n\\qquad\n \\forall k\\ge1\\,.$$ This means that the multi-class systems converge to an *independent* system, in which particles of class\u00a0$i$ have law $P_i$. We state a striking corollary of Theorem\u00a0\\[maingen\\].\n\n\\[main\\] We consider a family of finite multi-exchangeable multi-class systems such as in Theorem\u00a0\\[maingen\\], and $P_i \\in \\mathcal{P}(\\mathcal{S}_i)$ for $1\\le i \\le C$. Then the family is $(P_1,\\ldots, P_C)$-chaotic if and only if the $(X^\\mathbf{N}_{n,i})_{1\\le n \\le N_i}$ are $P_i$-chaotic for $1\\le i \\le C$.\n\nSince $(P_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}$ is deterministic, $\\lim_{\\mathbf{N} \\to \\infty}(\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C} = (P_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}$ in law if and only if $\\lim_{\\mathbf{N} \\to \\infty}\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i = P_i$ in law for $1\\le i \\le C$. We conclude using Theorem\u00a0\\[maingen\\].\n\nWe finish with the following extension of Aldous\u00a0[@Aldous Cor.\u00a03.10 p.\u00a026] and of the Hewitt-Savage 0\u20131 Law. For $k \\ge 1$, we say that a set $$B \\subset \\mathcal{S}_1^{\\infty} \\times \\cdots \\times \\mathcal{S}_C^{\\infty}$$ is $k$-multi-exchangeable if for all permutations $\\sigma_i$ of $\\{1,2,\\ldots\\}$ leaving $\\{k+1,k+2,\\ldots\\}$ invariant, $1 \\le i \\le C$, we have $$(x_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C} \\in B \n\\Leftrightarrow\n(x_{\\sigma_i(n),i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}  \\in B\\,.$$ We define the multi-exchangeable $\\sigma$-algebra $$\\mathcal{E} = \\bigcap_{k \\ge 1} \\mathcal{E}_k\\,,\n\\qquad\n\\mathcal{E}_k = \\bigl\\{\n\\{ (X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1 ,\\, 1\\le i \\le C} \\in B \\}\n: B \\textrm{ is $k$-multi-exchangeable} \\bigr\\} \\,,$$ and multi-tail $\\sigma$-algebra $$\\mathcal{T} = \\bigcap_{k \\ge 1} \\mathcal{T}_k\\,,\n\\qquad\n\\mathcal{T}_k = \\sigma\\bigl((X_{n,i})_{n \\ge k ,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\\bigr)\\,.$$ Clearly, $\\mathcal{T}_{k+1} \\subset \\mathcal{E}_k$ and hence $\\mathcal{T} \\subset \\mathcal{E}$.\n\nLet $(X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}$ be an infinite multi-exchangeable system with directing measure vector $(\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}$. Then $$\\sigma((\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}) = \\mathcal{T} = \\mathcal{E}\n\\;\\;\\textrm{a.s.}$$ If moreover the $X_{n,i}$ are independent, then $P(A) \\in \\{0,1\\}$ for all $A \\in \\mathcal{E}$.\n\nConsideration of yields $\\sigma((\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}) \\subset \\mathcal{T}$, a.s., and we have seen that $\\mathcal{T} \\subset \\mathcal{E}$, hence the first statement is true if $\\mathcal{E} \\subset \\sigma((\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C})$, a.s. Now, let $A \\in \\mathcal{E}$. For every $k\\ge1$, since $A \\in \\mathcal{E}_k$, there is some $k$-multi-exchangeable set $B_k$ such that $$A = \\{ (X_{n,j})_{n \\ge 1 ,\\, 1\\le j \\le C} \\in B_k \\}$$ and hence, for all permutations $\\sigma_i$ of $\\{1,2,\\ldots\\}$ leaving $\\{k+1,k+2,\\ldots\\}$ invariant, $$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\mathbf{1}_{A}, X_{\\sigma_i(n),i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\n&=& \n(\\mathbf{1}_{B_k}((X_{n,j})_{n \\ge 1 ,\\, 1\\le j \\le C}), X_{\\sigma_i(n),i}\n)_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}  \n\\\\\n&=& \n(\n\\mathbf{1}_{B_k}((X_{\\sigma_j(n),j})_{n \\ge 1 ,\\, 1\\le j \\le C}), X_{\\sigma_i(n),i}\n)_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}  \\end{aligned}$$ and the multi-exchangeability of $(X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}$ implies that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathcal{L}\\bigl((\\mathbf{1}_A, X_{\\sigma_i(n),i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\\bigr)\n&=& \n\\mathcal{L}\\bigl(\n(\\mathbf{1}_{B_k}((X_{\\sigma_j(n),j})_{n \\ge 1 ,\\, 1\\le j \\le C}), X_{\\sigma_i(n),i}\n\\bigr)_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\n\\bigr)\n\\\\\n&=& \n\\mathcal{L}\\bigl(\n(\\mathbf{1}_{B_k}((X_{n,j})_{n \\ge 1 ,\\, 1\\le j \\le C}), X_{n,i}\n\\bigr)_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\n\\bigr)\n\\\\\n&=& \n\\mathcal{L}\\bigl((\\mathbf{1}_A, X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}\\bigr)\\,.\\end{aligned}$$ Thus $(\\mathbf{1}_A, X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}$ is infinite multi-exchangeable, and Proposition\u00a0\\[conind\\] implies that the $(\\mathbf{1}_A, X_{n,i})$ are conditionally independent given $(\\hat\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}$ and have conditional laws $\\hat\\Lambda_i$, where considering we have $$\\hat\\Lambda_i = \\lim_{N \\to \\infty} {1 \\over N} \\sum_{n=1}^N \\delta_{ (\\mathbf{1}_A, X_{n,i}) }\n= \\delta_{\\mathbf{1}_A} \\otimes \n\\lim_{N \\to \\infty} {1 \\over N} \\sum_{n=1}^N \\delta_{X_{n,i}}\n= \\delta_{\\mathbf{1}_A} \\otimes \\Lambda_i\n\\;\\;\\textrm{a.s.}$$ Hence, for arbitrary $k \\ge1$ and Borel sets $B_{n,i} \\subset \\mathcal{S}_i$ for $1 \\le n \\le k$ and $1 \\le i \\le C$, $$\\displaylines{\\quad\n{\\kern1pt\\mathbf{P}\\kern1pt}\\bigl(X_{n,i} \\in B_{n,i} : 1 \\le n \\le k, 1 \\le i \\le C \n\\,\\big|\\, A, (\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}\\bigr)\n\\hfill\\cr\\hfill\n= {\\kern1pt\\mathbf{P}\\kern1pt}\\bigl(X_{n,i} \\in B_{n,i} : 1 \\le n \\le k, 1 \\le i \\le C \n\\,\\big|\\, (\\hat\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}\\bigr)\n= \\prod_{1 \\le n \\le k, 1 \\le i \\le C} \\Lambda_i(B_{n,i})\n\\quad}$$ is a function of $(\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}$, conditionally to which $A$ and $(X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}$ are thus independent. Since $A \\in \\mathcal{E}$ is arbitrary, we deduce that $\\mathcal{E} \\subset \\sigma((X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C})$ and $(X_{n,i})_{n \\ge 1,\\, 1\\le i \\le C}$ are conditionally independent given $(\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C}$, which implies $\\mathcal{E} \\subset \\sigma((\\Lambda_i)_{1 \\le i \\le C})$ a.s. This proves the first statement, from which the second follows since $\\mathcal{T}$ is a.s.\u00a0trivial if the $X_{n,i}$ are independent, see the Kolmogorov 0\u20131 Law.\n\nConcluding remarks\n==================\n\nThe important bound is a combinatorial estimate of the difference between sampling with and without replacement, see Aldous\u00a0[@Aldous Prop.\u00a05.6 p.\u00a039] and Diaconis and Freedman\u00a0[@Diaconis Theorem\u00a013 p.\u00a0749] for related results. It is used in [@Diaconis] to prove the de Finetti Theorem.\n\nTheorem\u00a0\\[main\\] allows proving $(P_1,\\ldots, P_C)$-chaoticity results by use of Proposition\u00a0\\[szni\\] and Sznitman\u2019s compactness-uniqueness methods for proof that the empirical measures $\\Lambda^\\mathbf{N}_i$ converge in law to $P_i$ for $1 \\le i \\le C$. This was the main motivation for this paper, as can be seen by its title. In the reviewing process, the referee\u2019s suggestions lead to a much improved and fuller study of multi-exchangeable systems.\n\nThe techniques developed in this paper could also extend convergence results, such as Kallenberg\u00a0[@Kallenberg Theorem\u00a01.3 p.\u00a025] and Aldous\u00a0[@Aldous Prop.\u00a07.20 (a) p.\u00a055], suited for a family of multi-exchangeable systems of fixed possibly infinite class sizes depending on a parameter. We refrain do to so for the sake of coherence.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nWe thank the anonymous referee for a careful reading and many stimulating remarks. He helped us rediscover the depth and beauty of Aldous\u2019s treatise\u00a0[@Aldous].\n\n[99]{}\n\n(1985). Exchangeability and related topics. In *[\u00c9]{}cole d\u2019[\u00e9]{}t[\u00e9]{} de Probabilit[\u00e9]{}s de Saint-Flour XIII - 1983*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1117, Springer, Berlin, pp.\u00a01\u2013198.\n\n(2000). Development of Boltzmann models in mathematical biology. In *Modelling in Applied Sciences: A Kinetic Theory Approach*, eds N. Bellomo and M.\u00a0Pulvirenti, Birkhauser, Boston, pp.\u00a0225\u2013262.\n\n(1994). *The mathematical theory of dilute gases*. Applied Mathematical Sciences 106, Springer, New-York.\n\n(1980). Finite exchangeable sequences. *Ann. Prob.* 8, 745\u2013764.\n\n(1992). McKean-Vlasov Ito-Skorohod equations, and nonlinear diffusions with discrete jump sets. *Stoch. Proc. Appl.* 40, 69\u201382.\n\n(2000). Kinetic limits for large communication networks. In *Modelling in Applied Sciences: A Kinetic Theory Approach*, eds N. Bellomo and M.\u00a0Pulvirenti, Birkhauser, Boston, pp.\u00a0317\u2013370.\n\n(2008). Interacting multi-class transmissions in large stochastic networks. Preprint, arXiv:0810.0347, hal:inria-00326156\n\n(2000). Nonlinar kinetic models with chemical reactions. In *Modelling in Applied Sciences: A Kinetic Theory Approach*, eds N. Bellomo and M.\u00a0Pulvirenti, Birkhauser, Boston, pp.\u00a0173\u2013224.\n\n(1973). Canonical representations and convergence criteria for processes with interchangeable increments. *Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheor. Verw. Geb.* 27, 23\u201336.\n\n(1978). Uses of exchangeability. *Ann. Prob.* 6, 183\u2013197.\n\n(1996). Asymptotic behaviour of some interacting particle systems; McKean-Vlasov and Boltzmann models. In: *CIME summer school Montecatini Terme 1995*, eds D. Talay and L. Tubaro, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1627, Springer, Berlin, pp.\u00a042\u201395.\n\n(2000). Numerical simulation of the Boltzmann equation by particle methods. In *Modelling in Applied Sciences: A Kinetic Theory Approach*, eds N. Bellomo and M.\u00a0Pulvirenti, Birkhauser, Boston, pp.\u00a0371\u2013419.\n\n(1991). Topics in propagation of chaos. In *[\u00c9]{}cole d\u2019[\u00e9]{}t[\u00e9]{} de Probabilit[\u00e9]{}s de Saint-Flour XIX - 1989*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1464, Springer, Berlin, pp.\u00a0165\u2013251.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The rapid development of the magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) spin torque oscillator (STO) technology demands an analytical model to enable building MTJ STO-based circuits and systems so as to evaluate and utilize MTJ STOs in various applications. In Part I of this paper, an analytical model based on the macrospin approximation, has been introduced and verified by comparing it with the measurements of three different MTJ STOs. In Part II, the full Verilog-A implementation of the proposed model is presented. To achieve a reliable model, an approach to reproduce the phase noise generated by the MTJ STO has been proposed and successfully employed. The implemented model yields a time domain signal, which retains the characteristics of operating frequency, linewidth, oscillation amplitude and DC operating point, with respect to the magnetic field and applied DC current. The Verilog-A implementation is verified against the analytical model, providing equivalent device characteristics for the full range of biasing conditions. Furthermore, a system that includes an MTJ STO and CMOS RF circuits is simulated to validate the proposed model for system- and circuit-level designs. The simulation results demonstrate that the proposed model opens the possibility to explore STO technology in a wide range of applications.'\nauthor:\n- 'Tingsu\u00a0Chen,\u00a0 Anders\u00a0Eklund,\u00a0 Ezio\u00a0Iacocca,\u00a0 Saul\u00a0Rodriguez,\u00a0 Gunnar\u00a0Malm,\u00a0 Johan\u00a0$\\AA$kerman,\u00a0 and Ana\u00a0Rusu,\u00a0 [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'\ntitle: 'Comprehensive and Macrospin-Based Magnetic Tunnel Junction Spin Torque Oscillator Model \u2013 Part II: Verilog-A Model Implementation'\n---\n\n=1\n\nspin torque oscillator, magnetic tunnel junction, macrospin, analytical model.\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nis an emerging technology, utilizing both fundamental electronic charge and spin [@spintronics2001]. Spin is the intrinsic angular momentum of the electron. The spin-transfer-torque magnetoresistive random access memory (STT-MRAM), which is based on spintronic effects, has revolutionized the magnetic storage industry [@STTMRAM1]-[@STTMRAM3]. In the past few years, extensive research on modeling this device has been carried out [@MTJ_model1]-[@MTJ_model3]. The developed models of STT-MRAM enable estimation of the performance of STT-MRAMs together with its CMOS circuits, further accelerating the development of STT-MRAM technology.\n\nMeanwhile, the spin torque oscillator (STO) [@STObook], which is another interesting spintronics-based device, has recently received a rapidly increased attention. The STO provides a widely tunable voltage oscillation at microwave frequencies, greatly extending the possible application range of spintronics. Possible applications of STOs include frequency detection [@nature2014], [@tulapurkar2005spin], magnetic field sensing [@nature2014], [@braganca2010nanoscale], microwave sources [@nature2014], [@Bonetti2009], [@Villard2010a] and microwave communications [@pufall2005frequency], [@wireless2014]. Particularly, the magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) STO, which provides comparatively large output power, show great potential to be used in different applications. This motivates the focus of this work on the MTJ STO. However, unlike for the case of STT-MRAM, very little progress has been achieved in modeling the STOs for circuit- and system-level design, impeding the development of STO-based applications. The only existing MTJ STO models [@MTJSTO_model1], [@MTJSTO_model2] are limited by several factors. For instance, they offer a limited applicable range, inaccurate DC operating point, and utilize expressions that are not fully validated by experiments or theory. A new analytical MTJ STO model, which can overcome these issues, has been proposed in Part I [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. To further allow being used by a circuit simulator, such as Cadence Spectre-RF, which can analyze the analog and RF performances of STO-based circuits and systems, the analytical MTJ STO model should be implemented in a hardware description language. Verilog-A is a hardware description language, which uses mathematical expressions to model the behaviors of arbitrary types of devices and components, while allowing circuit- and system-level design and analyses. Therefore, Verilog-A is suitable and will be used for modeling MTJ STOs. In the existing MTJ STO models [@MTJSTO_model1], [@MTJSTO_model2], however, the information of full Verilog-A implementation is absent. In the STO Verilog-A model [@MTJSTO_model3], which has been proposed by the same research group as [@MTJSTO_model1], [@MTJSTO_model2] and has not been validated by MTJ STOs, it is not possible to change the bias magnetic field in the Verilog-A model since the calcuation of the effective magnetic field is not included. Instead, the effective magnetic field is calculated in advance in Matlab and manually imported to circuit simulation platforms by the user for every change of field bias condition. Therefore, this model does not allow tuning the applied field in the circuit simulator, and it can not be considered to be fully implemented in Verilog-A, which brings difficulties in designing or optimizing the dedicated circuits for STOs. Besides, to generate the frequency or phase fluctuation of the STO, the model in [@MTJSTO_model3] employs an approach that can cause signal discontinuity. As a result, this existing STO Verilog-A model is not ready to be used.\n\nHere, in Part II, we present a full Verilog-A implemention of the anlytical MTJ STO model proposed in Part I [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. This MTJ STO Verilog-A model uses a new approach to reproduce the phase fluctuation of the MTJ STO and avoid convergence issues, enabling a reliable MTJ STO model. Moreover, efficient simulations of both the stand-alone MTJ STO model and the MTJ STO model combined with CMOS circuits, are demonstrated.\n\nComprehensive and Compact MTJ STO Model in Verilog-A\n====================================================\n\nAs detailed in Part I [@Tingsu_2014TEDI], the characteristics of an MTJ STO include the DC operating point, operating frequency $\\omega_\\text{g}$, output peak power $P(\\omega)$, and linewidth $2 \\Delta \\omega$ (the full width at half-maximum). These characteristics vary greatly as the biasing condition changes. The biasing condition for the MTJ STO is typically composed of the amplitude ${H}_\\text{ext}$ and the in-plane angle $\\phi_\\text{ext}$ of the external magnetic field, as well as the applied DC current $I_\\text{DC}$.\n\nThe complete Verilog-A code of the comprehensive and compact MTJ STO model is available from [@model_link].\n\nComputational efficiency of the comprehensive model\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nTo fully implement the MTJ STO model in Verilog-A, solving Eq.(4a, 4b) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI] for the angle and magnitude of the effective field is realized solely by using Verilog-A. The effective field angle (see Eq.(4a) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]) is solved numerically using the fixed-point iteration method, based on which the effective field magnitude can be simply obtained using Eq.(4b) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. The equation solver, as well as the the large amount of calculations involved in obtaining the nonlinear coefficients and characteristics of the MTJ STO, make the transient simulation time-consuming. For most of the analyses, none of the parameters in the effective field change for a single run, so that all the heavy calculations can be executed in the *initial step* event in order to improve the efficiency of the simulation. The *initial step* event is pre-defined in Verilog-A and called on the first point of a simulation. Therefore, in these cases, all the coefficients, parameters and characteristics are computed only once in the entire simulation.\n\nAccurate phase generation\n-------------------------\n\nIn order to generate the time domain signal, which includes all the characteristics of the MTJ STOs, the output of the model should comprise of both RF and DC terms, implemented in Verilog-A as\\\n\n  $V$(MTJ\\_STO, GND) &lt;+ $V_\\text{RF}+V_\\text{DC};$\n  -----------------------------------------------------\n\n\\\n\u00a0\\\nwhere $V_\\text{DC}$ is the DC voltage across the MTJ STO and is a function of the effective field angle, as detailed in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI], and $V_\\text{RF}$ can be derived based on Eq.(2) and Eq.(11) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI], written in Verilog-A as\\\n\n  $V_\\text{RF}=R_\\text{prec}\\cdot I_\\text{DC} \\cdot \\cos({\\omega_0}\\cdot \\textdollar abstime+\\varphi(t));$\n  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\\\n\u00a0\\\nwhere $R_\\text{prec}$ is the amplitude of the resistance oscillation, whose value depends on the biasing condition. The $\\textdollar abstime$ function returns the absolute simulation time. Since MTJ STOs have considerable phase noise amplitude, $\\varphi(t)$ is used to represent the phase fluctuation (phase noise), reflecting the linewidth of the proposed model. For the timescales of circuit-level simulations (generally on the order of $\\mu$s), white frequency noise extending over fluctuation frequencies wider than 1 MHz \u2013 100 MHz [@quinsat2010] will be the noise type dominating the linewidth. Hence, for this application, it is natural and adequate to approximate the frequency noise by white frequency noise alone. The amplitude noise of MTJ STOs is coupled to the phase noise due to the nonlinearity of the governing magneto-dynamic equation (Eq.(1) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]). Such a coupling greatly enhances the phase noise, making the impact of the amplitude noise less significant for applications [@quinsat2010]. For this reason, the amplitude noise is not explicitly addressed in this work, but its effect is manifested in the linewidth of the proposed MTJ STO model. Nevertheless, Gaussian amplitude noise could be added to the proposed model by further specifying its standard deviation.\n\nAn accurate Verilog-A model of oscillators should memorize its phase along the simulation time. However, a solution to keep the phase information between adjacent simulation time steps has not been found. In one common Verilog-A phase noise generation method [@VCOmodel], the step-specific perturbed frequency $f_{VCO}$+$\\Delta f_{VCO}$ is integrated all the way from $t$ = 0 up to $t$, resulting in a discontinuous phase jump whenever $\\Delta f_{VCO}$ is updated. The method used in the existing Verilog-A STO model [@MTJSTO_model3] instead implements a phase noise $\\varphi_{STO}(t)$ that is discontinuously updated every couple of nanoseconds. In both methods, the comparatively large and discontinuous phase changes result in significant signal discontinuities for sinusoidal signals. This type of discontinuity is not a characteristic of MTJ STOs and, moreover, may cause convergence issues during simulations.\n\nThe solution for achieving an accurate and reliable MTJ STO model is to instead implement a $\\varphi(t)$, which bears a continuous, linear phase change in between the fixed points of randomized phase fluctuation. The flow chart of the divergence-free implementation of $\\varphi(t)$ is illustrated in Fig. 1. The first step is to create a vector $\\Delta f [~]$, which gives the random frequency fluctuation as a function of the linewidth (assumed that the frequency noise is white, i.e. that the linewidth has a Lorentzian lineshape), changing every $\\Delta t$. $\\Delta t$ is the virtual time step, which reflects how offen the frequency fluctuation happens and can be defined by the user. Moreover, the user-set $\\Delta t$ is necessary in order to implement the Verilog-A model, because the circuit simulator provides an adaptive time step determined by the local truncation error (LTE) [@Kundert] so that the real simulation time step cannot be fully controlled by the user nor the programmer. Hence, the real simulation time step cannot be used to update the frequency fluctuations. To obtain the correct linewidth, the dataset of $\\Delta f [~]$ follows a normal distribution with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of $\\sqrt{\\frac{2 \\Delta \\omega}{\\Delta t}}$, resulting in a phase variance that is growing linearly with time in a rate consistent with the specific level of white frequency noise for the specific linewidth $2\\Delta \\omega$ [@silva2010]. The virtual time step $\\Delta t$ is related to the upper cut-off frequency for white noise in the frequency noise spectrum, and should be set to a value smaller than one order of magnitude lower than the inverse cut-off frequency in order to produce white frequency noise all the way up to the cut-off. For cut-off frequencies of 100 MHz or 1 GHz, this means that the virtual time step $\\Delta t$ should be set to lower than 1 ns or 100 ps respectively. Failing to set a short enough $\\Delta t$ will result in a too narrow white band in the frequency noise spectrum, resulting in a decreased spectral linewidth. In this work, $\\Delta t$ = 100 ps is employed. The length of $\\Delta f [~]$ is the ratio between the simulation time $t_{sim}$ and the virtual time step $\\Delta t$.\n\nThe second step in implementing $\\varphi(t)$ is to create another vector $\\Sigma\\Delta \\varphi[~]$, which is used to store the phase deviation accumulated from the reference time ($t$=0) to each virtual time step. The relationship between $\\Delta f [~]$ and $\\Sigma\\Delta \\varphi[~]$ is illustrated in Fig. 2. In the first period between $t$=0 and the first virtual time step ($t$=1), $\\Sigma\\Delta \\varphi[j=0]$ is 0. During the period between $t$=$j$ and $t$=$j$+1 ($j$&gt;0), the total accumulated phase deviation caused by the frequency fluctuation(s) in the past period(s) (from $\\Delta f [0]$ to $\\Delta f [j-1]$) is stored in $\\Sigma\\Delta \\varphi[j]$ . A large $\\Delta f [j]$ leads to a large phase deviation that will be fully presented at the next time step ($t$=$j$+1). The first two steps in implementing $\\varphi(t)$ are necessarily conducted in the $initial$ $step$ event, so that the two vectors are generated only once during the simulation.\n\nThe third step, as shown in Fig. 1, is to generate the required $\\varphi(t)$. $\\varphi(t)$ at an arbitrary time, can be expressed as the sum of the accumulated phase deviation $\\Sigma\\Delta \\varphi[k]$ up to the last virtual time step, and the phase deviation produced from the last virtual time step to the absolute time. The parameter $k$ is employed to count the past number of virtual time steps, and it is updated every $\\Delta t$ by using the $timer$ function in Verilog-A. It should be noted that the initial value of $k$ is set to -1 since the $timer$ function is called at the beginning of each time period. The absolute time is fetched by calling the $\\$ abstime$ function. The relationship between $\\varphi(t)$, $\\Delta f[k]$ and $\\Sigma\\Delta \\varphi[k]$ is presented in Fig. 2. Specifically, the slope of $\\varphi(t)$ is the instantaneous frequency deviation $\\Delta f[k]$, so that the phase deviation generated from the last virtual time step to the absolute time is ($(\\$ abstime - k \\cdot \\Delta t) \\cdot \\Delta f[k]$). By summing $\\Sigma\\Delta \\varphi[k]$ and ($(\\$ abstime - k \\cdot \\Delta t) \\cdot \\Delta f[k]$), the required $\\varphi(t)$ is realized.\n\nThe proposed phase noise generation approach successfully overcomes the phase discontinuity issue identified in the existing Verilog-A models for oscillators [@MTJSTO_model3; @VCOmodel]. However, the proposed noise generation approach makes the proposed MTJ STO model less suitable for simulations which involve momentary variations in the operating conditions, such as the modulation of current or field. Nevertheless, at the early stage of evaluating STOs in various applications and designing STO-based building blocks towards applications, these simulations involving momentary variations in the operating conditions are not yet critical.\n\nSimulation Results\n==================\n\nTransient simulations of the aforementioned analytical model implemented in Verilog-A, are carried out using the Cadence SpectreRF circuit simulator.\n\nSimulation results of the MTJ STO model\n---------------------------------------\n\nTo validate the proposed $\\varphi(t)$ function for generating the frequency fluctuation of the MTJ STO, transient simulations of the stand-alone (unloaded) MTJ STO model using the parameters from different MTJ STOs [@ref1]-[@muduli2010nonlinear] are performed. The time domain signals of the transient simulation using the parameters from [@ref1] and $I_\\text{DC}$ = 1.5 mA, while sweeping $\\phi_\\text{ext}$, are depicted in Fig. 3 as an example. They are compared with the measured time domain signal from [@time], since time domain measurements are not included in [@ref1]-[@muduli2010nonlinear]. The general nature of these simulated time domain signals agree with the measured one. Especially, the phase fluctuation generated by the proposed $\\varphi(t)$ function, has continuous changes and is very similar to that of the measured time domain signal [@time]. Aside from the discrepancies between the modeled (theoretical) and measured linewidth, this comparison demonstrates that the proposed MTJ STO model can reproduce the phase fluctuation generated by MTJ STOs, so as to achieve a reliable MTJ STO model.\n\nThe time domain signals in Fig. 3. are further analyzed to validate that the model implemented in Verilog-A is equivalent to the analytical model given in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI].\n\nFor different $\\phi_\\text{ext}$, the time domain signals shown in Fig. 3 present different characteristics including the operating frequency, phase noise (linewidth), amplitude, and DC biasing points. Time domain signals with large output power (voltage amplitude) appear at the in-plane external field angles between $40^o$ and $55^o$ (corresponding in-plane effective field angles between $47^o$ and $68^o$). Among these, the signal generated at $\\phi_\\text{ext}=55^o$ shows less random fluctuations in the phase than that at $\\phi_\\text{ext}=40^o$. The estimation of output power and linewidth based on Fig. 3 are in agreement with the analytical results given in and Fig. 4(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI] respectively. As it can also be seen in Fig. 3, the phase noise at large in-plane external field angles degrades significantly, which is in accord with the theoretical linewidth in Fig. 4(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. In such cases, where the phase noise is considerable, the simulation does not suffer from any signal discontinuity or convergence issues, thanks to the proposed method used to generate the phase noise. Additionally, noticed from Fig. 3, the DC voltage across the MTJ STO increases as a function of $\\phi_\\text{ext}$, which is in agreement with Eq.(5) in [@Tingsu_2014TEDI].\n\nTo quantify the characteristics of the MTJ STO Verilog-A model as a function of $\\phi_\\text{ext}$, the time domain signals obtained from the transient simulations (1 $\\mu$s) are converted (in Cadence) to the frequency domain using FFT so as to obtain power spectral densities (PSDs) of the signals, which are depicted in . To perform the FFT, a Hamming window of the full waveform length 1 $\\mu$s (16384 samples) is employed. This results in a resolution bandwidth of (1 $\\mu$s)$^{-1}$ = .\n\nFig. 4(a) shows the PSDs, which contain the information of the operating frequency and linewidth of the MTJ STO\u2019s signals as a function of $\\phi_\\text{ext}$. As $\\phi_\\text{ext}$ is increased, the operating frequency initially decreases, reaches a minimum and thereafter increases, agreeing with the measured data given in Fig. 2(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. For different $\\phi_\\text{ext}$, the operating frequency and linewidth of the proposed MTJ STO model implemented in Verilog-A are in accordance with the one obtained from the theoretical analysis, as given in Fig. 2(a) and Fig. 4(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI]. Particularly, as it can be noticed from Fig. 4(a), the linewidth at $\\phi_\\text{ext}=55^o$, is much narrower than that at $\\phi_\\text{ext}=40^o$, indicating less random frequency fluctuations and confirming the estimation based on Fig. 3. Moreover, as it can be observed from Fig. 4(a), the signal with comparatively large output power can be found between $40^o$ and $55^o$, which is also in agreement with the analytical and measured results in Fig. 3(a) of [@Tingsu_2014TEDI].\n\nThe dependence of $I_\\text{DC}$ on the characteristics of the MTJ STO is also examined by performing transient simulations of the proposed Verilog-A model with different $I_\\text{DC}$. The PSDs of the transient simulation results as a function of $I_\\text{DC}$ at $\\phi_\\text{ext}=45^o$ is depicted in Fig. 4(b). The rise in $I_\\text{DC}$ causes a decline in the operating frequency and an increase in the output power, which matches the theoretical results and experiments.\n\nEffort has been made in this work to achieve the compact MTJ STO model and improve the simulation speed. Therefore, the time required for transient simulations of the proposed model is of interest. To benchmark the simulation speed, a 1 $\\mu$s simulation with a maximum time step of 5 ps is performed. By averaging the runtime of 10 simulations containing approximately 470900 transient steps, a simulation takes only 52.6 s. The simulations are performed on a server with 2$\\times$AMD Opteron 6172, and occupy one core. Regarding the micromagnetics-based model, which is most efficiently simulated on graphic processing units (GPUs) or supercomputer clusters, the typical runtime is roughly 24 hours for a similar device. Compared with the micromagnetics-based model discussed in Part I [@Tingsu_2014TEDI], the proposed model offers rapid simulations with a similar degree of accuracy.\n\nHybrid simulation of the MTJ STO model with CMOS circuits\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\nHybrid simulation of the MTJ STO model with CMOS circuits is of great importance since it provides validation of the proposed model at system- and circuit-level throughout its range of operation. Furthermore, it can fully cross-verify the model and the designed CMOS circuits. To perform the hybrid simulation, a system including the proposed MTJ STO model as well as CMOS circuits is considered. In this system, the MTJ STO model employs the parameters from [@ref3] since this MTJ STO has a resistance close to 50 $\\Omega$, which eases analyses. Firstly, proper biasing circuits for driving the MTJ STO are investigated and analyzed. For instance, the current mirror, which has been employed in [@MTJSTO_model1], [@MTJSTO_model2] to provide the current biasing for the MTJ STO, is simulated with the proposed MTJ STO model and examined. The simulation results, however, suggest that using the current mirror to bias the MTJ STO is not suitable. The reason is that the resistance (biasing voltage) of the MTJ STO changes when $\\phi_\\text{ext}$ is varied, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Therefore, different resistances at different $\\phi_\\text{ext}$ make it impossible for the current mirror to accurately copy the current from a current source to the MTJ STO under all circumstances. Thereafter, a traditional RC bias-T, as shown in Fig. 5, is simulated with the proposed MTJ STO model.\n\nAccording to the simulation results, this RC bias-T can more successfully be utilized by MTJ STOs since the performance of the bias-T is not influenced by the variable resistance (biasing voltage) of MTJ STO. Consequently, the RC bias-T is used in this work to build the system. The selection of the biasing circuits for the MTJ STO demonstrates that the proposed MTJ STO model is very useful for the device and circuit community to identify the suitable circuit topologies and to design dedicated circuits for MTJ STOs, owing to the complete implementation of the proposed model in Verilog-A.\n\nTo complete a system, which provides low-noise amplification to MTJ STO signals and can be used in either applications or measurements, a wideband Balun-low noise amplifier (LNA) [@Tingsu2014] is employed. An output buffer and an AC coupling capacitor are added to present a system (Fig. 5) that is able to drive 50 $\\Omega$ load. The buffered wideband Balun-LNA is fully-ESD protected, and it is implemented in CMOS 65 nm process with a 1.2 V power supply.\n\nBefore performing the transient simulation of the system, the unloaded MTJ STO is simulated at and $\\phi_\\text{ext}=40^o$, where a comparatively high voltage generated by the MTJ STO can be obtained. This voltage will be used as the reference voltage to compare with the voltage signals obtained from the MTJ STO together with the Balun-LNA. The transient simulation of the system is then conducted at the same biasing condition. The obtained time domain signals, including the voltage generated by the unloaded MTJ STO, the voltage that can be delivered from the MTJ STO to the Balun-LNA, and the amplified voltage at the differential output of the Balun-LNA, are plotted in Fig. 6.\n\nThe output signals of the MTJ STO before and after being connected by the Balun-LNA show that the DC voltage is sustained due to employed bias-T, and the DC resistance ($R_\\text{DC}$) is close to 50 $\\Omega$. In addition, approximately 2/3 of the AC voltage generated by the MTJ STO is delivered to the Balun-LNA, which is due to the fact that an AC voltage divider is formed between $R_\\text{DC}$ and the input impedance of the Balun-LNA ($Z_\\text{in}$). To quantify the power delivery and amplification so as to evaluate the hybrid simulation, PSDs of these signals are plotted in Fig. 7.\n\nFigure 7 shows that the power delivered from the MTJ STO to the Balun-LNA is about -3 dB less than the power generated by the unloaded MTJ STO. Based on this loss ($Z_\\text{in}$/($Z_\\text{in}+R_\\text{DC}$) = 10$^{\\frac{-3}{20}}$), it can be calculated that the return loss S11=($Z_\\text{in}-R_\\text{DC}$)/($Z_\\text{in}+R_\\text{DC}$) at the operating frequency of the MTJ STO (under the applied biasing condition) is . Since $R_\\text{DC}$ is close to 50 $\\Omega$, the calculated S11 should be similar to the S11 of the Balun-LNA that is characterized with a 50 $\\Omega$ termination. The S11 of the Balun-LNA reported in [@Tingsu2014] is about , which verifies the S11 calculated based on the hybrid simulation. As it can be also approximated from Fig. 7, the difference between the simulated PSD signals at the input and output of the Balun-LNA is approximately , which corresponds to the gain of the Balun-LNA reported in [@Tingsu2014]. In summary, the behavior of the proposed MTJ STO model has been validated at circuit- and system- level. The evaluated hybrid simulation demonstrates that the performance of an MTJ STO-based system can be easily, reliably and accurately predicted by the circuit simulator using the proposed MTJ STO Verilog-A model.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nThe analytical model of the MTJ STO proposed in of this paper has been fully implemented in Verilog-A, enabling its direct use in STO-based systems. During the implementation, an approach to replicate the phase noise, hence the generated signal of the MTJ STOs, has been developed. This approach makes a reliable MTJ STO model possible, and allows different performance analyses so as to extensively explore possible applications. The simulation results of the stand-alone MTJ STO model and the MTJ STO-based system show that the implemented model gives identical characteristics as those obtained from the proposed analytical model. Additionally, the results demonstrate that the proposed MTJ STO model is useful for estimating as well as improving overall performance of the MTJ STO-based circuits and systems. Consequently, the proposed MTJ STO has the potential to accelerate the development of MTJ STO technology towards its future applications.\n\n[1]{}\n\nS. A. Wolf, D. D. Awschalom, R. A. Buhrman, J. M. Daughton, S. Von Molnar, M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelkanova, and D. M. Treger, \u201cSpintronics: a spin-based electronics vision for the future,\u201d *Science*, vol. 294, no. 5546, pp. 1488\u20131495, 2001.\n\nK. C. Chun, H. Zhao, J. D. Harms, T.-H. Kim, J.-P. Wang, and C. H. Kim, \u201cA scaling roadmap and performance evaluation of in-plane and perpendicular MTJ based STT-MRAMs for high-density cache memory,\u201d *IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits*, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 598\u2013610, 2013.\n\nY. Huai, \u201cSpin-transfer torque MRAM (STT-MRAM): Challenges and prospects,\u201d *AAPPS Bulletin*, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 33\u201340, 2008.\n\nC. Augustine, N. N. Mojumder, X. Fong, S. H. Choday, S. P. Park, and K. Roy, \u201cSpin-transfer torque mrams for low power memories: Perspective and prospective,\u201d *IEEE Sens. J.*, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 756\u2013766, 2012.\n\nG. D. Panagopoulos, C. Augustine, and K. Roy, \u201cPhysics-based SPICE-compatible compact model for simulating hybrid MTJ/CMOS circuits,\u201d *IEEE Trans. Electron Devices*, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 2808\u20132814, 2013.\n\nY. Zhang, W. Zhao, Y. Lakys, J. O. Klein, J. V. Kim, D. Ravelosona, and C. Chappert, \u201cCompact modeling of perpendicular-anisotropy CoFeB/MgO magnetic tunnel junctions,\u201d *IEEE Trans. Electron Devices*, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 819\u2013826, 2012.\n\nA. Vatankhahghadim, S. Huda, and A. Sheikholeslami, \u201cA survey on circuit modeling of spin-transfer-torque magnetic tunnel junctions,\u201d *IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. I, Reg. Papers*, vol. 61, no. 9, pp. 2634\u20132643, 2014.\n\nS. E. Russek, W. H. Rippard, T. Cecil, R. Heindl,\u201cSpin Torque Nano-Oscillators,\u201d in *Handbook of Nanophysics*, CRC Press, 2010, chp. 38, pp. 38-1\u201338-24.\n\nN. Locatelli, V. Cros, and J. Grollier, \u201cSpin-torque building blocks,\u201d *Nature Mater.*, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 11\u201320, 2014.\n\nA. A. Tulapurkar, Y. Suzuki, A. Fukushima, H. Kubota, H. Maehara, K. Tsunekawa, D. D. Djayaprawira, N. Watanabe, and S. Yuasa, \u201cSpin-torque diode effect in magnetic tunnel junctions,\u201d *Nature*, vol. 438, no. 7066, pp. 339\u2013342, 2005.\n\nP. M. Braganca, B. A. Gurney, B. A. Wilson, J. A. Katine, S. Maat, and J. R. Childress, \u201cNanoscale magnetic field detection using a spin torque oscillator,\u201d *Nanotechnology*, vol. 21, no. 23, p. 235202, 2010.\n\nS. Bonetti, P. Muduli, F. Mancoff, and J. $\\AA$kerman, \u201cSpin torque oscillator frequency versus magnetic field angle: The prospect of operation beyond 65 GHz,\u201d *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 94, no. 10, p. 102507, 2009.\n\nP. Villard, U. Ebels, D. Houssameddine, J. Katine, D. Mauri, B. Delaet, P. Vincent, M. C. Cyrille, B. Viala, J. P. Michel, J. Prouv\u00e9e, and F. Badets, \u201cA GHz spintronic-based RF oscillator,\u201d *IEEE J. Solid-State Circuits*, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 214\u2013223, 2010.\n\nM. R. Pufall, W. H. Rippard, S. Kaka, T. J. Silva, S. E. Russek, \u201cFrequency modulation of spin-transfer oscillators,\u201d *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 86, no. 8, p. 082506, 2005.\n\nH. S. Choi, S. Y. Kang, S. J. Cho, I.-Y. Oh, M. Shin, H. Park, C. Jang, B.-C. Min, S.-I. Kim, S.-Y. Park and C. S. Park, \u201cSpin nano-oscillator-based wireless communication\u201d, *Scientific Reports*, vol. 4, no. 5486, pp. 1\u20137, 2014.\n\nH. Lim, S. Ahn, M. Kim, S. Lee, and H. Shin, \u201cA new circuit model for spin-torque oscillator including perpendicular torque of magnetic tunnel junction,\u201d *Adv. Condens. Matter Phys.*, vol. 2013, p. 169312, 2013.\n\nM. Kim, H Lim, S. Ahn, S. Lee, and H. Shin, \u201cAdvanced circuit-level model of magnetic tunnel junction-based spin-torque oscillator with perpendicular anisotropy field,\u201d *J. Semicond. Tech. Sci.*, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 556\u2013561, 2013.\n\nT. Chen, A. Eklund, E, Iacocca, S. Rodriguez, G. Malm, J. [\u00c5]{}kerman and A. Rusu, \u201cComprehensive and macrospin-based magnetic tunnel junction spin torque oscillator model \u2013 Part I: Analytical model of the MTJ STO,\u201d submitted to *IEEE Trans. Electron Devices*, 2014.\n\nS. Ahn, H. Lim, H. Shin, and S. Lee, \u201cAnalytic model of spin-torque oscillators (STO) for circuit-level simulation,\u201d *J. Semicond. Tech. Sci.*, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 28\u201333, 2013.\n\nT. Chen, *Verilog-A code of the MTJ STO model* \\[Online\\]. Available: http://web.ict.kth.se/$\\sim$tingsu/VerilogA$\\_$MTJ$\\_$STO.\n\nM. Quinsat, D. Gusakova, J. F. Sierra, J. P. Michel, D. Houssameddine, B. Delaet, M. -C. Cyrille, U. Ebels, B. Dieny, L. D. Buda-Prejbeanu, J. A. Katine, D. Mauri, A. Zeltser, M. Prigent, J. -C. Nallatamby and R. Sommet, \u201cAmplitude and phase noise of magnetic tunnel junction oscillators,\u201d *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 97, no. 18, p. 182507, 2010.\n\nM. Takahashi, K. Ogawa, and K. Kundert, \u201cVCO jitter simulation and its comparison with measurement,\u201d in *Proc. of IEEE ASP-DAC*, 1999, pp. 85\u201388.\n\nK. Kundert, and I. Clifford, \u201cAchieving accurate results with a circuit simulator,\u201d in *IEE Colloq. on SPICE: Surviving Problems in Circuit Evaluation*, 1993, pp. 1\u20135.\n\nT. J. Silva, and M. W. Keller, \u201cTheory of thermally induced phase noise in spin torque oscillators for a high-symmetry case,\u201d *IEEE Trans. Magnetics*, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 3555\u20133573, 2010.\n\nZ. M. Zeng, P. Upadhyaya, P. K. Amiri, K. H. Cheung, J. A. Katine, J. Langer, K. L. Wang, and H. W. Jiang, \u201cEnhancement of microwave emission in magnetic tunnel junction oscillators through in-plane field orientation,\u201d *Appl. Phys. Lett.*, vol. 99. vol. 3, p. 032503, 2011.\n\nP. Gangmei, A. Neudert, M. K. Marcham, R. J. Hicken, M. A. Gubbins, X. Cao, R. R. Lamberton, and A. B. Johnston, \u201cThermal and spin-transfer-torque excitation of precessional modes in magnetic tunnel junction nanopillars with symmetric interfaces and a thick free layer,\u201d *Phys. Rev. B*, vol. 88, no. 13, p. 134415, 2013.\n\nP. K. Muduli, Y. Pogoryelov, S. Bonetti, G. Consolo, F. Mancoff, and J. [\u00c5]{}kerman, \u201cNonlinear frequency and amplitude modulation of a nanocontact-based spin-torque oscillator,\u201d *Phys. Rev. B*, vol. 81, no. 14, p. 140408, 2010.\n\nG.E. Rowlands, J.A. Katine, J. Langer, J. Zhu, and I.N. Krivorotov, \u201cTime domain mapping of spin torque oscillator effective energy,\u201d *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, vo. 111, no. 8, p. 087206, 2013.\n\nT. Chen, S. Rodriguez, J. [\u00c5]{}kerman, and A. Rusu, \u201cAn inductorless wideband balun-LNA for spin torque oscillator-based field sensing\u201d, in *Proc. of IEEE ICECS*, 2014, pp. 36\u201339.\n\n[Tingsu Chen]{} (S\u201911) received the B.Sc. degree in communication engineering from the Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, China, and the M.Sc. degree in system-on-chip design from the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, in 2009 and 2011, respectively. She is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree at KTH with the research area of high frequency circuit design for spin torque oscillator technology.\n\n[Anders Eklund]{} (S\u201913) received the M.Sc. degree in engineering physics from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, in 2011. He is currently working towards a Ph.D. degree in physics at KTH, experimentally investigating the frequency stability of spin torque oscillators by means of electrical characterization and synchrotron x-ray measurements.\n\n[Ezio Iacocca]{} (S\u201908) received the B.Sc. degree in electronic engineering from the Sim\u00f3n Bol\u00edvar University, Caracas, Venezuela (\u201908), the M.Sc. in nanotechnology from the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (\u201910), and the Ph.D. in physics from the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden (\u201914). His research focuses on the magnetodynamical modes of spin transfer torque driven nano oscillators and their applications in communication and storage technology.\n\n[Saul Rodriguez]{} (M\u201906) received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering from the Army Polytechnic School (ESPE), Quito, Ecuador, and the M.Sc. degree in system-on-chip design and the Ph.D. degree in electronic and computer systems from the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. in 2001, 2005, and 2009, respectively. His current research interests include RF CMOS circuit design for wideband frond-ends, ultralow-power circuits for medical applications and graphene-based RF, and AMS circuits.\n\n[B. Gunnar Malm]{} (M\u201998 - SM\u201910) was born in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. He received the M.S. from Uppsala University, Sweden, in 1997, the PhD in solid-state electronics 2002, from Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm. He is an Associate Professor at the School of ICT, KTH since 2011. His recent work includes silicon photonics, silicon-carbide technology for extreme environments and spintronics. He also serves on the KTH Sustainability Council.\n\n[Johan $\\AA$kerman]{} (M\u201906) has an Ing. Phys. Dipl. degree (\u201994) from EPFL, Switzerland, a M.Sc. in physics (\u201996) from LTH, Sweden, and a Ph.D. in materials physics (\u201900) from KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. In 2008 he was appointed Full Professor at University of Gothenburg and is a Guest Professor at KTH Royal Institute of Technology. He is also the founder of NanOsc AB and NanOsc Instruments AB.\n\n[Ana Rusu]{} (M\u201992) received the M.Sc. degree in electronics and telecommunications and Ph.D. degree in electronics in 1983 and 1998, respectively. She has been with KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, since 2001, where she is Professor in electronic circuits for integrated systems. Her research interests include low/ultralow power high performance CMOS circuits and systems, STO-based systems, RF graphene and high temperature SiC circuits.\n\n[^1]: Manuscript received October 20, 2014; revised December 5, 2014; accepted December 15, 2014. This research is supported by Swedish Research Council (VR).\n\n[^2]: Tingsu Chen, Anders Eklund, Saul Rodriguez, Gunnar Malm and Ana Rusu are with the Department of Integrated Devices and Circuits, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 164 40 Kista, Sweden. (e-mail: tingsu@kth.se, ajeklund@kth.se, saul@kth.se, gunta@kth.se and arusu@kth.se).\n\n[^3]: Ezio Iacocca and Johan $\\AA$kerman are with the Department of Physics, University of Gothenburg, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden.(e-mail: ezio.iacocca@physics.gu.se).\n\n[^4]: Johan $\\AA$kerman is also with the Department of Materials and Nano Physics, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 164 40 Kista, Sweden. (e-mail: akerman1@kth.se).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- J\u00e9r\u00e9my Leconte\n- Gilles Chabrier\n- Isabelle Baraffe\n- Benjamin Levrard\nbibliography:\n- 'biblio.bib'\ntitle: |\n    Is tidal heating sufficient to explain bloated exoplanets?\\\n    Consistent calculations accounting for finite initial eccentricity\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nGravitational tides have marked out the history of science and astrophysics since the first assessment by Seleucus of Seleucia of the relation between the height of the tides and the position of the moon and the Sun in the second century BC. Modern astrophysics extended the study of gravitational tides in an impressive variety of contexts from the synchronization of the moon and other satellites to the evolution of close binary stars and even the disruption of galaxies.\n\nThe recent discoveries of short period extrasolar planetary systems and the determination of the anomalously large radius of some giant close-in exoplanets revived the need for a theory of planetary tides covering a wider variety of orbital configurations than previously encountered for the case of our own solar system planets. In particular, the orbital evolution of planetary systems such as HD 80606, with an orbital eccentricity of 0.9337 [@NLM01], and XO-3, with a stellar obliquity $\\es\\gtrsim37.3\\pm3.7$ deg [@WJF09], cannot be properly treated with tidal models limited to the case of zero or vanishing eccentricity and obliquity such as in the models of e.g. @GS66, @JGB08 and @FRH08.\n\nFollowing @BLM01 and @GLB03, attempts have been made to explain the observed large radius of some transiting close-in gas giant exoplanets - the so-called \u201cHot Jupiters\u201d - by means of tidal heating [@JGB08; @MFJ09; @ISB09]. All these models, however, use tidal models truncated to low (second) order in eccentricity, in spite of initial eccentricities, as determined from the tidal evolution calculations, which can be as large as $e=0.8$! According to these calculations, a large eccentricity can remain long enough to lead to tidal energy dissipation in the planet\u2019s gaseous envelop (assuming a proper dissipation mechanism is at play in the deep convective layers) at a late epoch and then can explain the actual bloated radius of some observed planets.\n\nIn the present paper, we revisit the viability of this tidal heating hypothesis, using an extended version of the @Hut81 tidal evolution model, solving consistently the [*complete*]{} tidal equations, to any order in eccentricity and obliquity, and coupling these latter with the gravothermal evolution of the irradiated planet. As will be shown in the paper, properly taking into account the full nature of the tidal equations severely modifies the planet\u2019s tidal and thermal evolution, compared with the aforementioned truncated calculations, leading to significantly different tidal heat rates and thus planet contraction rates.\n\nAfter introducing our model in \u00a7\\[sec:hyp\\], we examine in detail in \u00a7\\[sec:q\\] the relation between the *constant time lag* ($\\Delta t$) in Hut\u2019s (and thus our) model and the usual tidal quality factor ($Q$) widely used in the literature. Constraints on $\\Delta t$ from the study of the galilean satellites are also derived. In \u00a7\\[sec:2ndOrder\\], we demonstrate, with [*analytical arguments*]{}, that truncating the tidal equations at $2^{\\mathrm{nd}}$ order in eccentricity leads to wrong tidal evolution histories, with sequences drastically differing from the ones obtained when solving the complete equations. In \u00a7\\[sec:comp\\], we compare our full thermal/orbital evolution calculations with similar studies based on a truncated and constant $Q$ tidal model. These numerical comparisons confirm and quantify the conclusions reached in \u00a7\\[sec:2ndOrder\\], namely that low order eccentricity models substantially underestimate the tidal evolution timescales for initially eccentric systems and thus lead to incorrect tidal energy contributions to the planet\u2019s energy balance. For instance, we show that tidal heating can not explain the radius of HD\u00a0209458b, for the present values of their orbital parameters, contrarily to what has been claimed in previous calculations based on truncated eccentricity models [@ISB09]. Finally, in \u00a7\\[sec:global\\], we apply our model to the case of some of the discovered bloated planets. We show that, although tidal heating can explain the presently observed radius of some [*moderately bloated*]{} hot Jupiters, as indeed suggested in some previous studies, tidal heating alone cannot explain [*all*]{} the anomalously large radii. Indeed, in these cases, eccentricity damping occurs too early in the system\u2019s tidal evolution (assuming a genuine two-body planetary system) to lead to the present state of the planet\u2019s contraction.\n\nModel Description {#sec:hyp}\n=================\n\nInternal evolution {#sec:intevolution}\n------------------\n\nThe main physics inputs (equations of state, internal composition, irradiated atmosphere models, boundary conditions) used in the present calculations have been described in details in previous papers devoted to the evolution of extrasolar giant planets [@BCB03; @BCB08; @LBC09] and are only briefly outlined below. The evolution of the planet is based on a consistent treatment between the outer non-grey irradiated atmospheric structure and the inner structure. The interior is composed primarily of a gaseous H/He envelope whose thermodynamic properties are described by the Saumon-Chabrier-VanHorn equation of state (EOS, @SCV95) with a solar or non-solar enrichment in heavy elements described by the appropriate EOS\u2019s [@BCB08]. In the present calculations, our fiducial model consists of a planet with a central core made up of water, with the ANEOS EOS [@TL72]. A detailed analysis of the effects of different EOS\u2019s, core compositions and heavy material repartitions within the planet can be found in @BCB08, as well as a comparison with models from other groups, in particular the ones by @FMB07.\n\nTransiting planets are by definition very close to their host star ($a< 0.1$AU). In that case, the stellar irradiation strongly affects the planet atmospheric structure to deep levels [@BHA01] and thus the planet\u2019s evolution (@GBH96, @BCB03, @BSH03, @CBB04). We use a grid of irradiated atmosphere models based on the calculations of [@BHA01], computed for different levels of stellar irradiation relevant to the present study. For planets with a finite orbital eccentricity, the mean stellar flux received is given by: $$\\label{finc}\n<F_{\\mathrm{inc}}> =f\\, R_\\star^2\\  \\sigma  T_{\\mathrm{eff},\\star}^4<\\frac{1}{r^2} >= f\\,\\left( \\frac{R_\\star}{a } \\right)^2 \\frac{\\sigma T_{\\mathrm{eff},\\star}^4}{\\sqrt{1-e^2}}\\,,$$ where $\\Rs$ and $T_{\\mathrm{eff},\\star}$ are the stellar radius and effective temperature, $\\sigma$ the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, $a$ and $e$ the orbital semi-major axis and eccentricity and $f$ is a geometrical factor (substituting $f$ by 1 in Eq.\\[finc\\] gives the mean flux received at the substellar point). The atmospheric models were computed with $f=1/2$ as described by @BHA01.\n\nTidal Model {#sec:tidalmodel}\n-----------\n\nWe consider the gravitational tides raised by both the host star and the planet on each other and follow the traditional \u201cviscous\u201d approach of the [*equilibrium tide*]{} theory [@Dar08]. The secular evolution of the semi-major axis $a$ can be calculated exactly (e.g. @Hut81; @NL97; @LCC07; @CL10; see appendix \\[appendix\\] for the derivation of these equations for any value of the eccentricity and obliquity) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{a}\\frac{\\dd a}{\\dd t}=\\frac{4\\,a}{GM_{\\star}\\Mp}\n&\\Big\\{&\\Kp&\\left[N(e)\\,x_\\mathrm{p}\\,\n\\frac{\\op}{n}-N_a(e)\\right]  \\nonumber\\\\\n&+& \\Ks&\\left[N(e)\\,x_\\star\\,\n\\frac{\\os}{n}-N_a(e)\\right]\\Big\\}\\ , \\quad\n\\label{evol_a}\\end{aligned}$$ with $$\\label{n_e}\nN(e) = \\frac{1+\\frac{15}{2}e^2+\\frac{45}{8}e^4+\\frac{5}{16}e^6}{(1-e^2)^{6}}$$ and $$\\label{na_e}\nN_a(e)=\\frac{1+\\frac{31}{2}e^2+\\frac{255}{8}e^4+\\frac{185}{16}e^6+\\frac{25}{64}e^8}{(1-e^2)^{15/2}},$$ where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $\\op$ is the planet\u2019s rotation rate, $\\Mp$ and $\\Rp$ its mass and radius, $\\ep$ its obliquity (the angle between the equatorial and orbital planes), with $x_\\mathrm{p}=\\cos\n\\ep$, and $n$ the orbital mean motion. $$\\Kp = \\frac{3}{2} \\kp \\dtp  \\left( \\frac{G\n\\Mp^2}{\\Rp} \\right) \\left(\\frac{\\Ms}{\\Mp} \\right)^2 \\left( \\frac{\\Rp}{a}\n\\right)^6 n^2 \\ ,$$ where $\\kp$ and $\\dtp$ are the potential Love number of degree 2 and the constant time lag for the planet. The stellar parameters correspond to the same definitions, by simply switching the p and $\\star$ indices. Similarly, the secular evolution of the eccentricity is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{e}\\frac{\\dd e}{\\dd t}=11\\frac{a}{GM_{\\star}\\Mp}\n&\\Big\\{&\\Kp&\\left[\\Omega_e(e)\\,x_\\mathrm{p}\\,\n\\frac{\\op}{n}-\\frac{18}{11}N_e(e)\\right]  \\nonumber\\\\\n&+& \\Ks&\\left[\\Omega_e(e)\\,x_\\star\\,\n\\frac{\\os}{n}-\\frac{18}{11}N_e(e)\\right]\\Big\\}\\ , \\quad\n\\label{evol_e}\\end{aligned}$$ with $$\\label{omega_e_e}\n\\Omega_e(e) =\\frac{1+\\frac{3}{2}e^2+\\frac{1}{8}e^4}{(1-e^2)^{5}}$$ and $$\\label{ne_e}\nN_e(e)=\\frac{1+\\frac{15}{4}e^2+\\frac{15}{8}e^4+\\frac{5}{64}e^6}{(1-e^2)^{13/2}}.$$ The terms proportional to $\\Kp$ (resp. $\\Ks$) are due to the tides raised by the star (planet) on the planet (star). Finally, the evolution of the rotational state of each object $i$ ($i$ being $p$ or $\\star$) is given by: $$\\frac{\\dd C_\\ii\\omega_\\ii}{\\dd t}=-\\frac{K_\\ii}{n}\n \\left[\\left(1+x_\\ii^2\\right)\\Omega(e)\\frac{\\omega_\\ii}{n}-2x_\\ii\\,N(e)\n \\right] \\ ,\n\\label{rot_tidal}$$ while the evolution of the obliquity obeys the equation $$\\frac{\\dd \\varepsilon_\\ii}{\\dd t}=\\sin \\varepsilon_\\ii \\frac{K_\\ii}{C_\\ii \\omega_\\ii\\,n}\n  \\left[(x_\\ii-\\eta_\\ii)\\,\\Omega(e) \\frac{\\omega_\\ii}{n}- 2\\,N(e) \\right] \\ , \\label{rot_tidal2}$$ where $C_\\ii$ is the principal moment of inertia of the deformable body under consideration, $\\eta_\\ii$ is the ratio of rotational over orbital angular momentum $$\\eta_\\ii=\\frac{\\Mp+\\Ms}{\\Mp\\Ms} \\frac{C_\\ii \\omega_\\ii}{a^2n \\sqrt{1-e^2}},$$ and $$\\label{omega_e}\n\\Omega(e) = \\frac{1+3e^2+\\frac{3}{8}e^4}{(1-e^2)^{9/2}}.$$ Up to this point, no assumption has been made on the objects themselves. As a result, Eqs.(\\[evol\\_a\\])-(\\[rot\\_tidal2\\]) are fully symmetric in p and $\\star$ indices and can be used directly to model binary stars or a planet-satellite system. For typical HD 209458b-like parameters and $\\Delta t$-values comparable to that inferred for Jupiter (see \u00a7\\[sec:q\\]), the planetary spin evolves to a coplanar ($\\ep=0$) state with the equilibrium rotation rate value (setting $ \\dd \\op / \\dd t = 0$) $$\\omega_{\\mathrm{eq}}=\\frac{N(e)}{\\Omega(e)}\\frac{2x}{1+x^2}\\,n= \\frac{N(e)}{\\Omega(e)}\\,n\\,,\n\\label{rot_eq}$$ within a time scale $\\tau=C_\\mathrm{p}\\,n^2/\\Kp \\sim 10^5$\u00a0yr. Since the age of the known transiting systems ranges from a few Myr to Gyr, we can safely assume that the planet is now in this state of pseudo synchronization. The evolution of the orbital parameters of the planet-star systems is thus fully defined by the system of differential equations, to be solved consistently, given by Eqs.(\\[evol\\_a\\]) and (\\[evol\\_e\\]) for $a$ and $e$, Eqs.(\\[rot\\_tidal\\]) and (\\[rot\\_tidal2\\]) for the stellar rotation and $\\ep=0$, $\\op=\\omega_{\\mathrm{eq}}$. The rate of tidal dissipation within the [*planet*]{} in this state of pseudo synchronization reads [@Hut81; @LCC07] $$\\dot{E}_{\\mathrm{tides}}=\n2\\Kp\\left[N_a(e)-\\frac{N^2(e)}{\\Omega(e)} \\right] \\ ;\\ \\ (\\op=\\omega_{\\mathrm{eq}})\\ .\n\\label{tidal_energy}$$ The dissipated heat is deposited over the whole planet\u2019s interior.\n\nOne can see from Eq.(\\[appendtidalnrj2\\]) in Appendix \\[appendix\\] that Eq.(\\[tidal\\_energy\\]) is a special case of energy dissipation for a body in pseudo synchronous rotation as expected for fluid objects ($\\ep=0$, $\\op=\\omega_{\\mathrm{eq}}$). For a rocky planet, the external gravitational potential created by its permanent quadrupole moment can cause its locking into synchronous rotation ($\\op=n$) and the dissipation rate reads in that case $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\dot{E}_{\\mathrm{tides}}&=&\\,2\\,\\Kp\\ \\times\\ &\\nonumber\\\\  \n&\\times&\\Bigg[N_a(e)-2&N(e)\\,x_\\mathrm{p}+\\left(\\frac{1+x_\\mathrm{p}^2}{2}\\right)\\Omega(e)\\Bigg] ;\\ (\\op=n)\\ .\\end{aligned}$$ This equation fully agrees with Eq.(30) of @Wis08 who calculated it for a homogeneous, incompressible with a radial displacement Love number $h_2 =5k_2/3$. Note that our derivation does not require such an hypothesis and all the uncertainties in the radial distribution of material and its physical properties (e.g., density, compressibility, elasticity) are lumped into the $k_2$ parameter [@Lev08].\n\nRelationship between the time lag $\\Delta t$ and the quality factor ($Q$) {#sec:q}\n=========================================================================\n\nThe aforedescribed tidal model, which leads to [*exact*]{} tidal evolution equations in the viscous approximation, implies a [*constant time lag*]{} $\\Delta t$. Neither the tidal quality factor ($Q$), or its counterpart, the phase lag ($\\epsilon$) [@Gol63; @GS66] enter the dynamical evolution equations. Instead, the model is characterized by the time lag between the maximum of the tidal potential and the tidal bulge in each body, $\\Delta t_\\ii$, considered to be constant during the evolution. As shown e.g. by @Dar08 (see also @Gre09), this model is equivalent to considering a body whose rheology entails $Q^{-1}(\\sigma)\\approx \\epsilon(\\sigma)\\propto \\sigma$, where $\\sigma/2\\pi$ is the frequency of the tidal forcing. The actual rheology of giant gaseous planets being poorly constrained, this arbitrary choice based on the visco-elastic model has the advantages of (i) not introducing any discontinuity for vanishing tidal frequencies, as is the case for synchronous rotation, and (ii) to allow for a complete calculation of the tidal effect [*without any assumption on the eccentricity*]{} for an ideal viscoelastic body.\n\nIndeed, as shown by @Gre09, the frequency dependence of the phase lag of a perfect viscoelastic oscillator is given by $$\\tan (\\epsilon)=\\frac{\\sigma}{\\tau (\\omega_0^2-\\sigma^2)}$$ where $\\tau$ is a viscous damping timescale and $\\omega_0$ the natural frequency of the oscillator. In an incompressible gaseous body, the restoring force acting against the tidal deformation is the self gravity of the body. Thus $\\omega_0$ can be estimated through the free-fall time as $2\\pi/\\omega_0\\approx\\frac{1}{4}\\sqrt{\\frac{3\\pi}{2\\,G\\bar{\\rho}}}\\approx 30$ minutes for Jupiter mean density. For tidal periods of several days $\\omega_0\\gg\\sigma$, and for weakly viscous fluid, the phase lag reads $$\\epsilon(\\sigma)\\approx\\frac{\\sigma}{\\tau\\, \\omega_0^2}\\equiv\\,\\sigma\\, \\Delta t$$ which is the frequency dependence corresponding to the constant time lag model.\n\nOn the contrary, constant-$Q$ models described by @GS66, @JGB08, @FRH08 were derived using perturbative developments of Kepler equations of motion both in eccentricity and inclination. Such Fourier decomposition is in fact necessary in an \u201clag and add\u201d approach with a given frequency dependence of the phase lag ($\\epsilon(\\sigma)$). Indeed, in this approach, one must first separate the forcing potential in terms with a defined frequency before lagging them with the chosen $\\epsilon(\\sigma)$ (See @FRH08 [@Gre09]). As a result they can only be used in the $e\\ll1$ and $\\varepsilon_\\ii\\ll1$ limit.\n\nThe time lag $\\Delta t$ can be linked to the reduced quality factor $Q'\\equiv 3Q/2k_2$, chosen so that $Q'=Q$ for an homogeneous sphere ($k_2=3/2$). Indeed, one must remember that the [*phase lag*]{}, $\\epsilon(\\sigma)$, induced by the tidal dissipative effects, is twice the geometrical lag angle, $\\delta(\\sigma)$, between the maximum of the deforming potential and the tidal bulge: $\\epsilon(\\sigma)=2\\delta(\\sigma)=\\sigma\\Delta t $. Moreover, for an incompressible body, a reasonable assumption for giant planets, the tidal dissipation function is given by [@Gol63; @EW09]: $$Q^{-1}(\\sigma)=-\\frac{\\Delta_{\\mathrm{cycle}} E(\\sigma)}{2\\pi E_{\\mathrm{peak}}(\\sigma)}=\\frac{\\tan\\epsilon(\\sigma)}{1-(\\frac{\\pi}{2}-\\epsilon(\\sigma))\\tan\\epsilon(\\sigma)},\n\\label{Qfunc}$$ where $\\Delta_{\\mathrm{cycle}}E(\\sigma)$ is the energy dissipated by the body at the frequency $\\sigma$ during one tidal period and $E_{\\mathrm{peak}}(\\sigma)$ the maximum energy stored in the perturbation. In the cases of interest in the present study, where $Q\\gg1$, and for non-synchronized circular orbits, semi-diurnal tides dominate and one can equal the average tidal quality factor to the one given by Eq.(\\[Qfunc\\]) for the relevant frequency $$\\label{QforJ}\nQ'^{-1}\\approx \\frac{4}{3} k_2\\Delta t |\\omega-n|.$$ This formula can be used to estimate the quality factor in the case of the jovian planets as long as semi-diurnal tides dominate. As the planet tends toward synchronization, the dissipative effects of the semi diurnal tides ($\\sigma=2|\\op-~n|$) vanish with their frequency. Then, the most dissipative tides are the eccentric annual tides ($\\sigma=n$) and $$\\label{QforExo}\nQ_{\\mathrm{p}}'^{-1}\\approx \\frac{2}{3}k_2\\Delta t\\, n.$$ Apart from these two limit cases, no tidal frequency dominates, and the dissipation is the response of the body to the rich spectrum of exciting tidal frequencies. Thus no simple relation exists between $Q'$ and $\\Delta t$ in the general case.\n\nAlthough it is tempting to use Eq.(\\[QforExo\\]) to rewrite the tidal equation and to keep $Q'$ constant instead of $\\Delta t$ as done by, for example, @ML02, @DLM04 and @BO09, one must keep in mind that this procedure is not equivalent either to the constant phase lag (i.e. constant $Q$) or time lag model. Indeed the frequency dependence of the phase lag is given by $\\epsilon(\\sigma)=\\sigma/(nQ)$ and is still proportional to the tidal frequency over an orbit as in the constant time lag model, but with a slope that is changing during the evolution.\n\nIn \u00a7\\[sec:2ndOrder\\] and \u00a7\\[sec:comp\\], we compare the constant time lag model with the constant $Q'$ model used by various authors. In order to allow a direct and immediate comparison with these studies, we will choose the values of the couple $(\\dtp,\\dts)$ from the relations $(k_2\\dtp=\\frac{3}{2 n_{\\mathrm{obs}} \\qp} ,k_2\\dts=\\frac{3}{2 n_{\\mathrm{obs}} \\qs} )$, where $(\\qp,\\qs)$ are the *constant* normalized quality factors used by @MFJ09. This ensures that the effective tidal dissipation function is the same in both calculations for a given planet with its measured orbital parameters.\n\nIn order to use the constant *time lag* model, we must consider many values for $\\Delta t$. To constrain this parameter, we follow the analysis of @GS66 and use the Io-Jupiter system to infer an upper limit for $\\kp\\times\\dtp$ in giant extrasolar planets. Since Jupiter is rapidly rotating, with $\\omega_{\\mathrm{J}}>n$ (hereafter, J indices refer to the value for Jupiter), where $n$ is the orbital mean motion of Jupiter\u2019s satellites, tidal transfer of angular momentum drives the satellites of Jupiter [*outwards*]{}, into expanding orbits. Therefore, the presence of Io in a close orbit provides an upper limit for the time lag in Jupiter. Indeed, if $\\dtp$ was too large, the backward evolution of the satellites orbits would imply their disappearance within less time than the age of the Solar system, i.e. of Jupiter. For coplanar and circular orbits, a dimensionless version of Eq.(\\[evol\\_a\\]) reads: $$\\label{adotozero}\n\\dot{\\tilde{a}}=- \\frac{1}{\\tilde{a}^7}\\left[1 -\\frac{\\os}{n}\\right],$$ where $\\tilde{a}=a/a_0$, 0 indices refer to initial values and time is counted in units of $$\\tau = \\frac{1}{6} \\frac{\\Mp^2}{M_\\mathrm{S}(M_\\mathrm{S}+\\Mp)}(\\frac{a_0}{\\Rp})^8 \\frac{\\Rp^3}{G\\Mp \\kp\\dtp},$$ where $M_\\mathrm{S}$ is the satellite mass. $\\tau$ is the typical timescale of tidal evolution of the semi-major axis. Injecting angular momentum conservation $$J_\\mathrm{tot}=\\frac{\\Mp M_\\mathrm{S}}{\\Mp+M_\\mathrm{S}} a^2n +\\sum_\\ii C_\\ii \\omega_\\ii$$ into Eq.(\\[adotozero\\]), and integrating over time yields $$\\label{exactsole0}\n\\int_1^{\\frac{a(t)}{a_0}} \\frac{-\\tilde{a}^7 \\dd \\tilde{a}}{1 -\\tilde{a}^{3/2}[\\frac{\\omega_{\\mathrm{p},0}}{n_0}-\\beta(\\sqrt{\\tilde{a}}-1)]}=\\frac{t}{\\tau},$$ where $\\beta =(M_\\mathrm{S}\\Mp a_0^2)/((\\Mp+M_\\mathrm{S})C_\\mathrm{p})$. Note that this integral cannot be performed down to $a=0$ because the satellite first crosses the corotation radius where the integrand tends to infinity, which is an unstable equilibrium state for the system [@Hut80]. Furthermore, this result is not limited to the case of a planet-satellite system and can be directly used to compute the inspiral time of a close-in exoplanet (setting p$\\,\\rightarrow\\star$ and S$\\,\\rightarrow\\,$p).\n\nFor the Io-Jupiter system, taking $t=-4.5\\,\\times10^9$yr and $a(t)$ equal to the Roche limit in Eq.(\\[exactsole0\\]) yields $k_\\mathrm{J}\\Delta t_\\mathrm{J}\\lesssim5\\times 10^{-3}$s. Therefore, for the actual Io-Jupiter system, Eq.(\\[QforJ\\]) implies $Q'_\\mathrm{J}\\gtrsim 1\\times10^6$, slightly smaller than the value derived by @GS66. As discussed by these authors, our upper limit on $\\dtp$ must be multiplied by a factor 5 to 7.5, as Io might have been trapped in a low order commensurability with Europa and Ganymede during part of its evolution, slowing down the expansion of its orbit. This roughly yields $$k_\\mathrm{J}\\Delta t_\\mathrm{J}\\lesssim2-3\\times 10^{-2}\\,\\mathrm{s}.$$\n\nFor sake of easy comparison, we will refer to the quantity $Q'_0$, which is the reduced quality factor computed for a reference period of 1 day: $$Q'_0=\\frac{3}{2}\\frac{Q(2\\pi/1\\,\\mathrm{day})}{k_2}=\\frac{3}{2}\\frac{1\\,\\mathrm{day}}{2\\pi\\, k_2 \\Delta t}.$$ The above calculated constraint reads $Q'_{0,\\mathrm{p}}\\gtrsim 1\\times10^6$. In the present calculations, we will examine two cases for the planet under consideration, namely $Q'_{0,\\mathrm{p}}=10^6$ and $Q'_{0,\\mathrm{p}}=10^7$ ($\\kp\\dtp\\sim2\\times10^{-2}-2\\times10^{-3}$), while taking $Q'_{0,\\star}$ in the range $10^5-10^6$ ($\\ks\\dts\\sim2\\times10^{-1}-2\\times10^{-2}$), a typical value for solar-type stars [@OL07].\n\nIt is important to stress that, if $\\Delta t$, or its counterpart $Q$, is poorly known for both planets and stars, its variability from one object or configuration to another is even more uncertain. For instance, tidal dissipation in planets probably differs significantly from the one in brown dwarfs because of the presence of a dense core able to excite inertial waves in the convective envelope [@GL09]. Given the highly non-linear behavior of tidal dissipation mechanisms, the effective tidal dissipation function varies not only with the structure of the object or with the tidal frequency but also with the amplitude of the tidal potential. For example, $\\qs$ values inferred from the circularization of close FGK binary stars [@MM05], may be lower than the actual $\\qs$ encountered in star-planet systems [@OL07]. Consequently, the range of values considered here for both $\\qs$ and $\\qp$ should be seen as mean values and be re-evaluated when considering specific and/or atypical systems (XO-3, HAT-P-2 or CoRoT-Exo-3 for example).\n\nEffect of the truncation of the tidal equations to $\\mathbf{2^{\\mathrm{nd}}}$ order in $\\mathbf{e}$: Analytical analysis.  {#sec:2ndOrder}\n==========================================================================================================================\n\nFollowing the initial studies of @JGB08, all the studies exploring the effect of tidal heating on the internal evolution of \u201chot jupiters\u201d (@MFJ09, @ISB09) have been using a tidal model assuming a constant $Q$ value during the evolution. Moreover, in all these calculations, the tidal evolution equations are truncated at the second order in eccentricity (hereafter referred to as the \u201c$e^2$ model\u201d), even when considering tidal evolution sequences with non-negligible values of $e$ at earlier stages of evolution. Although such a $e^2$-truncated model is justified for planets and satellites in the solar system [@Kau63; @GS66], it becomes invalid, and thus yields incorrect results for $a(t)$, $e(t)$ and $\\dot{E}_{\\mathrm{tides}}$ for finite eccentricity values. The main argument claimed for using such a simple tidal model is the large uncertainty on the tidal dissipation processes in astrophysical objects. In particular, as detailed by @Gre09, the linearity of the response to the tidal forcing based on the viscoelastic model may not hold in a real object for the large spectrum of exciting frequencies encountered when computing high order terms in the eccentricity. Although the large uncertainty in the dissipative processes certainly precludes an exact determination of the tidal evolution, it can by no means justify calculations which are neglecting dominant terms at finite $e$.\n\nIndeed, from a dimensional point of view and prior to any particular tidal model, the strong impact of high order terms in the eccentricity is simply due to the fact that the tidal torque ($\\mathbf{N}$) is proportional to $(\\omega-\\dot{\\theta})/r^{6}$ ($\\theta$ being the true anomaly) and that over a keplerian orbit, the average work done by the torque is of the form $$<\\mathbf{N}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\dot{\\theta}}>\\,\\propto\\,<\\frac{\\dot{\\theta}^2}{r^6}>=\\frac{n^2}{a^6}\\cdot\\frac{1+14e^2+\\frac{105}{4}e^4+\\frac{35}{4}e^6+\\frac{35}{128}e^8}{(1-e^2)^{15/2}},$$ which is a rapidly increasing function of $e$ (see Appendix \\[appendix\\] for the details of the calculation). This means that, although the mean distance between the planet and the star increases with $e$, the distance at the periapsis strongly [*decreases*]{}, and most of the work due to the tidal forces occurs at this point of the orbit. One can see that for $e>0.32$ the high order terms dominate the constant and $e^2$ terms. This is a physical evidence that shows that for moderate to large eccentricity, most of the tidal effects are contained in the high order terms that can therefore not be neglected independently of any tidal model.\n\nIn this section we quantify more comprehensively this statement. We will demonstrate analytically that:\n\n-   in the context of the Hut model, a truncation of the tidal equations at the order $e^2$ can lead not only to quantitatively wrong but to [*qualititatively*]{} wrong tidal evolution histories, with sequences drastically differing from the ones obtained with the complete solution.\n\n-   the rate of tidal dissipation can be severely underestimated by the quasi circular approximation ($e\\ll1$).\n\nFurthermore, $Q$-constant models consider only low order terms in obliquity ($\\varepsilon_\\ii$), and thus cannot address the problem of obliquity tides and energy dissipation produced by this mechanism. A detailed discussion on this subject is presented in @LCC07 and @BO09 and will not be reproduced here.\n\nExpanding vs shrinking orbits\n-----------------------------\n\nOn one hand, considering Eq.(\\[evol\\_a\\]) (with $\\varepsilon=0$ for simplification) we can see that, for $\\omega_\\ii/n\\leqslant N_a(e)/N(e)$, the tides raised on the body $i$ lead to a decrease of the semi-major axis, transferring the angular momentum from the orbit to the body\u2019s internal rotation. It is easy to show that for a synchronous planet this condition is always fulfilled, since $\\frac{\\omega_\\mathrm{eq}}{n}=\\frac{N(e)}{\\Omega(e)}\\leqslant\\frac{N_a(e)}{N(e)}$ for any eccentricity (respectively solid and dashed curves of Fig.\\[fig:phasespace\\]a). As a result, the semi-major axis of most short period planets is decreasing.\n\n\\\n\nOn the other hand, truncating Eq.(\\[evol\\_a\\]) at the order $e^2$ for the semi-major axis evolution yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{a}\\frac{\\dd a}{\\dd t}=\\frac{4\\,a}{GM_{\\star}M_p}\n&\\Big\\{&\\Kp&\\left[(1+\\frac{27}{2}e^2)\n\\frac{\\op}{n}-(1+23\\,e^2)\\right]  \\nonumber\\\\\n&+& \\Ks&\\left[(1+\\frac{27}{2}e^2)\n\\frac{\\os}{n}-(1+23\\,e^2)\\right]\\Big\\}\\ .\n\\label{evol_ae2}\\end{aligned}$$ and the previous condition becomes $\\omega_\\ii/n\\leqslant(1+23\\,e^2)/(1+\\frac{27}{2}e^2)$. Up to $2^{\\mathrm{nd}}$ order in eccentricity, the pseudo synchronization angular velocity is given by $\\omega_\\mathrm{eq}=(1+6\\,e^2)n$ [^1]. One can see that $\\omega_\\mathrm{eq}/n=1+6\\,e^2 \\leqslant(1+23\\,e^2)/(1+\\frac{27}{2}e^2)$ only for $$e\\leqslant\\frac{1}{9}\\sqrt{\\frac{7}{2}}\\approx0.208.$$ This means that even for a moderate eccentricity, $e\\sim0.2$, the truncated model predicts that tides raised on a pseudo synchronous planet lead to a *growth* of the semi-major axis instead of a *decrease*, as obtained by the complete model. Therefore, truncating the tidal equations at the order $e^2$ for an eccentricity $e \\geqslant 0.2$ not only predict quantitatively wrong but [*qualitatively*]{} wrong tidal evolutions. The same arguments for the evolution of the eccentricity show that tides raised on a pseudo synchronous planet lead to a *growth* of the eccentricity for $$e\\geqslant \\sqrt{\\frac{7}{66}}\\approx0.326$$ and not to a *decrease*. This is illustrated by Fig.\\[fig:phasespace\\] that shows the pseudo synchronization curve (solid), the $\\dot{a}=0$ curve (dashed) and the $\\dot{e}=0$ curve (dotted) for the full model (top panel) and the truncated one (bottom panel), in the $\\omega/n$ vs $e$ phase space. As demonstrated before, the pseudo synchronization curve crosses the $\\dot{a}=0$ and $\\dot{e}=0$ lines in the $2^{\\mathrm{nd}}$ order model (Fig.\\[fig:phasespace\\]b) whereas it does not when solving the complete Hut equations (Fig.\\[fig:phasespace\\]a). *As a result, with the truncated model, a pseudo synchronized planet can erroneously enter the zone of the phase space where its tides act to increase both the semi-major axis and the eccentricity.* While this behavior is not observed with the constant phase lag model because it assumes that the star is slowly rotating ($\\os/n\\ll1$) and that the planet is near synchronization ($\\op/n\\approx1$) - placing them in the $\\dot{a}<0$ and $\\dot{e}<0$ zone of the phase space - this formal demonstration sets clear limits on the domain of validity of the quasi circular approximation.\n\nUnderestimating tidal heating {#sec:edot_2ndOrder}\n-----------------------------\n\nThe key quantity arising from the coupling between the orbital evolution and the internal cooling history of a planet is the amount of energy dissipated by the tides in the planet\u2019s interior, which may compensate or even dominate its energy losses. As a result, tides raised in an eccentric planet can slow down its contraction [@BLM01; @LBC09; @BCB10] or even lead to a transitory phase of expansion [@MFJ09; @ISB09]. Correctly determining the tidal heating rate is thus a major issue in the evolution of short-period planets. The often used formula is [@Kau63; @PC78; @JGB08] $$\\dot{E}_{\\mathrm{tides}}=\n7\\Kp e^2=\\frac{21}{2}\\frac{\\kp}{Q} \\left( \\frac{G\n\\Ms^2}{\\Rp} \\right) \\left( \\frac{\\Rp}{a} \\right)^6 n e^2\n\\label{tidal_energye2}$$ (the $21\\kp/2Q$ is rewritten $63/4Q'$ in @MFJ09). As already stated by @Wis08, although this formula gives a fair approximation of the tidal dissipation rate for the small eccentricity cases, typical in the solar system, it severely underestimates the tidal heating for moderate and high eccentricities. Fig.\\[fig:edot\\] illustrates the power dissipated in a pseudo synchronized planet as a function of the eccentricity. It shows that for $e\\gtrsim 0.45$, the truncated formula used in @MFJ09 and @ISB09 underestimates the actual tidal dissipation rate *by more than one order of magnitude and by more than a factor $10^3$ for $e\\gtrsim 0.7$*, an eccentricity value often advocated by these authors to explain the highly inflated planets (see \u00a7\\[sec:comp\\]).\n\nFrom a mathematical point of view, the fact that a truncation to $2^{\\mathrm{nd}}$ order in eccentricity yields such discrepancies is due to the presence of $(1-e^2)^{-\\mathrm{15}/2}$ factors in the equations for the tidal dissipation. As already stated by @Wis08, for moderate to large eccentricity, this function is poorly represented by the first terms of its polynomial representation. Indeed, the first terms of the energy dissipation rate are given by: $$\\frac{\\dot{E}_{\\mathrm{tides}}}{7\\Kp e^2}=\n1+\\frac{54 }{7}e^2+\\frac{1133}{28} e^4+\\frac{31845}{224} e^6+\\frac{381909}{896} e^8+O\\left(e^{10}\\right).\n\\label{tidal_energye10}$$ The dissipation rate calculated up to $e^{10}$ is plotted in Fig.\\[fig:edot\\] (dotted curve), where it can be compared with the exact result. It is clear that, *for $e\\gtrsim0.4$, the polynomial developments of the tidal evolution equations must be done to a much higher degree that done in previous studies, or complete calculations such as the ones done in @Hut81 must be used.* The same argument holds for the evolution of the semi-major axis and the eccentricity. Since Eqs.(\\[evol\\_a\\]) and (\\[evol\\_e\\]) also contain $(1-e^2)^{-\\mathrm{p}/2}$ factors, the decrease of $a$ and $e$ is severely underestimated at even moderately large eccentricity when using a $2^{\\mathrm{nd}}$ order truncated expansion in eccentricity.\n\nIn particular, as discussed in the next section, a high eccentricity ($e\\gtrsim 0.6$) cannot be maintained for a few 100 Myr to a few Gyr in a system like HD 209458 in agreement with the results of @MFJ09 (see Fig.\\[fig:xo4\\] below). This is in contrast with @IB09 who find that the radius HD 209458b can be matched and that the system can sustain a significant eccentricity up to the observed epoch. Such discrepancies between these two studies based on the same tidal model may reveal differences in the implementations of the tidal equations, or a difference in the calculation of interior structures or boundary conditions.\n\nEffect of the truncation to $\\mathbf{2^{\\mathrm{nd}}}$ order in $\\mathbf{e}$: Simulation results {#sec:comp}\n================================================================================================\n\nIn this section, we present the comparison of the results of our complete model with the \u201c$e^2$ model\u201d. We have calculated evolutionary tracks of the tidal evolution for various transiting systems, coupling the internal evolution of the object either with our tidal model or with the \u201c$e^2$ model\u201d used in @MFJ09 and @IB09. In order to ensure a consistent comparison with these authors, we directly convert their set of tidal parameters. Since our model assumes a constant time lag, and not a constant $Q'$ value, a history track computed with the $Q'$ \u201c$e^2$ model\u201d with a constant couple ($\\qp,\\,\\qs$) is compared with a history track computed in our model with a constant couple $(k_2\\dtp,\\,k_2\\dts)$ given by $(k_2\\dtp=\\frac{3}{2 n_{\\mathrm{obs}} \\qp} ,\\,k_2\\dts=\\frac{3}{2 n_{\\mathrm{obs}} \\qs} )$ (See \u00a7\\[sec:q\\] and Eq.(\\[QforExo\\])). This ensures that - although our calculations are conducted with a *constant* $\\Delta t$ - the quality factor computed with Eq.(\\[QforExo\\]) in the object at the present time is the same as the one used in the *$Q$ constant* model.\n\nCalculations at low eccentricity\n--------------------------------\n\n\\\n\nWe first compare the results of the two models on a system which has a zero measured eccentricity and is not inflated, namely TrES-1. Such a system does not require a substantial initial eccentricity for its observed properties to be reproduced and thus provides an opportunity to test the quasi circular limit, where the \u201c$e^2$ model\u201d used by @MFJ09 and our model should yield similar results. Fig.\\[fig:tres1\\] illustrates the results of the integration of the coupled internal/orbital evolution equations with our constant time lag model (solid curve) and with the \u201c$e^2$ model\u201d (dashed curve) for an initial eccentricity of 0.07. As expected, in this low eccentricity limit both models yield very similar tracks: the eccentricity is damped to zero in a few Gyr and the semi-major axis decreases until the planet reaches the Roche limit and merges with the star, because the system does not have enough angular momentum to reach a stable equilibrium [@Hut80; @LWC09]. In this case, tidal heating is not sufficient to significantly affect the radius of the planet which keeps shrinking steadily as it cools. Note, however, that, although the qualitative behavior of the evolution is the same, the hypothesis made on the rheology of the body can influence the age at which the merging occurs.\n\nCalculations at high eccentricity {#sec:comp2}\n---------------------------------\n\n\\\n\nIn the moderately to highly eccentric regime, the tidal dissipation rate can no longer be approximated by Eq.(\\[tidal\\_energye2\\]) (see \u00a7\\[sec:edot\\_2ndOrder\\]). Instead, Eq.(\\[tidal\\_energy\\]) must be used and yields - as shown by Fig.\\[fig:edot\\] - a much more important dissipation rate. As a result, tidal evolution takes place on a much shorter time scale, and both the eccentricity damping and the merging with the star occur earlier in the evolution of the planet. For illustration, Fig.\\[fig:xo4\\] portrays the possible thermal/tidal evolution (for given initial conditions) for XO-4b (thin black curves) and HD 209458b (thick blue curves) computed with the \u201c$e^2$ model\u201d (dashed) and with our model (solid). The dashed curves are similar to the ones displayed in Fig.8 and 10 of @MFJ09. As mentioned above and illustrated in Fig.\\[fig:xo4\\]d, the energy dissipation is much larger when fully accounting for the large eccentricity. The evolution of the planet can exhibit two different general behaviors:\n\n-   The planet first undergoes a phase of contraction and rapid cooling before the tidal heating due to the large initial eccentricity starts to dominate the energy balance of the object, leading to a phase of radius inflation (as shown by Fig.\\[fig:coupling\\] for a test case).\n\n    This speeds up the damping of the eccentricity and the decrease of the semi-major axis, since $\\dot{a}$ and $\\dot{e}\\propto \\Rp^5$. When the eccentricity becomes small enough, a \u201cstandard\u201d contraction phase begins and lasts until the planet merges with the star (due to [*stellar*]{} tides; @LWC09) or - if enough angular momentum is present in the system - until both tidal and thermal equilibria are achieved. Such a behavior has already been identified by @MFJ09 and @IB09 but, because these authors use truncated tidal equations, they find that a large eccentricity can be maintained for a few Gyr and keep inflating the planet at a late time, as illustrated on Fig.\\[fig:xo4\\] (dashed curves); whereas it is not the case.\n\n-   In some extreme cases, such as HD 209458, for the initial conditions corresponding to the ones in Fig.\\[fig:xo4\\], the tidal heating can overwhelm the cooling rate of the planet by orders of magnitude and lead to a spectacular inflation of the planet and thus to a rapid merging with the star. This stems from a combination of different effects. First of all, as mentioned above, the expansion of the radius accelerates the tidal evolution and thus the decrease of the orbital distance. Furthermore, the Roche limit ($a_\\mathrm{R}=\\alpha \\Rp \\sqrt[3]{\\Ms / \\Mp}$ where $\\alpha$ is a constant which depends on the structure of the body and is equal to 2.422 for fluid objects) increases with the radius of the planet, extending the merging zone.\n\nAs clearly illustrated by these calculations, using tidal equations truncated at second ($e^2$) order leads to severely erroneous evolutionary tracks for initially moderately ($e\\gtrsim 0.2$) or highly eccentric systems. Indeed, the complete tidal model shows that, for the initial conditions and $Q$ parameter values chosen by @IB09 and @MFJ09, HD 209458b would in fact have disappeared! As mentioned earlier, the use of such a quasi circular approximation cannot be justified by the uncertainty on the quality factor, as the discrepancy in the characteristic evolution timescales can amount to 3 orders of magnitude in some cases, depending on the initial eccentricity. Conversely, trying to infer values for the stellar or planetary tidal quality factors $Q$ from tidal evolution calculations performed with the truncated $e^2$ model will lead to severely inaccurate values.\n\nGlobal view of transiting systems {#sec:global}\n=================================\n\nAs mentioned earlier, tidal heating has been suggested by several authors to explain the anomalously large radius of some giant close-in observed exoplanets. As demonstrated in \u00a7\\[sec:comp\\], the previous calculations, all based on constant-$Q$ models truncated at the order $e^2$ yield inaccurate results when applied to significantly (initial or actual) eccentric orbits - a common situation among detected exoplanetary systems. In this section, we revisit the viability of such a tidal heating mechanism to explain the large observed Hot Jupiters radii with the present complete Hut tidal model. We first examine the properties of the known transiting systems. Then we show that, although indeed providing a possible explanation for some transiting systems, the tidal heating hypothesis fails to explain the radii of extremely bloated planets such as - among others - HD 209458b, TrES-4b, WASP-4b or WASP-12b, in contrast with some previously published results based on truncated tidal models (See \u00a7\\[sec:disc\\]).\n\nIt is now well established that a large number of transiting giant exoplanets are more inflated than predicted by the standard cooling theory of irradiated gaseous giant planets (see @US07 [@BCB10] for reviews). In order to quantify this effect, we have computed the radius predicted by our standard model, described in \u00a7\\[sec:intevolution\\], for the 54 transiting planets detected at the time of the writing of this paper, with $\\Mp>0.3\\mjup$ (about a Saturn mass). We define the *radius excess* as the difference between the observed radius and the one predicted by the model at the estimated age of the system, denominated $R_{\\mathrm{irrad}}$. Results are summarized in Fig.\\[fig:RsurRirrad\\]. The existence of objects below the $R=R_{\\mathrm{irrad}}$ line is a clear signature of the presence of a dense core and/or of the enrichment of the gaseous envelop [@BAC06; @FMB07; @BHB07; @BCB08; @LBC09]. Note that most of the objects significantly below this line are in the $M\\lesssim1\\mjup$ region, and can be explained with a $M_Z/\\Mp \\simgr 0.10$ heavy material enrichment [@BCB08], in good agreement with predictions of the core accretion scenario for planet formation (@BAC06 [@MAB09]). Interestingly enough, all the planet radii in the $R\\lesssim R_{\\mathrm{irrad}}$ region of Fig.\\[fig:RsurRirrad\\] show no significant eccentricity and can be explained by including the presence of a core in their internal structure and an orbital evolution with a low initial eccentricity, independently of the chosen tidal parameters.\n\nAmong the 39 remaining objects, we will focus on the most extremely inflated ones to investigate the validity of the tidal heating hypothesis to explain their abnormally low density, as they provide the most stringent cases to examine the viability of this scenario. For sake of simplicity and to avoid introducing further free parameters in our tidal model, and since our aim is to derive an *upper limit* for the radius that a planet can achieve under the effect of tidal heating, we will not consider the presence of heavy element enrichment in our calculations.\n\nOur calculations proceed as follows:\n\n1.  For each of the systems, a range of initial semi-major axis ($[a_\\mathrm{i,min},a_\\mathrm{i,max}]$) is found by a [*backward integration*]{} of the tidal equations, from present-day observed values.\n\n2.  Evolutionary tracks, coupling consistently the gravothermal evolution of the irradiated planet and the tidal heating source (Eq.(\\[tidal\\_energy\\])), are then computed for $a_\\ii\\in[a_\\mathrm{i,min},a_\\mathrm{i,max}]$ and an initial eccentricity $e_\\ii\\in[0,0.8]$. The plausibility of such initial conditions as a remnant of early planet-disk and/or planet-planet interaction is discussed in @MFJ09. Since total angular momentum is conserved during the tidal evolution, the [*initial spin rate*]{} of the star is calculated by satisfying the equality between the initial and the presently observed value of the system\u2019s total angular momentum. Calculations are performed with $Q'_{0,\\star}=10^5$ and $10^6$ and $Q'_{0,\\mathrm{p}}=10^6$ and $10^7$ (See \u00a7\\[sec:q\\] for a detailed discussion).\n\n3.  For each evolutionary calculation, the departure from a given measured quantity is defined as $\\delta_x(t)=~\\left(\\frac{x(t)-x_\\mathrm{p}}{\\sigma_x}\\right)$, where $x$ refers to $a$, $e$, $\\Rp$, $\\es$ or $\\os$ and $\\sigma_x$ to their measured uncertainty. When no error bar has been measured for the eccentricity and $e=0$ has been assumed in the light curve analysis, we take $\\sigma_e=0.05$. We consider that the evolution accurately reproduces the presently measured data if there is a time interval (compatible with the age of the system) within which *all* the $\\delta_x$\u2019s are smaller than 1, meaning that each one of these parameters agrees with the measured one within 1 $\\sigma$.\n\n\\\n\nFig.\\[fig:aiei\\] portrays a grid of evolution history initial conditions that are found to be consistent with the observed parameters of HD 209458, at the age of the system. As expected, an initially more eccentric system must have a greater initial separation to end up at the same location. This stems from the fact that $|\\dot{a}|$ is a monotonically increasing function of $e$ for a slowly rotating star (as obtained from Eq.(\\[evol\\_a\\]) for $\\op=\\omega_\\mathrm{equ}$ and $\\os/n\\ll1$). Although, for these extremely bloated planets, we do find evolutionary tracks that lead to the presently observed orbital parameters, *none of these solutions can reproduce the presently observed radii*, as illustrated on Fig.\\[fig:hd\\] for the case of HD 209458b. Indeed, the major phase of eccentricity damping, as given by Eq.(\\[evol\\_e\\]) and discussed in \u00a7\\[sec:comp2\\], occurs too early in the evolution, so that a large fraction of the tidal heating energy dissipated in the planet has been radiated away at the age of the system ($\\sim$ a few Gyrs) and can no longer provide enough energy to slow down gravitational contraction. The same behavior is found for other bloated systems such as WASP-12, TrES-4 and WASP-4 whose best evolutionary tracks are shown in Fig.\\[fig:w12\\_t4\\]. For all these systems, although a solution matching the presently observed orbital parameters can be found, tidal dissipation occurs too early to reproduce the present values of the planet radii.\n\n\\\n\nThese results, based on complete tidal evolution calculations, show that the tidal energy dissipated in the planet\u2019s tidal bulges, although providing a viable explanation to the large radius of many short-period planets (such as OGLE-TR-211b shown in Fig.\\[fig:tr211\\]), is not sufficient to explain the radii of the most bloated planets, at the age inferred for these systems. In that case, an extra mechanism, besides tidal heating, must be invoked to solve this puzzling problem. Surface winds driven by the powerful incident stellar flux [@SG02], converting kinetic energy to heat by dissipation within the tidal bulge and thus reaching deep enough layers to affect the planet\u2019s inner isentrope, or inefficient large-scale convection due to a composition gradient [@CB07] could be the other mechanisms to be considered with tidal dissipation to lead eventually to these large planet radii (see @BCB10 for discussion).\n\n\\\n\nDiscussion and conclusion {#sec:disc}\n=========================\n\nIn this paper, we have demonstrated that the quasi-circular approximation ($e\\ll 1$, i.e. tidal equations truncated at the order $e^2$) usually made in tidal calculations of transiting planet systems and valid for our Solar system planets, is not valid for the exoplanetary systems that have - or were born with - an even modestly large ($e\\simgr 0.2$) eccentricity. As shown in \u00a7\\[sec:2ndOrder\\], although the real frequency dependence of the tidal effect remains uncertain, there are dimensional evidences that for eccentric orbits, most of the tidal effect is contained in the high order terms and that truncating the tidal equations at $2^\\mathrm{nd}$ order in eccentricity can overestimate the characteristic timescales of the various orbital parameters by up to three orders of magnitude. Therefore, truncating the tidal equations at the second order can by no means be justified by invoking the large uncertainty in the dissipative processes and their frequency dependence. Therefore, high order tidal equations should be solved to derive reliable results for most of the existing exoplanet transiting systems. This need to solve the complete equations is met by any tidal model. In this context, even though no tidal model can claim describing perfectly a two body evolution, we recall that the Hut model is at least exact in the weak friction viscous approximation (see \u00a7\\[sec:q\\]).\n\nWe have tested our complete tidal model on several inflated planets to find out whether or not tidal heating can explain the large radius of most of the observed transiting systems. Although this mechanism is indeed found to be sufficient to explain moderately bloated planets such as OGLE-TR-211b (see Fig.\\[fig:tr211\\]), we have been *unable* to find evolutionary paths that reproduce both the measured radius and the orbital parameters of HD 209458b, WASP-12b, TrES-4b, and WASP-4b (see Fig.\\[fig:hd\\] and Fig.\\[fig:w12\\_t4\\]) for their inferred age range. The main reason is the early circularization of the orbit of these systems. As demonstrated in the paper, this stems from the non-polynomial terms in eccentricity in the complete tidal equations, which are missing when truncating the equations at small $e$-order. The present results, based on complete tidal equations, show that tidal heating, although providing an important contribution to the planet\u2019s internal heat budget during the evolution, cannot explain [*alone*]{} the observed properties of all exoplanets.\n\nThis is in contrast with some of the conclusions reached in previous studies. Based on truncated tidal models, @IB09 and @ISB09 find evolutionary tracks that match observed parameters for HD 209458b, WASP-12b, and WASP-4b and thus suggest that the tidal heating is the principal cause of the large radii of Hot Jupiters.\n\nThese particular properties of Hot Jupiters, including the extreme cases of the most severely bloated planets, can only be explained if the following explanations/mechanisms occur during the system lifetimes:\n\n-   Early spin up of the star: simulations of the rotational evolution of solar-like stars [@BFA97] show that after the dispersion of the accretion disk, the rotation rate of the contracting star increases due to angular momentum conservation, until magnetic braking takes over. Considering Eq.(\\[evol\\_e\\]), we see that stellar tides act as an eccentricity source if $\\frac{\\os}{n}\\geqslant\\frac{18}{11}\\frac{N_e(e)}{\\Omega_e(e)}$. Investigating whether the duration of this phase lasts long enough and whether the magnitude of this effect is large enough to drive enough eccentricity requires performing consistent star/planet thermal/tidal calculations and will be investigated in a forthcoming paper.\n\n-   Presence of a third body: as proposed by @Mar07, a low mass terrestrial planet can drive the eccentricity of a massive giant planet during up to Gyr timescales. Accurate enough observations are necessary to support or exclude the presence of such low-mass companions.\n\n-   As mentioned earlier, combining tidal heat dissipation with other mechanisms such as surface winds, due to the stellar insolation, dissipating deep enough in the tidal bulges, or layered convection within the planet\u2019s interior may provide the various pieces necessary to completely solve the puzzle.\n\nIn conclusion, the suggestion that tidal heating is the main mechanism responsible to solve the problem of anomalously large short-period planets, as sometimes claimed in the literature, must be reformulated more rigorously: although providing a non-negligible contribution to hot-Jupiter heat content, tidal dissipation does not appear to provide the whole explanation. Further studies are thus necessary to eventually nail down this puzzling issue.\n\nThis work was supported by the Constellation european network MRTN-CT-2006-035890, the french ANR \u201cMagnetic Protostars and Planets\u201d (MAPP) project and the \u201cProgramme National de Plan\u00e9tologie\u201d (PNP) of CNRS/INSU. We acknowledge the use of the *www.exoplanet.eu* database. We thank our referee, J. Fortney, for helpful suggestions.\n\nTidal evolution equations for finite eccentricity and obliquity. {#appendix}\n================================================================\n\nThe present calculation of the tidal evolution equations extends the formulas given in @Hut81 to any obliquity. We consider a system of two deformable bodies of mass $M_1$ and $M_2$. The demonstration follows three main steps. First we compute a vector expression for the tidal force and torque. Second we derive the variation of the rotation rate, obliquity and orbital angular momentum thanks to this expression of the torque and using the *total* angular momentum conservation. Finally the evolution of the semi-major axis and eccentricity are obtained from the expression of the energy dissipated by tides in the deformable body. The total amount of energy dissipated by tides in one of the bodies is a direct product of the calculation.\n\nUp to the quadrupolar terms in the tidal deformation, the mutual interaction of the tidal bulges is negligible and we can consider separately the effects of the tides raised in each body and sum them up at the end of the calculation. Let us consider the effect of the tides raised in a deformable body (say $M_1$, hereafter the primary) in interaction with a point mass (say $M_2$ the secondary). The mass distribution of a deformable body in a quadrupolar tidal potential can be mimicked by a central mass $M_1-2m$ and two point masses at the location of the tidal bulges ($\\mathbf{r_+,\\,r_-}$) of mass $m$ with $\\|\\mathbf{r_+}\\|=\\|\\mathbf{r_-}\\|=R_1$ the radius of the primary and $m=\\frac{1}{2}k_2 M_2\\left(\\frac{R_1}{r}\\right)^3$ where $k_2$ is the love number of degree 2 of the primary and $r$ is the distance between the center of the two objects. Since we consider a *constant* time lag $\\Delta t_1$ between the deforming potential and the tidal deformation in the frame rotating with the primary, $\\mathbf{\\hat{r}_+}=\\mathbf{\\hat{r}}(t-\\Delta t_1)$ ( $\\mathbf{\\hat{r}}$ refers to the unit vector associated to $\\mathbf{r}$) in this frame. Let $\\mathbf{\\dot{\\theta}}$ be the orbital rotation vector collinear to the orbital angular momentum and whose value is the instantaneous variation rate of the true anomaly $\\theta$ of the bodies in their keplerian motion and $\\mathbf{\\omega_1}$ the rotation vector of the primary. Thus, to first order in $\\Delta t_1$, $$\\mathbf{\\hat{r}_+}=\\mathbf{\\hat{r}}(t-\\Delta t_1)\\approx \\mathbf{\\hat{r}}-\\Delta t_1\\,\\mathbf{\\hat{r}}\\times (\\mathbf{\\omega_1}-\\mathbf{\\dot{\\theta}}),$$ the amplitude of the tidal bulges also lags behind the deforming potential and is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nm(t)\\ \\ \\ &=&\\frac{1}{2}k_2 M_2&\\left(\\frac{R_1}{r(t-\\Delta t_1)}\\right)^3 \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\approx &\\frac{1}{2}k_2 M_2&\\left(\\frac{R_1}{r}\\right)^3(1+3\\frac{\\dot{r}}{r}\\Delta t_1) ,\\end{aligned}$$ and the force exerted by this mass distribution on the secondary is $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{tideForce}\n    \\mathbf{F}=-\\ \\frac{GM_1 M_2}{r^2}\\cdot \\mathbf{\\hat{r}} \\ \\ &-&3\\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^7}&\\{1+3\\frac{\\dot{r}}{r}\\Delta t_1\\}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\hat{r}}\\nonumber\\\\\n   &+&3\\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^7}& \\Delta t_1(\\mathbf{\\omega_1}-\\mathbf{\\dot{\\theta}}) \\times \\mathbf{\\hat{r}}.\\end{aligned}$$ Thus the tidal torque reads: $$\\label{torque}\n    \\mathbf{N}=3\\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^6}\\, \\mathbf{\\hat{r}}\\times\\left(\\Delta t_1(\\mathbf{\\omega_1}-\\mathbf{\\dot{\\theta}}) \\times \\mathbf{\\hat{r}}\\right).$$ and the angular momentum conservation yields $$\\label{angcons}\n    \\mathbf{N}=\\mathbf{\\dot{h}}=-\\mathbf{\\dot{L}},$$ where $\\mathbf{h}=\\frac{M_1M_2}{M_1+M_2}na^2\\sqrt{1-e^2}$ is the orbital angular momentum and $\\mathbf{L}=C_1\\omega_1$ the rotational angular momentum of the primary. We can then simply derive the rate of angular velocity variation: $$\\label{comedot}\n\\frac{\\dd}{\\dd t}(C_1\\omega_1)=\\dot{L}=\\mathbf{\\dot{L}}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\hat{L}}=-\\mathbf{N}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\hat{L}}$$ This product can be carried out by projecting in any base. We choose the base defined by $\\mathbf{h}=(0,\\,0,\\,h)$ and $\\mathbf{\\omega_1}=(\\omega_1 \\sin \\varepsilon_1,\\,0,\\,\\omega_1 \\cos \\varepsilon_1)$ where $\\varepsilon_1$ is the obliquity. In this base, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\mathbf{N}=3\\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^6}\\Delta t_1 \\left( \\begin{array}{c} \\omega_1 \\sin \\varepsilon_1 \\sin^2(\\theta+\\psi) \\\\ -\\omega_1\\sin \\varepsilon_1 \\cos(\\theta+\\psi)\\sin(\\theta+\\psi) \\\\ \\omega_1\\cos \\varepsilon_1-\\dot{\\theta} \\end{array}\\right),\n \\end{aligned}$$ where $\\psi$ is the longitude of the periapsis in this base. The precession of the periapsis occurring on a much shorter timescale than the tidal migration, we can average the tidal torque over $\\psi$. This yields: $$\\begin{aligned}\n          \\label{averagetorque}\n    \\mathbf{N}=3\\frac{Gk_2M_2^2R_1^5}{r^6}\\Delta t_1 \\left( \\begin{array}{c} \\frac{1}{2}\\omega_1 \\sin \\varepsilon_1  \\\\ 0 \\\\ \\omega_1\\cos \\varepsilon_1-\\dot{\\theta} \\end{array}\\right).\n \\end{aligned}$$ We can compute the dot product in Eq.(\\[comedot\\]) giving (with $x_1=\\cos \\varepsilon_1$) $$\\label{dcomeg}\n\\frac{\\dd C_1\\omega_1}{\\dd t}=3\\frac{Gk_2 \\Delta t_1 M_2^2R_1^5}{ r^6} \\left(x_1 \\dot{\\theta}-\\left(\\frac{1+x_1^2}{2} \\right) \\omega_1 \\right).$$ The mean rotation rate variation (Eq.(\\[rot\\_tidal\\])) is obtained by averaging over a keplerian orbit using $$r=a\\frac{1-e^2}{1+e\\cos\\theta},$$ $$\\label{average_r6}\n \\frac{1}{T_\\mathrm{orb}}  \\oint_{\\mathrm{orbit}}\\left(\\frac{a}{ r}\\right)^6 \\cdot \\dd t =\\oint_{\\mathrm{orbit}}\\frac{a^6}{\\dot{\\theta} r^6} \\cdot \\dd \\theta =\\Omega(e)$$ and $$\\label{average_thetar6}\n \\frac{1}{T_\\mathrm{orb}}  \\oint_{\\mathrm{orbit}}\\dot{\\theta}\\left(\\frac{a}{ r}\\right)^6 \\cdot \\dd t =n\\,N(e)$$ where $\\dd t=\\dd \\theta/\\dot{\\theta}$, and the angular momentum conservation over one orbit is used to express $\\dot{\\theta}$ with respect to $\\theta$ (see Eq.(\\[omega\\_e\\]) and Eq.(\\[n\\_e\\]) for the definition of $\\Omega(e)$ and $N(e)$). The variation of the obliquity can be obtained with: $$\\dot{x}_1=\\dot{(\\mathbf{\\hat{L}}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\hat{h}})}\\,=\\mathbf{\\dot{\\hat{L}}}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\hat{h}}+\\mathbf{\\hat{L}}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\dot{\\hat{h}}}.$$ Carrying out the differentiation and using Eq.(\\[angcons\\]) yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\dot{x}_1&=&\\frac{(\\mathbf{\\hat{L}}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\hat{h}})(\\mathbf{N}\\cdot\\mathbf{L})}{L^2}-\\frac{(\\mathbf{N}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\hat{h}})}{L}\\nonumber\\\\\n&&-\\frac{(\\mathbf{\\hat{h}}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\hat{L}})(\\mathbf{N}\\cdot\\mathbf{h})}{h^2}+\\frac{(\\mathbf{N}\\cdot\\mathbf{\\hat{L}})}{h}.\\end{aligned}$$ Subsituting Eq.(\\[averagetorque\\]) for $\\mathbf{N}$ we get after simplification $$\\frac{\\dd \\varepsilon_1}{\\dd t}=\\frac{3}{2}\\frac{Gk_2 \\Delta t_1 M_2^2R_1^5}{ r^6} \\sin \\varepsilon_1\\left(\\frac{x_1}{C_1}-2\\frac{\\dot{\\theta}}{C_1\\omega_1}-\\frac{\\omega_1}{h}  \\right).$$ Averaging over an orbit using Eqs.(\\[average\\_r6\\])-(\\[average\\_thetar6\\]) gives Eq.(\\[rot\\_tidal2\\]).\n\nTo obtain the variation of the semi-major axis and eccentricity, we must compute the work done by the tidal force on the secondary: $$< \\dot{E}_\\mathrm{orb}>=\\frac{1}{T_\\mathrm{orb}}  \\oint_{\\mathrm{orbit}}\\mathbf{F}\\cdot \\dd \\mathbf{r},$$ $$< \\dot{E}_\\mathrm{orb}>=\\frac{1}{T_\\mathrm{orb}} \\oint_{\\mathrm{orbit}} (\\,\\dot{r}\\,\\mathrm{F}_r\\,+\\mathbf{N\\cdot\\dot{\\theta}})\\,\\dd t ,$$ where $\\mathrm{F}_{r} $ is the radial component and $\\mathbf{N\\cdot\\dot{\\theta}}$ the normal one. The radial forces in $r^{-2}$ and $r^{-7}$ in Eq.(\\[tideForce\\]) are conservative and do not dissipate energy. The radial part of the work is computed using $$\\dot{r}=an\\frac{e}{\\sqrt{1-e^2}} \\sin \\theta,$$ and thus $$\\label{average_r6rpoint}\n \\frac{1}{T_\\mathrm{orb}}  \\oint_{\\mathrm{orbit}}\\left(\\frac{a}{ r}\\right)^8\\left(\\frac{\\dot r}{ a}\\right)^2 \\cdot \\dd t =\\frac{n^2e^2}{2}\\frac{N_e(e)}{1-e^2}$$ (see Eq.(\\[ne\\_e\\]) for the definition of $N_e(e)$). The normal component can be written $$\\mathbf{N\\cdot\\dot{\\theta}}\\,\\dd t=3Gk_2 \\Delta t_1 M_2^2R_1^5 \\left( \\frac{x_1 \\omega_1 -\\dot{\\theta}}{r^6}\\right)\\dd \\theta.$$ Again, averaging is carried out using Eqs.(\\[average\\_r6\\])-(\\[average\\_thetar6\\]). After integration, $$\\label{appendtidalorbnrj}\n  < \\dot{E}_\\mathrm{orb}>=2K_1\\left[N(e)\\,x_\\mathrm{1}\\,\\frac{\\omega_1}{n} -N_a(e)\\right].$$ The variation of semi-major axis due to the tides raised in the primary (Eq.(\\[evol\\_a\\])) is directly given by $$< \\dot{E}_\\mathrm{orb}>=-\\frac{\\dd}{\\dd t}\\frac{GM_1M_2}{2\\,a}=\\frac{GM_1M_2}{2\\,a^2}\\dot{a}$$ Since the orbital angular momentum is given by $$\\label{orbangmom}\n   h=\\sqrt{G\\frac{M_1^2M_2^2}{M_1+M_2}a(1-e^2)}.$$ the variation of the eccentricity can be obtained by differentiating $h$ with respect to $t$: $$\\label{varorbangmom}\n\\frac{2\\dot{h}}{h}=\\frac{\\dot{a}}{a}-\\frac{2e\\dot{e}}{1-e^2}.$$ Only *total* angular momentum is conserved, then $\\dot{h}=-\\dd(C_1\\omega_1)/\\dd t$ and substituting Eq.(\\[evol\\_a\\]), (\\[rot\\_tidal\\]) and (\\[orbangmom\\]) in (\\[varorbangmom\\]) gives one of the two terms of Eq.(\\[evol\\_e\\]) corresponding to the contribution of one of the two bodies (star or planet) for the evolution of the eccentricity. Finally, the rate of tidal energy dissipation into the primary is $$\\dot{E}_{\\mathrm{tides}}=\\frac{\\dd}{\\dd t}\\frac{GM_1M_2}{2\\,a}-\\omega_1\\frac{\\dd}{\\dd t}(C_1\\omega_1).\n\\label{appendtidalnrj}$$ Thus, substituting Eqs. (\\[dcomeg\\]) and (\\[appendtidalorbnrj\\]) in Eq. (\\[appendtidalnrj\\]) gives $$\\dot{E}_{\\mathrm{tides}}=2K_1\\left[N_a(e)-2N(e)\\,x_\\mathrm{1}\\,\\frac{\\omega_1}{n} +\\left(\\frac{1+x_1^2}{2}\\right)\\Omega(e)\\left(\\frac{\\omega_1}{n}\\right)^2\\right] .\n\\label{appendtidalnrj2}$$ One can see that the dissipated energy is positive for any value of $e$ and $x_1$ as expected [@Hut81], and that it is minimum when the body is pseudo synchronized. Substituting $\\omega_1$ by the pseudo synchronization rate (Eq.(\\[rot\\_eq\\])), Eq. (\\[appendtidalnrj2\\]) simplifies to Eq. (\\[tidal\\_energy\\]) that can be used for a close-in gas-giant exoplanet. For rocky planets locked in synchronous rotation by their permanent quadrupolar mass distribution, the heating rate can be estimated setting $\\omega_1=n$ in Eq. (\\[appendtidalnrj2\\]).\n\n*In fine*, the complete equations taking into account tides in both bodies are obtained by computing the effects of the tides raised in the secondary (given by the same equations with $1\\rightleftarrows2$) and by adding them up to the effects of the tides in the primary.\n\n[^1]: these equations truncated at the order $e^2$ agree with equations in \u00a716 of @FRH08, even though they have been derived with different methods\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Given two $3$-graphs $F$ and $H$, an $F$-covering of $H$ is a collection of copies of $F$ in $H$ such that each vertex of $H$ is contained in at least one copy of them. Let [$c_2(n,F)$]{} be the maximum integer $t$ such that every 3-graph with minimum codegree greater than $t$ has an $F$-covering. In this note, we answer an open problem of Falgas-Ravry and Zhao (SIAM J. Discrete Math., 2016) by determining the exact value of [$c_2(n, K_4^-)$]{} and [$c_2(n, K_5^-)$]{}, where $K_t^-$ is the complete $3$-graph on $t$ vertices with one edge removed.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Lei Yu$^a$, Xinmin Hou$^b$,Yue Ma$^c$, Boyuan Liu$^d$\\\n    $^{a,b,c,d}$ Key Laboratory of Wu Wen-Tsun Mathematics\\\n    School of Mathematical Sciences\\\n    University of Science and Technology of China\\\n    Hefei, Anhui 230026, China.\ntitle: 'Exact minimum codegree thresholds for $K_4^-$-covering and $K_5^-$-covering[^1]'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nGiven a set $V$ and a positive integer $k$, let $\\binom{V}{k}$ be the collection of $k$-element subset of $V$. A [*simple $k$-uniform hypergraph*]{} (or $k$-graph for short) $H=(V,E)$ consists of a vertex set $V$ and an edge set $E\\subseteq\\binom{V}{k}$. We write graph for $2$-graph for short. For a set $S\\subseteq V(H)$, the [*neighbourhood*]{} $N_H(S)$ of $S$ is $\\{T\\subseteq V(H)\\backslash S:T\\cup S\\in E(H)\\}$ and the [*degree*]{} of $S$ is $d_H(S)=|N_H(S)|$. The [*minimum $s$-degree*]{} of $H$, denoted by $\\delta_s(H)$, is the minimum $d_H(S)$ taken over all $s$-element sets of $V(H)$, and $\\delta_{k-1}(H)$ and $\\delta_1(H)$ are usually called the [*minimum codegree*]{} and the [*minimum degree*]{} of $H$, respectively. An $r$-graph $H$ is called an [*$r$-partite $r$-graph*]{} if the vertex set of $H$ can be partitioned into $r$ parts such that each edge of $H$ intersects each part exactly one vertex. Given disjoint sets $V_1, V_2, \\cdots, V_r$, let $K(V_1, V_2, \\ldots, V_r)$ be the complete $r$-partite $r$-graph with vertex classes $V_1, V_2,\\ldots, V_r$.\n\nGiven a $k$-graph $F$, we say a $k$-graph $H$ has an [*$F$-covering*]{} if each vertex of $H$ is contained in some copy of $F$. For $0\\leq i<k$, define $$c_i(n,F)=\\max\\{\\delta_i(H) : H \\text{ is a $k$-graph on $n$ vertices with no } F\\text{-covering}\\}.$$ We call $c_{k-1}(n,F)$ the [*minimum codegree threshold*]{} for $F$-covering.\n\nFor graphs $F$, the $F$-covering problem was solved asymptotically in\u00a0[@Z-PhD16] by showing that $c_1(n,F)=(\\frac{\\chi(F)-2}{\\chi(F)-1}+o(1))n$, where $\\chi(F)$ is the chromatic number of $F$. For general $k$-graphs, the function [$c_i(n, F)$]{} was determined for some special family of $k$-graphs $F$. For example, Han, Lo, and Sanhueza-Matamala\u00a0[@HLS-ENDM17] proved that $c_{k-1}(n,C_s^{(k,k-1)})\\leq (\\frac{1}{2}+o(1))n$ for [$k\\geq3, s\\geq 2k^2$]{}, where $C_s^{(k,\\ell)}$ $(1\\leq \\ell<k)$ is the $k$-graph on $s$ vertices such that its vertices can be ordered cyclicly so that every edge consists of $k$ consecutive vertices under this order and two consecutive edges intersect in exactly $\\ell$ vertices. Han, Zang, and Zhao showed in\u00a0[@HZZ-JCTA17] that $c_1(n,K)=(6-4\\sqrt{2}+o(1))\\binom{n}{2}$, where $K$ is a complete $3$-partite $3$-graph with at least two vertices in each part. In this note, we focus on the minimum codegree threshold for covering $3$-graphs. Let $K_t$ denote the complete $3$-graph on $t$ vertices and let $K_t^-$ denote the $3$-graph obtained from $K_t$ by removing one edge. Falgas-Ravry and Zhao\u00a0[@FZ-SIAM16] determined the exact value of $c_2(n,K_4)$ for $n>98$ and gave lower and upper bounds of $c_2(n, K_4^-)$ and $c_2(n, K_5^-)$. More specifically, they proved the following theorem.\n\n\\[ASY K\\_4\\^-\\] Suppose $n=6m+r$ for some $r\\in \\{0,1,2,3,4,5\\}$ and $m\\in \\mathbb{N}$ with $n\\geq 7$. Then $$c_2(n,K_4^-)=\n\\begin{cases}\n2m-1\\text{ or }2m&\\text{ if } r=0,\\\\\n2m&\\text{ if } r\\in\\{1,2\\},\\\\\n2m\\text{ or }2m+1&\\text{ if } r\\in\\{3,4\\},\\\\\n2m+1&\\text{ if } r=5.\\\\\n\\end{cases}$$\n\n\\[ASY K\\_5\\^-\\] $\\lfloor\\frac{2n-5}{3}\\rfloor\\leq c_2(n,K_5^-)\\leq \\lfloor\\frac{2n-2}{3}\\rfloor$.\n\nFalgas-Ravry and Zhao\u00a0[@FZ-SIAM16] also conjectured that the gap between the upper and lower bounds for $c_2(n,K_4^-)$ could be closed and left this as an open problem.\n\n\\[PROB: p1\\] Determine the exact [value of]{} $c_2(n,K_4^-)$ in the case $n\\equiv 0,3,4 \\pmod 6$.\n\nIn this note, we determine not only the exact value of $c_2(n,K_4^-)$ but also the exact value of $c_2(n, K_5^-)$.\n\n\\[exact K\\_4\\^-\\] $c_2(n,K_4^-)=\\lfloor\\frac{n}{3}\\rfloor$.\n\nThe theorem solved Problem\u00a0\\[PROB: p1\\] completely.\n\n\\[exact K\\_5\\^-\\] $c_2(n,K_5^-)=\\lfloor\\frac{2n-2}{3}\\rfloor$.\n\nThis result completes Theorem\u00a0\\[ASY K\\_5\\^-\\].\n\nThe following are some definitions and notation used in our proofs. For a $k$-graph $H$ and $x\\in V(H)$, the [*link graph*]{} of $x$, denoted by $H(x)$, is the $(k-1)$-graph with [vertex set]{} $V(H)\\setminus\\{x\\}$ and edge set $N_H(x)$. Given a graph $G$ and a positive integer vector ${\\bf k}\\in Z^{V(G)}_+$, the [*${\\bf k}$-blowup*]{} of $G$, denoted by $G^{(\\bf k)}$, is the graph obtained by replacing every vertex $v$ of $G$ with ${\\bf k}(v)$ different vertices where a copy of $u$ is adjacent to a copy of $v$ in the blowup graph if and only if $u$ is adjacent to $v$ in $G$. We call the collection of copies of $v\\in V(G)$ in $G^{(\\bf k)}$ the blowup of $v$. When there is no confusion, we write $ab$ and $abc$ as a shorthand for $\\{a,b\\}$ and $\\{a,b,c\\}$, respectively. Given two $r$-graphs $H$ and $F$, we say $H$ is $F$-free if $H$ contains no subgraph isomorphic to $F$. Given a positive integer $n$, write $[n]$ for the set $\\{1,2, \\ldots, n\\}$.\n\nIn the rest of the note, we give proofs of Theorems\u00a0\\[exact K\\_4\\^-\\] and\u00a0\\[exact K\\_5\\^-\\].\n\nProof of Theorems\u00a0\\[exact K\\_4\\^-\\] and\u00a0\\[exact K\\_5\\^-\\] \n==========================================================\n\nWe will construct extremal 3-graphs for $K_4^-$ and $K_5^-$ with minimum codegree matching the upper bounds in Theorems\u00a0\\[ASY K\\_4\\^-\\] and\u00a0\\[ASY K\\_5\\^-\\], respectively.\n\nProof of Theorem\u00a0\\[exact K\\_4\\^-\\]\n----------------------------------\n\nWe first give an observation, which can be verified directly from the definitions.\n\n\\[OBS: o1\\] Let $H$ be a $3$-graph and $x\\in V(H)$. If $H(x)$ is triangle-free and the subgraph of $H(x)$ induced by an edge $e\\in E(H)$ with $x\\notin e$ is $P_2$-free, then $x$ can not be covered by a $K_4^-$ in $H$, where $P_2$ is a path of length two.\n\nBy Theorem\u00a0\\[ASY K\\_4\\^-\\], to show Theorem\u00a0\\[exact K\\_4\\^-\\], it is sufficient to construct 3-graphs $H$ on $n$ vertices for $n\\equiv 0, 3,4 \\pmod 6$ and with $\\delta_2(H)=\\lfloor \\frac n3\\rfloor$ such that $H$ has no $K_4^-$-covering. We distinguish the proof into three cases. Let $C_6$ be the 6-cycle $v_1v_2v_3v_4v_5v_6v_1$.\n\n[**Construction A:**]{} Let $G_1$ be the graph obtained from $C_6$ and the 5-cycle $123451$ by adding the edges $1v_1, 1v_3, 2v_2, 2v_5, 3v_4, 3v_6, 4v_3, 4v_5, 5v_2, 5v_6$.\n\n[**Construction B:**]{} Let $G_2$ be the graph obtained from $C_6$ and the 8-cycle $123456781$ by adding the edges $1v_1, 1v_3, 2v_2, 2v_6, 3v_1, 3v_5, 4v_3, 4v_6, 5v_2, 5v_4, 6v_3, 6v_5, 7v_4, 7v_6, 8v_2, 8v_5$.\n\n[**Construction C:**]{} Let $G_3$ be the graph obtained from $C_6$ and the 8-cycle $123456781$ by adding a new vertex 9 and the edges $19, 39,79$, $1v_1,1v_3,2v_2,2v_6,3v_1,3v_4,4v_3,4v_5,5v_4$, $5v_6, 6v_1,6v_5,7v_3,7v_6,8v_2,8v_4, 9v_2, 9v_5$.\n\nIt can be checked that $G_1, G_2, G_3$ are triangle-free; therefore, so are the blowups of them.\n\n[**Case $1$.**]{} $n=6m$ for some integer $m\\ge 1$.\n\nDefine a positive integer vector ${\\bf k}_1\\in Z_+^{V(G_1)}$ by ${\\bf k}_1(v_i)=m-1$ for $i\\in [6]$ and ${\\bf k}_1(i)=1$ for $i\\in [5]$.\n\n\\[Construction A:\\] Let $V_1, \\ldots, V_6$ be six disjoint sets of the same size $m-1$ and let $x$ be a specific vertex. Define the 3-graph $H_1$ on vertex set $\\{x\\}\\cup [5]\\cup (\\cup_{i=1}^6V_i)$ such that the following holds:\n\n-   The link graph of $x$, $H_1(x)$, consists of the ${\\bf k}_1$-blowup of $G_1$ by replacing $v_i$ by $V_i$ for $i\\in [6]$ and a perfect matching between $V_1$ and $V_4$.\n\n-   A triple $abc\\in E(H_1)$ if $x\\notin\\{a,b,c\\}$ and the subgraph induced by $\\{a,b,c\\}$ in ${H_1}(x)$ is $P_2$-free.\n\n\\[CLAIM: c1\\] $H_1$ contains no $K_4^-$-covering and $\\delta_2(H_1)=2m=\\lfloor\\frac n3\\rfloor$.\n\n[**Proof of Claim 1.** ]{} By the definition of $G_1$, $v_1$ and $v_4$ have no common neighbor. So by (1) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction A:\\], ${H_1}(x)$ is triangle-free. By (2) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction A:\\], any two incident edges of ${H_1}(x)$ are not contained in one edge of $H_1$. By Observation\u00a0\\[OBS: o1\\], $x$ is contained in no copy of $K_4^-$ in $H_1$. So $H_1$ has no $K_4^-$-covering. By (1) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction A:\\], one can check that ${H_1}(x)$ is $2m$-regular. So $d_{H_1}(x,a)=2m$ for all $a\\in V\\setminus\\{x\\}$. Now we consider the degree of the pair $\\{a,b\\}$ with $x\\notin\\{a,b\\}$. If $ab\\in E({H_1}(x))$, then by (2) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction A:\\], $N_{H_1}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_1}(a,b)=\\emptyset$, $N_{H_1}(x,b)\\cap N_{H_1}(a,b)=\\emptyset$ and $N_{H_1}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_1}(x,b)=\\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\\notin N_{H_1}(x,a)\\cup N_{H_1}(x,b)$, $\\{a,b,c\\}$ forms an edge of $H_1$. So $d_{H_1}(a,b)=6m-2\\times 2m=2m$. If $ab\\notin E({H_1}(x))$ then $x\\notin N_{H_1}(a,b)$. By (2) of the construction of $H_1$, $N_{H_1}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_1}(x,b)\\cap N_{H_1}(a,b)=\\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\\notin (N_{H_1}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_1}(x,b))\\cup\\{x,a,b\\}$, we have $abc\\in E(H_1)$. So $d_{H_1}(a,b)=6m-3-|N_{H_1}(a,x)\\cap N_{H_1}(b,x)|\\ge 4m-3\\ge 2m$ if $m>1$. If $m=1$, then $H_1(x)$ is the 5-cycle $123451$, one can check that $d_{H_1}(a,b)\\ge 2=2m$. Case 1 follows directly from Claim\u00a0\\[CLAIM: c1\\].\n\n[**Case 2:** ]{} $n=6m+3$ for some integer $m\\ge 1$.\n\nDefine a positive integer vector ${\\bf k}_2\\in Z_+^{V(G_2)}$ by ${\\bf k}_2(v_i)=m-1$ for $i\\in [6]$ and ${\\bf k}_2(i)=1$ for $i\\in [8]$.\n\n\\[Construction B:\\] Let $V_1, \\ldots, V_6$ be six disjoint sets of the same size $m-1$ and let $x$ be a specific vertex. Define the 3-graph $H_2$ on vertex set $\\{x\\}\\cup [8]\\cup (\\cup_{i=1}^6V_i)$ such that the following holds:\n\n-   The link graph of $x$, $H_2(x)$, consists of the ${\\bf k}_2$-blowup of $G_2$ by replacing $v_i$ with $V_i$ for $1\\le i\\le 6$, a perfect matching between $V_1$ and $V_4$ and a matching $\\{15, 26, 37, 48\\}$.\n\n-   A triple $abc\\in E(H_2)$ if $x\\notin\\{a,b,c\\}$ and the subgraph induced by $\\{a,b,c\\}$ in ${H_2}(x)$ is $P_2$-free.\n\n\\[CLAIM: c2\\] $H_2$ contains no $K_4^-$-covering and $\\delta_2(H_2)=2m+1=\\lfloor\\frac n3\\rfloor$.\n\n[**Proof of Claim 2.**]{} By the definition of $G_2$, $N_{G_2}(v_1)\\cap N_{G_2}(v_4)=\\emptyset$ and $N_{G_2}(1)\\cap N_{G_2}(5)=N_{G_2}(2)\\cap N_{G_2}(6)=N_{G_2}(3)\\cap N_{G_2}(7)=N_{G_2}(4)\\cap N_{G_2}(8)=\\emptyset$. So by (1) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction B:\\], ${H_2}(x)$ is triangle-free, too; and by (2) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction B:\\], any two incident edges of $H_2(x)$ are not contained in one edge of $H_2$. By Observation\u00a0\\[OBS: o1\\], $x$ is contained in no copy of $K_4^-$ in $H_2$. So $H_2$ has no $K_4^-$-covering. By (1) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction B:\\], ${H_2}(x)$ is $(2m+1)$-regular. So $d_{H_2}(x,a)=2m+1$ for all $a\\in V(H_2)\\setminus\\{x\\}$. Now assume $\\{a,b\\}\\subseteq V(H_2)\\setminus\\{x\\}$. If $ab\\in E({H_2}(x))$, then by (2) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction B:\\], $N_{H_2}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_2}(a,b)=\\emptyset$, $N_{H_2}(x,b)\\cap N_{H_2}(a,b)=\\emptyset$ and $N_{H_2}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_2}(x,b)=\\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\\notin N_{H_2}(x,a)\\cup N_{H_2}(x,b)$, $\\{a,b,c\\}$ forms an edge of $H_2$. So $d_{H_2}(a,b)=6m+3-2 (2m+1)=2m+1$. If $ab\\notin E({H_2}(x))$ then $x\\notin N_{H_2}(a,b)$. By (2) of the construction of $H_2$, $N_{H_2}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_2}(x,b)\\cap N_{H_2}(a,b)=\\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\\notin (N_{H_2}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_2}(x,b))\\cup\\{x,a,b\\}$, $abc\\in E(H_2)$. So we have $d_{H_2}(a,b)=6m+3-3-|N_{H_2}(a,x)\\cap N_{H_2}(b,x)|\\ge 4m-1\\ge  {2m+1}$. Case 2 follows from Claim\u00a0\\[CLAIM: c2\\].\n\n[**Case $3$:**]{} $n=6m+4$ for some integer $m\\ge 1$.\n\nDefine a positive integer vector ${\\bf k}_3\\in Z_+^{V(G_3)}$ by ${\\bf k}_3(v_i)=m-1$ for $i\\in [6]$ and ${\\bf k}_3(i)=1$ for $i\\in [9]$.\n\n\\[Construction C:\\] Let $V_1, \\ldots, V_6$ be six disjoint sets of the same size $m-1$ and let $x$ be a specific vertex. Define a 3-graph $H_3$ on vertex set $\\{x\\}\\cup [9]\\cup (\\cup_{i=1}^6V_i)$ such that the following holds:\n\n-   The link graph of $x$, $H_3(x)$, consists of the ${\\bf k}_3$-blowup of $G_3$ and a matching $\\{15, 26, 48\\}$.\n\n-   A triple $abc\\in E(H_3)$ if $x\\notin \\{a,b,c\\}$ and the subgraph induced by $\\{a,b,c\\}$ in ${H_3}(x)$ is $P_2$-free.\n\n\\[CLAIM: c3\\] $H_3$ contains no $K_4^-$-covering and $\\delta_2(H_3)=2m+1=\\lfloor\\frac n3\\rfloor$.\n\n[**Proof of Claim\u00a0\\[CLAIM: c3\\]:**]{} By (1) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction C:\\], one can check that $H_3(x)$ is triangle-free; and by (2) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction C:\\], any two incident edges of $H_3(x)$ are not contained in one edge of $H_3$. By Observation\u00a0\\[OBS: o1\\], $x$ is contained in no copy of $K_4^-$ in $H_3$. So $H_3$ has no $K_4^-$-covering. By the construction of $H_3(x)$, one can check that $H_3(x)$ is almost $(2m+1)$-regular, i.e. $d_{H_3(x)}(a)=2m+1$ for all vertices $a\\in V(H_3)\\setminus\\{x,1\\}$ and $d_{{H_3}(x)}(1)=2m+2$. So $d_{H_3}(x,a)=2m+1$ for all $a\\in V(H_3)\\setminus\\{x,1\\}$ and $d_{H_3}(x,1)=2m+2$. Now assume $\\{a,b\\}\\subseteq V(H_3)\\setminus\\{x\\}$. If $ab\\in E(H_3(x))$, by (2) of Construction\u00a0\\[Construction C:\\], $N_{H_3}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_3}(a,b)=\\emptyset$, $N_{H_3}(x,b)\\cap N_{H_3}(a,b)=\\emptyset$, and for any $c\\in V(H_3)\\setminus(N_{H_3}(x,a)\\cup N_{H_3}(x,b))$, $\\{a,b,c\\}$ forms an edge of $H_3$. Since $H_3(x)$ is triangle-free, $N_{H_3}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_3}(x,b)=\\emptyset$. If $1\\notin \\{a,b\\}$ then $d_{H_3}(a,b)=|V(H_3)|-|N_{H_3}(x,a)|-| N_{H_3}(x,b)|=6m+4-2(2m+1)=2m+2$. Now assume $1\\in\\{a,b\\}$, say $a=1$. Then $d_{H_3}(1,b)=|V(H_3)|-|N_{H_3}(x,1)|-| N_{H_3}(x,b)|=6m+4-(2m+2)-(2m+1)=2m+1$. If $ab\\notin E(H_3(x))$ then $x\\notin N_{H_3}(a,b)$. By (2) of the construction of $H_3$, $N_{H_3}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_3}(x,b)\\cap N_{H_3}(a,b)=\\emptyset$; or equivalently, for any $c\\notin (N_{H_3}(x,a)\\cap N_{H_3}(x,b))\\cup\\{x,a,b\\}$, $abc\\in E(H_3)$. So we have $d_{H_3}(a,b)=6m+4-3-|N_{H_3}(a,x)\\cap N_{H_3}(b,x)|\\ge 4m\\ge 2m+1$. Case 3 follows from Claim\u00a0\\[CLAIM: c3\\].\n\nTheorem\u00a0\\[exact K\\_4\\^-\\] follows from Cases 1,2,3 and Theorem\u00a0\\[ASY K\\_4\\^-\\].\n\nProof of Theorem\u00a0\\[exact K\\_5\\^-\\]\n----------------------------------\n\nThe following theorem is well known in graph theory.\n\n\\[Konig\\] Let $G$ be a bipartite graph with maximum degree $\\Delta$. Then $E(G)$ can be partitioned into $M_1,  M_2, \\ldots, M_{\\Delta}$ so that each $M_i\\  (1\\le i\\le \\Delta)$ is a matching in $G$. In particular, if $G$ is $\\Delta$-regular then $E(G)$ can be partitioned into $\\Delta$ perfect matchings.\n\n\\[cons D\\] Given positive integers $m, \\ell$ with $m\\le \\ell$ and two disjoint sets $V_1, V_2$ with $|V_1|\\le |V_2|=m$, by Theorem\u00a0\\[Konig\\], the edge set of the complete bipartite graph $K(V_1, V_2)$ has a partition $M_1, M_2, \\ldots, M_m$ such that each $M_i$ $(1\\le i\\le m)$ is a matching. Let $T$ be the 3-partite 3-graph with vertex classes $V_1\\cup V_2\\cup [\\ell]$ and edge set $$E(H)=\\bigcup_{i=1}^m\\{ e\\cup\\{i\\} : e\\in M_i\\}.$$\n\nWe first give the extremal 3-graph for $K_5^-$.\n\n\\[Cons E\\] Given a positive integer $m$ and three disjoint sets $V_1, V_2, V_3$ such that $m-1\\le |V_1|\\le |V_2|=m\\le |V_3|\\le m+1$ and $|V_3|-|V_1|\\le 1$, then $3m-1\\le \\sum\\limits_{i=1}^3|V_i|\\le 3m+1$. Denote $V_3=[\\ell]$. Then $\\ell=m$ or $m+1$. Let $T$ be the 3-partite 3-graph on vertex set $V_1\\cup V_2\\cup V_3$ defined by Construction\u00a0\\[cons D\\]. Let $x$ be [a specific]{} vertex not in $V_1\\cup V_2\\cup V_3$. Define the 3-graph $H_4$ on vertex set $V_1\\cup V_2\\cup V_3\\cup\\{x\\}$ such that the following holds.\n\n\\(1) The link graph of $x$, $H_4(x)$, consists of three complete bipartite graphs $K(V_1, V_2)$, $K(V_1, V_3)$ and $K(V_2, V_3)$.\n\n\\(2) Each triple $e\\notin E(K(V_1, V_2, V_3))$ is an edge of $H_4$.\n\n\\(3) $E(T)\\subseteq E(H_4)$.\n\nLet $n=|V(H_4)|$. Then $3m\\le n\\le 3m+2$.\n\n\\[Claim: 1.4\\] $H_4$ has no $K_5^-$-covering and $\\delta_2(H)\\ge  \\lfloor\\frac{3n-2}{3}\\rfloor$.\n\n[**Proof of Claim\u00a0\\[Claim: 1.4\\]:**]{} We show that $x$ is contained in no copy of $K_5^-$ in $H_4$. Suppose to the contrary that $H_4$ contains a copy of $K_5^-$, say $K$, covering $x$. Denote $V(K)=\\{x,a,b,c,d\\}$. Then there is at least one part $V_i$ $(1\\le i\\le 3)$ such that $|V_i\\cap\\{a,b,c,d\\}|\\ge 2$. By (1) of Construction\u00a0\\[Cons E\\], there is no edge of $H_4$ included in $\\{x\\}\\cup V_i$. So at least one edge connecting $x$ and $\\{a,b,c,d\\}$ misses from $K$. As $K$ is a copy of $K_5^-$, there is exact one edge between $x$ and $\\{a,b,c,d\\}$ missed and so $\\{a,b,c,d\\}$ induces a copy of the complete 3-graph $K_4$ in $H_4$. From Construction\u00a0\\[cons D\\], [$\\Delta_2(T)\\le 1$]{}. By (2) and (3) of Construction\u00a0\\[Cons E\\], each pair of vertices chosen from different parts of $V_1, V_2, V_3$ has at most one neighbor in the remaining part. Thus a putative $K_4$ induced by $\\{a,b,c,d\\}$ intersects at most two parts of $V_1, V_2, V_3$. But this is impossible. In fact, if there is some $1\\le i\\le 3$ such that $a,b,c\\in V_i$, then $xab, xac\\notin E(H_4)$, a contradiction. So assume $a,b\\in V_i$ and $c,d \\in V_j\\ (i\\neq j)$ for some $i,j\\in\\{1,2,3\\}$. Then $xab,xcd\\notin E(H_4)$, a contradiction too.\n\nNow we compute the minimum codegree of $H_4$. Choose two distinct vertices $a,b\\in V(H_4)$. If $x\\in\\{a,b\\}$, assume $x=a$ and $b\\in V_i$, then by (1) of Construction\u00a0\\[Cons E\\], $$d(x,b)=n-1-|V_i|\\geq n-1-\\left\\lceil\\frac{n-1}{3}\\right\\rceil=\\left\\lfloor\\frac{2n-2}{3}\\right\\rfloor.$$ If $a,b\\in V_i$ for some $1\\le i\\le 3$ then, by (2) of Construction\u00a0\\[Cons E\\], $d(a,b)=\\sum\\limits_{i=1}^3|V_i|-2=n-3\\geq\\left\\lfloor\\frac{2n-2}{3}\\right\\rfloor$. If $a\\in V_i, b\\in V_j$ $(i\\not=j)$, then $$d(a,b)=|V_i|+|V_j|-2+1+d_{T}(a,b)\\geq\\left\\lfloor\\frac{2n-2}{3}\\right\\rfloor,$$ where the inequality holds since [$d_T(a,b)=1$ when $\\{i, j\\}=\\{1,2\\}$]{} or [$\\{i,j\\}\\subseteq \\{1,2,3\\}$ and $|V_1|=|V_2|=|V_3|=m$]{}.\n\nThis completes the proof of Claim\u00a0\\[Claim: 1.4\\].\n\nBy Claim\u00a0\\[Claim: 1.4\\], we have $$c_2(n, K_5^-)\\geq \\delta_2(H_4)=\\left\\lfloor\\frac{2n-2}{3}\\right\\rfloor.$$ By Theorem\u00a0\\[ASY K\\_5\\^-\\], we have Theorem\u00a0\\[exact K\\_5\\^-\\].\n\n[99]{}\n\nV. Falgas-Ravry, Y. Zhao, Codegree thresholds for covering $3$-uniform hypergraphs, SIAM J. Discrete Math., 30 (4) (2016), 1899-1917.\n\nJ. Han, A. Lo, N. Sanhueza-Matamala, Covering and tiling hypergraphs with tight cycles, Electron. Notes Discrete Math., 61 (2017), 561-567.\n\nJ. Han, C. Zang, Y. Zhao, Minimum vertex degree thresholds for tiling complete $3$-partite $3$-graphs. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 149 (2017), 115-147.\n\nD. K\u00f6nig, \u00dcber Graphen und ihre Anwendung auf Determinantentheorie und Mengenlehre, Math. Ann., 77 (1916), 453-465.\n\nC. Zang, Matchings and tilings in hypergraphs, PhD thesis, Georgia State University, 2016.\n\n[^1]: The work was supported by NNSF of China (No. 11671376), NSF of Anhui Province (No. 1708085MA18), and Anhui Initiative in Quantum Information Technologies (AHY150200).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The ANTARES project aims to build a deep underwater Cherenkov neutrino telescope in the Mediterranean Sea. Currently the experiment is in the construction phase and has recently achieved two important milestones. The electro-optical cable to shore and the junction box that will distribute power to detector strings and allow data transmission have been deployed at the sea floor. A prototype string and a string for environmental parameter measurement have been deployed, connected to the cable using a manned submarine. Data have been sent to shore. The final ANTARES detector consisting in 12 strings each equipped with 75 photomultiplier tubes is planned to be fully deployed and taking data by the end of 2006.'\n---\n\n[*[Talk given at 4th International Conference on Non-Accelerator New Physics,\\\nDubna, Russia, June 23\u201328, 2003. ]{}*]{}\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nNeutrino is an attractive tool for astrophysical investigations since interacting weakly they can escape from the source and travel large distances to the Earth without interaction and without deflection by magnetic fields. Nevertheless, due to the same property, large volume neutrino detectors are needed. ANTARES is one of the several on-going projects \\[1-6\\] on underwater/ice neutrino telescopes. Given the presence of AMANDA at the South Pole, a detector in the Mediterranean will allow to cover the whole sky. The ANTARES Collaboration ([**A**]{}stronomy with a [**N**]{}eutrino [**T**]{}elescope and [**A**]{}byss environmental [**RES**]{}earch) was formed in 1996 and currently joins about 200 scientists and engineers from France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The project aims to detect atmospheric and extraterrestrial neutrinos with energies above $E_{\\nu} \\sim$10GeV by means of the detection of the Cherenkov light that is generated in water by charged particles which are produced in $\\nu N$ interactions. After extensive R&D program the collaboration moved into construction of a detector in the Mediterranean Sea at 2400 m depth, 50 km off-shore of La Seyne sur Mer, near Toulon (42$^{\\circ}$50$^{'}$N, 6$^{\\circ}$10$^{'}$E).\n\nR&D stage {#sec:rd}\n=========\n\nIn 1996-99 an intense R&D program was performed. The deployment and recovery technologies, electronics and mechanical structures were developed and tested with more than 30 deployments of autonomous strings. The environmental properties at the detector site were investigated \\[7,8\\].\n\nConcerning the optical backgrounds it was found that baseline 1p.e.-counting rate of $\\sim$60kHz is measured by a 10$^{''}$ PMT. The counting rate increases during short bursts up to several MHz due to bioluminiscence. These bursts lead to a dead-time of less than 5% per each PMT. However, the long-term measurements that were performed with the so-called \u2019prototype string\u2019 in 2003 (see below) showed that these rates and the burst fraction are sometimes essentially higher (Fig.1). The experimental work to understand the differences between previous results with autonomous mooring lines and the prototype string is in progress. Perhaps, to suppress the high background harder cuts will have to be applied which will slightly increase the energy threshold without altering the detection efficiency of $>$100GeV neutrino events. Light transmission loss for glass containers that house PMTs was found strong in long-term tests for up-looking surfaces. It led to the decision to turn all PMTs downward. Signal loss due to bio-fouling and sedimentation was measured to be 1.6% after 8 months at equator of glass sphere saturating with time. The optical properties of water at the experiment site were measured during several years. The effective attenuation length varies in a range 48m$<L_{att}<$61m while scattering length is $L_{scatt}>$200m for blue light ($\\lambda=$466 nm). Only 5% of the photons emitted by an isotropic source located 24m from PMT are collected out of a 10ns time window being delayed due to scattering. This allows a good time resolution needed for event reconstruction.\n\nANTARES R&D program culminated with deployment and 8 month operation of a 350m length \u2019demonstrator string\u2019 (November 1999 - July 2000) instrumented with 7 PMTs at a depth of 1100m, 40 km off the coast of Marseille. The string was controlled and read out via 37km-long electro-optical cable connected to the shore station. It allowed to test the deployment procedure with a full-scale string, positioning system and collect $\\sim$5$\\cdot$10$^{4}$ seven-fold coincidences from atmospheric muons. Relative distances were measured with an accuracy of $\\sim$5cm and accuracy of absolute positioning was $\\sim$1m. The angular distribution of atmospheric muons was reproduced and the fraction of multi-muon events was found to be $\\sim$50% which is in agreement with expectation for such a shallow depth as 1100m.\n\nANTARES detector {#sec:0.1}\n================\n\nAfter this R&D experience, the collaboration moved to the next stage: construction of a 12-string detector \\[2\\] which can be considered as a step toward a 1km$^{3}$ detector (Fig.2). Strings are anchored at the sea floor and held taut by buoys. Each string is instrumented with 75 optical modules (OMs) \\[9\\] containing 10$^{``}$ Hamamatsu R7081-20 PMTs housed in glass spheres. OMs are grouped in triplets at 25 levels separated by 14.5m. 3 PMTs in each triplet are oriented at 45$^{\\circ}$ to the nadir. Strings are separated from each other by $\\sim$70m. All the strings are connected to a Junction Box (JB) by means of electro-optical link cables. The JB is connected to the shore station by a 50km length 48-fiber electro-optical cable. Undersea connections are performed with a manned submarine. PMT signals are processed by Analogue Ring Samplers ASIC which measure the arrival time and charge for 1p.e.-pulses (99% of the pulses) and perform wave form digitization for larger amplitudes. Digitized data from each OM are sent to shore ($\\sim$1 GB/s/detector). The data flow is reduced down to $\\sim$1 MB/s by means of an on-shore data filter \\[10\\]. 100 PC farm is foreseen on shore to process and collect the data. The telescope will be complemented with an instrumentation string for hydrological parameter measurements and for calibration purposes. The deployment of the detector is planned for 2004-2006.\n\nThe important milestones that have been achieved by the collaboration are:\n\n-   the electro-optical cable connecting detector and shore station was deployed in October 2001;\n\n-   the industrial production of 900 OMs started in April 2002;\n\n-   since December 2002 the JB is in communication with the shore station;\n\n-   in December 2002 and February 2003 the \u2019prototype instrumentation string\u2019 and the \u2019prototype detection string\u2019 (equipped with 15 OMs) were successfully deployed \\[11\\] (recovered in May and July, 2003, respectively);\n\n-   in March 2003 both strings were connected to JB with the Nautile manned submarine and data taking started.\n\nThe aim of the deployment and operation of two prototype strings were to test all the components of the future detectors in their final design. Mechanical problems occurred: 1 fiber for clock signal transmission was found broken and 1 connector leaked. After strings recovery it was found that these problems occurred due to manufacturers who changed design without notification. Solutions have been found for the final detector design and severe quality control will be applied.\n\nThe detailed description of ANTARES physics performance can be found in \\[12\\]. The angular resolution of the 12-string detector (Fig.3) is about 0.2$^{\\circ}$ for $E_{\\nu} \\ge$100TeV where it is limited only by PMT TTS and light scattering and $\\sim$0.5$^{\\circ}$\u20131$^{\\circ}$ at $E_{\\nu} \\sim$0.1\u201310TeV where accuracy is dominated by $\\nu - \\mu$ kinematics. Energy resolution (Fig.4) improves at high energies: dispersion of the $\\log_{10}(E_{rec}/E_{t})$ distribution (where $E_{t}$ is the true energy and $E_{rec}$ is the reconstructed energy, respectively) is around $\\sigma \\approx$0.5 at $E_{\\nu} \\sim$5TeV and $\\sigma \\approx$0.3 for $E_{\\nu} \\ge$100TeV. Effective area for muons grows from $A_{eff}=$0.01km$^{2}$ at $E_{\\nu} =$1TeV to $A_{eff}=$0.06km$^{2}$ at $E_{\\nu} =$10PeV. The sensitivity of the detector to diffuse neutrino fluxes achieved by rejecting the background with an energy cut of $E_{cut}=$50GeV allows to reach Waxmann & Bahcall limit \\[13\\] in 3 years. The ANTARES sensitivity for point-like source searches (90% C.L.) assuming $E^{-2}$ differential $\\nu$ flux is in the range 4$\\div$50$\\cdot$10$^{-16}$cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ after 1 yr which gives a real hope to detect a signal from the most promising sources (e.g., galactic microquasars \\[14\\]). The ANTARES potential for WIMP searches is high enough to improve existing experimental upper limits on $\\nu$-induced muon fluxes from neutralino annihilation in the Sun and on relativistic magnetic monopole flux obtained by other detectors by an order of magnitude.\n\nConclusions {#sec:conc}\n===========\n\nThe construction of the ANTARES detector is underway. It is planned to be fully deployed and start to take data by the end of 2006. Calculations based on the data on environmental conditions at the experiment site and on studied properties of electronic components shows that predicted sensitivity of the detector to diffuse neutrino fluxes, point-like neutrino searches and WIMP searches is better by several orders of magnitude compared to data published by other experimental groups. The deployment of the ANTARES neutrino telescope can be considered as a step toward the deployment of a 1 km$^3$ detector in the Mediterranean Sea.\n\n[99]{} AMANDA: P.\u00a0Desiati [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/0306536; http://amanda.uci.edu/ ANTARES: E.\u00a0Aslanides [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/9907432; http://antares.in2p3.fr/ Baikal: R.\u00a0Wischnewski [*et al.*]{}, astro-ph/0305302; http://nt200.da.ru/ IceCube: A.\u00a0Goldschmidt [*et al.*]{}, Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**110**]{} (2002) 516; http://icecube.wisc.edu/ NEMO: G.\u00a0Riccobene [*et al.*]{}, Proc. 2nd Workshop on Methodical Aspects of Underwater/Ice Neutrino Telescopes, Hamburg, 2001, p.61; http://nemoweb.lns.infn.it/ NESTOR: S.\u00a0E.\u00a0Tzamarias [*et al.*]{}, NIM [**A502**]{} (2003) 150; http://www.nestor.org.gr/ P.\u00a0Amram [*et al.*]{}, Astropart.Phys. [**13**]{} (2000) 127. P.\u00a0Amram [*et al.*]{}, Astropart.Phys. [**19**]{} (2003) 253. P.\u00a0Amram [*et al.*]{}, NIM [**A484**]{} (2002) 369. M.\u00a0C.\u00a0Bouwhuis for the ANTARES Collaboration, submitted to 28th ICRC. M.\u00a0Circella for the ANTARES Collaboration, submitted to 28th ICRC. T.\u00a0Montaruli for the ANTARES Collaboration, astro-ph/0207531 and physics/0306057; J.\u00a0J.\u00a0Hern\u00e1ndez-Rey for the ANTARES Collaboration, NuclPhys.Proc.Suppl. [**114**]{} (2003) 211. E.\u00a0Waxmann, J.\u00a0N.\u00a0Bahcall, Phys.Rev. [**D59**]{} (1999) 023002. C.\u00a0Distefano [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys.J. [**575**]{} (2002) 378.\n\nThe ANTARES Collaboration:\n\nFIGURES\n\n![ Summary of counting rate in 3 PMTs during 65 days of \u2019prototype string\u2019 operation in April\u2013May, 2003. Top figure: the average baseline rate. Bottom figure: the fraction of time the rate is significantly higher than this average baseline rate (burst fraction). ](figure1.eps){width=\"14.8cm\"}\n\n\\[fig1\\]\n\n![ Schematic view of the ANTARES 12-string detector. ](figure2.eps){width=\"15.8cm\"}\n\n\\[fig2\\]\n\n![ Angular resolution of the ANTARES detector versus $E_{\\nu}$: median of the distribution of the angle in space between the reconstructed muon track and true muon track (solid) or the parent neutrino track (dashed). ](figure3.eps){width=\"14.0cm\"}\n\n\\[fig3\\]\n\n![ Energy resolution of the ANTARES detector: sigma of the distributions of $\\log_{10} (E_{rec} / E_{gen})$ (where $E_{rec}$ is reconstructed muon energy and $E_{gen}$ is generated muon energy) versus generated energy. ](figure4.eps){width=\"15.6cm\"}\n\n\\[fig4\\]\n"}
-{"text": "Manganese oxides are currently attracting considerable attention [@review], due to the complex interplay among spin, charge, and orbital degrees of freedom, which induces a rich phase diagram as well as Colossal Magneto-Resistant (CMR) properties. There are clearly two types of dominant states in these compounds. For example, in perovskite manganites such as La$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$MnO$_3$, in the region 0.22$<$$x$$<$0.5 a ferromagnetic (FM) metallic phase is the ground-state at low temperature. On the other hand, at $x$$>$0.5, a charge-orbital-spin ordered state is stabilized. The competition between these two states is at the heart of recent theories that explain the CMR effect in manganites as arising from mixed-phase tendencies[@ps].\n\nThis two-phase metal-insulator competition and concomitant large MR effect occurs also at the Curie temperature $T_{\\rm C}$, at densities where a FM phase exists at low temperature. Several experiments have clearly revealed the mixed-phase characteristics of manganites near $T_{\\rm C}$ [@tunneling]. While it is natural to assume that one of the competing phases is FM metallic, the properties of the insulating phase are still unknown. Recently, considerable progress has been made in this context. Just above $T_{\\rm C}$ evidence for the existence of short-range [*stripe-like*]{} charge ordering has been obtained with neutron diffraction and X-ray scattering studies. For La$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$MnO$_3$[@cubic], \u201cdiagonal\u201d stripes, i.e. charge ordering (CO) along the $(1,1,0)$-direction[@note:vector], appear for 0.2$\\alt$$x$$\\alt$0.3, while for $x$$<$0.2, \u201cbond\u201d stripes, i.e. CO along the (1,0,0) or (0,1,0) direction, have been revealed. For La$_{2-2x}$Sr$_{1+2x}$Mn$_2$O$_7$[@bi-layer], short-range bond stripes have been detected in the wide range 0.3$\\leq$$x$$\\leq$0.5. These results lead to the intriguing possibility that the insulating phase that contributes to the CMR near $T_{\\rm C}$ may also be FM but with striped features, a remarkable novel result. Such a state would be puzzling since stripes in cuprates are associated with the creation of rivers of holes to avoid having the individual charges \u201cfighting\u201d against the antiferromagnetic (AFM) background. Thus in a FM state, where hole movement appears optimal, charge is naively not expected to form stripes, in contradiction with experiments.\n\nIn order to understand this puzzling complex problem, in this Letter the two-dimensional (2D) double-exchange (DE) model coupled to Jahn-Teller (JT) phonons is investigated using unbiased computational techniques. This model has been already successful in reproducing the A-type AFM state at $x$=0[@hotta1], the CE-state at $x$=0.5[@hotta2], and the complex structure of the $x$$>$0.5 regime [@hotta3], as observed in experiments. However, a state as exotic as containing stripes in a ferromagnetic background has not been reported until now. The present effort focuses on the properties of 2D systems, since (i) studies in three-dimensional (3D) cases are technically far more complex, and (ii) stripe structures identified experimentally in bilayer and 3D manganites are here observed in 2D systems as well. Our main result is the stabilization of [*FM states with stripe order*]{} at $x$=$1/m$ ($m$=integer), a surprising result whose origin lies in the concomitant orbital order.\n\nRegarding single-layered manganites $\\!{\\rm La}_{1-x}\\!{\\rm Sr}_{1+x}\\!{\\rm Mn}{\\rm O}_4$, the undoped compound is AFM [@kawano], while at $x$$\\sim$0.5 a CE-type AFM CO phase has been identified [@murakami]. However, for 0.0$<$$x$$<$0.5, a complex \u201cspin glass\" behavior has been experimentally observed [@moritomo], indicating that the 2D ground-state properties are basically unknown. Our results below also indicate that stripe states with CE-like AFM characteristics may exist at $x$=1/4 and 1/3, and they could be important for the physics of single-layered compounds in non-FM regimes.\n\nThe Hamiltonian studied here is $$\\begin{aligned}\n  H &=& -\\sum_{{\\bf ia}\\gamma \\gamma'\\sigma}\n  t^{\\bf a}_{\\gamma \\gamma'} d_{{\\bf i} \\gamma \\sigma}^{\\dag}\n  d_{{\\bf i+a} \\gamma' \\sigma}\n  -J_{\\rm H} \\sum_{\\bf i}\n  {\\bf s}_{\\bf i} \\cdot {\\bf S}_{\\bf j} \\nonumber \\\\\n  &+& J_{\\rm AF} \\sum_{\\langle {\\bf i,j} \\rangle}\n  {\\bf S}_{\\bf i} \\cdot {\\bf S}_{\\bf j}\n  + \\lambda \\sum_{\\bf i}\n  (Q_{1{\\bf i}}\\rho_{\\bf i} + Q_{2{\\bf i}}\\tau_{{\\rm x}{\\bf i}} \n  +Q_{3{\\bf i}}\\tau_{{\\rm z}{\\bf i}}) \\nonumber \\\\\n  &+& (1/2) \\sum_{\\bf i} (\\beta Q_{1{\\bf i}}^2\n  +Q_{2{\\bf i}}^2+Q_{3{\\bf i}}^2),\\end{aligned}$$ where $d_{{\\bf i}{\\rm a}\\sigma}$ ($d_{{\\bf i}{\\rm b}\\sigma}$) is the annihilation operator for an $e_{\\rm g}$-electron with spin $\\sigma$ in the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ ($d_{3z^2-r^2}$) orbital at site ${\\bf i}$, and ${\\bf a}$ is the vector connecting nearest-neighbor (NN) sites. The first term represents the NN hopping of $e_{\\rm g}$ electrons with the amplitude $t^{\\bf a}_{\\gamma \\gamma'}$ between $\\gamma$- and $\\gamma'$-orbitals along the ${\\bf a}$-direction ($t^{\\bf x}_{\\rm aa}$=$-\\sqrt{3}t^{\\bf x}_{\\rm ab}$= $-\\sqrt{3}t^{\\bf x}_{\\rm ba}$=$3t^{\\bf x}_{\\rm bb}$=$1$ for ${\\bf a}$=${\\bf x}$ and $t^{\\bf y}_{\\rm aa}$=$\\sqrt{3}t^{\\bf y}_{\\rm ab}$= $\\sqrt{3}t^{\\bf y}_{\\rm ba}$=$3t^{\\bf y}_{\\rm bb}$=$1$ for ${\\bf a}$=${\\bf y}$, in $t^{\\bf x}_{\\rm aa}$ energy units). In the second term, the Hund coupling $J_{\\rm H}$($>$0) links $e_{\\rm g}$ electrons with spin ${\\bf s}_{\\bf i}=\n\\sum_{\\gamma\\alpha\\beta}d^{\\dag}_{{\\bf i}\\gamma\\alpha}\n\\bbox{\\sigma}_{\\alpha\\beta}d_{{\\bf i}\\gamma\\beta}$ ($\\bbox{\\sigma}$ are the Pauli matrices) with the localized $t_{\\rm 2g}$ spin ${\\bf S}_{\\bf i}$, assumed classical and normalized to $|{\\bf S}_{\\bf i}|$=1. The third term is the AFM coupling $J_{\\rm AF}$ between NN $t_{\\rm 2g}$ spins [@note:JAF]. The fourth term couples $e_{\\rm g}$ electrons and MnO$_6$ octahedra distortions, $\\lambda$ is the dimensionless coupling constant, $Q_{1{\\bf i}}$ is the breathing-mode distortion, $Q_{2{\\bf i}}$ and $Q_{3{\\bf i}}$ are, respectively, $(x^2$$-$$y^2)$- and $(3z^2$$-$$r^2)$-type JT-mode distortions, $\\rho_{\\bf i}$= $\\sum_{\\gamma,\\sigma}\nd_{{\\bf i}\\gamma\\sigma}^{\\dag}d_{{\\bf i}\\gamma\\sigma}$, $\\tau_{{\\rm x}{\\bf i}}$= $\\sum_{\\sigma}(d_{{\\bf i}{\\rm a}\\sigma}^{\\dag}d_{{\\bf i}{\\rm b}\\sigma}\n+d_{{\\bf i}{\\rm b}\\sigma}^{\\dag}d_{{\\bf i}{\\rm a}\\sigma})$, and $\\tau_{{\\rm z}{\\bf i}}$= $\\sum_{\\sigma}(d_{{\\bf i} a\\sigma}^{\\dag}d_{{\\bf i}a\\sigma}\n-d_{{\\bf i} b\\sigma}^{\\dag}d_{{\\bf i}b\\sigma})$. The fifth term is the potential for distortions, where $\\beta$ is the ratio of spring constants for breathing- and JT-modes, treated here adiabatically [@note:coulomb].\n\n=7.truecm\n\n\\[fig1\\]\n\nFirst let us clarify the charge and orbital structure in the FM phase, main issue of this paper. If lattice distortions are not correlated in different sites, holes will be simply distributed as uniformly as they can to lower the ground state energy. Namely, the stabilization of charge inhomogeneous structure such as stripes in the FM phase requires a proper treatment of the [*cooperative*]{} JT effect. A simple way to include such an effect is to optimize the displacement of oxygen ions $u_{\\bf i}^{\\bf a}$ along the ${\\bf a}$-axis at site ${\\bf i}$, instead of local distortions [@note:oxygen]. Results at large $\\lambda$ for the FM phase are shown in Fig.\u00a01. Using relaxation techniques to optimize $\\{u\\}$\u2019s, [*diagonal stripes*]{} can be clearly observed even in a spin FM regime, a surprising result. The key ingredient to understand the presence of stripes in a spin magnetized phase is the presence of the concomitant [*staggered*]{} orbital order. Individual holes doped into the $x$=0 FM orbital-ordered (OO) state produce a distortion of the ordered background. This energy lost is minimized if holes share the distorted regions, forming complex patterns such as stripes. A similar reasoning is usually applied to the rationalization of stripe formation in nickelates and cuprates [@tranquada], with the important conceptual difference that in those compounds the background in which the stripes are created is spin AFM, i.e. the real spin is active, while in the present study the spin is FM and the orbital background is active. If the orbital degree of freedom is associated to a \u201cpseudo-spin\u201d up and down, then an analogy between manganites and nickelates/cuprates can be established, replacing the real spin of the latter by the orbital degree of freedom of the former. In fact, with this analogy the pseudo-spin and charge structure at $x$=1/4 (Fig.\u00a01(c)) becomes the same as the real-spin and charge stripe structure of hole-doped La$_2$NiO$_4$, at the same hole density [@note:stripe]. In the stripe phase, a gap of the order of the JT energy opens around the Fermi level (see Fig.\u00a01(d)). Thus, \u201cpseudogap\u201d features may be expected as precursors for stripe formation even at high temperatures such as $T_{\\rm C}$.\n\nNote that the stable charge-orbital stripes with the arrangement of Fig.\u00a01 can appear when the distance $d$ between diagonal hole arrays is equal to $m a_0$, where $m$ is an integer and $a_0$ is the lattice constant along the $a$-axis. Since $d$=$a_0/x$ from Fig.\u00a01, $x$ should be equal to 1/$m$ for the appearance of stable diagonal charge stripes. For 1/($m$+1)$<$$x$$<$1/$m$, it seems possible (but at this early stage it is a conjecture) that a mixed phase of two charge-orbital ordered states with $x$=1/($m$+1) and 1/$m$ appears, consistent with the phase separation scenario [@ps] and also with recent synchrotron X-ray scattering measurements [@greven]. Based on this scenario, the charge ordering observed in experiments at $x$$\\sim$0.3 in the FM regime may be understood as a mixture of diagonal stripes at $x$=1/4 and 1/3 (Figs.\u00a01(b) and (c)), if those patterns are assumed to be stacked along the $z$-axis due to the influence of $J_{\\rm AF}$, a reasonable assumption based on previous $x$=0.5 calculations[@hotta2]. In the orbital correlation function $T^z({\\bf q})$ =$\\sum_{\\bf i,j}e^{i{\\bf q}\\cdot({\\bf i-j})}\n\\langle\\tau_{z{\\bf i}} \\tau_{z{\\bf j}} \\rangle$, peaks appear at ($\\pi$$\\pm$$\\delta_m$, $\\pi$$\\pm$$\\delta_m$) with $\\delta_m$=(1$-$2/$m$)$\\pi$. The deviation from ($\\pi$,$\\pi$) for $m$$>$2 is caused by a [*$\\pi$-shift*]{} in the orbital order across the stripe (Fig.\u00a01), and it can be informally referred to as \u201corbital incommensurability\u201d by analogy to the spin incommensurability found in cuprates and nickelates. It is important to remark that the present idealized charge stripes will likely be destabilized by thermal and/or quantum fluctuations. Thus, in actual materials, it is expected that the stripes will be [*dynamical*]{} as in cuprates and only vestiges of stripes may be detected [@Belesi], together with pseudogap features, consistent with the phase separation tendency for 1/($m$+1)$<$$x$$<$1/$m$.\n\nNow let us consider the charge-orbital structure in the AFM phase by using [*non-cooperative*]{} JT phonons. This will allow us to report yet another striped state which could be observed experimentally, this time with an overall zero magnetization. As found at $x$=1/2 [@hotta2], the AFM phase such as CE-type state is not sensitive to the JT phonons treatment, since there exists a strong constraint due to the DE mechanism for the $e_{\\rm g}$ electron kinetic motion, masking differences in the character of JT phonons. Note, however, that both the local lattice distortion and $t_{\\rm 2g}$ spin direction should be determined independently at each site by optimizing the total energy. Using relaxation techniques to optimize $\\{Q\\}$\u2019s and $\\{{\\bf S}\\}$\u2019s at fixed electronic density [@note:non-coop], the phase diagram at $x$=1/4 has been here obtained (Fig.\u00a02(a)). Its overall features can be understood from the competition between the $e_{\\rm g}$ electron kinetic energy and magnetic energy of $t_{\\rm 2g}$ spins regulated by $J_{\\rm AF}$. At small $J_{\\rm AF}$ the system becomes FM to improve hole movement, and a metal-insulator transition occurs at a critical value of $\\lambda$, separating FM CO and FM charge-disordered (CD) states. In the other limit of large $J_{\\rm AF}$, an AFM phase is stabilized since the magnetic energy among $t_{\\rm 2g}$ spins dominates. The most interesting result of Fig.\u00a02(a) is that at [*intermediate*]{} values of $J_{\\rm AF}$, a novel spin-ordered state analogous to the CE-type phase at $x$=1/2 has been found. The complex optimized spin pattern is shown in Fig.\u00a02(b). A similar CE-like spin arrangement is also found at $x$=1/3 (see Fig.\u00a02(c)) [@note:zigzag1]. These configurations are here called the \u201czigzag\u201d AFM (Z-AFM) states, since $t_{\\rm 2g}$ spins form one-dimensional (1D) zigzag paths where $e_{\\rm g}$ kinetic energy is gained, stacking with anti-parallel spins in the direction perpendicular to those paths to gain magnetic energy. Since this Z-AFM phase can take partial advantage of both energies, it is reasonable that it is stabilized in between the FM and AFM phases.\n\n=7.truecm\n\n\\[fig2\\]\n\nConsider now the charge and orbital structures of the phases in Fig.\u00a02(a). In the FM phase, for the values of $\\lambda$ investigated, an OO phase appears (not shown), irrespective of the charge structure. As mentioned above, for non-cooperative JT phonons, holes are distributed uniformly to lower the ground state energy, compatible with the concomitant orbital order. In the Z-AFM phase, the charge-orbital arrangements for large $\\lambda$ are schematically shown in Figs.\u00a03(a) and (b) for $x$=1/4 and 1/3, respectively. The local charge density is found to be constant along the diagonal directions denoted by the broken lines in Fig.\u00a03(a). This result indicates a tendency toward the formation of diagonal charge stripes in the Z-AFM phase for $x$=1/3 and 1/4. In Fig.\u00a03(c), the local charge densities on the diagonal lines, $n(\\delta_1)$, $n(\\delta_2)$, and $n(\\delta_3)$, are shown vs $\\lambda$. At small $\\lambda$, diagonal charge stripes are observed, concomitant with a peak around ${\\bf q}$=($\\pi$/2,$\\pi$/2) in the charge correlation function $n({\\bf q})$ [@hill]. On the other hand, at large $\\lambda$, $n(\\delta_3)$ is very small, while $n(\\delta_1)$ and $n(\\delta_2)$ are almost unity. Namely, holes are mainly located along the line $\\delta_3$, indicating the formation of a clear diagonal charge stripe pattern (see Fig.\u00a03(a)), and the intensity of the $(\\pi/2,\\pi/2)$ peak in $n({\\bf q})$ becomes larger than at small $\\lambda$. Note that in the Z-AFM phase the $e_{\\rm g}$ electron motion is restricted to the 1D zigzag FM chains due to large $J_{\\rm H}$. When a finite electron-lattice coupling is introduced in this 1D system, a Peierls instability should occur, leading to a charge-density-wave state. Since in the Z-AFM phase the same chain is simply stacked along the diagonal direction in the $x$-$y$ plane, diagonal charge stripes occurs naturally [@note:CO].\n\nTo understand the shape of the zigzag chain (Fig.2(b)), consider the limit of $\\lambda$=0 [@hotta2; @hotta3]. Even without phonons, by straightforward diagonalization it can be shown that the zigzag chains have a spectra corresponding to a [*band-insulator*]{} due to the periodic changes in hopping amplitudes along zigzag chains ($t_{\\rm ab}^{\\bf x}$=$-t_{\\rm ab}^{\\bf y}$), which induce gaps in the energy spectra [@hotta3]. At $x$=1/4, there are nine independent possible types of zigzag chains on an 8$\\times$8 lattice with periodic boundary conditions. Let us label these zigzag chains using \u201cbits\u201d, 0 and 1, representing the $x$- and $y$-directions, respectively. The nine possible configurations are in Fig.\u00a03(d). The zigzag chain of Fig.\u00a02(b) is given by the periodic sequence \u201c00101101\u201d, and its energy is the lowest among the possible candidates, since it provides the largest bandgap. When the electron-phonon interaction is adiabatically switched on, it is reasonable that the AFM phase Fig.\u00a02(b) would still be stable for a finite $\\lambda$ range [@note:zigzag2]. Note that in Fig.\u00a03(d), excited states characterized by other zigzag paths have small excitation energies, such as 0.001$\\sim$0.01 in units of $t_{\\rm aa}^{\\bf x}$. Thus, at temperatures as low as a few degrees Kelvin the ground-state Fig.\u00a02(b) can be easily distorted into other zigzag spin patterns. This fragility of the ground-state may be related with the \u201cspin glass\u201d features observed in single-layer experiments [@moritomo], leading to an overall orbital disordered state. However, note that seven of the nine competing states, as well as the Z-AFM phase, have diagonal stripes. Then, even in a mixture of these states, the stripe direction is not random. Thus, it is possible that indications of diagonal charge stripes may be present in the \u201cspin glass\u201d phase of single-layer manganites.\n\n=7.truecm\n\n\\[fig3\\]\n\nIn summary, novel striped charge-orbital ordering has been found in realistic models for manganites. Diagonal stripes in the FM phase have been observed at densities $x$=$1/m$, with $m$ an integer, and also in the CE-like Z-AFM phase. The orbital degree of freedom orders in a $x$=0 staggered pattern in between the stripes, playing a key role in stabilizing these structures, similarly as the real spin does for stripes in nickelates and cuprates. Our results have implications for the recently discovered short-range charge ordering effects in neutron scattering experiments, as well as for future experiments, particularly involving layered manganites.\n\nThe authors are grateful to P. Dai, M. Greven, J. Hill, and M. Kubota for useful comments. This work has been supported by the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan, Fundaci\u00f3n Antorchas, and grant NSF-DMR-9814350.\n\nSee, e.g., [*Colossal Magnetoresistive Oxides*]{}, edited by Y. Tokura (Gordon & Breach, New York, 2000); E. Dagotto [*et al.*]{}, to appear in Physics Reports.\n\nS. Yunoki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5612 (1998); A. Moreo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5568 (2000).\n\nJ. M. De Teresa [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**386**]{}, 256 (1997); S. J. L. Billinge [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B[**62**]{}, 1203 (2000).\n\nS. Shimomura [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4389 (1999); P. Dai [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2553 (2000); C. P. Adams [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3954 (2000).\n\nThe propagation vector is in the pseudo-cubic notation.\n\nL. Vasiliu-Doloc [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4393(1999); M. Kubota [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**69**]{}, 1986 (2000).\n\nT. Hotta [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B[**60**]{}, R15009 (1999).\n\nS. Yunoki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 3417 (2000); T. Hotta [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B[**62**]{}, 9432 (2000).\n\nT. Hotta, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2477 (2000).\n\nS. Kawano [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. (Paris) Colloq. [**49**]{}, C8-829 (1988).\n\nB. J. Sternlieb [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2169 (1996); Y. Murakami [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1932 (1998).\n\nY. Moritomo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B[**51**]{}, R3297 (1995).\n\n$J_{\\rm AF}$ is small to make it compatible with experiments for the fully hole-doped CaMnO$_3$ compound. See also L. F. Feiner and A. M. Ole\u015b, Phys. Rev. B[**59**]{}, 3295 (1999).\n\nCoulomb interactions are effectively included in the large $\\lambda$ regime (see T. Hotta [*et al.*]{} in Ref.\u00a0[@hotta2]).\n\nHere only the bond stretching mode is assumed to occur and $\\beta$ is set as 2, a realistic value deduced from vibration energies for breathing- and JT-mode phonons [@hotta1]. Note that in an isolated 2D sheet there is no constraint for $u^{\\bf z}_{\\bf i}$, the displacement of apical oxygens (AO), but the real 2D system is embedded in a 3D environment, suggesting that AO motion should be determined considering the influence of other ions between sheets. In this work, for simplicity, $u^{\\bf z}_{\\bf i}$ is set to zero, assuming that AO are fixed in their positions by 3D effects.\n\nJ. M. Tranquada [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**375**]{}, 561 (1995).\n\nTo understand vertical/horizontal stripes, the cooperative analysis should be carried out including modes for distortions other than the bond-stretching mode. In the one-orbital model such stripes can also be obtained (see Fig.III.d.6(b) in E. Dagotto [*et al*]{}. in Ref.\u00a0[@review] and H. Aliaga [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/0011342).\n\nS. Larochelle [*et al.*]{}, preprint; M. Greven, private communication.\n\nOnce the stripes melt, together with the dynamical aspect of the charge, the orbital order will no longer be long-ranged but short. Then, melted stripes may lead to orbital liquid properties (M. Belesi [*et al.*]{}, preprint).\n\nTo reduce the effort in our calculations, still capturing the main effect of JT distortions, $\\beta$ is set to $\\infty$ effectively suppressing the breathing mode, while $J_{\\rm H}$=20 (but results at $J_{\\rm H}$=$\\infty$ are essentially the same).\n\nAt $x$=1/3 and large $\\lambda$, the zigzag FM chain (Fig.\u00a02(c)) is divided into small FM clusters for non-cooperative JT phonons, while for cooperative case the Z-AFM phase (Fig.\u00a02(c)) is stable. For large $\\lambda$, the cooperative effect is crucial to stabilize the Z-AFM structure, as well as to observe the diagonal charge stripes in the FM phase.\n\nNote that the charge density is nearly uniform at intermediate $\\lambda$ such as 1.2 in Fig.\u00a03(c). In this interesting regime, a peak in the orbital correlations exist, while the analog in the charge sector is not prominent. Such an OO but CD $x$=1/4 state may be related to those observed in recent experiments for Pr$_{1-x}$Ca$_x$MnO$_3$ (M. v. Zimmermann [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/0007231).\n\nIn the Z-AFM phase, the charge pattern depends on $\\lambda$ and the shape of the FM path, but the orbital arrangement is mainly determined by the zigzag geometry.\n\nNote that the results of Figs.\u00a02(b,c) and the analysis of competing zigzag paths have been obtained assuming either FM or AFM links among localized spins, reasonable at large $\\lambda$. If the $t_{\\rm 2g}$ spin directions are optimized for small $\\lambda$, spin patterns similar to Fig.\u00a02(b) and (c) are stabilized, but with spin directions slightly disordered.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We report a thorough theoretical study of the low temperature phase diagram of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, a spatially anisotropic spin $S=1/2$ triangular lattice antiferromagnet, in a magnetic field. Our results, obtained in a quasi-one-dimensional limit in which the system is regarded as a set of weakly coupled Heisenberg chains, are in excellent agreement with experiment. The analysis reveals some surprising physics. First, we find that, when the magnetic field is oriented within the triangular layer, spins are actually most strongly correlated within planes [*perpendicular*]{} to the triangular layers. This is despite the fact that the inter-layer exchange coupling in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{} is about an order of magnitude smaller than the weakest (diagonal) exchange in the triangular planes themselves. Second, the phase diagram in such orientations is exquisitely sensitive to tiny interactions, heretofore neglected, of order a few percent or less of the largest exchange couplings. These interactions, which we describe in detail, induce entirely new phases, and a novel commensurate-incommensurate transition, the signatures of which are identified in NMR experiments. We discuss the differences between the behavior of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0and an ideal two-dimensional triangular model, and in particular the occurrence of magnetization plateaux in the latter. These and other related results are presented here along with a thorough exposition of the theoretical methods, and a discussion of broader experimental consequences to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0and other materials.'\nauthor:\n- 'Oleg A. Starykh'\n- Hosho Katsura\n- Leon Balents\nbibliography:\n- 'sensitivity.bib'\ntitle: 'Extreme sensitivity of a frustrated quantum magnet: [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:introduction}\n============\n\nThe spin-$1/2$ nearest-neighbor Heisenberg antiferromagnet on the two dimensional triangular (hexagonal) lattice is the simplest theoretical model for frustrated quantum magnetism.[@Anderson_RVB] Without additional perturbations, the model is believed to order at zero temperature into a 3-sublattice coplanar ground state.[@Huse_Elser_1988_PRL; @Bernu1992PRL; @Sorella1999PRL] However, one may expect a strong sensitivity to additional perturbations to the isotropic triangular lattice Hamiltonian. The material [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0provides an interesting example of a spatially [*anisotropic*]{} spin-$1/2$ triangular antiferromagnet.[@Coldea2001PRL]\u00a0 For several years, neutron scattering,[@Coldea2003PRB] magnetization, and specific heat measurements[@RaduPRL2005; @TokiwaPRB2006] on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0have intrigued the community with unexpected behavior. These experimental properties have been suggested by a variety of authors, including the experimentalists themselves, to indicate exotic physics such as a spin-liquid ground state, unconventional \u201cspinon\u201d excitations at higher energies, and quantum criticality. Theoretical work on this material has been intense.\u00a0[@Chung2003PRB; @IsakovPRB2005PRB; @AliceaPRL2005; @kohno2009dps; @kohno07:_spinon_and_tripl_in_spatial; @Starykh2007; @PhysRevLett.103.197203]\n\nAn advantage of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0is that the small exchange constants and high degree of magnetic isotropy allow for a fairly accurate determination of several of the largest Hamiltonian parameters, by comparison with the measured single magnon dispersion relation above an approximately fully-polarized state. The approximate Hamiltonian, including a magnetic field, determined by the experimentalists in this way is $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:Hexpt}\n  H & = & \\frac{1}{2} \\sum_{ij} \\left[ J_{ij} {\\bm S}_i \\cdot\n    {\\bm S}_j - {\\bm D}_{ij} \\cdot {\\bm S}_i \\times {\\bm S}_j \\right]\n  - {\\bm h}\\cdot \\sum_i {\\bm S}_i.~~~\\end{aligned}$$ Here $i,j$ are sites of a stack of triangular lattices (see Figs. \\[fig: planar\\_lattice\\] and \\[fig: DM\\_distribution\\]). The principle exchange interactions determined in Ref. are $J=0.374 ~{\\rm meV}$ on nearest-neighbor bonds parallel to the $b$ axis, significantly smaller $J'=0.128~{\\rm meV}\\approx 0.34 J$ on diagonal bonds in the $b$-$c$ plane, and quite small $J''=0.045 J$ along vertical bonds between adjacent triangular layers. A Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya (DM) coupling was also measured along the diagonal bonds, with ${\\bm D}_{ij}=-{\\bm D}_{ji}=\\pm D \\hat{a}$ where the sign in specific directions are as indicated in Fig. \\[fig: DM\\_distribution\\], and $D=0.020$meV$=0.05J$.\n\n![Magnetic sites and exchange couplings in a 2D triangular layer in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}: on-chain bonds $J$ (thick lines $\\parallel b$), frustrating diagonal bonds $J'$ (dotted lines). Stacked layers are coupled by nearest-neighbor exchange $J''$. Crystallographic $a$,$b$,$c$ axes are indicated.[]{data-label=\"fig: planar_lattice\"}](planar_lattice.pdf){width=\"0.7\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe relative smallness of the couplings other than $J$ suggests that one may perhaps fruitfully regard this Hamiltonian as one of Heisenberg spin chains along the $b$ axis defined by $J$, which are weakly coupled together by the remaining interactions.[@nersesyan1998; @bocquet2001] This point of view was validated in Refs.\u00a0, where it was shown that much of the observed low energy ordering [*and*]{} the high energy inelastic neutron scattering data on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0can be calculated starting from known exact results for 1d Heisenberg chains. Indeed, numerical approaches in Refs. showed that, due to frustration, the diagonal interaction may be as large as $J'/J < 0.7$ while still retaining approximate quasi-one-dimensionality.\n\nWhile this approach has been quite successful for [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, most notably in directly confronting data [*without any adjustable parameters*]{}, there remain some puzzling features in the experiments. One of the most striking ones is the drastic difference in the low temperature phase diagrams of the material in magnetic fields aligned along the three different principle axes of the crystal. Though some aspects of these differences were explained in Ref.\u00a0, based upon the \u201cstandard\u201d model in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:Hexpt\\]), other glaring discrepancies remain. In this paper, we resolve these outstanding differences between theory and experiment by correcting the standard model of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}.\n\nIt is important to emphasize that the corrections to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:Hexpt\\]) [*must*]{} be small, because the standard model does an excellent job in explaining a large volume of experimental data. The parameters in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:Hexpt\\]) were determined by high field measurements of single-magnon spectra,[@Coldea2002PRL] which leave little room for doubt of their correctness with relatively small error bars. Moreover, the same model, used at zero and intermediate fields, is quite successful in reproducing the full inelastic neutron spectrum, containing both continuum and magnon/triplon (sharp) contributions.[@kohno07:_spinon_and_tripl_in_spatial; @PhysRevLett.103.197203] Nevertheless, in some field orientations, entirely different low temperature phases are observed in experiment than are predicted by the standard model. Thus, we must somehow explain major [*qualitative*]{} differences in the ground states of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0in a field by very small corrections to $H$, of no more than a few percent!\n\nA key message of this paper is that, indeed, the frustration and quasi-one-dimensionality of this problem can and do amplify tiny terms in the Hamiltonian to the point where they actually control the ground state. Sensitivity to small perturbations is of course an often-cited characteristic of frustrated systems. However, the extent to which this sensitivity can be fully characterized in the problem under consideration here is, to our mind, unprecedented. Using the methods of bosonization, the renormalization group, and chain mean-field theory (CMFT), we are able to distinctly identify the hierarchy of emergent low energy scales that control the very complex ordering behavior of the anisotropic triangular antiferromagnet, in a magnetic field and with a variety of very weak symmetry-breaking terms.\n\nThis paper contains many results, and a thorough presentation of the methods required to obtain them. To briefly summarize, we have determined the ground state phase diagrams for the ideal two-dimensional anisotropic triangular antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model, and for the model appropriate to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, in all three distinct field orientations, over most of the range of applied magnetic fields. In the former, we find spin density wave (SDW) and cone states, and in the SDW, a family of quantized magnetization plateaux. In the latter, we find several phases, including an incommensurate cone state, an commensurate coplanar antiferromagnetic state, and a second incommensurate phase, descended from the antiferromagnetic one. The occurence of these phases depends crucially on the field orientation, and matches well with experiments on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. The associated phase diagrams in the temperature-magnetic field plane are shown schematically in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: magnetic\\_phases\\]. Details of each phase and its properties can be found in the appropriate section of the main text.\n\n![Schematic phase diagrams in the temperature-magnetic field plane for fields along (a) the $a$ axis, (b) the $b$ axis, and (c) the $c$ axis. (d) Schematic phase diagram for the ideal 2d ($J$-$J'$) model. Here we use the abbreviations: FP = fully polarized state; AF = commensurate antiferromagnetic state; IC = incommensurate state; CAF = collinear antiferromagnetic state; and SDW = spin density wave state. The shaded areas denote the regions in which Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya and exchange non-trivially compete. For these regions, we do not have reliable theoretical predictions at this point.[]{data-label=\"fig: magnetic_phases\"}](magnetic_phases.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![A single triangular layer of the cone state, illustrated for a field along the $a$ axis. Circles with arrows indicate the sense of precession of the spins, as one moves along the $x$ axis. This is most easily seen intuitively by comparing every other spin, which compensates for the natural staggering due to the underlying N\u00e9el correlations of the 1d chains. Note that in the cone state, all spins precess in the same sense on all chains within a plane. For fields along $a$, however, this sense alternates between successive vertical layers, owing to the staggering of $D$. Within a single layer, cone states for fields along other axes are identical to this one after a global spin rotation.[]{data-label=\"fig:cone-state\"}](conea_gray.pdf){width=\"0.95\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![A single layer of the AF state, illustrated for a field along the $b$ axis. The spins lie in a plane spanned by the $b$ axis and a second axis within the $a-c$ plane but at a non-zero angle to both the $a$ and $c$ axes. The component of the spin normal to $b$ is antiparallel on successive even (or odd) chains, so that the patten has period $\\Delta y=4$ along the $c$ axis. This corresponds to a doubled cystallographic unit cell in this direction.[]{data-label=\"fig:af-state\"}](afb_gray.pdf){width=\"0.95\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![A single layer of the IC state, illustrated for a field along the $c$ axis. Circles with arrows indicate the sense of precession of the spins, as one moves along the $x$ axis. This is most easily seen intuitively by comparing every other spin, which compensates for the natural staggering due to the underlying N\u00e9el correlations of the 1d chains. Note that in the IC state, by contrast to the cone state, spins on alternate chains in the plane precess in the opposite sense. []{data-label=\"fig:ic-state\"}](ic_gray.pdf){width=\"0.95\\columnwidth\"}\n\nOne noteworthy highlight is that, remarkably, when the magnetic field is in the $b$-$c$ plane, the spin correlations impugn the popular interpretation of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0as a two-dimensional \u201canisotropic triangular lattice\u201d antiferromagnet. In fact, in this very wide regime, in the ground state, the spins are more correlated in the $a$-$b$ planes, [*perpendicular*]{} to the triangular layers, than they are within those layers! Taking into account these correlations is crucial to obtaining the proper low temperature phase diagram. They lead to an enhanced sensitivity to some very weak second neighbor and effective \u201cbiquadratic\u201d interactions, which are needed to stabilize the antiferromagnetic and incommensurate states mentioned above.\n\nThe remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:background\\], we present some necessary background, including the standard model Hamiltonian for [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, the low energy properties of a single Heisenberg chain, the results of a space group analysis of allowed DM interactions in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, and a summary of the general scaling and Chain Mean Field Theory (CMFT) approach to studying competing interactions. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:ideal-2d-model\\], we determine the ground state behavior of the \u201cideal\u201d model of an isolated spatially anisotropic triangular Heisenberg antiferromagnet, often presumed to apply to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. It clearly disagrees with experimental results for all three field orientations, as already pointed out in Ref. . In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-axis\\], we successfully apply the standard model to the case with a magnetic field applied perpendicular to the triangular plane, the DM interaction $D$ playing a crucial role in reconciling the behavior with experiment. Next, in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-b\\], we study the case of magnetic field along the $b$ (chain) axis. The $D$ term becomes rapidly negligible in this orientation, and we argue instead that the inter-plane coupling $J''$ becomes dominant. A subtle hierarchy of energy scales (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:energyscales\\]) is exposed, which leads to the establishment of competing antiferromagnetic and cone phases in this case. Then, in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-c\\], we consider the field along the final principal axis, $c$, where an additional symmetry-allowed DM coupling plays a key role. It leads to the new incommensurate phase and an interesting commensurate-incommensurate phase transition. Having established all the ground state phases, we discuss some experimental consequences in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:exper-cons\\]. We give the explicit spin structures, describe the NMR lineshapes, which provide a telling confirmation of the theoretical results, and establish the nature of the $T>0$ phase diagram. We conclude with some brief discussion in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:conclusions\\]. Several appendices present details of calculations underlying some of the results in the main text.\n\nBackground {#sec:background}\n==========\n\nExplicit hamiltonian and coordinates {#sec:expl-hamilt-coord}\n------------------------------------\n\nFor the bulk of this paper, we will adopt a simple orthogonal coordinate system, with $x$ along the crystallographic $b$ direction, parallel to the chains, $y$ along the $c$ axis, perpendicular to the chains within the triangular plane, and $z$ along the $a$ axis, perpendicular to the triangular planes. Moreover, we will adopt a simplified geometry, which respects the topology and interactions between spins, but does not precisely reproduce the actual locations of Cu$^{2+}$ ions. A description of the actual ion locations is given in Appendix \\[sec:dmv\\]. In our simplified geometry, the spins form a set of regular triangular lattices stacked uniformly along the $z$ axis, with spacing $1$ between spins in the $x$ and $z$ directions, and spacing $\\Delta y=1$ between chains in the triangular plane.\n\nIn this representation, the lattice Hamiltonian for the standard model is $$\\label{eq:117}\n  H_{\\rm sm} = \\sum_{xyz}\\Big\\{ J {\\bm S}_{x,y,z}\\cdot {\\bm S}_{x+1,y,z}\n  - {\\bm h}\\cdot {\\bm S}_{x,y,z} \\Big\\} + H_1 + H_2,$$ with $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:1}\n  H_1 & = & \\sum_{xyz}\nJ' {\\bm S}_{x,y,z}\\cdot\\left({\\bm S}_{x-\\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}+{\\bm S}_{x+\\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}\\right) \n\\label{standard_hamiltonian}\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:118}\n  H_2 & = &  \\sum_{xyz}\\Big\\{ J'' {\\bm S}_{x,y,z}\\cdot {\\bm S}_{x,y,z+1} \\\\\n& & + D (-1)^z {\\hat z} \\cdot {\\bm S}_{x,y,z}\\times \\big(\n  {\\bm S}_{x-\\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}-{\\bm S}_{x+\\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}\\big) \\Big\\}.\n\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$\n\nReview of low energy properties of Heisenberg chains {#sec:review-low-energy}\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nWe give a brief synopsis of known results on the low energy theory of the single Heisenberg chain in a field, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:singlechain}\n  H_{1d} & = & J \\sum_x {\\bm S}(x)\\cdot {\\bm S}(x+1) - h \\sum_x S^z(x).\\end{aligned}$$ Here $x$ are taken as integers, and we have taken the $z$ axis in spin space along the field. In Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:singlechain\\]) the magnetization $M = \\sum_x \\frac{1}{N}S^z(x) = \\langle S^z(x) \\rangle$ is conserved ($N$ is the number of spins), and so it is convenient to work at fixed $M$. The equilibrium relation between magnetization and field $M(h)$ is known from the Bethe ansatz solution, see Ref.\u00a0.\n\nFor any $M$ less than full saturation, $|M|<1/2$, the low energy theory can be described in Abelian bosonization by a single massless free scalar field $\\theta$ and its \u201cdual\u201d $\\phi$ (related to the canonical momentum conjugate to $\\theta$) $$\\label{eq:duals}\n[\\theta(x), \\phi(x')] = - i \\Theta(x-x'),$$ with $\\Theta(x)$ the Heaviside step function. The low energy Hamiltonian is then $$\\label{eq:H-bos-0}\n  H_0 = \\int dx ~\\frac{v}{2} \\Big((\\partial_x \\phi)^2 + (\\partial_x\n  \\theta)^2\\Big)   ,$$ where the velocity $v$ depends on $M$, see Fig.\u00a09 of Ref.\u00a0. At a given $M$, the fluctuations of the \u201clongitudinal\u201d spin component along the field axis are gapless at wavevectors $k_x=0,\\pi\\pm\n2\\delta$, with $\\delta=\\pi M$. Similarly, the \u201ctransverse\u201d spin fluctuations perpendicular to the field axis are gapless at $k_x=\\pm 2\\delta, \\pi$. The lattice spin operator is decomposed thereby according to $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:1dspindecomp}\n  S^z(x) & \\sim & M + \\mathcal{S}^z_0(x) \\\\ &&+ e^{i(\\pi-2\\delta)x}\n    \\mathcal{S}^z_{\\pi-2\\delta}(x) \n     +e^{-i(\\pi-2\\delta)x}\n    \\mathcal{S}^z_{\\pi+2\\delta}(x) , \\nonumber \\\\\n  S^+(x) & \\sim &  e^{-i2\\delta x} \\mathcal{S}^+_{2\\delta}(x)\n    + e^{i 2\\delta x} \\mathcal{S}^+_{-2\\delta}(x) + (-1)^x\n  \\mathcal{S}^+_\\pi(x). \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Here the scaling operators $\\mathcal{S}^z_0, \\mathcal{S}^z_{\\pi\\pm\n  2\\delta}$ describe longitudinal spin fluctuations, and $\\mathcal{S}^\\pm_{\\pm 2\\delta}, \\mathcal{S}^\\pm_\\pi$ transverse ones. These should be assumed to vary slowly with $x$ (and time). Note that the operators $\\mathcal{S}^\\mu_k$ ($\\mu=z, \\pm$) do not mean the Fourier components of $S^\\mu(x)$. They can be expressed in terms of bosonic fields as follows $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:bosonizespinops}\n  \\mathcal{S}^z_0(x) & = & \\beta^{-1}\\partial_x \\phi, \\\\\n  \\mathcal{S}^z_{\\pi-2\\delta}(x) & = & -\\frac{i}{2} A_1 e^{-2\\pi i \\phi/\\beta},\n  \\\\\n  \\mathcal{S}^+_{\\pm 2\\delta}(x) & = & \\pm \\frac{i}{2} A_2 e^{i\\beta \\theta}\n  e^{\\pm i 2\\pi \\phi/\\beta}, \\\\\n  \\label{eq:bosonizespinops+3}\n  \\mathcal{S}^+_\\pi(x) & = & A_3 e^{i\\beta\\theta}.\\end{aligned}$$ The parameter $\\beta$ is obtained by solving the integral equations,[@Bogoliubov-Izergin-Korepin; @Qin-Fabrizio; @Cabra-Honecker-Pujol] and the amplitudes $A_1,A_2,A_3$ have been determined numerically in Ref.\u00a0. We note that the above effective field theory describes the long-distance correlations of the spin chain, and is a good approximation beyond some cut-off length $a_0$. For \u201cgeneric\u201d values of the magnetization, this is of the order of lattice spacing; however, it diverges near saturation ($|M|\\rightarrow 1/2$), where it scales roughly as the distance between flipped spins (antiparallel to the field), $a_0 \\sim\n(1/2-|M|)^{-1}$.\n\nThe parameter $\\beta = 2\\pi R$ is related to the \u201ccompactification radius\u201d $R$. At zero magnetization $M=h=0$, the $SU(2)$ invariant Heisenberg chain has $2\\pi R^2 = 1$. In the field $\\beta$ and $R$ decrease (see Fig. \\[fig:Beta\\_curve\\] of Appendix \\[sec table\\]) toward the limit $2\\pi R^2=1/2$ as $|M|\\rightarrow 1/2$. The scaling dimensions for general $M$ are given in terms of $R$, and in the limits of zero and full polarization, are listed in Table\u00a0\\[tab:dims\\].\n\n               Operator                      $\\Delta$         $M=0$   $M\\rightarrow 1/2$\n  ----------------------------------- ---------------------- ------- --------------------\n           $\\mathcal{S}^z_0$                   $1$             $1$           $1$\n   $\\mathcal{S}^z_{\\pi \\pm 2\\delta}$       $1/4\\pi R^2$       $1/2$          $1$\n    $\\mathcal{S}^\\pm_{\\pm 2\\delta}$    $\\pi R^2+1/4\\pi R^2$    $1$          $5/4$\n        $\\mathcal{S}^\\pm_{\\pi}$             $\\pi R^2$         $1/2$         $1/4$\n\n  : Scaling dimensions of scaling fields associated with spin fluctuations in the one dimensional Heisenberg chain at magnetization $M$. The third and fourth columns give the scaling dimensions in the limit of zero and full polarization, respectively.[]{data-label=\"tab:dims\"}\n\nIn addition to the scaling fields above, which appear in the expansion of spin operators, we will also make use of the spin current, for the component of spin along the field axis. This has the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:19}\n  J^z(x) & = & \\frac{-i}{2} \\left[ S^+(x) S^-(x+1) -\n    S^-(x)S^+(x+1)\\right]\\nonumber \\\\\n&&  \\sim \\mathcal{J}^z(x).\\end{aligned}$$ Like the spin density $\\mathcal{S}_0^z$, this has a simple bosonization formula, $$\\label{eq:20}\n  \\mathcal{J}^z = \\frac{v}{\\beta J} \\partial_x \\theta.$$ We note that at $M=0$, $v/J=\\pi/2$ takes a simple value, but at $M>0$ the coefficient decreases continuously.\n\nIt may also be useful to connect with the limit of zero field $M=\\delta=0$, which is probably more familiar. Here the Hamiltonian has SU(2) symmetry. In this limit, the three operators ${\\rm\n  Re}[\\mathcal{S}_\\pi^+]$, ${\\rm Im}[\\mathcal{S}_\\pi^+]$, and ${\\rm\n  Re}[\\mathcal{S}^z_{\\pi-2\\delta}]$ become unified into the three components of the N\u00e9el field ${\\bm N}$ (scaling dimension 1/2), while the other three operators, ${\\rm\n  Re}[\\mathcal{S}_{2\\delta}^+]$, ${\\rm Im}[\\mathcal{S}_{2\\delta}^+]$, and $\\mathcal{S}_0^z$, become the uniform magnetization operator ${\\bm\n  L} = {\\bm J}_R + {\\bm J}_L$, where ${\\bm J}_{R/L}$ are the chiral spin currents (scaling dimension 1). The remaining operator, ${\\rm\n  Im}[\\mathcal{S}^z_{\\pi-2\\delta}]$ becomes the staggered dimerization field $\\varepsilon$ (scaling dimension 1/2).\n\nDM-ology {#sec:dm-ology}\n--------\n\nHere we present the DM terms which correct the standard model, as allowed by the space group symmetry of the lattice. They are derived in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:dmv\\]. Since [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0is an $S=1/2$ system with a single unpaired electron in a non-degenerate orbital, we expect that spin-orbit effects to be perturbative. In this limit, the leading effect is to generate DM terms on the same bonds on which exchange interactions are present, and which are proportional to both the exchange coupling on that bond, and to the strength of spin orbit interactions. As a consequence, we need to consider DM terms only on bonds with reasonably strong exchange, that is, the intra-layer triangular lattice bonds. These come in two types: the on-chain bonds and the diagonals. We denote the DM vectors on the former bonds by ${\\bm D}$ and on the latter by ${\\bm D}'$, in analogy to $J$ and $J'$ exchange couplings on the same bonds.\n\nThe space group symmetry of the lattice determines the pattern of relative signs of the DM vectors on each of these bonds (see Appendix \\[sec:dmv\\]). We find the following form $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:11}\n  H_D & = & \\sum_{xyz} \\Big\\{ {\\bm D}_{y,z}\\cdot {\\bm S}_{x,y,z}\\times\n  {\\bm S}_{x+1,y,z} \\nonumber\n\\\\ && + {\\bm D}^+_{y,z}\\cdot {\\bm S}_{x,y,z}\\times\n  {\\bm S}_{x+1/2,y+1,z} \\nonumber \\\\ && + {\\bm D}^-_{y,z}\\cdot {\\bm S}_{x,y,z}\\times\n  {\\bm S}_{x-1/2,y+1,z}\\Big\\},\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:18}\n  {\\bm D}_{y,z} & = & D_a (-1)^z \\hat{a} + D_c (-1)^y \\hat{c}, \\label{DM_chain}\\\\\n  {\\bm D}^\\pm_{y,z} & = & \\pm D'_a (-1)^z \\hat{a} + D'_b (-1)^{y+z}\n  \\hat{b} \\pm D'_c (-1)^{y+z}\\hat{c},\\nonumber \\label{DM_diagonal}\\\\ &&\\end{aligned}$$ and $D'_a\\equiv D$ is the DM term in the standard model. The relative signs of the DM vectors are graphically shown in Fig. \\[fig: DM\\_distribution\\].\n\nOne sees that symmetry allows five distinct DM couplings: $D=D'_a$, $D'_b$, $D'_c$, $D_a$ and $D_c$. Of these, only $D'_a$ and $D_c$ will be invoked in the body of this paper. The remaining three can be safely neglected, as explained in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:negl-dm-coupl\\].\n\n![Distribution of the DM vectors. Sites 1,2,3, and 4 correspond to $(x,y,z)$, $(x+\\frac{1}{2},y+1,z)$, $(x,y,z+1)$, and $(x+\\frac{1}{2},y+1,z+1)$, respectively. (a) The signs $\\otimes$, $\\odot$ refer to the direction of the DM vectors along $a$ axis. (b) The arrows indicate the direction of the DM vectors along $b$ or $c$ axis. We use the convention (see Eq.\u00a0) in which the first spin in the cross product ${\\bm D}_{ij}\\cdot {\\bm S}_i \\times\n  {\\bm S}_j$ is the one with smaller $x$ for the on-chain bonds (i.e. it is on the left side of the bond), and it is the one with smaller $y$ on the diagonal bonds (i.e. it is the lower of the two spins). Note that a different convention is used in Refs.\u00a0.[]{data-label=\"fig: DM_distribution\"}](DM_distribution.pdf){width=\"0.8\\columnwidth\"}\n\nCompeting Interactions, Scaling, and Chain Mean Field Theory {#sec:renorm-group-appr}\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe assume that [*all*]{} inter-chain couplings are weak. In this case, a scaling analysis based on a perturbative RG treatment is appropriate. This proceeds in a standard way. One integrates out short-distance modes (i.e. small $x$ or large $k_x$), progressively reducing the large momentum cutoff from its \u201cbare\u201d value $\\Lambda$ (of order the inverse lattice spacing, which we take in turn to be $O(1)$) to $\\Lambda\ne^{-\\ell}$, where $\\ell \\in [0,\\infty]$ is the logarithmic RG scaling variable. Equivalently, the corresponding real space cutoff is $L=ae^\\ell$, where $a$ is a microscopic length (which we take to be $O(1)$). As we integrate out modes, the couplings themselves are renormalized. For each given coupling constant $\\gamma_{i}$, which appears in the Hamiltonian as $H=H_0+\\cdots + \\int\\!  dx \\, \\gamma_{i}\n\\mathcal{O}_i$, we can define a [*dimensionless*]{} coupling $\\breve{\\gamma}_i = \\gamma_i/(v\\Lambda_\\ell^2)$, which is measured relative to the typical magnitude of the terms in the free bosonic field theory. Equivalently, division by both a factor of $v\\Lambda_\\ell$ (the typical energy at this scale) and an additional factor of $\\Lambda_\\ell$ (a typical inverse length) are needed to render $\\gamma_i$, which is an energy density, dimensionless. To linear order, each dimensionless coupling \u201cflows\u201d according to the RG equation $$\\label{eq:RGgeneral}\n  \\partial_\\ell \\breve{\\gamma}_{i} = (2-\\Delta_{i})\\breve{\\gamma}_{i}.$$ Note that the factor of $2$ in this equation, which comes from the normalization by $1/\\Lambda_\\ell^2$, is equivalent to the space-time dimensionality of the (1+1)-dimensional field theory of the spin chains. In RG schemes in which space-time is rescaled to keep the cutoff fixed, this factor arises directly from that rescaling. We prefer to formulate the RG without rescaling in this paper, so that all lengths, times, energies, etc. are explicit.\n\nMany of the above operators may be [*relevant*]{} in the RG sense. This means that, with increasing $\\ell$, the dimensionless coupling constants [*increase*]{}, which implies $\\Delta<2$ for that coupling. The RG is valid only so long as the [*largest*]{} of these dimensionless couplings remains small. Crudely, then, we may determine the length scale $\\xi$ at which inter-chain coupling becomes significant by the point $\\ell=\\ell^*$ [*at which the first operator renormalizes to become of $O(1)$*]{}, where $\\xi=a e^{\\ell^*}$. The length $\\xi$ defines a correlation length, below which the dynamics is approximately one-dimensional.\n\nIf this first \u201cdiverging\u201d operator is unique, one can often identify the nature of the associated instability of the decoupled chains. In many cases, this can be done by dropping the other operators, and treating the remaining one by a type of mean field theory. Sometimes it can be treated in a semiclassical fashion. None of these approaches are rigorous, but they are eminently reasonable, and are likely to correctly predict the nature of the resulting state.\n\n$ $From this reasoning, we see that both the bare magnitude and the scaling dimension (relevance) of the different interactions are important in determining the low energy state of the system. To be more concrete, consider two candidate operators, $\\mathcal{O}_1,\\mathcal{O}_2$. Their renormalized coupling constants obey $$\\label{eq:32}\n  \\breve{\\gamma}_i(\\xi) = \\frac{\\gamma_i}{v} \\xi^{2-\\Delta_i}.$$ Here, since $\\Lambda=\\Lambda_{\\ell=0}$ is $O(1)$, we replace $\\breve{\\gamma}_i(\\ell=0) = \\gamma_i(\\ell=0)/v=\\gamma_i/v$. Setting $\\breve{\\gamma}_i(\\xi_i)= C$, an $O(1)$ constant, we obtain $$\\label{eq:33}\n  \\xi_i = \\left(\\frac{C v}{\\gamma_i}\\right)^{\\frac{1}{2-\\Delta_i}}.$$ We expect that operator 1 (2) is dominant if $\\xi_1$ ($\\xi_2$) is the shorter length. Hence the boundary between the two regimes, in which one or the other operator dominates, occurs when $\\xi_1=\\xi_2$, or $$\\label{eq:34}\n  \\gamma_1^{2-\\Delta_2}= (C v)^{\\Delta_1-\\Delta_2} \\gamma_2^{2-\\Delta_1}.$$ Note that, although the scaling of this boundary is determined by this argument, the precise location is not, due to the ambiguity of $C$. We can understand this conclusion also from the scaling of the ground state energy density, $\\mathcal{E}_0$, which obeys $$\\label{eq:35}\n  \\mathcal{E}_0(\\gamma_1,\\gamma_2) = b^{-2} \\mathcal{E}_0\\left(\\frac{\\gamma_1}{v}\n  b^{2-\\Delta_1},\\frac{\\gamma_2}{v} b^{2-\\Delta_2}\\right).$$ Choosing $b = (\\frac{\\gamma_1}{v})^{-1/(2-\\Delta_1)}$, we obtain $$\\label{eq:36}\n    \\mathcal{E}_0(\\gamma_1,\\gamma_2) = \\left(\\frac{\\gamma_1}{v}\\right)^{\\frac{2}{2-\\Delta_1}} f( \\gamma_2/ (\\gamma_1/v)^{(2-\\Delta_2)/(2-\\Delta_1)}),$$ where $f({{\\cal X}})$ is a universal scaling function. If there is a phase transition as $\\gamma_1$ and $\\gamma_2$ are varied, there must therefore be a non-analyticity at ${{\\cal X}}={{\\cal X}}^*$ in $f({{\\cal X}})$, for some ${{\\cal X}}^*$. This gives an equivalent condition to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:34\\]). To precisely determine the phase boundary, we need to know ${{\\cal X}}^*$ (or $C$), which means we need knowledge of $f({{\\cal X}})$. Such scaling functions are generally determined by the full RG flows out of the scale-invariant theory, and not just perturbative data.\n\nTo resolve this ambiguity, we turn to an approach which is equivalent to the former one at the [*scaling*]{} level, but which is more quantitative. A natural choice is the Chain Mean Field Theory (CMFT), in which inter-chain couplings are treated by a self-consistent Weiss-type decoupling, using the exact solutions of perturbed but decoupled individual chain problems [@schulz-cmft]. Our CMFT approach is described in detail in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:cmft\\]. In principle, it can be employed to determine a full mean-field phase diagram. Here, we will mostly use it in more limited ways, as convenient. To address the ambiguity discussed above, we use the CMFT to compute a putative ordering temperature, $T_i$, for each channel driven by an operator $\\mathcal{O}_i$. The instability which sets in first upon lowering the temperature, i.e. with maximal $T_i$, is assumed to be dominant. Another application of CMFT will be to compute the magnitude of the ordering induced by a coupling $\\gamma_i$, at zero temperature. This will be useful in making quantitative estimates of more subtle smaller energy scales, as we will see below.\n\nIdeal 2d model {#sec:ideal-2d-model}\n==============\n\nIn this section, we consider the behavior of the ideal 2d model, described by the standard model in Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:Hexpt\\],\\[eq:1\\]) with $J''=D=0$.\n\nContinuum limit {#sec:continuum-limit}\n---------------\n\nFor this case, the technology of the previous section can be straightforwardly applied. We begin with the na\u00efve procedure of simply inserting the decompositions in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:1dspindecomp\\]) into the microscopic inter-chain lattice Hamiltonian in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:1\\]) (We will assess the need to go beyond this approximation later). Specifically, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:2}\n   S_{x,y,z}^z & \\sim &  M + \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;0}(x) \\\\\n&& + e^{i(\\pi-2\\delta)x} \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\\pi-2\\delta}(x) + e^{-i(\\pi-2\\delta)x} \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\\pi+2\\delta}(x) , \\nonumber \\\\\nS_{x,y,z}^+& \\sim &  e^{-i2\\delta x} \\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;2\\delta}(x)\\nonumber \\\\\n&& \n    + e^{i 2\\delta x} \\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;-2\\delta}(x) + e^{i\\pi x}\n  \\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\\pi}(x). \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ It might appear that a slightly different formula should be applied for odd chains, since in those cases in our convention the $x$ coordinates are half-integer rather than integer. However, the differences can be removed by constant shifts of $\\theta$ and $\\phi$ for the odd chains, without any further changes. Hence we can uniformly apply Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:2\\]) to all chains.\n\nHaving dropped the $D$ term, the behavior of the model at zero temperature is independent of the direction of the field, and is a function only of the magnetization $M$ and the magnitude of $J'$. Inserting the decomposition of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:1dspindecomp\\]) into $H_1$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:1\\]), one need keep only terms which do not oscillate, the condition corresponding to momentum conservation. Using the slowly-varying nature of the scaling operators in $x$ (but [*not*]{} in $y$ and/or $z$), one may take a continuum limit in $x$ by gradient expansion to obtain the lowest non-vanishing terms of each type. One finds:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:H1dec}\n  H_1 & \\approx & J' \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \\Big\\{ 2 M^2 + 2\n  \\mathcal{S}_{y,z;0}^z\\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;0}^z +\n  2\\sin \\delta\\left[ \\mathcal{S}_{y,z;\\pi-2\\delta}^z \n  \\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\\pi+2\\delta}^z+ {\\rm h.c.}\\right] \\nonumber \\\\\n  & & +\\frac{1}{2} \\left[-i\\mathcal{S}_{y,z;\\pi}^+ \\partial_x\n  \\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\\pi}^- + {\\rm h.c.}\\right] + \\cos\\delta \\left[\n   \\mathcal{S}_{y,z;2\\delta}^+\n    \\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;2\\delta}^- + \\mathcal{S}_{y,z;-2\\delta}^+\n    \\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;-2\\delta}^- + {\\rm h.c.}\\right] \\Big\\}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nLet us now assess the importance of each of the terms in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:H1dec\\]). This is accomplished by ranking each of the terms in order of increasing scaling dimension, or equivalently, decreasing relevance in the RG sense. Formally, the most relevant term is the first ($M^2$) one, which is a $c$-number constant and hence of dimension zero. Though it is a \u201ctrivial\u201d constant (at fixed magnetization) and hence does not affect the dynamics of the system, it is indeed the dominant correction to the ground state energy of the weakly coupled chains. Being positive, it implies an increase of this energy with increasing $M$, and hence a suppression of the $M(h)$ curve at fixed external field $h$. This is calculated in Ref., and reproduced in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec table\\]. The result agrees very well with experimental data on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}.\n\nConsulting Table\u00a0\\[tab:dims\\], one sees that of the remaining terms, the third and fourth terms are presumably most important. The third term involves $\\mathcal{S}^z_{\\pi\\pm 2\\delta}$ operators, whose scaling dimensions approach the minimal value of $1/2$ at small magnetization. Because this term lacks any derivatives, it achieves nearly the smallest total scaling dimension ($\\approx 2 \\times 1/2 =\n1$) for small $M$. The fourth term contains a derivative (which adds $1$ to its scaling dimension), but contains $\\mathcal{S}^\\pm_\\pi$ operators, whose scaling dimensions decrease from $1/2$ towards $1/4$ near saturation. Thus the total scaling dimension of the fourth term decreases from $2\\times 1/2 + 1=2$ at small $M$ towards $2\\times\n1/4+1=1.5$ near saturation. This makes it less relevant than the third term at small $M$, but more relevant than it near saturation. The remaining (second and fifth) terms have larger scaling dimensions for all values of the magnetization.\n\nWe therefore drop these less relevant terms, as well as the constant contribution to the energy to obtain $H_1 \\rightarrow H'_1$, with $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:H1p}\n  H'_1 & = & \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \\Big\\{ \n  \\gamma_{\\rm sdw} \\mathcal{S}_{y,z;\\pi-2\\delta}^z \n  \\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\\pi+2\\delta}^z \n  -i \\gamma_{\\rm cone}\\mathcal{S}_{y,z;\\pi}^+ \\partial_x\n  \\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\\pi}^- + {\\rm h.c.} \\Big\\},\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwith $\\gamma_{\\rm sdw} = 2 J'\\sin\\delta$, $\\gamma_{\\rm cone} = J'/2$. Equivalently, using the bosonization formulae in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:bosonizespinops\\]), one can rewrite $H'_1$ in sine-Gordon form, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:Hsg1}\n  H'_1 & = &  \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \\Big\\{ {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm sdw} \\cos [2\\pi\n  (\\phi_{y,z}-\\phi_{y+1,z})/\\beta ] \\\\ &&  - {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm cone}\n  (\\partial_x \\theta_{y,z}+ \\partial_x \\theta_{y+1,z}) \n  \\cos [\\beta(\\theta_{y,z} - \\theta_{y+1,z})] \\Big\\},\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ with ${\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm sdw} = J' A_1^2 \\sin \\delta$ and ${\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm cone} = J' A_3^2\n\\beta/2$.\n\nPhases of  {#sec:phases}\n----------\n\nThe names of these coupling constants have been chosen to reflect their probable consequences. For small magnetization, where $\\gamma_{\\rm sdw}$ is most strongly relevant, one expects collinear \u201cspin density wave\u201d (SDW) ordering of spins along the $z$ (field) axis, with $$\\label{eq:44}\n  \\langle \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\\pi\\pm 2\\delta}\\rangle = |\\psi| (-1)^y e^{i\\alpha_z},$$ which minimizes the SDW interaction term. Here $\\alpha_z \\in [0,2\\pi]$ can be arbitrary for each $z$, since the layers are decoupled. Near saturation, where $\\gamma_{\\rm cone}$ becomes more relevant, one expects a \u201cspiraling\u201d order of the components of the spins transverse to the field, $$\\label{eq:45}\n  \\langle  \\mathcal{S}^\\pm_{y,z;\\pi}(x) \\rangle =   |\\psi| (\\sigma_z)^y\n   e^{i \\sigma_z q_0 x}e^{i\\Theta_z},$$ with some $q_0>0$, and where $\\sigma_z=\\pm 1$ and $\\Theta_z$ are independent for each $z$. Some incommensurate pitch $q_0$ is preferred by the derivative in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:H1p\\]), but is expected to be small as it is disfavored by the single chain Hamiltonian. Because of the non-zero magnetization along the $z$ axis, the spins in this phase sweep out a \u201ccone\u201d as one moves along the $b$ (chain) axis in real space.\n\nFollowing the logic in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:renorm-group-appr\\], the dominant interaction, at each magnetization, is the one whose putative ordering temperature is largest. The estimated ordering temperatures for the SDW and cone states, calculated from CMFT, are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\]. One can see that the two curves cross at $M\\approx 0.24$, which therefore separates a region of SDW state at lower magnetization from a cone state at higher magnetization.\n\n![(Color online) Putative ordering temperatures within chain mean field theory for SDW interaction, ($T_{\\rm sdw}$, dotted (red) line) and cone ($T_{\\rm cone}$, solid (blue) line) interactions, within the ideal two-dimensional model. Dashed blue line, emanating from $M=1/2$ point, represents $T_{\\rm cone} \\propto (1/2-M)$ (Eq.\u00a0) which describes the cross-over between 1d behavior obtained by bosonization with CMFT, and 2d one, which takes over for $M \\geq 0.45$. The larger ordering temperature is expected to be physical, while the putative lower temperature transition will be suppressed by the dominant competing order.[]{data-label=\"fig:RG1\"}](Fig3-sdwcone-interpol.pdf){width=\"3.4in\"}\n\nThis change from an SDW to a cone state is primarily due to the variation of scaling dimensions with magnetization. As $M$ increases, the spin correlations are increasingly XY-like, i.e. enhanced transverse to the field and suppressed parallel to it. While the SDW term is obviously more relevant than the cone term near $M=0$, due to the derivative in the latter, the change in scaling dimensions eventually compensates. Equating the two scaling dimensions, one finds $R=R_c$, with $2\\pi R_c^2 = (\\sqrt{5}-1)/2\\approx 0.62$ (the golden ratio!). This occurs at magnetization $M_c \\approx 0.32$ (i.e about $65$ percent of the saturation value). This approximately recovers the more accurate estimate $M_c \\approx 0.24$, obtained above. Similar estimate holds for the SDW-to-cone phase transition in a single zig-zag ladder.[@kolezhuk2005]\n\nCritical temperature {#sec:critical-temperature}\n--------------------\n\nFurther details of the behavior of the critical temperatures in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\] can be understood physically. The SDW critical temperature increases from small values at small $M$, to a maximum around $M=0.1$, above which it again decreases. The initial rise is due to the partial relieve of frustration of the inter-chain $J'$ coupling by increasing incommensurability of the longitudinal spin correlations. The ultimate decay of $T_{\\rm sdw}$ is due simply to the suppression of longitudinal spin correlations as the chain becomes more XY-like. The same increasing XY-like behavior leads to the growth of $T_{\\rm cone}$ with $M$.\n\nThe two endpoints, $M\\rightarrow 0$ and $M\\rightarrow 1/2$, require special consideration. Approaching zero field, the dominant SDW interaction vanishes. This case requires a subtle analysis of fluctuation-generated interactions, which was undertaken in Ref.\u00a0. There it was observed that corrections to the na\u00efve continuum limit are crucial to obtain the correct behavior, which is [*neither*]{} an SDW state nor a spiral, but rather a commensurate, collinear, antiferromagnet (CAF). This CAF state replaces SDW as the ground state near the $M=0$ limit, see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: magnetic\\_phases\\]d, which is the reason for $T_{\\rm sdw/cone}$ curves in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\] (as well as in most other $T_c$ vs. $M$ figures in the paper) start not at $M=0$ but at a finite $M=0.02$ value. We will not go into further detail on this point here, but simply mention that another instance of fluctuation-generated couplings will be encountered later in Secs.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-b\\]-\\[sec:field-along-c\\].\n\nThe other limit, $M\\rightarrow 1/2$, can be attacked differently. At $M=1/2$, one has full spin saturation, and the state is unique and trivial. Single spin-flip magnon excitations can be found exactly including the effects of $J'$. One may obtain in this limit a cone state as a magnon condensate, as in Refs. . In this formulation, it is clear that the critical temperature for the ordering must vanish as $M\\rightarrow 1/2$. However, this is not observed in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\]. This is due to a non-commuting order of limits. In the vicinity of saturation, scaling (see Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-limits\\]) in fact predicts that [*all*]{} physical quantities are functions of the combination $$\\label{eq:37}\n  \\Xi = \\frac{J'/J}{\\tfrac{1}{2}-M},$$ when $\\tfrac{1}{2}-M \\ll 1$. The bosonization analysis carried out above is valid for $\\Xi\\ll 1$. However, for $\\Xi\\gg 1$ a different behavior obtains. Specifically, the critical temperature is expected to scale (up to logarithmic corrections) according to $$\\label{eq:38}\n  T_{\\rm cone} =  (\\tfrac{1}{2}-M)^2\\mathcal{F}\\left[\\frac{J'/J}{\\tfrac{1}{2}-M}\\right]$$ where $\\mathcal{F}[\\Xi]\\sim \\Xi^2$ for $\\Xi\\ll1$ and $\\mathcal{F}[\\Xi]\n\\sim \\Xi$ for $\\Xi \\gg 1$. One can see that this form indeed vanishes on approaching saturation. The maximum of $T_{\\rm cone}$ should be obtained by differentiating, occurs when $\\mathcal{F}(\\Xi)= \\Xi\n\\mathcal{F}'(\\Xi)$, which implies $\\Xi$ of $O(1)$. Hence the maximum $T_{\\rm cone}$ occurs very close to saturation, where $\\tfrac{1}{2}-M\n\\sim J'/J$, and its presence is not captured in the bosonization result plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\]. Hence the temperature $T_{\\rm cone}$ is overestimated, leading to an underestimate of the magnetization of the crossing point from Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\]. This effect is probably small, however, since this occurs relatively far from saturation.\n\nSDW and magnetization plateaus {#sec:plateau}\n------------------------------\n\nThe above considerations treat only the most relevant terms in the effective Hamiltonian. This, however, neglects some important physics in the SDW phase. In particular, it misses [*commensurability*]{} effects, when the SDW period can become \u201clocked\u201d (i.e. fixed over a region of field and temperature) to a multiple of the lattice constant.\n\nMicroscopically, this effect arises from \u201cumklapp\" processes, which distinguish quasimomentum from true momentum, violating absolute conservation of the former. The $x$ component of the quasimomentum is important here, and hence umklapp events carry momentum $2\\pi$. Since the SDW carries momentum $\\pi \\pm 2\\delta$, a umklapp event occurs when a number $k$ of SDW quanta are absorbed or emitted, adding to $\\pm\n2\\pi$. This condition is rigorously derived below, where we outline symmetry considerations which fix the form of the allowed microscopic umklapp Hamiltonian completely.\n\n### Symmetry constraints {#sec:symmetry-constraints}\n\nWe start by analyzing how $\\phi_y(x)$ transforms under discrete lattice symmetries.[@miles2008] For that, we re-write as $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_y^z(x) &\\sim& M + \\beta^{-1}\\partial_x \\phi_y(x) + \\nonumber\\\\\n&& - A_1 \\sin[\\frac{2\\pi \\phi_y(x)}{\\beta} - (\\pi - 2\\delta) x] .\n\\label{eq:umk1}\\end{aligned}$$ It then follows that translation along the chain transforms $\\phi_y(x)$ as $$\\phi_y(x) \\to \\phi_y(x+1) - \\frac{\\beta}{2\\pi} (\\pi -2\\delta) ,\n\\label{eq:translation-x}$$ while translation along the north-east diagonal ($y\\to y+1, x\\to x+1/2$) changes it to $$\\phi_y(x) \\to \\phi_{y+1}(x+1/2) - \\frac{\\beta}{4\\pi} (\\pi -2\\delta) .\n\\label{eq:translation-y}$$ Spatial inversion ($x\\to -x$) changes it as well: $$\\phi_y(x) \\to \\frac{\\beta}{2} - \\phi_y(-x) .\n\\label{eq:inversion}$$ In addition, $\\phi_y(x)$ is defined modulo $\\beta$ so that $$\\phi_y(x) \\to \\phi_y(x) + \\beta\n\\label{eq:period}$$ must be respected also.\n\nWe now specify the general form for the $k$-th order umklapp term: $$H_{\\rm umk}^{(k)} = \\sum_y \\int dx ~t_k(y) \\cos[\\frac{2\\pi k}{\\beta} \\phi_y(x) + \\omega_k].\n\\label{eq:umk2}$$ where $t_k \\sim O(J)$ is the bare amplitude and $\\omega_k$ is yet undetermined phase. The periodicity requirement, Eq. , implies that $k$ must be an [*integer*]{}. The translation in Eq. changes the argument of cosine in Eq. into $2\\pi k \\phi_y/\\beta + \\omega_k - k(\\pi-2\\delta)$ which implies that $$k (\\pi-2\\delta) = 2\\pi \\nu .\n\\label{eq:umk3}$$ Since $\\delta = \\pi M$, the above equation implies that allowed values of the magnetization are given by $$M^{(k,\\nu)} = \\frac{1}{2} \\Big(1 - \\frac{2 \\nu}{k}\\Big),$$ where $\\nu$ and $k$ are positive integers. This condition is equivalent to the magnetization quantization condition for a single spin chain.[@oshikawa1997] However, we will see that $\\nu$ and $k$ are [*not*]{} arbitrary in the two-dimensional triangular lattice.\n\nThe remaining symmetries, translation along the diagonal of the triangular lattice, Eq. , and spatial inversion, Eq. , require that $t_k(y) = (-1)^{y \\nu} t_k$ and $\\omega_k = -\\pi/2$ for [*odd*]{} $k$ and $\\omega_k = 0$ for [*even*]{} $k$. As a result, the most general form of the umklapp term, consistent with lattice symmetries and involving single chains and no spatial derivatives, reads $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:umk6}\nH_{\\rm umk}^{(k={\\rm odd})} &=& \\sum_y \\int dx ~t_k (-1)^{y \\nu} \\sin[\\frac{2\\pi k}{\\beta} \\phi_y(x)], \\\\\nH_{\\rm umk}^{(k={\\rm even})} &=& \\sum_y \\int dx ~t_k (-1)^{y \\nu} \\cos[\\frac{2\\pi k}{\\beta} \\phi_y(x)].\n\\label{eq:umk6b}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n### Energetic constraints {#sec:energ-constr}\n\nTo proceed, we bring out the energetics associated with the underlying SDW order by making the shift $$\\phi_y(x) \\to \\phi_y(x) + (-1)^y \\frac{\\beta}{4}\n\\label{eq:umk7}$$ so as to minimize the leading SDW term in Eq. (see Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-sdw\\]). In terms of the transformed fields, the SDW ground state corresponds to an $x$- and $y$-independent configuration of $\\phi_y(x) = \\phi_0$. This shift modifies Eq. as $$H_{\\rm umk}^{(k={\\rm odd})} = \\sum_y \\int dx ~t_k\n(-1)^{y (\\nu +1)} \\sin[\\frac{\\pi k}{2}] \\cos[\\frac{2\\pi k}{\\beta}\n\\phi_y(x)] .$$ We immediately conclude that [*odd*]{}-$k$ umklapp processes must have [*odd*]{} $\\nu$ in order to be able to gain some energy \u2013 otherwise the sum oscillates with $y$ and does not give an extensive contribution. Similarly, Eq. becomes $$H_{\\rm umk}^{(k={\\rm\n    even})} = \\sum_y \\int dx ~t_k (-1)^{y \\nu} \\cos[\\frac{\\pi k}{2}]\n\\cos [\\frac{2\\pi k}{\\beta} \\phi_y(x)] ,$$ implying that now $\\nu$ must be [*even*]{}.\n\nThis interesting result allows us to finally represent [*all*]{} allowed umklapp terms in a single compact equation $$\\begin{aligned}\nH_{\\rm umk}^{(k)} &=& \\sum_y \\int dx ~\\tilde{t}_k\\cos[\\frac{2\\pi k}{\\beta} \\phi_y(x)] ,\n\\label{eq:umk8}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\tilde{t}_k=t_k  (\\cos[\\frac{\\pi k}{2}] + \\sin[\\frac{\\pi\n  k}{2}])$, and Eq.\u00a0 must be supplemented by the important constraint $$\\label{eq:87}\n  \\nu = k \\qquad \\textrm{(mod 2)},$$ i.e. $\\nu$ [*must have the same parity as*]{} $k$.\n\n### Allowed plateaux {#sec:allowed-plateaux}\n\nIt is natural to consider the plateaux in order of increasing $k$ \u2013 this will be directly related to the robustness of the plateau (see below). One finds that the first non-trivial possibility (different from the non-polarized $M=0$ or the fully polarized $M=1/2$ limits), corresponds to $\\nu=1, k =3$ when $M=1/6 = \\frac{1}{3} (\\frac{1}{2})$. Assuming for concreteness $\\tilde{t}_{k=3} > 0$ we find that $\\phi_0 =\n\\beta (2 n + 1)/6$ (with $n=0,1,2$) minimizes Eq.\u00a0 (and, by construction, the SDW interaction in Eq.\u00a0). Working backwards through the chain of the transformations we find that Eq.\u00a0 predicts (recall that $(\\pi - 2\\delta) = 2\\pi/3$ here) $$\\langle S_y^z(x) \\rangle_{M=1/6} = M + A_1 (-1)^y \\cos[\\frac{2\\pi x}{3}\n- \\frac{\\pi (2 n +1)}{3}].$$ This equation describes the famous [@chub1991] [*up-up-down*]{} (uud) spin configuration of the $1/3$-magnetization plateau, i.e. with two-thirds of the sites having a larger spontaneous magnetic moment than the remaining third. It also correctly predicts relative arrangement of down-spins on neighboring chains: the system gains energy by coupling every down-spin with a pair of up-spins on adjacent chains. The resulting pattern has down-spins in the centers of hexagons formed by up-spins. For the other sign, $\\tilde{t}_{k=3}<0$, one finds instead of the uud configuration one in which two-thirds of the sites have a [*smaller*]{} spontaneous moment than the remaining third. This corresponds to the \u201cquantum\u201d magnetization plateau suggested in Ref.\u00a0, where the magnetic unit cell is composed of a spin singlet on a pair of sites accompanied by an up-pointing spin.\n\nOther possible plateaux include $M = 3/10 = \\frac{3}{5} (\\frac{1}{2})$ ($k=5, \\nu=1$) and $M = 5/14 = \\frac{5}{7} (\\frac{1}{2})$ ($k=7, \\nu=1$). Importantly, several of the smaller-$k$ plateaux are excluded due to the \u2018mismatch\u2019 between the parities of $k$ and $\\nu$ numbers. These include $k=4, \\nu=1$ which leads to $M = 1/4$ (one-half plateau) and $k=6, \\nu=1$ which would result in $M = 1/3$ (two-thirds plateau).\n\n### Effective two-dimensional sine-Gordon model {#sec:plateaux-width}\n\nWe now use the RG to derive an effective two-dimensional sine-Gordon model. Our starting point is given by the following Hamiltonian: $$\\begin{aligned}\nH_{\\rm plateau}^{(k)} &=& \\sum_y \\int dx \\{ \\frac{v}{2} (\\partial_x\\phi_y)^2 - \n\\tilde{\\gamma}_{\\rm sdw} \\cos[\\frac{2\\pi}{\\beta}(\\phi_y - \\phi_{y+1})] \\nonumber\\\\\n&&  - \\frac{v q(h)}{\\beta} \\partial_x \\phi_y(x) + \\tilde{t}_k \\cos[\\frac{2\\pi k}{\\beta}\\phi] \\},\n\\label{eq:umk9}\\end{aligned}$$ which incorporates the shift Eq. . Observe the appearance of the new, linear in spatial derivative term, which is added here [@miles2008] to describe variation of the magnetic field $h$ near the optimal plateau value $h^{(k,\\nu)}$. The optimal field is defined by the condition that the magnetization in the absence of the umklapp term, $M_0(h)$, is given by the plateau\u2019s value, $M_0(h^{(k,\\nu)}) = M^{(k,\\nu)}$. Then $q(h) = 2\\pi k (M_0(h) - M^{(k,\\nu)})$.\n\nWe then iteratively integrate out high-energy modes, reducing the momentum cutoff from initial $\\Lambda_0 \\sim 1$ to $\\Lambda_{\\rm sdw}= \\Lambda_0 e^{-\\ell_{\\rm sdw}}$, as described in the Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:biquadratic\\]. The new, reduced cutoff $\\Lambda_{\\rm sdw}$ is determined by the condition that the renormalized SDW coupling, $\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm sdw} (\\Lambda_{\\rm sdw}/\\Lambda_0)^{\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}}$ becomes comparable to the contribution of the gradient term to the energy density at the same scale, $v \\Lambda_{\\rm sdw}^2$. Here $\\Delta_{\\rm sdw} = 2/(4\\pi R^2)$ is the scaling dimension of the SDW cosine in Eq.\u00a0. This leads to the estimate $\\Lambda_{\\rm sdw}/\\Lambda_0 \\sim (\\frac{\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm sdw}}{v\\Lambda_0^2})^{1/(2 - \\Delta_{\\rm sdw})}$. At this scale, SDW coupling is of the order $v\\Lambda^2 \\sim\n(\\tilde{\\gamma}_{\\rm sdw}^2/v^{\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}})^{\\frac{1}{2-\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}}}$ and the SDW term should be minimized. Therefore, the argument of cosine is small and we can approximate $$\\cos[\\frac{2\\pi}{\\beta}(\\phi_y - \\phi_{y+1})] \\to 1 -\n\\frac{1}{2}\\left( \\frac{2\\pi}{\\beta} \\right)^2 (\\partial_y \\phi(x,y))^2 .$$ The umklapp term has a scaling dimension, $\\Delta_k = (2\\pi k/\\beta)^2/(4\\pi) = k^2/(4\\pi R^2)$, which grows quadratically with the $k$, and is thereby strongly suppressed by high-energy fluctuations: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\tilde{t}_k(\\ell_{\\rm sdw}) &=&\\tilde{t}_k(0) \\Big(\\frac{\\Lambda_{\\rm\n    sdw}}{\\Lambda_0}\\Big)^{\\frac{k^2}{4\\pi R^2}} \\nonumber\\\\ \n&&\\approx v \\Big(\\frac{J'}{v}\\Big)^{\\frac{k^2} {8\\pi R^2 -2}} .\n\\label{eq:plateau2}\\end{aligned}$$ At this stage it is convenient to define a rescaled field, $\\varphi = 2\\pi k\n\\phi/\\beta + \\pi \\Theta(\\tilde{t}_k)$, which includes a shift to achieve a definite sign of the umklapp term ($\\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function). This gives the [*two-dimensional*]{} sine-Gordon Hamiltonian of the $k$-th plateau, $$\\begin{aligned}\nH_{\\rm plateau}^{(k)} &=& \\int dx dy \\Big\\{ \\frac{u}{2} (\\partial_x\\varphi)^2 + \\frac{c_y}{2} (\\partial_y \\varphi)^2 +\\nonumber\\\\\n&&  - \\frac{v q(h)}{2\\pi k} \\partial_x \\varphi_y(x) - |\\tilde{t}_k| \\cos[\\varphi] \\Big\\}.\n\\label{eq:umk10}\\end{aligned}$$ Here $u = v (\\beta/2\\pi k)^2$, $c_y \\sim k^{-2}(\\tilde{\\gamma}^2_{\\rm sdw}/v^{\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}})^{\\frac{1}{2-\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}}}$.\n\n### Plateaux width {#sec:plateaux-width-1}\n\nAt $T=0$, the two-dimensional sine-Gordon Hamiltonian Eq. can be analyzed classically.[@chaikin_book] We review this standard analysis as it is important both here and in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:comm-incomm-trans\\]. The classical sine-Gordon model exhibits two phases: commensurate, describing the plateau, with $\\langle\\partial_x\\varphi\n\\rangle =0$; and incommensurate, with $\\langle\\partial_x \\varphi\n\\rangle\\neq 0$. The incommensurate state, which describes the SDW phase with field-dependent ordering momentum, is achieved for sufficiently strong $|q|\\geq q_c$. The critical value $q_c$ is determined by the condensation of [*kinks*]{}, when $E_{\\rm kink} =0$. Here the kink represents the solution of Eq. interpolating between two degenerate minima of cosine potential: $\\varphi(x=-\\infty,y) = 0$ and $\\varphi(x=+\\infty,y)=2\\pi$, for all $y$. One immediately observes that the linear derivative term in Eq. contributes $-v q(h)/k$ to the kink\u2019s energy (per unit length in the $y$ direction). The rest follows from standard steps,[@chaikin_book] which show that energy of the kink, relative to the energy of the uniform plateau state with, for example, $\\varphi=0$, is given by $$E_{\\rm kink} = 8 \\sqrt{u |\\tilde{t}_k|} - \\frac{v |q|}{k} .$$ Thus $$q_c = \\frac{4 \\beta}{\\pi} \\sqrt{\\frac{|\\tilde{t}_k|}{v}} \\sim  \\Big(\\frac{J'}{v}\\Big)^{\\frac{k^2} {4(4\\pi R^2 -1)}}  .\n\\label{eq:umk11}$$ Since in the relevant range of the magnetic field $d M_0/d h$ is constant, the plateau width in field units, $\\delta h_{(k,\\nu)}$ is directly proportional to $q_c$.\n\nFocusing on the $1/3$-magnetization plateau we can estimate, with the help of Figure \\[fig:Beta\\_curve\\], that $2\\pi R^2 \\approx 3/4$ at $M=1/6$. This leads to $\\delta h_{(3,1)} \\sim\n(J'/v)^{9/2}$. The next most robust plateau is at $3/5^{\\rm th}$ of the saturation magnetization ($k=5, \\nu=1$), for which $\\delta h_{(5,1)}\n\\sim (J'/v)^{25/2}$. The existence of this plateau is unclear, since this magnetization is close to the boundary of the SDW state, and indeed, the calculation in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\] predicts that it falls outside the stability range of the SDW state. It is, however, [ *inside*]{} the SDW phase as estimated from the pure scaling dimension criterion $2\\pi R^2> (\\sqrt{5}-1)/2$. Thus this plateau still seems a reasonable candidate for observation in some anisotropic triangular materials.\n\nOther plateaux, such as, for example, the one-half magnetization one ($M=1/4$), are much narrower due to the [*equal parity requirement*]{}, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:87\\]), which implies $k=8, \\nu=2$. Then $\\delta h_{(8,2)}\n\\sim (J'/v)^{32}$, making it very hard to observe indeed. These arguments make it clear that the $1/3$ plateau ($M=1/6$) is drastically more robust than others, and thereby it is expected to be much more commonly observed. We also reiterate that it should persist all the way down to the decoupled chains limit, $J'=0$.\n\nIt is interesting to compare our findings with those in Refs. which studied magnetization plateaux in a single zig-zag ladder, made of two spin chains (with exchange $J$) coupled in a triangular (zig-zag) fashion by exchange $J'$. This geometry can also be viewed as a single chain with first and second-neighbor interactions $J_1=J'$ and $J_2=J$. In this one-dimensional system a robust $1/3$-plateau is found to exist in the intermediate exchange region $0.487 \\leq J/J' \\leq 1.25$. In particular, it does not seem to extend far into the $J' \\to 0$ limit, although a very narrow sleeve of the plateau phase cannot be reliably excluded by the current numerical studies. We note however that the much reduced extent of the long-range ordered plateau region, in comparison with the quasi-2d predictions above, simply reflects the reduced stability of the crystalline (more specifically SDW in this case) order in 1d systems (at $T=0$). In more technical terms, the magnetization plateau requires pinning of both the \u2018center-of-mass\u2019 and relative combinations of $\\phi_{1,2}$ fields in a two-chain system which, in turn, requires significant modification of the chain Luttinger parameter $K$ from its bare value of $1/2$, in notations of Ref.\u00a0, by various marginal (density-density type) inter-chain terms. Such modifications generically require $J' \\sim O(1)$, which is the reason for the absence of the plateau in the $J' \\to 0$ limit in this case.\n\n### Critical behavior of the wavevector {#sec:crit-behav-wavev}\n\nOur description can be extended to the neighborhood of the plateau-SDW transition, where the ordering momentum $|q(h)| > q_c$ shows abrupt variation with magnetic field. Near the commensurate state, the incommensurate SDW phase can be understood as a [*soliton lattice*]{}, with a finite linear density $n_s$ of solitons.[@chaikin_book; @lee-2009] In the dilute limit $n_s w \\ll 1$, where $w = \\sqrt{u/|t_k|}$ is the width of the soliton, the solitons [*repel*]{} each other, with an exponentially decaying potential $U e^{-x/w}$. The pre-factor $U = 32\\sqrt{u |t_k|}$ can be obtained by calculating the energy of two solitons separated by a distance $x$ with the help of . As a result, the energy density of the dilute soliton lattice is given by $$E_{\\rm sol.lat.} = 2\\pi v (q_c - q) n_s + n_s U e^{-1/(n_s w)} .\n\\label{eq:umk12}$$ Here the last term represents the repulsion between the nearest solitons of the lattice. The optimal concentration $n_s^*$, for $q > q_c$, follows by minimizing Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:umk12\\]) (with logarithmic accuracy): $$n_s^* = \\frac{1}{w \\ln[\\frac{U}{2\\pi v (q-q_c)}]} .\n\\label{eq:umk13}$$ This implies that the shift of the ordering momentum $\\delta Q = 2\\pi n_s^*$ from its commensurate value $Q_{k,\\nu} = 2\\pi \\nu/k$ inside the plateau vanishes with an [*infinite slope*]{}, according to $$\\delta Q = \\frac{-2\\pi}{w \\ln | (h - h^{(k,\\nu)})/\\delta h_{(k,\\nu)}|},\n\\label{eq:umk14}$$ where the last expression is written with logarithmic accuracy.\n\nStandard model: field (including zero) along $a$ axis {#sec:field-along-axis}\n=====================================================\n\nThe predictions of the last section for the idealized model with $J''=D=0$, unfortunately do not agree with experiments on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. At zero magnetic field, the ground state is actually an incommensurate spiral, similar to that predicted at high fields in the previous section, rather than the collinear state produced by the fluctuation-generated interactions. Moreover, the zero field spiral ground state appears to continuously evolve on increasing fields along the $a$ axis, with no intervening phase transition before reaching a fully polarized ferromagnetic state at the saturation field. The SDW state predicted in the previous section is entirely absent.\n\nThis behavior, however, is readily explained by the standard model [ *including*]{} the $D$ and $J''$ terms, as discussed in Ref. . To proceed, we again apply the decompositions, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:2\\]), to the these terms. Following the logic of the previous section, we keep only the most relevant contributions. This gives\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{eq:3}\n    && H'_2  =  \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \\Big\\{ -D (-1)^z \\left(\n    \\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\\pi} \\mathcal{S}^-_{y+1,z;\\pi} +\n    \\mathcal{S}^-_{y,z;\\pi} \\mathcal{S}^+_{y+1,z;\\pi} \\right)  +\\gamma''_z \\left( \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\\pi-2\\delta}\n    \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\\pi+2\\delta} + \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\\pi+2\\delta}\n    \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\\pi-2\\delta}\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n  & & + \\gamma''_{\\delta-z}  \\left(  \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\\pi-2\\delta}\n    \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\\pi-2\\delta}e^{-4i\\delta x} + \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\\pi+2\\delta}\n    \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\\pi+2\\delta}e^{4i\\delta x} \\right)  + \\gamma''_{\\pm}\\left(\\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\\pi} \\mathcal{S}^-_{y,z+1;\\pi}+\\mathcal{S}^-_{y,z;\\pi} \\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z+1;\\pi}\\right)\\Big\\},\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwith $\\gamma''_z=\\gamma''_{\\delta-z}=2\\gamma''_\\pm = J''$.\n\nAt zero field, we can simplify, using SU$(2)$ symmetry and $\\delta=0$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:4}\n  H'_2 & = & \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \\Big\\{ -D (-1)^z \\left( N^+_{y,z}\n    N^-_{y+1,z} + N^-_{y,z}  N^+_{y+1,z} \\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n  & & + J'' {\\bm N}_{y,z}\\cdot {\\bm N}_{y,z+1} \\Big\\}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nCompetition between $D$ and $J''$ {#sec:comp-betw-d}\n---------------------------------\n\nIn Eq.\u00a0 it is evident that both $D$ and $J''$ induce strongly relevant perturbations, with scaling dimension $1$. These are more relevant than any terms na\u00efvely present in zero field (i.e. the two terms studied in the previous section), and much larger than the fluctuation-induced correction ($\\sim (J')^4/J^3$) with the same scaling dimension, which drives the formation of the collinear antiferromagnetic state [@Starykh2007] in their absence. They also become more relevant with increasing field. Hence we expect that these terms should control the actual ordering in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0for this field orientation.\n\n![(Color online) Same as Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\], but with the chain mean field ordering temperature due to interlayer interactions ($T_{\\rm il}$, dot-dashed (magenta) line) and DM interaction ($T_{\\rm D}$, dashed (cyan) line) included. Note that the highest two temperatures are $T_{\\rm D}$ and $T_{\\rm il}$, with the former substantially larger. Thus for a magnetic field along the $\\hat{a}$ axis, where the $D$ term is present, it is expected to dominate the ordering except in the region close to saturation, $M\\gtrsim 0.45$ or so. That later region, which is described by a 2d scaling, is represented by the shaded rectangle.[]{data-label=\"fig:RG2\"}](Fig4-sdwconeJppDM-interpol.pdf){width=\"3.4in\"}\n\nHowever, it is not so obvious which of the two is dominant. Indeed, they actually compete. This can be seen as follows. The $D$ term is minimized (for $D>0$) by configurations in which $$\\label{eq:39}\n  \\langle N_{y,z}^+ \\rangle_{D} = (-1)^{yz} N e^{i\\beta\\vartheta_z},$$ where the classical phase $\\vartheta_z$ may depend upon $z$. For such configurations, however, the $J''$ term oscillates in sign with $y$, and hence averages to zero. To instead minimize the $J''$ term, one requires configurations in which $$\\label{eq:40}\n  \\langle  {\\bm N}_{y,z}\\rangle_{J''} = (-1)^z N {\\hat {\\bm n}}_y,$$ where the unit vector ${\\hat{\\bm n}}_y=(n^1_y, n^2_y, n^3_y)$ may depend upon $y$. For all such configurations, the $D$ term vanishes when averaged over $z$.\n\nThe balance of this competition is determined by the relative magnitudes of $D$ and $J''$. We rely again on the chain mean field method, which indicates that the DM term dominates for the parameters of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0\u2013 as shown by the fact that the associated mean-field ordering temperature in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG2\\] is largest. This is essentially due to the fact that the DM interaction acts on twice as many bonds as does the interlayer exchange.\n\nA physical distinction between the two candidate states, which may be compared to experiment, is in their vector chirality, which is concentrated on the diagonal bonds of the triangular lattice. Define $$\\label{eq:30}\n  \\chi^z_{y,z,\\pm}(x) = {\\hat z}\\cdot\\langle {\\bm S}_{y,z}(x) \\times {\\bm S}_{y\\pm 1,z}(x+\\tfrac{1}{2})\\rangle  .$$ This quantity is non-zero in both phases. In the continuum limit, one obtains $$\\label{eq:31}\n  \\chi^z_{y,z,\\pm} \\sim \\frac{1}{2}\\left( N^+_{y,z} N^-_{y\\pm 1,z}+ {\\rm h.c.}\\right).$$ Let us compare this chirality for the states favored by $D$ and $J''$. For the $D$ term, one obtains $\\chi^z_{y,z,\\pm} \\sim (-1)^z N^2$, which is constant in the triangular planes but alternates between layers. This staggering of chirality along the crystallographic $a$ axis is observed experimentally in zero field. For the $J''$ term, one obtains instead $\\chi^z_\\pm \\sim N^2 (n_y^1 n_{y+1}^1 +\nn_y^2 n_{y+1}^2)$, which can vary within the triangular planes but is the same in every such layer. Thus experiment supports the $D$-induced order but not the $J''$ one, in agreement with the calculation described above.\n\nNow consider non-zero field. In this case, returning to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:3\\]) with $\\delta\\neq 0$, we see that the third term is oscillatory, and can be dropped. The second term is less relevant than the first and fourth, and thus is also subdominant. One is still left with a competition between the first and fourth terms, again controlled by the balance of DM and inter-layer exchange. Since several terms that had formed part of the latter coupling for $h=0$ are now removed, we should expect that the DM will be relatively enhanced and continue to win the competition for all values of the field. This gives a natural explanation for the continuity of the ordered phase across the range of fields observed in experiments (with this field orientation). It is also interesting to note that the scaling dimension of the $\\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\\pi}$ operator decreases with increasing field, actually making the DM coupling more relevant. This is reflected in an increasing critical temperature for the ordered phase with increasing field, up to a maximum which occurs relatively close to saturation. Again, consulting Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG2\\], we see that indeed the $D$ term dominates the ordering except very close to saturation ($M>0.45$ or so). In that narrow field window, the larger bare value of the cone interaction ($O(J')$) is sufficient to overcome its larger scaling dimension.\n\nIncommensuration of the ordered state {#sec:incomm-order-state}\n-------------------------------------\n\nNa\u00efvely, it would appear from the above analysis that, in the region $M<0.45$, a commensurate ordered state is induced by the $D$ term. However, while the $D$ term is indeed dominant in this regime, we still need to take into account the subsidiary effects of the $J'$ interaction. It turns out that the cone coupling $\\gamma_{\\rm cone}$ does not actually compete with $D$, so that it introduces a weak incommensuration in the ordered state.\n\nTo see this, we apply the expectation value in Eq.\u00a0 to the cone interaction in Eq.\u00a0 (using $\\mathcal{S}^\\pm_{y,z;\\pi}\n= N^\\pm_{y,z}$ in zero field), assuming $\\vartheta_z$ is a slowly-varying function of $x$: $$\\label{eq:41}\n  H'_1 \\rightarrow -2 \\gamma_{\\rm cone} \\beta N^2  \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx \\,\n  (-1)^z \\partial_x \\vartheta_z .$$ The (average) phase $\\vartheta_z$ is obviously the classical analog of $\\theta_z$, so that there is a gradient cost obtained from Eq.\u00a0, which should be added to the above term to obtain $$\\label{eq:42}\n  H_{\\rm eff} = \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx \\, \\Big\\{ \\frac{v}{2}\n  (\\partial_x \\vartheta_z)^2 -2 \\gamma_{\\rm cone} \\beta N^2  (-1)^z \\partial_x \\vartheta_z \\Big\\}.$$ This is easily minimized with respect to $\\vartheta_z$: $$\\label{eq:43}\n \\partial_x \\vartheta_z = 2\\frac{\\gamma_{\\rm cone}}{v} \\beta N^2 (-1)^z\n \\equiv \\frac{q_0}{\\beta}(-1)^z.$$ Here $q_0$ is the induced incommensurability. For zero magnetization, we have $q_0 = (4J'/J) N^2$. However, Eq.\u00a0 also applied to $M>0$, if $N$ is replaced by the magnitude of the expectation value of $\\mathcal{S}^\\pm_{y,z;\\pi}$. In both cases, the result is that $$\\label{eq:46}\n  \\langle \\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\\pi}\\rangle = (-1)^{yz} N e^{i (-1)^z q_0\n    x+ i \\Theta_z},$$ where $\\Theta_z$ is arbitary for each layer, since we have up to now neglected inter-layer coupling. Let us compare to what is expected in the cone-dominated regime, $M>0.45$. Here we should apply the ansatz in Eq.\u00a0, which minimizes the cone interaction, to the $D$ term in Eq.\u00a0. One obtains $$\\label{eq:47}\n  H'_2 \\rightarrow \\sum_{y,z}\\int\\! dx\\, (-D) |\\psi|^2 (-1)^z \\sigma_z,$$ which is minimized by taking $\\sigma_z={\\rm sgn}(D)(-1)^z$. Suppose that $D$ is positive, which is always possible if we redefine $z$. Then Eq.\u00a0 becomes $$\\label{eq:48}\n  \\langle \\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\\pi}\\rangle = (-1)^{yz} |\\psi| e^{i (-1)^z\n    q_0 x+i\\Theta_z} .$$ Comparing Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0, we see the forms are identical. Thus, the regimes $M<0.45$ and $M>0.45$ are actually smoothly connected, and distinguished only by which interaction controls the largest part of the ordering energy. This means that $D$ and $J'$ do not really compete. Indeed, in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-dm\\], we show that in CMFT both interactions together increase the critical temperature of the cone state.\n\nInterlayer correlations {#sec:interl-corr}\n-----------------------\n\nThe expression in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:48\\]) contains an undetermined phase, $\\Theta_z$, for each layer. One may look to $J''$, which has been neglected in obtaining the form in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:48\\]), to fix these phases. However, at the na\u00efve level of first order perturbation theory, this is not the case. In particular, taking the expectation value of the $J''$ term in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:4\\]) or the corresponding $\\gamma''_\\pm$ term in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:3\\]), one finds a oscillating result, which vanishes upon summation over $y$. This indicates that the effects of $J''$ on the undetermined phases is second order in $J''$.\n\nSuch second order effects can be considered as a fluctuation-induced interaction, which can be derived in a similar way as in the calculation of Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:biquadratic\\]. One obtains $$\\label{eq:66}\n  \\Delta H = - J''_2 \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\,\\cos (\\theta_{y,z}-\\theta_{y,z+2}),$$ with [*ferromagnetic*]{} $J''_2 \\sim (J'')^2/v >0$. Taking its expectation value, this terms splits the large phase degeneracy, leaving only two undetermined values, $$\\label{eq:67}\n  \\Theta_z = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{cc} \\Theta_0 & \\textrm{for $z$ even}\n      \\\\ \\Theta_1 & \\textrm{for $z$ odd} \\end{array}\\right.$$ Some bare microscopic second neighbor exchange might contribute to $J''_2$, but experiments indicate that the net result remains ferromagnetic, as there is no enlargement of the unit cell in the $a$ ($z$) direction.\n\nFor the standard model, the two remaining phase degeneracies are protected by symmetry. The [*overall*]{} $U(1)$ phase, $\\Theta_0+\\Theta_1$ is of course expected to be arbitrary, owing to rotational symmetry of the Hamiltonian about the $a$ ($z$) axis. The [*relative*]{} phase, $\\Theta_0-\\Theta_1$, is protected by translation symmetry, $x\\rightarrow x+1$, under which $\\Theta_z \\rightarrow\n\\Theta_z+ (-1)^z q_0$.\n\nField along $b$ axis {#sec:field-along-b}\n====================\n\nIn this section and the next, we will discuss the physics determining the ordered ground states when the magnetic field is normal to the crystallographic $a$ axis. These cases are much more complex than above, because, as we will see, the ordering is determined by several distinct interactions which are important at different energy scales. The \u201ccascade\u201d of energy scales, which must be considered in turn, from largest to smallest, is indicated graphically in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:energyscales\\].\n\n![Cascade of energy scales operative for fields in the $b$-$c$ plane. Symbols adjacent to the arrows indicate the interactions responsible for the associated (partial) ordering. The cascade can be quantified by different \u201ccondensation\u201d energy densities, which give the lowering of the energy density due to the establishment of the associated partial order. At the highest energies, between $J$ and $\\varepsilon_{2d} \\sim J'' |\\psi|^2$, the system exhibits one-dimensional fluctuations. Here $|\\psi|$ is the amplitude of the order parameter, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:8\\]). Between $\\varepsilon_{2d}$ and $\\varepsilon_{3d}$, the spins order within $a$-$b$ planes, but the planes are not registered. Below $\\varepsilon_{3d} \\sim {\\rm Max}\\{ J_2|\\psi|^2,\n  \\frac{(J')^2}{J} |\\psi|^4\\}$, full three-dimensional order develops, which may be of antiferromagnetic (AF) or cone type. In the former case, there may be yet another lower energy scale, $\\varepsilon_{\\rm CIT }$ (which is of the same order as $\\varepsilon_{3d}$), below which the magnetic structure is completely determined. This may be commensurate or incommensurate, the latter occuring only for fields along the $c$ axis, and is driven by DM interactions.[]{data-label=\"fig:energyscales\"}](energy_scales2.pdf){width=\"3.4in\"}\n\nIrrelevance of $D$ term {#sec:irrelevant-d-term}\n-----------------------\n\nHaving understood that the DM interaction $D$ dominated the physics for fields along the $a$ axis, we first consider its role in this field orientation. Remarkably, the change in orientation has a drastic effect. With a field in the $b$-$c$ plane, the $D$ term always involves one spin component parallel to the field and one perpendicular to it. Consulting the decomposition of spin operators in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:2\\]), we immediately see that the dominant fluctuations of these two spin components are always incommensurate. As a consequence, in the continuum limit all terms directly arising from $D$ [*oscillate*]{} with a $e^{\\pm 2 i \\delta x}$ factor. This makes them formally strongly irrelevant. More physically, upon coarse-graining over length scales shorter than $\\pi/\\delta$, these terms average to zero. Thus, provided that $D$ does not scale to strong coupling under the RG before this scale is reached, they become negligible. This will be true everywhere except the low field limit. Specifically, since it has scaling dimension $1$, the renormalized $D$ term at this scale is of order $D (\\pi/\\delta)$. Demanding this be small compared to $v$, we obtain the criterion $\\delta=\\pi M \\gtrsim D/J$ for it to be negligible.\n\nThus for most of the magnetic field range, we can drop the $D$ term. This gives a simple reason why the experimental behavior in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0for this field orientation is completely different from that with field along the $a$ axis. It is tempting to expect instead that the ideal 2d model discussed in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:ideal-2d-model\\] should apply. A comparison to experiments strongly suggests, however, that this is not the case, except perhaps at high fields. Unfortunately, no published low temperature NMR or neutron data are available in this field orientation. However, magnetization and specific heat measurements [@TokiwaPRB2006] show a single phase occupying the region below the high field cone state and above the low field DM-dominated spiral. By comparison to the same measurements along the $c$ axis, which are strikingly similar, it appears most likely that this intermediate phase represents a commensurate state. In the ideal 2d model, we would be forced to interpret it instead as an incommensurate SDW. This seems untenable, as such an SDW phase should also show a $1/3$ magnetization plateau (see Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:plateau\\]), of which there is no sign. Thus we conclude that the SDW phase has been superseded by another competing state. In the following, we find an explanation for this competing state as a commensurate \u201cantiferromagnetic\u201d (AF) phase.\n\nRole of interlayer interactions {#sec:interl-inter}\n-------------------------------\n\nTo explain this, we must take into account the one remaining interaction present in the standard but not ideal model \u2013 the exchange $J''$ between triangular planes. Like the (now absent) $D$ term, it is strongly relevant, and unlike the $D$ term, it is not averaged out in any field orientation. The appropriate continuum limit has already been given, the dominant piece being the last term of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:3\\]), reproduced here: $$\\label{eq:5}\n  H'_2 = \\gamma''_{\\pm} \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\,  \\left(\\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z;\\pi} \\mathcal{S}^-_{y,z+1;\\pi}+\\mathcal{S}^-_{y,z;\\pi} \\mathcal{S}^+_{y,z+1;\\pi}\\right),$$ with $\\gamma''_\\pm=J''/2$. Written explicitly using bosonization, it becomes $$\\label{eq:27}\n  H'_2 = {\\tilde \\gamma}''_\\pm \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \\cos [\\beta (\\theta_{y,z}-\\theta_{y,z+1})],$$ with ${\\tilde \\gamma}''_\\pm = 2 A_3^2 \\gamma''_\\pm$. This coupling is more relevant than either the SDW or cone interaction, in the entire range of magnetization. We may therefore expect that it scales to strong coupling unambiguously before any competing interactions. To check this, we again consult the comparison of critical temperatures in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG2\\]. Neglecting the effects of the $D$ term, as we have just discussed, we see that the interlayer interaction is clearly dominant for all magnetizations below about 80 percent of the saturation value. Above this magnetization, the larger bare value of the cone interaction, which is of order $J'$ rather than $J''$, overcomes the difference in scaling dimensions and controls the physics. In this high magnetization regime, the physics is therefore very similar to that described in the previous sections, and an incommensurate cone state is expected.\n\nIn the remainder of this section, we focus on the main field regime, where $\\gamma''_\\pm$ is dominant. The latter obeys the RG equation (using the dimensionless coupling $\\breve{\\gamma}''_\\pm =\n\\gamma''_\\pm/(v\\Lambda_\\ell^2)$ as discussed in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:renorm-group-appr\\]) $$\\label{eq:6}\n  \\partial_\\ell \\breve{\\gamma}''_\\pm = (2-2\\Delta_\\pm) \\breve{\\gamma}''_\\pm,$$ where $\\Delta_\\pm = \\pi R^2$ is the scaling dimension of the $\\mathcal{S}^\\pm_{\\pi}$ fields. Integrating this to the scale $\\ell=\\ln (\\xi'')$ such that $\\breve{\\gamma}''_\\pm\n(\\ell) \\sim v$ defines the length scale $$\\label{eq:7}\n  \\xi'' \\sim (v/J'')^{1/(2-2\\Delta_\\pm)}.$$ For lengths shorter than $\\xi''$, one-dimensional fluctuations are significant and approximately those of free chains. On longer length scales, we expect that $\\gamma''_\\pm$ drives ordering of the $\\mathcal{S}^\\pm_{y,z;\\pi}$ fields. $H'_2$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:5\\]) is minimized by configurations of the form $$\\label{eq:8}\n  \\left\\langle \\mathcal{S}^\\pm_{y,z;\\pi}\\right\\rangle = |\\psi| (-1)^z e^{\\pm i \\beta \\vartheta_y},$$ where $|\\psi|$ is a real number giving the magnitude of the spontaneous moment, and $\\vartheta_y$ is a [*classical*]{} phase that can be chosen [*independently*]{} for each vertical $a$-$b$ plane specified by $y$. Note that longitudinal order is strongly suppressed at this scale, $\\langle \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z}\\rangle = 0$, by the uncertainty principle (in bosonization this follows from the duality of the $\\theta$ and $\\varphi$ fields). We expect by scaling that $|\\psi| \\sim\n(\\xi'')^{-\\Delta_\\pm} \\ll 1$, reflecting the suppressed magnitude of magnetic order by 1d fluctuations. Hence $$\\label{eq:28}\n  |\\psi| = \\sigma(M) \\left( \\frac{J''}{v}\\right)^{\\frac{\\Delta_\\pm}{2-2\\Delta_\\pm}},$$ where the prefactor $\\sigma(M)$ is computed by CMFT in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-T=0\\]. We estimate $|\\psi|\\approx 0.25-0.3$ over most of the field range. From this, we can estimate the lowering of the energy density due to the establishment of such two-dimensional order, simply by taking the expectation value of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:5\\]): $$\\label{eq:12}\n  \\varepsilon_{2d} \\sim J'' |\\psi|^2.$$ An experimental measure of this energy density is the XY spin stiffness along the $a$ axis, which is of the same order, $\\rho_{s;a} \\sim \\varepsilon_{2d}$. Note that the spin stiffness along the $b$ axis is much larger, of order $\\rho_{s;b} \\sim v$.\n\nExchange coupling of $a$-$b$ planes {#sec:coupling-a-b}\n-----------------------------------\n\nThe arbitrary choice of $\\vartheta_y$ for every $y$ is a consequence of the fact that the dominant interaction, $\\gamma''_\\pm$, does not couple different $a$-$b$ planes. Less relevant interactions can and do remove this arbitrariness, ultimately determining the precise nature of the ordered state.\n\nTo study this, we first include exchange interactions between chains within the $b$-$c$ planes. In the standard model, this is only the $J'$ coupling along the nearest-neighbor diagonals. However, it was argued in Ref.\u00a0 that it is important to also take into account weak exchange $J_2$ between spins on [*second-neighbor*]{} chains separated by distance $\\Delta y=2$. While clearly $J_2 \\ll J'$, it is important because it is unfrustrated, unlike the $J'$ interaction.\n\nIn the continuum limit, these couplings lead to the Hamiltonian $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:9}\n  H'_3 & = & \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx \\, \\Big\\{ -i \\gamma_{\\rm cone}\\mathcal{S}_{y,z;\\pi}^+ \\partial_x\n  \\mathcal{S}_{y+1,z;\\pi}^-  + {\\rm h.c.}  \\nonumber\\\\\n  && + \\gamma_2 \\mathcal{S}_{y,z;\\pi}^+\n  \\mathcal{S}_{y+2,z;\\pi}^- + {\\rm h.c.} \\Big\\} ,\\end{aligned}$$ with $\\gamma_2=J_2/2$ (and $\\gamma_{\\rm cone} = J'/2$ as given earlier). Taking the expectation values using Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:8\\]), the resulting renormalized Hamiltonian can then be treated classically, and minimized to find the ground state. It is evident that the \u201ctwist\u201d interaction $\\gamma_{\\rm cone}$ favors an incommensurate state with $k_x \\neq \\pi$. To describe this requires allowing for non-zero gradients $\\partial_x\\vartheta_y$. While such configurations are not ground states in the absence of $\\gamma_{\\rm cone}$, they are low in energy, because a small gradient comprises a soft (Goldstone) mode. The magnitude of the associated incommensurability is determined by a balance of $\\gamma_{\\rm\n  cone}$ with the gradient terms in $H_0$, which of course favor commensurate order at $k_x=\\pi$. We therefore include the latter, and write the entire effective Hamiltonian explicitly in the $\\vartheta_y$ variables, which we will allow to be $x$-dependent but [*independent*]{} of $z$ according to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:8\\]). The total energy becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:10}\n  E_b & = & L_z \\sum_y \\int \\! dx\\, \\Big\\{ \\frac{v}{2} (\\partial_x\n  \\vartheta_y)^2 + g_2 \\cos [\\beta (\\vartheta_y - \\vartheta_{y+2})] \\nonumber \\\\\n  & & -  g_{\\rm cone}  (\\partial_x \\vartheta_{y}+ \\partial_x \\vartheta_{y+1}) \n  \\cos [\\beta(\\vartheta_{y} - \\vartheta_{y+1})] \\Big\\},\\end{aligned}$$ with $g_2 = 2 \\gamma_2 |\\psi|^2$ and $g_{\\rm cone} = \\gamma_{\\rm cone}\n|\\psi|^2 \\beta$.\n\nNow we can see that, for $g_2>0$, which is expected from antiferromagnetic superexchange, the two interactions strongly compete. In this case, the minima of the $g_2$ term are states with $$\\label{eq:25}\n  \\vartheta_y = \\frac{\\pi y}{2\\beta} + \\frac{\\Theta_{{\\rm mod}(y,2)}}{\\beta} .$$ Here $\\Theta_0,\\Theta_1$ define the overall phase on the even and odd chains, respectively. Inserting this into the twist term, one finds a vanishing result due to cancellations when the sum over $y$ is carried out, even if $\\Theta_0$ and $\\Theta_1$ are allowed to have gradients. Hence this solution has energy density equal to $-g_2$. This is a commensurate \u201cantiferromagnetic\u201d (AF) state. Conversely, the solutions which minimize the twist term have $\\vartheta_y = \\kappa x$, for which the $g_2$ term is [*maximized*]{} rather than minimized. Here $\\kappa=2 g_{\\rm cone}/v$ is determined by minimizing the full energy, leading to the energy density $-2g_{\\rm cone}^2/v + g_2$. This is the incommensurate cone state. Comparing the energies of the two states, one finds that the AF state obtains for $g_2 > g_{\\rm cone}^2/v$. This requires a minimum value of second neighbor exchange for the commensurate state, $J_2 > J_{2}^*$, where $$\\label{eq:29}\n  J_{2}^* = \\frac{\\beta^2|\\psi|^2}{4} \\frac{(J')^2}{v}.$$ For [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, $J_2^*$ is very small, and is in fact only a few percent ($\\leq 5\\%$) of $J$ for the relevant field range. Moreover, we argue below that the above value of $J_2^*$ is actually an overestimate, as it neglects a fluctuation-generated interaction which is of the same order. Thus, an exceedingly tiny second neighbor coupling $J_2$, likely undetectable directly, qualitatively changes the ground state. In general, re-expressing the minimum energy density in terms of bare variables, we have $$\\label{eq:13}\n  \\varepsilon_{3d} \\sim -{\\rm Max}\\left\\{ J_2 |\\psi|^2,\n    \\frac{\\beta^2|\\psi|^4}{4} \\frac{(J')^2}{v}\\right\\}.$$ This energy scale determines the spin stiffness along the $c$ axis, $\\rho_{s;c} \\sim \\varepsilon_{3d}$.\n\nLocking of even and odd $a$-$b$ layers {#sec:locking-even-odd}\n--------------------------------------\n\nWhen $J_2$ is dominant in establishing three-dimensional AF order, it is ineffective in coupling the even and odd layers. As a consequence, there remains an artificial degeneracy of solutions, specifically, one may make opposite rotations of the phases $\\Theta_1$ and $\\Theta_2$. This rotation is not a true symmetry of the microscopic theory. However, the simplest possible coupling of phases in neighboring chains, of the form $\\cos \\beta(\\vartheta_y - \\vartheta_{y+1})$, [*is*]{} prohibited by reflection symmetry, see and . Instead, the leading possible coupling between neighboring chains is of the form $$\\label{eq:14}\n  H_{\\rm bq} = {\\bf +} g_{\\rm bq} \\sum_{y,z} \\int \\! dx\\, \\cos [2\\beta (\\vartheta_{y,z}\n  - \\vartheta_{y+1,z})].$$ Here we have already assumed Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:8\\]), and taken the average of the fluctuation-generated interaction. See Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:biquadratic\\] for details. For classical XY spins with phase $\\beta \\vartheta$, this interaction would correspond to a biquadratic coupling $({\\bm S}_i \\cdot {\\bm S}_j)^2$, between spins on neighboring chains. Such fluctuation-generated biquadratic interactions are indeed familiar from the theory of frustrated magnets, and are a manifestation of \u201corder by disorder\u201d.[@shender; @Henley_JAP] In that context, it is well-known that fluctuations generally favor collinear states, which requires $g_{\\rm\n  bq}>0$. This is indeed confirmed by the microscopic calculation in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:biquadratic\\], which leads to the estimate $$\\label{eq:15}\n  g_{\\rm bq} \\sim \\frac{(J')^2}{v} |\\psi|^{4}.$$\n\nIn the AF phase, we may use the solutions for $\\theta_{y,z}$ determined above, and hence rewrite Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:14\\]) as $$\\label{eq:16}\n  E_{\\rm bq} =  -g_{\\rm bq} L_x L_y L_z \\cos[2(\\Theta_0-\\Theta_1)].$$ Clearly states with $\\Theta_0=\\Theta_1+ n \\pi$ are preferred, which implies commensurate, collinear, AF order. The condensation energy density associated with the selection of the collinear order is thus $\\varepsilon_{\\rm CIT} \\sim g_{\\rm bq}$ (the reason for the choice of this subscript will become clear in the next section). Physically, this energy scale determines the gap of the antisymmetric pseudo-Goldstone mode corresponding to $\\Theta_0-\\Theta_1$, which is of order $$\\label{eq:17}\n  \\Delta_{\\rm as} \\sim \\sqrt{v\\varepsilon_{\\rm CIT}} \\sim J' |\\psi|^{2}.$$ This can potentially be measured as an emergent low energy (but gapped) mode in neutron scattering.\n\nComparing Eq.\u00a0 with Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0, we observe that the energy gain due to $g_{\\rm bq}$ term is of the same order as the energy gain of the incommensurate cone state. This is not a coincidence as the both effects have their common origin in the inter-chain exchange $J'$. This suggests that, even in the absence of any micrscopic $J_2$ exchange, a collinear state could be energetically preferred to the cone state. However, the RG approach used to obtain Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:15\\]) is not accurate in determining the $O(1)$ numerical prefactor, which is essential for making such a comparison quantitatively. Thus we at present can only speculate that this might be the case. Even if not, these considerations imply that the interaction $J_2$ needed to induce the AF state is even lower than the estimate in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:29\\]).\n\nField along $c$ axis {#sec:field-along-c}\n====================\n\nExperimentally, this field orientation shows the most complex phase diagram. In addition to the commensurate \u201cAF\u201d phase seen for fields along the $b$ axis, a broad region of incommensurate phase is also clearly observed in NMR measurements [@takigawa-poster] (and defined by earlier magnetization measurements [@TokiwaPRB2006]). Within the model used up to now, the difference in phase diagrams for fields along the $b$ and $c$ axes is inexplicable: the Hamiltonian has a symmetry under spin rotations within the $b$-$c$ plane.\n\nDM interaction on chain bonds {#sec:dm-interaction-chain}\n-----------------------------\n\nTherefore additional spin-rotational symmetry breaking interactions [*must*]{} be included to explain this discrepancy. We therefore turn to the general set of allowed DM interactions in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:dm-ology\\] for our consideration. As we saw in the previous section, DM terms whose D-vector is orthogonal to the applied field average out rapidly in the presence of an applied field. Hence we need consider only components of the D-vectors along the $c$ axis. There are two independent such terms: $D_c$ and $D'_c$. Given that DM terms are generally proportional to the corresponding exchange, we expect $D_c$ to be the largest of the two, and we focus on its effects (in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:d\\_c\\] we explain in detail why $D'_c$ can be neglected). It introduces the perturbation $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:21}\n  H_c  & \\sim & D_c \\sum_{y,z} (-1)^y \\int \\! dx\\,\n  \\mathcal{J}_{y,z}^z(x) \\nonumber \\\\\n  & \\sim & d_c \\sum_{y,z} (-1)^y \\int \\! dx\\, \\partial_x \\theta_{y,z},\\end{aligned}$$ where $d_c = v D_c/(\\beta J)$.\n\nNotably, $H_c$ is linear in the boson fields, and hence, in the absence of any other interactions, the term $d_c$ can be taken into account exactly. Moreover, it is actually a pure boundary term, whose effect on the energy depends solely on the [*winding numbers*]{}, $[\\theta_{y,z}(\\infty) - \\theta_{y,z}(-\\infty)]/(2\\pi \\beta)$, and vanishes in the zero winding number sector. However, $H_c$ favors sectors with non-vanishing winding numbers (proportional to $L_x$, in fact).\n\n$D_c$ does not compete with $J$,$J'$, and $J''$ {#sec:d_c-does-not}\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nTo understand the degree of competition of $H_c$ with the other interactions, it is instructive to consider the shifted variables $$\\label{eq:22}\n  \\tilde\\theta_{y,z}(x) = \\theta_{y,z}(x) + (-1)^y \\frac{d_c}{v} x.$$ With this shift, $d_c$ is \u201celiminated\u201d from the free Hamiltonian, up to a constant: $H_0[\\theta]+H_c[\\theta] = H_0[\\tilde\\theta]+ {\\rm\n  const.}$. Physically, this change of variables corresponds to a shift of the dominant wavevector of correlations from $k_x=\\pi$ to $k_x = \\pi \\pm\n\\beta d_c/v=\\pi \\pm D_c/J$. Significantly, the dominant $\\gamma''_\\pm$ coupling is invariant under the shift: $H'_2[\\theta]=H'_2[\\tilde\\theta]$. Thus $J''$ and $D_c$ do not compete. The same is true for the $\\gamma_2$ ($J_2$) interaction. Thus, in the region where the AF phase appears for the case of field along the $b$ axis, since the $J''$ and $J_2$ couplings dominate, we expect the energetics is unchanged at the three highest energy scales in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:energyscales\\].\n\nCommensurate-Incommensurate Transition {#sec:comm-incomm-trans}\n--------------------------------------\n\nDifferences do appear, however, once the cone and biquadratic interactions are considered, as these are [*not*]{} invariant under the shift in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:22\\]). We focus on the putative AF region, for which we may assume the decomposition in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:25\\]). Allowing for small gradients in $\\Theta_\\pm(x,y,z) = \\Theta_0(x,y,z)\\pm\n\\Theta_1(x,y,z)$, we obtain the continuum hamiltonian $H=H_++H_-$, with $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:23}\n  H_+ & =  \\int \\! d^3{\\bm r}\\, \\Big\\{ &\\sum_\\mu\\frac{c_\\mu}{2}(\\partial_\\mu\n  \\Theta_+)^2 \\Big\\}, \\\\\n  H_- & =  \\int \\! d^3{\\bm r}\\, \\Big\\{ &\\sum_\\mu\\frac{c_\\mu}{2}(\\partial_\\mu\n  \\Theta_-)^2 + \\frac{d_c}{2\\beta}\\partial_x \\Theta_- \\nonumber \\\\\n&& - g_{\\rm bq} \\cos (2 \\Theta_-)\\Big\\} ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $c_x = v/4\\beta^2$, $c_y = g_2 $, and $c_z = {\\tilde \\gamma}''_\\pm/4$. Here the cone interaction has dropped out, and the low energy Hamiltonian has decomposed into two decoupled parts. The first, $H_+$, is simply the Hamiltonian of a free massless boson. It describes the Goldstone mode $\\Theta_+$ associated with spin rotations about the field axis. The second part, $H_-$, is the familiar sine-Gordon model, discussed earlier in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:plateaux-width\\]. In this case it is in three dimensions, but this has no significant consequences. As in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:plateaux-width\\], the sine-Gordon model describes a commensurate phase (here, the AF state) and an incommensurate (IC) one, separated by a [*Commensurate-Incommensurate Transition*]{}, or CIT.\n\nThe results for the CIT can be taken over directly from Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:plateau\\], with the mapping $\\Theta_- \\rightarrow\n\\varphi/2$. Here, it is $d_c$ which plays the role of the tuning parameter, favoring the IC phase, for $|d_c|>d_c^*$, where $$\\label{eq:26}\n  d_c^* = \\frac{4\\sqrt{v g_{\\rm bq}}}{\\pi}.$$ On entering the IC phase, the system forms a soliton lattice, with a corresponding incommensurate wavevector $q_0$ (measured relative to the AF state). Note that the IC phase found here is thus a smooth deformation of the AF state, which makes it quite distinct from the cone state, which is also incommensurate. The incommensurate wavevector grows rapidly after the CIT, which can be seen by translating Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:umk14\\]) to the current case: $$\\label{eq:88}\n q_0 =  \\frac{\\langle \\partial_x \\Theta_-\\rangle}{2} \\sim\n \\frac{\\pi}{4\\beta} \\sqrt{\\frac{g_{bq}}{v}} \\frac{1}{\\ln [(|d_c|-d_c^*)/d_c^*]},$$ where the brackets $\\langle \\partial_x \\Theta_-\\rangle$ indicates the spatial average. Once the above logarithm is not large, the solitons are strongly overlapping, and Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:88\\]) is no longer valid. Instead, one may simply minimize the energy neglecting $g_{\\rm bq}$, which gives $$\\label{eq:89}\n  q_0 = \\frac{\\beta d_c}{v} = \\frac{D_c}{J}.$$ To summarize, $q_0$ varies from its maximal value given in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:89\\]) at the low field end of the IC phase, and [ *decreases*]{} with increasing field, vanishing asymptotically according to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:88\\]) at the CIT to the AF phase. Because the variation in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:88\\]) is so rapid, very likely $q_0$ appears approximately constant in most of the IC phase, dropping precipitously to zero in a narrow region near the CIT.\n\nExperimental Consequences {#sec:exper-cons}\n=========================\n\nIn this section, we consider a few key experimental consequences of the analysis of the previous sections. First, we give explicit expressions for the spin structures in the various phases predicted there, which should be useful for comparison to neutron scattering measurements. Next, we derive the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) lineshapes in each of these phases, using these expressions, and compare to experiments by Takigawa and collaborators. Finally, we describe the phase diagrams in the magnetic field\u2013temperature plane, for the different field orientations.\n\nExplicit spin structures {#sec:expl-spin-struct}\n------------------------\n\nHere we reconstruct explicit formulae and plots of the spin ordering patterns in the various phases discussed earlier.\n\n### Cone state {#sec:cone-state}\n\nFirst consider the incommensurate ordered \u201ccone\u201d state, described in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:incomm-order-state\\], which occurs for any field along the $a$ axis. This is described by Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:46\\]). Using Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:2\\]), we can express the microscopic spin operator\u2019s expectation value $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:49}\n&&   \\left\\langle S_{xyz}^x \\right\\rangle_{\\rm cone} =  (\\left\\langle\n      S_{xyz}^+\\right\\rangle e^{i\\pi x} + {\\rm c.c.})/2  \\\\\n    & &=  (-1)^{yz} N \\cos[(\\pi + (-1)^z q_0 )x + \\Theta_z] \\nonumber \\\\\n    & &=  (-1)^{yz} N \\cos[(\\pi + q_0) x + ((-1)^z-1)\\pi x + (-1)^z\n    \\Theta_z]. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ To further simplify, we note that the $x$ coordinate takes integer values for even $y$ and half-integer values for odd $y$. As a consequence, $((-1)^z-1)\\pi x$ is an integer multiple of $2\\pi$ [ *unless*]{} $y$ is odd [*and*]{} $z$ is odd. This allows this factor inside the cosine to be removed in favor of an overall $(-1)^{yz}$ factor in front of it, which cancels the one already present. Therefore one finds, finally $$\\label{eq:49a}\n  \\left\\langle S_{xyz}^x \\right\\rangle_{\\rm cone} = N \\cos[(\\pi + q_0)x + \\tilde\\Theta_z],$$ where $\\tilde\\Theta_z= (-1)^z\\Theta_z$. Similar manipulations for the y component of the spins give $$\\label{eq:49b}\n  \\left\\langle S_{xyz}^y \\right\\rangle_{\\rm cone} = (-1)^z  N \\sin[(\\pi + q_0)x + \\tilde\\Theta_z].$$ and of course, one has $$\\label{eq:50}\n  \\left\\langle S_{xyz}^z \\right\\rangle_{\\rm cone} = M.$$\n\n### Antiferromagnetic phase {#sec:commensurate-phase}\n\nHere we simply apply Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:25\\]), and use $\\Theta_0=\\Theta$, $\\Theta_1=\\Theta + \\pi n$ (with $n=0,1$) as preferred in the commensurate \u201cantiferromagnetic\u201d (AF) phase by Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:16\\]). This gives $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:51}\n  \\left\\langle S_{xyz}^x \\right\\rangle_{\\rm AF} & = & (-1)^z|\\psi| \\cos[\\pi\n  x + \\sigma \\pi y/2 + \\Theta], \\\\\n  \\left\\langle S_{xyz}^y \\right\\rangle_{\\rm AF} & = & (-1)^z|\\psi|\n   \\sin[\\pi  x + \\sigma \\pi y/2 + \\Theta], \\end{aligned}$$ where the $\\sigma=\\pm 1 = (-1)^n$. These equations describe a state in which the $x-y$ components of the spins are [*collinear*]{}. This may not be obvious, but is true because the combination $\\pi x + \\sigma \\pi y/2$ is always an integer multiple of $\\pi$, owing to the fact that $x$ is integer (half-integer) for even (odd) $y$. Combined with the constant uniform magnetization, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:50\\]), these equations describe a [*co-planar*]{} spin state, distinct from the three-dimensional cone configuration. We note, however, that small perturbations due to the various DM interactions will probably disrupt this ideal coplanarity. The commensurate nature of the ordering is, however, robust.\n\n### Incommensurate phase for fields along $c$ axis {#sec:incomm-phase-fields}\n\nHere we consider the incommensurate phase which is discussed in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-c\\]. For simplicity, we will ignore the narrow but subtle region in the vicinity of the CIT, where a non-trivial soliton lattice should be taken into account. The basic symmetry of this phase is well described by the \u201csmooth\u201d regime (corresponding to strongly overlapping solitons), where we simply treat the incommensuration as linear shift of the phase fields, i.e. we take $\\tilde\\theta_{y,z}$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:22\\]) as constant. The preceding formula now are modified to $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:52}\n   \\left\\langle S_{xyz}^x \\right\\rangle_{\\rm IC} = (-1)^z|\\psi|\n   \\cos[(\\pi+(-1)^y q_0) x + \\pi y/2 + \\Theta_y],~~~~ \\\\\n  \\left\\langle S_{xyz}^y \\right\\rangle_{\\rm IC} = (-1)^z|\\psi|\n  \\sin[(\\pi+(-1)^y q_0) x + \\pi y/2 + \\Theta_y],~~~~\\end{aligned}$$ where $q_0= \\beta d_c/v$ \u2013 see Eq.\u00a0 \u2013 and $\\Theta_y$ is a phase taking two distinct arbitrary values for even and odd $y$.\n\nNMR lineshape {#sec:nmr-lineshape}\n-------------\n\nRecent NMR experiments by Takigawa and collaborators [@takigawa-poster] have revealed numerous phases and transitions in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0in magnetic fields. Here we wish to address the signatures of the phases predicted in this paper in the NMR lineshape. The basic approach is to consider the Hamiltonian of a given nuclear spin ${\\bf I}_i$ to be the sum of two effective fields $$\\label{eq:53}\n  H_a = ({\\bf h}^{\\rm ext}_i + {\\bf h}^{\\rm hf}_a)\\cdot {\\bf I}_i,$$ where ${\\bf h}^{\\rm ext}_i$ is the effective field on the nucleus $i$ due to the external field ${\\bf H}$, factoring in any anisotropies of the nuclear g-tensor (which are believed to be small [@private]). The remaining \u201chyperfine field\u201d ${\\bf h}^{\\rm hf}_i$ represents transferred hyperfine interactions with nearby electronic spins. The NMR resonance frequency of this particular nucleus is simply proportional to the magnitude of the total effective field. The simplest approximation, which we take here, is to assume in addition that $|{\\bf h}^{\\rm hf}_i| \\ll |{\\bf h}^{\\rm ext}_i|$. This is certainly so in intermediate and high-field regions, which we focus on. For lower fields, of the order of $1 - 2$ T, this may not be such a good approximation.[@private] But even in this case the off-diagonal contribution (see below), which is central to our consideration, should be smaller than the diagonal one and a modified expansion in off-diagonal components of ${\\bf h}^{\\rm hf}_i$ should be possible. With these assumptions in mind, and disregarding the g-factor anisotropy (so that ${\\bf h}^{\\rm ext}_i \\propto {\\bf H}$), we can approximate the shift due to the hyperfine interaction by $$\\label{eq:70}\n  \\Delta\\nu_i \\propto {\\bf h}^{\\rm hf}_i \\cdot {\\bf h}^{\\rm ext}_i /|{\\bf h}^{\\rm ext}_i |  = {\\bf h}^{\\rm hf}_i \\cdot {\\bf\\hat H},$$ where ${\\bf\\hat H}= {\\bf H}/|{\\bf H}|$.\n\n![Scheme of the trasferred hyperfine interaction for Cs(A). The signs $+$/$-$ refer to the relative signs of the off-diagonal entry $\\kappa_{ij}$ in Eq. (\\[eq:54\\]). $\\kappa_{ij}$ takes equal value for two sites of a triangle as shown by the dashed lines while that for the other site can be different as shown by the dotted line.[]{data-label=\"fig: NMR_Cs_A_ions\"}](NMR_Cs_A_ions.pdf){width=\"0.7\\columnwidth\"}\n\nIn [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, there are two inequivalent Cs sites measured in the Cs NMR measurements. We focus on the Cs(A) site, which is located slightly above or below the center of a triangle of Cu spins.[@NMRpaper]The NMR response of the[@private] Cs(B) site, which is coupled to Cu spins in the two planes adjacent to it, is more difficult to analyze at present, but we do expect the qualitative conclusions derived below to remain valid for this situation as well. In the Cs(A) case, the hyperfine field of nucleus $i$ located between spins $j$ at the sites of this triangle should be given by the sum of three transferred contributions: $$\\label{eq:72}\n  {\\bf h}^{\\rm hf}_i = \\sum_{j \\; {\\rm nn}\\; i} {\\bf K}_{ij} \\langle {\\bf S}_j \\rangle,$$ where ${\\bf K}_{ij}$ is a tensor describing the anisotropic transferred hyperfine exchange from the Cu spin at site $j$ to the nucleus $i$ (see Fig. \\[fig: NMR\\_Cs\\_A\\_ions\\]). According to recent measurements,[@NMRpaper] in these tensors, the only significant off-diagonal entry is $[{\\bf K}_{ij}]^{ac}=[{\\bf K}_{ij}]^{ca} =\\kappa_{ij}$, and, moreover, $\\kappa_{ij}$ takes equal values for the two sites $j$ of the triangle which are on the same chain.\n\nFor magnetic fields along $a$ and $c$, this off-diagonal transferred exchange is crucial in determining the NMR lineshape. Let us see how this occurs. In either of these cases, we define, as usual the $z$ axis of spin along the field axis. Let us then take the $x$ axis of spin along the other of the two, i.e. for ${\\bf\\hat H}={\\hat a}$, take $S^x=S^c$, and conversely, if ${\\bf\\hat H}={\\hat c}$, then $S^x=S^a$. From Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:70\\]), the NMR shift is entirely determined by the $z$ component of the hyperfine field. This, in turn, is given by $$\\label{eq:54}\n  \\left[{\\bf h}^{\\rm hf}_i \\right]^z = \\sum_{j \\; {\\rm nn}\\; i} \\left( \\left[{\\bf\n      K}_{ij}\\right]^{zz} \\langle S^z_j \\rangle + \\kappa_{ij} \\langle S^x_j \\rangle \\right).$$ In all of the phases predicted for [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, the component of the spins parallel to the field is constant, and equal to the average magnetization $M$ (this is [*not*]{} true in the SDW phase, which is expected in the ideal 2d case of Section\u00a0\\[sec:ideal-2d-model\\]). Therefore the first term in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:54\\]) gives a constant contribution to the shift, which is the same for all Cs(A) nuclei. Thus $$\\label{eq:73}\n  \\Delta\\nu_i  \\propto {\\rm const.}+ \\sum_{j \\; {\\rm nn}\\; i}\n   \\kappa_{ij} \\langle S^x_j \\rangle .$$ Using the experimentally determined form of the hyperfine couplings, and dropping the constant, one has $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:74}\n  && \\Delta\\nu_{x+\\frac{1}{2},y+\\frac{1}{2},z}  \\\\\n&& \\nonumber (-1)^y \\left(\\kappa_1 \\left[ \\langle\n    S^x_{x,y,z} \\rangle + \\langle\n    S^x_{x+1,y,z} \\rangle \\right] + \\kappa_2 \\langle\n    S^x_{x+\\frac{1}{2},y+1,z} \\rangle \\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Here we have absorbed the proportionality constant in the shift into the definitions of $\\kappa_1$ and $\\kappa_2$. We are now in a position to evaluate the NMR lineshape for the different magnetic phases.\n\n![Schematic NMR spectra in (a) the cone state, (b) the AF state, and (c) the IC state. On approaching the commensurate AF phase from the IC phase, i.e., $q_0 \\to 0$ limit, four peaks merge pairwise as indicated by the arrow.[]{data-label=\"fig: NMR_line_shape\"}](NMR_line_shape.pdf){width=\"0.98\\columnwidth\"}\n\n### Cone state {#sec:cone-state-2}\n\nIn the cone state, we can use Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:49a\\]) to evaluate Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:74\\]). One obtains $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:75}\n   && \\Delta\\nu_{x+\\frac{1}{2},y+\\frac{1}{2},z} = \\\\\n   \\nonumber &&\n (-1)^y N \\left[\\kappa_2 - 2 \\kappa_1 \\sin \\tfrac{q_0}{2}\\right] \\cos [(\\pi +\n  q_0)(x +1/2)+ \\tilde\\Theta_z].\\end{aligned}$$ Now the NMR lineshape reflects the [*distribution*]{} of shifts, $p(\\Delta\\nu) $, over all the Cs(A) sites. We may consider this as a sum of distributions of the shifts for the nuclei associated with each pair of chains, i.e. ranging over $x$ for fixed $y$ and $z$. Because $q_0$ is incommensurate, the argument of the cosine above is distributed [*uniformly*]{} over the full angular interval from $0$ to $2\\pi$. Thus the cosine itself is distributed between $-1$ and $+1$, and we obtain a distribution for the shift, for fixed $y$ and $z$ with support between $\\pm N |\\kappa_2 - 2 \\kappa_1\n\\sin \\tfrac{q_0}{2}|$: $$\\label{eq:78}\n  p(\\Delta \\nu) = \\frac{1}{\\pi} \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{A^2 -\n      (\\Delta\\nu)^2}}\\Theta[A-|\\Delta\\nu|],$$ with $$\\label{eq:79}\n  A = N |\\kappa_2 - 2 \\kappa_1\\sin \\tfrac{q_0}{2}|.$$ We see that the distribution is in fact independent of $y$ and $z$, so that the full distribution over all Cs(A) sites is identical to that for a single pair of chains. It has two peaks, at the edges of the distribution, $\\delta\\nu=\\pm A$ as shown in Fig. \\[fig: NMR\\_line\\_shape\\](a).\n\n### AF state {#sec:af-state}\n\nApplying Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:51\\]) to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:74\\]), we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:76}\n  \\Delta\\nu_{x+\\frac{1}{2},y+\\frac{1}{2},z} & = &\n\\sigma (-1)^{y+z}|\\psi|\\kappa_2 \\cos[\\pi(x+\\sigma y/2)+\\Theta]\n\\nonumber \\\\\n& = & \\pm \\kappa |\\psi|\\cos\\Theta.\\end{aligned}$$ One expects therefore two sharp peaks in the Cs(A) NMR spectrum, separated by $2\\kappa_2\\psi|\\cos\\Theta|$ (see Fig. \\[fig: NMR\\_line\\_shape\\](b)). Note that $\\cos\\Theta$ is generically non-zero, as argued by symmetry in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:antif-af-state\\].\n\n### IC state {#sec:ic-state}\n\nHere we apply Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:52\\]) to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:74\\]). We find that the NMR shift can be written $$\\label{eq:77}\n   \\Delta\\nu_{x+\\frac{1}{2},y+\\frac{1}{2},z} = A_y \\cos (q_0 x + \\phi_y),$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:80}\n  |A_y| & = & |\\psi|\\Big[ 4\\kappa_1^2 \\sin^2 \\tfrac{q_0}{2} + \\kappa_2^2\n \\\\\n    && \n    -(-1)^y 4 \\kappa_1\\kappa_2 \\sin \\tfrac{q_0}{2} \\sin (\\Theta_0+\\Theta_1)\\Big]^{1/2},   \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:81}\n&&   \\tan \\phi_y  =  \\\\ \n&& \\nonumber\n\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{cc} \\frac{\\kappa_1\\left(\\sin(q_0+\\Theta_0) -\n    \\sin\\Theta_0 \\right)+ \\kappa_2 \\sin (\\tfrac{q_0}{2}  -\\Theta_{1})}{\\kappa_1\\left(\\cos(q_0+\\Theta_0) -\n    \\cos\\Theta_0 \\right)+ \\kappa_2 \\cos (\\tfrac{q_0}{2} -\\Theta_{1})} &\n\\textrm{$y$ even} \\\\\n\\frac{\\kappa_1\\left(\\sin(q_0-\\Theta_1) +\n    \\sin\\Theta_1 \\right)+ \\kappa_2 \\sin (\\tfrac{q_0}{2}  +\\Theta_{0})}{\\kappa_1\\left(\\cos(q_0-\\Theta_1) -\n    \\cos\\Theta_1 \\right)+ \\kappa_2 \\cos (\\tfrac{q_0}{2}  +\\Theta_{0})} &\n\\textrm{$y$ odd}\n\\end{array} \\right. .\\end{aligned}$$ For each $y$, we expect from Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:77\\]) a continuum lineshape of the form of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:78\\]), owing to the incommensurate wavevector $q_0$. However, in general, $A_y$ takes two distinct values for even and odd $y$ (owing to the $(-1)^y$ factor in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:80\\])). Note that the prefactor of this term is non-vanishing since $\\sin(\\Theta_0+\\Theta_1)$ is generally non-zero, as argued in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:incommensurate-phase\\]. Hence the full Cs(A) lineshape is expected to be the sum of both distributions, and hence has [*four peaks*]{}, at $\\Delta\\nu=\\pm A_0,\n\\pm A_1$ as schematically shown in Fig. \\[fig: NMR\\_line\\_shape\\](c). Notably, these peaks merge pairwise as $q_0\\rightarrow 0$, i.e. on approaching the commensurate AF phase from the IC state. Precisely such a merging of the peaks has been seen in the NMR experiments by Takigawa and collaborators [@takigawa-poster].\n\nPhase diagrams {#sec:phase-diagrams}\n--------------\n\nIn Secs.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-axis\\],\\[sec:field-along-b\\],\\[sec:field-along-c\\], we have determined (most of) the zero temperature phases for the three major field orientations. Here we discuss the extension of these results to $T>0$.\n\n### Field along $a$ axis {#sec:field-along-a}\n\nThis is the simplest case. At zero temperature, the cone state extends across the entire field range from zero up to saturation. We have seen that it is predominantly controlled by the DM interaction $D=D'_a$, perturbed somewhat by the interchain exchange $J'$. We therefore expect a single phase boundary, $T_{\\rm cone}(H)$. One estimate for this curve is obtained from CMFT, and is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:dmTc\\] (plotted versus magnetization $M$ rather than field). One observes that $T_{\\rm\n  cone}$ at first increases with the applied field for small fields, and then reaches a maximum, followed by a decrease to zero at the saturation field.\n\nThese trends can be understood simply as follows. With increasing magnetization, the spins become more XY-like, which decreases the scaling dimension $\\Delta_\\pm$. As a consequence, the DM interaction becomes more relevant with increasing field, enhancing the critical temperature. However, on approaching saturation, the magnitude of the transverse components of the spins, which constitute the cone order, decrease to zero, and hence suppress the ordering temperature to zero.\n\nAs these trends are correctly captured by CMFT, we may perhaps trust the result for the phase boundary. However, we note that the [*nature*]{} of the phase transition is somewhat subtle, and probably not properly described by this approximation. Neglecting $J''$, which has a very weak effect upon the cone state (see Eq.\u00a0), the system is effectively two-dimensional, and as a consequence exhibits strong effects of thermal fluctuations. Since the DM terms (e.g. $D_c$) with DM-vectors perpendicular to $a$ are also negligible here, the Hamiltonan has approximate XY spin rotation symmetry. As a consequence, the cone phase is approximately a [*quasi-*]{}long-range-ordered state at $T>0$, and its thermal transition should be of Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) type. Obviously the CMFT approximation does not describe the KT universality class, and instead predicts mean-field critical behavior.\n\nIt is interesting to verify that, nevertheless, the magnitude of $T_c$ obtained from CMFT agrees with an analysis based on KT theory. For simplicity, we will focus on the DM-dominated field range, and neglect entirely $J'$ and $J''$ for simplicity. In this case, the system decouples into 2d triangular $x-y$ planes, consisting of chains connected by the DM interaction only. Taking the expectation value using Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:39\\]) in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:4\\]), one obtains the energy $$\\label{eq:85}\n  H_{2d} =\\sum_{y,z}  \\int \\! dx\\, \\Big\\{\n  \\frac{v}{2}(\\partial_x\\vartheta_{y,z})^2 - 2D |N|^2 \\cos\n  \\beta(\\vartheta_{y,z}-\\vartheta_{y+1,z}) \\Big\\}.$$ In the ordered phase, one may expand the cosine, and take the continuum limit (in $y$) for fields $\\vartheta_{y,z}$ that are slowly-varying in $y$: $$\\label{eq:86}\n   H_{2d} =\\sum_{z}  \\int \\! dx dy\\, \\Big\\{\n  \\frac{v}{2}(\\partial_x\\vartheta_z)^2 + D |N|^2 \\beta^2 (\\partial_y\\vartheta_{z})^2 \\Big\\}.$$ Now, according to KT theory, the critical temperature is proportional to the geometric mean of the two stiffnesses, i.e. $T_{KT}\\sim \\sqrt{v\n  D}|N|$. We are neglecting all $O(1)$ prefactors here, as we are only interested in the scaling behavior. Now from scaling, or from the CMFT calculations in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-T=0\\], one has $|N| \\sim\n(D/v)^{\\Delta_\\pm/(2-2\\Delta_\\pm)} $, from which one obtains finally $T_{KT} \\sim v (D/v)^{1/(2-2\\Delta_\\pm)}$. Precisely the same scaling is found directly from the CMFT treatment at $T>0$ in the Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-dm\\]. (Please note that the described calculation corresponds to setting $J'=0$ the coupling $\\hat\\Gamma^a_{\\rm cone}$, see . That implies $q_0=0$ which, via second equation in , leads to the scaling $T_c \\sim v (D/v)^{1/(2-2\\Delta_\\pm)}$.) It may appear surprising that the two approaches, which describe the transition so differently, agree in this respect. The reason for the agreement is that the [*scale*]{} of $T_c$ is entirely determined by the scaling properties of the weakly perturbed one-dimensional chains. Any approximation which respects this scaling (and both the CMFT and the KT analysis do) will obtain the same order of magnitude answer. Differences would appear in the prefactor, which, however, is beyond the scope of the rough KT analysis carried out here.\n\n### Field along $b$ axis {#sec:field-along-b-2}\n\nThe situation in a field along $b$ is considerably more complicated. The analysis in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-b\\] implies [*at least*]{} four phases at $T=0$: the zero field phase \u201cspiral\u201d phase, dominated by $D$, the AF phase, the high-field cone phase, and the saturated phase. Due to the difficulty of treating the competition between the $D$ term and magnetic field when the two are comparable, the intervening range between the AF and zero field phases has not been fully clarified here. Thermodynamic measurements[@TokiwaPRB2006] appear to show a single transition between the spiral and AF states, and therefore the absence of any intermediate states.\n\nFor the \u201chigh field\u201d phases (i.e. in the region where the $D$ term is negligible), we can attempt to apply CMFT to determine the uppermost phase boundaries, describing the transitions from the ordered to paramagnetic states. The key observation is that [*both ordered phases*]{} (AF and cone) are driven by the same $J''$ interaction. The two states are only distinguished by the competing effects of the weaker (at least in the renormalized sense) $J'$ and $J_2$ interactions. Thus the upper phase boundary should be approximately continuous across this field range up to saturation, and not very sensitive to the precise nature (AF or cone) of the ordered phase it demarcates. This boundary should be similar in shape to the $T_{\\rm cone}(H)$ discussed above, as it arises from a term of the same scaling dimension as $D$ in that case, and suffers the same reduction on approaching saturation.\n\nThe high-field region requires one further phase boundary, between the AF and cone states. This should be approximately vertical, but is expected to bend \u201cto the left\u201d, as the cone state has higher entropy than the AF one, and is thus favored with increasing temperature. This reasoning is based on higher order effects of other DM interactions that we have neglected up to now (mentioned in passing in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:commensurate-phase\\]): these sub-dominant terms are expected to break the $U(1)$ rotational symmetry of the AF state and gap out its Goldstone modes, while preserving the commensurability of the AF structure. The cone state, being incommensurate, is expected to not be affected by these small perturbations and preserve its gapless excitations. As a result, we expect the entropy of the cone state to be greater than that of the AF one, and result in the mentioned bending of the AF-cone boundary to the left. The transition between the two states is first order, and observables such as the ordering wavevector jump at the critical field.\n\n### Field along $c$ axis {#sec:field-along-c-2}\n\nIn this, most complex field orientation, all the phases predicted for the field along $b$ must appear, [*and*]{} in addition the IC state, taking up some territory between the AF and spiral phases. Experiments seem to show[@Coldea2001PRL; @TokiwaPRB2006; @takigawa-poster] even beyond these 5 states, one or two additional ones in the regime when the $D$ term is comparable to the Zeeman energy. At present we have little to say about these states. The observed linear relation between the ordering momentum of the intermediate \u201cS\u201d state (in the notation of Ref.\u00a0) is suggestive of an SDW phase, but at the present we do not have a good understanding of how the competition between the DM and the Zeeman terms may bring out the SDW order discussed in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:phases\\].\n\nIn the high-field region, we expect, by similar arguments to the previous section, a rather continuous boundary between the IC, AF, and cone states and the paramagnetic phase. The AF-cone boundary should appear very similar to that for this field orientation as well. The new feature introduced here is the IC-AF boundary, which is the location of the CIT. Like the cone phase, the IC phase is expected to have more entropy than the AF state, and hence be stabilized by increasing temperature. Experimentally, this boundary bends quite sharply \u201cto the right\u201d, in marked contrast to the nearly vertical AF-cone transition line.\n\nTo understand this, consider the expression for the CIT location, Eq.\u00a0. It can be rewritten, using the expressions for $g_{\\rm bq}$, Eq.\u00a0, and for $d_c$ (given in the text following Eq.\u00a0), as $$\\label{eq:82}\n  |\\psi|^2 \\sim \\frac{v D_c}{\\beta J J'},$$ where we drop all $O(1)$ factors. A simple treatment, which takes into account some of the one-dimensional fluctuations, but not the high-dimensional ones, is to simply apply Eq.\u00a0, but replacing $|\\psi|^2$ with its reduced value [*at $T=T_{\\rm CIT}$*]{}. In general, this is difficult to actually calculate analytically, e.g. with CMFT, but the detailed form is not important to our argument. Scaling implies that it can be written $$\\label{eq:83}\n  |\\psi|^2(T) = |\\psi_0|^2 {\\mathcal F}(T/T_c),$$ where $T_c$ is the critical temperature at which $\\psi$ vanishes, and the scaling function $\\mathcal F$ is smooth and obeys ${\\mathcal\n  F}(0)=1$ and ${\\mathcal F}(1)=0$. For illustrative purposes, we can take the simple approximation $\\mathcal{F}(t) = 1-t^2$. Using this form, one finds $$\\label{eq:84}\n  \\frac{T_{\\rm CIT}}{T_c} = \\sqrt{1- \\frac{v D_c}{\\beta JJ'|\\psi_0|^2}}.$$ By construction, the right-hand side vanishes at the zero temperature CIT, where $T_{\\rm CIT}=0$. Both $\\psi_0$ and $\\beta$ are rather weak functions of magnetic field. However, the velocity $v$ varies considerably (on the scale of $J$) with field, indeed vanishing as saturation is approached. Hence, the right-hand-side increases rather quickly with field, leading to rapid variation of $T_{\\rm CIT}$ with an approximate square-root form, consistent with experiments.\n\nIt is interesting to note that, in experiment,[@TokiwaPRB2006; @takigawa-poster] the AF-IC and AF-cone boundaries are observed to approach each other very closely with increasing temperature, leading to an extremely narrow range of transition directly from the paramagnet to the AF phase. This suggests some physical mechanism which \u201cavoids\u201d this transition. In fact, one can argue that,according to Landau theory, a [*continuous*]{} AF-paramagnetic transition is [*forbidden*]{} for this field orientation. To do so, consider the Landau expansion of the free energy $F$ in the \u201corder parameters\u201d $\\psi_{y,z}(x) \\equiv \\langle\n\\mathcal{S}_{y,z}^-(x)\\rangle$. Such an expansion, in powers of $\\psi_{y,z}$, is valid near any putative continuous transition. We presume $\\psi_{y,z}(x)$ to be a slowly-varying function of $x$. The Landau expansion has the form $F=F_2+F_4+\\cdots$, where $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:108}\n  F_2 & = & \\sum_{y,z}\\int\\! dx\\, \\Big\\{\n  \\frac{\\bar{v}}{2}|\\partial_x\\psi_{y,z}|^2 - i \\bar{\\gamma}_c\n  \\left(\\psi_{y,z}^* \\partial_x \\psi^{\\vphantom*}_{y+1,z} + {\\rm c.c.}\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n& &  -i\\bar{d}_c\n(-1)^y \\psi_{y,z}^* \\partial_x \\psi^{\\vphantom*}_{y,z} + \\bar{\\gamma}_2\\left(\n\\psi_{y,z}^* \\psi_{y+2,z}^{\\vphantom*} + {\\rm h.c.}\\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n& & + \\bar{\\gamma}''_\\pm \\left( \\psi_{y,z}^* \\psi_{y,z+1}^{\\vphantom*} +\n  {\\rm h.c.}\\right) + r |\\psi_{y,z}|^2\\Big\\}\\end{aligned}$$ contains quadratic terms in the order parameter, and $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:109}\n  F_4 & = & \\sum_{y,z}\\int\\! dx\\, \\Big\\{ u |\\psi_{y,z}|^4 \\nonumber \\\\\n  & & +\\bar{\\gamma}_{\\rm bq} \\left[ \\left(\\psi_{y,z}^* \\psi_{y+1,z}^{\\vphantom*} \\right)^2+\n  {\\rm h.c.}\\right] \\Big\\}\\end{aligned}$$ is quartic. In Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:108\\],\\[eq:109\\]), the couplings with overlines on them are analogous to the corresponding couplings in the bosonized Hamiltonian, as can be seen if one assumes $\\psi_{y,z}=|\\psi|e^{i\\vartheta_{y,z}}$. They are, however, from the present point of view, phenomenological coefficients which are at best proportional to those microscopic couplings.\n\nLet us consider possible continuous transitions from the paramagnetic state. In this case, we may assume $|\\psi_{y,z}|$ is arbitrarily small, and thus $F_4$ is a small perturbation to $F_2$. The transition occurs on decreasing $r$ from large positive values, at the point at which the smallest eigenvalue of the quadratic form in $F_2$ vanishes. Fourier transforming into the two-site unit cell, $\\psi_{y,z}(x) = \\int \\!\nd^3k/(2\\pi)^3 \\, \\psi_{a,k} e^{i k_x x + i k_y y+ i k_z z}$, with $a=0$ for $y$ even and $a=1$ for $y$ odd, one obtains $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:110}\n  F_2 & = & \\int \\! \\frac{d^3k}{(2\\pi)^3} \\, \\psi_{a,k}^*\n  \\mathcal{F}_{ab}(k) \\psi_{b,k},\\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $\\mathcal{F}(k)$ can be decomposed into the identity matrix, ${\\bm I}$, and the Pauli matrices, ${\\boldsymbol \\sigma}_\\mu$, according to $$\\label{eq:112}\n  \\mathcal{F}(k) = \\mathcal{F}_0 {\\bm I} + \\mathcal{F}_x {\\boldsymbol\n    \\sigma}_x + \\mathcal{F}_z {\\boldsymbol \\sigma}_z,$$ with $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:113}\n  \\mathcal{F}_0 & = &  \\frac{\\bar{v}}{2}k_x^2 + 2 \\bar{\\gamma}''_\\pm \\cos k_z +\n    2\\bar{\\gamma}_2 \\cos 2k_y + r, \\nonumber \\\\\n    \\mathcal{F}_x & = & 2\\bar{\\gamma}_c  k_x \\cos k_y, \\nonumber \\\\\n    \\mathcal{F}_z & = & \\bar{d}_c k_x.\\end{aligned}$$ One immediately concludes that the minimum eigenvalue of $\\mathcal{F}$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:114}\n  \\mathcal{F}_{\\rm min} & = & \\mathcal{F}_0 - \\sqrt{\\mathcal{F}_x^2 +\n    \\mathcal{F}_z^2} \\nonumber \\\\\n   & = & \\mathcal{F}_0(k) - |k_x|\\sqrt{4\\bar{\\gamma}_c^2 \\cos^2 k_y + \\bar{d}_c^2} .\\end{aligned}$$ This, in turn, should be minimized over $k$. Minimization over $k_x$ and $k_z$ is simple: the minimum occurs at $$\\label{eq:116}\n  |k_x|=\\sqrt{4\\bar{\\gamma}_c^2 \\cos^2 k_y + \\bar{d}_c^2}/\\bar{v}$$ and $k_z=\\pi$. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:115}\n   \\mathcal{F}_{\\rm min}(k_y) & = &\n  r - 2 \\bar{\\gamma}''_\\pm - \\frac{\\bar{d}_c^2}{2\\bar{v}}\n   -\\frac{2\\bar{\\gamma}_c^2 \\cos^2 k_y}{\\bar{v}}  + 2 \\bar{\\gamma}_2\n   \\cos 2k_y\\nonumber \\\\\n   & = & r- 2 \\bar{\\gamma}''_\\pm - \\frac{\\bar{d}_c^2+ 2\n     \\bar{\\gamma}_c^2}{2\\bar{v}} + (2\\bar{\\gamma}_2 -\n   \\frac{\\bar{\\gamma}_c^2}{\\bar{v}}) \\cos 2k_y.\\nonumber \\\\\\end{aligned}$$ From here we immediately see that the minimum free energy is obtained for $k_y=0$ when $\\bar{\\gamma}_c^2/\\bar{v}> 2\\bar{\\gamma}_2$ and for $k_y=\\pi/2$ otherwise. In either case, we see from Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:116\\]) that $k_x \\neq 0$. The two cases therefore correspond to the cone and IC states, respectively. Noteably, the commensurate AF state is [ *absent*]{}. This is easily understood since it is stabilized by the biquadratic coupling $g_{\\rm bq}$, which in Landau theory corresponds to the [*quartic*]{} interaction $\\bar{\\gamma}_{\\rm bq}$. Since this becomes parametrically small relative to the quadratic terms as $|\\psi|\\rightarrow 0$, it cannot stabilize a commensurate phase in this limit. Thus we conclude that [*if*]{} there is a continuous transition from the paramagnet to an ordered state for this field orientation, it can only be to the cone or IC phases, and [*not*]{} to the AF state. Conversely, if there is a direct transition between the paramagnet and AF states, it must be first order. This latter scenario appears to be the case in experiment.[@TokiwaPRB2006; @takigawa-poster] We note that for fields along the $b$ axis, where $d_c=0$, a direct continuous transition to the AF state is possible, since in that case $k_y=\\pi/2$ and $k_x$ vanishes from Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:116\\]).\n\n[[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{} {#sec:cscubr}\n----------------------\n\nIt is instructive to compare the case of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0extensively reviewed here with that of its isostructural equivalent [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}. The latter material is more two-dimensional, with $J'/J \\approx 0.75$ as estimated in Ref. by comparing the observed momentum of magnetic Bragg reflections, ${\\bm q}_0 = (0, 0.575, 0)$, with the result of the series expansion calculations in Ref. . This estimate should be taken with some caution, as the theory neglects DM coupling, which is clearly present in experiment (as witnessed by the distinct differences between the behavior in a field along $a$ and perpendicular to it). Ref.\u00a0 argued that the inter-plane coupling in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0is weaker than in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, since the ratio of the saturation field to the N\u00e9el temperature is approximately $1.5$ times larger in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0than in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, and usually the N\u00e9el temperature in quasi-2d systems is expected to be determined by inter-plane coupling. In principle, this need not be the case when DM interactions are strong, but we believe the conclusion is probably correct. Thus, compared to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, we surmise that $J'/J$ is increased and $J''/J$ is decreased. This behavior is in agreement with the estimate based on the band-structure calculation of material\u2019s microscopic parameters in Ref. .\n\nWe believe that reduced three-dimensional coupling is the primary reason for the observed cascade of phase transitions in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0subject to magnetic field in $b$-$c$ plane. [@ono2004; @ono2005; @fujii2007; @tsujii2007; @fortune2009] Particularly striking is the observation of a robust $M=\\frac{1}{3} M_{\\rm sat}$ magnetization plateau as well as a hint of possible second plateau, at or near $2/3$ of the saturation magnetization.\n\nIn the quasi-one-dimensional approach adopted here, as discussed in Section\u00a0\\[sec:plateau\\], the existence of the SDW state is a necessary condition for the plateau. Given that inter-plane exchange $J''$ strongly favors cone state over the SDW one, we understand that [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}with its small inter-plane coupling is indeed a good candidate for the magnetization plateau. One must remember that this argument is based on one-dimensional reasoning, the validity of which in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0($J'/J = 0.75$) is questionable. However, the final outcome of this \u2013 that the magnetization plateau is stable in the full range of $J'/J\n\\leq 1$ ratio \u2013 is completely consistent with two recent studies [@alicea2009; @Tay_Motrunich] which approached the problem as a spatially-deformed two-dimensional one.\n\nIt is worth noting that abrupt variation of the SDW ordering momentum $Q$ on approaching the plateau value, described by Eq.\u00a0, can be clearly seen in Figure 9 of Ref.\u00a0. While this strong feature was interpreted there as an indication of a first order transition, our theory would predict very similar behavior from a continuous two-dimensional C-IC transition.\n\nIt is interesting to contrast the physical scenario emerging from the quasi-one-dimensional approach to what is expected based on semi-classical physics and the more isotropic regime.[@alicea2009]Notably, the phases immediately bordering the $1/3$ magnetization plateau in the latter case [*are not*]{} collinear SDW states. Instead, Ref.\u00a0 finds commensurate planar or non-coplanar incommensurate distorted umbrella states. These states are connected to the uud plateau state by continuous phase transitions which however can be driven first order by residual DM interactions,[@alicea2009] which generally allow for cubic terms in free energy expansion. NMR measurements[@fujii2007] find that the states below and above the plateau are incommensurate, but cannot distinguish SDW from distorted umbrella states. These experiments and others[@tsujii2007] also find some hysteresis at the plateau edges, which suggests first order transitions there. As we have discussed, one expects second order transitions in the SDW case, so this probably suggests that SDW state does not occur in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}. This is also supported by the neutron scattering experiments,[@ono2004] which observe a smooth evolution of the scattering intensity from zero field up to the plateau edge.\n\nDespite the evident absence of SDW physics in [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}, it is still interesting to consider the predictions of our theory for the plateaux themselves. Apart from the persistence of the $1/3$ plateau to small $J'/J$, the most striking outcome of our theory is probably that the second \u201cstrongest\u201d candidate plateau is [*not*]{} at $2/3$ of saturation but at $3/5$ of it. This feature should be taken as another definite prediction of our work.\n\nDiscussion {#sec:conclusions}\n==========\n\nResume {#sec:resume}\n------\n\nIn this paper, we have presented a fairly thorough analysis of the low temperature phases of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, obtained from a quasi-one-dimensional approach. The results explain most of the specific heat, magnetization, NMR, and neutron data available. Several aspects are particularly remarkable. First, contrary to the popular view of this material as an \u201canisotropic triangular lattice antiferromagnet\u201d, for magnetic fields within the XY plane, the strongest two-dimensional ground state correlations are within the $a$-$b$ planes, [*perpendicular*]{} to the nominal triangular ($b$-$c$) layers! Second, in establishing the phase diagram, we have argued for the critical importance of [*four*]{} different very weak interactions ($D$, $J''$, $D_c$ and $J_2$), only two of which have been generally recognized ($D$ and $J''$) in prior work. It is remarkable that interactions of a magnitude of only a few percent of the largest exchange can induce entirely new phases. Finally, we have discovered an heretofore unnoticed commensurate-incommensurate transition in this material, and located its telltale signature in NMR experiments.\n\nRelation to previous work {#sec:relat-prev-work}\n-------------------------\n\nThe subject of quantum antiferromagnetism on the triangular lattice is long and storied. Here, we will review various aspects of the problem discussed in the literature which relate to this paper. Some of the earliest work[@bocquet2001a; @bocquet2001] applied the random phase approximation (RPA), using bosonization results for one-dimensional Heisenberg chains, to study the susceptibility in the paramagnetic phase, and estimate critical temperatures. Indeed, the RPA is equivalent to the CMFT used here, as far as predictions of the critical temperature are concerned, provided the same interactions are taken into account. At a more general level, this early work correctly emphasized the importance of the one-dimensional regime. However, the analysis here (and in Ref.\u00a0) is much more complete in a number of significant ways. It treats the ordered phases below $T_c$, takes full account of anisotropic DM couplings, and includes fluctuation-generated interactions which are ignored within RPA. These effects rather dramatically alter the phase diagram of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0from the expectations of Refs.\u00a0 and\u00a0.\n\nMuch of the theoretical work motivated by [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0focused on the inelastic neutron structure factor, addressing experiments[@Coldea2003PRB] which observed very broad lineshapes and extracted dispersion relations for putative \u201cmagnon\u201d peaks. Several groups applied spin-wave theory[@PhysRevB.72.134429; @PhysRevB.73.184403; @merino1999heisenberg; @PhysRevB.60.2987]to study the ground state (staggered) magnetization and the structure factor, including higher order corrections in $1/S$. The low energy dispersion of the zero field magnon peak is reasonably well reproduced by this approach, while higher energy portions are not. To fit them, requires \u201crenormalizing\u201d the exchange couplings by hand, in a manner inconsistent with other measurements (e.g. at high fields). Moreover, the large continuum scattering is not obtained in this approach. Another series of works study the excitation spectrum of \u201cmagnons\u201d using series expansions.[@PhysRevB.75.174447; @PhysRevB.74.224420; @PhysRevLett.96.057201; @PhysRevB.71.134422] In our opinion, because the ground state [*is*]{} ordered, and the series are constructed from such a starting point, they are fairly reliable in determining the energies of magnon-type excitations of the system. (Although they do miss important finite lifetime effects which can be quite large in non-collinear spin configurations.[@chernyshev2009]) Indeed, the results compare well to the dispersion of the peaks of intensity in experiment.[@PhysRevB.75.174447]\u00a0This method provides a useful computational tool, especially helpful in estimating exchange couplings. However, it does not elucidate the [*mechanism*]{} of magnetic ordering or provide a full description of [*all*]{} the excitations. Thus it is much less useful if the ground state is not known (as in much of the non-zero field experiments), and it does not address the dominant continuum portion of the experimental spectra. Several theories approached the excitation spectrum from more exotic perspectives,[@IsakovPRB2005PRB; @PhysRevB.73.174430; @AliceaPRL2005; @PhysRevB.72.064407; @PhysRevLett.92.157003] postulating proximity to quantum spin liquid phases and/or quantum critical points. We believe there is little support for such proximate exotic phases from experiments on [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. Instead, the most compelling explanation for the neutron experiments comes from a theory[@kohno2009dps; @PhysRevLett.103.197203; @kohno07:_spinon_and_tripl_in_spatial] in which the excited states are constructed from superposition of a small number of elementary \u201cspinon\u201d excitations of the individual Heisenberg chains. This approach quantitatively and qualitatively explains the main features of experiment, with no adjustable parameters. Its success is a strong argument in favor of the quasi-one-dimensional approach adopted here.\n\nSeveral works address the ground states of spatially anisotropic triangular antiferromagnets, and [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0in particular. In zero magnetic field, the ideal problem (discussed here in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:ideal-2d-model\\]) has been heavily studied.[@weihong1999; @Heidarian_Sorella_PRB2009; @chung2001large; @DN_Sheng_PRB2006; @bishop2009; @Pardini_Singh_PRB2008; @Starykh2007] Many approaches find simply that, in the quasi-1d limit, the correlations between chains are extremely weak, and either regard this small $J'/J$ region as a \u201cspin liquid\u201d or are inconclusive as to the actual ground state.[@weihong1999; @Heidarian_Sorella_PRB2009; @DN_Sheng_PRB2006] The most recent series expansion calculations of Ref.\u00a0 favor a spiral state, but do not make a definitive conclusion. The approach described here, applied to this case in Ref.\u00a0, predicts definitively a collinear ground state, arising from a rather subtle fourth order fluctuation effect. Very recently, a numerical coupled cluster method [@bishop2009] also obtained this state. Unfortunately, because of the very weak fourth order nature of the stabilization of this phase, we expect this to be a somewhat academic result. The DM interactions in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0(and likely in many other anisotropic triangular systems) completely overwhelm the fluctuation effect and result in a spiral state, as decribed in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:ideal-2d-model\\].\n\nIn a non-zero applied field, there has been less effort.[@veillette2005incomm; @veillette2006commensurate; @Starykh2007; @PhysRevB.73.174430] Spin wave theory, applied to the \u201cstandard\u201d model of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, has considerable success in reproducing many of the features of the ground state phase diagram.[@veillette2006commensurate; @veillette2005incomm] It does not, however, explain the broad regions of AF and IC phases appearing for fields in the $b$-$c$ plane. An explanation of the region corresponding to the AF phase found here was given in Ref.\u00a0, based on a dilute spin-flip approximation. However, the state obtained there differs from our AF state. It is a non-coplanar commensurate state, with the spin components transverse to the field lying in orthogonal directions on neighboring chains. Such a state would obtain for [*negative*]{} biquadratic coupling $g_{\\rm bq} < 0$ in ), and would probably have distinct signatures in NMR measurements. In our opinion, the sign $g_{\\rm bq}>0$, found here, is rather more natural, and more consistent with the usual expectation that fluctuations (\u201corder by disorder\u201d) favor more collinear states.[@Henley_JAP] The IC phase and CIT discussed here are entirely new, and could not possibly have been obtained in previous works, all of which assume rotational symmetry of the exchange interactions in the $b$-$c$ plane. As a general point, it is not too surprising that spin-wave based approximations can capture most of the phases in an applied field. This is because we have found that these have \u201cclassical\u201d order parameters (non-zero $\\langle {\\mathcal\n  S}^\\pm_{y,z}(x)\\rangle$), and are thus adiabatically connected to mean-field states. Such approaches may, however, have large quantitative errors, and furthermore, may miss states where fluctuation-induced interactions are important (such as the AF state). The problems with spin-wave theory are most extreme actually in the ideal model, which we have found displays a wide range of SDW state, which is entirely non-classical and difficult to obtain from spin-waves. The SDW state is very naturally related to magnetization plateaus, which have been widely discussed, mostly in the spatially isotropic regime. This is discussed in detail in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:cscubr\\].\n\nOpen Questions and Parting Remarks {#sec:parting-remarks}\n----------------------------------\n\nOur study has resolved most of the main questions regarding the phase diagram of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. However, there are still some smaller details which remain to be understood. We have not addressed the regime of magnetic fields $h$ of order $D$, for fields in the triangular plane. There, the ground state should involve a non-trivial balance between $D$ and inter-chain exchanges. Evidently, this gives rise to additional phases for fields along the $c$ axis. There is also a discrepancy between the measured incommensurability ($q_0$) in the high-field cone state for this field orientation[@veillette2005incomm] and theoretical expectations. To check whether this discrepancy might be explained by the additional DM interactions considered in this paper, we evaluated in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:swa\\] the single-magnon spectrum in the fully-polarized state, including these interactions. We have not found any set of parameters which appear consistent with the measured incommensurability, which is [*reduced*]{} compared to the expected one. Indeed, the theoretical result in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:90\\]) shows that DM interactions only [*increase*]{} the incommensurability, making the problem worse. This might be a point that warrants more extensive experimental investigation.\n\nWhile we have focused on the application of our methods to [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0(and to a lesser extent, [[Cs$_2$CuBr$_4$]{}]{}), the analysis can be applied to other quasi-1d materials. Indeed, it appears that the commensurate AF state described here has been observed[@private-coldea] in the another triangular lattice material, Cs$_2$CoCl$_4$, in Ref.. This material is a spin-$1/2$ XY-like antiferromagnet forming a spatially anisotropic triangular lattice. In contrast with the na\u00efve expectation of incommensurate spiral order along the chains, experiment[@coldeaXY] finds commensurate antiferromagnetic ordering in the absence of an applied magnetic field. This finding matches nicely our description here, as in Cs$_2$CoCl$_4$ pronounced easy-plane anisotropy (the estimate[@coldeaXY] is $J^z/J^{x,y} = 0.25$, where $J^a$ represents in-chain exchange between $S^a$ components of the nearest spins) plays a role quite similar to the external magnetic field: it enhances XY spin correlations at the expense of Z ones (which, however, remain commensurate with the lattice). In fact, the behavior of the compactification radius as function of XY anisotropy[@affleck1999field] is not very different from that in a magnetic field, discussed in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec table\\]: $2\\pi R^2 = 1 -\n\\arccos[J^z/J^{x,y}]/\\pi$. Thus the results of Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-b\\] provide a natural theoretical explanation of the observed commensurate AF phase in Cs$_2$CoCl$_4$.\n\nTo facilitate further application of our methods such as this one, we have described them here in sufficient detail that they could be readily applied to other problems. We hope that the level of detail exposed here serves to amplify the tremendous power of the quasi-one-dimensional approach, which allows real quantitative contact betweem the microscopic spin Hamiltonian and universal long-wavelength physics, while including at the same time strong fluctuations and frustration.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nWe thank J. Alicea, A. Chubukov, R. Coldea, V. Mitrovic, O. Motrunich, M. Takigawa and Y. Takano for stimulating discussions. Much of this work was carried out using resources provided by the KITP through NSF grant PHY05-51164. OAS is supported by the National Science Foundation through grant DMR-0808842. LB was supported by the Packard Foundation, and the National Science Foundation through grant DMR-0804564. HK is partly supported by the JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowships for Research Abroad.\n\nNotations and parameters {#sec table}\n========================\n\nThroughout the paper the following conventions are used: coupling constants of quantum Hamiltonians written in terms of spin densities ${\\cal S}^{z,\\pm}$ are denoted as $\\gamma$. When these terms are expressed in terms of bosonic fields $\\phi$ and $\\theta$, the corresponding couplings change into $\\tilde{\\gamma}$. Coupling constants of various interaction terms of the effective two- and three-dimensional Hamiltonians, expressed in terms of the [*classical*]{} phase $\\vartheta$, are denoted as $g$.\n\nTable \\[tab: notation\\] contains a list of notations in which several perturbations are summarized along with their scaling dimensions. The scaling dimensions are functions of $2\\pi R^2$.\n\n                                                                         Hydrodynamic rep.                                                                                                                                                                       Bosonized rep.                                                                                                  Scaling dimension\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------\n   ${{\\begin{array}{c} \\gamma_{\\rm sdw}({\\cal S}^z_{y,z;\\pi-2\\delta} {\\cal S}^z_{y+1,z;\\pi+2\\delta}+{\\rm h.c.}) \\\\ \\gamma_{\\rm sdw}=2J'\\sin \\delta \\end{array}}}$                       ${{\\begin{array}{c} {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm sdw}\\cos [\\frac{2\\pi}{\\beta} (\\phi_{y,z}-\\phi_{y+1,z})] \\\\ {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm sdw}=J'A^2_1 \\sin \\delta \\end{array}}}$                        $\\frac{1}{2\\pi R^2}$\n          ${{\\begin{array}{c} -i\\gamma_{\\rm cone}{\\cal S}^+_{y,z;\\pi}\\partial_x {\\cal S}^-_{y+1,z;\\pi}+{\\rm h.c.} \\\\ \\gamma_{\\rm cone}=J'/2 \\end{array}}}$          ${{\\begin{array}{c} -{\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm cone}(\\partial_x \\theta_{y,z}+\\partial_x \\theta_{y+1,z}) \\cos[\\beta (\\theta_{y,z}-\\theta_{y+1,z})] \\\\ {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm cone}=J'A^2_3 \\beta/2 \\end{array}}}$       $2\\pi R^2+1$\n                  ${{\\begin{array}{c} \\gamma''_{\\pm}({\\cal S}^+_{y,z;\\pi}{\\cal S}^-_{y,z+1;\\pi}+{\\rm h.c.}) \\\\ \\gamma''_{\\pm}=J''/2 \\end{array}}}$                                                  ${{\\begin{array}{c} {\\tilde \\gamma}''_{\\pm} \\cos[\\beta (\\theta_{y,z}-\\theta_{y,z+1})] \\\\ {\\tilde \\gamma}''_{\\pm}=A^2_3 J'' \\end{array}}}$                                        $2\\pi R^2$\n                        ${{\\begin{array}{c} \\gamma_2 {\\cal S}^+_{y,z;\\pi} {\\cal S}^-_{y+2,z;\\pi}+{\\rm h.c.} \\\\ \\gamma_2=J_2/2 \\end{array}}}$                                                              ${{\\begin{array}{c} {\\tilde \\gamma}_2 \\cos[\\beta (\\theta_{y,z}-\\theta_{y+2,z})] \\\\ {\\tilde \\gamma}_2=A^2_3 J_2 \\end{array}}}$                                              $2\\pi R^2$\n                                     ${{\\begin{array}{c} \\rm biquadratic ~fluctuation-generated \\\\ \\rm coupling \\end{array}}}$                                                   ${{\\begin{array}{c} -{\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm bq}\\cos[2 \\beta (\\theta_{y,z}-\\theta_{y+1,z})] \\\\ g_{\\rm bq} = {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm bq}(\\ell'')\\sim (J')^2 |\\psi|^4/v \\end{array}}}$                      $8\\pi R^2$\n                                                                    $D_c(-1)^y {\\cal J}^z_{y,z}$                                                                                                                           ${{\\begin{array}{c} d_c(-1)^y \\partial_x \\theta_{y,z} \\\\ d_c=vD_c/(\\beta J) \\end{array}}}$                                                                   $1$\n\n  : List of notations.[]{data-label=\"tab: notation\"}\n\nThe parameter $2\\pi R^2$ as a function of the magnetization $M$ is obtained by solving the Bethe ansatz integral equations.[@Bogoliubov-Izergin-Korepin; @Qin-Fabrizio; @Cabra-Honecker-Pujol] Figure \\[fig:Beta\\_curve\\] shows the numerical data obtained from $\\beta=2 \\pi R$ in Ref. . Near the saturation magnetization, $M\\sim 1/2$, one can solve the integral equation analytically and obtain $$\\label{eq: sat-field}\n2 \\pi R^2 = \\frac{3}{4}-\\frac{M}{2}.$$ In the opposite limit of zero magnetization, $M\\sim 0$, $2\\pi R^2$ is well fitted by the following function: $$\\label{eq: zero-field}\n2\\pi R^2=1-\\frac{1}{2 \\ln(M_0/M)},$$ where $M_0 = \\sqrt{8/(\\pi e)}$. An abrupt, inverse-log, deviation from the $SU(2)$ value is due to the marginally irrelevant current-current interaction typical for the spin-1/2 Heisenberg chain.[@affleck1999field]\n\n![Parameter $2\\pi R^2$ as a function of the magnetization $M$. Numerical solutions in Ref. shown by the dots are compared with asymptotic solutions Eq. (\\[eq: sat-field\\]) and Eq. (\\[eq: zero-field\\]).[]{data-label=\"fig:Beta_curve\"}](Beta_curve.pdf){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe relation between the magnetization $M$ and the magnetic field $h$ has been discussed previously in Ref. and we briefly describe the result here. As discussed below , the interchain interaction $J'$ increases the energy of the system of coupled chains by $2 J' M^2$ which results in suppression of the [ *two-dimensional*]{} $M(h)$ curve with respect to the one-dimensional $M_1(h)$ curve for a single spin chain, at fixed external field $h$. Using the relation $h = -\\frac{\\partial E}{\\partial M}$, we observe that the field $h$ naturally decomposes into a sum of \u201cone-dimensional\u201d field $h_1 = -\\frac{\\partial E_1}{\\partial M}$ for a single magnetized chain with energy $E_1(M)$ and the inter-chain contribution $- 4 J' M$. As a result, we arrive at a self-consistent equation where magnetization $M(h)$ of the system of coupled chains is approximated by that of the single chain, but evaluated at a shifted field $h - 4 J' M$: $$M(h) = M_1(h-4 J' M).\n\\label{eq:Mh}$$ This equation is easily solved numerically using data of Ref. and results in $M(h)$ curve going below $M_1(h)$ for all $h$. An essentially identical result is obtained if one uses the interpolating formula $M_1(h) = \\pi^{-1} \\arcsin[1/(1 - \\pi/2 + \\pi/h)]$, suggested in Ref.. This approximation predicts saturation field $h_{\\rm sat} = 2J + 2J'$ which is very close to the exact 2d result $h_{\\rm sat}^{\\rm exact} = 2 J + 2 J' + (J')^2/(2 J)$. It is also worth noting that while $M_1$ approaches saturation with an infinite slope, $\\partial M_1/\\partial h \\sim (2 - h)^{-1/2}$, the two-dimensional curve is characterized by the finite slope $1/(4 J')$, so that $M(h \\approx h_{\\rm sat}) = 1/2 + (h - h_{\\rm sat})/(4 J')$.\n\n![(Color online) Magnetization $M$ versus magnetic field $h$. Dashed (red) curve shows magnetization of a single Heisenberg chain, based on the data in Ref. . Solid (blue) line shows mean-field result .[]{data-label=\"fig:Mh\"}](Fig20-Mh.pdf){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nSymmetry analysis {#sec:dmv}\n=================\n\nHere we consider the full symmetries of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}, and some of their consequences. Most importantly, we derive the possible DM vectors of the on-chain and diagonal bonds. The direction of the DM vectors are constrained by the space group symmetry in the crystal. In the ideal triangular lattice, the DM vectors must be perpendicular to the plane and hence is parallel to the $a$ axis. However, this is not true in the real crystal due to the lower symmetry.\n\nCrystal structure and symmetry generators {#sec:cryst-struct-symm}\n-----------------------------------------\n\n[[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}\u00a0has an orthorhombic crystal structure with space group $Pnma$.[@Bailleul] The lattice parameters are $a=9.65$\u00c5, $b=7.48$\u00c5, and $c=12.35$\u00c5\u00a0at 0.3 K. The unit cell contains four independent Cu$^{2+}$ ions as shown in Fig. \\[fig: Pnma\\_crystal\\].\n\n![Left: Four independent Cu spins (labeled by 1,2,3, and 4) in the unit cell of [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}. The spins 1(2) and 3(4) lie in the same $a$-$c$ plane. Right: Layered-triangular lattice formed by magnetic sites. Thick, dotted, and broken lines indicate $J$, $J'$, and $J''$ exchange couplings, respectively.[]{data-label=\"fig: Pnma_crystal\"}](Pnma_crystal.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe locations of the ions are given by ${{\\bm R}}+{{\\bm \\delta}}_\\alpha$ ($\\alpha=1,2,3$, and $4$), where $${{\\bm R}}=l {\\hat a}+m {\\hat b}+n{\\hat c}\n\\label{crystal_coordinate}$$ denotes the location of the unit cell and $$\\begin{aligned}\n{{\\bm \\delta}}_1 &=& z_0{\\hat a}+\\frac{1}{4}{\\hat b}+y_0{\\hat c}, \\nonumber \\\\\n{{\\bm \\delta}}_2 &=& \\left( \\frac{1}{2}-z_0 \\right){\\hat a}+\\frac{3}{4}{\\hat b}+\\left( \\frac{1}{2}+y_0 \\right){\\hat c}, \\nonumber \\\\\n{{\\bm \\delta}}_3 &=& \\left(\\frac{1}{2}+z_0 \\right){\\hat a}+\\frac{1}{4}{\\hat b}+\\left(\\frac{1}{2}-y_0 \\right){\\hat c}, \\nonumber \\\\\n{{\\bm \\delta}}_4 &=& \\left( 1-z_0 \\right){\\hat a}+\\frac{3}{4}{\\hat b}+ \n\\left(1-y_0 \\right){\\hat c}, \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ with $z_0=0.23$ and $y_0=0.42$. In the simplified notation used in Eq. (\\[standard\\_hamiltonian\\]), the spins 1,2,3, and 4 correspond to ${\\bm S}_{x,y,z}$, ${\\bm S}_{x+\\frac{1}{2},y+1,z}$, ${\\bm S}_{x, y, z+1}$, and ${\\bm S}_{x+\\frac{1}{2},y+1,z+1}$, respectively. Note that $m$ in Eq. (\\[crystal\\_coordinate\\]) is the coordinate along the chains, i.e., $x$. For fixed $l$, 1 and 2 spins constitute one triangular layer while 3 and 4 another layer. On the other hand, 1 and 3 spins lie in the same $a$-$c$ plane which is a mirror plane through the midpoints of the on-chain bonds (see Fig. \\[fig: Pnma\\_crystal\\]). The same thing holds for 2 and 4 spins. Therefore, according to Moriya\u2019s rule, the DM vector on the chain bonds must lie in the $a$-$c$ plane.[@Moriya_rule] In contrast to this, there is no symmetry constraint on the DM vectors on diagonal bonds.\n\nWe shall next determine the pattern of relative signs of the DM vectors, which requires a more elaborate argument of symmetry. The $Pnma$ space group has three kinds of symmetry operations, $A$, $B$, and reflection apart from Bravais lattice translations. We consider the transformation property of spins under $A$ and $B$. Let us denote by ${\\bm S}_\\alpha (l,m,n)$ the spin at the position ${{\\bm R}}+ {\\bm \\delta}_\\alpha$. The spins are transformed under $A$ as follows: $$A: \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l}\nS^\\mu_{1} (l,m,n) \\leftrightarrow S^\\mu_{4} (-l-1,-m-1,-n-1) \\\\\nS^\\mu_{2} (l,m,n) \\leftrightarrow S^\\mu_{3} (-l-1,-m-1,-n-1)\n\\end{array} \\right. , \n\\label{eq: sym_A}$$ where $\\mu=a,b,c$. Since $A$ is the inversion operation as shown in Fig. \\[fig: Pnma\\_sym\\], the spins do not change sign.\n\n![Symmetry operations $A$ and $B$. The locations of unit cells are indicated by $(l,m,n)$.[]{data-label=\"fig: Pnma_sym\"}](Pnma_sym.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe symmetry operation $B$, graphically shown in Fig. \\[fig: Pnma\\_sym\\], corresponds to a $\\pi$ rotation about an axis parallel to $a$. Under it, two of three components of the spin change sign. Therefore, one obtains $$B: \\left\\{\\begin{array}{l}\nS^\\mu_{1} (l,m,n) \\leftrightarrow \\gamma_\\mu S^\\mu_{3} (l,-m,-n) \\\\\nS^\\mu_{2} (l,m,n) \\leftrightarrow \\gamma_\\mu S^\\mu_{4} (l,-m-1,-n-1)\n\\end{array}\\right. ,\n\\label{eq: sym_B}$$ where $\\gamma_b=\\gamma_c=-1$ and $\\gamma_a=1$.\n\nDM vectors {#sec:dm-vectors}\n----------\n\nWe can determine the relative signs of the DM vectors using Eqs. (\\[eq: sym\\_A\\]) and (\\[eq: sym\\_B\\]). Let us first consider components of the DM interactions on the on-chain bonds: $$\\sum^4_{\\alpha=1} (D_{\\alpha,a} {\\hat a} + D_{\\alpha,c} {\\hat c}) \\cdot {\\bm S}_\\alpha (l,m,n) \\times {\\bm S}_\\alpha (l,m+1,n)$$ Applying $A$ and translations, we find $$\\begin{aligned}\nD_{1,a} = -D_{4,a},~~~~~ D_{2,a}=-D_{3,a} \\\\\nD_{1,c} = -D_{4,c},~~~~~ D_{2,c}=-D_{4,c}\\end{aligned}$$ while applying $B$ and translations, we find $$D_{1,a}=-D_{3,a},~~~~~D_{1,c}=D_{3,c}.$$ These six relations determine the relative signs of $D_a$ and $D_c$ as in Eq. (\\[DM\\_chain\\]). Let us apply the same technique to analyze the DM vectors on the diagonal bonds. Since each site lies in the mirror plane, we can assume the coupling of the following form: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& {\\bm D}^+_{12} \\cdot {\\bm S}_1(l,m,n) \\times {\\bm S}_2 (l,m,n) \\nonumber \\\\\n&+& {\\bm D}^-_{12} \\cdot {\\bm S}_1(l,m,n) \\times {\\bm S}_2(l, m-1,n) \\nonumber \\\\\n&+& {\\bm D}^+_{21} \\cdot {\\bm S}_2(l,m,n) \\times {\\bm S}_1(l,m+1,n+1) \\nonumber \\\\\n&+& {\\bm D}^-_{21} \\cdot {\\bm S}_2(l,m,n) \\times {\\bm S}_1(l,m,n+1) \\nonumber \\\\\n&+& (1 \\rightarrow 3, 2 \\rightarrow 4)\\end{aligned}$$ with $${\\bm D}^{\\pm}_{\\alpha \\beta}=\\pm (D'_{\\alpha \\beta,a}) {\\hat a}+(D'_{\\alpha \\beta,b}) {\\hat b} \\pm D'_{\\alpha \\beta,c} {\\hat c}.$$ Here we have used the fact that $S^a_\\alpha$ and $S^c_\\alpha$ change signs while $S^b_\\alpha$ does not under reflection through a mirror plane. Applying $A$ and translations, we find $${\\bm D}^\\pm_{12}=-{\\bm D}^\\pm_{34},~~~~~{\\bm D}^\\pm_{21}=-{\\bm D}^\\pm_{43}.\n\\label{eq: DM_diagonal1}$$ On the other hand, applying $B$ with translations, we obtain $$D'_{12,a} = -D'_{43,a},~~\nD'_{12,b} = D'_{43,b},~~\nD'_{12,c} = D'_{43,c}.\n\\label{eq: DM_diagonal2}$$ Using Eqs. (\\[eq: DM\\_diagonal1\\]) and (\\[eq: DM\\_diagonal2\\]), one can show that relative signs are given by Eq. (\\[DM\\_diagonal\\]), which is shown in Fig. \\[fig: DM\\_distribution\\].\n\nSymmetry with in-plane magnetic field {#sec:symmetry-c-axis}\n-------------------------------------\n\n     \\#            $x'_a$               $x'_b$               $x'_c$          $S^{a'}$   $S^{b'}$   $S^{c'}$\n  --------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------\n      0            $x_a$                $x_b$                 $x_c$           $S^a$      $S^b$      $S^c$\n   1 ($A$)         $-x_a$               $-x_b$               $-x_c$           $S^a$      $S^b$      $S^c$\n      2      $\\tfrac{1}{2}-x_a$         $-x_b$         $\\tfrac{1}{2}+ x_c$    $-S^a$     $-S^b$     $S^c$\n   3 ($D$)   $\\tfrac{1}{2}+x_a$         $x_b$          $\\tfrac{1}{2}- x_c$    $-S^a$     $-S^b$     $S^c$\n      4            $-x_a$         $\\tfrac{1}{2}+x_b$         $-x_c$           $-S^a$     $S^b$      $-S^c$\n   5 ($C$)         $x_a$          $\\tfrac{1}{2}-x_b$          $x_c$           $-S^a$     $S^b$      $-S^c$\n   6 ($B$)   $\\tfrac{1}{2}+x_a$   $\\tfrac{1}{2}-x_b$   $\\tfrac{1}{2}- x_c$    $S^a$      $-S^b$     $-S^c$\n      7      $\\tfrac{1}{2}-x_a$   $\\tfrac{1}{2}+x_b$   $\\tfrac{1}{2}+ x_c$    $S^a$      $-S^b$     $-S^c$\n\n  : Point group operations in the $Pnma$ space group. []{data-label=\"tab:Pnma\"}\n\nTo fully determine the spin structures, it is sometimes useful to have a more detailed understanding of the residual symmetry in a field. The uniform applied field obviously preserves the translational symmetry of the lattice, but breaks time reversal symmetry. Its effects upon the point group operations are less obvious. In general, the $Pnma$ space group contains 7 non-trivial (and one trivial) point operations, which are not all independent (see Table\u00a0\\[tab:Pnma\\]). Of these 7 operations, 3 preserve any one component of the magnetization, and of these 3, two are independent. Therefore the point group symmetry in the presence of the magnetic field is generated by just two operations, which have Ising character. The first operation is simply the inversion tranformation $A$, from Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq: sym\\_A\\]) in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:cryst-struct-symm\\]. In the notation of the main text, this operation reads $$\\label{eq:55}\n  A: \\; {\\bf S}_{x,y,z} \\rightarrow {\\bf S}_{\\frac{1}{2}-x,1-y,1-z}.$$ Clearly, this operation preserves [*all*]{} components of the uniform magnetization, and hence is a symmetry for an arbitrary applied magnetic field.\n\nFor a magnetic field along $a$, the $B$ operation given in the previous subsection, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq: sym\\_B\\]), can be chosen as the other symmetry generator. It can be written as $$\\label{eq:68}\n  B: \\; S^\\mu_{x,y,z} \\rightarrow \\upsilon_\\mu S^\\mu_{-x,-y,z+1},$$ with $\\upsilon_a=1$, $\\upsilon_b=\\upsilon_c=-1$.\n\nHowever, operation $B$ does not keep either the $b$ or the $c$-axis magnetization invariant. The second independent operation should be chosen differently for these field orientations. For a magnetic field along $b$, it can be taken as a reflection in an $a$-$c$ plane: $$\\label{eq:57}\n  C: \\, S^\\mu_{x,y,z}\\rightarrow \\zeta_\\mu S^\\mu_{-x,y,z},$$ where $\\zeta_a=\\zeta_c=-1$ and $\\zeta_b=1$.\n\nFor a field along $c$, it can be taken as a reflection in an $a$-$b$ plane: $$\\label{eq:56}\n  D: \\, S^\\mu_{x,y,z}\\rightarrow \\eta_\\mu S^\\mu_{x,-y,z},$$ where $\\eta_a=\\eta_b =-1$ and $\\eta_c=1$.\n\nUsing the bosonization formulae, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:2\\]), one can deduce the transformation of the boson field $\\theta_{y,z}(x)$ under these symmetries. One finds, for the inversion operation, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:24}  \n  A: \\theta_{y,z}(x) & \\rightarrow & \\theta_{1-y,1-z}(\\tfrac{1}{2}-x)\n  + \\frac{\\pi}{2\\beta} (-1)^y\\end{aligned}$$ For the field along $b$, the reflection gives $$\\label{eq:59}\n  C: \\theta_{y,z}(x) \\rightarrow \\theta_{y,z}(-x) - \\frac{\\pi}{2\\beta}[1-(-1)^y].$$ For the field along $c$, the corresponding reflection instead gives $$\\label{eq:58}\n    D: \\theta_{y,z}(x) \\rightarrow  \\theta_{-y,z}+ \\frac{\\pi}{\\beta}.$$\n\nBreaking of $U(1)$ spin rotation symmetry {#sec:select-discr-ground}\n=========================================\n\nIn the discussion of Secs.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-b\\]-\\[sec:field-along-c\\], the [*overall*]{} phase angle of the spins in the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field remained arbitrary. This reflects the $U(1)$ symmetry of spin rotations about the field axis, which is present in the effective Hamiltonian having dropped DM terms with DM-vectors perpendicular to the field. While we expect this to be an excellent approximation, it is not exact, and the weak effects which we have neglected should remove this artificial invariance. This is appropriate for a crystalline system with only discrete symmetries. In this Appendix, we use symmetry analysis to determine how this symmetry breaking occurs, for different field orientations. We will not attempt to determine the microscopic origin of these effects here, which might be, for instance, symmetric exchange anisotropy, or fluctuation-generated interactions. Instead, we ask what terms might arise in the energy as a function of the remaining parameters describing the orientation of the spins in the plane perpendicular to the field. To do so, we must consider the [ *reduced*]{} symmetries of the system in the presence of the magnetic field.\n\nCone state {#sec:cone-state-1}\n----------\n\nIn Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-axis\\], we obtained a cone state for arbitrary magnetic fields (below saturation) along the $a$ axis. Considering the standard model, this incommensurate state has both a $U(1)$ spin-rotational degeneracy and a pseudo-$U(1)$ phason degeneracy. The latter degeneracy is protected by translational invariance, but the $U(1)$ rotational symmetry is an artifact, violated for instance by the $D_c$ term and other DM interactions with DM-vectors along $b$ or $c$. To study the breaking of the $U(1)$ spin rotational symmetry, it is useful to consider the combinations $\\Theta_\\pm =\n\\Theta_0\\pm \\Theta_1$. The $\\Theta_-$ field describes the phason mode. We focus instead of $\\Theta_+$.\n\nApart from translation invariance, the residual symmetries in the field along $a$ are $A$ and $B$. Under these operations, we find $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:69}\n  A: \\; \\Theta_+ & \\rightarrow & -\\Theta_+ + 2\\pi , \\\\\n  B: \\; \\Theta_+ & \\rightarrow & -\\Theta_+ .\\end{aligned}$$ One sees from this that the effective potential should be an even, $2\\pi$-periodic function of $\\Theta_+$. [*There are no further symmetry restrictions on this potential.*]{} In the simplest situation, e.g. $V_{\\rm eff}(\\Theta_+) = V \\cos \\Theta_+$, this potential has a unique minimum ($\\Theta_+=0$ or $\\pi$, depending upon the sign of $V$). Thus one expects the artifical $U(1)$ rotational symmetry about the $a$ axis to be completely lifted, and the only degeneracy of the cone state to be that associated with the phason mode.\n\nAntiferromagnetic (AF) state {#sec:antif-af-state}\n----------------------------\n\nThe breaking of the spin-rotation symmetry about the field axis is crucial for determining the precise nature of the spin structure in the AF phase. Since this phase is commensurate, and the Hamiltonian has only discrete symmetries, we expect only a discrete ground state degeneracy. This will fix the angles of the spin projections into the plane transverse to the magnetic field. We want to construct an effective potential which depends upon the parameters of the AF state, $\\Theta$ and $\\sigma$.\n\n### field along $b$ axis {#sec:field-along-b-1}\n\nFor a field along the $b$ axis, the remaining symmetries are the inversion and reflection operations, denoted $A$ and $C$, given in Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:55\\],\\[eq:56\\]), in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:symmetry-c-axis\\]. Using the formula in the appendix, and Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:25\\]), we find that under these operations, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:60}\n  A: \\sigma\\rightarrow \\sigma, & \\qquad & \\Theta \\rightarrow \\Theta +\n  \\frac{\\pi}{2}(1+\\sigma), \\\\\n  C: \\sigma\\rightarrow - \\sigma, & \\qquad & \\Theta \\rightarrow \\Theta . \\label{eq:62}\\end{aligned}$$ In addition to these symmetries, under translations by one unit along $x$, one has $$\\label{eq:61}\n  T: \\sigma \\rightarrow \\sigma \\qquad \\Theta \\rightarrow \\Theta + \\pi.$$ From this, we may construct the simplest energy function which depends upon $\\Theta$ and $\\sigma$, in the spirit of Landau theory. From $C$, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:62\\]), we see that it must be independent of $\\sigma$. From $A$ and $T$, Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:60\\],\\[eq:61\\]), it must be periodic in $\\Theta$ with period $\\pi$. Importantly, [*there are no other symmetry restrictions*]{}. Hence the most general energy is of the form $$\\label{eq:63}\n  V(\\Theta) = \\sum_{n=1}^\\infty a_n \\cos (2n\\Theta - \\alpha_n).$$ Generically, since there are no restrictions on $\\alpha_n$, such a potential $V(\\Theta)$ has two inequivalent minima (e.g. if we take the simplest form with $a_n=0$ for $n>1$, located at $\\Theta=\\alpha_1/2,\n\\alpha_1/2+\\pi$) located at points of no particular symmetry. This means that the transverse (to the magnetic field) components of spins do not lie parallel to [*either*]{} the $a$ or $c$ axes. In total, one therefore expects 4 ground states, with $(\\sigma,\\Theta)=(\\pm\n1,\\Theta_0), (\\pm1,\\Theta_0+\\pi)$. Physically, the four states are obtained from one another by the arbitrary choice of global sign for the transverse components of the spins on the even and odd chains, separately.\n\n### field along $c$ axis {#sec:field-along-c-1}\n\nIn this field orientation, the good symmetry operations are $A$, $T$ and $D$, given in Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:55\\],\\[eq:56\\]) of Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:dmv\\]. $A$ and $T$ continue to act as in Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:60\\],\\[eq:61\\]), while $D$ leads instead to $$\\label{eq:64}\n  D: \\sigma\\rightarrow -\\sigma, \\qquad \\Theta \\rightarrow \\Theta+\\pi.$$ Combining the $D$ and $T$ operations, one sees that the energy must be independent of $\\sigma$, and then using $A$ or $D$, one obtains again the effective potential for $\\Theta$ in form of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:63\\]). Thus, the ground state degeneracy (four-fold) is the same as in the AF state for fields along $b$, and the transverse components of the spins do not point along the $a$ or $b$ axes.\n\nIncommensurate Phase {#sec:incommensurate-phase}\n--------------------\n\nHere we must reconsider the valid symmetry operations \u2013 $A$, $T$, and $D$ \u2013 when acting upon the spin structure in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:52\\]). This structure is parametrized by two angles, $\\Theta_0$ and $\\Theta_1$, which describe the spins in the even and odd chains, respectively. Equivalently, we can choose the combinations $\\Theta_\\pm = \\Theta_0\\pm\n\\Theta_1$. We find $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:65}\n  & & A : \\Theta_+ \\rightarrow \\Theta_++2\\pi , \\hspace{0.2in} \\Theta_-\n  \\rightarrow -\\Theta_--q_0, \\\\\n  & & D : \\Theta_+ \\rightarrow \\Theta_+ + \\pi,  \\hspace{0.3in} \\Theta_- \\rightarrow\n  \\Theta_-+\\pi, \\\\\n  & & T: \\Theta_+ \\rightarrow \\Theta_++2\\pi, \\hspace{0.25in} \n  \\Theta_-\\rightarrow\\Theta_- + 2q_0.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNote that the transformations of the $\\Theta_-$ field under $A$ and $T$ involve shifts by multiples of the incommensurate wavevector $q_0$. Under multiple actions of such shifts, any value of $\\Theta_-$ can be approached arbitrarily closely (due to the $2\\pi$ periodicity). Thus there is [ *no*]{} potential which can pin the values of $\\Theta_-$. This is the reason for the gapless \u201cphason\u201d mode in the IC phase.\n\nBy contrast, the effective Hamiltonian can certainly depend upon $\\Theta_+$, reflecting the lack of rotational invariance about the $c$ axis. In general, due to the action of $D$ (which is most constraining), the effective potential must be a $\\pi$-periodic function of $\\Theta_+$. There are, however, no other constraints. Since shifts of either $\\Theta_0$ or $\\Theta_1$ by $2\\pi$ have no physical significance, $\\Theta_+$ is itself defined only up to $2\\pi$. This implies that there should be two discrete sets of IC solutions, described by $\\Theta_+ =\n\\Theta_0, \\Theta_0+\\pi$, and $\\Theta_0$ should generically take an incommensurate value with no special symmetry.\n\nChain mean field theory {#sec:cmft}\n=======================\n\nSDW order {#sec:cmft-sdw}\n---------\n\nWe start by applying CMFT to the ideal 2d model Eq.\u00a0 and consider first SDW order at finite temperature. Thus we write $$H_{1,\\rm{sdw}} = \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{sdw}} \n\\cos [2\\pi (\\phi_{y,z}-\\phi_{y+1,z})/\\beta ].\n\\label{eq:H1sdw}$$ It is convenient to shift $\\phi$ fields slightly, $\\phi_{y,z} \\to \\phi_{y,z} + (-1)^y \\beta/4$, so as to change the sign of the interaction in the equation above. In terms of the shifted fields the minimum corresponds to a uniform configuration $\\phi_{y,z} = \\phi_0(z)$ for each $z$, since the layers are decoupled. It is clear that the inter-chain interaction can next be written as ${\\bm \\sigma}_{y,z} \\cdot {\\bm \\sigma}_{y+1,z}$ where ${\\bm \\sigma}_{y,z} = (\\cos[2\\pi \\phi_{y,z}/\\beta], \\sin[2\\pi \\phi_{y,z}/\\beta])$ is the SDW order parameter vector describing chain $(y,z)$. Chain mean-field consists in a self-consistent assumption that SDW order spontaneously develops at some critical temperature $T_{\\rm{sdw}}$, below which the SDW order parameter acquires a finite value along some arbitrary direction in the SDW plane. For concreteness we choose this direction to be along $x$-axis, $\\langle {\\bm \\sigma}_{y,z}\\rangle = (\\tilde\\psi, 0)$. This choice corresponds to $\\alpha_z =0$ in Eq.\u00a0. With these approximations we have $$H_{1,\\rm{sdw}} \\to H_{1,\\rm{sdw}}^{\\rm{mf}} = -2 {\\tilde \\psi} {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{sdw}} \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \n\\cos [\\frac{2\\pi}{\\beta} \\phi_{y,z} ],$$ where the factor of $2$ arises from the coordination number of chain $y$ in the layer $z$. The self-consistent condition reads $$\\tilde\\psi = \\langle \\cos [\\frac{2\\pi}{\\beta} \\phi_{y,z}] \\rangle_{\\rm{sdw}} ,\n\\label{eq:cmft-sdw1}$$ where angular brackets denote finite-temperature average with the sine-Gordon Hamiltonian $H^{\\rm{mf}}_{\\rm{sdw}}$ of the single chain: $$H^{\\rm{mf}}_{\\rm{sdw}} = \\int\\! dx\\, \\frac{v}{2} \\left( (\\partial_x \\theta_{y,z})^2 + (\\partial_x \\phi_{y,z})^2 \\right) \n+ H_{1,\\rm{sdw}}^{\\rm{mf}} .\n\\label{eq:H-mf-sdw}$$ The right-hand side of Eq.\u00a0 is evaluated perturbatively in powers of vanishing $\\tilde\\psi$ and the leading order result is $$\\tilde\\psi = 2\\tilde\\psi {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{sdw}} \\chi_{\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}}(q=0,\\omega_n=0;T).\n\\label{eq:cmft-sdw2}$$ Here we defined the momentum and frequency dependent [ *susceptibility*]{}, $\\chi_{\\Delta}(q,\\omega_n;T)$, of the vertex operator ${\\mathcal O}_\\Delta=\\cos(\\sqrt{4\\pi\\Delta}\\phi)$ (or ${\\mathcal\n  O}_\\Delta=\\cos(\\sqrt{4\\pi\\Delta}\\theta)$, which gives identical results) at temperature $T$, in the canonical free boson theory, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:H-bos-0\\]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:91}\n  \\chi_{\\Delta}(q=0,\\omega_n=0;T) & = & \\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty} \\! dx\\,\n  \\int_0^{1/T} d\\tau\\, e^{i q x + i \\omega_n \\tau} \\nonumber \\\\\n  && \\times \\left\\langle {\\mathcal O}_\\Delta(x,\\tau) {\\mathcal O}_\\Delta(0,0)\\right\\rangle_0.\\end{aligned}$$ The subscript $0$ reminds us that that this is evaluated in the free theory. This susceptibility, in various limits, plays a central role in the determination of critical temperatures within CMFT. It is evaluated at the end of this appendix, Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Fcos\\]. Here, we need the SDW susceptibility, for which $\\Delta_{\\rm sdw} = 1/4\\pi R^2$. At the critical temperature Eq.\u00a0 acquires a non-trivial solution, $\\tilde\\psi\\neq 0$, resulting in the implicit equation for $T_{\\rm sdw}$: $$1 = 2 {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{sdw}}  \\chi_{\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}}(q=0,\\omega_n=0;T_{\\rm sdw}).\n\\label{eq:cmft-sdw3}$$ Using Eq.\u00a0 from Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:12delta1\\], we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\Big(\\frac{2\\pi T_{\\rm{sdw}}}{v}\\Big)^{2-2\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}} = \\lambda_{\\rm{sdw}}\n\\frac{\\Gamma(1-\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}) \\Gamma^2(\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}/2)}\n{\\Gamma(\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}) \\Gamma^2(1-\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}/2)} \\\\\n&&\\times\\Big[1 + \\lambda_{\\rm{sdw}}\\Gamma(\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}-1/2)/\n(\\sqrt{\\pi} \\Gamma(\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}) (1-\\Delta_{\\rm sdw}))\\Big]^{-1} ,\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\lambda_{\\rm{sdw}} = \\pi \\tilde{\\gamma}_{\\rm sdw}/v = \\pi A_1^2 \\sin(\\delta) J'/v$. This result, $T_{\\rm{sdw}}$ as a function of magnetization $M$, is plotted in Fig. \\[fig:RG1\\].\n\nCone order {#sec:cmft-cone}\n----------\n\nHere we consider the cone (twist) ordering instability of the ideal 2d model Eq.\u00a0. The cone Hamiltonian is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nH_{1,\\rm{cone}} &=&   - {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}} \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \n  (\\partial_x \\theta_{y,z}+ \\partial_x \\theta_{y+1,z}) \\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\times  \\cos [\\beta(\\theta_{y,z} - \\theta_{y+1,z})] \n\\label{eq:H1cone}\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}}=J' A_3^2 \\beta/2$. The spatial derivatives in Eq.\u00a0 require a generalization of the procedure described in subsection\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-sdw\\]. We begin by shifting the $\\theta$ fields by a position-dependent phase corresponding to a wavevector shift $q_0$, the magnitude of which is to be determined later self-consistently. Thus $$\\theta_{y,z}(x) = q_0 x/\\beta + \\tilde{\\theta}_{y,z}(x) .\n\\label{eq:theta-shift}$$ This shift transforms Eq.\u00a0 into $$\\tilde{H}_{1,\\rm{cone}} \\approx - 2 \\frac{q_0 {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}}}{\\beta} \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \n \\cos [\\beta(\\tilde{\\theta}_{y,z} - \\tilde{\\theta}_{y+1,z})] ,\n \\label{eq:H1cone-shifted}$$ where we have neglected as subleading $\\partial_x\\tilde{\\theta}$ terms. The transformed Hamiltonian Eq.\u00a0 is now of the form Eq.\u00a0 and can be manipulated similarly. However, the shift Eq.\u00a0 has modified the free boson Hamiltonian Eq.\u00a0 into $$\\tilde{H}_0 = \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, \\frac{v}{2} \\left((\\partial_x \\tilde{\\theta}_{y,z} + q_0/\\beta)^2 + (\\partial_x \\phi_{y,z})^2 \\right) .\n\\label{eq:H0-tilde}$$ Introducing the order parameter $$\\tilde\\psi = \\langle \\cos [\\beta \\tilde{\\theta}_{y,z}] \\rangle_{\\rm{cone}} ,\n\\label{eq:cmft-cone1}$$ where the average is over the Hamiltonian $$H^{\\rm{mf}}_{\\rm{cone}} = \\tilde{H}_0 - 2 \\tilde\\psi {\\hat \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}} \\sum_{y,z}\\int\\! dx\\, \n\\cos[\\beta \\tilde{\\theta}_{y,z}] ,\n\\label{eq:H-mf-cone}$$ and ${\\hat \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}} = 2 q_0 {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}}/\\beta = q_0 J' A_3^2$. As before, expanding the expectation value in Eq.\u00a0 to leading order in $\\hat\\gamma$, and assuming $\\tilde\\psi\\neq 0$, gives the condition for the critical temperature $$1 = 2 {\\hat \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}} \\tilde\\chi_{\\Delta_\\pm}(q=0,0;T_c) \\\n\\label{eq:cmft-cone3}$$ where [*tilde*]{} on the susceptibility indicates that it is to be calculated using the free but [*shifted*]{} Hamiltonian Eq.\u00a0. However we can now undo the shift Eq.\u00a0 and transform back to the original $\\theta$ fields. As a result, one obtains the identity $$\\tilde\\chi_{\\Delta_\\pm}(q=0,0;T_c) =\\chi_{\\Delta_\\pm}(q_0,0;T_c) .$$ Then Eq.\u00a0 becomes $$1=2 {\\hat \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}} \\chi_{\\Delta_\\pm}(q_0,0;T_c).\n\\label{eq:cmft-cone2}$$ This wavevector dependent static susceptibility is well-known, and given in Eq.\u00a0. Using it, Eq. can be solved by maximizing the right-hand-side with respect to $q_0$ at given $T$, and then finding the maximum $T_c=T_{\\rm{cone}}$ (this is equivalent to choosing the wavevector $q_0$ for which $T_c$ is maximum). Expressing all quantities in terms of dimensionless variables, $r=v q_0/(4\\pi T_{\\rm{cone}})$ and $s=2\\pi\nT_{\\rm{cone}}/v$, we obtain a system of two equations $$\\begin{aligned}\n4~ {\\rm Im} \\Psi(\\frac{\\Delta_\\pm}{2} + i r) &=& \\frac{2\\pi \\sinh[2\\pi r]}{\\cosh[2\\pi r] - \\cos[\\pi \\Delta_\\pm]} + \\frac{1}{r},\\nonumber\\\\\ns^{1-2\\Delta_\\pm} &=& \\frac{2\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone}}{\\pi\\beta v} \\frac{\\Gamma(1-\\Delta_\\pm)}{\\Gamma(\\Delta_\\pm)}\nr \\Big|\\Gamma(\\frac{\\Delta_\\pm}{2} + i r)\\Big|^4 \\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\times (\\cosh[2\\pi r] - \\cos[\\pi \\Delta_\\pm]) .\n\\label{eq:cone-system}\\end{aligned}$$ The resulting $T_{\\rm{cone}}$ is plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\].\n\nIt is worth mentioning here that the outlined calculation can be done by keeping track of lattice as well, so that spatial derivatives in Eq.\u00a0 become lattice differences. Following this route (see for example Ref.\u00a0) one again arrives at Eq.\u00a0 but with the coupling constant given by ${\\hat \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone,lattice}} = 2 J' A_3^2 \\sin[q_0/2]$. This difference, $q_0 \\to 2\\sin[q_0/2]$, does not affect the outcome as in the regime where CMFT is applicable the ordering vector remains small, $q_0 \\sim J'/J \\ll 1$. See section \\[sec:cmft-limits\\] for more discussion.\n\nInter-layer interaction $J''$ {#sec:cmft+Jpp}\n-----------------------------\n\nHere we consider the fate of SDW and cone orders in the presence of inter-layer coupling $J''$. As discussed in Section\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-axis\\], the inter-layer interaction is a strongly relevant perturbation which should be accounted for in CMFT.\n\n### SDW order {#sec:sdw-phase}\n\nConsider the SDW channel first. Eq.\u00a0 should now be complimented by $$\\begin{aligned}\nH'_{2,\\rm{sdw}} &=& J'' \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, ( \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\\pi-2\\delta}\n    \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\\pi+2\\delta} + \\nonumber\\\\\n    && + \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z;\\pi+2\\delta} \\mathcal{S}^z_{y,z+1;\\pi-2\\delta}) .\\end{aligned}$$ This is simply a rewriting of the $\\gamma''_z$ term in Eq.\u00a0. Its bosonized form is $$H'_{2,\\rm{sdw}} = \\frac{1}{2} A_1^2 J'' \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\,\n\\cos [2\\pi (\\phi_{y,z}-\\phi_{y,z+1})/\\beta ].\n\\label{eq:H2sdw}$$ The total SDW Hamiltonian is obtained by adding Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0. Both terms can be made negative by a shift $\\phi_{y,z} \\to \\phi_{y,z} + ((-1)^y + (-1)^z)\\beta/4$. Following the same steps as in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-sdw\\], we find that $T_c$ is determined by an equation of the same form as Eq.\u00a0, but with the replacement $$\\label{eq:96}\n  \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm sdw} \\rightarrow \\tilde \\Gamma_{\\rm sdw} =  {\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{sdw}} + A_1^2 J''/2 = A_1^2( J' \\sin\\delta + J''/2).$$ Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:sdwTc\\] shows that $T_{\\rm{sdw}}$ is mildly enhanced by $J''$ at low magnetization $M$.\n\n![(Color online) SDW ordering temperature $T_{\\rm SDW}$ (dotted (red) line) of the ideal 2d model, as obtained from Eq.\u00a0. Solid (blue) line: the same but with inter-layer $J''$ accounted for, see Eq.\u00a0.[]{data-label=\"fig:sdwTc\"}](Fig8-sdwJpp.pdf){width=\"3.4in\"}\n\n### transverse/cone order {#sec:cone-phase}\n\nInterlayer exchange $J''$ strongly enhances the transverse (to the field) order (underlying the cone, AF, and IC states) for magnetic fields along the $b$ and $c$ axes, for which the DM interaction $D$ is ineffective. In this case, we need to account for the $\\gamma''_\\pm$ ($\\tilde\\gamma''_\\pm$) term represented in Eq.\u00a0, which is bosonized in Eq.\u00a0. To bring the latter into canonical form for CMFT, we change its sign by a simple shift $\\theta_{y,z} \\to \\theta_{y,z} + \\pi z/\\beta $, which does not affect any of the manipulations in subsection\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-cone\\]. Transforming next to $\\tilde{\\theta}_{y,z}$ as in Eq.\u00a0, we arrive at the modification of Eq.\u00a0 where ${\\hat \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}}$ is replaced by $\\hat\\Gamma^{b-c}_{\\rm{cone}}$, $${\\hat \\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}} \\to \\hat\\Gamma^{b-c}_{\\rm{cone}} = A_3^2 (J' q_0 + J'').\n\\label{eq:3dcone}$$ As in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-cone\\], we obtain two equations for $q_0$ and $T$ by maximizing the right-hand side of the modified Eq.\u00a0 with respect to $q_0$, and using the equation itself. The result reads, in terms of dimensionless pair $(r,s)$ introduced in Eqs.\u00a0, $$\\begin{aligned}\n4~ {\\rm Im} \\Psi(\\frac{\\Delta_\\pm}{2} + i r) &=& \\frac{2\\pi \\sinh[2\\pi r]}{\\cosh[2\\pi r] - \\cos[\\pi \\Delta_\\pm]} + \\frac{2 J' s}{2J' s r + J''},\\nonumber\\\\\n\\frac{s^{2-2\\Delta_\\pm}}{2J' s r + J''} &=& \\frac{A_3^2}{2 \\pi v} \\frac{\\Gamma(1-\\Delta_\\pm)}{\\Gamma(\\Delta_\\pm)}\n\\Big|\\Gamma(\\frac{\\Delta_\\pm}{2} + i r)\\Big|^4 \\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\times (\\cosh[2\\pi r] - \\cos[\\pi \\Delta_\\pm]) .\n\\label{eq:cone-system2}\\end{aligned}$$ The cone ordering temperature $T_{\\rm cone}$ is plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:coneTc\\]. We observe that the interlayer coupling enhances $T_{\\rm{cone}}$ dramatically, and even leads to a substantial $T_c$ when $J'=0$. The reason for this is simply that the non-frustrated nature of the interlayer exchange leads to an appreciable inter-chain coupling of transverse spin components even when $q_0\\ll 1$, as Eq.\u00a0 shows. Indeed, in the AF and IC phases, we also have transverse ordering, but $J'$ does not actually contribute to $T_c$, and the plot with of $T_c(J'=0)$ is relevant in those cases.\n\n![(Color online) Critical temperature of cone ordering as obtained in the ideal 2d model, Eq.\u00a0, (solid (blue) line) and in the 3d model (dashed (green) line) as given by Eq.\u00a0. The dot-dashed (magneta) curve represents the critical temperature for $T_{\\rm{il}}$ of the interlayer-driven order, relevant for the AF and IC phases, which we obtain by setting $J' =0$ in Eq.\u00a0.[]{data-label=\"fig:coneTc\"}](Fig9-coneJpJpp.pdf){width=\"3.4in\"}\n\nThe effect of interlayer exchange $J''$ on the two orders can now be compared. Notably, despite its smallness \u2013 $J'' = 0.045 J$ \u2013 interlayer coupling completely eliminates SDW order in a system of weakly coupled layers, $T_{\\rm{sdw}} < T_{\\rm{cone}}$ for all magnetizations from $0$ to $1/2$, see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:sdw-cone-Jpp\\].\n\n![(Color online) $T_{\\rm{sdw}}$ (solid (blue) line) and $T_{\\rm{cone}}$ (dashed (green) line) for $J'' = 0.045 J$. Compare this with ideal 2d situation in Fig,\u00a0\\[fig:RG1\\] where the two orders compete strongly at intermediate values of $M$.[]{data-label=\"fig:sdw-cone-Jpp\"}](Fig10-sdwconeJpp.pdf){width=\"3.4in\"}\n\nField along $a$ axis {#sec:cmft-dm}\n--------------------\n\nHere we describe how to calculate $T_c$ in CMFT in the presence of the DM interaction $D$ for a field along the $a$ axis, which is the arrangement considered in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-axis\\] of the main text. Here $J''$ is unimportant, as we will see. Bosonization of the DM term in Eq.\u00a0 gives $$H'_{2,\\rm{dm}} =  \\sum_{y,z} \\int\\! dx\\, (-1)^z 2 DA_3^2 \\cos [\\beta(\\theta_{y,z} - \\theta_{y+1,z})],\n\\label{eq:H2dm}$$ while the cone term is given by Eq.\u00a0, with $\\tilde{\\gamma}_{\\rm{cone}}=J' A_3^2 \\beta/2$. We observe (c.f. Section\u00a0\\[sec:incomm-order-state\\] where the corresponding $T=0$ state is discussed) that the two interactions can enhance each other if the sign of the ordering vector is correlated with the sign of the DM vector. We therefore make the layer-dependent shift, which corresponds to Eq.\u00a0, $$\\theta_{y,z}(x) = (-1)^z q_0 x/\\beta + \\tilde{\\theta}_{y,z}(x) .\n\\label{eq:theta-shift-z}$$ This should be contrasted with Eq.\u00a0, which describes the situation without any DM vector. The transformation in Eq.\u00a0 makes the competition between the staggered DM and interlayer interactions (discussed in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-axis\\]) obvious, since the argument of the interlayer cosine term, $\\tilde\\gamma''_\\pm$ in Eq.\u00a0, acquires a position-dependent phase $$\\theta_{y,z} - \\theta_{y,z+1} = (-1)^z 2 q_0 x/\\beta + \\tilde{\\theta}_{y,z} - \\tilde{\\theta}_{y,z+1}.$$ The resulting oscillations eliminates the contribution of $J''$ to the energy within CMFT. Proceeding as described in subsection\u00a0\\[sec:cmft-cone\\], we again obtain an equation for the critical temperature in the same form as Eq.\u00a0, but with $\\hat\\gamma_{\\rm cone}$ replaced by $\\hat\\Gamma_{\\rm cone}^{a}$: $$\\hat\\gamma_{\\rm cone} \\rightarrow \\hat\\Gamma^a_{\\rm cone} =  A_3^2(J' q_0+2 D).\n \\label{eq:cmft-dm}$$ Note the great similarity of the above coupling with that in Eq.\u00a0: the two situations are related by exchanging $J'' \\leftrightarrow 2 D$. Hence the critical temperature, $T_D$, for transverse (cone) type ordering follows from solving Eq.\u00a0 with $J''$ replaced by $2 D$. The result is plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:dmTc\\], which compares the case of DM interaction only $T_D(J'=0)$ with that of general $D\\neq\n0, J'\\neq 0$ situation. One observes that $J'$ leads to only a modest enhancement of $T_D$ relative to the case with DM interaction present only. Note that Fig.\\[fig:RG2\\] in the main text shows the solution with $D\\neq 0, J'=0$.\n\n![ (Color online) Ordering temperature with the field along the DM ($a$ axis) axis. Dashed (cyan) curve: $T_D(J'=0)$ due to DM interaction only ($J'=0$ in Eq.\u00a0). Solid (blue) curve: $T_D$ obtained with both $D$ and $J'$ interactions present.[]{data-label=\"fig:dmTc\"}](Fig11-coneDM.pdf){width=\"3.4in\"}\n\nCMFT at $T=0$ {#sec:cmft-T=0}\n-------------\n\nHere we outline calculation leading to Eq.\u00a0. We start by changing the sign of Eq.\u00a0 via a shift: $\\theta_{y,z} \\to \\theta_{y,z} +\n(-1)^z \\pi/(2\\beta)$. Within CMFT, $H'_2$ is replaced by a single-chain sine-Gordon Hamiltonian, $$H'_{2,\\rm{sG}} = - 2 \\tilde\\psi  J'' A_3^2 \\int dx \\cos\\beta\\theta(x) .\n\\label{eq:sg}$$ Here $\\tilde\\psi = \\langle \\cos\\beta\\theta\\rangle$ is to be determined self-consistently. The brackets stand for averaging with the sine-Gordon action which, upon rescaling of the temporal coordinate $\\tau=y/v$, reads $$S_{\\rm{sG}} = \\int dx dy \\Big(\\frac{1}{2}(\\partial_x \\theta)^2 + \\frac{1}{2}(\\partial_y \\theta)^2 - 2 \\mu\n\\cos\\beta\\theta \\Big) .\n\\label{eq:action-sg}$$ Here $\\mu = \\tilde\\psi J'' A_3^2/v$. The exact solution of Eq.\u00a0 from Ref.\u00a0, gives the ground state energy density $$F(\\mu) = -\\frac{1}{4} M^2 \\tan \\left( \\frac{\\pi \\xi}{2} \\right),\n\\label{eq:sg2}$$ which is expressed in terms of the parameter $\\xi$ and mass gap $M$. These are determined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\xi & = & \\frac{\\beta'^2}{1-\\beta'^2}=\\frac{\\beta^2}{8\\pi - \\beta^2},\\nonumber\\\\\n\\mu & = & \\frac{\\Gamma(\\beta'^2)}{\\pi \\Gamma(1-\\beta'^2)} \n\\Big[ M \\frac{\\sqrt{\\pi} \\Gamma((1+\\xi)/2)}{2 \\Gamma(\\xi/2)}\\Big]^{2-2\\beta'^2},\n\\label{eq:sg3}\\end{aligned}$$ with $\\beta' = \\beta/\\sqrt{8\\pi}$. Using the obvious relation $$\\langle \\cos\\beta\\theta\\rangle = -\\frac{1}{2} \\frac{d F(\\mu)}{d\\mu} ,$$ we obtain, after some algebra, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:sg4}\n\\tilde\\psi &=& \\sigma'(M)  \\left( \\frac{J'' A_3^2}{v}\\right)^{\\frac{\\pi R^2}{2-2\\pi R^2}},\\\\\n\\sigma'(M) &=&\\frac{\\tan[\\pi \\xi/2]}{2\\pi (1-\\beta'^2)} \\left[\\frac{\\Gamma(\\frac{\\xi}{2})}{\\Gamma(\\frac{1+\\xi}{2})}\\right]^2\n\\Big[\\frac{\\pi \\Gamma(1-\\beta'^2)}{\\Gamma(\\beta'^2)}\\Big]^{1/(1-\\beta'^2)}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ The order parameter $\\psi$ in Eq.\u00a0 is related to the self-consistently calculated $\\tilde\\psi$ very simply, $\\psi = A_3 \\tilde\\psi$. Hence the prefactor in follows as $$\\label{eq:97}\n  \\sigma(M) = A_3^{1/(1-\\Delta_\\pm)}  \\sigma'(M).$$\n\nThe resulting order parameter, $\\psi(M)$, is plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:orderparam\\] as a function of magnetization. Because the exponent $\\pi R^2/(2-2\\pi R^2)$ in Eq.\u00a0 is always small (it varies from $1/2$ at $M=0$ to $1/6$ at $M=1/2$), one observes that $\\psi(M)$ is a slow-varying function of magnetization $M$. The overall non-monotonic shape of $\\psi(M)$ is in excellent agreement with the experimental data reported in Fig. 3b of Ref.\u00a0: the order parameter first rises with increasing magnetization, reflecting the increasing relevance of transverse spin correlations, and then falls down rapidly as $M\\to 1/2$ as a result of diminishing density of magnons. However, the CMFT result shown in the figure does suffer one problem, discussed in the next subsection, leading it to break down close to saturation (where it incorrectly predicts that $\\psi$ remains finite as $M\\rightarrow 1/2$).\n\n![The $T=0$ order parameter $\\psi$ versus $M$, calculated within CMFT. []{data-label=\"fig:orderparam\"}](Fig12-psi.pdf){width=\"3.4in\"}\n\nLimitations of CMFT {#sec:cmft-limits}\n-------------------\n\nThe results of CMFT for the critical temperature and order parameter, discussed in the previous subsections, exhibit unphysical behavior on approaching the saturation magnetization: in these calculations, the $T_c$ for the cone state remains finite in this limit, as does the zero temperature order parameter $\\psi$. These features are both clearly incorrect, as both $T_c$ and $\\psi$ must decrease to zero as the spins become fully polarized. We will investigate the breakdown of CMFT in this subsection in more detail, and determine the proper scaling theory for the vicinity of magnetization saturation.\n\nFirst, let us observe the failure of CMFT more directly. Consider the solution of Eqs.\u00a0 in the $\\Delta_{\\pm}\\to 1/4$ limit in more detail. First, note that the first equation there is readily solved by $r=O(1)$ which is not particularly sensitive to the value of $M$. This immediately tells us that $s \\sim (A_3^2 J'/v)^2$ for $\\Delta_{\\pm}=1/4$. Near the saturation [@hikihara2004correlation] $A_3^2\n\\sim (\\tfrac{1}{2} - M)^{1/2}$ while $v \\sim (\\tfrac{1}{2} - M) J$, which implies $s \\sim (J'/J)^2/(\\tfrac{1}{2} - M)$. Hence $T_c \\sim v s\n= (J')^2/J$ approaches a constant value while the ordering momentum $q_0 = 2\nr s \\sim (J'/J)^2/(\\tfrac{1}{2} - M)$ diverges as $M\\to\n\\tfrac{1}{2}$. The latter divergence is a clear indication of the failure of CMFT. It can be traced the fact that CMFT is by construction an expansion about the 1d chain limit. The natural parameter of this expansion is $J'/v$ which is supposed to be small everywhere. This assumption clearly breaks down near saturation, where the spin velocity $v$ vanishes and the expansion is not justified anymore.\n\nPhysically, near saturation, one has a dilute gas of spin flips, which can be thought of as hard-core bosons or, in one dimension, equivalently, as spinless fermions. Their density $n=\\tfrac{1}{2} -M$ determines Fermi-momentum $k_F = \\pi n$, which in turn determines the (Fermi) velocity as $v = k_F/m$. Since the mass $m$ is of the order of inverse chain exchange constant $J$, we obtain the scaling quoted above, $v \\sim (\\tfrac{1}{2} - M) J$. The velocity vanishes because precisely at saturation, the hard-core magnons possess a [*quadratic*]{} dispersion relation, which is beyond the Luttinger liquid paradigm of [*linearly*]{} dispersing collective excitations. (The scaling of $A_3\n\\sim n^{1/4}$ follows from the fact that the scaling dimension of the spin-flip operator ${\\cal S}^+_\\pi$ is $\\pi R^2 = 1/4$.)\n\nTo solve the problem correctly we need to start with a 2d description, which is actually simple near the saturation. We define the \u201corder parameter\u201d field $\\Psi_y(x) \\sim S^+_{y;\\pi}(x)$, which is just the annihilation operator for a spin flip. Because the flips are dilute, we expand their kinetic energy near the bottom of their 1d band, and the Hamiltonian of the layer is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nH_{\\rm{sat}} &=& \\sum_y \\int\\! dx\\, \\Psi_y^\\dagger(x) (-\\frac{\\partial_x^2}{2 m} - \\mu)\\Psi^{\\vphantom\\dagger}_y(x) \\nonumber\\\\\n&&- J' (\\Psi_y^\\dagger(x) i \\partial_x \\Psi^{\\vphantom\\dagger}_{y+1}(x)\n+ {\\rm{h.c.}}) + ... \\label{eq:98}\\end{aligned}$$ where the chemical potential $\\mu \\sim h_{\\rm{sat}} - h$ describes the deviation from the saturating magnetic field $h_{\\rm{sat}}$ and dots stand for the interaction terms (which are irrelevant at the 2d critical point). The scaling behavior for small $J'/J$ and small deviations from saturation, can already be read off from Eq.\u00a0, which should be considered for this purpose as a (1+1)-dimensional quantum field theory. The magnetization density, relative to saturation is $\\tfrac{1}{2}-M \\sim \\Psi^\\dagger \\Psi^{\\vphantom\\dagger}$ which scales like an inverse length. Furthermore, the $J'$ term above scales in the same way, since it is missing one $x$ derivative. Thus physical quantities should be scaling functions of $\\Xi=(J'/J)/(\\tfrac{1}{2}-M)$, as claimed in Eq.\u00a0. The overall scaling behavior of $T_c$ is determined by the dynamical critical exponent, which is $z=2$ due to the quadratically-dispersing magnons. Since $T_c$ therefore scales as the square of an inverse length, the result in Eq.\u00a0 follows.\n\nWe may understand the result more physically, and in particular the behavior of the scaling function $\\mathcal{F}(\\Xi)$ by considering Eq.\u00a0 and its consequences in more detail. First, the behavior for small $\\Xi$ corresponds just to the CMFT result in the limit of $M\\rightarrow 1/2$. The limit of large $\\Xi$ is more interesting, and represents 2+1-dimensional physics. Transforming to momentum space, we find that the magnons have the following dispersion: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\epsilon_k & = & \\frac{k_x^2}{2 m} - \\mu - J' k_x \\cos k_y   \\\\\n& = & \\frac{(k_x- m J' \\cos k_y)^2}{2m} - \\frac{m(J')^2 }{2} \\cos^2 k_y\n-\\mu .\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ We expand around the minimum, writing $k_x=mJ'+q_x$, $k_y=q_y$, which gives the continuum dispersion relation, $$\\label{eq:99}\n  \\epsilon_k \\approx -(\\mu + \\frac{m(J')^2 }{2} ) + \\frac{q_x^2}{2m} +\n  \\frac{ m(J')^2 q_y^2}{2}.$$ The continuum theory describes a free Bose gas with anisotropic effective mass. It of course forms a Bose condensate at low temperature, which is described in the usual way by taking the continuum limit $\\Psi_y(x) \\rightarrow e^{imJ' x} \\Psi(x,y)$, with $$\\Psi(x,y) = \\sqrt{n_s}\\, e^{i \\theta(x,y)} .$$ Here $\\theta$ is the 2d superfluid phase, and $n_s \\sim \\tfrac{1}{2}-M$. For the above anisotropic Bose condensate, standard manipulations give the phase-only effective Hamiltonian (superfluid kinetic energy), $$H_{\\rm{sat}} = \\frac{1}{2} \\int\\! dx\\,dy\\, \\Big(\\rho_x (\\partial_x\n\\theta)^2 + \\rho_y (\\partial_y \\theta)^2 \\Big) .\n\\label{eq:xy}$$\n\nEq. describes an anisotropic 2d XY model with stiffnesses $\\rho_x = n_s/m \\sim n_s J$ and $\\rho_y \\sim m (J')^2 n_s = n_s (J')^2/J$. Its critical temperature is determined by the geometric mean of the two stiffnesses: $T_c = \\pi \\sqrt{\\rho_x\n  \\rho_y}/2 \\sim n_s J'$. This argument describes the [*large*]{} $\\Xi$ limit of the scaling function $\\mathcal{F}(\\Xi)$. Note also that this argument implies that the ordering momentum $q_0 \\sim T_{\\rm{cone}}/v$ remains small even near the saturation. This we saw already in spin-wave theory in Appendix \\[sec:swa\\], where we observed $q_0 \\sim J'/J$. Away from saturation, so that $M - \\tfrac{1}{2} \\gg J'/J$, the CMFT is applicable, and Eq.\u00a0 predicts small $q_0$ again. For this reason we expect that $q_0$ is uniformly small for all magnetizations, and lattice effects, of the kind mentioned in the end of Section \\[sec:cmft-cone\\], remain unimportant in all the regimes considered. For this reason we chose to keep only the leading terms of the small wavevector expansion (that is, approximate lattice differences by spatial derivatives) throughout the main text.\n\nCalculation of susceptibilities {#sec:Fcos}\n-------------------------------\n\nHere we present some technical details of the evaluation of susceptibilites used in this appendix. We define for convenience the susceptibility in space and time, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:92}\n  \\chi_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau,T) & = & \\left\\langle {\\mathcal\n      O}_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau) {\\mathcal O}_{\\Delta}(0,0) \\right\\rangle_{0;T},\\end{aligned}$$ evaluated at temperature $T$. It is straightforward to perform the average in Eq.\u00a0 with the free boson Hamiltonian Eq.\u00a0, see for example, Ref.\u00a0: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\chi_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T) =\\frac{1}{2} \\exp\\{-4\\pi\\Delta \\times I(y,\\tau)\\}, \\\\\n&&I(y,\\tau) = T \\sum_{\\omega_n} \\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}  \\frac{dq}{2\\pi} e^{-\\alpha |q|}\n\\frac{1-\\cos[q y] \\cos[\\omega_n \\tau]}{q^2 +\\omega_n^2} \\nonumber .\\end{aligned}$$ Here $y = x/v$, $\\alpha=a_0/v$ is the short-distance cutoff needed to regularize the integral, $\\omega_n = 2\\pi T n$ is the standard bosonic Matsubara frequency, and $0 \\leq \\tau \\leq 1/T$ is the Matsubara time. The frequency summation is standard (we use GR 1.445.2 in Ref.\u00a0) and leads to $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& I(y,\\tau) = \\frac{1}{4\\pi}\\int_0^\\infty \\frac{dq}{q} \\frac{e^{-\\alpha q}}{1 - e^{-q/T}} \\times \n\\Big( 2 - e^{i q y - q\\tau} \\nonumber \\\\\n&& - e^{- i q y - q\\tau} + e^{-q/T}[ 2 - e^{i q y + q\\tau}  - e^{- i q y + q\\tau}]\\Big).\\end{aligned}$$ Next we expand the denominator in series which is evaluated term by term with the help of the identity $$\\int_0^\\infty \\frac{dq}{q} \\Big( e^{- A q} - e^{-B q}\\Big) = \\ln(\\frac{B}{A}).$$ In this way we arrive at $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&4\\pi I = \\ln\\frac{(\\alpha + \\tau)^2 + y^2}{\\alpha^2} + \n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+ \\sum_{m=1}^\\infty\\Big(\n\\ln\\frac{(m + \\alpha T)^2 - T^2 (\\tau - i y)^2}{(m + \\alpha T)^2} \\nonumber\\\\\n&& + \\ln\\frac{(m + \\alpha T)^2 - T^2 (\\tau + i y)^2}{(m + \\alpha T)^2}\\Big).\n\\label{eq:I1sum}\\end{aligned}$$ For later use we note here that small $(\\tau, y) \\sim 0$ behavior is described by the first term in the right-hand side of the above equation. It is easy to check that small $(t,y)$ behavior, where $t = 1/T - \\tau$, is described by a similar $\\ln[(\\alpha + t)^2 + y^2]$ term (which is contained in $m=1$ contributions).\n\nFocusing for the moment on the regime where $|t|\\gg \\alpha$ (i.e. including the small $\\tau$ limit but not the limit near $\\tau=1/T$), we next observe that $m\\neq 0$ contain no singular dependence on $\\alpha$, which allows us to set $\\alpha = 0$ there. The well-known identity $\\ln[\\sin(x)/x] = \\sum_{k=1}^\\infty \\ln[1 - x^2/(\\pi^2 k^2)]$ leads us to $$4\\pi I = \\ln\\Big[\\frac{(\\alpha + \\tau)^2 + y^2}{\\alpha^2} \\frac{\\sin[\\pi T(\\tau - i y)] \\sin[\\pi T (\\tau + i y)]}\n{\\pi^2 T^2 (\\tau^2 + y^2)}\\Big].$$ Hence we obtain, when $|t|\\gg \\alpha$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:93}\n&&2 \\chi_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T)  = \\Big\\{ \\frac{\\tau^2+y^2}{(\\alpha + \\tau)^2 + y^2}  \\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\times\\frac{\\pi^2 T^2 \\alpha^2}{\\sin[\\pi T(\\tau - i y)] \\sin[\\pi T (\\tau + i y)]}\\Big\\}^{\\Delta} ,\n\\label{eq:Fcos-full}\\end{aligned}$$ which is imaginary time version of the expression obtained in Ref.\u00a0. The appearance of the cut-off $\\alpha$ in the temporal $\\tau$ direction is a generic feature of the bosonization technique (see Ref. for more examples). The first factor in Eq.\u00a0 clearly carries the information on the small $\\tau$ limit. To account for [*both*]{} $\\tau\\approx 0$ and $\\tau \\approx 1/T$ properly, we must include another similar factor, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:94}\n  &&2 \\chi_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T)  = \\Big\\{ \\frac{\\tau^2+y^2}{(\\alpha + \\tau)^2 + y^2} \\frac{t^2+y^2}{(\\alpha + t)^2 + y^2} \\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\times \\frac{\\pi^2 T^2 \\alpha^2}{\\sin[\\pi T(\\tau - i y)] \\sin[\\pi T (\\tau + i y)]}\\Big\\}^{\\Delta} .\\end{aligned}$$ Eq.\u00a0 then is correct for the full imaginary time interval. To separate the short and long time behaviors of $\\chi_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T)$ we approximate it as $$\\chi_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T) = \\chi^>_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T)  + \\chi^<_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T) .$$ Here the first term describes long-distance behavior, $$\\chi^>_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T)  = \\Big\\{ \\frac{\\pi^2 T^2 \\alpha^2}{\\sin[\\pi T(\\tau - i y)] \\sin[\\pi T (\\tau + i y)]}\\Big\\}^{\\Delta} ,\n\\label{eq:Fcos-long}$$ which gives the na\u00efve limit of Eq.\u00a0 when $\\alpha\\rightarrow 0$, valid away from the endpoints. The second, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:Fcos<}\n&& \\chi^<_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T)  =  \n \\Big\\{\\frac{\\alpha^2}{(\\alpha + \\tau)^2 + y^2}\\Big\\}^{\\Delta}\n - \\Big\\{\\frac{\\alpha^2}{\\tau^2 + y^2}\\Big\\}^{\\Delta} \\nonumber \\\\\n&& + \\Big\\{\\frac{\\alpha^2}{(\\alpha + t)^2 + y^2}\\Big\\}^{\\Delta}\n - \\Big\\{\\frac{\\alpha^2}{t^2 + y^2}\\Big\\}^{\\Delta} ,\\end{aligned}$$ accounts for an important difference in the short-distance behavior of the full Eq.\u00a0 and the approximate Eq.\u00a0 expressions for $\\chi_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T)$. Observe that the short-distance behavior is not sensitive to temperature as it takes place on the scale determined by $\\alpha$ while the long-distance one describes correlations on a much-longer thermal scale $1/T$.\n\nFor CMFT, we require certain limits of the Fourier transform of the susceptibility, Eq.\u00a0, or $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:95}\n&& \\chi_{\\Delta}(q,\\omega_n;T) \\\\\n&& =  \\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty} \\!\\!\\! dx\\,\n  \\int_0^{1/T} \\!\\!\\! d\\tau\\, e^{i q x + i \\omega_n \\tau}  \\chi_{\\Delta}(x,\\tau;T).\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$\n\n### SDW case {#sec:12delta1}\n\nFor the SDW case, we need the static ($\\omega_n=0$), zero momentum ($q=0$) limit of Eq.\u00a0 in the range $1/2<\\Delta<1$. Here we must take some care to keep the short and long time contributions separate. We split $\\chi_{\\Delta}(0,0;T)  =\n\\chi^>_{\\Delta}(0,0;T) +\\chi^<_{\\Delta}(0,0;T) $, Fourier transforming separately Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0. The first contribution is rather standard and given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:A>}\n&&\\chi^>_{\\Delta}(0,0;T)  = \\\\\n&&\\frac{\\pi v \\alpha^2}{2} \\Big(2\\pi T \\alpha\\Big)^{2\\Delta -2} \\frac{\\Gamma(1-\\Delta) \\Gamma^2(\\Delta/2)}\n{\\Gamma(\\Delta) \\Gamma^2(1-\\Delta/2)}.\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Observe that Eq.\u00a0 diverges as $1/(1-\\Delta)$ when $\\Delta\\to 1$. In the case of the SDW order this limit corresponds to the behavior near saturation where $\\Delta$ approaches $1$ at the full magnetization, $M=1/2$ (see Table. \\[tab:dims\\] and ). The divergence is not physical and stems from the incorrect short-distance behavior of Eq.\u00a0. It is compensated by $\\chi^<_{\\Delta}(0,0;T)$, which yields two identical contributions from the two terms in Eq.\u00a0. Substituting $\\tau = \\alpha t, y = \\alpha z$ and using $\\int_0^\\infty dz/(1 + z^2)^\\Delta = \\sqrt{\\pi} \\Gamma(\\Delta-1/2)/(2 \\Gamma(\\Delta))$ we arrive at $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\chi^<_{\\Delta}(0,0;T)  =  \\\\\n && \\frac{v \\alpha^2 \\sqrt{\\pi} \\Gamma(\\Delta-1/2)}{(2-2\\Delta) \\Gamma(\\Delta)}\n\\Big((1+L)^{2-2\\Delta} - L^{2-2\\Delta} -1\\Big) ,\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ where $L = 1/(\\alpha T) \\gg 1$. Simple calculation shows that this expression diverges logarithmically near $\\Delta=1/2$, $\\chi^<_{\\Delta \\approx 1/2}(0,0;T) \\sim \\ln(L e)$, which however represents a small subleading correction to Eq.\u00a0, which diverges linearly, $\\chi^>_{\\Delta \\approx 1/2}(0,0;T)  \\sim L$, in this region. Thus $\\chi^<_{\\Delta \\approx 1/2}(0,0;T) $ can be safely neglected. Near $\\Delta=1$ limit things are different: here $\\chi^<_{\\Delta \\approx 1}(0,0;T) $ results in a large $T$-independent contribution $$\\chi^<_{\\Delta \\approx 1}(0,0;T)  = - \\frac{v \\alpha^2 \\sqrt{\\pi} \\Gamma(\\Delta-1/2)}\n{(2-2\\Delta) \\Gamma(\\Delta)}\n\\approx - \\frac{v \\alpha^2 \\pi}{2(1-\\Delta)} .\n\\label{eq:DeltaA}$$ Similar short-distance correction can be found in Refs.\u00a0. Collecting both contributions we finally obtain, for $1/2 < \\Delta < 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\chi_{\\Delta}(0,0;T)  &=& \\frac{\\pi v \\alpha^2}{2} \\Big\\{\\Big(2\\pi T \\alpha\\Big)^{2\\Delta -2} \n\\frac{\\Gamma(1-\\Delta) \\Gamma^2(\\Delta/2)}\n{\\Gamma(\\Delta) \\Gamma^2(1-\\Delta/2)} -\\nonumber\\\\\n&& - \\frac{\\Gamma(\\Delta-1/2)}{\\sqrt{\\pi} (1-\\Delta) \\Gamma(\\Delta)}\\Big\\}.\n\\label{eq:A}\\end{aligned}$$ At $\\Delta=1$ this expression reduces to $$\\chi_{\\Delta=1}(0,0;T)  = - \\pi v \\alpha^2 \\ln[2\\pi T \\alpha] ,$$ which is free of unphysical $(1-\\Delta)^{-1}$ divergence. The resulting $T_c(\\Delta=1)$ is exponentially small in $v/{\\tilde \\gamma}_{\\rm{sdw}}$ ratio.[@schulz83]\n\n### Cone order {#sec:cone-order}\n\nFor the CMFT treatment of the cone state, one requires the static susceptibility at non-zero wavevector, with $\\Delta=\\Delta_\\pm =\n\\pi R^2$. This is always less than or equal to $1/2$, making the short-time corrections in Eq.\u00a0 negligible. Therefore we may directly Fourier transform only the long time term, Eq.\u00a0. The result is well-known (see, e.g. Ref.\u00a0): $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\chi_\\Delta(q,0;0) = \\frac{\\pi \\alpha^2}{2} \\Big(2\\pi T \\alpha\\Big)^{2\\Delta -2} \n\\frac{\\Gamma(1-\\Delta)}{\\Gamma(\\Delta)} \\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\times \\Big|\\frac{\\Gamma(\\Delta/2 + i v q/(4\\pi T))}{\\Gamma(1-\\Delta/2 + i v q/(4\\pi T))}\\Big|^2 .\n\\label{eq:chi-xx}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nGeneration of biquadratic interaction {#sec:biquadratic}\n=====================================\n\nIn this appendix, we detail the generation of the biquadratic interaction, Eq.\u00a0. We use a standard Wilsonian RG, in which one derives the low-energy theory by integrating out high-energy modes.\n\nWe begin by passing from the Hamiltonian formulation to the (Euclidean) Lagrangian one, integrating out the conjugate field $\\phi$ in the path integral. Furthermore, we rescale the temporal direction, introducing $x_0 =\nv\\tau$, $x_1=x$, in order to render the free action rotationally invariant in the ${\\bm\n  x}=(x_0,x_1)$ plane. The free action of the $\\theta$ fields, corresponding to Eq.\u00a0, is $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_0 &=& \\frac{1}{2} \\int d^2{\\bm x}\\, \\left|{\\boldsymbol\\nabla}\\theta_y\\right|^2  \\nonumber\\\\\n&=& \\frac{1}{2} \\int_0^{\\Lambda} \\frac{d^2 {\\bm k}}{(2\\pi)^2} ~k^2\n~\\theta_y(k) \\theta_y(-k). \\label{eq:101}\\end{aligned}$$ Here we have introduced a momentum space cut-off $\\Lambda$, which is actually of $O(1)$ (the lattice spacing). Furthermore, throughout this appendix, we have suppressed the $z$ index of the chains to simplify the formulae. Note that, due to the change from $\\tau$ to $x_0$, the interaction terms become perturbations with dimensionless couplings, given by original ones divided by $v$.\n\nThe RG proceeds in the standard way, by progressively integrating out modes within a shell of width $d\\Lambda = \\Lambda d\\ell$ near the cut-off, thereby reducing the latter to a \u201crunning\u201d cut-off $\\Lambda_\\ell = \\Lambda\ne^{-\\ell}$, which defines the logarithmic scaling variable $\\ell \\in \\{0,\\infty\\}$. Following the convention used in the main text, we do not perform any iterative rescaling of length and time scales, thereby allowing the cutoff to \u201crun\u201d to increasingly smaller value as the RG proceeds.\n\nFormally, the integration of modes is accomplished, in each iteration, by writing $$\\label{eq:100}\n  \\theta_y = \\theta_y^<+ \\theta_y^>,$$ where the \u201cslow\u201d field $\\theta_y^<$ contains non-zero Fourier components with $k<\\Lambda_{\\ell+d\\ell}= \\Lambda_\\ell e^{-d\\ell}$, and the \u201cfast\u201d field $\\theta_y^>$ contains the remaining ones with $\\Lambda_{\\ell+d\\ell}<k<\\Lambda_\\ell$. We integrate out the fast field at each iteration, perturbatively in the interactions. After this, we relabel $\\theta_y^< \\rightarrow \\theta_y$, which then defines the theory at the reduced cut-off $\\Lambda_{\\ell+d\\ell}$.\n\nAt zeroth order in the interactions, the free action renormalizes trivially, since the slow and fast modes are decoupled. It remains in the form of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:101\\]), with $\\Lambda$ replaced by $\\Lambda_\\ell$. To first order, the perturbations $H'_{1,2,3}$ renormalize very simply, according to their scaling dimensions. We illustrate this explicitly for the cone/twist interaction under consideration here. Ignoring the SDW term, we have the action corresponding to $H'_1$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:Hsg1\\]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:102}\n  S'_1 & = & -\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone} \\sum_y \\int\\! dx d\\tau\\, (\\partial_x\\theta_y\n  + \\partial_x \\theta_{y+1})\\cos \\beta(\\theta_y-\\theta_{y+1}) \\nonumber\n  \\\\\n  & = & \\frac{i \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone}}{\\beta v} \\sum_y \\int\\!\n  d^2{\\bm x}\\, \\left( n_{y+1}^-\\partial_x n_y^+ - n_{y+1}^+ \\partial_x n_y^-\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Here we introduced the shorthand $n_y^\\pm = e^{\\pm i \\beta \\theta_y}$. To first order in the RG, we use Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:100\\]) and average Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:102\\]) over the fast fields using the free action. Since the fields are decoupled at each $y$, the two $n^\\pm$ factors average independently. One has $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:103}\n  \\langle n^\\pm_y\\rangle_> & = & e^{\\pm i \\beta \\theta^<_y} \\left\\langle\n    e^{\\pm i \\beta \\theta^>_y}\\right\\rangle_> \\nonumber \\\\\n  & = & e^{\\pm i \\beta \\theta^<_y}  \\exp[-\\frac{\\beta^2}{2}\n  \\int_{\\Lambda_{\\ell+d\\ell}}^{\\Lambda_\\ell} \\frac{d^2 {\\bm\n      k}}{(2\\pi)^2} \\frac{1}{k^2}] \\nonumber \\\\\n  & = & e^{\\pm i \\beta \\theta^<_y}  e^{-\\Delta_\\pm d\\ell},\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Delta_\\pm = \\beta^2/(4\\pi) = \\pi R^2$ is just the scaling dimension of the $n_y^\\pm$ field. Letting $\\theta^< \\rightarrow\n\\theta$, we see that Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:103\\]) applied to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:102\\]) simply multiplies $\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone}$ by the constant $e^{-2\\Delta_\\pm d\\ell}$. Hence, we have $\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm\n  cone}(\\ell+d\\ell) = (1-2\\Delta_\\pm d\\ell) \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm\n  cone}(\\ell)$, or $$\\label{eq:104}\n  \\partial_\\ell \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone} = -2\\Delta_\\pm \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone}.$$ This of course integrates to $$\\label{eq:106}\n  \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone}(\\ell) = \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone}(0) e^{-2\\Delta_\\pm \\ell} =\n  \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone}(0) \\left(\\frac{\\Lambda_\\ell}{\\Lambda}\\right)^{2\\Delta_\\pm}.$$\n\nThe same treatment holds for the interlayer coupling $\\tilde\\gamma''_\\pm$ (see Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:27\\]): $$\\label{eq:105}\n  \\tilde\\gamma''_\\pm(\\ell) = \\tilde\\gamma''_\\pm \\left(\\frac{\\Lambda_\\ell}{\\Lambda}\\right)^{2\\Delta_\\pm}.$$ As we have discussed, this is the most strongly relevant interaction for fields in the $b$-$c$ plane, which we consider here. The RG can be considered perturbative provided the dimensionless rescaled coupling, $\\tilde\\gamma''_\\pm(\\ell)/v$, remains small compared with the typical value of the bare action at the corresponding scale, $\\Lambda_\\ell^2$. This fixes the value of the cut-off, $\\Lambda''$, at which the coupled chains form correlated $a$-$b$ planes: $$\\frac{\\tilde\\gamma''_\\pm}{v} (\\Lambda''/\\Lambda)^{2\\Delta_\\pm} = (\\Lambda'')^2 .$$ Solving for $\\Lambda''$, and using $\\tilde\\gamma''_\\pm = A_3^2 J''$, $$\\Lambda'' \\sim \\Big(\\frac{J'' A_3^2}{v}\\Big)^{1/(2 -2\\Delta_\\pm)} ,$$ where we have used that the bare cutoff $\\Lambda$ is $O(1)$. Thus the corresponding spatial scale which determines the renormalization of all interactions is given by $\\xi'' =1/\\Lambda'' \\sim (v/J'')^{1/(2 -2\\Delta_\\pm)}$, in agreement with Eq.\u00a0. Let us now, finally, generate the biquadratic term. This occurs as a [*second*]{} order contribution of $\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm cone}$ to the effective action. Expanding the action in powers of this term, we get in second order ($Z = \\int e^{-S_0}[1 + S_{(1)} + S_{(2)} +...]$) $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&S_{(2)} =\\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\frac{1}{2} ( \\frac{\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{cone}}}{\\beta v})^2 \\sum_y \\int d^2{\\bm x} d^2{\\bm x'} \n\\Big\\{ \\partial_{x'} (n_y^+({\\bm x}) n_y^+({\\bm x'}))\\times \\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\times \\partial_x (n_{y+1}^-({\\bm x}) n_{y+1}^-({\\bm x'})) + {\\rm h.c.}\n\\Big\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Terms which do not have the necessary $e^{i2\\beta\\theta_y}$ structure are omitted here. Now we integrate out the fast fields in each chain. Then, in chain $y$ we obtain the combination like this $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\partial_{x'} \\left\\{~e^{i\\beta[\\theta^<_y({\\bm x}) + \\theta^<_y({\\bm x'})]} \ne^{-\\beta^2 \\int^> \\frac{d^2{\\bm k}}{(2\\pi)^2}  \\frac{1 + \\cos[{\\bm k}\\cdot({\\bm x}-{\\bm x'})]}{k^2}} \\right\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\approx e^{i2\\beta\\theta_y^<({\\bm X})}\n(-\\beta^2) \\int^> \\frac{d^2{\\bm k}}{(2\\pi)^2} \\frac{k_{x} \\sin[{\\bm k}\\cdot {\\bm \\rho}]}{k^2} ,\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\bm X}= ({\\bm x}+{\\bm x}')/2$ and ${\\bm \\rho}={\\bm x}-{\\bm x}'$ are the center-of-mass and relative coordinates. The most relevant term that emerges has the spatial derivative acting on the c-function which is produced by fast modes (the superscript on the integral indicates that it is over the support of the fast modes only). In the second line above, the derivative has been carried out, bringing down the integral factor shown from the derivative of the exponential. After doing so, we have approximated the exponential itself by $1$. This approximation is exact to first order in $d\\ell$, which is infinitesimally small. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&S_{(2)} = -\\frac{1}{2} ( \\frac{\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{cone}}}{\\beta v})^2 \\beta^4 \\int d^2{\\bm \\rho} \\int^> \\frac{d^2{\\bm k}_1}{(2\\pi)^2} \n \\int^>\\frac{d^2{\\bm k}_2}{(2\\pi)^2} \\nonumber\\\\\n&& \\times\\frac{k_{1x} \\sin[{\\bm k}_1\\cdot{\\bm \\rho}]}{k_1^2}  \\frac{k_{2x} \\sin[{\\bm k}_2\\cdot{\\bm \\rho}]}{k_2^2} \\nonumber\\\\\n&& \\times\\int d^2{\\bm X} ~2 \\cos[2\\beta(\\theta_y^< - \\theta_{y+1}^<)] .\\end{aligned}$$ The integral over the relative distance ${\\bm \\rho}$ produces difference of two delta-functions, $\\delta({\\bm k}_1 + {\\bm k}_2) - \\delta({\\bm k}_1 - {\\bm k}_2)$, which, thanks to the $k_{1x} k_{2x}$ factor in the numerator, only doubles the final result. The whole of the momentum-shell integration reduces to $$\\int^> \\frac{d^2{\\bm k}_1}{(2\\pi)^2} \\frac{k_{1x}^2}{k_1^4} =\n\\frac{1}{4\\pi} \\int_{\\Lambda_{\\ell+d\\ell}}^{\\Lambda_\\ell}  \\frac{dk}{k}\n=  \\frac{d\\ell}{4\\pi} .$$ The generated biquadratic correction to the action is $-S_{(2)}$. Taking $\\theta^< \\rightarrow \\theta$, we see that we indeed generate a biquadratic interaction of the form $$\\label{eq:107}\n  H_{\\rm bq} = \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm bq} \\sum_y \\int \\! dx\\, \\cos[2\\beta(\\theta_y(x) - \\theta_{y+1}(x))] ,$$ with $$d \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm bq} =  v\\frac{\\beta^2 d\\ell \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{cone}}^2}{4\\pi v^2}   .\n\\label{eq:biq3}$$ Here we have added a factor $v$ to the generated interaction, accounting for the transformation back to imaginary time $\\tau$ from $x_0$. The scaling dimension of this term is $2\\times (2\\beta)^2/(4\\pi) = 8 \\Delta_\\pm$. Hence, the RG flow equation for $\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm bq}$ is $$\\partial_\\ell \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{bq}} = - 8 \\Delta_\\pm \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{bq}}\n+ \\frac{\\beta^2 \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{cone}}^2}{4\\pi v} . \n\\label{eq:biq4}$$ Note that $\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{cone}}$ here is itself a function of running RG scale $\\ell$, as specified in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:106\\]). Solving Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:biq4\\]) is easy and leads to $$\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{bq}}(\\ell) = \\frac{\\beta^2 \\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{cone}}(0)^2}{16 \\pi \\Delta v} \\Big(e^{-4\\Delta \\ell} - e^{-8\\Delta \\ell}\\Big),\n\\label{eq:biq5}$$ which shows that $\\ell \\gg 1$ behavior is controlled by the driving term $\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm{cone}}^2/v$ in the right-hand-side of Eq.\u00a0.\n\nAs discussed above, the chains enter the strongly coupled limit at $\\xi'' =\n\\exp[\\ell''] \\sim (v/J'')^{1/(2 -2\\Delta_\\pm)}$, where Eq.\u00a0 must be stopped. At this point, the phases $\\theta_y$ may be regarded as no longer fluctuating, and hence reduce to the classical phases $\\vartheta_y$ of the main text. Thus $\\tilde\\gamma_{\\rm bq}(\\ell'')$ corresponds directly to $g_{\\rm bq}$ defined in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:14\\]). Combining therefore Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:biq5\\]) with Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:103\\]), which tells us that spontaneous moment of the $a$-$b$ planes $|\\psi| \\sim\n(\\xi'')^{-\\Delta}$, we arrive at the estimate Eq.\u00a0, $g_{\\rm{bq}} \\sim (J')^2 |\\psi|^4/v$.\n\nNegligible DM couplings {#sec:negl-dm-coupl}\n=======================\n\nIn Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:dm-ology\\], it was stated that three of the five allowed DM couplings, $D_a$, $D'_b$ and $D'_c$, can be safely neglected. In this appendix, we explain why this is the case.\n\n$D_a$  {#sec:d_a}\n------\n\nFirst consider the $D_a$ term. As with all the DM couplings, this is only effective for fields parallel to its D-vector, in this case the $a$ axis. For such fields, like the $D_c$ term studied in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-c\\], it can be \u201cgauged away\u201d for a single chain, by an $x-dependent$ spin rotation about the $z$ axis of spin. Unlike the $D_c$ coupling, however, the $D_a$ interaction is constant within each triangular plane. Therefore this rotation has negligible effects upon the other in-plane couplings, most importantly $D'_a=D$, which we have argued dominates the physics in this field orientation, but also $J'$, which plays a subsidiary but still important role. This gauge rotation [*does*]{} affect the $J''$ interaction, however, since the $D_a$ term is staggered along the $z$ axis, see Eq.\u00a0. We have seen already in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:interl-corr\\] that $J''$ itself is already (without $D_a$) ineffective in establishing interlayer correlations, and its only effects arise through generating the $J''_2$ interaction between second neighbor layers, Eq.\u00a0. The $J''_2$ interaction is, happily, also unaffected by the gauge rotation, as the second neighbor layers involved rotate identically. Thus even if some $D_a$ is present, the analysis of Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:field-along-axis\\] remains unchanged.\n\n$D'_b$ {#sec:d_b}\n------\n\nNext consider the $D'_b$ interaction. Unlike the $D=D'_a$ interaction, this coupling has the same sign on both diagonal bonds between chains (${\\bm D}_{y,z}^+ = {\\bf D}^-_{y,z}$ in Eq.\u00a0). This means that, like the $J'$ coupling, this interaction is highly frustrated. As a consequence, the leading order contributions arising from this term involve a gradient, analogous to the twist/cone term in, e.g. Eq.\u00a0. Thus the effects of this term are generally strongly suppressed, both by this gradient (and associated increased scaling dimension) [*and*]{} by its small magnitude, which is of at most a few percent. In other words, it carries the same scaling dimension as the twist/cone coupling, but is probably at least a factor of 10 smaller in magnitude. Thus it is always negligible.\n\n$D'_c$ {#sec:d_c}\n------\n\nFinally, we turn to the $D'_c$ term. This interaction is similar in some ways to the $D=D'_a$ interaction, which dominates for fields along $a$. Both are unfrustrated, as they have opposite signs on the two diagonals, and both are staggered along the $a$ ($z$) direction. However, $D'_c$ is also staggered along $c$ ($y$), while $D$ was constant within the triangular planes.\n\nThe fate of $D'_c$ is less clear than that of the prior two terms under consideration. It is neither trivially gauged away nor obviously negligible. However, it is easy to establish that it does compete with many of the key interactions that have already been identified as driving forces in the system. As such, provided $D'_c$ is not too large, it loses this competition and has minimal effects.\n\nFirst, we see that $D'_c$ has the same scaling dimension and hence relevance as the $J''$ term. Moreover, like the $D$ term, it competes with the $J''$ interaction because of the staggering along $z$. Hence, if $D'_c$ is not comparable to $J''$, it will lose this competition. Indeed, if one assumes the form, Eq.\u00a0, which satisfies the $\\gamma''_\\pm$ coupling ($\\propto J''$), the $D'_c$ term identically vanishes.\n\nSecond, the $D'_c$ term also competes with the $D_c$ term, since the latter favors opposite rotations on neighboring chains, which the $D'_c$ term attempts to couple. Transforming to the rotating frame favored by $D_c$, Eq.\u00a0, will make the $D'_c$ term oscillate, and hence average out over long distances.\n\nThus to have any significant effect, the $D'_c$ term would need to be large enough to overcome at least two competing interactions. At least for small $D'_c$, we conclude that the phase diagrams established in the main text are unchanged. Evidently, this is the case in [[Cs$_2$CuCl$_4$]{}]{}.\n\nSpin-wave analysis in a high field {#sec:swa}\n==================================\n\nIn this appendix, we study the effect of the DM interaction and the inter-layer interaction $J''$ on the high field magnons, and particularly on the ordering wavevector infinitesimally below the saturation field. In a strong magnetic field, the ground state is a fully polarized ferromagnetic state and one can easily solve the single-magnon problem exactly. By comparing measurements of the high field magnons with such calculations, the microscopic parameters of the standard Hamiltonian Eq.\u00a0(\\[standard\\_hamiltonian\\]) were determined.[@Coldea2002PRL; @veillette2005incomm; @veillette2006commensurate] However, in the standard model, all the possible DM vectors are not included. We present here a complete analysis based on Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:11\\]), which was derived in Appendix \\[sec:dmv\\]. Let us first show that the components of the DM vector perpendicular to an applied field can be negligible in the spin-wave analysis. To show this, we decompose ${\\bm S}_{i}$ into $\\langle {\\bm S} \\rangle+\\delta\n{\\bm S}_{i}$, where $\\langle {\\bm S} \\rangle$ is the ordered moment parallel to the applied field ${\\bm h}$. In the linear spinwave theory we neglect $\\delta {\\bm S}_{i}$ parallel to ${\\bm h}$, which means $\\delta {\\bm S}_{i} \\times \\delta \\bm S_{j}$ is always parallel to ${\\bm\n  h}$ and does not couple to the component of the DM vector perpendicular to ${\\bm h}$. One can also show that the DM interaction does not produce single magnon terms which is proportional to $\\delta\n{\\bm S}_{i}$ using the symmetry argument in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:dmv\\]. In what follows, we only retain $D_{\\zeta}={\\bm D}\\cdot {\\hat \\zeta}$ where $\\zeta \\equiv {\\bm h}/h$. We now take the direction of the field (${\\hat \\zeta}$) as a quantization axis of spins. Introducing $S^\\nu_i={\\bm S}_i \\cdot {\\hat \\nu}$ and $S^\\pm \\equiv S^\\xi_i \\pm i\nS^\\eta_i$ such that ${\\hat \\nu}={\\hat \\xi}, {\\hat \\eta}, {\\hat \\zeta}$ form an orthonormal basis, the local Hamiltonian for the bond $ij$ is written as $$\\begin{aligned}\nH_{ij}&=&J_{ij} {\\bm S}_i \\cdot {\\bm S}_j +D_{ij,\\zeta} (S^\\xi_i S^\\eta_j-S^\\eta_i S^\\xi_j) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\frac{\\tilde J_{ij}}{2}(e^{i\\phi_{ij}}S^+_i S^-_j+{\\rm h.c.})+J_{ij}S^\\zeta_i S^\\zeta_j,\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\tilde J}_{ij}=\\sqrt{J^2_{ij}+D^2_{ij,\\zeta}}$ and $\\tan \\phi_{ij}=D_{ij,\\zeta}/J_{ij}$. In the following, we focus on ${\\hat \\zeta}={\\hat a}$, ${\\hat b}$, and ${\\hat c}$ cases and introduce $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\tilde J}_\\zeta = \\sqrt{J^2+(D_\\zeta)^2},~~~\\tan \\phi_\\zeta=D_\\zeta/J, \\\\\n{\\tilde J}'_\\zeta= \\sqrt{(J')^2+(D'_\\zeta)^2}~~~\\tan \\phi'_\\zeta=D'_\\zeta/J'\\end{aligned}$$ for on-chain and diagonal bonds, respectively. We now apply the Holstein-Primakoff transformation: $$S^\\zeta_i=S-n_i,~S^+_i=(2S-n_i)^{\\frac{1}{2}} b_i,\n~S^-_i=b^\\dagger_i (2S-n_i)^{\\frac{1}{2}},$$ with $n_i=b^\\dagger_i b_i$ and $S=1/2$, and obtain $$H_{ij}\\sim {\\tilde J}_{ij} S(e^{i\\phi_{ij}}b^\\dagger_i b_j+{\\rm h.c.})-J_{ij}S(n_i+n_j)+JS^2.$$ Denoting by $b_{\\alpha,{\\bm k}}$ the Fourier transform of the boson at the position ${\\bm R}+{\\bm \\delta}_{\\alpha}$, the spinwave Hamiltonian is written as $$H_{\\rm SW}=\\sum_{\\bm k}\\Psi^\\dagger_{\\bm k} [{\\cal H}({\\bm k})+h-(2J+4J'+2J'')S]\\Psi_{\\bm k},\n\\label{eq: spinwave_ham}$$ where ${\\Psi}_{\\bm k}=(b_{1,{\\bm k}}, b_{2,{\\bm k}}, b_{3,{\\bm k}},\nb_{4,{\\bm k}})^{\\rm T}$ and the $4\\times 4$ matrix ${\\cal H}({\\bm k})$ depend on the field direction.\n\nField along $a$ axis {#field-along-a-axis}\n--------------------\n\nLet us first consider the case of field along the $a$ axis. In this case, ${\\cal H}({\\bm k})$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq: spinwave\\_ham\\]) is given by $${\\cal H}({\\bm k})=\\frac{1}{2} \\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\n{\\sf A}_{a,{\\bm k}} (\\phi_a,\\phi'_a) & {\\sf B}_{\\bm k} \\\\\n{\\sf B}^\\dagger_{\\bm k} & {\\sf A}_{a,{\\bm k}} (-\\phi_a, -\\phi'_a)\n\\end{array}\\right).$$ Here, the matrices ${\\sf A}_{a,{\\bm k}}(\\phi_a,\\phi'_a)$ and ${\\sf B}_{\\bm k}$ are $${\\sf A}_{a,{\\bm k}} (\\phi_a,\\phi'_a) = \\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\n2{\\tilde J_a} \\cos(k_b-\\phi_a) & {\\tilde J'_a} f_a (\\phi'_a; {\\bm k}) \\\\\n{\\tilde J'_a} f_a (-\\phi'_a; -{\\bm k}) & 2{\\tilde J_a} \\cos(k_b-\\phi_a)\n\\end{array}\\right),\\nonumber$$ and ${\\sf B}_{\\bm k} = J''(1+e^{ik_a})I$, where $I$ is the $2 \\times 2$ identity matrix and $f_a(\\phi'_a; {\\bm k})=(e^{-i\n  \\phi'_a}e^{ik_b}+e^{i\\phi'_a})(1+e^{ik_c})$. We also note that $k_\\mu$ is defined by ${\\bm k} \\cdot \\hat \\mu$ for $\\mu=a,b,$ and $c$. We now try to find the location of the minimum of the spectrum of 1-magnon excitations, which is given in the form of ${\\bm k}^*=(0,\n2\\pi(1/2+\\epsilon), 0)$. Using the relations such as $\\cos\n\\phi_a=J/{\\tilde J}_a$, the eigenvalues of ${\\cal H}(0,k_b,0)$ are explicitly obtained as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\omega_{1,\\pm}= J \\cos k_b + 2J' \\cos (k_b/2) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \\nonumber \\\\\n\\pm \\sqrt{(J'')^2 + (D_a \\sin k_b + 2D'_a \\sin(k_b/2))^2}, \\\\\n\\omega_{2,\\pm}= J \\cos k_b - 2J' \\cos (k_b/2) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \\nonumber \\\\\n\\pm \\sqrt{(J'')^2 + (D_a \\sin k_b - 2D'_a \\sin(k_b/2))^2}.\n\\label {eq: omega2_pm}\n$$ Putting $D_a=0$, one finds the results consistent with Ref.\u00a0. Among the four solutions, $\\omega_{1,\\pm}$ and $\\omega_{2,\\pm}$, $\\omega_{1,-}$ has the lowest energy around $k_b=2\\pi (1/2+\\epsilon_0)$, where $\\epsilon_0=J'/(2 \\pi J)$ which is the incommensuration in the absence of $D_a$ and $D'_a$. It is convenient to introduce a variable $X=\\cos(k_b/2)$. Then we rewrite $\\omega_{1,-}$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\omega_{1,-}}{J}=2X^2-1+2 \\frac{J'}{J}X ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\nonumber \\\\\n-\\sqrt{\\frac{(J'')^2}{J^2}+4(1-X^2)\\left(\\frac{D_a}{J}X+\\frac{D'_a}{J} \\right)^2}\\end{aligned}$$ Assuming $X$ is small, we expand the above equation and have the following approximate expression for the incommensuration: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:111}\n&&\\sin(\\pi \\epsilon)=\\frac{J'}{2J} \\Big( 1-\\frac{2D_a D'_a}{J' \\sqrt{(J'')^2+4(D'_a)^2}} \\\\\n&& + \\frac{(D_a)^2-(D'_a)^2}{J \\sqrt{(J'')^2+4(D'_a)^2}}\n-\\frac{4(D_a D'_a)^2}{J [(J'')^2+4(D'_a)^2]^{3/2}} \\Big).\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ Whether the incommensuraton is enhanced or not depends on the signs of $D_a$ and $D'_a$ and the subtle balance of them. We note that, if $D_a$ is present, and not too small, the incommensuration can be substantially modified from the DM-free value, since the second term in the brackets in the first line of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:111\\]) is small only in the ratio $D_a/J'$. Since $D_a$ was neglected in the experimental fits in Ref., this might lead to small errors in the magnetic parameters, at perhaps a level of ten percent of their estimated values, i.e. an uncertainty in $J'$ of $\\pm 0.1 J'_{\\rm\n  estimated}$, and similarly for $D=D'_a$. Errors of the order of $10\\%$ of the largest interaction, $J$, are clearly ruled out by the fits.[@private-coldea]\n\nField along $b$ axis {#field-along-b-axis}\n--------------------\n\nNext we consider the case of field along the $b$ axis. In this case, we have $${\\cal H}({\\bm k})=\\frac{1}{2} \\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\n{\\sf A}_{b,{\\bm k}} (\\phi'_b) & {\\sf B}_{\\bm k} \\\\\n{\\sf B}^\\dagger_{\\bm k} & {\\sf A}_{b,{\\bm k}} (-\\phi'_b)\n\\end{array}\\right),$$ where $${\\sf A}_{b,{\\bm k}}(\\phi'_b)=\\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\n2J\\cos k_b & {\\tilde J}'_b f_b(\\phi'_b; {\\bm k}) \\\\\n{\\tilde J}'_b f_b(-\\phi'_b; -{\\bm k}) & 2J \\cos k_b\n\\end{array}\\right)$$ with $f_b (\\phi'_b; {\\bm k})=e^{i\\phi'_b} (1+e^{ik_b})(1+e^{ik_c})$. We minimize the excitation energy to find the ordering wavevector of the form ${\\bm k}^*=(0, 2\\pi(1/2+\\epsilon),0)$. The lowest eigenvalue of ${\\cal H}(0,k_b,0)$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\omega =J\\cos k_b ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~&&\n\\nonumber \\\\\n- \\sqrt{(J'')^2-4 J' J'' \\cos (k_b/2)+4({\\tilde J}'_b)^2 \\cos^2 (k_b/2)}.&&\\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the previous subsection, we rewrite the above as $$\\frac{\\omega}{J}=2X^2-1-\\sqrt{\\frac{(J'')^2}{J^2}-4\\frac{J' J''}{J^2}X+4\\frac{({\\tilde J}'_b)^2}{J^2}X^2},$$ where $({\\tilde J}'_b)^2=(J')^2+(D'_b)^2$. One can find the incommensuration $\\sin (\\pi \\epsilon)=-X$ from the minimum of the above equation and observe that DM interaction, $D'_b$, always enhances the incommensuration from its $D'_b=0$ value $J'/(2J)$.\n\nField along $c$ axis {#field-along-c-axis}\n--------------------\n\nFinally, we consider the case of field along the $c$ axis. In this case, ${\\cal H}({\\bm k})$ in Eq. (\\[eq: spinwave\\_ham\\]) is given by $${\\cal H}({\\bm k}) = \\frac{1}{2}\\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\n{\\sf A}_{c,{\\bm k}} (\\phi_c,\\phi'_c) & {\\sf B}_{\\bm k} \\\\\n{\\sf B}^\\dagger_{\\bm k} & {\\sf A}_{c,{\\bm k}} (\\phi_c,-\\phi'_c)\n\\end{array}\\right),$$ where $${\\sf A}_{c,{\\bm k}}(\\phi_c,\\phi'_c)=\\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\n2{\\tilde J}_c \\cos (k_b-\\phi_c) & {\\tilde J}'_c f_c(\\phi'_c; {\\bm k}) \\\\\n{\\tilde J}'_c f_c(-\\phi'_c; -{\\bm k}) & 2{\\tilde J}_c \\cos (k_b+\\phi_c)\n\\end{array}\\right)$$ with $f_c(\\phi'_c; \\bm k) = e^{i\\phi'_c} (1+e^{ik_b+ik_c}) + e^{-i\\phi'_c} (e^{ik_b}+e^{ik_c})$. The minimum of the spectrum of 1-magnon excitation is also of the form ${\\bm k}^*=(0,2\\pi(1/2+\\epsilon),0)$. The lowest eigenvalue of ${\\cal H}(0,k_b,0)$ is explicitly obtained as $$\\omega_1=-J''+J \\cos k_b -\\sqrt{(D_c)^2 \\sin^2 k_b +4 (J')^2 \\cos^2 (k_b/2)}.\n\\label{eq for X}$$ Here we have used the relations such as $\\cos \\phi_c = J/{\\tilde J}_c$. The remarkable point here is that the minimum and hence the incommensuration $\\epsilon$ is independent of $D'_c$ and $J''$. So once we know $\\epsilon$ and $J, J'$, it uniquely determine the strength of $D_c$. Let us now assume that $\\epsilon$ is of the order $J'/J$, which is true if $D_c=0$, and obtain approximate eigenenergy as $$\\frac{\\omega_1}{J}=2 \\sin^2 (\\pi \\epsilon)-2\\frac{\\sqrt{(J')^2+(D_c)^2}}{J}\\sin(\\pi \\epsilon) -\\frac{J''}{J}-1,$$ where we have neglected a term proportional to $\\sin^4 (\\pi \\epsilon)$. From the above equation, we can obtain the incommensuration $\\epsilon$ as a function of $J$, $J'$, and $D_c$ as $$\\sin (\\pi \\epsilon) = \\frac{\\sqrt{(J')^2+(D_c)^2}}{2J} \n\\label{eq:90}$$ From this relation, we see that the $D_c$ on the $J$ bonds enhances the incommensuration $\\epsilon$. This is in contrast to the measured incommensurability,[@veillette2005incomm] which is reduced compared to the expected one from the ideal standard model.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Over the past decades, progress in deployable autonomous flight systems has slowly stagnated. This is reflected in today\u2019s production air-crafts, where pilots only enable simple physics-based systems such as autopilot for takeoff, landing, navigation, and terrain/traffic avoidance. Evidently, autonomy has not gained the trust of the community where higher problem complexity and cognitive workload are required. To address trust, we must revisit the process for developing autonomous capabilities: modeling and simulation. Given the prohibitive costs for live tests, we need to prototype and evaluate autonomous aerial agents in a high fidelity flight simulator with autonomous learning capabilities applicable to flight systems: such a open-source development platform is not available. As a result, we have developed GymFG: GymFG couples and extends a high fidelity, open-source flight simulator and a robust agent learning framework to facilitate learning of more complex tasks. Furthermore, we have demonstrated the use of GymFG to train an autonomous aerial agent using Imitation Learning. With GymFG, we can now deploy innovative ideas to address complex problems and build the trust necessary to move prototypes to the real-world.'\nauthor:\n- \nbibliography:\n- 'main.bib'\ntitle: 'GymFG: A Framework with a Gym Interface for FlightGear'\n---\n\nAcknowledgments\n===============\n\nThis document does not contain technology or technical data controlled under either U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulation or U.S. Export Administration Regulations. It has been approved for Public Release. Ref. No 20-S-0902, Approved 03/31/2020.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We investigated the magnetic properties of hydrogen plasma treated ZnO single crystals by SQUID magnetometry. In agreement with the expected hydrogen penetration depth we found ferromagnetic behavior located at the first 20\u00a0nm of the H-treated surface of ZnO with magnetization at saturation up to 6\u00a0emu/g at 300\u00a0K and Curie temperature T$_c$ $\\gtrsim $ 400\u00a0K. In the ferromagnetic samples a hydrogen concentration of a few atomic percent in the first 20\u00a0nm surface layer was determined by nuclear reaction analysis. The saturation magnetization of H-treated ZnO increases with the concentration of hydrogen.'\naddress:\n- ' Division of Superconductivity and Magnetism, University of Leipzig, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany'\n- ' Division of Nuclear Solid State Physics, University of Leipzig, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany'\n- ' Institut f[\u00fc]{}r Strahlenphysik, Forschungszentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, PO Box 510119, D-01314 Dresden, Germany'\nauthor:\n- 'M. Khalid, P. Esquinazi'\n- 'D. Spemann'\n- 'W. Anwand, G. Brauer'\ntitle: Hydrogen mediated ferromagnetism in ZnO single crystals\n---\n\nAfter a large number of studies and different kinds of efforts, experimental and theoretical work of the last years indicate that defect-induced magnetism remains the key to trigger ferromagnetism in ZnO (as well as in other non-magnetic oxides) with Curie temperature above 300\u00a0K. Not the doping with magnetic elements appears to be a successful and reproducible method to trigger magnetic order in this oxide but the introduction of a certain defect density of the order of a few percent, like O- [@Ban07] or Zn-vacancies [@kha09] with or without doping of non-magnetic ions like C [@Zhou08], N [@Wu10], Li[@Cha09] or Cu [@Xu08; @Yi10]. In general, however, the achieved magnetization values are still too low, indicating that the magnetic order is very probably not homogeneously distributed in the whole sample, a necessary condition for application of this phenomenon in ZnO-based devices.\n\nWhat about the influence of hydrogen in the magnetism of ZnO? It is known that the presence of hydrogen is unavoidable in all systems and in general it remains rather difficult to measure it with high enough accuracy. Hydrogen related magnetic order was recently found in graphite surfaces by x-ray magnetic circular dichroism [@ohl10] indicating that this element can play a role in the magnetism of nominally non magnetic materials. The role of hydrogen in ZnO can be diverse. It can act either as donor (H$^+$) or acceptor (H$^-$) and can even modify the host structure. In bulk ZnO hydrogen acts as a shallow donor and is a source of the unintentional n-type conductivity [@Wal00]. Room temperature ferromagnetism due to atomic hydrogen adsorption on different terminated surfaces of ZnO [@Wang08; @Wol07; @San10] or in the bulk of Co-doped ZnO [@liu09] has been studied theoretically. In one of these studies it was shown that atomic hydrogen adsorbed on the Zn place on the ZnO(0001) surface forms a strong H-Zn bonds leading to a metallic surface with a net magnetic moment [@San10]. All these theoretical studies indicate that it is important to check whether hydrogen implantation can trigger ferromagnetism in ZnO. In this work we investigate the magnetic properties of ZnO single crystals treated by remote hydrogen plasma and demonstrate that a remarkable ferromagnetic signal with a large magnetization is located in a few nm of the H-treated surface of the ZnO single crystals. Our finding opens up a simple and reproducible possibility to trigger magnetic order in broad or localized regions of ZnO bulk, thin films or microstructures without the need of introducing other elements or vacancies.\n\nHydrothermally grown ZnO single crystals were used for H-plasma treatment. Two of them were with one-side polished (O-terminated) of dimensions $\\sim$ $(10\\times10\\times0.5)$ mm$^3$ (MaTeck GmbH, J\u00fclich). One of them was treated with H-plasma while the other one was kept as reference. Both single crystals were cut before treatment to directly mount them in a straw for the magnetic measurements done with a Superconducting Quantum Interferometer Device (SQUID). Four other crystals were two sides polished with similar termination but of dimensions $\\sim\n(6\\times6\\times0.5)$\u00a0mm$^3$ (CrysTec GmbH, Berlin). Hydrogen doping in ZnO can be achieved by, e.g. adsorption of hydrogen on the ZnO surface, H-implantation or remote hydrogen plasma doping [@Tor09; @Wan09; @Str04]. We used the last method to implant hydrogen into ZnO.\n\n![\\[etc\\] Hydrogen concentration vs penetration depth of H$^+$-ions in ZnO single crystals at different total implanted time, estimated by SRIM. The simulation results show that most of the H$^+$-ions are implanted within the first 20\u00a0nm from the surface. The inset shows the oxygen and zinc vacancies concentration produced in ZnO single crystals during 90 minutes H-implantation at the used energy conditions. ](Figu1.eps){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nThere are several parameters that may influence the strength of the magnetic order triggered through H-plasma treatment. Namely, the sample temperature, the $H^+$-ion energy and current and the total implanted charge. In this work we demonstrate how the substrate temperature and the total implanted charge influence the magnetic ordering in ZnO crystals. The substrate temperature was varied from room temperature to $400\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$ whereas the total implanted charge was controlled by varying the treatment time ranging from 30 to 90 min. The ZnO surface was placed $\\sim$100\u00a0nm downstream from the plasma with a bias voltage of $\\sim$-330 V (parallel-plate system of voltage difference of $10^3$\u00a0V). The bias current was fixed at $\\sim$ 50 $\\mu$A (sample plus sample holder) while the current into the sample only was nA. The exposition to remote hydrogen dc plasma ranges from 30 to 90 min. During the loading the gas pressure was $\\sim$1\u00a0mbar.\n\n![\\[hys\\] Room temperature saturation magnetization of the ferromagnetic signal of H-ZnO single crystals treated at different substrate temperatures, all with similar nominally implanted charge.](Figu2.eps){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\n![\\[etc\\]Hysteresis loops of a H-ZnO single crystal measured at 300\u00a0K applying a magnetic field parallel $(\\bullet)$ and perpendicular $(\\blacktriangle)$ to the main plane of the sample. The open circles $(\\circ)$ represent the ferromagnetic magnetization of the untreated ZnO crystal calculated by taking into account the whole volume of the sample. The diamagnetic linear background was subtracted from the measured signal. The inset shows the remanent moment vs. temperature. The (red) solid line is given by $m(T)= 6.8 [\\mu$emu$] (1-T/T_c)^{1/3})$ with a Curie temperature $T_c = 450~$K.](Figu3.eps){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe hydrogen content before and after H-treatment was determined by standard Nuclear Reaction Analysis (NRA) [@Lan95] using 6.64\u00a0MeV $^1$$^5$N ions with a depth resolution of $\\sim$5\u00a0nm and a H detection limit of $\\sim$200\u00a0ppm. The H-concentration vs. depth was obtained using SRIM (The Stopping and Range of Ions in Matter) simulation [@Zie85], see Fig.\u00a01. The average hydrogen atomic concentration of bound hydrogen measured by NRA within the top 100\u00a0nm surface region of the ZnO crystals before and after 60\u00a0min treatment was (0.14$\\pm$0.03) and (0.64$\\pm$0.07) at.$\\%$, respectively. Comparable results were reported recently [@anw10]. The average H-concentration reached in the 20\u00a0nm surface region after 60 min implantation at the used current conditions was $\\sim 2.5 \\pm 0.5~$at.%. Particle induced x-ray emission (PIXE) measurements were used to analyze the magnetic impurities of the samples before and after H-treatment. There was no significant difference in the magnetic impurity concentration before and after H-plasma treatment.\n\nSeveral ZnO single crystals were treated with H-plasma. All of them showed an increase in the ferromagnetic moment after H-plasma treatment relative to their virgin values. The increase of the ferromagnetic moment depends on the temperature of the sample during H-treatment at nominally similar total implanted charge. Figure\u00a02 shows the saturation values of the ferromagnetic magnetization signal (after subtraction of the diamagnetic linear background) of several samples treated in H-plasma for 90\u00a0min at different temperatures. We found that the ferromagnetic saturation magnetization increases by increasing sample temperature and reaches a maximum at $350\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$. Therefore we concentrate on the study of samples implanted at $250\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$ and $350\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$. We note that the observed dependence on the sample temperature might be very useful to control H diffusion as well as lattice defects produced during plasma treatment as well as after treatment.\n\nIn what follows we discuss results of samples treated at $350\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$ and $250\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$ for 1\u00a0h implantation and followed by results of samples implanted at $350\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$ but with different total charge (or implantation time). The results shown in this paper were not affected by aging after leaving the samples one year at 300\u00a0K.\n\n![\\[etc\\] (a) Magnetic moment as a function of applied magnetic field of a H-ZnO single crystal at different etching stages, after subtraction of the diamagnetic contribution at 300\u00a0K. (b) Ferromagnetic magnetization values at saturation obtained taking into account the change in magnetic moment (see (a)) after etching a specific thickness of the surface region for H-treated samples at substrate temperatures of $350\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm\nC}$ ($\\bullet$) and $250\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$ $(\\blacktriangle)$.](Fig.4.eps){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nFigure 3 shows the magnetic moment at 300\u00a0K of a H-ZnO single crystal treated at $350\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$ and at applied magnetic fields parallel and perpendicular to the main sample area. Clear ferromagnetic hysteresis loops are observed at 300\u00a0K. The ferromagnetic behavior of the hysteresis shows a clear magnetocrystalline anisotropy with anisotropy constant $\\textit{K}$$_1$ $\\sim$ 2 $\\times$ 10$^5$ J/m$^3$. This anisotropy also excludes magnetic impurities as origin for the observed ferromagnetism. The remanent magnetic moment vs. temperature shown in the inset of Fig.\u00a03 was measured at zero field after applying a field parallel to the sample main surface and cooled down in field to 5\u00a0K. The temperature dependence of the remanence follows $m(T)=m_0(1-T/T_c)^{\\delta}$ with $\\delta = 0.33 \\pm 0.05$, a static scaling law with an exponent similar to other ferromagnets like e.g. CrBr$_3$[@ho70]. This fit indicates a Curie temperature of $T_c = 450~\\pm 25~$K.\n\nIn order to investigate how much surface thickness of the ZnO single crystals is contributing to the observed ferromagnetism we etched up to $\\sim 100$\u00a0nm thick layer and studied the change in ferromagnetic moment. For this purpose we used a solution of 0.3\u00a0ml HCl in 400\u00a0ml water[@Mak02; @Lin77]. The single crystals were etched from both sides and then the measured etched mass divided by two in order to exclude the mass of H-untreated side. After $\\simeq 40~$s etching time a $\\simeq 4~\\mu$g mass of the ZnO crystal was removed, which means $\\simeq$10\u00a0nm thick layer from the H-treated side. After etching 10\u00a0nm thick layer the hysteresis loop was measured at 300\u00a0K. These results are shown in Fig. 4(a). Knowing the etched mass and the corresponding change in ferromagnetic moment we can calculate the real magnetization of the H-treated layer. The magnetization as a function of etched thickness for two samples treated at different temperatures is shown in Fig. 4(b). From these results it becomes clear that the major ferromagnetic contribution vanishes after etching the first $\\simeq$20\u00a0nm layer, a layer thickness that agrees with the calculated H-concentration using SRIM and shown in Fig.1. At the used $H^+$-energies the estimated concentration of O- and Zn-vacancies is 8 and 9 orders of magnitude smaller than the H-concentration in the first 20\u00a0nm from the surface, see inset in Fig.\u00a01. This huge difference clearly indicates that in the treated samples hydrogen with a concentration of several percent at the surface and not Zn- or O-vacancies or interstitials play a major role in the observed magnetic order.\n\n![\\[mr\\] Magnetization of H-ZnO single crystal vs applied field measured at different total implantations. The saturation magnetization increases by increasing the implanted charge.](Fig.5.eps){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nWe also studied the influence on the ferromagnetic signal of the amount of hydrogen implanted into the sample. The samples were treated with H-plasma at a temperature of $350\\,^{\\circ}{\\rm C}$ at 3 different total implanted times, namely 30, 60 and 90 min. The ferromagnetic signals of these samples are shown in Fig.\u00a05. We observe that the magnetization of H-ZnO crystals increases with the total treatment time.\n\nWith the measured ferromagnetic magnetization within the first 20\u00a0nm surface region we estimate a magnetic moment of the order of $0.2~\\mu_B$ per ZnO unit cell. If we assume that in average about 1\u00a0H atom per unit cell exists in this 20\u00a0nm region then this magnetic moment triggered by each H atom is comparable to that obtained in Ref.\u00a0[@San10].\\\nIn conclusion, we investigated the magnetic properties of remote H-plasma treated ZnO single crystals. The NRA results confirmed the enhanced concentration of hydrogen in ZnO single crystals after treatment. Characteristic ferromagnetic hysteresis loops as well as a magnetic anisotropy were observed in H-ZnO samples at room temperature. Systematically measurements of the magnetic moment of the treated samples after wet chemical etching proved that only the first $\\lesssim$ 20\u00a0nm thick surface layer of H-treated ZnO contributes to the total ferromagnetic magnetization, in agreement with the expected H-penetration depth estimated by SRIM. We attribute the observed ferromagnetism in H-ZnO single crystals to the influence of hydrogen. Because hydrogen implantation also reduces dramatically the resistivity of the ZnO structure, this ferromagnetic oxide should be more easily applied in spintronic devices. Magnetotransport measurements on similar H-treated samples are currently being performed and show a negative magnetoresistance that increases (absolutely speaking) the larger the ferromagnetic magnetization (proportional to the H-concentration). Transport measurements as a function of the angle between current and applied magnetic field show a clear anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR), which amplitude decreases as a function of temperature. At 250\u00a0K the amplitude of the AMR is $\\simeq 0.5\\%$ of the measured resistance at a field of 5\u00a0T. The existence of an AMR indicates a finite $L \\cdot S$ coupling contribution to the scattering as well as the existence of a spin asymmetry in the electronic band. These results will be published elsewhere.\\\nThis work was supported by the DFG within the Collaborative Research Center (SFB 762) \u201cFunctionality of Oxide Interfaces\u201d.\\\n\n[10]{}\n\nS.\u00a0Banerjee, M.\u00a0Mandal, N.\u00a0Gayathri, and M.\u00a0Sardar. , 91:182501, 2007.\n\nM.\u00a0Khalid, M.\u00a0Ziese, A.\u00a0Setzer, P.\u00a0Esquinazi, M.\u00a0Lorenz, H.\u00a0Hochmuth, M.\u00a0Grundmann, D.\u00a0Spemann, T.\u00a0Butz, G.\u00a0Brauer, W.\u00a0Anwand, G.\u00a0Fischer, W.\u00a0A. Adeagbo, W.\u00a0Hergert, and A.\u00a0Ernst. , 80(3):035331, Jul 2009.\n\nS.\u00a0Zhou, Q.\u00a0Xu, K.\u00a0Potzger, G.\u00a0Talut, R.\u00a0Gr\u00f6tzschel, J.\u00a0Fassbender, M.\u00a0Vinnichenko, J.\u00a0Grenzer, M.\u00a0Helm, H.\u00a0Hochmuth, M.\u00a0Lorenz, M.\u00a0Grundmann, and H.\u00a0Schmidt. , 93:232507, 2008.\n\nK.Y. Wu, Q.Q. Fang, W.N. Wang, C.\u00a0Zhou, W.\u00a0J. Huang, J.\u00a0G. Li, Q.\u00a0R. Lv, Y.\u00a0M. Liu, Q.P. Zhang, and H.M. Zhang. , 108:063530, 2010.\n\nS.\u00a0Chawla, K.\u00a0Jayanthi, and R.\u00a0K. Kotnala. , 79:125204, 2009.\n\nQ.\u00a0Xu, H.\u00a0Schmidt, S.\u00a0Zhou, K.\u00a0Potzger, M.\u00a0Helm, H.\u00a0Hochmuth, M.\u00a0Lorenz, A.\u00a0Setzer, P.\u00a0Esquinazi, C.\u00a0Meinecke, and M.\u00a0Grundmann. , 92:082508, 2008.\n\nJ.B. Yi, C.C. Lim, G.Z. Xing, H.M. Fan, L.H. Van, S.L. Huang, K.S. Yang, X.L. Huang, X.B. Qin, B.Y. Wang, T.\u00a0Wu, L.\u00a0Wang, H.T. Zhang, X.Y. Gao, T.\u00a0Liu, A.T.S. Wee, Y.P. Feng, and J.\u00a0Ding. , 104:137201, 2010.\n\nH.\u00a0Ohldag, P.\u00a0Esquinazi, E.\u00a0Arenholz, D.\u00a0Spemann\u00a0M. Rothermel, A.\u00a0Setzer, and T.\u00a0Butz. , 12:123012, 2010.\n\nC.\u00a0G. [Van de Walle]{}. , 85:1012, 2000.\n\nC.\u00a0Wang, G.\u00a0Zhou, J.\u00a0Li, B.\u00a0Yan, and W.\u00a0Duan. , 77:245303, 2008.\n\nC.\u00a0Woll. , 82:55, 2007.\n\nN.\u00a0Sanchez, S.\u00a0Gallego, J.\u00a0Cerda, and M.C. Munoz. , 81:115301, 2010.\n\nE.-Z. Liu, J.-F. Liu, Y.\u00a0He, and J.\u00a0Z. Jiang. , 321:3507, 2009.\n\nS.\u00a0Torbrugge, F.\u00a0Ostendorf, and M.\u00a0Reichling. , 113:4909, 2009.\n\nD.F.Wang, H.B. Lu, J.C. Li, Y.\u00a0Wu, Y.\u00a0Tian, and Y.P. Lee. , 44:41, 2009.\n\nY.\u00a0M. Strzhemechny, H.L. Mosbacker, D.C. Look, D.C. Reynolds, and C.W.\u00a0Litton et.al. , 84:2545, 2004.\n\nW.\u00a0A. Lanford. . Materials Reseach Society, Pittsburgh, PA, 1995.\n\nJ.\u00a0F. Ziegler, J.\u00a0P. Biersack, and U.\u00a0Littmark. . Pergamon, New York, 1985.\n\nW.\u00a0Anwand, G.\u00a0Brauer, T.\u00a0E. Cowan, D.\u00a0Grambole, W.\u00a0Skorupa, J.\u00a0C. Cizek, J.\u00a0Kuriplach, I.\u00a0Proch[\u00e1]{}zka, W.\u00a0Egger, and P.\u00a0Sperr. , 207:2415, 2010.\n\nJohn\u00a0T. Ho and J.\u00a0D. Litster. , 2(11):4523\u20134532, Dec 1970.\n\nH.\u00a0Maki, T.\u00a0Ikoma, I.\u00a0Sakaguchi, N.\u00a0Ohashi, H.\u00a0Haneda, J.\u00a0Tanaka, and N.\u00a0Ichinose. , 411:91, 2002.\n\nT.T. Lin and D.\u00a0Lichtman. , 48:2164, 1977.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In the Nastrom-Gage spectrum of atmospheric turbulence we observe a $k^{-3}$ energy spectrum that transitions into a $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum, with increasing wavenumber $k$. The transition occurs near a transition wavenumber $k_t$, located near the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$. The Tung-Orlando theory interprets this spectrum as a double downscale cascade of potential enstrophy and energy, from large scales to small scales, in which the downscale potential enstrophy cascade coexists with the downscale energy cascade over the same length-scale range. We show that, in a temperature forced two-layer quasi-geostrophic model, the rates with which potential enstrophy and energy are injected place the transition wavenumber $k_t$ near $k_R$. We also show that if the potential energy dominates the kinetic energy in the forcing range, then the Ekman term suppresses the upscale cascading potential enstrophy more than it suppresses the upscale cascading energy, a behavior contrary to what occurs in two-dimensional turbulence. As a result, the ratio $\\gn/\\gee$ of injected potential enstrophy over injected energy, in the downscale direction, decreases, thereby tending to decrease the transition wavenumber $k_t$ further. Using a random Gaussian forcing model, we reach the same conclusion, under the modeling assumption that the asymmetric Ekman term predominantly suppresses the bottom layer forcing, thereby disregarding a possible entanglement between the Ekman term and the nonlinear interlayer interaction. Based on these results, we argue that the Tung-Orlando theory can account for the approximate coincidence between $k_t$ and $k_R$. We also identify certain open questions that require further investigation via numerical simulations.'\nauthor:\n- Eleftherios Gkioulekas\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\ntitle: 'The effect of asymmetric large-scale dissipation on energy and potential enstrophy injection in two-layer quasi-geostrophic turbulence'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nQuasi-geostrophic models capture the dynamics of the atmosphere at planetary scales greater than 100km, in order of magnitude. They are based on the assumptions of rapid rotation and small vertical thickness, both of which become pronounced features of the dynamics of atmospheric motion at increasingly larger length scales. The simplest quasi-geostrophic model is the two-layer model, in which we have two layers of two-dimensional vorticity-streamfunction equations, coupled by a temperature equation, situated in a mid-layer between the vorticity layers. Obviously, the two-layer model can be generalized by adding more layers of vorticity-streamfunction equations interlaced with temperature equation mid-layers. In the limit of an infinite number of layers, we converge to the full quasi-geostrophic model.\n\nUntil recently, it was assumed that quasi-geostrophic turbulence has the same dynamical behaviour as two-dimensional turbulence, where, according to the theory of @article:Kraichnan:1967:1, @article:Leith:1968, and @article:Batchelor:1969, there is a downscale enstrophy cascade and an upscale inverse energy cascade. This assumption follows from @article:Charney:1971 who claimed that there is an \u201cisomorphism\u201d between quasi-geostrophic turbulence and two-dimensional turbulence. More recently, key differences between these two models were noted by [@article:Welch:2001], @article:Orlando:2003:1, and @article:Tung:2007. The most remarkable difference was highlighted in the numerical simulation of the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model by @article:Orlando:2003, which produced an energy spectrum that scales as $k^{-3}$ initially, and with increasing wavenumber $k$, transitions to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling. This is consistent with the observed energy spectrum of the atmosphere, as was first measured by @article:Gage:1984 and @article:Nastrom:1986, but it is inconsistent with our conventional understanding of the dynamical behavior of two-dimensional turbulence, as described by the theory of @article:Kraichnan:1967:1, @article:Leith:1968, and @article:Batchelor:1969. @article:Orlando:2003 showed that their simulation produced a downscale enstrophy cascade that co-existed with a downscale energy cascade, with both energy and enstrophy injected by baroclinic instability at small wavenumbers, and dissipated at large wavenumbers. If $\\gn$ is the enstrophy flux and $\\gee$ is the energy flux associated with these coexisting cascades, then, by dimensional analysis, @article:Orlando:2003 argue that the transition from $k^{-3}$ scaling to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling should occur at a transition wavenumber $k_t \\sim (\\gn/\\gee)^{1/2}$, and it does.\n\nThis result bolstered the Tung-Orlando theory that interpreted the Nastrom-Gage spectrum as a coexisting downscale potential enstrophy cascade and downscale energy cascade, both spanning a comparable range of length scales. It should be noted that it was not the intention of @article:Orlando:2003 to claim that the entire Nastrom-Gage spectrum can be explained via the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model. The point of the simulation was to demonstrate that it is possible to have coexisting downscale potential enstrophy and energy cascades, even in models as close to two-dimensional turbulence as the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model. This possibility is bound to become even more favorable under models that are further away from the two-dimensional approximation, such as the multi-layer quasi-geostrophic model or the three-dimensional stratified turbulence model. Gravity waves can also play a helpful role in facilitating coexisting cascades, as discussed further in section 5.\n\nIn a subsequent paper, @article:Smith:2004 criticized @article:Orlando:2003 on the following grounds: First, using his \u201cHVK scale\u201d estimates, he claimed that the Tung-Orlando numerical simulation is not well-resolved and that therefore the $k^{-5/3}$ part of the Tung-Orlando energy spectrum is a bottleneck instead of being indicative of a real cascade. In connection with this claim, @article:Smith:2004 criticized the use of a resolution-dependent hyperdiffusion coefficient by @article:Orlando:2003. Second, that in two-dimensional turbulence it is not possible for the downscale energy flux to be large enough to create a gap between the transition wavenumber $k_t$ and the dissipation wavenumber $k_d$. In response, @article:Tung:2004 noted that: (a) Since, the diagnostics in the Tung-Orlando simulation indicate a downscale enstrophy flux $\\gn$ and a downscale energy flux $\\gee$ that have magnitudes consistent with the location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ in the simulation\u2019s energy spectrum, it is very unlikely that the transition is caused by an energy bottleneck, as argued by @article:Smith:2004. (b) The use of a resolution-dependent hyperviscosity coefficient is intended to model the anomalous energy dissipation sink at small scales, originating from three-dimensional dynamics, by controlling the downscale energy dissipation rate. (c) Smith\u2019s \u201cHVK scale\u201d argument, which was used to argue that the Tung-Orlando simulation is not well-resolved, has various flaws, discussed in detail by @article:Tung:2004, that render it inconclusive. Nevertheless, Smith\u2019s claim, that $k_t$ will coincide with the dissipation scale $k_d$, can be shown to hold, for the case of two-dimensional turbulence, via a corrected proof given by @article:Tung:2005:1. However, as was shown by [@article:Tung:2007], this result is not necessarily generalizable to quasi-geostrophic models. Thus, @article:Smith:2004 did not establish the claim that \u201can inertial range transition is not possible in quasi-geostrophic models\u201d, and the theoretical problem remains open. (d) Since the diagnostics of the Tung-Orlando simulation indicate that the downscale energy dissipation rate balances the rate with which energy is sent downscale from the forcing range, the simulation is sufficiently well-resolved to prevent a bottleneck-type energy pile up at small scales, over a time-scale longer than the runtime of the simulation.\n\nBe that as it may, the underlying theoretical question, implied by @article:Smith:2004, remained open: How can the downscale energy flux $\\gee$ be large enough to yield a gap between $k_t$ and $k_d$, when that is not possible in two-dimensional turbulence? An even deeper question also demanded further understanding: how is it possible for two downscale cascades to coexist? These lingering questions generated skepticism towards the Tung-Orlando theory, which is why we were prompted to investigate them at greater depth. In @article:Tung:2005 [@article:Tung:2005:1], we augmented the Tung-Orlando theory by noting that even in two-dimensional turbulence there is a small amount of energy cascading from small to large wavenumbers, as long as the viscosity coefficient of the small-scale dissipation term is non-zero. We have proposed that this small \u201cenergy leak\u201d should be viewed as a downscale energy cascade that coexists with the dominant downscale enstrophy cascade. To support this theory, in @article:Tung:2005 [@article:Tung:2005:1] we noted that the triad interactions responsible for the enstrophy cascade are independent from those responsible for the downscale energy cascade. This is, in fact, an immediate but unstated consequence of the original argument by @article:Kraichnan:1967:1, as noted in section 3.2 of @article:Tung:2005. We have also theorized that the two cascades can be viewed as two independent homogeneous solutions of the governing statistical theory that can be linearly superposed on each other. @article:Davidson:2008 confirmed the validity of the linear superposition principle for the 3rd-order structure functions, thereby adding further detail to a corresponding proof sketch given in section 3.1 of @article:Tung:2005. Some of the details of my statistical theory of two-dimensional turbulence was given in @article:Gkioulekas:2008:1 and @article:Gkioulekas:p14, and further development of this theory is currently in progress.\n\nTo elaborate further, our claim is that the energy spectrum of the downscale cascade is given by the linear combination of a dominant $k^{-3}$ term, arising from the dominant downscale enstrophy cascade, and a subdominant $k^{-5/3}$ term, arising from the hidden downscale energy cascade, which allows, in principle, a transition from the $-3$ slope to the $-5/3$ slope. In linearly dissipated two-dimensional turbulence, this transition is not expected to be realized, because an upper bound on the energy flux forces the transition scale $k_t$ to be greater than the dissipation scale $k_d$ of the enstrophy cascade. If $\\Pi_E (k)$ is the energy flux from the $(0,k)$ wavenumber interval to the $(k,+\\infty)$ interval and $\\Pi_G (k)$ is the enstrophy flux from $(0,k)$ to $(k,+\\infty)$, then this flux inequality reads $k^2 \\Pi_E (k)-\\Pi_G (k)<0$, for all wavenumbers $k$ not in the forcing range. The origin of this inequality is the relationship $D_E (k) = k^{-2} D_G (k)$ between the energy dissipation spectrum $D_E (k)$ and the enstrophy dissipation spectrum $D_G (k)$. Thus, with increasing wavenumber $k$, the proportion of the energy dissipation rate relative to the enstrophy dissipation rate vanishes rapidly with $k^{-2}$, and this rapid decrease is the reason why the downscale energy cascade coexisting with the downscale enstrophy cascade cannot be seen in the energy spectrum. However, the subtle point that deserves to be stressed here is that *the proof of the inequality involves both the linearity of the dissipation terms and the twin conservation laws (of enstrophy and energy), and is not inherent solely to the twin conservation laws.* With a nonlinear dissipation term, that could result from neglected three-dimensional effects, the flux inequality could be violated within the inertial range. Since the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is expected to be approximately equal to the wavenumber where the flux inequality becomes an equation, an inertial range violation of the flux inequality would give $k_t \\ll k_d$.\n\nAs was shown by @article:Tung:2007, in the quasi-geostrophic two-layer model, the relationship between $D_E (k)$ and $D_G (k)$ becomes quite complicated, so it may be possible to violate the flux inequality, thus resulting in a significant separation between $k_t$ and $k_d$. If that occurs, we can expect $k^{-5/3}$ scaling in the gap created between $k_t$ and $k_d$. In @article:Tung:2007, we have identified asymmetric dissipation as the only mechanism that can break the flux inequality. By asymmetric dissipation we mean that the dissipation operators acting on the top and bottom velocity equations are different: indeed, in the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model there is an Ekman dissipation term acting at large scales at the bottom layer but not at the top layer. Since the small-scale hyperdiffusion is not physically inherent in the quasi-geostrophic dynamics, there is no physical reason to prefer symmetric over asymmetric hyperdiffusion either. Unfortunately, there are still many open questions concerning the theory of the flux inequality. Consequently, the numerical results of @article:Orlando:2003 notwithstanding, there is still some uncertainty on whether the two-layer model can have a robust energy dissipation sink that can break the flux inequality in the inertial range.\n\nIt should be noted that when the same dissipation operator is used on both layers, it can be proved that the flux inequality is satisfied for all wavenumbers not in the forcing range. For that case, the prediction of @article:Charney:1971, that quasi-geostrophic turbulence will be isomorphic to two-dimensional turbulence, is expected to hold. This was confirmed in a numerical simulation by @article:Lindborg:2010, where the dissipation operator and the forcing term are both independent of the vertical coordinate. Recently, @article:Smith:2009 proposed a more sophisticated two-layer two-mode quasi-geostrophic model that has succeeded in reproducing the Nastrom-Gage spectrum. More importantly, using their quasi-geostrophic model, @article:Smith:2009 confirmed that it is possible for a downscale potential enstrophy cascade to coexist with a downscale energy cascade, thereby vindicating the fundamental premise of the Tung-Orlando theory. A further advantage of the Tulloch-Smith QG model is that it seems to have resolved the small-scale energy dissipation sink problem implied by the HVK argument of @article:Smith:2004. Since the Tulloch-Smith QG model is still a severely restricted approximation of the full quasi-geostrophic model, it is reasonable to expect that the small-scale energy dissipation sink problem will remain resolved under the full quasi-geostrophic model. This raises many interesting questions that are, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this paper, but will be investigated in future work.\n\nThe goal of the present paper is to add one more piece to the overall puzzle by looking at the forcing range instead of the dissipation range. We will thus consider the effect of symmetric versus asymmetric forcing on the dynamics of the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model. We will first show that when the model is forced exclusively through the temperature equation, this results in antisymmetric forcing on the potential vorticity equations for both layers. Consequently, the energy forcing spectrum $F_E(k)$ and the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G(k)$ are related as $F_G(k) = (k^2+k_R^2) F_E(k)$, with $k_R$ the Rossby wavenumber. For forcing-range wavenumbers $k\\sim k_f \\ll k_R$, we have approximately $F_G(k) \\sim k_R^2 F_E(k)$. It follows that if we neglect Ekman dissipation, then the ratio of the enstrophy flux $\\gn$ over the energy flux $\\gee$ injection to the downscale cascades will satisfy $(\\gn/\\gee) \\sim k_R^2$, and therefore the transition wavenumber $k_t$ has to be in the vicinity of the Rossby wavenumber $k_R$. As it turns out, this is indeed the approximate location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ in the actual Nastrom-Gage spectrum as well as in the @article:Orlando:2003 simulation.\n\nWe will show that asymmetric Ekman dissipation tends to decrease the ratio $k_t \\sim (\\gn/\\gee)^{1/2}$ as long as the potential energy spectrum dominates the kinetic energy spectrum in the forcing range. This peculiar behaviour results from the asymmetry of the effective forcing between the two layers, caused by the introduction of the Ekman term into the bottom layer. This claim is further supported by our consideration of the random Gaussian forcing model, in which the bottom-layer forcing is directly suppressed by a controlled scalar factor. Unfortunately, there are a number of open questions and outstanding issues concerning the distribution of energy between potential energy and kinetic energy. Furthermore, the modeling assumption that the Ekman term suppresses forcing only at the lower-layer is equivalent to ignoring the unknown effect of the entanglement of the Ekman term with the interlayer interaction, and that is the underlying problem.\n\nIt should be noted that, in the context of the two-layer model, unless the dissipation terms at small scales can dissipate the energy and potential enstrophy at the same rate with which they are injected to the downscale range, the downscale energy and potential enstrophy cascades will simply fail to develop. It is not yet obvious, in terms of theory, whether the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model can dissipate this much energy, a problem previously discussed by @article:Tung:2007. On the other hand, in the real atmosphere, we note that at larger wavenumbers, the dynamics transitions from quasi-geostrophic to stratified three-dimensional turbulence. According to @article:Lindborg:2007, the transition to stratified turbulence occurs at a scale of about $100$km. Since stratified turbulence, like three-dimensional Navier-Stokes turbulence, does have an anomalous energy dissipation sink, it follows that any amount of energy injected at large scales can and will be dissipated. Furthermore, since potential enstrophy continues to be conserved under stratified dynamics, the two cascades can continue to coexist for scales less than $100$km. On the other hand, the two-layer model is indeed realistic at the small synoptic-scale wavenumbers, where the forcing takes place, so using it to explain the rates of energy and potential enstrophy injection at the forcing range is a fair argument.\n\nAs we have explained above, in the Tung-Orlando theory, the location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is directly determined by the relative magnitude of the downscale potential enstrophy flux $\\gn$ over the downscale energy flux $\\gee$. A different mechanism underlies an SQG model that was recently proposed by @article:Smith:2006. In their model, there is only one cascade, whose scaling exponent changes with wavenumber $k$, because the self-similar scaling of the model\u2019s nonlinear term changes with increasing $k$. As a result, in the Tulloch-Smith SQG model the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is strictly constrained to coincide with $k_R$, because the transition in the scaling of the nonlinear term of the model occurs at $k_R$. This dynamics of the Tulloch-Smith SQG model is analogous to that of the LANS $\\ga$-model of three-dimensional Navier-Stokes turbulence [@article:Wingate:2005], in which, once again there is a single downscale energy cascade with $k^{-5/3}$ scaling in the energy spectrum, with a transition to a steeper $k^{-3}$ slope at higher wavenumbers $k$, because of the introduced distortion of the Navier-Stokes nonlinearity. In both cases, we are essentially dealing with a single homogeneous solution, associated with a single flux coefficient, which, to first approximation, we can consider bifractal.\n\nUnder the quasi-geostrophic models used by @article:Orlando:2003 and @article:Smith:2009, on the other hand, we are dealing with two independent homogeneous solutions each of which, to first approximation, can be considered monofractal. Because the two solutions are independent of each other, as far as the nonlinearity is concerned, it is possible for the transition wavenumber $k_t$, in principle, to have any arbitrary value, since its location is determined solely by the relative magnitude of the two homogeneous solutions against each other. From the viewpoint of this paper, the constraint $k_t \\sim k_R$ is a weak indirect constraint that originates from the combined effect of anti-symmetric forcing and the large-scale Ekman dissipation term on the energy and potential enstrophy injection rates. This paper argues that the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model is consistent with placing $k_t$ near $k_R$.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we review the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model and introduce various preliminaries. In section 3 we derive the potential enstrophy and energy forcing spectra for the case of a generalized multi-layer quasi-geostrophic model, and discuss the random Gaussian forcing model. These results are applied to the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model itself in section 4. Conclusions and discussion are given in section 5 and technical matters are discussed in the appendices.\n\nThe two-layer model equations\n=============================\n\nThe two-layer model is defined by two vorticity-streamfunction equations and a temperature equation which read $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\pderiv{\\gz_1}{t} &+ J(\\gy_1, \\gz_1+f) = -\\frac{2f}{h} \\gw + d_1, \\label{eq:RelativeVortOne} \\\\\n\\pderiv{\\gz_2}{t} &+ J(\\gy_2, \\gz_2+f) = +\\frac{2f}{h} \\gw + d_2 + e_2, \\label{eq:RelativeVortTwo}  \\\\\n\\pderiv{T}{t} &+ J\\left( \\frac{\\gy_1+\\gy_2}{2}, T\\right)  = -\\frac{N^2}{f}\\gw + Q_0. \\label{eq:Temperature} \\end{aligned}$$ We see that the temperature $T$ is advected by the average streamfunction $(\\gy_1+\\gy_2)/2$. Here $\\gy_1$ and $\\gy_2$ are the streamfunctions of the top and bottom layers; $\\gw$ is the vertical velocity; $\\gz_1 = \\del^2 \\gy_1$ and $\\gz_2 = \\del^2 \\gy_2$ are the relative vorticities, and $d_1$, $d_2$, and $e_2$ are the dissipation terms given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nd_1 &= (-1)^{\\gk+1}\\nu \\del^{2\\gk} \\gz_1 =  (-1)^{\\gk+1}\\nu \\del^{2\\gk+2} \\gy_1 ,\\\\\nd_2 &= (-1)^{\\gk+1}\\nu \\del^{2\\gk} \\gz_2 =  (-1)^{\\gk+1}\\nu \\del^{2\\gk+2} \\gy_2, \\\\\ne_2 &= -\\nu_E \\gz_2 = -\\nu_E \\del^2 \\gy_2.\\end{aligned}$$ The terms $d_1$ and $d_2$ represent momentum dissipation of relative vorticity and $e_2$ represents Ekman damping from the lower boundary layer. Furthermore, $h$ is the height between the top and bottom rigid horizontal boundaries (the two vorticity layers and the temperature midlayer divide the space between the horizontal boundaries into four equal intervals, with the temperature midlayer situated between the two vorticity layers), $f$ is the Coriolis term, $N$ is the frequency, and $Q$ the thermal forcing term. The temperature $T$ is related with the streamfunctions $\\gy_1$ and $\\gy_2$ via the geostrophic condition $T = (2/h)(\\gy_1-\\gy_2)$. Finally, $J(a, b)$ is defined as the Jacobian between the fields $a$ and $b$ and it reads: $$J (a,b) = \\pderiv{a}{x} \\pderiv{b}{y} - \\pderiv{b}{x} \\pderiv{a}{y}.$$ Solving for the vertical velocity $\\gw$ in the temperature equation, after substituting the geostrophic condition, leads to the definition of the potential vorticities $q_1$ and $q_2$ given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nq_1 &=  \\del^2 \\gy_1 + f + \\frac{k_R^2}{2}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1), \\label{eq:DefPotVortOne} \\\\\nq_2 &=  \\del^2 \\gy_2 + f - \\frac{k_R^2}{2}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1), \\label{eq:DefPotVortTwo} \\end{aligned}$$ and their corresponding governing equations which read: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\pderiv{q_1}{t} &+ J(\\gy_1, q_1) = f_1 + d_1, \\label{eq:PotVortOne}  \\\\\n\\pderiv{q_2}{t} &+ J(\\gy_2, q_2) = f_2 + d_2+ e_2. \\label{eq:PotVortTwo}\\end{aligned}$$ Here, $k_R$ is the Rossby deformation wavenumber defined as $k_R \\equiv 2\\sqrt{2} f/(hN)$, $f_1 = -(1/4)k_R^2 h Q_0$, and $f_2 = (1/4)k_R^2 h Q_0$. The derivation is shown in Appendix\u00a0\\[app:VorticityStreamfunctionEquations\\]. Although the argument is well-known folklore, we want to note mainly that: (a) the dissipation terms have the same form in the relative vorticity equations as they do in the potential vorticity equations; (b) the thermal forcing term $Q$ appears on both top and bottom potential vorticity equations with opposite signs. Consequently, both layers are forced anti-symmetrically by the same forcing term, except with opposite signs.\n\nIt is also well-known that the two-layer model, in the absence of forcing and dissipation, conserves the total energy E given by $$E(t) = - \\int_{\\bbR^2} [\\psi_1 (\\bfx,t) q_1 (\\bfx,t)  + \\psi_2 (\\bfx,t)  q_2 (\\bfx,t) ] \\;\\df{\\bfx},$$ and the potential enstrophies $G_1$ and $G_2$ for each layer given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\nG_1 (t) &= \\int_{\\bbR^2} q_1^2  (\\bfx,t)  \\;\\df{\\bfx},\\\\\nG_2 (t) &= \\int_{\\bbR^2} q_2^2  (\\bfx,t)  \\;\\df{\\bfx}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTo properly define all the relevant spectra associated with these conserved quantities, consider first the Fourier expansions of the streamfunctions fields $\\psi_\\ga (\\bfx,t)$ and potential vorticity fields $q_\\ga (\\bfx,t)$ ($\\ga = 1,2$): $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\psi_\\ga (\\bfx,t) &= \\int_{\\bbR^2} \\hat\\psi_\\ga (\\bfk,t) \\exp (i\\bfk\\cdot\\bfx) \\; \\df{\\bfk}, \\\\\nq_\\ga (\\bfx,t) &= \\int_{\\bbR^2} \\hat q _\\ga (\\bfk,t) \\exp (i\\bfk\\cdot\\bfx) \\; \\df{\\bfk}.\\end{aligned}$$ In Fourier space, the potential vorticity fields $q_\\ga$ and streamfunction fields $\\psi_\\ga$ are related by $$\\hat q _\\ga (\\bfk,t) = \\sum_{\\gb} L_{\\ga\\gb} (\\nrm{\\bfk}) \\hat\\psi_\\ga (\\bfk,t). \\label{eq:QpsiRel}$$ Here, the sum runs over all layers, in this case $\\gb=1,2$, and $L_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ is a wavenumber matrix defined as $$L_{\\ga\\gb} (k) = \\mattwo{-k^2-k_R^2/2}{+k_R^2/2}{+k_R^2/2}{-k^2-k_R^2/2}.\n\\label{eq:TheMatrixL}$$ In real space, the same relation between the potential vorticity $q_\\ga$ and the streamfunction $\\psi_\\ga$ can be written in terms of a corresponding differential operator $\\ccL_{\\ga\\gb}$, as follows: $$q_\\ga (\\bfx,t) = \\sum_{\\gb} \\ccL_{\\ga\\gb} \\psi_\\ga (\\bfx,t).$$ It is easy to see that the matrix $L_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ is non-singular, for $k>0$, and can therefore be inverted. The inverse matrix $L_{\\ga\\gb}^{-1} (k)$ defines a corresponding inverse integrodifferential operator $\\ccL_{\\ga\\gb}^{-1}$. Note that in Eq.\u00a0 we have neglected the $\\gb$ contribution to the Coriolis term $f$, since, for the case of our planet, the impact of the $\\gb$-effect on the Nastrom-Gage energy spectrum is negligible. We have also neglected the latitude dependence of $f$, on the premise that we are interested in the ensemble average of the energy spectrum restricted on a thin strip of the Earth\u2019s surface that is oriented parallel to the equator. These approximations cause the Coriolis term $f$ to drop out of the nonlinear Jacobian terms altogether.\n\nLet us now introduce the following notation. Consider any arbitrary abstract scalar fields $a(\\bfx)$ and $b(\\bfx)$, which can be snapshots in time of either the streamfunction fields $\\psi_\\ga (\\bfx,t)$ or the potential vorticity fields $q_\\ga (\\bfx,t)$ for a given level $\\ga$. Let $a^{<k}(\\bfx)$ and $b^{<k}(\\bfx)$ be the fields obtained from $a(\\bfx)$ and $b(\\bfx)$ by setting to zero, in Fourier space, the components corresponding to wavenumbers whose norm is greater than $k$. Formally, $a^{<k}(\\bfx)$ is defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\na^{<k}(\\bfx) &= \\int_{\\bbR^2} \\df{\\bfx_0} \\int_{\\bbR^2} \\df{\\bfk_0}\\;  \\frac{H(k-\\nrm{\\bfk_0})}{4\\pi^2} \\exp (i\\bfk_0\\cdot (\\bfx-\\bfx_0)) a(\\bfx_0) \\\\\n&\\equiv \\int_{\\bbR^2} \\df{\\bfx_0} \\; P(k|\\bfx-\\bfx_0) a(\\bfx_0),\\end{aligned}$$ with $H(x)$ the Heaviside function, defined as the integral of a delta function: $$\\begin{aligned}\nH(x) &= \\int_0^x \\gd (\\tau) \\; d\\tau = \\casethree{1}{\\text{if } x\\in (0,+\\infty)}{1/2}{\\text{if } x=0}{0}{\\text{if } x\\in (-\\infty,0)}.\\end{aligned}$$ Here $P(k|\\bfx-\\bfx_0)$ is the corresponding low-pass filter kernel. Obviously, $b^{<k}(\\bfx)$ is defined similarly. We now use the two filtered fields $a^{<k}(\\bfx)$ and $b^{<k}(\\bfx)$ to define the bracket $\\innerf{a}{b}{k}$ as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\innerf{a}{b}{k} &= \\dD{k} \\int_{\\bbR^2} \\df{\\bfx}\\;\\avg{a^{<k}(\\bfx) b^{<k}(\\bfx)} \\label{eq:BracketDef} \\\\\n&= \\frac{1}{2} \\int_{A\\in \\SO{2}} \\df{\\Omega (A)}\\; \\avg{[\\hat a^{\\ast}(kA\\bfe) \\hat b(kA\\bfe) + \\hat a(kA\\bfe) \\hat b^{\\ast}(kA\\bfe)]}. \\label{eq:BracketFourier} \\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\\hat a (\\bfk)$ and $\\hat b (\\bfk)$ are the Fourier transforms of $a(\\bfx)$ and $b(\\bfx)$, $\\SO{2}$ is the set of all non-reflecting rotation matrices in two dimensions, $d\\Omega (A)$ is the measure of a spherical integral, $\\bfe$ is a two-dimensional unit vector, and $\\avg{\\cdot}$ represents taking an ensemble average. The star superscript represents taking the complex conjugate. Also note that Eq.\u00a0 is the definition of the bracket, and Eq.\u00a0 is a consequence of the definition.\n\nIt is easy to see that the bracket is both symmetric and bilinear, in that it satisfies: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\innerf{a}{b}{k} = \\innerf{b}{a}{k},\\\\\n&\\innerf{a}{b+c}{k} = \\innerf{a}{b}{k} + \\innerf{a}{c}{k}, \\\\\n&\\innerf{a+b}{c}{k} = \\innerf{a}{c}{k} + \\innerf{b}{c}{k}.\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, every $(\\ab)$-component of the operator $\\ccL_{\\ga\\gb}$ is self-adjoint with respect to the bracket, which gives $$\\innerf{\\ccL_{\\ab} a}{b}{k}  = \\innerf{a}{\\ccL_{\\ab} b}{k} = L_{\\ab} (k)\\innerf{a}{b}{k},$$ and the same property is also satisfied by every component of the inverse operator $\\ccL_{\\ga\\gb}^{-1}$: $$\\innerf{\\ccL_{\\ab}^{-1} a}{b}{k}  = \\innerf{a}{\\ccL_{\\ab}^{-1} b}{k} = L_{\\ab}^{-1} (k)\\innerf{a}{b}{k}.$$\n\nUsing the bracket, we now define the energy spectrum $E(k)= - \\innerf{\\psi_1}{q_1}{k} - \\innerf{\\psi_2}{q_2}{k}$ and the potential enstrophy spectra $G_1(k)= \\innerf{q_1}{q_1}{k}$ and $G_2(k)= \\innerf{q_2}{q_2}{k}$ for each layer. We also define $G (k)=G_1(k)+G_2(k)$ as the total potential enstrophy spectrum. This method of defining spectra was previously used by @book:Frisch:1995, and it is equivalent to the standard definition of spectra in terms of narrow spherical shells in Fourier space (see Eq.\u00a0). It is also superior in that one can generalize the definition of spectra to non-homogeneous flows by removing the spatial integral in Eq.\u00a0, thereby obtaining location-dependent spectra.\n\nIt is useful to be able to rewrite the above spectra in terms of a streamfunction spectrum $C_{\\ga\\gb}(k)=\\innerf{\\psi_\\ga}{\\psi_\\gb}{k}$. From the bilinear property of the bracket, it follows that the energy spectrum $E(k)$ reads: $$\\begin{aligned}\nE(k) &= -\\sum_{\\ga}  \\innerf{\\psi_\\ga}{q_\\ga}{k} = -\\sum_{\\ga} \\innerf{\\psi_\\ga}{\\sum_{\\gb} \\ccL_{\\ab} \\psi_\\gb}{k} = -\\sum_{\\ab} L_{\\ab}(k) \\innerf{\\psi_\\ga}{\\psi_\\gb}{k} \\\\\n&= -\\sum_{\\ab} L_{\\ab}(k) C_{\\ab}(k). \\label{eq:Ek}\\end{aligned}$$ Likewise, the potential enstrophy spectrum $G(k)$ reads: $$\\begin{aligned}\nG (k) &= \\sum_{\\ga} \\innerf{q_\\ga}{q_\\ga}{k} = \\sum_{\\ga} \\innerf{\\sum_{\\gb} \\ccL_{\\ab} \\psi_\\gb}{\\sum_{\\gc} \\ccL_{\\ac} \\psi_\\gc}{k} \\\\ \n&= \\sum_{\\ab} L_{\\ab} (k)\\innerf{\\psi_\\gb}{\\sum_{\\gc} \\ccL_{\\ac} \\psi_\\gc}{k} =  \\sum_{\\abc} L_{\\ab} (k) L_{\\ac}(k) \\innerf{\\psi_\\gb}{\\psi_\\gc}{k}\\\\\n&= \\sum_{\\abc} L_{\\ab} (k) L_{\\ac}(k) C_{\\bc}(k). \\label{eq:Gk}\\end{aligned}$$ Stated in this way, these expressions easily generalize to multiple-layer quasi-geostrophic models simply by using a different matrix $L_{\\ab} (k)$ with more rows and columns.\n\nForcing Spectrum in general\n===========================\n\nNow let us turn our attention to the forcing spectra of the two-layer model. We begin by writing the potential vorticity equations in the following more abstract form: $$\\pderiv{q_\\ga}{t}+J(\\psi_\\ga, q_\\ga) = \\sum_\\gb \\cD_{\\ga\\gb} \\psi_\\gb + f_\\ga.$$ Here, $\\cD_{\\ga\\gb}$ is a matrix operator that accounts for all the dissipation terms and $f_\\ga$ is the forcing term acting on the $\\ga$-layer. Using this abstract formulation will shorten the calculations below considerably. For the case of thermal forcing, the forcing terms take the form $f_1 = \\gf$ and $f_2 = -\\gf$. Multiplying both sides with the inverse operator $\\ccL_{\\ga\\gb}^{-1}$ gives the following governing equation for the streamfunctions: $$\\pderiv{\\psi_\\ga}{t}+ \\sum_\\gb \\ccL_{\\ab}^{-1} J(\\psi_\\gb, q_\\gb) = \\sum_{\\bc} \\ccL_{\\ab}^{-1} \\cD_{\\bc} \\psi_\\gc + \\sum_\\gb \\ccL_{\\ab}^{-1} f_\\gb. \\label{eq:GovEqStreamFunc}$$ Now, let us define a streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\\phi_{\\ab}(k) = \\innerf{f_\\ga}{\\psi_\\gb}{k}$ and recall our definition of the streamfunction spectrum $C_{\\ga\\gb}(k)=\\innerf{\\psi_\\ga}{\\psi_\\gb}{k}$. Differentiating $C_{\\ab}(k)$ with respect to time gives $$\\pderiv{C_{\\ab}(k)}{t} = \\innerf{\\pderiv{\\psi_\\ga}{t}}{\\psi_\\gb}{k} + \\innerf{\\psi_\\ga}{\\pderiv{\\psi_\\gb}{t}}{k}, \\label{eq:TimeDerCab}$$ and we may write a governing equation for $C_{\\ab}(k)$ in the form $$\\pderiv{C_{\\ab}(k)}{t} + T_{\\ab}(k) = D_{\\ab}(k) + F_{\\ab}(k). \\label{eq:GovEqCab}$$ Here, $T_{\\ab}(k)$ is the contribution from the nonlinear Jacobian term, $D_{\\ab}(k)$ is the contribution from the dissipation term, and $F_{\\ab}(k)$ is the contribution from the forcing term. Our interest here is in the forcing contribution $F_{\\ab}(k)$. It is easy to see that $F_{\\ab}(k)$ can be written in terms of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\\phi_{\\ab}(k)$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_{\\ab}(k) &= \\innerf{\\sum_\\gc \\ccL_{\\ac}^{-1} f_\\gc}{\\psi_\\gb}{k} + \\innerf{\\psi_\\ga}{\\sum_\\gc \\ccL_{\\bc}^{-1} f_\\gc}{k} \\\\\n &= \\sum_\\gc L_{\\ac}^{-1}(k) \\innerf{f_\\gc}{\\psi_\\gb}{k} + \\sum_\\gc L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k) \\innerf{\\psi_\\ga}{f_\\gc}{k} \\\\\n &= \\sum_\\gc [ L_{\\ac}^{-1}(k) \\phi_{\\cb} (k) + L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k) \\phi_{\\ca} (k)].\\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have replaced the time derivatives in Eq.\u00a0 with the forcing term from Eq.\u00a0. We now note that governing equations for the energy spectrum $E(k)$ and the potential enstrophy spectrum $G(k)$ can be obtained by applying the operators indicated by equations and to the governing equation for the streamfunction spectrum $C_{\\ab}(k)$. These equations are analogous to Eq.\u00a0 and they take the form: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\pderiv{E(k)}{t} + T_E (k) = D_E (k) + F_E (k),\\\\\n&\\pderiv{G(k)}{t} + T_G (k) = D_G (k) + F_G (k).\\end{aligned}$$ Here, the terms above have analogous definitions. The next step is to write the forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ for the energy and $F_G (k)$ for the potential enstrophy in terms of $F_{\\ab}(k)$. Using the operator indicated by Eq. , the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ reads: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_E (k) &= -\\sum_{\\ab} L_{\\ab}(k) F_{\\ab}(k) = -\\sum_{\\abc} L_{\\ab}(k) [ L_{\\ac}^{-1}(k) \\phi_{\\cb} (k) + L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k) \\phi_{\\ca} (k)] \\\\\n&= -\\sum_{\\bc} \\left[  \\left(  \\sum_{\\ga} L_{\\ba}(k) L_{\\ac}^{-1}(k) \\right) \\phi_{\\cb} (k) \\right] - \\sum_{\\ac}  \\left[  \\left(  \\sum_{\\gb} L_{\\ab}(k) L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k) \\right)  \\phi_{\\ca} (k) \\right] \\\\\n&= -\\sum_{\\bc} \\gd_{\\bc} \\phi_{\\cb} (k) -  \\sum_{\\ac} \\gd_{\\ac}  \\phi_{\\ca} (k) = -2 \\sum_{\\ga} \\phi_{\\ga\\ga} (k). \\label{eq:FE}\\end{aligned}$$ A similar calculation gives the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$. We use the operator indicated by Eq. , and we find that $F_G (k)$ reads: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_G (k)  &= \\sum_{\\abc} L_{\\ab} (k) L_{\\ac}(k) F_{\\bc}(k) \\\\\n &= \\sum_{\\abc} L_{\\ab} (k) L_{\\ac}(k) \\sum_\\gd  \\left[ L_{\\bd}^{-1}(k) \\phi_{\\dc} (k) + L_{\\cd}^{-1}(k) \\phi_{\\db} (k) \\right]\\\\\n &= \\sum_{\\acd}  L_{\\ac}(k) \\left[ \\sum_\\gb L_{\\ab} (k) L_{\\bd}^{-1}(k) \\right] \\phi_{\\dc} (k) + \\sum_{\\abd} L_{\\ab} (k) \\left[ \\sum_\\gc  L_{\\ac}(k) L_{\\cd}^{-1}(k) \\right] \\phi_{\\db} (k) \\\\\n &= \\sum_{\\acd} \\gd_{\\ad} L_{\\ac}(k) \\phi_{\\dc} (k) + \\sum_{\\abd} L_{\\ab} (k) \\gd_{\\ad} \\phi_{\\db} (k) \n = 2\\sum_{\\ab}L_{\\ab} (k)  \\phi_{\\ab} (k). \\label{eq:FG}\\end{aligned}$$ Note that the $F_E (k)$ calculation is dependent on the symmetry assumption $L_{\\ab} (k) = L_{\\ba}(k)$, which multi-layer quasi-geostrophic models do satisfy. On the contrary, the $F_G (k)$ calculation is not dependent on this symmetry assumption.\n\nBecause of the dependence of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ on the streamfunction $\\gy_\\ga$, it is not possible to predict the forcing spectra $F_E (k)$ and $F_G (k)$ solely from the statistical properties of the forcing term $f_\\ga$. The sole exception is the case where $f_\\ga$ is a random Gaussian field that is delta-correlated in time such that $$\\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfx_1, t_1) f_\\gb (\\bfx_2, t_2)} = 2Q_{\\ga\\gb} (\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2) \\gd (t_1-t_2),$$ where $Q_{\\ga\\gb} (\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2)$ is assumed to be known. Then, it can be shown that the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ is given by $$\\phi_{\\ab} (k) = \\sum_\\gc \\cQ_{\\ac}(k) L^{-1}_{\\bc} (k).$$ Here $\\cQ_{\\ac}(k)$ is the correlation spectrum of the forcing term $f_\\ga$ given by $$\\cQ_{\\ac}(k) = \\dD{k} \\int \\df{\\bfx}\\df{\\bfy}\\df{\\bfz} \\; P(k|\\bfx-\\bfy) P(k|\\bfx-\\bfz) Q_{\\ac}(\\bfy,\\bfz).$$ We give a detailed derivation of this result in Appendix\u00a0\\[app:StreamfunctionForcingSpectrum\\].\n\nEstimating the downscale injection rates\n========================================\n\nWe will now consider three different arguments for estimating the ratio $\\gn/\\gee$ of the potential enstrophy injection rate $\\gn$ to the energy injection rate $\\gee$ to the downscale inertial range. It should be noted here that a careful distinction needs to be made between the total injection rates to the flow, given by integrating Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0, versus the partial injection rates to the coexisting downscale cascades of potential enstrophy and energy. For the purpose of estimating the transition wavenumber $k_t \\sim \\sqrt{\\gn/\\gee}$, it is the partial downscale injection rates $\\gn$ and $\\gee$ that are relevant. These partial downscale injection rates are dependent on both the forcing term and the Ekman term, and that complicates the task ahead.\n\nIn the first argument, we assume that the model is forced exclusively through the temperature equation, and we disregard the effect of the Ekman term to the downscale injection rates. In the second argument, we consider the combined effect of thermal forcing and the asymmetric Ekman dissipation term to the energy and potential enstrophy partial downscale injections rates. We will show that the Ekman term tends to shift the transition wavenumber $k_t$ towards large scales, but this claim is predicated on the hypothesis that the potential energy spectrum dominates the kinetic energy spectrum at the forcing range, and the status of this hypothesis is presently uncertain. This prompts us to consider the third argument, where we force both potential vorticity equations with random delta-correlated in time Gaussian forcing where the forcing on the bottom layer is suppressed using a control factor $\\mu$. The underlying modeling assumption is that the asymmetric Ekman term suppresses forcing on the bottom layer but not at the top layer.\n\nBy combining our results from these three arguments, we will argue that the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model tends to place the transition wavenumber $k_t$ near the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$. It should be noted that, due to interlayer interaction, it is not obvious whether the Ekman term actually suppresses predominantly the bottom-layer forcing. Furthermore, for models where the forcing is flow-dependent, there is further uncertainty on the effect of the Ekman term on forcing and the overall adjustment of the partial downscale injection rates. These caveats are discussed further below.\n\nWe begin the argument by rewriting our general expressions for the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ and the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ in terms of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ for the special case of the two-layer model by substituting the corresponding matrix $L_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ from Eq.\u00a0. It is easy to see that the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ reads: $$F_E (k) = -2 \\sum_{\\ga} \\phi_{\\ga\\ga} (k) = -2[\\phi_{11}(k) +\\phi_{22}(k)].\n\\label{eq:FE}$$ Likewise, the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ reads: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_G (k)  &=2\\sum_{\\ab}L_{\\ab} (k)  \\phi_{\\ab} (k)\\\\\n&= 2[L_{11}(k)  \\phi_{11}(k)  + L_{12}(k)  \\phi_{12}(k)  + L_{21}(k)  \\phi_{21}(k)  + L_{22}(k)  \\phi_{22}(k) ]\\\\\n&= -2 (k^2+k_R^2/2)[\\phi_{11}(k) +\\phi_{22}(k) ] + 2(k_R^2/2)[\\phi_{12}(k) +\\phi_{21}(k)].\n\\label{eq:FG}\\end{aligned}$$ Using these expressions as our point of departure we now proceed with our analysis of the three energy and potential enstrophy partial downscale injection rate estimates.\n\nEstimate 1: Thermal forcing neglecting Ekman term\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nUnder thermal forcing we may assume that the potential vorticity equations are forced with $f_1=\\gf$ and $f_2=-\\gf$. Let us define $\\Phi_1 (k) = \\innerf{\\gf}{\\gy_1}{k}$ and $\\Phi_2 (k) = \\innerf{\\gf}{\\gy_2}{k}$ as the streamfunction correlators with $\\gf$. We may therefore write the components of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\phi_{11}(k) &= \\innerf{\\gf}{\\gy_1}{k} = \\Phi_1 (k), \\\\\n\\phi_{12}(k) &= \\innerf{\\gf}{\\gy_2}{k} = \\Phi_2 (k), \\\\\n\\phi_{21}(k) &= \\innerf{-\\gf}{\\gy_1}{k} = -\\Phi_1 (k), \\\\\n\\phi_{22}(k) &= \\innerf{-\\gf}{\\gy_2}{k} = -\\Phi_2 (k).\\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ is given by: $$F_E (k) = -2[\\phi_{11}(k) +\\phi_{22}(k)] = -2[\\Phi_1 (k) - \\Phi_2 (k)],$$ and the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ is given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_G (k) &= -2 (k^2+k_R^2/2)[\\phi_{11}(k) +\\phi_{22}(k) ] + 2(k_R^2/2)[\\phi_{12}(k) +\\phi_{21}(k) ]\\\\\n &= -2 (k^2+k_R^2/2)[\\Phi_1 (k) - \\Phi_2 (k)] + 2(k_R^2/2)[\\Phi_2 (k) - \\Phi_1 (k)]\\\\\n &= -2(k^2+k_R^2) [\\Phi_1 (k) - \\Phi_2 (k)].\\end{aligned}$$ We see that the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ and the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ are related as $$F_G (k)=  (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k).$$ In the limit $k \\sim k_f \\ll k_R$ we find that $F_G (k)\\sim k_R^2 F_E (k)$, which implies that the ratio $\\gn/\\gee$ of injected potential enstrophy rate $\\gn$ to injected energy rate $\\gee$ is approximately equal to the square of the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$. It follows that, if all of the injected energy and enstrophy cascade downscale and get successfully dissipated at small scales, we will then have a double potential enstrophy\u2013energy cascade with transition wavenumber $k_t \\sim k_R$. We suggest therefore, with some caveats to be discussed further below, that the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model provides a competent explanation for why the Nastrom-Gage spectrum exhibits a transition from $k^{-3}$ scaling to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling near the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$.\n\nIt should be stressed that this calculation neglects the effect of Ekman dissipation of the energy and potential enstrophy injection rates, and is only good as a first approximation. In the next two arguments we will suggest that the Ekman term may tend to decrease $k_t$ further and that it is unlikely that it can suppress the partial downscale energy injection rate, as one typically expects in two-dimensional turbulence.\n\nEstimate 2: Thermal forcing with asymmetric Ekman dissipation\n-------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLet us now consider the effect of asymmetric Ekman dissipation on the partial downscale rates of potential enstrophy and energy injection. It is well-known that in two-dimensional turbulence, large-scale dissipation predominantly dissipates most of the injected energy while allowing a considerable fraction of enstrophy to cascade to small scales. This is evidenced by all of the numerical simulations that have successfully reproduced the enstrophy cascade with $k^{-3}$ spectrum [@article:Alvelius:2000; @article:Falkovich:2002; @article:Ishihira:2001]. If the same thing were to occur in the two-layer quasigeostrophic model, it would undermine our previous argument concerning the location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$, because in that argument we assumed that most of the injected energy cascades downscale. As far as the downscale cascades are concerned, they \u201cfeel\u201d forcing from both the forcing term and the Ekman term. It is therefore necessary to define the effective forcing spectra $\\cF_E (k)$ and $\\cF_G (k)$ in which the effects of asymmetric forcing and Ekman dissipation are included together. We use calligraphic notation to distinguish them from the forcing spectra $F_E (k)$ and $F_G (k)$ defined via Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0. The partial injection rates $\\gn$ and $\\gee$ to the downscale cascades are given by integrating $\\cF_E (k)$ and $\\cF_G (k)$. As a matter of mathematical expediency, we can still calculate $\\cF_E (k)$ and $\\cF_G (k)$ via Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0 by *redefining* the forcing terms $f_1$ and $f_2$ to include the asymmetric Ekman term. The calculation below shows that the effect of the asymmetric Ekman term is to tend to decrease the effective energy forcing spectrum $\\cF_E (k)$, thereby acting as an energy sink. However, as long as the potential energy spectrum dominates the kinetic energy spectrum at the forcing range, the effective potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $\\cF_G (k)$ will decrease much faster, thereby shifting the transition wavenumber to smaller scales. It should be stressed that in most quasi-geostrophic models, the forcing term is flow-dependent, so the reaction of the flow to the effect of the asymmetric Ekman term adds another degree of uncertainty to the above claims. On the other hand, for random Gaussian forcing that is delta-correlated in time, the reaction of the flow does not affect the effective forcing spectra.\n\nLet us now elaborate on the above argument. We begin by *redefining* $f_1=\\gf$ and $f_2=-\\gf-\\nu_E \\del^2 \\gy_2$, as discussed above. Recall that $C_{12}(k) = \\innerf{\\gy_1}{\\gy_2}{k}$, and let us define $U_1 (k) = \\innerf{\\gy_1}{\\gy_1}{k}$ and $U_2 (k) = \\innerf{\\gy_2}{\\gy_2}{k}$. It follows that the streamfunction-forcing spectra $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ are given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\phi_{11}(k) &= \\innerf{\\gf}{\\gy_1}{k} = \\Phi_1 (k), \\\\\n\\phi_{12}(k) &= \\innerf{\\gf}{\\gy_2}{k} = \\Phi_2 (k), \\\\\n\\phi_{21}(k) &= \\innerf{-\\gf-\\nu_E \\del^2 \\gy_2}{\\gy_1}{k} = -\\Phi_1 (k) + \\nu_E k^2 C_{12}(k),\\\\\n\\phi_{22}(k) &= \\innerf{-\\gf-\\nu_E \\del^2 \\gy_2}{\\gy_2}{k} = -\\Phi_2 (k) + \\nu_E k^2 U_2 (k).\\end{aligned}$$ Substituting to Eq.\u00a0, we find that the effective energy forcing spectrum $\\cF_E (k)$ is given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\cF_E (k) &= -2[\\Phi_1 (k) - \\Phi_2 (k) + \\nu_E k^2 U_2 (k)] \\\\\n&= F_E (k)-2\\nu_E k^2 U_2 (k).\\end{aligned}$$ Since $U_2 (k)$ is positive-definite, we have $U_2 (k)\\geq 0$, and therefore the asymmetric Ekman dissipation term decreases the rate of energy injection. Note that if the forcing term $\\gf$ is dependent on the flow, as is the case in both the Tung-Orlando and Tulloch-Smith simulations [@article:Orlando:2003; @article:Smith:2009], the decrease by the $\\nu_E k^2 U_2 (k)$ term could be counteracted by an increase by the $2[\\Phi_1 (k) - \\Phi_2 (k)]$ term, as pointed out to the author by an anonymous referee. However, if $\\gf$ is given as a standard independent random forcing term, which is common practice in turbulence simulations, then $\\cF_E (k)$ is decreased by the Ekman term.\n\nSimilarly, the effective potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $\\cF_G (k)$ is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\cF_G (k)- (k^2+k_R^2) \\cF_E (k) %% = 2 (k^2+k_R^2/2)[\\phi_{11}(k) +\\phi_{22}(k) ] - k_R^2 [\\phi_{12}(k) +\\phi_{21}(k)] - 2 (k^2+k_R^2) [\\phi_{11}(k) +\\phi_{22}(k)]\\\\\n &= k_R^2 [\\phi_{11}(k)+\\phi_{12}(k)+\\phi_{21}(k)+\\phi_{22}(k)]  \\label{eq:FGminFEformula}\\\\\n%% &= -k_R^2 [\\Phi_1 (k) + \\Phi_2 (k) -\\Phi_1(k) +\\nu_E k^2 C_{12}(k)  - \\Phi_2(k)  + \\nu_E k^2 U_2(k)]\\\\\n&= \\nu_E k_R^2 k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ],\\end{aligned}$$ and it follows that $\\cF_G (k)$ is given by $$\\cF_G (k) = (k^2+k_R^2) \\cF_E (k)+\\nu_E k_R^2 k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ].\\label{eq:FGwithEkman}$$ We see that whether the Ekman term tends to shift $k_t$ upscale or downscale depends on the sign of $C_{12}(k) +U_2(k)$. It is already known that $U_2(k)\\geq 0$. However, $C_{12}(k)$ can be either positive or negative. The condition $C_{12}(k) < 0$ is necessary but not sufficient in ensuring a transition wavenumber shift towards large scales. The necessary and sufficient condition for effecting such a shift is $U_2 (k)+C_{12}(k) < 0$. On the other hand, the condition $C_{12} (k) < U_2 (k)$ is sufficient to ensure that the Ekman term dissipates potential enstrophy, which is expected on physical grounds. To show this, we rewrite the effective potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $\\cF_G (k)$ in terms of the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\cF_G (k) &= (k^2+k_R^2) [F_E (k) -  2\\nu_E k^2 U_2(k)] +\\nu_E k_R^2 k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ]\\\\\n&= F_G (k) + \\nu_E k^2 [k_R^2 (C_{12} (k)- U_2 (k)) - 2k^2 U_2 (k)].\\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the Ekman term dissipates potential enstrophy if $k_R^2 (C_{12} (k)- U_2 (k)) - 2k^2 U_2 (k)<0$ for all wavenumbers $k$ in the forcing range. Since $U_2 (k) > 0$, due to being positive-definite, it is sufficient that $C_{12} (k) < U_2 (k)$.\n\nWe can gain some insight on $C_{12}(k)$ by relating it with the kinetic and potential energy spectra $E_K (k)$ and $E_P (k)$ which are defined as follows: Let $\\gy \\equiv (\\gy_1 + \\gy_2)/2$ and $\\gt \\equiv (\\gy_1 - \\gy_2)/2$. So, $\\gy_1 = \\gy+\\gt$ and $\\gy_2 = \\gy-\\gt$. Following @article:Salmon:1978 [@article:Salmon:1980], the definitions of the spectra $E_K (k)$, $E_P (k)$, and $E_C (k)$ in terms of $\\gy$ and $\\gt$ are given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\nE_K (k) &= 2k^2 \\innerf{\\gy}{\\gy}{k}, \\\\\nE_P (k) &= 2(k^2 + k_R^2) \\innerf{\\gt}{\\gt}{k}, \\\\\nE_C (k) &= 2k^2 \\innerf{\\gy}{\\gt}{k}.\\end{aligned}$$ It can be shown that the definitions are self-consistent, i.e. $E (k)=E_K (k)+E_P (k)$. It is easy now to write $C_{12}(k)$ in terms of $E_K (k)$ and $E_P (k)$: $$\\begin{aligned}\nC_{12}(k) &= \\innerf{\\gy_1}{\\gy_2}{k} = \\innerf{\\gy+\\gt}{\\gy-\\gt}{k} =  \\innerf{\\gy}{\\gy}{k} - \\innerf{\\gy}{\\gt}{k} + \\innerf{\\gt}{\\gy}{k} - \\innerf{\\gt}{\\gt}{k}\\\\\n&= \\innerf{\\gy}{\\gy}{k} - \\innerf{\\gt}{\\gt}{k} = \\frac{E_K (k)}{2k^2} - \\frac{E_P (k)}{2(k^2+k_R^2)}.\\end{aligned}$$ We see that requiring $E_K (k)\\ll E_P (k)$ for all wavenumbers $k$ in the forcing range is sufficient to ensure that $C_{12}(k)$ be negative.\n\nTo obtain a necessary and sufficient condition, we first note that $$\\begin{aligned}\nU_2(k) &= \\innerf{\\gy_2}{\\gy_2}{k} = \\innerf{\\gy-\\gt}{\\gy-\\gt}{k} = \\innerf{\\gy}{\\gy}{k} - 2 \\innerf{\\gy}{\\gt}{k} + \\innerf{\\gt}{\\gt}{k}\\\\\n&=  \\frac{E_K (k)}{2k^2} + \\frac{E_P (k)}{2(k^2+k_R^2)} - \\frac{E_C (k)}{k^2}.\\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$U_2(k) + C_{12}(k) = \\frac{E_K (k)-E_C (k)}{k^2},$$ and therefore $U_2(k) + C_{12}(k) < 0$ if and only if $E_K (k)<E_C (k)$ for all wavenumbers $k$ in the forcing range. It should be stressed that, as far as the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is concerned, the relevant requirement is that the ratio $\\cF_G (k)/\\cF_E (k)$ should be decreased by the Ekman term. It is easy to see from Eq. that $\\cF_G (k)/\\cF_E (k)$ is a linear function of $\\nu_E$ with slope $k_R^2 k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ]$. Thus, the condition $E_K (k)<E_C (k)$ is indeed the needed necessary and sufficient condition.\n\nWithout a detailed phenomenological understanding of the two-layer model, it is hard to say whether this condition is satisfied. @article:Salmon:1980 has argued that in the two-layer model, energy is being injected as potential energy and gets converted to kinetic energy near the Rossby wavenumber $k_R$. We may therefore expect the potential energy to remain dominant in the forcing range, provided that most kinetic energy does not inversely cascade back to large scales again. Nevertheless, this is an open question that should be carefully investigated via numerical simulations. In the next section we will provide an alternate argument supporting the claim of a transition wavenumber shift to large scales, predicated on the hypothesis that the Ekman dissipation term suppresses forcing only at the lower-layer, thereby assuming that the interlayer interaction does not propagate Ekman dissipation into the top layer. The spectrum $C_{12}(k)$ captures, in effect, an aspect of the dynamics of this interlayer interaction.\n\nBe that as it may, we note that it is also possible to formulate arguments that suggest the opposite conclusion as follows: As @article:Orlando:2003:1 have shown, an equipartition of kinetic and potential energy is expected in the extreme baroclinic limit represented by the SQG model (i.e. $E_P (k)/E_K (k) = 1$). The opposite limit, if generalized for all scales, is the case of three-dimensional stratified turbulence where @article:Lindborg:2006 observed a $1/3$ distribution of the total energy between potential and kinetic such that $E_P (k)/E_K (k) \\sim 1/3$, with the exact ratio being somewhat dependent on the rotation rate. For both cases we have $E_K (k)\\geq E_P (k)$. Furthermore, in a recent direct numerical simulation of the full quasi-geostrophic model by @article:Lindborg:2010, it has been confirmed that the total energy spectrum $E(k)$ is equipartitioned between potential energy $E_P (k)$ and the two horizontal components of kinetic energy, leading to an approximate ratio $E_P (k)/E_K (k) \\sim 1/2$, consistent with the theory of @article:Charney:1971. A deviation seems to occur in the forcing range where $E_P (k)/E_K (k) \\sim 1$, but any value between $1/2$ and $1$ violates the sufficient condition $E_K (k)\\ll E_P (k)$. It should be noted, however, that the simulation of @article:Lindborg:2010 is forced symmetrically instead of antisymmetrically, and it is uncertain how that may affect the partition ratio of energy between kinetic energy and potential energy. Also uncertain is the effect of restricting the full quasi-geostrophic model to two layers and using asymmetric instead of symmetric dissipation.\n\nAt this point, one could argue that if the Ekman term in $\\cF_G (k)$ is negligible, then it doesn\u2019t matter either way whether $\\cF_G (k)$ is increasing or decreasing. We will now argue, using a phenomenological order of magnitude estimate, that the Ekman adjustment of the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $\\cF_G (k)$ is not expected to be negligible. The argument is as follows: On the assumption that most injected energy cascades to small scales, $\\cF_E (k)$ is proportional to the downscale energy flux $\\gee$. If we also assume that the forcing spectrum is spread over a wavenumber interval with width proportional to the average forcing wavenumber $k_f$, then we get the dimensional estimate $\\cF_E (k) \\sim \\gee/k_f$. This estimate is a lower bound for $\\cF_E (k)$ since, as an anonymous referee noted, it is possible, in principle, for the forcing spectrum to be concentrated on a peak with width $\\gD k$ narrower than $k_f$. We also assume that $k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ]$, which has the dimension of the energy spectrum, scales as $k^2 [C_{12}(k) +U_2(k) ] \\sim \\gn^{2/3} k_f^{-3}$, consistent with the downscale potential enstrophy cascade spectrum. Putting these two phenomenological estimates together, for forcing-range wavenumbers $k \\sim k_f \\ll k_R$, we estimate the two terms on the right-hand-side of Eq.\u00a0 as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\cA &\\equiv (k^2+k_R^2) \\cF_E (k) \\sim \\gee k_R^2/k_f,\\\\\n\\cB &\\equiv \\nu_E k_R^2 k^2 (C_{12} (k) + U_2 (k)) \\sim \\nu_E k_R^2 \\gn^{2/3} k_f^{-3}.\\end{aligned}$$ Using the relation $ \\gn\\sim \\gee k_t^2$ between the potential enstrophy flux $ \\gn$ and the energy flux $\\gee$, we find that the ratio of the two terms is estimated by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\cA}{\\cB} &\\sim \\frac{\\gee k_R^2 k_f^{-1}}{\\nu_E k_R^2 \\gn^{2/3} k_f^{-3}}\n\\sim \\frac{\\gee k_f^{2}}{\\nu_E \\gn^{2/3}} \n\\sim \\frac{ \\gn k_f^{2}}{\\nu_E \\gn^{2/3} k_t^2}\n\\sim \\frac{\\gn^{1/3}}{\\nu_E}\\fracp{k_f}{k_t}^2.\\end{aligned}$$ For the potential enstrophy flux $\\gn$ we use the value $\\gn\\sim 10^{-15} \\text{s}^{-3}$ estimated by @article:Lindborg:2001 by structure function analysis. For the Ekman coefficient $\\nu_E$, we use the number $\\nu_E \\sim (6.7 \\text{days})^{-1} \\sim 10^{-6} \\text{s}^{-1}$ by @article:Orlando:2003. Finally, from the Nastrom-Gage spectrum itself, we can estimate $k_t \\sim 10^{-3} \\text{km}^{-1}$ and $k_f \\sim 10^{-4} \\text{km}^{-1}$ for the transition and forcing wavenumbers. Using these numbers, we find that $\\cA/\\cB \\sim 10^{-1}$, which implies that the terms $\\cA$ and $\\cB$ are comparable within one order of magnitude, so the effect of the constant coefficients is likely to play an important role in deciding which term is dominant. Note that if the forcing spectrum is concentrated on a peak with width $\\gD k$ with $\\gD k \\ll k_f$, then $\\cF_E (k)$ is increased, thus the change to the ratio $\\cA/\\cB$ in turn indicates a diminishing impact of the Ekman term on the transition wavenumber $k_t$. Consequently, within the framework of the above phenomenology, our estimate of the $\\cA/\\cB$ ratio represents a worst-case scenario, in the sense that the effect of the Ekman term can\u2019t be stronger than this estimate.\n\nIn light of the above, it is very important to further investigate, with numerical simulations, the effect of the Ekman term on the injection rates, using both the quasi-geostrophic model of @article:Orlando:2003 and the quasi-geostrophic model of @article:Smith:2009. Specifically, for the case of the two-layer model, future numerical studies should, at the very least, investigate the interlayer spectrum $C_{12}(k)$ and the partition of energy between kinetic energy and potential energy.\n\nEstimate 3: Asymmetric random forcing\n-------------------------------------\n\nIn the previous case, we have seen that the effect of asymmetric Ekman dissipation on the forcing range is to tend to decrease the rate of energy injection. There is, however, ambiguity regarding whether the enstrophy injection rate is increasing or decreasing, and whether the Ekman term shifts the transition wavenumber $k_t$ towards small scales or large scales. The underlying problem is that, due to the effect of the layer to layer interaction on the relationship between potential vorticity and streamfunction, it is not obvious whether dissipating the bottom layer streamfunction $\\gy_2$ is equivalent to dissipating the bottom-layer potential vorticity $q_2$. On the other hand, we will show now that if the bottom-layer forcing is directly suppressed via a control factor $\\mu$, that will indeed result in a reduction of the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ in the forcing range.\n\nTo that end, let us assume that the forcing terms for the top and bottom layers respectively are $f_1=\\gf$ and $f_2=-\\mu \\gf$ with $0 < \\mu < 1$. Decreasing $\\mu$ increases the suppression of the bottom-layer forcing term $f_2$. We also assume that $\\gf$ is a delta-correlated in time random Gaussian field with correlation spectrum $\\cQ(k)$. In appendix \\[app:RandomGaussianForcing\\], we show that the forcing-streamfunction spectra $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ can be expressed in terms of $\\cQ(k)$ as follows: $$\\gf_{\\ab} (k) = \\frac{-\\cQ (k) \\gy_{\\ab} (k)}{2 k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}.$$ Here, $\\gy_{\\ab}$ are given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\gy_{11} (k)  &= (2k^2+k_R^2)-\\mu k_R^2, \\\\\n\\gy_{12} (k)  &= k_R^2-\\mu (2k^2+k_R^2), \\\\\n\\gy_{21} (k)  &= -\\mu (2 k^2+k_R^2) + \\mu^2 k_R^2, \\\\\n\\gy_{22} (k)  &= -\\mu k_R^2 + \\mu^2 (2k^2+k_R^2).\\end{aligned}$$ Without explicitly calculating the forcing spectra $F_E (k)$ and $F_G (k)$, we can readily argue that since $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\gy_{11} (k) + \\gy_{12} (k) + \\gy_{21} (k) + \\gy_{22} (k)  %% &= 2(k^2+k_R^2)- 4(k^2+k_R^2)\\mu +2 (k^2+k_R^2)\\mu^2 \\\\\n&= 2(k^2+k_R^2)(1-\\mu)^2,\\end{aligned}$$ it follows that $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_G (k) - (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k) &= k_R^2 [\\phi_{11}(k)+\\phi_{12}(k)+\\phi_{21}(k)+\\phi_{22}(k)]\\\\\n&= \\frac{-\\cQ (k) [\\gy_{11} (k) + \\gy_{12} (k) + \\gy_{21} (k) + \\gy_{22} (k)]}{2 k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}\\\\\n&= \\frac{-\\cQ (k) [2(k^2+k_R^2)(1-\\mu)^2]}{2 k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)} =  - \\frac{k_R^2 (1-\\mu)^2 \\cQ (k)}{k^2},\\end{aligned}$$ via Eq.\u00a0 and therefore $$F_G (k) =  (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k)- \\frac{k_R^2 (1-\\mu)^2 \\cQ (k)}{k^2}.$$ We note that since the third term in the equation above is always negative, suppressing the lower-level forcing leads to a large-scale shift of the transition wavenumber $k_t$. For $\\mu=1$, as expected, we recover the previously derived relation $F_G (k) =  (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k)$.\n\nAnother way of looking at the problem is by explicitly calculating the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ and showing that it decreases with decreasing $\\mu=1$. As shown in appendix \\[app:RandomGaussianForcing\\], an explicit calculation of the forcing spectra $F_E (k)$ and $F_G (k)$ gives: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_E (k) &= \\frac{2\\cQ(k)[2(1+\\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\\mu)^2 k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\\\\nF_G (k) &= 2\\cQ(k) (1+\\mu^2).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFor the antisymmetric case $\\mu=1$, the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ reduces to $F_E (k) = 4\\cQ(k)/(k^2+k_R^2)$ and the enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ reduces to $F_G (k) = 4\\cQ(k)$, thereby recovering our previous more generally applicable result $F_G (k)=  (k^2+k_R^2) F_E (k)$, which suggests a transition wavenumber $k_t\\sim k_R$, in the limit $k \\sim k_f \\ll k_R$.\n\nFor the extreme case $\\mu=0$, whereby the bottom-layer forcing is completely suppressed, again under the limit $k  \\sim k_f \\ll k_R$, the energy forcing spectrum $F_E (k)$ is given by $$F_E (k) = \\frac{2\\cQ(k)[2k^2+k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}  \\sim \\frac{2\\cQ(k)k_R^2}{2k^2 k_R^2}  \\sim \\frac{\\cQ(k)}{k^2},$$ and the enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G (k)$ is given by $F_G (k) = 2Q(k)$. It follows that $F_G (k) \\sim 2k^2 F_E (k)$, which suggests a reduced transition wavenumber $k_t\\sim 2k_f$.\n\nThe two extreme cases $\\mu=1$ and $\\mu=0$ indicate that the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ decreases with decreasing $\\mu$ from approximately $k_R^2$ to $2k_f^2$. We can confirm that this is indeed the case by taking the partial derivative with respect to the parameter $\\mu$. The partial derivative reads $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\pD{\\mu}\\fracb{F_G (k)}{F_E (k)} &= \\pD{\\mu}\\fracb{2(1+\\mu^2)\\cQ(k)2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}{2\\cQ(k)[2(1+\\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\\mu)^2 k_R^2]}\\\\\n&= 2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)\\pD{\\mu}\\fracb{1+\\mu^2}{[2(1+\\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\\mu)^2 k_R^2]}\\\\\n&=  2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)\\fracb{2k_R^2 (1-\\mu)(1+\\mu)}{[2(1+\\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\\mu)^2 k_R^2]^2}.\\end{aligned}$$ For $0 < \\mu < 1$, it is easy to see that every factor is positive, and therefore $$\\pD{\\mu}\\fracb{F_G (k)}{F_E (k)} > 0.$$ Consequently, the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ decreases with decreasing $\\mu$. We conclude that if the asymmetric Ekman damping term on the bottom-layer streamfunction $\\gy_2$ indeed suppresses the effective forcing of the bottom-layer potential vorticity, then the ratio $F_G (k)/F_E (k)$ will tend to decrease, thereby indicating a tendency to reduce the transition wavenumber $k_t$.\n\nConclusions and Discussion\n==========================\n\nIn the present paper, we have sought out to explain why the transition from $k^{-3}$ scaling to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling in the Nastrom-Gage spectrum occurs near the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R$, where the atmospheric turbulence is still governed under quasi-geostrophic dynamics instead of three-dimensional dynamics. According to the Tung-Orlando theory [@article:Orlando:2003], the entire Nastrom-Gage spectrum represents a downscale potential enstrophy cascade that co-exists with a downscale energy cascade. The location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is thereby controlled by the ratio $\\gn/\\gee$ of the downscale potential enstrophy flux $\\gn$ over the downscale energy flux $\\gee$ and given by $k_t \\sim \\sqrt{\\gn/\\gee}$. That ratio, in turn, depends on the large-scale forcing and the effect of large-scale dissipation on the injection of potential enstrophy and energy.\n\nWe have shown that in the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model, which is reasonably applicable in the forcing scales, thermal forcing leads to antisymmetric forcing of the potential vorticity layer equations. This, in turn, yields a ratio $\\gn/\\gee$ of the potential enstrophy injection rate $\\gn$ over the energy injection rate $\\gee$ that is approximately equal to $k_R^2$. So, if most of the injected potential enstrophy and energy cascades towards small scales, then the transition wavenumber $k_t$ will be approximately equal to $k_R$.\n\nAt this point, one might object by arguing, drawing from an analogy with two-dimensional turbulence, that the large-scale Ekman dissipation will get rid of most of the injected energy at the forcing range while allowing a considerable amount of potential enstrophy to cascade to small scales. As it turns out, it is far from obvious that the two-layer model behaves in this manner. In general, the Ekman term always dissipates some amount of energy, and may or may not dissipate potential enstrophy, depending on the sign and magnitude of the interlayer spectrum $C_{12} (k)$. We have shown that if the potential energy spectrum $E_P (k)$ dominates the kinetic energy spectrum $E_K  (k)$ in the forcing range, then the downscale potential enstrophy injection rate $\\gn$ will be dampened faster than the downscale energy injection rate $\\gee$. The resulting reduction in the $\\gn/\\gee$ ratio will tend to shift the transition wavenumber $k_t$ towards large scales. This tendency becomes exact, if the forcing used in these simulations is made independent of the flow.\n\nUnfortunately, there is some ambiguity in the results of our direct analysis of the Ekman term, due to the dependence of the direction of the transition wavenumber shift on the spectral distribution of the energy between kinetic and potential energy. Using a random Gaussian forcing model, we have shown that, under the assumption that the Ekman term suppresses forcing predominantly at the bottom layer, the ratio $\\gn/\\gee$ will be decreased, thereby shifting the transition wavenumber $k_t$ to larger scales. While this assumption may seem obvious, on physical grounds, it requires us to disregard the possibility of Ekman dissipation being propagated to the top layer via the nonlinear interlayer interaction. Without a more detailed understanding of the phenomenology of the two-layer model, and especially the interlayer spectrum $C_{12}(k)$, this is as far as we can go on this problem in terms of theory.\n\nAnother problem with our argument is that it is only one-half of the whole story. In order for the injected potential enstrophy and energy to form a steady-state cascade, it is also necessary that the small-scale dissipation terms be able to dissipate the potential enstrophy and energy at the same rate with which they are injected. In a strictly two-dimensional model, this is impossible, because the potential enstrophy and energy fluxes $\\Pi_G (k)$ and $\\Pi_E (k)$ are constrained by the inequality $k^2 \\Pi_E (k) - \\Pi_G (k)<0$, for all wavenumbers $k$ not in the forcing range [@article:Tung:2005; @article:Tung:2005:1]. However, as we have shown previously in @article:Tung:2007:1, the asymmetric Ekman dissipation term can potentially cause this flux inequality to be violated. If that occurs, then a transition from $k^{-3}$ to $k^{-5/3}$ scaling is possible near the wavenumber $k_t$ where the aforementioned flux inequality breaks down. Unfortunately, it is not easy to derive a rigorous necessary and sufficient condition for violating the flux inequality, in the form of a lower bound for $\\nu_E$, without introducing phenomenological assumptions. In light of the controversy with the Tung-Orlando simulation [@article:Smith:2004; @article:Tung:2004; @article:Tung:2007], this energy dissipation sink problem remains an open question. On the other hand, we are quite certain that this flux inequality was successfully violated in the more sophisticated two-mode two-layer quasi-geostrophic model of @article:Smith:2009, which produced coexisting cascades of potential enstrophy and energy consistent with the Tung-Orlando theory. We do not yet have a detailed mathematical understanding of how this violation came about.\n\nUltimately, the question of whether QG models can break the flux inequality is somewhat academic, albeit interesting. As @article:Lindborg:2007 has shown, at scales less than $100$km, the assumptions that underlie the quasi-geostrophic model break down. This breakdown acts in our favor by giving us an anomalous energy dissipation sink at large $k$, thereby further facilitating the breakdown of the flux inequality. What is less obvious is whether there is still an effective potential enstrophy dissipation sink at small scales, occurring either at length scales where the flow is still stratified or via a violation of potential enstrophy conservation at even smaller scales where the flow becomes entirely three-dimensional. If yes, then we have a full accounting of the entire process: quasi-geostrophic dynamics is thus responsible for injecting potential enstrophy and energy at a proportion leading to $k_t \\sim k_R$, and three-dimensional dynamics is responsible for dissipating both at small scales. If no, then the widely accepted interpretation of the $k^{-3}$ part of the Nastrom-Gage spectrum as a downscale potential enstrophy cascade is itself in jeopardy, regardless of whether or not one agrees with all other aspects of the Tung-Orlando theory. An alternate explanation of the Nastrom-Gage spectrum as a downscale helicity cascade (with $k^{-7/3}$ scaling instead of $k^{-3}$) coexisting with a downscale energy cascade is the only remaining hypothesis on the table, if we were to completely rule out quasi-geostrophic dynamics for all length scales [@article:Tsinober:1993; @article:Chkhetiani:1996; @book:Moiseev:1999; @article:Golbraikh:2006].\n\nIt is fair to say that this paper does not resolve all of the outstanding controversies with respect to the Nastrom-Gage spectrum. For example, we have not yet completely resolved the energy dissipation sink issue in the Tung-Orlando simulation, or the question of whether the $k^{-3}$ part of the Nastrom-Gage spectrum is a helicity cascade or a potential enstrophy cascade. In spite of extensive numerical evidence, e.g. by @article:Mahlman:1999, @article:Hamilton:2001, @article:Skamarock:2004, @article:Ohfuchi:2006, and @article:Ohfuchi:2008, I believe that both questions are still open at the present time. Furthermore, within the framework of the theory presented in this paper, we have posed the new open question of the effect of Ekman dissipation on shifting the transition wavenumber away from the Rossby wavenumber $k_R$. Underlying all this, is the theoretical question of whether the location of the transition wavenumber $k_t$ is *flexible* and controlled via the magnitude of the two fluxes associated with two independent coexisting cascades, as proposed by @article:Orlando:2003, or whether it is *inflexible* and pinned down near the Rossby wavenumber $k_R$ by a scaling transition inherent in the nonlinearity, as typified by the Tulloch-Smith SQG model [@article:Smith:2006]. While we are advocating for the flexible placement of the transition wavenumber $k_t$, it is fair to say that the question deserves further scrutiny.\n\nAn anonymous referee has also raised the question of whether gravity waves can play a role in the Nastrom-Gage spectrum, as was conjectured by @article:Dewan:1979 and @article:VanZadt:1982. It is well-known that gravity waves vanish in the quasi-geostrophic limit, therefore they are not expected to be relevant over the quasi-geostrophic range of length scales, as were rigorously determined by @article:Lindborg:2007. According to @article:Nastrom:1986, the agreement between the measured wavenumber spectra and frequency spectra, suggests that the spectrum arises from strong turbulence and not from gravity waves. @article:Nastrom:1985 also noted that \u201cthe energy levels and shapes of the horizontal and vertical energy spectra are not consistent with existing models of internal wave spectra\u201d, with the caveat that the inconsistency could be originating from shortcomings of these internal wave spectral models. Given these arguments against the gravity wave interpretation of the Nastrom-Gage spectrum, and the \u201cfolklore\u201d belief that quasi-geostrophic dynamics does not allow a downscale energy cascade, it was necessary for @article:Orlando:2003 to demonstrate that the entire Nastrom-Gage spectrum can be reproduced entirely by quasi-geostrophic dynamics in order to bolster their hypothesis of coexisting cascades of potential enstrophy and energy, even under very restricted two-dimensional approximations of quasi-geostrophic dynamics. @article:Orlando:2003 however did acknowledge that gravity waves could play a role in enabling the coexistence of the two downscale cascades.\n\nAs for the gravity wave interpretation, many relevant questions are still not settled. For instance, @article:Zagar:2011 point towards a very interesting possibility: Using reprocessed observational data provided by the Japan Meteorological Agency, they showed that after decomposing the total energy into a quasi-geostrophic component and a gravity waves component, the quasi-geostrophic component yields a $k^{-3}$ potential enstrophy cascade contribution spanning the entire range of resolved length scales, and the gravity wave component yields a $k^{-5/3}$ energy cascade contribution coexisting over the same range of scales. The total energy spectrum is thus the linear superposition of the two contributions.\n\nThis picture is consistent with the Tung-Orlando theory and the linear superposition hypothesis proposed by @article:Tung:2005 [@article:Tung:2005:1] and @article:Tung:2006. As explained by @article:Tung:2006, the underlying principles involved are universal and originate from the linearity of the underlying statistical mechanics, so we expect them to remain valid, beyond two-dimensional turbulence, in all related dynamical systems that allow the coexistence of cascades of energy and enstrophy. Under the scenario of coexisting quasi-geostrophic and gravity wave dynamics, indicated by @article:Zagar:2011, the transition wavenumber is still entirely controlled by the injection rate ratio $\\gn/\\gee$, given the confirmed validity of the linear superposition principle. The remaining open question is whether the main results of this paper concerning the injection rates ratio (i.e. $\\gn/\\gee \\sim k_R^2$) can be generalized even beyond quasi-geostrophic models. We believe that further research is needed in that direction.\n\nIt is a pleasure to thank Ka-Kit Tung and Joe Tribbia for discussion and correspondence. The idea of an energy-enstrophy flux inequality was originally communicated to me in e-mail correspondence with Sergey Danilov. All anonymous referees also provided very valuable feedback that went a long way into improving the paper.\n\nThe potential vorticity\u2013streamfunction equations {#app:VorticityStreamfunctionEquations}\n================================================\n\nIn this appendix, we derive the potential vorticity equations Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0 from the relative vorticity equations Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0 and the mid-layer temperature equation Eq.\u00a0. Our goal is to demonstrate that the potential vorticity equations are forced anti-symmetrically, a key property for the argument of the present paper, and that the dissipation terms in the relative vorticity equations retain the same form in the potential vorticity equations. The derivation is dependent on the following properties of the Jacobian $J(a,b)$: $$\\begin{aligned}\nJ&(a, b+c) = J(a, b) + J(a, c),\\\\\nJ&(a+b, c) = J(a, c) + J(b, c),\\\\\nJ&(a, a) = 0 \\text{ and }  J(a, b) = -J(b, a),\\\\\nJ&(\\gl a,\\mu b) = \\gl\\mu  J(a, b),\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\gl$ and $\\mu$ are constants.\n\nThe first step is to solve for the vertical velocity $\\gw$ in the temperature equation Eq.. From the geostrophic constraint $T = (2/h)(\\gy_1-\\gy_2)$ we write the advection term in the temperature equation as: $$\\begin{aligned}\nJ\\left( \\frac{\\gy_1+\\gy_2}{2}, T \\right) &= \\frac{1}{h}[J(\\gy_1, \\gy_1) - J(\\gy_1, \\gy_2) + J(\\gy_2, \\gy_1) - J(\\gy_2, \\gy_2) ]\\\\\n&=  -\\frac{2}{h}J(\\gy_1, \\gy_2).\\end{aligned}$$ It follows that the vertical velocity $\\gw$ reads: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\gw &= -\\frac{f}{N^2}\\left[ \\pderiv{T}{t} + J\\left( \\frac{\\gy_1+\\gy_2}{2}, T \\right) - Q_0 \\right]\\\\\n&= -\\frac{2f}{hN^2}\\left[\\pD{t} (\\gy_1-\\gy_2) - J(\\gy_1, \\gy_2) - \\frac{hQ_0}{2} \\right],\\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\\frac{2f}{h}\\gw = -\\frac{k_R^2}{2}\\left[\\pD{t} (\\gy_1-\\gy_2) - J(\\gy_1, \\gy_2) - \\frac{hQ_0}{2} \\right].$$ Here we have defined the Rossby deformation wavenumber $k_R = 2\\sqrt{2} f/(hN)$.\n\nThe next step is to define the potential vorticities $q_1$ and $q_2$ for the top and bottom layers correspondingly as: $$\\begin{aligned}\nq_1 &=  \\del^2 \\gy_1 + f + \\frac{k_R^2}{2}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1), \\\\\nq_2 &=  \\del^2 \\gy_2 + f - \\frac{k_R^2}{2}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1). \\end{aligned}$$ The advection terms $J(\\gy_1, q_1)$ and $J(\\gy_2, q_2)$ of the potential vorticities with respect to the streamfunctions $\\gy_1$ and $\\gy_2$ are given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\nJ(\\gy_1, q_1) &= J(\\gy_1, \\gz_1+f+(k_R^2/2)(\\gy_2-\\gy_1)) \\\\\n&= J(\\gy_1, \\gz_1+f) + \\frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\\gy_1,\\gy_2),\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\nJ(\\gy_2, q_2) &= J(\\gy_2, \\gz_2+f-(k_R^2/2)(\\gy_2-\\gy_1)) \\\\\n&= J(\\gy_1, \\gz_1+f) + \\frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\\gy_2,\\gy_1)\\\\\n&= J(\\gy_1, \\gz_1+f) - \\frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\\gy_1,\\gy_2).\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, differentiating the top-layer potential vorticity $q_1$ with respect to the time $t$ gives: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\pderiv{q_1}{t} &= \\pderiv{\\gz_1}{t} + \\frac{k_R^2}{2}\\pD{t}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1) \\\\\n&= -J(\\gy_1, \\gz_1+f) - \\frac{2f}{h}\\gw + d_1 + \\frac{k_R^2}{2}\\pD{t}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1)\\\\\n&= -J(\\gy_1, \\gz_1+f) + \\frac{k_R^2}{2}\\left[\\pD{t} (\\gy_1-\\gy_2) - J(\\gy_1, \\gy_2) - \\frac{hQ_0}{2} \\right] + d_1 + \\frac{k_R^2}{2}\\pD{t}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1)\\\\\n&= -J(\\gy_1, \\gz_1+f) - \\frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\\gy_1, \\gy_2) - \\frac{hk_R^2}{4}Q_0 + d_1\\\\\n&= -J(\\gy_1, q_1) - Q + d_1,\\end{aligned}$$ with $Q$ defined as $Q= hk_R^2 Q_0/4$. Likewise, differentiating the bottom-layer potential vorticity $q_2$ with respect to the time $t$ gives: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\pderiv{q_2}{t} &= \\pderiv{\\gz_2}{t} - \\frac{k_R^2}{2}\\pD{t}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1) \\\\\n&= -J(\\gy_2, \\gz_2+f) + \\frac{2f}{h}\\gw + d_2 + e_2 - \\frac{k_R^2}{2}\\pD{t}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1) \\\\\n&= -J(\\gy_2, \\gz_2+f) - \\frac{k_R^2}{2}\\left[\\pD{t} (\\gy_1-\\gy_2) - J(\\gy_1, \\gy_2) - \\frac{hQ_0}{2} \\right] + d_2 + e_2 - \\frac{k_R^2}{2}\\pD{t}(\\gy_2-\\gy_1)\\\\\n&= -J(\\gy_2, \\gz_2+f) + \\frac{k_R^2}{2} J(\\gy_1, \\gy_2) + \\frac{hk_R^2}{4}Q_0 + d_2 + e_2\\\\\n&= -J(\\gy_2, q_2) + Q + d_2 + e_2.\\end{aligned}$$ The governing equations Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0 for the potential vorticity follow.\n\nStreamfunction-forcing spectrum under random Gaussian forcing {#app:StreamfunctionForcingSpectrum}\n=============================================================\n\nLet us consider the case of a generalized multi-layer model forced at each layer $\\ga$ with random Gaussian forcing $f_\\ga$ such that $$\\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfx_1, t_1) f_\\gb (\\bfx_2, t_2)} = 2Q_{\\ga\\gb} (\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2) \\gd (t_1-t_2).$$ From the Novikov-Furutsu theorem [@article:Furutsu:1963; @article:Novikov:1965] we know that, given a functional $R[f]$, the correlation between $f_\\ga$ and $R[f]$ reads $$\\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfx_1, t_1) R[f]} = \\int_{\\bbR^2} \\df{\\bfx_2}\\int_\\bbR \\df{t_2} \\; \\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfx_1, t_1) f_\\gb (\\bfx_2, t_2)} \\avg{\\vderiv{R[f]}{f_\\gb (\\bfx_2, t_2)}}.$$ It should be noted that implied is a space-time approach in which it is the entire forcing history $f$ that is being mapped to a number by the functional $R[f]$. The ensemble average is understood to average over all possible forcing histories. The idea is to treat the streamfunction $\\gy_\\ga$ of layer $\\ga$ at a given point in space-time as a functional of the entire forcing history, and then use the Novikov-Furutsu theorem to evaluate the forcing-streamfunction spectrum $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$. This idea follows a similar argument by @book:McComb:1990 for the three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equation. The argument proceeds as follows:\n\nRecall first the definition of the filtering kernel: $$a^{<k}(\\bfx, t) = \\int_{\\bbR^2} P(k|\\bfx-\\bfy) a(\\bfy, t)\\; \\df{\\bfy}.$$ By definition, the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\phi_{\\ab}(k) &= \\innerf{f_\\ga}{\\gy_\\gb}{k} = \\innerf{f_\\ga}{\\sum_\\gc \\ccL_{\\bc}^{-1} q_\\gc}{k} \n= \\sum_\\gc  L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k) \\innerf{f_\\ga}{q_\\gc}{k}\\\\\n&= \\sum_\\gc  L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k) \\dD{k} \\int_{\\bbR^2}\\df{\\bfx}\\; \\avg{f_\\ga^{<k} (\\bfx,t) q_\\gc^{<k} (\\bfx,t)} \\\\\n&= \\sum_\\gc  L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k) \\dD{k} \\iiint_{(\\bbR^2)^3}\\df{\\bfx}\\df{\\bfy}\\df{\\bfz}\\;  P(k|\\bfx-\\bfy) P(k|\\bfx-\\bfz) \\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfy,t) q_\\gc (\\bfz,t)}.\n\\label{eq:StreamfuncInProgress}\\end{aligned}$$ Using the Novikov-Furutsu theorem, we calculate the forcing-streamfunction correlation $\\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfy,t) q_\\gc (\\bfz,t)}$, and find that it reads: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfy,t) q_\\gc (\\bfz,t)} &= \\int_{\\bbR^2}\\df{\\bfw}\\int_\\bbR\\df{t_0} \\; \\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfy, t) f_{\\gd} (\\bfw,t_0)}\\avg{\\vderiv{q_\\gc (\\bfz, t)}{f_\\gd (\\bfw, t_0)}}\\\\\n&= \\int_{\\bbR^2}\\df{\\bfw}\\int_\\bbR\\df{t_0} \\; 2Q_{\\ad} (\\bfy,\\bfw)\\gd (t-t_0) \\avg{\\vderiv{q_\\gc (\\bfz, t)}{f_\\gd (\\bfw, t_0)}}\\\\\n&= 2\\int_{\\bbR^2}\\df{\\bfw} \\; Q_{\\ad} (\\bfy,\\bfw) \\avg{\\vderiv{q_\\gc (\\bfz, t)}{f_\\gd (\\bfw, t)}}.\n\\label{eq:StreamfuncCorrInProgress}\\end{aligned}$$ To evaluate the variational derivative of potential vorticity $q_\\gc (\\bfz, t)$ with respect to layer forcing $f_\\gd (\\bfw, t_0)$ we first note that, by causality, the potential vorticity $q_{\\gc}(\\bfz, t)$ at time $t$ is related with the initial potential vorticity $q_\\gc (\\bfz, 0)$ at time $t_0 = 0$ by an equation of the form $$q_{\\gc}(\\bfz, t) = q_\\gc (\\bfz, 0)+\\int_0^t \\df{t_0}\\; \\cN_\\gc [q(t_0)](\\bfz) + \\int_0^t \\df{t_0}\\; f_\\gc (\\bfz, t_0).$$ Here, $\\cN_\\gc [q(t_0)](\\bfz)$ represents the combined effect of the nonlinear and dissipation terms. The third integral represents the causal contribution of the forcing term. Let us assume now that $0< \\gt < t$, and differentiate the above equation variationally with respect to $f_\\gd (\\bfw, \\gt)$. We immediately find that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\vderiv{q_{\\gc}(\\bfz, t)}{f_\\gd (\\bfw, \\gt)} &= \\vD{f_\\gd (\\bfw, \\gt)} \\left[ \\int_0^t \\df{t_0}\\; \\cN_\\gc [q(t_0)](\\bfz) + \\int_0^t \\df{t_0}\\; f_\\gc (\\bfz, t_0) \\right] \\\\\n&= \\cA_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, \\gt) + \\cB_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, \\gt),\\end{aligned}$$ with $\\cA_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, \\gt)$ and $\\cB_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, \\gt)$ given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\cA_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, \\gt) &=  \\vD{f_\\gd (\\bfw, \\gt)} \\int_0^t \\df{t_0}\\; \\cN_\\gc [q(t_0)](\\bfz) = \\int_{\\gt}^t \\df{t_0}\\; \\vderiv{\\cN_\\gc [q(t_0)](\\bfz)}{f_\\gd (\\bfw, \\gt)} \\label{eq:TheAThing} \\\\\n\\cB_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, \\gt) &= \\vD{f_\\gd (\\bfw, \\gt)}\\int_0^t \\df{t_0}\\; f_\\gc (\\bfz, t_0)\\\\\n&= \\vD{f_\\gd (\\bfw, \\gt)} \\int_0^t \\df{t_0}\\int_{\\bbR^2}\\df{\\bfz_0} \\; \\gd (\\bfz-\\bfz_0)f_\\gc (\\bfz_0, t_0) \\\\\n&= \\vD{f_\\gd (\\bfw, \\gt)} \\int_\\bbR \\df{t_0}\\int_{\\bbR^2}\\df{\\bfz_0} \\; H(t-t_0) \\gd (\\bfz-\\bfz_0)f_\\gc (\\bfz_0, t_0) \\\\\n&= \\gd_{\\cd} H(\\gt-t) \\gd (\\bfz-\\bfw).\\end{aligned}$$ Here, $H(t)$ is the previously defined Heaviside function. For Eq.\u00a0, we rely on the principle of causality to restrict the integral from $\\gt$ to $t$. It is easy to see that for $t=\\gt$, $\\cA_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, \\gt)$ and $\\cB_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, \\gt)$ simplify to: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\cA_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, t) &= \\int_{t}^t \\df{t_0}\\; \\vderiv{\\cN_\\gc [q(t_0)](\\bfz)}{f_\\gd (\\bfw, \\gt)} = 0,\\\\\n\\cB_{\\cd} (\\bfz, t; \\bfw, t) &= \\frac{1}{2} \\gd_{\\cd} \\gd (\\bfz-\\bfw),\\end{aligned}$$ and therefore the variational derivative of $q_{\\gc}(\\bfz, t)$ with respect to $f_\\gd (\\bfw, t)$ is given by $$\\vderiv{q_{\\gc}(\\bfz, t)}{f_\\gd (\\bfw, t)} =  \\frac{1}{2} \\gd_{\\cd} \\gd (\\bfz-\\bfw).$$ Substituting this result to Eq.\u00a0, we show that the forcing-streamfunction correlation is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfy,t) q_\\gc (\\bfz,t)} &= 2\\int_{\\bbR^2}\\df{\\bfw} \\; Q_{\\ad} (\\bfy,\\bfw) \\avg{\\vderiv{q_\\gc (\\bfz, t)}{f_\\gd (\\bfw, t)}}\\\\\n&= 2\\int_{\\bbR^2}\\df{\\bfw} \\; Q_{\\ad} (\\bfy,\\bfw) \\frac{1}{2} \\gd_{\\cd} \\gd (\\bfz-\\bfw)\\\\\n&= \\int_{\\bbR^2}\\df{\\bfw} \\; Q_{\\ac} (\\bfy,\\bfw) \\gd (\\bfz-\\bfw) = Q_{\\ac} (\\bfy,\\bfz).\\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the forcing-streamfunction spectrum $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ reads $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\phi_{\\ab}(k) &= \\sum_\\gc  L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k) \\dD{k} \\iiint_{(\\bbR^2)^3}\\df{\\bfx}\\df{\\bfy}\\df{\\bfz}\\;  P(k|\\bfx-\\bfy) P(k|\\bfx-\\bfz) \\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfy,t) q_\\gc (\\bfz,t)}\\\\\n&= \\sum_\\gc  L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k) \\dD{k} \\iiint_{(\\bbR^2)^3}\\df{\\bfx}\\df{\\bfy}\\df{\\bfz}\\;  P(k|\\bfx-\\bfy) P(k|\\bfx-\\bfz) Q_{\\ac} (\\bfy,\\bfz)\\\\\n&= \\sum_\\gc \\cQ_{\\ac}(k) L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k).\\end{aligned}$$ The integral above defines the forcing correlation spectrum $\\cQ_{\\ac}(k)$, given by: $$\\cQ_{\\ac}(k) = \\dD{k} \\iiint_{(\\bbR^2)^3}\\df{\\bfx}\\df{\\bfy}\\df{\\bfz}\\;  P(k|\\bfx-\\bfy) P(k|\\bfx-\\bfz) Q_{\\ac} (\\bfy,\\bfz).$$ Our final result for the forcing-streamfunction spectrum is: $$\\phi_{\\ab}(k) = \\sum_\\gc \\cQ_{\\ac}(k) L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k).$$\n\nThe random Gaussian forcing model {#app:RandomGaussianForcing}\n=================================\n\nLet us consider the case of the two-layer quasigeostrophic model forced with $f_1=\\gf$ at the top layer and $f_2=-\\mu \\gf$ at the bottom layer. Here, $\\mu$ is a suppression constant with $0 < \\mu  < 1$ and $\\gf$ is a random Gaussian field that is delta-correlated in time such that: $$\\avg{\\gf (\\bfx_1, t_1) \\gf (\\bfx_2, t_2)} = 2Q (\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2) \\gd (t_1-t_2).$$ From $Q (\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2)$ we define the corresponding correlation spectrum $\\cQ(k)$ as: $$\\cQ(k) = \\dD{k} \\iiint_{(\\bbR^2)^3}\\df{\\bfx}\\df{\\bfy}\\df{\\bfz}\\;  P(k|\\bfx-\\bfy) P(k|\\bfx-\\bfz) Q (\\bfy,\\bfz).$$ It follows that, for $\\ga,\\gb \\in \\{1,2\\}$, $f_\\ga$ and $f_\\gb$ are correlated according to $$\\avg{f_\\ga (\\bfx_1, t_1) f_\\gb (\\bfx_2, t_2)} = 2Q_{\\ab} (\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2) \\gd (t_1-t_2),$$ with the components of $Q_{\\ab}$ given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nQ_{11}(\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2) &= Q(\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2),\\\\\nQ_{12}(\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2) &= Q_{21}(\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2) = -\\mu Q(\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2),\\\\\nQ_{22}(\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2) &= \\mu^2 Q(\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2).\\end{aligned}$$ The spectrum $\\cQ_{\\ab}(k)$ of $Q_{\\ab} (\\bfx_1, \\bfx_2)$ is defined as $$\\cQ_{\\ab}(k) = \\dD{k} \\iiint_{(\\bbR^2)^3}\\df{\\bfx}\\df{\\bfy}\\df{\\bfz}\\;  P(k|\\bfx-\\bfy) P(k|\\bfx-\\bfz) Q_{\\ab} (\\bfy,\\bfz),$$ consequently its components read: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\cQ_{11}(k) &= \\cQ(k), \\\\\n\\cQ_{12}(k) &= \\cQ_{21}(k) = -\\mu \\cQ(k), \\\\\n\\cQ_{22} (k)&= \\mu^2 \\cQ(k).\\end{aligned}$$ In Appendix\u00a0\\[app:StreamfunctionForcingSpectrum\\], we have shown that under general delta-correlated in time random Gaussian forcing, the general form of the forcing-streamfunction spectrum $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ reads: $$\\phi_{\\ab}(k) = \\sum_\\gc \\cQ_{\\ac}(k) L_{\\bc}^{-1}(k).$$ We would now like to reduce this result to the case of the two-layer quasi-geostrophic model. Starting from Eq.\u00a0, a simple calculation shows that the inverse matrix $L_{\\ab}^{-1}(k)$ is given by: $$L_{\\ab}^{-1}(k) = \\frac{-1}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)} \\mattwo{2k^2+k_R^2}{k_R^2}{k_R^2}{2k^2+k_R^2}.$$ We note that the inverse matrix $L_{\\ab}^{-1}(k)$ is defined for all wavenumbers $k>0$. Combining the above two equations we find that the components of the streamfunction-forcing spectrum $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ are: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\phi_{11}(k) &= \\cQ_{11}(k)L^{-1}_{11}(k) + \\cQ_{12}(k)L^{-1}_{12} (k)\n= \\cQ(k) [L_{11}^{-1}(k)-\\mu L_{12}^{-1}(k)] \\\\\n&= \\frac{-\\cQ(k)[2k^2+k_R^2-\\mu k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\\\ \n%% = \\frac{-\\cQ(k)[2k^2+(1-\\mu) k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\\\\n\\phi_{12}(k) &=   \\cQ_{11}(k)L_{21}^{-1}(k) +  \\cQ_{12}(k)L_{22}^{-1} (k)\n= \\cQ(k) [L_{21}^{-1}(k)-\\mu L_{22}^{-1}(k)] \\\\\n&= \\frac{-\\cQ(k)[k_R^2-\\mu (2k^2+k_R^2)]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\\\\n%% = \\frac{-\\cQ(k)[-2\\mu k^2 + (1-\\mu)k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\\\\n\\phi_{21}(k) &=  \\cQ_{21}(k)L_{11}^{-1}(k) +  \\cQ_{22}(k)L_{12}^{-1}(k) \n= \\cQ(k) [-\\mu L_{11}^{-1}(k)+\\mu^2 L_{12}^{-1}(k) ]\\\\\n&= \\frac{-\\cQ(k)[-\\mu (2 k^2+k_R^2) + \\mu^2 k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}, \\\\\n\\phi_{22}(k) &=  \\cQ_{21}(k)L_{21}^{-1}(k) +  \\cQ_{22}(k)L_{22}^{-1}(k) \n= \\cQ(k) [-\\mu L_{21}^{-1}(k)+\\mu^2  L_{22}^{-1}(k)] \\\\\n&= \\frac{-\\cQ(k)[-\\mu k_R^2 + \\mu^2 (2k^2+k_R^2)]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}. \n%% = \\frac{-\\cQ(k)[2\\mu^2 k^2 - \\mu (1-\\mu) k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}. \\\\\\end{aligned}$$ We may therefore write the streamfunction-forcing spectra as: $$\\gf_{\\ab} (k) = \\frac{-\\cQ (k) \\gy_{\\ab} (k)}{2 k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)},$$ with $\\gy_{\\ab}$ given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\gy_{11} (k)  &= (2k^2+k_R^2)-\\mu k_R^2, \\\\\n\\gy_{12} (k)  &= k_R^2-\\mu (2k^2+k_R^2), \\\\\n\\gy_{21} (k)  &= -\\mu (2 k^2+k_R^2) + \\mu^2 k_R^2, \\\\\n\\gy_{22} (k)  &= -\\mu k_R^2 + \\mu^2 (2k^2+k_R^2).\\end{aligned}$$ From the streamfunction-forcing spectra $\\phi_{\\ga\\gb} (k)$ we calculate both the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G(k)$ and the energy forcing spectrum $F_E(k)$ using Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0. An easy calculation gives: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\psi_{11}(k) + \\psi_{22}(k) &= (2k^2+k_R^2)-\\mu k_R^2-\\mu k_R^2 + \\mu^2 (2k^2+k_R^2)\\\\\n&= 2(1+\\mu^2)k^2 + k_R^2 (1-\\mu)^2,\\end{aligned}$$ and therefore, for $F_E(k)$ we find that $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_E (k) &= -2[\\phi_{11}(k) + \\phi_{22}(k)] = \\frac{+2\\cQ(k)[\\psi_{11}(k) + \\psi_{22}(k)]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}\\\\\n&= \\frac{2Q(k)[2(1+\\mu^2) k^2 + (1-\\mu)^2 k_R^2]}{2k^2 (k^2+k_R^2)}.\\label{eq:theFE}\\end{aligned}$$ For the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G(k)$, we use a slightly more subtle argument, and we have: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_G (k) &= 2\\sum_{\\ga\\gb} L_{\\ab}(k) \\phi_{\\ab}(k)\n=  2\\sum_{\\ga\\gb} L_{\\ab}(k) \\left[ \\sum_\\gc L_{\\bc}^{-1} (k) \\cQ_{\\ac}(k) \\right]\\\\\n%% &= 2\\sum_{\\ga\\gb\\gc} L_{\\ab}(k) L_{\\bc}^{-1} (k) \\cQ_{\\ac}(k) \n&=  2\\sum_{\\ac} \\left[ \\sum_\\gb L_{\\ab}(k) L_{\\bc}^{-1} (k) \\right]\\cQ_{\\ac}(k)\n= 2\\sum_{\\ac} \\gd_{\\ac}\\cQ_{\\ac}(k)   \\\\\n&= 2\\sum_{\\ga} \\cQ_{\\ga\\ga}(k) \n= 2[\\cQ_{11}(k) + \\cQ_{22}(k)] \\\\ \n&= 2(1+\\mu^2) \\cQ(k). \\label{eq:theFG}\\end{aligned}$$ It is worth noting that the potential enstrophy forcing spectrum $F_G(k)$ is independent of the matrix $L_{\\ab}(k)$ as long as $L_{\\ab}(k)$ is non-singular. The energy forcing spectrum $F_E(k)$, on the other hand, is dependent on the inverse matrix $L_{\\ab}^{-1}(k)$. Eq.\u00a0 and Eq.\u00a0 are the main results of this appendix.\n"}
-{"text": "---\naddress:\n- 'Institute for Advanced Study, Fuld Hall, 1 Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ, USA.'\n- 'Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 85 Hoegiro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-722, Korea'\n- 'University of Wisconsin-Madison, Van Vleck Hall, 480 Lincoln Drive, Madison, WI, USA.'\nauthor:\n- June Huh and Botong Wang\ntitle: 'Enumeration of points, lines, planes, etc.'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nOne of the earliest results in enumerative combinatorial geometry is the following theorem of de Bruijn and Erd\u0151s [@deBruijn-Erdos]:\n\n> *Every finite set of points $E$ in a projective plane determines at least $|E|$ lines, unless $E$ is contained in a line.*\n\nIn other words, if $E$ is not contained in a line, then the number of lines in the plane containing at least two points in $E$ is at least $|E|$. See [@deWitteI; @deWitteII] for an interesting account of its history and a survey of known proofs.\n\nThe following more general statement, conjectured by Motzkin in [@MotzkinThesis], was subsequently proved by many in various settings:\n\n> *Every finite set of points $E$ in a projective space determines at least $|E|$ hyperplanes, unless $E$ is contained in a hyperplane.*\n\nMotzkin proved the above for $E$ in real projective spaces [@Motzkin]. Basterfield and Kelly [@Basterfield-Kelly] showed the statement in general, and Greene [@Greene] strengthened the result by showing that there is a *matching* from $E$ to the set of hyperplanes determined by $E$, unless $E$ is contained in a hyperplane:\n\n> *For every point in $E$ one can choose a hyperplane containing the point in such a way that no hyperplane is chosen twice.*\n\nMason [@Mason] and Heron [@Heron] obtained similar results by different methods.\n\nLet $\\mathbb{P}$ be the projectivization of an $r$-dimensional vector space over a field, $E \\subseteq \\mathbb{P}$ be a finite subset not contained in any hyperplane, and $\\mathscr{L}$ be the poset of subspaces of $\\mathbb{P}$ spanned by the subsets of $E$. The poset $\\mathscr{L}$ is a graded lattice, and its rank function satisfies the submodular inequality $$\\text{rank}(F_1)+\\text{rank}(F_2) \\ge \\text{rank}(F_1 \\lor F_2)+\\text{rank}(F_1 \\land F_2) \\ \\ \\text{for all $F_1,F_2 \\in \\mathscr{L}$}.$$ For a nonnegative integer $p$, we write $\\mathscr{L}^p$ for the set of rank $p$ elements in the lattice $\\mathscr{L}$. Thus $\\mathscr{L}^1$ is the set of points in $E$, $\\mathscr{L}^2$ is the set of lines joining points in $E$, and $\\mathscr{L}^r$ is the set with one element, $\\mathbb{P}$. Graded posets obtained in this way are standard examples of *geometric lattices* [@Welsh]. These include the lattice of all subsets of a finite set (Boolean lattices), the lattice of all partitions of a finite set (partition lattices), and the lattice of all subspaces of a finite vector space (projective geometries). In [@Dowling-WilsonII], Dowling and Wilson further generalized the above results for geometric lattices:\n\n> *For every nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\\frac{r}{2}$, there is a matching from the set of rank at most $p$ elements of $\\mathscr{L}$ to the set of corank at most $p$ elements of $\\mathscr{L}$.*\n\nThe matching can be chosen to match the minimum of $\\mathscr{L}$ to the maximum of $\\mathscr{L}$, and hence the above statement covers all the results introduced above. Kung gave another proof of the same result from the point of view of Radon transformations in [@KungRadonI; @KungRadon].\n\nIn [@Dowling-WilsonI; @Dowling-WilsonII], Dowling and Wilson stated the following \u201ctop-heavy\u201d conjecture.\n\n\\[MainConjecture\\] Let $\\mathscr{L}$ be a geometric lattice of rank $r$.\n\n(1) For every nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\\frac{r}{2}$, $$|\\mathscr{L}^p| \\le |\\mathscr{L}^{r-p}|.$$ In fact, there is an injective map $\\iota:\\mathscr{L}^p \\to \\mathscr{L}^{r-p}$ satisfying $x \\le \\iota(x)$ for all $x$.\n\n(2) For every nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\\frac{r}{2}$, $$|\\mathscr{L}^p| \\le |\\mathscr{L}^{p+1}|.$$ In fact, there is an injective map $\\iota: \\mathscr{L}^p \\to \\mathscr{L}^{p+1}$ satisfying $x \\le \\iota(x)$ for all $x$.\n\nThe conjecture was reproduced in [@StanleyEC Exercise 3.37] and [@Kung-Rota-Yan Exercise 3.5.7]. For an overview and related results, see [@Aigner]. When $\\mathscr{L}$ is a Boolean lattice or a projective geometry, the validity of Conjecture \\[MainConjecture\\] is a classical result. We refer to [@LefschetzBook] and [@StanleyAC] for recent expositions. In these cases, Conjecture \\[MainConjecture\\] implies that $\\mathscr{L}$ has the *Sperner property*:\n\n> *The maximal number of incomparable elements in $\\mathscr{L}$ is the maximum of $|\\mathscr{L}^p|$ over $p$.*\n\nKung proved the second part of Conjecture \\[MainConjecture\\] for partition lattices in [@KungRadonII]. Later he showed the second part of Conjecture \\[MainConjecture\\] for $p\\le 2$ when every line contains the same number of points [@KungLinesPlanes].\n\nWe now state our main result. As before, we write $\\mathbb{P}$ for the projectivization of an $r$-dimensional vector space over a field.\n\n\\[MainTheoremI\\] Let $E \\subseteq \\mathbb{P}$ be a finite subset not contained in any hyperplane, and $\\mathscr{L}$ be the poset of subspaces of $\\mathbb{P}$ spanned by subsets of $E$.\n\n(1) For all nonnegative integers $p \\le q$ satisfying $p+q \\le r$, $$|\\mathscr{L}^{p}| \\le |\\mathscr{L}^{r-q}|.$$ In fact, there is an injective map $\\iota:\\mathscr{L}^p \\to \\mathscr{L}^{r-q}$ satisfying $x \\le \\iota(x)$ for all $x$.\n\n(2) For every positive integer $p$ less than $\\frac{r}{2}$, $$0 \\le |\\mathscr{L}^{p+1}|-|\\mathscr{L}^{p}| \\le \\Big(|\\mathscr{L}^{p}|-|\\mathscr{L}^{p-1}|\\Big)^{\\langle p \\rangle}.$$ Equivalently, $|\\mathscr{L}^0|,|\\mathscr{L}^1|-|\\mathscr{L}^0|,\\ldots,|\\mathscr{L}^{p+1}|-|\\mathscr{L}^p|$ is the $h$-vector of a shellable simplicial complex.\n\nFor undefined notions in the second statement, we refer to [@StanleyCC Chapter II].\n\nThe first part of Theorem \\[MainTheoremI\\] settles Conjecture \\[MainConjecture\\] for all $\\mathscr{L}$ realizable over some field. We believe this to be a good demonstration of the power of the main ingredient in the proof, the decomposition theorem package for intersection complexes [@Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne].\n\nModular geometric lattices, such as Boolean lattices or finite projective geometries, satisfies a stronger matching property:\n\n> *For every $p$, there is an injective or surjective map $\\iota: \\mathscr{L}^p \\to \\mathscr{L}^{p+1}$ satisfying $x \\le \\iota(x)$.*\n\nAs noted before, this implies that modular geometric lattices have the Sperner property.\n\nDilworth and Greene constructed in [@Dilworth-Greene] a configuration of $21$ points in any $10$-dimensional projective space over a field with the property that there is no injective or surjective map $$\\iota: \\mathscr{L}^6 \\to \\mathscr{L}^{7}, \\qquad x \\le \\iota(x).$$ Canfield [@Canfield] found such \u201cno matching\u201d successive rank level sets as above in partition lattices with sufficiently many elements (exceeding $10^{10^{20}}$). These geometric lattices satisfy Conjecture \\[MainConjecture\\] but do not have the Sperner property.\n\nRota conjectured that the sizes of the rank level sets of a geometric lattice form a unimodal sequence [@Rota; @Rota-Harper]: $$|\\mathscr{L}^0|\\le \\cdots \\le |\\mathscr{L}^{p-1}|\\le|\\mathscr{L}^p|\\ge|\\mathscr{L}^{p+1}|\\ge \\cdots \\ge |\\mathscr{L}^r| \\ \\ \\text{for some $p$.}$$ Stronger versions of this conjecture were proposed by Mason [@Mason]. The unimodality for the \u201cupper half\u201d remains as an outstanding open problem.\n\nLet $\\lambda$ be a partition of a positive integer, which we view as a Young diagram [@FultonYoung]. For example, the partition $(4,2,1)$ of $7$ corresponds to the Young diagram $$\\yng(4,2,1)$$ *Young\u2019s lattice* associated to $\\lambda$ is the graded poset $\\mathscr{L}_\\lambda$ of all partitions whose Young diagram fit inside $\\lambda$. The poset $\\mathscr{L}_\\lambda$ is usually not a geometric lattice, but Bj\u00f6rner and Ekedahl [@Bjorner-Ekedahl] showed that $\\mathscr{L}_\\lambda$ satisfies both conclusions of Conjecture \\[MainConjecture\\] when $r$ is the number of boxes in $\\lambda$:\n\n(1) For $p$ less than $\\frac{r}{2}$, there is an injective map $\\iota:\\mathscr{L}^p \\to \\mathscr{L}^{r-p}$ satisfying $x \\le \\iota(x)$ for all $x$.\n\n(2) For $p$ less than $\\frac{r}{2}$, there is an injective map $\\iota: \\mathscr{L}^p \\to \\mathscr{L}^{p+1}$ satisfying $x \\le \\iota(x)$ for all $x$.\n\nHowever, according to Stanton [@Stanton], Young\u2019s lattice for the partition $(8, 8, 4, 4)$ defines a nonunimodal sequence $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\Big(|\\mathscr{L}_\\lambda^0|,\\ |\\mathscr{L}_\\lambda^1|,\\ |\\mathscr{L}_\\lambda^2|,\\ \\ldots,\\ |\\mathscr{L}_\\lambda^{24}|\\Big)=\\\\\n\\Big(1,\\ 1,\\ 2,\\ 3,\\ 5,\\ 6,\\ 9,\\ 11,\\ 15,\\ 17,\\ 21,\\ 23,\\ 27,\\ 28,\\ 31,\\ 30,\\ 31,\\ 27,\\ 24,\\ 18,\\ 14,\\ 8,\\ 5,\\ 2,\\ 1\\Big).\\end{gathered}$$ Face lattices of simplicial polytopes behaves similarly, starting from dimension $20$ [@Billera-Lee; @Bjorner]. See [@Ziegler Chapter 8] for a discussion of unimodality in the case of polytopes.\n\nThe graded M\u00f6bius algebra {#Section2}\n=========================\n\nWe use the language of matroids, and use [@Welsh] and [@Oxley] as basic references. Let $r$ and $n$ be positive integers, and let $\\mathrm{M}$ be a rank $r$ simple matroid on the ground set $$E=\\{1,\\ldots,n\\}.$$ Write $\\mathscr{L}$ for the lattice of flats of $\\mathrm{M}$. We define a graded analogue of the M\u00f6bius algebra for $\\mathscr{L}$.\n\nIntroduce symbols $y_F$, one for each flat $F$ of $\\mathrm{M}$, and construct vector spaces $$B^p(\\mathrm{M})=\\bigoplus_{F \\in \\mathscr{L}^p} \\mathbb{Q} \\hspace{0.5mm} y_F, \\quad B^*(\\mathrm{M})=\\bigoplus_{F \\in \\mathscr{L}} \\mathbb{Q} \\hspace{0.5mm} y_F.$$ We equip $B^*(\\mathrm{M})$ with the structure of a commutative graded algebra over $\\mathbb{Q}$ by setting $$\\arraycolsep=1.1pt\\def\\arraystretch{1.3}\ny_{F_1} y_{F_2}=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{cl} y_{F_1 \\lor F_2} & \\quad \\text{if $\\text{rank}(F_1)+\\text{rank}(F_2)=\\text{rank}(F_1 \\lor F_2)$,}\\\\ 0 & \\quad \\text{if $\\text{rank}(F_1)+\\text{rank}(F_2)>\\text{rank}(F_1 \\lor F_2)$.}\\end{array}\\right.$$ For simplicity, we write $y_1,\\ldots,y_n$ instead of $y_{\\{1\\}},\\ldots,y_{\\{n\\}}$.\n\nMaeno and Numata introduced this algebra in a slightly different form in [@Maeno-Numata], who used it to show that modular geometric lattices have the Sperner property. Note that $B^*(\\mathrm{M})$ is generated by $B^1(\\mathrm{M})$ as an algebra: If $I_F$ is any basis of a flat $F$ of $\\mathrm{M}$, then $$y_F=\\prod_{i \\in I_F} y_i.$$ Unlike its ungraded counterpart, which is isomorphic to the product of $\\mathbb{Q}$\u2019s as a $\\mathbb{Q}$-algebra [@Solomon], the graded M\u00f6bius algebra $B^*(\\mathrm{M})$ has a nontrivial algebra structure. Define $$L=\\sum_{i \\in E} y_i.$$ We deduce Theorem \\[MainTheoremI\\] from the following algebraic statement. Similar injectivity properties have appeared in the context of Kac-Moody Schubert varieties [@Bjorner-Ekedahl] and toric hyperk\u00e4hler varieties [@Hausel].\n\n\\[MainTheoremII\\] For nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\\frac{r}{2}$, the multiplication map $$B^p(\\mathrm{M}) \\longrightarrow B^{r-p}(\\mathrm{M}), \\qquad \\xi \\longmapsto L^{r-2p} \\ \\xi$$ is injective, when $\\mathrm{M}$ is realizable over some field.\n\nIt follows that, for nonnegative integers $p \\le q$ satisfying $p+q \\le r$, the multiplication map $$B^p(\\mathrm{M}) \\longrightarrow B^{r-q}(\\mathrm{M}), \\qquad \\xi \\longmapsto L^{r-p-q} \\ \\xi$$ is injective, when $\\mathrm{M}$ is realizable over some field. To deduce the first part of Theorem \\[MainTheoremI\\] from this, consider the matrix of the multiplication map with respect to the standard bases of the source and the target. Entries of this matrix are labeled by pairs of elements of $\\mathscr{L}$, and all the entries corresponding to incomparable pairs are zero. The matrix has full rank, so there is a maximal square submatrix with nonzero determinant. In the standard expansion of this determinant, there must be a nonzero term, and the permutation corresponding to this term produces the injective map $\\iota$. The second part of Theorem \\[MainTheoremI\\] also follows from Theorem \\[MainTheoremII\\]. To see this, note that the algebra $B^*(\\mathrm{M})$ is generated by its degree $1$ elements, and apply Macaulay\u2019s theorem to the quotient of $B^*(\\mathrm{M})$ by the ideal generated by $L$ [@StanleyCC Chapter II, Corollary 2.4].\n\nTheorem \\[MainTheoremII\\] holds without the assumption of realizability.\n\nLet $\\mathrm{M}$ be as before, and let $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ be a simple matroid on the ground set $$\\overline{E}=\\{0,1,\\ldots,n\\}.$$ Let $\\overline{\\mathscr{L}}$ be the lattice of flats of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$. We suppose that $\\mathrm{M}=\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}/0$, that is, $\\mathrm{M}$ is obtained from $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ by contracting the element $0$.\n\nIntroduce variables $x_{\\overline{F}}$, one for each non-empty proper flat $\\overline{F}$ of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$, and set $$S_{\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}}=\\mathbb{Q}[x_{\\overline{F}}]_{\\overline{F} \\neq \\varnothing, \\overline{F} \\neq \\overline{E},\\overline{F} \\in \\overline{\\mathscr{L}}}.$$ The *Chow ring* $A^*(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}})$ is the quotient of $S_{\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}}$ by the ideal generated by the linear forms $$\\sum_{i_1 \\in \\overline{F}} x_{\\overline{F}} - \\sum_{i_2 \\in \\overline{F}} x_{\\overline{F}},$$ one for each pair of distinct elements $i_1$ and $i_2$ of $\\overline{E}$, and the quadratic monomials $$x_{\\overline{F}_1}x_{\\overline{F}_2},$$ one for each pair of incomparable non-empty proper flats of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$.\n\nThe algebra $A^*(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}})$ and its generalizations were studied by Feichtner and Yuzvinsky in [@Feichtner-Yuzvinsky]. For every $i$ in $E$, we define an element of $A^1(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}})$ by setting $$\\beta_i=\\sum_{\\overline{F}} x_{\\overline{F}},$$ where the sum is over all flats $\\overline{F}$ of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ that contain $0$ and do not contain $i$. The linear relations show that we may equivalently define $$\\beta_i=\\sum_{\\overline{F}} x_{\\overline{F}},$$ where the sum is over all flats $\\overline{F}$ of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ that contain $i$ and do not contain $0$. We record here three basic implications of the defining relations of $A^*(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}})$:\n\n(1) When $\\overline{F}$ is a non-empty proper flat of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ containing exactly one of $i$ and $0$, $$\\beta_i \\cdot x_{\\overline{F}}=0.$$ This follows from the quadratic monomial relations.\n\n(2) For every element $i$ in $E$, $$\\beta_i \\cdot \\beta_i=0.$$ This follows from the previous statement.\n\n(3) For any two maximal chains of non-empty proper flats of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$, say $\\{\\overline{F}_k\\}_{1\\le k}$ and $\\{\\overline{G}_k\\}_{1\\le k}$, $$\\prod_{k=1}^r x_{\\overline{F}_k} =\\prod_{k=1}^r x_{\\overline{G}_k} \\neq 0.$$\n\nThe proofs of (R1) and (R2) are straightforward. The proof of (R3) can be found in [@Adiprasito-Huh-Katz Section 5].\n\n\\[PhiHom\\] There is a unique injective graded $\\mathbb{Q}$-algebra homomorphism $$\\varphi:B^*(\\mathrm{M}) \\longrightarrow A^*(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}), \\qquad y_i \\longmapsto \\beta_i.$$\n\nFirst, we show that there is a well-defined $\\mathbb{Q}$-linear map $$\\varphi:B^*(\\mathrm{M}) \\longrightarrow A^*(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}), \\qquad y_F \\longmapsto \\prod_{i\\in I_F} \\beta_i,$$ where $I_F$ is any basis of a flat $F$ of $\\mathrm{M}$. In other words, if $J_F$ is any other basis of $F$, then $$\\prod_{i \\in I_F} \\beta_i =\\prod_{i \\in J_F} \\beta_i.$$ Since any basis of $F$ can be obtained from any other basis of $F$ by a sequence of elementary exchanges, it is enough to check the equality in the special case when $I_F \\setminus J_F=\\{1\\}$ and $J_F \\setminus I_F =\\{2\\}$. Assuming that this is the case, we write the left-hand side of the claimed equality by $$\\Big(\\prod_{i \\in I_F \\cap J_F} \\beta_i \\Big)\\Big(\\sum_{\\overline{G}} x_{\\overline{G}}\\Big),$$ where the sum is over all non-empty proper flats $\\overline{G}$ of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ that contain $0$ and does not contain $1$. The relation (R1) shows that we may take the sum only over those $\\overline{G}$ satisfying $$0 \\in \\overline{G}, \\ \\ 1 \\notin \\overline{G}, \\ \\ \\text{and} \\ \\ I_F \\cap J_F \\subseteq \\overline{G}.$$ Since $I_F \\cup \\{0\\}$ and $J_F \\cup \\{0\\}$ are bases of the same flat of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$, the above condition is equivalent to $$0 \\in \\overline{G}, \\ \\ 2 \\notin \\overline{G}, \\ \\ \\text{and} \\ \\ I_F \\cap J_F \\subseteq \\overline{G}.$$ This proves the claimed equality, which shows that $\\varphi$ is a well-defined linear map.\n\nSecond, we show that $\\varphi$ is a ring homomorphism. Given flats $F_1$ and $F_2$ of $\\mathrm{M}$, we show $$\\Big(\\prod_{i \\in I_{F_1}} \\beta_i\\Big) \\Big( \\prod_{i \\in I_{F_2}} \\beta_i \\Big)=0 \\ \\ \\text{when the rank of $F_1 \\lor F_2$ is less than $|I_{F_1}|+|I_{F_2}|$.}$$ If the independent sets $I_{F_1}$ and $I_{F_2}$ intersect, this follows from the relation (R2). If otherwise, the condition on the rank of $F_1 \\lor F_2$ implies that there are two distinct bases of $F_1 \\lor F_2$ contained in $I_{F_1} \\cup I_{F_2}$, say $$I_{F_1 \\lor F_2} \\subseteq I_{F_1} \\cup I_{F_2} \\ \\  \\text{and} \\ \\ J_{F_1 \\lor F_2} \\subseteq I_{F_1} \\cup I_{F_2}.$$ Using the first part of the proof, once again from the relation (R2), we deduce that $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\Big(\\prod_{i \\in I_{F_1}} \\beta_i\\Big) \\Big( \\prod_{i \\in I_{F_2}} \\beta_i \\Big)&=\n\\Big(\\prod_{i \\in I_{F_1\\lor F_2}} \\beta_i\\Big) \\Big( \\prod_{i \\in I_{F_1} \\cup I_{F_2} \\setminus I_{F_1\\lor F_2}} \\beta_i \\Big)\\\\\n&=\n\\Big(\\prod_{i \\in J_{F_1\\lor F_2}} \\beta_i\\Big) \\Big( \\prod_{i \\in I_{F_1} \\cup I_{F_2} \\setminus I_{F_1\\lor F_2}} \\beta_i \\Big)=\n0.\\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof that $\\varphi$ is a ring homomorphism.\n\nThird, we show that $\\varphi$ is injective in degree $r$. Choose any ordered basis $\\{i_1,\\ldots,i_r\\}$ of $\\mathrm{M}$. For each $q=1,\\ldots,r$, we set $$\\overline{G}_q=\\text{the closure of $\\Big\\{0,i_1,\\ldots,i_{q-1}\\Big\\}$  in $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$}.$$ We deduce from the relation (R1) that $$\\Big(\\beta_{i_{1}} \\cdots\\beta_{i_{r-1}} \\Big)\\beta_{i_r} =\n\\Big( \\beta_{i_{1}} \\cdots\\beta_{i_{r-1}} \\Big)x_{\\overline{G}_r}.$$ Similarly, for any positive integer $q \\le r$, we have $$\\Big( \\beta_{i_{1}} \\cdots\\beta_{i_{q-2}}\\beta_{i_{q-1}} \\Big)x_{\\overline{G}_q}\n=\\Big( \\beta_{i_{1}} \\cdots\\beta_{i_{q-2}} \\Big)x_{\\overline{G}_{q-1}}x_{\\overline{G}_q}=x_{\\overline{G}_1}\\cdots x_{\\overline{G}_{q-1}}x_{\\overline{G}_q},$$ since $\\overline{G}_{q-1}$ is the only flat of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ containing $\\overline{G}_{q-1}$, comparable to $\\overline{G}_q$, and not containing $i_{q-1}$. Combining the above formulas, we deduce from the relation (R3) that $$\\beta_{i_{1}} \\cdots  \\beta_{i_{r}} =x_{\\overline{G}_1}\\cdots x_{\\overline{G}_r}  \\neq 0.$$ This proves that $\\varphi$ is injective in degree $r$.\n\nLast, we show that $\\varphi$ is injective in any degree $q$ less than $r$. For this we analyze the bilinear map given by the multiplication $$\\varphi \\Big(B^{q}(\\mathrm{M})\\Big) \\times \\bigoplus_{\\overline{G}} \\mathbb{Q}\\hspace{0.5mm} x_{\\overline{G}} \\longrightarrow A^{q+1}(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}),$$ where the sum is over all rank $q+1$ flats $\\overline{G}$ of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ containing $0$. For any independent set $\\{i_1,\\ldots,i_{q}\\}$ of $\\mathrm{M}$, we claim that, for any $\\overline{G}$ as in the previous sentence, $$\\Big(\\beta_{i_{1}}\\cdots   \\beta_{i_{q}} \\Big)x_{\\overline{G}}\\neq 0 \\ \\ \\text{if and only if $\\overline{G}$ is the closure of $\\Big\\{0,i_1,\\ldots,i_{q}\\Big\\}$  in $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$}.$$ The \u201cif\u201d statement follows from the analysis made above. For the \u201conly if\u201d statement, suppose that the product is nonzero. Since $\\overline{G}$ contains $0$, it must contain $i_1,\\ldots,i_{q}$ by the relation (R1). Since $\\overline{G}$ and the closure both have the same rank, we have $$\\overline{G}=\\text{the closure of $\\Big\\{0,i_1,\\ldots,i_{q}\\Big\\}$  in $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$}.$$ This proves the claimed equivalence, and it follows that the image of the basis $\\{y_F\\}$ of $B^q(\\mathrm{M})$ under $\\varphi$ is a linearly independent in $A^q(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}})$.\n\nThe simplex, the cube, and the permutohedron\n============================================\n\nIn this section, we give a toric preparation for the proof of our main result, Theorem \\[MainTheoremII\\]. For undefined terms in toric geometry and intersection theory, we refer to [@FultonToric] and [@FultonIntersection]. All the Chow groups and rings will have rational coefficients.\n\nAs in the previous section, we fix a positive integer $n$ and work with the sets $$E=\\{1,\\ldots,n\\} \\ \\ \\text{and} \\ \\ \\overline{E}=\\{0,1,\\ldots,n\\}.$$ Let $\\mathbb{Z}^{\\overline{E}}$ be the abelian group generated by the basis vectors $\\mathbf{e}_i$ corresponding to $i \\in \\overline{E}$. For an arbitrary subset $\\overline{I} \\subseteq \\overline{E}$, we define $$\\mathbf{e}_{\\overline{I}}=\\sum_{i \\in \\overline{I}} \\mathbf{e}_i.$$ We associate to $\\overline{E}$ the abelian group $N_{\\overline{E}}=\\mathbb{Z}^{\\overline{E}}/ \\mathbb{Z}\\hspace{0.5mm} \\mathbf{e}_{\\overline{E}}$ and the vector space $N_{\\overline{E},\\mathbb{R}}=\\mathbb{R}^{\\overline{E}}/ \\mathbb{R}\\hspace{0.5mm} \\mathbf{e}_{\\overline{E}}$.\n\n(1) Let $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{S}_n) \\subseteq N_{\\overline{E},\\mathbb{R}}$ be the image of the normal fan of the standard $n$-dimensional simplex $$\\mathrm{S}_n=\\text{conv}\\Big\\{ \\mathbf{e}_0, \\mathbf{e}_1,\\ldots, \\mathbf{e}_n\\Big\\} \\subseteq \\mathbb{R}^{\\overline{E}}.$$ There are $(n+1)$ maximal cones in $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{S}_n)$, one for each maximal proper subset $\\overline{I}$ of $\\overline{E}$: $$\\sigma_{\\overline{I}}=\\text{cone}\\Big\\{\\mathbf{e}_i \\mid i \\in \\overline{I}\\Big\\} \\subseteq N_{\\overline{E},\\mathbb{R}}.$$ This fan defines the $n$-dimensional projective space $\\mathbb{P}^n$, whose homogeneous coordinates are labeled by $i \\in \\overline{E}$.\n\n(2) Let $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{C}_n) \\subseteq \\mathbb{R}^E$ be the normal fan of the standard $n$-dimensional cube $$\\mathrm{C}_n=\\text{conv}\\Big\\{ \\pm \\mathbf{e}_1,\\ldots,\\pm \\mathbf{e}_n\\Big\\} \\subseteq \\mathbb{R}^E.$$ There are $2^n$ maximal cones in $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{C}_n)$, one for each subset $I$ of $E$: $$\\sigma_I=\\text{cone}\\Big\\{\\mathbf{e}_i \\mid i \\in I\\Big\\}-\\text{cone}\\Big\\{\\mathbf{e}_i \\mid i \\notin I\\Big\\} \\subseteq \\mathbb{R}^E.$$ This fan defines the product of $n$ projective lines $(\\mathbb{P}^1)^n$, whose multi-homogeneous coordinates are labeled by $i \\in E$.\n\n(3) Let $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{P}_n) \\subseteq N_{\\overline{E},\\mathbb{R}}$ be the image of the normal fan of the $n$-dimensional permutohedron $$\\mathrm{P}_n=\\text{conv}\\Big\\{(x_0,\\ldots,x_n) \\mid \\text{$x_0,\\ldots,x_n$ is a permutation of $0,\\ldots,n$}\\Big\\} \\subseteq \\mathbb{R}^{\\overline{E}}.$$ There are $(n+1)!$ maximal cones in $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{P}_n)$, one for each maximal chain $\\mathscr{I}$ in $2^{\\overline{E}}$: $$\\sigma_{\\mathscr{I}}=\\text{cone}\\Big\\{\\mathbf{e}_{\\overline{I}} \\mid \\overline{I} \\in \\mathscr{I}\\Big\\}  \\subseteq N_{\\overline{E},\\mathbb{R}}.$$ This fan defines the $n$-dimensional permutohedral space, denoted $X_{A_n}$. See [@Batyrev-Blume] for a detailed study of $X_{A_n}$ and its analogues for other root systems.\n\nThe inclusion $\\mathbb{Z}^E \\subseteq \\mathbb{Z}^{\\overline{E}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\\psi^{-1}:\\mathbb{R}^E \\longrightarrow N_{\\overline{E},\\mathbb{R}}.$$ This identifies the underlying vector spaces of the normal fans $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{S}_n)$, $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{P}_n)$, $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{C}_n)$: $$\\raisebox{-0.5\\height}{\\includegraphics{commutative-diagram1}}$$ We observe that $\\textrm{id}$ and $\\psi$ induce morphisms between the fans and their toric varieties $$\\raisebox{-0.5\\height}{\\includegraphics{commutative-diagram2}}$$ The morphism $p_1$ is the standard barycentric subdivision. We check that $p_2$ is a subdivision.\n\nThe isomorphism $\\psi$ induces a morphism $p_2$.\n\nIn other words, the image of a cone in $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{P}_n)$ under $\\psi$ is contained in a cone in $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{C}_n)$.\n\nFor each $i \\in E$, define $\\psi_i$ as the composition of $\\psi$ with the $i$-th projection $$\\psi_i=\\text{proj}_i\\circ \\psi, \\qquad \\text{proj}_i:\\mathbb{R}^E \\longrightarrow \\mathbb{R}^{\\{i\\}}\\simeq \\mathbb{R}.$$ For any subset $\\overline{I} \\subseteq \\overline{E}$, we have $$\\arraycolsep=1.1pt\\def\\arraystretch{1.3}\n\\psi_i(\\mathbf{e}_{\\overline{I}})=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{rl} \\mathbf{e}_i&\\quad \\text{if $\\overline{I}$ contains $i$ and does not contain $0$,} \\\\ -\\mathbf{e}_i&\\quad  \\text{if $\\overline{I}$ contains $0$ and does not contain $i$,} \\\\ 0&\\quad \\text{if otherwise.} \\end{array}\\right.$$ It is enough to check that $\\psi_i$ induces a morphism $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{P}_n) \\longrightarrow \\Sigma(\\mathrm{C}_1)$.\n\nRecall that any nonzero cone in the normal fan of $\\textrm{P}_n$ is of the form $$\\sigma_\\mathscr{I}=\\text{cone}\\Big\\{\\mathbf{e}_{\\overline{I}} \\mid \\overline{I} \\in \\mathscr{I}\\Big\\},$$ where $\\mathscr{I}$ is a non-empty chain in $2^{\\overline{E}}$. Viewing $\\mathscr{I}$ as an ordered collection of sets, we see that $$\\arraycolsep=1.1pt\\def\\arraystretch{1.3}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n&\\text{$\\psi_i(\\sigma_\\mathscr{I})$ is contained in the cone generated by $\\mathbf{e}_i$ \n if $i$ appears before $0$ in $\\mathscr{I}$, and}\\\\\n&\\text{$\\psi_i(\\sigma_\\mathscr{I})$ is contained in the cone generated by $-\\mathbf{e}_i$ \n if $i$ appears after $0$ in $\\mathscr{I}$}.\n \\end{array}\\right.$$ Thus the image of a cone in $\\Sigma(\\textrm{P}_n)$ under $\\psi_i$ is contained in a cone in $\\Sigma(\\textrm{C}_1)$, for each $i \\in E$.\n\nGeometrically, $\\pi_1$ is the blowup of all the torus-invariant points in $\\mathbb{P}^n$, all the strict transforms of torus-invariant $\\mathbb{P}^1$\u2019s in $\\mathbb{P}^n$, all the strict transforms of torus-invariant $\\mathbb{P}^2$\u2019s in $\\mathbb{P}^n$, and so on. The map $\\pi_2$ is the blowup of points $0^n$ and $\\infty^n$, all the strict transforms of torus-invariant $\\mathbb{P}^1$\u2019s in $(\\mathbb{P}^1)^n$ containing $0^n$ or $\\infty^n$, all the strict transforms of torus-invariant $(\\mathbb{P}^1)^2$\u2019s in $(\\mathbb{P}^1)^n$ containing $0^n$ or $\\infty^n$, and so on.\n\n\\[PullbackRemark\\] For later use, we record here a combinatorial description of the pullback of piecewise linear functions under the linear map $\\psi_i=\\text{proj}_i\\circ \\psi$:\n\n> *Let $\\alpha$ be the piecewise linear function on $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{C}_1)$ determined by its values $$\\alpha(\\mathbf{e}_i)=1 \\ \\ \\text{and} \\ \\ \\alpha(-\\mathbf{e}_i)=0.$$ Then $\\psi_i^*(\\alpha)$ is the piecewise linear function on $\\Sigma(\\mathrm{P}_n)$ determined by its values $$\\arraycolsep=1.1pt\\def\\arraystretch{1.3}\n> \\psi_i^*(\\alpha)(\\mathbf{e}_{\\overline{I}})=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{rl} 1 &\\quad  \\text{if $\\overline{I}$ contains $i$ and does not contain $0$,}  \\\\ 0&\\quad \\text{if otherwise.} \\end{array}\\right.$$*\n\nUsing the correspondence between piecewise linear functions on fans and torus-invariant divisors on toric varieties [@FultonToric Chapter 3], the above can be used to describe the pullback homomorphism between the Chow rings $$\\pi_2^*:A^*((\\mathbb{P}^1)^n) \\longrightarrow A^*(X_{A_n}).$$ Explicitly, writing $y_i$ for the divisor of $\\mathbf{e}_i$ in $(\\mathbb{P}^1)^n$ and $x_{\\overline{I}}$ for the divisor of $\\mathbf{e}_{\\overline{I}}$ in $X_{A_n}$, $$\\pi_2^*(y_i)=\\sum_{\\overline{I}} x_{\\overline{I}},$$ where the sum is over all subsets $\\overline{I} \\subseteq \\overline{E}$ that contain $i$ and do not contain $0$.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[MainTheoremII\\]\n==================================\n\nLet $\\mathrm{M}$ be a simple matroid on $E$, and let $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ be a simple matroid on $\\overline{E}$ with $\\mathrm{M}=\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}/0$. For simplicity, we take $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ to be the direct sum of $\\mathrm{M}$ and the rank $1$ matroid on $\\{0\\}$, so that $\\mathrm{M}$ and $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ share the same set of circuits.\n\nSuppose that $\\mathrm{M}$ is realizable over some field. Then $\\mathrm{M}$ is realizable over some finite field [@Oxley Corollary 6.8.13], and hence over the algebraically closed field $\\overline{\\mathbb{F}}_p$ for some prime number $p$. The matroid $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ is realizable over the same field, say by a spanning set of vectors $$\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}=\\{f_0,f_1,\\ldots,f_n\\} \\subseteq \\overline{\\mathbb{F}}_p^{r+1}.$$ Dually, the realization $\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}$ of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ corresponds to an injective linear map between projective spaces $$i_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}:\\mathbb{P}^r \\longrightarrow \\mathbb{P}^n, \\qquad i_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}=[f_0:f_1:\\cdots:f_n].$$ The collection $\\mathscr{A}=\\{f_1,\\ldots,f_n\\}$ is a realization of the matroid $\\mathrm{M}$.\n\nThe restriction of the torus-invariant hyperplanes of $\\mathbb{P}^n$ to $\\mathbb{P}^r$ defines an arrangement of hyperplanes in $\\mathbb{P}^r$, which we denote by the same symbol $\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}$. We use $i_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ to construct the commutative diagram $$\\raisebox{-0.5\\height}{\\includegraphics{commutative-diagram3}}$$ where $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ is the strict transform of $\\mathbb{P}^r$ under $\\pi_1$ and $Y_{\\mathscr{A}}$ is the image of $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ under $\\pi_2$.\n\nThe induced map $\\pi_1^{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ is the blowup of all the zero-dimensional flats of $\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}$, all the strict transforms of one-dimensional flats of $\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}$, all the strict transforms of two-dimensional flats of $\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}$, and so on. The variety $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ is the *wonderful model* of $\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}$ corresponding to the maximal building set [@deConcini-ProcesiA]. The variety $Y_\\mathscr{A}$ is studied in [@Ardila-Boocher], and its affine part centered at $\\infty^n$ is the *reciprocal plane* in [@Elias-Proudfoot-Wakefield; @Proudfoot-Speyer]. To apply the decomposition theorem of [@Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne], we notice that all varieties, maps, and sheaves under consideration may be defined over some finite extension of $\\mathbb{F}_p$.\n\nWe know that the Chow ring of $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ is determined by the matroid $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$: There is an isomorphism of graded algebras $$A^*(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}) \\simeq A^*(X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}),$$ where $x_{\\overline{F}}$ is identified with the class of the strict transform of the exceptional divisor produced when blowing up the flat of $\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}$ corresponding to $\\overline{F}$. See [@deConcini-ProcesiB Section 1.1], and also [@deConcini-ProcesiA; @Feichtner-Yuzvinsky]. When $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ is the Boolean matroid $\\overline{\\mathrm{B}}$ on $\\overline{E}$, this describes the Chow ring of the permutohedral space $A^*(X_{A_n})$. In general, the pullback homomorphism $$\\raisebox{-0.5\\height}{\\includegraphics{commutative-diagram4}}$$ is determined by the assignment, for non-empty proper subsets $\\overline{I}$ of $\\overline{E}$, $$\\arraycolsep=1.1pt\\def\\arraystretch{1.3}\nx_{\\overline{I}} \\longmapsto \\left\\{\\begin{array}{cl} x_{\\overline{I}}& \\quad \\text{if $\\overline{I}$ is a flat of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$,} \\\\ 0 & \\quad \\text{if $\\overline{I}$ is a not flat of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$.}\\end{array}\\right.$$\n\nFix a prime number $\\ell$ different from $p$, and consider the $\\ell$-adic \u00e9tale cohomology rings and the $\\ell$-adic \u00e9tale intersection cohomology groups of the varieties in the diagram above. These are $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$-vector spaces of the form $$\\mathrm{H}^*(X,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)\\vcentcolon=\\mathrm{H}^*(X,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_{\\ell,X}) \\ \\ \\text{and} \\ \\ \\mathrm{IH}^*(X,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)\\vcentcolon=\\mathrm{H}^*(X,\\mathrm{IC}_X),$$ where $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_{\\ell,X}$ and $\\textrm{IC}_X$ are constructible complexes of $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$-sheaves on $X$ as in [@Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne]. The blowup construction of $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ shows that the cycle class map induces an isomorphism of commutative graded $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$-algebras $$A^*(X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}) \\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell \\simeq \\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell),$$ see [@Keel Appendix]. For the variety $Y_{\\mathscr{A}}$, which may be singular, we show in Theorem \\[CohomologyY\\] that there is an isomorphism of commutative graded $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$-algebras $$B^*(\\mathrm{M})\\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell \\simeq \\textrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\\mathscr{A},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell).$$ In general, the intersection cohomology $\\mathrm{IH}^*(X,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)$ is a module over the cohomology $\\mathrm{H}^*(X,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)$, satisfying the Poincar\u00e9 duality and the hard Lefschetz theorems. See [@deCataldo-Migliorini] for an introduction and precise statements.\n\nWe obtain Theorem \\[MainTheoremII\\] from the following general observation. Let $f$ be a proper map from an $r$-dimensional smooth projective variety $$f:X_1 \\longrightarrow X_2,$$ and let $L$ be a fixed ample line bundle on $X_2$. Consider the pullback homomorphism of cohomology in even degrees $$\\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_2,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell) \\longrightarrow \\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_1,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell).$$ The image of the pullback is a commutative graded algebra over $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$, denoted $B^*(f)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell}$: $$B^*(f)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell}=\\text{im}\\Big(\\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_2,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell) \\longrightarrow \\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_1,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)\\Big).$$ $B^*(f)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell}$ is the cyclic $\\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_2,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)$-submodule of $\\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_1,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)$ generated by the element $1$.\n\n\\[PullbackProposition\\] If $f$ is birational onto its image, then the multiplication map $$B^p(f)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell} \\longrightarrow B^{r-p}(f)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell}, \\qquad \\xi \\longmapsto L^{r-2p} \\ \\xi$$ is injective for every nonnegative integer $p$ less than $\\frac{r}{2}$.\n\nWe reduce to the case when $f$ is surjective. For this consider the factorization $$\\raisebox{-0.5\\height}{\\includegraphics{commutative-diagram5}}$$ Then $B^*(f)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell}$ is a subalgebra of $B^*(g)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell}$, and hence the statement $(f,L)$ follows from $(g,h^*L)$.\n\nSuppose that $f$ is surjective. The decomposition theorem [@Beilinson-Bernstein-Deligne Section 4.3] says that the intersection complex of $X_2$ appears as a direct summand of the direct image of the constant sheaf $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$ on $X_1$: $$Rf_*\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_{\\ell,X_1} \\simeq \\mathrm{IC}_{X_2} \\oplus \\mathscr{C}.$$ Taking cohomology of both sides, we obtain a splitting injection of $\\mathrm{H}^{*}(X_2,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)$-modules $$\\Phi:\\mathrm{IH}^{*}(X_2,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell) \\longrightarrow \\mathrm{H}^{*}(X_1,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell).$$ Since $\\Phi$ is an isomorphism in degree $0$, it restricts to an isomorphism of commutative algebras $$\\text{im}\\Big(\\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_2,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell) \\longrightarrow \\mathrm{IH}^{2*}(X_2,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)\\Big) \\simeq B^*(f)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell}.$$ The conclusion follows from the hard Lefschetz theorem for $L$ on $\\mathrm{IH}^{2*}(X_2,\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)$.\n\nTheorem \\[MainTheoremII\\] will be deduced from the case when $f$ is the map $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}} \\to (\\mathbb{P}^1)^n$. For each $i \\in E$, let $f_i$ be the composition of $f$ with the $i$-th projection $$f_i=\\text{proj}_i\\circ f, \\qquad \\text{proj}_i:(\\mathbb{P}^1)^n \\longrightarrow \\mathbb{P}^1.$$ As in Proposition \\[PhiHom\\], for each $i \\in E$, we write $\\beta_i$ for the sum of $x_{\\overline{F}}$ over all flats $\\overline{F}$ of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ that contain $i$ and do not contain $0$. As mentioned before, the blowup construction of $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ shows that the cycle class map induces an isomorphism of commutative graded $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$-algebras $$A^*(X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}) \\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell \\simeq \\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell),$$ Let $\\Psi$ be the composition of isomorphisms $$\\Psi: A^*(\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}) \\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell \\simeq A^*(X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}) \\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell \\simeq \\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell),$$ which maps $x_{\\overline{F}}$ to the class of the strict transform in $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ of the exceptional divisor produced when blowing up the flat of $\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}$ in $\\mathbb{P}^r$ corresponding to $\\overline{F}$.\n\n\\[PullbackBeta\\] The element $\\Psi(\\beta_i)$ is the pullback of the class of a point in $\\mathbb{P}^1$ under $f_i$.\n\nWe factor $f$ into the composition $$\\raisebox{-0.5\\height}{\\includegraphics{commutative-diagram7}}$$ As noted before, the pullback map associated to the inclusion $j_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ satisfies $$\\arraycolsep=1.1pt\\def\\arraystretch{1.3}\nx_{\\overline{I}} \\longmapsto \\left\\{\\begin{array}{cl} x_{\\overline{I}}& \\quad \\text{if $\\overline{I}$ is a flat of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$,} \\\\ 0 & \\quad \\text{if $\\overline{I}$ is a not flat of $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$.}\\end{array}\\right.$$ Thus it is enough to prove the claim when $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}} = X_{A_n}$. This is the case when $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ is the Boolean matroid on $\\overline{E}$, and the claim in this case was proved in Remark \\[PullbackRemark\\] at the level of Chow rings.\n\nSince the cohomology ring of $(\\mathbb{P}^1)^n$ is generated by the pullbacks under $f_i$, Propositions \\[PhiHom\\] and \\[PullbackBeta\\] together show that $\\Psi$ induces an isomorphism between $B^*(\\mathrm{M})\\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$ and $B^*(f)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell}$, which we denote by $\\Psi'$. More precisely, there is a commutative diagram $$\\raisebox{-0.5\\height}{\\includegraphics{commutative-diagram6}}$$ where $\\varphi$ is the injective ring homomorphism of Proposition \\[PhiHom\\].\n\nIt is enough to show that the multiplication map $$B^p(\\mathrm{M}) \\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell \\longrightarrow B^{r-p}(\\mathrm{M}) \\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell, \\qquad \\xi \\longmapsto L^{r-2p} \\ \\xi$$ is injective. Under the isomorphism $\\Psi'$, the statement to be proved translates to the conclusion of Proposition \\[PullbackProposition\\] when $f$ is the map $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}} \\to (\\mathbb{P}^1)^n$.\n\nWith more work, we can show that the graded M\u00f6bius algebra of the matroid $\\mathrm{M}$ is isomorphic to the cohomology ring of the variety $Y_\\mathscr{A}$. Write $L_i$ for the first Chern class of the pullback of $\\mathcal{O}(1)$ under the composition $$\\raisebox{-0.5\\height}{\\includegraphics{commutative-diagram8}}$$\n\n\\[CohomologyY\\] There is an isomorphism of commutative graded $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$-algebras $$B^*(\\mathrm{M})\\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell \\simeq \\textrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\\mathscr{A},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell), \\qquad y_i \\longmapsto L_i.$$\n\nIn what follows, we write $z_0,z_1,\\ldots,z_n$ for the homogeneous coordinates of $\\mathbb{P}^n$, and write $(z_1,w_1),\\ldots,(z_n,w_n)$ for the multi-homogeneous coordinates of $(\\mathbb{P}^1)^n$.\n\nRecall that $\\mathrm{M}$ and $\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$ share the same set of circuits. For every circuit $C$ of $\\mathrm{M}$, there are nonzero constants $a_c \\in \\overline{\\mathbb{F}}_p$, one for each element $c \\in C$, such that $$\\sum_{c \\in C} a_c\\hspace{0.5mm} z_c=0 \\ \\ \\text{on the image of} \\ \\ i_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}: \\mathbb{P}^r \\longrightarrow \\mathbb{P}^n.$$ The collection $(a_c)_{c \\in C}$ is uniquely determined by the circuit $C$, up to a common multiple.\n\nA defining set of multi-homogeneous equations of $Y_\\mathscr{A}$ is explicitly described by Ardila and Boocher in [@Ardila-Boocher Theorem 1.3]: $$Y_\\mathscr{A}=\\Bigg\\{\\ \\sum_{c \\in C} a_c \\hspace{0.5mm} z_c  \\Big(\\prod_{d \\in C \\setminus c} w_{d}\\Big)=0, \\ \\ \\text{$C$ is a circuit of $\\mathrm{M}$} \\ \\Bigg\\} \\subseteq (\\mathbb{P}^1)^n.$$ This shows that $Y_\\mathscr{A}$ has an *algebraic cell decomposition* in the sense of [@Bjorner-Ekedahl Section 3], $$Y_\\mathscr{A}=\\coprod_F \\ \\mathbb{A}^{\\text{rank}(F)},$$ where the disjoint union is over all flats $F$ of $\\mathrm{M}$, and $\\mathbb{A}^{\\text{rank}(F)}$ is the intersection of $Y_\\mathscr{A}$ with the affine space $$\\mathbb{A}^{|F|}=\\Big\\{\\text{$w_i=0$ if and only if $i$ is not in $F$}\\Big\\} \\subseteq (\\mathbb{P}^1)^n.$$\n\nThe existence of the cell decomposition has the following implications [@Bjorner-Ekedahl Theorem 3.1]:\n\n(1) The natural map $\\mathrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\\mathscr{A},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell) \\longrightarrow \\mathrm{IH}^{2*}(Y_\\mathscr{A},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell) $ is injective.\n\n(2) The dimension of $\\mathrm{H}^{2k}(Y_\\mathscr{A},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)$ is the number of $k$-dimensional cells in $Y_\\mathscr{A}$ for all $k$.\n\nAll the odd cohomology groups of $Y_\\mathscr{A}$ are zero. When combined with the decomposition theorem for $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}} \\rightarrow Y_\\mathscr{A}$, the statement (CD1) shows that the pullback homomorphism in cohomology $$\\mathrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\\mathscr{A},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell) \\longrightarrow  \\mathrm{H}^{2*}(X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell)$$ is injective. According to Proposition \\[PullbackBeta\\], the pullback of $L_i$ in the cohomology of $X_{\\overline{\\mathscr{A}}}$ is $\\Psi(\\beta_i)$, and hence the previous sentence implies that there is an injective graded ring homomorphism $$B^*(f)_{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell} \\longrightarrow \\textrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\\mathscr{A},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell), \\qquad \\Psi(\\beta_i) \\longmapsto L_i.$$ Composing with the isomorphism $\\Psi'$, we get the injective graded ring homomorphism $$B^*(\\mathrm{M})\\otimes_\\mathbb{Q} \\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell \\longrightarrow \\textrm{H}^{2*}(Y_\\mathscr{A},\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell), \\qquad y_i \\longmapsto L_i.$$ The statement (CD2) shows that the source and the target are $\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_\\ell$-vector spaces of the same dimension, which is the number of flats of $\\mathrm{M}$. Therefore, the map must be an isomorphism.\n\nLet $\\mathrm{M}$ be a simple matroid on $E=\\{1,\\ldots,n\\}$ with rank $r \\ge 2$. We write \u201c$\\text{deg}$\u201d for the isomorphism $$\\text{deg}: B^r(\\mathrm{M})\\longrightarrow \\mathbb{Q}, \\qquad y_E \\longmapsto 1.$$ Let $\\textrm{HR}(\\mathrm{M})$ be the symmetric $n \\times n$ matrix with entries $$\\arraycolsep=1.1pt\\def\\arraystretch{1.3}\n\\textrm{HR}(\\mathrm{M})_{ij} = \\left\\{\\begin{array}{cl} 0 & \\quad \\text{if $i=j$,}\\\\ b_{ij}(\\mathrm{M}) &\\quad \\text{if $i \\neq j$,}\\end{array}\\right.$$ where $b_{ij}(\\mathrm{M})$ is the number of bases of $\\mathrm{M}$ containing $i$ and $j$. The matrix $\\textrm{HR}(\\mathrm{M})$ represents the Hodge-Riemann form $$B^1(\\mathrm{M}) \\times B^1(\\mathrm{M}) \\longrightarrow \\mathbb{Q}, \\qquad  (\\xi_1,\\xi_2) \\longmapsto \\text{deg}( L^{r-2}\\ \\xi_1 \\ \\xi_2),$$ with respect to the standard basis $y_1,\\ldots,y_n$. It can be shown that the matrix $\\textrm{HR}(\\mathrm{M})$ has exactly one positive eigenvalue [@Huh-Wang].\n\nConsider the restriction of $\\textrm{HR}(\\mathrm{M})$ to the three dimensional subspace of $B^1(\\mathrm{M})$ spanned by $y_i$, $y_j$, and $L$. The one positive eigenvalue condition says that the determinant of the resulting symmetric $3 \\times 3$ matrix is nonnegative, and this implies $$2> b(\\mathrm{M}) b_{ij}(\\mathrm{M})/b_i(\\mathrm{M}) b_j(\\mathrm{M}),$$ where $b(\\mathrm{M})$ is the number of bases of $\\mathrm{M}$ and $b_i(\\mathrm{M})$ is the number of bases of $\\mathrm{M}$ containing $i$. More detailed arguments will be given in [@Huh-Wang].\n\n> *Question: How large can the ratio $b(\\mathrm{M}) b_{ij}(\\mathrm{M})/b_i(\\mathrm{M}) b_j(\\mathrm{M})$ be?*\n\nFor graphic matroids, the work of Kirchhoff on electric circuits shows that the ratio is bounded above by $1$, see [@Feder-Mihail]. In other words, for a randomly chosen spanning tree of a graph, the presence of an edge can only make any other edge less likely. It was once conjectured that this is the case for all matroids, but Seymour and Welsh found an example with the ratio $ \\simeq 1.02$ [@Seymour-Welsh].\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n----------------\n\nWe thank Petter Br\u00e4nd\u00e9n, Jeff Kahn, Satoshi Murai, Yasuhide Numata, Nick Proudfoot, Dave Wagner, and Geordie Williamson for helpful conversations. Special thanks go to two anonymous referees, who made very useful suggestions. This research started while Botong Wang was visiting Korea Institute for Advanced Study in summer 2016. We thank KIAS for excellent working conditions. June Huh was supported by a Clay Research Fellowship and NSF Grant DMS-1128155.\n\n[KRY09]{}\n\nKarim Adiprasito, June Huh, and Eric Katz, *Hodge theory for combinatorial geometries*. `arXiv:1511.02888`.\n\nMartin Aigner, *Whitney numbers*. Combinatorial geometries, 139\u2013160, Encyclopedia Math. Appl. [**29**]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1987.\n\nFederico Ardila and Adam Boocher, *The closure of a linear space in a product of lines*. J. Algebraic Combin. [**43**]{} (2016), 199\u2013235.\n\nJ. G. Basterfield and L. M. Kelly, *A characterization of sets of n points which determine n hyperplanes*. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**64**]{} (1968), 585\u2013588.\n\nVictor Batyrev and Mark Blume, *The functor of toric varieties associated with Weyl chambers and Losev-Manin moduli spaces*. Tohoku Math. J. (2) [**63**]{} (2011), 581\u2013604.\n\nAlexander Beilinson, Joseph Bernstein, and Pierre Deligne, *Faisceaux pervers*. Ast\u00e9risque [**100**]{}, Paris, Soc. Math. Fr. 1982.\n\nLouis Billera and Carl Lee, *Sufficiency of McMullen\u2019s conditions for $f$-vectors of simplicial polytopes*. Bulletin Amer. Math. Soc. [**2**]{} (1980), 181\u2013185.\n\nAnders Bj\u00f6rner, *The unimodality conjecture for convex polytopes*, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society [**4**]{} (1981), 187\u2013188.\n\nAnders Bj\u00f6rner and Torsten Ekedahl, *On the shape of Bruhat intervals*. Ann. of Math. (2) [**170**]{} (2009), 799\u2013817.\n\nRodney Canfield, *On a problem of Rota*. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**84**]{} (1978), 164.\n\nNicolaas de Bruijn and Paul Erd\u0151s, *On a combinatorial problem*. Indagationes Math. [**10**]{} (1948), 421\u2013423.\n\nMark de Cataldo and Luca Migliorini, *The decomposition theorem, perverse sheaves and the topology of algebraic maps*. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) [**46**]{} (2009), 535\u2013633.\n\nCorrado de Concini and Claudio Procesi, *Wonderful models of subspace arrangements*. Selecta Math. (N.S.) [**1**]{} (1995), 459\u2013494.\n\nCorrado de Concini and Claudio Procesi, *Hyperplane arrangements and holonomy equations*. Selecta Math. (N.S.) [**1**]{} (1995), no. 3, 495?535.\n\nPaul de Witte, *Combinatorial properties of finite linear spaces. I.* Bull. Soc. Math. Belg. [**18**]{} (1966), 133\u2013141.\n\nPaul de Witte, *Combinatorial properties of finite linear spaces. II.* Bull. Soc. Math. Belg. [**27**]{} (1975), 115\u2013155.\n\nRobert Dilworth and Curtis Greene, *A counterexample to the generalization of Sperner\u2019s theorem*. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A [**10**]{} (1971), 18\u201321.\n\nThomas Dowling and Richard Wilson, *The slimmest geometric lattices*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**196**]{} (1974), 203\u2013215.\n\nThomas Dowling and Richard Wilson, *Whitney number inequalities for geometric lattices.* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**47**]{} (1975), 504\u2013512.\n\nBen Elias, Nicholas Proudfoot, and Max Wakefield, *The Kazhdan-Lusztig polynomial of a matroid*. Adv. Math. [**299**]{} (2016), 36\u201370.\n\nTom\u00e1s Feder and Milena Mihail, *Balanced matroids*. Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (1992), 26\u201338.\n\nEva Maria Feichtner and Sergey Yuzvinsky, *Chow rings of toric varieties defined by atomic lattices*. Invent. Math. [**155**]{} (2004), 515\u2013536.\n\nWilliam Fulton, *Introduction to toric varieties*. Annals of Mathematics Studies [**131**]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993.\n\nWilliam Fulton, *Young tableaux*. London Mathematical Society Student Texts [**35**]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1997.\n\nWilliam Fulton, *Intersection theory*. Second edition. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [**2**]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.\n\nCurtis Greene, *A rank inequality for finite geometric lattices*. J. Combinatorial Theory [**9**]{} (1970), 357\u2013364.\n\nTadahito Harima, Toshiaki Maeno, Hideaki Morita, Yasuhide Numata, Akihito Wachi, and Junzo Watanabe, *The Lefschetz properties*. Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**2080**]{}, Springer, Heidelberg, 2013.\n\nTam\u00e1s Hausel, *Quarternionic geometry of matroids*. Cent. Eur. J. Math. [**3**]{} (2005), 26\u201338.\n\nA.P. Heron, *A property of the hyperplanes of a matroid and an extension of Dilworth\u2019s theorem.* J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**42**]{} (1973), 119\u2013131.\n\nJune Huh and Botong Wang, *Mason\u2019s conjecture and the Hodge-Riemann relations for matroids*, in preparation.\n\nSean Keel, *Intersection theory of moduli space of stable n-pointed curves of genus zero*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**330**]{} (1992), 545\u2013574.\n\nJoseph Kung, *The Radon transforms of a combinatorial geometry. I.* J. Combin. Theory Ser. A [**26**]{} (1979), 97\u2013102.\n\nJoseph Kung, *Radon transforms in combinatorics and lattice theory*. Combinatorics and ordered sets (Arcata, Calif., 1985), 33\u201374, Contemp. Math. [**57**]{} Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1986.\n\nJoseph Kung, *The Radon transforms of a combinatorial geometry. II. Partition lattices.* Adv. Math. [**101**]{} (1993), 114\u2013132.\n\nJoseph Kung, *On the lines-planes inequality for matroids*. In memory of Gian-Carlo Rota. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A [**91**]{} (2000), 363\u2013368.\n\nJoseph Kung, Gian-Carlo Rota, and Catherine Yan, *Combinatorics: the Rota way*. Cambridge Mathematical Library, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009.\n\nToshiaki Maeno and Yasuhide Numata, *Sperner property, matroids and finite-dimensional Gorenstein algebras*, Tropical geometry and integrable systems, Contemp. Math. [**580**]{} (2012), 73\u201384.\n\nJohn Mason, *Matroids: unimodal conjectures and Motzkin\u2019s theorem*. Combinatorics (Proc. Conf. Combinatorial Math., Math. Inst., Oxford, 1972), 207\u2013220, Inst. Math. Appl., Southend-on-Sea, 1972.\n\nTheodore Motzkin, *Beitr\u00e4ge zur Theorie der linearen Ungleichungen*. Dissertation, Basel, Jerusalem, 1936.\n\nTheodore Motzkin, *The lines and planes connecting the points of a finite set*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**70**]{} (1951), 451\u2013464.\n\nJames Oxley, *Matroid theory*. Second edition. Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics [**21**]{}, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011.\n\nNicholas Proudfoot and David Speyer, *A broken circuit ring*. Beitr\u00e4ge Algebra Geom. [**47**]{} (2006), 161\u2013166.\n\nGian-Carlo Rota, *Combinatorial theory, old and new*. Actes du Congr\u00e8s International des Math\u00e9maticiens (Nice, 1970), Tome 3, pp. 229\u2013233. Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1971.\n\nGian-Carlo Rota and Lawrence Harper, *Matching theory, an introduction*. Advances in Probability and Related Topics, Vol. 1 pp. 169\u2013215 Dekker, New York, 1971.\n\nPaul Seymour and Dominic Welsh, *Combinatorial applications of an inequality from statistical mechanics*. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**77**]{} (1975), 485\u2013495.\n\nLouis Solomon, *The Burnside algebra of a finite group*. J. Combin. Theory [**2**]{} (1967), 603\u2013615.\n\nRichard Stanley, *Combinatorics and commutative algebra.* Second edition. Progress in Mathematics [**41**]{}, Birkh\u00e4user, Boston, MA, 1996.\n\nRichard Stanley, *Enumerative combinatorics. Volume 1.* Second edition. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics [**49**]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012\n\nRichard Stanley, *Algebraic combinatorics*. Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2013.\n\nDennis Stanton, *Unimodality and Young\u2019s lattice.* J. Combin. Theory Ser. A [**54**]{} (1990), 41\u201353.\n\nDominic Welsh, *Matroid theory*. London Mathematical Society Monographs [**8**]{}, Academic Press, London-New York, 1976.\n\nG\u00fcnter Ziegler, *Lectures on polytopes*. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, [**152**]{}, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995.\n"}
-{"text": "---\naddress:\n- |\n    Institut f\u00fcr Theoretische Physik, Universit\u00e4t Wien\\\n    Boltzmangasse 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria\\\n    E-mail: jthorn@thp.univie.ac.at, lechner@thp.univie.ac.at,\\\n    mpuer@thp.univie.ac.at, pcaich@thp.univie.ac.at\n- |\n    Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh\\\n    3941 O\u2019Hara Street, Pittsburgh PA 15260, USA\\\n    E-mail: shusa@aei-potsdam.mpg.de\nauthor:\n- 'J.\u00a0Thornburg, Ch.\u00a0Lechner, M.\u00a0P\u00fcrrer, and P.\u00a0C.\u00a0Aichelburg'\n- 'S.\u00a0Husa'\ntitle: 'Episodic Self-Similarity in Critical Gravitational Collapse'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nAs summarized in companion papers in these proceedings (Lechner [@Lechner-etal:DICE-physics], Thornburg [@Thornburg-etal:DICE-numerical]), and described in detail elsewhere (Husa [@Husa-etal:DICE-DSS-paper]), we are studying critical phenomena in the nonlinear $\\sigma$\u00a0model in spherical symmetry. This model is parameterized by a dimensionless coupling constant $\\ccbeta$. We denote the matter field by $\\phi = \\phi(u,r)$, where $u$ is an outgoing null coordinate (normalized to proper time at the origin) and $r$ is the areal radius.\n\nThis model is known to have a CSS solution for all $\\ccbeta < 0.5$. This solution can be explicitly constructed[@Bizon-Wasserman-2000-CSS], and takes the form $\\phi = \\phi_\\CSS(z; u_*)$, where $z = r/(u_*{-}u)$ and the (only) free parameter $u_*$ gives the location of the accumulation point.\n\nWe consider a 1-parameter family of initial data, and fine-tune this parameter so the initial data\u2019s evolution is very close to the threshold of black hole formation. At large (small) $\\ccbeta$ the evolution of such \u201ccritical\u201d initial data is DSS (CSS) for a time, before finally either dispersing or collapsing.\n\nHowever, at intermediate $\\ccbeta$ ($\\approx 0.16$) a new behavior appears, which we call \u201cepisodic self-similarity\u201d: The field configuration closely approximates a CSS solution, $\\phi \\approx \\phi_\\CSS(z;u_*^{(1)})$ in the inner part of the slice for some finite time interval, then departs from CSS, and then returns to closely approximate a CSS solution, $\\phi \\approx \\phi_\\CSS(z;u_*^{(2)})$ in the inner part of the slice for another finite time interval, then departs, this cycle repeating several times. The $u_*^{(k)}$ values increase from one CSS episode to the next.\n\nIn addition, a large region of the evolution (spanning several CSS episodes) is approximately DSS, but to a much lower degree of approximation than the approximate CSS.\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig-phi+phicss\\] shows an example of this behavior. The field configuration never [*exactly*]{} matches a CSS solution, but on the $u=15.893$ and $u=16.414$ slices (where the fit is good and hence $u_* = u_*^{(k)}$ is well-defined), $|\\phi - \\phi_\\CSS| \\ltsim 10^{-2}$ everywhere inside the self-similarity horizon (the backwards light cone of the accumulation point $u_*^{(k)}$). This region of the evolution is DSS to within $\\sim 0.05$ in $\\phi$.\n\nWe do not yet have a full understanding of episodic self-similarity in terms of the standard phase-space model of self-similarity[@Gundlach-critical-review], but we think this behavior is caused by a competition between nearby CSS and DSS attractors.\n\n[9]{} Ch.\u00a0Lechner, M.\u00a0P\u00fcrrer, J.\u00a0Thornburg, P.\u00a0C.\u00a0Aichelburg, and S.\u00a0Husa, \u201cType\u00a0II Critical Collapse of a Self-Gravitating Nonlinear $\\sigma$\u00a0Model\u201d, these proceedings. J.\u00a0Thornburg, Ch.\u00a0Lechner, M.\u00a0P\u00fcrrer, P.\u00a0C.\u00a0Aichelburg, and S.\u00a0Husa, \u201cNumerical Methods for Spherically Symmetric Critical Collapse\u201d, these proceedings. S.\u00a0Husa, Ch.\u00a0Lechner, M.\u00a0P\u00fcrrer, J.\u00a0Thornburg, and P.\u00a0C.\u00a0Aichelburg, . P.\u00a0Bizo\u0144 and A.\u00a0Wasserman . C.\u00a0Gundlach, .\n\n-3.0mm\n\n(80,80) [-2.0ex[$u{=}15.893$\u00a0\u00a0$u_*^{(1)}{=}16.193$]{}]{} [-2.0ex[$u{=}16.414$\u00a0\u00a0$u_*^{(2)}{=}16.662$]{}]{} (-13,5)\n\n(0,0) (-9,18)[$\\phi$]{} (-9,58)[$\\phi$]{} (-12.7,-8.9)\n\n-2.0mm\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'By using the first-principles method based on density of functional theory, we study the electronic properties of twisted bilayer graphene with some specific twist angles and interlayer spacings. With the decrease of the twist angle(the unit cell becomes larger), the energy band becomes narrower and Coulomb repulsion increases, leading to the enhancement of electronic correlation; On the other hand, as the interlayer spacing decreases and the interlayer coupling becomes stronger, the correlation becomes stronger. By tuning the interlayer coupling, we can realize the strongly correlated state with the band width less than 0.01 eV in medium-sized moir$\\rm \\acute{e}$ cell of twisted bilayer graphene. These results demonstrate that the strength of electronic correlation in twisted bilayer graphene is closely related to two factors: the size of unit cell and the distance between layers. Consequently, a conclusion can be drawn that the strong electronic correlation in twisted bilayer graphene originates from the synergistic effect of the large size of Moir$\\rm \\acute{e}$ cell and strong interlayer coupling on its electronic structure.'\nauthor:\n- 'Xun-Wang Yan$^{1}$'\n- 'Jing Li$^{1}$'\n- 'Yanyun Wang$^{1}$'\n- 'Miao Gao$^{2}$'\nbibliography:\n- 'aa-2.bib'\ntitle: Strong Electronic Correlation Originates from the Synergistic Effect of Large Moir\u00e9 Cell and Strong Interlayer Coupling in Twisted Graphene Bilayer\n---\n\nAs one of the most famous problems in condensed matter physics, the electronic correlation has always been a hot research subject. Many transition metal oxides and rare earth metal compounds belong to the strongly correlated materials, in which the behaviors of electrons are complex due to the strong many-body interaction, bringing about lots of exotic physical properties, such as high temperature superconductivity, heavy fermion, and Mott insulator. Generally, strongly correlated materials have partially filled d- or f-electron shells and there exists the strong Coulomb repulsion between d- or f-electrons. Meanwhile, the narrow and flat bands around the Fermi energy is the typical feature of their electronic band structures.\n\nApart from the materials containing metal element with d- or f-electron, some organic superconductor are known as strongly correlated materials. The electronic correlation in Cs$_3$C$_{60}$, K-doped 1,2:8,9-dibenzopentacene (C$_{30}$H$_{18}$), (TMTSF)$_2$PF$_6$ and other organic superconductors are widely studied both in theory and experiment. [@Palstra1995; @Xue2012; @Lee2005] Recently, twisted-angle bilayer graphene (TBG) with small \u2019magnic\u2019 angle of 1.1$^\\circ$ exhibits the correlated insulating state and the intrinsic unconventional superconductivity, and the temperate-density phase diagram shows many similarities with that of high temperature cuprate oxide superconductors. At small twist angle, the bands of TBG near the Fermi energy are flat and narrow. These dipersionless bands are intimately associated to the electron correlation, and is regarded as the electronic signature of strongly correlated materials. Seen from this perspective, the graphene bilayer superlattice, caused by the rotation of top layer with respect to bottom layer, provides a new scheme to create the strongly correlated state in the low-dimensional materials consisting of simple carbon element without d- or f-electron shells, which can reduce the difficulty and complexity of the electronic correlation researches. How to understand the electronic correlation in TBG systems is a vital issue, especially what factors result in the occurrence of strong correlation. The previous theoretical studies most forcus on the interaction of two Dirac cones states belonging to two graphene layers, which results in the merge of two Van Hove singularities in the case of magic angle.[@Trambly2012] There is few theoretical research to discuss the relationship of the electronic correlation and the interlayer coupling or Moir\u00e9 cell size. In this paper, by the first principles method, we investigate that the modulation of the spatial size and the strength of Moir\u00e9 potential on the electronic properites of TBG system.\n\nIn our calculations, the plane wave pseudopotential method was used and implemented in Vienna Ab initio simulation package (VASP) program.[@PhysRevB.47.558; @PhysRevB.54.11169] The generalized gradient approximation (GGA) with Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) formula\u00a0[@PhysRevLett.77.3865] as well as the projector augmented-wave method (PAW) [@PhysRevB.50.17953] for ionic potential were employed. The plane wave basis cutoff was set to 500 eV and the convergence thresholds for the total energy and force are 10$^{-5}$ eV and 0.005 eV/\u00c5\u00a0. The lattice parameter $c$ for the unit cell is set to 30 \u00c5\u00a0 to model the isolated bilayer graphene in $z$ axis direction. For the cell of TBG with a 6.01$^{\\circ}$ angle, a mesh of $9\\times 9\\times 1$ k-points were sampled for the Brillouin zone integration. Also, the van der Waals (vdW) interaction is included in our calculations.[@PhysRevLett.92.246401]\n\nWhen one layer of graphene bilayer are rotated by an angle $\\theta$, Moir$\\acute{\\rm e}$ pattern can be obtained.[@DeTramblyLaissardiere2010] For a graphene layer, the Bravais lattice basis vectors are $\\vec a_1$= ($\\sqrt{3}$/2, -1/2)$a_0$, $\\vec a_2$= ($\\sqrt{3}$/2, 1/2)$a_0$. A lattice vector $\\vec V$ = m$\\vec a_1$ + n$\\vec a_2$ is rotated to $\\vec {V^{\\prime}}$ = n$\\vec a_1$ + m$\\vec a_2$ , the angle is defined as $$cos(\\theta) = \\frac{n^2 + 4nm + m^2}{2(n^2 + nm + m^2)}$$ the Moir$\\acute{\\rm e}$ cell vectors are $\\vec t$= $\\vec V$ = m$\\vec a_1$ + n$\\vec a_2$ and $\\vec {t^{\\prime}}$= -m$\\vec a_1$ + (m+n)$\\vec a_2$. The rotation of one graphene layer is shown in Fig. \\[struct-cell\\] (a). The lattice vector $\\vec V$ = m$\\vec a_1$ + n$\\vec a_2$ is labeled as $\\overrightarrow{OA}, \\overrightarrow{OB}, \\cdots$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\overrightarrow{OA}= 1 \\cdot \\vec a_1 + 0 \\cdot \\vec a_2; \\qquad  \\nonumber\n\\overrightarrow{OB}= 2 \\cdot \\vec a_1 + 1 \\cdot \\vec a_2; \\\\ \\nonumber\n\\overrightarrow{OC}= 3 \\cdot \\vec a_1 + 2 \\cdot \\vec a_2;  \\qquad\n\\overrightarrow{OD}= 4 \\cdot \\vec a_1 + 3 \\cdot \\vec a_2; \\\\ \\nonumber\n\\overrightarrow{OE}= 5 \\cdot \\vec a_1 + 4 \\cdot \\vec a_2; \\qquad\n\\overrightarrow{OF}= 6 \\cdot \\vec a_1 + 5 \\cdot \\vec a_2.  \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ The vector $\\overrightarrow{OA}$ (or $\\overrightarrow{OB}, \\cdots$) is one side of solid line rhombus, which denotes the size of one Moir$\\acute{\\rm e}$ cell. The solid line rhombus is rotated to the position of dash line rhombus and is superimposed on the bottom graphene layer to form the TBG. Fig. \\[struct-cell\\] (b) show the atomic structure of TBG unit cell with twist anglesof 13.17$^{\\circ}$, in which the top layer is blue and bottom layer is red, and the atom number is 76 in such a unit cell.\n\n![Atomic structures of TBG with twisted angles of 21.79$^{\\circ}$(a), 13.17$^{\\circ}$(b), 9.43$^{\\circ}$(c), and 7.34$^{\\circ}$(d) are shown in 2$\\times$2$\\times$1 supercell. The numbers of atoms in one unit cell of TBG 28, 76, 148, 244 for the above four twisted angle cases. The top layer and bottom layer are blue and red, respectively. []{data-label=\"struct-cell\"}](cell-6.eps){width=\"8.0cm\"}\n\nThe linear dispersion and Dirac cones in electronic bands are the important features of graphene. For the TBG, the Dirac cones belonging to two layers interact each other to result in the sharp peaks of density of states (DOS) on both sides of Fermi energy. [@Trambly2012] We perform the electronic structure calculations for TBG with the twist angles of 21.79$^{\\circ}$, 13.17$^{\\circ}$, 9.43$^{\\circ}$, and 7.34$^{\\circ}$, and the total DOS are shown in Fig. \\[dos\\](a), (b), (c), and (d) respectively. For these twist angles, the positions of sharp DOS peaks below Fermi energy are -1.33 eV, -0.84 eV, -0.59 eV, and -0.44 eV. As the twist angle decreases, the peaks of DOS gradually move and approach the Fermi energy. When the angle is less than 1$^{\\circ}$, the two Van Hove singularities at both sides of Fermi energy merge and form one sharp DOS peak at Fermi energy, which is related to the instability of electronic states and lead to the occurrence of some novel physical phenomenons. For a unit cell of TBG with the twist angle smaller than 2.0$^{\\circ}$, the number of atoms is greater than 3000. From the viewpoint of first-principles calculation, it is difficult to simulate the electronic properties of such large TBG cell. So, the first-principle study on TBG system with small twist angle has rarely been reported. However, we find out that Van Hove singularity can be shifted to Fermi energy by compressing the spacing between two layers. For the small TBG cell with $\\theta$ = 7.34$^{\\circ}$, the distance between two layers is compressed to 3.21 \u00c5, 3.05 \u00c5, 2.83 \u00c5, and 2.69 \u00c5, and the corresponding DOS peaks below Fermi energy locate at -0.38 eV, -0.32 eV, -0.20 eV, and -0.11 eV, shown in Fig. \\[dos\\] (e), (f), (g), and (h). Consequently, the reduction of distance between two layers of TBG is a feasible approach to shift the Van Hove singularity to the Fermi energy. Very recently, the role of the out of plane corrugation on the flat bands in TBG was investigated by Lucignano\u2019s group, and they pointed that the interplane distance changed about 0.2 \u00c5\u00a0 from AA to AB stacking region. [@Lucignano2019] An important experiment demonstrated that at twist angle 1.27$^{\\circ}$ larger than magic angle 1.1$^{\\circ}$, suerconductivity was induced by imposing the hydrostatic pressure to vary the interplane distance.[@Yankowitz2019] Our ideas are in line with these theoretical and experimental results. Based on our calculations and recent researches, we conclude that in addition to twist angle, interlayer coupling is another key factor to tune the electronic correlation in TBG.\n\n![Total DOS for TBG with the twist angles of 21.79$^{\\circ}$, 13.17$^{\\circ}$, 9.43$^{\\circ}$, and 7.34$^{\\circ}$, shown in (a), (b), (c), and (d) respectively. As the twist angledecreases, the peaks of DOS related to Van Hove singularities are more and more close to Fermi energy. For the TBG with $\\theta$ = 7.34$^{\\circ}$, the distance between two layers is decreased to 3.21 \u00c5, 3.05 \u00c5, 2.83 \u00c5, and 2.69 \u00c5. The corresponding total DOS are shown in (e), (f), (g), and (h). With the distance being shorter, the DOS peaks are more close to Fermi energy. []{data-label=\"dos\"}](dos20190311.eps){width=\"8.0cm\"}\n\nThe band structures of TBG with the twist angles of 21.78$^{\\circ}$, 13.17$^{\\circ}$, 9.43$^{\\circ}$, and 7.34$^{\\circ}$ are shown in Fig. \\[band\\] left panel. With twisted angle decreasing, the size of graphene sheet in a unit cell become larger and the energy bands become narrower. On the other hand, we fix the twist angle at 7.34$^{\\circ}$, and compress the interlayer spacing to 3.21 \u00c5, 3.05 \u00c5, 2.83 \u00c5, and 2.69 \u00c5. The band structures of TBG with these reduced interlayer spacings are displayed in Fig. \\[band\\] right panel. It can be seen that the band width is reduced with the interlayer spacing being compressed. In addition, with the twist angle and the interlayer spacing decreasing, the gap at M point between valence and conductance bands becomes smaller, while the Dirac cone at K point still persists, as shown in Fig. \\[band\\]. The width of those conductance bands for above situations are listed in Tab. \\[Tab1\\] and Tab. \\[Tab2\\].\n\n![Left panel: Band structures of TBG with the twist angles of 21.78$^{\\circ}$, 13.17$^{\\circ}$, 9.43$^{\\circ}$, and 7.34$^{\\circ}$. Right panel: Band structures of TBG with $\\theta$ = 7.34$^{\\circ}$ for the interlayer spacings of 3.21 \u00c5, 3.05 \u00c5, 2.83 \u00c5, and 2.69 \u00c5. The Fermi energy is marked by the dashed line. With the twist anglebeing smaller and the interlayer spacing being narrower, the valence and conductance bands become flatter. []{data-label=\"band\"}](band-20190311.eps){width=\"8.0cm\"}\n\nThe electronic correlation is a vital topic at the current stage of TBG research. For the TBG with small twist angle, the flat low-energy bands appears in band structure and the electron kinetic energy is quenched, leading to a strongly correlated phase. Upon electrostatic doping away from the insulating state, the superconducting state with multiple similarities to cuprate\u2019s are observed. [@Cao2018; @Cao2018a] The TBG reminds us of Cs$_3$C$_{60}$ and K-doped aromatics, in which the main element is carbon and benzene ring is the basic structural unit, similar to TBG.[@Kubozono2015; @Yan2018; @Yan2019] What\u2019s important is that they are demonstrated to be the strong correlation systems in experiment and exhibit the unconventional superconductivity. [@Ruff2013; @Takabayashi2009] In K-doped aromaics superconductor, the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ shows a linear relativity to the number of benzene rings. $T_c$ increases from 5 K for K$_x$phenanthrene with three benzene rings to 18 K for K$_x$picene with five benzene rings, and up to 33.1 K for K$_x$dibenzopentacene with seven benzene rings.[@Kubozono2015] Among the three kinds of carbon-based superconductors of magic angle TBG, Cs$_3$C$_{60}$ and metal-doped aromatics, there must exist the similarity of electronic correlation because of their structural similarity. The large cell size, involved in the large spatial period of Bravais lattice, is their important feature which results in the narrow energy band in electronic structure.[@Kittel2004] A simple method to estimate the Coulomb repulsion in molecular crystal was proposed by G. Brocks $et ~al.$ [@Brocks2004], and the effective Coulomb repulsion was expressed as $U_{eff} = U_{bare}-U_{screen}$. The Coulomb repulsion $U_{bare}$ for two charges on single molecule can be derived from the difference of the energies of the neutral, doubly and singly charged molecules, and $U_{screen}$ is the screening energy involved in the polarization of the molecule and the neighbored molecules in crystal. In the subsequent researches, the method was widely used to study the electronic correlation in alkali-metal-doped pentacene and picene. [@Craciun2009; @Kim2011; @Giovannetti2011] Especially, Giovannetti $et ~al.$ and Kim $et ~al.$ calculated the strength of electron correlation of K-doped picene, denoted by the ratio of the Coulomb repulsion $U$ and the width of bands $w$, and found that it is close to the ratio in Cs-doped C$_{60}$.[@Giovannetti2011; @Kim2011] We adopt the similar method to calculate the Coulomb repulsion $U$ in TBG, whose two sheets of graphene in a unit cell are regarded as two molecules. When one unit cell is charged by two or four electrons, corresponding to the energy band half-filling or filling for the electron-doped TBG system,[@Cao2018a; @Cao2018] each graphene sheet in unit cell has one or two additional electrons. We label the energies of neutral, one electron charged, and two electron charged graphene sheet as $E(m)$, $E(m^-)$, and $E(m^{2-})$, then the Coulomb repulsion between two electrons on each graphene sheet can be expressed as $U = E(m) + E(m^{2-}) - 2E(m^-)$. TBG system is continuous and infinite in the $xy$ plane, the additional electrons is uniformly distributed over the TBG plane. In $z$ direction, the TBG is isolated and we use the large lattice parameter $c$ of 30 \u00c5\u00a0 to model the isolated bilayer graphene. So that no dipole correction was needed for TBG system, which is different from the charged picene molecule which is surrounded by other molecules to produce the screening effect. Hence, the above formula $U$ is used to estimate the Coulomb repulsion in TBG systems.\n\n  $\\theta$($^{\\circ})$   $w$(eV)   $U$(eV)   $U/w$\n  ---------------------- --------- --------- -------\n  21.78                  2.33      0.01      0.004\n  13.17                  2.09      0.36      0.17\n  9.43                   1.41      0.65      0.46\n  7.34                   1.04      1.14      1.10\n\n  : Band width, Coulomb repulsion, and electron correlation strength in TBG with different twist angles. []{data-label=\"Tab1\"}\n\n  $d$(\u00c5)   $w$(eV)   $U$(eV)   $U/w$\n  -------- --------- --------- -------\n  3.21     0.99      1.22      1.23\n  3.05     0.92      1.25      1.36\n  2.83     0.79      1.31      1.66\n  2.69     0.66      1.35      2.05\n\n  : Band width, Coulomb repulsion and electron correlation strength in TBG with different interlayer spacings. []{data-label=\"Tab2\"}\n\nWe first inspect the influence of twist angle on the strength of electronic correlation in TBG systems. Tab. \\[Tab1\\] lists the data on the band width, Coulomb repulsion, and electronic correlation strength, which indicates that with twist angle decreasing the band width becomes smaller and Coulomb repulsion become larger, resulting in the enhancement of electronic correlation strength in TBG system. The result is consistent with the correlated electronic behavior of TBG at small angle observed in experiment. Then, we examine the effect of the spacing between two graphene layers on the strength of electronic correlation in TBG systems. For the TBG with the angle of 6.01$^{\\circ}$, the conduction band width, Coulomb repulsion, and the correlation strength are computed and presented in Tab. \\[Tab2\\]. We can see that the electron correlation is enhanced greatly with the interlayer space decreasing. As the twist angle of TBG decreases, the size of unit cell increases and the moir$\\acute{\\rm e}$ potential has the larger period in real space. Meanwhile, the reduction of interlayer spacing is related to the more strong interaction between two graphene layers. The result can be roughly understood from Kronig-Penney model.[@Kittel2004] The TBG cell size and the interlayer coupling correspond to the distance between potential barriers and the height of potential barriers in Kronig-Penney model. With the barrier distance and barrier height increasing, the energy band will become narrower. Based on the analysis and the data in Tab. \\[Tab1\\] and \\[Tab2\\], we can draw a conclusion that the space period of moir$\\acute{\\rm e}$ potential and interlayer interaction, related to the cell size and interlayer spacing, are two main factors to determine the strength of electron correlation. For TBG with magic angle, to simulate the flat band and van Hove singularity near Fermi energy is difficult because the unit cell contains too many atoms. However, if the interlayer spacing of TBG is reduced, we can use a medium-sized unit cell of TBG with narrow interlayer spacing to reproduce the flat band and van Hove singularity near Fermi energy. Here, we choose the unit cell of TBG with twist angle of 6.01$^{\\circ}$, which is composed of 364 atoms. The band structures of TBG with the interlayer spacing of 2.432 \u00c5, 2.428 \u00c5, 2.425 \u00c5, 2.421 \u00c5, and 2.418 \u00c5\u00a0 are shown in Fig. \\[band2\\]. As can be seen, the width of conductance band marked as magenta color first decreases and then increases with the interlayer spacing reducing, and especially, the band width for 2.425 \u00c5\u00a0 situation in middle panel is less than 0.01 eV. The results indicate that by carefully selecting the value of interlayer spacing we can obtain the flat and very narrow energy band of TBG. In such case, the Coulomb repulsion $U$ is about 1.24 eV, so its $U/w$ is larger than 100, which indicate that the strongly correlated state can be realized in medium-sized Moir$\\rm \\acute{e}$ cell of TBG by tuning its interlayer coupling. In addition, it is worthwhile to emphasize that the medium-sized moir$\\rm \\acute{e}$ cell with strong correlation has a great significance for the superconductivity in TBG. Generally, the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$ depends on the carrier density in strongly correlated superconductors.[@Cao2018] For a charged medium-sized cell, the carrier density is much higher than the density of the Moir$\\rm \\acute{e}$ cell with magic angle. So, we expect that the superconducting transition with high $T_c$ occurs in this medium-sized Moir$\\rm \\acute{e}$ cell of TBG.\n\n![The band structures of TBG with the interlayer spacing of 2.432 \u00c5, 2.428 \u00c5, 2.425 \u00c5, 2.421 \u00c5, and 2.418 \u00c5. When the interlayer spacing changes very little, the electronic structure changes obviously. In middle panel, the width of band marked as magenta color is less than 0.01 eV. []{data-label=\"band2\"}](6degree-band.eps){width=\"8.0cm\"}\n\nIn summary, we have performed the first principles calculations on the electronic properties of TBG with certain twist angles and interlayer spacings. The ratio of Coulomb repulsion $U$ and the energy band width $w$ is adopted to estimate the strength of electronic correlation of TBG systems. With the decrease of the twist angle and the interlayer spacing, the Coulomb repulsion becomes stronger and the band width become narrower, resulting in the enhancement of electronic correlation. For a medium-sized cell of TBG, the reduction of interlayer spacing can result in the strong electronic correlation. These results indicate that the strength of electronic correlation in twisted bilayer graphene is closely related to two factors: the size of unit cell and the distance between layers. Consequently, a conclusion can be drawn that the strong electronic correlation in twisted bilayer graphene originates from the synergistic effect of the large size of Moire cell and strong interlayer coupling on its electronic structure.\n\nWe thank Professors Zhong-Yi Lu, Guo-Hua Zhong, Ping Zhang and Hai-Qing Lin for valuable discussions. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants Nos. 11474004, 11404383, 11674087.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'For any Shimura variety of Hodge type with hyperspecial level at a prime $p$ and any automorphic lisse sheaf on it, we prove a formula, conjectured by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90], for the Lefschetz number of an arbitrary Frobenius-twisted Hecke correspondence acting on the compactly supported \u00e9tale cohomology and verify another conjecture of Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90] on stabilization of that formula. The main ingredients of our proof of the formula are a recent work of Kisin [@Kisin17] on Langlands-Rapoport conjecture and the theory of Galois gerbs developed by Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87]. Especially, we use the Galois gerb theory to establish an effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple, and mimic the arguments of Langlands and Rapoport of deriving the Kottwitz formula from their conjectural description of the ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-point set of Shimura variety (Langlands-Rapoport conjecture). We do not assume that the derived group is simply connected, and also obtain partial results at (special) parahoric levels under some condition at $p$. For that, in the first part of our work we extend the results of Langlands and Rapoport to such general cases.'\nauthor:\n- Dong Uk Lee\ntitle: Galois gerbs and Lefschetz number formula for Shimura varieties of Hodge type\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nStatement of the main results\n-----------------------------\n\nThe main results of this work are the following two descriptions of the Lefschetz numbers of Frobenius-twisted Hecke correspondences on the compactly supported cohomology of Shimura varieties of Hodge type with hyperspecial level, which were conjectured by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90], (3.1) and Thm. 7.2. The first one is a consequence of the second one.\n\nFix two distinct primes $p$, $l$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$. Let $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum of Hodge type, $K_p$ a hyperspecial subgroup of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, $K^p$ a (sufficiently small) compact open subgroup of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$; put $K=K_pK^p$. Let $Sh_K(G,X)$ be (the canonical model over the reflex field $E(G,X)$ of) the associated Shimura variety, and ${\\mathscr{F}}_K$ a $\\lambda$-adic lisse sheaf on it defined by a finite-dimensional algebraic representation $\\xi$ of $G$ over a number field $L$ and choice of a place $\\lambda$ of $L$ over $l$. For $i\\in{\\mathbb N}_{\\geq0}$, let $H_c^i(Sh_K(G,X)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K)$ be the compactly supported cohomology of ${\\mathscr{F}}_K$. Let $\\wp$ be a prime of $E=E(G,X)$ above $p$ and $\\Phi\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/E_{\\wp})$ be a geometric Frobenius for an embedding $E_{\\wp}\\hookrightarrow {\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. It is known [@Kisin10], [@Vasiu99] that $Sh_K(G,X)$ has a canonical smooth integral model over the ring of integers $\\mathcal{O}_{E_{\\wp}}$ and ${\\mathscr{F}}_K$ extends over it.\n\n\\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_conj\\] Assume that the center $Z(G)$ of $G$ has same ranks over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and ${\\mathbb R}$.[^1] For every $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\\mathcal{H}(G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)/\\!\\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\\in{\\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, such that for each $m\\geq m(f^p)$, the Lefschetz number of $\\Phi^m\\times f^p$ is given by $$\\sum_i (-1)^i \\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\times f^p | H_c^i(Sh_K(G,X)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K))=\\sum_{\\underline{H}\\in \\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)} \\iota(G,\\underline{H}) {\\mathrm{ST}}_{{\\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1}),$$ where the right sum is over a set $\\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)$ of representatives of the isomorphism classes of elliptic endoscopic data of $G$ with a choice of a $z$-pair $(H_1,\\xi_1)$ for each $\\underline{H}\\in \\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)$, and ${\\mathrm{ST}}_{{\\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1})$ is the elliptic part of the geometric side of the stable trace formula for a suitable function $f^{H_1}$ on $H_1({\\mathbb A})$, $\\iota(G,\\underline{H})$ is a certain constant depending only on the pair $(G,\\underline{H})$.\n\nMoreover, if the adjoint group $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is ${\\mathbb Q}$-anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$.\n\nIn particular, we obtain a formula for the local zeta functions of the same Shimura varieties. We refer to Thm. \\[thm:EP\\_GS\\_STF\\] for explanation of the objects appearing here. We remark that this formula is the first step in the Langlands\u2019s program for establishing the celebrated conjecture that the Hasse-Weil zeta function of an arbitrary Shimura variety is a product of automorphic $L$-functions. This formula is deduced from the following formula, via the machinery of stabilization of the trace formula.\n\n\\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\] For any $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\\mathcal{H}(G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)/\\!\\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\\in{\\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, such that for each $m\\geq m(f^p)$, the Lefschetz number of $\\Phi^m\\times f^p$ is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq_intro:Kottwitz_formula}\n\\sum_{i}(-1)^i\\mathrm{tr}( & \\Phi^m\\times f^p | H^i_c(Sh_{K}(G,X)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K)) \\\\\n& = \\sum_{(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)} c(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)\\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p) \\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0), \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over a set of representatives $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ of *all* equivalence classes of *stable* Kottwitz triples of level $n$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant and $c(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ is a certain constant (defined in terms of Galois cohomology). Moreover, if $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is ${\\mathbb Q}$-anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$.\n\nSee Thm. \\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:Kisin\\] for a precise description of the terms involved and more details. We emphasize that in both theorems, we do *not* assume that the derived group $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ of $G$ is simply connected. In such case that $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ being the simply connected cover of $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$, the expression on the right-hand side of (\\[eq\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\]) equals the one in the Kottwitz\u2019s conjecture [@Kottwitz90 (3.1)]. Regarding this generality, we remark on two points. First, we take the sum only over certain Kottwitz triples which we call *stable* (Def. \\[defn:stable\\_Kottwitz\\_triple\\]). This notion of stableness has the same meaning as in the stable conjugacy (e.g. every Kottwitz triple is stable in our sense if $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$), so is a natural condition in this context. But there is also some subtle point at $p$ (cf. Remark \\[rem:Kottwitz\\_triples\\] and ). Secondly, the condition of \u201c*having trivial Kottwitz invariant*\u201d should be also taken with a grain of salt: again unless $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, Kottwitz invariant itself is not a notion well-defined by a (stable) Kottwitz triple alone, although its vanishing is so (cf. ).\n\nTo have a complete picture of the Hasse-Weil zeta function (and for applications to construction of Galois representations, cf. [@ScholzeShin13]), one also needs similar descriptions at bad reductions (cf. [@Rapoport05 $\\S$10], [@Haines14 Conj.4.30, 4.31]). For that, we remark that we also obtain some partial results towards Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\] for (special) parahoric levels under the assumption that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and is tamely ramified, and together with such results, the same methods proving the above theorems (based on [@Kottwitz84b], [@LR87]) should allow the wanted descriptions, once those results in [@Kisin17] which were geometric ingredients in our arguments (and further some relevant results in harmonic analysis) are also available for general parahoric levels.\n\nStrategy of proof\n-----------------\n\nWe begin with some general comments on our proofs. First, Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_conj\\] is a consequence of the stabilization of the right-hand side of the identity (\\[eq\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\]), the key tools in this machinery being the endoscopic transfer conjectures which are now established by Ngo, Waldspurger. Such stabilization was carried out by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90 $\\S$4-$\\S$7], [@Kottwitz10] in the case $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. We follow closely his arguments which however need occasionally modifications due to our generality. Our main contribution is the proof of Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\] and now we give a quick overview of the historical origin of our strategy. After previous successes with examples (by Eichler, Shimura, Kuga, Sato, and Ihara), a systematic approach to a formula for the Lefschetz number in question (and its stabilization) was conceived by Langlands based on Lefschetz-Grothendieck trace formula, and a set of ideas and techniques was developed by Langlands [@Langlands76], [@Langlands79] and Kottwitz [@Kottwitz84b] (\u201cLanglands-Kottwitz method\u201d). Meanwhile, it was also realized that this method itself needed some refinement. Then, Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87] recast the problem by developing the theory of Galois gerbs, modeled on the theory of Grothendieck motives. Its purpose was to provide a general framework for formulating a conjectural description of the ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-point set of Shimura variety which is *precise* enough to allow one to derive the Kottwitz formula from it.\n\nOur proof of the Kottwitz formula (\\[eq\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\]) imitates these arguments of Langlands and Rapoport of deriving the Kottwitz formula from their conjecture. As such, their theory of Galois gerbs is a major ingredient in this work. Another essential ingredient is a recent work of Kisin [@Kisin17] on the aforementioned conjecture of Langlands and Rapoport. Previously, Kottwitz [@Kottwitz92] proved the formula (\\[eq\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\]) in PEL-type cases (of simple Lie type $A$ or $C$) by a method which is based on the Honda-Tate theory. This method however cannot be applied in general Hodge-type situations, and indeed our proof is different from his proof in his PEL-type cases.\n\nIn the next, we give more detailed discussion of the idea of our proof. We begin by introducing the work of Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87].\n\n### Langlands-Rapoport conjecture\n\nThe conjecture of Langlands and Rapoport, which was stated in [@LR87] and a significant progress towards which was recently made by Kisin [@Kisin17], aims to give a group-theoretic description of the set of ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-points of the mod-$p$ reduction of a Shimura variety, as provided with Hecke operators and Frobenius automorphism.\n\nLet $(G,X)$ be a (general) Shimura datum and ${\\mathbf{K}}^p\\subset G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, ${\\mathbf{K}}_p\\subset G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ compact open subgroups, and set ${\\mathbf{K}}:={\\mathbf{K}}_p\\times {\\mathbf{K}}^p\\subset G({\\mathbb A}_f)$. The original conjecture mainly concerned good reduction cases, where ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is *hyperspecial*, i.e. ${\\mathbf{K}}_p=G_{{{\\mathbb Z}_p}}({{\\mathbb Z}_p})$ for a reductive ${{\\mathbb Z}_p}$-group scheme with generic fiber $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$. We also choose a place $\\wp$ of the reflex field $E(G,X)$ dividing $p$, and let ${\\mathcal{O}}_{\\wp}$, $\\kappa(\\wp)$ denote respectively the integer ring of the local field $E(G,X)_{\\wp}$ and its residue field. Then, Langlands and Rapoport conjectured that there exists an integral model ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$ of ${\\mathrm{Sh}}_K(G,X)$ over ${\\mathcal{O}}_{\\wp}$, for which there is a bijection $$\\label{eqn:LRconj-ver1}\n{\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\bigsqcup_{[\\phi]}S(\\phi)$$ where $$S(\\phi)=\\varprojlim_{{\\mathbf{K}}^p} I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X_p(\\phi)\\times X^p(\\phi)/{\\mathbf{K}}^p.$$ To give an idea of what these objects look like, suppose that our Shimura variety ${\\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$ is a moduli space of abelian varieties endowed with a certain prescribed set of additional structures defined by $G$ (called $G$-structure, for short), and that there exists an integral model whose reduction affords a similar moduli description (at least over ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$). Then, roughly speaking, each $\\phi$ is supposed to correspond to an isogeny class of abelian varieties with $G$-structure, and the set $S(\\phi)$ is to parameterize the isomorphism classes in the corresponding isogeny class. More precisely, $X_p(\\phi)$ and $X^p(\\phi)$ should correspond, repsectively, to the isogenies of $p$-power order and prime-to-$p$ order (say, leaving from a fixed member in the isogeny class $\\phi$) preserving $G$-structure, and $X_p(\\phi)$ can be also identified with a suitable affine Deligne-Lusztig variety $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$. The term $I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ is to be the automorphism group of the isogeny class attached to $\\phi$, and thus acts naturally on $X_p(\\phi)$ and $X^p(\\phi)$. Moreover, each of the sets $S(\\phi)$ carries a compatible action of the group $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ and the Frobenius automorphism $\\Phi$ (which is an element of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}/\\kappa(\\wp))$), and the bijection (\\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\\]) should be compatible with these actions.\n\nWhen it comes to the precise definition, the most tricky object is the parameter $\\phi$. Its precise definition makes use of the language of *Galois gerb*: A Galois gerb is a gerb, in the sense of *Cohomologie non ab\u00e9lienne* \u00e0 la Giraud, on the \u00e9tale site of a field (with choice of a neutralizing object). This is motivated by the fact [@Milne94] that there is a well-determined class of Shimura varieties (i.e. Shimura varieties of abelian type) which, in characteristic zero, have a description of their point sets similar to (\\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\\]) with the parameter $\\phi$ being an abelian motive (constructed using absolute Hodge cycles). For ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-points, the parameter $\\phi$, called an *admissible morphism*, is to represent \u201ca motive over ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ with $G$-structure\u201d. A proper definition of such object involves a Tannakian-theoretic description of the category of motives. But, the Tannakian category of Grothendieck motives over ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$, being non-neutral, is identified (after choice of a fiber functor) with the representation category of a certain Galois gerb (\u201cmotivic Galois gerb\u201d), not an affine group scheme, and \u201ca motive over ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ with $G$-structure\u201d should be a morphism from this motivic Galois gerb to the neutral Galois gerb attached to $G$.\n\n### From Langlands-Rapoport conjecture to Kottwitz formula {#subsubsec:fromLRtoKF}\n\nThe conjectural description (\\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\\]) allows one to obtain a manageable description of the fixed point set of any Hecke correspondence twisted by a Frobenius $\\Phi^m$, and eventually a purely group-theoretic formula for its cardinality; in particular, it gives a formula for the cardinalities of the finite sets ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\mathbb F}_{q^m})=[{\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})]^{\\Phi^m=\\mathrm{id}}$ for each finite extension ${\\mathbb F}_{q^m}$ of the base field ${\\mathbb F}_q=\\kappa(\\wp)$ whose knowledge amounts to that of the local zeta function of ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)_{\\kappa(\\wp)}$.\n\nSuch deduction arguments were provided by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz84b] and Langlands-Rapoport [@LR87]. Here, we sketch its basic idea in the trivial correspondence case (cf. [@Milne92]). For simplicity, we assume (only here) that the derived group $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ of $G$ is simply connected. By an elementary argument [@Kottwitz84b $\\S$1.4], one readily sees that for each admissible morphism $\\phi$, the corresponding fixed-point set $S(\\phi)^{\\Phi^m=\\mathrm{Id}}$ breaks up further as a disjoint union of subsets $S(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ indexed by (the equivalence class of) a pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, where $\\epsilon$ is an automorphism of $\\phi$ which exists as an element of $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ and is to be regarded as a Frobenius descent datum of $\\phi$: $${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\mathbb F}_{q^m}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\bigsqcup_{[\\phi]}S(\\phi)^{\\Phi^m=\\mathrm{id}} = \\bigsqcup_{[\\phi,\\epsilon]} S(\\phi,\\epsilon)$$ Among such pairs $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, we are interested only in the pairs, called *admissible*, satisfying some natural conditions that are necessary (but, not sufficient in general!) for the corresponding set $S(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ to be non-empty (Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\]). Then, with any admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, one can associate a triple of group elements (*Kottwitz triple*) $$(\\gamma_0;\\gamma=(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)\\in G({\\mathbb Q})\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\times G(L_n)$$ satisfying certain compatibilities among themselves, where $L_n$ is the unramified extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ of degree $n=m[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$, and express the cardinality of the set $S(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ in terms of it as $$|S(\\phi,\\epsilon)|=\\mathrm{vol}(G_{\\gamma_0}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash G_{\\gamma_0}({\\mathbb A}_f))\\cdot O_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot TO_{\\delta}(\\phi_p),$$ where $G_{\\gamma_0}$ is the centralizer subgroup of $\\gamma_0$ in $G$, $O_{\\gamma}(f^p)$ and $TO_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)$ are some orbital integral and twisted orbital integral, respectively. Thus, the final formula for $|{\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\mathbb F}_{q^m})|$ (for any sufficiently small $K^p$) takes the form of a sum, indexed by (the equivalence classes of) Kottwitz triples, of a product of quantities that can be defined purely group theoretically: $$\\label{eqn:formulra_for_number_of_pts}\n|{\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\mathbb F}_{q^m})|=\\sum_{(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)}\\iota(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)\\cdot \\mathrm{vol}(G_{\\gamma_0}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash G_{\\gamma_0}({\\mathbb A}_f))\\cdot O_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot TO_{\\delta}(\\phi_p),$$ where $\\iota(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ is by definition the number of equivalence classes of admissible pairs giving rise to a fixed Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$.\n\nWith an explicit cohomological description for $\\iota(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, this is the formula conjectured (and proved in certain PEL-type cases [@Kottwitz92 (19.6)]) by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90 (3.1)], except that here the sum is only over the *effective* Kottwitz triples, namely those Kottwitz triples attached to some admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, while in the original formula, one takes *all* Kottwitz triples with trivial Kottwitz invariant (it is known that every effective Kottwitz triple has trivial Kottwitz invariant). We bring the reader\u2019s attention to this usuage of the terminology *effectivity* and the possible confusion that a Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ which is effective in this sense may not appear as a summation index \u201ceffectively\u201d in the sum (\\[eqn:formulra\\_for\\_number\\_of\\_pts\\]) (i.e. the corresponding summand could be zero): one could also have defined $\\iota(\\gamma_0;\\gamma;\\delta)$ to be zero if is not effective, but then it is not the definition $\\iota(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta):=|\\ker[\\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{\\gamma_0})\\rightarrow \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},G)]|$ used by Kottwitz in his formula (which is always non-zero). We note that to reconcile the formula (\\[eqn:formulra\\_for\\_number\\_of\\_pts\\]) with the Kottwitz\u2019s formula [@Kottwitz90 (3.1)], it suffices to establish the following *effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple*: a Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant is effective (in the sense just defined) if the corresponding summand $O_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot TO_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)$ is non-zero (one also needs the fact that $\\iota(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)=|\\ker[\\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{\\gamma_0})\\rightarrow \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},G)]|$ which is however proved in [@LR87 Satz 5.25]).\n\n### The works of Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87] and of Kisin [@Kisin17]\n\nA substantial part of the work [@LR87] of Langlands and Rapoport is devoted to constructing all these objects and establishing their basic properties, especially those facts that are needed to carry out the deduction just sketched of the formula (\\[eqn:formulra\\_for\\_number\\_of\\_pts\\]) from the (conjectural) description (\\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\\]). The only missing ingredient in completing this deduction arguments was the effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple stated above. In fact, Langlands and Rapoport also suggest one such effectivity criterion (condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ in [@LR87 Satz.5.21]), but fail to relate it to the more natural one of non-vanishing of $O_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot TO_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)$. In this work, we prove this effectivity criterion (Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\]) and thereby (with a little more work allowing general Hecke correspondences) complete the arguments of Langlands and Rapoport of deriving the Kottwitz formula from their conjecture.[^2] We emphasize that our proof of the effectivity criterion (even though it could be formulated without the language of Galois gerbs) uses the full force of the theory of Galois gerbs and admissible morphisms from [@LR87].\n\nOn the other hand, recently Kisin [@Kisin17] obtained a description of ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ quite similar to (\\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\\]). But, in his version of the description (\\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\\]) (i.e. Theorem 0.3 of *loc. cit.*), the action of the group $I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ on $X_p(\\phi)\\times X^p(\\phi)$ (which is somewhat artificial) is not the *natural* one specified in the original conjecture. An unfortunate consequence of this is that the deduction argument above *per se* does not work for such imprecise description.[^3] In fact, in our proof of Kottwitz formula, we do *not* use this weaker form (of Langlands-Rapoport conjecture) itself. Instead, we will just emulate the Langlands-Rapoport arguments above. Fortunately, this is possible due to the \u201cgeometrical\u201d results of [@Kisin17] which are often quite strong (\u201cgeometrical\u201d in the sense that it can be formulated without using the language of Galois gerbs). Here, we mention one such result, [@Kisin17 Cor.2.2.5] which we have dubbed \u201cstrong CM lifting theorem\u201d to distinguish it from the usual CM lifting theorem [@Kisin17 Thm.2.2.3] (which only says that every isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}$ in a SV of Hodge type over ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ contains a point which lifts to a CM point).\n\nGeneralization of results of [@LR87]\n------------------------------------\n\nThe main results of [@LR87] assume that the level subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial (so, in particular that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified) and that the derived group is simply connected. To extend the scope of our method of proof beyond these cases, our first primary task in this article is to generalize their works to more general parahoric levels (so as to allow possibly bad reductions) under the assumption that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and spits over a tamely ramified extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ (in fact, we will assume less than that, see Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\] for a precise condition), and also to remove the restriction on the derived group; some of our results will further assume that ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special maximal parahoric. When one works with this general level subgroups, the first notable change occurs in definitions, especially that of admissible morphism, where instead of a single affine Deligne-Lusztig variety $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ which defined the set $X_p(\\phi)$, one needs to use a *finite union* of *generalized* affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties $X(w,b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$: $$X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}:=\\bigsqcup_{w\\in{\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\})} X(w,b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$$ Here, ${\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\})$ is a certain subset of the double coset ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\backslash G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ determined by the datum $(G,X)$. When ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial, this specializes to the previous definition. Meanwhile, the conjecture (\\[eqn:LRconj-ver1\\]) itself was extended by Rapoport [@Rapoport05] to cover general parahoric levels. Secondly, to work beyond the restriction of simply-connected derived group, we use the definition of admissible morphism generalized by Kisin for this purpose (cf. Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\], [@Kisin17 (3.3.6)]).\n\nTo keep statements short, we will call the following condition the *Serre condition for the Shimura datum $(G,X)$*[^4] : *the center $Z(G)$ of $G$ splits over a CM field and the weight homomorphism $w_X$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$.* Note that this condition holds if the Shimura datum is of Hodge type.\n\nOur main results in the first part are generalizations (sometimes, including improvements) of the key properties of admissible morphisms and admissible pairs:\n\n\\[thm\\_intro:1st\\_Main\\_thm\\] Let $p>2$ be a rational prime. Let $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum satisfying the Serre condition. Assume that $G$ is of classical Lie type, and that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and splits over a tamely ramified extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$. Let ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a parahoric subgroup of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. Then, we have the followings.\n\n\\(1) Any admissible morphism $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is *special*, namely there exists a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ and $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that ${\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi=i\\circ\\psi_{T,h}$, where $i:{\\mathfrak{G}}_T\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is the canonical morphism of neutral Galois gerbs induced by the inclusion $T{\\hookrightarrow}G$. If ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special maximal parahoric, then every such morphism $i\\circ\\psi_{T,h}$ is admissible. Every admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is conjugate to $(i\\circ\\psi_{T,h},\\epsilon'\\in T({\\mathbb Q}))$ for a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$.\n\n\\(2) Suppose that ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special maximal parahoric. For any $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ that is elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$, there exists an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\gamma_0)$ if and only if there exists $\\epsilon\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ stably conjugate to $\\gamma_0$ and satisfying condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ of . If the latter condition holds, there exists a ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ with $\\epsilon$ stably conjugate to $\\gamma_0^t$ for some $t\\in{\\mathbb N}$.\n\nThe tame condition on $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ can be relaxed significantly (see Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\] for a precise condition). These statements (and their counterpart results in [@LR87]) are found respectively in Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\], Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\], \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\] (for (1)) and Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\] (for (2)). The statement (1) and the first claim of (2) are generalizations of the same results in *loc. cit.*, while the second claim of statement (2) is new. We also remark that the condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ in (2) is our generalization of the original condition in [@LR87 Satz 5.21] of the same name $\\ast(\\epsilon)$, in our general set-up that the level subgroup is parahoric and $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is not necessarily unramified nor $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected.\n\nThe statement (1) is a fundamental fact about admissible morphisms, and underlies the CM lifting theorem [@Kisin17 Thm. 0.4] (in the hyperspecial level case) that every isogeny class in ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ contains a point that is the reduction of a special(=CM) point.\n\nThe following theorem is the first version of the aforementioned effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple which is established for the first time here (even in the original set-up of [@LR87], cf. Remark \\[rem:comments\\_on\\_Milne92\\]).\n\n\\[thm\\_intro:2st\\_Main\\_thm\\] \\[Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\]\\] Under the same assumptions as in (2) of Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:1st\\_Main\\_thm\\], for every Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant (Def. \\[defn:Kottwitz\\_triple\\]), if $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},\\delta)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\neq\\emptyset$, there exists an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ giving rise to it. There exists an explicit cohomological expression for the number of non-equivalent pairs $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ producing a given triple $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$.\n\nThis is one of the key ingredients in our proof of the Kottwitz formula as well as in the Langlands-Rapoport\u2019s arguments of deriving it from Langlands-Rapoport conjecture. There is also a similar, second version of effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\\]) which will be needed in our (unconditional) proof of Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\].\n\n### Some further results and comments\n\nAccording to the discussion in , Langlands-Rapoport conjecture implies that to any ${\\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-point ($n$ being a multiple of $[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb F}_p]$), one should be able to attach a Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ of level $n$ (i.e. with $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$). For Hodge-type Shimura varieties with hyperspecial level, this was done by Kisin [@Kisin17 Cor. 2.3.1].[^5] Then, the formula (\\[eqn:formulra\\_for\\_number\\_of\\_pts\\]) implies that only those triples whose corresponding summation term is non-zero should be *geometrically effective*, i.e. arises from an ${\\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-point (where $n$ is the level of the triple). Thus, a natural question arises whether such necessary condition for geometric effectivity is also a sufficient condition. Closely related questions are which (${\\mathbb R}$-elliptic) stably conjugacy classes in $G({\\mathbb Q})$ and which $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)$ are \u201ceffective\u201d (i.e. can be the classes of the elements $\\gamma_0$ and $\\delta$ attached to some ${\\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-point, respectively). This question for (the stable conjugacy class of) an ${\\mathbb R}$-elliptic rational element $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ can be regarded as Honda-Tate theorem in the context of Shimura varieties, while the question for $\\delta$ is known as non-emptiness problem of Newton strata.\n\nFor hyperspecial level, the proof of Theorem \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\] answers the first question affirmatively: the natural necessary condition is also sufficient. We also answer the second question too. For that, we consider Shimura varieties of Hodge type and fix an integral model ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}$ over ${\\mathcal{O}}_{\\wp}$ of the canonical model ${\\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)_{E_{\\wp}}$ with the extension property that every $F$-point of ${\\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)$ for a finite extension $F$ of $E_{\\wp}$ extends uniquely to ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}$ over its local ring (for example, integral model constructed by a suitable normalization); see [@KisinPappas15] for a construction of such integral model in general parhoric levels.\n\n\\[Cor. \\[cor:geom\\_effectivity\\_of\\_K-triple\\]\\] Keep the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm\\_intro:1st\\_Main\\_thm\\]. a Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ of level $n$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant is *geometrically effective* in the sense that it arises from a ${\\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-valued point of ${\\mathscr{S}}$ as (\\[eq:K-triple\\_for\\_isogeny\\_adm.pair\\]) if and only if $\\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot\\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)$ is non-zero.\n\n\\[Thm. \\[thm:non-emptiness\\_of\\_NS\\]\\] \\[thm:3rd\\_Main\\_thm\\] Keep the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm\\_intro:1st\\_Main\\_thm\\], and further assume that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ splits over a *cyclic* tame extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$. Let ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a (not necessarily special) parahoric subgroup of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and put ${\\mathbf{K}}={\\mathbf{K}}_p{\\mathbf{K}}^p$ for a compact open subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}^p$ of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$.\n\n\\(1) Then, for any $[b]\\in B(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},\\{\\mu_X\\}$) (), there exists a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},T_{{\\mathbb R}})\\cap X)$ such that for any $g_f\\in{\\mathbf{K}}^p$, the reduction in ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}\\otimes{\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ of the special point $[h,g_f\\cdot{\\mathbf{K}}]\\in {\\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ has the $F$-isocrystal represented by $[b]$.\n\n\\(2) The reduction ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)\\otimes{\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ has non-empty ordinary locus if and only if $\\wp$ has absolute height one (i.e. $E(G,X)_{\\wp}={\\mathbb Q}_p$).\n\nThis theorem generalizes Theorem 4.3.1 and Corollary 4.3.2 of [@Lee16] in the hyperspecial cases.\n\nNext, we give some comments on possible generalizations of Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_conj\\] and Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\] for bad reductions. In view of the recent works [@KisinPappas15 Thm. 4.7.11] and [@Zhou17], it seems very likely that our methods and results allow us to establish also the conjecture on the semisimple zeta function ([@Rapoport05], [@Haines14]) in special parahoric level case, when $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified and $p\\nmid |\\pi_1(G^{{\\mathrm{der}}})|$, and as a result Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_conj\\] (for which one might also need certain results on the endoscopic transfer of stable Bernstein center, cf. [@Haines14]). But, we can already use our partial results to extend the scope of some previous results, for example, we can relax the ramification condition imposed on the PEL datum in the main result of [@Scholze13].\n\nFinally, we make some comments on the various assumptions appearing in this article. The running assumption, which will be effective except in some general discussions, is that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and splits over a tamely ramified extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ (as mentioned above, for the latter condition, in fact, we only need some less restrictive one: see Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\] and Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\] for a precise condition). Equally universal assumption, although it is not needed for the important Theorem \\[thm\\_intro:1st\\_Main\\_thm\\], (1), is that ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special maximal parahoric. These two assumptions are somewhat forced on us because we follow closely the original line of arguments [@LR87] for our proofs. We however remark that the two conditions that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ splits over a tamely ramified extension and the level subgroup is special maxima parahoric are imposed only via Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\], or via Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\], where these assumptions are of more techinical nature rather than of intrinsic nature (e.g. in their proofs, we verify certain statements by case-by-case analysis, where the possible cases are restricted or reduce substantially under such assumptions). It would be interesting to know if one can remove either of these conditions in these statements.\n\nWe remark that our sign convention up to Section 6 is the same as that of Langlands-Rapoport in [@LR87]; so for example, it is opposite to that of Kisin in [@Kisin17]. In Section 7, we also need to fix some more sign conventions, especially sign normalization of the local Langlands correspondence for tori (see Footnote \\[ftn:LLC\\_sign\\] for our choice).\n\nThis article is organized as follows. The second section is a preliminary discussion, devoted to a review of some basic objects, including Kottwitz and Newton maps (defined for algebraic groups over $p$-adic fields), parahoric groups (in the Bruhat-Tits theory), extended affine Weyl groups, and $\\{\\mu\\}$-admissible set. In the third section, we attempt to give a self-contained overview of the notions of Galois gerbs, the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb, admissible morphisms, Kottwitz triples, and admissible pairs, following closely the original source [@LR87]. At the same time, we generalize these notions and establish their properties (notably, admissible morphism and Kottwitz triple) beyond the original assumption that the group has simply connected derived group. We also give a statement of the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, as formulated by Rapoport [@Rapoport05 $\\S$8] so as to cover parahoric levels. Along the way, we extend results on special admissible morphisms to (special maximal) parahoric levels, under the assumption that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split. In Section 4, we prove Theorem \\[thm\\_intro:1st\\_Main\\_thm\\], (1) above, namely that every admissible morphism is conjugate to a special admissible morphism (in our case of general parahoric level), as well as the fact that every admissible pair is nested in a special Shimura datum. For some other potential applications in mind, we spilt the proof into a few steps and formalize each of them into a separate proposition (incorporating slight improvements). The results in this section are in large part translations of the original results, except for generalizations to our setting and reorganization (with small improvements). However, some of the generalizations, e.g. the proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\], are rather non-trivial. In Section 5, we establish the first version of effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\]). In Section 6, we prove the Kottwitz formula, in two ways, one assuming validity of Langlands-Rapoport conjecture (Thm. \\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:LR\\]) and another one being unconditional (Thm. \\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:Kisin\\]), which uses the second version of effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\\]). In the last section, we stabilize the Kottwitz formula, thereby proving Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_conj\\].\n\nIn this work, a certain result in the Bruhat-Tits theory, whose hyperspecial case was already used critically in the original work [@LR87] (cf. [@Lee16 Lem. A.0.4]), plays a key role. We provide its proof in Appendix \\[sec:elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\]. Also, generalizations to our setting (i.e. $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\neq G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ in general) of previous arguments occur frequently throughout the entire work. For that, it is necessary to work with abelianized cohomology groups which are cohomology groups of complexes of tori. In appendix \\[sec:abelianization\\_complex\\], we collect basic facts about complexes of tori attached to connected reductive groups.\n\n**Acknowledgement** A part of this work was supported by IBS-R003-D1. The author would like to thank M. Rapoport and C.-L. Chai for their interests in this work and encouragement.\n\n**Notations**\n\nThroughout this paper, ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$ denotes the algebraic closure of ${\\mathbb Q}$ inside ${\\mathbb C}$.\n\nFor a connected reductive group $G$ over a field, we let $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ be the universal covering of its derived group $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$, and for a (linear algebraic) group $G$, $Z(G)$, and $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ denote its center, and the adjoint group $G/Z(G)$, respectively.\n\nFor a group $I$ and an $I$-module $A$, we let $A_I$ denote the quotient group of $I$-coinvariants: $A_I=A/\\langle ia-a\\ |\\ i\\in I, a\\in A\\rangle$. For an element $a\\in A$, we write $\\underline{a}$ for the image of $a$ in $A_I$. In case of need for distinction, sometimes we write $\\underline{a}_A$.\n\nFor a finitely generated abelian group $A$, we denote by $A_{\\mathrm{tors}}$ its subgroup of torsion elements. For a locally compact abelian group $A$, we let $X^{\\ast}(A):={\\mathrm{Hom}}_{\\mathrm{cont}}(A,{\\mathbb C}^{\\times})$ (continuous character group) and $A^D:={\\mathrm{Hom}}_{\\mathrm{cont}}(A,S^1)$ (Pontryagin dual). For a (commutative) algebraic group $A$ over a field $F$, $X_{\\ast}(A):={\\mathrm{Hom}}_{\\mathrm{alg}}({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}},A)$, $X^{\\ast}(A):={\\mathrm{Hom}}_{\\mathrm{alg}}(A,{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}})$. So, for a diagonalizable ${\\mathbb C}$-group $A$, we have $\\pi_0(A)^D=X^{\\ast}(A)_{\\mathrm{tors}}$ (with the embeddings ${\\mathbb Q}/{\\mathbb Z}\\subset {\\mathbb R}/Z=S^1\\subset {\\mathbb C}^{\\times}$ understood).\n\nIn this article, the german letter ${\\mathfrak{k}}$ denotes the completion of the maximal unramified extension (in a fixed algebraic closure ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$) of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, and for $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$ $L_n$ will denote $\\mathrm{Frac}(W({\\mathbb F}_{p^n}))$.\n\nPreliminaries: Parahoric subgroups and $\\mu$-admissible set\n===========================================================\n\nKottwitz maps and Newton map\n----------------------------\n\nIn this section, we briefly recall the definitions of the Kottwitz maps and the Newton map. We refer to [@Kottwitz97], [@Kottwitz85], [@RR96], and references therein for further details.\n\n### The Kottwitz maps $w_G$, $v_G$, $\\kappa_{G}$ {#subsubsec:Kottwitz_hom}\n\nLet $L$ be a complete discrete valued field with algebraically closed residue field and set $I:={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{L}/L)$. For any connected reductive group $G$ over $L$, Kottwitz [@Kottwitz97 $\\S$7] constructs a group homomorphism $$w_G:G(L)\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G})^{I})=\\pi_1(G)_{I}.$$ Here, $\\widehat{G}$ denotes the Langlands dual group of $G$, $\\pi_1(G)=X_{\\ast}(T)/\\Sigma_{\\alpha\\in R^{\\ast}}{\\mathbb Z}\\alpha^{\\vee}$ is the fundamental group of $G$ (\u00e0 la Borovoi) (i.e. the quotient of $X_{\\ast}(T)$ for a maximal torus $T$ over $F$ of $G$ by the coroot lattice), and $\\pi_1(G)_I$ is the (quotient) group of coinvariants of the $I$-module $\\pi_1(G)$. This map $w_G$ is sometimes denoted by $\\widetilde{\\kappa}_G$, e.g. in [@Rapoport05]. When $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected (so that $\\pi_1(G)=X_{\\ast}(G^{{\\mathrm{ab}}})$ for $G^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}=G/G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$), $w_G$ factors through $G^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}$: $w_G=w_{G^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}\\circ p_G$, where $p_G:G\\rightarrow G^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}$ is the natural projection [@Kottwitz97 7.4].\n\nThere is also a homomorphism $$v_G:G(L)\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Hom}}(X_{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G}))^I,{\\mathbb Z})$$ sending $g\\in G(L)$ to the homomorphism $\\chi\\mapsto \\mathrm{val}(\\chi(g))$ from $X_{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G}))^I={\\mathrm{Hom}}_L(G,{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}})$ to ${\\mathbb Z}$, where $\\mathrm{val}$ is the usual valuation on $L$, normalized so that uniformizing elements have valuation $1$. It is clear from this definition that $v_G=v_{G^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}\\circ p_G$ for *any* $G$ (i.e. not necessarily having the property $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$).\n\nThere is the relation: $$v_G=q_G\\circ w_G,$$ where $q_G$ is the natural surjective map $$q_G:X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G})^{I})=X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G}))_I \\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Hom}}(X_{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G}))^I,{\\mathbb Z}).$$ The kernel of $q_G$ is the torsion subgroup of $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G}))_I$, i.e. ${\\mathrm{Hom}}(X_{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G}))^I,{\\mathbb Z})\\cong \\pi_1(G)_I/\\text{torsions}$; in particular, $q_G$ is an isomorphism if the coinvariant group $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G}))_I$ is free (e.g. the $I$-module $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G}))$ is trivial or more generally *induced*, i.e. has a ${\\mathbb Z}$-basis permuted by $I$).\n\nFor example, when $G$ is a torus $T$, we have $\\langle \\chi,w_T(t)\\rangle= \\mathrm{val}(\\chi(t))$ for $ t\\in T(L)$, $\\chi\\in X^{\\ast}(T)^I$, where $\\langle\\ ,\\ \\rangle$ is the canonical pairing between $X^{\\ast}(T)^I$ and $X_{\\ast}(T)_I$.\n\nNow suppose that $G$ is defined over a local field $F$, i.e. a finite extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ (in a fixed algebraic closure ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$). Let $L$[^6] be the completion of the maximal unramified extension $F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ of $F$ in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ and let $\\sigma$ denote the Frobenius automorphism on $L$ which fixes $F$ and induces $x\\mapsto x^q$ on the residue field of $L$ ($\\cong{\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$), where the residue field of $F$ is ${\\mathbb F}_q$. In this situation, the maps $v_{G_L}$, $w_{G_L}$ each induce notable maps.\n\nFirst, as $w_{G_L}$ (and $v_{G_L}$ too) commutes with the action of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/F)$, by taking $H^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathrm{Gal}}(F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/F),-)$ on both sides of $w_{G_L}$, we obtain a homomorphism $$\\lambda_G:G(F)\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G})^I)^{\\langle\\sigma\\rangle},$$ where $I\\cong{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{F}/F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. This map is introduced in [@Kottwitz84b $\\S$3] (cf. [@Kottwitz97 7.7]) when $G$ is *unramified* over $F$ (in which case the canonical action of $I$ on $Z(\\widehat{G})$ is trivial) and used in [@LR87] (with the same notation) under the additional assumption $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ so that $w_{G_L}=v_{G_L}$. We remark that in our general set-up that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is not necessarily unramified nor $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, to achieve what $\\lambda_G$ did in [@LR87], we use $v_G$, or $w_G$ depending on the situation. Next, let $B(G)$ denote the set of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes: $$B(G):=G(L)/\\stackrel{\\sigma}{\\sim},$$ where two elements $b_1$, $b_2$ of $G(L)$ are said to be *$\\sigma$-conjugate*, denoted $b_1\\stackrel{\\sigma}{\\sim} b_2$, if there exists $g\\in G(L)$ such that $b_2=gb_1\\sigma(g)^{-1}$. Then, $w_{G_L}$ induces a map of sets $$\\label{eq:kappa_G}\n\\kappa_G:B(G)\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G})^{\\Gamma_F})=\\pi_1(G)_{\\Gamma_F}: \\kappa_G([b])=\\overline{w_{G_L}(b)}.$$ Here, for $b\\in G(L)$, $[b]$ denotes its $\\sigma$-conjugacy class, and for $x\\in \\pi(G)_{I}$, $\\overline{x}$ denotes its image under the natural quotient map $\\pi(G)_{I}\\rightarrow \\pi(G)_{\\Gamma_F}$. For further details, see [@Kottwitz97 7.5].\n\nAll these maps are functorial in $G$ (i.e. for group homomorphisms).\n\n### The Newton map $\\nu_G$\n\nLet $\\mathbb{D}$ denote the protorus $\\varprojlim{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}$ with the character group ${\\mathbb Q}=\\varinjlim{\\mathbb Z}$. For an algebraic group $G$ over a $p$-adic local field $F$, we put $$\\mathcal{N}(G):=({\\mathrm{Hom}}_{L}(\\mathbb{D},G)/\\Int(G(L)))^{\\sigma}$$ (the subset of $\\sigma$-invariants in the set of $G(L)$-conjugacy classes of $L$-rational quasi-cocharacters into $G_L$). We will use the notation $\\overline{\\nu}$ for the the conjugacy class of $\\nu\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}_{L}(\\mathbb{D},G)$.\n\nFor every $b\\in G(L)$, Kottwitz [@Kottwitz85 $\\S$4.3] constructs an element $\\nu=\\nu_G(b)=\\nu_b\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}_L(\\mathbb{D},G)$[^7] uniquely characterized by the property that there are an integer $s>0$, an element $c\\in G(L)$ and a uniformizing element $\\pi$ of $F$ such that:\n\n-   $s\\nu\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}_L({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}},G)$.\n\n-   ${\\mathrm{Int}}(c)\\circ s\\nu$ is defined over the fixed field of $\\sigma^s$ in $L$.\n\n-   $c\\cdot (b\\sigma)^s\\cdot c^{-1}=c\\cdot (s\\nu)(\\pi)\\cdot c^{-1}\\cdot \\sigma^{s}$.\n\nIn (iii), the product (and the equality as well) take place in the semi-direct product group $G(L)\\rtimes\\langle\\sigma\\rangle$. We call $\\nu_b$ the *Newton homomorphism* attached to $b\\in G(L)$\n\nWhen $G$ is a torus $T$, $\\nu_b=\\mathrm{av}\\circ w_{T_L}(b)$, where $\\mathrm{av}:X_{\\ast}(T)_I\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathbb Q}}^{\\Gamma_F}$ is \u201cthe average map\u201d $X_{\\ast}(T)_I\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(T)_{\\Gamma_F}\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathbb Q}}^{\\Gamma_F}$ sending $\\underline{\\mu}\\ (\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T))$ to $|\\Gamma_F\\cdot\\mu|^{-1} \\sum_{\\mu'\\in \\Gamma_F\\cdot\\mu}\\mu'$ (cf. [@RR96 Thm. 1.15, (iii)]). Hence, it follows that if $T$ is split by a finite Galois extension $K\\supset F$, for $b\\in T(L)$, $[K:F]\\nu_b\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$ and that $\\langle \\chi,\\nu_b\\rangle= \\mathrm{val}(\\chi(b))$ (especially $\\in{\\mathbb Z}$) for every $F$-rational character $\\chi$ of $T$.\n\nThe map $b\\mapsto \\nu_b$ has the following properties.\n\n-   $\\nu_{\\sigma(b)}=\\sigma(\\nu_b)$.\n\n-   $gb\\sigma(g)^{-1}\\mapsto {\\mathrm{Int}}(g)\\circ \\nu,\\ g\\in G(L)$.\n\n-   $\\nu_b={\\mathrm{Int}}(b)\\circ\\sigma(\\nu_b)$.\n\nIt follows from (b) and (c) that $\\nu_G:G(L)\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Hom}}_L(\\mathbb{D},G)$ gives rise to a map $\\overline{\\nu}_G:B(G)\\rightarrow \\mathcal{N}(G)$, which we call the *Newton map*. This can be also regarded as a functor from the category of connected reductive groups to the category of sets (endowed with partial orders defined as below): $$\\overline{\\nu}:B(\\cdot)\\rightarrow \\mathcal{N}(\\cdot)\\ ;\\\n\\overline{\\nu}_{G}([b])=\\overline{\\nu}_{b},\\quad\nb\\in[b].$$\n\n### \n\nFor a connected reductive group $G$ over an arbitrary (i.e. not necessarily $p$-adic) field $F$, let $\\mathcal{BR}(G)=(X^{\\ast},R^{\\ast},X_{\\ast},R_{\\ast},\\Delta)$ be the based root datum of $G$: we may take $X^{\\ast}=X^{\\ast}(T)$, $X_{\\ast}=X_{\\ast}(T)$ for a maximal $F$-torus $T$ of $G$ and $R^{\\ast}\\subset X^{\\ast}(T)$, $R_{\\ast}\\subset X_{\\ast}(T)$ are respectively the roots and the coroots for the pair $(G,T)$ with a choice of basis $\\Delta$ of $R^{\\ast}$ (whose choice corresponds to that of a Borel subgroup $B\\subset G_{\\overline{F}}$ containing $T_{\\overline{F}}$). Let $\\overline{C}\\subset (X_{\\ast})_{{\\mathbb Q}}$ denote the closed Weyl chamber associated with the root base $\\Delta$. It comes with a canonical action of $\\Gamma_F:={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{F}/F)$ on $\\overline{C}$.\n\nFor a cocharacter $\\mu\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}_{\\overline{F}}({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}},G)$ lying in $\\overline{C}$, we set $$\\overline{\\mu}:=|\\Gamma_F\\cdot\\mu|^{-1} \\sum_{\\mu'\\in\\Gamma_F\\cdot\\mu}\\mu'\\quad\\in\\overline{C}.$$ Here, the orbit $\\Gamma_F\\cdot\\mu$ is obtained using the canonical Galois action on $\\overline{C}$. Once a Weyl chamber $\\overline{C}$ (equivalently, a Borel subgroup $B$ or a root base $\\Delta$) is chosen, $\\overline{\\mu}$ depends only on the $G(\\overline{F})$-conjugacy class $\\{\\mu\\}$ of $\\mu$.\n\nSuppose that $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T)\\cap\\overline{C}$. As $X_{\\ast}(T)=X^{\\ast}(\\widehat{T})$ for the dual torus $\\widehat{T}$ of $T$, regarded as a character on $\\widehat{T}$, we can restrict $\\mu$ to the subgroup $Z(\\widehat{G})^{\\Gamma_F}$ of $\\widehat{T}$, obtaining an element $$\\label{eqn:mu_natural}\n\\mu^{\\natural}\\in X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G})^{\\Gamma_F})=\\pi_1(G)_{\\Gamma_F}.$$ Again, $\\mu^{\\natural}$ depends only on the $G(\\overline{F})$-conjugacy class $\\{\\mu\\}$ of $\\mu$. Alternatively, $\\mu^{\\natural}$ equals the image (sometimes, also denoted by $\\underline{\\mu}$) of $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$ under the canonical map $X_{\\ast}(T)\\rightarrow \\pi_1(G)_{\\Gamma_F}$.\n\n### The set $B(G,\\{\\mu\\})$ {#subsubsec:B(G,{mu})}\n\nAgain, let us return to a $p$-adic field $F$. We fix a closed Weyl chamber $\\overline{C}$ (equiv. a Borel subgroup $B$ over $\\overline{F}$). Suppose given a $G(\\overline{F})$-conjugacy class $\\{\\mu\\}$ of cocharacters into $G_{\\overline{F}}$. Let $\\mu$ be the representative of $\\{\\mu\\}$ in $\\overline{C}$; so we have $\\overline{\\mu}=\\overline{\\mu}(G,\\{\\mu\\})\\in\\overline{C}$ and $\\mu^{\\natural}\\in X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G})^{\\Gamma_F})$. We define a finite subset $B(G,\\{\\mu\\})$ of $B(G)$ (cf. [@Kottwitz97 Sec.6], [@Rapoport05 Sec.4]): $$B(G,\\{\\mu\\}):=\\left\\{\\ [b]\\in B(G)\\ |\\quad \\kappa_{G}([b])=\\mu^{\\natural},\\quad \\overline{\\nu}_{G}([b])\\preceq \\overline{\\mu}\\ \\right\\},$$ where $\\preceq$ is the natural partial order on the closed Weyl chamber $\\overline{C}$ defined by that $\\nu\\preceq \\nu'$ if $\\nu'-\\nu$ is a nonnegative linear combination (with *rational* coefficients) of simple coroots in $R_{\\ast}(T)$ [@RR96], Lemma 2.2). One knows [@Kottwitz97 4.13] that the map $$(\\overline{\\nu},\\kappa):B(G)\\rightarrow \\mathcal{N}(G)\\times X^{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{G})^{\\Gamma_F})$$ is injective, hence $B(G,\\{\\mu\\})$ can be identified with a subset of $\\mathcal{N}(G)$.\n\nParahoric subgroups\n-------------------\n\nOur references here include [@Rapoport05], [@HainesRapoport08], [@HainesRostami10], in addition to the original sources [@BT72], [@BT84], [@Tits79].\n\n###  {#subsubsec:parahoric}\n\nLet $G$ be a connected reductive group $G$ over a strictly henselian discrete valued field $L$. Let ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ be the Bruhat-Tits building of $G$ over $L$ (cf. [@Tits79], [@BT72], [@BT84]). Then, a *parahoric subgroup* of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is a subgroup of the form $$K_{{\\mathbf{f}}}=\\mathrm{Fix}\\ {\\mathbf{f}}\\cap \\ker\\ w_G$$ for a facet ${\\mathbf{f}}$ of ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$. Here, $\\mathrm{Fix}\\ {\\mathbf{f}}$ denotes the subgroup of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ fixing ${\\mathbf{f}}$ pointwise and $w_G$ is the Kottwitz map (). When ${\\mathbf{f}}$ is an alcove of ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ (i.e. a maximal facet), the parahoric subgroup is called an *Iwahori* subgroup. A *special maximal parahoric subgroup* of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is the parahoric subgroup attached to a special point in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$. More precisely, choose a maximal split torus $A$ of $G$ and let ${\\mathcal{A}}(A,L)$ be the associated apartment; let ${\\mathcal{A}}(A^{{\\mathrm{ad}}},L)$ be the apartment in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}},L)$ corresponding to the image $A^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ of $A$ in $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$. Then, there exists a canonical simplicial isomorphism [@Tits79 1.2] $${\\mathcal{A}}(A,L)\\cong {\\mathcal{A}}(A^{{\\mathrm{ad}}},L)\\times X_{\\ast}(Z(G))_{\\Gamma_F}\\otimes{\\mathbb R}.$$ Then, every special point in ${\\mathcal{A}}(A,L)$ is of the form $\\{{\\mathbf{v}}\\}\\times x$ for a unique special *vertex* ${\\mathbf{v}}$ of ${\\mathcal{A}}(A^{{\\mathrm{ad}}},L)$ (in the sense of [@Tits79 1.9]) and some $x\\in X_{\\ast}(Z(G))_{\\Gamma_F}\\otimes{\\mathbb R}$.\n\nThe original definition of pararhoic subgroups by Bruhat-Tits [@BT84 5.2.6], cf. [@Tits79 3.4] uses group schemes. With every facet ${\\mathbf{f}}$ of ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ they associate a smooth group scheme ${\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}$ over ${\\mathrm{Spec}}({\\mathcal{O}}_L)$ with generic fiber $G$ such that ${\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}({\\mathcal{O}}_L)=\\mathrm{Fix}\\ {\\mathbf{f}}$. Also, there exists an open subgroup ${\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ with the same generic fiber $G$ and the connected special fiber. Then, the parahoric subgroup attached to ${\\mathbf{f}}$ by Bruhat-Tits is ${\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathcal{O}}_L)$. It is known [@HainesRapoport08 Prop.3] that they coincide: $$K_{{\\mathbf{f}}}={\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathcal{O}}_L).$$\n\nNow suppose that $G$ is defined over a local field $F$, as before given as a finite extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. Again, $L$ denotes the completion of the maximal unramified extension of $F$ in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ and let $\\sigma$ be the Frobenius automorphism of $L$ fixing $F$. Let ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ (resp. ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$) be the Bruhat-Tits building of $G$ over $L$ (resp. over $F$); as $G$ is defined over $F$, ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ carries an action of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})\\rtimes\\langle\\sigma\\rangle$ and ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$ is identified with the set of fixed points of ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ under $\\langle\\sigma\\rangle$ [@BT84 5.1.25]. This procedure of taking $\\sigma$-fixed points ${\\mathbf{f}}\\mapsto {\\mathbf{f}}^{\\sigma}$ gives a bijection from the set of $\\sigma$-stable facets in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ to the set of facets in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$.\n\nA *parahoric subgroup* of $G(F)$ is by definition ${\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathcal{O}}_L)^{\\sigma}(:={\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathcal{O}}_L)\\cap G(F))$ for a $\\sigma$-stable facet ${\\mathbf{f}}$ of ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$. A *special maximal parahoric subgroup* of $G(F)$ is ${\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathcal{O}}_L)^{\\sigma}$ for a special point ${\\mathbf{f}}\\in{\\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$.\n\n### Extended affine Weyl group {#subsubsec:EAWG}\n\nLet $G$ be a connected reductive group over a complete discrete valued field $L$ with algebraically closed residue field. Let $S$ be a maximal split $L$-torus of $G$ and $T$ its centralizer; $T$ is a maximal torus since $G_L$ is quasi-split by a well-known theorem of Steinberg. Let $N=N_G(T)$ be the normalizer of $T$. The *extended affine Weyl group* (or *Iwahori Weyl group*) associated with $S$ is the quotient group $$\\tilde{W}:=N(L)/T(L)_1,$$ where $T(L)_1$ is the kernel of the Kottwitz map $w_T:T(L)\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(T)_{I}$. As $w_T$ is surjective, $\\tilde{W}$ is an extension of the relative Weyl group $W_0:=N(L)/T(L)$ by $X_{\\ast}(T)_I$: $$\\label{eqn:EAWG1}\n0\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(T)_I\\rightarrow \\tilde{W}\\rightarrow W_0\\rightarrow 0.$$ The normal subgroup $X_{\\ast}(T)_I$ is called the *translation subgroup* of $\\tilde{W}$, and any $\\lambda\\in X_{\\ast}(T)_I$, viewed as an element in $\\tilde{W}$ in this way, will be denoted by $t^{\\lambda}$ (*translation element*).\n\nThis extension splits by choice of a special vertex ${\\mathbf{v}}$ in the apartment corresponding to $S$, namely if $K=K_{{\\mathbf{v}}}\\subset G(L)$ is the associated parahoric subgroup, the subgroup $$\\tilde{W}_K:=(N(L)\\cap K)/T(L)_1$$ of $\\tilde{W}$ projects isomorphically to $W_0$, and thus gives a splitting $$\\tilde{W}=X_{\\ast}(T)_I\\rtimes \\tilde{W}_K.$$\n\nFor two parahoric subgroups $K$ and $K'$ associated with facets in the apartment corresponding to $S$, there exists an isomorphism $$\\label{eqn:parahoric_double_coset}\nK\\backslash G(L)/ K'\\cong \\tilde{W}_K\\backslash \\tilde{W}/ \\tilde{W}_{K'}.$$\n\nLet $S^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ (resp. $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, $N^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$) be the inverse image of $S$ (resp. $T$, $N$) in the universal covering $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ of $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$; then, $S^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ is a maximal split torus of $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ and $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ (resp. $N^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$) is its centralizer (resp. the normalizer). The natural map $N^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}(L)\\rightarrow N(L)$ induces an injection $X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I{\\hookrightarrow}X_{\\ast}(T)_I$ and presents the extended affine Weyl group associated with $(G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}},S^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ $$W_a:=N^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}(L)/ T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}(L)_1$$ as a normal subgroup of the extended affine Weyl group $\\tilde{W}$ (attached to $S$) such that the translation subgroup $X_{\\ast}(T)_I$ maps onto the quotient $\\tilde{W}/W_a$ with kernel $X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$: $$\\label{eqn:EAWG2}\n0\\rightarrow W_a\\rightarrow \\tilde{W}\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(T)_I/X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I\\rightarrow 0.$$ The quotient group $X_{\\ast}(T)_I/X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ is identified in a natural way with $\\pi_1(G)_I$ [@HainesRapoport08 p.196]. The group $W_a$ can be also regarded as an affine Weyl group attached to some reduced root system (*loc. cit.*, p.195).[^8] This extension (\\[eqn:EAWG2\\]) also splits by choice of an alcove in the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}(S,L)$ of $S$. More precisely, the extended affine Weyl group $\\tilde{W}$ (resp. the affine Weyl group $W_a$) acts transitively (resp. simply transitively) on the set of alcoves in ${\\mathcal{A}}(S,L)$, hence when we choose a base alcove ${\\mathbf{a}}$ in ${\\mathcal{A}}(S,L)$, $$\\label{eqn:splitting_of_EAWG2}\n\\tilde{W}=W_a\\rtimes \\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}},$$ where $\\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$ is the normalizer of ${\\mathbf{a}}$; $\\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$ will be often identified with $X_{\\ast}(T)_I/X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$.\n\nFinally, suppose that there is an automorphism $\\sigma$ of $L$ such that $L$ is the strict henselization of its fixed field $L^{\\natural}$ and that $G$ is defined over $L^{\\natural}$. Then, we can find a $L^{\\natural}$-torus $S$ such that $S_L$ becomes a maximal split $L$-torus, and a maximal $L^{\\natural}$-torus $T$ containing $S$; set $N$ to be the normalizer of $T$. Then $\\sigma$ acts on the extended Weyl group $\\tilde{W}$ in an obvious way. Moreover, if $K_{{\\mathbf{v}}}\\subset G(L)$ is the parahoric subgroup attached to a $\\sigma$-stable facet ${\\mathbf{v}}$, then the subgroup $\\tilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{v}}}}$ is stable under $\\sigma$. We refer the reader to [@HainesRapoport08 Remark 9] for a \u201cdescent theory\u201d in this situation.\n\n### The $\\{\\mu\\}$-admissible set {#subsubsec:mu-admissible_set}\n\nAs before, let $G$ be a connected reductive group $G$ over a complete discrete valued field $L$ with algebraically closed residue field. Let $W=N({\\overline{L}})/T({\\overline{L}})$ be the absolute Weyl group. Let $\\{\\mu\\}$ be a $G({\\overline{L}})$-conjugacy class of cocharacters of $G$ over ${\\overline{L}}$. We use $\\{\\mu\\}$ again to denote the corresponding $W$-orbit in $X_{\\ast}(T)$. Let us choose a Borel subgroup $B$ over $L$ containing $T$ (which exists as $G_{/L}$ is automatically quasi-split), and let $\\mu_B$ be the unique representative of $\\{\\mu\\}$ lying in the associated absolute closed Weyl chamber in $X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathbb R}}$. Then, the $W_0$-orbit of the image $\\underline{\\mu_B}$ of $\\mu_B$ in $X_{\\ast}(T)_I$ is well-determined, since any two Borel subgroups over $L$ containing $T$ are conjugate under $G(L)$. We denote this $W_0$-orbit by $\\Lambda(\\{\\mu\\})$: $$\\Lambda(\\{\\mu\\}):=W_0\\cdot\\underline{\\mu_B}\\ \\subset\\ X_{\\ast}(T)_I.$$ It is known [@Rapoport05 Lem. 3.1] that the image of $\\Lambda(\\{\\mu\\})$ in the quotient group $X_{\\ast}(T)_I/X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ consists of a single element, which we denote by $\\tau(\\{\\mu\\})$.\n\nLet us now fix an alcove ${\\mathbf{a}}$ in the apartment corresponding to $S$. This determines a Bruhat order on the affine Weyl group $W_a$ which further extends to the extended Weyl group $\\tilde{W}=W_a\\rtimes \\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$ (\\[eqn:splitting\\_of\\_EAWG2\\]), [@KR00 $\\S$1]. Also, when $K\\subset G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is a parahoric subgroup associated with a facet of ${\\mathbf{a}}$, it induces a Bruhat order on the double coset space $\\tilde{W}_K\\backslash \\tilde{W}/\\tilde{W}_K$ [@KR00 $\\S$8]. We will denote all these orders by $\\leq$; this should not cause much confusion.\n\n\\[defn:mu-admissible\\_subset\\] The *$\\{\\mu\\}$-admissible subset* of $\\tilde{W}$ is $$\\mathrm{Adm}(\\{\\mu\\})=\\{w\\in\\tilde{W}\\ |\\ w\\leq t^{\\lambda}\\text{ for some }\\lambda\\in\\Lambda(\\{\\mu\\})\\},$$ and the *$\\{\\mu\\}$-admissible subset* of $\\tilde{W}_K\\backslash \\tilde{W}/\\tilde{W}_K$ is $$\\mathrm{Adm}_K(\\{\\mu\\})=\\{w\\in\\tilde{W}_K\\backslash \\tilde{W}/\\tilde{W}_K\\ |\\ w\\leq \\tilde{W}_Kt^{\\lambda}\\tilde{W}_K\\text{ for some }\\lambda\\in\\Lambda(\\{\\mu\\})\\}.$$\n\nOne knows [@Rapoport05 (3.8)] that $\\mathrm{Adm}_K(\\{\\mu\\})$ is the image of $\\mathrm{Adm}(\\{\\mu\\})$ under the natural map $\\tilde{W}\\rightarrow \\tilde{W}_K\\backslash \\tilde{W}/\\tilde{W}_K$.\n\nSuppose that $G$ splits over $L$ (thus $S=T$) and $K$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup. Then, $$\\mathrm{Adm}_K(\\{\\mu\\})=\\{\\nu\\in X_{\\ast}(S)\\cap\\overline{C}\\ |\\ \\nu\\stackrel{!}{\\leq} \\mu\\},$$ where $\\mu$ denotes the representative in $\\overline{C}$ of $\\{\\mu\\}$. If furthermore $\\{\\mu\\}$ is minuscule, $\\mathrm{Adm}_K(\\{\\mu\\})$ consists of a single element, i.e. $\\{\\mu\\}\\in X_{\\ast}(T)/W$ itself.\n\nHere, $\\nu\\stackrel{!}{\\leq} \\mu$ means that $\\mu-\\nu$ is a sum of simple coroots with non-negative *integer* coefficients. See Prop. 3.11 and Cor. 3.12 of [@Rapoport05] for a proof.\n\nPseudo-motivic Galois gerb and admissible morphisms\n===================================================\n\nThis section is devoted to a review of the theory of the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb and admissible morphisms, as explained in [@LR87]. In addition to this original source [@LR87], we also refer readers to [@Milne92], [@Kottwitz92], [@Reimann97].\n\nGalois gerbs {#subsec:Galois_gerbs}\n------------\n\nWe review the notion of Galois gerbs as used by Langlands-Rapoport in [@LR87 $\\S$2] (cf. [@Breen94 $\\S$4], [@Rapoport05 $\\S$8], [@Reimann97 Appendix B]).\n\nLet $k$ be a field of characteristic zero (which will be for us either a global or a local field) and ${\\overline{k}}$ an algebraic closure. For an affine group scheme $G={\\mathrm{Spec}}A$ over a Galois extension $k'\\subset{\\overline{k}}$ of $k$ and $\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$, an automorphism $\\kappa$ of $G(k')$ is said to be *$\\sigma$-linear* if there is a $\\sigma$-linear automorphism $\\kappa'$ of the algebra $A$ such that $$\\kappa'(f)(\\kappa(g))=\\sigma(f(g)),\\quad f\\in A,\\ g\\in G(k').$$ The simplest example is given by the natural action of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ on $G(k')$, when $G$ is defined over $k$. In this article, we will be concerned mainly with the following kind of Galois gerbs, which will be called *algebraic*. For $\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$, let $$\\sigma_{k'}:G(k')\\rightarrow (\\sigma^{\\ast}G)(k')$$ be the unique map for which $f\\otimes 1(\\sigma_{k'}(g))=\\sigma(f(g))$ holds for $f\\in A,\\ g\\in G(k')$, where $f\\otimes1\\in A\\otimes_{k',\\sigma}k'$. Then, for any algebraic isomorphism $\\theta$ of $k'$-group schemes from $\\sigma^{\\ast}G$ to $G$, the automorphism $\\theta\\circ\\sigma_{k'}$ of $G(k')$ is $\\sigma$-linear, since then one can take $\\kappa:=\\theta\\circ\\sigma_{k'}$ and $\\kappa'(f):=(\\theta^{\\ast})^{-1}(f\\otimes1)$ (Here, $\\theta^{\\ast}:A{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}A\\otimes_{k',\\sigma}k'$ denotes the associated map on the structure sheaf). We will call such $\\sigma$-linear automorphism of $G(k')$ *algebraic*. Hence, one can identify an algebraic $\\sigma$-linear isomorphism $\\kappa(\\sigma)$ with an algebraic $k'$-isomorphism $\\theta(\\sigma):\\sigma^{\\ast}(G){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G$ via $\\kappa(\\sigma)=\\theta(\\sigma)\\circ\\sigma_{k'}$.\n\n\\[defn:Galois\\_gerb\\] Let $k'\\subset {\\overline{k}}$ be a Galois extension of $k$. A *$k'/k$-Galois gerb* is an extension of topological groups $$1{\\longrightarrow}G(k'){\\longrightarrow}{\\mathfrak{G}}{\\longrightarrow}{\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k){\\longrightarrow}1,$$ where $G$ is an affine smooth group scheme (i.e. a linear algebraic group) over $k'$ and $G(k')$ (resp. ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$) has the discrete (resp. the Krull) topology, such that\n\n-   for every representative $g_{\\sigma}\\in{\\mathfrak{G}}$ of $\\sigma\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$, the automorphism $\\kappa(\\sigma):g\\mapsto g_{\\sigma}gg_{\\sigma}^{-1}$ of $G(k')$ is algebraic $\\sigma$-linear.\n\n-   for some finite sub-extension $k\\subset K\\subset k'$, there exists a continuous section $${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K){\\longrightarrow}{\\mathfrak{G}}\\ :\\ \\sigma\\mapsto g_{\\sigma}$$ which is a group homomorphism.\n\nIn the presence of (i), condition (ii) means that the family $\\{\\theta(\\sigma):\\sigma^{\\ast}(G){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G\\}$ of isomorphisms associated with ${\\mathrm{Int}}(g_{\\sigma})$ is a $k'/K$-descent datum on $G$: the homomorphism property of (ii) gives the cocycle condition of descent datum. Thus the section $\\sigma\\mapsto g_{\\sigma}\\ (\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K))$ determines a $K$-structure on $G$ and accordingly an action of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ on $G(k')$. This Galois action is nothing other than $\\theta(\\sigma)\\circ\\sigma_{k'}$,[^9] namely, we have the relation $$\\label{eq:conjugation=Galois_action}\ng_{\\sigma}gg_{\\sigma}^{-1}=\\sigma(g),\\quad \\sigma\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K),$$ where $\\sigma(g)$ is the just mentioned action of $\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ on $G(k')$. In other words, the conditions (i), (ii) imply that over some finite Galois extension $K\\subset k'$ of $k$, there exists a group-theoretic section $\\sigma\\mapsto \\rho_{\\sigma}$, via which the pull-back to ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ of ${\\mathfrak{G}}$ becomes a semi-direct product $G(k')\\rtimes {\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$, with the action of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ on $G(k')$ (i.e. the conjugation action of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$ on $G(k')$ via the section) being the natural Galois acton resulting from a $K$-structure on $G$.\n\nWe remark that our definition of Galois gerb is equivalent to that of affine smooth gerb[^10] on the \u00e9tale site ${\\mathrm{Spec}}(k)_{{\\text{\\'et}}}$ *equipped with a neutralizing object over ${\\mathrm{Spec}}(K)$*.[^11] For a detailed discussion of this relation, we refer to [@LR87 p.152-153], [@Breen94 $\\S$4].\n\nWe call the group scheme $G$ the *kernel* of ${\\mathfrak{G}}$ and write $G={\\mathfrak{G}}^{\\Delta}$. A *morphism* between $k'/k$-Galois gerbs $\\varphi:{\\mathfrak{G}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}'$ is a continuous map of extensions which induces the identity on ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ and an algebraic homomorphism on the kernel groups. Two morphisms $\\phi_1$ and $\\phi_2$ are said to be *conjugate* if there exists $g'\\in G'(k')$ with $\\phi_2={\\mathrm{Int}}(g')\\circ \\phi_1$. With every linear algebraic group $G$ over $k$, the semi-direct product gives a gerb $${\\mathfrak{G}}_G=G(k')\\rtimes{\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k).$$ We call it the *neutral gerb* attached to $G$.\n\nFor two successive Galois extensions $k\\subset k'\\subset k''\\subset {\\overline{k}}$, any $k'/k$-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}$ gives rise to a $k''/k$-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}'$, by first pulling-back the extension ${\\mathfrak{G}}$ by the surjection ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k''/k)\\twoheadrightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ and then pushing-out via $G(k')\\rightarrow G(k'')$. In this situation, we will call ${\\mathfrak{G}}'$ the *inflation* to $k''$ of the $k'/k$-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}$; this terminology will be justified when we relate Galois gerbs with commutative kernels to Galois cohomology. We also call a ${\\overline{k}}/k$-Galois gerb, simply a Galois gerb over $k$. It follows from definition that any Galois gerb over $k$ is the inflation of a $k'/k$-Galois gerb for some finite Galois extension $k\\subset k'\\subset {\\overline{k}}$ and that every morphism between $k'/k$-Galois gerbs induces a morphism between their inflations to $k''$ for any sub-extension $k''\\subset {\\overline{k}}$.\n\nFor two morphisms of $k'/k$-Galois gerbs $\\phi_1,\\phi_2:{\\mathfrak{G}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}'$, there exists a $k$-scheme $\\underline{\\mathrm{Isom}}(\\phi_1,\\phi_2)$, whose set of $R$-points, for a $k$-algebra $R$, is given by $$\\label{eq:Isom(phi_1,phi_2)}\n\\underline{\\mathrm{Isom}}(\\phi_1,\\phi_2)(R)=\\{g\\in{\\mathfrak{G}}'^{\\Delta}(k'\\otimes_kR)\\ |\\ {\\mathrm{Int}}(g)\\circ\\phi_{1R}=\\phi_{2R}\\},$$ where $\\phi_{1R}$ and $\\phi_{2R}$ are the induced maps ${\\mathfrak{G}}_R\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}'_R$ between the push-outs of ${\\mathfrak{G}}$ and ${\\mathfrak{G}}'$ via ${\\mathfrak{G}}^{\\Delta}(k')\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}^{\\Delta}(k'\\otimes_kR)$ and the same map for ${\\mathfrak{G}}'$. When $\\phi_1=\\phi_2$, we denote this $k$-group scheme by $I_{\\phi_1}=\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\phi_1)$. For $g\\in {\\mathfrak{G}}'(k')$, one readily sees that $\\Int(g)$ induces a $k$-isomorphism of $k$-groups $I_{\\phi_1}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{\\Int(g)\\circ\\phi_1}$.\n\n### Galois gerbs defined by $2$-cocyles with values in commutative affine group schemes\n\nIn our work (as well as in the work of Langlands-Rapoport), besides the neutral gerbs attached to arbitrary algebraic groups, all the nontrivial Galois gerbs have as associated kernel *commutative affine group schemes (in fact, (pro-)tori) defined over base fields*. In such cases, a Galois gerb has an explicit description in terms of (continuous) $2$-cocycles (in the usual sense) on the absolute Galois group of the base field with values in the geometric points of given commutative affine group scheme endowed with the natural Galois action.\n\nRecall that for a group $H$ and an $H$-module $A$ (i.e. an abelian group with $H$-action), a normalized[^12] $2$-cocyle (or \u201cfactor set\u201d) $(e_{h_1,h_2})$ on $H$ with values in $A$ gives rise to an extension of $H$ by $A$: $$1\\rightarrow A\\rightarrow E\\stackrel{p}{\\rightarrow}H\\rightarrow1$$ with property $$\\label{eq:extension_with_given_conjugation_action}\ne\\cdot a\\cdot e^{-1}=p(e)(a)\\quad (e\\in E,a\\in A),$$ where the right action of $p(e)$ on $A$ is the given one. Explicitly, $E$ is generated by $A$ and $\\{e_h\\}_{h\\in H}$ ($a\\mapsto 0,e_h\\mapsto h$ giving the projection $E\\rightarrow H$) with relations $$e_h\\cdot a\\cdot e_h^{-1}=h(a)\\ (a\\in A,h\\in H),\\qquad e_{h_1,h_2}=e_{h_1}\\cdot e_{h_2}\\cdot e_{h_1h_2}^{-1},\\quad e_1=1$$ ($e_{h_1,h_2}\\in Z^2(H,A)$ guarantees the associativity of the resulting composition law). Two extensions $E$, $E'$ of $H$ by $A$ with property (\\[eq:extension\\_with\\_given\\_conjugation\\_action\\]) are said to be *isomorphic* if there exists an isomorphism $E{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}E'$ which restricts to identity on $A$ and also induces identity on $H$. Then, this construction gives a bijection of pointed sets between $H^2(H,A)$ and the set of isomorphisms classes of group extensions of $H$ by $A$ with the induced conjugation action of $H$ on $A$ being the given one. Here, the distinguished points are the cohomology class of the trivial $2$-cocycle and the semi-direct product, respectively. For two isomorphic extensions $E,E'$ with property (\\[eq:extension\\_with\\_given\\_conjugation\\_action\\]), we say that two isomorphisms $f_1,f_2:E{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}E'$ which induce identities on $A$ and $H$ are *equivalent* (or *conjugate*) if $f_2={\\mathrm{Int}}a\\circ f_1$ for some $a\\in A$, where ${\\mathrm{Int}}a$ is the conjugation automorphism of $E'$. Then, there is a natural action of $H^1(H,A)$ on the set of equivalence classes of isomorphisms from $E$ to $E'$, which makes the latter set into a torsor under $H^1(H,A)$.\n\nNow, suppose that $G$ is a *separable* commutative affine group scheme over $k$: then $G$ is the inverse limit of a strict system of commutative algebraic groups indexed by $({\\mathbb N},\\leq)$ (cf. [@Milne03 2.6]). If $k'\\subset{\\overline{k}}$ is a Galois extension of $k$, $G(k')$ is endowed with the inverse limit topology (for algebraic group $Q$, $Q(k')$ is given the discrete topology) and we get a continuous action of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ on $G(k')$ provided by the $k$-structure of $G$. Then, for any continuous $2$-cocycle $(e_{\\rho,\\tau})\\in Z^2_{cts}({\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k),G(k'))$, the resulting extension $$1\\rightarrow G(k')\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{E}}_{k'}\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)\\rightarrow 1$$ is a $k'/k$-Galois gerb. Indeed, condition (i) of Definition \\[defn:Galois\\_gerb\\] is obvious, and for (ii), we note that since $G(k')$ has discrete topology, any class in $H^2_{cts}({\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k),G(k'))$ lies in $H^2({\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/k),G(K))$ for a *finite* Galois extension $K$ of $k$, so becomes trivial when restricted to ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/K)$. Furthermore, by pulling-back along ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{k}}/k)\\twoheadrightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$ and push-out via $G(k'){\\hookrightarrow}G({\\overline{k}})$, we obtain a Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{E}}$ over $k$ $$1\\rightarrow G({\\overline{k}})\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{E}}\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{k}}/k)\\rightarrow 1,$$ which we called the inflation of ${\\mathfrak{E}}_{k'}$ to ${\\overline{k}}$. Now, one can verify that the corresponding cohomology class in $H^2_{cts}({\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{k}}/k),G({\\overline{k}}))$ is indeed the image of $(e_{\\rho,\\tau})\\in H^2_{cts}({\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k),G(k'))$ under the inflation map $H^2_{cts}({\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k),G(k'))\\rightarrow H^2_{cts}({\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{k}}/k),G({\\overline{k}}))$.\n\nPseudo-motivic Galois gerb\n--------------------------\n\n### Local Galois gerbs {#subsubsec:Local_Galois_gerbs}\n\nHere, we define a Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}_v$ over ${\\mathbb Q}_v$ for each place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$.\n\nFor $v\\neq p,\\infty$, we define ${\\mathfrak{G}}_v$ to be the trivial Galois gerb ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathbb Q}}_v/{\\mathbb Q}_v)$: $$\\begin{array} {ccccccccc}\n1 & \\rightarrow & 1 & \\rightarrow & {\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathbb Q}}_v/{\\mathbb Q}_v) & \\rightarrow & {\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathbb Q}}_v/{\\mathbb Q}_v) & \\rightarrow & 1.\n\\end{array}$$\n\nFor $v=\\infty$, the cocycle $(d_{\\rho,\\gamma})\\in Z^2({\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R}),{\\mathbb C}^{\\times})$ $$d_{1,1}=d_{1,\\iota}=d_{\\iota,1}=1,\\quad d_{\\iota,\\iota}=-1,$$ where ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R})=\\{1,\\iota\\}$, represents the fundamental class in $H^2({\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R}),{\\mathbb C}^{\\times})$ [@Milne13]. We set ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{\\infty}$ to be the (isomorphism class of) Galois gerb defined by this cocycle (or its cohomology class): $$\\begin{array} {ccccccccc}\n1 & \\rightarrow & {\\mathbb C}^{\\times} & \\rightarrow & {\\mathfrak{G}}_{\\infty} & \\rightarrow & {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R}) & \\rightarrow & 1,\n\\end{array}$$ So, ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{\\infty}$ has generators ${\\mathbb C}^{\\times}$ and $w=w(\\iota)$ (lift of $\\iota$) satisfying that $$w(\\iota)^2=-1\\in{\\mathbb C}^{\\times},\\ \\text{ and}\\quad wzw^{-1}=\\iota(z)=\\overline{z}\\ (z\\in{\\mathbb C}^{\\times}).$$\n\nFor $v=p$ also, for any finite Galois extension $K$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, there is the fundamental class in $H^2({\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}),K^{\\times})$ [@Milne13]. For unramified extension $L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, it is represented by the cocycle: for $0\\leq i,j<n$, $$\\label{eq:canonical_fundamental_cocycle}\nd_{\\overline{\\sigma}^i,\\overline{\\sigma}^j}=\\begin{cases}\np^{-1} & \\text{if } i+j\\geq n, \\\\\n1 & \\text{ otherwise, }\n\\end{cases}$$ where $\\overline{\\sigma}\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is the *arithmetic* Frobenius.\n\nWe let ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ be the corresponding (isomorphism class of) $K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb and ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ the Galois gerb over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ obtained from ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ by inflation:[^13] $$\\xymatrix{\n1 & \\rightarrow & K^{\\times} & \\rightarrow & {\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K & \\rightarrow & {\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}) & \\rightarrow & 1\\\\ \n1 & \\rightarrow & K^{\\times} \\ar@{=}[u] \\ar@{^{(}->}[d] & \\rightarrow & \\pi_K^{\\ast}{\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K \\ar[u] \\ar[d] & \\rightarrow & {\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}) \\ar@{->>}[u]^{\\pi_K} \\ar@{=}[d] & \\rightarrow & 1\\\\\n1 & \\rightarrow & {\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}) & \\rightarrow & {\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K & \\rightarrow & {\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}) & \\rightarrow & 1.}$$ Here, $\\pi_K^{\\ast}{\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ is the pull-back of ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ along $\\pi_K:{\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\twoheadrightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, and ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ is the push-out of $\\pi_K^{\\ast}{\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ along $K^{\\times}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.\n\nFor each $K\\subset K'\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ ($K'$ being a Galois extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ containing $K$), there exists a homomorphism $${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{K'}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$$ which, on the kernel, is given by $z\\mapsto z^{[K':K]}$ [@LR87 p.119], [@Reimann97 Remark B1.2]. By passing to the inverse limit over $K\\supset {{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, we obtain a pro-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p$ over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ with kernel $\\mathbb{D}=\\varprojlim{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}$ (the protorus over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ with character group $X^{\\ast}(\\mathbb{D})={\\mathbb Q}$).\n\nFor each Galois extension $K\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, we make a choice of a normalized cocycle $(d_{\\tau_1,\\tau_2}^K)$ on ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ with values in $K^{\\times}$ defining ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$, and fix a section $\\tau\\mapsto s_{\\tau}^K$ to the projection ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K\\rightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ with property that $$s_{\\tau_1}^Ks_{\\tau_2}^K=d_{\\tau_1,\\tau_2}^Ks_{\\tau_1\\tau_2}^K,\\qquad s_{1}^K=1.$$ Since ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ is obtained from ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,K}^K$ by inflation, this gives rise to a section to ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K \\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, which we also denote by $s^K$.[^14] By Hilbert 90, any such section $s^K$ is uniquely determined up to conjugation by an element of $K^{\\times}$.\n\n### Dieudonn\u00e9 gerb {#subsubsec:Dieudonne_gerb}\n\nWe also need an unramified version of the Galois gerbs ${\\mathfrak{G}}^K_{p,K}$, ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p$. Let ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ be the maximal unramified extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. For $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$, we denote by ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n={\\mathfrak{D}}_{L_n}$ the inflation to ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ of the $L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_{p,L_n}$. As before, for every pair $m|n$, there exists a homomorphism ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{D}}_m$ which, on the kernel, is given by $z\\mapsto z^{n/m}$ (cf. [@Reimann97], Remark B1.2). By passing to the inverse limit, we get a pro-${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{D}}$ over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ with kernel $\\mathbb{D}$. We call ${\\mathfrak{D}}$ the *Dieudonn\u00e9 gerb*. Obviously, the Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}$ (resp. the pro-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p$) is (equivalent to) the inflation to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n$ (resp. ${\\mathfrak{D}}$). Again, a choice of a section to ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{p,L_n}^{L_n} \\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ made above gives us a section to ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n \\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ which is again denoted by $s^{L_n}$.\n\n### Unramified morphisms {#subsubsec:cls}\n\nFor any (connected) reductive group $H$ over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, there exists a canonical map $$\\mathrm{cls}_H:{\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}({\\mathfrak{G}}_p,{\\mathfrak{G}}_H)\\rightarrow B(H),$$ where $B(H)$ is the set of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements in $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$.\n\nLet $K\\subset {\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ be a finite Galois extension. Recall that we fixed a normalized cocycle $(d_{\\tau_1,\\tau_2}^K)\\in Z^2({\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}),K^{\\times})$ defining ${\\mathfrak{G}}^K_{p,K}$ as well as a section $s^K$ to the projection ${\\mathfrak{G}}^K_{p,K}\\rightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ with the property that $s_{\\tau_1}^Ks_{\\tau_2}^K=d_{\\tau_1,\\tau_2}^Ks_{\\tau_1\\tau_2}^K$ and $s_{1}^K=1$; one uses the same notations for the induced cocycle defining ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ and the induced section ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$. A morphism $\\theta:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_H$ is said to be *unramified* (with respect to the chosen section $s^K$) if $\\theta(s_{\\tau}^K)=1\\rtimes\\tau$ for all $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Note that if $K$ is unramified and $\\theta^{\\Delta}:\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m},{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\\rightarrow H_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ is defined over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$, this definition does not depend on the choice of the section $s^K$. A morphism $\\theta:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_H$ is then said to be *unramified* if $\\theta$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ for some finite Galois extension $K$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ such that the induced map ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_H$ is unramified in the just defined sense.\n\nFor a connected reductive group $H$ over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, we introduce the associated neutral ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb by $${\\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:=H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\rtimes{\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}).$$\n\n\\[lem:unramified\\_morphism\\] (1) For any morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, its inflation $\\overline{\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_H$ to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is an unramified morphism.\n\n\\(2) For every morphism $\\theta:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_H$ of ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, there is a morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs whose inflation to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is conjugate to $\\theta$. More precisely, if $\\theta$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$ for a finite extension $K$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, there is a morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}_n\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ with $n=[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$ whose inflation to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is conjugate to $\\theta$.\n\n\\(3) A morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ in (2) is determined uniquely up to conjugation by an element of $H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$.\n\n\\(4) For every unramified morphism $\\theta:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_H$ of ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, the element $b\\in H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ defined by $\\theta(s_{\\widetilde{\\sigma}})=b \\widetilde{\\sigma}$ for an element $\\widetilde{\\sigma}\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ lifting $\\sigma$ lies in $H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ and moreover does not depend on the choice of the lifting $\\widetilde{\\sigma}$.\n\n\\(1) Suppose that $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n$ so that $\\overline{\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}$. The ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}$ is obtained from ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n$ by pull-back along $\\pi:{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}){\\twoheadrightarrow}{\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, followed by push-out along ${\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}){\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. To show that $\\overline{\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ is unramified, we may consider the morphism $\\pi^{\\ast}\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}: \\pi^{\\ast}{\\mathfrak{D}}_n\\rightarrow \\pi^{\\ast}{\\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ obtained by pull-back only, as the section to ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}{\\twoheadrightarrow}{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ induced, via inflation, from a section to ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n{\\twoheadrightarrow}{\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ lands in (the image in the push-out of) the pull-back $\\pi^{\\ast}{\\mathfrak{D}}_n$. But, the pull-back $\\pi^{\\ast}{\\mathfrak{D}}_n$ is also obtained as the pull-back of the $L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_{p,L_n}$ along the surjection ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}){\\twoheadrightarrow}{\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, followed by push-out along ${\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}(L_n){\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then, as the section $s^{L_n}:{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}$ is induced from a section ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_{p,L_n}$, we have $s^{L_n}_{\\tau}=1$ for all $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/L_n)$. This proves the claim, since by definition $\\pi^{\\ast}{\\mathfrak{D}}_n\\subset {\\mathfrak{D}}_n\\times {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and the pull-back $\\pi^{\\ast}\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ is defined on the second factor ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ as the identity.\n\n\\(2) This is Lemma 2.1 of [@LR87] (cf. first paragraph on p.167 of loc.cit). The second assertion is shown in the proof of *loc. cit.*\n\n\\(3) In general, for any two unramified morphisms $\\theta,\\theta':{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_H$, if $\\theta'=\\mathrm{Int}(g_p)\\circ \\theta$ for some $g_p\\in H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, then it must be that $g_p\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$, since for every $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$, $$1\\rtimes\\tau=\\theta'(s_{\\tau}^{K})=g_p\\theta(s_{\\tau}^{K})g_p^{-1}=g_p(1\\rtimes\\tau)g_p^{-1}=g_p\\tau(g_p^{-1})\\cdot\\tau.$$ Here, $K\\subset {\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is some finite Galois extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ for which both $\\theta$ and $\\theta'$ factor through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^K$.\n\n\\(4) Let $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ be a morphism of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs whose inflation to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is conjugate to $\\theta$. By the proof of (3), we have $\\theta=g_p\\overline{\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}g_p^{-1}$ for some $g_p\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. So, if $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{D}}^{L_n}$ for $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$, $\\theta(s_{\\widetilde{\\sigma}}^{L_n})=g_p\\overline{\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}(s_{\\widetilde{\\sigma}}^{L_n})g_p^{-1}=g_p\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma}^{L_n})g_p^{-1}\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Here, $s^{L_n}$ denotes both the section to ${\\mathfrak{D}}^{L_n}\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ chosen before and the induced section to ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_n}\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. The second equality is easily seen to follow from the definition of the inflation $\\overline{\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ of a morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$. If $(g_p',{\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}')$ is another pair with $\\theta=g_p'\\overline{{\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}'}(g_p')^{-1}$, then we have the equalities $$g_p\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma}^{L_n})g_p^{-1}=\\theta(s_{\\widetilde{\\sigma}}^{L_n})=g_p'{\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}'(s_{\\sigma}^{L_n})(g_p')^{-1},$$ so $\\theta(s_{\\widetilde{\\sigma}}^{L_n})=g_p\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma}^{L_n})g_p^{-1}$ is independent of the choice of $\\widetilde{\\sigma}$ as well as that of the pair $(g_p,\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})$.\n\n\\(1) For a morphism $\\theta:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_H$ of ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, if one chooses a morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ as in (2) and $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})=b\\sigma$ for $b\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})$, then by (3) the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class of $b$ in $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is uniquely determined by $\\theta$. Also, any other choice $s_{\\sigma}'$ of the section $s_{\\sigma}$ gives the same $\\sigma$-conjugacy class, since $s_{\\sigma}'=us_{\\sigma}\\sigma(u^{-1})$ for some $u\\in {\\mathcal{O}}_L^{\\times}$ (cf. [@LR87], second paragraph on p.167).\n\n\\(2) Suppose that $\\theta$ is itself unramified, and let $b_1\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ be defined by $\\theta(s_{\\widetilde{\\sigma}})=b_1\\widetilde{\\sigma}$ for *some* lift $\\widetilde{\\sigma}\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ of $\\sigma$. Also, let $b\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ be defined as in (1) for some choice of $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ (${{\\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism). Then (again by Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_morphism\\], (3)) the $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes of $b$ and $b_1$ are equal.\n\n\\(3) In [@Reimann97 Remark B1.2], Reimann uses some specific $s_{\\sigma}(n)\\in {\\mathfrak{D}}_n$, namely there exists a unique $s_{\\sigma}(n)\\in {\\mathfrak{D}}$ such that for every $n$, the image of $s_{\\sigma}(n)^n$ in ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n$ is $p^{-[1/n]}\\in {\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\subset {\\mathfrak{D}}_n$ (i.e. equals $p^{-1}$ if $n=1$, or otherwise is $1$) and maps to $\\sigma$ under ${\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. There exists a compatible family of such elements $\\{s_{\\sigma}(n)\\}$; we denote by $s_{\\sigma}$ the corresponding element of ${\\mathfrak{D}}$ (i.e. the image of $s_{\\sigma}$ under the natural map ${\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{D}}_n$ is $s_{\\sigma}(n)$).\n\nNow, the map $\\mathrm{cls}_H$ in question is $\\theta\\mapsto \\overline{b(\\theta)}\\in B(H)$. Note that this map $\\mathrm{cls}$ gives the same element in $B(H)$ for all morphisms ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_H$ lying in a single equivalence class.\n\n\\[lem:Newton\\_hom\\_attached\\_to\\_unramified\\_morphism\\] Let $H$ be a connected reductive group over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ and $\\theta:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_H^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ a morphism of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs. Let $b\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ be defined by $\\theta(s_{\\widetilde{\\sigma}})=b \\widetilde{\\sigma}$ as in Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_morphism\\], (4). Suppose that $\\theta$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{D}}^{L_n}$. Then, the Newton homomorphism $\\nu_{b}$ attached to $b\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ (in the sense of [@Kottwitz85], $\\S$4.3) is equal to the quasi-cocharcter $$-\\frac{1}{n}\\theta^{\\Delta}\\quad \\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}(\\mathbb{D},G),$$ where $\\theta^{\\Delta}$ denotes the restriction of $\\theta$ to the kernel ${\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}$ of ${\\mathfrak{D}}^{L_n}$.\n\nSee *Anmerkung* on p.197 of [@LR87].\n\n### The Weil-number protorus and the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb {#subsubsec:pseudo-motivic_Galois_gerb}\n\nIn [@LR87], Langlands and Rapoport work with two kinds of \u201cmotivic Galois gerbs\u201d, the quasi-motivic Galois gerb and the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb. The latter is the Galois gerb whose associated Tannakian category is supposed to be, with a suitable choice of a ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-fibre functor, the Tannakian category of Grothendieck motives over ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ (*loc. cit.*, $\\S$4). The former\u2019s major role in *loc. cit.* is for formulation of the conjecture for the most general Shimura varieties (beyond those satisfying the Serre condition). Here, we will work mainly with the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb. According to [@Reimann97 Lem. B3.9], this is harmless, at least when the Serre condition for $(G,X)$ holds (i.e. $Z(G)$ splits over a CM field and the weight homomorphism $w_X$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$), e.g. if the Shimura datum $(G,X)$ is of Hodge-type and $G$ is the Mumford-Tate group of a generic element $h\\in X$.\n\nSince this Serre condition will be assumed largely in most of the statements and our use of the quasi-motivic Galois gerb will be limited to formulation of certain definitions, here we discuss the pseudo-motivc Galois gerb in detail and refer the readers to [@Reimann97 Appendix B] for the definition of the quasi-motivic Galois gerb.\n\nThe pseudo-motivic Galois gerb is a Galois gerb over ${\\mathbb Q}$, which is also the projective limit of Galois gerbs ${\\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ over ${\\mathbb Q}$, indexed by CM fields $K\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$ Galois over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and $m\\in{\\mathbb N}$. The kernel $P(K,m)$ of ${\\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ is a torus over ${\\mathbb Q}$ whose character group consists of certain Weil numbers. Here, we give a brief review of their constructions. We begin with $P(K,m)$. As before, we fix embeddings ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l}$, for every place $l$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$.\n\nRecall that for a power $q$ of a rational prime $p$ and an integer $\\nu\\in{\\mathbb Z}$, a *Weil $q$-number of weight $\\nu=\\nu(\\pi)\\in {\\mathbb Z}$* is an algebraic number $\\pi$ such that $\\rho(\\pi)\\overline{\\rho(\\pi)}=q^{\\nu}$ for every embedding $\\rho:{\\mathbb Q}(\\pi){\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathbb C}$. When $K$ is a field containing $\\pi$, then for every archimedean place $v$ of $K$, one has $$\\label{eq:Weil-number_archimedean_condition}\n|\\pi|_v=|\\prod_{\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_v/{\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty})}\\sigma\\pi|_{\\infty}=q^{\\frac{1}{2}[K_v:{\\mathbb R}]\\nu}.$$ Here, $|x+\\sqrt{-1}y|_v=x^2+y^2$ if $K_v={\\mathbb C}$, while if $K_v={\\mathbb R}={\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty}$, $|x|_v$ is the usual absolute value $|x|_{\\infty}$ on ${\\mathbb R}$ (hence the first equality always holds for any $\\pi\\in K$).\n\n\\[defn:Weil-number\\_torus\\] Let $K\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$ be a CM-field which is finite, Galois over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and $m\\in{\\mathbb N}$.\n\n\\(1) The group $X(K,m)$ consists of the Weil $q=p^m$-numbers $\\pi$ in $K$ (for some weight $\\nu=\\nu_1(\\pi)$) with the following properties.\n\n-   For each prime $v$ of $K$ above $p$, there is $\\nu_2(\\pi,v)\\in{\\mathbb Z}$ with $$|\\pi|_v=|\\prod_{\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_v/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}\\sigma\\pi|_p=q^{\\nu_2(\\pi,v)}.$$\n\n-   At all finite places outside $p$, $\\pi$ is a unit.\n\n\\(2) Let $X^{\\ast}(K,m)$ be the quotient of $X(K,m)$ (which is finitely generated by Dirichlet unit theorem) by the finite group of roots of unity contained therein (so that $X^{\\ast}(K,m)$ is torsion free). Let $P(K,m)$ be the ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus whose character group $X^{\\ast}(P(K,m))$ is $X^{\\ast}(K,m)$.\n\nThe point of condition (a), while the first equality is always true (for any $\\pi\\in K$), is that $|\\pi|_v$ is an *integral* power of $q$ (which however may well depend on $v$). One also has $$\\nu_2(\\pi,v)+\\nu_2(\\pi,\\overline{v})=-[K_v:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]\\nu_1(\\pi),$$ since $\\pi\\overline{\\pi}=q^{\\nu_1}$ ($K$ being a CM field, the complex conjugation $\\overline{\\cdot}$ of $K$ lies in the center of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{\\mathbb Q})$).\n\nIf necessary, to avoid any misunderstandings, we write $\\chi_{\\pi}$ for the character of $P(K, m)$ which corresponds to a Weil number $\\pi\\in X(K, m)$. Recall that we fixed embeddings ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}\\rightarrow{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}\\rightarrow{\\mathbb C}$. Let $K\\subset{\\mathbb Q}$ be a Galois CM-field and $v_1$, $v_2$ the thereby determined archimedean and $p$-adic places of $K$, respectively. Then, one can readily see that there exist cocharacters $\\nu_1^K$, $\\nu_2^K$ in $X_{\\ast}(K, m)=X_{\\ast}(P(K, m))$ with following properties: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eqn:cocharacters_nu^K}\n\\langle\\chi_{\\pi},\\nu_1^K\\rangle&=&\\nu_1(\\pi), \\\\\n\\langle\\chi_{\\pi},\\nu_2^K\\rangle&=&\\nu_2(\\pi,v_2). \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ A priori, $\\nu_1^K$ and $\\nu_2^K$ are defined over respectively $K_{v_1}={\\mathbb C}$ and $K_{v_2}\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, but one readily sees from their definition that they are defined over respectively ${\\mathbb Q}$ and ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$. Furthermore, for $K\\subset K'$ and $m|m'$ (divisible), there exist maps of tori over ${\\mathbb Q}$ $$\\phi_{K,K'}:P(K',m)\\rightarrow P(K,m),\\quad \\phi_{m,m'}:P(K,m')\\rightarrow P(K,m)$$ induced by $\\phi_{K,K'}^{\\ast}(\\pi)=\\pi$ and $\\phi_{m,m'}^{\\ast}(\\pi)=\\pi^{m'/m}$ for $\\pi\\in X^{\\ast}(K,m)$, and they satisfy that $\\phi_{m,m'}(\\nu_i')=\\nu_i$ and $\\phi_{K,K'}(\\nu_i')=[K'_{v_i'}:K_{v_i}]\\nu_i$ [@LR87 p.141]. Let $P^K:=\\varprojlim_{m|m'}P(K,m)$. This protorus over ${\\mathbb Q}$ is in fact a torus [@LR87 Lem. 3.8], with character group $X^{\\ast}(P^K)=\\varinjlim X^{\\ast}(K,m)$ and which splits over $K$. Let $\\nu_1^K$,$\\nu_2^K$ be the induced cocharacters of $P^K$.\n\nThe triple $(P^K,\\nu_1^K,\\nu_2^K)$ is characterized by a universal property:\n\n\\[lem:Reimann97-B2.3\\] (1) For every CM-field $K\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$ which is Galois over ${\\mathbb Q}$, $(P^K,\\nu_1^K,\\nu_2^K)$ is an initial object in the category of all triples $(T,\\nu_{\\infty},\\nu_p)$ where $T$ is a ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus which splits over $K$, and, $\\nu_{\\infty}$ and $\\nu_p$ are cocharacters of $T$ defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, respectively, and such that $${\\mathrm{tr}}_{K/K_0}(\\nu_p)+[K_{v_2}:{\\mathbb Q}_p]\\nu_{\\infty}=0,$$ where $K_0$ is the totally real subfield of $K$ of index $2$.\n\n\\(2) There exists a set $\\{\\delta_n\\}$ with $m|n$, $n$ sufficiently large, of distinguished elements in $P(K,m)({\\mathbb Q})$ such that for every $\\pi\\in X^{\\ast}(K,m)=X^{\\ast}(P(K,m))$, $$\\chi_{\\pi}(\\delta_n)=\\pi^{\\frac{n}{m}},$$ ($\\frac{n}{m}$ should be divisible by the torsion order of $X(K,m)$) and that, when $K\\subset K'$ and $m|m'$ (divisible), $$\\phi_{m,m'}(\\delta_n)=\\delta_n,\\quad \\phi_{K,K'}(\\delta_n)=\\delta_n.$$ Moreover, the set $\\{\\delta_m^k\\ |\\ k\\in{\\mathbb Z}\\}$ is Zariski-dense in $P(K,m)$.\n\nFor (1), see [@Reimann97 B2.3]. For (2), if the subset $\\{\\pi_1,\\cdots,\\pi_r\\} \\subset X(K,m)$ forms a basis of $X^{\\ast}(K,m)$ (up to torsions) with dual basis $\\{\\pi_1^{\\vee},\\cdots,\\pi_r^{\\vee}\\} \\subset X(K,m)^{\\vee}=X_{\\ast}(P(K,m))$, we set $\\delta_n:=\\sum \\pi_i^{n/m}\\otimes\\pi_i^{\\vee}\\in {\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\otimes X_{\\ast}(P(K,m))=P(K,m)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, then it clearly satisfies the required properties, cf. [@LR87 p.142]. The last property is Lemma 5.5 of [@LR87]; it is stated for a different torus $Q(K,m)$, but the proof carries over to $P(K,m)$.\n\nSet $P:=\\varprojlim_K P^K$ (protorus). It is equipped with two morphisms $\\nu_1:=\\varprojlim_K\\nu_1^K:\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}\\rightarrow P$ (defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$), $\\nu_2:=\\varprojlim_K\\nu_2^K:\\mathbb{D}\\rightarrow P_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (defined over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$). Often, $\\nu_1$ and $\\nu_2$ are also denoted by $\\nu_{\\infty}$ and $\\nu_p$, respectively.\n\n\\[thm:pseudo-motivic\\_Galois\\_gerb\\] (1) There exists a Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ over ${\\mathbb Q}$ together with morphisms $\\zeta_v:{\\mathfrak{G}}_v\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{P}}(v)$ for all places $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$ such that\n\n-   $({\\mathfrak{P}}^{\\Delta},\\zeta_{\\infty}^{\\Delta},\\zeta_{p}^{\\Delta})=(P_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},(\\nu_1)_{{\\mathbb C}},(\\nu_2)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}})$, the identifications being compatible with the Galois actions of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$, ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R})$, and ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ respectively;\n\n-   the morphisms $\\zeta_v$, for all $v\\neq \\infty,p$, are induced by a section of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ over ${\\mathrm{Spec}}(\\overline{{\\mathbb A}_f^p}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb A}_f^p}\\overline{{\\mathbb A}_f^p})$;\n\nwhere $\\overline{{\\mathbb A}_f^p}$ denotes the image of the map ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\mathbb A}_f^p\\rightarrow \\prod_{l\\neq\\infty,p}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l}$.\n\n\\(2) If $({\\mathfrak{P}}',(\\zeta_v'))$ is another such system, there exists an isomorphism $\\alpha:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{P}}'$ such that, for all $v$, $\\zeta_v'$ is isomorphic to $\\alpha\\circ\\zeta_v$, and any two $\\alpha$\u2019s arising in this way are isomorphic.\n\n\\(3) There is a surjective morphism $\\pi:{\\mathfrak{Q}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{P}}$ such that, for all $l$, $\\zeta_l^P$ is algebraically equivalent to $\\pi\\circ\\zeta_l^Q$ [@Reimann97 Def. B1.1], where ${\\mathfrak{Q}}$ is the quasi-motivic Galois gerb [@Reimann97 Appendix B].\n\n\\(1) and (2): In [@LR87 $\\S$3], Langlands and Rapoport first define, for each CM Galois field $K$, a Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{P}}^K$ with kernel $P^K$ which, for every place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, is equipped with morphisms $\\zeta_v=\\zeta_v^{K_w}:{\\mathfrak{G}}_v^{K_w}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{P}}^K(v)$ whose restrictions to the kernels are $\\nu_v^K$ for $v=\\infty,p$, where $w$ is a place of $K$ above $v$. Then, they define ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ as the projective limit of ${\\mathfrak{P}}^K$\u2019s; this requires choosing a place of ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$ above each place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$. The construction of ${\\mathfrak{P}}^K$ is a direct consequence of their Satz 2.2, but that of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ is more delicate: for example, for a projective system of algebraic tori $\\{T_n\\}_{n\\in{\\mathbb N}}$ over a field $F$, the natural map $H^2_{cts}(F,\\varprojlim T_n)\\rightarrow \\varprojlim_n H^2(F,T_n)$ is not bijective in general (cf. [@Milne03 Prop. 2.8]). A proper treatment of construction of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ can be found in [@Milne03], (see also the proof of Theorem B 2.8 of [@Reimann97], where Reimann constructs the quasi-motivic Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{Q}}$, but the whole arguments should carry over to ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ too, since all the relevant cohomological facts remain valid). In more detail, for $v=p,\\infty$, let $d_v^K$ be the image in $H^2({{\\mathbb Q}_v},P^K)$ of the fundamental class of the field extension $K_v/{{\\mathbb Q}_v}$ under the map $\\nu_v^K$, where $K_v$ denotes (by abuse of notation) the completion of $K$ at the place induced by the embedding ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ (so, $K_{\\infty}={\\mathbb C}$). Then, the Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{P}}^K$ corresponds to a cohomology class in $H^2({\\mathbb Q},P^K)$ with image $$(0,d_p^K,d_{\\infty}^K)\\in H^2({\\mathbb A}^{\\{p,\\infty\\}},P^K)\\times H^2({{\\mathbb Q}_p},P^K)\\times H^2({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},P^K).$$ The same statement holds for ${\\mathfrak{P}}$, too (cf. [@Milne03 $\\S$4]). The work of Langland and Rapoport [@LR87 $\\S$3] and Milne [@Milne03 (3.5b)] show that there exists a unique element in $H^2({\\mathbb Q},P^K)$ with that property. Then, by showing that the canonical maps $$H^2_{cts}({\\mathbb Q},P)\\rightarrow \\varprojlim_K H^2({\\mathbb Q},P^K),\\quad H^1_{cts}({\\mathbb Q},P)\\rightarrow H^1_{cts}({\\mathbb A},P)$$ are isomorphisms [@Milne03], Prop. 3.5, Prop. 3.10), Milne concludes the existence of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ as required. The statement (3) is proved in [@Reimann97], Theorem B 2.8.\n\n\\[rem:comments\\_on\\_zeta\\_v\\] (1) As was remarked in the proof, to construct $\\zeta_v$ (for a place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$), we need to choose a place $w$ of $K$ for each CM field $K$ Galois over ${\\mathbb Q}$, in a compatible manner. From now on, when we talk about the pair $({\\mathfrak{P}},(\\zeta_v)_v)$, we will understand that such choice was already made. Clearly, it is enough to fix embeddings ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ for all $v$\u2019s.\n\n\\(2) As was also pointed out in the proof, for every CM field $K$ Galois over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and each place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, by construction, $\\zeta_v$ induces a morphism ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{K_w}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{P}}^K(v)$ of Galois ${{\\mathbb Q}_v}$-gerbs, where $w$ is the pre-chosen place of $K$ above $v$ (cf. [@LR87 Satz 2.2]).\n\n\\(3) The proof also establishes the existence of a (constinous) section to the projection ${\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$. We fix one and denote it by $\\rho\\mapsto q_{\\rho}$.\n\nThe morphism $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ and admissible morphisms\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nWe consider the ${\\mathbb Q}$-pro-torus $R:=\\varprojlim_{L}\\mathrm{Res}_{L/\\\\Q}(\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m},L})$ ($L$ running through the set of all Galois extensions of ${\\mathbb Q}$ inside ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$). Its character group $X^{\\ast}(R)$ is naturally identified with the set of all continuous maps $f:{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})\\rightarrow{\\mathbb Z}$, where the Galois action is given by $\\rho(f)(\\tau)=f(\\rho^{-1}\\tau),\\ \\forall\\rho,\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$.\n\n\\[lem:defn\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\] (1) For any ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ and every cocharacter $\\mu$ of $T$, there exists a unique homomorphism $\\xi:R\\rightarrow T$ such that $\\mu=\\xi\\circ\\mu_0$, where $\\mu_0\\in X_{\\ast}(R)$ is defined by $\\langle f, \\mu_0\\rangle =f(id)\\in{\\mathbb Z}$ for $f\\in X^{\\ast}(R)$.\n\nLet $\\psi:{\\mathfrak{Q}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_R$ be the morphism of Galois gerbs over ${\\mathbb Q}$ in [@Reimann97 B.2.8]. We define $$\\psi_{T,\\mu}:{\\mathfrak{Q}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_T$$ to be the composite of it and the morphism ${\\mathfrak{G}}_R\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ induced by $\\xi:R\\rightarrow T$.\n\n\\(2) $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ if $\\mu$ satisfies the Serre condition: if $$(\\rho-1)(\\iota+1)\\mu=(\\iota+1)(\\rho-1)\\mu=0,\\quad \\forall\\rho\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$$ (e.g. if $T$ splits over a CM-field and the *weight* $\\mu\\cdot\\iota(\\mu)$ of $\\mu$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$). If furthermore a CM field $K$ Galois over ${\\mathbb Q}$ splits $T$, $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{P}}^K$.\n\n\\(3) The restriction $\\psi_{T,\\mu}^{\\Delta}: {\\mathfrak{Q}}^{\\Delta}=Q_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T^{\\Delta}=T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ of $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ to the kernels is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$.\n\nFor (1) and (2), see [@Reimann97], Definition B 2.10 and Remark B 2.11. The last statement of (2) follows from the very construction of $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ in Satz 2.2, 2.3 of [@LR87] (which is equivalent to that of Reimann, [@Reimann97], at least when it factors through ${\\mathfrak{P}}$).\n\nFor (3), it is enough to show that the morphism $\\psi^{\\Delta}:{\\mathfrak{Q}}^{\\Delta}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_R^{\\Delta}$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$. This morphism is constructed explicitly on p.117 of [@Reimann97].\n\nLet $v$ a place of ${\\mathbb Q}$ (mainly, one of $p,\\infty$), $T$ a torus over ${{\\mathbb Q}_v}$, and $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$. Suppose that $T$ splits over a finite Galois extension $F$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_v}$. Set $$\\nu^F:=\\sum_{\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v})}\\tau\\mu,$$and let $$1\\rightarrow F^{\\times}\\rightarrow W_{F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v}}\\rightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v})\\rightarrow 1$$ be the Weil group extension of $F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v}$ (cf. [@Tate79]); we fix a section $s^{F}_{\\rho}$ to the projection $W_{F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v}}\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v})$ so that $d^F_{\\rho,\\tau}:=s_{\\rho}\\rho(s_{\\tau})s_{\\rho\\tau}^{-1}$ is a cocycle defining $W_{F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v}}$.\n\n\\[defn:psi\\_T,mu\\] We define $\\xi_{\\mu,F}^F:W_{F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v}}\\rightarrow T(F)\\rtimes{\\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v})$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\xi_{\\mu,F}^F(z)&=&\\nu^F(z)\\quad (z\\in F^{\\times}),\\\\\n\\xi_{\\mu,F}^F(s^F_{\\rho})&=&\\prod_{\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{\\mathbb Q}_{v})}\\rho\\tau\\mu(d^F_{\\rho,\\tau})\\rtimes\\rho.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nOne easily checks that $\\xi_{\\mu,F}^F$ is a homomorphism (cf. [@LR87 p.134], [@Milne92], Lemma 3.30 - Example 3.32). By obvious pull-back and push-out, one gets a morphism of Galois gerbs over ${\\mathbb Q}_v$: $$\\xi_{\\mu}^F:{\\mathfrak{G}}_v^{F}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_T,$$ (where for $v\\neq p, \\infty$, we set ${\\mathfrak{G}}_v^{F}$ to be ${\\mathfrak{G}}_v={\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}/{{\\mathbb Q}_v})$) and further, by passing to the projective limit, a morphism of Galois gerbs over ${\\mathbb Q}_v$: $$\\xi_{\\mu}:{\\mathfrak{G}}_v\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_T,$$ which does not depend on the choice of a field $F$ splitting $T$. These maps are independent, up to conjugation by an element of $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v})$, of the choice of section $s_{\\rho}$.\n\n\\[lem:properties\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\] (1) If $v=p$ and $F$ is unramified, $\\xi_{\\mu}$ is unramified (in the sense of ), and if $\\xi_{\\mu}(s_{\\sigma})=b_{\\mu} \\sigma$ for $b_{\\mu}\\in T({\\mathfrak{k}})$, one has $\\overline{b_{\\mu}}=\\overline{\\mu(p^{-1})}$ in $B(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})$.\n\n\\(2) Suppose that $T$ is a torus defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$, split over a finite Galois extension $K$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$. For each $v=\\infty,p$, let $\\xi_{\\pm\\mu}$ be the morphism defined above for $(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}},F=K_w,\\pm\\mu)$. Then, $\\psi_{T,\\mu}(\\infty)\\circ \\zeta_{\\infty}$ is conjugate to $\\xi_{\\mu}$, and $\\psi_{T,\\mu}(p)\\circ \\zeta_{p}$ is conjugate to $\\xi_{-\\mu}$. For $v\\neq \\infty,p$, $\\psi_{T,\\mu}(\\infty)\\circ \\zeta_{v}$ is conjugate to the canonical neutralization of ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T(v)$.\n\n\\(1) See Lemma 4.3 of [@Milne92]. (2) This follows from the construction of $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ and ${\\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$, cf. [@LR87], Satz 2.3 and $\\S$3 (esp. (3.i)).\n\n### Shimura data\n\nLet $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum. For a morphism $h:{\\mathbb{S}}\\rightarrow G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ in $X$, the associated *Hodge cocharacter* $$\\mu_{h}:\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}{\\mathbb C}}\\rightarrow G_{{\\mathbb C}}$$ is the composite of $h_{{\\mathbb C}}:{\\mathbb{S}}_{{\\mathbb C}}\\rightarrow G_{{\\mathbb C}}$ and the cocharacter of ${\\mathbb{S}}_{{\\mathbb C}}\\cong\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}{\\mathbb C}}\\times \\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}{\\mathbb C}}$ corresponding to the identity embedding ${\\mathbb C}\\hookrightarrow{\\mathbb C}$. Let $\\{\\mu_X\\}$ denote the $G({\\mathbb C})$-conjugacy class of cocharacters of $G_{{\\mathbb C}}$ containing $\\mu_h$ (for any $h\\in X$). For a maximal torus $T$ of $G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$, we can consider $\\{\\mu_X\\}$ as an element of $X_{\\ast}(T)/W$. Alternatively, when we fix a based root datum $\\mathcal{BR}(G,T,B)$, $c(G,X)$ has a unique representative in the associated closed Weyl chamber $\\overline{C}(T,B)$, hence will be also identified with this representative: $$\\label{eq:representataive_Hodge_cocharacter}\n\\{\\mu_X\\}\\in \\overline{C}(T,B).$$ The *reflex field* $E(G,X)$ of a Shimura datum $(G,X)$ is the field of definition of $c(G,X)\\in\\mathcal{C}_G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, i.e. the fixed field of the stabilizer of $c(G,X)$ in ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$; so the reflex field, which is a finite extension of ${\\mathbb Q}$, is always a subfield of ${\\mathbb C}$. When $T$ is a torus, the reflex field $E(T,\\{h\\})$ is just the smallest subfield of ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}\\subset{\\mathbb C}$ over which the single morphism $\\mu_h$ is defined.\n\nFor each $j\\in{\\mathbb N}$, we denote by $L_j$ the unramified extension of degree $j$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, and by ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ the maximal unramified extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. We let $L$ and $\\sigma$ denote the completion of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ and the absolute Frobenius on it, respectively.\n\n### Strictly monoidal categories $G/\\widetilde{G}({\\overline{k}})$, ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\\widetilde{G}}$\n\nIn order to have a satisfactory formalism without the condition that the derived group is simply connected, Kisin [@Kisin17 (3.2)] introduced certain strictly monoidal categories. Recall (cf. [@Milne92 App. B]) that a *crossed module* is a group homomorphism $\\alpha:\\tilde{H}\\rightarrow H$ together with an action of $H$ on $\\tilde{H}$, denoted by ${}^h\\tilde{h}$ for $h\\in H$, $\\tilde{h}\\in \\tilde{H}$, which lifts the conjugation action on itself (i.e. $\\alpha({}^h\\tilde{h})=h\\alpha(\\tilde{h})h^{-1}$ for $h\\in H$, $\\tilde{h}\\in \\tilde{H}$) and such that the induced action of $\\tilde{H}$ on itself is also the conjugation action (i.e. ${}^{\\alpha(\\tilde{g})}\\tilde{h}=\\tilde{g}\\tilde{h}\\tilde{g}^{-1}$ for $\\tilde{g},\\tilde{h}\\in \\tilde{H}$). A crossed module $\\tilde{H}\\rightarrow H$ gives rise to a strictly monoidal category $H/\\tilde{H}$. Its underlying category is the groupoid whose objects are the elements of $H$ and whose morphisms are given by ${\\mathrm{Hom}}(h_1,h_2)=\\{\\tilde{h}\\in\\tilde{H}\\ |\\ h_2=\\alpha(\\tilde{h})h_1\\}$; thus the set of morphisms is identified with the set $\\tilde{H}\\times H$. The monoidal structure $\\otimes$ on this groupoid is given on the objects by the group multiplication on $H$ and on the set of morphisms $\\tilde{H}\\times H$ by the semi-direct product for the action of $H$ on $\\tilde{H}$: $$(\\tilde{h}_1,h_1)\\otimes (\\tilde{h}_2,h_2):=(\\tilde{h}_1{}^{h_1}\\tilde{h}_2,h_1h_2).$$\n\nWe may regard any group $H$ as the strictly monoidal category $H=H/\\{1\\}$.\n\nFor a strictly monoidal category $C$ and a crossed module $H/\\tilde{H}$, two functors $\\phi_1, \\phi_2:C\\rightarrow H/\\tilde{H}$ of strictly monoidal categories are said to be *conjugate-isomorphic* if $\\phi_1$ is conjugate to another functor that is isomorphic to $\\phi_2$.\n\nLet $k$ be a field with an algebraic closure ${\\overline{k}}$, and $G$ a connected reductive group over $k$. Here, we will use the notation $\\tilde{G}$ for the simply connected cover of $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ (which was denoted previously by $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$). Then, the commutator map $[\\ ,\\ ]:G\\times G\\rightarrow G$ factors through $[\\ ,\\ ]:G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}\\times G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}\\rightarrow G$. In particular, as $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}=\\tilde{G}^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$, we get a map $[\\ ,\\ ]:G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}\\times G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}\\rightarrow \\tilde{G}$ [@Deligne79 2.0.2]. It follows that the conjugation action of $\\tilde{G}$ on itself extends to an action of $G$, and thus the natural map $\\tilde{G}\\rightarrow G$ has a canonical crossed module structure. We write $G/\\widetilde{G}({\\overline{k}})$ for the resulting strictly monoidal category $G({\\overline{k}})/\\widetilde{G}({\\overline{k}})$, and ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\\widetilde{G}}$ for the strictly monoidal category ${\\mathfrak{G}}_G/\\tilde{G}({\\overline{k}})$.\n\n### Admissible morphisms\n\nLet $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum with reflex field $E\\subset{\\mathbb C}$. We fix an embedding ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ for every place $v$. Suppose given a parahoric subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p\\subset G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$; there exists a unique $\\sigma$-stable parahoric subgroup ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that ${\\mathbf{K}}_p={\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cap G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$.\n\nFix $h\\in X$. Then, there exists a homomorphism of ${\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R}$-Galois gerbs $$\\xi_{\\infty}:{\\mathfrak{G}}_{\\infty}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G(\\infty)$$ defined by $\\xi_{\\infty}(z)=w_h^{-1}(z)=\\mu_h\\cdot\\overline{\\mu_h}(z),\\ z\\in{\\mathbb C}^{\\times}$ and $\\xi_{\\infty}(w)=\\mu_h(-1)\\rtimes \\iota$, where $w=w(\\iota)$. Clearly, its equivalence class depends only on $X$.\n\nFor $v\\neq\\infty, p$, we have the canonical section $\\xi_v$ to ${\\mathfrak{G}}_G(v)\\rightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathbb Q}}_v/{\\mathbb Q}_v)$: $$\\xi_v:{\\mathfrak{G}}_v={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathbb Q}}_v/{\\mathbb Q}_v) \\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G(v)\\ :\\ \\rho\\mapsto 1\\rtimes\\rho.$$\n\nFor a cocharacter $\\mu$ of $G$, we consider the composite of morphisms of strictly monoidal categories $$\\mu_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}:{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\stackrel{\\mu}{\\rightarrow} G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}) \\rightarrow G/\\tilde{G}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}).$$\n\nFor a cocharacter $\\mu$ of $G$ factoring through a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$, the composite $$\\psi_{\\mu_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}}:{\\mathfrak{Q}}\\stackrel{i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu}}{\\rightarrow}{\\mathfrak{G}}_G\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\\tilde{G}}.$$ (of morphisms of strictly monoidal categories) depends only on the $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ conjugacy class of $\\mu$; One easily verifies that this is isomorphic to the morphism denoted by the same symbol in [@Kisin17 (3.3.1)].\n\n\\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\] [@LR87 p.166-168], [@Kisin17 (3.3.6)] A morphism $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{Q}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is called *admissible* if\n\n-   The composite $$\\phi_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}:{\\mathfrak{Q}}\\stackrel{\\phi}{\\rightarrow}{\\mathfrak{G}}_G\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\\tilde{G}}$$ is conjugate-isomorphic to the composite $\\psi_{\\mu_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}}:{\\mathfrak{Q}}\\stackrel{i\\circ\\psi_{\\mu}}{\\rightarrow}{\\mathfrak{G}}_G\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\\tilde{G}}$.\n\n-   For every place $v\\neq p$ (including $\\infty$), the composite $\\phi(v)\\circ\\zeta_v$ is conjugate to $\\xi_v$ (by an element of $G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$).\n\n-   For some (equiv. any) $b\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ in the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $\\mathrm{cls}(\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p)\\in B(G)$ (), the following set (which is a union of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties) $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ is non-empty: $$X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}:=\\{g\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\ |\\ \\mathrm{inv}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(g,b\\sigma(g))\\in{\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\})\\}.$$ Here, ${\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\})$ is the $\\{\\mu_X\\}$-admissible subset (Def. \\[defn:mu-admissible\\_subset\\]) defined for the parahoric subgroup ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\subset G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ attached to ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$, and $$\\mathrm{inv}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}: G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p \\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p \\rightarrow {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\backslash G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p \\cong \\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}\\backslash \\tilde{W}/ \\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}$$ is defined by $(g_1{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p,g_2{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p)\\mapsto {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_pg_1^{-1}g_2{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, cf. (\\[eqn:parahoric\\_double\\_coset\\]).\n\nSuppose that an admissible morphism $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{Q}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ factors through the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{P}}$. As $G$ is an algebraic group, it further factors through ${\\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ for some CM field $K$ Galois over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and $m\\in{\\mathbb N}$.\n\n\\[rem:Kisin\u2019s\\_defn\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\] This definition of admissible morphism is slightly different from the original definition by Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87 p.166], in that, instead of condition (1) here, which was introduced by Kisin [@Kisin17 (3.3.6)], they require the equality $pr\\circ\\phi=pr\\circ i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu}$, where $pr:{\\mathfrak{G}}_G\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{G^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}$ is the natural map; so, these two conditions differ only when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ is not simply connected. The original condition however turns out to be adequate only in their set-up assuming that $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. For example, Satz 5.3 of [@LR87] shows that under that assumption on $G$, every admissible morphism (in the original sense) is conjugate to a special admissible morphism (cf. Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\] below). But, they also give an example of $G$ with $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\neq G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ ([@LR87], $\\S$6, the first example) for which this statement fails to be true (cf. [@Milne92], Remark 4.20). In contrast, with the new condition here, this property always holds (as shown by Kisin for hyperspecial levels, and by Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\] below for general parahoric levels when $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split).\n\nThe following lemma was proved by Langlands-Rapoport for unramified $T$ (cf. [@Milne92 4.3]).\n\n\\[lem:unramified\\_conj\\_of\\_special\\_morphism\\] Let $T$ be a torus over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, split by a finite Galois extension $K$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, say of degree $n$, and $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$. Let $K_1$ be the composite in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of $K$ and $L_n$, where $L_n$ is the unramified extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of degree $n=[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$. Then, $\\xi_{\\mu}^{K_1}$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_p$: let $\\xi_{\\mu}^{L_n}:{\\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{T}$ be the resulting morphism. When $\\xi_p'$ is an unramified conjugate of $\\xi_{\\mu}^{L_n}$, we have $$\\xi_p'(s_{\\rho}^{L_n})={\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi^{-1}))\\rtimes \\rho,$$ up to conjugation by an element of $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Here, $K_0=K\\cap L_n$ is the maximal subfield of $K$ unramified over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, $\\pi$ is a uniformizer of $K$, and $\\rho$ is any element in ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ whose restriction to $L_n$ is the Frobenius automorphism $\\sigma$.\n\nMoreover, we have the equality in $X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})}$: $$w_{T}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi^{-1})))=-\\underline{\\mu},$$ where $\\underline{\\mu}$ is the image of $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$ in $X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})}$.\n\nLet $d^{L_n}_{\\rho,\\tau}$ denote the canonical fundamental $2$-cocycle defined in (\\[eq:canonical\\_fundamental\\_cocycle\\]) which represents the fundamental class $u_{L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}=[1/n]\\in H^2(L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\cong \\frac{1}{n}{\\mathbb Z}/{\\mathbb Z}$. Also, for each of $F=K_1$ and $L_n$, fix a section $s_{\\rho}^{F}:{\\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rightarrow W_{F/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ to $1\\rightarrow F^{\\times}\\rightarrow W_{F/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rightarrow 1$ whose induced $2$-cocycle on ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(F/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ $$d^{F}_{\\rho,\\tau}:=s^{F}_{\\rho}\\rho(s^{F}_{\\tau})(s^{F}_{\\rho\\tau})^{-1}\\in F^{\\times}$$ represents the fundamental class $u_{F/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\in H^2(F/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\cong \\frac{1}{[F:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}{\\mathbb Z}/{\\mathbb Z}$. In the case $F=L_n$, we further require that such induced $2$-cocycle is the canonical one. Thus there exists a function $b:{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rightarrow K_1^{\\times}$ such that $$\\label{eqn:inflations_of_two_cocycles}\n(d^{K_1}_{\\rho,\\tau})^{[K_1:L_n]}\\cdot\\partial(b)_{\\rho,\\tau}=d^{L_n}_{\\rho|_{L_n},\\tau|_{L_n}},$$ where $\\partial(b)_{\\rho,\\tau}:=b_{\\rho}\\rho(b_{\\tau})b_{\\rho\\tau}^{-1}$. In terms of these generators and the function $b_{\\rho}$, we obtain a homomorphism $p_{K_1,L_n}:{\\mathfrak{G}}^{K_1}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ defined by $$z\\mapsto z^{[K_1:K]}\\ (z\\in{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}^{\\times}),\\quad s^{K_1}_{\\rho}\\mapsto \\ b_{\\rho}^{-1}s^{L_n}_{\\rho}.$$ Then, the morphisms $\\xi_{\\mu}^{K_1}, \\xi_{\\mu}^{L_n}\\circ p_{K_1,L_n}:{\\mathfrak{G}}^{K_1}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ differ from each other by conjugation with an element of $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.\n\nRecall that for $(T,\\mu,K_1)$, $\\xi_{\\mu}^{K_1}:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ is induced, via obvious pull-back and push-out, from a map $\\xi_{\\mu,K_1}^{K_1}:W_{K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\rightarrow T(K_1)\\rtimes {\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$: for $a\\in K_1^{\\times}$ and $\\rho\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, $$\\xi_{\\mu,K_1}^{K_1}:a\\cdot s_{\\rho}^{K_1} \\mapsto \\nu^{K_1}(a)\\cdot c^{K_1}_{\\rho}\\rtimes\\rho,$$ where $\\nu^{K_1}={\\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu\\in {\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}},T)$ and $c^{K_1}_{\\rho}=\\prod_{\\tau_1\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}(\\rho\\tau_1\\mu)(d^{K_1}_{\\rho,\\tau_1})$. Now, for any $x\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, if we define $\\psi'_x:{\\mathfrak{G}}^{L_n}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ by $$z\\mapsto \\nu^K(z),\\quad s^{L_n}_{\\rho}\\mapsto \\nu^K(b_{\\rho})\\cdot c^{K_1}_{\\rho}\\cdot x\\cdot\\rho(x^{-1}),$$ where $\\nu^K={\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu$, then it is clear that $\\psi'_x\\circ p_{K_1,L_n}={\\mathrm{Int}}(x)\\circ \\xi^{K_1}_{\\mu}$. This proves the first claim. Since $\\psi'_x={\\mathrm{Int}}x\\circ\\psi'_1$, the second statement will follow if there exists $x\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\psi'_x(s^{L_n}_{\\rho})$ equals ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi^{-1}))$ whenever $\\rho|_{L_n}=\\sigma$. According to (the proof of) Lemma \\[lem:equality\\_restrictions\\_to\\_kernels\\_imply\\_conjugacy\\], this will follow if the two elements $\\nu^K(b_{\\rho})\\cdot c^{K_1}_{\\rho}$, ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi^{-1}))$ of $T(K^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ have the same image under $\\kappa_{T_K}:B(T_K){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/K)}$, where $K^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ is the maximal unramified extension of $K$ in ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ with completion $L'$ and $B(T_K)$ is the set of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $T(L')$ (with respect to the Frobenius automorphism of $L'/K$). But, as $\\kappa_{T_K}$ is induced from $w_{T_{L'}}:T(L')\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{L'}/L')}=X_{\\ast}(T)$ (), in turn it suffices to show equality of the images under $w_{T_{L'}}$ of $c^{K_1}_{\\rho}\\cdot\\nu^{K}(b_{\\rho})$ and ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi^{-1}))$ when $\\rho|_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}=\\sigma$.\n\nChoose a set of representatives $\\Gamma_1\\subset{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ for the family of left cosets ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})/{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/L_n)$ (so that restriction to $L_n$ gives a bijection $\\Gamma_1{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}{\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$) and $\\rho\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ such that $\\rho|_{L_n}=\\sigma$. Then, we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\prod_{\\tau_1\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}(\\rho\\tau_1\\mu)(\\mathrm{Inf}_{L_n}^{K_1}(d^{L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})_{\\rho,\\tau_1})&=&\\prod_{\\tau\\in\\Gamma_1}\\prod_{\\gamma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/L_n)}(\\rho\\tau\\gamma\\mu)(\\mathrm{Inf}_{L_n}^{K_1}(d^{L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})_{\\rho,\\tau\\gamma})\\\\\n&=&\\rho\\prod_{\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}(\\tau({\\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/L_n}\\mu))(d^{L_n}_{\\rho|_{L_n},\\tau}) \\\\\n&=&\\prod_{0\\leq i\\leq n-1}(\\sigma^{i+1}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/L_n}\\mu))(d^{L_n}_{\\sigma,\\sigma^i}) \\\\\n&=&({\\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/L_n}\\mu)(p^{-1})=({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}\\mu)(p^{-1}).\\end{aligned}$$ Here, the last equality ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K_1/L_n}\\mu={\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}\\mu$ (in $X_{\\ast}(T)$) holds since $\\mu$ is defined over $K$ and restriction to $K$ is a bijection ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/L_n){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/K_0)$. Then, by taking $\\prod_{\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}(\\rho\\tau\\mu)$ on both sides of (\\[eqn:inflations\\_of\\_two\\_cocycles\\]), we obtain $$(c^{K_1}_{\\rho}\\cdot\\nu^{K}(b_{\\rho}))^{[K_1:K]}\\cdot\\rho(f)f^{-1}=({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}\\mu)(p^{-1}),$$ where $f=\\prod_{\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K_1/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}\\tau\\mu(b_{\\tau})$. Now applying $w_{T_{L'}}$ to both sides, we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n[K_1:K] w_{T_{L'}}(c^{K_1}_{\\rho}\\cdot\\nu^{K}(b_{\\rho}))&=& w_{T_{L'}}(({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}\\mu)(p^{-1}))\\\\\n&\\stackrel{(\\ast)}{=}&[K:K_0] w_{T_{L'}}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi^{-1}))).\\end{aligned}$$ Due to the property [@Kottwitz97 (7.3.2)] of the map $w$, the equality $(\\ast)$ is deduced from the following stronger formula (comparing the images under $w_{T_L}$, instead of $w_{T_{L'}}$): $$\\label{eqn:comparison_of_two_norms}\n w_{T_L}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu)(p))=[K:K_0] w_{T_L}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi))).$$ Here, ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu)\\in X_{\\ast}(T)^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/K_0)}$ so ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu)(p)\\in {\\mathrm{im}}(K_0^{\\times}\\rightarrow T(K_0))$, while ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi))$ is the image of $\\mu(\\pi)\\in T(K)$ under the norm map $T(K)\\rightarrow T(K_0)$. To show this formula, by functoriality for tori $T$ endowed with a cocharacter $\\mu$, it is enough to prove this formula in the universal case $T={\\mathrm{Res}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}$ and $\\mu=\\mu_K$, the cocharacter of $T_K=({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}})^{\\oplus {\\mathrm{Hom}}(K,K)}$ corresponding to the identity embedding $K{\\hookrightarrow}K$. Note that in this case $w_{T_L}=v_{T_L}$ as $X_{\\ast}(T)$ is an induced ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$-module (). For any extension $E\\supset K$, Galois over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, there exists a canonical isomorphism $T_{E}\\cong (\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m},E})^{\\oplus{\\mathrm{Hom}}(K,E)}$ (product of copies of $\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m},E}$, indexed by ${\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(K,E)$) such that $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(E/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ acts on $T(E)=(E^{\\times})^{\\oplus{\\mathrm{Hom}}(K,E)}$ by $\\tau (x_{\\rho})_{\\rho\\in {\\mathrm{Hom}}(K,E)}=(\\tau (x_{\\rho}))_{\\tau\\circ\\rho}$. Then, $\\mu_K=(f_{\\rho})_{\\rho}\\in\\prod_{\\rho\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}(K,K)}X_{\\ast}({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}})$, where $f_{\\rho}=1\\in X_{\\ast}({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}})={\\mathbb Z}$ if $\\rho$ is the inclusion $K{\\hookrightarrow}E$, and $f_{\\rho}=0$ otherwise. So, ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu_K)$ is $(f_{\\rho})_{\\rho}\\in\\prod_{\\rho}X_{\\ast}({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}})$, where $f_{\\rho}=1$ if $\\rho|_{K_0}$ is the inclusion $K_0{\\hookrightarrow}K$, and $f_{\\rho}=0$ otherwise, and similarly ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu_K(\\pi))=(x_{\\rho})_{\\rho}$, where $x_{\\rho}=\\rho(\\pi)$ if $\\rho|_{K_0}=(K_0{\\hookrightarrow}K)$, and $x_{\\rho}=1$ otherwise. It follows that the element of $T(K_0)$ $${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu_K)(p)\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu_K(\\pi))^{-[K:K_0]},$$ lies in the maximal compact subgroup of $T(K_0)$, which is nothing but $\\ker(v_{T_L})\\cap T(K_0)$. This proves the equation (\\[eqn:comparison\\_of\\_two\\_norms\\]).\n\nFinally, the equality $w_{T}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi^{-1})))=-\\underline{\\mu}$ in $X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})}$ follows from commutativity of diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97]. This completes the proof.\n\n\\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\] Suppose that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup. Then, for any special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h:{\\mathbb{S}}\\rightarrow T_{{\\mathbb R}})$ satisfying the Serre condition (e.g. if $T$ splits over a CM field and the weight homomorphism $w_X:=(\\mu_h\\cdot\\iota(\\mu_h))^{-1}$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$), the morphism $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T{\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ (Lemma \\[lem:defn\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\]) is admissible, where $i:{\\mathfrak{G}}_T\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is the canonical morphism defined by the inclusion $i:T{\\hookrightarrow}G$.\n\nSuch admissible morphism $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ will be said to be *special*; in our use of this notation, $i$ will be often spared its explanation (or sometimes will be even omitted). This fact was proved in [@LR87 Lem. 5.2] for hyperspecial ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$.\n\nThe only nontrivial condition in Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\] is (3). Let $L$ be a finite Galois extension of ${\\mathbb Q}$ splitting $T$ and $v_2$ the place of $L$ induced by the chosen embedding ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. Put $$\\nu_p:=(\\xi_{-\\mu_h}^{L_{v_2}})^{\\Delta}=-\\sum_{\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}\\sigma\\mu_h\\quad (\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}},T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})),$$ and let $J$ be the centralizer in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of the image of $\\nu_p$. Then, $J$ is a semi-standard ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (i.e. the centralizer of a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus) which is also quasi-split as $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is so (Lemma \\[lem:specaial\\_parahoric\\_in\\_Levi\\], (1)). Hence, according to Lemma \\[lem:specaial\\_parahoric\\_in\\_Levi\\], there exists $g\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ such that $gJ(\\mathfrak{k})g^{-1}\\cap {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $gJ(\\mathfrak{k})g^{-1}$, where ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\subset G(\\mathfrak{k})$ is the special maximal parahoric subgroup associated with ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$: it is enough that for a maximal split ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $S$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ contained in $J$, the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}({\\mathrm{Int}}g(S),{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ contains a special point in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ giving ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$. Set $J':={\\mathrm{Int}}g(J)$. Then, by Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\] (cf. Remark \\[rem:properties\\_of\\_certain\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\]), there exists an elliptic maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T'$ of $J'$ such that $T'_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ contains (equiv. is the centralizer of) a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-split ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-torus, say $S'_1$, of $J'_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ and that the (unique) parahoric subgroup $T'(\\mathfrak{k})_1=\\ker\\ w_{T'_{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ of $T'(\\mathfrak{k})$ is contained in $J'(\\mathfrak{k})\\cap {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$. Let $\\mu'$ be the cocharacter of $T'$ that is conjugate to ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\mu_h)$ under $J'({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and such that it lies in the closed Weyl chamber of $X_{\\ast}(T')$ associated with a Borel subgroup of $G_{\\mathfrak{k}}$ (defined over $\\mathfrak{k}$) containing $T'_{\\mathfrak{k}}$.\n\nThen, ${\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\xi_{-\\mu_h}=\\xi_{-{\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\mu_h)}$ and $\\xi_{-\\mu'}$ are equivalent as homomorphisms from ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p$ to ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{J'}$. This can be proved by the original argument in [@LR87 Lem. 5.2]: the key fact is that the two cocharacters of ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(J)$, ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\nu_p)\\in X_{\\ast}({\\mathrm{Int}}g(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}))$, $\\nu_p'\\in X_{\\ast}(T')$ are equal and factor through the center of ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(J)$: $$\\label{eqn:equality_of_two_cochar}\n{\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\nu_p):=-\\sum_{\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}\\sigma (g\\mu_hg^{-1})\\qquad =\\qquad \\nu_p':=-\\sum_{\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}\\sigma\\mu',$$ where $L$ is taken to be large enough so that $L_{v_2}$ splits $T'$ (as well as $T$). Indeed, they both map into the center of ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(J)$: this is clear for ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\nu_p)$ as $J={\\mathrm{Cent}}(\\nu_p)$, while $\\nu_p'$ maps into a split ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-subtorus of $T'$, so into $Z(J')$ (as $T'$ is elliptic in $J'$). So, their equality can be checked after composing them with the natural projection $J'\\rightarrow J'^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}=J'/J'^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$, but this is obvious since ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\mu_h)$ is conjugate to $\\mu'$ under $J'({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.\n\nBut, by Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_conj\\_of\\_special\\_morphism\\] and commutativity of the diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97], we see that for an unramified conjugate $\\xi_p'$ of $\\xi_{-\\mu'}:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ under $T'({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, under the map $\\mathrm{inv}_{T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1}:T'({\\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1\\times T'({\\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1\\rightarrow T'({\\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1\\cong X_{\\ast}(T')_{I}$ ($I:={\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$), we have the relation $$\\mathrm{inv}_{T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1}(1,\\xi_p'(s_{\\rho}))=\\underline{\\mu'},$$ where $\\rho\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is a lift of the Frobenius automorphism $\\sigma$. Hence, as $T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1\\subset {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, $\\mathrm{inv}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(x_0,\\xi_p'(s_{\\rho})x_0)$ ($x_0:=1\\cdot{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$) equals the image of $t^{\\underline{\\mu'}}$ in $\\tilde{W}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\backslash \\tilde{W}/ \\tilde{W}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\cong X_{\\ast}(T')_{I}/\\tilde{W}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$. It remains to show that $\\tilde{W}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}t^{\\underline{\\mu'}} \\tilde{W}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\in{\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\})$.\n\nFor that, let $\\tilde{W}=N({\\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1$ denote the extended affine Weyl group, where $N$ is the normalizer of $T'$ (note that $T'_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ contains a maximal split ${\\mathfrak{k}}$-torus $(S'_1)_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$). By our choice of $T'$ (and as ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is special), $\\tilde{W}$ is a semi-direct product $X_{\\ast}(T')_{I}\\rtimes \\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}$, where ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is the special maximal parahoric subgroup of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ and $\\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}=(N({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {\\mathbf{K}}_p)/T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1$ (which maps isomorphically onto the relative Weyl group $W_0=N({\\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\\mathfrak{k}})$). To fix a Bruhat order on $\\tilde{W}$, we choose a $\\sigma$-stable alcove ${\\mathbf{a}}$ in the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}(S'_1,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ containing a special point, say ${\\mathbf{0}}$, corresponding to ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$. The choice of ${\\mathbf{a}}$ and ${\\mathbf{0}}$ give the semi-direct product decomposition $\\tilde{W}=W_a\\rtimes\\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$, where $W_a$ is the extended affine Weyl group of $(G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}},T'^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ and $\\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}}\\subset \\tilde{W}$ is the normalizer of ${\\mathbf{a}}$, and a reduced root system ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$ (whose roots $R({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma)$ are elements of $X^{\\ast}(S')_{{\\mathbb Q}}$) such that $W_a$, as a subgroup of the group of affine transformations of $X_{\\ast}(S')_{{\\mathbb R}}$, equals the affine Weyl group $Q^{\\vee}({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma)\\rtimes W({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma)$, cf. . Also, the choice of ${\\mathbf{a}}$ fixes a set of simple affine roots for $W_a$, in particular a set ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Delta$ of simple roots for ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$. Then, as each root $\\alpha$ of ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Delta$ is proportional to a relative root of $(G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}},S'^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ [@Tits79 1.7], we can find a set $\\Delta\\subset X^{\\ast}(T')$ of simple roots for the root datum of $(G,T')$ with the property that every $\\alpha\\in{}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Delta$ is the restriction of a multiple of some $\\tilde{\\alpha}\\in\\Delta$. Let $\\overline{C}_{{\\mathbf{a}}}\\subset X_{\\ast}(S'_1)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ and $\\overline{C}\\subset X_{\\ast}(T')_{{\\mathbb R}}$ be the associated closed Weyl chambers. It follows that $\\pi(\\overline{C})\\subset \\overline{C}_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$, where $\\pi$ is the natural surjection $X_{\\ast}(T')_{{\\mathbb R}}\\rightarrow  (X_{\\ast}(T')_{I})_{{\\mathbb R}}=X_{\\ast}(S'_1)_{{\\mathbb R}}$. Now, let $\\mu_0\\in X_{\\ast}(T')$ be the conjugate of $\\mu_h$ lying in $\\overline{C}$ (so its image $\\underline{\\mu_0}$ in $(X_{\\ast}(T')_{I})_{{\\mathbb R}}$ lies in $\\overline{C}_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$). Then, it suffices to show that $t^{\\underline{\\mu'}}\\leq t^{\\underline{\\mu_0}}$ in $\\tilde{W}$. But, as $\\mu'=w\\mu_0$ for some $w\\in N({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})/T'({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and $\\mu_0\\in \\overline{C}$, we see that $\\mu_0-\\mu'=\\sum_{\\tilde{\\alpha}\\in\\Delta}n_{\\tilde{\\alpha}}\\tilde{\\alpha}^{\\vee}\\in X_{\\ast}(T'^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ with $n_{\\tilde{\\alpha}}\\in{\\mathbb Z}_{\\geq0}$ (cf. [@RR96 2.2]). Since for each $\\tilde{\\alpha}\\in\\Delta$, we have $\\pi(\\tilde{\\alpha}^{\\vee})\\in {\\mathbb Q}_{\\geq0}\\alpha^{\\vee}$ for some $\\alpha\\in {}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Delta$, $t^{\\underline{\\mu_0}}- t^{\\underline{\\mu'}}=\\pi(\\mu_0)-\\pi(\\mu')\\in C_{{\\mathbf{a}}}^{\\vee}:=\\{\\sum_{\\beta\\in{}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Delta}c_{\\beta}\\beta^{\\vee}\\ |\\ c_{\\beta}\\in{\\mathbb R}_{\\geq0}\\}$. By [@Stembridge05 Thm.4.10], this implies the asserted inequality in $\\tilde{W}$.\n\nLanglands-Rapoport conjeture {#subsec:Langalnds-Rapoport conjeture}\n----------------------------\n\nIn this subsection, we give a formulation of the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture for parahoric levels, following Kisin [@Kisin17 (3.3)] and Rapoport [@Rapoport05 $\\S$9].\n\nFor $v\\neq p,\\infty$, set $X_v(\\phi):=\\{g_v\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v})\\ |\\ \\phi(v)\\circ\\zeta_v=\\Int(g_v)\\circ\\xi_v\\}$, and $$X^p(\\phi):=\\sideset{}{'}\\prod_{v\\neq\\infty,p} \\ X_v(\\phi),$$ where $'$ denotes the restricted product of $X_v(\\phi)$\u2019s as defined in the line 15-26 on p.168 of [@LR87]. By condition (2) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\], $X^p(\\phi)$ is non-empty (cf. [@Reimann97 B 3.6]), and is a right torsor under $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$.\n\nTo define the component at $p$, put ${\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}):={\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\mathrm{o}}({{\\mathbb Z}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ for the parahoric group scheme ${\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ over ${{\\mathbb Z}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ attached to ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ () and for $b\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$, let ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot b\\cdot {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ denote the invariant $\\mathrm{inv}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(1,b)$. We also recall that for $\\theta_g^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ (a morphism of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}|{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs), $\\overline{\\theta_g^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ denotes its inflation to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, and $s_{\\sigma}\\in {\\mathfrak{D}}$ is the lift of $\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ chosen in (). Then, we set $$\\begin{aligned}\nX_p(\\phi):=\\{ g{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}) \\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})/{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}) & | & \\phi(p)\\circ \\zeta_p=\\Int(g)\\circ \\overline{\\theta_g^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}\\text{ for some }\\theta_g^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}} \\text{ s.t. } \\\\\n& &{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot b_g\\cdot {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\in {\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\}),\\text{ where }\\theta_g^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})=b_g\\sigma \\}.\\end{aligned}$$ This set is equipped with an action of a $p^r$-Frobenius $\\Phi$ ($r:=[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$) defined by $$\\label{eq:Frob_Phi_1}\n\\Phi(g{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})):=g\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_rb_g\\cdot{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$$ (this definition does not depend on the choice of a representative $g$ in the coset $g{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$, as $b_{gk}=k^{-1}b_g\\sigma(k)$ for $k\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$). To see that this action on $G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})/{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ leaves $X_p(\\phi)$ stable, we use a more explicit description of the set $X_p(\\phi)$. When we choose $g_0\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $g_0{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\in X_p(\\phi)$ and use it as a reference point, we obtain a bijection $$\\label{eqn:X_p(phi)=ADLV}\nX_p(\\phi){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b_{g_0})_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\ :\\ h{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\mapsto g_0^{-1}h{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p,$$ where $b_{g_0}\\sigma=\\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$ for $\\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ with $\\phi(p)\\circ \\zeta_p=\\Int(g_0)\\circ \\overline{\\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$. Indeed, for $h\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, if ${\\mathrm{Int}}h^{-1}\\circ\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p=\\Int(g_0^{-1}h)^{-1}\\circ \\overline{\\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ is unramified, $g:=g_0^{-1}h\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ (cf. proof of Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_morphism\\], (3)), and $$b_{h}\\sigma=\\theta_{h}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})=\\Int(g^{-1})\\circ \\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})=g^{-1}b_{g_0}\\sigma(g)\\sigma,$$ and by definition, $g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b_{g_0})_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ if and only if ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot g^{-1}b_{g_0}\\sigma(g)\\cdot{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\in {\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\})$. So, $h\\in X_p(\\phi)$ if and only if $g_0^{-1}h {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b_{g_0})_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$. Then, each $g_0\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\Int(g_0^{-1})\\circ \\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ is unramified, say inflation of $\\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ (Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_morphism\\]) gives an absolute Frobenius automorphism $F=\\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$ acting on $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (sending $g\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ to $b_{g_0}\\sigma(g)$). This also induces an action on $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ as the facet in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G_L)$ defining ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is stable under $\\sigma$, and we readily see that its $r$-th iterate $$\\label{eq:Frob_Phi_2}\n\\Phi=F^r\\  :\\ g\\mapsto (b_{g_0}\\sigma)^r(g)=b_{g_0} \\sigma(b_{g_0}) \\cdots \\sigma^{r-1}(b_{g_0})\\cdot\\sigma^r(g)$$ is identified with the above Frobenius automorphism of $X_p(\\phi)$ under (\\[eqn:X\\_p(phi)=ADLV\\]). This $\\Phi$ leaves $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b_{g_0})_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ stable, because $(\\Phi g)^{-1}\\cdot b_{g_0}\\cdot\\sigma(\\Phi g)=\\sigma^r(g^{-1}b_{g_0}\\sigma(g))$ and ${\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\})$ is stable under the action of $\\sigma^r$ on $\\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}\\backslash \\tilde{W}/\\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}$ (as $\\mu$ is defined over $E_{\\wp}$). Note that there are natural left (or right) actions of $Z({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ on $X_p(\\phi)$ and $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b_{g_0})_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ compatible with the above bijection: $z\\in Z({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ sends $g\\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b_{g_0})_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ (resp. $g{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\in X_p(\\phi)$) to $zg$ (resp. to $zg{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$). Obviously, $\\Phi$ also commutes with the actions of $Z({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$.\n\nLet $$I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q}):=\\{g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\ |\\ \\mathrm{Int}(g)\\circ\\phi=\\phi\\}$$ (as the notation suggests, this is the ${\\mathbb Q}$-points of an algebraic ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{{\\mathbb Q}}$, cf. (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\])). This group naturally acts on $X^p(\\phi)$ and $X_p(\\phi)$ from the left and commutes with the (right) action of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$. Finally, we define $$S(\\phi):=\\varprojlim_{{\\mathbf{K}}^p} I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash (X^p(\\phi)/{\\mathbf{K}}^p)\\times X_p(\\phi),$$ where ${\\mathbf{K}}^p$ runs through the compact open subgroups of $G({\\mathbb Q}^p)$. This set is equipped with an action of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\times Z({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and a commuting action of $\\Phi$, and as such is determined, up to isomorphism, by the equivalence class of $\\phi$.\n\nWe note that under the bijection (\\[eqn:X\\_p(phi)=ADLV\\]) (provided by a choice of $g_0\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $g_0{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\in X_p(\\phi)$), the action of $I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ transfers to $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b_{g_0})_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ via the map $$\\label{eq:action_of_I_{phi}_on_AffDL}\n\\Int(g_0^{-1}):I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})=\\mathrm{Aut}(\\phi) \\rightarrow \\mathrm{Aut}(\\overline{\\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}})=\\{g\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}) |\\ \\mathrm{Int}(g)\\circ\\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}=\\theta_{g_0}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}\\}$$ i.e. $i\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ sends $g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b_{g_0})_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ to $\\Int(g_0^{-1})(i)\\cdot g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$.\n\n\\[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\\_conjecture\\_ver1\\] \\[Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, 1987\\] Suppose that ${\\mathbf{K}}_p\\subset G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is a parahoric subgroup. Then, there exists an integral model ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$ of ${\\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$ over ${\\mathcal{O}}_{E_{\\wp}}$ for which there exists a bijection $${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\bigsqcup_{[\\phi]}S(\\phi)$$ compatible with the actions of $Z({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ and $\\Phi$, where $\\Phi$ acts on the left side as the $r$-th (geometric) Frobenius. Here, $\\phi$ runs through a set of representatives for the equivalence classes of admissible morphisms ${\\mathfrak{Q}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$.\n\n\\(1) The original conjecture was made under the assumption that $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected (due to the expectation that only special admissible morphisms are to contribute to the ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-points and the existence, when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\neq G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, of a non-special morphism that is admissible in the original sense, cf. Remark \\[rem:Kisin\u2019s\\_defn\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\]).\n\n\\(2) In [@Rapoport05 Conj. 9.2], Rapoport gave another version of this conjecture, using a different definition of admissible morphisms, where condition (3) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\] is replaced by the more natural (from group-theoretical viewpoint) and a priori weaker condition (3\u2019) that *the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $\\mathrm{cls}_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(\\phi(p))$ of $b_{\\phi}$ lies in $B(G,\\{\\mu_X\\})$*. Our theorem \\[thm:non-emptiness\\_of\\_NS\\] together with Theorem A of [@He15] establishes equivalence of these two versions: previously, it was known that (3) $\\Rightarrow$ (3\u2019).\n\nKottwitz triples and Kottwitz invariant\n---------------------------------------\n\nOur main references for the material covered here are [@LR87 p.182-183], [@Kottwitz90 $\\S2$], and [@Kottwitz92].\n\n### Galois hypercohomology of crossed modules\n\nIn order to extend the main results of Langlands and Rapoport to the general case that $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ is not necessarily simply connected, (especially, Satz 5.25 of [@LR87], namely Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\] here), we need to consider Galois cohomology groups of crossed modules and (length-$2$) complexes of tori quasi-isomorphic to them (for example, $H^1_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}({\\mathbb Q},G)$ instead of the cohomology of the quotient $G^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}:=G/G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$). Here we give a (very) brief review of the theory of Galois hypercohomology of crossed modules; for details, see [@Borovoi98], [@Labesse99 Ch.1]. For a connected reductive group $H$ over a field $k$, we denote by $$\\rho_H:H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow H$$ the canonical map from the simply connected cover $H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ of $H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ to $H$. Unless stated otherwise, every bounded complex of groups considered in this paper will be concentrated in non-negative homological degrees.\n\nFor a connected reductive group $G$ over a field $k$ (of characteristic zero), if $T$ is a maximal $k$-torus of $G$, the complex $(\\rho^{-1}(T)\\rightarrow T)$ of $k$-tori, where $\\rho^{-1}(T)$ and $T$ are placed in degree $-1$ and $0$ respectively, is quasi-isomorphic to its sub-complex $(\\rho^{-1}(Z(G))=Z(G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\rightarrow Z(G))$ (cf. [@Borovoi98 $\\S$2, $\\S$3]), hence, as an object in the derived category of complexes of commutative algebraic $k$-group schemes, depends only on $G$. We denote it by $G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$: $$G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}:=\\rho^{-1}(T)\\rightarrow T.$$ Then, following Borovoi [@Borovoi98], we define the abelianized Galois cohomology group $H^i_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}(k,G)\\ (i\\in{\\mathbb Z})$ of $G$ to be the hypercohomology group of $G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}(\\bar{k}):=(\\rho^{-1}(T)(\\bar{k})\\rightarrow T(\\bar{k}))$, two-term complex of discrete ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{k}/k)$-modules: $$H^i_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}(k,G):=\\mathbb{H}^i(k,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}).$$ For $-1\\leq i\\leq 1$, this group is also equal to the cohomology (group) $$\\mathbb{H}^i(k,G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\stackrel{\\rho}{\\rightarrow} G)$$ of the crossed module $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}(\\bar{k})\\stackrel{\\rho}{\\rightarrow} G(\\bar{k})$ of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{k}/k)$-groups (*loc. cit.* (3.3.2)): for a proof, see the proof of the next lemma.\n\n\\[lem:abelianization\\_exact\\_seq\\] Let $H\\subset G$ be a (not necessarily connected) $k$-subgroup containing a maximal $k$-torus of $G$ and $(a_{\\tau})_{\\tau}$ a cochain on ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{k}/k)$ valued in $H$ whose coboundary $a_{\\tau_1}\\tau_1(a_{\\tau_2})a_{\\tau_1\\tau_2}^{-1}$ belongs to $Z(H)^{\\mathrm{o}}$. Then, for the (simultaneous) inner-twist $\\rho_1:\\tilde{H}_1\\rightarrow H_1$ of the canonical map $\\rho:\\tilde{H}:=\\rho^{-1}(H)\\rightarrow H$ via the cocyle $a_{\\tau}^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},H^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$ (the image of $a_{\\tau}$ in $H^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$), there exists a natural exact sequence $$\\label{eq:abelianization_from_Levi}\nH^1(k,\\tilde{H}_1) \\stackrel{\\rho_{1\\ast}}{\\longrightarrow} H^1(k,H_1) \\stackrel{ab_1}{\\longrightarrow} H^1_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}(k,G).$$\n\nNote that the condition on (the coboundary of) $a_{\\tau}$ allows us to twist $\\tilde{H}$ via $a_{\\tau}^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$. In the applications, $H$ will be the centralizer of a semi-simple element of $G(k)$.\n\nThe first map is the obvious one (induced by $\\rho_1$) and the second map is the composite of the natural map $$H^1(k,H_1)\\rightarrow \\mathbb{H}^1(k,\\tilde{H}_1\\rightarrow H_1)$$ resulting from the map $(1\\rightarrow H_1)\\rightarrow (\\tilde{H}_1\\rightarrow H_1)$ of crossed modules of $k$-groups, and the isomorphisms $$\\label{eq:isom_of_abelianized_coh}\n\\mathbb{H}^1(k,\\tilde{H}_1\\rightarrow H_1){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\mathbb{H}^1(k,\\tilde{Z}(G)\\rightarrow Z(G)){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\mathbb{H}^1(k,G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow G)$$ ($\\tilde{Z}(G):=\\rho^{-1}(Z(G))=Z(G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$) resulting from the quasi-isomorphisms of crossed modules of $k$-groups $$(\\tilde{H}_1\\rightarrow H_1)\\leftarrow (\\tilde{Z}(G)\\rightarrow Z(G)) \\rightarrow (G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow G)$$ (cf. [@Borovoi98], Lem. 2.4.1 and its proof: the key point is that $H_1$ contains $Z(G)$). Now, the exactness follows from [@Borovoi98 Cor. 3.4.3].\n\n### Kottwitz triple {#subsubsec:pre-Kottwitz_triple}\n\nA Kottwitz triple is a triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma=(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ of elements satisfying certain conditions, where\n\n-   $\\gamma_0$ is a semi-simple element of $G({\\mathbb Q})$ that is elliptic in $G({\\mathbb R})$, defined up to conjugacy in $G(\\overline{{\\mathbb Q}})$;\n\n-   for $l\\neq p$, $\\gamma_l$ is a semi-simple element in $G({\\mathbb Q}_l)$, defined up to conjugacy in $G({\\mathbb Q}_l)$, which is conjugate to $\\gamma_0$ in $G(\\overline{{\\mathbb Q}}_l)$;\n\n-   $\\delta$ is an element of $G(L_n)$ (for some $n$), defined up to $\\sigma$-conjugacy in $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$, such that the norm ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ of $\\delta$ is conjugate to $\\gamma_0$ under $G(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$, where ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta:=\\delta\\cdot\\sigma(\\delta)\\cdots\\sigma^{n-1}(\\delta)\\in G(L_n)$.\n\nThere are two conditions to be satisfied by such triple. To explain the first one, put $G_{\\gamma_0}:=Z_G(\\gamma_0)$ (centralizer of $\\gamma_0$ in $G$); if $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected, this is a connected reductive group. Then, for every place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, we now construct an algebraic ${\\mathbb Q}_v$-group $H_0(v)$ and an inner twisting $$\\psi_v:(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}\\rightarrow H_0(v)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$$ over ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}$. First, for each finite place $v\\neq p$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, set $$H_0(v):=Z_{G_{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}(\\gamma_v).$$ For any $g_v\\in G(\\overline{{\\mathbb Q}}_v)$ with $g_v\\gamma_0g_v^{-1}=\\gamma_v$, the restriction of ${\\mathrm{Int}}(g_v)$ to $(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ gives us an inner twisting $\\psi_v:(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}\\rightarrow H_0(v)$, which is well defined up to inner automorphism of $G_{\\gamma_0}$. At $v=p$, we define an algebraic ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-group $H_0(p)$ to be the $\\sigma$-centralizer of $\\delta$: $$H_0(p):=G_{\\delta\\theta}:=\\{x\\in {\\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(G_{L_n})\\ |\\ x\\delta \\theta(x^{-1})=\\delta\\},$$ where $\\theta$ is the ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-automorphism of ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(G_{L_n})$ induced by the restriction of $\\sigma$ to $L_n$. Then, there exists an inner twisting $\\psi_p:(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\\rightarrow H_0(p)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$, which is canonical up to inner automorphism of $G_{\\gamma_0}$. For detailed discussion, we refer to and [@Kottwitz82 $\\S$5] (where $\\theta$ and $H(p)$ are denoted respectively by $s$ (on p. 801) and $I_{s\\delta}$ (on p. 802)). Finally, at the infinite place, we choose an elliptic maximal torus $T_{{\\mathbb R}}$ of $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ containing $\\gamma_0$ and $h\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},T_{{\\mathbb R}})$. We twist $G_{\\gamma_0}$ using the Cartan involution ${\\mathrm{Int}}(h(i))$ on $G_{\\gamma_0}/Z(G)$, and get an inner twisting $\\psi_{\\infty}:(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{\\mathbb C}}\\rightarrow H_0(\\infty)_{{\\mathbb C}}$. So, $H_0(\\infty)/Z(G)$ is anisotropic over ${\\mathbb R}$.\n\n\\[defn:Kottwitz\\_triple\\] A triple $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ as in (i) - (iii) (with some $n\\in N$) is called a Kottwitz triple of level $n$ if it further satisfies the following two conditions (iv), $\\ast(\\delta)$:\n\n-   There exists a triple $(H_0,\\psi,(j_v))$ consisting of a ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $H_0$, an inner twisting $\\psi:G_{\\gamma_0}\\rightarrow H_0$ and for each place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, an isomorphism $j_v:(H_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}\\rightarrow H_0(v)$ over ${\\mathbb Q}_v$, unramified almost everywhere, such that $j_v\\circ\\psi$ and $\\psi_v$ differ by an inner automorphism of $G_{\\gamma_0}$ over ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}_v$.\n\n-   the image of $\\overline{\\delta}$ under the Kottwitz homomorphism $\\kappa_{G_{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}:B(G_{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rightarrow \\pi_1(G_{{\\mathbb Q}_p})_{\\Gamma(p)}$ () is equal to $\\mu^{\\natural}$ (defined in (\\[eqn:mu\\_natural\\])).\n\nTwo triples $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$, $(\\gamma_0';(\\gamma_l')_{l\\neq p},\\delta')$ as in () with $\\delta,\\delta'\\in G(L_n)$ for (iii) are said to be *equivalent*, if $\\gamma_0$ is $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$-conjugate to $\\gamma_0'$, $\\gamma_l$ is $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugate to $\\gamma_l'$ for each finite $l\\neq p$, and $\\delta$ is $\\sigma$-conjugate to $\\delta'$ in $G(L_n)$ (i.e. there exists $d\\in G(L_n)$ such that $\\delta'=d\\delta\\sigma(d^{-1})$). Clearly, for two such equivalent triples, one of them is a Kottwitz triple of level $n$ if and only if the other one is so. Normally, we consider Kottwitz triples having level $n=m[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ for some $m\\geq1$.\n\nWe will also consider the following condition:\n\n-   Let $H$ be the centralizer in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $Z_{G}(\\gamma_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$. Then, there exists a cocharacter of $\\mu$ of $H$ lying in the $G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugacy class $\\{\\mu_X\\}$ such that $$\\label{eq:lambda(gamma_0)}\n    w_H(\\gamma_0)=\\sum_{i=1}^{n}\\sigma^{i-1}\\underline{\\mu}$$ for some $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$, where $w_H:H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\rightarrow \\pi_1(H)_I$ is the map from and $\\underline{\\mu}$ denotes the image of $\\mu$ in $\\pi_1(H)_I$ ($I={\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$).\n\nWe refer to the number $n$ appearing in $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ as the *level* of this condition (e.g., we will say that the condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ holds for $\\gamma_0$ with level $n$).\n\n\\[rem:condition\\_(ast(gamma\\_0))\\] 1) Note that $H$ is a semi-standard ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ with its center containing the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus $A_{\\epsilon}$ in the center of $Z_{G}(\\gamma_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, hence ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu$, being a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational cocharacter of the center of $Z_{G}(\\gamma_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, maps into $A_{\\epsilon}$, thus a posteriori into the center of $H$.\n\n2\\) As one can readily check, this condition generalizes the condition introduced by Langlands and Rapoport [@LR87 p.183] with the same name $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ in their set-up that the level subgroup is hyperspecial and $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. However, in our formulation, even if $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified, we do not (unlike [@LR87]) require $\\mu$ to be defined over $L_n$ or even over an unramified extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$.\n\nWhen the derived group of $G$ is not simply connected, a stable version of the notion of Kottwitz triple is more relevant. Recall [@Kottwitz82 $\\S$3] that for a connected reductive group $F$ over a perfect field $F$, two rational elements $x,y\\in G(F)$ are said to be *stably conjugate* if there exists $g\\in G(\\bar{F})$ such that $gxg^{-1}=y$ and $g^{-1}{}^{\\tau}g\\in G_s^{\\mathrm{o}}$ for all $\\tau\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{F}/F)$, where $s$ is the semi-simple part of $x$ in its Jordan decomposition. When we just refer to the relation $gxg^{-1}=y$ for some $g\\in G(\\bar{F})$, we will say that $x,y$ are $\\bar{F}$-(or $G(\\bar{F})$-)conjugate or *geometrically* conjugate. By definition, a *stable conjugacy class* in $G(F)$ is an equivalence class in $G(F)$ with respect to this stable conjugation relation.\n\n\\[defn:stable\\_Kottwitz\\_triple\\] A Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma=(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$, say of level $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$, is *stable* if it satisfies the following conditions (in addition to (i) - (iv) and $\\ast(\\delta)$):\n\n-   $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ is defined up to stable conjugacy;\n\n-   for each $l\\neq p$, $\\gamma_0$ is stably conjugate to $\\gamma_l$;\n\n-   there exists $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c\\gamma_0 c^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ and $b:=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)$ lies in $I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$ for $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ (a priori, one only has $b\\in G_{\\gamma_0}({\\mathfrak{k}})$: $\\delta^{-1}c\\gamma_0 c^{-1}\\delta=\\sigma(\\delta)\\cdots\\sigma^n(\\delta)=\\sigma(c\\gamma_0 c^{-1})=\\sigma(c)\\gamma_0\\sigma(c^{-1})$);\n\n-   Set $I(v):=H(v)^{\\mathrm{o}}$ for each place $v$. There exists a triple $(I,\\psi,(j_v))$ consisting of a ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $I$, an inner twisting $\\psi:I_0\\rightarrow I$ and for each place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, an isomorphism $j_v:(I)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}\\rightarrow I(v)$ over ${\\mathbb Q}_v$, unramified almost everywhere, such that $j_v\\circ\\psi$ and $\\psi_v$ differ by an inner automorphism of $I_0$ over ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}_v$.\n\nIf $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ is simply connected, by Steinberg\u2019s theorem ($G_{\\gamma_0}=I_0$), every Kottwitz triple is stable.\n\n\\[rem:Kottwitz\\_triples\\] (1) It is easy to verify the following fact: let $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ be a stable Kottwitz triple of level $n$. If $\\gamma_0'\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ is stably conjugate to $\\gamma_0$, $\\gamma$ is $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugate to $\\gamma'$, and $\\delta'$ is $\\sigma$-conjugate to $\\delta$ in $G(L_n)$, then $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma',\\delta')$ is also a stable Kottwitz triple (of same level). We say that two stable Kottwitz triples $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma',\\delta')$ are *stably equivalent* if they are equivalent as Kottwitz triples and $\\gamma_0$, $\\gamma_0'$ are stably conjugate. A priori, two stable Kottwitz triples can be equivalent without being stably equivalent (see, however, Prop. \\[prop:triviality\\_in\\_comp\\_gp\\], (2)).\n\n\\(2) By Hasse principle for $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_0^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$, a Kottwitz triple satisfying (i$'$) - (iii$'$) will also fulfill condition (iv$'$) if *some* attached Kottwitz invariant (to be recalled below) is trivial [@Kottwitz90 p.172].\n\n\\(3) The condition (iii$'$) should be distinguished from the following stronger condition:\n\n-   there exists $c\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ (not just in $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$) fulfilling the same condition as (iii$'$) (i.e. $c\\gamma_0 c^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ and $b:=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)\\in I_0({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$).\n\nThe two conditions (iii$'$), (iii$''$) are the same if $G_{\\gamma_0}=I_0$ (by Steinberg\u2019s theorem $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}},G_{\\gamma_0})=\\{1\\}$), in particular when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. In general, condition (iii$''$) seems to be strictly stronger than condition (iii$'$).\n\n\\(4) As $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, there exists a norm mapping $\\mathscr{N}=\\mathscr{N}_n$ from $G(L_n)$ to the set of stable conjugacy classes in $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ [@Kottwitz82 $\\S$5]: if $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, for any $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$, the $G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugacy class of ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$, being defined over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, contains a rational element (i.e. lying in $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$) by [@Kottwitz82 Thm.4.1] and $\\mathscr{N}(\\delta)$ is defined to be its stable (=geometric) conjugacy class. For general $G$, one uses a $z$-extension to reduce to the former situation (see *loc. cit.* for a detailed argument). We claim that the new condition (iii$''$) is the same as that *$\\mathscr{N}(\\delta)$ is the stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0$* (in which case, we say that $\\gamma_0$ is the *stable norm* of $\\delta$). Indeed, we first note that condition (iii$''$) holds for a rational element $\\gamma_0$ (and $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$) if and only if it holds for any element of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ stably conjugate to it. Also, it follows immediately from definition that there exists a representative $\\gamma_s\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ of the stable conjugacy class $\\mathscr{N}(\\delta)$ for which (and $\\delta$) condition (iii$''$) holds. In particular, we see that the implication $\\Leftarrow$ holds. Conversely, if condition (iii$''$) holds for $\\gamma_0$ and $\\delta$, $\\gamma_0$ is stably conjugate to any (semi-simple) rational representative $\\gamma_s$ of $\\mathscr{N}(\\delta)$: for any choice of $c$, $c_s\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ satisfying (iii$''$) for $\\gamma_0$, $\\gamma_s$ respectively, we have $\\gamma_s=\\Int(c_s^{-1}c)(\\gamma_0)$ and $$c^{-1}c_s\\sigma(c_s^{-1}c)= c^{-1}c_s\\cdot b_s^{-1}c_s^{-1}\\delta \\cdot \\delta^{-1}cb=\\Int(c^{-1}c_s)(b_s)\\cdot b\\in I_0({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}).$$ We remark that if $\\delta$ satisfies the condition (iii$'$), say $c\\gamma_0 c^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ for $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$, then there is found in $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ an element $g$ such that $\\gamma_s=\\Int(g)(\\gamma_0)$ and $g^{-1}\\tau(g)\\in I_0$ for every $\\tau\\in W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (i.e. $g:=c_s^{-1}c$), but it is not clear whether one can find such $g$ from $G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ (here, we also demand that $g^{-1}\\tau(g)\\in I_0$ for every $\\tau\\in\\Gamma_p$), that is, whether $\\gamma_s$ and $\\gamma_0$ are stably conjugate in the usual sense; to distinguish the two situations, we will say that $\\gamma_s$ and $\\gamma_0$ are *w-stably conjugate* if the former condition holds. This difference in stable conjugacy relation (occurring only for $p$-adic fields) is harmless in that the kind of results that we need and which were previously established based on the usual stable conjugacy (typically, those of the next susubbsection) continue to hold for the w-stable conjugacy. But one needs to be careful when applying some classical arguments involving stably conjugacy to w-stably conjugacy.\n\n### The sets $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$, $\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$. {#subsubsec:w-stable_sigma-conjugacy}\n\nFor a (not necessarily connected) group $H$ over a $p$-adic local field $F$, we let $B(H)$ denote the set of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements in $H(L)$ (see for the notation $L$, $\\sigma$). We write $[b]_H$ for the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class of an element $b\\in H(L)$ (the subscript $H$ is inserted when we want to stress the group $H$).\n\n\\[defn:D\\_p\\^[(n)]{}(gamma\\_0)\\] For a semi-simple $\\gamma_0\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$,\n\n$\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ denotes the set of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)$ of elements $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\\ast(\\delta)$ in Def. \\[defn:Kottwitz\\_triple\\] and Def. \\[defn:stable\\_Kottwitz\\_triple\\].\n\n$\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ denotes the subset of $B(I_0)$ consisting of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes $[b=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)]_{I_0}$ arising from pairs $(\\delta;c)$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\\ast(\\delta)$.\n\nNote that for any $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ such that there exists $c'\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c'\\gamma_0c'^{-1}$, the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class in $B(G_{\\gamma_0})$ of $b':=c'^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c')\\in G_{\\gamma_0}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ does not depend on the choice of such $c'$. Thus, this gives a well-defined map $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0) \\rightarrow B(G_{\\gamma_0}):[\\delta]\\mapsto [b=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)]_{G_{\\gamma_0}}$. In fact, this map is injective. Indeed, suppose that there exist $\\delta_i\\in G(L_n)$ and $c_i\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ ($i=1,2$) such that $c_i\\gamma_0 c_i^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n \\delta_i$; set $b_i:=c_i^{-1}\\delta_i\\sigma(c_i)\\in G_{\\gamma_0}$ as usual. If $b_2=d^{-1}b_1\\sigma(d)$ for some $d\\in G_{\\gamma_0}({\\mathfrak{k}})$, then as ${\\mathrm{N}}_n b_i=c_i^{-1}{\\mathrm{N}}_n \\delta_i\\sigma^n(c_i)=\\gamma_0\\cdot c_i^{-1}\\sigma^n(c_i)$, we see that $$\\gamma_0\\cdot c_2^{-1}\\sigma^n(c_2)=d^{-1}(\\gamma_0\\cdot c_1^{-1}\\sigma^n(c_1))\\sigma^n(d)=\\gamma_0\\cdot (c_1d)^{-1}\\sigma^n(c_1d),$$ namely $x:=c_1dc_2^{-1}\\in G(L_n)$ and $\\delta_2=x^{-1}\\delta_1\\sigma(x)$. In particular, $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ is identified with the subset of $B(G_{\\gamma_0})$ consisting of the $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes $[b=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)]_{G_{\\gamma_0}}$ arising from pairs $(\\delta;c)$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\\ast(\\delta)$. Hence, there exists a cartesian diagram $$\\xymatrix{ \\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0) \\ar@{^(->}[r] & B(G_{\\gamma_0}) \\\\ \n\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0) \\ar@{^{(}->}[r] \\ar@{->>}[u] & B(I_0), \\ar[u] }$$ where the left vertical map is defined by $[b]_{I_0}\\mapsto [b]_{G_{\\gamma_0}}$ (this is clearly surjective).\n\nThe main goal of this subsection is to give a cohomological description of the sets $\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$, $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ (when $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split); see Prop. \\[prop:B(gamma\\_0)=D(I\\_0,G;Qp)\\]. For $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$, let $\\mathscr{S}\\mathscr{C}(\\delta)$ denote the set of the $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)$ of elements $\\delta'\\in G(L_n)$ that are *stably $\\sigma$-conjugacte* to it (*stable $\\sigma$-conjugacy* is to *$\\sigma$-conjugacy* as *stable conjugacy* is to *rational conjugacy*, cf. [@Kottwitz82 $\\S$5]). This set has a cohomological description: $$\\label{eq:sigma-conj_in_stable-sigma-conj}\n\\mathscr{S}\\mathscr{C}(\\delta)= {\\mathrm{im}}\\left(\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},R)]\\rightarrow \\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},R)]\\right)$$ where $R={\\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G$ [@Kottwitz82 p.806] (see also the discussion below). If $\\delta$ satisfies condition (iii$''$) of Remark \\[rem:Kottwitz\\_triples\\] (for a fixed $\\gamma_0\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$), it also parametrizes the $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements $\\delta'\\in G(L_n)$ satisfying the same condition (iii$''$), because an element $\\delta'\\in G(L_n)$ satisfies (iii$''$) if and only if its stable norm $\\mathscr{N}(\\delta')$ is equal to the stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0$ (Remark \\[rem:Kottwitz\\_triples\\], (4)), while two elements of $G(L_n)$ have the same stable norms if and only if they are stably $\\sigma$-conjugate [@Kottwitz82 Prop.5.7]. So, when the two conditions (iii$'$), (iii$''$) are the same (which occurs normally when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$), our set $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ becomes a subset of $\\mathscr{S}\\mathscr{C}(\\delta)$ and this leads immediately to its simple cohomological description. It turns out (Prop. \\[prop:B(gamma\\_0)=D(I\\_0,G;Qp)\\]) that the same description is still valid in the general case (even if the two conditions (iii$'$), (iii$''$) are not necessarily equivalent). However, our proof of it will be rather indirect: in that regards, note that one cannot appeal to the same argument above, since it is not clear whether the $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ are stably $\\sigma$-conjugate in the usual sense (cf. Remark \\[rem:Kottwitz\\_triples\\], (4)) while in the identification just cited of stable $\\sigma$-conjugacy in terms of stable norm one uses the usual definition of stable $\\sigma$-conjugacy. Instead, we first give a cohomological description for $\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ and use it to obtain the description for $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$. In our next discussion, we follow [@Kottwitz82 $\\S$5] (but will use slightly different notations and conventions). We begin with a review of some basic definitions.\n\nLet $E/F$ be a cyclic extension of degee $n$ contained in $\\bar{F}$ (of characteristic zero), and let $\\sigma$ be a generator of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)$. Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $F$, and $R:={\\mathrm{Res}}_{E/F}G_E$ the Weil restriction of the base-change of $G$ (this group was denoted by $I$ in [*loc. cit.*]{}). There exists a natural isomorphism $R_E{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_E\\times \\cdots G_E$, where the factors are ordered such that the $i$-th factor corresponds to $\\sigma^i\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)\\ (i=1,\\cdots,l)$ (note the convention different from that of [*loc. cit.*]{}). The element $\\sigma\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)$ determines an automorphism $\\theta\\in{\\mathrm{Aut}}_F(R)$, which on $R(E)$ takes the form $$(x_1,\\cdots,x_{n-1},x_n)\\mapsto (x_2,\\cdots,x_n,x_1)$$ Note that the composition $$\\Delta_{\\sigma}:G(E)=R(F)\\rightarrow R(E)=G(E)\\times \\cdots\\times G(E)$$ is given by $$x\\mapsto (x,x^{\\sigma},\\cdots, x^{\\sigma^{n-1}}).$$ We define an $F$-morphism $N:R\\rightarrow R$ by $Nx=x\\cdot x^{\\theta}\\cdots x^{\\theta^{n-1}}$; clearly, one has $N\\circ \\Delta_{\\sigma}=\\Delta_{\\sigma}\\circ{\\mathrm{N}}$ on $G(E)=R(F)$ (${\\mathrm{N}}$ denotes the map ${\\mathrm{N}}_n$ on $G(E)$).\n\nFor $x\\in G(E)=R(F)$, the *$\\sigma$-centralizer* of $x$ is by definition the $F$-subgroup of $R$: $$G_{x\\theta}=\\{g\\in R\\ :\\ gxg^{-\\theta}=x\\}.$$ (We sometimes write $g^{-\\theta}$ for $\\theta(x^{-1})$). If $p:R_E=G_E\\times\\cdots G_E\\rightarrow G_E$ denotes the projection onto the factor indexed by the identity element of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)$, by restriction $p$ induces an isomorphism $$\\label{eq:p_x}\np_x:(G_{x\\theta})_E\\rightarrow (G_E)_{{\\mathrm{N}}x}$$ ([*loc. cit.*]{}, Lemma 5.4). Define $G_{x\\theta}^{\\ast}$ to be the inverse image under the $E$-isomorphism $p_x$ of the subgroup $G_{{\\mathrm{N}}x}^{\\ast}$ of $G_{{\\mathrm{N}}x}$. This is an $F$-subgroup of $G_{x\\theta}$ ([*loc. cit.*]{}, Lemma 5.5) which equals the neutral component $G_{x\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ of $G_{x\\theta}$ if ${\\mathrm{N}}x$ is semi-simple, and equals $G_{x\\theta}$ when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G_{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$.\n\n\\(1) Two elements $x,y$ of $R(\\bar{F})$ are *$\\bar{F}$-$\\sigma$-conjugate* if there exists $g\\in R(\\bar{F})$ such that $y=gxg^{-\\theta}$.\n\n\\(2) Two elements $x,y$ of $G(E)=R(F)$ are *stably $\\sigma$-conjugate* if there exists $g\\in R(\\bar{F})$ such that $gxg^{-\\theta}=y$ and $g^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}g\\in G_{x\\theta}^{\\ast}$ for all $\\tau\\in\\Gamma:={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{F}/F)$.\n\nFor the next definition (of w-stable $\\sigma$-conjugacy relation), we work in the following $p$-adic set-up: Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of char. $p>0$ and $K=W(k)[\\frac{1}{p}]$. Suppose that $F$ is a finite extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ in a fixed algebraic closure $\\bar{K}$ of $K$ and let $L$ be the composite of $K$ and $F$ in $\\bar{K}$. We also assume that $E\\subset L$ and use $\\sigma$ again to denote the Frobenius automorphism of $L/F$ (as well as its restriction to $E$).\n\n\\(3) Two elements $x,y$ of $G(E)=R(F)$ are *w-stably $\\sigma$-conjugate* if there exists $g\\in R(L)$ such that $gxg^{-\\theta}=y$ and $g^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\sigma}g\\in G_{x\\theta}^{\\ast}$.\n\nIn the set-up of (3), when ${\\mathrm{N}}x$ is semi-simple, two elements $x,y\\in G(E)=R(F)$ are stably $\\sigma$-conjugate if and only if there exists $g\\in R(F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ such that $gxg^{-\\theta}=y$ and $g^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\sigma}g\\in G_{x\\theta}^{\\ast}$, by Steinberg\u2019s theorem $H^1(\\bar{F}/F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}},G_{x\\theta}^{\\ast})=\\{1\\}$. In particular, in this case, we have the implications: stably $\\sigma$-conjugacy $\\Rightarrow$ w-stably $\\sigma$-conjugacy $\\Rightarrow$ $\\bar{F}$-$\\sigma$-conjugacy.[^15]\n\nNow, we give an explicit relation between the equations appearing in condition (iii) and in $\\bar{F}$-$\\sigma$-conjugacy; this will provide another proof of the lemma. Let $W(\\bar{K}/F)$ be the Weil group, i.e. the group of continuous automorphisms of $\\bar{K}$ which fix $F$ pointwise and induce on the residue field $k$ an integral power of the Frobenius automorphism (cf. [@Kottwitz85 $\\S$1]); when $k={\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$, the restriction homomorphism $W(\\bar{K}/F)\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{F}/F)$ identifies $W(\\bar{K}/F)$ with the usual absolute Weil group $W_F$ of $F$ ([*loc. cit.*]{}, (1.4)). There exists an exact sequence $1\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{K}/L)\\rightarrow W(\\bar{K}/F)\\rightarrow \\langle\\sigma\\rangle \\rightarrow 1$ which endows $W(\\bar{K}/F)$ with a natural topology such that the injection identify ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{K}/L)$ with an open subgroup. For a connected reductive group $G$ over $F$ and $b\\in G(L)$, we define a cocyle $b_{\\tau}\\in Z^1(W(\\bar{K}/F), G(\\bar{K}))$ by $b_{\\tau}:={\\mathrm{N}}_{i(\\tau)}b$, where $i(\\tau)\\in{\\mathbb N}$ is determined by $\\tau|_L=\\sigma^{i(\\tau)}$: its cohomology class is the image of $[b]$ under the isomorphism $B(G)=H^1(\\langle\\sigma\\rangle,G(L)) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1(W(\\bar{K}/F), G(\\bar{K}))$.\n\n\\[lem:stable-Norm-conjugacy=stable-sigma-conjugacy\\] Suppose given $\\delta_1$, $\\delta_2\\in G(E)$, and let $x:=\\Delta_{\\sigma}(\\delta_1)$, $y:=\\Delta_{\\sigma}(\\delta_2)\\in R(F)$.\n\n\\(1) If $g_0{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_1 g_0^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_2$ for some $g_0\\in G(\\bar{K})$, then for every $\\tau\\in W(\\bar{K}/F)$, one has $$\\alpha_{\\tau}:=g_0^{-1}\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_l\\delta_2\\cdot {}^{\\tau}g_0\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_l\\delta_1^{-1}\\in G_{{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_1},$$ where $l=l(\\tau)\\in{\\mathbb N}$ is determined by $\\tau|_E=\\sigma^l\\ (0\\leq l<n)$, and there exists $g\\in R(\\bar{K})$ such that $$gxg^{-\\theta}=y,\\ \\text{ and }\\ p_{\\delta_1}(g^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}g)=\\alpha_{\\tau},$$ where $p_{\\delta_1}:(G_{\\delta_1\\theta})_E\\rightarrow (G_E)_{{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_1}$ is the $E$-isomorphism (\\[eq:p\\_x\\]). Moreover, if $g_0$ lies in $G(\\bar{F})$ (resp. in $G(L)$), then one can choose such $g$ in $R(\\bar{F})$ (resp. in $R(L)$).\n\n\\(2) Conversely, if $gxg^{-\\theta}=y$ for $g\\in R(\\bar{K})$, then one has $g_0{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_1 g_0^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_2$, where $g_0\\in G(\\bar{K})$ is the image of $g$ under the map $\\Xi^{(n)}:R(\\bar{K})=G(E\\otimes\\bar{K})\\rightarrow G(\\bar{K})$ induced by the canonical $E$-algebra homomorphism $E\\otimes\\bar{K}\\rightarrow \\bar{K}:l\\otimes x\\mapsto lx$ (so that $\\Xi^{(n)}|_{R(E)}=p$); clearly, if $g$ lies in $R(\\bar{F})$ (resp. in $R(L)$), then $g_0$ also lies $G(\\bar{F})$ (resp. in $G(L)$).\n\n\\(1) The first claim is a formal check (by applying $\\tau$ to both sides of $g_0{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_1 g_0^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_2$). For the second claim, we fix an element $\\tilde{\\sigma}\\in {W(\\bar{K}/F)}$ lifting $\\sigma$. Since $Nx=N\\Delta_{\\sigma}\\delta_1=\\Delta_{\\sigma}({\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_1)$, we have the relation in $R(E)=G(E)\\times\\cdots\\times G(E)$: $$Ny=({\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_2,\\cdots,{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_2^{\\sigma^{n-1}})=f ({\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_1,\\cdots,{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta_1^{\\sigma^{n-1}})f^{-1}=fNx f^{-1}$$ for $f:=(g_0,g_0^{\\tilde{\\sigma}},\\cdots,g_0^{\\tilde{\\sigma}^{n-1}})$ (for a moment, we write $g^{\\tau}$ for $\\tau\\in {W(\\bar{K}/F)}$ instead of ${}^{\\tau}g$). Next, we find $h\\in R(\\bar{K})$ satisfying that $$hxh^{-\\theta}=y':=f^{-1}yf^{\\theta},$$ namely, that $(h_1,\\cdots,h_n)(x_1,\\cdots,x_n)(h_2^{-1},\\dots,h_n^{-1},h_1^{-1})=(y_1',\\cdots,y_n')$: the condition $Nx=Ny'$ holds ([*loc. cit.*]{}, Lemma 5.2), and this guarantees that this system of equations in $h_i$\u2019s are consistent and we may choose $h_1$ arbitrarily. By putting $h_1=1$, we obtain $$h_{i+1}=(y_1'\\cdots y_i')^{-1}(x_1\\cdots x_i)=(y_{i+1}'\\cdots y_n')(x_{i+1}\\cdots x_n)^{-1}.$$ for $i=1,\\cdots,n-1$. Hence, we have $gxg^{-\\theta}=y$ for $g:=fh\\in R(\\bar{K})$ and it is clear that if $g_0\\in G(E')$ for $E'=\\bar{F}$ or $L$ (so that $y'$, $h\\in R(E')$ too), one also has $g\\in R(E')$.\n\nOn the other hand, one checks that any $\\tau\\in{W(\\bar{K}/F)}$ acts on $R(\\bar{K})=G(\\bar{K})\\times \\cdots\\times G(\\bar{K})$ by: $$\\label{eq:Galois_action_on_R(Kbar)}\n(x_1,\\cdots,x_n)\\mapsto (\\tau(x_{n-l+1}),\\cdots,\\tau(x_{n-l-1}),\\tau(x_{n-l})),$$ where $\\tau|E=\\sigma^l$ with $0\\leq l<n$ (\u201cafter applying $\\tau$, move each component $l$-times to the right\"); we set $x_{n+1}:=x_1$, $y_{n+1}:=y_1$. Hence, since $y_i'=f_i^{-1}y_if_{i+1}$ for $1\\leq i\\leq n$ ($f_{n+1}:=f_1$), it follows that $$\\begin{aligned}\np_{\\delta_1}(g^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}g) &=(f_1h_1)^{-1}\\tau(f_{n-l+1}h_{n+l+1})=f_1^{-1}\\tau(f_{n-l+1}(y_{n-l+1}'\\cdots y_n')(x_{n-l+1}\\cdots x_n)^{-1}) \\\\\n&= f_1^{-1}\\tau((y_{n-l+1}\\cdots y_n) f_1(x_{n-l+1}\\cdots x_n)^{-1}) \\\\\n&= f_1^{-1}\\tau(\\sigma^{n-l}(\\delta_2\\cdots \\delta_2^{\\sigma^{l-1}}) f_1 \\sigma^{n-l}(\\delta_1\\cdots \\delta_1^{\\sigma^{l-1}})^{-1}) \\\\\n&=g_0^{-1}\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_l\\delta_2\\cdot \\tau(g_0)\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_l \\delta_1^{-1}\\end{aligned}$$ as was asserted. The last claim is clear from the construction.\n\n\\(2) Apply $N:R\\rightarrow R$ followed by $\\Xi^{(n)}:R(\\bar{K})\\rightarrow G(\\bar{K})$ [@Kottwitz82 Lem.5.2].\n\nFrom this lemma, we make an observation (which itself, however, will not be used in the rest of this work):\n\nSuppose given $(\\gamma_0,\\delta)\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\times G(L_n)$ satisfying condition (iii$'$) of Def. \\[defn:stable\\_Kottwitz\\_triple\\]. Then, an element $\\delta'\\in G(L_n)$ satisfies condition (iii$'$) for the same $\\gamma_0$ if and only if $\\delta$ and $\\delta'$ are w-stably $\\sigma$-conjugate.\n\nNext, we recall [@Kottwitz97 4.13, 3.3-3.5] that for any connected reductive $F$-group $H$, the map $$\\label{eq:kappa_times_nu} \\kappa_{H}\\times \\bar{\\nu}_{H}: B(H) \\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{H})^{\\Gamma_p})\\times\\mathcal{N}(H)$$ is injective and for any $b\\in H(L)$, the image under $\\kappa_{H}$ of $\\bar{\\nu}_{H}^{-1}(\\bar{\\nu}_H([b]))$ is a torsor under $H^1(F,J_b)$, where $J_b=J_b^H$ is the $F$-group such that for any $F$-algebra $R$, $$J_b(R)=\\{g\\in G(L\\otimes R)\\ |\\ b\\sigma(g)=gb\\}$$ ($\\sigma$ acting via its action on $L$): more explicitly, if $$\\label{eq:Xi}\n\\Xi:H(L\\otimes\\bar{K})\\rightarrow H(\\bar{K})$$ denotes the map induced by the canonical $L$-algebra homomorphism $L\\otimes\\bar{K}\\rightarrow \\bar{K}:l\\otimes x\\mapsto lx$, the cocycle $b_{\\tau}\\in Z^1(W,H(\\bar{K}))$ ($W:=W(\\bar{K}/F)$) defined by $b$ gives rise to a map $$j_b=j_b^H:Z^1(W,J_b(\\bar{K}))\\rightarrow  Z^1(W,H(\\bar{K})) : x_{\\tau} \\mapsto \\Xi(x_{\\tau})\\cdot b_{\\tau},$$ which in turn induces an injection (again denoted by $j_b=j_b^H$) $$\\label{eq:j_b}\nj_b=j_b^H:H^1(F,J_b)\\hookrightarrow B(H)=H^1(W,H)$$ whose image is $j_b(H^1(F,J_b))=\\bar{\\nu}_{H}^{-1}(\\bar{\\nu}_H([b]))$ (cf. [@Kottwitz97 3.3 - 3.5]).\n\nNow, we assume that $F\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is a $p$-adic local field. Then, for any connected reductive $F$-groups $I_0\\subset G$ and a basic $b\\in I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$, there exist canonical bijections $$\\ker[H^1(F,J_b^{I_0})\\rightarrow H^1(F,J_b^G)]=\\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\\rightarrow H^1(F,M)]  =\\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\\rightarrow H^1(F,G)],$$ where for $H=I_0, G$, $J_b^H$ denotes the corresponding group $J_b$ and $M:=Z_G(\\nu)$ for $\\nu:=\\nu_{I_0}(b)$. The second equality follows from the fact that as $M$ is a Levi-subgroup of $G$, the map $H^1(F,M)\\rightarrow H^1(F,G)$ is injective (cf. [@Kottwitz97 (4.13.3)]). To see the first equality, we choose $h\\in I_0(L)$ and $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$ satisfying ${\\mathrm{N}}_n(b')=\\nu(p)^n$ for $b':=hb\\sigma(h^{-1})$ [@Kottwitz85 (4.3)]. Then, the maps $\\Int(h):J_b^H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}J_{b'}^H$ are $F$-isomorphisms and the inclusion $J_{b'}^{I_0}\\hookrightarrow J_{b'}^G$ is a simultaneous inner-twist of the inclusion $I_0\\hookrightarrow M$, via the cochain $b'_{\\tau}\\in C^1(W,I_0)$ defined by $b'$ which becomes cocycles in both $I_0^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ and $M^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ (more precisely, as $\\nu$ maps to $Z(I_0)$, the map $\\Xi:I_0({\\mathfrak{k}}\\otimes\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})\\rightarrow I_0(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ (\\[eq:Xi\\]) restricts to an isomorphism $$\\Xi_{b'}:J_{b'}^{I_0}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$$ [@Kottwitz97 3.4], which identifies $J_{b'}^{I_0}$ with the inner twist of $I_0$ via the cocycle in $Z^1(F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/F,I_0^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$ defined by the image of $b'$ in $I_0^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}(F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})$). In view of these, the first equality is due to the canonical bijection $H^1(F,H)=H^1(F,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ (for any connected reductive group $H$ over arbitrary non-archimedean local $F$), which also implies that this equality is independent of the choice of a particular simultaneous inner twist $((J_b^{I_0})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\\hookrightarrow (J_b^G)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}((I_0)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\\hookrightarrow M_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}})$. The resulting injection $$\\label{eq:j_[b]^{I_0}}\nj_{[b]}^{I_0}:\\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\\rightarrow H^1(F,G)] \\hookrightarrow B(I_0)$$ depends only on the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]_{I_0}$, not on the choice of its representative in $I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (which justifies the notation $j_{[b]}^{I_0}$).\n\nReturning to the original set-up (where further $F={{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ and $W(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})=W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$), we know that:\n\n-   For any pair of elements $(\\delta,c)\\in G(L_n)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (iii$'$) of Def. \\[defn:stable\\_Kottwitz\\_triple\\], the associated element $b:=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)$ has Newton quasi-cocharacter $\\nu_{I_0}(b)=\\frac{1}{n}\\nu_{I_0}(\\gamma_0)$ (Lemma \\[lem:equality\\_of\\_two\\_Newton\\_maps\\], (2), cf. [@LR87 Lem. 5.15]). In particular, its $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]_{I_0}\\in B(I_0)$ is basic.\n\n-   The functorial map $\\Int(c^{-1}):G({\\mathfrak{k}}\\otimes R){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G({\\mathfrak{k}}\\otimes R)$ (for ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-algebras $R$) restricts to a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-isomorphism $$G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}J_b^{I_0},$$ Indeed, one has $\\gamma_0=(b\\sigma)^n\\cdot c^{-1}\\cdot \\sigma^n\\cdot c$ (identity in $G({\\mathfrak{k}})\\rtimes\\langle\\sigma\\rangle$), which implies that an element $g\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}}\\otimes R)$ commutes with $\\gamma_0$ and $b\\sigma$ if and only if $cgc^{-1}$ does with $\\delta\\sigma=c(b\\sigma)c^{-1}$ and $\\sigma^n$ ($\\sigma$ acts on $G({\\mathfrak{k}}\\otimes R)$ via its action on ${\\mathfrak{k}}$). The composite of this with $\\Xi_b:J_b^{I_0}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}J_{b'}^{I_0}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ above $$G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}J_b^{I_0}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$$ equals the restriction to the neutral components of the composite isomorphism $$\\label{eq:psi}\n    \\psi:=\\Int(c^{-1})\\circ p_{\\delta}: (G_{\\delta\\theta})_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}})_{{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$$ which satisfies $\\psi\\cdot{}^{\\sigma}\\psi^{-1}=\\Int(b)$.\n\n-   If the pair $(\\delta,c)$ is required further to satisfy condition $\\ast(\\delta)$ of Def. \\[defn:Kottwitz\\_triple\\], the resulting $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]_{G}\\in B(G)$ is a constant one depending only on $\\gamma_0$.\n\nTherefore, with choice of a reference element $b=g_p^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(g_p)\\in I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$, there exist inclusions $$\\label{eq:B(G(L_n);gamma_0)}\n\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0) \\subset j_{[b]}^{I_0}(\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G)])\\ \\subset B(I_0).$$\n\nOn the other hand, the natural diagram $$\\label{eq:stable_sigma_conj_diagm}\n \\xymatrix{ H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}}) \\ar[r]  \\ar[d]_{\\simeq} & H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},R) \\\\\nH^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_0) \\ar[r] & H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G), \\ar[u] }$$ is commutative, where the map $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},R)=H^1(L_n,G)$ is the restriction map. To see this, we replace these cohomology groups by the respective abelianized cohomology groups (Appendix \\[sec:abelianization\\_complex\\]). Then, the isomorphism $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},(G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},(I_0)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ is induced by the restriction of the inner twist $\\Int(c^{-1})\\circ p_{\\delta}$ (\\[eq:psi\\]) to the abelianization complexes (which is then a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-isomorphism). Since $p_{\\delta}$ is the restriction of $\\Xi^{(n)}:G(L_n\\otimes{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})\\rightarrow G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and $\\Int(c)$ is the identity on $G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}=(Z(G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\rightarrow Z(G))$, we see that $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},(G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ is induced by the restriction of $\\Xi^{(n)}$ to the abelianization complexes. But the identification $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},{\\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1(L_n,G)$ (the Shapiro lemma) is also induced by $\\Xi^{(n)}$, which proves the commutativity.\n\n\\[prop:B(gamma\\_0)=D(I\\_0,G;Qp)\\] Suppose given a semi-simple $\\gamma_0\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $(\\delta,c)\\in G(L_n)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\\ast(\\delta)$. Then, the inclusion (\\[eq:B(G(L\\_n);gamma\\_0)\\]) is an equality: $$\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)= j_{[b]}^{I_0}(\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G)]).$$ Also, we have $$\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)={\\mathrm{im}}\\left(\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G)]\\rightarrow \\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},R)]\\right).$$\n\nLet $\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)'$ be the subset of $B(I_0)$ consisting of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes $[b=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)]_{I_0}$ arising from the pairs $(\\delta;c)$ satisfying condition (iii$'$) (but not necessarily $\\ast(\\delta)$). Then, we claim that $$\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)'=j_{b}^{I_0}(\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},R)])$$ Clearly, this is the same as $\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)'=j_{b}^{I_0}(\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},R(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))])$, which we now show. The inclusion $\\subset$ follows from the facts that any $b'\\in \\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)'$ has the property $\\nu_{I_0}(b')=\\nu_{I_0}(b)$, and that $j_b^{I_0}(H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},J_b^{I_0}))=\\bar{\\nu}_{I_0}^{-1}(\\bar{\\nu}_{I_0}([b]))$.\n\nConversely, any $\\beta\\in \\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},R)]$ is of the form $[g^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g]$ for some $g\\in R({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then, we have $\\delta':=g\\delta g^{-\\theta}\\in R({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $gN\\delta g^{-1}=N\\delta'$ (in $R({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$). Hence, if $g_0:=\\Xi^{(n)}(g)$ for the map $\\Xi^{(n)}:R({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\rightarrow G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ from Lemma \\[lem:stable-Norm-conjugacy=stable-sigma-conjugacy\\], (2), we have ${\\mathrm{N}}\\delta'=g_0{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta g_0^{-1}$ (in $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$), that is, $c'\\gamma_0c'^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}\\delta'$ for $c':=g_0c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$. The inclusion $\\supset$ will be established, if we show that $b':=c'^{-1}\\delta'\\sigma(c')\\in I_0$ and $$j_b^{I_0}(\\beta)=[b_{\\tau}']$$ for the cocycle $b'_{\\tau}$ attached to $b'$ (i.e. $\\tau\\mapsto {\\mathrm{N}}_{l(\\tau)}b'$, where $l(\\tau)\\in{\\mathbb N}$ is given by $\\tau|_{L_n}=\\sigma^{l(\\tau)}$ with $0\\leq l(\\tau)<n$). If $g=(g_1,\\cdots,g_n)$ in $R({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})=G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\times\\cdots\\times G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ (then, $g_0=\\Xi^{(n)}(g)=g_1$), it follows from ${\\mathrm{N}}\\delta'=g_0{\\mathrm{N}}\\delta g_0^{-1}$ that $g_i=({\\mathrm{N}}_{i-1}\\delta')^{-1}\\cdot g_1\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_{i-1}\\delta$, and thus, as $p_{\\delta}({}^\\tau g)=\\tau(g_{n-l(\\tau)+1})$ (\\[eq:Galois\\_action\\_on\\_R(Kbar)\\]), one has $$p_{\\delta}(g^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}g)=g_0^{-1}\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_{l(\\tau)}\\delta'\\cdot \\tau(g_0)\\cdot ({\\mathrm{N}}_{l(\\tau)}\\delta)^{-1}=c\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_{l(\\tau)}b'\\cdot ({\\mathrm{N}}_{l(\\tau)}b)^{-1}\\cdot c^{-1}$$ for any $\\tau\\in W$; in particular, $b'\\in I_0$. Then, since the map $\\Xi:G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}J_b^{I_0}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ equals $\\Int(c^{-1})\\circ p_{\\delta}$ (\\[eq:psi\\]), we see that $ j_b^{I_0}(g^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g)=\\Xi_b(g^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g)\\cdot b_{\\tau}={\\mathrm{N}}_{l(\\tau)}b'$.\n\nFrom the injectivity of (\\[eq:kappa\\_times\\_nu\\]), it follows that an element $[b'=c'^{-1}\\delta'\\sigma(c')]_{I_0}$ of $\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)'$ lies in the subset $\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ if (and only if) $[b']=[b]$ in $B(G)$, namely if $\\beta\\in\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},J_b^{I_0})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},J_b^G)]$ when $[b']_{I_0}=j_{[b]}^{I_0}(\\beta)$ (so that $[b']_{G}=j_{[b]}^{G}(\\beta)$, as $j_b$ is functorial with respect to $I_0\\rightarrow G$). But, from the commutative diagram (\\[eq:stable\\_sigma\\_conj\\_diagm\\]), we see that any class in $\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G)]$ already lies in $\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)'$, so the first statement follows. The second statement is a consequence of the first statement.\n\n### Kottwitz invariant {#subsubsec:Kottwitz_invariant}\n\nHere, we extend, to general groups, the definition of Kottwitz invariant which was previously used (at least in the context of Shimura varieties, as in [@Kottwitz90 $\\S$2], [@Kottwitz92 $\\S$5]) under the assumption $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. When $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, the notion of Kottwitz invariant is well-defined by a Kottwitz triple only. For general groups, however, this is not the case any longer, and we generalize the defintion such that it depends on some auxiliary choices as well as on stable Kottwitz triple; in fact, as we will see, it seems better to regard Kottwitz invariant as being defined on the set $\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,G)]$. Recall our convention for the notation $X_{\\ast}(A)$, $X^{\\ast}(A)$, and $A^D$: for a locally compact abelian group $A$, they denote the (co)character groups ${\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb C}^{\\times},A)$, ${\\mathrm{Hom}}(A,{\\mathbb C}^{\\times})$, and the Pontryagin dual group ${\\mathrm{Hom}}(A,S^1)$, respectively. Let $\\Gamma:={\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$. Let $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ be a *stable* Kottwitz triple and put $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $\\tilde{I}_0:=\\rho^{-1}(I_0)$ for the canonical homomorphism $\\rho=\\rho_G:G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow G$. The exact sequence $$1\\rightarrow Z(\\hat{G})\\rightarrow Z(\\hat{I}_0)\\rightarrow Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}}_0) \\rightarrow 1$$ induces a homomorphism [@Kottwitz84a Cor.2.3] $$\\label{eq:boundary_map_for_center_of_dual} \n\\partial: \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}}_0)^{\\Gamma})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},Z(\\hat{G})).$$ Let $\\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},Z(\\hat{G}))$ denote the kernel of the localization map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},Z(\\hat{G}))\\rightarrow \\prod_v H^1({\\mathbb Q}_v,Z(\\hat{G}))$. Then we define $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$ by $$\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q}) :=\\{ a\\in \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})^{\\Gamma}) \\ |\\ \\partial(a)\\in \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},Z(\\hat{G}))\\}.$$ This is known to be a finite group. Since $\\gamma_0$ is elliptic, there is also an identification $$\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})=\\biggl( \\bigcap_v Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}Z(\\hat{G}) \\biggl)/Z(\\hat{G}).$$\n\nThe Kottwitz invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;(g_v)_v)$ attached to the stable Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ and certain auxiliary elements $((g_l)_{l\\neq p},g_p)\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is then a character of $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$. It is defined as a product over all places of ${\\mathbb Q}$ of the restrictions to $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$ of some characters $\\tilde{\\alpha}_v(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;(g_v)_{v})\\in  X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}Z(\\hat{G}))$: $$\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;(g_v)_v)=\\prod_v \\tilde{\\alpha}_v|_{\\bigcap_v Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}Z(\\hat{G})}$$ (it factors through the quotient $( \\bigcap_v Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}Z(\\hat{G}) )/Z(\\hat{G})$). For each place $v$, $\\tilde{\\alpha}_v$ is itself defined as the unique extension $\\tilde{\\alpha}_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_l;g_l)$ ($l\\neq p,\\infty$), $\\tilde{\\alpha}_p(\\gamma_0;\\delta;g_p)$, $\\tilde{\\alpha}_{\\infty}(\\gamma_0)$ of another character on $Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}$: $$\\label{eq:alpha(gamma_0;gamma,delta)}\n\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_l;g_l)\\ (l\\neq p,\\infty),\\quad \\alpha_p(\\gamma_0;\\delta;g_p),\\quad \\alpha_{\\infty}(\\gamma_0)$$ The restriction of $\\tilde{\\alpha}_v$ to $Z(\\hat{G})$ is defined to be[^16] $$\\label{eq:restriction_of_alpha_to_Z(hatG)}\n\\tilde{\\alpha}_v|_{Z(\\hat{G})}=\n\\begin{cases}\n\\ -\\mu_{\\natural} &\\text{ if }\\quad  v=\\infty \\\\\n\\quad \\mu_{\\natural} &\\text{ if }\\quad  v=p \\\\\n\\text{ trivial } &\\text{ if }\\quad  v\\neq p,\\infty.\n\\end{cases}$$ (Such extension of $\\alpha_v\\in X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}Z(\\hat{G}))$ will be possible, since $\\alpha_v$\u2019s have the same restrictions to $Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}\\cap Z(\\hat{G})$ as these characters (\\[eq:restriction\\_of\\_alpha\\_to\\_Z(hatG)\\]) on $Z(\\hat{G})$, as we will see now). Finally, the characters $\\alpha_v\\in X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v})$ (\\[eq:alpha(gamma\\_0;gamma,delta)\\]) are defined as follows:\n\nFor each finite place $l\\neq p$, we choose $g_l\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ such that $$\\label{eq:stable_g_l}\ng_l\\gamma_0g_l^{-1}=\\gamma_l,\\ \\text{ and }\\ g_l^{-1}\\tau(g_l)\\in I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})\\quad \\forall\\tau\\in\\Gamma_l,$$ so that $\\tau\\mapsto g_l^{-1}\\tau(g_l)$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)$. In view of the canonical isomorphism $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\pi_0(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_l})^D$ [@Kottwitz86 Thm.1.2], the corresponding cohomology class gives a character $\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_l;g_l)$ of $Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_l}$. We note that this class $\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_l;g_l)$ lives in $\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$ and in general depends on the choice of $g_l$ as well as on the pair $(\\gamma_0,\\gamma_l)$, while its image in $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\\gamma_0})$ does not. More precisely, it depends only on the left $I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$-coset $g_lI_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$. In [@Labesse99 p.41], the set of the left $I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$-cosets of such elements $g_l$ (i.e. $g_l^{-1}\\tau(g_l)\\in I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l}),\\forall\\tau\\in\\Gamma_l$) is denoted by $\\mathbb{H}^0({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0\\backslash G)$ and the set $\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$ by $\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{{\\mathbb Q}_l})$,[^17] and $\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_l;g_l)$ is the image of $g_l I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ under the natural surjective map $$\\mathbb{H}^0({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0\\backslash G)\\rightarrow \\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)]\\ :\\ g_l I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})\\mapsto [g_l^{-1}\\tau(g_l)].$$ Namely, the invariant $\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;-;-)$ can be regarded as a such map. Also for $\\eta\\in \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{{\\mathbb Q}_l}):=\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$, the fiber of $\\eta$ is identified with the set $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})/I_{\\eta}({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$, where $I_{\\eta}=xI_0x^{-1}$ (inner form of $I_0$) for any $x\\in \\mathbb{H}^0({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0\\backslash G)$ with image $\\eta$.\n\nOn the other hand, the set $\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\\gamma_0})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$ classifies the $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy classes in the $G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l}$)-conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$, and its subset $$\\label{eq:C_l(gamma_0)}\n\\mathfrak{C}_l(\\gamma_0):= {\\mathrm{im}}\\left(\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)]\\rightarrow \\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\\gamma_0})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)]\\right)$$ classifies the $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy classes in the *stable* conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$. The invariant $\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_l;g_l)$ is then a lifting in $\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$ of the $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy class of $\\gamma_l$.\n\nFor $v=p$, when we choose $g_p\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying condition (iii$'$) of Def. \\[defn:stable\\_Kottwitz\\_triple\\] (with $g_p=c$), the element $b:=g_p^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(g_p)\\in I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and its $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]_{I_0}$ in $B(I_0)$ in general depends on the choice of $g_p$ as well as on the pair $(\\gamma_0,\\delta)$ while its $\\sigma$-conjugacy class in $B(G_{\\gamma_0})$ does not. We define $\\alpha_p(\\gamma_0;\\delta;g_p)$ to be the image of this class under the canonical map $\\kappa_{I_0}:B(I_0)\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma(p)})$ (or, its restriction $B(I_0)_{basic}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma(p)})$ [@Kottwitz85 Prop.6.2]).\n\nWe have seen (Prop. \\[prop:B(gamma\\_0)=D(I\\_0,G;Qp)\\]) that with choice of a reference element $[b]_{I_0}$ in $\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)\\subset B(I_0)_{basic}$, the map $\\kappa_{I_0}-\\kappa_{I_0}([b])$ provides an identification $$\\mathfrak{D}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)=\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G)]$$ sending $[b]_{I_0}$ to the distinguished element of the target (whose inverse is given by $j_{[b]}$ (\\[eq:B(G(L\\_n);gamma\\_0)\\])) and that the set $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements in $G(L_n)$ satisfying conditions (iii$'$) and $\\ast(\\delta)$ is identified with $$\\label{eq:C_p(gamma_0)}\n{\\mathrm{im}}\\left(\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G)]\\rightarrow \\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},R)]\\right).$$ Further, we can regard the invariant $\\alpha_p$ as being valued in $\\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G)]$; or, as in the case $l\\neq p$, one can also view $\\alpha_p$ as a map $$\\mathbb{H}^0({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_0\\backslash G)\\rightarrow \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{{\\mathbb Q}_p}).$$\n\nFor $v=\\infty$, we define $\\alpha_{\\infty}(\\gamma_0)$ to be the image of $\\mu_h$ in $\\pi_1(I_0)_{\\Gamma(\\infty)}\\cong X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma(\\infty)})$ for some $h\\in X$ factoring through a maximal torus $T$ of $G$ containing $\\gamma_0$ and elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$. This character is independent of the choice of $(T,h)$ [@Kottwitz90 Lem.5.1].\n\nSince the image of $\\alpha_p$ in $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{G})^{\\Gamma(p)})$ equals that of the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class of $b$ in $B(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})$ under $\\kappa_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$, it is equal to $\\mu^{\\natural}$ by condition $\\ast(\\delta)$, which makes the construction of $\\tilde{\\alpha}_v$ above possible. It also follows that the product $\\prod_v \\tilde{\\alpha}_v$ is trivial on $Z(\\hat{G})$. Clearly, the Kottwitz invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;(g_v)_v)$ is determined by the adelic class $(\\alpha_v(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;g_v))_v\\in \\ker[H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,G)]$ (once we fix a reference $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b]=[g_p^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(g_p)]\\in B(I_0)$). Here and thereafter, to have uniform notation for all $v$\u2019s, we write $\\alpha_v(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;g_v)$ and $\\tilde{\\alpha}_v(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;g_v)$, although for specific $v$, these depend only on either $\\gamma_l\\ (l\\neq p)$ or $\\delta$.\n\nLater, we will often use the expression \u201c*stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant*\". By this, we will mean that for given stable Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ there exist elements $(g_v)_v\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]), (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes.\n\nAdmissible pairs and associated Kottwitz triples\n------------------------------------------------\n\nRecall that every parahoric subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p\\subset G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is defined by a $\\sigma$-stable facet ${\\mathbf{a}}$ in the building ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ which also gives rise to a parahoric subgroup ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\subset G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\\mathbf{K}}_p={\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cap G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. To formulate the definition of admissible pair for general parahoric level, we need to consider the coset space $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ endowed with the obvious action of the semi-direct product $G({\\mathfrak{k}})\\rtimes\\langle\\sigma\\rangle$, instead of the Bruhat-Tits building ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ which was used in the hyperspecial level case; note that unless ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial (in which case ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ equals the whole stabilizer $\\mathrm{Stab}({\\mathbf{0}})\\subset G({\\mathfrak{k}})$), $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is not a subset of ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ in any natural manner.\n\n[@LR87 p.189] \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\] A pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is called *admissible (of level $n=[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]m$)* if\n\n-   $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{Q}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is admissible in the sense of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\].\n\n-   $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})(=\\{g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\ |\\ \\mathrm{Int}(g)\\circ\\phi=\\phi\\})$.\n\n-   There are $\\gamma=(\\gamma(v))\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $y\\in X^p(\\phi)$, and $x$ in $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ such that $$\\epsilon y=y\\gamma\\quad \\text{ and }\\quad \\epsilon x=\\Phi^mx.$$\n\nComments on condition (3) are in order: the equation $\\epsilon x=\\Phi^mx$ requires actions of $I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ and $\\Phi$ on $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$. Such actions are specified by choice of $u\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\xi_p':=\\Int(u)\\circ\\xi_p$ is unramified ($\\xi_p:=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G(p)$). First, as an automorphism of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, $\\Phi$ acts by left multiplication by $\\Phi_b:=(b\\sigma)^{[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]}$ when $\\xi_p'(s_{\\widetilde{\\sigma}})=b\\widetilde{\\sigma}$ for a (fixed) lifting $\\widetilde{\\sigma}\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ of the Frobenius automorphism $\\sigma$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ (recall that $\\tau\\mapsto s_{\\tau}$ is the previously chosen section to the projection ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$). Moreover, the choice of $u$ also fixes an action of $I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ on $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ via the homomorphism $$\\Int(u):I_{\\phi}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})=\\mathrm{Aut}(\\phi(p))\\hookrightarrow \\mathrm{Aut}(\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\mathrm{Aut}(\\xi_p')\\subset G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}).$$ (one has $\\mathrm{Aut}(\\xi_p')\\subset G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$, since $\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})=1\\rtimes\\tau$ for every $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$, so that $\\epsilon'\\tau=\\epsilon'\\cdot \\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})=\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})\\cdot \\epsilon'=\\tau(\\epsilon')\\tau$ for all $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$). Then, by existence of $x$ in $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ satisfying $\\epsilon x=\\Phi^mx$, we mean that for some (equiv. any) $u\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\Int(u)\\circ\\xi_p$ is unramified, there exists $x$ in the coset space $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ satisfying that $$\\label{defn:admissible_pair_(3)a}\n\\epsilon'x=(b\\sigma)^{[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]m}x,$$ where $\\epsilon':=u\\epsilon u^{-1}\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Here, to define $F=b\\sigma$, instead of $\\xi_p'$, we could also have used a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ whose inflation to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is $\\xi_p'$: it does not change $b$ (Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_morphism\\]).\n\n\\[rem:admissible\\_pair\\] (1) Suppose that the anisotropic kernel of $Z(G)$ (maximal anisotropic subtorus of $Z(G)$) remains anisotropic over ${\\mathbb R}$ (then $Z(G)({\\mathbb Q})$ is discrete in $Z(G)({\\mathbb A}_f)$); take ${\\mathbf{K}}^p$ to be small enough so that $Z({\\mathbb Q})\\cap {\\mathbf{K}}_p{\\mathbf{K}}^p=\\{1\\}$ and also condition (1.3.7) of [@Kottwitz84b] holds.\n\nThen, conjecture (\\[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\\_conjecture\\_ver1\\]) leads to the following description of the finite sets ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\mathbb F}_{q^m})=[{\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})]^{\\Phi^m=\\mathrm{id}}$ for each finite extension ${\\mathbb F}_{q^m}$ of ${\\mathbb F}_q=\\kappa(\\wp)$, where $\\Phi:=F^r$ is the $r=[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$-th relative Frobenius (cf. [@Kottwitz84b 1.3-1.5], [@Milne92 $\\S$5]): There exists a bijection (forming a compatible family for varying ${\\mathbf{K}}^p$) $$\\label{eqn:LRconj-ver2} \n{\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\mathbb F}_{q^m}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\bigsqcup_{(\\phi,\\epsilon)} S(\\phi,\\epsilon),$$ where $S(\\phi,\\epsilon)=I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X_p(\\phi,\\epsilon)\\times X^p(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{{\\mathbf{K}}^p}/{\\mathbf{K}}^p$ with $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eqn:LRconj-ver2_constituents} \nI_{\\phi,\\epsilon}&:= \\text{ centralizer of }\\epsilon\\text{ in }I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q}), \\\\  \nX^p(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{{\\mathbf{K}}^p}&:= \\{ x^p\\in X^p(\\phi) \\ |\\ \\epsilon x^p=x^p\\mod {\\mathbf{K}}^p\\}, \\nonumber \\\\  \nX_p(\\phi,\\epsilon)&:= \\{ x_p\\in X_p(\\phi) \\ |\\ \\epsilon x_p=\\Phi^mx_p\\} \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\simeq \\{ x_p\\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p} \\ |\\ \\epsilon' x_p=(b\\sigma)^{rm}x_p\\}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ In (\\[eqn:LRconj-ver2\\]), $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ runs through a set of representatives for the conjugacy classes of pairs consisting of an admissible morphism $\\phi$ and an element $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})(\\subset G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$. We emphasize that the second identification of $X_p(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ requires choice of $g_0\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $g_0{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\in X_p(\\phi)$ (so that especially, $\\Int(g_0^{-1})\\circ\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ is unramified), which also specifies an action of $(b\\sigma)^r$ on $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ (for the Frobenius $\\Phi=b\\sigma$ defined in (\\[eq:Frob\\_Phi\\_2\\])) as well as an action of $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ via $\\epsilon':={\\mathrm{Int}}g_0^{-1}(\\epsilon)$ (\\[eq:action\\_of\\_I\\_[phi]{}\\_on\\_AffDL\\]), cf. (\\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\_(3)a\\]).\n\n\\(2) According to this conjecture (\\[eqn:LRconj-ver2\\]), an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ will contribute to the set ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\mathbb F}_{q^m})$ if and only if in condition (3) one can find $y\\in X^p(\\phi)(\\subset G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p))$ and a solution $x\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ to the equation $\\epsilon x=\\Phi^mx$ (i.e. to (\\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\_(3)a\\])), further satisfying that $$\\label{eqn:effectivity_admssible_pair_condition}\ny^{-1}\\epsilon y\\in {\\mathbf{K}}^p,\\ \\text{ and }\\ x\\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$$\n\nRegarding this, we emphasize that in condition (3) of the definition of an admissible pair, $y\\in X^p(\\phi)$ and $x\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ are *not* demanded to satisfy this (seemingly natural) condition (\\[eqn:effectivity\\_admssible\\_pair\\_condition\\]).[^18]. Indeed, Langlands and Rapoport made this point explicit: *\u201cEs wird \u00fcbrigens nicht verlangt, dass $x$ in $X_p$ liegt.\u201d* [@LR87 p. 189, line +18]. We remark that the main function of this notion of admissible pair is to attach a Kottwitz triple, but the usefulness of this definition comes from its flexibility that $x$ in (\\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\_(3)a\\]) is *not* required to be found in $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$.\n\n\\(3) We will call an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ ${\\mathbf{K}}^p$-*effective*, respectively ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$-*effective* if there exist $y\\in X^p(\\phi)$, respectively $x\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ with $\\epsilon x=\\Phi^mx$, satisfying the conditions (\\[eqn:effectivity\\_admssible\\_pair\\_condition\\]). Note that if $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is ${\\mathbf{K}}^p$-effective and $\\epsilon\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $\\epsilon$ itself lies in a compact open subgroup of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ (cf. proof of Lemma \\[lem:invariance\\_of\\_(ast(gamma\\_0))\\_under\\_transfer\\_of\\_maximal\\_tori\\], (2)).\n\nTwo admissible pairs $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, $(\\phi',\\epsilon')$ are said to be *equivalent* (or *conjugate*) if there exists $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $(\\phi',\\epsilon')=g(\\phi,\\epsilon)g^{-1}$.\n\n###  {#subsubsec:K-triple_attached_to_adm.pair}\n\nNow, we explain how with any admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, one can associate a Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma:=(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$, cf. [@LR87], p189.\n\nFirst, we set $\\gamma_l:=\\gamma(l)$, i.e. $\\gamma=y^{-1}\\epsilon y\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ for some $y\\in X^p(\\phi)$. When we replace $y$ by $yh, h\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $\\gamma$ goes over to $h^{-1}\\gamma h$, thus the $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugacy class of $\\gamma$ is well-determined by the pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$. Also, one easily sees that if $(\\phi',\\epsilon')=g(\\phi,\\epsilon)g^{-1}\\ (g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$, the corresponding $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugacy classes of $(\\gamma_l')_{l\\neq p}$, $(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p}$ are the same, since $y\\mapsto gy$ gives a bijection $X^p(\\phi){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}X^p({\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi)$.\n\nNext, to find $\\gamma_0$, we use Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\] below, which is a generalization of Lemma 5.23 of [@LR87]. If an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ satisfies that $\\phi=i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ and $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ for a special Shimura datum $(T,h)$, then we will say that it is *nested* [^19] in $(T,h)$ and that the (admissible) pair $(i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h},\\epsilon)$ is a *special* (admissible) pair. Hence, this lemma says that every admissible pair is conjugate to an admissible pair that is nested (in particular, well-located) in a special Shimura sub-datum of $(G,X)$. Then, we define $\\gamma_0$ to be any (semi-simple) rational element of $G$ that is $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$-conjugate to $\\epsilon$ and also lies in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T'$ of $G$ that is elliptic at ${\\mathbb R}$, which we now know exists; note that any such $\\gamma_0$ given by Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\] is always semi-simple. By definition, this rational element is well-defined up to $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy.\n\nFinally, to define $\\delta$, we choose $u\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that ${\\mathrm{Int}}u\\circ \\xi_p\\ (\\xi_p:=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p)$ is unramified. When ${\\mathrm{Int}}u\\circ \\xi_p$ is the inflation of a morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ of Galois ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-gerbs, we define $b\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ by $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})=b\\sigma$, and put $\\epsilon'=u\\epsilon u^{-1}\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$.\n\n\\[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\\_b3.3\\] (1) Let $\\Psi=b\\sigma^n\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})\\rtimes\\langle\\sigma\\rangle$ such that $n\\neq0$. Then, $\\Psi$ is conjugate under $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ to $\\sigma^n$ if and only if $\\Psi$ fixes some point in $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$.\n\n\\(2) Let $H$ be a quasi-split group over a $p$-adic field, either a local field $F$ or the completion $L$ of its maximal unramified extension $F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ in $\\overline{F}$. Then, the map $v_{H_L}:H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Hom}}(X_{\\ast}(Z(\\widehat{H}))^I,{\\mathbb Z})$ () vanishes on any special maximal bounded subgroup of $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (not just on special parahoric subgroups).\n\n\\(1) This is Lemma 1.4.9 of [@Kottwitz84b] when $x^{\\mathrm{o}}$ is a hyperspecial point, and its proof continues to work in our setup: note that the parahoric group scheme over ${{\\mathbb Z}_p}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ attached to $x^{\\mathrm{o}}$ has connected special fiber, so the result of Greenberg [@Greenberg63 Prop. 3] still applies.\n\n\\(2) When $H$ is unramified and $F$ is a local field, this is (stated and) proved in Lemma 3.3 of [@Kottwitz84a] (where $\\lambda_H$ is the same as the restriction of $w_{H_L}$ to $H(F)$). But one easily sees that for general quasi-split $H$, the same argument works with the map $v_{H_L}$ and any special maximal bounded subgroup (instead of special parahoric subgroup). More explicitly, as the relation (3.3.4) in *loc. cit.* continues to hold, one just needs to note (in the last step of the original argument) that for a maximal split torus $S$ of $G$ whose apartment contains a given special point $x^{\\mathrm{o}}\\in{\\mathcal{B}}(G,L)$ and $T=Z_G(S)$, the subgroup $T({\\mathfrak{k}})_0:=T({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap \\mathrm{Fix} (x^{\\mathrm{o}})$ equals $\\ker(v_{T})$ [@HainesRapoport08]; it is the maximal bounded subgroup of $T({\\mathfrak{k}})$.\n\n\\[lem:delta\\_from\\_b&gamma\\_0\\] There exists $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $\\delta:=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})$ lies in $G(L_n)$ and that ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ and $\\gamma_0$ are conjugate under $G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.\n\nBy definition (cf. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\_(3)a\\]) and Lemma \\[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\\_b3.3\\], there exists $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$c(\\epsilon'^{-1}F^n)c^{-1}=\\sigma^n.$$ If we define $\\delta\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ by $$\\delta\\sigma:=cFc^{-1}=c(b\\sigma)c^{-1},$$ i.e. $\\delta=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})$, then it follows (as shown on p. 291 of [@Kottwitz84b]) that $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ and $\\sigma^n=c(\\epsilon'^{-1}F^n) c^{-1}=c\\epsilon'^{-1}c^{-1}(\\delta\\sigma)^n=(c\\epsilon'^{-1}c^{-1}{\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta)\\sigma^n$, i.e. ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c\\epsilon'c^{-1}$, so that $$\\label{eqn:stable_conjugacy_reln_betwn_Nmdelta_and_gamma_0}\n{\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c\\epsilon'c^{-1}=(cu)\\epsilon (cu)^{-1}=(cug)\\gamma_0(cug)^{-1},$$ where $\\epsilon= g\\gamma_0 g^{-1}$ for $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$. This implies that ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ and $\\gamma_0$ are conjugate under $G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.\n\nChoose $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ as in Lemma \\[lem:delta\\_from\\_b&gamma\\_0\\]: its $\\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G(L_n)$ is uniquely determined by the admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$. We will say that the admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ *gives rise to* the triple $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ (or, the triple $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ *is attached to* the pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$); then $\\epsilon$ and $\\gamma_0$ are $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$-conjugate, among others. Also note that by definition (cf. ()), the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $\\mathrm{cls}(\\phi)\\in B(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})$ attached to $\\phi(p)$ (the pull-back of $\\phi$ to ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$) is $[\\delta]\\in B(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})$.\n\n\\[rem:two\\_different\\_b\u2019s\\] For $\\gamma_0\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, let $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)'$ be the set of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)$ of elements $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ for which there exists $c'\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c'\\gamma_0c'^{-1}$ (i.e. it is the same set as $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ of Def. \\[defn:D\\_p\\^[(n)]{}(gamma\\_0)\\] except that we do not demand the condition $\\ast(\\delta)$); then the map $$\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)' \\hookrightarrow B(G_{\\gamma_0}) \\quad ;\\quad \\delta\\mapsto [b']=[c'^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c')]$$ is well-defined and injective (cf. ).\n\nSuppose that a pair $(\\gamma_0,\\delta)\\in G({\\mathbb Q})\\times G(L_n)$ arises from an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, that is, that $\\gamma_0=\\Int(g)(\\epsilon)$ for some $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, $\\delta=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})$ for some $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and $b\\sigma=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$, where $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ is a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism whose inflation to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ equals $\\Int(u)\\circ\\xi_p$ for some $u\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. Then, in general, $b':=c'^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c')$ defined by $c'\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c'\\gamma_0 c'^{-1}$ is different from $b$ defined by $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})=b\\sigma$ (which thus depends on the choice of $u$).\n\nBut, if $\\epsilon\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ and $\\phi$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{I_0}\\subset{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ (for example, if $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is well-located in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ or if $G_{\\epsilon}$ is already connected), we can take $\\gamma_0=\\epsilon$ and also pick an element $u$ making $\\Int(u)\\circ\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ unramified (say, inflation of $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$) from $I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. With such choice of $\\gamma_0$ and $u$, we have the equality $$[b]=[b']\\text{ in }B(G_{\\gamma_0})$$ (these $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes $[b]$, $[b']$ in $B(G_{\\gamma_0})$ do not depend on the choices involved, i.e. choices of any of $u\\in I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, $c, c'\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$). In fact, we can choose $c'$ such that $b':=c'^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c')$ equals $b$ (as elements in $G_{\\gamma_0}({\\mathfrak{k}})$). Indeed, by construction (cf. proof of Lemma \\[lem:delta\\_from\\_b&gamma\\_0\\]), we have $\\delta=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})$ for some $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c(\\epsilon'^{-1}(b\\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\\sigma^n$ ($\\epsilon':=u\\epsilon u^{-1}=\\epsilon$), so that ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c\\epsilon'c^{-1}=c\\gamma_0c^{-1}$ in (\\[eqn:stable\\_conjugacy\\_reln\\_betwn\\_Nmdelta\\_and\\_gamma\\_0\\]). Then we can take $c$ for $c'$, so that $b'=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)=b$. In particular, there exists a representative in $I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$ of $[b']\\in B(G_{\\gamma_0})$.\n\nIt is immediate that equivalent admissible pairs give rise to equivalent Kottwitz triples. However, non-equivalent admissible pairs can also give equivalent Kottwitz triples, and there is a cohomological expression for the number of non-equivalent admissible pairs giving rise to a given Kottwitz triple (see Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\]).\n\n\\[prop:Kottwitz\\_triple\\] Every special admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ of level $n=[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]m$ gives rise to a stable Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ of level $n$ (Def. \\[defn:Kottwitz\\_triple\\]) for which there exist $(g_v)_v\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]), (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes.\n\nRecall that an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is special if there exists a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ such that $\\phi=\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ and $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$, and that every admissible pair is conjugate to a special one (Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\]).\n\nFirst, condition (i) of (and (i$'$) of Def. \\[defn:stable\\_Kottwitz\\_triple\\] as well) is clear. By Lemma \\[lem:properties\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\], we have $(g_v)_{v\\neq p,\\infty}\\in T(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\cap X^p(\\phi)$ which implies that we may take $\\gamma_l$ to be $\\gamma_0\\in T({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$, thereby establishing condition (ii$'$): note that condition (ii) itself just follows from condition (2) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\]. Condition (iii) was proved in Lemma \\[lem:delta\\_from\\_b&gamma\\_0\\]. For condition (iii$'$), we have seen in Remark \\[rem:two\\_different\\_b\u2019s\\] that one can find $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ and $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying that $c\\gamma_0c^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ and $b:=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)\\in T({\\mathfrak{k}})$: there exist $u\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $\\Int(u)\\circ\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ is the inflation of a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morhism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ and $c\\gamma_0^{-1}\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})^nc^{-1}=\\sigma^n$, and one defines $\\delta:=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})$ for $b\\sigma:=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$. That the condition $\\ast(\\delta)$ holds is a consequence of $\\phi$ being admissible (specifically, condition (3) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\]) in view of [@He15 Thm. A]. Therefore, the triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ just defined is a stable Kottwitz triple. Finally, it remains to verify vanishing of the Kottwitz invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta;(g_v)_v)$ for suitable elements $(g_v)_v\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$; as observed before [@Kottwitz90 p.172], this will also establish condition (iv) (alternatively, we can take $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ for $I$ in condition (iv), [@Milne92 Lem6.10]). We take $g_v=1$ for $v=l\\neq p$ and $g_p=c$ above. Then, we have $\\alpha_l=1$ for $l\\neq p$, and $\\alpha_v$\u2019s for $v=p,\\infty$ are $\\pm1$ times the restrictions of the character of $\\hat{T}$ defined by $\\mu_h$ with different signs (Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_conj\\_of\\_special\\_morphism\\]), from which the vanishing of $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta;(g_v)_v)$ is obvious.\n\nEvery admissible morphism is conjugate to a special admissible morphism\n=======================================================================\n\nWe make some comments on various assumptions called upon in this section. First, there are two running assumptions: (1) $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, and (2) $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ (more precisely, $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is a product $\\prod_i {\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a field $F_i$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$): condition (2) is directly invoked only in Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\] which however is used in all the main results of this section. Secondly, the level subgroup can be arbitrary parahoric subgroup (except in Thm. \\[thm:non-emptiness\\_of\\_NS\\], (2)), and $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ is not assumed to be simply connected, unlike in the original work [@LR87]. Finally, every statement involving the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ (instead of the quasi-motivic Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{Q}}$) will (for safety) assume that the Serre condition holds for the Shimura datum $(G,X)$ (i.e. the center $Z(G)$ splits over a CM field and the weight homomorphism $w_X$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$). Of course, in every statement we will make explicit the assumptions that we impose.\n\nTransfer of maximal tori and strategy of proof of Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\]\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n###  {#section-1}\n\nIn the work of Langlands-Rapoport, a critical role is played by the notion of *transfer* (or *admissible embedding*) *of maximal torus*. Recall [@Kottwitz84b $\\S$9] that for a connected reductive group $G$ over a field $F$, if $\\psi:H_{\\overline{F}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{\\overline{F}}$ is an inner-twisting and $T$ is a maximal $F$-torus of $H$, an $F$-embedding $i:T\\rightarrow G$ is called *admissible* if it is of the form ${\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\psi|_T$ for some $g\\in G(\\overline{F})$ (equiv. of the form $\\psi\\circ {\\mathrm{Int}}h|_T$ for some $h\\in H(\\overline{F})$). Whether an $F$-embedding $i:T\\rightarrow G$ is admissible or not depends only on the conjugacy class of the inner-twisting $\\psi$. We will also say that $T$ *transfers to* $G$ (with a conjugacy class of inner twistings $\\psi:H_{\\overline{F}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{\\overline{F}}$ understood) if there exists an admissible $F$-embedding $T\\rightarrow G$ (with respect to the same conjugacy class of inner twistings). Usually, this notion is considered when $H$ is a quasi-split inner form of $G$, due to the well-known fact [@PR94 p.340] that *every maximal torus in a reductive group transfers to its quasi-split inner form*, but here we do not necessarily restrict ourselves to such cases. In fact, we will consider more often the identity inner twisting $\\mathrm{Id}_G:G_{\\overline{F}}=G_{\\overline{F}}$, in which case if ${\\mathrm{Int}}g:T_{\\overline{F}}{\\hookrightarrow}G_{\\overline{F}}\\stackrel{=}{\\rightarrow}G_{\\overline{F}}$ is an admissible embedding, we will also let ${\\mathrm{Int}}g$ denote both the ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $T\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Int}}g(T)$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$-tori and the induced morphism of Galois gerbs ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{{\\mathrm{Int}}g(T)}$; of course the latter is also the restriction of ${\\mathrm{Int}}g$, regarded as an automorphism of the Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}_G$, to ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T$.\n\n###  {#subsubsec:well-located_admissible_morphism}\n\nWe say that an admissible morphism $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is *well-located*[^20] if $\\phi(\\delta_n)\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ for all sufficiently large $n$. Here, $\\delta_n$ is the element in $P(K,m)({\\mathbb Q})$ introduced in Lemma \\[lem:Reimann97-B2.3\\], (2) for any ${\\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ which $\\phi$ factors through: $\\phi(\\delta_n)$ does not depend on the choice of such ${\\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ by the compatibility property of $\\delta_n$ (*loc. cit.*). More generally, for a ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup $H$ of $G$, we will say that an admissible morphism $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is *well-located in $H$* if $\\phi(\\delta_n)\\in H({\\mathbb Q})$ for all sufficiently large $n$ and $\\phi$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_H \\subset {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$; note the second additional requirement. For example, every special admissible morphism $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ (for a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$) is always well-located (in $T$). Indeed, $\\delta_n\\in P(K,m)({\\mathbb Q})$ (for sufficiently large $n$ divisible by $m$) and the restriction of $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ to kernels is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$ [@LR87 p.143, second paragraph].\n\nRecall the ${\\mathbb Q}$-group scheme $I_{\\phi}=\\underline{\\mathrm{Isom}}(\\phi,\\phi)$ (\\[eq:Isom(phi\\_1,phi\\_2)\\]). When $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is well-located, this group scheme is identified in a natural way with the inner twist via $\\phi$ of the ${\\mathbb Q}$-group scheme $$I:=Z_G(\\phi(\\delta_n)),$$ the centralizer ${\\mathbb Q}$-group of $\\phi(\\delta_n)\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ for any sufficiently large $n$ ($I$ is connected and does not depend on the choice of such $n$). More precisely, if $\\phi(q_{\\rho})=g_{\\rho}\\rtimes\\rho$ for the chosen section $\\rho\\mapsto q_{\\rho}$ to ${\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$ (Remark \\[rem:comments\\_on\\_zeta\\_v\\], (3)), the $1$-cochain $\\rho\\mapsto g_{\\rho}$ takes values in $I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ and its image in $I^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ is a cocycle (although the original cochain $\\rho\\mapsto g_{\\rho}$ itself is not). The group $I_{\\phi}$ is then defined by its cohomology class in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$; so, there exists an inner twisting ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isomorphism $$\\label{eq:inner-twisting_by_phi}\n\\psi:I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},$$ under which $$I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})=\\{g\\in I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\ |\\ g_{\\rho}\\rho(g)g_{\\rho}^{-1}=g\\}=\\{g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\ |\\ {\\mathrm{Int}}(g)\\circ\\phi=\\phi\\}.$$\n\nWe will also say that an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is *well-located* if $\\phi$ is a well-located admissible morphism and $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ lies in $G({\\mathbb Q})$ (a priori, $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ is only an element of $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ via $I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})\\subset I_{\\phi}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})=I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\subset G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$). If $\\phi$ is well-located in $H$ and $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})\\cap H({\\mathbb Q})$ for a ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup $H$ of $G$, the admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ will be said to be *well-located in $H$*. Clearly, any admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ nested in some special Shimura datum $(T,h)$ is well-located (in $T$).\n\nWe also note that for any admissible morphism $\\phi$ mapping into ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ for a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$, the torus $T$ is also a ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\\phi}$ (so $T({\\mathbb Q})\\subset I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})=\\{g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\ |\\ {\\mathrm{Int}}(g)\\circ\\phi=\\phi\\}$). Indeed, suppose that $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{P}}(K,m)$ for a CM field $K$ Galois over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and $m\\in{\\mathbb N}$. We need to check that any $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ commutes with $\\phi(\\delta_n)$ and $\\phi(q_{\\rho})$ (for all $n\\gg 1$ and $\\rho\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$). But, the first is obvious and for the second, in general, for $x\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, we have $$\\phi(q_{\\rho})x\\phi(q_{\\rho})^{-1}=(g_{\\rho}\\rho)x(g_{\\rho}\\rho)^{-1}=(g_{\\rho}\\rho)x(\\rho^{-1}(g_{\\rho}^{-1})\\rho^{-1})=g_{\\rho}\\rho(x)g_{\\rho}^{-1}\\cdot1,$$ so that $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ and $g_{\\rho}\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ together imply that $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$.\n\n\\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\] Assume that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, and that $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is a product $\\prod_i {\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a field $F_i$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$. Let ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a parahoric subgroup of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$.\n\n\\(1) Every admissible morphism $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is conjugate to a special admissible morphism $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T{\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ (for some special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},T_{{\\mathbb R}})\\cap X)$ and $i:{\\mathfrak{G}}_T\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ the canonical morphism defined by the inclusion $i:T{\\hookrightarrow}G$).\n\n\\(2) Let $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ be a *well-located* (i.e. $\\phi(\\delta_n)\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ for all $n\\gg1$) admissible morphism. Then, for any maximal torus $T$ of $G$, elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$, such that\n\n-   $\\phi(\\delta_n)\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ for a sufficiently large $n$ (i.e. $T\\subset I:=Z_G(\\phi(\\delta_n))$), and\n\n-   $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\subset I_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is elliptic,\n\n$\\phi$ is conjugate to a special admissible morphism $\\psi_{T',\\mu_{h'}}$, where $T'={\\mathrm{Int}}g'(T)$ for some transfer of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\\hookrightarrow}G\\ (g'\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$ (with respect to the identity inner twisting, i.e. the composite map $T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\hookrightarrow}G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\stackrel{{\\mathrm{Int}}g'}{{\\longrightarrow}}G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$).\n\n-   If furthermore $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}\\subset G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic at some prime $l\\neq p$ and $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},T)=0$,\n\nwe may find such transfer of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\\hookrightarrow}G$ which is also conjugation by an element of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ (i.e. ${\\mathrm{Int}}g':T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\\rightarrow G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ equals ${\\mathrm{Int}}y$ for some $y\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$).\n\nIn the case where the level subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial and $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, the first statement is Satz 5.3 of [@LR87]. The second statement is new; it was motivated by gaining control on special admissible morphism (especially on the torus $T$) that is conjugate to a given admissible morphism. To establish these statements, we will adapt the arguments from the proof of *loc. cit.*, which we now review briefly. It can be divided into three steps:\n\n-   The first step is to replace a given admissible morphism $\\phi$ by its conjugate that is well-located (i.e. when we denote the conjugate again by $\\phi$, we have $\\phi(\\delta_n)\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$).\n\n-   The second step is to show that there is a conjugate ${\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G\\ (g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$ of $\\phi$ in step I which factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ for *some* maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ (of $G$) that is elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$. Again, let us denote this conjugate ${\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi$ by $\\phi$.\n\n-   The final step is to find an admissible embedding ${\\mathrm{Int}}g':T {\\hookrightarrow}G$ (with respect to the identity inner twisting $\\mathrm{id}:G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}=G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$, $g'\\in I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$) such that ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'\\circ\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{{\\mathrm{Int}}g'(T)}$ becomes a special admissible morphism.\n\nWe point out that while the first two steps will be established by arguments in Galois cohomology which do not use level subgroups, we need to validate the third step for parahoric level subgroups (see Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\] below) and also that in the original argument (i.e. proof of [@LR87], Satz 5.3), the assumption $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ was needed only in the third step. For the finer claim (2), it is also necessary to strengthen the second step in addition to the third one. For that purpose (and some other potential applications), we formalize (with some improvements incorporated) these steps into two propositions respectively: Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_factoring\\_thru\\_given\\_maximal\\_torus\\], Prop. \\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\]. We first introduce these propositions, postponing their proofs to the next subsection.\n\n\\[prop:existence\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_factoring\\_thru\\_given\\_maximal\\_torus\\] Let $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ be an admissible morphism and $T$ a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G$, elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$, having properties (i) and (ii) of Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\], (2). Then, there exists $g\\in I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that ${\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi$ maps ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ into ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T({\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathfrak{G}}_G)$.\n\nNotice that here we only modify $\\phi$ (while keeping $T$). This proposition can be regarded as a souped-up version of the second step above, in the following sense. In the original second step (i.e. [@LR87], p. 176, from line 1 to -5), we are given an admissible morphism $\\phi$ and want to find a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ such that some conjugate of $\\phi$ maps into ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{T}\\subset {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$. There, $\\phi$ is considered somewhat as given and one looks for $T$ with this property. As such, the choice of $T$ is restricted by $\\phi$, namely, for arbitrary $\\phi$ there is very little room of choice for such $T$. In our case, however, we start with some fixed torus $T$ and demand that a conjugate of $\\phi$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T$. It turns out that this becomes possible if $T$ satisfies properties (i) and (ii) of Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\], (2).\n\nAlso we note that the new pair $({\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi,T)$ still enjoys properties (i) and (ii), since ${\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi(\\delta_n)=g\\phi(\\delta_n)g^{-1}=\\phi(\\delta_n)$ (as $g\\in I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$).\n\nThe next proposition is also an enhanced version of the third step above.\n\n\\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\] If an admissible morphism $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is well-located in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$, there exists an admissible embedding of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'|_{T}:T{\\hookrightarrow}G$ such that ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'\\circ\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ is special, where $T':={\\mathrm{Int}}g'(T)$ (${\\mathbb Q}$-torus), i.e. ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'\\circ\\phi=\\psi_{T',\\mu_{h'}}$ for some $h'\\in X\\cap{\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},T'_{{\\mathbb R}})$.\n\nIf $T$ further fulfills condition (iii) of Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\], one can find such transfer of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'$ (i.e. ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'\\circ\\phi$ becomes special admissible) which also satisfies that\n\n-   ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'|_{T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}}:T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}{\\hookrightarrow}G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ equals ${\\mathrm{Int}}y|_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}:T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}{\\hookrightarrow}G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ for some $y\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$.\n\nIn particular, $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ and $T'_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ are conjugate under $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$.\n\nIn the original case of hyperspecial ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$, the first statement of this proposition is established in the course of proving Satz 5.3 (more precisely, in the part beginning from Lemma 5.11 until the end of the proof of that theorem; this is also the only part in the proof of Satz 5.3 that requires the assumption $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, cf. Footnote \\[ftn:sc-assumption1\\]). On the other hand, we remark that the idea of exploiting a transfer of maximal torus $i:T{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T'$ which becomes $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$-conjugacy first appeared in our previous work [@Lee16 Thm. 4.1.1], and will find similar application here later.\n\nFinally, we point out that the three properties (i) - (iii) of Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\] remain intact under any transfer of maximal torus. Indeed, an inner automorphism does not interfere with the center and a transfer of maximal torus $i:T\\rightarrow G$ also restricts to a ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $i:Z(Z_{G}(t)){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z(Z_{G}(i(t)))$ for any $t\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$.\n\nIn the next subsection, we present the proofs of Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_factoring\\_thru\\_given\\_maximal\\_torus\\], \\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\], and Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\].[^21]\n\nProofs of Propositions \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_factoring\\_thru\\_given\\_maximal\\_torus\\], \\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\], and Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\]\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nRecall that we have fixed a continuous section $\\rho\\mapsto q_{\\rho}$ to the projection ${\\mathfrak{P}}{\\twoheadrightarrow}{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$ (Remark \\[rem:comments\\_on\\_zeta\\_v\\], (3)).\n\n\\[lem:criterion\\_for\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_to\\_land\\_in\\_torus\\] Let $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ be a well-located admissible morphism. Let $T$ be a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus of $I:=Z_G(\\phi(\\delta_n))\\ (n\\gg1)$ and $\\psi:I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ the inner twisting (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\]).\n\nIf for some $a\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, ${\\mathrm{Int}}a^{-1}:T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\hookrightarrow}G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ induces a ${\\mathbb Q}$-rational map from $T$ to $I_{\\phi}$, the latter being regarded as a ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-subgroup of $G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ via the inner twisting $\\psi$, ${\\mathrm{Int}}a\\circ\\phi$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T\\subset {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$.\n\nf $a\\in I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, the converse also holds: if ${\\mathrm{Int}}a\\circ\\phi$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T$, $\\psi\\circ{\\mathrm{Int}}a^{-1}|_T:(T)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ is ${\\mathbb Q}$-rational (i.e. is a transfer of the maximal torus $T\\subset I$ into $I_{\\phi}$ with respect to $\\psi$).\n\nIn particular, a conjugate of $\\phi$ maps into ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ if $T\\subset I$ transfers to $I_{\\phi}$ with respect to the inner twisting $I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\]).\n\nAs $\\phi$ is well-located, $\\phi(\\delta_n)\\in Z(I_{\\phi})({\\mathbb Q})$ and thus ${\\mathrm{Int}}a\\circ\\phi(\\delta_n)\\in  T({\\mathbb Q})$. This is equivalent to that $({\\mathrm{Int}}a\\circ\\phi)^{\\Delta}$ maps $P$ to $T$, as $\\{\\delta_n^k\\}_{k\\in{\\mathbb N}}$ is Zariski-dense in $P(K,n)$ (for any suitable CM field $K$) (Lemma \\[lem:Reimann97-B2.3\\], (2)). Next, via $\\psi$ we identify $I_{\\phi}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ with $I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\subset G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ endowed with the twisted Galois action $g\\mapsto g_{\\rho}\\rho(g)g_{\\rho}^{-1}$, where $g\\mapsto\\rho(g)$ is the original Galois action on $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$. Let $\\phi(q_{\\rho})=g_{\\rho}\\rho$. Then, the condition means that $$\\label{eqn:transfer_from_I_to_I_phi}\ng_{\\rho}\\rho(a^{-1}ta)g_{\\rho}^{-1}=a^{-1}\\rho(t)a$$ for all $t\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, which is the same as that $ag_{\\rho}\\rho(a)^{-1}\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, as $Z_G(T)=T$. As $a\\phi a^{-1}(q_{\\rho})=ag_{\\rho}\\rho(a)^{-1} \\rho$, this implies the assertion.\n\n### Proof of Proposition \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_factoring\\_thru\\_given\\_maximal\\_torus\\].\n\nLet $I=Z_G(\\phi(\\delta_n))$ and $\\psi:I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ the inner twisting defined by $\\phi$ (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\]); by our assumption that $\\phi(\\delta_n)\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$, $T$ is a ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I$. So, by Lemma \\[lem:criterion\\_for\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_to\\_land\\_in\\_torus\\], it suffices to prove that $T$ transfers to $I_{\\phi}$ (with respect to the conjugacy class of $\\psi$). Since $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ is elliptic in $I_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ at a place $v$ (i.e. at $v=\\infty, p$), according to [@LR87 Lem. 5.6] (in which $G^{\\ast}$ does not need to be quasi-split; see also the discussion in $\\S$9 of [@Kottwitz84a], particularly 9.4.1, 9.5), it suffices to check that $T$ transfers to $I_{\\phi}$ everywhere locally (with respect to $\\psi_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$). At $v=\\infty, p$, this already follows from the condition that $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ is an elliptic torus of $I_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ [@LR87 Lem. 5.8, 5.9]. At a finite place $v\\neq p$, since $\\phi\\circ\\zeta_v$ is conjugate to the canonical trivialization $\\xi_v:{\\mathfrak{G}}_v\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G(v)=G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v})\\rtimes{\\mathfrak{G}}_v$ (Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\], (2)), the inner-twisting $\\psi_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l}}:I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ (via the chosen embedding ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}$), after conjugation, descends to an ${{\\mathbb Q}_v}$-isomorphism $$I_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{\\phi})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}.\\qedhere$$\n\nAs was explained after the statement of Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\], Proposition \\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\] is a strengthening of the third step in the proof of Satz 5.3 in [@LR87]. The proof of this step in *loc. cit.* itself proceeds in three steps: Lemma 5.11, Lemma 5.12, and the rest of the proof of Satz 5.3 (p.181, line 1-19 of [@LR87]). Again we will prove our proposition along the same line. First, we need some facts from Bruhat-Tits theory.\n\n\\[lem:specaial\\_parahoric\\_in\\_Levi\\] (1) Let $G$ be a (connected) reductive group over a field $F$. Then, for any $F$-split $F$-torus $A_M$ in $G$, its centralizer $M:=Z_G(A_M)$ is an $F$-Levi subgroup of $G$ (i.e. a Levi factor defined over $F$ of an $F$-parabolic subgroup of $G$). If $G$ is quasi-split, then so is $M$.\n\nFrom now on, we suppose that $F$ is a complete discrete valued field with perfect residue field (mainly, local fields or ${\\mathfrak{k}}=\\mathrm{Frac}(W({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}))$), and $G$ a connected reductive group over $F$. As before, let $M=Z_G(A_M)$ for a split $F$-torus $A_M$, and fix a maximal split $F$-torus $S$ of $G$ containing $A_M$. Let ${\\mathcal{A}}^G={\\mathcal{A}}^G(S,F)$ and ${\\mathcal{A}}^M={\\mathcal{A}}^M(S,F)$ denote respectively the apartments in the buildings ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$ and ${\\mathcal{B}}(M,F)$ corresponding to $S$.\n\n\\(2) Every affine root $\\alpha$ of ${\\mathcal{A}}^G$ whose vector part $a=v(\\alpha)\\in \\Phi(G,S)$ is a root in $\\Phi(M,S)$ is also an affine root of ${\\mathcal{A}}^M$.\n\n\\(3) For any special maximal parahoric subgroup $K$ of $G(F)$ associated with a special point in ${\\mathcal{A}}^G$, the intersection $K\\cap M(F)$ is also a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $M(F)$.\n\n\\(1) These are standard. For the first claim, see [@BT65 Thm. 4.15]. The second claim is easily seen. We use the fact that for a (connected) reductive group $H$ over a field $F$, $H$ is quasi-split if and only if for a (equiv. any) maximal $F$-split torus of $H$, its centralizer in $H$ is a (maximal) torus.\n\nNow, as any torus containing $A_M$ is a subgroup of $M=Z_{G}(A_M)$, so is any maximal $F$-split torus of $G$ containing $A_M$; choose one and call it $S$. As $G$ is quasi-split, the centralizer $T:=Z_{G}(S)$ of $S$ is a torus of $G$, thus is itself contained in $M$. Now, $T$ is also the centralizer of $S$ in $M$.\n\n\\(2) This also follows readily from definition. First, we recall that the relative root datum $\\Phi(M,S)=(X_{\\ast}(S),R_{\\ast}(M),X^{\\ast}(S),R^{\\ast}(M))$ for $(M,S)$ is a closed sub-datum of the root datum $\\Phi(G,S)=(X_{\\ast}(S),R_{\\ast}(G),X^{\\ast}(S),R^{\\ast}(G))$ defined by a subset $I$ of the set $\\Delta=\\{a_1,\\cdots,a_n\\}$ of simple roots (for some ordering on $R^{\\ast}(G)$) [@BT65 Thm. 4.15]: $$\\label{eqn:basis_of_simple_roots_for_Levi}\nR^{\\ast}(M)=R^{\\ast}(G)\\cap \\sum_{a_i\\in I}{\\mathbb Z}a_i,$$ and $A_M=(\\cap_{\\alpha\\in I}\\ker(\\alpha))^{\\mathrm{o}}$ (the largest split $F$-torus in the center $Z(M)$). Next, for an affine function $\\alpha$ on $\\mathcal{A}(S,F)\\cong X_{\\ast}(S)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ (regarded as a common affine space without any apartment structure) whose vector part belongs to $\\Phi$, let $X_{\\alpha}^G$ be defined as in [@Tits79 1.4] with respect to $G$, i.e. $$X_{\\alpha}^G=\\{u\\in U_{v(\\alpha)}(F)\\ |\\ u=1\\text{ or }\\alpha(v(\\alpha),u)\\geq \\alpha\\}.$$ Here, for $a\\in R^{\\ast}(G,S)$, $U_a$ refers to the associated root group. This an unipotent $F$-group, which was denoted by ${}_FU_a$ or $U_{(a)}$ in [@BT65], 5.2.[^22] When $a\\in R^{\\ast}(M,S)$, as $U_{a}\\subset M$ for $a\\in R^{\\ast}(M)$, it follows from definition that this $U_a$ is the same group as that defined regarding $a$ as a root for $(M,S)$. Similarly, if $v(\\alpha)\\in R^{\\ast}(M)$, the same is also true of the affine function $\\alpha(v(\\alpha),u)$. In more detail, its definition uses only the properties of *root (group) datum* (of type some root system) in the sense of [@BT72 6.1]. For $S$ and $U_{a}\\ (a\\in R^{\\ast}(G,S))$ as above, there exist certain $S$-right cosets $\\{M_a\\}_{a\\in R^{\\ast}(G,S)}$ such that the family of subgroups $$\\{S,\\{U_{a},M_{a}\\}_{a\\in \\Phi(G,S)}\\}$$ becomes a root group datum of type $\\Phi(G,S)$ (in $G$) (in fact $M_a$ is then a subset of the group generated by $\\{S,U_{a},U_{-a}\\}$, cf. [@BT72 (6.1.2), (9)]). In particular, the element $m(u)$ (for each $u\\in U_a(F)\\backslash\\{1\\}$) appearing in [@Tits79 1.4] belongs to $M_a$ and is determined solely by the root group datum $\\{S,\\{U_{a},M_{a}\\}_{a\\in \\Phi(G,S)}\\}$ [@BT72 (6.1.2), (2)]. But, as $\\Phi(M,S)$ is *(quasi-)closed* in $\\Phi(G,S)$ and $U_{a}\\subset M$ for $a\\in R^{\\ast}(M)$, the subset $\\{T,\\{U_{\\alpha},M_{\\alpha}\\}_{\\alpha\\in \\Phi(M,S)}\\}$ is also a root datum of type $\\Phi(M,S)$ (in $G$), cf. [@BT72 7.6]. Hence we can drop the superscript $G$ in $X_{\\alpha}^G$ without ambiguity. Now, we recall the definition [@Tits79 1.6] that an affine function $\\alpha$ is an *affine root* of $G$ (relative to $S$ and $F$) if $X_{\\alpha}$ is not contained in $X_{\\alpha+\\epsilon}\\cdot U_{2v(\\alpha)}\\ (=X_{\\alpha+\\epsilon}\\text{ if }2v(\\alpha)\\notin\\Phi$) for any strictly positive constant $\\epsilon$. The claim in question is immediate from this definition and the above discussions.\n\n\\(3) It is shown in [@HainesRostami10 Lem. 4.1.1] that $K\\cap M(F)$ is a parahoric subgroup of $M(F)$. So we just have to show that it is special maximal parahoric. Using the special point ${\\mathbf{0}}\\in {\\mathcal{A}}^G(S,F)$, we may embed ${\\mathcal{B}}(M,F)$ into ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,F)$ such that ${\\mathbf{0}}$ lies in the image [@BT72 7.6.4], [@BT84 4.2.17-18]. Let ${\\mathcal{A}}((M^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\cap S)^{\\mathrm{o}},F)$ be the apartment corresponding to the maximal split $F$-torus $(M^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\cap S)^{\\mathrm{o}}$ of $M^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$. As the affine hyperplanes in ${\\mathcal{A}}^{M}$ form a subset of those in ${\\mathcal{A}}^{G}$, it is obvious that ${\\mathbf{0}}$ is contained in a unique facet ${\\mathbf{a}}_{{\\mathbf{0}}}^{M}$ in ${\\mathcal{A}}^{M}$, i.e. in $${\\mathbf{a}}^{M}_{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\cong X_{\\ast}(Z(M))_{{\\mathbb R}}\\times \\{v_{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\}.$$ for some unique facet $v_{{\\mathbf{0}}}$ in the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}((M^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\cap S)^{\\mathrm{o}},F)$ (recall that $M$ is the centralizer of a split torus $Z(M)$ which then must be the center). Now, we claim that $v_{{\\mathbf{0}}}$ is a vertex of ${\\mathcal{A}}((M^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\cap S)^{\\mathrm{o}},F)$. Indeed, as ${\\mathbf{0}}$ is a special point, we may identify the affine space ${\\mathcal{A}}^{G}$ with the vector space $X_{\\ast}(S)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ (${\\mathbf{0}}$ becoming the origin) so that the root hyperplanes $\\{H_{\\alpha}\\}_{\\alpha\\in R^{\\ast}(G,S)}$ are all affine hyperplanes. Clearly, ${\\mathbf{0}}=\\cap_{\\alpha\\in R^{\\ast}(G,S)}H_{\\alpha}\\cap X_{\\ast}((G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\cap S)^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathbb R}} $. Let $I\\subset \\Delta$ be the subset defining the root datum $\\Phi(M,S)$ as in (2); so, the center $Z(M)$ is equasl to $\\cap_{\\alpha\\in I}H_{\\alpha}$ (intersection of root hyperplanes in $X_{\\ast}(S)_{{\\mathbb R}}$). But, by (2), $\\{H_{\\alpha}\\}_{\\alpha\\in I}$ is also a subset of affine hyperplanes in the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}^M$ of $(M,S)$, and ${\\mathbf{0}}$ is contained in the intersection of these linearly independent affine hyperplanes in ${\\mathcal{A}}(M,S)$, whose dimension is thus equal to rank $r_M$ of $Z(M)$. Hence, ${\\mathbf{0}}$ is contained in a facet of ${\\mathcal{A}}^M$ of dimension at most $r_M$, which implies that the facet $v_{{\\mathbf{0}}}$ is of zero-dimension, i.e. a vertex in the building for $M^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$.\n\nOnce we know that $v_{{\\mathbf{0}}}$ is a vertex, the fact that it is a special vertex also follows readily from (2). Indeed, by definition [@Tits79 1.9], we need to check that every root of $a\\in\\Phi(M,S)$ is the vector part of an affine roof of $(M,S)$ vanishing at $v_{{\\mathbf{0}}}(\\in {\\mathcal{A}}^{M^{{\\mathrm{der}}}})$. We know that $a$ also belongs to $\\Phi(G,S)$, thus since ${\\mathbf{0}}$ is special, there exists an affine root $\\alpha$ of $(G,S)$ with vector part $v(\\alpha)=a$ and vanishing at ${\\mathbf{0}}$. But, by (2), such $\\alpha$ is also an affine root of ${\\mathcal{A}}^M$, and as such, it must vanish on the facet in ${\\mathcal{A}}^M$ containing ${\\mathbf{0}}$, i.e. on ${\\mathbf{a}}^M_{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\cong X_{\\ast}(Z(M))_{{\\mathbb R}}\\times \\{v_{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\}$.\n\n\\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\] Assume that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and that $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is a product $\\prod_i {\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a field $F_i$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$.\n\nLet $T_1\\subset G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ be a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus, split by a finite Galois extension $K$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, $b\\in T_1({\\mathfrak{k}})$, and $\\{\\mu\\}$ a $G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugacy class of minuscule cocharacters of $G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$. Let ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a (not necessarily special maximal) parahoric subgroup of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$.\n\nIf $X(\\{\\mu\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\neq\\emptyset$, there exists $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T_1)\\cap \\{\\mu\\}$ such that $$\\label{eq:equality_on_the_kernel}\n{\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu=[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]\\nu_b,$$ where $\\nu_b\\in X_{\\ast}(T_1)_{{\\mathbb Q}}$ is the Newton homomorphism attached to $b$.\n\nIn particular, if $\\phi$ is an admissible morphism well-located in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$, there exists $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T)\\cap\\{\\mu_X\\}$ such that $\\phi$ and $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ coincide on the kernel of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$.\n\nHere, $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ is not necessarily admissible, because $\\mu$ may not be $\\mu_{h'}$ for some $h'\\in X$.\n\nThis is proved in Lemma 5.11 of [@LR87] when ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is a hyperspecial subgroup. We will adapt its argument for general parahoric subgroups. We first show how the first statement implies the second one. Since the kernel of the Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ is the projective limit of $P(L,m)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, where $L$ runs through CM Galois extensions of ${\\mathbb Q}$ and $m\\in{\\mathbb N}$ varies with respect to divisibility (cf. ), we only need to show it after restricting $\\phi$ and $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ to $P(L,m)$ (for all sufficiently large Galois CM field $L$ and $m$). Let $L$ be a CM-field splitting $T$. Then, the Galois-gerb morphisms $\\psi_{T,\\mu}:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ and $\\zeta_p:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{P}}(p)$ factor through ${\\mathfrak{P}}^L$ and ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_{v_2}}$, respectively (Lemma \\[lem:defn\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\], (2) and Remark \\[rem:comments\\_on\\_zeta\\_v\\]), where as usual $v_2$ denotes (by abuse of notation) the place of $L$ induced by the fixed embedding $L{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. Let $\\zeta_p^{L_{v_2}}:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_{v_2}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{P}}(p)$ denote the induced morphism. Then, according to the definition of $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ (cf. [@LR87], p. 143-144), when $\\mu+\\iota\\mu$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$, for sufficiently large $m\\in{\\mathbb N}$, $\\psi_{T,\\mu}(\\delta_m)$ is the unique element $t$ in $T({\\mathbb Q})$ such that for all $\\lambda\\in X^{\\ast}(T)$, $\\lambda(t)$ is a Weil number and $$|\\prod_{\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{\\mathbb Q}_p)}\\sigma\\lambda(t)|_p=q^{-\\langle\\lambda,{\\mathrm{N}}_{L_{v_2}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu\\rangle}$$ holds with $q=p^m$. Further, $\\psi_{T,\\mu}(p)\\circ\\zeta_p:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_{v_2}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T(p)$ is conjugate to $\\xi_{-\\mu}^{L_{v_2}}$ by an element of $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ (Lemma \\[lem:properties\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\], (2)), where $\\xi_{-\\mu}^{L_{v_2}}:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_{v_2}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T(p)$ is the morphism defined in Definition \\[defn:psi\\_T,mu\\] for $(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},\\mu,L_{v_2})$. On the other hand, by enlarging $L$ if necessary, we may assume that $\\phi$ also factors through ${\\mathfrak{P}}^L$, and that there exists a Galois ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-gerb morphism $\\xi_p':{\\mathfrak{D}}_l\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ whose inflation to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate to $\\xi_p=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$, where $l:=[L_{v_2}:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$, (Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_morphism\\], (2), or Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_conj\\_of\\_special\\_morphism\\]). Then, for $b\\sigma:=\\xi_p'(s_{\\sigma}^l)$, we have $$-[L_{v_2}:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]\\nu_b=\\nu_p:=\\phi(p)^{\\Delta}\\circ(\\zeta_p^{L_{v_2}})^{\\Delta}.$$ Next, recall (cf. ) that each character of $P(L,m)$ is regarded as a Weil $q=p^m$-number in $L$, with the correspondence being realized in terms of $\\delta_m$ by $\\chi\\mapsto \\chi(\\delta_m)$ (Lemma \\[lem:Reimann97-B2.3\\], (2)), and that for a Weil $q$-number $\\pi$, $\\chi_{\\pi}$ is the notation regarding it as a character of $P(L,m)$. For $\\lambda\\in X^{\\ast}(T)$, writing $\\lambda\\circ\\phi^{\\Delta}(\\delta_m)$ as $\\pi_{\\lambda}$ for short (so that $\\chi_{\\pi_{\\lambda}}=\\lambda\\circ\\phi^{\\Delta}$), we see that $$\\begin{aligned}\n|\\prod_{\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{\\mathbb Q}_p)}\\sigma\\lambda(\\phi^{\\Delta}(\\delta_m))|_p&=&\n|\\prod_{\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{v_2}/{\\mathbb Q}_p)}\\sigma\\pi_{\\lambda}|_p\\\\\n&=&q^{\\langle \\chi_{\\pi_{\\lambda}},\\nu_2^{L_{v_2}}\\rangle}=q^{\\langle\\lambda\\circ\\phi^{\\Delta},(\\zeta_p^{L_{v_2}})^{\\Delta}\\rangle} \\\\\n&=&q^{\\langle \\lambda,\\nu_p\\rangle}.\\end{aligned}$$ Here, the third equality is the property of $\\nu_2^{L_{v_2}}=(\\zeta_p^{L_{v_2}})^{\\Delta}$ (Def. \\[defn:Weil-number\\_torus\\], (\\[eqn:cocharacters\\_nu\\^K\\]), cf. ). This shows that the first statement implies the second claim.\n\nNow, we establish the first statement. We remark that we will reduce the general parahoric subgroup case to a situation involving only a special maximal parahoric subgroup.\n\nLet $T_1^{\\textrm{split}}$ be the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split subtorus of $T_1$, $M$ the centralizer of $T_1^{\\textrm{split}}$; thus $T_1\\subset M$, and $M$ is a semi-standard ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup (Lemma \\[lem:specaial\\_parahoric\\_in\\_Levi\\], (1)). Below, there will be given a special point ${\\mathbf{0}}$ of the Bruhat-Tits building ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$. Then, one can find a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $S'$ in $M$ whose extension to ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ becomes a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-split torus of $M_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$, and a $M({\\mathfrak{k}})\\rtimes{\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$-equivariant embedding ${\\mathcal{B}}(M,{\\mathfrak{k}}){\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that ${\\mathbf{0}}$ lies in the image of the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}^{M}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}\\subset{\\mathcal{B}}(M,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to $S'$. Note that the centralizer $T':=Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')$ is a maximal torus of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (thus, a maximal torus of $M$ as well), as $G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ is quasi-split by a theorem of Steinberg.\n\nWe recall that for a facet ${\\mathbf{f}}^{\\sigma}$ in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, there exists a unique $\\sigma$-stable facet ${\\mathbf{f}}$ in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},{\\mathfrak{k}})$ with ${\\mathbf{f}}^{\\langle\\sigma\\rangle}={\\mathbf{f}}^{\\sigma}$ [@BT84 5.1.28]. Let ${\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{{\\mathrm{o}}}$ be the smooth ${\\mathcal{O}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$-group scheme canonically attached to ${\\mathbf{f}}$, so that it has connected geometric fibers and the elements of ${\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{{\\mathrm{o}}}({\\mathcal{O}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ fixes ${\\mathbf{f}}$ pointwise (cf. [@BT84 5.2]). Then, $$K_{{\\mathbf{f}}}({\\mathfrak{k}}):={\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{f}}}^{{\\mathrm{o}}}({\\mathcal{O}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}),\\quad K_{{\\mathbf{f}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p}):={\\mathcal{G}}_{{\\mathbf{0}}}^{{\\mathrm{o}}}({\\mathcal{O}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}})^{\\sigma}$$ are the pararhoric groups associated with the facet ${\\mathbf{f}}$ (or ${\\mathbf{f}}^{\\sigma}$) (cf. [@HainesRapoport08], Prop. 3).\n\nLet ${\\mathcal{A}}^{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ be the apartment corresponding to $S'$. By conjugation, we assume that the given $\\sigma$-stable facet ${\\mathbf{f}}$ defining ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ (i.e. ${\\mathbf{K}}_p=K_{{\\mathbf{f}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$) lies in ${\\mathcal{A}}^{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$. We fix a $\\sigma$-stable alcove ${\\mathbf{a}}$ in ${\\mathcal{A}}^{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ whose closure contains ${\\mathbf{f}}$, and let $K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ be the corresponding Iwahoric subgroup of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$. The alcove ${\\mathbf{a}}$ then must contain some (not necessarily $\\sigma$-stable) special point ${\\mathbf{0}}$ in its closure. If $K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\subset G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ denotes the associated special maximal parahoric subgroup, we have the inclusion $K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\subset K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ since ${\\mathbf{0}}$ is in the closure of ${\\mathbf{a}}$. Now, as both ${\\mathbf{a}}$ and ${\\mathbf{f}}$ are $\\sigma$-stable, according to [@He15 Thm.1.1], the condition $X(\\{\\mu\\},b)_{K_{{\\mathbf{f}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})}\\neq\\emptyset$ implies that $X(\\{\\mu\\},b)_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})}\\neq\\emptyset$. Let $\\mu_B$ be a dominant representative of $\\{\\mu\\}$, where we choose the dominant Weyl chamber *opposite* to the unique Weyl chamber containing the base alcove ${\\mathbf{a}}$ with apex at the special vertex ${\\mathbf{0}}$ (following the convention of [@HeRapoport15]). Also, recall (\\[eqn:splitting\\_of\\_EAWG2\\]) that the choice of a base alcove ${\\mathbf{a}}$ presents the extended affine Weyl group $\\widetilde{W}$ as the semidirect product $W_a\\rtimes \\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$ of the affine Weyl group $W_a$ (attached to $S'$) with the normalizer subgroup $\\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}}\\subset \\widetilde{W}$ of ${\\mathbf{a}}$, thereby fixes a Bruhat order $\\leq$ on $\\widetilde{W}$ as well.\n\nLet $g_1\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ be such that $g_1 K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}$, i.e. if $$\\label{eqn:Iwahori_invariant} \n\\mathrm{inv}_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}(g_1,b\\sigma(g_1))=\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\cdot w_1\\cdot \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\quad (w_1\\in \\widetilde{W}),$$ under the isomorphism $K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\backslash G({\\mathfrak{k}})/K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\simeq \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\backslash\\widetilde{W}/\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}$, there exists $\\mu'\\in X_{\\ast}(T')\\cap W_0\\cdot\\mu_B$ that $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eqn:Iwahori_inequality} \n\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\cdot w_1\\cdot \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})} &\\leq&\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\cdot t^{\\underline{\\mu'}}\\cdot \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}. \\end{aligned}$$ Here, we used the notations from (); namely, $\\underline{\\mu'}$ is the image of $\\mu'$ in $X_{\\ast}(T')_{\\Gamma_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}}$, and for $\\lambda\\in X_{\\ast}(T')_{\\Gamma_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}}$, $t^{\\lambda}$ denotes the corresponding element of $\\widetilde{W}$ via $X_{\\ast}(T')_{\\Gamma_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}}\\cong T'({\\mathfrak{k}})/T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1\\subset \\widetilde{W}$. Since $K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\subset K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$, the same relations (\\[eqn:Iwahori\\_invariant\\]), (\\[eqn:Iwahori\\_inequality\\]) continue to hold with $K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ replaced by $K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (see [@Rapoport05 (3.5)] for (\\[eqn:Iwahori\\_inequality\\])). Be warned that this does not mean that $X(\\{\\mu\\},b)_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\neq\\emptyset$: the latter definition makes sense only when the point ${\\mathbf{0}}$ is $\\sigma$-stable.\n\nTherefore, we are given a string of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-subgroups of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$: $$S'\\subset T'\\subset M \\supset T_1,$$ where\n\n-   $M$ is a semi-standard ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (i.e. $M$ is the centralizer of a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$);\n\n-   $S'$ is a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus in $M$ whose extension to ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ becomes a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-split torus of $M_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ (thus $S'$ is also such a torus for $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$);\n\n-   $T'=Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')$ (thus, a maximal torus of $M$ and also of $G$);\n\n-   $T_1$ is an elliptic maximal torus of $M$ which $\\nu_b$ factors through.\n\nThese satisfy the following properties: There exists a special point ${\\mathbf{0}}$ of ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ which lies in the image of the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}^{M}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}\\subset{\\mathcal{B}}(M,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to $S'$, under a suitable embedding ${\\mathcal{B}}(M,{\\mathfrak{k}}){\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$. Also, the relations (\\[eqn:Iwahori\\_invariant\\]), (\\[eqn:Iwahori\\_inequality\\]) hold with $K_{{\\mathbf{a}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ replaced by $K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (for some $g_1$, $w_1$, $\\mu'$ as in there). In this set up, we establish the existence of $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T_1)\\cap \\{\\mu\\}$ satisfying (\\[eq:equality\\_on\\_the\\_kernel\\]). We proceed in the following steps; we remark that in the first three steps, it is not necessary that $b\\in T_1({\\mathfrak{k}})$, and it suffices that $b\\in M({\\mathfrak{k}})$.\n\n-   Let $Q$ be a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-parabolic subgroup of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of which $M$ is a Levi factor. Then, by Iwasawa decomposition $G({\\mathfrak{k}})=Q({\\mathfrak{k}}) K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$, we may assume $g_1\\in Q({\\mathfrak{k}})$: this follows from the classical Iwasawa decomposition $G({\\mathfrak{k}})=Q({\\mathfrak{k}}) \\mathrm{Fix}({\\mathbf{0}})$ [@Tits79 3.3.2] and that $\\mathrm{Fix}({\\mathbf{0}})\\subset T'({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cdot K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Indeed, $\\mathrm{Fix}({\\mathbf{0}})\\subset G({\\mathfrak{k}})=K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})T'({\\mathfrak{k}}) K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$, so any $g\\in \\mathrm{Fix}({\\mathbf{0}})$ is written as $k_1 tk_2$ with $k_1,k_2\\in K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and $t\\in T'({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap \\mathrm{Fix}({\\mathbf{0}})$. But, as $K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is normal in $\\mathrm{Fix}({\\mathbf{0}})$, we see that $g\\in T'({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cdot K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$. When one writes $g_1=nm$ with $m\\in M({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and $n\\in N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})$ ($N_Q$ being the unipotent radical of $Q$), one has that $$g_1^{-1}b\\sigma(g_1)=m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)n',$$ where $$n'=\\sigma(m)^{-1}b^{-1}n^{-1}b\\sigma(n)\\sigma(m).$$ One readily checks that $n'\\in N({\\mathfrak{k}})$.\n\n-   Define $\\mu''\\in X_{\\ast}(T')$ by $$m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)\\in (K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap M({\\mathfrak{k}}))\\ t^{\\underline{\\mu''}}\\ (K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap M({\\mathfrak{k}})),$$ using the Cartan decomposition for $(M,K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap M({\\mathfrak{k}}))$ (as $K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap M({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $M({\\mathfrak{k}})$, by Lemma \\[lem:specaial\\_parahoric\\_in\\_Levi\\], (3)). Note the equality: $$w_{G}(t^{\\underline{\\mu''}})=w_{G}(m^{-1}b\\sigma(m))=w_{G}(m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)n')=w_{G}(w_1)=w_{G}(t^{\\underline{\\mu'}}),$$ where the last equality holds since by definition of the Bruhat order on $\\widetilde{W}=W_a\\rtimes \\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$, $w_1$ and $t^{\\underline{\\mu'}}$ have the same component in $\\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$ and $w_{G}(=w_{G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}})$ is trivial on the image in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ ($G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ being the universal covering of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$) [@Kottwitz97 7.4]. It follows that the images of $\\mu',\\mu''\\in X_{\\ast}(T')$ in $\\pi_1(G)_{\\Gamma_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}}$ are the same.\n\n    On the other hand, if $k_1,k_2\\in K_0({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap M({\\mathfrak{k}})$ are such that $m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)=k_1t^{\\underline{\\mu''}}k_2$, then $m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)n'=k_1t^{\\underline{\\mu''}}k_2n'=k_1t^{\\underline{\\mu''}}n''k_2$ for some $n''\\in N({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Consequently, we see that $$K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\ t^{\\underline{\\mu''}}\\ N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})w_1 K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\neq\\emptyset.$$ By (\\[eqn:Iwahori\\_inequality\\]), this implies that with respect to the Bruhat order on $\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\backslash\\widetilde{W}/\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}$, $$\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\cdot t^{\\underline{\\mu''}}\\cdot \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})} \\leq \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\cdot t^{\\underline{\\mu'}}\\cdot \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}.$$ Indeed, the argument of the proof of [@HainesRostami10], Lemma 10.2 establishes the following fact: for $x,y\\in \\widetilde{W}$, if $K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})yN_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})x K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\neq\\emptyset$, then $y\\leq x'$ for some $x'\\in\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\cdot x\\cdot \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}$. Also, if $x\\leq y$ in the Bruhat order on $\\widetilde{W}$, then $\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\cdot x \\cdot\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})} \\leq \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\cdot y\\cdot \\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}$ [@KR00 8.3].\n\n-   By [@Tits79 1.7], with our choice of the special vertex ${\\mathbf{0}}$, the affine space ${\\mathcal{A}}(S',{\\mathfrak{k}})$ is identified with the real vector space $V:=X_{\\ast}(S')_{{\\mathbb R}}=X_{\\ast}(T')_I\\otimes{\\mathbb R}$ (with the origin being ${\\mathbf{0}}$), and there exists a reduced root system ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$ whose roots belong to $X^{\\ast}(S'^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{{\\mathbb R}}$ and such that $W_a$ is isomorphic to its affine Weyl group $$W_a \\cong Q^{\\vee}({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma)\\rtimes W({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma).$$ Also, the choice of the alcove ${\\mathbf{a}}$ containing ${\\mathbf{0}}$ determines a set $\\mathrm{S}_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$ of simple affine roots on ${\\mathcal{A}}(S',{\\mathfrak{k}})$, and $\\widetilde{W}_{K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})}\\simeq W_0$ is the subgroup of $W_a$ generated by the subset ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Delta$ consisting of the simple affine roots whose corresponding affine hyperplanes pass through ${\\mathbf{0}}$ (thus, ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Delta$ is a set of simple roots for ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$).\n\n    Let $\\underline{\\mu'}_0$, $\\underline{\\mu''}_0$ denote the dominant representatives of $W_0\\cdot\\underline{\\mu'}$, $W_0\\cdot\\underline{\\mu''}\\subset X_{\\ast}(T')_I$, where $I=\\Gamma_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathfrak{k}}}/{\\mathfrak{k}})$. Then, we claim that $$\\underline{\\mu''}_0\\leq \\underline{\\mu'}_0.$$ for the dominance order on $Q^{\\vee}({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma)=X_{\\ast}(T'^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ (determined by the choice of the alcove ${\\mathbf{a}}$); in particular, $\\underline{\\mu'}_0- \\underline{\\mu''}_0$ is a linear combination of positive coroots in ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$ with non-negative *integer* coefficients [@Stembridge05 Lem. 4.11].\n\n    Indeed, in this set-up of the Coxeter group $W_a$ endowed with a set of generators $\\mathrm{S}_{{\\mathbf{a}}}$, the claim follows from [@Stembridge05] (more precisely, Prop. 1.1, Prop. 1.5, Prop. 1.8), applied with the choice $\\theta={\\mathbf{0}}$, noting the following two facts: First, for $w=t^{\\underline{\\nu}}\\in W_a$ with $\\underline{\\nu}\\in X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$, $w\\theta$ is identified with $\\underline{\\nu}\\in V$. Secondly, $W_0 t^{\\underline{\\mu''}} W_0\\leq W_0 t^{\\underline{\\mu'}} W_0$ if and only if $w''\\leq w'$, where $w''$ (resp. $w'$) is the (unique) element of minimal length in the coset $W_0 t^{\\underline{\\nu''}} W_0$ (resp. $W_0 t^{\\underline{\\nu'}} W_0$) with $\\underline{\\nu''}\\in X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ being the component of $\\underline{\\mu''}\\in X_{\\ast}(T)_I(\\subset \\widetilde{W}=W_a\\rtimes \\Omega_{{\\mathbf{a}}})$ (resp. $\\underline{\\nu'}\\in X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ being the component of $\\underline{\\mu'}\\in X_{\\ast}(T)_I$).\n\n    On the other hand, we claim that under our assumption on $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, $$\\underline{\\mu''}\\in \\underline{W\\cdot\\mu'}$$ for the absolute Weyl group $W$ of $(G,T')$. Indeed, as this statement concerns only the differences $w\\cdot\\underline{\\mu'}_0-\\underline{\\mu''}_0$ ($w\\in W$) which always lie in $X_{\\ast}(T'^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ and the root system ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$ which is determined by $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, one can assume that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}={\\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}H$ for an absolutely simple, quasi-split, semi-simple group $H$ over a finite extension $F$ of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ which splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F$. Then, since $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}=\\prod_{\\iota\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}(F_0,{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})}{\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_{\\iota}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}H_{F_{\\iota}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ where $F_0$ is the maximal subfield of $F$ unramified over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ and $F_{\\iota}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:=F\\otimes_{F_0,\\iota}{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$, and for a maximal torus $T^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ of $H_{F_{\\iota}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$, we have $$X_{\\ast}({\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_{\\iota}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}T^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})_I=X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{F}_{\\iota}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}/F_{\\iota}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})},$$ we may reduce to $H_{F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ for such $H$, where $F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ is the maximal unramified extension (in $\\bar{F}$) of $F$, and thus further assume that $H$ is absolutely simple, residually split, and splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F$. We may exclude the split case which is trivial. Then, according to the list of such groups provided in the proof of Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\], we are left with the groups of type $B\\operatorname{-}C_m$, $C\\operatorname{-}BC_m$, $C\\operatorname{-}B_m$.\n\n    In the first two cases, one can readily check (cf. [@Tits79]) that each root $\\beta$ in ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$ is also a relative root for $(H_{F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}},S')$ (thus lifts to a root $\\tilde{\\beta}\\in X^{\\ast}(T')$ for $(H_{F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}},T')$), where $S'$ now refers to a maximal $F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-split torus in $H_{F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ and $T'$ is its centralizer (a maximal torus of $H_{F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$). Hence as $\\mu'$ is a minuscule coweight for $(G,T')$, for each root $\\beta$ in ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$, we have $$|\\langle\\beta,\\underline{\\mu'}\\rangle|=|\\frac{1}{[K':{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}]}\\sum_{\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K'/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})}\\langle\\tilde{\\beta},\\tau\\mu'\\rangle|\\leq 1,$$ where $K'/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ is a finite Galois extension splitting $T'_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ (as element of $Q^{\\vee}({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma)_{{\\mathbb Q}}=X_{\\ast}(S')_{{\\mathbb Q}}$, one has $\\underline{\\mu'}=\\frac{1}{[K'/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}]}\\sum_{\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(K'/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})}\\tau\\mu'$). As $\\langle\\beta,\\underline{\\mu'}\\rangle\\in{\\mathbb Z}$, we see that $\\underline{\\mu'}\\in Q^{\\vee}({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma)$ is minuscule for ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$, and thus $\\underline{\\mu''}_0\\in W_0\\cdot\\underline{\\mu'}_0$ by [@Kottwitz84b Lem. 2.3.3], [@RR96 Lem. 2.2].\n\n    In the remaining case ($C\\operatorname{-}B_m$), it is not true any longer that the roots of ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$ are also relative roots for $(H_{F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}},S')$: see below. But, we claim that one still has $\\underline{\\mu''}\\in \\underline{W\\cdot\\mu'}$ (but, not necessarily $\\underline{\\mu''}_0\\in W_0\\cdot\\underline{\\mu'}_0$). In this case $H$ is the universal covering of the special orthogonal group ${\\mathrm{SO}}$ attached to a non-degenerate orthogonal space of even dimension $2n+2$ over $F$ of Witt index $n$, as described in [@Tits79 Example 1.16] whose notations we use: there exists a maximal split torus $S$ of ${\\mathrm{SO}}$ with a basis $\\{a_1,\\cdots,a_n\\}$ of $X^{\\ast}(S)$ such that if $a_{-i}:=-a_i$, $a_{ij}:=a_i+a_j$, the relative roots of $H$ are $$\\Phi=\\{a_{ij}\\ |\\ i,j\\in I,\\ j\\neq\\pm i\\}\\cup \\{a_i\\ |\\ i\\in I\\},$$ where $I=\\{\\pm1,\\cdots,\\pm n\\}$. As we assume that ${\\mathrm{SO}}$ is ramified, the reduced root system ${}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma$ is of type $C_n$ with a set of simple roots $\\{a_{1,-2},\\cdots,a_{n-1,-n},2a_{n}\\}$ (*loc. cit.*). Let $\\{e_1,\\cdots,e_n\\}\\subset X_{\\ast}(S)$ be the dual basis of $\\{a_1,\\cdots,a_n\\}$ and $T\\subset {\\mathrm{SO}}$ the centralizer of $S$ (maximal torus); there exists a basis of $X_{\\ast}(T)$ consisting of $\\{e_1,\\cdots,e_n,e_{n+1}\\}$ with the non-trivial element ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(E/F)$ acting on $e_{n+1}$ by multiplication with $-1$, where $E$ is the splitting field of $H$ (which we assume to be a ramified extension of $F$). Also, we may assume $S'^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}=S^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, $T'^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}=T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, where $S^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}=\\pi^{-1}(S)$, $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}=\\pi^{-1}(T)$ for the surjection $\\pi:H\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{SO}}$. Then as a lattice in $X_{\\ast}(S^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{{\\mathbb Q}}=(X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I)_{{\\mathbb Q}}\\ (I={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{F}/F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}))$, $Q^{\\vee}({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma)$ equals $X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$, which, as a free ${\\mathbb Z}$-module, is generated by $\\{e_i\\pm e_j, 1\\leq i\\neq j\\leq n\\}$ and (the image in $X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ of) $e_{n}-e_{n+1}$ (in the quotient $X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$, $e_{i}-e_{n+1}$ and $e_{i}+e_{n+1}$ are the same): for each $1\\leq i\\leq n-1$, $e_i-e_{i+1}$ equals the coroot corresponding to the root $a_{i,-i-1}$, and $e_{n}-e_{n+1}$ equals \u201cthe shortest simple coroot\u201d corresponding to $2a_n$ (as element of $X_{\\ast}(S)_{{\\mathbb Q}}$, $e_{i}-e_{n+1}\\in X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ is $e_{i}$ for each $1\\leq i\\leq n$). To prove the claim, we may replace $\\underline{\\mu'}$ and $\\underline{\\mu''}$ by their $W_0$-orbits so that $\\underline{\\mu'}_0=\\underline{\\mu'}$ and $\\underline{\\mu''}_0=\\underline{\\mu''}$. If $\\mu'-\\mu''=\\sum_{i=1}^{n}c_i(e_i-e_{i+1})+c_{n+1}(e_n+e_{n+1})\\ (c_i\\in{\\mathbb Z})$, its image in $Q^{\\vee}({}^{{\\mathbf{0}}}\\Sigma)=X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I$ is $\\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}c_i(e_i-e_{i+1})+(c_n+c_{n+1})(e_n-e_{n+1})$, so $c_i\\geq0$ for $1\\leq i\\leq n-1$ and $c_n+c_{n+1}\\geq0$ by assumption. Then replacing $\\mu''$ by $\\nu:=\\mu''+c_n((e_n-e_{n+1})-\\iota(e_n-e_{n+1}))$ does not change $\\underline{\\mu''}$ and now $\\mu'-\\nu$ lies in the dominant semigroup of the coroot lattice $Q^{\\vee}({\\mathrm{SO}},T)$. Since $\\mu'\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$ is a minuscule cocharacter of $(G,T)$, it follows again ([@Kottwitz84b Lem. 2.3.3], [@RR96 Lem. 2.2]) that $\\underline{\\mu''}=\\underline{\\nu}\\in \\underline{W\\cdot\\mu'}$.\n\n    Therefore, there exist $w\\in W$ and $\\mu_1\\in \\langle \\tau x-x\\ |\\ \\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathfrak{k}}}/{\\mathfrak{k}}), x\\in X_{\\ast}(T')\\rangle$ such that $$\\label{eq:LR-Lemma5.11_Step_3}\n    \\mu''=w\\mu'\\cdot\\mu_1$$ (multiplicative notation).\n\n-   So far, we have not used $T_1$ at all and in fact only used that $b\\in M$. Now, we will use the condition that $b\\in M({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is basic and $T_1$ is elliptic in $M$; as will be clear below, it is not even necessary that $b\\in T_1({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Let us put $\\nu_p:=[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]\\nu_b\\in X_{\\ast}(T_1)$. For an (arbitrary, for a moment) cocharacter $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T_1)$, as ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu$ and $\\nu_p$ are both ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational, the equation (\\[eq:equality\\_on\\_the\\_kernel\\]) holds if and only if $$\\label{eqn:defining_property_of_mu}\n    [K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]\\langle\\chi,\\mu\\rangle=\\langle\\chi,\\nu_p\\rangle$$ for every ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\\chi$ of $T_1$, and for that matter, we may consider only the cocharaters $\\chi$ lying in the submodule $mX^{\\ast}(T_1)^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}\\subset X^{\\ast}(T_1)^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$ for any fixed $m\\in{\\mathbb N}$. In the following, we take $m:=|\\pi_0(T_1\\cap M^{{\\mathrm{der}}})|$.\n\n    Then, since $T_1$ is *elliptic* in $M$, any $\\chi\\in mX^{\\ast}(T_1)^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$, vanishing on $T_1\\cap M^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$, can be regarded as a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}$ of $M^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}=M/M^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\cong T_1/(T_1\\cap M^{{\\mathrm{der}}})$, thus also as that of $M$ (via the canonical projection $p:M\\rightarrow M^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}$) such that $\\langle\\chi,\\mu\\rangle=\\langle\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}},p\\circ\\mu\\rangle$ (the first pairing is defined for $X^{\\ast}(T_1)\\times X_{\\ast}(T_1)$ and the second one for $X^{\\ast}(M^{{\\mathrm{ab}}})\\times X_{\\ast}(M^{{\\mathrm{ab}}})$). For a cocharacter $\\nu$ of $M$, we will often write $\\langle\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}},\\nu\\rangle$ for $\\langle\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}},p\\circ\\nu\\rangle$.\n\n    Now, as $T_1$, $T'$ are both maximal tori of $M$, there exists $g\\in M(\\overline{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ with $T_1=gT'g^{-1}$. Set $$\\mu:=gw(\\mu')g^{-1}\\in X_{\\ast}(T_1)\\cap W\\cdot\\{\\mu\\}$$ Then, as $\\chi$ is ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational, it holds that $\\langle\\chi,g\\mu_1 g^{-1}\\rangle=\\langle\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}},p\\circ g\\mu_1 g^{-1}\\rangle=\\langle\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}},p\\circ\\mu_1\\rangle=0$, thus $$\\langle\\chi,\\mu\\rangle=\\langle\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}},p\\circ\\mu\\rangle=\\langle\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}},p\\circ gw(\\mu')g^{-1}\\cdot g\\mu_1g^{-1}\\rangle=\\langle\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}},p\\circ\\mu''\\rangle.$$\n\n    On the other hand, for any ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\\lambda$ of $M$, by definition of $\\mu''$ we have $$|\\lambda(m^{-1}b\\sigma(m))|=p^{-\\langle\\lambda,\\mu''\\rangle},$$ and by definition of $\\nu_b$ [@Kottwitz85 (4.3)] there exists $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$ such that $|\\lambda(b\\cdot\\sigma(b)\\cdots \\sigma^{n-1}(b))|=p^{-\\langle\\lambda,n\\nu_b\\rangle}$. Hence, we find that with $l:=n[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$, $$p^{-l\\langle\\lambda,\\mu''\\rangle} = |\\lambda(m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)\\cdots\\sigma^{-(l-1)}(m)\\sigma^{l-1}(b)\\sigma^l(m))|  =p^{-\\langle\\lambda,n\\nu_p\\rangle}.$$ Thus by substituting $\\lambda=\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}$ (for $\\chi\\in mX^{\\ast}(T_1)^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$) and using that $\\langle\\chi^{{\\mathrm{ab}}},\\nu_p\\rangle=\\langle\\chi,\\nu_p\\rangle$, one obtains the equality (\\[eqn:defining\\_property\\_of\\_mu\\]).\n\nThis completes the proof.\n\nIn our proof, we have a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T'=Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')$. In the proof of [@LR87], Lemma 5.11, there appears (on p. 177, line -5) a maximal torus of $M$ which is also denoted by $T'$. The role of their $T'$ is played by our $S'$, namely, being a maximal ${\\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus, is to provide apartments in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},{\\mathfrak{k}})$ and ${\\mathcal{B}}(M,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ (i.e. whose underlying affine spaces are both $X_{\\ast}(T')_{{\\mathbb R}}$) which share the given (hyper)special point. Meanwhile, our $T'_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ is the centralizer of a maximal ${\\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus $S'_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ and enters into the proof as such, for example, via the Iwasawa and Cartan decompositions (cf. [@Tits79 3.3.2]). On the other hand, in the original proof where $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified, the unramified conditions (or words) show up for the simple reason that their $T'$ is an unramified ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus.\n\nThe next lemma is our strengthening of Lemma 5.12 of [@LR87]. Its proof does not involve the level subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$.\n\n\\[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\\] Let $\\phi$, $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ be as in Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\]. Then, there exists an admissible embedding of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\\hookrightarrow}G\\ (g'\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$ (with respect to the identity inner twisting $G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}=G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$) such that\n\n-   ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'\\circ\\phi$ equals $\\psi_{T',\\mu_{h'}}$ on the kernel of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$, for some $h'\\in X_{\\ast}(T')\\cap X$.\n\nMoreover, if $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ for some prime $l\\neq p$, there exist $g'\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ and $h'\\in X$ satisfying, in addition to (i), that\n\n-   there exists $y\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ such that $(T'_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},\\mu_{h'})={\\mathrm{Int}}y(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},\\mu)$.\n\nThe first statement, i.e. existence of a transfer of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\\hookrightarrow}G$ with the property (i) is the assertion of Lemma 5.12 of [@LR87] which we reproduce now, while the existence of such element with the additional property (ii) (under the given assumption on $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$) is due to the author.\n\nLet $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ denote the inverse image of $T\\cap G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ under the isogeny $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$; it is a maximal torus of $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. Choose $w\\in N_{G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})({\\mathbb C})$ such that $\\mu=w(\\mu_h)$. We have the cocycle $\\alpha^{\\infty}\\in Z^1({\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R}),G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathbb C}))$ defined by $$\\alpha^{\\infty}_{\\iota}=w\\cdot\\iota(w^{-1}).$$ One readily checks that this has values in $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathbb C})$. Indeed, according to [@Shelstad79 Prop. 2.2], the automorphism $\\Int(w^{-1})$ of $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}_{{\\mathbb C}}$ is defined over ${\\mathbb R}$, so $\\Int(w^{-1})(\\iota(t))=\\iota(\\Int(w^{-1})t)=\\Int(\\iota(w^{-1}))(\\iota(t))$ for all $t\\in T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathbb C})$, i.e. $\\iota(w)w^{-1}\\in Z_{G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})({\\mathbb C})=T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathbb C})$, and so is $w\\iota(w^{-1})=\\iota(\\iota(w)w^{-1})$. Let $\\phi$, $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ be as in Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\]. Then, according to Lemma 7.16 of [@Langlands83], one can find a global cocycle $\\alpha\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ mapping to $\\alpha^{\\infty}\\in  H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$. If furthermore $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ for some prime $l\\neq p$, we can choose $\\alpha\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ mapping to $\\alpha^{\\infty}\\in  H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ and having trivial image in $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$, according to [@Lee16 Lem. 4.1.2], which we now recall with its proof. It is a variant of the original argument of [@LR87 Lem. 5.12].\n\n[@Lee16 Lem. 4.1.2] \\[lem:Lee14-lem.4.1.2\\] Let $T$ be a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G$ which is elliptic at some finite place $l\\neq p$.\n\n\\(1) The natural map $(\\pi_1(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma(l)})_{\\mathrm{tors}} \\rightarrow (\\pi_1(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma})_{\\mathrm{tors}}$ is surjective.\n\n\\(2) The diagonal map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb R},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\oplus H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ is surjective.\n\n\\(1) This map equals the composite: $$(\\pi_1(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma(l)})_{\\mathrm{tors}}{\\hookrightarrow}\\pi_1(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma(l)}\\twoheadrightarrow \\pi_1(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma}\\twoheadrightarrow (\\pi_1(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma})_{\\mathrm{tors}},$$ where the last two maps are obviously surjective. Therefore, it is enough to show that $\\pi_1(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma(l)}$ is a torsion group. But, as $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}_{{\\mathbb Q}_l}$ is anisotropic, $\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\\Gamma(l)}$ is a finite group, and so is $\\pi_1(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma(l)}=X^{\\ast}(\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\\Gamma(l)})={\\mathrm{Hom}}(\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\\Gamma(l)},{\\mathbb C}^{\\times})$.\n\n\\(2) For every place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, non-archimedean or not, there exists a canonical isomorphism [@Kottwitz84a (3.3.1)] $$H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\pi_0(\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\\Gamma_v})^D={\\mathrm{Hom}}(\\pi_0(\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\\Gamma_v}),{\\mathbb Q}/{\\mathbb Z})\\cong X^{\\ast}(\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}^{\\Gamma_v})_{\\mathrm{tors}}\\cong(X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma_v})_{\\mathrm{tors}},$$ and a short exact sequence [@Kottwitz86 Prop.2.6] $$H^1({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}(\\overline{{\\mathbb A}}))=\\oplus_v H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\n\\stackrel{\\theta}{\\rightarrow} \\pi_0(Z(\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}})^{\\Gamma})^D=(\\pi_1(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_{\\Gamma})_{\\mathrm{tors}},$$ where $\\theta$ is the composite $$\\oplus_v H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\oplus_v \\pi_0(Z(\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}})^{\\Gamma_v})^D\\rightarrow \\pi_0(Z(\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}})^{\\Gamma})^D$$ (the second map is the direct sum of the maps considered in (1)). Let $(\\gamma^{\\infty},\\gamma^p)\\in H^1({\\mathbb R},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\oplus H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$. By (1), there exists a class $\\gamma^l\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q}_l,T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ with $\\sum_{v=l,\\infty,p}\\theta(\\gamma^{v})=0$. Then, the element $(\\beta^v)_v\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}(\\overline{{\\mathbb A}}))$ such that $\\beta^{v}=\\gamma^{v}$ for $v=l,\\infty,p$ and $\\beta^{v}=0$ for $v\\neq l,\\infty,p$ goes to zero in $ \\pi_0(Z(\\widehat{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}})^{\\Gamma})^D$. By exactness of the sequence, we find a class $\\gamma$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ which maps to the class $(\\beta^v)_v$.\n\nNow, by changing $w$ (to another $w'\\in N_G(T)({\\mathbb C})$) if necessary, we may further assume that $\\alpha^{\\infty}$ is equal (as cocycles) to the restriction of $\\alpha$ to ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R})$. Then, since the restriction map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ is injective (the Hasse principle), $\\alpha$ becomes trivial as a cohomology class in $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$: $$\\xymatrix{\nH^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\ar[r] & H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}) & \\alpha^{\\infty}_{\\iota}=w\\iota(w^{-1}) \\ar@{|->}[r] & 0 & \\\\\nH^1({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\ar[r] \\ar[u] & H^1({\\mathbb Q},G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}) \\ar@{^{(}->}[u] & \\alpha \\ar@{|->}[u]   \\ar@{|->}[r] & \\alpha'\\ \\ar@{^{(}->}[u] \\ar@{=>}[r] & \\alpha'=0}$$ In other words, there exists $u\\in G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $$\\alpha_{\\rho}=u^{-1}\\rho(u),$$ for all $\\rho\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$. It then follows that ${\\mathrm{Int}}u: (T)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\rightarrow G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ is an admissible embedding of maximal torus with respect to the identity inner twisting of $G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ (i.e. the homomorphism ${\\mathrm{Int}}u$ and thus the torus $T'=\\Int(T)$ as well are defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$). We also note that since the restriction of ${\\mathrm{Int}}u$ to $Z(G)$ is the identity, $T'_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is also elliptic in $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$. Then, for $\\phi':={\\mathrm{Int}}u\\circ\\phi$ and $\\mu':={\\mathrm{Int}}u(\\mu)\\in X_{\\ast}(T')$, we have $\\psi_{T',\\mu'}={\\mathrm{Int}}u\\circ \\psi_{T,\\mu_h}=\\phi'$ on the kernel $P$, by functoriality of the construction of $\\psi_{T,\\mu}$ with respect to the pair $(T,\\mu)$ [@LR87 Satz 2.3]. Furthermore, since $$u^{-1}\\iota(u)=\\alpha_{\\iota}=\\alpha^{\\infty}_{\\iota}=w\\iota(w^{-1})$$ for $\\iota\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R})$, one has that $uw\\in G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathbb R})$ and $\\mu'={\\mathrm{Int}}u(\\mu)=\\mu_{h'}$ for $h':={\\mathrm{Int}}(uw)(h)\\in X$. This establishes the first claim (existence of a transfer of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\\hookrightarrow}G$ with the property (i)).\n\nNext, when we assume that $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic for some $l\\neq p$, by Lemma \\[lem:Lee14-lem.4.1.2\\], we may choose $\\alpha\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ such that it maps to $\\alpha^{\\infty}\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ and to zero in $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$. Then, by repeating the argument above, we find $u\\in G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\\alpha_{\\rho}=u^{-1}\\rho(u)$ for all $\\rho\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$. As $\\alpha|_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}/{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$ is trivial, there exists $x\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $x\\rho(x^{-1})=\\alpha_{\\rho}=u^{-1}\\rho(u)$ for all $\\rho\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, in other words. $y:=ux\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. But, the homomorphism ${\\mathrm{Int}}u:T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\\rightarrow T'_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ also equals ${\\mathrm{Int}}u={\\mathrm{Int}}y$; in particular, it is defined over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$. This proves (ii) and finishes the proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\\].\n\n### Proof of Proposition \\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\].\n\nWe proceed in parallel with the arguments on p.181, line 1-19 of [@LR87]. By Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\] and Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\\], after some transfer of tori (always with respect to the identity inner twist $\\mathrm{Id}_G$) whose restriction to the torus becomes a conjugation by an element of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ when $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ for some $l\\neq p$, we may assume that $\\phi$ coincide with $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ on the kernel for some $h\\in X$ factoring through $T_{{\\mathbb R}}$. If further $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},T)=0$, the cocharacter $\\mu$ in Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\] satisfies $[b]_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}=\\underline{\\mu}$ under the isomorphism $\\kappa_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}:B(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}X_{\\ast}(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$, so we may assume that $\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ is conjugate to $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ under $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. Given this, one readily checks that the map ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})\\rightarrow T({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}):\\rho\\mapsto b_{\\rho}$ defined by $$\\phi(q_{\\rho})=b_{\\rho}\\cdot i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}(q_{\\rho})$$ is a cocycle, where $\\rho\\mapsto q_{\\rho}$ is the chosen section to the projection ${\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$ (Remark \\[rem:comments\\_on\\_zeta\\_v\\]). We claim that its image in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G)$ under the natural map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},T)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},G)$ is trivial. As before, a diagram helps to visualize the proof: $$\\xymatrix{\n& H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},G') & & & 0 &  \\\\\nH^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},T)\\ar@{^{(}->}[ur] \\ar[r]  & H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},G) & f(H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})) \\ar@{_{(}->}[l] & 0=b^{\\infty}_{\\rho} \\ar@{^{(}->}[ur] \\ar@{|->}[rr] & & 0 \\\\\nH^1({\\mathbb Q},T)\\ar[r] \\ar[u] & H^1({\\mathbb Q},G) \\ar[u] & f(H^1({\\mathbb Q},G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})) \\ar@{_{(}->}[l]  \\ar@{^{(}->}[u] & b_{\\rho} \\ar@{|->}[u]  \\ar@{|->}[rr]  & & b_{\\rho}'=0\\  \\ar@{^{(}->}[u] }$$ Here, $G'$ is the inner twist of $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ by $\\phi(\\infty)\\circ\\zeta_{\\infty}$ (i.e. by the cocycle $\\iota\\mapsto h_{\\iota}\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}_{{\\mathbb R}})$ with $\\phi(\\infty)\\circ\\zeta_{\\infty}(w(\\iota))=h_{\\iota}\\iota$) and $f$ is the canonical homomorphism from the universal covering $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ of $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ to $G$ (or the map induced on the cohomology sets). The restriction of $[b_{\\rho}]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},T)$ to ${\\mathbb R}={\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty}$ is trivial, since it maps to zero in $H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},G')$ and that map is injective [@LR87 Lem. 5.14]. According to Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_of\\_monoidal\\_functors\\_into\\_croseed\\_modules\\] below, condition (1) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\] implies that the image $b_{\\rho}'$ of $b_{\\rho}$ under the map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},T) \\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},G)$ lies in the image of $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G)$. But, the Hasse principle holds for such image according to [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.12],[^23] so we deduce that $b_{\\rho}'\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},G)$ is zero. If $$b_{\\rho}=v\\rho(v^{-1}),\\quad v\\in G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}),$$ then, ${\\mathrm{Int}}v^{-1}:T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\hookrightarrow}G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ is an admissible embedding of maximal torus (with respect to the identity twisting $G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}=G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$), i.e. the image $T':=v^{-1}Tv$ and the isomorphism ${\\mathrm{Int}}v^{-1}:T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\hookrightarrow}T'_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ are all defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$. One has to check that $\\mu'$ is $\\mu_{h'}$ for some $h'\\in X$. This can be seen as follows. Since the cohomology class $[b_{\\sigma}]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty},T)$ is trivial, there exists $t_{\\infty}\\in T({\\mathbb C})$ such that $t_{\\infty}^{-1}\\iota(t_{\\infty})=b_{\\iota}=v\\iota(v^{-1})$, which implies that $t_{\\infty}v\\in G({\\mathbb R})$. Then, $$\\mu'=v^{-1}\\mu_h v=(t_{\\infty}v)^{-1}\\cdot\\mu_h\\cdot (t_{\\infty}v)=\\mu_{h'}$$ for $h':=(t_{\\infty}v)^{-1}\\cdot h\\cdot (t_{\\infty}v)\\in X$.\n\nFinally, when $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},T)=0$, there is $x\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}(p)\\circ\\zeta_p=x(\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p)x^{-1}$ (as ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphisms ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$). But, as $\\phi$ and $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ are the same on the kernel $P$, the two ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphisms $$i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}(p),\\ x\\phi(p)x^{-1}\\ :{\\mathfrak{P}}(p)\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$$ agree on the kernel $P_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. It follows that $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}(p)$ and $x\\phi(p)x^{-1}$ are equal on the whole ${\\mathfrak{P}}(p)$. In other words, the restriction of $b_{\\rho}$ to ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is zero: $$x^{-1}\\rho(x)=b_{\\rho}=v\\rho(v^{-1})$$ for all $\\rho\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, and $xv\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. But, the homomorphism ${\\mathrm{Int}}v^{-1}:T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\\rightarrow T'_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ also equals ${\\mathrm{Int}}v^{-1}={\\mathrm{Int}}(xv)^{-1}$. It follows from this and the discussion in the beginning of the proof that if the initial torus $T$ satisfies that $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}\\subset G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is elliptic at some $l\\neq p$, we may find a transfer of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g':T{\\hookrightarrow}G$ such that ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'\\circ\\phi$ is special admissible and that ${\\mathrm{Int}}g'|_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}={\\mathrm{Int}}y|_{T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}}$ for some $y\\in G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$. This completes the proof of Proposition \\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\]. $\\square$\n\n\\[lem:isom\\_of\\_monoidal\\_functors\\_into\\_croseed\\_modules\\] Let $I$ be a (not necessarily connected) ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ containing $Z(G)$. Let $\\phi,\\psi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_I$ be Galois gerb morphisms into the neutral Galois gerb of $I$ such that $\\phi^{\\Delta}=\\psi^{\\Delta}$ and maps into $Z(I)$; thus, the cochain $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})\\mapsto a_{\\tau}\\in I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ defined by $\\psi(q_{\\tau})=a_{\\tau}\\phi(q_{\\tau})$ becomes a coccyle in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi})$, where $I_{\\phi}$ is the twist of $I$ via $\\phi$.\n\nThen, the induced morphisms $\\phi_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}, \\psi_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\\tilde{G}}={\\mathfrak{G}}_G/\\tilde{G}$ are conjugate-isomorphic if and only if the cohomology class $[a_{\\tau}]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi})$ lies in the image of the natural map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{\\phi})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi})$, where $\\tilde{I}_{\\phi}$ is the twist of $\\tilde{I}:=\\rho^{-1}(I)$ via $\\phi$ ($\\rho:\\tilde{G}\\rightarrow G$ being the canonical morphism).[^24] If $I$ is a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G$ (so that $I_{\\phi}=I$), the image of $[a_{\\tau}]$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G)$ lies in the image of the canonical map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{G})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},G)$.\n\nFor $g=z\\cdot \\tilde{g}\\ \\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ with $z\\in Z(G)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ and $\\tilde{g}\\in \\tilde{G}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, $(\\Int(g)\\circ\\psi)_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}$ and $\\phi_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}$ are isomorphic if and only if $(\\phi_1)_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}$ and $\\phi_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}$ are so, where $\\phi_1:=\\Int(z)\\circ\\psi$. In the latter case, by definition, there exists a family of elements $\\{\\tilde{h}_x\\in  \\mathrm{Mor}(\\phi(x),\\phi_1(x))=\\tilde{G}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\}_{x}$ indexed by $x\\in{\\mathfrak{P}}$, such that $$\\phi_1(x)=\\rho(\\tilde{h}_{x})\\phi(x),$$ namely when we define $a_x\\in I_{\\phi}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})=I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ by $\\psi(x)=a_x\\phi(x)$ for $x\\in{\\mathfrak{P}}$, one has $$\\label{eq:equality_in_cohomology_of_crossed_modules_I}\na_{x}\\cdot z x(z^{-1})=\\rho(\\tilde{h}_{x}).$$ In particular, we have $\\tilde{h}_{x}\\in \\rho^{-1}(I)$ (by our assumption $Z(G)\\subset I$). Here, $x\\in {\\mathfrak{P}}$ acts on $z\\in Z(G)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ via the projection $\\pi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$; as $\\phi^{\\Delta}=\\psi^{\\Delta}$, $x\\mapsto a_x$ factors through the projection $\\pi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$ (i.e. $a_{x}=a_{y}$ when $\\pi(x)=\\pi(y)$) and induces the cocycle $a_{\\tau}\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi})$ in the statement. We claim that in this situation, the cochain $x\\mapsto \\tilde{h}_{x}$ on the group ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ valued in $\\tilde{G}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ is a cocycle with respect to the action of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ on $\\tilde{G}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ defined by conjugation via $\\phi$, i.e. with respect to the action: $$\\tilde{h}\\mapsto {}^{\\phi(x)}\\tilde{h}:=\\Int(g_x)(\\sigma_x(\\tilde{h})),$$ where $\\phi(x)=g_x \\sigma_x\\in I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\rtimes{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$. This follows from the fact that the faimly $\\{\\tilde{h}_x\\in\\tilde{G}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\}_{x\\in{\\mathfrak{P}}}$ is an isomorphism between strict monoidal functors. Indeed, for every $x,y\\in{\\mathfrak{P}}$, there are two morphisms from $\\phi(xy)$ to $\\phi_1(x)\\phi_1(y)$ arising from the famly $\\{\\tilde{h}_x\\}$: one is $\\tilde{h}_{xy}$ (via $\\phi_1(x)\\phi_1(y)=\\phi_1(xy)$) and the other one is $\\tilde{h}_x\\cdot {}^{\\phi(x)}\\tilde{h}_y$: $$\\phi_1(x)\\phi_1(y)=\\tilde{h}_x\\phi(x)\\tilde{h}_y\\phi(y)=\\tilde{h}_x{}^{\\phi(x)}\\tilde{h}_y\\phi(x)\\phi(y)=\\tilde{h}_x{}^{\\phi(x)}\\tilde{h}_y\\phi(xy).$$ That the family $\\{\\tilde{h}_x\\}$ is an isomorphism between strict monoidal functors means the equality of these two morphisms: $$\\label{eq:coycle_on_fP_valued_in_Iuc}\n\\tilde{h}_{xy}=\\tilde{h}_x\\cdot {}^{\\phi(x)}\\tilde{h}_y.$$ In particular, as ${\\mathrm{im}}(\\phi^{\\Delta})\\subset Z(I)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ and $\\rho(\\tilde{h}_y)\\in I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, the restriction of $\\tilde{h}_x$ to the torus ${\\mathfrak{P}}^{\\Delta}=P({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ is an algebraic homomorphism $P({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\rightarrow \\rho^{-1}(I)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, which in view of (\\[eq:equality\\_in\\_cohomology\\_of\\_crossed\\_modules\\_I\\]) further factors through $\\ker\\rho$, thus is trivial. Hence, it follows that the cochain $\\tau\\mapsto \\tilde{h}_{\\tau}:=\\tilde{h}_{q_{\\tau}}$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{\\phi})$. Then, the equation (\\[eq:equality\\_in\\_cohomology\\_of\\_crossed\\_modules\\_I\\]) in turn shows that the cohomology class $[a_{\\tau}]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi})$ equals the image of $[\\tilde{h}_{\\tau}]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{\\phi})$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi})$.\n\nConversely, suppose that $[a_{\\tau}]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi})$ lies in the image of the canonical map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{\\phi})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi})$. Using the decomposition $I_{\\phi}=Z(G)\\cdot \\rho(\\tilde{I}_{\\phi})$ (which holds as $Z(G)\\subset I_{\\phi}$), we may find $z\\in Z(G)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ and a normalized cocycle $\\tilde{h}_{\\tau}\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{\\phi})$ such that $a_{\\tau}\\cdot z\\tau(z^{-1})=\\rho(\\tilde{h}_{\\tau})$ holds for all $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$. If we extend $a_{\\tau}$, $\\tilde{h}_{\\tau}$ to cochains on ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ by setting $a_x:=a_{\\pi(x)}$, $\\tilde{h}_{x}:=\\tilde{h}_{\\pi(x)}$ for $x\\in {\\mathfrak{P}}$ (which implies the relations (\\[eq:coycle\\_on\\_fP\\_valued\\_in\\_Iuc\\]) for $x\\in P({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, $y=q_{\\tau}$), one easily checks that $a_x$ and $\\tilde{h}_x$ are cocylces in $Z^1({\\mathfrak{P}},I_{\\phi})$ and $Z^1({\\mathfrak{P}},\\tilde{I}_{\\phi})$, respectively. Then, the discussion above implies that the relation (\\[eq:equality\\_in\\_cohomology\\_of\\_crossed\\_modules\\_I\\]), i.e. $\\Int(z)\\circ\\psi(x)=\\rho(\\tilde{h}_x)\\phi(x)$ holds for all $x\\in{\\mathfrak{P}}$, which says that $(\\Int(z)\\circ\\psi)_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}$ and $\\phi_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}$ are isomorphic.\n\nNext, if $I$ is a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus, we have $I_{\\phi}=I$, and the conjugation action $\\tilde{h}\\mapsto {}^{\\phi(x)}\\tilde{h}$ of $x\\in{\\mathfrak{P}}$ on $\\tilde{I}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ becomes the usual Galois action via $\\pi$. Namely, now $\\tau\\mapsto \\tilde{h}_{\\tau}:=\\tilde{h}_{q_{\\tau}}$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I})$. With these facts, the relation (\\[eq:equality\\_in\\_cohomology\\_of\\_crossed\\_modules\\_I\\]) gives the conclusion as before.\n\n\\[lem:equality\\_restrictions\\_to\\_kernels\\_imply\\_conjugacy\\] Let $T$ be a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus, and for $i=1,2$, $\\theta_i:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ an unramified morphism of ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs; let $\\theta_i^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ be a morphism of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs such that $\\theta_i$ is the inflation $\\overline{\\theta_i^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ of $\\theta_i^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$. If $\\mathrm{cls}(\\theta_1^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})=\\mathrm{cls}(\\theta_2^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ in $B(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})$, then $\\theta_1$ and $\\theta_2$ are conjugate under $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$.\n\nTo ease the notations, we continue to use $\\theta_i$ for such $\\theta_i^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$. The condition implies that the restrictions $\\theta_i^{\\Delta}$ of $\\theta_i$ to the kernel $\\mathbb{D}$ are equal, hence the two maps $\\theta_i\\ (i=1,2)$ are conjugate under $T({\\mathfrak{k}})$. We will show that there exists $x_p\\in T({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ with $\\theta_2=\\Int(x_p)\\circ\\theta_1$, i.e. such that $$\\theta_2(s_{\\tau})=x_p\\theta_1(s_{\\tau})x_p^{-1}$$ for all $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. The map $\\tau\\mapsto b_{\\tau}:{\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rightarrow T({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ defined by $$\\theta_2(s_{\\tau})=b_{\\tau}\\theta_1(s_{\\tau})$$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}),T({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}))$ with $b_{\\sigma}=b_2b_1^{-1}=t_p\\sigma(t_p^{-1})$, where $t_p\\in T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is such that $b_2=t_pb_1\\sigma(t_p^{-1})$. Let $\\langle\\sigma\\rangle$ be the infinite cyclic group $\\langle\\sigma\\rangle$ generated by $\\sigma$ (endowed with discrete topology). The surjections $\\langle\\sigma\\rangle \\twoheadrightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\ (n\\in{\\mathbb N})$ combined with the inclusions $T(L_n){\\hookrightarrow}T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ induce, via inflations, an injective map $$H^1({\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}),T({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})) \\hookrightarrow B(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})=H^1(\\langle\\sigma\\rangle,T({\\mathfrak{k}})).$$ As the image of our cohomology class $[b_{\\tau}]\\in H^1({\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}),T({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}))$ under this map is $[b_{\\sigma}]=[1]$, the claim follows.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Proof of Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\].</span> (1) We follow the original proof of Satz 5.3, as explained after the statement of Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\].[^25] The first step is to replace given $\\phi$ by a conjugate $\\phi_0={\\mathrm{Int}}g_0\\circ \\phi\\ (g_0\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$ of it whose restriction to the kernel $\\phi_0^{\\Delta}:P_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\rightarrow G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$ (which amounts to that $\\phi_0(\\delta_n)\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ for all sufficiently large $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$, [@LR87 Lem. 5.5]). This is Lemma 5.4 of [@LR87]. This lemma is a statement just concerned with the restriction $\\phi^{\\Delta}$, whose proof only requires that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is *quasi-split* and does not use the level subgroup at all.\n\nThe second step is to find a conjugate $\\phi_1={\\mathrm{Int}}g_1\\circ\\phi_0$ of $\\phi_0$ (produced in the first step) that factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{T_1}$ for some maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_1$ (elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$, as usual). As discussed before (after statement of Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_factoring\\_thru\\_given\\_maximal\\_torus\\]), this is shown on p. 176, from line 1 to -5 of *loc. cit.*, and the arguments given there again do not make any use of the level (hyperspecial) subgroup and thus carries over to our situation. The basic idea is, in view of Lemma \\[lem:criterion\\_for\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_to\\_land\\_in\\_torus\\], to find a maximal torus $T_1$ of $I=Z_G(\\phi_0(\\delta_n))$ that can transfer to $I_{\\phi}$. (An argument in similar style appears in the proof of Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_factoring\\_thru\\_given\\_maximal\\_torus\\]).\n\nThe final step is to find a conjugate $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{T}$ of $\\phi_1:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{T_1}$ which becomes a special admissible morphism $i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ (for some special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ and the canonical morphism $i:{\\mathfrak{G}}_T\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ defined by the inclusion $i:T{\\hookrightarrow}G$). This is accomplished by successive admissible embeddings of maximal tori. It begins with showing existence of $\\mu_1\\in X_{\\ast}(T_1)$ lying in the conjugacy class $\\{\\mu_h\\}$ such that $\\phi_1:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{T_1}$ coincides with $\\psi_{T_1,\\mu_1}$ on the *kernel* of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$. In the original proof, this is done in Lemma 5.11 which is also the only place in the proof of Satz 5.3 where the level subgroup is involved in an explicit manner (through non-emptiness of the set $X_p(\\phi)\\simeq X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$). But, it continues to hold, as Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\] here, for general parahoric subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ with the general definition of $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$. After this, one performs two admissible embeddings. First, we need to find an admissible embedding of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g_2: T_1{\\hookrightarrow}G$ such that ${\\mathrm{Int}}g_2\\circ\\phi_1$ equals a special admissible morphism $\\psi_{T_2,\\mu_{h_2}}$ again just on the *kernel* of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ (here $T_2={\\mathrm{Int}}g_2(T_1)$ and $(T_2,h_2)$ is a special Shimura sub-datum); note the difference from the previous step where $\\mu_1$ did not need to be $\\mu_h$ for some $h\\in X$. In *loc. cit.*, this is shown in Lemma 5.12 whose argument we adapted to prove Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\\] here (which also refines the original lemma a bit). Let $\\phi_2:={\\mathrm{Int}}g_2\\circ\\phi_1:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{T_2}$ be the admissible morphism just obtained. Then, one looks for the last admissible embedding of maximal torus $\\Int(g_3):T_2{\\hookrightarrow}G$ making finally $\\Int(g_3)\\circ\\phi_2:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{{\\mathrm{Int}}g_3(T_2)}$ special admissible. In *loc. cit.*, this is carried out from after Lemma 5.12 to the rest of the proof of Satz 5.3; this part of the argument was adapted to prove Prop. \\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\] here. Now, we see that $$(T,\\phi):=({\\mathrm{Int}}g_3(T_2),\\Int(g_3)\\circ\\phi_2)=({\\mathrm{Int}}(\\prod_{i=2}^3g_i)(T_1),\\Int(\\prod_{i=0}^3g_i)\\circ\\phi)$$ is a special admissible morphism which is a conjugate of $\\phi$.\n\n\\(2) This is proved by the same argument from (1) with applying Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_factoring\\_thru\\_given\\_maximal\\_torus\\] in the second step and then Prop. \\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\] in the third step. Note that as explained before, the three properties (i) - (iii) continue to hold under any transfer of maximal torus. $\\square$\n\n\\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\] Retain the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\]. For any pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ consisting of an admissible morphism $\\phi$ and $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$, there exists an equivalent pair $(\\phi',\\epsilon')=\\Int(g)(\\phi,\\epsilon)\\ (g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$ and a special Shimura sub-datum $(T',h')$, such that $(\\phi',\\epsilon')$ is nested in $(T',h')$ ().\n\nIn the original setting of [@LR87] (i.e. ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspeiclal and $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$), this is their Lemma 5.23, where however Langlands and Rapoport assume that $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is admissible. As we will see, this assumption is not necessary and their proof works in our situation without essential change. Most importantly, the level subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ enters the proof only through Lemma 5.11 of *loc. cit.* which is generalized by our Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\].\n\nBy Lemma \\[lem:criterion\\_for\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_to\\_land\\_in\\_torus\\], it suffices to show that for any maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{\\phi}$ containing $\\epsilon$ (i.e. $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})\\subset I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$), there exists $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that the composite map $$G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}} \\stackrel{{\\mathrm{Int}}g}{\\leftarrow} G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\supset I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}} \\stackrel{\\psi^{-1}}{\\leftarrow} (I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}} \\hookleftarrow T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$, where $\\psi:I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ is the inner twisting (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\]): Indeed, then $T_1:={\\mathrm{Int}}g(T)$ is a ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $Z_G({\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\epsilon))\\subset G$, and $\\phi_1:={\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi$ maps into ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{T_1}$ by Lemma \\[lem:criterion\\_for\\_admissible\\_morphism\\_to\\_land\\_in\\_torus\\] (applied to $(g,T_1)$ for the role of $(a,T)$), and so the admissible pair $({\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi,{\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\epsilon))$ is well-located in ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(T)$. Note that ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(T)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ since $Z(G)$ is a ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\\phi}$ and $(I_{\\phi}/Z(G))_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is anisotropic [@LR87 Lem. 5.1]. Therefore, we can apply Prop. \\[prop:equivalence\\_to\\_special\\_adimssible\\_morphism\\] to $({\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi, {\\mathrm{Int}}g(T))$ and obtain a desired pair $(\\phi'=\\psi_{T',\\mu_{h'}},T')$ by an admissible embedding; as $\\epsilon\\in {\\mathrm{Int}}g(T)({\\mathbb Q})$, the image of $\\epsilon$ under that admissible embedding belongs to $T'({\\mathbb Q})$.\n\nTo find $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ with the required property, we choose an element $\\epsilon_1\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ whose centralizer in $G$ is $T$ (i.e. a strongly regular semi-simple element of $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ lying in $T({\\mathbb Q})\\subset I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$, so its centralizer in $I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}=(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ is also $T$). The conjugacy class of $\\epsilon_1$ in $I({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ is rational, as $I$ is an inner form of $I_{\\phi}$. When one chooses an inner twist $\\psi_0: G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\rightarrow G^{\\ast}_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ with $G^{\\ast}$ being quasi-split, by the same reason, the conjugacy class of $x:=\\psi_0(\\epsilon_1)$ in $G^{\\ast}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ is also rational. Then, since the centralizer of $x$ is connected, such conjugacy class contains a rational element by [@Kottwitz82], Thm. 4.7 (2) (the obstruction to the existence of such a rational element lives in $H^2({\\mathbb Q},C_x)$, where $C_x$ is the group of connected components of $Z_{G^{\\ast}}(x)$, cf. Lemma 4.5 of *loc. cit.*).[^26] Thus, we can find an inner twist $\\psi_1: G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\rightarrow G^{\\ast}_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ such that $\\epsilon_1^{\\ast}:=\\psi_1(\\epsilon_1)\\in G^{\\ast}({\\mathbb Q})$; let $T^{\\ast}$ be the centralizer of $\\epsilon_1^{\\ast}$ in $G^{\\ast}$ (a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G^{\\ast}$).\n\nNow, by the proof of [@LR87 Lem. 5.23] (more precisely by the argument in the last paragraph on p.190, where the only necessary condition is that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split), there exists a transfer of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g:T^{\\ast}{\\hookrightarrow}G$ with respect to the inner twist $\\psi_1^{-1}$, namely the map $${\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ \\psi_1^{-1}|_{T^{\\ast}}:T^{\\ast}_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\hookrightarrow}G^{\\ast}_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\stackrel{\\psi_1^{-1}}{\\rightarrow} G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\stackrel{{\\mathrm{Int}}g}{\\rightarrow} G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$$ is defined over ${\\mathbb Q}$, and thus $g\\epsilon_1 g^{-1}\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$. We claim that then the (a priori ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-rational) embedding $$\\varphi:={\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\psi^{-1}|_{T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}}: T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\hookrightarrow (I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}} \\hookrightarrow G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\stackrel{{\\mathrm{Int}}g}{\\rightarrow} G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$$ is in fact ${\\mathbb Q}$-rational. Indeed, as the centralizer $T=Z_{I_{\\phi}}(\\epsilon_1)$ is a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus, this ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus is also the ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\\phi}$ generated by $\\epsilon_1$, and thus $\\{\\epsilon_1^n\\}_{n\\in{\\mathbb N}}$ are also Zariski dense in $T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ (Lemma \\[lem:Zariski\\_group\\_closure\\] below). So, for any $\\rho\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$, we have ${}^{\\rho}\\varphi=\\varphi$, as these maps coincide on $\\{\\epsilon_1^n\\}_{n\\in{\\mathbb N}}$.\n\nWe record some useful elementary facts on the subgroup generated by a semi-simple element in a reductive group.\n\n\\[lem:Zariski\\_group\\_closure\\] Let $G$ be a reductive group $G$ over a field $k$ and $\\epsilon\\in G(k)$ a semi-simple element; let $S$ be the $k$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\\epsilon$.\n\n\\(1) If $\\epsilon':=g\\epsilon g^{-1}\\in G(k)$ for $g\\in G(\\bar{k})$, the $k$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\\epsilon'$ equals $\\Int(g)(S)$.\n\n\\(2) For any field extension $k'/k$, the $k'$-subgroup of $G_{k'}$ generated by $\\epsilon$ equals $S_{k'}$, and the elements $\\{\\epsilon^n\\}_{n\\in{\\mathbb N}}$ are Zariski dense in $S_{k'}$.\n\n\\(1) As $G_{\\epsilon}=Z_G(S)$, the map $\\Int(g):S\\rightarrow \\Int(g)(S)$ is a $k$-isomorphism of $k$-groups, and thus $\\Int(g)(S)$ is the $k$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\\epsilon'$. (2) This follows from the following easy fact: if one takes a $k$-torus $T\\subset G$ containing $\\epsilon$, the $k$-subgroup $S$ (of multiplicative type) of $T$ generated by $\\epsilon$ is the kernel of the surjective homomorphism $T\\rightarrow T'$ of $k$-tori, where $T'$ is defined by $X^{\\ast}(T')=\\{\\chi\\in X^{\\ast}(T)\\ |\\ \\chi(\\epsilon)=1\\}$.\n\nAt this point, we give an application of the results obtained thus far, namely we establish non-emptiness of Newton strata for general parahoric levels, under the condition that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split. To talk about the reduction of a Shimura variety at a prime, we need to choose an integral model, i.e. a flat model ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}$ over ${\\mathcal{O}}_{E_{\\wp}}$ with generic fiber being the canonical model ${\\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)_{E_{\\wp}}$. For the following result, it is enough to fix an integral model over ${\\mathcal{O}}_{E_{\\wp}}$ having the extension property that every $F$-point of ${\\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)$ for a finite extension $F$ of $E_{\\wp}$ extends uniquely to ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}$ over its local ring (for example, a normal integral model); see [@KisinPappas15] for a construction of such integral model.\n\n\\[thm:non-emptiness\\_of\\_NS\\] Suppose that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split and that $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is a product $\\prod_i {\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a field $F_i$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$. Let ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a parahoric subgroup of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and ${\\mathbf{K}}={\\mathbf{K}}_p{\\mathbf{K}}^p$ for a compact open subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}^p$ of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$.\n\n\\(1) Then, for any $[b]\\in B(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},\\{\\mu_X\\}$) (), there exists a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},T_{{\\mathbb R}})\\cap X)$ such that the Newton homomorphism $\\nu_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}([b])$ equals the $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$-conjugacy class of $$\\frac{1}{[K_{v_2}:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}{\\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h\\quad (\\in X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathbb Q}}),$$ where $K_{v_2}\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is any finite extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ splitting $T$.\n\nIn particular, if $(G,X)$ is of Hodge type, for $g_f\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f)$, the reduction in ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}\\otimes{\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ of the special point $[h,g_f\\cdot{\\mathbf{K}}]\\in {\\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ has the $F$-isocrystal represented by $${\\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/K_0}(\\mu_h(\\pi)),$$ where $K_0\\subset K_{v_2}$ is the maximal unramified subextension and $\\pi$ is a uniformizer of $K_{v_2}$.\n\n\\(2) Suppose that ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is *special maximal* parahoric. Moreover, assume that $G$ splits over a tamely ramified cyclic extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ and is of classical Lie type. Then, one can choose a special Shimura datum $(T,h\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},T_{{\\mathbb R}})\\cap X)$ as in (1) such that furthermore the unique parahoric subgroup of $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is contained in ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$.\n\n\\(3) Suppose that $(G,X)$ is a Shimura datum of Hodge type. Then the reduction ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)\\otimes{\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ has non-empty ordinary locus if and only if $\\wp$ has absolute height one (i.e. $E(G,X)_{\\wp}={\\mathbb Q}_p$).\n\n\\(1) We follow the strategy of our proof of the corresponding result in the hyperspecial case given in [@Lee16], Thm. 4.1.1 and Thm. 4.3.1. Let $[b]\\in B(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},\\{\\mu\\}$). Since $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, there exist a representative $b\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ of $[b]$ and a maximal torus $T_p$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ such that the Newton homomorphism $\\nu_b:\\mathbb{D}\\rightarrow G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ is ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational and factors through $T_p$ [@Kottwitz86 Prop. 6.2]. By the argument of Step 1 in the proof of [@Lee16], Thm. 4.1.1, we may further assume that $T_p=(T_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ for a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_0$ of $G$ such that $(T_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}\\subset G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ is elliptic maximal for $v=\\infty$ and some prime $v=l\\neq p$. Then, Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\] tells us that there exists $\\mu'\\in X_{\\ast}(T_0)\\cap \\{\\mu\\}$ such that the relation (\\[eq:equality\\_on\\_the\\_kernel\\]) holds in $X_{\\ast}(T_0)$: $${\\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu'=[K_{v_2}:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]\\ \\nu_b,$$ where $K$ is a finite Galois extension of ${\\mathbb Q}$ splitting $T_0$ and $v_2$ is the place of $K$ induced by the pre-chosen embedding ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ (here, the sign is correct by Lemma \\[lem:Newton\\_hom\\_attached\\_to\\_unramified\\_morphism\\]). Next, by the argument of Step 2 in *loc. cit.* (which corresponds to that of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\\] here), we can find a transfer of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}u:T_0{\\hookrightarrow}G$ such that ${\\mathrm{Int}}u (\\mu')=\\mu_h$ for some $h\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},T_{{\\mathbb R}})$, where $T={\\mathrm{Int}}u(T_0)$ (again, be wary of the sign difference from [@Lee16]), and that ${\\mathrm{Int}}u|_{(T_0)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}}={\\mathrm{Int}}y$ for some $y\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. By the latter property, for $(T,\\mu_h, {\\mathrm{Int}}u (b))$ we still have the equality $${\\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h=[K_{v_2}:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]\\ \\nu_{yb\\sigma(y)^{-1}}$$ (here, ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is taken on $X_{\\ast}(T)$). This proves the first statement of (1). According to Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_conj\\_of\\_special\\_morphism\\] and [@RR96 Thm. 1.15], the element of $T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ $$b_T:={\\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/K_0}(\\mu_h(\\pi))$$ has the Newton homomorphism $\\nu_{b_T}=\\frac{1}{[K_{v_2}:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}{\\mathrm{N}}_{K_{v_2}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h=\\nu_{yb\\sigma(y)^{-1}}$. As $\\kappa_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(b_T)=\\mu^{\\natural}\\in X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$ and $(\\overline{\\nu},\\kappa):B(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})\\rightarrow \\mathcal{N}(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})\\times\\pi_1(G)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$ is injective [@Kottwitz97 4.13], we see the equality of isocrystals $[b]=[b_T]\\in B(G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})$. Given this, the second statement is proved in the same fashion as in the hyperspecial case, using [@Lee16 Lem. 3.24].\n\n\\(2) Let $(T_1,h_1)$ be a special Shimura sub-datum produced in (1). Thanks to our additional assumptions and Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\], in its construction, we could have started with a maximal torus $T_p$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ such that the unique parahoric subgroup of $T_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is contained in a $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$-conjugate of ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$. Then, also by the fine property of our methods (it uses only transfers of maximal tori which become conjugacy by $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$-elements), the torus $T_1$ produced in (1) can be assumed to further satisfy that the unique parahoric subgroup of $T_1({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is contained in $g_p{\\mathbf{K}}_pg_p^{-1}$ for some $g_p\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. As $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ splits over a cyclic extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$, $G({\\mathbb Q})$ is dense in $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ by a theorem of Sansuc [@Sansuc81 Cor.3.5,(ii)], thus there exists $g_0\\in G({\\mathbb Q})\\cap {\\mathbf{K}}_p\\cdot g_p^{-1}$. Then, one easily checks that the new special Shimura datum $(T,h):=\\Int(g_0)(T_1,h_1)$ satisfies the required properties.\n\n\\(3) Again. the proof is the same as that in the hyperspecial case given in [@Lee16 Cor. 4.3.2]. In more detail, as was observed in *loc. cit.*, it suffices to construct a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,\\{h\\})$ with the property that there exists a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Borel subgroup $B$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ such that $\\mu_h\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$ lies in the closed Weyl chamber determined by $(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},B)$. Indeed, then we have $E(T,h)_{\\mathfrak{p}}=E(G,X)_{\\wp}$, where $\\mathfrak{p}$ and $\\wp$ denote respectively the places of each reflex field induced by the given embedding ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. We remark that this is the property (ii) found in the proof of *loc. cit.*, and for our conclusion one does not really need the property (i) from it. But, since $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split, there exists a Borel subgroup $B'$ defined over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$. Moreover, by the same argument as was used in (1) (i.e. Step 1 in the proof of [@Lee16 Thm. 4.1.1]), we may assume that $B$ contains $T'_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ for a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T'$ of $G$ such that $T'_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}\\subset G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ is elliptic for $v=\\infty$ and some prime $v=l\\neq p$. Let $\\mu'\\in \\{\\mu_X\\}\\cap X_{\\ast}(T')$ be the cocharacter lying in the closed Weyl chamber determined by $(T'_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},B')$. Then, the argument in (1) again produces a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,\\{h\\})$ such that $(T,\\mu_h)={\\mathrm{Int}}y(T',\\mu_{h'})$ for some $y\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, and $(T,\\{h\\})$ is the looked-for special Shimura sub-datum. Note that as we do not need the property (i) in the original proof of [@Lee16 Thm. 4.1.1], the condition in (2) on splitting of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is no longer necessary.\n\nFor more on the Newton stratification, we refer to the recent survey article [@Viehmann15].\n\nAdmissible pairs and Kottwitz triples\n=====================================\n\nWe retain the same assumptions as in the previous section.\n\nCriterion for an ${\\mathbb R}$-elliptic rational element to arise from an admissible pair\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\\[lem:invariance\\_of\\_(ast(gamma\\_0))\\_under\\_transfer\\_of\\_maximal\\_tori\\] Let $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ be a semi-simple element.\n\n\\(1) Suppose $\\gamma_0\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ for a maximal torus $T\\subset G$. Then condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ in holds for $\\gamma_0$ if and only if it holds for $\\gamma_0':={\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\gamma_0)$ for a transfer of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g:T{\\hookrightarrow}G$.\n\n\\(2) If $\\gamma_0':={\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\gamma_0)\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ for some $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, for each place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, the image of $\\gamma_0$ in $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ lies in a compact open subgroup of $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ if and only if $\\gamma_0'$ is so.\n\n\\(1) Let $H$ be the centralizer of the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ and $H'$ the similarly defined group for $\\gamma_0'$. Choose $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T)\\cap \\{\\mu_X\\}$ which is conjugate under $H$ to a cocharacter satisfying condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$. Let $K$ be a finite Galois extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ over which $\\mu$ is defined, $K_0\\subset K$ its maximal unramified sub-extension, and $\\pi$ a uniformizer of $K$. In view of the equality $$w_{H}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi)))=\\underline{\\mu},$$ where $\\underline{\\mu}$ is the image of $\\mu$ in $\\pi_1(H)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$ (commutativity of diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97]), condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ holds for $\\gamma_0$ if and only if $$\\label{eq:ast(gamma_0)}\n\\gamma_0\\cdot{\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu(\\pi))^{-1}\\in \\ker(w_H)\\cap T({\\mathfrak{k}}).$$ By the Steinberg\u2019s theorem $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}},T)=0$, we may find $g_p\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ such that $\\Int(g)|_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}=\\Int(g_p)|_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$. Hence, it follows from funtoriality (with respect to $\\Int(g_p):H\\rightarrow H':=\\Int(g_p)(H)$) of the functor $w_H$ [@Kottwitz97 $\\S$7] that (\\[eq:ast(gamma\\_0)\\]) holds if and only if the same condition holds for $(\\gamma_0',T',\\mu')=\\Int(g_p)(\\gamma_0,T,\\mu)$.\n\n\\(2) Let $P$ and $P'$ be the ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroups of $G$ generated by $\\gamma_0$, $\\gamma_0'$, respectively. Then, the ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isomorphism ${\\mathrm{Int}}g:G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ restricts to a ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $P{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}P'$, thus if the image of $\\gamma_0$ in $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ lies in a compact open subgroup of $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$, then as it also lies in a compact open subgroup of $Q({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$, where $Q$ is the image of $P$ in $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$, the same property holds for $\\gamma_0'$.\n\n\\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\] Retain the same assumptions from Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.3\\]. Also assume that $G$ is of classical Lie type. Let ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ be a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $\\gamma_0$ an element of $G({\\mathbb Q})$ that is ${\\mathbb R}$-elliptic.\n\n\\(1) If $\\gamma_0$ satisfies condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ of , there exists a *special* admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ (i.e. nested in a special Shimura sub-datum) such that $\\epsilon$ is stably conjugate to $\\gamma_0$ (in fact, $\\epsilon$ is the image of $\\gamma_0$ under a transfer of a maximal torus $T_0$ containing $\\gamma_0$). For some $t\\in{\\mathbb N}$, the admissible pair $(\\phi,\\gamma_0^t)$ is also ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective (cf. Remark \\[rem:admissible\\_pair\\]).\n\nMoreover, if $H$ is the centralizer of the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, the following property holds:\n\n$(\\heartsuit)$: there exist an unramified $H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate $\\xi_p'=\\Int(g_p)\\circ\\xi_p\\ (g_p\\in H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}))$ of $\\xi_p:=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ and $x\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $x(\\epsilon'^{-1}\\cdot \\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})^n)x^{-1}=\\tilde{\\sigma}^n$, where $\\epsilon':=\\Int(g_p)(\\epsilon)$ and $\\tilde{\\sigma}\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is any fixed lifting of the Frobenius automorphism $\\sigma$.\n\n\\(2) If there exists $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ (with $[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]|n$) such that $\\gamma_0$ and ${\\mathrm{N}}_n(\\delta)$ are $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$-conjugate and the set $$\\label{eq:Y_p(delta)}\nY_p(\\delta):=\\left\\{\\ x\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\ \\vert \\ \\sigma^nx=x,\\ \\mathrm{inv}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(x,\\delta\\sigma x)\\in {\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\}) \\ \\right\\}$$ is non-empty, condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ holds for the stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0$ with level $n$.\n\nIn the original set-up of [@LR87], where ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyperspecial and $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, statement (1) is Satz 5.21 there (recall that in such case, condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ also recovers the original condition). The statement (2) is due to us (even in the set-up of [@LR87]). This is a key to the proof of the aforementioned effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple which was the missing ingredient in the arguments in [@LR87] deducing (the constant coefficient case of) the Kottwitz formula (Thm. \\[thm\\_intro:Kottwitz\\_formula\\]) from the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture (Conj. \\[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\\_conjecture\\_ver1\\]).\n\nBefore entering into the proof, we discuss an explicit expression of the Frobenius automorphism $\\Phi=F^n$ attached to a special admissible morphism. Let $\\phi=i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ be a special admissible morphism, where $(T,h)$ is a special Shimura sub-datum and $i:{\\mathfrak{G}}_T\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ is as usual the canonical morphism induced by the inclusion $T{\\hookrightarrow}G$. Put $\\xi_p:=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$; so $\\xi_p$ and $\\xi_{-\\mu_h}$ are conjugate under $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ (and in particular, $\\xi_p^{\\Delta}=\\xi_{-\\mu_h}^{\\Delta}$). Now assume the following condition:\n\n($\\dagger$) *${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h$ maps into the center of a semi-standard ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup $H$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$*,\n\nwhere $K$ is a finite Galois extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ splitting $T$; later, for $H$, we will take the centralizer of the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ for some admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ well-located in $T$ (cf. condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$). Next, suppose given an *elliptic* maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T'$ of $H$. We choose $j\\in H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $T'={\\mathrm{Int}}(j)(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})$, and set $$\\mu':={\\mathrm{Int}}(j)(\\mu_h)\\ \\ \\in X_{\\ast}(T').$$ We take $K$ to be big enough so that $K$ splits $T'$ as well. Let $\\pi$ be a uniformizer of $K$ and $K_0$ the maximal subfield of $K$ unramified over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$. If $K_1$ is the composite of $K$ and $L_s$ with $s=[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$ and $\\xi_{-\\mu'}^{K_1}$ denotes the pull-back of $\\xi_{-\\mu'}^{K}$ to ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{K_1}$, by Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_conj\\_of\\_special\\_morphism\\], there exists $t_p\\in T'({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\Int(t_p)(\\xi_{-\\mu'}^{K_1})$ is an unramified morphism mapping into ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ and as such also factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_s}$. Moreover, we can choose $t_p$ further such that if $\\xi_p':{\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_s}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ denotes the induced (unramified) morphism of Galois ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-gerbs, $$\\label{eq:xi_p'}\nF=\\xi_p'(s_{\\sigma}^{L_s})={\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi)) \\sigma.$$ From now on, we write $\\xi_{-\\mu_h}$, $\\xi_{-\\mu'}$ for $\\xi_{-\\mu_h}^{K}$, $\\xi_{-\\mu'}^{K}$, respectively. In this set-up, we have the following facts:\n\n\\[lem:Phi\\_for\\_special\\_morphism\\] (1) The following two ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational cocharacters of $H$ are equal: $${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu'={\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h$$ We set $\\nu_p':=-{\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu'\\in X_{\\ast}(T')^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$.\n\n\\(2) Let $[K:K_0]=e_K$, $[K_0:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]=f_K$. For any $j\\in {\\mathbb N}$ divisible by $[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]=e_Kf_K$, we have $$F^j=(p^{-\\nu_p'}\\cdot u_0)^{\\frac{j}{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}}\\sigma^{j}$$ for some $u_0\\in T'({{\\mathbb Q}_p})_1(:=\\ker (w_{T'})\\cap T'({{\\mathbb Q}_p}))$. In particular, $b_j:=F^j\\sigma^{-j}\\in T'({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. Moreover, in the case $K=K_0$, if we take $\\pi=p$, we have $u_0=1$.\n\n\\(1) This was already noted in the proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\]: indeed, first we see that they both map into the center of $H$: for ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h$, this is by our assumption on it, while $\\nu_p'=-{\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu'$ maps into a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split sub-torus of the elliptic maximal torus $T'$ of $H$, so factors through the center $Z(H)$. But, also their projections into $H^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}=H/H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$ are the same, since $\\mu'$, $\\mu_h$ are conjugate under $H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. Clearly this proves the claim.\n\n\\(2) Put $u:=\\pi^{e_K}p^{-1}\\in {\\mathcal{O}}_K^{\\times}$ and $t':=j/[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$. Using (\\[eq:xi\\_p\u2019\\]), we express $F^j$ in terms of $\\nu_p'$: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF^{j}&=({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi)) \\sigma)^j={\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(\\mu'(\\pi^{e_K}))^{t'} \\sigma^{j} \\\\\n&=(p^{{\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu'}\\cdot {\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(\\mu'(u)))^{t'} \\sigma^{j} \\\\\n&=p^{-t'\\nu_p'}\\cdot u_0^{t'} \\sigma^{j}\\end{aligned}$$ where $u_0:={\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(\\mu'(u))$. A priori, $u_0\\in T'({{\\mathbb Q}_p})_0(=\\ker(v_{T'})\\cap T'({{\\mathbb Q}_p}))$ (maximal compact subgroup of $T'({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$), but in fact it belongs to $T'({{\\mathbb Q}_p})_1(=\\ker (w_{T'})\\cap T'({{\\mathbb Q}_p}))$. To see that, by funtoriality for tori $T$ endowed with a cocharacter $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$, we can take $T'={\\mathrm{Res}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}$ and $\\mu'=\\mu_K$, the cocharacter of $T'_K={\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}^{{\\mathrm{Hom}}(K,K)}$ corresponding to the identity embedding $K{\\hookrightarrow}K$. But in this case, $X_{\\ast}(T')$ is an induced ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$-module, so $w_{T'}=v_{T'}$, and clearly $u_0\\in \\ker_{v_{T'}}$.\n\nNow, let us prove Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\].\n\nTo a large extent, we follow the original strategy, but using some of those facts that were established in our general setting of (special maximal) parhoric level, especially Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\] and Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_conj\\_of\\_special\\_morphism\\].\n\n\\(1) Suppose that $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ is ${\\mathbb R}$-elliptic and satisfies $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ of . Set $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$; by the well-known fact that every semisimple element in a connected reductive group lies in a maximal torus, we have $\\gamma_0\\in I_0({\\mathbb Q})$.\n\nFirst, we prove the existence of a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_0$ of $I_0$ such that $(T_0)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is elliptic in $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ and $(T_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is elliptic in $(I_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$. Indeed, we choose a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_{\\infty}$ of $G$ that contains $\\gamma_0$ (so $T_{\\infty}\\subset I_0$) and is elliptic in $G$ over ${\\mathbb R}$ (which exists as $\\gamma_0$ is elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$). We also choose an elliptic maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T_p$ of $(I_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (which exists as $(I_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is reductive, [@PR94 Thm.6.21]). Then, one can deduce (cf. Step 1 of the proof of Thm. 4.1.1 of [@Lee16]) that there exists a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$\u2013torus $T_0$ of $I_0$ which is $I_0({\\mathbb Q}_v)$-conjugate to $T_v$ for each $v=\\infty$ and $p$.\n\nAgain, let $H$ be the centralizer of the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (so, $(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\subset H$). Let $\\mu_0$ be a cocharacter of $T_0$ that is conjugate under $H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ to some $\\mu$ satisfying condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$. Clearly, condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ still holds for $\\mu_0$. Moreover, as $(T_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is elliptic in $(I_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, we see that when $K$ is a finite Galois extension of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ splitting $T_0$, the following property (which implies the condition ($\\dagger$)) holds:\n\n($\\dagger\\dagger$) *${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(\\mu_0)$ (${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational cocharacter of $T_0$) maps into the center of $I_0$, thus into the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus of the center of $H$.* Then, with such $(T_0,\\mu_0)$, one applies the argument of proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\\] to find an admissible embedding of maximal torus ${\\mathrm{Int}}g_0:T_0{\\hookrightarrow}G$ such that $\\Int(g_0)(\\mu_0)=\\mu_h$ for some special Shimura sub-datum $(T:=\\Int(g_0)(T_0),h)$. By Lemma \\[lem:invariance\\_of\\_(ast(gamma\\_0))\\_under\\_transfer\\_of\\_maximal\\_tori\\], conditions $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ and ($\\dagger\\dagger$) continue to hold for $(\\epsilon:={\\mathrm{Int}}g_0(\\gamma_0),T,\\mu_h)$. Now, we check that the resulting pair $$(\\phi,\\epsilon):=(i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h},{\\mathrm{Int}}g_0(\\gamma_0)\\in T({\\mathbb Q}))$$ is admissible and also the pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon^t)$ is ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective admissible for some $t\\in{\\mathbb N}$ (Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\], Remark \\[rem:admissible\\_pair\\]); as $\\Int(g_0)$ is a transfer of maximal torus, $\\epsilon$ is stably conjugate to $\\gamma_0$. As we are working with special maximal parahoric ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$, by Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\], $\\phi=i\\circ\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ is admissible.[^27] Since $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ and $\\phi$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T$, condition (2) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\] holds, and as $\\phi$ is special admissible, we have $T(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\cap X^p(\\phi)\\neq\\emptyset$ by Lemma \\[lem:properties\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\], so condition (3) at $l\\neq p$ is satisfied. So, it remains to establish condition (3) at $p$ (i.e. existence of $x\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ with $\\epsilon x=\\Phi^m x$).\n\nLet us use $H$ again to denote the centralizer of the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $(G_{\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$. As $H$ is a semi-standard ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup of the quasi-split $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, there exists $g\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ such that $H({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\cap {}^g{\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $H({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ (Lemma \\[lem:specaial\\_parahoric\\_in\\_Levi\\], cf. proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\]). Then, we apply Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\] to $H({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\cap {}^g{\\mathbf{K}}_p$ and choose an elliptic maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T'$ of $H$ such that $T'_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ contains (equiv. is the centralizer of) a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-split ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-torus of $H_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ and that the (unique) parahoric subgroup $T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1$ of $T'({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is contained in $T'({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {}^g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ (as usual, ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ being the parahoric subgroup of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$); in fact, $T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1=T'({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {}^g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$. Next, with this choice of $T'\\subset H$, we let $$K,\\ \\mu',\\ \\xi_p',\\ \\cdots$$ be defined as in the beginning of this discussion: recall that $\\xi_p'$ is an unramified morphism from ${\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{L_s}$ to ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{T'}$ ($s=[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$) which is conjugate to $\\xi_{-\\mu'}$ under $T'({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and satisfies (\\[eq:xi\\_p\u2019\\]). Since the property ($\\dagger$) holds, we have the equality ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu'={\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h$ of Lemma \\[lem:Phi\\_for\\_special\\_morphism\\], (1). This equality then implies (see the proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\]) that the two Galois ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-gerb morphisms into ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{H}$, $$\\xi_{-\\mu_h},\\quad \\xi_{-\\mu'}$$ are conjugate under $H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, thus so are $\\xi_p=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ and $\\xi_{-\\mu'}$. Hence, there exists $v\\in H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\xi_p'={\\mathrm{Int}}(v)(\\xi_p)$. Set $$\\epsilon':={\\mathrm{Int}}(v)(\\epsilon)\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}).$$ A priori, this is only an element of $H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, but since it commutes with an unramified morphism $\\xi_p'$, it belongs to $H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Given this, we can even find $v'\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ with $\\epsilon'={\\mathrm{Int}}(v')(\\epsilon)$: the neutral component $T_{\\epsilon}$ (resp. $T_{\\epsilon'}$) of the group (of multiplicative type) generated by $\\epsilon$ (resp. by $\\epsilon'$) are tori, and $T_{\\epsilon'}=\\Int(v)(T_{\\epsilon})$. Hence, by the theorem of Steinberg ($H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}},T_{\\epsilon})=0$), we can find $t\\in T_{\\epsilon}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $v':=vt\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. As the last preparation, for each $j\\in{\\mathbb N}$, let us define $b_j\\in T'(K_0)$ by (cf. (\\[eq:xi\\_p\u2019\\])) $$b_j \\sigma^{j}:=F^j=({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi))\\sigma)^{j}.$$ We have $b_n = \\prod_{i=1}^n\\sigma^i({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi)))$. We will also write $b$ for $b_1$.\n\nNow, since one has $$\\label{eq:Kottwitz97-(7.3.1)}\nw_{H}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi)))=\\underline{\\mu'}.$$ (commutativity of diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97]), condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ implies that $$w_{H}(\\epsilon) =\\sum_{i=1}^n\\sigma^{i-1}\\underline{\\mu'}=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\sigma^{i-1}w_{H}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi))),$$ thus we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]w_{H}(\\epsilon) &=\\sum_{j=1}^{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}\\sigma^{j-1}(\\sum_{i=1}^n\\sigma^{i-1}w_{H}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi))))\\\\\n&=nw_{H}(\\prod_{j=1}^{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}\\sigma^{j-1}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi)))) \\\\\n&=w_{H}(p^{n{\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h}).\\end{aligned}$$ Here, the first equality holds as $\\epsilon\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ (so $\\sigma(w_H(\\epsilon))=w_H(\\epsilon)$) and the next two equalities follow from Lemma \\[lem:Phi\\_for\\_special\\_morphism\\], (2): $\\prod_{j=1}^{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}\\sigma^{j-1}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi)))={\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(\\mu'(pu))\\in T'({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ ($\\pi^{e_K}=pu$). Let $Z_{\\epsilon}:=Z(G_{\\epsilon})$ and $Z_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ be the center of $G_{\\epsilon}$ and its neutral component, respectively. By property ($\\dagger\\dagger$), ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h$ maps into $Z_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, hence the equation above shows that the element of $Z_{\\epsilon}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$: $$k_0:=\\epsilon^{-[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}\\cdot p^{n{\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h}$$ lies in $\\ker(v_H)\\cap Z_{\\epsilon}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. We claim that for some $a\\in{\\mathbb N}$, $$\\label{eq:k_0_is_bounded}\nk_0^{a}\\in \\ker(v_{Z_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}}),$$ i.e. $k_0^a$ lies in the maximal compact subgroup of $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. First, take $a_1\\in{\\mathbb N}$ with $\\epsilon^{a_1}\\in Z_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})$, so that $k_0^{a_1}\\in Z_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. Let $A_{\\epsilon}$ and $B_{\\epsilon}$ be respectively the isotropic kernel and the anisotropic kernel of $Z_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$. Then, there exists $a_2\\in{\\mathbb N}$ such that $k_0^{a_1a_2}=x\\cdot y$ with $x\\in A_{\\epsilon}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and $y\\in B_{\\epsilon}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. Since $v_H=v_{H^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}\\circ p_H$ for the quotient map $p_H:H\\rightarrow H^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}$,[^28] there are the implications: $$v_{B_{\\epsilon}}(y)=0\\ \\Rightarrow\\ v_{H^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}(p_H(y))=0\\ \\Rightarrow\\ v_{H^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}(p_H(x))=0.$$ Then, since $A_{\\epsilon}\\subset Z(H)$ and the natural map $Z(H)\\rightarrow H^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}$ is an isogeny, it follows that $v_{A_{\\epsilon}}(x)=0$. Therefore, $a:=a_1a_2$ satisfies that $k_0^{a}\\in \\ker(v_{Z_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}})$; in particular, $k_0^a$ lies in a compact (thus bounded) subgroup of $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. We also note in passing that when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ (so that $H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ too), the same argument establishes that $k_0^{a}\\in \\ker(w_{Z_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}})$ (since in such case $w_H=w_{H^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}\\circ p_H$).\n\nThen, by (\\[eq:k\\_0\\_is\\_bounded\\]) we see that for sufficiently large $t$ divisible by $a[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$, the element $k_t\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ defined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eqn:epsilon'^{-1}F^n}\nk_t  \\sigma^{nt} & := (\\epsilon'^{-1}F^n)^{t} \\\\\n&= v' \\epsilon^{-t} v'^{-1} \\cdot (p^{-\\nu_p'}\\cdot u_0)^{\\frac{nt}{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}} \\sigma^{nt} \\nonumber \\\\\n&= v' (\\epsilon^{-[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}\\cdot p^{n{\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h})^{\\frac{t}{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}} v'^{-1} \\cdot u_0^{\\frac{nt}{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}} \\sigma^{nt}  \\nonumber \\\\\n&= v' k_0^{\\frac{t}{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}} v'^{-1}\\cdot (u_0)^{\\frac{nt}{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}} \\sigma^{nt} \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ lies in any given neighborhood of $1$ in $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$.[^29] In particular, for sufficiently large $t$, $k_t$ lies in the special maximal parahoric subgroup $H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {}^g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ of $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, which then implies existence of $h\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {}^g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ such that $$(\\epsilon'^{-1}\\Phi^m)^{t}=h\\sigma^{tn}(h^{-1})\\rtimes \\sigma^{tn}.$$ by [@Greenberg63 Prop.3]. We fix such $t\\in{\\mathbb N}$. We see that $\\epsilon'^{-t}\\Phi^{mt}$ fixes $hg x^{\\mathrm{o}}=g x^{\\mathrm{o}}$ ($x^{\\mathrm{o}}:=1\\cdot {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, the base point of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$). Moreover, by Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_conj\\_of\\_special\\_morphism\\] and commutativity of the diagram (7.3.1) of [@Kottwitz97], we have $$\\mathrm{inv}_{T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1}(T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1,F T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1)=\\underline{\\mu'}.$$ Then, since $g^{-1}T'({\\mathfrak{k}})_1g \\subset {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, it follows (see the proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\]) that $$\\mathrm{inv}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(gx^{\\mathrm{o}},F gx^{\\mathrm{o}})=\\tilde{W}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\ t^{\\underline{g^{-1}\\mu'g}}\\ \\tilde{W}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\in{\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\})$$ (regarding $g^{-1}\\mu'g$ as a cocharacter of $g^{-1}T'g$). This proves that $(\\phi,\\epsilon^t)$ is ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective admissible.\n\nNext, we show that there exists $e\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$e^{-1}(\\epsilon')^{-1}\\Phi^m e=\\sigma^n,$$ which will establish the admissibility of $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$. We first claim that there exists $c\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$c^{-1}(\\epsilon')^{-1}\\Phi^m c\\in \\rho(H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}}))\\times\\sigma^n,$$ where $\\rho:H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow H$ is the canonical morphism. By Lemma \\[lem:kernel\\_of\\_w\\] below, it suffices to show that $w_{H}(\\epsilon'^{-1}b_n)=0$ (recall that $\\Phi^m=F^n=b_n \\sigma^n$). By (\\[eq:xi\\_p\u2019\\]), $b_n=\\prod_{i=1}^n\\sigma^{i-1}({\\mathrm{N}}_{K/K_0}(\\mu'(\\pi)))$ so $$w_H(b_n)=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\sigma^{i-1}\\underline{\\mu'}=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\sigma^{i-1}\\underline{\\mu_h}=w_H(\\epsilon)=w_H(\\epsilon')$$ (the first equality is (\\[eq:Kottwitz97-(7.3.1)\\])).\n\nNext, we proceed as in the proof (on p. 193) of [@LR87], Satz 5.21, to find $d\\in \\rho(H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}}))\\cap {}^g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ such that $d^{-1}c^{-1}\\epsilon'^{-1}\\Phi^mcd=\\sigma^n$. For that, when we pick $k'\\in H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ mapping to $c^{-1}\\epsilon'^{-1}b_n \\sigma^{n}(c)$ (i.e. $\\rho(k') \\sigma^n=c^{-1}(\\epsilon'^{-1}\\Phi^m)c$), by [@Kottwitz85 Prop. 5.4], it suffices to show that $k'$ is basic (in $B(H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$). By definition [@Kottwitz85 (4.3.3)], this is the same as the existence of $d'\\in H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with $(k' \\sigma^n)^{t}=d'(1\\rtimes\\sigma^{nt})d'^{-1}$ for some sufficiently large $t$. But, we have $$c^{-1}(\\epsilon'^{-1}\\Phi^m)^{t}c=c^{-1}k_t\\sigma^{nt}(c) \\sigma^{nt}=(c^{-1}k_tc)(c^{-1}\\sigma^{nt}(c)) \\sigma^{nt},$$ and for sufficiently large $t\\in{\\mathbb N}$, both $c^{-1}k_tc$ and $c^{-1}\\sigma^{tn}(c)$ are contained in any neighborhood of $1$ in $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, in particular, in the special maximal parahoric subgroup $H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {}^g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ of $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Thus, if $k'_t:=k'\\cdot\\sigma^n(k')\\cdots \\sigma^{n(t-1)}(k')\\in H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (i.e. $\\rho(k_t') \\sigma^{nt}=c^{-1}(\\epsilon'^{-1}\\Phi^m)^{t}c$), $\\rho(k_t')$ lies in the special maximal parahoric subgroup $H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {}^g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ of $H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$. In view of the canonical equality of reduced buildings ${\\mathcal{B}}(H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}},{\\mathfrak{k}})={\\mathcal{B}}(H^{{\\mathrm{der}}},{\\mathfrak{k}})$, this implies that $k_t'$ also lies in the stabilizer in $H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ of the corresponding special vertex, which is itself a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (as $w_{H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}$ is trivial). Hence, again by [@Greenberg63 Prop.3] there exists $d'\\in H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $k'_t=d'\\sigma^{nt}(d'^{-1})$, as required.\n\n\\(2) Suppose that $c\\gamma_0c^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n(\\delta)$ for $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$; then, $b:=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)\\in Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(\\gamma_0)({\\mathfrak{k}})$; thus, $\\gamma_0,b\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$. As a matter of fact, the arguments coming next work in general for *any* semi-standard ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Levi subgroup $H$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $\\gamma_0$ and $b$.\n\nWe proceed in several steps:\n\n-   First, we claim existence of $c_1\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that for $\\delta':=c_1b\\sigma(c_1^{-1})$, one has $$\\label{eq:stable_conjugacy_1}  \n    c_1\\gamma_0c_1^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n(\\delta'),$$ and $c_1^{-1}{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p \\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$, i.e. $$\\label{eq:Deligne-Lustizg_1}\n    {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot \\delta'\\cdot {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p \\in {\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\}).$$ Indeed, pick $g{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\in Y_p(\\delta)$. Then, as $g^{-1}\\sigma^n(g)\\in {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, by [@Greenberg63 Prop.3], there exists $k_0\\in {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ with $g^{-1}\\sigma^n(g)=k_0\\sigma^n(k_0^{-1})$, i.e. $d:=(gk_0)^{-1}\\in G(L_n)$. Clearly, $c_1:=dc$ satisfies the required conditions: $${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot g^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(g)\\cdot {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p= {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot c_1b\\sigma(c_1^{-1})\\cdot {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p.$$ We observe that $\\delta'=d\\delta\\sigma(d^{-1})$, i.e. $\\delta'$ is $\\sigma$-conjugate to $\\delta$ under $G(L_n)$.\n\n-   From this point, we adapt the argument of the proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\] (however, working with $H$ in place of $M$). We recall its set-up as we need it. First we choose a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in $H$ and a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus $S$ in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing it; as $H$ is the centralizer of a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus, we have $S\\subset H$ and $S$ is also a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in $H$. Then, we pick a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $S'$ of $H$ whose extension to ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ becomes a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-split torus of $H_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ containing $S_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$; thus $S'$ is again such a torus for $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ and the centralizer $T':=Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')$ is a maximal torus of both $G$ and $H$: $$S\\subset S'\\subset T'=Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')\\subset H.$$ As in the proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\], we may choose $S'$ such that the given special point ${\\mathbf{0}}$ of ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ lies in the image of the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}^{H}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}\\subset{\\mathcal{B}}(H,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ of $S'$ (regarding $S'$ as a maximal ${\\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus of $H$) under a suitable embedding ${\\mathcal{B}}(H,{\\mathfrak{k}}){\\hookrightarrow}{\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$.\n\n    We also choose a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-parabolic subgroup $Q$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of which $H$ is a Levi factor; let $N_Q$ be the unipotent radical of $Q$. Now, we claim that there exists $m\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$\\label{eq:stable_conjugacy_2}\n    {\\mathrm{N}}_n(m^{-1}b\\sigma(m))^{-1}\\cdot m^{-1}\\gamma_0m \\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap ({\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}}))$$ and that $$\\label{eq:Deligne-Lustizg_2}\n    {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)n' \\cdot {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p \\in {\\mathrm{Adm}}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}(\\{\\mu_X\\})$$ for some $n'\\in N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Indeed, using the Iwasawa decomposition as presented in Step (1) of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\], we write $$c_1^{-1}=nmk$$ with $n\\in N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})$, $m\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, and $k\\in {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, so that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\delta' & =c_1b\\sigma(c_1)^{-1}=k^{-1}m^{-1}n^{-1}b\\sigma(n)\\sigma(m)\\sigma(k) \\\\\n    & =k^{-1}m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)n'\\sigma(k)\\end{aligned}$$ for $n':=\\sigma(m)^{-1}b^{-1}n^{-1}b\\sigma(n)\\sigma(m)$ (which belongs to $N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})$, as $H$ normalizes $N_Q$), and (\\[eq:Deligne-Lustizg\\_1\\]) becomes $${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot \\delta'\\cdot {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p={\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)n'\\cdot {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p.$$ On the other hand, the left-hand side of (\\[eq:stable\\_conjugacy\\_1\\]) becomes $$c_1\\gamma_0c_1^{-1}=k^{-1}m^{-1}n^{-1}\\gamma_0 nmk =k^{-1}m^{-1}\\gamma_0m n_1 k$$ for $n_1:=m^{-1}\\gamma_0^{-1}n^{-1}\\gamma_0nm\\in N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})$, so that if $b_1:=m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, the right-hand side of (\\[eq:stable\\_conjugacy\\_1\\]) becomes (again using that $H$ normalizes $N_Q$): $$\\begin{aligned}\n    {\\mathrm{N}}_n(\\delta') &={\\mathrm{N}}_n(k^{-1}b_1n'\\sigma(k)) \\\\\n    &= k^{-1}\\cdot b_1n'\\cdot \\sigma(b_1)\\sigma(n')\\cdots\\sigma^{n-1}(b_1)\\sigma^{n-1}(n')\\cdot \\sigma^n(k) \\\\\n    & =k^{-1}{\\mathrm{N}}_n(b_1)n_2\\sigma^n(k).\\end{aligned}$$ for some $n_2\\in N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Therefore, (\\[eq:stable\\_conjugacy\\_1\\]) becomes: $$m^{-1}\\gamma_0m\\cdot n_1\\cdot k= {\\mathrm{N}}_n(b_1)\\cdot n_2 \\cdot \\sigma^n(k),$$ which reduces to: $${\\mathrm{N}}_n(b_1)^{-1}\\cdot m^{-1}\\gamma_0m \\cdot n_3=\\sigma^n(k)k^{-1}$$ for some $n_3 \\in N({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (i.e. $n_3$ is defined by $hn_3=\\sigma^n(k)k^{-1}=n_2^{-1}h\\cdot n_1$ for $h:={\\mathrm{N}}_n(b_1)^{-1}\\cdot m^{-1}\\gamma_0m\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$), which establishes (\\[eq:stable\\_conjugacy\\_2\\]).\n\n-   Next, we claim that $$\\label{eq:vanishing_of_w_H}\n     w_H(H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap ({\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})))=0.$$ For that, recalling that $S'_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ is a maximal ${\\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus of $G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ such that $T'=Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(S')\\subset H$, we choose a Borel subgroup $B'$ of $G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ containing $T'_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ and $N_Q$. Then, we pick a Borel subgroup $B$ of $H_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ containing $T'_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ and contained in $B'$; let $N_B$ be its unipotent radical. Thanks to the condition that $H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is also a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (cf. Lemma \\[lem:specaial\\_parahoric\\_in\\_Levi\\]), it is enough to show that $$H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap ({\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\cdot N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})) \\subseteq (H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p)\\cdot N_B({\\mathfrak{k}}).$$\n\n    Suppose given $m=kn$ for some $m\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, $k\\in{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, and $n\\in N_Q({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Since $H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, we use the Iwasawa decomposition for $(H({\\mathfrak{k}}),H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p,T',B)$, to write $$m=k_0 t u$$ where $k_0\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, $t\\in T'({\\mathfrak{k}})$, and $u\\in N_B({\\mathfrak{k}})$. So, we have $k_0^{-1}k=t(un^{-1})$. Then, since one has $$B'({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p=(T'({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p)\\cdot  (N_{B'}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p)$$ [@BT84], 5.2.4, applied to $(G({\\mathfrak{k}}),{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p, T'_{{\\mathfrak{k}}},B')$), we must have $t\\in {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, $un^{-1}\\in {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$.\n\n-   Let $\\mu''\\in X_{\\ast}(T')$ be the cocharacter defined in Step (2) of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\], i.e. defined by the Cartan decomposition $$m^{-1}b\\sigma(m)\\in (K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap H({\\mathfrak{k}}))\\ t^{\\underline{\\mu''}}\\ (K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap H({\\mathfrak{k}}))$$ for $(m^{-1}b\\sigma(m),H,K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})\\cap H({\\mathfrak{k}}))$ ($K_{{\\mathbf{0}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})={\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$). Then, recalling the cocharacter $\\mu'\\in X_{\\ast}(T')\\cap \\{\\mu_X\\}$ (\\[eqn:Iwahori\\_inequality\\]), the argument of Step (3) of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.11\\] (which uses condition (\\[eq:Deligne-Lustizg\\_2\\])) established the relation (\\[eq:LR-Lemma5.11\\_Step\\_3\\]) $$\\mu''=w\\mu'\\cdot\\mu_1$$ for some $w\\in W$ and $\\mu_1\\in \\langle \\tau x-x\\ |\\ \\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathfrak{k}}}/{\\mathfrak{k}}), x\\in X_{\\ast}(T')\\rangle$; in particular, one has $w_H(m^{-1}b\\sigma(m))=\\underline{\\mu''}=\\underline{w\\mu'}$ in $\\pi_1(H)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathfrak{k}}}/{\\mathfrak{k}})}$. Therefore, by (\\[eq:vanishing\\_of\\_w\\_H\\]) we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    w_H(\\gamma_0) &=w_H(m^{-1}\\gamma_0m)=w_H({\\mathrm{N}}_n(m^{-1}b\\sigma(m))) \\\\\n    &=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\sigma^{i-1}w_H(m^{-1}b\\sigma(m))=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\sigma^{i-1}\\underline{w\\mu'}.\\end{aligned}$$ As $w\\mu'\\in X_{\\ast}(T')\\cap \\{\\mu_X\\}$, the lemma is proved.\n\nThis completes the proof of the theorem.\n\n\\[lem:kernel\\_of\\_w\\] Let $H$ be a connected reductive group over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$. For any element $h\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with $w_H(h)=0$, there exists $c\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $ch\\sigma^n(c^{-1})\\in \\rho(H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}}))$, where $\\rho:H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow H$ is the canonical homomorphism\n\nUsing the fact [@Kottwitz84b (3.3.3)] that for any maximal ${\\mathfrak{k}}$-split torus $S$ of $H_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ and its centralizer $T$, one has $$H({\\mathfrak{k}})=\\rho(H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}}))T({\\mathfrak{k}}),$$ we write $h=\\rho(h')t$, where $h'\\in H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and $t\\in T({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Since $w_H$ vanishes on $\\rho(H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}}))$ (cf. diagrams (7.4.1), (7.4.2) of [@Kottwitz97]), we have $w_H(t)=0$. When we put $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}:=\\rho^{-1}(T)$ (maximal torus of $H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$), as $X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ is an induced module for $I={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}/{\\mathfrak{k}})$ [@BT84 4.4.16] so that one has $$X_{\\ast}(T)_I/X_{\\ast}(T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})_I=\\pi_1(H)_I$$ [@HainesRapoport08 p.196], and as $w_{T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}}$ is surjective, we can find $t'\\in T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with $w_{T}(\\rho(t')t^{-1})=0$. Hence, by [@Greenberg63 Prop.3] there exists $c\\in T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with $\\rho(t')t^{-1}=c^{-1}\\sigma^n(c)$, namely with $c\\rho(t')\\sigma^n(c^{-1})=t$. Finally, as $\\rho(H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}({\\mathfrak{k}}))$ is a normal subgroup of $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, this establishes the claim.\n\n\\[rem:equality\\_of\\_two\\_ADLVs\\] In [@LR87], Satz 5.21, Langlands and Rapoport also claim that the converse of Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\], (1) holds (again when ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is hyperspecial and $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$):\n\n*If $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is an admissible pair and $\\gamma_0\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is stably conjugate to $\\epsilon$, then $\\gamma_0$ satisfies the condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ [@LR87 p.183].*\n\nWe believe that this statement becomes true only under some additional assumption, for example if *the set* $$X_p(\\phi,\\epsilon)=\\{ x_p\\in X_p(\\phi)\\ |\\ \\epsilon x_p=\\Phi^mx_p\\}$$ *is non-empty*.\n\nIndeed, this results from Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\], (2) and the following observation (cf. [@Kottwitz84b 1.4]):\n\n\\(1) if we choose $u\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $u^{-1}{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\in X_p(\\phi)$ (so, $\\xi_p'=\\Int(u)\\circ\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ is unramified), say the inflation of a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$, $\\Int(u)$ (\\[eqn:X\\_p(phi)=ADLV\\]) gives a bijection between $X_p(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ and the set $$\\label{eq:X_p(b,epsilon')}\nX_p(b,\\epsilon'):=\\{ x\\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\ |\\ \\epsilon' x=(b\\sigma)^nx \\},$$ where $\\epsilon':=u\\epsilon u^{-1}\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ and $b\\sigma:=F:=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$; so, $\\epsilon'\\in J_b({{\\mathbb Q}_p})=\\{h\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})\\ |\\ (b\\sigma)h=h(b\\sigma)\\}$.\n\n\\(2) For $b\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and $\\epsilon'\\in J_b({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, if the equation $$\\label{eq:stably_conjugacy_rel'n}\ny\\epsilon'^{-1}(b\\sigma)^n y^{-1}= \\sigma^n$$ has a solution $y=c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$, then $\\delta:=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})$ belongs to $G(L_n)$ and satisfies $$\\label{eq:stably_conjugacy_rel'n'}\nc\\epsilon' c^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta,$$ and the mapping $x\\mapsto cx$ gives a bijection $$X_p(b,\\epsilon')\\rightarrow Y_p(\\delta).$$ Conversely, for a pair $(\\epsilon',\\delta)\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})\\times G(L_n)$ satisfying the relation (\\[eq:stably\\_conjugacy\\_rel\u2019n\u2019\\]) for some $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$, we have $\\epsilon'\\in J_b({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ for $b:=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)$ (since then $\\delta\\sigma$ commutes with ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$), and the mapping $x\\mapsto c^{-1}x$ gives a bijection $Y_p(\\delta)\\rightarrow X_p(b,\\epsilon')$.\n\nCriterion for a Kottwitz triple to come from an admissible pair\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe continue to work in the same set-up from the previous subsection.\n\n\\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\] Let $(\\phi,\\gamma_0)$ be an admissible pair, say of level $n$ (cf. Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\]). Suppose that some conjugate of $\\gamma_0$ belongs to $G({\\mathbb Q})$ and its image in $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ lies in a compact subgroup of $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$.\n\n\\(1) For any sufficiently large $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$ divisible by $n$, the element $\\phi(\\delta_k)\\cdot \\gamma_0^{-\\frac{k}{n}}$ of $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ lies in the center of $G$.\n\n\\(2) Assume that the weight homomorphism $w_X=(\\mu_h\\cdot\\iota(\\mu_h))^{-1}\\ (h\\in X)$ is rational. If $\\gamma_0$ is a Weil $q=p^n$-element of weight $-w=-w_X$, in the sense that for the ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup $S$ (of multiplicative type) generated by $\\gamma_0$ and any character $\\chi$ of $S$, $\\chi(\\gamma_0)\\in{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$ is a Weil $q=p^n$-number of weight $-\\langle \\chi,w_X\\rangle\\in{\\mathbb Z}$ in the usual sense, then $\\gamma_0^{\\frac{k}{n}}=\\phi(\\delta_k)$ for any sufficiently large $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$ divisible by $n$.\n\n\\(3) If the anisotropic kernel of $Z(G)$ remains anisotropic over ${\\mathbb R}$ and $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ lies in a compact subgroup of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, then $\\gamma_0^{\\frac{k}{n}}=\\phi(\\delta_k)$ for any sufficiently large $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$ divisible by $n$. In particular, $(\\phi,\\gamma_0)$ is already well-located.\n\nThe first statement (1) is asserted in [@LR87], p.194 (line -8) - p.195 (line 12) with a sketchy proof. Here we will give a detailed proof. To show the proposition, we need a fact which was stated in [@LR87], p.195, line 5-9, but without an explanation:\n\n\\[lem:equality\\_of\\_two\\_Newton\\_maps\\] (1) Let $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ be an admissible morphism such that $\\phi(\\delta_k)\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ for a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ and for all $k\\gg1$. Let $I:=Z_G(\\phi(\\delta_k))\\ (k\\gg1)$ and $b\\in I({\\mathfrak{k}})$ defined by an unramified conjugate of $\\xi_p:=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{I}(p)$ under $I({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ as in Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_morphism\\], (4). Then, the Newton homomorphism $\\nu_{\\phi(\\delta_k)}\\in X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathbb Q}}^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$ equals $k\\nu_b\\in {\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}(\\mathbb{D},I)$: $\\nu_{\\phi(\\delta_k)}=k\\nu_b$.\n\n\\(2) Let $\\epsilon\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ be a semi-simple element and suppose that there exists $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ such that ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c'\\epsilon c'^{-1}$ for some $c'\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$; let $I_0:=G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$. If $b':=c'^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c')\\in G_{\\epsilon}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ belongs to $I_0$, the two Newton homomorphisms $\\nu_{\\epsilon}$, $\\nu_{b'}\\in {\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}(\\mathbb{D},I_0)$ are related by: $\\nu_{\\epsilon}=n\\nu_{b'}$. In particular, in this case $[b']_{I_0}\\in B(I_0)$ is basic [@Kottwitz85 (5.1)].\n\n\\(3) For any admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ well-located in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$, we have equality of quasi-cocharacters of $T$: $\\frac{1}{k}\\nu_{\\phi(\\delta_k)}=\\frac{1}{n}\\nu_{\\epsilon}\\ (k\\gg1)$.\n\n\\(1) Fix a CM field $K$ Galois over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and $m\\gg1$ such that $\\phi^{\\Delta}$ factors through $P^K$ and $P^K=P(K,m)$, and denote by $(\\phi^{K})^{\\Delta}$ the resulting morphism $P(K,m)\\rightarrow G$. Then for every $\\lambda\\in X^{\\ast}(T)$, the ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-character $\\lambda\\circ(\\phi^{K})^{\\Delta}$ of $P(K,m)$ is also a Weil $p^m$-number $\\pi$, in which case if we write $\\chi_{\\pi}:=\\lambda\\circ(\\phi^{K})^{\\Delta}$, we have $\\chi_{\\pi}(\\delta_k)=\\pi^{\\frac{k}{m}}$ for every $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$ divisible by $m$ (cf. ). Next, let $w$ be the place of $K$ induced by $\\iota_p$. When we regard any $\\lambda\\in X^{\\ast}(T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$ as a ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-character of $T$ via the chosen embedding $\\iota_p:{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\hookrightarrow}{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, we have $$|\\lambda(\\phi^K(\\delta_k))|_p^{[K_w:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}=|\\lambda(\\phi^K(\\delta_k))|_w=|\\chi_{\\pi}(\\delta_k)|_w=|\\pi|_w^{\\frac{k}{m}}=p^{k\\nu_2(\\pi,w)}=p^{k\\langle\\chi_{\\pi},\\nu_2^{K}\\rangle}=p^{k\\langle\\lambda,(\\xi_p^{K_w})^{\\Delta}\\rangle},$$ where $(\\xi_p^{K_w})^{\\Delta}=(\\phi^{K})^{\\Delta}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\circ (\\zeta_p^{K_w})^{\\Delta}:({\\mathfrak{G}}_p^{K_w})^{\\Delta}\\rightarrow P(K,m)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\rightarrow I_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (by assumption, $(\\xi_p^{K_w})^{\\Delta}\\in X_{\\ast}(T)^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$); note that here, $\\lambda$ can be considered as a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-character in the first three expressions, while the $3^{\\text{rd}}$ equality makes sense only when $\\chi_{\\pi}$ is a ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-character. This shows [@Kottwitz85 2.8, 4.4] that the Newton homomorphism $\\nu_{\\phi(\\delta_k)}\\in X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathbb Q}}^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}={\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(\\mathbb{D},T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}})$ attached to $\\phi(\\delta_k)\\in T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is $-\\frac{k}{[K_w:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}(\\xi_p^{K_w})^{\\Delta}=-k\\xi_p^{\\Delta}$.\n\nOn the other hand, let $(\\xi_p^{K_w})'$ be an unramified conjugate of $\\xi_p^{K_w}$ under $I({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. If $(\\xi_p^{K_w})'$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n$ (for some $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$), the Newton homomorphism $\\nu_b$ attached to $b$ is $\\frac{1}{n}(\\xi_p^{K_w})'^{-1}|_{{\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}}}$ (Lemma \\[lem:Newton\\_hom\\_attached\\_to\\_unramified\\_morphism\\], cf. [@LR87], Anmerkung). In our case, we may assume that $n=[K_w:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$, by Remark \\[rem:comments\\_on\\_zeta\\_v\\], (2) and Lemma \\[lem:unramified\\_morphism\\], (2). Since the restrictions of $\\xi_p'$ and $\\xi_p$ to the kernel of ${\\mathfrak{D}}_n$ are the same, we have $\\nu_b=-\\frac{1}{[K_w:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}(\\xi_p^{K_w})^{\\Delta}$, which proves the claim.\n\n\\(2) This is proved in Lemma 5.15 of [@LR87]. We briefly sketch its arguments. First, we observe that for any $c'\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and $n'\\in {\\mathbb N}$, $c_{n'}:=c'^{-1}\\sigma^{n'}(c')$ belongs to $G_{\\epsilon}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and lies in any small neighborhood of $1$ in $I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$ as $n'$ becomes large (in fact, even becomes $1$ if $c'\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$). Secondly, if we choose a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus $T_1$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $\\epsilon$, then the Newton quasi-cocharacter $\\nu_{\\epsilon}$ of $\\epsilon\\in T_1({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ satisfies [@Kottwitz85 4.4] that for every ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational $\\lambda\\in X_{\\ast}(T_1)$, one has $$|\\lambda(\\epsilon)|_p=p^{-\\langle\\lambda,\\nu_{\\epsilon}\\rangle}.$$ It follows from this equation that $\\nu_1:=\\frac{1}{n}\\nu_{\\epsilon}\\in X_{\\ast}(T_1)_{{\\mathbb Q}}^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$ maps into the (connected) center of $G_{\\epsilon}$ and that $p^{-n\\nu_1}\\epsilon\\in T_1({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ lies in the maximal compact subgroup of $T_1({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. Especially, $(p^{-n\\nu_1}\\epsilon)^k$ also lies in any small neighborhood of $1$ in $I_0$ if $k$ becomes large. Therefore, according to [@Greenberg63 Prop. 3], for sufficiently large $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$, there exists $d\\in I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that with $n'=nk$, $$\\epsilon^k c_{n'}=p^{n'\\nu_1}d^{-1}\\sigma^{n'}(d).$$ Here, we used the fact that $(I_0)_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ admits a smooth ${\\mathcal{O}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$-integral model with connected special fiber (e.g. parahoric group schemes, cf. [@HainesRapoport08]). Finally, from ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c'\\epsilon c'^{-1}$, one easily checks that $$\\label{eq:geom_conj_at_p}\n{\\mathrm{N}}_{n'}b'=\\epsilon^k c_{n'}(=p^{n'\\nu_1}d^{-1}\\sigma^{n'}(d)).$$ It follows from this equality and the definition [@Kottwitz85 4.3] that when $b'\\in I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$, $\\nu_1\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}(\\mathbb{D},I_0)$ is the Newton homomorphism of $b'$.\n\n\\(3) Clearly, we can choose the element $b$ of (1) in $T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (by using an unramified conjugate of $\\xi_p$ under $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$; so, the Newton homomorphism $\\nu_b$ is regarded to be attached to $b\\in T({\\mathfrak{k}})$, i.e. as an element of $X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathbb Q}}^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$, and as such, for every $s\\gg1$ there exists $e_{s}\\in \\ker(w_T)$ such that ${\\mathrm{N}}_{s}b=e_sp^{s\\nu_b}$. Let $b'\\in G_{\\epsilon}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ be defined by the admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ as in (2), except that $b'$ does not necessarily lie in $G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then, according to Remark \\[rem:two\\_different\\_b\u2019s\\], their $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $B(G_{\\epsilon})$ are equal; in particular, if $G_{\\epsilon}$ is connected, the claim in question follows immediately from (1), (2), as $b'$ is basic in $G_{\\epsilon}$. Hence, in view of (\\[eq:geom\\_conj\\_at\\_p\\]), for any $k\\gg1$, there exists $d'\\in G_{\\epsilon}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$p^{n'\\nu_b}e_{n'}={\\mathrm{N}}_{n'}b=p^{k\\nu_{\\epsilon}}\\cdot d'^{-1}\\sigma^{n'}(d')$$ holds in $G_{\\epsilon}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with $n'=nk$. Since $d'^{-1}\\sigma^{n'}(d')$ belongs to $T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ ($\\nu_{\\epsilon}$ maps into the center of $G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$) and lies in any neighborhood of $1$ in $G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ for $k\\gg1$, this is possible only when $n\\nu_b=\\nu_{\\epsilon}$.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Proof of Proposition \\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\] continued.</span> Clearly, all the statements remain intact under any conjugation $\\Int(g)\\ (g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$ with the property that $\\Int(g)(\\gamma_0)\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$, thus we may and do assume (by Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\]) that $(\\phi,\\gamma_0)$ is well-located in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ (which is necessarily elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$); in this case, the assumption says that $\\gamma_0$ lies in the (unique maximal) compact subgroup of $T/Z(G)({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$.\n\n\\(1) As $\\delta_{kd}=\\delta_k^{d}$, it is enough to show that for some $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$ (divisible by $n$), the image of $\\phi(\\delta_k)\\cdot \\gamma_0^{-\\frac{k}{n}}$ in $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({\\mathbb Q})$ is a torsion element. For that, we use the fact that for any linear algebraic group $G$ over a number field $F$, $G(F)$ is discrete in $G({\\mathbb A}_F)$, so for any compact subgroup $K\\subset G({\\mathbb A}_F)$, $G(F)\\cap K$ will be finite, particularly, a torsion group. We will check that for every place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, the image of $\\phi(\\delta_k)\\cdot \\gamma_0^{-\\frac{k}{n}}$ in $T/Z(G)({{\\mathbb Q}_v})$ lies in the maximal compact (open) subgroup of $T/Z(G)({{\\mathbb Q}_v})$. Recall that for an $F$-torus $T$ and any finite place $v$ of $F$, the maximal compact subgroup $H$ of $T(F_v)$ equals $$\\bigcap_{\\chi\\in X^{\\ast}(T),\\ F_v-\\text{rational}}\\ker(\\mathrm{val}_v\\circ\\chi),$$ where $\\mathrm{val}_v$ is the (normalized) valuation on $F_v$. For every finite place $l\\neq p$, the image of $\\gamma_0$ in $T/Z(G)({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ is a unit (i.e. lies in a compact subgroup) by assumption, and so is $\\phi(\\delta_k)$ by definition of $\\delta_k$ (in fact, $\\phi(\\delta_k)$ is itself a unit in $T({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ for every $l\\neq p$). As $T/Z(G)$ is anisotropic over ${\\mathbb R}$, the claim is trivial for the archimedean place. Hence, it suffices to show that for every ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\\chi$ of $T/Z(G)$, $|\\chi(\\phi(\\delta_k))|_p=|\\chi(\\gamma_0^{\\frac{k}{n}})|_p$. In fact, we will show this for ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational characters $\\chi$ of $T$. Choose a finite Galois CM-extension $L$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$ and $m\\in{\\mathbb N}$ such that $\\phi$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{P}}(L,m)$. Then, for all sufficiently large $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$ divisible by $[L:{\\mathbb Q}]n$ and for any ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-rational character $\\chi$ of $T$, one has $$|\\chi(\\phi(\\delta_k))|_p=p^{-\\langle\\chi,\\nu_{\\phi(\\delta_k)}\\rangle}=p^{-\\frac{k}{n}\\langle\\chi,\\nu_{\\gamma_0}\\rangle}=|\\chi(\\gamma_0)|_p^{\\frac{k}{n}}.$$ due to Lemma \\[lem:equality\\_of\\_two\\_Newton\\_maps\\], (3) (for the second equality).\n\n\\(2) The additional assumption tells us that $|\\chi(\\phi(\\delta_k))|_{\\infty}=|\\chi(\\gamma_0^{\\frac{k}{n}})|_{\\infty}$ for every ${\\mathbb Q}_{\\infty}$-rational character $\\chi$ of $S$, and also implies that $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ itself lies in a compact open subgroup of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$. Hence, by the argument of (1), $\\phi(\\delta_k)\\cdot \\gamma_0^{-\\frac{k}{n}}\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ is a torsion element.\n\n\\(3) It is well-known that the stated condition implies that for any maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_0$ of $G$, elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$, $T_0({\\mathbb Q})$ is discrete in $T_0({\\mathbb A}_f)$; this is the condition what Kisin called *the Serre condition for $T_0$*, [@Kisin17 (3.7.3)]. Then, again we resort to the argument of (1).\n\n\\[lem:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\] For any ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $T$ of multiplicative type such that ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(T)={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(T)$, there exist a positive integer $s$ and elements $\\pi_0$, $t\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n(a)\\quad & \\epsilon^s=\\pi_0 t,\\\\ \n(b)\\quad &\\pi_0\\in K_l\\text{ for all }l\\neq p, \\nonumber \\\\ \n(c)\\quad &t\\in K_p, \\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ where for each finite place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, $K_v$ denotes the maximal compact subgroup of $T^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q}_v)$. The pair $(\\pi_0,t)$ is uniquely determined by $\\epsilon$, up to taking simultaneous powers. In particular, the construction of $(\\pi_0,t;s)$ is functorial in $(T,\\epsilon)$: $f:(T,\\epsilon) \\rightarrow (T',\\epsilon')$ is a morphism of pairs as above, $f$ matches the corresponding elements $(\\pi_0,t)$, $(\\pi_0',t')$ (for the same $s$)\n\nClearly, if one wants, one may further assume that $\\pi_0,t\\in T^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})$.\n\n(cf. [@Kottwitz92 Lem. 10.12]) The uniqueness up to taking simultaneous powers of a pair of elements $(\\pi_0,t)$ satisfying the properties (a) - (c) is an easy consequence of the property that $T({\\mathbb Q})$ is discrete in $T({\\mathbb A}_f)$ (implied by ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(T)={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(T)$). For existence, it follows from the same property that the canonical map $\\varphi:T({\\mathbb Q})\\rightarrow X:=\\oplus_{v\\neq\\infty} (T({{\\mathbb Q}_v})/K_v)$ has finite kernel and cokernel, so if we consider the two elements $(a_v)_v,\\ (b_v)_v\\in X$ where $a_v=1$, $b_v=\\epsilon\\mod K_v$ for $v\\neq p$, and $a_v=\\epsilon\\mod K_p$, $b_p=1$, then some (common) power $(a_v)^r$, $(b_v)^r$ are the images of elements $a$, $b$ of $T({\\mathbb Q})$. As $\\epsilon^r$ and $ab$ have the same images under $\\varphi$, some powers of them are equal: $\\epsilon^s=\\pi_0t$ where $\\pi_0:=a^{s/r}, t:=b^{s/r}$.\n\n\\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\] Suppose that ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. For an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, let $T_{\\epsilon}^{\\phi}$ denote the ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup (of multiplicative type) of $I_{\\phi}$ generated by $\\epsilon$ and $(\\pi_0^{\\phi},t^{\\phi})$ elements of $T_{\\epsilon}^{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ attached to $(T_{\\epsilon}^{\\phi},\\epsilon)$ by Lemma \\[lem:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\] (for some $s^{\\phi}\\in{\\mathbb N}$). Then the followings hold.\n\n\\(1) For any field $k\\supset{\\mathbb Q}$ and $g\\in G(\\bar{k})$ with $\\Int(g)(\\epsilon)\\in G(k)$, the elements $\\Int(g)(\\pi_0^{\\phi})$, $\\Int(g)(t^{\\phi})$ belong to the $k$-subgroup of $G_{k}$ generated by $\\Int(g)(\\epsilon)$, and if $k\\subset {\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$, they are the elements (in ${\\mathrm{Int}}g(T_{\\epsilon}^{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q}))=T_{\\epsilon'}^{\\phi'}({\\mathbb Q})$) attached to $(\\phi',\\epsilon'):=\\Int(g)(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ (for the same $s^{\\phi}\\in{\\mathbb N}$).\n\n\\(2) Suppose that $\\epsilon\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ and let $T_{\\epsilon}^G$ be the ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\\epsilon$ with associated elements $\\pi_0^G,t^G$ of $T_{\\epsilon}^G({\\mathbb Q})$ (for some $s^G\\in{\\mathbb N}$). Then, as subsets of $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})\\ (\\supset I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q}))$, we have $T_{\\epsilon}^{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})=T_{\\epsilon}^G({\\mathbb Q})$, and $\\pi_0^{\\phi}=\\pi_0^G$, $t^{\\phi}=t^G$ when $s^{\\phi}=s^{G}$; in this case, we simply write $T_{\\epsilon}$, $\\pi_0,t,s$.\n\n\\(3) For any sufficiently large $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$, the pair $(\\phi,(\\pi_0^{\\phi})^k)$ is also admissible. In particular, when $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is well-located, the map $\\phi^{\\Delta}:P\\rightarrow G$ factors through $T_{\\epsilon}$.\n\nWe observe that when ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$, for any admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, we also have ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(T_{\\epsilon})={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(T_{\\epsilon})$, since $(I_{\\phi}/Z(G))_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is an ${\\mathbb R}$-subgroup of the compact inner form of $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}_{{\\mathbb R}}$ defined by $\\phi(\\infty)\\circ\\zeta_{\\infty}$.\n\nNow, let $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ be an arbitrary admissible pair. From Lemma \\[lem:Zariski\\_group\\_closure\\], we know the followings: when $\\epsilon':={\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\epsilon)\\in G(k)$, ${\\mathrm{Int}}g$ induces a $k$-isomorphism between the $k$-subgroups of $G_k$ generated by $\\epsilon$ and $\\epsilon'$, and when $k={\\mathbb Q}$, it also induces ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphisms between the ${\\mathbb Q}$-groups $T_{\\epsilon}\\subset I_{\\phi}$ and $T_{\\epsilon'}\\subset I_{\\phi'}$, where $\\phi':={\\mathrm{Int}}g\\circ\\phi$; this proves (1) by uniqueness up to powers of the pair $(\\pi_0,t)$ (Lemma \\[lem:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\]). If $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is also well-located, the ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-embedding $(T_{\\epsilon})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\hookrightarrow (I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\hookrightarrow G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\]) induces a ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $T_{\\epsilon}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{\\epsilon}^G$. Therefore, if $\\epsilon\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ and $(\\phi',\\epsilon'):={\\mathrm{Int}}g(\\phi,\\epsilon)\\ (g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$ is well-located, we have ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphisms $$T_{\\epsilon}^{\\phi} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{\\epsilon'}^{\\phi'} \\cong T_{\\epsilon'}^G {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{\\epsilon}^G,$$ fixing the Zariski dense subset $\\{\\epsilon^n\\}_{n\\in{\\mathbb Z}}$ (of both $T_{\\epsilon}^{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ and $T_{\\epsilon}^G({\\mathbb Q})$), thus when both are regarded as subgroups of $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, the induced map $T_{\\epsilon}^{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{\\epsilon}^G({\\mathbb Q})$ is the identity. By uniqueness up to powers of the pair $(\\pi_0,t)$ (Lemma \\[lem:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\]), this proves the claim of (2); in particular, $\\pi_0^{\\phi}$, $t^{\\phi}$ (a priori, elements of $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$) both lie in $G({\\mathbb Q})$.\n\nIn view of this discussion, to prove statement (3), we may assume (by Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\]) that $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is *nested* in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$ (i.e. $\\phi=\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ for some $h\\in X\\cap{\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},T_{{\\mathbb R}})$ and $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$); thus, $T_{\\epsilon}$ is a ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $T$ via the inner-twisting $(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\]). In this situation, we establish statement (3), assuming that $t\\in T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})_1=T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\cap\\ker(w_{T})$, which is allowed, as $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})_1$ is a subgroup with finite index of the maximal compact subgroup of $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$. We only need to check condition (c) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\]. For $v=l\\neq p$, $\\phi(l)\\circ\\zeta_l$ is conjugate under $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ to the canonical neutralization $\\xi_l$ of ${\\mathfrak{G}}_T(l)$ (Lemma \\[lem:properties\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\]), thus as $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$, condition (c) for $v=l$ holds. At $v=p$, we choose $u\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\Int(u)\\circ\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ is unramified, say the inflation of a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}_{T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}$, from which we obtain $b\\in T({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ by $b\\sigma=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$. Since $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is admissible, by Lemma \\[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\\_b3.3\\], there exists $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c(\\epsilon^{-1}\\cdot(b\\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\\sigma^n$, where $n$ is the level of $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$. Since $t$ lies in the parahoric subgroup $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})_1$ of $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, we can find $t_p\\in T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $t=t_p^{-1}\\sigma^{ns}(t_p)$ [@Greenberg63 Prop.3]. So, we have $(ct_p)(\\pi_0^{-1}\\cdot(b\\sigma)^{ns})(ct_p)^{-1}=\\sigma^n$, as was asserted. Next, since for every $k\\gg1$, $(\\phi,\\pi_0^k\\in G({\\mathbb Q}))$ is also an admissible pair with $\\pi_0^k$ lying in a compact subgroup of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, we can apply Prop. \\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\] by the assumption ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$ to see that the image of $\\phi^{\\Delta}$ is generated by $\\pi_0^k$ for any sufficiently large $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$.\n\n###  {#section-2}\n\nFor the next discussion, it is also necessary to use Tate hypercohomology groups $\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^i\\ (i\\in{\\mathbb Z})$ of (bounded) complexes of discrete $\\mathcal{G}$-modules for a finite group $\\mathcal{G}$: they are defined by means of either the complete (standard) resolution of the trivial ${\\mathbb Z}[\\mathcal{G}]$-module ${\\mathbb Z}$ or hypercochains in the usual manner (cf. [@Koya90 $\\S$1]).[^30] In this work, we will be only interested in the bounded complexes $A^{\\bullet}$ of discrete $\\mathcal{G}$-modules *whose positive terms are zero*, in which case one has $$\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^i(\\mathcal{G},A^{\\bullet})=\\begin{cases} \n\\mathbb{H}^0(\\mathcal{G},A^{\\bullet})/{\\mathrm{N}}_{\\mathcal{G}}\\mathcal{H}^0(A^{\\bullet}) &\\text{ if } i=0\\\\\n\\mathbb{H}^i(\\mathcal{G},A^{\\bullet}) &\\text{ if } i>0, \\end{cases}$$ where $\\mathcal{H}^0(A^{\\bullet})$ denotes the $0$-th cohomology $\\mathcal{G}$-module of the complex $A^{\\bullet}$ and ${\\mathrm{N}}_\\mathcal{G}$ is the norm map [@Koya90 Prop.1.2].\n\nFor a diagonalizable ${\\mathbb C}$-group $D$ with (algebraic) action of a finite group $\\mathcal{G}$, the canonical surjection and injection $$\\label{eq:H^0_H^-1}\n\\pi_0(D^{\\mathcal{G}})\\twoheadrightarrow \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{0}(\\mathcal{G},D)=\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{1}(\\mathcal{G},X_{\\ast}(D)),\\quad \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(\\mathcal{G},X^{\\ast}(D))\\hookrightarrow X^{\\ast}(D)_{\\mathcal{G},{\\mathrm{tors}}},$$ identify the canonical duality $X^{\\ast}(D)_{\\mathcal{G},{\\mathrm{tors}}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\pi_0(D^{\\mathcal{G}})^D$ with the duality induced from the cup-product pairing $$\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{1}(\\mathcal{G},X_{\\ast}(D))\\otimes\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(\\mathcal{G},X^{\\ast}(D))\\rightarrow \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{0}(\\mathcal{G},{\\mathbb Z})=\\frac{1}{|\\mathcal{G}|}{\\mathbb Z}.$$\n\nFor a field $k$, either global or local, we let $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:C_k}\nC_k:=\\begin{cases} k^{\\times} & \\text{ if }k\\text{ is local},\\\\\n{\\mathbb A}_k^{\\times}/k^{\\times} & \\text{ if }k\\text{ is global}.\\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$ For a number field $F$ and a bounded complex of $F$-tori $T^{\\bullet}=(\\cdots\\rightarrow T^i \\rightarrow \\cdots)$ (concentrated in non-positive degrees) and $i\\in{\\mathbb Z}$, we define $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{H}^i({\\mathbb A}_F/F,T^{\\bullet})&:=\\mathbb{H}^i(F,T^{\\bullet}(C_{\\overline{F}})) \\\\\n& =\\varinjlim_{E}\\mathbb{H}^i(E/F,T^{\\bullet}(C_E)),\\end{aligned}$$ where $E$ runs through finite Galois extensions of $F$, $T^{\\bullet}(C_{\\overline{F}})$ denotes the complex of discrete $\\Gamma_F$-modules $\\cdots\\rightarrow T^i({\\mathbb A}_{\\overline{F}})/T^i(\\overline{F})\\rightarrow\\cdots$ and $T^{\\bullet}(C_E)$ is defined similarly.\n\n\\[lem:identification\\_of\\_Kottwitz\\_A(H)\\] (1) Let $H$ be a (connected) reductive group over a field, either global or local, and $T$ a maximal $k$-torus of $H$; set $\\tilde{T}:=\\rho_H^{-1}(T)$. If $k'$ is a finite Galois extension of $k$ splitting $T$, the two pairings are compatible: $$\\xymatrix{ \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{H})^{\\mathcal{G}}) \\ar@{->>}[d] & \\bigotimes & \\pi_1(H)_{\\mathcal{G},{\\mathrm{tors}}}  \\ar[r] & {\\mathbb Q}/{\\mathbb Z}\\ar@{=}[d] \\\\\n\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{0}(k'/k,X^{\\ast}(H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})) & \\bigotimes & \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{1}(k'/k,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}(C_{k'})) \\ar[r] \\ar@{^(->}[u] & {\\mathbb Q}/{\\mathbb Z}},$$ where the bottom pairing is the local/global Tate-Nakayama pairings for the complex $H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}=(\\tilde{T}\\rightarrow T)$ (cf. [@KottwitzShelstad99 A.2.2]).[^31] Moreover, the two vertical maps are bijections if the extension $k'/k$ has sufficiently large degree.\n\n\\(1) First, we note that the bottom local/global Tate-Nakayama pairings are perfect pairings: its proof can be easily reduced to the classical Tate-Nakayama duality for tori (cf. proof of (A.2.2) of [@KottwitzShelstad99]). In view of the canonical maps (\\[eq:H\\^0\\_H\\^-1\\]), the existence of the vertical maps and the compatibility of the pairings deduced from the canonical isomorphisms $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{0}(k'/k,Z(\\hat{H}))^D &=\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(k'/k,\\hat{H}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})^D \\\\\n&\\stackrel{(a)}{=}\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{0}(k'/k,X^{\\ast}(T)\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(\\tilde{T}))^D \\\\\n&\\stackrel{(b)}{=}\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{1}(k'/k,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}(C_{k'})) \\\\\n&\\stackrel{(c)}{=}\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(k'/k,\\pi_1(H)), \n$$ where the equalities are as follows:\n\n\\(a) For any two-term complex $D_{-1}\\rightarrow D_0$ of diagonalizable ${\\mathbb C}$-groups with ${\\mathrm{Gal}}(k'/k)$-action, the exponential sequence $0\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(D_i)\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Lie}(D_i) \\rightarrow D_i\\rightarrow 0$ gives an isomorphism, for all $i\\in{\\mathbb Z}$, $$\\label{eq:connecting_isom_diagonal_gp}\n\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^i(k'/k,D_{-1}\\rightarrow D_0) = \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{i+1}(k'/k,X_{\\ast}(D_{-1})\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(D_0)),$$ (First, establish this for a single term complex using the cohomology long exact sequence of the associated exponential sequence. Then, the general case follows from it by an appropriate application of the five lemma).\n\n\\(b) For a single term complex, this is the classical Tate-Nakayma duality (cf. [@Milne13]). Then, one uses the five lemma in an obvious way.\n\n\\(c) Apply the five lemma to the isomorphisms from the long cohomology exact sequence attached to the short exact sequence $0\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(\\tilde{T})\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(T)\\rightarrow \\pi_1(H)\\rightarrow 0$ to the long exact sequence $$\\cdots \\rightarrow \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{i}(k'/k,\\tilde{T}(C_{k'})) \\rightarrow  \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{i}(k'/k,T(C_{k'})) \\rightarrow \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{i}(k'/k,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}(C_{k'})) \\rightarrow  \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{i+1}(k'/k,\\tilde{T}(C_{k'})) \\rightarrow \\cdots,$$ provided by cup-product with the fundamental class in $H^2(k'/k,C_{k'})$, to see that the same cup-product gives an isomorphism $$\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{i-1}(k'/k,\\pi_1(H)) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{i+1}(k'/k,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}(C_{k'})).$$\n\nFinally, the two maps (\\[eq:H\\^0\\_H\\^-1\\]) become isomorphisms if the degree $[k':k]$ is sufficiently large [@Milne92 Prop.B.4].\n\n\\[prop:triviality\\_in\\_comp\\_gp\\] Suppose that $(G,X)$ is a Shimura datum of abelian type [@Milne94].\n\n\\(1) For any semi-simple element $\\epsilon\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ with centralizer $G_{\\epsilon}$, we have $$\\label{eq:trivaility_of_Sha^{infty,p}}\n\\Sha^{\\infty,p}({\\mathbb Q},\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon})):=\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon}))\\rightarrow \\prod_{v\\neq\\infty,p}H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon}))]=0.$$\n\n\\(2) If two stable Kottwitz triples are (geometrically) equivalent, they are also stably equivalent.\n\n\\(1) For a general connected reductive group $G$, the finite ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon})=G_{\\epsilon}/G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ is canonically isomorphic to a subgroup $C_{\\epsilon}$ of $\\ker(\\rho)(\\subset Z(G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}))$ (for the canonical morphism $\\rho:G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\hookrightarrow G$) [@Kottwitz82 Lem. 4.5]. To prove the statement, we will use an explicit information on the possible ${\\mathbb Q}$-groups for $\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon})$ when $G$ comes from an abelian-type Shimura datum $(G,X)$.\n\nWe first show that when $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}=\\prod_{i\\in I} G_i$ is the decomposition into simple factors, there exist subgroups $U_i\\subset Z(G_i)\\ (i\\in I)$ such that $\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon})=\\prod_{i\\in I}U_i$. For this, we choose $y\\in G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ and $z\\in Z(G)$ be such that $\\epsilon=\\rho(y)z$, and consider the map $\\theta:G_{\\epsilon}\\rightarrow \\ker(\\rho)$ defined by $\\theta(g)=hyh^{-1}y^{-1}$, where $h\\in G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ is any element whose image in $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is the same as that of $g$. Then one knows (*loc. cit.*) that $\\theta(g)$ is independent of the choice of $y$ and $h$, and $\\theta: G_{\\epsilon}\\rightarrow \\ker(\\rho)$ is a homomorphism with $\\ker(\\theta)=G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$. We have $\\rho^{-1}(G_{\\epsilon})=\\{h\\in G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\ |\\ hyhy^{-1}\\in \\ker(\\rho)\\}$ and ${\\mathrm{im}}(\\theta)=\\{ hyhy^{-1}\\ |\\ h\\in \\rho^{-1}(G_{\\epsilon})\\}$. If $C_i\\ (i\\in I)$ denotes the projection to $G_i$ of $\\ker(\\rho)$, it is clear that $\\rho^{-1}(G_{\\epsilon})=\\prod_{i\\in I}\\{h_i\\in G_i\\ |\\ h_iy_ih_iy_i^{-1}\\in C_i\\}$, where $y_i\\in G_i\\ (i\\in I)$ is the $i$-th component of $y$, from which the claim follows.\n\nNext, when $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}=\\prod_{i\\in I} G_i$ as above, we have $Z(G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})=\\prod_{i\\in I}{\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{\\mathbb Q}}Z_i$, where $Z_i$ is the center of some absolutely simple (simply-connected) group over a number field $F_i$; each $F_i$ is a totally real field as $(G,X)$ is a Shimura datum [@Deligne79]. For abelian-type Shimura datum $(G,X)$, Satake classified such $Z_i$\u2019s [@Satake67 $\\S$5], [@Satake80 Appendix] (cf. [@Lee12 Prop.2.6]): if $Z$, $F$ are $Z_i$, $F_i$ for some $i\\in I$, $$\\label{eq:simple_factors_abelian_type}\nZ = \\begin{cases} \nV_{E/F,N}:=\\{x\\in E^{\\times}\\ |\\ {\\mathrm{N}}_{E/F}(x)=1,\\ x^N=1\\} & \\text{ if } G_i \\text{ is of Lie type } A,\\ D,\\\\\n\\qquad \\mu_2 & \\text{ if } G_i \\text{ is of Lie type }  B,\\ C,\\\\ \n\\quad \\mu_2\\times\\mu_2,\\quad \\mu_4,\\quad {\\mathrm{Res}}_{E/F}\\mu_2 & \\text{ if } G_i \\text{ is of Lie type }  D,\n\\end{cases}$$ Here, in the first and the third cases, $E/F$ is a quadratic extension (in the type $A$ case, $E/F$ is a CM-field with its totally real subfield of index $2$). One can readily check that any subgroup of ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{F/{\\mathbb Q}}Z$ (in particular, each $U_i$ in $\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon})=\\prod_{i\\in I}U_i$) is the Weil restriction to ${\\mathbb Q}$ of either again a group of the same kind in this list or $\\mu_n$ (over a number field) for some $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$. Then, to prove (\\[eq:trivaility\\_of\\_Sha\\^[infty,p]{}\\]), it suffices to establish the same statement for any such finite ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $U$. This follows from the observation that for such $U$, there exists a finite place $l\\neq p$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$ such that the map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},U)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},U)$ is injective. Indeed, each such $U$ equals ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{K/{\\mathbb Q}}V$, where $K$ is a number field and $V$ is a finite $K$-group whose splitting field $K'$ is abelian over $K$ (more precisely, $V$ is either $\\mu_n$ or $\\mu_2\\times\\mu_2$ or $V_{E/K,N}$ in (\\[eq:simple\\_factors\\_abelian\\_type\\])). Hence, there exists a finite place $v$ of $K$ not dividing $p$ that remains prime in $K'$ (by Cebotarev density theorem) so that $H^1(K,V){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1(K_v,V)$; or for $\\mu_n$, one can appeal to the stronger fact [@NSW08 Thm.9.1.9] (one applies the case (ii) with $S$ being the set of all places and $T=S\\backslash \\{\\infty,p\\}$, by noting that the \u201cspecial case\u201d there cannot occur in our situation).\n\n\\(2) Suppose that two stable Kottwitz triples $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma',\\delta')$ are (geometrically) equivalent, and choose $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\\gamma_0'=g\\gamma_0g^{-1}$. Then the cohomology class in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0}))$ of the cocycle $g^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{\\gamma_0})$ lies in $\\Sha^{\\infty,p}({\\mathbb Q},\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon}))$, so is trivial by (1), which amounts to saying that $g_0$ and $g_0'$ are stably conjugate.\n\n\\[lem:isom\\_of\\_H\\^1(Ql)\\_of\\_inner-twist\\] Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over a field $k$ such that $H^1(k,H)=\\{1\\}$ for every simply-connected semi-simple $k$-group $H$. Let $\\epsilon, \\epsilon'\\in G(k)$ be elements which are stably conjugate. Put $I_0:=G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_0':=G_{\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$. If $g\\in G(\\bar{k})$ satisfies that $\\epsilon'=\\Int(g)(\\epsilon)$ and $g^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g\\in Z^1(k,I_0)$ for every $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{k}/k)$, $\\Int(g)$ induces isomorphisms $$H^1(k,I_0){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1(k,I_0'),\\quad H^1(k,G_{\\epsilon}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1(k,G_{\\epsilon'}).$$\n\nNote that $I_0$ and $I_0'$ are inner-twists of each other and $\\Int(g)$ induces a $k$-isomorphism $\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon'})$. In particular, we have an isomorphism $(Z(I_0^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\rightarrow Z(I_0)){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(Z(I_0'^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\rightarrow Z(I_0'))$ of crossed modules of algebraic groups. Considering the maps induced by $\\Int(g)$ between the exact sequence of Galois cohomology groups $1=H^1(k,I_0^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}) \\rightarrow H^1(k,I_0) \\rightarrow  \\mathbb{H}^{i}(k,Z(I_0^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\rightarrow Z(I_0))$ to its analogue for $\\epsilon'$, we see that $\\Int(g)$ gives an isomorphism (of abelian groups) $H^1(k,I_0){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1(k,I_0')$. Then, it is easy to deduce the second isomorphism by examining the maps induced by $\\Int(g)$ between the exact sequence $$\\cdots\\rightarrow H^0(k,\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon})) \\rightarrow H^1(k,I_0) \\rightarrow H^1(k,G_{\\epsilon}) \\rightarrow H^1(k,\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon}))$$ and its analogue for $\\epsilon'$.\n\nFollowing Kisin [@Kisin17 (4.4)], we introduce some Galois cohomology notations. For a crossed module of algebraic ${\\mathbb Q}$-groups $H'\\rightarrow H$, we set $$\\label{eq:Sha^{infty}}\n\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},H'\\rightarrow H)=\\ker\\left[H^1({\\mathbb Q},H'\\rightarrow H)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb R},H'\\rightarrow H)\\right].$$ When $H$ is a *connected* reductive ${\\mathbb Q}$-group, the natural map $$\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},H):=\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},\\{e\\}\\rightarrow H)\\ \\rightarrow\\ \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow H)$$ is a bijection, thus $\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},H)$ is an abelian group in a natural way. For a general *${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup* $H$ of $G$, we introduce a pointed set $$\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},H):=\\ker\\left[ \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},H) \\rightarrow \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},G)\\right].$$ If $H$ is connected, by the above fact this is an abelian group. We also define $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$ for an inner-twist $H_1$ of a *connected* reductive subgroup $H$ of $G$ as follows. Let $I_0$ be a *connected* reductive ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ and $I_1$ an inner twist of $I_0$. Then, we define $$\\label{eq:Sha^{infty}_G}\n\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_1):=\\ker\\left[ \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_1){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_0) \\rightarrow \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},G)\\right],$$ where the isomorphism $\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_1){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_0)$ arises from the canonical isomorphisms (see the proof of Lemma \\[lem:abelianization\\_exact\\_seq\\], cf. [@Kisin17 Lem.4.4.3]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:Kisin17_Lem.4.4.3}\n\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_1){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_0)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe first statement of the next theorem is the effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple alluded before.\n\n\\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\] Keep the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\]. Let $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma=(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ be a stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant. Suppose that one of the following two conditions holds: (a) $Z(G)$ has same ranks over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and ${\\mathbb R}$, or (b) the weight homomorphism $w_X$ is rational and $\\gamma_0$ is a Weil $p^n$-element of weight $-w_X$, where $n$ is the level of $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$ (cf. Prop. \\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\]).\n\nIf $Y_p(\\delta)\\neq \\emptyset$ (\\[eq:Y\\_p(delta)\\]), the Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ is *effective*, that is, there exists an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ giving rise to it. In this case, the number $i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ of non-equivalent admissible pairs giving rise to the triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ equals the cardinality of the set $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+\n&:={\\mathrm{im}}\\left[ \\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+ \\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}) \\right]\\end{aligned}$$ for *any* such admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ (giving rise to the triple), where $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ denotes the centralizer of $\\epsilon$ in $I_{\\phi}$ and $\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+:=\\ker[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})]$.\n\nRecall that \u201chaving trivial Kottwitz invariant\u201d is our shortened expression for the condition that there exist elements $(g_v)_v\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]), (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes.\n\n\\[rem:LR-Satz5.25\\] (1) *By this theorem*, we see that the number $|\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+|$, being equal to $i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, depends only on the effective Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, not on the choice of an admissible pair giving rise to it. When $G_{\\gamma_0}$ is connected so that $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ is also connected (see below for why), the set $\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+$ is identical to the group denoted by $\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},G_{\\gamma_0})$ in [@Kisin17] or to the set appearing in [@LR87 Lem. 5.24] if $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. For this set, one knows that it is a finite abelian group, depends only on $\\gamma_0$, and remains invariant under inner twist of $G_{\\gamma_0}$, but in the general case the author does not know either of these facts for our set $\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+$ (except for finiteness which follows indirectly from its appearance in the formula in Thm. \\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:Kisin\\]).\n\n\\(2) Compare this theorem with Satz 5.25 of [@LR87] which asserts (in the case where the level is hyperspecial and $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$) that a Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant is effective if the condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ holds. Our condition $Y_p(\\delta)\\neq \\emptyset$ is more natural and is what one really needs. Indeed, according to Remark \\[rem:admissible\\_pair\\] (and the discussion in the introduction), Langlands-Rapoport conjecture implies that the cardinality of the set ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}({\\mathbb F}_{q^m})$ (for each $m\\in{\\mathbb N}$) is a sum of certain quantities, the sum being over all *effective* Kottwtiz triples (up to equivalence) with trivial Kottwitz invariant (or over the Kottwitz triples satisfying condition $\\ast(\\epsilon)$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant if one resorts to [@LR87 Satz5.25]). But, since one easily sees that $Y_p(\\delta)\\neq \\emptyset$ when the corresponding summand is non-zero, the effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\]) tells us that in the summation one may as well take simply *all* Kottwitz triples with trivial Kottwitz invariant (see Theorem \\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:LR\\] and its proof).\n\nBy Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\], there exists an admissible pair $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ that is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$, i.e. $\\phi_1=\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$ and $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ (and satisfies condition $(\\heartsuit)$) and also such that $\\epsilon$ is stably conjugate to $\\gamma_0$; thus we may assume that $\\gamma_0=\\epsilon$. Then, the restriction of $\\phi_1$ to the kernel of ${\\mathfrak{P}}$ is determined by $\\epsilon$ alone, and its image ${\\mathrm{im}}(\\phi_1^{\\Delta})$ lies in the center of $G_{\\epsilon}$. Indeed, if $T_{\\epsilon}$ is the ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ generated by $\\epsilon\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ and $(\\pi_0,t)$ are the elements of $T_{\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})$ determined by $\\epsilon$ as in Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\] (for some $s\\in{\\mathbb N}$), we have $\\phi_1^{\\Delta}(\\delta_k)=\\pi_0^{k/n}\\in T_{\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})$ for any sufficiently large $k$ (Prop. \\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\]). Hence, one can twist $G_{\\epsilon}$ and $G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ via $\\phi_1$ (they are the inner twists of these groups by the cocycle $(g_{\\rho}^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})_{\\rho}\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},(G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$, where $\\phi(q_{\\rho})=g_{\\rho} \\rho$ and $g_{\\rho}^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is the image of $g_{\\rho}$ in $(G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$. Clearly, the resulting twist of $G_{\\epsilon}$ equals $I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon}$ (recall that $I_{\\phi_1}$ itself is the twist of $I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}}:=Z_G({\\mathrm{im}}(\\phi_1^{\\Delta}))$ via $\\phi_1$, cf. (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\])). We also see that if $G_{\\gamma_0}$ is connected, so is $I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon}$.\n\nThe next step in the proof is to modify $\\phi_1$ using a suitable cocycle in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon})$, to get a new admissible morphism $\\phi$ such that $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ becomes an admissible pair which produces the given Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta)$. By construction, this modification (of an admissible morphism $\\phi_1$ by a cocycle in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon})$) does not change the restriction of $\\phi_1$ to the kernel; in particular, we still have $\\epsilon\\in \\mathrm{Aut}(\\phi)$. Under the assumption $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, such modification was carried out in the proof of Satz 5.25 in [@LR87] and this part of that proof does not require any condition on the level subgroup. In the next lemma, we provide its generalization that works without the restriction $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$.\n\n\\[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\\] Let $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ be a well-located admissible pair. Let $I_1$ (resp. $H_1$) be the twist of $I_0:=G_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ (resp. of $H_0:=G_{\\epsilon}$) by $\\phi_1$ (i.e. $H_1=I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon}$ and $I_1=I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$).\n\n\\(1) For any cochain $a=\\{a_{\\sigma}\\}$ on ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$ with values in $H_0({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, the map $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ defined by $\\phi|_P=\\phi_1|_P$ and $\\phi(q_{\\rho})=a_{\\rho}\\phi_1(q_{\\rho})$ is a morphism of Galois gerbs over ${\\mathbb Q}$ if and only if $a$ is a cocycle in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$; in this case, we write $\\phi=a\\phi_1$.\n\n\\(2) For $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1})$, the morphism $\\phi=a\\phi_1$ is admissible if and only if its cohomology class $[a]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1})$ lies in $$\\label{eq:Sha^{infty}_G} \n\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1}):=\\ker[\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}})\n\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})],$$ where $I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}}:=Z_G({\\mathrm{im}}(\\phi_1^{\\Delta}))$, the isomorphism $\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}})$ is (\\[eq:Kisin17\\_Lem.4.4.3\\]) and the map $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ is (\\[eq:abelianization\\_from\\_Levi\\]).\n\nIf $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$, the morphism $\\phi=a\\phi_1$ is admissible if and only if the class $[a]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$ lies in the subset $$\\label{eq:Sha^{infty}_G'}\n \\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},H_1):=\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)\\rightarrow H^1_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}({\\mathbb Q},G)\\oplus H^1({\\mathbb R},G')],$$ where $G'$ is the inner form of $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ defined by $\\phi_1(\\infty)\\circ\\zeta_{\\infty}$ (so $(G')^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is compact and $(I_{\\phi_1})_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is a subgroup of $G'$ in a natural way). In this case, the pair $(\\phi=a\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ is admissible if moreover the localization $a(p)\\in Z^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ lies in $Z^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$ and property $(\\heartsuit)$ of Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\] holds for $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$; then the admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ also enjoys the property $(\\heartsuit)$.\n\n\\(3) For any $a\\in \\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},H_1)^+$, the admissible pairs $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$, $(a\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ have equivalent associated Kottwitz triples.\n\n\\(4) If $(\\epsilon;\\gamma=(\\gamma_l),\\delta)$ is a stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant, there exists a cocycle $a=\\{a_{\\sigma}\\}\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$ such that the pair $(\\phi=a\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ is an admissible pair giving rise to $(\\epsilon,(\\gamma_l),\\delta)$.\n\nWhen $H_1$ is connected (i.e. $H_1=I_1$), as $\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb R},I_1)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb R},G')]=0$ [@LR87 Lem. 5.14, 5.28], the set (\\[eq:Sha\\^[infty]{}\\_G\u2019\\]) becomes $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$ (\\[eq:Sha\\^[infty]{}\\_G\\]), which is known to be an abelian group [@Kisin17 4.4.2].\n\n\\(1) This is a straightforward verification: the cocycle condition (for the ${\\mathbb Q}$-structure of $H_1$) amounts to $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ being a group homomorphism.\n\n\\(2) This statement is Lemma 5.26 of [@LR87] under the assumption $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ (so that $I_0=H_0$ and $I_1=H_1$, and $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G^{{\\mathrm{ab}}})$ is used instead of $H^1_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}({\\mathbb Q},G)=H^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$).[^32] We adapt its proof (on p196, line -14, *loc. cit.*). Note that $H_1$ is a ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\\phi_1}$ (as both are twists of $G_{\\epsilon}\\subset Z_G(\\phi_1^{\\Delta})$ via $\\phi_1$). Set $\\tilde{I}_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}}:=\\rho^{-1}(I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}})$, where $\\rho:G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow G$ is the canonical morphism.\n\nFirst, by Lemma \\[lem:abelianization\\_exact\\_seq\\] (applied to the twist $\\tilde{I}_{\\phi_1}\\rightarrow I_{\\phi_1}$ of $\\tilde{I}_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}}\\rightarrow I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}}$ via $\\phi_1$), the triviality of the image of $[a]$ in $H^1_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}({\\mathbb Q},G)$ is the same as that $[a]\\in{\\mathrm{im}}(H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{\\phi_1})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1}))$ (and also the same as that $[a]\\in{\\mathrm{im}}(H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{H}_1)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1))$ if $[a]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$). By Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_of\\_monoidal\\_functors\\_into\\_croseed\\_modules\\], this condition is equivalent to the condition that $\\phi_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}$ is conjugate-isomorphic to $\\psi_{\\mu_{\\widetilde{{\\mathrm{ab}}}}}$, i.e. to condition (1) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\] for $\\phi=a\\phi_1$.\n\nSecondly, it is easy to see that $\\phi(\\infty)\\circ\\zeta_{\\infty}$ is conjugate to $\\xi_{\\infty}$ if and only if the image of $[a]\\in H^1({\\mathbb R},I_{\\phi_1})$ in $H^1({\\mathbb R},G')$ is trivial. We note that since $I_{\\phi_1}$ is connected, the natural map $H^1({\\mathbb R},I_{\\phi_1})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb R},G')$ is injective [@LR87 Lem. 5.14, 5.28], [@Kisin17 Lem. 4.4.5].\n\nNext, we show that for $a\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1})$, the morphism $\\phi=a\\phi_1$ is already admissible: we have to check the remaining conditions (2), (3) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_morphism\\]. We fix $(g_l)_{l\\neq p}\\in X^p(\\phi_1)$; then, for each finite $l\\neq p$, one has $g_l^{-1}\\phi_1(P({{\\mathbb Q}_l}))g_l\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ as $g_l^{-1}\\phi_1(P({{\\mathbb Q}_l}))g_l$ commutes with $g_l^{-1}\\phi_1(q_{\\rho})g_l=\\rho$ for all $\\rho\\in\\Gamma_l$. Set $I_l:=Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}}(\\Int(g_l^{-1})\\circ\\phi_1^{\\Delta})\\subset G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$. Then, as $I_{\\phi_1}$ is the inner twist of $I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}}$ by $\\phi_1$ (i.e. for $g\\in I_{\\phi_1}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})=I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ and $\\rho\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$, $\\rho(g)=\\phi_1(q_{\\rho})g \\phi_1(q_{\\rho})^{-1}$) and $g_l^{-1}I_{\\phi_1^{\\Delta}}g_l=I_l$ is a ${{\\mathbb Q}_l}$-group, $\\Int(g_l^{-1})$ induces a ${{\\mathbb Q}_l}$-isomorphism from $(I_{\\phi_1})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ to the inner twist of $I_l$ via the canonical trivialization $\\Int(g_l^{-1})\\circ \\phi_1(l)\\circ\\zeta_l=\\xi_l$, i.e. to $I_l$ itself. Since the image of $[a]$ in $H^1_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}({\\mathbb Q},G)$ is trivial by assumption and $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})=\\{1\\}$, the localization of $a(l)$ at $l$ satisfies $$[a(l)]\\in \\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_{\\phi_1}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_l)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)].$$ Then, for any $h_l\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ such that $g_l^{-1}a_{\\tau}g_l=h_l\\cdot{}^{\\tau}h_l^{-1}\\in I_l$ for $\\tau\\in\\Gamma_l$, one has $g_lh_l\\in X^p(\\phi)$. Further, by a similar argument it is easy to see that when $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$ (not just in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1})$), the pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q}))$ satisfies condition (3) of admissible pair for every finite place $l\\neq p$ (Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\]).\n\nAt $p$, if $H$ denotes the centralizer (in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$) of the maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus in the center of $G_{\\epsilon}$ and $\\xi_p:=\\phi_1(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$, then $\\xi_p^{\\Delta}$ maps into the center of $H$ by Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\], (3), and thus we have $$\\label{eq:H_centralizes_J_0,epsilon} \n(G_{\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\subset H\\subset J:=Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}(\\xi_p^{\\Delta}).$$ In particular, we can twist both $\\tilde{H}:=\\rho^{-1}(H)$ and $\\tilde{J}:=\\rho^{-1}(J)$ via $\\xi_p$ to obtain $\\tilde{H}_{\\xi_p}$ and $\\tilde{J}_{\\xi_p}$. Then, we claim that $$H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},\\tilde{H}_{\\xi_p})=H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},\\tilde{J}_{\\xi_p})=\\{1\\}.$$ Of course, since $\\tilde{H}$ and $\\tilde{J}$ are connected reductive groups over a $p$-adic local field, this is equivalent to vanishing of $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},\\tilde{H})$ and $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},\\tilde{J})$. The latter is proved in the discussion proceeding Lemma 5.18 of [@LR87] when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, and the same argument works in our case, so we will just give a sketch of the proof for $H$ only. Let $A$ be the connected center of $H\\cap G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ (a split ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-torus) and $T\\subset G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ the centralizer of a maximal ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-split torus of $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ containing $A$. The simple roots $\\alpha_1,\\cdots,\\alpha_s$ of $T$ in $G$ can be divided into two sets, the roots $\\alpha_1,\\cdots,\\alpha_r$ of $T$ in $H$ and the others $\\alpha_{r+1},\\cdots,\\alpha_s$. Let $\\{\\omega_1,\\cdots,\\omega_s\\}$ be the corresponding fundamental weights which form a basis of $X^{\\ast}(\\tilde{T})$ for $\\tilde{T}=\\rho^{-1}(T)$, and $R\\subset \\tilde{T}$ be the kernel of $\\{\\omega_1,\\cdots,\\omega_r\\}$. Note that $R$ is an induced torus since the basis $\\{\\omega_{r+1},\\cdots,\\omega_s\\}$ of $X^{\\ast}(R)$ is permuted under the canonical action of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ which equals the naive action as $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is quasi-split. Now, the claim follows from the fact that $\\tilde{H}$ is the semi-direct product of a simply connected semi-simple group over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ (i.e. $H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$) and $R$. We can find $f_{1p}\\in X_p(\\phi_1)\\cap J({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ so that $\\xi_p':=\\Int(f_{1p}^{-1})\\circ\\xi_p$ is an unramified morphism. Indeed, clearly it suffices to show this for any conjugate of $\\xi_p$ that is well-located. So we may assume that $\\phi_1$ is special admissible, in which case the claim is established in the proof of Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\]. Let $\\tilde{J}_{\\xi_p'}$ be the twist of $\\tilde{J}$ by $\\xi_p'$. By the same argument as above, we have $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},\\tilde{J}_{\\xi_p'})=\\{1\\}$. Therefore, there exists $h_p\\in  \\tilde{J}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that for $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, $$\\label{eq:a_{tau}'}\na_{\\tau}':=f_{1p}^{-1}a_{\\tau}f_{1p}=h_p\\cdot \\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})h_p^{-1}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})^{-1}.$$ (Here and in the rest of proof, we write $h_p$ for $\\rho(h_p)$ when there is no danger of confusion). Then, for $f_{p}:=f_{1p} h_p$, as $\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p=a\\xi_p$, we have $$\\Int(f_{p}^{-1})\\circ\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p(s_{\\tau})=\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})h_p^{-1}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})^{-1}h_p\\cdot\\Int(h_p^{-1})\\circ\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})=\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})$$ which shows that $\\phi$ is an admissible morphism and $f_{p}\\in X_p(\\phi)$. This proves the claims in (2) on admissibility of $\\phi=a\\phi_1$ in the two cases $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1})$, $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$.\n\nNow, we consider the case that $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$ and its class in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$ lies in the subset $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$ (\\[eq:Sha\\^[infty]{}\\_G\u2019\\]). We furthermore assume that the localization $a(p)\\in Z^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ lies in $Z^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$ and property $(\\heartsuit)$ of Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\] holds for $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$. Then, since $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}},I_1)=\\{1\\}$, we may assume (by replacing $a(p)$ with a cohomologous one) that $a(p)\\in Z^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$ is unramified, i.e. $a_{\\tau}$ is induced from a normalized cocycle in $Z^1(L_{n'},I_1)$ for some $n'\\in{\\mathbb N}$.\n\nWe choose $f_{1p}$ from $H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\xi_p':=\\Int(f_{1p}^{-1})\\circ\\xi_p$ is an unramified morphism, and define $\\xi_p'$, $h_p$, $f_{p}\\in H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ by the same recipe as before from this $f_{1p}$ (using that $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},\\tilde{H}_{\\xi_p})=\\{1\\}$); then, since both $\\xi_p'$ and $a'_{\\tau}$ are unramified, we must have $h_p\\in \\tilde{H}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Also, we set $$\\epsilon_1':=\\Int(f_{1p}^{-1})(\\epsilon),\\quad \\epsilon':=\\Int(f_{p}^{-1})(\\epsilon)=\\Int(h_p^{-1})(\\epsilon_1');$$ then, $\\epsilon_1',\\epsilon'$ are elements of $H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ (as they centralize unramified morphisms of ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs) which are conjugate under $H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then for any lifting $\\tilde{\\sigma}\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ of the Frobenius automorphism $\\sigma\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, by admissibility of $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ there exists $c_1\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$\\label{eq:c_1}\nc_1(\\epsilon_1'^{-1}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})^n)c_1^{-1}=\\tilde{\\sigma}^n$$ (as $\\xi_p'$ is unramified, it is the inflation of a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ and we have $\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$). Let $\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})^n=b_n\\rtimes\\tilde{\\sigma}^n$ with $b_n\\in H({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. Then, it follows from the existence of $c_1\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\\[eq:c\\_1\\]) that $w_H(\\epsilon_1')=w_H(b_n)$. Since $\\epsilon'$ is conjugate to $\\epsilon_1'$ under $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, we also have $w_H(\\epsilon')=w_H(b_n)$. If we can show that for any neighborhood $V$ of the identity in $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, there exists $t\\in{\\mathbb N}$ such that $(\\epsilon'^{-1}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})^n)^t\\in V\\rtimes\\tilde{\\sigma}^{nt}$, then, we can repeat the arguments of the proof of Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\], (2), to conclude that $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is an admissible pair which again enjoys the property $(\\heartsuit)$.\n\nAs $a\\in  Z^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},H_{\\xi_p})$, for every $\\tau\\in {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ and any $n'\\in{\\mathbb N}$, we have $$(a_{\\tau}'\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau}))^{n'}=a_{\\tau^{n'}}'\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})^{n'},$$ thus as both $a_{\\tau}'$ and $\\xi_p'$ commute with $\\epsilon_1'$ and as $a_{\\tau}'$ is unramified, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:epsilon'{-1}xi'{n}} \n(\\epsilon'^{-1}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})^{n})^t &\\stackrel{}{=} h_p^{-1}\\epsilon_1'^{-t}(h_p\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})h_p^{-1})^{nt}h_p =h_p^{-1}\\epsilon_1'^{-t}(a_{\\tilde{\\sigma}}'\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}}))^{nt}h_p  \\\\ &\\stackrel{}{=} h_p^{-1} a_{\\sigma^{nt}}'(\\epsilon_1'^{-1}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})^{n})^th_p \\nonumber. \\end{aligned}$$ So, for $t\\gg1$ with $a\\in Z^1(L_{nt}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$, $(\\epsilon'^{-1}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})^{n})^t=(c_1h_p)^{-1}\\sigma^{nt}(c_1h_p)$ lies in any given neighborhood of the identity in $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, as was required.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Proofs of (3) and (4)</span>. Under the assumption $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, this claim is established in the proof of Satz 5.25 of [@LR87] (more precisely, in the part from the third paragraph on p.195 to the end of the proof). This argument again carries over to our general case if one works systematically with $\\tilde{I}_0$, $\\tilde{I}_1$, and the abelianized cohomology groups $H^1_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}(k,H(C_k))$, instead of, respectively, $I_0\\cap G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$, its twist via $\\phi_1$, and the groups $\\pi_0(Z(\\widehat{H})^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{k}/k)})^D$ (where $H$ is some reductive group over a field $k$, either global or local). As the original proof is quite sketchy and our general setting requires careful modifications of the original arguments, again we give a detailed proof.\n\nLet $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ be a stable Kottwitz triple such that there exist elements $(g_v)_v\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]), (iii$'$) which gives trivial Kottwitz invariant, and that $\\delta$ satisfies $Y_p(\\delta)\\neq\\emptyset$. First, we look for an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ giving rise to $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$. By Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\], after replacing $\\gamma_0$ by a rational element stably conjugate to it, we can find an admissible pair $(\\phi_1=\\psi_{T,\\mu_h},\\gamma_0\\in T({\\mathbb Q}))$ that is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ and satisfies the condition $(\\heartsuit)$ there. Then there exists a stable Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_1,\\delta_1)$ attached to this special admissible pair $(\\phi_1,\\gamma_0)$ such that for every $l\\neq p$, one may take $\\gamma_{1l}:=\\gamma_0$ (as $T(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\cap X^p(\\phi_1)\\neq\\emptyset$). We will find a cocycle $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$ (in fact, in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$) such that $(a\\phi_1,\\gamma_0)$ becomes an admissible pair giving rise to $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ as an attached stable Kottwitz triple. We note that since $(\\phi_1,\\gamma_0)$ has property $(\\heartsuit)$, the pair $(a\\phi_1,\\gamma_0)$ will be admissible if $[a]\\in \\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)\\rightarrow H^1_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}({\\mathbb Q},G)\\oplus H^1({\\mathbb R},G')]$, by (2).\n\nIn the following, only assuming that $(\\phi:=a\\phi_1,\\epsilon:=\\gamma_0)$ is an admissible pair for $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$, we give an explicit description of an associated (stable) Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma'=(\\gamma'_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta')$, in terms of $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_1=(\\gamma_{1l})_{l\\neq p},\\delta_1)$ and $[a]$ (cf. [@LR87 Lem. 5.27]); statement (3) will follow from this description. Moreover, we will see that if $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$, there exists a stable Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma'=(\\gamma'_l)_{l\\neq p},\\delta')$ attached to $(\\phi=a\\psi_{T,\\mu_h},\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q}))$ such that $\\gamma_0'=\\epsilon(=\\gamma_0)$.\n\nRecall () that any stable Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ together with a choice of elements $(g_v)_v\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]), (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]) gives rise to an adelic class $$(\\alpha_v(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;g_v))_v\\in  \\bigoplus_v X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v})$$ whose finite part $(\\alpha_v)_{v\\neq\\infty}$ measures the difference between $\\gamma_0$ and $(\\gamma,{\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta)$ ($n$ being the level of the triple).\n\nFor $l\\neq p$, it was shown in the proof of (2) that for any $g_{1l}\\in X_l(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$, $[g_{1l}^{-1}a_{\\tau}g_{1l}]\\in H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)$ is trivial and if one chooses $h_l\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ such that $$g_{1l}^{-1}a_{\\tau}g_{1l}=h_l\\cdot{}^{\\tau}h_l^{-1}$$ for every $\\tau\\in\\Gamma_l$, one has $g_{l}':=g_{1l}h_l\\in X_l(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, from which we obtain the $l$-components $$\\gamma_{1l}:=\\Int(g_{1l}^{-1})(\\epsilon),\\quad \\gamma'_l:=\\Int(g_{l}'^{-1})(\\epsilon)\\ \\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$$ of some (not necessarily stable) Kottwitz triples attached to $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ and $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ respectively. The $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy classes of $\\gamma_l$ and $\\gamma_l'$ (in the geometric conjugacy classes of $\\gamma_0$) are determined by the cohomology classes of the cocycles in $Z^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\\gamma_0})$: $$\\label{eq:cocycles_at_l}\ng_{1l}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_{1l}^{-1},\\quad g_{l}'\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_{l}'^{-1}=a_{\\tau}\\cdot g_{1l}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_{1l}^{-1}.$$ (these cohomology classes in $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G_{\\gamma_0})$ do not depend on the choice of $g_{1l}$ and $h_l$.)\n\nNow, we consider the case that $a(l)\\in Z^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_1)$. If there exists $g_{1l}\\in X_l(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ further satisfying that $$g_{1l}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_{1l}^{-1} \\in I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$$ for every $\\tau\\in\\Gamma_l$, so that $g_{l}'\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_{l}'^{-1}\\in I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$ as well (this will be the case, for example, if $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ is nested in a special Shimura sub-dtaum), as $(I_1)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is the inner twist of $(I_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ via $\\phi_1(l)\\circ\\zeta_l (\\tau)$, i.e. via the cocycle $g_{1l}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_{1l}^{-1}\\in Z_1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)$, there exists a natural isomorphism $$H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_1)=H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},(I_1)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\ {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\ H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},(I_0)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})=H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0).$$ Then the cohomology classes $\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_{1l};g_{1l})$, $\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_{l}';g_{l}')$ in $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)=H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},(I_0)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ of the cocyles $g_{1l}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_{1l}^{-1}$, $g_{l}'\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_{l}'^{-1}$ satisfy the relation: $$\\label{eq:difference_of_alpha_l's}\n\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma'_l;g_{l}')=\\alpha_l(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_{1l};g_{1l})+[a(l)]\\ \\in\\ \\ker[H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},G)]$$ (Apply [@Borovoi98], Lemma 3.15.1 to $(I_1)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}={}_{\\psi}(I_0)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$, $\\psi:=g_{1l}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_{1l}^{-1}$, $\\psi':=a(l)$.)\n\nAt $v=p$, we first fix some choices. As in the proof of (2), we choose $f_{1p}\\in H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\xi_p':=\\Int(f_{1p}^{-1})\\circ\\xi_p$ is an unramified morphism, and let $h_p$, $f_p=f_{1p}h_p\\in H({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ be defined as there. When $\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})=b\\rtimes s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}}$ for $b\\in H({\\mathfrak{k}})$, by construction (of $\\delta_1$), there exists $x_1\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $x_1(\\epsilon_1'^{-1}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})^n)x_1^{-1}=\\tilde{\\sigma}^n$ and $\\delta_1=x_1b\\sigma(x_1^{-1})$; we set $$c_{1p}:=x_1f_{1p}^{-1}\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}),$$ so that $c_{1p}\\epsilon c_{1p}^{-1}=x_1\\epsilon_1'x_1^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n(\\delta_1)$.\n\nNext, from this relation $c_{1p}\\epsilon c_{1p}^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n(\\delta_1)$, we obtain a cocycle in $Z^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},G_{\\epsilon}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))$ ($\\epsilon:=\\gamma_0$): $$\\label{eq:cocycle_b_{tau}}\nb_{\\tau}:=c_{1p}^{-1}\\cdot{\\mathrm{N}}_{i(\\tau)}\\delta_1\\cdot {}^{\\tau}c_{1p},$$ where $W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is the Weil group of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ and $i(\\tau)\\in{\\mathbb Z}$ is defined by $\\tau|_{L_n}=\\sigma^{i(\\tau)}\\ (0\\leq i(\\tau)< n)$. As $B(G_{\\epsilon})$ is naturally identified with $H^1(\\langle\\sigma\\rangle,G_{\\epsilon}({\\mathfrak{k}}))$, the inflation map induces an injection $B(G_{\\epsilon})\\hookrightarrow  H^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},G_{\\epsilon}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))$ which becomes a bijection if $G_{\\epsilon}$ is connected [@Kottwitz85 $\\S$1].\n\nSimilarly, since $\\Int(f_p^{-1})\\circ\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p=\\xi_p'$, by construction of $\\delta'$ (as we are assuming that $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is admissible), there exists $x'\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $x'(\\epsilon'^{-1}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tilde{\\sigma}})^n)x'^{-1}=\\tilde{\\sigma}^n$ and $\\delta'=x'b\\sigma(x')^{-1}$. As before, for $c_{p}':=x'f_{1p}^{-1}$, we obtain a cocycle in $Z^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},G_{\\epsilon}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))$ $$\\label{eq:cocycle_b_{tau}'}\nb_{\\tau}':=c_{p}'^{-1}\\cdot{\\mathrm{N}}_{i(\\tau)}\\delta'\\cdot {}^{\\tau}c_{p}'.$$\n\nThen, since $a_{\\tau}\\cdot f_{1p}\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})f_{1p}^{-1}=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p(s_{\\tau})=f_p\\xi_p'(s_{\\tau})f_p^{-1}$ for any $\\tau\\in W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, there is the relation $$\\label{eq:a_{tau}b_{tau}=b_{tau}'}\na_{\\tau}\\cdot b_{\\tau}=b_{\\tau}'.$$\n\nNow, suppose that $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$ and that $[a]\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$; then, since $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ satisfies the condition $(\\heartsuit)$ of Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\], we know that $(\\phi=a\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ is also admissible. Because the admissible pair $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum, we can find $c_1\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (iii$'$), i.e. such that $$c_1\\epsilon c_1^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta_1,\\ \\text{ and }\\ b(\\epsilon;\\delta_1;c_1):=c_1^{-1}\\delta_1\\sigma(c_1)\\in I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$$ (Remark \\[rem:two\\_different\\_b\u2019s\\]); this $b(\\epsilon;\\delta_1;c_1)$ and its $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b(\\epsilon;\\delta_1;c_1)]_{I_0}$ in $B(I_0)$ both depend on $c_1$ as well as on the pair $(\\epsilon,\\delta_1)$, while its $\\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G_{\\epsilon}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ does not. Also, the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class of $\\delta_1$ in $G(L_n)$ is completely determined by the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b(\\epsilon;\\delta_1;c_1)]\\in B(G_{\\epsilon})$. We see that under the composite map $B(I_0)\\rightarrow B(G_{\\epsilon})\\hookrightarrow  H^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},G_{\\epsilon}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))$, the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class $[b(\\epsilon;\\delta_1;c_1)]_{I_0}$ maps to the cohomology class $[b_{\\tau}]$, since $$b(\\epsilon;\\delta_1;c_1)=c_1^{-1}\\delta_1\\sigma(c_1)=y_1\\cdot b_{\\tilde{\\sigma}}\\cdot \\tilde{\\sigma}(y_1^{-1}),$$ where $y_1=c_1^{-1}c_{1p}\\in G_{\\epsilon}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ and $\\tilde{\\sigma}$ is any lifting in $W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ of $\\sigma$. Then, similarly we can also find $c'$ such that $b(\\epsilon;\\delta';c'):=c'^{-1}\\delta'\\sigma(c')$ lies in $I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Indeed, if $v\\in G_{\\epsilon}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ is chosen such that $vb_{\\tau}{}^{\\tau}v^{-1}$ belongs to $I_0(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ for every $\\tau\\in W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, so does $vb_{\\tau}'{}^{\\tau}v^{-1}$ by (\\[eq:a\\_[tau]{}b\\_[tau]{}=b\\_[tau]{}\u2019\\]). Since $H^1(\\langle\\sigma\\rangle,I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},I_0(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))$, there exist $c'\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ and $b'\\in I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c'^{-1}\\cdot{\\mathrm{N}}_{i(\\tau)}\\delta'\\cdot {}^{\\tau}c'={\\mathrm{N}}_{i(\\tau)}b'$ for every $\\tau\\in W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$, which implies that $c'\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and $b(\\epsilon;\\delta';c'):=c'^{-1}\\delta'\\sigma(c')(=b')\\in I_0$. In this case, it follows from Lemma \\[lem:equality\\_of\\_two\\_Newton\\_maps\\], (2) and (\\[eq:a\\_[tau]{}b\\_[tau]{}=b\\_[tau]{}\u2019\\]) that one has $$\\label{eq:difference_of_alpha_p's}\n \\kappa_{I_0}(b(\\epsilon;\\delta';c'))=\\kappa_{I_0}(b(\\epsilon;\\delta_1;c_1))+a(p)\\ \\text{ and }\\ \\nu_{I_0}(b(\\epsilon;\\delta';c'))=\\nu_{I_0}(b(\\epsilon;\\delta_1;c_1)).$$ In particular, we conclude that when $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$, with the elements $g_l$, $g_{l}'=g_{1l}h_l$, $\\delta_1$, $c_1$, $\\delta'$, $c'$ chosen above, the triple $$(\\gamma_0,\\gamma':=(g_l'^{-1}\\epsilon g_l')_l,\\delta')$$ is a stable Kottwitz triple attached to $(\\phi=a\\psi_{T,\\mu_h},\\epsilon=\\gamma_0\\in T({\\mathbb Q}))$ which further satisfies the relations (\\[eq:difference\\_of\\_alpha\\_l\u2019s\\]), (\\[eq:difference\\_of\\_alpha\\_p\u2019s\\]). Also, note that these two relations imply statement (3).\n\nBefore continuing with the discussion, we recall the fact (Appendix \\[sec:abelianization\\_complex\\]) that the abelianization complexes $I_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}}$ and $I_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}$ of $I_0$ and $I_1$ are canonically isomorphic in the derived category of commutative algebraic ${\\mathbb Q}$-group schemes (since they are both quasi-isomorphic to $Z(I_0^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\rightarrow Z(I_0)$), and the same is true of $\\tilde{I}_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}}$ and $\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}$. Now, we set $$(\\alpha(v):=\\alpha_v(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;g_v)\\cdot \\alpha_v(\\gamma_0;\\gamma_1,\\delta_1;g_{1v})^{-1})_v\\in  \\bigoplus_{v} \\mathbb{H}^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},I_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}}),$$ where $(g_v)_v$ are some elements used to define $\\alpha_v(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;g_v)$ for the given stable Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ (their choice does not matter), and $g_{1l}$, $g_{1p}:=c_1$ are as described above. A priori, $\\alpha(v)$ is an element of $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v})$, but one easily verifies that it belongs to the subgroup $\\mathbb{H}^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},I_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\subset X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v})_{{\\mathrm{tors}}}$. Indeed, this is clear for $v\\neq p$ by definition: for every finite prime $l\\neq p$, each $\\alpha_l$ itself belongs to $\\mathbb{H}^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0)=\\mathbb{H}^1({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}})=X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_l})_{{\\mathrm{tors}}}$, and $\\alpha_{\\infty}=0$. For $v=p$, according to Lemma \\[lem:equality\\_of\\_two\\_Newton\\_maps\\], (2), the Newton quasi-cocharacters $\\nu_{I_0}(b(\\gamma_0;\\delta;g_p))$, $\\nu_{I_0}(b(\\gamma_0;\\delta_1;g_{1p}))\\in \\mathcal{N}(I_0)$ are equal and do not depend on the choice of $g_p$, $g_{1p}$. We have seen (cf. [@Kottwitz97 4.13, 3.5]) that the set $B(I_0)$ is identified with a subset of $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v})\\times\\mathcal{N}(I_0)$ via $\\kappa_{I_0}\\times \\nu_{I_0}$ and the image under $\\kappa_{I_0}$ of any fibre of $\\nu_{I_0}$ is a torsor under $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_p})_{{\\mathrm{tors}}}=\\mathbb{H}^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}})$. Clearly, the claim follows from these facts; we also see that $[\\alpha(p)]=\\kappa_{I_0}(b(\\gamma_0;\\delta;g_p))-\\kappa_{I_0}(b(\\gamma_0;\\delta_1;g_{1p}))$.\n\nTherefore, in view of these discussions, to prove effectivity of the given stable Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, it suffices to find a global class $[\\widetilde{a}]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{1})$ whose localizations $[\\tilde{a}(v)]$ go over to $(\\alpha(v))$ under the map $\\oplus f_v:=\\oplus \\mu_v\\circ {\\mathbf{ab}}_v$ in the commutative diagram: $$\\label{eq:H^1_{ab}_for_(I'->I)}\n \\xymatrix{ \\bigoplus_v H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},I_{1}) \\ar[r] & \\bigoplus_v \\mathbb{H}^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},I_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}) & \\mathfrak{K}(I_{1}/{\\mathbb Q})^D  \\\\ \n \\bigoplus_v H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},\\tilde{I}_{1}) \\ar[u] \\ar[r]^(.45){{\\mathbf{ab}}} \\ar[ru]^{\\oplus f_v} & \\bigoplus_v \\mathbb{H}^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\ar[u]_{\\mu=\\oplus_v\\mu_v} \\ar[r]^(.5){\\lambda} & \\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}/{\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\ar@{->>}[u]_{\\nu}  \\\\\n \\bigoplus_v \\mathbb{H}^0({{\\mathbb Q}_v},\\tilde{I}_{1}\\rightarrow I_{1}) \\ar[r]^(.5){\\overline{{\\mathbf{ab}}}} \\ar[u] & \\bigoplus_v \\mathbb{H}^0({{\\mathbb Q}_v},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})  \\ar[u]_{\\xi} \\ar@{->>}[r] & {\\mathrm{im}}(\\lambda\\circ\\xi) \\ar@{^(->}[u] }$$ Here, the first two columns (consisting of adelic cohomology groups) are each a part of the cohomology long exact sequence for the crossed module $\\tilde{I}_1\\rightarrow I_1$ [@Borovoi98 (3.4.3.1)] and for the distinguished triangle (\\[eq:DT\\_of\\_CX\\_of\\_tori\\]) attached to the morphism $\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}\\rightarrow I_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}$; so, they are exact. The two horizontal maps for $H^1$ between these two columns are the abelianization maps for $I_1$, $\\tilde{I}_1$, and the left lower commutative diagram (containing the map $\\overline{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$) is induced from an obvious commutative diagram of crossed modules (replace the complexes of tori $\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}[1]$, $G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$ by the quasi-isomorphic complexes $(\\tilde{I}^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}_1\\rightarrow \\tilde{I}_1)[1]$, $\\tilde{I}_1\\rightarrow I_1$); in particular, the map $\\overline{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$ is an isomorphism. The map $\\lambda$ comes from the long exact sequence for $\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}$: $$\\cdots \\longrightarrow \\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\longrightarrow \\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A},\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\stackrel{\\lambda}{\\longrightarrow} \\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}/{\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\longrightarrow \\mathbb{H}^{2}({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\longrightarrow \\cdots,$$ and $\\nu$ is the dual of the inclusion $\\mathfrak{K}(I_1/F) \\hookrightarrow \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}}_1)^{\\Gamma})$ under the identification $\\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}/{\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}})=\\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}}_1)^{\\Gamma})^D$ (Lemma \\[lem:identification\\_of\\_Kottwitz\\_A(H)\\]). Since ${\\mathrm{im}}[H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\tilde{I}_{1})\\rightarrow \\bigoplus_v H^1({\\mathbb Q}_v,\\tilde{I}_{1})]=\\ker(\\lambda\\circ{\\mathbf{ab}})$ [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.16] (cf. [@Kottwitz85 Prop.2.6]), hence it suffices to find an adelic cohomology class $$[\\tilde{a}(v)]\\in \\oplus_vH^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},\\tilde{I}_{1})$$ such that $\\alpha(v)=f_v([\\tilde{a}(v)])$ for each $v$ and $\\lambda\\circ{\\mathbf{ab}}([\\tilde{a}(v)])=0$. We find such class $([\\tilde{a}(v)])_v$ as follows. We first note that $(\\alpha(v))$ lifts to an element $\\tilde{\\alpha}=(\\tilde{\\alpha}(v))_v\\in \\bigoplus_v \\mathbb{H}^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}})$. In view of the cohomology exact sequence attached to the distinguished triangle (\\[eq:DT\\_of\\_CX\\_of\\_tori\\]), this amounts to vanishing of the image of $(\\alpha(v))_v$ in $\\bigoplus_v \\mathbb{H}^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}) (\\subset \\bigoplus_v X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{G})^{\\Gamma_v})_{{\\mathrm{tors}}})$, which then follows from the fact (\\[eq:restriction\\_of\\_alpha\\_to\\_Z(hatG)\\]) that for any Kottwitz triple $(\\epsilon;\\gamma,\\delta)$, the image of the invariant $\\alpha_v(\\epsilon;\\gamma,\\delta;g_v)$ in $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{G})^{\\Gamma_v})$ is independent of the triple. Now, by assumption (of vanishing of Kottwitz invariants), we have $\\nu\\circ\\lambda(\\tilde{\\alpha})=0$ in $\\mathfrak{K}(I_1/{\\mathbb Q})^D$. Hence, by Lemma \\[lem:proof\\_of\\_Kottwitz86\\_Thm.6.6\\] below (which asserts exactness of the third column of (\\[eq:H\\^1\\_[ab]{}\\_for\\_(I\u2019-&gt;I)\\])), we may further assume that $(\\tilde{\\alpha}(v))_v\\in \\ker(\\lambda)$. Since the (local) abelianization map ${\\mathbf{ab}}_v$ is surjective for every place $v$ (even bijective for finite $v$) [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.4], we can find $([\\tilde{a}(v)])_{v\\neq\\infty} \\in \\bigoplus_{v\\neq\\infty} H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},\\tilde{I}_{1})$ mapping to $(\\tilde{\\alpha}(v))_{v\\neq\\infty}$. For $v=\\infty$, we use the condition that $\\alpha(\\infty)=0$, by which and the exactness of the vertical sequence for $\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}\\rightarrow I_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}$, we find an element $\\bar{\\alpha}(\\infty)\\in \\mathbb{H}^0({\\mathbb R},\\tilde{I}_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}}\\rightarrow I_{1{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ mapping to $\\tilde{\\alpha}(\\infty)$. Then, using that $\\overline{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$ is an isomorphism, we define $\\tilde{a}(\\infty)$ to be the the image of $\\bar{\\alpha}(\\infty)$ under the map $\\mathbb{H}^0({\\mathbb R},\\tilde{I}_{1}\\rightarrow I_{1})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb R},\\tilde{I}_1)$. The cohomology class $([\\tilde{a}(v)])_v$ thus found is the one that we are looking for.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Proof of Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\] continued.</span> It remains to prove the statement on $i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$. Suppose given two admissible pairs $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1)$, $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ whose associated Kottwitz triples are equivalent. By conjugation, we may assume that $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1)$ is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum and $\\epsilon=\\epsilon_1\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$; so, as was explained in the beginning of this proof, one has $\\phi^{\\Delta}=\\phi_1^{\\Delta}$ and $\\phi=a\\phi_1$ for a cocycle $a_{\\tau}\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$ whose cohomology class lies in $\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)\\rightarrow H^1_{{\\mathrm{ab}}}({\\mathbb Q},G)\\oplus H^1({\\mathbb R},G')]$, by Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\\], (2).\n\nWe claim that for every finite place $v$, the localization $[a(v)]\\in H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},H_1)$ is trivial. Indeed, according to the previous discussion (cf. (\\[eq:cocycles\\_at\\_l\\])), there exist $(g_l)_{l\\neq p}\\in X^p(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ and $(h_l)_{l\\neq p}\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)$ such that $g_l^{-1}a_{\\tau}g_l=h_l\\cdot{}^{\\tau}h_l^{-1}$ for all $l\\neq p$ and $\\tau\\in\\Gamma_l$, thereby $(g_l':=g_lh_l)_{l\\neq p}\\in X^p(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ as well. Also, $\\gamma_{1l}=\\Int(g_l^{-1})(\\epsilon)$, $\\gamma_l'=\\Int(g_l'^{-1})(\\epsilon)$ are the $l$-components of some Kottwitz triples attached to $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$, $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$. Since $\\gamma_{1l}$, $\\gamma_l'$ are conjugate under $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ by assumption, we may modify $h_l$ (with right translation by an element of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$) so that $\\Int(g_l^{-1})(\\epsilon)=\\Int(g_l'^{-1})(\\epsilon)$ and so $x_l:=g_lh_l^{-1}g_l^{-1}\\in G_{\\epsilon}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$. Then, one easily checks that for every $\\tau\\in\\Gamma_l$, $$a_{\\tau}=x_l^{-1}\\cdot\\phi_1(l)\\circ\\zeta_l(\\tau)\\cdot x_l\\cdot \\phi_1(l)\\circ\\zeta_l(\\tau)^{-1}.$$ In particular, $[a]_{H_1}\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)$ maps to zero in $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},\\pi_0(H_1))$ for every $v\\neq p,\\infty$, and thus by Prop. \\[prop:triviality\\_in\\_comp\\_gp\\], we may assume that $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$ for $I_1=H_1^{\\mathrm{o}}$ (note that as $\\pi_0(G_{\\epsilon})$ is commutative (proof of Prop. \\[prop:triviality\\_in\\_comp\\_gp\\]), it is isomorphic to its inner twist $\\pi_0(H_1)$). At $v=p$, by standard recipe (Subsec. () and proof of Lemma \\[lem:delta\\_from\\_b&gamma\\_0\\]), the admissible pairs $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon=\\gamma_0)$, $(\\phi,\\epsilon=\\gamma_0)$ give rise to $\\delta_1,\\delta'\\in G(L_n)$ such that $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_{1l})_l,\\delta_1)$, $(\\gamma_0;(\\gamma_l')_l,\\delta')$ are associated Kottwiz triples. We recall the cocycles $b_{\\tau}$ (\\[eq:cocycle\\_b\\_[tau]{}\\]), $b_{\\tau}'$ (\\[eq:cocycle\\_b\\_[tau]{}\u2019\\]) in $Z^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},H_0(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))$ whose constructions involve $\\delta_1$, $\\delta'$, and some other elements $c_{1p},c_p'\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$. Now, if $\\delta_1$ and $\\delta'$ are $\\sigma$-conjugate in $G(L_n)$, say $\\delta'=d\\delta_1\\sigma(d^{-1})$, after replacing $x'$ by $d^{-1}x'$ (in the construction of $\\delta'$) and $c_p'$ by $d^{-1}c_p'$, we may assume that $\\delta'=\\delta_1$ and $c_p'\\epsilon c_p'^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n(\\delta')$, and it follows that $e:=c_{1p}^{-1}c_p'\\in H_0(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$ and $$b_{\\tau}'=e^{-1}\\cdot b_{\\tau}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}e\\quad (\\tau\\in W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}).$$ Hence, $a_{\\tau}=e^{-1}\\cdot (b_{\\tau}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}e\\cdot b_{\\tau}^{-1})$ becomes trivial in $H^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},H_1(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))$. But, $[a_{\\tau}]_{H_1}\\in H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ lies in the subset $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)\\hookrightarrow H^1({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ since $[a_{\\tau}]_{I_1}\\in H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_1)$ is so, by the Steinberg\u2019s theorem $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}},I_1)=\\{1\\}$. Hence, the cohomology class $[a_{\\tau}]\\in H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)$ is trivial, since the inflation maps for $W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\twoheadrightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_{n'}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ for $n'\\in{\\mathbb N}$ induce an injection $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p},H_1)\\hookrightarrow H^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},H_1(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))$.\n\nAlso, $[a(\\infty)]_{H_1}\\in \\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb R},G')]$ implies that $[a(\\infty)]_{I_1}=0$ in $H^1({\\mathbb R},I_1)$, since $(I_1)_{{\\mathbb R}}\\subset G'$ is connected so that $\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_1)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb R},G')]=\\{1\\}$ [@LR87 Lem. 5.14, 5.28] (or, [@Kisin17 Lem.4.4.5]). Hence, one has $$[a]_{I_1}\\in \\ker[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_1)\\rightarrow \\prod_{v} H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},H_1)],$$ where $v$ runs through *all* places of ${\\mathbb Q}$ (including $\\infty$). Finally, it follows from the previous discussion that the subset of $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$ consisting of $[a]$\u2019s such that the admissible pairs $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ and $(a\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ produce the same equivalence classes of Kottwitz triples is in bijection with $${\\mathrm{im}}[\\ker[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_1)\\rightarrow \\prod_{v} H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},H_1)]\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},H_1)]$$ i.e. with $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},H_1)^+$.\n\n\\[lem:proof\\_of\\_Kottwitz86\\_Thm.6.6\\] Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over a number field $F$ and $I$ an $F$-Levi subgroup of $G$.[^33] Set $\\tilde{I}:=\\rho^{-1}(I)$ for the canonical homomorphism $\\rho:G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow G$, $\\Gamma:={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{F}/F)$, and $\\Gamma_v:={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{F}_v/F_v)$ for any place $v$ of $F$. The kernel of the natural map $$\\nu:\\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}_F/F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})=\\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})^{\\Gamma})^D\\rightarrow \\mathfrak{K}(I/F)^D$$ equals the image of $\\lambda:\\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}_F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\rightarrow \\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}_F/F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ of the kernel of $$\\mu:\\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}_F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow  \\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}_F,I_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}).$$ In other words, we have an equality $$\\mathrm{coker}[\\mathbb{H}^0({\\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow \\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}_F/F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})]=\\mathfrak{K}(I/F)^D.$$\n\n\\[eq:K\\_Labesse\\_Kottwitz\\] (1) It is easy to see that for a reductive $H$ over $F$ and for each place $v$ of $F$, the map $\\mathbb{H}^1(F_v,H)\\rightarrow \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{H})^{\\Gamma_v})^D$ that was constructed by Kottwitz in [@Kottwitz86 Thm.1.2] factors through the abelianization map $\\mathbb{H}^1(F_v,H)\\rightarrow \\mathbb{H}^1(F_v,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ and the induced map $$\\mathbb{H}^1(F_v,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{H})^{\\Gamma_v})^D.$$ is a monomorphism (and an isomorphism for non-archimedean $v$), equal to the map in Lemma \\[lem:identification\\_of\\_Kottwitz\\_A(H)\\] (the point is that both monomorphisms are induced by Tate-Nakayama duality); this also equals the monomorphism constructed by Borovoi [@Borovoi98 Prop.4.1, 4.2]. If $H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, this map for archimedean $v$ is also surjective, because then $H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$ is quasi-isomorphic to an *$F$-torus* whose dual torus is $Z(\\hat{H})$ (i.e. $H^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}=H/H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$), so that Tate-Nakayama duality for tori applies.\n\n\\(2) This lemma is mentioned, without proof, in *Remarque* on p.43 of [@Labesse99] ($\\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}_F/F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ is the same as $\\mathbb{H}^0_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}({\\mathbb A}_F/F,I\\backslash G):=\\mathbb{H}^0({\\mathbb A}_F/F,I_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}\\rightarrow G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ defined there, cf. [@Labesse99 Prop.1.8.1] and (\\[eq:DT\\_of\\_CX\\_of\\_tori\\])). Earlier, this was also observed in the proof of Thm. 6.6 of [@Kottwitz86] when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, in which case, according to (1), the maps $\\lambda$, $\\mu$ become the natural maps: $$\\lambda:\\oplus_v \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})^{\\Gamma_v})^D \\rightarrow \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})^{\\Gamma})^D,\\quad \\mu: \\oplus_v \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})^{\\Gamma_v})^D \\rightarrow \\oplus_v \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{I})^{\\Gamma_v})^D$$ which are defined only in terms of $Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})$, $Z(\\hat{I})$, and which are the definitions for these maps used in [@Kottwitz86 Thm.6.6].[^34]\n\nSince we could not find a proof (in the general case) in literatures, we present a proof. In our proof, we work systematically with the abelianized cohomology groups $H^1(k,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}(C_k))$ (for $H=I,\\tilde{I},G$) instead of $\\pi_0(Z(\\hat{H})^{{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{k}/k)})^D$. Also, we use Galois (hyper)cohomology of complexes of ${\\mathbb Q}$-tori of length $2$, especially their Poitou-Tate-Nakayama local/global dualities, as expounded in [@Borovoi98], [@Demarche11], [@KottwitzShelstad99 Appendix A], [@Labesse99 Ch.1].\n\n(of Lemma \\[lem:proof\\_of\\_Kottwitz86\\_Thm.6.6\\]) We have two diagrams (the left diagram defines $\\mathfrak{K}(I/F)$ by being cartesian and the right one is its dual): $$\\label{eq:dual_of_connecting_map_Z(hat{G})}\n\\xymatrix{ \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})^{\\Gamma}) \\ar[r]^(.44){\\partial} & H^1(F,Z(\\hat{G})) & \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})^{\\Gamma})^D \\ar@{->>}[d]_{\\nu} & H^1(F,Z(\\hat{G}))^D \\ar[l]_{\\partial^D} \\ar@{->>}[d]^{i^D} \\\\ \\mathfrak{K}(I/F) \\ar@{^(->}[u] \\ar[r] & \\ker^1(F,Z(\\hat{G})) \\ar@{^(->}[u]_{i} & \\mathfrak{K}(I/F)^D & \\ker^1(F,Z(\\hat{G}))^D \\ar[l] },$$ from which we see the equality: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ker(\\nu)&=\\mathrm{im}(\\partial^D)(\\ker(i^D)).\\end{aligned}$$ We need to describe the maps $\\partial^D$, $i^D$ in terms of the complexes $G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$, $\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$. For that, we recall some facts.\n\nFor a connected reductive group $G$ over a field $k$ and a Levi $k$-subgroup $I$ of $G$, the map (\\[eq:boundary\\_map\\_for\\_center\\_of\\_dual\\]) $$\\partial:\\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})^{\\Gamma})\\rightarrow H^1(F,Z(\\hat{G}))$$ is identified in a natural manner with the connecting homomorphism $$\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{-1}(k'/k,\\hat{\\tilde{I}}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\rightarrow \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^0(k'/k,\\hat{G}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}),$$ in the long exact sequence of Tate-cohomology arising from the distinguished triangle (\\[eq:DT\\_of\\_dualCX\\_of\\_tori\\]), where $k'$ is a finite Galois extension of $k$ splitting $T$. Indeed, we recall [@Kottwitz84b Lem. 2.2, Cor. 2.3] that the given map is the connecting homomorphism $\\mathrm{Ext}^1_{\\Gamma}(X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})),{\\mathbb Z})\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Ext}^2_{\\Gamma}(X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{G})),{\\mathbb Z})$ in the long exact sequence of the cohomology $\\mathrm{Ext}^{\\bullet}_{\\Gamma}(-,{\\mathbb Z})$ for the exact sequence of $\\Gamma$-modules: $0\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}}))\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}))\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{G}))\\rightarrow0$. As was shown in *loc. cit.* (and using that $\\pi_0(D^{\\Gamma})=\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{0}(\\Gamma,D)$), one has a functorial isomorphism $\\mathrm{Ext}^n_{\\Gamma}(X^{\\ast}(D),{\\mathbb Z})=\\widehat{H}^{n-1}(\\Gamma,D)\\ (n\\geq1)$ for any diagonalizable ${\\mathbb C}$-group $D$ with $\\Gamma$-action. Since $Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})[1]=\\hat{\\tilde{I}}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$, $Z(\\hat{G})[1]=\\hat{G}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$ (\\[eq:center\\_of\\_complex\\_dual\\]), the claim follows.\n\nFor a connected reductive group $H$ over $F$ (number field), we $j^i_{H}$ denote the injection (arising from a suitable cohomology long exact sequence for $H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$): $$j^i_{H}:\\mathbb{H}^i({\\mathbb A}_F,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})/\\mathbb{H}^i(F,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\hookrightarrow \\mathbb{H}^i({\\mathbb A}_F/F,H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}).$$\n\nNext, there exist natural isomorphisms [@Kottwitz84b 11.2.2, 4.2.2], [@KottwitzShelstad99 D.2.C], [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.13] $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:identification_of_TS-gps}\n\\ker^1(F,Z(\\hat{G}))^D=\\ker^1(F,G) =\\ker^1(F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}),\\end{aligned}$$ where for $i\\geq0$, we define (cf. [@KottwitzShelstad99 (C.1)], [@Labesse99 1.4]) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ker^i(F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})&:=\\ker(H^i(F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow H^i({\\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})) \\\\\n&=\\ker(H^i(F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow \\oplus_vH^i(F_v,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})) \\ \\text{ if }i\\geq1\\end{aligned}$$ (When $i\\geq1$, there exists a canonical isomorphism $H^i({\\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})= \\oplus_vH^i(F_v,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$, [@Borovoi98 Lem.4.5], [@KottwitzShelstad99 Lem. C.1.B], [@Labesse99 Prop.1.4.1]).\n\n\\[lem:commutativity\\_of\\_duality\\_diagram\\] There exists a commutative diagram induced by the global and local Tate-Nakayama dualities: $$\\xymatrix{ \\ker^1(F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\ar[r] & \\ker^2(F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\\\\nH^1(F,Z(\\hat{G}))^D \\ar[r]^(0.55){\\partial^D} \\ar@{->>}[u]^{i^D} & \\pi_0(Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})^{\\Gamma})^D  \\ar@{->>}[u] \\\\ \n\\mathbb{H}^0({\\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})/\\mathbb{H}^0(F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\ar[r]^{\\bar{\\xi}} \\ar@{^(->}[u]^{j^0_G} & \\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}_F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})/\\mathbb{H}^1(F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})  \\ar@{^(->}[u]_{j^1_{\\tilde{I}}} }$$ where $\\bar{\\xi}$ is induced by the connecting homomorphism $\\xi:\\mathbb{H}^0({\\mathbb A}_F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow \\mathbb{H}^1({\\mathbb A}_F,\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ in the long exact sequence of cohomology attached to the distinguished triangle (\\[eq:DT\\_of\\_CX\\_of\\_tori\\]).\n\nThe two vertical sequences are short exact sequences.\n\nIn view of the discussion above and the isomorphism (\\[eq:connecting\\_isom\\_diagonal\\_gp\\]), $\\partial^D$ equals the dual of the obvious connecting homomorphism $$\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^1(k'/k,X^{\\ast}(G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}))^D \\longrightarrow \\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^{0}(k'/k,X^{\\ast}(\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}))^D,$$ Hence, the existence and exactness of each vertical sequence is easily deduced by reading the relevant parts of the Poitou-Tate exact sequence for two-term complexes of tori [@Demarche11 Thm.6.1] (take $\\hat{C}=X^{\\ast}(H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$ for $H=\\tilde{I}, G$ in *loc. cit.*): to identify the upper diagram, use the identification (\\[eq:identification\\_of\\_TS-gps\\]) and the fact [@KottwitzShelstad99 Lem. C.3.B, C.3.C]) that $$\\ker^1(F,G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})=[\\ker^0(F,\\hat{G}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})_{\\mathrm{red}}]^D=[\\ker^1(F,X_{\\ast}(\\hat{G}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}))]^D.$$ The commutativity of the daigram follows from the compatibility of the global and local Tate-Nakayama dualities.\n\nNow, as $\\mathrm{im}(\\xi)=\\ker(\\mu)$, by Lemma \\[lem:commutativity\\_of\\_duality\\_diagram\\] we see that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ker(\\nu)&=\\mathrm{im}(\\partial^D\\circ j^0_G)=\\mathrm{im}(\\nu\\circ\\xi)\\\\\n&=\\mathrm{im}(\\nu)(\\ker\\mu) \\end{aligned}$$ as was asserted.\n\nProofs of Kottwitz formula: Cardinality of fixed point set of Frobenius-twisted Hecke correspondence\n====================================================================================================\n\nIn this section, we present two proofs of the Kottwitz formula [@Kottwitz90 (3.1)], [@Kottwitz92 (19.6)]. The first proof assumes the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, i.e. Conjecture \\[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\\_conjecture\\_ver1\\], and is merely a generalization, to arbitrary automorphic sheaves, of the arguments of [@LR87] in the constant coefficient case. The second proof is unconditional, relying heavily on the geometric results obtained by Kisin [@Kisin17]. But we do not use his version of the Langlands-Rapoprt conjecture [@Kisin17 Thm.(0.3)] which is too weak to invoke the first proof for, and instead we emulate the arguments of the first proof. In both proofs, the effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple (Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\], Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\\]) is crucial.\n\nThe main part of the Kottwitz conjecture is concerned with obtaining a group-theoretic description of the cardinality of the fixed point set of a Hecke correspondence twisted by a Frobenius automorphism acting on each subset of ${\\mathscr{S}}_{K}({\\mathbb F})$ indexed by an admissible morphism $\\phi$ or on each isogeny class. In [@Kottwitz84b $\\S$1], Kottwitz discusses how one can arrive at such description from a description of the mod-$p$-point set as provided by the Langlands-Rapoport conjecture (but at that time his deduction was based on some earlier version of it suggested by Langlands [@Langlands76], [@Langlands79]). This argument by Kottwitz was one of the motivations for the work [@LR87] and will also serve as a guide for our unconditional proof.\n\nProof of Kottwitz conjecture under Langlands-Rapoport conjecture {#subsec:Proof_of_K-formula1}\n----------------------------------------------------------------\n\nSince in this section we will work exclusively with the mod-$\\wp$ reductions of ${\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ and ${\\mathscr{S}}:=\\varprojlim_{H^p}{\\mathscr{S}}_{H^p}$, we denote these $\\kappa(\\wp)$-schemes again by ${\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ and ${\\mathscr{S}}$. Any element $g\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ gives rise to a Hecke correspondence (from ${\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ to itself): $$\\label{eq:Hecke_corr_f}\n{\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}\\stackrel{p_1'}{\\longleftarrow} {\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g} \\stackrel{p_2}{\\longrightarrow} {\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}.$$ where $K^p_g:=K^p\\cap gK^pg^{-1}$, the right-hand map $p_2$ is the natural projection induced by the inclusion $K^p_g\\subset K^p$ and the left-hand map $p_1'$ is the composite of the natural projection ${\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g}\\stackrel{p_1}{\\rightarrow} {\\mathscr{S}}_{gK^pg^{-1}}$ (induced by the inclusion $K^p_g\\subset gK^pg^{-1}$) with the (right) action by $g$: ${\\mathscr{S}}_{gK^pg^{-1}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}{\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$; we denote by $f$ this Hecke correspondence. We are interested in the fixed point set of the composition $\\Phi^m\\circ f$ of the morphism $\\Phi^m$ and the correspondence $f$, namely the fixed point set of the correspondence: $$\\label{eq:Hecke_corr_twisted_by_Frob}\n{\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}\\stackrel{p_1'}{\\longleftarrow} {\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g} \\stackrel{p_2'=\\Phi^m\\circ p_2}{\\longrightarrow} {\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}.$$ By definition, a fixed point of this correspondence $\\Phi^m\\circ f$ is a point in ${\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ whose images in ${\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ under $p_1'$ and $p_2'=\\Phi^m\\circ p_2$ coincide.\n\nNow we assume that Langlands-Rapoport conjecture (Conj. \\[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\\_conjecture\\_ver1\\]) holds; we also assume that $(G,X)$ satisfies the Serre condition. Then, it is clear that for each admissible morphism $\\phi$, the correspondences $f$, $\\Phi^m\\circ f$ restrict to correspondences from $S_{K^p}(\\phi)$ to itself: $$S_{K^p}(\\phi) \\stackrel{p_1'}{\\longleftarrow} S_{K^p_g}(\\phi) \\stackrel{p_2,p_2'}{\\longrightarrow} S_{K^p}(\\phi).$$ where $S_{K^p}(\\phi)=I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash [X_p(\\phi)\\times (X^p(\\phi)/K^p)]$ and $S_{K^p_g}(\\phi)$ is defined similarly. From now on, we assume $K^p$ to be small enough so that the following conditions hold: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{item:Langlands-conditions}\n(a) &\\text{ If }\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})\\text{ and }\\epsilon x= xg\\text{ for some }x\\in X^p(\\phi)/K^p_g\\times X_p(\\phi),\\text{ then }\\epsilon\\in Z({\\mathbb Q})_K:=Z({\\mathbb Q})\\cap K. \\\\\n(b) &\\ I_{\\phi}^{{\\mathrm{der}}}\\cap K\\cap Z(G)({\\mathbb Q})=\\{1\\}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ This is possible by [@Langlands79 p.1171-1172] (cf. [@Kottwitz84b 1.3.7, 1.3.8], [@Milne92 Lem. 5.5]).\n\nUnder these conditions, an elementary argument ([@Kottwitz84b $\\S$1.4], [@Milne92 Lem. 5.3]) establishes that the fixed point subset of $\\Phi^m\\circ f$ acting on $S_{K^p}(\\phi)$ decomposes into disjoint subsets: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:fixed_pt_set_of_Heck-corresp1}\nS_{K^p}(\\phi)^{p_1'=p_2'} &= \\bigsqcup_{\\epsilon} I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{K^p_g},\\end{aligned}$$ where the index $\\epsilon$ runs through a set of representatives in $I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ for the conjugacy classes of $I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})/Z({\\mathbb Q})_K$, $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})$ is the centralizer of $\\epsilon$ in $I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ (we regard $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ as an algebraic ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{\\phi}$), and $$X(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{K^p_g} := \\{\\ x\\in X(\\phi)/K^p_g  \\ \\ |\\ \\  \\epsilon p_1'(x)=\\Phi^m p_2(x)\\ \\}= X_p(\\phi,\\epsilon)\\times (X^p(\\phi,\\epsilon;g)/K^p_g)$$ with $$\\begin{aligned}\nX_p(\\phi,\\epsilon) &:=\\{\\ x_p\\in X_p(\\phi)  \\ \\ |\\ \\  \\epsilon x_p=\\Phi^m x_p\\ \\}, \\\\\nX^p(\\phi,\\epsilon;g) &:=\\{\\ x^p\\in X^p(\\phi) \\ \\ |\\ \\  \\epsilon x^pg=x^p\\text{ mod }K^p\\ \\},\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Phi$ is the Frobenius automorphism acting on $X_p(\\phi)$ (\\[eq:Frob\\_Phi\\_1\\]). When $g=1$, this gives the description in Remark \\[rem:admissible\\_pair\\] (with $X^p(\\phi,\\epsilon):=X^p(\\phi,\\epsilon;1)$).\n\nIn particular, we see that if the set $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$ is non-empty for some $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$, the pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is an admissible pair in the sense of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\]. We want a description of the set $X_p(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ in terms of the (equivalence class of) Kottwitz triple attached to the pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$.\n\nWe choose $u\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ such that $\\xi_p'=\\Int(u)\\circ\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$ is unramified, say the inflation of a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow{\\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ (for example, $u\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ with $u^{-1}{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\in X_p(\\phi)$), which then gives $b\\sigma=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\rtimes\\langle\\sigma\\rangle$ and $\\epsilon':=\\Int(u)(\\epsilon)\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ via the embedding of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-groups $$\\label{eq:int(u)}\n\\Int(u):(I_{\\phi})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}=I_{\\phi(p)}:=\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\phi(p))\\ \\hookrightarrow\\ \\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p)\\ {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\ \\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\xi_p')=\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}),$$ where for a morphism $\\theta$ of $k'/k$-Galois gerbs ($k'/k$ being a Galois extension), $\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\theta)$ is the $k$-algebraic group defined in (\\[eq:Isom(phi\\_1,phi\\_2)\\]). Under this embedding, the ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-group $(I_{\\phi})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is identified with the centralizer of $\\mathrm{im}(\\Int(u)\\circ\\phi(p)^{\\Delta})$ in $\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\xi_p')$, since ${\\mathrm{im}}(\\phi(p))$ is generated by ${\\mathrm{im}}(\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p)$ and ${\\mathrm{im}}(\\phi(p)^{\\Delta})$. When $u^{-1}{\\mathbf{K}}_p({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})\\in X_p(\\phi)$, multiplying by $u$ gives an identification (\\[eqn:X\\_p(phi)=ADLV\\]) $$u:(X_p(\\phi),\\Phi){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p},(b\\sigma)^r)$$ of sets with operator (see (\\[eq:Frob\\_Phi\\_1\\]), (\\[eq:Frob\\_Phi\\_2\\])), where $r=[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$. The group $I_{\\phi}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ acts on both sides in compatible manners with the Frobenius operators: the left action is the canonical one and the right action is induced from this action via (\\[eq:int(u)\\]), so that this identification is $I_{\\phi}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$-equivariant for these actions. Under this identification, the equation $\\epsilon x_p=\\Phi^mx_p$ translates to $$\\epsilon' (ux_p)=(b\\sigma)^{rm}(ux_p)$$ Note that since $\\epsilon'$ commutes with $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})=b\\sigma$, we then have $(\\epsilon')^sx_p=(b\\sigma)^{rms}x_p$ for any $s\\in{\\mathbb N}$.\n\nFrom the pair $(\\epsilon',b)$, by Lemma \\[lem:delta\\_from\\_b&gamma\\_0\\], we can find $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$\\label{eq:(epsilon,b,c)->delta1}\nc(\\epsilon'^{-1}(b\\sigma)^m)c^{-1}=\\sigma^n,$$ ($n=rm$) so that one has $\\delta:=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})\\in G(L_n)$ and ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c\\epsilon'c^{-1}$.\n\nWe also choose $v\\in X^p(\\phi,\\epsilon;g)$ and set $\\gamma=(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p}:=v\\epsilon v^{-1}\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$. Then, for any $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ stably conjugate to $\\epsilon\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, the triple $$(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$$ is a Kottwitz triple of level $n=rm$ attached to $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ which has trivial Kottwitz invariant (, Prop. \\[prop:Kottwitz\\_triple\\]).\n\nThe cardinality of the set $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ will be expressed in terms of this triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ and $g$ (as a product of orbital and twisted-orbital integrals and a certain constant). This is explained in [@Kottwitz84b $\\S$1.5] (cf. [@Kottwitz92 $\\S$16]) in the case $g=1$. We extend this argument to general $g\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ in the style similar to that of [@Kottwitz92] in PEL-type cases.[^35] Let us use the following notation: for an algebraic group $H$ over a field $k$ (of characteristic zero) and a subset $S\\subset H(k)$, $H_S$ denotes the simultaneous centralizer in $H$ of the elements of $S$, except for the notation $T_{\\epsilon}$ from Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\] (subgroup generated by $\\epsilon$). For a place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, let $I_{\\phi(v)}$ be the twist of the ${{\\mathbb Q}_v}$-group $I_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}=Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}}(\\phi(v)^{\\Delta})$ by $\\phi(v)$ so that $I_{\\phi(v)}({{\\mathbb Q}_v})=\\mathrm{Aut}(\\phi(v))=\\{g_v\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v})\\ |\\ \\Int(g_v)\\circ\\phi(v)=\\phi(v) \\}$.\n\n\\[lem:isom\\_Int(cu)\\] Assume that ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. Let $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ be an admissible pair and $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ an associated Kottwitz triple.\n\n\\(1) The ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ is an inner form of $G_{\\gamma_0}$. Moreover, if $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is well-located in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$, there exists an inner twisting $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ that restricts to the identity map of $T$ and also induces an inner twisting $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$.\n\n\\(2) For any $v_l^{-1}\\in X_l(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, $\\Int(v_l):(I_{\\phi})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}} \\hookrightarrow G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ induces an isomorphism of ${{\\mathbb Q}_l}$-groups $$\\Int(v_l):(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}=I_{\\phi(l),\\epsilon}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{\\gamma_l},$$ where $\\gamma_l:=\\Int(v_l)(\\epsilon)\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $G_{\\gamma_l}$ is the centralizer of $\\gamma_l$ in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$.\n\n\\(3) For $u\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ (\\[eq:int(u)\\]) and $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (Lemma \\[lem:delta\\_from\\_b&gamma\\_0\\]) above, $\\Int(cu)$ induces an isomorphism of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-groups $$\\label{eq:Int(cu)}\n\\Int(cu):\\ (I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}=I_{\\phi(p),\\epsilon}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{\\delta\\sigma},$$ where $G_{\\delta\\sigma}$ is the $\\sigma$-centralizer of $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ [@Kottwitz82 p.802] ($G_{\\delta\\sigma}$ is a closed subgroup of ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(G)$ such that $G_{\\delta\\sigma}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})=\\{ y\\in G(L_n)\\ |\\ y(\\delta\\sigma)=(\\delta\\sigma)y\\}$, and one also has $(G_{\\delta\\sigma})_{L_n}\\simeq Z_{G_{L_n}}({\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta)$).\n\n\\(4) For every place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, we have a natural identification: $$(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}=I_{\\phi(v),\\epsilon}=I_{\\phi(v)\\circ\\zeta_v,\\epsilon}.$$\n\nUnlike the case $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, in general, the isomorphism class of $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ *as inner form of $G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$* (i.e. a preimage in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},(G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}})^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$ of the corresponding class in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},\\mathrm{Aut}(G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}))$) is not uniquely determined by the LR-pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ or the associated Kottwitz triple.\n\nSince for any $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, $\\Int(g)$ induces ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphisms $$I_{\\phi}=\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\phi){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{\\phi'}=\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\phi'),\\quad  I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{\\phi',\\epsilon'}$$ for $\\phi':=\\Int(g)\\circ\\phi$ and $\\epsilon':=\\Int(g)(\\epsilon)$, in all proofs, by admissible embeddings of maximal tori (Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\]), we may and do assume that $\\epsilon\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$, in which case the inner twisting $(I_{\\phi})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\]) induces a ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $T_{\\epsilon}^{\\phi}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{\\epsilon}^G$ between their ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroups generated by $\\epsilon$ (Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\], (2)); we simply write $T_{\\epsilon}$ for this group, and let $(\\pi_0,t)$ be the elements of $T_{\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})$ (for some $s\\in{\\mathbb N}$) attached to $(T_{\\epsilon},\\epsilon)$ by Lemma \\[lem:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\].\n\n\\(1) To prove that $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ is an inner form of $G_{\\gamma_0}$, it suffices to show that $Z_G(\\phi^{\\Delta},\\epsilon)$ (simultaneous centralizer in $G$ of the image of $\\phi^{\\Delta}$ and $\\epsilon)$ equals $G_{\\epsilon}$ (as $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ and $G_{\\gamma_0}$ are respectively ${\\mathbb Q}$-inner forms of $Z_G(\\phi^{\\Delta},\\epsilon)$ and $G_{\\epsilon}$). This follows from Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\], according to which we have $$Z_G(\\phi^{\\Delta},\\epsilon)=Z_G(\\pi_0^k,\\epsilon)=Z_G(\\pi_0^k,T_{\\epsilon})=G_{\\epsilon}.$$ When $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is well-located in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ that is elliptic over ${\\mathbb R}$, since $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ is the inner-twist of $Z_G(\\phi^{\\Delta},\\epsilon)$ via $\\phi$, we see that there exists a $T$-equivariant inner twisting $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ which also induces an inner twisting $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$.\n\n\\(2) According to Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\], we know that $\\Int(v_l)(\\pi_0^k)$ also lies in the ${{\\mathbb Q}_l}$-subgroup of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ generated by $\\Int(v_l)(\\epsilon)$ (which equals $\\Int(v_l)(T_{\\epsilon})$). Since $v_l\\in X_l(\\phi)$, $\\Int(v_l)$ identifies $(I_{\\phi})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}=\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\phi(l))$ with the centralizer in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ of the image of $\\Int(v_l)\\circ\\phi(l)^{\\Delta}$, which in turn equals the centralizer of $\\Int(v_l)(\\pi_0^k)$ for any $k\\gg1$ (by Prop. \\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\] and Lemma \\[lem:Zariski\\_group\\_closure\\], (2)). So, under $\\Int(v_l)$, $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is identified with the simultaneous centralizer in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ of $\\Int(v_l)(\\pi_0^k)$ and $\\Int(v_l)(\\epsilon)$, hence with the centralizer of $\\Int(v_l)(\\epsilon)$ alone.\n\n\\(3) Recall that under the embedding ${\\mathrm{Int}}(u):(I_{\\phi})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} \\hookrightarrow \\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\xi_p')$ (\\[eq:int(u)\\]), the ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-group $(I_{\\phi})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is identified with the centralizer of $\\mathrm{im}(\\Int(u)\\circ\\phi(p)^{\\Delta})$ in $\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\xi_p')$. We put $(\\epsilon',\\pi_0',t')=\\Int(u)(\\epsilon,\\pi_0,t)$ (elements of $T_{\\epsilon}':=\\Int(u)(T_{\\epsilon})$). Since the image of $\\Int(u)\\circ\\phi(p)^{\\Delta}$ is generated by $\\pi_0'^k$ for any $k\\gg1$ (by Prop. \\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\]), $\\Int(u)$ induces an isomorphism $$\\Int(u):(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\xi_p')_{\\pi_0'^k,\\epsilon'}.$$ Suppose that $\\xi_p'$ is the inflation of a morphism of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs, say $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$; then, $\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\xi_p')=\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})$. We also choose $N\\in{\\mathbb N}$ for which $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ factors through ${\\mathfrak{D}}_N={\\mathfrak{D}}_{L_N}$ and, as such, is induced (by inflation to ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$) from a morphism ${\\mathfrak{D}}^{L_N}_{p,L_N}\\rightarrow G(L_N)\\rtimes {\\mathrm{Gal}}(L_N/{{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ of $L_N/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerbs (cf. ). Then, as $(\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})^{\\Delta}=-N\\nu_b$ for $b=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$ and its Newton homomorphism $\\nu_b$ (Lemma \\[lem:Newton\\_hom\\_attached\\_to\\_unramified\\_morphism\\]), it follows from definition of ${\\mathfrak{D}}_N$ that $$N\\nu_{b}\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}_{L_N}({\\mathbb{G}_{\\mathrm{m}}},G),\\ \\text{ and }\\quad {\\mathrm{N}}_N(b)=(N\\nu_{b})(p).$$ Since $(b\\sigma)^N=(N\\nu_b)(p)\\sigma^N$, any $g\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$, if it commutes with both $b\\sigma$ and ${\\mathrm{im}}(\\nu_b)$, also must commute with $\\sigma^N$. Hence, for any ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-algebra $R$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})(R)\n&=\\{ g\\in Z_{G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}\\otimes R)}(\\nu_b)\\ |\\ gb\\sigma(g^{-1})=b\\} \\\\ \n&=\\{ g\\in Z_{G({\\mathfrak{k}}\\otimes R)}(\\nu_b)\\ |\\ gb\\sigma(g^{-1})=b\\} \\\\\n&=J_b(R),\\end{aligned}$$ where $J_{b}$ is the algebraic ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-group whose set of $R$-points for any ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-algebra $R$ is given by $J_b(R):=\\{g\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}}\\otimes R)\\ |\\ g(b\\sigma)=(b\\sigma)g\\}$ (in the last equality we used the fact that $\\nu_{hb\\sigma(h^{-1})}=h\\nu_bh^{-1}$ for any $h\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$). Therefore, it follows that $\\Int(u)$ induces isomorphisms $(I_{\\phi})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})_{\\pi_0'^k}=(J_b)_{\\pi_0'^k}$, $$(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\underline{\\mathrm{Aut}}(\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})_{\\pi_0'^k,\\epsilon'} = (J_b)_{\\pi_0'^k,\\epsilon'}=(J_b)_{\\epsilon'},$$ for any sufficiently large $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$, because the image of $\\Int(u)\\circ\\phi(p)^{\\Delta}$ (which also contains the image of $\\nu_b$) is generated by $\\pi_0'^k\\ (k\\gg1)$ (Prop. \\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\]) and $\\pi_0'$ lies in the subgroup of $G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ generated by $\\epsilon'$ (Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\], Lemma \\[lem:Zariski\\_group\\_closure\\]).\n\nFinally, as one has $c(\\epsilon'^{-1}(b\\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\\sigma^n$ (\\[eq:(epsilon,b,c)-&gt;delta1\\]), $\\Int(c)$ induces an isomorphism $$\\Int(c): (J_b)_{\\epsilon'} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{\\delta\\sigma}.$$\n\n\\(4) As it is clear that $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}=I_{\\phi(v),\\epsilon}$, this is proved by the same argument as in (2): $$I_{\\phi(v),\\epsilon}=I_{\\phi(v)\\circ\\zeta_v,\\pi_0^k,\\epsilon}=I_{\\phi(v)\\circ\\zeta_v,\\epsilon}. \\qedhere$$\n\nFor a stable Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ attached to an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, any cohomology class in $H^1({\\mathbb A}_f^p,I_0)\\oplus B(I_0)_{basic}(\\cong H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_0))$ defining a Kottwitz invariant gives a class in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},(G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}})^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$ which presents $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ as an inner form of $G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$.\n\n\\[lem:local\\_inner-twistings\\_of\\_Z\\_G(gamma\\_0)\\] Keep the assumption from Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_Int(cu)\\].\n\n\\(1) For a *stable* Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ of level $n$ attached to an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, let us choose $(g_l)_{l\\neq p}\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)$ and $g_p\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]), (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]), i.e. such that $g_l\\gamma_0g_l^{-1}=\\gamma_l$ and $g_v^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_v\\in I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v})$ for $v\\neq p$ and $\\tau\\in\\Gamma_v$, while $g_p\\gamma_0 g_p^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ and $b:=g_p^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(g_p)\\in I_0$.\n\nThen, $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ is an inner form of $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ corresponding to the class $\\beta\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},(I_0)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$ whose localizations are given by: $$\\label{eq:local_inner-class}\n\\beta(v)=\\begin{cases} [pr(g_l^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_l)] &\\text{ if } v=l\\neq p \\\\\n[pr(b)] &\\text{ if } v=p  \n\\end{cases}$$ where $pr:I_0\\rightarrow I_0^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is the canonical map, and $[pr(b)]$ denotes the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class of $pr(b)\\in (I_0)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({\\mathfrak{k}})$ which in fact lies in the subset $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p}, (I_0)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$ since $[b]\\in B( I_0)$ is basic (cf. Lemma \\[lem:equality\\_of\\_two\\_Newton\\_maps\\], [@Kottwitz85 4.5]). Also, $\\beta(\\infty)$ is the (unique) class corresponding to the compact inner form of $(I_0)_{{\\mathbb R}}$. In particular, as an inner form of $G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ is uniquely determined by the cosets $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l}) g_l$ and $G(L_n) g_p$.\n\n\\(2) When $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is nested in a special Shimura sub-datum, there exists a choice of $(g_v)_v\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ as in (1) such that the twisting $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ in Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_Int(cu)\\], (1) (which is the twisting via $\\phi$, cf. (\\[eq:inner-twisting\\_by\\_phi\\])) fits the local descriptions (\\[eq:local\\_inner-class\\]).\n\n\\(1) Since $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ is a stable Kottwitz triple, there exist $(g_l)_{l\\neq p}$ and $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ as in the statement. Then, for each $l\\neq p$, we have an inner-twisting $$\\label{eq:inner-twisting_at_l_of_G(gamma_0)}\n\\varphi_l:(I_0)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l}} \\stackrel{\\Int(g_l)}{\\longrightarrow} (G_{\\gamma_l}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l}} \\stackrel{\\Int(v_l^{-1})}{\\longrightarrow} (I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l}},$$ where $v_l^{-1}\\in X_l(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ (Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_Int(cu)\\]). So, we have $\\varphi_l^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}\\varphi_l=\\Int(g_l^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_l)$ for every $\\tau\\in\\Gamma_l$. At $p$, there exists an inner-twisting $$\\label{eq:inner-twisting_at_p_of_G(gamma_0)}\n\\varphi_p:(I_0)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}} \\stackrel{\\psi_p^{-1}}{\\longrightarrow} (G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}   \\stackrel{\\Int((cu)^{-1})}{\\longrightarrow} (I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}},$$ where $u\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$ and $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ are as in Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_Int(cu)\\], and $\\psi_p$, which is a morphism $(G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ defined over ${\\mathfrak{k}}$, is the composite of the two isomorphisms (defined over $L_n$ and ${\\mathfrak{k}}$) $$(G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{L_n}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{{\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta}^{\\mathrm{o}},\\quad \\Int(g_p^{-1}): (G_{{\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$$ [@Kottwitz82 Lem. 5.4]. One has $$\\psi_p\\cdot {}^{\\sigma}\\psi_p^{-1}=\\Int(b).$$ Since $[b]\\in B(I_0)$ is basic, by definition there exist $n'=nk\\ (k\\gg1)$ and $d\\in I_0({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $d{\\mathrm{N}}_{n'}b\\sigma^{n'}(d^{-1})=\\nu_{b}(p)$, thus gives a cocycle $\\sigma\\mapsto pr(db\\sigma(d^{-1}))\\in Z^1(L_{n'}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p},(I_0)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$ whose class maps to $[pr(b)]\\in B((I_0)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})=H^1(W_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}},(I_0)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}(\\bar{{\\mathfrak{k}}}))$. Hence, we see that $[pr(b)]$ defines the inner-twisting $(I_0)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ above, which proves the claim for $\\beta(p)$.\n\nFinally, note that these local data determine an *inner form of $I_0$* uniquely, by the Hasse principle for connnected (semisimple) adjoint groups over number fields.\n\n\\(2) Suppose that $\\phi=\\psi_{T,\\mu_h}$, $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ for a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$. Recall (Remark \\[rem:two\\_different\\_b\u2019s\\]) that in this case, $\\gamma_l=\\gamma_0\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ for every $l\\neq p$ and $\\delta=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})$ for some $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and $b\\sigma=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$, where $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ is a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism whose inflation to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ equals an unramified $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate of $\\xi_p=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$. So, $b\\in T({\\mathfrak{k}})$, and we can take $g_l:=1$ and $g_p:=c$. On the other hand, since $\\phi(l)\\circ\\zeta_l$ is conjugate to the canonical trivialization $\\xi_l$ under $T({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l})$, we find that the local cohomology class in $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},(I_0)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$ representing the inner twist $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ is trivial if $v=l$ and equals $[pr(b)]\\in H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p},(I_0)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$. This proves the claim.\n\nNote that due to Hasse-principle on $\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})$ (Prop. \\[prop:triviality\\_in\\_comp\\_gp\\]), we also see that $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ is the twist of $G_{\\gamma_0}$ by (the image under $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{\\gamma_0}^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$ of) the same cohomology class.\n\n\\[lem:uniqueness\\_of\\_inner-class\\_with\\_same\\_K-triples\\] Let $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ and $(\\phi',\\epsilon')$ be two admissible pairs. If their associated Kottwitz triples are equivalent, then the ${\\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{\\phi',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ are isomorphic as inner forms of $G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$.\n\nLet $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ and $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma',\\delta')$ be some stable Kottwitz triples attached to $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ and $(\\phi',\\epsilon')$ respectively such that the $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugacy classes of $\\gamma$, $\\gamma'$ and the $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes $\\delta$, $\\delta'$ in $G(L_n)$ are the same; then, according to Prop. \\[prop:triviality\\_in\\_comp\\_gp\\] they are stably conjugate and thus we may assume that $\\gamma_0'=\\gamma_0$. It follows from Lemma \\[lem:local\\_inner-twistings\\_of\\_Z\\_G(gamma\\_0)\\] that the isomorphism class of $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ as an inner twist of $I_0$ is determined by choice of elements $g_l$ and $g_0$ as in Lemma \\[lem:local\\_inner-twistings\\_of\\_Z\\_G(gamma\\_0)\\] by means of the corresponding local cohomology classes (\\[eq:local\\_inner-class\\]) in $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},(I_0)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}})$. Then, since $\\gamma'=h_l\\gamma_lh_l^{-1}$ and $\\delta'=d\\delta\\sigma(d)^{-1}$ for some $h_l\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $d\\in G(L_n)$, we may choose the elements $(g_v)_v$, $(g_v')_v$ in such a way that those cohomology classes are the same, hence the claim follows.\n\nLet us fix $(v_l)_l\\in \\prod'_{l\\neq\\infty,p}X_l(\\phi)$; then, for almost all $l\\neq p$, $\\Int(v_l)$ extends to an embedding of reductive ${\\mathbb Z}_l$-group schemes $(I_{\\phi})_{{\\mathbb Z}_l} \\hookrightarrow G_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}$ (cf. [@LR87 p.168]). By taking the restricted product, over the finite primes $l\\neq p$, of $\\Int(v_l):I_{\\phi}({{\\mathbb Q}_l})=\\mathrm{Aut}(\\phi(l))\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Aut}(\\xi_l)=G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$, this also specify isomorphisms $$\\label{eq:Int(v)}\n\\Int(v):I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb A}_f^p) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G({\\mathbb A}_f^p),\\quad I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb A}_f^p) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)_{\\gamma},$$ where $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)_{\\gamma}$ denotes the centralizer of $\\gamma$ in $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$.\n\nSet ${\\mathbf{K}}_q:=G(L_n)\\cap {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ ($q=p^n$). Define $\\phi_p$ to be the characteristic function of the subset (union of double cosets) of ${\\mathbf{K}}_q\\backslash G(L_n)/{\\mathbf{K}}_q$ corresponding to the following set, cf. Definition \\[defn:mu-admissible\\_subset\\]: $$\\label{eq:Adm_K(mu)}\n\\mathrm{Adm}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_q}(\\{\\mu\\}):=\\{w\\in{\\mathbf{K}}_q\\backslash G(L_n)/{\\mathbf{K}}_q\\ |\\ w\\leq \\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}t^{\\lambda}\\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}\\text{ for some }\\lambda\\in\\Lambda(\\{\\mu\\})\\}.$$ Here, in the inequality, $w$ also denotes its image in ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\backslash G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p\\simeq \\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}\\backslash \\tilde{W}/\\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}$ (\\[eqn:parahoric\\_double\\_coset\\]) ($\\tilde{W}$ is the relative Weyl group of $G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ and $\\tilde{W}_{{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p}=\\tilde{W}\\cap{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$). Let $dy_p$ (resp. $dy^p$) denote the Haar measure on $G(L_n)$ (resp. on $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$) giving measure $1$ on ${\\mathbf{K}}_q$ (resp. on $K^p$). We also choose an (arbitrary, for the moment) Haar measure $di_p$ (resp. $di^p$) on $G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. on $G_{\\gamma}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$) that gives rational measure to compact open subgroups of $G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. of $G_{\\gamma}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$). Then, we write $d\\bar{y}_p$ $d\\bar{y}^p$ for the quotient of $dy_p$ by $di_p$ and that of $dy^p$ by $di^p$, respectively.\n\n\\[lem:fixed-pt\\_subset\\_of\\_Frob-Hecke\\_corr\\] Assume that $Z(G)$ has same ranks over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and ${\\mathbb R}$. We take $K^p$ small enough so that conditions of (\\[item:Langlands-conditions\\]) hold and $Z(G)({\\mathbb Q})\\cap K=\\{1\\}$. Let $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ be a Kottwitz triple attached to an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$. Then, we have $$|I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{K^p_g}|= \\frac{\\mathrm{vol}(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb A}_f))}{[I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q}):I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})]} \\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p),$$ where $\\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)$ (twisted orbital integral) and $\\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)$ (orbital integral) are defined by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:(twisted-)orbital_integral}\n\\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)&=\\int_{G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\backslash G(L_n)}\\phi_p(y_p^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(y_p)) d\\bar{y}_p,\\\\\n\\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)&=\\int_{G_{\\gamma}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\backslash G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)}f^p((y^p)^{-1}\\gamma y^p) d\\bar{y}^p, \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Here, $f^p$ is the characteristic function of $K^pg^{-1}K^p$ in $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, and the Haar measure $di_p$ on $G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. $di^p$ on $G_{\\gamma}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$) is obtained from a Haar measure on $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. on $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$) that gives rational measures to compact open subgroups of $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ (resp. of $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$) via the isomorphism $\\Int(cu)$ (\\[eq:Int(cu)\\]) (resp. via $\\Int(v)$ (\\[eq:Int(v)\\])).\n\nThe argument given in [@Kottwitz84b $\\S$1.4, $\\S$1.5] (cf. [@Kottwitz92 p.432]) works without change, since the necessary isomorphisms (1.4.7), (1.4.8) in [@Kottwitz84b] follow from Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_Int(cu)\\]. Then, the cardinality in question becomes the triple product $$\\mathrm{vol}(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb A}_f))\\cdot \\int_{G_{\\gamma}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\backslash G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)}f^p((y^p)^{-1}\\gamma y^p) d\\bar{y}^p\\cdot \\int_{G_{\\delta\\sigma}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\backslash G(L_n)}\\phi_p(y_p^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(y_p)) d\\bar{y}_p$$ (the quotient measures $d\\bar{y}^p$, $d\\bar{y}_p$ being defined similarly). The statement follows from this.\n\n\\[eq:|widetilde[Sha]{}\\_G(Q,I\\_[phi,epsilon]{})\\^+|\\] For any admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, the set $\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+:=\\ker[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})]$ (cf. Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\]) is a finite set which depends only on the associated (equivalence class of) Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$. Its cardinality $i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ is given by $$|\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+|=|\\ker[ \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},I_0)\\rightarrow \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},G)]| \\cdot |\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)|,$$ with $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ as usual and $$\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta) :={\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_0)] \\cap \n\\ker [H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,G_{\\gamma,\\delta}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,G_{\\gamma,\\delta})],$$ where $H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,G_{\\gamma,\\delta}^{\\mathrm{o}}):=\\oplus_l H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},G_{\\gamma_l}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\oplus H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}})$ and $H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,G_{\\gamma,\\delta})$ is defined similarly.\n\nThe intersection in the definition of $\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ makes sense because there exist inner twists $(I_0)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_v}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}\\ (v\\neq p)$, $(G_{\\delta\\sigma}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$ (Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_Int(cu)\\]), thereby canonical identifications $$H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_0) \\cong H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,(I_0)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\cong H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,(G_{\\gamma,\\delta}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}) \\cong H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,G_{\\gamma,\\delta}^{\\mathrm{o}})$$ (the middle isomorphism is independent of the choice of the inner twists just mentioned).\n\nWhen $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ is connected (e.g., if $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$), one has $|\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)|=1$ and the constant $|\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+|$ depends only on the stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0$ (rather than on the whole triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$). But, the author does not know the same property in the general case (for a non-connected group $H$, $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_v},H)$ may not be invariant under inner twists of $H$). Also, we note that the constant $\\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},I_0)$ appears in [@Kottwitz92 Lem.17.2] with a similar interpretation (see the discussion on p.441-442 of *loc. cit.* for the appearance of the constant $|\\ker[ \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},I_0)\\rightarrow \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},G)]|$).\n\nThis set is equal to $\\ker[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})]$ (no $\\infty$-component in the target). According to Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_Int(cu)\\], the local groups $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ (for all places $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$) are determined by the associated Kottwitz triple, and this implies by the Hasse principle for $(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ that the same is also true of the connected ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and the set $\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+$. Moreover, the two ${\\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}$ are simultaneous inner twists of $I_0=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $G_{\\gamma_0}$ via a single cochain in $C^1({\\mathbb Q},I_0)$ which induces cocycles both in $G_{\\gamma_0}^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ and $I_{\\gamma_0}^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$. The map $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})$ factors through $$\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}) \\stackrel{j}{\\rightarrow} H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}) \\rightarrow\nH^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})$$ Hence, our set $\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+$ is the disjoint union of $j^{-1}(\\beta)$\u2019s with $\\beta$ running through $$\\label{eq:D(gamma_0;gamma,delta)}\n\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})]\\cap {\\mathrm{im}}(j).$$ The map $j$ is identified, via abelianizations, with $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_0)$ (recall that by definition, $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})=\\ker[\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\cong \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_0)\\rightarrow \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},G)]$, where the isomorphism is given by the isomorphism of the corresponding abelianized cohomology groups), hence it follows that the set (\\[eq:D(gamma\\_0;gamma,delta)\\]) is equal to $\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$. We claim that for each $\\beta=j(\\alpha) \\in\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, there are bijections $$j^{-1}(\\beta)\\ {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\ \\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{\\alpha}\\stackrel{{\\mathbf{ab}}^1}{\\longrightarrow} H^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})]\\ {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\ \\ker[\\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},I_0)\\rightarrow \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},G)],$$ where $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{\\alpha}$ denotes the subset of $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})$ consisting of the elements having the same image in $H^1({\\mathbb A},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})$ as $\\alpha$ and ${\\mathbf{ab}}^1$ is the composite map $${\\mathbf{ab}}^1:H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})=H^1({\\mathbb Q},(I_0)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$$ (or its restriction $\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})=\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})=\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},G)$). The first bijection is clear. The second bijection is a consequence of the existence of a bijection $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{\\alpha} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A},I_a^{\\mathrm{o}})]$ commuting with the natural maps ${\\mathbf{ab}}^1$ into $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$, where $a$ is any cocycle in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})$ representing $\\alpha$ and $I_a^{\\mathrm{o}}$ is the inner twist of $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ via $a$: this in turn results from [@Serre02 Prop.35bis], the commutative diagram of Lemma 3.15.1 of [@Borovoi98] combined with the vanishing of $\\alpha$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$, and the well-known fact that for any *connected* reductive group $H$ over ${\\mathbb Q}$, the finite abelian group $\\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},H)$ is unchanged under inner twists. Note that the set $\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})]$, being the image of the finite set $\\pi_0(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})({\\mathbb A}_f)$ in $H^1({\\mathbb A}_f,I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})$, is also finite, which implies the same property for $\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ and $\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+$. The formula for $|\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+|$ is immediate from this discussion.\n\nNow, we assume that the level subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ is hyyperspecial and give an expression for the number of fixed points of the correspondence $\\Phi^m\\circ f$ (\\[eq:Hecke\\_corr\\_twisted\\_by\\_Frob\\]), and, more generally, a weighted sum over the same fixed point set with weight being given by the trace of that correspondence acting on the stalk of some lisse sheaf. We briefly recall the set-up. For more details, see [@Kottwitz92 $\\S$6, 16]. We fix a rational prime $l\\neq p$. Let $\\xi$ be a finite-dimensional representation of $G$ on a vector space $W$ over a number field $L$, and let $\\lambda$ be a place of $L$ lying above $l$. We consider the $\\lambda$-adic representation $W_{\\lambda}:=W\\otimes_L{L_{\\lambda}}$ of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ induced from the natural one of $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ via the projection $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\rightarrow G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$. Since $Z({\\mathbb Q})$ is discrete in $Z({\\mathbb A}_f)$ by our assumption ($Z(G)$ has same ranks over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and ${\\mathbb R}$), it gives rise to lisse sheaves ${\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}$ on the spaces ${\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ for varying $K^p$\u2019s: the projective limit ${\\mathscr{S}}=\\varprojlim_{H^p}{\\mathscr{S}}_{H^p}$ is a Galois covering of ${\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$ with Galois group $K^p$ if $K^p$ is small enough such that $K\\cap Z(G)({\\mathbb Q})=\\{1\\}$ [@Deligne79 2.1.9-12], and we have ${\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}={\\mathscr{S}}\\times W_{\\lambda}/K^p$, where $k=(k_v)\\in K^p$ acts on $W_{\\lambda}$ via $\\xi_{L_{\\lambda}}(k_l^{-1})$. It is clear that there are canonical isomorphisms $$\\cdot g:{\\mathscr{F}}_{gK^pg^{-1}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(\\cdot g)^{\\ast}{\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p},\\quad p_2^{\\ast}{\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p} ={\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p_g},\\quad \\Phi:\\Phi^{\\ast}{\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}{\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p},$$ where for any $g\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $\\cdot g$ denotes the right action ${\\mathscr{S}}_{gK^pg^{-1}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}{\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}$. Thus, the associated correspondence $\\Phi^m\\circ f$ (\\[eq:Hecke\\_corr\\_twisted\\_by\\_Frob\\]) extends in a natural manner to the sheaf ${\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}$. In particular, for any fixed point $x'\\in {\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p_g}({\\mathbb F})$ of $\\Phi^m\\circ f$ and $x:=p_1'(x')=p_2'(x')\\in {\\mathscr{S}}_{K^p}({\\mathbb F})$, the correspondence $\\Phi^m\\circ f$ gives an automorphism of the stalk ${\\mathscr{F}}_x$ (we write ${\\mathscr{F}}$, ${\\mathscr{F}}'$ for ${\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p}$, ${\\mathscr{F}}_{K^p_g}$): $$\\label{eq:Frob-Hecke_corr_at_stalk}\n{\\mathscr{F}}_x=(\\Phi^{m})^{\\ast}({\\mathscr{F}})_{p_2(x')}\\  \\stackrel{\\Phi^m}{\\longrightarrow}\\ {\\mathscr{F}}_{p_2(x')} =(p_2^{\\ast}{\\mathscr{F}})_{x'}={\\mathscr{F}}'_{x'}\\ \\stackrel{p_1^{\\ast}(\\cdot g)}{\\longrightarrow}\\ (p_1'^{\\ast}{\\mathscr{F}})_{x'}={\\mathscr{F}}_x.$$ We are interested in computing the sum: $$\\label{eq:fixed-pt_set_of_Frob-Hecke_corr}\nT(m,f):=\\sum_{x'\\in\\mathrm{Fix}} \\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\circ f;{\\mathscr{F}}_x),$$ where $\\mathrm{Fix}$ denotes the set of fixed points of $\\Phi^m\\circ f$.\n\nLet $A_G$ denote the maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-split torus in the center of $G$. In the next theorem, we return to an arbitrary Shimura datum $(G,X)$ of Hodge type and take $G$ to be the smallest algebraic (connected reductive) ${\\mathbb Q}$-group such that every $h\\in X$ factors through $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ (i.e. $G$ is the Mumford-Tate group of a generic $h\\in X$). In particular, $(G,X)$ satisfies both the Serre condition and the condition that $Z(G)$ has same ranks over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and ${\\mathbb R}$ (thus, $Z_G({\\mathbb R})/A_G({\\mathbb R})$ is also compact).\n\n\\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:LR\\] Keep the notation from the previous sections and the above discussion. We assume that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is unramified, and $(G,X)$ is of Hodge type. Fix a hyperspecial parahoric subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ and take $K^p$ to be sufficiently small such that conditions (a), (b) of (\\[item:Langlands-conditions\\]) hold and $K\\cap Z(G)({\\mathbb Q})=\\{1\\}$.\n\nSuppose that Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, Conj. \\[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\\_conjecture\\_ver1\\], holds for $Sh_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)$.\n\n\\(1) We have the following expression for (\\[eq:fixed-pt\\_set\\_of\\_Frob-Hecke\\_corr\\]): $$T(m,f)=\\sum_{(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)} c(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)\\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)\\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0),$$ with $$c(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta):=i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)\\cdot |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \\cdot \\tau(I_0)\\cdot \\mathrm{vol}(A_G({\\mathbb R})^{\\mathrm{o}}\\backslash I_0(\\infty)({\\mathbb R}))^{-1}$$ where $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)=|\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+|$ (Lemma \\[eq:|widetilde[Sha]{}\\_G(Q,I\\_[phi,epsilon]{})\\^+|\\]), $\\tau(I_0)$ is the Tamagawa number of $I_0$, and $I_0(\\infty)$ is the (unique) inner form of $(I_0)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ having compact adjoint group. Also, the sum is over a set of representatives $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ of all equivalence classes of stable Kottwitz triples of level $n=m[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant.\n\n\\(2) For any $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\\mathcal{H}(G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)/\\!\\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\\in{\\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, such that for each $m\\geq m(f^p)$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_i(-1)^i\\mathrm{tr}( & \\Phi^m\\times f^p | H^i_c(Sh_{K}(G,X)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K)) \\\\\n& = \\sum_{(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)} c(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)\\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p) \\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0)\\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over a set of representatives $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ of all equivalence classes of stable Kottwitz triples of level $n=m[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant. If $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$ (irrespective of $f^p$).\n\nWe remind readers again that \u201chaving trivial Kottwitz invariant\u201d means that there exist elements $(g_v)_v\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]), (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes, and the fact that for stable Kottwitz triples, stable equivalence is the same as (geometric) equivalence (Prop. \\[prop:triviality\\_in\\_comp\\_gp\\]).\n\nIn the definition of $c(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, the volume of (the quotient of) ${\\mathbb R}$-groups is defined with respect to the unique Haar measure $di_{\\infty}$ on $I_0({\\mathbb R})$ (or equivalently on $I_0(\\infty)({\\mathbb R})$ by transfer of measure) such that the product of $di^p,di_p,di_{\\infty}$ is the canonical measure on $I_0({\\mathbb A})$ that is used to define the Tamagawa number $\\tau(I_0)$ (cf. [@Labesse01 $\\S$1.2]). Then, as $Z_G({\\mathbb R})/A_G({\\mathbb R})$ is compact, one has $$\\label{eq:Tamagawa_number}\n\\mathrm{vol}(I_0({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash I_0({\\mathbb A}_f))=\\tau(I_0)\\cdot \\mathrm{vol}(A_{G}({\\mathbb R})^{\\mathrm{o}}\\backslash I_0({\\mathbb R}))^{-1}.$$\n\nWe may assume that $f^p$ is the characteristic function of $K^pg^{-1}K^p$ of some $g\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$. For an admissible morphism $\\phi$ and a comact open subgroup $K^p$ of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, the fixed point subset $$\\mathrm{Fix}_{\\phi}:=S_{K^p}(\\phi)^{\\Phi^m\\circ f=\\mathrm{Id}}=\\{x'\\in S_{K^p_g}(\\phi)\\ |\\ p_1'(x')=p_2'(x')\\}$$ is a disjoint union $\\sqcup_{\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})} I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$ (\\[eq:fixed\\_pt\\_set\\_of\\_Heck-corresp1\\]). We claim that for any $x'\\in \\mathrm{Fix}_{\\phi}$ and $x:=p_1'(x')=p_2'(x')\\in S_{K^p}(\\phi)$, there is an equality: $$\\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\circ f;{\\mathscr{F}}_x)=\\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0),$$ where $\\gamma_0$ is any element in $G({\\mathbb Q})$ stably conjugate to the $\\epsilon$ such that $x'\\in I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$. In particular, this trace depends only on (the stable conjugacy class of) $\\gamma_0$, so on the (equivalence class of) Kottwitz triples attached to the admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$. Indeed (cf. [@Kottwitz92 $\\S$16]), choose $x_p\\in X_p(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, $x^p\\in X^p(\\phi,\\epsilon;g)$ such that $x'=[x_p,x^p]\\in I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$. It also gives a point $\\tilde{x}=[x_p,x^p]$ of $$S(\\phi):=I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X_p(\\phi)\\times X^p(\\phi)=\\varprojlim_{H^p}({\\mathscr{S}}_{H^p}({\\mathbb F})\\cap S_{H^p}(\\phi))$$ lying above $x'$, and $\\epsilon x^pgk=x^p$ for some $k\\in K^p$. So, one has $$\\Phi^m(\\tilde{x})=[\\Phi^mx_p,x^p]=[x_p,\\epsilon ^{-1} x^p]=\\tilde{x}gk.$$ If we use this point $\\Phi^m(\\tilde{x})$ of $S(\\phi)$ to identify the stalk ${\\mathscr{F}}_x$ with $W_{\\lambda}$, we have $\\beta(w)=\\xi(k^{-1}g^{-1})w$: the automorphism (\\[eq:Frob-Hecke\\_corr\\_at\\_stalk\\]) becomes $$[\\Phi^m(\\tilde{x}),w] \\mapsto [\\tilde{x},w] \\mapsto [\\tilde{x}g,\\xi(g^{-1})w]= [\\tilde{x}gk,\\xi(k^{-1}g^{-1})w],$$ hence $\\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\circ f;{\\mathscr{F}}_x)=\\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0)$ as $k^{-1}g^{-1}=(x^p)^{-1}\\epsilon x^p\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ is conjugate to $\\gamma_0$ under $G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)$.\n\nNow, we have the following successive equalities: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:T(m,f)1}\nT(m,f) &=\\sum_{\\phi} \\sum_{x'\\in\\mathrm{Fix}_{\\phi}} \\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\circ f;{\\mathscr{F}}_{p_1'(x')}) \\\\\n& =\\sum_{(\\phi,\\epsilon)} |I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{K^p_g}| \\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0)   \\nonumber \\\\ & =\\sum_{(\\phi,\\epsilon)} \\frac{\\mathrm{vol}(I_0({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash I_0({\\mathbb A}_f))}{[I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q}):I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})]} \\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p) \\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0) \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Here, in the first line, $\\phi$ runs through a set of representatives for the equivalence classes of admissible morphisms, so the first equality results from Langlands-Rapoport conjecture, Conj. \\[conj:Langlands-Rapoport\\_conjecture\\_ver1\\]. In the second line, $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ runs through a set of representatives for the equivalence classes of admissible pairs. We have just seen that if $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})$ is such that $x'\\in\\mathrm{Fix}_{\\phi}$ belongs to the subset $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\phi,\\epsilon)_{K^p_g}$ in the decomposition (\\[eq:fixed\\_pt\\_set\\_of\\_Heck-corresp1\\]), we have $\\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\circ f;{\\mathscr{F}}_{p_1'(x')})=\\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0)$ for any Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ attached to the admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$, which gives the second equality. The third equality is Lemma \\[lem:fixed-pt\\_subset\\_of\\_Frob-Hecke\\_corr\\].\n\nNext, we rewrite the last expression of (\\[eq:T(m,f)1\\]) using (equivalence classes of) *effective* Kottwitz triples as a new summation index. For each equivalence class of effective Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, we fix a (well-located) admissible pair $(\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1)$ giving rise to it. Then, the set of admissible pairs producing the same equivalence class of Kottwitz triple is in bijection with $\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+={\\mathrm{im}}\\left[ \\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+ \\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}) \\right]$. More explicitly, for each $$[a]\\in \\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+=\\ker\\left[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})\\right]$$ (class of $a\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})$), the admissible pair corresponding to the image of $[a]$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})$ is the twist $(\\phi:=a\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1)$ (Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\\]) and the associated groups $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon_1}$ are the (simultaneous) inner twists of $I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}$ via $a$. Let us write $I_a^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_a$ for these twists (of course, their isomorphism classes as ${\\mathbb Q}$-algebraic groups depend only on the cohomology class $[a]\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})$). Then, the last line of (\\[eq:T(m,f)1\\]) becomes the first line of the following identity: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:T(m,f)-2}\nT(m,f) & =\\sum_{(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)}\\sum_{[a]\\in \\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+} \\frac{1}{|\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a)]|} \\cdot \\frac{\\mathrm{vol}(I_a^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash I_a^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb A}_f))}{[I_a({\\mathbb Q}):I_a^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})]} \\\\  \n& \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p) \\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=\\sum_{(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)} c_1(\\gamma_0)\\cdot |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \\cdot i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta) \\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p) \\cdot  \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0), \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1(\\gamma_0):=\\tau(I_0)\\cdot \\mathrm{vol}(A_{G}({\\mathbb R})^{\\mathrm{o}}\\backslash I_0(\\infty)({\\mathbb R}))^{-1}$.\n\nHere, in the first line, the fist sum is over a set of representatives of the equivalence classes of *effective* Kottwitz triples $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ and in the second sum $[a]$ runs through the set $\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+$. Two elements $[a],[a']$ of $\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+$ give equivalent admissible pairs $(a\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1)$, $(a'\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1)$ if and only if $[a]$, $[a']$ map to the same element in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})$. So, to establish the first equality, we need to prove that for each $[a]\\in \\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+$, the set of such elements in $ \\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+$ is in bijection with $\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a)]$; this will then also show that the latter set has the same size for all the elements $[a]$ in $ \\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+$ that map to the same element in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})$. First, the subset of $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})$ consisting of such elements is in bijection with $\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a)]$ [@Serre02 Prop.35bis]. So, it suffices to show that if $[a']\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})$ has the same image in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})$ as $[a]$, then $[a']\\in \\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+$. Since $(I_{\\phi_1})_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is a subgroup of the inner form $G'$ of $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ that has compact adjoint group, the map $H^1({\\mathbb R},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb R},G')$ is injective [@Kisin17 4.4.5], which implies that $[a']\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})=\\ker[ H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb R},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})]$. Similarly, the map $\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\cong \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},G_{\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},G)$ factors through $\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1})$, which implies that $[a']\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}^{\\mathrm{o}})$.\n\nFor the second equality, we use the following two facts (E1), (E2):\n\n(E1) There exists an equality of numbers: $$|\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a)]|\\cdot [I_a({\\mathbb Q}):I_a^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})] =|\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|.$$ Indeed, we recall [@Serre02 5.5] that for any (not-necessarily connected) reductive ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $I$ (especially for $I=I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}$), the exact sequence $1\\rightarrow I^{\\mathrm{o}}\\rightarrow I\\rightarrow \\pi_0(I) \\rightarrow 1$ gives rise to a natural action $\\pi_0(I)({\\mathbb Q})$ on $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I^{\\mathrm{o}})$ which we normalize to be a left action and write $c\\cdot \\alpha$ for $c\\in \\pi_0(I)({\\mathbb Q})$ and $\\alpha \\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I^{\\mathrm{o}})$. One easily checks that for $c\\in \\pi_0(I)({\\mathbb Q})$ and $[a] \\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I^{\\mathrm{o}})$, $c\\cdot [a]$ equals the image of $c$ under the composite map $$\\pi_0(I)({\\mathbb Q}) =\\pi_0(I_a)({\\mathbb Q}) \\stackrel{\\partial_a}{\\rightarrow}  H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a^{\\mathrm{o}}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1({\\mathbb Q},I^{\\mathrm{o}}),$$ where $\\partial_a$ is the obvious coboundary map attached to the inner twist $I_a$ of $I$ via $a$ and the last bijection is defined by $[x_{\\tau}]\\mapsto [x_{\\tau}a_{\\tau}]$ (and thus sends the distinguished element to $[a_{\\tau}]$) [@Serre02 Prop.35bis.]. So, the stabilizer subgroup of $[a]$ for the action of $\\pi_0(I)({\\mathbb Q})$ on $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I^{\\mathrm{o}})$ is isomorphic to $\\ker(\\partial_a)=I_a({\\mathbb Q})/I_a^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})$ and the orbit of $[a]$ is in bijection with ${\\mathrm{im}}(\\partial_a)=\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a)]$. So, we obtain the equality $$|\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_a)]|\\cdot [I_a({\\mathbb Q}):I_a^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})]=|\\pi_0(I)({\\mathbb Q})|$$ (In particular, this product quantity is independent of the inner twist of $I$ by a cocycle in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},I^{\\mathrm{o}})$.) Our claim follows since $G_{\\gamma_0}=I_a$ for some cocyle $a$ (with $I=I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1}$) and $\\pi_0(I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})=\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})$.\n\n(E2) Since for $(\\phi,\\epsilon):=(a\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1)$, $I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ is an inner-twist $I_0$ and the Tamagawa number is invariant under inner twist, by (\\[eq:Tamagawa\\_number\\]) one has the equality: $$\\mathrm{vol}(I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash I_{\\phi,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb A}_f))= \\tau(I_0)\\cdot \\mathrm{vol}(A_{G}({\\mathbb R})^{\\mathrm{o}}\\backslash I_0(\\infty)({\\mathbb R}))^{-1}.$$\n\nHence, the summand in the first line of (\\[eq:T(m,f)-2\\]) indexed by an admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ and a class $[a]\\in \\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi_1,\\epsilon_1})^+$ depends only on the associated (equivalence class of) Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, and thus the second equality holds. In the expression of the second line, the index $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ originally should run through a set of representatives of *effective* Kottwitz triples (i.e. arising from an admissible pair, so having trivial Kottwitz invariant). But, according to Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\], any Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant is effective if its twisted-orbital integral $\\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)$ is non-zero: one easily checks (cf. [@Kottwitz84b $\\S$1.4, $\\S$1.5]) that non-vanishing of $\\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)$ is equivalent to non-emptiness of the set $Y_p(\\delta)$ (\\[eq:Y\\_p(delta)\\]). Therefore, in this sum we may as well take simply (a set of representatives of) *all* Kottwitz triples with trivial Kottwitz invariant. This finishes the proof of (1).\n\n\\(2) The first claim follows from (1) in view of the Deligne\u2019s conjecture proved by Fujiwara [@Fujiwara97], [@Var07]. When ${\\mathscr{S}}_K$ is proper or $f^p$ is the identity, we can simply invoke the Grothendieck-Lefschetz fixed point formula for lisse sheaves. The properness holds if $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is anisotropic since the valuative criterion holds by [@Lee12].\n\n\\[rem:comments\\_on\\_Milne92\\] Milne [@Milne92 Cor.7.10] claimed to have proved this theorem, in the original setting (i.e when the level group ${\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ is hyperspecial and $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$). His proof is incomplete and flawed, in two respects. First, as was mentioned before, he misquotes the definition of *admissible pair* [@LR87 p.189] (a pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ is admissible in his sense if and only if it is admissible in the original sense and also ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$-effective in our sense, cf. Remark \\[rem:admissible\\_pair\\]), so his statements in *loc. cit.* using this terminology/notion require critical reading. Secondly and more seriously, in the proof of his Corollary 7.10, he claims that *if a Frobenius triple does not satisfy the condition of (7.5) then it contributes zero to the sum on the right* (a *Frobenius triple* in Milne\u2019s work is the same as a Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant). This non-trivial statement (which is simply an *effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple*) was never justified in *loc. cit.*, nor elsewhere, until our proof of Theorem \\[thm:LR-Satz5.21\\] (which is also valid in a more general setting). Also, we remark that for *general* $g$, one needs extra arguments, more than what Milne outlines based on [@Kottwitz84b] which was intended mainly for $g=1$ (or at best for those $g$\u2019s lying in a compact open subgroup of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$).\n\nUnconditional proof of Kottwitz conjecture {#subsec:uncond_proof_K-formula}\n------------------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection, we prove Kottwitz conjecture for Shimura varieties of Hodge-type with hyperspecial level. The main ingredients are as follows:\n\n-   Definition/description of isogeny classes (in terms of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties) [@Kisin17 Prop. 2.1.3] and their moduli interpretation (*loc. cit.* Prop. 1.4.15), and the resulting description of ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ as disjoint union of isogeny classes;\n\n-   Strong CM-lifting theorem (*loc. cit.* Cor. 2.2.5);\n\n-   Generalization of the Tate\u2019s theorem on endomorphisms of abelian varieties over finite fields (*loc. cit.* Cor. 2.3.2);\n\n-   Twisting method of isogeny classes or CM points (*loc. cit.* Prop. 4.4.8, 4.4.13);\n\n-   Effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triples (Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\\]).\n\nOur arguments will run in parallel to those of Langlands and Rapoport in the previous subsection which derive Kottwitz conjecture from Langlands-Rapoport conjecture. For that, we have to reformulate the above geometric results of Kisin into purely group-theoretic statements.\n\n\\(1) For a ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ and a connected reductive ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $G$ with ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(T)={\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(G)$, a *stable conjugacy class of ${\\mathbb Q}$-embeddings* $T\\hookrightarrow G$ is, by definition, an equivalence class of ${\\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $T\\hookrightarrow G$ with respect to stable conjugacy relation: two ${\\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $i_T,i_T':T\\hookrightarrow G$ are *stably conjugate* if and only if there exists $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $i_T'=\\Int(g)\\circ i_T$ (in particular, $\\Int(g)|_{i_T(T)}$ induces a transfer of maximal torus $i_T(T){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}i_T'(T)$).\n\n\\(2) For a Shimura datum $(G,X)$, a *stable conjugacy class of special Shimura sub-data* $(T,h)$ is, by definition, an equivalence class of special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ with respect to the following (stable conjugacy) equivalence relation: two special Shimura sub-data $(T,h)$, $(T',h')$ are *stably conjugate* if and only if there exist $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ inducing a ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism ${\\mathrm{Int}}(g)|_T:T{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T'$ and $g_{\\infty}\\in G({\\mathbb R})$ such that $\\Int(g)|_{T_{{\\mathbb R}}}=\\Int(g_{\\infty})|_{T_{{\\mathbb R}}}$ and $h'=\\Int(g_{\\infty})(h)$.\n\nWe remind the reader that we have fixed an embedding ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}\\hookrightarrow {\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$.\n\n\\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\] [@Kisin17 Cor.1.4.13, Prop.2.1.3, Cor.2.2.5] As a set with action by $\\langle\\Phi\\rangle\\times Z_G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rtimes G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ is a disjoint union of subsets $S({\\mathscr{I}})$, called *isogeny classes*, endowed with an action by the same group: $$\\label{eq:isogeny_decomp}\n {\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\bigsqcup_{{\\mathscr{I}}}S({\\mathscr{I}}).$$\n\n\\(1) For each isogeny class $S({\\mathscr{I}})$, there exist a connected reductive ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$, an element $b\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$, and embeddings of group schems (over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ and ${{\\mathbb Q}_l}$ for every finite $l\\neq p$) $$i_p:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} \\hookrightarrow J_b,\\quad i_l:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}} \\hookrightarrow G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$$ such that for almost all $l\\neq p$, $i_l$ extends to an embedding $i_l:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}\\hookrightarrow G_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}$ between reductive ${\\mathbb Z}_l$-group schemes $(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}$, $G_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}$, and in terms of which, one has $$S({\\mathscr{I}}):=I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash [X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)].$$ Here, $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ acts on $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ diagonally via $i_p\\times i^p$, where $i^p$ denotes the restricted product $\\prod_{l\\neq p}'i_l$, and $\\Phi$ acts on $S({\\mathscr{I}})$ via its action on $X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ by $(b\\sigma)^r$ ($r=[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$) while $g\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ acts on $S({\\mathscr{I}})$ via its right translation of $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$.\n\n\\(2) The ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ has the same ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-rank as $G$. There exists an embedding $Z(G)\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ such that $(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}/Z(G))_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is a subgroup of a compact inner form of $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}_{{\\mathbb R}}$.\n\n\\(3) For every maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$, there exists a stable conjugacy class of ${\\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $$i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$$ with the following properties:\n\nFor a choice of embedding $i_T$, there exist a $G({\\mathfrak{k}})\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugate of the triple of (1), denoted again by $(b,i_p, i^p)$, with $b\\in i_T(T)({\\mathfrak{k}})$, and $h\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\\mathbb R}})$ such that\n\n\\(i) the embeddings $i_p:I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\hookrightarrow J_b({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, $i^p:I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\hookrightarrow G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ are $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\times T({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$-equivariant: $$\\label{eq:(i_p,i^p)_adapted_to_i_T}\ni_p|_{T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})}=i_T|_{T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})},\\quad {i^p}|_{T({\\mathbb A}_f^p)}=i_T|_{T({\\mathbb A}_f^p)},$$ ($i_T|_{T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$ factors through $J_{b}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\subset G({\\mathfrak{k}})$, as $b\\in  i_T(T)({\\mathfrak{k}})$) and that\n\n\\(ii) the two elements $[b]$, $[b_1]$ of $B(i_T(T))$ are equal, where $b_1$ is an element of $i_T(T)({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ defined by any unramifed $i_T(T)({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate of $\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h}(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$.\n\nMoreover, the stable conjugacy class of ${\\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $i_T$ depends only on the $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of the embedding $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$.\n\n\\(4) For any special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ of $(G,X)$, if ${\\mathscr{I}}={\\mathscr{I}}_{T,h}$ is the isogeny class of the reduction of the special point $[h,1]\\in Sh_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, there exists an $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of ${\\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $$j_{T,h}:T\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$$ with the following properties:\n\n\\(iii) for any choice of $j_{T,h}$ in the conjugacy class, the associated (by the claim of (3)) stable conjugacy class of ${\\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$ contains the inclusion $T\\subset G$.\n\n\\(iv) for any maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ and any choice of $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$, the $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of embeddings $T\\stackrel{i_T}{\\rightarrow}i_T(T)\\stackrel{j_{i_T(T),h}}{\\hookrightarrow} I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ obtained from $(i_T(T),h)$ contains the inclusion $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$.\n\nMoreover, the isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}_{T,h}$ and the conjugacy class of $j_{T,h}$ both depend only on the stable conjugacy class of $(T,h)$.\n\n\\(1) The statement (3) needs some explanation. Note that for a triple $(b,i_p,i^p)$ as in (1) and any $(g_p,g^p)\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, we obtain a new triple $$(b':=g_pb\\sigma(g_p^{-1}),\\ \\Int(g_p)\\circ i_p:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\hookrightarrow J_b{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}J_{b'},\\ \\Int(g^p)\\circ i^p),$$ which again satisfies (1): left multiplication by $g_p\\times g^p$ induces a $\\langle\\Phi\\rangle\\times Z_G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rtimes G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$-equivariant bijection $$I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b')_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p).$$ Furthermore, as will be evident from the proof, such new triple enjoys all the other properties. Two such triples will be said to be *equivalent*: we will not distinguish them.\n\n\\(2) We will say that a triple $(b,i_p,i^p)$ in (1) is *adapted to* a given embedding $i_T$ if it satisfies conditions (i) and (ii) of (3). For fixed $i_T$, any two triples $(b,i_p,i^p)$ adapted to $i_T$ (in fact, satisfying just condition (i)) differ by conjugation by an element of $i_T(T)({\\mathfrak{k}})\\times i_T(T)({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ (since $\\mathrm{rk}(T)=\\mathrm{rk}(G)$ and $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is Zariski-dense in $T_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$) and thus for such triples the $\\sigma$-conjugacy of $b$ in $B( i_T(T))$ does not depend on the choice of the triple.\n\n\\(3) In (3), we are not asserting that there exists a unique stable conjugacy class of ${\\mathbb Q}$-embeddings $T\\hookrightarrow G$ satisfying the conditions.\n\nLater, we will provide further information on the group $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ and the embeddings $(i_p,i^p)$. But, before moving on, we derive a first (primitive) description of the fixed point set of the Frobenius-twsted Hecke correspondence $\\Phi^m\\circ f$ (\\[eq:Hecke\\_corr\\_twisted\\_by\\_Frob\\]) acting on an isogeny class $S({\\mathscr{I}})_{K^p}:=S({\\mathscr{I}})/K^p\\subset {\\mathscr{S}}_{K}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$: $$S({\\mathscr{I}})_{K}\\stackrel{p_1'}{\\longleftarrow} S({\\mathscr{I}})_{K_g} \\stackrel{p_2'=\\Phi^m\\circ p_2}{\\longrightarrow} S({\\mathscr{I}})_{K}.$$ By the same (elementary) argument ([@Kottwitz84b $\\S$1.4], [@Milne92 Lem. 5.3]) which yielded the description (\\[eq:fixed\\_pt\\_set\\_of\\_Heck-corresp1\\]), under the same assumption on $K^p$, the fixed point set decomposes into disjoint subsets (cf. [@Kottwitz84b 1.4.3, 1.4.4]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:fixed_pt_set_of_Heck-corresp2}\nS_{K}({\\mathscr{I}})^{\\Phi^m\\circ f=\\mathrm{Id}} &= \\bigsqcup_{\\epsilon} I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash [ X_p({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)\\times X^p({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon,g)/K^p_g ] ,\\end{aligned}$$ where the index $\\epsilon$ runs through a set of representatives in $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})$ for the conjugacy classes of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})/Z({\\mathbb Q})_K$, $I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}$ is the centralizer of $\\epsilon$ in $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ (regarded as an algebraic ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$), and $$\\begin{aligned}\nX_p({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon) &:=\\{\\ x_p\\in X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}  \\ \\ |\\ \\  i_p(\\epsilon) x_p=(b\\sigma)^n x_p\\ \\}, \\\\\nX^p({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon,g) &:=\\{\\ x^p\\in G({\\mathbb A}_f^p) \\ |\\ \\  i^p(\\epsilon) x^pg=x^p\\text{ mod }K^p\\ \\}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\n(of Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]) For the proof, we use freely the notations of [@Kisin17]. In this proof, all references will be to this work, unless stated otherwise. We first give a very brief review of some results in *loc. cit.* that are necessary for the proof of the theorem.\n\n\\(A) There exists a ${\\mathbb Z}_{(p)}$-lattice $V_{{\\mathbb Z}_{(p)}}$ of $V$ and a set of tensors $\\{s_{\\alpha}\\}_{\\alpha}$ on it which defines the reductive closed ${{\\mathbb Z}_p}$-subgroup scheme $G_{{{\\mathbb Z}_p}}$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ giving the hyperspecial subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ (i.e. ${\\mathbf{K}}_p=G_{{{\\mathbb Z}_p}}({{\\mathbb Z}_p})$) [@Kisin10 Prop.1.3.2]. Let $\\pi:{\\mathcal{A}}\\rightarrow {\\mathscr{S}}_K$ be the universal abelian scheme over ${\\mathscr{S}}_K$ (for sufficiently small $K^p$) and $\\mathcal{V}=R^1\\pi_{\\ast}\\Omega^{\\bullet}$ the first relative de Rham chomology (algebraic vector bundle). The tensors $\\{s_{\\alpha}\\}_{\\alpha}$ give rise to horizontal sections $\\{s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{B}}}\\}_{\\alpha}$ on the local system $R^1\\pi^{\\mathrm{an}}_{\\ast}({\\mathbb Z}_{(p)})$ over $Sh_K(G,X)$ (with $\\pi^{\\mathrm{an}}$ denoting the analytification of $\\pi$) and sections $\\{s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{dR}}}\\}_{\\alpha}$ on $\\mathcal{V}=R^1\\pi_{\\ast}\\Omega^{\\bullet}$ which correspond to each other (for the same $\\alpha$) via the de Rham isomorphism over ${\\mathbb C}$ [@Kisin17 1.3.6].\n\n\\(B) Suppose $x\\in {\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(k)$ for a finite extension $k\\subset {\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ of $\\kappa(\\wp)$. Let ${\\mathcal{A}}_x$ be the underlying abelian variety over $k$ and ${\\bar{x}}$ the ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-point induced by $x$. Let $H^1_{{\\text{\\'et}}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $H_{{\\mathrm{cris}}}^1({\\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$ be respectively the $l$-adic \u00e9tale and the cristalline cohomology groups of ${\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}}$ (for $l\\neq p$) and ${\\mathcal{A}}_x$, where $K_0:=W(k)[1/p]\\ (\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. We let $H^{{\\text{\\'et}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}},{{\\mathbb Q}_l}):={\\mathrm{Hom}}_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}(H^1_{{\\text{\\'et}}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_l}),{{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0):={\\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_0}(H^1_{{\\mathrm{cris}}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{x}/K_0),K_0)$ denote their linear dual (homology) groups. The latter group is equipped with the Frobenius operator $\\phi$: $\\phi(f)(v):=p^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\sigma}f(Vv)$ for $f\\in H_1^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}$ and $v\\in H^1_{{\\mathrm{cris}}}$, where $V$ is the Verschiebung on $H^1_{{\\mathrm{cris}}}$. Recall that the relative Frobenius morphism ${\\mathrm{Fr}}_{{\\mathcal{A}}_{x}/k}$ of ${\\mathcal{A}}_{x}/k$ acts on these homology spaces (${{\\mathbb Q}_l}$ and $K_0$-linearly) by the geometric $p^{[k:{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]}$-Frobenius ${\\mathrm{Fr}}_k^{-1}$ in ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}/k)$ and by the inverse of $\\phi^{[k:{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]}$, respectively.\n\nThen, there exist tensors $\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x}\\}_{\\alpha}$ on $H^1_{{\\text{\\'et}}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_l})\\ (l\\neq p)$ and tensors $\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x}\\}_{\\alpha}$ on $H_{{\\mathrm{cris}}}^1({\\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$ which are Frobenius invariant (for the geometric Frobenius acting on $H^1_{{\\text{\\'et}}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ and the absolute Frobenius automorphism acting on $H^1_{{\\mathrm{cris}}}({\\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$); for the construction of $s_{\\alpha,l,x}$ and $s_{\\alpha,0,x}$, see [@Kisin10 (2.2)] and [@Kisin17 Prop.1.3.9, 1.3.10] respectively. Also, there exist isomorphisms matching the respective tensors for each $\\alpha$: $$\\label{eq:isom_eta}\n\\begin{split}\n\\eta_l:(V,\\{s_{\\alpha}\\})\\otimes{{\\mathbb Q}_l}&{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\text{\\'et}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}},{{\\mathbb Q}_l}),\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x}\\}) , \\\\\n\\eta_p:(V,\\{s_{\\alpha}\\})\\otimes K_0 &{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0),\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x}\\}).\n\\end{split}$$ Most of the time, we are just contented with an isomorphism defined over ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ (or even over ${\\mathfrak{k}}$): $$\\label{eq:isom_eta_nr}\n\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:(V,\\{s_{\\alpha}\\})\\otimes {{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_x/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}),\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x}\\}).$$ For almost all $l\\neq p$ (in particular, such that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ is unramified), we may assume that the following conditions hold: there exist a ${\\mathbb Z}_{(l)}$-lattice $V_{{\\mathbb Z}_{(l)}}$ of $V$ such that the tensors $\\{s_{\\alpha}\\}_{\\alpha}$ live on it and defines a reductive ${\\mathbb Z}_l$-subgroup scheme $G_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$, and a similar statement holds true of the lattice $H^{{\\text{\\'et}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}},{\\mathbb Z}_l)$ and the tensors $\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x}\\}$. Further, for these ${\\mathbb Z}_l$-structures, there exists an ${\\mathbb Z}_l$-isomorphism extending $\\eta_l$; we denote it again by $\\eta_l$.\n\n\\(C) We define $\\gamma_l\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ ($l\\neq p$), $\\gamma_p\\in G(K_0)$ by $$\\label{eq:gamma_v}\n\\gamma_v^{-1}:=\\Int(\\eta_v^{-1})({\\mathrm{Fr}}_{{\\mathcal{A}}_{x}/k}).$$ These elements $\\gamma_l$, $\\gamma_p$ are well-defined up to conjugacy in $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ and $G(K_0)$, respectively. We also define $\\delta\\in \\mathrm{GL}(V_{K_0})$ by $$\\delta(1_V\\otimes\\sigma):=\\Int(\\eta_p^{-1})(\\phi),$$ so one has $\\gamma_p={\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta:=\\delta\\sigma(\\delta)\\cdots\\sigma^{n-1}(\\delta)$ ($n=[K_0:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]$).\n\nLet $k'\\subset{\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ be a finite extension of $k$. For each finite place $l\\neq p$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, let $I_{l/k'}$ be the centralizer of $\\gamma_l^{[k':k]}\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ and define $I_{p/k'}$ to be the $\\sigma$-centralizer $G_{\\delta\\sigma}$ of $\\delta$ in $G(K_0')$, where $K_0':=W[k'][\\frac{1}{p}]$ [@Kottwitz82 p.802]: $G_{\\delta\\sigma}$ is a closed subgroup of ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{K_0'/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(G)$ such that $G_{\\delta\\sigma}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})=\\{ y\\in G(K_0')\\ |\\ y(\\delta\\sigma)=(\\delta\\sigma)y\\}$. One has $(G_{\\delta\\sigma})_{K_0'}\\simeq Z_{G_{K_0'}}({\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta)$.\n\nThe increasing sequence of subgroups $\\{I_{l/k'}\\}_{k'\\subset{\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}}$ of $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ stabilizes to a subgroup $I_l$, which also equals the centralizer of $\\gamma_l^n$ in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ for (any) sufficiently large $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$. By similar reasoning (cf. [@Kisin17 (2.1.2)]), there exists a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-subgroup $I_p$ of $J_{\\delta}$ which equals $I_{p/k'}$ for all sufficiently large $k'\\subset{\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$. Write ${\\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\\mathbb Q}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}})$ for the automorphism group of ${\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}}$ in the isogeny category, and let $I_{x}\\subset {\\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\\mathbb Q}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}})$ denote the subgroup consisting of elements fixing all the tensors $\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x}\\}_{\\alpha}\\ (l\\neq p)$, $\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x}\\}_{\\alpha}$, regarded as an algebraic ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of ${\\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\\mathbb Q}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}})$.\n\n\\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.2.3.2;Tate\\_isom\\] [@Kisin17 Cor.2.3.2] For every finite place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, the restriction of $\\Int(\\eta_v)^{-1}$ if $v\\neq p$ or of $\\Int(\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})^{-1}$ if $v=p$ to $(I_{x})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ induces an isomorphism $$\\Int(\\eta_v)^{-1}(v\\neq p),\\ \\Int(\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})^{-1}\\ :\\ (I_{x})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_v.$$\n\nNow, we enter into the proof of the theorem (Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]). Recall the chosen embedding $\\sigma_p:{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}\\hookrightarrow {\\mathbb C}$ of $E(G,X)$-algebras.\n\n\\(1) For each $x\\in {\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$, if $x$ is defined over a finite field $k\\subset {\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$, any choice of isomorphisms $\\eta_l$ (\\[eq:isom\\_eta\\]), $\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ (\\[eq:isom\\_eta\\_nr\\]) gives an element $b\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ by $\\Int(\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}})(b\\sigma)=F$, and embeddings defined over ${{\\mathbb Q}_l}$ and ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$ $$i_{x,l}:(I_{x})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}} \\hookrightarrow G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}},\\quad i_{x,p}:(I_{x})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} \\hookrightarrow J_b.$$ Of course, different choice of $\\eta^p:=\\prod'\\eta_l$, $\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ gives rise to an equivalent triple $(b,i_{x}^p:=\\prod'i_{x,l},i_{x,p})$. For almost all $l\\neq p$, so that, among others, one can find a ${\\mathbb Z}_l$-isomorphism $\\eta_l$ for the ${\\mathbb Z}_l$-structures explained above, $i_{x,l}$ extends to an embedding $(I_x)_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}\\hookrightarrow G_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}$ of ${\\mathbb Z}_l$-group schemes.\n\nThen, there exists a $\\langle\\Phi\\rangle\\times Z_G({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\rtimes G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$-equivariant map $$\\iota_x:X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\rightarrow {\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}),$$ where $\\langle\\Phi\\rangle$ is the cyclic group generated by $\\Phi$ [@Kisin17 Cor. 1.4.13]; the image of $\\iota_x$ is the *isogeny class* containing $x$. This gives rise to the decomposition (\\[eq:isogeny\\_decomp\\]) $$\\bigsqcup_{x} I_{x}({\\mathbb Q})\\backslash [X(\\{\\mu_X\\},b)_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)] {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}{\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}),$$ where $x$ runs through a set of representatives of (i.e. points lying in) the isogeny classes [@Kisin17 Prop. 2.1.3].\n\n\\(2) The ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $I_{x}$ has the same ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-rank as $G$ [@Kisin17 Cor. 2.1.7].\n\n\\(3) It is shown in the proof of [@Kisin17 Thm. 2.2.3] that for every maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\\subset I_{x}\\subset {\\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\\mathbb Q}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}})$, and for any choice of a cocharacter $\\mu_T\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$ satisfying the conditions of [@Kisin17 Lem.2.2.2] (in particular, $\\mu_X$ lies in the conjugacy class $c(G,X)$), there exists a point $x'$ in the isogeny class of $x$ which lifts to a $K$-valued point $\\tilde{x}'$ of ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}$ for a finite extension $K\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of $K_0$ in such a way that the action of $T$ on ${\\mathcal{A}}_{x'}$ (in the isogeny category) lifts to ${\\mathcal{A}}_{\\tilde{x}'}$ and $\\mu_T^{-1}$ induces the Hodge filtration on $H^1_{{\\mathrm{cris}}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{x'}/K)\\cong H^1_{{\\mathrm{dR}}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\tilde{x}'}/K)$ (defined by ${\\mathcal{A}}_{\\tilde{x}'}$). We choose one such $\\mu_T$ and denote $x'$ again by $x$, thereby assume that $x$ itself is a point lifting to $\\tilde{x}$. This implies that $T$ is a subgroup of $G$, via a choice of an isomorphism ${\\mathbb Q}$-vector spaces endowed with a set of tensors $$\\label{eq:Betti-isom}\n\\eta_{{\\mathrm{B}}}:(H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})},{\\mathbb Q}),\\{s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{B}},\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}\\}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(V,\\{s_{\\alpha}\\})$$ and thus $\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})$ is a special (=CM) point on $Sh_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$; $\\eta_{{\\mathrm{B}}}$ is well-defined up to action of $G({\\mathbb Q})$ on $V$ and is provided by the moduli interpretation of ${\\mathrm{Sh}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}(G,X)({\\mathbb C})$. That is, we obtain an embedding and a special Shimura sub-datum $$\\label{eq:CM-lifting_via_T}\ni_T:T\\hookrightarrow G,\\quad h\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\\mathbb R}})$$ (such that $\\sigma_p(i_T\\circ\\mu_T)=\\mu_h$).\n\nFor such embedding $i_T$ and $h$, we claim that there exist isomorphisms $\\eta_l$ (\\[eq:isom\\_eta\\]), $\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ (\\[eq:isom\\_eta\\_nr\\]) which are *$T$-equivariant* with respect to $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$ and the action of $T$ on ${\\mathcal{A}}_{x}$. By construction of $i_T$ via the choice of $\\eta_B$ (\\[eq:Betti-isom\\]), it suffices to find such $T$-equivariant isomorphisms with $(H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})},{\\mathbb Q}),\\{s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{B}},\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}\\})$ replacing $(V,\\{s_{\\alpha}\\})$ (for the lifted action of $T$ on ${\\mathcal{A}}_{\\tilde{x}}$). For $l\\neq p$, this is clear since there exist *canonical* $T$-equivariant isomorphisms of ${{\\mathbb Q}_l}$-vector spaces matching the respective tensors: $$\\label{eq:isom_epsilon_l}\n\\begin{split}\n\\epsilon_l:(H^{{\\text{\\'et}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}},{{\\mathbb Q}_l}),\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x}\\}) &{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\text{\\'et}}}_1(({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\tilde{x}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}},{{\\mathbb Q}_l}),\\{s_{\\alpha,l,\\tilde{x}}\\})\\\\\n& {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})},{\\mathbb Q}),\\{s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{B}},\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}\\})\\otimes{{\\mathbb Q}_l}.\n\\end{split}$$ (In fact, the tensors $s_{\\alpha,l,\\tilde{x}}$ are constructed by the second isomorphism, cf. [@Kisin10 (2.2)]). For $p$, we also have canonical isomorphisms of ${\\mathbb C}$-vector spaces matching the respective tensors: $$\\label{eq:isom_epsilon_C}\n\\begin{split}\n(H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{x}/K),\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x}\\})\\otimes_{\\sigma_p}{\\mathbb C}& {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{dR}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\tilde{x}}/K),\\{s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{dR}},\\tilde{x}}\\})\\otimes_{\\sigma_p}{\\mathbb C}\\\\ \n&{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})},{\\mathbb Q}),\\{s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{B}},\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}\\})\\otimes{\\mathbb C}. \n\\end{split}$$ Clearly, these isomorphisms are *$T$-equivariant*. For the fact that the first isomorphism matches the respective tensors, see the proof of [@Kisin10 Prop.2.3.5] (cf. [@Kisin17 Prop.1.3.9]). This implies that the functor which associates with a $K_0$-algebra $R$ the set of $T$-equivariant, tensor-matching, $R$-linear isomorphisms $H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{x}/K_0)\\otimes R {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})},{\\mathbb Q})\\otimes R$ is a $K_0$-torsor under $T_{K_0}$ (use that $T({\\mathbb Q})$ is Zariski-dense in $T_{K_0}$ since $T$ is unirational). So by Steinberg\u2019s theorem $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}},T)=\\{1\\}$ (cf. [@Lee16 3.2.2]), one can find a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-isomorphism $$\\label{eq:isom_epsilon_ur_p} \n\\epsilon_p:(H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{x}/K_0),\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x}\\})\\otimes_{K_0}{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})},{\\mathbb Q}),\\{s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{B}},\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}\\})\\otimes{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}.$$ taking $s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{dR}},\\tilde{x}}$ to $s_{\\alpha,{\\mathrm{B}},\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}$ for every $\\alpha$ and intertwining the two $T$-actions.\n\nFor such $T$-equivariant $\\eta_l$, $\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$, the resulting embeddings $i_{x,p}:I_{x}({{\\mathbb Q}_p})\\hookrightarrow J_b({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, $i^p_{x}:I_{x}({\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\hookrightarrow G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ clearly satisfy (\\[eq:(i\\_p,i\\^p)\\_adapted\\_to\\_i\\_T\\]), where $b\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ is given by that $b\\sigma$ is the absolute Frobenius element acting on $H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_x/{{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ via $\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$. Note that we have $b\\in i_T(T)({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ because $b$ commutes with $i_T(T)({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, thus $b\\in Z_{G({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})}(i_T(T)({{\\mathbb Q}_p}))=i_T(T)({{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}})$ (the equality holds since $T$ is unirational so that $T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$ is Zariski dense in $T$). Since ${\\mathcal{A}}_{x}$ is the reduction of the CM point $[h,1]\\in Sh_{K_T}(i_T(T),\\{h\\})\\in Sh_K(G,X)$ (for $K_{T}:=i_T(T)({\\mathbb A}_f)\\cap K$), property (ii) of (3) follows from Lemma \\[lem:properties\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\] and [@Lee16 Lem.3.2.4].\n\nNext, let $j_x:T\\subset I_{x}$ be a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus and $T'=\\Int(a)(T)$ for $a\\in I_{x}({\\mathbb Q})$. Then, we claim that for any $\\mu_{T'} \\in X_{\\ast}(T')$ satisfying the conditions of [@Kisin17 Lem.2.2.2], if $\\tilde{x}'$ and $i_{T'}:T'\\hookrightarrow G$ are the resulting CM-lifting of a suitable point $x'$ in the isogeny class of $x$ and the embedding discussed above (which is obtained by the construction of [@Kisin17 Thm.2.2.3], via an isomorphism (\\[eq:Betti-isom\\])), the two embeddings of $T$ into $G$ $$i_{T'}\\circ\\Int(a),\\ i_T\\ :\\ T\\hookrightarrow G$$ are stably conjugate. It suffices to show that for *any* two quasi-isogenies $\\theta_i:\\mathcal{A}_x\\rightarrow \\mathcal{A}_{x_i}\\ (i=1,2)$ respecting weak polarizations and matching the respective etale and crystalline tensors, and such that $x_i$ lifts to a point $\\tilde{x}_i$ in characteristic zero in a way that $\\theta_{i\\ast}:T{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_i\\subset I_{x_i}$ lifts to $G$ via an isomorphism (\\[eq:Betti-isom\\]), the resulting embeddings $i_1,i_2:T\\hookrightarrow G$ are stably conjugate. Since the isomorphisms induced by $\\theta_2\\circ\\theta_1^{-1}$ $$(H^{{\\text{\\'et}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}_1},{{\\mathbb Q}_l}),\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x_1}\\}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(H^{{\\text{\\'et}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{{\\bar{x}}_2},{{\\mathbb Q}_l}),\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x_2}\\}),\\ (H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{x_1}/{\\mathfrak{k}}),\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x_1}\\}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{x_2}/{\\mathfrak{k}}),\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x_2}\\})$$ are compatible with $\\theta_{1\\ast}$, $\\theta_{2\\ast}$, the functor, defined on the category of ${\\mathbb Q}$-algebras, of isomorphisms $H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x}_1)},{\\mathbb Q}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x}_2)},{\\mathbb Q})$ preserving the Betti tensors and compatible with $i_1$, $i_2$ is non-empty, thus becomes a $T$-torsor by (2). In particular, it has a ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-valued point, which implies the claim. This fact also implies that to obtain $i_T$, we may use the embedding $T\\subset {\\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\\mathbb Q}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\tilde{y}})$ for any point $y\\in {\\mathscr{I}}$ which lifts to a special-point lifting $\\tilde{y}$, regarding $T$ as a subtorus of $I_{y}$ via any quasi-isogeny ${\\mathcal{A}}_{y}\\rightarrow {\\mathcal{A}}_{x}$.\n\nNow, for each isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}$, we fix a ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$-point $x$ lying in it and define the group $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ to be $I_{x}$. By choosing isomorphisms $\\eta_l\\ (l\\neq p)$ (\\[eq:isom\\_eta\\]), $\\eta_p^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ (\\[eq:isom\\_eta\\]) defined over ${\\mathfrak{k}}$ such that for almost all $l\\neq p$, $\\eta_l$ extends over ${\\mathbb Z}_l$, we obtain an element $b\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ and embeddings $i^p:=i_{x}^p:(I_{x})_{{\\mathbb A}_f}\\hookrightarrow G_{{\\mathbb A}_f}$, $i_p:=i_{x,p}:(I_{x})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\hookrightarrow J_b$ of group schemes over ${\\mathbb A}_f^p$ and ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$. We have already shown statements (1) - (3) for $I_{x}$.\n\nFor (4), if ${\\mathscr{I}}$ is the isogeny class of the reduction $x'$ of the special point $[h,1]$ and $x$ is the prechosen point of ${\\mathscr{I}}$, the natural ${\\mathbb Q}$-embedding $j_{x'}:T\\hookrightarrow {\\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\\mathbb Q}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{x'})$ factors through the subgroup $I_{x'}$ defined as above for $x'$. We define $j_{T,h}$ to be the composite $T\\hookrightarrow I_{x'}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{x}$ for any isomorphism $I_{x'}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{x}$ induced by a choice of an isogeny ${\\mathcal{A}}_{x'} \\rightarrow {\\mathcal{A}}_{x}$ preserving the (\u00e9tale and crystalline) tensors and the weak polarizations. Clearly, the $I_{x}({\\mathbb Q})$-isogeny class of such embeddings does not depend on the choice of the isogeny. In view of this construction, the properties of (4) are immediate. The last property that the isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}_{T,h}$ depends only on the stable conjugacy class of $(T,h)$ will be established later in Prop. \\[prop:Kisin17\\_Prop.4.4.8\\].\n\n\\[defn:admissible\\_pair2\\] (cf. Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\]) A pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ consisting of an isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}\\subset{\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ and an element $\\epsilon$ of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})$ is *admissible* of level $n=m[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ ($m\\in{\\mathbb N}$) if for a triple $(b\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}}),i_p,i^p)$ in Theorem \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], there exists $x_p\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})/{\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$ such that $$i_p(\\epsilon)x_p=(b\\sigma)^nx_p$$ (equiv. there exists $x\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $i_p(\\epsilon)x\\rtimes \\sigma^n=(b\\rtimes\\sigma)^nx$, cf. Lemma \\[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\\_b3.3\\]). Two such pairs $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$, $({\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon')$ are said to be *equivalent* if ${\\mathscr{I}}={\\mathscr{I}}'$ and $\\epsilon'=\\Int(g)(\\epsilon)$ for some $g\\in I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})$.\n\nClearly, the admissibility condition in this definition does not depend on the choice of a representative $(b,i_p)$ in its equivalence class.\n\nWe have the same name \u201cadmissible\u201d for two different (but closely related) definitions: admissible in the sense of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\] for a pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ consisting of a Galois gerb morphism $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ and an element $\\epsilon\\in I_{\\phi}({\\mathbb Q})(\\subset G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$, and admissible in the above sense for a pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ consisting of an isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}$ and an element $\\epsilon\\in I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})$. To avoid confusion, we will use the words *LR-pair*, *LR-admissible* in the former situation and the words *K-pair*, *K-admissible* in the latter situation.\n\nNext, with any K-admissible K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon\\in I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q}))$, say, of level $n=mr$, we associate a Kottwitz triple imitating the recipe for admissible LR-pairs. First, by Lemma \\[lem:Kottwitz84-a1.4.9\\_b3.3\\] again, there exists $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $$\\label{eq:(epsilon,b,c)->delta2}\nc(i_p(\\epsilon)^{-1}(b\\rtimes\\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\\sigma^n,$$ which implies that $\\delta:=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})\\in G(L_n)$ and ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta=c\\epsilon'c^{-1}$; the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class of $\\delta$ in $G(L_n)$ depends only on the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ (i.e. depends on the choice of neither $c$ or of a representative $(b,i_p)$ in its equivalence class. We put $\\gamma=(\\gamma_l)_{l\\neq p}:=i^p(\\epsilon)$; its $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$-conjugacy class is also uniquely attached to $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$. To define $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$, we choose a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ with $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$, and fix an embedding $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$ and embeddings $(i_p,i^p)$ accordingly as in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\] (especially, satisfying condition (3)). Then, we obtain a triple of elements in $G({\\mathbb Q})\\times G(L_n)\\times G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$ $$\\label{eq:K-triple_for_isogeny_adm.pair}\n(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta):=(i_T(\\epsilon);i^p(\\epsilon),cb\\sigma(c^{-1})),$$ where $n$ is the level of $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$. We will show below that this triple is a stable Kottwitz-triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant whose stable equivalence class depends only on the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ (in particular, not depending on the choices of $i_T$ and $T$); cf. , , . For that end and for our proof of Kottwitz conjecture coming later, the following simple observations are critical:\n\n\\[lem:key\\_observations\\] (1) A K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon\\in I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q}))$ is K-admissible (i.e. admissible in the sense of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair2\\]) if and only if for a (equiv. any) maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\\epsilon$, the special LR-pair $(\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h},i_T(\\epsilon))$ is LR-admissible (i.e. admissible in the sense of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\]), where $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$, $h\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\\mathbb R}})$, and $(b\\in i_T(T)({\\mathfrak{k}}),i_p,i^p)$ are as in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\].\n\nIn this case, the triple $(\\gamma_0;\\delta,\\gamma):=(i_T(\\epsilon);cb\\sigma(c^{-1}),i^p(\\epsilon))$ (\\[eq:K-triple\\_for\\_isogeny\\_adm.pair\\]) is stably equivalent to the stable Kottwitz triple attached to the special LR-pair $(\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h},i_T(\\epsilon))$ as constructed in Prop. \\[prop:Kottwitz\\_triple\\].\n\nMoreover, its stable equivalence class does not depend on the choice of $c$, $i_T$, $T$. We denote its equivalence class by $\\kappa({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$; we use similar notation $\\kappa(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ for an LR-admissible LR-pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$.\n\n\\(2) A special LR-pair $(\\psi_{T,\\mu_h},\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q}))$ is LR-admissible if and only if the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},j_{T,h}(\\epsilon))$ is K-admissible, where ${\\mathscr{I}}\\subset {\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ is the isogeny class of the reduction of $[h,1]\\in Sh_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ and $j_{T,h}:T\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ is any embedding in the $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class attached to $(T,h)$ in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], (4). In this case the two Kottwitz triples $\\kappa(\\psi_{T,\\mu_h},\\epsilon)$, $\\kappa({\\mathscr{I}},j_{T,h}(\\epsilon))$ are equivalent.\n\n\\(1) Set $\\phi:=\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h}$. Since one has $i_T(T)(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\cap X^p(\\phi)\\neq\\emptyset$ for any *special* admissible morphism $\\phi$ into ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{i_T(T)}$ (Lemma \\[lem:properties\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\]), to check LR-admissibility for the special LR-pair $(\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h},i_T(\\epsilon))$, we only need to consider condition (3) of Def. \\[defn:admissible\\_pair\\] at $p$. Let us choose some unramified conjugate $\\xi_p':=\\Int(u)\\circ\\xi_p$ of $\\xi_p=\\phi(p)\\circ\\zeta_p:{\\mathfrak{G}}_p\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{i_T(T)}(p)$ under $i_T(T)({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$, and let $b'\\in T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ be defined by $b'\\sigma=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$ when $\\xi_p'$ is the inflation of a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$. Then, since we have $[b']=[b]$ in $B(i_T(T))$ and $i_p|_{T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})}=i_T|_{T({{\\mathbb Q}_p})}$ (Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], (3)), it is immediate that the equation ${\\mathrm{Int}}u(i_T(\\epsilon))x\\rtimes\\sigma^n(=i_T(\\epsilon)x\\rtimes\\sigma^n)=(b'\\rtimes\\sigma)^nx$ has a solution in $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (i.e. $(\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon))$ is LR-admissible) if and only if $i_p(\\epsilon)x\\rtimes\\sigma^n=(b\\rtimes\\sigma)^nx$ has one (i.e. $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ is K-admissible). In this case, if we choose $d\\in i_T(T)({\\mathfrak{k}})$ with $b=db'\\sigma(d^{-1})$, from $c(i_p(\\epsilon)^{-1}(b\\rtimes\\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\\sigma^n$, we obtain $cd(i_T(\\epsilon)^{-1}(b'\\rtimes\\sigma)^n)(cd)^{-1}=\\sigma^n$. Since $(cd)b'\\sigma(cd)^{-1}=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})=:\\delta$ and $i_T(T)(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\cap X^p(\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h})\\neq\\emptyset$, it follows from definition (cf. ) that the triple $(i_T(\\epsilon);i_T(\\epsilon),\\delta)$ is a Kottwitz triple attached to the LR-admissible LR-pair $(\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h},i_T(\\epsilon))$. It is easy to see that this is a stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant that was constructed in Prop. \\[prop:Kottwitz\\_triple\\] (Remark \\[rem:two\\_different\\_b\u2019s\\]).\n\nNext, we show that the stable equivalence class of $(i_T(\\epsilon);i_T(\\epsilon),\\delta)$ does not depend on the choices of $i_T$ and $T$. It suffices to show this independence for its (geometric) equivalence class, because for stable Kottwitz triples $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, the $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy relation for $\\gamma_0$ is the same as the stable conjugacy relation (Prop. \\[prop:triviality\\_in\\_comp\\_gp\\]). Since the $G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$-conjugacy class of $(i^p,(i_p,b\\sigma))$ is completely determined by the isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}$, the $G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$-conjugacy class of $\\gamma$ and the $\\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G(L_n)$ of $\\delta$ depends only on the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$. By contrast, a priori the stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0$ depends on the choice of $T$ and $i_T$. But, as $\\gamma_0=i_p(\\epsilon)$, we find that the $G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0$ is also determined only by the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$.\n\n\\(2) This follows from (1), because the inclusion $T\\subset G$ lies in the distinguished stable conjugacy class of embeddings $T\\hookrightarrow G$ attached to $j_{T,h}:T\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ as in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], (3) (property (iv) of Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], (4)). Note that a (resp. stable) Kottwitz triple attached to an LR-admissible pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ that is well-located (resp. nested) in a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $G$ remains (resp. stably) equivalent under a transfer of maximal torus $\\Int(g):T\\hookrightarrow G\\ (g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}))$.\n\nNext, we proceed with our task of describing the fixed point set $S_{K^p}({\\mathscr{I}})^{\\Phi^m\\circ f=\\mathrm{Id}}$ towards the ultimate goal of expressing its cardinality in terms of the triple $(\\gamma_0;\\delta,\\gamma)$ and $g$. First, we need an analogue of Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\].\n\n\\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon2\\] Assume that ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. For any K-admissible K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$, there exist $s\\in{\\mathbb N}$ and $\\pi_0, t\\in T_{\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})$, where $T_{\\epsilon}$ is the subgroup (of multiplicative type) of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ generated by $\\epsilon\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$, satisfying the properties of Lemma \\[lem:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\]: we have $$(a)\\ \\epsilon^s=\\pi_0 t\\ ;\\qquad (b)\\ \\pi_0\\in K_l \\text{ for all }l\\neq p\\ ;\\qquad (c)\\ t\\in K_p,$$ for the maximal compact subgroup $K_v$ of $T_{\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\mathbb Q}_v)$ (for each finite place $v$). Also, the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\pi_0^k)$ is K-admissible for every $k\\gg1$. The pair $(\\pi_0,t)$ is uniquely determined by $\\epsilon$, up to taking simultaneous powers.\n\nAny ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ has the same ranks over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and ${\\mathbb R}$ by Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\] and our assumption on $Z(G)$. Under that condition, the construction of $\\pi_0, t\\in T_{\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})$ satisfying the properties (a) - (c) of Lemma \\[lem:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\] uses only the ${\\mathbb Q}$-group structure of the ${\\mathbb Q}$-group $T_{\\epsilon}$ (of multiplicative type) and $\\epsilon$. To see the second statement, we choose a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\\epsilon$, and the data $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$, $h\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\\mathbb R}})$, $(b\\in i_T(T)({\\mathfrak{k}}),i_p,i^p)$ in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]. Then that $({\\mathscr{I}},\\pi_0^k)$ is K-admissible for all $k\\gg1$ follows from LR-admissibility of $(\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h},i_T(\\pi_0)^k)$ which in turn is implied by that of $(\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h},i_T(\\epsilon))$ (Lemma \\[lem:key\\_observations\\], Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\]).\n\nFor a group $A$, we consider the following equivalence relation $\\sim$ among the set of pairs $(a,n)$ with $a\\in A$, $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$: $(a,n)\\sim (a',n')$ if there exists $N\\in{\\mathbb N}$ such that $a^{n'N}=(a')^{nN}$. We define a *germ of an element* of $A$ to be an equivalence class of pairs $(a,n)$ for this equivalence relation. For an algebraic group $G$ over a field $k$ (say, of characteristic zero) and a germ $\\pi$ of an element of $G(k)$, if $(\\pi_n,n)$ is a representative of $\\pi$, the Zariski closures in $G$ of the subgroups generated by $\\pi_n^e\\ (e\\in{\\mathbb N})$ form a decreasing sequence (with $e$\u2019s being ordered multiplicatively) of subgroups, thus stabilizes to a $k$-subgroup. It is then easy to see that this $k$-group depends only on the given germ $\\pi$, not on the choice of representative $(\\pi_n,n)$; we call this subgroup of $G$ the *subgroup generated by* the germ $\\pi$. Also we call the centralizer in $G$ of this subgroup the *centralizer* (in $G$) of the germ $\\pi$ and denote it by $G_{\\pi}$.\n\n\\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.2.3.2\\] [@Kisin17 Cor.2.3.2] Assume that ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. Let ${\\mathscr{I}}\\subset{\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$ be an isogeny class.\n\nThere exists a unique germ $\\pi_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ of an element in $Z(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})({\\mathbb Q})$, called the *germ of Frobenius endomorphism* of ${\\mathscr{I}}$, with the following properties:\n\n\\(a) There exist a representative $i_p:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\hookrightarrow J_b$ of the $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$-conjugacy class of Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\] and a representative $(\\pi_N,N)$ of $\\pi=\\pi_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ such that one has $b\\in G(L_N)$ and $i_p(\\pi_N)={\\mathrm{N}}_Nb$;\n\n\\(b) The embeddings $i_l:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}} \\hookrightarrow G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}\\ (l\\neq p)$, $i_p:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\hookrightarrow J_b$ of Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\] induce isomorphisms of group schemes $$i_l:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{i_l(\\pi)},\\quad i_p:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{i_p(\\pi)},$$ where $I_{i_l(\\pi)}$ and $I_{i_p(\\pi)}$ denote respectively the centralizer in $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}$ of the germ $i_l(\\pi)$ and the centralizer in $J_b$ of the germ $i_p(\\pi)$. Also for almost all $l\\neq p$, the ${\\mathbb Z}_l$-embedding $i_l:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{\\mathbb Z}_l} \\hookrightarrow G_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}$ of Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\] induces an isomorphism $(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{\\mathbb Z}_l} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{{\\mathbb Z}_l})_{i_l(\\pi)}$.\n\n\\(c) For any representative $(\\pi_n,n)$ of $\\pi_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$, the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\pi_n^k)$ is K-admissible for all $k\\gg1$ and $\\pi_n$ lies in a compact subgroup of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ for every finite place $l\\neq p$. For any K-admissible K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ of level $n$ and each triple $(\\pi_0,t\\in T_{\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q});s\\in{\\mathbb N})$ attached to $\\epsilon$ as in Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon2\\], $(\\pi_0,ns)$ represents the germ $\\pi_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$.\n\nThere is a natural candidate for $\\pi_n\\ (k\\gg1)$, i.e. the $p^n$-th relative Frobenius endomorphism in $Z(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})({\\mathbb Q})$ of the isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}$. The uniqueness (as a germ of element in $Z(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})({\\mathbb Q})$) will follow from (c).\n\nProperty (b) is Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.2.3.2;Tate\\_isom\\], i.e. Kisin\u2019s generalization of the Tate\u2019s theorem on the endomorphisms of abelian varieties over finite fields. We choose a point $x$ in ${\\mathscr{I}}$ defined over a finite field ${\\mathbb F}_q$ and via some $K_0:=W({\\mathbb F}_q)[1/p]$-linear isomorphism $V\\otimes K_0 {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$ matching the tensors $s_{\\alpha}$, $s_{\\alpha,0,x}$ on both sides, we identify the Frobenius automorphism on $H_{{\\mathrm{cris}}}^1({\\mathcal{A}}_x/K_0)$ with $\\delta\\sigma$ for $\\delta\\in G(K_0)$. From this choice, we obtain a datum $(b=\\delta,i_p:(I_{\\phi})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\hookrightarrow J_b)$ in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]; note that in this case, we have $$\\label{eq:(delta,i_p)}\ni_p(\\pi_N)={\\mathrm{N}}_N\\delta$$ for any $N\\in N$ with ${\\mathbb F}_q\\subset {\\mathbb F}_{p^N}$; this establishes (a). Now, property (b) for $l\\neq p$ is immediate from Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.2.3.2;Tate\\_isom\\]. In the $p$-adic case, *loc. cit.* says that for any $N\\gg1$, $i_p$ identifies $(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ with the $\\sigma$-centralizer $G_{\\delta\\sigma}(\\subset {\\mathrm{Res}}_{L_N/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(G))$ inside $J_{\\delta}$. But, since ${\\mathrm{N}}_N\\delta\\rtimes\\sigma^N=(\\delta\\rtimes\\sigma)^N$, for any ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-algebra $R$, an element $g\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}}\\otimes_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} R)$ commutes simultaneously with $\\delta\\sigma$ and $\\sigma^N$ if and only if it does so with $\\delta\\sigma$ and ${\\mathrm{N}}_N\\delta=i_p(\\pi_N)$, thus one has $$\\begin{aligned}\nG_{\\delta\\sigma}(R) &=\\{ g\\in G(L_N\\otimes_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} R)\\ |\\ \\delta\\sigma(g)=g\\delta \\} \\\\\n&=\\{g\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}}\\otimes_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} R)\\ |\\ \\sigma^Ng=g,\\ \\delta\\sigma(g)=g\\delta \\} \\\\\n&=J_{\\delta,i_p(\\pi_N)}(R),\\end{aligned}$$ as was asserted. The second statement on the extension of $i_l$ over ${\\mathbb Z}_l$ is clear, since for almost all $l\\neq p$, $i_l(\\pi_N)\\in G_{{\\mathbb Z}_l}({\\mathbb Z}_l)$ for all $N\\gg1$ according to (c) below.\n\nNext, for property (c), the K-admissibility of $({\\mathscr{I}},\\pi_N)$ (for $N\\gg1$) follows from (a), since for the choice of $(b,i_p)$ there, one has $i_p(\\pi_N)^{-1}(b\\rtimes\\sigma)^N=\\sigma^N$. Also, being a relative Frobenius endomorphism, for every $l\\neq p$, the eigenvalues of $\\pi_N$ are all $l$-adic units, which implies that the subgroup of $Z(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ generated by $\\pi_N$ is bounded (thus, its closure is compact). The last claim of (c) can be established by the argument of the proof of Prop. \\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\]. Take a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\\epsilon$ (which automatically also contains the germ $\\pi$), and let $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$, $h\\in X\\cap{\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\\mathbb R}})$ be as in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]. By Lemma \\[lem:key\\_observations\\] and Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon2\\] , we know that the LR-pair $(\\phi:=\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h},i_T(\\pi_0^k))$ is LR-admissible of level $nsk$ for all $k\\gg1$, hence we have $\\pi_0^{k}=\\psi_{i_T(T),h}(\\delta_{nsk})$ (Prop. \\[prop:phi(delta)=gamma\\_0\\_up\\_to\\_center\\]). If $A/{\\mathbb F}_{p^{nsk}}$ is the abelian variety over a finite field ${\\mathbb F}_{p^{nsk}}$ for $k\\gg1$ corresponding to the CM point $[h,1]\\in Sh_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, it follows from the theory of complex multiplication (cf. [@CCO14 A.2.5.7, A.2.5.8]) that $\\psi_{i_T(T),h}(\\delta_{nsk})$ is the relative Frobenius of $A/{\\mathbb F}_{p^{nsk}}$, hence equals $\\pi_{nsk}$.\n\n\\[lem:Tate\\_thm2\\] Assume that ${\\mathbb Q}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))={\\mathbb R}\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{rk}(Z(G))$. Let $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ be a K-admissible K-pair. We fix a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\\epsilon$, and also $(i_T,h)$, $(b,i_p,i^p)$ as in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]. Let $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ be an associated Kottwitz triple (\\[eq:K-triple\\_for\\_isogeny\\_adm.pair\\]).\n\n\\(1) The embedding $i^p:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{\\mathbb A}_f^p} \\hookrightarrow G_{{\\mathbb A}_f^p}$ induces an isomorphism of ${\\mathbb A}_f^p$-group scheme $$i^p:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})_{{\\mathbb A}_f^p} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{\\gamma},$$ where $G_{\\gamma}$ is the centralizer of $\\gamma$ in $G_{{\\mathbb A}_f^p}$.\n\n\\(2) If the couple $(b,i_p)$ of Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\] is chosen such that $b\\in i_T(T)({\\mathfrak{k}})$, and we fix $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (\\[eq:(epsilon,b,c)-&gt;delta2\\]), the embedding $\\Int(c)\\circ i_p:(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\hookrightarrow J_b{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}J_{\\delta}$ induces an isomorphism of ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-groups $$\\label{eq:Int(cu)2}\n\\Int(c)\\circ i_p:\\ (I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{\\delta\\sigma},$$ where $G_{\\delta\\sigma}(\\subset {\\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}(G))$ is the $\\sigma$-centralizer of $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$.\n\n\\(3) There exists an inner twisting $(I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ that restricts to $i_T:T{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}i_T(T)$. It also induces an inner twisting $(I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_0})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$.\n\nAs in the case of LR-admissible LR-pairs, the isomorphism class of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ as an inner form of $G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ is not uniquely determined by the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ or the associated Kottwitz triple (unless $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$).\n\n\\(1) By Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.2.3.2\\] and Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon2\\] (plus Lemma \\[lem:Zariski\\_group\\_closure\\]), $i_l$ induces isomorphisms (for any $k\\gg1$) $$(I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}}(i_l(\\pi_{nsk}),i_l(\\epsilon)) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}}(i_l(\\pi_0^k),i_l(\\epsilon)) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z_{G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_l}}}(i_l(\\epsilon)),$$ where $(\\pi_{nsk},nsk)$ is a representative of the germ $\\pi_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ and $(s\\in{\\mathbb N},\\pi_0\\in T_{\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q}))$ are as in Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon2\\] (the groups in the middle denote the simultaneous centralizers of the elements inside the round brackets).\n\n\\(2) Again, as in the case $l\\neq p$, it follows from Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.2.3.2\\] and Prop. \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon2\\] (plus Lemma \\[lem:Zariski\\_group\\_closure\\]) that $i_p$ induces isomorphisms (for any $k\\gg1$) $$\\label{eq:i_{p,epsilon}}\n(I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z_{J_b}(i_p(\\pi_{nsk}),i_p(\\epsilon)) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z_{J_b}(i_p(\\pi_0^k),i_p(\\epsilon)) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z_{J_b}(i_p(\\epsilon)).$$ Then, as one has $c(i_p(\\epsilon)^{-1}(b\\sigma)^n)c^{-1}=\\sigma^n$ (\\[eq:(epsilon,b,c)-&gt;delta2\\]), $\\Int(c)$ induces an isomorphism $$\\Int(c): Z_{J_b}(i_p(\\epsilon)) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{\\delta\\sigma}$$ (cf. proof of Lemma \\[lem:isom\\_Int(cu)\\]).\n\n\\(3) An inner class of a connected reductive ${\\mathbb Q}$-group is determined by the canonical Galois action on the Dynkin diagram which is given by a homomorphism ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Aut}}(X_{\\ast}(T))/N_G(T)$ acting on a based root datum $(X^{\\ast}(T),\\Delta,X_{\\ast}(T),\\Delta^{\\vee})$ for any maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ ($\\Delta\\subset X^{\\ast}(T)$ being a set of simple roots, as usual). Hence, using that the ${\\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ share the same maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}i_T(T)$, it suffices to show that the two homomorphisms ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})\\rightarrow {\\mathrm{Aut}}(X_{\\ast}(T))/N_G(T)$ canonically attached to them are the same. By Chebotarev density theorem, it is enough to check this locally for places in a set of Dirichlet density $1$. For a place $v$, the equality of the restrictions of the homomorphisms to ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}/{{\\mathbb Q}_v})$ follows from the existence of $T$-equivariant inner-twistings $$(I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}.$$ For finite $v$, such inner-twisting is provided by (1) and (2): for $l\\neq p$, it suffices that $\\gamma_0$ and $\\gamma_l$ are stably conjugate. For $p$, one uses the fact that there exists a $T$-equivariant inner-twisting $(G_{\\delta\\sigma})_{K_0}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(G_{K_0})_{\\gamma_p}$, where $K_0=W(k)[1/p]$ and $\\gamma_p={\\mathrm{N}}_{n}\\delta\\in i_T(T)(K_0)$ (cf. [@Kottwitz82 Lem.5.4]).\n\nNext, we prove an analogue of Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\]. For that, adapting the idea of Kisin of twisting an isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}$ by cohomology classes in $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})$, we also twist arbitrary K-admissible K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon\\in I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q}))$ by certain cohomology classes in $${\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})].$$ Here, the groups $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})$, $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})$ are defined as follows. Recall $\\pi_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$, the germ of Frobenius endomorphism attached to ${\\mathscr{I}}$ (Lemma \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.2.3.2\\]). Using any maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ and a fixed choice of embedding $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$ as in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], we obtain a germ $i_T(\\pi_{{\\mathscr{I}}})$ of element in $G({\\mathbb Q})$. Let $I_0\\subset G$ be its centralizer. Then, the fact (Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.2.3.2\\]) that $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ is an inner-form of $I_0$ allows us to define (as in (\\[eq:Sha\\^[infty]{}\\_G\\])) $$\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}):=\\ker\\left[\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},I_0) \\rightarrow \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},G)\\right],$$ where the first isomorphism is induced by *any* inner-twisting $(I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ and the second map by the inclusion $I_0\\subset G$: this kernel is independent of all the choices made, especially of $T$, (cf. [@Kisin17 (4.4.7)]). The group $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})$ is defined similarly. As we will see, such twisting procedure corresponds to twisting an admissible morphism $\\phi:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_G$ (resp. an LR-admissible LR-pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$) by cohomology classes in $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi})$ (resp. classes in $\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+$) as explained in Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\\].\n\nNow, suppose given an isogeny class ${\\mathscr{I}}$ and $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus. We fix a ${\\mathbb Q}$-embedding $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$ and $h\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_T(T)_{{\\mathbb R}})$ as in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]. Let $\\tilde{\\beta}\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},T)$ and assume that the image of $i_T(\\tilde{\\beta})\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},i_T(T))$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},G)$ is trivial. Thus, there exists $\\tilde{\\omega}\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that the cochain $\\tau\\mapsto \\tilde{\\omega}^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}\\tilde{\\omega}$ on ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$ belongs to $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},i_T(T))$ and as such one has $$\\label{eq:tilde{omega}}\n[\\tilde{\\omega}^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}\\tilde{\\omega}]=i_T(\\tilde{\\beta})$$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},i_T(T))$. Equivalently, $\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega}):G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ gives a transfer of maximal torus $i_T(T)\\hookrightarrow G$ whose base-change $\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})_{{\\mathbb R}}:i_T(T)_{{\\mathbb R}}\\hookrightarrow G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is induced from conjugation by an element in $G({\\mathbb R})$. Therefore, for such $\\tilde{\\omega}$, the pair $$\\label{eq:stable-conj._of_special_SD}\n(i_T(T)^{\\tilde{\\beta}}, h^{\\tilde{\\beta}}):=(\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(i_T(T)),\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(h))$$ is another special Shimura sub-datum of $(G,X)$, which is easily seen to depend only on $(i_T(T),h)$ and the cohomology class $\\tilde{\\beta}\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}({\\mathbb Q},T)$.\n\n\\[prop:Kisin17\\_Prop.4.4.8\\] (1) [@Kisin17 Prop.4.4.8] Let ${\\mathscr{I}}$ be an isogeny class and $\\beta_1,\\beta_2\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})$. For each $i=1,2$, choose a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T_i\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ such that $\\beta_i\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})$ is the image of some $\\tilde{\\beta}_i\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},T_i)$ (which exists by [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.11]), and fix $i_{T_i}:T_i\\hookrightarrow G$, $h_i\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_{T_i}(T_i)_{{\\mathbb R}})$, and $\\tilde{\\omega}_i\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ as above. Then, the isogeny classes ${\\mathscr{I}}_i\\ (i=1,2)$ of the reductions of $[\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega}_i)(h_i),1]$ are the same if and only if $\\beta_1=\\beta_2$.\n\nIn particular, for any $\\beta\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})$, the corresponding isogeny class depends only on $\\beta$ (not on the choices of auxiliary data $T$, $\\tilde{\\beta}$, $i_{T}$, $h$, $\\tilde{\\omega}$), and when we denote it by ${\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}$, the assignment $\\beta\\mapsto {\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}$ defines an inclusion of $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})$ into the set of isogeny classes in ${\\mathscr{S}}_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}})$.\n\n\\(2) Let $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ be a K-admissible K-pair. Then, for any $\\beta\\in {\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})]$, there exists a K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta},\\epsilon^{\\beta})$ with the following properties:\n\n-   as an isogeny class, ${\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}$ is the twist of ${\\mathscr{I}}$ by the image of $\\beta$ in $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})$;\n\n-   for any maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ such that $\\beta$ is the image of some $\\tilde{\\beta}\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},T)$, the $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}({\\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of $\\epsilon^{\\beta}$ contains $$\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(i_T(\\epsilon))\\ \\in\\ i_T(T)^{\\tilde{\\beta}}({\\mathbb Q}),$$ where $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$ and $\\tilde{\\omega}$ are as before and $\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(i_T(\\epsilon))$ is regarded as an element of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}({\\mathbb Q})$ via any embedding $j_{i_T(T)^{\\tilde{\\beta}},h^{\\tilde{\\beta}}}:i_T(T)^{\\tilde{\\beta}}\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}$ in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], (4).\n\nMoreover, the assignment $\\beta\\mapsto ({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta},\\epsilon^{\\beta})$ gives a well-defined inclusion of ${\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})]$ into the set of equivalence classes of K-pairs.\n\n\\(1) As indicated in the statement, this is [@Kisin17 Prop.4.4.8].\n\n\\(2) We use a moduli interpretation of ${\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}$ (which was also the key ingredient of the proof of (1)). For any $\\beta\\in {\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})]$, we can find a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ such that $\\beta$ is the image of some $\\tilde{\\beta}\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},T)$ [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.11], which then must lie in $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},T)$ [@Kisin17 4.4.5]. We fix $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$, $\\tilde{\\omega}$ as in (1). If $x\\in {\\mathscr{I}}$ denotes the reduction of $[h,1]$, the reduction of $[\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(h),1]$ is $\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)$ in the notation of (4.4.7) of [@Kisin17]. Its underlying abelian variety $\\mathcal{A}_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}$ is isomorphic to the twist $\\mathcal{A}_{x}^{\\mathcal{P}}$ of $\\mathcal{A}_{x}$ by the $T$-torsor $\\mathcal{P}$ corresponding to $\\tilde{\\beta}\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},T)$ (*loc. cit.* 4.1.6), and there exists a natural ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny between the corresponding weakly polarized abelian varieties endowed with a set of (crystalline and \u00e9tale) cycles (i.e. $s_{\\alpha,0,x}$, $s_{\\alpha,l,x}\\ (l\\neq p)$ in the notation of the proof of Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]) $$\\label{eq:Qb-isogeny_theta}\n\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}:\\mathcal{A}_{x}^{\\mathcal{P}}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\mathcal{A}_{x}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}},$$ which is unique up to $T({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy, once we fix an identification $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}({\\mathbb Q})= I_x({\\mathbb Q})$: in more detail, such ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny is induced by a point of $\\mathcal{P}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ (i.e. a homomorphism $\\mathcal{O}_{\\mathcal{P}}\\rightarrow {\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$) from a universal isomorphism (in the isogeny category, cf. *loc. cit.* 4.1.6) $$\\label{eq:univ_isogeny_theta}\n\\mathcal{A}_x^{\\mathcal{P}}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}\\mathcal{O}_{\\mathcal{P}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\mathcal{A}_{x}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}\\mathcal{O}_{\\mathcal{P}}.$$ Two points $p_1,p_2\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}(\\mathcal{O}_{\\mathcal{P}},{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ differ by a point $t\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ acting on $\\mathcal{O}_{\\mathcal{P}}$, and it is easy to see that then the resulting ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isogenies $\\mathcal{A}_{x}^{\\mathcal{P}}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\mathcal{A}_{x}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$ differ by composition with $t\\in I_{x}({\\mathbb Q})$.\n\nNow, when $\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$, it is obvious from the definition (*loc. cit.* 4.1.6) that $\\epsilon$ gives an automorphism of the group functor represented by $\\mathcal{A}_x^{\\mathcal{P}}$, namely a self-isogeny $$\\epsilon^{\\mathcal{P}} \\in \\mathrm{Aut}_{{\\mathbb Q}}(\\mathcal{A}_x^{\\mathcal{P}})$$ (as an element of $\\mathrm{Aut}_{{\\mathbb Q}}(\\mathcal{A}_x^{\\mathcal{P}})$, this still depends on $\\mathcal{P}$, i.e. on $\\tilde{\\beta}$) and in fact lies in $I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}({\\mathbb Q})$ (*loc. cit.* 4.1.6, and Lemma 4.1.5, 4.1.7). Also, the universal isomorphism (\\[eq:univ\\_isogeny\\_theta\\]) takes $\\epsilon^{\\mathcal{P}}$ to $\\epsilon$, so for any ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny $\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}$ (\\[eq:Qb-isogeny\\_theta\\]) one has $$\\epsilon^{\\mathcal{P}} =\\Int(\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}^{-1})(\\epsilon).$$\n\nLet $I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x),\\epsilon}:=Z_{I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}}(\\epsilon)$. We consider the ${\\mathbb Q}$-scheme $\\mathcal{Q}_{\\epsilon}$ of isomorphisms $$\\mathcal{A}_x^{\\mathcal{P}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}\\mathcal{A}_{x},$$ compatible with the weak polarizations and which fix the crystalline and the etale tensors $\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x}\\}$, $\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x}\\}\\ (l\\neq p)$ and further takes $\\epsilon^{\\mathcal{P}}$ to $\\epsilon$. One readily sees (*loc. cit.*, proof of Prop. 4.4.8) that this is a $I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}$-torsor which admits a $T$-equivariant map $\\mathcal{P}\\rightarrow\\mathcal{Q}_{\\epsilon}$, hence is isomorphic to the $I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}$-torsor associated with $\\beta\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})$. This implies that the assignment $\\beta\\mapsto ({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\mathcal{P}},\\epsilon^{\\mathcal{P}})$ gives a well-defined inclusion of ${\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})]$ into the set of equivalence classes of K-pairs, where $\\mathcal{P}$ is the $T$-torsor corresponding to any choice of $\\tilde{\\beta}\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},T)$ mapping to $\\beta$ (for a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ of $I_{x,\\epsilon}$). In particular, the $I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}({\\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class of $\\epsilon^{\\mathcal{P}}$ depends only on $\\beta$; we let $\\epsilon^{\\beta}$ denote any representative of the associated $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}({\\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class (via some identification $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}=I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}$) and write $({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta},\\epsilon^{\\beta})$ for $({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\mathcal{P}},\\epsilon^{\\mathcal{P}})$.\n\nNext, it remains to show the equality (up to $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}({\\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy): $$j^{\\tilde{\\beta}}(i_T(\\epsilon)^{\\tilde{\\beta}}) = \\epsilon^{\\beta},$$ where $i_T(\\epsilon)^{\\tilde{\\beta}}:=\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(i_T(\\epsilon))$ and $j^{\\tilde{\\beta}}:=j_{i_T(T)^{\\tilde{\\beta}},h^{\\tilde{\\beta}}}:i_T(T)^{\\tilde{\\beta}}\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}$ is any member in its conjugacy class of such embeddings in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], (4). Recall that we have fixed identifications $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}=I_x$, $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}=I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}$. Let us fix $\\tilde{\\omega}\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $[\\tilde{\\omega}^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}\\tilde{\\omega}]=\\tilde{\\beta}$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},T)$. This also fixes a canonical ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny $$\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}:{\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}^{\\mathcal{P}}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}{\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$$ which preserves the Betti tensors and is compatible with the weak polarizations; the twist ${\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}^{\\mathcal{P}}$ is the underlying abelian variety of the special point $[h^{\\tilde{\\beta}},1]$ ($h^{\\tilde{\\beta}}=\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(h)$. By reduction, this gives the ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isogeny (\\[eq:Qb-isogeny\\_theta\\]) (we use the same notation). The isogeny induces an inner-twisting $$\\Int(\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}^{-1}):{\\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\\mathbb Q}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}{\\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\\mathbb Q}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}^{\\mathcal{P}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},\\quad (I_{x})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$$ whose corresponding cocycle $(\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}^{-1})_{\\tau}\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q}, {\\mathrm{Aut}}_{{\\mathbb Q}}({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}))$ equals (as cochains) $\\tilde{\\omega}^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}\\tilde{\\omega}\\in Z^1({\\mathbb Q},i_T(T))=Z^1({\\mathbb Q},T)$ (*loc. cit.* Lemma 4.1.2). Hence, by restriction, $\\Int(\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}^{-1})$ induces a ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $T{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}$ for some maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}\\subset  I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}$. The Hodge structure on $H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}^{\\mathcal{P}},{\\mathbb Q})$ is given by $h^{\\tilde{\\beta}}=\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(h)$ via the isomorphism $$H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})}^{\\mathcal{P}},{\\mathbb Q}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})},{\\mathbb Q})^{\\mathcal{P}} \\stackrel{\\eta_{{\\mathrm{B}}}^{\\mathcal{P}}}{{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}} V^{\\mathcal{P}} \\stackrel{\\tilde{\\omega}}{{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}} V,$$ where the first isomorphism is the canonical one induced by $\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}$ (*loc. cit.* Lemma 4.1.7), and the third one is the multiplication by $\\tilde{\\omega}$ which identifies $V^{\\mathcal{P}}:=(V\\otimes\\mathcal{O}_{\\mathcal{P}})^T\\subset V_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ with $V$ (cf. *loc. cit.* proof of Prop. 4.2.6). Also, $\\eta_{{\\mathrm{B}}}:H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\sigma_p(\\tilde{x})},{\\mathbb Q}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}V$ is an isomorphism as in (\\[eq:Betti-isom\\]) which, together with $\\tilde{x}=[h,1]$, defines the embedding $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow G$. Therefore, there exists an isomorphism $i_{T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}}:T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}i_T(T)^{\\tilde{\\beta}}$ making a commutative diagram $$\\label{eq:new_embedding_T-beta}\n\\xymatrix{ i_T(T) \\ar[r]^{\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})} & i_T(T)^{\\tilde{\\beta}} \\\\ T \\ar[u]^{i_T} \\ar[r]_{\\Int(\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}^{-1})} & T^{\\tilde{\\beta}} \\ar@{->}[u]_{i_{T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}}} }$$\n\nBy definition, $\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)$ is the reduction of the special point $[h^{\\tilde{\\beta}},1]$. So, we see that the ${\\mathbb Q}$-embedding $i_{T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}}$ lies in the stable conjugacy class attached, by Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], to the maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}\\subset I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}$. Now, as $\\epsilon^{\\beta}=\\Int(\\theta_{\\tilde{\\omega}}^{-1})(\\epsilon)$, we have $$i_T(\\epsilon)^{\\tilde{\\beta}}=i_{T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}}(\\epsilon^{\\beta}).$$ Then, since the $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}({\\mathbb Q})$-isogeny class of $j_{i_T(T)^{\\tilde{\\beta}},h^{\\tilde{\\beta}}}\\circ i_{T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}}:T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}\\hookrightarrow I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}$ contains the inclusion $T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}\\subset I_{\\mathbf{i}_{\\omega}(x)}$ (Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], (4)), the claim follows.\n\n\\[thm:LR-Satz5.25b2\\] Keep the previous notation. Let $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ be a stable Kottwitz triple with trivial Kottwitz invariant. If $\\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)\\neq 0$, then there exists a K-admissible pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ giving rise to $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, in which case the number of equivalence classes of such admissible pairs equals the cardinality of the set $$\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})^+:={\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})]\\cap \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}).$$\n\nWe remind the readers again that \u201chaving trivial Kottwitz invariant\u201d means that there exist elements $(g_v)_v\\in G(\\bar{{\\mathbb A}}_f^p)\\times G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ satisfying conditions (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]), (\\[eq:stable\\_g\\_l\\]) such that the associated Kottwitz invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta;(g_v)_v)$ vanishes. This is our second version of effectivity criterion of Kottwitz triple.\n\nIn view of Lemma \\[lem:key\\_observations\\], the effectivity statement is a consequence of the effectivity statement for LR-admissible LR-pairs (Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\]) and Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\]. More precisely, there exists an LR-admissible LR-pair $(\\phi,\\epsilon)$ giving rise to given (stable) Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ (Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\]). Then, this LR-pair is conjugate to a special one $(\\psi_{T,\\mu_h},\\epsilon\\in T({\\mathbb Q}))$ for a special Shimura sub-datum $(T,h)$ (Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.23\\]), which gives rise to a K-admissible K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},j_{T,h}(\\epsilon))$, where ${\\mathscr{I}}$ is the isogeny class of the reduction of the special point $[h,1]\\in Sh_K(G,X)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ and $j_{T,h}:T\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ is any embedding as given in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\], (4). The conclusion follows by Lemma \\[lem:key\\_observations\\].\n\nNext, we prove the statement on the number of equivalence classes of K-admissible K-pairs producing a given Kottwitz triple. Let $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$ be a K-admissible K-pair and $\\beta\\in {\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})]$. We can find a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $\\tilde{\\beta}\\in\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},T)$ that maps to $\\beta$ [@Borovoi98 Thm.5.11], [@Kisin17 4.4.5]. Fix $i_{T}:T\\hookrightarrow G$, $h\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_{T}(T)_{{\\mathbb R}})$, and $\\tilde{\\omega}\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ as in Prop. \\[prop:Kisin17\\_Prop.4.4.8\\] (cf. (\\[eq:tilde[omega]{}\\])). Let $T_1:=T^{\\tilde{\\beta}}\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}$ and $i_{T_1}:T_1\\hookrightarrow G$ be as in (\\[eq:new\\_embedding\\_T-beta\\]); one has $$\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(i_T(T),i_T(\\epsilon))=(i_{T_1}(T_1),i_{T_1}(\\epsilon^{\\beta}))$$ for some representative $\\epsilon^{\\beta}\\in I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}({\\mathbb Q})$ in its $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta}}({\\mathbb Q})$-conjugacy class in Prop. \\[prop:Kisin17\\_Prop.4.4.8\\]. Also, $h_1:=h^{\\tilde{\\beta}}=\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(h)\\in X$, and we have two special LR-pairs $$\\label{eq:twisting_LR-pairs}\n(\\phi:=\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h},i_T(\\epsilon)),\\quad (\\phi_1:=\\psi_{i_{T_1}(T_1),\\mu_{h_1}},i_{T_1}(\\epsilon^{\\beta})).$$ By Lemma \\[lem:key\\_observations\\], (1), LR-admissibility of the LR-pair $(\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon))$ follows from K-admissibility of the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$.\n\nBy conjugating the LR-pair $(\\phi_1,i_{T_1}(\\epsilon^{\\beta}))$ back by $\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega}^{-1})$, we obtain another LR-pair $$(\\phi':=\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega}^{-1})\\circ\\phi_1,i_T(\\epsilon))$$ which is also well-located in $i_T(T)$ and shares the same Frobenius descent element $i_T(\\epsilon)$ as the original LR-pair $(\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon))$. One has $$\\phi'(q_{\\rho})=\\tilde{\\omega}^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\rho}\\tilde{\\omega}\\cdot \\phi(q_{\\rho})$$ for every $\\rho\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$ ($\\rho\\mapsto q_{\\rho}$ is the chosen section to ${\\mathfrak{P}}\\twoheadrightarrow {\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$). Indeed, construction of the morphism $\\psi_{T,\\mu}:{\\mathfrak{P}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_T$ is functorial in the pairs $(T,\\mu)$ [@LR87 Satz.2.3], thus if $\\phi'(q_{\\rho})=g_{\\rho}'\\rtimes\\rho$ and $\\phi(q_{\\rho})=g_{\\rho}\\rtimes\\rho$ with $g_{\\rho}',g_{\\rho}\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, we have $g_{\\rho}'=\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega})(g_{\\rho})$ since $\\Int(\\tilde{\\omega}):T{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T'$ is ${\\mathbb Q}$-rational and sends $\\mu$ to $\\mu'$, which implies the claim. Therefore we see that the LR-pair $(\\phi',i_{T}(\\epsilon))$ is obtained from the original LR-pair $(\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon))$ by twisting with $i_T(\\tilde{\\beta}) \\in {\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},T)\\stackrel{i_T}{\\rightarrow} H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon)})]$ (cf. Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\\]). In particular, the special LR-pair $(\\phi_1,i_{T_1}(\\epsilon^{\\beta}))$ is LR-admissible if the image of $\\beta$ in $H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},I_{\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon)})$ vanishes.\n\nNow, suppose further that $\\beta\\in \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})$; then, we also have $\\beta\\in \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon)})$, since one already has $\\beta \\in {\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},T)\\stackrel{i_T}{\\rightarrow} \\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon)})]$ and there exists a $T$-equivariant ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon)}$ (proof of [@Kisin17 Prop.4.4.13]). Since the special LR-pair $(\\phi_1,i_{T_1}(\\epsilon^{\\beta}))$ is LR-admissible, by Lemma \\[lem:key\\_observations\\], (2), the K-pair $({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta},\\epsilon^{\\beta})$ is also K-admissible and one has equivalences of Kottwitz triples: $$\\label{eq:twistng_K-triples}\n {\\mathfrak{k}}({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta},\\epsilon^{\\beta}) \\sim {\\mathfrak{k}}(\\phi_1,i_{T_1}(\\epsilon^{\\beta})) \\sim {\\mathfrak{k}}(\\phi',i_T(\\epsilon)),\\quad   {\\mathfrak{k}}({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon) \\sim {\\mathfrak{k}}(\\phi,i_T(\\epsilon)).$$ Therefore, by Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lem5.26,Satz5.25\\], (3), one has ${\\mathfrak{k}}({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta},\\epsilon^{\\beta})\\sim {\\mathfrak{k}}({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$, and by Prop. \\[prop:Kisin17\\_Prop.4.4.8\\], we obtain an inclusion $$\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})^+\\hookrightarrow \\{\\text{ K-admissible K-pairs }\\}/\\sim \\ :\\  \\beta\\mapsto ({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta},\\epsilon^{\\beta})$$ such that the K-admissible K-pairs in the image have equivalent associated Kottwitz triples (with trivial Kottwitz invariant) as $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$, where $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Sha_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})^+&:={\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})]\\cap \\ker^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIt remains to show that the image of this inclusion exhausts all the K-admissible K-pairs whose associated Kottwitz triples are equivalent to that of $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$. Let $({\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon')$ be such a K-admissible K-pair whose associated Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma',\\delta')$ is conjugate to $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$. By construction (cf. Lemma \\[lem:key\\_observations\\]), we may assume that the Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ is of the form (\\[eq:K-triple\\_for\\_isogeny\\_adm.pair\\]) defined by choice of a maximal torus $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}$ containing $\\epsilon$, and an accompanying choice of ${\\mathbb Q}$-embedding $i_{T}:T\\hookrightarrow G$ as in Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]: one has $\\gamma_0=i_{T}(\\epsilon)$, $\\gamma=\\gamma_0$, and the Kottwitz triple is stable, among others. Recall (Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]) that $i_T$ is defined by a certain cocharacter $\\mu_T$ of $T$ which produces a special point $\\tilde{x}$ lifting some point $x\\in {\\mathscr{I}}$ corresponding to $h\\in X\\cap {\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_{T}(T)_{{\\mathbb R}})$ such that $\\sigma_p(i_T\\circ\\mu_T)=\\mu_{h}$; we identify $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}}=I_{x}$. Moreover, we may take $b\\in i_T(T)({\\mathfrak{k}})$ to be defined by $b\\sigma:=\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}(s_{\\sigma})$, where $\\theta^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}:{\\mathfrak{D}}\\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{G}}_{i_T(T)_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ is a ${{\\mathbb Q}_p^{\\mathrm{ur}}}/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-Galois gerb morphism whose inflation $\\overline{\\theta}^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ is an unramified $i_T(T)({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$-conjugate of $\\psi_{i_T(T),\\mu_h}(p)\\circ\\zeta_p$. The Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma',\\delta')$ is similarly defined. Let $I_0=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $I_0'=G_{\\gamma_0'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ be the connected centralizers of $\\gamma_0$ and $\\gamma_0'$ respectively.\n\nWe will construct inner twistings $$\\varphi: (I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_0)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},\\quad \\varphi': (I_{{\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_0')_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$$ and a ${\\mathbb Q}$-embedding $$T\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$$ such that $\\varphi|_{T}=i_T$ and $i_T':=\\varphi'|_{T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}}:T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}\\hookrightarrow (I_0')_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ is ${\\mathbb Q}$-rational, and further $$i_T'=\\Int(g)\\circ i_T$$ for some $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$. We proceed in three steps.\n\nIn the first step, by Lemma \\[lem:Tate\\_thm2\\], the data $(T,i_T,b\\in i_T(T)({\\mathfrak{k}}))$ determine an inner twisting $$\\varphi: I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$$ that is $T$-equivariant with respect to $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $i_T:T\\hookrightarrow I_0$.\n\nIn the second step, we construct a ${\\mathbb Q}$-embedding $T\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ with certain local properties. We choose a point $x'\\in {\\mathscr{I}}'$ and an identification $I_{{\\mathscr{I}}'}=I_{x'}$. By construction, there exist a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T'$ of $I_{x'}$ containing $\\epsilon'$ and a ${\\mathbb Q}$-embedding $i_{T'}:T'\\hookrightarrow G$ giving rise to $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma',\\delta')$ by (\\[eq:K-triple\\_for\\_isogeny\\_adm.pair\\]). The equivalence of the Kottwiz triples attached to $({\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon)$, $({\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon')$ implies the existence, for every place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, of \u201cnatural\u201d local isomorphisms $$\\label{eq:rho_v}\n\\rho_v:(I_{x,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$$ taking $\\epsilon$ to $\\epsilon'$, where $I_{x,\\epsilon}$ and $I_{x',\\epsilon'}$ are as usual the centralizers of $\\epsilon$ and $\\epsilon'$ respectively. Indeed, let $\\pi_0\\in T_{\\epsilon}({\\mathbb Q})(\\subset I_{x}({\\mathbb Q}))$ and $\\pi_0'\\in T_{\\epsilon'}({\\mathbb Q})(\\subset I_{x'}({\\mathbb Q}))$ be the elements as in Lemma \\[prop:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon2\\]. Then, for every finite place $l\\neq p$, we have $i_{T'}(\\pi_0')=\\Int(h_l)(i_T(\\pi_0))$ for every $h_l\\in G({{\\mathbb Q}_l})$ such that $\\gamma_l'=\\Int(h_l)(\\gamma_l)$: use functoriality of the construction of $\\pi_0$, $\\pi_0'$ (Lemma \\[lem:canonical\\_decomp\\_of\\_epsilon\\]) and Lemma \\[lem:Zariski\\_group\\_closure\\]. Hence, there exists an isomorphism of ${{\\mathbb Q}_l}$-vector spaces endowed with $k$-Frobenius automorphism action ($[k:{\\mathbb F}_p]\\gg1$) and Frobenius-invariant tensors $$\\label{eq:x->x'_at_l}\n(H^{{\\text{\\'et}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\bar{x}},{{\\mathbb Q}_l}),{\\mathrm{Fr}}_{{\\mathcal{A}}_x/k},\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x}\\}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\text{\\'et}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\bar{x}'},{{\\mathbb Q}_l}),{\\mathrm{Fr}}_{{\\mathcal{A}}_{x'}/k},\\{s_{\\alpha,l,x'}\\})$$ taking $\\epsilon\\in I_{x}$ to $\\epsilon'\\in I_{x'}$, by existence of a $i_T$(or $i_{T'}$)-equivariant isomorphism (\\[eq:isom\\_eta\\]) for $x$ and $x'$. From this we obtain a desired ${{\\mathbb Q}_v}$-isomorphism $\\rho_l$ by [@Kisin17 Cor.2.3.2] (i.e. Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.2.3.2;Tate\\_isom\\] here). For an analogous statement at $p$, recall that $\\delta=cb\\sigma(c^{-1})\\in G(L_n)$ for some $c\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ such that $c^{-1}i_T(\\epsilon)^{-1}(b\\sigma)^nc=\\sigma^n$ and $\\delta'=c'b'\\sigma(c'^{-1})$ for a similar $c'$. Then, if $\\delta'=h_p\\delta\\sigma(h_p^{-1})$ for $h_p\\in G(L_n)$, we have $i_{T'}(\\epsilon')=c'{\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta'c'^{-1}=\\Int(c'h_p)({\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta)=\\Int(h_p')(i_T(\\epsilon))$ and $b'=h_p'b\\sigma(h_p'^{-1})$ for $h_p':=c'^{-1}h_pc\\in G({\\mathfrak{k}})$. Hence, there exists an isomorphism of isocrystals over ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$ endowed with Frobenius-invariant tensors $$\\label{eq:x->x'_at_p}\n(H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{x}/{\\mathfrak{k}}),\\phi,\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x}\\}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{x'}/{\\mathfrak{k}}),\\phi',\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x'}\\})$$ taking $\\epsilon$ to $\\epsilon'$, by existence of a $i_T$(or $i_{T'}$)-equivariant isomorphism (\\[eq:isom\\_eta\\_nr\\]) for $x$ and $x'$, and again we obtain a desired ${{\\mathbb Q}_p}$-isomorphism $\\rho_p$ by the isomorphism $(I_{x,\\epsilon})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z_{J_b}(i_p(\\epsilon))$ (\\[eq:i\\_[p,epsilon]{}\\]). At infinity, the two groups $(I_{x,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathbb R}}$, $(I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\mathbb R}}$ are both the unique (as inner classes) inner forms of $I_0$ with compact adjoint group which gives a required $\\rho_{\\infty}$. The existence of these $\\rho_v$\u2019s implies (by Chebotarev density theorem) that the canonical action of ${\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$ on the Dynkin diagrams of $I_{x,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ are the same, i.e. there exists an inner-twist $$\\rho:(I_{x,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}(I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$$ whose base-change $\\rho_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ is conjugate to $(\\rho_v)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ for every $v$. We have $\\rho(\\epsilon)=\\epsilon'$ as $\\rho_v$ has the same property.[^36] Next, we show the existence of $g'\\in I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that the restriction of $\\Int(g')\\circ\\rho$ to $T_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}}$ induces a ${\\mathbb Q}$-embedding $T{\\hookrightarrow}I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, in other words, that *the maximal torus $T$ of $I_{x,\\epsilon}$ transfers to $I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ with respect to the $I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$-conjugacy class of the inner twisting $\\rho$*. Since $T_{{\\mathbb R}}$ is elliptic in $(I_{x,\\epsilon})_{{\\mathbb R}}$, according to [@LR87 Lemma 5.6], this follows from the condition that for each place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, $T_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ transfers into $(I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}})_{{{\\mathbb Q}_v}}$ with respect to the conjugacy class of $\\rho_{{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}}$ ([@Kottwitz84a $\\S$9]): in more detail, when there exist transfers locally everywhere, the obstruction to finding a global transfer of $T$ in $I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ lies in $\\mathrm{ker}^2({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ (locally trivial elements in $H^2({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$), where $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ is the inverse image of $T$ under the natural map $(I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}})^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}{\\rightarrow}I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ [@Kottwitz84a 9.5].[^37] On the other hand, $\\mathrm{ker}^2({\\mathbb Q},T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ vanishes if $T^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ becomes anisotropic at one place (see the last part of the proof of Lemma 14.1 in [@Kottwitz92]). Therefore, we have shown the existence of a ${\\mathbb Q}$-embedding $T\\hookrightarrow I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ such that for every place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$, its base-change to ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ is induced from an isomorphism as in (\\[eq:x-&gt;x\u2019\\_at\\_l\\]), (\\[eq:x-&gt;x\u2019\\_at\\_p\\]), over ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_l}$ and ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$.\n\nIn the final step, for the embedding $T\\subset I_{{\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ just constructed, the *same* cocharacter $\\mu_h\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$ still satisfies the conditions of [@Kisin17 Lem.2.2.2], thus determines a special point $\\tilde{x}'$ lifting some point in ${\\mathscr{I}}'$, denoted again by $x'$, thereby also an embedding $$i_{T}':T\\hookrightarrow G$$ (via a choice of an isomorphism (\\[eq:Betti-isom\\])) and an element $b'\\in i_T'(T)({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (cf. proof of Thm. \\[thm:Kisin17\\_Cor.1.4.13,Prop.2.1.3,Cor.2.2.5\\]). The pair $(i_T',b')$ gives a (new) stable Kottwitz triple attached to $({\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon')$ (\\[eq:K-triple\\_for\\_isogeny\\_adm.pair\\]), which is still stably equivalent to $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$, as they are (geometrically) equivalent (Prop. \\[prop:triviality\\_in\\_comp\\_gp\\]); by abuse of notation, we continue to denote the new triple by $(\\gamma_0';\\gamma',\\delta')$. Again, by Lemma \\[lem:Tate\\_thm2\\], the datum $(i_T',b'\\in i_T'(T)({\\mathfrak{k}}))$ gives rise to an inner twisting $$\\varphi':I_{{\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0'\\otimes_{{\\mathbb Q}}{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$$ that is $T$-equivariant with respect to $T\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $i_T':T\\hookrightarrow I_0'$.\n\nIt remains to see that there exists $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $$i_T'=\\Int(g)\\circ i_T.$$ Indeed, by the property of the embedding $T\\hookrightarrow I_{{\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, there exists a ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$-isomorphism $$(H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{x}/{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}),\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x}\\},T) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{cris}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{x'}/{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}),\\{s_{\\alpha,0,x'}\\},T)$$ which matches the tensors and is compatible with $T$-actions and the Frobenius automorphisms (for $k$ large enough, especially such that $x$ and $x'$ are both defined over $k$). This implies, via the existence of special points $\\tilde{x}$, $\\tilde{x}'$ lifting $x$, $x'$ (up to isogeny), the existence of a similar ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-morphism $$(H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\tilde{x}}/{\\mathbb Q}),\\{s_{\\alpha,\\tilde{x}}\\},T) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\longrightarrow}}(H^{{\\mathrm{B}}}_1({\\mathcal{A}}_{\\tilde{x}'}/{\\mathbb Q}),\\{s_{\\alpha,\\tilde{x}'}\\},T)$$ which proves the claim.\n\nTherefore, for every $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}/{\\mathbb Q})$, we have $$\\tilde{\\beta}_{\\tau}:=i_T^{-1}(g^{-1}\\tau(g))\\in T({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}).$$ We denote by $\\tilde{\\beta}\\in H^1({\\mathbb Q},T)$ its cohomology class. When $h'\\in X\\cap{\\mathrm{Hom}}({\\mathbb{S}},i_T'(T)_{{\\mathbb R}})$ is the homomorphism defining $\\tilde{x}'$ (i.e. $\\sigma_p(i_T'\\circ\\mu_T)=\\mu_{h'}$), it follows from $h'=\\Int(g)(h)$ that the image of $i_T(\\tilde{\\beta})$ in $H^1({\\mathbb R},K_{\\infty})$ is trivial, where $K_{\\infty}$ is the centralizer of $h$ (compact-modulo-center inner form of $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$). Therefore, $i_T(\\tilde{\\beta})$ belongs to the subgroup $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},i_T(T))$ [@Kisin17 Lem. 4.4.5]. Moreover, we have ${\\mathscr{I}}'={\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta'}$, where $\\beta'$ denotes the image of $\\tilde{\\beta}$ in $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}}})$ (via $i_T$): if $\\tilde{\\beta}_{\\iota}=g_{\\infty}^{-1}\\iota(g_{\\infty})$ for $g_{\\infty}\\in K_{\\infty}({\\mathbb C})(=G({\\mathbb C}))$, ${\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta'}$ is the isogeny class of the reduction of the special point $[\\Int(gg_{\\infty}^{-1})(h),1]\\in Sh_{{\\mathbf{K}}_p}(G,X)({\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p})$. Clearly, we have $({\\mathscr{I}}',\\epsilon')=({\\mathscr{I}}^{\\beta},\\epsilon^{\\beta})$, where $\\beta$ is the image of $\\tilde{\\beta}$ in ${\\mathrm{im}}[\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})]$.\n\nNow, the statement that the image $\\beta$ of $\\tilde{\\beta}$ in $H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})$ vanishes in $\\prod_{v\\neq\\infty} H^1({\\mathbb Q}_v,I_{{\\mathscr{I}},\\epsilon})$ follows from the similar statement for the LR-pairs (\\[eq:twisting\\_LR-pairs\\]), i.e. Thm. \\[thm:LR-Satz5.25\\], in view of the relations (\\[eq:twistng\\_K-triples\\]). This completes the proof.\n\n\\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:Kisin\\] Let $(G,X)$ be a Shimura datum of Hodge type. Fix a hyperspecial subgroup ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$ and take $K^p$ to be sufficiently small such that conditions (a), (b) of (\\[item:Langlands-conditions\\]) hold and $K\\cap Z(G)({\\mathbb Q})=\\{1\\}$.\n\n\\(1) We have the following expression for (\\[eq:fixed-pt\\_set\\_of\\_Frob-Hecke\\_corr\\]): $$T(m,f)=\\sum_{(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)} c(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)\\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)\\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0),$$ with $$c(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta):=i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)\\cdot |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \\cdot \\tau(I_0)\\cdot \\mathrm{vol}(A_G({\\mathbb R})^{\\mathrm{o}}\\backslash I_0(\\infty)({\\mathbb R}))^{-1}$$ where $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)=|\\widetilde{\\Sha}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_{\\phi,\\epsilon})^+|$ (Lemma \\[eq:|widetilde[Sha]{}\\_G(Q,I\\_[phi,epsilon]{})\\^+|\\]), $\\tau(I_0)$ is the Tamagawa number of $I_0$, and $I_0(\\infty)$ is the (unique) inner form of $(I_0)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ having compact adjoint group. Also, the sum is over a set of representatives $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ of all (stable) equivalence classes of *stable* Kottwitz triples of level $n=m[\\kappa(\\wp):{\\mathbb{F}_{p}}]$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant.\n\n\\(2) Then, for any $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\\mathcal{H}(G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)/\\!\\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\\in{\\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, such that for each $m\\geq m(f^p)$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:Lef-number1}\n\\sum_{i}(-1)^i\\mathrm{tr}( & \\Phi^m\\times f^p | H^i_c(Sh_{K}(G,X)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K)) \\\\\n& = \\sum_{(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)} c(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)\\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p) \\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0), \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over a set of representatives $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ of *all* (stable) equivalence classes of *stable* Kottwitz triples of level $n$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant. If $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$ (irrespective of $f^p$).\n\nGiven the results established in this subsection, the proof is the same as that of Thm. \\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:LR\\].\n\nThe proof of this theorem also shows:\n\n\\[cor:geom\\_effectivity\\_of\\_K-triple\\] Under the same assumption as Thm. \\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:Kisin\\], a Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ of level $n$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant is *geometrically effective* in the sense that it arises from a ${\\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-valued point of ${\\mathscr{S}}$ if and only if $\\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)$ is non-zero.\n\nIn particular, an ${\\mathbb R}$-elliptic stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0\\in G({\\mathbb Q})$ arises from an ${\\mathbb F}_{p^n}$-valued point of ${\\mathscr{S}}$ for some $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$ if and only if there exists $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ such that $\\gamma_0$ is stably conjugate to ${\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ and $\\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p)\\neq0$.\n\nStabilization\n=============\n\nIn this section, we stabilize the right-hand side of the formula (\\[eq:Lef-number1\\]), namely express it as a weighted sum, over the elliptic endoscopic data $\\underline{H}$ of $G$, of the elliptic part of the geometric side of the stable trace formula for a suitable function on an endoscopic group $H_1({\\mathbb A})$ for $\\underline{H}$. We follow closely the arguments of Kottwitz [@Kottwitz90 $\\S$4, $\\S$7], [@Kottwitz10] who however worked out this process under the assumption that $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. For the general case, we need to adapt some of his arguments, borrowing necessary ingredients from [@Labesse04].\n\nEndoscopic transfer of (twisted) orbital integrals\n--------------------------------------------------\n\nLet $F$ be a local or global field of characteristic zero with a fixed $\\bar{F}$, $\\Gamma:={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{F}/F)$, and $G$ a connected reductive group over $F$. For $L$-group, we will use the Weil form: ${}^LG=\\hat{G}\\rtimes W_F$. We recall ([@LS87 (1.2)], [@KottwitzShelstad99 2.1], [@Shelstad08 $\\S$5]) that an *endoscopic datum* of $G$ is a tuple $(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)$, where\n\n-   $H$ is a quasi-split connected reductive group over $F$,\n\n-   $\\mathcal{H}$ is a split extension of $W_F$ by $\\hat{H}$ (complex dual group of $H$) such that the action of $W_F$ on $\\hat{H}$ given by any splitting coincides with an $L$-action of $W_F$ (defined by the $F$-structure of $H$) up to conjugation under $\\hat{H}$,\n\n-   $s$ is a semi-simple element of $\\hat{G}$,\n\n-   $\\xi:\\mathcal{H}\\rightarrow {}^LG$ is an $L$-homomorphism such that (a) $\\Int(s)\\circ\\xi=a\\xi$ for a cocycle $a\\in Z^1(W_F,Z(\\hat{G}))$ that is trivial if $F$ is local, or is locally trivial if $F$ is global, and that (b) $\\xi|_{\\hat{H}}$ is an isomorphism of $\\hat{H}$ wth the connected component $\\hat{G}_s^{\\mathrm{o}}$ of the centralizer of $s$ on $\\hat{G}$.\n\nAn endoscopic datum $(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)$ is said to be *elliptic* if $\\xi(Z(\\hat{H})^{\\Gamma})^{\\mathrm{o}}\\subset Z(\\hat{G})$. An isomorphism from $(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)$ to $(H',\\mathcal{H}',s',\\xi')$ is a conjugation by an element $g\\in \\hat{G}$ such that $g\\xi(\\mathcal{H})g^{-1}=\\xi'(\\mathcal{H}')$ and $gsg^{-1}=s'$ modulo $Z(\\hat{G})$; it then induces an $F$-isomorphism $H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H'$ dual to $\\Int(g)^{-1}:\\hat{H}'{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\hat{H}$ (such isomorphism is uniquely determined from $\\Int(g)^{-1}$ by requiring it to preserve some chosen $F$-splittings of $H$ and $H'$) [@KottwitzShelstad99 p.16]. We remind the readers that $\\mathcal{H}$ is not necessarily an $L$-group (although one can attach an $L$-action on $\\hat{H}$ by requiring it to fix some given splitting of $\\hat{H}$). This weakness is compensated by the notion of a $z$-pair ([@KottwitzShelstad99 2.2], [@Shelstad08 $\\S$5]). A $z$-pair for an endoscopic datum $(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)$ is a pair $(H_1,\\xi_1)$, where\n\n-   $H_1$ is a $z$-extension of $H$ [@Kottwitz82 $\\S$1], i.e. an extension $1\\rightarrow Z_1\\rightarrow H_1\\rightarrow H\\rightarrow 1$, where $H_1$ is a connected reductive group over $F$ with $H_1^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=H_1^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ and $Z_1$ is an induced central torus,\n\n-   $\\xi_1$ is an embedding of extensions $\\mathcal{H}\\rightarrow {}^LH_1$ that extends the embedding $\\hat{H}\\rightarrow \\hat{H}_1$\n\nFor an endoscopic datum $(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)$ and a $z$-pair $(H_1,\\xi_1)$, let $\\lambda_{H_1}$ be the (quasi-)character on $Z_1({\\mathbb A}_F)/Z_1(F)$ if $F$ is global, or on $Z_1(F)$ if $F$ is local, corresponding (via Langlands correspondence for tori[^38]) to the $L$-homomorphism $W_{F}\\stackrel{c}{\\rightarrow} \\mathcal{H}\\rightarrow {}^LH_1\\rightarrow {}^LZ_1$, where $c$ is a splitting of $\\mathcal{H}\\rightarrow W_{F}$ as specified in the definition of endoscopic data (any two splittings define the same character).\n\nFor local $F$, let $C_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}^{\\infty}(H_1(F))$ denote the space of complex-valued, smooth (i.e. $C^{\\infty}$ if $F$ is archimedean, or locally constant if $F$ is nonarchimedean) functions $f^{H_1}$ on $H_1(F)$ whose supports are compact modulo $Z_1(F)$ and that satisfy $f^{H_1}(zh)=\\lambda_{H_1}(z)^{-1} f^{H_1}(h)$ for all $z\\in Z_1(F)$ and $h\\in H_1(F)$. For $\\gamma_{H_1}\\in H_1(F)$ and $f^{H_1}\\in C_1^{\\infty}(H_1(F))$, we define the *stable orbital integral* of $f^{H_1}$ along the stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_{H_1}$ by $$\\mathrm{SO}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}):= \\sum_{\\gamma_{1}'} e(I_{\\gamma_1'}) a(\\gamma_1') \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma_{1}'}(f^{H_1}),$$ Here, $\\gamma_{1}'$ runs through a set of representatives for the $H_1(F)$-conjugacy classes of elements in $H_1(F)$ inside the stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_{H_1}$, $e(I_{\\gamma_1'})$ is the sign attached to $I_{\\gamma_1'}:=(H_1)_{\\gamma_{1}'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz83], $$\\label{eq:a(gamma)}\n a(\\gamma_1'):=|\\ker[H^1(F,I_{\\gamma_1'})\\rightarrow H^1(F,H_{\\gamma_1'})]|,$$ and $\\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma_{1}'}$ is the orbital integral $\\int_{I_{\\gamma_1'}(F)\\backslash H_1(F)}f^{H_1}(\\bar{x}^{-1}\\gamma \\bar{x}) d\\bar{x}$ (\\[eq:(twisted-)orbital\\_integral\\]) with suitable choices of Haar measures on $H_1(F)$, $I_{\\gamma_1'}(F)$ being understood.\n\nWe fix an inner twist $\\psi:G{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G^{\\ast}$ with quasi-split $G^{\\ast}$. We recall ([@Langlands83] III.1, Diagram D, [@LS87 (1.3)]) that an *admissible* embedding of a maximal $F$-torus $T_H$ of $H$ to $G$ is a composite of two $F$-isomorphisms $$\\label{eq:admissible_embedding}\nT_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{\\ast}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T,$$ where $T_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{\\ast}$ is an $F$-embedding into $G^{\\ast}$ of $G$ defined by a choice of Borel pairs $(T_H,B_H)$, $(T_{\\ast},B_{\\ast})$ via the associated isomorphism $\\hat{T}_{\\ast}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\hat{T}_H$ (which is also called *admissible*) and the map $T{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{\\ast}$ is of the form $\\Int(x)\\circ \\psi\\ (x\\in G^{\\ast}(\\bar{F}))$ (cf. [@Shelstad82 (2.4)]); in this case, we say that $T$ *comes from* $T_H$, and also say that a semi-simple element $\\gamma_H$ of $H(F)$ *comes from* or *transfers to* $G(F)$ if $\\gamma_H=j^{-1}(\\gamma)$ for an admissible embedding $j:T_H\\rightarrow T$ and some $\\gamma\\in G(F)$ with $\\gamma\\in T(F)$, in which case $\\gamma_H$ is said to be a *norm* (or simply an *image*) of $\\gamma$. A semi-simple element $\\gamma_H$ of $H(F)$, if it transfers to $G(F)$, does to a unique stable conjugacy class.\n\nWe use the (global/local) Langlands-Shelstad transfer factors $\\Delta$ [@LS87] (cf. [@KottwitzShelstad99], [@KottwitzShelstad12]): it is a ${\\mathbb C}$-valued map defined on the set $H(F)_{\\mathrm{ss},(G,H)\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{reg}}\\times G(F)_{\\mathrm{ss}}$ of pairs consisting of a $(G,H)$-regular (in the sense of [@Kottwitz86 3.1]), semi-simple element of $H(F)$ and a semi-simple element of $G(F)$. The value $\\Delta(\\gamma_H,\\gamma)$ depends only on the stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_H$ and the $G(F)$-conjugacy class of $\\gamma$, and is zero unless $\\gamma_H$ is $(G,H)$-regular and is a norm of $\\gamma$. The transfer factor is defined up to a nonzero constant: one needs to choose a reference pair $(\\gamma_H',\\gamma')\\in H(F)\\times G(F)$, where $\\gamma_H'$ is a strongly $G$-regular element and is a norm of a strongly regular $\\gamma'$, and what is canonically defined is the relative transfer factor $\\Delta(\\gamma_H,\\gamma;\\gamma_H',\\gamma')$. Then, assigning the complex number $\\Delta(\\gamma_H',\\gamma')$ arbitrarily, one sets $$\\Delta(\\gamma_H,\\gamma):=\\Delta(\\gamma_H',\\gamma') \\cdot \\Delta(\\gamma_H,\\gamma;\\gamma_H',\\gamma').$$ For any $z$-pair $(H_1,\\xi_1)$, the definition of $\\Delta$ extends to $H_1(F)_{\\mathrm{ss},(G,H_1)\\operatorname{-}\\mathrm{reg}}\\times G(F)_{\\mathrm{ss}}$ (by definition, an element $\\gamma_{H_1}\\in H_1(F)$ is $(G,H_1)$-regular if its image in $H(F)$ is $(G,R)$-regular). As a matter of fact, for the definition of $\\Delta$ for an endoscopic datum $(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)$ and a $z$-pair $(H_1,\\xi_1)$, in this work we will use the one adopted by Kottwitz in [@Kottwitz90 p.178] which, in the case $H_1=H$, $\\mathcal{H}={}^LH$, is the same as the original definition of [@LS87] for the endoscopic datum $(H,\\mathcal{H},s^{-1},\\xi)$, and also is the one denoted by $\\Delta'$ in [@KottwitzShelstad12 (1.0.4), $\\S$ 5.1].\n\nFor two algebraic groups $H\\subset G$ over a field $F$, we let $\\mathfrak{D}(H,G;F)$ denote the set $\\ker[H^1(F,H)\\rightarrow H^1(F,G)]$. When $F$ is a number field and for $R={\\mathbb A}_F$, ${\\mathbb A}_{F,f}$, we also use the notation $\\mathfrak{D}(H,G;R):=\\ker[H^1(R,H)\\rightarrow H^1(R,G)]$.\n\nFollowing [@Kottwitz92 $\\S$7], we construct a function $f^{H_1}$ on $H_1({\\mathbb A})$ with desired stable orbital integrals. We assume that $H$ is unramified at $p$ and there exists an (elliptic) maximal torus of $H_{{\\mathbb R}}$ that transfers to an elliptic maximal torus of $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$; otherwise, we define $f^{H_1}$ to be $0$. Under these conditions, $f^{H_1}$ will be a product of three functions $f^{H_1,p}$, $f^{H_1}_p$, $f^{H_1}_{\\infty}$ on $H_1({\\mathbb A}_f^p)$, $H_1({{\\mathbb Q}_p})$, $H_1({\\mathbb R})$, respectively, constructed now.\n\n### Untwisted endoscopy: $v\\neq p,\\infty$\n\nWe state the transfer conjecture and the fundamental lemma, which were conjectured by Langlands-Shelstad [@LS87] and proved by Ngo [@Ngo10] after reduction steps of Waldspurger [@Waldspurger97], [@Waldspurger06] (see also the references therein for related works).\n\n\\[thm:untwisted\\_endoscopy\\_transfer\\] For every $f\\in C_c^{\\infty}(G(F))$, there exists an $f^{H_1}\\in C_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}^{\\infty}(H_1(F))$ such that for any $(G,H_1)$-regular, semi-simple element $\\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1(F)$, the stable orbital integral $\\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})$ is zero unless (the image in $H(F)$ of) $\\gamma_{H_1}$ transfers to $G(F)$, in which case $$\\label{eq:untwisted_endo-transfer1}\n\\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})= \\sum_{\\alpha\\in \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)} \\ \\langle \\tilde{\\alpha},s\\rangle \\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0) e(I_{\\gamma_{\\alpha}}) \\mathrm{O}^{G(F)}_{\\gamma_{\\alpha}}(f),$$ where we fix an element $\\gamma_0$ of $G(F)$ whose norm is $\\gamma_{H_1}$ and set $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, and for each $\\alpha\\in \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F):=\\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\\rightarrow H^1(F,G)]$, we choose an element $\\gamma_{\\alpha}$ of $G(F)$ whose $G(F)$-conjugacy class (in the stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_0$) corresponds to the image of $\\alpha$ in $H^1(F,G_{\\gamma_0})$ under (\\[eq:C\\_l(gamma\\_0)\\]), and denote by $\\tilde{\\alpha}$ the lifting of $\\alpha$ to $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma}Z(\\hat{G}))$ whose restriction to $Z(\\hat{G})$ is trivial.\n\nMoreover, when $G$, $H$, $(H_1,\\xi_1)$ are unramified in the sense of [@Waldspurger08 4.4], there exist normalizations of the transfer factor $\\Delta$ and the measures used in the definition of the (stable) orbital integrals such that if $f$ is the characteristic function $\\mathbf{1}_{K(\\mathcal{O})}$ on a hyperspecial subgroup $K(\\mathcal{O})$ of $G(F)$, then we may take $f^{H_1}$ to be the function $f_{K_1,\\lambda_{H_1}}\\in C_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}^{\\infty}(H_1(F))$ defined by $$f_{K_1,\\lambda_{H_1}}(x) := \n\\begin{cases} \\quad 0 & \\text{ if }x\\notin Z_1(F)K_1(\\mathcal{O}) \\\\ \\lambda_{H_1}(z)^{-1} & \\text{ if } x=zk \\text{ with }\nz\\in Z_1(F),\\ k\\in K_1(\\mathcal{O}) \\end{cases},$$ where $K_1(\\mathcal{O})$ is the hyperspecial subgroup of $H_1(F)$ attached to $K(\\mathcal{O})$ as constructed in [@Waldspurger08 4.1-4.4].\n\nOne says that the function $f^{H_1}$ is a *transfer* of $f$ and the pair $(f,f^{H_1})$ has *matching orbital integrals*.\n\n\\[rem:untwisted\\_endoscopy\\_transfer\\] (1) As the local conjecture for $\\Delta$ [@Kottwitz86 5.6] holds [@LS87 (4.2)], there exists a relation (cf. [@Kottwitz90 p.169, line -9]) $$\\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_{\\alpha}) =\\langle \\tilde{\\alpha},s\\rangle \\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)$$ Hence, the right-hand side of (\\[eq:untwisted\\_endo-transfer1\\]) is also equal to $$\\sum_{\\gamma} \\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma) e(I_{\\gamma}) a(\\gamma) \\mathrm{O}^{G(F)}_{\\gamma}(f),$$ where $\\gamma$ runs through a set of representatives for the semi-simple $G(F)$-conjugacy classes in $G(F)$ (whose norms are $\\gamma_{H_1}$): use the fact [@Serre02 Prop.35bis] that for any $\\alpha\\in \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$, the set of $\\beta$\u2019s in $\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$ having the same image in $H^1(F,G_{\\gamma_0})$ as $\\alpha$ is in bijection with $\\mathfrak{D}(I_{\\gamma_{\\alpha}},G_{\\gamma_{\\alpha}};F)$.\n\n\\(2) A priori, this theorem is proved for strongly $G$-regular elements $\\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1(F)$ (cf. [@Waldspurger08 4.8]). Then, the identity as well as the definitions of transfer factors extend to general $(G,H_1)$-regular elements $\\gamma_{H_1}$, by the argument of proof of [@LS90 Lemma 24.A]: this lemma in fact does the same job for the case $H=H_1$ under the assumption $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, and is based on the special case of [@Kottwitz88 Prop.2] that $H$ is a quasi-split inner form of $G$, but not necessarily $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. Also essentially the same argument is repeated in [@Kottwitz10 Prop. A.3.14] for base change twisted endoscopic transfer, assuming $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ (one can combine the arguments of [@Kottwitz88 Prop.2] and [@Kottwitz10 Prop. A.3.14] to directly obtain a proof in our general set-up).\n\n### Base-change twisted endoscopy: $v=p$\n\nHere, we assume that $G$ and the given endoscopic datum $(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)$ are both unramified in the sense of [@Waldspurger08 4.4]. This implies that $\\mathcal{H}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}{}^LH$ and $\\xi$, as an $L$-homomorphism ${}^LH\\rightarrow {}^LG$, is the identity on the inertia subgroup $I$ of $W_F$ (*loc. cit.*, $\\S$5.1).\n\nFor each $n\\in{\\mathbb N}$, we let $L_n$ denote the unramified extension of $F$ in $\\bar{F}$ with $[L_n:F]=n$, and $R:={\\mathrm{Res}}_{L_n/F}G$. We recall the stable norm map $\\mathscr{N}$ from the set of stable $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes in $G(L_n)=R(F)$ to the set of stable conjugacy classes in $G(F)$ ([@Kottwitz86 $\\S$5] and ). Suppose that $\\gamma_0\\in G(F)$ is the stable norm of some $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$. Then, for $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, any element of $\\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\\rightarrow H^1(F,G)]$ (rather, its image in $H^1(F,G_{\\delta\\theta})$ via the canonical isomorphism $H^1(F,I_0)=H^1(F,G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}})$) determines a unique $\\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G(L_n)$ that is stably $\\sigma$-conjugate to $\\delta$, in view of the cohomological description (\\[eq:sigma-conj\\_in\\_stable-sigma-conj\\]) of the set of such $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes and the commutative diagram (\\[eq:stable\\_sigma\\_conj\\_diagm\\]). Moreover, if we fix $c\\in G(L)$ such that $c\\gamma_0c^{-1}={\\mathrm{N}}_n\\delta$ and $b:=c^{-1}\\delta\\sigma(c)\\in I_0$ (then, $b\\in I_0(L)$ is basic), the composite of $\\kappa_G$ (\\[eq:kappa\\_G\\]) and $j_{[b]}^{I_0}$ (\\[eq:j\\_\\[b\\]\\^[I\\_0]{}\\]) $$\\kappa_G\\circ j_{[b]}^{I_0} : \\ker[H^1(F,I_0)\\rightarrow H^1(F,G)] \\rightarrow B(I_0) \\rightarrow B(G)\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{G})^{\\Gamma})$$ is constant with image $\\kappa_G([b])=\\kappa_G([\\delta])$ (cf. ).\n\nLet $\\theta$ be the $F$-automorphism of $R$ induced by $\\sigma=\\sigma|_{L_n}$. There exists a natural choice of an embedding $i:{}^LG\\rightarrow {}^LR$ and an automorphism $\\hat{\\theta}$ of $\\hat{G}$. Let $\\tilde{s}$ be the element of $\\mathfrak{Z}$, the centralizer of $i\\circ\\xi(\\hat{H})$ in $\\hat{R}$, defined in [@Kottwitz10 (A.1.3.1)], so that the composite $i\\circ\\xi: \\hat{H}\\rightarrow\\hat{G}\\rightarrow \\hat{R}$ identifies $\\hat{H}$ with the identity component of the $\\hat{\\theta}$-centralizer of $\\tilde{s}$ in $\\hat{R}$. Further, let $\\tilde{\\xi}:\\mathcal{H}={}^LH\\rightarrow {}^LR$ be the *allowed* embedding defined by that $\\tilde{\\xi}=i\\circ\\xi$ on $\\hat{H}$ and $\\tilde{\\xi}(\\tilde{\\sigma})=\\tilde{s}\\cdot i\\circ\\xi(\\tilde{\\sigma})$ for any lift $\\tilde{\\sigma}\\in W_F$ of $\\sigma$. Then, the datum $(H,\\tilde{s},\\tilde{\\xi})$ is a twisted endoscopic datum of $(R,\\theta)$.\n\nWe may assume that $s\\in Z(\\hat{H})^{\\Gamma}Z(\\hat{G})$, by condition (iv) of the definition: there exists $z\\in Z(\\hat{G})$ such that $sz\\in Z(\\hat{H})^{\\Gamma}Z(\\hat{G})$. For any $(G,H)$-regular, semi-simple element $\\gamma_H$ of $H(F)$ which transfers to $\\gamma_0\\in G(F)$, if $I_{H}:=H_{\\gamma_H}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $I_0:=G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, one regards $s$ as an element of $Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma}Z(\\hat{G})$ via the canonical $\\Gamma$-equivariant homomorphisms $Z(\\hat{H})\\hookrightarrow Z(\\hat{I}_H){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z(\\hat{I}_0)$. In this base-change situation, the twisted endoscopic transfer established by Waldspurger [@Waldspurger08] gives the following statement.\n\n\\[thm:twisted\\_endoscopy\\_transfer\\] Suppose given $\\mu_0\\in X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{G})^{\\Gamma})$. For every $f\\in C_c^{\\infty}(G(L_n))$ with the property that the twisted orbital integral $\\mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\\delta}(f)$ is zero if $\\kappa_G([\\delta])\\neq\\mu_0$, there exists an $f^{H_1}\\in C_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}^{\\infty}(H_1(F))$ such that for each $(G,H_1)$-regular, semi-simple element $\\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1(F)$ with image $\\gamma_H$ in $H(F)$, the stable orbital integral $\\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})$ is zero unless $\\gamma_H$ transfers to an element $G(F)$ which is a stable norm of an element $\\delta$ of $G(L_n)$ with $\\kappa([\\delta])=\\mu_0$, in which case, if we fix such an $\\gamma_0\\in G(F)$ (i.e. $\\gamma_0$ is a transfer of $\\gamma_H$ and $\\gamma_0=\\mathscr{N}\\delta$), we have $$\\label{eq:twisted_endo-transfer1}\n\\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}) = \\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)} \\langle \\tilde{\\alpha},s\\rangle \\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0) e(G_{\\delta_{\\alpha}\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}}) \\mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\\delta_{\\alpha}}(f),$$ where for each $\\alpha\\in \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$, we choose an element $\\delta_{\\alpha}$ of $G(L_n)$ whose stable $\\sigma$-conjugacy class corresponds to the image of $\\alpha$ in $H^1(F,G_{\\delta\\theta})$ and $\\tilde{\\alpha}$ is the lifting of $j_{[b]}^{I_0}(\\alpha)\\in B(I_0)_{basic}\\cong X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma})$ to $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma}Z(\\hat{G}))$ whose restriction to $Z(\\hat{G})$ is $\\mu_0$.\n\nIn our application, for $\\mu_0$ we will take the element $\\mu^{\\natural}$ (\\[eqn:mu\\_natural\\]).\n\nWhen $\\gamma_{H_1}$ is strongly $G$-regular, semi-simple and $\\gamma$ is strongly regular, the identity (\\[eq:twisted\\_endo-transfer1\\]) is just the transfer theorem [@Waldspurger08] for the base-change twisted endoscopic datum $(H,\\tilde{s},\\tilde{\\xi})$ introduced earlier. Indeed, first when $G_{\\gamma}$ (equiv. $G_{\\delta\\theta}$) is connected, the right hand side of (\\[eq:twisted\\_endo-transfer1\\]) can be rewritten as the right hand side of: $$\\label{eq:twisted_endo-transfer2}\n\\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}) = \\sum_{\\delta} \\langle \\tilde{\\alpha}(\\gamma_0;\\delta),s\\rangle \\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0) e(G_{\\delta\\theta}) \\mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\\delta}(f),$$ where $\\delta$ runs through a set of $\\sigma$-conjugacy classes of elements in $G(L_n)$ whose stable norm $\\mathscr{N}\\delta$ is $\\gamma_0\\in G(F)$ and such that the attached invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\delta)\\in B(I_0)$ maps to $\\mu^{\\natural}$ under $\\kappa_G$, and $\\tilde{\\alpha}(\\gamma_0;\\delta)$ is the extension of $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\delta)$ to $X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma}Z(\\hat{G}))$ whose restriction to $Z(\\hat{G})$ is $\\mu^{\\natural}$. Secondly, when $\\gamma_{H_1}$ is strongly $G$-regular, semi-simple and $\\gamma_0$ is strongly regular, one has the relation $$\\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\delta)=\\langle \\tilde{\\alpha}(\\gamma_0;\\delta),s\\rangle \\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0),$$ between the twisted transfer factor $\\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\delta)$ and the standard transfer factor $\\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0)$ [@KottwitzShelstad12 Thm.5.6.2] (note that this result corrects the sign mistake in A.3.11.1 of [@Kottwitz10]). Then, assuming that $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, Kottwitz extended this identity (\\[eq:twisted\\_endo-transfer2\\]) to general $(G,H)$-regular semi-simple elements $\\gamma_H$ of $H(F)$ [@Kottwitz10 Prop,A.3.14], using the arguments alluded to in (\\[rem:untwisted\\_endoscopy\\_transfer\\]) and [@Kottwitz10 Prop.A.3.12]. We will see in the proof below that the same arguments continue to work for our version (\\[eq:twisted\\_endo-transfer1\\]). Note that the right hand side of (\\[eq:twisted\\_endo-transfer2\\]) does not make sense in our situation since the invariant $\\alpha(\\gamma_0;\\delta)\\in B(I_0)$ is not well-defined by the pair $(\\gamma_0;\\delta)$ unless $G_{\\gamma}$ is connected. This is why we had to rewrite it as in (\\[eq:twisted\\_endo-transfer1\\]).\n\nWe keep the notation and assumption of [@Kottwitz10 A.3.11]. We only need to consider the case that $\\gamma_H$ transfers to $\\gamma_0\\in G(F)$ which is a stable norm of $\\delta\\in G(L_n)$ with $\\kappa([\\delta])=\\mu_0$. We may choose an elliptic maximal torus $T_H$ of $I_H=H_{\\gamma_H}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, an admissible embedding $T_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T\\subset G$ sending $\\gamma_H$ to $\\gamma_0$, and an $F$-embedding $k:T\\hookrightarrow G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ (which exist since $T_H$ and $T$ are elliptic in $I_H$ and $I_0$, respectively).\n\nThen, there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $1$ in $T(F)$ such that for all $t\\in U$, $\\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1}(t),\\gamma_0(t))$ is constant whenever $\\gamma_{H_1}(t):=t^n\\gamma_{H_1}$ is strongly $G$-regular (semisimple) and $\\gamma_0(t):=t^n\\gamma_0\\in T(F)$ is strongly regular (semisimple) [@LS87 2.4]. We set $\\delta(t):=k(t)\\delta$ (so, $\\mathscr{N}\\delta(t)=\\gamma_0(t)$). Also, for strongly regular $\\gamma_0(t)$ (whose centralizer is thus $T$) and for $\\alpha\\in \\mathfrak{D}(T,G;F)$, the stable $\\sigma$-conjugacy class of $\\delta(t)_{\\alpha}:=k(t)\\delta_{\\alpha}$ corresponds to $\\alpha\\in H^1(F,T){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}H^1(F,G_{\\delta(t)\\theta})$. Hence, for $t\\neq1\\in U$ such that $\\gamma_0(t)$ is strongly regular, the right hand side of (\\[eq:twisted\\_endo-transfer1\\]) for $\\gamma_{H_1}(t)$ and $\\gamma_0(t)$ equals $\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathfrak{D}(T,G;F)} \\langle \\tilde{\\alpha},s\\rangle \\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0) \\mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\\delta(t)_{\\alpha}}(f)$. Clearly, the pairing $\\langle \\tilde{\\alpha},s\\rangle$ and $\\delta(t)_{\\alpha}$ alll depend only on the image of $\\alpha$ in $\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$. Also, the map $\\mathfrak{D}(T,G;F)\\rightarrow \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)$ is surjective [@Kottwitz86 10.2]. Therefore, the degree $0$ part of its Shalika germ about $1$ equals [@Clozel90 (7.6)] $$|\\mathfrak{D}(T,I_0;F)|\\cdot (-1)^{q(I_0^{\\ast})}\\cdot \\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;F)} \\langle \\tilde{\\alpha},s\\rangle \\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0) e(G_{\\delta_{\\alpha}\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}}) \\mathrm{TO}^{G(F)}_{\\delta_{\\alpha}}(f),$$ where $I_0^{\\ast}$ is a (common) quasi-split inner form of $I_0$ and $G_{\\delta_{\\alpha}\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and $q(I_0^{\\ast})$ is the $F$-rank of $(I_0^{\\ast})^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$. By comparing this with the degree $0$ part of the Shalika germ about $1$ of the function $t\\mapsto \\mathrm{SO}^{H_1(F)}_{\\gamma_{H_1}(t)}(f^{H_1})$, we obtain the identity (\\[eq:twisted\\_endo-transfer1\\]).\n\n### Stabilization at $\\infty$\n\nWe fix an elliptic maximal torus $T$ of $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$; by assumption, there exist an (elliptic) maximal torus $T_{H}$ of $(H)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ and an admissible embedding $j_0:T_{H}\\rightarrow T$ (defined over ${\\mathbb R}$), and thus, the maximal split tori $A_{H_{{\\mathbb R}}}$, $A_{G_{{\\mathbb R}}}$ in the centers of $H_{{\\mathbb R}}$ and $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$ are canonically isomorphic.\n\n[@Kottwitz92 (7.4)], [@Morel10 Rem.6.2.2] \\[thm:pseudo-coeff\\] There exists a function $h_{\\infty}$ on $H_1({\\mathbb R})$, compactly supported modulo $Z_{H_1}({\\mathbb R})^{\\mathrm{o}}$, such that for every semisimple element $\\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1({\\mathbb R})$, the stable orbital integral $\\mathrm{SO}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(h_{\\infty})$ equals $0$ unless $\\gamma_{H_1}$ is $(G,H_1)$-regular and elliptic, in which case $$\\mathrm{SO}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(h_{\\infty}) = \\langle \\tilde{\\alpha}_{\\infty}(\\gamma_0),s\\rangle \\cdot \\Delta_{\\infty}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0) \\cdot e(I_{\\infty}) \\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi_{{\\mathbb C}}(\\gamma_0) \\cdot \\mathrm{vol}(A_{G_{{\\mathbb R}}}({\\mathbb R})^{\\mathrm{o}}\\backslash I_0(\\infty)({\\mathbb R}))^{-1},$$ where the terms on the right side are as follows (cf. [@Kottwitz90 p.182]): $\\gamma_0:=j_0(\\gamma_H)$, $I_0(\\infty)$ is the inner form of $(I_0)_{{\\mathbb R}}:=Z_{G}(\\gamma_0)^{\\mathrm{o}}_{{\\mathbb R}}$ with anisotropic adjoint $I_0(\\infty)^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$, and $e(I_{\\infty})$ is the sign attached to $I_{\\infty}$ by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz83]. The element $\\tilde{\\alpha}_{\\infty}(\\gamma_0)\\in X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I_0})^{\\Gamma(\\infty)}Z(\\hat{G}))$ is the extension of $\\alpha_{\\infty}(\\gamma_0)\\in X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I_0})^{\\Gamma(\\infty)})$ (as defined in ) whose restriction to $Z(\\hat{G})$ is $-\\mu_0$.\n\nBasically, the arguments on p. 182\u2013186 of [@Kottwitz90] carry over to our general setting without essential change, and here we will be just contented with explanation of the necessary modifications which mainly concern generalization (for $(G,\\mathcal{H},H_1,\\xi_1)$) of certain properties of the transfer factor $\\Delta_{\\infty}$ (which were stated for $(G,H)$ in *loc. cit.*): recall that in the Kottwitz\u2019s set-up (i.e. $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$), the split extension $\\mathcal{H}$ in the endoscopic datum is the $L$-group ${}^LH$ of $H$ and one does not need a $z$-pair $(H_1,\\xi_1)$ (i.e. $H_1=H$, $\\xi_1=id$). To state the required generalization (and fix notations), it seems unavoidable to repeat, in our setting, the discussion of Kottwitz in *loc. cit.* (see (a)- (e) below). In the following discussion, as we will work exclusively with groups over ${\\mathbb R}$ and their dual groups, we will simply write $G$, $H$, $H_1$ ... for their base-changes to ${\\mathbb R}$.\n\n\\(a) We fix an ${\\mathbb R}$-splitting $spl_{\\hat{G}}=(\\mathcal{T},\\mathcal{B},\\{X_{\\alpha}\\})$ of $\\hat{G}$ (as usual, $(\\mathcal{T},\\mathcal{B})$ is a (Borel) pair of $\\hat{G}$, $\\{X_{\\alpha^{\\vee}}\\}$ is a collection of root vectors), and, assuming $s\\in\\mathcal{T}$, take $spl_{\\hat{H}}=(\\mathcal{T},\\mathcal{B}_{\\hat{H}}=\\mathcal{B}\\cap \\hat{H},\\{X_{\\alpha^{\\vee}}\\})$ for an ${\\mathbb R}$-splitting of $\\hat{H}$ ($\\alpha^{\\vee}$ runs through $R(\\mathcal{T},\\hat{H})$); this also determines an ${\\mathbb R}$-splitting $spl_{\\hat{H}_1}=(\\mathcal{T}_{1},\\mathcal{B}_{\\hat{H}_1},\\cdots)$ of $\\hat{H}_1$ and an embedding ${}^LH\\rightarrow {}^LH_1$. Also, when $\\mathfrak{B}$ denotes the set of Borel subgroups of $G_{{\\mathbb C}}$ containing $T$ and $\\mathcal{B}_{H_1}$ the similar set for $(H_1,T_{H_1})$, for $B\\in \\mathfrak{B}$, let $\\iota_B$ denote one-half the sum of $B$-positive roots of $T$ in $G$ and $\\Delta_B(-)$ the function on $T({\\mathbb R})$ defined by $$\\Delta_B(\\gamma)=\\prod_{\\alpha>^B0}(1-\\alpha(\\gamma)^{-1}),$$ with $\\alpha$ running through the $B$-positive roots of $T$.\n\n\\(b) To any $B\\in \\mathfrak{B}$ (more precisely, to the associated *based* $\\chi$-data) and any ${\\mathbb R}$-splitting $spl_{\\hat{G}}$ of $\\hat{G}$, Langlands and Shelstad [@LS87 (2.6)] construct a canonical admissible embedding: $$\\eta_{B}:{}^LT\\rightarrow {}^LG$$ which is is uniquely determined up to $\\mathcal{T}$-conjugacy. In more detail, $\\eta_{B}|_{\\hat{T}}$ is the isomorphism $\\hat{T}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\mathcal{T}$ determined by the chosen (Borel) pairs $(T,B)$, $(\\mathcal{T},\\mathcal{B})$, the restriction of $\\eta_{B}$ to ${\\mathbb C}^{\\times}=W_{{\\mathbb C}}\\subset {}^LT$ is given by $z\\mapsto (z/|z|)^{\\iota_B}$, and $\\eta_{B}(\\tau)$ for $\\tau\\in{\\mathrm{Gal}}({\\mathbb C}/{\\mathbb R})\\subset W_{{\\mathbb R}}$ has a certain explicit description in terms of the splitting $spl_{\\hat{G}}$.\n\n\\(c) Let $J$ be the set of admissible isomorphisms $j:T_{H}\\rightarrow T$ (\\[eq:admissible\\_embedding\\]); $\\Omega_G:=\\Omega(T({\\mathbb C}),G({\\mathbb C}))$ acts on $J$ simply transitively [@Shelstad79 Prop.2.2]. Then, any pair $(j,B)\\in J\\times \\mathfrak{B}$ determines unique Borel subgroups $B_{H}\\in \\mathfrak{B}_{H}$, $B_{H_1}\\in \\mathfrak{B}_{H_1}$ (in the usual manner via identifications of the associated based root data), in which case we write $(j,B)\\mapsto B_{H}, B_{H_1}$. Any choice of pairs $(\\mathcal{T}_1,\\mathcal{B}_{\\hat{H}_1})$, $(T_1,B_{H_1})$ (in particular any choice of $(j,B)$) presents the (absolute) Weyl group $\\Omega_{H_1}=\\Omega(T_1({\\mathbb C}),H_1({\\mathbb C}))$ as a subgroup of $\\Omega_G$. Given $(j,B)\\in J\\times \\mathfrak{B}$, we can write any $\\omega\\in \\Omega_G$ as $\\omega=\\omega_{H_1}\\omega_{\\ast}$ uniquely, where $\\omega_{H_1}\\in \\Omega_{H_1}$ and $\\omega_{\\ast}$ belongs to the set $ \\Omega_{\\ast}$ of $\\omega\\in\\Omega_G$ such that $(j,\\omega(B))$ and $(j,B)$ have the same image under $J\\times \\mathfrak{B}\\rightarrow \\mathfrak{B}_{H_1}$.\n\n\\(d) For any elliptic $L$-parameter $\\varphi:W_{{\\mathbb R}}\\rightarrow{}^LG$, we may assume (by conjugation under $\\hat{G}$) that it factors through $\\mathcal{T}$ and $\\varphi(z)=z^{\\Lambda}\\bar{z}^{\\Lambda'}\\ (z\\in {\\mathbb C}^{\\times})$ for a unique $\\Lambda, \\Lambda' \\in X_{\\ast}(\\mathcal{T})_{{\\mathbb C}}$ satisfying that $\\Lambda-\\Lambda'\\in X_{\\ast}(\\mathcal{T})$ and $\\langle\\Lambda,\\alpha^{\\vee}\\rangle>0$ for all $\\mathcal{B}$-positive roots $\\alpha^{\\vee}$. With this tuning, for any $B\\in \\mathfrak{B}$, we obtain an $L$-parameter $\\varphi_B:W_{{\\mathbb R}}\\rightarrow {}^LT$ such that $\\varphi=\\eta_B\\circ\\varphi_B$. Let $$\\chi_B=\\chi(\\varphi,B)\\in {\\mathrm{Hom}}_{cont}(T({\\mathbb R}),{\\mathbb C}^{\\times})$$ be the quasi-character on $T({\\mathbb R})$ corresponding to $\\varphi_B$ by the Langlands correspondence for tori: $H^1(W_{{\\mathbb R}},\\hat{T})={\\mathrm{Hom}}_{cont}(T({\\mathbb R}),{\\mathbb C}^{\\times})$.\n\nFor $B_{H_1}\\in \\mathfrak{B}_{H_1}$ and an elliptic $L$-parameter $\\varphi:W_{{\\mathbb R}}\\rightarrow{}^LH_1$, we let $\\eta_{B_{H_1}}$ and $\\chi_{B_{H_1}}$ be respectively the admissible embedding ${}^LT_{H_1}\\rightarrow {}^LH_1$ and the associated quasi-character $\\chi_{B_{H_1}}$ of $T_{H_1}({\\mathbb R})$ defined as above for $(T_{H_1},B_{H_1})$. In fact, we are interested in the (elliptic) $L$-parameters for $H_1$ with certain properties. Indeed, let $\\Phi_{temp}(H_1,\\lambda_1)$ denote the set of equivalence classes of tempered $L$-parameters $\\varphi_{H_1}$ whose associated character on $Z_1({\\mathbb R})$ equals $\\lambda_{H_1}$ and $\\Phi_{temp}(G)$ the set of equivalence classes of temped $L$-parameters of $G$. Then, the pair of embeddings $\\xi:\\mathcal{H}\\rightarrow {}^LG$, $\\xi_1:\\mathcal{H}\\rightarrow  {}^LH_1$ gives rise to a map $$\\label{eq:endoscopic_transfer_L-paramters}\n\\Phi_{temp}(H_1,\\lambda_1) \\rightarrow \\Phi_{temp}(G),$$ cf. [@Shelstad10 $\\S$2] (When $H_1=H$ and $\\xi_1=id$, this map simply sends $\\varphi_{H_1}$ to the composite $\\xi\\circ\\varphi_{H_1}$). Any $L$-parameter $\\varphi_{H_1}\\in \\Phi_{temp}(H_1,\\lambda_1)$ whose image in $\\Phi_{temp}(G)$ is elliptic is also elliptic.\n\n\\(e) The (local) Langlands-Shelstad transfer factors [@LR87] are determined only up to a constant and their definition requires certain auxiliary choices, namely choices of *$a$-data* and *$\\chi$-data* (the transfer factors themselves are independent of these choices). Given $B\\in\\mathfrak{B}$, for $\\chi$-data we will use the *based* choice [@Shelstad08 $\\S$9] defined by the corresponding positive system $R(T,B)$ of roots, and for $a$-data, we set $$a_{\\alpha}:=i=:-a_{-\\alpha},\\quad \\forall\\alpha\\in R(T,B)$$ (recall that since $T$ is elliptic, every root is imaginary so that $a_{\\alpha}$ must be purely imaginary). Then, for any choice of $(j,B)\\in J\\times \\mathfrak{B}$, with the resulting choice of based $\\chi$-data and Borel subgroup $B_{H_1}\\in \\mathfrak{B}_{H_1}$ (i.e. $(j,B)\\mapsto (B_{H_1})$), Kottwitz and Shelstad [@KottwitzShelstad99 p.38-40] construct a $1$-cocycle in $Z^1(W_{{\\mathbb R}},\\mathcal{T}_1)$ or equivalently a quasi-character on $T_1({\\mathbb R})$ $$a_{j,B}\\in {\\mathrm{Hom}}_{cts}(T_{H_1}({\\mathbb R}),{\\mathbb C}^{\\times})$$ from the associated embeddings $\\xi$, $\\xi_1$, $\\eta_{B}$, and $\\eta_{B_{H_1}}$, which, in the case $H_1=H$ and $\\xi_1=id$ (so, $\\xi:\\mathcal{H}={}^LH\\rightarrow {}^LG$), is defined by $\\xi\\circ\\eta_{B_H}\\circ\\hat{j}=a_{j,B}\\cdot\\eta_B$ (using that $\\xi\\circ\\eta_{B_H}\\circ\\hat{j}|_{\\hat{T}}=\\eta_B|_{\\hat{T}}$). In [@Kottwitz90 p.184] $a_{j,B}$ was denoted by $\\chi_{G,H}$. Here, in the general case, we follow the discussion of [@Shelstad08 $\\S$10], where $\\eta_{B}$, $\\eta_{B_{H_1}}$, and $a_{j,B}$ are denoted by $\\xi_T$, $\\xi_{T_{H_1}}$, and $a_{T_1}$, respectively. Then, we claim that $a_{j,B}$ satisfies the following property:\n\nSuppose that $\\varphi_{H_1}$ is an elliptic $L$-parameter lying in $\\Phi_{temp}(H_1,\\lambda_1)$ and $\\varphi$ is its image under the map (\\[eq:endoscopic\\_transfer\\_L-paramters\\]). Then, for every (strongly) $G$-regular elliptic $\\gamma_{H_1}\\in T_{H_1}({\\mathbb R})$ which is an image of $\\gamma\\in T({\\mathbb R})$ (i.e. $\\gamma_H$ is the image of $\\gamma$ under *some* admissible embedding $T_H\\rightarrow T$ (\\[eq:admissible\\_embedding\\])) and any $\\omega=\\omega_{1}\\omega_{\\ast}$ with $\\omega_{1}\\in \\Omega_{H_1}$ and $\\omega_{\\ast}\\in\\Omega_{\\ast}$, one has $$\\label{eq:transfer_factor-III_2}\na_{j,\\omega(B)}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma) \\cdot \\chi_{\\omega_{1}(B_{1})}(\\gamma_{H_1})=\\chi_{\\omega(B)}(\\gamma).$$ The left-hand side factors through $T_{H_1}({\\mathbb R})/Z_1({\\mathbb R})=T_H({\\mathbb R})$ (as a function in $\\gamma_{H_1}$) and the comparison is done through $j:T_H({\\mathbb R}){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T({\\mathbb R})$. Note that $(j,\\omega(B))\\mapsto \\omega_{1}(B_{H_1})$ when $(j,B)\\mapsto B_{H_1}$, so we may reduce to the situation $\\omega=\\omega_{H_1}=\\omega_{\\ast}=id$, in which case one just needs to check the obvious relation among the corresponding Langlands parameters for the quasi-characters $\\chi_{B_{H_1}}$, $a_{j,B}$, $\\chi_{B}$. Such verification can be found in [@Shelstad08 $\\S$11], [@Shelstad10 $\\S$7.b].\n\nNow, it is not difficult to see that the original arguments of Kottwitz (especially, those on p.186 of [@Kottwitz90]) continue to work in our general setting if the following statement holds for the transfer factor $\\Delta_{\\infty}$: There exists a constant $c$ (depending only on $G$, the endoscopic datum $(H,\\cdots)$ plus the $z$-pair $(H_1,\\xi_1)$, and $j$, but not on $B$) such that for all $(G,H_1)$-regular $\\gamma_{H_1}\\in T_{H_1}({\\mathbb R})$ and $\\gamma=j_1(\\gamma_{H_1})$ ($j_1$ denoting the composite $T_{H_1}\\rightarrow T_H\\stackrel{j}{\\rightarrow} T$) $$\\label{eq:transfer_factor}\n\\Delta_{\\infty}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)=c\\cdot (-1)^{q(G)+q(H_1)}\\cdot a_{j,B}(\\gamma)\\cdot \\Delta_B(\\gamma^{-1})\\cdot  \\Delta_{B_{H_1}}(\\gamma_{H_1}^{-1})^{-1}.$$ As explained in [@Kottwitz90 p.186], by a continuity argument due to Shelstad, one only needs to establish this equality for strongly $G$-regular $\\gamma_{H_1}\\in T_{H_1}({\\mathbb R})$, so from now on we will assume that. Recall that our transfer factor $\\Delta_{\\infty}$ for the endoscopic datum $(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)$ is equal to the transfer factor $\\Delta_{\\infty}^{\\mathrm{LS}}$ defined by Langlands and Shelstad for the endoscopic datum $(H,\\mathcal{H},s^{-1},\\xi)$. We will establish the identity (\\[eq:transfer\\_factor\\]) for $\\Delta_{\\infty}^{\\mathrm{LS}}$ and at the same time show that $\\Delta_{\\infty}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)=C\\cdot \\Delta_{\\infty}^{\\mathrm{LS}}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)$ for some non-zero constant $C$ which depends only on the set of data $\\{G, (H,\\cdots), (H_1,\\xi_1), j\\}$ above, but neither on $B$ nor on the strongly $G$-regular pair $(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)$.\n\nThe (local) Langlands-Shelstad transfer factor $\\Delta_{\\infty}^{\\mathrm{LS}}$ [@LS87], [@LS90], [@KottwitzShelstad99] is a product of five terms: $$\\Delta_{\\infty}^{\\mathrm{LS}}=\\Delta_{I}\\cdot \\Delta_{II} \\cdot \\Delta_{III_1} \\cdot \\Delta_{III_2}\\cdot \\Delta_{IV},$$ up to a constant. Recall that we need to fix a reference pair $(\\gamma_{H_1}',\\gamma')$ for which we take any pair such that $\\gamma'=j_1(\\gamma_{H_1}')$. The transfer factor $\\Delta_{\\infty}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)$ is defined to be zero unless $\\gamma_{H_1}$ is an image of $\\gamma\\in G({\\mathbb R})$ under an admissible embedding $T_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T'\\subset G$ (not necessarily $j$ even if $T'=T$). When we discuss the factors $\\Delta_{\\bullet}$ ($\\bullet=\\infty,I,II,\\cdots$), we will not assume that $\\gamma=j_1(\\gamma_{H_1})$ (but, only that $\\gamma_{H_1}\\in T_{H_1}({\\mathbb R})$ and $\\gamma\\in T({\\mathbb R})$), and then will use that condition for $\\Delta_{III_1}$ when we establish (\\[eq:transfer\\_factor\\]). More precisely, following Shelstad [@Shelstad08 $\\S$8-$\\S$11], we will group together the (relative) terms $\\Delta_{II}$, $\\Delta_{III_2}$, $\\Delta_{IV}$ and will verify that the right-hand side of (\\[eq:transfer\\_factor\\]) is a non-zero constant multiple of their product $\\Delta_{II_+}:=\\Delta_{II}\\cdot \\Delta_{III_2}\\cdot \\Delta_{IV}$ (the constant depending only on the set of data $\\{G, (H,\\cdots), (H_1,\\xi_1), j\\}$ above, but not on $B$) and that the (relative) term $\\Delta_I$ also depends only on the same set of data, but not on the pair $(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)$, while $\\Delta_{III_1}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma;\\gamma_{H_1}',\\gamma')=1$ whenever $\\gamma=j_1(\\gamma_{H_1})$, $\\gamma'=j_1(\\gamma_{H_1}')$.\n\nFirst, we split $\\Delta_{II}$ into a product of $\\Delta_{II}^{\\ast}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma):=\\prod_{\\alpha}\\chi_{\\alpha}(\\alpha(\\gamma)-1)$ and $\\prod_{\\alpha}\\chi_{\\alpha}(a_{\\alpha})^{-1}$, where in both products, $\\alpha$ runs over the $B$-positive roots of $(T,G)$ *outside $H_1$* [@Shelstad08 p.232] (use that $T$ is elliptic in $G$). We note that the second product, which a priori depends on the choice of $a$-data and based $\\chi$-data, so on $B$, equals $(-i)^{1/2(\\mathrm{dim}G-\\mathrm{dm}H_1)}$. Also, from [@Shelstad08 p.232, line+19], we have $$\\Delta_{II}^{\\ast}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma) \\Delta_{IV}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)=(-1)^{1/2(\\mathrm{dim} G -\\mathrm{dim} H_1)} \\Delta_B(\\gamma^{-1}) \\Delta_{B_{H_1}}(\\gamma_{H_1}^{-1})^{-1}.$$ Moreover, by definition [@Shelstad08 $\\S$10-$\\S$11], we have $$\\Delta_{III_2}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)= a_{j,B}(\\gamma_{H_1})$$ if $\\gamma_{H_1}$ is the image of $\\gamma$ (under some admissible embedding from $T_H$ into $G$). Therefore, we have proved that the right-hand side of (\\[eq:transfer\\_factor\\]) is a constant multiple of $\\Delta_{II_+}$. It also follows from the discussion on p. 234-245 of [@Shelstad08] that when we write $\\Delta_{II_+}^{j,B}$ for $\\Delta_{II_+}$ defined for $(j,B)\\in J\\times \\mathfrak{B}$, for any $\\omega\\in \\Omega_G$, one has $$\\Delta_{II_+}^{j,\\omega(B)}=\\det \\omega_{\\ast} \\cdot \\Delta_{II_+}^{j,B},$$ where $\\det \\omega_{\\ast}=\\det (\\omega_{\\ast};X^{\\ast}(T))$. It is also evident from the definition [@LS87 (3.2)] that the term $\\Delta_{I}$ depends only on the admissible embedding $j:T_H\\rightarrow T$, but not on $B$: strictly speaking, the discussion in *loc. cit.* applies to the admissible embedding $j_{\\ast}:T_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{\\ast}$ in (\\[eq:admissible\\_embedding\\]) (which is a part of the datum of admissible embedding $j$). In more detail, $\\Delta_{I}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma;\\gamma_{H_1}',\\gamma')$ is the ratio $\\Delta_{I}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)\\Delta_{I}(\\gamma_{H_1}',\\gamma')^{-1}$ with both terms being defined by the same recipe and $\\Delta_{I}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)=\\langle \\lambda(T_{\\ast}^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}),\\mathbf{s}_{T_{\\ast}}\\rangle$, where both $\\lambda(T_{\\ast}^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})\\in H^1({\\mathbb R},T_{\\ast}^{{\\mathrm{sc}}})$ and $\\mathbf{s}_{T_{\\ast}}\\in \\pi_0((\\hat{T}_{\\ast}/Z(\\hat{G}))^{\\Gamma_{\\infty}})$ depend only on $j_{\\ast}$ [@LS87 (2.3.3) and p.241]. Finally, for the term $\\Delta_{III_1}^{\\ast}$ (which is the only genuine relative term $\\Delta_{III_1}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma;\\gamma_{H_1}',\\gamma')$ in $\\Delta_{\\infty}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma;\\gamma_{H_1}',\\gamma')$), it follows from the discussion in [@LS87 (3.4)] that when $\\gamma=j_1(\\gamma_{H_1})$, $\\gamma'=j_1(\\gamma_{H_1}')$, the cohomology classes $v(\\sigma)$, $\\bar{v}(\\sigma)$ (thus, $\\mathrm{inv}\\left(\\frac{\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_G}{\\bar{\\gamma}_{H_1},\\bar{\\gamma}_G}\\right)$ as well) there become trivial so that $\\Delta_{III_1}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma;\\gamma_{H_1}',\\gamma')=1$. Therefore, we see that the statement on the identity (\\[eq:transfer\\_factor\\]) holds for the Langlands-Shelstad transfer factor $\\Delta_{\\infty}^{\\mathrm{LS}}$. Furthermore, if we change $s$ to $s^{-1}$ in the endoscopic datum, the only terms being affected are $\\Delta_{I}$ and $\\Delta_{III_1}$: they both change to their inverses. Hence, the two transfer factors $\\Delta_{\\infty}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)$ and $\\Delta_{\\infty}^{\\mathrm{LS}}(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma)$ are proportional.[^39] This completes the proof.\n\nStabilization of Lefschetz number formula {#subsec:stabilization_of_LNF}\n-----------------------------------------\n\nWe recall the definition of the elliptic part of the geometric side of the stable trace formula.\n\nLet $G$ be a connected reductive group over a number field $F$ and $\\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)$ a set of representatives for the isomorphism classes of elliptic endoscopic data of $G$. For each $\\underline{H}=(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)\\in \\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)$, we fix a $z$-pair $(H_1,\\xi_1)$. Recall the quasi-character $\\lambda_{H_1}$ on $Z_1({\\mathbb A}_F)/Z_1(F)$ for the central $F$-torus $Z_1$ in $H_1$. Let $C_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}^{\\infty}(H_1({\\mathbb A}_F))$ denote the space of ${\\mathbb C}$-valued smooth functions on $H_1({\\mathbb A}_F)$ whose supports are compact modulo $Z_1({\\mathbb A}_F)$ and that satisfy $f^{H_1}(zh)=\\lambda_{H_1}(z)^{-1} f^{H_1}(h)$ for all $z\\in Z_1({\\mathbb A}_F)$ and $h\\in H_1({\\mathbb A}_F)$.\n\n[@Kottwitz86 9.2] Let $\\underline{H}=(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)\\in \\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)$ and $(H_1,\\xi_1)$ a $z$-pair of it.\n\n\\(1) For a semi-simple element $\\gamma_{H_1}$ of $H_1({\\mathbb A}_F)$ and $f^{H_1}\\in C_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}^{\\infty}(H_1({\\mathbb A}_F))$, we define the adelic stable orbital integral of $f^{H_1}$ along the adelic stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_{H_1}$ by $$\\mathrm{SO}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}):=\\sum_{\\alpha} e(\\gamma_{\\alpha}) \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma_{\\alpha}}(f^{H_1}),$$ where $\\alpha$ runs through $\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,H_1;{\\mathbb A}_F)=\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb A}_F,I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_F,H_1)]$ with $I_0=(H_1)_{\\gamma_{H_1}}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $\\gamma_{\\alpha}$ is an element of $H_1({\\mathbb A}_F)$ whose $H_1({\\mathbb A}_F)$-conjugacy class in the adelic stable conjugacy class of $\\gamma_{H_1}\\in H_1({\\mathbb A}_F)$ corresponds to $\\alpha$, and the number $e(\\gamma_{\\alpha})=\\prod_ve(I_{\\alpha,v})$ is the Kottwitz sign with $I_{\\alpha,v}$ being the connected centralizer in $H_{1,F_v}$ of the $v$-component of $\\gamma_{\\alpha}$. The adelic orbital integral is defined with respect to the Tamagawa (or canonical) measure on $H_1({\\mathbb A})$ [@Labesse01].\n\n\\(2) For $f^{H_1}\\in C_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}^{\\infty}(H_1({\\mathbb A}_F))$, we define the *elliptic part of the geometric side of the stable trace formula* for $f^{H_1}$ to be $$\\label{eq:epgsstf}\n {\\mathrm{ST}}_{{\\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1}):=\\tau(H) \\sum_{\\gamma_{H}\\in E_{\\mathrm{st}}(H)} |\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H})(F)|^{-1} \\mathrm{SO}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}),$$ where for each $\\gamma_H\\in E_{\\mathrm{st}}(H)$, a set of representatives for the elliptic semi-simple stable conjugacy classes in $H(F)$, we fix an (elliptic) semisimple $\\gamma_{H_1}\\in H_1(F)$ lifting $\\gamma_H$ (The stable orbital integral $\\mathrm{SO}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})$ depends only on $\\gamma_H$, not on the choice of the lift $\\gamma_{H_1}$).\n\nFor $\\underline{H}=(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)\\in \\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)$, we write $\\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H})$ for its automorphism group and $$\\mathrm{Out}(\\underline{H}):=\\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H})/H^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}({\\mathbb Q})$$ for the outer automorphism group. We also put $$\\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\times f^p | H_c(Sh_{K/{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K)):=\\sum_{i}(-1)^i\\mathrm{tr}( \\Phi^m\\times f^p | H^i_c(Sh_{K}(G,X)_{{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K)).$$\n\n\\[thm:EP\\_GS\\_STF\\] With the same setup as Thm. \\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:Kisin\\], for every $f^p$ in the Hecke algebra $\\mathcal{H}(G({\\mathbb A}_f^p)/\\!\\!/ K^p)$, there exists $m(f^p)\\in{\\mathbb N}$, depending on $f^p$, with the following property: for each $m\\geq m(f^p)$, there exists a function $f^{H_1}=f^{H_1}(m)\\in C^{\\infty}_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}(H_1({\\mathbb A}))$ such that one has $$\\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\times f^p | H_c(Sh_{K/{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K))=\\sum_{\\underline{H}\\in \\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)} \\iota(G,\\underline{H}) {\\mathrm{ST}}_{{\\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1}),$$ where $$\\iota(G,\\underline{H}):=\\tau(G) \\tau(H)^{-1} |\\mathrm{Out}(\\underline{H})|^{-1}.$$ If $G^{{\\mathrm{ad}}}$ is ${\\mathbb Q}$-anisotropic or $f^p$ is the identity, we can take $m(f^p)$ to be $1$.\n\nWe will rewrite the right hand expression of (\\[eq:Lef-number1\\]) as a similar sum with a different index set (in certain cohomology groups). Let $E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)$ be a set of representatives of stable conjugacy classes of ${\\mathbb Q}$-elliptic semisimple elements in $G({\\mathbb Q})$. First, we rearrange its summation index as $$\\label{eq:rearrangement}\n\\sum_{\\gamma_0}\\sum_{(\\gamma,\\delta)},$$ where in the first sum $\\gamma_0$ runs through the subset of ${\\mathbb R}$-elliptic elements in $E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)$ and in the second sum $(\\gamma,\\delta)$ runs through the set of elements $(\\gamma,\\delta)$ of $\\prod'\\mathfrak{C}_l(\\gamma_0)\\times \\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$ with trivial Kottwitz invariant, cf. (\\[eq:C\\_l(gamma\\_0)\\]), Def. \\[defn:D\\_p\\^[(n)]{}(gamma\\_0)\\], Prop. \\[prop:B(gamma\\_0)=D(I\\_0,G;Qp)\\] (the restricted product $\\prod'$ means that almost all $\\gamma_l$\u2019s are the distinguished elements). Here and thereafter, $\\gamma$ and $\\delta$ will also denote, by abuse of notation, their $G({\\mathbb A}_f)$-conjugacy class and $\\sigma$-conjugacy class in $G(L_n)$ respectively. For each $\\gamma_0\\in E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)$, let us fix a reference element $\\delta_0$ of $\\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0)$. With such choice of $\\{\\delta_0\\}_{E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)}$, we will lift the summation index $(\\gamma,\\delta)$ of (\\[eq:rearrangement\\]) to the source of the surjective map $$\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f)=\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f^p)\\oplus \\mathfrak{D}(G_{\\delta\\theta}^{\\mathrm{o}},G;{{\\mathbb Q}_p}) \\stackrel{i_{\\ast}^{\\delta_0}}{\\longrightarrow} \\sideset{}{'}\\prod\\mathfrak{C}_l(\\gamma_0)\\times \\mathfrak{C}_p^{(n)}(\\gamma_0).$$ which sends the distinguished element to $(\\gamma_0,\\delta_0)$. Recall that a Kottwitz triple $(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)$ having trivial Kottwitz invariant means that there exists $(\\alpha^p=(\\alpha_l)_{\\l\\neq p};\\alpha_p)$ in the source of this map $i_{\\ast}^{\\delta_0}$ such that the product $\\alpha=\\prod_v \\tilde{\\alpha}_v$ (including the $\\infty$-component $\\tilde{\\alpha}_{\\infty}$) of their extensions $\\tilde{\\alpha}_v\\in X^{\\ast}(Z(\\hat{I_0})^{\\Gamma_v}Z(\\hat{G}))$ (\\[eq:restriction\\_of\\_alpha\\_to\\_Z(hatG)\\]) is trivial as a character of $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})=\\left( \\bigcap_v Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}Z(\\hat{G}) \\right)/Z(\\hat{G})$. This suggests to take the second summation of (\\[eq:rearrangement\\]) over the subset $\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f)_1$ of $\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f)$ consisting of the elements whose Kottwitz invariant is trivial, by taking into account the cardinality of the subset $$\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\alpha^p,\\alpha_p):=\\{ (x^p,x_p)\\in \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f)_1\\ |\\ i_{\\ast}^{\\delta_0}(x^p,x_p)=i_{\\ast}^{\\delta_0}(\\alpha^p,\\alpha_p)\\}.$$\n\nIf we fix $(\\alpha^p,\\alpha_p)\\in \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f)_1$, an element of $(x^p,x_p)\\in \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f)$ also has trivial Kottwitz invariant if and only if their difference $(\\alpha^p-x^p,\\alpha_p-x_p,0)$ (trivial component at $\\infty$) lies in the kernel of the canonical map $$\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}) \\rightarrow \\mathfrak{E}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}) \\rightarrow \\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})^D,$$ where $\\mathfrak{E}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}):=\\ker[H^1({\\mathbb A},(I_0)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})]$ and the second map comes from the canonical isomorphism $$\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})^D=\\mathrm{coker}[H^0({\\mathbb A},G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}/{\\mathbb Q},(\\tilde{I}_0)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})]$$ (Lemma \\[lem:proof\\_of\\_Kottwitz86\\_Thm.6.6\\], cf. [@Labesse99 Remarque on p.43]: note that $H^0_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}({\\mathbb A}/{\\mathbb Q},I_0\\backslash G)= H^1({\\mathbb A}/{\\mathbb Q},(\\tilde{I}_0)_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})$). Hence, if $(\\gamma,\\delta):=i_{\\ast}(\\alpha^p,\\alpha_p)$, we have an identification $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\alpha^p,\\alpha_p) \\simeq &\\ker[\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f^p,G_{\\gamma_0})\\oplus H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta})\\oplus H^1({\\mathbb R},I_0)\\oplus\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})^D] \\\\\n=&{\\mathrm{im}}[ \\ker[H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A}_f^p,G_{\\gamma_0})\\oplus H^1({{\\mathbb Q}_p},G_{\\delta\\theta})\\oplus H^1({\\mathbb R},I_0)\\oplus H^1({\\mathbb Q},G)]\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A},I_0)]  \\\\\n=&{\\mathrm{im}}\\left[\\ker [\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q}, G_{\\alpha}^{\\mathrm{o}})\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A},G_{\\alpha})] \\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A},G_{\\alpha}^{\\mathrm{o}}) \\right] \\\\\n\\cong&\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)\\quad (\\text{Lemma }\\ref{eq:|widetilde{Sha}_G(Q,I_{phi,epsilon})^+|}),\\end{aligned}$$ where $G_{\\alpha}$ is the inner twist of $G_{\\gamma_0}$ determined by $\\alpha=(\\alpha_v)$; one has $G_{\\alpha_l}\\simeq G_{\\gamma_l}$, $G_{\\alpha_p} \\simeq G_{\\delta\\theta}$, and $\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q}, I_0)=\\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q}, G_{\\alpha}^{\\mathrm{o}})$. Also, in the second equality, we used the exactness of the sequence [@Labesse99 Cor.1.8.6] $$H^1({\\mathbb Q},I_0)\\rightarrow H^1({\\mathbb A},I_0) \\rightarrow \\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})^D.$$\n\nTherefore, by Thm. \\[thm:Kottwitz\\_formula:Kisin\\], Lemma \\[eq:|widetilde[Sha]{}\\_G(Q,I\\_[phi,epsilon]{})\\^+|\\] and the formula (\\[eq:Tamagawa\\_number\\]), we have the equalities $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\times f^p | H_c(Sh_{K/{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K) \\\\\n=&\\sum_{\\gamma_0} \\frac{\\tau(I_0)}{\\mathrm{vol}\\cdot |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|} \\sum_{\\substack{(\\alpha^p,\\alpha_p)\\in \\\\ \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f)_1}}  \\frac{i(\\gamma_0;\\gamma,\\delta)}{|\\mathfrak{D}(\\gamma_0;\\alpha^p,\\alpha_p)|} \\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p) \\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0) \\\\\n=&\\sum_{\\gamma_0} \\frac{\\tau(I_0)}{\\mathrm{vol}\\cdot |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|} \\sum_{\\substack{(\\alpha^p,\\alpha_p)\\in\\\\ \\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f)_1}} |\\ker[\\ker^1(I_0)\\rightarrow \\ker^1(G)]| \\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\delta}(\\phi_p) \\cdot \\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0),\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mathrm{vol}:=\\mathrm{vol}(A_G({\\mathbb R})^{\\mathrm{o}}\\backslash I_0({\\mathbb R}))$ (recall that $\\phi_p$ is the characteristic function of the set (\\[eq:Adm\\_K(mu)\\]), cf. Lemma \\[lem:fixed-pt\\_subset\\_of\\_Frob-Hecke\\_corr\\]).\n\nLet us write $\\mathrm{O}_{\\alpha^p}(f^p)$ for $\\mathrm{O}_{\\gamma}(f^p)$ when $\\gamma=i_{\\ast}(\\alpha^p)$, and similarly for $\\mathrm{TO}_{\\alpha_p}(\\phi_p)$. Then, using the relation [@Kottwitz86 p.395] $$\\tau(I_0) \\cdot |\\ker[\\ker^1(I_0)\\rightarrow \\ker^1(G)]| =\\tau(G) \\cdot |\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})|,$$ and a standard argument (from Fourier analysis on finite groups $ \\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$), we see that the last line equals the first line expression of the next: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{2} \\label{eq:stablization_step2}\n & \\mathrm{tr}(\\Phi^m\\times f^p | H_c(Sh_{K/{\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}},{\\mathscr{F}}_K)) && \\\\\n\\stackrel{(a)}{=} &\\ \\tau(G) \\sum_{\\gamma_0} |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1}\\cdot  \\frac{\\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0)}{\\mathrm{vol}} \\ \\cdot && \\sum_{(\\alpha_v)_v}  \\sum_{\\kappa\\in \\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})}  \\prod_v \\langle\\alpha_v,\\kappa\\rangle e(I_{\\alpha_v})\\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\alpha^p}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\alpha_p}(\\phi_p) \\nonumber \\\\\n\\stackrel{(b)}{=} &\\ \\tau(G) \\sum_{\\gamma_0} |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1}\\cdot  \\frac{\\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0)}{\\mathrm{vol}} \\ \\cdot && \\sum_{\\kappa\\in \\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})} \\prod_v\\sum_{\\alpha_v}  \\langle\\alpha_v,\\kappa\\rangle e(I_{\\alpha_v})\\cdot \\mathrm{O}_{\\alpha^p}(f^p)\\cdot \\mathrm{TO}_{\\alpha_p}(\\phi_p) \\nonumber \\\\\n\\stackrel{}{=} &\\ \\tau(G) \\sum_{\\gamma_0} |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1}\\cdot  \\sum_{\\kappa\\in \\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})} &&  \\biggl[ \\biggl( \\frac{\\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0)}{\\mathrm{vol}} \\langle\\alpha_{\\infty},\\kappa\\rangle e(I_{\\alpha_{\\infty}}) \\biggl)  \\cdot  \\prod_{v\\neq p,\\infty} \\biggl( \\sum_{\\alpha_v} \\langle\\alpha_v,\\kappa\\rangle e(I_{\\alpha_v})\\mathrm{O}_{\\alpha^p}(f^p) \\biggl) \\cdot \\nonumber \\\\\n& &&  \\qquad \\qquad \\quad \\biggl( \\sum_{\\alpha_p} \\langle\\alpha_p,\\kappa\\rangle e(I_{\\alpha_p}) \\mathrm{TO}_{\\alpha_p}(\\phi_p) \\biggl) \\biggl] \\nonumber \\\\\n\\stackrel{}{=} &\\ \\tau(G) \\sum_{(\\gamma_0, \\kappa)} |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1}\\cdot  O^{\\kappa}_{\\gamma_0}(f), && \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where we write $O^{\\kappa}_{\\gamma_0}(f)$ for the summand that is indexed by $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$ and appears inside the bracket $[ - ]$, i.e. $(\\frac{\\mathrm{tr}\\xi(\\gamma_0)}{\\mathrm{vol}} \\langle\\alpha_{\\infty},\\kappa\\rangle e(I_{\\alpha_{\\infty}})) \\cdot  \\prod_{v\\neq p,\\infty}  ( \\sum_{\\alpha_v} \\langle\\alpha_v,\\kappa\\rangle e(I_{\\alpha_v}) \\mathrm{O}_{\\alpha^p}(f^p) ) \\cdot ( \\sum_{\\alpha_p} \\langle\\alpha_p,\\kappa\\rangle e(I_{\\alpha_p}) \\mathrm{TO}_{\\alpha_p}(\\phi_p) )$.\n\nIn (a) the first sum is over the subset of ${\\mathbb R}$-elliptic elements in $E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)$, and in the second summation index $(\\alpha_v)_v$, $\\alpha_{\\infty}$ is fixed to be the element $\\alpha_{\\infty}(\\gamma_0)$ defined by $\\gamma_0$ in , while $(\\alpha^p,\\alpha_p)$ runs through the entire set $\\mathfrak{D}(I_0,G;{\\mathbb A}_f)$. Also, $e(I_{\\alpha_v})$ is the Kottwitz sign of the inner twist $I_{\\alpha_v}$ of $I_0$ via $\\alpha_v$ (cf. [@Kottwitz86]): by definition of $\\alpha_{\\infty}(\\gamma_0)$, $I_{\\alpha_{\\infty}}$ is the inner form of $(I_0)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ that is compact modulo the center. Here we used the fact that $\\prod e(I_{\\alpha_v})=1$ when the family $\\{I_{\\alpha_v}\\}_v$ of local groups comes from a global group. The equality (b) comes from rearranging the summations and the product. This is possible since there are only finitely many non-zero terms in the summand for any given summation index $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$, cf. [@Kottwitz86 $\\S$7, $\\S$8].\n\nNext, we rewrite the last expression of (\\[eq:stablization\\_step2\\]) using the new index set that comprises pairs $((H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi),\\gamma_{H})$ of an elliptic endoscopic datum and a $(G,H)$-regular semisimple element of $H({\\mathbb Q})$. For any such pair $((H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi),\\gamma_{H})$, we write $$\\label{eq:(H,gamma_H)->(gamma_0,kappa)}\n((H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi),\\gamma_{H}) \\rightarrow (\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$$ if $\\gamma_{H}$ transfers to an element $\\gamma_0$ of $G({\\mathbb Q})$ and there exists $z\\in Z(\\hat{G})$ such that $sz\\in \\bigcap_v Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}Z(\\hat{G})$ (via $Z(\\hat{H})\\hookrightarrow Z(\\hat{I}_H){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}Z(\\hat{I}_0)$) and $\\kappa$ is its image in $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})=\\left(\\bigcap_v Z(\\hat{I}_0)^{\\Gamma_v}Z(\\hat{G})\\right)/Z(\\hat{G})$: recall that $\\gamma_0$ is determined up to stable conjugacy (cf. [@Kottwitz86 6.8]).\n\nFollowing Labesse (cf. [@Labesse04 $\\S$IV.3]), we call two pairs $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)\\in E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)\\times \\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$ and $(\\gamma_0',\\kappa')\\in E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)\\times \\mathfrak{K}(I_0'/{\\mathbb Q})$ *equivalent* (or *isomorphic*) if there exists $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that (a) $g\\gamma_0g^{-1}=\\gamma_0'$ and $g^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g\\in I_0$ for all $\\tau\\in\\Gamma$, and that (b) $\\kappa$, $\\kappa'$ correspond under the isomorphism $\\Int(g)^D:\\mathfrak{K}(I_0'/{\\mathbb Q}) {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$ (under the condition (a), $\\Int(g)$ induces a quasi-isomorphism $I_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}}'$ of complexes of ${\\mathbb Q}$-groups and we have $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})=H^0({\\mathbb A}/{\\mathbb Q},I_{0{\\mathbf{ab}}}\\rightarrow G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})^D$, cf. Remark \\[eq:K\\_Labesse\\_Kottwitz\\]). In this case, for any maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-tori $T\\subset I_0$, $T'\\subset I_0'$, one can even find $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $$\\label{eq:stable_conj_g}\n \\Int(g)(T)=T',\\quad \\Int(g)(\\gamma_0)=\\gamma_0',\\quad \\text{and}\\quad g^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g\\in I_0\\text{ for all }\\ \\tau\\in\\Gamma$$ (The triples $(T,\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$, $(T',\\gamma_0',\\kappa')$ are *admissible triples* which are *equivalent*, in the sense of [@Labesse04 p.519].) Indeed, choose $g_1\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\\Int(g_1)(\\gamma_0)=\\gamma_0'$, $g_1^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}g_1\\in I_0$ for all $\\tau\\in\\Gamma$. Then, as $T$ and $\\Int(g_1^{-1})(T')$ are maximal tori of $I_0$, there exists $g_0\\in I_0({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ with $\\Int(g_0)(T)=\\Int(g_1^{-1})(T')$; then, $g:=g_1g_0\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ fulfills the conditions. Also, note that if $G_{\\gamma_0}=I_0$, $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$ can be equivalent to $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa')$ only if $\\kappa=\\kappa'$, because such automorphism $\\Int(g)^D$ of $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$ then must be the identity (thus, one has no use for this notion when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$). We also define two pairs $(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H) \\in \\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)\\times H({\\mathbb Q})$, $(\\underline{H}',\\gamma_{H'})\\in \\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)\\times H'({\\mathbb Q})$ to be *equivalent* (or *isomorphic*) if there exists an isomorphism $\\underline{H}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\underline{H}'$ matching the stable conjugacy classes of $\\gamma_{H}$ and $\\gamma_{H'}$. The association (\\[eq:(H,gamma\\_H)-&gt;(gamma\\_0,kappa)\\]) preserves the equivalence relations on both sides.\n\nFor $\\underline{H}=(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi)\\in \\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)$ and a semisimple $\\gamma_H\\in H({\\mathbb Q})$, let $\\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)$ and $\\mathrm{Out}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)$ denote respectively the subgroup of $\\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H})$ of elements sending $\\gamma_H$ into a stable conjugate of itself and the quotient of $\\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)$ by the subgroup of inner automorphisms. Then, we have an equality: $$\\label{eq:Out(H)&Out(H,gamma_H)}\n|\\mathrm{Out}(\\underline{H})| =m(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H) |\\mathrm{Out}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)|,$$ where $m(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)$ is the number of the stable conjugacy classes in $H({\\mathbb Q})$ in the orbit of $\\gamma_H$ under $\\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H})$.\n\nThe following lemma is proved in [@Labesse04 $\\S$IV.3] in the greater generality of *twisted* endoscopy and also generalizes Lemma 9.7 of [@Kottwitz86] which assumes that $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. We present Labesse\u2019s proof in our simple setting of standard endoscopy which then benefits from economy of notation and preparatory discussion.\n\n\\[lem:Labesse04,IV.3\\] (1) For every $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)\\in E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)\\times \\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$, there exists a pair $(\\underline{H}=(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi),\\gamma_H)$ of an elliptic endoscopic datum and a $(G,H)$-regular, semisimple element such that $(\\underline{H},\\gamma_{H})\\rightarrow (\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$.\n\n\\(2) Suppose that $(\\underline{H},\\gamma_{H})\\rightarrow (\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$ and $(\\underline{H}',\\gamma_{H'})\\rightarrow  (\\gamma_0',\\kappa')$. If $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$ and $(\\gamma_0',\\kappa')$ are equivalent, so are $(\\underline{H},\\gamma_{H})$ and $(\\underline{H}',\\gamma_{H'})$.\n\n\\(3) If $n(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$ denotes the number of elements $\\kappa'\\in\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$ such that $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa')$ is equivalent to $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$, we have equalities $$\\begin{aligned}\n |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})| &=n(\\gamma_0,\\kappa) \\cdot |\\mathrm{Out}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)|\\cdot |\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H})({\\mathbb Q})|  \\\\\n &=n(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)\\cdot |\\mathrm{Out}(\\underline{H})|\\cdot m(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)^{-1}\\cdot |\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H})({\\mathbb Q})|.\n \\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\(1) This is [@Kottwitz86 Lemma 9.7], where $G$ is assumed to be quasi-split, but recall that every maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus of $G$ transfers to its quasi-split inner form.\n\n\\(2) This is [@Labesse04 Prop. IV.3.4]. This is also proved in [@Kottwitz86 Lemma 9.7] under the assumption $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$, but the same proof can be adapted for the general case in the following way. By definition, there exist an admissible embedding $j:T_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T\\subset G$ (of maximal tori) sending $\\gamma_H\\in T_H({\\mathbb Q})$ to $\\gamma_0\\in T({\\mathbb Q})$ and a similar one $j':T_{H'}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T'\\subset G$. Choose $g\\in G({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ satisfying the conditions (\\[eq:stable\\_conj\\_g\\]). Then, one can show (as in the proof of [@Kottwitz86 Lemma 9.7]) that there exists a ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isomorphism $\\alpha_0:H\\rightarrow H'$ extending $j'^{-1}\\circ\\Int(g)\\circ j:T_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{H'}$ and there exists $h\\in H'({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\\alpha:=\\Int(h)\\circ\\alpha_0$ is a ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism. Now, if we identify $T$ and $T'$ with $T_H$ and $T_{H'}$ via $j$ and $j'$ respectively, since the composite $\\Int(h)\\circ \\Int(g):T_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T_{H'} {\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\alpha(T_{H})$ is ${\\mathbb Q}$-rational, it follows that $g^{-1}(h^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}h){}^{\\tau}g\\in T_H({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ for every $\\tau\\in\\Gamma$, which implies that $h^{-1}\\cdot{}^{\\tau}h\\in I_{H'}({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ for all $\\tau\\in\\Gamma$: more precisely, $j$ and $j'$ can be extended to ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$-isomorphisms $J:I_H:=(H_{\\gamma_H})^{\\mathrm{o}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0$, $J':I_{H'}:=(H'_{\\gamma_{H'}})^{\\mathrm{o}}{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0'$ (which are inner twists), and $\\alpha_0$ can be constructed extending $J'^{-1}\\circ \\Int(g)\\circ J : I_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0'{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_{H'}$, cf. [@Kottwitz86 $\\S$3.1]. Then, $``g^{-1}(h^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}h){}^{\\tau}g\"=\\alpha_0^{-1}(h^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}h)\\cdot J^{-1}(g^{-1}\\cdot {}^{\\tau}g)$. Therefore, $\\alpha(\\gamma_H)=\\Int(h)(\\gamma_{H'})$ and $\\gamma_{H'}$ are stably conjugate.\n\n\\(3) This is [@Labesse04 Prop. IV.3.5]. If $\\mathrm{Norm}_{G_{\\gamma_0}}(T)$ and $\\mathrm{Norm}_{H_{\\gamma_H}}(T_H)$ denote the normalizer ${\\mathbb Q}$-group schemes, it is known [@Brion15 Lemma2.4] that $T=\\mathrm{Cent}_{G_{\\gamma_0}^{\\mathrm{o}}}(T)= (\\mathrm{Norm}_{G_{\\gamma_0}}(T))^{\\mathrm{o}}$ and there exists an exact sequence of ${\\mathbb Q}$-group schemes $$1\\rightarrow \\Omega(T,I_0) \\rightarrow \\Omega(T,G_{\\gamma_0})\\rightarrow \\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0}) \\rightarrow 1,$$ where $\\Omega(T,I_0):=\\mathrm{Norm}_{I_0}(T)/T$ and $\\Omega(T,G_{\\gamma_0}):=\\mathrm{Norm}_{G_{\\gamma_0}}(T)/T$ are the quotient (Weyl) group schemes. Let us identify the Weyl group scheme $\\Omega(T_H,H)$ with a subgroup scheme of $\\Omega(T,G)$ via $j$. Then, (via the same identification) $\\Omega(T_H,I_H)=\\Omega(T,I_0)$ as ${\\mathbb Q}$-schemes. Indeed, they are isomorphic over ${\\overline{\\mathbb Q}}$, and in fact there exists an inner twist $J:I_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}I_0$ which extends the ${\\mathbb Q}$-isomorphism $j:T_H{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}T$. Hence, we may find a cochain in $C^1({\\mathbb Q},T_H)$ whose image in $Z^1({\\mathbb Q},T_H/Z(I_H))$ gives such inner twist, and it follows that the induced map $\\alpha:\\Omega(T_H,I_H){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}\\Omega(T,I)$ is ${\\mathbb Q}$-rational.\n\nNow, the group $\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})$ acts on $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$ in a natural manner: if we fix a maximal ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T\\subset G$ containing $\\gamma_0$, we have seen above that any $\\omega\\in \\Omega(T,G_{\\gamma_0})({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ whose image $\\bar{\\omega}\\in \\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ lies in $\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})$ acts on $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$. As $\\Omega(T,I_0)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ acts trivially, this induces an action of $\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})$ on $\\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$. So, we obtain the equality $$\\label{eq:pi_0_acts_on_K(I_0)}\n |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|=n(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)\\cdot |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})_{\\kappa}|,$$ where $\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})_{\\kappa}$ is the stabilizer subgroup of $\\kappa$.\n\nNext, we construct a group homomorphism $$\\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H) \\rightarrow \\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q}),$$ whose kernel and image are $\\Omega(T_H,I_H)=\\Omega(T,I_0)$ and $\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})_{\\kappa}$, respectively. For any $\\alpha\\in \\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)$, by the same construction of $g$ in (\\[eq:stable\\_conj\\_g\\]), we can find $h\\in H({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ such that $\\alpha_0:=\\Int(h)\\circ\\alpha$ satisfies that $\\alpha_0(T_H)=T_H$, $\\alpha_0(\\gamma_H)=\\gamma_H$, and that $a_{\\tau}:=h\\cdot{}^{\\tau}h^{-1}\\in I_H=(H_{\\gamma_H})^{\\mathrm{o}}$ for all $\\tau\\in\\Gamma$; thus $a_{\\tau}\\in \\mathrm{Norm}_{I_H}(T_H)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$. Then, the restriction of $\\alpha_0$ to $T_H$ is given by an element of $\\Omega(T,G)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, hence determines an element $\\omega_{\\alpha}\\in \\Omega(T,G_{\\gamma_0})({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$. We claim that the image $\\bar{\\omega}_{\\alpha}$ of $\\omega_{\\alpha}$ in $\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ lies in the subgroup $\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})$. Indeed, let $n\\in \\mathrm{Norm}_{G_{\\gamma_0}}(T)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ be a representative of $\\omega_{\\alpha}$. So, $\\Int(n)|_{T}\\circ j=j\\circ (\\Int(h)\\circ\\alpha)|_{T_H}$ which implies that for any $\\tau\\in\\Gamma$, $\\Int(b_{\\tau} {}^{\\tau}n)|_T=\\Int(n)|_T$, where $b_{\\tau}=J(a_{\\tau})\\in \\mathrm{Nom}_{I_0}(T)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, and thus $n^{-1}b_{\\tau} {}^{\\tau}n\\in T$, i.e. $ {}^{\\tau}n\\equiv n\\mod \\mathrm{Nom}_{I_0}(T)({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$, proving the claim. One easily verifies that the map $\\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H) \\rightarrow \\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})$ sending $\\alpha$ to $\\bar{\\omega}_{\\alpha}$ is a homomorphism having the described kernel and image. Then, since the inner automorphisms in $\\mathrm{Aut}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)$ are induced by $w\\in \\Omega(T_H,H_{\\gamma_H})$ (whose image in $\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H})({\\overline{\\mathbb Q}})$ lies in $\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H})({\\mathbb Q})$), we have the relation $$\\label{eq:Out(H,gamma_H)&pi_0}\n |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})_{\\kappa}|= |\\mathrm{Out}(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)|\\cdot |\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H})({\\mathbb Q})|.$$ The two equations (\\[eq:pi\\_0\\_acts\\_on\\_K(I\\_0)\\]), (\\[eq:Out(H,gamma\\_H)&pi\\_0\\]) combined give the first equality of (2). The second equality follows from it and (\\[eq:Out(H)&Out(H,gamma\\_H)\\]).\n\nLet $f^{H_1,p}\\in C^{\\infty}_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}(H_1({\\mathbb A}_f^p))$ and $f^{H_1}_p\\in C^{\\infty}_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}(H_1({{\\mathbb Q}_p}))$ be respectively the transfers of our functions $f^p\\in C^{\\infty}_c(G({\\mathbb A}_f^p))$ and $\\phi_p\\in C^{\\infty}_c(G({{\\mathbb Q}_p}))$ given by Thm. \\[thm:untwisted\\_endoscopy\\_transfer\\] (for all $v\\neq p,\\infty$) and Thm. \\[thm:twisted\\_endoscopy\\_transfer\\], and let $f^{H_1}_{\\infty}$ be the function as in Thm. \\[thm:pseudo-coeff\\]. Put $f^{H_1}:=f^{H_1,p}f^{H_1}_pf^{H_1}_{\\infty}\\in  C^{\\infty}_{c,\\lambda_{H_1}}(H_1({\\mathbb A}))$. Then, we have that\n\n-   The global transfer factor $\\Delta=\\prod \\Delta_v$ can be normalized such that $\\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0)$ is zero unless $\\gamma_{H_1}$ transfers to $\\gamma_0$, in which case $\\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0)=1$: this is the global hypothesis for transfer factors which is verified in [@LS87 $\\S$6.4].\n\n-   $\\mathrm{SO}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1})=0$ unless $\\gamma_{H_1}$ is elliptic in $H_1({\\mathbb R})$ and transfers to $G({{\\mathbb Q}_v})$ for every place $v$ of ${\\mathbb Q}$ (This is due to Thm. \\[thm:untwisted\\_endoscopy\\_transfer\\], Thm. \\[thm:twisted\\_endoscopy\\_transfer\\], and Thm. \\[thm:pseudo-coeff\\] and since we assume that an (elliptic) maximal torus of $H_{{\\mathbb R}}$ transfers to an elliptic maximal torus of $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$). If such two conditions hold, $\\gamma_{H_1}$ transfers to $G({\\mathbb Q})$ ([@Kottwitz90], second paragraph on p.188).\n\nIt follows that for any pair $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)\\in E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)\\times \\mathfrak{K}(I_0/{\\mathbb Q})$, if $(H_1,\\gamma_{H_1})\\rightarrow (\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$, by (i) (i.e. $\\Delta(\\gamma_{H_1},\\gamma_0)=1$), we have $$O^{\\kappa}_{\\gamma_0}(f)=\\mathrm{SO}^{H_1}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}),$$ and since $O^{\\kappa}_{\\gamma_0}(f)$ depends only on the equivalence class of the pair $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$), the last expression of (\\[eq:stablization\\_step2\\]) is equal to $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\sum_{(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)/\\sim} \\tau(G) n(\\gamma_0,\\kappa) |\\pi_0(G_{\\gamma_0})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1} O^{\\kappa}_{\\gamma_0}(f) \\\\\n\\stackrel{(c)}{=}&  \\sum_{(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H)/\\sim} \\tau(G) |\\mathrm{Out}(\\underline{H})|^{-1} m(\\underline{H},\\gamma_H) |\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \\mathrm{SO}^{H_1}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f) \\\\\n=& \\sum_{\\underline{H}\\in\\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)} \\iota(G,\\underline{H})\\tau(H)  \\sum_{\\gamma_{H}\\in E_{\\mathrm{st}}(H)} |\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H})({\\mathbb Q})|^{-1} \\mathrm{SO}^{H_1}_{\\gamma_{H_1}}(f^{H_1}) =\\sum_{\\underline{H}\\in\\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)} \\iota(G,\\underline{H}) {\\mathrm{ST}}_{{\\mathrm{ell}}}^{H_1}(f^{H_1}).\\end{aligned}$$ Here, in the first line, the summation index runs through a set of representatives of the *equivalence classes* of pairs $(\\gamma_0,\\kappa)$ of an ${\\mathbb R}$-elliptic element in $E_{\\mathrm{st}}(G)$ and an element of the associated group $\\mathfrak{K}(-/{\\mathbb Q})$. In the second line, the summation index runs through a set of representatives of the *equivalence classes* of pairs $(\\underline{H}=(H,\\mathcal{H},s,\\xi),\\gamma_H)\\in\\mathscr{E}_{\\mathrm{ell}}(G)\\times  E_{\\mathrm{st}}(H)$ and for each $\\gamma_{H}\\in E_{\\mathrm{st}}(H)$ we choose an (elliptic) element $\\gamma_{H_1}\\in H_1({\\mathbb Q})$ mapping to $\\gamma_H$. The equality (c) follows from (ii) and Lemma \\[lem:Labesse04,IV.3\\], together with the facts that for any $\\alpha\\in \\mathrm{{\\mathrm{Aut}}}(\\underline{H})$ and $\\gamma_H':=\\alpha(\\gamma_H)$, one has $|\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H'})({\\mathbb Q})|=|\\pi_0(H_{\\gamma_H})({\\mathbb Q})|$ and that $\\gamma_0$ is elliptic in $G({\\mathbb R})$ if and only if $\\gamma_H$ is elliptic in $H({\\mathbb R})$ and some (elliptic) maximal torus of $H_{{\\mathbb R}}$ transfers to an elliptic maximal torus of $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$.\n\nThis completes the proof.\n\nExistence of elliptic tori inside special maximal parahoric group schemes {#sec:elliptic_tori_in_special_parahorics}\n=========================================================================\n\n\\[prop:existence\\_of\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\] Let $k$ be a local field with residue characteristic not equal to $2$ and ${\\mathfrak{k}}$ the completion of the maximal unramified extension $k^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ in an algebraic closure $\\overline{k}$ of $k$ with respective rings of integers ${\\mathcal{O}}_k$ and ${\\mathcal{O}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$. Let $G$ be a connected reductive group over $k$ of classical Lie type. Assume that $G$ is quasi-split and that $G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ is a product $\\prod_i {\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of simple groups each of which is the restriction of scalars ${\\mathrm{Res}}_{F_i/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}G_i$ of an absolutely simple group $G_i$ over a finite extension $F_i$ of $k$ such that $G_i$ splits over a tamely ramified extension of $F_i$.\n\nThen, for any special parahoric subgroup $K$ of $G(k)$, there exists a maximal elliptic $k$-torus $T$ of $G$ such that $T_{k^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ contains (equiv. is the centralizer of) a maximal ($k^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-)split $k^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$-torus $S_1$ of $G_{k^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}}$ and that the unique parahoric subgroup of $T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ is contained in $\\tilde{K}$, the parahoric subgroup of $G({\\mathfrak{k}})$ corresponding to $K$.\n\n\\[rem:properties\\_of\\_certain\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\] (1) The unique parahoric subgroup of $T({\\mathfrak{k}})$ (resp. of $T(k)$) is $T({\\mathfrak{k}})_1:=\\ker(w_{T_L})$ (resp. $T(k)_1:=\\ker(w_{T_L})\\cap T(k)$).\n\n\\(2) With $S_1$ and $T$ as in the statement, the second property of $T$ can be translated into a statement about the Bruhat-Tits building: any special point ${\\mathbf{v}}\\in {\\mathcal{B}}(G,k)$ giving $K$ (i.e. $K=\\mathrm{Stab}_{G(k)}({\\mathbf{v}})\\cap\\ker(w_{G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}})$) lies in the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ attached to $S_1$. Indeed, $S_1({\\mathfrak{k}})_1\\subset \\tilde{K}$ if and only if ${\\mathbf{v}}\\in{\\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\\mathfrak{k}})$. This is because ${\\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ is the full fixed point set of the pararhoric subgroup $S_1({\\mathfrak{k}})_1$, which in turn is due to [@Tits79 3.6.1] since every relative root $a$ of the root datum $(G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}},(S_1)_{{\\mathfrak{k}}})$, being a non-trivial character (of a split torus), satisfies that $a(S_1({\\mathfrak{k}})_1)\\nsubseteq 1+\\pi_F$ (i.e. $\\bar{a}(\\overline{S_1({\\mathfrak{k}})_1})\\neq 1$), as the residue field of ${\\mathcal{O}}_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}$ is infinite. But, $S_1({\\mathfrak{k}})_1\\subset\\tilde{K}$ if and only if $T({\\mathfrak{k}})_1\\subset\\tilde{K}$, since $T({\\mathfrak{k}})=Z_{G_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}}(S_1)({\\mathfrak{k}})$ acts on ${\\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\\mathfrak{k}})$ via $w_{T_{{\\mathfrak{k}}}}\\otimes{\\mathbb R}:T({\\mathfrak{k}})\\rightarrow X_{\\ast}(T)_{{\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\overline{{\\mathfrak{k}}}/{\\mathfrak{k}})}\\otimes{\\mathbb R}=X_{\\ast}(S_1)_{{\\mathbb R}}$ [@Tits79 1.2.(1)], so if $S_1({\\mathfrak{k}})_1\\subset\\tilde{K}$, $T({\\mathfrak{k}})_1$ fixes ${\\mathbf{v}}(\\in {\\mathcal{A}}(S_1,{\\mathfrak{k}}))$.\n\nWe reduce a general case to the case of absolutely almost-simple groups. First, under the isomorphism $${\\mathcal{B}}(G,k)\\simeq {\\mathcal{B}}(G^{{\\mathrm{der}}},k)\\times X_{\\ast}(A(G))_{{\\mathbb R}},$$ where $A(G)$ is the maximal split $F$-torus in the center $Z(G)$, a special point in ${\\mathcal{A}}(G,k)$ corresponds to $(v,x)$ for a special vertex $v$ in ${\\mathcal{B}}(G^{{\\mathrm{der}}})$ and a point $x\\in X_{\\ast}(A(G))_{{\\mathbb R}}$. This implies that we may assume that $G$ is semisimple, and by the same reasoning further that $G$ is simply-connected. Then as $G(=G^{{\\mathrm{der}}})$ is a product of almost-simple groups of the same kind (by which we mean quasi-split, tamely ramified, classical groups), we may also assume that $G$ is almost-simple. Hence, $G={\\mathrm{Res}}_{F/k}(H)$ for an absolutely-(almost)simple, quasi-split, classical, tamely ramified, semi-simple group $H$ over a finite extension $F$ of $k$. The building ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,k)$ (resp. ${\\mathcal{B}}(G,{\\mathfrak{k}})$) is canonically isomorphic to ${\\mathcal{B}}(H,F)$ (resp. $\\prod_{\\sigma\\in{\\mathrm{Hom}}_k(F_0,{\\mathfrak{k}})}{\\mathcal{B}}(H,F\\otimes_{F_0,\\sigma}{\\mathfrak{k}}))$, where $F_0$ is the maximal absolutely unramified subextension of $F$); this is true for any finite separable extension $F$ of $k$ [@Tits79 2.1]. This shows that the claim for $G$ follows from the claim for $H$. Let $L$ and ${\\mathcal{O}}_L$ be the completion of the maximal unramified extension $F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$ in an algebraic closure $\\overline{F}$ of $F$ and its ring of integers.\n\nFrom this point, we prove the proposition case by case. We use the complete list of isomorphism classes of quasi-split, tamely ramified, classical groups over local fields as provided in [@Gross12], where Gross gives a complete list of isomorphism classes of (not necessarily quasi-split or classical) tamely ramified groups over local fields and it is fairly easy to determine the quasi-split, classical ones from that list. There are totally ten such isomorphism classes, among which the first seven are unramified ones (including four split ones).\n\n-   $(m\\geq1)$: $H=\\mathrm{SL}_m$ (split group).\n\n-   $(m\\geq2)$: Let $E$ be the unramified quadratic extension of $F$ and let $W$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of odd rank $n=2m+1$ over $E$ (its Witt-index must be $m$). Then $H={\\mathrm{SU}}(W)$ (non-split unramified group).\n\n-   $(m\\geq2)$: Let $E$ be the unramified quadratic extension of $F$ and let $W$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of even rank $n=2m$ over $E$ which contains an isotropic subspace of dimension $m$. Then $H={\\mathrm{SU}}(W)$ (non-split unramified group).\n\n-   $(m\\geq3)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of odd dimension $2m+1$ over $F$ which contains an isotropic subspace of dimension $n$. Then $H={\\mathrm{Spin}}(W)$ (split group).\n\n-   $(m\\geq2)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate symplectic space of dimension $2m$ over $F$. Then $H={\\mathrm{Sp}}(W)$ (split group).\n\n-   $(m\\geq4)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of dimension $2m$ over $F$ which contains a (maximal) isotropic subspace of dimension $m$. Then, the center of the Clifford algebra is the split \u00e9tale quadratic extension $E=F\\oplus F$ of $F$, and $H={\\mathrm{Spin}}(W)$ is a split group.\n\n-   $(m\\geq4)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of even dimension $2m$ over $F$ where the center of the Clifford algebra is the unramified quadratic extension $E$ of $F$. Then $H={\\mathrm{Spin}}(W)$ (non-split unramified group).\n\n-   $(m\\geq3)$: Let $E$ be a tamely ramified quadratic extension of $F$ and let $W$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of even rank $n=2m$ over $E$ which contains an isotropic subspace of dimension $m$. Then $H = SU(W)$ (ramified group)\n\n-   $(m\\geq2)$: Let $E$ be a tamely ramified quadratic extension of $F$ and let $W$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of odd rank $n=2m+1$ over $E$. Then $H = SU(W)$ (ramified group).\n\n-   $(m\\geq2)$: Let $W$ be a non-degenerate orthogonal space of even dimension $2m$ over $F$ where the center of the Clifford algebra is a tamely ramified quadratic extension $E$ of $F$. Then $H={\\mathrm{Spin}}(W)$ (ramified group).\n\nHere, each heading is the name for the corresponding isomorphism class that is used in [@Tits79], tables 4.2 and 4.3.\n\nNow, when the group is unramified and given special vertex is hyperspecial, the claim is known [@Lee16], Appendix 1.0.4). For convenience, we split these cases into three kinds. The first kind consists of the split groups, thus, all special vertices are automatically hyperspecial: these are $A_m$, $B_m$, $C_m$, $D_m$. The second case is when there are two special vertices and both of them are hyperspecial: they consist of ${}^2A'_{2m-1}$, ${}^2D_m$. The remaining ones constitute the last case, i.e. there is some non-hyperspecial, special vertex. So, we only need to take care of the last case: $${}^2A'_{2m},\\quad B\\operatorname{-}C_m,\\quad C\\operatorname{-}BC_m,\\ \\text{ and }\\ C\\operatorname{-}B_m.$$ Note that except for the last one, all these are (special) unitary groups.\n\n\\(1) First, we treat the special unitary groups of *even* absolute rank (i.e. $H_{\\overline{F}}\\simeq {\\mathrm{SU}}(2m+1)$ for an algebraic closure $\\overline{F}$ of $F$). We will reduce the proof in this case to the special unitary groups of *odd* absolute rank. For a moment, we let $E$ be an arbitrary quadratic extension of $F$ with respective rings of integers ${\\mathcal{O}}_E$, ${\\mathcal{O}}_F$ (we assume that the residue characteristic of ${\\mathcal{O}}_F$ is not $2$). We choose a uniformizer $\\pi$ of ${\\mathcal{O}}_E$ such that $\\pi+\\overline{\\pi}=0$ for the non-trivial automorphism $\\overline{\\cdot}$ of $E/F$. Let $(W,\\phi:W\\times W\\rightarrow E)$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian space of dimension $n=2m+1\\ (m\\geq1)$. As is well-known, $\\psi$ has maximal Witt-index $m$, so there exists a Witt basis $\\{e_{-m},\\cdots,e_{m}\\}$, i.e. such that $$\\phi(e_i,e_j)=\\delta_{i,-j},\\quad\\text{for }-m\\leq i,j\\leq m.$$ For $i=0,\\cdots,m$, we define an ${\\mathcal{O}}_E$-lattice in $W$: $$\\Lambda_i:=\\mathrm{span}_{{\\mathcal{O}}_E}\\{\\pi^{-1}e_{-m},\\cdots,\\pi^{-1}e_{-i-1},e_{-i},\\cdots,e_m\\}.$$ (here, $\\Lambda_{m}=\\mathrm{span}_{{\\mathcal{O}}_E}\\{e_{-m},\\cdots,\\cdots,e_m\\}$.)\n\nSet $H={\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ (algebraic group over $F$). Its (minimal) splitting field is $E$. For a non-empty subset $I$ of $\\{0,\\cdots,m\\}$, we consider the subgroup of $H(F)$ $$P_I:=\\{g\\in{\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)\\ |\\ g\\Lambda_i\\subset\\Lambda_i,\\ \\forall i\\in I\\}.$$ For each $i=0,\\cdots,m$, $P_{\\{ i\\}}$ (stabilizer of a single lattice $\\Lambda_i$) is also the stabilizer of a point $v_i$ of the apartment ${\\mathcal{A}}$ of a maximal $F$-split torus $S$ of $H$, which in turn can be matched with the $(i+1)$-th vertex of the local Dynkin diagram [@Tits79 1.15, 3.11].\n\nFrom this correspondence and the information found in *loc. cit.* (1.15 (9), 4.3 in the unramified case, and 1.15 (10), 4.2 in the ramified case), we deduce the following facts.\n\n*Every $P_I$ is a parahoric subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ and any parahoric subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ is conjugate to $P_I$ for a unique subset $I$. If $E$ is unramified (i.e. of type ${}^2A'_{2m}$), there are two special vertices, one hyperspecial and one non-hyperspecial. The group $P_{\\{0\\}}$ (resp. $P_{\\{m\\}}$) is the non-hyperspecial, special (resp. the hyperspecial) parahoric subgroup. If $E$ is ramified (i.e. of type $C\\operatorname{-}BC_m$), there are two special vertices, both non-hyperspecial, which correspond to $I=\\{0\\}$ and $I=\\{m\\}$. The corresponding parahoric subgroup $\\tilde{P}_{\\{i\\}}$ of $H(L)$ is $$\\tilde{P}_{\\{i\\}}=\\{g\\in{\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)(L)\\ |\\ g\\Lambda_i\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L\\subset\\Lambda_i\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L\\}.$$* The statement on $\\tilde{P}_{\\{i\\}}$ follows from the fact that the stabilizer ${\\mathcal{O}}_L$-group scheme ${\\mathcal{G}}_i$ of the vertex $v_i$ (defined by Bruhat-Tits [@Tits79 3.4.1]) equals the ${\\mathcal{O}}_L$-structure on $H_L$ induced by the lattice [@Tits79 3.11], and the characterization of parahoric groups given by Haines-Rapoport [@PappasRapoport08] (${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ being a simply-connnected semi-simple group, the Kottwitz homomorphism $w_{{\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)_L}$ is trivial).\n\n\\(a) The case $\\mathbf{{}^2A'_{2m}}$: Suppose that $E$ is unramified. Then, we only need to consider the non-hyperspecial, special parahoric subgroup $P_{\\{0\\}}$. The Hermitian space $(W,\\phi)$ splits as the direct sum of two Hermitian subspaces, that is, totally isotropic subspace and anisotriopic subspace: $$(W,\\psi)=(W_{\\mathbf{iso}},\\phi_{\\mathbf{iso}})\\oplus (W_{\\mathbf{an}},\\phi_{\\mathbf{an}}),$$ where $$W_{\\mathbf{iso}}:=\\langle e_l\\ |\\ l\\neq 0\\rangle,\\quad W_{\\mathbf{an}}:=E\\cdot e_{0},$$ and $\\phi_{\\mathbf{iso}}=\\phi|_{W_{\\mathbf{iso}}}$ and $\\phi_{\\mathbf{an}}=\\phi|_{W_{\\mathbf{an}}}$. There is the corresponding lattice decomposition $$\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}=\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}'\\oplus \\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}'',$$ where $\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}':=\\mathrm{span}_{{\\mathcal{O}}_E}\\{\\pi^{-1}e_{-m},\\cdots,\\pi^{-1}e_{-1},e_{1},\\cdots,e_{m}\\}$ and $\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}'':={\\mathcal{O}}_E\\cdot e_{0}$. Using this decomposition, we reduce the construction of the torus looked for into construction of similar tori for the groups ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W_{\\bullet},\\psi_{\\bullet})$ ($\\bullet=\\mathbf{iso}$, $\\mathbf{an}$). Let us write for short ${\\mathrm{SU}}_{\\bullet}$ and ${\\mathrm{U}}_{\\bullet}$ for ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W_{\\bullet},\\psi_{\\bullet})$ and ${\\mathrm{U}}(W_{\\bullet},\\psi_{\\bullet})$ respectively ($\\bullet=\\mathbf{iso}$, $\\mathbf{an}$). Suppose that $T_{\\mathbf{iso}}$ is an $F$-torus of ${\\mathrm{SU}}_{\\mathbf{iso}}$ with the property in question and let $Z_{\\mathbf{iso}}$ be the (connected) center of ${\\mathrm{U}}_{\\mathbf{iso}}$ (so that the subgroup $T_{\\mathbf{iso}}\\cdot Z_{\\mathbf{iso}}$ generated by the two groups is a maximal torus of $U_{\\mathbf{iso}}$, among others). This center is isomorphic to the anisotpropic $F$-torus $\\underline{E}^{\\times}$, whose set of $R$-points, for an $F$-algebra $R$, is $$\\underline{E}^{\\times}_c(R):=\\ker({\\mathrm{N}}_{E/F}:(E\\otimes R)^{\\times}\\rightarrow (F\\otimes R)^{\\times}).$$ This is also identified in a natural way with the group ${\\mathrm{U}}_{\\mathbf{an}}$. We claim that $$T:=S((T_{\\mathbf{iso}} \\cdot Z_{\\mathbf{iso}}) \\times {\\mathrm{U}}_{\\mathbf{an}})=(T_{\\mathbf{iso}}\\times\\{1\\})\\cdot \\underline{E}^{\\times}_c,$$ where $S(-)$ means the intersection of the group inside the parenthesis (subgroup of ${\\mathrm{U}}(W,\\phi)$) with ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ and $\\underline{E}^{\\times}_c$ is identified with $S(Z_{\\mathbf{iso}} \\times {\\mathrm{U}}_{\\mathbf{an}})$ via $x\\mapsto (x,x^{-2m})$, is a maximal torus of $H={\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\psi)$ with the same required properties. First, clearly this is anisotropic, and $T_{E}$ is a split maximal torus of $H_E$. Next, we verify that $T(L)_1$ maps into the parahoric subgroup $\\tilde{P}_{\\{0\\}}$ of $H(L)$. By the description of $\\tilde{P}_{\\{0\\}}$ above, we have to show that $T(L)_1$ leaves stable $\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L$. But, $T(L)_1=T_{\\mathbf{iso}}(L)_1\\cdot \\underline{E}^{\\times}_c(L)_1$, and $\\underline{E}^{\\times}_c(L)_1$ acts on $\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}'\\otimes{\\mathcal{O}}_L\\oplus\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}''\\otimes{\\mathcal{O}}_L$ through the map $x\\mapsto (x,x^{-2m})$ above. So, clearly it suffices to checks that $\\underline{E}^{\\times}_c(L)_1$ leaves stable each rank-$1$ lattice ${\\mathcal{O}}_L\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}({\\mathcal{O}}_E\\cdot e_i)$. But in the case $E$ is unramified over $F$, we have the equality $\\underline{E}^{\\times}_c(L)_1=\\{(x,x^{-1})\\in {\\mathcal{O}}_L^{\\times}\\times {\\mathcal{O}}_L^{\\times}\\}$ under the isomorphism $(E\\otimes L)^{\\times}=L^{\\times}\\times L^{\\times}$, thus leaves stable ${\\mathcal{O}}_L\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}({\\mathcal{O}}_E\\cdot e_i)=({\\mathcal{O}}_L\\oplus {\\mathcal{O}}_L)\\cdot e_i$. Next, the fact that $T_{\\mathbf{iso}}(L)_1$ leaves stable $\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}'\\otimes{\\mathcal{O}}_L$ will be one of the defining properties of the torus $T_{\\mathbf{iso}}$. Indeed, ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W_{\\mathbf{iso}},\\psi_{\\mathbf{iso}})$ is a group of type ${}^2A_{2m-1}'$ in the above list, and the stabilizer $P_{\\{0\\}}'$ of the lattice $\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}'$ is a hyperspecial subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W_{\\mathbf{iso}},\\psi_{\\mathbf{iso}})$ (cf. [@Tits79 4.3]). So, we already know that there exists an elliptic maximal $F$-torus $T_{\\mathbf{iso}}$ of ${\\mathrm{SU}}_{\\mathbf{iso}}$ such that $T_{\\mathbf{iso}}(L)_1$ is contained in the parahoric subgroup $\\tilde{P}_{\\{0\\}}'$ of ${\\mathrm{SU}}_{\\mathbf{iso}}(L)$ corresponding to $P_{\\{0\\}}'$ which is the stabilizer in ${\\mathrm{SU}}_{\\mathbf{iso}}(L)$ of the lattice $\\Lambda_{\\{0\\}}'\\otimes{\\mathcal{O}}_L$. This finishes the proof in the case $E$ is unramified over $F$.\n\n\\(b) The case $\\mathbf{C\\operatorname{-}BC_m}$: When $E$ is ramified, there are two cases: $I=\\{0\\}$ and $I=\\{m\\}$. Then, the same strategy just used (i.e. for unramified unitary groups of odd absolute rank) works again, reducing proof to the ramified unitary groups of odd absolute rank $2m-1$ (the type $\\mathbf{B\\operatorname{-}C_m}$), which will be discussed next. We just note that in this case with the same notations as above, the (minimal) splitting fields of $H$, ${\\mathrm{SU}}_{\\mathbf{iso}}$, $Z_{\\mathbf{iso}}$, and ${\\mathrm{U}}_{\\mathbf{an}}$ are all $E$, and that $(\\underline{E}^{\\times}_c)_L$ is anisotropic, so $\\underline{E}^{\\times}_c(L)$ is its own parahoric subgroup and, being a subgroup of $({\\mathcal{O}}_E\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L)^{\\times}$, leaves stable ${\\mathcal{O}}_L\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}({\\mathcal{O}}_E\\cdot e_i)$.\n\n\\(2) Let $E$, $W$, and $n$ be as in the previous description (1)-(b), except that the parity of $n$ is even (i fact, it can be arbitrary for a moment). Let ${\\mathcal{O}}_E$ and ${\\mathcal{O}}_F$ be the integer rings of $E$ and $F$, respectively. We fix uniformizers $\\pi_F$, $\\pi=\\pi_E$ of ${\\mathcal{O}}_F$ and ${\\mathcal{O}}_E$ such that $\\pi^2=\\pi_F$ (so again $\\pi+\\overline{\\pi}=0$). Let $\\phi:W\\times W\\rightarrow E$ be a non-degenerate Hermitian form and put $H={\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$. Again we assume (forced by the quasi-split condition, in the even dimensional case) that $\\psi$ has maximal Witt-index, namely when one writes $n=2m$ (or $n=2m+1$), it is $m$. As $E$ is ramified over $F$, the rank of $H$ is the same as that of $H_L$.\n\nFollowing [@PappasRapoport08], $\\S$4, we use a different indexing in the coming discussion. Choose a Witt basis $\\{e_{1},\\cdots,e_{n}\\}$ such that $\\phi(e_i,e_j)=\\delta_{i,n+1-j}$ for $1\\leq i,j\\leq n$.\n\nSuppose that $n=2m$. For $i\\in\\{1,\\cdots,m-2\\}\\cup\\{m\\}$, we define an ${\\mathcal{O}}_E$-lattice $\\Lambda_i$: $$\\Lambda_i:=\\mathrm{span}_{{\\mathcal{O}}_E}\\{\\pi^{-1}e_{1},\\cdots,\\pi^{-1}e_{i},e_{i+1},\\cdots,e_n\\},$$ In the place of $i=m-1$, we introduce a new lattice $\\Lambda_{m'}$ defined by: $$\\Lambda_{m'}:=\\mathrm{span}_{{\\mathcal{O}}_E}\\{\\pi^{-1}e_{1},\\cdots,\\pi^{-1}e_{m-1},e_{m},\\pi^{-1}e_{m+1},e_{m+2},\\cdots,e_{n}\\}.$$ Here, $m'$ is regarded as a symbol like other numbers.\n\nSet $H:={\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$. For a non-empty subset $I$ of $\\{1,\\cdots,m-2,m',m\\}$, the associated stabilizer subgroup $P_I$ has the same definition as in the previous case.\n\nWhen $n=2m$, the group ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ has the local Dynkin diagram $B\\operatorname{-}C_m$ for $m\\geq3$, and $C\\operatorname{-}B_2$ for $m=2$ (for $m=1$, ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\psi)\\simeq\\mathrm{SL}_2$). Then, we have a similar statement [@PappasRapoport08], $\\S$4), namely that\n\n*the subgroup $P_I$ is a parahoric subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ and any parahoric subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ is conjugate to $P_I$ for a unique subset $I$, and the special maximal parahoric subgroups are $P_{\\{m\\}}$, $P_{\\{m'\\}}$. The same description is true for the parahoric subgroup $\\tilde{P}_I$ of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)(L)$ associated with $P_I$.*\n\n\\(c) The case $\\mathbf{B\\operatorname{-}C_m}$: We have $n=2m$. First, let us consider the case $I=\\{m\\}$. The Hermitian space $W$ is the direct sum of $m$ hyperbolic subspaces $$\\mathbb{H}_i:=E\\langle e_i,e_{n+1-i}\\rangle\\subset W\\ (i=1,\\cdots,m).$$ Then, we claim that when we identify ${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)$ with ${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)\\times\\mathrm{1}_{\\oplus_{j\\neq i}\\mathbb{H}_j}\\subset{\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$, $${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\\cap P_{\\{m\\}}=\\{g\\in {\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\\ |\\ g(\\mathbb{H}_i\\cap \\Lambda_{\\{m\\}})=\\mathbb{H}_i\\cap \\Lambda_{\\{m\\}}\\}$$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\\simeq\\mathrm{SL}_2(F)$ (recall that there are two $\\mathrm{SL}_2(F)$-conjugacy classes of special parahoric subgroups of $\\mathrm{SL}_2(F)$, which are however conjugate under $\\mathrm{GL}_2(F)$). This can be proved, e.g. using an explicit isomorphism between ${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)\\simeq\\mathrm{SL}_{2,F}$, one such being $$g=\\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\na& b\\\\ c& d\n\\end{array}\\right) \\mapsto \\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\na& \\pi^{-1}b\\\\ \\pi c& d\n\\end{array}\\right)$$ (check that when $g(e_i)=ae_i+ce_{n+1-i}, g(e_{n+1-i})=be_i+de_{n+1-i}$, $\\phi(gv,gw)=\\phi(v,w)$ implies that $a,d\\in F^{\\times}$, $b+\\overline{b}=c+\\overline{c}=0$). But, there is another (rather indirect) way of seeing this. Let $S_i$ be a maximal ($F$-)split $F$-subtorus of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)$ (so that $S:=\\prod_i S_I$ is a maximal ($F$-)split $F$-torus of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$, and also of ${\\mathrm{U}}(W,\\phi)$); $S_i$ is contained in a unique maximal torus $T_i(=Z_{{\\mathrm{U}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)}(S_i))\\simeq E^{\\times}$ of ${\\mathrm{U}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)$. The subgroup $$M_i:={\\mathrm{U}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)\\times\\prod_{j\\neq i}T_j$$ of ${\\mathrm{U}}(W,\\phi)$, being the centralizer of $\\{1\\}\\times\\prod_{j\\neq i}S_j$, is an $F$-Levi subgroup of ${\\mathrm{U}}(W,\\phi)$. For a subgroup $M$ of ${\\mathrm{U}}(W,\\phi)$, let $\\mathrm{S}M$ denote the intersection $M\\cap {\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$. Then, as $\\{1\\}\\times\\prod_{j\\neq i}S_j\\subset{\\mathrm{SU}}(W)$, $\\mathrm{S}M_i$ is an $F$-Levi subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W)$. Hence, by Lemma \\[lem:specaial\\_parahoric\\_in\\_Levi\\], (3), $\\mathrm{S}M_i(F)\\cap P_{\\{m\\}}$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of $M_i(F)$. But, obviously one has that (as $P_{\\{m\\}}\\subset{\\mathrm{SU}}(W)(F)$) $$\\mathrm{S}M_i(F)\\cap P_{\\{m\\}}=({\\mathrm{U}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\\times\\prod_{j\\neq i}T_j(F))\\cap P_{\\{m\\}}\n=({\\mathrm{U}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\\cap P_{\\{m\\}})\\times \\prod_{j\\neq i}(T_j(F)\\cap P_{\\{m\\}}).$$ So, each ${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\\cap P_{\\{m\\}}={\\mathrm{U}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\\cap P_{\\{m\\}}$ is a special maximal parahoric subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)(F)\\simeq\\mathrm{SL}_2(F)$.\n\nBut, the two special vertices in the local Dynkin diagram of $\\mathrm{SL}_{2,F}$ are hyperspecial, hence we know that there exists an anisotropic maximal torus $S_i'$ of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)$, splitting over $F^{{\\mathrm{ur}}}$, such that the unique parahoric subgroup $S_1'(L)_1$ of $S_i'(L)$ is contained in ${\\mathrm{SU}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)(L)\\cap \\tilde{P}_{\\{m\\}}$, i.e. leaves stable the ${\\mathcal{O}}_E\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L$-lattice $(\\mathbb{H}_i\\cap \\Lambda_{\\{m\\}})\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L=\\mathrm{span}_{{\\mathcal{O}}_E\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L}\\{\\pi^{-i}e_{i},e_{n+1-i}\\}$ of $\\mathbb{H}_i\\otimes L$. Therefore, for the center $Z_i\\simeq \\underline{E}^{\\times}_c$ of ${\\mathrm{U}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)$, $$T_i':=S_i'\\cdot Z_i$$ is an anisotropic maximal torus of ${\\mathrm{U}}(\\mathbb{H}_i)$, whose $L$-rank equals $1$ and whose group of $L$-points also leaves stable the ${\\mathcal{O}}_E\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L$-lattice $(\\mathbb{H}_i\\cap \\Lambda_{\\{m\\}})_{{\\mathcal{O}}_L}$, as $Z_i$ remains anisotropic over $L$ and $Z_i(L)=({\\mathcal{O}}_E\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L)_1$. Finally, the torus $T:=(\\prod_iT_i')\\cap{\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ is an anisotropic maximal torus of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ with the same required property (its $L$-rank is $m$, equal to the $L$-rank of $H_L$).\n\nThe case $I=\\{m'\\}$ can be treated in a completely analogous way, once we switch the basis vectors $e_{m}$ and $e_{m+1}$; although such permutation does not lie in ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\psi)$, obviously it is allowed when applying the previous argument.\n\n\\(d) We are left with the case $\\mathbf{C\\operatorname{-}B_{m+1}\\ (m\\geq1)}$. This is also similar to the above cases. Let $E$ be a (ramified) quadratic extension of $F$ and $W=F^{\\oplus m}\\oplus E\\oplus F^{\\oplus m}$, viewed as a vector space over $F$. We consider the quadratic form on $W$ expressed in terms of a basis $\\{e_{-m},\\cdots,e_{m}\\}\\cup\\{e_0\\}$ by $$q(\\sum_{1\\leq|i|\\leq m} x_i e_i+x_0e_0)=\\sum_{i=1}^{m}x_{-i} x_i+{\\mathrm{N}}_{E/F}x_0,\\quad (x_i\\in F,x_0\\in E).$$ For $i=0,\\cdots,m$, we define a lattice $\\Lambda_i$ as before: $$\\Lambda_i:=\\mathrm{span}_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}\\{\\pi^{-1}e_{-m},\\cdots,\\pi^{-1}e_{-i-1},e_{-i},\\cdots,\\check{e}_0,\\cdots,e_m\\}\\oplus{\\mathcal{O}}_Ee_0,$$ where $\\check{e}_0$ means as usual that it is omitted from the list (so, $\\Lambda_{0}=\\pi^{-1}\\mathrm{span}_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}\\{e_{-m},\\cdots,e_{-1}\\}\\oplus{\\mathcal{O}}_Ee_0\\oplus\\mathrm{span}_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}\\{e_{1},\\cdots,e_{m}\\}$).\n\nIt is obvious that the claim at hand holds for the special orthogonal group $\\mathrm{SO}(W,q)$ if and only if it does so for the universal covering of $\\mathrm{SO}(W,q)$, i.e. the spin group $\\mathrm{Spin}(W,q)$. We will show that for any special maximal parahoric subgroup $K$ of $\\mathrm{SO}(W,q)$, there exists an anisotropic maximal $F$-torus $T$ such that $T_L$ contains a maximal ($L$-)split $L$-torus of $\\mathrm{SO}(W,q)$ and $T(L)_1$ is contained in $\\tilde{K}$, the special parahoric subgroup of $\\mathrm{SO}(W,q)(L)$ corresponding to $K$. Note that the $L$-rank of $H$ is $m$ as $E$ is ramified over $F$.\n\nFor a non-empty subset $I$ of $\\{0,\\cdots,m\\}$, let $P_I$ denote the stabilizer subgroup: $$P_I:=\\{g\\in \\mathrm{SO}(W,q)(F)\\ |\\ g\\Lambda_i\\subset\\Lambda_i,\\ \\forall i\\in I\\}.$$ We know (deduced from [@Tits79], 1.16, 4.2, cf. 3.12) that\n\n*the subgroup $P_I$ is a parahoric subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ and that any parahoric subgroup of ${\\mathrm{SU}}(W,\\phi)$ is conjugate to $P_I$ for a unique subset $I$, and that the special maximal parahoric subgroups are $P_{\\{0\\}}$ and $P_{\\{m\\}}$. The corresponding parahoric subgroup $\\tilde{P}_{\\{i\\}}$ of $H(L)$ is $$\\tilde{P}_{\\{i\\}}=\\{g\\in{\\mathrm{SO}}(W,\\phi)(L)\\ |\\ g\\Lambda_i\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L\\subset\\Lambda_i\\otimes_{{\\mathcal{O}}_F}{\\mathcal{O}}_L\\}.$$*\n\nThe idea used above for the ramified special unitary group of odd relative rank (i.e. of type $\\mathbf{B\\operatorname{-}C_{m}}$) works here, too. Namely, the quadratic space $W$ decomposes into the direct sum of maximally isotropic subspaces $W_{\\mathbf{iso}}=F\\langle e_i\\ |\\ 1\\leq|i|\\leq m\\rangle$ and the anisotropic subspace $(E\\cdot e_0,{\\mathrm{N}}_{E/F})$. Then, ${\\mathrm{SO}}(W_{\\mathbf{iso}})$ is a split group, so for each $j=0,m$, the parahoric subgroup $P_{\\{j\\}}\\cap {\\mathrm{SO}}(W_{\\mathbf{iso}})(F)$ is a a hyperspecial subgroup. Hence, there exists an anisotropic maximal torus $T'_j$ of ${\\mathrm{SO}}(W_{\\mathbf{iso}})$ of $L$-rank $m$, such that $T'_j(L)_1$ is contained in ${\\mathrm{SO}}(W_{\\mathbf{iso}})(L)\\cap \\tilde{P}_{\\{j\\}}$; the latter means that $T'_j(L)_1$ leaves stable the ${\\mathcal{O}}_L$-lattice $$(W_{\\mathbf{iso}}\\cap \\Lambda_{j})\\otimes{\\mathcal{O}}_L$$ of $W_{\\mathbf{iso}}\\otimes L$. Now, it is easy to see that the anisotropic torus $T_j:=T'_j$ is a maximal torus of ${\\mathrm{SO}}(W,q)$ (which also has the $L$-rank $m$) with the same properties for $\\Lambda_{j}$.\n\nThis completes the proof of the proposition.\n\nComplexes of tori attached to connected reductive groups. {#sec:abelianization_complex}\n=========================================================\n\nHere we collect some general facts on certain complexes of tori attached to a connected reductive group and its Levi subgroups.\n\nFor a connected reductive group $H$ over a field $k$, we let $\\rho_H:H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow H$ denote the canonical homomorphism ($H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ being the simply connected covering of $H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$) and choosing a maximal $k$-torus $T$ of $H$, define a two-term complex of $k$-tori by $$H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}:=\\rho_H^{-1}(T)\\rightarrow T,$$ where $\\rho_H^{-1}(T)$ and $T$ are located in degree $-1$ and $0$ respectively, i.e. $H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}$ is the mapping cone of the morphism $\\rho_H^{-1}(T)\\rightarrow T$ in the abelian cateogry $\\mathcal{CG}_k$ of commutative algebraic $k$-group schemes.[^40] This complex of tori is also quasi-isomorphic to the crossed module $H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow H$ (again with $H$ being placed at degree $0$), and the corresponding object in the (bounded) derived category $\\mathbb{D}^b(\\mathcal{CG}_k)$ depends only on $H$.\n\nLet $G$ be a connected reductive group over a field $k$ and $I$ be a $k$-subgroup of $G$ which is a $\\bar{k}$-Levi subgroup. For $\\tilde{I}=\\rho_G^{-1}(I)$ (a connected reductive group), there exists a map $\\tilde{i}:I^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}\\rightarrow \\tilde{I}$: $$\\xymatrix{ I^{{\\mathrm{sc}}} \\ar[r]^{\\tilde{i}} \\ar[rd]_{\\rho_I} & \\tilde{I} \\ar@{^(->}[r] \\ar[d]^{\\rho_G} & G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}} \\ar[d]^{\\rho_G} \\\\ & I \\ar[r]^{i} & G. }$$ We choose a maximal $k$-torus $T$ of $I$ and set $T_1:=\\rho_G^{-1}(T)$, $T_2:=\\rho_I^{-1}(T)$; we have a commutative diagram $$\\xymatrix{ T_2 \\ar[r]^{\\tilde{i}} \\ar[rd]_{\\rho_I} & T_1 \\ar[d]^{\\rho_G} \\\\ & T }$$ The verification of the following facts are easy and thus are left to readers.\n\n-   The complex $T_2\\rightarrow T_1$ is quasi-isomorphic to the abelianization complex $\\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}:\\rho_{\\tilde{I}}^{-1}(T_1)\\rightarrow T_1$ attached to $\\tilde{I}$, where $T_1$ is located at degree $0$, and thus $i:I\\hookrightarrow G$ gives rise, in a canonical manner, to a distinguished triangle (in $\\mathbb{D}^b(\\mathcal{CG}_k)$): $$\\label{eq:DT_of_CX_of_tori}\n    \\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}} \\rightarrow I_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}  \\rightarrow G_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}  \\rightarrow \\tilde{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}[1].$$\n\n-   For a two-term complex $T_{\\bullet}=T_{-1}\\rightarrow T_0$ of $k$-tori, let $\\hat{T}_{\\bullet}$ denote the complex of ${\\mathbb C}$-tori with $\\Gamma$-action: $$\\hat{T}_{\\bullet}:=(\\hat{T}_0\\rightarrow \\hat{T}_{-1}),$$ where $\\hat{T}_0$ and $\\hat{T}_{-1}$ are located in degree $-1$ and $0$ respectively. Then, for any connected reductive group $H$ and a maximal $k$-torus $T$ of it, there exists an exact sequence of diagonalizable ${\\mathbb C}$-groups with $\\Gamma$-action $$1\\rightarrow Z(\\hat{H}) \\rightarrow \\hat{T} \\rightarrow \\hat{\\tilde{T}} \\rightarrow 1,$$ with $\\tilde{T}:=\\rho_H^{-1}(T)$ and $\\Gamma={\\mathrm{Gal}}(\\bar{k}/k)$, i.e. $$\\label{eq:center_of_complex_dual}\n    Z(\\hat{H})[1]=\\hat{H}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}.$$\n\n-   The distinguished triangle (\\[eq:DT\\_of\\_CX\\_of\\_tori\\]) gives rise, by taking complex dual, to a distinguished triangle in the derived category $\\mathbb{D}^b(\\operatorname{\\Gamma-\\mathcal{DG}_{{\\mathbb C}}})$ of diagonalizable ${\\mathbb C}$-groups with $\\Gamma$-action: $$\\begin{aligned}\n     \\label{eq:DT_of_dualCX_of_tori}\n    \\hat{G}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}} \\rightarrow \\hat{I}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}} \\rightarrow \\hat{\\tilde{I}}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}} \\rightarrow \\hat{G}_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}[1]. \\end{aligned}$$\n\n[99]{}\n\nA. Borel, J. Tits. Groupes r\u00e9ductifs. Inst. Hautes \u00c9tudes Sci. Publ. Math. No. 27 1965 55-150.\n\nM. Brion. On extensions of algebraic groups with finite quotient. Pacific J. Math. 279 (2015), no. 1-2, 135-153.\n\nL. Breen. Tannakian categories. Motives (Seattle, WA, 1991), 337-376, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 55, Part 1, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994.\n\nM. Borovoi. Abelian Galois cohomology of reductive groups. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 132 (1998), no. 626, viii+50 pp.\n\nF. Bruhat, J. Tits. Groupes r\u00e9ductifs sur un corps local. I. Inst. Hautes \u00c9tudes Sci. Publ. Math. No. 41 (1972), 5-251.\n\nF. Bruhat, J. Tits. Groupes r\u00e9ductifs sur un corps local. II. Sch\u00e9mas en groupes. Existence d\u2019une donn\u00e9e radicielle valu\u00e9e. Inst. Hautes \u00c9tudes Sci. Publ. Math. No. 60 (1984), 197-376.\n\nC.-L. Chai, B. Conrad, F. Oort. Complex multiplication and lifting problems. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 195. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2014. x+387 pp.\n\nL. Clozel. The fundamental lemma for stable base change. Duke Math. J. 61 (1990), no. 1, 255-302.\n\nP. Deligne. Vari\u00e9t\u00e9s de Shimura: interpr\u00e9tation modulaire, et techniques de construction de mod\u00e8les canoniques. Automorphic forms, representations and $L$-functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Part 2, 247-289, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1979.\n\nP. Deligne, J.S. Milne, A. Ogus, K-y. Shih. Hodge cycles, motives, and Shimura varieties. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 900. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1982.\n\nC. Demarche. Suites de Poitou-Tate pour les complexes de tores \u00e0 deux termes. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2011, no. 1, 135-174.\n\nK. Fujiwara. Rigid geometry, Lefschetz-Verdier trace formula and Deligne\u2019s conjecture. Invent. Math. 127 (1997), no. 3, 489-533.\n\nJ. Giraud. Cohomologie non ab\u00e9lienne. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 179. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1971.\n\nM. Greenberg. Schemata over local rings, II, Ann. Math. 78 (1963), 256-266.\n\nB. Gross. Parahorics.\n\nT. Haines, M. Rapoport. On parahoric subgroups, Advances in Math. 219 (1), (2008), 188-198. appendix to: G. Pappas, M. Rapoport, Twisted loop groups and their affine flag varieties, Advances in Math. 219 (1), (2008), 118-198.\n\nT. Haines, S. Rostami. The Satake isomorphism for special maximal parahoric Hecke algebras. Represent. Theory 14 (2010), 264-284.\n\nT. Haines. The stable Bernstein center and test functions for Shimura varieties. Automorphic Forms and Galois Representations, Durham, 2011, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series: 415, vol. 2, London Mathematical Society, 2014, pp. 118-186.\n\nX. He. Kottwitz-Rapoport conjecture on unions of affine Deligne-Lusztig varieties. .\n\nX. He, M. Rapoport. Stratifications in the reduction of Shimura varieties. .\n\nM. Kisin. Integral models for Shimura varieties of abelian type. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (2010), no. 4, 967-1012.\n\nM. Kisin. Mod $p$-points on Shimura varieties of abelian type. J. Amer. Math. Soc. electronically published on January 11, 2017.\n\nM. Kisin, G. Pappas. Integral models of Shimura varieties with parahoric level structure. .\n\nR. Kottwitz. Rational conjugacy classes in reductive groups. Duke Math. J. 49 (1982), no. 4, 785-806.\n\nR. Kottwitz. Sign changes in harmonic analysis on reductive groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 278 (1983), no. 1, 289-297.\n\nR. Kottwitz. Stable Trace Formula: Cuspidal Tempered Terms, Duke Math. J. 51 (1984), 611-650.\n\nR. Kottwitz. Shimura Varieties and Twisted Orbital Integrals, Math. Ann. 269 (1984), 287-300.\n\nR. Kottwitz. Isocrystals with additional structure. Compositio Math. 56 (1985), no. 2, 201-220.\n\nR. Kottwitz, Stable Trace Formula: Elliptic Singular Terms, Math. Ann. 275 (1986), 365-399.\n\nR. Kottwitz. Tamagawa numbers. Ann. of Math. (2) 127, 1988, 629-646.\n\nR. Kottwitz. Shimura varieties and $\\lambda$-adic representations. Automorphic forms, Shimura varieties, and L-functions, Vol. I (Ann Arbor, MI, 1988), 161-209, Perspect. Math., 10, Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1990.\n\nR. Kottwitz. Points on some Shimura varieties over finite fields. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1992), no. 2, 373-444.\n\nR. Kottwitz. Isocrystals with additional structure. II. Compositio Math. 109 (1997), no. 3, 255-339.\n\nR. Kottwitz. Comparison of two versions of twisted transfer factors appendix to: S. Morel. On the cohomology of certain noncompact Shimura varieties. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 173. Princeton Univ. Press, 2010. xii+217 pp.\n\nR. Kottwitz, M. Rapoport. Minuscule alcoves for $\\mathrm{GL}_n$ and $\\mathrm{GSp}_{2n}$. Manuscripta Math. 102 (2000), no. 4, 403-428.\n\nR. Kottwitz, D. Shelstad. Foundations of twisted endoscopy. Ast\u00e9risque No. 255 (1999), vi+190 pp.\n\nR. Kottwitz, D. Shelstad. On splitting invariants and sign conventions in endoscopic transfer.\n\nY. Koya. A generalization of class formation by using hypercohomology. Invent. Math. 101 (1990), no. 3, 705-715.\n\nJ.-P. Labesse. Nombres de Tamagawa des groupes r\u00e9ductifs quasi-connexes. Manuscripta Math. 104 (2001), no. 4, 407-430.\n\nJ.-P. Labesse. Cohomologie, stabilisation et changement de base. Ast\u00e9risque No. 257 (1999), vi+161 pp.\n\nJ.-P. Labesse. Stable twisted trace formula: elliptic terms. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 3 (2004), no. 4, 473-530.\n\nR.P. Langlands, Some contemporary problems with origins in the Jugendtraum, in: Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert\u2019s problems, AMS (1976), 401-418.\n\nR. P. Langlands, On the zeta functions of some simple Shimura varieties. Canad. J. Math. 31 (1979), no. 6, 1121-1216.\n\nR. P. Langlands, Les d\u00e9buts d\u2019une formule des traces stable, Publ. Math. de l\u2019Univ. Paris VII 13, Paris 1983.\n\nR. P. Langlands, M. Rapoport. Shimuravariet\u00e4ten und Gerben. J. Reine Angew. Math. 378 (1987), 113-220.\n\nR. P. Langlands, D. Shelstad. On the definition of transfer factors. Math. Ann. 278 (1987), no. 1-4, 219-271.\n\nR. P. Langlands, D. Shelstad. Descent for transfer factors. The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol. II, 485-563, Progr. Math., 87, Birkh\u00e4user Boston, Boston, MA, 1990.\n\nD. U. Lee A proof of a conjecture of Y. Morita. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 44 (2012), no. 5, 861-870.\n\nD. U. Lee Non-emptiness of Newton strata of Shimura varieties of Hodge type. , a published version to appear in *Algebra Number Theory*.\n\nJ. S. Milne. The points on a Shimura variety modulo a prime of good reduction. The zeta functions of Picard modular surfaces, Univ. Montr\u017dal, Montreal, QC, 1992.\n\nJ. S. Milne. Shimura varieties and motives. Motives (Seattle, WA, 1991), 447\u2013523, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 55, Part 2, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994.\n\nJ. S. Milne. Gerbes and abelian motives. manuscript available on [<http://www.jmilne.org/math/articles/index.html#1990b>]{}\n\nJ. S. Milne. Class field theory. course notes, version 4.02, 2013, available on [<http://www.jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/CFT.pdf>]{}\n\nS. Morel. On the cohomology of certain noncompact Shimura varieties. With an appendix by Robert Kottwitz. Annals of Mathematics Studies, 173. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2010. xii+217 pp.\n\nB. C. Ng\u00f4. Le lemme fondamental pour les alg\u00e8bres de Lie. Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes \u00c9tudes Sci. No. 111 (2010), 1-169.\n\nJ. Neukirch, A. Schmidt, K. Wingberg. Cohomology of number fields. Second edition. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 323. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008.\n\nG. Pappas, M. Rapoport. Twisted loop groups and their affine flag varieties. With an appendix by T. Haines and Rapoport. Adv. Math. 219 (2008), no. 1, 118-198.\n\nG. Pappas, M. Rapoport. Local models in the ramified case. III. Unitary groups. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 8 (2009), no. 3, 507-564.\n\nV. Platonov, A. Rapinchuk. Algebraic groups and number theory. Pure and Applied Mathematics, 139, Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1994.\n\nM. Rapoport, M. Richartz. On the classification and specialization of $F$-isocrystals with additional structure. Compositio Math. 103 (1996), no. 2, 153-181.\n\nM. Rapoport. A guide to the reduction modulo p of Shimura varieties. Automorphic forms. I. Ast\u00e9risque No. 298 (2005), 271-318.\n\nH. Reimann. The semi-simple zeta function of quaternionic Shimura varieties. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1657. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997. viii+143.\n\nJ.-J. Sansuc. Groupe de Brauer et arithm\u00e9tique des groupes alg\u00e9briques lin\u00e9aires sur un corps de nombres. J. Reine Angew. Math. 327 (1981), 12-80.\n\nI. Satake. Symplectic representations of algebraic groups satisfying a certain analyticity condition. Acta Math. 117 1967 215-279.\n\nI. Satake. Algebraic structures of symmetric domains. Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo; Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1980. xvi+321 pp.\n\nP. Scholze. The Langlands-Kottwitz method and deformation spaces of $p$-divisible groups. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 26 (2013), 227-259.\n\nP. Scholze, S. W. Shin. On the cohomology of compact unitary group Shimura varieties at ramified split places. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 26 (2013), no. 1, 261-294.\n\nJ.-P. Serre. Galois cohomology. Translated from the French by Patrick Ion and revised by the author. Corrected reprint of the 1997 English edition. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.\n\nD. Shelstad, Characters and inner forms of a quasisplit group over ${\\mathbb R}$, Comp. Math. 39 (1979), 11-45.\n\nD. Shelstad. L-indistinguishability for real groups. Math. Ann. 259 (1982), no. 3, 385-430.\n\nD. Shelstad. Tempered endoscopy for real groups. I. Geometric transfer with canonical factors. Representation theory of real reductive Lie groups, 215-246, Contemp. Math., 472, Amer. Math. Soc., 2008.\n\nD. Shelstad. Tempered endoscopy for real groups. II. Spectral transfer factors. Automorphic forms and the Langlands program, 236-276, Adv. Lect. Math. (ALM), 9, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2010.\n\nJ. R. Stembridge. Tight quotients and double quotients in the Bruhat order. Electron. J. Combin. 11 (2004/06), no. 2.\n\nJ. Tate. Number theoretic background. Automorphic forms, representations and L-functions (Corvallis, 1977), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Part 2, pp. 3-26, Amer. Math. Soc. 1979.\n\nJ. Tits. Reductive groups over local fields. Automorphic forms, representations and L-functions (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, Ore., 1977), Part 1, pp. 29-69, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIII, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., 1979.\n\nY. Varshavsky. Lefschetz-Verdier trace formula and a generalization of a theorem of Fujiwara. Geom. Funct. Anal. 17 (2007), no. 1, 271-319.\n\nA. Vasiu. Integral canonical models of Shimura varieties of preabelian type. Asian J. Math. 3 (1999), no. 2, 401-518.\n\nE. Viehmann. On the geometry of the Newton stratification. .\n\nJ.-L. Waldspurger. Le lemme fondamental implique le transfert. Compositio Math. 105 (1997), no. 2, 153-236.\n\nJ.-L. Waldspurger. Endoscopie et changement de caract\u00e9ristique. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 5 (2006), no. 3, 423-525.\n\nJ.-L. Waldspurger. L\u2019endoscopie tordue n\u2019est pas si tordue. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 194 (2008), no. 908, x+261 pp.\n\nR. Zhou. Mod $p$ isogeny classes on Shimura varieties with parahoric level structure. available on [<http://www.math.harvard.edu/~rzhou/LR17.pdf>]{}\n\n*Email:* machhama@gmail.com\n\n[^1]: In this work, for Hodge-type $(G,X)$, we always assume that $G$ is the smallest algebraic ${\\mathbb Q}$-group such that every $h\\in X$ factors through $G_{{\\mathbb R}}$; then this assumption holds.\n\n[^2]: In [@Milne92], Milne uses this criterion which was at that time unjustified, for the same purpose of completing this deduction arguments, cf. see Remark \\[rem:comments\\_on\\_Milne92\\].\n\n[^3]: In fact, this is an issue that has already been known for some time (namely, the kind of ambiguity as appearing in the Kisin\u2019s description becomes a problem when deriving a point-counting formula from it along the line of [@Langlands76], [@Kottwitz84b]), and removing such ambiguity was one of the very motivations for Langlands and Rapoport introducing their conjecture [@LR87 p.116,line+15].\n\n[^4]: to distinguish this from two other similar conditions: first, from the original Serre condition which is applied to a ${\\mathbb Q}$-torus $T$ endowed with a cocharacter $\\mu\\in X_{\\ast}(T)$ (cf. Lemma \\[lem:defn\\_of\\_psi\\_T,mu\\]), and secondly from the condition that $Z(G)$ has the same ranks over ${\\mathbb Q}$ and ${\\mathbb R}$ (equiv. the anisotropic kernel of $Z(G)$ remains anisotropic over ${\\mathbb R}$); if $(G,X)$ is of Hodge type and $G$ is the Mumford-Tate group, it satisfies all these conditions.\n\n[^5]: But for general parahoric ${\\mathbf{K}}_p$, without having control on the level, one can still attach a Kottwitz triple to any point that is the reduction of a CM point (thus in this case the triple is well-defined only up to powers).\n\n[^6]: In this case that the residue field is ${\\bar{\\mathbb{F}}_{p}}$, we will write ${\\mathfrak{k}}$ for $L$ more often.\n\n[^7]: We interchangeably write $\\nu_G(b)$ or $\\nu_b$.\n\n[^8]: With $(G,S)$, Tits [@Tits79] define an affine root system $\\Phi_{\\mathrm{af}}$ in the affine space $A$ under $V:=X_{\\ast}(S)_{{\\mathbb R}}$, and a homomorphism $\\nu:\\tilde{W}\\rightarrow \\mathrm{Aff}(A)$, where $\\mathrm{Aff}(A)$ is the group of affine transformations of $A$. When $G$ is semi-simple, the affine Weyl group of the reduced root system in question equals the Weyl group of $\\Phi_{\\mathrm{af}}$, i.e. the group generated by the reflections about the hyperplanes that are zero sets of affine functions in $\\Phi_{\\mathrm{af}}$. When we choose a special vertex ${\\mathbf{v}}$ (so, identify the affine space $A$ with $V$, and $W_0$ with the stabilizer subgroup of ${\\mathbf{v}}$), there exists a reduced root system ${}^{{\\mathbf{v}}}\\Sigma$ in question having roots in $V$, and $W_a\\cong \\nu(W_a)$ is isomorphic to the affine Weyl group $Q^{\\vee}({}^{{\\mathbf{v}}}\\Sigma)\\rtimes W({}^{{\\mathbf{v}}}\\Sigma)$.\n\n[^9]: Suppose that the $K$-structure is given by an isomorphism $\\alpha:G_0\\otimes_{K}k'{\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G$ for an algebraic $K$-group $G_0$. Then, it gives rise to a descent isomorphism $\\alpha\\circ\\sigma^{\\ast}(\\alpha^{-1}):\\sigma^{\\ast}(G){\\stackrel{\\sim}{\\rightarrow}}G$ and a Galois action $\\sigma(g)=\\alpha\\circ \\sigma(\\alpha^{-1}(g))$ on $G(k')=G_0(k')$. Since the descent isomorphism was $\\theta(\\sigma)$, we have $\\sigma(g)=\\alpha\\circ \\sigma^{\\ast}(\\alpha^{-1})(\\sigma_{k'}(g))=\\theta(\\sigma)\\circ\\sigma_{k'}(g)$.\n\n[^10]: in the sense of Giruad, or in the sense of the theory of Tannakian categories, namely, a stack in groupoids over an \u00e9tale site which is locally nonempty and locally connected, cf. [@Milne92 Appendix], [@DMOS82 Ch.II], [@Breen94 2.2].\n\n[^11]: The category of such affine gerbs endowed with a distinguished neutralizing object is equivalent to the category of affine ${\\mathrm{Spec}}(K)/{\\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$-groupoid schemes, acting transitively on ${\\mathrm{Spec}}(K)$, [@Milne92], Appendex, Prop. A.15). For this reason, Milne insists to call Galois gerbs in our sense groupoids [@Milne92], [@Milne03]. But any two neutralizing local objects become isomorphic over ${\\overline{k}}$, thus a gerb ${\\mathfrak{G}}$ (as a stack) is uniquely determined by its associated groupoid $({\\mathfrak{G}},x\\in \\mathrm{Ob}({\\mathfrak{G}}({\\overline{k}})))$, up to conjugation by an element of $\\mathrm{Aut}(x)={\\mathfrak{G}}^{\\Delta}({\\overline{k}})$. Hopefully, this justifies our decision to stick to the original terminology of Langlands-Rapoport.\n\n[^12]: i.e. $e_{h,1}=e_{1,h}=1$ for all $h\\in H$.\n\n[^13]: Note that our notations for these gerbs differ from those of [@Kisin17]: our ${\\mathfrak{G}}^K_{p,K}$ (resp. ${\\mathfrak{G}}^K_p$) is his ${\\mathfrak{G}}^K_p$ (resp. $\\tilde{{\\mathfrak{G}}}^K_p$).\n\n[^14]: At the moment, we do not require that one can choose the sections $\\tau\\mapsto s_{\\tau}^K$ in a compatible way for extensions $K\\subset K'\\subset{\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, which will be however the case (cf. the proof of Theorem \\[thm:pseudo-motivic\\_Galois\\_gerb\\]).\n\n[^15]: The notion of w-stable $\\sigma$-conjugacy is introduced here by the author, to bring attention to the subtle point in the notion of $\\sigma$-stable conjugacy, parallel to the difference in (ordinary) stable conjugacy discussed in Remark \\[rem:Kottwitz\\_triples\\], (4), rather than for some explicit use. The author does not know whether the first implication is an equivalence in general.\n\n[^16]: The sign here is opposite to the sign used by Kottwitz in [@Kottwitz90], [@Kottwitz92].\n\n[^17]: By definition [@Borovoi98 3.1.1], $\\mathbb{H}^0({{\\mathbb Q}_l},I_0\\backslash G)$ equals the hypercohomology set $\\mathbb{H}^0({\\mathbb Q},I_0\\rightarrow G)$ of the complex of ${\\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_0\\rightarrow G$ ($I_0$ being located in degree -1, as always).\n\n[^18]: So, Definition 5.8 of [@Milne92] is not correct, thus some proofs based on it in that work, especially the proof of Cor. 7.10, are incomplete; the first complete proof of (a substantial generalization of) that corollary is given in this work.\n\n[^19]: This is our translation of the German word *eingeschachtelt* used by Langlands-Rapoport [@LR87 p.190, line19].\n\n[^20]: This is our translation of the German word *g\u00fcnstig gelegen* used by Langlands-Rapoport [@LR87 p.190, line8].\n\n[^21]: The original arguments in [@LR87] use the quasi-motivic Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{Q}}$ (instead of the pseudo-motivic Galois gerb ${\\mathfrak{P}}$) whose definition is however wrong (cf. [@Reimann97 Appendix B]). Fortunately, the whole arguments remain valid with ${\\mathfrak{Q}}$ replaced by ${\\mathfrak{P}}$, as long as the (admissible) morphisms in question factor through ${\\mathfrak{P}}$.\n\n[^22]: In turn, this is the group that was denoted by $G^{\\ast (S)}_{(a)}$ (or $G^{\\ast}_{(a)}$) in *loc. cit.* 3.8. Namely, when we choose a maximal $\\overline{F}$-torus $T$ of $G_{\\overline{F}}$ containing $S$, it is the group generated by ${}_{\\overline{F}}U_b$ (the \u201cabsolute\u201d root group in $G_{\\overline{F}}$ defined with respect to $(G_{\\overline{F}},T)$) for the absolute roots in $R^{\\ast}(G_{\\overline{F}},T)$ whose restriction to $S$ belong to $(a)$, the set of relative roots in $R^{\\ast}(G,S)$ that are positive integer multiples of $a$.\n\n[^23]: This result of Borovoi generalizes Lemma 5.13 of [@LR87] (attributed to Deligne) which concerns the case when $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. As remarked there [@LR87 p.180, line5], this is also the only part in the proof of Satz 5.3 of *loc. cit.* that uses the assumption that $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. Hence, thanks to that result of Borovoi and the generalized definition of admissible morphisms (in terms of strict monoidal category ${\\mathfrak{G}}_{G/\\tilde{G}}$), in Prop 4.1.5 here, thus Thm. 4.1.3 as well, that assumption ($G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$) is unnecessary. \\[ftn:sc-assumption1\\]\n\n[^24]: Here, we use the redundant notation $\\tilde{G}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$.\n\n[^25]: If one wants, by using [@Kisin17 Lem. 3.7.7], one can also reduce the general case to the case where $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$ (cf. proof of Thm. 3.7.8 of *loc. cit.*). However, we already established all the facts/lemmas required for our proof to work without that assumption.\n\n[^26]: In the original argument (i.e. proof of Lemma 5.23 of [@LR87]), the authors simply appeal to a well-known theorem of Steinberg (or its extension by Kottwitz [@Kottwitz82 Thm.4.4]), since they work under the assumption that $I^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=I^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. However, as we have just seen, this is unnecessary, and this allows us to remove that assumption in this lemma, because, as we now see, all other parts of the proof (especially, Prop. 4.1.5) do not require that assumption. \\[ftn:sc-assumption2\\]\n\n[^27]: In this proof, the assumption that $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ is tamely ramified is needed to invoke Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.12\\] and Prop. \\[prop:existence\\_of\\_elliptic\\_tori\\_in\\_special\\_parahorics\\] (the latter via Lemma \\[lem:LR-Lemma5.2\\]). Note that the latter proposition further requires $G_{{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}$ to be of classical Lie type.\n\n[^28]: For this, we do not need to assume that $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$.\n\n[^29]: Hence, in the hyperspecial cases where one may assume $u_0=1$, for sufficiently large $t$ such that $\\nu':=-\\frac{nt}{[K:{{\\mathbb Q}_p}]}\\nu_p'\\in X_{\\ast}(T')$ and $k_t\\in {\\tilde{\\mathbf{K}}}_p$, the decomposition $$(\\epsilon')^t= p^{\\nu'}\\cdot k_t^{-1}$$ is a Cartan decomposition, as was asserted in [@LR87 p.193, line 9]. Note that here the fact that ${\\mathrm{N}}_{K/{{\\mathbb Q}_p}}\\mu_h$ maps into the center of $G_{\\epsilon}$ is needed (to know that for some $a\\in{\\mathbb N}$ $k_0^a$ lies in a bounded subgroup of $H({\\mathfrak{k}})$).\n\n[^30]: For finite $\\mathcal{G}$, the Tate hypercohomology $\\widehat{\\mathbb{H}}^i(\\mathcal{G},-)$ factors through the stable module category $\\mathcal{T}(\\mathcal{G})$ of the group algebra ${\\mathbb Z}[\\mathcal{\\mathcal{G}}]$, and as such equals the cohomological functor $A^{\\bullet}\\mapsto {\\mathrm{Hom}}_{\\mathcal{T}(\\mathcal{G})}({\\mathbb Z},A^{\\bullet}[i])$ on that triangulated category.\n\n[^31]: Recall that by our convention, in $H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}}=\\tilde{T}\\rightarrow T$ and $X^{\\ast}(H_{{\\mathbf{ab}}})=X^{\\ast}(T)\\rightarrow X^{\\ast}(\\tilde{T})$, $T$ and $X^{\\ast}(\\tilde{T})$ are both placed in degree $0$.\n\n[^32]: In fact, our statement is weaker than this lemma, where Langlands and Rapoport claim (*loc. cit.* p.197, line +6) that the pair $(\\phi=a\\phi_1,\\epsilon)$ is admissible if and only if $[a]\\in \\Sha^{\\infty}_G({\\mathbb Q},I_1)$ (i.e. they do not require our additional condition). Unfortunately we could not verify their claim. But, our weaker claim as given is sufficient for our purpose.\n\n[^33]: A better notation (for consistency) for such ${\\mathbb Q}$-subgroup of $G$ will be $I_0$, but here we used $I$ to simplify notation.\n\n[^34]: It is, however, not clear to the author whether the original version of the lemma stated in terms only of $Z(\\hat{\\tilde{I}})$ and $Z(\\hat{I})$ continues to hold beyond the case $G^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=G^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$.\n\n[^35]: Kottwitz\u2019s method in *loc. cit.* for general $g$ uses the notion of *virtual abelian variety over a finite field*. This terminology does not appear in our work, although one can say that the notion is working behind the scenes.\n\n[^36]: In fact, using the argument of Lemma \\[lem:uniqueness\\_of\\_inner-class\\_with\\_same\\_K-triples\\] one can show that the two ${\\mathbb Q}$-groups $I_{x,\\epsilon}^{\\mathrm{o}}$, $I_{x',\\epsilon'}^{\\mathrm{o}}$ are isomorphic as inner-twists of $I_0$. But it is not clear whether such an isomorphism is conjugate over ${\\overline{\\mathbb{Q}}_v}$ to $\\rho_v$ as here which is induced by an isomorphism of vectors spaces endowed with Frobenius action and tensors.\n\n[^37]: To apply this discussion (and [@LR87 Lemma 5.6] as well), one does not need the hypothesis (as was made in the beginning of the same section $\\S$9) that the inner twisting in question is an inner twisting of a *quasi-split* group.\n\n[^38]: Here, for the normalization for Langlands correspondence of tori, we use the Langlands\u2019s original convention which is opposite to that adopted in [@KottwitzShelstad99 p.116]. See [@KottwitzShelstad12 $\\S$4.2] for discussion on this issue. \\[ftn:LLC\\_sign\\]\n\n[^39]: Our transfer factor $\\Delta_{\\infty}$ is denoted by $\\Delta'$ in [@KottwitzShelstad12 $\\S$5.1]. We see that this is indeed given by the definition (1.0.4) of *loc. cit.*, because, for standard endoscopy, one has $\\Delta_{I}^{\\mathrm{new}}=\\Delta_{I}$, and also the normalization of Kottwitz and Shelstad for the Langlands correspondence for tori (chosen in the appendix of *loc. cit.*) differs from ours by sign so that the two $\\Delta_{III_1}$\u2019s also differ by the same measure.\n\n[^40]: Do not confuse this with the torus $H^{{\\mathrm{ab}}}:=H/H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}$; of course, they become quasi-isomorphic when $H^{{\\mathrm{der}}}=H^{{\\mathrm{sc}}}$. If stated otherwise, every two-term complex will be concentrated in degree $-1$ and $0$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present high resolution interferometric observations of the cool atomic and cold molecular ISM of the TDG candidate Arp\u00a0245N, an object resembling a dwarf galaxy in the northern tidal tail of the interacting system NGC2992/3. We observed the HI line with the NRAO VLA and the CO(1$\\to$0) transition with the OVRO millimeter interferometer at $5''''-6''''$ angular resolution (750pc linear resolution). These datacubes offer the required spatial and velocity resolution to determine whether the mass concentration near the tip of the tail is a genuine feature, and hence a good TDG candidate, or an artefact caused by a fortuitous alignment of our line of sight with the direction of the tail. A preliminary analysis seems to confirm that Arp245N is a self\u2013gravitating entity.'\nauthor:\n- Elias Brinks\n- 'Pierre\u2013Alain Duc'\n- Fabian Walter\ntitle: VLA HI and OVRO CO Interferometry of a Tidal Dwarf Galaxy\n---\n\n\\#1[[*\\#1*]{}]{} \\#1[[*\\#1*]{}]{} =\n\n\\#1 1.25in .125in .25in\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nTidal Dwarf Galaxies (TDGs) are objects resembling actively star forming dwarf galaxies and are assembled from the debris (tidal tails and bridges) launched into the IGM by violent galaxy interactions in which at least one member is a gas\u2013rich galaxy. They are composed of stars and gas from the outskirts of one or both of the parent galaxies involved in the interaction. The recent surge of interest in TDGs started with papers by Mirabel, Lutz, & Maza (1991) on the Superantennae and Mirabel, Dottori, & Lutz (1992) on the Antennae (see also the review by Duc & Mirabel 1999). Several groups of authors have since embarked on the exciting topic of TDGs as witnessed by these proceedings (see e.g., the contributions by Duc et al.\u00a0and by Braine et al. this volume).\n\nCurrently outstanding questions are: (i) Are TDGs really recycled objects made of collisional debris or pre-existing galaxies involved in a three\u2013body interaction? (ii) Are TDG genuine density enhancements in the tidal tails or are they merely due to projection effects along the line of sight? (iii) Do TDGs form self gravitating entities or are they simple transient condensations? (iv) Are TDGs Dark Matter (DM) dominated, like galaxies in general, and dwarf galaxies in particular, or are they nearly devoid of DM, as theory predicts? (v) Finally do TDGs leave the potential well of their progenitors and hence constitute a sizeable fraction of the known dwarf galaxy population or do they eventually fall back and merge, leaving no trace?\n\nAll these questions have actually been raised for the particular TDG candidate identified in the northern tidal tail of Arp245, an interacting system composed of two spiral galaxies, NGC 2992 and NGC 2993. Although Arp245N was observed at many wavelengths and is one of the best studied TDG candidates, its nature as a tidal object or as a real entity have been challenged. Smith & Struck (2001) argued that TDG Arp245N could actually be a preexisting edge-on disk galaxy that is interacting with the other two galaxies. Hibbard et al.\u00a0(this volume) point out that this system is viewed from an unfavorable perspective, making the projection effects particularly severe.\n\nThe combination of high\u2013resolution kinematical and morphological data is critical to tackle all these issues. We have therefore carried out HI and CO interferometric observations of the system.\n\nThe Interacting System Arp245 (= NGC2992/3)\n===========================================\n\nNGC2992/3 is a relatively nearby system, at an adopted distance of 31 Mpc (V$_{\\mathrm sys} = 2311$kms$^{-1}$). Its prominent northern tidal tail hosts a tidal dwarf galaxy candidate which because of its proximity can be studied in detail (Fig.\u00a01). The system was observed by us in HI with the NRAO[^1] Very Large Array (VLA) at an intermediate angular resolution of $19''\n\\times 14''$ (Duc et al.\u00a02000).\n\nToward NGC2992, the HI shows a peak at the location of the tidal dwarf candidate located at the tip of the tidal tail emanating from NGC2992. HI is seen in absorption against the radio continuum from the nucleus. NGC2992 is classified as a Seyfert 1.9 galaxy and in the light of H$\\alpha$ a biconical structure can be seen which extends out into the halo. Toward NGC2993, the HI map has a ringlike structure which in its western extension has no optical counterpart. Within NGC2993 and Arp245N, HII regions are concentrated within HI clumps and trace star\u2013forming regions. Numerical simulations of the NGC 2992/3 collision indicate that we see the system $\\sim 100$Myr after closest approach (Duc et al.\u00a02000).\n\nAs reported by Braine et al.\u00a0(2000, 2001), Arp245 was detected with the IRAM 30\u2013m dish in both the CO(1$\\to$0) and the CO(2$\\to$1) transitions. The observations also revealed that the CO emission is extended along the TDG. The H$_2$ mass, assuming the standard (Galactic) CO to H$_2$ conversion factor of N$_{\\mathrm {H_2}/I_{CO}} = 2\n\\times 10^{20}$cm$^{-2}$/Kkms$^{-1}$ is $\\sim 1.5 \\times\n10^8$M$_\\odot$ .\n\nAn oxygen abundance of 12+log(O/H)=8.6 was measured in the HII regions of the TDG candidate. This high metallicity excludes the hypothesis that the TDG is in fact a preexisting dwarf galaxy. It is also unlikely that a more massive galaxy was directly involved in the interaction. Indeed, the morphology of the system matches very well that of the numerical model in which only two galaxies are interacting.\n\nObservations\n============\n\nHI Observations\n---------------\n\nThe field containing the interacting pair NGC2992/3 was observed with the VLA in its B\u2013configuration on 24 April and 7/8 May 2001 for a total of almost 10 hours. Data calibration and reduction followed standard procedures using the Classic AIPS data reduction package. The final data products have a resolution of $6''$ (at 5kms$^{-1}$ velocity resolution) and reach an rms noise of 0.5 mJybeam$^{-1}$ per channel.\n\nCO Observations\n---------------\n\nWe observed the tidal dwarf near NGC2992 in the CO(1$\\to$0) transition using the Owen\u2019s Valley Radio Observatory\u2019s mm array (OVRO) in the E, C and L configurations for a total of 9 tracks from October 2001 through May 2002. The equatorial E configuration was needed to improve the beam shape for this $\\delta = -14^{\\circ}$ source. About 40 hours were spent on source. Data were recorded using a correlator setup resulting in velocity resolutions of 5kms$^{-1}$ (after online Hanning smoothing) with a total bandwidth of 320 kms$^{-1}$. A datacube was produced using the [miriad]{} software package which was [clean]{}ed to a level of about twice the rms noise (noise: 16mJybeam$^{-1}$ in a 5kms$^{-1}$ wide channel). The final beam size is $7.2'' \\times 4.0''$.\n\nResults\n=======\n\nFigure 1 shows an integrated HI map of the B\u2013array VLA data only. It should be noted that an interferometer acts as a spatial filter and that the B\u2013array is sensitive to structures with typical sizes of between $5''$ and $120''$. As a result, applying a [clean]{} algorithm can leave some low level striping which will disappear once the new data are incorporated with the intermediate resolution maps.\n\nThe right panel in Figure 1 shows as contours overlaid on the HI map, the CO and H$\\alpha$ emission. CO is clearly detected in the OVRO observations and is found to be resolved. The total integrated flux is $\\sim$3Jykms$^{-1}$ ($\\sim10$Kkms$^{-1}$), corresponding to a total molecular gas mass, assuming a standard conversion factor of N$_{\\mathrm {H_2}/I_{CO}} = 2 \\times\n10^{20}$cm$^{-2}$/Kkms$^{-1}$, of M$_{\\mathrm\n{H_2}}\\sim3.5\\times10^7$M$_{\\odot}$. This is about 25% of the single dish flux which implies that most of the molecular gas is distributed smoothly across the region.\n\nDiscussion and Summary\n======================\n\nArp245N is a typical TDG candidate in the sense that it is a major HI concentration associated with recent star formation which resides near the tip of the tidal tail. Because the latter is seen close to edge\u2013on, the question thus arises whether the apparent concentration is a genuine feature (Hibbard & Mihos, this volume). Bournaud et al.\u00a0(2003, 2004; see also the contributions by Amram et al., this volume) have run extensive numerical models and shown the characteristic shape in position\u2013velocity space of a [*bona fide*]{} TDG and that of a spurious feature. They show that the kinematical signature of projection effects is a change in the sign of the velocity gradient along the tail before reaching its apparent tip. For curved tails that are extended enough in 3D space, a loop-like feature may even be seen in a position\u2013velocity (pV) diagram along the tails.\n\nFigure 2 shows such a pV diagram along the tidal tail connecting the TDG candidate and NGC2992 using the intermediate and high resolution VLA HI data. The signal was actually integrated over a band with a width similar to that of the tail. The loop expected for projection effects is clearly seen on the figure. The part of the tail that is seen curving back towards NGC 2992 (as seen projected on the sky) is actually consistent with our earlier numerical simulations of the system (Duc et al., 2000; see the face\u2013on view in their Fig.\u00a010).\n\nThe HI morphology of the tidal tail, as seen at high resolution in Fig.\u00a01, may also give some clues as to the geometry of the system. Its U\u2013like shape could be interpreted as being due to bending of the tidal tail near its apparent tip. The tail is actually not seen perfectly edge\u2013on (as indicated, in the optical, by the large width of the stellar tail). Thanks to the higher spatial resolution provided by the VLA in its B\u2013configuration, we can hence \u2019resolve\u2019 the projection effects \u2013 which was impossible with the early C\u2013array data. On this map, the HI column density seems to peak in the part of the tail which points back to NGC 2992. This is where OVRO detected the bulk of the molecular gas and where the brightest HII regions in the tail are found. The velocities of all these phases match. The spatial and velocity coincidence between the CO, H$\\alpha$ and HI emission peaks at this location in the tail is a strong indication that a genuine condensation is present there and that this is likely the progenitor of a Tidal Dwarf galaxy.\n\nAt the same position, a pV diagram perpendicular to the tidal tail shows a small scale velocity gradient similar to that expected for a rotating body (see Fig.\u00a03). The peak\u2013to\u2013peak velocity range is 100kms$^{-1}$. A word of caution is warranted here, though. As Duc et al.\u00a0(2000) mentioned, the simulated pV diagram along the same direction in the numerical model shows a similar gradient. Further simulations are required to disentangle the embedded TDG from the rest of the tail. We should then be able to determine its dynamical mass and, comparing it with the luminous mass (corresponding to the HI condensation in the B\u2013array), probe its dark matter content. Not taking into account the line of sight crowding, and considering all the matter present at the apparent tip of the tail, one derives a dynamical mass similar to the luminous one and equal to $\\sim 2 \\times 10^9$M$_\\odot$. For the above-mentioned reasons, these are most likely overestimates.\n\nIn summary, a first analysis of new high resolution HI and CO datacubes tends to support the existence of a bound entity within the northern tail of Arp245. However, they also show the kinematical signature expected when part of the tail is bending away along the line of sight, and eventually back to NGC 2992. Because of these projection effects, the size and mass of the embedded TDG candidate derived from low resolution data are probably overestimates.\n\nBournaud, F., Duc, P.\u2013A., & Masset, F. 2003, , 411, L469\n\nBournaud, F., Duc, P.\u2013A., Amram, P, & Combes, F. 2004, submitted to\n\nBraine, J., Duc, P.\u2013A., Lisenfeld, U., Charmandaris, V., Vallejo, O., Leon, S., Brinks, E. 2001, , 378, 51\n\nBraine, J., Lisenfeld, U., Duc, P.\u2013A., Leon, S. 2000, Nature, 403, 867\n\nDuc, P.\u2013A., Brinks, E., Springel, V., Pichardo, B., Weilbacher, P., & Mirabel, I. F. 2000, , 120, 1238\n\nDuc, P.\u2013A. & Mirabel, I. F. 1999, in IAU Symp.\u00a0186, Galaxy Interactions at Low and High Redshift, ed. J. E. Barnes & D. B. Sanders (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 61\n\nMirabel, I.F., Dottori, H., & Lutz, D. 1992, , 256, L19\n\nMirabel, I.F., Lutz, D., & Maza, J. 1991, , 243, 367\n\nSmith, B.J., & Struck, C. 2001, , 121, 710\n\n[^1]: The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We study a mean field model of a complex network, focusing on edge and triangle densities. Our first result is the derivation of a variational characterization of the entropy density, compatible with the infinite node limit. We then determine the optimizing graphs for small triangle density and a range of edge density, though we can only prove they are local, not global, maxima of the entropy density. With this assumption we then prove that the resulting entropy density must lose its analyticity in various regimes. In particular this implies the existence of a phase transition between distinct heterogeneous multipartite phases at low triangle density, and a phase transition between these phases and the disordered phase at high triangle density.'\naddress:\n- |\n    Charles Radin\\\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    The University of Texas at Austin\\\n    Austin, TX 78712\n- |\n    Lorenzo Sadun\\\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    The University of Texas at Austin\\\n    Austin, TX 78712\nauthor:\n- Charles Radin and Lorenzo Sadun\ntitle: Phase transitions in a complex network\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nExponential random graph models are a well known class of complex networks; see [@Ne] and references therein. Using the language of statistical mechanics they are mean field models, in the grand canonical ensemble, with a variety of possible many-body interactions appropriate to the model\u2019s use. Phase transitions, which require an infinite node limit, have been proven for them [@CD; @RY] using the recently developed \u2018graphon\u2019 formalism [@Lov] in place of the infinite volume limit formalism [@R1; @R2] used in statistical mechanics. Exponential random graph models are mean field models and therefore the analogues of the various statistical mechanics ensembles (microcanonical, grand canonical, pressure, $\\ldots$) which are equivalent in the infinite volume limit for particle systems with short range interactions [@R1], need not be equivalent in these mean field models; see for instance [@TET]. (Equivalence of ensembles is discussed further in the Conclusion.) In this work we use the microcanonical ensemble of one of the best known exponential random graph models, one originally formulated by Strauss [@St], and give evidence of phase transitions which are not as accessible in the grand canonical ensemble. The transitions previously analyzed for a wide class of exponential random graphs are similar to liquid/gas transitions in that they are transitions between graphs of similar character, of the same (fluid-like) phase [@RY], while the transitions we focus on in the microcanonical ensemble are analogous to solid/solid transitions, transitions between graphs of different phases. (See [@AR] for a more primitive grand canonical analysis of these phases.)\n\nWe need some network notation. Consider the set $\\hat G^n$ of simple graphs $G$ with set $V(G)$ of (labelled) vertices, edge set $E(G)$ and triangle set $T(G)$, where the cardinality $|V(G)|=n$. (\u2018Simple\u2019 means the edges are undirected and there are no multiple edges or loops.) Think of an unordered pair of vertices as a point in an abstract space, an edge as a particle that may occupy that point, and a triangle as a many-body interaction energy associated with its edges, so the microcanonical partition function, $\\displaystyle\nZ^{n,\\delta}_{e,t}$, is the number of simple graphs such that: $$e(G)\\equiv \\frac{|E(G)|}{{n \\choose 2}}\n\\in (e-\\delta,e+\\delta) \\quad \\hbox{ and } \\quad\nt(G)\\equiv \\frac{|T(G)|}{{n\\choose 3}} \\in (t-\\delta,t+\\delta).$$ Graphs in $\\displaystyle \\cup_{n\\ge 1}\\hat G^n$ are known to have edge and triangle densities, $(e,t)$, dense in the region $R$ in the $e,t$-plane bounded by three curves, $c_1: (e,e^{3/2}), \\ \\ 0\\le e\\le\n1$, the line $l_1: \\ (e,0), \\ \\ 0\\le e\\le 1/2$ and a certain scalloped curve $(e,h(e)),\\ \\ 1/2\\le e\\le 1$, lying above the curve $(e,e(2e-1), \\ \\ 1/2\\le e\\le 1$, and meeting it when $e=e_k=k/(k+1),\\ \\ k\\ge 1$; see [@PR] and references therein, and Figure 1. .3truein\n\n![The microcanonical phase space $R$, outlined in solid lines[]{data-label=\"phasefig\"}](phase_space1h.eps){width=\"3in\"}\n\nWe are interested in the relative density of graphs in $R$, more precisely in the entropy, the exponential rate of growth of the number of graphs as $n$ grows, as follows. First consider $$s^{n,\\delta}_{e,t}=\\frac{\\ln(Z^{n,\\delta}_{e,t})}{n^2}, \\hbox{ and\n    then } \ns_{e,t}=\\lim_{\\delta\\to 0^+}\\lim_{n\\to \\infty}s^{n,\\delta}_{e,t}.$$ (The existence of the double limit will be proven.) We will measure the growth rate by the entropy density $s_{e,t},$ and the main question of interest for us is the existence of phase transitions ([*i.e.*]{} lack of analyticity of $s_{e,t}$) near the lower boundary of $R$ in Figure 1. The lower boundary consists of the scalloped curve together with the \u2018first scallop\u2019, the line from $(0,0)$ to $(1/2,0)$.\n\nWe now need to review some notation and results concerning graphons, as recently developed in [@LS1; @LS2; @BCLSV; @BCL; @LS3]. See also the recent book [@Lov].\n\nGraphons\n========\n\nConsider the set ${{\\mathcal W}}$ of all symmetric, measurable functions $$g:(x,y)\\in [0,1]^2\\to g(x,y)\\in [0,1].$$ Think of each axis as a continuous set of vertices of a graph. For a graph $G\\in \\hat G^n$ one associates $$\\label{checkerboard} g^G(x,y) = \\begin{cases} 1 &\\hbox{if }(\\lceil nx \\rceil , \\lceil ny \\rceil\n)\\hbox{ is an edge of }G\\cr 0 & \\hbox{otherwise,} \\end{cases}$$ where $\\lceil y \\rceil$ denotes the smallest integer greater than or equal to $y$. For $g\\in {{\\mathcal W}}$ and simple graph $H$ we define $$t(H,g)\\equiv \\int_{[0,1]^\\ell} \\prod_{(i,j)\\in E(H)}g(x_i,x_j)\\,dx_1\\cdots\n   dx_\\ell,$$ where $\\ell = |V(H)|$, and note that for a graph $G$, $t(H,g^G)$ is the density of graph homomorphisms $H\\to G$: $$\\frac{|\\hbox {hom}(H,G)|}{|V(G)|^{|V(H)|}}.$$ We define an equivalence relation on ${{\\mathcal W}}$ as follows: $f\\sim g$ if and only if $t(H,f)=t(H,g)$ for every simple graph $H$. Elements of ${{\\mathcal W}}$ are called \u201cgraphons\u201d, elements of the quotient space $\\tilde {{\\mathcal W}}$ are called \u201creduced graphons\u201d, and the class containing $g\\in {{\\mathcal W}}$ is denoted $\\tilde g$. Equivalent functions in ${{\\mathcal W}}$ differ by a change of variables in the following sense. Let $\\Sigma$ be the space of measure preserving maps $\\sigma: [0,1]\\to [0,1]$, and for $f$ in ${{\\mathcal W}}$ and $\\sigma\\in\n\\Sigma$, let $f_\\sigma(x,y)\\equiv f(\\sigma(x),\\sigma(y))$. Then $f\\sim\ng$ if and only if there exist $\\sigma, \\sigma'$ in $\\Sigma$ such that $f_\\sigma =g_{\\sigma'}$ almost everywhere; see Cor. 2.2 in [@BCL]. The space ${{\\mathcal W}}$ is compact with respect to the \u2018cut metric\u2019 defined as follows. First, on ${{{\\mathcal W}}}$ define: $${d}_{{\\hbox{\\hskip 1pt\\vrule width3pt height2pt depth1pt \\hskip1pt}}}(f,g)\\equiv \\sup_{S,T\\subseteq [0,1]}\\Big| \\int_{S\\times\n  T}[f(x,y)-g(x,y)]\\, dxdy\\Big|.$$ Then on $\\tilde {{\\mathcal W}}$ define the cut metric by:\n\n$${\\tilde d}_{{\\hbox{\\hskip 1pt\\vrule width3pt height2pt depth1pt \\hskip1pt}}}(\\tilde f,\\tilde g)\\equiv \\inf_{\\sigma,\\sigma'\\in \\Sigma}\n{d}_{{\\hbox{\\hskip 1pt\\vrule width3pt height2pt depth1pt \\hskip1pt}}}(f_{\\sigma},g_{\\sigma'}).$$\n\nWe will use the fact, which follows easily from Lemma 4.1 in [@LS1], that the cut metric is equivalent to the metric $$\\delta_{_{\\hbox{hom}}}(\\tilde f,\\tilde g)\\equiv \\sum_{j\\ge 1}\n\\frac{1}{2^j}|t(H_j,f)-t(H_j,g)|,$$ where $\\{H_j\\}$ is a countable set of simple graphs, one from each graph-equivalence class. Also note that if each vertex of a finite graph is split into the same number of \u2018twins\u2019, each connected to the same vertices, the result stays in the same equivalence class, so for a convergent sequence $\\tilde g^{G_j}$ one may assume $|V(G_j)|\\to \\infty$.\n\nThe value of this graphon formalism here is that one can use large deviations on graphs with independent edges, proven in [@CV], to give an optimization formula for $s_{e,t}$, which allows us to analyze $s_{e,t}$ near the graphons of minimal triangle density, the lower boundary of $R$ in Figure 1. We next use the large deviations rate function for graphs with independent edges to give a variational characterization for the entropy density. (There is a variational characterization in [@CD] of the free energy density in the grand canonical ensemble.)\n\nA variational characterization of the entropy density\n=====================================================\n\n\\[thm1\\] For any possible pair $(e,t)$, $s_{e,t} = - \\min I(g)$, where the minimum is over all graphons $g$ with $e(g)=e$ and $t(g)=t$, where $$e(g)=\\int_0^1 \\!\\!\\! \\int_0^1 g(x,y) \\, dx \\, dy, \\qquad t(g) =\n  \\int_0^1\\!\\!\\!\\int_0^1\\!\\!\\!\\int_0^1 g(x,y) g(y,z) g(z,x) \\, dx \\, dy \\, dz,$$\n  and the rate function is $$I(g) = \\int_0^1\\!\\!\\!\\int_0^1 I_0(g(x,y)) \\,dx\\, dy, \\hbox{\n    \\rm where } I_0(u)= \\frac{1}{2} \\left [u \\ln(u) +\n    (1-u)\\ln(1-u)\\right ].$$\n\nWe first prove that $s_{e,t}$ is well-defined. A priori all we know is that $\\liminf\\ln\n  (Z_{e,t}^{n,\\delta})/n^2$ and $\\limsup\\ln (Z_{e,t}^{n,\\delta})/n^2$ exist as ${n\\to\\infty}$. However, we will show that they both approach $-\\min I(g)$ as $\\delta \\to 0^+$.\n\nWe need to define a few sets. Let $U_\\delta$ be the set of graphons $g$ with $e(g)$ and $t(g)$ strictly within $\\delta$ of $e$ and $t$, i.e. the preimage of an open square of side $2\\delta$ in $(e,t)$-space, and let $F_\\delta$ be the preimage of the closed square. Let $\\tilde U_\\delta$ and $\\tilde F_\\delta$ be the corresponding sets in $\\tilde {{\\mathcal W}}$. Let $|U_\\delta^n|$ and $|F_\\delta^n|$ denote the number of graphs with $n$ vertices whose checkerboard graphons (\\[checkerboard\\]) lie in $U_\\delta$ or $F_\\delta$. The large deviation principle, Theorem 2.3 of [@CV], implies that: $$\\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} \\frac{\\ln|F_\\delta^n|}{n^2} \\le -\\inf_{\\tilde g\\in \\tilde F_\\delta} I(\\tilde g),$$ which also equals $-\\inf_{g \\in F_\\delta} I(g)$, and that $$\\liminf_{n \\to \\infty} \\frac{\\ln|U_\\delta^n|}{n^2} \\ge -\\inf_{\\tilde g \\in \\tilde U_\\delta} I(\\tilde g),$$ which also equals $-\\inf_{g \\in U_\\delta} I(g)$. This yields a chain of inequalities $$-\\inf_{U_\\delta} I(g) \\le \\liminf \\frac{\\ln|U^n_\\delta|}{n^2} \\le \\limsup \\frac{\\ln|U^n_\\delta|}{n^2} \\le \n\\limsup \\frac{\\ln|F_\\delta^n|}{n^2} \\le - \\inf_{F_\\delta} I(g) \\le -\n\\inf_{U_{\\delta+\\delta^2}} I(g)$$ As $\\delta \\to 0^+$, the limits of $-\\inf_{U_\\delta} I(g)$ and $-\\inf_{U_{\\delta+\\delta^2}} I(g)$ are the same, and everything in between is trapped.\n\nSo far we have proven that $$s_{e,t} = -\\lim_{\\delta \\to 0^+}\n\\inf_{U_\\delta} I(g).$$ Next we must show that the right hand side is equal to $- \\min_{F_0} I(g)$. By definition, we can find a sequence of reduced graphons $\\tilde g_\\delta \\in \\tilde U_\\delta$ such that $\\lim_{\\delta \\to 0} I(\\tilde g_\\delta) = \\lim \\inf_{U_\\delta}\nI(g)$. Since $\\tilde W$ is compact, these reduced graphons converge to a reduced graphon $\\tilde g_0$, represented by a graphon $g_0 \\in\nF_0$. Since $I$ is lower-semicontinuous [@CV], $I(g_0) \\le \\lim\nI(g_\\delta)$, so $\\min_{F_0} I(g) \\le \\lim \\inf_{U_\\delta} I(g)$. (We write $\\min$ rather than $\\inf$ since $\\tilde F_0$ is compact.) However, $\\min_{F_0} I(g)$ is at least as big as $\\inf_{U_\\delta}\nI(g)$, since $F_0 \\subset U_\\delta$. Thus $\\min_{F_0} I(g) =\n\\lim_{\\delta \\to 0} \\inf_{U_\\delta} I(g)$.\n\nMinimizing the rate function on the boundary\n============================================\n\n&gt;From now on we will work exclusively with graphons rather than with graphs. From Theorem \\[thm1\\], all questions boil down to \u201cminimize the rate function over such-and-such region\u201d. The first region we study is the lower boundary of $(e,t)$-space, beginning with the first (flat) scallop:\n\n\\[flat\\] If $e \\le 1/2$ and $t=0$, then $\\min_{F_0}\n  I(g) = I_0(2e)/2$, and this minimum is achieved at the graphon $$\\label{2fold} g_0(x,y) = \\begin{cases}2e &\\hbox{if }x<\\frac{1}{2} < y \\hbox{  or } y<\\frac{1}{2}<x; \\cr 0 & \\hbox{otherwise.}\\end{cases}$$ Furthermore, any other minimizer is equivalent to $g_0$, corresponding to the same reduced graphon.\n\nSince $t(g)$ is identically zero, the measure of the set $\\{(x,y) \\in [0,1]^2 | g(x,y) =0\\}$ is at least 1/2. Otherwise, the graphon $\\bar g(x,y) = \\begin{cases}1 & \\hbox{if } g(x,y)>0; \\cr\n    0& \\hbox{otherwise,}\\end{cases}$ would have no triangles and would have edge density greater than 1/2, which is impossible. So we restrict attention to graphons that are zero on a set of measure at least 1/2 and have edge density $e$. From the convexity of $I_0$, we know that the graphon minimizing $I$ must be zero on a set of measure 1/2 and must be constant on the rest. Thus $g_0$ is a minimizer, and $\\min_{F_0}I(g) = I(g_0) = \nI_0(2e)/2$.\n\nNow suppose that $g$ is another minimizer. Since $g$ is zero on a set of measure 1/2 and is $2e$ on a set of measure 1/2, $\\bar g$ is 1 on a set of measure 1/2, and so describes a graphon with edge density 1/2 and no triangles. This means that $\\bar g$ describes a complete bipartite graph with the two parts having the same measure. That is, $\\bar g$ is equivalent to the graphon that equals 1 if $x<\\frac{1}{2}<y$ or $y< \\frac{1}{2} < x$ and is zero everywhere else. But then $g=2e\\bar g$ is equivalent to $g_0$.\n\nThe situation on the curved scallops is slightly more complicated. Pick an integer $\\ell>1$. (The case $\\ell=1$ just gives us our first scallop.) If $e\n\\in \\left[1-\\frac{1}{\\ell}, 1-\\frac{1}{\\ell+1}\\right ]$, then any graph $G$ with edge density $e$ and the minimum number of triangles has to take the following form (see [@PR] for the history). Let $$c = \\frac{\\ell + \\sqrt{\\ell(\\ell-e(\\ell+1))}}{\\ell(\\ell+1)}.$$ There is a partition of $\\{1,\\ldots,n\\}$ into $\\ell$ pieces, the first $\\ell-1$ of size $\\lfloor cn\\rfloor$ and the last of size between $\\lfloor cn\\rfloor$ and $2\\lfloor cn\\rfloor$, such that $G$ is the complete $\\ell$-partite graph on these pieces, plus a number of additional edges within the last piece. ($\\lfloor y\\rfloor$ denotes the largest integer greater than or equal to $y$.) These additional edges can take any form, as long as there are no triangles within the last piece.\n\nThis means that, after possibly renumbering the vertices, the graphon for such a graph can be written as an uneven $\\ell \\times \\ell$ checkerboard obtained from cutting the unit interval into pieces $V_k=[(k-1)c,kc]$ for $k<\\ell$ and $V_\\ell=[(\\ell-1)c, 1]$, with the checkerboard being 1 outside the main diagonal, 0 on the main diagonal except the upper right corner, and corresponding to a zero-triangle graph in the upper right corner.\n\nLimits of such graphons in the metric must take the form $$g(x,y) = \\begin{cases} 1 & x< kc < y \\hbox{ or } y<kc < x \\hbox{ for an integer }k<\\ell; \\cr \n0 & (k-1) c < x,y < kc \\hbox{ for some integer }k<\\ell; \\cr\n\\hbox{unspecified} & x,y > (\\ell-1)c, \\end{cases}$$ with $$\\iiint \\limits_{[(\\ell-1)c,1]^3} g(x,y) g(y,z) g(z,x) \\, dx\\, dy \\, dz = 0,$$ and with $\\iint\\limits_{[0,1]^2} g(x,y) \\, dx \\, dy = e$. Minimizing $I(g)$ on such graphons is easy, since all but the upper right corner of the graphon is fixed. Applying Theorem \\[flat\\] to that corner, we get\n\n\\[scallop\\] If $e>1/2$ and $t$ is the smallest value possible, then the minimum of $I(g)$ on $F_0$ is achieved by the graphon $$g_0(x,y) = \\begin{cases} 1 & x< kc < y \\hbox{ or } y<kc < x \\hbox{ for an integer }k<\\ell; \\cr \n  p & (\\ell-1)c < x < [1+(\\ell-1)c]/2 < y \\hbox{ or } (\\ell-1)c < y < [1+\n  (\\ell-1)c]/2 < x; \\cr 0 & \\hbox{otherwise,} \\end{cases}$$ where $$p= \\frac{4c(1-\\ell c)}{(1-(\\ell-1)c)^2}$$ is a number chosen to make $\\int\\!\\!\\int_{[0,1]^2} g(x,y) \\; dx\\;dy =\ne$. Furthermore, any other minimizer is equivalent to $g_0$. The minimum value of $I(g)$ is $$I(g_0) = \\frac{(1-(\\ell-1)c)^2}{2}I_0(p).$$\n\nMinimizing near the first scallop\n=================================\n\nNow that we know the minimizer [*at*]{} the (lower) boundary, we perturb it to get a minimizer [*near*]{} the boundary.\n\n\\[near\\] Pick $e<1/2$ and $\\epsilon$ sufficiently small. Then the graphon $$g(x,y) = \\begin{cases} 2e-\\epsilon & x<\\frac{1}{2} < y \\hbox{ or } y<\\frac{1}{2} < x \\cr \\epsilon &\\hbox{otherwise,} \\end{cases}$$ minimizes the rate function to second order in perturbation theory among graphons with $e(g)=e$ and $t(g)=e^3-(e-\\epsilon)^3$. For pointwise small variations $\\delta g$ of $g$, the second variation in $I(g)$ is bounded from below by $\\frac{1}{2}\\iint \\limits_{[0,1]^2}(\\delta g(x,y))^2 \\, dx \\, dy$.\n\nWe first consider the first variation in $I(g)$ for general graphons and derive the Euler-Lagrange equations. It is easy to check that our specific $g$ satisfies these equations. We then consider the second variation in $I(g)$. Note that the function $I_0$ satisfies $$I_0'(u) = \\frac{1}{2} [\\ln(u) - \\ln(1-u)], \\qquad I_0''(u) = \\frac{1}{2}\n\\left [ \\frac{1}{u} + \\frac{1}{1-u}\\right ]\\ge 2.$$\n\nTo find the Euler-Lagrange equations with the constraints that $(e(g), t(g))$ are equal to fixed values $(e_0,t_0)$, we use Lagrange multipliers and vary the function $I(g) + \\lambda_1 (e(g)-e_0) + \\lambda_2 (t(g)-t_0)$. To first order, the variation with respect to $g$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\delta I(g) &=& \\int_0^1\\!\\!\\! \\int_0^1 I_0'(g(x,y)) \\delta g(x,y) \\, dx \\, dy\n+ \\lambda_1 \\int_0^1\\!\\!\\!\\int_0^1 \\delta g(x,y) \\, dx \\, dy \\\\\n&& + 3 \\lambda_2\\int_0^1\\!\\!\\!\\int_0^1\nh(x,y) \\delta g(x,y) \\, dx \\, dy,\\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the auxiliary function $$h(x,y) = \\int_0^1 \\! g(x,z) g(y,z) \\, dz.$$ Setting $ \\delta I(g)$ equal to zero, we get $$\\label{ELeq} I_0'(g(x,y)) = - \\lambda_1 - 3\\lambda_2 h(x,y).$$ Our particular $g(x,y)$ satisfies this equation with $$\\label{lambda2} 3 \\lambda_2 = \\frac{I_0'(2e-\\epsilon)-I_0'(\\epsilon)}{2(e-\\epsilon)^2}.$$\n\nNext we expand $\\delta t$ and $\\delta I$ to second order in $\\delta g$, ignoring $O((\\delta g)^3)$ terms. Since $$\\delta t = 3\\iint h(x,y) \\delta g(x,y) dx \\, dy + 3 \\iiint\ng(x,y) \\delta g(x,z) \\delta g(y,z) dx \\, dy \\, dz + O((\\delta g)^3),$$ and since we are holding $e(g)$ and $t(g)$ fixed, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\delta I =&& \n\\iint I_0'(g(x,y)) \\delta g(x,y)  dx \\, dy \\cr &&+ \\frac{1}{2}\\iint\nI_0''(g(x,y)) (\\delta g(x,y))^2  dx\\, dy \\cr\n=&& \\iint (-\\lambda_1 -3\\lambda_2 h(x,y)) \\delta g(x,y)  dx \\, dy \\cr && + \n\\frac{1}{2}\\iint\nI_0''(g(x,y)) (\\delta g(x,y))^2 dx \\, dy \\cr\n=&& -\\lambda_1 \\delta e - \\lambda_2 \\delta t + 3 \\lambda_2 \\iiint\ng(x,y) \\delta g(x,z) \\delta g(y,z) \\,dx\\, dy\\, dz  \\cr && + \\frac{1}{2}\\iint\nI_0''(g(x,y)) (\\delta g(x,y))^2 \\, dx\\, dy \\cr \n=&& 3 \\lambda_2\n\\iiint g(x,y) \\delta g(x,z) \\delta g(y,z) dx \\,dy \\,dz \\cr &&+ \\frac{1}{4}\n\\iint I_0''(g(x,y)) \\delta g(x,y)^2 dx \\,dy + \\frac{1}{4}\n\\iint I_0''(g(x,y)) \\delta g(x,y)^2 dx \\,dy.\\end{aligned}$$ We have split the $\\iint I'' \\delta g^2$ term into two pieces, as we will be applying different estimates to each piece.\n\nSince $h(x,y)$ and $I''(g)$ are piecewise constant, all of our integrals break down into integrals over different quadrants. Let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be the following subsets of $[0,1]^2$: $$R_1 = \\{x,y < 1/2\\} \\cup \\{x,y > 1/2\\}, \\qquad \nR_2 = \\{x<1/2<y\\} \\cup \\{y < 1/2 < x\\}.$$ For each $z$, we define the functions $f_1(z) = \\int_0^{1/2} \\delta g(x,z) dx$ and $f_2(z) = \\int_{1/2}^1 \\delta g(x,z) dx$. The second variation in $I$ is then $$\\begin{aligned}\n &&  \\frac{1}{4} \\iint \\limits_{[0,1]^2} I_0''(g) \\delta g(x,y)^2 dx\\,dy   \n+ \\frac{I_0''(\\epsilon)}{4}\\iint \\limits_{R_1} \\delta g(x,y)^2\ndx \\, dy + \\frac{I_0''(2e-\\epsilon)}{4} \\iint \\limits_{R_2} \\delta g(x,y)^2 dx \\, dy \\cr\n&+&  3 \\lambda_2  \\int_0^1 dz \\left [\n\\epsilon \\iint \\limits_{R_1}  \\delta g(x,z) \\delta g(y,z) dx \\, dy\n +  (2e-\\epsilon) \\iint \\limits_{R_2} \\delta g(x,z) \n\\delta g(y,z) dx \\, dy \\right ] \\cr\n&=& \\frac{1}{4} \\iint \\limits_{[0,1]^2} I_0''(g(x,y)) \\delta g(x,y)^2 dx \\, dy \n+ \\frac{I_0''(\\epsilon)}{4}\\iint \\limits_{R_1} \\delta g(x,z)^2\ndx \\, dz  + \\frac{I_0''(2e-\\epsilon)}{4} \\iint\\limits_{R_2} \\delta g(x,z)^2 dx \\, dz  \\cr \n&& \\qquad \\qquad +  3 \\lambda_2 \\int_0^1 \\epsilon \\left [f_1(z)^2\n+ f_2(z)^2)\\right ] + 2(2e-\\epsilon ) f_1(z) f_2(z)\\,   dz \\end{aligned}$$\n\nNote that by Cauchy-Schwarz, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_0^{1/2} (\\delta g(x,z))^2 dx & \\ge & 2 \\left ( \\int_0^{1/2}\n\\delta g(x,z) dx\\right)^2 = 2 f_1(z)^2 \\\\\n\\int_{1/2}^1 (\\delta g(x,z))^2 dx & \\ge & 2 \\left ( \\int_{1/2}^1\n\\delta g(x,z) dx\\right)^2 = 2 f_2(z)^2. \\end{aligned}$$ Since $I_0''(\\epsilon)$ and $I_0''(2e-\\epsilon)$ are positive, $\\delta I$ is bounded from below by $$\\begin{aligned}\n &&  \\frac{1}{4} \\iint \\limits_{[0,1]^2} I_0''(g(x,y)) \\delta g(x,y)^2 dx \\, dy \n+\\frac{ I''(\\epsilon)}{2}\\left [\\int_0^{1/2} f_1(z)^2 dz\n+ \\int_{1/2}^1 f_2(z)^2 dz \\right ] \\cr \n&+& \\frac{I_0''(2e-\\epsilon)}{2} \\left [ \\int_0^{1/2}f_2(z)^2 dz + \n\\int_{1/2}^1 f_1(z)^2 dz \\right ]  \\cr \n&+& 3\\lambda_2 \\int_0^1 dz \\left [\\epsilon(f_1(z)^2 + f_2(z)^2) \n+ 2(2e-\\epsilon)f_1(z)f_2(z) \\right ] \\end{aligned}$$\n\nCollecting terms and applying equation (\\[lambda2\\]), this bound becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\frac{1}{4} \\iint \\limits_{[0,1]^2} I_0''(g(x,y)) \\delta g(x,y)^2 dx \\, dy &+&  \\int_0^{1/2} \\!\\!dz [c_1 f_1(z)^2 + c_2 f_2(z)^2 + 2 c_3 f_1(z)f_2(z)] \\cr \n&+& \\int_{1/2}^1 \\!\\!dz [c_1 f_2(z)^2 + c_2 f_1(z)^2 + 2 c_3 f_1(z)f_2(z)], \\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\nc_1 &=& \\frac{I_0''(\\epsilon)}{2} + \\frac{\\epsilon (I_0'(2e-\\epsilon)-I_0'(\\epsilon))}\n{2(e-\\epsilon)^2} \\\\\nc_2 &=& \\frac{I_0''(2e-\\epsilon)}{2} + \\frac{\\epsilon (I_0'(2e-\\epsilon)-I_0'(\\epsilon))}\n{2(e-\\epsilon)^2} \\\\\nc_3 &=& \\frac{(2e-\\epsilon)(I_0'(2e-\\epsilon)-I_0'(\\epsilon))}{2(e-\\epsilon)^2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Note that all coefficients are positive, and that $c_2>1$. As $\\epsilon \\to 0$, $c_1$ goes to $+\\infty$ as $1/\\epsilon$, while $c_3$ only diverges as $-\\ln(\\epsilon)$. Since $c_1 c_2 > c_3^2$ for small $\\epsilon$, the integrand for each $z$ is positive semi-definite, so the integral over $z$ is non-negative, and we obtain $$\\delta I \\ge \\frac{1}{4} \\iint I_0''(g) \\delta g^2 \\ge \\frac{1}{2} \n\\iint \\delta g(x,y)^2,$$ where we used the fact that $I_0''(u) \\ge 2$ for all $u$.\n\nAny global minimizer must be $O(\\epsilon)$ close to $g_0$, and hence $O(\\epsilon)$ close to our specified perturbative minimizer. This means that the only way for them to differ is through a complicated bifurcation of minimizers at $g_0$, despite the uniform bounds on $\\delta I$ as we approach the boundary. The difference between these hypothetical minimizers and $g_0$ would not be pointwise small, but would merely be small in an $L^1$ sense.\n\nFor instance, consider graphons of the form $$g(x,y) = \\begin{cases} p & x<c<y \\hbox{ or } y<c<x; \\cr \\alpha & x,y < c; \\cr \\beta & x,y > c, \\end{cases}$$ where $c$ is a parameter that we will vary and $p$, $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ are constants that depend on $c$. For each $c$ sufficiently close to $1/2$, it is possible to find a graphon of this form such that $\\iiint g(x,y) g(y,z) g(x,z) dx \\, dy \\, dz = t$ and $\\iint g(x,y) dx\\, dy =e$, and such that the Euler-Lagrange equations (\\[ELeq\\]) are satisifed. Call this graphon $g_c(x,y)$. A lengthly calculation shows that $$\\left . \\frac{\\partial^2 I(g_c)}{\\partial c^2} \\right |_{c=1/2} \\ge 16e^2$$ for small $t$, indicating that (nearly) bipartite graphs with pieces of unequal size have a higher rate function than $g$. This provides strong evidence that our perturbative solution is in fact a global minimizer for sufficiently small $t$.\n\n\\[cor1\\] Assuming our perturbative solution is the global optimizer, there is a phase transition near the boundary point $(1/2,0)$ between the first and second scallop.\n\nOur perturbative solution yields a formula for the entropy:\n\n$$\\label{entropy} s_{e,t} = -\\frac{1}{2} [I_0(\\epsilon)\n  + I_0(2e-\\epsilon)].$$\n\nThis formula for the entropy cannot be extended analytically beyond $e=(1+\\epsilon)/2$, as $\\partial^2 s/\\partial\n  e^2$ diverges as $e \\to (1+\\epsilon)/2$. However, $e=(1+\n  \\epsilon)/2$ corresponds to $t= (\\epsilon^3 + 3\\epsilon)/4$, or, using the more basic variable $e$,\n\n$$t= [(2e-1)^3+3(2e-1)]/4,$$\n\nwhich is in the interior of $(e,t)$ space. (Since the graphon $g(x,y)$ is nowhere zero, it differs in form from the graphons describing graphs with minimal $t$.) Thus $s_{e,t}$ must fail to be analytic in some neighborhood of the first scallop.\n\nOf course there must also be a phase transition, presumably from this bipartite phase to a homogeneous phase, if one fixes $e$ and raises $t$, which we see as follows.\n\n\\[cor2\\] Assuming our perturbative solution is the global optimizer, there is a phase transition as one raises $t$, for any fixed $0< e < 1/2$.\n\nRecall from Corollary \\[cor1\\] the connection between $t$ and $\\epsilon$:\n\n$$t= \\epsilon^3 - (e-\\epsilon)^3.$$\n\nNote that $t$ is an increasing function of $\\epsilon$ and reaches the value $2e^3$ when $\\epsilon = 2e$. From equation (\\[entropy\\]) for the entropy we see that it cannot be extended analytically to $t >\n2e^3$, yet for $e< 1/2$ we have $2e^3< e^2< e^{3/2}$ so $(e,t)$ is in the interior of the phase space (Figure 1).\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nOur goal was to analyze possible phase transitions between multipartite phases of complex networks, analogous to solid/solid transitions in materials. To this end we adapted the Strauss model [@St], defined in the grand canonical ensemble, to a microcanonical ensemble. It is appropriate at this point to review the \u2018equivalence of ensembles\u2019 in statistical physics.\n\nIn thermodynamics the concavity of the entropy $S(E,N,V)$, as a function of internal energy $E$, particle number (or mass) $N$ and volume $V$, and the interpretation of equilibrium states as states maximizing the entropy, are both fundamental; see for instance [@Ca; @Ma]. Lagrange multipliers can be used to convert this optimization criterion of the entropy to an equivalent optimization criterion of the free energy, where the free energy is the Legendre transform of the entropy [@Do; @Ca; @Ma]. It is important that the Legendre transform between the entropy and free energy be invertible so the two optimization schemes are equivalent, and this follows from the concavity of the entropy. (See Section 26 of [@Ro] for the mathematics of the Legendre tranform between convex functions.)\n\nStatistical mechanics supplies a model for thermodynamic states, as probability distributions on mechanical multiparticle states. From a given short range particle interaction one can then (in principle) compute the internal energy $E$ and entropy $S$, and prove the above two features of the entropy: its concavity and its optimization role for equilibrium states. To do this one uses the basic Boltzmann/Gibbs ansatz: that the entropy $S(E,N,V)$ is proportional to $$-\\sum_j\\rho_j\\ln(\\rho_j)$$ where $\\rho_j$ is the probability of multiparticle state $j$, and the equilibrium state is that probability distribution $\\{\\rho_j\\}$ on the set $\\Xi(E,N,V)$, of multiparticle states of energy $E$ and particle number $N$ in volume $V$, which maximizes the entropy [@R1; @R2; @Ge; @Wi; @Ma]. (Note that in taking an infinite volume limit, which we must do to obtain equivalence of ensembles, one can divide the entropy\u2019s variables by volume, and consider the entropy density as a function of particle and energy density).\n\nThe equivalence of ensembles in statistical mechanics is basically a strenghening of the equivalence in thermodynamics between entropy $s_{e,t}$ and free energy $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$, corresponding to Lagrange multipliers $\\beta_1$ and $\\beta_2$, which follows from the concavity of the entropy. With the modeling of the thermodynamic states this now implies a bijection $(e,t)\\longleftrightarrow\n(\\beta_1,\\beta_2)$ such that $s_{e,t}$ and $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$ have the same optimizing states, at least off some manageable sets of parameter pairs corresponding to \u2018phase coexistence\u2019 where the bijection can degenerate to a many-to-one map [@Ge].\n\nIn exponential random graph models, which are mean field rather than short range, the entropy need not be concave [@TET] and indeed this fails in an obvious way for the specific model we are analyzing, the Strauss model, since even the domain $R$ of the entropy is not convex (see Figure 1). Therefore in the infinite node limit of the model the free energy density $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$, need not be equivalent to the entropy density $s_{e,t}$; $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$ can be obtained from $s_{e,t}$ by Legendre transform, but it may not be possible to recover $s_{e,t}$ from $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$. Inequivalence can result from the existence of graphons maximizing $s_{e,t}$ for some $(e,t)$ which are not maximizers of $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$ for any $(\\beta_1,\\beta_2)$. Specific instances of such loss of information in $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$ are shown in a future paper [@RS], but one consequence can already be seen in the transitions, studied previously [@PN; @CD; @RY] in the grand canonical ensemble, between independent-edge graphs across a phase transition curve in the phase space; see Figure 2 for the Strauss model. Such \u2018free particle\u2019 graphs, with only edge density $e$ as a variable, optimize $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$ for $(\\beta_1,\\beta_2)$ throughout the upper half of the grand canonical phase space, so $e$ is a function of $(\\beta_1,\\beta_2)$ off the transition curve there; see [@RY] for details. These graphs all lie on the curve $t=e^3$ in Figure 1, not a 2-dimensional region in that microcanonical phase space, making it difficult to use singularities of the free energy $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$ to imply singularities of the entropy $s_{e,t}$. For this reason we have focused here on phase transitions in the lower region of the microcanonical phase space, Figure 1.\n\n.4truein ![The curve of all singularities of $\\psi_{\\beta_1,\\beta_2}$ for $\\beta_2>-1/2$[]{data-label=\"trans\"}](transition.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"3in\"}\n\nWe have shown that our (, bipartite) graphons $g$ of Theorem \\[near\\] maximize the entropy density at least to second order in perturbation theory, among graphons with a limited range of edge and triangle densities. Assuming the $g$ are actually global maximizers we then proved the entropy density would have to lose analyticity as the edge density of the graphon approaches the tripartite regime. We also show that the entropy density must suffer a phase transition as the triangle density is raised sufficiently high, presumably from the structured bipartite phase to a homogeneous phase of higher triangle density.\n\nWe expect that a more complicated analysis could produce appropriate graphons $g^{(k)},\\ k\\ge 1$, near each of the higher edge density (multipartite) graphons of minimial triangle density, with a transition near each scallop intersection. Intuitively this suggests a mechanism whereby as edge density is increased, near the minimum triangle density graphon, the system progressively transitions through finer and finer structure; for high edge density most graphs would consist of many interacting \u2018parts\u2019.\n\nOur results on phase transitions require that the graphons of Theorem \\[near\\] be in fact global, not just local, maximizers of the entropy density. In a future paper [@RS] we use a symmetry to prove that these graphons are indeed the unique global maximizers at least for triangle density in the range $0\\le t\\le 1/8$ and edge density $e=1/2$, and we can then see a transition on this curve. However we still cannot prove the graphons are the global optimizers of entropy density for $(e,t)$ in any two-dimensional region, as is needed to fully justify the notion of a structured phase. (See [@AR] for a variant of this approach.)\n\nIn conclusion we emphasize that our key tool was Theorem \\[thm1\\], an optimization formula for the asymptotic entropy density, and made essential use of the graph limit formalism. The graphon formalism is a powerful tool for dealing with the infinite size limit in mean field models, and we have used it to make some progress on understanding the structure of asymptotically large graphs near the extreme of low triangle density.\n\n[**Acknowledgements:**]{} We gratefully acknowledge useful discussions with Francesco Maggi and Peter Winkler.\n\n[BCLSV]{}\n\nD. Aristoff and C. Radin, Emergent structures in large networks, J. Appl. Probab. (to appear), arXiv:1110.1912\n\n, Moments of two-variable functions and the uniqueness of graph limits, Geom. Funct. Anal. 19 (2010) 1597-1619.\n\n, Convergent graph sequences I: subgraph frequencies, metric properties, and testing, [ Adv. Math.]{} [ 219]{} (2008) 1801-1851.\n\nH.B. Callen, [Thermodynamics]{}, John Wiley, New York, 1960.\n\nS. Chatterjee, and P. Diaconis, Estimating and understanding exponential random graph models, arXiv: 1102.2650v3.\n\nS. Chatterjee and S.R.S. Varadhan, The large deviation principle for the Erd\u0151s-R\u00e9nyi random graph, Eur. J. Comb. 32 (2011) 1000-1017\n\nT.C. Dorlas, Statistical Mechanics: Fundamentals and Model Solutions, Institute of Physics Publishing, London, 1999.\n\nH-O. Georgii, The equivalence of ensembles for classical systems of particles, J. Stat. Phys. 80 (1995) 1341-1378.\n\nL. Lov\u00e1sz, Large networks and graph limits, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 2012.\n\n, Limits of dense graph sequences, [ J. Combin. Theory Ser. B]{} [ 96]{} (2006) 933-957.\n\n, Szemer\u00e9di\u2019s lemma for the analyst, [ GAFA]{} [ 17]{} (2007) 252-270.\n\n, Finitely forcible graphons, [ J. Combin. Theory Ser. B]{} [101]{} (2011) 269-301.\n\nS.-K. Ma, [Statistical Mechanics]{}, World Scientific, Singapore, 1985.\n\nM.E.J. Newman, Networks: an Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2010.\n\nJ. Park and M.E.J. Newman, Solution for the properties of a clustered network, Phys. Rev. E 72 (2005) 026136.\n\nO. Pikhurko and A. Razborov, Asymptotic structure of graphs with the minimum number of triangles, arXiv:1203.4393\n\nD. Ruelle, [*Statistical Mechanics; Rigorous Results*]{}, Benjamin, New York, 1969.\n\nD. Ruelle, [*Thermodynamic Formalism*]{}, Addison-Wesley, New York, 1978.\n\nR.T. Rockafellar, Convex Analysis, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1970.\n\nC. Radin and L. Sadun, Singularities in the entropy of asymptotically large simple graphs, arXiv:1302:3531\n\nC. Radin and M. Yin, Phase transitions in exponential random graphs, Ann. Appl. Probab. (to appear), arXiv:1108.0649.\n\nD. Strauss, On a general class of models for interaction, SIAM Rev. 28 (1986) 513-527.\n\nH. Touchette, R.S. Ellis and B. Turkington, Physica A 340 (2004) 138-146.\n\nA.S. Wightman, Convexity and the notion of equilibrium state in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, in R. Israel, [Convexity in the Theory of Lattice Gases]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979, pp. ix-lxxv.\n\n[^1]: This work was partially supported by NSF grants DMS-1208941 and DMS-1101326\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Facial landmark detection has been studied over decades. Numerous neural network (NN)-based approaches have been proposed for detecting landmarks, especially the convolutional neural network (CNN)-based approaches. In general, CNN-based approaches can be divided into regression and heatmap approaches. However, no research systematically studies the characteristics of different approaches. In this paper, we investigate both CNN-based approaches, generalize their advantages and disadvantages, and introduce a variation of the heatmap approach, a pixel-wise classification (PWC) model. To the best of our knowledge, using the PWC model to detect facial landmarks have not been comprehensively studied. We further design a hybrid loss function and a discrimination network for strengthening the landmarks\u2019 interrelationship implied in the PWC model to improve the detection accuracy without modifying the original model architecture. Six common facial landmark datasets, AFW, Helen, LFPW, 300-W, IBUG, and COFW are adopted to train or evaluate our model. A comprehensive evaluation is conducted and the result shows that the proposed model outperforms other models in all tested datasets.'\nauthor:\n- 'Chih-Fan Hsu$^{12}$, Chia-Ching Lin$^{12}$, Ting-Yang Hung$^3$, Chin-Laung Lei$^2$, and Kuan-Ta Chen$^1$'\nbibliography:\n- 'refs.bib'\ntitle: 'A Detailed Look At CNN-based Approaches In Facial Landmark Detection'\n---\n\n\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We establish the analogue of the Friedlander-Mazur conjecture for Teh\u2019s reduced Lawson homology groups of real varieties, which says that the reduced Lawson homology of a real quasi-projective variety $X$ vanishes in homological degrees larger than the dimension of $X$ in all weights. As an application we obtain a vanishing of homotopy groups of the mod-2 topological groups of averaged cycles and a characterization in a range of indices of the motivic cohomology of a real variety as homotopy groups of the complex of averaged equidimensional cycles. We also establish an equivariant Poincare duality between equivariant Friedlander-Walker real morphic cohomology and dos Santos\u2019 real Lawson homology. We use this together with an equivariant extension of the mod-2 Beilinson-Lichtenbaum conjecture to compute some real Lawson homology groups in terms of Bredon cohomology.'\nauthor:\n- Jeremiah Heller\n- Mircea Voineagu\nbibliography:\n- 'remreal.bib'\ntitle: Vanishing Theorems for Real Algebraic Cycles\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLet $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. The Galois group $G = Gal(\\C/\\R)$ acts on $\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})$, the topological group of $q$-cycles on the complexification. Cycles on the real variety $X$ correspond to cycles on $X_{\\C}$ which are fixed by conjugation. Inside the topological group of $\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}$ of cycles fixed by conjugation is the topological group $\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}$ of averaged cycles which are the cycles of the form $\\alpha + \\overline{\\alpha}$. The space of reduced cycles on $X$ is the quotient topological group $$\\mcal{R}_{q}(X) = \\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}}{\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}}.$$ Homotopy groups of some of the above abelian topological groups are related to classical topological invariants. For example for $X$ a projective real variety we obtain the singular homology groups $\\pi_{*}\\mcal{R}_{0}(X)= H _*(X(\\mathbb{R}),\\mathbb{Z}/2)$ [@Teh:real] and $\\pi_*\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X_{\\C})^{av}= H _*(X_{\\C}(\\mathbb{C})/G,\\mathbb{Z})$ [@LLM:real], as well as Bredon homology $\\pi_{*}\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X) = H_{*,0}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\underline{\\Z})$ [@LF:Gequiv]. Other homotopy groups are related to classical algebraic geometry invariants. For example $\\pi _0(Z _r(X _\\mathbb{C})^G)$ computes the group of algebraic cycles of dimension r on $X$ modulo real algebraic equivalence [@FW:real] and consequently with $\\mathbb{Z}/n$ coefficients equals the Chow group $CH _r(X)\\tensor\\mathbb{Z}/n$ (see Proposition \\[fcoeffagr\\]). However most of these homotopy groups remain a mysterious combination of topological and algebraic information of the real variety $X$.\n\nThese homotopy groups are hard to compute and examples are few. Nonetheless an examination of existing computations shows that these homotopy groups are all zero in large degrees. For example, in ([@Lam:t]) Lam proves that $$\\mcal{R}_{q}(\\mathbb{P}^n _\\mathbb{R})\\simeq \\prod _{i=0}^{n-q}K(\\mathbb{Z}/2,i) .$$ In particular $\\pi _k(\\mcal{R}_{q}(\\mathbb{P}^n _\\mathbb{R}))=0$ for $k>n-q$. Similar vanishing results are seen in the computations of [@LLM:quat] for a real variety $X$ with the property that its complexification is the quaternionic projective space (see Example \\[exR\\]).\n\nIn [@Teh:HT] Teh proves a conditional Harnack-Thom type theorem for the homotopy groups of reduced algebraic cycles on $X$ which holds under the assumption that these homotopy groups are all finitely generated and they are zero in high degrees. In the case of divisors he shows that $$\\pi _k\\mcal{R} _{d-1}(X)=0$$ when $k\\geq 3$ for any smooth projective real variety $X$ of dimension $d$.\n\nThe main theorem of this paper provides this vanishing in general and should be viewed as a massive generalization of both the classical vanishing of singular homology groups of a manifold in degree larger than the manifold and of the vanishing results discussed above.\n\n\\[mth\\] Let $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Then $$\\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}_{q}(X) = 0$$ for $k\\geq \\dim X -q +1$.\n\nIn the case of divisors our result improves the previously known vanishing range. The case of real projective space described above shows that the theorem\u2019s vanishing range is optimal.\n\nThe homotopy groups of reduced algebraic cycles $R _q(X)$ define a homology theory for real quasi-projective varieties $X$ introduced in [@Teh:real] which is defined by $RL _qH _n(X)=\\pi _{n-q}(\\mcal{R}_{q}(X))$ for $n\\geq q$ and called reduced Lawson homology. In this notation our vanishing result reads $RL _qH _n(X)=0$ for any $n>\\dim(X)$. Thus our vanishing result shows that the Friedlander-Mazur conjecture holds for the reduced Lawson homology of real varieties.\n\nThe homotopy groups of $\\mcal{R}_{q}(X)$ fit into a long exact sequence $$\\cdots \\to \\pi_{k+1}\\mcal{R}_{q}(X) \\to \\pi_{k}\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})^{av} \\to L_{q}H\\R_{q-k,q}(X) \\to \\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}_{q}(X) \\to \\cdots$$ where $L_{q}H\\R_{q-k,q}(X) = \\pi_{k}\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}$ is the real Lawson homology introduced by dos Santos in [@DS:real]. As a consequence of Suslin rigidity the homotopy groups of $\\mcal{R}_{q}(X)$ are also related to motivic cohomology of $X$ $$\\cdots  \\to \\pi_{k}z_{equi}(\\A^{q}_{\\C},0)(X_{\\C}\\times \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\C})^{av} \\to H_{\\mcal{M}}^{2q-k}(X; \\Z(q)) \\to \\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}_{q}(X) \\to \\cdots .$$\n\nThus an immediate corollary of the vanishing theorem is an identification of the homotopy groups of the space of averaged cycles and of the complex of averaged equidimensional cycles.\n\nLet $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective real variety. Then for any $k\\geq \\dim X -q+1$ $$L_{q}H\\R_{q-k,q}(X) = \\pi_{k}\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}$$ and $$H_{\\mcal{M}}^{2q-k}(X;\\Z(q)) = \\pi_{k}z_{equi}(\\A^{q}_{\\C},0)(X_{\\C}\\times \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\C})^{av}.$$\n\nTheorem \\[mth\\] also implies that the mod-2 homotopy groups of the topological group of average cycles satisfy an optimal vanishing (see also Example \\[avopt\\]).\n\nLet $X$ be a smooth projective real variety of dimension $d$. Then $$\\pi_{n}\\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}} = 0$$ for $n\\geq 2d-2p+1$.\n\nAn essential ingredient in the proof of our vanishing theorem is the Milnor conjecture proved by Voevodsky in [@Voev:miln]. The Milnor conjecture relates motivic cohomology and etale cohomology while real morphic cohomology naturally compares with Bredon cohomology. We need to know that these cycle maps are suitably related which is done in Theorem \\[cyccomp\\],\n\n\\[dg\\] Let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective real variety. The diagram commutes $$\\xymatrix{\n L^{q}H\\R^{q-k,q}(X;\\Z/2) \\ar[d]_-{\\Phi} && \\ar[ll]_{\\iso}\\H^{2q-k,q}_{\\mcal{M}}(X;\\Z/2)  \\ar[d]^-{cyc}  \\\\\nH^{q-k,q}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\underline{\\Z/2})  \\ar[r] & H_{G}^{2q-k}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\Z/2)\\ar[r] &  H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}),\n}$$ where $H^{p-q,q}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\underline{\\Z/2})$ denotes Bredon cohomology and $H_{G}^{p}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\Z/2)$ denotes Borel cohomology.\n\nThis suggests that there are possible advantages in replacing the map on Chow groups of real cycles into Borel cohomology with the map into Bredon cohomology since in many respects Bredon cohomology behaves better than Borel cohomology. An application of this idea will be given in a forthcoming paper.\n\nTogether with the mod-2 Beilinson-Lichtenbaum conjecture for real and complex varieties (which is a consequence of the Milnor conjecture by [@SV:BK]) we conclude an equivariant Beilinson-Lichtenbaum type theorem for an equivariant extension of Friedlander-Walker\u2019s real morphic cohomology groups (see Definition \\[emco\\]).\n\nLet $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective real variety and $k>0$. The cycle map $$\\Phi:L^{q}H\\R^{r,s}(X; \\Z/2^{k}) \\to H^{r,s}(X_{\\C}(\\C); \\underline{\\Z/2^{k}})$$ is an isomorphism if $r\\leq 0$ (and $s\\leq q$) and an injection if $r=1$ (and $s\\leq q$).\n\nUsing Friedlander-Voevodsky duality for bivariant cycle theory we show in Corollary \\[PD\\] that the equivariant morphic cohomology and real Lawson homology groups are isomorphic through a Poincare duality. As a consequence the equivariant Beilinson-Lichtenbaum says that in a range we may compute the mod-2 real Lawson homology groups in terms of mod-2 Bredon cohomology. This allows a computation for curves with integral coefficients.\n\nLet $X$ be a smooth real curve. Then $$L^{q}H\\R^{r,s}(X; \\Z) \\to H^{r,s}(X_{\\C}(\\C); \\underline{\\Z})$$ is an isomorphism for any $q\\geq 0$, $r\\leq q$, and $s\\leq q$.\n\nThe space of reduced cocycles on $X$, related via Poincare duality with the space of reduced cycles, is defined as $$\\mcal{R}^{q}(X)=\\frac{\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}}{\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}}$$ where $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})$ is the space of algebraic cocycles on $X_{\\C}$ and $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}$ agrees with the space of real cocycles introduced by Friedlander-Walker in [@FW:real] (see Proposition \\[nqp\\]). There is a natural comparison map $$\\label{cmap}\n\\mcal{R}^{q}(X) \\to \\map{X(\\R)}{\\mcal{R}_{0}(\\A^{q})}$$ and since $\\mcal{R}_{0}(\\A^{q})=K(\\Z/2,q)$ this provides a natural map $$\\label{tcycm}\ncyc _{k}: \\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}^{q}(X) \\to H^{q-k}_{sing}(X(\\R);\\Z/2)$$ which is the cycle map for reduced morphic cohomology groups defined in [@Teh:real]. Via Poincare duality the vanishing theorem is equivalent to the statement that $cyc_{k}$ is an isomorphism for $k>q$.\n\nVia the Milnor conjecture over $\\C$ and over $\\R$ we can deduce an isomorphism $\\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}^{q}(X)\\to\\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}^{q}_{top}(X)$ for $k\\geq q$. Here $\\mcal{R}^{q}_{top}(X)$ is the group of \u201creduced topological cocycles\u201d. For a precise definition see Section \\[subdual\\], but essentially this is a version of the quotient group $\\map{X_{\\C}(\\C)}{\\mcal{Z}_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}^{G}/\\map{X_{\\C}(\\C)}{\\mcal{Z}_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}^{av}$ which has reasonable homotopical properties (such as fitting into a homotopy fiber sequence involving $\\map{X_{\\C}(\\C)}{\\mcal{Z}_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}^{G}$ and $\\map{X_{\\C}(\\C)}{\\mcal{Z}_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}^{av}$).\n\nThe final ingredient for our vanishing theorem is now provided by Corollary \\[rdual\\] which shows that for $X$ projective, $$\\widetilde{\\Phi}:\\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}^{q}(X)\\rightarrow \\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}^{q} _{top}(X)$$ agrees with the cycle map $\\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}^{q}(X) \\to H^{q-k}_{sing}(X(\\R);\\Z/2)$ for $k\\geq 2$.\n\nHere is a short outline of the paper. In the second section we review the equivariant homotopy used in the paper. The third section is dedicated to introducing the topological spaces of cycles we study and proving some basic properties that we use and for which we don\u2019t find exact references in the literature. In the fourth section we prove a Poincare Duality between equivariant morphic cohomology and real Lawson homology. In the fifth section we discuss the cycle maps from equivariant morphic cohomology and Bredon cohomology and equivariant applications of the Beilinson-Lichtenbaum conjecture. The sixth section is devoted to the proof of our main vanishing Theorem. One of the main technical ingredients of this proof is left for section seven where we reinterpret the cycle map \\[tcycm\\] from reduced Lawson homology groups to the singular homology in a manner needed to prove our vanishing theorem. The paper ends with two appendixes where we prove and recollect a few results on topological monoids used in the paper.\n\nThe authors would like to thank Eric Friedlander, Christian Haesemeyer and Mark Walker for helpful discussions.\n\n0.5cm *Notation:* By a quasi-projective $k$-variety we mean a reduced and separated quasi-projective scheme of finite type over a field $k$. We write $Sch/k$ for the category of quasi-projective $k$-varieties and $Sm/k$ for the subcategory of smooth quasi-projective $k$-varieties. Except in section 2, $G$ always denotes $Gal(\\C/\\R)$ and $\\sigma\\in G$ denotes the nontrivial element.\n\nEquivariant Homotopy and Cohomology\n===================================\n\nWe recall the basic definitions and theorems we need from equivariant homotopy theory. For more details see [@May:equi]. In this paper we will only work with $G=\\Z/2$, but since no simplification results in the basic definitions, we let $G$ denote an arbitrary finite group. The category $\\GTop$ of $G$-spaces consists of compactly generated spaces equipped with a left $G$-action and morphisms are continuous $G$-equivariant maps. If $X$ is a $G$-space and $H\\subseteq G$ is a subgroup write $X^{H}$ for the subspace of all points fixed by $H$. The category $\\GTop_*$ of based $G$-spaces consists of $G$-spaces $X$ together with a $G$-invariant basepoint $x\\in X$ and maps are base-point preserving equivariant maps. A space together with a disjoint, invariant base-point will be denoted $X_{+}$.\n\nEquivariant homotopy theory\n---------------------------\n\nLet $I$ denote the unit interval with trivial $G$-action. A $G$-homotopy between two equivariant maps $f,g:X \\to Y$ is an equivariant map $F:X\\times I \\to Y$ such that $F|_{X\\times\\{0\\}} = f$ and $F|_{X\\times\\{1\\}} = g$. An equivariant map $f:X\\to Y$ is an *equivariant homotopy equivalence* provided there is an equivariant map $g:Y \\to X$ such that both $f\\circ g $ and $g \\circ f$ are $G$-equivalently homotopic to the identity. An equivariant map $f:X\\to Y$ is a *$G$-weak equivalence* provided both $f^{H}:X^{H}\\to Y^{H}$ is a non-equivariant weak equivalence for all subgroups $H\\subseteq G$. Formally inverting the $G$-weak equivalences gives the homotopy category of $G$-spaces. Similarly inverting the based $G$-weak equivalences between based $G$-spaces we obtain the based $G$-homotopy category. Write $[ X,Y]_{G}$ for classes of based maps in the homotopy category of based maps.\n\nA $G$-$CW$ complex $X$ is a topological union $X = \\cup X_{n}$ of $G$-spaces such that $X_{0}$ is a disjoint union of orbits $G/H$ and $X_{n}$ is obtained from $X_{n-1}$ by attaching cells of the form $D^{n}\\times G/H$ via attaching maps $\\sigma:S^{n-1}\\times G/H \\to X_{n-1}$.\n\nThe equivariant Whitehead theorem holds for $G$-$CW$ complexes. That is, if $f:X\\to Y$ is a $G$-equivariant weak equivalence between $G-CW$-complexes then $f$ is a $G$-homotopy equivalence.\n\nA map $A\\to X$ is said to have the *homotopy extension property* with respect to $Z$ if for any equivariant partial homotopy $H:X\\times\\{0\\}\\coprod_{A\\times\\{0\\}}A\\times I \\to Z$ there is an equivariant map $H'$ making the diagram below commute $$\\xymatrix{\nX\\times\\{0\\}\\coprod_{A\\times\\{0\\}}A\\times I \\ar[r]^-{H}\\ar[d] & Z \\\\\nX\\times I \\ar@{-->}[ur]^{\\exists H'} & .\n}$$ An equivariant *cofibration* $A\\hookrightarrow X$ is an equivariant map which has the homotopy extension property with respect to all $Z$ in $\\GTop$. Inclusions of sub-$G$-$CW$complexes $A\\subseteq X$ are equivariant cofibrations.\n\nLet $V$ be a real representation of $G$, write $S^{V}$ for the one-point compactification of $V$. The $V$th homotopy group of a based $G$-space $X$ is $$\\pi_{V} X = [S^{V}, X]_{G} .$$ Note that $S^{V}$ always has at least two fixed points, $0$ and $\\infty$.\n\nWhen $G=\\Z/2$ and $V = \\R^{p,q}$, where $V =\\R^{p+q}$ with $G$ acting trivially on the first $p$-components and on the last $q$-components the $G$ action is multiplication by $-1$ we use the notation $$\\pi_{p,q}X = \\pi_{\\R^{p,q}}X .$$\n\nBorel homology and cohomology\n-----------------------------\n\nThe *Borel-equivariant cohomology* of $X$ with coefficients in an abelian group $A$ is defined to be the ordinary singular cohomology of the homotopy orbit space of $X$: $$H^{p}_{G}(X; A) = H^{p}((X\\times EG)/G ; A).$$ Similarly the *Borel-equivariant homology* is defined to be $$H_{p}^{G}(X; A) = H_{p}((X\\times EG)/G ; A).$$\n\nWhen $X$ has free $G$-action then $ (X\\times EG)/G \\to X/G$ is a homotopy equivalence and therefore when $X$ has free $G$-action $ H^{p}(X/G; A) \\iso H^{p}_{G}(X; A)$ and $H_{p}(X/G; A) \\iso H_{p}^{G}(X; A)$.\n\nMackey functors\n---------------\n\nBredon homology and cohomology take Mackey functors as coefficients. There are several equivalent ways to define a Mackey functor [@May:equi]. Classically for $G$ a finite group one defines a Mackey functor as follows . Let $\\mcal{F}_{G}$ denote the category of finite $G$-sets as objects and with equivariant set maps as morphisms. A *Mackey functor* $\\underline{M}$ consists of a pair of abelian-group valued functors $\\underline{M}=(M^*, M_*)$ on $\\mcal{F}_{G}$, with $M^*$ contravariant and $M_*$ covariant. The functors $M^*$ and $M_*$ satisfy the following requirements.\n\n1.  $M^{*}$,$M_{*}$ take the same value on objects and convert disjoint unions of $G$-sets into products of abelian groups.\n\n2.  When $$\\xymatrix{\n    S \\ar[r]^{\\sigma'}\\ar[d]^{\\beta'} & T \\ar[d]^{\\beta} \\\\\n    U \\ar[r]^{\\sigma}  & V \n    }$$ is a pull-back square of finite $G$-sets then $$\\xymatrix{\n    M(S) \\ar[r]^{M_{*}(\\sigma')} & M(T) \\\\\n    M(U) \\ar[u]^{M^{*}(\\beta')} \\ar[r]^{M_{*}(\\sigma)} & M(V) \\ar[u]^{M^{*}(\\beta)}\n    }$$ is a commutative square of abelian groups.\n\nGiven an abelian group $A$, the *constant Mackey functor* $\\underline{A}$ is the Mackey functor which on objects $\\underline{A}(G/K) = A$ and on a map $f:G/H\\to G/K$, $M^*(f) = id$ and $M_*(f)$ is multiplication by the index $[K:H]$.\n\nBredon homology and cohomology\n------------------------------\n\n*Bredon cohomology (homology)* with coefficients in a Mackey functor $\\underline{M}$ is a cohomology (homology) theory $H^{*}(-;\\underline{M}))$ ($H_{*}(-;\\underline{M})$ graded by $RO(G)$. For $V \\in RO(G)$ there is an equivariant Eilenberg-Maclane space $K(\\underline{M},V)$ which represents the reduced cohomology $\\tilde{H}^{V}(X; \\underline{M})$ for a based $G$-space, $$\\tilde{H}^{V}(X; \\underline{M}) = [X , K(\\underline{M},V)]_{G} .$$\n\nWhen $G=\\Z/2$ then $RO(G) = \\Z\\oplus\\Z$ with generators $\\R^{1,0}$ and $\\R^{0,1}$. We use the convention that $H^{p,q}(X;\\underline{M}) = H^{\\R^{p,q}}(X;\\underline{M})$ (and similarly for homology).\n\nIf $A$ is an abelian group (with trivial $G$-action) then $H^{p,0}(X;\\underline{A}) = H^{p}_{sing}(X/G; A)$. More generally, Borel and Bredon cohomology are related by the natural isomorphism $$H^{p,q}(X\\times EG; \\underline{A}) \\iso H^{p+q}_{G}(X; A(q))$$ where $A(q)$ is $A$ with $\\sigma$ acting by $(-1)^{q}$ (see [@DSLF:quat Proposition 1.15]).\n\nEquivariant Dold-Thom theorem\n-----------------------------\n\nLet $X$ be a compactly generated Hausdorff space. The free abelian group on the points of $X$ is defined to be $ \\mcal{Z}_{0}(X) = [\\coprod_{d}SP^{d}(X)]^{+}$, where $SP^{d}(X)$ is the $d$th symmetric product on $X$ and $(-)^{+}$ denotes group completion of the displayed monoid which is topologized via the quotient topology.\n\nThe degree homomorphism $\\deg:\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X) \\to \\Z$ is defined by $\\deg(\\sum n_{i}x_i) = \\sum n_i$ is a continuous homomorphism. Write $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)_{0}$ for the kernel of this map. Notice that there is an isomorphism of topological groups $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X) \\iso \\mcal{Z}_{0}(X_+)_{0}$.\n\nIf $X$ is a $G$-space then the action on $X$ induces a $G$-action on $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)$ and $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)_{0}$. By [@LF:Gequiv Corollary 2.9] when $X$ is a $G$-$CW$ complex so is $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)$.\n\nThe classical Dold-Thom theorem says that $\\pi_{n}\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)_{0} = \\tilde{H}_{n}(X;\\Z)$ and the equivariant Dold-Thom theorem proved by Lima-Filho [@LF:Gequiv] and dos Santos [@DS:equiDT] says that $$\\pi_{V}\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X)_{0} = \\tilde{H}_{V}(X;\\underline{\\Z}).$$ In particular $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(S^{V})_{0}$ is an Eilenberg-Maclane space $K(\\underline{Z}, V)$.\n\nTopological Spaces of Cycles {#topspcyc}\n============================\n\nGroup completions of monoids\n----------------------------\n\nLet $M$ be a compactly generated Hausdorff topological abelian monoid. The *naive group completion* of $M$ is the quotient of $M\\times M$ by the monoid action of $M$ where $M$ acts by $(a,b) \\mapsto (m+a, m+b)$. Write $M^{+}$ for this abelian group, which is topologized as the quotient of $M\\times M$. Recall that $M$ is said to satisfy the *cancellation property* if $a + m = b+m$ implies that $a = b$ for any $a,b,m\\in M$. When $M$ satisfies cancellation then the naive group completion can be described as $M^{+}= M\\times M/\\sim$, where $(a,b) \\sim (c,d)$ if $a+d = b +c$.\n\nNaive group completion does not generally behave well topologically. For example it may happen that $M^{+}$ is not a Hausdorff topological group nor is it clear how homotopy invariants of $M$ and $M^{+}$ are related. Friedlander-Gabber [@FG:cyc] and Lima-Filho [@Li:completion] have studied conditions under which the naive group completion of a topological monoid is a Hausdorff group and $M\\to M^{+}$ is a homotopy group completion. All of the topological monoids with which we work are tractable monoids in the sense of Friedlander-Gabber (see Appendix \\[tract\\]) and in particular the naive group completion of these groups are homotopy group completions.\n\nOur main objects of interest are the group completions of submonoids of the Chow monoids of effective algebraic cycles on algebraic varieties. Let $k$ be a field of characteristic 0 and $j:Y\\subseteq \\P^n_k$ be a projective $k$-variety. The Chow variety $\\mcal{C}_{q}(Y,j) = \\coprod_{d\\geq 0}\\mcal{C}_{q,d}(Y,j) $ of effective $q$-dimensional cycles on $Y$ is an (infinite, disjoint) union of projective $k$-varieties. See [@F:ac] for details.\n\nCycle-spaces over $\\C$\n----------------------\n\nLet $Z$ be a complex variety. Denote the set of complex points equipped with the analytic topology by $Z(\\C)^{an}$. Since there will be little chance for confusion we will often simply write this space as $Z(\\C)$ with the topology understood. If $j:Y\\subseteq \\P^n_{\\C}$ is a projective variety then $\\mcal{C}_q(Y,j)(\\C)$ is a topological monoid and we will generally omit $j$ from the notation since the homeomorphism type of this space is independent of $j$. The monoid $\\mcal{C}_q(Y)(\\C)^{an}$ is tractable and therefore the naive group completion is a homotopy group completion. Write $$\\mcal{Z}_q(Y) = (\\mcal{C}_q(Y)(\\C))^{+}$$ for the naive group group completion of this monoid. Define the filtration $\\{0\\} \\subseteq\\cdots \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_{q,\\leq d}(Y) \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_{q,\\leq d+1}(Y) \\subseteq \\cdots \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_{q}(Y)$ by $$\\mcal{Z}_{q,\\leq d}(Y) = \\left( \\coprod_{d_1+d_2 \\leq d} \\mcal{C}_{q,d_1}(Y)(\\C)\\times \\mcal{C}_{q,d_2}(Y)(\\C) \\right )/ \\sim \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_{q}(Y).$$ By [@Li:completion] each $\\mcal{Z}_{q,\\leq d}(Y)$ is a closed, compact Hausdorff space and $\\mcal{Z}_{q}(Y)$ has the weak topology with respect to this filtration.\n\nWhen $U$ is quasi-projective with projectivization $U\\subseteq \\overline{U}$ then define $\\mcal{Z}_{q}(U) = \\mcal{Z}_{q}(\\overline{U})/\\mcal{Z}_{q}(U_{\\infty})$ where $U_{\\infty} = \\overline{U}\\backslash U$. The images of $\\mcal{Z}_{q,\\leq k}(\\overline{U})$ in the quotient $\\mcal{Z}_{q}(U)$ give a filtration by compact subspaces (and $\\mcal{Z}_{q}(U)$ has the weak topology with respect to this filtration). This definition is independent of choice of projectivization [@LF:qproj], [@FG:cyc].\n\nCycle-spaces over $\\R$\n----------------------\n\nSuppose that $Z$ is a real variety. Write the set of $\\R$-points equipped with the analytic topology as $Z(\\R)^{an}$ or simply $Z(\\R)$ with the topology understood.\n\nLet $Y$ be a projective real variety. Consider the topological monoid $\\mcal{C}_q(Y)(\\R)$. As explained in the proof of [@FW:real Proposition 8.2] (see Proposition \\[gtract\\]), the topological monoid $\\mcal{C}_q(Y)(\\R)$ is tractable and therefore its naive group completion is a homotopy group completion. Write $$\\mcal{Z}_{q}(Y) = (\\mcal{C}_{q}(Y)(\\R))^{+}$$ for the naive group completion.\n\nSuppose that $U$ is a quasi-projective real variety with projectivization $U\\subseteq \\overline{U}$. Define the topological group of $q$-cycles on the quasi-projective real variety $U$ to be $$\\mcal{Z}_{r}(U) = \\mcal{Z}_{r}(\\overline{U})/\\mcal{Z}_{r}(\\overline{U}\\backslash U).$$\n\nIf $X$ is a real variety and $\\pi: X_{\\C} \\to X$ is its complexification then $G$ acts on $X_{\\C}(\\C)$ and induces a homeomorphism $$X(\\R) \\xrightarrow{\\iso} X_{\\C}(\\C)^G.$$\n\nIn particular if $X$ is a projective real variety then by [@F:ac Proposition 1.1] $\\mcal{C}_q(X_{\\C}) = \\mcal{C}_{r}(X)_{\\C}$ and so we have the isomorphism of topological monoids $$\\mcal{C}_{r}(X)(\\R) \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\mcal{C}_{r}(X_{\\C})(\\C)^{G} .$$\n\nLet $U$ be a quasiprojective real variety. Then $$\\mcal{Z}_{r}(U) \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\mcal{Z}_{r}(U_{\\C})^{G}$$ is an isomorphism of topological abelian groups. In particular the group $\\mcal{Z}_{r}(U)$ is independent of projectivization $U\\subseteq \\overline{U}$.\n\nFor $U$ projective this follows immediately from Proposition \\[appcycagr\\]. The quasi-projective case now follows by a comparison of short exact sequences of topological abelian groups $$\\xymatrix{\n0 \\ar[r] & \\mcal{Z}_{r}(\\overline{U}\\backslash U) \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & \\mcal{Z}_{r}(\\overline{U}) \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & \\mcal{Z}_{r}(U) \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & 0 \\\\\n0 \\ar[r] & \\mcal{Z}_{r}(\\overline{U}_{\\C}\\backslash U_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r] & \\mcal{Z}_{r}(\\overline{U}_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r] & \\mcal{Z}_{r}(U_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r] & 0,\n}$$ where the exactness of the bottom row is a consequence of the Lemma \\[ccom\\].\n\n\\[addqp\\] Let $U$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Since $+:\\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\\C})\\times\\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\\C}) \\to \\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\\C})$ is closed we see by taking $G$-fixed points that $+:\\mcal{Z}_{k}(U) \\times \\mcal{Z}_{k}(U) \\to \\mcal{Z}_{k}(U)$ is a closed map for any real variety $U$.\n\n\\[ccom\\] Let $Y\\subseteq X$ be a closed subvariety of a real projective variety. Then $$\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})^{G} / \\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\\C})^{G} \\xrightarrow{\\iso} (\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})/\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\\C}))^{G}$$ and $$\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})^{av} / \\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\\C})^{av} \\xrightarrow{\\iso} (\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})/\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\\C}))^{av}$$ are isomorphisms of topological groups.\n\nConsider the quotient maps $\\pi: \\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C}) \\to \\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})/\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\\C})$ and $q:\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})^{G}\\to \\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})^{G}/\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\\C})^{G}$. Consider the filtration $\\{(\\pi\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d}\\})^{G}$ of $(\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})/\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\\C}))^{G}$ and the filtration $\\{q(\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})^{G}_{\\leq d})\\}$ of $\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})^{G} / \\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\\C})^{G}$. These spaces have the weak topology given by these filtrations so it is enough to see that $$q (\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d}^{G})\\xrightarrow{} (\\pi\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d})^{G}$$ is a homeomorphism for all $d$.\n\nFirst we show that $\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d}^{G}\\to (\\pi\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d})^{G}$ is surjective. If $[\\eta]\\in (\\pi\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d})^{G}$, we can choose a representative $\\eta= \\sum n_{V} V\\in \\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d}$ such that each $V\\nsubseteq Y_{\\C}$. Since $\\eta -\\overline{\\eta} \\in \\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y_{\\C})$ (and each $\\overline{V} \\nsubseteq Y_{\\C}$) we see that $\\eta = \\overline{\\eta}$ and therefore the map $$\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d}^{G} \\xrightarrow{} (\\pi\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d})^{G}$$ is surjective. The map $$q\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d}^{G}\\xrightarrow{} (\\pi\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d})^{G}$$ is easily seen to be injective and since $\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})_{\\leq d}^{G}$ is compact this map is closed so is a homeomorphism.\n\nThe second statement about the topological group of averaged cycles is proved in a similar fashion.\n\nSpaces of algebraic cocycles\n----------------------------\n\nIn this section we recall the construction of topological monoids of algebraic cocycles [@FL:algco; @F:algco]. Let $X$, $Y$ be quasi-projective real varieties over $k=\\C$ or $\\R$. Write $\\Mor{k}{X}{Y}$ for the set of continuous algebraic maps between $X$ and $Y$. When $X$ is semi-normal then $\\Mor{k}{X}{Y} = \\Hom{}{X}{Y}$. Friedlander-Walker construct \u201canalytic\u201d topologies on $\\Mor{k}{X}{Y}$ in [@FW:funcspc] for $k=\\C$ and in [@FW:real] for $k=\\R$. The set of continuous algebraic maps with this topology will be written $\\Mor{k}{X}{Y}^{an}$. By [@FW:real Lemma 1.2] $\\Mor{\\R}{X}{Y}^{an} = (\\Mor{\\C}{X_{\\C}}{Y_{\\C}}^{an})^{G}.$\n\nWhen $X$,$Y$ are projective real varieties and $W$,$Z$ are projective complex varieties then this topology coincides with the subspace topology induced by the inclusions $$\\Mor{\\C}{W}{Z}  \\subseteq \\map{W(\\C)}{Z(\\C)}$$ and $$\\Mor{\\R}{X}{Y}  \\subseteq \\map{X_{\\C}(\\C)}{Y_{\\C}(\\C)}^{G},$$ where $\\map{-}{-}$ denotes the space of continuous maps is with compact-open topology. When the domain is only quasi-projective then the analytic topology on the algebraic mapping spaces is no longer the compact-open topology but rather the topology of convergence with bounded degree (see [@FL:dual Appendix A]).\n\nLet $W$ be a quasi-projective complex variety and $Z$ be a projective complex variety. Write $d= \\dim W$. Let $\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$ denote the monoid of effective cycles on $W\\times Z$ equidimensional or relative dimension $r$ on $W$. This is made into a topological monoid via the subspace topology induced by the inclusion $$\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W) \\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{d+r}(W \\times Z) \\eqdef \\frac{\\mcal{C}_{d+r}(\\overline{W}\\times Z)}{\\mcal{C}_{d+r}(W_{\\infty}\\times Z)}$$ where $W\\subseteq \\overline{W}$ a projective closure with closed complement $W_{\\infty} = \\overline{W}\\backslash W$. This topology may also be described as follows. Let $$\\mcal{E}_{r}(Z)(W) \\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{r+d}(\\overline{W}\\times Z)$$ denote the constructable submonoid consisting of effective cycles whose restriction to $W\\times Z$ is equidimensional of relative dimension $r$ over $W$. By [@F:algco Proposition 1.8] the topology on $\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$ (given by the subspace topology above) coincides with the quotient topology given by $$\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W) = \\frac{\\mcal{E}_{r}(Z)(W)}{\\mcal{C}_{r+d}(W_{\\infty}\\times Z)}.$$\n\nDefine the topological group of equidimensional cycles of relative dimension r over $W$ as $\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z)(W) = [\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)]^{+}$ (where as usual the naive group completion is given the quotient topology). Since $\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$ is a tractable monoid the naive group completion is a homotopy group completion.\n\nIn [@F:ac] it is shown that a morphism of varieties $f:W\\to \\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)$ has an associated graph in $\\mcal{Z}_{f} \\in \\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$. By [@FL:dual Proposition A.1] this defines an isomorphism of topological monoids $ \\Gamma: \\Mor{\\C}{W}{\\mcal{C}_r(Z)} \\to \\mcal{C}_{r}(Z)(W)$ for any normal, quasi-projective complex variety $W$ by [@FL:dual Proposition A.1]. Therefore the graph map $\\Gamma$ also induces an isomorphism of topological abelian groups $$\\Gamma: \\Mor{\\C}{W}{\\mcal{C}_0(Z)}^{+} \\to \\mcal{Z}_{0}(W)(Z),$$ for any normal, quasi-projective variety $W$ and any projective variety $Z$. The composite of $\\Gamma$ and the continuous inclusion $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(W)(Z)\\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_{\\dim W}(W\\times Z)$ defines the duality map $$\\mcal{D}: \\Mor{\\C}{W}{\\mcal{C}_0(Z)}^{+} \\xrightarrow{\\Gamma} \\mcal{Z}_{0}(W)(Z) \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_{d}(W\\times Z).$$ While this is a continuous injective homomorphism it is not a topological embedding (see [@FL:dual]).\n\n(c.f. [@Teh:real Proposition 2.9])\n\n1.  If $W$ is a normal quasi-projective complex variety and $Z _1\\subset Z _2$ is a closed subvariety of a complex projective variety then $$\\Mor{\\C}{W}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Z_{1})}^{+}\\subseteq \\Mor{\\C}{W}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Z_{2})}^{+}$$ is a closed subspace.\n\n2.  If $U$ is a normal quasi-projective real variety and $Y\\subseteq Z$ is a closed subvariety of a projective real variety then $$\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+}\\subseteq \\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Z)}^{+}$$ is a closed subspace.\n\nFor the first statement it is equivalent to show that $\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{1})(W) \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ is closed. Using Lemma \\[qmcl\\] we see that $\\mcal{C} _{r+d}(W\\times Z _1)\\subset \\mcal{C} _{r+d}(W\\times Z _2)$ is closed and since $\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_1)(W) = \\mcal{C} _{r+d}(W\\times Z _1)\\cap \\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ we conclude that $\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_1)(W)\\subset\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ is a closed subspace. Write $\\pi:\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)^{\\times 2} \\to \\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ for the quotient. Then $\\pi^{-1}\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{1})(W) =\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{1})(W)^{\\times 2} + \\Delta(\\mcal{C}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)) $ (where $\\Delta$ denotes the diagonal) is closed by step (1) in Proposition \\[Gcocomm\\]. Therefore $\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{1})(W) \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_{r}(Z_{2})(W)$ is closed.\n\nThe second statement follows immediately from the first statement together with Proposition \\[appcycagr\\] and [@FW:real Lemma 1.2].\n\n1.  Let $W$ be a quasi-projective complex variety. The space of algebraic $q$-cocyles is defined to be $$\\mcal{Z}^{q}(W) = \\frac{\\Mor{\\C}{W}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q})}^{+}}{\\Mor{\\C}{W}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q-1})}^{+}}$$\n\n2.  Let $U$ be a quasi-projective real variety. The space of real algebraic $q$-cocyles is defined to be $$\\mcal{Z}^{q}(U) = \\frac{\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P_{\\R}^{q})}^{+}}{\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P_{\\R}^{q-1})}^{+}}$$\n\n\\[Gcocomm\\] Let $U$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety then $$\\frac{(\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^q_{\\C})}^{an,+})^{G}}{(\n\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^{q-1}_{\\C})}^{an,+})^{G}} \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\left(\\frac{\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^q_{\\C})}^{an,+}}{\n\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^{q-1}_{\\C})}^{an,+}}\\right)^{G}$$ and $$\\frac{(\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^q_{\\C})}^{an,+})^{av}}{(\n\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^{q-1}_{\\C})}^{an,+})^{av}} \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\left(\\frac{\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^q_{\\C})}^{an,+}}{\n\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^{q-1}_{\\C})}^{an,+}}\\right)^{av}$$ are isomorphisms of topological groups.\n\nBy Lemma \\[lemtop1\\] and Proposition \\[appcycagr\\] it is enough to show that for $Y'\\subseteq Y$ a closed subvariety of a projective real variety and $U$ a quasiprojective real variety that $$\\frac{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{G}}{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{G}}\\xrightarrow{} \\left(\\frac{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})}{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\\C})(U_{\\C})}\\right)^{G}$$ is an isomorphism of topological monoids.\n\nWe proceed in several steps.\n\n1.  The map $$+: \\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})\\times\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C}) \\to \\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})$$ is a proper map. Observe that if $\\alpha + \\beta$ is equidimensional then both $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ are equidimensional and therefore $$\\xymatrix{\n    \\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})\\times\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C}) \\ar[r]^-{+}\\ar[d] & \\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C}) \\ar[d]\\\\\n     \\mcal{C}_{r+k}(U_{\\C}\\times Y_{\\C})\\times  \\mcal{C}_{r+k}(U_{\\C}\\times Y_{\\C}) \\ar[r]^-{+} &  \\mcal{C}_{r+k}(U_{\\C}\\times Y_{\\C})\n    }$$ is a pull-back square. Since addition is a proper map on effective cycles we see that it is a proper map for effective cocycles as well.\n\n2.  The map $$\\frac{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{G}}{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{G}}\\xrightarrow{} \\left(\\frac{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})}{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\\C})(U_{\\C})}\\right)^{G}$$ is easily seen to be a continuous bijection by an argument similar to the one used in Lemma \\[ccom\\].\n\n3.  Finally since $\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C}) \\to \\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})/\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\\C})(U_{\\C})$ is a closed map by Lemma \\[qmcl\\] we conclude that the continuous bijection $$\\frac{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{G}}{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{G}}\\xrightarrow{} \\left(\\frac{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y_{\\C})(U_{\\C})}{\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y'_{\\C})(U_{\\C})}\\right)^{G}$$ is a closed map and therefore a topological isomorphism.\n\nThe second statement for average cocycles is proved in a similar fashion, using Proposition \\[avl\\] and that $C _r(Y _{\\C})(U _{\\C})^{av}\\subseteq C _r(Y_{\\C})(U _{\\C})$ is closed.\n\nAs with the topological group of cycles on a real variety $X$ we may view the topological group of real cocycles as the topological group of cycles on the complexification which are fixed by the Galois action.\n\n\\[nqp\\] Let $X$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety. Then $$\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X) = \\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}.$$\n\nThis follows from Proposition \\[appcycagr\\] together with the previous proposition since $\\Mor{\\R}{X}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^q_{\\R})} = \\Mor{\\C}{X_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^q_{\\C})}^{G}$.\n\nThe space $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$-complex (see Corollary \\[ehtype\\]).\n\nWhen $W=X_{\\C}$ is the complexification of a quasi-projective real variety and $Z = Y_{\\C}$ is the complexification of a projective real variety the graph map is an equivariant morphism. In particular the duality map $$\\mcal{D}:\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})\\to \\mcal{Z}_{d}(X_{\\C}\\times \\A^{q}_{\\C})$$ is an equivariant continuous map.\n\n1.  Let $X$ be a projective real variety. Define the topological group of *averaged cocycles* to be $$\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av} = \\{f + \\sigma \\cdot f | f\\in \\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})\\}\\subseteq \\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C}).$$\n\n2.  Let $X$ be a normal projective real variety. Define the topological group of *reduced cocycles* to be the quotient topological group $$\\mcal{R}^{q}(X) = \\frac{\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}}{\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}} .$$ Lemma \\[avl\\] shows that $\\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$ is a Hausdorff topological group.\n\nIn [@Teh:real] Teh defines $$\\mcal{R}_{0}(Y)(X)=\\frac{\\Mor{\\C}{X_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Y_{\\C})}^{+,G}}{ \\Mor{\\C}{X_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Y_{\\C})}^{+,av}}$$ and defines the reduced cocycles are defined as $$\\mcal{R}^{q}(X) = \\frac{\\mcal{R}_{0}(\\P^{q})(X)}{\\mcal{R}_{0}(\\P^{q-1})(X)}$$ for any real normal projective variety X and real projective variety Y.\n\nBy Proposition \\[Gcocomm\\] this definition and the one above give isomorphic topological groups.\n\n\\[avl\\](c.f. [@Teh:real Proposition 2.4]) Let $X$ be a real projective variety. The subset of averaged cocycles $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av} \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})$ is a closed subgroup.\n\nWrite $\\overline{f}$ for $\\sigma\\cdot f$ and $\\overline{V}$ for $\\sigma\\cdot V$. Suppose that $\\{[f_n]+\\overline{[f_{n}]}\\}$ is a sequence in $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}$ which converges in $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})$. Write $[\\gamma] = \\lim_{n\\to \\infty} [f_{n}] + \\overline{[f_{n}]}$ for its limit. We need to conclude that $[\\gamma]$ is an averaged cocycle.\n\nThe set $\\{[f_n] + [\\overline{f_n}]\\} \\cup \\{[\\gamma]\\}\\subseteq \\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})$ is compact. Applying the duality map to this set yields the compact subset $$\\{\\Gamma([f_n]) + \\Gamma([\\overline{f_n}])\\} \\cup \\{\\Gamma([\\gamma])\\} \\subseteq \n\\mcal{Z}_{d}( X_{\\C}\\times \\A^{q}_{\\C}).$$ Since this is a compact subset it lies in $\\mcal{Z}_{d,\\leq k}(X_{\\C}\\times \n\\A^{q}_{\\C})$ for some $k$.\n\nThe sequence $\\{[g_{n}]\\}\\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_{d,\\leq k}(X_{\\C}\\times \n\\A^{q}_{\\C})$ has a convergent subsequence. Write $\\{[g_{n_{i}}] \\}$ for this convergent subsequence and write $\\lim_{n_{i}\\to \\infty} [g_{n_{i}}]= [g] \\in \\mcal{Z}_{d,\\leq k}(X_{\\C}\\times \\A^{q}_{\\C})$ for its limit. Note that $[g]$ satisfies $[g] +\\overline{[g]} = \\Gamma(\\gamma)$. Since $\\Gamma$ is injective and its image consists precisely of equidimensional cycles, we are done if we can find an equidimensional cycle $[g']$ such that $[g'] + \\overline{[g']} = [g] + \\overline{[g]}$.\n\nChoose a representative $\\gamma\\in \\Mor{\\C}{X_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^q_{\\C})}^{+}$ of $[\\gamma]$. Choose a representative $g= \\sum n_V V\\in \\mcal{Z}_{d}(X_{\\C}\\times\\P^{q}_{\\C})$ of $[g]$ such that if $n_V \\neq 0$ then $V\\nsubseteq\\P^{q-1}\\times X$. Since $[g] + \\overline{[g]} = \\Gamma([\\gamma]) \\in \n\\mcal{Z}_{d}(X_{\\C}\\times \\A_{\\C}^{q})$ we see that $g + \\overline{g} = \\sum (n_V + \nn_{\\overline{V}} )V = \\Gamma(\\gamma) + h$ where $h\\in \\mcal{Z}_{d}(X_{\\C}\\times \\P_{\\C}^{q-1})$. Write $h \n= \\Sigma m_{W} W$. Since $V\\nsubseteq \\P^{q-1}$ whenever $n_{V}\\neq 0$ we see that if $m_{W} \\neq 0$ then a term of $-m_{W}W$ must appear in $\\Gamma(\\gamma)$. In particular $h$ is equidimensional. Consequently $g + \\overline{g}$ is equidimensional.\n\nIf $n_{V} + n_{\\overline{V}} \\neq 0$ then $V$ is equidimensional. Define $$g' = \\sum_{n_{V} + n_{\\overline{V}}\\neq 0} n_{V} V.$$ Since $g'$ is an equidimensional cycle there is an $f\\in (\\Mor{\\C}{X_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^q_{\\C})}^{+})^{G}$ such that $\\Gamma(f) = g'$. Since $\\Gamma([f] + \\overline{[f]}) = [g'] + \\overline{[g']} = [g] + \\overline{[g]} = \\Gamma([c])$ and $\\Gamma$ is injective, we conclude that $[c] = [f] + \\overline{[f]}$.\n\nA continuous algebraic map $f:W\\to V$ between two complex varieties induces a continuous map $f:W(\\C)\\to V(\\C)$. Friedlander-Lawson [@FL:algco Proposition 4.1] show that this defines a continuous map $$\\label{morphcomp}\n\\Phi:\\mcal{Z}^{r}(W) \\to \\map{W(\\C)}{\\mcal{Z}_{0}(\\A^{r}_{\\C})},$$ where the mapping space between two topological spaces is given with the compact-open topology. If $Y$ is a real variety this provides a continuous equivariant comparison map $$\\Phi:\\mcal{Z}^{r}(Y_{\\C}) \\to \\map{Y_{\\C}(\\C)}{\\mcal{Z}_{0}(\\A^{r}_{\\C})}$$ of topological abelian groups.\n\n(Real Morphic Cohomology) Friedlander-Walker [@FW:real] define real morphic cohomology of a quasi-projective real variety by $$L^qH\\R^{n}(X)=\\pi_{2q-n}\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X)$$ for $2q-n\\geq 0$.\n\nWe will be using an equivariant extension of their theory for normal quasi-projective real varieties defined below.\n\n(Equivariant Morphic Cohomology) \\[emco\\] Let $X$ be a normal quasi-projective variety. Then the equivariant morphic cohomology is (in equivariant homotopy indexing notation) $$L^{q}H\\R^{k,r}(X)=\\pi_{q-k,q-r}\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C}),$$ for $q-k, q-r \\geq 0$.\n\nBy Proposition \\[nqp\\] we see that $$L^qH\\R^{n}(X)=\\pi_{2q-n}\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}$$ so Friedlander-Walker\u2019s real morphic cohomology groups are a part of the equivariant morphic cohomology, $L^{q}H\\R^{q-r,q}(X)=\\pi_{r,0}\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})=L^{q}H\\R^{2q-r}(X)$.\n\nIn [@DS:real] dos Santos defines real Lawson homology.\n\n(Real Lawson Homology) For any quasi-projective real variety $X$, the real Lawson homology is defined by $$L_qH\\R_{n,m}(X) = \\pi_{n-q,m-q}\\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\\C}),$$ for $n-q,m-q\\geq 0$.\n\nLet $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. The following definitions are taken from [@LLM:real].\n\n1.  Define the *space of averaged cycles* $\\mcal{Z}_q(X)^{av}$ to be $$\\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\\C})^{av} =\\im(N) \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\\C})^{G},$$ so $\\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\\C})^{av} \\subseteq \\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\\C})^{G}$ is the subgroup generated by cycles of the form $Z + \\overline{Z}$ and given the subspace topology. By Remark \\[addqp\\] this is a closed subgroup. Here $N:  \\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\\C}) \\to \\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\\C})$ is defined by $N(Z)=Z+\\overline{Z}$.\n\n2.  Define the *space of reduced cycles* $\\mcal{R}_q(X)$ to be the quotient group $$\\mcal{R}_q(X) = \\frac{\\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\\C})^{G}}{\\mcal{Z}_q(X_{\\C})^{av}}.$$\n\nThese spaces all have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex (see Corollary \\[ehtype\\]).\n\nTeh [@Teh:real] defines the *reduced real Lawson homology* of $X$ to be $$RL_qH_{n}(X) = \\pi_{n-q}\\mcal{R}_q(X),$$ for $n\\geq q$. According to Lemma \\[ccom\\] this definition coincides with the definition given in [@Teh:real] in the case of a quasi-projective variety.\n\nLet $X$ be a projective real variety.\n\n1.  [@LLM:real Lemma 8.4] The space of averaged zero-cycles computes the singular homology of the quotient of analytic space of complex points $$\\pi_k \\mcal{Z}_{0}(X_{\\C})^{av} = H_k(X(\\C)/G;\\Z) .$$\n\n2.  By the equivariant Dold-Thom theorem [@DS:equiDT] the space of fixed zero-cycles computes (a portion of) Bredon cohomology $$\\pi_k\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X_{\\C})^{G} = H_{k,0}(X(\\C);\\underline{\\Z}) .$$\n\n3.  [@Teh:real Proposition 2.7] The space of reduced real cycles computes the singular homology with $\\Z/2$ coefficients of the analytic space of real points $$\\pi_{k}\\mcal{R}_{0}(X) = H_{k}(X(\\R);\\Z/2).$$\n\nPoincare Duality {#realdual}\n================\n\nIn this section we use the duality for bivariant cycle homology in [@FV:biv] to establish a duality between Lawson homology of a real variety and real morphic cohomology. This together with the duality between Lawson homology and morphic cohomology [@FL:dual] gives an equivariant duality between the algebraic cocycle spaces and algebraic cycle spaces for the complexification of a real variety.\n\nThe material and methods used here closely parallel [@FW:ratisos Section 3] where Friedlander-Walker reformulate Lawson homology and morphic cohomology for complex varieties.\n\nRecognition Principle\n---------------------\n\nLet $F(-)$ be a presheaf sets (respectively simplicial sets, or abelian groups) on $Sch/\\R$. If $T$ is a topological space then define $F(T)$ by the filtered colimit $$F(T) = \\colim_{T\\to V(\\R)} F(V).$$\n\nIn particular we obtain a simplicial set (respectively a bisimplicial set, or simplicial abelian group) by $$d\\mapsto F(\\Delta^{d}_{top}).$$\n\nWe record an analogue of the recognition principle [@FW:ratisos Theorem 2.3] which is needed to move the duality for bivariant cycle homology to a duality for real Lawson homology and morphic cohomology. Friedlander-Walker\u2019s proof in the complex case uses the $uad$-topology which is essentially due to Deligne.\n\n1.  A continuous map of topological spaces $f: S\\to T$ is said to satisfy *cohomological descent* if for any sheaf $A$ of abelian groups on $T$ the natural map $$H^*(T, A) \\to H^{*}(N_T(S), f^*A)$$ is an isomorphism. Here $N_T(S)\\to T$ is the Cech nerve of $f$, i.e. $N_T(S)$ is the simplicial space which in degree $n$ is the $n+1$-fold fiber product of $S$ over $T$. A map $f:S\\to T$ is said to be of *universal cohomological descent* provided the pullback $S\\times_{T}T'\\to T'$ along any continuous map $T'\\to T$ is again of cohomological descent.\n\n2.  The $uad$-topology on $Sch_{\\R}$ is the Grothendieck topology associated to the pretopology generated by collections $\\{U_i\\to X\\}$ such that $\\coprod U_i(\\R)^{an}\\to X(\\R)^{an}$ is a surjective map of universal cohomological descent.\n\n<!-- -->\n\n1.  A proper and surjective map of real varieties $X\\to Y$ which induces a surjective map of real points is a $uad$-cover. Indeed, in this case $X(\\R)^{an}\\to Y(\\R)^{an}$ is a proper surjective map of topological spaces, and therefore is a map of universal cohomological descent (see [@Deligne:hodgeIII 5.3.5]).\n\n2.  Any Nisnevich cover is a $uad$-cover. Any $cdh$-cover is a $uad$-cover. In particular every real variety $X$ is locally smooth in the $uad$ topology because resolution of singularities implies there is a $cdh$-cover $X' \\to X$, with $X'$ smooth.\n\n3.  Unlike the complex case not every etale-cover is a $uad$-cover (e.g. $\\spec \\C \\to \\spec \\R$ is an etale cover but not a $uad$-cover).\n\nHere is the recognition principle.\n\n\\[recog\\] Suppose that $F\\to G$ is a natural transformation of presheaves of abelian groups on $Sch_{\\R}$. If $F_{uad} \\xrightarrow{} G_{uad}$ is an isomorphism of $uad$-sheaves, then $$F(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\to G(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top})$$ is a homotopy equivalence of simplicial abelian groups.\n\nFriedlander-Walker\u2019s proof given in [@FW:ratisos] works by changing the space $X(\\C)^{an}$ associated with a complex variety with the space $Y(\\R)^{an}$ associated to a real variety together with the fact that $Y(\\R)^{an}$ may be triangulated.\n\n\\[saqiso\\]\n\nSuppose that $f:F \\to G$ is a map of presheaves of simplicial abelian groups such that $F(V) \\to G(V)$ is a homotopy equivalence for any smooth $V$. Then the map of simplicial abelian groups $\\diag F(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\to \\diag G(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top})$ is a homotopy equivalence.\n\nPoincare Duality {#poincare-duality}\n----------------\n\nLet $X$ be a variety over a field $k$ of characteristic zero. Recall the presheaf $z_{equi}(X,r)(-)$ of equidimensional $r$-cycles. This is the unique $qfh$-sheaf on $Sch/k$ such that for a normal variety $U$ the group $z_{equi}(X,r)(U)$ is the free abelian group on closed, irreducible subvarieties $V\\subseteq U\\times_{k} X$ which are equidimensional of relative dimension $r$ over some irreducible component of $U$.\n\nIf $X$ and $Y$ are real varieties then $G=Gal(\\C/\\R)$ acts on the group $z_{equi}(X_{\\C}, r)(U_{\\C})$ by $\\sigma\\cdot [V\\subseteq U_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} X_{\\C}] = [\\sigma V \\subseteq U_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} X_{\\C}]$.\n\nLet $X$ and $U$ be real varieties. Then $$z_{equi}(X, r)(U)\\xrightarrow{\\pi^{*}}(z_{equi}(X_{\\C}, r)(U_{\\C}))^{G}$$ is a natural isomorphism where $\\pi:(U\\times_{\\R} X)_{\\C} \\to U\\times_{\\R} X$.\n\nIt suffices to check this for $U$ normal, since normalization is a $qfh$-cover. By [@SV:rel Lemma 2.3.2] $\\pi^*:Cycl(U\\times X) \\to Cycl((U\\times X)_{\\C})^{G}$ is an isomorphism, where $Cycl(W)$ denotes the group of cycles on $W$. We are done if we see that $f:V\\to U$ is equidimensional if and only if $\\tilde{f}:V_{\\C}\\to U_{\\C}$ is equidimensional. By [@EGAIVpt3 Proposition 13.3.8] if $f$ is equidimensional then so is $\\tilde{f}$. Suppose that $\\tilde{f}:V_{\\C}\\to U_{\\C}$ is equidimensional. Since $U_{\\C}$ is normal, $\\tilde{f}:V_{\\C}\\to U_{\\C}$ is an open mapping and for all $v'\\in V$ the local rings $\\mcal{O}_{V_{\\C},v'}$ are equidimensional by [@EGAIVpt3 Corollaire 14.4.6]. By [@EGAIVpt2 Corollaire 2.6.4, Proposition 7.1.3] the map $f:V\\to U$ is open and $\\mcal{O}_{V,v}$ is equidimensional for all $v\\in V$ since $U_{\\C}\\to U$ is faithfully flat and therefore $f$ is equidimensional.\n\nIn the proof of [@FW:real Proposition 2.4] it is shown that for any presheaf $F(-)$ of sets on $Sch/\\C$ and any topological space $T$ the natural map $$\\colim_{T\\to V(\\R)} F(V_{\\C}) \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\colim_{T\\to U(\\C)} F(U)$$ is an isomorphism. In the first indexing set $V$ ranges over real varieties and in the second $U$ ranges over complex varieties.\n\nIn particular $ z_{equi}(X_{\\C}, r)(Y_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} T)$ may be computed via the filtered colimit $$z_{equi}(X_{\\C}, r)(Y_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} T) = \\colim_{T\\to V(\\R)}z_{equi}(X_{\\C}, r)(Y_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} V_{\\C}),$$ which equips $z_{equi}(X_{\\C},r)(Y_{\\C}\\times_{\\C}T)$ with an action of $G$. Filtered colimits commute with fixed points and so $$z_{equi}(X,r)(Y\\times_{\\R} T) \\to (z_{equi}(X_{\\C}, r)(Y_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} T))^{G} = \\colim_{T\\to V(\\R)}(z_{equi}(X_{\\C}, r)(Y_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} V_{\\C}))^{G}$$ is an isomorphism.\n\nFor X projective we have the natural isomorphism of presheaves (in fact of $qfh$-sheaves) of abelian groups on $Sch_{\\R}$ (see [@SV:rel Lemma 4.4.14] $$z_{equi}(X,r)(-) \\iso \\Mor{\\R}{-}{\\mcal{C}_r(X)}^{+}.$$\n\nThe following is the real analogue of [@FW:ratisos Proposition 3.1].\n\n\\[sing\\] Let $T$ be a compactly generated Hausdorff topological space and $X$ a quasi-projective real variety. There is a natural map of abelian groups $$z_{equi}(X,r)(T) \\to \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X)}$$ given by sending $(f:T\\to U(\\R),\\alpha\\in z_{equi}(X,r)(U))$ to the function $t\\mapsto \\alpha|_{f(t)}$.\n\nThis map is contravariant for continuous maps of compactly-generated Hausdorff spaces $T'\\to \nT$, covariant for proper maps $X\\to X'$ and contravariant for flat maps $X'\\to X$ (with a shift in dimension).\n\nWhen $X$ is a projective real variety the induced map of simplicial abelian groups $$z_{equi}(X,r)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\to \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_r(X)$$ is the natural homotopy equivalence $$\\left[ \\sing_{\\bullet}(\\mcal{C}_{r}(X)^{an})\\right]^{+} \\xrightarrow{\\wkeq} \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X) .$$\n\nMore generally, for a quasi-projective real variety $X$ with projectivization $X\\subset \\overline{X}$ this map fits into a comparison of homotopy fiber sequences $$\\label{tdgrm}\n \\xymatrix{\nz_{equi}(\\overline{X}\\sm X, r)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[d]\\ar[r] & z_{equi}(\\overline{X},r)(\\Delta_{top}^{\\bullet}) \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & z_{equi}(X, r)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[d] \\\\\n\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{r}(\\overline{X}\\sm X) \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{r}(\\overline{X}) \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_r(X).\n}$$ Therefore the map $$z_{equi}(X,r)(\\Delta_{top}^{\\bullet}) \\to \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_r(X)$$ is a natural weak equivalence for any quasi-projective real variety $X$.\n\nThe map $$z_{equi}(X_{\\C},r)( T)=\\colim_{T\\to W(\\C)} z_{equi}(X_{\\C}, r)(W) \\to \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})}$$ given sending $(f:T\\to W(\\C), \\alpha\\in z_{equi}(X_{\\C}, r)(W))$ to the function $t\\mapsto \\alpha_{|{f(t)}}$ is shown to be well-defined in [@FW:ratisos Proposition 3.1] and to satisfy the stated naturality properties. Observe that if $W=V_{\\C}$ is the complexification of a real variety then $\\overline{\\alpha_{|{f(t)}}} =\\overline{\\alpha}_{|{\\overline{f(t)}}}$. Therefore composing with the natural isomorphism $$\\colim_{T\\to V(\\R)}z_{equi}(X_{\\C},r)(V_{\\C}) \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\colim_{T\\to W(\\C)}z_{equi}(X_{\\C},r)(W)$$ gives a well-defined equivariant map $$z_{equi}(X_{\\C},r)(T) \\to \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})}$$ which by taking fixed points induces the map $$z_{equi}(X,r)(T)= z_{equi}(X_{\\C},r)(T)^{G} \\to \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X_{\\C})}^{G} = \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X)},$$ which is the map of the proposition and satisfies the stated naturality properties.\n\nWhen $X$ is a projective real variety and $T$ is a compact Hausdorff space, the map $z_{equi}^{eff}(X_{\\C},r)(T) \\to \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\mcal{C}_r(X_{\\C})}$ is an isomorphism by [@FW:sstfct Corollary 4.3]. Since this is an equivariant map, taking fixed points yields the isomorphism of monoids $$z_{equi}^{eff}(X,r)(T) \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\mcal{C}_r(X)}.$$\n\nTherefore the map $$z_{equi}(X, r)({\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}})\\xrightarrow{\\iso} [\\Hom{cts}{\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}}{\\mcal{C}_{r}(X)^{an}}]^{+} \\to \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X)$$ is a homotopy equivalence by Quillen\u2019s theorem [@FM:filt App Q] on homotopy group completions of simplicial abelian monoids.\n\nFinally the diagram (\\[tdgrm\\]) commutes by the naturality properties of the map $z_{equi}(X,r)(T) \\to \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\mcal{Z}_{r}(X)}$ . By [@FV:biv 5.12,8.1], Proposition \\[htpyinv\\] (homotopy invariance), and Theorem \\[recog\\] (recognition principle) the upper row of the diagram (\\[tdgrm\\]) is a homotopy fiber sequence. Comparing the upper and lower homotopy fiber sequence yields the final statement of the proposition.\n\n\\[singmor\\] For a quasi-projective real variety $U$, projective real variety $Y$, and compact Hausdorff space $T$, there is a natural map of abelian groups $$z_{equi}(Y,0)(U\\times_{\\R} T) \\to \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+}}$$ given by sending $(f,\\alpha)$ to the function $t\\mapsto \\alpha_{|{f(t)}}$.\n\nThe map $$z_{equi}(Y_{\\C},0)(U_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} T) \\to \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Y_{\\C})}^{+}}$$ from [@FW:ratisos Proposition 3.3] is equivariant and therefore taking fixed points induces the natural map of abelian groups $$z_{equi}(Y,0)(U\\times_{\\R} T) \\to  \\Hom{cts}{T}{\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+}}.$$\n\nLet $Y$ be a projective real variety and $U$ a normal quasi-projective real variety of dimension $d$ with projectivization $U\\subseteq X$ and closed complement $X_{\\infty}=X\\setminus U$. Write $\\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)\\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{r+d}(Y\\times_{\\R} X)$ for the submonoid consisting of those cycles of dimension $r+d$ on $Y\\times X$ whose restriction to $U$ is equidimensional of relative dimension $r$ over $U$. This is a constructable embedding. This can be seen by arguing as in [@F:algco] for the complex case. The subspace topology on this monoid agrees with the quotient topology $\\mcal{C}_{r}(Y)(U) = \\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)/\\mcal{C}_{r+d}(Y\\times X_{\\infty})$ by the same reasoning as in [@F:algco Proposition 1.8]. The topological group of equidimensional cycles is the naive groups completion $\\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y)(U) = \\mcal{C}_{r}(Y)(U)^{+}$. Since these are tractable monoids, they are related to equidimensional cocycles via the homotopy fiber sequence $$\\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(Y\\times X_{\\infty}) \\to (\\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U))^{+} \\to \\mcal{Z}_{r}(Y)(U).$$ Define the presheaf $e(U,Y,r)(-)$ to be the pull-back of presheaves $$\\xymatrix{\ne(U,Y,r)(-) \\ar@{^{(}->}[r]\\ar[d] & z_{equi}^{eff}(Y\\times X, r+d)(-) \\ar[d]\\\\\nz_{equi}^{eff}(Y, r)(U\\times - ) \\ar@{^{(}->}[r] & z^{eff}_{equi}(Y\\times U, r+d)(-) .\n}$$ We have for each quasi-projective real variety $V$ the short exact sequence of abelian groups $$0\\to z_{equi}(Y\\times X_{\\infty}, r+d)(V) \\to (e(U,Y,r)(V))^{+} \\to z_{equi}(Y,r)(U\\times V) \\to 0.$$\n\n\\[eiso\\] Let $Y$ be a projective real variety, $U$ a normal quasi-projective real variety, and $T$ a compact Hausdorff space. Then $$e(U,Y,r)(T)\\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\uphom{T}{\\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)}$$ is an isomorphism.\n\nObserve that if $V$ is a quasi-projective real variety then the isomorphism $\\Mor{\\R}{V}{\\mcal{C}_{r+d}(Y\\times X)} \\iso z_{equi}^{eff}(Y\\times X,r+d)(V)$ restricts to give the isomorphism $\\Mor{\\R}{V}{\\mcal{E}(Y)(U)}\\iso e(U,Y,r)(V)$. Here if $E\\subseteq W$ is a constructable subset then $\\Mor{}{V}{E}\\subseteq \\Mor{}{V}{W}$ is the subset consisting of those continuous algebraic maps whose image is contained in $E$.\n\nThe isomorphism $e(U,Y,r)(T)\\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\uphom{T}{\\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)}$ now follows as in [@FW:funcspc Corollary 4.3].\n\n\\[smheq\\] Let $U$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety and $Y$ a projective real variety. The map of simplicial abelian groups from Proposition \\[singmor\\] $$z_{equi}(Y,0)(U\\times \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\to \\sing_{\\bullet}(\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+})$$ is a homotopy equivalence.\n\nBy proposition \\[eiso\\] we have $e(U,Y,r)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\iso \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)$. Now by taking group completions, tractability of the monoid $\\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)$ and Quillen\u2019s theorem [@FM:filt App Q] we conclude that $$e(U,Y,r)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top})^{+} \\xrightarrow{\\wkeq} \\sing_{\\bullet}(\\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)^{+})$$ is a homotopy equivalence.\n\nWe conclude the proposition by comparing homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial abelian groups $$\\xymatrix{\nz_{equi}(Y\\times X_{\\infty}, r+d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & (e(U,Y,r)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}))^{+} \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & z_{equi}(Y,r)(U\\times \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[d]  \\\\\n\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(Y\\times X_{\\infty}) \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}(\\mcal{E}_{r}(Y)(U)^{+}) \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^{r}(Y)(U) .\n}$$ The left arrow is a homotopy equivalence by Proposition \\[sing\\], we have just seen that the middle map is a homotopy equivalence, the right horizontal maps induce a surjection on $\\pi_{0}$ and so we conclude that $z_{equi}(Y,r)(U\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\to \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^{r}(Y)(U)$ is a homotopy equivalence.\n\n\\[htpyinv\\] The presheaves $z_{equi}(X,r)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}\\times -)$ are homotopy invariant in the sense that the map of complexes $$z_{equi}(X,r)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\to z_{equi}(X,r)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}\\times_{\\R} \\Delta_{\\R}^1)$$ is a quasi-isomorphism.\n\nThe same argument as in [@FW:compK Lemma 1.2].\n\nThe duality theorem for bivariant cycle theory [@FV:biv Theorem 7.4] says that for real varieties $X$, $U$ with $U$ smooth of dimension $d$, the natural inclusion $$\\label{FVdual}\n \\mcal{D}:z_{equi}(X, r)(U\\times_{\\R} - ) \\hookrightarrow z_{equi}(X\\times_{\\R} U, r+d)(-)$$ induces a quasi-isomorphism of complexes $$\\mcal{D}:z_{equi}(X,r)(U\\times_{\\R} \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}) \\xrightarrow{\\simeq} \nz_{equi}(X\\times_{\\R} U, r+d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}).$$\n\n\\[fvsstdual\\] For a smooth real variety $U$ and a quasi-projective real variety $X$ the map $$z_{equi}(X,r)(U\\times_{\\R}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\xrightarrow{\\mcal{D}} z_{equi}(X\\times_{\\R} U, r+d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top})$$ is a quasi-isomorphism.\n\nConsider the commutative diagram $$\\begin{CD}\nz_{equi}(X,r)(U\\times_{\\R}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) @>{\\mcal{D}}>> z_{equi}(X\\times_{\\R} U, r+d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\\\\n@V{\\pi^*}VV @VV{\\pi^{*}}V \\\\\n z_{equi}(X,r)(U\\times_{\\R} \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}\\times_{\\R}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) @>{\\mcal{D}}>> z_{equi}(X\\times_{\\R} U, r+d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}\\times_{\\R}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) .\n\\end{CD}$$ The vertical arrows are quasi-isomorphisms by homotopy invariance. The bottom right arrow is a quasi-isomorphism by Corollary \\[saqiso\\] since $$z_{equi}(X,r)(U\\times_{\\R} \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}\\times W) \\to z_{equi}(X\\times_{\\R} U, r+d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}\\times_{\\R} W).$$ is a quasi-isomorphism for all smooth real varieties $W$ by [@FV:biv Theorem 7.4] and therefore the top horizontal map is a quasi-isomorphism as well.\n\n\\[Dcomp\\] Let $Y$ be a projective real variety and $U$ a smooth real variety. The following diagram commutes $$\\begin{CD}\n  z_{equi}(Y,0)(U\\times_{\\R} \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) @>{\\mcal{D}}>> z_{equi}(U\\times_{\\R} Y,d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\\\\n@VVV @VVV \\\\\n\\sing_{\\bullet}\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Y)}^{+} @>{\\mcal{D}}>> \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{d}(U\\times_{\\R} Y)\n \\end{CD}$$ where the vertical maps are the ones from Proposition \\[singmor\\] and Proposition \\[sing\\].\n\nBy [@FW:ratisos Proposition 3.3] the diagram of equivariant maps of simplicial sets $$\\begin{CD}\n  z_{equi}(Y_{\\C},0)(U_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) @>>{\\mcal{D}}> z_{equi}(U_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} Y_{\\C},d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\\\\n@VVV @VVV \\\\\n\\sing_{\\bullet}\\Mor{\\C}{U_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(Y_{\\C})}^{+} @>>{\\mcal{D}}> \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{d}(U_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} Y_{\\C})\n \\end{CD}$$ commutes. Taking fixed points yields the result.\n\nWrite $$z_{equi}(\\P^{q/q-1}_{\\R},0)(U) = coker ( z_{equi}(\\P^{q-1}_{\\R},0)(U)\\to z_{equi}(\\P^{q}_{\\R},0)(U) )$$ for the cokernel of the map of presheaves induced by $\\P^{q-1}_{\\R}\\subseteq \\P^{q}_{\\R}$.\n\n\\[qisoseq\\] Let $U$ be a smooth real variety of dimension $d$. The sequence of natural maps of complexes below consist of quasi-isomorphisms. $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\label{morsst}\nz_{equi}(\\A^q_{\\R}, 0)(U\\times_{\\R}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top})  \\leftarrow z_{equi}(\\P^{q/q-1}_{\\R},0)(U\\times_{\\R}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\to \\\\\n\\to  \\frac{\\sing_{\\bullet}(\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^{q}_{\\R}})^{+}}{\\sing_{\\bullet}(\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^{q-1}_{\\R}})^{+}} \n\\to \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^{q}(U).\\end{gathered}$$\n\nThat the first map of diagram (\\[morsst\\]) is a quasi-isomorphism follows from consideration of the comparison diagram $$\\xymatrix@-1pc{\nz(\\P^{n-1}, r)(U\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[d]^{\\mcal{D}}\\ar[r] & z(\\P^{n},r)(U\\times\\Delta_{top}^{\\bullet}) \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\mcal{D}} & z(\\A^{n}, r)(U\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[d]^{\\mcal{D}} \\\\\nz(\\P^{n-1}\\times U, r+d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[d]\\ar[r] & z(\\P^{n}\\times U,r+d)(\\Delta_{top}^{\\bullet}) \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & z(\\A^{n}\\times U , r+d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[d] \\\\ \n\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(\\P^{n-1}\\times U) \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(\\P^{n}\\times U) \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{r+d}(\\A^{n}\\times U).\n}$$ The vertical arrows are all quasi-isomorphisms by Proposition \\[fvsstdual\\] and by Proposition \\[sing\\]. Because $\\mcal{C}_{k}(V)$ is a tractable monoid, the bottom row is homotopy equivalent to a short exact sequence of simplicial abelian groups and therefore the top rows are as well. It follows immediately that the first arrow of diagram \\[morsst\\] is a quasi-isomorphism. The second arrow of diagram (\\[morsst\\]) is a quasi-isomorphism by Proposition \\[smheq\\] and the last arrow of the diagram is a quasi-isomorphism because $\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P_{\\R}^{n})}$ is a tractable monoid.\n\nIf $k<0$ then define $\\mcal{Z}_{k}(X)$ to be $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(X\\times \\A^{-k})$.\n\nWe can now conclude the duality for real morphic cohomology and real Lawson homology.\n\nLet $U$ be a smooth real variety of dimension $d$. Then $$\\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\\C})^{G} \\xrightarrow{\\mcal{D}} \\mcal{Z}_{d}(\\A^{q}_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} \nU_{\\C})^{G} \\xleftarrow{\\simeq} \\mcal{Z}_{d-q}(U_{\\C})^{G}$$ is a natural homotopy equivalence.\n\nIn particular it induces the natural isomorphism $$L^{q}H\\R^{n}(U)\\xrightarrow{\\iso} L_{d-q}H\\R_{d-n,d}(U).$$\n\nThis follows from Proposition \\[fvsstdual\\], Lemma \\[Dcomp\\], Proposition \\[sing\\], Proposition \\[qisoseq\\], and homotopy invariance [@DS:real Proposition 4.15]. Indeed these show that the following diagram is commutative and the left hand maps are homotopy equivalences, $$\\xymatrix@-1pc{\nz_{equi}(\\A_{\\R}^{q},0)(U\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[d]^{\\mcal{D}} & z_{equi}(\\P_{\\R}^{q/q-1},0)(U\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[l]\\ar[d]^{\\mcal{D}}\\ar[r] & \\\\\nz_{equi}(\\A^{q}_{\\R}\\times U, d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) & z_{equi}(\\P^{q/q-1}_{\\R}\\times U, d)(\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\ar[l]\\ar[r] & \\\\\n\\ar[r] & \\frac{\\sing_{\\bullet}(\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^{q}_{\\R}})^{+}}{\\sing_{\\bullet}(\\Mor{\\R}{U}{\\mcal{C}_0(\\P^{q-1}_{\\R}})^{+}} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\mcal{D}} & \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^{q}(U) \\ar[d]^{\\mcal{D}} \\\\\n\\ar[r] & \\frac{\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{d}(\\P^{q}_{\\R}\\times U)}{\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{d}(\\P^{q-1}_{\\R}\\times U)} \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}_{d}(\\A^{q}\\times U) .\n}$$ Therefore the right hand map is also a homotopy equivalence\n\nCombining Friedlander-Lawson\u2019s duality between Lawson homology and morphic cohomology over $\\C$ and the duality over $\\R$ immediately gives an equivariant duality theorem.\n\n\\[PD\\] Let $U$ be a smooth real variety of dimension $d$. The sequence of maps $$\\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\\C}) \\to \\mcal{Z}_{d}(U_{\\C}\\times_{\\C} \\A^{q}_{\\C}) \\leftarrow \\mcal{Z}_{d-q}(X_{\\C})$$ consists of $G$-equivariant homotopy equivalences. In particular $$L^{q}H\\R^{n,m}(U)\\xrightarrow{\\iso} L_{d-q}H\\R_{d-n,d-m}(U).$$ for all smooth quasi-projective real varieties $U$.\n\n\\[fpa\\] A smooth $G$-manifold $M$ equipped such that the action of $G$ on its tangent bundle makes it into a real $n$-bundle satisfies an equivariant Poincare duality, $$\\mcal{P}: H^{p,q}(M;\\underline{\\Z}) \\xrightarrow{\\iso} H_{n-p,n-q}(M;\\underline{\\Z}).$$ In a forthcoming paper we prove that the duality $\\mcal{D}$ is compatible under the cycle maps with the duality $\\mcal{P}$.\n\nCompatibility of Cycle Maps\n===========================\n\nGeneralized cycle maps\n----------------------\n\nLet $X$ be a smooth real variety. The generalized cycle map relates motivic cohomology and etale cohomology, $$cyc:\\H^{2q-k,q}_{\\mcal{M}}(X;\\Z/2) \\to H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}).$$ By [@Cox:real] the etale cohomology of a real variety is equal to the Borel equivariant cohomology of its space of complex points, $$H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}) \\iso H^{2q-k}_{\\Z/2}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\Z/2).$$\n\nOn the other hand morphic cohomology and motivic cohomology agree with finite coefficients (see Proposition \\[fcoeffagr\\]).\n\nCombining the generalized cycle map in morphic cohomology and the comparison map between Bredon and Borel equivariant cohomology $$L^{q}H\\R^{q-k,q}(X;\\Z/2) \\to H^{q-k,q}(X_\\R(\\C);\\underline{\\Z/2}) \\to H^{2q-k}_{\\Z/2}(X(\\C);\\Z/2)$$ together with the isomorphism $ \\H^{2q-k,q}_{\\mcal{M}}(X;\\Z/2) \\xrightarrow{\\iso}  L^{q}H\\R^{q-k,q}(X;\\Z/2)$ gives another map\n\n$$\\H^{2q-k,q}_{\\mcal{M}}(X;\\Z/2)\\iso L^{q}H\\R^{q-k,q}(X;\\Z/2)\\to  H^{2q-k}_{\\Z/2}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\Z/2)\\iso H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}).$$\n\nIn this section we verify that these two potentially different cycle maps are equal and we explore a few consequences. In particular this allows compatibility of cycle maps allows us to conclude that $L^{q}H\\R^{q-p,q}(X;\\Z/2^{k}) \\to H^{q-p,q}(X_{\\R}(\\C);\\underline{\\Z/2^{k}})$ is an isomorphism for $p\\geq q$ and for any smooth $X$.\n\nBefore continuing, we show that motivic cohomology and morphic cohomology for real varieties agree with finite coefficients. This is a well-known to the experts, but because of the lack of a good reference we prove it below.\n\n\\[fcoeffagr\\] Let $X$ be a smooth real variety. Then for any $n>0$ $$\\H^{2q-k,q}_{\\mcal{M}}(X;\\Z/n) \\xrightarrow{\\iso}  L^{q}H\\R^{q-k,q}(X;\\Z/n).$$\n\nWe show that the natural map of simplicial abelian groups $$z_{equi}(\\A^{q},0)(X\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R})\\otimes\\Z/n \\to z_{equi}(\\A^{q},0)(X\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top})\\otimes\\Z/n$$ is a quasi-isomorphism which implies the result by Proposition \\[smheq\\] and Proposition \\[htpyinv\\]. Write $F(U)$ for the presheaf $$U\\mapsto \\pi_{k}(z_{equi}(\\A^{q},0)(X\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}\\times U)\\otimes\\Z/n)$$ on $Sch/\\R$ and $F_{0}(U)$ for the constant presheaf $$U\\mapsto \\pi_{k}(z_{equi}(\\A^{q},0)(X\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R})\\otimes\\Z/n).$$\n\nRestricted to $Sm/\\R$ these are homotopy invariant presheaves with transfers. Recall [@FW:real Lemma 3.8] that if $F(-)$ is a homotopy invariant presheaf with transfers, $Y$ is smooth, and $y\\in Y(\\R)$ then $F(\\spec\\mcal{O}_{Y,y}^{h}) \\to F(\\R)$ is an isomorphism, where $\\mcal{O}_{Y,y}^{h}$ is the Henselization of the local ring $\\mcal{O}_{Y,y}$.\n\nLet $H(-)$ denote either the kernel or the cokernel of the natural transformation $F_{0}(-)\\to F(-)$. Let $Y$ be a quasi-projective real variety and $\\gamma\\in H(Y)$. Let $\\tilde{Y}\\to Y$ be a $cdh$-cover with $\\tilde{Y}$ smooth (in particular it is a $uad$-cover). Since $H(\\spec\\mcal{O}_{\\tilde{Y},y}^{h}) = 0$ for any $y\\in \\tilde{Y}(\\R)$ there are finitely many etale maps $\\tilde{Y}_{k}\\to \\tilde{Y}$ such that $\\gamma|_{\\tilde{Y}_{k}} = 0$ and $\\coprod \\tilde{Y}_{k} \\to \\tilde{Y}$ is a $uad$-cover.\n\nTherefore $H_{uad} = 0$ and $(F_{0})_{uad} \\to F_{uad}$ is an isomorphism. By Theorem \\[recog\\] we conclude that $$\\pi_{k}(z_{equi}(\\A_{\\R}^{q},0)(X\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R})\\otimes\\Z/n) \\to \\pi_{k}(z_{equi}(\\A^{q}_{\\R},0)(X\\times \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}\\times \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top})\\otimes\\Z/n)$$ is an isomorphism.\n\nAn application of the Bousfield-Friedlander spectral sequence finishes the proof.\n\nFriedlander-Walker introduce in [@FW:real] the equivalence relation of *real algebraic equivalence*. Briefly two cycles $\\alpha$, $\\beta$ on a real variety $X$ are real algebraically equivalent provided there is a smooth real curve $C$, two real points $c_{0}$, $c_{1}$ in the same analytic connected component of $C(\\R)$, and a cycle $\\gamma$ on $X\\times C$ such that $\\alpha=\\gamma|_{c_{0}}$ and $\\beta = \\gamma|_{c_{1}}$. Since $L^{q}H\\R^{q,q}(X)$ is the group of codimension $q$ cycles on $X$ modulo real algebraic equivalence we obtain the following corollary.\n\nLet $X$ be a smooth real variety and $0\\leq r\\leq dim(X)$. Rational equivalence and real algebraic equivalence yield the same equivalence relation on the group of $r-$cycles on $X$ with finite coefficients.\n\nRecall that $z_{equi}(\\P^{q/q-1},0)(U) = z_{equi}(\\P^{q},0)(U)/z_{equi}(\\P^{q-1},0)(U)$. Write $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Z/2(q)(X) & = (z_{equi}(\\P_{\\R}^{q/q-1},0)(X\\times_{\\R}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R})\\otimes\\Z/2)[-2q] \\\\\n\\Z/2(q)^{sst}(X)   & = \\sing_{\\bullet} (\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G})[-2q] \\\\\n\\Z/2(q)^{top}(X)  & = \\Hom{cts}{X_{\\C}(\\C)\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}^{G}[-2q] \\\\\n\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(X) & = \\Hom{cts}{X_{\\C}(\\C)\\times EG\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}^{G}[-2q]\\end{aligned}$$ where we identify a simplicial abelian group with its associated bounded above cochain complex. These form presheaves of cochain complexes on $Sm/\\R$. These chain complexes compute respectively motivic cohomology, real morphic cohomology, Bredon cohomology, and Borel cohomology. Note that $\\Z/2(q)$, $\\Z/2(q)^{top}$ and $\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}$ are in fact complexes of etale sheaves on $(Sm/\\R)$.\n\nThere are natural maps between these complexes, $$\\Z/2(q)(X)\\xrightarrow{\\rho} \\Z/2(q)^{sst}(X)\\xrightarrow{\\Phi} \\Z/2(q)^{top}(X) \\xrightarrow{\\psi} \\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(X)$$ obtained as follows. From Proposition \\[singmor\\] and the projection $\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R} \\to \\spec \\R$ we obtain $$z_{equi}(\\P^{q/q-1},0)(X\\times_{\\R}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}) \\to  \\sing\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X\\times_{\\R}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\R}) = \\sing\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C}\\times_{\\C}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\C})^{G}$$ which induces $\\Z/2(q)(X) \\to \\Z/2(q)^{sst}(X)$. The second map $\\Phi$ is the map (\\[morphcomp\\]) and the third map $\\psi$ is induced by the projection $X_{\\C}(\\C)\\times EG \\to X_{\\C}(\\C)$.\n\nNisnevich hypercohomology and descent\n-------------------------------------\n\nThese cohomology theories may be computed as Nisnevich hypercohomology groups. This allows us to view these cycle maps as maps in a derived category where we can use a computation of [@SV:BK].\n\nSay that a cartesian square $$\\label{Nisdist}\n \\xymatrix{\n  V \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & Y\\ar[d]^{f} \\\\\nU\\ar@^{{(}->}[r]^{i} & X\n }$$ is a *distinguished Nisnevich square* provided the map $Y\\xrightarrow{f} X$ is etale, $i:U\\subseteq X$ is an open embedding, and $f: (Y\\backslash V) \\to (X\\backslash U)$ is an isomorphism. The Nisnevich topology is the Grothendieck topology on $Sm/k$ generated by covers of the form $U \\coprod Y \\to X$ where $U\\subseteq X$ and $f:Y\\to X$ form part of a distinguished square as above.\n\nGiven a presheaf of chain complexes $F$ and a closed $i:A\\subseteq B$ and open complement $j:U \\subseteq B$ define $$F(B)_{A} = \\cone(F(B) \\xrightarrow{j^{*}} F(U))[-1],$$ which fits into the exact triangle $$F(B)_{A} \\to F(B) \\xrightarrow{j^{*}} F(U).$$\n\nSay that a presheaf $F(-)$ of chain complexes satisfies *Nisnevich descent* provided that for a distinguished square as in (\\[Nisdist\\]) the square $$\\xymatrix{\n   F(X) \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & F(Y)\\ar[d] \\\\\nF(U)\\ar[r] & F(V)\n }$$ is homotopy cartesian. Recall this means that this square induces the Mayer-Vietoris exact triangle (in the derived category of abelian groups): $$F(X) \\to F(Y)\\oplus F(U) \\to F(V) .$$ Equivalently, it means that $ F(Y)_{Z'}\\to F(X)_{Z} $ is an isomorphism in the derived category of abelian groups where $Z=X\\backslash U$ and $Z'=Y\\backslash V$.\n\nWhen a presheaf of chain complexes $F(-)$ (with $F(\\emptyset)=0$) satisfies Nisnevich descent then the Nisnevich hypercohomology of a smooth $X$ with coefficients in $F$ is computed as $$H^{p}(F(X)) = H^{p}(F _{Nis}(X))=\\H^{p}_{Nis}(X; F_{Nis})$$ (see for example [@BO Theorem 7.5.1] for presheaves of chain complexes, [@Nis] for descent in the case of presheaves of spectra, [@BG] for descent in the Zariski topology).\n\nNote that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\H^{2q-p}_{Nis}(X;(\\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis}) & \n% = \\pi_{p}\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X)^{G} \n= L^qH^{q-p,q}(X;\\Z/2), \\\\\n\\H^{2q-p}_{Nis}(X;\\Z/2(q)^{top}) & \n% = \\pi_{p}\\mcal{Z}/2_{top}^{q}(X)^{G} \n= H^{q-p,q}(X _\\R(\\C);\\underline{\\Z/2}), \\\\\n \\H^{2q-p}_{Nis}(X;\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}) & \n% = \\pi_{p}\\mcal{Z}/2_{Bor}^{q}(X) \n= H^{2q-p}_{\\Z/2}(X(\\C);\\Z/2).\\end{aligned}$$ In the first case this follows because the motivic complex $\\Z/2(q)$ satisfies Nisnevich descent and $\\Z/2(q)(X) \\to \\Z/2(q)^{sst}(X)$ is a quasi-isomorphism of chain complexes for all smooth $X$.\n\nGiven $i:A\\subseteq B$ a closed subvariety with open complement $j:U\\subseteq B$ and write $C(j)$ for the mapping cone of $j:U(\\C) \\subseteq B(\\C)$. Then by a comparison of exact triangles we see that $$\\Z/2(q)^{top}(B)_{A} \\wkeq \\phom{C(j)\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}^{G}[-2q]$$ and $$\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(B)_{A} \\wkeq \\phom{C(j)\\wedge EG_+\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}^{G}[-2q] .$$\n\nLet $F(-)$ denote either $\\Z/2(q)^{top}(-)$ or $\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(-)$ and let $$\\xymatrix{\n  V \\ar[r]^{j'}\\ar[d] & Y \\ar[d]\\\\\nU \\ar[r]^{j} & X\n }$$ be a distinguished Nisnevich square in $Sm/\\R$ then $$\\xymatrix{ \nV(\\C)\\ar[r]^{j'}\\ar[d] & Y(\\C)\\ar[d] \\\\\nU(\\C) \\ar[r]^{j} & X(\\C)\n}$$ is an equivariant homotopy pushout diagram of $G$-spaces (see for example [@DI:hyp] ). Therefore $C(j') \\xrightarrow{\\wkeq} C(j)$ is an equivariant homotopy equivalence. Consequently $F(X)_{Z}\\to F(Y)_{Z'}$ is an isomorphism in the derived category of abelian groups and therefore $$\\xymatrix{\n  F(X) \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & F(U) \\ar[d]\\\\\nF(Y) \\ar[r] &  F(V) \n }$$ is homotopy cartesian. This means that both $\\Z/2(q)^{top}(-)$ and $\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(-)$ satisfy Nisnevich descent.\n\nCompatibility of cycle maps\n---------------------------\n\nWe are now ready to show that two cycle maps discussed in the beginning of this section are the same map.\n\n\\[Borel\\] Suppose that $V$ is a quasi-projective complex variety considered as a real variety. Then $\\pi_{k}\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(V) = H_{sing}^{2q-k}(V(\\C);\\Z/2)$.\n\nIf $V$ is a complex variety then $(V\\times_{\\R}\\C)(\\C) = V(\\C)\\amalg V(\\C)$ and $G$ acts by interchanging the factors. In particular $G$ acts freely on $V_{\\C}(\\C)$ and $(V_{\\C}(\\C)\\times EG)/G \\to V_{\\C}(\\C)/G = V(\\C)$ is a vector-bundle which immediately implies that $\\pi_{k}\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(V) = H^{2q-k} _{sing}(V(\\C);\\Z/2)$.\n\nWrite $\\pi_{0}:(Sm/\\R)_{et} \\to (Sm/\\R)_{Nis}$ for the canonical map of sites.\n\n\\[etpb\\] The complex of etale sheaves $\\pi_{0}^*\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}$ on $(Sm/\\R)_{et}$ is canonically quasi-isomorphic to $\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}$.\n\nWrite $\\mcal{H}^{i}$ for the etale sheafification of the $i$th cohomology presheaf of $\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}$. First we show that $\\mcal{H}^{i} = 0$ for $i\\neq 0$. It is enough to show that for each real variety $X$ and $\\gamma \\in  H^{i}( [X_{\\C}(\\C)\\times EG]/G ; \\Z/2)$ that we can find an etale covering $(U_j\\to X)$ such that $\\gamma|_{U_j} = 0$ for each $j$. The map $Y=X_{\\C}\\to X$ is an etale cover for any real variety $X$. Write $\\gamma' = \\gamma|_{Y}$. By the previous Lemma $H^{i}( Y _\\C(\\C)\\times EG]/G ; \\Z/2) = H^{i}_{sing}( Y(\\C) ; \\Z/2)$. Since $Y$ has an etale cover $U_j\\to Y$ such that $\\gamma'|_{U_j} = 0$ for each $j$ (see e.g. [@Milne:etale Lemma III.3.15] ) we conclude that $\\mcal{H}^{i} = 0$ for $i\\neq 0$.\n\nWhen $X_{\\C}$ is connected then $H^{0}( [X_{\\C}(\\C)\\times EG]/G ; \\Z/2) = \\Z/2$. More generally if $X = \\amalg X_{i}$ is the disjoint union of $c$ connected real varieties then $H^{0}( [X_{\\C}(\\C)\\times EG]/G ; \\Z/2) =\\Z/2^{\\times c}$. This shows $\\mcal{H}^{0} = \\Z/2 = \\mu_{2}^{q}$.\n\nFinally since $\\mcal{H}^{i} = 0 $ for $i\\neq 0 $ we have canonical isomorphisms $$\\Z/2 = \\Hom{et}{\\mcal{H}^{0}}{\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}} = \\Hom{D^{-}((Sm/\\R)_{et})}{\\pi^*\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}}{ \\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}}$$\n\nRecall [@SV:BK Section 6] that there is an injective etale resolution $0\\to\\mu_2^{\\otimes q} \\to J^{\\bullet}$ such that $\\pi_{0*}J^{\\bullet}$ is a complex of Nisnevich sheaves with transfers with homotopy invariant cohomology sheaves. Proposition \\[etpb\\] gives a canonical map $\\pi_{0}^{*}\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}\\to J^{\\bullet}$ and by adjointness we obtain a map $$\\Z/2(q)^{Bor} \\to \\mathbb{R}(\\pi_{0})_{*}\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}=(\\pi_{0})_*J^{\\bullet}  .$$\n\nConsider the following sequence of maps of complexes of Nisnevich sheaves $$\\label{maps}\n \\Z/2(q) \\to (\\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis} \\xrightarrow{\\Phi} \\Z/2(q)^{top} \\to \\Z/2(q)^{Bor} \\to \\mathbb{R}(\\pi_{0})_{*}\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}.$$\n\nThe complex of Nisnevich sheaves with transfers $B_{2}(q)$ is defined in [@SV:BK Section 6] to be the truncation $$B_{2}(q) = \\tau_{\\leq q}(\\pi_{0})_*J^{\\bullet} = \\tau_{\\leq q}(\\mathbb{R}\\pi_{0*}\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}),$$ in particular $\\H^{p}_{Nis}(X; B_{2}(q)) = H^{p}_{et}(X;\\mu_2^{\\otimes q})$ for $p\\leq q$ and all smooth $X$. Since the cohomology sheaves of $\\Z/2(q)$ (and therefore of $\\Z/2(q)^{sst}$ as well) vanish in degrees $i> q$ and so the sequence of maps (\\[maps\\]) factors through the truncations, $$\\label{tmaps}\n \\Z/2(q) \\to (\\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis} \\to \\tau_{\\leq q} \\Z/2(q)^{top} \\to \\tau_{\\leq q} \\Z/2(q)^{Bor} \\to B_{2}(q).$$\n\n\\[notriv\\] It is important to note that the composites \\[maps\\] and \\[tmaps\\] are non-trivial. This can be seen, for example, by evaluating on $\\spec\\C$. The map $\\Z/2(q)(X) \\to  (\\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis}(X)$ is a quasi-isomorphism for any smooth real variety $X$ by Proposition \\[fcoeffagr\\]. The comparison map $(\\Z/2(q)^{sst})_{Nis}(\\C) \\to  \n\\Z/2(q)^{top}(\\C)$ is an equality. By Proposition \\[binj\\] below, for any $X$, the map $\\Z/2(q)^{top}(X) \\to  \n\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(X)$ induces an isomorphism on cohomology in degrees $p \\leq q$. Finally since $\\Z/2(q)^{Bor} \\to \\mathbb{R}\\pi_{0*}\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}$ is obtained as the adjoint of a quasi-isomorphism and $\\spec\\C$ is an etale point (of $(Sm/\\R)_{et}$) the map $\\Z/2(q)^{Bor}(\\C) \\to \\mathbb{R}\\pi_{0*}\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}(\\C)$ cannot be zero.\n\nWrite $D^-(Nis)$ (respectively $D^-(NSwT/\\R)$) for the derived category of bound above complexes of Nisnevich sheaves (respectively Nisnevich sheaves with transfers). Write $DM^-(\\R)\\subseteq D^-(NSwT/\\R)$ for the full subcategory consisting of complexes with homotopy invariant Nisnevich cohomology sheaves.\n\n\\[cyccomp\\] Let $X$ be a smooth real variety. The diagram commutes $$\\label{tricom}\n \\xymatrix{\n L^{q}H\\R^{q-k,q}(X;\\Z/2) \\ar[d]_-{\\Phi} && \\ar[ll]_{\\iso}\\H^{2q-k,q}_{\\mcal{M}}(X;\\Z/2)  \\ar[d]^-{cyc}  \\\\\nH^{q-k,q}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\underline{\\Z/2})  \\ar[r] & H_{G}^{2q-k}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\Z/2)\\ar[r] &  H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q}),\n}$$\n\nBy [@SV:BK Corollary 6.11.1] and the vanishing of the cohomology sheaves of $\\Z/2(q)$ above degree $q$, $$\\Z/2= \\Hom{DM^{-}(\\R)}{\\Z/2(q)}{B_{2}(q)}=\\Hom{DM^{-}(\\R)}{\\Z/2(q)}{\\pi_{0*}J^{\\bullet}}.$$\n\nAlso by [@SV:BK Lemma 6.5] the inclusion of bi-complexes $$\\Hom{Nis}{\\Z/2(q)}{\\pi_{0*}J^{\\bullet}} \\subseteq \\Hom{NSWT}{\\Z/2(q)}{\\pi_{0*}J^{\\bullet}}$$ is an equality. Therefore $$\\Z/2 =\\Hom{DM^{-}(\\R)}{\\Z/2(q)}{\\pi_{0*}J^{\\bullet}}=\\Hom{D^{-}(Nis)}{\\Z/2(q)}{\\pi_{0*}J^{\\bullet}}.$$ Finally, the map $\\Z/2(q)\\to \\pi_{0*}J^{\\bullet}$ obtained from (\\[maps\\]) is not trivial by Remark \\[notriv\\] and so we conclude that it must be the cycle map.\n\nApplications and computations\n-----------------------------\n\nAs a result of the compatibility of cycle maps we can conclude some Beilinson-Lichtenbaum type theorems for morphic cohomology which we need to prove the vanishing theorem. We also use these to make a few computations of equivariant morphic cohomology.\n\n\\[MCR\\] Let $X$ be a smooth real variety. The map $$\\Phi:L^{q}H\\R^{q-k,q}(X;\\Z/2^n) \\to H^{q-k,q}(X _\\C(\\C);\\underline{\\Z/2^n})$$ is an isomorphism for $q\\leq k$ and a monomorphism for $q=k+1.$\n\nConsider the commutative diagram (\\[tricom\\]). By [@SV:BK] the Milnor conjecture, proved by Voevodsky [@Voev:miln], implies that $cyc$ is an isomorphism for $k\\geq q$ and an injection for $k=q-1$. This immediately implies the statement for injectivity. If $k\\geq q$ then since $cyc$ is an isomorphism we conclude that $H_{G}^{2q-k}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\Z/2) \\to H^{2q-k}_{et}(X;\\mu_{2}^{\\otimes q})$ is a surjective map between finitely dimensional $\\Z/2$-vector spaces. By [@Cox:real] these are isomorphic $\\Z/2$-vector spaces and therefore the map is an isomorphism. Since $H^{q-k,q}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\underline{\\Z}) \\to H^{2q-k}_{G}(X_{\\C}(X);\\Z/2)$ is also an isomorphism for $k\\geq q$ by Proposition \\[binj\\] we conclude that $\\Phi$ is also an isomorphism for $k\\geq q$. This yields the result for $\\Z/2$-coefficients.\n\nWe have the following diagram of distinguished triangles in $D^-(Nis):$ $$\\xymatrix{\n\\Z/2(q)^{sst} _{Nis} \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & \\Z/4(q)^{sst} _{Nis} \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & \\Z/2(q)^{sst} _{Nis} \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & \\Z/2(q)^{sst} _{Nis}[1]\\ar[d] \\\\\n \\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/2(q)^{top} \\ar[r] & \\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/4(q)^{top} \\ar[r] & \\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/2(q)^{top}\\ar[r] &\\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/2(q)^{top}[1] ,\n}$$ To see that the bottom row is a triangle in $D^-(Nis)$ it is enough to check that the map on cohomology sheaves $\\mcal{H}^{q}(\\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/4(q)^{top}) \\to \\mcal{H}^{q}(\\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/2(q)^{top})$ is a surjection. This follows from the surjectivity of the composition $$\\mcal{H}^q(\\Z(q))\\to\\mcal{H}^q(\\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/4(q)^{top})\\to\\mcal{H}^q(\\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/2(q)^{top}).$$ which is a consequence of the local vanishing of $\\Z(q)$ and the quasi-isomorphisms $\\Z/2(q)\\to B_{2}(q)$ and $\\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/2(q)^{top}\\to B_{2}(q)$. Now the conclusion follows from the long exact sequence in hypercohomology associated to the diagram. Using induction on $n$ we conclude that $\\Phi:(\\Z/2^{n}(q)^{sst})_{Nis}\\to \\tau_{\\leq q}\\Z/2^{n}(q)^{top}$ is a quasi-isomorphism.\n\n\\[MCC\\] Let $X$ be a smooth complex variety. For any $n>0$ the map $$\\Phi: L^{q}H^{2q-k}(X;\\Z/2^n)\\to H^{2q-k} _{sing}(X(\\C);\\Z/2^n)$$ is an isomorphism for any $q\\leq k$ and a monomorphism for $q=k+1$.\n\nFollows immediately from Corollary \\[MCR\\] by viewing $X$ as real variety.\n\n\\[eBL\\] Let $X$ be a smooth real variety and $k>0$. The cycle map $$\\Phi:L^{q}H\\R^{r,s}(X; \\Z/2^{k}) \\to H^{r,s}(X_{\\C}(\\C); \\underline{\\Z/2^{k}})$$ is an isomorphism if $r\\leq 0$ (and $s\\leq q$) and an injection if $r=1$ (and $s\\leq q$).\n\nWrite $F  _q = \\hofib(\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2^{k}(X_{\\C}) \\to \\map{X_{\\C}(\\C)}{\\mcal{Z}/2^{k}_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})})$ for the homotopy fiber of the cycle map. The homotopy fiber construction is equivariant and yields an equivariant homotopy fiber sequence $$F _q\\to\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2^{k}(X_{\\C}) \\to \\map{X_{\\C}(\\C)}{\\mcal{Z}/2^{k}_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}.$$ By Corollary \\[MCC\\] and Corollary \\[MCR\\] both $\\pi_{k}(F _q) = 0$ and $\\pi_{k}(F^{G} _q) =0$ for $k\\geq q-1$. Therefore $\\Omega^{q-1}F _q$ is equivariantly weakly contractible for $q\\geq 1$ and if $q=0$ then $F _0$ is equivariantly contractible. The result follows now from the long exact sequence of homotopy groups applied to the equivariant homotopy fiber sequence $$\\Omega^{q-1}F _q\\to\\Omega^{q-1}\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2^{k}(X_{\\C}) \\to \\Omega^{q-1}\\map{X_{\\C}(\\C)}{\\mcal{Z}/2^{k}_{0}(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}.$$\n\n\\[cds\\] Let $X$ be a smooth real curve. Then $$L^{q}H\\R^{r,s}(X; \\Z) \\to H^{r,s}(X_{\\C}(\\C); \\underline{\\Z})$$ is an isomorphism for any $q\\geq 0$, $r\\leq q$, and $s\\leq q$.\n\nBy Poincare duality for real Lawson homology and equivariant morphic cohomology and Remark \\[fpa\\], $L^{q}H^{r,s}(X;\\Z) \\xrightarrow{\\iso} H^{r,s}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\underline{\\Z})$ for $q\\geq 1$. By Corollary \\[eBL\\], $L^{0}H\\R^{r,s}(X;\\Z/2^{k}) \\to H^{r,s}(X;\\underline{\\Z/2^{k}})$ is an isomorphism for $r,s\\leq 0$. When $A$ is an abelian group and $2$ is invertible in $A$ then a transfer argument shows that $$L^{0}H\\R^{r,s}(X;A)\\stackrel{\\iso}{\\to} H^{r,s}(X;\\underline{A}).$$ This isomorphism and the one with mod-$2^k$ coefficients give the result of the corollary.\n\nLet $X$ be a smooth real surface. Then for any $k>0$ $$L^{q}H\\R^{r,s}(X;\\Z/2^{k}) \\to H^{r,s}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\underline{\\Z/2^{k}})$$ is an isomorphism for $q=0$ and $r,s\\leq 0$ and it is an injection for $r=1$ and $s\\leq 1$. Moreover $L^{1}H\\R^{1,s}(X;\\Z/2^{k}) = 0$ for $s\\leq -2$.\n\nRecall that $\\pi_{0}\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}$ is the group of codimension $q$ cycles on $X$ modulo real algebraic equivalence.\n\nLet $X$ be a smooth real variety of dimension $d$. Then for any $k>0$ $$L^{1}H\\R^{r,s}(X;\\Z/2^{k}) \\to H^{r,s}(X; \\underline{\\Z/2^{k}})$$ is an isomorphism for any $r\\leq 0$ and $s\\leq 1$ and it is an injection for $r=1$ and $s\\leq 1$. Moreover $$\\begin{aligned}\n L^{1}H\\R^{1,1}(X;\\Z/2^{k}) & = CH^{1}(X)\\otimes\\Z/2^{k}\\subseteq H^{1,1}(X_{\\C}(\\C);\\underline{\\Z/2^{k}}) \\\\\nL^{1}H\\R^{1,s}(X;\\Z/2^{k}) & = 0 \\;\\;\\;\\;\\; \\textrm{for} \\;\\; s\\leq -2\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAll statements follow immediately from Corollary \\[eBL\\] except the last one. The first part of the last statement follows from Proposition \\[fcoeffagr\\]. For rest of the last statement, by Corollary \\[eBL\\] together with Proposition \\[binj\\] we have $$L^{1}H\\R^{1,s}(X;\\Z/2^{k}) \\hookrightarrow H^{1,s}(X_{\\C}(\\C); \\underline{\\Z/2^{k}}) \\hookrightarrow H^{1+s}_{G}(X_{\\C}(\\C);A) = 0$$ for $1+ s <0$.\n\nWe finish this section with the computation used in Corollary \\[MCR\\] that Bredon and Borel cohomology agree in the range relevant to the Beilinson-Lichtenbaum conjecture.\n\n\\[binj\\] Let $W$ be a $G$-$CW$ complex, $M$ a $G$-module, and $\\underline{M}$ the associated constant Mackey functor. The map $$H^{m,q}(W;\\underline{M}) \\to H^{m,q}(W\\times EG;\\underline{M})$$ is an isomorphism for $m\\leq 0$ and it is an injection for $m = 1$.\n\nIn particular for $q\\leq p$ the map $$H^{q-p,q}(W;\\underline{\\Z/2}) \\to H^{2q-p}_{\\Z/2}(W,\\Z/2)$$ is an isomorphism and an injection for $p=q-1$.\n\nDefine $\\tilde{E}G = \\colim_{n} S^{0,n}$. This space fits into a homotopy cofiber sequence $$EG_{+}\\to S^{0} \\to \\tilde{E}G$$ and $\\tilde{E}G/G \\wkeq S^{1,0}\\wedge BG$.\n\nFirst we consider the case that $G$ acts trivially on $W$. From the previous homotopy cofiber sequence we obtain the homotopy cofiber sequence $$\\label{EGcof}\n W_+\\wedge EG_+ \\to W_+ \\to W_+\\wedge \\tilde{E}G.$$ Since $G$ acts trivially on $W$ we have that $(W_+\\wedge \\tilde{E}G)/G = W_+ \\wedge \\tilde{E}G/G\\wkeq W_+ \\wedge S^{1,0}\\wedge BG$ and therefore $\\tilde{H}^{k,0}(W_+\\wedge \\tilde{E}G;\\underline{M}) = \n\\tilde{H}_{sing}^{k-1}(W_+\\wedge BG;M) = 0$ if $k\\leq 1$. Notice that $S^{0,1}\\wedge \\tilde{E}G = S^{0,1}\\wedge \\colim_{n}S^{0,n} = \\colim_{n} S^{0,n+1}\\iso \\tilde{E}G$. Since $\\tilde{E}G \\iso S^{0,1}\\wedge \\tilde{E}G$ is an equivariant equivalence this induces an isomorphism $$\\tilde{H}^{k,s}(W_+\\wedge \n\\tilde{E}G;\\underline{M}) \\iso \\tilde{H}^{k,0}(W_+\\wedge \n\\tilde{E}G;\\underline{M})$$ for all $s$ and therefore $\\tilde{H}^{k,s}(W_+\\wedge \n\\tilde{E}G, \\underline{M})= 0$ for $k\\leq 1$ for all $s$. Now from the long exact sequence associated to the cofiber sequence (\\[EGcof\\]) it follows that for all $q$ the map $H^{m,q}(W;\\underline{M}) \\to \nH^{m,q}(W\\times EG;\\underline{M})$ is an isomorphism for $m\\leq 0$ and an injection for $m=1$.\n\nConsider now a general $G$-$CW$ complex $W$ and consider the quotient $W/W^G$. Since $G$ acts freely on the based space $W/W^{G}$ we have the isomorphism $$\\tilde{H}^{s,t}(X/X^{G};\\underline{M})\\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\tilde{H}^{s,t}(X/X^{G}\\wedge EG_{+};M).$$ Applying the five lemma to the comparison of long exact sequences obtained from the cofiber sequences $W_{+}^{G}\\to W_{+} \\to W/W^{G}$ and $(W^{G}\\times EG)_{+} \\to (W\\times EG)_{+} \\to W/W^{G}\\wedge EG_{+}$ yields the result.\n\nVanishing Theorem\n=================\n\nLet $X$ be a real variety. Continue to write $G = \\Z/2$ and $\\sigma\\in G$ for the nontrivial element. Recall that the reduced real cycle group is defined to be the quotient topological group $$\\mcal{R}_{q}(X) = \\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}}{\\mcal{Z}_{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}}.$$ This is the free $\\Z/2$-module generated by closed subvarieties $Z\\subseteq X$ such that both $Z$ and $Z_{\\C}$ are irreducible. In particular, if $X$ is a complex variety viewed as a variety over $\\R$ then $\\mcal{R}_{q}(X) = 0$.\n\nReduced real Lawson homology of $X$ is defined by the homotopy groups of this space, $$RL_{q}H_{n}(X) = \\pi_{n-q}\\mcal{R}_{q}(X).$$\n\nIn this section we prove our main theorem which we state now.\n\nLet $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Then $$\\pi_k\\mcal{R}_n(X) = RL_{n}H_{k+n}(X) = 0$$ for $k\\geq \\dim X -n +1$.\n\nTo avoid difficulties with point-set topology below we work simplicially. Note that if $X$ is a $G$-space then $\\sing_{\\bullet}X$ is a $G$-simplicial set and $\\sing_{\\bullet}(X^{G}) = (\\sing_{\\bullet} X)^{G}$. If $A_{\\bullet}$ is a $G$-simplicial set then $|A^G_{\\bullet}| = |A_{\\bullet}|^{G}$ (see for example [@dug:kr Lemma A.5]).\n\n1.  Let $W$ be a $G$-space. Write $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^q_{top}(W) = \\uphom{W\\times \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}}{\\mcal{Z}_0(\\A^{q}_{\\C})},$$ and $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(W) = \\uphom{W\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_0(\\A^{q}_{\\C})}.$$ These are simplicial abelian groups and $G$ acts on them by the standard formula $(\\sigma f)(x) = \\sigma f(\\sigma  x)$.\n\n2.  Let $X$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety. Write $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^q(X_{\\C}) = \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^q(X_{\\C})$$ and $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}) = \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}).$$\n\nWe have $$\\pi_k\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}_{top}(X _\\C(\\C))^G \\iso H^{q-k,q}(X_{\\C}(\\C),\\underline{\\Z})$$ and $$\\pi_k\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}(X _\\C)^G \\iso L^qH\\R^{2q-k}(X;\\Z)$$ and similarly for the mod-$2$ groups. In particular if $X$ is a complex variety viewed as a real variety then $X_{\\C}(\\C) = X(\\C)\\coprod X(\\C)$ (with $G$-action switching the factors) and so $$\\pi_k\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}_{top}(X _\\C(\\C))^G \\iso H^{2q-k}_{sing}(X(\\C),\\underline{\\Z}) \\;\\;\\;\\;\\textrm{and}\\;\\;\\;\\;\\ \\pi_k\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^q(X _\\C)^G \\iso L^qH^{2q-k}(X;\\Z)\n% \\pi_k\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2}_{top}(X _\\C(\\C))^G \\iso H^{2q-k}_{sing}(X(\\C),\\underline{\\Z/2}).$$ and similarly for the mod-$2$ groups.\n\nThe comparison maps (\\[morphcomp\\]) of simplicial abelian groups $$\\Phi:\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^q(X_{\\C}) \\to \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}_{top}(X _\\C(\\C))\n\\hskip 0.5cm \\text{and} \\hskip 0.5cm\n\\Phi:\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}) \\to \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X _\\C(\\C))$$ are $G$-equivariant for any quasi-projective real variety $X$.\n\nIf $M_{\\bullet}$ is a simplicial $G$-module write $N=1+\\sigma:M_{\\bullet}\\to M_{\\bullet}$ and define $M_{\\bullet}^{av}$ to be $$M_{\\bullet}^{av} = Im(N) =Im(1+\\sigma: M_{\\bullet} \\to M_{\\bullet}).$$\n\nLet $W$ be a $G$-space. Define the group of *reduced topological cocycles* (of codimension $q$) to be the quotient simplicial abelian group $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W) = \\frac{\\uphom{W\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\\A_{\\C}^{q})}^G}\n{\\uphom{W\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(\\A_{\\C}^{q})}^{av}} = \\frac{\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(W)^{G}}{\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(W)^{av}}.$$\n\nTo relate the space of reduced algebraic cocycles with the reduced topological cocycles we introduce the following auxiliary simplicial set for $X$ a quasi-projective normal real variety: $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) = \\frac{\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}^{q}}/2(X_{\\C})^{G}}{\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}}.$$\n\nLet $X$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety. The following diagrams commute and the horizontal rows are short exact sequences of simplicial abelian groups (and therefore in particular the horizontal rows are homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial sets) $$\\label{fib1}\n \\xymatrix{\n\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\Phi^{G}} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}) \\ar[r]^{N}\\ar[d]^{\\Phi} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av} \\ar[d]^{\\Phi^{av}} \\\\\n\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\\C}(\\C))^{G} \\ar[r] & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\\C}(\\C)) \\ar[r]^{N} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\\C}(\\C))^{av} ,\n}$$ and $$\\label{fib2}\n \\xymatrix{\n\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\Phi^{av}} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\Phi^{G}} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) \\ar[d]^{\\overline{\\Phi}} \\\\\n\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\\C}(\\C))^{av} \\ar[r] & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\\C}(\\C))^{G} \\ar[r] & \\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(X _{\\C}(\\C)) .\n}$$\n\nThese diagrams commute because $\\Phi$ is a $G$-homomorphism.\n\nWhenever $M$ is a $G$-module whose underlying abelian group is $2$-torsion then the sequence of abelian groups $ 0\\to M^{G} \\to M \\xrightarrow{N} M^{av} \\to 0$ is exact.\n\nIn particular the underlying sequences of simplicial abelian $G$-modules in the first diagram form short exact sequences of simplicial abelian groups. In the second diagram the horizontal rows form short exact sequences by definition of $\\widetilde{R}^{q}(-)$ and $\\widetilde{R}^{q}_{top}(-)$.\n\nBy definition we have $$(\\sing_{\\bullet} \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}))^{av}=\\im(\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})\n \\xrightarrow{N} \\sing _{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})) .$$\n\nThere is a natural map $i: (\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}))^{av} \\to \\sing_{\\bullet}(\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av})$ which is simply $$i(f+\\overline{f})=f+\\overline{f}$$ for a continuous map $f:\\Delta^d _{top}\\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})$. The map $ i:(\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}))^{av} \\to \\sing_{\\bullet}(\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av})$ induces a map\n\n$$\\label{rvcomp}\n \\overline{i}: \\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) \\to \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{R}^{q}(X).$$\n\n\\[sra\\] Let $X$ be a normal real projective variety. The map (\\[rvcomp\\]) of simplicial abelian groups $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) \\to \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$$ is a homotopy equivalence.\n\nBy Proposition \\[qimav\\] the maps $\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})/\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G}\\xrightarrow{} \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}$ and $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}/2\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X)^{G} \\xrightarrow{} \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}$ are isomorphisms of topological groups. Therefore both $$0\\to\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G} \\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}) \\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av} \\to 0$$ and $$0\\to\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av} \\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G} \\to \\mcal{R}^q(X)\\to 0$$ are short exact sequences of topological abelian groups. These groups all have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex and therefore these sequences are homotopy fiber sequences [@Teh:real]. Applying $\\sing_{\\bullet}$ to these homotopy fiber sequence and comparing with the homotopy fiber sequences of the top rows of \\[fib1\\] and \\[fib2\\] gives commutative diagrams of homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial sets: $$\\label{fibra1}\n \\xymatrix{\n\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\simeq} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}) \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\simeq} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av} \\ar[d]^{i} \\\\\n\\sing_{\\bullet}{\\mcal{Z}/2}^q(X_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r] & \\sing _{\\bullet}{\\mcal{Z}/2}^q(X_{\\C}) \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}{\\mcal{Z}/2}^q(X_{\\C})^{av} ,\n}$$ and $$\\label{fibra2}\n \\xymatrix{\n\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{i} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\simeq} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^q(X) \\ar[d]^{\\overline{i}} \\\\\n\\sing_{\\bullet}{\\mcal{Z}/2}(X_{\\C})^{av} \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}{\\mcal{Z}/2}^q(X_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r] & \\sing_{\\bullet}{\\mcal{R}}^q(X ) .\n}$$ From the first diagram we see that $i:\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}\\xrightarrow{\\wkeq}\\sing_{\\bullet}(\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av})$ is a weak equivalence of simplicial sets and consequently from the second diagram we conclude that $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}(X)\\xrightarrow{\\wkeq} \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$$ is a weak equivalences of simplicial abelian groups and therefore is a homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets.\n\nWe now prove our main theorem.\n\n\\[main\\] Let $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety of dimension $d$. Then $$RL_{n}H_{n+k}(X) = \\pi_k\\mcal{R}_n(X) = 0$$ for $k\\geq d -n +1$.\n\nWe first consider the case when $X$ is a smooth projective real variety.\n\nIn case $n=d=dim(X)$ we have that $$\\mcal{R} _d(X)=\\frac{\\mcal{Z} _d(X_\\C)^G}{\\mcal{Z} _d(X_\\C)^{av}}=\\mathbb{Z}/2^{\\times c},$$ where $c$ denotes the number of irreducible components of $X$ which are not defined over $\\C$.\n\nTherefore $\\pi _0(\\mcal{R} _d(X))=\\mathbb{Z}/2^{\\times c}$ and $\\pi _i(\\mcal{R} _d(X))=0$ for $i>0$.\n\nConsider the comparison of homotopy fiber sequences (\\[fib1\\]) for $q>0$. $$\\xymatrix{\n\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\Phi^{G}} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}) \\ar[r]^{N}\\ar[d]^{\\Phi} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av} \\ar[d]^{\\Phi^{av}} \\\\\n\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\\C}(\\C))^{G} \\ar[r] & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}(X_{\\C}(\\C)) \\ar[r]^{N} & \\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}^q(X_{\\C}(\\C))^{av} ,\n}$$ By the Milnor conjecture (see Corollary \\[MCC\\]) the comparison map $\\Phi$ induces an isomorphism on $\\pi_k$ for $k\\geq q$ and induces an injection for $k =q-1$. By Corollary \\[MCR\\] the map $\\Phi^{G}$ induces an isomorphism on $\\pi_k$ for $k\\geq q$ and induces an injection for $k =q-1$. We now conclude by the $5$-lemma that $\\Phi^{av}$ induces an isomorphism on $\\pi_k$ for $k\\geq q+1$. When $k=q$ we have the comparison diagram: $$\\xymatrix{\n\\pi_q\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2^{G} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\iso} & \\pi_q\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2 \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\iso} & \\pi_q\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2^{av} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\Phi^{av}} & \\pi_{q-1}\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2^{G} \\ar@^{(->}[d] \\\\\n\\pi_q\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}^{G} \\ar[r] & \\pi_q\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top} \\ar[r] & \\pi_q\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}^{av} \\ar[r] & \\pi_{q-1}\\widetilde{\\mcal{Z}}^{q}/2_{top}^{G}\n}$$ and so $\\Phi^{av}$ induces an injection for $k=q$.\n\nConsidering now the comparison diagram (\\[fib2\\]) and using the five-lemma we have that $\\overline{\\Phi}$ induces an isomorphism on $\\pi_{k}$ for $k\\geq q+2$ and an injection for $k =q+1$.\n\nBy Corollary \\[rdual\\], $\\pi_k\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(X_{\\C}(\\C)) =  H^{q -k}(X(\\R), \\Z/2)$ for $k\\geq 2$. In particular $\\pi_k\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) = 0$ for $k\\geq q+1$, when $q\\geq 1$. By the homotopy equivalences $\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}(X)\\wkeq \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$ (see Lemma \\[sra\\]) and the duality [@Teh:real Theorem 5.14] between reduced cycle and reduced cocycle spaces $\\mcal{R}^{q}(X) \\xrightarrow{\\wkeq} \\mcal{R}_{d-q}(X)$ the vanishing $\\pi_k\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}(X) = 0$ for $k\\geq q+1$ is equivalent to the vanishing $\\pi_k\\mcal{R}_{n}(X) = 0$ for $k\\geq \\dim X -n+1$.\n\nNow let $X$ be a smooth quasi-projective variety and let $X\\subseteq \\overline{X}$ be a projective closure with closed complement $Z= \\overline{X}\\backslash X$. The result follows from the projective case and the long exact sequence in homotopy groups induced by the homotopy fiber sequence $$\\mcal{R}_{n}(Z) \\to \\mcal{R}_{n}(\\overline{X}) \\to \\mcal{R}_{n}(X).$$\n\nFinally let $X$ be an arbitrary quasi-projective variety. There is an increasing filtration of closed subvarieties $$\\varnothing = X_{-1} \\subseteq X_{0} \\subseteq X_{1} \\subseteq \\cdots \\subseteq X_{d} = X$$ such that $X_{i+1}\\backslash X_{i}$ is smooth and $\\dim X_{i} = i$. We proceed by induction, the case $i=0$ is done. Consider the long exact sequence which arises from the homotopy fiber sequence $$\\mcal{R}_{n}(X_{i}) \\to \\mcal{R}_{n}(X_{i+1}) \\to \\mcal{R}_{n}(X_{i+1}\\backslash X_{i}).$$ Since the result holds for $X_{i}$ by induction and for $X_{i+1}\\backslash X_{i}$ because it is smooth we obtain the result for $X_{i+1}$.\n\nIf $X$ is a projective smooth real variety of dimension $d$ it is proved in [@Teh:real Theorem 6.7] that $\\pi _k (\\mcal{R}_{d-1}(X))= 0$ for any $k\\geq 3$. Theorem \\[main\\] in case $n=d-1$ improves this vanishing bound.\n\n\\[exR\\] If $n=0$ and if $X$ has no real points then $\\mcal{R}_{0}(X)=0$ and so $$RL_{0}H_{*}(X) = \\pi_{*}\\mcal{R}_{0}(X)= H_*^{sing}(X(\\R),\\Z/2)=0.$$\n\nLet $\\P(\\H)$ denote the space of complex lines in the quaternions $\\H = \n\\C \\oplus j\\C$ where $j^2 = -1$. Multiplication by $j$ defines an involution on $\\P(\\H)$ and write $Q$ for the corresponding 1-dimensional real curve. We know that $Q$ is the smooth real curve $X^2+Y^2+Z^2=0$ in $\\mathbb{P}^2 _\\mathbb{R}$. This is the Severi-Brauer variety corresponding to the non-trivial element of $Br(\\R) = \\Z/2$ and has no real points. This means $\\mcal{R}_{0}(Q) = 0 $ and $\\mcal{R}_{1}(Q) = \\Z/2$. Thus in this case, $$0 = RL_{0}H_{0}(Q) = RL_{0}H_{1}(Q) = H_0(Q(\\R),\\Z/2)$$ and $$\\Z/2 = RL_1H_1(Q).$$\n\nLet $X=SP^{2d+1}(Q)$ be the smooth projective real variety given by an odd symmetric power of $Q$. Because $X _\\mathbb{C}=\\mathbb{P} _\\mathbb{C}(\\mathbb{H}^{d+1})$, we have $\\mcal{R}^{2q}(X)=\\mathbb{Z}/2 $ and $\\mcal{R}^{2q+1}(X)=0$ for any $2q\\leq 2d+1$ (see [@LLM:quat Theorem 2.3]). This implies that the only nonzero reduced Lawson homology groups of $X$ are $RL _{2r+1}H _{2r+1}(X)=\\mathbb{Z}/2$ for any $r\\leq d$. Notice that in this case $dim(X)=2d+1$.\n\nThese computations show that the vanishing in the above theorem is best possible, even in the case of a real variety with no real points.\n\nAccording to [@Lam:t], $RL _rH_n(\\P^d _\\R)=\\Z/2$ for any $0\\leq r\\leq n\\leq d$ and $RL_rH_n(\\P^d _\\R)=0$ for any $n>d$.\n\nWe also obtain the following vanishing result.\n\n\\[av2\\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective real variety of dimension $d$. Then $$\\pi_{n}\\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}} = 0$$ for $n\\geq 2d-2p+1$.\n\nBy the Corollaries \\[MCC\\], \\[MCR\\], \\[qimav\\] and \\[PD\\] we conclude that $$\\pi_n\\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{G}} = 0$$ for $n\\geq 2d- 2p+1$ from the long exact sequence in homotopy groups induced by the short exact sequence [@Teh:HT Proposition 4.3] $$\\label{ses1}\n 0 \\to \\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{G}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{G}} \\to \\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})} \\to \\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{G}} \\to 0 .$$\n\nConsider the short exact sequences of topological abelian groups $$0 \\to \\frac{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{G}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}} \\to \n\\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}} \\to \n\\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{G}} \\to 0 .$$\n\nMultiplication by $2$ induces a homeomorphism $$\\mcal{R}_{p}(X) = \\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{G}}{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}} \\iso \\frac{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{G}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}}$$ and plugging the vanishing for homotopy groups of $\\mcal{R}_{p}(X)$ into the above exact sequence yields the result.\n\nUsing the same arguments as in Theorem \\[main\\] shows that the vanishing in Corollary \\[av2\\] holds for any quasi-projective real variety.\n\n\\[avopt\\] Let $X=\\mathbb{P}^{d} _{\\R}$. Then $$\\pi_{n}\\left(\\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(\\P^{d}_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(\\P^{d}_{\\C})^{av}}\\right) = 0$$ for any $n\\geq 2d-2p+1$. If $p=d$, then $$\\pi_{2d-2p}\\left(\\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{d}(\\P^{d}_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{d}(\\P^{d}_{\\C})^{av}}\\right) = \\Z/2$$ If $p=0$ then, for any real projective variety $X$, $$\\pi _* \\left(\\frac{\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}_{p}(X_{\\C})^{av}}\\right)=H _*(X(\\C)/G,\\Z/2).$$ These computations show that the vanishing bound of Corollary \\[av2\\] is the best possible. For these computations see [@LLM:quat].\n\nThe following corollary shows that in a range the morphic cohomology of a real variety $X$ can be computed by the homotopy groups of average cycles on $X$.\n\n\\[m=av\\] Let $X$ be a real quasi-projective variety. Then $$\\pi _q(\\mcal{Z} _p(X _\\mathbb{C})^G)\\simeq \\pi _q(\\mcal{Z} _p(X _\\mathbb{C})^{av})$$ for any $q\\geq dim(X)-p+1$.\n\nThis follows from Theorem \\[main\\] together with the long exact sequence of homotopy groups associated to the homotopy fiber sequence $$0\\rightarrow \\mcal{Z} _{p}(X _\\mathbb{C})^{av}\\rightarrow \\mcal{Z} _{p}(X _\\mathbb{C})^G\\rightarrow \\mcal{R} _p(X)\\rightarrow 0.$$\n\n1.  In case of divisors $p=dim(X)-1$, Corollary \\[m=av\\] and [@Teh:HT Proposition 6.2] show that $$\\pi _q(\\mcal{Z} _p(X _\\mathbb{C})^{av})=0$$ for any $q\\geq 2$.\n\n2.  In the case of zero-cycles $p=0$, we get $$H _{k,0}(X(\\mathbb{C}),\\underline{ \\mathbb{Z}})\\simeq H _k(X(\\mathbb{C})/G,\\mathbb{Z})$$ for any $k\\geq dim(X)+1$.\n\nWe conclude this section by observing that the vanishing theorem also shows that motivic cohomology of a real variety can be computed in a range via the complex of averaged equidimensional cycles on the complexification.\n\nLet $X$ and $Y$ be a quasi-projective real varieties. The group of reduced equidimensional cycles is defined to be the quotient group $$r_{equi}(Y, r)(X) = \\frac{z_{equi}(Y_{\\C}, r)(X_{\\C})^{G}}{z_{equi}(Y_{\\C}, r)(X_{\\C})^{av}}.$$\n\nIt is essentially a consequence of Suslin rigidity that the complex of reduced equidimensional cycles computes the reduced Lawson homology.\n\nLet $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety.\n\n1.  The diagram $$r_{equi}(\\A^{q},q)(X\\times\\Delta_{top}^{\\bullet}) \\xleftarrow{\\wkeq} r_{equi}(\\P^{q/q-1},q)(X\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}) \\xrightarrow{\\wkeq} \\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{R}^{q}(X)$$ consists of homotopy equivalences of simplicial sets.\n\n2.  The map $$r_{equi}(\\P^{q/q-1}, 0)(X\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}) \\xrightarrow{\\wkeq} r_{equi}(\\P^{q/q-1}, 0)(X\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top})$$ is a homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets.\n\nThe proof is similar to other proofs in this paper so we only provide a sketch. First observe that the simplicial abelian group of reduced equidimensional cycles may be computed as $$r_{equi}(Y, r)(X) = \\frac{(z_{equi}(Y_{\\C}, r)(X_{\\C})\\otimes\\Z/2)^{G}}{(z_{equi}(Y_{\\C}, r)(X_{\\C})\\otimes\\Z/2)^{av}}.$$ Using Proposition \\[smheq\\] and the appropriate analogues of the homotopy fiber sequences (\\[fib1\\]) and (\\[fib2\\]) we see that $$r_{equi}(\\P^{q},0)(X\\times\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top})\\to \n\\frac{(\\sing_{\\bullet}\\Mor{\\C}{X_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})}^{+}/2)^{G}}{(\\sing_{\\bullet}\\Mor{\\C}{X_{\\C}}{\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})}^{+}/2)^{av}}$$ is a homotopy equivalence. The first part follows now in a similar fashion as Proposition \\[qisoseq\\]. The second part follows from the fact that both over $\\C$ and over $\\R$ with finite coefficients motivic cohomology agrees with morphic cohomology.\n\nLet $X$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Then $$H_{\\mcal{M}}^{p}(X;\\Z(q)) = \\pi_{2q-p}z_{equi}(\\A^{q}_{\\C}, 0)(X_{\\C}\\times_{\\C}\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{\\C})^{av}$$ for $q-1 \\geq p$\n\nReduced Topological Cocycles {#subdual}\n============================\n\nFor typographical simplicity throughout this section we write $\\mcal{Z} = \\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}$. This section is devoted to the computation that $\\pi_{k}\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)= H^{q-k}_{sing}(W^{G};\\Z/2)$, for $k\\geq 2$, where $\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)$ is the quotient simplicial abelian group $$\\displaystyle{\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)= \\frac{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{G}}{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}}}$$ and $W$ is a based finite $G$-$CW$ complex.\n\nThe idea is to reduce to the case of trivial action. Before doing this we sketch what happens when $G$ acts trivially on $W$. By [@LLM:real Proposition 8.3] the short exact sequence $$0\\to \\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av} \\to \\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G} \\to \\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}\\to 0$$ is a fibration sequence (in fact principle fibration sequence) of topological spaces. Applying $\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{-}$ to this sequence yields a homotopy fiber sequence of simplicial sets. Now we compare the homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial abelian groups $$\\xymatrix@-1pc{\n\\Hom{}{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]&\n\\Hom{}{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{G} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]^{\\iso}& \n\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W)\\ar[d] \\\\\n\\Hom{}{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}^{av}} \\ar[r]&\n\\Hom{}{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}^{G}} \\ar[r]& \n% \\Hom{*}{|\\sing_{\\bullet}W|\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{n})_{0}}\n% \\mcal{H}^{q}(W) \n% \\Hom{}{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q})}\n\\mcal{H}^{q}(W),\n}$$ where $\\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}}$. We will see that when $W$ has trivial $G$-action then the left vertical arrow induces an isomorphism on $\\pi_{k}$ for $k\\geq 1$ (see Corollary \\[zeroav\\]). Therefore $\\pi_{i}\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W) =\\pi_{i}\\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = H^{q-i}_{sing}(W;\\Z/2)$ for $i\\geq 2$ when $W$ has trivial $G$-action.\n\nFor a based $G$-$CW$ complex $W$ and a topological $G$-module $Z$, write $$\\phom{W}{Z}_{0}^{G}$$\n\nfor the set of based equivariant maps which are equivariantly homotopic to the $0$-map (via a based homotopy).\n\n\\[conncomp\\] Let $W$ be a based $G$-$CW$ complex and let $Z$ be a topological $G$-module. The simplicial set $$d\\mapsto\\phom{W\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{Z}_{0}^{G} \n% \\subseteq (d\\mapsto \\phom{W\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{G})$$ is the path-connected component of the vertex $0\\in \\phom{W\\wedge \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z}^{G}$.\n\nA vertex $g \\in \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z}^{G}$ is in the same path component as the $0$-map if and only if there is a $1$-simplex $F\\in  \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{1}_{top,+}}{Z}^{G}$ such that $F(0) = 0$ and $F(1) = g$. This happens exactly when $g\\in \\phom{W}{Z}_{0}^{G}$.\n\nA $d$-simplex, $f:W\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+} \\to Z$ is in the path-component of $0$ if and only if its restriction to a vertex is in the path component of $0$. Since $\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}$ is equivariantly contractible and the restriction $f|_{W\\wedge\\{v\\}_+}$ to a vertex is equivariantly homotopic to the constant map $0$ we conclude that $f$ itself is equivariantly homotopic to $0$.\n\nLet $W$ be a based $G$-$CW$ complex.\n\n1.  Define $\\phom{W\\wedge \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{av}$ to be the path-connected component of the vertex $0$ in the simplicial set $\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}$.\n\n2.  Define $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)_{0} =\\frac{\\phom{W\\wedge \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{G}}{\\phom{W\\wedge \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{av}},$$ here the quotient is in the category of simplicial abelian groups.\n\nRestricting to $W^{G}$ gives rise to the comparison map $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)_{0} \\to \\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W) \\to \\phom{W^{G}\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q})}.$$\n\nNote that $\\pi_{i}\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)_{0} \\to \\pi_{i}\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)$ is an isomorphism for $i\\geq 2$ and an injection for $i=0,1$. To compute $\\pi_{i}\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)$ we will show that $\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W)_{0}\\to\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W^{G})_{0}$ is an isomorphism. The surjectivity is easy but the injectivity takes some work.\n\nLet $i:A\\hookrightarrow W$ be an equivariant cofibration between based $G$-$CW$-complexes and let $Z$ be a topological $G$-module. Then $$i^*:\\phom{W}{Z}^{G}_{0}\\to \\phom{A}{Z}^{G}_{0}$$ is surjective.\n\nSuppose that $f:A\\to Z$ is a based equivariant map which is based equivariantly homotopic to the $0$-map. Let $H:A\\wedge I_+\\to Z$ be an equivariant homotopy such that $H(-,0) = 0$ and $H(-,1) = f$.\n\nBy the homotopy extension property of cofibrations, an equivariant map $H'$ making the diagram below commute exists $$\\xymatrix{\nW\\wedge\\{0\\}_+\\coprod_{A\\wedge\\{0\\}_+} A\\wedge I_+ \\ar[r]^-{0\\amalg H}\\ar@{^{(}->}[d] & Z\\\\\nW\\wedge I_+ \\ar@{-->}[ur]_-{H'} & .\n}$$ The restriction of $f'=H'(-,1)$ to $A$ is equal to $f$ and $H'$ is an equivariant homotopy between $f'$ and the $0$-map.\n\n\\[rsurj\\] Let $i:A\\hookrightarrow W$ be an equivariant cofibration between based $G$-$CW$-complexes. The induced map $$i^*:\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \\to \\rtop{q}(A)_{0}$$ is a surjection.\n\nConsider the square $$\\xymatrix{\n\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{G} \\ar@{->>}[r]\\ar@{->>}[d] & \\phom{A\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{G} \\ar@{->>}[d]\\\\\n\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \\ar[r] & \\rtop{q}(A)_{0}.\n}$$ By the previous proposition, the top horizontal arrow is surjective. The vertical arrows are surjective by definition and therefore the bottom horizontal arrow is also surjective.\n\nFor a based $CW$-complex $W$ and a topological abelian group $Z$ we will write $\\phom{W}{Z}_{0}$ for the set of based continuous maps which are based homotopic to the $0$-map. Note that the simplicial set $$d\\mapsto \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{Z}_{0}$$ is the path-connected component of the vertex $0\\in\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}$ (for example consider $W$ and $Z$ with trivial $G$-action and apply Lemma \\[conncomp\\]). If $Z$ and $W$ have a $G$-action write $\\left(\\phom{W}{Z}_{0}\\right)^{av}$ for the image of $N=1+\\sigma$. This set consists of maps $h:W\\to Z$ which can be written as $h = f+\\overline{f}$ where $f$ is a continuous map which is nonequivariantly homotopic to $0$.\n\nWe now justify the use of similar notation for two potentially different simplicial sets. Previously we wrote $\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}_{0}$ for the path-component of the vertex $0\\in \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}$. We now verify that this path-component can be described explicitly as the image under $N=1+\\sigma$ of the path-component of $0\\in\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z}$. In otherwords $\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{av}= (\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$. This explicit description will be fundamental to our proof of Proposition \\[kernsurj\\] below.\n\nLet $W$ be a based $G$-$CW$-complex. The simplicial set $$d\\mapsto(\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$$ is the path-connected component of $0 \\in \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}$\n\nFirst we identify $(\\phom{W}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$ as the set of vertices of the path-connected component of $0\\in \\phom{W}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}$. Any $f+\\overline{f}\\in (\\phom{W}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$ is in the path component of $0$. Suppose the vertex $h+\\overline{h}\\in \\phom{W}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}$ is in the same path component as $0$. This means there is a map of simplicial sets $$F:I \\to \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}$$ such that $F(0) = 0$ and $F(1) = h + \\overline{h}$. Consider the diagram of simplicial sets, $$\\xymatrix{\n\\{0\\}\\ar[r]^-{0} \\ar@{^{(}->}[d]^-{\\wkeq} & \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}} \\ar@{->>}[d]^{N} \\\\\nI \\ar[r]^-{F}\\ar@{-->}[ur]^-{F'} & \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av} .\n}$$ A surjection between simplicial abelian groups is a fibration and therefore an $F'$ exists to make the above square commute.\n\nThe map $F'(1):W\\to \\mcal{Z}$ is in $\\phom{W}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0}$ and satisfies $$F'(1) + \\overline{F'(1)}= N(F'(1)) = F(1) = h + \\overline{h}.$$ We conclude that $(\\phom{W}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$ is the set of vertices of the path-connected component of the $0 \\in \\phom{W}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}$.\n\nNow to conclude that the simplicial set $d\\mapsto(\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$ is the path-connected component of $0$ we need to see that if the restriction $g|_{W\\wedge\\{v\\}_+}$ of $g\\in \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{n}_{top,+}}{Z}^{av}$ to a vertex $v\\in \\Delta^{n}_{top}$ lies in $(\\phom{W}{Z}_{0})^{av}$ then $g\\in (\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{n}_{top,+}}{Z}_{0})^{av}$. That is, if $g\\in \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{n}_{top,+}}{Z}^{av}$ and that there is a map $f:W\\to \\mcal{Z}$ which is homotopic to $0$ such that the restriction of $g$ to some vertex $v\\in \\Delta^{n}_{top}$ satisfies $g|_{W\\wedge \\{v\\}_{+}} = f+\\overline{f}$ then we need to see that $g$ can be written $g = f'+\\overline{f'}$ for some $f':W\\wedge \\Delta^{n}_{top,+} \\to\\mcal{Z}$ which is homotopic to $0$. For this we consider the lift $f{'}$ of $g$, $$\\xymatrix{\n\\{v\\} \\ar@{^{(}->}[d]^-{\\wkeq}\\ar[r]^-{f} & \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}} \\ar@{->>}[d]^{N} \\\\\n\\Delta^{n} \\ar[r]^-{g}\\ar@{-->}[ur]^-{f'}& \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}.\n}$$ The map $f{'}:W\\wedge \\Delta^{n}_{top,+}\\to \\mcal{Z}$ satisfies $f{'}+\\overline{f{'}}=N(f{'})=g$, the restriction of $f{'}$ to $v \\in \\Delta^{n}_{top}$ is homotopic to the $0$-map and, since $\\Delta^{n}_{top}$ is contractible, $f{'}$ is homotopic to the $0$-map as well.\n\nTherefore we conclude that $$d\\mapsto (\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0})^{av}$$ is the path-component of $0$ in $\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}^{av}$.\n\n\\[kernsurj\\] Let $i:A\\hookrightarrow W$ be an equivariant cofibration. Then $$\\rtop{q}(W/A)_{0}\\twoheadrightarrow \\ker[\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \\xrightarrow{i^*} \\rtop{q}(A)_{0}].$$\n\nSuppose that $[f]\\in \\ker(\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \\xrightarrow{i^*} \\rtop{q}(A)_{0})$ is a $d$-simplex. Then $[f]$ is represented by an equivariant map $f:W\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+} \\to \\mcal{Z}$ which is equivariantly homotopic to $0$. Since $i^*[f]=0$ this means that $i^{*}f \\in \\phom{A\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}}_{0}^{av}$. Thus there is a continuous map $h:A\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+} \\to \\mcal{Z}$, (nonequivariantly homotopic to $0$), such that $i^*f=f|_{A\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}} = h + \\overline{h}$. Since $h$ is (nonequivariantly) homotopic to the $0$-map, $h: A\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\\to \\mcal{Z}$ extends to a continuous map $h':W\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\\to \\mcal{Z}$ which is (nonequivariantly) homotopic to the $0$-map.\n\nExplicitely, let $H:A\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\\wedge I_+\\to \\mcal{Z}$ be a homotopy such that $H(-,0) = 0$ and $H(-,1) = h$. By the homotopy extension property for cofibrations, the dotted arrow exists in the diagram $$\\xymatrix{\n A\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top+}\\wedge I_+ \\coprod_{A\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\\wedge\\{0\\}_+} W\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\\wedge \\{0\\}_+ \\ar@{^{(}->}[d]\\ar[r]^-{H\\amalg 0} & \\mcal{Z}  \\\\\nW\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\\wedge I_+ \\ar@{-->}[ur]^{H'} . & \n}$$ Now $H'(-,1)=h'$ is the desired extension of $h$, $H'$ is a homotopy between $h'$ and the $0$-map and $F \\eqdef f-(h'+\\overline{h'})$ represents the same class as $[f]$. Since $F|_{A\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+}} = 0$ the map $F$ defines the map $F':W/A\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+} \\to \\mcal{Z}$ such that $$F =p^{*}F' : W \\xrightarrow{p} W/A\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+} \\to \\mcal{Z}.$$\n\nTherefore $$\\rtop{q}(W/A)_{0} \\twoheadrightarrow \\ker(i^{*}:\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \\to \\rtop{q}(A)_{0}),$$ because $p^{*}[F'] =[p^*F']=[F] = [f]$.\n\n(c.f. [@LLM:real Lemma 8.8]) Suppose that $A_{\\bullet}$ is a simplicial $G$-module. Then $$|A_{\\bullet}^{av}| = |A_{\\bullet}|^{av}$$\n\nLet $f_{\\bullet}:B_{\\bullet} \\to C_{\\bullet}$ be a map between simplicial sets, then $|\\im f_{\\bullet}| = \\im |f_{\\bullet}|$. The lemma follows since $(-)^{av}$ is defined to be the image of the map $N=1+\\sigma$.\n\n\\[avfib\\] Suppose that $Y=|Y_{\\bullet}|$ is the realization of a based $G$-simplicial set. Then $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)_{0} \\to \\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)^{av}_{0}$ and $\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(Y)_{0} \\to \\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(Y)_{0}^{av}$ are Serre fibrations.\n\nIf $Y$ is a based set and $A$ is an abelian group then define $A\\otimes Y = \\oplus_{y\\in Y\\backslash \\{*\\}} A$. If $Y_{\\bullet}$ is a based $G$-simplicial set then $A\\otimes Y_{\\bullet}$ is a $G$-simplicial set. In case $A= \\Z$ or $A=\\Z/2$ we have $\\mcal{Z}(|Y_{\\bullet}|)_{0} =|\\Z\\otimes Y_{\\bullet}|$ and $\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(|Y_{\\bullet}|)_{0} =|\\Z/2\\otimes Y_{\\bullet}|$ (see [@DS:equiDT; @MC:class]). The map $\\Z\\otimes Y_{\\bullet} \\to (\\Z\\otimes Y_{\\bullet})^{av}$ is a surjection between simplicial abelian groups and so is a fibration of simplicial sets and similarly for $\\Z/2\\otimes Y_{\\bullet} \\to (\\Z/2\\otimes Y_{\\bullet})^{av}$.\n\nThe realization of a Kan fibration is a Serre fibration and therefore both $\\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)_{0} =|\\Z\\otimes Y_{\\bullet}| \\xrightarrow{N} |(\\Z\\otimes Y_{\\bullet})^{av}|=\\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)_{0}^{av}$ and $\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(Y)_{0} =|\\Z/2\\otimes Y_{\\bullet}| \\xrightarrow{N} |(\\Z/2\\otimes Y_{\\bullet})^{av}|=\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(Y)_{0}^{av}$ are Serre fibrations of topological spaces.\n\nBelow we apply this proposition to the cases $Y= S^{q,q}$ and $Y=S^{q,q}\\wedge \\Z/2_{+}$ so we make explicit that these are realizations of $G$-simplicial sets. We consider $\\Z/2$ as a simplicial set in the usual way. The simplicial set $S^{1,0}$ is the ordinary $S^{1}$ with trivial action. The simplicial set $S^{0,1}$ is the simplicial whose nondegenerate simplices are two vertices $\\{0\\}$ and $\\{\\infty\\}$ and two $1$-simplices. The $G$-action fixes the vertices and switches the $1$-simplices. The realization of this simplicial set is the usual $S^{0,1}$. Now $S^{p,q}$ is the $G$-simplicial set $S^{p,q} = (S^{1,0})^{\\wedge p}\\wedge(S^{0,1})^{\\wedge q}$ and its realization is the usual $S^{p,q}$.\n\n\\[zeroav\\] Let $W$ be a based $G$-space with trivial action. Suppose that $Z$ is a topological $G$-module such that $Z\\xrightarrow{N} Z^{av}$ is a Serre fibration. Then $$\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z}^{av}_{0} = \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{Z^{av}}_{0} .$$\n\nSince $W$ and $\\Delta^{d}_{top}$ have trivial actions, $$\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_0(Y)_{0}}^{av}_{0} \\subseteq \\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_0(Y)_{0}^{av}}_{0} ,$$ and we wish to see that it is onto.\n\nSuppose that $f:W\\wedge \\Delta^{d}_{top,+} \\to Z^{av}$ is a map which is homotopic to $0$. Let $H$ be a homotopy between $0$ and $f$ and let $H'$ be a lift of $H$, $$\\xymatrix{\nW\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\\wedge \\{0\\}_{+}\\ar[r]^-{0}\\ar@{^{(}->}[d]^-{\\wkeq}  & Z\\ar@{->>}[d]^-{N} \\\\ \nW\\wedge\\Delta^{d}_{top,+}\\wedge I_{+} \\ar[r]^-{H}\\ar@{-->}[ur]^-{H'} &  Z^{av} ,\n}$$ which exists because the right-hand vertical map is a fibration. Finally the map $f'(-) = H'(-,1)$ satisfies $f' + \\overline{f}' = f$ and $H'$ is a homotopy between $0$ and $f'$.\n\nSuppose that $W$ has trivial $G$-action. Then for all $n\\geq 0$ and all $q\\geq 0$, $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W\\wedge\\Z/2_+)_{0} = \\{0\\} .$$\n\nFirst recall [@DS:equiDT Lemma 2.4] that given a finite $G$-set $Z$ then there is a $G$-homeomorphism $$\\Hom{*}{Z_+}{\\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y)_{0}} \\xrightarrow{\\iso}\\mcal{Z}_{0}(Y\\wedge Z_+)_{0}$$ defined by $f\\mapsto \\sum_{z\\in Z} f(z) \\wedge z$. This yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W\\wedge \\Z/2_+)_{0}  = & \\frac{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Z/2_+\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}}_{0}^G}\n{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Z/2_+\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}}_{0}^{av}}  = \\\\ = & \\frac{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\\wedge\\Z/2_+)_{0}}_{0}^{G}}\n{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q}\\wedge\\Z/2_+)_{0}}_{0}^{av}} = \\\\ = & \n\\frac{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\\wedge\\Z/2_+)_{0}^{G}}_{0}}\n{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q}\\wedge\\Z/2_+)_{0}^{av}}_{0}},\n% = & \\frac{\\shom{sSet*}{S^n}{\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G}}}\n% {\\shom{sSet*}{S^n}{\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av}}}.\\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from Lemma \\[zeroav\\] and Proposition \\[avfib\\] because $W$ has trivial $G$-action. But since the action of $G$ on $S^{q,q}\\wedge \\Z/2_+$ is free we have the isomorphism $$\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\\wedge \\Z/2_+)_{0}^{av} \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\\wedge\\Z/2_+)_{0}^{G}$$ and therefore $$\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W\\wedge \\Z/2_+)_{0}  = \\frac{\\phom{S^n\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q}\\wedge\\Z/2_+)_{0}^{G}}_{0}}\n{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q}\\wedge\\Z/2_+)_{0}^{av}}_{0}} = \\{0\\}.$$\n\nRecall that the action of $G$ on a based set $(Y,*)$ is said to be free if $Y^{G} = *$.\n\n\\[freezero\\] Suppose that $W$ is a based finite $G$-$CW$ complex with free $G$-action. Then $$\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} = \\{0\\}.$$\n\nFirst we observe that $\\rtop{q}(W_{n+1})_{0} \\to \\rtop{q}(W_{n})_{0}$ is an isomorphism for any $n$. Indeed since $W$ is a free $G$-$CW$ complex $W_{n}/W_{n-1}$ is a wedge of spheres of the form $S^{n}\\wedge \\Z/2_+$. By the previous proposition $\\rtop{q}(W_{n+1}/W_{n})_{0} = \\rtop{q}(\\vee S^{n+1}\\wedge\\Z/2_+)_{0} = \\{0\\}$.\n\nBy Proposition \\[kernsurj\\], $\\rtop{q}(W_{n+1}/W_{n})_{0} \\twoheadrightarrow \\ker(\\rtop{q}(W_{n+1})_{0} \\to \\rtop{q}(W_{n})_{0})$ is surjective and therefore $\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W_{n+1})_{0} \\subseteq\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W_{n})_{0}$. By Corollary \\[rsurj\\] this map is onto as well and therefore $\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W_{n+1})_{0}  = \\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^{q}_{top}(W_{n})_{0}$. Since $W = W_{N}$ for large $N$ we conclude that $\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} = \\rtop{q}(W_{0})_{0}=\\{0\\}$.\n\n\\[rfix\\] Suppose that $W$ is a finite $G$-$CW$-complex. Then $$\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\rtop{q}(W^{G})_{0}$$ is an isomorphism of simplicial abelian groups.\n\nConsider the cofibration sequence $W^{G} \\hookrightarrow W \\to W/W^{G}$. The space $W/W^{G}$ has a free $G$-action and so Proposition \\[kernsurj\\] and Corollary \\[freezero\\] imply that $$\\{0\\}= \\rtop{q}(W/W^{G})_{0} \\twoheadrightarrow \\ker[\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \\to \\rtop{q}(W^{G})_{0}]$$ is surjective. Therefore $\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \\subseteq \\rtop{q}(W^{G})_{0}$. Since it is also a surjection by Corollary \\[rsurj\\] it is an isomorphism.\n\nFor a based $G$-$CW$ complex $W$ define $$\\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = \\phom{W^{G}\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}}.$$ The homotopy groups of $\\mcal{H}^{q}(W)$ compute singular cohomology of the fixed point space, $\\pi_{k}\\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = H^{q-k}_{sing}(W^{G}, \\Z/2)$.\n\nLet $W$ be a finite $G$-$CW$-complex. Then $$\\pi_{i}\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} \\to \\pi_{i}\\mcal{H}^{q}(W)= H^{q-i}_{sing}(W^{G};\\Z/2)$$ is an isomorphism for $i\\geq 2$ and an injection for $i=0,1$.\n\nSince $\\mcal{H}^{q}(W) = \\mcal{H}^{q}(W^{G})$ and $\\rtop{q}(W)_{0} = \\rtop{q}(W^{G})_{0}$ by Corollary \\[rfix\\] we immediately reduce to the case that $W=W^{G}$. Since $G$ acts trivially on $W$, Lemma \\[zeroav\\] and Proposition \\[avfib\\] give $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W)_{0}  = & \\frac{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}}_{0}^G}\n{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}}_{0}^{av}}  = \\\\ = & \\frac{\\phom{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G}}_{0}}\n{\\phom{W\\wedge \\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av}}_{0}}.\n% = & \\frac{\\shom{sSet*}{S^n}{\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}/2_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G}}}\n% {\\shom{sSet*}{S^n}{\\sing_{\\bullet}\\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av}}}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy [@LLM:real Proposition 8.3] the short exact sequence $$0\\to \\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{av} \\to \\mcal{Z}/2_0(S^{q,q})_{0}^{G} \\to \\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{q,q})_{0}\\to 0$$ is a principle fibration sequence.\n\nFinally comparing homotopy fiber sequences of simplicial abelian groups $$\\xymatrix@-1pc{\n\\Hom{}{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}^{av}}_{0} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]&\n\\Hom{}{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}^{G}}_{0} \\ar[r]\\ar[d]& \n\\widetilde{\\mcal{R}}^q_{top}(W)_{0}\\ar[d] \\\\\n \\Hom{}{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}^{av}} \\ar[r]&\n\\Hom{}{W\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{Z}^{G}} \\ar[r]& \n% \\Hom{*}{|\\sing_{\\bullet}W|\\wedge\\Delta^{\\bullet}_{top,+}}{\\mcal{R}_{0}(S^{n})_{0}}\n\\mcal{H}^{q}(W)  \n}$$ yields the result.\n\n\\[rdual\\] Let $W$ be a finite $G$-$CW$-complex. Then $$\\pi_i\\rtop{q}(W) \\to \\pi_{i}\\mcal{H}^{q}(W)=H^{q-i}_{sing}(W^{G};\\Z/2)$$ is an isomorphism for $i\\geq 2$.\n\nThe map $\\pi_{i}\\rtop{q}(W)_{0}\\to \\pi_{i}\\rtop{q}(W)$ is an isomorphism for $i\\geq 2$ and an injection for $i = 0,1$\n\nTopological Monoids\n===================\n\nIn this appendix we collect a few simple results on topological monoids. By *topological monoid* we will mean a compactly generated Hausdorff topological abelian monoid (and similarly for the phrase topological group). An abelian monoid $M$ is said to have the cancellation property if for any $n,m,p\\in M$ $n+p=m+p$ implies $m=n$.\n\n\\[qmcl\\] Suppose that $M$ is a topological monoid with the cancellation property. If $+: M\\times M \\to M$ is closed and $N\\subseteq M$ is a closed submonoid then the quotient map $\\pi: M\\to M/N$ is closed.\n\nSuppose that $V\\subseteq M$ is closed. Then since $\\pi:M\\to M/N$ is a quotient map to see that $\\pi V$ is closed it is enough to see that $\\pi^{-1}\\pi V \\subseteq M$ is closed. But $\\pi^{-1}\\pi V = (V+N) \\cap (M +N)$ which is closed.\n\n\\[lemtop1\\] Let $M$ be a topological monoid with the cancellation property and let $N\\subseteq M$ be a submonoid. Suppose that $M/N$ is a topological monoid, $M^{+}$ is a topological group and $N^{+}$ is closed. Then the isomorphism of groups $$\\left(\\frac{M}{N}\\right)^{+} \\to \\frac{M^{+}}{N^{+}}$$ is an isomorphism of topological groups.\n\nThe map $M \\to M^{+} \\to M^{+}/N^{+}$ sends $N$ to $0$ and so we obtain the monoid homomorphism $M/N \\to M^{+}/N^{+}$ which is continuous. This induces the continuous group homomorphism $\\phi:(M/N)^{+} \\to M^{+}/N^{+}$.\n\nOn the other hand the topological monoid quotient map $M \\to M/N$ induces the continuous group homomorphism $M^{+} \\to (M/N)^{+}$. Since $N^{+}$ is mapped to $0$ it induces the continuous group homomorphism $\\psi:M^{+}/N^{+} \\to (M/N)^{+}$.\n\nThe continuous maps $\\psi$ and $\\phi$ are easily seen to be inverse to each other.\n\nRecall that if $A$ is a topological monoid with $G$-action we write $A^{av}\\subseteq A$ for the image of $N=1+\\sigma$, so $A^{av}\\subseteq A$ is the topological submonoid consisting of elements of the form $a+\\sigma a$.\n\n\\[appcycagr\\] Suppose that $M$ is a Hausdorff topological abelian monoid with the cancellation property and that $M^{+}$ is a Hausdorff group. Suppose that $G$ acts on $M$. Then the isomorphism of groups $$(M^{G})^{+} \\xrightarrow{\\iso} (M^{+})^{G}$$ is an isomorphism of topological groups. If $(M^{+})^{av}\\subseteq M^{+}$ is closed then $$(M^{av})^{+} \\xrightarrow{\\iso} (M^{+})^{av}$$ is an isomorphism of topological groups.\n\nWe just have to show that the \u201cidentity\u201d map $$(M^{+})^{G} \\to (M^{G})^{+}$$ is continuous.\n\nThe group completion $M^+$ is topologized as the quotient $$M \\times M \\xrightarrow{q} M^{+}.$$ where $q(a,b) = a-b$. The map $q:q^{-1}(M^{+})^{G} \\to (M^{+})^{G}$ is again a quotient map since $(M^{+})^{G}$ is closed.\n\nConsider the map $M\\times M \\xrightarrow{id\\times \\sigma\\pi_{2}} M\\times M\\times M \\xrightarrow{\\Delta \\times id} M^{\\times 4} \\xrightarrow{+} M\\times M$ which sends $(a,b) \\mapsto ( a, b, \\sigma b, \\sigma b) \\mapsto (a+\\sigma b, b + \\sigma b)$. This is a continuous map. Its restriction to $q^{-1}(M^{+})^{G}$ is a continuous map $q^{-1}(M^{+})^{G} \\to M^{G}\\times M^{G}$ which induces the identity map on quotients $$( M^{+})^{G} \\to (M^{G})^{+},$$ and therefore this is a continuous map.\n\nThe second statement for averaged cycles is proved in a similar fashion.\n\n\\[mgrp2\\] Let $M$ be a topological monoid with the cancellation property. Suppose that $M^{+}$ is a topological group and $2M^{+}$ is closed in $M^{+}$. Then $$\\frac{M}{2M} \\to \\frac{M^{+}}{2M^{+}}$$ is an isomorphism of topological abelian groups.\n\nFor $m\\in M$ write $[m]$ for its image in $M/2M$. This quotient monoid is a group since $[m]+[m] = 0$.\n\nFor $(m,n)\\in M^{+}$ write $[m,n]$ for its image in $M^{+}/2M^{+}$. The map $M/2M \\to M^{+}/2M^{+}$ which sends $[m]$ to $[m,0]$ is continuous because $M\\to M/2M$ is a quotient. It is an injection because if $[m,0] = [0,0]$ then there is $(2n, 2n')$ such that $m + 2n' = 2n$ which says that $[m] = 0$. It is surjective since $[m,n] = [m+n,n+n] = [m+n,0]$. The inverse $M^{+}/2M^{+} \\to M/2M$ is continuous since it is the map $[m,n] \\mapsto [m+n, 0]=[m+n, n+n]$.\n\n\\[qimav\\] Let $X$ be a normal quasi-projective real variety.\n\n1.  The continuous homomorphism $N:\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})\\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}$ induces an isomorphism of topological groups $$\\frac{\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})}{\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G}} \\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av} .$$\n\n2.  The continuous homomorphism $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av} \\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}$ induces an isomorphism of topological groups $$\\frac{\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X)^{G}} \\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}.$$\n\nAddition is a closed map for the monoid $\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q})(X_{\\C})$ (see the proof of Proposition \\[Gcocomm\\]) and therefore we conclude by Lemma \\[qmcl\\] that addition is also closed for both the effective cocycles $\\mcal{C}^{q}(X_{\\C}) = \n\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q})(X_{\\C})/\\mcal{C}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q-1})(X_{\\C})$ and closed for $\\mcal{C}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})$ .\n\nBy Lemma \\[mgrp2\\] the map $\\mcal{C}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}) \\xrightarrow{\\iso} \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})$ is an isomorphism of topological groups and therefore addition is closed for $\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})$. In particular $N=1+\\sigma:\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C}) \\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})$ is closed. Since $\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})$ is $2$-torsion $\\ker(N) = \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G}$. It now follows that $$\\frac{\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})}{\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{G}} \\xrightarrow{N} \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}$$ is an isomorphism of topological groups. For the second statement we need to conclude that the continuous bijection $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}/2\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{G} \\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}$ has a continuous inverse. Write $g$ for the inverse. Then $$\\xymatrix{\n\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C}) \\ar[r]\\ar[d] & \\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av} \\ar[d] \\\\\n\\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X)^{av} \\ar[r]^{g} & \\displaystyle{\\frac{\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{av}}{2\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C})^{G}}}\n}$$ is commutative and each map except possibly $g$ is continuous. By the first part of the proposition the composition $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(X_{\\C}) \\to \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})\\xrightarrow{N} \\mcal{Z}^{q}/2(X_{\\C})^{av}$ is a quotient map and therefore $g$ is continuous. We conclude that the map is an isomorphism of topological groups.\n\nTractable Monoid Actions {#tract}\n========================\n\nWe recall Friedlander-Gabber\u2019s notion of tractability for a topological monoid.\n\n[@FG:cyc]\n\n1.  If $M$ is a Hausdorff topological monoid which acts on a topological space $T$, the action is said to be $\\textit{tractable}$ if $T$ is the topological union of inclusions $$\\varnothing = T_{-1} \\subseteq T_0 \\subseteq T_1 \\subseteq \\cdots$$ such that for each $n\\geq 0$ the inclusion $T_{n-1}\\subseteq T_{n}$ fits into a push-out of $M$-equivariant maps (with $R_{0}$ empty) $$\\label{potr}\n    \\begin{CD}\n     R_n\\times M @>>> S_n\\times M \\\\\n    @VVV @VVV \\\\\n    T_{n-1} @>>> T_n,\n    \\end{CD}$$ where the upper horizontal map is induced by a cofibration $R_n\\hookrightarrow S_n$ of Hausdorff spaces.\n\n    The monoid $M$ is said to be *tractable* if the diagonal action of $M$ on $M\\times M$ is tractable.\n\n2.  If in addition $M$, $T$ are $G$-spaces say that the action of $M$ on $T$ is *equivariantly tractable* if the action map is $G$-equivariant, the $R_{n}\\hookrightarrow S_{n}$ are equivariant cofibrations between $G$-spaces, and the pushout squares (\\[potr\\]) are $G$-equivariant.\n\nFixed points of an equivariant cofibration is a cofibration and fixed points preserve pushouts along a closed inclusion. Therefore if $T$ is an equivariantly tractable $M$-space then it is in particular a tractable $M$-space and $T^{G}$ is a tractable $M^{G}$-space.\n\nThe most important feature of tractability is that the naive group completion $M\\to M^{+}$ of a tractable monoid is a homotopy group completion [@FG:cyc].\n\nIt is useful to know that all of our topological groups have reasonable equivariant homotopy types. Below we observe that this is the case by using essentially the same reasoning as in [@FW:funcspc Proposition 2.5]. The essential topological property used here is that Hironaka\u2019s triangulation theorem implies that the complexification of a real variety may be *equivariantly* triangulated (see for example [@KW:real Theorem 1.3]).\n\n\\[trcw\\] Suppose that $T$ is a tractable $M$-space. If $R_{n}$, $S_{n}$ have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex then so does $T/M$ Suppose that $T$ is an equivariantly tractable $M$-space. If $R_{n}$, and $S_{n}$ have the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex then $T/M$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.\n\nWe prove the second statement, the first follows in the same manner by discarding equivariant considerations. Modding out by the $M$-action in (\\[potr\\]) we obtain equivariant pushout-squares $$\\begin{CD}\n R_n @>>> S_n \\\\\n@VVV @VVV \\\\\nT_{n-1}/M @>>> T_n/M.\n\\end{CD}$$ By induction and homotopy invariance of pushouts along $G$-cofibrations we see that $T_{n}/M$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex and that $T_{n-1}/M\\to T_{n}/M$ is a $G$-cofibration. By [@Waner:miln Theorem 4.9] we conclude that $\\colim_{n} T_{n}/M$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex. We are done since $T/M=\\colim_{n} T_{n}/M$ by the proof of [@F:algco Lemma 1.3].\n\n\\[concof\\] Let $\\mcal{E}\\subseteq X$ be a constructable subset of a real projective variety.\n\n1.  The space $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.\n\n2.  Suppose that $\\mcal{F}\\hookrightarrow \\mcal{E}$ is a closed constructable embedding. Then $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}\\hookrightarrow \\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ is an equivariant cofibration.\n\nLet $\\overline{\\mcal{E}_{\\C}}$, $\\overline{\\mcal{F}_{\\C}}$ be closures (in $X_{\\C}$) of $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ and $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}$. There is an equivariant triangulation of $\\overline{E}_{\\C}$ so that $\\overline{\\mcal{F}}_{\\C}$ and $\\overline{\\mcal{E}}_{\\C}\\backslash \\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ are subcomplexes [@KW:real Theorem 1.3]. Then $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ and $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}$ are unions of open simplices. The deformation retract of $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ onto a subsimplicial complex given in the proof of [@FW:funcspc Proposition 2.5] is an equivariant retract onto a $G$-simplicial complex (and similarly for $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}$) which gives the first statement. The construction of a deformation retract onto $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}$ of an open neighborhood $U$ of $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}$ in $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ given in [@FL:dual Lemma C1] works equivariantly which shows that $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}\\hookrightarrow \\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ is a cofibration.\n\nAs shown in [@FG:cyc Proposition 1.3] the Chow monoids associated to complex varieties are tractable and in [@FL:dual Proposition C.3] these results are extended to certain constructable submonoids of Chow monoids. Their proofs work equivariantly to give the equivariant analogue of their result. A submonoid $N\\subseteq M$ is said to be *full* if whenever $m+m'\\in N$ then both $m$, $m'\\in N$. The condition below on $\\mcal{E} \\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{k}(X)$ in the proposition is satisfied if $\\mcal{E}$ is Zariski closed or if it is a full submonoid.\n\n\\[gtract\\] Let $X$ be a projective real variety and $\\mcal{E} \\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{k}(X)$ by a constructable submonoid such that $+:\\mcal{E}\\times\\mcal{E} \\to \\mcal{E}$ is a Zariski closed mapping. Then\n\n1.  $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ is an equivariantly tractable monoid.\n\n2.  $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}^{+}$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.\n\n3.  If $\\mcal{F}\\subseteq \\mcal{E}$ is a closed constructable embedding then $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ is tractable as an $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}$-space and $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}/\\mcal{F}_{\\C}$ is an equivariantly tractable monoid.\n\n4.  Suppose that $\\mcal{F}\\hookrightarrow \\mcal{E}$ is a closed constructable embedding. Then $\\mcal{F}^{+}\\subseteq \\mcal{E}^{+}$ is closed and the sequence $$0\\to  \\mcal{F}_{\\C}^{+}\\to\\mcal{E}_{\\C}^{+}\\to \\left(\\mcal{E}_{\\C}/\\mcal{F}_{\\C}\\right)^{+}\\to 0$$ is an equivariant short exact sequence of groups of spaces of the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.\n\nIn [@FL:dual Proposition C.3] the monoid $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ is shown to be tractable as follows. Write $\\mcal{E}(d)= \\mcal{E}_{\\C}\\cap\\mcal{C}_{k,d}(X_{\\C})$ and let $\\nu:\\mathbb{N}^{2}\\to\\mathbb{N}$ be a bijection such that if $a\\leq c$, $b\\leq d$ then $\\nu(a,b) \\leq \\nu(c,d)$. Define $$S_{n} = \\mcal{E}(a_{n})\\times \\mcal{E}(b_{n}), \\;\\;\\textrm{where}\\;\\; \\nu(a_{n},b_{n}) = n$$ $$R_{n} = \\im\\left(\\bigcup_{c\\geq 0}\\mcal{E}(a_{n}-c)\\times \\mcal{E}(b_{n}-c)\\times \\mcal{E}(c) \\to \\mcal{E}(a_{n})\\times \\mcal{E}(b_{n})\\right) \\subseteq S_{n}$$ and $$T_{n} = \\im\\left((\\bigcup_{\\nu(a,b)\\leq n} \\mcal{E}(a)\\times \\mcal{E}(b))\\times \\mcal{E}_{\\C} \\to\\mcal{E}_{\\C}\\times\\mcal{E}_{\\C}\\right).$$ The spaces $R_{n}$, $S_{n}$, and $T_{n}$ are $G$-spaces, fit into the appropriate pushout squares, and $R_{n}\\hookrightarrow S_{n}$ is a closed constructable embedding since addition is closed on $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ therefore by Proposition \\[concof\\] the $R_{n}\\hookrightarrow S_{n}$ are equivariant cofibrations. This shows that $\\mcal{E}$ is equivariantly tractable. The third item follows from similar consideration of [@FL:dual Proposition C.3]. The second item follows by applying Proposition \\[trcw\\].\n\nFor the last part write $R'_{n}$, $S'_n$, and $T'_{n}$ for the spaces above giving the tractability of $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}$. Then $R'_{n}\\subseteq R_{n}$ and $S_{n}'\\subseteq S_{n}$ are cofibrations. Considering the comparison of pushouts $$T'_{n}/\\mcal{F}_{\\C}= T'_{n-1}/\\mcal{F}_{\\C}\\bigcup_{R'_{n}}S'_{n} \\to T_{n}/\\mcal{E}_{\\C}= T_{n-1}/\\mcal{E}_{\\C}\\bigcup_{R_{n}}S_{n}$$ we see by induction that $T'_{n}/\\mcal{F}_{\\C} \\hookrightarrow T_{n}/\\mcal{E}_{\\C}$ is a cofibration and in particular is closed. Therefore $\\mcal{F}_{\\C}^{+}=\\colim_{n}T'_{n}/\\mcal{F}_{\\C} \\subseteq \\colim_{n}T_{n}/\\mcal{E}_{\\C}= \\mcal{E}_{\\C}^{+}$ is a closed subspace [@FP:cell Proposition A.5.5]. Finally $\\mcal{E}_{\\C}/\\mcal{F}_{\\C})^{+}= \\mcal{E}_{\\C}^{+}/\\mcal{F}_{\\C}^{+}$ by Lemma \\[lemtop1\\] which gives the displayed exact sequence.\n\nSpaces of algebraic cycles and algebraic cocycles on complex varieties are shown to have $CW$-structures or homotopy type of $CW$-spaces in [@LF:qproj; @FW:funcspc] and in [@Teh:real] for real varieties.\n\n\\[ehtype\\] Let $U$ be a quasi-projective real variety. Then the spaces $\\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\\C})$, $\\mcal{Z}/\\ell_{k}(U_{\\C})$, $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\\C})$, $\\mcal{Z}^{q}/\\ell(U_{\\C})$ all have the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex. The spaces $\\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{av}$, $\\mcal{Z}/\\ell_{k}(U_{\\C})^{av}$, $\\mcal{R}_{k}(U)$, $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\\C})^{av}$, $\\mcal{Z}^{q}/\\ell(U_{\\C})^{av}$, and $\\mcal{R}^{q}(U_{\\C})$ all have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex.\n\nThat $\\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\\C})$ has the homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex follows immediately from the previous proposition. Let $U\\subset \\overline{U}$ be a projectivization. Write $\\mcal{F}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q-1})(U_{\\C}) = \\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q-1})(U_{\\C}) + \\mcal{C}_{d}(\\P^{q}_{\\C}\\times \\overline{U}_{\\C})$. This is a closed constructable submonoid $\\mcal{F}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q-1})(U_{\\C}) \\subseteq \\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q})(U_{\\C})$ and $(\\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})/\\mcal{F}_{0}(\\P^{q-1}_{\\C})(U_{\\C}))^{+}\\iso \\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\\C})$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex. Since $(\\ell\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C}))^{+}\\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{+}$ is closed we easily see that $(\\ell\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C}))^{+} = \\ell(\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C}))^{+}\\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{+}$. Therefore $\\mcal{Z}/\\ell_{k}(U_{\\C}) \\iso (\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})/\\ell\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C}))^{+}$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex. Similarly one sees that $\\mcal{Z}^{q}/\\ell(U_{\\C}) \\iso (\\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q})(U_{\\C})/\\mcal{F}_{0}(\\P^{q-1}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})+\\ell\\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P_{\\C}^{q})(U_{\\C}))^{+}$ has the equivariant homotopy type of a $G$-$CW$ complex.\n\nThe monoid inclusions $\\ell\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})\\cap \\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{av}\\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{av}\\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{G}\\subseteq \\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})$ are all closed and so $\\mcal{Z}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{av}$, $\\mcal{R}_{k}(U) \\iso (\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{G}/\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{av})^{+}$, and $\\mcal{Z}/\\ell_{k}(U_{\\C})^{av}\\iso(\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{av}/\\ell\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})\\cap\\mcal{C}_{k}(U_{\\C})^{av})^{+}$ all have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex.\n\nSimilarly $\\mcal{Z}^{q}(U_{\\C})^{av} \\iso (\\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{av}/\\mcal{F}_{0}(\\P^{q-1}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})\\cap \\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})(U_{\\C}))^{+}$, $\\mcal{Z}^{q}/\\ell(U_{\\C})^{av} \\iso (\\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{av}/(\\mcal{F}_{0}(\\P^{q-1}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})+\\ell\\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})(U_{\\C}))\\cap \\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{av})^{+}$, and $\\mcal{R}^{q}(U_{\\C}) \\iso (\\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{G}/\\mcal{F}_{0}(\\P^{q-1}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{G}+\\mcal{E}_{0}(\\P^{q}_{\\C})(U_{\\C})^{av})^{+}$ all have the homotopy type of a $CW$ complex.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    18 pt\n\n    Generically the probabilities of observational results depend upon both the quantum state and the rules for extracting the probabilities from it. It is often argued that inflation may make our observations independent of the quantum state. In a framework in which one considers the state and the rules as logically separate, it is shown how it is possible that the probabilities are indeed independent of the state, but the rules for achieving this seem somewhat implausible.\nauthor:\n- |\n    Don N. Page [^1]\\\n    Theoretical Physics Institute\\\n    Department of Physics, University of Alberta\\\n    Room 238 CEB, 11322 \u2013 89 Avenue\\\n    Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G7\ndate: '(2009 July 30)'\ntitle: '[**Do Our Observations Depend upon the Quantum State of the Universe?**]{} [^2]'\n---\n\n13.9 pt\n\nIntroduction {#introduction .unnumbered}\n============\n\nA goal of science is to produce complete theories $T_i$ that each predict normalized probabilities $P_j(i)$ of observations $O_j$, $$P_j(i) \\equiv P(O_j|T_i)\\ \\mathrm{with}\\  \\sum_j P_j(i) = 1.\n\\label{prob}$$\n\nAssuming that a complete physical theory of the universe is quantum, I would argue [@BA] that it should contain at least the following elements:\\\n(1) Kinematic variables (wavefunction arguments)\\\n(2) Dynamical laws (\u2018Theory of Everything\u2019 or TOE)\\\n(3) Boundary conditions (specific quantum state)\\\n(4) Specification of what has probabilities\\\n(5) Probability rules (analogue of Born\u2019s rule)\\\n(6) Specification of what the probabilities mean\\\nHere I shall call elements (1)-(3) the quantum state (or the \u201cstate\u201d), since they give the quantum state of the universe that obeys the dynamical laws and is written in terms of the kinematic variables, and I shall call elements (4)-(6) the probability rules (or the \u201crules\u201d), since they specify what it is that has probabilities (here taken to be the results of observations, $O_j$, or \u201cobservations\u201d for short), the rules for extracting these observational probabilities from the quantum state, and the meaning of the probabilities. What I shall write below is largely independent of the meaning of the probabilities, though personally I view them in a rather Everettian way as objective measures for the set of observations with positive probabilities.\n\nUsually it is implicitly believed that the observational probabilities depend strongly upon the quantum state. (Sometimes the Everett interpretation [@Everett] is taken to mean that all of physical reality is determined purely by the quantum state, without the need for any additional rules to extract probabilities, but this extreme view seems untenable [@Kent] and will not be adopted here. Instead, I shall discuss the opposite view, that the probabilities are independent of the quantum state.) However, some advocates of inflation[@NS; @AS; @GSVW; @ELM; @SPV; @Vil06; @VV; @Vil07; @Linde06; @Win06; @Vanchurin; @Linde08b; @LWb; @Win08a; @SGSV; @GV09; @LVW; @Albrecht] often claim that our observations do not depend upon the quantum state at all, but rather that inflation acts as an attractor to give the same statistical distribution of observations from any state.\n\nIn this note, I shall use the framework of state plus rules to discuss this possibility that observational probabilities might be independent of the quantum state. I shall show that this indeed is logically possible, but apparently only if the probability rules are rather [*ad hoc*]{}. If indeed the rules are this [*ad hoc*]{}, so that the probabilities of our observations do not depend upon a quantum state at all, it would seem to leave it mysterious why many of our observations can be simply interpreted as if our universe really were quantum.\n\nStates and rules\n================\n\nLet me first discuss the logical independence of the quantum state and the probability rules. I shall assume that even if one fixes the kinematic variables and the dynamical laws, there remains freedom in what the quantum state is (e.g., many different solutions to the same Schr\u00f6dinger equation with the same arguments and the same Hamiltonian, or many different solutions to the constraint equations of quantum gravity). The set of all quantum states obeying whatever kinematic and dynamical constraints one might impose I shall call the state space; it might or might not be a Hilbert space. The states themselves might be pure states, density matrices, or C\\*-algebra states, but I shall assume that they are at least C\\*-algebra states, so that each state gives the expectation value of the kinematically allowed quantum operators. For simplicity, I shall often assume that the quantum state is a pure state in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, though most of the discussion should be generalizable to any C\\*-algebra states.\n\nIn traditional quantum theory, observational results are eigenvalues of a certain self-adjoint operator called an observable, which in the finite-dimensional case at least can be written as a sum of orthonormal projection operators (formed from the eigenstates of the observable, or from the eigenspaces of eigenstates for degenerate eigenvalues) multiplied by coefficients that are the eigenvalues of the observable. Then the observational probability of each eigenvalue is given by Born\u2019s rule [@Born] as the expectation value of the corresponding projection operator in the quantum state of the system. In this case, the logical freedom of the probability rules is the freedom to choose the observable whose eigenvalues represent the observational results.\n\nIn the case of a pure state in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, the state by itself does not determine the observational probabilities, since the probabilities also depend upon the orthonormal projection operators corresponding to the observable. Furthermore, any other pure state in the same Hilbert space would give the same probabilities for another observable obtained simply by transforming the original observable by the same unitary transformation used to transform the state from the original one to the final one. (This unitary transformation is not uniquely defined, since only its action on the original quantum state is specified, so there is a large set of different transformed observables that all give the same probabilities as well.) Then the probability of an eigenvalue of the new observable in the new state would be the same as that of the eigenstate of the originaly observable in the original state. Thus states by themselves do not determine probabilities, and all pure states give the same probabilities when they are paired with corresponding observables. It is only the relation between the state and the observable that determines unique probabilities by Born\u2019s rule.\n\nIn cosmology with a universe large enough that there may be copies of an observer, no matter how precisely it is described locally, Born\u2019s rule does not work [@cmwvw; @insuff; @brd; @BA] and must be replaced by another set of rules for extracting observational probabilities from the quantum state. Generically then the ambiguity in the rules is even greater than in traditional quantum theory in which one needed to specify just one quantum operator, a single observable, in addition to the state.\n\nHere for simplicity I shall focus on cases in which the set of rules are that observational probabilities are obtained by normalizing a set of unnormalized measures that are each given by the expectation value of a positive operator in the quantum state, $$P_j(i) = \\frac{p_j(i)}{\\sum_{k}p_k}\\ \\mathrm{with}\\  \np_j(i) = \\langle \\mathbf{q}_j \\rangle_i,\n\\label{normalized-probabilities}$$ where $\\mathbf{q}_j$ is the positive operator corresponding to the observational result $O_j$ (or observation $j$, for short), and where $\\langle\\ldots\\rangle_i$ denotes the quantum expectation value, of whatever operator replaces the $\\ldots$ inside the angular brackets, in the quantum state $i$ given by the theory $T_i$. Then, instead of the single observable required to give the probability rule in traditional quantum theory by Born\u2019s rule, one needs a whole set of positive operators $\\mathbf{q}_j$, one for each observation $j$.\n\nQuantum theories of this form may be axiomatized by the following two axioms:\n\n[**State**]{}: [*There is a quantum state that gives expectation values of operators.*]{}\n\n[**Rules**]{}: [*Each possible observation has a corresponding positive operator whose expectation value in the quantum state is the measure for that observation.*]{}\n\nWhen we want to do a Bayesian analysis and compare different theories $T_i$ for which we have assigned prior probabilities $P(T_i)$, we would like to normalize the measures for observations by dividing by the total measure and then interpret the normalized measures as the likelihoods or the probabilities of the observation given the theory, $P(O_j|T_i)$. Then if we had a complete set of theories for which we assigned nonzero prior probabilities, so $\\sum_i P(T_i) = 1$, then the posterior probability of theory $T_i$, given the observation $O_j$, would be given by Bayes\u2019 formula as $$P(T_i|O_j) = \\frac{P(T_i)P(O_j|T_i)}{\\sum_l P(T_l)P(O_j|T_l)}.\n\\label{post}$$\n\nUnder the assumption that observations are conscious perceptions, the operators $\\mathbf{q}_j$ whose expectation values would then give the measures of the corresponding conscious perceptions were called [*awareness operators*]{} in my previous work [@SQM; @pim; @MS; @Page-in-Carr], but in [@cmwvw; @insuff; @brd; @BA] and here I am not restricting to the assumption that observations must be conscious perceptions (though I have not given up my personal belief that the most fundamental observations are indeed conscious perceptions). The only restriction on observations I am making here is that each of them should be a complete observation in the sense that no observation is a proper subset of another observation. Here, let us call the $\\mathbf{q}_j$ [*observation operators*]{}, since it is their expectation values that give the ratios of observational probabilities.\n\nRules giving state-independent probabilities\n============================================\n\nNow let us consider whether we can have probability rules giving observational probabilities independent of the quantum state, as is often claimed or wished to be the case for inflationary universes. It is clear that if $\\langle \\mathbf{q}_j \\rangle_i$ is to be independent of the quantum state, the observation operator $\\mathbf{q}_j$ must be proportional to the identity operator, $\\mathbf{q}_j =\np_j(i)\\mathbf{I}$, with each nonnegative $p_j(i)$ that can be chosen arbitrarily and independently of the quantum state. Then indeed the observational probabilities are independent of the quantum state. Therefore, there is no logical difficulty in defining probability rules such that the probabilities of observations are independent of the quantum state, as is often claimed or wished to be for inflation.\n\nOn the other hand, it seems quite [*ad hoc*]{} to have the observation operators all be proportional to the identity, so that the observational probabilities are independent of the quantum state. If that were the case, what would be the point of having a quantum state at all in the theory? One could just say that the theory consisted of directly giving the observational probabilities $P_j(i)$ (perhaps from unnormalized probabilities $p_j(i)$ if they are instrinsically simpler). If our observations are indeed independent of the quantum state, why have our observations been taken to support quantum theory? That is, why has it been so successful to unify and simplify the description of our observations by assuming that they arose from quantum aspects of the universe, if they come from the expectation values of operators that all commute?\n\nTherefore, although I have shown here that it is logically possible for our observations (meaning their probabilities) to have arisen from probability rules that make them independent of the quantum state, the way to do this seems highly [*ad hoc*]{} and implausible. Surely a much simpler explanation of our observations will use both a non-random quantum state and a non-random set of rules for extracting the probabilities of observations from that quantum state.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nI am grateful for the hospitality of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, where I had long discussions on this subject with Andreas Albrecht and shorter ones on related issues with Jaume Garriga, Thomas Hertog, Matthew Kleban, Daniel Phillips, Herman Verlinde, Alex Vilenkin, and others, though the idea for this paper arose only from later reflection and was not tested in face-to-face discussions with any of those scientists. This research was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.\n\n[99]{}\n\nD.\u00a0N.\u00a0Page, \u201cBorn Again,\u201d arxiv:0907.4152 \\[hep-th\\].\n\nH.\u00a0Everett, Rev.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0[**29**]{}, 454 (1957).\n\nB.\u00a0S.\u00a0DeWitt and N.\u00a0Graham (eds.), [*The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973).\n\nA.\u00a0Kent, Int.\u00a0J.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A [**5**]{}, 1745-1762 (1990) \\[arXiv:gr-qc/9703089\\].\n\nY.\u00a0Nambu and M.\u00a0Sasaki, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**205**]{}, 441-446 (1988).\n\nA.\u00a0Albrecht and L.\u00a0Sorbo, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**70**]{}, 063528 (2004) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0405270\\].\n\nJ.\u00a0Garriga, D.\u00a0Schwartz-Perlov, A.\u00a0Vilenkin, and S.\u00a0Winitzki, JCAP [**0601**]{}, 017 (2006) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0509184\\].\n\nR.\u00a0Easther, E.\u00a0A.\u00a0Lim, and M.\u00a0R.\u00a0Martin, JCAP [**0603**]{}, 016 (2006) \\[arXiv:astro-ph/0511233\\].\n\nD.\u00a0Schwartz-Perlov and A.\u00a0Vilenkin, JCAP [**0606**]{}, 10 (2006) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0601162\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Vilenkin, \u201c Probabilities in the Landscape,\u201d arXiv:hep-th/0602264.\n\nV.\u00a0Vanchurin and A.\u00a0Vilenkin, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**74**]{}, 043520 (2006) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0605015\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Vilenkin, J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A [**40**]{}, 6777-6785 (2007) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0609193\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Linde, J.\u00a0Cosmolog.\u00a0Astropart.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0[**0701**]{}, 022 (2007) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0611043\\].\n\nS.\u00a0Winitzki, Lect.\u00a0Notes Phys.\u00a0[**738**]{}, 157-191 (2008) \\[arXiv:gr-qc/0612164\\].\n\nV.\u00a0Vanchurin, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**75**]{}, 023524 (2007) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0612215\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Linde, JCAP [**0706**]{}, 017 (2007) \\[arXiv:0705.1160 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nM.\u00a0Li and Y.\u00a0Wang, JCAP [**0708**]{}, 007 (2007) \\[arXiv:0706.1691 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nS.\u00a0Winitzki, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**78**]{}, 043501 (2008) \\[arXiv:0803.1300 \\[gr-qc\\]\\].\n\nA.\u00a0De Simone, A.\u00a0H.\u00a0Guth, M.\u00a0P.\u00a0Salem, and A.\u00a0Vilenkin, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**78**]{}, 063520 (2008) \\[arXiv:0805.2173 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nJ.\u00a0Garriga and A.\u00a0Vilenkin, JCAP [**0901**]{}, 021 (2009) \\[arXiv:0809.4257 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Linde, V.\u00a0Vanchurin, and S.\u00a0Winitzki, JCAP [**0901**]{}, 031 (2009) \\[arXiv:0812.0005 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Albrecht, \u201cDe Sitter Equilibrium as a Fundamental Framework for Cosmology,\u201d arXiv:0906.1047 \\[gr-qc\\].\n\nM.\u00a0Born, Z.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0[**37**]{}, 863-867 (1926).\n\nD.\u00a0N.\u00a0Page, J.\u00a0Cosmolog.\u00a0Astropart.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0[**0810**]{}, 025 (2008), arXiv:0808.0351.\n\nD.\u00a0N.\u00a0Page, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**678**]{}, 41-44 (2009), arXiv:0808.0722.\n\nD.\u00a0N.\u00a0Page, J.\u00a0Cosmolog.\u00a0Astropart.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0[**0708**]{}, 008 (2009), arXiv:0903.4888.\n\nD.\u00a0N.\u00a0Page, \u201cSensible Quantum Mechanics: Are Only Perceptions Probabilistic?\u201d arXiv:quant-ph/9506010.\n\nD.\u00a0N.\u00a0Page, Int.\u00a0J.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0[**D5**]{}, 583 (1996) \\[arXiv:gr-qc/9507024\\].\n\nD.\u00a0N.\u00a0Page, in [*Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives*]{}, edited by Q.\u00a0Smith and A.\u00a0Jokic (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003), pp.\u00a0468-506 \\[arXiv:quant-ph/0108039\\].\n\nD.\u00a0N.\u00a0Page, in [*Universe or Multiverse?*]{}, edited by B.\u00a0J.\u00a0Carr (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007), pp.401-419 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0610101\\].\n\n[^1]: Internet address: don@phys.ualberta.ca\n\n[^2]: Alberta-Thy-13-09, arXiv:0907.4751\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'A. Del Popolo,'\n- 'M. Le Delliou'\ntitle: 'A unified solution to the small scale problems of the $\\Lambda$CDM model II: introducing parent-satellite interaction'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe $\\Lambda$CDM (cosmological constant and Cold Dark Matter) model of cosmology, while describing the observations of the Universe, its large scale structure and evolution very successfully (Spergel et al. 2003, Komatsu et al. 2011; Del Popolo 2007, 2013, 2014a), retains some problems in the description of structures at small scales (e.g., Moore 1994; Moore et al. 1999; Ostriker & Steinhardt 2003; Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock, and Kaplinghat 2011, 2012; Oh et al. 2011)[^1]. These problems can be enumerated as a) the discrepancy between cuspy density profiles obtained in N-body simulations (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996, 1997 (NFW); Navarro 2010)[^2] and the flat profiles of dwarf and Low Surface Brightness galaxies (Burkert 1995; de Blok, Bosma, & McGaugh 2003; Del Popolo 2009 (DP09); Cardone et al. 2011a, 2011b; Cardone & Del Popolo 2012; Del Popolo 2012a,b (DP12a, DP12b); Oh et al. 2010, 2011; Kuzio de Naray & Kaufmann 2011), coined as the cusp/core problem (hereafter CCP) (Moore 1994; Flores & Primak 1994;Ogiya & Mori, 2011,2014; Ogiya et al. 2014), or of Galaxy Clusters (Del Popolo 2014b; Del Popolo & Gambera 2000); b) the discrepancy between the large discs of observed spirals and the small discs obtained in Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) simulations, referred to as the angular momentum catastrophe (AMC, van den Bosch, Burkert,& Swaters, 2001); c) the discrepancy between the number of predicted and observed subhaloes when running N-body simulations (Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999)[^3], dubbed the \u201cmissing satellite problem (MSP).\n\nKlypin et al. (1999), and Moore et al. (1999) noticed, in numerical simulations of galactic and cluster haloes, an excess of predicted subhaloes compared with observation. They had found $\\simeq500$ satellites with circular velocities larger than Ursa-Minor and Draco, while the MW dwarf Spheroidals (dSphs) are well known to be far fewer (the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, and 9 bright dSphs (Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock, and Kaplinghat 2012)). The problem was later confirmed in subsequent cosmological simulations (Aquarius, Via Lactea II (VL2), and GHALO simulations \u2013 Springel et al. 2008; Stadel et al. 2009; Diemand et al. 2007). Although insufficiently for a complete solution, it was alleviated with the discovery of the ultra-faint MW satellites (Willman et al. 2005; Belokurov 2006; Zucker 2006; Sakamoto & Hasegawa 2006; Irwin et al. 2007).\n\nThe MSP was recently enriched with an extra problem, spawned from the analysis of the Aquarius and the Via Lactea simulations. Simulated haloes produced $\\simeq10$ subhaloes (Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock, and Kaplinghat 2011, 2012) that were too massive and dense to be the host of the MW brightest satellites: while those $\\Lambda$CDM simulations predicted in excess of 10 subhaloes with $V_{max}>25$ km/s, the dSphs of the MW all have $12<V_{max}<25$ km/s. This discrepancy in the kinematics between simulations and the MW brightest dSphs (Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock, and Kaplinghat 2011, 2012), which is an extra problem of the MSP, has been dubbed the Too-Big-To-fail (TBTF) problem[^4] (Ogiya & Burkert 2014).\n\nSimilarly to the solutions to other small scale problems, the resolution of the MSP can be classified as either cosmological or astrophysical solutions. Cosmological solutions modify either the power spectrum at small scales (e.g. Zentner & Bullock 2003), the constituent DM particles (Colin, Avila-Reese & Valenzuela 2000; Sommer-Larsen & Dolgov 2001; Hu, Barkana & Gruzinov 2000; Goodman 2000; Peebles 2000; Kaplinghat, Knox, & Turner, M. S. 2000) or the gravity theories, like $f(R)$ (Buchdahl 1970; Starobinsky 1980), $f(T)$ (see Ferraro 2012), and MOND (Milgrom 1983a,b).\n\nSeveral different kinds of astrophysical solutions have been proposed. In one picture, the present-day dwarf galaxies could have been more massive in the past, and they were transformed and reduced to their present masses by strong tidal stripping (e.g., Kravtsov, Gnedin & Klypin 2004). Another very popular picture is based on suppression of star formation due to supernova feedback (SF), photoionization (Okamoto et al. 2008; Brooks et al. 2013 (B13)), and reionization. In particular, reionization can prevent the acquisition of gas by DM haloes of small mass, then \u201cquenching\u201d star formation after $z\\simeq10$ (Bullock, Kravtsov, & Weinberg 2000; Ricotti & Gnedin 2005; Moore et al. 2006). This would suppress dwarfs (dSphs) formation or could make them invisible. Another solution combines the change of central density profiles of satellites from cuspy to cored (Zolotov et al. 2012 (Z12); B13), which makes the satellites more subject to tidal stripping and even subject to being destroyed (Strigari et al. 2007; Pe\u00f1arrubia et al. 2010 (P10)). Tidal stripping is enhanced if the host halo has a disc. Disc shocking due to the satellites passing through the disc produce strong tidal effects on the satellites, even stronger if the satellite has a cored inner profile. The astrophysical solutions based on the role of baryons in structure formation, are more easy to constrain than cosmological solutions, and moreover do not request one to reject the $\\Lambda$CDM paradigm.\n\nWhile it is not complicated to separately solve the MSP problem, and the TBTF problem with the recipes discussed above, a simultaneous solution of both problems in models of galaxy formation based on DM-only simulations of the $\\Lambda$CDM model (Boylan-Kolchin, Bullock & Kaplinghat 2012)[^5], is much more complicated.\n\nPrevious attempts to find a simultaneous solution to the abundance problem of satellites (MSP), and to the TBTF problem were made by the above mentioned Z12, and B13. Z12 found a correction to the velocity in the central kpc of galaxies, $\\Delta v_{{\\rm c,1kpc}}$, that mimicked the flattening of the cusp due to SF and tidal stripping.\n\nThis correction, together with its subsequent destruction effects from the tidal field of the baryonic disc, and the identification of subhaloes that remain dark because of their inefficiency in forming stars due to UV heating, were then applied by B13 to the subhaloes of the VL2 simulation (Diemand et al. 2008). As a result, the number of massive subhaloes in the VL2 were brought in line with the number of satellites of MW and M31.\n\nThis work extends a previous paper (Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} 2014), enriched with the part of the model described in appendix \\[Dynamics of the satellites\\], and will chiefly focus on the latter problem (MSP). However, the model also carries the solution for the former two (CCP and AMC), from the part of the model developed in Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} (2014). In clear, it uses a semi-analytical model to account for the dynamical evolution of satellites. The model, originated in DP09 (and DP12a, b), is an improved spherical infall model already discussed by many authors (Gunn & Gott 1972; Fillmore & Goldreich 1984; Bertschinger 1985; Hoffman & Shaham 1985; Ryden & Gunn 1987; Henriksen & Widrow 1995, 1997, 1999; Henriksen & Le Delliou 2002; Le Delliou & Henriksen 2003; Le Delliou 2008; Ascasibar, Yepes & Gottl\u00f6ber 2004; Williams, Babul & Dalcanton 2004; Le Delliou, Henriksen & MacMillan 2010, 2011a, 2011b)[^6].\n\nIn the present paper, we follow the path opened by Z12 and B13, but we consider another mechanism than SF that is also better able to flatten the density profiles of satellites. Namely, we use a mechanism based on the exchange of energy and angular momentum from baryons clumps to DM through dynamical friction (DF) (El-Zant et al. 2001, 2004; Ma & Boylan-Kolchin 2004; Nipoti et al. 2004; Romano-Diaz et al. 2008, 2009; DP09; Cole et al. 2011; Inoue & Saitoh 2011). We use DP09 to calculate the flattening of isolated satellites through the mechanism based on DF. In order to study the effect of tidal stripping and heating on the satellites, we use a combination of the procedures from Taylor & Babul (2001) (TB01) with that from P10. Our model differs from the TB01 and P10 models because we use a semi-analytical model based on DF (combination coined hereafter TBP model). In addition to the difference in the cuspy to cored profile mechanism, already present in B13, our TBP based model is properly taking into account the tidal heating mechanism. Such tidal heating is not captured in the SPH simulations from which Z12 derive their correction (as stressed in Sect. 4 of B13), since, as they point out, this would require a very high resolution to be captured (Choi et al. 2009). Moreover, we properly take into account disk shocking while this is neglected in Z12[^7]: we account for the effects of satellites passing through the host galaxy disc.\n\nFinally, the $\\Delta v_{c}$-$v_{{\\rm infall}}$ correction that we find shows a clearer trend (see the discussion in the following section). This is due to the absence, in our case, of numerical effects present, and described, in Z12[^8] are not present.\n\nIn summary, although in our model the profile flattening is calculated as in Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} (2014), here the procedure from the model of Taylor & Babul (2001) is included to follow the dynamics of satellites and their interactions with the main halo, and to take into account the mass loss during substructure evolution due to tides and tidal heating (see also Del Popolo & Gambera 1997). Moreover, inasmuch as inspired by Z12 and B13 in substructure treatment, we escaped the limitations of their SPH and SPH-based treatment with semi-analytic methods, obtaining a better $v_{c}-v_{infall}$ relation and accessing the effects of tidal heating and disc shocking. Our model employs a novel combination of parent-satellite interaction through dynamical friction, UV heating and tidal stripping to obtain satellite numbers and angular spin parameter distributions in agreement with observations.\n\nThe paper is organised as follows. In Sect. 2, we describe how the MSP and TBTF problem can be solved simultaneously when baryonic physics is properly taken into account, extending a model that has been shown to solve also the CCP and AMC. Appendix \\[Dynamics of the satellites\\] gives the detail of the modified model, compared with Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} (2014). Sect. 3 describes the results, including a discussion. Sect. 4 is devoted to conclusions.\n\nSolving the remaining small scale problems of $\\Lambda$CDM\n==========================================================\n\nAs we use a model that solves the other problems, we will concentrate here on the problems regarding the number and mass of satellites. Several solutions have been proposed to the MSP and TBTF problems (Strigari et al. 2007; Simon & Geha 2007; Madau et al. 2008; Zolotov et al. 2012; Brooks & Zolotov 2012; Purcell & Zentner 2012; Vera-Ciro et al. 2012; Di Cintio et al. (2012); Wang et al. 2012). B13 proposed an interesting baryonic solution to those two problems: instead of running SPH simulations of different galaxies, they tried to introduce baryonic effects in large N-body dissipationless simulations, like the VL2, showing that the result obtained is in agreement with observations of MW and M31 satellites.\n\nIn the following, we will partly follow their steps to obtain the corrected circular velocities and distribution of VL2 satellites. The differences between our model and Z12 or B13 have been reported in the introduction.\n\nIn summary the method is based on the following ideas and is divided into two main phases:\n\n1.  In the first phase, the satellite is considered isolated, without interactions with the host halo, and the flattening of the density profile produced by baryonic physics is calculated (in particular, the lowering of the central mass of subhaloes) in the same fashion as in, e.g., Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} (2014) (see also Hiotelis & Del Popolo 2006, 2013, to have a semi-analytical description of halos growth.). In this paper we deliberately chose not to take account of SF and to concentrate on the model of baryonic clumps exchanging energy and angular momentum with DM through DF, since it has clearly been shown (Del Popolo, 2014c, Fig. 4) that in the mass (circular velocity) range of the dwarfs studied in the present paper, the former is less efficient in transforming cusps into cores than the latter. Del Popolo & Hiotelis (2014) compared also the result of the current model, adding SF, to the SPH simulations of Inoue & Saitoh (2012): the full model agrees with the results of Inoue & Saitoh (2012). There, the addition of SF does not alter the outcome significantly. This phase is originally described in DP09.\n\n2.  Then comes the second phase, when the satellite, no longer considered isolated, is now subject to the tidal field of the host halo, and finally accreted to it. The total central mass is further reduced by tidal stripping and heating. This can be expressed in terms of changes in the circular velocity, $v_{c}$, also proportional to the density. More precisely, we calculate the difference in circular velocity, at 1 kpc, between the DM-only (hereafter DMO) satellites and those containing also baryons (hereafter DMB satellites), $\\Delta v_{{\\rm c,1kpc}}=v_{{\\rm c,DMO}}-v_{{\\rm c,DMB}}$, and starting with the same DM content in our semi-analytical model.\n\n    Then, the effects of baryon physics, that are not taken into account in N-body simulations and responsible of the flattening of the profile, are introduced in the VL2 simulation by correcting the central circular velocity of the satellites, calculating their mass loss and ascribing them stellar masses and luminosities.\n\nIn other words, we obtain an analytical correction, along a similar idea to Z12 but with a semi-analytical model, using tidal stripping and tidal heating (recall the latter to be absent in Z12) that mimics the effect of flattening of the cusp. To this we add other corrections (e.g., tidal destruction and UV heating effects on subhaloes) discussed in DP09 and apply them to the satellites of the VL2 simulation, following the same principles as B13.\n\nWe stress again that in our model: a) contrary to Z12 and B13, the density profile flattening is due to DF and not to SF; b) tidal heating and disc shocking are taken into account differently from Z12 and B13; c) our model does not suffer from the numerical effect producing \u201cartificially rich satellites in the Z12 simulations.\n\nSince the second phase contains the new method we propose to solve the problems involving the number and mass of satellites, we give its description in what follows.\n\nMass loss caused by tidal stripping and tidal heating\n-----------------------------------------------------\n\nThe second phase considers the effects of the interaction between the main halo and the satellite.\n\nWe follow a combination of TB01 with P10 models\u2019 procedures that properly take into account tidal stripping and heating after infall to extract accurate $v_{max}$ values. TB01 compared their model with high resolution simulations, while P10 checked theirs, in their Appendix A, through high resolution N-body simulations.\n\nThe TB01 model follows the merger history, growth of the interacting satellites and tracks the substructure evolution, taking into account the mass loss due to tidal stripping, tidal heating, as well as enhancement of stripping due to the disc, in the host halo. The P10 model is fundamentally based on TB01, however not including tidal heating. Our model assumes the same DM host halo NFW (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996) density profile as P10. It also neglects, as P10 and contrary to TB01, the effect of its baryonic bulge. The latter assumption is justified by the disc\u2019s much larger mass than the bulge\u2019s, and its 10 times larger density gradient than found in the bulge or the halo. Such gradient endows the disk with 100 times more heating efficiency on the satellites than the other components. This semi-analytic model, indicated as TBP model, is described in Appendix \\[Dynamics of the satellites\\].\n\nAt this point we may put together the mass decrease in satellites due to phase 1 (core flattening due to interaction of baryonic clumps with DM), and that due to tidal stripping and heating.\n\nIn Fig. \\[fig:DMO-DMB\\] we plot the difference in circular velocity at 1 kpc, and at $z=0$, between the DMO and DMB satellites of our semi-analytic calculations. This difference, $\\Delta v_{{\\rm c,1kpc}}=v_{{\\rm c,DMO}}-v_{{\\rm c,DMB}}$, is due to the cumulative effects of the two phases of the model: a) the flattening from cuspy to cored of density profiles due to dynamical friction interaction between baryon clumps and DM, and b) tidal stripping and heating from the crossing of the satellite through the host galaxy. The dashed line is a fit to the output points of the model, and is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Delta(v_{1kpc}) & = & {\\rm 0.3v_{infall}-0.3km/s}\\nonumber \\\\\n &  & {\\rm 10km/s<v_{infall}<50km/s}\\label{eq:mia}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThis correction is then applied to VL2 and is close to the results found by Z12 in the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Delta(v_{1kpc}) & = & {\\rm 0.2v_{infall}-0.26km/s}\\nonumber \\\\\n &  & {\\rm 20km/s<v_{infall}<50km/s.}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThey obtained the above equation by fitting the output of their model, based on SF and tidal stripping, as displayed on their Fig. 8. Our Fig. \\[fig:DMO-DMB\\] shows a clearer trend $\\Delta v_{c}$-$v_{{\\rm infall}}$, as it doesn\u2019t suffer from the numerical effect, described in Z12 (see their Sect. 4 of B13), of inefficient stripping in SPH simulations.In addition, Z12 neglects disk shocking, as discussed in the introduction.These effects, properly taken into account in our model, explain the different results we obtain.\n\nEquation \\[eq:mia\\], generated from our semi-analytical model, gives the difference between the equivalent of DM and enhanced SPH runs, and therefore the corrections to apply to satellites in N-body simulations to take account of the missing piece of baryonic physics.\n\nIn the case of $v_{infall}={\\rm 30km/s}$, the Z12 correction gives $\\Delta(v_{1kpc})=5.74$, while ours gives $\\Delta(v_{1kpc})=8.7$. The difference between the two $\\Delta(v_{1kpc})$ is due to the different models used to produce the pre-infall flattening of the satellites density profile and the tidal heating of subhaloes (Gnedin et al. 1999; Mayer et al. 2001; D\u2019Onghia et al. 2010b; Kazantzidis et al. 2011).\n\nIndeed, as stated, in Z12 the pre-infall flattening is due to SF, while in our case it is connected to DF. As shown by Cole et al. (2011), DF on infalling clumps is a very efficient mechanism in flattening the DM profile. On one hand, a clump having a mass of 1% of the halo mass can give rise to a core from a cuspy profile, removing twice its mass from the inner part of the halo. On another hand, the SF mechanism becomes less effective when going to lower masses: dwarfs with stellar mass $<10^{5}-10^{7}M_{\\odot}$ have fewer stars and thus they contain, as a consequence, less supernovae explosions than dwarfs with stellar mass $>10^{7}M_{\\odot}$ (Governato et al. 2012).\n\nEvaluation of luminous satellites\n---------------------------------\n\nThe previous section exposed how baryonic corrections to dissipationless N-body simulations reduce the number of massive satellites. We are then left with the task to determine whether indeed the baryonic corrections also reduce the number of luminous satellites that are expected in dissipationless N-body simulations, and in particular to the satellites in VL2, and if this number is in agreement with those observed in the MW. In order to check this, other corrections are needed.\n\nOur correction (Eq. \\[eq:mia\\]), in the same way as the Z12 correction, produces satellites that reach $z=0$ with their central $v_{c}$ reduced by baryonic physics. However, some satellites are destroyed (by e.g. stripping or photo-heating) before $z=0$. In N-body simulations, like the VL2, baryonic effects are not taken into account. In the real universe, or even SPH simulations, enhanced tidal stripping (due to the presence of a disc) may totally destroy some of the satellites seen in those N-body simulations. Our method requires then to determine the destroyed satellites before applying our Z12-inspired correction to VL2: to evaluate the luminous satellite population, we require the two following corrections: a) to account for the destruction by tidal stripping, and b) to account for suppression in star formation.\n\nThe first correction we apply to VL2 N-body satellites is the destruction rates by tidal stripping. For that, we need a relation between the mass retained since the infall and the change in the velocity (e.g., $v_{{\\rm max}}$) in the same time interval.\n\nWe compute that relation applying our semi-analytical model, using the same satellites with which we calculated the relation $\\Delta v_{{\\rm c,1kpc}}$-$v_{{\\rm infall}}$ (see DP09, appendix A, for the first phase). This population of satellites is split into three groups defined below.\n\nWe plot the result in Fig. \\[fig:Dv-M\\]. The filled circles represent the cored DMB satellites, having baryonic fraction $M_{b}/M_{500}>0.01$, while the open circles show the cuspy DMB satellites, with baryonic fraction $M_{b}/M_{500}<0.01$ (see Governato et al. (2012)). The open diamonds represent the DMO satellites.\n\nThe plot shows that DMB satellites loose more mass than DMOs. This can be explained by the following reasons: 1) DMB satellites contain gas, contrary to DMOs; 2) DMB satellites have flatter profiles than DMOs and thus suffer more tidal stripping (e.g., P10). The same goes between the baryon-richer DMB (filled circles) and baryon-poorer DMB (open circles). The maximum loss happen for DMB satellites in the vicinity of the host galaxy disc.\n\nIn Fig. \\[fig:Dv-M\\], we also plot the analytic fits from Eq. 8 of P10 (see also their Fig. 6), describing the change in $v_{{\\rm max}}$ as a function of mass lost due to tidal stripping $$\\frac{v_{{\\rm max}}(z=0)}{v_{{\\rm infall}}}=\\frac{2^{\\zeta}x^{\\eta}}{(1+x)^{\\zeta}}\n\\label{eq:pe}$$ where $x\\equiv mass(z=0)/mass(z=infall)$.\n\nThe dashed line represents the above equation for central density profile logarithmic slopes $\\gamma=1.5$, that corresponds to $\\zeta=0.40$ and $\\eta=0.24$, the solid line stands for the case $\\gamma=1$, for which $\\zeta=0.40$ and $\\eta=0.30$, and the dotted line covers the case $\\gamma=0$, with $\\zeta=0.40$ and $\\eta=0.37$, respectively.\n\nThe $\\gamma=1$ curve in Fig. \\[fig:Dv-M\\] gives a good fit to the change in $v_{{\\rm max}}$ for the DMO satellites, and corresponds to cuspy density profiles. Conversely, the $\\gamma=0$ curve, that stands for cored profiles, presents a good approximation for the DMB satellites, particularly for those having large baryonic content (i.e., many stars).\n\nArmed with the fit of Eq. (\\[eq:pe\\]), we propose to determine the VL2 satellites that are tidally disrupted by fixing a destruction criterion (e.g., mass lost). For satellites from N-body simulations, such as the VL2, inner slopes are expected at $\\gamma\\simeq1$, as found in B13. Consequently, we fix for them $\\zeta=0.40$ and $\\eta=0.30$ in Eq. (\\[eq:pe\\]). The fit (\\[eq:pe\\]) enables to calculate the mass loss from VL2 satellites\u2019 velocities at infall and z=0 together with the infall mass. The velocity of VL2 satellites in the simulation at infall time, $v_{\\rm c,VL2,infall}$, is modified with Phase 1 correction, $\\Delta v_{{\\rm c,infall}}$, to account for baryon flattening, yielding $v_{{\\rm max,infall}}=v_{\\rm c,VL2,infall}+\\Delta v_{{\\rm c,infall}}$. Using the correction from Eq. \\[eq:mia\\], the velocity of VL2 satellites in the simulation at present $v_{\\rm c,VL2,z0}$ is modified into $v_{{\\rm max,z0}}=v_{\\rm c,VL2,z0}+\\Delta v_{{\\rm c}}$. The infall mass is directly obtained from the simulation $M_{\\rm vir,infall}=M_{\\rm sat,VL2}$.\n\nAs for the destruction criteria, we fix it similarly to B13, as follows. Tides affect much more cored, for which $\\gamma=0$, than cuspy satellites (with $\\gamma=1$). Governato et al. (2012) found that satellites having a stellar mass $>10^{7}M_{\\odot}$, corresponding to $v_{{\\rm infall}}>30$ km/s, are cored, the opposite denoting a cusp. Here we assume, as B13 for our cuspy host with a disk and based on Fig. 2 in P10, that cored satellites, having $v_{{\\rm infall}}>30$ km/s, are disrupted if they loose $>90\\%$ of their mass after infall and pass at a distance $<20$ kpc from the host galaxy centre. In the cases $v_{{\\rm infall}}<30$ km/s (cuspy satellite), or cored satellites with pericenters $>20$ kpc, the halo is fully stripped off only if it loose 97% of its mass (Wetzel & White 2010).\n\nSummarising, all the VL2 satellites loosing more than 97% mass ($x=0.03$), or loosing more than 90% mass, combined with $v_{{\\rm infall}}>30$ km/s and a pericentric passages $<20 kpc$, are considered to be destroyed.\n\nThe second correction is the suppression of star formation by photo-heating, obtained from the Okamoto et al. (2008) results. In their paper, a uniform ionising background is assumed, for which He II reionization happens at $z=3.5$, while it occurs at $z=9$ for H and He I. They found the value of the typical halo mass retaining 50% of $f_{b}$: $M_{t}(z)$. This mass can be converted into a typical velocity, $v_{t}(z)$[^9]. Thus, if a VL2 subhalo has a larger peak velocity, $v_{{\\rm peak}}>v_{t}$[^10], it is considered to contain enough baryons to make it luminous.\n\nThe last step consists in assigning a luminosity to the surviving satellites. We first need to allocate stellar masses to VL2 satellites via a relation between their $v_{\\rm infall}$ and the stellar mass $M_\\ast$.\n\nTo do so, we recycled the pairs of satellites considered in the determination of $\\Delta v_{\\rm c, 1kpc}$. DM-only subhaloes are usually associated with their DMB satellites at formation or accretion time (Bullock et al. 2000; Kravtsov et al. 2004; Strigari et al. 2007; Bovill & Ricotti 2011; Simha et al. 2012). Our semi analytical model simply creates a series of DMO, and a series of corresponding DMB haloes.\n\nFig. \\[fig:vmax-M\\] plots $v_{\\rm infall}$ in terms of the stellar mass, $M_\\ast$. The $v_{\\rm infall}$-$M_\\ast$ relation is obtained by fitting the data, yielding the relation[^11]\n\n$$\\frac{M_{\\ast}}{M_{\\odot}}=0.1 (\\frac{v_{\\rm infall}}{\\rm kms^{-1}})^{5.5}.$$\n\nFinally, we need to relate $M_\\ast$ and the V-band magnitude, $M_{\\rm V}$. We apply the relation from B13, extracted from Z12 simulations, $$\\log_{10}(\\frac{M_{\\ast}}{M_{\\odot}})=2.37-0.38 M_{\\rm V}.$$\n\nResults and discussion\n======================\n\nThe result of the corrections discussed above are plotted in Fig. \\[fig:correction\\]. The top panel represents the raw results from VL2 at $z=0$. The bottom panel presents the results of applying the corrections discussed (heating, destruction, and velocity corrections) on the same satellites. The objects considered \u201cobservable\u201d in the VL2 simulation are ascribed red filled symbols. Filled black circles are satellites that have lost $\\ge$90% of their mass since infall, but do not satisfy the destruction criteria previously described: stripped of their stars, they actually appear much fainter than the \u201cobservable\u201d ones (see P10, B13). Dark objects are marked by empty circles: simple empty circles have a mass smaller than the minimum to retain baryon and form stars, while objects crossed in addition with an \u201cx\u201d, represent subhaloes that do not survive to the baryonic effects (e.g., baryonic disc, etc).\n\nNote that the Z12 correction was not applied to satellites with $v_{max}>{\\rm 50km/s}$ (for example, satellites with $M_{V}<-16$, the 5 most massive satellites at infall of VL2). In fact, those subhalos are Magellanic-like and gas-rich at accretion, possibly including an additional effect of adiabatic contraction that is not accounted for in the correction. The model also assumes small subhalo mass compared to the host. Therefore Magellanic-types are considered of a different dynamical nature and excluded from the model, as in, e.g. Simon & Geha (2007).\n\nWe obtain 3 satellites with $v_{1kpc}>20$ km/s, in agreement with B13. However, our central velocities are smaller: the correction to the circular velocity, $\\Delta(v_{1kpc})$, is larger in our model compared to Z12 and B13. In addition, in our case, some satellites are \u201covercorrected\u201d: their corrected velocities are negative.\n\nSimilarly to B13, overcorrected haloes are part of a population that lost a great part of their mass after infall. At $z=0$, their circular velocity at 1 kpc, $v_{1kpc}$, is very low so the correction $\\Delta(v_{1kpc})$ brings them to negative values. After infall, that population suffers mass loss larger than 99.9% and exhibit tidal radii $<1$ kpc. It can therefore be considered as a population of destroyed subhaloes.\n\nIt is interesting to note from Fig. \\[fig:correction\\] that the model obtains not only a reduction of the number of satellites, solving the MSP, but also a reduction of their central velocity, clearing up the TBTF problem.\n\nIn analogy with B13, UV heating and tidal destruction are necessary to reconcile the total number of luminous satellites with observations, while the Z12-type correction is necessary to reconcile the masses of the subhaloes with observations.\n\nIf the baryonic effects were not taken into account, a population would exist of satellites significantly more massive than those of the MW.\n\nFinally, the effect of UV heating is required, in addition to tidal destruction, to get the correct number of luminous satellites.\n\nIn our model, the solution to the aforementioned problems is connected to the complex interaction between DM and baryons mediated by DF. Our study is similar to those of El-Zant et al. (2001, 2004), Romano-Diaz et al. (2008), Cole et al. (2011), in the sense that DF plays an important role. However, while previous studies considered one effect at a time (e.g., random angular momentum, angular momentum generated by tidal torques, adiabatic contraction, cooling, star formation), we consider the joint effect of all of them.\n\nIndeed, here the dynamics of the satellites (i.e., the TBP model in Appendix \\[Dynamics of the satellites\\]) proceeds from two competing mechanisms: dynamical friction, inducing a decay of the satellites orbits, and tidal stripping and heating, reducing the bound mass of the satellite. This reduction causes a decrease in the frictional force, which produces in turn a slowing down of the orbital collapse. Massive and dense satellite are more subject to DF and sink fast towards the centre of the potential. Low-density satellites are more subject to stripping and fall slowly towards the centre. Mass loss and tidal heating depend primarily on the satellite density profile, as confirmed by P10.\n\nAccounting for tidal heating and disc shocking speeds up the disruption of satellite, and yields a further reduction of the mass retained by them compared with B13.\n\nIn Fig. \\[fig:Fn\\], we compare the cumulative number of MW satellites in terms of the circular velocity of the halo with theoretical results. The upper solid line with diamonds represents the Via Lactea subhaloes (Diemand et al. 2007). The filled squares display the set of the sum of the classical MW dwarfs and the ultra-faint-dwarfs (Simon & Geha 2007). The dashed line shows the result of our model in terms of the abundance of subhaloes in the VL2 simulations after the baryonic corrections discussed. This figure is built superimposing our results, the dotted line, to those of Simon & Geha (2007) (their Fig. 14) in the $V_c$ range 10 km/s-40 km/s. This is dictated by a) the fact that Eq. \\[eq:mia\\] is valid in the range $10< V_{\\rm infall}< 50$ km/s, so we considered satellites with $V_{\\rm infall} >10$ km/s; b) there are no halos at $z=0$ that have circular velocities over 40 km/s. This plot demonstrates clearly how applying the baryonic correction to the VL2 subhaloes reduces the number of the satellites to reach the levels observed in the MW, thereby solving the MSP.\n\nTo solve the problem in a single galaxy is not enough to conclude that the problem is solved in galaxies different from ours. In fact, several authors have discussed the MSP in relation to the host galaxy mass. Di Cintio et al. (2012), Vera-Ciro et al. (2012), Wang et al. (2012), showed that if the MW true virial mass is smaller than $10^{12}M_{\\odot}$, namely $\\simeq8\\times10^{11}M_{\\odot}$, the satellites excess may disappear. Since our model is not so computationally \u201cheavy as SPH simulations, it opens the door to study the MSP in different galaxies.\n\nSummarising, the model shows how taking account of baryon physics allows to solve the small scale problems of the $\\Lambda$CDM model.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nIn the present paper, we looked for a common solution to the small scale problems of the $\\Lambda$CDM using two semi-analytic models: a) the model presented in DP09 (see also DP12a, b) dealing with isolated satellites, and b) the model based on TB01, and P10 (TBP model) that involves satellite-host dynamics.\n\nThe study was divided into two phases: in the first, satellites were considered isolated and we studied, by means of the DP09 model, how the haloes profile are changed by adiabatic contraction, dynamical friction and the exchange of angular momentum, ordered and random, between baryons and DM. This applies both to isolated satellites and parent haloes alike, and solves the CCP (Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} 2014).\n\nThe model had already shown in DP09, DP12a,b, that the angular momentum generated through tidal torques and random velocities (random angular momentum) in the system, can be transferred in part to the DM from baryons through DF (Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} 2014). This produces a flattening of the cusp in agreement with previous studies based on DF (El-Zant et al. 2001, 2004; Romano-Diaz et al. 2008; Cole et al. 2011) and SF (Navarro et al. 1996a; Gelato & Sommer-Larsen 1999; Read & Gilmore 2005; Mashchenko et al. 2006, 2008).\n\nIn the second phase, satellites were allowed to interact with the host halo, and tidal stripping and heating were calculated through the TBP model.\n\nWe obtained a correction to the central velocity of the satellites from the cusp to core transformation before the satellites are accreted, and tidal stripping and heating produced from interaction with the main halo. This correction is close to that of Z12.\n\nWe then found the relation between the retained mass of satellites and the changes in $v_{{\\rm max}}$ from $z_{{\\rm infall}}$ to $z=0$, and found a connection between mass loss and velocity change, in agreement with Eq. 8 of P10. This allowed us to determine the number of fully disrupted satellites because of tidal stripping and heating.\n\nThis correction, together with the effect of UV heating, and some criteria to fix which satellites are destroyed by tides, were applied to the VL2 satellites. As a result, the number of satellites is reduced and in agreement with the number observed in the MW. Similarly, the central velocity of satellites is reduced by the aforementioned corrections, suppressing the angular momentum catastrophe.\n\nThe present paper shows that baryonic physics is of fundamental importance to solve the small scale problems of the $\\Lambda$CDM model: the MSP, the TBTF problem, the CCP (DP09), and the AMC (DP09). The possibility to solve those problems in the $\\Lambda$CDM paradigm without the need to change the power spectrum or the constituent particles of DM is another proof of the robustness of the $\\Lambda$CDM paradigm, and should, in addition, spur further studies in the direction followed in the present paper.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nA.D.P. would like to thank the International Institute of Physics in Natal for the facilities and hospitality, Adi Zolotov, Alyson Brooks, and Charles Downing from Exeter University for a critical reading of the paper. The work of M.Le\u00a0D. has been supported by FAPESP (2011/24089-5) and PNPD/CAPES20132029. M.Le\u00a0D. also wishes to acknowledge IFT/UNESP.\n\nArena S. E., Bertin G., 2007, A&A, 463, 921 Ascasibar Y., Yepes G., Gottl\u00f6ber S., 2004, MNRAS, 352, 1109 Astashenok, A. V., and Del Popolo, A., 2012, Class. Quantum Grav. 29, 085014 (doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/8/085014) V. Belokurov, V., ApJ 2006,, 647, L111-L114 Bertschinger E., 1985, ApJS, 58, 39 Bovill, M. S., & Ricotti, M. 2011, ApJ, 741, 17 Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., Kaplinghat, M, 2011, MNRAS 415L, 40 Boylan-Kolchin, Michael; Bullock, James S.; Kaplinghat, Manoj, 2012, MNRAS 422, 1203 Brooks A. M., & Zolotov, A., 2012, arXiv: 1207.2468 Brooks, Alyson M.; Kuhlen, Michael; Zolotov, Adi; Hooper, Dan, 2013, ApJ 765, 22 (B13) Buchdahl, H. A., 1970, MNRAS, 150, 1-8. Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, ApJ, 539, 517 Burkert, A. 1995, ApJ, 447, L25 Cardone, V. F., Leubner, M.P., Del Popolo, A., 2011a MNRAS 414, 2265 Cardone, V. F., Del Popolo, A., Tortora, C., Napolitano, N.R. 2011b, MNRAS 416, 1822 Cardone, V. F., Del Popolo, A., 2012, MNRAS 427, 3176 Chandrasekhar, S., 1943, ApJ 97, 255 Choi, J.-H., Weinberg, M. D., & Katz, N. 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1247 Colin, P., Avila-Reese, V., & Valenzuela, O. 2000, ApJ, 542, 622 Cole, D. R., Dehnen,W., & Wilkinson, M. I. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 1118 Colpi, M., Mayer, L., & Governato, F. 1999, ApJ, 525, 720 D\u2019Onghia, E., Vogelsberger, M., Faucher-Giguere, C.-A., & Hernquist, L. 2010b, ApJ, 725, 353 de Blok, W. J. G., Bosma, A., & McGaugh, S. 2003, MNRAS, 340, 657 Del Popolo, A., Gambera, M., 1996, A&A 308, 373 Del Popolo, A., Gambera, M., 1997 A&A 321, 691 Del Popolo, A., Gambera, M., 2000, A&A 357, 809 Del Popolo, A., 2007, Astron. Rep., 51, 169 Del Popolo, A., 2009, ApJ 698, 2093 (DP09) Del Popolo, A., 2010, MNRAS 408, 1808 Del Popolo, A., 2011, JCAP 07, 014 Del Popolo, A. & Kroupa, P., 2009A&A 502, 733 Del Popolo, A., 2012a, MNRAS 424, 38 (DP12a) Del Popolo, A., 2012b, MNRAS 419, 971 (DP12b) Del Popolo, A., 2013, AIP Conference Proceedings 1548 , pp. 2-63 Del Popolo, A., Cardone, V. F., & Belvedere, G., 2013a, MNRAS 429, 1080 Del Popolo, A., Pace, F., Maydaniuk, S. P., Lima, J. A. S., Jesus, J. F., 2013b, Phys. Rev D, vol. 87, Issue 4, id. 043527 Del Popolo, A., Pace, F., Lima, J. A. S., 2013a, MNRAS 430, 628 Del Popolo, A., Pace, F., Lima, J. A. S., 2013b, IJMPD 22, 1350038 Del Popolo, A., 2014a, IJMPD 23, 1430005 Del Popolo, A. [*et al.*]{}, JCAP 04 (2014) 021 Del Popolo, A., JCAP 07 (2014b) 019 Del Popolo, A., Baltic Astronomy, 23 (2014c) 55 Del Popolo, A., Hiotelis, N., JCAP 01 (2014) 047 Di Cintio, A., Knebe, A., Libeskind, N. I., Brook, C., Yepes, G., Gottloeber, S., & Hoffman, Y. 2012, ArXiv e-prints Di Cintio, A., Knebe, A., Libeskind, N. I., Brook, C., Yepes, G., Gottl\u00f6ber, S., Hoffman, Y., 2013, MNRAS 431, 1220-1229 Diemand, J., et al. 2008, Nature 454, 735 Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., and Madau, P., 2007, ApJ 667, 859-877 El-Zant A. A., Hoffman Y., Primack J., Combes F., Shlosman I., 2004, ApJ, 607, L75 El-Zant, A., Shlosman, I., & Hoffman, Y. 2001, ApJ, 560, 636 Ferraro, R., 2012, AIP Conf. Proc. 1471, 103-110, arXiv:1204.6273v2 Fillmore J. A., Goldreich P., 1984, ApJ, 281, 1 Flores R. A., Primack J. R., 1994, ApJ, 427, L1 Gelato, S., & Sommer-Larsen, J. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 321 Gnedin, O. Y., Hernquist, L., & Ostriker, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 109 Gnedin, O. Y., & Ostriker, J. P. 1997, ApJ, 474, 223 Gnedin, O. Y., & Ostriker, J. P., 1999, ApJ, 513, 626 Goodman, J. 2000, New Astron., 5, 103 Governato, F., Zolotov, A., Pontzen, A., Christensen, C., Oh, S. H., Brooks, A. M., Quinn, T., Shen, S., Wadsley, J., 2012, MNRAS 422, 1231 Gunn J. E., Gott J. R., 1972, ApJ, 176, 1 Henriksen, R. N., Widrow, Lawrence M., 1995, MNRAS 276, 679 Henriksen, R. N., Widrow, Lawrence M., 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 3426 Henriksen, R. N., Widrow, Lawrence M., 1999, MNRAS 302, 321 Henriksen, R. N., Le Delliou M., 2002, MNRAS 331, 423 Hiotelis, N., Del Popolo, A., 2006, Astrophys. Space Sci. 301, 67 Hiotelis, N., Del Popolo, A., 2013, MNRAS 436, 163 Hoffman Y., Shaham J., 1985, ApJ, 297, 16 Hu,W., Barkana, R., & Gruzinov, A. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1158 Inoue, Shigeki; Saitoh, Takayuki R., 2012, MNRAS 422, 1902 Inoue, Shigeki; Saitoh, Takayuki R., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 418, 2527-2531 (2011) Irwin, M. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 656, L13 Kaplinghat, M., Knox, L., & Turner, M. S. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 3335 Kazantzidis, S., Lokas, E. L., Callegari, S., Mayer, L., & Moustakas, L. A., 2011, ApJ, 726, 98 King, Ivan, 1962, AJ, 67, 274 and 565 Klypin A., Kravtsov A. V., Valenzuela O., Prada, F., 1999, ApJ 522, 82 Klypin A., Zhao H.-S., Somerville R. S., 2002, ApJ, 573, 597 Komatsu, E., Smith, K. M., Dunkley, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 18 Kravtsov, A. V., Gnedin, O. Y., & Klypin, A. A. 2004, ApJ, 609, 482 Kundi\u0107 , T., & Ostriker, J. P. 1995, ApJ, 438, 702 Kuzio de Naray, R., Kaufmann, T., 2011, MNRAS.414.3617 Le Delliou M., Henriksen R. N., 2003, A&A, 408, 27 Le Delliou M., 2008, A&A, 490, L43-L48 Le Delliou M., Henriksen R. N., MacMillan, J. D., 2010, A&A, 522, A28 Le Delliou M., Henriksen R. N., MacMillan, J. D., 2011a, A&A, 526, A13 Le Delliou M., Henriksen R. N., MacMillan, J. D., 2011b, MNRAS 413, 1633-1642 Ma, C-P., Boylan-Kolchin, M., 2004, PhysRevLett 93, 021301 Madau, Piero; Diemand, J\u00fcrg; Kuhlen, Michael, 2008, ApJ 679, 1260 - Mashchenko, S., Couchman, H. M. P., & Wadsley, J. 2006, Nature, 442, 539 Mashchenko, S., Wadsley, J., & Couchman, H. M. P. 2008, Science, 319, 174 Mayer, L., Governato, F., Colpi, M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 559, 754 Milgrom, M., 1983a, ApJ 270, 365-370 Milgrom, M. 1983b, ApJ 270, 371-389 Moore B., 1994, Nat, 370, 629 Moore, B., Quinn, T., Governato, F., Stadel, J., & Lake, G. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 1147 Moore, B., Diemand, J., Madau, P., Zemp, M., & Stadel, J. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 563 Navarro J. F. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 21 Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563 Navarro, J. F., Eke, V. R., & Frenk, C. S. 1996a, MNRAS, 283, L72 Navarro J. F., Frenk C. S., White S. D. M., 1997, ApJ, 490, 493 Nipoti, C., Treu, T., Ciotti, L., Stavelli, M., 2004, MNRAS 355, 1119 Ogiya & Mori, 2011, ApJ, 736, L2 Ogiya & Mori, 2014, ApJ, 793, 46O Ogiya, Mori, Ishiyama, & Burkert, 2014, MNRAS, 440, L71 Ogiya & Burkert, 2014, arXiv 1408.6444 Oh, S-H, C. Brook, F. Governato, E. Brinks, L. Mayer,W. J. G. de Blok ,A. Brooks, F.Walter, 2010, AJ, 142, 24 Oh, S-H, de Blok, W. J. G., Brinks, E., Fabian, W., Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., 2011 AJ 141, 193 Okamoto, T., Gao, L., & Theuns, T. 2008, MNRAS, 390, 920 Ostriker J. P., Steinhardt P., 2003, Science, 300, 1909 Peebles, P. J. E. 2000, ApJ, 534, L127 Pe\u00f1arrubia, J., Just, A., Kroupa, P., 2004, MNRAS, 349, 747 Pe\u00f1arrubia, J., et al., 2010, MNRAS 406, 1290 (P10) Purcell, C. W., Zentner, A. R., 2012, JCAP 12, 007 Quinn, P. J., & Goodman, J. 1986, ApJ, 309, 472 Read, J. I., & Gilmore, G. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 107 Ricotti, M., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2005, ApJ, 629, 259 Romano-Diaz, E., Shlosman, I., Heller, C., & Hoffman, Y. 2009, ApJ, 702, 1250 Romano-Diaz, E., Shlosman, I., Hoffman, Y., & Heller, C. 2008, ApJ, 685, L105 Ryden B. S., Gunn J. E., 1987, ApJ, 318, 15 Sakamoto, T., & Hasegawa, T. 2006, ApJ, 653, L29 Simha, V., Weinberg, D. H., Dav\u00e9, R., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 423, 3458 Simon, J. D.; Geha, M., 2007, AAS 211, 2602 Sommer-Larsen, J., & Dolgov, A. 2001, ApJ, 551, 608 Spedicato, E., Bodon E., Del Popolo A., Mahdavi-Amiri N. 2003, 4OR, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 51 Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007 ApJS 170 377 doi:10.1086/513700 Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175 Springel, V., Wang, J., Vogelsberger, M., Ludlow, A., Jenkins, A., Helmi, A., Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., 2008, MNRAS 391, 1685 Stadel J., Potter D., Moore B., Diemand J., Madau P., Zemp M., Kuhlen M., Quilis V., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 21 Starobinsky, A. A. (1980). Physics Letters B 91: 99-102 Stoehr, F., White, S. D. M., Tormen, G., & Springel, V. 2002, MNRAS, 335, L84 Strigari, L. E., Bullock, J. S., Kaplinghat, M., Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., Madau, P., 2007, ApJ 669, 676 Taylor, J. E., Babul, A., 2001, ApJ 559:716-735 van den Bosch F. C., Burkert A., Swaters R. A., 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1205 (VBS) van den Bosch, F. C., Lewis, G. F., Lake, G., & Stadel, J. 1999, ApJ, 515, 50 Velazquez, Hector; White, Simon D. M., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 254 Vera-Ciro, C. A., Helmi, A. Starkenburg, E., Breddels, M. A., 2013, MNRAS 428, 1696 Wang, J., Frenk, C. S., Navarro, J. F., Gao, L., Sawala, T., 2012, MNRAS 424, 2715 Weinberg, S., Rev. Mod. Phys., 1989, 61, 1 Wetzel, A. R., & White, M. 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1072 Williams, L. L. R., Babul, A., & Dalcanton, J. J. 2004, ApJ, 604, 18 Willman, B., et al. 2005a, ApJ, 626, L85 Zentner, A. R., & Bullock, J. S. 2003, ApJ, 598, 49 Zolotov, A., Brooks, A. M., Willman, B., Governato, F., Pontzen, A., Christensen, C., Dekel, A., Quinn, T., Shen, S., Wadsley, J., 2012, ApJ 761, 71 (Z12) Zucker, D. B., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 643, L103\n\nDynamics of the satellites. {#Dynamics of the satellites}\n===========================\n\nIn the following, we discuss a semi-analytic model that follows the substructure evolution within DM haloes. It takes into account the effects of DF, tidal loss and tidal heating. The model is basically the TB01 model with small changes coming from a similar model by P10.\n\nEach satellite is represented by a spherically symmetric subhalo, whose structure is time dependent. At a time $t$, the satellite\u2019s state is specified by the form of the density distribution, from a chosen initial condition[^12], by the mass bound to it, and by the heating experienced in time. For the determination of the satellite\u2019s orbit, we ignore its spatial extent and we solve its equation of motion in the potential of the host halo.\n\nAt each time step, the equations solved are:\n\n$${\\ddot {\\bf r}}={\\bf f}_h +{\\bf f}_d + {\\bf f}_{\\rm df};\n\\label{eq:eqmot}$$\n\nIn Eq. (\\[eq:eqmot\\]), the term ${\\bf f}_h=-GM(<r)/r^2$ is the force due to the host halo, where $$M(<r)=4\\pi\\int_0^r \\rho(r')r'^2dr';\n\\label{eq:mass}$$ and the density $\\rho(r)$ is given by a NFW[^13] profile with parameters $R_{\\rm vir}=258$ kpc, $r_s=21.5$ kpc, $M_{\\rm vir}= 10^{12} M_{\\odot}$, and $\\Delta_v=101$ (Klypin et al. 2002; Pe\u00f1arrubia et al. 2010). The term ${\\bf f}_{\\rm d}$ is the force produced by the baryonic disc. While in Pe\u00f1arrubia et al. (2010) it is approximated by means of a Miyamoto-Nagai (1975) model, in Klypin et al. (2002) a double-exponential disc is used. We select the exponential disc applied in TB01, defined by the density $$\\rho_{\\rm d}(r)= \\frac{M_{\\rm d}}{4 \\pi R^2_{\\rm d} z_0} exp(-\\frac{R}{R_{\\rm d}}) \nsech^2(\\frac{z}{z_0})$$ with $M_{\\rm d}= 5.6 \\times 10^{10} M_{\\odot}$, $r_{\\rm d}=3.5$ kpc, and $z_0=700$ kpc. In this study, we neglect the bulge (similarly to P10), since the disc has a much larger mass than the bulge, and presents a steep vertical density gradient. That gradient is 10 times larger than for the bulge or the halo, resulting in satellite heating at disc crossing 100 times larger than from the other components.\n\nDynamical friction\n------------------\n\nThe term ${\\bf f}_{\\rm df}$ is the dynamical friction force on the satellites due to the DM particles moving around the host. Dynamical friction is approximated through Chandrasekhar\u2019s formula (Chandrasekhar 1943) which is sufficiently accurate if one can consider the so called \u201cCoulomb logarithm\" as a free parameter, fixed through simulations (e.g., van den Bosch et al. 1999).\n\nChandrasekhar\u2019s formula, in our case is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\bf f}_{\\rm df}={\\bf f}_{\\rm df, disc}+ {\\bf f}_{\\rm df, halo}=  -4\\pi G^2 M^2_{sat} \\sum_{i=h,d}\\rho_i(r) F(<v_{\\rm rel,i})\\ln \\Lambda_i \\frac{{\\bf \nv}_{\\rm rel,i}}{v_{\\rm rel,i}^3}.\n\\label{eq:df}\\end{aligned}$$ having divided the potential into the halo and disc components. $M_{sat}$ is the satellite mass, ${\\bf r}$ its position, and $\\ln \\Lambda_h$ and $\\ln \\Lambda_d$ are the Coulomb logarithms of the halo and disc components, respectively. If ${\\bf v}_{sat}$ indicates the velocity vector of the satellite, then ${\\bf v}_{\\rm rel,h}={\\bf v}_{sat}$ is the satellite\u2019s relative velocity with respect to the halo, while ${\\bf v}_{\\rm rel,d}={\\bf v}_{sat}-{\\bf v}_{d,\\phi}$ the relative velocity with respect to the disc, while the term $v^2_{d,\\phi}=R|f_d(Z=0)|$ is the circular velocity of the disc measured on the plane of the galaxy. The velocity distribution, $F(v)$, is assumed to be isotropic and Maxwellian, for simplicity $$F(<v_{\\rm rel,i})={\\rm erf}(X_i)-\\frac{2X_i}{\\sqrt\\pi}\\exp[-X_i^2];\n\\label{eq:fv}$$ where the term $X_i=|v_{\\rm rel,i}|/\\sqrt{2}\\sigma_i$ is the one-dimensional velocity dispersion[^14].\n\nChandrasekhar\u2019s formula was calculated for a massive point particle, but several authors showed that it can be applied to calculate the drag force on an extended satellite by adjusting appropriately the Coulomb logarithms (e.g., Colpi, Mayer & Governato 1999). Their choice is not trivial. Usually $\\Lambda$ is defined as $\\Lambda=b_{max}/b_{min}$, where $b_{max}$ is set to the typical scale of the system, and $b_{min} \\equiv G(M_{\\rm sat}+m)/V^2$, $m$ being the mass of the background particles and $V$ the typical velocity of the encounter, is the minimum impact parameter. A different definition is used for an extended satellite (Quinn & Goodman 1986).\n\nThe uncertainty in $\\Lambda_d$ and $\\Lambda_h$ directly reflects on that of the orbital decay rates, since the latters depend on the values of the Coulomb logarithms. A way to reduce such discrepancy is to treat $\\ln \\Lambda_h$ and $\\ln \\Lambda_d$ as free parameters. The self-consistent value of the Coulomb logarithm best fitting N-body orbits is $\\ln\\Lambda_h=2.1$ (Pe\u00f1arrubia, Just & Kroupa 2004; Arena & Bertin 2007), while TB01 and P10 adopt $\\ln\\Lambda_d=0.5$. One should also make a correction to the expression for the disc friction, since the model assumed a constant satellite wake, and this approximation could reveal incorrect if the background density changes over small scales (e.g., when the satellite is in the disc plane). This can be corrected by smoothing the disc density (see Sec. 2.2.1 of TB01).\n\nMass loss\n---------\n\nA finite size satellite moving through the host galaxy is expected to loose mass because of tidal stripping. The mass decrease of the satellite affects its dynamic, since the dynamical friction force expression contains $M^2_{\\rm sat}$. It is clear that we need to estimate the mass loss in order to correctly describe the satellite motion. The loss of mass is due to the action of tidal forces. We distinguish two model behaviours: if the system is \u201cslowly varying\", we consider the material outside a limiting radius, dubbed \u201ctidal radius\", to be stripped, while if the system is \u201crapidly varying\", the satellite material will be heated.\n\nIn the first case, one estimates the tidal radius as the distance, measured from the centre of the satellite, where the tidal force balances the satellite\u2019s self-gravity. In the case of satellites on circular orbits, the tidal radius is given by $$R_t\\approx \\bigg ( \\frac{G M_{sat}}{\\omega^2 -\\rm d^2 \\Phi_h/\\rm d r^2} \n\\bigg)^{1/3};\n\\label{eq:rt}$$ (King 1962), where, as before, $M_{sat}$ is the mass of the satellite $\\omega$ is its angular velocity, and $\\Phi_h$ is the host halo potential. Eq. (\\[eq:rt\\]) is valid if $ M_{sat}<< M_h$, $R_t<< R_{system}$, and the satellite is corotating at $\\omega$. Eq. (\\[eq:rt\\]) describes a steady state loss of mass, while the mass changes on a general orbit should depend on the orbital period. One then assumes that mass beyond the tidal radius is lost in an orbital period.\n\nThe calculation of ${\\rm d}^2\\Phi_h /{\\rm d}r^2$ is performed averaging over the asphericity of the potential originated by the disc component, as follows $${{{\\rm d}^2\\Phi_h} \\over {{\\rm d}r^2}} \n= {{\\rm d}\\over{{\\rm d}r}}\\left({{-GM(<r)}\\over{r^2}}\\right)\\,.$$\n\nIn real systems, satellites are not spherical and do not move inside spherically symmetric potentials. In such cases, Eq. (\\[eq:rt\\]) can be used to define an instantaneous tidal radius.\n\nThe stripping condition can be written in terms of the densities as, $$\\label{overd}\n\\overline{\\rho}_{\\rm sat} (< R_{\\rm t}) = \\xi \\overline{\\rho}_{\\rm gal}(<r)\\,.$$\n\nThe previous equation localises the tidal limit at the radius beyond which the satellite mean density, $\\overline{\\rho}_{\\rm sat}$, is larger by a factor $\\xi$ than the average galaxy density inside that radius $r$, where $$\\xi \\equiv {{\\overline{\\rho}_{\\rm sat} \n(< R_{\\rm t})}\\over{\\overline{\\rho}_{\\rm gal}(< r)}}= \\left({{r^3} \\over {G M(< \nr)}}\\right) \\left(\\omega^2 - {{{\\rm d}^2\\Phi_h} \\over {{\\rm d}r^2}}\\right)$$\n\nbeing $\\omega$ the instantaneous angular velocity of the satellite and $\\omega_c$ is the angular velocity of a circular orbit of radius $r$.\n\nFrom the previous discussion, we can define an algorithm to calculate stripping.\\\n1) We divide the orbital path of the satellite in discrete sections, and calculate the tidal radius through Eq. (\\[overd\\]).\\\n2) A fraction $\\Delta t / t_{orb}$[^15], of the material outside the virial radius will be removed.\\\n3) Whereas in TB01, the satellite was considered disrupted when the tidal radius was smaller than the profile core radius, in our case, we define some other disruption criteria in Sect. 2.3.\n\nTidal Heating\n-------------\n\nAs previously discussed, in the case of a rapidly varying gravitational potential, shocks are produced which result in changes in the satellite structure and give rise to an acceleration of the mass loss (e.g., Gnedin & Ostriker 1997, 1999; Gnedin, Hernquist & Ostriker 1999). A simple first order correction for tidal heating can be obtained as follows. Rapid shocks are identified by comparing the orbital period of the satellite, $t_{\\rm orb,sat}$[^16], with the disc shock timescale, $t_{\\rm shock,d}=Z/V_{Z,{\\rm sat}}$. If $t_{\\rm shock,d} < t_{\\rm orb,sat}$ the satellite is heated. We then calculate the change in energy, and the subsequent mass loss in the satellite. The energy change is obtained adopting the impulse approximation (Gnedin, Hernquist, & Ostriker 1999), which yields the velocity change produced by the tidal field in the encounter, relative to the centre of the satellite.\n\nThis velocity change produced in an encounter of duration $t$, for an element of unit mass located at ${\\mathbf x}$ with respect to the centre of the satellite, writes\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Delta {\\mathbf V} = \\int^t_0 {\\mathbf A}_{\\rm tid}(t')dt',\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere the term ${\\mathbf A}_{\\rm tid}$ is the tidal acceleration.\n\nThe first order change in energy is given by $$\\Delta E_1 (t)= W_{\\rm tid}(t) = {1 \\over 2}\\Delta V^2$$\n\nWe divide the shock in $n$ time steps of length $\\Delta t$ and suppose that the satellite is sufficiently small so that the tidal acceleration can be expressed in terms of the gradient of the gravitational acceleration produced by the external potential, ${\\bf g}$. We then average the change of energy on a sphere of radius $r$, in a time step, as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{dW2}\n\\lefteqn{\\Delta W_{\\rm tid}(t_n \\rightarrow t_{n+1})}\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&{1 \\over 6}\\,r^2\\,\\Delta t^2\\,\\Biggr[\\,2\\,{g}_{a,b}(t_n)\\sum^{n-1}_{i = 0} \n{g}_{a,b}(t_i)\\nonumber\\\\\n& &\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ +\\ \\ \\ g_{a,b}(t_n)g_{a,b}(t_n) \\Biggr]\\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{a,b} = \\partial g_a/\\partial x_b$ is evaluated at ${\\mathbf x} = 0$[^17].\n\nThe impulse approximation, upon which the calculation of Eq. (\\[dW2\\]) is based, breaks down in the central part of the satellite where the dynamical time-scales can be comparable to, or even shorter than, the duration of the shock. When this happens the shock effects are significantly reduced.\n\nThis is taken into account through a first-order adiabatic correction (Gnedin & Ostriker 1999) $$\\label{adc}\n\\Delta E_1 = A_1(x)\\Delta E_{1,{\\rm imp}}\\ ,$$ where $x=t_{\\rm shock}/t_{\\rm orb,sat}$ is the adiabatic parameter, and $A_1(x) = (1 +\n x^2)^{-\\beta}$, with $\\beta=5/2$ (Gnedin & Ostriker 1999).\n\nAnother correction required is connected to the satellite internal dispersion velocity, which is altered by heating (Kundi\u0107 & Ostriker 1995). We start by computing the energy changes at first-order and further take into account the higher order effects through the heating coefficient, $\\epsilon_{\\rm h}$, as $$\\Delta E = \\epsilon_{\\rm h} \\Delta E_1=\\epsilon_{\\rm h} A_1(x) \\Delta \nE_{1, imp}=\\epsilon_{\\rm h} A_1(x) \\delta W_{tid}.$$ Gnedin & Ostriker (1997) estimated $\\epsilon_{\\rm h} \\simeq 7/3$.\n\nIn this paper, we follow TB01 in adopting the value $\\epsilon_{\\rm h}=3$.\n\nPractical determination of the effect of heating on the satellite leads us to assume for each mass element that its potential energy is proportional to its total energy. We note that shell crossing is not taken into account by the mass distribution changes.\n\nConsequently, we write that a mass element will have a total energy $E(r)$ proportional to $-1/r$, and a radius change $\\Delta r \\propto \\Delta E(r)\\ r^2$.\n\nInside radius $r$ the mean density will change as $$\\label{dp}\n\\Delta \\overline{\\rho}_r =\\ \\Delta \\left({{3 M(<r)}\\over{4 \\pi r^3}}\\right)\\ \n\\propto - {\\Delta r\\over r^4} \\propto \n- {\\Delta E(r) \\over r^2}\\ .$$\n\nThe previous equation shows how the bound mass density in the satellite can decrease because of heating, with the results of an acceleration of the mass loss. The decrease in density can correspond to, either an increase of the velocity dispersion in, or an expansion of, the satellite. In any case, it gives rise to the same change in the bound mass.\n\nWe can calculate the density change due to tidal heating, at a radius $r$ as a function of time. Applying then the equation for tidal stripping, (Eq.\u00a0 \\[overd\\]), to the heated density we can estimate the quantity of mass lost.\n\nIn the calculation, we smoothed the disc mass in the vertical direction, as already mentioned, over twice the disc scale height. We assume the velocity dispersion of the disc to read as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sigma_{\\rm h} &=& (V^2_{\\rm c,h})^{1/2}/\\sqrt{2} ,\\hspace{0.7cm}\\nonumber\\\\\n{\\rm and}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ {\\phantom{\\sigma_{\\rm d}}}\\nonumber\\\\\n\\sigma_{\\rm d} &=& V_{\\rm c,d}/\\sqrt 2 = \\sigma_{\\rm o}\\exp(-R/R_{\\rm o})\\hspace{0.7cm}\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\\rm c,h}$, is the circular velocity of the halo, and $V_{\\rm c,d}$ that of the disc. $\\sigma_{\\rm o}$ is set to $143$ km/s and $R_{\\rm o}$ to $7$kpc (namely $2\\,R_{\\rm d}$), in agreement with Velazquez & White (1999).\n\nThe model depends on three parameters: $\\ln \\Lambda_{\\rm h}$ (strongest dependence), $\\epsilon_{\\rm h}$ (weaker than the previous), and $\\ln \n\\Lambda_{\\rm d}$ (weak dependence). To evaluate the sensitivity of the results to parameter variations, 20% changes in the second parameter ($\\epsilon_{\\rm h}$) were issued: even with such modulations, only slight changes to the results were produced. \\[lastpage\\]\n\n[^1]: Other remaining problems for the $\\Lambda$CDM model involve understanding dark energy: the cosmological constant fine tuning problem (Weinberg 1989; Astashenok, & Del Popolo 2012), and the \u201ccosmic coincidence problem\u201d.\n\n[^2]: Note that the NFW profile, initially considered a universal one, has been shown not to be so (e.g., Del Popolo 2010, 2011)\n\n[^3]: That difference is larger than an order of magnitude in the Milky Way (MW)!\n\n[^4]: \u201cToo big to fail\u201d, in the sense that the extra simulation satellites are too big, compared with MW satellites, to remain invisible.\n\n[^5]: Note that, in the case of the TBTF problem, the excess of massive subhaloes in MW could disappear if satellites density profiles are modelled through Einasto\u2019s profiles, or if the MW\u2019s virial mass is $\\simeq8\\times10^{11}M_{\\odot}$ instead of $\\simeq10^{12}M_{\\odot}$ (Vera-Ciro et al. 2013; Di Cintio et al. 2013).\n\n[^6]: Changes to the spherical collapse introduced by dark energy where studied in Del Popolo [*et al.*]{} 2013a; Del Popolo, Pace, & Lima 2013a, b.; Del Popolo et al. 2013b.\n\n[^7]: B13 is based on Z12 results. In Z12, some haloes experienced disc shocking and were strongly disrupted. For this, they were considered outliers, and not used in the calculation in the Z12 correction.\n\n[^8]: The fact that gas-rich satellites in Z12 are too rich is probably due to inefficient stripping in their SPH simulations.\n\n[^9]: In the conversion, we used an overdensity $200\\rho_{{\\rm crit}}$, and a WMAP3 cosmology (Spergel et al. 2007).\n\n[^10]: $v_{{\\rm peak}}$ (see Del Popolo & Gambera 1996 for a definition of the peak mass) represents the largest value of $v_{\\rm max}$ over the entire history of the subhalo.\n\n[^11]: Note that tidal stripping and heating from $z_{\\rm infall}$ to $z=0$ produces a reduction in the halo masses, introducing scatter in the $v_{\\rm infall}$-$M_\\ast$ relation at infall.\n\n[^12]: The initial density profile of the satellites is given by Appendix A.\n\n[^13]: We recall that the NFW profile is given by $\\rho(r)=\n    \\frac{\\rho_s}{r/r_s(1+r/r_s)^2}=\\frac{\\rho_c \\delta_v}{r/r_s(1+r/r_s)^2}$, where $\\delta_v=\\frac{\\Delta_v}{3} \\frac{c^3}{\\log(1+c)-c/(1+c)}$ and $\\rho_c$ is the critical density. The scale radius $r_s$, and $\\rho_s$ depend on the formation epoch and are correlated with the virial radius of the halo, $R_{\\rm vir}$, through the concentration parameter $c=R_{\\rm vir}/r_s$.\n\n[^14]: The velocity dispersion is defined as $\\sigma_i(r)\\equiv 1/\\rho_i(r)\\int_\\infty^r \\rho_i(r')[f_h(r')+f_d(r')]dr'$.\n\n[^15]: $\\Delta t$ is the timestep, while $t_{orb} = 2 \\pi / \\omega$ is the orbital period, which is assumed to be the typical time-scale for the mass loss of the satellite.\n\n[^16]: $t_{\\rm orb,sat}=2 \\pi r_{\\rm h} / V_c (r_{\\rm h})$ is the satellite orbital period at its half-mass radius, $r_h$.\n\n[^17]: These equations and several others were solved using the ABS method (Spedicato et al. 2003)\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Based on the experience gained during the four and a half years of the mission, the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT collaboration has undertaken a comprehensive revision of the event-level analysis going under the name of [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}. Although it is not yet finalized, we can test the improvements in the new event reconstruction with the special case of the prompt phase of bright Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs), where the signal to noise ratio is large enough that loose selection cuts are sufficient to identify gamma-rays associated with the source. Using the new event reconstruction, we have re-analyzed ten GRBs previously detected by the LAT for which an x-ray/optical follow-up was possible and found four new gamma rays with energies greater than 10 GeV in addition to the seven previously known. Among these four is a 27.4 GeV gamma-ray from GRB\u00a0080916C, which has a redshift of 4.35, thus making it the gamma ray with the highest intrinsic energy ($\\sim$147 GeV) detected from a GRB. We present here the salient aspects of the new event reconstruction and discuss the scientific implications of these new high-energy gamma rays, such as constraining extragalactic background light models, Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) tests, the prompt emission mechanism and the bulk Lorentz factor of the emitting region.'\nauthor:\n- 'W.\u00a0B.\u00a0Atwood, L.\u00a0Baldini, J.\u00a0Bregeon, P.\u00a0Bruel, A.\u00a0Chekhtman, J.\u00a0Cohen-Tanugi, A.\u00a0Drlica-Wagner, J.\u00a0Granot, F.\u00a0Longo, N.\u00a0Omodei, M.\u00a0Pesce-Rollins, S.\u00a0Razzaque, L.\u00a0S.\u00a0Rochester, C.\u00a0Sgr\u00f2, M.\u00a0Tinivella, T.\u00a0L.\u00a0Usher, S.\u00a0Zimmer'\nbibliography:\n- 'pesc0504.bib'\ntitle: 'New Fermi-LAT event reconstruction reveals more high-energy gamma rays from Gamma-ray bursts'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nThe Large Area Telescope (LAT) on-board the [*Fermi*]{}\u00a0Gamma-Ray Space Telescope is a pair-conversion telescope designed to detect gamma rays above $\\sim$20\u00a0MeV. The instrument is comprised of three subsystems acting in synergy to identify and characterize gamma-ray interactions: a silicon tracker-converter (TKR), a hodoscopic electromagnetic calorimeter (CAL) and a segmented anti-coincidence detector (ACD). By design, the TKR subsystem divides into two distinct sections: *front* and *back*\u2014the latter featuring six times thicker conversion foils. Since these two sections are notably different from the standpoint of the angular resolution and the contamination from misclassified cosmic rays, in the following we shall analyze separately front- and back- converting candidate gamma rays. We refer the reader to\u00a0@LATPaper for further details on the LAT.\n\nDefining the event classes used for high-level scientific analysis is a complex process involving many different steps: the event reconstruction, the adjudication of the event energy and direction and the final event classification. In the following we shall refer to this process as the *event-level analysis*. The pre-launch event-level analysis was solely based on Monte Carlo simulations of the instrument performance and its particle environment\u2014though it is worth emphasizing that a significant effort was put into validating such simulations [see, e.g.: @baldini:190]. The event selection has been periodically updated to reflect the constantly improving knowledge of the detector and the environment in which it operates. [[[`P`ass\u00a07]{}]{}]{}\u00a0[@P7Paper], released in August 2011, represents the latest major iteration of this incremental process.\n\nIn parallel with the development of [[[`P`ass\u00a07]{}]{}]{}, the LAT collaboration has undertaken a coherent long-term effort to develop [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}, aimed at an extensive revision of the entire event-level analysis\u00a0[@p8proceedings]. Recovering the effective area lost due to residual signals from out-of-time cosmic-ray events (*ghosts* hereafter), was the original and main motivation for this effort. As we shall see in the following, the scope of this development has substantially expanded along the way.\n\nThe full event-level analysis for [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0is currently under development. Therefore we cannot yet characterize its improvements in terms of instrument response functions. We can, however, test the improvements in the new event reconstruction by systematically searching for events not previously recognized as gamma rays during the prompt phases of bright Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) for which the signal to noise is large enough that loose selection cuts on quantities measured to classify events are sufficient to identify gamma rays associated with the source.\n\nIn Section \\[sec:recon\\] we briefly review some aspects of the LAT event reconstruction, with emphasis on the modifications being introduced in [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}. In Sections\u00a0\\[sec:selection\\] and \\[sec:results\\] we discuss the analysis underlying the search for new high-energy gamma rays and the results of this search. Finally, in Section\u00a0\\[sec:discussion\\] we discuss the implications of these newly-found high-energy gamma rays.\n\n[lcc]{} GRB\u00a0080916C & 4.35 & $48{\\fdg}8$\\\nGRB\u00a0090323 & 3.57 & $57{\\fdg}2$\\\nGRB\u00a0090328 & 0.74 & $64{\\fdg}6$\\\nGRB\u00a0090510 & 0.90 & $13{\\fdg}6$\\\nGRB\u00a0090902B & 1.82 & $50{\\fdg}8$\\\nGRB\u00a0090926 & 2.11 & $48{\\fdg}1$\\\nGRB\u00a0091003 & 0.90 & $12{\\fdg}3$\\\nGRB\u00a0091208B & 1.06 & $55{\\fdg}6$\\\nGRB\u00a0100414A & 1.37 & $69{\\fdg}0$\\\nGRB\u00a0110731A & 2.83 & $3{\\fdg}4$\\\n\\[tab:grbs\\]\n\nEvent reconstruction {#sec:recon}\n====================\n\nA detailed description of the LAT event reconstruction is beyond the scope of this paper. In the following we shall only give a brief description of the development being implemented in the context of [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0that is relevant for the analysis presented here. We refer the reader to\u00a0@p8proceedings for more details.\n\nTracker reconstruction {#subsec:tkr_recon}\n----------------------\n\nHigh-energy gamma-ray interactions in the CAL tend to generate *backsplash* in the lower portion of the TKR, i.e, randomly hit strips due to secondary particles that have no relation to the trajectory of the original gamma ray. For back-converting events, and especially at large incidence angle, it is not uncommon for this backsplash to represent the vast majority of the TKR hits.\n\nThe [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}/[[[`P`ass\u00a07]{}]{}]{}\u00a0TKR reconstruction is based on a track-by-track *combinatoric* pattern recognition\u2014seeded by the CAL information when available. As such, it is subject to confusion in backsplash-dominated events, particularly if the initial position and direction estimates from the CAL are not accurate. These features combine to produce two main effects: (i) the loss of events where the TKR reconstruction fails to find any tracks, and (ii) the migration of events from the core of the point-spread function (PSF) to the tails because of poorly reconstructed tracks.\n\nIn [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0we introduced a *global* approach, largely decoupled from the CAL reconstruction, which looks at the gamma-ray conversion as a pre-shower process and attempts to model this process by linking hits together into one or more tree-like structures. The individual tracks are then extracted from these structures and fitted. This new pattern recognition proved to be significantly more efficient at finding tracks and more robust in terms of pointing accuracy. Tests with Monte Carlo simulations and flight data show that the new TKR pattern recognition has the potential to provide a 15\u201320% increase of the high-energy acceptance, with even larger improvement in the off-axis effective area, especially for photons converting in the lower part of the TKR.\n\nCalorimeter reconstruction {#subsec:cal_recon}\n--------------------------\n\nThe [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}/[[[`P`ass\u00a07]{}]{}]{}\u00a0CAL reconstruction treats the energy deposit in the CAL as a monolithic entity, grouping all the crystals with greater than 4 MeV energy deposited together. Residual ghost signals in the CAL away from the gamma-ray shower can result in such a large lever arm in the moments analysis used to derive the shower direction that they can introduce substantial errors in the measurement of the centroid and direction of the shower itself. Since the matching in event position and direction between the TKR and the CAL constitutes an important input to the background rejection, this is actually one of the main mechanisms for the ghost-induced loss of effective area at high energy.\n\nIn [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0we introduced a clustering stage, based on a Minimum Spanning Tree algorithm, which proved to be effective in separating the genuine gamma-ray signal from the ghost one. In addition, the 3D shower profile fit, which is our primary energy reconstruction method at high energy, was substantially improved. While the objective of this part of the work was to extend the energy reach of the LAT above 1\u00a0TeV the new method proved to provide an approximately 10% improvement in the energy resolution over the entire energy and inclination angle range.\n\nACD reconstruction {#subsec:acd_recon}\n------------------\n\nThe basic purpose of the ACD reconstruction is to match tracks in the TKR and hits in the ACD to find reasons to classify an event as a charged particle. The most significant improvement in the ACD reconstruction we introduced in [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0was to propagate the full covariance matrices associated to the TKR tracks to the ACD surfaces\u2014i.e., effectively we now measure the distances between tracks and ACD hits in terms of measurement uncertainties rather than absolute lengths.\n\n[lccccccccc]{}\\\n\\\n243215785\u20132033380 & 16.545 & back & 13.2 & 12.4 & 0.09 & 0.11 & 1.000 & Diffuse\\\n243215785\u20132075096$^\\star$ & 40.509 & back & - & 27.4 & - & 0.07 & 1.000 & -\\\n\\\n263605997\u20133472705 & 0.828 & front & 31.3 & 29.9 & 0.09 & 0.08 & 0.999 & Transient\\\n\\\n273579835\u20134719473 & 11.671 & front & 11.2 & 11.9 & 0.21 & 0.07 & 0.999 & Transient\\\n273579835\u20134724519$^\\star$ & 14.166 & back & 14.2 & 14.2 & 2.61 & 0.11 & 0.980 & -\\\n273579835\u20134748164$^\\star$ & 26.168 & back & - & 18.1 & - & 0.11 & 0.999 & -\\\n273579835\u20134778868 & 42.374 & front & 8.9 & 12.7 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.999 & Diffuse\\\n273579835\u20134784978 & 45.608 & front & 12.5 & 15.4 & 0.07 & 0.10 & 0.995 & Diffuse\\\n273579835\u20134852498 & 81.746 & back & 33.4 & 39.9 & 0.78 & 1.77 & 0.998 & Transient\\\n\\\n275631595\u2013173595 & 24.835 & front & 19.6 & 19.5 & 0.05 & 0.09 & 0.999 & Diffuse\\\n\\\n292903615\u20132268542$^\\star$ & 33.365 & front & 29.8 & 29.7 & 7.64 & 0.16 & 0.999 & -\\\n\\[tab:events\\_table\\]\n\nData selection {#sec:selection}\n==============\n\nAmong the bursts in the First LAT GRB catalog\u00a0[@GRBCatalog], we concentrate on the ten GRBs for which an x-ray/optical follow-up (and therefore a measurement of the redshift) was obtained (see Table \\[tab:grbs\\] for a listing of the GRBs used). The typical localization error for these bursts is negligible compared with the event-by-event direction accuracy of the LAT and, for all practical purposes, we can consider the localizations measured in the optical or X-ray afterglows as the true source positions when defining the region of interest (ROI). We further refine our sample by considering only energies greater than 10\u00a0GeV, where the width of the core of the LAT PSF is close to its asymptotic high-energy limit. It is important to stress here that analysis described in\u00a0@GRBCatalog was done using the [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}\u00a0version of the gamma-ray data (and the associated `P6_V3_TRANSIENT` IRFs), rather than the reprocessed [[[`P`ass\u00a07]{}]{}]{}\u00a0data made available in August 2011. However, the event reconstruction between [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}\u00a0and [[[`P`ass\u00a07]{}]{}]{}\u00a0remained essentially unchanged and therefore this is largely irrelevant for the purpose of this paper.\n\nFor each GRB we reprocessed all the available data within 90\u00a0s from the trigger time using the [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0event reconstruction available at the time of writing. We select gamma-ray candidates by requiring that the reconstruction find at least one track and that this track extrapolates to more than 4 radiation lengths of active material in the CAL (this helps avoiding poorly reconstructed events). In addition, we use the ACD to remove *likely* charged-particle events by requiring that the track-tile association most likely to veto the event is incompatible with being generated by a minimum ionizing particle. Note that the event selection used here does not include any requirement on the quality of the direction/energy reconstruction.\n\nThe choice of the ROI is dictated by the need to minimize the amount of solid angle over which we integrate the background of residual (mis-classified) cosmic rays while at the same time retaining a reasonable efficiency for well-reconstructed gamma rays. For each GRB we used a circular ROI around the nominal source position with a radius of $0\\fdg6$ for front-converting and $1\\fdg2$ for back-converting events. It is worth noting that, while these are comparable with the PSF 95% contaiment radii for the cleanest [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}/[[[`P`ass\u00a07]{}]{}]{}\u00a0event classes, based on Monte Carlo simulations we estimate that the actual containment level for the back-converting events passing our loose selection cuts is only about 80%, so that the ROI cut has a significant impact on the event topology of our sample (i.e., it plays a role in selecting well-reconstructed events).\n\nThe expected rate of background events passing these basic selection criteria can be estimated from the flight data by sideband subtraction[@P7Paper] using an annulus around the source position and rescaling the number of counts to the solid angle subtended by the original ROI. As the level of charged-particle background varies across the [*Fermi*]{}\u00a0orbit, the results are slightly different for each individual GRB, but on average we expect $\\sim 0.1$ cosmic-ray events passing our basic selection cuts within each of the 90\u00a0s time windows.\n\nResults {#sec:results}\n=======\n\nThe First LAT GRB catalog includes seven candidate gamma rays with energies greater than 10\u00a0GeV associated with the ten GRBs considered here; in the reprocessed version of the data we find four additional (previously misreconstructed) events passing our selection criteria. In Table\u00a0\\[tab:events\\_table\\] we summarize the basic properties of the four new gamma rays together with the seven previously known ones. All of the seven aforementioned gamma-ray candidates pass our loose selection cuts (and their topologies are highly gamma-ray-like). However one of them (a $\\sim33$\u00a0GeV event from GRB\u00a0090902B) is reconstructed as being marginally outside our ROI. While this is not entirely surprising (the quality of the direction reconstruction for this particular event is fairly poor both in the [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}\u00a0and in the [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0versions of the event-level analysis), assessing the actual probability for this event to be associated with the GRB in the context of any of the actual [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0event classes will only be possible once the definitions of the classes are frozen and the corresponding response functions defined.\n\nIt is interesting to note how the mechanisms through which these events are recovered tie to the problematic aspects of the LAT event reconstruction outlined in Section\u00a0\\[sec:recon\\]: two of them had no tracks in [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}, one was significantly mis-tracked (to more than\u00a0$7^\\circ$ off the source) and the last one was compromised by a ghost cluster in the CAL. We would like to stress here that the [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0event reconstruction is in its final phase; therefore we are confident that the basic topological properties of these four new photons will not vary significantly and that no additional photons will be found in the same 90 s interval explored in this work.\n\nTable\u00a0\\[tab:events\\_table\\] shows how the preliminary [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0event selection described in\u00a0@p8proceedings assigns a fairly high value for the measure of gamma-ray probability $p_{\\rm all}$ to all the eleven gamma-ray candidates considered here. While this is an uncalibrated quantity with no *direct* physical meaning (and it might very well change in future iterations of the [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}event-level analysis) we find that the fraction of background events with such a high value of $p_{\\rm all}$ is of the order of $10^{-3}$. This is effectively a multiplicative factor for the $\\sim 0.1$\u00a0Hz rate of background events quoted in Section\u00a0\\[sec:selection\\].\n\nFinally, we note that most of the events in the table have angular distances to the nominal source position much smaller than the radius of our ROI. Under the reasonable assumption that the background is approximately isotropic in our $\\sim 1^{\\circ}$ circle, we would expect background events to be preferentially near the edge of the ROI (just because it subtends a larger solid angle).\n\nWe estimated the increase in effective area over the [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}\u00a0`TRANSIENT` class expected for our selection[^1] by means of a gamma-ray Monte Carlo simulation similar to those that we routinely use for generating effective area tables. Between 10 and 30\u00a0GeV this improvement is of the order of $\\sim 10\\%$ at $50^\\circ$ off-axis angle and reaches $\\sim 50\\%$ at $70^\\circ$. Note that the choice of off-axis angles corresponds to those of the GRBs from which we recovered the four new gamma rays. Though the small statistics in our GRB event sample does not allow a validation of the increase in effective area, these factors are consistent with our findings. We also stress that the factors refer to the particular selection used in this analysis and do not represent the actual performance of any of the still-forthcoming [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0event classes.\n\nSpectral analysis\n-----------------\n\n[lcccc]{} N$_{obs}$: Number of [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}\u00a0events & & &\\\nwith energy $>$ new [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0event & 0 & & 0\\\nBest fit value of the gamma ray index & 2.1 $\\pm$ 0.09 & & 2.1 $\\pm$ 0.4\\\nExpected number of events (N$_{exp}$) & 0.5 & 3.3 & 2.5 & 0.1\\\nProbability of observing N$_{obs}$ events & 0.60 & 0.13 & 0.21 & 0.88\\\nProbability of observing $>$N$_{obs}$ events & 0.40 & 0.63$^{\\ast}$ & 0.71 & 0.12\\\n\\[tab:events\\]\n\nAs stated in Section \\[sec:intro\\], a final [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0event-level analysis is not yet available and therefore we cannot perform a spectral analysis. We can however estimate the probability to detect these high-energy gamma rays, given the spectral properties inferred from [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}\u00a0analysis. Using `gtobssim`, we simulated 90\u00a0s observations of a very bright source located at the position of each of the three GRBs with new candidate gamma rays, using the best fitted values (from @GRBCatalog) for the index of the power-law spectrum. We normalized the output of the simulation to the observed number of [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}\u00a0`TRANSIENT` counts above 100\u00a0MeV in a ROI of 5$^{\\circ}$ in order to estimate the expected number of events, $N_{exp}$, above the energy of the new [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0gamma ray. Finally, we use the Poisson distribution to compute the probability of observing exactly $N_{obs}$ events when the number of expected events is $N_{exp}$. In addition, we calculate the probabilities of observing at least one additional gamma ray \u2013 or two additional gamma rays for GRB090902B \u2013 with an energy equal to or greater than those recovered with [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}. Results are reported in Table \\[tab:events\\].\n\nWe have studied the potential impacts that a spectral evolution during the considered time interval (90 s) may have on the resulting probabilities, P(N$_{exp}$,N$_{obs}$) by repeating the Monte Carlo simulation with a varying index for the spectral distribution of gamma rays. We find that the associated variation in the probability in the worst case[^2] is of the order of 10%\u201315%. The calculated probabilities suggest that the additional gamma rays are statistically consistent with the shape and intensity of the spectra derived using [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}\u00a0data.\n\nDiscussion {#sec:discussion}\n==========\n\nOur most interesting finding is the $27.4\\;$GeV gamma ray from GRB080916C that was detected $40.5\\;$s after the burst onset. At a redshift of $z\n\\approx 4.35$ the measured energy corresponds to an energy of $\\approx\n147\\;$GeV in the GRB cosmological rest frame. This is the highest intrinsic energy measured so far for a gamma ray from a GRB.\n\n![image](figure1){width=\"0.5\\linewidth\"} ![image](figure2){width=\"0.5\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe high energy of the new gamma ray from GRB\u00a0080916C is very constraining for a possible origin from synchrotron radiation. A reasonable assumption for the acceleration time of the radiating electron, that it is at least the time it takes to complete one Larmor gyration[^3], would imply a minimum bulk Lorentz factor of the emitting region larger than $5000$. Similarly, the $29.7\\;$GeV gamma ray from GRB\u00a0100414A at $z = 1.37$ would require $\\Gamma\\gtrsim 2300$ for a synchrotron origin. For GRB\u00a0090902B\u00a0[@GRB090902B] at $z =1.822$ the two new gamma rays are less constraining than the $33.4\\;$GeV gamma ray detected $82\\;$s after the burst onset with [[[`P`ass\u00a06]{}]{}]{}, after the end of the prompt emission, which implies $\\Gamma\\gtrsim 3200$ (making a synchrotron origin unlikely for the $33.4\\;$GeV gamma ray due to its later arrival time).\n\nGiven the arrival time of $40.5\\;$s after the burst onset of the $27.4\\;$GeV gamma ray from GRB080916C, during interval d defined in \u00a0[@GRB080916C], the lower limit on $\\Gamma$ due to intrinsic opacity to pair production is increased by only $15\\%$ compared to the limit from the $13\\;$GeV gamma ray observed in the same time interval, of $\\Gamma_{\\rm min}\\approx 600$ for a simple one-zone model, or $\\sim 3$ times lower than this for a more realistic self-consistent time-dependent model [@2008ApJ...677...92G; @Hascoet:2011gp].\n\nDue to its later arrival time, the constraints that the new gamma ray from GRB080916C provides on linear ($n=1$) Lorentz invariance violation (LIV) are slightly weaker (by 15%) than the previously highest energy gamma ray from the same GRB (of energy $\\approx 13.2\\;$GeV detected at $t = 16.5\\;$s after the GRB trigger time, which implied[^4] $\\xi_1 = M_{\\rm\nQG,1}/M_{\\rm Planck} > 0.11$). For a quadratic leading LIV term ($n=2$) it does slightly better with $M_{\\rm QG,2} > 1.13\\times 10^{10}\\;{\\rm\nGeV}/c^2$, which is only $\\approx 2.6$ times below the best limit from GRB\u00a0090510\u00a0[@2009Natur.462..331A]. The limits from the other new gamma rays are not as constraining.\n\nA very interesting implication arises for the extragalactic background light (EBL), from the fact that a 27.4\u00a0GeV gamma ray has reached us from a fairly high redshift of $z \\approx 4.35$, and was not attenuated (through pair production, $\\gamma\\gamma \\to e^+e^-$) by the EBL. In particular, it is useful to compare the constraints that it provides to those from previously-detected gamma rays from GRBs\u00a0[@GRBCatalog] and AGN\u00a0[@2010ApJ...723.1082A], as illustrated in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:ebl\\]. It is the most constraining gamma ray so far from a GRB (see Figs. 3 and 5 in @2010ApJ...723.1082A; notice in particular that Fig. 5 also applies to the newly-found $27.4\\;$GeV from GRB080916C). Moreover, it is in fact comparable to or even slightly more constraining than the [*Fermi*]{}-LAT gamma rays from AGN (for most EBL models[^5] especially for $\\tau = 3$ as shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:ebl\\]).\n\nIn conclusion, the improvements in event reconstruction implemented in [[[`P`ass\u00a08]{}]{}]{}\u00a0promise to yield scientific gains, as illustrated in this work.\n\nThe *Fermi* LAT Collaboration acknowledges generous ongoing support from a number of agencies and institutes that have supported both the development and the operation of the LAT as well as scientific data analysis. These include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Energy in the United States, the Commissariat \u00e0 l\u2019Energie Atomique and the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique / Institut National de Physique Nucl\u00e9aire et de Physique des Particules in France, the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana and the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare in Italy, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) in Japan, and the K.\u00a0A.\u00a0Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish National Space Board in Sweden.\n\nAdditional support for science analysis during the operations phase is gratefully acknowledged from the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica in Italy and the Centre National d\u2019\u00c9tudes Spatiales in France.\n\n[^1]: We included the effect of the ROI in our estimate by requiring, in addition to the preliminary Pass 8 event selection that we applied, that the angle between the true and reconstructed gamma-ray direction is smaller than the radius of the ROI itself.\n\n[^2]: GRB080916C\u00a0[@GRB080916C] is the GRB in our sample that shows the largest spectral variation, with a gamma ray index varying from 2.3 to 2.1 with an error of 0.09.\n\n[^3]: This assumption implies a maximum electron Lorentz factor of $\\gamma_{\\rm max} =\\sqrt{3e/\\sigma_T B'}$ where $B'$ is the comoving (measured in the rest frame of the emitting plasma) magnetic field. The corresponding comoving typical synchrotron gamma ray energy averaged over an isotropic pitch-angle distribution is $E'_{\\rm\n    syn,max} = 3heB'\\gamma_{\\rm max}^2/(16 m_ec) = (27/64)m_ec^2/\\alpha$, where $\\alpha = e^2/\\hbar c\\approx 1/137$ is the fine structure constant. The corresponding observed energy is $E_{\\rm syn,max} =\n    E'_{\\rm syn,max}\\Gamma/(1+z)\\approx 29.5(1+z)^{-1}(\\Gamma/1000)\\;$GeV. Therefore, a synchrotron origin for this gamma ray would imply $E_{\\rm\n    obs} \\lesssim E_{\\rm syn,max}$ or $\\Gamma \\gtrsim 2030 [(1+z)/3] (E_{\\rm\n    obs}/20\\,{\\rm GeV})$. The peak of the electron synchrotron spectral emissivity is $0.29$ times the value for $E_{\\rm syn,max}$ used above, and using it would increase the limit correspondingly (by a factor of 1/0.29) to $\\Gamma\n    \\gtrsim 7000[(1+z)/3](E_{\\rm obs}/20\\,{\\rm GeV})$. Allowing the acceleration time to be as small as the time it takes to deflect the electron by one radian (which is quite extreme) lowers the limit by a factor of $2\\pi$, to $\\Gamma \\gtrsim 323[(1+z)/3](E_{\\rm obs}/20\\,{\\rm\n    GeV})$. Combining such a short acceleration time with the factor of $0.29$ mentioned above leads to $\\Gamma \\gtrsim 1110[(1+z)/3](E_{\\rm\n    obs}/20\\,{\\rm GeV})$. Recently, @2012MNRAS.tmpL.529K have proposed a way to lower this limit by assuming two zones with significantly different magnetic field strength, where in the lower-field region electrons can be accelerated to high Lorentz factors, and then radiate energetic synchrotron gamma rays after crossing to the high-field region. This could in principle accommodate the production of $\\gtrsim 100\\;$GeV gamma rays with significantly lower bulk Lorentz factors.\n\n[^4]: The limits we quote conservatively use the lowest values within the 1-$\\sigma$ confidence intervals for the gamma ray energy (and the GRB redshift when relevant).\n\n[^5]: A description of the different models is beyond the scope of this work; we refer the reader to the original works on the various EBL models\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We investigate theoretically the behavior of proteins as well as other large macromolecules which are incorporated into amphiphilic monolayers at the air-water interface. We assume the monolayer to be in the coexistence region of the \u201cmain\u201d transition, where domains of the liquid condensed phase coexist with the liquid expanded background. Using a simple mean-field free energy accounting for the interactions between proteins and amphiphilic molecules, we obtain the spatial protein distribution with the following characteristics. When the proteins preferentially interact with either the liquid condensed or liquid expanded domains, they will be dissolved in the respective phase. When the proteins are energetically rather indifferent to the density of the amphiphiles, they will be localized at the line boundary between the (two-dimensional) liquid expanded and condensed phases. In between these two limiting cases, a delocalization transition of the proteins takes place. This transition is accessible by changing the temperature or the amount of incorporated protein. These findings are in agreement with recent fluorescence microscopy experiments. Our results also apply to lipid multicomponent membranes showing coexistence of distinct fluid phases.'\naddress:\n- |\n     School of Physics and Astronomy, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences,\\\n    Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv 69978, Tel Aviv, Israel\n- ' Service de Physique Theorique, CE-Saclay, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, Cedex, France'\nauthor:\n- 'Roland R. Netz[@address] and David Andelman'\n- 'H. Orland[@address2]'\ntitle:  Protein adsorption on lipid monolayers at their coexistence region \n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nMonolayers of amphiphilic molecules spread on liquid surfaces have traditionally been studied as models for biological membranes[@Gaines; @Bloom]. Such insoluble and monomolecular films made of suitable phospholipids or fatty acids are stable over a wide range of surface pressures and temperatures due to the strong reduction of the water surface tension and are called [*Langmuir monolayers*]{}[@Mohwald]. In typical experiments, the amphiphiles are solubilized in a volatile solvent and placed on the air-water interface. As the solvent evaporates, the amphiphiles spontaneously spread and form a monolayer. When the insoluble film is then compressed (while keeping the temperature fixed), the lateral pressure can be measured as a function of the area per amphiphilic molecule in analogy to bulk isotherms.\n\nUsing film balance techniques[@Gaines; @Bloom; @Mohwald; @Albrecht1; @Albrecht2], the following general picture emerged. When the extremely expanded film is compressed, it produces the liquid expanded phase (LE), which, at low enough temperatures, transforms upon further compression into the liquid condensed phase (LC). At much lower surface concentrations and at low enough temperatures, the monolayer undergoes a first-order transition into a gaseous phase. At very high lateral pressures, solidification occurs, as indicated by a discontinuity in the pressure-area isotherms. Subsequently, these systems were also studied using X-ray[@Mohwald2; @Dutta; @Rondelez; @Schlossmann] and neutron[@neutron] scattering techniques, indicating the existence of a large number of different condensed phases. In this paper we will be concerned only with the LE/LC transition. Therefore, we do not introduce appropriate order parameters needed to distinguish the different condensed phases[@Bibo].\n\nThe nature of the LE/LC transition has been the subject of much discussion[@Pallas]. It is analogous to the \u201cmain\u201d transition in lipid bilayers[@Mohwald], where domains of the LE and the LC phase have been shown to coexist over a wide range of lipid surface concentrations (or area per molecule). In this coexistence region, the condensed domains show a large variety of different shapes[@McConnell] and grow as the area per molecule is decreased, whereas the number of domains depends on the initial conditions and typically stays fixed. The isotherms in the coexistence region, however, were found to be non-horizontal, which led to the postulation of a limited cooperativity of this transition[@Albrecht1]. For the case of single-chain fatty acids, it was later shown that the isotherms approach zero slope as the material used is progressively purified[@Pallas].\n\nOn the theoretical side, the LE/LC transition has been modeled based on various microscopic pictures of the interaction between surfactant (or lipid) molecules including translational as well as internal degrees of freedom[@Marcelja; @Bell; @Georgallas; @Chen; @Kramer].\n\nThe biological function of membranes depends mostly on the incorporation of proteins and other macromolecules into the lipid layers. Functionality and efficiency of these inclusions depend crucially on microscopic details of the embedding in the lipid matrix, which can occur in different ways. Monolayers at the air-water interface are suitable for the study of the interaction between lipids and proteins, since they are rather well-defined and allow the control of independent thermodynamic parameters which are otherwise fixed in a bilayer membrane, like the area per molecule. Also, the observational techniques are well developed. Direct visualization of the phase behavior of monolayers can be obtained using fluorescence microscopy techniques. Here, a fluorescent dye probe is incorporated into the monolayer the lateral distribution of which can be obtained from the analysis of fluorescence micrographs. Contrast in the images is obtained as a result of different dye solubility, fluorescence quantum yield, or molecular density of coexisting phases[@Fluor]. A complementary and recently developed technique is Brewster-angle microscopy, which allows imaging of a monolayer without the addition of fluorescent probes[@Henon].\n\nAfter injection of a water-soluble protein into the aqueous subphase, the surface tension typically decreases, indicating that the protein is at least partially incorporated into the monolayer[@Mohwald; @Wiedmann; @Schwinn; @Vogel]. This is due to the protein affinity to the water/air interface. The specific type of this attraction is not well understood and probably is due in part to structural changes (denaturation) of the protein in the monolayer or at the water surface, associated with the unfolding of hydrophobic groups.\n\nOne of the striking experimental observations[@Schwinn; @Haas] was that some proteins adsorb preferentially along the [*boundary line*]{} between the LE and LC domains when the monolayer is in the LE/LC coexistence region. These observations were made for fluorescently labeled small proteins, such as [*concanavalin*]{} A[@Haas] or [*streptavidin*]{}[@Schwinn], interacting with phospholipid monolayers. These experimental findings motivated our present theoretical study.\n\nIn the following, we describe a simple model, which (i) assumes the LE/LC transition to be a simple first-order condensation transition, yielding coexisting domains for temperatures below the critical temperature, and (ii) includes the effect of proteins which are adsorbed into the monolayer. Assuming that the proteins are completely incorporated into the monolayer, this simplistic model leads to an entropic force which tends to localize the protein at the boundary between LE and LC domains. Depending on the energetic preference of the protein for the LE or LC phase, the protein will be either dissolved in the LE or in the LC domain, or, if there is no pronounced preference, will be localized at the boundary.\n\nPhase separation in amphiphilic layers is also observed for freely suspended multicomponent bilayers[@Bloom]. Here, the coexisting phases are distinguished by their compositions. The most important examples include mixtures of phospholipids with cholesterol[@Thewalt] and mixtures of different phospholipids[@Wu], and in both cases the coexisting phases are in a fluid state. These phenomena are of great biological interest since biological membranes are always multicomponent mixtures and lateral organization into domains is supposed to play an important functional role. We note that our results apply directly to these situations as well, although we will limit our terminology to the situation of coexisting dense and dilute phases for one-component systems at the air-water interface. For the case of freely suspended membranes, our findings imply a simple mechanism for the localization of integral membrane proteins along the one-dimensional boundary between coexisting domains. The resulting enrichment of proteins might be a prerequisite for proper biological function in certain cases.\n\nIn the following sections we formulate the model (Sect. II), inspect the minima of the free energy (Sect. III), solve the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations in the coexistence region (Sect. IV), and calculate profiles both for the lipid and the (coupled) protein densities (Sect. V). From the profiles we generate a general phase diagram featuring localized, semi-localized and delocalized protein phases. We also calculate the total amount of adsorbed protein, the protein excess $\\Gamma$ (Sect. VI), and the line tension $\\tau$ of the LE-LC line interface (Sect. VII). It turns out that the line tension is strongly reduced by the adsorption of proteins. A finite solubility of the proteins in the subphase is taken into account in Sect. VIII. Finally, the connection to experimentally measurable quantities, such as the surface pressure $\\Pi$, is made in Sect. IX.\n\nThe mixed lipid and protein free energy\n=======================================\n\nConsider the air-water interface with proteins, lipid molecules, and artificial \u201cvacancies\u201d, with area fractions $\\phi_P$, $\\phi_L$, and $\\phi_V$, respectively, satisfying $\\phi_P+\\phi_L+\\phi_V=1$. The vacancies are introduced in order to allow for independent variations of the protein and lipid concentrations, hence making coexistence of dilute and condensed regions of the monolayer possible. Inscribing the system on a lattice, with a lattice constant corresponding to the size of a lipid molecule, the free energy of mixing per lattice site within a mean field theory can be written for the three-component mixture as a sum of the enthalpy and entropy of mixing, ${\\cal F} = {\\cal U} -T{\\cal S}$. The enthalpy of mixing includes all pair-wise interactions between the three species: $${\\cal U}/T=\nE_{LL} \\phi_L^2 +E_{VV} \\phi_V^2 +E_{PP} \\phi_P^2\n+E_{LV} \\phi_L \\phi_V +E_{PL} \\phi_P \\phi_L+E_{PV} \\phi_P \\phi_V$$ and the $E_{ij}$ are the dimensionless interaction parameters for all possible pairs. The entropy of mixing is related to the total number $\\Omega$ of distinct microscopic configurations $${\\cal S}=\\frac{\\log \\Omega}{N}$$ where $N$ is the total number of lattice sites and the Boltzmann constant is set to unity ($k_B=1$). In the random-mixing approximation, $$\\Omega=\n\\frac{(N/\\alpha)!}{(N \\phi_P /\\alpha)! (N(1-\\phi_P)/\\alpha)!}\n\\frac{(N[\\phi_L+\\phi_V])!}{(N \\phi_L)!(N \\phi_V)!}$$ where the constant $\\alpha>1$ denotes the ratio between the compact area occupied by a protein molecule and a lipid molecule at the interface. The above expression is the product of the number of all protein configurations and the number of all lipid/vacancy configurations in the remaining area not taken up by the proteins. Using Stirling\u2019s Formula in the thermodynamic limit, defined by $N \\rightarrow \\infty$, the expression for ${\\cal S}$ can be simplified $${\\cal S}=-\\phi_L \\log(\\phi_L) -\\phi_V \\log(\\phi_V) -\\phi_P \\log(\\phi_P)/\\alpha\n-(1/\\alpha -1)(1-\\phi_P) \\log (1-\\phi_P)$$ It is convenient to define the thermodynamic potential $${\\cal G}/T=\n{\\cal F}/T- \\mu_P \\phi_P -\\mu_L(\\phi_L-\\phi_V)$$ where the chemical potentials $\\mu_P$ and $\\mu_L$ are coupled to the protein concentration $\\phi_P$ and the difference between the lipid and vacancy concentrations, $\\phi_L-\\phi_V$, respectively.\n\nIn (1)-(5), long-range interactions between the proteins, such as electrostatic forces, are not taken into account. In addition, the free energy of mixing assumes a confinement of the protein and lipid to the two-dimensional plane of the air-water interface. In fact, the variation of the protein concentration perpendicular to the monolayer in the subphase can be taken into account approximately and leads to a renormalization of the parameters of the two-dimensional model, as shown in Sect. VIII.\n\nThe lipid order parameter $\\eta$, corresponding to the density of lipid molecules, can be written as $$\\eta \\equiv \\phi_L - \\phi_V$$ Using that $\\phi_P + \\phi_L +\\phi_V=1$, and defining the protein concentration as $\\phi \\equiv \\phi_P$, the free energy ${\\cal F}$ and the potential ${\\cal G}$ can be rewritten as $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal F}/T &=&\n-(J+1/2) \\eta^2 +L \\phi^2\n+ \\lambda \\eta \\phi+ \\\\ \\nonumber\n&& (1+\\eta-\\phi)\\log[(1+\\eta-\\phi)/2]/2+\n   (1-\\eta-\\phi)\\log[(1-\\eta-\\phi)/2]/2+\\\\ \\nonumber\n&& \\phi \\log[\\phi]/\\alpha +(1/\\alpha-1) (1-\\phi) \\log[1-\\phi]\\end{aligned}$$ and $${\\cal G}/T= {\\cal F}/T- \\mu_{\\eta} \\eta-(\\mu +\\log 2 ) \\phi$$ where constant terms have been omitted and linear terms in $\\eta$ and $\\phi$ have been dropped out from ${\\cal F}$ for convenience. They merely contribute a constant shift to $\\mu$ and $\\mu_{\\eta}$ in ${\\cal G}$. The reduced interaction parameters: $J$, $L$, $\\mu$ and $\\lambda$ are related to the original $E_{ij}$ and $\\mu_P$ in the following way $$-J \\equiv \n\\frac{1}{4}(E_{LL} + E_{VV} - E_{LV})+\\frac{1}{2}$$ $$L\\equiv \\frac{1}{4}(E_{LL} + E_{VV} +  E_{LV})+ \nE_{PP}-\\frac{1}{2}(E_{PL} + E_{PV})$$ $$\\lambda \\equiv \n-\\frac{1}{2}(E_{LL} - E_{VV}- E_{PL} + E_{PV})$$ $$\\mu \\equiv \\mu_P+\n\\frac{1}{2}(E_{LL} + E_{VV}+ E_{LV}- E_{PL}\n- E_{PV})-\\log 2$$ The constant $\\log 2$ appears in the definition of $\\mu$ in order to render the simplified expression (13) in a simpler form.\n\nThe above expression for ${\\cal G}$ is studied in Sect. III for different values of the various parameters and the corresponding bulk phase-diagrams are obtained. For the study of protein profiles, one can further simplify this expression. First, for small values of the order parameters, i.e., relatively close to the critical point of demixing of the lipid and for small protein concentrations, it is legitimate to expand the free energy of mixing up to order ${\\cal O}(\\eta^4)$ and ${\\cal O}(\\phi^2)$. In addition, since typical proteins occupy a much larger area then lipids, the area ratio is in the range of $\\alpha  \\sim 50 - 100$, and the protein entropy terms (of order $1/\\alpha$) can be neglected in (7). The validity of the latter ($\\alpha \\rightarrow \\infty$) approximation will be reexamined in Sect. III[@note1]. With these simplifications, the approximated free energy density can be written as $${\\cal F}^0/{T}=\n-J \\eta^2 +\\frac{1}{12} \\eta^4 +L \\phi^2\n+ \\lambda \\eta \\phi +\\frac{1}{2} \\eta^2 \\phi$$ where the simplified thermodynamic potential using (8) is given by ${\\cal G}^0/{T}={\\cal F}^0/{T}- \\mu \\phi -\\mu_{\\eta} \\eta$. The free energy density (13) needs some further discussion. Coexistence between dense ($\\eta >0$) and dilute regions ($\\eta<0$) requires that $J>0$ and a positive fourth-order term $\\eta^4$ is needed to stabilize the free energy. The protein itself is assumed not to be close to any phase transition. Hence $L>0$ and no higher order terms in $\\phi$ are needed. We include in the expansion only the two lowest coupling terms between the protein and lipid concentrations. The first is the bilinear coupling $\\eta\\phi$ and has an enthalpic origin. It reflects the overall preference of the protein to more condensed ($\\lambda<0$) or more dilute ($\\lambda>0$) regions of the lipid monolayer. The second coupling is the symmetric $\\eta^2\\phi$ term, which is invariant under $\\eta \\rightarrow -\\eta$ transformation and provides the driving force for the localization of proteins at the LE-LC interface. In our mean-field model, taking into account only pair interactions, this coupling has a purely entropic origin. More generally, it can also include interaction terms of higher-order in a virial expansion. Finally, the higher-order coupling terms $\\eta^2 \\phi^2$ and $\\eta^4 \\phi$ are not considered here since we try to investigate the most simple and yet non-trivial type of coupling. A similar free energy coupling has been introduced in the context of polymer adsorption at liquid-liquid interfaces, where in analogy the polymer adsorbs preferentially at the interface from the bulk solution[@Pincus].\n\nFor the case where the proteins in the monolayer are in equilibrium with a solution of proteins in the aqueous subphase, the protein chemical potential $\\mu$ corresponds to the free energy of adsorbing proteins from the subphase into the monolayer and depends on the concentration of proteins in the subphase; this is discussed in Sect. VIII. Since we consider an insoluble (Langmuir) monolayer, similar considerations do not apply to the chemical potential $\\mu_{\\eta}$ of the lipid order parameter $\\eta$. In fact, $\\mu_{\\eta}$ will be uniquely determined by the requirement of coexistence between dense and dilute lipid regions. For proteins which are [*insoluble*]{} in the subphase, the chemical potential $\\mu$ acts as a Lagrange multiplier fixing the total amount of protein in the monolayer, which is a conserved quantity in this situation.\n\nIn the LE/LC two-phase region, obtained for $J>0$, one finds experimentally[@Mohwald] domains of typically circular shape of LC phase immersed in a background of LE phase. Since the domains are rather large ($\\sim 10-100 \\mu m$), we neglect the shape of the line boundary between the LC and LE regions and assume variation of the lipid concentration only along one spatial direction (the $x$ direction) and translational invariance along the perpendicular direction. The free energy $\\gamma$ per unit length of this line boundary (related to the line tension $\\tau$ of the interface as calculated in Sect. VII) is given by $$\\gamma = \\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty} {\\cal I} \\d x$$ where the free energy density ${\\cal I}$ includes contributions associated with spatial variations of the concentrations. Defining the \u201cstiffness coefficients\u201d $g_\\phi$ and $g_\\eta$ for the protein and lipid concentration profiles, respectively, the free energy density ${\\cal I}$ is given by $${\\cal I}= {\\cal G}/{T} +\\frac{1}{2} g_{\\phi}\n\\left( \\frac{\\d \\phi}{\\d x} \\right)^2 +\\frac{1}{2} g_{\\eta}\n\\left( \\frac{\\d \\eta}{\\d x} \\right)^2$$ In the next section we study the bulk phase diagram based on the thermodynamic potential (8). In the subsequent sections we use the simplified expression (13) and determine the concentration profiles $\\phi(x)$ and $\\eta(x)$ by applying a variational principle to the free energy functional $\\gamma$.\n\nThe phase diagram\n=================\n\nThe phase diagram as a function of the chemical potentials $\\mu_{\\eta}$ and $\\mu$ can be obtained from the thermodynamic potential (8) by minimizing ${\\cal G}$ with respect to the order parameters $\\eta$ and $\\phi$ in the two-phase coexistence region[@note2]. The coexisting solutions, denoted by $(\\eta_1,\\phi_1)$ and $(\\eta_2, \\phi_2)$, are determined from the equations $$\\mu_{\\eta}= \n\\left. \\frac{\\partial {\\cal F}}{\\partial \\eta} \\right|_{\\eta_1,\\phi_1}=\n\\left. \\frac{\\partial {\\cal F}}{\\partial \\eta} \\right|_{\\eta_2,\\phi_2}=\n\\frac{{\\cal F}(\\eta_1,\\phi_1)-{\\cal F}(\\eta_2,\\phi_2)}{\\eta_1-\\eta_2}$$ $$\\mu+\\log 2=\n\\left. \\frac{\\partial {\\cal F}}{\\partial \\phi} \\right|_{\\eta_1,\\phi_1}=\n\\left. \\frac{\\partial {\\cal F}}{\\partial \\phi} \\right|_{\\eta_2,\\phi_2}$$ which correspond to a common-tangent construction. These equations can be easily solved numerically. In order to estimate the role of the protein-lipid area ratio, $\\alpha$, and to compare the results with the calculations presented in the next section based on the simplified expression (13), where $\\alpha \\rightarrow \\infty$, we restrict the numerical analysis to the values $J=1/10$ and $L=10$. The small value of $J$ means that one is close to the critical point of the lipid phase separation, and the expansion in powers of $\\eta$, leading to (13), is appropriate. The large value of $L$ means that the protein concentration is rather small everywhere and can be treated as a small perturbation. We will need this assumption for the analytic solution of the Euler-Lagrange equations in Sect. IV. The parameter $\\alpha$ will be scanned in a rather wide range. With this choice of $L$ and $J$, it is clear that the simplified free energy expression (13) is asymptotically obtained for $\\alpha \\rightarrow \\infty$.\n\nThe protein concentrations in the coexisting dense and dilute lipid regions scan a whole range of different values, depending on the values of the remaining parameters $\\mu$ and $\\lambda$, but are strictly bounded below by $\\sim \\exp(-\\alpha)$. In contrast, the simplified free energy expression (13) has solutions with non-zero and strictly zero protein concentrations, because of the $\\alpha \\rightarrow \\infty$ limit. It therefore allows for straightforward classification of the bulk protein ordering into a phase with finite protein concentration and a phase with no proteins at all. We need a similar criterion for the case of the full free energy expression (7) with $\\alpha$ finite, allowing us to distinguish in a categorical manner the presence of proteins from the absence of proteins, even in the inevitable presence of an exponentially small (in $\\alpha$) protein concentration. We adopt the simple criterion which consists of calculating the Laplacian of the protein concentration in the parameter space $(\\mu, \n\\lambda)$, $$\\frac{\\partial^2 \\phi_i}{\\partial \\mu^2}+\n\\frac{\\partial^2 \\phi_i}{\\partial \\lambda^2}$$ in the two coexisting phases $\\phi_1$ and $\\phi_2$. This scalar quantity shows a pronounced line of maxima in the parameter space, separating two phases with small and large concentrations of proteins. The position of this ridge is determined numerically and defined as the boundary between the two phases rich and devoid of proteins, respectively, for each solution $\\phi_i$. The result of this operation leads to three distinct phase regions and is shown in Fig. 1 for the values $\\alpha=10$, $50$, and $200$. Anticipating the definitions (28) and (30), we present the results in terms of the rescaled variables $a \\equiv \\mu/(3J)$ and $c \\equiv \\lambda /\\sqrt{3J/2}$. The results obtained for $\\alpha=\\infty$ are denoted by solid lines. In the region denoted \u201cno proteins\u201d both protein concentrations $\\phi_1$ and $\\phi_2$ are very small (exponentially in $-\\alpha$); in the region \u201csemi-localized\u201d only one concentration is small while the other is finite (distinguished by the criterion described above), and in the region \u201cdelocalized\u201d both phases have finite protein concentrations.\n\nIn the next section we will calculate the protein profile explicitly and, in addition, obtain a \u201clocalized\u201d phase. This phase cannot be distinguished from the \u201cno protein\u201d phase by just looking at the bulk free energy. In fact, in this phase there is a finite protein concentration only at a finite distance from the boundary between the LE and LC regions. As one can see from Fig. 1, the phase boundary for $\\alpha=50$ (long dashes) is already fairly close to the asymptotic boundary ($\\alpha \\rightarrow \n\\infty$, solid line), so that neglecting the protein entropy is already a good approximation for moderately large macromolecules.\n\nEuler-Lagrange equations\n========================\n\nIn this section we calculate the protein concentration profile based on the free energy expression (15). Minimization of the line free energy $\\gamma$ (14) leads to the Euler-Lagrange equations (denoting $\\d \\phi/\\d x$ by $\\phi^\\prime$, etc.) $$\\frac{\\partial {\\cal I}}{\\partial \\eta} - \\frac{\\d}{\\d x} \n\\frac{\\partial {\\cal I}}{\\partial \\eta^\\prime}=0$$ $$\\frac{\\partial {\\cal I}}{\\partial \\phi} - \\frac{\\d}{\\d x} \n\\frac{\\partial {\\cal I}}{\\partial \\phi^\\prime}=0$$ Using the full free energy of mixing (7), one obtains two coupled second-order and non-linear differential equations of the form $$-\\mu_{\\eta}-(2J+1) \\eta+\\lambda \\phi +\n\\frac{1}{2} \\log \\left( \\frac{1+\\eta-\\phi}{1-\\eta-\\phi} \\right) =\ng_{\\eta}\\frac{\\d^2 \\eta}{\\d x^2}$$ $$-\\mu -\\log 2 + 2L\\phi +\\lambda \\eta +\\frac{1}{2}\n\\log \\left( \\frac{4(1-\\phi)^2}{(1+\\eta-\\phi)(1-\\eta-\\phi)} \\right)+\n\\frac{1}{\\alpha} \\log \\left( \\frac{\\phi}{1-\\phi} \\right) =\ng_{\\phi}\\frac{\\d^2 \\phi}{\\d x^2}$$ For the actual calculation of concentration profiles, we will use the simplified free energy expression (13), leading to the more compact expressions $$-\\mu_{\\eta}-2J\\eta+\\frac{1}{3}\\eta^3 +\\lambda \\phi +\\eta \\phi=\ng_{\\eta}\\frac{\\d^2 \\eta}{\\d x^2}$$ $$-\\mu + 2L\\phi +\\lambda \\eta +\\frac{1}{2}\\eta^2 =\ng_{\\phi}\\frac{\\d^2 \\phi}{\\d x^2}$$ These are the same equations that were considered by Halperin and Pincus in the context of polymer adsorption at liquid-liquid interfaces[@Pincus].\n\nInstead of solving (21)-(22) numerically, we recall that for large values of $L$ we can treat the protein area fraction as a small parameter. As a zeroth-order approximation, we neglect the terms depending on $\\phi$ in (21) and obtain as a solution the lipid order parameter profile $\\eta_0(x)$ in the absence of proteins. This profile is then inserted into (22), yielding the protein profile $\\phi(x)$. The validity of this approach, namely solving the equation (21) while neglecting the coupling between $\\eta$ and $\\phi$ and inserting the solution into equation (22), is critically examined in Appendix B. There, it is found that this approximation indeed corresponds to the first term in an expansion, in which the protein concentration functions as the expansion parameter and which therefore is valid for small protein concentrations.\n\nTo proceed, setting $\\phi=0$ in (21) leads to $$\\eta_0(x)=\\eta_{\\infty} \\tanh (x/\\xi_{\\eta})$$ with the definitions $$\\eta_{\\infty} \\equiv \\sqrt{6J}$$ $$\\xi_{\\eta} \\equiv \\sqrt{g_{\\eta}/J}$$ This is the solution of the usual 4th order Ginzburg-Landau free energy expansion and is strictly valid here only for the pure lipid. The lipid order parameter varies between $+\\eta_\\infty$ for $x\\rightarrow \\infty$ and $-\\eta_\\infty$ for $x\\rightarrow -\\infty$, and its width is characterized by the correlation length $\\xi_\\eta$. The chemical potential $\\mu_{\\eta}$ is zero in the approximation employed above. The origin is chosen as the symmetric point between the liquid condensed phase ($x>0$) and the liquid expanded phase ($x<0$). Defining a rescaled length $u\\equiv x/\\xi_{\\eta}$ and a rescaled protein density $\\Phi(x) \\equiv 4L \\phi(x)/(\\eta_{\\infty})^2$, the second differential equation (22) is reduced to $$\\Phi(u)-h(u)=b^2 \\frac{\\d^2 \\Phi(u)}{\\d u^2}$$ with the inhomogeneous term $h(u)$ given by $$h(u) \\equiv a- \\tanh^2(u) -c \\tanh(u)$$ The remaining rescaled parameters are $$a \\equiv \\frac{2 \\mu}{(\\eta_{\\infty})^2}\n=\\frac{\\mu}{3J}$$ $$b^2 \\equiv \\frac{J g_{\\phi}}{2L g_{\\eta}}=\n\\frac{\\xi_\\phi^2}{ \\xi_\\eta^2}$$ $$c \\equiv \\frac{2 \\lambda }{\\eta_{\\infty}}=\n\\frac{\\lambda}{\\sqrt{3J/2}}$$ The parameter $a \\sim \\mu$ is the rescaled chemical potential, $b$ is the relative stiffness of the lipid concentration profile compared to the protein concentration profile, and $c \\sim \\lambda$ measures the preference of the proteins for the dense ($c<0$) or dilute ($c>0$) lipid domains. The correlation length of the protein distribution is defined by $ \\xi_\\phi \\equiv \\sqrt{g_{\\phi}/2L}$.\n\nThe general solution of the second order differential equation (26) can be written as $$\\Phi(u)=A \\sinh(u/b) +B \\cosh(u/b)+a -\\Phi_1(u)/b -c \\Phi_2(u)/b$$ where the functions $\\Phi_1(u)$ and $\\Phi_2(u)$ are given in Appendix A. The constants $A$ and $B$ have to be determined in accord with the boundary conditions.\n\nProtein distribution\n====================\n\nSolution for the case $b=0$\n---------------------------\n\nIt is instructive to treat first the limiting case where the stiffness of the protein distribution vanishes, i.e., $g_{\\phi}=0$ and $\\xi_{\\phi}=0$. Then, one has $b=0$ and the solution of (26) is trivially given by $\\Phi(u)=h(u)$. This leads to the protein distribution $$\\Phi^0(u)  = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{lll}\n        h(u) & \\mbox{for }     & h(u) \\geq 0  \\\\\n        0    & \\mbox{for }  & h(u) < 0 \\\\\n                \\end{array} \\right.$$ where the restriction to a finite range in $u$ follows since $\\Phi^0(u)$ has to be positive. In fact, for $b=0$, only for $h(u) \\geq 0$ the protein distribution is correctly described by the differential equation (26); inspection of the free energy density ${\\cal I}$ in the limit $\\alpha \\rightarrow \\infty$ shows that the value of $\\Phi(u)$ which minimizes ${\\cal I}$ for $h(u)<0$ is given by $\\Phi(u)=0$. This failure of the variational methods used in deriving (26) is due to the fact that one requires $\\Phi(u)$ to be positive in the limit of very large proteins, $\\alpha \\rightarrow \\infty$.\n\nHereafter, we choose $c\\geq 0$ with no loss of generality, since the problem defined by (26) and (27) is symmetric under a simultaneous inversion of $c$ and $u$ ($c\\rightarrow -c$ and $u \\rightarrow -u$). Using the asymptotic behavior of $h(u)$, $$h(u)    =\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{lll}\n         a-1+c & \\mbox{for }     & u \\rightarrow - \\infty\\\\\n         a-1-c& \\mbox{for }     & u \\rightarrow +\\infty\\\\\n                \\end{array} \\right.$$ the following classification emerges: (i)\u00a0For $a\\leq 1-c$, the protein distribution vanishes both for positive and negative values of $u$ at a sufficiently large but finite distance from the interface (which is located at $u=0$); one actually obtains a nonvanishing, [*localized*]{} distribution of proteins provided that $h(u)>0$ for some range of $u$, but this cannot be seen from the bulk behavior; (ii)\u00a0for $1-c<a \\leq 1+c$, the distribution is [*semi-localized*]{} and vanishes only for sufficiently large positive values of $u$ and stays finite as $u \\rightarrow - \\infty$, and (iii)\u00a0for $a>1+c$ the distribution is [*delocalized*]{} and stays finite in both limits $u \\rightarrow \\pm \\infty$. These three regimes are in accord with the phase diagram obtained in Sect. III and Fig. 1 for finite $\\alpha$ and in the $\\alpha \\rightarrow \\infty$ limit.\n\nAn additional observation can be made for $c \\leq 2$, where $h(u)$ has one maximum located at $$u_{max}=-\\tanh^{-1}(c/2)$$ with a height $$h(u_{max})=a+c^2/4$$ (in the limit $c \\rightarrow 2$ one obtains $u_{max} \\simeq \\log(2-c)/2$). Consequently, for $c \\leq 2$, the line defined by $a=-c^2/4$ marks the border between a fourth regime where the protein distribution vanishes identically (for $ a \\leq -c^2/4$) and the regime where this distribution is non-zero (for a finite distance from the boundary between dense and dilute lipid regions). Fig. 2 summarizes these borderlines in a phase diagram, which is in fact valid also for $b \\neq 0$, as will be discussed in the next subsection. The localized regime is shaded in gray and ends at a special point $S$, at which the maximum of the protein distribution is at infinity; as pointed out before, there is an overall symmetry around the $a-$axis ($c=0$).\n\nThe effective correlation length $\\xi_{eff}$ for the proteins in the localized regime can be estimated from the curvature of $\\Phi^0(u)$ at the maximum $u_{max}$, $$\\xi_{eff}^{-2} \\equiv -h''(u_{max})=2(1-c^2/4)^2$$ This length diverges as one approaches the special point $S$, where the distribution becomes indefinitely broad.\n\nSolution for $b >0\\;\\;\\;\\;\n-\\;\\;\\;\\;$ general considerations\n---------------------------------\n\nOn physical grounds, the solution for non-zero $b$, i.e., for a finite stiffness of the protein distribution, has to coincide with the solution found for $b=0$ in the preceding section very far from the interface located at $u=0$. This leads to the general boundary condition $$\\Phi(u)=\\Phi^0(u) \\;\\;\\; \\mbox{for} \\;\\;\\;\nu \\rightarrow \\pm \\infty$$ where $\\Phi^0(u)$ is given by (32) and the general solution $\\Phi(u)$ is defined to be the concentration profile which minimizes the free energy functional (14). In the following, we discuss the properties of the general solution $\\Phi(u)$ separately for the four regions distinguished in Fig. 2.\n\ni\\) In the delocalized case, the boundary conditions (37) occurring at infinity together with the differential equation (26) valid for the entire ($-\\infty, \\infty)$ range in $u$ are sufficient to determine the distribution $\\Phi(u)$.\n\nFor the other cases, the boundary conditions (37) have to be supplemented by additional conditions at finite values of $u$; the distribution $\\Phi(u)$ is described by (26) only in a finite interval of $u$.\n\nii\\) In the case where $h(u)<0$ for all $u$, it follows from the requirement $\\Phi(u) \\geq 0$ that $\\Phi(u)-h(u) >0$ and thus all possible solutions of (26) have strictly positive curvature as can be seen by looking at (26). The boundary conditions (37), which imply that $\\Phi(u)=0$ as $u\\rightarrow \\pm \\infty$, can not be satisfied for any non-vanishing solution of (26). Consequently, the protein distribution which minimizes the free energy is given identically by $\\Phi(u)=0$. This vanishing solution was also found for $b=0$.\n\niii\\) When $h(u)$ is positive in some finite interval of $u$ but negative for $u \\rightarrow \\pm \\infty$, all solutions of (26) which are positive definite everywhere have positive curvature for $u \\rightarrow \\pm \\infty$ and are not compatible with the boundary conditions as given by (37). This merely reflects the fact that (26) describes the distribution $\\Phi(u)$ only in the finite interval $u_1 \\leq u \\leq u_2$, in which $\\Phi(u)>0$. The same was found to be true for $b=0$ in the last section. From (37) in combination with (32), $\\Phi(u)$ has to vanish for $u \\rightarrow \\pm \\infty$, and can be positive for finite $u$. As follows from minimizing the free energy functional $\\gamma$ (14), the solution $\\Phi(u)$ has to be smooth everywhere and thus fulfills $\\Phi(u)=\\Phi'(u)=0$ at the two boundaries $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$.\n\nNow the following statements can be made: a) There have to be intervals of $u$ where $\\Phi(u)$ has negative curvature in order to fulfill the boundary conditions $\\Phi(u)=0$ at $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$; b) close to the boundaries $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$, the curvature has to be positive in order to fulfill $\\Phi'(u)=0$ at $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$; c) consequently, the solution $\\Phi(u)$ crosses $h(u)$ at two values of $u$ inside the region bounded by $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$, at which the curvature of $\\Phi(u)$ vanishes; this can be seen from (26). It follows that the boundaries $u_1$ and $u_2$ do not coincide, which means that the protein distribution $\\Phi(u)$ does not vanish identically. We conclude that whenever the distribution $\\Phi^0(u)$ does not vanish for $b=0$, it is non-vanishing for any $b \\neq 0$. Note that it is actually possible to construct a solution $\\Phi(u)$ in accord with the boundary conditions at $u_1$ and $u_2$ since the general solution (31) has two adjustable parameters $A$ and $B$.\n\niv\\) For the semi-localized case, the boundary condition (37) applies to the solution of (26) for $u \\rightarrow - \\infty$ only. The protein distribution is non-zero in the $u$ interval $(-\\infty, u_2)$ and the boundary value $u_2$ satisfies $\\Phi(u_2)=\\Phi'(u_2)=0$.\n\nPutting together these arguments for the different regimes, it follows that the phase diagram in Fig. 2 is valid for general $b>0$.\n\nBoundary conditions\n-------------------\n\nIn the following, we specify the boundary conditions for general $b$ for the three different cases showing non-vanishing protein distributions:\n\nIn the delocalized regime, the boundary conditions obtained from (37), (33), and (32) are $$\\Phi(\\pm \\infty)=h(\\pm \\infty)= a-1 \\mp c$$ These boundary conditions determine the coefficients $A$ and $B$ of the general solution (31).\n\nIn the semi-localized regime, one has the conditions $$\\Phi(- \\infty)=h(- \\infty)= a-1 + c$$ and $$\\Phi(u_2)=\\Phi'(u_2)=0$$ which determine the position of the boundary value, $u_2$, and the coefficients $A$ and $B$.\n\nIn the localized regime, one has $$\\Phi(u_1)=\\Phi'(u_1)=0$$ $$\\Phi(u_2)=\\Phi'(u_2)=0$$ Here, the boundary conditions determine $u_1$, $u_2$, $A$, and $B$. In what follows, we always assume that $u_1 \\leq u_2$, with no restrictions on the generality.\n\nIn the following, we present explicit protein profiles $\\Phi(u)$ for the limiting cases $b=0$ and $b=1$. The latter value corresponds to the case where the correlation lengths of the lipid and protein concentration profiles are equal, $\\xi_{\\eta}=\\xi_{\\phi}$. Also, for $b=1$, the general solution of the protein profile as given in Appendix A can be written in a simpler analytical form.\n\n[*Delocalized case:*]{} for $b=1$, the coefficients are determined to be $B=\\pi/2-2$ and $A=c(1-\\pi/2)$; the protein distribution, given by (31), then reads $$\\Phi(u)=a-2 +2 \\tan^{-1}[\\tanh(u/2)](c \\cosh u -\\sinh u)\n+\\pi(\\cosh u- c \\sinh u)/2$$ Using the equalities $$\\tan^{-1}[\\tanh(u/2)]= \\tan^{-1}[\\e^u]-\\pi/4=\n\\pi/4-\\tan^{-1}[\\e^{-u}]$$ the protein distribution can be rewritten as $$\\Phi(u)=a-2 +\\pi \\e^u (1-c)/2 +2 \\tan^{-1}[\\e^u](c \\cosh u -\\sinh u)$$ or $$\\Phi(u)=a-2 +\\pi \\e^{-u} (1+c)/2 -2 \\tan^{-1}[\\e^{-u}](c \\cosh u -\\sinh u)$$ in accord with the limiting values $\\Phi(u)=a-1 \\pm c$ for $u \\rightarrow \\mp \\infty$.\n\n[*Semi-localized case:*]{} For $b=1$, the boundary condition at $u=-\\infty$ leads to the relation $A=2+B+c-\\pi(1+c)/2$. The protein distribution can be written as $$\\Phi(u)=a-2 +\\e^u (B+2-c \\pi/2) +2 \\tan^{-1}[\\e^u](c \\cosh u -\\sinh u)$$ which indeed satisfies the boundary condition as given by (39). The coefficient $B$ and $u_2$ are in turn determined by the second boundary condition (40).\n\n[*Localized case:*]{} for general $b$, the boundary conditions (41) and (42) can be cast in a more explicit form. Defining $$\\cosh(u/b) \\Phi(u) /b - \\sinh(u/b) \\Phi'(u) =B/b +\\rho(u)$$ with $$\\rho(u) \\equiv \n\\cosh(u/b)(a/b-\\Phi_1(u)-c \\; \\Phi_2(u))+\nb \\sinh(u/b)(\\Phi'_1(u)+c \\; \\Phi'_2(u))$$ and $$\\sinh(u/b) \\Phi(u) /b - \\cosh(u/b) \\Phi'(u) =-A/b +\\kappa(u)$$ with $$\\kappa(u) \\equiv \n\\sinh(u/b)(a/b-\\Phi_1(u)-c \\; \\Phi_2(u))+\nb \\cosh(u/b)(\\Phi'_1(u)+c \\; \\Phi'_2(u))$$ leads to the equations $$-B/b=\\rho(u_1)=\\rho(u_2)$$ $$A/b=\\kappa(u_1)=\\kappa(u_2)$$ Equations (48)-(51) have to be solved simultaneously in order to determine $u_1$, $u_2$, $A$, and $B$. For the case $b=1$, the functions $\\rho(u)$ and $\\kappa(u)$ take the simpler form $$\\rho(u)=\n(a-2)\\cosh u +2 +\\tanh u \\sinh u +2c \\tan^{-1}[\\tanh(u/2)] -c \\sinh u$$ $$\\kappa(u)=\n(a-1)\\sinh u +2 \\tan^{-1}[\\tanh(u/2)] +c (1-\\cosh u)$$\n\nIn the remainder of this section, we present protein profiles calculated from the above equations for several values of the three parameters $a$, $b$, and $c$. Figure 3 shows protein distributions for four different values of $a$ and for the two simple cases $b=0$ (solid lines) and $b=1$ (broken lines). We set $c=0$, so the protein profiles are symmetric about the LE/LC boundary located at $u=0$, where the lipid concentration profile as given by (23) has an inflection point. For vanishing stiffness of the protein distribution ($b \\rightarrow 0$), the profiles have discontinuous slopes for $a<1$ at the points where the protein concentration vanishes; the main effect of a non-vanishing stiffness parameter $b$ is to eliminate these discontinuities, thereby flattening the entire concentration profile, as is clearly seen in Fig. 3.\n\nFigure 4 shows asymmetric protein distributions for four different values of $c$ on the transition line between the localized and the semi-localized regimes, defined by $a=1-c$. Again, solid lines denote results for $b=0$ and broken lines denote results for $b=1$. As for the symmetric distributions shown in Fig. 3, a non-zero stiffness parameter $b$ removes the discontinuity of $\\Phi'(u)$ at the boundary $u_2$ and flattens the concentration profile. As $c$ approaches the value $2$, the maximum of the distribution moves progressively away from the LE/LC boundary located at $u=0$. Also, the overall protein concentration rapidly decreases. In the limit $c \\rightarrow2$, the position of the maximum actually diverges logarithmically, as follows from (34).\n\nFigure 5 gives the localized protein distribution $\\Phi(u)$ for $c=0$ and $a=0.5$ for six different values of $b$, where $u_2$ and $B$ have to be determined numerically from (42) applied to the general solution (31). Interestingly enough, the boundary values $u_2=-u_1$ do not diverge as $b \\rightarrow \\infty$ but approach finite values $u_{1,2}= \\mp 1.915$. As the stiffness of the protein distribution increases, the concentration is flattened and the area under the curves decreases, but the profile does not spread out indefinitely and stays localized.\n\nThe protein excess \n===================\n\nThe protein excess is the total amount of adsorbed proteins. In the localized regime, this quantity is defined as $$\\Gamma \\equiv\n\\int_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty} \\Phi(u) du=\n\\int_{u_1}^{u_2}  \\Phi(u) du$$ In the delocalized and the semi-localized regimes, the quantity $\\Gamma$ as defined above diverges since the protein distribution approaches a constant non-vanishing value as $u \\rightarrow - \\infty$ (for the delocalized case the same is also true as $u \\rightarrow\\infty$). One can still extract a meaningful quantity defined by the excess amount of protein adsorbed by subtracting the protein concentration at $u= \\pm \\infty$, where $\\Phi(\\pm \\infty)=a-1 \\mp c$. For $-2<c<2$ the protein distribution has one maximum, and we define the protein excess as $$\\Gamma \\equiv\n\\int_{-\\infty}^{u_{max}} ( \\Phi(u)-\\Phi(-\\infty)) du +\n\\int_{u_{max}}^{\\infty} ( \\Phi(u)-\\Phi(\\infty)) du$$ where $u_{max}$ is the value of $u$ for which $\\Phi(u)$ reaches its maximum.\n\nProtein excess for $b=0$\n------------------------\n\nThe protein excess $\\Gamma$ can be calculated for $b=0$ in closed form for all parameter values. With $\\Phi^0(u)=h(u)=a-\\tanh^2(u) -c \\tanh(u)$, the excess can be written as $$\\Gamma \\equiv\n\\int_{u_1}^{u_2}  (a-\\tanh^2(u) -c \\tanh(u))du$$ where the integration boundaries are given by $$u_{1,2}=\n\\tanh^{-1}\n \\left[-\\frac{c}{2} \\mp \\sqrt{\\frac{c^2}{4} +a} \\; \\right]$$ For the symmetric case, $c=0$, the boundaries $u_1$ and $u_2$ have the values $$u_{1,2}=\n\\mp \\tanh^{-1} \\sqrt{a}$$ and on the transition line between the localized and the semi-localized regimes, given by $a=1-c$, one obtains $u_1=-\\infty$ and $$u_2=\\tanh^{-1}(1-c)$$ For general $a$ and $c$, the integral (58) yields $$\\Gamma=\n\\sqrt{c^2+4a}+(a-1+c)\\tanh^{-1}\\left[\n\\frac{\\sqrt{c^2+4a}}{1+a} \\right]\n-c \\tanh^{-1}\\left[\n\\frac{\\sqrt{c^2+4a}(2+c)}{2+2a+2c+c^2} \\right]$$ In the symmetric case, $c=0$, this expression reduces to $$\\Gamma=\n(a-1)\\tanh^{-1}\\left[\n\\frac{\\sqrt{4a}}{1+a} \\right]\n+\\sqrt{4a}$$ and on the localized to semi-localized transition line, $a=1-c$, it reduces to $$\\Gamma=\n2-c-c\\tanh^{-1}\\left[\n\\frac{4-c^2}{4+c^2}\\right]=2-c-c\\log(2/c)$$ Lines of constant $\\Gamma$ for $b=0$ calculated from (62) are shown as broken lines in Fig. 2. Those lines can be helpful in interpreting experimental findings when only the integrated protein amount is known and not the entire profile.\n\nProtein excess for $b=1$\n------------------------\n\nFor the symmetric case ($c=0$) the excess is given by the closed-form expression $$\\Gamma=\n2(a-1)u_2 + 2 \\tanh u_2$$ with the boundary value $u_2$ determined by $$\\tan^{-1}[\\tanh(u_2/2)]=\\frac{1-a}{2}\\sinh u_2$$ as follows from (53) and (55) and noting that $A=0$.\n\nFor the localized to semi-localized transition line, $a=1-c$, the excess is given by $$\\Gamma=\n1-c \\log(2) +\\tanh u_2 -u_2 c -c \\log(\\cosh u_2)$$ with the boundary value $u_2$ determined by $$2c+1=\\tanh u_2+(1+c)(\\cosh u_2-\\sinh u_2)(\\pi/2+\n2 \\tan^{-1}(\\tanh[u_2/2])$$ as follows from applying (42) to (47).\n\nThe protein excess $\\Gamma$ for the symmetric case $c=0$ is shown in Fig. 6(a) as a function of $a$, where the solid line denotes results for $b=0$ and the broken line for $b=1$. These results correspond to the concentration profiles plotted in Fig. 3 and are given by (63) and (65). The protein excess for $b=1$ is smaller than for $b=0$, which is also visible in Fig. 3. The overall flattening of the distributions for non-zero $b$ causes the area under the distribution to decrease. For $a=1$, the protein excess is given by $\\Gamma=2$ for both values of $b$. The same value holds for general $b$, as can be demonstrated by numerical solutions of (56). The boundary values $u_2$ given by (60) for $b=0$ and determined by (66) for $b=1$ are plotted in Fig. 7(a).\n\nIn Fig. 6(b) we show the protein excess on the localized/ semi-localized transition line, $a=1-c$, as a function of $c$, as given by (64) and (67). As in the symmetric case, the protein excess $\\Gamma$ decreases as $b$ becomes non-zero. The boundary values $u_2$, obtained from (61) and (68), for $b=0$ and $b=1$, respectively, are plotted in Fig. 7(b).\n\nLE/LC line tension in the presence of protein\n=============================================\n\nFirst we calculate the line tension of the liquid expanded-condensed interface in the absence of proteins, denoted by $\\tau_0$. This energy per unit length follows from the total free energy density $\\gamma$ as given by (14) after subtraction of the bulk free energy density infinitely far from the interface and can be defined by $$\\frac{\\tau_0}{2}= \\int_0^{\\infty} \\d x \\left\\{\n-J \\eta^2_0(x)  +\n\\frac{1}{12} \\eta^4_0(x) \n+\\frac{1}{2} g_{\\eta}\n\\left( \\frac{\\d \\eta_0(x)}{\\d x} \\right)^2\n+J \\eta_{\\infty}^2 \n-\\frac{1}{12} \\eta_{\\infty}^4\n\\right\\}$$ recalling that $$\\eta_0(x)=\\eta_{\\infty} \\tanh (x/\\xi_{\\eta})$$ and $\\eta_{\\infty}=\\sqrt{6 J}$ and $\\xi_{\\eta}=\\sqrt{g_{\\eta} /J}$. In writing (69) we used the symmetry around $x=0$. The integral (69) is elementary and gives the standard result $$\\tau_0=\n8 J^{3/2} g_{\\eta}^{1/2}$$ The total line tension is given by $\\tau=\\tau_0+\\tau_{\\phi}$. The line tension contribution $\\tau_{\\phi}$ due to adsorbed proteins in the localized phase region can be written as $$\\tau_{\\phi}= \\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty} \\d x \\left\\{\nL \\phi^2(x) \n- \\mu \\phi(x) +\\lambda \\eta_0(x) \\phi(x)\n+\\frac{1}{2} \\eta^2_0(x) \\phi(x)\n+\\frac{1}{2} g_{\\phi}\n\\left( \\frac{\\d \\phi(x)}{\\d x} \\right)^2\n\\right\\}$$ For simplicity, we will restrict ourselves to the limit $g_{\\phi}=0$, because the integration in (72) can then be done in a closed form. The line tension contribution $\\tau_{\\phi}$ can be expressed in reduced variables as $$\\tau_{\\phi}= \\frac{\\xi_{\\eta} \\eta_{\\infty}^4}{8L}\n\\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty} \\d u \\left\\{\n\\frac{1}{2}  \\Phi^2(u)  \n-a \\Phi(u) +c \\; \\tanh u \\; \\Phi(u) \n+ \\tanh^2 u  \\; \\Phi(u) \\right\\}$$ Using the solution found for $b=0$ (or, equivalently, $\\xi_{\\phi}=0$), $\\Phi(u)=a - \\tanh^2 u -c \\tanh u$, the integral can be solved for general $a$ and $c$. Here, we only present the solution for the symmetric case, $c=0$, which is given by $$\\tau_{\\phi}= \\frac{9 J^{3/2} g_{\\eta}^{1/2}}{2 L}\n\\left\\{ \\sqrt{a} (1 - 5a/3) - (1-a)^2 \\tanh^{-1}( \\sqrt{a}) \n\\right\\}$$ The limiting values are $\\tau_{\\phi}=0$ for $a=0$, since in this case no proteins are adsorbed, and $\\tau_{\\phi}=-3 J^{3/2} g_{\\eta}^{1/2} /L$ for $a=1$, to be compared with $\\tau_0=8 J^{3/2} g_{\\eta}^{1/2}$. This is the smallest value possible, for larger values of $a$ the line tension contribution $\\tau_{\\phi}$ remains constant. The adsorption of proteins thus leads to a reduction of the total line tension $\\tau=\\tau_0+ \\tau_{\\phi}$. In principle, the total line tension $\\tau$ can take negative values for sufficiently large $a$ if $L<3/8$, which amounts to an instability of the LE-LC interface, possibly signaling a depression of the lipid phase transition. Of course, in this limit the approximations used in deriving (26) break down, since we assumed $L$ to be large and the proteins being only a small perturbation on the pure lipid phase transition.\n\nProtein profile in the subphase\n===============================\n\nUp to now the coupled protein-lipid system was considered as a pure two-dimensional system on the water/air interface which is positioned at $z=0$. It is possible to evaluate the influence of a finite solubility of the proteins in the subphase on the protein distribution in the monolayer, and, in addition, to give a more precise meaning to the protein parameters $\\mu$ and $L$ used in (13). The vertical protein concentration profile in the subphase can be calculated as a function of the distance $z$ from the monolayer, For the calculation of this profile, which is denoted by $\\phi_\\perp (z)$, we neglect any variation in the horizontal direction. Assuming that the water is a good solvent for the protein (and, therefore, that the aqueous protein solution is far from its demixing curve), we can write the free energy per unit area on the surface as $$\\gamma_\\perp=\n\\int_0^{\\infty} \\d z \\left\\{\n\\frac{1}{2} g^b_{\\phi} \n\\left(\\frac{\\d \\phi_\\perp(z)}{\\d z}\\right)^2\n+L_b  \\phi_\\perp^2(z) -\\mu_b  \\phi_\\perp(z) \\right\\}\n+L_s \\phi^2 - \\mu_s \\phi$$ where $\\phi=\\phi_\\perp(0)$ is the protein concentration at the surface (or, equivalently, in the monolayer). This expression is very similar to free energy functionals studied in the context of wetting and other surface phenomena[@Brezin]. In analogy to the parameters used in (13) and (15), $g^b_{\\phi}$, $L_b$, and $\\mu_b$ are the protein parameters in the \u201cbulk\u201d subphase, and $L_s$ and $\\mu_s$ are the bare protein parameters at the \u201csurface\u201d (or in the monolayer). The chemical potential $\\mu_s$ measures the free energy difference between a protein molecule in the subphase and in the monolayer, and it contains contributions due to van der Waals interactions of the protein with its surrounding media as well as hydrophobic contributions coming from structural changes of the protein at the surface. It is believed that proteins unfold their hydrophobic parts when they are inside a monolayer or even at the free air-water interface. The energy gained by such conformational transformations can be extremely high.\n\nThe Euler-Lagrange equation for the bulk density profile takes the form $$2 L_b \\phi_\\perp(z) -\\mu_b=\ng^b_{\\phi} \\frac{\\d^2 \\phi_\\perp(z)}{\\d z^2}$$ The bulk protein concentration infinitely far from the monolayer is given from (76) by $$\\phi_b \\equiv \\phi_\\perp (\\infty) =\\frac{\\mu_b}{2 L_b}$$ When the protein adsorbing on the surface is in contact with a large bulk reservoir of proteins, the bulk concentration $\\phi_b$ can be regarded as a fixed parameter and the chemical potential $\\mu_b$ acts as a Lagrange multiplier satisfying the relation $\\mu_b\n=2 L_b \\phi_b$.\n\nThe solution of (76) compatible with the requirement $\\phi_\\perp(\\infty)\n=\\phi_b$ is given by $$\\phi_\\perp(z)=\n(\\phi -\\phi_b) \\e^{-z/\\xi^b_{\\phi}} +\\phi_b$$ where the correlation of the protein distribution in the subphase is $\\xi^b_{\\phi}=\\sqrt{g^b_{\\phi}/2 L_b}$ and $\\phi \\equiv \\phi_\\perp(0)$ is the surface value. The surface free energy, which is the total free energy due to the presence of the monolayer at $z=0$, can be expressed as $$\\Delta \\gamma_\\perp=\n\\gamma_\\perp -\\int_0^{\\infty} \\d z \\left\\{\nL_b  \\phi_b^2  -\\mu_b  \\phi_b \\right\\}$$ For the density profile given by (78), it takes the form $$\\Delta \\gamma_\\perp=\n(\\phi - \\phi_b)^2\n\\sqrt{L_b g^b_{\\phi}/2} \n+L_s \\phi^2\n-\\mu_s \\phi$$ Minimizing this expression with respect to the surface protein concentration $\\phi$ leads to the value $$\\phi=\n\\frac{\\mu_s + \\phi_b \\sqrt{2 L_b g^b_{\\phi}}}\n{2L_s+\\sqrt{2 L_b  g^b_{\\phi}}}$$ Effectively, the presence of a finite concentration of proteins in the subphase can be modeled by using the modified parameters $$\\mu=\\mu_s + \\phi_b \\sqrt{2 L_b g^b_{\\phi}}$$ $$L=L_s+\\sqrt{L_b  g^b_{\\phi}/2}$$ for the two-dimensional description of the protein distribution in the monolayer, given in (13). With these effective parameters, the $\\phi$-dependent part of the surface free energy can be rewritten (up to a constant) as $\n\\Delta \\gamma_\\perp=\nL \\phi^2 - \\mu \\phi \n$. For very large values of the protein adsorption free energy $\\mu_s$, as observed for proteins which change their structure considerably as they approach the air-water interface, and a rather small reservoir of proteins in the subphase, most of the proteins will be incorporated in the monolayer leading to a depletion in the subphase, i.e., $\\phi_b \\approx 0$. In this case the total amount of protein in the monolayer is a conserved quantity and $\\mu$ then acts as a Lagrange multiplier. In the case of a large reservoir of proteins in the subphase, conservation of protein particles is taken care of primarily by adjusting the bulk concentration $\\phi_b$. In both cases, the parameter $\\mu$, which appears in (13), can be tuned by changing the total amount of protein added to the system.\n\nEffect of protein on surface pressure\n=====================================\n\nWe discuss now how the parameters used in our calculation can be related to experimentally measurable quantities, such as the lateral pressure $\\Pi$. This will be done for the simplified cases where there are either only proteins or only lipids at the water surface. First, we calculate the lateral pressure in the limit of small coverage with proteins or lipids, leading to a modified ideal gas law; the correction to the limiting ideal gas behavior gives information about the interactions.\n\nIn the case where no lipid is present at the water surface, one sets $\\eta= \\phi-1$ in (7) and the free energy per lattice site is $${\\cal F}(\\phi)/T= K \\phi^2 +\\{ \\phi \\log(\\phi) \n+(1-\\phi) \\log(1-\\phi)\\}/ \\alpha$$ where $\\alpha$ is the area ratio of the protein and the underlying lipid/vacancy lattice. $K \\equiv L+\\lambda-J-1/2$ is an effective interaction parameter. For the case where only lipids are present one has to make the replacements $K \\rightarrow -4(J+1/2)$, $\\phi \\rightarrow \\phi_L$ and $\\alpha \\rightarrow 1$. The thermodynamic potential for a system covering $N$ lattice sites is defined by $$N {\\cal G}= N {\\cal F} -\\mu T N \\phi +\\Pi N a^2$$ with $a$ being the lattice constant of the underlying lattice of vacancies or lipids. Minimizing the potential with respect to the number of occupied lattice sites $N$ and the protein density $\\phi$ leads to $$\\mu=  \\left. \\frac{\\d {\\cal F}(\\phi)/T}{\\d \\phi} \\right|_{\\phi=\\phi_{eq}}$$ $$-{\\cal F}(\\phi_{eq})+ \\mu T \\phi_{eq}=\n\\Pi a^2= \\phi^2 \\left. \\frac{\\d {\\cal F}(\\phi) /\\phi}\n        {\\d \\phi} \\right|_{\\phi=\\phi_{eq}}\n    = T K \\phi_{eq}^2 -T \\log(1-\\phi_{eq})/\\alpha$$ Expanding the logarithm, one finds the behavior valid for small surface pressures $$\\Pi A = T +A^{-1} a^2 \\alpha T (1/2 +K \\alpha )\n\\simeq  T +\\Pi  a^2 \\alpha (1/2 +K \\alpha )$$ where $A=a^2 \\alpha /\\phi_{eq}$ is the surface area available per protein (or lipid if one makes the replacement $\\alpha=1$). The first term in (88) corresponds to the ideal gas behavior, the second term is an enthalpic and entropic correction from which the effective interaction term $K$ can be deduced, if the area of a protein, $a^2 \\alpha$, and the protein-lipid area ratio $\\alpha$ are known.\n\nIn order to estimate the critical interaction strengths, it is useful to define a new order parameter $\\theta\\equiv 2 \\phi-1$ for which the free energy expression (84) can be expanded around $\\theta=0$ and then reads (to fourth order in $\\theta$ and neglecting terms linear in $\\theta$) $${\\cal F}/T=(\\frac{K}{4}+\\frac{1}{2 \\alpha}) \\theta^2 + \n\\frac{\\theta^4}{ 12 \\alpha}$$ from which the critical point of demixing is deduced to be $K^*=-2/\\alpha$. Note that for the case of lipids one recovers the $\\phi$-independent part of (13). From (89) one sees that for interaction parameters $K>K^*/4$ the sign of the correction in (88) is positive, vanishes for $K=K^*/4$ and actually becomes negative as the interaction approaches the critical value. Measurements of $\\Pi A$ as a function of $\\Pi$ for the hydrophobic polypeptide [*cyclosporin*]{} A in the relevant temperature range indeed showed positive slopes[@Wiedmann], indicative of an interaction parameter $K$ far above the critical value. The sign of the parameter $\\lambda$ indicates the preference for the protein to enter dense ($\\lambda<0$) or dilute lipid regions ($\\lambda>0$); experiments indicate that this parameter is close to zero, so that $L$ is larger than zero. Neglecting higher-order terms in $\\phi$ in the free energy expression (13) thus seems justified, assuming that [*cyclosporin*]{} A is a typical protein.\n\nNext we show how the effective parameter $K$ can be related to properties of adsorbed layer of proteins or lipids close to their critical points. From (89), the thermodynamic potential is given by $$N {\\cal G}=NT (\\frac{K}{4}+\\frac{1}{2 \\alpha})\n \\theta^2 +\\frac{N T}{12 \\alpha } \\theta^4\n- NT \\mu  \\theta + N \\Pi a^2$$ Above the critical point of demixing, defined by the critical interaction strength $ K^*=-2/\\alpha$, one can neglect the fourth-order term and obtains upon variation with respect to $N$ and $\\theta$ a relation between $K$ and the equilibrium pressure $\\Pi_{eq}$ and equilibrium coverage $\\theta_{eq}$ given by $$\\frac{K}{4}+\\frac{1}{2 \\alpha}\n =  \\frac{a^2}{\\theta_{eq}^2}\n\\left( \\frac{\\Pi_{eq}}{T} -\\frac{\\Pi^*}{T^*} \\right)$$ where $\\Pi^*$ and $T^*$ are the pressure and the temperature at the critical point, thus material constants of the protein (or the lipid).\n\nBelow the critical point of demixing and in the coexistence region one has to keep the fourth order term and obtains the analogous relation $$\\left(\\frac{K}{4}+\\frac{1}{2 \\alpha} \\right)^2=\n\\frac{a^2}{3 \\alpha}\n\\left( \\frac{\\Pi_{coex}}{T} -\\frac{\\Pi^*}{T^*} \\right)$$ where $\\Pi_{coex}$ denotes the pressure at coexistence at a given temperature $T$.\n\nFor fitting experimental data to the above expression it is important to note that the interaction parameters $J$, $L$, and $\\lambda$ as defined by (9-11) depend on the temperature.\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nWe studied a simple model which explains possible aggregation of proteins or other large macromolecules at the boundary between coexisting liquid condensed and liquid expanded domains of lipids. Such a preferential adsorption of proteins has been observed experimentally[@Schwinn]. Based on the general phase diagram, shown in Fig. 2, obtained in the limit of proteins with large areas compared with lipids ($\\alpha \n\\rightarrow \\infty$), we predict a transition from protein distributions localized at the LE/LC boundary to semi-localized and delocalized distributions, for which the protein concentrations remain finite in the coexisting lipid phases. Such a transition can be observed by either changing the total amount of adsorbed proteins (corresponding to a change in $a$), or by changing the temperature (influencing the parameter $c$). We also calculated various experimentally accessible quantities, such as the protein excess $\\Gamma$ and the line tension $\\tau$. The line tension is predicted to decrease upon adsorption of proteins.\n\nThe mechanism leading to the preferential adsorption of proteins at the one-dimensional boundary line between LE and LC phases is due to a competition of the different contributions to the entropy of mixing of the three components: proteins, lipids, and vacancies. We recall that vacancies are artificially introduced just to allow the Langmuir monolayer to be compressible. Our model assumes that the protein actually penetrates into the monolayer. A partial intrusion is also possible and can be described by the model, if the proteins take up at least some area at the air-water interface. Other mechanisms based on long-ranged interactions such as electrostatic forces are also important and could lead to similar results.\n\nThe affinity of the proteins to the LE/LC boundary can also originate from other enthalpic reasons: If the protein itself has amphiphilic properties with respect to the density of the surrounding medium, i.e., if one moiety of the protein favors a denser environment while the other moiety favors a more dilute environment, it would be driven into the interface between the LE and LC phases. However, such an amphiphilic property of the proteins seems to be unlikely, and, if present, too weak to produce the effects observed in experiments.\n\nFinally, we mention that similar effects should be observable for freely suspended multicomponent membranes which show phase separation into coexisting domains with different lipid compositions[@Bloom; @Thewalt; @Wu]. Here, integral membrane proteins should be either dissolved in one of the domains, depending on the enthalpic preference, or, if this preference is very weak, enriched and localized at the one-dimensional boundary line between the domains.\n\nWe would like to thank A. Goudot, H. M\u00f6hwald, E. Sackmann, M. Schick, and T. Schwinn for helpful discussions. DA acknowledges partial support from the German Israel Foundation (GIF) under grant No. I-0197 and the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) under grant No. 94-00291. RN acknowledges support from the Minerva Foundation, receipt of a NATO stipend administered by the DAAD, and partial support by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-9220733.\n\nSolution of differential equation\n=================================\n\nHere we derive the solution of the differential equation $$\\Phi(u)-h(u)=b^2 \\frac{d^2 \\Phi(u)}{du^2}$$ with the inhomogeneous term $h(u)$ given by $$h(u) \\equiv a- \\tanh^2 u -c \\tanh u$$ Denoting by $\\Phi_A$ and $\\Phi_B$ two independent solutions of the homogeneous differential equation $\\Phi(u)=b^2 \\Phi''(u)$, the particular solution of the inhomogeneous differential equation is formally given by $$\\Phi_P(u)=\n-\\frac{1}{b^2} \\int_0^u dw \\,\\,h(w)\n\\frac{\\Phi_A(w) \\Phi_B(u)-\\Phi_A(u) \\Phi_B(w)}\n     {\\Phi_A(w) \\Phi'_B(w)-\\Phi'_A(w) \\Phi_B(w)}$$ Choosing $\\Phi_A(u)=A \\sinh(u/b)$, $\\Phi_B(u)=B \\cosh(u/b)$, and defining the particular solution as $$\\Phi_P(u)=a-\\frac{1}{b} \\Phi_1(u) -\\frac{c}{b} \\Phi_2(u)$$ the integrals to be solved are $$\\Phi_1(u) \\equiv\n\\int_0^u dw \\tanh^2(w) \\sinh\\left(\\frac{w-u}{b}\\right)$$ $$\\Phi_2(u) \\equiv\n\\int_0^u dw \\tanh(w) \\;\\; \\sinh\\left(\\frac{w-u}{b}\\right)$$\n\nThe integration is straightforward and yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Phi_1(u) &=&\nb-b\\cosh(u/b) + \\sinh(u/b) \\nonumber \\\\ &&\n+\\frac{1}{4b}\\e^{-u/b}\n\\left(\\Psi\\left[\\frac{1}{2}+\\frac{1}{4b}\\right]-\n\\Psi\\left[\\frac{1}{4b}\\right]  \\right)  +\n\\frac{1}{4b}\\e^{u/b}\n\\left(\\Psi\\left[\\frac{1}{2}-\\frac{1}{4b}\\right]-\n\\Psi\\left[-\\frac{1}{4b}\\right]  \\right)   \\nonumber \\\\\n&& + 2b F\\left[2;-\\frac{1}{2b};1-\\frac{1}{2b};-\\e^{2u}\\right]+\n2b F\\left[2;\\frac{1}{2b};1+\\frac{1}{2b};-\\e^{2u}\\right]\n\\nonumber \\\\ && -\n2b F\\left[1;-\\frac{1}{2b};1-\\frac{1}{2b};-\\e^{2u}\\right]-\n2b F\\left[1;\\frac{1}{2b};1+\\frac{1}{2b};-\\e^{2u}\\right]\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Phi_2(u) &=&\nb-b\\cosh(u/b) \\nonumber \\\\ && +\n\\frac{1}{4}\\e^{-u/b}\n\\left(\\Psi\\left[\\frac{1}{2}+\\frac{1}{4b}\\right]-\n\\Psi\\left[\\frac{1}{4b}\\right]  \\right) -\n\\frac{1}{4}\\e^{u/b}\n\\left(\\Psi\\left[\\frac{1}{2}-\\frac{1}{4b}\\right]-\n\\Psi\\left[-\\frac{1}{4b}\\right]  \\right)   \\nonumber \\\\ &&\n-b F\\left[1;-\\frac{1}{2b};1-\\frac{1}{2b};-\\e^{2u}\\right]-\nb F\\left[1;\\frac{1}{2b};1+\\frac{1}{2b};-\\e^{2u}\\right]\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Psi[z]$ denotes the [*digamma function*]{} and $F[\\alpha;\\beta;\\gamma;z]$ denotes the [*hypergeometric function*]{}[@Abramowitz]. These special functions are defined by $$\\Psi[z]= \\frac{\\d [\\log ( \\Gamma[z])]}\n             {\\d z}$$ with the gamma function defined as usual as $$\\Gamma[z]=\n\\int_0^{\\infty} t^{z-1} \\e^{-t} \\d z$$ and $$F[\\alpha;\\beta;\\gamma;z]=\n\\frac{ \\Gamma[\\gamma]}{\\Gamma[\\beta] \\Gamma[\\gamma-\\beta]}\n\\int_0^1 t^{\\beta-1} (1-t)^{\\gamma-\\beta -1}\n(1- tz)^{-\\alpha} \\d t$$ For the special case $b=1$, the above expressions simplify and can be expressed as $$\\Phi_1(u) = 2-2\\cosh(u) + 2 \\tan^{-1}[\\tanh(u/2)] \\sinh(u)$$ $$\\Phi_2(u) = \\sinh(u)-2 \\tan^{-1}[\\tanh(u/2)] \\cosh(u)$$\n\nThe general solution of the differential equation is given by $$\\Phi(u)=A \\sinh(u/b) +B \\cosh(u/b)+a -\\Phi_1(u)/b -c \\;\n\\Phi_2(u)/b$$ where the constants $A$ and $B$ are determined from the boundary conditions (see text).\n\nLow protein concentration expansion\n===================================\n\nHere we discuss the validity of the approximations leading from the Euler-Lagrange equations (21) and (22) to the differential equation (26). Namely, the use of the solution $\\eta_0(x)$ in (22) which was obtained by neglecting the two terms $\\lambda \\phi$ and $\\eta \\phi$ in (21). The solution $\\eta_0(x)$ of the simplified differential equation obtained by setting $\\phi=0$ in (21) can be regarded as a zeroth-order approximation to the full solution in an expansion in powers of $\\phi(x)$. The validity of this approximation can be estimated by reconsidering the differential equation (21) and substituting for $\\phi$ the solution $\\phi(x)$ which was found initially by neglecting the coupling terms between $\\eta$ and $\\phi$ in (21).\n\nConsider first the second coupling $\\eta \\phi$ between $\\phi$ and $\\eta$ in (21). This term is unimportant as long as $\\phi \\ll J$. This is a reasonable assumption given that the protein concentration is small and one is not too close to the critical point of the liquid-expanded liquid-condensed lipid transition. This term will not be considered any further.\n\nIn order to estimate the effect of the other term which was neglected, $\\lambda \\phi$, we define $$\\eta(x) \\equiv \\eta_0(x) + \\delta \\eta(x)$$ with $ \\eta_0(x)$ given by (23) and $ \\eta(x)$ denoting the exact solution of (21). Since $\\eta_0(x)$ solves equation (21) without the terms proportional to $\\phi$, the differential equation for $\\delta \\eta (x)$ neglecting terms of ${\\cal O}(\\delta \\eta^2, \\delta \\eta  \\phi)$ is given by $$\\delta \\eta(x) (-2J +\\eta^2_0(x))+\\phi(x)(\\lambda+\\eta_0(x))=\ng_{\\eta} \\delta \\eta''(x)$$ From the differential equation (21), one sees that the correction we are estimating here is important only for $$\\lambda \\phi  \\gg |-2J \\eta_0  +\\eta^3_0/3| \\simeq\n|-2J \\eta_0|$$ The last step follows since $\\eta_0(x)$ has to be much smaller than unity for the inequality to hold. This can only be true in the close vicinity to the interface between dense and dilute lipid regions, i.e., for $x \\approx 0$. Consequently, the correction $\\delta \\eta (x)$ is only important around $x=0$. Then, the terms proportional to $\\eta_0(x)$ can be neglected and the differential equation (B2) simplifies to $$-2J \\delta \\eta(x) +\\lambda \\phi(x) = g_{\\eta} \\delta \\eta''(x)$$ Replacing $\\phi(x)$ by its value at the origin, $\\phi(0)$, the solution of (B4) is formally written as $$\\delta \\eta(x)  =\n\\frac{\\lambda \\phi(0)}{2J} + C \\sin(\\sqrt{2} x/\\xi_{\\eta})\n                          + D \\cos(\\sqrt{2} x/\\xi_{\\eta})$$ In order for the correction $\\delta \\eta(x)$ to vanish outside the region of interest centered around $x \\approx 0$, both coefficients $C$ and $D$ have to be of the order as the constant $\\lambda \\phi(0)/2 J$. The magnitude of the correction is thus given by $$\\delta \\eta \\simeq \\frac{\\lambda \\phi(0)}{J} \\sim\n\\frac{ c \\phi(0)}{\\eta_{\\infty}}$$ Note that $c$ is a parameter of order unity (or smaller) in the localized protein region (see Fig. 2). Thus, the correction $\\delta \\eta$ enters in the calculation of the protein distribution $\\phi(x)$ as a higher order contribution in terms of the ratio $\\phi(0)/\\eta_{\\infty}$, which is a small parameter. Neglecting this correction is a controlled approximation corresponding to keeping only the first order in a general expansion in terms of $\\phi(0)/\\eta_{\\infty}$, the ratio of the protein concentration and the lipid concentration difference.\n\nPresent address: Department of Physics Box 351560, University of Washington, Seattle WA 98195-1560, U.S.A.\n\nAlso at: Groupe de Physique Statistique, Universit\u00e9 de Cergy-Pontoise, 95806 Cergy-Pontoise, Cedex, France\n\nG.L. Gaines, Jr., [*Insoluble Monolayers at Liquid-Gas Interfaces*]{}, Interscience, New York (1966).\n\nM. Bloom, E. Evans, and O.G. Mouritsen, Quart. Rev. Biophys. [**24**]{}, 293 (1991).\n\nFor recent reviews, see H. M\u00f6hwald, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. [**41**]{}, 441 (1990); H.M. McConnell, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. [**42**]{}, 171 (1991); C.M. Knobler, Adv. Chem. Phys. [**77**]{}, 397 (1990); D. Andelman, F. Brochard, C. Knobler, and F. Rondelez, in [*Micelles, Membranes, Microemulsions, and Monolayers*]{}, W.M. Gelbart, A. Ben-Shaul, and D. Roux, eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1994).\n\nO. Albrecht, H. Gruler, and E. Sackmann, J. Phys. France [**39**]{}, 301 (1978).\n\nO. Albrecht, H. Gruler, and E. Sackmann, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**79**]{}, 319 (1981).\n\nH. M\u00f6hwald, Thin Solid Films [**159**]{}, 1 (1988); K. Kjaer, J. Als-Nielsen, C.A. Helm, P. Tippmann-Krayer, and H. M\u00f6hwald, J. Chem. Phys. [**93**]{}, 3200 (1989); H. M\u00f6hwald, R.M. Kenn, D. Degenhardt, K. Kjaer, and J. Als-Nielsen, Physica A [**168**]{}, 127 (1991); R.M. Kenn, C. B\u00f6hm, A.M. Bibo, I.R. Peterson, H. M\u00f6hwald, J. Als-Nielsen, and K. Kjaer, J. Chem. Phys. [**95**]{}, 2092 (1991).\n\nS.W. Barton, B.N. Thomas, E.B. Flom, S.A. Rice, B. Lin, J.B. Penn, J.B. Ketterson, and P. Dutta, J. Chem. Phys. [**89**]{}, 5898 (1988); B. Lin, J.B. Penn, J.B. Ketterson, P. Dutta, B.N. Thomas, J. Buontempo, and S.A. Rice, J. Chem. Phys. [**90**]{}, 2393 (1989); B. Lin, M.C. Shih, T.M. Bohanon, G.E. Ice, P. Dutta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 191 (1990).\n\nS. Barton, A. Goudot, O. Bouloussa, F. Rondelez, B. Lin, F. Novak, A. Acero, and S.A. Rice, J. Chem. Phys. [**96**]{}, 1343 (1992).\n\nM.L. Schlossmann, D.K. Schwartz, P.S. Pershan, E.H. Kawamoto, G.J. Kellog, and S. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 1599 (1991).\n\nM.J. Grundy, R.M. Richardson, S.J. Roser, J. Penfold, and R.C. Ward, Thin Solid Films [**159**]{}, 43 (1988).\n\nA.M. Bibo, C.M. Knobler, and I.R. Peterson, J. Chem. Phys. [**95**]{}, 5591 (1991).\n\nN.R. Pallas and B.A. Pethica, Langmuir [**1**]{}, 509 (1985); J.C. Earnshaw and P.J. Winch, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**2**]{}, 8499 (1990).\n\nH.M. McConnell, D. Keller, and H. Gaub, J. Phys. Chem. [**90**]{}, 1717 (1986); D.J. Keller, J.P. Korb, and H.M. McConnell, [*ibid.*]{} [**91**]{}, 6417 (1987); H.M. McConnell and V.T. Moy, [*ibid.*]{} [**92**]{}, 4520 (1988); A. Miller and H. M\u00f6hwald, J. Chem. Phys. [**86**]{}, 4258 (1987); C.M. Knobler, Science [**249**]{}, 870 (1990).\n\nS. Mar\u010delja, Biochim. Biophys. Acta [**367**]{}, 165 (1974).\n\nEarlier theories are reviewed in G.M. Bell, L.L. Combs, and L.J. Dunne, Chem. Rev. [**81**]{}, 15 (1981).\n\nA. Georgallas and D.A. Pink, J. Colloid Interface Sci. [**89**]{}, 107 (1982); C.M. Roland, M.J. Zuckermann, and A. Georgallas, J. Chem. Phys. [**86**]{}, 5812 (1987).\n\nZ.-Y. Chen, J. Talbot, W.M. Gelbart, and A. Ben-Shaul, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1376 (1988).\n\nD. Kramer, A. Ben-Shaul, Z.-Y. Chen, and W.M. Gelbart, J. Chem. Phys. [**96**]{}, 2236 (1992).\n\nV. von Tscharner and H.M. McConnell, Biophys. J. [**36**]{}, 409 (1981); M. L\u00f6sche, E. Sackmann, and H. M\u00f6hwald, Ber. Bunsenges. Phys. Chem. [**87**]{}, 848 (1983); R. Peters and K. Beck, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**80**]{}, 7183 (1983); R.M. Weiss and H.M. McConnell, Nature [**310**]{}, 5972 (1984); M. L\u00f6sche and H. M\u00f6hwald, Rev. Sci. Instrum. [**55**]{}, 1968 (1984).\n\nS. H\u00e9non and J. Meunier, Rev. Sci. Istrum. [**62**]{}, 936 (1991); D. H\u00f6nig and D. M\u00f6bius, J. Phys. Chem. [**91**]{}, 4590 (1991).\n\nT.S. Wiedmann and K.R. Jordan, Langmuir [**7**]{}, 318 (1991).\n\nT. Schwinn, Diploma Thesis, Technical University of Munich, 1992 (unpublished).\n\nV. Vogel, in [*Proteins at Interfaces*]{}, T.A. Horbett and J.L. Brash, eds. (ACS Books, in press).\n\nH. Haas, Diploma Thesis, University of Mainz, 1988 (unpublished).\n\nJ.L. Thewalt and M. Bloom, Biophys. J. [**63**]{}, 1176 (1992).\n\nS.H.-W. Wu and H.M. McConnell, Biochemistry [**14**]{}, 847 (1975).\n\nIt turns out that taking the limit $\\alpha \\rightarrow \\infty$ corresponds to neglecting the entropy contribution from the proteins while maintaining $\\phi \\geq 0$, i.e., keeping a positive protein concentration.\n\nA. Halperin and P. Pincus, Macromolecules [**19**]{}, 79 (1986).\n\nTwo-phase coexistence is observed on a whole line in the chemical-potential plane $(\\mu_\\eta, \\mu)$; three-phase coexistence, which occurs for small or negative values of $L$ and large values of $\\phi$, is not considered here.\n\nE. Br\u00e9zin, B.I. Halperin, and S. Leibler, J. Phys. (France) [**44**]{}, 775 (1983).\n\n, Chapter 15, M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, eds. (Dover, New York, 1972).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    A common situation occurring when dealing with multimedia traffic is having large data frames fragmented into smaller IP packets, and having these packets sent independently through the network. For real-time multimedia traffic, dropping even few packets of a frame may render the entire frame useless. Such traffic is usually modeled as having [*inter-packet dependencies*]{}. We study the problem of scheduling traffic with such dependencies, where each packet has a deadline by which it should arrive at its destination. Such deadlines are common for real-time multimedia applications, and are derived from stringent delay constraints posed by the application. The figure of merit in such environments is maximizing the system\u2019s [*goodput*]{}, namely, the number of frames successfully delivered.\n\n    We study online algorithms for the problem of maximizing goodput of delay-bounded traffic with inter-packet dependencies, and use competitive analysis to evaluate their performance. We present competitive algorithms for the problem, as well as matching lower bounds that are tight up to a constant factor. We further present the results of a simulation study which further validates our algorithmic approach and shows that insights arising from our analysis are indeed manifested in practice.\nauthor:\n- \nbibliography:\n- 'MS.bib'\ntitle: Bounded Delay Scheduling with Packet Dependencies\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:introduction}\n============\n\nA recent report studying the growth of real-time entertainment traffic in the Internet predicts that by 2018 approximately 66% of Internet traffic in North America will consist of real-time entertainment traffic, and most predominantly, video streaming\u00a0[@sandvine13global]. Such traffic, especially as video definition increases, is characterized by having large application-level data frames being fragmented into smaller IP packets which are sent independently throughout the network. For stored-video one can rely on mechanisms built into various layers of the protocol stack (e.g., TCP) that ensure reliable data transfer. However, for real-time multimedia applications such as live IPTV and video conferencing, these mechanisms are not applicable due to the strict delay restrictions posed by the application (such traffic is therefore usually transmitted over UDP). These restrictions essentially imply that retransmission of lost packets is in most cases pointless, since retransmitted packets would arrive too late to be successfully decoded and used at the receiving end. Furthermore, the inability to decode an original dataframe once too many of its constituent packets have been dropped, essentially means that the resources used by the network to deliver those packets that did arrive successfully, have been wasted in vain. Since network elements make their decisions on a packet-level basis, and are unaware of such dependencies occurring between packets corresponding to the same frame, such utilization inefficiencies can be quite common, as also demonstrated in experimental studies\u00a0[@boyce98packet].\n\nSome of the most common methods employed to deal with the hazardous effect of packet loss in such scenarios focus on trading bandwidth for packet loss; The sender encodes the data frames while adding significant redundancy to the outgoing packet stream, an approach commonly known as forward error correction (FEC). This allows the user to circumvent the effect of packet loss, at the cost of increasing the rate at which traffic is transmitted. This makes it possible (in some cases) to decode the data frame even if some of its constituent packets are dropped. However, increasing the bandwidth may be prohibitively costly in various scenarios, such as wireless access networks, network transcoders, and CDN headends. In such environments it is not recommended, nor even possible in many cases, to employ such solutions.\n\nIn this work we study mechanisms and algorithms that are to be implemented within the network, targeted at optimizing the usage of network resources (namely, buffer space and link bandwidth), when dealing with such delay-sensitive traffic. Previous models presenting solutions for packet dependencies focused on managing a bounded-buffer FIFO queue, and mainly addressed the questions of handling buffer overflows (see more details in Section\u00a0\\[sec:previous-work\\]). We consider a significantly different model where each arriving packet has a [*deadline*]{} (which may or may not be induced by a deadline imposed on the data frame to which it corresponds). We assume no bound on the available buffer space, but are required to maximize the system\u2019s [*goodput*]{}, namely, the number of frames for which all of their packets are delivered by their deadline.[^1] This model better captures the nature of real-time video streaming, where a data frame must be successfully decoded in [*real-time*]{}, based on some permissible deadline by which packets should arrive, that still renders the stream usable. We consider traffic as being [*burst-bounded*]{}, i.e., there is an upper bound on the number of packets arriving in a time-slot. This assumption does not restrict the applicability of our algorithms, since it is common for traffic (and especially traffic with stringent Quality-of-Service requirements) to be regulated by some token-bucket envelope\u00a0[@kurose11computer].\n\nWe present several algorithms for the problem and use competitive analysis to show how close they are from an optimal solution. This approach makes our results globally applicable, and independent of the specific process generating the traffic. We further provide some lower bounds on the performance of any deterministic algorithm for the problem. Finally, we perform an extensive simulation study which further validates our results.\n\nSystem Model {#sec:model}\n------------\n\nWe consider a time-slotted system where traffic consists of a sequence of unit-size [*packets*]{}, $p_1,p_2,\\ldots$, such that packets are logically partitioned into [*frames*]{}. Each frame $f$ corresponds to $k$ of the packets, $p^f_1,\\ldots,p^f_k \\in {\\left\\{p_1,p_2,\\ldots\\right\\}}$, where we refer to packet $p^f_{\\ell}$ as the [*$\\ell$-packet*]{} of frame $f$. For every packet $p$ we denote its arrival time by $a(p)$, and we assume that the arrival of packets corresponding to frame $f$ satisfies $a(p^f_{\\ell})\\leq a(p^f_{\\ell+1})$ for all $\\ell=1,\\ldots,k-1$. We make no assumption on the relation between arrival times of packets corresponding to different frames. Each packet $p$ is also characterized by a [*deadline*]{}, denoted $e(p)$, by which it should be scheduled for delivery, or else the packet [*expires*]{}. We assume $e(p) \\geq a(p)$ for every packet $p$, and define the [*slack*]{} of packet $p$ to be $r(p)=e(p)-a(p)$. For every time $t$ and packet $p$ for which $t \\in [a(p),e(p)]$, if $p$ has not yet been delivered by $t$, we say $p$ is [*pending at $t$*]{}. we further define its [*residual slack at $t$*]{} to be $r_t(p)=e(p)-t$.[^2]\n\nWe refer to an arrival sequence as being [*$d$-uniform*]{} if for every packet $p$ in the sequence we have $r(p)=d$. We assume that $k \\leq d$, which implies that any arriving frame can potentially be successfully delivered (e.g., if all other frames are ignored). We further let $b$ denote the [*maximum burst size*]{}, i.e., for every time $t$, the number of packets arriving at $t$ is at most $b$.\n\nThe packets arrive at a queue residing at the tail of a link with unit capacity. The queue is assumed to be empty before the first packet arrival. In each time-slot $t$ we have three substeps:\n\n[*the arrival substep*]{}, where the new packets whose arrival time is $t$ arrive and are stored in the queue,\n\n[*the scheduling/delivery substep*]{}, where at most one packet from the queue is scheduled for delivery, and\n\n[*the cleanup substep*]{}, where every packet $p$ currently in the queue which can not be scheduled by its deadline is discarded from the queue, either because $r_t(p)=0$, or because it belongs to a frame which has multiple pending packets at time $t$ and it is not feasible to schedule at least one of them by its deadline. Such packets are also said to expire at time $t$.\n\nFor every frame $f$ and every time $t$, if $f$ is not yet successful, but all of its packets that have arrived by $t$ are either pending or have been delivered, then $f$ is said to be [*alive at $t$*]{}. Otherwise it is said to have [*expired*]{}. A frame is said to be [*successful*]{} if each of its packets is delivered (by its deadline).\n\nThe [*Bounded-Delay Goodput problem*]{} ([[BDG]{}]{}) is defined as the problem of maximizing the number of successful frames. When traffic is $d$-uniform, we refer to the problem as the [*$d$-uniform [[BDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem*]{} ([[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}).\n\nThe main focus of our work is designing online algorithms for solving the [[BDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem. An algorithm is said to be [*online*]{} if at any point in time $t$ the algorithm knows only of arrivals that have occurred up to $t$, and has no information about future arrivals. We employ competitive analysis\u00a0[@SleatorT-85; @Borodin-ElYaniv] to bound the performance of the algorithms. We say an online algorithm [ALG]{}\u00a0is $c$-competitive (for $c \\geq 1$) if for every finite arrival sequence it produces a solution who\u2019s goodput is at least a $1/c$ fraction from the optimal goodput possible. $c$ is then said to be an upper bound on the [*competitive ratio*]{} of [ALG]{}. As is customary in studies of competitive algorithms, we will sometimes assume the algorithms works against an [*adversary*]{}, which generates the input as well as an optimal solution for this input. This view is especially useful when showing lower bounds. For completeness, we also address the [*offline*]{} problem where the entire arrival sequence is given in advance. In such offline settings the goal is to study the [*approximation ratio*]{} guaranteed by an algorithm, where an offline algorithm is an said to be an [$\\alpha$-approximation algorithm]{} if for every finite arrival sequence the goodput of the solution it produces is always at least a fraction $1/\\alpha$ of the optimal goodput possible.\n\nOur Contribution {#sec:our-contribution}\n----------------\n\nIn this paper we provide the initial study of scheduling delay-bounded traffic in the presence of packet dependencies. We initially provide some initial observations on the offline version of the problem, and then turn to conduct a thorough study of the problem with $d$-uniform traffic, i.e., where all packets have uniform delay $d$, burst sizes are bounded by $b$, and each frame consists of $k$ packets.\n\nIn the offline settings, we show that hardness results derived for the bounded-size FIFO queue model are applicable to our problem as well, which implies that it is NP-hard to approximate the problem to within a factor of $o(k/\\ln k)$, and that a $(k+1)$-approximation exists.\n\nIn the Online settings we provide a lower bound of $\\Omega(b^{k-1})$ on the competitive ratio of any deterministic online algorithm for the problem, as well as several other refined lower bounds for specific values of the system\u2019s parameters. We also design online deterministic algorithms with competitive ratio that asymptotically matches our lower bounds. This means that our algorithms are optimal up to a (small) constant factor.\n\nWe complement our analytical study with a simulation study which studied both our proposed algorithms, as well as additional heuristics for the problem, and also explores various algorithmic considerations in implementing our solutions. Our simulation results show that our proposed solutions are close to optimal, and also provide strong evidence that the performance exhibited by our algorithms in simulation closely follow the expected performance implied by our analysis.\n\nDue to space constraints, some of the proofs are omitted, and can be found in\u00a0[@our-tech-report].\n\nPrevious Work {#sec:previous-work}\n-------------\n\nThe effect of packet-level decisions on the the successful delivery of large data-frames has been studied extensively in the past decades. Most of these works considered FIFO queues with bounded buffers and focused on discard decisions made upon overflows\u00a0[@ramanathan95enforcing], as well as more specific aspects relating to video streams\u00a0[@awad02goodput; @gurses05simple]. This research thrust was accompanied by theoretical work trying to understand the performance of buffer management algorithms and scheduling paradigms, where the underlying architecture of the systems employed FIFO queues with bounded buffers. The main focus of these works was the design of competitive algorithms in an attempt to optimize some figure of merit, usually derived from Quality-of-Service objectives (see\u00a0[@goldwasser10survey] for a survey). However, most of the works within this domain assumed the underlying packets are independent of each other, and disregarded any possible structure governing the generation of traffic, and the effect the algorithms\u2019 decisions may have on such frame-induced traffic.\n\nRecently, a new model dealing with packet dependencies was suggested in\u00a0[@kesselman13competitive]. They assumed arriving packets are partitioned into frames, and considered the problem of maximizing the system\u2019s goodput. The main focus of this work was buffer management of a single FIFO queue equipped with a buffer of size $d$, and the algorithmic questions was how to handle buffer overflows, and they presented both competitive algorithms as well as lower bounds for this problem. In what follows we refer to this problem as the [*$d$-bounded FIFO problem*]{} ([[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}). Following this work, a series of works studied algorithms for various variants of the problem\u00a0[@emek12online; @mansour11competitive; @mansour12overflow; @scalosub13buffer]. Our model differs significantly from this body of work since in our model we assume no bounds on the available buffer size (as is more common in queueing theory models), nor do we assume the scheduler conforms with a FIFO discipline. More generally, we focus our attention on the task of deciding which packet to schedule, where each arriving packet has a deadline by which it should be delivered, as opposed to the question of how one should deal with overflows upon packet arrival when buffering resources are scarce.\n\nAnother vast body of related work focuses on issues of scheduling, and scheduling in packet networks in particular, in scenarios where packets have deadlines. Earliest-Deadline-First schedulilng was studied in various contexts, including OS process scheduling\u00a0[@silberschatz12operating], and more generally in the OR community\u00a0[@pinedo12scheduling]. Our framework is most closely related to\u00a0[@kesselman04buffer] which considers a packet stream where each packet has a deadline as well as a weight, and the goal is to maximizing the weight of packets delivered by their deadline. They also consider relations between this model and the bounded-buffer FIFO queue model, and present competitive algorithms in both settings. These results are related to our discussion of the offline settings in Section\u00a0\\[sec:offline\\]. Additional works provided improved competitive online algorithms for this problem (e.g.\u00a0[@englert12considering; @jez12online]). However, none of these works considered the settings of packet-dependencies, which is the main focus of our work.\n\nThe Offline Settings {#sec:offline}\n====================\n\nIn order to study the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem in the offline settings, it is instructive to consider the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}\u00a0problem studied in\u00a0[@kesselman13competitive]. We recall that in this problem traffic arrives at a FIFO queue with buffer capacity $d$, and the goal is to maximize the number of frames for which all of their packets are successfully delivered (and not dropped due to buffer overflows).\n\nIn what follows we first prove that these two problems are equivalent in the offline settings (proof omitted).\n\n\\[lem:fifo-delay-equivalence\\] For any arrival sequence $\\sigma$, a set of frames $F$ constitutes a feasible solution to the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem if and only if it is a solution to the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}\u00a0problem.\n\nAssume a [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}\u00a0algorithm $A$, and a [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0algorithm $B$, and note the set of packets in the queue of $A$ at time $t$ as - $P_{F}^{A}(t)$, and the set of packets in the buffer of $B$ at time $t$ as - $P_{U}^{B}(t)$. At the time of arrival, every packet that a $A$ can choose to enqueue can be held in the buffer of $B$ (since there are no capacity constraints). Every packet that $A$ enqueues can not stay in the queue more than $d$ time slots, since after $d$ time slots the packet must have been either sent or discarded (pre-empted) - the packet can not be in the queue longer than the slack time $d$. Therefore any algorithm $B$ which never schedules a packet before it is scheduled by $A$ can maintain that $P_{F}^{A}(t)\\in P_{U}^{B}(t)$.\n\nAs at any time $t$ an $B$ can hold all the packets which $A$ can hold, any schedule which is feasible for $A$ algorithm, is also feasible for $B$ (including the optimal schedule).\n\nFor the reverse direction, assume that $B$ creates the schedule $S_{B}$. At any time $t$, of all the packets in the buffer at that time, no more than $d$ packets can be part of the schedule $S_{B}$ - if there were more than $d$ packets than not all of them could have been sent, rendering the schedule infeasible.\n\nTherefore at any time $t$, all the buffered packets of the schedule $S_{B}$ can fit a FIFO queue of size $d$. Since a packet can not stay in a FIFO queue and in the unbounded buffer more than $d$ time slots, there must exist an offline FIFO schedule $S_{A}$, for which all the packets in $S_{B}$ are in $S_{A}$.\n\nNote that in particular, implies that a set of frames $F$ is optimal for [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0if and only if it is optimal for [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}. By using the results of\u00a0[@kesselman13competitive] for the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}\u00a0problem we obtain the following corollaries:\n\n\\[cor:offline:hardness\\] It is NP-hard to approximate the [[BDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem to within a factor of $o(\\frac{k}{\\ln k})$ for $k \\geq 3$, even for 0-uniform instances.\n\nSince any $o(\\frac{k}{\\ln k})$ approximation would imply an approximation of the same factor for the 1-[[bFIFO]{}]{}\u00a0problem, the result follows from\u00a0[@kesselman13competitive Corollary 2].\n\n\\[cor:offline:alg\\] There is a deterministic $(k+1)$-approximation algorithm for the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem.\n\nOne can apply the algorithm G-OFF specified in\u00a0[@kesselman13competitive]. The result follows from\u00a0[@kesselman13competitive Theorem 3].\n\nThe Online Settings {#sec:online}\n===================\n\nThe offline settings studied in , and the relation between the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem and the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}\u00a0problem, give rise to the question of whether one should expect a similar relation to be manifested in the online settings. In this section we answer this question in the negative.\n\nA first fundamental difference is due to the fact that in the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem the scheduler is not forced to follow a FIFO discipline. This means that the inherent delay of packets stored in the back of the queue which occurs in a FIFO buffer (unless packets are discarded upfront) can be circumvented by the scheduler in the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem, allowing it to take priorities into account. Another significant difference between the two problems is that while in the [[$d$-bFIFO]{}]{}\u00a0problem discard decisions in case of buffer overflow must be made [*immediately*]{} upon overflow, in the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem such decisions can be somewhat delayed. Intuitively, the online algorithm in the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem has more time to study the arrivals in the near future, before making a scheduling decision, and thus enable it to make somewhat better decisions, albeit myopic. We note that this view is also used in\u00a0[@jez12online; @englert12considering] in the concepts of provisional schedules and suppressed packets (we give more details of these features in ).\n\nLower Bounds {#sec:online:lower-bounds}\n------------\n\nIn this section we provide several lower bounds for various ranges of our systems parameters. The main theorem is the following:\n\n\\[thm:low-bound\\] Any algorithm for the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem with burst size $b \\geq 2d$ has competitive ratio $\\Omega(b^{k-1})$.\n\nAssume an arrival sequence with $b>1$, for traffic with slack $d$ comprised of three stages:\n\nStage 1 - at times $0, 1, 2, ..., (n-1)$, $b$ \u20191\u2019 packets arrive. During this stage, out of $nb$ \u20191\u2019 packets any online algorithm can only schedule up to $n+d$ \u20191\u2019 packets, and the adversary can schedule at least $n$ (and at most $n+d$) other packets - there are at most $d$ time slots for which the online algorithm can schedule all arriving packets. We choose $n$ so that $n+d$ is a multiple of $b$ in order to simplify the analysis.\n\nStage 2 - at times $n, n+1, ..., n+(n+d)/b-1$, $b$ \u20192\u2019 packets of frames whose \u20191\u2019 packets were scheduled by the online algorithm arrive. If we had not chosen $n+d$ to be a multiple of $b$, then there would also have been one more burst of size $n+d-{\\lfloor (n+d)/b \\rfloor}$.\n\nStage 3 - Stage 3 - at times $n+(n+d)/b, n+(n+d)/b+1, ..., n+(n+d)/b+n(d-1)-d-1$, one \u20192\u2019 packet of frames whose \u20191\u2019 packet were not scheduled by the online algorithm arrive (including the adversary\u2019s packets).\n\nThis sequence is illustrated in .\n\nFor $k>2$ stages 2 and 3 can be repeated with a slight modification to stage 2 - packets of frames which were scheduled by the online algorithm at the previous round arrive first (the burst contains frames whose packets were scheduled by the online algorithm in at least one stage).\n\nBy the end of stage 1, both the online and optimal algorithms would have sent $n+d$ \u20191\u2019 packets. Stage 2 is designed to hit the goodput of the online algorithm as much as possible - only the online algorithm schedules packets. Stage 3 is intended to maximize the goodput of the optimal algorithm.\n\nThe goodput of the optimal schedule for this input is at least $n$ (and at most $n+d$). For k=2, the best possible goodput for an online unbounded buffer algorithm can not be better than $d+\\frac{n+d}{b}$ - the algorithm can schedule up to $d$ packets of the last burst of stage 2, and for all earlier bursts of stage 2 no more than one packet each. Since the at the end of the previous stage the number of frames whose \u20191\u2019 packets were scheduled by the algorithm is $n+d$, there are $\\frac{n+d}{b}$ bursts in total.\n\nIf stages 2 and 3 are repeated, than the goodput of the optimal schedule for this input remains at least $n$.\n\nIn general, after stages 2 and 3 are performed $j$ times, the goodput ($GP$) of any online algorithm can not exceed $GP_j=d+\\frac{GP_{j-1}}{b}$.\n\nBy induction: for $j=1$ we have from the definition of stage 1 that $GP_{j-1}=n+d$ and that $GP_j=d+\\frac{GP_{j-1}}{b}$. For the induction stage consider $j+1$: during stage 2 there are $\\frac{GP_j}{b}$ consecutive bursts (since packets scheduled during the previous round arrive first), and therefore the online algorithm can not schedule more than $\\frac{GP_j}{b}+d$ packet, hence $GP_{j+1}=d+\\frac{GP_j}{b}$.\n\nThe best possible goodput of an online algorithm with $k$ packets in a frame is then: $$\\frac{n+d}{b^{k-1}}+\\stackrel[i=2]{k}{\\sum}\\frac{d}{b^{i-2}}$$\n\nTherefore, since we control $n$ and can make it as large as we desire ($nb$ is analogous to the number of streams), the lower bound for the competitive ratio of an online algorithm with a maximum burst size of $b$ is:\n\n$$\\frac{|ALG|}{|OPT|}\\leq\\frac{n+d}{n\\cdot b^{k-1}}+\\stackrel[i=2]{k}{\\sum}\\frac{d}{n\\cdot b^{i-2}}\\xrightarrow[n\\rightarrow\\infty]{}\\frac{1}{b^{k-1}}$$\n\n![Input for lower bound - The input is comprised of three stages. During the first stage the algorithm schedules $n+d$ \u20191\u2019 packets and the adversary schedules $n+d$ different \u20191\u2019 packets. During the second stage the algorithm\u2019s \u20192\u2019 packets designated $X_{j}^{2}$ arrive as densely as possible. During stage 3 the adversary\u2019s \u20192\u2019 packets designated $Y_{j}^{2}$ arrive in a pattern that allows the adversary not to drop a single packet[]{data-label=\"lower-bound-input\"}](input5.pdf){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nOur lower bound can be adapted to token-bucket regulated traffic, with maximum burst size $b$ and average rate $r$. Such restrictions on the traffic are quite common in SLAs. Of special interest is the case where the average rate is $r=1$, which essentially means the link is not oversubscribed. Even for such highly regulated traffic, we have the following lower bound:\n\nFor token-bucket regulated traffic with parameters $(b,r=1)$, any algorithm for the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem where $b \\geq 2d$ has competitive ratio $\\Omega(\\left(\\frac{b}{d}\\right)^{k-1})$.\n\nThis proof is very similar to the proof of , and therefore we only give the differences.\n\nThe arrival sequence is modified so in stage 1 the interval between consecutive bursts is of length $2d$ (in order to build up for the next burst), and in stage 2 the interval between consecutive bursts is of length $b$. Stage 3 remains unchanged.\n\nThe goodput after repeating stages 2 and 3 $j$ times can not exceed $GP_j=d+\\frac{d\\cdot GP_{j-1}}{b}$, since out of every burst in stage 2 the online algorithm can schedule up to $d$ packets.\n\nThe best possible goodput for an online algorithm with $k$ packets in a frame is then: $$\\frac{nd^k}{b^{k-1}}+\\stackrel[i=2]{k}{\\sum}\\frac{d^{i-1}}{b^{i-2}}$$\n\nTherefore, the lower bound for the competitive ratio of an online algorithm with a maximum burst size of $b$ is:\n\n$$\\frac{|ALG|}{|OPT|}\\leq\\frac{nd^k}{nd\\cdot b^{k-1}}+\\stackrel[i=2]{k}{\\sum}\\frac{d^{i-1}}{nd\\cdot b^{i-2}}\\xrightarrow[n\\rightarrow\\infty]{}(\\frac{d}{b})^{k-1}$$\n\nThe Proactive Greedy Algorithm {#sec:proactive-greedy}\n------------------------------\n\nIn this section we present a simple greedy algorithm, [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}\u00a0([[PG]{}]{}), that essentially ignores the deadlines in making scheduling decisions, and proactively drops packets from the queue. Although one wouldn\u2019t expect such an algorithm to perform well in practice, its simplicity allows for a simple analysis which serves as the basis for the design and analysis of the refined greedy algorithm for the [[$d$-uBDG]{}]{}\u00a0problem presented in subsequent sections.\n\nFor every time $t$ and frame $f$ that has pending packets at $t$, let $I_t(f)$ denote the index of the first pending packet of $f$. Recall that by our assumption on the order of packets within a frame, this is the minimal index of a pending packet corresponding to $f$. We consider at every time $t$ all pending frames as ordered in decreasing order $(I_t(f)$. For every packet $f$ we let $w(f)$ denote the number of packets corresponding to $f$ that were delivered by [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}, i.e. $w(f)={\\left\\vert{\\left\\{p \\in f \\mid p \\text{ is delivered by {{\\sc PG}}}\\right\\}}\\right\\vert}$. In what follows we slightly abuse notation and refer to a frame as alive as long as none of its packets has expired nor was dropped. Algorithm [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}\u00a0is described in .\n\ndrop all pending packets of frames that are not alive \\[alg:pg:drop-dead-frames\\] $Q_t \\gets$ all alive frames with pending packets at $t$ $f \\gets \\arg\\max_{f' \\in Q_t} I_t(f')$ \\[alg:pg:identify-max-frame\\] drop all pending packets of frames in $Q_t \\setminus {\\left\\{f\\right\\}}$ \\[alg:pg:drop\\] deliver the first pending packet of $f$ \\[alg:pg:schedule\\]\n\nThe following lemma shows no packet ever expires in [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}.\n\n\\[lem:no-expiry\\] No packet ever expires in [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}.\n\nConsider some packet $p \\in f$ for some frame $f$, and assume $p$ is not delivered. It follows that there exists some minimal time slot $t$ where $f$ ceases to be alive. Consider time $a(p)$. If $t<a(p)$, then $p$ is dropped upon arrival in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:drop-dead-frames\\]. If $f$ is alive at $a(p)$ then $Q_{a(p)} \\neq \\emptyset$. Let $f'$ be the frame identified in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:identify-max-frame\\]. if $f \\neq f'$, then $p$ is dropped in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:drop\\], at time $a(p)$ and therefore does not expire. Otherwise, we have $f=f'$. Note that at the end of every scheduling substep the queue can only hold packets corresponding to the single frame identified in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:identify-max-frame\\] (if it is not empty). It follows that $p$ is in the queue until time $t$, and since $d \\geq k$, if it weren\u2019t dropped it could have been delivered successfully after all the preceding packets of $f$ residing in the queue with it at time $a(p)$, and wouldn\u2019t expire. Since $p$ is not delivered, it follows that $p$ must be dropped at some time $t \\leq a(p)+d$ due to some other frame $f'$ identified in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:drop\\].\n\nThe following corollary follows directly from .\n\n\\[cor:delivered-or-dropped\\] Every frame in the arrival sequence is either successfully delivered by [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}, or has one of its packets proactively dropped.\n\nLet $F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ be the set of frames successfully delivered by [[PG]{}]{}, and let $O$ denote the set of frames successfully delivered by some optimal solution.\n\n\\[lem:mapping-target-exists\\] If $f \\notin F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$, then there exists a time $t=t_f$ such that $f$ is alive at $t$, packet $p_{I_t(f)} \\in f$ is dropped in time $t$, and a packet $p' \\in f'$ is delivered at time $t$, for some frame $f'$.\n\nThe proof follows directly from , and the details in its proof applied to packet $p_{I_t(f)}$ at the maximum time $t$ for which $f$ is alive at the beginning of time slot $t$.\n\nWe describe a mapping $\\phi$ of frames in the arrival sequence to frames in $F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$:\n\n1.  if $f \\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ then $f$ is mapped to itself.\n\n2.  if $f \\notin F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$, then let $p_f$ be the first packet of $f$ dropped by [[PG]{}]{}\u00a0in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:drop\\], and denote by $t_f$ the time slot where $p_f$ is dropped. Let $p'=p \\in f'$ be the packet scheduled in time slot $t_f$ in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:schedule\\]. We map $f$ to $f'$ [*directly*]{}, and re-map any frames that were previously mapped to $f$ onto $f'$ [*indirectly*]{}. We say that these frames are re-mapped to $f'$ [*via packet $p'$*]{}. We also refer to $t_f$ as the [*drop time of $f$*]{} and to the set of frames mapped to $f$ via $p$ (either directly or indirectly) as $M(p)$.\n\nThe following lemma shows that frames are remapped onto frames that are (strictly) closer to completion.\n\n\\[lem:mapping-weight-monotonicity\\] If $f \\notin F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ is mapped to $f'$ then $w(f') > w(f)$.\n\nLet $t$ be the drop time of $f$ and let $f'$ be the frame to which $f$ is directly mapped. By the choice of $f'$ in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:identify-max-frame\\] it follows that $I_t(f') \\geq I_t(f)$. It follows that $w(f)=I_t(f)-1$, and since a packet of $f'$ is delivered in time $t$ we have $w(f') \\geq I_t(f')$. Combining these inequalities we obtain $$w(f') \\geq I_t(f') \\geq I_t(f) > I_t(f)-1 = w(f),$$ as required.\n\nThe following corollary bounds the length of a re-mapping sequence.\n\n\\[cor:remapping-length\\] A frame can be (re-)mapped at most $k$ times, and all frames are eventually mapped to frames in $F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$.\n\nBy definition every $f \\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ is mapped to itself. For every frame $f \\notin F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$, consider the number of times $\\ell_f$ for which $f$ is mapped directly or indirectly to some other frame. Denote by $f_{\\ell}$ the $\\ell$-th packet to which $f$ is mapped. We prove by induction on $\\ell$ that in the $\\ell$-th such (re-)mapping, where $f$ is mapped to $f_\\ell$, we have $w(f) < w(f)+\\ell \\leq w(f_{\\ell})$. This will imply that after at most $k$ remappings $f$ is mapped to a frame $f'$ for which $w(f')=k$, i.e., $f' \\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$. For the base case where $\\ell=1$, this means $f$ is directly mapped to $f_1$. By we have $w(f) < w(f_1)$, and therefore $w(f) + 1 \\leq w(f_1)$. For the induction step, consider the $\\ell$-th remapping for $\\ell>1$. By the definition of the mapping, $f$ was mapped (directly or indirectly) to $f_{\\ell-1}$ in the $(\\ell-1)$-th remapping, and we are guaranteed to have $w(f)+(\\ell-1) \\leq w(f_{\\ell-1})$. By we have $w(f_{\\ell-1}) < w(f_{\\ell})$, and therefore $w(f_{\\ell-1}) + 1 \\leq w(f_{\\ell})$. By combining the inequalities we obtain $$w(f)+\\ell = w(f) + (\\ell-1) + 1 \\leq w(f_{\\ell-1}) + 1 \\leq w(f_{\\ell}),$$ thus completing the proof.\n\nThe following corollary is an immediate consequence of and .\n\n\\[cor:mapping-well-defined\\] The mapping $\\phi$ is well defined.\n\n\\[lem:direct-mapping-load\\] For every frame $f$, the number of frames directly mapped to $f$ via packet $p \\in f$ is at most $b$.\n\nAs there can be at most $b$ packets arriving at $t$, and all carrying over from $t-1$ correspond to a single frame, the number of frames mapped via $p(t)\\in f$ is at most $b$.\n\nBy it follows that the overall number of frames directly mapped to any single frame $f$ is at most $kb$. Combining this with implies a $(k\\cdot b)$-ary depth-$k$ tree structure for the mapping (direct or indirect) onto any single frame $f \\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$, which shows that [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}\u00a0delivers at least a fraction of $\\frac{1}{(k\\cdot b)^k}$ of the total arriving traffic. This clearly serves as a bound on the competitive ratio. However, a significantly better bound can be obtained by a closer examination of direct mappings.\n\n\\[lem:mapping-load\\] For every frame $f$, the overall number of frames mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via packets $p_{\\ell} \\in f$ is at most .\n\nFirst we observe that if a a frame $f'$ is directly mapped to a frame $f$ at time $t$, then $I_t(f') \\leq I_t(f)$. In particular, if the minimal-indexed packet of $f'$ dropped at time $t$ is the $j$-th packet of $f'$, then $j \\leq I_t(f)$. Also notice that $(1+b)^{\\ell-1}=\\sum_{i=0}^{\\ell-1}\\binom{\\ell-1}{i}b^i$. We now turn to prove the claim by induction on $\\ell$. For the base case of $\\ell=1$, assume $f'$ is mapped to $f$ via $p_{\\ell}$ at time $t$. If $f'$ is mapped to $f$ directly, by the above observation we have that the minimal-indexed packet of $f'$ dropped at $t$ is at most $\\ell=1$, and therefore it must be the first packet of $f'$. Since all these packets must have arrived at time $t$, it follows that none of these frames have any frames mapped to them. By it follows that the overall number of frames directly mapped to $f$ via $p$ is at most $b$. Note that this implies that for the base case there can be no frames indirectly mapped to $f$. It follows that the overall number of frames mapped to $f$ via $p_{1}$ is at most $|M(p_1)|=b=b\\cdot (1+b)^0$, thus completing the base case. For the induction step consider $p_{\\ell+1} \\in f$ for $\\ell+1$, and let $f''$ be a frame mapped to $f$ via $p_{\\ell+1}$. Assume $f''$ is mapped to $f$ directly. By the above observation we have that the minimal-indexed packet of $f''$ dropped at $t$ is at most $\\ell+1$. Again, the overall number of frames directly mapped to $f$ via $p_{\\ell+1}$ is at most $b$. It follows that the maximum index of a packet $p'' \\in f''$ for which there were frames mapped to $f''$ via $p''$ is at most $\\ell$. Hence for $\\ell+1$, the overall number of frames mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via $p_{\\ell+1}^{f}$ is at most:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n|M(&p_{\\ell +1})| = b\\left(1+\\sum_{i=1}^{\\ell}|M(p''_{i})|\\right)  \\label{eq:binom:definition}\\\\\n&\\leq b\\left(\\binom{\\ell}{0}\\cdot b^0+\\sum_{i=1}^{\\ell}\\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}b\\cdot \\binom{i-1}{j} \\cdot b^{j}\\right) \\label{eq:binom:induction}\\\\\n&= b\\left(\\binom{\\ell}{0}\\cdot b^0+b\\sum_{i=1}^{\\ell}b^{i-1}\\sum_{j=0}^{\\ell-i}\\binom{i-1+j}{i-1}\\right) \\label{eq:binom:substitution} \\\\\n&=b\\left(\\binom{\\ell}{0}\\cdot b^0+b\\sum_{i=1}^{\\ell}\\binom{\\ell}{i}b^{i-1}\\right) \\label{eq:binom:diagonal} \\\\\n&= b\\sum_{i=0}^{\\ell}\\binom{\\ell}{i}b^{i}. \\notag\\end{aligned}$$\n\nEquality\u00a0 follows from the direct mappings via $p_{\\ell+1}$ and inequality\u00a0 follows from the induction hypothesis. Equality\u00a0 follows from reversing the order of summation on $j$, and noticing that only the topmost $\\ell-(i-1)$ sums over $j$ contribute to the coefficient of $b^{i-1}$. Finally, equality\u00a0 is a simple diagonal binomial identity.\n\nSince $f''$ itself is mapped to $f$ in addition to all the frames which were mapped to $f''$.\n\nRecall $O$ denotes the set of frames in an optimal solution. The following corollary provides a bound on the number of frames in $O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ that are mapped by our mapping procedure.\n\n\\[cor:mapping-load-of-opt\\] For every frame $f$, the overall number of frames in $O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via packets $p_{\\ell} \\in f$ is at most .\n\nAssume a frame $f$ which has a packet $p\\in f$ delivered by [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}\u00a0at time $t$. The number of frames in $O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ which can be directly mapped to $f$ via $p\\in f$ is at most $\\min{\\left\\{d,b\\right\\}}$, since the optimal solution cannot deliver more than $d$ of the pending packets at any time $t$. If $d\\geq b$, then since the maximal number of packets which can arrive at time $t$ is $b$, the result of applies in this case too, and $b=\\min{\\left\\{d,b\\right\\}}$.\n\nIf $d<b$, if frames $f'\\in O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ were to be mapped to another frame $f''\\in O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ via $p_{\\ell}^{''}$ then at most $d-1$ frames with weight $w(f'_{\\ell-1})$ or $d$ frames with weight $w(f'_{\\ell-2})$ can be directly mapped via $p_{\\ell}^{''}$. Therefore, the highest number of frames $f'\\in O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to a single frame $f\\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ is achieved when frames $f'\\in O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ can not be mapped to frames $f''\\in O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ (otherwise the resulting tree like structure contains less mapped frames) - the maximal number of frames $f'\\in O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to a single frame $f\\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ is achieved when [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}\u00a0never schedules a packet of a frame $f'\\in O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$. Hence by counting the maximal number of frames mapped to $f\\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ via packets with weight $w\\geq 1$ according to ($b\\left(1+b\\right)^{\\ell-2}$ mapped frames), and mapping at most $d$ frames $f'\\in O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ via every scheduled packet with $\\ell =1$ (for every frame mapped to $f$ including itself), the result for the maximal number of frames $f'\\in O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to a single frame $f\\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ is $\\left(b\\left(1+b\\right)^{\\ell-2}+1\\right)d\\leq d\\left(1+b\\right)^{\\ell-1}$.\n\n\\[thm:pg-competitive-ratio\\] Algorithm [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}\u00a0is $O(\\min{\\left\\{d,b\\right\\}} b^{k-1})$-competitive.\n\nBy the overall number of frames in $O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to any $f \\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{\\ell=1}^{k} {\\left\\vertM(p^f_{\\ell})\\right\\vert}\n&\\leq \\min{\\left\\{d,b\\right\\}} \\sum_{\\ell=1}^{k} (1+b)^{\\ell-1} \\notag \\\\\n&= \\min{\\left\\{d,b\\right\\}} b^{k-1} (1 + O(\\frac{k}{b})) \\notag \\\\\n&= O(\\min{\\left\\{d,b\\right\\}} b^{k-1}), \\notag\\end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof.\n\nFrom this analysis of the [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}\u00a0algorithm we learn that choosing a preference based on how close is a frame to completion guarantees not only that a frame will be completed (), but also that the algorithm will be competitive. Also, even though this algorithm is very simple (conceptually), the competitiveness is close to the lower bound we proved for the general case (within a factor of $d$ from the lower bound). This competitive ratio does not depend if the traffic is burst bound ($r=b$ the general case) or token bucket shaped ($r<b$), since an arrival sequence achieving this bound can be created regardless of the value of $r$ (due to step 2 of the algorithm).\n\nThe Greedy Algorithm {#sec:greedy}\n--------------------\n\nWith the proactive greedy algorithm, we saw that choosing a preference based on how close is a frame to completion results in an upper bound which is close to the lower bound for the general case ($r=b$). However, the [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}\u00a0algorithm is not a natural algorithm to suggest since frames are being dropped unnecessarily, resulting both in inefficiency and in implementation complexity.\n\nWe suggest a more intuitive algorithm, the [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0algorithm - . The only difference between the two algorithms is that the [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0algorithm does not drop frames unnecessarily - a frame expires only if it is not feasible to schedule one of it\u2019s packets by the packet\u2019s deadline.\n\ndrop all pending packets of frames that are not alive \\[alg:gd:drop-dead-frames\\] $Q_t \\gets$ all alive frames with pending packets at $t$ $f \\gets \\arg\\max{\\left\\{ I_t(f') \\mid f' \\in Q_t\\right\\}}$ \\[alg:gd:identify-max-frame\\] deliver the first pending packet of $f$ \\[alg:gd:schedule\\]\n\nWe say a packet $p_{\\ell}^f$ is eligible if at a time $t$ it is in the buffer of [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0and it\u2019s index is $\\ell =I_{t}(f)$ - it is the first pending packet of the live frame $f$ at time $t$. The following lemma relates the number of packets of index at least $\\ell$ that were dropped by [[Greedy]{}]{}, to the number of packets of index at least $\\ell$ that were delivered by $t$.\n\n\\[lem:gd-direct-mapping-load\\] For any time $t$ during which a previously eligible packet $p_\\ell \\in f$ is dropped, assume $n_t^{\\ell}$ is the total number of packets with index at least $\\ell$ which were eligible and dropped by time $t$. It follows that at least $\\lceil n_t^{\\ell}/b\\rceil$ packets with index of at least $\\ell$ were delivered by [[Greedy]{}]{}by time $t$.\n\nAt most $b+1$ packets can become eligible at the start of any time $t$ - a burst of at most $b$ packets, and one packet $p'''_{i}\\in f'''$ which was in buffer at time $t-1$ if packet $p'''_{i-1}\\in f'''$ was scheduled at time t-1. When a packet $p_{\\ell}\\in f$ is eligible, only a packet which belongs to a frame of at least the same weight can be scheduled. We note two possible cases:\n\n1.  For the case that $b+1$ packets belonging to frames with weight $w(f')\\geq w(f)$ become eligible at time $t$ (including $p_{\\ell}$), then one of them will be scheduled since all eligible packets carrying over from time $t-1$ $p''\\in f''$ belong to frames with $w(f'')< w(f''')$ - at least one packet out of $b+1$ will be scheduled at time $t$.\n\n2.  For the case that up to $b$ packets belonging to frames with weight $w(f')\\geq w(f)$ become eligible at time $t$ (including $p_{\\ell}$), then one packet $p_{i\\geq \\ell}$ will be scheduled. The packet scheduled at time $t$ can be one of the up to $b$ packets that became eligible, or it can be a packet that arrived at an earlier time (and is still eligible) - at least one packet out of $b+1$ (in case the scheduled packet was already eligible at $t-1$) packets will be scheduled at time $t$.\n\nNote that if at time $t-1$ there were eligible packets with $w(f')\\geq w(f)$, all of them were already accounted for at time of first eligibility - either during a previous case 2, or during a previous case 1.\n\nThe combination of the two cases guarantees that at any time $t$, if the number of packets with index of at least $\\ell$ which were eligible and subsequently dropped by [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0by time $t$ is $n$, than at least $\\lceil\\frac{n}{b} \\rceil$ packets with an index of at least $\\ell$ were scheduled by time $t$.\n\nIn order to find the upper bound of the competitive ratio, we use the same approach used to analyze [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}. Let $F_{\\operatorname{G}}$ be the set of frames successfully delivered by [[Greedy]{}]{} and let $O$ denote the set of frames successfully delivered by some optimal solution. We define mapping $\\psi$ of frames in the arrival sequence to packets in $F_{\\operatorname{G}}$.\n\n1.  if $f \\in F_{\\operatorname{G}}$ then $f$ is mapped to itself.\n\n2.  if $f\\in O\\setminus F_{\\operatorname{G}}$, then let $p_{\\ell}^f$ be the first packet of $f$ dropped by [[G]{}]{}\u00a0in line\u00a0\\[alg:gd:drop-dead-frames\\], and denote by $t_f$ the time slot where $p_{\\ell}^f$ was dropped. Let $p'_{i\\geq\\ell}=p(t\\leq t_f) \\in f'$ be a packet scheduled in time slot $t\\leq t_f$ in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:schedule\\]. We map $f$ to $f'$ [*directly*]{}, and re-map any frames that were previously mapped to $f$ onto $f'$ [*indirectly*]{}, if it is the earliest scheduled packet with the lowest index $i\\geq\\ell$ which has less than $2$ packets already [*directly*]{} mapped to it. We say that these frames are re-mapped to $f'$ [*via packet $p'=p(t\\leq t_f)$*]{}. We also refer to the group of all frames mapped to $f$ via $p$ as $M(p)$.\n\n3.  if $f \\notin F_{\\operatorname{G}}\\cup O$, then let $p_{\\ell}^f$ be the first packet of $f$ dropped by [[G]{}]{}\u00a0in line\u00a0\\[alg:gd:drop-dead-frames\\], and denote by $t_f$ the time slot where $p_{\\ell}^f$ was dropped. Let $p'_{i\\geq\\ell}=p(t\\leq t_f) \\in f'$ be a packet scheduled in time slot $t\\leq t_f$ in line\u00a0\\[alg:pg:schedule\\]. We map $f$ to $f'$ [*directly*]{}, and re-map any frames that were previously mapped to $f$ onto $f'$ [*indirectly*]{}, if it is the earliest scheduled packet with the lowest index $i\\geq\\ell$ which has less than $b$ packets already [*directly*]{} mapped to it. We say that these frames are re-mapped to $f'$ [*via packet $p'=p(t\\leq t_f)$*]{}. We also refer to the group of all frames mapped to $f$ via $p$ as $M(p)$.\n\nThe following lemma shows that the mapping is well defined, and that at most 2 packets of $O$ are directly mapped to any single frame $f$.\n\n\\[lem:direct-mapping-adversary-greedy\\] At any time $t$ when there is no eligible packet with index $j\\geq\\ell$, at least 1 packet with index $i\\geq\\ell$ have been scheduled by [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0for every 2 packets with indices $j\\geq\\ell$ which were eligible and subsequently dropped by [[Greedy]{}]{}.\n\nNote that during every time slot that packet $p_{\\ell}\\in f \\in O$ is eligible for [[Greedy]{}]{}, if it is not scheduled it means there exist some packet $p'_{i\\geq\\ell}\\in f'$ which is scheduled instead. Also note that the schedule of the adversary must be feasible.\n\nConsider the first time a packet with index $\\ell$ becomes eligible $t_e$: either all the packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ which became eligible at $t_e$ (at least one of them with index $i=\\ell$) arrived at $t_e$, or one of the packets with an index $i=\\ell$ which became eligible was already in the buffer and became eligible because the $\\ell -1$ packet of the same stream was scheduled at time slot $t_e-1$.\n\nWe define $t_b$ as the first time after $t_e$ where there are no eligible packets with an index $i\\geq \\ell$ in the buffer, by definition $t_b>t_e$. We say call the interval $[t_e,t_b]$ an $\\ell$-ary busy period.\n\nDuring an $\\ell$-ary busy period, at most $t_b-t_e+1$ of the adversary\u2019s packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ can become eligible for [[Greedy]{}]{}:\n\n-   at time $t_e$ up to $d+1$ of the adversary\u2019s packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ can become eligible for [[Greedy]{}]{}due to feasibility of $O$, as at most $d$ such eligible packets can arrive at time $t_e$ and one packet was already in the buffer can become eligible.\n\n-   during the interval $[t_e,t_b]$ at most $t_b-t_e$ of the adversary\u2019s packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ could arrive and become eligible for [[Greedy]{}]{}, due to the combination of the feasibility of $O$ and of the fact that at time $t_b$ there are no eligible packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ in the buffer.\n\nDuring the $\\ell$-ary busy period $[t_e,t_b]$, $t_b-t_e$ packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ are scheduled by [[Greedy]{}]{}.\n\nTherefore during the $\\ell$-ary busy period $[t_e,t_b]$, [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0schedules $t_b-t_e$ packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$, and drops at most $t_b-t_e+1$ of the adversary\u2019s packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ which became eligible during the interval.\n\nWe extend the definition of $t_e$ to be the first time slot a packet with index $\\ell$ becomes eligible after some time $t<t_e$ during which there were no eligible packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ in the buffer (this definition applies also for $t_e=0$ as at previous times the buffer was empty). Then an $\\ell$-ary busy period can be followed by another $\\ell$-ary busy period after a it ends (there can be no overlap between the busy periods). Busy periods of different indices can and do overlap one another.\n\nAs all packets of index $\\ell$ become eligible during an $\\ell$-ary busy period the result follows, since during a single busy period $t_b-t_e$ packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ are scheduled by [[Greedy]{}]{}, and at most $t_b-t_e+1$ of eligible adversary\u2019s packets with index $i\\geq \\ell$ are dropped by [[Greedy]{}]{}.\n\nand ensure that mapping $\\psi$ is well defined. The definition of $\\psi$ together with yields:\n\n\\[cor:remapping-length-greedy\\] A frame can be (re-)mapped at most $k$ times, and all frames are eventually mapped to frames in $F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$.\n\nBy the definition of $\\psi$, no more than $b$ frames can be directly mapped to a frame $f'$ via packet $p'\\in f'$. Furthermore, if $f\\notin F_{\\operatorname{G}}$ is mapped to $f'$ then $w(f')>w(f)$. It follows that the proof of also holds for [[Greedy]{}]{}(since all requirements are met):\n\n\\[cor:gd-mapping-load\\] For every frame $f$, the overall number of frames mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via packets $p_{\\ell} \\in f$ is at most .\n\nTherefore by applying and the fact that according to $\\psi$ the number of frames in $O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ directly mapped to any $f$ via $p\\in f$ is at most $2$, using similar arguments as the ones used in and we obtain the following theorem.\n\n\\[thm:gd-competitive-ratio\\] Algorithm [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0is $O(b^{k-1})$-competitive.\n\nApplying the arguments from on the results of , yields that the overall number of frames in $O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to $f$ at time $t$ via packets $p_{\\ell} \\in f$ is at most (since $\\min{\\left\\{2,b\\right\\}}\\leq 2$). Then as in the overall number of frames in $O \\setminus F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ mapped to any $f \\in F_{\\operatorname{PG}}$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{\\ell=1}^{k} {\\left\\vertM(p^f_{\\ell})\\right\\vert}\n&\\leq 2 \\sum_{\\ell=1}^{k} (1+b)^{\\ell-1} \\notag \\\\\n&= 2 b^{k-1} (1 + O(\\frac{k}{b})) \\notag \\\\\n&= O( b^{k-1}) \\notag\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe note that by our lower bounds algorithm [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0optimal up to a constant factor. Furthermore it should be noted that this improved bound, as well as expected performance in practice, comes at a cost of significantly more complex implementation. Specifically, while [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{}\u00a0can potentially be implemented using a FIFO buffer, [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0does not deliver packets in FIFO order. In other aspects [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0is not significantly more complex than the [[ProactiveGreedy]{}]{} e.g., by trading garbage collection with killing live frames.\n\nFurther Algorithmic Considerations {#sec:algorithm-design}\n==================================\n\nTie-breaking {#sec:algorithm-design:tie-breaking}\n------------\n\nThe results from the analysis of the two algorithms, show us that an algorithm should prefer frames which are closer to completion (since this characteristic guarantees competitiveness), and that live frames should be kept in the buffer as long as possible (as shown by the difference between the algorithms). But the analysis brings up the question how to best tie-break between frames which are the same distance from completion (the number of sent packets is the same for both frames).\n\nA natural choice for a tie-breaker is the residual slack $r_t(p^f)$ of the smallest-index packet $p^f \\in Q_t \\cap f$ for each frame $f$ that has the maximal $I_t(f)$ value. The purpose of such a tie breaker is of course to improve performance by keeping as many frames alive as possible. A less obvious choice for a tie-breaker is the number of pending packets corresponding to frame $f$, denoted $n_t(f)$. The intuition underlying this choice is that preferring frames with lower $n_t(f)$ can more rapidly \u201cclear\u201d the effect of $f$ on other frames with pending packets. One should note that neither choice affects the asymptotic competitiveness of [[Greedy]{}]{}, which is tight up to a constant factor. However, this choice is expected to influence the performance of the algorithms in practice. In we further address these design dilemmas.\n\nScheduling {#sec:algorithm-design:scheduling}\n----------\n\nFor both of the greedy algorithms presented in Sections\u00a0\\[sec:proactive-greedy\\] and\u00a0\\[sec:greedy\\], the first packet of the preferred frame was sent, where the difference between the algorithms boiled down to the the way other pending packets were treated. In particular, the residual slack of the packets is essentially ignored by these greedy approaches (although it can be taken into account in tie-breaking, as discussed above).\n\nOne common approach to incorporate residual slack into the scheduler is considering [*provisional schedules*]{}, which essentially try pick the packet to be delivered using a local offline algorithm, which takes into account all currently available information. Such an approach can be viewed as aiming to maximize the benefit to be accrued from the present packets, assuming no future arrivals. Such an approach lays at the core of the solutions proposed by\u00a0[@kesselman04buffer; @jez12online; @englert12considering] which each used an algorithm for computing an optimal offline local solution. In our case, as shown in , computing such an optimal provisional schedule is hard, but, as shown in , there exists a $(k+1)$-approximation algorithm for the problem.\n\nWe adapt this algorithm into a procedure for computing a provisional schedule, which would allow a smaller $I$-indexed frame to have one of its packets scheduled, only if non of the frames with a higher $I$-index would become infeasible in the following time slot. Our proposed heuristic, [[Opportunistic]{}]{}, is described in . [[Opportunistic]{}]{}\u00a0builds a provisional schedule $F_t$ as follows:\n\n1.  Sort pending frames[^3] in decreasing lexicographical order of $(I_t(f),d-r_t(f))$. I.e., preference is given to frames with higher $I$-index values. In case of ties, preference is given to frames for which their smallest-index packet has the minimal residual slack.\n\n2.  Initialize the provisional schedule $F_t=\\emptyset$.\n\n3.  For each frame $f$ in this order, test whether for all $s=0,\\ldots,d$, the pending packets of $f$ can be added to $F_t$ such that the overall number of packets in the provisional schedule with remaining slack at most $s$, does not exceed $s$. If $f$ can be added, update $F_t=F_t \\cup {\\left\\{f\\right\\}}$.\n\ngives an illustration of construction of a provisional schedule at some time $t$. The first two frames have room for all their packets in the provisional schedule, and all of their packets can be accommodated for delivery by their deadlines (note that the first frame tested will always be a part of the provisional schedule, since otherwise it would not be alive). The packet of the third frame causes an \u201coverflow\u201d for $s=5$, and therefore its frame cannot be accommodated in the provisional schedule. We note that in this example, the packet picked for delivery would be $P_1^2 \\in f_2$, which might not correspond to the highest $I$-index pending frame (e.g., if $I_t(f_2)<I_t(f_1)$).\n\n![Schematics of building a provisional schedule.[]{data-label=\"fig:prov-sched\"}](provschedule.pdf){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nBuild the provisional schedule $F_t$ transmit the packet with minimum residual slack in $F_t$\n\nSimulations {#sec:simulations}\n===========\n\nIn the previous sections we provided an analysis of the greedy online algorithm, and of discussed additional guidelines for effective algorithm design. We also presented algorithm [[Opportunistic]{}]{}. In this section we provide a simulation study in which we test the performance of the algorithms, the effectiveness the guidelines, and the impact the parameters $k$ and $d$ on the performance.\n\nTraffic Generation and Setup\n----------------------------\n\nWe recall that the problem of managing traffic with packet dependencies captured by our model is most prevalent in real-time video streams. We therefore perform a simulation study that aims to capture many of the characteristics of such streams.\n\nWe will generate traffic which will be an interleaving of [*streams*]{}, where each stream is targeted at a different receiver, and all streams require service from a single queue at the tail of a link.\n\nIn our simulation study, we focus on traffic with the following characteristics.\n\n-   We assume each stream has a random start time where packets are generated. This corresponds to scenarios such as VOD streams, where each receiver may choose which video to view and when to view it, and these choices are independent.\n\n-   We assume the average bandwidth demand of all streams is identical, which represents streams with comparable video quality.\n\n-   Frames of a single stream are non-overlapping, and are produced by the source in evenly spaced intervals. E.g., if we consider video streams consisting of 30FPS, each interval is $33ms$.\n\n-   The source transmits the packets of each frame in a burst, and we assume each frame consists of the same number of packets. Such a scenario occurs, e.g., in MPEG encoding making use of I-frames alone. We assume all packet have the same size, namely, the network\u2019s MTU.\n\n-   We assume a random delay variation between the arrival of consecutive packets corresponding to the same stream. Such delay variation is produced, e.g., due to queueing delay in previous nodes along the streams path. Specifically, we assume a uniform delay variation of up to 5 time slots.\n\n-   We assume each packet contains the frame number, and the index number of the packet within the frame. Such information can be encoded, e.g., in the RTP header.\n\nFor the setup we chose to simulate, the packet sizes are set such that every time slot one packet can be scheduled, and the aggregate bandwidth of all the streams is equal to the service bandwidth. We note that even in such cases, where traffic arrival rate does not exceed the link capacity, no online algorithm can obtain the optimal goodput. We simulate 2 minutes worth of traffic for 50 streams, where for all the streams the frame rate is 30FPS (for a total of 3600 frames per stream). Since we fix the service rate as $1$, in the simulation the interval between consecutive frames arrival in a stream is $\\Delta F=k\\cdot 50$ time slots, where $k$ is the number of packets per frame. As $k$ grows the \u201creal\u201d duration of a single time slot decreases, as the service rate effectively increases.\n\nSimulated Algorithms\n--------------------\n\nWe performed the simulation study for four scheduling algorithms, where in all algorithms in case of ties in the priorities, these are broken according to the a random (but fixed) priority on the streams:\n\n-   The offline $O(k+1)$-approximation algorithm of\u00a0[@kesselman13competitive]. By this algorithm has the same performance guarantee in our model as well. This algorithm serves as a benchmark for evaluating the performance of the online algorithms.\n\n-   Algorithm [[Greedy]{}]{}, described and analysed in . This algorithm represents our baseline for studying the the performance of online algorithms for the problem.\n\n-   Algorithm [[Greedy$_{\\text{slack}}$]{}]{}, which implements [[Greedy]{}]{}\u00a0with ties broken according to minimum residual slack.\n\n-   Algorithm [[Opportunistic]{}]{}, presented in . This is the most complex algorithm we evaluate, as in addition to the enhanced tie-breaking, it also attempts to exploit opportunities to schedule lower ranked packets according to the provisional schedule.\n\nResults\n-------\n\nThe simulation results confirm our hypothesis that implementation of the proposed algorithm design guideline does indeed impact the performance of online algorithms. We depict the performance of each online algorithm by its [*goodput ratio*]{}, measured by the ratio between the goodput of the online algorithm and that of the offline algorithm.\n\npresents the performance of the online algorithms as a function of the slack each packet has, for $k=6$. It can be seen that as the slack increases the tie-breaking rule in [[Greedy$_{\\text{slack}}$]{}]{}\u00a0shows significant improved performance in comparison with the vanilla greedy algorithm. The figure also shows that the [[Opportunistic]{}]{}\u00a0exhibits a significantly better performance than [[Greedy$_{\\text{slack}}$]{}]{}\u00a0(although this improvement is paid for by significant additional complexity). We note that results for greater values of $12$ exhibit the same trends. Also of note is that the [[Greedy$_{\\text{slack}}$]{}]{}\u00a0and [[Opportunistic]{}]{}\u00a0manage to trace the performance of the offline algorithm (and actually complete all the frames of all the streams) for traffic with sufficiently large slack.\n\n![Comparison of the goodput of online algorithms[]{data-label=\"fig:comp-on-alg\"}](figure12.pdf){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nIn we presents the goodput ratio of [[Opportunistic]{}]{}\u00a0and [[Greedy$_{\\text{slack}}$]{}]{}\u00a0as a function of $d/k$. The first lesson learnt from this data is that the performance of the opportunistic algorithm is superior to that of the enhanced greedy algorithm, in particular for small $d/k$ values where the difference becomes more pronounced (these results are also hinted by , but are not as pronounced). Furthermore, the performance of both algorithms depends exponentially on the ratio between $d$ and $k$ (shown by the log scale), as even though both graphs present results of many simulations with different inputs having different parameters, the plots show a linear trend up to the point where they match the goodput of offline algorithm. This exponential dependency can be viewed as comparable to that of the analytic lower bound presented in , where $d/k$ takes the role of $1/k$.\n\nAnother important result is that the streams are not treated fairly. When there is no random delay variation for the input sequence, the algorithms synchronize with the input so either all frames of a stream are completed, or none of them are completed. Raising the limits of the random delay variation improves the fairness, although some degree of synchronization remains. When there exists a random delay variation higher values of $k$ result in improved fairness. The impact of the delay variation can be seen in , which shows that for [[Greedy$_{\\text{slack}}$]{}]{}\u00a0maximal delay variation of 1 time slot (for an average of 0.5 time slots) results in complete synchronization - a stream either has all of it\u2019s frames completed or it has no frame completed. Raising the maximal delay variation even by a small amount reduces the synchronization significantly.\n\n![Cumulative completed frames per stream for [[Greedy$_{\\text{slack}}$]{}]{}\u00a0as a function of maximal delay variation (jitter) between packets of a stream.[]{data-label=\"fig:cdf-jit\"}](figure52.pdf){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nConclusions and Future Work {#sec:conclusions-future-work}\n===========================\n\nIn this paper we address the problem of maximizing the goodput of delay sensitive traffic with inter-packet dependencies. We provide lower bounds on the competitiveness of online algorithms for the general case that the traffic is burst bounded, and present competitive scheduling algorithms for the problem. Through the analysis we show that there exists an algorithmic guideline that ensures competitiveness - preference for frames that are closer to completion. Our proposed solutions ensure the optimal performance possible, up to a small constant factor. Our analysis further provides insights into improving the performance of online algorithms for the problem. These insights are further verified by a simulation study which shows that our improved algorithms which are inspired by our analytic results, are very close to the performance of the currently best known offline algorithm for the problem. More specifically, the performance of our algorithms approach the performance of our benchmark algorithm with an exponential correlation to the increase in delay-slack.\n\nOur work serves as an initial study of scheduling delay-bounded traffic with inter-packet dependencies. Our work raises new questions about the performance of algorithms for this problem:\n\n1.  Our simulation results indicate that the ratio $d/k$ bears some influence on the algorithm performance. Shedding light on this effect is an interesting open question.\n\n2.  Are there other algorithmic guidelines which can further improve the performance of online algorithms, and specifically how well can randomized algorithms perform?\n\n[^1]: It should be noted that the objective of maximizing goodput (on the frame-level) is in most cases significantly different than the common concept of maximizing [*throughput*]{} (on the packet-level).\n\n[^2]: Note that this is a tad different from the model used in\u00a0[@kesselman04buffer] since we allow a packet to be scheduled also at time $e(p)=a(p)+r(p)$.\n\n[^3]: A frame is pending if it has pending packets.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We carry out extensive Monte Carlo simulations of the three-dimensional (3D) uniformly frustrated XY model with uncorrelated randomly perturbed couplings, as a model for the equilibrium behavior of an extreme type-II superconductor with quenched uncorrelated random point vortex pinning, in the presence of a uniform applied magnetic field. We map out the resulting phase diagram as a function of temperature $T$ and pinning strength $p$ for a fixed value of the vortex line density. At low $p$ we find a sharp first order vortex lattice melting phase boundary separating a vortex lattice from a vortex liquid. As $p$ increases, it appears that this first order transition smears out over a finite temperature interval, due to the effects of the random pinning, in agreement with several recent experiments. At large $p$ we find a second order transition from vortex liquid to vortex glass.'\nauthor:\n- Peter Olsson\n- 'S. Teitel'\ntitle: 'Unified Phase Diagram for the Three-Dimensional XY Model of a Point Disordered Type-II Superconductor'\n---\n\n=1\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIn strong type-II superconductors, where the magnetic penetration length $\\lambda$ is much larger than the bare coherence length $\\xi_0$, much of the macroscopic behavior can be modeled in terms of the interacting vortex lines that are introduced into the system by the application of an external magnetic field.[@Tinkham] In the high temperature copper-oxide superconductors such as YBCO and BSCCO, material parameters such as high anisotropy, as well as the high transition temperatures, cause thermal fluctuations to play an important role. Such materials are also believed, even in the purest of single crystal samples, to contain quenched, intrinsic, uncorrelated, random point impurities that can pin vortex lines. The resulting phase diagram as a function of temperature and applied magnetic field is generally believed to result from such a combination of thermal fluctuations and random point pinning.[@Blatter] It was later argued that similar fluctuation effects can be observed even in single crystal samples of more familiar strong type-II low temperature superconductors[@Paltiel; @Ling; @Banerjee; @Marchevsky; @Pasquini] such as Nb and NbSe$_2$, albeit over a much more restricted region of the phase diagram. It has been argued that a universal phase diagram might apply to all strong type-II superconductors.[@Menon]\n\nConsiderable experimental effort has been devoted to the determination of this vortex line phase diagram. [@Worthington; @Liang; @Schilling; @Khaykovich; @Nishizaki; @Bouquet; @vanderBeek; @Gaifullin; @Avraham; @Radzyner; @LiWen; @Beidenkopf; @Beidenkopf2; @Petrean; @Andersson; @Strachan; @Strachan2; @Shibata; @Soibel] It is now generally accepted that upon increasing temperature at low magnetic fields, a sharp first order melting transition exists[@Liang; @Schilling; @Khaykovich; @Nishizaki; @Bouquet] from an elastically distorted vortex lattice, known as the \u201cBragg glass,\"[@Giamarchi; @Nattermann; @FisherBG] to a disordered vortex liquid. However many other aspects of the vortex phase diagram remain in dispute. At low temperatures, increasing the magnetic field leads to a first order transition from the Bragg glass to a disordered vortex state.[@vanderBeek; @Gaifullin] It was originally believed that a special critical point separated the low field thermally induced vortex lattice melting from the high field disorder (random pin) induced melting.[@Khaykovich; @Nishizaki; @Bouquet] However later work[@vanderBeek; @Gaifullin; @Avraham; @Radzyner; @LiWen] argued for a single unified first order phase boundary for the vortex lattice, continuing smoothly down to low temperatures. At low temperatures and high magnetic fields, where the vortex lines are spatially disordered, a \u201cvortex glass\" phase has been proposed.[@FFH; @Scheidl] It remains in question whether this vortex glass is a truly distinct thermodynamic state with true superconducting phase coherence,[@Petrean; @Andersson] separated from the vortex liquid by a continuous second order phase transition, or whether there is just a crossover to a highly viscous vortex liquid upon decreasing temperature.[@Strachan; @Strachan2] It has also been proposed that within the vortex liquid there is a sharp first order transition line that splits off from the melting line at higher magnetic fields, and terminates at a critical end point. This transition is claimed to separate regions with lesser vs greater spatial vortex correlations, the more correlated region being called the \u201cvortex slush\".[@Worthington; @Shibata] Other works have argued that the disordered vortex state at high magnetic fields continues to exist as a thin sliver of \u201cmultidomain glass\" all along the vortex melting line, even at low magnetic fields.[@Banerjee; @Menon]\n\nTheoretically, the vortex line phase diagram has been studied within effective elastic theories, often using the Lindemann criterion to estimate the location of melting and other transitions.[@Ertas; @Giamarchi2; @Koshelev; @Kierfeld; @Mikitik; @Kierfeld2] Several of these works[@Kierfeld; @Mikitik; @Kierfeld2] reported the possibility of a critical end point to the vortex lattice melting line at high magnetic fields, as well as a vortex slush phase. However later analytical calculations, based on the Ginzburg-Landau model with pinning,[@LiRosen] and on a vortex line model in a weak impurity background with both elastic and plastic excitations,[@Dietel] found only a unified first order melting transition for the Bragg glass, extending to low temperatures with no critical points intervening, and no vortex slush.\n\nThe difficulty of performing reliable analytical calculations has thus led to numerous numerical investigations,[@Ryu; @Wilkin; @Otterlo; @Reichhardt; @NonoHu; @OTmelt; @OlssonVG; @Kawamura0; @Kawamura; @Lidmar; @DasguptaValls1; @DasguptaValls2] in which one hopes to map out various aspects of the vortex line phase diagram within a well defined simple model. In this paper we report on one such investigation, using the three-dimensional (3D) uniformly frustrated XY model with uncorrelated quenched disorder in the couplings, as a model for a strong type-II superconductor with random point pinning. A virtue of the XY model is that it describes realistic vortex line interactions with no restrictions on vortex line excitations; both overhangs in the field induced vortex lines, and closed thermally excited vortex loops are included. The details of vortex line cores are handled by the short length cutoff of the numerical grid, and hence issues concerning vortex line cutting are treated with a minimum of ad hoc assumptions. Our model holds in the limit of infinite penetration length, $\\lambda\\to\\infty$, and we comment later on the implications of this approximation.\n\nWe build upon our earlier work[@OTmelt; @OlssonVG] to present here the equilibrium phase diagram as a function of temperature $T$ and disorder strength $p$, for a fixed density of vortex lines $f=B\\xi_0^2/\\phi_0=1/5$ ($\\phi_0$ is the flux quantum). Keeping $f$ fixed avoids effects that would be due to varying commensurability of the vortex lines with respect to the underlying numerical grid of the model. However, since increasing $f$ in a continuum system is generally believed to increase the effective pinning strength, [@MenonDasgupta] as more lines get forced into the same pinning volume, varying $p$ at fixed $f$ should provide qualitatively similar information as the more physical situation of varying $f$ at fixed $p$. Through careful, well equilibrated, simulations comparing systems of different size, and averaging over different realizations of the random pinning, we consider the limits of both weak and strong disorder. Our results are summarized in Fig.\u00a0\\[f1\\]. By using a denser vortex line system than in our earlier work we are able in particular to explore the strong pinning limit, correcting our earlier preliminary conclusions[@OTmelt] concerning the presence of a vortex glass in this model. We also find, for the first time, a disorder induced smearing of the vortex lattice melting transition $T_{\\rm m}(p)$ at intermediate disorder strengths, that we believe is in good agreement with recent experiments.[@Pasquini; @Soibel]\n\nThe remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\u00a0II we define our model and the quantities we use to map out the phase diagram. In Sec.\u00a0III we present our results for vortex lattice melting in the limit of weak pinning strengths. In Sec.\u00a0IV we present our results for the vortex glass at strong pinning strengths. In Sec.\u00a0V we discuss the smearing of the vortex lattice melting transition at intermediate pinning strengths. In Sec.\u00a0VI we summarize our results and discuss their relation to other recent numerical works.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nModel {#smodel}\n=====\n\nThe model we simulate is the uniformly frustrated 3D XY model, given by the Hamiltonian,[@YHLi] $${\\cal H}[\\theta({\\bf r}_i)]=-\\sum_{i\\mu}J_{i\\mu}\\cos(\\theta({\\bf r}_i)-\\theta({\\bf r}_i+\\hat\\mu)-A_{i\\mu})\\enspace,\n\\label{eH}$$ which serves as a discretized approximation to the Ginzburg-Landau free energy functional in the London approximation of fixed wavefunction amplitude, and captures the kinetic energy of the flowing supercurrents in the system. Here $\\theta({\\bf r}_i)$ is the thermally fluctuating phase angle of the superconducting wavefunction on site ${\\bf r}_i$ of a cubic $L\\times L\\times L_z $ grid of sites with bonds in directions $\\hat\\mu=\\hat x,\\hat y,\\hat z$. $J_{i\\mu}$ is the superconducting coupling constant on bond $(i\\mu)$ of the grid, $A_{i\\mu}$ is proportional to the magnetic vector potential integrated across the bond, and the argument of the cosine is thus the gauge invariant phase angle difference across the bond.\n\nThe $A_{\\rm i\\mu}$ are determined such that the circulation of $A_{i\\mu}$ around any plaquette $\\alpha$ of the grid is fixed and equal to $2\\pi f_\\alpha$ with $f_\\alpha$ equal to the fraction of applied magnetic flux quanta through that plaquette. To model a uniform applied magnetic field in the $\\hat z$ direction, we use a uniform value $f_\\alpha = f$ for plaquettes oriented with normal in the $\\hat z$ direction, and $f_\\alpha =0$ otherwise. The presence of the applied magnetic field induces vortex lines into the phase angles $\\theta({\\bf r}_i)$ such that the average vortex line density in direction $\\hat \\mu$ is $n_\\mu=f\\delta_{\\mu z}$. Holding the $A_{i\\mu}$ fixed corresponds to the approximation of an infinite magnetic penetration length $\\lambda$, which one may expect to be reasonable in the limit that $\\lambda$ is much larger than the average inter-vortex spacing. Experiments on very pure YBCO samples[@Liang] indicate that many features of behavior, up to surprisingly large magnetic fields, are well described by this large $\\lambda\\to\\infty$ XY model limit. We return to comment on this approximation in section \\[svg\\].\n\nTo model vortex pinning due to quenched point randomness we use couplings[@OTmelt] $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eJ}\n   J_{i\\mu}&=&J_\\perp(1+p\\epsilon_{i\\mu}),\\quad \\mu=x,y\\\\ \\nonumber\n  J_{iz}&=&J_z  \\quad {\\rm constant},\\end{aligned}$$ where the $\\epsilon_{i\\mu}$ are uncorrelated, uniformly distributed, random variables with $$\\langle\\epsilon_{i\\mu}\\rangle=0, \\qquad \\langle\\epsilon_{i\\mu}^2\\rangle=1\\enspace.$$ The disorder strength is thus controlled by the parameter $p$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eJ\\]). We will vary $p$ from small to large values in order to systematically investigate the differences between weak and strong pinning.\n\nIn the following we will use $\\langle\\dots\\rangle$ to denote the equilibrium average for a particular realization of the random pinning $\\{\\epsilon_{i\\mu}\\}$. We will use $[\\dots ]$ to denote the average over several independent realizations of the $\\{\\epsilon_{i\\mu}\\}$.\n\nIn this work we use parameters, $$\\begin{aligned}\nf&=&1/5\\enspace,\\\\\nJ_z&=&J_\\perp/40\\enspace.\n\\label{eparms}\\end{aligned}$$ We use $J_z\\ll J_\\perp$ to enhance vortex line fluctuations along the $\\hat z$ direction, thus allowing us to use systems with smaller $L_z$. The relatively dense value of $f$ was similarly chosen so as to have many vortex lines contained within systems of modest size, so as to permit finite size scaling analyses (particularly for the vortex glass) and to average over many independent realizations of the random disorder $\\{\\epsilon_{i\\mu}\\}$. While this high density leads to artificial commensurability effects (for example a square rather than a triangular ground state vortex lattice), one may still hope that many features of our system with respect to vortex lattice melting and the vortex glass transition will remain qualitatively similar to results on real physical materials.\n\nTo probe the behavior of the system we consider the average energy per site, which is the thermodynamic conjugate variable to the temperature $T$, $$\\begin{aligned}\nE&\\equiv& {1\\over L^2L_z}{\\partial (\\beta {\\cal F})\\over \\partial \\beta}\\\\ \\nonumber\n&=&-{1\\over L^2L_z}\\sum_{i,\\mu}J_{i\\mu}\\langle \\cos(\\theta({\\bf r}_i)-\\theta({\\bf r}_i+\\hat\\mu)-A_{i\\mu})\\rangle \\enspace,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\beta\\equiv1/T$ and ${\\cal F}$ is the total free energy. We can similarly define a variable $Q$ which is the thermodynamic conjugate to the disorder strength $p$, $$\\begin{aligned}\nQ&\\equiv&{1\\over L^2L_z}{\\partial {\\cal F}\\over\\partial p}\\\\ \\nonumber\n&=&-{1\\over L^2L_z}\\sum_{i,\\mu=x,y}J_\\perp\\epsilon_{i\\mu}\\langle\\cos(\\theta({\\bf r}_i)-\\theta({\\bf r}_i+\\hat\\mu)-A_{i\\mu})\\rangle \\enspace.\\end{aligned}$$ The vorticity in the system is determined by considering the circulation of the gauge invariant phase difference around each plaquette. For a plaquette $\\alpha$ at position ${\\bf r}_\\alpha$ with normal in direction $\\mu$, the vorticity $n_\\mu({\\bf r}_\\alpha)$ piercing the plaquette is determined by, $$\\sum_\\alpha \\left[\\theta({\\bf r}_i)-\\theta({\\bf r}_i+\\hat\\mu)-A_{i\\mu}\\right]_{-\\pi}^{+\\pi} = 2\\pi[n_\\mu({\\bf r}_\\alpha)-f\\delta_{\\mu z}]\\enspace,$$ where the sum goes counterclockwise around the bonds of the plaquette, and the bracket on the left hand side indicates that the gauge invariant phase angle difference is to be computed so as to lie within the interval $(-\\pi,\\pi]$.\n\nTo look for vortex lattice ordering we compute the vortex structure function $S({\\bf k}_\\perp)$ which measures correlations between vortices within the same $xy$ plane, $$S({\\bf k}_\\perp)={1\\over fL^2L_z}\\sum_{{\\bf r}_\\perp,{\\bf r}_\\perp^\\prime,z}{\\rm e}^{i{\\bf k}_\\perp\\cdot({\\bf r}_\\perp-{\\bf r}_\\perp^\\prime)}\\langle n_z({\\bf r}_\\perp,z)n_z({\\bf r}_\\perp^\\prime,z)\\rangle\n\\label{eSk}$$ where ${\\bf r}_\\perp\\equiv (x,y)$ denotes the coordinates in the $xy$ plane and similarly ${\\bf k}_\\perp \\equiv (k_x,k_y)$. The presence of a vortex lattice will be indicated by the appearance of sharp peaks in $S({\\bf k}_\\perp)$ at reciprocal lattice vectors ${\\bf K}$.\n\nTo look for a possible vortex glass phase, in which vortex lines are frozen into a disordered configuration and so $S({\\bf k}_\\perp)$ displays no signal of the ordering, we consider the helicity modulus.[@OlssonVG] To simulate the Hamiltonian of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eH\\]) on a finite size grid, we use fluctuating twist boundary conditions, defined by, $$\\theta ({\\bf r}_i+L_\\mu\\hat\\mu)-\\theta({\\bf r}_i)=\\Delta_\\mu\\enspace,$$ where $\\Delta_\\mu$, the total phase angle twist across the system in direction $\\hat \\mu$, is taken as a thermally fluctuating degree of freedom. We then compute the histogram $P(\\Delta_\\mu)$ of values that $\\Delta_\\mu$ takes during the course of the simulation (averaging over the twists in the transverse directions) and define the free energy variation with twist by, ${\\cal F}(\\Delta_\\mu)\\equiv -T\\ln P(\\Delta_\\mu)+{\\rm constant}$. The helicity modulus $\\Upsilon_\\mu$ in direction $\\hat \\mu$ is then defined in terms of the curvature of ${\\cal F}(\\Delta_\\mu)$ at its minimum $\\Delta_{\\mu 0}$, $$\\Upsilon_\\mu\\equiv {L_\\mu\\over L_\\nu L_\\sigma}\\left.{\\partial^2{\\cal F}\\over\\partial\\Delta_\\mu^2}\\right|_{\\Delta_\\mu=\\Delta_{\\mu 0}}\\enspace,\n\\label{eUps}$$ where $\\mu,\\nu,\\sigma$ are a permutation of $x,y,z$. Note, unlike pure systems, for random systems it is not generally true that $\\Delta_{\\mu 0}=0$. When ${\\cal F}(\\Delta_\\mu)$ varies with $\\Delta_\\mu$, and so the system is sensitive to the boundary conditions, we have $\\Upsilon_\\mu>0$ and the system possesses superconducting phase coherence. When ${\\cal F}(\\Delta_\\mu)$ is flat and independent of $\\Delta_\\mu$, $\\Upsilon_\\mu=0$ and superconducting phase coherence is lost. The vanishing of $\\Upsilon_\\mu$ thus is a signature of the superconducting transition.\n\nAt a second order phase transition $T_{\\rm c}$, the temperature and system size dependence of $\\Upsilon_\\mu$ is expected to obey a critical scaling law. Since the applied magnetic field singles out a special direction, there is the possibility that this scaling may be [*anisotropic*]{}. In such a case, the expected scaling law for $\\Upsilon_\\mu(T,L,L_z)$ is, $${L_\\nu L_\\sigma\\over L_\\mu}\\Upsilon_\\mu (T,L,L_z) = u_\\mu(tL^{1/\\nu},L_z/L^\\zeta)\\enspace,$$ where $t\\equiv T-T_{\\rm c}$, $u$ is the scaling function, $\\nu$ is the correlation length critical exponent, and $\\zeta$ is the anisotropy critical exponent. Should the scaling turn out to be [*isotropic*]{}, then $\\zeta=1$, and for systems with a fixed aspect ratio $L_z=\\gamma L$ the scaling law reduces to, $$L\\Upsilon_\\mu(T,L) =  \\tilde u_\\mu(tL^{1/\\nu})\\enspace.\n\\label{eUpsScale}$$ In this case, exactly at the transition temperature $T_{\\rm c}$, one has $t=0$ and so $L\\Upsilon_\\mu$ is independent of system size $L$.\n\nHenceforth, we will measure temperature and energies in units where $J_\\perp=1$. Length will be measured in units where the grid spacing is unity.\n\nVortex Lattice Melting at Weak Pinning {#smelt}\n======================================\n\nIn this section we consider the first order vortex lattice melting transition at weak pinning strength. Our methods for identifying the melting transition and establishing that it is indeed a first order phase transition are the same as we have used in our earlier work[@OTmelt] on the more dilute $f=1/20$ system.\n\nFor a pure system with disorder strength $p=0$ the vortex line lattice, of vortex density $f=1/5$, will order into a ground state containing a square vortex lattice with lattice constant $\\sqrt{5}$. There are two possible orientations of this square lattice with respect to the underlying grid, related to each other by a reflection through the $\\hat x$ axis, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[f2\\]a. In Fig.\u00a0\\[f2\\]b we show the vortex structure function $S({\\bf k}_\\perp)$ for each of these two ground state orientations. We find sharp Bragg peaks at reciprocal lattice vectors ${\\bf K}$. For the vortex lattice of Fig.\u00a0\\[f2\\]a there are only four non-zero reciprocal lattice vectors, related to one another by $\\pi/2$ rotations of $k$-space. For the two possible ground state orientations, we label these two disjoint sets of reciprocal lattice vectors by ${\\bf K}_1$ and ${\\bf K}_2$ as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[f2\\]b.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nAt finite but small disorder strength, $p\\le p_c\\simeq 0.22$, we continue to find at low temperatures a vortex lattice with the same symmetry as that of Fig.\u00a0\\[f2\\]a. The existence of the two possible orientations for this state motivates our definition of the following order parameter for the vortex lattice to liquid melting transition. If we denote by $S({\\bf K}_1)$ and $S({\\bf K}_2)$ the value of the vortex structure function averaged over the four non-zero reciprocal lattice vectors of each orientation respectively, then the difference, $\\Delta S\\equiv S({\\bf K}_1)-S({\\bf K}_2)$, will signal the vortex lattice melting transition: below melting, the system has ordered into one of the two possible vortex lattice orientations, and so $S({\\bf K}_1)$ is large and $S({\\bf K}_2)$ is small, or vice versa, giving a large value of $|\\Delta S|$; above melting, the system is in a liquid state with the same symmetry as the underlying grid, so $S({\\bf K}_1)=S({\\bf K}_2)$ by reflection symmetry and $\\Delta S=0$.\n\nAnticipating a first order vortex lattice melting transition, we slowly cool down a $20\\times 20 \\times 6$ size system from high temperature using ordinary Metropolis Monte Carlo until we reach a temperature at which we observe the system to switch back and forth between large and small values of $\\Delta S$ during the course of the simulation. As an example of this, we show in Fig.\u00a0\\[f3\\]a a plot of $\\Delta S/S_0$ vs. simulation time ($S_0\\equiv S(0)=fL^2$) at a temperature close to the melting transition $T_{\\rm m}(p)$ for a moderate value of disorder strength $p=0.12$. In Fig.\u00a0\\[f3\\]b we show an intensity plot of $\\ln S({\\bf k}_\\perp)$, averaged over only those configurations in Fig.\u00a0\\[f3\\]a which have $\\Delta S/S_0 >0.1$. We see sharp Bragg peaks of high intensity at the reciprocal lattice vectors ${\\bf K}_1$ indicating that this is the vortex lattice state. In Fig.\u00a0\\[f3\\]c we show show an intensity plot of $\\ln S({\\bf k}_\\perp)$, averaged now over only those configurations in Fig.\u00a0\\[f3\\]a which have $\\Delta S/S_0<0.1$. We see broad diffuse peaks of equal low intensity at both ${\\bf K}_1$ and ${\\bf K}_2$, indicating that this is the vortex liquid state.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[f4\\]a we plot the histogram $P(\\Delta S)$ of values of $\\Delta S$ found in the data of Fig.\u00a0\\[f3\\]a. We see two well separated peaks centered at $\\Delta S/S_0=0$ and $\\Delta S/S_0\\simeq 0.55$, representing the vortex liquid and vortex lattice states respectively. We define the melting transition temperature $T_{\\rm m}(p)$ to be the temperature at which the area under these two peaks is equal. In this manner, varying $p$ and averaging over $8$ independent realizations of the random disorder, we plot the vortex lattice melting line $T_{\\rm m}(p)$ for systems of size $20\\times 20\\times 6$ as the blue solid curve in Fig.\u00a0\\[f1\\]. As $p$ increases, $T_m(p)$ decreases while the slope $|dT_{\\rm m}/dp|$ rapidly increases. As $p$ increases towards $p_c\\simeq 0.22$, with correspondingly low melting $T_{\\rm m}$, a failure to achieve proper equilibration of the system prevents us from continuing to trace out the melting curve to lower temperatures.\n\nNext we demonstrate that, within our model system, melting remains a first order transition along the melting curve for as far as we can map it out. There is no sign of it ending at an \u201cupper critical point\" as has been often suggested by experimental works.[@Khaykovich; @Nishizaki] Choosing the minimum in the $P(\\Delta S)$ histogram as the dividing point, we assign each configuration as a vortex lattice or vortex liquid according to the value of $\\Delta S$ for that configuration. Having divided configurations into distinct lattice and liquid states, we can then construct the histograms of energy, $P(E)$, and of the disorder conjugate variable, $P(Q)$, for each state respectively. In Figs.\u00a0\\[f4\\]b,c we show such histograms for disorder strength $p=0.12$, corresponding to the data of Figs.\u00a0\\[f3\\] and \\[f4\\]a. We see for both $E$ and $Q$ well separated histograms for lattice and for liquid states. Using these histograms we then compute the average $E$ and $Q$ separately for the vortex lattice and vortex liquid, and then compute the discontinuities in these quantities at melting, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Delta E &\\equiv& \\langle E\\rangle_{\\rm liquid} - \\langle E\\rangle_{\\rm lattice}\\\\ \\nonumber\n\\Delta Q &\\equiv& \\langle Q\\rangle_{\\rm lattice} - \\langle Q\\rangle_{\\rm liquid}\n\\label{DEQ}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[f5\\]a we plot (open symbols) the resulting $[\\Delta E]$ and $[\\Delta S]$, averaged over $8$ independent realizations of the random disorder, vs disorder strength $p$, for the system of size $20\\times20\\times 6$. As $p$ increases we see that $[\\Delta E]$ decreases and appears to vanish. A vanishing $[\\Delta E]$ implies a vanishing entropy jump and hence a vanishing of the delta-function specific heat singularity usually associated with the first order melting transition. Such a vanishing of the specific heat singularity, observed experimentally on increasing applied magnetic field at fixed disorder strength, has been used as evidence for a weakening of the first order melting transition and its termination at a second order upper critical point.[@Bouquet] However, if the first order phase transition is indeed to vanish at a second order critical point, it is necessary that the discontinuities in [*all*]{} thermodynamic first derivatives of the free energy vanish as the critical point is approached. In Fig.\u00a0\\[f5\\]a, however, we see that the discontinuity $[\\Delta Q]$ [*increases*]{} as $p$ increases, and does not vanish as it must if the first order line is to end in a critical point. We thus find that our melting transition remains strongly first order for all disorder strengths $p$. The vanishing of $[\\Delta E]$ upon increasing $p$ merely reflects the increasing slope of the melting curve $|dT_{\\rm m}/dp|$ in accordance with the Clausisus-Clapeyron relation, as can be seen as follows. Since the free energies of lattice and liquid must be equal at $T_{\\rm m}$, $$\\Delta{\\cal F}[T_{\\rm m}(p),p]\\equiv {\\cal F}_{\\rm lattice}[T_{\\rm m}(p),p]-{\\cal F}_{\\rm liquid}[T_{\\rm m}(p),p]=0\\enspace,$$ we have, $${d\\Delta{\\cal F}\\over dp}={\\partial \\Delta{\\cal F}\\over\\partial p}+{\\partial\\Delta{\\cal F}\\over\\partial T}{dT_{\\rm m}\\over dp} =0\\enspace.\n\\label{eCC}$$ Since $${\\partial \\Delta{\\cal F}\\over \\partial p}= L^2L_z \\Delta Q\\quad {\\rm and}\\quad\n{\\partial \\Delta{\\cal F}\\over \\partial T}= L^2L_z {\\Delta E\\over T_{\\rm m}}\\enspace,$$ substituting into Eq.\u00a0(\\[eCC\\]) then gives the Clausius-Clapeyron relation for our system, $${dT_{\\rm m}\\over dp} = -{T_{\\rm m}\\Delta Q\\over \\Delta E}\\enspace.\n\\label{eCC2}$$ Fitting our data (blue solid circles in Fig.\u00a0\\[f1\\]) for $T_{\\rm m}(p)$ to a quadratic polynomial in $p^2$ (solid blue line in Fig.\u00a0\\[f1\\]), we used the fitted polynomial to determine the slope $dT_{\\rm m}/dp$, and in Fig.\u00a0\\[f5\\]b we plot $|dT_{\\rm m}/dp|$ and the disorder averaged $[T_{\\rm m}\\Delta Q/\\Delta E]$ vs disorder strength $p$. The disorder average is over 8 independent realizations of the quenched randomness. We find excellent agreement with Eq.\u00a0(\\[eCC2\\]), thus verifying that our results are indeed very well equilibrated.\n\nExperiment evidence for the [*absence*]{} of an upper critical point, in agreement with our results, has been obtained in BSCCO by Avraham et al.[@Avraham] For an experimental system, in which disorder strength is constant and the applied magnetic field $H$ is varied, the magnetization density $M=(1/V)\\partial{\\cal F}/\\partial H$ becomes the analog of our parameter $Q$. While initial measurements of the jump $\\Delta M$ at melting appeared to show $\\Delta M$ vanishing as $H$ increased, suggesting an upper critical point, subsequent measurements using a additional small oscillating field to \u201ctickle\" the vortex lines to help avoid trapping in metastable local energy minima, showed a finite $\\Delta M$ continuing along the melting curve past the presumed upper critical point and down to even lower temperatures. Their conclusion was that the presumed upper critical point in BCSSO was an artifact of poor equilibration, and that a unified first order transition line continued between thermally driven melting at low $H$, and disorder driven melting at larger $H$. Similar conclusions had been drawn earlier by others[@vanderBeek; @Gaifullin] based on measurements of the Josephson plasma frequency.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nFinally, we consider the finite size dependence of our results to see that the values of $[\\Delta E]$ and $[\\Delta Q]$ which we have found for the $20\\times 20\\times 6$ size system do not appear to be decreasing (or perhaps vanishing) as the system size increases. The need to keep the transverse system length $L$ a multiple of 5, so as to remain commensurate with the vortex lattice periodicity, and the difficulty of equilibrating hops between lattice and liquid states as the system size, and hence to the total free energy barrier between theses state, increases, limits greatly the range of system sizes that we can consider. In Table\u00a0\\[tab1\\] we show our results for the three system sizes $20\\times 20\\times 6$, $30\\times 30\\times 6$ and $20\\times 20\\times 12$, for the specific disorder strength $p=0.12$. We see that while $T_{\\rm m}$ decreases slightly as the system size increases, $[\\Delta E]$ remains remain roughly independent of size while $[\\Delta Q]$ shows a slight increase. We also compute the spread in melting temperatures $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}$ that we find as we consider different independent realizations of the quenched random disorder $\\{\\epsilon_{i\\mu}\\}$. If the system is self averaging over the quenched disorder, we would expect that $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}\\propto 1/\\sqrt{V}$, with $V=L^2L_z$ the system volume. In Table\u00a0\\[tab1\\] we therefore also give the value for $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}\\sqrt{V}$ for the three system sizes. Considering the relatively few (i.e. 8) disorder realizations we have considered for the two larger sizes, and hence the corresponding large potential error in our estimate of $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}$, we find our results consistent with the expectation of self averaging.\n\n   $L^2\\times L_z$   $[T_{\\rm m}]$   $[\\Delta E]$   $[\\Delta Q]$   $\\Delta {T_{\\rm m}}\\sqrt{V}$   \\#\n  ----------------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------------ ----\n   $20^2\\times 6$       0.2304          0.028          0.057                  0.183               20\n                     $\\pm$ 0.0009    $\\pm$ 0.0005   $\\pm$ 0.002                                  \n   $30^2\\times 6$        0.227          0.026          0.061                  0.190               8\n                      $\\pm$ 0.001    $\\pm$ 0.002    $\\pm$ 0.004                                  \n   $20^2\\times 12$       0.225          0.0279         0.067                  0.184               8\n                      $\\pm$ 0.001    $\\pm$ 0.0004   $\\pm$ 0.001                                  \n\n  :  Disorder averaged melting temperature $[T_{\\rm m}]$ and discontinuities in the energy per site $[\\Delta E]$ and disorder conjugate variable $[\\Delta Q]$ for disorder strength $p=0.12$, for different system sizes $L^2\\times L_z$. The errors represent the estimated statistical error sampling over the number of independent realizations of the random disorder specified in the last column. $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}$ is the standard deviation of melting temperatures computed over the independent random realizations, and one expects $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}\\propto 1/\\sqrt{V}$, with $V=L^2L_z$ the volume of the system. Results for the $20^2\\times 12$ system are computed as described in Sec.\u00a0\\[sIW\\].\n\n\\[tab1\\]\n\nVortex Glass at Strong Pinning {#svg}\n==============================\n\nWe now consider the strong pinning limit, $p>p_c\\simeq 0.22$, and the possible existence of a vortex glass phase. In our earlier work[@OTmelt] on the more dilute $f=1/20$ system, we presented preliminary evidence for the absence of a vortex glass phase within the XY model. However later work by Olsson[@OlssonVG] established that the model does indeed have a second order vortex glass transition at strong disorder strength. Moreover he found that critical scaling is isotropic. Here we follow the analysis of Olsson, looking at the disorder averaged helicity modulus in the $xy$ plane, $[\\Upsilon_\\perp]$, defined in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eUps\\]).\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[f6\\]a we plot $[L\\Upsilon_\\perp]$ vs $T$ for three different disorder strengths, $p=0.3, 0.4$ and $0.55$, using for each case three different system sizes from $L=10$ to $25$, $L_z=(3/5)L$, as indicated in the figure. Results are averaged over $200-600$ independent realizations of the random disorder, depending on system size. As discussed following Eq.\u00a0(\\[eUpsScale\\]), for each value of $p$, the common intersection of the curves for different $L$ locates the vortex glass transition, $T_{\\rm g}(p)$, and thus allows us to map out the vortex glass transition line, plotted as the black squares and black solid line in Fig.\u00a0\\[f1\\]. We see that $T_{\\rm g}(p)$ increases for increasing $p$.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[f6\\]b we replot our data vs the scaled temperature $tL^{1/\\nu}$, where the critical exponent $\\nu$ has been chosen for each $p$ so as to give the best data collapse to a common scaling curve for the different system sizes $L$, in accordance with the scaling equation of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eUpsScale\\]). For the two largest values $p=0.4$ and $0.55$ we find $\\nu\\sim 1.5$, in agreement with the more precise calculations of Olsson. For the smallest $p=0.3$, we find a smaller $\\nu\\sim 1.3$. We believe that for this last case, where our data (see Fig.\u00a0\\[f6\\]a) is the noisiest and as $T_{\\rm g}$ is the smallest we have the least data at $T<T_{\\rm g}$, the fact that we are closest to the vortex lattice melting transition may mean that our system sizes are still too small and so we are in a cross-over region rather than the true large $L$ scaling limit.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nThe existence of a vortex glass phase in the bond disordered 3D uniformly frustrated XY model has also been claimed in simulations by Kawamura,[@Kawamura0; @Kawamura] who in addition to measuring a value $\\nu=1.1\\pm 0.2$ also measures the critical exponent $\\eta=-0.5\\pm 0.1$. These are also consistent with the values $\\nu= 1.3\\pm 0.2$ and $\\eta= -0.4\\pm  0.1$ found by Lidmar[@Lidmar] using an elastic model of interacting vortex lines that includes dislocations. These values for the critical exponents lie in reasonable agreement with the values $\\nu_{\\rm GG}=1.39\\pm0.20$ and $\\eta_{\\rm GG}=-0.47\\pm 0.07$ found for the simpler 3D [*gauge glass*]{} model.[@Katzgraber] The gauge glass has the same Hamiltonian as Eq.\u00a0(\\[eH\\]), except that the bond couplings $J_{i\\mu}$ are taken as uniform, and the randomness is put in the vector potential, with $A_{i\\mu}$ chosen randomly from a uniform distribution on $(-\\pi,\\pi]$. In the gauge glass, the average magnetic field thus vanishes in all directions and so the model is intrinsically isotropic. This comparison of critical exponents suggests that the vortex glass and the gauge glass may be in the same universality class. If so, Kawamura notes[@Kawamura] that the addition of magnetic field fluctuations associated with a finite magnetic penetration length $\\lambda$ (\u201cmagnetic screening\") in a real superconductor may serve to destabilize the vortex glass transition and replace it with a smooth crossover behavior, as has been numerically observed to happen in the gauge glass[@Bokil] (such an effect was observed in early simulation by Kawamura[@Kawamura0] of the vortex glass with magnetic screening, however the use of free boundary conditions and relatively small system sizes in that work raise questions concerning its validity). If this scenario is correct, it suggests that the vortex glass transition line we find becomes only a crossover phenomenon in a real physical superconductor with finite $\\lambda$. This crossover might still be observed in current-voltage characteristics that seem to obey critical scaling, as at a second order glass transition, only to have the scaling break down at sufficiently small currents (which probe increasingly large length scales and thus are sensitive to finite $\\lambda$). The failure to conclusively demonstrate critical scaling in experimental data that has been noted by Strachan et al,[@Strachan] may perhaps be due to such an effect. In contrast to this situation with respect to the vortex glass, we note that magnetic field fluctuations should not qualitatively effect the vortex lattice melting transition at low disorder strength, since melting is believed to be mediated by short wavelength shear fluctuations and so should be relatively insensitive to behavior on the long length scale $\\lambda$.\n\nLooking at the vortex glass $T_{\\rm g}(p)$ and vortex lattice melting $T_{\\rm m}(p)$ transition lines in the $T-p$ plane, shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[f1\\], it appears that these lines are of distinctly different origin, rather than one being a continuation of the other. However we are unable to directly investigate this issue as we are unable to sufficiently equilibrate our model system at the low temperatures where these two transition lines would appear to meet.\n\nSmeared Melting at Intermediate Pinning {#sIW}\n=======================================\n\nWe return now to the vortex lattice melting at $p<p_c\\simeq 0.22$. Considering a system size $20\\times 20\\times 12$, twice as thick as the size considered in section \\[smelt\\], we find that as $p$ increases above $\\sim 0.12$ the sharp first order melting transition that we observed in the thinner system now smears out over a finite temperature interval, $T_{\\rm m2}\\lesssim T\\lesssim T_{\\rm m1}$. In Fig.\u00a0\\[f7\\]a we show a plot of the ordering parameter $\\Delta S/S_0$ vs simulation time for a particular realization of the quenched random disorder at disorder strength $p=0.18$ and temperature $T_{\\rm m2}<T=0.18 <T_{\\rm m1}$. In contrast to what we found in Fig.\u00a0\\[f3\\] for the thinner system at weaker disorder, we now see that $\\Delta S/S_0$ appears to fluctuate about [*four*]{} different discrete values. In Fig.\u00a0\\[f7\\]b we plot the histogram $P(\\Delta S)$ vs $\\Delta S/S_0$ resulting from the data of Fig.\u00a0\\[f7\\]a. We see clearly four distinct peaks which we identify as representing the lattice state ($\\Delta S/S_0 \\sim 0.45$), the liquid state ($\\Delta S/S_0\\sim 0$), and what we will denote as the \u201cmixed 1\" and \u201cmixed 2\" states ($\\Delta S/S_0\\sim\\pm 0.2$). The locations of the minima between these peaks, shown as the dashed lines in Fig.\u00a0\\[f7\\]a, we use as a simple criteria for sorting each of the microscopic configurations into one of these four different states. Having so sorted the microscopic states we can then compute the histograms of energy $E$ and disorder conjugate variable $Q$ for each of the four states. These we show in Figs.\u00a0\\[f7\\]c and d. We see that there is a discontinuous decrease in $E$, and a discontinuous increase in $Q$, as the system transitions from the liquid, to the mixed state, to the lattice. The distributions of $E$ and $Q$ are comparable for both mixed 1 and mixed 2 states.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[f8\\] we show log intensity plots of the structure function, $\\ln S({\\bf k}_\\perp)$, averaged separately over the configurations belonging to each of the four states. Figs.\u00a0\\[f8\\]a$-$d correspond to the lattice, liquid, mixed 1 and mixed 2 states, respectively. We see that the lattice state, as expected, has sharp Bragg peaks of relatively high intensity about the reciprocal lattice vectors ${\\bf K}_1$. The liquid state has only broad diffuse peaks of equal low intensity at both ${\\bf K}_1$ and ${\\bf K}_2$ (see Fig.\u00a0\\[f2\\]b for the definition of ${\\bf K}_1$ and ${\\bf K}_2$). The mixed 1 and mixed 2 states have sharp peaks of intermediate intensity at ${\\bf K}_1$ and ${\\bf K}_2$ respectively.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nTo investigate the nature of the mixed states, we plot in Fig.\u00a0\\[f9\\]a the profile of $S(k_x,k_y)$ vs $k_x$ for fixed $k_y=4(2\\pi/L)$ passing through the wavevectors ${\\bf K}_1$ and ${\\bf K}_2$. We see that the peak at ${\\bf K}_1$ for the mixed 1 state of Fig.\u00a0\\[f8\\]c is as sharp as, but smaller in amplitude than, the Bragg peak of the vortex lattice state of Fig.\u00a0\\[f8\\]a, while the remainder of this profile (in particular the small diffuse peak at ${\\bf K}_2$) resembles that of the liquid state of Fig.\u00a0\\[f8\\]b. A similar result holds for the mixed 2 state of Fig.\u00a0\\[f8\\]d, expect that the behaviors at ${\\bf K}_1$ and ${\\bf K}_2$ are now interchanged. In Fig.\u00a0\\[f9\\]b we plot the values of $S({\\bf K}_1)$ and $S({\\bf K}_2)$, computed now for individual $xy$ planes (instead of averaged over all such planes as in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eSk\\])), vs the plane height $z$. We see that in the mixed 1,2 states roughly half the system is ordered into a lattice, while half appears disordered. Comparing the plots for mixed 1 and mixed 2, we see that the location of the more strongly ordered planes remains roughly the same, independent of the two possible orientations of the vortex lattice that is ordering in those planes. We therefore conclude that the relative order or disorder of planes arises from the specific distribution of random bond strengths $\\{J_{i\\mu}\\}$ that exists in the particular realization of the quenched randomness, rather than being an effect due to thermal fluctuations or being stuck out of equilibrium.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nTo further understand the nature of the mixed state, in Fig.\u00a0\\[f10\\] we show intensity plots of the real space average vorticity $\\langle n_z(x,y,z)\\rangle$ in the $xy$ plane for several representative layers at heights $z$. We show plots for the lattice, mixed 1, and liquid states, for the same run that produced the results shown in Figs.\u00a0\\[f7\\]$-$\\[f9\\]. A bright white square represents a pinned vortex that stays on that site throughout the course of the simulation run; a dark black square represents a site on which no vortex sits; squares of intermediate shades of gray represent sites that vortices hop into and out of during the course of the simulation. Hence a region of periodic white squares indicates a local region that has ordered into a pinned vortex lattice; a region of gray squares with no apparent structure to the relative shadings indicates a local region that is disordered into a vortex liquid. We see from Fig.\u00a0\\[f10\\] that even the state which is globally characterized as the lattice contains localized regions which are disordered; these are presumably regions where the vortex pinning, due to the local bond disorder $\\{J_{i\\mu}\\}$, is stronger than average. In one layer, $z=7$, we see large domains of each of the two different possible vortex lattice orientations (i.e. a domain with ordering wavevector ${\\bf K}_2$, as well as a domain with the dominant ordering wavevector ${\\bf K}_1$). In the state which is globally characterized as a vortex liquid, we still see individually pinned vortices. In the mixed state we see layers that are mostly lattice ($z=10$), layers that are mostly liquid ($z=4$), and layers that consist of coexisting domains of lattice and liquid ($z=0,7$).\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nThe above results suggest that the mixed state is one in which different regions of the system order from liquid to lattice at slightly different temperatures, due to fluctuations in local bond strength disorder. Depending on the particular realization of disorder, this can happen in ways that are more complex than the particular case illustrated in Figs.\u00a0\\[f7\\]$-$\\[f10\\]. In some other realizations we have found the histogram $P(\\Delta S)$ does not show such clearly separated peaks as in Fig.\u00a0\\[f7\\]b, and there may be suggestions of more than three peaks. In some realizations we find a mixed state in which some layers of the system have a lattice ordering specified by the wavevector ${\\bf K}_1$, while other layers of the system are ordered with the opposite lattice orientation specified by the wavevector ${\\bf K}_2$. For such a case our ordering parameter $\\Delta S=S({\\bf K}_1)-S({\\bf K}_2)$ can be very small, which by our previous criterion would misidentify such a state as a liquid. To avoid such misidentifications, we adopt instead a more general approach, looking at the two dimensional histogram $P(S({\\bf K}_1), S({\\bf K}_2))$. In such a histogram, the liquid state is represented by a peak at $S({\\bf K}_1)=S({\\bf K}_2)=0$, a uniformly ordered lattice state is represented by a peak at either $S({\\bf K}_1)$ large [*and*]{} $S({\\bf K}_2)$ small, or vice versa, and a mixed state is represented by a peak elsewhere in the $S({\\bf K}_1)\\times S({\\bf K}_2)$ plane. In Fig.\u00a0\\[f11\\] we show such a two dimensional histogram for a different particular realization of the randomness at disorder strength $p=0.14$ and temperature $T=0.208$. We see the lattice state with wavevector ${\\bf K}_1$ coexisting with the liquid state, coexisting with a mixed state having roughly equal ordering in ${\\bf K}_1$ and ${\\bf K}_2$. Based on the location of the peaks in this two dimensional $P(S({\\bf K}_1), S({\\bf K}_2))$ histogram we adopt the following criteria for sorting microscopic configurations into liquid, lattice and mixed states: if $S({\\bf K}_1)/S_0 < 0.08$ [*and*]{} $S({\\bf K}_2)/S_0<0.08$ we assume the configuration is a liquid; if $S({\\bf K}_1)/S_0 > 0.3$ [*and*]{} $S({\\bf K}_2)/S_0 < 0.1$ or vice versa, we assume the configuration is a uniform lattice; any other configuration is taken as belonging to the mixed state.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nAs temperature is varied, the locations of the peaks in $P(S({\\bf K}_1), S({\\bf K}_2))$ vary only slightly, however their weights (total number of configurations in each peak) are found to vary in the following manner. As $T$ decreases, the weight of the liquid state decreases while the weights of the other states increase. As $T$ is decreased further, the liquid state disappears, the weight for the mixed state decreases, while the weight for the lattice state increases. Finally, at low enough $T$, the mixed state disappears and only the lattice state remains. We define $T_{\\rm m1}$ as the temperature where the liquid state and mixed state are roughly equal in weight. We define $T_{\\rm m2}$ as the temperature where the lattice state and mixed state are roughly equal in weight. Our determinations of $T_{\\rm m1}$ and $T_{\\rm m2}$ in this manner are made from rough eyeball estimates, as we find that the errors involved in such eyeball estimates are considerably smaller than the the sample to sample variation in these temperatures between different independent realizations of the quenched random disorder. These values of $T_{\\rm m1}$ and $T_{\\rm m2}$, averaged over $8$ independent realizations of the quenched randomness, determine the phase boundaries shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[f1\\]. Choosing a temperature $T_{\\rm m2}<T<T_{\\rm m1}$ where both liquid and lattice coexist, we also compute the averages of $E$ and $Q$ in the liquid and lattice states separately. We then compute $\\Delta E$ and $\\Delta Q$ as in Eq.\u00a0(\\[DEQ\\]), representing the total change in these quantities as the system orders from liquid to lattice. For a few random realizations, where our simulation temperatures did not include a value where liquid and lattice coexisted, we used standard extrapolation methods to extrapolate the liquid (lattice) histogram from a slightly higher (lower) temperature to a common temperature $T_{\\rm m2}<T<T_{\\rm m1}$, and then computed $\\Delta E$ and $\\Delta Q$ from these extrapolated histograms. Our results, averaged over $8$ independent realization of the quenched random disorder, are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[f5\\]a (solid symbols) where we see that they appear to be a consistent continuation of the results found in the smaller size system ($20\\times 20\\times 6$) at weaker disorder strengths $p$, except that, as noted previously in Table\u00a0\\[tab1\\], $[\\Delta Q]$ is somewhat larger in the larger system size.\n\nThe above results suggest that as the system size and the disorder strength increase, the transition from vortex liquid to lattice remains [*locally*]{} first-order-like, as was found in Section \\[smelt\\], however different regions of the system may order at slightly different temperatures. Such a conclusion is in perfect agreement with experiment results from magneto-optical imaging of vortex lattice melting in BSCCO,[@Soibel] where it was observed that the spread in local melting temperatures over the area of the sample increased as the average melting temperature decreased (i.e. as the average pinning strength increased). A similar observation of coexisting ordered and disordered vortex regions over a finite temperature interval at the vortex lattice melting transition was reported in more recent experimental studies[@Pasquini] of the peak effect region of NbSe$_2$.\n\nThe vortex lattice melting transition thus becomes smeared out over a range of temperatures when viewed on the [*global*]{} scale. Such a scenario was predicted long ago by Imry and Wortis,[@IW] who considered the effect of quenched randomness on a first order phase transition in terms of a competition between the decrease of the free energy due to local ordering of domains of finite size in regions of lower than average quenched disorder, vs the increase of free energy due the surface tension of the resulting domain walls enclosing the ordered domains. We have attempted a quantitative test of the Imry-Wortis scenario as applied to our model. Our efforts are described in Appendix A. While they are suggestive, showing the right trends as disorder strength $p$ increases, our results are not conclusive. Even if the Imry-Wortis scenario applies to our mixed state, two possibilities still exist: ([*i*]{}) it may be that on the global scale in the thermodynamic limit, there remains a sharp first order phase transition with reduced but still discontinuous jumps $\\Delta E$ and $\\Delta Q$ at a single well defined $T_{\\rm m}$, or ([*ii*]{}) it may be that there will be multitude of local transitions spread out smoothly over a range of spatially varying local melting temperatures, thereby converting the transition on the global long length scale to a continuous second order transition. To discriminate between these two possibilities would require looking at much larger systems sizes than we are currently able to equilibrate.\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nTo summarize, our results for the vortex phase diagram of the uniformly frustrated 3D XY model with disordered couplings show many qualitative features in good agreement with experiments on strong type-II superconductors. We find a sharp local first order vortex lattice melting transition at low pinning strengths $p$. The melting temperature decreases as $p$ increases, and appears to be steadily decreasing towards zero as a critical pinning strength $p_c$ is approached. We find that this melting transition remains first order, with no evidence for a critical end point or other multicritical points, down to the lowest temperatures to which we can equilibrate. At high pinning strengths $p>p_c$ we find in our model a sharp second order vortex glass transition. This glass transition may evolve into a non-signular crossover phenomenon if magnetic field fluctuations, due to a finite magnetic penetration length $\\lambda$, were incorporated into the model. A completely new feature of our simulations is the observation that at intermediate disorder strengths $p\\lesssim p_c$ the vortex lattice melting transition is smeared out over a temperature interval of finite width, corresponding to coexisting regions of ordered and disordered vortex states, as has been seen in recent experiments.[@Soibel; @Pasquini]\n\nIt is interesting to compare our results to those of Nonomura and Hu[@NonoHu] (NH), who studied a very similar 3D XY model but with much more weakly coupled planes, $J_z/J_\\perp=1/400$, a more dilute vortex density $f=1/25$, and with random couplings that model a dilute set of localized strong pins rather than the amorphous random couplings we have used here. In addition to vortex lattice melting and vortex glass transitions, NH reported the existence of a vortex slush phase, lying between the vortex liquid and the vortex glass, and separated from the vortex liquid by a sharp first order transition. In earlier work[@OTcomment] we have repeated simulations of NH\u2019s model, using the exact same parameters as NH. We find that their vortex slush phase shares some similarities with our intermediate region discussed above, in that both are regions in which the vortex lines have only partially ordered. There are however some important differences.\n\n\\(i) Our intermediate region lies between the vortex liquid and vortex lattice phases and so may be thought of as a broadening of the melting transition; when we cool at fixed $p$ though the intermediate region, our system (except in rare cases when we fail to equilibrate) always orders into a clear vortex lattice. In NH\u2019s model, the vortex slush lies above the vortex lattice phase (similar to what was reported in some experiments[@Worthington; @Shibata]); cooling through NH\u2019s vortex slush, one enters the vortex glass and not the vortex lattice. (ii) We showed[@OTcomment] that considerable hysteresis existed in the region of NH\u2019s vortex slush phase. In our present simulations there is no hysteresis: at fixed simulation parameters in our intermediate region the system is repeatedly hopping into and out of the vortex lattice, liquid, and mixed states (see Fig.\u00a0\\[f7\\]a) and our system is thus fully equilibrated. (iii) We argued[@OTcomment] that in NH\u2019s model, most planes of their vortex slush contained an ordered vortex lattice, however the orientations of the vortex lattice varied with height $z$; we argued that these mismatched vortex lattice orientations would be unfavorable in the thermodynamic limit and that NH\u2019s vortex slush was most likely a finite size effect to be replaced by an ordered vortex lattice as system size increased. In our intermediate region, however, we see coexisting planes of mostly vortex lattice, planes of mostly vortex liquid, as well as planes with large domains of both lattice and liquid. The scaling argument we used against NH\u2019s vortex slush thus does not apply. It is of course possible that upon increasing system size, NH\u2019s vortex slush will similarly develop coexisting ordered and disordered domains within individual planes and so remain as a stable phase.\n\nWe conclude therefore that our intermediate region is distinctly different from the vortex slush of NH, and is perhaps more similar to the multidomain glass state that has been proposed by Menon.[@Menon] Unfortuntely, we have not been able to equilibrate our system in the interesting region where the vortex lattice melting transition meets the vortex glass transition.\n\nAnother set of interesting simulations has been carried out recently by Dasgupta and Valls[@DasguptaValls1; @DasguptaValls2] using a density functional approach applied to interacting pancake vortices in a 3D layered system. They consider both the case of dense amorphous pins,[@DasguptaValls1] such as we consider here, and the case of dilute well localized pins,[@DasguptaValls2] closer to the model of NH, mapping out the phase diagram as a function of temperature and pinning strength. Their approach, being essentially an equilibrium mean field method in the presence of quenched randomness, is suited to locating first order phase transitions, as in vortex lattice melting or the proposed vortex slush, rather than continuous second order transitions, as one expects for a vortex glass. For the dense amorphous pinning, they find only a single unified vortex lattice melting transition, qualitatively similar in shape to what we find in the present work. Their vortex liquid state shows no significant local ordering on length scales larger than the average vortex spacing and the average vortex density varies smoothly as one goes from the vortex liquid at weak pinning to the vortex liquid at strong pinning. They find no vortex glass, no vortex slush, and no multidomain glass of polycrystaline domains. For the case of dilute well localized pins, they find again a vortex lattice melting transition with a similar shape as before (though quantitatively at a very different location, comparing amorphous to dilute pins with equal second moments of the random pinning potential). Their vortex liquid state, however, now shows a clear polycrystaline structure with noticeable short range translational order extending on lengths larger than the average vortex spacing. However they again find no first order transition within their vortex liquid phase, such as might define a region of vortex slush or multidomain glass as distinct from the vortex liquid. Using a percolation criterion to define a crossover to glassy behavior within the vortex liquid phase, they find a line that is qualitatively similar in location to our vortex glass transition, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[f1\\].\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThis work was supported by U.S. Department of Energy grant No. DE-FG02-06ER46298, by Swedish Research Council Contract No. 2007-5234, and by the resources of the Swedish High Performance Computing Center North (HPC2N). We thank A. E. Koshelev for helpful discussion.\n\nAppendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}\n==========\n\nWe give a simplified summary of the Imry-Wortis scenario, as applied to our model, as follows. Consider $T_{\\rm m}(p)$ the nominal melting temperature of a system with disorder strength $p$. Let $$\\Delta f(p,T)\\equiv f_{\\rm lattice}(p,T)-f_{\\rm liquid}(p,T)\n\\label{eADf}$$ be the difference in free energy density between the vortex lattice and liquid states. Consider now a volume $v$ in which, due to the random distribution of pins, the effective disorder strength $p_{\\rm eff}$ is either greater than, or less than, the average $p$, $p_{\\rm eff}=p\\pm\\Delta p$ ($\\Delta p>0$). Since $dT_{\\rm m}/dp<0$, if $p_{\\rm eff}>p$, the domain would lower its bulk free energy by [*disordering*]{} for some range of temperatures $\\Delta T$ [*below*]{} $T_{\\rm m}(p)$. Similarly, if $p_{\\rm eff}<p$, the domain would lower its bulk free energy by [*ordering*]{} for some range of $\\Delta T$ [*above*]{} $T_{\\rm m}$. This is sketched in Fig.\u00a0\\[f12\\] below.\n\n=8.6truecm\n\nFor the system siting at $T_{\\rm m}(p)$, the [*decrease*]{} in the bulk free energy of such a domain would be, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Delta F_{\\rm bulk}&=&\\pm v\\Delta f(p\\pm\\Delta p, T_{\\rm m}(p))\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\approx& v{\\partial \\Delta f(p,T_{\\rm m}(p))\\over\\partial p}\\Delta p\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&v\\Delta Q(p,T_{\\rm m}(p))\\Delta p\n\\enspace.\n\\label{eADFb}\\end{aligned}$$ where the last line follows from our definition of $\\Delta Q$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[DEQ\\]).\n\nOn the other hand, the formation such a domain would lead to an [*increase*]{} in surface free energy due to the resulting domain wall, $$\\Delta F_{\\rm surface}\\sim 2\\sigma_z \\ell_\\perp^2 + 4\\sigma_\\perp\\ell_\\perp\\ell_z\\enspace,\n\\label{eADFs}$$ where we take account of the anisotropy of the system by denoting $\\ell_z$ and $\\ell_\\perp$ as the lengths of the domain parallel and perpendicular to the applied magnetic field, with $\\sigma_z$ and $\\sigma_\\perp$ the surface tension between vortex lattice and liquid for surfaces with normal in these respective directions. The domain will be unstable to flipping only if the total change in free energy is negative, $$\\Delta F = -\\Delta F_{\\rm bulk}+\\Delta F_{\\rm surface}<0\\enspace.\n\\label{eADFtot}$$ For simplicity, we will assume that the domains which form are such that the surface tension is equally distributed over all surfaces, so that, $$\\sigma_z \\ell_\\perp^2\\sim\\sigma_\\perp \\ell_\\perp \\ell_z,\\quad {\\rm so}\\quad \\ell_z\\sim {\\sigma_z\\over\\sigma_\\perp}\\ell_\\perp\\enspace,$$ and so the volume of the domain is $v\\sim \\ell_\\perp^2\\ell_z=(\\sigma_z/\\sigma_\\perp)\\ell_\\perp^3$. The instability condition Eq.\u00a0(\\[eADFtot\\]) then becomes, $$\\Delta F(\\ell_\\perp)=-{\\sigma_z\\over\\sigma_\\perp}\\ell_\\perp^3\\Delta Q\\Delta p + 6\\sigma_z\\ell_\\perp^2<0\\enspace.\n\\label{eADFtot2}$$ Next, we can write that the typical variation in disorder $\\Delta p$ for a domain of size $\\ell_\\perp^2\\ell_z$ can be written as, $$\\Delta p = {\\Delta T_{\\rm m}\\over |dT_{\\rm m}/dp|}\n={\\Delta T_{\\rm m}\\Delta E\\over T_{\\rm m}\\Delta Q}\\enspace,\n\\label{eADp}$$ where $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}$ is the variation in melting temperatures for domains of size $\\ell_\\perp^2\\ell_z$ sampled from a system with average disorder $p$, and the last equality follows from the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eCC2\\]). If the system is self averaging, as is suggested by our results in Table\u00a0\\[tab1\\], then we expect $$\\Delta T_{\\rm m}={\\alpha\\over \\sqrt{\\ell_\\perp^2\\ell_z}}={\\alpha\\over \\sqrt{(\\sigma_z/\\sigma_\\perp)}\\ell_\\perp^{3/2}}\n\\label{eADTm}$$ where $\\alpha$ is some constant. Substituting Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eADTm\\]) and (\\[eADp\\]) into (\\[eADFtot2\\]) then gives $$\\Delta F(\\ell_\\perp) = -\\sqrt{\\sigma_z\\over\\sigma_\\perp}{\\alpha\\Delta E\\over T_{\\rm m}}\\ell_\\perp^{3/2}+6\\sigma_z\\ell_\\perp^2<0\\enspace.\n\\label{eADFtot3}$$ We sketch $\\Delta F(\\ell_\\perp)$ in Fig.\u00a0\\[f13\\]. Defining $\\ell_{\\perp 0}$ by $\\Delta F(\\ell_{\\perp 0})=0$, we see that the system can be unstable only to the flipping of domains with transverse length $\\ell_\\perp<\\ell_{\\perp 0}$. From Eq.\u00a0(\\[eADFtot3\\]) we have, $$\\ell_{\\perp 0} = {1\\over\\sigma_z\\sigma_\\perp}\\left[{\\alpha\\Delta E\\over 6 T_{\\rm m}}\\right]^2\\enspace.\n\\label{eAellperp0}$$\n\n=6.0truecm\n\nHowever, the above arguments only apply to domains which are well defined as such, i.e. they are at least as big as the correlation length that defines the minimum size of a domain. Hence the instability condition for domain flipping becomes, $$\\xi_\\perp<\\ell_\\perp<\\ell_{\\perp 0}\\enspace,\n\\label{eAinst}$$ and so, in particular, the system is [*stable*]{} against the flipping of local domains if $\\xi_\\perp>\\ell_{\\perp 0}$. As the disorder is increased, one in general expects $\\ell_{\\perp 0}$ to increase. So if at low disorder the system is stable, $\\xi_\\perp>\\ell_{\\perp 0}$, as the disorder increases one will eventually reach the condition $\\xi_\\perp=\\ell_{\\perp 0}$ and the system will first become unstable to domains on the size of the correlation length $\\xi_\\perp$. As the disorder increases further, larger domains of size $\\ell_\\perp$, with $\\ell_{\\perp 0}>\\ell_\\perp>\\xi_\\perp$, will go unstable.\n\nTo test the Imry-Wortis scenario for our vortex line system, we therefore wish to compute the length $\\ell_{\\perp 0}$ of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eAellperp0\\]). We have already computed $T_{\\rm m}$ and $\\Delta E$, as shown in Figs.\u00a0\\[f1\\] and \\[f5\\] respectively. We use our results from the $20\\times 20\\times 6$ size system, averaging $\\Delta E/T_{\\rm m}$ over the different realizations of randomness, and computing $\\alpha = \\Delta T_{\\rm m}\\sqrt{V}$ from the observed spread in melting temperatures, such as shown in Table\u00a0\\[tab1\\] for the specific case of $p=0.12$. It remains, therefore, to compute the surface tensions $\\sigma_z$ and $\\sigma_\\perp$.\n\nTo compute the surface tension we use a method based on the approach of Potvin and Rebbi.[@Potvin] We take a given realization of the randomness for which we have previously determined the melting temperature $T_{\\rm m}$. We then take an exact copy of this system and join it to the original along the surface whose surface tension we seek to compute. On one side, denoted as \u201cside 1\", we use couplings $J_{\\perp 1}=J_\\perp(1+\\delta_1)$ and $J_{z1}=J_z(1+\\delta_1)$ while on the other side, denoted as \u201cside 2\", we use couplings $J_{\\perp 2}=J_\\perp(1+\\delta_2)$ and $J_{z2}=J_z(1+\\delta_2)$. In this way we expect that exactly at $T_{\\rm m}$ (as determined in the original system with $\\delta_{1,2}=0$) if $\\delta_{1,2}>0$, that side will be ordered, while if $\\delta_{1,2}<0$, that side will be disordered. Choosing $\\delta_1=-\\delta$ and $\\delta_2=+\\delta$ will thus create an interface between ordered and disordered halves of the total system. Consider now a trajectory in the $(\\delta_1,\\delta_2)$ plane, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[f14\\].\n\n=6.0truecm\n\nIn this figure, point $A$ is a totally disordered system, point $C$ is a totally ordered system, and point $B$ has side 1 ordered and side 2 disordered. The total free energy of the system at point $B$ can be written as $$F_B={1\\over 2}F_A + {1\\over 2}F_C+2\\Sigma\n\\label{eA1}$$ where $F_A$ and $F_C$ are the total free energies at points $A$ and $C$, and $\\Sigma$ is the total surface free energy of one interface between the ordered and disordered halves. The factor $2\\Sigma$ appears since our periodic boundary conditions necessarily creates two interfaces equally spaced by half the length of the total system. From this we have, $$4\\Sigma=[F_B-F_A]+[F_B-F_C]\\enspace.\n\\label{eA2}$$ The surface tension between coexisting disordered and ordered phases at the same transition temperature $T_{\\rm m}$ is then obtained from $\\Sigma$, taking in principle the limit of $\\delta\\to 0$. To evaluate the free energy differences in the above equation we use, $$F_B-F_A=\\int_{-\\delta}^{+\\delta}d\\delta_1 {\\partial F(\\delta_1,\\delta_2)\\over\\partial \\delta_1}\n=\\int_{-\\delta}^{+\\delta}d\\delta_1 {E_1(\\delta_1,\\delta_2)\\over 1+\\delta_1}\\enspace,\n\\label{eA3}$$ where $E_1(\\delta_1,\\delta_2)$ is the total energy of side 1 at the specified couplings. A similar expression can be derived for $F_B-F_C$. Simulating at points along the trajectory $A\\to B\\to C$ we then integrate the energies $E_1$ and $E_2$ to compute the surface tension, $$\\sigma={\\Sigma\\over A}={1\\over 4A}\\left[\\int_{-\\delta}^{+\\delta}d\\delta_1{E_1(\\delta_1,\\delta_2)\\over 1+\\delta_1} - \\int_{-\\delta}^{+\\delta}d\\delta_2{E_2(\\delta_1,\\delta_2)\\over 1+\\delta_2}\\right]\\enspace,\n\\label{eA4}$$ where $A$ is the total area of one interface. We implement this procedure on a $20\\times20\\times 6$ system doubled in the $z$ direction (to make a $20\\times20\\times 12$ system) so as to compute $\\sigma_z$, and doubled in the $x$ direction (to make a $40\\times20\\times 6$ system) so as to compute $\\sigma_\\perp$. We use a value $\\delta=0.1$ in order to get reasonable results. Our results are averaged over 8 independent realizations of the random disorder (only 7 for $p=0.18$). We plot our results in Fig.\u00a0\\[f15\\].\n\n=8.0truecm\n\nAs expected, $\\sigma_z$ and $\\sigma_\\perp$ decrease as the disorder strength $p$ increases. For our parameters of anisotropy and vortex line density we find $\\sigma_z\\approx \\sigma_\\perp/3$.\n\nWe summarize the pieces of our calculation of $\\ell_{\\perp 0}$ in Table\u00a0\\[tab2\\]. The values for $\\sigma_z$ and $\\sigma_\\perp$ are obtained as described above. Values for $[\\Delta E/T_{\\rm m}]$ are obtained averaging over careful equilibrations of 20, 8, and 7 different realizations of the random disorder for $p=0.12$, 0.16 and 0.18 respectively, for a $20\\times20\\times 6$ system. Because the spread in melting temperatures $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}$ is the quantity that is most sensitive to the fact that we sample only over a rather small number of random realizations, for $p=0.16$ ($0.18$) we have tried to do better than the 8 (7) realizations we have carefully equilibrated by computing $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}$ from 16 random realizations where we determine $T_{\\rm m}$ from shorter runs and more qualitative methods. We then use $\\alpha=\\Delta T_{\\rm m}\\sqrt{20^2\\times 6}$.\n\n   $p$    $\\Delta T_{\\rm m}$   $[\\Delta E/T_{\\rm m}]$   $\\sigma_z$   $\\sigma_\\perp$   $\\ell_{\\perp 0}$\n  ------ -------------------- ------------------------ ------------ ---------------- ------------------\n   0.12         0.0037                 0.124              0.0051         0.0153             0.18\n   0.16         0.0060                 0.074              0.0034         0.0091             0.42\n   0.18         0.0090                 0.076              0.0025         0.0051             2.41\n\n  : Values that enter our calculation of $\\ell_{\\perp 0}$ from Eq.\u00a0(\\[eAellperp0\\]).\n\n\\[tab2\\]\n\nOur results show $\\ell_{\\perp 0}$ to be an increasing function of disorder strength $p$, as expected. However, for the system to become unstable to the flipping of domains it is necessary that $\\ell_{\\perp 0}>\\xi_\\perp$. For our vortex density of $f=1/5$ we estimate that $\\xi_\\perp$ at $T_{\\rm m}$ is at least as large as the average vortex spacing, $a_{\\rm v}=1/\\sqrt{5}\\simeq 2.2$. This seems consistent with the real space images of Fig.\u00a0\\[f10\\] were we see ordered regions of at least this size in the liquid, and disordered regions of at least this size in the lattice. Thus we have $\\ell_{\\perp 0}\\gtrsim\\xi_\\perp$ only for our strongest disorder strength $p=0.18$, where our results are perhaps the least accurate. In contrast, our phase diagram of Fig.\u00a0\\[f1\\] shows that the mixed state is already observed for disorder strengths as low as $p=0.14$.\n\nIt should be noted that the above analysis is based only on typical \u201croot mean square\" behaviors. Correlations between bulk and surface free energies of domains may enhance the effect over what we have estimated above. For example, a domain of lattice may flip to the liquid state in a region where the vortex pinning is locally stronger than on average; but in such a region, Fig.\u00a0\\[f15\\] shows that the surface tension is lower than average, thus reducing the energy cost of such a flip from that considered in our arguments above. Domains may also flip in regions of the system where the value of the local disorder strength lies further out in the tails of the disorder strength distribution, rather than near the root mean square value. This might explain why we see our intermediate mixed states more easily when we increase the system size, thus affording a wider sampling of the disorder strength distribution within any given single sample. The results of our Imry-Wortis analysis thus show the right trends for explaining our intermediate mixed states, however in the absence of a clear quantitative agreement, $\\ell_{\\perp 0}\\sim\\xi_\\perp$, we must regard our results as still inconclusive.\n\n[99]{}\n\nM. Tinkham, [*Introduction to Superconductivity*]{} (R.E. Krieger Co. Malabar, FL, 1980)\n\nFor reviews see, G. Blatter, M. V. Feigel\u2019man, V. B. Geshkenbein, A. I. Larkin, and V. M. Vinokur, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**66**]{}, 1125 (1994); E. H. Brandt, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**58**]{}, 1465 (1995) Y. Paltiel, E. Zeldov, Y. Myasoedov, M. L. Rappaport, G. Jung, S. Bhattacharya, M. J. Higgins, Z. L. Xiao, E. Y. Andrei, P. L. Gammel, and D. J. Bishop, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 3712 (2000) X. S. Ling, S. R. Park, B. A. McClain, S. M. Choi, D. C. Dender and J. W. Lynn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} 712 (2001); S. R. Park, S. M. Choi, D. C. Dender, J. W. Lynn and X. S. Ling, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 167003 (2003)\n\nS. S. Banerjee, A. K. Grover, M. J. Higgins, G. I. Menon, P. K. Mishra, D. Pal, S. Ramakrishnan, T. V. Chandrasekhar Rao, G. Ravikumar, V. C. Sahni, S. Sarkar and C. V. Tomy, Physica C [**355**]{}, 39 (2001) M. Marchevsky, M. J. Higgins and S. Bhattacharya, Nature (London) [**409**]{}, 591 (2001) and Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 087002 (2002) G. Pasquini, D. P. Daroca, C. Chiliotte, G. S. Lozano and V. Bekeris, Phys. Rev. Letts. [**100**]{}, 247003 (2008) G. I. Menon, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 104527 (2002) T. K. Worthington, M. P. A. Fisher, D.A. Huse, J. Toner, A. D. Marwick, T. Zabel, C. A. Feild and F. Holtzberg, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 11854 (1992) R. Liang, D. A. Bonn, and W. N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 835 (1996) A. Schilling, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips, U. Welp, D. Dasgupta, W. K. Kwok and G. W. Crabtree, Nature (London) [**382**]{}, 791 (1996); A. Schilling, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips, U. Welp, W. K. Kwok and G. W. Crabtree, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4833 (1997)\n\nB. Khaykovich, E. Zeldov, D. Majer, T. W. Li, P. H. Kes, and M. Konczykowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 2555 (1996); B. Khaykovich, M. Konczykowski, E. Zeldov, R. A. Doyle, D. Majer, P. H. Kes, and T. W. Li, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, R517 (1997) T. Nishizaki, T. Naito, S. Okayasu, A. Iwase and N. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 3649 (2000) F. Bouquet, C. Marcenat, E. Steep, R. Calemczuk, W. K. Kwok, U. Welp, G. W. Crabtree, R. A. Fisher, N. E. Phillips and A. Schilling, Nature (London) [**411**]{}, 448 (2001)\n\nC. J. van der Beek, S. Colson, M. V. Indenbom and M. Konczykowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 4196 (2000) M. B. Gaifullin, Y. Matsuda, N. Chikumoto, J. Shimoyama, and K. Kishio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2945 (2000) N. Avraham, B. Khaykovich, Y. Myasoedov, M. Rappaport, H. Shtrikman, D.E. Feldman, T. Tamegai, P. H. Kes, M. Li, M. Konczykowski, K. van der Beek and E. Zeldov, Nature [**411**]{}, 451 (2001) Y. Radzyner, A. Shaulov, Y. Yeshurun, I. Felner, K. Kishio and J. Shimoyama, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 100503(R) (2002); Y. Radzyner, A. Shaulov and Y. Yeshurun, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 100513(R) (2002) S. Li and H.-H. Wen, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 214515 (2002) H. Beidenkopf, N. Avraham, Y. Myasoedov, H. Shtrikman, E. Zeldov, B. Rosenstein, E. H. Brandt and T. Tamegai, Phys. Rev. Letts. [**95**]{}, 257004 (2005) H. Beidenkopf, T. Verdene, Y. Myasoedov, H. Shtrikman, E. Zeldov, B. Rosenstein, D. Li and T. Tamegai, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 167004 (2007)\n\nA.M. Petrean, L. M. Paulius, W.K. Kwok, J. A. Fendrich and G. W. Crabtree, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5852 (2000) M. Andersson, A. Rydh and \u00d6. Rapp, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 184511 (2001) D. R. Strachan, M. C. Sullivan, P. Fournier, S. P. Pai, T. Venkatesan and C. J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 067007 (2001) D. R. Strachan, M. C. Sullivan and C. J. Lobb, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 012512 (2006) K. Shibata, T. Nishizaki, T. Sasaki and N. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 214518 (2002) A. Soibel, E. Zeldov, M. Rappaport, Y. Myasoedov, T. Tamegai, S. Ooi, M. Konczykowski and V. Geshkenbein, Nature [**406**]{}, 282 (2000); A. Soibel, Y. Myasoedov, M.L. Rappaport, T. Tamegai, S. S. Banerjee and E. Zeldov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 167001 (2001) T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 1530 (1994); T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 1242 (1995) T. Nattermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 2454 (1990) D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1964 (1997) D. S. Fisher, M. P. A. Fisher and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 130 (1991)\n\nT. Nattermann and S. Scheidl, Adv. Phys. [**49**]{}, 607 (2000) D. Erta\u015f and D. R. Nelson, Physica C [**272**]{}, 79 (1996) T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. B 55, 6577 (1997) A. E. Koshelev and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 8026 (1998) J. Kierfeld and V. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, R14928 (2000) G. P. Mikitik and E. H. Brandt, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 054509 (2003) J. Kierfeld and V. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 024501 (2004) D. P. Li and B. Rosenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 167004 (2003) J. Dietel and H. Kleinert, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 144513 (2007) S. Ryu, A. Kapitulnik and S. Doniach, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2300 (1996)\n\nN. K. Wilkin and H. J. Jensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4254 (1997)\n\nA. van Otterlo, R. T. Scalettar and G. T. Zim\u00e1nyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1497 (1998)\n\nC. Reichhardt, A. van Otterlo and G. T. Zim\u00e1nyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 1994 (2000) Y. Nonomura and X. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 5140 (2001) P. Olsson and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 137001 (2001) P. Olsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 077002 (2003); P. Olsson, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 144525 (2005) H. Kawamura, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**69**]{}, 29 (2000) H. Kawamura, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{} 220502(R) (2003) J. Lidmar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 097001 (2003) C. Dasgupta and O. T. Valls, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 184513 (2006) C. Dasgupta and O. T. Valls, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 184509 (2007) Y.-H. Li and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 3301 (1991); T. Chen and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 15197 (1997)\n\nG. I. Menon and C. Dasgupta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 1023 (1994) H. G. Katzgraber and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 224507 (2002) and references therein. H. S. Bokil and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3021 (1995); C. Wengel and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, R6869 (1996) Y. Imry and M. Wortis, Phys. Rev. B [**19**]{}, 3580 (1979) P. Olsson and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 219703 (2005) J. Potvin and C. R. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 3062 (1989)\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We investigate univalent functions $f(z)=z+a_2z^2+a_3z^3+\\ldots$ in the unit disk\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ extendible to $k$-q.c.(=quasiconformal) automorphisms of\u00a0$\\C$. In particular, we answer a question on estimation of\u00a0$|a_3|$ raised by K\u00fchnau and Niske \\[Math. Nachr. [**78**]{} (1977) 185\u2013192\\]. This is one of the results we obtain studying univalent functions that admit q.c.-extensions via a construction, based on Loewner\u2019s parametric representation method, due to Becker \\[J. Reine Angew. Math. [**255**]{} (1972) 23\u201343\\]. Another problem we consider is to find the maximal $k_*\\in(0,1]$ such that every univalent function\u00a0$f$ in\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ having a $k$-q.c. extension to\u00a0$\\C$ with $k\\le k_*$ admits also a Becker q.c.-extension, possibly with a larger upper bound for the dilatation. We prove that $k_*>1/6$. Moreover, we show that in some cases, Becker\u2019s extension turns out to be the optimal one. Namely, given any $k\\in(0,1)$, to each finite Blaschke product there corresponds a univalent function $f$ in\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ that admits a Becker $k$-q.c. extension but no $k''$-q.c. extensions to\u00a0$\\C$ with\u00a0$k''<k$.'\naddress:\n- 'Institutt for matematikk og fysikk, Universitetet i Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, '\n- 'Department of Applied Science, Yamaguchi University, 2-16-1 Tokiwadai, Ube 755-8611, '\nauthor:\n- Pavel Gumenyuk\n- 'Ikkei Hotta$^\\dag$'\ntitle: 'Univalent functions with quasiconformal extensions: Becker\u2019s class and estimates of the third coefficient.'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nConformal mappings of\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}:=\\{z:|z|<1\\}$ admitting quasiconformal extensions is a classical topic in Geometric Function Theory closely related to Teichm\u00fcller Theory, see e.g.\u00a0[@Lehto_book; @Schober]. Let $k\\in(0,1)$. A function\u00a0$f$ holomorphic in a domain\u00a0$D\\subset{\\mathbb{C}}$ is said to be extendible to\u00a0${\\mathbb{C}}$ (or to\u00a0${\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}$) if there exists a $k$-quasiconformal automorphism ${F:{\\mathbb{C}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}}$ (respectively, ${F:{\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}\\to{\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}}$) such that $F|_{\\mathbb{D}}=f$. Note that $k$-q.c. extendibility to\u00a0${\\mathbb{C}}$, which we will be mostly concerned with in this paper, is equivalent to $k$-q.c. extendibility to\u00a0${\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}$ with the additional condition that\u00a0$F(\\infty)=\\infty$.\n\nDenote by ${\\mathcal{S}}$ the class of all univalent (i.e. injective holomorphic) functions $${\\mathbb{D}}\\ni z\\mapsto f(z)=z+\\sum_{n=2}^{+\\infty}a_nz^n.$$ One of the main tools to study this class is the *parametric representation*, which goes back to Loewner\u00a0[@Loewner], see e.g. [@Pommerenke \u00a76.1], see also\u00a0[@Kufarev43; @Pommerenke65; @Gut]. Namely, the class ${\\mathcal{S}}$ can be represented as an image of the convex cone formed by the so-called *Herglotz functions*, i.e. functions $p:{\\mathbb{D}}\\times[0,+\\infty)\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ such that $p(z,\\cdot)$ is locally integrable for each\u00a0$z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$ and $p(\\cdot,t)$ is holomorphic in\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ and satisfies $\\Re p(\\cdot,t)\\ge0$ for a.e.\u00a0$t\\ge0$. It is known that for any Herglotz function $p$, the initial value problem for the Loewner\u2013Kufarev ODE $$\\label{EQ_LK-ODE0}\n\\frac{{\\mathrm{d}}w}{{\\mathrm{d}}t}=-w\\,p(w,t),\\quad t\\ge0,\\qquad w(z,0)=z\\in{\\mathbb{D}},$$ has a unique solution $w=w(z,t)$ and the locally uniform limit $$\\label{EQ_f-limit}\nf(z):=\\lim_{t\\to+\\infty}\\frac{\\,\\mathrlap{w(z,t)}\\hphantom{w'(0,t)}}{\\,w'(0,t)},\\quad z\\in{\\mathbb{D}},$$ where $w'$ denotes the derivative w.r.t.\u00a0$z$, exists and belongs to\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}$. On the other hand, see e.g.\u00a0[@Pommerenke Theorem\u00a06.1 on p.159] or\u00a0[@Gut], *every* function\u00a0$f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$ can be represented by\u00a0 with a suitable, and in general not unique, *normalized* Herglotz function, i.e. a Herglotz function\u00a0$p$ with\u00a0$\\Re p(0,t)=1$ for a.e.\u00a0$t\\ge0$.\n\nA natural problem arises: *given a subclass\u00a0${\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}\\subset{\\mathcal{S}}$, find a class of Herglotz functions that generates\u00a0${\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}$ via\u00a0.* The answer is known in some cases, e.g. for starlike functions, bounded univalent functions, and for univalent functions with real Taylor coefficients;\n\nA partial answer is also known for the subclass\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$, $k\\in(0,1)$, formed by all $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$ admitting $k$-q.c. extension to\u00a0${\\mathbb{C}}$. Namely, in 1972, Becker\u00a0[@Becker72] found a condition on $p$ in the Loewner\u2013Kufarev equation\u00a0, see Sect.\\[SS\\_Becker\\], such that the function $f$ given by\u00a0 belongs to\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$. The class\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ generated by Herglotz functions that satisfy Becker\u2019s condition is a *proper* subset of\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$. In this paper we study\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ and its relation with\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$. In particular, in Sect.\\[SS\\_a3\\] we find the sharp estimate for\u00a0$|a_3|$ in\u00a0$S_k^B$, see Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_a\\_3\\]. An immediate corollary is the answer to a question of K\u00fchnau and Niske\u00a0[@KuhnauNiske]: Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_a\\_3\\] implies that $\\max_{S_k}|a_3|>k$ for any\u00a0$k\\in(0,1)$.\n\nNumerous sharp estimates are known for the class\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}$, see e.g.\u00a0[@Duren], with many of them being motivated by the famous Bieberbach Conjecture concerning estimates for\u00a0$|a_n|$, which was proved by de Branges\u00a0[@deBranges] in\u00a01984. Unfortunately, only a few of these results have been extended to classes\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$, see e.g. [@Kuhnau69; @Lehto71]. In particular, the sharp estimate for $|a_n|$ in\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$ is known only for\u00a0$n=2$. Remarkably, in most of the cases discussed previously, the extremal functions belong to\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$. We prove a bit surprising fact that this does not hold for the sharp estimate of\u00a0$|a_3|$, see Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_not-extremal\\].\n\nBecker\u2019s construction of quasiconformal extensions {#SS_Becker}\n==================================================\n\nThroughout the paper we make use of Loewner Theory, the classical version of which can be found in\u00a0[@Pommerenke Chapter\u00a06]. Following Becker\u00a0[@Becker76], [@Becker80 \u00a75.1], we replace the usual normalization ${p(0,t)=1}$ by a weaker condition $$\\label{EQ_weaker-normalization-for-p}\n\\int_0^{+\\infty}\\!\\!\\Re p(0,t)\\,{\\mathrm{d}}t=+\\infty,$$ which still implies that $\\bigcup\\limits_{t\\ge0}f_t({\\mathbb{D}})=\\C$. In 1972, he discovered the\n\n\\[TH\\_Becker\\] Let $k\\in[0,1)$ and let $(f_t)$ be a radial Loewner chain whose Herglotz function\u00a0$p$ satisfies $$\\label{EQ_Becker-condition}\n  p({\\mathbb{D}},t) \\subset U(k):=\\left\\{ w \\in \\C \\colon \\left|\\frac{w-1}{w+1}\\right| \\le k\\right\\}\\quad\\text{for  a.e.~$t\\ge0$}.$$ Then for every\u00a0$t\\ge0$, the function\u00a0$f_t$ admits a $k$-q.c. extension to\u00a0${\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}$ that fixes\u00a0$\\infty$. In particular, such an extension for\u00a0$f_0$ is given by $$\\label{EQ_BeckerExt}\nF(\\rho e^{i\\theta}):=\\left\\{\n \\begin{array}{ll}\n  f_0(\\rho e^{i\\theta}), & \\text{if~$0\\le \\rho<1$},\\\\[1ex]\n  f_{\\log \\rho}(e^{i\\theta}), & \\text{if~$\\rho\\ge1$}.\n \\end{array}\n\\right.$$\n\n\\[RM\\_2018\\] According to [@Istvan Theorem\u00a02], a sort of converse statement holds. Namely, if $(f_t)$ is a Loewner chain such that all $f_t$\u2019s extend continuously to\u00a0$\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}$ and the map $F$ defined by\u00a0 is $k$-quasiconformal in\u00a0$\\C$, then the Herglotz function\u00a0$p$ associated with\u00a0$(f_t)$ satisfies Becker\u2019s condition\u00a0.\n\nIn what follows, for $k\\in(0,1)$, we will denote by ${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ the class of all $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$ admitting Loewner\u2019s representation with the Herglotz function $p$ normalized by $p(0,t)=1$ a.e.$t\\ge0$ and satisfying\u00a0. A bit larger class of all $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$ generated by Herglotz functions subject to Becker\u2019s condition\u00a0, but not necessarily normalized, will be denoted by\u00a0${\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}$.\n\nAccording to Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_Becker\\], ${\\mathcal{S}}^B_k\\subset{\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}\\subset{\\mathcal{S}}_k$. It is known that ${\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}\\neq{\\mathcal{S}}_k$, see . However, it seems that the study of\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ and\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$ is still of considerable interest. It is worth to mention that Becker\u2019s condition\u00a0 appears to be sufficient for q.c.-extendibility also in the framework of the general Loewner Theory introduced in\u00a0[@BracciCD:evolutionI; @BracciCD:evolutionII]; see [@Istvan], [@Ikkei2], and\u00a0[@HottaGum::QC-chordal]. This discussion will be continued in Sect.\\[SS\\_relation\\].\n\nEstimate of the third coefficient {#SS_a3}\n=================================\n\nBelow we give a sharp estimate for $|a_3|$ in the class\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$. As a corollary, we immediately obtain a *negative* answer to the question raised in 1977 by K\u00fchnau and Niske\u00a0[@KuhnauNiske]: does there exist $k_0>0$ such that for any $k\\in(0,k_0]$ and any function $f(z)=z+a_2z+a_3 z^3+\\ldots$ belonging to\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$, the inequality $|a_3|\\le k$ holds?\n\n\\[TH\\_a\\_3\\] Let $k\\in(0,1)$. Then for every function $f(z)=z + a_2z^2 + a_3z^3+\\ldots$ belonging to ${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, $$|a_3|\\le k\\big(1+e^{1-1/k}(1+k)\\big).$$ This estimate is sharp and the equality holds only for rotations of the function $f_+\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, which is uniquely defined by the Beltrami coefficient\u00a0 of its q.c.-extension to\u00a0$\\C$.\n\nThe above theorem does not solve the extremal problem $|a_3|\\to\\max$ *in the whole class\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$*. In fact, the following takes place.\n\n\\[TH\\_not-extremal\\] For any $k\\in(0,1)$, $$\\label{EQ_upper-est}\n\\max_{{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B}|a_3|<\\max_{{\\mathcal{S}}_k}|a_3|\\le \\varrho(k):=\\min_{\\alpha\\in(0,1)}\\Bigl[\\big(1+2e^{-2\\alpha/(1-\\alpha)}\\big)k+4\\alpha k^2\\Bigr].$$\n\n\\[RM\\_Krushkal\\] The sharp estimate in Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_a\\_3\\] shows that the inequality ${|a_n|\\le 2k/(n-1)}$ written in the larger class ${\\mathcal{S}}_k$ for $0<k\\le 1/(1+n^2)$ and all $n=2,3,\\ldots$ by Krushkal\u00a0[@Krushkal-a_n Corollary on p.350], in fact, fails for\u00a0$n=3$. Note that the two estimates have tangency of infinite order at\u00a0$k=0$, while the difference from the r.h.s. of\u00a0 behaves asymptotically as\u00a0$4k^2$. The three estimates are shown in Figure\u00a0\\[FI\\_graph\\].\n\n![Estimates for\u00a0$|a_3|$ mentioned in Remark\u00a0\\[RM\\_Krushkal\\].[]{data-label=\"FI_graph\"}](graphM.pdf){width=\"9.5cm\"}\n\n2ex\n\nThe class ${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, ${k\\in(0,1)}$, admits a Loewner-type parametric representation. Denote by ${\\mathcal{H}}_k$ the class of all normalized Herglotz functions $p$ satisfying $p({\\mathbb{D}},t)\\subset U(k)$ for a.e.\u00a0$t\\ge0$, where $U(k)$ is the closed disk defined in Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_Becker\\]. As it follows from the very definition, ${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$\u00a0coincides with the image of the map $${\\mathcal{H}}_k\\ni p~\\mapsto~f:=\\lim_{t\\to+\\infty}e^{t}w(z,t)~\\in\\,{\\mathcal{S}},$$ where for each $z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$ the function $[0,+\\infty)\\ni t\\mapsto w(z,t)\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$ is defined as the unique solution to the initial value problem\u00a0. Write $p(z,t)=1+p_1(t)z+p_2(t)z^2+\\ldots$ for all $z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$ and a.e.\u00a0$t\\ge0$ and let $$f(z,t):=e^{t}w(z,t)=z+a_2(t)z^2+a_3(t)z^3+\\ldots$$ There is one-to-one correspondence between the class of all normalized Herglotz functions and\u00a0${\\mathcal{H}}_k$. Indeed, $p\\in{\\mathcal{H}}_k$ if and only if it can be written as $p(\\cdot,t)=L\\circ p_0(\\cdot,t)$ for a.e.\u00a0$t\\ge0$, where $p_0(z,t)=1+c_1(t)z+c_2(t)z^2+\\ldots$ is an arbitrary normalized Herglotz function and $$L(z):=\\frac{1+Kz}{K+z},\\quad K:=\\frac{1+k}{1-k},$$ is a conformal map of ${\\mathbb{H}}:=\\{z\\colon\\Re z>0\\}$ onto $U(k)$ with $L(1)=1$.\n\nAs usual, from\u00a0 we obtain the initial value problem for the coefficients $a_2$ and\u00a0$a_3$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{{\\mathrm{d}}a_2}{{\\mathrm{d}}t}&=-e^{-t} p_1(t)=-ke^{-t} c_1(t), & a_2(0)=0,\\label{EQ_phase1}\\\\[.7ex]\n\\frac{{\\mathrm{d}}a_3}{{\\mathrm{d}}t}&=-e^{-2t}p_2(t)-2e^{-t}p_1(t)a_2(t)\\notag\\\\&=-k\\Big(e^{-2t}\\big(c_2(t)-(1-k)\\frac{c_1(t)^2}{2}\\,\\big)+2e^{-t}c_1(t)a_2(t)\\Big), & a_3(0)=0.\\label{EQ_phase2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSince along with any $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ the class ${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ contains all rotations of\u00a0$f$, i.e. the functions ${z\\mapsto e^{i\\theta}f(e^{-i\\theta}z)}$, ${\\theta\\in{\\mathbb{R}}}$, the problem to determine $\\max|a_3|$ in\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ is equivalent to finding $~\\max\\,\\Re a_3$. The latter problem can be reformulated as the optimal control problem for the above system and the objective functional $\\Re a_3(+\\infty)$, with a control function ${t\\mapsto \\big(c_1(t),c_2(t)\\big)\\in\\C^2}$ regarded as admissible if it is measurable and for a.e.\u00a0$t\\ge0$ satisfies $$\\label{EQ_Cara}\n |c_1|\\le 2,\\qquad |2 c_2-c_1^2|\\le 4-|c_1|^2.$$ Conditions\u00a0 describe the value region of ${\\mathcal{C}}\\ni q\\mapsto (c_1,c_2)\\in\\C^2$ over the Carath\u00e9odory class\u00a0${\\mathcal{C}}$ of all holomorphic functions $q(z)=1+c_1 z+c_2 z^2+\\ldots$ in\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ with positive real part; see, e.g., [@Tsuji Chapter IV, \u00a77].\n\nTo apply Pontryagin\u2019s Maximum Principle, we define the (holomorphic) Hamiltonian $$H(a_2,a_3,\\psi_2,\\psi_3,t,c_1,c_2):=-ke^{-t} c_1\\psi_2-k\\Big(e^{-2t}\\big(c_2-(1-k)\\frac{c_1^2}{2}\\big)+2e^{-t}c_1a_2\\Big)\\psi_3$$ and write the adjoint system $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{{\\mathrm{d}}\\psi_2}{{\\mathrm{d}}t}&=-\\frac{\\partial H}{\\partial a_2}=2ke^{-t}c_1(t)\\psi_3(t),\\label{EQ_adj1}\\\\[1.25ex]\n\\frac{{\\mathrm{d}}\\psi_3}{{\\mathrm{d}}t}&=-\\frac{\\partial H}{\\partial a_3}=0.\\label{EQ_adj2}\\end{aligned}$$ The maximum of $\\Re a_3(+\\infty)$ is to be found among all the trajectories of , satisfying the initial condition at\u00a0$t=0$, while the right-hand endpoint of the trajectories is variable. Therefore, according to Pontryagin\u2019s Maximum Principle, see [@Pontryagin Chapter\u00a0I, \u00a77, Theorem $3^*$], if $c_1(t)=c_1^*(t)$, $c_2(t)=c_2^*(t)$ is an optimal control in our problem, then for the corresponding solution to the phase system\u00a0, supplemented with the adjoint equations\u00a0, and the transversality conditions $$\\label{EQ_trans}\n\\psi_2(+\\infty)=0,\\qquad \\psi_3(+\\infty)=1,$$ it holds that $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\label{EQ_Max-principle}\n\\max_{(c_1,c_2)} \\Re H\\big(a_2(t),a_3(t),\\psi_2(t),\\psi_3(t),t,c_1,c_2\\big)\\\\ = \\Re H\\big(a_2(t),a_3(t),\\psi_2(t),\\psi_3(t),t,c^*_1(t),c^*_2(t)\\big),\\end{gathered}$$ where the maximum is taken over all\u00a0$(c_1,c_2)\\in\\C^2$ subject to conditions\u00a0.\n\nSystem\u00a0\u2013 can be integrated using integrals to\u00a0,: $$\\label{EQ_adjoint}\n\\psi_2(t)=a-2a_2(t),\\quad \\psi_3(t)=1,$$ where $a:=2a_2(+\\infty)$.\n\nTo find the maximum of $\\Re H$ as a function of\u00a0$c_1$ and\u00a0$c_2$, we first fix a\u00a0$c_1\\in\\C$ with\u00a0$|c_1|\\le2$ and optimize $\\Re H$ in the disk described by the second of the inequalities in\u00a0. The maximum is achieved for ${c_2=c^*_2:=(\\Re c_1)^2+i\\,\\Re c_1\\,\\Im c_1-2}$. For this value of\u00a0$c_2$ and taking into account\u00a0, we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n-\\frac{e^{2t}}{k}\\,\\Re H&=e^t\\,\\Re(ac_1)+\\frac{1+k}{2}\\,c_1'^{\\,2}+\\frac{1-k}{2}\\,c_2''^{\\,2}-2\\notag\\\\                        &=\\,\\frac{1+k}{2}\\left(c_1'+\\frac{e^ta'}{1+k}\\right)^{\\!\\!2}\\,                            +\\,\\frac{1-k}{2}\\left(c_1''-\\frac{e^ta''}{1-k}\\right)^{\\!\\!2}\\,+\\,C,\\label{EQ_quadratic}\\end{aligned}$$ where $a=:a'+ia''$, $c_1=:c_1'+ic_1''$, and $C$ is a quantity independent of\u00a0$c_1$. The absolute minimum of\u00a0 is achieved at $c_1^\\star:=e^t\\big(-a'/(1+k)+ia''/(1-k)\\big)$. Moreover, even if $|c_1^\\star|>2$, the minimum point\u00a0$c_1^*$ of\u00a0 over the disk $|c_1|\\le 2$ still satisfies $$\\label{EQ_sgn}\n {\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}\\Re c_1^*=-{\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}a',\\qquad {\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}\\Im c_1^*={\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}a'',$$ where ${\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}x:=x/|x|$ for $x\\in{\\mathbb{R}}\\setminus\\{0\\}$ and ${\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}0:=0$. For the optimal trajectory, according to\u00a0, we have $$\\label{EQ_a}\n a=-2k\\int_0^{+\\infty}\\!\\!e^{-t}c_1^*(t)\\,{\\mathrm{d}}t,$$ which would contradict\u00a0 whenever $a''\\neq0$. Therefore, $a$ is real and $$\\label{EQ_c1}\nc_1^*(t)=\n\\begin{cases}\n-e^ta/(1+k),& \\text{if~}\\big|e^ta/(1+k)\\big|<2,\\\\\n-2{\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}a,&      \\text{otherwise}.\n\\end{cases}$$\n\nConsider two cases. First suppose that $a=0$. Then $c_1^*(t)=0$ and $c_2^*(t)=-2$ for all\u00a0$t\\ge0$. Note that for\u00a0$(c_1,c_2)=(c_1^*,c_2^*)$ in\u00a0, the first condition is satisfied with the strict inequality sign, while in the second condition equality occurs. Therefore, see, e.g., [@Tsuji Theorem\u00a0IV.23], $$\\begin{aligned}\n p_0(z,t)&=\\lambda\\frac{1+\\mu_1 z}{1-\\mu_1 z}+(1-\\lambda)\\frac{1+\\mu_2 z}{1-\\mu_2 z}\\\\\n          &=1\\,+\\,2(\\lambda\\mu_1+(1-\\lambda)\\mu_2)z\\,+\\,2(\\lambda\\mu_1^2+(1-\\lambda)\\mu_2^2)z^2\\,+\\,\\ldots,\\quad z\\in{\\mathbb{D}},\\end{aligned}$$ for some constants $\\lambda\\in(0,1)$ and $\\mu_1\\neq\\mu_2$ on the unit circle (possibly depending on\u00a0$t$). Comparing the coefficients of $z$ and $z^2$ with $c_1^*$ and\u00a0$c_2^*$, we conclude that ${\\lambda=1/2}$, ${\\mu_{1,2}=\\pm i}$, and hence $p(z,t)=(1-kz^2)/(1+kz^2)$. The corresponding function $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ is $f(z)=f_1(z):=z/(1-kz^2)$, with $a_3|_{f=f_1}=k$.\n\nNow suppose that $a\\neq0$. Denote $t_0:=\\max\\big\\{0,\\,\\log|2(1+k)/a|\\big\\}$. Then according to\u00a0, $c_1^*(t)=-e^ta/(1+k)$ whenever ${0\\le t<t_0}$, and $c_1^*(t)=-2{\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}a$ for all $t\\ge t_0$. Substituting $c_1(t):=c_1^*(t)$ into\u00a0, we get $$a=2k\\left(\\frac{a t_0}{1+k}+2e^{-t_0}{\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}a\\right)=\\frac{2k(1+t_0)}{1+k}a.$$ It follows that $t_0=(1-k)/(2k)$ and $$\\label{EQ_a2}\na_2(+\\infty)=a/2=\\pm\\alpha(k),\\quad \\text{where~$~\\alpha(k):=(1+k)e^{-t_0}$.}$$ Using\u00a0 and\u00a0, we obtain $$a_3(+\\infty)~=~a_2(+\\infty)^2-\\displaystyle\\int\\limits_0^{+\\infty}\\!\\! e^{-2t}p^*_2(t)\\,{\\mathrm{d}}t,$$ where $p_2^*(t)$ is the value of $p_2$ that corresponds to $\\big(c_1,c_2\\big)=\\big(c_1^*(t),c_2^*(t)\\big)$. Elementary calculations yield $p_2^*(t)=2k\\big(e^{2(t-t_0)}(1+k)-1\\big)$ when ${0\\le t\\le t_0}$, $p_2^*(t)=2k^2$ for all\u00a0${t\\ge t_0}$, and hence $$a_3(+\\infty)=k\\big(1+e^{1-1/k}(1+k)\\big)>k=a_3|_{f=f_1}.$$\n\nThis gives the maximal value of $\\Re a_3$ (and hence of\u00a0$|a_3|$) in\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$. There are two extremal functions for\u00a0$\\Re a_3$, which we denote by $f_\\pm$, corresponding to two possible choices of the sign in\u00a0. Since $z\\mapsto -f(-z)$ has the same coefficient\u00a0$a_3$ as\u00a0$f$, it is clear that $f_{-}(z)=-f_+(-z)$, and the set of all extremal functions for\u00a0$|a_3|$ coincides with the rotations of\u00a0$f_+$. Therefore, we may assume the sign \u201c$+$\u201d in\u00a0. Then the same method as in case\u00a0$a=0$ allows us to write down the corresponding Heglotz function explicitly, $$p(z,t)=\\frac{1-k z^2+(1-k)e^{t-t_0}z}{1+kz^2+(1+k)e^{t-t_0}z}~\\text{~for $t\\in[0,t_0]$}\\quad\n\\text{and}\\quad p(z,t)=\\frac{1 - kz}{1 + kz}~\\text{~for~$t\\ge t_0$}.$$\n\nUnfortunately, it does not seem possible to get an explicit formula for the extremal function\u00a0$f_+$ and the Loewner chain generated by the above Herglotz function. However, one can find the Beltrami coefficient of the Becker extension provided by this Loewner chain, see e.g. [@Istvan Proof of Theorem\u00a02], $$\\label{EQ_extremal-Beltrami-coefficient}\n\\mu(z)=\\frac{z^2}{|z|^2}\\,\\frac{p\\big(z/|z|,\\log |z|\\big)-1}{p\\big(z/|z|,\\log |z|\\big)+1}=\n\\begin{cases}\n-k\\dfrac{z^4}{|z|^4}\\,\\dfrac{\\rho(k) + \\bar z}{\\rho(k) + z},&\\text{if $|z|\\in\\big(1,\\,\\rho(k)\\big)$,}\\\\[2.75ex]\n-k\\dfrac{z^3}{|z|^3}, & \\text{if $|z|>\\rho(k)$,}\n\\end{cases}$$ where $\\rho(k):=e^{t_0}=\\exp\\big((1/k-1)/2\\big)$.\n\nNote that $|a_3|\\le|a_3-\\alpha a_2^2|+\\alpha |a_2|^2$ for any $\\alpha\\in(0,1)$. The inequality $\\max_{{\\mathcal{S}}_k}|a_3|\\le\\varrho(k)$ follows therefore from the Fekete\u2013Szeg\u0151 Theorem, see e.g. [@Duren p.104], the well-known estimate\u00a0$|a_2|\\le 2$ for the class\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}$, and Lehto\u2019s Majorant Principle\u00a0[@Lehto_Majorant].\n\nTo show that the maximum of $|a_3|$ in ${\\mathcal{S}}_k$ is strictly greater than in\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, fix $k\\in(0,1)$ and note that for any non-constant holomorphic functional $\\Phi:{\\mathcal{S}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$, according to Lehto\u2019s Majorant Principle, the function $q\\mapsto\\max_{{\\mathcal{S}}_q}|\\Phi|$ is *strictly* increasing. It follows that the extremal functions in the problem $|\\Phi|\\to\\max_{{\\mathcal{S}}_k}$ do not belong to\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_q$ whenever\u00a0${q<k}$. Therefore, to complete the prove, it would be sufficient to show that the Becker q.c.-extension of the function\u00a0$f_+$ from Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_a\\_3\\] whose Beltrami coefficient is given by\u00a0 is not extremal, i.e. that $f_+$ admits a $q$-q.c. extension to\u00a0${\\mathbb{C}}$ with some $q\\in(0,k)$.\n\nSuppose on the contrary that the above mentioned Becker extension of\u00a0$f_+$ is extremal. Then it would satisfy the Hamilton\u2013Krushkal condition\u00a0[@Hamilton Theorem\u00a01], see also\u00a0[@Krushkal-extremal; @HarringtonOrtel], which can be formulated as $~\\sup_\\varphi\\big|\\Lambda(\\varphi)\\big|=1$, where $$\\Lambda(\\varphi):={\\frac{1}{k}\\iint\\limits_\\Delta\\varphi(z)\\,\\mu(z)\\,{\\mathrm{d}}x{\\mathrm{d}}y},\\quad \\Delta:=\\{z:1<|z|<+\\infty\\},$$ $\\mu$ is given by\u00a0, and the supremum is taken over all holomorphic differentials $\\varphi(z){\\mathrm{d}}z^2$ in $\\Delta$ with $\\|\\varphi\\|:=\\iint_\\Delta|\\varphi(z)|{\\mathrm{d}}x{\\mathrm{d}}y\\,\\le\\,1$. Note that $\\varphi(z){\\mathrm{d}}z^2$ does not have to be holomorphic at\u00a0$\\infty$, because the q.c.-extensions of $f_+$ that we consider are required to fix\u00a0$\\infty$.\n\nThe results of\u00a0[@HarringtonOrtel \u00a73] can be extended without any trouble from\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ to\u00a0$\\Delta$. In particular, by\u00a0[@HarringtonOrtel Proposition\u00a03.2], either $\\big|\\Lambda(\\varphi_*)\\big|=1$ for some\u00a0$\\varphi_*$ with $\\|\\varphi_*\\|=1$ or $\\big|\\Lambda(\\varphi_n)\\big|\\to1$ as $n\\to+\\infty$ for some sequence $(\\varphi_n)$ with $\\|\\varphi_n\\|\\le1$ converging locally uniformly in\u00a0$\\Delta$ to zero. On the one hand, the former possibility does not hold in our case, because\u00a0$\\mu(z)$ is not of the form $k\\overline{\\phi(z)}/|\\phi(z)|$, where $\\phi$ is holomorphic, see\u00a0[@HarringtonOrtel p.161]. On the other hand, in terms of the Laurent development $\\varphi_n(z)=\\sum_{m=3}^{+\\infty}c_{n,m}z^{-m}$, we have $$\\frac{\\Lambda(\\varphi_n)}{2\\pi}=\\frac{1+\\log\\rho(k)}{\\rho(k)}c_{n,3}~+~\\frac{\\rho(k)^2-2\\log\\rho(k)-1}{2}~\\sum_{m=4}^{+\\infty}\n\\frac{(-1)^m c_{n,m}}{\\rho(k)^{m-2}}~\\text{~}\\longrightarrow~0~\\text{~}\\text{as~}~n\\to+\\infty,$$ because for a fixed $r\\in\\big(1,\\rho(k)\\big)$ the Cauchy estimates give $|c_{n,m}|\\le r^{m}\\max_{|z|=r}|\\varphi_n(z)|$. We obtained a contradiction, which shows that $f_+$ has a $q$-q.c. extension to\u00a0$\\C$ with\u00a0${q\\in(0,k)}$, and hence the proof is complete.\n\nExtremal Becker extensions {#SS_examples}\n==========================\n\nRecall that a q.c.-extension\u00a0$F:\\C\\to\\C$ of a function\u00a0$f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$ is called *extremal*, if for any q.c.-extension\u00a0$G:{\\mathbb{C}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ of\u00a0$f$ we have ${\\mathop{\\mathrm{ess\\,sup}}}_{|z|>1}|\\mu_G(z)|\\ge{\\mathop{\\mathrm{ess\\,sup}}}_{|z|>1}|\\mu_F(z)|$, where $\\mu_G$ and $\\mu_F$ stand for the Beltrami coefficients of $G$ and $F$, respectively. If the equality occurs in the above inequality only for\u00a0$G=F$, then $F$ is said to be the *uniquely extremal* q.c.-extension of\u00a0$f$ to\u00a0${\\mathbb{C}}$.\n\nThere is a simple sufficient condition for a q.c.-extension\u00a0$F:\\C\\to\\C$ to be uniquely extremal. A *(regular) Teichm\u00fcller mapping* of a domain\u00a0$D$ is a q.c-mapping $F:D\\to{\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}$ such that $\\mu_F(z)=k\\overline{\\varphi(z)}/{|\\varphi(z)|}$ for a.e. $z\\in D$, where $k\\in(0,1)$ and ${\\varphi(z)\\,{\\mathrm{d}}z^2}$, ${\\varphi\\not\\equiv0}$, is a holomorphic quadratic differential in\u00a0$D$. It is known that\u00a0[@Strebel:1978 Theorem\u00a04] if a q.c.-extension of $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$ to\u00a0$\\C$ is Teichm\u00fcller on\u00a0$\\Delta:=\\C\\setminus\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}$ with $\\varphi$ satisfying $\\|\\varphi\\|:={\\iint_\\Delta|\\varphi(z)|\\,{\\mathrm{d}}x{\\mathrm{d}}y<+\\infty}$, then $F$ is uniquely extremal.\n\nIf $\\varphi$ is holomorphic in\u00a0$\\Delta$ and has a zero of order at least four at\u00a0$\\infty$, then a q.c.-map of $\\Delta$ with the Beltrami coefficient $k\\overline\\varphi/|\\varphi|$ is a Teichm\u00fcller mapping of the *simply connected* domain\u00a0${\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}\\setminus\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}$. For this case, certain conditions weaker than $\\|\\varphi\\|<+\\infty$ are sufficient for (unique) extremality, see e.g. [@Huang; @YaoF; @YaoP] and references therein.\n\nUsing the above mentioned sufficient condition, we construct a quite large family of functions $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k$ with uniquely extremal extensions obtained via Becker\u2019s construction. The idea comes from the following example. Consider the function ${f_\\sigma\\in{\\mathcal{S}}}$, ${\\sigma\\in(0,2)}$, obtained by composing ${\\mathbb{H}}:=\\{z\\colon \\Re z>0\\}\\ni \\zeta\\mapsto\\zeta^\\sigma$, $1\\mapsto 1$, with suitable Moebius transformations. This function admits a unique $|\\sigma-1|$-q.c. extension $F_\\sigma:\\C\\to\\C$ and belongs to\u00a0${\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}_{|\\sigma-1|}^B\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}$, see [@Istvan Example\u00a02]. The Beltrami coefficient of\u00a0$F_\\sigma$ is $\\mu(z)={(\\sigma-1)\\overline{\\varphi(z)}/|\\varphi(z)|}$, ${\\varphi(z):=1/(z^2-1)^2}$, for all $z\\in\\Delta$, which can be written as $\\mu(\\rho\\zeta)=\\zeta^2\\,\\psi_\\rho(\\zeta)$ for all $\\rho>1$ and $\\zeta\\in\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}$, where $\\psi_\\rho(\\zeta):=(\\sigma-1)(\\zeta^2-1/\\rho^2)/(1-\\zeta^2/\\rho^2)$. The latter means that $F$ is Becker\u2019s q.c.-extension\u00a0 with the Herglotz function $p(z,t):=\\big(1-\\psi_{e^t}(z)\\big)/\\big(1+\\psi_{e^t}(z)\\big)$. Note that, up to the factor\u00a0$(\\sigma-1)$, $\\psi_\\rho$ is a Blaschke product. It turns out that any finite Blaschke product gives rise to a similar example.\n\n\\[PR\\_examples\\] Let $k\\in(0,1)$, $n\\in{\\mathbb{N}}$, $a_1,\\ldots, a_n\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$, $\\alpha\\in{\\mathbb{R}}$. Then the Herglotz function $$\\label{EQ_examples_p}\n  p(z,t):=\\frac{1+k\\psi_t(z)}{1-k\\psi_t(z)},~\\text{~where~}~\\psi_t(z):=e^{i\\alpha}\\, \\prod_{j=1}^n\\frac{z-e^{-t}a_j}{1-e^{-t}\\,\\overline a_j z},\\quad z\\in{\\mathbb{D}},~t\\ge0,$$ satisfies Becker\u2019s condition\u00a0 and formula\u00a0 defines a uniquely extremal $k$-q.c. extension of the function\u00a0$f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$ generated by\u00a0$p$. In particular, $f\\in{\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}\\setminus{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ if $a_k\\neq0$ for all $k=1,\\ldots, n$; otherwise, $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$.\n\nCondition\u00a0 holds trivially because for all\u00a0$t\\ge0$, $\\psi_t$ is a Blaschke product. We can find the Beltrami coefficient of the $k$-q.c. extension\u00a0$F$ given by\u00a0, see e.g.\u00a0[@Istvan \u00a74], $$\\mu_F(\\rho\\zeta)=\\frac{p(\\zeta,\\log\\rho)-1}{p(\\zeta,\\log\\rho)+1}\\,\\zeta^2\\,= \\,k\\frac{\\,\\overline{\\varphi(\\rho\\zeta)}\\,}{|\\varphi(\\rho\\zeta)|},\n~\\text{~where~} \\varphi(z):={e^{-i\\alpha}z^{n-2}}\\,\\prod_{j=1}^n\\frac{1}{(z-a_j)^2},~ z\\in\\Delta,$$ for all\u00a0$\\rho>1$ and $\\zeta\\in\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}$. Hence $F|_{\\C\\setminus\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}}$ is a Techm\u00fcller mapping. Moreover, it is easy to see that\u00a0$\\|\\varphi\\|<+\\infty$. Therefore, $F$ is the uniquely extremal q.c.-extension of\u00a0$f$ to\u00a0$\\C$.\n\nTo complete the proof it remains to notice that the normalization ${p(0,t)=1}$ for a.e.\u00a0${t\\ge0}$ holds only if at least one of the points\u00a0$a_k$ coincides with the origin.\n\nRecently, using the generalization of Becker\u2019s construction due to Betker\u00a0[@Betker], Sugawa\u00a0[@Sugawa2019] established a sufficient condition for a Beltrami coefficient in\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ to be i.e. to be the Beltrami coefficient of some q.c.-automorphism of\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ whose continuous extension to\u00a0$\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}$ coincides on\u00a0$\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}$ with the identity map. There is a natural one-to-one correspondence between Beltrami coefficients\u00a0$\\nu\\in L^{\\infty}({\\mathbb{D}})$ satisfying Sugawa\u2019s condition and Becker\u2019s q.c.-extensions. In particular, the $k$-q.c. extension of\u00a0$f$ defined in Proposition\u00a0\\[PR\\_examples\\] corresponds to\u00a0$\\nu(e^{-t}\\zeta)= k\\zeta^2\\psi_t(\\zeta)= k\\,\\phi(e^{-t}\\zeta)/|\\phi(e^{-t}\\zeta)|$ for all $t>0$ and $\\zeta\\in\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}$, where\u00a0 $\\phi(z):=e^{i\\alpha}z^{n+2}\\big/\\prod_{j=1}^n(1-\\overline a_j z)^2$, $z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$. This resembles Teichm\u00fcller mappings except that $\\phi(z)$ in the numerator does not carry conjugation.\n\nRelation between classes ${\\mathcal{S}}_k$ and ${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ {#SS_relation}\n==================================================================\n\nAlthough ${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ represents only a part of ${\\mathcal{S}}_k$, see e.g.\u00a0[@Istvan \u00a75], it is plausible to believe that Becker extendible mappings should have yet undiscovered but essential role for the study of conformal mappings admitting quasiconformal extensions.\n\nFirst of all, functions of the form $f_n(z):=z/(1-ke^{-i\\theta}z^n)^{2/n}$, $n\\in{\\mathbb{N}}$, $\\theta\\in{\\mathbb{R}}$, seem to play an important role in extremal problems for\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}_k$, similar to that of the Koebe function $f(z):=z/(1-z)^2$ for the whole class\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}$. In fact, $f_1$ and $f_2$ are to known to be extremal in some classical problems, see e.g. [@Kuhnau69; @Lehto71]. It is not difficult to see that $f_n\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ for all\u00a0$n\\in{\\mathbb{N}}$. Moreover, according to\u00a0Proposition\u00a0\\[PR\\_examples\\], there is an infinite family of functions $f\\in {\\mathcal{S}}_k$ for which the uniquely extremal quasiconformal extension to\u00a0${\\mathbb{C}}$ is a Becker extension and hence $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B\\,\\big\\backslash\\bigcup_{0<\\nu<k}\\,{\\mathcal{S}}_{\\nu}$.\n\nSecondly, there exists $k_*\\in(0,1]$ such that for any\u00a0$k\\in(0,k_*)$ we have ${\\mathcal{S}}_k\\subset{\\mathcal{S}}_q^B$ with some $q\\in(0,1)$ depending only on\u00a0$k$. In fact, it is easy to see that $k_*\\ge1/6$. Indeed, on the one hand, $|f''(z)/f'(z)|\\le 6(1-|z|^2)$ for all $z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$ and any $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$, see e.g. [@Goluzin Ch.II,\u00a74, ineq.(6)], with $6$ replaced by $6k$ if $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k$ thanks to Lehto\u2019s Majorant Principle, see e.g. [@Lawrynowicz \u00a722]. On the other hand, if a holomorphic function $f:{\\mathbb{D}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ satisfies $|f''(z)/f'(z)|\\le k(1-|z|^2)$ for all $z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$, then $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, see [@Becker72 Satz\u00a04.1].\n\nWe are able to improve slightly the estimate $k_*\\ge 1/6$, see Corollary\u00a0\\[CR\\_AW-Becker0\\]. In this connection, it is natural to put forward the following problem.\n\n\\[PRO\\_strong\\] Find $k_*$. In particular, is it true that $k_*=1$, i.e. that for any $k\\in(0,1)$ there exists $q\\in(0,1)$ such that ${\\mathcal{S}}_k\\subset{\\mathcal{S}}_q^B$?\n\nIt seems interesting to consider also a bit weaker version of the latter question.\n\n\\[PRO\\_weak\\] Is it true that for any function $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$ admitting a q.c.-extension to\u00a0${\\mathbb{C}}$, there exists\u00a0$q\\in(0,1)$, possibly depending on\u00a0$f$, such that $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_q^B$?\n\nNote that it is possible to replace ${\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$ with ${\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}$ in the above problems as the following proposition shows.\n\nFor any $k\\in(0,1)$, ${\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}\\subset{\\mathcal{S}}^B_{\\kappa(k)}$, where $\\kappa(k):=2k/(1+k^2)$.\n\nIf a function $f\\in{\\mathrlap{\\hskip.125em\\widetilde{\\hphantom{{\\mathcal{S}}}\\vphantom{\\vbox to1.5ex{\\vss}}}}{\\mathcal{S}}_{k}^B\\vphantom{\\vbox to2.3ex{\\vss}}}$ is generated by a Herglotz function $p$ satisfying\u00a0, then the identity $$p_0\\big(e^{i\\Im Q(t)}z,\\,\\Re Q(t)\\big)=L_t(p(z,t)),{~}{\\text{~where~}}{~}L_t(z):=\\frac{p(z,t)-i\\Im p(0,t)}{\\Re p(0,t)},$$ and $Q(t):=\\int_0^t\\!p(0,s){\\mathrm{d}}s$, defines a Herglotz function $p_0$ that obeys the normalization $p_0(0,t)=1$ for a.e.$t\\ge0$ and, moreover, generates the same function\u00a0$f$. The latter can be verified using the change of variables $\\tau:=Q(t)$, $\\omega(\\tau):=e^{i\\Im Q(t)}w(t)$ that transforms the Loewner\u2013Kufarev ODE\u00a0 to ${\\mathrm{d}}\\omega/{\\mathrm{d}}\\tau=-\\omega p_0(\\omega,\\tau)$.\n\nNote that $L^{\\!{\\mathbb{D}}}_t:=H\\circ L_t\\circ H^{-1}$, where $H(\\zeta):=(\\zeta-1)/(\\zeta+1)$, is an automorphism of\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ that sends $z_0(t):=H\\big(p_t(0,t)\\big)$ to\u00a0$0$. Taking into account that by\u00a0, $H\\big(p({\\mathbb{D}},t)\\big)\\subset k\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}$ for a.e.$t\\ge0$, we see that $H\\big(p_0({\\mathbb{D}},t)\\big)=L_t^{\\!{\\mathbb{D}}}\\big(H\\big(p({\\mathbb{D}},t)\\big)\\big)$ is contained for a.e.$t\\ge0$ in $\\kappa\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}$, where $\\kappa:=2k/(1+k^2)$. The conclusion of the proposition follows immediately.\n\nOne natural way to attack the above Problems\u00a0\\[PRO\\_strong\\] and\u00a0\\[PRO\\_weak\\] would be to propose several constructions of Loewner chains $(f_t)$ starting from an arbitrary given function\u00a0${f_0=f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k}$, with images $f_t({\\mathbb{D}})$ being Jordan domains for all\u00a0$t\\ge0$, and try to find out whether the map $F:{\\mathbb{C}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ defined by\u00a0 is quasiconformal for any of these constructions.\n\nHere we examine two quite natural constructions and show that unfortunately, both fail in general. Fix some locally absolutely continuous function $\\omega:[0,+\\infty)\\to\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}$ and let ${\\rho:[0,+\\infty)\\to[1,+\\infty)}$ be a strictly increasing continuous function with ${\\rho(0)=1}$ and ${\\lim_{t\\to+\\infty}\\rho(t)=+\\infty}$.\n\n1ex [**Construction\u00a01.**]{} Let $\\Phi:{\\mathbb{C}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ be a $k$-q.c. map such that $f_0:=\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{D}}\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$. For\u00a0${t\\ge0}$, denote by $f^\\Phi_t$, the conformal map of ${\\mathbb{D}}$ onto $\\Phi\\big(\\rho(t){\\mathbb{D}}\\big)$ normalized by ${f^\\Phi_t(0)=0}$, ${\\omega(t)(f^\\Phi_t)'(0)>0}$. For a suitable choice of the function\u00a0$\\rho$, the family\u00a0$(f^\\Phi_t)_{t\\ge0}$ is a Loewner chain. Using Courant\u2019s Theorem, see e.g. [@Tsuji Theorem\u00a0IX.14], it is possible to show that formula\u00a0 defines a homeomorphism $F$ of\u00a0$\\C$. 1ex [**Construction\u00a02.**]{} Let $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k$. Denote by $g$ the conformal map of ${\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}$ onto ${\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\overline{f({\\mathbb{D}})}$. For\u00a0${t\\ge0}$, consider the conformal map\u00a0$f_t^g$ of\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$, ${f^g_t(0)=0}$, ${\\omega(t)\\big(f^g_t\\big)'(0)>0}$, onto the Jordan domain bounded by\u00a0${g\\big(\\{z:|z|=\\rho(t)\\}\\big)}$. For a suitable choice of the function\u00a0$\\rho$, the family\u00a0$(f^g_t)_{t\\ge0}$ is a Loewner chain and the map\u00a0$F$ that it generates via\u00a0 is a homeomorphism of\u00a0$\\C$. 1ex We will say that the function $\\rho$ is *admissible* in Construction\u00a01 or, respectively, in Construction\u00a02, if the family $(f_t^\\Phi)$, or respectively, the family $(f^g_t)$ is a Loewner chain. Note that admissibility of\u00a0$\\rho$ does not depend on the choice of\u00a0$\\omega$.\n\nThere exists a $(1/\\sqrt{2})$-q.c. map $\\Phi:{\\mathbb{C}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ with $f:=\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{D}}\\in{\\mathcal{S}}$ such that the homemorphisms\u00a0$F$ defined in Constructions\u00a01 and\u00a02 are not quasiconformal for any admissible ${\\rho:[0,+\\infty)\\to[1,+\\infty)}$ and any locally absolutely continuous ${\\omega:[0,+\\infty)\\to\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}}$.\n\nConsider the function $$\\label{EQ_f-example}\nf(z):=\\frac{2z(iz+\\sqrt{1-z^2})^i}{1+\\sqrt{1-z^2}}=\\frac{2ze^{-\\arcsin z}}{1+\\sqrt{1-z^2}},\\quad z\\in{\\mathbb{D}},$$ choosing the unique single-valued branch in\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ that belongs to\u00a0${\\mathcal{S}}$. It is not difficult to check that $$\\label{EQ_p}\np(z):=\\frac{f(z)}{zf'(z)}=\\sqrt{\\frac{1+z}{1-z}}\\quad\\text{for all $z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$}.$$ In particular, $\\big|\\arg p(z)\\big|\\le\\pi/4$. Therefore, by a result of Betker\u00a0[@Betker p.110], see also\u00a0[@Ikkei-LM \u00a75.1], $f$ can be extended to a $(1/\\sqrt2)$-q.c. automorphism $\\Phi:{\\mathbb{C}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ as follows.\n\nThe image $f({\\mathbb{D}})$ is a starlike Jordan domain symmetric w.r.t.\u00a0${\\mathbb{R}}$ and bounded by two segments of logarithmic spirals. Namely, $\\partial f({\\mathbb{D}})={\\{2\\exp(-\\pi/2+|\\theta|+i\\theta)\\colon\\theta\\in[-\\pi,\\pi]\\}}$. It follows that for any\u00a0$z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}\\setminus\\{0\\}$ the intersection of $\\partial f({\\mathbb{D}})$ and $\\{tf(z):t\\ge0\\}$ consists of one point $\\zeta(z)$, with $r(z):=|\\zeta(z)|=2\\exp\\!\\big(|\\!{\\mathop{\\operator@font Arg}\\nolimits}f(z)|-\\pi/2\\big)$, where ${\\mathop{\\operator@font Arg}\\nolimits}w$ stands for the value of $\\arg w$ that belongs to\u00a0$(-\\pi, \\pi]$.\n\nBetker\u2019s q.c.-extension of\u00a0$f$, see e.g. [@Ikkei-LM eq.(5.6) with\u00a0$\\lambda:=0$], is given by $$\\Phi(z):=\\frac{~r(1/\\bar z)^2}{\\hphantom{m}\\vphantom{\\int_0^1}\\overline{f(1/\\bar z)}\\hphantom{m}}=\\frac{4e^{-\\pi}}{f(1/z)}\\left(\\frac{f(1/\\bar z)}{|f(1/\\bar z)|}\\right)^{\\! -2i\\,\\eta(z)}\\!\\!=~\\frac{4e^{-\\pi}}{f(1/z)}\\left(\\frac{f(1/z)}{f(1/\\bar z)}\\right)^{\\! i\\,\\eta(z)}$$ for all\u00a0$z\\in\\C\\setminus{\\mathbb{D}}$, where $\\eta(z):={\\mathop{\\mathrm{sgn}}}\\Im z$. Simple calculations give $$\\frac{\\Phi'_z(z)}{\\Phi(z)}=\\frac{1-i\\eta(z)}{z^2}\\frac{f'(1/z)}{f(1/z)},\\quad \\frac{\\Phi'_{\\bar z}(z)}{\\Phi(z)}=\\frac{i\\eta(z)}{\\bar{z}^2}\\frac{f'(1/\\bar z)}{f(1/\\bar z)},\\qquad |z|>1,~z\\not\\in{\\mathbb{R}}.$$ Using the above formulas we see that for any $r>1$ the boundary of $D_r:=\\Phi(r{\\mathbb{D}})$ consists of two real-analytic arcs with common end-points at $\\Phi(\\pm r)$, where they form angle of magnitude $2{\\mathop{\\operator@font arctg}\\nolimits}(1/2)<\\pi/2$. The angle at $\\Phi(-r)$ is internal w.r.t. $D_r$. It follows that conformal mappings of ${\\mathbb{D}}$ onto $D_r$ do not belong to the Hardy space\u00a0$H^2({\\mathbb{D}})$. Therefore, by the main result of\u00a0[@Betker_Hardy], there is no Loewner chain with image domains\u00a0$D_r$ that defines a q.c.-extension via\u00a0. Therefore, the homeomorphism\u00a0$F$ in Construction\u00a01 generated by the Loewner chain\u00a0$(f^\\Phi_t)$ is not quasiconformal, whichever $\\rho$ and\u00a0$\\theta$ we choose.\n\nLet us now consider Construction\u00a02 with the same function ${f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_{1/\\sqrt{2}}}$ as above. One remarkable property of $\\Omega:=f({\\mathbb{D}})$ is that $\\{1/z\\colon z\\in{\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}\\setminus\\overline{\\Omega}\\}=-\\tfrac14\\Omega.$ It follows that, up to rotation, $g(z)=-4/f(-1/z)$ for all $z\\in{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}$. Suppose that for a suitable choice of the functions $\\rho$ and\u00a0$\\omega$, the homeomorphism\u00a0$F:{\\mathbb{C}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ defined with the help of the Loewner chain\u00a0$(f^g_t)$ is $k$-quasiconformal for some ${k\\in(0,1)}$. Then arguing as in\u00a0[@Istvan proof of Theorem\u00a02], we see that for all ${t\\ge0}$ aside from some null-set\u00a0$N$, ${\\vphantom{f_t}\\smash{\\stackengine{-.075ex}{f_t}{\\boldsymbol{\\cdot\\hskip.175em}}{O}{r}{F}{\\useanchorwidth}{S}}}:=\\partial f_t/\\partial t$ and $f_t'$ exist a.e. on\u00a0$\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}$, do not vanish, and $$\\label{EQ_limit-property}\n\\frac{{\\vphantom{f_t}\\smash{\\stackengine{-.075ex}{f_t}{\\boldsymbol{\\cdot\\hskip.175em}}{O}{r}{F}{\\useanchorwidth}{S}}}(e^{i\\theta})}{e^{i\\theta}f_t'(e^{i\\theta})}\\,\\in\\,U(k),$$ where\u00a0$U(k)$ is defined in Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_Becker\\]. Moreover, by construction, $\\partial f_t({\\mathbb{D}})$ is $C^{\\infty}$ when\u00a0${t>0}$. Hence, in fact, $f_t'$ extends smoothly to\u00a0$\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}$ for all\u00a0$t>0$; see e.g. [@Pommerenke:BB Chapter\u00a03].\n\nTaking into account that $\\big|g^{-1}\\big(f_t(e^{i\\theta})\\big)\\big|=\\rho(t)$ for all\u00a0${t\\ge0}$ and all\u00a0${\\theta\\in[0,2\\pi]}$, it follows that $\\rho'(t)$ exists for any\u00a0$t\\in(0,+\\infty)\\setminus N$ and for the normal velocity of\u00a0$\\partial f_t({\\mathbb{D}})$ we have $$|f'_t(e^{i\\theta})|\\,\\Re\\!\\Big(\\frac{{\\vphantom{f_t}\\smash{\\stackengine{-.075ex}{f_t}{\\boldsymbol{\\cdot\\hskip.175em}}{O}{r}{F}{\\useanchorwidth}{S}}}(e^{i\\theta})}{e^{i\\theta}f'(e^{i\\theta})}\\Big)~=~\\frac{\\Re\\big({\\vphantom{f_t}\\smash{\\stackengine{-.075ex}{f_t}{\\boldsymbol{\\cdot\\hskip.175em}}{O}{r}{F}{\\useanchorwidth}{S}}}(e^{i\\theta})\\,\\overline{e^{i\\theta}f'(e^{i\\theta})}\\,\\big)}{|f'_t(e^{i\\theta})|}~=~\\rho'(t)\\,\\big|g'\\big(g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\\theta}))\\big)\\big|.$$ Together with\u00a0 this implies that on the one hand, for any\u00a0$t\\in(0,+\\infty)\\setminus N$, $$\\label{EQ_ravn}\n\\frac1K\\le\\left|\\frac{\\rho'(t)\\,g'\\big(g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\\theta}))}{f_t'(e^{i\\theta})}\\right|\\le K:=\\frac{1+k}{1-k}\\quad \\text{for all~$\\theta\\in[0,2\\pi]$}.$$\n\nOn the other hand, $$\\label{EQ_integration}\n2\\pi\\rho(t)~=~\\int_{0}^{2\\pi}\\left|\\frac{{\\mathrm{d}}g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\\theta}))}{{\\mathrm{d}}\\theta}\\right|\\,{\\mathrm{d}}\\theta~=~\\int_{0}^{2\\pi}\\left|\\frac{f_t'(e^{i\\theta})}{g'\\big(g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\\theta}))}\\right|\\,{\\mathrm{d}}\\theta$$\n\nCombining\u00a0 with\u00a0, we see that $$\\frac{\\rho(t)}{K^2}\\le \\left|\\frac{f_t'(e^{i\\theta})}{g'\\big(g^{-1}(f_t(e^{i\\theta}))}\\right|\\le \\rho(t) K^2\\quad t>0,~t\\not\\in N.$$ Therefore, the conformal weldings $\\gamma_t:=\\big(g^{-1}\\circ f_t|_{\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}}\\big)\\big/\\rho(t)$, $t\\in(0,+\\infty)$, are $K^2$-Lipschitz continuous. Using Carath\u00e9odory\u2019s Extension Theorem (see e.g. [@Pommerenke:BB p.18]) and Courant\u2019s Theorem (see e.g. [@Tsuji Theorem\u00a0IX.14]) we conclude that $\\gamma_t\\to\\gamma_0$ as $t\\to0^+$. It follows that $\\gamma_0$ has to be also Lipschitz-continuous, but in reality it is not. This contradiction shows that $F$ is not quasiconformal.\n\nA sufficient condition for Becker extendibility\n===============================================\n\nBelow we prove a sufficient condition for a holomorphic function to be Becker extendible, i.e. to have a q.c.-extension of the form\u00a0. This simple result is probably known to specialists: somewhat similar ideas appeared e.g. in\u00a0[@Betker_Phi] and\u00a0[@Ikkei1 equation(11)]. However, it does not seem to be ever stated in the form as presented below. For the notions of a meromorphic function of several complex variables and that of an analytic set we refer the reader to\u00a0[@Shabat \u00a715, \u00a78].\n\n\\[TH\\_PDE\\_THM\\] Let $f$ be a holomorphic function in $\\D$, with $f'(0)-1=f(0)=0$. Suppose that there exists a meromorphic solution $\\Phi : \\C \\times \\D \\to \\C$ to the PDE initial value problem $$\\begin{aligned}\n &\\Phi'_w(z, \\,w ) = \\varphi(z,w)\\, \\Phi'_z(z, \\,w), & (z,w)\\in \\C \\times \\D;\\label{EQ_PDE1}\\\\\n &\\Phi(z,z)  = f(z), & z\\in{\\mathbb{D}},\\label{EQ_PDE2}\\end{aligned}$$ with a coefficient $\\varphi$ meromorphic in\u00a0$\\C \\times \\D$ and satisfying the following two conditions:\n\n-   $\\varphi(0,0)=0$;\n\n-   $r\\!\\left|\\varphi(w/r,w)\\right| \\le k$ for all $w\\in\\D$ and all $r\\in\\big(|w|^2,1\\big)$.\n\nSuppose also that there exists $\\varepsilon\\in(0,1)$ and $M>0$ such that $$\\label{EQ_Phi-at-infinity}\n|\\Phi(z,w)|\\le M |z|\\quad\\text{whenever~$|w|\\le |z|$ and $|z\\,w|\\le \\varepsilon^2$.}$$ Then $f$ admits a $k$-q.c. Becker extension given by $$F(z) := \\Phi(z, 1/\\bar{z}), \\hspace{15pt} |z|>1.$$ In particular, $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$.\n\nSince $\\Phi(0,0)=f(0)=0$, it is sufficient to check condition\u00a0 only for\u00a0$z$ large enough.\n\nBefore proving Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_PDE\\_THM\\], let us consider a few examples.\n\nLet $f$ be a holomorphic function in\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ with $f'(0)-1=f(0)=0$. Set $\\varphi(z,w):=(z-w)f''(w)/f'(w)$. Then $\\Phi(z,w):=f(w)+(z-w)f'(w)$ solves problem\u00a0, and satisfies\u00a0. Condition\u00a0(i) in Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_PDE\\_THM\\] holds trivially, while\u00a0(ii) is equivalent to $(1-|w|^2)|wf''(w)/f'(w)|\\le k$, which is a classical sufficient condition for q.c.-extendibility.\n\nSimilarly, setting $\\varphi(z,w):=f'(w)-1$ and $\\Phi(z,w):=f(w)+z-w$, we recover another well-known sufficient condition for q.c.-extendibility $\\big|f'(w)-1\\big|\\le k$, $w\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$, see [@Brown \u00a73].\n\nThe following corollary represents another example.\n\n\\[CR\\_AW-Becker\\] Fix $k\\in(0,1)$. Let $f(z)=z+a_2 z^2+\\ldots$ be holomorphic in\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$. If $$\\label{EQ_AW-Becker}\n\\tfrac{4\\sqrt3}{9}(1-|z|^2)|a_2|\\,+\\,(1-|z|^2)^2\\big|a_2^2+\\tfrac12S_f(z)\\big|~\\le~ k\\quad\\text{for all~$z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$},$$ then $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k^B$, with its Becker extension given by $F(z)=\\Phi(z,1/\\bar z)$ for all\u00a0$z\\in{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}$, where $$\\label{EQ_Phi}\n\\Phi(z,w):=f(w)+\\frac{f'(w)}{\\frac{1}{z-w}+a_2-\\frac{1}{2}\\frac{f''(w)}{f'(w)}}.$$\n\nLet $\\varphi(z,w):=2a_2(z-w)+(z-w)^2\\big(a_2^2+\\tfrac12S_f(w)\\big)$, where $S_f$ stands for the Schwarzian derivative of\u00a0$f$. Then $\\Phi$ given by\u00a0 solves problem\u00a0,.\n\nMoreover, there exists $K>1$ such that $\\big|f'(w)\\big|\\le K$ and $\\left|a_2-\\frac12\\big({f''(w)}/{f'(w)}\\big)\\right|\\le K|w|$ for all\u00a0$w\\in\\frac12{\\mathbb{D}}$. Hence, for any $(z,w)\\in\\C\\times{\\mathbb{D}}$ with $|w|\\le |z|$ and ${|zw|\\le\\varepsilon^2}:=(4K)^{-1}$, $$\\big|\\Phi(z,w)\\big|\\,\\le\\,\\big|f(w)\\big|\\,+\\,\\frac{\\big|(z-w)f'(w)\\big|}{\\left|1 - K|w|\\cdot|z-w|\\vphantom{\\int_0^1}\\right|} \\,\\le\\, K|w|\\,+\\,\\frac{2\\,|z|\\,\\big|f'(w)\\big|}{1 - 2K\\varepsilon^2\\,} \\,\\le\\, 5 K|z|.$$ This proves\u00a0. Finally, since $|w|(1-|w|^2)\\le 2\\sqrt 3/9$ for all\u00a0$w\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$, condition\u00a0 ensures that $\\varphi$ satisfies\u00a0(ii), while\u00a0(i) holds trivially.\n\nThus, the desired conclusion takes place due to\u00a0Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_PDE\\_THM\\].\n\nA well-known result by Ahlfors and Weill\u00a0[@AW62], see also\u00a0[@Ahlfors74], asserts that if a holomorphic function $f:{\\mathbb{D}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ satisfies $\\frac12(1-|z|^2)^2|S_f(z)|\\le k$, where $k\\in(0,1)$, for all\u00a0$z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$, then $f$ is univalent and extends to a $k$-q.c. automorphism $F:{\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}\\to{\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}}$, with $F$ given by an explicit formula. This extension can be obtained with the help of Becker\u2019s construction (see, e.g.,\u00a0[@Becker72 \u00a74] and [@Becker80]), but it does not have to fix\u00a0$\\infty$ and hence $F$ is not a Becker extension in general (which was overlooked in [@Istvan \u00a75]). Corollary\u00a0\\[CR\\_AW-Becker\\] is a sort of modification of the Ahfors\u2013Weill condition that ensures extendibility to a q.c.-automorphism of\u00a0${\\mathbb{C}}$. In fact, if $a_2=0$ then the q.c.-extension of\u00a0$f$ given in Corollary\u00a0\\[CR\\_AW-Becker\\] coincides with the extension constructed by Ahlfors and Weill\u00a0[@Ahlfors74].\n\nIt is known, see e.g. [@Lawrynowicz Example\u00a04 on p.132], that given $k\\in(0,1)$, for all $f\\in{\\mathcal{S}}_k$, $|a_2|\\le 2k$ and $|S_f(z)|\\le 6k/(1-|z|^2)^2$ for any $z\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$. Therefore, Corollary\u00a0\\[CR\\_AW-Becker\\] implies immediately the following statement.\n\n\\[CR\\_AW-Becker0\\] If $0<k<0.188856\\ldots$, then ${\\mathcal{S}}_k\\subset {\\mathcal{S}}_q^B$ with $q:=(3+\\tfrac{8\\sqrt3}{9})k+4k^2$.\n\nIt remains to prove the main result of this section.\n\nLet $$f_t(\\zeta):=\\Phi(\\zeta e^t,\\zeta e^{-t})\\quad \\text{and}\\quad p(\\zeta,t):=\\frac{\\partial f_t(\\zeta)/\\partial t}{\\zeta f_t'(\\zeta)}\\quad\\text{for all $t\\ge0$ and~$\\zeta\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$.}$$ Thanks to condition\u00a0, these functions are holomorphic in\u00a0$\\zeta\\in\\varepsilon{\\mathbb{D}}$ and real-analytic in\u00a0$t\\ge0$, and moreover, $|f_t(\\zeta)|\\le M e^t$ for all\u00a0$\\zeta\\in\\varepsilon{\\mathbb{D}}$ and $t\\ge0$.\n\nNote also that for any fixed $t\\ge0$, the point $(\\zeta e^t,\\zeta e^{-t})$ can lie in the polar set\u00a0$\\mathcal P$ of\u00a0$\\Phi$ only for\u00a0$\\zeta$ belonging to a discrete subset of\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$. Otherwise, since $\\mathcal P$ is an analytic set in\u00a0$\\C\\times{\\mathbb{D}}$, we would have that $(\\zeta e^t,\\zeta e^{-t})\\in\\mathcal P$ for all\u00a0$\\zeta\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$, which contradicts\u00a0. Therefore, $p(\\cdot,t)$ and $f_t$ are well-defined meromorphic functions in\u00a0${\\mathbb{D}}$ for each $t\\ge0$.\n\nAs an elementary calculation shows, for all\u00a0$\\zeta\\in{\\mathbb{D}}$ and $t>0$, $$\\frac{1-p(\\zeta,t)}{1+p(\\zeta,t)}=e^{-2t}\\,\\frac{\\Phi'_w(\\zeta e^t,\\zeta e^{-t})}{\\Phi'_z(\\zeta e^t,\\zeta e^{-t})}\n=\nr\\,\\varphi(w/r,w),$$ where $r:=e^{-2t}$ and $w:=\\zeta e^{-t}$. Trivially, $|w|^2<r<1$. Therefore, condition\u00a0(ii) implies that $p$ is a Herglotz function satisfying Becker\u2019s condition\u00a0.\n\nClearly, $f_t(0)=\\Phi(0,0)=f(0)=0$, $t\\ge0$. Moreover, taking into account\u00a0(i), we have $f'_t(0)=e^t\\Phi'_z(0,0)+e^{-t}\\Phi'_w(0,0)=e^t\\Phi'_z(0,0)=e^t f'(0)=e^t$ for all\u00a0$t\\ge0$.\n\nWe see that $(f_t)$ satisfies the hypothesis of Pommerenke\u2019s Criterion [@Pommerenke Theorem\u00a06.1 on p.159]. Hence $(f_t)$ is a classical radial Loewner chain. Furthermore, by Theorem\u00a0\\[TH\\_Becker\\], $f=f_0$ admits a $k$-q.c. extension $F:{\\mathbb{C}}\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ given by the formula $$F(e^{t+i\\theta})=f_t(e^{i\\theta})=\\Phi(e^{t}e^{i\\theta},e^{-t}e^{i\\theta})=\\Phi(z,1/\\bar z)\\quad \\text{for all $z:=e^{t+i\\theta}\\in{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\overline{\\mathbb{D}}$,}$$ which was to be proved.\n\nAcknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThe authors are grateful to Professor Toshiyuki Sugawa for fruitful discussions on the topic of the present paper and, in particular, for drawing their attention to reference\u00a0[@Sugawa2019].\n\n[99]{} L. V. Ahlfors, Sufficient conditions for quasiconformal extension, in [*Discontinuous groups and Riemann surfaces (Proc. Conf., Univ. Maryland, College Park, Md., 1973)*]{}, 23\u201329. Ann. of Math. Studies, 79, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. MR0374415\n\nL. Ahlfors\u00a0and\u00a0G. Weill, *A uniqueness theorem for Beltrami equations*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**13**]{} (1962), 975\u2013978. MR0148896\n\nJ. Becker, *L\u00f6wnersche Differentialgleichung und quasikonform fortsetzbare schlichte Funktionen*, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**255**]{} (1972), 23\u201343. MR0299780\n\nJ.\u00a0Becker, *\u00dcber die [L]{}\u00f6sungsstruktur einer [D]{}ifferentialgleichung in der konformen [A]{}bbildung*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **285** (1976), 66\u201374.\n\nJ. Becker, Conformal mappings with quasiconformal extensions, in [*Aspects of contemporary complex analysis (Proc. NATO Adv. Study Inst., Univ. Durham, Durham, 1979)*]{}, 37\u201377, Academic Press, London. MR0623464\n\nTh. Betker, *L\u00f6wner chains and Hardy spaces*, Bull. London Math. Soc. [**23**]{} (1991), No.4, 367\u2013371. MR1125863\n\nTh. Betker, *Univalence criteria and L\u00f6wner chains,* Bull. London Math. Soc. [**23**]{} (1991), No.6, 563\u2013567. MR1135187\n\nTh. Betker, *L\u00f6wner chains and quasiconformal extensions,* Complex Variables Theory Appl. [**20**]{} (1992), no.\u00a01-4, 107\u2013111. MR1284357\n\nF.\u00a0Bracci, M.\u00a0D. Contreras, and S.\u00a0D[\u00ed]{}az-Madrigal, *Evolution families and the [L]{}oewner equation. [II]{}. [C]{}omplex hyperbolic manifolds*, Math. Ann. **344** (2009), no.\u00a04, 947\u2013962.\n\nF.\u00a0Bracci, M.\u00a0D. Contreras, and S.\u00a0Diaz-Madrigal, *Evolution families and the [L]{}oewner equation. [I]{}. [T]{}he unit disc*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **672** (2012), 1\u201337.\n\nL. de Branges, *A proof of the Bieberbach conjecture,* Acta Math. [**154**]{} (1985), no.\u00a01-2, 137\u2013152. MR0772434\n\nJ. E. Brown, *Quasiconformal extensions for some geometric subclasses of univalent functions,* Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. [**7**]{} (1984), no.\u00a01, 187\u2013195. MR0743837\n\nP. L. Duren, [*Univalent functions*]{}, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 259, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983. MR0708494\n\nG.M. Goluzin, [*Geometric theory of functions of a complex variable*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I.,1969. MR0247039 (Translated from G. M. Goluzin, [*Geometrical theory of functions of a complex variable*]{} (Russian), Second edition, Izdat. \u201cNauka\u201d, Moscow, 1966.)\n\nP. Gumenyuk\u00a0and\u00a0I. Hotta, *Chordal Loewner chains with quasiconformal extensions*, Math. Z. [**285**]{} (2017), no.\u00a03-4, 1063\u20131089. MR3623740\n\nP. Gumenyuk\u00a0and\u00a0I. Prause, *Quasiconformal extensions, Loewner chains, and the $\\lambda$-lemma,* Anal. Math. Phys. [**8**]{} (2018), no.\u00a04, 621\u2013635. MR3881017\n\nV. Ja. Gutljanski\u012d, *Parametric representation of univalent functions*, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR [**194**]{} (1970), 750\u2013753. MR0271324; English translation in Soviet Math. Dokl. [**11**]{} (1970), 1273\u20131276.\n\nR. S. Hamilton, *Extremal quasiconformal mappings with prescribed boundary values,* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**138**]{} (1969), 399\u2013406. MR0245787\n\nA. Harrington\u00a0and\u00a0M. Ortel, *Two extremal problems,* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**221**]{} (1976), no.\u00a01, 159\u2013167. MR0409828\n\nI. Hotta, *Explicit quasiconformal extensions and L\u00f6wner chains,* Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. [**85**]{} (2009), no.\u00a08, 108\u2013111. MR2561899\n\nI. Hotta, *Loewner chains with quasiconformal extensions: an approximation approach,* J. Anal. Math., to appear (arXiv:1605.07839).\n\nI. Hotta\u00a0and\u00a0L.-M. Wang, *Quasiconformal extendability of integral transforms of Noshiro-Warschawski functions,* Rocky Mountain J. Math. [**47**]{} (2017), No.1, 185\u2013204. MR3619760\n\nX. Z. Huang, *On the extremality for Teichm\u00fcller mappings,* J. Math. Kyoto Univ. [**35**]{} (1995), no.\u00a01, 115\u2013132. MR1317278\n\nS. L. Krushkal, *Extremal quasiconformal mappings* (Russian), Sib. Mat. Zh. [**10**]{} (1969), no.\u00a03, 573\u2013583. MR0241633; English translation in Sib. Math. J. [**10**]{} (1969), no.\u00a03, 411\u2013418.\n\nS. L. Krushkal, *Exact coefficient estimates for univalent functions with quasiconformal extension*, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. [**20**]{} (1995), no.\u00a02, 349\u2013357. MR1346818\n\nKufarev, P. P. *On one-parameter families of analytic functions* (Russian), Rec. Math. \\[Mat. Sbornik\\] N.S. [**13(55)**]{} (1943), 87\u2013118. MR0013800\n\nR. K\u00fchnau, *Wertannahmeprobleme bei quasikonformen Abbildungen mit ortsabh\u00e4ngiger Dilatationsbeschr\u00e4nkung*, Math. Nachr. [**40**]{} (1969), 1\u201311. MR0249610\n\nR. K\u00fchnau\u00a0and\u00a0W. Niske, *Absch\u00e4tzung des dritten Koeffizienten bei den quasikonform fortsetzbaren schlichten Funktionen der Klasse $S$*, Math. Nachr. [**78**]{} (1977), 185\u2013192. MR0470205\n\nJ. \u0141awrynowicz, [*Quasiconformal mappings in the plane*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 978, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983. MR0702025\n\nO. Lehto, *Schlicht functions with a quasiconformal extension*, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I No. 500 (1971), 10 pp. MR0294624\n\nO. Lehto, *On univalent functions with quasiconformal extensions over the boundary*, J. Analyse Math. [**30**]{} (1976), 349\u2013354. MR0466544\n\nO. Lehto, [*Univalent functions and Teichm\u00fcller spaces*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 109, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987. MR0867407\n\nK. L\u00f6wner, Untersuchungen \u00fcber schlichte konforme Abbildungen des Einheitskreises. I, Math. Ann. [**89**]{} (1923), no.\u00a01-2, 103\u2013121. MR1512136\n\nC. Pommerenke, *\u00dcber die Subordination analytischer Funktionen*, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**218**]{} (1965), 159\u2013173. MR0180669\n\nCh. Pommerenke, [*Univalent functions. With a chapter on quadratic differentials by Gerd Jensen*]{}, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, G\u00f6ttingen, 1975.\n\nCh. Pommerenke, [*Boundary behaviour of conformal maps*]{}, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, 299, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992. MR1217706\n\nL. S. Pontryagin\u00a0et al.: [*The mathematical theory of optimal processes*]{} (Russian), fourth edition, \u201cNauka\u201d, Moscow, 1983. MR0719372; Translation to English: Interscience Publishers John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1962. MR0166037\n\nD. V. Prokhorov, Bounded univalent functions, in [*Handbook of complex analysis: geometric function theory, Vol. 1*]{}, 207\u2013228, North-Holland, Amsterdam. MR1966195\n\nB. V. Shabat, [*Introduction to complex analysis. Part II*]{}, translated from the third (1985) Russian edition by J. S. Joel, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, 110, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1992. MR1192135\n\nG. Schober, [*Univalent functions\u2014selected topics*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 478, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975. MR0507770\n\nK. Strebel, *On quasiconformal mappings of open Riemann surfaces*, Comment. Math. Helv. [ **53**]{} (1978), No.3, 301\u2013321. MR0505549\n\nT. Sugawa, *A construction of trivial Beltrami coefficients*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**147**]{} (2019), No.2, 629\u2013635. MR3894901\n\nM. Tsuji, [*Potential theory in modern function theory*]{}, Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1975. MR0414898\n\nG. Yao, [*Hamilton sequences and extremality for certain Teichm\u00fcller mappings,*]{} Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. [**29**]{} (2004), no.\u00a01, 185\u2013194. MR2041707\n\nG. Yao, *On criteria for extremality of Teichm\u00fcller mappings,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**132**]{} (2004), no.\u00a09, 2647\u20132654. MR2054790\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'An arbitrary group action on an algebra $R$ results in an ideal $\\mfr$ of $R$. This ideal $\\mfr$ fits into the classical radical theory, and will be called the radical of the group action. If $R$ is a noetherian algebra with finite GK-dimension and $G$ is a finite group, then the difference between the GK-dimensionsof $R$ and that of $R/\\mfr$ is called the pertinency of the group action. We provide some methods to find elements of the radical, which helps to calculate the pertinency of some special group actions. The $\\mfr$-adic local cohomology of $R$ is related to the singularities of the invariant subalgebra $R^G$. We establish an equivalence between the quotient category of the invariant $R^G$ and that of the skew group ring $R*G$ through the torsion theory associated to the radical $\\mfr$. With the help of the equivalence, we show that the invariant subalgebra $R^G$ will inherit certain Cohen-Macaulay property from $R$.'\naddress:\n- 'He: Department of Mathematics, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou Zhejiang 310036, China'\n- 'Y. ZhangDepartment of mathematics and statistics, University of Hasselt, Universitaire Campus, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium'\nauthor:\n- 'Ji-Wei He and Yinhuo Zhang'\ntitle: Local cohomology associated to the radical of a group action on a noetherian algebra\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLet $R$ be a noetherian algebra with finite GK-dimension, and let $G$ be a finite group acting on $R$. In general, it is not easy to study the structure and the representations of a group action. However, one possible way to understand the group action is through the McKay correspondence, which establishes certain correspondence among the representations of the group $G$, of the skew group algebra $R*G$, and of the invariant subalgebra $R^G$ (see [@B] for a good survey of the classical McKay correspondence, or [@Mo; @CKWZ1; @CKWZ2] for noncommutative McKay correspondence). An important step for establishing noncommutative McKay correspondence is the Auslander Theorem in the noncommutative case (cf. [@BHZ; @BHZ2; @GKMW]). To prove certain noncommutative version of the Auslander theorem, Bao-Zhang and the first named author introduced an invariant $\\Pty(R,G)$, called the pertinency of the group action. In some sense, the pertinency $\\Pty(R,G)$ determines whether the Auslander theorem holds or not (cf. [@BHZ]).\n\nThe invariant subalgebra $R^G$ is not regular in general. For instance, if $R$ is Artin-Schelter regular and the homological determinant of $G$ is trivial, then $R^G$ is Artin-Schelter Gorenstein [@JZ]. So, studying the representations of the noncommutative singularities of $R^G$ is necessary. When $R^G$ has isolated singularities, the representations of the singularities are well understood (cf. [@MU1; @MU2; @U]). Iyama-Wemyss developed a wonderful theory on the representations of non-isolated singularities when the algebra under consideration is commutative (cf. [@IW]). The representations of noncommutative non-isolated singularities remain less understood. The main purpose of this paper is to understand the properties of the invariant subalgebra $R^G$ when it has non-isolated singularities.\n\nThe main tool we will use in this paper is the [*radical*]{} $\\mfr(R,G)$ of the group action. Let $B=R*G$ be the skew group ring, and let $e=\\frac{1}{|G|}\\sum_{g\\in G}g\\in \\kk G$, the integral of $\\kk G$. The radical $\\mfr(R,G)$ is in fact the the intersection $R\\cap BeB$. The radical can be introduced even if the group $G$ is not finite. We introduce the concept of two [*pertinent sequences* ]{} of elements of $R$ (cf. Section \\[sec1\\]), through which we define the radical $\\mfr(R,G)$ for any group action. The radical $\\mfr(R,G)$ is an ideal of $R$. We show in Section \\[sec2\\] that $\\mfr(R,G)$ fits into the the classical radical theory which justifies the name. It is usually difficult to compute $R\\cap BeB$ directly, while there are several natural ways to find pertinent sequences which lead to determine elements in the radical.\n\nThe pertinency of a group action $\\Pty(R,G)$ introduced in [@BHZ] is equal to $\\operatorname{GKdim}(R)-\\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\\mfr(R,G))$ (cf. Section \\[sec3\\]). The condition $\\Pty(R,G)=1$ is related to Shephard-Todd-Chevalley\u2019s Theorem (see Propositions \\[prop2-3\\] and \\[prop2-4\\]). As it was shown in [@BHZ] that the condition $\\Pty(R,G)\\ge2$ is equivalent to the Auslander Theorem when $R$ is GK-Cohen-Macaulay. We recover some known results in Section \\[set4\\] by using pertinent sequences .\n\nSet $A:=R^G$, $\\mfr=\\mfr(R,G)$ and $\\mfa=A\\cap \\mfr$. We mainly focus on the local cohomology of $A$-modules associated to the ideal $\\mfa$. In Section \\[sec5\\], we established some isomorphisms of the local cohomology (cf. Theorem \\[thm-locdual\\]). As one of our main results, we have the following theorem (for the terminology, see Section \\[sec7\\]).\n\n\\[thm0.1\\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Assume that $R$ satisfies Setup \\[set\\]. If $R$ is $G$-Cohen-Macaulay, then $A$ is $\\mfa$-Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $\\Pty(R,G)$.\n\nAs a corollary, we have the following equivalence of local cohomology, where $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa$ is the $i$th local cohomology associated to the ideal $\\mfa$.\n\nLet $R$ be a $G$-Cohen-Macaulay algebra. Assume that $R$ satisfies Setup \\[set\\]. If $R$ has finite global dimension, then we have $$R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)\\cong \\operatorname{Tor}_{p-i}^A(M,D)$$ for $M\\in\\operatorname{Mod}A$ and $i\\ge0$, where $p=\\Pty(R,G)$ and $D=R^p\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)$.\n\nWe will list some examples in Sections \\[sec-quot\\], \\[sec6\\] and \\[sec7\\] which satisfy Setup \\[set\\]. In case the algebra $R$ is commutative, then most conditions in Setup \\[set\\] are automatically satisfied.\n\nTheorem \\[thm0.1\\] is obtained via an equivalence of quotient categories associated to the ideals $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$. Let $\\operatorname{Mod}A$ be the category of right $A$-modules, and let $\\operatorname{Tor}_\\mfa A$ be the full subcategory of $\\operatorname{Mod}A$ consisting of $\\mfa$-torsion modules. Since $R$ is noetherian and $G$ is finite, $A$ is noetherian as well. Thus $\\operatorname{Tor}_\\mfa A$ is a Serre subcategory of $\\operatorname{Mod}A$. Hence we obtain an abelian category $\\QMod_\\mfa A:=\\frac{\\operatorname{Mod}A}{\\operatorname{Tor}_\\mfa A}$. Similarly, let $\\mfb=\\mfr\\otimes\\kk G\\subseteq B=R*G$, we have $\\QMod_\\mfb B:=\\frac{\\operatorname{Mod}B}{\\operatorname{Tor}_\\mfb B}$. The following equivalence of quotient categories holds (for the terminology, see Section \\[sec-quot\\]).\n\n\\[Theorem 6.4\\] Let $R$ and $G$ be as above. Assume that $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are cofinal, and $\\mfa$ has the right AR-property.\n\n-   The functor $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,-):\\operatorname{Mod}A\\longrightarrow \\operatorname{Mod}B$ induces a functor $$\\operatorname{Hom}_\\mathcal{A}(\\mathcal{R},-):\\QMod_\\mfa A\\longrightarrow \\QMod_\\mfb B.$$\n\n-   The functors $-\\otimes_\\mathcal{B}\\mathcal{R}$ and $\\operatorname{Hom}_\\mathcal{A}(\\mathcal{R},-)$ are quasi-inverse to each other.\n\nIf $R$ is a commutative algebra, then the cofinal condition in the above theorem is indeed necessary (cf. Theorem \\[thm-commeq\\]). The extension groups of objects in $\\QMod_\\mfb B$ can be obtained through the extension groups of the corresponding objects in $\\QMod_\\mfr R$ (cf. Proposition \\[prop-qext\\]), and thus we establish connections among extension groups of objects in $\\QMod_\\mfa A$, $\\QMod_\\mfr R$ and $\\QMod_\\mfb B$ respectively.\n\nThroughout the paper, $\\kk$ is a field. All the algebras and modules are assumed to be $\\kk$-vector space. Unadorned $\\otimes$ means $\\otimes_{\\kk}$. All the finite groups considered in the paper are nontrivial.\n\nRadicals of group actions {#sec1}\n=========================\n\nLet $R$ be a noetherian algebra. Let $G$ be a finite group which acts on $R$ by automorphisms so that $R$ is a left $G$-module algebra. The $G$-action determines an ideal of $R$.\n\n\\[def-pelmt\\] We say that two sequences $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)$ and $(b_1,\\dots,b_n)$ of elements of $R$ are [*pertinent under the $G$-action*]{}, if $\\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g\\cdot b_i)=0$ for all $1\\neq g\\in G$. We write $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1,\\dots,b_n)$ for pertinent sequences.\n\n\\[example1\\] (i) Let $R=\\kk[x,y]$. Let $\\sigma$ be the automorphism of $A$ defined by $\\sigma(x)=y$ and $\\sigma(y)=x$. Let $G=\\{1,g\\}$. Then the sequences $(x,y)\\overset{G}\\sim(x,-y)$.\n\n\\(ii) Let $R=\\kk_{-1}[x,y]$ be the skew symmetric algebra. Let $\\sigma$ be the automorphism of $A$ defined by $\\sigma(x)=y$ and $\\sigma(y)=x$. Let $G=\\{1,g\\}$. Then the sequences $(x,y)\\overset{g}\\sim(x,y)$.\n\nFor the convenience of the narratives, we conventionally write $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\vee (a'_1,\\dots,a'_m)$ for the sequence $(a_1,\\dots,a_n,a'_1,\\dots,a'_m)$. We have the following basic properties of pertinent sequences.\n\n\\[prop-basic\\] Assume $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1,\\dots,b_n)$. The following hold:\n\n-   $(h\\cdot a_1,\\dots,h\\cdot a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(h\\cdot b_1,\\dots,h\\cdot b_n)$ for all $h\\in G$;\n\n-   $(a a_1,\\dots,aa_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1b,\\dots, b_nb)$ for all $a,b\\in A$;\n\n-   if $(a'_1,\\dots,a'_m)\\overset{G}\\sim(b'_1,\\dots,b'_m)$, then $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\vee (a'_1,\\dots,a'_m)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1,\\dots ,b_n)\\vee (b'_1,\\dots,b'_m)$.\n\nStraightforward.\n\nGiven a $G$-action $\\theta:G\\to \\operatorname{Aut}(R)$, we define $$\\mfr(R,G)=\\left\\{\\sum_{i=1}^na_ib_i|(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1,\\dots,b_n),n\\ge1\\right\\}.$$ By Proposition \\[prop-basic\\](ii), $\\mfr(R,G)$ is closed under addition, and by Proposition \\[prop-basic\\](ii) $\\mfr(R,G)$ is an ideal of $R$.\n\n\\[def-pideal\\] We call $\\mfr(R,G)$ [*the radical of $R$ under the $G$-action*]{}, or simply, [*the $G$-radical of $R$*]{}, and we call the quotient algebra $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G):=R/\\mfr(R,G)$ the [*pertinency algebra*]{} of $R$ under the $G$-action.\n\n\\(i) We will show in the next section that the ideal $\\mfr(R,G)$ fits into the classical radical theory of rings (cf. [@Sz]).\n\n\\(ii) The $G$-radical $\\mfr(R,G)$ depends mainly on the group action $\\theta:G\\to \\operatorname{Aut}(R)$.\n\n\\(i) Let $R=\\kk[x,y]$. Let $\\sigma$ be the automorphism of $A$ defined by $\\sigma(x)=y$ and $\\sigma(y)=x$. Let $G=\\{1,\\sigma\\}$. Note that $(x,1)$ and $(1,-y)$ are pertinent sequences. Hence $x-y\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. We claim that $x^n$ ($n\\ge2$) is not in $\\mfr(R,G)$. Indeed, if $x^n\\in \\mfr(R,G)$, then there are pertinent sequences $(a_1,\\dots,a_m)$ and $(b_1,\\dots,b_m)$ such that $x^n=\\sum_{i=1}^ma_ib_i$. Note that $R$ has a basis $\\{x^sy^t|s,t\\ge0\\}$. By a simple comparison of powers of $y$ in the sum $\\sum_{i=1}^ma_ib_i$, we may assume that $a_i=\\sum_jk_{i_j}x^{s_{i_j}}$ and $b_i=r_ix^{t_i}$, where $k_{i_j},r_i\\in\\kk$ and $t_1,\\dots t_m$ are different numbers. Since $(a_1,\\dots,a_m)$ and $(b_1,\\dots,b_m)$ are pertinent sequences, we have $0=\\sum_{i=1}^ma_i\\sigma(b_i)=\\sum_{i=1}^m\\sum_jk_{i_j}r_ix^{s_{i_j}}y^{t_i}$. Then $\\sum_jk_{i_j}r_ix^{s_{i_j}}=0$ for all $i$. Therefore, $\\sum_{i=1}^ma_ib_i=\\sum_{i=1}^m\\sum_jk_{i_j}r_ix^{s_{i_j}}x^{t_i}=0$, a contradiction. Hence $x^n$ is not in $\\mfr(R,G)$ for all $n\\geq 1$. It follows that $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)\\cong \\kk[x]$.\n\n\\(ii) Let $R=\\kk_{-1}[x,y]$. Let $\\sigma$ be the automorphism of $R$ defined by $\\sigma(x)=y$ and $\\sigma(y)=x$. Let $G=\\{1,\\sigma\\}$. As we see in Example \\[example1\\], the sequences $(x,y)$ and $(x,y)$ are pertinent, $x^2+y^2\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. Similar to (i), $x-y\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. If $char\\kk\\neq 2$, then we see $x^2,y^2,xy\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. Therefore $\\mfr(R,G)=\\kk(x-y)\\oplus R_2\\oplus R_3\\oplus\\cdots$, and $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is of dimension 2.\n\nIn some cases, the $G$-radical may be trivial. For example, if the $G$-action on $R$ is trivial, that is, $g\\cdot a=a$ for all $g\\in G$ and $a\\in R$, then one sees that the $G$-radical is zero. Following the classical radical theory, we introduce the following definition.\n\nLet $R$ be a left $G$-module algebra. If the $G$-radial $\\mfr(R,G)=0$, then we say that the $G$-action $R$ is [*$G$-semisimple*]{}.\n\nBy the definition of the $G$-radical, one sees the following basic property of $G$-semisimple $G$-module algebras.\n\n\\[prop-subalg\\] Let $R$ be a left $G$-semisimple $G$-module algebra. If $S$ is a subalgebra of $R$ closed under the $G$-action, then $S$, as a $G$-module algebra, is $G$-semisimple.\n\nPertinency algebras {#sec2}\n===================\n\nLet $G$ be a group, and let $R$ be a $G$-module algebra. We will review some basic properties of the $G$-radical of $R$, which justify the name \u201cradical\u201d.\n\nLet $R$ be a $G$-module algebra with $G$-action $\\theta:G\\to \\operatorname{Aut}(R)$.\n\n-   The $G$-radical $\\mfr(R,G)$ is a $G$-ideal, i.e., it is closed under the $G$-action.\n\n-   The $G$-action $\\theta$ induces a $G$-action $\\overline{\\theta}:G\\to \\operatorname{Aut}(\\mathfrak{R}(R,G))$ so that $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is also a left $G$-module algebra.\n\n-   If $G$ is a finite group, then $\\mfr(\\mathfrak{R}(R,G),G)=0$, i.e., the $G$-module algebra $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is $G$-semisimple.\n\nThe statement (i) follows from Proposition \\[prop-basic\\](i). Then statement (ii) follows from (i).\n\n\\(iii) For an element $a\\in R$, we write $\\overline{a}$ for the image of $a$ in $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. Let $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)$ and $(b_1,\\dots,b_n)$ be sequences of elements in $R$ such that $(\\overline{a}_1,\\dots,\\overline{a}_n)$ and $(\\overline{b}_1,\\dots,\\overline{b}_n)$ are pertinent under the $G$-action in $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. Since $G$ is a finite group, we assume $|G|=k$ and we may label the elements of $G$ in $\\{1=g_0,g_1,\\dots,g_{k-1}\\}$. Then we have $\\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g_j\\cdot b_i)\\in \\mfr(R,G)$ for all $j=1,\\dots,k-1$. Hence, for each $1\\leq j\\leq k-1$, there are pertinent sequences $(x_{j1},\\dots,x_{jm_j})$ and $(y_{j1},\\dots,y_{jm_j})$ in $R$ such that $\\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g_j\\cdot b_i)=\\sum_{i=1}^{m_j}x_{ji}y_{ji}$. We claim that the sequences $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\vee(-x_{11},\\dots, -x_{1m_1})\\vee\\cdots\\vee(-x_{k-1,1},\\dots, -x_{k-1,m_{k-1}})$ and $(b_1,\\dots,b_n)\\vee(g_1^{-1}\\cdot y_{11},\\dots,g_1^{-1}\\cdot y_{1m_1})\\vee\\cdots\\vee(g_{k-1}^{-1}\\cdot y_{k-1,1},\\dots,g_{k-1}^{-1}\\cdot y_{k-1,m_{k-1}})$ are pertinent. Indeed, for $1\\leq j\\leq k-1$, we have $$\\begin{array}{cl}\n  &\\displaystyle\\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g_j\\cdot b_i)-\\sum_{t=1}^{k-1}\\sum_{s=1}^{m_t}x_{ts}(g_jg_t^{-1}\\cdot y_{ts})\\\\\n  =&\\displaystyle\\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g_j\\cdot b_i)-\\sum_{s=1}^{m_j}x_{js}y_{js}-\\sum_{t\\neq j}\\sum_{s=1}^{m_t}x_{ts}(g_jg_t^{-1}\\cdot y_{ts})\\\\\n  =&0.\n\\end{array}$$ Hence we have $\\displaystyle\\sum_{i=1}^na_ib_i-\\sum_{t=1}^{k-1}\\sum_{s=1}^{m_t}x_{ts}(g_t^{-1}\\cdot y_{ts})\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. Since $(x_{t1},\\dots,x_{tm_t})$ and $(y_{t1},\\dots,y_{tm_t})$ are pertinent for all $t=1,\\dots,k-1$, we have $\\displaystyle\\sum_{t=1}^{k-1}\\sum_{s=1}^{m_t}x_{ts}(g_t^{-1}\\cdot y_{ts})=0$. Hence $\\sum_{i=1}^na_ib_i\\in \\mfr(R,G)$, that is, $\\sum_{i=1}^n\\overline{a}_i\\overline{b}_i=0$ in $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. It follows that the $G$-module algebra $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is $G$-semisimple.\n\nBy the third statement of the proposition above, we see that the pertinency algebra $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is always $G$-semisimple for any finite group action. Indeed, the $G$-radical $\\mfr(R,G)$ is the smallest ideal of $R$ closed under $G$-action such that the the quotient algebra is $G$-semisimple.\n\n\\[lem-min\\] Let $G$ be a finite group acting on $A$ by automorphisms. If $I$ is a $G$-ideal of $R$ such that $R/I$ is $G$-semisimple, then $\\mfr(R,G)\\subseteq I$.\n\nFor an element $a\\in R$, we write $\\overline{a}$ for the image of $a$ in $R/I$. Let $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)$ and $(b_1,\\dots,b_n)$ be pertinent sequences in $R$. Then $\\sum_{i=1}^na_i(g\\cdot b_i)=0$ for all $1\\neq g\\in G$. Hence $\\sum_{i=1}^n\\overline{a_i}(\\overline{g\\cdot b_i})=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\overline{a_i}(g\\cdot \\overline{b_i})=0$ in $R/I$. Since $R/I$ is $G$-semisimple, we have $\\sum_{i=1}^n\\overline{a_i}\\overline{b_i}=0$ in $R/I$. Therefore, $\\sum_{i=1}^na_i b_i\\in I$, and hence $\\mfr(R,G)\\subseteq I$.\n\nWe have the following \u201cuniversal property\u201d of the algebra morphisms which respect the group actions.\n\n\\[prop-univ\\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a left $G$-module algebra. Let $S$ be a left $G$-semisimple $G$-module algebra. For any $G$-module algebra morphism $f:R\\to S$, there is a unique $G$-module algebra morphism $g:\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)\\to S$ such that the following diagram commutes $$\\xymatrix{\n  R \\ar[d]_{\\pi} \\ar[r]^{f} &     S,   \\\\\n  \\mathfrak{R}(R,G) \\ar[ur]_{g}                     }$$ where $\\pi$ is the natural projection.\n\nSince $S$ is $G$-semisimple and $f$ is also a $G$-module morphism, the subalgebra im$(f)$ of $S$ is also $G$-semisimple by Proposition \\[prop-subalg\\]. Hence the $G$-radical $\\mfr(R,G)$ is contained in $\\ker(f)$ by Lemma \\[lem-min\\]. Thus the assertion follows.\n\nLet $G$ be a finite group, $R$ a left $G$-module algebra, and $B=R*G$ the skew polynomial algebra. Let $\\iota: R\\to B, a\\mapsto a\\otimes 1$ be the embedding map, so that $R$ is viewed as a subalgebra of $B$. Similarly, we view $\\kk G$ as a subalgebra of $B$. Set $e=\\frac{1}{|G|}\\sum_{g\\in G}g\\in \\kk G$. Then $e$ is an idempotent in $B$. Let $\\mathcal{M}_R$ be the class of right $R$-modules obtained from right $B$-modules which are annihilated by $e$. The next proposition shows that the $G$-radical of $R$ is indeed the $\\mathcal{M}_R$-radical in the classical radical theory (cf. [@Sz]).\n\n\\[prop-mrad\\] With the notions as above, the following holds: $$\\mfr(R,G)=\\bigcap_{M\\in\\mathcal{M}_R}Ann_R(M)$$ where $Ann_R(M)$ is the annihilator of $M$ in $R$.\n\nWe always view $R$ as a subalgebra of $B$ through the map $\\iota$. We see that two sequences $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)$ and $(b_1,\\dots,b_n)$ are pertinent under the $G$-action if and only if $\\sum_{i=1}^na_ieb_i=\\sum_{i=1}^na_ib_i\\otimes 1$. Note that $BeB=ReR$ (cf. [@CFM Proposition 2.13]). We have $R\\cap BeB=\\mfr(R,G)$. For a module $M\\in \\mathcal{M}_R$, we have $Me=0$, and hence $BeB\\subseteq Ann_R(M)$. Therefore $\\mfr(R,G)\\subseteq Ann_R(M)$. Since $\\overline{B}\\in \\mathcal{M}_R$, we have $Ann_R(\\overline{B})=R\\cap BeB=\\mfr(R,G)$. Therefore the proposition follows.\n\nThe following lemma is easy to check.\n\n\\[lem-pertinred\\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and $R$ a left $G$-module algebra.\n\n-   If $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(c_1b_1,\\dots,c_nb_n)$ where $c_1,\\dots,c_n\\in R^G$. Then $$(a_1c_1,\\dots,a_nc_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1,\\dots,b_n).$$\n\n-   Assume $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1,\\dots,b_n)$. If $b_i=b_j$ for some $i,j$, then $$(a_1,\\dots,a_i+a_j,\\dots,\\hat{a}_j,\\dots,a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1,\\dots,b_i,\\dots,\\hat{b}_j,\\dots,b_n),$$ where $\\hat{a}_j$ (and $\\hat{b}_j$) means deleting the element $a_j$ ($b_j$,resp.).\n\n-   Assume $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1,\\dots,b_n)$. If $a_i=a_j$ for some $i,j$, then $$(a_1,\\dots,a_i,\\dots,\\hat{a}_j,\\dots,a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(b_1,\\dots,b_i+b_j,\\dots,\\hat{b}_j,\\dots,b_n),$$ where $\\hat{a}_j$ (and $\\hat{b}_j$) means deleting the element $a_j$ ($b_j$,resp.).\n\nWe end this section with some sufficient conditions for a $G$-module algebra to be $G$-semisimple.\n\n\\[prop-ss\\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a left $G$-module algebra. Set $A=R^G:=\\{a\\in R|g\\cdot a=a,\\forall\\  g\\in G\\}$. If $R$ is a free $A$-module with a free basis $y_0=1,y_1,\\dots,y_n\\in R$ satisfying the conditions:\n\n[(i)]{} $g(y_1,\\dots,y_n)=(\\xi_1y_1,\\dots,\\xi_ny_n)$ where $\\xi_i$ is a $j_i$-th ($j_i\\ge3$) primitive root of unity for all $i=1,\\dots,n$,\n\n[(ii)]{} $y_iy_j=0$ for $i,j=1,\\dots,n$,\\\nthen $R$ is $G$-semisimple.\n\nBy Lemma \\[lem-pertinred\\], we may assume that pertinent sequences have the form $(a_0,a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\overset{G}\\sim(1,y_1,\\dots,y_n)$. By the condition (ii), we may assume $a_1,\\dots,a_n\\in A$. Assume $a_0=b_0+b_1y_1+\\cdots+b_ny_n$ with $b_i\\in A$ for $i=0,\\dots,n$. By the equality $\\sum_{i=0}^na_ig(y_i)=0$ we obtain $b_0=0$ and $b_i=-\\xi_ia_i$ for $i=1,\\dots,n$. By the equality $\\sum_{i=0}^na_ig^2(y_i)=0$, we obtain $b_i=-\\xi_i^2a_i$ for $i=1,\\dots,n$. Since $\\xi_i$ is a $j_i$-th primitive root of unity with $j_i\\ge3$ for $i=1,\\dots,n$, we have $b_i=a_i=0$ for $i=1,\\dots,n$. Hence $\\mfr(R,G)=0$.\n\nGroup actions with $\\Pty(R,G)=1$ {#sec3}\n================================\n\nRecall that we have a definition of the pertinency of a group action on an algebra in [@BHZ], where we had to assume that the group is finite. In order to avoid this restriction, we provide an alternative (equivalent) definition in this paper. We will see, in some cases, the definition here is more flexible.\n\nLet $G$ be group, and let $R$ be a noetherian algebra with finite Gelfand-Killilov (GK) dimension. The [*pertinency*]{} of the $G$-action on $R$ is defined to be the number $$\\label{pty1}\n  \\Pty(R,G)=\\operatorname{GKdim}(R)-\\operatorname{GKdim}(\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)).$$\n\nLet $R$ be a noetherian $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension, and let $B:=R*G$ be the skew group algebra. Assume $G$ is finite. Let $\\kk G$ be the group algebra. As before, let $e=\\frac{1}{|G|}\\sum_{g\\in G}g$. Recall from [@BHZ] that the pertinency of the $G$-action is defined to be $$\\label{pty2}\n  \\Pty(R,G)=\\operatorname{GKdim}(R)-\\operatorname{GKdim}(B/(BeB)).$$\n\n\\[lem1\\] Assume $G$ is a finite group. Let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Then $\\operatorname{GKdim}(B/(BeB))=\\operatorname{GKdim}(\\mathfrak{R}(R,G))$.\n\nAs before, let $\\iota:R\\to B,a\\mapsto a\\otimes 1$ be the inclusion map. Let $\\pi:B\\to B/BeB$ be the projection map. Then $\\overline{R}:=\\pi\\circ\\iota(R)$ is a subalgebra of $B/BeB$. Since $B$ is finitely generated as a left $R$-module, we see that $B/BeB$ is a finitely generated $\\overline{R}$-module. By [@KL Proposition 5.5]$, \\operatorname{GKdim}(\\overline{R})=\\operatorname{GKdim}(B/BeB)$. As in the proof of Proposition \\[prop-mrad\\], we see $\\mfr(R,G)=R\\cap BeB$. Therefore $\\overline{R}\\cong \\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$.\n\nAs a consequence of Lemma \\[lem1\\], we obtain:\n\nWith the assumptions in Lemma \\[lem1\\], the pertinencies defined by (\\[pty1\\]) and (\\[pty2\\]) are equivalent.\n\nIn order to compute the pertinency of a group action, one has to analyze the radical ideal of the group action. Next we provide several ways to find elements in the radical ideal.\n\n\\[lem2\\] Let $R$ be an algebra, and $G$ a cyclic group generated by $\\sigma$. Assume that there are elements $a_1,\\dots,a_n\\in R$ such that $\\sigma\\cdot a_i=\\xi a_i$ for $i=1,\\dots,n$, where $\\xi$ is an $n$-th primitive root of unity. If $\\operatorname{char}\\kk\\nmid n$, then $a_1a_2\\cdots a_n\\in \\mfr(R,G)$.\n\nWe show that the following sequences are pertinent under the $G$-action: $(1,a_1,a_1a_2,\\dots,a_1a_2\\cdots a_{n-1})$ and $(a_1a_2\\cdots a_n,a_2\\cdots a_n,\\dots,a_n)$. Note that $\\sigma^j\\cdot a_i=\\xi^j a_i$. For $j=1,\\dots,n-1$, we have $\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}a_1\\cdots a_i(\\sigma^j\\cdot (a_{i+1}\\cdots a_n))=(\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\\xi^{j(n-i)})a_1a_2\\cdots a_n=0$. Hence $a_1a_2\\cdots a_n\\in \\mfr(R,G)$.\n\nLet $R$ be an algebra, and let $a_1,\\dots,a_k\\in R$. We write $a_1\\cdots \\hat{a}_i\\cdots a_k$ for the product $a_1\\cdots a_{i-1}a_{i+1}\\cdots a_k$ with $a_i$ missing. Similarly, we have the notion $a_1\\cdots \\hat{a}_{i_1}\\cdots \\hat{a}_{i_2}\\cdots \\hat{a}_{i_s}\\cdots a_k$ for $1\\leq i_1<\\dots<i_s\\leq k$. We write $$a_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}:=a_1\\cdots \\hat{a}_{i_1}\\cdots \\hat{a}_{i_2}\\cdots \\hat{a}_{i_s}\\cdots a_k,$$ and $$(a_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}:1\\leq i_1<\\dots<i_s\\leq k)$$ for the sequence corresponding to all the possible choices of arrays $[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]$ in the lexicographic order. Similarly, we have $$a_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}:=a_{i_1}\\cdots a_{i_s}$$ for the products of elements, and $$(a_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}:1\\leq i_1<\\dots<i_s\\leq k).$$ Let $G$ be a group acting on $R$. For $g_1,\\dots,g_k\\in G$, we write [$$g_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}):=g_1(a_1)\\cdots \\hat{a}_{i_1}\\cdots \\hat{a}_{i_2}\\cdots \\hat{a}_{i_s}\\cdots g_k(a_k),$$]{} and $$\\left(g_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}):1\\leq i_1<\\dots<i_s\\leq k\\right)$$ for the corresponding sequences in the lexicographic order.\n\n\\[lem2-1\\] Let $R$ be an algebra, and $G=\\{g_1,\\dots,g_{n-1},g_n=1\\}$ a finite group acting on $R$. Assume that $a_1,\\dots,a_{n-1}\\in R$ are central elements of $R$. Then the following two sequences $$\\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}\\left(g_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}):1\\leq i_1<\\cdots< i_s\\leq n-1\\right)$$ and $$\\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}((-1)^sa_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}:1\\leq i_1<\\cdots< i_s\\leq n-1)$$ are pertinent, where $a_{[\\ ]}=1$ and $a_{\\widehat{[\\ ]}}=a_1a_2\\cdots a_{n-1}$ when $s=0$.\n\nFor every $1\\neq g\\in G$, we have $$\\sum_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]} g_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}})g(a_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]})= \\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(g_i(a_i)-g(a_i)),$$ where on the left hand side, the sum is over all the possible choices of the arrays $[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]$ for $s=0,\\dots,n-1$. Since $g$ must be one of the elements in $\\{g_1,\\dots, g_{n-1}\\}$, the right hand side of the above equation is zero. Hence the result follows from the definition of the pertinent sequences.\n\nNow let $R$ be an algebra, and let $a_1,\\dots,a_{n-1}\\in R$ such that $a_ia_j=q_{ij}a_ja_i$ for all $i< j$ and some $q_{ij}\\neq 0$. Let $G=\\{g_1,\\dots,g_{n-1},g_n=1\\}$. Assume $g_i(a_i)=\\xi_i a_i$ for $i=1,\\dots,n-1$ with $\\xi_i\\in\\kk$. Write $$q_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}=\\prod_{k=1}^s\\prod_{\\varepsilon} q_{i_kj},$$ where the restriction $\\varepsilon$ under the second $\\prod$ reads as $\\{j>i_k,\\hbox{ and }j\\neq i_1,\\dots, i_s\\}$.\n\n\\[lem2-2\\] With the assumptions as above, we have the following pertinent sequences $$\\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}g_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}:1\\leq i_1<\\cdots<i_s\\leq n-1)$$ and $$\\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}((-1)^sq_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}a_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}:1\\leq i_1<\\cdots<i_s\\leq n-1),$$ where $a_{[\\ ]}=1$ and $a_{\\overline{[\\ ]}}=a_1a_2\\cdots a_{n-1}$ when $s=0$.\n\nFor every $1\\neq g\\in G$, since $g$ acts on $a_1,\\dots,a_{n-1}$ diagonally, we have $a_{\\widehat{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}g((-1)^sq_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}a_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]})=(-1)^s a_1\\cdots g(a_{i_1})\\cdots g(a_{i_s})\\cdots a_{n-1}$. Then the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \\[lem2-1\\] hold.\n\nAs a consequence, we have the following result, a part of which is indicated in [@BL Lemma 2.2] with different constructions.\n\n\\[prop2-1\\] With the same hypothesis as in Lemma \\[lem2-1\\], we have $$\\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(g_i(a_i)-a_i)\\in \\mfr(R,G).$$\n\nNote that the sum of the products of the corresponding elements in the pertinent sequences $\\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}g_{\\overline{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}}(a_{\\overline{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]}})$ and $\\bigcup_{s=0}^{n-1}(a_{[i_1i_2\\cdots i_s]})$ is exactly equal to $\\prod_{i=1}^{n-1}(g_i(a_i)-a_i)$.\n\nThere is another way to construct elements in the radical of a group action by means of the determinant.\n\nLet $G=\\{1=g_0,g_1,\\dots,g_{n-1}\\}$ be a finite group acting on an algebra $R$. Taking any elements $a_1,\\dots,a_n\\in Z(R)$, we define an element $$\\label{eq-det}\n  \\delta_G(a_1,\\dots,a_n)=\\begin{vmatrix}\na_1&a_2&\\cdots& a_n\\\\\ng_1(a_1)&g_1(a_2)&\\cdots&g_1(a_n)\\\\\n\\vdots&\\vdots&&\\vdots\\\\\ng_{n-1}(a_1)&g_{n-1}(a_2)&\\cdots&g_{n-1}(a_n)\n\\end{vmatrix}.$$\n\n\\[prop2-6\\] With the notions as above, we have $\\delta_G(a_1,\\dots,a_n)\\in \\mfr(R,G)$.\n\nConsider the following two sequences $(a_1,\\dots,a_n)$ and $(A_1,\\dots,A_n)$, where $A_i$ $(i=1,\\dots n)$ is the cofactor of the element $a_i$ in the determinant (\\[eq-det\\]). For every $1\\neq g\\in G$, we have $gg_j=1$ for some $1\\leq j\\leq n-1$. Hence $$g(A_i)=\\begin{vmatrix}\ngg_1(a_1)&\\cdots&gg_1(a_{i-1})&gg_1(a_{i+1})&\\cdots&gg_1(a_n)\\\\\n\\vdots&&\\vdots&\\vdots&&\\vdots\\\\\na_1&\\cdots&a_{i-1}&a_{i+1}&\\cdots& a_n\\\\\n\\vdots&&\\vdots&\\vdots&&\\vdots\\\\\ngg_{n-1}(a_1)&\\cdots&gg_{n-1}(a_{i-1})&gg_{n-1}(a_{i+1})&\\cdots&gg_{n-1}(a_n)\n\\end{vmatrix}.$$ Then $\\sum_{i=1}^n(a_ig(A_i))$ is a determinant in which there are tow equal rows, and hence it is zero. Therefore, $\\delta_G(a_1,\\dots,a_n)=\\sum_{i=1}^na_iA_i\\in \\mfr(R,G)$.\n\n\\[prop2-2\\] Let $R$ be a noetherian algebra which is a domain with $1\\leq \\operatorname{GKdim}(R)<\\infty$, and let $G\\subseteq \\operatorname{Aut}(R)$ be a finite subgroup with $|G|\\neq 1$ and $\\operatorname{char}\\kk\\nmid |G|$. If $R$ and $G$ satisfy one of the following conditions, then $\\Pty(R,G)\\ge1$.\n\n-   $R$ is connected graded, the $G$-action preserves the grading of $R$, and the order of $G$ is prime.\n\n-   $G$ acts faithfully on the center of $R$.\n\n-   $R=\\kk_{q_{ij}}[x_1,\\dots,x_n]$, $|G|\\leq n+1$ and every $g\\in G$ acts on $x_1,\\dots,x_{n}$ diagonally.\n\n\\(i) If $|G|$ is a prime number, then $G$ is a cyclic group. Assume $G=\\langle g\\rangle$. Since $R$ is noetherian, $\\dim R_i<\\infty$ for all $i\\ge0$. Since the order of $g$ is finite, we may choose a basis $S$ of $R_1$ so that $g$ acts on the basis $S$ diagonally. Thus for any element $a\\in S$, $g(a)=\\xi a$ for some $p$-th root of unit. Letting all the elements $a_i=a$ in Lemma \\[lem2\\], we see $a^p\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. Since $R$ is a domain, $a^p\\neq 0$. It follows that $\\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\\mfr(R,G))\\leq \\operatorname{GKdim}(R/Ra^pR)\\leq \\operatorname{GKdim}(R)-1$. Hence $\\Pty(R,G)\\ge1$.\n\n\\(ii) Let $Z(R)$ be the center of $R$. Since $G$ acts on $Z(R)$ faithfully, for any $1\\neq g\\in G$, there is element $a\\in Z(R)$ such that $g(a)\\neq a$. Since $R$ is a domain, Proposition \\[prop2-1\\] asserts that there is a nonzero element $b\\in\\mfr(R,G)$. The rest of the proof is similar to the case (i).\n\n\\(iii) Similar to the above case, the assertion follows from Proposition \\[prop2-1\\].\n\nThe above result shows that in reasonable cases the pertinency of a finite group action is nonzero, which implies the following primeness of the skew group algebra.\n\n\\[prop2-3\\] Let $R$ be a neotherian locally finite graded algebra which is a domain with $1\\leq \\operatorname{GKdim}(R)<\\infty$. Let $G$ be a nontrivial finite subgroup of $\\operatorname{Aut}(R)$ such that the restriction of $G$ to the center of $R$ is faithful. Then the skew group algebra $R*G$ is prime.\n\nBy [@BHZ Lemma 3.10], $R*G$ is prime if and only if $\\Pty(G,R)\\ge1$. Now the result follows from Proposition \\[prop2-2\\].\n\nThe finite group actions of pertinency 1 is of special interest. If $R$ is a polynomial ring, then we have the following version of Shephard-Todd-Chevalley Theorem.\n\n\\[prop2-4\\] Let $V$ be a finite dimensional vector space, and $R=\\kk[V]$ the polynomial algebra. Let $G\\subseteq GL(V)$ be a finite subgroup. Then for the invariant subalgebra $R^G$, $\\operatorname{gldim}(R^G)<\\infty$ if and only if $\\Pty(R,G)=1$.\n\nBy [@BHZ2 Lemma 7.2], we see that $\\operatorname{gldim}(R^G)<\\infty$ if and only if $\\Pty(R,G)\\leq1$. Proposition \\[prop2-2\\] applies to obtain the desired result.\n\nIf $R$ is not commutative, we have the following result.\n\n\\[prop2-5\\] Let $R$ be a neotherian AS-regular algebra which is a domain and Cohen-Macaulay, and let $G\\subseteq\\operatorname{Aut}(R)$ be a finite subgroup. Assume that $R$ and $G$ are in one of the cases in Proposition \\[prop2-2\\]. If $\\operatorname{gldim}(R^G)<\\infty$, then $\\Pty(R,G)=1$.\n\nBy [@KKZ Lemmas 1.10 and 1.11], if $R^G$ has finite global dimension, then $R$ is free as a graded right $R^G$-module. Since both $R$ and $R^G$ are connected graded, $R$ can be written as $R\\cong R^G\\oplus M$ where $M\\cong\\oplus_{s=1}^n R^G(i_s)$ for some $n$ and $i_s\\leq -1$, where $R^G(i_s)$ is a graded $R^G$-module by a shift of degree $i_s$. Hence as a graded algebra $\\operatorname{End}_{R^G}(R)$ contains nonzero component of negative degree. So, $\\operatorname{End}_{R^G}(R)$ can not be isomorphic to $R*G$ as graded algebras. By [@BHZ Theorem 0.3], $\\Pty(R,G)\\leq 1$. It follows from Proposition \\[prop2-2\\] that $\\Pty(R,G)=1$.\n\nGroup actions with $\\Pty(R,G)>1$ {#set4}\n================================\n\nLet $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra. It is possible that the pertinency algebra $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is trivial, that is, $\\mfr(R,G)=R$. Indeed, this is the case when $R/R^G$ is a [*Hopf Galois extension*]{} (for the definition, see [@CFM]).\n\n\\[prop3-1\\] Let $G$ be a finite group and let $R$ be a left $G$-module algebra. Then $\\mfr(R,G)=R$ if and only if $R/R^G$ is a Hopf Galois extension.\n\nLet $e=\\frac{1}{|G|}\\sum_{g\\in G} g\\in \\kk G$. Note that $\\mfr(R,G)=R$ if and only if $ReR=R*G$, if and only if $R^G$ and $R$ are Morita equivalent, which is equivalent to the condition that $R/R^G$ is Hopf Galois extension [@CFM Theorem 1.2].\n\nAssume that $R$ has finite GK-dimension. It is clear that if $R/R^G$ is a Hopf Galois extension, then $\\Pty(R,G)=\\operatorname{GKdim}(R)$. A weak version of a Hopf Galois extension, called a [*Hopf dense Galois extension*]{}, was introduced in [@HVZ]. The next result is a consequence of Lemma \\[lem1\\] and [@HVZ Proposition 1.3].\n\nAssume that $G$ is a finite group. Let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Then $R/R^G$ is a Hopf dense Galois extension if and only if $\\Pty(R,G)=\\operatorname{GKdim}(R)$.\n\nThe following result gives an example of Hopf dense Galois extensions.\n\nLet $R=\\kk\\oplus R_1\\oplus R_2\\oplus\\cdots$ be a neotherian connected graded algebra generated by elements $x_1,\\dots,x_m$ of degree one with finite GK-dimension. Let $G$ be the cyclic group generated by the automorphism defined by $\\sigma(x_i)=\\xi x_i$ for $i=1,\\dots,m$, where $\\xi$ is an $n$-th primitive root of unity. If $\\operatorname{char}\\kk\\nmid n$, then $\\Pty(R,G)=\\operatorname{GKdim}(R)$.\n\nFor any elements $a_1,\\dots,a_n\\in R_1$, we see $\\sigma(a_i)=\\xi a_i$ for $i=1,\\dots,n$. By Lemma \\[lem2\\], we have $a_1a_2\\cdots a_n\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. Note that $R_k=(R_1)^k$ for all $k\\ge1$. Then we see $R_n\\subseteq \\mfr(R,G)$, and hence $R_i\\subseteq \\mfr(R,G)$ for all $i\\ge n$. Therefore the pertinency algebra $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is finite dimensional. Hence $\\Pty(R,G)=\\operatorname{GKdim}(R)$.\n\nLet $R=\\kk_{-1}[x_1,\\dots,x_n]$ $(n\\ge2)$ be the skew-symmetric algebra. Let $\\sigma$ be the automorphism of $R$ defined by $\\sigma(x_i)=x_{i+1}$ for $i=1,\\dots,n-1$ and $\\sigma(x_n)=x_1$. Let $G\\leq \\operatorname{Aut}(R)$ be the subgroup generated by $\\sigma$. The pertinency $\\Pty(R,G)$ was computed in [@BHZ]. We give an alternative computation in this paper.\n\nWe may choose another set of generators for $R$ so that $\\sigma$ acts on the generators diagonally. Let $\\xi$ be an $n$-th primitive root of unity. For $j=1,\\dots,n$, let $y_j=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\xi^{ji}x_i$. Then $\\{y_1,\\dots,y_n\\}$ is a set of linear independent generators of $R$, and $\\sigma(y_j)=\\xi^{-j}y_i$ for $j=1,\\dots,n$. For $1\\leq k\\leq n-1$, we have $$\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}y_j^i\\sigma^k(y_j^{n-i})=\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\\xi^{-jk(n-i)}y_j^n.$$ If $\\gcd(j,n)=1$, then $n\\nmid jk$. In this case, $\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\\xi^{-jk(n-i)}=0$, and hence $\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}y_j^i\\sigma^k(y_j^{n-i})=0$, which in turn implies that the sequences $(1,y_j,\\dots,y_j^{n-1})$ and $(y_j^n,y_j^{n-1},\\dots,y_j)$ are pertinent under the $G$-action. Hence we have the following result.\n\n\\[lem3\\] With the notations as above, if $\\operatorname{char}\\kk\\nmid n$ and $\\gcd(j,n)=1$, then $y_j^n\\in \\mfr(R,G)$.\n\nLet $A$ be the subalgebra of $R$ generated by $x_1^2,\\dots,x^2_n$. Then $A$ is a subalgebra of the center of $R$. Note that $R$ is finitely generated as an $A$-module. For $j=1,\\dots, n$, let $Y_j=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\xi^{ij}x_i^2$. Then $Y_1,\\dots,Y_n$ are linearly independent generators of $R$ (cf. [@BHZ]). Let $A'=A/(A\\bigcap \\mfr(R,G))$. It is clear that $A'$ is a subalgebra of $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ and $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is finitely generated as an $R'$-module since $R$ is finitely generated as an $A$-module. So, $\\operatorname{GKdim}(\\mathfrak{R}(R,G))=\\operatorname{GKdim}(R')$. For $j=1,\\dots,n$, we have $y_j^2=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\xi^{2ij}x_i^2$. For $n+1\\leq t\\leq 2n$, we set $Y_t=Y_{t-n}$. Then we see $y^2_j=Y_{2j}$ for $j=1,\\dots,n$. If $\\gcd(j,n)=1$, then $y_j^n\\in \\mfr(R,G)$ by Lemma \\[lem3\\], which implies $y_j^{2n}\\in \\mfr(R,G)$, and hence $Y_{2j}^n\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. So, we obtain that $Y_{2j}^n=0$ in $R'$ if $\\gcd(j,n)=1$. Now let $T$ be the subalgebra of $A'$ generated by elements of the set $\\{Y_1,\\dots,Y_n\\}\\setminus\\{Y_{2j}|\\gcd(j,n)=1\\}$. Then $A'$ is finitely generated as a $T$-module. Hence $\\operatorname{GKdim}(A')=\\operatorname{GKdim}(T)$. Let $t$ be the cardinality of the set $\\{Y_{2j}|\\gcd(j,n)=1\\}$. The commutative subalgebra $T$ is generated by $n-t$ elements. Hence $\\operatorname{GKdim}(T)\\leq n-t$. Hence $$\\Pty(R,G)=n-\\operatorname{GKdim}(\\mathfrak{R}(R,G))=n-\\operatorname{GKdim}(T)\\ge t.$$ Note that $$t=\\begin{cases} \\phi(n), & \\hbox{if }4\\nmid n;\\\\\n\\frac{\\phi(n)}{2}, &\\hbox{if } 4|n,\\end{cases}$$ where $\\phi(n):=n \\prod_{{\\text{all primes $p\\mid n$}}}\n(1-\\frac{1}{p})$ is the Euler\u2019s totient function (cf. [@BHZ]).\n\nSummarizing the above narratives, we have provided a simpler proof for [@BHZ Theorem 5.7(iii)].\n\n[@BHZ] Assume $\\operatorname{char}\\kk\\nmid n$ $(n\\ge2)$. Let $R=\\kk_{-1}[x_1,\\dots,x_n]$, and $G$ the subgroup of $\\operatorname{Aut}(A)$ generated by the automorphism $\\sigma$ defined by $\\sigma(x_i)=x_{i+1}$ for $1\\leq i\\leq n-1$ and $\\sigma(x_n)=x_1$. Then we have $$\\Pty(R,G)\\ge \\begin{cases} \\phi(n), &\\hbox{if }4\\nmid n;\\\\\n\\frac{\\phi(n)}{2}, & \\hbox{if }4\\mid n,\\end{cases}$$ where $\\phi(n):=n \\prod_{{\\text{all primes $p\\mid n$}}}\n(1-\\frac{1}{p})$ is the Euler\u2019s totient function.\n\nNow we consider the down-up algebra: $R=\\kk\\langle x,y\\rangle/(r_1,r_2)$, where $r_1=x^2y-\\alpha xyx-\\beta yx^2$ and $r_2=x y^2-\\alpha yxy-\\beta y^2 x$. The pertinencies of finite group actions on $R$ were computed in [@BHZ2] when $\\beta\\neq-1$ or $\\beta=-1$ but $\\alpha=2$. We have the following result.\n\nLet $R$ be a down-up algebra such that $\\beta=-1$ and $\\alpha\\neq 2$. Let $G=\\{1,\\sigma\\}$ where $\\sigma$ is the automorphism of $R$ defined by $\\sigma(x)=ay$ and $\\sigma(y)=a^{-1}x$ with $a\\neq 0$. If $\\operatorname{char}\\kk=0$, then $\\Pty(R,G)=3$.\n\nWe see that the sequences $(1,-x)$ and $(ay,1)$ are pertinent under the $G$-action. Hence $ay-x\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. Therefore $x=ay$ in the pertinency algebra $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. By definition, $x^2y=\\alpha xyx-yx^2$ in $R$, and hence it holds in $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$. Combining the relations $x=ay$ and $x^2y=\\alpha xyx-yx^2$ in $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$, we see $y^3=0$ in $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ since $\\alpha\\neq 2$. Therefore, $\\mathfrak{R}(R,G)$ is finite dimensional. Hence $\\Pty(R,G)=3$ as $\\operatorname{GKdim}(R)=3$ (cf. [@KMP]).\n\nThe pertinency of a permutation group acting on $\\kk_{-1}[x_1,\\dots, x_n]$ or on a down-up algebra was recently computed by Gaddis, Kirkman, Moore and Won using different methods [@GKMW].\n\nLocal cohomology {#sec5}\n================\n\nIn this section, $A$ is always a noetherian algebra, and $\\mfa$ is an ideal of $A$. Denote by $\\operatorname{Mod}A$ the category of right $A$-modules, by $\\operatorname{Mod}A^\\circ$ the category of left $A$-modules, and by $\\operatorname{Mod}A^e$ the category of $A$-$A$-bimodules. Let $\\Gamma_\\mfa=\\underrightarrow{\\lim}\\operatorname{Hom}_A(A/\\mfa^n,-):\\operatorname{Mod}A\\longrightarrow \\operatorname{Mod}A$. For $M\\in\\operatorname{Mod}A$, if $\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)=M$, then we say that $M$ is an [*$\\mfa$-torsion module*]{}. If $\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)=0$, then we say that $M$ is [*$\\mfa$-torsion-free*]{}.\n\nWe say that $\\mfa$ has the [*right Artin-Rees (AR) property*]{} if one of the following equivalent conditions holds [@MR 4.2.3]\n\n-   For every right ideal $\\mfb$ of $A$, $\\mfb\\cap \\mfa^n\\subseteq \\mfb\\mfa$ for some $n$.\n\n-   For every finitely generated right $A$-module $M$, and every submodule $N\\subseteq M$, $N\\cap M\\mfa^n\\subseteq N\\mfa$ for some $n$.\n\n-   For every finitely generated right $A$-module $M$, and every submodule $N\\subseteq M$, and for every integer $s\\ge0$, there is an integer $n>0$ such that $N\\cap M\\mfa^n\\subseteq N\\mfa^s$.\n\n\\[lem-torinj\\] Let $A$ be a noetherian algebra, and $\\mfa$ an ideal of $A$. Let $I$ be the injective envelope of $N\\in\\operatorname{Mod}A$.\n\n-   If $N$ is $\\mfa$-torsion-free, so is $I$.\n\n-   Assume further that $\\mfa$ has the right AR-property. If $N$ is an $\\mfa$-torsion module, so is $I$.\n\nSince $I$ is the injective envelope of $N$, $N$ is an essential submodule of $I$. If $\\Gamma_\\mfa(I)\\neq0$, then $\\Gamma_\\mfa(I)\\cap N\\neq 0$. So, if $N$ is $\\mfa$-torsion-free, $\\Gamma_\\mfa(I)$ has to be zero. The statement (i) follows.\n\n\\(ii) Take an element $x\\in I$. Let $K=N\\cap xA$. Then $K$ is an essential submodule of $xA$. Since $A$ is noetherian, $K$ is finitely generated. Since $N$ is an $\\mfa$-torsion module, so is $K$. Thus $K\\mfa^n=0$ for some $n>0$. By the AR-property, there is an integer $s$ such that $K\\cap x\\mfa^s\\subseteq K\\mfa^n=0$. As $K$ is essential in $xA$, it follows that $x\\mfa^s=0$. Therefore, $\\Gamma_\\mfa(I)=I$.\n\nThe functor $\\Gamma_\\mfa$ is left exact. We write the $i$-th right derived functor as $$R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa=\\underrightarrow{\\lim}\\operatorname{Ext}_A^i(A/\\mfa^n,-).$$ Let $M$ be a right $A$-module. Define $$\\operatorname{depth}_\\mfa(M)=\\inf\\{i|R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)\\neq0\\}\\subseteq\\mathbb{N}\\cup\\{\\infty\\}.$$\n\n\\[lem-injres\\] Let $M$ be a right $A$-module. Assume $\\operatorname{depth}_\\mfa(M)=d>0$. Let $0\\to M\\to I^0\\overset{\\delta^0}\\to I^1\\overset{\\delta^1}\\to\\cdots \\overset{\\delta^n-1}\\to I^n\\overset{\\delta^n}\\to\\cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $M$. Then $I^i$ is $\\mfa$-torsion-free for $i<d$.\n\nSince $d>0$, $M$ is $\\mfa$-torsion-free. Hence $I^0$ is $\\mfa$-torsion-free. Assume $I^i$ $(i<d-1)$ is $\\mfa$-torsion-free. If $\\Gamma_\\mfa(I^{i+1})\\neq0$, then $\\Gamma_\\mfa(I^{i+1})\\cap \\ker\\delta^{i+1}\\neq0$. Since $I^i$ is torsion free, $R^{i+1}\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)=\\Gamma_\\mfa(I^{i+1})\\cap\\ker\\delta^{i+1}\\neq0$, which contradicts with the hypothesis that $\\operatorname{depth}_\\mfa(M)=d$.\n\n\\[lem-sum\\] The derived functor $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa$ $(i\\ge0)$ commutes with direct sums.\n\nNote that $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa=\\underrightarrow{\\lim}\\operatorname{Ext}^i_A(A/\\mfa^n,-)$. Since $A$ is noetherian, $\\operatorname{Ext}^i_A(A/\\mfa^n,-)$ commutes with direct sums. The direct limit $\\underrightarrow{\\lim}$ also commutes with direct sums. Hence $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa$ commutes with direct sums.\n\nLet $B$ be another algebra, and let $M$ be a $B$-$A$-bimodule. Then $\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)$ is a $B$-$A$-bimodule. By taking the injective resolution of the $B$-$A$-bimodule $M$, we see that $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)$ is a $B$-$A$-bimodule for every $i\\ge0$. In particular, $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)$ is an $A$-$A$-bimodule for every $i\\ge0$.\n\n\\[cor-tens\\] Let $B$ be an algebra, and let $P$ be a projective right $B$-module. For every $B$-$A$-bimodule $M$. We have $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(P\\otimes_B M)=P\\otimes_BR^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)$ for every $i\\ge0$.\n\nWe write $D(\\operatorname{Mod}A)$ for the (unbounded) derived category of right $A$-modules, and $D^b(\\operatorname{Mod}A)$ (resp. $D^-(\\operatorname{Mod}A)$) for the bounded (resp. bounded above) derived category of right $A$-modules. $M^\\cdot$ stands for an object in the derived category of right $A$-modules.\n\n\\[thm-locdual\\] Let $A$ be a noetherian algebra, and let $\\mfa$ be an ideal of $A$. Assume that $\\Gamma_\\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension, or $\\operatorname{injdim}{}_AA<\\infty$ and $\\operatorname{injdim}A_A<\\infty$. Then we have the following statements.\n\n-   For every $M^\\cdot\\in D^-(\\operatorname{Mod}A)$, $$R\\Gamma_\\mfa(M^\\cdot)\\cong M^\\cdot\\otimes_A^L R\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)$$ in $D^-(\\operatorname{Mod}A)$.\n\n-   For every $M^\\cdot\\in D^-(\\operatorname{Mod}A)$, $$R\\Gamma_\\mfa(M^\\cdot)^*\\cong \\operatorname{RHom}_A(M^\\cdot,R\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)^*)$$ in $D^+(\\operatorname{Mod}A^\\circ)$.\n\nThe statement (ii) is similar to [@VdB Theorem 5.1]. We include the proof for the completeness. Assume that $\\Gamma_\\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension (the proof is similar for the case that $A$ has finite injective dimension in both sides). Let $0\\to I^0\\overset{\\delta^0}\\to \\cdots\\overset{\\delta^{n-1}}\\to I^n\\overset{\\delta^n}\\to \\cdots$ be an injective resolution of the $A$-$A$-bimodule $A$. Since $\\Gamma_\\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension, we see that $\\ker \\delta^n$ is $\\Gamma_\\mfa$ acyclic for some $n$. Let $E^i=I^i$ for $0\\leq i<n$ and $E^n=\\ker\\delta^n$. Denote by $E^\\cdot$ the complex $0\\to E^0\\overset{\\delta^0}\\to \\cdots\\overset{\\delta^{n-2}}\\to E^{n-1}\\overset{\\delta^n}\\to E^n\\to0$. Then $R\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)=\\Gamma_\\mfa(E^\\cdot)$. Let $P^\\cdot$ be a projective resolution of $M$. We have $$M^\\cdot\\otimes_A^LR\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)\\cong P^\\cdot\\otimes_A \\Gamma_\\mfa(E^\\cdot).$$ On the other hand, consider the complex $P^\\cdot\\otimes_A E^\\cdot$. Since $E^\\cdot$ is bounded and is quasi-isomorphic to $A$, $P^\\cdot\\otimes_A E^\\cdot$ is quasi-isomorphic to $M^\\cdot$. Moreover, each component of the complex $P^\\cdot\\otimes E^\\cdot$ is $\\Gamma_\\mfa$-acyclic by Corollary \\[cor-tens\\]. Hence $$R\\Gamma_\\mfa(M^\\cdot)\\cong \\Gamma_\\mfa(P^\\cdot\\otimes_A E^\\cdot)\\cong P^\\cdot\\otimes_A\\Gamma_\\mfa(E^\\cdot).$$ Hence (i) follows. Finally, applying the functor $(\\ )^*$ to the isomorphism in (i), we obtain Statement (ii).\n\nQuotient categories {#sec-quot}\n===================\n\nLet $A$ be a noetherian algebra, and let $\\mfa$ be an ideal of $A$. We write $\\operatorname{Tor}_\\mfa A$ for the full subcategory of $\\operatorname{Mod}A$ consisting of $\\mfa$-torsion modules. Then $\\operatorname{Tor}_\\mfa A$ is a localizing subcategory of $\\operatorname{Mod}A$. Define $$\\QMod_\\mfa A=\\frac{\\operatorname{Mod}A}{\\operatorname{Tor}_\\mfa A}.$$ The category $\\QMod_\\mfa A$ is an abelian category. For any module $M\\in \\operatorname{Mod}A$, we write $\\mathcal{M}$ for the corresponding object in $\\QMod_\\mfa A$ through the natural projection functor $\\pi:\\operatorname{Mod}A\\to \\QMod_\\mfa A$. Since $\\operatorname{Tor}_\\mfa A$ is a localizing subcategory of $\\operatorname{Mod}A$, the projection functor $\\pi$ has a right adjoint functor $\\omega:\\QMod_\\mfa A\\longrightarrow \\operatorname{Mod}A$. For $M,N\\in\\operatorname{Mod}A$, the hom-set in $\\QMod_\\mfa A$ is defined by $$\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})=\\underrightarrow{\\lim}\\operatorname{Hom}_A(N',M/\\Gamma_\\mfa(M))$$ where the limit runs over all the submodules $N'$ of $N$ such that $N/N'$ is $\\mfa$-torsion. Assume that $N$ is a finitely generated $A$-module. If $N/N'$ is $\\mfa$-torsion, then there is an integer $n$ such that $N\\mfa^n\\subseteq N'$. Hence, in this case, $$\\label{eq1}\n  \\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})=\\underset{n\\to\\infty}{\\lim}\\operatorname{Hom}_A(N\\mfa^n,M/\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)).$$ We refer the reader to the book [@P] for the basic properties of the quotient category $\\QMod_\\mfa A$.\n\nIn the rest of this section, $R$ is a noetherian algebra, and $G$ is a finite group acting on $R$ so that $R$ is a left $G$-module algebra. Let $B=R*G$ be the skew group algebra. Let $\\mfr=\\mfr(G,R)$ be the $G$-radical of $R$. Set $A=R^G$ and $\\mfa=\\mfr\\cap A$. Then $A$ is a noetherian algebra and $\\mfa$ is an ideal of $A$. Let $e=\\frac{1}{|G|}\\sum_{g\\in G} g$. Then $A$ is isomorphic to $eBe$ through the isomorphism $A\\to eBe, a\\mapsto a\\otimes e$. Set $\\mfb=\\mfr\\otimes \\kk G$. Since the radical $\\mfr$ is stable under the $G$-action, $\\mfb$ is an ideal of $B$.\n\nThe following facts are easy.\n\n\\[lem-tortrans\\]\n\n-   $\\mfb^n=\\mfr^n\\otimes \\kk G$.\n\n-   If $M$ is a right $B$-module, then $\\Gamma_\\mfr(M)$ is a right $B$-submodule of $M_B$. Moreover, $\\Gamma_\\mfb(M)=\\Gamma_\\mfr(M)$ as right $B$-modules.\n\nSince $A$ is a subalgebra of $R$, $\\mfa R$ is a right ideal of $R$. In general, $\\mfa R$ is not a two-sided ideal of $R$.\n\nWe say that $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are [*cofinal*]{}, if (i) $\\mfa R=R\\mfa$, and (ii) the filtrations $R\\supseteq \\mfa R\\supseteq \\mfa^2 R\\supseteq\\cdots\\supseteq \\mfa^n R\\supseteq\\cdots$ and $R\\supseteq \\mfr \\supseteq \\mfr^2 \\supseteq\\cdots\\supseteq \\mfr^n\\supseteq\\cdots$ defined by the ideals $\\mfa R$ and $\\mfr$ of $R$, are cofinal, or equivalently, for each $s$, there is an integer $n$ such that $\\mfr^n\\subseteq \\mfa^sR$.\n\n\\[lem-cofin\\] Let $R$ and $G$ be as above. Assume that $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are cofinal.\n\n-   If $N$ is an $\\mfa$-torsion right $A$-module, then $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)$ is a $\\mfb$-torsion right $B$-module.\n\n-   If in addition, $\\mfa$ has the right the right AR-property, then $\\operatorname{Ext}_A^i(R,N)$ is a $\\mfb$-torsion right $B$-module for all $i\\ge0$.\n\n\\(i) For every $f\\in\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)$, by Lemma \\[lem-tortrans\\], we only need to show that $f\\mfr^n=0$ for some $n$. Note that $R_A$ is finitely generated. We assume that $R=r_1A+\\dots+r_tA$ for some $r_1,\\dots,r_t\\in R$. Since $N$ is $\\mfa$-torsion, there is an integer $s$ such that $f(r_i)\\mfa^s=0$ for all $i=1,\\dots,t$. Since $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are cofinal, there is an integer $n$ such that $\\mfr^n\\subseteq R\\mfa^s$. Now for every $x\\in R$, we have $(f\\mfr^n)(x)= f(\\mfr^n x)\\subseteq f(\\mfr^n)\\subseteq f(R\\mfa^s)=f(r_1\\mfa^s+\\cdots+r_t\\mfa^s)=f(r_1)\\mfa^s+\\cdots+f(r_t)\\mfa^s=0$. It follows that $f\\mfr^n=0$. Hence $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)$ is a $\\mfb$-torsion module.\n\n\\(ii) Take a minimal injective resolution $0\\to N\\to I^0\\to I^1\\to\\cdots$. Since $\\mfa$ has the right AR-property, $I^i$ is $\\mfa$-torsion for all $i\\ge0$ by Lemma \\[lem-torinj\\]. By (i), $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,I^i)$ is $\\mfb$-torsion. Hence $\\operatorname{Ext}^i_A(R,N)$ is $\\mfb$-torsion for all $i\\ge0$.\n\nConsider the exact functor $-\\otimes_B R:\\operatorname{Mod}B\\longrightarrow \\operatorname{Mod}A$. Since $R$ is isomorphic to $Be$ through the isomorphism $R\\to Be,r\\mapsto r\\otimes e$. By Lemma \\[lem-tortrans\\](i), $M\\otimes_B R$ is an $\\mfa$-torsion module if $M_B$ is a $\\mfb$-torsion module since $\\mfa=\\mfr\\cap A$. Hence $-\\otimes_BR$ induces an exact functor: $$-\\otimes_\\mathcal{B}\\mathcal{R}:\\QMod_\\mfb B\\longrightarrow \\QMod_\\mfa A.$$\n\n\\[thm-equiv\\] Let $R$ and $G$ be as above. Assume that $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are cofinal, and $\\mfa$ has the right AR-property.\n\n-   The functor $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,-):\\operatorname{Mod}A\\longrightarrow \\operatorname{Mod}B$ induces a functor $$\\operatorname{Hom}_\\mathcal{A}(\\mathcal{R},-):\\QMod_\\mfa A\\longrightarrow \\QMod_\\mfb B.$$\n\n-   The functors $-\\otimes_\\mathcal{B}\\mathcal{R}$ and $\\operatorname{Hom}_\\mathcal{A}(\\mathcal{R},-)$ are quasi-inverse to each other.\n\n\\(i) By Lemma \\[lem-cofin\\], we see that $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,-)$ sends $\\mfa$-torsion modules to $\\mfb$-torsion modules. Let $f:M_A\\to N_A$ be a morphism in $\\operatorname{Mod}A$ such that $\\ker f$ and $\\operatorname{coker}f$ are $\\mfa$-torsion modules. We show next that the kernel and cokernel of the morphism $f_*=\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,f):\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,M)\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)$ are $\\mfb$-torsion. By Lemma \\[lem-cofin\\], $\\ker f_*=\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,\\ker f)$ is $\\mfb$-torsion. Consider the exact sequences: $$\\label{ex1}\n  0\\to\\ker f\\to M\\overset{g}\\to K\\to0,$$ $$\\label{ex2}\n  0\\to K\\overset{\\iota}\\to N\\to \\operatorname{coker}f\\to 0,$$ where $K=\\operatorname{im}f$, $\\iota$ is the inclusion map and $g$ is the natural morphism induced by $f$. By the exact sequence (\\[ex1\\]), we have an exact sequence $0\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,\\ker f)\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,M)\\overset{g_*}\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,K)\\to \\operatorname{Ext}^1_A(R,\\ker f)$. Since $\\mfa$ has the right AR-property and $\\ker f$ is $\\mfa$-torsion, $\\operatorname{Ext}^1_A(R,\\ker f)$ is $\\mfb$-torsion by Lemma \\[lem-cofin\\]. Hence the quotient module $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,K)/\\operatorname{im}g_*$ is a $\\mfb$-torsion $B$-module. By the exact sequence (\\[ex2\\]), we see that the quotient module $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)/\\operatorname{im}\\iota_*$ is a $\\mfb$-torsion $B$-module since it is a submodule of the $\\mfb$-torsion module $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,\\operatorname{coker}f)$. Note that $f_*=\\iota_*g_*$. Thus $\\operatorname{im}f_*=\\iota_*(\\operatorname{im}g_*)$. Hence we have a short exact sequence $$0\\longrightarrow \\operatorname{im}\\iota_*/\\operatorname{im}f_*\\longrightarrow\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)/\\operatorname{im}f_*\\longrightarrow\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)/\\operatorname{im}\\iota_*\\longrightarrow 0.$$ Since $\\iota_*$ is injective, we have $\\operatorname{im}\\iota_*/\\operatorname{im}f_*\\cong \\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,K)/\\operatorname{im}g_*$. As both the first term and the third term are $\\mfb$-torsion, the middle term is $\\mfb$-torsion as well, which is isomorphic to $\\operatorname{coker}f_*$. Now by the definition of the quotient categories, we see that the functor $\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,-)$ induces a functor between the quotient categories as desired.\n\n\\(ii) Note that $R$ is isomorphic to $Be$ through the map $r\\mapsto r\\otimes e$, and $A$ is isomorphic to $eBe$ via the map $a\\mapsto a\\otimes e$. in subsequent, we identify the $B$-$A$-bimodule $R$ with $Be$ via the above maps.\n\nFor any $N\\in \\operatorname{Mod}A$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,N)\\otimes_BR&\\cong& \\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,N)\\otimes_B Be\\\\\n  &\\cong& \\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,N)\\otimes_B\\operatorname{Hom}_B(eB,B)\\\\\n  &\\cong&\\operatorname{Hom}_B(eB,\\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,N))\\\\\n  &\\cong&\\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(eB\\otimes_B Be,N)\\\\\n  &\\cong& N.\\end{aligned}$$ Hence we obtain that $\\operatorname{Hom}_\\mathcal{A}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{N})\\otimes_\\mathcal{B}\\mathcal{R}$ is naturally isomorphic to $\\mathcal{N}$.\n\nFor a $B$-module $M$, we have $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\mathcal{A}}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{M}\\otimes_\\mathcal{B}\\mathcal{R})=\\pi(\\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,M\\otimes_BR))$. Similarly we have the following isomorphisms: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\operatorname{Hom}_A(R,M\\otimes_BR)&\\cong&\\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,M\\otimes_B Be)\\\\\n &\\cong&\\operatorname{Hom}_{eBe}(Be,\\operatorname{Hom}_B(eB,M))\\\\\n &\\cong& \\operatorname{Hom}_B(Be\\otimes_{eBe}eB,M).\\end{aligned}$$ Consider the exact sequence $$\\label{ex3}\n0\\to L\\to Be\\otimes_{eBe}eB\\overset{m}\\to BeB\\to0,$$ $$\\label{ex4}\n 0\\to BeB\\overset{\\tau}\\to B\\to B/BeB\\to0,$$ where $m$ is the multiplication of the algebra $B$, $\\tau$ is the inclusion map and $L$ is the kernel of $m$.\n\nSince $\\mfb\\subseteq BeB$, $B/BeB$ is $\\mfb$-torsion on both sides. Applying the functors $-\\otimes_B Be$ and $eB\\otimes_B-$ to the exact sequence (\\[ex3\\]), we obtain that $Le=0$ and $eL=0$. Hence $L$ is $\\mfb$-torsion both as a right $B$-module and as a left $B$-module. Since $B$ is noetherian and $Be$ is finitely generated as an $eBe$-module, both $B/BeB$ and $L$ are finitely generated as right $B$-modules. It follows from the exact sequences (\\[ex3\\]), (\\[ex4\\]) and Lemma \\[lem-Btor\\] below, that the kernels and cokernels of both maps $\\operatorname{Hom}_B(\\tau,M):M\\longrightarrow \\operatorname{Hom}_B(BeB,M)$ and $\\operatorname{Hom}_B(m,M):\\operatorname{Hom}_B(BeB,M)\\longrightarrow\\operatorname{Hom}_B(Be\\otimes_{eBe} eB, M)$ are $\\mfb$-torsion. Therefore, we obtain a natural isomorphism in $\\QMod_\\mfb B$: $$\\pi(\\operatorname{Hom}_B(Be\\otimes_{eBe}eB,M))\\cong \\mathcal{M}.$$ Hence we have a natural isomorphism $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\mathcal{A}}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{M}\\otimes_\\mathcal{B}\\mathcal{R})\\cong \\mathcal{M}$.\n\n\\[lem-Btor\\] Assume that $X$ is a $B$-$B$-bimodule which is finitely generated as a right $B$-module. If $X$ is $\\mfb$-torsion as a left $B$-module, then $\\operatorname{Ext}^j_B(X,M)$ is a $\\mfb$-torsion right $B$-module for all $i\\ge0$ and any right $B$-module $M$.\n\nSince $X$ is finitely generated as a right $B$-module, we have $X=x_1B+\\cdots+x_tB$ for some $x_1,\\dots,x_t\\in X$. As $X$ is $\\mfb$-torsion as a left $B$-module, there is an integer $n$ such that $\\mfb^mx_i=0$ for all $i=1,\\dots,t$. For any element $f\\in \\operatorname{Hom}_B(X,M)$, we have $(f\\mfb^n)(x_i)=f(\\mfb^n x_i)=0$ for $i=1,\\dots,t$. Hence $\\operatorname{Hom}_B(X,M)$ is $\\mfb$-torsion. Now take an injective resolution $0\\to M\\to I^0\\to I^2\\to\\cdots$. We see that $\\operatorname{Hom}_B(X,I^j)$ is $\\mfb$-torsion for all $j\\ge0$. Hence $\\operatorname{Ext}^j_B(X,M)$ is $\\mfb$-torsion for all $j\\ge0$.\n\nIt is known that any ideal of a noetherian commutative algebra has the AR-property (cf. [@M Theorem 8.5]). The condition that $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are cofinal in the above theorem is necessary when the algebra $R$ is commutative.\n\n\\[thm-commeq\\] Assume that $R$ is a noetherian commutative algebra and $G$ is a finite group acting on $R$ by automorphisms. Then the following are equivalent.\n\n-   The functor $-\\otimes_\\mathcal{B}\\mathcal{R}:\\QMod_\\mfb B\\longrightarrow \\QMod_\\mfa A$ is an equivalence of abelian categories.\n\n-   The ideal $\\mfa$ of $A$ and the ideal $\\mfr$ of $R$ are cofinal.\n\nThat (ii) implies (i) has been proved in Theorem \\[thm-equiv\\]. Now assume that (i) holds. Write $\\mathcal{F}$ for $-\\otimes_\\mathcal{B}\\mathcal{R}$. For $s\\ge0$, let $M=R/\\mfa^sR$. Note that $\\mfa^sR$ is a right $B$-submodule of $R$. Hence $M$ is a right $B$-module. Then $\\mathcal{F}(\\mathcal{M})=\\pi(M\\otimes_B R)=0$ since $(M\\otimes_BR)\\mfa^s=M\\otimes_BR\\mfa^s=M\\mfa^s\\otimes_BR=0$. Therefore $\\mathcal{M}=0$, equivalently, $M$ is an $\\mfr$-torsion module. Since $M$ is finitely generated, there is an integer $n$ such that $M\\mfr^n=0$, that is, $\\mfr^n\\subseteq \\mfa^sR$.\n\nLet $R=\\kk[x,y]$ and let $G=\\{1,g\\}$ where $g$ is the automorphism of $R$ defined by $g(x)=-x$ and $g(y)=-y$. It is easy to see that $(1,x)$ and $(x,1)$ are pertinent, hence $x\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. Similarly, $y\\in \\mfr(R,G)$. Therefore $\\mfr:=\\mfr(R,G)=Rx+Ry$. The invariant subalgebra $A:=R^G$ is the subalgebra of $R$ consisting of elements of even degrees (here, we view $x$ and $y$ of degree 1). Then $\\mfa=\\mfr\\cap A=Ax^2+Ay^2+Axy$. Now it is easy to see that $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are cofinal.\n\n\\[ex5\\] Let $R=\\kk_{-1}[x,y,z]$, and let $G=\\{1,g\\}$ where $g$ is the automorphism of $R$ defined by $g(x)=x$, $g(y)=-y$ and $g(z)=-z$. Then the invariant subalgebra $A=\\kk[x,y^2,z^2,yz]$. As in the above example, $y,z$ are in the $G$-radical $\\mfr=\\mfr(R,G)$. Let $\\mathfrak{i}=Ry+Rz$. Then $\\mathfrak{i}\\subseteq\\mfr$. Note that $\\mathfrak{i}$ is closed under $G$-action, hence $R/\\mathfrak{i}$ is a $G$-module algebra. One sees that the induced $G$-action on $\\kk[x]\\cong R/\\mathfrak{i}$ is trivial. Hence by Lemma \\[lem-min\\], $\\mathfrak{i}=\\mfr$. Then $\\mfa=\\mfr\\cap A=Ay^2+Az^2+Ayz$. Since $A$ is commutative, $\\mfa$ has the (right) AR-property. Moreover, one sees that $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are cofinal.\n\nLet $R=\\kk_{-1}[x,y,z]$, and let $G=\\{1,g,g^2\\}$ where $g$ is the automorphism of $R$ defined by $g(y)=\\omega y$ and $g(z)=\\omega^2 z$ in which $\\omega$ is a third primitive root of unity. Then it is easy to see that the invariant subaglebra $A$ is generated by $x,y^3,z^3,yz$. We next compute the $G$-radical of $R$. An easy computation shows $(y^2,y,1)\\overset{G}\\sim(1,y,y^2)$, $(z^2,z,1)\\overset{G}\\sim(1,z,z^2)$ and $(yz,-z,y)\\overset{G}\\sim(1,y,z)$. Hence $y^2,z^2,yz\\in \\mfr$. Let $\\mathfrak{i}$ be the ideal of $R$ generated by $y^2,z^2,yz$. Then $\\mathfrak{i}\\subseteq \\mfr$. Consider the quotient algebra $R/\\mathfrak{i}$. Note that $R/\\mathfrak{i}$ is also a $G$-module algebra and the invariant subalgebra is isomorphic to $\\kk[x]$. As a left $\\kk[x]$-module, $R/\\mathfrak{i}$ is isomorphic to $\\kk[x]\\oplus \\kk[x]y\\oplus \\kk[x]z$. By Proposition \\[prop-ss\\], $R/\\mathfrak{i}$ is $G$-semisimple. By Lemma \\[lem-min\\], $\\mfr=\\mathfrak{i}$. Then $\\mfa=\\mfr\\cap A=A y^3+Az^3+Ayz$. Since $y^3,z^3,yz$ are normal elements in $A$, $\\mfa$ has the right AR-property (cf. [@MR Proposition 4.2.6]). Also, it is easy to see that $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are cofinal.\n\nRelative Cohen-Macaulay algebras {#sec6}\n================================\n\nLet $R$ be a noetherian algebra, and let $G$ be a finite group acting on $R$ by automorphims. Let $A=R^G$ be the invariant subalgebra. As before, $\\mfr=\\mfr(R,G)$ is the $G$-radical of $R$ and $\\mfa=\\mfr\\cap A$. Set $B=R*G$ and $\\mfb=\\mfr\\otimes\\kk G$.\n\n\\[set\\] In this section, we assume that the following conditions hold:\n\n-   $\\mfa$ has the right AR-property;\n\n-   $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ are cofinal.\n\n\\[rem1\\] If $\\mfa=a_1A+\\cdots+a_sA$, where $a_1,\\dots,a_s$ are normal elements both in $A$ and in $R$, then Setup \\[set\\](i) is automatically satisfied.\n\n\\[lem-ARpro\\] Both ideals $\\mfr$ and $\\mfb$ have the right AR-property.\n\nLet $M$ be a finitely generated right $R$-module, and let $N$ be a $B$-submodule of $M$. Since $R$ is finitely generated as a right $A$-module, both $M$ and $N$ are finitely generated as right $A$-modules. By Setup \\[set\\](ii), $\\mfa R=R\\mfa$. Let $I=R\\mfa$. Then $I^n=R\\mfa^n$ for $n>0$. Hence $MI^n=M\\mfa^n$. Since $\\mfa$ has the right AR-property, $MI^n\\cap N=M\\mfa^n\\cap N\\subseteq N\\mfa\\subseteq NI$ for some $n>0$. Therefore $I$ has the right AR-property. Since the filtrations $I\\supseteq I^2\\supseteq\\cdots\\supseteq I^n\\supseteq\\cdots$ and $\\mfr\\supseteq\\mfr^2\\supseteq\\cdots\\supseteq\\mfr^n\\supseteq\\cdots$ are cofinal, it follows that $\\mfr$ has the right AR-property.\n\nSimilarly, we may show that $\\mfb$ has the right AR-property by noticing that $K\\mfb^n=K\\mfr^n$ for every finitely generated right $B$-module $K$.\n\nLet $M$ be a right $A$-module, and let $$\\label{eq-res}\n  0\\to M\\to I^0\\overset{\\delta^0}\\to I^{1}\\overset{\\delta^1}\\to\\cdots\\to I^i\\overset{\\delta^j}\\to\\cdots$$ be an injective resolution of $M$. Let $T^i=\\Gamma_\\mfa(I^i)$ for each $i$. By Lemma \\[lem-torinj\\], we see that $T^i$ is an injective $\\mfa$-torsion module. Hence, for each $i\\ge0$, we have a decomposition $I^i=T^i\\oplus E^i$ where $E^i$ is an $\\mfa$-torsion-free injective module. The differential $\\delta^i$ has a decomposition $\\delta^i=\\delta^i_E+\\delta^i_T+f^i$ where $\\delta_E^i:E^i\\longrightarrow E^{i+1}$, $\\delta_T^i::T^i\\longrightarrow T^{i+1}$ and $f^i: E^i\\longrightarrow T^{i+1}$. Since $\\delta^{i+1}\\delta^i=0$, we have $\\delta_E^{i+1}\\delta_E^i=0$, $\\delta_T^{i+1}\\delta_T^i=0$ and $f^{i+1}\\delta^i_T+\\delta^{i+1}_Ef^i=0$. Let $E^\\cdot$ (resp. $T^\\cdot$) denote the complex with differential $\\delta^\\cdot_E$ (resp. $\\delta_T^\\cdot$). Then $$\\label{eq-resdec}\n  f^\\cdot:E^\\cdot[-1]\\longrightarrow T^\\cdot$$ is a morphism of complex, and the injective resolution $I^\\cdot=cone(f^\\cdot)$.\n\n\\[lem-locoh\\] With the notions as above, $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)=H^i(T^\\cdot)$ for all $i\\ge0$, where $H^i(-)$ is the $i$-th cohomology of the complex.\n\nRecall from Section \\[sec-quot\\] that $\\pi$ is the projection functor $\\operatorname{Mod}A\\longrightarrow \\QMod_\\mfa A$, and its right adjoint functor is $\\omega:\\QMod_\\mfa A\\longrightarrow\\operatorname{Mod}A$. For $M\\in \\operatorname{Mod}A$, we write $\\mathcal{M}$ for the object $\\pi(M)$. From the decomposition of the injective resolution (\\[eq-res\\]) of $M$ above, we obtain an injective resolution of $\\mathcal{M}$ in $\\QMod_\\mfa A$ (cf. [@P Corollary 5.4]) $$0\\to \\mathcal{M}\\to \\mathcal{E}^0\\to\\mathcal{E}^1\\to\\cdots\\to\\mathcal{E}^i\\to\\cdots$$ where $\\mathcal{E}^i=\\pi(E^i)$ for all $i\\ge0$.\n\n\\[lem-secfun\\] With the notions as above, $\\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{M})\\cong H^i(E^\\cdot)$ for all $i\\ge0$.\n\nApplying the functor $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},-)$ to the injective resolution $\\mathcal{E}^\\cdot$, we obtain a complex $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{E}^\\cdot)$. Since $E^i$ is $\\mfa$-torsion-free and injective for all $i\\ge0$, we have a natural isomorphism $\\omega(\\pi(E^i))\\cong E^i$. Hence we have natural isomorphisms $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{E}^i)\\cong \\operatorname{Hom}_A(A,\\omega(\\pi(E^i)))\\cong E^i$. Therefore we have an isomorphism of complexes $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{E}^\\cdot)\\cong E^\\cdot$.\n\n\\[prop-finloc\\] If $R$ has finite global dimension, then the torsion functor $\\Gamma_\\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension.\n\nAssume that the global dimension of $R$ is $d$. For $N\\in\\operatorname{Mod}B$, let $0\\to N\\to Q^0\\to \\cdots\\to Q^d\\to0$ be an injective resolution. By Lemma \\[lem-ARpro\\], $\\mfb$ has the right AR-property. Hence the injective envelope of a $\\mfb$-torsion $B$-module is still $\\mfb$-torsion by Lemma \\[lem-torinj\\]. By [@P Corollary 5.4], $0\\to\\pi(N)\\to\\pi(Q^0)\\to\\cdots\\to\\pi(Q^d)\\to0$ is an injective resolution in $\\QMod_\\mfb B$. Hence the global dimension of $\\QMod_\\mfb B$ is not larger than $d$. Setup \\[set\\] implies that the conditions in Theorem \\[thm-equiv\\] are satisfied. Hence the abelian categories $\\QMod_\\mfa A$ and $\\QMod_\\mfb B$ are equivalent. Therefore, the global dimension $\\QMod_\\mfa A$ is not larger than $d$.\n\nFor $M\\in\\operatorname{Mod}A$, let $$0\\to M\\to I^0\\overset{\\delta^0}\\to I^{1}\\overset{\\delta^1}\\to\\cdots\\to I^i\\overset{\\delta^j}\\to\\cdots$$ be an injective resolution. As we have seen that $I^\\cdot=cone(f^\\cdot)$ where $f^\\cdot:E^\\cdot\\to T^\\cdot$ is the morphism given in (\\[eq-resdec\\]). Since the global dimension of $\\QMod_\\mfa A$ is not larger than $d$, we have $\\operatorname{Ext}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}^i(\\pi(A),\\pi(M))=0$ for all $i>d$. Then Lemma \\[lem-secfun\\] implies that $H^i(E^\n\\cdot)=0$ for $i>d$. From the exact sequence $0\\to T^\\cdot\\to I^\\cdot\\to E^\\cdot\\to0$ of complexes, we obtain that $H^i(T^\\cdot)=0$ for $i>d+1$. Now $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)=H^i(\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_A(A/\\mfa^n, I^\\cdot))=H^i(T^\\cdot)=0$ for $i>d+1$. Therefore $\\Gamma_\\mfa$ has finite cohomological dimension.\n\nNote that the global dimension of the invariant subaglebra $A$ is often infinite even if the global dimension of $R$ is finite. For example, it is well known that a nontrivial finite subgroup of the special linear group $SL_n(\\kk)$ acting on the polynomial algebra $\\kk[x_1,\\dots,x_n]$ yields a Gorenstein invariant subalgebra with infinite global dimension. More general, it is known that a finite group acting on an Artin-Schelter regular algebra with trivial homological determinant gives rise to an Artin-Schelter Gorenstein invariant subalgebra (cf. [@JZ]). Hence it is reasonable to consider the Cohen-Macaulay modules over the invariant subalgebra. Similar to the concept introduced in (cf. [@Z; @CH]), we make the following definition.\n\nWe say that the invariant subalgebra $A=R^G$ is (right) [*$\\mfa$-Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $d$*]{} if $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)=0$ for $i\\neq d$.\n\nRecall from Example \\[ex5\\] that the ideals $\\mfa$ and $\\mfr$ satisfy the conditions in Setup \\[set\\]. Note that $y^2,z^2,yz$ are normal elements in $R$. The invariant subalgebra $A=\\kk[x,y^2,z^2,yz]=\\kk[x]\\otimes \\Lambda$ where $\\Lambda=\\kk[u,v,w]/(uv-w^2)$. Under this isomorphism, $\\mfa\\cong \\kk[x]\\otimes \\mathfrak{m}$ where $\\mathfrak{m}=\\Lambda u+\\Lambda v+\\Lambda w$. It is well known that $\\Lambda$ has injective dimension $2$. Moreover, $R^i\\Gamma_\\mathfrak{m}(\\Lambda)=0$ for $i=0,1$ and $R^2\\Gamma_\\mathfrak{m}(\\Lambda)=E(\\kk)$, where $E(\\kk)$ is the injective envelope of the trivial module $\\kk$. Thus, we have: $$R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)\\cong \\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}_{\\kk[x]\\otimes \\Lambda}^i(\\kk[x]\\otimes \\Lambda/\\mathfrak{m}^n,\\kk[x]\\otimes\\Lambda)\\cong\\kk[x]\\otimes\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}_{\\Lambda}^i(\\Lambda/\\mathfrak{m}^n,\\Lambda).$$ Hence $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)=0$ for $i\\neq 2$ and $R^2\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)\\cong \\kk[x]\\otimes E(\\kk)$.\n\n\\[thm-finproinj\\] Assume that $R$ has finite global dimension and $A$ is $\\mfa$-Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $d$. Set $D=R^d\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)$. For $M\\in\\operatorname{Mod}A$, $$R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)\\cong \\operatorname{Tor}_{d-i}^A(M,D)$$ for all $i\\ge0$.\n\nBy Proposition \\[prop-finloc\\] and Theorem \\[thm-locdual\\], we have $R\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)\\cong M\\otimes_A^LR\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)\\cong M\\otimes_A^L D[-d]$. Taking the cohomology of the complexes, we obtain the desired isomorphisms.\n\nExtension groups in the quotient categories {#sec7}\n===========================================\n\nLet $S$ be a noetherian algebra, and let $\\mathfrak{s}$ be an ideal of $S$. Assume that $\\mathfrak{s}$ has the right AR-property. We have the following computation of extension groups in the quotient category.\n\n\\[lem-qext\\] If $N$ is a finitely generated right $S$-module and $M$ is a right $S$-module, then $\\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\\QMod_{\\mathfrak{s}} S}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})=\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}^i_S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,M)$ for $i\\ge0$.\n\nLet $T$ be an injective $\\mathfrak{s}$-torsion $S$-module. We claim $\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,T)=0$. Indeed, applying the functor $\\operatorname{Hom}_S(-,T)$ to the exact sequence $0\\to N\\mathfrak{s}^n\\to N\\to N/N\\mathfrak{s}^n\\to0$, we obtain the exact sequence $0\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_S(N/N\\mathfrak{s}^n,E)\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N,T)\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,T)\\to0$. Taking the direct limit we have $$0\\to \\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N/N\\mathfrak{s}^n,E)\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N,T)\\to \\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,T)\\to0.$$ Since $N$ is finitely generated, for any $S$-module homomorphism $f:N\\to T$, there is an integer $n$ such that $f(N\\mathfrak{s}^n)=f(N)\\mathfrak{s}^n=0$. Hence $N\\mathfrak{s}^n\\subseteq \\ker f$. Therefore, $f:N\\to T$ factors though $N/N\\mathfrak{s}^n$. Thus the morphism $\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N/N\\mathfrak{s}^n,T)\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N,T)$ in the exact sequence above is an epimorphism. So, the claim holds.\n\nWe continue to prove the lemma. Take a minimal injective resolution of the right $S$-module $M$ as follows: $$\\label{eq-1inj}\n  0\\to M\\to I^0\\to I^2\\to\\cdots\\to I^k\\to\\cdots.$$ Since $\\mathfrak{s}$ has the right AR-property, the injective module $I^i$ $(i\\ge0)$ has a decomposition $I^i=T^i\\oplus E^k$ with $T^i$ a $\\mathfrak{s}$-torsion submodule and $E^i$ a $\\mathfrak{s}$-torsion free submodule. Applying the projection functor $\\pi:\\operatorname{Mod}S\\longrightarrow\\QMod_\\mathfrak{s} S$ to the projective resolution (\\[eq-inj\\]), we obtain the following exact sequence $$\\label{eq-1injq}\n  0\\to \\mathcal{M}\\to \\mathcal{E}^0\\to \\mathcal{E}^2\\to\\cdots\\to \\mathcal{E}^i\\to\\cdots.$$ Since $E^i$ is $\\mathfrak{s}$-torsion free, $\\mathcal{E}^i$ is injective in $\\QMod_\\mathfrak{s} S$ for all $i\\ge0$. Hence the exact sequence (\\[eq-1injq\\]) provides an injective resolution of $\\mathcal{M}$ in $\\QMod_\\mathfrak{s} S$. Applying the functor $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mathfrak{s} S}(\\mathcal{N},-)$ to (\\[eq-1injq\\]), we have the following complex $$\\label{eq-1coh2}\n  0\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mathfrak{s} S}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{E}^0)\\to\\cdots\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mathfrak{s} S}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{E}^i)\\to\\cdots.$$ By Equation (\\[eq1\\]), the complex (\\[eq-1coh2\\]) is isomorphic to the following complex $$\\label{eq-1coh4}\n  0\\to\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_ S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,E^0)\\to\\cdots\\to \\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,E^i)\\to\\cdots.$$ By the above claim, (\\[eq-1coh4\\]) is isomorphic to $$\\label{eq-1coh5}\n  0\\to\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_ S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,E^0\\oplus T^0)\\to\\cdots\\to \\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,E^i\\oplus T^i)\\to\\cdots,$$ which is equivalent to $$\\label{eq-1coh6}\n  0\\to\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_ S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,I^0)\\to\\cdots\\to \\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_S(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,I^i)\\to\\cdots.$$ By (\\[eq-1inj\\]), the $i$-th cohomology of the complex (\\[eq-1coh6\\]) is $\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}_S^i(N\\mathfrak{s}^n,M)$.\n\nThroughout the rest of this section, we let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian left $G$-module algebra. As before, write $B=R* G$, $A=R^G$, $\\mfr=\\mfr(R,G)$, $\\mfb=\\mfr\\otimes \\kk G$ and $\\mfa=A\\cap \\mfr$. Assume that the radical $\\mfr$ has the right AR-property. It follows from the proof of Lemma \\[lem-ARpro\\] that $\\mfb$ has the right AR-property as well.\n\nLet $N$ and $M$ be $B$-modules. Assume that $N$ is finitely generated. Note that we may view $N$ and $M$ as right $R$-modules. Then there is a right $G$-action $\\leftharpoonup$ on $\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M)$ defined by $$\\label{eq-gact}\n  (f\\leftharpoonup g)(n)=f(ng^{-1})g, \\text{ for all } g\\in G, f\\in\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M), n\\in N.$$ With this right $G$-action on $\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M)$, we have $$\\operatorname{Hom}_B(N,M)=\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M)^G,$$ where the right hand side is the $G$-invariant subspace. Consider the Hom-sets in the quotient categories $\\QMod_\\mfr R$ and $\\QMod_\\mfb B$. For any $n\\ge0$, $N\\mfr^n$ is a right $B$-submodule, and hence $\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\\mfr^n,M)$ has a right $G$-action. It is easy to see that the direct limit system $\\underset{n\\rightarrow\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\\mfr^n,M)$ is compatible with the right $G$-actions. By Lemma \\[lem-qext\\], $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})=\\underset{n\\rightarrow\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\\mfr^n,M)$ has a right $G$-action. Moreover, since $N\\mfr^n=N\\mfb^n$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfb B}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})&=&\\underset{n\\rightarrow\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_B(N\\mfb^n,M)\\\\\n&=&\\underset{n\\rightarrow\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\\mfr^n,M)^G\\\\\n&=&(\\underset{n\\rightarrow\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N\\mfr^n,M))^G\\\\\n&=&\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})^G,\\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality holds because $G$ is a finite group. Summarizing the above arguments, we obtain the the following result.\n\n\\[lem-gact\\] Let $N$ and $M$ be right $B$-modules. Assume that $N$ is finitely generated. Then there is a right $G$-action on $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})$ induced from (\\[eq-gact\\]). Moreover, we have $$\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfb B}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})\\cong \\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})^G.$$\n\nIf $M'$ is another $B$-module and $f:M\\to M'$ is a $B$-module homomorphism, one sees that $f$ is compatible with the right $G$-module structures on $\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M)$ and $\\operatorname{Hom}_R(N,M')$. Moreover, $f$ is compatible with the direct limit systems in the above narratives. Hence $f$ induces a $G$-module homomorphism $$\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})\\longrightarrow \\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M}').$$\n\nNext we show that $\\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\\QMod R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})$ has a right $G$-action as well, and the above isomorphism may be extended to the extension groups. Take a minimal injective resolution of the right $B$-module $M$ as follows: $$\\label{eq-inj}\n  0\\to M\\to I^0\\to I^2\\to\\cdots\\to I^k\\to\\cdots.$$ Since $\\mfb$ has the right AR-property, as we have seen in the proof of Lemma \\[lem-qext\\], the injective module $I^i$ $(i\\ge0)$ has a decomposition $I^i=T^i\\oplus E^k$ with $T^i$ a $\\mfb$-torsion submodule and $E^i$ a $\\mfb$-torsion free submodule. Then we have an injective resolution of $\\mathcal{M}$ in $\\QMod_\\mfb B$: $$\\label{eq-injq}\n  0\\to \\mathcal{M}\\to \\mathcal{E}^0\\to \\mathcal{E}^2\\to\\cdots\\to \\mathcal{E}^i\\to\\cdots.$$\n\n\\[prop-qext\\] Let $N$ and $M$ be right $B$-modules. Assume that $N$ is finitely generated. The following statements hold:\n\n-   $\\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})$ has a right $G$-action for all $i\\ge0$.\n\n-   $\\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})^G\\cong \\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\\QMod_\\mfb B}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})$ for all $i\\ge0$.\n\n\\(i) Note that a $B$-module is injective if and only if it is injective as an $R$-module (cf. [@HVZ2 Proposition 2.6]). Then we may view (\\[eq-inj\\]) as an injective resolution of the $R$-module $M$ in $\\operatorname{Mod}R$. Since a $B$-module is $\\mfb$-torsion free if and only if it is $\\mfr$-torsion free as an $R$-module, the exact sequence (\\[eq-injq\\]) is also an injective resolution of $\\mathcal{M}$ in $\\QMod_\\mfr R$. Applying the functor $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},-)$ to the injective resolution (\\[eq-injq\\]), we obtain a complex of right $G$-modules $$\\label{eq-coh}\n  0\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{E}^0)\\to\\cdots\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{E}^i)\\to\\cdots.$$ Taking the cohomology of the above complex, we obtain $\\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{M})$ which inherits the right $G$-module structure on $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{E}^i)$. The statement (i) follows.\\\n(ii) Applying the functor $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfb B}(\\mathcal{N},-)$ to (\\[eq-injq\\]), we obtain the following complex $$\\label{eq-coh2}\n  0\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfb B}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{E}^0)\\to\\cdots\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfb B}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{E}^i)\\to\\cdots.$$ By Lemma \\[lem-gact\\], the complex (\\[eq-coh2\\]) is isomorphic to the following complex $$\\label{eq-coh3}\n  0\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{E}^0)^G\\to\\cdots\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{N},\\mathcal{E}^i)^G\\to\\cdots.$$ Taking the cohomology of the complex (\\[eq-coh3\\]), we obtain the desired isomorphisms in (ii).\n\nRecall that a noetherian algebra $S$ with finite GK-dimension is called a [*right GKdim-Cohen-Macaulay algebra*]{} if for any finitely generated right $S$-module $K$, $\\operatorname{GKdim}(K)+j_S(K)=\\operatorname{GKdim}(S)$, where $j_S(M)=\\min\\{i|\\operatorname{Ext}_S^i(M,S)\\neq 0\\}$.\n\nNow we return to our noetherian algebra $R$ with a $G$-action. Assume that the GK-dimension on right $R$-modules is exact, that is, if $0\\to N\\to M\\to K\\to0$ is an exact sequence of finitely generated right $B$-modules, then $\\operatorname{GKdim}(M)=\\max\\{\\operatorname{GKdim}(N),\\operatorname{GKdim}(K)\\}$. For instance, if $R$ is $\\mathbb{Z}$-graded or filtered with an ascending locally finite filtration, then the GK-dimension is exact (cf. [@KL]). For any integer $n\\ge1$, we have $\\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\\mfr)=\\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\\mfr^n)$. If furthermore, $R$ is right GKdim-Cohen-Macaulay, then $j_R(R/\\mfr^n)=\\operatorname{GKdim}(R)-\\operatorname{GKdim}(R/\\mfr^n)=\\Pty(R,G)$. We next show that $\\operatorname{depth}_{\\mfr}(R)$ is often equal to the pertinency $\\Pty(R,G)$.\n\n\\[prop3-2\\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Assume that $R$ is GKdim-Cohen-Macaulay and that the GK-dimension is exact on right $R$-modules. Then $\\operatorname{depth}_\\mfr(R)=\\Pty(R,G)$.\n\nLet $p=\\Pty(R,G)$. As we know, $j_R(R/\\mfr^n)=p$ for $n>0$. Then $\\operatorname{Ext}^i_R(R/\\mfr^n,R)=0$ for all $i<p$. Hence $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)=\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}^i_R(R/\\mfr^n,R)=0$ for all $i<\\Pty(R,G)$. Let $0\\to R\\to I^0\\overset{\\delta^0}\\to I^1\\overset{\\delta^1}\\to\\cdots\\to I^i\\overset{\\delta^i}\\to\\cdots$ be a minimal injective resolution of $R$. By Lemma \\[lem-injres\\], $I^i$ is $\\mfr$-torsion free for all $i<p$. Since $j_R(R/\\mfr^n)=p$ for all $n>0$, $\\Gamma_\\mfr(I^p)\\neq0$. Then $\\Gamma_\\mfr(I^p)\\cap \\ker \\delta^p\\neq0$ since $I^\\cdot$ is a minimal injective resolution. Since $I^i$ is $\\mfr$-torsion free for all $i<p$, it follows that $R^p\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)=\\Gamma_\\mfr(I^p)\\cap\\ker\\delta^p\\neq0$. Hence $\\operatorname{depth}_\\mfr(R)=p$.\n\nIn Proposition \\[prop3-2\\], we don\u2019t need the assumption that $\\mfr$ has the right AR-property.\n\nThe above proposition shows that $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)=0$ for $i<\\Pty(R,G)$. Sometimes the local homology of $R$ will be concentrated in degree $p=\\Pty(R,G)$ as shown in the next example.\n\nLet $R=\\kk[x,y,z]$ and let $\\sigma$ be the automorphism of $R$ defined by $\\sigma(x)=x$, $\\sigma(y)=-y$ and $\\sigma(z)=-z$. Let $G=\\langle \\sigma\\rangle$. Then $\\mfr=\\mfr(R,G)=Ry+Rz$, and $\\Pty(R,G)=2$. Let $\\Lambda=\\kk[y,z]$, and $\\mathfrak{m}=(y,z)$ the maximal ideal generated by $y,z$. For any $n\\ge1$, $R/\\mfr^n\\cong \\kk[x]\\otimes \\Lambda/\\mathfrak{m}^n$. Hence $$\\begin{aligned}\n R^i\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)&=&\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}^i_R(R/\\mfr^n,R)\\\\\n &=&\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\\kk[x]\\otimes \\Lambda}(\\kk[x]\\otimes\\Lambda/\\mathfrak{m}^n,\\kk[x]\\otimes\\Lambda)\\\\\n &\\cong& \\kk[x]\\otimes\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}^i_{ \\Lambda}(\\Lambda/\\mathfrak{m}^n,\\Lambda).\\end{aligned}$$ Now $\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}^i_{ \\Lambda}(\\Lambda/\\mathfrak{m}^n,\\Lambda)=0$ for $i\\neq 2$, and $\\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\lim\\operatorname{Ext}^2_{ \\Lambda}(\\Lambda/\\mathfrak{m}^n,\\Lambda)\\cong E(\\kk)$, where $E(\\kk)$ is the injective envelope of $\\kk$ as a $\\Lambda$-module.\n\n\\[def-gcm\\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $R$ be a noetherian $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. If $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)=0$ for all $i\\neq \\Pty(R,G)$, then we call $R$ a [*$G$-Cohen-Macaulay*]{} algebra.\n\nWe may now prove the main result of this section. Recall that $B=R*G$, $A=R^G$, $\\mfr=\\mfr(R,G)$, $\\mfb=\\mfr\\otimes \\kk G$ and $\\mfa=A\\cap \\mfr$.\n\n\\[thm-gcm\\] Let $G$ be a finite group, and $R$ a noetherian left $G$-module algebra with finite GK-dimension. Assume that $R$ satisfies Setup \\[set\\]. If $R$ is $G$-Cohen-Macaulay, then $A$ is $\\mfa$-Cohen-Macaulay of dimension $\\Pty(R,G)$.\n\nBy Theorem \\[thm-equiv\\], we have an equivalence of abelian categories $$-\\otimes_{\\mathcal{B}}\\mathcal{R}:\\QMod_\\mfa A\\longrightarrow \\QMod_\\mfb B.$$ Under this equivalence, the object $\\mathcal{R}\\in \\QMod_\\mfb B$ corresponds to $\\mathcal{A}\\in \\QMod_\\mfa A$, where $\\mathcal{R}$ (resp. $\\mathcal{A}$) is the corresponding object of the right module $R_B\\in \\operatorname{Mod}B$ (resp. $A_A\\in\\operatorname{Mod}A$) in the quotient category. Then we have isomorphisms: $$\\label{eq-isoext}\n  \\operatorname{Ext}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}^i(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{A})\\cong\\operatorname{Ext}_{\\QMod_\\mfb B}^i(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})$$ for all $i\\ge0$. By Proposition \\[prop-qext\\], $\\operatorname{Ext}_{\\QMod_\\mfb B}^i(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})\\cong \\operatorname{Ext}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}^i(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})^G$ for all $i\\ge0$. Hence we have $$\\label{eq-ext}\n  \\operatorname{Ext}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}^i(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{A})\\cong\\operatorname{Ext}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}^i(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})^G,$$ for all $i\\ge0$. Applying the functor $\\operatorname{Hom}_R(-,R)$ to the exact sequence $$0\\to \\mfr^n\\to R\\to R/\\mfr^n\\to0,$$ we obtain the following exact sequence $$0\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_R(R/\\mfr^n,R)\\to R\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_R(\\mfr^n,R)\\to\\operatorname{Ext}^1_R(R/\\mfr^n,R)\\to0,$$ and isomorphisms $$\\operatorname{Ext}^i_R(\\mfr^n,R)\\cong \\operatorname{Ext}^{i+1}_R(R/\\mfr^n,R), \\text{ for }i\\ge1.$$ Taking the direct limits and applying Lemma \\[lem-qext\\], we obtain the exact sequence $$\\label{eq-sext}\n  0\\to \\Gamma_\\mfr(R)\\to R\\to \\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})\\to R^1\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)\\to0,$$ and isomorphisms $$\\label{eq-iso}\n  \\operatorname{Ext}^i_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})\\cong R^{i+1}\\Gamma_\\mfr(R), \\text{ for }i\\ge1.$$ If $p=\\Pty(R,G)\\ge2$, then by (\\[eq-iso\\]), $\\operatorname{Ext}^{i-1}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})=0$ for all $i\\neq p$ and $i\\ge2$. By (\\[eq-ext\\]), $\\operatorname{Ext}^{i-1}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{A})=0$ for all $i\\neq p$ and $i\\ge2$. Since $\\mfa$ has the right AR-property, the exact sequence (\\[eq-sext\\]) and the isomorphisms (\\[eq-iso\\]) also hold if we replace $\\mfr$ by $\\mfa$, and $\\mathcal{R}$ by $\\mathcal{A}$. Hence $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)=0$ for $i\\ge2$ and $i\\neq p$.\n\nSince $\\operatorname{depth}_\\mfr(R)\\ge2$, it follows that $\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)=R^1\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)=0$. We see that the natural morphism $R\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})$ in (\\[eq-sext\\]) is an isomorphism, which implies that the natural morphism $A\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{A})$ is an isomorphism since $R=A^G$ and $\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{A})\\cong \\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})^G$ by (\\[eq-ext\\]) and Lemma \\[lem-gact\\]. Replacing $\\mfr$ by $\\mfa$, and $\\mathcal{R}$ by $\\mathcal{A}$ in the exact sequence (\\[eq-sext\\]), we obtain that $R^1\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)=0$ and $\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)=0$.\n\nFinally, if $p=\\Pty(R,G)=1$, then by (\\[eq-iso\\]), $\\operatorname{Ext}^{i}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})=0$ for all $i\\ge1$. Hence by (\\[eq-ext\\]), $\\operatorname{Ext}^{i}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{A})=0$ for all $i\\ge1$, which implies that $R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)=0$ for all $i\\ge2$. Since $\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)=0$, we see that the natural morphism $R\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})$ in (\\[eq-sext\\]) is a monomorphism. This implies that the natural morphism $A\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{A})$ is also a monomorphism. Hence $\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)=0$.\n\nIf $p=\\Pty(R,G)=0$, similar to the above case, we have $\\operatorname{Ext}^{i}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{A})=0$ for all $i\\ge1$. Since $R^1\\Gamma_\\mfr(R)=0$, we see that the natural morphism $R\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfr R}(\\mathcal{R},\\mathcal{R})$ in (\\[eq-sext\\]) is an epimorphism, implying that the natural morphism $A\\to\\operatorname{Hom}_{\\QMod_\\mfa A}(\\mathcal{A},\\mathcal{A})$ is also an epimorphism. Hence $R^1\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)=0$.\n\n\\[cor-cm\\] Let $R$ be a $G$-Cohen-Macaulay algebra. Assume that $R$ satisfies Setup \\[set\\]. If $R$ has finite global dimension, then we have $$R^i\\Gamma_\\mfa(M)\\cong \\operatorname{Tor}_{p-i}^A(M,D)$$ for $M\\in\\operatorname{Mod}A$ and $i\\ge0$, where $p=\\Pty(R,G)$ and $D=R^p\\Gamma_\\mfa(A)$.\n\nThis is a direct consequence of Theorems \\[thm-gcm\\] and \\[thm-finproinj\\].\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n---------------\n\nMany thanks to James Zhang for many helpful conversations. J.-W. He was supported by NSFC (No. 11571239, 11401001) and Y. Zhang by an FWO grant.\n\n[99]{} R.-O. Buchweitz, *From platonic solids to preprojective algebras via the McKay correspondence*, Oberwolfach Jahresbericht Annual Report, 18\u201328, 2012. Y.-H. Bao, J.-W. He and J.J. Zhang, *Pertinency of Hopf actions and quotient categories of Cohen-Macaulay algebras*, to appear at J. Noncomm. Geometry, arXiv:1603.0234. Y.-H. Bao, J.-W. He and J.J. Zhang, *Noncommutative Auslander Theorem*, to appear at Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 2017. K.A. Brown and M. Lorenz, *Grothendieck groups of invariant rings and of group rings*, J. Algebra 166 (1994), 423\u2013454. M. Cohen and D. Fischman, S. Montgomery, *Hopf Galois extensions, Smash products, and Morita equivalence*, J. Algebra 133 (1990), 351\u2013372. O. Celikbas and H. Holm, *Equivalences from tilting theory and commutative algebra from the adjoint functor point of view*, arXiv:1703.06685, 2017. K. Chan, E. Kirkman, C. Walton, and J.J. Zhang, *McKay Correspondence for semisimple Hopf actions on regular graded algebras, I*, arXiv:1607.06977, 2016. K. Chan, E. Kirkman, C. Walton, and J.J. Zhang, *McKay Correspondence for semisimple Hopf actions on regular graded algebras, part II*, arXiv:1610.01220, 2016. J. Gaddis, E. Kirkman, W.F. Moore and R. Won, *Auslander\u2019s Theorem for permutation actions on noncommutative algebras*, arXiv:1705.00068. J.-W. He, F. Van Oystaeyen and Y. Zhang, *Hopf dense Galois extensions with applications*, J. Algebra 476 (2017), 134\u2013160. J.-W. He, F. Van Oystaeyen and Y. Zhang, *Hopf algebra actions on differential graded algebras and applications*, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin 18 (2011), 99\u2013111. O. Iyama and M. Wemyss, *Maximal modifications and Auslander-Reiten duality for non-isolated singularities*, Invent. Math. 197 (2014), 521\u2013586. P. J[\u00f8]{}rgensen and J. J. Zhang, *Gourmet\u2019s to guide to Gorensteinness*, Adv. Math. 151 (2000), 313\u2013345. E. Kirkman, J. Kuzmanovich and J.J. Zhang,*Rigidity of graded regular algebras*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), 6331\u20136369. G.R. Krause and T.H. Lenagan, *Growth of algebras and Gelfand-Kirillov dimension*, Research Notes in Mathematics, Pitman Adv. Publ. Program, 116 (1985). E. Kirkman, I. Musson and D. Passman, *Noetherian down-up algebras*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127 (1999), 3161\u20133167. H. Matsumura, *Commutative Ring Theory*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, Translated from Japanese by M. Reid. J. C. McConnell and J. C. Robson, *Noncommutative Noetherian Rings*, Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, Rhode Island, 1987. I. Mori, *McKay type correspondence for AS-regular algebras*, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 88 (2013), 97\u2013117. I. Mori and K. Ueyama, *Ample group action on Artin-Schelter regular algebras and noncommutative graded isolated singularities*, Tran. Amer. Math. Soc. 368 (2016), 7359\u20137383. I. Mori and K. Ueyama, *Stable categories of graded Cohen-Macaulay modules over noncommutative quotient singularities*, Adv. Math. 297 (2016), 54\u201392. N. Popescu, *Abelian Categories with Applications in Rings and Modules*, Academic Press, London, 1973. M. Van den Bergh, *Existence theorems for dualizing complexes over non-commutative graded and filtered rings*, J. Algebra 195 (1997), 662\u2013679. F.A. Szasz, *Radicals of Rings*, Akad\u00e9miai Kiad\u00f3, Budapest, 1981. K. Ueyama, *Graded maximal Cohen-Macaulay modules over noncommutative Gorenstein isolated singularities*, J. Algebra 383 (2013), 85\u2013103. M. R. Zargar, *On the relative Cohen-Macaulay modules*, J. Algebra Appl. 14 (2015), 1550042, 7 pp.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In recent years, lots of studies of charmonium decays have been performed at BESIII based on large data samples of $J/\\psi$, $\\psi(3686)$ and $\\psi(3770)$. Recent results in searches for radiative transitions of $\\psi(3770)$ and rare phenomena in charmonium decays, and studies of light hadrons structures and properties will be presented.'\nauthor:\n- 'X.\u00a0C.\u00a0Ai on behalf of the BESIII Collaboration'\nbibliography:\n- 'proceeding.bib'\nnocite: '[@*]'\ntitle: Studies of Charmonium at BESIII\n---\n\nINTRODUCTION\n============\n\nThe BESIII detector at the BEPCII collider has accumulated the world\u2019s largest data samples of $e^+e^-$ collisions in the $\\tau$-charm region, including $J/\\psi$, $\\psi(3686)$, $\\psi(3770)$ and the XYZ data. These data samples provide a clean and simple environment to study the production and decay mechanisms of charmonium states including not only $J/\\psi$, $\\psi(3686)$, $\\psi(3770)$, but also $\\eta_c$, $\\eta_c(2S)$ and $\\chi_{cJ}$ which are available by the $\\gamma$ transition of $\\psi(3686)$ and $\\psi(3770)$.\n\nResults in this presentation are based on 2.92 fb$^{-1}$ data sample taken at $\\sqrt{s}$ = 3.773 GeV, 1.06 $\\times$ $10^8$ $\\psi(3686)$ events and 1.31 $\\times$ $10^9$ $J/\\psi$ events.\n\nSEARCH FOR $\\psi(3770)$ RADIATIVE TRANSITIONS\n=============================================\n\nThe nature of the excited $J^{PC}$ = $1^{--}$ $c\\bar{c}$ bound states above the $D\\bar{D}$ threshold is of interest but still not well known. The $\\psi(3770)$ resonance, as the lightest charmonium state lying above the open charm threshold, is generally assigned to be a dominant $1^3 D_1$ momentum eigenstate with a small $2^3 S_1$ admixture\u00a0[@bib1]. It has been thought almost entirely to decay to $D\\bar{D}$ states\u00a0[@bib2; @bib3]. Unexpectedly, the BES Collaboration found a large inclusive non-$D\\bar{D}$ branching fraction, (14.7 $\\pm$ 3.2)%, by utilizing various methods\u00a0[@bib4; @bib5; @bib6; @bib7]. A later work by the CLEO Collaboration found a contradictory non-$D\\bar{D}$ branching fraction,(3.3 $\\pm$ 1.4$_{-4.8}^{+6.6}$)%\u00a0[@bib8]. The BES results suggest substantial non-$D\\bar{D}$ decays, although the CLEO result finds otherwise. In the exclusive analyses, various non-$D\\bar{D}$ decay modes have been observed, including hadronic transitions $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow J/\\psi\\pi^+\\pi^-$\u00a0[@bib9; @bib10], $\\pi^0\\pi^0J/\\psi$, $\\eta J/\\psi$ \u00a0[@bib10], the $E1$ transitions $\\gamma \\chi_{cJ}$ (J = 0, 1)\u00a0[@bib11; @bib12], and the decay to light hadrons $\\phi\\eta$\u00a0[@bib13]. The sum of the observed non-$D\\bar{D}$ exclusive components still makes up less than 2% of all decays\u00a0[@pdg], which motivates the search for other exclusive non-$D\\bar{D}$ final states.\n\nSearch for $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\eta_c$ and $\\gamma\\eta_c(2S)$\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe radiative transitions $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\eta_c(\\eta_c(2S))$ are supposed to be highly suppressed by selection rules, considering the $\\psi(3770)$ is predominantly the $1^3D_1$ state. However, due to the non-vanishing photon energy in the decay, higher multipoles beyond the leading one could contribute\u00a0[@bib15]. Recently, the partial decay widths $\\Gamma(\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\eta_c(\\eta_c(2S))$ have been calculated in Ref.\u00a0[@bib15] by considering contributions from the intermediate meson loop (IML) mechanism.\n\nUsing the $\\psi(3770)$ data sample, the radiative transitions $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\eta_c(\\eta_c(2S))$ through the decay process $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow K_S^0 K^{\\pm}\\pi^{\\mp}$ have been searched for\u00a0[@bibetac]. Figure \u00a0\\[fig:mkskpi\\] shows the invariant-mass spectrum of $K_S^0 K^{\\pm}\\pi^{\\mp}$ for selected candidates, together with the estimated backgrounds in the $\\eta_c$ mass region (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mkskpi\\](a)) and in the $\\chi_{c1}$ $-$ $\\eta_c(2S)$ mass region (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mkskpi\\](b)). No significant $\\eta_c$ and $\\eta_c(2S)$ signals are observed. The upper limits on the branching fractions at a 90% C.L. have been set: ${\\mathcal B}(\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\eta_c) < 6.8 \\times 10^{-4}$ and ${\\cal B}(\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\eta_c(2S)) < 2.0 \\times 10^{-3}$. The upper limit for $\\Gamma(\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\eta_c)$ is within the error range of the theoretical predictions of IML\u00a0[@bib15] and lattice QCD calculations\u00a0[@bib16]. However, the upper limit for $\\Gamma(\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\eta_c(2S))$ is much larger than the prediction and is limited by statistics and the systematic error.\n\n![Invariant-mass spectrum for $K_S^0 K^{\\pm}\\pi^{\\mp}$ from data with the estimated backgrounds and best-fit results superimposed in the (a)\u00a0$\\eta_c$ and (b)\u00a0$\\chi_{c1}$ and $\\eta_c(2S)$ mass regions. Dots with error bars are data. The shaded histograms represent the background contributions and the solid lines show the total fit results.[]{data-label=\"fig:mkskpi\"}](fit1.png \"fig:\"){width=\"200pt\"} ![Invariant-mass spectrum for $K_S^0 K^{\\pm}\\pi^{\\mp}$ from data with the estimated backgrounds and best-fit results superimposed in the (a)\u00a0$\\eta_c$ and (b)\u00a0$\\chi_{c1}$ and $\\eta_c(2S)$ mass regions. Dots with error bars are data. The shaded histograms represent the background contributions and the solid lines show the total fit results.[]{data-label=\"fig:mkskpi\"}](fit2.png \"fig:\"){width=\"200pt\"}\n\nMeasurement of the Branching Fraction for $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\chi_{cJ}$\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWithin an S-D mixing model\u00a0[@bib1], Refs.\u00a0[@bib17; @bib18; @bib19] predict the partial widths for $\\psi(3770)$ $E1$ radiative transitions, but with large uncertainties. Up to now, the transition $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\chi_{c2}$ has not been observed. Precision measurements of partial widths of the $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\chi_{c1,2}$ processes are critical to test the theoretical predictions, and to better understand the nature of the partial widths of the $\\psi(3770)$, as well as to find the origin of the non-$D\\bar{D}$ decays of $\\psi(3770)$.\n\nUsing the $\\psi(3770)$ data sample, the $\\psi(3770)$ $E1$ transitions $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\chi_{c1,2}$ have been studied\u00a0[@bibchicJ] by reconstructing $\\chi_{cJ}$ using the decay $\\chi_{cJ}\\rightarrow\\gamma J/\\psi$. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:mgjpsi\\] shows the invariant-mass distribution of the higher energetic photon and $J/\\psi$. Clear peak corresponding to the $\\chi_{c1}$ signal is observed while there is no significant signal of $\\chi_{c2}$. The branching fraction of $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\chi_{c1}$ is measured to be ${\\cal B}(\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\chi_{c1}) = (2.48\\pm0.15\\pm0.23)\\times 10^{-3}$ , which is the most precise measurement to date. The upper limit on the branching fraction of $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow \\gamma\\chi_{c2}$ at 90% C.L. is ${\\cal B}(\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow\\gamma\\chi_{c2})<0.64\\times10^{-3}$.\n\n![Invariant mass spectrum of higher energetic photon and $J/\\psi$ selected from data. The dots with error bars represent the data. The solid (red) line shows the fit. The dashed (blue) line shows the smooth background. The long-dashed (green) line is the sum of the smooth background and the contribution from $e^+e^-\\rightarrow(\\gamma_{ISR})\\psi(3686)$ production.[]{data-label=\"fig:mgjpsi\"}](mgjpsi.png){width=\"200pt\"}\n\nSEARCH FOR RARE PHENOMENA IN CHARMONIUM DECAYS\n==============================================\n\nSearch for Isospin-violating Transition $\\chi_{c0,2}\\rightarrow\\pi^0\\eta_c$\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nBased upon an effective-field theoretical approach, theoretical calculations give qualitative insights in the isospin-breaking mechanisms in charmonium decays below $D\\bar{D}$ threshold\u00a0[@bib25]. Currently, for such a theory, quantitative predictions of individual branching fractions of isospin-forbidden decays of charmonium require more constraints from experimental data.\n\nUsing the $\\psi(3686)$ data sample, the hadronic isospin-violating transitions $\\chi_{c0,2}\\rightarrow\\pi^0\\eta_c$ have been searched for through $\\eta_c\\rightarrow K_S^0 K^{\\pm}\\pi^{\\mp}$ decays\u00a0[@bibpi0etac]. No statistically significant signal is observed and upper limits on the branching fractions for the processes $\\chi_{c0,2}\\rightarrow\\pi^0\\eta_c$ have been obtained. The results are ${\\cal B}(\\chi_{c0}\\rightarrow \\pi^0\\eta_c) < 1.6\\times 10^{-3}$ and ${\\cal B}(\\chi_{c2}\\rightarrow \\pi^0\\eta_c) < 3.2\\times 10^{-3}$. These are the first upper limits on ${\\cal B}(\\chi_{c0,2}\\rightarrow \\pi^0\\eta_c)$ that have been reported so far. These limits might help to constrain non-relativistic field theories and provide insight in the role of charmed-meson loops to the various transitions in charmonium and charmonium-like states.\n\nSearch for $C$-parity Violation in $J/\\psi\\rightarrow\\gamma\\gamma$, $\\gamma\\phi$\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn the Standard Model (SM), $C$ invariance is held in strong and electromagnetic (EM) interactions. Until now, no $C$-violating processes have been observed in EM interactions. Any evidence for $C$ violation in the EM sector would immediately indicate physics beyond the SM.\n\nUsing the $\\psi(3686)$ data sample, the decays of $J/\\psi\\rightarrow\\gamma\\gamma$ and $\\gamma\\phi$ have been searched for via $\\psi(3686)\\rightarrow J/\\psi\\pi^+\\pi^-$\u00a0[@bibgggphi]. No significant signal is observed for $J/\\psi\\rightarrow\\gamma\\gamma$ and $J/\\psi\\rightarrow\\gamma\\phi$. The upper limits for the branching fractions of $J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\gamma\\gamma$ and $J/\\psi\\rightarrow\\gamma\\phi$ are set to be ${\\cal B}(J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\gamma\\gamma) < 2.7 \\times 10^{-7}$ and ${\\cal B}(J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\gamma\\phi) < 1.4 \\times 10^{-6}$, respectively. The upper limit on ${\\cal B}(J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\gamma\\gamma)$ is one of magnitude more stringent than the previous upper limit\u00a0[@bib26], and ${\\cal B}(J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\gamma\\phi)$ is the first upper limit for this channel.\n\nObservation of OZI-suppressed Decay $J/\\psi \\rightarrow \\pi^0 \\phi$\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nA full investigation of $J/\\psi$ decaying to a vector meson ($V$) and a pseudoscalar meson ($P$) can provide rich information about SU(3) flavor symmetry and its breaking, probe the quark and gluon content of the pseudoscalar mesons, and determine the electromagnetic amplitudes\u00a0[@bib27; @bib28; @bib29].\n\nUsing the $J/\\psi$ data sample, the first evidence for a doubly OZI suppressed electromagnetic $J/\\psi$ decay $J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\pi^0\\phi \\rightarrow K^+K^-\\gamma\\gamma$ has been reported\u00a0[@bib30]. A clear structure in the $K^+K^-$ invariant mass spectrum around 1.02 GeV/$c^2$ is observed, which can be attributed to interference of $J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\pi^0\\phi$ and $J/\\psi\\rightarrow K^+K^-\\pi^0$ decays. Figure\u00a0\\[fitmkk\\] shows the fit to the invariant mass spectrum of $K^+K^-$ with the background events estimated with $\\pi^0$ sidebands subtracted. Due to the interference, two possible solutions are found. The corresponding measured values of the branching fraction of $J/\\psi \\rightarrow \\pi^0 \\phi$ are ($2.94\\pm0.16\\pm0.16$) $\\times$ $10^{-6}$ and ($1.24\\pm0.33\\pm0.30$) $\\times$ $10^{-7}$, respectively.\n\n![Fit to $M(K^+K^-)$ spectrum after sideband subtraction for Solution I (a) and Solution II (b). The red dotted curve denotes the $\\phi$ resonance; the blue dashed curve is the non-$\\phi$ contribution; the green dot-dashed curve represents their inter-ference; the blue solid curve is the sum of them.[]{data-label=\"fitmkk\"}](fitmkk.png){width=\"200pt\"}\n\nSTUDIES OF LIGHT HADRON STRUCTURES AND PROPERTIES\n=================================================\n\nStudy of $J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\phi \\pi^0 f_0(980)$\n------------------------------------------------\n\nThe nature of the scalar meson $f_0(980)$ is a long-standing puzzle\u00a0[@pdg]. In the study of $J/\\psi$ radiatively decaying into $\\pi^+\\pi^-\\pi^0$ and $\\pi^0\\pi^0\\pi^0$, BESIII observed the decay of $\\eta(1405)\\rightarrow\\pi^0 f_0(980)$ with a large isospin violation and an anomalously narrow width of $f_0(980)$\u00a0[@bib1405]. One proposed explanation for these phenomena is the triangle singularity mechanism\u00a0[@tsm1; @tsm2].\n\nUsing the $J/\\psi$ data sample, the decays $J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\phi\\pi^0\\pi^0\\pi^0$ with $\\phi\\rightarrow K^+K^-$ are investigated\u00a0[@bib14052]. The isospin-violating decay $J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\phi \\pi^0 f_0(980)$ is observed for the first time. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:mpipi\\_980\\] shows the invariant mass spectrum of $\\pi^+\\pi^-$ (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mpipi\\_980\\](a)) and $\\pi^0\\pi^0$ (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mpipi\\_980\\](b)). A clear $f_0(980)$ exists for the $\\pi^+\\pi^-$ mode. The width obtained from the dipion mass spectrum is ($15.3\\pm4.7$) MeV/$c^2$, which is consistent with that in the study of $J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\gamma \\eta(1405)\\rightarrow \\gamma \\pi^0 f_0(980)$\u00a0[@bib1405] and the prediction of a theoretical work\u00a0[@bibtsm3] based on the triangle singularity mechanism\u00a0[@tsm1; @tsm2]. In the invariant mass spectra of $f_0(980)\\pi^0$, there is evidence of a resonance around 1.28 GeV/$c^2$ for the $f_0(980)\\rightarrow \\pi^+\\pi^-$ mode, which was identified as the axial-vector meson $f_1(1285)$.\n\n![The spectra (a)\u00a0$M(\\pi^+\\pi^-)$ and (b)\u00a0$M(\\pi^0\\pi^0)$ (three entries per event) with $K^+K^-$ in the $\\phi$ signal region (black dots) and in the $\\phi$ sideband regions (hatched histogram). The solid curve is the full fit, the long-dashed curve is the $f_0(980)$ signal, the dotted line is the non-$\\phi$ background, and the short-dashed line is the total background.[]{data-label=\"fig:mpipi_980\"}](f0_pippim.png \"fig:\"){width=\"200pt\"} (-35,115)[(a)]{} ![The spectra (a)\u00a0$M(\\pi^+\\pi^-)$ and (b)\u00a0$M(\\pi^0\\pi^0)$ (three entries per event) with $K^+K^-$ in the $\\phi$ signal region (black dots) and in the $\\phi$ sideband regions (hatched histogram). The solid curve is the full fit, the long-dashed curve is the $f_0(980)$ signal, the dotted line is the non-$\\phi$ background, and the short-dashed line is the total background.[]{data-label=\"fig:mpipi_980\"}](f0_pi0pi0.png \"fig:\"){width=\"200pt\"} (-35,115)[(b)]{}\n\nStudy of $\\chi_{cJ}\\rightarrow \\eta'K^+K^-$\n-------------------------------------------\n\nUntil now, $K_0^*(1430)$ has been observed in $K_0^*(1430)\\rightarrow K\\pi$ only, but it is also expected to couple to $\\eta'K$\u00a0[@etapk1; @etapk2]. $\\chi_{c1}\\rightarrow\\eta'K^+K^-$ is a promising channel to search for $K_0^*(1430)$ and study its properties while decays of $\\chi_{c0,2}\\rightarrow K_0^*(1430)K$ are forbidden by spin-parity conservation.\n\nUsing the $\\psi(3686)$ data sample, the decay $\\chi_{cJ}\\rightarrow \\eta'K^+K^-$ with $\\eta'\\rightarrow \\gamma \\rho^0$ and $\\eta'\\rightarrow\\eta\\pi^{+}\\pi^{-}$, $\\eta\\rightarrow\\gamma\\gamma$ is studied for the first time\u00a0[@etapkk]. Abundant structures on the $K^+K^-$ and $\\eta K^{\\pm}$ invariant mass spectra are observed for $\\chi_{c1}$ candidate events, and a partial wave analysis is performed for the decay $\\chi_{c1}\\rightarrow \\eta'K^+K^-$. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:metapk\\] shows the comparisons of data and fit projections in terms of the invariant mass spectra of $\\eta'K^{\\pm}$ for $\\chi_{c1}$ candidate events. The partial branching fractions of $\\chi_{c1}$ decay processes with intermediate states $f_0(980)$, $f_0(1710)$, $f_2'(1525)$ and $K_0^*(1430)$ are measured for the first time.\n\n![image](project_etapkk_1.png){width=\"200pt\"} (-30,155)[(a)]{} ![image](project_etapkk_2.png){width=\"200pt\"} (-30,155)[(b)]{}\n\nStudy of $\\chi_{cJ}$ Decaying into $\\phi K^*(892)\\bar{K}$\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe nature of the axial-vector candidate, $h_1(1380)$ is still controversial\u00a0[@13801; @13802]. The direct observation of the $h_1(1380)$ in experiments and the precise measurement of its resonance parameters may shed light on its nature and aid in identifying the ground state axial-vector meson nonet in the quark model.\n\nUsing the $\\psi(3686)$ data sample, the first measurement of $\\chi_{cJ}\\rightarrow \\phi K_S^0 K^{\\pm} \\pi^{\\mp}$ and $\\chi_{cJ}\\rightarrow \\phi K^+ K^- \\pi^0$ has been reported\u00a0[@k892]. The decays are dominated by the three-body reaction $\\chi_{cJ}$ decaying into $\\phi K^*(892)\\bar{K}$. The branching fractions for this reaction via neutral and charged $K^*(892)$ are measured for the first time. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:1380\\] shows the invariant mass spectrum of $K\\bar{K}\\pi$, a significant excess of events above the phase space expectation is observed near the $K^*(892)\\bar{K}$ mass threshold in the decays of $\\chi_{c1,2}$ with a significance greater than $10\\sigma$. The observed structure has negative $C$ parity, and is expected to be the $h_1(1380)$ state, considering its mass, width and decay through $K^*(892)\\bar{K}$. The mass and width of the $h_1(1380)$ are determined to ($1412\\pm4\\pm8$) MeV/c$^2$ and ($84\\pm12\\pm40$) MeV, respectively. This is the first evidence of the $h_1(1380)$ in its decay to $K^*(892)\\bar{K}$. Evidence is also found for the decays $\\chi_{cJ}\\rightarrow \\phi\\phi(1680)$ and $\\chi_{cJ}\\rightarrow \\phi\\phi(1850)$,but with significances less than $5\\sigma$.\n\n![The sum of $K_S^0 K^{\\pm} \\pi^{\\mp}$ and $K^{\\pm} \\pi^{\\mp}\\pi^0$ mass spectra in the $\\chi_{c1}$ and $\\chi_{c2}$ mass regions. The markers with error bars represent the data; the dash curve the $h_1(1380)$ signal; the dash-dot-dot curve the $\\phi(1680)$ signal; and the dash-dot curve the $\\phi(1850)$ signal.[]{data-label=\"fig:1380\"}](1380.png){width=\"200pt\"}\n\nSUMMARY\n=======\n\nBased on 2.92 fb$^{-1}$ data sample taken at $\\sqrt{s}$ = 3.773 GeV, 1.06$\\times10^8$ $\\psi(3686)$ events and 1.31$\\times10^9$ $J/\\psi$ events collected with BESIII detector at the BEPCII collider, studies have been performed to search for the radiative transitions of $\\psi(3770)$ and rare decays of charmonium, and study light hadron structures and properties. The upper limits on branching fractions are set for radiative transitions of $\\psi(3770)$, $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow \\gamma \\eta_c(\\eta_c(2S))$ and $\\psi(3770)\\rightarrow \\gamma \\chi_{c2}$, the isospin-violating decay $\\chi_{c0,2}\\rightarrow\\pi^0\\eta_c$, and $C$-violation decay $J/\\psi\\rightarrow\\gamma\\gamma$, $\\gamma\\phi$. The OZI-suppressed decay $J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\pi^0\\phi$ is observed for the first time. The isospin-violating decay $J/\\psi\\rightarrow \\phi\\pi^0 f_0(980)$, $f_0(980)\\rightarrow\\pi^+\\pi^-$ is observed with the width of the $f_0(980)$ obtained from the dipion mass spectrum found to be much smaller than the world average value. The decay $\\chi_{c1,2}\\rightarrow \\eta'K^+K^-$ is studied for the first time. Intermediate process $\\chi_{c1}\\rightarrow \\eta'f_0(980)$, $\\chi_{c1}\\rightarrow\\eta'f_0(1710)$, $\\chi_{c2}\\rightarrow\\eta'f_2'(1525)$ and $\\chi_{c1}\\rightarrow\nK_0^*(1430)^{\\pm}K^{\\mp}$ are observed and their branching fractions are measured. The branching fractions of decay $\\chi_{cJ}$ decaying into $\\phi K^*(892)\\bar{K}$ are measured for the first time and the first evidence of the $h_1(1380)$ in its decay to $K^*(892)\\bar{K}$ is obtained. These measurements provide important information to understand the nature of $\\psi(3770)$, the isospin-violation mechanism and properties of light hadrons, such as $f_0(980)$, $K_0^*(1430)$ and $h_1(1380)$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- |\n    Wei Xiao$^\\dagger$, Hao Helen Zhang$^\\ddagger$, and Wenbin Lu$^\\dagger$\\\n    \\\n    \\\nbibliography:\n- 'OTR.bib'\ntitle: Robust regression for optimal individualized treatment rules\n---\n\n> [*Abstract:*]{} Because different patients may response quite differently to the same drug or treatment, there is increasing interest in discovering individualized treatment rule. In particular, people are eager to find the optimal individualized treatment rules, which if followed by the whole patient population would lead to the \u201cbest\u201d outcome. In this paper, we propose new estimators based on robust regression with general loss functions to estimate the optimal individualized treatment rules. The new estimators possess the following nice properties: first, they are robust against skewed, heterogeneous, heavy-tailed errors or outliers; second, they are robust against misspecification of the baseline function; third, under certain situations, the new estimator coupled with pinball loss approximately maximizes the outcome\u2019s conditional quantile instead of conditional mean, which leads to a different optimal individualized treatment rule comparing with traditional Q- and A-learning. Consistency and asymptotic normality of the proposed estimators are established. Their empirical performance is demonstrated via extensive simulation studies and an analysis of an AIDS data.\n>\n> [*Key words and phrases:*]{} Optimal individualized treatment rules; Personalized medicine; Quantile regression; Robust regression.\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nGiven the same drug or treatment, different patients may respond quite differently. Factors causing individual variability in drug response are multi-fold and complex. This has raised increasing interests of individualized medicine, where customized medicine or treatment is recommended to each individual according to his/her characteristics, including genetic, physiological, demographic, environmental, and other clinical information. The rule that applied in personalized medicine to match each patient with a target treatment is called individualized treatment rule (ITR), and our goal is to find the \u201coptimal\u201d one, which if followed by the whole patient population would lead to the \u201cbest\u201d outcome. For many complex diseases such as cancer and AIDS, the optimal individualized treatment rule or regime is a dynamical treatment process, involving a sequence of treatment decisions made at different time points throughout the disease evolving course.\n\nQ-learning [@watkins1992q; @murphy2005generalization] and A-learning [@murphy2003optimal; @robins2004optimal] are two main approaches for finding optimal dynamic individualized treatment rules based on clinical trials or observational data. Q-learning is based on posing a regression model to estimate the conditional expectation of the outcome at each time point, and then applying a backward recursive procedure to fit the model. A-learning, on the other hand, only requires modeling the contrast function of the treatments at each time point, is therefore more flexible and robust to a model misspecification. See [@schulte2014q] for a complete review and comparison of these two methods under various scenarios, in terms of the parameter estimation accuracy and the estimation of expected outcomes. Q- and A-learning have good performance when model is correctly specified but are sensitive to model misspecification. To overcome this shortcoming, several \u201cdirect\u201d methods have been proposed, which maximize value functions directly instead of modeling the conditional mean. See [@ZhaoYingQi2012OWL; @Zhang2013Robust] for example.\n\nAll existing methods for optimal individualized treatment rule estimation, including Q-learning and A-learning, belong to mean regression as they estimate the optimal estimator by maximizing expected outcomes. In the case of single decision point, Q-learning is equivalent to the least-squares regression. Least-squares estimates are optimal if the errors are i.i.d. normal random variables. However, skewed, heavy-tailed, heteroscedastic errors or outliers of the response are frequently encountered. In such situations, the efficiency of the least square estimates is impaired. One extreme example is that when the response takes i.i.d. Cauchy errors, neither Q-learning nor A-learning can consistently estimate the optimal ITR. For example, in AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 175 (ACTG175) data [@hammer1996trial], HIV-infected subjects were randomized to four regimes with equal probabilities, and our objective is to find the optimal ITR for each patient based on their age, weight, race, gender and some other baseline measurements. The response CD4 count of the data follows a skewed, heteroscedastic errors, which weakens the efficiency of classical Q- and A-learning. A method to estimate optimal ITR which is robust against skewed, heavy-tailed, heteroscedastic errors or outliers is highly valuable. One possible solution is to construct the optimal decision rule based on the conditional median or quantiles of response given covariates than based on average effects.\n\nIn the following, we present a simple example where a quantile-based decision rule is more preferable than a mean-based decision rules. We use higher value of response $Y$ to indicate more favorable outcomes. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:plot1\\] plots the conditional density of $Y$ under two treatments, $A$ and $B$, given a binary covariate $X$ which takes the value of male and female. Under the comparison based on conditional means, $A$ and $B$ are exactly equivalent. However, conditional quantiles provide us more insight. For the male group, the conditional distribution of response given treatment $B$ is a log-normal and skewed to the right. Therefore, treatment $B$ is less favorable when either 50% or 25% conditional quantile are considered. For the female group, the conditional distribution of response given treatment $A$ is a standard normal while a Cauchy distribution given treatment $B$. Therefore, if we make a comparison based on $25\\%$ conditional quantile, treatment $A$ is more favorable.\n\n![The distribution functions of the response $Y$, in a randomized clinical trial with two treatments, $A$ and $B$, for male (two panels on the left) and female (two panels on the right). The solid lines with triangle symbol, dashed line, and dotted lines are the conditional mean, $50\\%$ quantile, and $25\\%$ quantile functions of $Y$ given the gender and the treatment, respectively.[]{data-label=\"fig:plot1\"}](plot1.eps){width=\"6in\"}\n\nIn this paper, we propose a general framework for optimal individualized treatment rule estimation based on robust regression, including quantile regression and the regression based on Huber\u2019s loss and $\\epsilon$-insensitive loss. The proposed methodology has the following desired features. First, the new decision rule obtained by maximizing the conditional quantile, which is suitable for skewed, heavy-tailed errors or outliers. Second, the proposed estimator requires only modeling the contrast function between two treatments, and is therefore robust against misspecification of the baseline function. This property is shared by A-learning. Third, empirical results from our comprehensive numerical study suggest favorable performance of the new robust regression estimator.\n\nThe rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we first review the classical Q- and A- learning methods. Then we propose the new procedure and method and discuss its connection with existing methods. In Section 3, we study and prove the asymptotic properties of the proposed method, including consistency and asymptotic normality. In Section 4, a comprehensive numerical study is conducted to assess finite sample performance of the new procedure. In Section 5, we apply the method to ACTG175 data. Concluding remarks are given in Section 6. Throughout the paper, we use upper case letters to denote random variables and lower case letters to denote their values.\n\nNew Optimal Treatment Estimation Framework: Robust Regression\n=============================================================\n\nBasic Notations and Assumptions\n-------------------------------\n\nFor simplicity, we consider a single stage randomized clinical trial with two treatments. For each patient, the observed data is $({{\\bm X}},A,Y)$, where ${{\\bm X}}\\in\\mathcal{X}={\\mathrm{I \\! R} \\mathit{^{p}}}$ denotes the baseline covariates, $A\\in\\mathcal{A}=\\{0,1\\}$ denotes the treatment assigned to the patient, and $Y$ is the real-valued response, which is coded so that higher values indicate more favorable clinical outcomes. An ITR $g$ is a function mapping from $\\mathcal{X}$ to $\\mathcal{A}$.\n\nWe first review the potential outcome framework [@neyman1923applications; @rubin1974estimating; @rubin1986comment]. The potential outcome $Y^*(a)$ is the outcome for an arbitrary individual has s/he received treatment $a$. In actuality, at most one of the potential outcomes can be observed for any individual. The optimal ITR under mean regression, which maximizes the expected outcome, is $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu={\\mathrm{argmax}}_{g\\in\\mathcal{G}}{\\mbox{E}}[Y^*\\{g({{\\bm X}})\\}]$. Define the propensity score $\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\triangleq P(A=1|{{\\bm X}})$. Following [@rubin1974estimating] and [@rubin1986comment], we can compute the expectation of the potential outcome under the following two key assumptions.\n\n-   **Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA):** a patient\u2019s observed outcome is the same as the potential outcome for the treatment that s/he actually received. Based on [@rubin1986comment], the SUTVA assumption implies that the value of the potential outcome for a subject does not depend on what treatments other subject receive. Specifically, we can write the SUTVA assumption as $$Y_i=Y_i^*(1)A_i+Y_i^*(0)(1-A_i),\\;i=1,\\ldots,n.$$ This is also referred as consistency assumption.\n\n-   **Strong Ignorability Assumption:** the treatment assignment $A$ for an individual is independent of the potential outcomes conditional on the covariates ${{\\bm X}}$, i.e., $A\\bot \\{Y^*(a)\\}_{a\\in\\mathcal{A}}|{{\\bm X}}$. For a randomized clinical trial, this assumption is satisfied automatically. For an observational study, as clinicians make decisions based only on all past available information, this assumption essentially assumes no unmeasured confounders.\n\nFor consistent estimation of the optimal treatment rule, we also need to assume\n\n-   **Positivity Assumption:** $0<\\pi({{\\bm x}})<1$, $\\forall {{\\bm x}}\\in\\mathcal{X}$.\n\nExisting Learning Methods: Q-learning and A-learning\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nDefine the Q-function $Q({{\\bm x}},a)\\triangleq{\\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\\bm x}},a)$. Under assumptions (C1)-(C2), one can show that $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu({{\\bm X}})={\\mathrm{argmax}}_{a\\in\\mathcal{A}}Q({{\\bm x}},a)={\\mathrm{argmax}}_{a\\in\\mathcal{A}}{\\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\\bm X}},A=a)$. This suggests that, in order to find $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu$, we only need to estimate the conditional expectation of $Y$ given $({{\\bm X}},A)$. This result serves as the foundation of Q- and A-learning framework. We further define the value function $V_\\mu(g)={\\mbox{E}}_{{{\\bm X}}}[Q\\{{{\\bm X}},g({{\\bm X}})\\}]$ which is simply the marginal mean outcome under the ITR $g$, and $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu={\\mathrm{argmax}}_gV_\\mu(g)$.\n\nDefine the $\\tau$-th conditional quantile of $Y$ given $({{\\bm X}},A)$ as $Q_{\\tau}({{\\bm X}},A)\\triangleq\\inf\\{y: F_{Y|{{\\bm X}},A}(y)\\geq\\tau\\}$. Then we define the value function based on the $\\tau$-th conditional quantile as $V_{\\tau-q}(g)={\\mbox{E}}_{{{\\bm X}}}[Q_{\\tau}\\{{{\\bm X}},g({{\\bm X}})\\}]$, which is an analog to the definition of $V_\\mu(g)$. The optimal ITR which maximizes the $\\tau$-th conditional quantile is then defined as $$g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_{\\tau}({{\\bm x}})=\\underset{a\\in\\mathcal{A}}{\\mathrm{argmax}}Q_{\\tau}({{\\bm x}},a),\\;\\tau\\in[0,1],$$ and $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\tau={\\mathrm{argmax}}_gV_{\\tau-q}(g)$.\n\nConsider the general model ${\\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\\bm X}},A)=h_0({{\\bm X}})+AC_0({{\\bm X}})$, where $h_0({{\\bm X}})$ represents the baseline effect, and $C_0({{\\bm X}})$ denotes the contrast effect as $$C_0({{\\bm X}})={\\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\\bm X}},A=1)-{\\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\\bm X}},A=0).$$ Therefore, $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu({{\\bm X}})={\\mathrm{1}}\\{C_0({{\\bm X}})>0$}. In Q-learning, a parametric model is often employed as a working model, $${\\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\\bm X}},A)=h({{\\bm X}}; {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+AC({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}),$$ where $h({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ and $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ are posited parametric models for $h_0({{\\bm X}})$ and $C_0({{\\bm X}})$ respectively. Commonly a linear model is assumed for simplicity and interpretability, i.e., $h({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}$ and $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}$, where $\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}=({{\\mathbf 1}},{{\\bm X}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$. Given the observation $\\{(Y_i,{{\\bm X}}_i,A_i);\\;i=1,\\ldots,n\\}$, the Q-learning procedure estimates the parameters $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ by minimizing the squared error loss $$L_{1n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=\\frac{1}{n}\\sum_{i=1}^{n}\\left\\{Y_i-h({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-A_iC({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})\\right\\}^2.$$ Denote the optimized point as $(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^Q,\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}}^Q)$. The estimated optimal ITR based on Q-learning is then $\\hat{g}^{Q}({{\\bm x}})\\triangleq{\\mathrm{1}}\\{C({{\\bm x}};\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^Q)>0\\}$, which is a consistent estimator of $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu({{\\bm x}})$ if both $h({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ and $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ are correctly specified.\n\nA-learning is a semiparametric improvement of Q-learning by modeling only the contrast function $C_0({{\\bm X}})$ rather than the full Q-function. This is reasonable based on the observation that the optimal ITR $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu$ only depends on $C_0({{\\bm X}})$. By positing $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ for the contrast function, in A-learning, one can estimate coefficients ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}$ by solving the following estimating equation $$\\sum_{i=1}^{n}\\lambda({{\\bm X}}_i)\\left\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)\\right\\}\\left\\{Y_i-A_iC({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})-h({{\\bm X}}_i)\\right\\}=0,\n\\label{eq:eeofAlearn}$$ where $\\lambda({{\\bm X}}_i)$ and $h({{\\bm X}}_i)$ are arbitrary functions, and $\\lambda({{\\bm X}}_i)$ has the same dimension as ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}$. Denote the solution to by $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{A}$. If $\\mathrm{var}(Y|X)$ is constant and $C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ is correctly specified, the optimal choices of $\\lambda(\\cdot)$ and $h(\\cdot)$ are $\\lambda({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})=\\partial/\\partial {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ and $h({{\\bm X}}_i)=h_0({{\\bm X}}_i)$ [@robins2004optimal]. In practice, one may pose models, say $\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\phi$}}})$ and $h({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ for $\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)$ and $h({{\\bm X}}_i)$ respectively, and take $\\lambda({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})=\\partial/\\partial {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$. Under randomized designs, the propensity score $\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)$ is known. Otherwise, a logistic model can be proposed. Under the assumption that $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ is correctly specified, the double robustness property of A-learning states that as long as one of $\\pi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\phi$}}})$ and $h({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ is correctly specified, $\\hat{g}^{A}({{\\bm x}})\\triangleq{\\mathrm{1}}\\{C({{\\bm x}};\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^A)>0\\}$ is consistent estimator of $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu({{\\bm x}})$.\n\nRecently, [-@lu2011variable] propose a variant of A-learning by a loss-based learning framework. Rewrite $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\\bm X}},A) =& h_0({{\\bm X}})+AC_0({{\\bm X}})\\\\\n=& \\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}C_0({{\\bm X}}),\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})=h_0({{\\bm X}})+\\pi({{\\bm X}})C_0({{\\bm X}})$. Based on the expression above, [@lu2011variable] propose to estimate $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ by minimizing the following loss function $$L_{2n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=\\frac{1}{n}\\sum_{i=1}^{n}\\left[Y_i-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)\\}C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})\\right]^2,\n\\label{eq:A-loss}$$ where $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$, $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ are proposed models for $\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})$ and $C_0({{\\bm X}})$ respectively. Denote the minimizer of as $(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^A_{LS},\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}}^{A}_{LS})$. [@lu2011variable] show that $\\hat{g}^{A}_{LS}({{\\bm x}})\\triangleq{\\mathrm{1}}\\{C({{\\bm x}};\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^A_{LS})>0\\}$ is a consistent estimator of $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu({{\\bm x}})$ when the propensity score $\\pi({{\\bm X}})$ is known or can be consistently estimated from the data, and $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ is correctly specified. We refer to this method as least square A-learning (lsA-learning).\n\nOne main advantage of the lsA-learning, compared to the classical A-learning, is its square loss, making the procedure easy to be coupled with penalized regression to achieve variable selection in high dimensional data. Specifically, [@lu2011variable] propose to identify important nonzero coefficients in ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}$ by applying an adaptive LASSO penalty to . Under some regularity conditions, both the selection consistency and asymptotic normality of the estimator are established in [@lu2011variable]. The downside of lsA-learning is that one direction of the double robustness property of the classical A-learning is lost, i.e., when $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ is correctly specified, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}$ may still not be consistent if the propensity score $\\pi({{\\bm X}})$ is not consistently estimated. Finally, it can be shown that lsA-learning and Q-learning are equivalent when $\\pi({{\\bm X}})$ is constant and both $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ and $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ take the linear form (with the space of $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ included in the space of $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$). Similar properties hold for A-learning and Q-learning [@schulte2014q].\n\nNew Proposal: Robust Regression\n-------------------------------\n\nSkewed, heavy-tailed, heteroscedastic errors or outliers of the response $Y$ are frequently encountered in clinical trials. It is well known that ordinary least square estimation fails to produce a reliable estimator in such situations. The immediate consequence is the efficiency loss in the estimators produced by Q-, A-, and lsA-learning. This motivates us to adopt robust regression techniques in optimal treatment regime estimation.\n\nWe consider the following additive model, $$Y_i=\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}}_i)+\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)\\}C({{\\bm X}}_i;\\beta_0)+\\epsilon_i,\\; i=1,\\ldots,n,\n\\label{eq:model_nointeraction}$$ where $\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})$ is the baseline function, $C({{\\bm X}};\\beta_0)$ is the contrast function, $\\pi({{\\bm X}})$ is the propensity score, and $\\epsilon$ is the error term which satisfies the conditional independence assumption $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$. We point out that the error term defined in can be very general. For example, we could take $\\epsilon=\\sum_{j=1}^{K}\\sigma_j({{\\bm X}})e_j$ for any $K\\geq 1$ that allows the error distribution to change with ${{\\bm X}}$, used to model heterogeneous errors, where $\\sigma_j({{\\bm X}})$ are arbitrary positive functions and $e_{j}\\perp (A,{{\\bm X}})$ for all $j=1,\\ldots,K$. Throughout the paper, we assume $\\{(Y_i,{{\\bm X}}_i,A_i,\\epsilon_i),i=1,\\ldots,n\\}$ are i.i.d random samples of the population.\n\nWe propose to estimate $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ by minimizing $$L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=\\frac{1}{n}\\sum_{i=1}^{n}M\\left[Y_i-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)\\}C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})\\right],\n\\label{eq:A-general-loss}$$ where ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma$, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}\\in\\mathcal{B}$ and $M:{\\mathrm{I \\! R} \\mathit{^{\\rightarrow}}} [0,\\infty)$ is a convex function with minimum achieved at 0. Denote the minimizer of as $(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^R_{M},\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}}^{R}_{M})$, and the estimated ITR is then $\\hat{g}^{R}_M({{\\bm x}})\\triangleq{\\mathrm{1}}\\{C({{\\bm x}};\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^R_M)>0\\}$. In the following, we refer the robust regression with loss function $M(x)$ as RR(M)-learning. In this article, we consider the following three types of loss functions, i.e., the pinball loss $$M(x)=\\rho_\\tau(x)\\triangleq\n\\begin{cases}\n(\\tau-1)x, &\\text{if } x<0\\\\\n\\tau x, &\\text{if } x\\geq0\n\\end{cases}$$ where $0<\\tau<1$, the Huber loss $$M(x)=H_\\alpha(x)\\triangleq\n\\begin{cases}\n0.5x^2, &\\text{if } |x|<\\alpha\\\\\n\\alpha|x|-0.5\\alpha^2, &\\text{if } |x|\\geq\\alpha\n\\end{cases}$$ for some $\\alpha>0$, and the $\\epsilon$-insensitive loss $$M(x)=J_\\epsilon(x)\\triangleq\\max(0, |x|-\\epsilon)$$ for some $\\epsilon>0$. The pinball loss are frequently applied for quantile regression [@koenker2005quantile], and the Huber losses and the $\\epsilon$-insensitive are robust against heavy tailed errors or outliers. A dramatic difference of pinball loss, Huber loss and $\\epsilon$-insensitive loss, compared with the square loss, is that they penalize large deviances linearly instead of quadratically. This property makes them more robust when dealing with responses with non-normal type of errors.\n\nAsymptotic Properties {#section:asymptotic}\n=====================\n\nConsistency of Robust Regression: Pinball Loss\n----------------------------------------------\n\nUnder the conditional independence assumption $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nQ({{\\bm X}},A)=& \\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}C({{\\bm X}};\\beta_0)+\\mu_\\epsilon({{\\bm X}});\\\\\nQ_\\tau({{\\bm X}},A)=& \\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}C({{\\bm X}};\\beta_0)+F^{-1}_{\\epsilon}({{\\bm X}};\\tau).\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mu_{\\epsilon}({{\\bm X}})$ and $F^{-1}_{\\epsilon}({{\\bm X}};\\tau)$ denote the mean and the $\\tau$-th quantile of $\\epsilon$ conditional on ${{\\bm X}}$ respectively. Therefore, in this situation, we have $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_\\mu=g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_{\\tau}={\\mathrm{1}}\\{C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0)>0\\}$. In other words, the underlying ITR which maximize the population mean and $\\tau$-th quantile are equivalent. For a good ITR $\\hat{g}={\\mathrm{1}}\\{C({{\\bm X}};\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}})>0\\}$, it is reasonable to require $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}$ to be a consistent estimator of ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$. This consistency result is first shown for the robust regression with pinball loss, which is given in Theorem 1. We allocate all the proofs into the Appendix A.\n\nUnder regularity conditions (A1)-(A8) in the Appendix A, if the contrast function in is correctly specified and $\\pi({{\\bm x}})$ is known, then $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)}\\inprob{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$ for all $\\tau\\in(0,1)$, where $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)}$ is the solution of when $M(x)=\\rho_{\\tau}(x)$.\n\n**Remarks:**\n\n1.  Theorem 1 doesn\u2019t assume the finiteness of $E(Y)$. Therefore it can be applied to the cases when $\\epsilon_i$ follows a Cauchy distribution.\n\n2.  After fitting the model, the Assumption (A2), $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$, can be verified by applying conditional independence test with $\\hat{r}(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}},\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}})$ and $A$ given ${{\\bm X}}$, where $\\hat{r}(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}},\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}})$ is the estimated residual and $\\hat{r}(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}},\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}})=Y-\\varphi({{\\bm X}};\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}})-\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}C({{\\bm X}};\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}})$. See [@lawrance1976conditional; @su2007consistent; @song2007testing; @huang2010testing; @zhang2012kernel] for more discussion of conditional independence hypothesis tests. In particular, we demonstrate the usefulness of the test by applying the Kernel-based conditional independence test (KCI-test, [@zhang2012kernel]) in Section 5. KCI-test doesn\u2019t assume functional forms among variables and thus suits our need.\n\nWhen the conditional independence assumption ($\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$) does not hold, $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)}$ may no longer be a consistent estimator of ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$. This is intuitively reasonable as $\\epsilon$ contains extra information with respect to $A$. In fact, a general result which can be derived in this case is that, $(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)},\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)})$ minimizes a weighed mean-square error loss function with specification error [@angrist2006quantile; @lee2013interpretation].\n\nInstead of assuming response $Y$ takes an additive error term $\\epsilon$ as in , we assume the conditional quantile function $Q_\\tau({{\\bm X}},A)=\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0(\\tau))$, where we redundantly represent the baseline function and contrast function as $\\varphi_0(\\cdot)$ and $C(\\cdot)$ respectively. Notice that we use ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0(\\tau)$ instead of ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$ to emphasize that the true ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}$ may vary with respect to $\\tau$. The proposed model is $\\hat{Q}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ with $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ correctly specified. Define $$\\label{eq:population_beta_tau}\n\\left({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}(\\tau),{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)\\right)=\\underset{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}\\in\\mathcal{B},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma}{\\mathrm{argmin}}{\\mbox{E}}\\left[\\rho_{\\tau}\\{Y-\\hat{Q}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\}\n-\\rho_{\\tau}\\{Y-\\hat{Q}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}',{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}')\\}\\right]$$ where $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}',{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}')$ is any fixed point in $\\mathcal{B}\\times\\Gamma$. Define the QR specification error as $\\Delta_{\\tau}({{\\bm X}},A;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\triangleq\\hat{Q}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-Q_\\tau({{\\bm X}},A)$. Define the quantile-specific residual as $\\epsilon_{\\tau}\\triangleq Y-Q_\\tau({{\\bm X}},A)$ with conditional density function $f_{\\epsilon_{\\tau}}(\\cdot|{{\\bm X}},A)$. Then we have the following approximation theorem. The proof of the theorem follows Theorem 1 of [@angrist2006quantile], and is omitted for brevity.\n\nSuppose that (i) the conditional density $f_{Y}(y|{{\\bm X}},A)$ exists a.s.; (ii)${\\mbox{E}}[Q_{\\tau}({{\\bm X}},A)]$ and ${\\mbox{E}}[\\Delta^2_{\\tau}({{\\bm X}},A;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})]$ are finite; (iii) $\\left({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}(\\tau),{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)\\right)$ uniquely solves . Then $$\\left({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}(\\tau),{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)\\right)=\\underset{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}}{\\mathrm{argmin}}{\\mbox{E}}[w_{\\tau}({{\\bm X}},A;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\Delta^2_{\\tau}({{\\bm X}},A;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})]$$ where $$w_{\\tau}({{\\bm X}},A;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=\\int_{0}^{1}(1-u)f_{\\epsilon_{\\tau}}(u\\Delta_{\\tau}({{\\bm X}},A;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})|{{\\bm X}},A)du.$$ \\[thm:approximation\\_quantile\\]\n\n**Remarks:**\n\n1.  Theorem 2 shows that $\\hat{Q}\\left({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}(\\tau),{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)\\right)$ is a weighted least square approximation to $Q_{\\tau}({{\\bm X}},A)$. In other word, $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau))+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}(\\tau))$ is close to $\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0(\\tau))$. So even though it is not true that ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}(\\tau)={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0(\\tau)$ holds exactly, the difference between them is small in general . This coupled with the fact that $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)}\\inprob{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}(\\tau)$ (proved in Theorem \\[thm:asymptotic\\_normality\\_pinball\\]), leads to the conclusion that approximately ITR $\\hat{g}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)}({{\\bm x}})$ $(\\triangleq{\\mathrm{1}}\\{C({{\\bm x}};\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^R_{\\rho(\\tau)})>0\\})$ maximizes the $\\tau$-th conditional quantile. This observation is justified numerically in Section 4.2.\n\n2.  When there exists ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}_0\\in\\Gamma$ such that $\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})\\equiv\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}_0)$, then we have ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}(\\tau)={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0(\\tau)$.\n\nConsistency of Robust Regression: Other Losses\n----------------------------------------------\n\nUnder model and the assumption $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$, similar consistency results can be established for Huber loss and the $\\epsilon$-insensitive loss, as stated in Theorem \\[thm:consistency\\_huber\\].\n\n\\[thm:consistency\\_huber\\] Under regularity conditions (A1)-(A8), if the contrast function in is correctly specified and $\\pi({{\\bm x}})$ is known, then we have\n\n(a) $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{H(\\alpha)}\\inprob{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$ for all $\\alpha>0$, where $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{H(\\alpha)}$ is the solution of when $M(x)=H_{\\alpha}(x)$;\n\n(b) $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{J(\\epsilon)}\\inprob{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$ for all $\\epsilon>0$, where $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{J(\\epsilon)}$ is the solution of when $M(x)=J_{\\epsilon}(x)$.\n\nAsymptotic Normality: Pinball Loss\n----------------------------------\n\nWithout loss of generality, in this section we assume both the $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ and $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$ take the linear form: $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}$ and $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})=\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}$, where $\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}=(1,{{\\bm X}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$. Denote $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}(\\tau)=\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)}$ and $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}}(\\tau)=\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)}$. Denote ${{\\bm W}}=(\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}},\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}(\\tau)=({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}(\\tau){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$, $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}}(\\tau)=(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}(\\tau){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}},\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}}(\\tau){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$ and $J(\\tau)\\triangleq{\\mbox{E}}\\left[f_Y({{\\bm W}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}(\\tau)|{{\\bm X}},A){{\\bm W}}{{\\bm W}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\right]$. Under the following regularity conditions, which is the same as the assumptions assumed in [@angrist2006quantile] and [@lee2013interpretation], we have the asymptotic normality of $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}}(\\tau)$, which is given in Theorem \\[thm:asymptotic\\_normality\\_pinball\\].\n\n-   $\\{(Y_i,{{\\bm X}}_i,A_i,\\epsilon_i),i=1,\\ldots,n\\}$ are i.i.d random variables;\n\n-   the conditional density $f_Y(y|{{\\bm X}}={{\\bm x}},A=a))$ exists, and is bounded and uniformly continuous in y, uniformly in ${{\\bm x}}$ over the support of ${{\\bm X}}$;\n\n-   $J(\\tau)$ is positive definite for all $\\tau\\in(0,1)$, where ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}(\\tau)$ is uniquely defined in ;\n\n-   ${\\mbox{E}}\\|{{\\bm X}}\\|^{2+\\epsilon}$ for some $\\epsilon>0$.\n\n\\[thm:asymptotic\\_normality\\_pinball\\] If regularity conditions (B1)-(B4) are hold, we have\n\n1.  (**Uniform Consistency**) $\\sup_{\\tau}\\|\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}}(\\tau)-{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}(\\tau)\\|=o_p(1)$;\n\n2.  (**Asymptotic Normality**) $J(\\cdot)\\sqrt{n}(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}}(\\cdot)-{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}(\\cdot))$ converge in distribution to a zero mean Gaussian process with covariance function $\\Sigma(\\tau,\\tau')$ defined as $$\\Sigma(\\tau,\\tau')={\\mbox{E}}\\left[\\left(\\tau-{\\mathrm{1}}\\{Y<{{\\bm W}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}(\\tau)\\}\\right)\n            \\left(\\tau'-{\\mathrm{1}}\\{Y<{{\\bm W}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}(\\tau)\\}\\right){{\\bm W}}{{\\bm W}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\right].$$\n\nThe proof is given in [@angrist2006quantile], and the asymptotic covariance matrix of $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}}(\\tau)$ can be estimated by either a bootstrap procedure [@hahn1997bayesian] or a nonparametric kernel method [@angrist2006quantile]. We adopt the parametric bootstrap approach to estimate the asymptotic covariance matrix in Section 5. Under model the result of Theorem \\[thm:asymptotic\\_normality\\_pinball\\] can be further simplified, which is given in Theorem 5.\n\nUnder the condition of Theorem 4, if further we assume $Y=\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0+\\epsilon$, and $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$, then\n\n1.  $\\sup_{\\tau}\\|\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}(\\tau)-{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0\\|=o_p(1)$;\n\n2.  $\\sqrt{n}(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}(\\tau)-{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0)\\indist N({{\\mathbf 0}}, J_{11}^{-1}(\\tau)\\Sigma_{11}(\\tau,\\tau)J_{11}^{-1}(\\tau))$, where $$\\begin{aligned}\n            J_{11}(\\tau)=& {\\mbox{E}}\\left[f_{\\epsilon}\\left(\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)-\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})|{{\\bm X}}\\right)\n            \\pi({{\\bm X}})\\{1-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\right],\\\\\n            \\Sigma_{11}(\\tau,\\tau)=& {\\mbox{E}}\\left\\{\\left[\\tau-{\\mathrm{1}}\\{\\epsilon<\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)-\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})\\}\\right]^2\n            \\pi({{\\bm X}})\\{1-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\right\\}.\n            \\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we have $\\Sigma_{11}(\\tau,\\tau)\\leq\\left(\\tau^2+|1-2\\tau|\\right){\\mbox{E}}\\left[\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\{1-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\right]$.\n\nComparing the asymptotic normality of $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}(\\tau)$ with $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^A_{LS}$ yields interesting insights. Assuming that ${\\mbox{E}}(Y|{{\\bm X}},A)=\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$ and $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}^*)={\\mathrm{argmin}}_{({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})}{\\mbox{E}}[Y-\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}]^2$, the asymptotic normality property of $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}$ can then be established, which is summarized in Theorem \\[thm:lsA\\]. Its proof has been omitted, and readers are referred to [@lu2011variable].\n\n\\[thm:lsA\\] Under the regularity condition of A1-A4 of [@lu2011variable], $$\\sqrt{n}(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}-{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0)\\indist N(0,U_{11}^{-1}\\Omega_{11}U_{11}^{-1}),$$ where $U_{11}={\\mbox{E}}\\left[\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\{1-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\right]$ and $$\\Omega_{11}={\\mbox{E}}\\left[\\left\\{\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})-\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}^*)+\\epsilon\\right\\}^2\n    \\pi({{\\bm X}})\\{1-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\right]$$\n\n**Remarks:**\n\n1.  When the family of functions $\\{\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}),{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma\\}$ cannot well approximate the unknown baseline function $\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})$, the $\\Omega_{11}$ term in the asymptotic variance of $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}$ may explode, which makes $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}$ less efficient than $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}(\\tau)$.\n\n2.  When $Y=\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\gamma_0+\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0+\\epsilon$, $\\epsilon\\perp(A,{{\\bm X}})$, $\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\equiv0.5$ and $\\epsilon\\sim N(0,\\sigma^2)$, the asymptotic variance of $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}(\\tau=0.5)$ is $2\\pi\\sigma^2{\\mbox{E}}(\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}})^{-1}$, which is strictly larger than $4\\sigma^2{\\mbox{E}}(\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}})^{-1}$ (the asymptotic variance of $\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{A}_{LS}$).\n\nNumerical Results: Simulation Studies {#section:simulation}\n=====================================\n\nTo demonstrate finite sample performance of the proposed robust regression methods for optimal treatment rule estimation, we conduct two simulation studies: the errors independent with treatments, and the errors interactive with treatments, respectively.\n\nSimulation Study I: error terms independent with treatment\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe consider the following two models with p=3,\n\n-   Model I: $$Y_i=1+(X_{i1}-X_{i2})(X_{i1}+X_{i3})+\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_{i})\\}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i+\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})\\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\\bm X}}_{i}=(X_{i1},X_{i2},X_{i3}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$ are multivariate normal with mean 0, variance 1, and $\\mathrm{Corr}(X_{ij},X_{ik})=0.5^{|j-k|}$, $\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i=(1,{{\\bm X}}_i{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$ and ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0=(0,1,-1,1){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$.\n\n-   Model II: $$Y_i={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i+\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_{i})\\}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i+\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})\\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}=(0.5,4,1,-3)$, and ${{\\bm X}}_{i}$, $\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_{i}$ and ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$ are the same as Model I.\n\nWe take linear forms for both the baseline and the contrast functions, where $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}$ and $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}$. We assume the propensity scores $\\pi(\\cdot)$ are known, and we study both the constant case $(\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)=0.5)$ and the non-constant case $(\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)=\\mathrm{logit}({{\\bm X}}_{i1}-{{\\bm X}}_{i2}))$. In addition, We consider two different $\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})$ functions, i.e., the homogeneous case with $\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})=1$, and the heterogenous case with $\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})=0.5+(X_{i1}-X_{i2})^2$. The simulation results under constant and non-constant propensity scores are similar. Thus, for brevity, we only report the constant case and allocate the result of non-constant case to the Appendix B. The results of Model I and II with constant propensity score are given in Table \\[table:modelI\\_constant\\] and \\[table:modelII\\_constant\\] respectively.\n\n[@ll ccc ccc ccc]{}\\\n& & & &\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 1.32 (0.040) & 80.7 & 1.06 & 2.36 (0.081) & 75.7 & 1.57 & & 58.4 & 3.75\\\n& P(0.5) & 1.44 (0.042) & 80.1 & 1.13 & 1.73 (0.051) & 78.0 & 1.31 & 2.69 (0.077) & 75.2 & 1.63\\\n& P(0.25) & 1.90 (0.057) & 78.3 & 1.34 & 1.63 (0.051) & 79.0 & 1.29 & 5.29 (0.168) & 70.4 & 2.25\\\n& Huber & 1.15 (0.034) & 81.9 & 0.93 & 1.45 (0.044) & 79.9 & 1.13 & 2.61 (0.072) & 74.9 & 1.66\\\n200 & LS & 0.68 (0.021) & 85.6 & 0.59 & 1.10 (0.033) & 82.0 & 0.91 & & 58.7 & 3.70\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.73 (0.021) & 85.3 & 0.62 & 0.78 (0.021) & 84.1 & 0.70 & 1.23 (0.037) & 81.3 & 0.99\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.92 (0.028) & 84.0 & 0.75 & 0.70 (0.023) & 86.0 & 0.59 & 2.48 (0.079) & 75.7 & 1.64\\\n& Huber & 0.58 (0.017) & 86.8 & 0.50 & 0.66 (0.018) & 85.5 & 0.58 & 1.24 (0.035) & 80.8 & 1.03\\\n400 & LS & 0.33 (0.009) & 90.3 & 0.26 & 0.56 (0.016) & 87.1 & 0.46 & & 59.2 & 3.61\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.35 (0.010) & 90.0 & 0.29 & 0.37 (0.010) & 89.0 & 0.34 & 0.56 (0.016) & 87.1 & 0.48\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.43 (0.013) & 89.1 & 0.34 & 0.33 (0.010) & 90.7 & 0.25 & 1.16 (0.037) & 82.9 & 0.86\\\n& Huber & 0.28 (0.008) & 91.1 & 0.22 & 0.31 (0.009) & 90.2 & 0.27 & 0.58 (0.017) & 86.7 & 0.49\\\n800 & LS & 0.17 (0.005) & 93.2 & 0.13 & 0.26 (0.008) & 90.9 & 0.23 & & 59.4 & 3.59\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.17 (0.005) & 93.1 & 0.13 & 0.19 (0.005) & 92.1 & 0.17 & 0.29 (0.009) & 90.7 & 0.24\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.22 (0.007) & 92.4 & 0.16 & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.6 & 0.12 & 0.59 (0.019) & 87.3 & 0.48\\\n& Huber & 0.14 (0.004) & 93.8 & 0.11 & 0.16 (0.005) & 93.1 & 0.14 & 0.29 (0.008) & 90.5 & 0.25\\\n\\\n& & & &\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 3.24 (0.110) & 74.7 & 1.70 & 8.98 (0.561) & 68.6 & 2.44 & & 56.2 & 4.05\\\n& P(0.5) & 1.70 (0.060) & 80.5 & 1.08 & 1.80 (0.064) & 80.1 & 1.08 & 3.45 (0.124) & 75.1 & 1.69\\\n& P(0.25) & 2.50 (0.085) & 77.4 & 1.42 & 2.51 (0.079) & 76.8 & 1.46 & 9.13 (0.341) & 67.2 & 2.66\\\n& Huber & 1.70 (0.057) & 80.4 & 1.10 & 1.87 (0.063) & 79.2 & 1.16 & 4.27 (0.155) & 72.8 & 1.93\\\n200 & LS & 1.54 (0.050) & 80.6 & 1.06 & 4.71 (0.244) & 73.4 & 1.85 & & 55.2 & 4.17\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.78 (0.028) & 86.7 & 0.53 & 0.90 (0.032) & 85.3 & 0.63 & 1.49 (0.052) & 81.9 & 0.95\\\n& P(0.25) & 1.16 (0.039) & 83.5 & 0.81 & 1.23 (0.039) & 82.0 & 0.91 & 3.95 (0.150) & 73.2 & 1.90\\\n& Huber & 0.77 (0.025) & 86.4 & 0.55 & 0.94 (0.032) & 84.5 & 0.69 & 1.94 (0.071) & 79.3 & 1.19\\\n400 & LS & 0.80 (0.026) & 86.0 & 0.58 & 2.69 (0.136) & 77.8 & 1.34 & & 54.7 & 4.26\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.39 (0.013) & 90.5 & 0.27 & 0.44 (0.017) & 89.6 & 0.32 & 0.71 (0.024) & 86.9 & 0.50\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.56 (0.019) & 88.8 & 0.37 & 0.66 (0.020) & 86.9 & 0.50 & 1.70 (0.055) & 79.6 & 1.17\\\n& Huber & 0.38 (0.012) & 90.4 & 0.27 & 0.48 (0.017) & 88.8 & 0.36 & 0.91 (0.029) & 84.9 & 0.65\\\n800 & LS & 0.41 (0.013) & 89.9 & 0.29 & 1.35 (0.150) & 83.1 & 0.82 & & 56.5 & 4.00\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.6 & 0.12 & 0.20 (0.007) & 92.6 & 0.16 & 0.36 (0.013) & 91.0 & 0.25\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.28 (0.009) & 92.2 & 0.18 & 0.31 (0.010) & 90.8 & 0.24 & 0.89 (0.031) & 85.8 & 0.60\\\n& Huber & 0.19 (0.006) & 93.3 & 0.13 & 0.22 (0.007) & 92.1 & 0.18 & 0.47 (0.017) & 89.2 & 0.34\\\n\n[@ll ccc ccc ccc]{}\\\n& & & &\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 0.24 (0.006) & 91.1 & 0.21 & 1.23 (0.061) & 82.4 & 0.87 & & 58.6 & 3.73\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.36 (0.010) & 89.0 & 0.32 & 0.39 (0.012) & 88.8 & 0.34 & 0.80 (0.024) & 84.2 & 0.69\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.45 (0.012) & 87.8 & 0.40 & 0.13 (0.004) & 93.4 & 0.12 & 2.37 (0.083) & 76.0 & 1.49\\\n& Huber & 0.25 (0.007) & 90.8 & 0.22 & 0.31 (0.010) & 90.3 & 0.26 & 0.99 (0.029) & 82.4 & 0.84\\\n200 & LS & 0.11 (0.003) & 93.7 & 0.10 & 0.52 (0.018) & 87.3 & 0.45 & & 58.7 & 3.69\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.17 (0.005) & 92.4 & 0.16 & 0.17 (0.005) & 92.4 & 0.15 & 0.32 (0.009) & 89.5 & 0.30\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.20 (0.005) & 91.8 & 0.18 & 0.06 (0.002) & 95.6 & 0.05 & 1.03 (0.033) & 82.1 & 0.88\\\n& Huber & 0.12 (0.003) & 93.6 & 0.11 & 0.13 (0.003) & 93.5 & 0.12 & 0.43 (0.013) & 87.9 & 0.40\\\n400 & LS & 0.05 (0.001) & 95.7 & 0.05 & 0.26 (0.008) & 90.7 & 0.23 & & 59.4 & 3.60\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.09 (0.002) & 94.5 & 0.08 & 0.09 (0.002) & 94.5 & 0.08 & 0.15 (0.004) & 92.8 & 0.14\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.10 (0.002) & 94.2 & 0.09 & 0.03 (0.001) & 96.9 & 0.02 & 0.44 (0.012) & 87.9 & 0.39\\\n& Huber & 0.06 (0.001) & 95.5 & 0.05 & 0.06 (0.002) & 95.4 & 0.06 & 0.21 (0.006) & 91.6 & 0.19\\\n800 & LS & 0.03 (0.001) & 96.9 & 0.03 & 0.13 (0.004) & 93.5 & 0.11 & & 59.4 & 3.58\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.1 & 0.04 & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.2 & 0.04 & 0.07 (0.002) & 95.1 & 0.06\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.05 (0.001) & 95.8 & 0.05 & 0.01 (0.000) & 97.9 & 0.01 & 0.20 (0.005) & 91.5 & 0.19\\\n& Huber & 0.03 (0.001) & 96.8 & 0.03 & 0.03 (0.001) & 96.8 & 0.03 & 0.10 (0.002) & 94.2 & 0.09\\\n\\\n& & & &\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 1.97 (0.072) & 79.8 & 1.13 & 7.75 (0.514) & 70.4 & 2.22 & & 56.4 & 4.02\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.84 (0.029) & 86.1 & 0.55 & 1.21 (0.045) & 84.3 & 0.74 & 1.82 (0.071) & 80.5 & 1.07\\\n& P(0.25) & 1.37 (0.049) & 82.1 & 0.90 & 1.56 (0.051) & 80.5 & 1.04 & 6.20 (0.261) & 69.8 & 2.25\\\n& Huber & 0.84 (0.031) & 85.9 & 0.57 & 1.33 (0.046) & 82.8 & 0.85 & 2.69 (0.106) & 77.0 & 1.42\\\n200 & LS & 0.99 (0.035) & 84.7 & 0.66 & 4.16 (0.237) & 75.2 & 1.62 & & 55.1 & 4.19\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.41 (0.014) & 90.2 & 0.28 & 0.58 (0.024) & 89.4 & 0.37 & 0.79 (0.030) & 86.7 & 0.52\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.64 (0.021) & 87.4 & 0.45 & 0.74 (0.024) & 86.1 & 0.54 & 2.48 (0.096) & 76.9 & 1.40\\\n& Huber & 0.39 (0.013) & 90.3 & 0.27 & 0.69 (0.027) & 87.7 & 0.45 & 1.17 (0.044) & 83.4 & 0.78\\\n400 & LS & 0.51 (0.018) & 89.0 & 0.35 & 2.48 (0.133) & 79.3 & 1.20 & & 54.7 & 4.25\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.20 (0.007) & 93.2 & 0.14 & 0.29 (0.011) & 92.6 & 0.17 & 0.32 (0.011) & 91.2 & 0.22\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.30 (0.009) & 91.3 & 0.22 & 0.39 (0.012) & 89.9 & 0.28 & 0.99 (0.030) & 83.0 & 0.78\\\n& Huber & 0.20 (0.007) & 93.2 & 0.14 & 0.34 (0.012) & 91.4 & 0.22 & 0.53 (0.016) & 88.4 & 0.37\\\n800 & LS & 0.25 (0.008) & 92.2 & 0.17 & 1.25 (0.159) & 84.2 & 0.73 & & 56.4 & 4.00\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.10 (0.004) & 95.3 & 0.07 & 0.14 (0.006) & 94.7 & 0.09 & 0.16 (0.006) & 93.9 & 0.11\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.14 (0.005) & 94.0 & 0.10 & 0.18 (0.006) & 92.9 & 0.14 & 0.49 (0.015) & 88.0 & 0.39\\\n& Huber & 0.09 (0.004) & 95.3 & 0.06 & 0.17 (0.006) & 93.9 & 0.11 & 0.26 (0.009) & 91.8 & 0.19\\\n\nComparison is made among four methods. They are: lsA-learning, robust regression with $\\rho_{0.5}$ (RR($\\rho_{0.5}$)), robust regression with $\\rho_{0.25}$ (RR($\\rho_{0.25}$)), and robust regression with Huber loss (RR(H)). The error terms $\\epsilon_i$ are taken as standard i.i.d. normal, log-normal or Cauchy distribution, and independent with both $A$ and ${{\\bm X}}$. It is easy to check that the conditional independence assumption $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$ is satisfied, and $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_{\\mu}=g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_{\\tau}={\\mathrm{1}}\\{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i>0\\}$. We consider four different sample sizes 100, 200, 400 and 800. To evaluate the performance of each method, we compare three groups of criteria: (1) the mean squared error $\\|\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}-{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_{0}\\|^2_2$ (mse), which measures the distance between estimated parameters and the true parameter ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$; (2) the percentage of making correct decisions (PCD), which are calculated based on a validation set with 10000 observations. Specifically, we take the formula $100*\\left(1-\\sum_{i=1}^{N_T}|{\\mathrm{1}}\\{\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i>0\\}-{\\mathrm{1}}\\{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i>0\\}|/N_T\\right)$ with $N_T=10000$; (3) the differences of $V_\\mu(g)$ and $V_{0.5-q}(g)$ between the optimal ITR and the estimated ITR, where $\\delta_{\\mu}=V_{\\mu}(g_{\\mu}^{\\mathrm{opt}})-V_{\\mu}(\\hat{g})$ and $\\delta_{\\tau}=V_{\\tau-q}(g_{\\mu}^{\\mathrm{opt}})-V_{\\tau-q}(\\hat{g})$, $\\forall\\tau\\in(0,1)$. $V_{\\mu}(g)$ and $V_{\\tau-q}(g)$ (defined in Section 2.1) are estimated from the validation set as well, and they evaluate the overall performance of an ITR $g$, where the former one focuses on the response\u2019s mean and the latter one focuses on the response\u2019s conditional $\\tau$-th quantile. Under our setting, $\\delta_{\\mu}=\\delta_{0.5}$ when they both exists. Thus, only $\\delta_{0.5}$ is reported. For each scenario, we take 1000 replications. All numbers in the tables are based on the sample average of all replications. We further report the standard errors of mse to evaluate the variability of the corresponding statistics.\n\nWhen the propensity score is constant, lsA-learning is equivalent to both Q- and A-learning under our setting. If we compare the performance of the methods under homogeneous and heterogeneous errors, the first thing we find is that lsA-learning works much worse under the heterogeneous errors, while all other methods are generally less affected by the heterogeneity of the errors. When the baseline function is misspecified as in Model I, under the homogeneous normal errors, RR(H) works slightly better than lsA-learning, while $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.25})$ works the worst. However, the difference in general is small. For the homogeneous log-normal errors, again RR(H) works the best, while $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ and $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.25})$ have similar performance, and lsA-learning works the worst. Under the homogeneous Cauchy errors, $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ works the best and RR(H) has a close performance. The lsA-learning is no longer consistent, and its mse explodes. The actual numbers are too large and thus leave as blank in Table \\[table:modelI\\_constant\\] and \\[table:modelII\\_constant\\]. Furthermore, with the Cauchy errors, the PCD of lsA-learning are less than 60% under all scenarios, while other methods\u2019 PCD can be as high as 90%. When baseline function is correctly specified as in Model II, under homogeneous normal errors, lsA-learning performs the best. However, in this case RR(H) also has a very close performance, and thus makes no difference from a practical point of view to choose between these two methods. The results of Model II under other cases draw similar conclusion as Model I. To sum up, the overall conclusion is that, under the conditional independence assumption, the proposed robust regression method RR(M) is more efficient than Q-, A- and lsA-learning in the circumstances when observations have skewed, heterogeneous or heavy-tailed errors. On the other hand, when the error terms indeed follows i.i.d. normal distribution, the loss of efficiency of RR(M) is not significant. This is especially true when Huber loss is applied.\n\nSimulation Study II: error terms interactive with treatment\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe consider the following model with p=2, $$Y_i=1 + 0.5\\sin[\\pi(X_{i1}-X_{i2})]+\n0.25(1+X_{i1}+2X_{i2})^2+(A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_{i})){{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i+\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i},A_i)\\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\\bm X}}_{i}=(X_{i1},X_{i2}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$, $\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i=(1,{{\\bm X}}_i{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$, $\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i},A_i)=1+A_i d_0 X_{i1}^2$, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}=(0.5,2,-1)$ and $X_{ik}$ are i.i.d. Uniform\\[-1,1\\].\n\nSimilar as Section 4.1, we take linear forms for both the baseline and the contrast functions, where $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}$, $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\bm W}}$ and ${{\\bm W}}=(\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}},X_{1}^2,X_{2}^2,X_{1}X_{2})$. $d_0=5$, 10 or 15. The error terms $\\epsilon_i$ follows i.i.d. N(0,1) or Gamma(1,1)-1 distribution. The propensity scores $\\pi(\\cdot)$ are known, and we consider both the constant case $\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)=0.5$ and the non-constant case $\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)=\\mathrm{logit}({{\\bm X}}_{i1}-{{\\bm X}}_{i2})$. We report only the result of the constant case (Table \\[table:interacted\\_constant\\_ps\\]), and allocate the non-constant case to Appendix B.\n\n  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------\n                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    \n  (r)[4-6]{} (lr)[7-9]{} (lr)[10-12]{} (lr)[13-15]{} Error   $d_0$   n       $ \\delta_{\\mu}$   $ \\delta_{0.5}$   $ \\delta_{0.25}$   $ \\delta_{\\mu}$   $ \\delta_{0.5}$   $ \\delta_{0.25}$   $ \\delta_{\\mu}$   $ \\delta_{0.5}$   $ \\delta_{0.25}$   $ \\delta_{\\mu}$   $ \\delta_{0.5}$   $ \\delta_{0.25}$\n  Normal                                                     5       100                0.16              0.16               0.31              0.16              0.16               0.27              0.25              0.25               0.17              0.14              0.14               0.26\n                                                                     200                0.09              0.09               0.24              0.10              0.10               0.19              0.18              0.18               0.09              0.08              0.08               0.19\n                                                                     400                0.05              0.05               0.18              0.07              0.07               0.12              0.15              0.15               0.05              0.05              0.05               0.13\n                                                                     800                0.02              0.02               0.14              0.05              0.05               0.09              0.14              0.14               0.04              0.03              0.03               0.09\n                                                             10      100                0.28              0.28               0.92              0.22              0.22               0.81              0.39              0.39               0.40              0.21              0.21               0.82\n                                                                     200                0.19              0.19               0.85              0.15              0.15               0.71              0.33              0.33               0.28              0.13              0.13               0.72\n                                                                     400                0.12              0.12               0.79              0.10              0.10               0.60              0.30              0.30               0.23              0.09              0.09               0.63\n                                                                     800                0.06              0.06               0.73              0.07              0.07               0.50              0.27              0.27               0.22              0.06              0.06               0.54\n                                                             15      100                0.35              0.35               1.55              0.25              0.25               1.40              0.47              0.47               0.62              0.26              0.26               1.43\n                                                                     200                0.27              0.27               1.48              0.18              0.18               1.31              0.45              0.45               0.45              0.18              0.18               1.34\n                                                                     400                0.19              0.19               1.47              0.13              0.13               1.17              0.44              0.44               0.37              0.12              0.12               1.23\n                                                                     800                0.12              0.12               1.39              0.09              0.09               1.03              0.41              0.41               0.35              0.08              0.08               1.07\n  Gamma                                                      5       100                0.15              0.18               0.31              0.15              0.11               0.16              0.22              0.12               0.09              0.12              0.09               0.15\n                                                                     200                0.09              0.12               0.26              0.10              0.06               0.10              0.18              0.08               0.05              0.08              0.05               0.09\n                                                                     400                0.05              0.07               0.21              0.08              0.03               0.07              0.16              0.06               0.04              0.06              0.02               0.07\n                                                                     800                0.02              0.04               0.17              0.07              0.03               0.06              0.15              0.06               0.03              0.05              0.02               0.07\n                                                             10      100                0.26              0.33               0.90              0.22              0.16               0.54              0.39              0.13               0.27              0.22              0.14               0.50\n                                                                     200                0.19              0.29               0.88              0.17              0.08               0.44              0.37              0.10               0.22              0.17              0.07               0.41\n                                                                     400                0.12              0.24               0.87              0.13              0.04               0.39              0.35              0.08               0.19              0.14              0.03               0.36\n                                                                     800                0.06              0.17               0.78              0.12              0.03               0.37              0.33              0.07               0.19              0.13              0.02               0.35\n                                                             15      100                0.36              0.57               1.52              0.30              0.31               0.98              0.53              0.19               0.40              0.32              0.28               0.89\n                                                                     200                0.28              0.53               1.51              0.22              0.19               0.81              0.55              0.16               0.29              0.24              0.16               0.71\n                                                                     400                0.19              0.47               1.50              0.17              0.13               0.73              0.57              0.15               0.26              0.21              0.11               0.63\n                                                                     800                0.11              0.43               1.50              0.15              0.11               0.71              0.58              0.15               0.24              0.18              0.09               0.62\n  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------\n\n  : Summary results with constant propensity scores when errors interacted with treatment. Least square stands for lsA-learning. Pinball(0.5) stands for robust regression with pinball loss and parameter $\\tau=0.5$. Pinball(0.25) stands for robust regression with pinball loss and parameter $\\tau=0.25$. Huber stands for robust regression with Huber loss, where parameter $\\alpha$ is tuned automatically with R function rlm.[]{data-label=\"table:interacted_constant_ps\"}\n\nWe compare the performance of four methods: lsA-learning, robust regression with $\\rho_{0.5}$ ($\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$), robust regression with $\\rho_{0.25}$ ($\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.25})$) and robust regression with Huber loss ($\\mathrm{RR}(H)$). We consider four different sample sizes 100, 200, 400 and 800. For each scenario, we again simulate 1000 replications. When error terms are interactive with treatment, the true ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$ associated with $g_{\\mu}^{\\mathrm{opt}}$ and $g_{\\tau}^{\\mathrm{opt}}$ are different. Specifically, under our model, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0=({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}},0,0,0){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$ for $g_{\\mu}^{\\mathrm{opt}}$, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0=({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}},d_0 F^{-1}_{\\epsilon}(0.5),0,0){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$ for $g_{0.5}^{\\mathrm{opt}}$ and ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0=({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}},d_0 F^{-1}_{\\epsilon}(0.25),0,0){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$ for $g_{0.25}^{\\mathrm{opt}}$. Thus, the two criteria, mse and PCD used in simulation study I, are no longer meaningful. So we evaluate the performance of methods in this simulation study based on value differences $\\delta_{\\mu}$, $\\delta_{0.5}$ and $\\delta_{0.25}$.\n\nBased on Theorem \\[thm:lsA\\], we can prove that $\\hat{g}^{A}_{LS}({{\\bm x}})$ is consistent which converges to $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_{\\mu}$ as sample size goes to infinity. This is shown in Table \\[table:interacted\\_constant\\_ps\\] such that the $\\delta_{\\mu}$ column for the lsA-learning method converges to 0 as sample size increases. We also know under Normal error terms, $\\delta_{0.5}=\\delta_{\\mu}$. Thus, the $\\delta_{0.5}$ column for the lsA-learning method also converges to 0. However, all other columns in Table \\[table:interacted\\_constant\\_ps\\] converge to a positive constant instead of 0 as sample size goes to infinity.\n\nAnother observation we discover from Table \\[table:interacted\\_constant\\_ps\\] is $\\mathrm{RR}(H)$ and $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ perform similarly. One additional observation we have is even though lsA-learning outperform all other methods in $\\delta_{\\mu}$ when sample size is large. It may be worse than $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ and $\\mathrm{RR}(H)$ when sample size is small. This is due to the fact that lsA-learning is inefficient under the heteroscedastic or skewed errors. The last observation we have is overall lsA-learning, $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ and $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.25})$ perform best at the columns $\\delta_{\\mu}$, $\\delta_{0.5}$ and $\\delta_{0.25}$ accordingly. The reason is given in the Remark under Theorem \\[thm:approximation\\_quantile\\], which shows that $\\hat{g}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)}$ $(\\triangleq{\\mathrm{1}}\\{C({{\\bm x}};\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^R_{\\rho(\\tau)})>0\\})$ in general approximates the unknown optimal ITR $g^{\\mathrm{opt}}_{\\tau}$ even when the conditional independence assumption $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$ does not hold.\n\nApplication to AIDS study {#section:aids}\n=========================\n\nWe illustrate the proposed robust regression method to data from AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 175 (ACTG175), which has been previously studied by various authors [@leon2003semiparametric; @tsiatis2008covariate; @zhang2008improving; @lu2011variable]. In the study, 2139 HIV-infected subjects were randomized to four different treatment groups in equal proportions, and the treatment groups are zidovudine (ZDV) monotherapy, ZDV + didanosine (ddI), ZDV + zalcitabine, and ddI monotherapy. Following [@lu2011variable], we choose CD4 count $(\\mathrm{cells/mm}^3)$ at $20\\pm5$ weeks post-baseline as the primary continuous outcome $Y$, and include five continuous covariates and seven binary covariates as our covariates. They are: 1. age (years), 2. weight (kg), 3. karnof=Karnofsky score (scale of 0-100), 4. cd40=CD4 count $(\\mathrm{cells/mm}^3)$ at baseline, 5. cd80=CD8 count $(\\mathrm{cells/mm}^3)$ at baseline, 6. hemophilia=hemophilia (0=no, 1=yes), 7. homosexuality=homosexual activity (0=no, 1=yes), 8. drugs=history of intravenous drug use (0=no, 1=yes), 9. race (0=white, 1=non-white), 10. gender (0=female, 1=male), 11. str2= antiretroviral history (0=naive, 1=experienced), and 12. sympton=symptomatic status (0=asymptomatic, 1=symptomatic). For brevity, we only compare the treatment ZDV + didanosine (ddI) $(A=1)$ and ZDV + zalcitabine $(A=0)$, and restrict our samples to subjects receiving these two treatments. Thus, the propensity scores $\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)\\equiv 0.5$ in our restricted samples as the patients are assigned into one of two treatments with equal probability.\n\nIn our analysis, we assume linear models for both the baseline and the contrast functions. For interpretability, we keep the response $Y$ (the CD4 count) at its original scale, which is also consistent with the way clinicians think about the outcome in practice [@tsiatis2008covariate]. We plot the scatter plot of response Y against age. It shows some skewness and heterogeneity. With some preliminary analysis (fitting full model with lsA-learning and RR(M)), we find that only covariates age, homosexuality and race may possibly interact with the treatment. So in our final model, only these three covariates are included in the contrast function, while at the same time we still keep all twelve covariates in the baseline function. The estimated coefficients associated with their corresponding standard errors and p-values are given in Table \\[table:aids\\], where standard errors are estimated with 1000 bootstrap samples (parametric bootstrap) and p-values are calculated with normal approximation. Only coefficients included in the contrast function are shown.\n\n  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- -----------\n                                                                                                                                                                     \n  (r)[2-4]{} (lr)[5-7]{} (l)[8-10]{} (l)[11-13]{} Variable       Est.      SE          PV     Est.      SE          PV     Est.      SE          PV     Est.      SE          PV\n  intercept                                                    -42.61   32.93       0.196   -33.45   37.32       0.370   -35.77   39.17       0.361   -42.76   31.40       0.173\n  age                                                            3.13    0.85   **0.000**     2.62    0.97   **0.007**     2.46    1.06   **0.020**     2.80    0.79   **0.000**\n  homosexuality                                                -40.66   16.73   **0.015**   -33.18   17.68       0.061   -35.38   18.28       0.053   -27.33   15.19       0.072\n  race                                                         -25.70   17.69       0.146   -33.56   18.12       0.064   -34.21   18.32       0.062   -25.29   16.08       0.116\n  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- ----------- -------- ------- -----------\n\n  : Analysis results for AIDS data. Est. stands for estimate; SE stands for standard error; PV stands for p-value. All p-values which are significant at level 0.1 are highlighted.[]{data-label=\"table:aids\"}\n\nFrom Tables \\[table:aids\\], we make the following observations. First, lsA-learning (equivalent to Q- and A-learning with this model setting) and robust regression with pinball loss and Huber loss all have estimates with the exact same signs. Second, the estimated coefficients are distinguishable across different methods. Third, the covairiate homosexuality is significant under lsA-learning, but it is not significant under robust regression with either pinball losses or Huber loss, when the significant level $\\alpha$ is set to 0.05.\n\nWe could further estimate the values $(V_{\\mu}(\\hat{g}))$ associated with each method by either the inverse probability weighted estimator (IPWE) [@robin2000marginal] or the augmented inverse probability weighted estimator (AIPWE) [@robins1994estimation], where $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{V}^{\\mathrm{IPWE}}_{\\mu}(\\hat{g})=&\\frac{\\sum_{i=1}^n{\\mathrm{1}}{\\{A_i=\\hat{g}({{\\bm X}}_i)\\}}Y_i/p(A_i|{{\\bm X}}_i)}\n{\\sum_{i=1}^n{\\mathrm{1}}{\\{A_i=\\hat{g}({{\\bm X}}_i)\\}}/p(A_i|{{\\bm X}}_i)},\\\\\n\\hat{V}^{\\mathrm{AIPWE}}_{\\mu}(\\hat{g})=&\\frac{1}{n}\\sum_{i=1}^{n}\\hat{{\\mbox{E}}}(Y_i|{{\\bm X}}_i,\\hat{g}({{\\bm X}}_i))\n+\\frac{1}{n}\\sum_{i=1}^{n}\\frac{{\\mathrm{1}}{\\{A_i=\\hat{g}({{\\bm X}}_i)\\}}}{p(A_i|{{\\bm X}}_i)}\\left[Y_i-\\hat{{\\mbox{E}}}(Y_i|{{\\bm X}}_i,A_i)\\right],\\end{aligned}$$ $\\hat{{\\mbox{E}}}(Y_i|{{\\bm X}}_i,A_i))=\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}})+\\left\\{A_i-p(A_i|{{\\bm X}}_i)\\right\\}C({{\\bm X}}_i;\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}})$, and $p(A_i|{{\\bm X}}_i)\\equiv0.5$. Both $\\hat{V}^{\\mathrm{IPWE}}_{\\mu}(\\hat{g})$ and $\\hat{V}^{\\mathrm{AIPWE}}_{\\mu}(\\hat{g})$ are consistent estimator of value $V_{\\mu}(\\hat{g})$, and their asymptotic covariance matrix can also be consistently estimated from the data [@zhang2012robust; @mckeague2014estimation]. The estimates of $(V_{\\mu}(\\hat{g}))$ and their corresponding 95% confidence interval of four methods based on both IPWE and AIPWE are given in Table\u00a0\\[table:aids\\_value\\].\n\n  Estimator   method           Value     SE           CI\n  ----------- --------------- -------- ------ ------------------\n  IPWE        Least Square     405.05   6.72   (391.88, 418.22)\n              Pinball(0.5)     406.77   6.71   (393.63, 419.92)\n              Pinball(0.25)    406.07   6.73   (392.87, 419.26)\n              Huber            407.03   6.71   (393.87, 420.18)\n  AIPWE       Least Square     404.39   6.12   (392.40, 416.38)\n              Pinball(0.5)     405.93   6.13   (393.92, 417.94)\n              Pinball(0.25)    403.60   6.62   (390.62, 416.58)\n              Huber            406.00   6.15   (393.95, 418.04)\n\n  : Result of estimated values and their corresponding 95% confidence interval for four methods based on IPWE and AIPWE.SE stands for standard error. CI stands for 95% confidence interval.[]{data-label=\"table:aids_value\"}\n\nFrom Table\u00a0\\[table:aids\\_value\\], robust regression with $\\rho_{0.5}$ and Huber loss perform slightly better than lsA-learning, while robust regression with $\\rho_{0.25}$ performs worse than lsA-learning when the values $(V_{\\mu}(\\hat{g}))$ is estimated based on AIPWE. We conduct KCI-test to check the conditional independence assumption $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$. For $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho(0.5))$, $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho(0.25))$ and RR(H), their p-values associated with KCI-test are 0.060, 0.002 and 0.083 respectively. The conditional independence assumption holds at the significance level of 0.05 for $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho(0.5))$ and RR(H), so the estimated ITR can be thought to maximize $V_{\\mu}(g)$. On the other hand, this assumption doesn\u2019t hold for $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho(0.25))$, and its estimated ITR doesn\u2019t maximize $V_{\\mu}(g)$, instead it approximately maximizes $V_{0.25-q}(g)$. This partly explains the relatively bad performance of RR($\\rho_{0.25}$) in Table\u00a0\\[table:aids\\_value\\]. Again, as $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho(0.5))$ and RR(H) are more robust against heterogeneous, right skewed errors comparing with the least square method, they slightly outperform lsA-learning in term of $V_{\\mu}(g)$.\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nIn this article, we propose a new general loss based robust regression framework for estimating the optimal individualized treatment rules. This new method has the desired property to be robust against skewed, heterogeneous, heavy-tailed errors and outliers. And similar as A-learning, it produces consistent estimates of the optimal ITR even when the baseline function is misspecified. However, the consistency of the proposed method does require the key conditional independence assumption $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$, which is somewhat stronger than the condition needed for the consistency of Q- and A-learning $({\\mbox{E}}(\\epsilon|{{\\bm X}},A)=0)$. So there are situations when the classical Q- and A-learning are more appropriate to apply. Furthermore, we also point out in the article that when pinball loss $\\rho_{\\tau}$ is chosen and the assumption $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$ doesn\u2019t hold, the estimated ITR approximately maximize the conditional $\\tau$-th quantile and thus maximize $V_{\\tau-q}(g)$. From a practice point of view, there are situations when maximizing $V_{\\tau-q}(g)$ is a much more reasonable approach comparing with maximizing $V_{\\mu}(g)$, especially when the conditional distribution of response $Y$ is highly skewed to one side.\n\nIn practice, there are cases when multiple treatment groups need to be compared simultaneously. For brevity, we have limited our discussion to two treatment groups. However, the proposed method can be readily extended to multiple cases by just replacing equation with the following more complex form, $$L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=\\frac{1}{n}\\sum_{i=1}^{n}M\\left[Y_i-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-\\sum_{k=1}^{K-1}(I(A_i=k)-\\pi_k({{\\bm X}}_i))C_k({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_k)\\right],\n\\label{eq:A-general-loss2}$$ where $\\mathcal{A}=\\{1,\\ldots,K\\}$, $K$-th treatment is the baseline treatment, $\\pi_k({{\\bm X}}_i)=\\Pr(A_i=k|{{\\bm X}}_i)$ and $C_k({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_k)$ denotes the contrast function comparing $k$-th treatment and the baseline treatment. All Theorems can be easily extended to this multiple treatments setting as well.\n\nWhen the dimension of prognostic variables is high, regularized regression is needed in order to produce parsimonious yet interpretable individualized treatment rules. Essentially this is a variable selection problem in the context of M-estimator, which has been previously studied in [-@wu2009variable; -@li2011nonconcave], etc. This is an interesting topic that needs further investigation. Another interesting direction is to extend the current method to the multi-stage setting, where sequential decisions are made along the time line.\n\nAppendix A: Proof of Asymptotic Properties {#appendix-a-proof-of-asymptotic-properties .unnumbered}\n==========================================\n\nWe consider the following additive model, $$Y_i=\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}}_i)+\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)\\}C({{\\bm X}}_i;\\beta_0)+\\epsilon_i,\\; i=1,\\ldots,n,$$ where $\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})$ is the baseline function, $C({{\\bm X}};\\beta_0)$ is the contrast function, $\\pi({{\\bm X}})$ is the propensity score, and $\\epsilon$ is the error term. We estimate $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ by minimizing $$L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=\\frac{1}{n}\\sum_{i=1}^{n}M\\left[Y_i-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)\\}C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})\\right],\n\\label{eq:A-general-loss}$$ where ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma$, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}\\in\\mathcal{B}$ and $M:{\\mathrm{I \\! R} \\mathit{^{\\rightarrow}}} [0,\\infty)$ is a convex function with minimum achieved at 0. We consider the following three types of loss functions, i.e., the pinball loss $$M(x)=\\rho_\\tau(x)\\triangleq\n\\begin{cases}\n(\\tau-1)x, &\\text{if } x<0\\\\\n\\tau x, &\\text{if } x\\geq0\n\\end{cases}$$ where $0<\\tau<1$, the Huber loss $$M(x)=H_\\alpha(x)\\triangleq\n\\begin{cases}\n0.5x^2, &\\text{if } |x|<\\alpha\\\\\n\\alpha|x|-0.5\\alpha^2, &\\text{if } |x|\\geq\\alpha\n\\end{cases}$$ for some $\\alpha>0$, and the $\\epsilon$-insensitive loss $$M(x)=J_\\epsilon(x)\\triangleq\\max(0, |x|-\\epsilon)$$ for some $\\epsilon>0$. Define $\\Delta C({{\\bm x}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})=C({{\\bm x}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})-C({{\\bm x}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0)$. Assume ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma$, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}\\in\\mathcal{B}$ and ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}'$ is any arbitrary fix point in $\\Gamma$.\n\n**Regularity conditions A:**\n\n-   $\\{(Y_i,{{\\bm X}}_i,A_i,\\epsilon_i),i=1,\\ldots,n\\}$ are i.i.d random variables.\n\n-   $\\epsilon_i\\perp A_i|{{\\bm X}}_i$ $\\forall i=1,\\ldots,n$.\n\n-   ${\\mbox{E}}|\\Delta C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})|<\\infty$ $\\forall{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}\\in\\mathcal{B}$.\n\n-   $\\Pr\\{{{\\bm x}}\\in\\mathcal{X}:\\;\\Delta C({{\\bm x}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})\\neq 0\\}>0$ for all ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}\\neq{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$.\n\n-   ${\\mbox{E}}|\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})|<\\infty$ $\\forall{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma$.\n\n-   $G_2({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ has unique minimizer ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}^*$, where $G_2({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ is the pointwise limit of $L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}')$ in probability.\n\n-   $L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ is strictly convex with respect to $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$.\n\n-   $\\epsilon|{{\\bm X}}={{\\bm x}}$ has nonzero density on $\\mathbb{R}$ for almost all ${{\\bm x}}\\in\\mathcal{X}$.\n\n$\\left|\\rho_\\tau(x-y)-\\rho_\\tau(x)\\right|\\leq |y|$, for all $\\tau\\in(0,1)$.\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\left|\\rho_\\tau(x-y)-\\rho_\\tau(x)\\right| &= \\left|\\tau\\left\\{(x-y)_{+}-x_{+}\\right\\}+(1-\\tau)\\left\\{(x-y)_{-}-x_{-}\\right\\}\\right|\\\\\n    &\\leq|(x-y)_{+}-x_{+}|+|(x-y)_{-}-x_{-}|=|y|\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\rho_\\tau(x-y)-\\rho_\\tau(x)=&-\\tau y{\\mathrm{1}}\\{x\\geq 0\\}+(1-\\tau)y{\\mathrm{1}}\\{x< 0\\}+(y-x){\\mathrm{1}}\\{x\\geq 0\\}{\\mathrm{1}}\\{y>x\\}\\\\\n    &+(x-y){\\mathrm{1}}\\{x< 0\\}{\\mathrm{1}}\\{y< x\\},\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nfor all $\\tau\\in(0,1)$.\n\nDenote $D=\\rho_\\tau(x-y)-\\rho_\\tau(x)$.\n\n1.  If $x\\geq0$, $y\\leq0$ $\\Rightarrow$ $D=-\\tau y$;\n\n2.  If $x\\geq0$, $y>0$, $|x|\\geq|y|$ $\\Rightarrow$ $D=-\\tau y$;\n\n3.  If $x\\geq0$, $y>0$, $|x|<|y|$ $\\Rightarrow$ $D=-\\tau y+(y-x)$;\n\n4.  If $x<0$, $y\\geq0$ $\\Rightarrow$ $D=(1-\\tau)y$;\n\n5.  If $x<0$, $y<0$, $|x|\\geq|y|$ $\\Rightarrow$ $D=(1-\\tau)y$;\n\n6.  If $x<0$, $y<0$, $|x|<|y|$ $\\Rightarrow$ $D=(1-\\tau)y+(x-y)$;\n\nCombining the above 6 cases, Lemma 2 is proved.\n\n**Proof of Theorem 1.**\n\nRecall that the loss function defined in takes the form $$L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=\\frac{1}{n}\\sum_{i=1}^{n}\\rho_\\tau\\left[\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}}_i)-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon_i\n    -(A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i))\\Delta C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})\\right].$$ By definition, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    (\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)},\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}}^{R}_{\\rho(\\tau)}) =& {\\mathrm{argmin}}_{({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})}L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}')\\\\\n    =& {\\mathrm{argmin}}_{({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})}\\left[L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\right]+\n    \\left[L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}')\\right],\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Define $$\\begin{aligned}\n    S_{1n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}) =& L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=1/n\\sum_{i=1}^n d_{1i};\\\\\n    S_{2n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}) =& L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-L_{3n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}')=1/n\\sum_{i=1}^n d_{2i}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n    d_{1i} =& \\rho_\\tau\\left[\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}}_i)-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon_i\n    -(A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i))\\Delta C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})\\right]-\\rho_\\tau\\left[\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}}_i)-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon_i\\right],\\\\\n    d_{2i} =& \\rho_\\tau\\left[\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}}_i)-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon_i\\right]-\\rho_\\tau\\left[\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}}_i)-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}')+\\epsilon_i\\right].\n    \\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma 1, A3 and A5, ${\\mbox{E}}|d_{1i}|\\leq{\\mbox{E}}|(A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i))\\Delta C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})|\\leq{\\mbox{E}}|\\Delta C({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})|<\\infty$ and ${\\mbox{E}}|d_{2i}|\\leq{\\mbox{E}}|\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})-\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}')|\\leq{\\mbox{E}}|\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})|+{\\mbox{E}}|\\varphi({{\\bm X}}_i;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}')|\n    <\\infty$. Then, by Law of Large Number, $\\forall\\;{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}\\in\\mathcal{B}$, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma$, we have $S_{1n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\inprob G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\triangleq{\\mbox{E}}(D)$, and $S_{2n}({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}, {{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\inprob G_2({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$, where $$\\begin{aligned}\n    D=&\\rho_\\tau\\left[\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})-\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon\n    -\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\Delta C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})\\right]-\\rho_\\tau\\left[\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})-\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon\\right].\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Below we show that a) $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}^*)$ is the minimizer of $G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+G_2({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$, b) $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}^*)$ is the unique minimizer. The consistency then follows from the argmax continuous mapping theorem under Assumption (A7).\n\nDenote $K_1=\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})-\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon$, $K_2=\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\Delta C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$. By Lemma 2, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    D =& -\\tau K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1\\geq0\\}+(1-\\tau) K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1<0\\}+(K_2-K_1){\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1\\geq0\\}{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_2>K_1\\}\\\\\n    &+(K_1-K_2){\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1<0\\}{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_2<K_1\\}.\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$ and $\\Pr(A|{{\\bm X}})=\\pi({{\\bm X}})$, applying double expectation rule with ${{\\bm X}}$, we have ${\\mbox{E}}[-\\tau K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1\\geq0\\}]={\\mbox{E}}[(1-\\tau) K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1<0\\}]=0$. Thus, $$G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})={\\mbox{E}}[(K_2-K_1){\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1\\geq0\\}{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_2>K_1\\}]+{\\mbox{E}}[(K_1-K_2){\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1<0\\}{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_2<K_1\\}].\n    \\label{eq:Gfunction}$$ It is easy to check $G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\geq0$ and achieves minimal value 0 at point $({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ for all ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma$. In addition, by A6, we know $G_2({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ has unique minimizer ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}^*$. Combining the above two facts, a) is proved.\n\nCombining A4, A8 and , we could prove $G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})>0$ for all ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}\\neq{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$ and ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma$. So b) holds.\n\n**Proof of Theorem 3.**\n\n\\(a) When $M(x)=H_{\\alpha}(x)$, the proof follows similar steps as Theorem 1. The only difference is that $G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})$ takes a different expression now and we need to redo the proof of 1) $G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})>0$ $\\forall{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}\\neq{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma$, and 2) $G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0,{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})=0$ $\\forall{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}\\in\\Gamma$. By definition, $G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\triangleq{\\mbox{E}}(D)$, where $$\\begin{aligned}\n    D=H_\\alpha\\left[\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})-\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon\n    -\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\Delta C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})\\right]-H_\\alpha\\left[\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})-\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon\\right].\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Then, 2) holds immediately. Denote $K_1=\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})-\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})+\\epsilon$, $K_2=\\{A-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\Delta C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})$. We have the following four cases:\n\n1.  If $K_1>\\alpha$ then $H_\\alpha(K_1-K_2)\\geq\\alpha(K_1-K_2)-0.5\\alpha^2$. Thus, $D\\geq-\\alpha K_2$;\n\n2.  If $K_1<-\\alpha$ then $H_\\alpha(K_1-K_2)\\geq\\alpha(K_2-K_1)-0.5\\alpha^2$. Thus, $D\\geq\\alpha K_2$;\n\n3.  If $K_1\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]$ and $K_1-K_2\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]$ then $D=1/2(K_1-K_2)^2-1/2K_1^2=-K_1K_2+1/2K_2^2$;\n\n4.  If $K_1\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]$ and $K_1-K_2\\not\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]$ then $H_\\alpha(K_1-K_2)\\geq1/2(K_1-K_2)^2-\\left\\{1/2(\\alpha+|K_2|)^2-\\left[\\alpha(\\alpha+|K_2|)-1/2\\alpha^2\\right]\\right\\}=1/2(K_1-K_2)^2-1/2K_1^2$. Thus, $D\\geq1/2(K_1-K_2)^2-1/2K_1^2-1/2K_2^2=-K_1K_2$.\n\nCombining the above four equalities and inequalities, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}},{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\geq& {\\mbox{E}}[-\\alpha K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1>\\alpha\\}] + {\\mbox{E}}[\\alpha K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1<-\\alpha\\}] +\n    {\\mbox{E}}[-K_1K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]\\}]\\\\\n    &+ {\\mbox{E}}\\left[1/2K_2^2{\\mathrm{1}}\\left(\\{K_1\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]\\}\\cup\\{K_1-K_2\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]\\}\\right)\\right]\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\epsilon\\perp A|{{\\bm X}}$ and $\\Pr(A|{{\\bm X}})=\\pi({{\\bm X}})$, applying double expectation rule with ${{\\bm X}}$, we have ${\\mbox{E}}[-\\alpha K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1>\\alpha\\}]={\\mbox{E}}[\\alpha K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1<-\\alpha\\}]={\\mbox{E}}[-K_1K_2{\\mathrm{1}}\\{K_1\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]\\}]=0$. Thus, $$G_1({{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})\\geq{\\mbox{E}}\\left[1/2K_2^2{\\mathrm{1}}\\left(\\{K_1\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]\\}\\cup\\{K_1-K_2\\in[-\\alpha,\\alpha]\\}\\right)\\right].\n    \\label{eq:Gfunction_thm2}$$ Combining , A4 and A8, we can check that 1) holds. Thus, part (a) is proved.\n\n\\(b) When $M(x)=J_{\\epsilon}(x)$, similarly $D=J_\\epsilon\\left(K_1-K_2\\right)-J_\\epsilon\\left(K_1\\right)$. Notice that we have the following three cases:\n\n1.  If $K_1>\\epsilon$ then $D\\geq -K_2$;\n\n2.  If $K_1<-\\epsilon$ then $D\\geq K_2$;\n\n3.  If $K_1\\in[-\\epsilon,\\epsilon]$ then $D\\geq 0$;\n\nThe rest of the proof follows similar steps as part (a).\n\n**Proof of Theorem 5.**\n\nFrom Theorem 1, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_{\\tau}={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$. Plugging this into Theorem 4 and applying double expectation rules, we have $$J(\\tau)={\\mbox{E}}\\left[f_{\\epsilon}\\left(\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)-\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})|{{\\bm X}}\\right)\n    \\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\n    \\pi({{\\bm X}})\\{1-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}& {{\\mathbf 0}}\\\\\n    {{\\mathbf 0}}& \\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\end{array}\n    \\right)\\right]$$ and $$\\Sigma(\\tau,\\tau)={\\mbox{E}}\\left\\{\\left[\\tau-{\\mathrm{1}}\\left\\{\\epsilon<\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)-\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})\\right\\}\\right]^2\n    \\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\n    \\pi({{\\bm X}})\\{1-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}& {{\\mathbf 0}}\\\\\n    {{\\mathbf 0}}& \\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\end{array}\n    \\right)\\right\\}.$$ Thus, $\\sqrt{n}(\\hat{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}}(\\tau)-{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0)\\indist N({{\\mathbf 0}}, J_{11}^{-1}(\\tau)\\Sigma_{11}(\\tau,\\tau)J_{11}^{-1}(\\tau))$, where $J_{11}^{-1}(\\tau)$ and $\\Sigma_{11}(\\tau,\\tau)$ are defined as in Theorem 5. Conditional on ${{\\bm X}}$, ${\\mathrm{1}}\\left\\{\\epsilon<\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)-\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})\\right\\}$ is a binomial random variable with $p=\\Pr\\left(\\epsilon<\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)-\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})\\right)$. Then, ${\\mbox{E}}\\left\\{\\left[\\tau-{\\mathrm{1}}\\{\\epsilon<\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}(\\tau)-\\varphi_0({{\\bm X}})\\}\\right]^2|{{\\bm X}}\\right\\}=(p-\\tau)^2+p(1-p)\\leq \\tau^2+|1-2\\tau|$. Thus, $\\Sigma_{11}(\\tau,\\tau)\\leq\\left(\\tau^2+|1-2\\tau|\\right){\\mbox{E}}\\left[\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\{1-\\pi({{\\bm X}})\\}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\right]$.\n\nAppendix B: Additional Simulation Results {#appendix-b-additional-simulation-results .unnumbered}\n=========================================\n\nWe conducted additional simulations with non-constant propensity scores. Specifically, we considered the following examples.\n\nExamples with error terms independent with treatment {#examples-with-error-terms-independent-with-treatment .unnumbered}\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nWe consider the following two models with p=3,\n\n-   Model I: $$Y_i=1+(X_{i1}-X_{i2})(X_{i1}+X_{i3})+\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_{i})\\}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i+\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})\\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\\bm X}}_{i}=(X_{i1},X_{i2},X_{i3}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$ are multivariate normal with mean 0, variance 1, and $\\mathrm{Corr}(X_{ij},X_{ik})=0.5^{|j-k|}$, $\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i=(1,{{\\bm X}}_i{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$ and ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0=(0,1,-1,1){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$.\n\n-   Model II: $$Y_i={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i+\\{A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_{i})\\}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i+\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})\\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}=(0.5,4,1,-3)$, and ${{\\bm X}}_{i}$, $\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_{i}$ and ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}_0$ are the same as Model I.\n\nWe take linear forms for both the baseline and the contrast functions, where $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}$ and $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}$. We assume the propensity scores $\\pi(\\cdot)$ are known, and we study the non-constant case $(\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)=\\mathrm{logit}({{\\bm X}}_{i1}-{{\\bm X}}_{i2}))$ here. In addition, We consider two different $\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})$ functions, i.e., the homogeneous case with $\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})=1$, and the heterogenous case with $\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i})=0.5+(X_{i1}-X_{i2})^2$. The simulation results are given in Table\u00a0\\[table:modelI\\_nonconstant\\] and Table\u00a0\\[table:modelII\\_nonconstant\\].\n\n[@ll ccc ccc ccc]{}\\\n& & & &\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 1.70 (0.061) & 81.9 & 0.91 & 2.90 (0.114) & 77.6 & 1.34 & & 59.3 & 3.61\\\n& P(0.5) & 1.90 (0.069) & 80.1 & 1.09 & 2.13 (0.073) & 78.3 & 1.25 & 3.54 (0.128) & 75.7 & 1.57\\\n& P(0.25) & 2.35 (0.080) & 78.2 & 1.33 & 1.95 (0.076) & 80.4 & 1.08 & 8.45 (0.431) & 69.8 & 2.28\\\n& Huber & 1.51 (0.053) & 82.1 & 0.89 & 1.77 (0.065) & 80.6 & 1.02 & 3.67 (0.127) & 75.4 & 1.60\\\n200 & LS & 0.77 (0.026) & 86.8 & 0.50 & 1.35 (0.045) & 82.2 & 0.91 & & 59.2 & 3.63\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.88 (0.028) & 85.5 & 0.60 & 1.00 (0.029) & 83.0 & 0.79 & 1.54 (0.050) & 81.1 & 1.00\\\n& P(0.25) & 1.06 (0.035) & 84.5 & 0.68 & 0.83 (0.027) & 85.9 & 0.59 & 3.61 (0.143) & 74.7 & 1.70\\\n& Huber & 0.68 (0.022) & 87.3 & 0.46 & 0.81 (0.025) & 85.2 & 0.62 & 1.58 (0.052) & 80.7 & 1.03\\\n400 & LS & 0.39 (0.012) & 90.2 & 0.28 & 0.65 (0.020) & 86.9 & 0.48 & & 58.0 & 3.79\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.43 (0.013) & 89.3 & 0.32 & 0.47 (0.014) & 88.4 & 0.38 & 0.73 (0.022) & 86.5 & 0.51\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.53 (0.016) & 88.5 & 0.38 & 0.41 (0.013) & 90.5 & 0.27 & 1.50 (0.049) & 81.7 & 0.96\\\n& Huber & 0.34 (0.010) & 90.6 & 0.25 & 0.39 (0.012) & 89.6 & 0.30 & 0.72 (0.022) & 86.3 & 0.53\\\n800 & LS & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.3 & 0.13 & 0.32 (0.010) & 90.2 & 0.27 & & 58.3 & 3.75\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.21 (0.007) & 92.7 & 0.15 & 0.24 (0.007) & 91.5 & 0.20 & 0.36 (0.011) & 90.3 & 0.27\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.28 (0.009) & 92.4 & 0.17 & 0.21 (0.007) & 93.4 & 0.13 & 0.78 (0.026) & 86.9 & 0.50\\\n& Huber & 0.16 (0.005) & 93.7 & 0.11 & 0.19 (0.006) & 92.6 & 0.15 & 0.37 (0.010) & 89.9 & 0.28\\\n\\\n& & & &\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 2.84 (0.111) & 78.2 & 1.33 & 9.96 (0.773) & 72.0 & 2.06 & & 55.2 & 4.18\\\n& P(0.5) & 2.01 (0.082) & 80.6 & 1.09 & 2.18 (0.080) & 79.2 & 1.21 & 4.18 (0.189) & 74.1 & 1.81\\\n& P(0.25) & 2.91 (0.110) & 76.7 & 1.52 & 3.22 (0.105) & 74.2 & 1.76 & 10.62 (0.475) & 65.3 & 2.87\\\n& Huber & 1.90 (0.074) & 80.9 & 1.06 & 2.38 (0.090) & 78.1 & 1.32 & 5.06 (0.230) & 71.9 & 2.04\\\n200 & LS & 1.46 (0.053) & 83.1 & 0.83 & 4.47 (0.371) & 76.8 & 1.51 & & 56.3 & 4.04\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.92 (0.033) & 86.4 & 0.55 & 0.98 (0.035) & 85.3 & 0.64 & 1.69 (0.065) & 81.5 & 0.98\\\n& P(0.25) & 1.35 (0.049) & 83.3 & 0.81 & 1.47 (0.049) & 81.6 & 0.97 & 4.73 (0.241) & 71.9 & 2.05\\\n& Huber & 0.86 (0.030) & 86.6 & 0.52 & 1.02 (0.036) & 84.7 & 0.68 & 2.11 (0.079) & 79.3 & 1.18\\\n400 & LS & 0.74 (0.029) & 87.4 & 0.47 & 2.65 (0.402) & 81.4 & 1.04 & & 56.2 & 4.06\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.45 (0.016) & 90.2 & 0.29 & 0.44 (0.017) & 89.5 & 0.34 & 0.79 (0.029) & 87.2 & 0.49\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.66 (0.025) & 88.3 & 0.41 & 0.70 (0.023) & 86.9 & 0.50 & 2.12 (0.091) & 79.5 & 1.19\\\n& Huber & 0.43 (0.016) & 90.2 & 0.28 & 0.48 (0.018) & 89.0 & 0.36 & 1.01 (0.036) & 85.0 & 0.65\\\n800 & LS & 0.36 (0.013) & 90.8 & 0.25 & 1.09 (0.066) & 85.0 & 0.69 & & 56.3 & 4.02\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.21 (0.008) & 93.2 & 0.14 & 0.24 (0.009) & 92.3 & 0.19 & 0.39 (0.014) & 90.5 & 0.27\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.33 (0.013) & 91.7 & 0.21 & 0.36 (0.012) & 90.8 & 0.25 & 1.01 (0.034) & 84.9 & 0.65\\\n& Huber & 0.20 (0.008) & 93.2 & 0.14 & 0.25 (0.009) & 92.1 & 0.19 & 0.49 (0.016) & 89.1 & 0.34\\\n\n[@ll ccc ccc ccc]{}\\\n& & & &\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 0.36 (0.011) & 89.8 & 0.29 & 1.65 (0.085) & 80.8 & 1.06 & & 58.7 & 3.69\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.57 (0.017) & 86.9 & 0.46 & 0.61 (0.026) & 86.4 & 0.55 & 1.31 (0.045) & 81.7 & 0.93\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.65 (0.020) & 86.2 & 0.52 & 0.22 (0.008) & 91.7 & 0.20 & 4.67 (0.312) & 74.7 & 1.64\\\n& Huber & 0.38 (0.012) & 89.5 & 0.30 & 0.45 (0.018) & 88.3 & 0.40 & 1.70 (0.060) & 79.5 & 1.14\\\n200 & LS & 0.16 (0.004) & 92.9 & 0.14 & 0.74 (0.030) & 85.6 & 0.61 & & 59.1 & 3.64\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.25 (0.007) & 91.2 & 0.21 & 0.26 (0.008) & 90.7 & 0.24 & 0.52 (0.017) & 87.8 & 0.41\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.30 (0.008) & 90.3 & 0.26 & 0.09 (0.003) & 94.8 & 0.08 & 1.69 (0.074) & 81.3 & 0.92\\\n& Huber & 0.17 (0.005) & 92.8 & 0.14 & 0.19 (0.006) & 92.2 & 0.17 & 0.70 (0.022) & 86.2 & 0.53\\\n400 & LS & 0.08 (0.002) & 95.1 & 0.06 & 0.36 (0.013) & 89.7 & 0.30 & & 58.0 & 3.79\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.12 (0.003) & 93.8 & 0.10 & 0.12 (0.003) & 93.8 & 0.10 & 0.22 (0.006) & 91.6 & 0.19\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.14 (0.004) & 93.3 & 0.12 & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.5 & 0.03 & 0.63 (0.021) & 86.5 & 0.49\\\n& Huber & 0.08 (0.002) & 95.0 & 0.07 & 0.09 (0.002) & 94.8 & 0.07 & 0.30 (0.009) & 90.3 & 0.26\\\n800 & LS & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.5 & 0.03 & 0.18 (0.006) & 92.3 & 0.16 & & 58.2 & 3.76\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.06 (0.002) & 95.6 & 0.05 & 0.06 (0.002) & 95.6 & 0.05 & 0.10 (0.003) & 94.4 & 0.09\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.07 (0.002) & 95.3 & 0.06 & 0.02 (0.001) & 97.5 & 0.02 & 0.29 (0.009) & 90.6 & 0.23\\\n& Huber & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.4 & 0.03 & 0.04 (0.001) & 96.3 & 0.04 & 0.14 (0.004) & 93.2 & 0.12\\\n\\\n& & & &\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} n & method & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$ & mse & PCD & $\\delta_{0.5}$\\\n(r)[3-5]{} (lr)[6-8]{} (l)[9-11]{} 100 & LS & 1.45 (0.059) & 82.9 & 0.85 & 8.53 (0.784) & 72.4 & 2.01 & & 54.9 & 4.22\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.94 (0.034) & 85.6 & 0.61 & 1.29 (0.058) & 83.3 & 0.86 & 2.27 (0.132) & 78.9 & 1.24\\\n& P(0.25) & 1.46 (0.051) & 81.5 & 0.96 & 1.78 (0.071) & 78.2 & 1.30 & 7.88 (0.422) & 68.1 & 2.46\\\n& Huber & 0.89 (0.034) & 86.1 & 0.57 & 1.46 (0.067) & 81.7 & 0.99 & 3.28 (0.157) & 75.1 & 1.65\\\n200 & LS & 0.84 (0.035) & 86.6 & 0.53 & 3.85 (0.358) & 77.6 & 1.43 & & 55.9 & 4.09\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.44 (0.016) & 90.0 & 0.29 & 0.60 (0.024) & 89.0 & 0.39 & 0.87 (0.034) & 86.3 & 0.56\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.69 (0.025) & 87.0 & 0.49 & 0.75 (0.024) & 85.5 & 0.59 & 3.08 (0.179) & 75.3 & 1.58\\\n& Huber & 0.43 (0.016) & 90.3 & 0.28 & 0.66 (0.025) & 87.7 & 0.47 & 1.32 (0.050) & 82.4 & 0.87\\\n400 & LS & 0.44 (0.020) & 90.3 & 0.28 & 2.34 (0.393) & 82.4 & 0.95 & & 55.9 & 4.09\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.23 (0.009) & 92.9 & 0.16 & 0.28 (0.011) & 92.5 & 0.19 & 0.39 (0.015) & 90.8 & 0.26\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.33 (0.011) & 91.0 & 0.23 & 0.36 (0.012) & 90.1 & 0.27 & 1.25 (0.048) & 82.8 & 0.82\\\n& Huber & 0.22 (0.008) & 93.1 & 0.15 & 0.31 (0.012) & 91.7 & 0.21 & 0.60 (0.022) & 88.0 & 0.43\\\n800 & LS & 0.23 (0.009) & 93.0 & 0.15 & 0.90 (0.057) & 86.2 & 0.60 & & 56.3 & 4.03\\\n& P(0.5) & 0.11 (0.004) & 95.0 & 0.07 & 0.14 (0.005) & 94.8 & 0.09 & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.6 & 0.12\\\n& P(0.25) & 0.17 (0.006) & 93.7 & 0.12 & 0.18 (0.006) & 93.0 & 0.14 & 0.59 (0.017) & 87.3 & 0.44\\\n& Huber & 0.10 (0.004) & 95.1 & 0.07 & 0.15 (0.006) & 94.2 & 0.11 & 0.29 (0.010) & 91.4 & 0.21\\\n\nWe firstly notice that lsA-learning works much worse under the heterogeneous errors, while all other methods are generally less affected by the heterogeneity of the errors. When the baseline function is misspecified as in Model I, under the homogeneous normal errors, RR(H) works slightly better than lsA-learning, while $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.25})$ works the worst. The difference in general is small. For the homogeneous log-normal errors, again RR(H) works the best, while $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ and $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.25})$ work slightly worse. Here lsA-learning has the worst performance. Under the homogeneous Cauchy errors, the lsA-learning is no longer consistent and work the worst. Both $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ and RR(H) have good performance under the homogeneous Cauchy errors. When baseline function is correctly specified as in Model II, under homogeneous normal errors, lsA-learning performs the best. However, in this case RR(H) also has a very close performance. Under homogeneous log-normal errors, $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.25})$ work the best and lsA-learning work the worst. Under homogeneous Cauchy errors, $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ has the best performance and RR(H) has a close performance. lsA-learning is again not consistent.\n\nExamples with error terms interacted with treatment {#examples-with-error-terms-interacted-with-treatment .unnumbered}\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nWe consider the following model with p=2, $$Y_i=1 + 0.5\\sin[\\pi(X_{i1}-X_{i2})]+\n0.25(1+X_{i1}+2X_{i2})^2+(A_i-\\pi({{\\bm X}}_{i})){{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i+\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i},A_i)\\epsilon_i,$$ where ${{\\bm X}}_{i}=(X_{i1},X_{i2}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$, $\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}_i=(1,{{\\bm X}}_i{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}){^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}$, $\\sigma({{\\bm X}}_{i},A_i)=1+A_i d_0 X_{i1}^2$, ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\theta$}}}_0{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}=(0.5,2,-1)$ and $X_{ik}$ are i.i.d. Uniform\\[-1,1\\]. We take linear forms for both the baseline and the contrast functions, where $\\varphi({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\gamma$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}}$, $C({{\\bm X}};{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\beta$}}}{^{\\mbox{\\tiny {\\sf T}}}}{{\\bm W}}$ and ${{\\bm W}}=(\\tilde{{{\\bm X}}},X_{1}^2,X_{2}^2,X_{1}X_{2})$. $d_0=5$, 10 or 15. The error terms $\\epsilon_i$ follows i.i.d. N(0,1) or Gamma(1,1)-1 distribution. The propensity scores $\\pi(\\cdot)$ are known, and we consider the non-constant case ($\\pi({{\\bm X}}_i)=\\mathrm{logit}({{\\bm X}}_{i1}-{{\\bm X}}_{i2})$) here. The simulation results are given in Table\u00a0\\[table:interacted\\_nonconstant\\_ps\\].\n\n  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------\n                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    \n  (r)[4-6]{} (lr)[7-9]{} (lr)[10-12]{} (lr)[13-15]{} Error   $d_0$   n       $ \\delta_{\\mu}$   $ \\delta_{0.5}$   $ \\delta_{0.25}$   $ \\delta_{\\mu}$   $ \\delta_{0.5}$   $ \\delta_{0.25}$   $ \\delta_{\\mu}$   $ \\delta_{0.5}$   $ \\delta_{0.25}$   $ \\delta_{\\mu}$   $ \\delta_{0.5}$   $ \\delta_{0.25}$\n  Normal                                                     5       100                0.19              0.19               0.36              0.20              0.20               0.34              0.30              0.30               0.23              0.17              0.17               0.33\n                                                                     200                0.11              0.11               0.28              0.13              0.13               0.25              0.21              0.21               0.12              0.11              0.11               0.23\n                                                                     400                0.06              0.06               0.21              0.08              0.08               0.17              0.17              0.17               0.06              0.06              0.06               0.16\n                                                                     800                0.03              0.03               0.16              0.06              0.06               0.11              0.15              0.15               0.04              0.04              0.04               0.11\n                                                             10      100                0.29              0.29               0.93              0.24              0.24               0.88              0.44              0.44               0.50              0.24              0.24               0.88\n                                                                     200                0.21              0.21               0.92              0.18              0.18               0.84              0.37              0.37               0.34              0.17              0.17               0.83\n                                                                     400                0.13              0.13               0.87              0.14              0.14               0.75              0.32              0.32               0.25              0.12              0.12               0.75\n                                                                     800                0.08              0.08               0.80              0.11              0.11               0.64              0.28              0.28               0.21              0.08              0.08               0.64\n                                                             15      100                0.35              0.35               1.58              0.27              0.27               1.51              0.53              0.53               0.72              0.26              0.26               1.51\n                                                                     200                0.29              0.29               1.56              0.21              0.21               1.47              0.50              0.50               0.54              0.20              0.20               1.47\n                                                                     400                0.21              0.21               1.58              0.17              0.17               1.37              0.48              0.48               0.39              0.15              0.15               1.38\n                                                                     800                0.14              0.14               1.52              0.14              0.14               1.26              0.45              0.45               0.31              0.12              0.12               1.27\n  Gamma                                                      5       100                0.18              0.21               0.34              0.20              0.17               0.24              0.28              0.18               0.14              0.18              0.15               0.21\n                                                                     200                0.10              0.14               0.29              0.13              0.10               0.15              0.21              0.11               0.07              0.11              0.07               0.13\n                                                                     400                0.06              0.09               0.23              0.10              0.05               0.10              0.18              0.07               0.04              0.07              0.03               0.08\n                                                                     800                0.03              0.06               0.19              0.08              0.03               0.06              0.16              0.06               0.03              0.06              0.02               0.07\n                                                             10      100                0.27              0.34               0.90              0.28              0.25               0.67              0.46              0.21               0.33              0.28              0.22               0.62\n                                                                     200                0.20              0.32               0.94              0.21              0.16               0.57              0.43              0.14               0.24              0.21              0.13               0.49\n                                                                     400                0.13              0.27               0.92              0.16              0.09               0.46              0.38              0.10               0.18              0.15              0.06               0.39\n                                                                     800                0.08              0.21               0.85              0.13              0.05               0.40              0.35              0.07               0.16              0.13              0.03               0.35\n                                                             15      100                0.34              0.55               1.49              0.33              0.37               1.09              0.59              0.25               0.46              0.33              0.33               0.99\n                                                                     200                0.27              0.54               1.57              0.26              0.29               1.00              0.60              0.19               0.31              0.27              0.23               0.85\n                                                                     400                0.19              0.50               1.56              0.20              0.21               0.88              0.61              0.15               0.21              0.22              0.14               0.70\n                                                                     800                0.12              0.47               1.58              0.17              0.14               0.76              0.62              0.15               0.18              0.19              0.09               0.63\n  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------- ----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ------------------\n\n  : Summary results with non-constant propensity scores when errors interacted with treatment. Least square stands for lsA-learning. Pinball(0.5) stands for robust regression with pinball loss and parameter $\\tau=0.5$. Pinball(0.25) stands for robust regression with pinball loss and parameter $\\tau=0.25$. Huber stands for robust regression with Huber loss, where parameter $\\alpha$ is tuned automatically with R function rlm.[]{data-label=\"table:interacted_nonconstant_ps\"}\n\nBased on Theorem 6 of the main paper, $\\delta_{\\mu}$ column for the lsA-learning method in Table\u00a0\\[table:interacted\\_nonconstant\\_ps\\] converges to 0 as sample size increases. Under Normal error terms, we have $\\delta_{0.5}=\\delta_{\\mu}$. Thus, the $\\delta_{0.5}$ column for the lsA-learning method under Normal error also converges to 0. All other columns in Table \\[table:interacted\\_nonconstant\\_ps\\] converge to a positive constant instead of 0 as sample size goes to infinity. $\\mathrm{RR}(H)$ and $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ perform similarly in Table \\[table:interacted\\_nonconstant\\_ps\\]. We also find even though lsA-learning outperform all other methods in $\\delta_{\\mu}$ when sample size is large. It may be worse than $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ and $\\mathrm{RR}(H)$ when sample size is small due to the fact that lsA-learning is inefficient under the heteroscedastic or skewed errors. Last, we find that lsA-learning, $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.5})$ and $\\mathrm{RR}(\\rho_{0.25})$ perform best at the columns $\\delta_{\\mu}$, $\\delta_{0.5}$ and $\\delta_{0.25}$ accordingly. The reason is given in the Remark under Theorem 2 of the main paper.\n"}
-{"text": "---\ntitle: Deformations of Galois representations arising from degenerate extensions\n---\n\nAdam Logan\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThis paper is inspired by that of Boston and Mazur \\[B-M\\], and work on this problem was begun when the author was a graduate student of Barry Mazur (supported by an NSF Graduate Fellowship). In the paper \\[B-M\\], the authors study the deformation theory of a certain type of $S_3$-extensions of $\\Q$, which they term [*neat*]{}, and more specifically that of [*generic*]{} $S_3$-extensions, which satisfy an additional condition. Restricting their numerical study to one particular family of neat extensions, they note that all such extensions seem to satisfy their genericity condition.\n\nTheir principal result on generic $S_3$-extensions can be summarized as follows:\n\n(\\[B-M\\], prop.\u00a013\\]) Let $L/\\Q$ be a neat $S_3$-extension for the prime $p$ (we will define this in Section 2, below). The universal deformation ring of the natural representation of its Galois group into $GL_2(\\F_p)$ is isomorphic to $\\Z_p[[T_1,T_2,T_3]]$. If $L/\\Q$ is generic, then:\n\n[(a)]{} The inertially reducible locus is composed of the union of two smooth hypersurfaces in the universal deformation space.\n\n[(b)]{} The globally dihedral locus is equal to the inertially dihedral locus and is a smooth hypersurface.\n\n[(c)]{} The ordinary locus consists in a smooth analytic curve in the deformation space.\n\n[(d)]{} The inertially ample locus is equal to the complement of the union of three hypersurfaces, any two of which meet transversely.\n\nThey also show that generic $S_3$-extensions actually exist:\n\n(\\[B-M\\], prop.\u00a09) Let $a$ be an integer such that $27+4a^3$ is positive, prime, and less than $10^4$. Then the splitting field of the polynomial $x^3+ax+1$ is a generic $S_3$-extension for the prime $27+4a^3$. (I have verified this for $27+4a^3 < 10^{15}/2$, and believe that there are no counterexamples.)\n\nWe will prove that the statements regarding the inertially reducible locus and the ordinary locus still hold in the degenerate case, and we will say something about the other loci as well. In addition, we will give two examples (of many) of degenerate $S_3$-extensions, one of them the splitting field of the polynomial $x^3+7x-12$.\n\nI would like to thank Barry Mazur and Nigel Boston for discussions of this problem, and Fernando Gouv\u00eaa for encouraging me to pursue it after a long hiatus. Calculations in this paper were done using [gp]{} and the tables of number fields prepared at the Universit\u00e9 de Bordeaux.\n\nBasics\n======\n\nWe start with some fundamental definitions borrowed from \\[B-M\\], with very slight modifications.\n\n(Cf. \\[B-M\\], Definition 2.) Let $L/\\Q$ be a totally complex $S_3$-extension in which $p$ splits as $(\\p_1\\p_2\\p_3)^2$, and let $S$ be the set of finite ramified primes of $L$. We say that $L$ is [*admissible*]{} for $p$, or $L$ is [*neat*]{}, if:\n\n[1.]{} Any global unit of $L$ which is locally a $p$th power at all elements of $S$ is globally a $p$th power.\n\n[2.]{} The class number of $L$ is prime to $p$.\n\n[3.]{} The completion of $L$ at any element of $S$ does not contain $p$th roots of $1$. (In particular, it follows that the cardinality of the residue field is not congruent to $1$ mod $p$.) Let $L$ be a neat $S_3$-extension of $\\Q$, and let $\\p_1, \\p_2, \\p_3$ be the primes of $L$ lying above $p$. Let $e_1, e_2$ be a basis for global units mod $p$th powers. Since we are assuming that $L$ is neat, we may suppose that $e_1$ is not a $p$th power in $L_{\\p_1}$, and we may also arrange things so that $e_2$ is not a $p$th power in $L_{\\p_2}$ or $L_{\\p_3}$. If $e_2$ is not a $p$th power in $L_{\\p_1}$ either, then $L$ is generic.\n\nThe [*degeneracy index*]{} of $L$ at $p$ will be the largest integer $i$ such that $e_2$ is a $p^i$th power in $L_{\\p_1}$. (Of course this is a finite number, for the only elements of $L_{\\p_1}$ which are $p^i$th powers for all $i$ are $p-1$-st roots of $1$.)\n\nThe authors of \\[B-M\\] pay particular attention to the Galois closures of cubic fields of the form $\\Q(x)$, where $x^3+ax+1 = 0$, for $a$ an integer such that $27+4a^3$ is positive and prime. They show that the first seven such fields are generic $S_3$-extensions of $\\Q$, using a simple numerical criterion. As noted above, I have extended this verification to all $a < 500000$, and find it hard to believe that there are any counterexamples. However, if one does not restrict to these particular cubic fields, it becomes easy to find degenerate $S_3$-extensions. (The tables of number fields available by anonymous FTP from [megrez.math.u-bordeaux.fr]{} greatly facilitate such a search.)\n\nThe rest of the paper will be devoted to modifying the proofs and results of Boston and Mazur so that they apply in the degenerate case. That is, we will determine the natural subspaces of the universal deformation space, just as they do in their generic situation. Regrettably, I do not have anything to say about the cases which are not neat, whether because the class number is a multiple of $p$ or because there is a unit which is a $p$th power locally at all primes over $p$ but not globally.\n\nDefinitions and Notations\n=========================\n\nWe now recall some more definitions from \\[B-M\\].\n\nLet $L$ be an $S_3$-extension of $\\Q$, and let $p$ be a rational prime greater than $3$ which decomposes in $L$ as $\\p_1\\p_2\\p_3$. (We assume that such a prime exists.) Let $S$ be the set of ramified primes of $L$. Let $P$ be the Galois group over $L$ of the maximal pro-$p$ extension of $L$ unramified away from $p$, or outside $S$ (in the situations we will be considering, these are the same), $G$ its Galois group over $\\Q$, $L_p$ the completion of $L$ at $\\p_1$, $P_p$ the Galois group over $L_p$ of its maximal pro-$p$ extension, and $G_p$ the Galois group of the maximal pro-$p$ extension of $L_p$ over $\\Q_p$. We also fix an embedding of $\\bar \\Q$ into $\\bar \\Q_p$, and thus of $\\Gal L_p$ into $\\Gal L$, such that the inertia subgroup $P^0_p$ maps to the inertia subgroup for $\\p_1$.\n\n$P$ is a free pro-$p$ group on $4$ generators, and $P_p$ is a free pro-$p$ group on $3$ generators.\n\n.\n\nWe take $\\sigma$ (resp.\u00a0$\\tau$) to be an element of order $2$ (resp.\u00a0$3$) in $S_3$. Following one of the notations in \\[B-M\\], we will let $P$ be generated by $u, \\tau(u), \\tau^2(u), v$, where $u$ conjugated by $\\tau$ is, obviously, $\\tau(u)$, $\\tau(v) = v$, $\\sigma(u) = u$, and $\\sigma(v) = v^{-1}$. On the other hand, $P_p$ will be generated by $\\xi, \\eta, \\phi$, with $\\xi$ and $\\eta$ generating the inertia and the nontrivial element of $\\Z/2\\Z$ acting as $+1$ on $\\xi,\n\\phi$ and $-1$ on $\\eta$.\n\nLet $E$ be the group of global units of $L$. It is the direct product of a free abelian group of rank $2$ with a cyclic group of order $2$. For any place $v$ of $L$, let $E_v$ be the group of units in the ring of integers of $L_v$.\n\nFor any topological group $T$, let $\\bar T$ be its $p$-Frattini quotient. More generally, let $\\subbar{i} T$ be the maximal quotient of $T$ which is an abelian pro-$p$ group with exponent dividing $p^i$ (that is, $\\subbar{i} T = T/(T,T)T^{p^i}$).\n\nLet $K$ be a cubic extension of $\\Q$. Let $L$ be its Galois closure, and let $S$ be the set of finite ramified primes of $L$. Global class field theory gives us a map from the id\u00e8le class group of $L$ to the abelianization of its absolute Galois group. This induces a map $\\oplus_{v \\in S} \\bar E_v \\mapsto \\bar P$ which is trivial on the image in $\\oplus_{v \\in S} \\bar E_v$ of the global units. Under the conditions that the class number of $L$ be prime to $p$ and that no completion of $L$ at a prime in $S$ contain the $p$th roots of $1$, this map is surjective.\n\nIn this situation we say, as above, that $L$ is [*neat*]{} for $p$, or for $S$, if the map $\\bar E \\mapsto \\oplus_{v \\in S} \\bar E_v$ is injective. In this case, we consider a map $\\bar E \\mapsto \\bar E_1$. If it too is injective, we are in the [*generic*]{} situation treated by Boston and Mazur. Otherwise, the extension is termed [*degenerate*]{}, as remarked above, and the degeneracy index is the largest $i$ for which the map $\\subbar{i} E \\mapsto\n\\subbar{i} E_1$ has cyclic image.\n\nAt this point we give our promised example of a degenerate $S_3$-extension.\n\nLet $K$ be the field $\\Q(x)$, where $x^3+7x-12 = 0$, and $L$ its Galois closure. We claim that $L$ is a degenerate $S_3$-extension of $\\Q$, of degeneracy index $1$, with $p=5$. Here the set of ramified primes is $\\{5,263\\}$, both of which split as $(\\p_1\\p_2\\p_3)^2$, so it is easy to check that the completions there do not contain fifth roots of $1$. The class number of $L$ is $2$.\n\nUsing [gp]{}, it is easy to check that the units of the cubic subfields of $L$ generate the full unit group of $K$. A fundamental unit of $K$ is $14x-19$. $K$ has a unique embedding into $\\Q_5$, in which the image of $x$ is congruent to $62$ mod $125$, so that the image of the fundamental unit is congruent to $-1$ mod $25$, but not mod $125$, and is therefore a fifth power but not a $25$th power. I assert that the image of $x$ under the embedding of $K$ into $\\Q_5(\\sqrt{10})$ is not a fifth power. This will essentially complete the verification that $L$ is neat.\n\nIn fact, it is easy to show that a unit of $\\Q_5(\\sqrt{10})$ which is congruent to $1$ modulo $\\m$, the maximal ideal, is a fifth power iff it is congruent to $1$ modulo $\\m^3$. However, a root of $x^3+7x-12$ which does not belong to $\\Q_5$ is congruent modulo $\\m^2$ to $4 \\pm \\sqrt{10}$, and thus the unit is congruent modulo $\\m^2$ to $2 \\mp \\sqrt{10}$ and cannot be a fifth power (multiply by $3^5$).\n\nSo, if we take a unit $u = \\pm u_1^a u_2^b$ of $L$, where $u_1, u_2$ are fundamental units in different cubic subfields of $L$, then in one completion $u$ is a fifth power iff $5 | a$, and in another iff $5 | b$. Thus $u$ is a fifth power locally iff it is a fifth power globally, which completes the proof that $L$ is neat.\n\nLet $p$ be a prime, $n$ a positive integer, and $r$ and $s$ integers with $p^n | (r+s)$. Suppose that the polynomial $x^3+rx^2+sx-1$ is irreducible and does not have all real roots, and let $K$ be its root field and $L$ its splitting field as above. Suppose further that $p$ decomposes in $K$ as $\\p_1^2\\p_2$. (This cannot be arranged for all $p$, since it requires the polynomial $x^4-8x^3+18x^2-27$ to have a root mod $p$, but it can for some, for example with $p = 5, r = -29, s = 4, n = 2$.) Clearly $K$ has a unit congruent to $1$ modulo $p^n$ in the embedding of $K$ into $\\Q_p$. This must be the $p^{n-1}$-th power of a local unit, and it seems that it is always possible to arrange for $L$ to be neat by varying $r, s$ within their congruence classes mod $p^n$. Constructions like this lead me to believe that for all primes $p > 3$, there are $S_3$-extensions with all degeneracy indices at $p$, but I cannot prove it. Among other problems, it can never be possible to estimate the class number of $K$ as being less than $p$, as did Mazur \\[M, section 1.13\\], because for a fixed $p$ the discriminant must grow as $n$ increases.\n\nRepresentation Theory\n=====================\n\nLet $G$ be a finite group and $F$ a field of characteristic prime to $\\card G$. Then, of course, the group algebra $F[G]$ is semisimple. It is isomorphic to a direct sum of matrix algebras over $F$ iff all irreducible representations of $G$ (say there are $c$) can be defined over $F$.\n\nSuppose we are in this case, and let $R$ be a local Artinian ring with residue field $F$. Since $R[G] \\isisom F[G] \\otimes_F R$, it is clear that $R[G]$ is likewise a direct sum of $c$ matrix algebras. Now, representations of $G$ with coefficients in $R$ correspond naturally to $R[G]$-modules free over $R$. These, then, correspond to $R^c$-modules free over $R$, that is, to $c$-tuples of free $R$-modules. In turn, these correspond canonically to $c$-tuples of $F$-modules, whence to $F[G]$-modules or to representations. In summary, a representation of $G$ to $M_n(R)$ is uniquely determined up to conjugacy by its reduction to $M_n(F)$. The usual theorems on reducibility of representations then follow for representations to $R$. For example, if we have a representation $\\rho$ to $R$ which is an extension of representations, it must in fact be their sum, for $\\rho$ and the sum have the same reduction to $M_n(F)$.\n\nWe will apply these ideas with $F = \\F_p$ and $G = S_3$. In essence, they allow us to immediately take over all results about module decompositions given in \\[B-M\\] without change here. Since $P$, the Galois group of the maximal pro-$p$ extension of $L$ unramified away from $p$ over $L$, is a free pro-$p$ group, the groups $\\subbar{i} P$ are all free modules over $\\Z/p^i\\Z$ of the same rank.\n\n$A$ is a semidirect product of $P$ by $S_3$ such that for any $j$, $A$ acts on $\\subbar{j} P$ by $V + \\chi$, where $\\chi$ is the nontrivial $1$-dimensional representation of $S_3$ with coefficients in $\\F_p$ and $V$ is the natural $3$-dimensional representation of $S_3$. For any $j$, $A_p$ is a semidirect product of $P_p$ by $\\Z/2\\Z$, with $\\Z/2\\Z$ acting on $\\subbar{j} P_p$ by $1 + 1 + \\chi$. In the global case, the inertia subgroup maps to the space spanned by a basis vector of $V$ and $\\chi$ (not a submodule, since different choices of prime above $p$ give different inertia subgroups); in the local case, to $1 + \\chi$.\n\n, together with the above to remove the restriction $j = 1$ made there.\n\nBoston and Mazur study the exact sequence of $p$-Frattini quotients $$0 \\mapsto \\bar E \\mapsto \\bar E_1 \\oplus \\bar E_2 \\oplus \\bar E_3 \\mapsto\n\\bar P \\mapsto 0.$$ Likewise we will study the exact sequence of $p^i$-quotients. That is, we define a map $\\Pi_j^i$ to be that given by class field theory from $\\subbar{j} E_k$ to $\\subbar{j} P$. Its image will be denoted $\\subbar{j} P_k$, and by class field theory $\\subbar{j} P_1$ is the image of the inertia subgroup $\\subbar{j} P^0_p$ in $\\subbar{j} P$.\n\nLet $L$ be an $S_3$-extension of $\\Q$, degenerate for $p$ with degeneracy index $i$. Then the intersection of any two, or all three, of the $\\subbar{j} P_k$ is isomorphic to $\\Z/p^l\\Z$, where $l = \\min(i,j)$. (In the case $j = 1$, this reduces to the results in the first part of \\[B-M, section 2.3\\].)\n\nWe consider the cases $i < j, \\, j \\le i$ separately. In the case $j \\le i$, the image of $P_1$ is isomorphic to $\\Z/p^j\\Z$, and it is stable under the action of the involution of the Galois group which fixes $\\p_1$. The rest of the proof in \\[B-M, section 2.3\\] can now be taken over word for word.\n\nWe now consider the case $i < j$. Everything is compatible with the inclusion maps $\\subbar{j} E_k \\mapsto \\subbar{j+1} E_k$ and $\\subbar{j} P \\mapsto\n\\subbar{j+1} P$, so the image must contain a $\\Z/p^i\\Z$-subgroup, and no more elements of order dividing $p^i$. If there is an element of higher order in the intersection $\\subbar{j} P_k \\cap \\subbar{j} P_{k'}$, say $y$, coming from $y_k$ and $y_{k'}$, then the element $y_k \\oplus y_{k'} \\oplus 0$ would be in the image of $\\subbar{j} E$, by exactness. This would immediately imply that the degeneracy index of $L$ is greater than $i$.\n\nLinking Local and Global Presentations\n======================================\n\nWe have already described (in ) the presentations of the local and global Galois groups $G_p, G$. Now we must show how they behave under the map $G_p \\mapsto G$ (in particular, what happens when we restrict this to a map $\\Pi_p \\mapsto \\Pi$). This is where the difference between the generic and degenerate situations becomes important.\n\n(Cf.\u00a0\\[B-M, lemma 2.4.4\\].) Suppose that $i$, the degeneracy index of $L$, is at least $j$, and let $\\xi, \\eta$ be generators of the inertia subgroup of $\\subbar{j} P_p$ such that the nontrivial element of $\\Gal(L_p/\\Q)$ acts as $+1$ on $\\xi$ and $-1$ on $\\eta$. Let $r, s$ be the images of $\\xi, \\eta$ in $\\subbar{j} \\Pi$, and let $R, S$ be the $S_3$-stable subspaces that they generate. Then $R \\isisom 1 + \\epsilon$ and $S \\isisom \\chi$. Recall that $\\subbar{j} \\Pi \\isisom 1 + \\chi + \\epsilon$. Because $L$ has no unramified extensions of degree $p$, the $S_3$-stable subspace of $\\subbar{j} \\Pi$ generated by the image of a local inertia group\u2014that is, $R + S$\u2014must be the whole thing. Also, $R, S$ must be quotients of the inductions of $1$ and $\\chi$ from $A_p = \\Z/2\\Z$ to $A = S_3$, respectively. On the other hand, if $i < j$, neither $R$ nor $S$ can be one-dimensional over $\\Z/p^j\\Z$, by . Thus, the statement on $R$ follows if we prove the statement about $S$.\n\nCorresponding to $\\xi, \\eta$, we let $a, b$ be generators of $\\subbar{j} E_1$ such that $a^\\sigma = a, b^\\sigma = 1/b$. Let $\\upsilon$ be the global unit of $L$ which is a $p^j$th power in $L_{\\p_1}$. Then the image of $\\upsilon$ in $\\subbar{j} E_{\\p_2}$ must be a multiple of $b$. Indeed, on the one hand, the product of the three global conjugates of $\\upsilon$ can be taken to be $1$, and on the other hand, the two conjugates that are not in $\\Q_p$ are local conjugates in $L_p$, so when reduced to $\\subbar{j} E_{L_p}$ they have the same coefficient of $a$, which must therefore be $0$. On the other hand, the coefficient of $b$ must be a unit, for otherwise $\\upsilon$ would be a $p$th power everywhere locally, a possibility excluded by our hypotheses.\n\nIn particular, the image of $\\subbar{j} E_L$ in $\\oplus_k\\, \\subbar{j} E_k$ is spanned by $(b,-b,0)$ and $(0,b,-b)$. It follows that the intersection of the images of the $\\subbar{j} E_k$ in $\\subbar{j} P$ is the image of $(b,0,0)$, which is obviously the $\\chi$ subspace as claimed.\n\nA curious consequence of this proposition is as follows:\n\nLet $L/\\Q$ be an $S_3$-extension of degeneracy index at least $j$ for $p$, and let $F$ be the subextension of $\\Q(\\zeta_{p^{j+1}})$ which is of degree $p^j$ over $\\Q$. Then the class group of the compositum $L \\vee\nF$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to $(\\Z/p^j\\Z)^2$.\n\nIt is sufficient, of course, to construct an unramified extension with this Galois group. The point is simply that the inertia groups for $\\p_i$ in the extension cut out by $\\subbar{j} P$ are isomorphic to $(\\Z/p^j\\Z)^2$ and have an intersection isomorphic to $(\\Z/p^j\\Z)$, which cuts out the extension $M$, say. On the other hand, $L \\vee F\n\\subset M$ and is totally ramified over $L$ at each $\\p_i$. Thus, $M/(L \\vee F)$ is unramified at these primes, and (by definition of $P$) at all others as well.\n\nWe must now specify the relation between local and global presentations more precisely.\n\n(Cf.\u00a0\\[B-M, prop.\u00a010\\].) Let $L$ be an admissible $S_3$-extension of $\\Q$ of degeneracy index $i$ for the prime $p$. Then we may take the local and global systems of generators such that the image of $\\xi$ is $u$ and, in the induced map on quotients $\\subbar{j} \\Pi_p \\mapsto \\subbar{j} \\Pi$, the image of $\\eta$ is $v$, if $i \\ge j$. By \\[B-M, prop.\u00a07 and addendum\\] we may take the image of $\\xi$ to be $u$. The statement about $\\eta$ follows from the last lemma, similarly to the proof of \\[B-M, prop.\u00a010\\].\n\nWe have now accumulated all necessary information about the Galois groups and can proceed to studying the universal deformation.\n\nThe Universal Deformation\n=========================\n\nLet $L$ be an admissible $S_3$-extension; for the moment, the index of degeneracy does not matter. There is a Galois representation $\\bar \\rho: G \\mapsto GL_2(\\F_p)$, unique up to conjugacy, which factors through $\\Gal L/\\Q$ and maps it injectively into $GL_2(\\F_p)$. For concreteness, we fix elements $\\sigma$, $\\tau$ in $S_3$ of order $2$ and $3$ respectively and map them to $$\\pmatrix{1&0\\cr 0&-1\\cr}, \\pmatrix{-1/2& 1/2 \\cr -3/2 & -1/2\\cr}.$$\n\nWe will be studying deformations of $\\bar \\rho$ to complete local noetherian rings with residue field $\\F_p$. The universal deformation has been completely described.\n\nThe universal deformation ring is the power series ring $\\Z_p[[T_1,T_2,T_3]]$, and the universal deformation may be given as follows: $$\\sigma \\mapsto \\pmatrix{1&0\\cr 0&-1\\cr},\n\\tau \\mapsto \\pmatrix{-1/2&1/2\\cr -3/2&-1/2\\cr},\nu \\mapsto \\pmatrix{1+T_1&0\\cr 0&1+T_1\\cr},\nv \\mapsto \\pmatrix{(1-3T_3^2)^{1/2}&T_3\\cr -3T_3&(1-3T_3^2)^{1/2}\\cr}.$$\n\nThis is \\[B-M\\], prop.\u00a011, and a detailed proof is given there.\n\nTo understand the universal deformation more fully, we must understand the image of $\\eta$. Since $\\eta$ conjugated by $\\sigma$ is $\\eta^{-1}$, the image of $\\eta$ must have determinant $1$ and equal diagonal entries, so it is, say, $$\\pmatrix{(1+fg)^{1/2}&f\\cr g & (1+fg)^{1/2}\\cr}.$$ Modulo $\\m$, the power series $f$ is congruent to $T_3$, and $g$ to $-3T_3$.\n\nAs \\[B-M\\], prop.\u00a012, except that here the image of $\\subbar{1} \n\\eta$ under the natural map $\\bar \\Pi_p \\mapsto \\bar \\Pi$ is $\\bar v$.\n\nWe can now determine some of the natural subspaces. We will be considering representations of the Galois group into $GL_2(\\Z_p)$ which are deformations of the representation into $GL_2(\\F_p)$. Thus they come from the universal deformation, and are described by a continuous homomorphism $\\Z_p[[T_1,T_2,T_3]] \\mapsto \\Z_p$. Such a homomorphism $\\alpha$ is described by giving $\\alpha(T_1), \\alpha(T_2), \\alpha(T_3)$; the space of such is therefore naturally identified with $p\\Z_p \\times p\\Z_p \\times p\\Z_p$, which is a $3$-dimensional $p$-adic manifold. The only visible difference between our situation and the generic one is that here $f$ and $g$ are not transversal. Presumably the order of contact of their zero loci is equal to the degeneracy locus of the extension, but I do not see how to prove this.\n\n(cf. \\[B-M\\], prop.\u00a013.) The inertially reducible locus is the union of the hypersurfaces $f = 0$ and $g = 0$. The ordinary locus is the smooth curve defined by $T_1 = g = 0$.\n\nIdentical to the proofs given in \\[B-M\\].\n\nIt is still true that a representation is inertially dihedral iff $T_1 = T_2$ or $f = g = 0$. If, as is presumably the case, the loci $f = 0$ and $g = 0$ are distinct, the argument in \\[B-M\\] goes through to show that $f = g = 0$ implies $T_1 = T_2$. (This sounds like something that should be easy to prove, but I have not managed to.) It would then follow, just as in \\[B-M\\], that the inertially ample locus is the complement of the union of the inertially reducible and inertially dihedral loci.\n\n= -1\n\nReferences\n==========\n\n=20.0pt =-20.0pt \\[B-M\\] N. Boston, B. Mazur, [*Explicit universal deformations of Galois representations*]{}. In [*Algebraic Number Theory*]{}, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. [**17**]{}, 1\u201321.\n\n\\[M\\] B. Mazur, [*Deforming Galois representations*]{}. In [*Galois groups over $\\Q$*]{}, MSRI Publications [**16**]{}, 385\u2013437.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Self-poisoning is a kinetic trap that can impair or prevent crystal growth in a wide variety of physical settings. Here we use dynamic mean-field theory and computer simulation to argue that poisoning is ubiquitous because its emergence requires only the notion that a molecule can bind in two (or more) ways to a crystal; that those ways are not energetically equivalent; and that the associated binding events occur with sufficiently unequal probability. If these conditions are met then the steady-state growth rate is in general a non-monotonic function of the thermodynamic driving force for crystal growth, which is the characteristic of poisoning. Our results also indicate that relatively small changes of system parameters could be used to induce recovery from poisoning.'\nauthor:\n- Stephen Whitelam$^1$\n- Yuba Raj Dahal$^2$\n- 'Jeremy D. Schmit$^2$'\ntitle: 'Minimal physical requirements for crystal growth self-poisoning'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nOne of the kinetic traps that can prevent the crystallization of molecules from solution is the phenomenon of [*self-posioning*]{}, in which molecules attach to a crystal in a manner not commensurate with the crystal structure and so impair or prevent crystal growthungar2005effect,de2003principles. This phenomenon has been seen in computer simulations of hard rods\u015fchilling2004self, and in the assembly of polymers\u1e29iggs1994growth,ungar2000dilution,ungar2005effect and proteinsasthagiri2000role,schmit2013kinetic. A signature of self-poisoning is a growth rate that is a non-monotonic function of the thermodynamic driving force for crystal growth, with the slowing of growth as a function of driving force occurring in the rough-growth-front regime (a distinct effect, growth poisoning at low driving force, can occur if impurities impair 2D nucleation on the surface of a 3D crystal\u00e7abrera1958growth,land1999recovery,van1998impurity,sleutel2015mesoscopic). Unlike the slow dynamics associated with nucleationde2003principles,sear2007nucleation, self-poisoning cannot be overcome by seeding a solution with a crystal template or by inducing heterogeneous nucleation.\n\nHere we use dynamic mean-field theory and computer simulation to argue that poisoning is ubiquitous because its emergence requires no specific spatial or molecular detail, but only the notion that a molecule can bind in two (or more) ways to a crystal, optimal and non-optimal; that the non-optimal way of binding is energetically less favorable than the optimal way of binding; and that any given binding event is more likely (by about an order of magnitude) to be non-optimal than to be optimal. If these conditions are met then the character of the steady-state growth regime changes qualitatively with crystal-growth driving force. Just past the solubility limit a crystal\u2019s growth rate increases with thermodynamic driving force (supercooling or supersaturation). However, the dynamically-generated crystal also becomes less pure as driving force is increased, i.e. it incorporates more molecules in the non-optimal configuration. As a result, the effective driving force for growth of the [*impure*]{} crystal can diminish as the driving force for growth of the [*pure*]{} crystal increases, and so the impure crystal\u2019s growth slows (this feedback effect is similar to the growth-rate \u2018catastrophe\u2019 described in Ref.van1998impurity). At even larger driving forces an impure precipitate of non-optimally-bound molecules grows rapidly. Self-poisoning of polymer crystallization was studied in Refs.\u1e29iggs1994growth,ungar2000dilution,ungar2005effect using analytic models and simulations. The present models have a similar minimal flavor to the models developed in those references, although our models are not designed to be models of polymer crystallization specifically, and contain no notion of molecular binding-site blocking. We show that poisoning can happen even if all molecular interactions are attractive, and that it results from a nonlinear dynamical feedback effect that couples crystal quality and crystal growth rate. Having identified the factors that lead to poisoning, the present models also suggest that relatively small changes of system parameters could be used to induce recovery from it.\n\nIn we introduce and analyze a mean-field model of the growth of a crystal from molecules able to bind to it in distinct ways. In we introduce a simulation model of the same type of process, but one that accommodates spatial fluctuations and particle-number fluctuations ignored by the mean-field theory. The behavior of these models is summarized in . Both the mean-field model and the simulations show crystal growth rate to be a non-monotonic function of the thermodynamic driving force for growth of the [*pure*]{} crystal, because the dynamically-generated crystal is in general impure. In some regimes the predictions of the two models differ in their specifics: the mean-field theory assumes a nonequilibrium steady-state of infinite lifetime, and the growth rate associated with this steady-state can vanish. Simulations, which satisfy detailed balance, eventually evolve to thermal equilibrium and so always display a non-zero growth rate. We conclude in .\n\nMean-field theory of growth poisoning {#sec_mf}\n=====================================\n\nThe basic physical ingredients of growth poisoning are contained within a model of growth that neglects all spatial detail and accounts only for the ability of particles of distinct type (or, equivalently, distinct conformations of a single particle type) to bind to or unbind from a \u2018structure\u2019, which we resolve only in an implicit sense. We consider $K$ types of particle, labeled $i=1,2,\\dots,K$ (we will focus shortly on the case of two particle types). We model the structure in a mean-field sense, resolving it only to the extent that we identify the relative abundance $n_i$ of particle type $i$ within the structure, where $\\sum_i n_i = 1$ (we assume that sums over variables $i$ and $j$ run over all $K$ particle-type labels). Let us assume that the structure gains particles of type $i$ at rate $p_i C$, where $C$ is a notional concentration and $\\sum_i p_i = 1$. Let us assume that particle types unbind from the structure with a rate proportional to their relative abundance within the structure, multiplied by some rate $\\lambda$, which can depend on the set of variables $\\{n_i\\}$. If we write down a master equation for the stochastic process so defined, calculate expectation values of the variables $n_i$, and replace fluctuating quantities by their averages, then we get the following set of mean-field rate equations describing the net rates $\\Gamma_i$ at which particles of type $i$ add to the structure: \\[rates\\] \\_i = p\\_i C - n\\_i ({n\\_i}), where $i=1,2,\\dots,K$, and $\\sum_i p_i = 1=\\sum_i n_i$ as stated previously. To model a structure of interacting particles we assume a Boltzmann-like rate of unbinding, \\[lambdas\\] \\_i({n\\_i}) = (\\_j \\_[ij]{} n\\_j), which assumes the interaction energy between particle types $i$ and $j$ to be $\\epsilon_{ij}$, and assumes that particles \u2018feel\u2019 only the averaged composition $\\{n_i\\}$ of the structure.\n\nWe define the growth rate of the structure as \\[growth\\_rate\\] V\\_i \\_i. In equilibrium the structure neither grows nor shrinks, and we have \\[equilib\\] \\_i=0 for each $i=1,2,\\dots,K$. We shall also assume the existence of a steady-state growth regime in which $V \\geq 0$ but the composition of the structure does not change with time; in this regime we have \\[steady\\] n\\_i=, i.e. the relative abundance of each particle type is proportional to the relative rate at which it is added to the structure.\n\nAt this point the set of equations \u2013 describes a generic model of growth via the binding and unbinding of particles of multiple types. The model is mean-field in both a spatial sense \u2013 no spatial degrees of freedom exist, and particle-structure interactions depend on the composition of the structure as a whole \u2013 and in the sense of ignoring fluctuations of particle number: the model resolves only net rates of growth. We now specialize the model to the case of crystal growth in the presence of impurities; different choices of parameters can be used to model other scenariosWhitelam2014a,Sue2015,mannige2015predicting.\n\nWe shall consider two particle types, and so set $K=2$. We will call particle types 1 and 2 \u2018B\u2019 for \u2018blue\u2019 and \u2018R\u2019 for \u2018red\u2019, respectively, for descriptive purposes (in Section\u00a0\\[results\\] simulation configurations will be color-coded accordingly). We call the relative abundance of blue particles in the structure $n_1 \\equiv n$, and so the relative abundance of red particles in the structure is $n_2=1-n$. We consider blue particles to represent the (unique) crystallographic orientation and conformation of a particular molecule, and red particles to represent the ensemble of non-crystallographic orientations and conformations of the same molecule. Alternatively, one could consider red particles to be an impurity species present in the same solution as the blue particles that we want to crystallize. We assume that an isolated particle is blue with probability $p$ and red with probability $1-p$, and so we choose $p_1 = p$ and so $p_2 = 1-p$ for the basic rates of particle addition in . We will assume that the blue-blue crystallographic or \u2018specific\u2019 interaction in is $\\epsilon_{\\rm BB}=-\\es \\kt$. We will assume that interactions between blue and red ($\\epsilon_{\\rm RB}$) or red and red ($\\epsilon_{\\rm RR}$) are \u2018nonspecific\u2019, and equal to $-\\en \\kt$. With these choices reads \\[rateb\\] \\_[B]{} &=& pC -n \\^n [e]{}\\^[- ]{},\\\n\\[rater\\] \\_[R]{} &=& (1-p) C -(1-n) [e]{}\\^[- ]{}, where $\\alpha \\equiv {\\rm e}^{-\\Delta}$ and $\\Delta  \\equiv \\es -\\en$. This model describes the growth of a structure whose character is defined by its \u2018color\u2019, $n$; for $n\\approx 1$ the structure is almost blue, and we shall refer to this structure as the \u2018crystal\u2019. For $n$ small we have a mostly red structure, and we refer to this as the \u2018precipitate\u2019. Intermediate values of $n$ describe a structure that we shall refer to as an \u2018impure\u2019 crystal.\n\nIt is convenient to work with a set of rescaled rates and concentrations \\[rescale\\] (c, \\_[R]{}, \\_[B]{} ) (C,\\_[R]{}, \\_[B]{} ) [e]{}\\^, in terms of which Equations\u00a0 and\u00a0 read \\[ratebreduced\\] \\_[B]{} &=& p c -n \\^n.\\\n\\[raterreduced\\] \\_[R]{} &=& (1-p)c -(1-n). The rescaling defined by\u00a0 makes an important physical point: the timescale for crystal growth is measured most naturally in terms of the basic timescale ${\\rm e}^{\\en}$ for the unbinding of impurity (red) particles. Thus, for fixed energy scale $\\en \\kt$, lowering temperature serves to increase this basic timescale, indicating that cooling is not necessarily a viable strategy for speeding crystal growth.\n\nEquation , which reduces to = , is the assumption that there exists a steady-state dynamic regime in which the relative abundance of red and blue particles in the growing structure is equal to the ratio of their rates of growth. Inserting into this condition Equations and gives the self-consistent relation \\[noneqcomposition\\] = . One can solve this equation graphically for solid composition $n$, as a function of the parameters $\\es, \\en, c$, and $p$. To determine the growth rate of the solid one inserts the value of $n$ so calculated into Equations and , and adds them: \\[vee\\] v=\\_[R]{}+\\_[B]{}. The physical growth rate is then $V = v {\\rm e}^{-\\en}$, obtained by undoing the rescaling\u00a0.\n\n![\\[fig\\_graphical\\] Graphical construction used to determine the phase diagram of the mean-field model of growth poisoning (see (a)). The solutions of give the solid compositions at which the growth rate vanishes. The horizontal dotted line shows a value of $p/(1-p)$ for which three such solutions exist; the associated values $n_{\\rm B}$, $n_{\\rm A}$ and $n_{\\rm R}$ lie on the \u2018solubility\u2019, \u2018arrest\u2019, and \u2018precipitation\u2019 lines shown in (a).](construction){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nTo gain insight into the behavior of the model is it useful to solve for $c$, \\[cparam\\] c= (1-\\^n), and to use this expression to eliminate $c$ from , giving \\[vparam\\] v= . Equations and can be regarded as parametric equations for the concentration $c$ at which one observes a particular growth rate $v$ of a solid of composition $n$\u00a0[^1]. The basic phenomenology revealed by Equations and is that altering concentration $c$ results in a change of composition $n$ of the growing structure, and that changes of both $c$ and $n$ affect the rate of growth $v$.\n\n![image](fig_mf){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn certain parameter regimes $v$ can become a non-monotonic function of $c$, which is crystal growth poisoning. This potential can be seen from ; setting $\\partial v/\\partial n = 0$ yields\u00a0[^2] p = . The right-hand side of this equation is a non-monotonic function of $n$, and takes its maximum value when $n=2/\\Delta$. Thus for $\\Delta>2$ this equation has two solutions (equivalent to turning points of $v(n)$) provided that $\\Delta(e^\\Delta - 1 +\\Delta)^{-1}<p<4\n\\Delta^{-1}(1+{\\rm e}^2)^{-1}$. These two solutions underpin the behavior shown in : increasing concentration first causes the structure to grow more rapidly (because we increase the driving force for crystal growth), and then more slowly (as poisoning happens), and then more quickly again (as the structure grows in an \u2018impure\u2019 way). For $\\Delta =4$ (see below) poisoning happens if $p<(1+{\\rm e}^2)^{-1} \\approx 0.12$. That is, for poisoning to happen the impure (red) species must be at least about 10 times more abundant in solution than the crystal-forming (blue) species.\n\nOf particular interest are the locations in phase space where the growth rate vanishes. These locations can be identified by setting the right-hand side of to zero (or equivalently setting $\\gamma_{\\rm B}=\\gamma_{\\rm R}=0$ in Equations and ), giving \\[eqstate\\] = f(n) where \\[eq\\_func\\] f(n) = \\^n. Recall that $\\alpha \\equiv {\\rm e}^{-\\Delta}$ and $\\Delta \\equiv \\es - \\en$. Inspection of the properties of $f(n)$ reveals the conditions under which growth arrest can occur. To this end it is convenient to calculate the stationary points $n_\\pm$ of $f(n)$, which are n\\_= ( 1 ). Two stationary points exist for $\\Delta >4$, where the function $f(n)$ has the behavior shown in . Arrest can happen if the horizontal line $p/(1-p)$ lies between the values $f(n_-)$ and $f(n_+)$, i.e. if &gt; p &gt; , where f(n\\_) = { - ( 1)}, with $\\chi \\equiv \\sqrt{1-4 \\Delta^{-1}}$. In this case there are three solutions $n_\\theta$ to . We shall call these solutions $n_{\\rm B}$, $n_{\\rm A}$, and $n_{\\rm R}$. From the associated concentrations $c_\\theta$ are \\[eqconc\\] c\\_= , where $\\theta = $ R, B, or A. The solution corresponding to the largest value of $n$ we call $n_{\\rm B}$ (B for blue). The associated concentration $c_{\\rm B}$ is that at which the mostly-blue solid or \u2018crystal\u2019 is in equilibrium, and we shall call the locus of such values, calculated for different parameter combinations, the \u2018solubility line\u2019. The solution corresponding to the smallest value of $n$ we call $n_{\\rm R}$ (R for red). The associated concentration is that at which the mostly-red \u2018precipitate\u2019 is in equilibrium, and this lies on what we will call the \u2018precipitation line\u2019. The remaining solution we call $n_{\\rm A}$ (A for arrest); it yields the concentration at which the impure crystal ceases to grow, and it lies on the \u2018arrest line\u2019.\n\nArrest therefore occurs when $\\Delta$ is large enough that the (blue) crystal is stable thermodynamically [*and*]{} $p$ is small enough that the crystal\u2019s emergence is kinetically hindered. If $p$ is large enough, i.e. if $p/(1-p)$ is greater than $f(n_-)$, then the crystal\u2019s emergence is not kinetically hindered and growth arrest does not occur. Conversely, if $p$ is too small, i.e. if $p/(1-p)$ is less than $f(n_+)$, then $\\Delta$ is too small to render the crystal thermodynamically stable.\n\nWe can use this set of equations to determine the behavior of our mean-field model of crystal growth, and we describe this behavior in . There we revert to \u2018physical\u2019 growth rates $V$ and concentrations $C$; these are related to their rescaled counterparts $v$ and $c$ via .\n\nComputer simulations of two-component growth {#simulations}\n============================================\n\n![image](sim_snapshot){width=\"0.8\\linewidth\"}\n\nWe carried out lattice Monte Carlo simulations of two-component growth, similar to those done in Refs.Whitelam2014a,Hedges2014,Sue2015,mannige2015predicting. Simulations, which satisfy detailed balance with respect to a particular lattice energy function, accommodate spatial degrees of freedom and particle-number fluctuations omitted by the mean-field theory. Simulations therefore provide an assessment of which physics is captured by the mean-field theory and which it omits.\n\nSimulation boxes consisted of a 3D cubic lattice of $15\\times15\\times100$ sites. Sites can be vacant (white), or occupied by a blue particle or a red particle. Periodic boundary conditions were applied along the two short directions. At each time step a site was chosen at random. If the chosen site was white then we proposed with probability $p$ to make it blue, and with probability $1-p$ to make it red. If the chosen site was red or blue then we proposed to make it white. No red-blue interchange was allowed. To model the slow dynamics in the interior of an aggregate we allowed no changes of state of any lattice site that had 6 colored nearest neighbors.\n\nThese proposals we accepted with the following probabilities: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\textrm{R} \\to \\textrm{W} &:& \\min\\left(1,(1 - p){\\rm e}^{-\\beta \\Delta E}\\right); \\nonumber \\\\\n\\textrm{W} \\to \\textrm{R} &:& \\min\\left(1,(1 - p)^{-1}{\\rm e}^{-\\beta\\Delta E}\\right); \\nonumber \\\\\n\\textrm{B} \\to \\textrm{W} &:& \\min\\left(1,p \\,{\\rm e}^{-\\beta\\Delta E} \\right); \\nonumber \\\\\n\\textrm{W} \\to \\textrm{B} &:& \\min\\left(1,p^{-1} {\\rm e}^{-\\beta \\Delta E}  \\right), \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Delta E$ is the energy change resulting from the proposed move. This change was calculated from the lattice energy function $$\\begin{aligned}\nE =  \\sum_{<i,j>} \\epsilon_{C(i)C(j)} +  \\sum_{i} \\mu_{C(i)} \\label{E}.\\end{aligned}$$ The first sum runs over all distinct nearest-neighbor interactions and the second sum runs over all sites. The index $C(i)$ describes the color of site $i$, and is W (white), B (blue) or R (red); $\\epsilon_{C(i)C(j)}$ is the interaction energy between colors $C(i)$ and $C(j)$; and the chemical potential $\\mu_{C(i)}$ is $\\mu \\kt$, $-\\kt \\ln p$ and $-\\kt \\ln(1-p)$ for W, B and R, respectively (note that positive $\\mu$ favors particles over vacancies). In keeping with the choices made in we take \\_[BB]{}= -;\\\n\\_[BR]{} = \\_[RB]{}=\\_[RR]{}= -. In the absence of pairwise energetic interactions the likelihood that a given site will be white, blue or red is respectively $1/(1+{\\rm e}^{\\mu})$, $p/(1+{\\rm e}^{-\\mu})$, and $(1-p)/(1+{\\rm e}^{-\\mu})$.\n\nSimulations were begun with three complete layers of blue particles at one end of the box to eliminate the need for spontaneous nucleation. For fixed values of energetic parameters we measured the composition $n$ (the fraction of colored blocks that are blue) and growth rate of the structure produced at different values of the parameter $c \\equiv {\\rm e}^{\\mu}$ (which for small $c$ is approximately equal to the likelihood than an isolated site will in equilibrium be colored rather than white).\n\n![image](fig_sim_plot){width=\"0.8\\linewidth\"}\n\nResults\n=======\n\n\\(a) shows the phase diagram of our mean-field model of crystal growth. The \u2018solubility\u2019 and \u2018precipitation\u2019 lines indicate where the crystal and precipitate are in equilibrium; the \u2018arrest\u2019 line shows where the growth rate of the impure crystal vanishes. The structure of this diagram is similar to that of certain experimental systems \u2013 see e.g. Refs.Asherie2004,Luft2011 or Fig. 14 of Ref.ungar2005effect \u2013 showing that the mean-field theory, although simple, can capture important features of real systems. Upon moving left to right across this diagram we observe the behavior shown in panels (b) and (c) of the figure. Growth rate $V$ first increases with concentration $C$, because the thermodynamic driving force for crystal growth increases. But at some point $V$ begins to decrease, i.e. poisoning occurs. This is so because the composition of the growing solid changes with concentration \u2013 it becomes less pure \u2013 and so the thermodynamic driving force for its growth decreases, even through the thermodynamic driving force for the growth of the [*pure*]{} crystal increases with $C$. As we pass the precipitation line the growth rate $V$ becomes large and positive (inset to panel (b)). This behavior is similar to that seen in e.g. Fig. 2 of Ref.ungar2000dilution.\n\nThe mean-field theory is simple in nature but furnishes non-trivial predictions. Key aspects of these predictions are borne out by our simulations, which resolve spatial detail and particle-number fluctuations omitted by the theory (we found similar theory-simulation correspondence in a different regime of parameter spaceWhitelam2014a). In we show simulation snapshots, taken after fixed long times, for a range of values of concentration $c$. One can infer from this picture that growth rate is a non-monotonic function of concentration. In all cases the equilibrium structure is a box mostly filled with blue particles. At small concentrations we see the growth of a structure similar to the equilibrium one. Poisoning occurs because the grown structure becomes less pure (more red) as $c$ increases, and so the effective driving force for its growth decreases even though the driving force for the growth of the pure crystal increases. At large concentrations we pass the precipitation line and the impure (red) solid grows rapidly.\n\nIn we show the number of layers $L$ deposited after fixed long simulation times for various concentrations $c$ (we consider a layer to have been added if more than half the sites in a given slice across the long box direction are are occupied by red or blue particles). The general trend seen in simulations is similar to that seen in the mean-field theory (panels (b) and (c) of ). At concentrations just above the blue solubility limit the structure\u2019s growth rate increases approximately linearly with concentration. At higher concentrations the growth rate reaches a maximum and then drops sharply, because structure quality (and so the effective driving force for its growth) declines with concentration. One difference between mean-field theory and simulations is that in the latter the growth rate in the poisoning regime does not go to zero. This is so because simulations satisfy detailed balance, and must eventually evolve to equilibrium. Fluctuations (mediated within the bulk of the structure by vacancies) allow the composition of an arrested structure to evolve slowly toward equilibrium, and thereby to extend slowly. Thus the steady-state dynamic regime that has infinite lifetime with the mean-field theory has only finite lifetime within our simulations (because these eventually must reach equilibrium). Slow evolution of this nature is shown in .\n\n![image](coarsening){width=\"0.7\\linewidth\"}\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nWe have used mean-field theory and computer simulation to show that crystal growth self-poisoning requires no particular spatial or molecular detail, as long as a small handful of physical ingredients are realized. These ingredients are: the notion that a molecule can bind in two (or more) ways to a crystal; that those ways are not energetically equivalent; and that they are realized with sufficiently unequal probability. If these conditions are met then the steady-state growth rate of a structure is, in general, a non-monotonic function of the thermodynamic driving force for crystal growth. Self-poisoning is seen in a wide variety of physical systems\u015fchilling2004self,ungar2005effect,asthagiri2000role, because, we suggest, many molecular systems display the three physical ingredients we have identified as being sufficient conditions for poisoning. Protein crystallization, for instance, is notoriously difficult, and rational guidance for it is much needed\u0163en1997enhancement,george1994predicting,shim2007using,haxton2012design,schmit2012growth,fusco2015soft. . Many protein crystallization trials result in clear solutions without any obvious indication of why crystals failed to appear [@Luft2011a], and in some of these cases self-poisoning might be happening.\n\nThere also exists a possible connection between the present work and the recent observation of protein clusters that appear in weakly-saturated solution and do not grow or shrinkpan2010origin. Other authors have proposedpan2010origin and formulatedlutsko2015mechanism models that explain the long-lived nature of such clusters via the slow interconversion of oligomeric and monomeric protein: in these models there exists a thermodynamic driving force to grow clusters of oligomers, but the growth of such clusters is hindered by the existence of monomeric protein. If we reinterpret the present model to regard the \u2018red\u2019 species as monomeric protein and the \u2018blue\u2019 species as oligomeric protein, then we obtain a possible connection to the mechanism described in Refs.pan2010origin, lutsko2015mechanism. From e.g. (a) we see that we can be in a region of phase space that is undersaturated with respect to monomeric (red) protein but supersaturated with respect to oligomeric (blue) protein (i.e. the thermodynamic ground state is a condensed structure built from oligomeric protein). There then exists a thermodynamic driving force to grow structures made of oligomeric protein, but the emergence of such structures is rendered slow by kinetic trapping (caused by the fact that monomeric protein is more abundant in isolation than is oligomeric protein). According to this interpretation the \u2018stable\u2019 protein clusters are kinetically trapped, and on long enough timescales would grow. However, we stress that this connection is tentative.\n\nHaving identified factors that lead to poisoning, the present models also suggest that relatively small changes of system parameters could be used to avoid it. For instance, and show that, given a set of molecular characteristics, small changes of concentration or temperature can take one from a poisoned regime to one in which crystal growth rate is relatively rapid. Recovery from poisoning could also be effected if one has some way of altering molecular characteristics, such as the value of the non-optimal binding energy scale; see and .\n\n![Solubility and arrest line calculated from mean-field theory as in (with no precipitation line drawn), with a second solution, the larger loop to the right, drawn for the case of diminished nonspecific binding energy $\\en \\to 3\\en/4$ (with $\\Delta$ unchanged). This change greatly enlarges the region of phase space in which crystal growth can happen.[]{data-label=\"fig_mf_supp\"}](fig_mf_supp){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nThis work was done as part of a User project at the Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, supported by the Office of Science, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02\u201305CH11231. JDS would like to acknowledge support from NIH Grant R01GM107487. Computer facilities were provided by the Beocat Research Cluster at Kansas State University, which is funded in part by NSF grants CNS-1006860, EPS-1006860, and EPS-0919443.\n\n[30]{}ifxundefined \\[1\\][ ifx[\\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \\[1\\][ \\#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \\[1\\][ \\#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}\u201c\u201c\\#1\u201d\u201d@noop \\[0\\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \\[0\\][\u2018\\\n12\u2018\\$12 \u2018&12\u2018\\#12\u201812\u2018\\_12\u2018%12]{}@startlink\\[1\\]@endlink\\[0\\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{}\u00a0(,\u00a0)\u00a0pp. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1016/j.ymeth.2004.03.028) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1517/17460441.2011.566857) @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1016/S0006-3495(97)78094-9) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1021/cg1013945) @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} [ (), 10.1039/c5sm02234g](\\doibase 10.1039/c5sm02234g)\n\n[^1]: \n\n[^2]: .\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this paper, a method of improving vertical positioning accuracy with the Global Positioning System (GPS) information and barometric pressure values is proposed. Firstly, we clear null values for the raw data collected in various environments, and use the 3$\\sigma$-rule to identify outliers. Secondly, the Weighted Multinomial Logistic Regression (WMLR) classifier is trained to obtain the predicted altitude of outliers. Finally, in order to verify its effect, we compare the Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) method, the WMLR method, and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) method for the cleaned dataset which is regarded as the test baseline. The numerical results show that the vertical positioning accuracy is improved from 5.9 meters (the MLR method), 5.4 meters (the SVM method) to 5 meters (the WMLR method) for 67% test points.'\nauthor:\n- Yiyan Yao\n- 'Xin-long Luo ^$\\ast$^'\ndate: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'\ntitle: Improving Vertical Positioning Accuracy with the Weighted Multinomial Logistic Regression Classifier\n---\n\nIntroduction {#INTRO}\n============\n\nIn recent years, the performance of the Global Positioning System (GPS) is excellent in outdoor environments [@RGG2015]. When users are outdoors, their locations can be obtained accurately through GPS. However, the GPS signals are blocked by the buildings and other obstacles, which result in large indoor positioning errors. Thus, the indoor positioning accuracy is often challenged, especially in the vertical direction. In the meantime, the space that we are living in is filled with many high-rise buildings and our most activities are indoors. Considering the practical requirement and the poor indoor positioning performance, researchers have tried many methods to improve the vertical positioning accuracy, such as the WiFi-based localization technology [@DZYXKY2018; @LLH2017; @ZHLJX2016] and the barometer-based positioning technology [@XWJC2015].\n\nOn the other hand, the GPS chip has been embedded in the most mobile terminals, which provides the location and timing information such as time, latitude, longitude, speed and altitude. Therefore, based on the GPS information, many researchers put forward some effective methods to improve the positioning accuracy of the low-cost GPS about 4 meters to 10 meters in several experiments [@IK2014]. Huang and Tsai propose an approach to calibrate the GPS position by using the context awareness technique from the pervasive computing and improve the positioning accuracy of GPS effectively [@HT2008]. The machine learning techniques are applied to assess and improve the GPS positioning accuracy under the forest canopy in [@ORMMS2011].\n\nIn this paper, we provide another machine learning technique [@ALTMY2018; @AASMGK2019; @AZISYDML2019] based on the Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) method [@KS2016; @MGB2008] for the vertical positioning problem. The research data are measured by many different user equipments and provided by Huawei Technologies Company, some data of which include the GPS three-dimensional information and the barometric pressure values, and Some data of which miss the GPS information or the barometric pressure values. We preprocess the research data firstly. Consequently, we identify the abnormal data with the $3\\sigma$-rule and clear them. Meanwhile, some noises arise from the inaccurate data records and the different reference standards of different kinds of user equipments. These intrinsic noises lead to the poor distribution law between the air pressure and the corresponding altitude. In order to overcome these noise effects, we convert this vertical positioning problem into a classification problem and revise the weighted MLR method to improve its vertical positioning accuracy. Finally, in order to verify the effect of the Weighted Multinomial Logistic Regression (WMLR) method, we compare the MLR method, the WMLR method, and the Support Vector Machine (SVM) method [@CL2001; @CL2013; @CTS2017] for this vertical positioning problem. The numerical results show that the vertical positioning accuracy of the cleaned data is improved from 5.9 meters (the MLR method), 5.4 meters (the SVM method) to 5 meters (the WMLR method) for 67% test points.\n\nThe rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section \\[RELATED\\], some related works are discussed. In section \\[SEC:1\\], we describes the methodology of the data cleaning, the outlier detection and the data correction based on the WMLR classifier. In section \\[RESULT\\], we describe the data source and compare the MLR method, the WMLR method and the SVM method for the cleaned data which is regarded as the test baseline. The promising numerical results are also reported. Finally, some conclusions and the further works are discussed in section \\[CONCLUSION\\].\n\nRelated works {#RELATED}\n=============\n\nIn the field of improving the indoor vertical positioning accuracy, many studies have been conducted. The related works can be roughly divided into two categories: the Received Signal Strength Strength Indication (RSSI) based methods and the barometric pressure based methods.\n\nThe RSSI of the Wi-Fi and the cellular network based methods use the collected the RSSI and build the database of the fingerprints for the floor positioning [@BSHL2016; @WLSL2014; @ZLC2012]. Some researchers consider the locations of the Wi-Fi access points to determine the floor [@GBRB2014]. In [@BSHL2016], the experimental data are collected from one or two buildings and the collecting device is fixed. They use the collected RSSI information and the pressure data to estimate the floor. In those papers, since the RSSI information is local, when the experimental environment changes, the training data need to be collected by hand and the discriminant parameters need to be trained again.\n\nSince there are many Wi-Fi access points distributed in a crowded indoor environment and the wall cannot completely obstruct the signals, the signal interference and fluctuation of different floors will result in the inaccurate estimation. Some researchers propose the barometric altimetry for the floor determination. In [@XWJC2015], Xia et al. give a method based on the multiple reference barometers for the floor positioning in buildings and their method can give an accurate floor level. The disadvantages of their method are that the height thresholds should be given in the floor determination and they are sensitive to the local pressure conditions.\n\nIn [@CTS2017], Chriki et al. use the SVM method based on the RSSI measurements for the zoning localization problem. In [@ALTMY2018], Adege et al. propose an outdoor and indoor positioning method based on the hybrid of SVM and deep neural network algorithms according to the RSSI of the Wi-Fi. Since the SVM method only considers the support vector and the few points which are most relevant are used to make the classification, its classification result may be ineffective when the level of noise is high. The positioning method based on the deep neural network [@ALTMY2018; @HLL2017] requires a very large amount of data to perform better than other techniques, and it requires expensive GPUs and multiple devices to train complex models. The MLR method considers all training data points which smooth the noise such that the MLR method can handle the high level of noise of the training data. Furthermore, the MLR method can be used to handle the large scale problem [@K2019]. Therefore, in consideration of the performance gain of the weighted positioning algorithm [@LLH2017], we choose the MLR method with the weighted technique as the vertical positioning method based on the GPS and barometric pressure information of the user equipments.\n\nThe methodology {#SEC:1}\n===============\n\nOur positioning method is composed of several stages, including the data cleaning, the outlier detection, the data correction and the prediction of vertical altitude for the test feature vector. We described these procedures in the following subsections.\n\nData cleaning {#SECTDATACLEAN}\n-------------\n\nThe raw dataset is measured at different places with different user equipments. In the dataset, many data miss the air pressure values due to some mobile devices without the barometers. We delete these data of the missing air pressure values firstly. Additionally, there are some abnormal data which deviate too far from the average value of the dataset and it is shown as follows. Assume that an average sea level pressure is 1013.25 hPa and the corresponding temperature is 15$^\\circ$C, then the air pressure value and its corresponding altitude have the following relationship [@ZF2014]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  h=44330.8-4946.54p^{0.1902632},   \\label{BAROHEIFORMULA}\\end{aligned}$$ where the unit of altitude $h$ is meter, and the unit of the air pressure value $p$ is hpa. From formula , it is not difficult to find that the barometric pressure value and the corresponding altitude are the inverse relationship. However, from Fig. \\[Figure2\\], we find that the distribution between the air pressure values and the corresponding altitudes of the given data is irregular. Therefore, we conclude that there exists the data drift in the given real test data. Thus, we use the 3$\\sigma$-rule to exclude the abnormal data as follows [@W2004]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   X \\; \\text{is thrown away when} \\; |X - \\mu| \\ge 3 \\sigma, \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where the mean $\\mu$ and the standard deviation $\\sigma$ are computed by the following formula: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\mu =\\frac{1}{n} \\sum_{i = 1}^{n} X_{i} \\; \\text{and} \\;\n \\sigma = \\sqrt{\\frac{1}{n-1}\\sum_{i = 1}^{n}(X_{i}-\\mu)^2}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ After performing the 3$\\sigma$-rule, we eliminate the large deviation data and the $99.73\\%$ data are retained.\n\n![The distribution of the pressure values and the corresponding altitudes.[]{data-label=\"Figure2\"}](distributionofpreandheightofid5696.pdf){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nOutlier detection {#SECTOUT}\n-----------------\n\nIn subsection \\[SECTDATACLEAN\\], we have cleaned away the abnormal data which deviate too much from the dataset. However, there are still some outliers. An outlier is a point which differs significantly from the other points in a subdataset measured by the same device in a short time. We use the spherical distance computed by the haversine formula [@S1984] to identify the outlier. The haversine formula is illustrated by Fig. \\[Figure 3\\] and calculates the spherical distance between the two points $A(lon_a,\\, lat_a)$ and $B(lon_b, \\, lat_b)$ with the coordinate $(longitude, \\, latitude)$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  d_{AD} & = 2Rsin(\\Delta lon/2)cos(lat_a), \\nonumber \\\\\n  d_{CB} & = 2Rsin(\\Delta lon/2)cos(lat_b), \\label{HAVFOM} \\\\\n  d_{AB} & = 2R\\left|sin^2 \\left(\\frac{\\Delta lat}{2}\\right)\n    + cos(lat_a) cos(lat_b) sin^2 \\left(\\frac{\\Delta lon}{2}\\right)\\right|^{\\frac{1}{2}},\n    \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Delta lon=lon_{b}-lon_{a}$, $\\Delta lat=lat_{b}-lat_{a}$, and $R$ is the radius of the Earth.\n\n![The diagram of two points in a three-dimensional space.[]{data-label=\"Figure 3\"}](sphericalDistance.pdf){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nConsequently, we estimate the diameter of a subdataset as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   d_{max} = \\bar{v} \\times t,\\label{MAXDIST}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\bar{v}$ is the mean velocity, and $t$ is the total measuring time of the subdataset. On the other hand, each point has a distance vector with other points. If over $50\\%$ elements of the distance vector are greater than $d_{max}$, we regard this point as an outlier.\n\nData correction {#DATACORREC}\n---------------\n\nIn this subsection, we describe the procedure of data correction and it is also the key step of our positioning method. This step is to predict the relatively accurate altitudes of the outliers. As mentioned in section \\[SECTOUT\\], the data distribution is roughly similar when the data are measured by the same device. Under this assumption, the altitudes of the subdataset are classified into different classes (labels). Thus, we encounter the multi-class classification problem.\n\n### The multi-class classification problem {#SECPROBCONVER}\n\nThe outliers of the subdataset have been found with the method in section \\[SECTOUT\\]. Thus, we select the data except outliers as a training dataset. The input training dataset is composed of [$N$ pairwise points $(X_{n}, \\, h_{n}) \\, (n = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\dots, N)$, where $X_{n}$ is the feature vector of the $n$-th point and $h_{n}$ is the corresponding altitude. Denote $h_{min}$ and $h_{max}$ as the minimum altitude and the maximum altitude, respectively. Parameter $\\delta \\, ( h_{min} < \\delta < h_{max}$) is the quantization step of altitude. Then, for a given altitude $h$]{}, its corresponding class $k$ is computed as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   k = \\left\\lceil{\\frac{h - h_{min}}{\\delta}}\\right\\rceil + 1 \\nonumber,\\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{min} \\leq h \\leq h_{max}$,$\\left\\lceil{\\cdot}\\right\\rceil$ is a function which will round the value toward positive infinity. When the predicted class of a point is obtained, we take the average altitude of its corresponding interval as the predicted altitude and which is computed by the following formula: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   h^{p}_{k} = \\left(k-\\frac{1}{2}\\right) \\delta + h_{min}, \\; k = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots,\n   \\, K,   \\label{PREALT}\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, after the above transformation procedure, the data correction problem is converted into a multi-class classification problem (see Table \\[TABLECLASS\\], where $K$ represents the number of classes and $K = \\lceil (h_{max}-h_{min})/\\delta \\rceil$+1).\n\n[lll]{} Class & Interval (meter) & Predicted altitude (meter)\\\n1 & $h_{min} \\sim \\delta + h_{min}$ & $\\frac{1}{2}\\delta+h_{min}$\\\n2 & $\\delta + h_{min} \\sim 2\\delta+ h_{min}$ & $\\frac{3}{2}\\delta + h_{min}$\\\n& &\\\nk & $(k-1)\\delta+h_{min} \\sim k\\delta+ h_{min}$ & $\\left(k-\\frac{1}{2}\\right)\\delta + h_{min}$\\\n& &\\\nK & $(K-1)\\delta + h_{min} \\sim K \\delta + h_{min}$ & $\\left(K - \\frac{1}{2}\\right)\\delta + h_{min}$\\\n\n### The weighted multinomial logistic regression model {#SECMLR}\n\nLogistic Regression (LR) is a machine learning method and widely used to the binary classification problem [@C2006]. The MLR method extends the binary LR method to the multiple classification problem. For the MLR model, each class has its parameter vector. According to the parameter vector and the data feature vector, the MLR method determines the classification of the data. In the positioning application scenario, every feature vector consists of time, longitude, latitude, air pressure value and speed.\n\nThe training process of the MLR model needs to obtain the parameter $\\omega_{k}$ of the $k$-th class via solving the the maximum likelihood function [@ZLC2012], where $k = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\cdots, K$. The conditional probability of the feature vector $X$ belonging to the class $Y$ is given by the following formula: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   P(Y = k|X = x) = \\frac{e^{\\omega_{k}^T x}}{\\sum^{K}_{i=1}e^{\\omega_{i}^T x}}, \\;\n   k= 1, 2, \\cdots , K. \\label{MLR}\\end{aligned}$$ Then, the MLR method predicts the data category $k^{\\ast}$ via solving the following maximum problem: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  k^{\\ast} \\in \\mathop{argmax}\\limits_{k \\in \\{1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, K \\}}\n   P(Y = k|X = x).   \\label{CLASSIFICATION}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAfter the data preprocessing of the previous steps, we obtain the training dataset, which consists of $N$ pairwise points $(X_{n},\\, Y_{n}) \\,\n(n = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, N)$, where $X_{n}$ represents the data feature vector and $Y_{n}$ represents its corresponding data class. According to formula and the independent assumption of the multivariate distribution, we obtain the likelihood function as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\prod^{N}_{n=1} P\\left(Y = Y_{n} |X = X_{n}\\right)\n  = \\prod^{N}_{n=1}\\left(\\frac{e^{\\omega_{Y_{n}}^T X_{n}}}\n  {\\sum^{K}_{k=1}e^{\\omega_{k}^T X_n}}\\right).    \\label{PROD}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTaking the logarithm of the two sides of formula , we obtain the following log-likelihood function: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  log \\left(\\prod^{N}_{n=1}P\\left(Y = Y_{n}|X = X_{n}\\right)\\right)\n  = \\sum^{N}_{n=1} \\left(\\omega_{Y_{n}}^T X_{n}\n    - log \\left({\\sum^{K}_{k=1}e^{\\omega_{k}^T X_{n}}}\\right) \\right).  \\label{LOG}\\end{aligned}$$ Since the value of expression is less than zero, we define function $f(\\Omega)$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f(\\Omega) = \\sum^{N}_{n=1} \\left(-\\omega_{Y_{n}}^T X_{n}\n    + log \\left({\\sum^{K}_{k=1}e^{\\omega_{k}^T X_{n}}}\\right) \\right),\n    \\label{LOGLFUN}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Omega = [\\omega_{1}, \\, \\omega_{2}, \\, \\ldots, \\, \\omega_{K}]$. Then, we obtain the maximum likelihood estimation $\\Omega^{\\ast}$ of parameter matrix $\\Omega$ via solving the following optimization problem: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   \\Omega^{\\ast} = \\mathop{argmin} \\limits_{\\Omega}\\ f(\\Omega).  \\label{ORIOPT}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSince the training dataset is separable, the value of function $f(\\Omega)$ can be made arbitrarily close to zero via multiplying $\\Omega$ by a large value [@KS2016]. In order to maintain the finiteness of $\\Omega$, we obtain the parameter matrix $\\Omega^{\\ast}$ by solving its regularized problem of problem as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\Omega^{*}=\\mathop{argmin}\\limits_{\\Omega} \\;\n  \\left(f(\\Omega)+\\lambda \\eta(\\Omega)\\right),   \\label{REGOPT}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\lambda > 0$ is the regularized parameter and the regularized function $\\eta(\\Omega)$ is convex and non-smooth. For this convex optimization problem, there are many efficient optimization methods to tackle it such as the quasi-Newton BFGS method (p. 198, [@NW1999]). Once the MLR model has been trained, we can predict the data category via solving the maximum problem .\n\nWe denote $\\mathrm {I}= \\{1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, I\\}$ as the index set of the feature vector $X$, where $I$ represents the dimension of the feature vector $X$. Select randomly $r$ features from $I$ features and record the index of selected features as the subset $\\mathrm{S}$ of the index set $\\mathrm{I}$. Since the $\\ell_1$ regularizer is easier to obtain a sparse solution than the $\\ell_2$ regularizer, we define a group-$\\ell_1$-regularizer as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\eta_{\\mathrm{S}} (\\Omega) = \\sum_{i \\in \\mathrm{S}}\n   \\|[\\Omega]_{\\mathrm{I}_i}\\|_{1}, \\label{REGDEF}\\end{aligned}$$ where $[\\Omega]_{\\mathrm{I}_i}$ is the $\\mathrm{I}_{i}$-th row of parameter matrix $\\Omega$, and $\\|x\\|_{1} = \\sum_{i=1}^{m} |x_{i}| \\; \\text{for vector} \\; x \\in \\Re^{m}$. Thus, the problem is written as the following group-sparse problem: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\min_{\\Omega} \\;  \\left(f(\\Omega)+\\lambda \\eta_\\mathrm{S}(\\Omega)\\right).   \\label{GSPARSE}\\end{aligned}$$ If the parameter $\\lambda$ is suitably selected, the solution $\\Omega^{\\ast}$ of problem will be group-row-sparse [@KCFH2005].\n\nAfter $L$ operations as the procedure above, we obtain $L$ parameter matrices $\\Omega^{\\ast}_{1}$, $\\Omega^{\\ast}_{2}, \\, \\ldots, \\, \\Omega^{\\ast}_{L}$. Multiply the $L$ parameter matrices $\\Omega^{\\ast}_{l} \\, (l = 1,\\, 2, \\, \\ldots, L)$ by their corresponding sub-features, then we obtain the predicted categories $k_{l}^{\\ast} \\, (l = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, L)$ with formulas - and its predicted altitudes $h_{l}^{p} \\, (l = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, L)$ with formula as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    k^{\\ast}_{l} = \\mathop{argmax} \\limits_{k \\in \\{1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, K \\}}\n    \\left(\\omega_{k}^{\\ast l}\\right)^{T} [X]_{\\mathrm{S}_{l}}, \\; \\text{and} \\;\n    h^{p}_{l} = \\left(k^{\\ast}_{l} -\\frac{1}{2}\\right)\\delta + h_{min}, \\;\n    l = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, L, \\label{PRECLASSK}\\end{aligned}$$ where $[X]_{\\mathrm{S}_{l}}$ represents the sub-features selected from the feature vector $X$ and the $i$-th element of $[X]_{\\mathrm{S}_{l}}$ equals $X(\\mathrm{S}_{l}(i))$, $\\omega_{k}^{\\ast l}$ is the $k$-th element of matrix $\\Omega_{l}$.\n\nCompute $L$ absolute errors between the original altitude $h$ and the $l$-th predicted altitude $h_{l}^{p} (l = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, L)$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  Err_{l} = \\left|h - h_{l}^{p}\\right|, \\; l = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, L. \\label{SOAE}\\end{aligned}$$ Then, we obtain the weighted predicted altitude of the feature vector as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    h^{\\ast} = \\sum^{L}_{l=1} w_{l}h_{l}^{p}, \\label{COEFFIESTI}\\end{aligned}$$ where the weighted coefficients $w_{l} \\, (l = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, L)$ are computed by the following formula: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    w_{l} = \\frac{Err_{l}}{\\sum^{L}_{l=1}Err_{l}}, \\; l = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, L.\n    \\label{WEIGHTSOAE}\\end{aligned}$$ According to the above discussions, we give the weighted multinomial logistic regression method for the vertical position problem in Algorithm \\[alg:WMLR\\].\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\\\nthe training data $(X_{n}, h_{n}), n = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, N$;\\\nthe test feature vector $X$ and its corresponding altitude $h$. \u00a0\u00a0\\\nthe predicted altitude $h^{\\ast}$ of the feature vector $X$. Given the regularized parameter $\\lambda$, the dimension $r$ of the sub-feature vector, the quantization step $\\delta$ of altitude, the number of the group-sparse operations $L$. Select randomly $r$ features from every feature vector of the training dataset and denote its corresponding index set of $r$ features as $\\mathrm{S}_{l}$. Obtain the $l$-th regression coefficient matrix $\\Omega^{\\ast}_{l}$ via solving the optimization problem $\\Omega_{l}^{\\ast} = \\mathop{argmin} \\limits_{\\Omega} \\;\n    \\left( f(\\Omega)+\\lambda \\eta_{\\mathrm{S}_{l}}(\\Omega) \\right)$, where $f(\\Omega)$ is defined by equation and $\\eta_{\\mathrm{S}_{l}}(\\Omega)$ is defined by equation . Obtain the predicted category $k^{\\ast}_{l}$ and the $l$-th predicted altitude $h_{l}^{p}$ of the feature vector $X$ via solving problem . Compute the absolute error $Err_{l}$ between the original altitude and the predicted altitude of the feature vector $X$ from equation . Compute $L$ weighted coefficients $w_{l} \\, (l = 1, \\, 2, \\, \\ldots, \\, L)$ from equation . Obtain the weighted predicted altitude $h^{\\ast}$ of the feature vector $X$ from equation .\n\nNumerical experiments {#RESULT}\n=====================\n\nIn this section, we compare the MLR method, the WMLR method (Algorithm \\[alg:WMLR\\]) and the SVM method (coded by C. Chang and C. Lin, [@CL2013]) for the vertical positioning problem. The programs are performed under the MATLAB environment [@MATLAB].\n\nThe raw dataset is provided by Huawei Technologies Company and collected by different user equipments. From Fig. \\[Figure 4\\], we find that there are 12796 UserIds and the number of data collected by each UserId is different. In the dataset, each piece of data includes time, longitude, latitude, speed, altitude and some data also contain barometric pressure value. The measurement time of the experiment dataset spans almost three months from October 5 to December 25, 2018. The air pressure is relatively high because the temperature is relatively low in that season. Except for null values, the data type is numeric.\n\nSince the raw dataset contains many null and abnormal values, we exclude those null and abnormal values with the method in subsection \\[SECTDATACLEAN\\]. Table \\[TABCLEAN\\] presents the statistical results of the cleaned data. From Table \\[TABCLEAN\\], we find that the distribution of data is not Gaussian. Thus, we standardize and normalize the data. After the data cleaning and normalization, we obtain a training set, every data element of which includes time, speed, longitude, latitude, pressure. We divide the dataset into two parts, i.e. $70\\%$ data for training and $30\\%$ data for testing.\n\nThen, in order to verify the effect of Algorithm \\[alg:WMLR\\] (the WMLR method), we compare the performance of the MLR method, Algorithm \\[alg:WMLR\\], and the SVM method for the cleaned data. For Algorithm \\[alg:WMLR\\], we set the regularized parameter $\\lambda = 10^{-3}$, the quantization step $\\delta = 4$, the length of the group-sparse feature $r = 4$ and $L = C_{5}^{4} = 5$. The numerical results are put in Table \\[TABVERACC\\] and Fig. \\[FIGVERACU\\]. Table \\[TABVERACC\\] is the statistical results of the vertical positioning accuracy predicted by three methods. From Table \\[TABVERACC\\], we find that the vertical positioning accuracy is improved from 5.9 meters (the MLR method), 5.4 meters (the SVM method) to 5 meters (the WMLR method) for $67\\%$ test points. Fig. \\[FIGVERACU\\] is the cumulative distribution function of the positioning accuracy. From Fig. \\[FIGVERACU\\], we find that the positioning error of WMLR is less than that of the SVM method and the WLR method when the cumulative probability is less than 90%, and the positioning accuracy of the SVM method is the best when the cumulative probability is greater than 90%.\n\n[lllllll]{} & longitude& latitude& speed& pressure& label& altitude\\\nmean& 121.5767& 31.2595& 5.8808& 1021.3788& 0.9181& 22.9314\\\nstd& 0.0030& 0.0020& 6.7051& 1.2559& 0.2742& 10.9594\\\nmin& 121.5708& 31.2566& 0.0000& 1017.1787& 0.0000& 0.0534\\\n25%& 121.5742& 31.2579& 1.0000& 1020.5680& 1.0000& 15.7657\\\n50%& 121.5765& 31.2590& 3.0000& 1021.3281& 1.0000& 20.1303\\\n75%& 121.5792& 31.2610& 10.0000& 1022.3744& 1.0000& 28.5893\\\nmax& 121.5820& 31.2653& 26.0000& 1024.0759& 1.0000& 78.1991\\\n\n[llllllll]{} & Min& Max& Mean& Median& Std &$67\\%$ & $90\\%$\\\nMLR & 0.0211& 48.8268& 5.9795& 4.4133& 6.7941 &5.9705 &11.7054\\\nWMLR & 0.0211& 31.9072& 4.6628& 3.2539& 3.2539 &5.0216 & 10.1085\\\nSVM & 0.0211& 25.2855& 4.9508& 3.9297& 4.0743 & 5.4383 & 10.3968\\\n\nConclusion and future works {#CONCLUSION}\n===========================\n\nIn this paper, a vertical positioning method with GPS information and the air pressure values is proposed. Firstly, we clean the missing and abnormal data. Then, according to the spherical distance matrix between points, we identify and exclude outliers. Consequently, we divide the cleaned data into two parts, i.e. $70\\%$ data for training and $30\\%$ data for testing. Based on the cleaned data, we compare the performances of the MLR method, the WMLR method (Algorithm \\[alg:WMLR\\]), and the SVM method for this vertical positioning problem. The numerical results show that the vertical positioning accuracy is improved from 5.9 meters (the MLR method), 5.4 meters (the SVM method) to 5 meters (the WMLR method). Therefore, the WMLR method has some improvements of the positioning accuracy for this vertical positioning problem.\n\nThe appealing positioning technology based on the WMLR method is that this method does not rely on the empirical pressure-height formula and it can automatically adjust the parameter matrix according to the local area. The integration of the MLR method and the weighted technique considers all training points such that it smoothes the noise to get a better prediction. For the WMLR method, since it exists the quantization step, it will result in enlarging the positioning error when the point is the misclassification, which is a problem to be solved in the future work. Besides, due to the heterogeneity of user equipments and the complexity of the real environment, there are some room of improvement on the vertical positioning accuracy of the WMLR method.\n\nFinancial and Ethical Disclosures {#financial-and-ethical-disclosures .unnumbered}\n=================================\n\n-   Funding: This work was supported in part by Grant 61876199 from National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant YBWL2011085 from Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., and Grant YJCB2011003HI from the Innovation Research Program of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd..\n\n-   Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.\n\n[99]{} A.\u00a0B. Adege, H. Lin, G.\u00a0B. Tarekegn, Y.\u00a0Y. Munaye and L. Yen, *An indoor and outdoor positioning using a hybrid of support vector machine and deep neural network algorithms*, Journal of Sensors, **2018**, 1-12 (2018). S. Alaee, A. Abdoli, C. Shelton, A.\u00a0C. Murillo, A.\u00a0C. Gerry and E. Keogh, *Features or shape? Tackling the false dichotomy of time series classification*, arXiv preprint, <https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.09614>, (2019). N. Ali, B. Zafar, M.\u00a0K. Iqbal, M. Sajid, M.\u00a0Y. Younis, S.\u00a0H. Dar, M.\u00a0T. Mahmood and I.\u00a0H. Lee, *Modeling global geometric spatial information for rotation invariant classification of satellite images*, PLoS ONE, **14** (7), 1-24 (2019). S. Burgess, K. [\u00c5]{}str\u00f6m, M. H\u00f6gstr\u00f6m and B. Lindquist, *Smartphone positioning in multi-floor environments without calibration or added infrastructure*, 2016 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN), IEEE (2016). C. Chang and C. Lin, *Training $\\nu$-support vector classifiers: theory and algorithms*, Neural Computation, **13**, 2119-2147 (2001). C. Chang and C. Lin, *LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines*, the software package available at <https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~cjlin/libsvm/>, 2013. B. Christopher M, *Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning*, Springer, New York, USA, 2006. A. Chriki, H. Touati and H. Snoussi, *SVM-based indoor localization in wireless sensor networks*, 2017 13th International Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference, 1144-1149 (2017). H. Du, C. Zhang, Q. Ye, W. Xu, P.\u00a0L. Kibenge and K. Yao, *A hybrid outdoor localization scheme with high-position accuracy and low-power consumption*, EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, **2018** (4), 1-13 (2018). P. Gupta, S. Bharadwaj, S. Ramakrishnan and J. Balakrishnan, *Robust floor determination for indoor positioning*, 2014 Twentieth National Conference on Communications (NCC), Kanpur, 1-6 (2014). T.-Y. He, X.-L. Luo and Z.-H. Liu, *A probabilistic indoor localization algorithm based on restricted Boltzmann machine*, Proceedings of 2017 IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference, 1364-1368 (2017). J. Huang and C. Tsai, *Improve GPS positioning accuracy with context awareness*, 2008 First IEEE International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing, Lanzhou, 94-99 (2008). M. Islam and J. Kim, *An effective approach to improving low-cost GPS positioning accuracy in real-time navigation*, The Scientific World Journal, **2014**, 1-8 (2014), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/671494>. K. Kayabol, *Approximate sparse multinomial logistic regression for classification*, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, **42** (2), 490-493 (2019). T. Kim and S. Wright, *PMU placement for line outage identification via multiclass logistic regression*, IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, **9** (1), 122-131 (2016). B. Krishnapuram, L. Carin, M.\u00a0A.\u00a0T. Figueiredo and A.\u00a0J. Hartemink, *Sparse multinomial logistic regression: Fast algorithms and generalization bounds*, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, **27** (6), 957-968 (2005). Z.-H. Liu, X.-L. Luo and T.-Y. He, *Indoor positioning system based on the improved W-KNN algorithm*, Proceedings of 2017 IEEE 2nd Advanced Information Technology, Electronic and Automation Control Conference, 1355-1359 (2017). L. Meier, S.\u00a0V.\u00a0D. Geer and P. B\u00fchlmann, *The group Lasso for logistic regression*, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, **70** (1), 53-71 (2008). MATLAB 9.6.0 (R2019a), The MathWorks Inc., <http://www.mathworks.com>, 2019. J. Nocedal and S.\u00a0J. Wright, *Numerical Optimization*, Springer-Verlag, 1999. C. Ord\u00f3\u00f1ez, J.\u00a0R. Rodr\u00edguez-P\u00e9rez, J.\u00a0J. Moreira, J.\u00a0M. Mat\u00edas and E. Sanz-Ablanedo, *Machine learning techniques applied to the assessment of GPS accuracy under the forest canopy*, Journal of Surveying Engineering, **137**, 140-149 (2011). M. Rohani, D. Gingras and D. Gruyer, *A novel approach for improved vehicular positioning using cooperative map matching and dynamic base station DGPS concept*, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, **17** (1), 230-239 (2015). R.\u00a0W. Sinnott, *Virtues of the haversine*, Sky and Telescope, **68** (2), 158-159 (1984). Y.\u00a0H. Wang, H. Li, X.-L. Luo, Q.\u00a0M. Sun, J.\u00a0N. Liu, *A 3D fingerprinting positioning method based on cellular networks*, International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, 1-9 (2014), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/248981>. P. Williams, *Interactive Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences*, Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts USA, 2004. H. Xia, X. Wang, Y. Qiao, J. Jian and Y. Chang, *Using multiple barometers to detect the floor location of smart phones with built-in barometric sensors for indoor positioning*, Sensors, **15**(4), 7857-7877 (2015). V. Zaliva and F. Franchetti, *Barometric and GPS altitude sensor fusion*, 2014 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 1-5 (2014). J. Zhu, X.-L. Luo and D. Chen, *Maximum likelihood scheme for fingerprinting positioning in LTE system*, 2012 IEEE 14th International Conference on Communication Technology, 428-432 (2012). H. Zou, B. Huang, X. Lu, H. Jiang and L. Xie, *A robust indoor positioning system based on the procrustes analysis and weighted extreme learning machine*, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, **15** (2), 1252-1266 (2016).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    The Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) Extreme Universe Space Observatory (EUSO) will be launched and attached to the Japanese module of the International Space Station (ISS). Its aim is to observe UV photon tracks produced by ultra-high energy cosmic rays developing in the atmosphere and producing extensive air showers.\n\n    The key element of the instrument is a very wide-field, very fast, large-lense telescope that can detect extreme energy particles with energy above $10^{19}$ eV. The Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS), comprising, among others, the Infrared Camera (IRCAM), which is the Spanish contribution, plays a fundamental role in the understanding of the atmospheric conditions in the Field of View (FoV) of the telescope. It is used to detect the temperature of clouds and to obtain the cloud coverage and cloud top altitude during the observation period of the JEM-EUSO main instrument.\n\n    SENER is responsible for the preliminary design of the Front End Electronics (FEE) of the Infrared Camera, based on an uncooled microbolometer, and the manufacturing and verification of the prototype model.\n\n    This paper describes the flight design drivers and key factors to achieve the target features, namely, detector biasing with electrical noise better than $100 \\mu$V from $1$ Hz to $10$ MHz, temperature control of the microbolometer, from $10^{\\circ}$C to $40^{\\circ}$C with stability better than $10$ mK over $4.8$ hours, low noise high bandwidth amplifier adaptation of the microbolometer output to differential input before analog to digital conversion, housekeeping generation, microbolometer control, and image accumulation for noise reduction.\n\n    It also shows the modifications implemented in the FEE prototype design to perform a trade-off of different technologies, such as the convenience of using linear or switched regulation for the temperature control, the possibility to check the camera performances when both microbolometer and analog electronics are moved further away from the power and digital electronics, and the addition of switching regulators to demonstrate the design is immune to the electrical noise the switching converters introduce.\n\n    Finally, the results obtained during the verification phase are presented: FEE limitations, verification results, including FEE noise for each channel and its equivalent NETD and microbolometer temperature stability achieved, technologies trade-off, lessons learnt, and design improvement to implement in future project phases.\nauthor:\n- '[\u00d3scar Maroto]{}'\n- '[Laura D\u00edez-Merino]{}'\n- '[Jordi Carbonell]{}'\n- '[Albert Tom\u00e0s]{}'\n- '[Marcos Reyes]{}'\n- '[Enrique Joven]{}'\n- '[Yolanda Mart\u00edn]{}'\n- '[J. A. Morales de los R\u00edos]{}'\n- |\n    [\\\n    Luis Del Peral]{}\n- '[M. D. Rodr\u00edguez Fr\u00edas]{}'\ntitle: '**Design of the Front End Electronics for the Infrared Camera of JEM-EUSO, and manufacturing and verification of the prototype model**'\n---\n\n**Keywords:** JEM-EUSO, Front End Electronics, FEE, microbolometer, IRCAM, infra-red detector.\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nJEM-EUSO (Extreme Universe Space Observatory on the Japanese Experiment Module)[@Takahashi2009], [@Ebisuzaki2014], [@Adams2013] is a new type of observatory that will utilize very large volumes of the Earth\u2019s atmosphere as a detector of the most energetic particles in the Universe. Its aim is to observe UV photon tracks produced by Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECR), with energy above $10^{19}$ eV, generating Extensive Air Showers (EAS) in the atmosphere. The Atmospheric Monitoring System (AMS)[@Neronov2011] plays a fundamental role in our understanding of the atmospheric conditions in the Field of View (FoV) of the telescope and includes an infra-red camera for cloud coverage and cloud top height detection.\n\nThe monitoring of the cloud coverage by JEM-EUSO with an Atmospheric Monitor System is crucial to estimate the effective exposure with high accuracy and to increase the confidence level in the UHECRs events in particular at the threshold energy of the telescope. The AMS is a system used to detect the temperature of clouds and to obtain the cloud coverage and cloud top altitude during the observation period of the JEM-EUSO main instrument. Cloud top height retrieval can be performed using either stereo vision algorithms (therefore, two different views of the same scene are needed) or accurate radiometric information, since the measured radiance is basically related to the target temperature and therefore, according to standard atmospheric models, to its altitude. The observed radiation is basically related to the target temperature and emissivity and, in this particular case, it can be used to get an estimate of the cloud heights. The AMS will comprise an Infrared Camera (IRCAM)[@Rodriguez-Frias2013],[@Morales2013],[@JEM-EUSO2014],[@Morales2014], a LIDAR and JEM-EUSO slow data.\n\nIRCAM, the technological contribution of the Spanish Consortium, is able to detect infrared radiation of the target with emissivity ($\\epsilon$) greater than 0.6 and lower than 1 and estimates the temperature of the target under investigation with accuracy better than $3$ K. IRCAM consists of three subsystems:\n\n-   IRCAM Telecope Assembly.\n\n-   IRCAM Electronics Assembly.\n\n-   IRCAM Calibration Unit.\n\nThe main function of the IRCAM Telescope assembly is to acquire the infrared radiation and to convert it into digital counts. For that purpose, the Telescope Assembly includes the IRCAM detector, an uncooled microbolometer, the dedicated electronics to control it, the Front End Electronics (FEE), and the optics.\n\nThe IRCAM Electronics Assembly provides mechanisms to process and transmit the images obtained by the FEE from the microbolometer. It is composed of the Instrument Control Unit (ICU) and the Power Supply Unit (PSU). Their main function is to control and manage the overall system behavior, including the data management, the power drivers and the mechanisms.\n\nDue to the requested accuracy measurement the IRCAM will perform an On-Board calibration by means of a dedicated Calibration Unit.\n\nSENER is responsible for the preliminary design of the Front End Electronics (FEE) within the IRCAM, and the manufacturing and verification of the prototype model, under IAC supervision.\n\nIRCAM FEE Main Requirements\n===========================\n\nThe main requirements the IRCAM FEE shall comply with are listed in the following:\n\n1.  IRCAM FEE shall acquire images from an infrared detector, type ULIS UL 04 17 1, covering the spectral range $8-14 \\mu$m and measuring temperatures between $200$ K and $320$ K[@ULIS2014].\n\n2.  IRCAM FEE shall generate the bias needed by the infrared detector to operate. These are enlisted in Table \\[Table:requirements\\].\n\n3.  The detector shall be controlled in temperature between $10^{\\circ}$ C and $40^{\\circ}$ C with stability better than $10$ mK over $4.8$ hours, by commanding the Thermo-Electric Cooler (TEC) of the microbolometer.\n\n4.  The NETD of the IRCAM FEE shall be lower than $75$ mK $\\MVAt$ $300$ K and optics F\\#1 of the target.\n\n5.  IRCAM FEE shall be able to perform frame averaging of at least 4 consecutive frames.\n\n6.  FEE shall be able to perform operation of sum and subtracting of frames.\n\n7.  IRCAM FEE shall be composed of two different modules, each of them, located at different positions, joint by a flex cable:\n\n    -   FPA Focal Plane assembly (detector + mechanical I/F to the Optical subsystem).\n\n    -   FEE electronic box.\n\nIRCAM FEE Flight Design Overview\n================================\n\nIRCAM FEE has been divided into two different modules, namely, the Focal Plane Array (FPA) containing the low noise electronics needed for the infrared detector to operate optimally, and the Front End Electronics (FEE) hosting the digital electronics and TEC control circuitry.\n\n![IRCAM FEE block diagram[]{data-label=\"Fig:FEE\"}](FEE-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\n  -------------------------- ---------- -------------- ------------------ ------------- -----------------------------\n  **Electrical**             **Bias**   **Optimum**    **Range**          **Maximum**   **Maximum**\n  **function name**          **Type**   **value**      **value**          **current**   **RMS noise**\n                                        **@ 300K**                                      \n  VDDA                       Fixed      $5$ V                             $60$ mA       $< 100 \\mu$V\n  (analog supply)                       $\\pm 100$ mV                                    \n  VDDL                       Fixed      $3.3$ V                           $5$ mA        $< 100$ mV\n  (digital supply)                      $\\pm 300$ mV                                    \n  VBUS                       Fixed      $2.8$ V                           $1$ mA        $< 100 \\mu$V\n  (microbolometer biasing)              $\\pm 25$ mV                                     \n  GFID                       Tunable    Given          $0$ to $5$V        $1$ mA        $2 \\mu$V (1Hz to 1kHz)\n  (microbolometer                       in STR         $\\pm 5$ mV                       $5 \\mu$V (1Hz to 10kHz)\n  biasing)                                                                              $100 \\mu$V (1Hz to 10MHz)\n  VSK (blind                 Tunable    Given          $2.0$ to $5.5$ V   $1$ mA        $2 \\mu$V (1 Hz to 1 kHz)\n  microbolometer                        in STR         $\\pm 5$mV                        $5 \\mu$V (1 Hz to 10 kHz)\n  biasing)                                                                              $100 \\mu$V (1 Hz to 10 MHz)\n  GSK (blind                 Fixed      $2.2$ V                           $1$ mA        $2 \\mu$V (1 Hz to 1 kHz)\n  microbolometer                        $\\pm 50$ mV                                     $5 \\mu$V (1 Hz to 10 kHz)\n  biasing)                                                                              $100 \\mu$V (1 Hz to 10 MHz)\n  -------------------------- ---------- -------------- ------------------ ------------- -----------------------------\n\n  : Requirements for microbolometer power supplies.[]{data-label=\"Table:requirements\"}\n\nFigure 1 shows the block diagram of the IRCAM FEE electronics.The main functionalities implemented in the IRCAM FEE are:\n\nPower supplies generation for the FEE PCB\n-----------------------------------------\n\nAll the power supplies are cold redundant and consequently OR-ing is needed. This block also filters the input power supplies and generates secondary voltages by using linear regulators and point of loads.\n\nTEC temperature control\n-----------------------\n\nThe microbolometer performance is optimum when the detector is stabilized to a constant temperature $\\pm 10$ mK for the image acquisition time, presently defined as $4.8$ h. To fulfil this requirement, the design shown in Figure \\[Fig:TEC\\] is featured in the IRCAM FEE.\n\n![TEC control block diagram. \\[Fig:TEC\\]](TEC-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nThis circuitry consists of a current regulator implemented with a buck converter and controlled by a double loop. The possible setting temperatures are between $10$ and $40^{\\circ}$C, and it is only possible to heat up due to the facts that the temperature of the FPA is expected to be lower than the microbolometer setting temperature, and in case of heating/cooling cycles were mixed during image acquisition, the thermal stability would be much worse than $10$ mK.\n\nThe advantage of using a buck converter to implement the current regulator is the efficiency of the circuit, and as the power availability is little, it has been decided to choose this option. The drawback is that the switching noise could affect the low noise circuits as microbolometer power supplies generation or image acquisition. The alternative would be to use a linear regulator that is better in terms of noise, but the power consumption for big temperature jumps would be unaffordable. To analyze it, in the prototype the two options have been implemented to have a trade-off of both technologies.\n\nOptical detector power supplies biasing\n---------------------------------------\n\nThe required power supplies for the optical detector have very severe noise specifications and due to this, most of the power supplies generators are located near the optical sensor.\n\n![Microbolometer power supplies bias. \\[Fig:microbolometer\\]](microbolometer-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nThe architecture of the optical detector power supplies generation is based on a voltage reference that is adjusted and filtered by using very low noise operational amplifiers in non-inverting or inverting configuration. To filter the noise, a Sallen-key topology has been selected. The current driver only applies to VDDA, which delivers $60$ mA maximum, and consists of a bipolar transistor working in linear zone, controlled by an operational amplifier output.\n\nGFID and VSK power supplies must be tunable voltages. To provide the design with this capability, an 11bit DAC has been selected. $11$ bits means a resolution of $2.7$ mV in VSK and $2.5$ mV in GFID, thus complying with the specification. The DAC used has a simple R-2R topology that minimizes the noise.\n\nOptical detector data acquisition\n---------------------------------\n\nThis block is in charge of amplifying the signal provided by the microbolometer and performing the analog to digital conversion, to maximize signal to noise ratio. The microbolometer provides data to each channel at $10$ Msamples/s and therefore, the analog acquisition chain has been designed to cope with this data throughput.\n\n![Analog acquisition chain block diagram. \\[Fig:acquisition\\]](acquisition-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nThe microbolometer measures the cloud temperature in a range between $200$ K and $320$ K. The typical responsivity of the microbolometer is specified by the manufacturer as $5$ mV/K, but it can be modified to obtain different images when the f-number of the optics changes. The range within it can be modified has been considered between $1.5$ mV/K and $8$ mV/K. The acquisition chain has been designed to allow a programmable offset and gain to adjust the input signal to the voltage required by the ADC, independently of the responsivity.\n\nThe offset shall be programmable through the FPGA. It generates a digital voltage, which is converted using a DAC and subtracted to the input signal in the first stage of the analog chain. The value of the offset is: $$V_{offset} = T_{min} K_{\\mu B} G1$$ where $T_{min}$ is the minimum detectable temperature ($200$ K); $K_{\\mu B}$, the responsivity of the microbolometer; and $G1$ is the gain of the microbolometer.\n\nThe whole gain of the analog chain is the product of the internal microbolometer gain ($G1$) and the gain of the second stage of the chain ($G2$). The gain $G1$ is programmable via serial bus in the $\\mu B$ and the gain $G2$ is programmable via a resistance ladder multiplexed in the feedback loop. The product $G1\\cdot G2$ must amplify the voltage input signal to a $1 V_{pp}$ differential signal (expected voltage at the ADC input), it is: $$G1\\cdot G2 = \\frac{V_{in-ADC}}{V_{max-\\mu B}} = \\frac{V_{in-ADC}}{(T_{max}-T_{min})K_{\\mu B}}$$\n\nThe possible values for $G1$ are specified by the manufacturer and the values for $G2$ have been calculated to minimize the error in the amplification. These are detailed in Table \\[Table:gain\\]. All combinations between $G1$ and $G2$ are allowed to adapt the chain gain to the adjustable responsivity of the microbolometer. Minimum gain allowed shall be $1$, while maximum gain for very low power signals could rise up to $6.705$.\n\n  **G1**   **G2**\n  -------- --------\n  1.000    1.000\n  1.125    1.070\n  1.290    1.140\n  1.500    1.210\n  1.800    1.280\n  2.250    1.350\n  3.000    1.420\n  4.500    1.490\n\n  : Programmable gain values in the analog acquisition chain \\[Table:gain\\]\n\nFinally, after offset compensation and gain stage, the signal shall be converted from single-ended to differential signal before entering in the ADC.\n\nThe noise analysis performed for this module, which is the main contributor to the NETD added by the FEE is depicted in Table \\[Table:analog\\].\n\n  ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ---------------------\n  **Responsivity**   **Analog Chain**   **Total Noise**   **Equivalent NETD**\n  **\\[mV/K\\]**       **parameters**     **\\[$\\mu$V\\]**    **\\[mK\\]**\n  K=1.50             G1=4.50            183.99            122.66\n                     G2=1.21                              \n  K=2.54             G1=3.00            179.95            70.85\n                     G2=1.07                              \n  K=3.71             G1=1.50            192.75            51.95\n                     G2=1.49                              \n  K=4.36             G1=1.29            190.39            43.67\n                     G2=1.42                              \n  K=5.22             G1=1.29            183.93            35.24\n                     G2=1.21                              \n  K=6.40             G1=1.29            178.09            27.82\n                     G2=1.00                              \n  K=7.30             G1=1.00            181.88            24.91\n                     G2=1.14                              \n  ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ---------------------\n\n  : Analog acquisition chain noise for different responsivity values (microbolometer noise not included).[]{data-label=\"Table:analog\"}\n\nConsidering the microbolometer has a NETD around $60$ mK for high responsibility values, the system NETD would be increased from $60$ mK to $64.97$ mK, only $5$ mK, by using equation: $$NETD_{IRCAM-FEE} = \\sqrt{NETD_{FEE}^2+NETD_{\\mu B}^2}$$\n\nDigital design\n--------------\n\nThe control of the whole system has been implemented by means of a RT Proasic FPGA, being it radiation tolerant up to $30$ krads that ensures the system is under known conditions regardless of the radiation events received. This electronics will be the responsible of the following activities:\n\n-   Acquiring images from the microbolometer.\n\n-   Processing the images and storing them into memory.\n\n-   Generating the clock signals for the microbolometer.\n\n-   Generating the power set-ups required by the microbolometer.\n\n-   Generating the signalling for the FPA and FEE electronics.\n\n-   Transmitting the images to the ICU.\n\n-   Receiving TC from the ICU.\n\n-   Sending TM to the ICU.\n\n-   Managing the IRCAM FEE modes.\n\n-   Acquiring instrument temperature sensors.\n\nOne of the key points of the digital design is the acquisition strategy to receive, store, process and retrieve an image. The image acquiring strategy is shown in Figure \\[Fig:figure5\\].\n\n![Image acquisition strategy. \\[Fig:figure5\\]](figure5-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nFive data and offset images will be acquired and reduced within $15$ seconds. The image reduction consists on discarding the first image acquired and averaging the other four images. Offset reduction is similar, first image will be discarded and the other four images will be averaged. Prior to the final image retrieval, the offset image is subtracted from the data image.\n\nEEE parts selection\n-------------------\n\nIRCAM FEE preliminary design has been carried out taking into account flight standards, being the components radiation tolerant to $30$ krads total dose radiation, and immune to LET under $60$ MeV cm$^2$/mg . Apart from the radiation tolerance feature, the electronics components have been selected according to the following rules:\n\n-   ESCC class B components for those under ESA standards.\n\n-   QML V components for microcircuits under MIL standards.\n\n-   JANS for diodes and transistors under MIL standards.\n\n-   EFR-R for passives under MIL standards.\n\nMechanical design\n-----------------\n\nThe mechanical design for the FPA and FEE can be seen in Figure \\[Fig:figure6\\]\n\n![FPA and FEE mechanical design. \\[Fig:figure6\\]](figure6-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nThe FPA consists of the following elements:\n\n-   Frame and supports to host the optical filter.\n\n-   Heat conductor allowing heat conduction of the optical detector and associated electronics to a cold plate.\n\n-   Rigid-flex PCB, with the needed low noise electronics, such as microbolometer power supplies generation, image data amplification and A/D conversion.\n\nOn the other hand, FEE components are:\n\n-   FEE mechanical box.\n\n-   FEE PCB.\n\nThe IRCAM FEE is hosted within the Telescope Assembly as depicted in Figure \\[Fig:figure7\\].\n\n![IRCAM FEE location within Telescope Assembly. \\[Fig:figure7\\]](figure7-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nIRCAM FEE Prototype Design and Manufacturing\n============================================\n\nThe aim of the IRCAM FEE prototype design (FEEP) is to have a functional IRCAM FEE model complying with the requirements described in section 2 with commercial components equivalent to those used for the flight design. A microbolomoter type ULIS UL 04 17 1 delivered by IAC has also been mounted to allow full FEEP verification.\n\nFigure \\[Fig:figure8\\] depicts the FEEP as delivered to IAC. The FEEP is hosted within a box that protects it mechanically. The box interfaces electrically with the main power supply, the trigger signal interface, and the ICU simulation by means of three different connectors, and allows assembling of the optics on top of the optical detector.\n\n![IRCAM FEE prototype. \\[Fig:figure8\\]](figure8-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nFor practical purposes, it has been decided to have a single board in which the FPA and FEE sections electrically isolated, and potentially joined by a connector with a similar length as the flight flex connector. The FPA is located at the left half of the board, near the detector, while the FEE is hosted at the right half.\n\nThe detector is soldered on an independent assembly, being it possible to mount and dismount the detector PCB from the rest of the electronics. The detector assembly will consist of the following parts:\n\n-   Optical detector.\n\n-   Heat conductor.\n\n-   Optical detector PCB.\n\nThe heat conductor has been designed to have the same volume as the flight one, and is placed in direct contact with the detector base. A metallic braided strap leads the heat from the heat conductor to a cold point external to the FEEP. The PCB has two connectors to provide the detector assembly with means to connect and disconnect it to/from the rest of the electronics.\n\nIn addition to the functional features of the flight design, the FEEP also has some other capabilities to ease the flight design testing and validation:\n\n-   The FEE and FPA side can be electrically communicated by two different ways, namely, a harness simulating the flex connector in the flight design, or directly by using electrical connections that can be enabled or disabled by means of jumpers located on the PCB. This way the effect of the harness length on the image results can be quantified.\n\n-   Apart from the buck converter designed for feeding the TEC, the prototype also features a linear regulator with the same purpose. The use of a linear regulator increases power needs but decreases noise on power supplies, and therefore, a trade-off of the two technologies can be done.\n\n-   An external signal ($3.3$ V TTL or CMOS) allows triggering a single image acquisition.\n\n-   As already explained, the detector is mounted on an isolated assembly, and this might worsen NETD.\n\n-   A simulator of the temperature sensing within the optical detector is included to be able to test the temperature regulation circuit with a standard Peltier.\n\n-   A single voltage supply of $24$ V, $1$ A is needed to feed the FEEP, and some DC/DC converters and linear regulator generate internally the voltage required by the electronics to operate nominally.\n\nIRCAM FEE Prototype Verification\n================================\n\nThe main results, limitations and lessons learned derived from the test campaign performed at SENER facilities are presented in the next sections.\n\nMicrobolometer Power Supplies Noise\n-----------------------------------\n\nThe measurement has been done only in the frequency range from $10$ Hz to $51$ kHz with a Dynamic Signal Analyzer (DSA). Below $10$ Hz the measurement instrument, i.e. spectrum analyser, introduces noise one order of magnitude higher than the existing in the prototype board, and therefore, the lower frequency is limited to $10$ Hz. The maximum frequency the DSA can measure is $51$ kHz. A high pass filter with a cutting frequency of $1$ Hz has been used to eliminate the continuous signal at zero frequency.\n\nThe power spectral density (PSD) of the noise of each power supply is summarized in Table \\[Table:table4\\].\n\n  **Power Supply**   **Noise**\n  ------------------ ------------------------\n  VSK@5V             4.90925 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$\n  VGSK               4.98774 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$\n  GFID@5V            5.0095 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$\n  VDDA               8.5572 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$\n  VDDL               20.0827 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$\n  GND                4.91247 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$\n\n  : Power supplies noise PSD measurement.[]{data-label=\"Table:power\"}\n\nThe noise in low frequency is the bigger contribution to the final noise and it decreases as frequency increases. To calculate the noise in the $10$ MHz bandwidth, the noise has been considered white noise and has been extrapolated, which is a worst case assumption. Using the spectral power distribution, the ratio between $10$ MHz and $51$ kHz is $14$, which leads to the PSD values shown in Table \\[Table:table5\\].\n\n  ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ --------------------\n  **Power Supply**   **Noise**                **Noise**                **Microbolometer**\n                     **(10 Hz - 51 kHz)**     **(10 Hz - 10 MHz)**     **specification**\n  VSK@5V             4.90925 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$   68.743 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$    100 $\\mu$V\n  VGSK               4.98774 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$   69.842 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$    100 $\\mu$V\n  GFID@5V            5.0095 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$    70.147 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$    100 $\\mu$V\n  VDDA               8.5572 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$    119.824 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$   100 $\\mu$V\n  VDDL               20.0827 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$   281.214 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$   100 $\\mu$V\n  GND                4.91247 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$   68.788 $\\mu$V$_{RMS}$    100 $\\mu$V\n  ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ --------------------\n\n  : Power supplies noise PSD extrapolation to $10$ MHz.[]{data-label=\"Table:table5\"}\n\nAll the values are compliant with the specifications with the exception of VDDA, which is slightly higher than specified. It could be due to the approximation done, which is a worst case consideration and in this case a measurement with higher bandwidth should be done.\n\nTEC long-term stability\n-----------------------\n\nIn the preliminary design, a switching voltage regulator was chosen due to the better efficiency compared to the linear regulators. Nevertheless, the prototype has means to control the TEC in either a switching or a linear way, just by shorting or opening some jumpers. One of the objectives of the FEEP fabrication is to decide which regulator configuration, switching or linear, is more suitable for JEM-EUSO needs. Our findings are the following:\n\n-   For small thermal jumps, it is, difference between ambient and TEC temperature less than $10$ K, the linear regulator configuration is recommended, as the power needed to operate is small (less than $200$ mA at $3.3$ V, it is, $0.66$ W, for a $8^\\circ$C thermal jump), and the switching regulator needs a minimum thermal jump to operate achieving the $10$ mK thermal stability requirement. Given the standard laboratory conditions in which the FEEP was tested, the linear regulator configuration was used to perform the acceptance test, although the switching configuration has also been tested and its performance is considered correct.\n\n-   For big thermal jumps of more than $10^\\circ$C, both configurations are possible to be used, although the linear configuration power consumption is bigger. In the tests performed at SENER in linear configuration, a thermal jump of $17$ K implied an increase of $3.3 \\cdot 0.4=1.32$ W in power.\n\nDue to hardware constraints in the design, the maximum allowed current to the TEC is around $1.2$ A, and therefore the maximum thermal jump allowed for the linear configuration is around $40-50$K. Nevertheless, for such big thermal jumps, the switching configuration is strongly recommended.\n\nDepending on the final design of JEM-EUSO, either the switching or linear configuration, or even a combination of both of them, can be used.\n\nAt SENER, two tests have been carried-out to measure the long-term stability of the microbolometer temperature over $4.8$ hours, both in linear regulation configuration.\n\nThe first one with a temperature setting point of $30^{\\circ}$C while the ambient is at $22^\\circ$C showed a mean temperature of $30.0023^{\\circ}$C and a standard deviation of $1.14$ mK, much lower than the $\\pm 10$ mK required.\n\n![Microbolometer temperature stability for 5th, $T_{amb}=22^\\circ$C, $T_{sensing}=30^\\circ$C. \\[Fig:figure9\\]](figure9-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nThe second test was executed similarly, changing the setting point to $39^\\circ$C to have a $17^\\circ$C difference between ambient and the setting point. In this case, the mean is $38.9966^\\circ$C and the standard deviation $2.70$ mK, also within specifications.\n\n![Microbolometer temperature stability for $5$ h, $T_{amb} = 22^\\circ$C, $T_{setting} = 39^\\circ$C. \\[Fig:figure10\\]](figure10-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nDead pixel effect\n-----------------\n\nDue to the big changes in microbolometer output voltage level during image transmission and the absolute maximum ratings for input voltage levels of the ADC, diodes have been added to protect the ADC. The use of the diodes and its slow recovery time imply every time a dead pixel is read, the effect in the output image is two consecutive pixels in the same channel seen as dead pixels. Alternatives to protect the ADC will be studied in further project phases.\n\n![Dead pixel map and detail of the double dead-pixel effect. \\[Fig:figure11\\]](figure11-lr.jpg){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nNETD measurement without microbolometer\n---------------------------------------\n\nThe noise of the whole acquisition chain, both analog and digital contribution of the IRCAM FEE prototype without the microbolometer has been measured. An offset on both channels of $0$ V and a configurable input voltage generated by a voltage reference is used to acquire several complete images. Table \\[Table:table6\\] shows the input voltage, the digital mean value and standard deviation obtained (in ADC counts and mK consideMicrobolomering a responsivity of $7.3$ mV/K) in each channel after the ADCs.\n\n  ------------------- -------------------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------\n  **Input Voltage**                                                                \n  **\\[V\\]**           **Mean**             **NETD \\[ADC**     **Mean**             **NETD \\[ADC**\n                      **\\[ADC counts\\]**   **counts, mK\\]**   **\\[ADC counts\\]**   **counts, mK\\]**\n  0.1                 381.77               0.95, 32           388.97               0.82, 27\n  0.2                 799.21               0.94, 31           806.42               0.8, 27\n  0.3                 1206.10              0.91, 30           1213.49              0.8, 27\n  0.4                 1618.38              0.89, 30           1625.77              0.74, 25\n  0.5                 2031.47              0.94, 30           2039.24              0.74, 25\n  0.6                 2439.02              0.94, 31           2447.47              0.74, 25\n  0.7                 2853.08              0.98, 33           2861.99              0.75, 25\n  0.8                 3265.37              1.01, 34           3274.63              0.76, 25\n  0.9                 3677.69              1.02, 34           3687.53              0.77, 26\n  0.99                4048.44              1.04, 35           4058.50              0.77, 26\n  ------------------- -------------------- ------------------ -------------------- ------------------\n\n  : Noise measurement of the acquisition chains in the digital domain.[]{data-label=\"Table:table6\"}\n\nAccording to Table \\[Table:table6\\], channel $1$ is noisier than channel $2$. This could be due to the PCB routing, although no direct cause has been found. Note the maximum NETD is $35$ mK including also the reference voltage used to feed the FEEP, and therefore, this is a worst case NETD. Thus the worst case IRCAM FEE NETD, considering the microbolometer has $60$ mK NETD would be $69.46$ mK, which is below the specified $75$ mK. By using four images averaging, theoretically the NETD could be reduced by one half.\n\nFrom Table \\[Table:table6\\] it can also be seen that channel $2$ has $7$ counts offset with respect to channel $1$. This can be corrected by the FPGA as it has been characterized when a $0$ V input is inserted in both channel $1$ and $2$.\n\nAnother main result is that the NETD does not depend on the use of linear or switching regulation for the TEC control, so either regulator can be used in the final design.\n\nThese results can be complemented with the effects of the harness connecting FPA and FEE, which have not been evaluated so far. This is recommended to be done in the future to fully characterize the FEEP.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nThe IRCAM FEE preliminary design and prototype design, manufacturing and verification have been carried out. The overall results show the FEEP NETD is within NETD budget even without frame averaging.\n\nThe linear versus switching regulation options to control the microbolometer temperature have been studied. Accordingly, it is advisable to use linear regulation when the thermal jump between ambient and microbolometer temperature is below $10^\\circ$C. Between $10^\\circ$C and $20^\\circ$C thermal jump, both linear and switching regulation options are possible, while above $20^\\circ$C the switching option is strongly recommended.\n\nAlthough the overall results are considered successful, the effect of the harness connecting FPA and FEE on the IRCAM FEE NETD should be characterized in future studies, and an alternative to the diodes protecting the channel acquisition ADCs causing the double dead pixel effect should be considered.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThis work is funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness or MINisterio de Economia y COmpetitividad (MINECO) under projects AYA-ESP 2011-29489-C03-01, AYA-ESP 2011-29489-C03-02, AYA-ESP 2012-39115-C03-01, AYA-ESP 2012-39115-C03-03, CSD2009-00064 (Consolider MULTIDARK) and by Comunidad de Madrid (CAM) under project S2009/ESP-1496. We want to thank the JEM-EUSO collaboration, to which this work is entitled, and the Instituto de Astrof\u00edsica de Canarias (IAC) to give SENER the opportunity to join the JEM-EUSO project.\n\n[9]{} Takahashi, Y. and the JEM-EUSO Collaboration, \u201cThe Jem-Euso Mission,\u201d New J. Phys. 11(6), (2009). Ebisuzaki, T., Medina-Tanco, G. and Santangelo, A.,\u201cThe JEM-EUSO Mission,\u201d Adv. Sp. Res. 53(10), 1499\u20131505 (2014). J.H. Adams Jr. et al (JEM-EUSO Collaboration), \u201cAn evaluation of the exposure in nadir observation of the JEM-EUSO mission,\u201d Astroparticle Physics, 44, 76\u201390 (2013) Neronov, A., Rodriguez-Frias, M. D., Toscano, S. and Wada, S., \u201cAtmospheric Monitoring System of JEM-EUSO,\u201d Proc. 32nd Int.Cosm. Ray Conf., 91\u201394 (2011). Rodriguez-Frias, M. D., Licandro, J., Sabau, M. D., Reyes, M., Belenguer,T., Gonzalez-Alvarado,M.C., Joven, E., Morales de los Rios, J. A., Saez-Palomino, M., Prieto, Saez-Cano, G., Carretero, J., Perez-Cano, S., del Peral, L., \u201cTowards the preliminary Design Review of the Infrared Camera of the JEM-EUSO Collaboration\u201d Proc. 33rd Int. Cosm. Ray Conf., 95\u201398, Rio de Janeiro (2013). Morales de los Rios, J. A., del Peral, L., Saez-Cano, G., Prieto, H., Carretero, J. H., Sabau, M. D., Belenguer, T., Gonzalez Alvarado, C., Sanz Palomino, M. et al., \u201cAn End to End Simulation code for the IR-Camera of the JEM-EUSO Space Observatory,\u201d Proc. 33nd Int. Cosm. Ray Conf., Rio de Janeiro (2013). The JEM-EUSO Collaboration, \u201cThe Infrared Camera onboard JEM-EUSO,\u201d Experimental Astron., (in press, 2014). Morales de los R\u00edos, J. A., et al, \u201cThe infrared camera prototype characterization for the JEM-EUSO space mission,\u201d Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, 74\u201383 (2014) ULIS, \u201cNano640E-UL 04 17 1-011,\u201d 2014, in http://www.ulis-ir.com/index.php?infrared-detector=25\u2013%m-640x480, (23 April 2014).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this note, we propose a formal framework accounting for the sensitivity of a function of the domain with respect to the addition of a thin ligament. To set ideas, we consider the model setting of elastic structures, and we approximate this question by a thin tubular inhomogeneity problem: we look for the sensitivity of the solution to a partial differential equation posed inside a background medium, and that of a related quantity of interest, with respect to the inclusion of a thin tube filled with a different material. A practical formula for this sensitivity is derived, which lends itself to numerical implementation. Two applications of this idea in structural optimization are presented.'\nauthor:\n- 'C. Dapogny^1^'\nbibliography:\n- './genbib.bib'\ntitle: A connection between topological ligaments in shape optimization and thin tubular inhomogeneities\n---\n\n\\[section\\] \\[section\\] \\[section\\] \\[section\\] \\[section\\] \\[section\\]\n\n*^1^ Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP[^1], LJK, 38000 Grenoble, France*,\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDans cette note, on introduit une approche formelle visant \u00e0 \u00e9valuer la sensibilit\u00e9 d\u2019une fonction du domaine par rapport \u00e0 la greffe d\u2019un ligament tr\u00e8s fin sur celui-ci. Dans le contexte mod\u00e8le des structures \u00e9lastiques, nous approchons cette question par un probl\u00e8me de petite inclusion tubulaire : on \u00e9tudie la sensibilit\u00e9 de la solution d\u2019une \u00e9quation aux d\u00e9riv\u00e9es partielles pos\u00e9e dans un milieu ambiant, ainsi que celle d\u2019une quantit\u00e9 d\u2019int\u00e9r\u00eat associ\u00e9e, par rapport \u00e0 l\u2019inclusion d' un tube fin contenant un mat\u00e9riau distinct de celui du milieu ambiant. On obtient une formule explicite pour cette sensibilit\u00e9, qui se pr\u00eate \u00e0 l\u2019impl\u00e9mentation num\u00e9rique. Cette id\u00e9e est illustr\u00e9e par deux applications en optimisation structurale.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIntroduction {#sec.intro}\n============\n\nMost optimal design frameworks rely on a measure of the sensitivity of the objective (and constraint) function with respect to \u2018small modifications\u2019 of shapes. One popular method in this direction is that of Hadamard, whereby variations of a shape are understood as perturbations of their boundaries; see e.g. [@allaire2004structural; @henrot2018shape; @pironneau1982optimal; @sokolowski1992introduction]. This information is sometimes combined with topological derivatives, as in [@allaire2005structural]; these indicate where internal holes can be beneficially nucleated. Conversely, mechanisms to add material to a shape have seldom been investigated. In principle, asymptotic expansions similar to those underlying topological derivatives would make it possible to account for the addition of small bubbles of material. Such floating islands, disconnected from the main structure, are however unefficient and undesirable from the mechanical viewpoint, and it would actually be more relevant to add *bars*, connecting distant regions of the shape.\n\nThe sensitivity of the solution to a partial differential equation and that of a shape functional with respect to the graft of a thin ligament to the considered domain have been studied in [@nazarov2004topological; @nazarov2005topological; @nazarov2005self], under the name of \u2018exterior topological derivative\u2019. Unfortunately, the rigorous asymptotic analyses conducted in these works are intricate and difficult to exploit in practice, as the authors themselves acknowledge.\n\nIn this note, we propose an alternative, formal approach, which is easier to handle in theory and more amenable to numerical implementation. In the model setting of a 2d structure $\\Omega$, we use the ersatz material approximation to replace the linear elasticity system on $\\Omega$ with a \u2018background\u2019 problem taking place on a larger hold-all domain $D$, filled with a smooth inhomogeneous material $A_0$. The addition of a thin ligament to $\\Omega$ is then reformulated as the inclusion of a thin tubular inhomogeneity with different material properties $A_1$ from $A_0$. The sensitivity of the elastic displacement of the structure and that of a related quantity of interest\u2014the pivotal ingredients of this viewpoint\u2014 can then be calculated by borrowing techniques from the literature devoted to low-volume inhomogeneities. Such asymptotic problems have indeed been quite extensively investigated; see [@capdeboscq2003general], then [@beretta2003asymptotic; @beretta2009thin] about thin tubular inclusions for the conductivity equation, and [@beretta2006asymptotic] in the 2d linearized elasticity case.\n\nThis note is preliminary to a longer work [@dapogny2020topolig] in preparation, where the extension to 3d (the situation being utterly different from that in 2d), as well as multiple other applications are discussed, and a general and simple formal method is proposed to calculate the thin tubular inhomogeneity asymptotics.\n\nThe remainder of this note is organized as follows. The considered setting of linear elastic structures is introduced in \\[sec.setting\\], as well as its approximation by a thin tubular inhomogeneity problem. We recall in \\[sec.ueJe\\] the first-order asymptotic expansion of the solution to the linear elasticity system when the background medium is perturbed by a thin tubular inclusion, and we introduce a suitable adjoint method to calculate the first-order correction of a related quantity of interest, which is new to the best of our knowledge. Two numerical examples illustrating these ideas are eventually presented in \\[sec.num\\].\n\nPresentation of the structural optimization problem and relation with thin tubular inhomogeneities {#sec.setting}\n==================================================================================================\n\nOptimization of the shape of a 2d elastic structure {#sec.elasexact}\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nIn the 2d linear elasticity setting, shapes are bounded, Lipschitz domains $\\Omega \\subset {{\\mathbb R}}^2$ whose boundary $\\partial \\Omega= \\Gamma_D \\cup \\Gamma_N \\cup \\Gamma$ is divided into three disjoint parts: $\\Omega$ is clamped on $\\Gamma_D$, traction loads $g \\in L^2(\\Gamma_N)^2$ are applied on $\\Gamma_N$, and the traction-free region $\\Gamma$ is the only one which is subject to optimization. Assuming body forces $f \\in L^2({{\\mathbb R}}^2)^2$, the displacement $u_\\Omega: \\Omega \\to {{\\mathbb R}}^2$ is the unique solution in the space $H^1_{\\Gamma_D}(\\Omega)^2 := \\left\\{\u00cau \\in H^1(\\Omega)^2, \\:\\: u = 0 \\text{ on } \\Gamma_D \\right\\}$ to the system: $$\\label{eq.linelas}\n \\left\\{ \n\\begin{array}{cl}\n-{\\text{\\rm div}}(Ae(u_\\Omega)) = f & \\text{in } \\Omega, \\\\\nu_\\Omega = 0 & \\text{on } \\Gamma_D, \\\\\nAe(u_\\Omega)n = g &\\text{on } \\Gamma_N, \\\\\nAe(u_\\Omega) = 0 & \\text{on } \\Gamma,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $e(u) := \\frac{1}{2}(\\nabla u + \\nabla u^T)$ is the strain tensor, and $A$ is the Hooke\u2019s law of the constituent material: $$\\label{eq.hooke}\n\\text{for any symmetric } 2 \\times 2 \\text{ matrix } e,\\:\\: Ae = 2\\mu e + \\lambda {\\text{\\rm tr}}(e)  {\\text{\\rm I}},$$ involving the Lam\u00e9 coefficients $\\lambda,\\mu$ of the material. The performance of $\\Omega$ is measured in terms of a function $J(\\Omega)$ of the domain, say for simplicity: $$\\label{eq.JOm}\n J(\\Omega) = \\int_\\Omega{j(u_\\Omega) \\: dx},$$ where $j: {{\\mathbb R}}^2 \\to {{\\mathbb R}}$ is a smooth function satisfying adequate growth conditions.\n\nWe consider the variation $\\Omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}$ where a ligament $\\omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}$ with thickness ${\\varepsilon}\\ll 1$ is grafted to $\\Omega$: $$\\Omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}= \\Omega \\cup \\omega_{\\sigma, {\\varepsilon}}, \\text{ where } \\omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}} := \\left\\{\u00cax \\in {{\\mathbb R}}^2, \\:\\: \\text{\\rm dist}(x,\\sigma) < {\\varepsilon}\\right\\},$$ and $\\sigma$ is a smooth, non self-intersecting curve in ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$ whose endpoints belong to $\\partial \\Omega$; see \\[fig.incl2set\\] (left). Assuming homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions on $\\partial \\omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}$ in the defining system for $u_{\\Omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}}$ (the version of \\[eq.linelas\\] posed on $\\Omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}$), we look for an expansion of the form: $$\\label{eq.ligasym}\n J(\\Omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}) = J(\\Omega) + {\\varepsilon}dJ_L(\\Omega)(\\sigma) + o({\\varepsilon}),$$ where it is tempting to call the first-order term $dJ_L(\\Omega)(\\sigma)$ the \u2018ligament derivative\u2019 of $J(\\Omega)$.\n\nThe thin tubular inhomogeneity problem\n--------------------------------------\n\nWe replace \\[eq.linelas\\] with the following equation, taking place in a fixed \u2018hold-all\u2019 domain $D$: $$\\label{eq.elasbg}\n \\left\\{ \n\\begin{array}{cl}\n-{\\text{\\rm div}}(A_0e(u_0)) = f & \\text{in } D, \\\\\nu_0 = 0 & \\text{on } \\Gamma_D, \\\\\nA_0e(u_0)n = g &\\text{on } \\Gamma_N, \\\\\nA_0e(u_0) = 0 & \\text{on } \\Gamma,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $A_0$ is a smooth Hooke\u2019s tensor of the form \\[eq.hooke\\] with inhomogeneous coefficients $\\lambda_0(x),\\mu_0(x)$. This problem is an approximation of that in \\[sec.elasexact\\] if $A_0$ is defined as a smooth transition between the Hooke\u2019s tensor $A$ inside $\\Omega$ and that of a very soft material $\\eta A$, $\\eta \\ll 1$, inside the void $D\\setminus \\Omega$ (this is the classical ersatz material method; see [@allaire2004structural]); see \\[fig.incl2set\\] (right).\n\nThe perturbed version of \\[eq.elasbg\\] where a tube $\\omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}$ filled by another material $A_1$ with Lam\u00e9 parameters $\\lambda_1(x)$, $\\mu_1(x)$ is included in $D$ is: $$\\label{eq.inhpert}\n \\left\\{ \n\\begin{array}{cl}\n-{\\text{\\rm div}}(A_{\\varepsilon}e(u_{\\varepsilon})) = f & \\text{in } D, \\\\\nu_{\\varepsilon}= 0 & \\text{on } \\Gamma_D, \\\\\nA_{\\varepsilon}e(u_{\\varepsilon})n = g &\\text{on } \\Gamma_N, \\\\\nA_{\\varepsilon}e(u_{\\varepsilon}) = 0 & \\text{on } \\Gamma,\n\\end{array}\n\\right. \n\\text{ with } A_{\\varepsilon}(x) = \\left\\{ \n\\begin{array}{cl}\nA_1(x) & \\text{if } x \\in {\\omega_{\\sigma,\\varepsilon}}, \\\\\nA_0(x) & \\text{otherwise}.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ The approximate counterparts $J_\\sigma(0)$ and $J_\\sigma({\\varepsilon})$ of the functionals $J(\\Omega)$ and $J(\\Omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}})$ in \\[eq.JOm\\] read: $$\\label{eq.Jsigmae}\nJ_\\sigma(0) = \\int_D{j(u_0)\\:dx}, \\:\\: J_\\sigma({\\varepsilon}) = \\int_D{j(u_{\\varepsilon}) \\: dx},$$ and we approximate $dJ_L(\\Omega)(\\sigma)$ in \\[eq.ligasym\\] by the first-order term $J_\\sigma^\\prime(0)$ in the expansion: $$J_\\sigma({\\varepsilon}) =J_\\sigma(0) + {\\varepsilon}J_\\sigma^\\prime(0) + o({\\varepsilon}).$$\n\n![*(Left) Graft of a ligament with base curve $\\sigma$ to an elastic structure $\\Omega$; (right) corresponding thin tubular inclusion inside an approximating background medium occupying the larger domain $D$.*[]{data-label=\"fig.incl2set\"}](incl2set){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\nAn adjoint method for the topological ligament {#sec.ueJe}\n==============================================\n\nIn this section, we discuss asymptotic formulas for $u_{\\varepsilon}$ and $J_\\sigma({\\varepsilon})$ in \\[eq.inhpert,eq.Jsigmae\\] as ${\\varepsilon}\\to 0$.\n\nAsymptotic formula for the state $u_{\\varepsilon}$\n--------------------------------------------------\n\nLet the $2\\times 2$ matrix field $N(x,y) = \\left\\{ N_{ij}(x,y)\\right\\}_{i=1,2 \\atop j=1,2}$ be the fundamental solution of the system \\[eq.elasbg\\]. More precisely, for any $x \\in D$, the $j^{\\text{\\rm th}}$ column vector $y \\mapsto N_j(x,y) = \\left\\{N_{ij}(x,y) \\right\\}_{i=1,2}$ satisfies: $$\\left\\{ \n\\begin{array}{cl}\n {\\text{\\rm div}}_y(A_0e_y(N_j(x,y))) = \\delta_{y=x} e_j & \\text{in } D, \\\\\n A_0e_y(N_j(x,y))n(y) = 0 & \\text{on }\u00ca\\Gamma_N \\cup \\Gamma, \\\\\n N_j(x,y) = 0 & \\text{on } \\Gamma_D.\n \\end{array}\n \\right.$$ where $e_j$ is the $j^{\\text{\\rm th}}$ vector in the canonical basis of ${{\\mathbb R}}^2$. The main result of interest is the following:\n\n\\[th.asymue\\] Let $x \\in \\overline{D} \\setminus \\sigma$; the solution $u_{\\varepsilon}$ to the perturbed system \\[eq.inhpert\\] fulfills the following expansion: $$\\label{eq.asymue}\n \\frac{1}{{\\varepsilon}}(u_{\\varepsilon}- u_0)(x) = u_1 + o(1), \\text{ where } u_1(x) = \\int_{\\sigma}{{\\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0)(y) : e_y(N(x,y)) \\:d \\ell(y)},$$ and the remainder $o(1)$ is uniform when $x$ is confined to a fixed compact subset $K \\subset  \\overline{D} \\setminus \\sigma$. The polarization tensor ${\\mathcal M}(y)$ reads, for any symmetric $2\\times 2$ matrix $e$: $$\\label{eq.M}\n {\\mathcal M}(y) e = \\alpha(y) {\\text{\\rm tr}}(e) {\\text{\\rm I}}+ \\beta(y) e + \\gamma(y) (e \\tau \\cdot \\tau ) \\tau \\otimes \\tau + \\rho(y) (e n \\cdot n) n \\otimes n,$$ involving the (inhomogeneous) coefficients: $$\\alpha = 2(\\lambda_1-\\lambda_0) \\frac{\\lambda_0 + 2\\mu_0}{\\lambda_1 + 2\\mu_1}, \\:\\: \\beta = 4(\\mu_1- \\mu_0) \\frac{\\mu_0}{\\mu_1},$$ and $$\\gamma = 4(\\mu_1-\\mu_0) \\left( \\frac{2\\lambda_1 + 2\\mu_1 - \\lambda_0}{\\lambda_1 + 2\\mu_1} -\\frac{\\mu_0}{\\mu_1}\\right), \\:\\: \\rho = 4(\\mu_1 - \\mu_0) \\frac{\\mu_1\\lambda_0- \\mu_0 \\lambda_1}{\\mu(\\lambda_1 + 2\\mu_1)} .$$\n\nThe rigorous (difficult) proof of this result is given in [@beretta2006asymptotic]. Interestingly, this formula can also be obtained thanks to a formal method based on energy minimization, close to that used in [@nguyen2009representation; @dapogny2017uniform].\n\nAn adjoint state method for the derivative of an observable\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe are now in position to derive the behavior of the functional $J_\\sigma({\\varepsilon})$ in \\[eq.Jsigmae\\] as ${\\varepsilon}\\to 0$.\n\n\\[th.asymje\\] The following expansion holds: $$\\label{eq.Jsigmap}\n J_\\sigma({\\varepsilon}) = J_\\sigma(0) + {\\varepsilon}J_\\sigma^\\prime(0) + o(1), \\text{ where }\u00caJ^\\prime_\\sigma(0) := \\int_\\sigma{{\\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0):e(p_0) \\:d \\ell(y)},$$ where ${\\mathcal M}(y)$ is the polarization tensor in \\[eq.M\\], and the adjoint state $p_0 \\in H^1_{\\Gamma_D}(\\Omega)^2$ is the solution to: $$\\label{eq.adj} \n\\left\\{\u00ca\n\\begin{array}{cl}\n-{\\text{\\rm div}}(A_0 e(p_0)) = -j^\\prime(u_0) & \\text{in } D, \\\\\np_0 = 0 & \\text{on } \\Gamma_D, \\\\\nAe(p_0) n = 0 & \\text{on } \\Gamma_N \\cup \\Gamma.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$\n\nA variant of the Aubin-Nitsche trick (see e.g. [@ciarlet2002finite]) allows to show that the limit $J_\\sigma^\\prime(0) = \\lim_{{\\varepsilon}\\to 0}{\\frac{J_\\sigma({\\varepsilon}) - J_\\sigma(0)}{{\\varepsilon}}}$ exists and has the expression: $$J_\\sigma^\\prime(0) = \\int_D{j^\\prime(u_0) u_1 \\:dx},$$ where $u_1$ is the first-order term in \\[eq.asymue\\]. Now introducing the adjoint state \\[eq.adj\\], we obtain: $$\\begin{array}{>{\\displaystyle}cc>{\\displaystyle}l}\nJ_\\sigma^\\prime(0) &=& \\int_D{j^\\prime(u_0(x)) \\left(\\int_\\sigma{{\\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0)(y) : e_y(N(x,y)) \\:d \\ell(y)} \\right)\\: d x}.\\\\\n&=& \\int_\\sigma{{\\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0)(y):e_y\\left( \\int_D{j^\\prime(u_0(x)) N(x,y) \\:d x}\\right) \\: d \\ell(y)} \\\\\n&=& \\int_\\sigma{{\\mathcal M}(y) e(u_0)(y):e(p_0)(y) \\:d \\ell(y)}, \n\\end{array}$$ where we have used the integral representation formula: $$p_0(y) = \\int_D{j^\\prime(u_0(x))N(x,y) \\: dx}.$$\n\nPractical interest of the result {#sec.practinterest}\n--------------------------------\n\nWe return to our purpose of finding a curve $\\sigma$ such that the variation $\\Omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}$ of a given shape $\\Omega$ achieves a lower value $J(\\Omega_{\\sigma,{\\varepsilon}}) < J(\\Omega)$. According to the discussion of \\[sec.setting\\], we consider the background medium $A_0$ in $D$ obtained from $\\Omega$ via the ersatz material approximation, and we search for $\\sigma$ such that $J_\\sigma^\\prime(0)<0$.\n\nUsing \\[th.asymje\\], and assuming for simplicity that $\\sigma$ is a line segment with (constant) tangent vector $\\tau = (\\tau_1,\\tau_2) \\in {{\\mathbb R}}^2$, formula \\[eq.Jsigmap\\] can be rewritten: $$J_\\sigma^\\prime(0) = \\int_\\sigma{P(y,\\tau_1,\\tau_2) \\:d\\ell (y)},$$ where for a given point $y \\in \\sigma$, $(\\tau_1,\\tau_2) \\mapsto P(y,\\tau_1,\\tau_2)$ is a bivariate $4^{\\text{\\rm th}}$-order homogeneous polynomial, whose coefficients depend explicitly on $y$ via the entries of $e(u_0)(y)$, $e(p_0)(y)$.\n\nThe search for an \u2018optimal\u2019 line segment $\\sigma$ such that $J_\\sigma^\\prime(0)<0$ is then achieved along the following lines:\n\n1.  Solve \\[eq.elasbg\\] and \\[eq.adj\\] (e.g. by the finite element method) for $u_0$ and $p_0$, respectively.\n\n2.  Calculate the coefficients of the polynomial $P(y,\\cdot,\\cdot)$ using the formulas in \\[th.asymue,th.asymje\\];\n\n3.  For all points $z_1, z_2$ in (a discretization of) $\\partial \\Omega$, calculate $J_{\\sigma}^\\prime(0)$, when $\\sigma$ is the line segment $[z_1,z_2]$, and retain the couple $(z_1,z_2)$ achieving the negative value of $J_{\\sigma}^\\prime(0)$ with largest modulus.\n\nNote that the step (3) in this program is relatively unexpensive since the involved quantities\u2014and notably the coefficients of $P(y,\\cdot,\\cdot)$ for $y \\in D$\u2014are computed beforehand, once and for all.\n\nNumerical algorithm {#sec.num}\n===================\n\nWe finally apply the methodology of \\[sec.practinterest\\] to two shape optimization problems of the form: $$\\label{eq.sopb}\n \\min\\limits_\\Omega {J(\\Omega)}, \\text{ s.t. } C(\\Omega) = 0.$$ Both examples are addressed using Hadamard\u2019s boundary variation method (see again [@allaire2004structural; @henrot2018shape; @pironneau1982optimal; @sokolowski1992introduction]). We track the motion of the shape $\\Omega$ thanks to the level set-based mesh evolution method from [@allaire2014shape]; this allows for an explicit, meshed representation of $\\Omega$ at each stage of the process, and no ersatz material approximation is needed to compute shape gradients. The constrained optimization in \\[eq.sopb\\] is treated by the null-space algorithm from [@feppon2019null]. We enrich this classical framework with the addition of material ligaments to $\\Omega$ using the methodology of \\[sec.practinterest\\] in two different ways.\n\nAdding bars in the course of the shape optimization process {#sec.canti}\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this section, we seek to add bars to the shape in order to enrich its topology in the course of a \u2018classical\u2019 shape optimization process driven by the method of Hadamard. The physical setting is that of the cantilever test-case, as depicted on \\[fig.cantiex\\] (top, left). Shapes are contained in a box with size $2\\times 1$; they are attached on the left-hand side of their boundary, and a unit vertical load $g = (0,-1)$ is applied on a region $\\Gamma_N$ at the middle of their right-hand side. Omitting body forces for simplicity, we aim to minimize the compliance of the shape $\\Omega$ under a volume constraint, i.e. we solve \\[eq.sopb\\] with: $$J(\\Omega) = \\int_{\\Gamma_N}{g \\cdot u_\\Omega \\:ds},\\:\\: C(\\Omega)= \\int_\\Omega {\\:dx} - V_T, \\text{ and the volume target } V_T = 0.8.$$\n\nStarting from the shape in \\[fig.cantiex\\] (top, left), we consider a situation where the parameters of the optimization algorithm are tuned so that the volume constraint tends to be satisfied \u2018too fast\u2019: the holes merge permaturely (\\[fig.cantiex\\], (top,right)), and the resulting shape has a trivial topology, with a large value $4.115$ of the compliance (computation not reported). We consider the same test-case, except that every 10 iterations, from iteration $40$ to $100$, the procedure in \\[sec.practinterest\\] is used to graft bars to the structure. The resulting shape has a richer topology, for an improved final value of the compliance $2.718$; see \\[fig.cantiex\\] for snapshots of the evolution process and \\[fig.cantiexcv\\] for the associated convergence histories. Note that some of the bars created during the topological ligament steps eventually disappear after some iterations.\n\n[cc]{}\n\n![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \\[sec.canti\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.cantiex\"}](canticrasset){width=\"119.50000%\"}\n\n&\n\n![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \\[sec.canti\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.cantiex\"}](canticras40){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n\\\n\u00ca\n\n![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \\[sec.canti\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.cantiex\"}](canticras51){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n&\n\n![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \\[sec.canti\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.cantiex\"}](canticras61){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n\\\n\u00ca\n\n![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \\[sec.canti\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.cantiex\"}](canticras85){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n&\n\n![*From left to right, top to bottom: Iterations 0 (with details of the test-case), 40, 51, 61, 85, and 200 of the cantilever test-case of \\[sec.canti\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.cantiex\"}](canticras200){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n\\\n\u00ca\n\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   ![*Convergence histories for the compliance (left) and the volume (right) of the shape in the cantilever example of \\[sec.canti\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.cantiexcv\"}](cplycrascanti){width=\"100.00000%\"}   ![*Convergence histories for the compliance (left) and the volume (right) of the shape in the cantilever example of \\[sec.canti\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.cantiexcv\"}](volcrascanti){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nA judicious initialization for truss-like structures {#sec.mastex}\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nOur strategy can also be used as a preprocessing of a traditional shape optimization process, in situations where truss-like structures (i.e. containing lots of bars) are expected. In the setting of a T-shaped mast (see \\[fig.mastex\\] (top, left)) we consider the minimization \\[eq.sopb\\] of the volume under a compliance constraint: $$J(\\Omega) = \\int_\\Omega{dx}, \\text{ and } C(\\Omega) = \\int_{\\Gamma_N}{g \\cdot u_\\Omega \\:ds} - C_T, \\text{ and the target value } C_T = 0.4.$$ Starting from an empty shape, a first stage aims to enrich the structure with bars of the form $[z_1,z_2]$, connecting endpoints $z_1,z_2$ sought within a user-defined set of points in $D$ (in red in \\[fig.mastex\\] (top, left)), following the methodology of \\[sec.practinterest\\]. The process ends when the compliance of the structure is close to the target $C_T$ (in our case, when it reaches the value $1.25$); the resulting shape is that in \\[fig.mastex\\] (top, right).\n\nIn a second stage, we use this structure as the initialization for the resolution of \\[eq.sopb\\] by means of the Hadamard\u2019s boundary variation method; see \\[fig.mastex\\] (bottom row) and \\[fig.mastexcv\\] for the convergence histories.\n\n  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \\[sec.mastex\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.mastex\"}](mastcrasset){width=\"115.00000%\"}    ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \\[sec.mastex\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.mastex\"}](mastcras6){width=\"100.00000%\"}     ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \\[sec.mastex\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.mastex\"}](mastcras9){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n   ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \\[sec.mastex\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.mastex\"}](mastcras210){width=\"100.00000%\"}   ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \\[sec.mastex\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.mastex\"}](mastcras260){width=\"100.00000%\"}   ![*(Upper row, from left to right): Steps 3 (with details of the test-case), 6, and 9 of the first stage of bar insertion; (lower row, from left to right) steps 10, 60 and 200 of the second stage, in the mast example of \\[sec.mastex\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.mastex\"}](mastcras2200){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   ![*Convergence histories for (left) the compliance in the first stage, (middle) the compliance in the second stage and (right) the volume in the mast example of \\[sec.mastex\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.mastexcv\"}](mastcply1){width=\"100.00000%\"}   ![*Convergence histories for (left) the compliance in the first stage, (middle) the compliance in the second stage and (right) the volume in the mast example of \\[sec.mastex\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.mastexcv\"}](mastcply2){width=\"100.00000%\"}   ![*Convergence histories for (left) the compliance in the first stage, (middle) the compliance in the second stage and (right) the volume in the mast example of \\[sec.mastex\\].*[]{data-label=\"fig.mastexcv\"}](mastvol2){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n**Acknowledgements.** This work was partially supported by the project ANR-18-CE40-0013 SHAPO financed by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR).\n\n[^1]: Institute of Engineering Univ. Grenoble Alpes\n"}
-{"text": "---\nbibliography:\n- 'bib.bib'\n---\n\n\\#1\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'A surface of codimension higher than one embedded in an ambient space possesses a connection associated with the rotational freedom of its normal vector fields. We examine the Yang-Mills functional associated with this connection. The theory it defines differs from Yang-Mills theory in that it is a theory of surfaces. We focus, in particular, on the Euler-Lagrange equations describing this surface, introducing a framework which throws light on their relationship to the Yang-Mills equations.'\n---\n\n2em [Yang-Mills theory \u00e0 la string]{} 3em [Riccardo Capovilla${}^{(1)}$ and Jemal Guven${}^{(2)}$\\\n]{} *[ ${}^{(1)}$ Departamento de F\u00edsica\\\nCentro de Investigaci\u00f3n y de Estudios Avanzados\\\nApdo Postal 14-740, 07000 M\u00e9xico, D. F., MEXICO\\\n${}^{(2)}$ Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares\\\nUniversidad Nacional Aut\u00f3noma de M\u00e9xico\\\nApdo. Postal 70-543, 04510 M\u00e9xico, D.F,, MEXICO]{}*\n\n1em 1em\n\n1em\n\nPACS: 04.60.Ds\n\n3em\n\n[*Dedicated to Octavio Obreg\u00f3n, on the occasion of his 60th birthday.*]{}\n\n3em\n\nConsider a surface of codimension $N$ embedded in an ambient space. There are then $N$ normal vector fields. Let us suppose that $N$ is two or higher. The normal vectors are then defined only up to a rotation, and a sign. There is a natural $O(N)$ connection on the surface associated with this freedom known as the [*normal*]{} connection, or extrinsic twist. This connection possesses a curvature. While the role it plays is very different from that played by the extrinsic curvature of the surface, the [*normal*]{} curvature is not independent of the latter: the Ricci integrability conditions determine it completely in terms of a quadratic in the extrinsic curvature [@Spivak].\n\nThere are various interesting local geometrically invariant functionals one can construct out of the normal curvature. Several of these characterize geometrical features peculiar to particular dimensions: one such invariant, characterizing two-dimensional surfaces embedded in four-dimensions, is the integral of the normal curvature itself; this invariant was introduced by Polyakov in the context of a stringy description of QCD [@Polyakov]. For arbitrary surface dimensions, there is a natural invariant quadratic in the normal curvature: the $O(N)$ Yang-Mills functional. Appearances are deceptive however; this is not a genuine Yang-Mills theory. The dynamical variables are the embedding functions of the surface, not the connection itself. More appropriately, one should consider the theory it defines as an induced Yang-Mills theory. This is the functional we will focus on in this note. In particular, we would like to clarify the relationship between the two theories. This situation is analogous to that for Regge and Teitelboim\u2019s model for gravity in terms of an Einstein-Hilbert action, where the embedding functions, rather than the metric, appear as the dynamical variables [@RT]. To spell out the parallel, we have adapted the title of their paper \u2013 [*Gravity \u00e0 la string*]{} \u2013 to its Yang-Mills counterpart.\n\nIn particular, if the surface is four-dimensional this functional is also conformally invariant. It is one of the few low order conformal invariants of the surface geometry. Perhaps the best known among these invariants is quadratic in the Weyl tensor, which depends only on the intrinsic geometry[@Wald]. There are also polynomial invariants \u2014 apparently not so well-known to physicists \u2014 associated with the extrinsic geometry of the surface [@Willmore]. The simplest invariants of this kind are constructed using the traceless part of the extrinsic curvature. There are two independent quartics of this form [@CCG]. Indeed, using the Gauss-Codazzi equations for the surface, it is possible to express the Weyl invariant as a linear combination of the two. In addition, a third invariant can be associated with a non-trivial competition between a quartic in extrinsic curvature and a quadratic in gradients, neither of which alone is conformally invariant [@guven].\n\n3em Consider a $d$-dimensional surface $\\Sigma$ embedded in $R^{d+N}$, where $N\\ge 2$, described parametrically as follows: $$x = X (\\xi^a)\\,.\n\\label{eq:xX0}$$ Here $x=(x^1,\\dots,x^{d+N})$ are local coordinates for the ambient space, $\\xi^a$, $a=1,\\dots, d$ are $d$ arbitrary coordinates on the surface, and $X = (X^1, \\dots, X^{d+N}) $ denote the embedding functions. The only geometrically significant derivatives of $X$ are those encoded in the metric tensor $g_{ab}= e_a\\cdot e_{b}$ and the extrinsic curvature tensor $K_{ab}{}^I= e_a\\cdot \\partial_b \\,n^I\n=K_{ba}{}^I$, where $e_a= \\partial_a X $ are the $d$ coordinate tangent vectors, and $n^I$ are any $N$ mutually orthogonal normal vectors ($I=1,\\cdots, N$). The Gauss-Weingarten equations describing how this surface gets embedded in the ambient space are given by ($\\nabla_a$ is the usual metric compatible covariant derivative on $\\Sigma$) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla_a e_b &=& - K_{ab}{}^I n_I \\,, \\label{eq:gw1}\\\\\n\\tilde \\nabla_a n^I &=&  K_{ab}{}^{I}  g^{bc} e_c \\,. \\label{eq:gw2}\\end{aligned}$$ We have introduced the $O(N)$ covariant derivative on the surface, $\\tilde \\nabla_a$, associated with its invariance under rotations of the normal vectors: $$\\tilde \\nabla_a \\Phi^I = \\partial_a \\Phi^I + A_a{}^{I}{}_J \\, \\Phi^J\\,,$$ with $\\Phi^I$ an arbitrary normal scalar, and where the normal connection is given by $$A_a{}^{IJ} =   n^I \\cdot \\partial_a n^J = -  A_a{}^{JI}\\,,$$ of course for $N=1$ it vanishes identically. We denote by $F_{ab}{}^{IJ}$ the normal curvature associated with the normal connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$: $[\\tilde\\nabla_a,\\tilde\\nabla_b] \\Phi^I = F_{ab}{}^{IJ}\\Phi_J$. Explicitly: $$F_{ab}{}^{IJ} = \\partial_a A_b{}^{IJ} +\nA_a{}^{IK} A_{b\\,K}{}^J - (a \\, \\leftrightarrow b)\\,.\n\\label{eq:curva}$$ There are integrability conditions associated with the Gauss-Weingarten equations. Besides the well-known Gauss-Codazzi-Mainardi integrability conditions, when the number of extra dimensions is two or higher, one has the Ricci identities [@Spivak]: $$F_{ab}{}^{IJ} = K_{ac}{}^I K^c{}_b{}^J - (I \\,\\leftrightarrow\\,  J)\\,.\n\\label{eq:Ricci}$$ Thus the normal curvature associated with $A_a{}^{IJ}$ is completely determined by the induced metric $g_{ab}$ and the extrinsic curvature $K_{ab}{}^I$.\n\nWith the normal curvature, we can construct the geometric functional ($dV $ is the surface volume element constructed with $g_{ab}$) $$I_0 [X] = {1\\over 4} \\int dV \\, F^{ab}{}_{IJ} F_{ab}{}^{IJ}\\,.\n\\label{eq:YM}$$ Superficially, it resembles an $O(N)$ Yang-Mills theory on the surface. It differs in the important respect that $I_0$ is a functional of the embedding functions $X$ and not of the connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$. One important consequence of this fact is that, while this functional is of first order in derivatives of the connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$, it is of second order in derivatives of the embedding functions $X$; this can be seen by looking at the Ricci identities (\\[eq:Ricci\\]): $F^2 \\sim K^4$, it is quartic in powers of the extrinsic curvature. We remark that, if $d=4$, the action $I_0$ is conformally invariant.\n\nIt is instructive to examine how the difference in the choice of the field variables manifests itself at the level of the Euler-Lagrange equations. We will compare the Euler-Lagrange derivative ${\\cal E}$, determining the response of the functional $I_0$ to a surface deformation, $X \\to X + \\delta X$, $$\\delta_X I_0 = \\int dV \\, {\\cal E}  \\cdot \\delta X\\,,$$ with the Euler-Lagrange derivative ${\\cal E}^{a}{}_{IJ}$ corresponding to a variation in the connection $A_a{}^{IJ}  \\to A_a{}^{IJ} + \\delta A_a{}^{IJ}$, $$\\delta_A I_0 = \\int dV \\, {\\cal E}^{a}{}_{IJ}  \\;\\delta A_a{}^{IJ}\\,.$$ The first obvious thing to note is that the two differ in the number of independent variations: $d+N$ in the former versus $d\\times\nN(N-1)/2$ in the latter. For the latter, using the expression $\\delta_A F_{ab}{}^{IJ} = 2 \\nabla_{[a} \\delta A_{b]}{}^{IJ}$, for the variation of the normal curvature, we have the Yang-Mills equations $${\\cal E}^a{}_{IJ} = \\nabla_b \\; F^{ab}{}_{IJ} = 0\\,.\n\\label{eq:YME}$$\n\nIn order to obtain the variation of $I_0$ with respect to $X$, various strategies are possible. One could vary the connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$ directly, using the variational expressions obtained [*e.g.*]{} in Ref. [@defos]. This approach, however, has the disadvantage of introducing a connection deformation which plays no role at the end, but that appears annoyingly in intermediate calculation. A second approach would be to use the Ricci identities (\\[eq:Ricci\\]) to express the normal curvature in terms of the metric and the extrinsic curvature, and then vary these geometrical quantities. However, in this way the connection with Yang-Mills theory is blurred. The strategy we adopt is to introduce auxiliary variables, along the lines first suggested in Ref. [@auxil] in a different context. We thus construct the functional $$\\begin{aligned}\nI[ X,& e_a , n^I , A_a{}^{IJ} , g_{ab} , \\lambda_a{}^{IJ} ,\n\\lambda^{ab} , \\lambda^{IJ}, \\lambda^a{}_I , {\\cal F}^a ] = I_0 [\nA_a{}^{IJ}, g_{ab} ]- \\int dV \\,\\left[  \\lambda_{IJ}^a \\,(A^{IJ}_a -\nn^I \\cdot \\nabla_a n^J) \\right. \\nonumber \\\\  &- \\left. {1\\over 2}\n\\lambda^{ab} (g_{ab} - e_a \\cdot e_b) - {1\\over 2} \\lambda_{IJ}\n(n^I\\cdot n^J - \\delta^{IJ}) -  \\lambda^a{}_I (n^I\\cdot e_a) + {\\cal\nF}^a\\cdot (e_a- \\partial_a X) \\right]\\,. \\label{eq:aux}\\end{aligned}$$ Following the approach introduced in Ref. [@auxil], we treat the connection $A_a{}^{IJ}$ as variables independent of $X$. We must then introduce Lagrange multipliers to enforce the constraints that connect $A_a{}^{IJ}$ to the geometry. In this approach, the induced metric $g_{ab}$, as well as the basis vectors $\\{ e_a , n^I \\}$, are also treated as independent. The innocuous apearing constraints anchoring the tangent vectors to a derivatives of the embedding functions $X$, via the Lagrange multipliers ${\\cal F}^a$ will play a very important role: they identify the conserved momentum. At first sight, the introduction of a plethora of auxiliary variables appears only to complicate matters. However, as we will see, it is downhill from here: the inplementation of the constraints is straightforward. In particular, we do not need to know the variation of any of the surface geometric tensors in terms of $\\delta X$. The geometrical significance of the different Lagrange multipliers will emerge automatically.\n\nWe start by considering the variation of (\\[eq:aux\\]) with respect to $A^{IJ}_a$. We obtain immediately $$\\tilde\\nabla_b F^{ab}{}_{IJ} = \\lambda^a{}_{IJ}\\,.$$ Thus the Lagrange multiplier $\\lambda^a{}_{IJ}$ is identified with the Euler-Lagrange derivative ${\\cal E}^ a{}_{IJ}$ introduced above (see Eq. (\\[eq:YME\\])), and it acts as a source for the Yang-Mills field. It is clear that, if $\\lambda^{IJ}_a\\ne 0$, the Yang-Mills equations are not satisfied.\n\nNext, consider variations with respect to the tangent vectors $e_a$: $${\\cal F}^a = -  \\lambda^{ab} e_b + \\lambda^a{}_I n^I  \\,.$$ This is simply an expansion for ${\\cal F}^a$ in terms of the basis adapted to the surface $\\{e_a , n^I \\}$.\n\nThe equations for the embedding functions $X$ is the statement that ${\\cal F}^a$ is covariantly conserved: $$\\nabla_a {\\cal F}^a =0\\,.\n\\label{eq:conserv}$$ By examining the translational invariance of the functional $I$, it is clear that ${\\cal F}^a$ is the conserved momentum density. Under $X\\to X+a$, where $a$ is constant, we have $I\\to I + \\delta I$, where $$\\delta I = - a \\cdot \\int dV\\, \\nabla_a {\\cal F}^a\\,.$$ In particular, note that we can decompose the conservation law (\\[eq:conserv\\]) into its tangential and normal parts by projection and using the Gauss-Weingarten equations (\\[eq:gw1\\]), (\\[eq:gw2\\]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n-\\nabla_a \\lambda^{ab} + \\lambda^a{}_I \\; K_a{}^{b\\, I} &=& 0\\,, \\label{eq:const}\\\\\n\\nabla_a \\lambda^a{}_I + \\lambda^{ab} K_{ab\\, I} &=& 0 \\label{eq:consn}\\,.\\end{aligned}$$ The tangential projection is the Bianchi identity associated with the reparametrization invariance of the functional $I$. The second, normal, is the Euler-Lagrange derivative for the functional $I_0 [\nX ]$ with respect to the embedding functions $X$ (see [*. e.g.*]{} [@ACG]). What remains to be done is to identify the geometric content of the components $\\lambda^{ab}$ and $\\lambda^a{}_I$. For this, consider now the variation with respect to the induced metric $g_{ab}$. It identifies the tangential component of the stress tensor $\\lambda^{ab}$ with the metric stress tensor for the Yang-Mills functional (\\[eq:YM\\]): $$\\lambda^{ab}  = T^{ab} =\nF^{ac}{}^{IJ} F^b{}_c{}_{IJ} - {1 \\over 4} g^{ab} F_{cd}{}^{IJ}\nF^{cd}{}_{IJ}\\,, \\label{eq:tab}$$ where the metric stress tensor $T^{ab}$ is defined in the usual way as $$T^{ab}  =  {1 \\over 2 \\sqrt{g}} { \\delta I_0 \\over \\delta g_{ab}}\\,.\n\\label{eq:tdef}$$ Note that $T^{ab}$ itself is not conserved. If $d=4$, it is, however, traceless, the hallmark of conformal invariance. We find that the tangential projection of the conservation law for ${\\cal\nF}^a$ (\\[eq:const\\]) now reads $$\\nabla_a T^{ab} = K_a{}^{b\\, I}  \\;  \\lambda^a{}_I\\,.$$ The extrinsic curvature of the surface and the normal component of the momentum density provide a source for the divergence of the metric stress tensor $T^{ab}$.\n\nTo determine the normal component of ${\\cal F}^a$, $\\lambda^a{}_I$, we consider the last variation, with respect to the normal vectors $n^I$: $$\\lambda^a{}_{IJ} \\nabla_a n^J + \\nabla_a (\\lambda_{IJ}^a n^J) +\n \\lambda_{IJ} n^J + \\lambda^a{}_I e_a =0\\,.$$ The tangential projection of this equation identifies the Lagrange multiplier $\\lambda^a{}_I$, or the normal component of the momentum density, for us: $$\\lambda^a{}_I  =  - 2   \\lambda^b{}_{IJ} K^a{}_b{}^J  =  - 2   {\\cal\nE}^b{}_{IJ} K^a{}_b{}^J  = -2   (\\tilde\\nabla_c F^{bc}{}_{IJ})\nK^a{}_b{}^J\\,.$$ The normal projection identifies the remaining Lagrange multiplier $\\lambda_{IJ}$ as $$\\lambda_{IJ} = 2 A_{a(I}{}^K \\lambda^a{}_{|K|J)}\\,,$$ together with the vanishing of the divergence of the Lagrange multiplier $\\lambda^a{}_{IJ}$, or equivalently, of the Yang-Mills Euler-Lagrange derivative: $$\\tilde\\nabla_a \\lambda^a{}_{IJ} = \\nabla_a {\\cal E}^a{}_{IJ} = 0\\,.$$ This is the Bianchi identity associated with the $O(N)$ invariance of the Yang-Mills functional.\n\nWe conclude that the momentum density takes the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal F}^a &=&  -  T^{ab} e_b - 2\nK^{a}{}_{b}{}^J \\; {\\cal E}^b{}_{IJ}\n n^I\\,,  \\nonumber \\\\\n&=&-  T^{ab} e_b - 2 K^{a}{}_{b}{}^J \\; (\\nabla_c F^{cb}{}_{IJ} )\n n^I\\,.\\end{aligned}$$ The first line is valid for [*any*]{} functional of the normal connection. It requires only to determine the variations of the functional with respect to the induced metric $g_{ab}$, to obtain $T^{ab}$ via Eq. (\\[eq:tdef\\]), and with respect to the connection to obtain ${\\cal E}^a{}_{IJ}$. The second line is specific to the Yang-Mills model and $T^{ab}$ is given by (\\[eq:tab\\]). Note that, unless the Yang-Mills equations hold, there is a non-trivial normal component of the momentum density.\n\nIt is immediate to see that the tangential projection of the divergence of ${\\cal F}^a$, (\\[eq:const\\]), is an identity. The vanishing of the normal projection of the divergence of ${\\cal F}^a$ produces the Euler-Lagrange equations of the functional $I$ with respect to $X$ (see [*e.g.*]{} [@ACG]): $$2 \\tilde\\nabla_a [ K^{a}{}_{b}{}^J \\; (\\nabla_c F^{cb}{}_{IJ} ) ] -\nK_{ab}{}^I T^{ab}=0\\,. \\label{eq:eom}$$ These equations are fourth order in derivatives of the embedding functions. Even if the Yang-Mills equations are satisfied, so that the first term vanishes, one must still contend with the second term. In this case, however, the equations reduce to second order: curiously, they are reminiscent of the Euler-Lagrange equations for the Regge-Teitelboim model [@RT].\n\nIn conclusion, we have described a theory of embedded surfaces described by a Yang-Mills functional. In particular, we have examined the relationship between this theory and Yang-Mills theory at the level of the Euler-Lagrange equations as well as the conserved momentum. While the two theories differ, there are also intriguing connections. A detailed discussion will be presented elsewhere.\n\n[Acknowledgments]{}\n\nPartial support from CONACyT grants 44974-F, 51111 as well as DGAPA PAPIIT grant IN119206-3 is acknowledged.\n\n[99]{}\n\nM. Spivak, [*A Comprehensive Introduction to Differential Geometry. Vol.Four, Second Edition*]{} (Publish or Perish, 1979).\n\nA. Polyakov, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**268**]{} 406 (1986).\n\nT. Regge and C. Teitelboim, [*Proceedings of the Marcel Grossman Meeting*]{}, Trieste, Italy, (1975), ed. Ruffini R (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977) 77.\n\nR. M. Wald, [*General Relativity*]{} (University of Chicago Press 1984).\n\nT.J. Willmore, [*Total Curvature in Riemannian Geometry*]{} (Chichester: Ellis Horwood, 1982).\n\nR. Capovilla, R. Cordero, J. Guven, [*Mod. Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**11**]{} 2755 (1996).\n\nJ. Guven [*J. Phys. A: Math. and Gen.*]{} [**38**]{} 7943 (2005).\n\nR. Capovilla and J. Guven, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**51**]{} 6736 (1995).\n\nJ. Guven, [*J. Phys. A: Math and Gen.*]{} [**37**]{} L313 (2004).\n\nG. Arreaga, R. Capovilla, and J. Guven, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**279**]{} 126 (2000).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Measurements of azimuthal differences between forward di-pions are sensitive to the low-${\\it x}$ gluon content of the proton and provide the best opportunity to probe for gluon saturation in nuclei. Previously reported analyses have shown that the gluon saturation regime may have been reached at STAR by looking at forward di-pions in d+Au collisions. Further insight into the uncorrelated pedestal below the near-side and away-side peaks in azimuthal correlations may be provided by differentiating between d+Au and p+Au collisions, by tagging on intact neutrons in the deuteron beam in d+Au collisions. Comparisons to recent theories indicate that multi-parton interactions play a more significant role in d+Au collisions than p+Au collisions and offer a unique opportunity to study correlations between leading partons inside nucleons. The general features found for the peaks in forward di-pion azimuthal correlations in d+Au collisions are also present in p+Au collisions.'\nauthor:\n- Chris Perkins for the STAR Collaboration\nbibliography:\n- 'sample.bib'\ntitle: 'Small-${\\it x}$ and Forward Measurements at STAR'\n---\n\n[ address=[UC Berkeley/Space Sciences Lab, Stony Brook University]{} ]{}\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIt is known that gluon densities in the proton rise for decreasing longitudinal partonic momentum fractions, ${\\it x}$, however this rise cannot continue indefinitely for smaller ${\\it x}$ values due to unitarity constraints. Eventually, gluon recombination becomes important and non-linear contributions to evolution equations must be included, at which point the gluon density saturates [@MuellerQiu1986] [@McLerranVenugopalan1994]. One model that describes these effects is the Color Glass Condensate (CGC) [@GribovLevinRyskin1983] [@MuellerQiu1986] [@McLerranVenugopalan1994] [@IancuVenugopalan2003] [@IancuLeonidovMcLerran2001] model which is a semi-classical, effective field theory used to describe low-${\\it x}$ gluons within nuclei. The gluon saturation regime can be reached for low ${\\it x}$ values, large $\\sqrt{s}$, large rapidities (y), and heavy nuclear targets (A).\n\nBy looking at forward rapidities at the Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR), asymmetric partonic collisions are probed, primarily involving high-${\\it x}$ valence quarks in the probe colliding with low-${\\it x}$ gluons in the target. Therefore, the best opportunity to study saturation behavior at STAR is to look at forward rapidities using nuclear targets. Perturbative QCD predicts that in standard 2-to-2 processes there is a high probability for back-to-back di-jets. In a saturation picture, however, the $p_T$ of one jet can be balanced by multiple interactions with the dense gluon field in the target leading to a suppression of back-to-back jets [@KharzeevLevinMcLerran2005]. Measurements of azimuthal correlations between two forward $\\pi^0$ can probe a more limited, and smaller, ${\\it x}$ range than inclusive measurements.\n\nExperimental Setup\n==================\n\nThe STAR detector provides nearly hermetic coverage over a full 2$\\pi$ azimuthal range and wide pseudo-rapidity range [@Braidot2011Thesis]. The Beam-Beam Counter (BBC) was used to differentiate between central and peripheral d+Au collisions. The Zero-Degree Calorimeter (ZDC) gives good neutron identification which can be used to tag intact neutrons from the deuteron beam. The Barrel Electro-magnetic Calorimeter (BEMC) was used to identify neutral pions at mid-rapidity. The Forward Meson Spectrometer (FMS) was used to trigger on neutral pions at forward-rapidities which is critical to reach the ${\\it x}$ values needed to probe saturation effects. The FMS is an array of lead glass cells with full azimuthal coverage providing electromagnetic calorimetry over a range of 2.5 &lt; $\\eta$ &lt; 4. The data in this analysis were collected during RHIC Run 8 at $\\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV.\n\nAzimuthal Correlations in $p+p$ and $d+Au$ Collisions\n=====================================================\n\nWhen triggering on a forward $\\pi^0$, the rapidity of an associated $\\pi^0$ is correlated with the $x_{bj}$ of the soft parton involved in the scattering. Previously reported analyses [@Braidot2011Thesis] have measured azimuthal correlations between forward $\\pi^0$ and both mid-rapidity $\\pi^0$ and $h^\\pm$ associated particles using the STAR BEMC which measure gluon densities at moderate ${\\it x}$ ranges. These analyses have shown no significant broadening in the away-side peak from p+p collisions to d+Au collisions and no hints of a disappearance of the away-side peak, indicating that this kinematic region does not reach the gluon saturation regime.\n\nThe lowest ${\\it x}$ region can be reached at STAR by triggering on forward $\\pi^0$ and measuring ${\\it forward}$ associated $\\pi^0$. The previously reported analyses are not yet efficiency or background corrected but show a similar near-side peak in p+p and centrality averaged d+Au collisions [@Braidot2009QM]. The away-side peak, however, is significantly broadened when comparing p+p collisions to d+Au collisions, hinting that the gluon saturation regime may have been reached. Further evidence is provided by using the gold-side BBC charge sum to differentiate between central and peripheral d+Au collisions. The away-side peak in peripheral d+Au collisions is similar to that seen in p+p collisions. In central d+Au collisions, however, the away-side peak shows strong suppression and is in good agreement with CGC model calculations [@AlbaceteMarquet2010].\n\n![ (Left) Reconstructed $\\pi^0$ invariant mass in d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\\pi^0$. (Middle) Top plot shows gold-facing BBC charge sum distribution with and without neutron tagging for minimum bias events. Bottom plot shows a clear spectator neutron peak for the deuteron-facing ZDC response. (Right) Reconstructed $\\pi^0$ invariant mass in neutron tagged d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\\pi^0$.[]{data-label=\"mass_bbc_zdc\"}](m4.71.20110627.1.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"32.00000%\"} ![ (Left) Reconstructed $\\pi^0$ invariant mass in d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\\pi^0$. (Middle) Top plot shows gold-facing BBC charge sum distribution with and without neutron tagging for minimum bias events. Bottom plot shows a clear spectator neutron peak for the deuteron-facing ZDC response. (Right) Reconstructed $\\pi^0$ invariant mass in neutron tagged d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\\pi^0$.[]{data-label=\"mass_bbc_zdc\"}](bbcsq.20110331.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"32.00000%\"} ![ (Left) Reconstructed $\\pi^0$ invariant mass in d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\\pi^0$. (Middle) Top plot shows gold-facing BBC charge sum distribution with and without neutron tagging for minimum bias events. Bottom plot shows a clear spectator neutron peak for the deuteron-facing ZDC response. (Right) Reconstructed $\\pi^0$ invariant mass in neutron tagged d+Au collisions. Left plot shows leading $\\pi^0$, Right plot shows sub-leading $\\pi^0$.[]{data-label=\"mass_bbc_zdc\"}](m4.71.20110402.1.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"32.00000%\"}\n\n![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\\pi^0$ at $\\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (Left) p+p collisions (Middle) d+Au collisions, Centrality averaged (Right) d+Au collisions, Peripheral events []{data-label=\"pp_dau\"}](m4.84.20091024.8034.2.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"32.00000%\"} ![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\\pi^0$ at $\\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (Left) p+p collisions (Middle) d+Au collisions, Centrality averaged (Right) d+Au collisions, Peripheral events []{data-label=\"pp_dau\"}](m4.71.20091024.8034.2.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"32.00000%\"} ![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\\pi^0$ at $\\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV. (Left) p+p collisions (Middle) d+Au collisions, Centrality averaged (Right) d+Au collisions, Peripheral events []{data-label=\"pp_dau\"}](m4.71.20091024.8134.0.500.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"32.00000%\"}\n\n![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\\pi^0$ in d+Au collisions with the described neutron tag (p+Au) at $\\sqrt{s}$ = 200 Gev. (Left) Centrality averaged (Right) Peripheral events []{data-label=\"pau\"}](m4.71.20110402.8034.2.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"39.00000%\"} ![ Uncorrected coincidence probability versus azimuthal angle difference between two forward $\\pi^0$ given a triggered forward $\\pi^0$ in d+Au collisions with the described neutron tag (p+Au) at $\\sqrt{s}$ = 200 Gev. (Left) Centrality averaged (Right) Peripheral events []{data-label=\"pau\"}](m4.71.20110402.8134.0.500.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"39.00000%\"}\n\nAzimuthal Correlations in $p+Au$ Collisions\n===========================================\n\nIt may also be useful to distinguish between p+Au and d+Au collisions by looking for events where the neutron in the deuteron beam stays intact. A clear single-neutron peak can be seen in the deuteron-facing ZDC response for RHIC Run 8 d+Au Minimum Bias triggered data (See Figure\u00a0\\[mass\\_bbc\\_zdc\\]) which can be used to select events where the neutron stays intact. Cutting on this single-neutron peak introduces a slight bias towards peripheral collisions but a significant sample of central collisions remain. The reconstructed di-pion invariant masses are shown in Figure\u00a0\\[mass\\_bbc\\_zdc\\] with and without the neutron tag. Because the invariant mass distributions look similar, it is expected that efficiency corrections of azimuthal correlations should be similar with and without neutron tagging although quantitative studies are still ongoing.\n\nUncorrected forward di-pion azimuthal correlations for centrality averaged and peripheral d+Au (no neutron tag) and p+Au (with neutron tag) collisions are shown in Figures\u00a0\\[pp\\_dau\\] and\u00a0\\[pau\\]. The inclusion of the spectator neutron tag reduces the uncorrelated pedestal for both the centrality averaged and peripheral collisions. The spectator neutron condition also has very little impact on the near-side and away-side peak heights above pedestal and peak widths. A study of systematic errors is still in progress.\n\nWhile most theories thus far have focused on peak heights and widths in di-pion azimuthal correlations, new theories have been put forth to explain the uncorrelated pedestal. One theory postulates that the difference in pedestal level between p+p and d+Au collisions arrises due to multiple parton interactions in the d+Au collision [@StrikmanVogelsang2011]. This theory includes both multiple scattering from one nucleon in the deuteron beam and one scattering from each nucleon on the deuteron beam. The reduction of the uncorrelated pedestal from d+Au collisions to p+Au collisions indicates that multi-parton interactions play a more significant role in d+Au collisions. Systematic study of the correlations between p+p, p+Au, and d+Au collisions are ongoing. These observations could provide a unique window into correlations between leading partons within nucleons without having to use more complicated techniques such as double-scattering observables.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nPreviously reported analyses have shown no significant away-side peak broadening in forward-mid rapidity di-hadron azimuthal correlations. Forward-forward rapidity di-pion azimuthal correlations have, however, shown significant broadening in the away-side peak between p+p and d+Au collisions and strong suppression of the away-side peak in central d+Au collisions. Tagging intact spectator neutrons from the deuteron beam allows differentiation between p+Au and d+Au collisions which can give further insight into the uncorrelated pedestal. Data appears to indicate that multi-parton interactions may contribute more to the pedestal in d+Au than p+Au collisions. Other basic aspects of the azimuthal correlations are not significantly changed between d+Au and p+Au collisions.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Soft biometric information such as gender can contribute to many applications like as identification and security. This paper explores the use of a Binary Statistical Features (BSIF) algorithm for classifying gender from iris texture images captured with NIR sensors. It uses the same pipeline for iris recognition systems consisting of iris segmentation, normalisation and then classification. Experiments show that applying BSIF is not straightforward since it can create artificial textures causing misclassification. In order to overcome this limitation, a new set of filters was trained from eye images and different sized filters with padding bands were tested on a subject-disjoint database. A Modified-BSIF (MBSIF) method was implemented. The latter achieved better gender classification results (94.6% and 91.33% for the left and right eye respectively). These results are competitive with the state of the art in gender classification. In an additional contribution, a novel gender labelled database was created and it will be available upon request.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Juan Tapia and Claudia Arellano\\\n    Universidad Tecnologica de Chile - INACAP\\\n    [j\\_tapiaf@inacap.cl]{}\\\n    **A pre-print version of the paper accepted at 12th IAPR International Conference on Biometrics.**\nbibliography:\n- 'References\\_OC.bib'\ntitle: 'Gender Classification from Iris Texture Images Using a New Set of Binary Statistical Image Features.'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nWhenever people log onto computers, access an ATM, pass through airport security, use credit cards, or enter high-security areas, their identities need to be verified [@Bowyer2008281; @ASH:2014:canpass]. There is tremendous interest in reliable and secure identification methods. An active research area of this involves gender classification. Algorithms for automatic gender classification have several applications. They can be used for database binning and retrieval, for intelligent user interfaces or visual surveillance. They can also be used to provide demographic information to improve social services, to facilitate payment methods and for marketing applications in general.\n\nGender classification based on iris images is promising despite challenging problems presented in terms of image analysis [@Lagree2011; @Thomas2007; @Tapia2013]. The human iris is an annular part between the pupil and the white sclera. The iris has an extraordinary structure and includes many interlacing minute features such as freckles, coronas, stripes, furrows, crypts and so on. These visible features, generally called the texture of the iris, are unique to each individual [@Adler1965; @Daugman2001; @Daugman2004]. Research has also shown that the iris is essentially stable throughout a person\u2019s life. Furthermore, since the iris is externally visible, iris-based biometrics systems can be non-invasive to their users [@Daugman2001; @Daugman2004] which is important for practical applications. All these properties (i.e., uniqueness, stability and non-invasiveness) make gender classification suitable and attractive as a complement for achieving highly reliable personal identification.\n\nIn this work a gender classification method is proposed. It uses normalised iris texture information which is codified using MBSIF. The outline of this paper is as follows: Section \\[SOA\\] reviews the state of the art in gender classification methods and describes the BSIF algorithm used in this work. Section \\[proposal\\] describes the pipeline of this work and the challenges faced when implementing MBSIF algorithms. Experimental set-up and the results of gender classification using several classifiers and MBSIF implementation settings are shown in Section \\[experimentsResults\\]. Finally, the conclusions are presented in section \\[conclusiones\\].\n\nRelated work {#SOA}\n============\n\nGender Classification\n---------------------\n\nHuman faces provide important visual information for gender classification [@ASH:2014:canpass; @UIP2014]. Most work done to date on gender classification has involved the analysis of facial images and used different pattern analysis to increase the accuracy of classification [@He2011; @Alexandre2010; @Han2014; @Tapia2013].\n\nPrevious work on gender classification from iris images has focused on handcrafted feature extraction methods using normalised NIR iris images [@Ojala2002; @Thomas2007; @Lagree2011; @Bansal2012; @Kannala2012; @Costa-Abreu2015; @Tapia2017]. Some research has utilised uniform patterns or combined uniform patterns with non-uniform patterns to improve performance [@Zhou20084314; @Shan2012431]. A small number of methods have used Deep Learning on Soft-biometrics such as gender with periocular NIR images [@KuehlkampBeckerBowyer2017; @TapiaAravena2017; @SinghNagpalVatsaEtAl2017].\n\nTapia et al. [@TapiaPerezBowyer2016] classified gender directly from the same binary iris-code that is used for recognition. They found that relevant information for predicting gender is distributed across the iris, rather than localised in particular concentric bands. Therefore, selected features representing a subset of the iris region can achieve better results than when using the whole iris. They have reported 89% correct gender prediction by fusing the best features of iris-code from left and right eyes.\n\nBobeldyk et al. [@BobeldykRoss2016] explored gender-prediction accuracy associated with four different regions from NIR iris images: the extended ocular region, the iris-excluded ocular region, the iris-only region, and the normalised iris-only region. They also used a BSIF texture operator to extract features from these four regions. The ocular region demonstrated its best performance at 85.7%, while the normalised or unwrapped images exhibited the worst performance, with an almost 20% decrease in performance over the ocular region. A summary of gender classification work is presented in Table \\[my-label\\].\n\n[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} Paper & I/P & Source & NS & Type & Acc. %\\\n\n  -------------------------------\n   V .Thomas et al.[@Thomas2007]\n  -------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I & Iris & N/A & NIR & 75,00\\\n\n  -------------------------------\n   S. Lagree et al.[@Lagree2011]\n  -------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I & Iris & 300 & NIR & 62,17\\\n\n  -------------------------------\n   A. Bansal et al.[@Bansal2012]\n  -------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I & Iris & 200 & NIR & 83,60\\\n\n  -----------------------------------\n   J. Tapia et al.[@JuanE.Tapia2014]\n  -----------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 91.00\\\n\n  ---------------------------------------\n   M. Fairhurst et al.[@Costa-Abreu2015]\n  ---------------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I & Iris & 200 & NIR & 89,74\\\n\n  ----------------------------------------\n   J. Tapia et al.[@TapiaPerezBowyer2016]\n  ----------------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 89,00\\\n\n  ---------------------------------------\n   D. Bobeldyk et al.[@BobeldykRoss2016]\n  ---------------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I/P & Iris & 1,083 & NIR & 85,70\\\n\n  ----------------------------------------------\n   Kuehlkamp et al.[@KuehlkampBeckerBowyer2017]\n  ----------------------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I/P & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 80.00\\\n\n  -----------------------\n   J. Tapia.[@Tapia2017]\n  -----------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I/P & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 79.33\\\n\n  ------------------------------------\n   J. Tapia et al.[@TapiaAravena2017]\n  ------------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& I & Iris & 1,500 & NIR & 83.00\\\n\n  -------------------------------\n   J. Merkow et al.[@Merkow2010]\n  -------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& P & Faces & 936 & VIS & 80,00\\\n\n  -------------------------------\n   C. Chen et al.[@ChenRoss2011]\n  -------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& P & Faces & 1,003 & NIR/Th & 93,59\\\n\n  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   Castrillon-Santana et al. [@Castrillon-SantanaLorenzo-NavarroRamon-Balmaseda2016]\n  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& P & Faces & 1,500 & VIS & 92,46\\\n\n  ----------------------------------------------\n   Rattani et al.[@RattaniReddyDerakhshani2017]\n  ----------------------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& P & Iris & 550 & VIS/ CP & 91,60\\\n\n  -----------------------------------\n   J. Tapia et al.[@TapiaViedma2017]\n  -----------------------------------\n\n  : \\[my-label\\] Summary of gender classification methods using eye images. NS: Number of Subjects, I: Iris Images, P: Periocular Images, Th: Thermal, CP: Cellphone Images.\n\n& P & Iris & 120/120 & NIR/VIS & 90,00\\\n\nBinary Statistical Image Feature (BSIF) \n----------------------------------------\n\nBSIF [@Kannala2012] is a local descriptor constructed by binarising the responses to linear filters. In contrast to previous binary descriptors, ***the filters learn from thirteen natural images*** using independent component analysis (ICA). The code value of pixels is considered as a local descriptor of the image intensity pattern in the pixels\u2019 surroundings. The value of each element (i.e bit) in the binary code string is computed by binarising the response of a linear filter with a zero threshold. Each bit is associated with a different filter, and the length of the bit string determines the number of filters used. The set of filters is learned from a training set of natural image patches by maximising the statistical independence of the filter responses [@Hyvrinen](See Figure \\[filter\\]). The details of the parameters learned by the linear filters are described below: Given an image patch $X$ of size $l\\times l$ pixels and a linear filter $W_{i}$ of the same size, the filter responses $s_{i}$ are obtained by: $$s_{i}=\\sum_{u,v}W_{i}(u,v)X(u,v)=w_{i}^{T}x,$$\n\nWhere, vector notation is introduced in the latter stage, for instance the vector $w$ and $x$ contain the pixels of $W_{i}$ and $X.$ The binarised feature $b_{i}$ is obtained by setting $b_{i}=1$ if $s_{i}>0$ and $b_{i}=0$ otherwise. Given $n$ linear filters $W_{i}$, we may stack them to a matrix $W$ of size $n \\times l^{2}$ and compute all responses at once, i.e. $s=Wx$. We obtain the bit string $b$ by binarising each element $s_{i}$ of $s$ as above. Thus, given the linear feature detectors $W_{i}$, computation of the bit string $b$ is straightforward. Also, it is clear that the bit strings for all image patches of size $l\\times l$, surrounding each pixel of an image can be computed conveniently by $n$ convolutions.\n\nThe final image is obtained by:\n\n$$CodeIM=CodeIm+(Cr>0)*(2^{nbits})$$\n\nWhere, $CodeIm$ is an accumulative image, $Cr$ is the convolution between the filter and the image that is later binarised and multiplied by the number of bits. For instance, if we use 9 bits then we compute $CodeIm$ for $2^{1}$ later for $2^{2}$ up to $2^{9}$. The final image will be the sum of the 9 images for each $CodeIm$.\n\n  -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------\n   ![image](Images/natimpatches_original.png)   ![image](Images/natimpatches_eye.png)\n  -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------\n\nBSIF have been used for several applications including biometrics from iris images [@KomulainenHadidPietikaeinen2014; @DoyleBowyer2015; @RathgebStruckBusch2016]. In this work, a gender classification algorithm using normalised NIR iris images is proposed. It uses a similar pipeline than iris recognition systems. The iris is segmented and occlusions are masked. BSIF can be sensitive to image boundaries and the occlusion mask creating artificial texture which may mislead gender classification results.\n\nThis paper explores a new set of filters (See Figure \\[filter\\]) trained from thirteen eye images instead of natural images as used in traditional approach. The influence of the filter size, the padding (boundaries) and the number of bits used when implementing MBSIF algorithm are also explored.\n\nGender classification using BSIF {#proposal}\n================================\n\nThis paper proposes the use of the same pipeline that is used for iris recognition systems. The input image is segmented in a pre-process step. The iris region is then transformed to a polar space and codified using MBSIF. Finally, gender classification is performed using a new database and several classifiers (Section \\[classifier\\]).\n\nIris Segmentation and Normalisation\n-----------------------------------\n\nThe iris is detected from the input image using commercial software Osiris [@osiris]. A segmentation mask occludes the eyelids, eyelashes and specular reflection portions of the iris image which are not useful for gender classification. It is important to note that iris images of different persons, or even the left and right iris images for a given person, may not present exactly the same mask and imaging conditions (see Figure \\[pipeline1\\]). Illumination by LEDs during capture may come from either side of the sensor, specular highlights may be present in different places in the image. Eyelid and head position may also affect segmentation.\n\nThe segmented iris is normalised or unwrapped with radial $(r)$ and angular $(\\theta)$ resolutions which determine the size of the rectangular iris image. The size of the normalised iris can significantly influence the iris recognition rate. In this work, a rectangular image of $20(r)$x $240(\\theta)$ created using Osiris software [@osiris] with automatic segmentation is used for all experiments.\n\n                                                                                                                                                  Right Eye                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Left Eye\n  ---- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   a)        ![\\[pipeline1\\] Two original images from right and left eye (a). Segmented and masked images with eyelid and eyelash detection using Osiris (b). Images (c) and (d) are normalised images from the right and left eye both with the mask in yellow.](Images/04236d195_right \"fig:\")             ![\\[pipeline1\\] Two original images from right and left eye (a). Segmented and masked images with eyelid and eyelash detection using Osiris (b). Images (c) and (d) are normalised images from the right and left eye both with the mask in yellow.](Images/04236d196_leff \"fig:\")\n   b)   ![\\[pipeline1\\] Two original images from right and left eye (a). Segmented and masked images with eyelid and eyelash detection using Osiris (b). Images (c) and (d) are normalised images from the right and left eye both with the mask in yellow.](Images/04236d195-segmented_right \"fig:\")   ![\\[pipeline1\\] Two original images from right and left eye (a). Segmented and masked images with eyelid and eyelash detection using Osiris (b). Images (c) and (d) are normalised images from the right and left eye both with the mask in yellow.](Images/04236d196-segmented_left \"fig:\")\n   c)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  \n   d)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  \n\nBSIF filters application\n------------------------\n\nBSIF filters compute the convolution with each normalised masked image. Each filter represents a different pattern. The final image is the results of all previous images binarised by $2^n$ bits. The best filter size is one that represents the correct size of the mask with the lowest number of bits. If the filter is smaller than the mask, then artificial texture information will be created and the resulting image will not well represent its original information. On the other hand, if the mask of the iris is larger than the filter, a flat area will be obtained and the filter will need to be adjusted by reducing its size. Since the size of the normalised iris image is 20 $\\times$ 240, special care needs to be taken in order to minimise the effects of boundary and its influence on filter size. A common approach to dealing with border effects is to pad the original image with extra rows and columns based on your filter size.\n\nTraditional implementation of BSIF increases the size of the image and wraps the filter around it. Unfortunately, this implementation directly affects the results of the binarised iris image. Figure \\[figure\\_BSIF\\] (A) shows an example where this implementation is used. The first row (a), shows the normalised iris image obtained directly from Osiris software [@osiris]. The second row (b) shows the extra rows added through the wrapping process. A $5\\times240$ pixel band is added to the top and bottom of the original image. Additional bands of $5\\times20$ pixels are added to the vertical sides of the image (left and right). Note that the horizontal band added to the top of the image represents the bottom of the original image (mask area) and, the horizontal band added to the bottom of the image represents the top of the original image (Figure \\[figure\\_BSIF\\], column (A), row (b)). This implementation directly affects the resulting binarised image since the boundary added creates artificial texture as can be seen in the resulting images in Figure \\[figure\\_BSIF\\], column (A), row (d).\n\n[ccc]{}\\\n(a) & ![image](Images/751_eye_left_raw)& ![image](Images/751_eye_left_raw)\\\n(b) & ![image](Images/Figure3b.png)& ![image](Images/Figure4b)\\\n(c) & ![image](Images/Figure3c.png)& ![image](Images/Figure4c)\\\n(d) & ![image](Images/Figure3d.png)& ![image](Images/Figure4d)\\\n&(A)&(B)\\\n&Traditional BSIF Implementation & Proposed MBSIF Implementation\\\n\nA alternative way to deal with border effects is to pad the original image with zeros (Or a constant value), reflecting the image at the borders or replicating the first and last row/column as many times as needed\n\nIn order to overcome the boundary effect of traditional BSIF implementation a portion of the image is replicated in both directions (top and bottom). Figure \\[figure\\_BSIF\\], column (B), shows the details of this implementation and their effect on binarised images. As can be seen in column (B) row (d), the resulting binarised image follows the pattern of the input masked image. Therefore, there is no extra information artificially added to the iris image. This approach should better represent the information contained in the input images. A new set of filters were obtained by using a novel set of eyes images (instead of natural ones). These images were used to extract patches and to train our modified version of the algorithm (MBSIF). In the experimental section several filters size are tested and compared. Two approaches are implemented, MBSIF and MBSIF histogram.\n\nGender classification {#classifier}\n---------------------\n\nSeveral classification algorithms are used to test gender information from iris texture images. Those algorithms are: Adaboost M1, LogitBoost, GentleBoost, RobustBoost, LPBoost, TotalBoost and RusBoost. Additionally, a Random Forest classifier with 500 trees, a Gini Index, and a LIBSVM classifier with Gaussian Kernel (RBF) were also used. A comparison of the results obtained with these classifiers is shown in section \\[experimentsResults\\].\n\nDatabases\n---------\n\n**GFI-UND:** The GFI-UND database used in this paper contains images taken with an LG 4000 sensor. This dataset is the same used in [@TapiaPerezBowyer2016]. The LG 4000 uses near-infrared illumination and acquires 480x640, 8-bit/pixel images. Examples of iris images are shown in Figure \\[pipeline1\\]. The GFI-UND iris database was used to train and test a gender classifier.\n\nFor each subject (750 males and 750 females, for a total of 3,000 images), one left eye image was selected at random from the set of left eye images, and one right eye image was selected at random from the right eye images. A training portion of the dataset was created by randomly selecting 80% of the males and 80% of the females. A 5-fold cross-validation on this training set is used to select parameters for each classifier. Once the parameter selection was finalised, a classifier was trained on the full 80% of the training data, and a single evaluation was made on 20% of the test data. Experiments are conducted separately for the left iris and the right iris. The masks were set to zero in all images. To the authors\u2019 understanding, the GFI-UND database [@TapiaPerezBowyer2016] is the only dataset created exclusively for gender classification from iris images. It it a person-disjoint set with 1,500 different subjects.\n\n**UNAB-Val:** As an additional contribution, a new gender-labelled database was created. This is a person-disjoint dataset that was captured using an iCAM TD-100 NIR sensor. The iCAM TD-100 uses near-infrared illumination and acquires 480x640 8-bit pixels per image. This set of iris images were obtained over 5 sessions with 66 female and 70 male subjects. Each subject has 5 images per eye. In total 660 female images and 700 male images were captured. This database is to be increased continuously since the capturing process is active as of writing. This database will be available upon request. Additional datasets were requested but unfortunately were not available [@KumarPassi2010; @SunTan2009; @RattaniDerakhshaniSaripalleEtAl2016].\n\nExperiments and results {#experimentsResults}\n=======================\n\nSeveral experiments were performed in order to test the use of MBSIF for gender classification. Figure \\[Classifiers\\] shows gender classification results when using the left and right eye data set (from GFI-UND database) and 10 different classifiers. In this experiment, the BSIF algorithm was implemented using the standard padding as shown in Figure \\[figure\\_BSIF\\] (A). The best classifiers for both eyes are Adaboost and SVM. Several filter sizes (from 5 $\\times$5 up to 13$\\times$13) and number of bits from 5 to 12 were used. The best results are shown in Figure \\[Classifiers\\]. They were achieved when a filter size of 13 $\\times$ 13 and 8 bits was used for the left eye images and a filter of 13 $\\times$ 13 and 7 bits for the right eye. The maximum classification rate obtained with this implementation (BSIF) was $65\\%$ and $67\\%$ for the left and right eye respectively.\n\n![\\[Classifiers\\]Classification rates for the left and right eye when using several classifiers and standard BSIF implementation.](Images/BSIF_2.png \"fig:\")\\\n\nIn order to find the best classification rate with our proposed MBSIF algorithm, several filter sizes (5x5, 7x7, 9x9, 11x11, 13x13, 15x15 and 17x17) with a different number of bits (from 5 bits up to 12 bits) were tested. The number of bits represent the number of filters used in the convolution. Experiments using the entire image (all the filter sizes and from 5-12 bit) and using the normalised histogram of images were performed (See Figure \\[graficos\\]). One of the advantages of using the normalised histogram is that the vector size of each image is smaller. It only depends on the number of bits. For instance, when using 5 bits, the resulting vector has 32 bins, whereas when using 6 bits, the resulting vector has 64 bins and so on. Figure \\[graficos\\] shows results for the left and right eye images using our proposed implementation of BSIF for both cases: when using the entire image and when using the histogram. In the case of left eye images the best result (94.33%) was obtained with the filter 11x11 and 6 bits. This represents 144 correct identifications out of 150 male images and 140 correct identifications out of 150 female images. A slightly improved result was achieved when using the MBSIF histogram (94.66%). In this case, the best result was obtained with a 11x11 filter and 10 bits (1024 bins). For right eye images the best results when using the proposed MBSIF implementation was $91.66\\%$ and it was obtained with a 11x11 filter and 10 bits (2,048 bins). Gender classification results were slightly better when using the MBSIF histogram ( 92.00%). In this case, results represent 140 out of 150 for male and 136 out of 150 for female images.\n\nA summary of the best results obtained from the experiments is shown in Table \\[tablafinal\\]. The best gender classification rates were achieved when boundaries of the normalised iris texture were replicated (Figure \\[figure\\_BSIF\\](B)) instead of wrapped around (Figure \\[figure\\_BSIF\\](A)). The algorithm was trained using the GFI-UND database and tested using the GFI-UND-Val and UNAB-Val datasets. The difference was only 4% on average with both datasets.\n\n  ------------- ------------------ -------- ---------- ------------------ ------------------\n     Method             FS            NB     Database       Left-Eye          Right-Eye\n                                                              (%)                (%)\n    BSIF (A)       11$\\times$11       12     GFI-UND        $61.67$            $67.00$\n    MBSIF (B)      11$\\times$11       6      GFI-UND        $94.33$            $91.66$\n   MBSIF-H (B)   **11$\\times$11**   **10**   GFI-UND    $\\textbf{94.66}$   $\\textbf{92.00}$\n  ------------- ------------------ -------- ---------- ------------------ ------------------\n\n  : \\[tablafinal\\]Summary of gender classification rates using BSIF, MBSIF and MBSIF histogram. FS: Filter Size, NB: Number of bits.\n\n  ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------\n                Left Eye Images                             Right Eye Images\n      ![image](Images/grafico_Mbisf_left)         ![image](Images/grafico_Mbisf_right)\n                      (a)                                         (b)\n   ![image](Images/grafico_Mbisf_left_histo)   ![image](Images/grafico_Mbisf_right_histo)\n                                              \n                      (c)                                         (d)\n  ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------\n\nConclusions {#conclusiones}\n===========\n\nBSIF filters can extract and encode general patterns present in traditional images such as faces or periocular images but when applied to normalised iris images with masks, artificial textures are produced. These artificial textures can affect gender classification rates. Through this paper experiments have shown that special care needs to be taken on boundaries when dealing with BSIF filters.\n\nThe patterns detected by traditional BSIF method do not represent the texture of the iris well. Traditional BSIF use thirteen natural images to create the filter patches. The filter created from Eye-Images was more suitable to capture the texture inside the iris. This also allows the gender classification rate to be improved.\n\nTraditional setting of BSIF increases the image size by wrapping the image values. This implementation has an impact on gender classification rates when using masked normalised iris images. Under this setting, gender classification rates of only 61% and 67% were achieved for right and left eye images respectively. In order to overcome the boundary effect of traditional BSIF implementation a portion of the image is replicated in both directions (top and bottom). This implementation improved the gender classification result considerably up to 94% and 92% for left and right eye images respectively. The best results were achieved when the MBSIF histogram was used. There are clear computational advantages to predicting gender from the normalised image rather than computing another different texture representation. This method can be easily included in the same pipeline of recognition systems. The use of the normalised iris can reduced computational cost thanks to the small size of the image. This is particularly important when large amounts of data needs to be processed such as gender classification in highly populated countries (i.e India, china). Experiments were validated using two databases and several classifiers. Gender classification results obtained were competitive with the state of the art. As an additional contribution, a new gender-labelled database was created and will be available to other researchers upon request.\n\nAcknowledgments\n===============\n\nThis research was partially funded by FONDECYT INICIACION 11170189 and Universidad Andres Bello, DCI.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'An Euclidean first-passage percolation (FPP) model describing the competing growth between $k$ different types of infection is considered. We focus on the long time behavior of this multi-type growth process and we derive multi-type shape results related to its morphology.'\naddress: |\n    Institut de Math\u00e9matiques\\\n    \u00c9cole Polytechinique F\u00e9d\u00e9rale de Lausanne\\\n    CH-1015 Lausanne\\\n    Switzerland\\\nauthor:\n- 'Leandro P. R. Pimentel'\ntitle: 'Multi-type shape theorems for FPP models'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#int}\n============\n\nIn standard planar first-passage percolation [@HW65] each pair $\\x$ and $\\y$ of nearest-neighbor of $\\bZ^2$ has an edge connecting them and each edge is equipped with a non-negative random variable (passage time) which may be interpreted as the time it takes for an infection to be transmitted from $\\x$ to $\\y$. We assume these random variables are i.i.d. with a continuous distribution $\\bF$. The passage time $t(\\gamma)$ for a nearest-neighbor path $\\gamma$ is simply the sum of the passage times along the path. For $\\x,\\y\\in\\bZ^2$, the first-passage time from $\\x$ to $\\y$, which we denote $T(\\x,\\y)$, is the infimum of $t(\\gamma)$ over all paths $\\gamma$ from $\\x$ to $\\y$. For $t\\geq 0$, let $\\B(t)$ be the set of sites $\\x$ reached from the origin $\\0$ by time $t$, i.e. $T(\\0,\\x)\\leq t$. One may think of sites in $\\x\\in \\B(t)$ as infected and those in $\\B(t)^c$ as healthy, and that at time $0$ the origin $\\0$ is infected by some type of disease. The process $\\big\\{\\B(t)\\,:\\,t\\geq 0\\big\\}$ is then a model for the growth of an infection.\n\nAn interesting aspect of the evolution of the infection, namely the *tree of infection*, is constructed as follows. First notice that, since the passage time distribution is continuous, for all $\\x,\\y\\in\\bZ^2$ there is (almost surely) an unique time-minimizing path (or geodesic) from $\\x$ to $\\y$, which we denote $\\rho(\\x,\\y)$, such that $T(\\x,\\y)=t\\big(\\rho(\\x,\\y)\\big)$. Thus $\\rho(\\x,\\y)$ may be interpreted as the path through which the infection was transmitted from $\\0$ to $\\x$. With this picture in mind, the tree of infection $\\Gamma$ is defined by the union of edges $\\e\\in\\rho(\\0,\\x)$ over all $\\x\\in\\bZ^2$. Newman [@n95] has shown that the number $K(\\Gamma)$ of topological ends of $\\Gamma$, i.e. the number of semi-infinite self-avoiding paths in $\\Gamma$, is infinite provided an exponential moment condition on $\\bF$ and a certain hypothesis concerning the uniformly bounded curvature of the asymptotic shape of $\\B(t)$. In spite of the curvature hypothesis is plausible it has so far not been proved.\n\nIn order to study the tree of infection, H\u00e4gggstr\u00f6m and Pemantle [@hp98; @hp99] have introduced a multi-type growth model as follows. At time $0$ we start with $k$ different sites of $\\bZ^2$, say $\\x_1,\\dots,\\x_k$, each one representing a different type of infection. A site $\\y\\in\\bZ^2$ is then infected at time $\\min\\big\\{T(\\x_1,\\y),\\dots,T(\\x_k,\\y)\\big\\}$ and it is acquired by the infection which first arrives there, i.e. by the unique type $j\\in\\{1,\\dots,k\\}$ such that $T(\\x_j,\\y)=\\min\\big\\{T(\\x_1,\\y),\\dots,T(\\x_k,\\y)\\big\\}$ (Figure \\[f2\\]) . It may happens that at some early stage one of the types of infection completely surrounds another one, which then is prevented to grow indefinitely. If this does not occur, or equivalently, if all types of infection grow unboundedly, we say that $k$-coexistence occurs.\n\n![Growth and Competition[]{data-label=\"f2\"}](tfgrow){width=\"50.00000%\"}\n\nTurning back to the question of topological ends of $\\Gamma$, H\u00e4ggstr\u00f6m and Pemantle have noticed that if $k$-coexistence occurs with positive probability then $K(\\Gamma)\\geq k$ occurs with positive probability. They also have shown that, if one considers an exponential passage time distribution then $2$-coexistence occurs with positive probability, and thus $K(\\Gamma)\\geq 2$ occurs with positive probability. Later Garet and Marchand [@gm04] and Hoffman [@H05] have extended this last result for stationary and ergodic FPP models on $\\bZ^d$.\n\nIn this work we focus on the long time behavior of this multi-type growth model. However, differently from the above mentioned authors, we choose a first-passage percolation set-up on a random Delaunay triangulation [@VW90] whose spherical symmetry (isotropy) ensures that the asymptotic shape of the corresponding growth process is an euclidean ball. This choice allows us to prove various statements concerning minimizing paths, such as $\\bP\\big(K(\\Gamma)=\\infty\\big)=1$, who could mostly only be conjectured by Newman in the standard model. In this setting, the main results we will prove are the following:\n\n-   If a type of infection survives then the region it conquers is (asymptotically) a cone with a random angle (Theorem \\[t1\\], Remark \\[rand+strai\\]);\n\n-   If the $k$ initial sites form a regular polygon centered at the origin with radius $r$, then the probability that $k$ coexistence occurs tends to $1$ when $r$ tends to infinity. Moreover, for all $\\epsilon>0$, the probability that for all $j\\in\\{1,\\dots,k\\}$ the region conquered by infection $j$ contains (asymptotically) the cone with axis through $\\0$ and $\\x_j$ and angle $\\frac{\\pi}{k}-\\epsilon$ also tends to $1$ (Theorem \\[t2\\]).\n\nThe main idea to prove our results is to explore the relation between this multi-type growth model and the asymptotic behavior of $T(\\x,\\y_n)-T(\\0,\\y_n)$ when $\\y_n$ goes to infinity along a ray of angle $\\alpha$ (Theorem \\[tBuse-1\\] and Theorem \\[tBuse-2\\]). We also study some roughening aspects of the one-dimensional boundary between the infections, namely the *competition interface*, which were pointed out by physicists in numerical simulations [@dd91; @sk95] (Remark \\[rand+strai\\]). We note that analogous problems in the context of last-passage percolation and totally asymmetric exclusion processes were treated by Ferrari and Pimentel [@fp04-1] and Ferrari, Martin and Pimentel [@fp04-2]. Deijfen, H\u00e4ggstr\u00f6m and Bagley [@dhb03] have also considered isotropic multi-type growth models in $\\bR^d$ where the growth is driven by outbursts in the infected region.\n\nMulti-type growth process\n-------------------------\n\nConsider the random graph $\\calD:=(\\calD_v,\\calD_e)$, named the *Delaunay triangulation*, constructed as follows. The vertex set $\\calD_v\\subseteq\\bR^2$ is the set of points realized in a two-dimensional homogeneous Poisson point process with intensity $1$. To each vertex $\\v$ corresponds an open and bounded polygonal region $\\C_\\v$ (the Voronoi tile at $\\v$) consisting of the set of points of $\\bR^2$ which are closer to $\\v$ than to any other $\\v'\\in\\calD_v$. The edge set $\\calD_e$ consists of non oriented pairs $(\\v,\\v')$ such that $\\C_\\v$ and $\\C_{\\v'}$ share a one-dimensional edge (Figure \\[f1\\]). One can see that (with probability one) each Voronoi tile is a convex and bounded polygon, and the graph $\\calD :=(\\calD_v,\\calD_e)$ is a triangulation of the plane [@M91].\n\n![The Delaunay triangulation and the Voronoi tessellation[]{data-label=\"f1\"}](vor2){width=\"30.00000%\"}\n\nThe *Voronoi tessellation* $\\calV:=(\\calV_v,\\calV_e)$ is defined by taking the vertex set $\\calV_v$ equal to the set of vertices of the Voronoi tiles and the edge set $\\calV_e$ equals to the set of edges of the Voronoi tiles.\n\nEach edge $\\e\\in\\calD_e$ is independently assigned a nonnegative random variable $\\tau_\\e$ from a common distribution $\\bF$ (the passage time distribution) that is independent of the Poisson process $\\calD_v$. We assume throughout that $\\bF$ is continuous and that $$\\label{a1}\n\\int e^{ax}\\bF(dx)<\\infty\\,\\mbox{ for some }\\,a\\in(0,\\infty)\\,.$$ We denote by $(\\Omega,\\calF,\\bP)$ our underline probability space, i.e. from each realization $\\omega\\in\\Omega$ one can determine the Poisson point process as well the passage time configuration. This model inherits the euclidean (translation and rotational) invariance of the Poisson point process.\n\nThe passage time $t(\\gamma)$ of a path $\\gamma$ in $\\calD$ is the sum of the passage times of the edges in $\\gamma$: $$t(\\gamma):=\\sum_{\\e\\in\\gamma}\\tau_\\e \\,.$$ The first-passage time between two vertices $\\v$ and $\\v'$ in $\\calD_v$ is defined by $$T(\\v,\\v'):=\\inf\\big\\{t(\\gamma);\\,\\gamma\\in\\calC(\\v,\\v')\\big\\} ,$$ where $\\calC(\\v,\\v')$ the set of all paths connecting $\\v$ to $\\v'$. We extend the first-passage time $T$ to $\\x,\\y\\in\\bR^2$ by setting $T(\\x,\\y):=T\\big(\\v(\\x),\\v(\\y)\\big)$, where $\\v(\\x)$ is the almost sure unique vertex $\\v\\in\\calP$ with $\\x\\in\\C_{\\v}$. We say that $\\rho(\\v,\\v')\\in\\calC(\\v,\\v')$ is a geodesic between $\\v$ and $\\v'$ if $t\\big(\\rho(\\v,\\v')\\big)=T(\\v,\\v')$. For each $\\x,\\y\\in\\bR^2$ we denote $\\rho(\\x,\\y):=\\rho\\big(\\v(\\x),\\v(\\y)\\big)$. One can see that if $\\bF$ is a continuous function then, almost surely, for all $\\v,\\v'\\in\\calD_v$ there exists a unique geodesic $\\rho(\\v,\\v')$ [@p-105]. A self-avoiding and semi-infinite path $\\rho=(\\v_1,\\v_2,\\dots)$ in $\\calD$ is called a semi-infinite geodesic if for all $\\v_j,\\v_k\\in\\rho$, the path $(\\v_j,\\v_{j+1},...,\\v_k)$ is the unique geodesic connecting $\\v_j$ to $\\v_k$.\n\nGiven $k$ different points $\\x_1,...,\\x_k\\in\\bR^2$, the initial configuration of seeds, we define the multi-type growth process $\\big\\{(\\B_{\\x_1}(t),...,\\B_{\\x_k}(t))\\,:\\,t\\geq 0\\big\\}$ by $$\\B_{\\x_j}(t):=\\big\\{\\x\\in\\bR^2\\,:\\,\\x\\in c(\\C_\\v)\\,\\mbox{ for some }\\,\\v\\in\\calB_{\\x_j}(t)\\big\\}\\,,$$ where $$\\calB_{\\x_j}(t):=\\big\\{\\v\\in\\calD_v\\,:\\,T(\\x_j,\\v)\\leq t\\,\\mbox{ and }\\,\\min_{l=1,...,k}\\{T(\\x_l,\\v)\\}=T(\\x_j,\\v)\\big\\}\\,,$$ and $c(\\C_\\v)$ denotes the closure of the tile $\\C_\\v$. If there exists $j<l$ such that $\\v_{\\x_j}=\\v_{\\x_l}$ then we set $\\B_{\\x_j}$ as before and $\\B_{\\x_l}(t)=\\emptyset$.\n\nWhen $k=1$ then we have a single growth process $\\B_\\x(t)$ which represents the set of points reached by time $t$ from the initial seed $\\x$. For a continuous distribution $\\bF$ satisfying the following shape theorem [@p-105; @VW92] holds: there exists a constant $\\mu(\\bF)\\in(0,\\infty)$, namely the time constant, such that for all $\\epsilon>0$ $$\\bP\\big((1-\\epsilon )t \\D(1/\\mu)\\subseteq \\B_\\0(t)\\subseteq (1+\\epsilon )t\n\\D(1/\\mu)\\mbox{ eventually }\\big)=1 \\,,$$ where $\\D(r):=\\{\\x\\in\\bR^2 \\,:\\, |\\x|\\leq r\\}$ and $\\0:=(0,0)$.\n\nWhen $k\\geq2$ the process $\\big\\{(\\B_{\\x_1}(t),...,\\B_{\\x_k}(t))\\,:\\,t\\geq 0\\big\\}$ is a model for competing growth on the plane where each point $\\x\\in\\bR^2$ is acquired by the specie $j\\in\\{1,\\dots,k\\}$ which first arrives there. The competition interface $\\psi$ is the one-dimensional boundary between the species when $t=\\infty$. This interface can be seen as a finite union of polygonal curves determined by edges in $\\calV$ (the Voronoi tessellation) which are shared by tiles in different species. A branch of the competition interface is a self-avoiding path $\\varphi=(\\x_n)_{n\\geq 1}$ in $\\calV$ such that $\\{\\x_n\\,:\\,n\\geq 1\\}\\subseteq\\psi$.\n\nFor each $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ we say that a self-avoiding path $(\\x_{n})_{n\\geq 1}$, with vertices in $\\bR^2$ and such that $|\\x_n|\\to\\infty$ when $n\\to\\infty$, is a $\\alpha$-path if $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\frac{\\x_{n}}{|\\x_{n}|}=e^{i\\alpha}:=(\\cos\\alpha,\\sin\\alpha)\\,.$$ In this case we also say that $(\\x_n)_\\bN$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$. This is equivalent to $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}ang(\\x_{n},e^{i\\alpha})=0\\,,$$ where $ang(\\x,\\y)$ denotes the angle in $[0,\\pi]$ between the points $\\x,\\y\\in\\bR^2$. Thus, a sufficient condition for a path $(\\x_{n})_{n\\geq 1}$ to be a $\\alpha$-path for some $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ is, for some fixed $\\delta\\in(0,1)$ and some constant $c>0$, for sufficiently large $n$ $$ang(\\x_{n},\\x_m)\\leq |\\x_n|^{-\\delta}\\,\\mbox{ whenever }m > n\\,,$$ which is the so called $\\delta$-straightness property for semi-infinite paths introduced by Newman [@n95].\n\n\\[t1\\] For $k\\geq 2$ let $\\Omega_k$ be the event that, for the competing growth model with $k$-different species, there exists a finite subset $\\Theta:=\\{\\theta_1,...,\\theta_m\\}$ of $[0,2\\pi)$ such that every branch $\\varphi$ of the competition interface is a $\\theta(\\varphi)$-path for some $\\theta\\in\\Theta$. Under , $\\bP\\big(\\Omega_k\\big)=1$.\n\n\\[rand+strai\\] In Section \\[geo\\] (part \\[pr-rand+strai\\]) we will give a sketch of the proof that for all $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ $$\\bP\\big(\\theta=\\alpha\\mbox{ for some }\\theta\\in\\Theta\\big)=0\\,,$$ and that if $\\xi\\in(3/4,1)$ then, almost surely, for all branch $\\varphi=(\\x_{n})_{n\\geq 1}$ of the competition interface there is a constant $c>0$ such that $$ang(\\x_{n},e^{i\\theta(\\varphi)})\\leq c|\\x_n|^{\\xi-1}\\mbox{ eventually }\\,.$$\n\nLet $\\x_1(r)=(0,r),\\dots,\\x_k(r)$ be the vertices of a regular polygon with $k$ sides and radius $r$. For each $j=1,...,k$ define the projection of the random set $\\B_{j}^r:=\\B_{\\x_j(r)}(\\infty)$ onto $\\S^1$, the set of unit vectors $|\\x|=1$, by $$\\S_{j,r}:=\\{\\x = e^{i\\alpha}\\in \\S^{1}\\,:\\,\\bL_{s\\x}(\\alpha)\\subseteq \\B_{j}^{r}\\,\\mbox{ for some }\\,s>0\\}\\,,$$ where $\\bL_\\x(\\alpha)$ denotes the line starting from $\\x$ and with direction $e^{i\\alpha}$. For each $\\epsilon\\in (0,\\pi/k)$ and $j\\in\\{1,\\dots,k\\}$ define $$\\S_{j}(\\epsilon):=\\{\\x\\in\\S^1\\,:\\, ang(\\x,\\x_j(r))\\leq \\frac{\\pi}{k}-\\epsilon\\}\\,.$$\n\n\\[t2\\] Let $k\\geq 2$. Under , for all $\\epsilon>0$ $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\bP\\big(\\S_{j}(\\epsilon)\\subseteq \\S_{j,n}\\,\\emph{ for all $j=1,\\dots,k$ }\\big)=1\\,.$$\n\nBusemann type asymptotics and the competition interface\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nTo illustrate the approach we follow in this work to study the competition interface assume that $k=2$. Consider the line $\\bL_\\0(\\alpha)$ starting from the origin $\\0$ and with direction $e^{i\\alpha}$. Then we have three possibilities: i) either it intersets the competition interface infinitely many times; ii) or it is eventually contained in $\\B_{\\x_1}(\\infty)$; iii) or it is eventually contained in $\\B_{\\x_2}(\\infty)$. Notice that the former implies $$\\liminf_{s\\to\\infty}\\big(T(\\x_{1},se^{i\\alpha})-T(\\x_{2} ,se^{i\\alpha})\\big)\\leq\n0\\leq\\limsup_{s\\to\\infty}\\big(T(\\x_{1},se^{i\\alpha})-T(\\x_{2},se^{i\\alpha})\\big)\\,,$$ while the second implies $$\\limsup_{s\\to\\infty}\\big(T(\\x_{1},se^{i\\alpha})-T(\\x_{2} ,se^{i\\alpha})\\big)\\leq 0\\,,$$ and the third implies $$0\\leq \\liminf_{s\\to\\infty}\\big(T(\\x_{1},se^{i\\alpha})-T(\\x_{2} ,se^{i\\alpha})\\big)\\,.$$ It turns out that the above expressions resemble Busemann type asymptotics for $T$ (see Ballmann [@b95] for more details on this subject). Newman [@n95; @ln96] has shown for the lattice model that, under suitable assumptions on the curvature of the limit shape, $T(\\x_1,\\y_n)-T(\\x_2,\\y_n)$ attains eventually a nonzero value $H^{\\alpha}(\\x_1,\\x_2)$, called the Busemann function. By following his method, and by taking profit of the isotropy in our model, we will show[^1]:\n\n\\[tBuse-1\\] For $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ let $\\Omega_0(\\alpha)$ be the event that for all $\\v,\\bar{\\v}\\in\\calD_v$, there exists $H^{\\alpha}(\\v,\\bar{\\v})$, nonzero for $\\v\\neq\\bar{\\v}$, such that $$\\label{eBuse-1}\n\\lim_{{|\\x|\\to\\infty}\\atop{\\x/|\\x|\\to e^{i\\alpha}}}\\big(T(\\v,\\x)-T(\\bar{\\v},\\x)\\big)=H^{\\alpha}(\\v,\\bar{\\v})\\,.$$ Under , $\\bP\\big(\\Omega_0(\\alpha)\\big)=1$.\n\nFor $\\x ,\\y\\in\\bR^2$ we set $H^\\alpha(\\x,\\y):=H^\\alpha\\big(\\v(\\x),\\v(\\y)\\big)$. It was conjectured by Howard and Newman [@hn01] that $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\frac{H^{\\alpha}(n\\vec{e}_1,\\0)}{n}=-\\mu(\\bF)\\cos\\alpha\\,,$$ where $\\vec{e}_1:=(1,0)$. This observation is related to the asymptotic behavior of our multi-type growth model and the key result to show Theorem \\[t2\\] is the following theorem, which is a small step towards the above conjecture.\n\n\\[tBuse-2\\] For $\\alpha\\in[0,\\pi/2)$ let $\\Omega_1(\\alpha)\\subseteq\\Omega_0(\\alpha)$ be the event that $$\\label{eBuse-2}\n-\\mu(\\bF)\\leq \\lim\\inf_{n\\to\\infty}\\frac{H^{\\alpha}(n\\vec{e}_{1},\\0)}{n}\\leq \\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}\\frac{H^{\\alpha}(n\\vec{e}_{1},\\0)}{n}\\leq -\\mu(\\bF)\\frac{\\cos\\alpha}{1+\\sin\\alpha}\\,.$$ Under , $\\bP\\big(\\Omega_1(\\alpha)\\big)=1$. In particular, with probability one, $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\frac{H^{0}(n\\vec{e}_{1},\\0)}{n}=-\\mu(\\bF)\\,.$$\n\nOverview {#overview .unnumbered}\n--------\n\nIn Section \\[multi\\] we will deduce Theorem \\[t1\\] and Theorem \\[t2\\] from Theorem \\[tBuse-1\\] and Theorem \\[tBuse-2\\]. In Section \\[pre\\] we will start by defining the probability space where our model takes place and we will show a modification lemma that will play an important rule in the study of coalescence of semi-infinite geodesics. After that we will study some geometrical aspects of Voronoi tilings. We note that in the Delaunay triangulation context some technical difficulties are imposed by its long range dependence. Some of them will be avoided by making references to results of a previous work of the author [@p-105; @p-205]. In the third part we will recall some geometrical lemmas concerning the $\\delta$-straightness of semi-infinite paths. Finally, in Section \\[geo\\] will study existence and coalescence of semi-infinite geodesics to show Theorem \\[tBuse-1\\] and Theorem \\[tBuse-2\\]. It will largely parallel the analog study develop by Newman et al [@hn01; @ln96; @n95; @np95] in the lattice and in the Euclidean FPP models.\n\nProof of the multi-type shape theorems {#multi}\n======================================\n\nFor each $j=1,...,k$, let $\\S_{j}$ denote the set of unit vectors $e^{i\\beta}$ such that $\\bL_{se^{i\\beta}}(\\beta)\\subseteq \\B_{\\x_j}(\\infty)$ for some $s>0$ and let $$\\S_{0}:=(\\cup_{j=1}^{l}\\S_{j})^{c}\\,.$$ Let $$\\D_n:=\\{e^{i\\beta}\\,:\\,\\beta=2k\\pi/2^{n}\\mbox{ for some }1\\leq k\\leq 2^{n}\\}\\,$$ and $\\D:=\\cup_{n\\geq 1}\\D_n$. Consider the event $\\cap_{\\alpha\\in\\D}\\Omega_0(\\alpha)$ that for all $\\alpha\\in\\D$ and $\\v,\\bar{\\v}\\in\\calD_v$ there exists $H^{\\alpha}(\\v,\\bar{\\v})$, nonzero for $\\v\\neq\\bar{\\v}$, such that $$\\lim_{{|\\x|\\to\\infty}\\atop{\\x/|\\x|\\to e^{i\\alpha}}}\\big(T(\\v,\\x)-T(\\bar{\\v},\\x)\\big)=H^{\\alpha}(\\v,\\bar{\\v})\\,.$$ By Theorem \\[tBuse-1\\], $\\bP\\big(\\cap_{\\alpha\\in\\D}\\Omega_0(\\alpha)\\big)=1$.\n\nWe claim that, on this event, every branch of the competition interface is an $\\theta$-path for some $\\theta\\in[0,2\\pi)$. To see this, notice that if $e^{i\\alpha}\\in \\S_{0}$ then for some $j_1 \\ne j_2$, $\\bL_{\\0}(\\alpha)$ intersects infinitely many times the region $\\B_{\\x_{j_1}}(\\infty)$ and the region $\\B_{\\x_{j_2}}$. Thus $$\\liminf_{s\\to\\infty}\\big(T(\\x_{j_1},se^{i\\alpha})-T(\\x_{j_2} ,se^{i\\alpha})\\big)\\leq\n0\\leq\\limsup_{s\\to\\infty}\\big(T(\\x_{j_1},se^{i\\alpha})-T(\\x_{j_2},se^{i\\alpha})\\big)\\,,$$ which implies that $\\D\\cap\\S_0=\\emptyset$. Let $\\C_k^n$ be the cone consisting of points $re^{i\\beta}$ such that $r>0$ and $\\beta\\in(2\\pi k/2^n,2\\pi(k+1)/2^n)$. Now, if $\\D\\cap\\S_0=\\emptyset$ and $e^{i\\beta}\\in\\D$ then every branch $\\varphi$ of the competition interface can not intersect infinitely many times the line $\\bL_{\\0}(\\beta)$. So, for each branch $\\varphi$ of the competition interface we can find a sequence of cones $(\\C^{n}_{k_{n}})_{n\\geq1}$, with $n\\to\\infty$ and $\\C^{n+1}_{k_{n+1}}\\subseteq \\C^{n}_{k_{n}}$, such that $\\varphi$ is eventually contained in $C^{n}_{k_{n}}$. This implies that $\\varphi$ must be a $\\theta$-path for some $\\theta\\in[0,2\\pi)$.\n\nSince $$\\bP\\big(\\S_{j}(\\epsilon)\\subseteq \\S^{r}_{j}\\big)=\\bP\\big(\\S_{1}(\\epsilon)\\subseteq \\S^{r}_{1}\\big)$$ for all $j=1,...,k$, we only need to prove that $$\\label{e1kshape}\n \\lim_{r\\to\\infty}\\bP\\big(\\S_{1}(\\epsilon)\\subseteq \\S^{r}_{1}\\big)=1\\,.$$ To do so, for each $j=1,\\dots,k$ let $\\alpha^k_j:=\\pi(j-1)/k$, $\\vec{e}^k_j:=e^{2i\\alpha^k_j}$ and $A_{r}:=\\cap_{j=1}^{k} A^{j}_{r}$, where $$A_{r}^{j}:= \\cap_{l\\ne j}\\big[H^{\\alpha^k_j}(r\\vec{e}^k_l,r\\vec{e}^k_j)>0\\big]\\,.$$ Let $\\alpha^{+\\epsilon}_{k}:=\\frac{\\pi}{k}-\\epsilon$ and $\\alpha^{-\\epsilon}_{k}:= (2\\pi-\\frac{\\pi}{k})+\\epsilon$ and set $$B_{r}(\\epsilon):=\\cap_{j=2,\\dots,k}\\big[H^{\\alpha^{+\\epsilon}_{k}}(r\\vec{e}^k_j,r\\vec{e}^k_1)>0\\mbox{ and }H^{\\alpha^{-\\epsilon}_{k}}(r\\vec{e}^k_j,r\\vec{e}^k_1)>0\\big]\\,.$$ By Theorem \\[tBuse-2\\] $$\\label{e2kshape}\n\\lim_{r\\to\\infty}\\bP\\big(A_{r}\\cap B_r(\\epsilon)\\big)=1\\,.$$ The connectivity of the regions $\\B_j^r$ yields that, on $A_r\\cap B_r(\\epsilon)$, $\\S_1(\\epsilon)\\subseteq \\S_1^r$. Together with , this yields and the proof of Theorem \\[t2\\] is complete.\n\nAuxiliary results {#pre}\n=================\n\nThe probability space {#pre-ps}\n---------------------\n\nDuring the subsequent proofs we will consider the following construction of $(\\Omega,\\mathcal{F},\\bP)$, the underline probability space of our FPP model. Let $\\u_{0}=(0,0),\\u_{2},\\dots$ be a ordering of $\\bZ^{2}$ and for each $k\\geq 1$ let $$\\B_{k}:=\\u_{k}+[-1/2,1/2]^{2}\\,.$$ Consider $$\\calN=\\{N_{k}\\,:\\, k\\geq 1\\},$$ a collection of i.i.d. Poisson random variables with intensity $1$; $$\\calU_k=\\{U_{k,l}\\,:\\, l\\geq 1\\},$$ a collection of independent random points in the plane so that $U_{k,l}$ has an uniform distribution in the square box $B_{k}$; $$\\calT_k=\\{\\tau_{k,l}^{m,n}\\,:\\, l\\geq 1,m\\geq k,n\\geq 1\\mbox{ and }n>l\\mbox{\n  whenever }k=m\\},$$ a collection of i.i.d. non negative random variables with common distribution $\\bF$ (the passage time distribution). We also impose that all these collections are independent of each other.\n\nTo determine the vertex set $\\calD_v=\\calP$, at each square box $\\B_{k}$ we put $N_{k}$ points given by $U_{k,1},...,U_{k,N_{k}}$. This procedure determines a Poisson point process $\\calP$ from the collections $\\calN$ and $\\calU_k$ with $k\\geq 1$. Given $\\e\\in\\calD_e$ we know that there exist an unique pair $(U_{k,l},U_{m,n})$, where either $m>k$ or $m=k$ and $n>l$, so that $\\e=(U_{k,l},U_{m,n})$. Set $\\tau_{e}=\\tau_{k,l}^{m,n}$.\n\nFor each $k\\geq 1$ denote by $(\\Omega^{k},\\mathcal{F}^{k},\\bP^{k})$ the probability induced by the random variable $N_k$ and the collections $\\calU_k$, $\\calT_k$. The probability space $(\\Omega,\\calF,\\bP)$ is defined to be the product space of $(\\Omega^{k},\\calF^k,\\bP^{k})$ over $k\\geq 1$.\n\nAn important step in the construction of the Busemann function is the proof of the coalescence behavior of semi-infinite geodesics with the same asymptotic orientation. In this proof, we will use the following modification lemma. Let $\\mathnormal{K}$ be the collection of all finite sequences $$\\label{E:prescription}\n I=\\big((k_{j},l_{j},m_{j},n_{j})\\big)_{j=1,...,q}\\in(\\bN^{4})^{q}$$ where $q\\geq 1$, $(k_{j},l_{j},m_{j},n_{j})\\ne(k_{i},l_{i},m_{i},n_{i})$ for $j\\ne i$, $k_{1}\\leq...\\leq k_{q}$, and either $ k_{j}< m_{j}$ or $l_{j}<n_{j}$. To each $I\\in\\mathnormal{K}$ corresponds a random vector $(\\tau_{k_{j},l_{j}}^{m_{j},n_{j}})_{j=1,...,q}$. We denote $(\\Omega_{I},\\calF_{I},\\bP_{I})$ the probability space induced by this random vector. Let $$\\hat{\\Omega}_{I}:=\\{\\hat{\\omega}_{I}\\,:\\,\\exists\\,\\omega_{I}\\in\\Omega_{I}\\mbox{ with }(\\hat{\\omega}_{I},\\omega_{I})\\in\\Omega\\}$$ and denote by $\\hat{\\bP}_I$ the probability law $\\bP$ restricted to this subset. For each $I\\subseteq\\mathnormal{K}$, $A\\subseteq\\Omega$ and $\\omega_{1}\\in\\hat{\\Omega}_{I}$ define $$A_{I,\\omega_{1}}:=\\{\\omega_{2}\\in\\Omega_{I}\\,:\\,\\omega=(\\omega_{1},\\omega_{2})\\in A\\}\\,.$$ Let $\\{R_{I}\\,:\\,I\\in\\mathnormal{K}\\}$ be a family of events $R_{I}\\in\\calF_{I}$ such that $\\bP_{I}(R_{I})>0$ for all $I$. Then define the map on $\\calF$ by $$\\Phi_{I}(A):=\\{\\omega_{1}\\in\\hat{\\Omega}_{I}\\,:\\,\\bP_{I}(A_{I,\\omega_{1}})>0\\}\\times R_{I}.$$ Suppose that $W(\\omega)$ is a random element of $\\mathnormal{K}$, which may be interpreted as the set of indexes (edges) whose passage time value will be modified. For $A\\subseteq\\Omega$, let $$\\tilde{\\Phi}(A):=\\cup_{I\\in\\mathnormal{K}}\\big[\\{\\omega_{1}\\in\\hat{\\Omega}_{I}\\,:\\,A(I)_{I,\\omega_{1}}\\ne\\emptyset\\}\\times R_{I}\\big],$$ where $A(I):=A\\cap [W=I]$.\n\n\\[lmodif\\] For each $A\\in\\calF$, $\\tilde{\\Phi}(A)$ contains $\\Phi(A)\\in\\calF$ defined as the following union $$\\Phi(A):=\\cup_{I\\in\\mathnormal{K}}\\Phi_{I}\\big(A(I)\\big).$$ Furthermore, if $\\bP(A)>0$ then $\\bP\\big(\\Phi(A)\\big)>0$.\n\nIf $\\bP_{I}\\big(A(I)_{I,w_{1}}\\big)>0$ then $A(I)_{I,w_{1}}\\ne\\emptyset$ and so $\\Phi(A)\\subseteq\\tilde{\\Phi(A)}$. Since $\\mathnormal{K}$ is countable and $A=\\cup_{I\\in\\mathnormal{K}}A(I)$, if $\\bP(A)>0$ then there exists $I\\in\\mathnormal{K}$ such that $\\bP\\big(A(I)\\big)>0$. For this $I$, by Fubini\u2019s theorem $$\\label{emodi2} \n 0<\\bP\\big(A(I)\\big)=\\int_{\\hat{\\Omega}_{I}}\\bP_{I}\\big(A(I)_{I,w_{1}}\\big)\\hat{\\bP}_{I}(dw_{1}).$$ Let $$\\hat{A}_{I}:=\\{ w_{1}\\,:\\,\\bP_{I}\\big(A(I)_{I,w_{1}}\\big)>0\\}\\,.$$ By , $\\hat{\\bP}_{I}\\big(\\hat{A}_{I}\\big)>0$. According to the definition of $\\Phi_{I}$, $$\\bP\\Big(\\Phi_{I}\\big(A(I)\\big)\\Big)=\\hat{\\bP}_{I}(\\hat{A}_{I})\\bP_{I}(R_{I})>0\\,.$$ Since $\\Phi_{I}\\big(A(I)\\big)\\subseteq\\Phi(A)$, we conclude that $\\bP\\big(\\Phi(A)\\big)>0$.\n\nSome geometrical aspects of Delaunay triangulations {#pre-geom}\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this part we are going to study some geometrical aspects of Delaunay triangulations. Let $\\x,\\y\\in\\bR^2$ and construct a path $\\gamma(\\x,\\y):=(\\v_1,...,\\v_{k})$ in $\\calD$ connecting $\\v(\\x)$ to $\\v(\\y)$ as follows: set $\\v_1:=\\v(\\x)$; if $\\v_1\\neq\\v(\\y)$ let $\\v_{2}$ be the (almost-surely) unique nearest neighbor of $\\v_1$ such that the edge of $\\C_{\\v_1}$ that is perpendicular to the line segment $[\\v_1,\\v_2]$ cross $[\\x,\\y]$; given $\\v_l$ with $l\\geq 1$, if $\\v_{l}\\neq\\v(\\y)$ then we set $\\v_{l+1}$ to be the (almost-surely) unique nearest neighbor of $\\v_l$, different from $\\v_{l-1}$, such that the edge of $\\C_{\\v_l}$ that is perpendicular to $[\\v_l,\\v_{l+1}]$ cross $[\\x,\\y]$; otherwise we set $k:=l$ and the construction is finished. We denote $|\\gamma(\\0,n\\vec{e}_1)|$ the number of edges in $\\gamma(\\0,n\\vec{e}_1)$.\n\nFor $\\z\\in\\bR^2$ and $L>0$ let $$\\B_\\z^{L}:=L\\z+[-L/2,L/2]\\,$$ For $n>0$ consider the set $\\calE_n$ composed of edges $(\\v,\\bar{\\v})\\in\\calD_e$ with $\\C_\\v\\cap\\B_\\z^{1}\\neq\\emptyset$ or $\\C_{\\bar\\v}\\cap\\B_\\z^{1}\\neq\\emptyset$ for some $\\z\\in[\\0,n\\vec{e}_1]$. We denote $|\\calE_n|$ the number of edges in $\\calE_n$.\n\n\\[lgraph2\\] There exists constants $z_j,c_j>0$ such that for all $n\\geq 1$, $$\\label{egraph2*}\n\\bP\\big(|\\gamma(\\0,n\\vec{e}_1)|\\geq z n\\big)\\leq e^{-c_1 zn}\\,\\mbox{ whenever }z\\geq z_0\\,,$$ and $$\\label{egraph3*}\n\\bP\\big(|\\calE_n|\\geq z n\\big)\\leq e^{-c_2 zn}\\,\\mbox{ whenever }z\\geq z_1\\,.$$\n\nThe proof of this lemma is performed through renormalization ideas developed in [@p-205]. To avoid some repetitions we give a sketch of the proof and leave the details to the reader, which can be filled by following the arguments in the proof of Proposition 2.2 in [@p-205] (which is exactly the proof in ).\n\nFor $\\z\\in\\bZ^2$ and $L>0$ divide a square box $\\B_\\z^{L}$ into thirty-six sub boxes of the same length, say $\\B_1,\\dots,\\B_{36}$. We stipulate $\\B$ is a full box if all those thirty-six sub boxes have at least one Poissonian point (Figure \\[ffull\\]).\n\n![Renormalization: a full box[]{data-label=\"ffull\"}](full){width=\"20.00000%\"}\n\nWe say that $\\Lambda:=(\\B_{\\z_1}^{L},\\dots,\\B_{\\z_k}^{L})$ is a circuit of boxes if $(\\z_1,\\dots,\\z_k)$ is a circuit in $\\bZ^2$ (in the usual sense). Let $\\lambda$ be the closed polygonal path composed by the line segments connecting $L\\z_j$ to $L\\z_{j+1}$, where $j=1,\\dots,k-1$, together with $[\\z_k,\\z_1]$. To each circuit $\\Lambda$ we associate two subsets of the plane: $\\Lambda^{in}$ denotes the interior of the bounded component of $\\bR^2\\backslash\\cup_{j=1}^k\\B_{\\z_j}^{L}$ while $\\lambda^{in}$ will denote the interior of the bounded component of $\\bR^2\\backslash\\lambda$. Now, assume that $\\Lambda:=(\\B_{\\z_j}^{L})_{j=1}^k$ is a circuit composed by full boxes. By Lemma 2.1 in [@p-205], we have the following geometrical property: if $\\C_{\\v}\\cap \\Lambda^{in}\\neq\\emptyset$ then $\\C_{\\v}\\subseteq \\lambda^{in}$. One important consequence of this is that the set of vertices used by $\\gamma(\\0,n\\vec{e}_1)$ or by $\\calE_n$ are both contained in the region $\\R_n$ limited by the smallest circuit of full boxes surrounding the line segment $[\\0,n\\vec{e}_1]$. Therefore to show Lemma \\[lgraph2\\] is enough to prove the analog decay for the number of Poissonian points in $\\R_n$ [^2].\n\nNotice that, since each box is full independently of each other and the probability that it occurs goes to $1$ when $L$ goes to infinity, for a fixed large $L_0>0$, the probability that $\\R_n$ contains more than $zn$ boxes decays as $e^{-czn}$ (see for instance Grimmet [@G99]).\n\nNow, the number of points in $\\R_n$, say $R_n$, is the sum of independent Poisonian random variables. This is less or equal to $M_m$, the maximum of the number of points in $\\R$ over all connected regions $\\R$ intersecting at most $m$ boxes the origin $\\0$. Thus, on the event that $\\R_n$ contains less than $zn$ boxes, we have $R_n\\leq M_{zn}$. On the other hand, $M_m$ can be seen as a Greedy lattice animal model and for such a model we can also show, for large $\\bar{c}>0$, that the probability that $M_{m}\\geq \\bar{c}m$ decays as $e^{-cm}$ (Lemma 2.3 of [@p-205]).\n\nBy cooking together the arguments in these two last paragraphs one obtains that the probability that the number of points in $\\R_n$ is greater than $zn$ also decays as $e^{-czn}$, for some constant $c>0$ and sufficiently large $z$.\n\nLet $T_\\calD$ denote the graph metric on $\\calD$, i.e. for $\\v,\\bar{\\v}\\in\\calD_v$, $T_\\calD(\\v,\\bar{\\v})$ is the minimum number of edges that one path should pass to go from $\\v$ to $\\bar{\\v}$. Notice that $T_\\calD(\\v,\\bar{\\v})$ is the first-passage time between $\\v$ and $\\bar{\\v}$ if one associates to each edge $\\e$ the passage time value $1$. For each $\\A,\\B\\subseteq\\bR^2$ we set $T_\\calD(\\A,\\B)$ to be the minimum of $T_\\calD(\\v,\\tilde{\\v})$ over all pairs $\\v$ and $\\tilde{\\v}$ such that $\\C_\\v\\cap\\A\\neq\\emptyset$ and $\\C_{\\tilde{\\v}}\\cap\\B\\neq\\emptyset$. By the shape theorem, we have:\n\n\\[lgraph1\\] There exists $\\nu\\in(0,\\infty)$ such that almost surely $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\frac{T_\\calD(\\A,ne^{i\\alpha}+\\B)}{n}=\\nu\\,.$$\n\nWe notice that $\\nu$ does not depend either on $\\A$ and $\\B$ or on $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$. One can also see that, if we denote $\\lambda=\\lambda(\\bF)$ the supremum of the support of $\\bF$ then $$\\mu(\\bF)\\leq \\bE(\\tau_e)\\nu <\\lambda\\nu\\,$$ (one must assume that $\\bF$ is not concentrate in one point, which is the case since $\\bF$ is continuous).\n\nWe shall also use the following lemma, which is (5.2) of Lemma 5.2 in [@hn01]:\n\n\\[5.2\\] For $\\xi\\in (0,1)$ and $r>0$ let $A_{\\xi,r}$ be the event that there exists $\\x\\in\\bR^2$ with $|\\x|\\leq 2r$ and $|\\x-\\v(\\x)|\\geq r^\\xi$. Then, for some constant $c_1>0$, $$\\bP\\big(A_{\\xi,r}\\big)\\leq c_1 e^{-r^{2\\xi}}$$\n\n$\\delta$-straightness of semi-infinite paths {#pre-del}\n--------------------------------------------\n\nRecall that for $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ we have defined that a self-avoiding path $(\\x_{n})_{n\\geq 1}$, with vertices in $\\bR^2$ and such that $|\\x_n|\\to\\infty$ when $n\\to\\infty$, is a $\\alpha$-path if $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\frac{\\x_{n}}{|\\x_{n}|}=e^{i\\alpha}:=(\\cos\\alpha,\\sin\\alpha)\\,,$$ and that a sufficient condition for a path $(\\x_{n})_{n\\geq 1}$ to be a $\\alpha$-path for some $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ is that, for some fixed $\\delta\\in(0,1)$ and $c>0$, and for large enough $n$ $$ang(\\x_{n},\\x_m)\\leq |\\x_n|^{-\\delta}\\,\\mbox{ whenever }m>n$$ ($\\delta$-straightness). A sufficient condition for $\\delta$-straightness is given by the next lemma, which is exactly Lemma 2.7 in [@hn01]:\n\n\\[hn-101\\] If $(\\x_n)_\\bN$ is a sequence of points in $\\bR^2$ with $|\\x_n|\\to\\infty$ when $n\\to\\infty$, and such that for all large $n$ $$|\\x_{n+1}-\\x_n|\\leq |\\x_n|^{1-\\delta}\\mbox{ and }d(\\x_n,[\\x_1,\\x_m])\\leq |\\x_m|^{1-\\delta}\\mbox{ for }m>n\\,,$$ then there exist a contant $c>0$ such that for all $n$ sufficiently large, $$\\label{eang}\nang(\\x_n,\\x_m)\\leq c|\\x_n|^{-\\delta}\\,\\mbox{ whenever }m>n\\,.$$\n\nWe also consider the $\\delta$-straightness property for trees (we have the tree of infection in mind) as follows. For $\\epsilon\\in[0,\\pi)$ let $$\\C(\\x,\\epsilon):=\\{\\y\\in\\bR^{2}\\backslash\\{0\\}\\,:\\,ang(\\y,\\x)\\leq\\epsilon\\}\\,.$$ If $\\calT$ is a tree embedded in $\\bR^{2}$, for each pair $\\v,\\tilde{\\v}\\in\\calT$ let $\\calR_{out}(v,\\tilde{v})$ be the set of all $\\hat{\\v}\\in\\calT$ such that the unique path in $\\calT$ connecting $\\v$ to $\\hat{\\v}$ touches $\\tilde{\\v}$. For $\\delta\\in(0,1)$, define that $\\calT$ is $\\delta$-straight at $\\v$ if, for all but finitely many $\\tilde{\\v}\\in\\calT$, $$\\calR_{out}(\\v,\\tilde{\\v})\\subseteq \\:\\v+C(\\tilde{\\v}-\\v,c|\\tilde{\\v}-\\v|^{-\\delta})\\,.$$ We say that a subset $\\calP$ of $\\bR^2$ is omnidirectional if, for all $M>0$, the set composed of unit vectors $\\v/|\\v|$ with $\\v\\in\\calP$ and $|\\v|>M$ is dense in $\\S^1$. The above lemma, which is Proposition 2.8 in [@hn01], states that $\\delta$-straightness implies existence of an asymptotic orientation:\n\n\\[hn-201\\] Assume that $\\calT$ is a tree embedded in $\\bR^2$, whose vertex set is locally finite but omnidirectional, and such that every vertex has finite degree. Assume further that for some vertex $\\v$, $\\calT$ is $\\delta$-straight at $\\v$. Then $\\calT$ satisfies the following:\n\n1.  Every semi-infinite path in $\\calT$ starting from $\\v$ has an asymptotic orientation;\\\n\n2.  For every $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ there exist at least one semi-infinite path in $\\calT$ starting at $\\v$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$.\n\n3.  Every semi-infinite path $(\\v_n)_{n\\geq 1}$ in $\\calT$ starting from $\\v$ is $\\delta$-straight about its asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$, i.e. $ang(\\v_n,e^{i\\alpha})<c|\\v_n|^{-\\delta}$ eventually.\n\nSemi-infinite geodesics and the Busemann function {#geo}\n=================================================\n\nSemi-infinite geodesics: existence\n----------------------------------\n\nRecall that a path $\\rho=(\\v_1,\\v_2,\\dots)$ in $\\calD$ is a semi-infinite geodesic if for all $\\v_j,\\v_k\\in\\rho$, the path $(\\v_j,\\v_{j+1},...,\\v_k)$ is the unique geodesic connecting $\\v_j$ to $\\v_k$. Semi-infinite geodesics starting from $\\v\\in\\calD_v$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$ are denoted $\\rho_{\\v}(\\alpha)$.\n\n\\[pexis\\] Let $\\Omega_2$ be the event that for all semi-infinite geodesic $\\rho$ there exists $\\alpha=\\alpha(\\rho )\\in [0,2\\pi)$ such that $\\rho$ is a $\\alpha$-path, and that for all $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ and for all $\\v\\in\\calD_v$ there exists at least one geodesic starting from $\\v$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$. Under , $\\bP(\\Omega_2)=1$.\n\nThe first step to show the existence of semi-infinite geodesics and its convergence is the following result on the fluctuations of $T$, which is exactly Corollary 1.1 in [@p-205]:\n\n\\[l2\\] Under , for all $\\kappa\\in(1/2,1)$ there exist constants $\\delta,c_j>0$ such that for all $r\\geq 1$ and $s\\in [c_1 (\\log r)^{1/\\delta},c_2 r^{\\kappa}]$ $$\\bP\\big(|T(\\0,r\\vec{e}_1)-\\mu r|\\geq sr^{\\kappa}\\big)\\leq e^{-c_3 s^{\\delta}}\\,.$$\n\nThe second step is to parallel Newman and Piza [@np95] to prove that the control of the fluctuations of $T$ can give the control of the fluctuations of a minimizing path connecting $\\0$ to $r\\vec{e}_1$ about the line segment $[\\0,r\\vec{e}_1]$. Precisely, for $\\xi\\in (0,1)$ let $$\\C_r^\\xi:=\\{\\x\\in\\bR^2\\,:\\,d(\\x,[\\0,r\\vec{e}_1])\\leq r^\\xi\\}\\,,$$ where $[\\x,\\y]$ denotes the line segment connecting $\\x$ to $\\y$ and $d(\\x,\\A)$ denotes the euclidean distance between $\\x$ and $\\A\\subseteq\\bR^2$.\n\n\\[l1\\] For all $\\xi\\in(3/4,1)$ there exist constants $c,\\delta>0$ such that for all $r\\geq 1$ $$\\bP\\big(\\rho(\\0,r\\vec{e}_1)\\not\\subseteq\\C_r^\\xi\\big)\\leq e^{-cr^\\delta}\\,.$$\n\nLet $\\kappa\\in(1/2,1)$, $\\tilde{\\kappa}\\in(\\kappa,1)$ and set $\\xi\\:=(\\tilde{\\kappa}+1)/2$. Let $$\\C^{1,\\xi}_{r}:=\\{\\x\\in\\bR^{2}\\backslash \\C^{\\xi}_{r}\\,:\\, d(\\x,\\C^{\\xi}_{r})<r^{\\xi}\\}\\,.$$ Denote by $F_{r}$ the event defined by the following properties:\n\n-   $\\v_{\\0},\\v_{r\\vec{e}_1}\\in \\C_r^{\\xi}$\n\n-   for all edges $\\e=(\\v,\\tilde{\\v})$ with $|\\v|\\leq 2r$ or $|\\tilde{\\v}|\\leq 2r$ we have that $|\\v-\\tilde{\\v}|\\leq r^{\\xi}$.\n\nNotice that $F_r^c\\subseteq A_{\\xi,r/3}$ (as in Lemma \\[5.2\\]), and thus $$\\label{HN1}\n\\bP\\big(F_r^c\\big)\\leq c_1e^{-(r/3)^{2\\xi}}\\,.$$\n\nFor each $\\z\\in\\bZ^2$ consider the random variable $$T_{\\z}:=\\max_{|\\v-\\z|\\leq 1}\\{T(\\z,\\v)\\}\\,.$$ We claim that, under , for some constants $c_2,c_3>0$ $$\\label{e7t3}\n\\bP(T_{\\z}\\geq r^{\\kappa})=\\bP\\big(T_{\\0}\\geq r^{\\kappa}\\big)\\leq c_2e^{-c_3r^{\\kappa}}\\,.$$ To see this, notice that $T_\\0\\leq \\sum_{\\e\\in\\calE_1}\\tau_\\e$, where $\\calE_1$ is the set of edges $\\e=(\\v,\\bar{\\v})$ in $\\calD_e$ with $\\C_{\\v}\\cap \\B_{\\0}^1\\neq\\emptyset$ or $\\C_{\\bar{\\v}}\\cap \\B_{\\0}^1\\neq\\emptyset$. By Lemma \\[lgraph2\\], $\\bE\\big(\\exp(a|\\calE_1|)\\big)< \\infty$ for some $a>0$. Combining this with assumption and the independence between the Poisson point process and the passage time distribution, one obtains .\n\nNow, $$\\big[\\rho(\\0,r\\vec{e}_1)\\not\\subseteq\\C_r^\\xi\\big]\\cap F_{r}\\subseteq$$ $$\\label{e1t3} \n \\big[\\exists v\\in\\calD_v\\cap \\C_{r}^{1,\\xi}\\,:\\, T(0,\\v)+T(\\v,r\\vec{e}_1)=T(0,r\\vec{e}_1)\\big]\\subseteq A(r)\\,,$$ where $$A(r):=\\big[\\exists \\z\\in\\bZ^{2}\\cap \\C_{r}^{1,\\xi}\\,:\\, T(\\0,\\z)+T(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)\\leq T(\\0,r\\vec{e}_1)+2T_{\\z}\\big]\\,.$$ Let $$\\Delta(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1):= \\mu|\\z-r\\vec{e}_1|+\\mu|\\z|-\\mu|r\\vec{e}_1|\\,.$$ Thus $$T(\\0,\\z)+T(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)\\leq T(\\0,r\\vec{e}_1)+2T_{\\z}$$ if and only if, $$\\Delta(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)\\leq \\big(T(\\0,r\\vec{e}_1)-\\mu r\\big)+\\big(\\mu|\\z|-T(\\0,\\z)\\big)+$$ $$\\big(\\mu|\\z-r\\vec{e}_1|-T(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)\\big)+2T_{\\z}\\,.$$ This implies that $A(r)\\subseteq\\cup_{j=0}^{3}A_{j}(r)$, where $$A_{0}(r):=\\big[\\exists \\z\\in\\bZ^{2}\\cap \\C_{r}^{1,\\xi}\\,:\\,T_{\\z}\\geq \\frac{\\Delta(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)}{8}\\big]\\,,$$ $$A_{1}(r):=\\big[\\exists \\z\\in\\bZ^{2}\\cap \\C_{r}^{1,\\xi}\\,:\\,|T(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)-\\mu|\\z-r\\vec{e}_1||\\geq \\frac{\\Delta(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)}{4}\\big]\\,,$$ $$A_{2}(r):=\\big[\\exists \\z\\in\\bZ^{2}\\cap \\C_{r}^{1,\\xi}\\,:\\,|T(\\0,\\z)-\\mu|\\z||\\geq\\frac{\\Delta(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)}{4}\\big]\\,,$$ $$A_{3}(r):=\\big[\\exists \\z\\in\\bZ^{2}\\cap \\C_{r}^{1,\\xi}\\,:\\,|T(\\0,r\\vec{e}_1)-\\mu|r\\vec{e}_1||\\geq\\frac{\\Delta(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)}{4}\\big]\\,.$$ Combining this with one gets that $$\\label{e3t3}\n \\bP\\big(\\rho(\\0,r\\vec{e}_1)\\not\\subseteq\\C_r^\\xi\\big)\\leq \\bP\\big(F_{r}^{c}\\big)+ \\sum_{j=0}^{3}\\bP\\big(A_{j}(r)\\big)\\,.$$\n\nNotice there exist constants $b_{1},b_{2}>0$ such that for sufficiently large $r>0$ and $\\z\\in\\bZ^{2}\\cap \\C_{r}^{1,\\xi}$ we have that $$\\label{e4*t3}\n b_{1}r^{\\tilde{\\kappa}}=b_{1}r^{2\\xi-1}\\leq \\Delta(\\z,r\\vec{e}_1)\\leq b_{2}r^{\\xi}=b_{2}r^{\\frac{\\tilde{\\kappa}+1}{2}}\\,,$$ and $$\\label{e4t3}\n r^{\\xi}\\leq |\\z|,|\\z-r\\vec{e}_1|\\leq 2r\\,.$$\n\nTogether with Lemma , and yield that for some constant $c_1 >0$ $$\\label{e5t3}\n \\bP\\big(A_{j}(r)\\big)\\leq e^{-c_{1}r^{\\delta}}\\,.$$ Combining with , , and one can finish the proof of this lemma.\n\nFor $\\v\\in\\calD_v$ let $\\calT_{\\v}$ be the union over all $\\tilde{\\v}\\in \\calD_v$ of the unique geodesic between $\\v$ and $\\tilde{\\v}$ (the tree of infection at $\\v$). Therefore, $\\calT_{\\v}$ is a tree spanning all $\\calD_v$. Thus, the third step is to use Lemma \\[l1\\] and the concept of *$\\delta$-straightness* for trees discussed before.\n\nCombining Lemma \\[l1\\] and Lemma \\[5.2\\] with the Borel-Cantelli\u2019s lemma, one has that for all $\\delta=1-\\xi\\in(0,1/4)$, almost surely, the assumptions of Lemma \\[hn-101\\] hold for all semi-infinite path (geodesic) $(\\v_n)_{n\\geq 1}$ in $\\calT_\\v$. So, $\\calT_\\v$ is $\\delta$-straight at $\\v$. Since, with probability one, a realization of the Poisson point process is omnidirectional, together with Lemma \\[hn-201\\] this yields Proposition \\[pexis\\].\n\n\\[r-straight\\] Let $\\xi\\in(3/4,1)$. The almost sure $(1-\\xi)$-straightness of the tree of infection also implies that for all $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$, if $(\\v_1,\\v_2,\\dots)$ is a semi-infinite geodesic with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$ then $$ang(\\v_n,e^{i\\alpha})\\leq c|\\v_n|^{\\xi-1}$$ for sufficiently large $n$.\n\nSemi-infinite geodesics: uniqueness and coalescence\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nConcerning uniqueness of semi-infinite geodesics we have:\n\n\\[puni\\] For $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ let $\\Omega_3(\\alpha)$ be the event that for all $\\v\\in \\calD_v$ there exists at most one geodesic starting from $\\v$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$. Assume only that $\\bF$ is continuous. Then $\\bP\\big(\\Omega_3(\\alpha)\\big)=1$\n\nFor $(k,l)\\in\\bN^2$, let $A_\\alpha(k,l)$ be the event that $U_{k,l}\\in \\calD_v$ (or equivalently, $N_k\\geq l$) and there exists two semi-infinite geodesics starting from $\\v=U_{k,l}$, with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$, and such that after $\\v$ they do not intersect each other. Thus, $$\\big(\\Omega_3(\\alpha)\\big)^c\\subseteq \\cup_{(k,l)\\in\\bN^2}A_\\alpha(k,l)\\,.$$ Now, semi-infinite geodesics starting from the same vertex are not allowed to cross each other and, if a semi-infinite geodesics is caught between two semi-infinite geodesics with the same asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$ then it must have the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$ (by planarity). Therefore, if we denote by $d_{\\v}$ the degree of the site $\\v=U_{k,l}$ then $$|\\{\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)\\,:\\,\\1_{A_\\alpha(k,l)}(\\omega)=1\\}|\\leq d_{\\v}(\\omega)\\,.$$ ($|A|$ is the cardinality of the set $A$). In particular, almost surely, $$\\int_{[0,2\\pi)}\\1_{A_\\alpha(k,l)}d\\alpha =0\\,,$$ and so, by Fubini\u2019s theorem, $$0\\leq \\int_{[0,2\\pi)}\\bP\\Big(\\big(\\Omega_3(\\alpha)\\big)^c\\Big)d\\alpha=\\int_{\\Omega}\\big(\\int_{[0,2\\pi)}\\1_{\\big(\\Omega_3(\\alpha)\\big)^c}d\\alpha\\big)d\\bP\\leq$$ $$\\int_{\\Omega}\\big(\\int_{[0,2\\pi)}\\sum_{(k,l)}\\1_{A_\\alpha(k,l)}d\\alpha\\big)d\\bP=\\int_{\\Omega}\\big(\\sum_{(k,l)}\\int_{[0,2\\pi)}\\1_{A_\\alpha(k,l)}d\\alpha\\big)d\\bP=0\\,.$$ Consequently, there exists $I\\subseteq[0,2\\pi)$ with total Lebesgue measure so that for all $\\alpha\\in I$, $\\bP\\big(\\Omega_3(\\alpha)\\big)=1$. Since $\\bP\\big(\\Omega_3(\\alpha)\\big)$ does not depend on $\\alpha$, this yields Proposition \\[puni\\].\n\nThe last result we require to construct the Busemann function is the coalescence behavior of semi-infinite geodesics with the same asymptotic direction:\n\n\\[pcoal\\] For $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$ let $\\Omega_4(\\alpha)\\subseteq\\Omega_3(\\alpha)$ be the event that for all $\\v,\\bar{\\v}\\in\\calD_v$, if $\\rho_{\\v}(\\alpha)$ and $\\rho_{\\bar{\\v}}(\\alpha)$ do exist (and are unique) then they must coalesce, i.e. there exists $\\c=\\c(\\v,\\bar{\\v},\\alpha)\\in\\calD_v$ such that $$\\rho_{\\v}(\\alpha)=\\rho(\\v,\\c)\\cup\\rho_{\\c}(\\alpha)\\,\\mbox{ and }\\,\\rho_{\\bar{\\v}}(\\alpha)=\\rho(\\bar{\\v},\\c)\\cup\\rho_{\\c}(\\alpha)\\,.$$ Assume only that $\\bF$ is continuous. Then $\\bP\\big(\\Omega_4(\\alpha)\\big)=1$.\n\nWe note that the almost sure statement in Proposition \\[pcoal\\] is for fixed $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$. As we will see later, almost surely, there exists a random direction $\\theta$ so that neither uniqueness nor coalescence hold. Indeed, we will show (in part \\[pr-rand+strai\\]) that every branch of the competition interface follows one of those random directions for which coalescence does not hold[^3].\n\nLet $\\calS(\\alpha)$ denote the union over all $\\v\\in\\calD_v$ of $\\rho_{\\v}(\\alpha)$. Then $\\calS(\\alpha)$ is a forest with say $N(\\alpha)$ disjoint trees. Notice that, on $\\big[N(\\alpha)\\leq 1\\big]\\cap\\Omega_3(\\alpha)$, there are no site disjoint semi-infinite geodesic with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$. So, Proposition \\[pcoal\\] will follow if we prove that $\\bP\\big(N(\\alpha)\\leq 1\\big)=1$. As noted by Licea and Newman [@ln96], in this set up we can apply the Burton and Keanne [@bk89] method. This method requires several steps which we will be organized as independent claims. To state the first one, let $\\delta\\in\\bQ$ (the set of rational numbers) and $\\x_{i}=\\big(x_i(1),x_i(2)\\big),\\tilde{\\x}_{i}=\\big(\\tilde{x}_i(1),\\tilde{x}_i(2)\\big)\\in\\bQ^{2}$ for $i=1,...,j$ such that $x_1(2)\\leq\\dots\\leq x_j(2)$ and $\\tilde{x}_1(2)\\leq\\dots\\leq\\tilde{x}_j(2)$. Assume further that $x_i(1)\\leq -\\delta$ and that $\\tilde{x}_i(1)\\geq \\delta$. Denote by $A_{\\delta}(\\x_{1},...,\\x_{j},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},...,\\tilde{\\x}_{j})$ the event determined by the following:\n\n-   at each $D_{\\delta}(\\x_{i})$ and $D_{\\delta}(\\tilde{\\x}_{i})$ there is an unique vertex $\\v_{i}$ and $\\tilde{\\v}_{i}$ respectively;\n\n-   each $\\e_{i}=(v_{i},\\tilde{v}_{i})$ is an edge in $\\calD_e$ and $\\e_{i}\\in\\rho_{\\v_{i}}(0)$;\n\n-   after $\\v_{i}$, $\\rho_{\\v_{i}}(0)$ has vertices only with strictly positive coordinates;\n\n-   all $\\rho_{\\v_{i}}(0)$ are disjoint.\n\n\\[emodi1\\] If $$\\bP\\big(N(0)\\geq 2\\big)>0\\,$$ then $$\\bP\\big(A_{\\delta}(\\x_{1},\\x_2,\\x_3,\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_2,\\tilde{\\x}_{3})\\big)>0\\,,$$ for some $\\delta\\in\\bQ$ and $\\x_{i},\\tilde{\\x}_{i}\\in\\bQ^{2},i=1,2,3$.\n\nSince $\\bQ$ is enumerable, if $0<\\bP\\big(N(0)\\geq 2\\big)$ then there exist $\\delta\\in\\bQ$ and $\\x_{1},\\x_{2},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_{2}\\in\\bQ^{2}$ such that $$0<\\bP\\big(A_{\\delta}(\\x_{1},\\x_{2},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_{2})\\big)\\,.$$ Let $c_{n}$ be the maximum between the second coordinate of $\\x_{2}$ and $\\tilde{\\x}_{2}$ and let $c_{s}$ be the minimum between the second coordinate of $\\x_{1}$ and $\\tilde{\\x}_{1}$. Consider the rectangle $$\\R_{0}:= [-\\delta,\\delta]\\times (c_{s}-\\delta,c_{n}+\\delta)\\,.$$ Let $\\z_{0}$ be the circumcenter of the rectangle $\\R_{0}$ and let $M_{0}$ be the vertical length of $\\R_{0}$. For each $l\\in\\bZ$ set $\\z_{l}:= \\z_{0}+lM_0(0,1)$. Denote $\\R_{l}:= z_{l}+\\R_{0}$ and $$A(l):= A_{\\delta}(\\x^{l}_{1},\\x^{l}_{2},\\tilde{\\x}^{l}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}^{l}_{2})\\,,$$ where $\\x^{l}_{j}:=\\x_{j}+\\z_{l}\\in \\R_l$ and $\\tilde{\\x}^{l}_{j}:=\\tilde{\\x}_{j}+\\z_{l}$. Thus, $\\bP\\big(A(l)\\big)=\\bP\\big(A(0)\\big)$. By the Fatou\u2019s lemma, $$0<\\bP\\big(A(0)\\big)\\leq \\bP\\big(\\limsup_{l} A(l)\\big)\\leq \\bP\\big(\\cup_{l_{1}\\ne l_{2}}A(l_{1})\\cap A(l_{2})\\big)\\,.$$ Therefore, there are $l_{1},l_{2}$ such that $$0<\\bP\\big(A(l_{1})\\cap A(l_{2})\\big)\\,.$$\n\nWithout lost of generality assume that $l_1<l_2$. We claim that, in this case, the geodesic starting from $\\v_{1}^{l_{1}}$ can not intersect either the geodesic starting from $\\v_{1}^{l_{2}}$ or the geodesic starting from $\\v_{2}^{l_{2}}$. This is so because otherwise (by planarity) the geodesic starting at $\\v_{1}^{l_{1}}$ would intersect the geodesic starting from $\\v_{2}^{l_{1}}$, which contradicts the definition of $A(l_{1})$. Thus, $$A(l_{1})\\cap A(l_{2})\\subseteq\nA_{\\delta}(\\x_{1}^{l_{1}},\\x_{1}^{l_{2}},\\x_{2}^{l_{2}},\\tilde{\\x}_{1}^{l_{1}},\\tilde{\\x}_{1}^{l_{2}},\\tilde{\\x}_{2}^{l_{2}})\\,$$ which yields Claim \\[emodi1\\].\n\nThe second step is given by the following claim: for $m,k\\geq 0$ let $F_{m,k}$ be the event that some tree in $\\calS(0)$ touches a vertex in the rectangle $$\\R_{m,k}:=\\big\\{(x(1),x(2))\\,:\\,0\\leq x(1)\\leq m\\mbox{ and }|x(2)|\\leq k\\big\\},$$ but no other in $$\\Q_{m}:=\\big\\{(x(1),x(2))\\,:\\,x(1)\\leq m\\big\\}\\backslash\\R_{m,k}\\,.$$\n\n\\[lmodi-0\\] If for some $\\delta\\in\\bQ$ and $\\x_{i},\\tilde{\\x}_{i}\\in\\bQ^{2},i=1,2,3$ we have $$\\bP\\big(A_{\\delta}(\\x_{1},\\x_2,\\x_3,\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_2,\\tilde{\\x}_{3})\\big)>0\\,$$ then $$\\bP\\big(F_{m,k}\\big)>0\\,,$$ for some $m,k\\geq 0$.\n\nTo prove this claim we shall use a local modification argument based on Lemma \\[lmodif\\], and we will divide this proof into two parts: in the first one we will assume that $\\bF$ has unbounded support while in the second one we will assume that $\\bF$ has bounded support.\n\n#### **Part 1: $\\bF$ has unbounded support.**\n\nLet $\\delta\\in\\bQ$ and $\\x_{1},\\x_{2},\\x_{3},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_{2},\\tilde{\\x}_{3}\\in\\bQ^2$ given by Claim \\[emodi1\\]. Let $\\R_0:=[-\\delta,\\delta]\\times[c_{s}-\\delta,c_{n}+\\delta]$, where $c_{n}$ be the maximum between the second coordinate of $\\x_{3}$ and $\\tilde{\\x}_{3}$ and let $c_{s}$ be the minimum between the second coordinate of $\\x_{1}$ and $\\tilde{\\x}_{1}$. Denote by $\\Xi$ the set of edges which cross the rectangle $\\R_0$ and the vertical coordinate axis. Then $\\e_{i}:=(\\v_{i},\\tilde{\\v}_{i})\\in\\Xi$ for all configurations in $A_{\\delta}(\\x_{1},\\x_{2},\\x_{3},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_{2},\\tilde{\\x}_{3})$ (recall that $\\x_{i}\\in\nC_{\\v_{i}}$ and $\\tilde{\\x}_{i}\\in C_{\\tilde{\\v}_{i}}$).\n\nDefine the event $B_{\\lambda}$ by those configurations such that for all $\\e=(\\v_{1},\\v_{2})\\in\\Xi$ there exists $\\gamma$ with connecting $\\v_{1}$ to $\\v_{2}$, with $t(\\gamma)<\\lambda$, but not using edges in $\\Xi$. Since $$\\lim_{\\lambda\\to\\infty}\\bP\\big(B_{\\lambda}\\big)=1\\,,$$ we can choose a sufficiently large $\\lambda>0$ such that $$\\label{emod1}\n \\bP\\big(A_{\\delta}(\\x_{1},\\x_{2},\\x_{3},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_{2},\\tilde{\\x}_{3})\\cap B_{\\lambda}\\big)>0\\,.$$\n\nNow we apply Lemma \\[lmodif\\]. To do so define $W(\\omega)$, a random element of $\\mathnormal{K}$, by the following procedure: given $\\omega\\in\\Omega$ set $$W(\\omega):=\\big((k_{j},l_{j},n_{j},m_{j})\\big)_{j=1,...,q}\\,$$ by ordering all $(k,l,m,n)$ (according to ) so that $\\e(\\omega)=\\big(U_{k,l}(\\omega),U_{m,n}(\\omega)\\big)\\in\\Xi(\\omega)$ and $\\tau_\\e\\leq\\lambda$. Thus $W$ is an ordered representation of the indexes of the edges $\\e\\in\\Xi$ with $\\tau_e\\leq\\lambda$.\n\nFor each $I\\in\\mathnormal{K}$ let $$R_{I}:=(\\lambda,+\\infty)^{q}\\subseteq\\Omega_{I}=\\bR^q\\,,$$ and let $$A:=A_{\\delta}(\\x_{1},\\x_{2},\\x_{3},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_{2},\\tilde{\\x}_{3})\\cap\nB_{\\lambda}\\,$$ (given by ). Since $\\bF$ has unbounded support, $\\bP_{I}(R_{I})>0$ for all $I\\in\\mathnormal{K}$. By Lemma \\[lmodif\\], there exist a measurable $\\Phi(A)\\subseteq\\tilde{\\Phi}(A)$.\n\nNow consider a configuration $\\tilde{\\omega}\\in\\Phi(A)\\subseteq\\tilde{\\Phi}(A)$. By definition, there exists $I\\in\\mathnormal{K}$, $\\omega_1\\in\\hat{\\Omega}_I$, $\\omega_2\\in \\Omega_I$ and $\\tilde{\\omega}_2\\in R_I$ such that $\\tilde{\\omega}=(\\omega_1,\\tilde{\\omega}_2)$ and $(\\omega_1,\\omega_2)\\in A$. Since $\\omega_2$ and $\\tilde{\\omega}_2$ concern only travel times which are associated to $I$ and $\\omega_2\\leq\\tilde{\\omega}_2$ (considering the canonical order in $\\bR^q$), the paths $\\rho_{\\tilde{\\v}_{i}}(0)(\\omega_1,\\omega_2)$ for $i=1,2,3$ remain disjoint geodesics, with asymptotic orientation $\\vec{e}_1$, for the configuration $\\tilde{\\omega}=(\\omega_1,\\tilde{\\omega}_2)$. By the same reason, $\\tilde{\\omega}\\in B_\\lambda$. On the other hand, since $\\tilde{\\omega}_2\\in R_I$, we have that for all $\\e\\in\\Xi$, $\\tau_e(\\tilde{\\omega})>\\lambda$ and thus no geodesic could have an edge in $\\Xi$. Therefore $\\Phi(A)\\subseteq F_{m,k}$, where $k:=\\max\\{c_s,c_n\\}$ and $m:=\\delta + \\max\\{\\tilde{x}_{1}(1),\\tilde{x}_{2}(1),\\tilde{x}_{3}(1)\\}$. Since $\\bP(A)>0$, we also have that $0<\\bP\\big(\\Phi(A)\\big)\\leq \\bP\\big(F_{m,k}\\big)$, which yields Claim \\[lmodi-0\\] when $\\bF$ has unbounded support.\n\n#### **Part 2: $\\bF$ has bounded support.**\n\nConsider again $\\delta\\in\\bQ$ and $\\x_{1},\\x_{2},\\x_{3},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_{2},\\tilde{\\x}_{3}\\in\\bQ^2$ given by Claim \\[emodi1\\]. Let $\\vec{e}_2:=(0,1)$, $\\c_n:=(0,c_n)$ and $\\c_s:=(0,c_s)$. For $\\epsilon,\\tilde{\\epsilon}>0$ and $m>0$, let $$\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}:=m\\vec{e}_1+[-\\tilde{\\epsilon}m\\vec{e}_2,\\tilde{\\epsilon}\\vec{e}_2]\\,$$ and let $B^{\\epsilon,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}_{m}$ be the event that for every $\\z\\in [\\c_s,\\c_n]$ and every $\\u\\in \\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}$, $$\\label{ecoal2}\n T(z,u)< (\\mu +\\epsilon)m\\,.$$ By the shape theorem, we have that for any $\\epsilon>0$ and for sufficiently small $\\tilde{\\epsilon}$, $$\\label{elimit3}\n \\lim_{m\\to \\infty}\\bP\\big(B^{\\epsilon,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}_{m}\\big)=1\\,.$$\n\nDenote by $C^{\\tilde{\\epsilon}}_{m,k}$ the event that for each $i=1,2,3$, $\\rho_{\\v_{i}}(0)$ touches the hyperplane with direction $\\vec{e}_2$ and containing $(0,m)$ for the first time (coming from $\\v_{i}$) within the vertical segment $\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}$. Since all those geodesics are $0$-paths, $$\\label{elimit1}\n \\lim_{m\\to \\infty}\\bP\\big(C^{\\tilde{\\epsilon}}_{m}\\big)=1$$ for all $\\tilde{\\epsilon}>0$.\n\nFor $m,k>0$ let $C_{m,k}$ denote the event that for each $i=1,2,3$, $\\rho_{\\v_{i}}(0)$ does not intersect the region consisting of points $(x(1),x(2))\\in\\bR^2$ such that $x(1)\\in [0,m]$ and $|x(2)|>k$. Thus, for any fixed $m>0$, $$\\label{elimit2}\n \\lim_{k\\to \\infty}\\bP\\big(C_{m,k}\\big)=1\\,$$ (by the same reason to obtain ).\n\nLet $\\x,\\y\\in\\bR^2$ and recall the definition of the path $\\gamma(\\x,\\y)$ given in Section \\[pre\\] (part \\[pre-geom\\]). By Lemma \\[lgraph2\\], $$\\label{egraph2}\n\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\bP\\big(|\\gamma(\\0,n\\vec{e}_1)|\\geq c_1 n\\big)=0\\,,$$ for some contant $c_1>0$. We also have considered the graph metric $T_\\calD$ and, by Lemma \\[lgraph1\\], $$\\label{egraph1}    \n\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\frac{T_\\calD\\big([\\c_s,\\c_n],\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}\\big)}{m}=\\nu\\,.$$\n\nFor each $i=1,2,3$, let $\\rho_{i}$ denote the piece of $\\rho_{\\v_{i}}(0)$ between $\\tilde{\\v}_{i}$ and the first time it intersect $[m\\vec{e}_1 -\\tilde{\\epsilon}m\\vec{e}_2,m\\vec{e}_1+\\tilde{\\epsilon}m\\vec{e}_2]$, say at the point $\\u_i$. For $\\z\\in[\\c_s,\\c_n]$ and $\\u\\in\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}$, let $\\phi(\\z,\\u)$ be the path connecting $\\z$ to $\\u$, which first moves vertically by using $\\gamma(\\z,\\v_1)$, then follows $\\rho_{1}$, then moves vertically again by using $\\gamma(\\u_1,\\u)$. Thus, on the intersection between $A_{\\delta}(\\x_{1},\\x_{2},\\x_{3},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_{2},\\tilde{\\x}_{3})$, $C^{\\tilde{\\epsilon}}_{m}$, $ C_{m,k}$ and $B^{\\epsilon,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}_{m}$, we have that $$t\\big(\\phi(z,u)\\big)=t\\big(\\gamma(\\z,\\v_1)\\big)+t\\big(\\rho_{1}\\big)+t\\big(\\gamma(\\u_1,\\u)\\big)\\leq$$ $$\\label{egraph3}\n\\lambda |\\gamma(\\c_s,\\c_n)|+(\\mu+\\epsilon)m+\\lambda|\\gamma(m\\vec{e}_1 -\\tilde{\\epsilon}m\\vec{e}_2,m\\vec{e}_1+\\tilde{\\epsilon}m\\vec{e}_2 )|\\,.$$\n\nWe also have that, by and (since $\\mu(\\bF)<\\lambda(\\bF)\\nu$), there exists $\\epsilon_{0},\\tilde{\\epsilon}_{0}>0$ such that for all $\\epsilon<\\epsilon_{0}$, $\\tilde{\\epsilon}<\\tilde{\\epsilon}_{0}$, $$\\label{metric}\n \\lim_{m\\to \\infty}\\bP\\big(D(\\lambda,\\epsilon,\\tilde{\\epsilon})\\big)=1\\,.$$ where $D(\\lambda,\\epsilon,\\tilde{\\epsilon})$ is the event that $$\\lambda |\\gamma(\\c_s,\\c_n)|+(\\mu+\\epsilon)m+\\lambda|\\gamma(m\\vec{e}_1 -\\tilde{\\epsilon}m\\vec{e}_2,m\\vec{e}_1+\\tilde{\\epsilon}m\\vec{e}_2 )|$$ $$\\leq (\\lambda-\\epsilon)T_\\calD\\big([\\c_s,\\c_n],\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}\\big)\\,.$$\n\nLet $$A:=A_{\\delta}(\\x_{1},\\x_{2},\\x_{3},\\tilde{\\x}_{1},\\tilde{\\x}_{2},\\tilde{\\x}_{3})\\cap C^{\\tilde{\\epsilon}}_{m}\\cap C_{m,k}\\cap B^{\\epsilon,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}_{m}\\cap D(\\lambda,\\epsilon,\\tilde{\\epsilon})\\,.$$ Combining with , and , we get that $\\bP\\big(A\\big)>0$ for sufficiently small $\\epsilon>0$ and $\\tilde{\\epsilon}>0$ and for sufficiently large $m>0$ and $k>0$. Notice that for all configurations in $A$, and every $\\z\\in[\\c_s,\\c_n]$ and $\\u\\in\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}$ we must have that $$\\label{emod2}\nT(\\z,\\u)\\leq t\\big(\\phi(\\z,\\u)\\big)\\leq (\\lambda-\\epsilon) T_\\calD\\big([\\c_s,\\c_n],\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}\\big)\\,.$$\n\nNow we are able to use Lemma \\[lmodif\\] again. Let $\\Xi$ be the set of edges in the interior of the region bounded by $\\rho_{1}$, $\\rho_{3}$, $[\\c_s,\\c_n]$ and $\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}$. Define $W(\\omega)$ as follows: given $\\omega\\in\\Omega$ we set $$W(\\omega):=\\big((k_{j},l_{j},m_{j},n_{j})\\big)_{j=1,...,q}$$ by ordering all $(k,l,m,n)$ (according to ) so that $\\e(\\omega)=\\big(U_{k,l}(\\omega),U_{m,n}(\\omega)\\big)\\in\\Xi(\\omega)$ with $\\tau_\\e\\leq\\lambda-\\epsilon$. So $W$ represents the indexes of the edges $\\e\\in\\Xi$ with $\\tau_\\e\\leq\\lambda -\\epsilon$. For each $I\\in\\mathnormal{K}$, let $R_{I}:=(\\lambda-\\epsilon,\\lambda)^{q}\\subseteq\\Omega_{I}$ and take $A$ above defined. Since $\\bF(\\lambda-\\epsilon)<1$ then $\\bP_{I}(R_{I})>0$. Thus, by Lemma there exists a measurable $\\Phi(A)\\subseteq\\tilde{\\Phi}(A)$.\n\nPick a configuration $\\tilde{\\omega}=(\\omega_1,\\omega_2)\\in\\tilde{\\Phi}(A)$. By using the same argument we have done for the other case, one can see that the paths $\\rho_{\\tilde{\\v}_{i}}(0)(\\omega_1,\\omega_2)$ for $i=1,3$ remain disjoint geodesics, with asymptotic orientation $\\vec{e}_1$, for the configuration $\\tilde{\\omega}$. The same holds for $\\rho_{\\u_2}(0)$ and for the inequality . On the other hand, by , no path $\\rho$ connecting $\\z\\in[\\c_s,\\c_n]$ to $\\u\\in\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}$ that is entirely containing in the region $\\Xi$ can be a geodesic for the configuration $\\tilde{\\omega}$ because, otherwise, $$T(\\z,\\u)=t(\\rho)>(\\lambda-\\epsilon) T_\\calD\\big([\\c_s,\\c_n],\\Q_{m,\\tilde{\\epsilon}}\\big)\\,.$$ This allows us to conclude that $$\\Phi(A)\\subseteq\\tilde{\\Phi}(A)\\subseteq F_{m,k}\\,$$ (with $m,k>0$ given by the definition of $A$). Since $\\bP\\big(A\\big)>0$ we have that $0<\\bP\\big(\\Phi(A)\\big)<\\bP\\big(F_{m,k}\\big)$, which yields Claim \\[lmodi-0\\] when $\\bF$ has bounded support.\n\nThe third and last step is:\n\n\\[lmodi-1\\] $\\bP\\big(F_{m,k}\\big)=0$ for all $m,k\\geq 0$.\n\nIn fact, consider a rectangular array of non-intersecting translates $\\R_{m,k}^{\\z}$ of the basic rectangle $\\R_{m,k}=\\R^{\\0}_{m,k}$ and of $\\Q_m=\\Q_m^{\\0}$ indexed by $\\z\\in\\bZ^{2}$, and also consider the corresponding event $F_{m,k}^{\\z}$. Notice that if $F_{m,k}^{\\z}$ and $F_{m,k}^{\\tilde{\\z}}$ occur, then the corresponding trees in $\\calS(0)$ must be disjoint. Thus, if $N_{L}$ is the number of $\\z\\in [0,L]^{2}$ such that $F_{m,k}^{\\z}$ occurs, then $$N_{L}\\leq |\\{\\mbox{ edges crossing the boundary of }[0,L]^{2}\\}|.$$ However, by Lemma \\[lgraph2\\], the expected value of the number of edges crossing the boundary of $[0,L]^{2}$ is of order $L$. By translation invariance, $$\\bE\\big(N_{L}\\big)=n_{L}\\bP\\big(F_{M,k}\\big),$$ where $n_{L}$ is the number of rectangles $\\R_{m,k}^{z}$ intersecting $[0,L]^{2}$. Since $n_L$ is of order $L^2$, the assumption $\\bP\\big(F_{m,k}\\big)> 0$ leads to a contradiction.\n\nNow we are able to prove Proposition \\[pcoal\\]:\n\nCombining Claim \\[emodi1\\] with Claim \\[lmodi-0\\] and Claim \\[lmodi-1\\] one obtains $$\\label{lcoal} \n\\bP\\big(N(\\alpha)\\leq 1\\big)=\\bP\\big(N(0)\\leq 1\\big)=1\\,.$$ By noticing that $\\Omega_3\\cap\\big[N(\\alpha\\big)\\leq 1\\big]\\subseteq \\Omega_4(\\alpha)$ one can see that Proposition \\[pcoal\\] follows from Proposition \\[puni\\] together with .\n\nExistence and asymptotics for the Busemann function {#asyBuse}\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nThe idea to prove Theorem \\[tBuse-1\\] is to combine existence, uniqueness and coalescence of semi-infinite geodesics in a fixed direction $e^{i\\alpha}$ to show that if $\\z_n\\to\\infty$ along this direction then for sufficiently large $n$ we have $$T(\\x,\\z_n)-T(\\y,\\z_n)=T(\\x,\\c)-T(\\y,\\c)\\,,$$ where $\\c$ is coalescence point in direction $e^{i\\alpha}$ (Proposition \\[pcoal\\]). We begin by introducing what we mean by convergence of paths. Assume that $(\\gamma_n)_{n\\geq 0} $ is a sequence of finite paths with vertices in $\\bR^2$, and for each $n\\geq 0$ denote $\\gamma_n=(\\z_0^n,\\z_1^n,\\dots,\\z_{l_n}^n)$. We define that $\\gamma_n$ converges to a semi-infinite path $\\gamma=(\\x_0,\\x_1\\,\\dots)$, and we write $\\gamma=\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\gamma_n$, if for all $k\\geq 1$ there exists $n_k\\geq 1$ so that $\\gamma_n=(\\x_0,\\x_1,\\dots,\\x_k,\\z_{k+1}^n,\\dots,\\z_{l_n}^n)$ for all $n\\geq n_k$. For each sequence $(\\z_n)_{n\\geq 0}$ of vertices in $\\bR^2$ with $|\\z_n|\\to\\infty$ and $\\z\\in\\bR^2$ we denote $\\Pi\\big(\\z,(\\z_n)_{n\\geq 0}\\big)$ the set of all semi-infinite paths $\\rho$ so that there exists a subsequence $(n_j)_{j\\geq 0}$ with $\\lim_{j\\to\\infty} \\rho(\\z,\\z_{n_j})=\\rho$.\n\n\\[geoconv\\] Let $\\Omega_1$ be the event that, for all $\\alpha\\in[0,2\\pi)$, if $(\\z_n)_{n\\geq 1}$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$ then: i) $\\Pi\\big(\\z,(\\z_n)_{n\\geq 1}\\big)\\neq\\emptyset$; ii) every $\\rho\\in\\Pi\\big(\\z,(\\z_n)_{n\\geq 1}\\big)$ is semi-infinite geodesic with the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$. Under , $\\bP\\big(\\Omega_1\\big)=1$.\n\nLet $\\calT$ be the tree with vertex set $\\cup_{n\\geq 1} \\rho(\\z,\\z_n)$ and oriented edges $(\\u,\\v)\\in\\calD_e$ (in the Delaunay triangulation) so that $\\rho(\\z,\\u)\\subseteq\\rho(\\z,\\v)$. Notice that $\\calT$ is an infinite tree. Since every vertex in the Delaunay triangulation has finite degree, the same is true for the vertices in $\\calT$. Therefore, by a standard compactness argument, $\\Pi\\big(\\z,(\\z_n)_{n\\geq 1}\\big)\\neq\\emptyset$. To show that every $\\rho\\in\\Pi\\big((\\z_n)_{n\\geq 1}\\big)$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\theta}$ consider $\\D\\subseteq\\S^1$ as in the proof of Theorem \\[t1\\]. By Proposition \\[pexis\\] and Proposition \\[puni\\], almost surely, for all $\\beta\\in[0,2\\pi)$ such that $e^{i\\beta}\\in \\D$ there exists an unique semi-infinite geodesic starting from $\\v(\\z)$ and with asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\beta}$, which we have denoted by $\\rho_{\\z}(\\beta)$. Now, let $\\beta_1,\\beta_2\\in[0,2\\pi)$ such that $e^{i\\beta_1},e^{i\\beta_2}\\in \\D$. Assume further that, by following the counter-clokwise orientation of $\\S^1$, the unit vector $e^{i\\alpha}$ is in between the unit vectors $e^{i\\beta_1}$ and $e^{i\\beta_2}$. Notice that the paths $\\rho_{\\z}(\\beta_1)$ and $\\rho_{\\z}(\\beta_2)$ bifurcate at some point $\\v$ and have no further points in common. On the other hand, $(\\z_n)_{n\\geq 0}$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$. Therefore, once $k$ is large enough, $\\rho(\\z,\\z_k)$ should be in between $\\rho_{\\z}(\\beta_1)$ and $\\rho_{\\z}(\\beta_2)$, and thus the same is true for any limit $\\rho$. Since $\\D$ is dense in $\\S^1$, it follows that $\\rho$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$.\n\nConsider the intersection between $\\Omega_1$ (path convergence, Lemma \\[geoconv\\]) and $\\Omega_4(\\alpha)$ (coalescence and uniqueness of semi-infinite geodesics, Proposition \\[pcoal\\]). In this case, if $(\\z_n)_{n\\geq 1}$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\alpha}$ then $\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\rho(\\x,\\z_n)=\\rho_\\x(\\alpha)$. Together with coalescence, this yields that for $\\x,\\y\\in\\bR^2$ there exists $\\c=\\c(\\x,\\y,\\alpha)\\in\\calD_v$ and $n_0>0$ such that $$\\rho(\\x,\\z_n)=\\rho(\\x,\\c)\\cup\\rho(\\c,\\z_n)\\mbox{ and\n}\\rho(\\y,\\z_n)=\\rho(\\y,\\c)\\cup\\rho(\\c,\\z_n)\\,$$ for all $n\\geq n_0$, which implies that $$T(\\x,\\z_n)-T(\\y,\\z_n)=T(\\x,\\c)-T(\\y,\\c)\\,$$ for all $n\\geq n_0$.\n\nLet $\\bH_{r}^\\alpha$ be the hyperplane that pass through $\\a_r:=a_r e^{i\\alpha}$ and $r\\vec{e}_1$, where $a_r=r/\\cos\\alpha$. Let $\\x_{r}$ be the crossing point between the linear interpolation of $\\rho_{\\0}(\\alpha)$ and $\\bH_{r}^\\alpha$ that maximizes the distance from $\\a_r $. We claim that $$\\label{E:asycoal0}\n -T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\0)\\leq H^{\\alpha}(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\0)\\leq T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\x_{r})-T(\\x_{r},\\0)\\,.$$ The left-hand side of follows directly from the triangle inequality for $T$, since $H^{\\alpha}(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\0)=T(\\x,\\c_r)-T(\\y,\\c_r)$ (as in the proof of Theorem \\[tBuse-1\\]). To show the right-hand side, notice that if $\\x_{r}\\not\\in\\rho(\\0,\\c_r)$ then $\\c_r \\in\\rho(\\0,\\x_{r})$ which implies that $\\c_r\\in\\rho(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\x_{r})$. Thus $$H^{\\alpha}(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\0)=T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\c_r)-T(\\0,\\c_r)= T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\x_{r})-T(\\x_{r},\\0)\\,.$$ If $\\x_{r}\\in\\rho(\\0,\\c_r)$ then $$T(\\0,\\c_r)=T(\\0,\\x_{r})+T(\\x_{r},\\c_r)\\,.$$ Consequently, $$\\label{asycoal0*}\nH^{\\alpha}(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\0)=T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\c_r)-T(\\0,\\c_r)=\\big(T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\c_r)-T(\\c_r,\\x_{r})\\big)-T(\\0,\\x_{r})\\,.$$ Since (again the triangle inequality) $$T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\c_r)-T(\\c_r,\\x_{r})\\leq T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\x_{r})\\,,$$ yields .\n\nNow, $$T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\x_{r})-T(\\x_{r},\\0)=$$ $$\\big(T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\x_{r})-\\mu|r\\vec{e}_{1}-\\a_{r}|\\big)\\Big(\\,:=\\,I_1(r)\\,\\Big)$$ $$+\\big(\\mu|\\a_r|-T(\\x_{r},\\0)\\big)\\,\\,\\Big(\\,:=\\,I_2(r)\\,\\Big)$$ $$+\\mu|r\\vec{e}_{1}-\\a_{r}|-\\mu|\\a_r|\\,\\,\\Big(\\,:=\\,I_3(r)\\,\\Big)\\,.$$ By Remark \\[r-straight\\], if we pick $\\xi\\in(3/4,1)$ then for some constant $c>0$, almost surely, $|\\x_r-\\a_r|\\leq cr^\\xi$ for sufficiently large $r$. On the other hand, by the triangle inequality, $$|T(\\x_r,r\\vec{e}_1)-T(\\a_r,r\\vec{e}_1)|\\leq T(\\x_r,\\a_r)\\mbox{ and }|T(\\x_r,\\0)-T(\\a_r,\\0)|\\leq T(\\x_r,\\a_r)\\,.$$ Thus $$\\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{|I_1(r)|}{r}\\leq \\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{|T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\a_{r})-\\mu|r\\vec{e}_{1}-\\a_{r}||}{r}+\\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{\\max_{|\\z-\\a_r|\\leq cr^\\xi}\\{T(\\a_r,\\z)\\}}{r}$$ and $$\\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{|I_2(r)|}{r}\\leq \\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{|T(\\0,\\a_{r})-\\mu|\\a_{r}||}{r}+\\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{\\max_{|\\z-\\a_r|\\leq cr^\\xi}\\{T(\\a_r,\\z)\\}}{r}\\,.$$\n\nCombining Lemma \\[l2\\] with translation invariance one gets that for all $\\epsilon>0$ $$\\sum_{r\\geq 1}\\bP\\big(|T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\a_{r})-\\mu|r\\vec{e}_{1}-\\a_{r}||\\geq \\epsilon r\\big)<\\infty\\mbox{ and  }\\sum_{r\\geq 1}\\bP\\big(|T(\\0,\\a_{r})-\\mu|\\a_{r}||\\geq \\epsilon r\\big)<\\infty$$ Therefore, by Borel-Cantelli\u2019s lemma, $$\\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{|T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\a_{r})-\\mu|r\\vec{e}_{1}-\\a_{r}||}{r}=0\\mbox{ and  }\\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{|T(\\0,\\a_{r})-\\mu|\\a_{r}||}{r}=0\\,.$$ In [@p-205] (Lemma 4.3 there) it is proved that, for some constants $c_0,x_0>0$, if $x>x_0$ then $$\\bP\\big(T(\\0,\\z)>x|\\z|)\\leq e^{-c_0 x|\\z|}\\,.$$ By noticing that, with high probability, the number of vertices belonging to a ball of radius $cr^{\\xi}$ is of order $r^{2\\xi}$, one can get that, for all $\\epsilon>0$, $$\\sum_{r\\geq 1}\\bP\\big(\\max_{|\\z|\\leq cr^\\xi}\\{T(\\0,\\z)\\}>\\epsilon r\\big)<\\infty\\,.$$ Thus, together with the Borel-Cantelli\u2019s lemma (and translation invariance), this yields $$\\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{\\max_{|\\z-\\a_r|\\leq cr^\\xi}\\{T(\\a_r,\\z)\\}}{r}=0\\,.$$ Consequently, $$\\limsup_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{|I_1(r)|}{r}=\\limsup_r\\frac{|I_2(r)|}{r}=0\\,.$$ Since $$\\lim_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{I_3(r)}{r}=\\mu\\frac{\\sin\\alpha-1}{\\cos\\alpha}=-\\mu\\frac{\\cos\\alpha}{1+\\sin\\alpha}\\,$$ we finally have that $$\\lim_{r\\to\\infty}\\frac{T(r\\vec{e}_{1},\\x_{r})-T(\\x_{r},\\0)}{r}=-\\mu\\frac{\\cos\\alpha}{1+\\sin\\alpha}\\,.$$ Together with , this yields Theorem \\[tBuse-2\\].\n\nCompetition versus coalescence {#pr-rand+strai}\n------------------------------\n\nIn this section we give a sketch of the proof of the statements in Remark \\[rand+strai\\]. Let $\\varphi:=(\\z_{1},\\z_{2},\\dots)$ be a branch of the competition interface. Thus this branch marks the boundary between two different species, say $j_1$ and $j_2$. Assume further that if one moves along $\\z_{n},\\z_{n+1},\\dots$ then on the right hand side we always see species $j_1$ while on the left hand side one see species $j_2$. By Theorem \\[t1\\], this branch has the direction $e^{i\\theta}$ for some $\\theta=\\theta(\\varphi)$. For $l=1,2$, let $(\\v_{n}^{l})_{n\\geq 1}$ be the sequence of vertices in $\\calD_v\\cap\\B_{\\x_{j_l}}$, so that the tile $\\C_{\\v_{n}^{l}}$ has an edge boundary that belongs to $\\varphi$ . Thus, we have that $\\v_{n}^{l}$ has the asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\theta(\\varphi)}$ (since, by Lemma \\[5.2\\], the distance between $\\v_n^{l}$ and the corresponding branch of the competition interface is small if compared with $|\\v_n|$). Together with Lemma \\[geoconv\\], this yields that there exists a subsequence $(n_m)_{m\\geq 1}$ and a semi-infinite geodesic $\\rho_l$, with asymptotic orientation $\\theta(\\varphi)$, so that $\\rho(\\x_l,\\v_{n_m}^l)\\to \\rho_l$. Since $\\rho(\\x_l,\\v_n^l)$ is a geodesic connecting two points in $\\B_{\\x_{j_l}}(\\infty)$, we have that $\\rho(\\x_l,\\v_n^l)\\subseteq\\B_{\\x_{j_l}}(\\infty)$ and thus $\\rho_l\\subseteq \\B_{\\x_{j_l}}(\\infty)$.\n\nConsequently, we have two geodesics $\\rho_1$ and $\\rho_2$ with the same orientation $e^{i\\theta(\\varphi)}$, but which do not coalesce (because $\\rho_i\\subseteq\\B_{\\x_{j_l}}$ for $l=1,2$). By Proposition \\[pcoal\\], this occurs with zero probability which shows the first statement of Remark \\[rand+strai\\].\n\nBy Remark \\[r-straight\\], for all $\\xi\\in(3/4,1)$, $\\rho_{1}$ and $\\rho_{2}$ are $(1-\\xi)$-straight about its asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\theta(\\varphi)}$. Since $\\varphi$ is caught between $\\rho_{1}$ and $\\rho_{2}$, this also implies that $\\varphi$ is $(1-\\xi)$-straight about its asymptotic orientation $e^{i\\theta(\\varphi)}$, which shows the second statement of Remark \\[rand+strai\\].\n\n#### **Acknowledgment**\n\nThis work was developed during my doctoral studies [@p04] at Impa and I would like to thank my adviser, Prof. Vladas Sidoravicius, for his dedication and encouragement during this period. I also thank Prof. Charles Newman for proposing me the problem studied here, Prof. Thomas Mountford for a careful reading and useful comments about a previous version of this work, and Prof. James Martin for providing me the numerical simulations in Figure \\[f2\\]. Finally, I thank the whole administrative staff of IMPA for their assistance and CNPQ for financing my doctoral studies, without which this work would have not been possible.\n\n[60]{}\n\nW. Ballmann. [*Lectures on spaces of nonpositive curvature*]{}. Birkh\u00e4user Verlag, (1995).\n\nR. Burton and M. Keane. Density and uniqueness in percolation. [*Comm. Math. Phys. **121***]{} (1989), 501-505.\n\nM. Deijfen, O. H\u00e4ggstr\u00f6m and J. Bagley. A stochastic model for competing growth on $\\R^d$. [*Markov Proc. Relat. Fields **10***]{} (2004), 217-248.\n\nB. Derrida andR. Dickman. On the interface between two growing Eden clusters. [*J. Phys. A **24***]{} (1991), 191-193.\n\nP.A. Ferrari and L.P.R. Pimentel. Competition interfaces and second class particles [*Ann. Probab. **33***]{} (2005), 1235-1254.\n\nP.A. Ferrari, J.B. Martin and L.P.R. Pimentel. Roughening and inclination of competition interfaces. [*Phys. Rev. E **73***]{} (2006), 031602.\n\nO. Garet and R. Marchand. Coexistence in two-type first-passage percolation models. [*Ann. Appl. Probab. **15***]{} (2005), 298-330.\n\nG. Grimmett. Percolation (second edition). Springer-Verlag (1999).\n\nO. H\u00e4ggstr\u00f6m and R. Pemantle. First passage percolation and a model for competing spatial growth. [*J. Appl. Prob. **35***]{} (1998) 683-692.\n\nO. H\u00e4ggstr\u00f6m and R. Pemantle. Absence of mutual unbounded growth for almost all parameter values in the two-type Richardson model. [*Stoch. Process. Appl. **90***]{} (1999), 207-222.\n\nJ.M. Hammersley and D.J.A. Welsh. First-passage percolation, sub-additive process, stochastic network and generalized renewal theory. Springer-Verlag (1965), 61-110.\n\nC. Hoffman. Coexistence for Richardson type competing spatial growth models. [*Ann. Appl. Probab. **15***]{} (2005), 739-747.\n\nC.D. Howard and C.M. Newman. Euclidean models of first-passage percolation. [*Probab. Theory Related Fields **108***]{} (1997), 153-170.\n\nC.D. Howard and C.M. Newman. Geodesics and spanning trees for Euclidean first-passage percolation, [*Ann. Probab. **29***]{} (2001), 577-623.\n\nC. Licea and C.M. Newman. Geodesics in two dimension first-passage percolation. [*Ann. Probab. **24***]{} (1996), 399-410.\n\nC.M. Newman. A surface view of first-passage percolation. In [*Proc. Intern. Congress of Mathematicians 94 **2***]{} (S. D. Chatterji, ed.), Birkhauser (1995), 1017-1023.\n\nC.M. Newman and M.S.T. Piza. Divergence of shape fluctuations in two dimensions. [*Ann. Probab. **23***]{} (1995), 977-1005.\n\nJ. Moller. Lectures on random Voronoi tessellations. [ *Lectures Notes in Stat. **87***]{}, Springer-Verlag (1991).\n\nL.P.R. Pimentel. Competing growth, interfaces and geodesics in first-passage percolation on Voronoi tilings. Phd Thesis, IMPA, Rio de Janeiro (2004).\n\nL.P.R. Pimentel. The time constant and critical probabilities for percolation models. [*Elect. Comm. Probab. **11*** ]{} (2006) 160-167.\n\nL.P.R. Pimentel. Asymptotics for first-passage times on Delaunay triangulations. Pre-print available from ArXiv:math.PR/0510605.\n\nY. Saito and M. M\u00fcller-Krumbhaar. Critical Phenomena in Morphology Transitions of Growth Models with Competition. [*Phys. Rev. Lett. **74***]{} (1995), 4325.\n\nM.Q. Vahidi-Asl and J.C. Wierman. First-passage percolation on the Voronoi tessellation and Delaunay triangulation. [*Random Graphs 87*]{} (M. Karonske, J. Jaworski and A. Rucinski, eds.), Wiley (1990) 341-359.\n\nM.C. Vahidi-Asl and J.C. Wierman. A shape result for first-passage percolation on the Voronoi tessellation and Delaunay triangulation. [*Random Graphs 89*]{}, (A. Frieze and T. Luczak, eds.), Wiley (1992), 247-262.\n\n[^1]: We also refer to [@hn97], where an analog result is proved in an Euclidean first-passage percolation set-up.\n\n[^2]: Recall that, by the Euler formula, the number of edges and vertices in a triangulation have the same order.\n\n[^3]: For more on the non coalescence of semi-infinite geodesics see Section 1.3 in [@hn01]\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We have analyzed [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} observations of the transient magnetar spanning more than 11 years, from the initial phases of the 2003 outburst to the current quiescent level. We investigated the evolution of the pulsar spin period and we found evidence for two distinct regimes: during the outburst decay, $\\dot{\\nu}$ was highly variable in the range $-(2-4.5)\\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$, while during quiescence the spin-down rate was more stable at an average value [ of $-1\\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$]{}. Only during $\\sim$3000 days (from MJD 54165 to MJD 56908) in the quiescent stage it was possible to find a phase-connected timing solution, with $\\dot{\\nu}=-4.9\\times10^{-14}$ Hz s$^{-1}$, and a positive second frequency derivative, $\\ddot{\\nu}=1.8\\times10^{-22}$ Hz s$^{-2}$. These results are in agreement with the behavior expected if the outburst of \u00a0was due to a strong magnetospheric twist.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Fabio Pintore$^1$, Federico Bernardini$^{2,12}$, Sandro Mereghetti$^1$, Paolo Esposito$^1$, Roberto Turolla$^{3,11}$, Nanda Rea$^{4,5}$, Francesco Coti Zelati$^{6,4,10}$, Gian Luca Israel$^7$, Andrea Tiengo$^{8,1,9}$, Silvia Zane$^{11}$\\\n    $^1$ INAF - IASF Milano, Via E. Bassini 15, I-20133 Milano, Italy\\\n    $^2$ New York University Abu Dhabi, Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi, 129188, United Arab Emirates\\\n    $^3$ Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Universita di Padova, via F. Marzolo 8, I-35131 Padova, Italy\\\n    $^4$ Anton Pannekoek Institute for Astronomy, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 94249, NL-1090-GE Amsterdam, the Netherlands\\\n    $^5$ Instituto de Ciencias de l\u2019Espacio (ICE, CSIC-IEEC), Carrer de Can Magrans, S/N, 08193, Barcelona, Spain\\\n    $^6$ Universita dell\u2019Insubria, via Valleggio 11, I-22100 Como, Italy\\\n    $^7$ INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Roma, via Frascati 33, I-00040 Monteporzio Catone, Roma, Italy\\\n    $^8$IUSS - Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori, piazza della Vittoria 15, I-27100 Pavia, Italy\\\n    $^9$ Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Pavia, via A. Bassi 6, 27100 Pavia, Italy\\\n    $^{10}$ INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera, Via Bianchi 46, I-23807 Merate (LC), Italy\\\n    $^{11}$ MSSL, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking Surrey, RH5 6NT, UK\\\n    $^{12}$ INAF $-$ Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, Salita Moiariello 16, I-80131 Napoli, Italy\\\nbibliography:\n- 'biblio.bib'\ntitle: 'The variable spin-down rate of the transient magnetar XTEJ1810\u2013197'\n---\n\nstars: magnetars \u2013 stars: neutron \u2013 X-rays: stars \u2013 magnetic fields \u2013 pulsars: individual: (XTE J1810\u2013197)\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\n[ Magnetars are isolated neutron stars whose persistent emission and occasional outbursts are powered by magnetic energy (@duncan92 [@thompson93; @paczynski92]; see also @mereghetti08 [@turolla15]).]{} \u00a0was discovered with the [*Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE)*]{} as a 5.45 s X-ray pulsar [@ibrahim04] during a bright outburst in 2003, and associated to a previously known but unclassified [*ROSAT*]{} source. Further multiwavelength observations [@woods05short; @rea04; @halpern08], led to classify XTE J1810-197 as a magnetar candidate.\n\nXTE J1810-197 is the prototype of transient members of this class of sources. It likely spent at least 23 years in quiescence (at a flux of $\\sim$$7\\times10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$[, in the 0.5\u201310 keV energy band]{}) before entering in outburst, in the 2003, when the flux increased by a factor of $\\sim$100 [@gotthelf04]. For an [ estimated]{} distance of $3.5$ kpc [@camilo06; @minter08], the maximum observed luminosity was $\\sim$$10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$, but \u00a0might have reached an even higher luminosity, since the initial part of the outburst was missed. \u00a0was also the first magnetar from which pulsed radio emission was detected [@camilo06; @camilo07]. A large, unsteady spin-down of $\\dot{P}\\sim10^{-11}$ s s$^{-1}$ was measured during the outburst decay through radio and X-ray observations, which suggested that the surface dipolar magnetic field is $\\sim2\\times10^{14}$ G [@gotthelf04; @ibrahim04; @camilo06].\n\nThe spectrum of \u00a0during the outburst has been modeled by several authors with two or three blackbody components of different temperature. The colder one has been interpreted as the (persistent) emission from the whole neutron star surface, while the hotter ones have been associated to cooling regions responsible for the outburst [@gotthelf04; @bernardini09; @bernardini11; @alford16]. The appearance of hot spots could be due to the release of (magnetic) energy deep in the crust, or to Ohmic dissipation of back-flowing currents as they hit the star surface [@perna08; @albano10; @beloborodov09; @pons12]. The X-ray pulse profile was energy-dependent and time-variable in amplitude, and it could be generally modelled by a single sinusoidal function [e.g. @ibrahim04; @camilo07; @bernardini09; @bernardini11; @alford16].\n\n[ $^a$ Mean time of the observation.]{}\n\nHere we report on the pulse period evolution of \u00a0exploiting the full set of [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} and [*[*Chandra*]{}*]{} X-ray observations carried out in the years 2003\u20132014 during the outburst decay and in the following quiescent period.\n\nObservations and data reduction {#data_reduction}\n===============================\n\nWe made use of 24 [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} and 14 [*[*Chandra*]{}*]{} observations of totalizing an exposure time of $\\sim$$830$ ks (see the log of observations in Table\u00a0\\[log\\]).\n\nThe [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} data were reduced using SAS v. 14.0.0 and the most recent calibrations. We used the data obtained with the EPIC instrument, which consists of one pn camera and two MOS cameras. For each observation, we selected events with single and double pixel events ([pattern]{}$\\leq$4) for EPIC-pn and single, double, triple and quadruple pixel events for EPIC-MOS ([pattern]{}$\\leq$12). We set \u2018[flag]{}=0\u2019 so to exclude bad pixels and events coming from the CCD edge. The source and background events were extracted from 30$''$ and 60$''$ radius circular regions, respectively. Time intervals with high particle background were removed.\n\nIn three observations (7, 13 and 35) we found inconsistent values between the phases of the pulses derived (as described in the next Section) from the MOS and pn data. This is due to a known sporadic problem in the timing of EPIC-pn data, causing a shift of $\\pm$1 second in the times attributed to the counts. We identified the times at which the problems occurred and corrected the data [ by adding (or subtracting) 1 second to the photon time of arrival from the instant when the problem occurred [see @martin12]]{}.\n\nThe *[*Chandra*]{}* observations were reduced using the [ciao]{} v.4.7 software and adopting the standard procedures. Source events were extracted from a region of 20$''$ radius around the position of and background counts from a similar region close to the source.\n\nPhoton arrival times of both satellites were converted to the Solar system barycenter using the milliarcsec radio position of \u00a0(RA = 272.462875 deg, Dec. = \u201319.731092 deg, (J2000); @helfand07) and the JPL planetary ephemerides DE405.\n\nTiming analysis {#timing}\n===============\n\nIn order to study the evolution of the spin frequency from outburst to quiescence (i.e. covering the whole data set) we initially measured the spin frequency in each individual pointing by applying a phase-fitting technique in every observation. The phase of a pulse is defined as $\\phi=\\phi_0 + \\int \\nu dt$, where $\\nu$ is the spin frequency. If the coherence of the signal is maintained between subsequent observations, the data can be be fitted by the polynomial:\n\n$$\\label{phase-fit}\n\\phi (t) = \\phi_0 + \\nu_0  (t-T_0) + \\cfrac{1}{2} \\dot{\\nu}  (t-T_0)^2 + \\cfrac{1}{6}  \\ddot{\\nu}  (t-T_0)^3 + ...$$\n\nwhere $T_0$ is the reference epoch, $\\nu_0$ is the frequency at $T_0$, $\\dot{\\nu}$ is the spin frequency derivative and $\\ddot{\\nu}$ is second-order spin frequency derivative [e.g. @dallosso03 for more details].\n\nThanks to the large counting statistics of each single observation, it was possible to obtain accurate measurements of the frequencies by applying the phase-fitting technique to a number of short time intervals (durations from 300 s to 5 ks, depending on the counting statistics) within each observation and we were able to align the pulse-phases by use only the linear term of Eq.\u00a0\\[phase-fit\\]. The frequencies derived in this way are plotted as a function of time in the middle panel of Figure\u00a0\\[flux\\_freq\\_der\\], while in the top panel we show the flux evolution of .\n\nTo derive the fluxes plotted in Figure\u00a0\\[flux\\_freq\\_der\\], we fitted the time-averaged spectra of each observation with a model consisting of two to three blackbodies (see e.g. @bernardini09 [@alford16] for more details). The interstellar absorption was kept fixed to the value of $5.7\\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, derived from the spectrum of the first [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} observation. The temperatures that we found for the three blackbodies ($\\sim$0.1, 0.3 and 0.5 keV) are consistent with those reported in @bernardini09 and @alford16, to which we refer for more details. The maximum flux observed by [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} during the outburst was $(3.18\\pm0.04)\\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (absorbed flux in the 0.3-10 keV energy range). The flux decreased until about MJD 54500, after which it remained rather constant (see also @gh07 [@bernardini11; @alford16]). We found that the flux slowly decreased, finally reaching a constant value of $(7.5\\pm0.2)\\times10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, which we derived by fitting with a constant the fluxes of all the observations after MJD 54500 (see Fig.\u00a0\\[flux\\_freq\\_der\\]-[*top panel*]{}). This value is within the range of fluxes measured by [*ROSAT*]{}, [*ASCA*]{} and [*Einstein*]{} before the onset of the outburst ($(5-10) \\times 10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$; @gotthelf04).\n\nIt is clear from Fig.\u00a0\\[flux\\_freq\\_der\\] that the source timing properties tracked remarkably well the evolution of the flux. The average spin-down rate was larger during the first 3-4 years, during the outburst decay, and then it decreased while the source was in (or close to) quiescence. We can distinguish two time intervals, separated at MJD $\\sim54000$, in which a linear fit can approximately describe the frequency evolution. The slopes of the two linear functions are $(-3.9\\pm0.2)\\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$ ($\\chi^2_{\\nu}/dof=6.7/9$) and $(-1.00\\pm0.05)\\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$ ($\\chi^2_{\\nu}/dof=1.8/24$) before and after MJD 54000, respectively. These values represent the long-term averaged spin-down rates, but the residuals of the linear fits indicate that the time evolution of the frequency derivative is more complex. To better investigate this behavior, we performed several linear fits to small groups of consecutive frequency measurements. We adopted a moving-window approach by using partially overlapping sets of points. In this way we obtained the $\\dot \\nu$ values plotted in the bottom panel of Figure\u00a0\\[flux\\_freq\\_der\\]. They show a highly variable spin-down rate, especially during the outburst decay, when it ranged from $-4.5\\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$ to $-0.5\\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$.\n\nPhase-coherent timing solutions for \u00a0have been reported for the initial part of the outburst [@ibrahim04; @camilo07]. We tried to phase-connect all the [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} observations, but this turned out to be rather difficult due to the large timing noise. However, we were able to find a phase-connected solution for the data during quiescence (i.e. all the observations obtained after MJD 54100), as follows. For each observation, we folded the EPIC (pn plus MOS) or [*[*Chandra*]{}*]{} data at a frequency of 0.18048 Hz (corresponding to $P=5.54078$ s, the average spin period after MJD 54100). For each observation the phase of the pulsation was then derived by fitting a constant plus a sinusoid to the folded pulse profile in the 0.3-10 keV energy range. We initially aligned, with only the linear term in Eq.\u00a0\\[phase-fit\\], the [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} observations 18 and 19 that were the most closely spaced ($\\sim$2 days). Then, we included one by one the other observations, as the uncertainty on the best-fit parameters became increasingly smaller allowing us to connect more distant points. We included higher order derivatives only if the improvement in the fit was significant in the timing solution. After the inclusion of [*Chandra*]{} observations 21 and 22, the quadratic term became statistically significant, while the third order polynomial term was needed after the inclusion of observations 25 and 26. The best fit parameters of the final solution are reported in Table\u00a0\\[timing\\_sol\\] and the fit is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[best-fit\\]. The fit with $\\nu$, $\\dot{\\nu}$ and $\\ddot{\\nu}$ has $\\chi_\\nu^2$= 65.7 (for 20 dof). Such a large value reflects the presence of a strong timing noise. In fact, the residuals shown in the lower panel of Figure\u00a0\\[best-fit\\] indicate significant deviations from the best fit solution, especially during the last 1000 days, when they are as large as $\\sim$0.2 cycles in phase.\n\nSome timing irregularity occurred also when the source was in quiescence. In particular, around MJD $\\sim$55400 the spin-down rate was much larger than the quiescent average value and larger than that seen during the outburst decay. Quite remarkably, also a spin-up episode was detected (see Figure\u00a0\\[flux\\_freq\\_der\\]-*bottom*). This is better illustrated in Figure\u00a0\\[glitch\\_fit\\] which shows the frequency measurements around this time. Unfortunately, the sparse coverage and the large error bars of some points do not allow us to establish whether this was a sudden event, like an anti-glitch, or simply due to an increased timing noise episode. Assuming that the time irregularity is an anti-glitch, we fitted the data in the time range MJD 54300\u201357000, with the following simple model:\n\n$\\nu(t) = \\nu_0 + \\dot{\\nu_0}\\cdot t $ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0for $t<t_g$\n\n$\\nu(t) = \\nu_0 + \\dot{\\nu_0}\\cdot t + \\Delta\\nu \\cdot e^{(-(t-t_g)/\\tau)}$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 for $t>t_g$\n\nwhere $\\tau$ is the decay time and $t_g$ is the time of the glitch, which we kept fixed in the fit. If the glitch occurred immediately after observation 25 ($t_g=55354$), we obtained a good fit ($\\chi^2_{\\nu} =  1.14$ for 21 dof, shown by the solid line in Figure\u00a0\\[glitch\\_fit\\]) with $\\Delta\\nu = (6.5\\pm5.8)\\times10^{-5}$ Hz, $\\tau=51\\pm21$ days, $\\nu_0 = 0.18093(3) $ Hz and $\\dot{\\nu_0} =-9.4 (3)\\times 10^{-14}$ Hz s$^{-1}$. If instead the glitch occurred at observation 26 ($t_g=55444$), we obtain $\\Delta\\nu < 1 \\times10^{-4}$ Hz and $\\tau < 200$ days ($3\\sigma$ upper limits).\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nVariations in the spin-down rate are not uncommon in magnetars and have been observed both in transient and persistent sources. They are believed to originate from changes in the magnetosphere geometry and particles outflow which produce a varying torque on the neutron star. Since also the emission properties from magnetars depend on the evolution of their dynamic magnetospheres, some correlation between spin-period evolution and radiative properties is not surprising.\n\n  Parameter                                          Units\n  -------------------- ------------------------- -------------\n  Time range                  54165\u201356908             MJD\n  T$_{0}$$^a$                54002.0430729            MJD\n  $\\nu_0$                    0.1804821(1)             Hz\n  $\\dot{\\nu}$           $-4.9(2)\\times10^{-14}$   Hz s$^{-1}$\n  $\\ddot{\\nu}$          $1.8(1)\\times10^{-22}$    Hz s$^{-2}$\n  $P$                         5.540716(3)              s\n  $\\dot{P}$             $1.51(7)\\times10^{-12}$   s s$^{-1}$\n  $\\ddot{P}$            $-5.5(4)\\times10^{-21}$   s s$^{-2}$\n  $\\chi_\\nu^2 (dof)$           65.7 (20)         \n\n  : Best-fit timing solution of the [*[*XMM-Newton*]{}*]{} and [*[*Chandra*]{}*]{} observations. Errors are at 1$\\sigma$.[]{data-label=\"timing_sol\"}\n\n$^a$ Reference epoch.\n\n![Frequencies measured around the time of the possible anti-glitch. The solid line is the best-fit discussed in the text. []{data-label=\"glitch_fit\"}](freq_glitch_fit-eps-converted-to.pdf){width=\"8.3cm\"}\n\nThe most striking examples, among persistent magnetars, are given by SGR 1806\u201320 and 1E 1048.1\u20135937. The average spin-down rate of SGR 1806\u201320, as well as its spectral hardness, increased in the $\\sim 4$ years of enhanced bursting activity which led to the giant flare of December 2004 [@mereghetti05]. However, a further increase (by a factor of 2\u20133) of the long term spin-down rate occurred both in 2006 and 2008, while the flux and bursting rate showed no remarkable changes [@younes15]. In 1E 1048.1\u20135937, significant enhancements of the spin-down rate, which then subsided through repeated oscillations, have been observed to lag the occurrence of X-ray outbursts [@archibald15]. Other persistent magnetars, for which phase-coherent timing solutions extending over several years could be mantained, showed $\\dot \\nu$ variations and/or glitches, sometimes (but not always) related to changes in the source flux and the emission of bursts [e.g. @dib14].\n\nTransient magnetars offer, in principle, the best opportunity to investigate the correlations between the variations in the spin-down rate and the radiative properties. However, the observations of transient magnetars carried out up to now have shown a variety of different behaviors. Furthermore, for many of them, no detailed information is available on the spin-down during the quiescent state, that instead in this work we now have found for \u00a0. No firm conclusion on the evolution of the spin-down rate could be derived from the two outbursts of CXOU J164710.2\u2013455216, for which a positive $\\ddot\\nu$ was reported only during the decay of the first outburst, while the insufficient time coverage prevented such a measure for the second one [@rodriguez14]. A positive $\\ddot\\nu$ was reported for both Swift J1822.3\u20131606 (which went in outburst in July 2011 and was subsequently monitored for about 500 days; @rodriguez16), as well as for SGR J1935+2154 (outburst in July 2014, time coverage $\\sim 260$ days; @israel16), and, tentatively, also for SGR 0501+4516 (for this source observations actually covered part of the quiescent state but phase connection along the entire dataset could not be ensured; @camero14). On the other hand, an increase of the spin-down rate during the outburst decay was reported for SGR J1745\u201329 [@kaspi14; @cotiZelati15].\n\nOur analysis of [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} data spanning 11 years has shown that in the transient magnetar \u00a0the spin frequency evolution tracked remarkably well the luminosity state. During the outburst decay, the average spin-down rate was $(-3.9\\pm0.2)\\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$, but large variations around this value were seen, as already noticed by several authors [@halpern05; @camilo07; @bernardini09]. During the long quiescent state after the end of the outburst, the average spin-down rate was a factor of $\\sim4$ smaller. Although some timing noise was still present, the variations in $\\dot \\nu$ were smaller in the quiescent state, except for a few months in Summer 2010. The timing irregularities in that period might have been caused by the occurrence of an anti-glitch, similar to that seen in the persistent magnetar 1E 2259+586 [@archibald13]. [ We found that the pulse-shape in the 0.3\u201310 keV energy range was nearly sinusoidal and the pulse fraction decreased during the outburst decay, as already reported by e.g. @perna08, @albano10 and @bernardini09. We note that the pulse-shape remained nearly sinusoidal also during quiescence (see also @bernardini11 [@alford16]).]{}\n\nThe spectral properties of magnetars are commonly explained in terms of the twisted magnetosphere model [@thompson02b], according to which part of the magnetic helicity is transferred from the internal to the external magnetic field, which acquires a non-vanishing toroidal component (a twist). The currents required to support the twisted external field resonantly up-scatter thermal photons emitted by the star surface, leading to the formation of the power-law tails observed up to hundreds of keV. Since twisted fields have a weaker dependence on the radial distance with respect to a dipole, the higher magnetic field at the light cylinder radius results in an enhanced spin-down rate. The increased activity of magnetars is often associated to the development (or an increase) of a twist, which should lead to higher fluxes, local surface temperature increases, harder spectra and larger spin-down rates. However, this holds for globally twisted fields (meaning that the twist affects the entire external field). The transport of helicity from the interior is mediated by the star crust: in order to occur the crust must yield, allowing a displacement of the field lines. Crustal displacements are small compared to the star radius, so the twist is most likely localized to a bundle of field lines anchored on the displaced platelet [@beloborodov09]. Once implanted, the twist must necessarily decay to maintain its own supporting currents, unless energy is constantly supplied from the star interior. The sudden appearance of a localized twist and its subsequent decay can explain some of the observed properties of transient magnetars [@beloborodov09; @albano10], including the fact that transient spectra are often thermal, as in the case of , since resonant Compton scattering may be not very effective, although the mechanism responsible for the heating of the star surface is still unclear (either Ohmic dissipation by backflowing currents or deep crustal heating; @beloborodov09 [@pons12]). If strong enough, a localized twist can still influence the spin-down rate, which is expected to increase first and then decrease as the magnetosphere untwists, as we observed in .\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\n\u00a0was the first transient magnetar to be discovered and it is probably one of the best studied. In particular, it has been possible to trace in great detail its spectral properties over the long ($\\sim 3$ years) outburst decay and to monitor it during quiescence for several years afterwards. By investigating the evolution of its spin frequency with all the available [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} data, we found evidence for two distinct regimes: during the outburst decay, $\\dot{\\nu}$ was highly variable in the range $-(2-4.5)\\times10^{-13}$ Hz s$^{-1}$, while during quiescence the spin-down rate was more stable and had an average value smaller by a factor $\\sim4$.\n\nThis evolution of the spin-down rate is in agreement with the suggestion that the outburst of transient magnetars may be caused by a strong twist of a localized bundle of magnetic field lines [@beloborodov09]. Evidences for an evolution of $\\dot\\nu$ in other transient magnetars are far less conclusive, possibly reflecting the fact that, if the twist is not very strong, or the twisted bundle too localized, its effect on the spin-down rate are smaller. [ A detailed calculation of the spin-down torque for a spatially-limited twisted field requires a full non-linear approach and has not been presented yet. @beloborodov09 discussed a simple estimate, valid for small twists ($\\psi<1\\ \\mathrm{rad}$) $$\\label{deltamu}\n\\Delta\\mu/\\mu\\sim (\\psi^2/4\\pi)\\log(u_*/u_\\mathrm{LC})\\,,$$ where $\\Delta\\mu$ is the \u201cequivalent\u201d increase in the dipole moment produced by the twist and $u$ is the area of the j-bundle, evaluated at the star surface and at the light cylinder. Since $\\Delta\\dot\\nu/\\nu \\sim 2\\Delta\\mu/\\mu$, a fractional variation of $\\dot\\nu$ of a factor of $\\sim 4$, as observed (see Figure\u00a0\\[flux\\_freq\\_der\\], lower panel), can not be achieved with a small twist, $\\psi<1$. This indicates that the (maximal) twist in \u00a0was most probably larger, $\\psi\\ga 1 \\ \\mathrm{rad}$, so that equation (\\[deltamu\\]) does not hold anymore. A quite large value of the twist in the outburst of \u00a0was also inferred by @beloborodov09, on the (qualitative) basis that only a strong twist can produce a change of the spin-down rate. ]{}\n\nERRATUM: \u201cThe variable spin-down rate of the transient magnetar XTEJ1810\u2013197\u201d {#erratum-the-variable-spin-down-rate-of-the-transient-magnetar-xtej1810197 .unnumbered}\n=============================================================================\n\nPrompted by the recent paper by Camilo et al. (2016), we re-examined our phase-connected timing solution for XTE J1810\u2013197 (Pintore et al. 2016), and we found a flaw in the procedure to compute the errors during some steps of our analysis. Due to this mistake, the phase-connected solution on 3000 days of X-ray data (reported in Tab. 2 and Fig. 2 of Pintore et al. 2016) is wrong.\n\nWith the new analysis of the data, we can phase-connect 13 observations with a good fit ($\\chi^2_{\\nu}$ (dof)$=0.9 (9)$; solution 1 in Tab.3 and Fig.4-top), from MJD 55079 to MJD 55814 (observations from 18 to 30 of Pintore et al. 2016). The inclusion of also the two observations at MJD 55976 and MJD 56071 (observations 31 and 32) yields best fit parameters (solution 2 in Tab.3 and Fig.4-bottom) consistent with those obtained by Camilo et al. (2016) for the same set of observations, but with a higher $\\chi_\\nu^2$ with respect to solution 1.\n\nThe table and figures reported here supersede Tab. 2 and Fig. 2 of Pintore et al. (2016). We note that these changes do not affect the main conclusions of that paper.\n\n$^a$ Reference epoch.\\\n\nReferences {#references .unnumbered}\n==========\n\nCamilo F., Ransom S. M., Halpern J. P., Alford J. A. J., Cognard I., Reynolds J. E., Johnston S., Sarkissian J., van Straten W., 2016, ApJ, 820, 110\n\nPintore F., Bernardini F., Mereghetti S., Esposito P., Turolla R., Rea N., Coti Zelati F., Israel G. L., Tiengo A., Zane S., 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2088\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    This paper develops mixed-normal approximations for probabilities that vectors of multiple Skorohod integrals belong to random convex polytopes when the dimensions of the vectors possibly diverge to infinity. We apply the developed theory to establish the asymptotic mixed normality of the realized covariance matrix of a high-dimensional continuous semimartingale observed at a high-frequency, where the dimension can be much larger than the sample size. We also present an application of this result to testing the residual sparsity of a high-dimensional continuous-time factor model.\n\n    *Keywords*: Bootstrap; Chernozhukov-Chetverikov-Kato theory; High-dimensions; High-frequency data; Malliavin calculus; Multiple testing.\nauthor:\n- 'Yuta Koike[^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'\nbibliography:\n- 'base.bib'\ntitle: 'Mixed-normal limit theorems for multiple Skorohod integrals in high-dimensions, with application to realized covariance'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nCovariance matrix estimation of multiple assets is one of the most active research areas in high-frequency financial econometrics. Recently, many authors have been attacking the high-dimensionality in covariance matrix estimation from high-frequency data. A pioneering work on this topic is the paper by @WZ2010, where the regularization methods (banding and thresholding) proposed in @BL2008band [@BL2008th] have been applied to estimating high-dimensional quadratic covariation matrices from noisy and non-synchronous high-frequency data. Subsequently, their approach has been enhanced by several papers such as [@TWZ2013; @KWZ2016; @KKLW2018]. Meanwhile, such methods require a kind of sparsity of the target quadratic covariation matrix itself, which seems unrealistic in financial data in view of the celebrated factor structure such as the Fama-French three-factor model of [@3factor]. To overcome this issue, @FFX2016 have proposed a covariance estimation method based on a continuous-time (approximate) factor model with observable factors, which can be seen as a continuous-time counterpart of the method introduced in @FLM2011. The method has been further extended in various directions such as situations with unobservable factor, noisy and non-synchronous observations, heavy-tail errors and so on; see [@AX2017; @DLX2017; @KLW2017; @FK2017; @Pelger2019] for details. As an alternative approach to avoid assuming the sparsity of the target matrix itself, @BNS2018 have proposed applying the graphical Lasso, which imposes the sparsity on the inverse of the target matrix rather than the target matrix itself. On the empirical side, high-dimensional covariance matrix estimation from high-frequency financial data is particularly interesting in portfolio allocation. We refer to [@Ubukata2010; @FLY2012; @LSS2016] for illustrations of relevant empirical work on this topic, in addition to the empirical results reported in the papers cited above. 0 Additionally, it would be worth mentioning that investigation of the spectral structure is also an issue in the context of high-dimensional covariance estimation. In high-frequency financial econometrics this was pioneered by @ZL2011, which investigates the problem of estimating the spectral distribution of the quadratic covariation estimation of a high-dimensional continuous It\u00f4 semimartingale from its high-frequency observation data. A similar problem has been studied in [@HP2014] under a different assumption on the model. Another important topic related to this issue is principal component analysis (PCA). In a high-dimensional setting, @KW2016 have studied PCA for integrated covariance matrices based on noisy and non-synchronous high-frequency data. Meanwhile, the recent work of @CMZ2018 investigates alternative PCA for high-frequency data based on the concept of realized eigenvalues, which was introduced in @AX2017jasa, in a high-dimensional setting.\n\nTo the best of the author\u2019s knowledge, however, there is no work to establish a statistical inference theory validating simultaneous hypothesis testing and construction of uniformly valid confidence regions for high-dimensional quadratic covariation estimation from high-frequency data. Such a theory is important in statistical applications as illustrated by the following example: Let $Y=(Y_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ be a $d$-dimensional continuous semimartingale. We denote by $Y^i$ the $i$-th component of $Y$ for every $i=1,\\dots,d$. If one attempts to apply a regularization procedure to estimating the quadratic covariation matrix $[Y,Y]_1=([Y^i,Y^j]_1)_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}$ of $Y$, it is important to understand whether the target matrix is really sparse or not, and if so, how sparse it is. This amounts to evaluating the following series of the statistical hypotheses *simultaneously*: $$\\label{test:sparse}\nH_{(i,j)}: [Y^i,Y^j]_1\\equiv0,\\qquad i,j=1,\\dots,d\\text{ such that }i<j.$$ A natural way to construct test statistics for this problem is to estimate $[Y,Y]_1$ and test whether each of the entries is significantly away from 0 or not. Now suppose that $Y$ is observed at the equidistant times $t_h=h/n$, $h=0,1,\\dots,n$. Then the most canonical estimator for $[Y,Y]_1$ would be the so-called *realized covariance matrix*: $$\\label{def:rc}\n\\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1:=\\sum_{h=1}^n(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})^\\top.$$ If one wants to test the null hypothesis such that all the hypotheses in is true, it is natural to consider the maximum type statistic $$\\max_{(i,j)\\in\\Lambda}\\left|\\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1\\right|,$$ where $\\Lambda:=\\{(i,j)\\in\\{1,\\dots,d\\}^2:i<j\\}$. More generally, if one wants to control the family-wise error rate in multiple testing for the hypotheses , it is enough to approximate the distribution of $\\max_{(i,j)\\in\\mathcal{L}}|\\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1|$ for any $\\mathcal{L}\\subset\\Lambda$, with the help of the stepdown procedure illustrated in @RW2005. Hence the problem amounts to approximating the distributions of such maximum type statistics in an appropriate sense. Using the test statistics considered in @BM2016, this type of testing problem can be extended to the sparsity test for the residual processes of a continuous-time factor model with an observable factor thus promising in applications to high-frequency financial data. In addition, such a problem will also be useful for covariance matrix modeling in a low-frequency setting because it often suffers from the curse of dimensionality due to the increase of the number of unknown parameters to be estimated, and thus it is a common practice to impose a certain structure on covariance matrices for reducing the number of unknown parameters in models. For example, @TWYZ2011 have proposed fitting a matrix factor model to daily covariance matrices which are estimated from high-frequency data using the methodology of [@WZ2010], while @KO2016 [@KO2018] have introduced a dynamic (multiple-block) equicorrelation structure to multivariate stochastic volatility models. The afore-mentioned testing will be useful for examining the validity of such specification. If the dimension $d$ is fixed, the desired approximation can be obtained as a simple consequence of a multivariate mixed-normal limit theorem for $\\sqrt{n}(\\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1-[Y,Y]_1)$, which is well-studied in the literature and holds true under quite mild assumptions; see e.g.\u00a0Theorem 5.4.2 of [@JP2012]. The problem here is how to establish an analogous result when the dimension $d$ possibly diverges as $n$ tends to infinity.\n\nIndeed, even for the sum of independent random vectors, it is far from trivial to establish such a result in a situation where the dimension is possibly (much) larger than the sample size. This is not surprising because objective random vectors are typically not tight in the usual sense in such a high-dimensional setting, so any standard method to establish central limit theorems no longer works. A significant breakthrough in this subject was achieved by the seminal work of @CCK2013, where a Gaussian approximation of the maxima of the sum of independent random vectors in terms of the Kolmogorov distance has been established under quite mild assumptions which allow the dimension is (possibly exponentially) larger than the sample size. With the help of the Gaussian comparison theorem by @CCK2015, it enables us to construct feasible statistical inference procedures based on the maximum type statistics. Their theory, which we call the *Chernozhukov-Chetverikov-Kato theory*, or the *CCK theory* for short, has been developed in the subsequent work by @CCK2014 [@CCK2016] and @CCK2017: the first two papers have developed Gaussian approximation of the suprema of empirical processes, while the latter has extended the results of [@CCK2013] to a central limit theorem for hyperrectangles, or sparsely convex sets in more general. Extension of the CCK theory to statistics other than the sum of independent random vectors has also been studied in many articles: Weakening the independence assumption has been studied in e.g.\u00a0[@ZW2015; @ZC2017; @CCK2014c; @CQYZ2018]; @Chen2017 and @CK2017 [@CK2017rand] have developed theories for $U$-statistics. Moreover, some authors have applied the CCK theory to statistical problems regarding high-frequency data; see @KK2017 and @Koike2017stein. Nevertheless, none of the above studies is applicable to our problem due to its non-ergodic nature. That is, the asymptotic covariance matrix is random and depends on the $\\sigma$-filed of the original probability space, the asymptotic distribution is essentially non-Gaussian.\n\nMeanwhile, inspection of the proofs of the CCK theory reveals that most the parts do not rely on *any* structure of the underlying statistics. To be precise, let $S_n$ be the random vector corresponding to the objective statistic and suppose that we aim at approximating the distribution of $S_n$ by its Gaussian analog $S_n^\\dagger$ which has the same mean and covariance matrix as those of $S_n$. In the proofs of the CCK theory, the fact that $S_n$ is the sum of independent random vectors is crucial only to obtain a good quantitative estimate for the quantities $|E[f(S_n)]-E[f(S_n^\\dagger)]|$ for sufficiently smooth functions $f$. In the original CCK theory [@CCK2013; @CCK2017], such an estimate has been established by the so-called *Stein\u2019s method*, especially *Slepian\u2019s interpolation* (also known as the *smart path method*) and *Stein\u2019s leave-one-out method*. Although their approach is not directly applicable to our problem, it suggests that we might alternatively use *Malliavin\u2019s integration by parts formula* because it can be viewed as an infinite-dimensional version of Stein\u2019s identity (cf.\u00a0@SY2004). In fact, the recent active research in probabilistic literature shows a beautiful harmony between Malliavin calculus and Stein\u2019s method, which is nowadays called the *Malliavin-Stein method*; we refer to the monograph [@NP2012] for an introduction of this subject. Indeed, this idea has already been applied in [@Koike2017stein] to a situation where $S_n$ is a vector of smooth Wiener functionals (especially multiple Wiener-It\u00f4 integrals) and $S_n^\\dagger$ is Gaussian, which has produced several impressive results. Our plan here is to apply this idea to a situation where $S_n$ is a vector of multiple Skorohod integrals and $S_n^\\dagger$ is conditionally Gaussian. In this regard, a relevant result has been given in Theorem 5.1 of @NNP2016. However, this result is not directly applicable to the current situation because it assumes that the components of $S_n^\\dagger$ are conditionally independent, which is less interesting to statistical applications (and especially not the case in the problem illustrated above). To remove such a restriction from the result of [@NNP2016], we employ the novel interpolation method introduced in @NY2017, instead of Slepian\u2019s interpolation used in [@NNP2016] and the original CCK theory. Another problem in the present context is validation of standardizing statistics by random variables. In a low-dimensional setting, this is typically achieved by proving the so-called *stable convergence in law* (see e.g.\u00a0[@PV2010] for details). However, in a high-dimensional setting, the meaning of stable convergence is unclear and its na\u00efve extension is not useful because of the lack of the continuous mapping theorem and the delta method (see Section \\[sec:main\\] for a relevant discussion). So we also aim at developing a formulation appropriate to validating such an operation. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section \\[sec:preliminaries\\] is devoted to some preliminaries on notation and concepts used in the paper. Section \\[sec:main\\] presents the main results obtained in this paper. In Section \\[sec:rc\\] we apply the developed theory to establish the asymptotic mixed normality of realized covariance matrices in a high-dimensional setting and illustrate its application to testing the residual sparsity of a continuous-time factor model. Section \\[sec:simulation\\] provides a small simulation study as well as an empirical illustration using real data. All the proofs are collected in the Appendix.\n\nPreliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}\n=============\n\nIn this section we present some notation and concepts used throughout the paper.\n\nBasic notation {#sec:basic}\n--------------\n\nWe begin by introducing some basic notation which more or less common in the literature. For a vector $x\\in\\mathbb{R}^d$, we write the $i$-th component of $x$ as $x^i$ for $i=1,\\dots,d$. Also, we set $\\min x:=\\min_{1\\leq i\\leq d}x^i$. For two vectors $x,y\\in\\mathbb{R}^d$, the statement $x\\leq y$ means $x^i\\leq y^i$ for all $i=1,\\dots,d$. For a vector $x\\in\\mathbb{R}^d$ and a scalar $a\\in\\mathbb{R}$, we set $$x\\pm a:=(x^1\\pm a,\\dots,x^d\\pm a)^\\top.$$ Here, $\\top$ stands for the transpose of a matrix.\n\nFor a matrix $A$, we write its $(i,j)$-th entry as $A^{ij}$. Also, $A^{i\\cdot}$ and $A^{\\cdot j}$ denote the $i$-th row vector and the $j$-th column vector, respectively. Here, we regard both the vectors $A^{i\\cdot}$ and $A^{\\cdot j}$ as column vectors. If $A$ is an $m\\times d$ matrix, we denote by ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{A}_\\infty$ the $\\ell_\\infty$-operator norm of $A$: $${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{A}_\\infty=\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq m}\\sum_{j=1}^d|A^{ij}|.$$ If $B$ is another $m\\times d$ matrix, we denote by $A\\cdot B$ the Frobenius inner product of $A$ and $B$. That is, $$A\\cdot B:=\\sum_{i=1}^m\\sum_{j=1}^dA^{ij}B^{ij}.$$ For a $d\\times d$ matrix $A$, we denote by $\\operatorname{diag}(A)$ the $d$-dimensional vector consisting of the diagonal entries of $A$, i.e.\u00a0$\\operatorname{diag}(A)=(A^{11},\\dots,A^{dd})^\\top$.\n\nFor a random variable $\\xi$ and a number $p>0$, we write $\\|\\xi\\|_p=(E[|\\xi|^p])^{1/p}$. We also use the notation $\\|\\xi\\|_\\infty$ to denote the essential supremum of $\\xi$. We will denote by $L^{\\infty-}$ the space of all random variables $\\xi$ such that $\\|\\xi\\|_p<\\infty$ for every $p\\in[1,\\infty)$. The notation $\\to^p$ stands for convergence in probability.\n\nIf $V$ is a real Hilbert space, we denote by $\\langle\\cdot,\\cdot\\rangle_V$ and $\\|\\cdot\\|_V$ the inner product and norm of $V$, respectively. Also, we denote by $L^p(\\Omega;V)$ the set of all $V$-valued random variables $\\xi$ such that $E[\\|\\xi\\|_V^2]<\\infty$.\n\nGiven real Hilbert spaces $V_1,\\dots,V_k$, we write their Hilbert space tensor product as $V_1\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes V_k$. For a real Hilbert space $V$, we write the $k$th tensor power of $V$ as $V^{\\otimes k}$, i.e. $$V^{\\otimes k}:=\\underbrace{V\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes V}_{k}.$$ For an element $f\\in V^{\\otimes k}$, we write the (canonical) symmetrization of $f$ as $\\operatorname{Sym}(f)$. Namely, the map $V^{\\otimes k}\\ni f\\mapsto \\operatorname{Sym}(f)\\in V^{\\otimes k}$ is characterized as the unique continuous linear operator on $V^{\\otimes k}$ such that $$\\operatorname{Sym}(f_1\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes f_k)=\\frac{1}{k!}\\sum_{\\tau\\in\\mathcal{S}_k}f_{\\tau(1)}\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes f_{\\tau(k)}$$ for all $f_1,\\dots,f_k\\in V$, where $\\mathcal{S}_k$ denotes the set of all permutations of $\\{1,\\dots,k\\}$, i.e.\u00a0the symmetric group of degree $k$. An element $f\\in V^{\\otimes k}$ is said to be *symmetric* if $\\operatorname{Sym}(f)=f$. We refer to Appendix E of [@Janson1997] for details on Hilbert space tensor products. 0\n\nTensors\n-------\n\nIn this subsection we introduce some notation related to tensors (or multi-way arrays) which are necessary to state our main results.\n\nWe denote by $\\mathbb{K}$ the real field $\\mathbb{R}$ or the complex field $\\mathbb{C}$ and consider a vector space $V$ over $\\mathbb{K}$. Let $q$ be a positive integer $q$. We denote by $\\mathcal{T}^q_d(V)$ the set of all $V$-valued functions on $\\{1,\\dots,d\\}^q$ ($V$-valued $d$-dimensional $q$-way tensors). For a tensor $T\\in\\mathcal{T}^q_d(V)$ and indices $i_1,\\dots,i_q\\in\\{1,\\dots,d\\}$ we write $T(i_1,\\dots,i_q)$ as $T_{i_1,\\dots,i_q}$ and $T$ itself as $T=(T_{i_1,\\dots,i_q})_{1\\leq i_1,\\dots,i_q\\leq d}$. We identify $\\mathcal{T}^1_d(V)$ with $V^d$ and $\\mathcal{T}^2_d(V)$ with the set of all $V$-valued $d\\times d$ matrices, respectively. When $V=\\mathbb{K}$, $\\mathcal{T}^q_d(\\mathbb{K})$ is naturally identified with the Hilbert space tensor product $(\\mathbb{K}^d)^{\\otimes q}$.\n\nFor two $\\mathbb{K}$-valued tensors $S,T\\in\\mathcal{T}^q_d(\\mathbb{K})$, we define their Hadamard-type product (i.e.\u00a0entry-wise product) by $$S\\circ T:=(S_{i_1,\\dots,i_q}T_{i_1,\\dots,i_q})_{1\\leq i_1,\\dots,i_q\\leq d}\\in\\mathcal{T}_d^q(\\mathbb{K}).$$ Also, we set $$\\|T\\|_{\\ell_1}:=\\sum_{1\\leq i_1,\\dots,i_q\\leq d}|T_{i_1,\\dots,i_q}|,\\qquad\n\\|T\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}:=\\max_{1\\leq i_1,\\dots,i_q\\leq d}|T_{i_1,\\dots,i_q}|.$$\n\nFor $T\\in \\mathcal{T}^q_d(V)$ and $v\\in V$, we define $$\\langle T,v\\rangle_V:=(\\langle T_{i_1,\\dots,i_q},v\\rangle_V)_{1\\leq i_1,\\dots,i_q\\leq d}\\in\\mathcal{T}^q_d(\\mathbb{K}).$$\n\nLet $H_1,H_2$ be two real separable Hilbert space. For $S\\in \\mathcal{T}^{p}_d(H_1)$ and $T\\in \\mathcal{T}^{q}_d(H_2)$, we define $$S\\otimes T=(S_{i_1,\\dots,i_p}\\otimes T_{j_1,\\dots,j_q})_{1\\leq i_1,\\dots,i_p,j_1,\\dots,j_q\\leq d}\\in\\mathcal{T}^{p+q}_d(H_1\\otimes H_2).$$\n\nMulti-way arrays {#sec:array}\n----------------\n\nIn this subsection we introduce some notation related to multi-way arrays (or tensors) which are necessary to state our main results.\n\nGiven a positive integer $N$, we set $[N]:=\\{1,\\dots,N\\}$ for short. We denote by $\\mathbb{K}$ the real field $\\mathbb{R}$ or the complex field $\\mathbb{C}$ and consider a vector space $V$ over $\\mathbb{K}$. Given $q$ positive integers $N_1,\\dots,N_q$, we denote by $V^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$ the set of all $V$-valued $N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q$ arrays, i.e.\u00a0$V$-valued functions on $[N_1]\\times\\cdots\\times[N_q]$. Note that $V^{N_1\\times N_2}$ corresponds to the set of all $V$-valued $N_1\\times N_2$ matrices. When $N_1=\\cdots=N_q=N$, we call an element of $V^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$ a $V$-valued $N$-dimensional $q$-way array. For an array $T\\in V^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$ and indices $i_k\\in [N_k]$ ($k=1,\\dots,q$), we write $T(i_1,\\dots,i_q)$ as $T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}$ and $T$ itself as $T=(T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q})_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}$. When $V=\\mathbb{K}$, $V^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$ is naturally identified with the Hilbert space tensor product $\\mathbb{K}^{N_1}\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes\\mathbb{K}^{N_q}$ by the unique linear isomorphism $\\iota:\\mathbb{K}^{N_1}\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes\\mathbb{K}^{N_q}\\to\\mathbb{K}^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$ such that $\\iota(x_1\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes x_q)=(x_1^{i_1}\\cdots x_q^{i_q})_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}$ for $x_k\\in\\mathbb{K}^{N_k}$, $k=1,\\dots,q$ (cf.\u00a0Example E.10 of [@Janson1997]).\n\nFor two $\\mathbb{K}$-valued arrays $S,T\\in\\mathbb{K}^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$, we define their Hadamard-type product (i.e.\u00a0entry-wise product) by $$S\\circ T:=(S^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q})_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}\\in\\mathbb{K}^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}.$$ Also, we set $$\\|T\\|_{\\ell_p}:=\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\displaystyle\\left\\{\\sum_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}|T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}|^p\\right\\}^{1/p} & \\text{if }p\\in(0,\\infty),\\\\\n\\displaystyle\\max_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}|T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}| & \\text{if }p=\\infty.\n\\end{array}\\right.$$\n\nNow suppose that $V$ is a real Hilbert space. For $T\\in V^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$ and $x\\in V$, we define Let $m$ be a positive integer. For each $j=1,\\dots,m$, let $V_j$ be a real Hilbert space, $p_j\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $N_1^{(j)},\\dots,N_{p_j}^{(j)}\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $T_j\\in V_j^{N^{(j)}_1\\times\\cdots\\times N^{(j)}_{p_j}}$. Then we define In particular, we write $$T^{\\otimes m}:=\\underbrace{T\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes T}_{m}.$$\n\nMalliavin calculus {#sec:malliavin}\n------------------\n\nThis subsection introduces some notation and concepts from Malliavin calculus used throughout the paper. We refer to @Nualart2006, Chapter 2 of @NP2012 and Chapter 15 of @Janson1997 for further details on this subject.\n\nGiven a probability space $(\\Omega,\\mathcal{F},P)$, let $\\mathbb{W}=(\\mathbb{W}(h))_{h\\in H}$ be an isonormal Gaussian process over a real separable Hilbert space $H$.\n\nLet $V$ be another real separable Hilbert space. For any real number $p\\geq1$ and any integer $k\\geq1$, $\\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(V)$ denotes the stochastic Sobolev space of $V$-valued random variables which are $k$ times differentiable in the Malliavin sense and the derivatives up to order $k$ have finite moments of order $p$. If $F\\in\\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(V)$, we denote by $D^kF$ the $k$th Malliavin derivative of $F$, which is a random variable taking its values in the space $L^p(\\Omega;H^{\\otimes k}\\otimes V)$. We write $DF$ instead of $D^1F$ for short. We set $\\mathbb{D}_{k,\\infty}(V)=\\bigcap_{p=1}^\\infty\\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(V)$. If $V=\\mathbb{R}$, we simply write $\\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(V)$ as $\\mathbb{D}_{k,p}$.\n\nFor a $d$-dimensional random vector $F\\in\\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(\\mathbb{R}^d)$, we identify the $k$th Malliavin derivative $D^kF$ of $F$ as the $(H^{\\otimes k})^d$-valued random variable $(D^kF^1,\\dots,D^kF^d)$ . Similarly, for a $d\\times d'$ matrix valued random variable $F\\in\\mathbb{D}_{k,p}(\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times d'})$, we identify $D^kF$ as the $(H^{\\otimes k})^{d\\times d'}$-valued random variable $(D^kF^{ij})_{(i,j)\\in[d]\\times[d']}$.\n\nFor a positive integer $q$, we denote by $\\delta^q$ the $q$-th multiple Skorohod integral, which is the adjoint operator of the densely defined operator $L^2(\\Omega)\\supset\\mathbb{D}_{q,2}\\ni F\\mapsto D^qF\\in L^2(\\Omega;H^{\\otimes q})$. That is, the domain $\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta^q)$ of $\\delta^q$ is defined as the set of all $H^{\\otimes q}$-valued random variables $u$ such that there is a constant $C>0$ satisfying $|E[\\langle u,D^qF\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q}}]|\\leq C\\|F\\|_2$ for all $F\\in\\mathbb{D}_{q,2}$, and the following duality formula holds for any $u\\in\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta^q)$ and $F\\in\\mathbb{D}_{q,2}$: $$E[F\\delta^q(u)]=E[\\langle u,D^qF\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q}}].$$\n\nMulti-indices\n-------------\n\nThis subsection collects some notation related to multi-indices.\n\nLet $q$ be a positive integer. We denote by $\\mathbb{Z}_+$ the set of all non-negative integers. We define $$\\mathcal{A}(q):=\\{\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+^q:\\alpha_1+2\\alpha_2+\\cdots+q\\alpha_q=q\\}.$$ For a multi-index $\\alpha=(\\alpha_1,\\dots,\\alpha_q)\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+^q$, we set $|\\alpha|=\\alpha_1+\\cdots+\\alpha_q$ as usual. Given another positive integer $r$, we define $$\\mathcal{N}_r(\\alpha):=\\left\\{\\nu=(\\nu_{ij})_{(i,j)\\in[q]\\times[r]}:\\nu_{ij}\\in\\mathbb{Z},\\sum_{j=1}^r\\nu_{ij}=\\alpha_i \\right\\}$$ and $$\\mathcal{N}^*_r(\\alpha)=\\{\\nu=(\\nu_{ij})\\in\\mathcal{N}_r(\\alpha):\\nu_{q1}=0\\}.$$ Moreover, we define $${\\textcolor{black}{{\\overline{\\mathcal{A}}}(q):=\\bigcup_{p=1}^q\\mathcal{A}(p)\\quad\\text{and}\\quad}}\n{\\overline{\\mathcal{N}}}^*_r(q):=\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in{\\textcolor{black}{{\\overline{\\mathcal{A}}}}}(q)}\\mathcal{N}^*_r(\\alpha).$$ Finally, for an element $\\nu=(\\nu_{ij})\\in\\mathcal{N}_4(\\alpha)$, we set $|\\nu|_*:=|\\nu_{\\cdot 1}|+2|\\nu_{\\cdot 2}|+|\\nu_{\\cdot 3}|$ and $|\\nu|_{**}:=|\\nu|_*+|\\nu_{\\cdot4}|$.\n\nMain results {#sec:main}\n============\n\nThroughout the paper, we consider an asymptotic theory such that the parameter $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ tends to infinity. For each $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, we consider a probability space $(\\Omega^{n},\\mathcal{F}^{n},P^{n})$, and we suppose that all the random variables at stage $n$ are defined on $(\\Omega^{n},\\mathcal{F}^{n},P^{n})$. We also suppose that an isonormal Gaussian process $\\mathbb{W}_n=(\\mathbb{W}_n(h))_{h\\in H_n}$ over a real separable Hilbert space $H_n$ is defined on $(\\Omega^{n},\\mathcal{F}^{n},P^{n})$. To keep the notation simple, we subtract the indices $n$ from $(\\Omega^{n},\\mathcal{F}^{n},P^{n})$, $\\mathbb{W}_n$ and $H_n$, respectively. So we will write them simply as $(\\Omega,\\mathcal{F},P)$, $\\mathbb{W}$ and $H$, respectively. In particular, note that the spaces and the operators associated with $\\mathbb{W}$ (which are introduced in Section \\[sec:malliavin\\]) implicitly depend on $n$, although we do not attach the index $n$ to them.\n\nFor each $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $M_n$ be a $d$-dimensional random vector consisting of multiple Skorohod integrals: $$M_n^j=\\delta^{q_j}(u_n^j),\\qquad j=1,\\dots,d,$$ where $q_j$ is a positive integer and $u_n^j\\in\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta^{q_j})$ for every $j$. Here, we assume that the dimension $d$ possibly depends on $n$ as $d=d_n$, while $q_j$\u2019s do not depend on $n$. We also assume $d_n\\geq{\\textcolor{black}{3}}$ for every $n$ and ${\\overline{q}}:=\\sup_{j}q_j<\\infty$. Our aim is to study mixed-normal limit theorems for the following functionals: $$Z_n=M_n+W_n,\\qquad n=1,2,\\dots,$$ where $W_n$\u2019s are $d$-dimensional random vectors which represent the uncentered part of the functionals. Let us introduce mixed-normal random vectors approximating the functionals $Z_n$ in law as follows: $$\\mathfrak{Z}_n=\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n+W_n,\\qquad n=1,2,\\dots.$$ Here, $\\mathfrak{C}_n$ is a $d\\times d$ symmetric positive semidefinite random matrix and $\\zeta_n$ is a $d$-dimensional standard Gaussian vector independent of $\\mathcal{F}$, which is defined on an extension of the probability space $(\\Omega,\\mathcal{F},P)$ if necessary. The main aim of this paper is to investigate reasonable regularity conditions under which the distribution of $Z_n$ is well-approximated by that of $\\mathfrak{Z}_n$. To be precise, we are interested in the following type of result: $$\\sup_{z\\in\\mathbb{R}^d}\\left|P(Z_n\\leq z)-P(\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq z)\\right|\\to0\\qquad\\text{as }n\\to\\infty.$$ It is well-recognized in statistic literature, however, that this type of result is usually insufficient for statistical applications because it does not ensure standardization by a *random* vector which is still random in the limit; such an operation is crucial for Studentization in the present context. In a low-dimensional setting, this issue is usually resolved by proving the stability of the convergence so that $$(Z_n,X)\\to^{\\mathcal{L}}(\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X)\\qquad\\text{as }n\\to\\infty$$ for any $m$-dimensional ($\\mathcal{F}$-measurable) random variable $X$, where $\\to^{\\mathcal{L}}$ denotes the convergence in law. This statement is no longer meaningful in a high-dimensional setting such that $d\\to\\infty$ as $n\\to\\infty$, so we need to reformulate it appropriately. A na\u00efve idea is to consider the following statement: $$\\label{stable-kol}\n\\sup_{z\\in\\mathbb{R}^d,x\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}\\left|P(Z_n\\leq z,X\\leq x)-P(\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq z,X\\leq x)\\right|\\to0\\qquad\\text{as }n\\to\\infty.$$ However, if $m$ depends also on $n$, this type of statement is not attractive neither theoretical nor practical points of view due to the following reasons: From a theoretical point of view, we need to assume a so-called *anti-concentration inequality* for $X$ to prove this type of result by the CCK approach, but it is usually hard to check such an inequality for general random variables, especially when $m\\to\\infty$ as $n\\to\\infty$. Besides, from a practical point of view, it is still unclear whether the convergence ensures the validity of standardization of $Z_n$ because no analog of the continuous mapping theorem has been established yet for high-dimensional central limit theorems of the form . For these reasons we choose the way to directly prove convergence results for normalized statistics of $Z_n$. More formally, let $\\Xi_n$ be an $m\\times d$ random matrix, where $m=m_n\\geq{\\textcolor{black}{3}}$ possibly depends on $n$. Our aim is to establish $$\\label{aim}\n\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\Xi_nZ_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)|\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ under reasonable regularity conditions on $Z_n$ and $\\Xi_n$. Mathematically speaking, given a vector $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m$, the set $\\{z\\in\\mathbb{R}^d:\\Xi_nz\\leq y\\}$ is a finite intersection of hyperplanes in $\\mathbb{R}^d$, i.e.\u00a0convex polytopes in $\\mathbb{R}^d$, the convergence can be considered as a high-dimensional central limit theorem for random convex polytopes. If we take $\\Xi_n$ as the $d\\times d$ diagonal matrix whose diagonals are the inverses of the \u201cstandard errors\u201d of $Z_n$, the convergence does ensures the validity of (marginal) standardization of $Z_n$.\n\nNow, our main theorem is stated as follows:\n\n\\[thm:main\\] Suppose that $M_n,W_n\\in\\mathbb{D}_{\\overline{q},\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\\mathfrak{C}_n\\in\\mathbb{D}_{\\overline{q},\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times d})$ and that $u_n^j$ is symmetric for all $n$ and $j$. Suppose also that $\\Xi_n$ can be written as $\\Xi_n=\\Upsilon_n\\circ{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ with $\\Upsilon_n$ being an $m\\times d$ (deterministic) matrix such that ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty\\geq1$ and ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{\\overline{q},\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{m\\times d})$. Assume that the following convergences hold true: $$\\label{qtan-conv}\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^2E\\left[\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^2\\|\\Delta_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right](\\log m)^2\\to0$$ and $$\\label{delta-conv}\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{|\\nu|_{**}+1}E\\left[\\left(1+\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu|_*+1}\\right)\\left(1+\\|Z_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}+\\|\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}\\right)\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\|\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right](\\log m)^{\\frac{3}{2}|\\nu|_{**}+\\frac{1}{2}}\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for every $\\nu\\in{\\overline{\\mathcal{N}}}_4^*({\\overline{q}})$, where $$\\label{qtan}\n\\Delta_n=\\left(\\langle D^{q_j}M^i_n,u_n^j\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}-\\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij}\\right)_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}$$ and $$\\label{eq:delta}\n\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu):=\\left\\langle \\bigotimes_{k=1}^{q_j}(D^kM_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{k1}}\\otimes(D^k\\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{k2}}\\otimes(D^kW_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{k3}}\\otimes(D^k{\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n})^{\\otimes \\nu_{k4}},u_n^j\\right\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}$$ Assume also that the following condition is satisfied: $$\\label{diag-tight}\n\\lim_{b\\downarrow0}\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{C}_n\\Xi_n^\\top)<b)=0.$$ Then we have as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\nThe variable $\\Delta_n$ defined in is called the *quasi-tangent* in [@NY2017].\n\nThe variable $\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)$ defined in takes values in $$\\mathbb{R}^{\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{d\\times\\cdots\\times d}}_{|\\nu|_{*}}\\times\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{m\\times\\cdots\\times m}}_{|\\nu_{\\cdot4}|}\n\\times\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{d\\times\\cdots\\times d}}_{|\\nu_{\\cdot4}|}}$$ when $\\nu=(\\nu_{kl})\\in\\bigcup_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\mathcal{N}_4^*(\\alpha)$. To see this, let us recall that $D^kM_n$, $D^k\\mathfrak{C}_n$, $D^kW_n$ and $D^k{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ take values in $(H^{\\otimes k})^d$, $(H^{\\otimes k})^{d\\times d}$, $(H^{\\otimes k})^d$ and $(H^{\\otimes k})^{m\\times d}$, respectively (cf.\u00a0Section \\[sec:malliavin\\]). Therefore, according to the notation defined by , the variable $$\\bigotimes_{k=1}^{q_j}(D^kM_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{k1}}\\otimes(D^k\\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{k2}}\\otimes(D^kW_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{k3}}\\otimes(D^k{\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n})^{\\otimes \\nu_{k4}}$$ takes values in $$\\left(H^{\\otimes \\sum_{k=1}^{q_j}k(\\nu_{k1}+\\nu_{k2}+\\nu_{k3}+\\nu_{k4})}\\right)^{\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{d\\times\\cdots\\times d}}_{\\sum_{k=1}^{q_j}(\\nu_{k1}+2\\nu_{k2}+\\nu_{k3})}\n\\times\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{m\\times\\cdots\\times m}}_{\\sum_{k=1}^{q_j}\\nu_{k4}}\n\\times\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{d\\times\\cdots\\times d}}_{\\sum_{k=1}^{q_j}\\nu_{k4}}}\n=\\left(H^{\\otimes q_j}\\right)^{\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{d\\times\\cdots\\times d}}_{|\\nu|_{*}}\\times\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{m\\times\\cdots\\times m}}_{|\\nu_{\\cdot4}|}\n\\times\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{d\\times\\cdots\\times d}}_{|\\nu_{\\cdot4}|}},$$ where the last identity follows from the relation $\\sum_{k=1}^{q_j}k(\\nu_{k1}+\\nu_{k2}+\\nu_{k3}+\\nu_{k4})=q_j$. Hence, according to the notation defined by , we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)&=\\left\\langle \\bigotimes_{k=1}^{q_j}(D^kM_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{k1}}\\otimes(D^k\\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{k2}}\\otimes(D^kW_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{k3}}\\otimes(D^k{\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n})^{\\otimes \\nu_{k4}},u_n^j\\right\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}\\\\\n&\\in\\mathbb{R}^{\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{d\\times\\cdots\\times d}}_{|\\nu|_{*}}\\times\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{m\\times\\cdots\\times m}}_{|\\nu_{\\cdot4}|}\n\\times\\underbrace{\\scriptstyle{d\\times\\cdots\\times d}}_{|\\nu_{\\cdot4}|}}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn Theorem \\[thm:main\\], we require all the variables appearing there to have finite moments of all orders just for simplicity. It would be enough for them to have finite moments up to order $p$ only, where $p$ would be a function of ${\\overline{q}}$.\n\nAs in the original CCK theory, it is possible to give a quantitative version of the convergence , but we do not implement it here to make the statement of the theorem simpler.\n\nIn particular, when $q_j=1$ for all $j$, they consist of the following convergences: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^2E\\left[\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^2\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\left|\\langle DM^i_n,u_n^j\\rangle_{H}-\\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij}\\right|\\right](\\log m)^2\\to0,\\\\\n&{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{3}E\\left[(1+\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{3})\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k\\leq d}\\left|\\langle D\\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij},u_n^k\\rangle_{H}\\right|\\right](\\log m)^{\\frac{7}{2}}\\to0,\\\\\n&{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{2}E\\left[(1+\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{2})\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\left|\\langle DW^{i}_n,u_n^j\\rangle_{H}\\right|\\right](\\log m)^{2}\\to0,\\\\\n&{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{2}E\\left[\\left(1+\\|Z_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}+\\|\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right)\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq m}\\max_{1\\leq j,k\\leq d}\\left|\\langle D{\\boldsymbol{X}}^{ij}_n,u_n^k\\rangle_{H}\\right|\\right](\\log m)^2\\to0.\\end{aligned}$$ 0 $$\\mathcal{A}(2)=\\{(0,1),(2,0)\\}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathcal{N}_4((0,1))=\\left\\{\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\\\\n1 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\\\\n0 & 1 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n0 & 0 & 1 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 1\n\\end{array}\\right)\n\\right\\}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathcal{N}_4((2,0))\n&=\\left\\{\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n2 & 0 & 0 & 0\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 2 & 0 & 0\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 0 & 2 & 0\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 0 & 0 & 2\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\right.\\\\\n&\\hphantom{=\\{}\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n1 & 1 & 0 & 0\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n1 & 0 & 1 & 0\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n1 & 0 & 0 & 1\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 1 & 1 & 0\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\\\\\n&\\left.\\hphantom{=\\{}\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 1 & 0 & 1\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right),\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0 & 0 & 1 & 1\\\\\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0\n\\end{array}\\right)\n\\right\\}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nhen $q_j=2$ for all $j$, they consist of the following convergences: where $F_n,G_n\\in\\{M_n,W_n\\}$.\n\nAs a special case of Theorem \\[thm:main\\], we can deduce a high-dimensional central limit theorem for multiple Skorohod integrals in hyperrectangles as follows. Let $\\mathcal{A}^\\mathrm{re}(d)$ be the set of all hyperrectangles in $\\mathbb{R}^d$, i.e.\u00a0$\\mathcal{A}^\\mathrm{re}(d)$ consists of all sets $A$ of the form $$A=\\{z\\in\\mathbb{R}^d:a_j\\leq z^j\\leq b_j\\text{ for all }j=1,\\dots,d\\}$$ for some $-\\infty\\leq a_j\\leq b_j\\leq\\infty$, $j=1,\\dots,d$. Taking $\\Xi_n$ as $$\\Xi_n=\\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n\\mathsf{E}_d\\\\\n-\\mathsf{E}_d\n\\end{array}\\right)$$ in Theorem \\[thm:main\\], where $\\mathsf{E}_d$ denotes the identity matrix of size $d$, we obtain the following result (note that continues to hold true while $\\mathbb{R}^d$ is replaced by $(-\\infty,\\infty]^d$):\n\n\\[coro:main\\] Suppose that $M_n,W_n\\in\\mathbb{D}_{\\overline{q},\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^d)$ and $\\mathfrak{C}_n\\in\\mathbb{D}_{\\overline{q},\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times d})$ and that $u_n^j$ is symmetric for all $n$ and $j$. Assume that the following convergences hold true: $$E\\left[\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^2\\|\\Delta_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right](\\log d)^2\\to0$$ and $$E\\left[\\left(1+\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu|_*+1}\\right)\\left(1+\\|Z_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}+\\|\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}\\right)\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\|\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right](\\log d)^{\\frac{3}{2}|\\nu|_{**}+\\frac{1}{2}}\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for every $\\nu\\in{\\overline{\\mathcal{N}}}_4^*({\\overline{q}})$. Assume also that the following condition is satisfied: $$\\lim_{b\\downarrow0}\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\mathfrak{C}_n)<b)=0.$$ Then we have $$\\sup_{A\\in\\mathcal{A}^\\mathrm{re}(d)}\\left|P(Z_n\\in A)-P(\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\in A)\\right|\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\nSome related results for statistical applications {#some-related-results-for-statistical-applications .unnumbered}\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nIn many applications, the objective variables are only approximately multiple Skorohod integrals. The following lemma is useful for such a situation.\n\n\\[lemma:approx\\] For each $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $Y_n,Y_n'$ be $m$-dimensional random vectors such that $$\\sqrt{\\log m}\\|Y_n'-Y_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\to^p0$$ and $$\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)|\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$. Then we have $$\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y'_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)|\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$, provided that holds true.\n\nIn terms of statistical applications, the mixed-normal approximation given by Theorem \\[thm:main\\] is often infeasible because the \u201casymptotic\u201d covariance matrix $\\mathfrak{C}_n$ usually contains unobservable quantities. In the following we give two auxiliary results bridging this gap. The first result ensures the validity of estimating the $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional distribution of $\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n$ while we replace $\\mathfrak{C}_n,W_n$ and $\\Xi_n$ by their estimators.\n\n\\[prop:comparison\\] For each $n$, let ${\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}}_n,{\\widehat{W}}_n$ and ${\\widehat{\\Xi}}_n$ be a $d\\times d$ symmetric positive semidefinite random matrix, a $d$-dimensional random vector and an $m\\times d$ random matrix, respectively. Set $\\widehat{\\mathfrak{Z}}_n:=\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n+{\\widehat{W}}_n$. Suppose that $$\\label{eq:consistent}\n\\sqrt{\\log m}\\|{\\widehat{\\Xi}}_n{\\widehat{W}}_n-\\Xi_nW_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\to^p0,\\qquad\n(\\log m)^2\\|{\\widehat{\\Xi}}_n\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n{\\widehat{\\Xi}}_n^\\top-\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{C}_n\\Xi_n^\\top\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\to^p0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$. Then we have $$\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P({\\widehat{\\Xi}}_n\\widehat{\\mathfrak{Z}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$, provided that holds true.\n\nWe remark that the above proposition only gives a way to estimate the $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional distribution of $\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n$ when we have appropriate estimators for relevant variables: It says nothing about how to estimate the *unconditional* distribution of $\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n$. Because of the non-ergodic nature of the problem, in general there seems no hope of consistently estimating the latter quantity even if we can consistently estimate unknown variables contained in $\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n$. In a low-dimensional setting this issue is usually resolved by standardizing the objective statistic by a consistent estimator for its asymptotic covariance matrix, which is validated via the stability of convergence in law. In a high-dimensional setting, however, standardizing the (joint) distribution of the objective statistic is often difficult: Estimators for the conditional covariance matrix of the objective statistic are usually singular because the sample size is smaller than the dimension, and even if it is regular, computation of the inverse is typically time-consuming. Nevertheless, we can fortunately show that, in order to estimate quantiles of the unconditional distribution $\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n$, it is sufficient to only estimate its $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional distribution. We remark that this fact has already been known in high-frequency financial econometrics and typically been used to construct jump-related testing procedures; see [@JT2009; @LTT2017] for example. Formally, we can prove the following result:\n\n\\[prop:quantile\\] For each $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $T_n,T_n^\\dagger,T_n^*$ be random variables defined on an extension of the probability space $(\\Omega,\\mathcal{F},P)$. Suppose that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sup_{x\\in\\mathbb{R}}\\left|P(T_n\\leq x)-P(T_n^\\dagger\\leq x)\\right|\\to0,\n&\\sup_{x\\in\\mathbb{R}}\\left|P(T_n^*\\leq x|\\mathcal{F})-P(T_n^\\dagger\\leq x|\\mathcal{F})\\right|\\to^p0\\end{aligned}$$ as $n\\to\\infty$. Suppose also that there is a sequence $(E_n)$ of elements in $\\mathcal{F}$ such that the $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional distribution of $T_n^\\dagger$ has the density on $E_n$ for every $n$ and $\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}P(E_n)=1$. For each $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $q_n^*$ be the $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional quantile function of $T_n^*$: $$q_n^*(\\alpha)=\\inf\\{x\\in\\mathbb{R}:P(T_n^*\\leq x|\\mathcal{F})\\geq \\alpha\\},\\qquad \\alpha\\in(0,1).$$ Then we have $$P(T_n \\leq q_n^*(\\alpha))\\to\\alpha$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for all $\\alpha\\in(0,1)$.\n\nApplication to realized covariance {#sec:rc}\n==================================\n\nIn this section we assume that the probability space $(\\Omega,\\mathcal{F},P)$ admits the structure such that $\\Omega=\\Omega'\\times\\mathbf{W}$, $\\mathcal{F}=\\mathcal{F}'\\otimes\\mathbf{B}$ and $P=P'\\times\\mathbf{P}$ for some probability space $(\\Omega',\\mathcal{F}',P')$ and the $r$-dimensional Wiener space $(\\mathbf{W},\\mathbf{B},\\mathbf{P})$ over time interval $[0,1]$, and consider the partial Malliavin calculus with respect to the $r$-dimensional Brownian motion $B=(B_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ defined by $B_t(\\omega',w)=w(t)$ for $\\omega'\\in\\Omega'$, $w\\in\\mathbf{W}$ and $t\\in[0,1]$ (cf.\u00a0Section 6.1 of [@Yoshida1997]). In this setting the Hilbert space $H$ coincides with the space $L^2([0,1];\\mathbb{R}^r)$. We here allow the dimension $r=r_n$ to possibly depend on $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, so $(\\Omega,\\mathcal{F},P)$ and $B$ may depend on $n$, but we subtract the index $n$ from the notation. Let $(\\mathcal{B}_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ the filtration generated by the canonical process on $\\mathbf{W}$, and define the filtration $(\\mathcal{F}_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ of $\\mathcal{F}$ by $\\mathcal{F}_t:=\\mathcal{F}'\\otimes\\mathcal{B}_t$ for $t\\in[0,1]$. On the stochastic basis $(\\Omega,\\mathcal{F},(\\mathcal{F}_t),P)$, we consider the $d$-dimensional continuous It\u00f4 semimartingale $Y=(Y_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ given by the following: $$Y_t=Y_0+\\int_0^t\\mu_sds+\\int_0^t\\sigma_sdB_s,\\qquad t\\in[0,1].$$ Here, $\\mu=(\\mu_s)_{s\\in[0,1]}$ is a $d$-dimensional $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process and $\\sigma=(\\sigma_s)_{s\\in[0,1]}$ is an $\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times r}$-valued $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process such that $$\\int_0^1\\left(\\|\\mu_s\\|_{\\ell_1}+\\|\\sigma_s\\|_{\\ell_2}^2\\right)ds<\\infty\\quad\\text{a.s.}$$ We remark that the processes $\\mu$ and $\\sigma$ generally depend on $n$ because $d$ and $r$ may depend on $n$. However, following the custom of high-dimensional statistics, we subtract the index $n$ from the notation as above.\n\nWe observe the process $Y$ at the discrete time points $t_h=t_h^n=h/n$, $h=0,1,\\dots,n$. In such a setting, the discretized quadratic covariation matrix $$\\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1:=\\sum_{h=1}^n(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})^\\top,$$ which is known as the *realized covariance matrix* in high-frequency financial econometrics, is a natural estimator for the quadratic covariance matrix of $Y$: $$[Y,Y]_1=\\int_0^1\\Sigma_tdt,\\qquad\\Sigma_t:=\\sigma_t\\sigma_t^\\top.$$ The aim of this section is to establish the asymptotic mixed normality of the estimator $\\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1$ in a high-dimensional setting such that the dimension $d$ is possibly (much) larger than the sample size $n$.\n\nBefore stating the result, we introduce some notation. First, for a random variable $F$ taking values in $\\mathbb{R}^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$ for some $N_1,\\dots,N_q\\in\\mathbb{N}$, we set $\\|F\\|_{p,\\ell_2}:=\\|\\|F\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|_p$ for every $p\\in(0,\\infty]$. Next, for a positive integer $k$, we identify the space $H^{\\otimes k}$ with $L^2([0,1]^k;(\\mathbb{R}^r)^{\\otimes k})$ in the canonical way . Therefore, if a random variable $F$ is $k$ times differentiable in the Malliavin sense, the $k$th Malliavin derivative $D^kF$ of $F$ $L^2([0,1]^k;(\\mathbb{R}^r)^{\\otimes k})$, so we can consider the value $D^kF(t_1,\\dots,t_k)$ in $(\\mathbb{R}^r)^{\\otimes k}$ evaluated at $(t_1,\\dots,t_k)\\in[0,1]^k$. We denote this value by $D_{t_1,\\dots,t_k}F$. Moreover, for an index $(a_1,\\dots,a_k)\\in\\{1,\\dots,r\\}^k$, we write the $(a_1,\\dots,a_k)$-th entry of $D_{t_1,\\dots,t_k}F$ as $D^{(a_1,\\dots,a_k)}_{t_1,\\dots,t_k}F$ (note that we identify $(\\mathbb{R}^r)^{\\otimes k}$ with $\\mathbb{R}^{r\\times\\cdots\\times r}$). We remark that the variable $D_{t_1,\\dots,t_k}F$ is defined only a.e.\u00a0on $[0,1]^k\\times\\Omega$ with respect to the measure $\\operatorname{\\mathsf{Leb}}_k\\times P$, where $\\operatorname{\\mathsf{Leb}}_k$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on $[0,1]^k$. Therefore, if $D_{t_1,\\dots,t_k}F$ satisfies some property a.e.\u00a0on $[0,1]^k\\times\\Omega$ with respect to the measure $\\operatorname{\\mathsf{Leb}}_k\\times P$, by convention we will always take a version of $D_{t_1,\\dots,t_k}F$ satisfying that property everywhere on $[0,1]^k\\times\\Omega$ if necessary. 0 If $F\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,p}(\\mathbb{R}^r)$ for some $p\\geq1$, we define $${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{D_{s,t}F}_*:=\\sup\\left\\{\\sqrt{\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(A\\cdot D^2_{s,t}F^a\\right)^2}:A\\in\\mathbb{R}^{r\\times r},\\|A\\|_{\\ell_2}\\leq1\\right\\}$$ for $s,t\\in[0,1]$. Namely, ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{D_{s,t}F}_*$ is the operator norm of the random map $\\mathbb{R}^{r\\times r}\\ni A\\mapsto (A\\cdot D_{s,t}F^1,\\dots,A\\cdot D_{s,t}F^r)^\\top\\in\\mathbb{R}^r$. We can bound ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{D_{s,t}F}_*$ as $${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{D_{s,t}F}_*\\leq\\sqrt{\\sum_{a,b,c=1}^r\\left(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}F^c\\right)^2}=\\|D_{s,t}F\\|_{\\ell_2}.$$ We also set ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{D_{s,t}F}_{p,*}:=\\|{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{D_{s,t}F}_*\\|_p$ for $p\\in(0,\\infty]$.\n\nWe define the $d^2\\times d^2$ random matrix $\\mathfrak{C}_n$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}:=\nn\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left\\{\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\Sigma_s^{ik}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\Sigma_s^{jl}ds\\right)\n+\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\Sigma_s^{il}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\Sigma_s^{jk}ds\\right)\\right\\},\\\\\ni,j,k,l=1,\\dots,d,\\end{aligned}$$ which plays the role of the conditional covariance matrix of the approximating mixed-normal distribution in our setting.\n\nIn the fixed dimensional setting, $\\mathfrak{C}_n$ converges in probability as $n\\to\\infty$ to the random matrix $\\bar{\\mathfrak{C}}$ defined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\bar{\\mathfrak{C}}^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}:=\n\\int_0^1\\left(\\Sigma_t^{ik}\\Sigma_t^{jl}+\\Sigma_t^{il}\\Sigma_t^{jk}\\right)dt,\\qquad\ni,j,k,l=1,\\dots,d\\end{aligned}$$ under mild regularity assumptions, so $\\bar{\\mathfrak{C}}$ plays the role of the asymptotic covariance matrix in such a setting. However, in the high-dimensional setting the convergence rate of $\\mathfrak{C}_n$ to $\\bar{\\mathfrak{C}}$ does matter and we usually need an additional condition like to derive it. To avoid such an extra assumption, we use the \u201cintermediate version\u201d $\\mathfrak{C}_n$ of $\\bar{\\mathfrak{C}}$ to state Theorem \\[thm:rc\\] below.\n\n0 For a random variable $\\xi$ and a positive number $\\alpha$, we define $$\\|\\xi\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha}:=\\inf\\{C>0:E[\\psi_\\alpha(|\\xi|/C)]\\leq1\\},$$ where we set $\\psi_\\alpha(x)=\\exp(x^\\alpha)-1$ for every $x\\geq0$.\n\n\\[thm:rc\\] Suppose that $\\mu_t\\in\\mathbb{D}_{1,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d})$ and $\\sigma_t\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times r})$ for all $t\\in[0,1]$. For every $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $W_n\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d^2})$, ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{m\\times d^2})$ and $\\Upsilon_n$ be an $m\\times d^2$ (deterministic) matrix such that ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty\\geq1$, where $m=m_n$ possibly depends on $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Define $\\Xi_n:=\\Upsilon_n\\circ{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ and assume $$\\label{rc:diag}\n\\lim_{b\\downarrow0}\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{C}_n\\Xi_n^\\top)<b)=0.$$ Then the following statements hold true:\n\n1.  Suppose that there is a constant $\\varpi\\in(0,\\frac{1}{2})$ such that ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      s\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      }\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^5=O(n^\\varpi)$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n    &\\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d^2}\\left(\n    \\|W^{i}_n\\|_p\n    {\\textcolor{black}{+}}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|D_tW_n^{i}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}W_n^{i}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    \\right)\n    <\\infty,\\label{eq-W}\\\\\n    &\\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq m}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d^2}\\left(\n    \\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}^{ij}_n\\|_p\n    {\\textcolor{black}{+}}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|D_t{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    \\right)\n    <\\infty,\\label{eq-X}\\\\\n    &\\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left(\n    \\|\\mu_t^{i}\\|_p\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_s\\mu_t^{i}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    \\right)\n    <\\infty,\\label{eq-mu}\\\\\n    &\\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left(\n    \\|\\Sigma_t^{ii}\\|_p\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_s\\sigma_t^{i\\cdot}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma_u^{i\\cdot}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    \\right)\n    <\\infty\\label{eq-sigma}\\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\\in[1,\\infty)$. 0 Suppose also that there is a constant $\\gamma\\in(0,1]$ such that $$\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\max_{1\\leq h\\leq n}\\sup_{s,t\\in I_h}\\left\\|\\Sigma_t^{ij}-\\Sigma_s^{ij}\\right\\|_{p}=O(n^{-\\gamma})$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$. Suppose also that $d=O(n^\\mathfrak{c})$ and $m=O(n^\\mathfrak{c})$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for some $\\mathfrak{c}>0$. Then we have $$\\label{rc:result}\n    \\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}\\left|P\\left(\\Xi_n\\left(S_n+W_n\\right)\\leq y\\right)-P(\\Xi_n(\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n+W_n)\\leq y)\\right|\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$, where $$S_n:=\\operatorname{vec}\\left[\\sqrt{n}\\left(\\widehat{[Y,Y]}^n_1-[Y,Y]_1\\right)\\right]$$ and $\\zeta_n$ is a $d^2$-dimensional Gaussian vector independent of $\\mathcal{F}$.\n\n    0\n\n2.  Suppose that there is a number $\\alpha\\in(0,2]$ such that ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      s\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      }\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^5(\\log d)^{\\frac{10}{\\alpha}}\\upsilon_n^{10}(\\log m)^{\\frac{13}{2}}=o(\\sqrt{n})$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n    &\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d^2}\\left\\{\n    \\|W^{i}_n\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha}+\\|X^{i}_n\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha}\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left(\\|D_tW_n^{i}\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha,\\ell_2}+\\|D_tX^{i}_n\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha,\\ell_2}\\right)\\right.\\\\\n    &\\left.\\hphantom{\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d^2}\\quad}+\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left(\\|D_{s,t}^2W_n^{i}\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha,\\ell_2}+\\|D^2_{s,t}X^{i}_n\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha,\\ell_2}\\right)\n    \\right\\}=O(\\upsilon_n),\\\\\n    &\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left(\n    \\|\\Sigma_t^{ii}\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha}\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_s\\sigma_t^{i\\cdot}\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha,\\ell_2}^2\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma_u^{i\\cdot}\\|_{\\psi_\\alpha,\\ell_2}^2\n    \\right)=O(\\upsilon_n)\\end{aligned}$$ as $n\\to\\infty$. Then we have as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\n3.  Suppose that ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      s\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      }\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^5(\\log dm)^{\\frac{13}{2}}=o(\\sqrt{n})$ as $n\\to\\infty$ and - are satisfied for $p=\\infty$. 0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d^2}\\left(\n    \\|W^{i}_n\\|_\\infty+\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|D_tW_n^{i}\\|_{\\infty,\\ell_2}\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}^2W_n^{i}\\|_{\\infty,\\ell_2}\n    \\right)\n    &<\\infty,\\\\\n    \\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq m}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d^2}\\left(\n    \\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}^{ij}_n\\|_\\infty+\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|D_t{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\\|_{\\infty,\\ell_2}\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}^2{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\\|_{\\infty,\\ell_2}\n    \\right)\n    &<\\infty,\\\\\n    \\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left(\n    \\|\\Sigma_t^{ii}\\|_\\infty\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_s\\sigma_t^{i\\cdot}\\|_{\\infty,\\ell_2}^2\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma_u^{i\\cdot}\\|_{\\infty,\\ell_2}^2\n    \\right)\n    &<\\infty.\\end{aligned}$$ Then we have as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\n\\[rmk:rc\\] We enumerate some remarks on the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\] in the following:\n\n1.  In typical applications of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], we take $W_n\\equiv0$ and $X_n$ a smooth functional of the volatility process $\\sigma$. ence only the assumptions on $\\mu$ and $\\sigma$ do matter (see also Section \\[sec:factor\\]). The Malliavin differentiability conditions on $\\mu$ and $\\sigma$ are satisfied, for example, when $\\mu$ and $\\sigma$ are respectively solutions of stochastic differential equations (SDEs) with sufficiently regular coefficients; see e.g.\u00a0Section 2.2.2 of [@Nualart2006]. We remark that the (local) Malliavin differentiability has been known for solutions of some SDEs with irregular coefficients as well; see Section 4 of @AE2008 and Lemma 5.9 of @Naganuma2013 for example.\n\n2.  A major restriction imposed by the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\] is that they require the arrays $(D_s^{(a)}\\sigma_t^{ib})_{(a,b)\\in[r]^2}$ and $(D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}\\sigma_u^{ic})_{(a,b,c)\\in[r]^2}$ are sufficiently \u201csparse\u201d for all $s,t,u\\in[0,1]$ so that $$\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_s\\sigma_t^{i\\cdot}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\\quad\\text{and}\\quad\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma_u^{i\\cdot}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}$$ do not diverge as $n\\to\\infty$. This is a restriction because $r$ typically diverges as $n\\to\\infty$ in a high-dimensional setting. Such a condition is satisfied e.g.\u00a0when $Y^i$ and $(\\sigma_t^{i\\cdot})_{t\\in[0,1]}$ depend on only finitely many components of $B$ for each $i$ (they may vary with $i$, though). Therefore, it is satisfied if the price and volatility processes have a certain factor structure, which seems realistic in financial applications.\n\n3.  The Malliavin differentiability condition on $\\mu$ in Theorem \\[thm:rc\\] can be replaced by a continuity condition on $\\mu$ analogous to . In fact, it is used only to prove Lemma \\[drift\\], where it is only crucial that $\\mu$ is well-approximated by a \u201cstrongly predictable\u201d process.\n\n4.  Assumptions on the second Malliavin derivatives of the volatility process $\\sigma_t$ sometimes appear in high-frequency financial econometrics even for the fixed-dimensional case; see [@CG2011; @CPTV2017] for example.\n\n5.  The assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\] do not rule out the possibility of the presence of jumps in the volatility process $\\sigma$; see @Fukasawa2011.\n\n6.  \\[rmk:moment\\] It would be enough in Theorem \\[thm:rc\\](a) to assume conditions \u2013 for some $p\\in[1,\\infty)$ only, where $p$ depends on the value of $\\mathfrak{c}$, i.e.\u00a0the divergence rates of $d$ and $m$.\n\nBy an analogous discussion to the one before Corollary \\[coro:main\\], we can deduce a high-dimensional central limit theorem for realized covariance in hyperrectangles from Theorem \\[thm:rc\\]:\n\n\\[coro:rc\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\] with replacing by $$\\lim_{b\\downarrow0}\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\mathfrak{C}_n)<b)=0,$$ we have $$\\sup_{A\\in\\mathcal{A}^\\mathrm{re}(d^2)}\\left|P\\left(S_n+W_n\\in A\\right)-P\\left(\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n+W_n\\in A\\right)\\right|\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\nIn some situations, it is more convenient to consider a localized version of the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\] as follows:\n\n\\[thm:rc-local\\] For every $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $W_n$ be a $d^2$-dimensional random vector, ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ be an $m\\times d^2$ random matrix and $\\Upsilon_n$ be an $m\\times d^2$ (deterministic) matrix such that ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty\\geq1$, where $m=m_n$ possibly depends on $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Moreover, for every $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $\\Omega_n(\\nu)\\in\\mathcal{F}$, $\\mu(\\nu)=(\\mu(\\nu)_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ be a $d$-dimensional $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process, $\\sigma(\\nu)=(\\sigma(\\nu)_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ be an $\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times r}$-valued $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process, $W_n(\\nu)\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d^2})$ and ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\\nu)\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{m\\times d^2})$, and suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:\n\n1.  $\\lim_{\\nu\\to\\infty}\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\Omega_n(\\nu)^c)=0$.\n\n2.  For all $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $t\\in[0,1]$, $\\mu_t=\\mu(\\nu)_t$ and $\\sigma_t=\\sigma(\\nu)_t$ on $\\Omega_n(\\nu)$ as well as $\\mu(\\nu)_t\\in\\mathbb{D}_{1,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d})$ and $\\sigma(\\nu)_t\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times r})$.\n\n3.  For all $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $W_n=W_n(\\nu)$ and ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n={\\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\\nu)$ on $\\Omega_n(\\nu)$.\n\n4.  For all $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$, holds true with replacing ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ and $\\sigma$ by ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\\nu)$ and $\\sigma(\\nu)$ respectively.\n\nThen the following statements hold true:\n\n1.  Suppose that there are constants $\\varpi\\in(0,\\frac{1}{2})$ and $\\mathfrak{c}>0$ such that ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      s\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      }\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^5=O(n^\\varpi)$, $d=O(n^\\mathfrak{c})$ and $m=O(n^\\mathfrak{c})$ as $n\\to\\infty$. Suppose also that, for all $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$, - are satisfied for all $p\\in[1,\\infty)$ with replacing $W_n,{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n,\\mu,\\sigma$ by $W_n(\\nu),{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\\nu),\\mu(\\nu),\\sigma(\\nu)$ respectively. Then we have as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\n2.  Suppose that ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      s\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n      }\n      \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n    }{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^5(\\log dm)^{\\frac{13}{2}}=o(\\sqrt{n})$ as $n\\to\\infty$ and, for all $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$, - are satisfied for $p=\\infty$ with replacing $W_n,{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n,\\mu,\\sigma$ by $W_n(\\nu),{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n(\\nu),\\mu(\\nu),\\sigma(\\nu)$ respectively. Then we have as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\nTo make Theorems \\[thm:rc\\]\u2013\\[thm:rc-local\\] statistically feasible, we need to estimate the \u201casymptotic\u201d covariance matrix $\\mathfrak{C}_n$. We can construct a \u201cconsistent\u201d estimator for $\\mathfrak{C}_n$ in the same way as in the low-dimensional setting of @BNS2004rc: Define the $d^2$-dimensional random vectors $\\chi_h$ by $$\\chi_{h}:=\\operatorname{vec}\\left[(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})(Y_{t_h}-Y_{t_{h-1}})^\\top\\right],\\qquad\nh=1,\\dots,n.$$ Then we set $$\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n:=n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\chi_h\\chi_h^\\top-\\frac{n}{2}\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\left(\\chi_h\\chi_{h+1}^\\top+\\chi_{h+1}\\chi_{h}^\\top\\right).$$\n\n\\[prop:acov\\] For all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $\\Omega_n(\\nu)\\in\\mathcal{F}$, $\\mu(\\nu)=(\\mu(\\nu)_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ be a $d$-dimensional $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process and $\\sigma(\\nu)=(\\sigma(\\nu)_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ be an $\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times r}$-valued $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process, and suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:\n\n1.  $\\lim_{\\nu\\to\\infty}\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\Omega_n(\\nu)^c)=0$.\n\n2.  For all $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $t\\in[0,1]$, $\\mu_t=\\mu(\\nu)_t$ and $\\sigma_t=\\sigma(\\nu)_t$ on $\\Omega_n(\\nu)$ as well as $\\sigma(\\nu)_t\\in\\mathbb{D}_{1,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times r})$.\n\n3.  There is a constant $\\gamma\\in(0,\\frac{1}{2}]$ such that $$\\label{sigma-modulus}\n    \\sup_{0< t\\leq1-\\frac{1}{n}}\\left\\|\\max_{1\\leq k,l\\leq d}\\left|\\Sigma(\\nu)^{kl}_{t+\\frac{1}{n}}-\\Sigma(\\nu)^{kl}_t\\right|\\right\\|_2=O(n^{-\\gamma})$$ as $n\\to\\infty$, where $\\Sigma(\\nu)_t:=\\sigma(\\nu)_t\\sigma(\\nu)_t^\\top$.\n\nThen the following statements hold true:\n\n1.  Suppose that $$\\label{acov-moment}\n    \\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left(\n    \\|\\mu(\\nu)_t^i\\|_p\n    +\\|\\Sigma(\\nu)_t^{ii}\\|_p\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_s\\sigma(\\nu)_t^{i\\cdot}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    \\right)\n    <\\infty$$ for all $p\\in[1,\\infty)$ and $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Suppose also that $d=O(n^{\\mathfrak{c}})$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for some $\\mathfrak{c}>0$. Then we have $\n    \\|{\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}}_n-\\mathfrak{C}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}=O_p(n^{-\\varpi})\n    $ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\varpi\\in(0,\\gamma)$.\n\n2.  Suppose that is satisfied for $p=\\infty$. Then we have $\n    \\|{\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}}_n-\\mathfrak{C}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}=O_p(n^{-1/2}\\log^2 d+n^{-\\gamma})\n    $ as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\nIt is presumably possible to remove the (local) Malliavin differentiability assumption on $\\sigma_t$ from Proposition \\[prop:acov\\] if we impose an additional condition on $d$ and $n^{-\\gamma}$ (such an additional assumption will be even unnecessary to prove the part (a) only, but we keep that condition to prove two claims in a unified way).\n\nWhen the dimension $d$ is very large, computation of ${\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}}_n^{1/2}$ is practically challenging, it is better to employ a (wild) bootstrap to generate random vectors having the same distributions as that of ${\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n$ as follows. Let $(e_h)_{h=1}^\\infty$ be a centered Gaussian process independent of $\\mathcal{F}$, which is defined on an extension of $(\\Omega,\\mathcal{F},P)$ if necessary. Then we define $$S_n^*:=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^ne_h\\chi_h.$$ The Gaussian process $(e_h)_{h=1}^\\infty$ must have an appropriate covariance matrix so that the $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional matrix of $S_n^*$ mimics ${\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}}_n$. As is well-known in the literature (see e.g.\u00a0[@Hounyo2014]), the standard i.i.d.\u00a0wild bootstrap fails to approximate the joint distributions of statistics in the present context.[^5] Alternatively, we assume that $(e_h)_{h=1}^\\infty$ is stationary with auto-covariance function $$E[e_he_{h+\\ell}]\n=\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{cl}\n1  & \\text{if }\\ell=0,   \\\\\n-\\frac{1}{2}  & \\text{if }\\ell=1, \\\\\n0  & \\text{otherwise}. \n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Then we can easily check that the $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional covariance matrix of $S_n^*$ is equal to ${\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}}_n$, $S_n^*$ has the same distribution as that of ${\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n$. We remark that such a sequence $(e_h)_{h=1}^\\infty$ considered above can be generated by the following Gaussian MA(1) process: $$e_h=\\eta^*_h-\\eta^*_{h-1},\\qquad h=1,\\dots,n,$$ where $(\\eta^*_h)_{h=0}^n$ is a sequence of i.i.d.\u00a0centered Gaussian variables with variance $\\frac{1}{2}$. Therefore, we can rewrite $S_n^*$ as $$S_n^*=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\eta^*_h(\\chi_h-\\chi_{h+1})+\\sqrt{n}(\\eta^*_n\\chi_n-\\eta^*_0\\chi_1).$$ The second term on the right side of the above equation is usually asymptotically negligible, so the bootstrap procedure considered here is essentially the same as the *wild blocks of blocks bootstrap* proposed in @Hounyo2014.\n\nTesting the residual sparsity of a continuous-time factor model {#sec:factor}\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nAs an application of the theory developed above, we consider the problem of testing the correlation structure of the residual process of a continuous-time factor model. This problem was investigated in Section 4 of @BM2016 for the case of two assets, and we are aim at extending their analysis to a multiple assets situation. Specifically, we suppose that the $d$-th asset $Y^d$ is regarded as an observable factor and consider the following continuous-time factor model: $$\\label{factor-model}\nY^j=\\beta^jY^d+R^j,\\qquad j=1,\\dots,\\underline{d}:=d-1.$$ Here, $\\beta^j$ is a constant and $R^j$ is a semimartingale such that $[R^j,Y^d]\\equiv0$. Let us set $\\Lambda_n:=\\{(i,j):1\\leq i<j\\leq \\underline{d}\\}$. For each $(i,j)\\in\\Lambda_n$, we consider the following hypothesis testing problem: $$\\label{rs-test}\nH_0^{(i,j)}:[R^i,R^j]_1=0\\quad\\text{a.s.}\\qquad\n\\text{vs}\\qquad\nH_1^{(i,j)}:[R^i,R^j]_1\\neq0\\quad\\text{a.s.}$$ Our aim is to test the hypothesis simultaneously for $(i,j)\\in\\Lambda_n$, but we start with constructing a test statistic for a fixed $(i,j)\\in\\Lambda_n$. For notational convenience, we construct the test statistic for every pair $(i,j)$ in $\\{1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}\\}^2$.\n\nConsidering the case $Y^d\\equiv0$, we have $R^i=Y^i$ for all $i=1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}$. ence the problem turns to multiple testing for the hypotheses .\n\nWe follow [@BM2016] and consider the following statistic $$\\mathfrak{T}^{ij}:=[Y^i,Y^d]_1[Y^j,Y^d]_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1[Y^d,Y^d]_1,$$ which is zero under $H_0^{(i,j)}$. Therefore, it is natural to consider the estimated version of $\\mathfrak{T}^{ij}$ as follows: $$\\hat{\\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n:=\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^d]}^n_1\\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^n_1-\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^n_1\\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^n_1.$$ In order to make the test statistic scale invariant, we consider the Studentized version of $\\hat{\\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n$. According to [@BM2016], the \u201casymptotic variance\u201d of $\\hat{\\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n$ is given by the following statistic: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathfrak{V}^{ij}_n&:=[Y^j,Y^d]_1^2\\mathfrak{C}_n^{id,id}+[Y^i,Y^d]_1^2\\mathfrak{C}_n^{jd,jd}\n+[Y^i,Y^j]_1^2\\mathfrak{C}_n^{d^2,d^2}+[Y^d,Y^d]_1^2\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(i-1)d+j}\\\\\n&\\quad+2[Y^d,Y^d]_1[Y^i,Y^j]_1\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,d^2}\n+2[Y^i,Y^d]_1[Y^j,Y^d]_1\\mathfrak{C}_n^{id,jd}\\\\\n&\\quad-2[Y^i,Y^d]_1[Y^d,Y^d]_1\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,jd}\n-2[Y^j,Y^d]_1[Y^d,Y^d]_1\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,id}\\\\\n&\\quad-2[Y^i,Y^j]_1[Y^i,Y^d]_1\\mathfrak{C}_n^{jd,d^2}\n-2[Y^i,Y^j]_1[Y^j,Y^d]_1\\mathfrak{C}_n^{id,d^2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Let us denote by $\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n$ the estimated version of $\\mathfrak{V}^{ij}_n$, i.e.\u00a0we define $\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n$ by the right side of the above equation with replacing $[Y,Y]_1$ and $\\mathfrak{C}_n$ by $\\widehat{[Y,Y]}_1$ and ${\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}}_n$, respectively. Then we define the test statistic by $$T_n^{(i,j)}:=\\frac{\\sqrt{n}\\hat{\\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n}{\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n}}.$$ The statistic $T_n^{(i,j)}$ is generally uncentered unless the null hypothesis $H_0^{(i,j)}$ is true, and it is convenient to consider the centered version of $T_n^{(i,j)}$ in the general situation as follows: $$\\tilde{T}_n^{(i,j)}:=\\frac{\\sqrt{n}\\left(\\hat{\\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n-\\mathfrak{T}^{ij}_n\\right)}{\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n}}.$$ Note that we can rewrite $\\hat{\\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n-\\mathfrak{T}^{ij}_n$ as $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\hat{\\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_n-\\mathfrak{T}^{ij}_n\n=\\left(\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^d]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^d]_1\\right)\\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^n_1\n+[Y^i,Y^d]_1\\left(\\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^n_1-[Y^j,Y^d]_1\\right)\\\\\n-\\left(\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1\\right)\\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^n_1\n-[Y^i,Y^j]_1\\left(\\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^n_1-[Y^d,Y^d]_1\\right).\\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, a bootstrapped version of $\\tilde{T}_n^{(i,j)}$ is defined as $$T_{n,*}^{(i,j)}:=\\frac{\\sqrt{n}\\hat{\\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_{n,*}}{\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}^{ij}_n}},$$ where $$\\hat{\\mathfrak{T}}^{ij}_{n,*}:=\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^d]}^{n,*}_1\\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^n_1\n+\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^d]}^{n}_1\\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}^{n,*}_1\n-\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^{n,*}_1\\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^{n}_1\n-\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^{n}_1\\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}^{n,*}_1$$ and $$\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^{n,*}_1:=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^ne_h(Y^i_{t_h}-Y^i_{t_{h-1}})(Y^j_{t_h}-Y^j_{t_{h-1}}),\\qquad\ni,j=1,\\dots,d.$$ Set $\\tilde{T}_n=(\\tilde{T}_n^{(i,j)})_{1\\leq i,j\\leq{\\underline{d}}}$ and $T_{n,*}=(T_{n,*}^{(i,j)})_{1\\leq i,j\\leq{\\underline{d}}}$. We derive mixed-normal approximations for $\\operatorname{vec}(\\tilde{T}_n)$ and $\\operatorname{vec}(T_{n,*})$ by applying the theory developed above. For this purpose we define the ${\\underline{d}}^2\\times d^2$ random matrix ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ by $${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{(i-1){\\underline{d}}+j,(k-1)d+l}=\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{cl}\n~[Y^j,Y^d]_1/\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}  & \\text{if }k=i,~l=d,  \\\\\n~[Y^i,Y^d]_1/\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}  & \\text{if }k=j,~l=d, \\\\\n~-[Y^d,Y^d]_1/\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}  & \\text{if }k=l=d,  \\\\\n~-[Y^i,Y^j]_1/\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}} & \\text{if }k=i, l=j,\\\\\n0 & \\text{otherwise}   \n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ for $i,j=1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}$ and $k,l=1,\\dots,d$. Note that the statistics $\\operatorname{vec}(\\tilde{T}_n)$ and $\\operatorname{vec}(T_{n,*})$ can be approximated by ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_nS_n$ and ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_nS_n^*$, respectively. We then obtain the following result.\n\n\\[prop:factor-test\\] For all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $\\Omega_n(\\nu)\\in\\mathcal{F}$, $\\mu(\\nu)=(\\mu(\\nu)_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ be a $d$-dimensional $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process and $\\sigma(\\nu)=(\\sigma(\\nu)_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ be an $\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times r}$-valued $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process, and suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:\n\n1.  $\\lim_{\\nu\\to\\infty}\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\Omega_n(\\nu)^c)=0$.\n\n2.  For all $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $t\\in[0,1]$, $\\mu_t=\\mu(\\nu)_t$ and $\\sigma_t=\\sigma(\\nu)_t$ on $\\Omega_n(\\nu)$ as well as $\\sigma(\\nu)_t\\in\\mathbb{D}_{1,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d\\times r})$.\n\n3.  For all $p\\in[1,\\infty)$, it holds that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    &\\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left(\n    \\|\\mu_t^{i}\\|_p\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_s\\mu(\\nu)_t^{i}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    \\right)\n    <\\infty,\\\\\n    &\\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\n    \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left(\n    \\|\\Sigma(\\nu)_t^{ii}\\|_p\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_s\\sigma(\\nu)_t^{i\\cdot}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    +\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma(\\nu)_u^{i\\cdot}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n    \\right)\n    <\\infty,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Sigma(\\nu)_t:=\\sigma(\\nu)_t\\sigma(\\nu)_t^\\top$.\n\n4.  There is a constant $\\gamma\\in(0,\\frac{1}{2}]$ such that holds true as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\n5.  For all $p\\in[1,\\infty)$, it holds that $$\\label{v-inv-moment}\n    \\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq {\\underline{d}}}E\\left[\\left(\\mathfrak{V}_n(\\nu)^{ij}\\right)^{-p}\\right]<\\infty,$$ where $\\mathfrak{V}_n(\\nu)$ is defined analogously to $\\mathfrak{V}_n$ with replacing $\\Sigma$ by $\\Sigma(\\nu)$.\n\nThen we have $$\\sup_{A\\in\\mathcal{A}^\\mathrm{re}(\\underline{d}^2)}\\left|P\\left(\\operatorname{vec}\\left(\\tilde{T}_n\\right)\\in A\\right)-P\\left({\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n\\in A\\right)\\right|\\to0$$ and $$\\sup_{A\\in\\mathcal{A}^\\mathrm{re}(\\underline{d}^2)}\\left|P\\left(\\operatorname{vec}\\left(T_{n,*}\\right)\\in A|\\mathcal{F}\\right)-P\\left({\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n\\in A|\\mathcal{F}\\right)\\right|\\to^p0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$, provided that $d=O(n^{\\mathfrak{c}})$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for some $\\mathfrak{c}>0$.\n\nNow we return to the problem of testing simultaneously for $(i,j)\\in\\Lambda_n$. Here, we consider a more general setting described in the following for the purposes of application (cf.\u00a0Section \\[sec:empirical\\]). We suppose that the set $\\Lambda_n$ is decomposed into non-empty disjoint sets $\\Lambda_n^{1},\\dots,\\Lambda_n^{\\mathsf{L}}$ as $\\Lambda_n=\\bigcup_{\\ell=1}^{\\mathsf{L}}\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}$. We consider the problem of testing $$\\label{test:group}\n\\bigwedge_{\\lambda\\in\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}}H_0^\\lambda\\qquad\\text{vs}\\qquad\n\\bigvee_{\\lambda\\in\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}}H_1^\\lambda$$ simultaneously for $\\ell=1,\\dots,\\mathsf{L}$. Here, for a subset $\\mathcal{L}$ of $\\Lambda_n$, $\\bigwedge_{\\lambda\\in\\mathcal{L}}H_0^\\lambda$ (resp.\u00a0$\\bigvee_{\\lambda\\in\\mathcal{L}}H_1^\\lambda$) denotes the hypothesis that $H_0^\\lambda$ is true for all $\\lambda\\in\\mathcal{L}$ (resp.\u00a0$H_1^\\lambda$ is true for some $\\lambda\\in\\mathcal{L}$). For simplicity of notation, we set $\\mathsf{H}_0^\\ell:=\\bigwedge_{\\lambda\\in\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}}H_0^\\lambda$ and $\\mathsf{H}_1^\\ell:=\\bigvee_{\\lambda\\in\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}}H_1^\\lambda$. If we let $\\mathsf{L}$ be the number of elements in $\\Lambda_n$ and write $\\Lambda_n=\\{\\lambda_1,\\dots,\\lambda_{\\mathsf{L}}\\}$ and set $\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}=\\{\\lambda_\\ell\\}$ for $\\ell=1,\\dots,\\mathsf{L}$, we recover the original problem of testing simultaneously for $(i,j)\\in\\Lambda_n$.\n\nOur aim is the strong control of the family-wise error rate (FWER) in this problem. More formally, let $\\Theta_n$ be a set of pairs $(\\mu,\\sigma)$ of coefficient processes, which is considered as the set of all data generating processes we are interested in (note that the data generating process may vary with $n$ mainly because the dimensions $d$ and $r$ may depend on $n$). For each $\\theta\\in\\Theta_n$, we denote by $\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta)$ the set of all indices $\\ell\\in\\{1,\\dots,\\mathsf{L}\\}$ for which the hypothesis $\\mathsf{H}_0^\\ell$ holds true when $\\theta$ is the true data generating process. Then, the FWER for $\\theta\\in\\Theta_n$, which is denoted by $\\operatorname{\\mathbf{FWER}}(\\theta)$, is defined as the probability that $\\mathsf{H}_0^\\ell$ for some $\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta)$ is rejected when $\\theta$ is the true data generating process. Given the significance level $\\alpha\\in(0,1)$, we aim at constructing multiple testing procedures such that $$\\label{eq:fwer}\n\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}\\operatorname{\\mathbf{FWER}}(\\theta_n)\\leq\\alpha$$ for any sequence $\\theta_n\\in\\Theta_n$ ($n=1,2,\\dots$) of data generating processes. To accomplish this, we employ the stepdown procedure of @RW2005 which we describe in the following. First, given a fixed index $\\ell$, we shall use the test statistic $\\mathsf{T}_n^{\\ell}:=\\max_{\\lambda\\in\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}}|T_n^\\lambda|$ for the problem . Next, we sort the observed test statistics in descending order and denote them by $$\\mathsf{T}_n^{\\ell_1}\\geq\\cdots \\geq \\mathsf{T}_n^{\\ell_{\\mathsf{L}}}.$$ Also, for every subset $\\mathcal{L}\\subset\\{1,\\dots,\\mathsf{L}\\}$, suppose that we have a critical value $c_n^{\\mathcal{L}}(1-\\alpha)$ to test the null $\\bigwedge_{\\lambda\\in\\mathcal{L}}H_0^\\lambda$ against the alternative $\\bigvee_{\\lambda\\in\\mathcal{L}}H_1^\\lambda$. Those critical values can be random variables and will be specified later. Then the stepdown procedure reads as follows:\n\n1.  Let $\\mathcal{L}_1:=\\{1,\\dots,\\mathsf{L}\\}$. If $\\mathsf{T}_n^{\\ell_1}\\leq c_n^{\\mathcal{L}_1}(1-\\alpha)$, then accept all the hypotheses and stop; otherwise, reject $\\mathsf{H}_0^{\\ell_1}$ and continue.\n\n2.  Let $\\mathcal{L}_2:=\\mathcal{L}_1\\setminus\\{\\ell_1\\}$. If $\\mathsf{T}_n^{\\ell_2}\\leq c_n^{\\mathcal{L}_2}(1-\\alpha)$, then accept all the hypotheses $\\mathsf{H}_0^{\\ell}$ for $\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_2$ and stop; otherwise, reject $\\mathsf{H}_0^{\\ell_2}$ and continue.\n\n    $\\vdots$\n\n3.  Let $\\mathcal{L}_k:=\\mathcal{L}_{k-1}\\setminus\\{\\ell_{k-1}\\}$. If $\\mathsf{T}_n^{\\ell_k}\\leq c_n^{\\mathcal{L}_k}(1-\\alpha)$, then accept all the hypotheses $\\mathsf{H}_0^{\\ell}$ for $\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_k$ and stop; otherwise, reject $\\mathsf{H}_0^{\\ell_k}$ and continue.\n\n    $\\vdots$\n\n4.  If $\\mathsf{T}_n^{\\lambda_{\\mathsf{L}}}\\leq c_n^{\\{\\ell_{\\mathsf{L}}\\}}(1-\\alpha)$, then accept $\\mathsf{H}_0^{\\ell_\\mathsf{L}}$; otherwise, reject $\\mathsf{H}_0^{\\ell_\\mathsf{L}}$.\n\nAccording to Theorem 3 of [@RW2005], the above stepdown procedure satisfies if the critical values $c_n^{\\mathcal{L}}(1-\\alpha)$, $\\mathcal{L}\\subset\\{1,\\dots,\\mathsf{L}\\}$, satisfy the following conditions:\n\n1.  \\[monotone\\] $c_n^{\\mathcal{L}}(1-\\alpha)\\leq c_n^{\\mathcal{L}'}(1-\\alpha)$ whenever $\\mathcal{L}\\subset\\mathcal{L}'\\subset\\{1,\\dots,\\mathsf{L}\\}$.\n\n2.  \\[max-quantile\\] For any sequence $\\theta_n\\in\\Theta_n$ ($n=1,2,\\dots$), it holds that $$\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P\\left(\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}\\mathsf{T}_n^\\ell >c_n^{\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}(1-\\alpha)\\right)\\leq\\alpha$$ whenever $\\theta_n$ is the true data generating process for every $n$.\n\nThe first method to construct the desired critical values is the well-known *Bonferroni-Holm method*. Namely, we set $c_n^{\\mathcal{L}}(1-\\alpha):=q_{N(0,1)}(1-\\alpha/(2\\#[\\bigcup_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}}\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}]))$ for every $\\mathcal{L}\\subset\\Lambda$, where $q_{N(0,1)}$ denotes the quantile function of the standard normal distribution and $\\#[\\bigcup_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}}\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}]$ is the number of elements in $\\bigcup_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}}\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}$. The second method is to use the $(1-\\alpha)$-quantile of $\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}}\\mathsf{T}_n^\\ell$. Of course, we cannot analytically compute the quantiles of $\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}}\\mathsf{T}_n^\\ell$ in general, so we approximate them by resampling as in [@RW2005; @CCK2013]. Formally, setting $\\mathsf{T}_{n,*}^{\\ell}:=\\max_{\\lambda\\in\\Lambda_n^{\\ell}}|T_{n,*}^{\\lambda}|$, we use the $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional $(1-\\alpha)$-quantile of $\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}}\\mathsf{T}_{n,*}^{\\ell}$ as $c_n^{\\mathcal{L}}(1-\\alpha)$, which can be evaluated by simulation. We refer to this method as the *Romano-Wolf method* in the following.\n\n\\[coro:testing\\] Suppose that the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:factor-test\\] are satisfied for any sequence $(\\mu,\\sigma)=(\\mu^{(n)},\\sigma^{(n)})\\in\\Theta_n$ ($n=1,2,\\dots$) of data generating processes whenever $(\\mu^{(n)},\\sigma^{(n)})$ is the true data generating process for every $n$. Then, both the Bonferroni-Holm and Romano-Wolf methods satisfy conditions \\[monotone\\]\u2013\\[max-quantile\\], holds true.\n\nThe Romano-Wolf method takes account of the dependence structure of the test statistics while the Bonferroni-Holm method ignores it, the former is generally more powerful than the latter, especially when the test statistics are strongly dependent on each other. Meanwhile, we need no resampling to implement the Bonferroni-Holm method, it is computationally more attractive than the Romano-Wolf method.\n\nAnother possible application of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\] would be selection of the thresholds in high-dimensional quadratic covariation estimation from high-frequency data (see e.g.\u00a0@WZ2010 for such an estimation method): We refer to Section 4.1 of @Chen2017 for details on such an application in the case of i.i.d.\u00a0observations.\n\nSimulation study and an empirical illustration {#sec:simulation}\n==============================================\n\nIn this section we present a small Monte Carlo study to assess the finite sample performance of the multiple testing procedures proposed in Section \\[sec:factor\\]. We also demonstrate how the proposed methodology works in a real world using high-frequency data from the components of the S&P 100 index.\n\nSimulations\n-----------\n\nWe focus on the problem of testing the hypotheses simultaneously for $(i,j)\\in\\Lambda_n$. The simulation design is basically adopted from [@FFX2016], but we include only the first factor representing the market factor in our model. Specifically, we simulate model with the following specification[^6]: $$dY^d_t=\\mu dt+\\sqrt{v_t}dB^d_t,\\qquad\ndR^j_t=\\gamma_j^\\top d{\\underline{B}}_t\\quad(j=1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}})$$ and $$\\label{heston}\ndv_t=\\kappa(\\theta-v_t)dt+\\eta\\sqrt{v_t}\\left(\\rho dB^d_t+\\sqrt{1-\\rho^2}dB^{d+1}_t\\right).$$ Here, $\\mu,\\kappa,\\theta,\\eta$ and $\\rho$ are constants, ${\\underline{B}}_t=(B^1_t,\\dots,B^{{\\underline{d}}}_t)$, and $\\gamma_1,\\dots,\\gamma_{{\\underline{d}}}$ are ${\\underline{d}}$-dimensional random vectors independent of $B$. The values of $\\beta^1,\\dots,\\beta^{{\\underline{d}}}$ are independently drawn from the uniform distribution on $[0.25,2.25]$. We set $\\mu=0.05$, $\\kappa=3$, $\\theta=0.09$, $\\eta=0.3$ and $\\rho=-0.6$. The initial value $v_0$ is drawn from the stationary distribution of the process $(v_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$, i.e.\u00a0the gamma distribution with shape $2\\kappa\\theta/\\eta^2$ and rate $2\\kappa/\\eta^2$. We assume that $\\Gamma:=(\\gamma_i^\\top\\gamma_j)_{1\\leq i,j\\leq {\\underline{d}}}$ is a block diagonal matrix with 10 blocks of size $({\\underline{d}}/10)\\times({\\underline{d}}/10)$ whose diagonals are uniformly generated from $[0.2,0.5]$ and the corresponding correlation matrices have the constant correlation of $\\rho_\\gamma$. We set ${\\underline{d}}=100$ and vary $\\rho_\\gamma$ as $\\rho_\\gamma\\in\\{0.25,0.5,0.75\\}$. For each scenario, we compute the FWERs and the average powers (i.e.\u00a0the average probabilities of rejecting the false null hypotheses) of the Bonferroni-Holm and Romano-Wolf methods at the 5% level based on 10,000 Monte Carlo iterations respectively. Here, we generate 999 bootstrap resamples for the Romano-Wolf method. Tables \\[table:fwer\\] and \\[table:power\\] report the results. [We see from Table \\[table:fwer\\] that both the methods succeed in controlling the FWERs under the nominal level 5%, although both are rather conservative.]{} Table \\[table:power\\] shows that the average powers in both the methods tend to 1 as $n$ and $\\rho_\\gamma$ increase. The table also reveals that the Romano-Wolf method is more powerful than the Bonferroni-Holm method. As expected, the difference of the average powers between two methods becomes pronounced as the correlation $\\rho_\\gamma$ of the residual processes increases.\n\n0\n\n                         $n=26$   $n=39$   $n=78$   $n=130$   $n=195$   $n=390$\n  -------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                  \n  BH                      0.017    0.009    0.005     0.009     0.018     0.039\n  RW                      0.062    0.024    0.010     0.014     0.023     0.044\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                  \n  BH                      0.016    0.008    0.005     0.011     0.018     0.036\n  RW                      0.068    0.029    0.012     0.018     0.028     0.046\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                  \n  BH                      0.015    0.006    0.005     0.008     0.014     0.024\n  RW                      0.071    0.037    0.021     0.024     0.037     0.055\n\n  : Family-wise error rates at the 5% level[]{data-label=\"table:fwer\"}\n\n  rn                     $n=26$   $n=39$   $n=78$   $n=130$   $n=195$   $n=390$\n  -------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.010    0.004    0.002     0.003     0.008     0.018\n  RW                      0.022    0.007    0.003     0.004     0.009     0.018\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.009    0.004    0.002     0.003     0.007     0.017\n  RW                      0.023    0.008    0.004     0.005     0.009     0.019\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.008    0.003    0.002     0.003     0.006     0.010\n  RW                      0.026    0.011    0.006     0.008     0.014     0.023\n\n  : Family-wise error rates at the 5% level[]{data-label=\"table:fwer\"}\n\n0\n\n                         $n=26$   $n=39$   $n=78$   $n=130$   $n=195$   $n=390$\n  -------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                  \n  BH                      0.000    0.000    0.001     0.009     0.072     0.639\n  RW                      0.000    0.000    0.001     0.012     0.080     0.651\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                  \n  BH                      0.000    0.001    0.049     0.539     0.974     1.000\n  RW                      0.001    0.004    0.077     0.604     0.980     1.000\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                  \n  BH                      0.002    0.012    0.367     0.977     1.000     1.000\n  RW                      0.011    0.041    0.566     0.992     1.000     1.000\n\n  : Average powers at the 5% level[]{data-label=\"table:power\"}\n\n  rn                     $n=26$   $n=39$   $n=78$   $n=130$   $n=195$   $n=390$\n  -------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.000    0.000    0.000     0.005     0.046     0.563\n  RW                      0.000    0.000    0.000     0.006     0.048     0.567\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.000    0.001    0.028     0.421     0.950     1.000\n  RW                      0.000    0.001    0.037     0.458     0.956     1.000\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.001    0.007    0.262     0.953     1.000     1.000\n  RW                      0.004    0.017    0.393     0.977     1.000     1.000\n\n  : Average powers at the 5% level[]{data-label=\"table:power\"}\n\n0\n\n                         $n=26$   $n=39$   $n=78$   $n=130$   $n=195$   $n=390$   $n=520$   $n=780$\n  -------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------\n                                                                                          \n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.018    0.012    0.015     0.025     0.035     0.061     0.069     0.078\n  RW                      0.040    0.026    0.022     0.031     0.042     0.067     0.076     0.083\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.019    0.012    0.015     0.024     0.039     0.057     0.066     0.072\n  RW                      0.042    0.025    0.024     0.035     0.046     0.068     0.076     0.080\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.017    0.013    0.014     0.022     0.035     0.048     0.050     0.058\n  RW                      0.049    0.032    0.030     0.039     0.055     0.070     0.074     0.083\n                                                                                          \n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.017    0.009    0.005     0.009     0.018     0.039     0.052     0.062\n  RW                      0.062    0.024    0.010     0.014     0.023     0.044     0.056     0.068\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.016    0.008    0.005     0.011     0.018     0.036     0.046     0.058\n  RW                      0.068    0.029    0.012     0.018     0.028     0.046     0.057     0.069\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.015    0.006    0.005     0.008     0.014     0.024     0.029     0.034\n  RW                      0.071    0.037    0.021     0.024     0.037     0.055     0.061     0.075\n\n  : Family-wise error rates at the 5% level[]{data-label=\"table:fwer\"}\n\n                         $n=26$   $n=39$   $n=78$   $n=130$   $n=195$   $n=390$   $n=520$   $n=780$\n  -------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------\n                                                                                          \n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.000    0.001    0.009     0.070     0.263     0.860     0.973     0.999\n  RW                      0.001    0.001    0.011     0.078     0.277     0.865     0.974     1.000\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.003    0.014    0.269     0.889     0.999     1.000     1.000     1.000\n  RW                      0.007    0.023    0.321     0.907     0.999     1.000     1.000     1.000\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.017    0.083    0.804     0.999     1.000     1.000     1.000     1.000\n  RW                      0.039    0.149    0.878     1.000     1.000     1.000     1.000     1.000\n                                                                                          \n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.000    0.000    0.001     0.009     0.072     0.639     0.892     0.996\n  RW                      0.000    0.000    0.001     0.012     0.080     0.651     0.896     0.996\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.000    0.001    0.049     0.539     0.974     1.000     1.000     1.000\n  RW                      0.001    0.004    0.077     0.604     0.980     1.000     1.000     1.000\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                                      \n  Holm                    0.002    0.012    0.367     0.977     1.000     1.000     1.000     1.000\n  RW                      0.011    0.041    0.566     0.992     1.000     1.000     1.000     1.000\n\n  : Average powers at the 5% level[]{data-label=\"table:power\"}\n\nEmpirical illustration {#sec:empirical}\n----------------------\n\nWe apply our methodology to high-frequency returns of the components of the S&P 100 index while taking the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY) as the observable factor process. The sample period is the one month, March 2018, and we regard this period as the interval $[0,1]$ (over-night returns are ignored). The data are provided by Bloomberg. Following @FFX2016, we use 15 minute returns to avoid notable market microstructure effects. To illuminate the block diagonal structure reported in [@FFX2016], we sort the assets by their Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) sectors while we construct the log-price processes $Y^j$, $j=1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}$.\n\nWe begin by examining the sparsity of the quadratic covariation matrix of the assets without taking account of the factor process. The top panel of Figure \\[fig:sparse\\] shows the corresponding realized correlation matrix. Here, we perform multiple testing for the hypotheses using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap resamples and change the entries for which the null hypotheses are not rejected at the 5% level to blanks. The violet squares indicate GICS sector classifications. Namely, all assets in the same square belong to the same sector. We clearly find that the raw realized correlation matrix is far from sparse, i.e.\u00a0most the entries are not blank. In fact, our test suggests that about % pairs would have significant correlations at the 5% level. Meanwhile, the bottom panel of Figure \\[fig:sparse\\] shows the realized correlation matrix of the residual processes of the assets regressed on SPY. Again, we perform multiple testing for the hypotheses as above to change the entries with insignificant correlations to blanks. The violet squares have the same meaning as above. In contrast to the first case, the realized correlation matrix exhibits the remarkable diagonal structure inherited from the assets\u2019 sectors. In this case only about % pairs are significantly correlated at the 5% level.\n\nTo investigate this diagonal structure more deeply, we conduct another multiple testing for the absence of covariations within and between sectors after regressing assets on SPY. Formally, let $G_1,\\dots,G_N$ be all the sectors, then we set $I_k:=\\{i\\in\\{1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}\\}:\\text{ the $i$-th asset $Y^i$ belongs to the sector $G_k$}\\}$ for every $k=1,\\dots,N$ and $\\Lambda_n^{(k,l)}:=\\Lambda_n\\cap(I_k\\times I_l)$ for all $k,l=1,\\dots,N$. We test the null hypothesis $\\bigwedge_{\\lambda\\in\\Lambda_n^{(k,l)}}H_0^\\lambda$ against the alternative $\\bigvee_{\\lambda\\in\\Lambda_n^{(k,l)}}H_1^\\lambda$ simultaneously for all $1\\leq k\\leq l\\leq N$ using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap resamples. In our analysis there are totally $N=11$ sectors: Consumer Discretionary, Consumer Staples, Financials, Health Care, Industrials, Information Technology, Materials, Real Estate, Telecommunication Services, and Utilities. Since Materials and Real Estate contain only one asset respectively, we exclude the case $k=l$ from the above hypotheses when $G_k$ is Materials or Real Estate. The results are reported in Table \\[table:sectors\\]. , the $p$-values for the absence of within-sector covariations are very small across all the sectors, which suggests within-sector covariations should exist for all the sectors. In contrast, we find that between-sector covariations can be insignificant for several pairs. For example, assets belonging to Materials (M) are not significantly correlated with assets belonging to the other sectors at the 5% level. The table also reveals a similar between-sector covariation pattern to the one observed in [@FFX2016]. Namely, they report that the correlation between Energy (E) and Financials (F) disappears but Consumer Staples (CS) and Utilities (U) remain strongly correlated after 2010, which is consistent with the $p$-values reported in Table \\[table:sectors\\].\n\nOverall, our methodology partially provides a statistically formal support of the findings by [@FFX2016], although the scope of our analysis is quite limited and thus more comprehensive empirical studies will be necessary.\n\n0\n\n![ Realized correlation matrices of the S&P100 assets (top) and their residual processes regressed on SPY (bottom). They are computed from 5 minute returns in the one business week from March 19, 2018 to March 23, 2018, where we ignore over-night returns. We perform multiple testing for whether each the entry is zero or not using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap replications, then the entries which are not significantly away from zero at the 5% level are made blank. The violet squares indicate sector blocks. The figure was depicted using the `R` function `corrplot` from the `corrplot` package. []{data-label=\"fig:sparse\"}](sk_figure.eps)\n\n![ Realized correlation matrices of the S&P 100 assets (top) and their residual processes regressed on SPY (bottom). They are computed from 15 minute returns in March 2018, where we ignore over-night returns. We perform multiple testing for whether each the entry is zero or not using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap resamples, then the entries which are not significantly away from zero at the 5% level are made blank. The violet squares indicate sector blocks. The figure was depicted using the `R` function `corrplot` from the `corrplot` package. []{data-label=\"fig:sparse\"}](sk_figure201903.eps)\n\n         CD      CS       E       F      HC       I      IT       M      RE      TS       U\n  ---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------\n   CD   0.001   0.002   0.119   0.246   0.003   0.246   0.001   0.076   0.246   0.226   0.045\n   CS           0.001   0.044   0.007   0.001   0.413   0.001   0.891   0.025   0.017   0.001\n   E                    0.001   0.502   0.446   0.211   0.076   0.932   0.098   0.662   0.076\n   F                            0.001   0.246   0.246   0.076   0.846   0.246   0.662   0.246\n   HC                                   0.001   0.001   0.003   0.932   0.308   0.008   0.024\n   I                                            0.001   0.246   0.502   0.846   0.662   0.224\n   IT                                                   0.001   0.446   0.246   0.072   0.004\n   M                                                              \u2013     0.932   0.909   0.932\n   RE                                                                     \u2013     0.256   0.004\n   TS                                                                           0.001   0.001\n   U                                                                                    0.001\n\n  : $p$-values of multiple testing for the absence of within- and between-secor covariations (the null hypotheses are the absence of covariations). []{data-label=\"table:sectors\"}\n\n0\n\n         CD      CS       E       F      HC       I      IT       M      TS       U\n  ---- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------\n   CD   0.001   0.003   0.056   0.309   0.003   0.507   0.001   0.849   0.003   0.283\n   CS           0.001   0.014   0.507   0.003   0.484   0.012   0.849   0.004   0.001\n   E                    0.001   0.849   0.233   0.507   0.035   0.849   0.266   0.507\n   F                            0.001   0.419   0.146   0.284   0.677   0.507   0.507\n   H                                    0.001   0.507   0.110   0.849   0.419   0.003\n   I                                            0.001   0.309   0.849   0.849   0.507\n   IT                                                   0.001   0.507   0.266   0.012\n   M                                                                    0.849   0.849\n   TS                                                                   0.001   0.248\n   U                                                                            0.001\n\n  : $p$-values of multiple testing for the absence of within- and between-secor covariations (the null hypotheses are the absence of covariations). These values are computed using the Romano-Wolf method with 999 bootstrap replications. The sector names are abbreviated as follows: CD: Consumer Discretionary; CS: Consumer Staples; F: Financials; HC: Health Care; I: Industrials; IT: Information Technology; M: Materials; TS: Telecommunication Services; U: Utilities. Note that our analysis contains no asset belonging to Real Estate. Also, since only one asset belongs to Materials in our analysis, the $p$-value for the absence of within-sector covariation in Materials is not available and thus not reported.[]{data-label=\"table:sectors\"}\n\nProofs for Section \\[sec:main\\]\n===============================\n\nAdditional notation\n-------------------\n\nThis subsection introduces some additional notation related to multi-way arrays and derivatives, which are necessary for the subsequent proofs.\n\nAs in Section \\[sec:array\\], $\\mathbb{K}$ denotes the real field $\\mathbb{R}$ or the complex field $\\mathbb{C}$. We consider a vector space $V$ over $\\mathbb{K}$. Let $N_1,\\dots,N_q$ be positive integers. For $T\\in V^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$ and $x\\in \\mathbb{K}^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$, we set $$T[x]:=\\sum_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}x^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}\\in V.$$ In particular, for $x_j\\in\\mathbb{K}^{N_j}$ ($j=1,\\dots,q$) we have $$T[x_1\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes x_q]=\\sum_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}x_1^{i_1}\\cdots x_q^{i_q}.$$ Here, note that we identify $\\mathbb{K}^{N_1}\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes\\mathbb{K}^{N_q}$ with $\\mathbb{K}^{N_1\\times\\cdots\\times N_q}$ in the canonical way (see Section \\[sec:array\\]). Moreover, we evidently have $$\\label{tensor:holder}\n|T[x]|\\leq\\|T\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\|x\\|_{\\ell_1}.$$\n\nNow suppose that $\\mathbb{K}=\\mathbb{R}$ and $V$ is a real Hilbert space. Then we have $$\\label{tensor:inner}\n\\langle T[x],v\\rangle_V\n=\\sum_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}\\langle T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q},v\\rangle_Vx^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}\n=\\langle T,v\\rangle_V[x]$$ for any $v\\in V$ . 0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle S[x^1,\\dots,x^p],T[y^1,\\dots,y^q]\\rangle_V\n=\\sum_{1\\leq i_1,\\dots,i_p,j_1,\\dots,j_q\\leq d}\\langle S_{i_1,\\dots,i_p},T_{j_1,\\dots,j_q}\\rangle_Vx^1_{i_1}\\cdots x^p_{i_p}y^1_{j_1}\\cdots y^q_{j_q}\\end{aligned}$$ Let $V_0$ be another real Hilbert space and $N_1',\\dots,N_p'\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Then, for any $S\\in V_0^{N_1'\\times\\cdots\\times N_p'}$ and $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^{N_1'\\times\\cdots\\times N_p'}$, it holds that $$\\label{tensor:commute}\nT[x]\\otimes S[y]=(T\\otimes S)[x\\otimes y].$$ In fact, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nT[x]\\otimes S[y]\n&=\\sum_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}\\sum_{(j_1,\\dots,j_p)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^p[N'_k]}(T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}x^{i_1,\\dots,i_q})\\otimes({\\textcolor{black}{S^{j_1,\\dots,j_p}}}y^{j_1,\\dots,j_p})\\\\\n&=\\sum_{(i_1,\\dots,i_q)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^q[N_k]}\\sum_{(j_1,\\dots,j_p)\\in\\prod_{k=1}^p[N'_k]}(T^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}\\otimes S^{j_1,\\dots,j_p})x^{i_1,\\dots,i_q}y^{j_1,\\dots,j_p}\\\\\n&=(T\\otimes S)[x\\otimes y].\\end{aligned}$$ Let $\\phi=(\\phi(y))_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^N}$ be a real-valued function. If $\\phi$ is a $C^\\infty$ function, we define the $\\mathbb{R}$-valued $N$-dimensional $q$-way array $\\partial_y^{\\otimes q}\\phi(y)$ by $$\\partial_y^{\\otimes q}\\phi(y)=(\\partial_{y^{i_1}\\cdots y^{i_q}}\\phi(y))_{1\\leq i_1,\\dots,i_q\\leq N}\\in\\mathbb{R}^{N\\times\\cdots\\times N}$$ for any $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^N$ and $q\\in\\mathbb{N}$, where $\\partial_{y^{i_1}\\cdots y^{i_q}}:=\\partial^q/\\partial y^{i_1}\\cdots \\partial y^{i_q}$. We set $\\partial_y^{\\otimes 0}\\phi(y):=\\phi(y)$ by convention. In general, we say that $\\phi$ is *rapidly decreasing* if $\\phi$ is a $C^\\infty$ function and $$\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^N}(1+\\|y\\|_{\\ell_2})^A\\|\\partial_y^{\\otimes q}\\phi(y)\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}<\\infty$$ for any $A>0$ and $q\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+$. When $\\phi$ is rapidly decreasing, we define its Fourier transform $\\hat{\\phi}:\\mathbb{R}^N\\to\\mathbb{C}$ by $$\\hat{\\phi}(\\mathsf{y})=\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^N}\\phi(y)e^{-y[\\mathsf{iy}]}dy,\\qquad \\mathsf{y}\\in\\mathbb{R}^N.$$ Here, $\\mathsf{i}$ denotes the imaginary unit. By Theorem 7.4(c) from [@Rudin1991], one has $$\\label{eq:rudin}\nT[(\\mathsf{iy})^{\\otimes q}]\\hat{\\phi}(\\mathsf{y})=T[\\widehat{\\partial_y^{\\otimes q}\\phi}(\\mathsf{y})]$$ for any $\\mathsf{y}\\in\\mathbb{R}^N$, $q\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $\\mathbb{C}$-valued $N$-dimensional $q$-way array $T\\in\\mathbb{C}^{N\\times\\cdots\\times N}$.\n\nIf $i_1=\\cdots=i_q=i$, we will write $\\partial_{y^{i_1}\\cdots y^{i_q}}$ as $\\partial^q_{y^i}$. We set $\\partial^0_{y^i}\\varphi(y)=\\varphi(y)$ by convention. For a multi-index $\\alpha=(\\alpha_1,\\dots,\\alpha_N)\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+^N$, we write $\\partial^\\alpha_y:=\\partial^{\\alpha_1}_{y^1}\\cdots\\partial^{\\alpha_N}_{y^N}$ as usual. Given a subset $\\mathcal{A}=\\{a_1,\\dots,a_k\\}$ of $\\{1,\\dots,s\\}$, we will write $\\prod_{a\\in\\mathcal{A}}\\partial_{y^{i_a}}:=\\partial_{y^{i_{a_1}}\\cdots y^{i_{a_k}}}$. We set $(\\prod_{a\\in\\emptyset}\\partial_{y^{i_a}})\\phi(y):=\\phi(y)$ by convention.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[thm:main\\]\n-----------------------------\n\nWe begin by noting that it is enough to prove the theorem for the special case that all the rows of the matrix ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ are identical:\n\n\\[lemma:reduction\\] Suppose that the claim of Theorem \\[thm:main\\] holds true if ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{1\\cdot}=\\cdots={\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{m\\cdot}$ for every $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Then the claim of Theorem \\[thm:main\\] holds true for the general case as well.\n\nDefine the $m\\times md$ matrix ${\\overline{\\Upsilon}}_n$ by $${\\overline{\\Upsilon}}_n=\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{ccccc}\n(\\Upsilon_n^{1\\cdot})^\\top  & 0  & \\cdots & \\cdots & 0  \\\\\n0  & (\\Upsilon_n^{2\\cdot})^\\top  & 0 & \\cdots & 0  \\\\\n\\vdots  & \\ddots  &  \\ddots & \\ddots & \\vdots \\\\\n0 & \\ddots & \\ddots & \\ddots & 0 \\\\\n0 & \\cdots & \\cdots & 0 & (\\Upsilon_n^{m\\cdot})^\\top\n\\end{array}\n\\right).$$ We also define the $m\\times md$ random matrix ${\\overline{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n$ so that all the rows are identical to the $md$-dimensional random vector given by $$(({\\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{1\\cdot})^\\top,\\dots,({\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{m\\cdot})^\\top).$$ In addition, we define the $md$-dimensional random vector ${\\overline{Z}}_n$ so that $${\\overline{Z}}_n^\\top=(\\underbrace{Z_n^\\top,\\dots,Z_n^\\top}_{m})^\\top.$$ By assumption we can apply Theorem \\[thm:main\\] with taking ${\\overline{\\Upsilon}}_n$, ${\\overline{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n$ and ${\\overline{Z}}_n$ as $\\Upsilon_n$, ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n$ and $Z_n$ respectively, which yields the desired result.\n\nTaking account of Lemma \\[lemma:reduction\\], we focus only on the case that ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{1\\cdot}=\\cdots={\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{m\\cdot}=:X_n$ for every $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Next we recall the following anti-concentration inequality called Nazarov\u2019s inequality in [@CCK2017]:\n\nLet $\\xi$ be an $m$-dimensional centered Gaussian vector such that $\\|\\xi^j\\|_2\\geq a$ for all $j=1,\\dots,m$ and some constant $a>0$. Then for any $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m$ and $\\varepsilon>0$, $$P(\\xi\\leq y+\\varepsilon)-P(\\xi\\leq y)\\leq\\frac{\\varepsilon}{a}\\left(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2\\right).$$\n\nThe above form of Nazarov\u2019s inequality is found in [@CCK2017nazarov]. An application of the above result immediately yields the following anti-concentration inequality for a mixed-normal random vector:\n\n\\[mixed-nazarov\\] Let $\\xi$ be an $m$-dimensional standard Gaussian vector. Also, let $\\Gamma$ be an $m\\times m$ symmetric positive-semidefinite random matrix independent of $\\xi$. Then for any $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m$ and $b,\\varepsilon>0$, $$P(\\Gamma^{1/2}\\xi\\leq y+\\varepsilon)-P(\\Gamma^{1/2}\\xi\\leq y)\\leq\\frac{\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b}}\\left(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2\\right)+P\\left(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma)<b\\right).$$\n\nNow we turn to the main body of the proof. As is pointed out in the Introduction, the key part of the proof is to derive reasonable estimates for the quantities $$\\label{gap}\nE[f(Z_n,X_n)]-E[f(\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]$$ for smooth functions $f:\\mathbb{R}^{2d}\\to\\mathbb{R}$. In fact, the remaining part of the proof is essentially the same as the one for the high-dimensional central limit theorem of [@CCK2017]. To get a reasonable estimate for , we derive an interpolation formula for it, borrowing an idea from [@NY2017]. Namely, we use the duality between iterated Malliavin derivatives and multiple Skorohod integrals combined with the interpolation method in the frequency domain introduced in [@NY2017] (see also [@TY2017]). Following [@NY2017], we set $$\\lambda_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})=\\theta M_n[\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}]+2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2) \\mathfrak{C}_n[(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^{\\otimes2}]+W_n[\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}]+ X_n[\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{x}]$$ and $$\\varphi_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})=E[e^{\\lambda_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}]$$ for $\\theta\\in[0,1]$ and $\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x}\\in\\mathbb{R}^d$. We first derive a representation formula for the derivative of $\\varphi_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})$ with respect to $\\theta$. For this purpose we need the following Malliavin derivative version of the (generalized) Fa\u00e0 di Bruno formula for the iterated derivative of a composition of functions:\n\n\\[faa\\] Let $q,r$ be positive integers and $g=(g(x))_{x\\in\\mathbb{R}^r}$ be a real-valued $C^q$ function all of whose partial derivatives up to order $q$ are of polynomial growth. Then, for any $F\\in\\mathbb{D}_{q,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^r)$, we have $g(F)\\in\\mathbb{D}_{q,\\infty}$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\nD^qg(F)=\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_r(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)\\partial_{x_1}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot1}|}\\cdots \\partial_{x_r}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot r}|}g(F)\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}\\bigotimes_{j=1}^{r}(D^iF^j)^{\\otimes \\nu_{ij}}\\right),\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)=\\frac{q!}{\\prod_{i=1}^{q}(i!)^{\\alpha_i}\\prod_{j=1}^r\\nu_{ij}!}.$$\n\nNoting that Malliavin derivatives can be characterized by directional derivatives along Cameron-Martin shifts (cf.\u00a0Chapter 15 of [@Janson1997]), we can derive Lemma \\[faa\\] from the usual Fa\u00e0 di Bruno formula (found in e.g.\u00a0[@Mishkov2000]). Alternatively, we can prove Lemma \\[faa\\] in a parallel way to the usual Fa\u00e0 di Bruno formula using the chain rule for Malliavin derivatives (see e.g.\u00a0Theorem 15.78 of [@Janson1997]) instead of that for standard ones.\n\n\\[lemma:cf-deriv\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:main\\], the partial derivative $\\partial_\\theta\\varphi_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})$ exists and it is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\partial_\\theta\\varphi_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})\\\\\n&=\\theta \\sum_{i,j=1}^dE\\left[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\left(\\left\\langle D^{q_j}{\\textcolor{black}{M^i_n}},u_n^j\\right\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}-\\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij}\\right)(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}^i)(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}^j)\\right]\\\\\n&+\\sum_{j=1}^d\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}^*_4(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)\\theta^{|\\nu_{\\cdot1}|}\\{2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2)\\}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot2}|}(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}^j) \nE\\left[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)[(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^{\\otimes (\\nu_{i1}+2\\nu_{i2}+\\nu_{i3})}\\otimes(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{x})^{\\otimes \\nu_{i4}}]\\right].\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy assumption the function $\\theta\\mapsto\\varphi_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})$ is evidently differentiable and we have $$\\label{phi-deriv}\n\\partial_\\theta\\varphi_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})=E[e^{\\lambda_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}(M_n[\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}]-\\theta \\mathfrak{C}_n[(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^{\\otimes2}])].$$ By duality we obtain $$E[e^{\\lambda_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}M_n^j]\n=E[\\langle D^{q_j}\\Re[e^{\\lambda_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}],u_n^j\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}]\n+\\mathsf{i}E[\\langle D^{q_j}\\Im[e^{\\lambda_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}],u_n^j\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}]$$ for every $j$. Therefore, Lemma \\[faa\\] yields 0 $$\\begin{aligned}\nD^qe^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}=\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_3(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}(\\theta(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^\\top D^iZ_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i1}}(2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2)(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^\\top D^iG (\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}))^{\\otimes \\nu_{i2}}((\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{x})^\\top D^iX)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i3}}\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{gathered}\nE[e^{\\lambda_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}M_n^j]\n=\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_4(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)\\theta^{|\\nu_{\\cdot1}|}\\{2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2)\\}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot2}|}\\cdot\\mathsf{i}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot1}|+2|\\nu_{\\cdot2}|+|\\nu_{\\cdot3}|+|\\nu_{\\cdot4}|}\\\\\n\\times E\\left[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\left\\langle \\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iM_n[\\mathsf{z}])^{\\otimes \\nu_{i1}}\\otimes(D^i\\mathfrak{C}_n[\\mathsf{z}^{\\otimes2}])^{\\otimes \\nu_{i2}}\\otimes(D^iW_n[\\mathsf{z}])^{\\otimes \\nu_{i3}}\\otimes(D^iX_n[\\mathsf{x}])^{\\otimes \\nu_{i4}},u_n^j\\right\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}\\right],\\end{gathered}$$ where we also use the identity $$\\label{eq:symm}\n\\langle \\operatorname{Sym}(f),g\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q}}=\\langle f,g\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q}}$$ holding for any $f,g\\in H^{\\otimes q}$ such that $g$ is symmetric. Now, by we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iM_n[\\mathsf{z}])^{\\otimes \\nu_{i1}}\\otimes(D^i\\mathfrak{C}_n[\\mathsf{z}^{\\otimes2}])^{\\otimes \\nu_{i2}}\\otimes(D^iW_n[\\mathsf{z}])^{\\otimes \\nu_{i3}}\\otimes(D^iX_n[\\mathsf{x}])^{\\otimes \\nu_{i4}}\\\\\n&=\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iM_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i1}}[\\mathsf{z}^{\\otimes \\nu_{i1}}]\\otimes(D^i\\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i2}}[\\mathsf{z}^{\\otimes2\\nu_{i2}}]\\otimes(D^iW_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i3}}[\\mathsf{z}^{\\otimes \\nu_{i3}}]\\otimes(D^iX_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i4}}[\\mathsf{x}^{\\otimes \\nu_{i4}}]\\\\\n&=\\left(\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iM_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i1}}\\otimes(D^i\\mathfrak{C}_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i2}}\\otimes(D^iW_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i3}}\\otimes(D^iX_n)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i4}}\\right)[\\mathsf{z}^{\\otimes (\\nu_{i1}+2\\nu_{i2}+\\nu_{i3})}\\otimes\\mathsf{x}^{\\otimes \\nu_{i4}}],\\end{aligned}$$ using we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n&E[e^{\\lambda_n(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}M_n^j]\\\\\n&=\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_4(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)\\theta^{|\\nu_{\\cdot1}|}\\{2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2)\\}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot2}|}\\cdot\\mathsf{i}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot1}|+2|\\nu_{\\cdot2}|+|\\nu_{\\cdot3}|+|\\nu_{\\cdot4}|}\nE\\left[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)[\\mathsf{z}^{\\otimes (\\nu_{i1}+2\\nu_{i2}+\\nu_{i3})}\\otimes\\mathsf{x}^{\\otimes \\nu_{i4}}]\\right]\\\\\n&=\\theta E\\left[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\left\\langle D^{q_j}M_n,u_n^j\\right\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}[\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}]\\right]\\\\\n&+\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}^*_4(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)\\theta^{|\\nu_{\\cdot1}|}\\{2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2)\\}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot2}|}\n E\\left[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)[(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^{\\otimes (\\nu_{i1}+2\\nu_{i2}+\\nu_{i3})}\\otimes(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{x})^{\\otimes \\nu_{i4}}]\\right].\\end{aligned}$$ Combining this identity with , we obtain the desired result.\n\nThe following lemma is presumably a standard result. We prove it for the shake of completeness.\n\n\\[regularization\\] Let $f=(f(y))_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^N}$ be a real-valued $C^\\infty$ function all of whose partial derivatives are of polynomial growth. Then there is a sequence $(f_j)_{j=1}^\\infty$ of compactly supported real-valued $C^\\infty$ functions on $\\mathbb{R}^N$ such that $$\\label{eq:vitali}\nE\\left[\\xi_0 \\partial_y^\\alpha f_j(\\xi_1,\\dots,\\xi_N)\\right]\\to E\\left[\\xi_0\\partial_y^\\alpha f(\\xi_1,\\dots,\\xi_N)\\right]$$ as $j\\to\\infty$ for any $\\xi_0,\\xi_1,\\dots,\\xi_N\\in L^{\\infty-}$ and $\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+^N$.\n\nTake a $C^\\infty$ function $\\phi:\\mathbb{R}^N\\to[0,\\infty)$ having compact support and satisfying $\\phi(0)=1$. For every $j=1,2,\\dots$, we define the function $\\phi_j:\\mathbb{R}^N\\to[0,\\infty)$ by $\\phi_j(y)=\\phi(j^{-1}y)$, $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^N$. Then we define $f_j:=f\\phi_j$ for $j=1,2,\\dots$. $f_j$ is evidently a $C^\\infty$ function with compact support. Moreover, we have $\\partial_{y}^\\alpha f_j(y)\\to\\partial_{y}^\\alpha f(y)$ as $j\\to\\infty$ for any $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^N$ and $\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+^N$. In addition, for any $s\\in\\mathbb{N}$, there is a constant $C>0$ which depends only on $\\phi$ and $s$ such that $|f_j(y)|\\leq C(|f(y)|+\\sum_{k=1}^s\\|\\partial_y^{\\otimes k}f(y)\\|_{\\ell_1})$ for any $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^N$; we can easily prove these facts by directly differentiating $f_j$ with the help of the Leibniz formula and the chain rule. Consequently, we have $\\sup_{j\\in\\mathbb{N}}\\|\\xi_0 \\partial_y^\\alpha f_j(\\xi_1,\\dots,\\xi_N)\\|_2<\\infty$ for any $\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+^N$ because $\\xi_0,\\xi_1,\\dots,\\xi_N\\in L^{\\infty-}$ and all the partial derivatives of $f$ have polynomial growth. Therefore, $(\\xi_0 \\partial_y^\\alpha f_j(\\xi_1,\\dots,\\xi_N))_{j\\in\\mathbb{N}}$ is uniformly integrable, the Vitali convergence theorem yields . This completes the proof.\n\nNow we get the following interpolation formula for :\n\n\\[interpolation\\] Let $f:\\mathbb{R}^{2d}\\to\\mathbb{R}$ be a $C^\\infty$ function all of whose partial derivatives are of polynomial growth. Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:main\\], we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&E[f(Z_n,X_n)]-E[f(\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]\\\\\n&=\\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\\int_0^1\\theta E\\left[\\left(\\langle D^{q_j}M^i_n,u_n^j\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}-\\mathfrak{C}_n^{ij}\\right)\\partial_{z_i}\\partial_{z_j}f(\\theta Z_n+\\sqrt{1-\\theta^2}\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)\\right]d\\theta\\\\\n&+\\sum_{j=1}^d\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_{4}^*(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)\\int_0^1\\theta^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 1}|}(2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2))^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 2}|}\n E\\left[\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)[\\partial_z^{\\otimes|\\nu|_*}\\partial_x^{\\otimes|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}\\partial_{z_j}f(\\theta Z_n+\\sqrt{1-\\theta^2}\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]\\right]d\\theta.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThanks to Lemma \\[regularization\\], it is enough to prove the lemma when $f$ is rapidly decreasing. In this case the Fourier inversion formula and the Fubini theorem yield $$\\begin{aligned}\nE[f(Z_n,X_n)]-E[f(\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]\n&=(2\\pi)^{-2d}\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{2d}}\\hat{f}(\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})\\{\\varphi(1;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})-\\varphi(0;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})\\}d\\mathsf{z}d\\mathsf{x}\\\\\n&=(2\\pi)^{-2d}\\int_0^1d\\theta\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{2d}}\\hat{f}(\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})\\partial_\\theta\\varphi(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})d\\mathsf{z}d\\mathsf{x}.\\end{aligned}$$ Hence the desired result follows from Lemma \\[lemma:cf-deriv\\], and the Fourier inversion formula.\n\n0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\hat{f}(\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})E[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}Z[\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}]]\\\\\n&=\\sum_{j=1}^d\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_3(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\theta^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 1}|}(2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2))^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 2}|}\\\\\n&\\times E\\left[\\left\\langle\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iZ)^{\\otimes\\nu_{i1}}\\otimes(D^iG)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i2}}\\otimes(D^iX)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i3}},u_j\\right\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}[(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^{\\otimes|\\nu_{\\cdot 1}|}\\otimes(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^{\\otimes2|\\nu_{\\cdot 2}|}\\otimes(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{x})^{\\otimes|\\nu_{\\cdot 3}|}]\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}_j\\hat{f}(\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})\\right]\\\\\n&=\\sum_{j=1}^d\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_3(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)\\theta^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 1}|}(2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2))^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 2}|}\\\\\n&\\times E\\left[\\left\\langle\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iZ)^{\\otimes\\nu_{i1}}\\otimes(D^iG)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i2}}\\otimes(D^iX)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i3}},u_j\\right\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}[(\\partial_z^{\\otimes|\\nu_{\\cdot 1}|+2|\\nu_{\\cdot 2}|}\\partial_x^{\\otimes|\\nu_{\\cdot 3}|}\\partial_{z_j}f)^{\\hat{}}(\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}]\\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n&(2\\pi)^{-\\check{d}}\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{\\check{d}}}\\hat{f}(\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})E[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}Z[\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}]]d\\mathsf{z}d\\mathsf{x}\\\\\n&=\\sum_{j=1}^d\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_3(\\alpha)}\\mathsf{C}(\\alpha,\\nu)\\theta^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 1}|}(2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2))^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 2}|}\\\\\n&\\times E\\left[\\left\\langle\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^iZ)^{\\otimes\\nu_{i1}}\\otimes(D^iG)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i2}}\\otimes(D^iX)^{\\otimes \\nu_{i3}},u_j\\right\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes q_j}}[\\partial_z^{\\otimes|\\nu_{\\cdot 1}|+2|\\nu_{\\cdot 2}|}\\partial_x^{\\otimes|\\nu_{\\cdot 3}|}\\partial_{z_j}f(\\theta Z+\\sqrt{1-\\theta^2}G^{1/2}\\zeta,X)]\\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{f}(\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})E[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}G[(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^{\\otimes2}]]\n&=E[G[(\\partial_z^{\\otimes2}f)^\\wedge(\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}]]\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n(2\\pi)^{-\\check{d}}\\int_{\\mathbb{R}^{\\check{d}}}\\hat{f}(\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})E[e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}G[(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z})^{\\otimes2}]]d\\mathsf{z}d\\mathsf{x}\n&=E[G[\\partial_z^{\\otimes2}f(\\theta Z+\\sqrt{1-\\theta^2}G^{1/2}\\zeta,X)]]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe will use the following elementary result in the proof:\n\n\\[z-leibniz\\] Let $k,l$ be two positive integers. Then we have 0 $$\\partial_{z^{i_1}\\cdots z^{i_k}}^k\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)\n=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{cl}\n\\sum_{\\begin{subarray}{c}\nc_1,\\dots,c_k=1\\\\\nc_s\\neq c_t\n\\end{subarray}}^l\\prod_{s=1}^k1_{\\{j_{c_s}=i_s\\}}\\prod_{b\\neq c_1,\\dots,c_k}z^{j_b} & \\text{if }k\\leq l,\\\\\n0 & \\text{otherwise}\n\\end{array}\\right.$$ $$\\partial_{z^{i_1}\\cdots z^{i_k}}\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)\n=\\sum_{\\begin{subarray}{c}\nc_1,\\dots,c_k=1\\\\\nc_s\\neq c_t\n\\end{subarray}}^l\\prod_{s=1}^k1_{\\{j_{c_s}=i_s\\}}\\prod_{b\\neq c_1,\\dots,c_k}z^{j_b}$$ for any $i_1,\\dots,i_k,j_1,\\dots,j_l\\in\\{1,\\dots,d\\}$.\n\nOne can easily prove the above lemma by induction on $k$ and application of the Leibniz rule, we omit its proof.\n\n0\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_{z^i}\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)\n=\\sum_{a=1}^l1_{\\{j_a=i\\}}\\prod_{b\\neq a}z^{j_b}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_{z^{i_1}z^{i_2}}^2\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)\n=\\sum_{a_1=1}^l1_{\\{j_{a_1}=i_1\\}}\\partial_{z^{i_2}}\\prod_{b\\neq a_1}z^{j_b}\n=\\sum_{a_1=1}^l1_{\\{j_{a_1}=i_1\\}}\\sum_{a_2\\neq a_1}1_{\\{j_{a_2}=i_2\\}}\\prod_{b\\neq a_1,a_2}z^{j_b}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_{z^{i_1}\\cdots z^{i_{N+1}}}^{N+1}\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)\n&=\\partial_{z^{i_{N+1}}}\\sum_{\\begin{subarray}{c}\nc_1,\\dots,c_N=1\\\\\nc_s\\neq c_t\n\\end{subarray}}^l\\prod_{s=1}^N1_{\\{j_{c_s}=i_s\\}}\\prod_{b\\neq c_1,\\dots,c_N}z^{j_b}\\\\\n&=\\sum_{\\begin{subarray}{c}\nc_1,\\dots,c_N=1\\\\\nc_s\\neq c_t\n\\end{subarray}}^l\\prod_{s=1}^N1_{\\{j_{c_s}=i_s\\}}\\sum_{c_{N+1}\\neq c_1,\\dots,c_N}1_{\\{j_{c_{N+1}}=i_{N+1}\\}}\\prod_{b\\neq c_1,\\dots,c_{N+1}}z^{j_b}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFinally, as in the original CCK theory, a special approximation of the maximum function (called the \u201csmooth max function\u201d) will play a crucial role in our proof. The following lemma summarizes the key properties of this smooth max function used in the proof:\n\n\\[lemma:dz\\] Let $\\varepsilon>0$ and set $\\beta=\\varepsilon^{-1}\\log m$. Define the function $\\Phi_\\beta:\\mathbb{R}^{m}\\to\\mathbb{R}$ by $$\\label{def:Phi}\n\\Phi_\\beta(w)=\\beta^{-1}\\log\\left(\\sum_{j=1}^{m}\\exp(\\beta w^j)\\right),\\qquad w\\in\\mathbb{R}^{m}.$$ Then we have $$\\label{max-smooth}\n0\\leq \\Phi_\\beta(w)-\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq m}w^j\\leq \\beta^{-1}\\log m=\\varepsilon$$ for every $w\\in\\mathbb{R}^{m}$. Moreover, for any $C^\\infty$ function $g:\\mathbb{R}\\to\\mathbb{R}$, $s\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $\\varepsilon>0$ and $w\\in\\mathbb{R}^m$, it holds that $$\\label{eq:dz}\n\\left\\|\\partial_w^{\\otimes s}g(\\varepsilon^{-1}\\Phi_\\beta(w))\\right\\|_{\\ell_1}\\leq C_{g,s}\\max\\{\\varepsilon^{-s},\\varepsilon^{-1}\\beta^{s-1}\\}\n=C_{g,s}\\varepsilon^{-s}(\\log m)^{s-1},$$ where $C_{g,s}>0$ depends only on $g$ and $s$.\n\nFirst, note that $\\Phi_\\beta$ is usually denoted by $F_\\beta$ in the literature on the CCK theory. Now, is stated in e.g.\u00a0Eq.(1) of [@CCK2015]. On the other hand, is obtained by applying Lemma 5 in [@DZ2017] with $h=g$, $n=1$, $m=s$ and $b=\\varepsilon^{-1}$ in their notation.\n\nFirst, as is already noted in the above, for the proof it is enough to focus only on the case that ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{1\\cdot}=\\cdots={\\boldsymbol{X}}_{n}^{m\\cdot}=:X_n$ for every $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ due to Lemma \\[lemma:reduction\\]. Note that in this case we have $\\Xi_nz=\\Upsilon_n(z\\circ X_n)$ for every $z\\in\\mathbb{R}^d$.\n\nWe turn to the main body of the proof. Take a number $\\varepsilon>0$ arbitrarily, and set $\\beta=\\varepsilon^{-1}\\log m$. . We also take a $C^\\infty$ function $g:\\mathbb{R}\\to[0,1]$ such that all the derivatives of $g$ bounded and $g(t)=1$ for $t\\leq0$ and $g(t)=0$ for $t\\geq1$.\n\nNow let us fix a vector $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^{m}$ arbitrarily, and define the functions $\\varphi:\\mathbb{R}^{m}\\to\\mathbb{R}$, $\\psi:\\mathbb{R}^{d}\\to\\mathbb{R}$ and $f:\\mathbb{R}^{2d}\\to\\mathbb{R}$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi(w)&=g(\\varepsilon^{-1}\\Phi_\\beta(w-y-\\varepsilon)),\\qquad w\\in\\mathbb{R}^{m},\\\\\n\\psi(v)&=\\varphi(\\Upsilon_nv),\\qquad v\\in\\mathbb{R}^d,\\\\\nf(z,x)&=\\psi(z\\circ x),\\qquad z,x\\in\\mathbb{R}^{d}.\\end{aligned}$$ For any $k,l\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+$ and any $z,x\\in\\mathbb{R}^d$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\partial_z^{\\otimes k}\\partial_x^{\\otimes l}f(z,x)\\right\\|_{\\ell_1}\n&=\\sum_{i_1,\\dots,i_k,j_1,\\dots,j_l=1}^d\\left|\\partial_{z^{i_1}\\cdots z^{i_k}}\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\partial_{v^{j_1}\\cdots v^{j_l}}\\psi(z\\circ x)\\right)\\right|.\\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Leibniz rule repeatedly (cf.\u00a0Proposition 5 of [@Hardy2006]), we deduce $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\partial_z^{\\otimes k}\\partial_x^{\\otimes l}f(z,x)\\right\\|_{\\ell_1}\n&=\\sum_{i_1,\\dots,i_k,j_1,\\dots,j_l=1}^d\\left|\\sum_{\\mathcal{A}\\subset\\{1,\\dots,k\\}}\\left(\\prod_{a\\in\\mathcal{A}}\\partial_{z^{i_a}}\\right)\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)\\left(\\prod_{a\\notin\\mathcal{A}}x^{i_a}\\right)\\left(\\prod_{a\\notin\\mathcal{A}}\\partial_{v^{i_a}}\\right)\\partial_{v^{j_1}\\cdots v^{j_l}}\\psi(z\\circ x)\\right|\\\\\n&\\leq\\sum_{j_1,\\dots,j_l=1}^d\\sum_{\\mathcal{A}\\subset\\{1,\\dots,k\\}}\\sum_{i_1,\\dots,i_k=1}^d\\left|\\left(\\prod_{a\\in\\mathcal{A}}\\partial_{z^{i_a}}\\right)\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)\\left(\\prod_{a\\notin\\mathcal{A}}x^{i_a}\\right)\\left(\\prod_{a\\notin\\mathcal{A}}\\partial_{v^{i_a}}\\right)\\partial_{v^{j_1}\\cdots v^{j_l}}\\psi(z\\circ x)\\right|.\\end{aligned}$$ Now let us fix a subset $\\mathcal{A}$ of $\\{1,\\dots,k\\}$. Let $r$ be the number of elements of $\\mathcal{A}$ and we write $\\mathcal{A}=\\{a_1,\\dots,a_r\\}$ and $\\{1,\\dots,k\\}\\setminus\\mathcal{A}=\\{b_1,\\dots,b_{k-r}\\}$. Assume $1\\leq r\\leq l$. Then, by Lemma \\[z-leibniz\\] we obtain 0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_{z^{i_{a_1}}\\cdots z^{i_{a_r}}}^r\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)\n=\\sum_{\\begin{subarray}{c}\nc_1,\\dots,c_r=1\\\\\nc_s\\neq c_t\n\\end{subarray}}^l\\prod_{s=1}^r1_{\\{j_{c_s}=i_{a_s}\\}}\\prod_{b\\neq c_1,\\dots,c_r}z^{j_b}\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sum_{i_1,\\dots,i_k=1}^d\\left|\\left(\\prod_{a\\in\\mathcal{A}}\\partial_{z^{i_a}}\\right)\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)\\left(\\prod_{a\\notin\\mathcal{A}}x^{i_a}\\right)\\left(\\prod_{a\\notin\\mathcal{A}}\\partial_{v^{i_a}}\\right)\\partial_{v^{j_1}\\cdots v^{j_l}}\\psi(z\\circ x)\\right|\\\\\n&=\\sum_{i_1,\\dots,i_k=1}^d\\left|\\left(\\sum_{\\begin{subarray}{c}\nc_1,\\dots,c_r=1\\\\\nc_s\\neq c_t\n\\end{subarray}}^l\\prod_{s=1}^r1_{\\{j_{c_s}=i_{a_s}\\}}\\prod_{b\\neq c_1,\\dots,c_r}z^{j_b}\\right)\\left(\\prod_{t=1}^{k-r}x^{i_{b_t}}\\right)\\partial_{v^{i_{b_1}}\\cdots v^{i_{b_{k-r}}}v^{j_1}\\cdots v^{j_l}}\\psi(z\\circ x)\\right|\\\\\n&=\\sum_{i_{a_1},\\dots,i_{a_r}=1}^d\\left|\\sum_{\\begin{subarray}{c}\nc_1,\\dots,c_r=1\\\\\nc_s\\neq c_t\n\\end{subarray}}^l\\prod_{s=1}^r1_{\\{j_{c_s}=i_{a_s}\\}}\\prod_{b\\neq c_1,\\dots,c_r}z^{j_b}\\right|\n\\sum_{i_{b_1},\\dots,i_{b_{k-r}}=1}^d\\left|\\left(\\prod_{t=1}^{k-r}x^{i_{b_t}}\\right)\\partial_{v^{i_{b_1}}\\cdots v^{i_{b_{k-r}}}v^{j_1}\\cdots v^{j_l}}\\psi(z\\circ x)\\right|\\\\\n&\\leq{\\textcolor{black}{\\frac{l!}{(l-r)!}}}\\|z\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{l-r}\\|x\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{k-r}\\left\\|\\partial_v^{\\otimes(k-r)}\\partial_{v^{j_1}\\cdots v^{j_l}}\\psi(z\\circ x)\\right\\|_{\\ell_1}.\\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above inequality evidently holds true if $\\mathcal{A}=\\emptyset$. Moreover, we obviously have $\n\\left(\\prod_{a\\in\\mathcal{A}}\\partial_{z^{i_a}}\\right)\\left(z^{j_1}\\cdots z^{j_l}\\right)=0\n$ if $r>l$. Consequently, we infer that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\partial_z^{\\otimes k}\\partial_x^{\\otimes l}f(z,x)\\right\\|_{\\ell_1}\n&\\leq\\sum_{r=0}^{k\\wedge l}{\\textcolor{black}{r!}}\\binom{k}{r}\\binom{l}{r}\\|z\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{l-r}\\|x\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{k-r}\\left\\|\\partial_v^{\\otimes(k+l-r)}\\psi(z\\circ x)\\right\\|_{\\ell_1}.\\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, we can easily verify that $$\\partial_{v^{i_1}\\dots v^{i_s}}\\psi(v)=\\sum_{j_1,\\dots,j_s=1}^m\\partial_{w^{j_1}\\dots w^{j_s}}\\varphi(\\Upsilon_nv)\\Upsilon_n^{j_1i_1}\\cdots\\Upsilon_n^{j_si_s}$$ for any $s\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $i_1,\\dots,i_s\\in\\{1,\\dots,d\\}$. Hence we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\partial_v^{\\otimes s}\\psi(v)\\|_{\\ell_1}\n\\leq\\left(\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq m}\\sum_{i=1}^d|\\Upsilon_n^{ji}|\\right)^s\\sum_{j_1,\\dots,j_s=1}^m|\\partial_{w^{j_1}\\dots w^{j_s}}\\varphi(\\Upsilon_nv)|\n={\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^s\\|\\partial_w^{\\otimes s}\\varphi(\\Upsilon_nv)\\|_{\\ell_1}.\\end{aligned}$$ Now, by it holds that $$\\|\\partial_w^{\\otimes s}\\varphi(w)\\|_{\\ell_1}\\leq C_{g,s}\\varepsilon^{-s}(\\log m)^{s-1}$$ for all $w\\in\\mathbb{R}^{m}$, where $C_{g,s}>0$ is a constant which depends only on $g$ and $s$. Therefore, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\partial_z^{\\otimes k}\\partial_x^{\\otimes l}f(z,x)\\right\\|_{\\ell_1}\n&\\leq c_{g,k,l}\\sum_{r=0}^{k\\wedge l}{\\textcolor{black}{r!}}\\binom{k}{r}\\binom{l}{r}\\|z\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{l-r}\\|x\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{k-r}{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{k+l-r}\\varepsilon^{-(k+l-r)}(\\log m)^{k+l-r-1}\\\\\n&\\leq c'_{g,k,l}\\left(\\|z\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\vee1\\right)^{l}\\left(\\|x\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\vee1\\right)^k{\\textcolor{black}{{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{k+l}}}{\\textcolor{black}{\\varepsilon_1^{-(k+l)}}}(\\log m)^{k+l-1},\\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{g,k,l},c_{g,k,l}'>0$ are constants which depend only on $g$ and $k,l$ . We especially infer that all the partial derivatives of $f$ are of polynomial growth. Therefore, by and Lemma \\[interpolation\\] we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\eta_n(\\varepsilon)&:=|E[f(Z_n,X_n)]-E[f(\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]|\\\\\n&{\\textcolor{black}{\\leq\\int_0^1E\\left[\\|\\Delta_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\sum_{i,j=1}^{d}\\left|\\partial_{z_i}\\partial_{z_j}f(\\theta Z_n+\\sqrt{1-\\theta^2}\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)\\right|\\right]d\\theta}}\\\\\n&\\quad{\\textcolor{black}{+K_{{\\overline{q}}}\\sum_{j=1}^d\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q_j)}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_{4}^*(\\alpha)}\\int_0^1E\\left[\\|\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\|\\partial_z^{\\otimes|\\nu|_*}\\partial_x^{\\otimes|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}\\partial_{z_j}f(\\theta Z_n+\\sqrt{1-\\theta^2}\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)\\|_{\\ell_1}\\right]d\\theta}}\\\\\n&\\leq\\int_0^1E\\left[\\|X_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^2{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^2\\|\\Delta_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\sum_{i,j=1}^{{\\textcolor{black}{m}}}\\left|\\partial_{w_i}\\partial_{w_j}\\varphi(X_n\\circ(\\theta Z_n+\\sqrt{1-\\theta^2}\\mathfrak{Z}_n))\\right|\\right]d\\theta\\\\\n&{\\textcolor{black}{\\quad+K_{{\\overline{q}}}\\sum_{\\alpha\\in{\\overline{\\mathcal{A}}}({\\overline{q}})}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_{4}^*(\\alpha)}\\int_0^1E\\left[\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\|\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\|\\partial_z^{\\otimes(|\\nu|_*+1)}\\partial_x^{\\otimes|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}f(\\theta Z_n+\\sqrt{1-\\theta^2}\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)\\|_{\\ell_1}\\right]d\\theta}}\\\\\n&\\leq c''_{g,\\overline{q}}{\\textcolor{black}{\\varepsilon_1^{-2}}}(\\log m){\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^2E\\left[\\|X_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^2\\|\\Delta_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right]\\\\\n&\\quad+c''_{g,\\overline{q}}\\sum_{\\alpha\\in{\\textcolor{black}{{\\overline{\\mathcal{A}}}}}(\\overline{q})}\\sum_{\\nu\\in\\mathcal{N}_{4}^*(\\alpha)}{\\textcolor{black}{\\varepsilon_1^{-|\\nu|_{**}-1}}}(\\log m)^{|\\nu|_{**}}{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{|\\nu|_{**}+1}E\\left[\\left(1+\\|X_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu|_*+1}\\right)\\left(1+\\|Z_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}+\\|\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}\\right)\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\|\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right],\\end{aligned}$$ where . Now we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nP(\\Xi_nZ_n\\leq y)&\\leq P(\\Phi_\\beta(\\Upsilon_n(Z_n\\circ X_n)-y-\\varepsilon)\\leq0)~(\\because\\text{Eq.\\eqref{max-smooth}})\\\\\n&\\leq E[f(Z_n,X_n)]\n\\leq E[f(\\mathfrak{Z}_n,X_n)]+\\eta_n(\\varepsilon)\\\\\n&\\leq P(\\Phi_\\beta(\\Upsilon_n(\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\circ X_n)-y-\\varepsilon)<\\varepsilon)+\\eta_n(\\varepsilon)~(\\because\\text{the definition of $g$})\\\\\n&\\leq P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y+2\\varepsilon)+\\eta_n(\\varepsilon)~(\\because\\text{Eq.\\eqref{max-smooth}}).\\end{aligned}$$ 0 Note that the $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional covariance matrix of $\\Upsilon_n(\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\circ X_n)$ is given by $\\Gamma_n:=\\Upsilon_n(X_n^{\\otimes2}\\circ \\mathfrak{C}_n)\\Upsilon_n^\\top$. Then, for any $b>0$, we have on the set $\\{\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)\\geq b\\}$ $$\\label{eq:nazarov}\nP(\\Upsilon_n(\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\circ X_n)\\leq y+2\\varepsilon|\\mathcal{F})\n\\leq P(\\Upsilon_n(\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\circ X_n)\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})+\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{b}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)$$ by the Nazarov inequality (cf.\u00a0Theorem 1 of [@CCK2017nazarov]). Set $\\Gamma_n:=\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{C}_n\\Xi_n^\\top$. Then, by Lemma \\[mixed-nazarov\\] we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nP(\\Xi_nZ_n\\leq y)\n&\\leq P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)<b)\n+P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)+\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b}}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)+\\eta_n(\\varepsilon)\\end{aligned}$$ for every $b>0$. By an analogous argument we also obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nP(\\Xi_nZ_n\\leq y)\n&\\geq P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)<b)\n-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)-\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b}}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)-\\eta_n(\\varepsilon).\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we conclude that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}\\left|P(\\Xi_nZ_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)\\right|\n&\\leq P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)<b)\n+\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b}}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)+\\eta_n(\\varepsilon).\\end{aligned}$$ Taking $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varepsilon=\\left(\\sqrt{\\log m}{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^2E\\left[\\|X_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^2\\|\\Delta_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right]\\right)^{1/3}\\vee\\\\\n\\max_{\\nu\\in{\\overline{\\mathcal{N}}}_4^*({\\overline{q}})}\\left\\{(\\log m)^{|\\nu|_{**}-\\frac{1}{2}}{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{|\\nu|_{**}+1}E\\left[(1+\\|X_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu|_*+1})\\left(1+\\|Z_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}+\\|\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^{|\\nu_{\\cdot 4}|}\\right)\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\|\\Delta_{n,j}(\\nu)\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right]\\right\\}^{\\frac{1}{|\\nu|_{**}+2}},\\end{gathered}$$ we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}\\left|P(\\Xi_nZ_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)\\right|\n&\\leq \\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)<b)\\end{aligned}$$ by assumption. Letting $b\\to0$, we complete the proof.\n\nProof of Lemma \\[lemma:approx\\]\n-------------------------------\n\nTake a number $\\varepsilon>0$ arbitrarily. For any $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nP(Y_n\\leq y)\n&\\leq P(\\sqrt{\\log m}\\|Y_n-\\Xi_nZ_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}>\\varepsilon)\n+P(\\Xi_nZ_n\\leq y+\\varepsilon/\\sqrt{\\log m})\\\\\n&\\leq P(\\sqrt{\\log m}\\|Y_n-\\Xi_nZ_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}>\\varepsilon)\n+P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y+\\varepsilon/\\sqrt{\\log m})+\\rho_n,\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\rho_n:=\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\Xi_nZ_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)|.$$ Therefore, Lemma \\[mixed-nazarov\\] yields $$\\begin{gathered}\nP(Y_n\\leq y)\n\\leq P(\\sqrt{\\log m}\\|Y_n-\\Xi_nZ_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}>\\varepsilon)\n+P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)\\\\\n+\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b\\log m}}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)+P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)<b)\n+\\rho_n\\end{gathered}$$ for any $b>0$. An analogous argument yields $$\\begin{gathered}\nP(Y_n\\leq y)\n\\geq -P(\\sqrt{\\log m}\\|Y_n-\\Xi_nZ_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}>\\varepsilon)\n+P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)\\\\\n-\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b\\log m}}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)+P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)<b)\n-\\rho_n,\\end{gathered}$$ we conclude that $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)|\n\\leq P(\\sqrt{\\log m}\\|Y_n-\\Xi_nZ_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}>\\varepsilon)\\\\\n+\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b\\log m}}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)+P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)<b)\n+\\rho_n.\\end{gathered}$$ Now, by assumption we obtain $$\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)|\n\\leq \\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b}}\\left(\\sqrt{2}+\\frac{2}{\\sqrt{\\log 2}}\\right)+\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\min\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)<b).$$ We first let $\\varepsilon\\to0$. After that, we let $b\\to0$. Then we conclude that $$\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(Y_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y)|\n=0.$$ This completes the proof.\n\n0 faa di bruno $$\\begin{aligned}\nD^q\\varphi(F)=\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q)}\\frac{q!}{\\prod_{i=1}^{q}(i!)^{\\alpha_i}\\alpha_i!}\\varphi^{|\\alpha|}(F)\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}(D^iF)^{\\otimes \\alpha_{i}}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\mathcal{A}(q)=\\{\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+^q:\\alpha_1+2\\alpha_2+\\cdots+q\\alpha_q=q\\}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nD^qe^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\n&=\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}(q)}\\frac{q!}{\\prod_{i=1}^{q}(i!)^{\\alpha_i}\\alpha_i!}e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}(D^i\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x}))^{\\otimes \\alpha_{i}}\\\\\n&=e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}D^q\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})\n+\\sum_{\\alpha\\in\\mathcal{A}_0(q)}\\frac{q!}{\\prod_{i=1}^{q}(i!)^{\\alpha_i}\\alpha_i!}e^{\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x})}\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q}(D^i\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x}))^{\\otimes \\alpha_{i}}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\mathcal{A}_0(q)=\\{\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{Z}_+^q:\\alpha_1+2\\alpha_2+\\cdots+q\\alpha_q=q,\\alpha_q=0\\}$$\n\nmultinomial formula $$\\begin{aligned}\n(D^i\\lambda(\\theta;\\mathsf{z},\\mathsf{x}))^{\\otimes \\alpha_i}\n=\\sum_{|\\beta|=\\alpha_i}\\frac{\\alpha_i!}{\\beta!}(\\theta\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{z}^\\top D^iZ)^{\\otimes\\beta_1}\\otimes(-2^{-1}(1-\\theta^2)\\mathsf{z}^\\top D^iG\\mathsf{z})^{\\otimes\\beta_2}\\otimes(\\mathsf{i}\\mathsf{x}^\\top D^iX)^{\\otimes\\beta_3}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\varphi(\\theta,\\lambda)\n=E\\left[e^{\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda}\\right]$$\n\n$$\\frac{\\partial\\varphi}{\\partial\\theta}(\\theta,\\lambda)\n=E\\left[e^{\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda}\\left(\\mathsf{i}\\lambda^\\top F+\\theta\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda\\right)\\right]$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nE\\left[e^{\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda}F_j\\right]\n=E\\left[(D^{q_j}e^{\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda})u_j\\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nChain rule and Faa di Bruno $$\\begin{aligned}\n&D^{q_j}e^{\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda}\\\\\n&=\\sum_{{\\boldsymbol{k}}\\in\\mathcal{K}(q_j)}\\frac{q_j!}{\\prod_{i=1}^{q_j}(i!)^{k_i}\\prod_{l=1}^dk_l!}e^{\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top \\mathfrak{C}\\lambda}\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^i(\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda))^{\\otimes k_{i}}\\\\\n&=e^{\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top \\mathfrak{C}\\lambda}D^{q_j}(\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda)\\\\\n&+e^{\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top \\mathfrak{C}\\lambda}\\sum_{{\\boldsymbol{k}}\\in\\mathcal{K}_0(q_j)}\\frac{q_j!}{\\prod_{i=1}^{q_j}(i!)^{k_i}\\prod_{l=1}^dk_l!}\\bigotimes_{i=1}^{q_j}(D^i(\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda))^{\\otimes k_{i}}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n(D^i(\\mathsf{i}\\theta\\lambda^\\top F-\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\lambda^\\top\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda))^{\\otimes \\alpha_{i}}\n=\\sum_{k=0}^{\\alpha_i}\\binom{\\alpha_i}{k}(\\mathsf{i}\\theta)^k\\left(\\frac{1-\\theta^2}{2}\\right)^{\\alpha_i-k}(\\lambda^\\top D^iF)^{\\otimes k}(\\lambda^\\top D^i\\mathfrak{C}\\lambda)^{\\alpha_i-k}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nProof of Proposition \\[prop:comparison\\]\n----------------------------------------\n\nThe proof is analogous to that of Theorem 2 from [@CCK2015] (see also the proof of Theorem 4.1 from [@CCK2017]). Setting $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Gamma_n:=\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{C}_n\\Xi_n^\\top,\\qquad \n\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n:={\\widehat{\\Xi}}_n\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n{\\widehat{\\Xi}}_n^\\top,\\qquad\n\\mu_n:=\\Xi_nW_n,\\qquad\n{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n:={\\widehat{\\Xi}}_n{\\widehat{W}}_n,\\end{aligned}$$ we have $$P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{Z}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})=P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+\\mu_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F}),\\qquad\nP({\\widehat{\\Xi}}_n\\widehat{\\mathfrak{Z}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})=P(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})$$ for all $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m$, where $\\xi_n$ and $\\xi_n'$ are two independent $m$-dimensional standard Gaussian vectors jointly independent of $\\mathcal{F}$. Therefore, it is enough to prove $$\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+\\mu_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|\\to^p0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$. In addition, thanks to the condition , it suffices to prove the above convergence on the set $\\Omega_b:=\\{\\operatorname{diag}(\\Gamma_n)\\geq b\\}$ for an arbitrarily fixed $b>0$. More precisely, it is enough to prove $$P\\left(\\Omega_b\\cap\\left\\{\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+\\mu_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|>\\eta\\right\\}\\right)\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\eta>0$.\n\nWe first prove $$\\label{comp-aim1}\nP\\left(\\Omega_b\\cap\\left\\{\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+\\mu_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|>\\eta\\right\\}\\right)\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\eta>0$. By Nazarov\u2019s inequality we have $$|P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+\\mu_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|\n\\leq\\frac{\\|{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n-\\mu_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}}{\\sqrt{b}}\\left(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2\\right)$$ a.s.\u00a0on the set $\\Omega_b$ for every $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m$. Since the function ${\\textcolor{black}{y}}\\mapsto|P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+\\mu_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|$ is a.s.\u00a0right-continuous, the above result yields $$\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+\\mu_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|\n\\leq\\frac{\\|{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n-\\mu_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}}{\\sqrt{b}}\\left(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2\\right)$$ a.s.\u00a0on the set $\\Omega_b$. Hence follows from the assumption .\n\nThanks to , it suffices to prove $$P\\left(\\Omega_b\\cap\\left\\{\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|>\\eta\\right\\}\\right)\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\eta>0$. However, since we have $$\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n+{\\widehat{\\mu}}_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|\n=\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|,$$ this amounts to proving $$\\label{comp-aim2}\nP\\left(\\Omega_b\\cap\\left\\{\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|>\\eta\\right\\}\\right)\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\eta>0$. To prove this claim, we take a number $\\varepsilon>0$ arbitrarily and set $\\beta=\\varepsilon^{-1}\\log m$ as in the proof of Theorem \\[thm:main\\]. Then we define the function $\\Phi_\\beta:\\mathbb{R}^{m}\\to\\mathbb{R}$ by . We also take a $C^\\infty$ function $g:\\mathbb{R}\\to[0,1]$ such that all the derivatives of $g$ is bounded and $g(t)=1$ for $t\\leq0$ and $g(t)=0$ for $t\\geq1$.\n\nFix a vector $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^{m}$ arbitrarily and define the function $\\varphi:\\mathbb{R}^{m}\\to\\mathbb{R}$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi(w)&=g(\\varepsilon^{-1}\\Phi_\\beta(w-y-\\varepsilon)),\\qquad w\\in\\mathbb{R}^{m}.\\end{aligned}$$ Then we define the stochastic process $\\Psi=(\\Psi(t))_{t\\in[0,1]}$ by $$\\Psi(t)=E\\left[\\varphi\\left(\\sqrt{t}\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'+\\sqrt{1-t}\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\right)|\\mathcal{F}\\right],\\qquad t\\in[0,1].$$ We evidently have $$\\frac{d\\Psi(t)}{dt}=E\\left[\\partial_{w}^{\\otimes1}\\varphi\\left(\\sqrt{t}\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'+\\sqrt{1-t}\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\right)\\left[\\frac{\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'}{\\sqrt{t}}-\\frac{\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n}{\\sqrt{1-t}}\\right]|\\mathcal{F}\\right]\\qquad \\text{for all }t\\in(0,1)$$ with probability one. Then, Stein\u2019s identity yields $$\\frac{d\\Psi(t)}{dt}=E\\left[\\partial_{w}^{\\otimes2}\\varphi\\left(\\sqrt{t}\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'+\\sqrt{1-t}\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\right)\\left[\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\right]|\\mathcal{F}\\right]\\qquad \\text{for all }t\\in(0,1)$$ with probability one. Consequently, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left|E\\left[\\varphi\\left(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\right)|\\mathcal{F}\\right]-E\\left[\\varphi\\left(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\right)|\\mathcal{F}\\right]\\right|\n&\\leq\\int_0^1\\left|\\frac{d\\Psi(t)}{dt}\\right|dt\\\\\n&\\leq C\\varepsilon^{-2}(\\log m)\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\end{aligned}$$ by Lemmas 3\u20134 of [@CCK2015], where $C>0$ is a constant which depends only on $g$. Now we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F}\\right)&\\leq P\\left(\\Phi_\\beta(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'-y-\\varepsilon)\\leq0|\\mathcal{F}\\right)~(\\because\\text{Eq.\\eqref{max-smooth}})\\\\\n&\\leq E\\left[\\varphi\\left(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\right)|\\mathcal{F}\\right]\n\\leq E\\left[\\varphi\\left(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\right)|\\mathcal{F}\\right]+C\\varepsilon^{-2}(\\log m)\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\\\\n&\\leq P\\left(\\Phi_\\beta(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n-y-\\varepsilon)<\\varepsilon|\\mathcal{F}\\right)+C\\varepsilon^{-2}(\\log m)\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}~(\\because\\text{the definition of $g$})\\\\\n&\\leq P\\left(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y+2\\varepsilon\\right)+C\\varepsilon^{-2}(\\log m)\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}~(\\because\\text{Eq.\\eqref{max-smooth}}).\\end{aligned}$$ Since we have on the set $\\Omega_b$ $$P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y+2\\varepsilon|\\mathcal{F})\n\\leq P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})+\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b}}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)$$ by the Nazarov inequality, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F}\\right)\n&\\leq P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})+\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b}}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)+C\\varepsilon^{-2}(\\log m)\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\end{aligned}$$ a.s.\u00a0on the set $\\Omega_b$. By an analogous argument we also obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F}\\right)\n&\\geq P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{\\sqrt{b}}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)-C\\varepsilon^{-2}(\\log m)\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\end{aligned}$$ a.s.\u00a0on the set $\\Omega_b$. Therefore, we conclude that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left|P\\left(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F}\\right)-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})\\right|\n\\leq \\frac{2\\varepsilon}{b}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)+C\\varepsilon^{-2}(\\log m)\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\end{aligned}$$ a.s.\u00a0on the set $\\Omega_b$. Since the function $y\\mapsto \\left|P\\left(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F}\\right)-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})\\right|$ is a.s.\u00a0right-continuous, the above result implies that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}\\left|P\\left(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F}\\right)-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})\\right|\n\\leq \\frac{2\\varepsilon}{b}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)+C\\varepsilon^{-2}(\\log m)\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\end{aligned}$$ a.s.\u00a0on the set $\\Omega_b$. Hence we deduce $$\\begin{aligned}\n&P\\left(\\Omega_b\\cap\\left\\{\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|>\\eta\\right\\}\\right)\\\\\n&\\leq P\\left(\\frac{2\\varepsilon}{b}(\\sqrt{2\\log m}+2)+C\\varepsilon^{-2}(\\log m)\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}>\\eta\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Now, take a number $a>0$ such that $\\frac{2a}{b}(\\sqrt{2}+2/\\sqrt{\\log 2})\\leq\\frac{\\eta}{2}$ and set $\\varepsilon=a/\\sqrt{\\log m}$. Then the above inequality yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n&P\\left(\\Omega_b\\cap\\left\\{\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}|P(\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n^{1/2}\\xi_n'\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})-P(\\Gamma_n^{1/2}\\xi_n\\leq y|\\mathcal{F})|>\\eta\\right\\}\\right)\n\\leq P\\left(\\frac{C}{a}(\\log m)^2\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}>\\frac{\\eta}{2}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, 0 noting that the inequality $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\widehat{\\Gamma}_n-\\Gamma_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\n\\leq{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^2\n\\left(\\|{\\widehat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^2\\|\\widehat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n-\\mathfrak{C}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\n+\\|{\\widehat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n-{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}(\\|{\\widehat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}+\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty})\\|\\mathfrak{C}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right),\\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the desired result from the condition . follows from the assumption , which yields the desired result.\n\nProof of Proposition \\[prop:quantile\\]\n--------------------------------------\n\nWe follow Step 3 in the proof of Theorem 2 from [@KS2016]. First, by assumption and Theorem 9.2.2 of [@Dudley2002] there is a sequence $\\varepsilon_n$ of positive numbers tending to 0 such that $$P\\left(\\mathcal{E}_n^c\\right)\\leq\\varepsilon_n,\\qquad\n\\sup_{x\\in\\mathbb{R}}\\left|P\\left(T_n\\leq x\\right)-P\\left(T_n^\\dagger\\leq x\\right)\\right|\\leq\\varepsilon_n$$ for all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, where $$\\mathcal{E}_n=\\left\\{\\sup_{x\\in\\mathbb{R}}\\left|P\\left(T_n^\\dagger\\leq x|\\mathcal{F}\\right)-P\\left(T^*_n\\leq x|\\mathcal{F}\\right)\\right|\\leq\\varepsilon_n\\right\\}.$$ Next, let us denote by $q_n^\\dagger$ the $\\mathcal{F}$-conditional quantile function of $T_n^\\dagger$. Then, on the set $\\mathcal{E}_n\\cap E_n$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(T^*_n\\leq q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha+\\varepsilon_n)|\\mathcal{F}\\right)\n\\geq P\\left(T_n^\\dagger\\leq q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha+\\varepsilon_n)|\\mathcal{F}\\right)-\\varepsilon_n\n=\\alpha.\\end{aligned}$$ on $\\mathcal{E}_n\\cap E_n$ it holds that $q_n^*(\\alpha)\\leq q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha+\\varepsilon_n).$ Therefore, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(T_n\\leq q_n^*(\\alpha)\\right)\n&\\leq P\\left(T_n\\leq q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha+\\varepsilon_n)\\right)+P(\\mathcal{E}_n^c)+P(E_n^c)\\\\\n&\\leq P\\left(T_n^\\dagger\\leq q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha+\\varepsilon_n)\\right)+2\\varepsilon_n+P(E_n^c)\n=\\alpha+3\\varepsilon_n+P(E_n^c).\\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, for any $\\omega\\in\\mathcal{E}_n\\cap E_n$ and any $z\\in\\mathbb{R}$ such that $P(T_n^*\\leq z|\\mathcal{F})(\\omega)\\geq\\alpha$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(T_n^\\dagger\\leq q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha-\\varepsilon_n)(\\omega)|\\mathcal{F}\\right)(\\omega)\n=\\alpha-\\varepsilon_n\n\\leq P(T_n^*\\leq z|\\mathcal{F})(\\omega)-\\varepsilon_n\n\\leq P\\left(T_n^\\dagger\\leq z|\\mathcal{F}\\right)(\\omega).\\end{aligned}$$ ence it holds that $q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha-\\varepsilon_n)(\\omega)\\leq z$. This implies that $q_n^*(\\alpha)\\geq q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha-\\varepsilon_n)$ on $\\mathcal{E}_n\\cap E_n$. Therefore, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(T_n< q_n^*(\\alpha)\\right)\n&\\geq P\\left(T_n< q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha-\\varepsilon_n)\\right)-P(\\mathcal{E}_n^c)-P(E_n^c)\\\\\n&\\geq P\\left(T_n^\\dagger< q_n^\\dagger(\\alpha-\\varepsilon_n)\\right)-2\\varepsilon_n-P(E_n^c)\n=\\alpha-3\\varepsilon_n-P(E_n^c).\\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we obtain $P\\left(T_n\\leq q_n^*(\\alpha)\\right)\\to\\alpha$ as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\nProofs for Section \\[sec:rc\\]\n=============================\n\nProof of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\]\n---------------------------\n\nWe first introduce some notation. For two sequences $(x_n),(y_n)$ of numbers, the notation $x_n\\lesssim y_n$ means that there is a *universal* constant $C>0$ such that $x_n\\leq Cy_n$ for all $n$. Here, the value of the constant $C$ will change from line to line. We define the $d$-dimensional processes $\\mathsf{A}=(\\mathsf{A}_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ and $\\mathsf{M}=(\\mathsf{M}_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ by $$\\mathsf{A}_t=\\int_0^t\\mu_sds,\\qquad\n\\mathsf{M}_t=\\int_0^t\\sigma_sdB_s$$ for every $t\\in[0,1]$. If $\\phi=(\\phi_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ is an $r$-dimensional $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process such that $\\int_0^1\\|\\phi_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2dt<\\infty$ a.s., we define $$\\int_0^t\\phi_s\\cdot dB_s:=\\sum_{a=1}^r\\int_0^t\\phi_s^adB^a_s$$ for all $t\\in[0,1]$.\n\nFor every $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, we set $I_h=I_h^n:=(t_{h-1},t_h]$ for every $h=1,\\dots,n$ and define the filtration $(\\mathcal{G}^n_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ by $\\mathcal{G}^n_0:=\\mathcal{F}_0$ and $$\\mathcal{G}^n_t:=\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}$$ when $t\\in I_h$ for some $h=1,\\dots,n$. Then we define the process $(\\varsigma_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ by $$\\varsigma_t=E[\\sigma_t|\\mathcal{G}^n_{t}],\\qquad t\\in[0,1]$$ (we subtract the index $n$ from $\\varsigma_t$ although it depends on $n$). For all $i,j=1,\\dots,d$, we define the symmetric $H^{\\otimes2}$-valued random variable $u_n^{ij}$ by $$u_n^{ij}:=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^nf_n^{ij}1_{I_h\\times I_h},$$ where $f_n^{ij}=\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}\\otimes\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}\\right)$. We note the following result:\n\n\\[lemma:double\\] Given an index $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, let $\\xi=(\\xi_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ and $\\eta=(\\eta_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ be $(\\mathcal{G}^n_t)$-adapted $r$-dimensional processes such that $\\sup_{t\\in[0,1]}E[\\|\\xi_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^4+\\|\\eta_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^4]<\\infty$. Then $\\xi\\otimes\\eta1_{I_h\\times I_h}\\in\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta^2)$ and $$\\delta^2(\\xi\\otimes\\eta1_{I_h\\times I_h})=\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\xi_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\eta_t\\cdot dB_t+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\xi_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\eta_t\\cdot dB_t$$ for every $h=1,\\dots,n$.\n\nSet $S:=\\{(s,t)\\in[0,1]^2:s\\leq t\\}$. For any $t\\in[0,1]$, the process $(\\xi_s\\eta_t1_{(I_h\\times I_h)\\cap S}(s,t))_{s\\in[0,1]}$ is evidently $\\mathbf{F}$-predictable and $H$-valued, it belongs to $\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta)$ and $$\\delta(\\xi\\eta_t1_{(I_h\\times I_h)\\cap S}(\\cdot,t))=\\eta_t1_{I_h}(t)\\int_0^t\\xi_s1_{I_h}(s)\\cdot dB_s$$ by Proposition 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006]. Moreover, from the above expression the process $(\\delta(\\xi\\eta_t1_{(I_h\\times I_h)\\cap S}(\\cdot,t)))_{t\\in[0,1]}$ is evidently $\\mathbf{F}$-predictable and $H$-valued. Therefore, Proposition 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006] and Proposition 2.6 of [@NZ1988] imply that $\\xi\\otimes\\eta1_{(I_h\\times I_h)\\cap S}$ belongs to $\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta^2)$ and $$\\delta^2(\\xi\\otimes\\eta1_{(I_h\\times I_h)\\cap S})\n=\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\xi_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\eta_t\\cdot dB_t.$$ Similarly, we can show that $\\xi\\otimes\\eta1_{(I_h\\times I_h)\\cap S^c}\\in \\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta^2)$ and $$\\delta^2(\\xi\\otimes\\eta1_{(I_h\\times I_h)\\cap S^c})\n=\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\eta_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\xi_t\\cdot dB_t.$$ This completes the proof.\n\nThanks to Lemma \\[lemma:double\\], we have $u_n^{ij}\\in\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta^2)$, we can define the variable $M_n^{ij}$ by $$M_n^{ij}=\\delta^2(u_n^{ij}).$$\n\nNext we prove some auxiliary results. We begin by noting some elementary facts which are frequently used throughout the proof. First, for any random variable $\\xi$ and any $p,q\\in(0,\\infty)$, it holds that $$\\||\\xi|^q\\|_p=\\|\\xi\\|_{pq}^q.$$ Second, for two random variables $\\xi,\\eta$ and numbers $p\\in(0,\\infty)$, $q\\in(1,\\infty)$, we have $$\\|\\xi\\eta\\|_p\\leq\\|\\xi\\|_{qp}\\|\\eta\\|_{\\frac{q}{q-1}p}.$$ This is a consequence of the H\u00f6lder inequality. These facts will be used without reference in the following. We also refer to two inequalities which are repeatedly used throughout the proof. The first one is the following integral version of the Minkowski inequality:\n\n\\[minkowski\\] Let $(\\mathcal{X},\\mathcal{A},\\mathfrak{m})$ be a $\\sigma$-finite measure space and $f:\\mathcal{X}\\times \\Omega\\to[0,\\infty]$ be an $\\mathcal{A}\\otimes\\mathcal{F}$-measurable function. Then we have $$\\left\\|\\int_{\\mathcal{X}}f(x)\\mathfrak{m}(dx)\\right\\|_p\n\\leq\\int_{\\mathcal{X}}\\|f(x)\\|_p\\mathfrak{m}(dx)$$ for all $p\\in[1,\\infty]$.\n\nProposition \\[minkowski\\] is an easy consequence of the standard Minkowski inequality via approximating the function $f$ by simple functions (see also Proposition C.4 of [@Janson1997]).\n\nThe second one is the following Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality with a sharp constant:\n\n\\[sharp-BDG\\] There is a universal constant $c>0$ such that $$\\left\\|\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}|M_t|\\right\\|_p\\leq c\\sqrt{p}\\left\\|\\langle M\\rangle_T^{1/2}\\right\\|_p$$ for any $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ and any continuous martingale $M=(M_t)_{t\\in[0,T]}$ with $M_0=0$.\n\nWe then prove some auxiliary estimates.\n\n\\[lemma:BDG\\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\left\\|\\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\eta_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\xi_t\\cdot dB_t\\right\\|_p\n\\leq C\\frac{p\\sqrt{h_1-h_0}}{n}\\sup_{t_{h_0}< t< t_{h_1}}\\|\\xi_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}\\sup_{t_{h_0}< s< t_{h_1}}\\|\\eta_s\\|_{\\frac{q}{q-1}p,\\ell_2}$$ for any $p\\in[2,\\infty)$, $q\\in(1,\\infty)$, $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $h_0,h_1=0,1,\\dots,n$ such that $h_0< h_1$ and any $r$-dimensional $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable processes $\\xi$ and $\\eta$ such that $\\sup_{t\\in[0,1]}(\\|\\xi_t\\|_p+\\|\\eta_t\\|_p)<\\infty$ for all $p\\in[1,\\infty)$.\n\nSet $q'=q/(1-q)$. By Propositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\] we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\eta_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\xi_t\\cdot dB_t\\right\\|_p\n&\\lesssim\\sqrt{p}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\|\\xi_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\eta_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2dt}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p\\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\|\\xi_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}^2\\left\\|\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\eta_s\\cdot dB_s\\right\\|_{q'p}^2dt}\\\\\n&\\lesssim p\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=h_0+1}^{h_1}\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\|\\xi_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}^2\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\|\\eta_s\\|_{\\ell_2}^2ds}\\right\\|_{q'p}^2dt}\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{p\\sqrt{h_1-h_0}}{n}\\sup_{t_{h_0}< t< t_{h_1}}\\|\\xi_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}\\sup_{t_{h_0}< s< t_{h_1}}\\|\\eta_s\\|_{q'p,\\ell_2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Hence we obtain the desired result.\n\n0\n\n\\[ocone\\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t-\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2\\leq\\frac{Cp}{n}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2$$ for all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $i=1,\\dots,r$ and $p\\in[2,\\infty)$.\n\nBy the Clark-Ocone formula (Proposition A.1 of [@NP1988]) we have $$\\sigma^{ia}_t=E[\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}]+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^tE[D_s\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]\\cdot dB_s$$ for all $t\\in I_h$. Therefore, it suffices to show that there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\max_{1\\leq h\\leq n}\\sup_{t\\in I_h}\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^tE[D_s\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2\\right\\|_p\\leq\\frac{Cp}{n}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2$$ for all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $i=1,\\dots,r$ and $p\\in[2,\\infty)$.\n\nFix $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $i=1,\\dots,r$ and $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ arbitrarily. We also fix $h=1,\\dots,n$ and $t\\in I_h$ arbitrarily. Then, by It\u00f4\u2019s formula we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau E[D_s\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]dB_s\\right)^2\\\\\n&=2\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau \\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\\right)E[D_s\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]dB_s\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau \\sum_{a=1}^r\\left\\|E\\left[D_s\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}\\right]\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^2ds\\\\\n&=:\\mathbf{I}_\\tau+\\mathbf{II}_\\tau\\end{aligned}$$ for every $\\tau\\in[t_{h-1},t]$. The Lyapunov inequality and Proposition \\[minkowski\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\mathbf{II}_\\tau\\right\\|_p\n\\leq\\frac{1}{n}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2.\\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, Propositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\] as well as the Schwarz and Lyapunov inequalities yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\mathbf{I}_\\tau\\right\\|_{p}\n&\\lesssim\\sqrt{p}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{b=1}^r\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\left|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\\right)E[D^{(b)}_s\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]\\right|^2ds}\\right\\|_{p}\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p}\\left\\|\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\\right)^2\\sum_{a,b=1}^rE[D^{(b)}_s\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]^2ds\\right\\|_{p/2}^{1/2}\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\\right)^2E\\left[\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2|\\mathcal{F}_{s}\\right]\\right\\|_{p/2}ds}\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\\right)^2\\right\\|_p\\left\\|E\\left[\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2|\\mathcal{F}_{s}\\right]\\right\\|_{p}ds}\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\\right)^2\\right\\|_pds}.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, defining the function $g:[t_{h-1},t]\\to[0,\\infty)$ by $$g(\\tau)=\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau E[D_s\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]dB_s\\right)^2\\right\\|_{p}^2,\\qquad \\tau\\in[t_{h-1},t],$$ we conclude that $$g(\\tau)\\leq\\frac{2}{n^2}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^4+C_0p\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\sqrt{g(s)}ds$$ for any $\\tau\\in[t_{h-1},t]$ with some universal constant $C_0>0$. Hence the Bihari inequality (cf.\u00a0Section 3 of [@Bihari1956]) yields $$\\sqrt{g(t)}\\leq\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{n}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2\n+\\frac{C_0p}{2n}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2.$$ This implies that the desired result holds true with the constant $C=1/\\sqrt{2}+C_0/2$.\n\n\\[ocone\\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\max_{1\\leq h\\leq n-1}\\sup_{t\\in[t_{h-1},t_{h+1}]}\\left\\|\\xi_t-E[\\xi_t|\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}]\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\leq C\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\xi_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}$$ for all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $p\\in[2,\\infty)$, $\\mathsf{r}\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and any $\\mathsf{r}$-dimensional $(\\mathcal{F}_t)$-progressively measurable process $\\xi$ such that $\\xi_t\\in\\mathbb{D}_{1,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{\\mathsf{r}})$ for all $t\\in[0,1]$.\n\nBy the Clark-Ocone formula (Proposition A.1 of [@NP1988]) we have $$\\xi^{a}_t=E[\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}]+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^tE[D_s\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]\\cdot dB_s\\qquad\\text{a.s.}$$ for all $t\\in [t_{h-1},t_{h+1}]$ and $a=1,\\dots,\\mathsf{r}$. Therefore, it suffices to show that there is a universal constant $C'>0$ such that $$\\max_{1\\leq h\\leq n-1}\\sup_{t\\in[t_{h-1},t_{h+1}]}\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^tE[D_s\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2\\right\\|_p\\leq C'\\frac{p}{n}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\xi_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2$$ for all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $p\\in[2,\\infty)$.\n\nFix $h=1,\\dots,n-1$ and $t\\in[t_{h-1},t_{h+1}]$ arbitrarily. By It\u00f4\u2019s formula we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau E[D_s\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2\\\\\n&=2\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau \\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]\\cdot dB_u\\right)E[D_s\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]\\cdot dB_s\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau \\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left\\|E\\left[D_s\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}\\right]\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^2ds\\\\\n&=:\\mathbf{I}_\\tau+\\mathbf{II}_\\tau\\end{aligned}$$ for every $\\tau\\in[t_{h-1},t]$. The Lyapunov inequality and Proposition \\[minkowski\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\mathbf{II}_\\tau\\right\\|_p\n\\leq\\frac{1}{n}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\xi_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2.\\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\mathbf{I}_\\tau\\right\\|_{p}\n&\\lesssim\\sqrt{p}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{b=1}^r\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\left|\\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]\\cdot dB_u\\right)E[D^{(b)}_s\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]\\right|^2ds}\\right\\|_{p}\n~{\\textcolor{black}{(\\because\\text{Proposition \\ref{sharp-BDG}})}}\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p}\\left\\|\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]\\cdot dB_u\\right)^2\\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\sum_{b=1}^rE[D^{(b)}_s\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]^2ds\\right\\|_{p/2}^{1/2}\n~{\\textcolor{black}{(\\because\\text{Schwarz})}}\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]dB_u\\right)^2E\\left[\\|D_s\\xi_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2|\\mathcal{F}_{s}\\right]\\right\\|_{p/2}ds}\n~(\\because\\text{Lyapunov, Proposition \\ref{minkowski}})\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]\\cdot dB_u\\right)^2\\right\\|_p\\left\\|E\\left[\\|D_s\\xi_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2|\\mathcal{F}_{s}\\right]\\right\\|_{p}ds}\n~(\\because\\text{Schwarz})\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\xi_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^sE[D_u\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{u}]\\cdot dB_u\\right)^2\\right\\|_pds}\n~{\\textcolor{black}{(\\because\\text{Lyapunov})}}.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, defining the function $g:[t_{h-1},t]\\to[0,\\infty)$ by $$g(\\tau)=\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^\\mathsf{r}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau E[D_s\\xi^{a}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{s}]\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2\\right\\|_{p}^2,\\qquad \\tau\\in[t_{h-1},t],$$ we obtain $$g(\\tau)\\leq\\frac{2}{n^2}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\xi_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^4+C_0p\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\xi_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2\\int_{t_{h-1}}^\\tau\\sqrt{g(s)}ds$$ for any $\\tau\\in[t_{h-1},t]$ with some universal constant $C_0>0$. Hence the Bihari inequality (cf.\u00a0Section 3 of [@Bihari1956]) yields $$\\sqrt{g(t)}\\leq\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{n}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\xi_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2\n+\\frac{C_0p}{2n}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\xi_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2.$$ This implies that the desired result holds true with the constant $C'=1/\\sqrt{2}+C_0/2$.\n\n\\[sigma-l2\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], it holds that $\\|\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\leq\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}=\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\|_{p}^{1/2}$ for any $t\\in[0,1]$, $i=1,\\dots,d$ and $p\\geq1$.\n\nThe last equality is evident from the identity $\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2=\\Sigma^{ii}_t$. Meanwhile, the Lyapunov inequality yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2\n=\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(E\\left[\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\mathcal{G}^n_t\\right]\\right)^2\n\\leq \\sum_{a=1}^rE\\left[\\left(\\sigma^{ia}_t\\right)^2|\\mathcal{G}^n_t\\right]\n=E\\left[\\left\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^2|\\mathcal{G}^n_t\\right].\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the Lyapunov inequality again yields $\nE\\left[\\|\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^{2p}\\right]\n\\leq E\\left[\\left(E\\left[\\left\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^2|\\mathcal{G}^n_t\\right]\\right)^p\\right]\n\\leq E\\left[\\left\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^{2p}\\right].\n$ This means $\\|\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\leq\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}$.\n\n\\[sigma-deriv\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], for all $i=1,\\dots,d$ and $u\\in[0,1]$, $\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^r)$ and $D_s\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u,D_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u$ are $\\mathcal{G}^n_u$-measurable for any $s,t\\in[0,1]$. Moreover, the following estimates hold true for any $p\\in[1,\\infty)$ and $s,t\\in[0,1]$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|D_{t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}&\\leq\\|D_{t}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_u\\|_{2p,\\ell_2},\\label{eq:deriv1}\\\\\n\\|D_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}&\\leq\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_u\\|_{2p,\\ell_2},\\label{eq:deriv2}\\\\\n\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d}\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n&\\leq\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{kk}_u\\right\\|_{p}^{1/2}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2},\\label{eq:deriv3}\\\\\n\\max_{1\\leq k,l\\leq d}\\left\\|\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n&\\leq\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{kk}_s\\right\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}\\left\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}.\\label{eq:deriv4}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFirst, by Proposition 3.1 of [@JS1990] $\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,2}(\\mathbb{R}^r)$ and we have $$D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u=E\\left[D_s^{(a)}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_u|\\mathcal{G}_u^n\\right]1_{\\left[0,(\\lceil nu\\rceil-1)/n\\right]}(s),\\qquad\nD_{s,t}^{(a,b)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u=E\\left[D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_u|\\mathcal{G}_u^n\\right]1_{\\left[0,(\\lceil nu\\rceil-1)/n\\right]^2}(s,t)$$ for any $s,t\\in[0,1]$ and $a,b=1,\\dots,r$. In particular, $D_s\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u,D_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u$ are $\\mathcal{G}^n_u$-measurable. Moreover, \u2013 can be shown in an analogous way to the proof of Lemma \\[sigma-l2\\], which also implies that $\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_u\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^r)$.\n\nNext, the Schwarz inequality, Lemma \\[sigma-l2\\] and yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n&=\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{b=1}^r\\left(\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{ib}_{u}\\right)^2}\\right\\|_{p}\n\\leq\\left\\|\\|\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\|_{\\ell_2}\\left\\|D_s\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}\\right\\|_{p}\n\\leq\\left\\|\\Sigma^{kk}_u\\right\\|_{p}^{1/2}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2},\\end{aligned}$$ we obtain .\n\nFinally, the Schwarz inequality, Lemma \\[sigma-l2\\] and yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n&=\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{c=1}^r\\left(\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{ic}_{u}\\right)^2}\\right\\|_{p}\n\\leq\\left\\|\\|\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_{s}\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|\\varsigma^{l\\cdot}_{t}\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|D^2_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\|_{\\ell_2}\\right\\|_{p}\\\\\n&\\leq\\left\\|\\|\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_{s}\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|\\varsigma^{l\\cdot}_{t}\\|_{\\ell_2}\\right\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}\\|D^2_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}\n\\leq\\left\\|\\Sigma^{kk}_s\\right\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}^{1/2}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ll}_t\\right\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}^{1/2}\\|D^2_{s,t}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\|_{3p,\\ell_2},\\end{aligned}$$ we obtain and thus complete the proof.\n\n0\n\n\\[lemma:BDG\\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\left\\|\\sum_{h=h_0}^n\\delta^2(\\xi\\otimes\\eta1_{I_h}\\times1_{I_h})\\right\\|_p\n\\leq C\\frac{p}{\\sqrt{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\xi_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\eta_s\\|_{\\frac{q}{q-1}p,\\ell_2}$$ for any $p\\in[2,\\infty)$, any $q>1$, any $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, any $h_0=1,\\dots,n$ and any $r$-dimensional $(\\mathcal{G}^n_t)$-adapted processes $\\xi$ and $\\eta$ such that $\\xi_t,\\eta_t\\in L^{\\infty-}$ for every $t$.\n\n$q'=q/(1-q)$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\sum_{m=1}^n\\xi_m\\cdot(B_{t_m}-B_{t_{m-1}})\\right\\|_p\n\\lesssim\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{m=1}^n\\|\\xi_m\\|_{\\ell_2}^2}\\right\\|_p\n\\leq\\sqrt{p}\\max_{1\\leq m\\leq n}\\|\\xi_m\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{h=h_0}^n\\delta^2(\\xi\\otimes\\eta1_{I_h}\\times1_{I_h})\n=\\sum_{h=h_0}^n\\sum_{a=1}^r\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\xi_t^a\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\eta_s\\cdot dB_s+\\eta_t^a\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\xi_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)dB_t^a\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\sum_{h=h_0}^n\\delta^2(\\xi\\otimes\\eta1_{I_h}\\times1_{I_h})\\right\\|_p\n&\\lesssim\\sqrt{p}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=h_0}^n\\sum_{a=1}^r\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\xi_t^a\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\eta_s\\cdot dB_s+\\eta_t^a\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\xi_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2dt}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{2p}\\left\\|\\sum_{h=h_0}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\{\\|\\xi_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\eta_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2+\\|\\eta_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\xi_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2\\right\\}dt\\right\\|_{p/2}^{1/2}\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{2p\\sum_{h=h_0}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\{\\|\\xi_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}^2\\left\\|\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\eta_s\\cdot dB_s\\right\\|_{q'p}^2+\\|\\eta_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}^2\\left\\|\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\xi_s\\cdot dB_s\\right\\|_{q'p}^2\\right\\}dt}\\\\\n&\\lesssim p\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=h_0}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\{\\|\\xi_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}^2\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\|\\eta_s\\|_{\\ell_2}^2ds}\\right\\|_{q'p}^2+\\|\\eta_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}^2\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\|\\xi_s\\|_{\\ell_2}^2ds}\\right\\|_{q'p}^2\\right\\}dt}\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{p}{\\sqrt{n}}\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=h_0}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\{\\|\\xi_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}^2\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\eta_s\\|_{q'p,\\ell_2}^2+\\|\\eta_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}^2\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\xi_s\\|_{q'p,\\ell_2}^2\\right\\}dt}\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{\\sqrt{2}p}{\\sqrt{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\xi_t\\|_{qp,\\ell_2}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\eta_s\\|_{q'p,\\ell_2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNow we turn to the main body of the proof. We begin by evaluating the approximation error between $\\sqrt{n}(\\widehat{[Y^i,Y^j]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1)$ and $M_n^{ij}$.\n\n\\[drift\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], it holds that $$\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\left\\|\\sqrt{n}\\widehat{[\\mathsf{A}^i,\\mathsf{A}^j]}^n_1\\right\\|_p\n\\leq\\frac{1}{{\\textcolor{black}{\\sqrt{n}}}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\mu^i_s\\|_{2p}^2$$ for any $p\\in[1,\\infty)$ and $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Moreover, there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\sqrt{n}\\widehat{[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{A}^j]}^n_1\\right\\|_p\n\\leq\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\left(\n\\sqrt{p}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\mu^{j}_t\\right\\|_{2p}\n+p\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|D_u\\mu^j_v\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\n\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\\in[2,\\infty)$, $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $i,j=1,\\dots,d$.\n\nThe first claim is an immediate consequence of the H\u00f6lder inequality and Proposition \\[minkowski\\].\n\nTo prove the second claim, by It\u00f4\u2019s formula we decompose $\\sqrt{n}\\widehat{[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{A}^j]}^n_1$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sqrt{n}\\widehat{[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{A}^j]}^n_1\n&=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left\\{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\mu^{j}_sds\\right)\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\cdot dB_t+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\mu^{j}_tdt\\right\\}\\\\\n&=:\\mathbf{I}_n^{ij}+\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}.\\end{aligned}$$ By Propositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\] we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\mathbf{I}_n^{ij}\\|_p\n&\\lesssim \\sqrt{np}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\mu^{j}_sds\\right)^2\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2 dt}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\mu^{j}_s\\right\\|_{2p}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}.\\end{aligned}$$ In the meantime, we further decompose $\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}&=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left\\{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)E\\left[\\mu^{j}_t|\\mathcal{G}_t^n\\right]dt\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\left(\\mu^j_t-E\\left[\\mu^{j}_t|\\mathcal{G}_t^n\\right]\\right)dt\\right\\}\\\\\n&=:\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(1)+\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(2).\\end{aligned}$$ Since $E\\left[\\mu^{j}_t|\\mathcal{G}_t^n\\right]$ is $\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}$-measurable for $t\\in I_h$, we have $$\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(1)=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}1_{(t_{h-1},t]}(s)E\\left[\\mu^{j}_t|\\mathcal{G}_t^n\\right]\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)dt.$$ Therefore, the stochastic Fubini theorem (e.g.\u00a0Corollary 5.28 of [@Medv2007]) yields $$\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(1)=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}1_{(t_{h-1},t]}(s)E\\left[\\mu^{j}_t|\\mathcal{G}_t^n\\right]dt\\right)\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s.$$ Hence, Propositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\] and the Lyapunov inequality imply that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(1)\\right\\|_p\n&\\lesssim\\sqrt{np}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}1_{(t_{h-1},t]}(s)E\\left[\\mu^{j}_t|\\mathcal{G}_t^n\\right]dt\\right)^2\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\|_{\\ell_2}^2ds}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\mu^j_t\\|_{2p}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Meanwhile, Propositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\] and Lemma \\[ocone\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}(2)\\right\\|_p\n&\\leq\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\|\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right\\|_{2p}\\left\\|\\mu^j_t-E\\left[\\mu^{j}_t|\\mathcal{G}_t^n\\right]\\right\\|_{2p}dt\\\\\n&\\lesssim p\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\|_{\\ell_2}^2ds}\\right\\|_{2p}dt\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|D_u\\mu^j_v\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{p}{\\sqrt{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|D_u\\mu^j_v\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Combining these estimates, we complete the proof.\n\n\\[approx-M\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\left\\|\\sqrt{n}\\left(\\widehat{[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1\\right)-M_n^{ij}\\right\\|_p\n\\leq C\\frac{p^{3/2}}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\right\\|_{p}^{1/2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}$$ for every $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $p\\in[2,\\infty)$.\n\nBy It\u00f4\u2019s formula we deduce the following decomposition: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sqrt{n}\\left(\\widehat{[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j]}^n_1-[Y^i,Y^j]_1\\right)\\\\\n&=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left\\{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\cdot dB_t+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\cdot dB_t\\right\\}\\\\\n&=:\\mathbf{I}_n^{ij}+\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}.\\end{aligned}$$ Propositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\] and Lemmas \\[ocone\\]\u2013\\[sigma-l2\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left\\|\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\left(\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t-\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right)\\cdot dB_t\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\lesssim\\sqrt{np}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2\\left\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t-\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^2dt}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{np}\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\|\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right\\|_{2p}^2\\left\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t-\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2dt}\\\\\n&\\lesssim p\\sqrt{\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_s\\right\\|_{p}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t-\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2}\n\\lesssim\\frac{p^{3/2}}{\\sqrt{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_s\\right\\|_{p}^{1/2}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left\\|\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\left(\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_s-\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\right)\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\cdot dB_t\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\lesssim \\sqrt{np}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\left(\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_s-\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\right)\\cdot dB_s\\right)^2\\|\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}^2dt}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\lesssim \\sqrt{n}p\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\left\\|\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_s-\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^2ds}\\right\\|_{2p}^2\\|\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2dt}\\\\\n&\\lesssim\\frac{p^{3/2}}{\\sqrt{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\right\\|_{p}^{1/2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Hence we obtain $$\\left\\|\\mathbf{I}_n^{ij}-\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\cdot dB_t\\right\\|_p\n\\lesssim \\frac{p^{3/2}}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\right\\|_{p}^{1/2}.$$ Analogously we can prove $$\\left\\|\\mathbf{II}_n^{ij}-\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\cdot dB_t\\right\\|_p\n\\lesssim \\frac{p^{3/2}}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\right\\|_{p}^{1/2}.$$ Consequently, the desired result follows from Lemma \\[lemma:double\\].\n\nNext we establish some properties of $M_n^{ij}$ which are necessary for application of our main theorem. The first result gives the moment bounds.\n\n\\[M-moment\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\|M_n^{ij}\\|_p\\leq Cp\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\|_p\n$$ for all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $p\\in[2,\\infty)$.\n\nThis is an immediate consequence of Lemmas \\[lemma:double\\]\u2013\\[lemma:BDG\\] and \\[sigma-l2\\].\n\nSecond, we prove the Malliavin differentiability of $M_n^{ij}$ and compute its Malliavin derivatives. For this purpose we prove an auxiliary result. Recall that we have $\\mathbb{D}_{1,2}(H)\\subset\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta)$ by Proposition 1.3.1 of [@Nualart2006].\n\n\\[heisenberg\\] Let $k\\in\\mathbb{N}$.\n\n1.  Suppose that $u\\in\\mathbb{D}_{k,2}(H)$ satisfies $D_{t_1,\\dots,t_j}^{(a_1,\\dots,a_j)}u\\in\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta)$ for all $j=1,\\dots,k$, $a_1,\\dots,a_j\\in\\{1,\\dots,r\\}$ and $t_1,\\dots,t_j\\in[0,1]$ and $$\\label{ass:heisenberg}\n    \\sum_{j=1}^kE\\left[\\int_{[0,1]^j}\\left\\|\\delta\\left(D_{t_1,\\dots,t_j}u\\right)\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^2dt_1\\cdots dt_j\\right]<\\infty.$$ Then we have $\\delta(u)\\in\\mathbb{D}_{k,2}$ and $$\\label{eq:heisenberg}\n    D_{t_1,\\dots,t_k}\\delta(u)=\\delta\\left(D_{t_1,\\dots,t_k}u\\right)+k\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(D^{k-1}u\\right)(t_1,\\dots,t_k)$$ for all $t_1,\\dots,t_k\\in[0,1]$.\n\n2.  If $u\\in\\mathbb{D}_{k,2}(H)$ is $\\mathbf{F}$-adapted, then $\\delta(u)\\in\\mathbb{D}_{k,2}$ and holds true for all $t_1,\\dots,t_k\\in[0,1]$.\n\n\\(a) We prove the claim by induction on $k$. When $k=1$, the claim follows from Proposition 1.3.8 of [@Nualart2006]. Next, supposing that the claim holds true for $k=K\\in\\mathbb{N}$, we prove the claim for $k=K+1$. From we have $$\\label{fubini:heisenberg}\nE\\left[\\int_0^1\\left\\|\\delta\\left(D_t\\left(D_{t_1,\\dots,t_{K}}u\\right)\\right)\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^2dt\\right]<\\infty$$ for all $t_1,\\dots,t_{K}\\in[0,1]$. Moreover, by the assumption of the induction holds true for all $t_1,\\dots,t_{K}\\in[0,1]$. Now let us take $t_1,\\dots,t_{K}\\in[0,1]$ arbitrarily, and set $v:=D_{t_1,\\dots,t_K}u$. Then, by assumptions and Proposition 1.3.8 of [@Nualart2006], $\\delta(v)\\in\\mathbb{D}_{1,2}$ and $D_t\\delta(v)=\\delta(D_tv)+v(t)$ for all $t\\in[0,1]$. Therefore, by we have $D_{t_1,\\dots,t_K}\\delta(u)\\in\\mathbb{D}_{1,2}$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\nD_t\\left(D_{t_1,\\dots,t_K}\\delta(u)\\right)\n&=\\delta(D_tv)+v(t)+KD_t\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(D^{K-1}u\\right)(t_1,\\dots,t_K)\\\\\n&=\\delta\\left(D_{t_1,\\dots,t_K,t}u\\right)+(K+1)\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(D^{K}u\\right)(t_1,\\dots,t_K,t)\\end{aligned}$$ for all $t\\in[0,1]$. This implies that the claim also holds true for $k=K+1$ and thus completes the proof.\n\n\\(b) This claim is an immediate consequence of claim (a) and Propositions 1.2.8 and 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006].\n\nWe then obtain the following result.\n\n\\[M-deriv\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], the following statements hold true for any $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $i,j=1,\\dots,d$:\n\n1.  $f_n^{ij}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(H^{\\otimes2})$ and it holds that $$\\label{eq:1st-deriv}\n    D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(u,v)=\\frac{1}{2}(D^{(a)}_s\\varsigma_u^{i\\cdot}\\otimes \\varsigma_v^{j\\cdot}+\\varsigma_u^{i\\cdot}\\otimes D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma_v^{j\\cdot}\n    +D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma_u^{j\\cdot}\\otimes \\varsigma_v^{i\\cdot}+\\varsigma_u^{j\\cdot}\\otimes D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma_v^{i\\cdot})$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n    D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}f^{ij}_{n}(u,v)\n    &=\\frac{1}{2}\\left(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}+D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}+D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}+\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\left.+D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}+D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}+D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}+\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\right)\\label{eq:2nd-deriv}\\end{aligned}$$ for any $a,b=1,\\dots,r$ and $s,t,u,v\\in[0,1]$.\n\n2.  $u_n^{ij}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(H^{\\otimes2})$ and $u_n^{ij}(s,\\cdot)^{a\\cdot},D_s^{(a)}u_n^{ij}(t,\\cdot)^{b\\cdot}\\in\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta)$, $D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}u_n^{ij}\\in\\operatorname{Dom}(\\delta^2)$ for any $a,b=1,\\dots,r$ and $s,t\\in[0,1]$.\n\n3.  $M_n^{ij}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$ and we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    D_s^{(a)}M_n^{ij}&=\\delta^2(D_s^{(a)}u_n^{ij})+2\\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\\cdot)^{a\\cdot}),\\\\\n    D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}M_n^{ij}&=\\delta^2\\left(D_{s,t}^{(a,b)}u_n^{ij}\\right)\n    +2\\delta\\left(D_{s}^{(a)}u_n^{ij}(t,\\cdot)^{b\\cdot}\\right)\n    +2\\delta\\left(D_{t}^{(b)}u_n^{ij}(s,\\cdot)^{a\\cdot}\\right)\n    +2u_n^{ij}(s,t)^{ab}\\end{aligned}$$ for any $a,b=1,\\dots,r$ and $s,t\\in[0,1]$.\n\nClaim (a) follows from Lemma \\[sigma-deriv\\] as well as Lemma 15.82 and Theorem 15.83 of [@Janson1997]. Claim (b) is a consequence of claim (a), Proposition 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006] and Lemmas \\[lemma:double\\] and \\[sigma-deriv\\].\n\nNow we prove claim (c). By Lemma \\[lemma:double\\] we can rewrite $M_n^{ij}$ as $$\\label{M-deriv:eq1}\nM_n^{ij}=2\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{I_h}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\\cdot dB_t.$$ From claim (a), $f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(H)$ for all $t\\in[0,1]$, Lemma \\[heisenberg\\](b) implies that $\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,2}(\\mathbb{R}^r)$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\nD_u^{(a)}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})&=\\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})+f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\\cdot}1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]}(u),\\\\\nD_{u,v}^{(a,b)}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})&=\\delta(D_{u,v}^{(a,b)}f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\n+D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\\cdot}1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]}(u)\n+D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(v,t)^{b\\cdot}1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]}(v)\\end{aligned}$$ for all $a,b=1,\\dots,r$ and $u,v\\in[0,1]$. These formulae imply that the process $(\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)))_{t\\in[0,1]}$ belongs to $\\mathbb{D}_{2,2}(H)$, Lemma \\[heisenberg\\](b) again implies that $\\int_{I_h}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\\cdot dB_t\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,2}$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n&D_u^{(a)}\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\\cdot dB_t\\right)\n=\\int_{I_h}D_u^{(a)}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\\cdot dB_t+\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,u)^{\\cdot a}1_{I_h\\cap[0,u]})1_{I_h}(u)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=\\int_{I_h}\\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\\cdot dB_t\n+\\int_{I_h}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\\cdot}1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]}(u)\\cdot dB_t\n+\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,u)^{\\cdot a}1_{I_h\\cap[0,u]})1_{I_h}(u)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=\\int_{I_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^tD_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(s,t)dB_s\\right)\\cdot dB_t\n+\\delta(f_n^{ij}(u,\\cdot)^{a \\cdot}1_{I_h\\times I_h}(u,\\cdot))\\label{M-deriv:eq2}\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n&D_{u,v}^{(a,b)}\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\\cdot dB_t\\right)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=\\int_{I_h}D_{u,v}^{(a,b)}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\\cdot dB_t\n+D_v^{(b)}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,u)^{\\cdot a}1_{I_h\\cap[0,u]})1_{I_h}(u)\n+D_u^{(a)}\\delta(f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,v)^{\\cdot b}1_{I_h\\cap[0,v]})1_{I_h}(v)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=\\int_{I_h}\\left\\{\\delta(D_{u,v}^{(a,b)}f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]})\n+D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\\cdot}1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]}(u)\n+D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(v,t)^{b\\cdot}1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]}(v)\\right\\}\\cdot dB_t\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\quad+\\left\\{\\delta(D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,u)^{\\cdot a}1_{I_h\\cap[0,u]})+f_n^{ij}(v,u)^{ba}1_{I_h\\cap[0,u]}(v)\\right\\}1_{I_h}(u)\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\quad+\\left\\{\\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,v)^{\\cdot b}1_{I_h\\cap[0,v]})+f_n^{ij}(u,v)^{ab}1_{I_h\\cap[0,v]}(u)\\right\\}1_{I_h}(v)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=\\int_{I_h}\\left\\{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^tD_{u,v}^{(a,b)}f_n^{ij}(s,t)dB_s\n+D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{a\\cdot}1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]}(u)\n+D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(v,t)^{b\\cdot}1_{I_h\\cap[0,t]}(v)\\right\\}\\cdot dB_t\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\quad+\\delta(D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,u)^{\\cdot a}1_{I_h\\cap[0,u]})1_{I_h}(u)\n+\\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,v)^{\\cdot b}1_{I_h\\cap[0,v]})1_{I_h}(v)\n+f_n^{ij}(u,v)^{ab}1_{I_h\\times I_h}(u,v)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=\\int_{I_h}\\left\\{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^tD_{u,v}^{(a,b)}f_n^{ij}(s,t)dB_s\\right\\}\\cdot dB_t\n+\\delta(D_v^{(b)}f_n^{ij}(u,\\cdot)^{a\\cdot}1_{I_h\\times I_h}(u,\\cdot))\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\quad+\\delta(D_u^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(v,\\cdot)^{b\\cdot}1_{I_h\\times I_h}(v,\\cdot))\n+f_n^{ij}(u,v)^{ab}1_{I_h\\times I_h}(u,v)\\label{M-deriv:eq3}\\end{aligned}$$ for all $a,b=1,\\dots,r$ and $u,v\\in[0,1]$. Now, noting that formulae \u2013 can be rewritten as $$D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(u,v)=\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(D^{(a)}_s\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}\\otimes \\varsigma^{j\\cdot}\\right)(u,v)\n+\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}\\otimes D^{(a)}_s\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}\\right)(u,v)$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\nD_{s,t}^{(a,b)}f^{ij}_{n}(u,v)\n&=\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}\\otimes\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}\\right)(u,v)\n+\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}\\otimes D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}\\right)(u,v)\\\\\n&\\quad+\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}\\otimes D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}\\right)(u,v)\n+\\operatorname{Sym}\\left(\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\right)(u,v),\\end{aligned}$$ by Lemma \\[lemma:double\\] we obtain Now claim (c) follows from and the assumptions of the lemma.\n\nThird, we prove the Malliavin differentiability of $\\Sigma$ and $\\mathfrak{C}_n$ as well as establish moment estimates for their Malliavin derivatives.\n\n\\[S-deriv\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], for any $i,j=1,\\dots,d$ and $t\\in[0,1]$, $\\Sigma_t^{ij}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|D_u\\Sigma^{ij}_t\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n&\\leq2\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\right\\|_{p}^{1/2}\\|D_u\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2},\\\\\n\\|D_{u,v}\\Sigma^{ij}_t\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n&\\leq2\\left(\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\right\\|_{p}^{1/2}\\|D_{u,v}\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\n+\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\|D_u\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\|D_v\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\\in[1,\\infty)$ and $u,v\\in[0,1]$.\n\nSince $\\Sigma_t^{ij}=\\sum_{a=1}^r\\sigma^{ia}_t\\sigma^{ja}_t$, Theorem 15.78 of [@Janson1997] implies that $\\Sigma_t^{ij}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$ for all $t\\in[0,1]$ and $$D\\Sigma^{ij}_t=\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\sigma^{ja}_tD\\sigma^{ia}_t+\\sigma^{ia}_tD\\sigma^{ja}_t\\right)$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\nD^2\\Sigma^{ij}_t=\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(\\sigma^{ja}_tD^2\\sigma^{ia}_t\n+D\\sigma^{ja}_t\\otimes D\\sigma^{ia}_t\n+D\\sigma^{ia}_t\\otimes D\\sigma^{ja}_t\n+\\sigma^{ia}_tD^2\\sigma^{ja}_t\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ In particular, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|D_u\\Sigma^{ij}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\n&\\leq\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(|\\sigma^{ja}_t|\\|D\\sigma^{ia}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}+|\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\|D\\sigma^{ja}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\\right)\n\\leq\\sqrt{\\Sigma^{jj}_t}\\|D\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}+\\sqrt{\\Sigma^{ii}_t}\\|D\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|D_{u,v}\\Sigma^{ij}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\n&\\leq\\sum_{a=1}^r\\left(|\\sigma^{ja}_t|\\|D_{u,v}\\sigma^{ia}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\n+\\|D_u\\sigma^{ja}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|D_v\\sigma^{ia}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\n+\\|D_u\\sigma^{ia}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|D_v\\sigma^{ja}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\n+|\\sigma^{ia}_t|\\|D_{u,v}\\sigma^{ja}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\\right)\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{\\Sigma^{jj}_t}\\|D_{u,v}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\n+\\|D_u\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|D_v\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\n+\\|D_u\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|D_v\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\n+\\sqrt{\\Sigma^{ii}_t}\\|D_{u,v}\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{\\ell_2}\\end{aligned}$$ by the triangular and Schwarz inequalities. Hence we complete the proof by the H\u00f6lder inequality.\n\n\\[C-deriv\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], $\\mathfrak{C}_n\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{d^2\\times d^2})$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\|D_u\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n\\leq 8\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\\|D_u\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{4p,\\ell_2},\\\\\n&\\|D_{u,v}\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\\\\\n&\\leq 8\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\\|D_{u,v}\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\n+24\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,\\tau\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\|_{2p}\\|D_{u}\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\|D_{v}\\sigma^{k\\cdot}_\\tau\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\\in[1,\\infty)$, $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $i,j,k,l=1,\\dots,d$ and $u,v\\in[0,1]$.\n\nBy Remark 15.87 of [@Janson1997], $\\int_{I_h}\\Sigma^{ij}_tdt\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$ and $$D\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\Sigma^{ij}_tdt\\right)=\\int_{I_h}D\\Sigma^{ij}_tdt,\\qquad\nD^2\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\Sigma^{ij}_tdt\\right)=\\int_{I_h}D^2\\Sigma^{ij}_tdt$$ for any $i,j=1,\\dots,d$ and $h=1,\\dots,n$. Therefore, by Theorem 15.78 of [@Janson1997], the Schwarz inequality and Proposition \\[minkowski\\] we obtain $\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|D_u\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n&\\leq 4\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{ik}_s\\|_{2p}\\|D_u\\Sigma^{kl}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2},\\\\\n\\|D_{u,v}\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n&\\leq 4\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left(\\|\\Sigma^{ik}_s\\|_{2p}\\|D^2_{u,v}\\Sigma^{kl}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\n+\\|D_{u}\\Sigma^{ik}_s\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\|D_{v}\\Sigma^{jl}_t\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\n\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\\geq1$, $i,j,k,l=1,\\dots,d$ and $u,v\\in[0,1]$. Now the desired result follows from the Schwarz inequality and Lemma \\[S-deriv\\].\n\nNow we proceed to checking the conditions of Theorem \\[thm:main\\] in the current setting.\n\n\\[quasi-torsion\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left\\|\\left\\langle D^2M_n^{ij},u_n^{kl}\\right\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}-\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n\\leq C\\frac{p}{\\sqrt{n}}\n\\left(\n\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_s\\right\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq1}\\left\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\n+\\max_{1\\leq i,k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,u\\leq1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{kk}_u\\right\\|_{2p}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}^2\n\\right)\\\\\n+C\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq1}\\|D_s\\sigma_u^{i\\cdot}\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\|\\Sigma_t^{jj}\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\\end{gathered}$$ for any $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $p\\in[2,\\infty)$.\n\nBy Lemma \\[M-deriv\\] the desired result follows once we verify the following statements for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ (note ): $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left\\|\\langle\\delta^2(D^2u_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\\right\\|_p\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\lesssim\\frac{p}{\\sqrt{n}}\n\\left(\n\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_s\\right\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq1}\\left\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\n+\\max_{1\\leq i,k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,u\\leq1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{kk}_u\\right\\|_{2p}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}^2\n\\right)\\label{eq:1st-term},\\\\\n&\\left\\|\\langle\\delta(Du_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\\right\\|_p\n\\lesssim \\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq1}\\|D_s\\sigma_u^{i\\cdot}\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\|\\Sigma_t^{jj}\\|_{2p}^{3/2},\\label{eq:2nd-term}\\\\\n&\\left\\|2\\langle u_n^{ij},u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}-\\mathfrak{C}_n^{(i-1)d+j,(k-1)d+l}\\right\\|_p\n\\lesssim\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_u\\sigma_v^{i\\cdot}\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma_t^{jj}\\|_{2p}^{3/2}.\\label{eq:3rd-term}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe first verify . We can rewrite $\\langle\\delta^2(D^2u_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle\\delta^2(D^2u_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\n&=n\\sum_{h,h'=1}^n\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\delta^2(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}1_{I_{h'}}\\times 1_{I_{h'}})f^{kl}_n(s,t)^{ab}dsdt\\\\\n&=n\\sum_{h,h'=1}^n\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\delta^2\\left(D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}1_{I_{h'}}\\times 1_{I_{h'}}\\right)\\varsigma^{ka}_s\\varsigma^{lb}_tdsdt,\n$$ ence Proposition \\[minkowski\\] yields $$\\left\\|\\langle\\delta^2(D^2u_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\\right\\|_p\n\\leq n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\left\\|\\sum_{h':h'>h}\\delta^2\\left(\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_s\\varsigma^{lb}_tD^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}1_{I_{h'}}\\times 1_{I_{h'}}\\right)\\right\\|_pdsdt.$$ Now, from we infer that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}(u,v)\n&=\\frac{1}{2}\\left\\{\\left(\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right)\\otimes\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\n+\\left(\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right)\\otimes \\left(\\sum_{b=1}^r\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\right)\\right.\\\\\n&+\\left(\\sum_{b=1}^r\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right)\\otimes \\left(\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\right)\n+\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes \\left(\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\right)\\\\\n&+\\left(\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{u}\\right)\\otimes\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}+\\left(\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{u}\\right)\\otimes \\left(\\sum_{b=1}^r\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\right)\\\\\n&\\left.+\\left(\\sum_{b=1}^r\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{u}\\right)\\otimes \\left(\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\right)+\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{u}\\otimes \\left(\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{v}\\right)\n\\right\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Hence Lemmas \\[lemma:BDG\\] and \\[sigma-l2\\]\u2013\\[sigma-deriv\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\sum_{h':h'>h}\\delta^2\\left(\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_s\\varsigma^{lb}_tD^{(a,b)}_{s,t}f^{ij}_{n}1_{I_{h'}}\\times 1_{I_{h'}}\\right)\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\lesssim\\frac{p}{\\sqrt{n}}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u,v\\leq1}\\left\\|\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{\\frac{4}{3}p,\\ell_2}\\left\\|\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_v\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\right.\n+\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u,v\\leq1}\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}D_s^{(a)}\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\left\\|\\sum_{b=1}^r\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D_t^{(b)}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\\\\n&\\left.\\qquad\\qquad+\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u,v\\leq1}\\left\\|\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\left\\|\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\varsigma^{ka}_{s}\\varsigma^{lb}_{t}D^{(a,b)}_{s,t}\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_{v}\\right\\|_{\\frac{4}{3}p,\\ell_2}\\right)\\\\\n&\\lesssim\\frac{p}{\\sqrt{n}}\n\\left(\n\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_s\\right\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq1}\\left\\|D_{s,t}\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\n+\\max_{1\\leq i,k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,u\\leq1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{kk}_u\\right\\|_{2p}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_{u}\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}^2\n\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we obtain .\n\nNext we verify . e have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle\\delta(Du_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\n&=n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\sum_{a=1}^r\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\delta(D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(\\cdot,t)1_{I_h}(\\cdot))\\cdot f_n^{kl}(s,t)^{a\\cdot}dsdt.\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle\\delta(Du_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\n&=n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\left(\\sum_{a,b=1}^rf_n^{kl}(s,t)^{ab}D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{b\\cdot}\\right)\\cdot dB_u\\right)dsdt.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Propositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\] and the Schwarz inequality yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\langle\\delta(Du_n^{ij}),u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\\right\\|_p\n&\\lesssim\\sqrt{p}n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{I_h}\\sum_{c=1}^r\\left(\\sum_{a,b=1}^rf_n^{kl}(s,t)^{ab}D_s^{(a)}f_n^{ij}(u,t)^{bc}\\right)^2du}\\right\\|_pdsdt\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p}n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\left\\|\\int_{I_h}\\|f_n^{kl}(s,t)\\|_{\\ell_2}^2\\|D_sf_n^{ij}(u,t)\\|_{\\ell_2}^2du\\right\\|_{p/2}^{1/2}dsdt\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{p}n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\sqrt{\\int_{I_h}\\|f_n^{kl}(s,t)\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2\\|D_sf_n^{ij}(u,t)\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}^2du}dsdt\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq1}\\|f_n^{kl}(s,t)\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\|D_sf_n^{ij}(u,t)\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since we have $\n\\|f_n^{kl}(s,t)\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\n\\leq\\sqrt{\\|\\Sigma^{kk}_s\\|_{2p}\\|\\Sigma^{ll}_t\\|_{2p}}\n$ and $$\\|D_sf_n^{ij}(u,t)\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\n\\leq2\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t,u\\leq1}\\|D_s\\sigma_u^{i\\cdot}\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\|\\Sigma_t^{jj}\\|_{2p}^{1/2}$$ by the Schwarz inequality and Lemmas \\[sigma-l2\\]\u2013\\[sigma-deriv\\], we obtain .\n\nFinally we verify . We can rewrite $2\\langle u_n^{ij},u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n2\\langle u_n^{ij},u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\n&=n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\sum_{a,b=1}^r\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\left(\\varsigma_s^{ia}\\varsigma_t^{jb}\\varsigma_s^{ka}\\varsigma_t^{lb}+\\varsigma_s^{ia}\\varsigma_t^{jb}\\varsigma_t^{kb}\\varsigma_s^{la}\\right)dsdt\\\\\n&=n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left\\{\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\varsigma_s^{j\\cdot}\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{l\\cdot}ds\\right)\n+\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{l\\cdot}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\varsigma_s^{j\\cdot}\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}ds\\right)\n\\right\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ 0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left|n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left(\\int_{I_h}(\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}-\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s)\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\varsigma_s^{j\\cdot}\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{l\\cdot}ds\\right)\\right|\\\\\n&\\leq n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\|\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}-\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}\\|_{\\ell_2}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\|\\varsigma_s^{j\\cdot}\\|_{\\ell_2}\\|\\varsigma_s^{l\\cdot}\\|_{\\ell_2}ds\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ Note that we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left(\\int_{I_h}(\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}-\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s)\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\varsigma_s^{j\\cdot}\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{l\\cdot}ds\\right)\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\|\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}-\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\|\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\|\\varsigma_s^{j\\cdot}\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\|\\varsigma_s^{l\\cdot}\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}ds\\right)\\\\\n&\\lesssim\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq1}\\|D_u\\sigma_v^{i\\cdot}\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma_t^{jj}\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\\end{aligned}$$ for any $i,j,k,l=1,\\dots,d$ by Proposition \\[minkowski\\] and Lemmas \\[ocone\\] and \\[sigma-l2\\]. Therefore, we obtain and complete the proof of the lemma.\n\n\\[lemma:2nd-deriv\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], we have $$\\left\\|\\langle D^2F,u^n_{ij}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\\right\\|_p\n\\leq\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_{s,t}F\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma_s^{ii}\\right\\|_{2p}$$ for any $p\\in[1,\\infty)$, $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $F\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$.\n\nSince $D^2F$ is symmetric, yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle D^2F,u^n_{ij}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\n&=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\langle D^2F,\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}\\otimes \\varsigma_t^{j\\cdot}1_{I_h\\times I_h}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\n=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}D_{s,t}F\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}\\otimes \\varsigma_t^{j\\cdot}dsdt.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by Proposition \\[minkowski\\], the Schwarz inequality and Lemma \\[sigma-l2\\] we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\langle D^2F,u^n_{ij}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\\right\\|_p\n&\\leq\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\left\\|D_{s,t}F\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}\\otimes \\varsigma_t^{j\\cdot}\\right\\|_pdsdt\\\\\n&\\leq\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{I_h\\times I_h}\\left\\|D_{s,t}F\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\left\\|\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\left\\|\\varsigma_t^{j\\cdot}\\right\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}dsdt\\\\\n&=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_{s,t}F\\right\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma_s^{ii}\\right\\|_{2p}.\\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.\n\n\\[lemma:DM\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k\\leq d}\\|D_sM_n^{ij}\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}\\|_p\n\\leq C\\left(p\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_t\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}\n+\\sqrt{p}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\right\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}^{3/2}\n\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for any $p\\in[2,\\infty)$, $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $s\\in(0,1]$.\n\nBy Lemma \\[M-deriv\\] the desired result follows once we verify the following statements for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\delta^2(D_su_n^{ij})\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}\\|_p\n&\\lesssim p\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_t\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p},\\label{eq:1st-DM},\\\\\n\\left\\|\\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\\cdot))\\cdot\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\right\\|_p\n&\\lesssim \\sqrt{p}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\right\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}^{3/2}.\\label{eq:2nd-DM}\\end{aligned}$$ Let $h$ be the unique integer such that $s\\in I_h$. First we verify . $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\delta^2(D^{(a)}_su_n^{ij})\n=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h'=1}^n\\delta^2(D^{(a)}_sf_n^{ij}1_{I_{h'}\\times I_{h'}})\n=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h':h'>h}\\delta^2(D^{(a)}_sf_n^{ij}1_{I_{h'}\\times I_{h'}})\\end{aligned}$$ for any $a=1,\\dots,r$. ence Lemmas \\[lemma:double\\] and \\[sigma-deriv\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\delta^2(D_su_n^{ij})\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}\n=\\sqrt{n}\\sum_{h':h'>h}\\delta^2\\left(\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_sf_n^{ij}1_{I_{h'}\\times I_{h'}}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_sf_n^{ij}\\\\\n&=\\frac{1}{2}\\left\\{\\left(\n\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}\\right)\\otimes\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}+\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}\\otimes \\left(\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}\\right)\n+\\left(\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}\\right)\\otimes\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}+\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}\\otimes \\left(\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}\\right)\n\\right\\},\\end{aligned}$$ Lemmas \\[lemma:double\\]\u2013\\[lemma:BDG\\] and \\[sigma-l2\\]\u2013\\[sigma-deriv\\] imply that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\delta^2(D_su_n^{ij})\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{k\\cdot}\\|_p\n&\\lesssim p\\max_{1\\leq i,k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\sum_{a=1}^r\\varsigma_s^{ka}D^{(a)}_s\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}\\\\\n&\\leq p\\max_{1\\leq i,k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma_s^{kk}\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}^{1/2}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_t\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p,\\ell_2}^{1/2}\\\\\n&\\leq p\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_t\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNext we verify . Proposition 1.3.11 of [@Nualart2006] yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\\cdot))\n&=\\frac{\\sqrt{n}}{2}\\sum_{h'=1}^n1_{I_{h'}}(s)\\int_{I_{h'}}\\left(\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\otimes \\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_t+\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\otimes \\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right)dB_t\n=\\frac{\\sqrt{n}}{2}\\int_{I_{h}}\\left(\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\otimes \\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_t+\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\otimes \\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right)dB_t,\\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\\cdot))\\cdot\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\n&=\\frac{\\sqrt{n}}{2}\\int_{I_{h}}\\left\\{\\left(\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\cdot\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\right)\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_t+\\left(\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\cdot\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\right)\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\}dB_t.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Propositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\], the Schwarz inequality and Lemma \\[sigma-l2\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\delta(u_n^{ij}(s,\\cdot))\\cdot\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\right\\|_p\n&\\lesssim \\sqrt{np}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{I_{h}}\\left\\|\\left(\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\cdot\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\right)\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_t+\\left(\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\cdot\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\right)\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{\\ell_2}^2dt}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq \\sqrt{np\\int_{I_{h}}\\left\\|\\left(\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\cdot\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\right)\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_t+\\left(\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\cdot\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\right)\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}^2dt}\\\\\n&\\leq 2\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k\\leq d}\\sqrt{np\\int_{I_{h}}\\left\\|\\varsigma^{k\\cdot}_s\\cdot\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\right\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}^2\\left\\|\\varsigma^{j\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}^2dt}\\\\\n&\\leq 2\\sqrt{p}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\varsigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}^3\n\\leq2\\sqrt{p}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\right\\|_{\\frac{3}{2}p}^{3/2}.\\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.\n\n\\[lemma:1st-deriv\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left\\|\\langle DM_n^{ij}\\otimes DM_n^{i'j'},u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes}}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{C}{\\sqrt{n}}\\left(p\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{6p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_t\\|_{3p}\n+\\sqrt{p}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\right\\|_{3p}^{3/2}\n\\right)^2,\\\\\n&\\left\\|\\langle DM_n^{ij}\\otimes DF,u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes}}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{C}{\\sqrt{n}}\\left(p\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_s\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_t\\right\\|_{6p,\\ell_2}\\max_{1\\leq j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_t\\|_{3p}^{3/2}\n+\\sqrt{p}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\right\\|_{3p}^2\n\\right)\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_sF\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2},\\\\\n&\\left\\|\\langle DF\\otimes DG,u_n^{kl}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes}}\\right\\|_p\n\\leq \\frac{C}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\right\\|_{3p}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_sF\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_sG\\right\\|_{3p,\\ell_2}\\end{aligned}$$ for all $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $i,j,i',j',k,l=1,\\dots,d$, $F,G\\in\\mathbb{D}_{1,\\infty}$ and $p\\in[2,\\infty)$.\n\nFor any $H$-valued random variables $\\xi,\\eta$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle\\xi\\otimes\\eta,u_n^{ij}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\n=\\frac{\\sqrt{n}}{2}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left\\{\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\xi_s\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\eta_s\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{j\\cdot}ds\\right)\n+\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\xi_s\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{j\\cdot}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\eta_s\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}ds\\right)\n\\right\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Proposition \\[minkowski\\] yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\langle\\xi\\otimes\\eta,u_n^{ij}\\rangle_{H^{\\otimes2}}\\right\\|_p\n\\leq\\sqrt{n}\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\left\\|\\xi_s\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{i\\cdot}\\right\\|_{2p}ds\\right)\\left(\\int_{I_h}\\left\\|\\eta_s\\cdot\\varsigma_s^{j\\cdot}\\right\\|_{2p}ds\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Now the desired result follows from the Schwarz inequality and Lemmas \\[sigma-l2\\] and \\[lemma:DM\\].\n\nSet $\\mathfrak{S}_n:=\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n$. By the hypercontractivity of Gaussian variables, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nE\\left[|\\mathfrak{S}_n^k|^p\\mid\\mathcal{F}\\right]\\leq\\left(\\sqrt{(p-1)\\mathfrak{C}_n^{kk}}\\right)^p\\end{aligned}$$ for any $k=1,\\dots,d^2$ and $p\\in[2,\\infty)$. ence we obtain $$\\label{eq:hyper}\n\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d^2}\\left\\|\\mathfrak{S}_n^k\\right\\|_p\\leq\\sqrt{p-1}\\left\\|\\mathfrak{C}_n^{kk}\\right\\|_{p/2}^{1/2}\n\\leq2\\sqrt{p-1}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\|_p$$ for any $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ by the H\u00f6lder inequality and Proposition \\[minkowski\\].\n\n0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty p^{3/2+2/\\alpha}\\upsilon_n^2\\sqrt{\\log m}=o(\\sqrt{n})\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^2 p^{1+4/\\alpha}\\upsilon_n^4(\\log m)^2=o(\\sqrt{n})\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{3}p^{5/\\alpha}\\upsilon_n^5(\\log m)^{\\frac{7}{2}}\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{2}p^{4/\\alpha}\\upsilon_n^4(\\log m)^{2}\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{2}p^{1+3/\\alpha}\\upsilon_n^3(\\log m)^2\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{3}p^{2+6/\\alpha}\\upsilon_n^6(\\log m)^{\\frac{7}{2}}\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{5}p^{10/\\alpha}\\upsilon_n^{10}(\\log m)^{\\frac{13}{2}}\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{3}p^{6/\\alpha}\\upsilon_n^6(\\log m)^{\\frac{7}{2}}\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{3}p^{2+5/\\alpha}(\\log m)^{\\frac{7}{2}}\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{4}p^{1+8/\\alpha}(\\log m)^{5}\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{3}p^{2+6/\\alpha}(\\log m)^{\\frac{7}{2}}\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{4}p^{8/\\alpha}(\\log m)^{5}\\to0\\\\\n{\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{\\Upsilon_n}_\\infty^{4}p^{1+8/\\alpha}(\\log m)^{5}\\to0\\end{aligned}$$\n\nProof of Theorem \\[thm:rc-local\\]\n---------------------------------\n\nFor every $\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$, define the process $Y(\\nu)=(Y(\\nu)_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ by $$Y(\\nu)_t=Y_0+\\int_0^t\\mu(\\nu)_sds+\\int_0^t\\sigma(\\nu)_sdB_s,\\qquad t\\in[0,1].$$ By the local property of It\u00f4 integrals (cf.\u00a0pages 17\u201318 of [@Nualart2006]) we have $Y_t=Y(\\nu)_t$ on $\\Omega_n(\\nu)$ for all $t\\in[0,1]$. Therefore, setting $S_n(\\nu):=\\operatorname{vec}\\left[\\sqrt{n}\\left(\\widehat{[Y(\\nu),Y(\\nu)]}^n_1-[Y(\\nu),Y(\\nu)]_1\\right)\\right]$, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\rho_n(\\nu):=\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}\\left|P\\left(\\Xi_n(\\nu)\\left(S_n(\\nu)+W_n(\\nu)\\right)\\leq y\\right)-P(\\Xi_n(\\nu)(\\mathfrak{C}_n(\\nu)^{1/2}\\zeta_n+W_n(\\nu))\\leq y)\\right|\\to0\\end{aligned}$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ by Theorem \\[thm:rc\\]. Now, for every $y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(\\Xi_n\\left(S_n+W_n\\right)\\leq y\\right)\n&\\leq P\\left(\\Xi_n(\\nu)\\left(S_n(\\nu)+W_n(\\nu)\\right)\\leq y\\right)+P(\\Omega_n(\\nu)^c)\\\\\n&\\leq P(\\Xi_n(\\nu)(\\mathfrak{C}_n(\\nu)^{1/2}\\zeta_n+W_n(\\nu))\\leq y)+\\rho_n(\\nu)+P(\\Omega_n(\\nu)^c)\\\\\n&\\leq P(\\Xi_n(\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n+W_n)\\leq y)+\\rho_n(\\nu)+2P(\\Omega_n(\\nu)^c).\\end{aligned}$$ By an analogous argument we also have $$P\\left(\\Xi_n\\left(S_n+W_n\\right)\\leq y\\right)\\geq P(\\Xi_n(\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n+W_n)\\leq y)-\\rho_n(\\nu)-2P(\\Omega_n(\\nu)^c).$$ Consequently, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}\\sup_{y\\in\\mathbb{R}^m}\\left|P\\left(\\Xi_n\\left(S_n+W_n\\right)\\leq y\\right)-P(\\Xi_n(\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n+W_n)\\leq y)\\right|\n\\leq 2\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}P(\\Omega_n(\\nu)^c).\\end{aligned}$$ Letting $\\nu\\to\\infty$, we complete the proof.\n\nProof of Proposition \\[prop:acov\\]\n----------------------------------\n\nWe introduce some notation. Given a process $\\xi=(\\xi_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ and an interval $I=(S,T]\\subset[0,1]$, we set $$\\xi(I):=\\xi_T-\\xi_S,\\qquad\n\\xi(I)_t:=\\xi_{t\\wedge T}-\\xi_{t\\wedge S}\\quad(t\\in[0,1]).$$ Also, we define $$L(h)^{ij}:=\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)-[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h),\\qquad\nL(h)^{ij}_t:=\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)_t\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_t-[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_t\\quad(t\\in[0,1])$$ for $i,j=1,\\dots,d$ and $h=1,\\dots,n$, where $I_h:=(t_{h-1},t_h]$.\n\nNext we remark that a localization procedure allows us to reduce the situation of the proposition to the case that $\\mu=\\mu(\\nu)$ and $\\sigma=\\sigma(\\nu)$ for all $n,\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$:\n\n\\[lemma:local\\] Suppose that the statement of Proposition \\[prop:acov\\] holds true when we additionally assume $\\mu=\\mu(\\nu)$ and $\\sigma=\\sigma(\\nu)$ for all $n,\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Then the original statement of Proposition \\[prop:acov\\] holds true as well.\n\nThe proof of Lemma \\[lemma:local\\] is analogous to the one of Theorem \\[thm:rc-local\\], so we omit it.\n\n\\[lemma:driftV3\\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\sup_{1\\leq h\\leq n}n^2\\left\\|\\mathsf{A}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{X}^j(I_h)\\mathsf{Y}^k(I_h)\\mathsf{Z}^l(I_h)\\right\\|_p\n&\\leq \\frac{C}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq ,ts\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\mu_s^{ii}\\right\\|_{4p}\\left(\n\\left\\|\\mu_t^{j}\\right\\|_{4p}^3\n+p^{3/2}\\left\\|\\Sigma_t^{jj}\\right\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for any $\\mathsf{X},\\mathsf{Y},\\mathsf{Z}\\in\\{\\mathsf{A},\\mathsf{M}\\}$, $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ and $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$.\n\nThis is an immediate consequence of the H\u00f6lder inequality and Propositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\].\n\n\\[lemma:V3dV\\] There is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\\mathsf{M}^i_s\\right\\|_p\n\\leq C\\frac{p^2}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma_s^{ii}\\right\\|_{2p}^2$$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ and $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$.\n\nPropositions \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\\mathsf{M}^i_s\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\lesssim n\\sqrt{p}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s^2\\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)^2_s\\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)^2_sd[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^i]_s}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq n\\sqrt{p\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\|\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_s\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\Sigma_s^{ii}\\right\\|_{2p}ds}\\\\\n&\\lesssim np^2\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^s\\Sigma^{jj}_udu}\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^s\\Sigma^{kk}_udu}\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^s\\Sigma^{ll}_udu}\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\Sigma_s^{ii}\\right\\|_{2p}ds}\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{p^2}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\left\\|\\Sigma_s^{ii}\\right\\|_{2p}^2.\\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.\n\n\\[l-qv\\] Suppose that the assumptions of of Proposition \\[prop:acov\\] hold true under the additional assumption that $\\mu=\\mu(\\nu)$ and $\\sigma=\\sigma(\\nu)$ for all $n,\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Then there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-\\nu}L(h)^{ij}[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+\\nu})\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{n}}\\left(p\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\|_{2p}^2\n+p^{3/2}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma_t^{ii}\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\n\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|D_u\\sigma^{k\\cdot}_v\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$, $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ and $\\nu\\in\\{0,1\\}$.\n\nWe decompose the target quantity as $$\\begin{aligned}\nn\\sum_{h=1}^{n-\\nu}L(h)^{ij}[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+\\nu})\n&=n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-\\nu}L(h)^{ij}\\int_{I_{h+\\nu}}E\\left[\\Sigma^{kl}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\\right]dt\n+n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-\\nu}L(h)^{ij}\\int_{I_{h+\\nu}}\\left(\\Sigma^{kl}_t-E\\left[\\Sigma^{kl}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\\right]\\right)dt\\\\\n&=:\\mathbf{I}_n+\\mathbf{II}_n.\\end{aligned}$$ First we consider $\\mathbf{I}_n$. Set $$\\phi_h:=\\int_{I_{h+\\nu}}E\\left[\\Sigma^{kl}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\\right]dt,\\qquad\nh=1,\\dots,n-\\nu.$$ Then we can rewrite $\\mathbf{I}_n$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbf{I}_n=n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-\\nu}\\left\\{\\int_{I_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\phi_h\\sigma^{j\\cdot}\\cdot dB_t\n+\\int_{I_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\phi_h\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\cdot dB_s\\right)\\sigma^{i\\cdot}\\cdot dB_t\n\\right\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Lemmas \\[sigma-l2\\]\u2013\\[lemma:BDG\\] and the H\u00f6lder inequality imply that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|\\mathbf{I}_n\\right\\|_p\n&\\lesssim p\\sqrt{n}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\sigma^{i\\cdot}_s\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\sup_{0\\leq s< 1-\\nu/n}\\|\\phi_{\\lceil ns\\rceil}\\sigma^{j\\cdot}_s\\|_{\\frac{4}{3}p,\\ell_2}\n\\leq p\\sqrt{n}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\|_{2p}^{1/2}\\sup_{0\\leq s< 1-\\nu/n}\\|\\phi_{\\lceil ns\\rceil}\\|_{2p}\\|\\Sigma^{jj}_s\\|_{2p}^{1/2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Now, Proposition \\[minkowski\\] and the Lyapunov and Schwarz inequalities yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sup_{0\\leq s< 1-\\nu/n}\\|\\phi_{\\lceil ns\\rceil}\\|_{2p}\n\\leq\\frac{1}{n}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{kl}_t\\|_{2p}\n\\leq\\frac{1}{n}\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{kk}_t\\|_{2p}.\\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, we obtain $$\\left\\|\\mathbf{I}_n\\right\\|_p\\lesssim \\frac{p}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\|_{2p}^2.$$ Next we consider $\\mathbf{II}_n$. By Proposition \\[minkowski\\] we have $$\\|\\mathbf{II}_n\\|_p\n\\leq n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-\\nu}\\|L(h)^{ij}\\|_{2p}\\int_{I_{h+\\nu}}\\left\\|\\Sigma^{kl}_t-E\\left[\\Sigma^{kl}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\\right]\\right\\|_{2p}dt.$$ It\u00f4\u2019s formula, Lemmas \\[lemma:BDG\\] and \\[sigma-l2\\] yield $$\\|L(h)^{ij}\\|_{2p}\\lesssim\\frac{p}{n}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma_t^{ii}\\|_{2p}.$$ Meanwhile, Lemmas \\[ocone\\] and \\[S-deriv\\] yield $$\\left\\|\\Sigma^{kl}_t-E\\left[\\Sigma^{kl}_t|\\mathcal{F}_{t_{h-1}}\\right]\\right\\|_{2p}\n\\lesssim\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|D_u\\Sigma^{kl}_v\\|_{2p,\\ell_2}\n\\lesssim\\sqrt{\\frac{p}{n}}\\max_{1\\leq k,l\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{ll}_v\\|_{2p}^{1/2}\\|D_u\\sigma^{k\\cdot}_v\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}.$$ Consequently, we obtain $$\\|\\mathbf{II}_n\\|_p\n\\lesssim\\sqrt{\\frac{p^3}{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma_t^{ii}\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\n\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|D_u\\sigma^{k\\cdot}_v\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}.$$ We thus complete the proof.\n\n\\[qv-dl\\] Under the assumptions of of Lemma \\[l-qv\\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{kl}_td[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j]_t\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{n}}\\left(p\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\|_{2p}^2\n+p^{3/2}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma_t^{ii}\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\n\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|D_u\\sigma^{k\\cdot}_v\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ and $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$.\n\nBy It\u00f4\u2019s formula we can rewrite the target quantity as $$\\begin{aligned}\nn\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{kl}_td[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j]_t\n=n\\sum_{h=1}^nL(h)^{kl}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\n+n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_tdL(h)^{kl}_t.\\end{aligned}$$ Since we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_tdL(h)^{kl}_t\\\\\n&=n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left\\{\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma_s^{k\\cdot}\\cdot dB_s\\right)[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_t\\sigma_t^{l\\cdot}\\cdot dB_t\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\left(\\int_{t_{h-1}}^t\\sigma_s^{l\\cdot}\\cdot dB_s\\right)[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_t\\sigma_t^{k\\cdot}\\cdot dB_t\n\\right\\}\\end{aligned}$$ by It\u00f4\u2019s formula, Lemmas \\[lemma:BDG\\] and \\[sigma-l2\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_sdL(h)^{kl}_s\\right\\|_p\n&\\lesssim \\sqrt{n}p\\max_{1\\leq k,l\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\|\\sigma_s^{k\\cdot}\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\|[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_s\\sigma_s^{l\\cdot}\\|_{\\frac{4}{3}p,\\ell_2}\\\\\n&\\leq \\sqrt{n}p\\max_{1\\leq k,l\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma_s^{kk}\\|_{2p}^{1/2}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\|[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_s\\|_{2p}\\|\\Sigma_s^{ll}\\|_{2p}^{1/2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since Proposition \\[minkowski\\] and the Schwarz inequality imply that $$\\|[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_s\\|_{2p}\\leq\\frac{1}{n}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma_s^{ij}\\|_{2p}\n\\leq\\frac{1}{n}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma_s^{ii}\\|_{2p},$$ we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)_sdL(h)^{kl}_s\\right\\|_p\n\\lesssim \\frac{p}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma_s^{ii}\\|_{2p}^2.\\end{aligned}$$ Combining this estimate with Lemma \\[l-qv\\], we obtain the desired result.\n\n\\[lemma:no-lag\\] Under the assumptions of of Lemma \\[l-qv\\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)\\right.\\\\\n&\\left.\\hphantom{\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}}-n\\sum_{h=1}^n\\left\\{[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)\n+[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^k](I_h)[\\mathsf{M}^j,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)\n+[\\mathsf{M}^j,\\mathsf{M}^k](I_h)[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)\\right\\}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{n}}\\left(p^2\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\|_{2p}^2\n+p^{3/2}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma_t^{ii}\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\n\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|D_u\\sigma^{k\\cdot}_v\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ and $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$.\n\nUsing It\u00f4\u2019s formula repeatedly, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)\\\\\n&=\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\\mathsf{M}^i_s\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\\mathsf{M}^j_s\\\\\n&\\quad+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^l(I_h)_sd\\mathsf{M}^k_s\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)_s\\mathsf{M}^k(I_h)_sd\\mathsf{M}^l_s\\\\\n&\\quad+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{kl}_sd[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j]_s\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{jl}_sd[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^k]_s\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{jk}_sd[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^l]_s\\\\\n&\\quad+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{il}_sd[\\mathsf{M}^j,\\mathsf{M}^k]_s\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{ik}_sd[\\mathsf{M}^j,\\mathsf{M}^l]_s\n+\\int_{t_{h-1}}^{t_h}L(h)^{ij}_sd[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l]_s\\\\\n&\\quad+[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)\n+[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^k](I_h)[\\mathsf{M}^j,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)\n+[\\mathsf{M}^j,\\mathsf{M}^k](I_h)[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_h)\\end{aligned}$$ for every $h$. Therefore, the desired result follows from Lemmas \\[lemma:V3dV\\] and \\[qv-dl\\].\n\n\\[vv-lag\\] Under the assumptions of of Lemma \\[l-qv\\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_sd\\mathsf{M}^k_s\\right\\|_p\n\\leq C\\frac{p^2}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\|_{2p}^2\\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ and $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$.\n\nProposition \\[minkowski\\]\u2013\\[sharp-BDG\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_sd\\mathsf{M}^k_s\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\lesssim n\\sqrt{p}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)^2\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)^2\\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_s^2d[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^k]_s}\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq n\\sqrt{p\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\left\\|\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\\left\\|\\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_s\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\Sigma_s^{kk}\\right\\|_{2p}ds}\\\\\n&\\lesssim np^2\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{I_h}\\Sigma^{ii}_sds}\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{I_h}\\Sigma^{jj}_sds}\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\\left\\|\\sqrt{\\int_{t_h}^s\\Sigma^{ll}_sds}\\right\\|_{4p}^2\\left\\|\\Sigma_s^{kk}\\right\\|_{2p}ds}\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{p^2}{\\sqrt{n}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq s\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_s\\|_{2p}^2.\\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.\n\n\\[lemma:lag\\] Under the assumptions of of Lemma \\[l-qv\\], there is a universal constant $C>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left\\|n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^k(I_{h+1})\\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})-n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})\\right\\|_p\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{n}}\\left(p^2\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq1}\\|\\Sigma^{ii}_t\\|_{2p}^2\n+p^{3/2}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|\\Sigma_t^{ii}\\|_{2p}^{3/2}\n\\max_{1\\leq k\\leq d}\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq v\\leq 1}\\|D_u\\sigma^{k\\cdot}_v\\|_{4p,\\ell_2}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ and $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$.\n\nBy It\u00f4\u2019s formula we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^k(I_{h+1})\\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})\n&=\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\\mathsf{M}^l(I_{h+1})_sd\\mathsf{M}^k_s\n+\\mathsf{M}^i(I_h)\\mathsf{M}^j(I_h)\\int_{t_{h}}^{t_{h+1}}\\mathsf{M}^k(I_{h+1})_sd\\mathsf{M}^l_s\\\\\n&\\quad+L(h)^{ij}[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})\n+[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})\\end{aligned}$$ for every $h$. Therefore, the desired result follows from Lemmas \\[l-qv\\] and \\[vv-lag\\].\n\nThanks to Lemma \\[lemma:local\\], throughout the proof we may assume $\\mu=\\mu(\\nu)$ and $\\sigma=\\sigma(\\nu)$ for all $n,\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$.\n\n\\(a) According to Lemmas \\[lemma:driftV3\\], \\[lemma:no-lag\\] and \\[lemma:lag\\], it suffices to show that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&E\\left[\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left|n[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_n)[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{n})\\right|\\right]=O(n^{-\\varpi}),\\label{acov:aim1}\\\\\n&E\\left[\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left|n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\\left\\{[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\\right\\}\\right|\\right]=O(n^{-\\varpi}).\\label{acov:aim2}\\end{aligned}$$ is evident from assumptions. In the meantime, the Schwarz inequality and Proposition \\[minkowski\\] yield $$\\begin{aligned}\n&E\\left[\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left|n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\\left\\{[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\\right\\}\\right|\\right]\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}E\\left[\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\left|[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\\right|\\max_{1\\leq k,l\\leq d}\\left|[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\\right|\\right]\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq \\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq1}\\left\\|\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\left|\\Sigma^{ij}_t\\right|\\right\\|_2\\sup_{0< t\\leq 1-\\frac{1}{n}}\\left\\|\\max_{1\\leq k,l\\leq d}\\left|\\Sigma^{kl}_{t+\\frac{1}{n}}-\\Sigma^{kl}_t\\right|\\right\\|_2,\\label{proof:modulus}\\end{aligned}$$ 0 In the meantime, by the Schwarz inequality we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left|n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\\left\\{[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\\right\\}\\right|\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq n\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\left|[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\\right|^2}\\max_{1\\leq k,l\\leq d}\\sqrt{\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}\\left|[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\\right|^2}\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq \\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq1}\\left\\|\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq d}\\left|\\Sigma^{ij}_t\\right|\\right\\|_2\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1-\\frac{1}{n}}\\left\\|\\max_{1\\leq k,l\\leq d}\\left|\\Sigma^{kl}_{t+\\frac{1}{n}}-\\Sigma^{kl}_t\\right|\\right\\|_2,\\label{proof:modulus}\\end{aligned}$$ also follows from assumptions. This completes the proof.\n\n\\(b) By assumptions we have $E[\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left|n[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_n)[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{n})\\right|]=O(n^{-1})$. Moreover, from and assumptions, we also have $$E\\left[\\max_{1\\leq i,j,k,l\\leq d}\\left|n\\sum_{h=1}^{n-1}[\\mathsf{M}^i,\\mathsf{M}^j](I_h)\\left\\{[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h+1})-[\\mathsf{M}^k,\\mathsf{M}^l](I_{h})\\right\\}\\right|\\right]=O(n^{-\\gamma}).$$ Therefore, the desired result follows from Lemmas \\[lemma:driftV3\\], \\[lemma:no-lag\\] and \\[lemma:lag\\] as well as Lemma A.7 and Proposition A.1 of [@Koike2017stein].\n\nProof of Proposition \\[prop:factor-test\\]\n-----------------------------------------\n\nAn analogous argument to the proof of Theorem \\[thm:rc-local\\] allows us to assume $\\mu=\\mu(\\nu)$ and $\\Sigma=\\Sigma(\\nu)$ for all $n,\\nu\\in\\mathbb{N}$.\n\nDefine the ${\\underline{d}}^2\\times d^2$ random matrix $\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n$ by $$\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n^{(i-1){\\underline{d}}+j,(k-1)d+l}=\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{cl}\n~{\\widehat{[Y^j,Y^d]}}^n_1/\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}}  & \\text{if }k=i,~l=d,  \\\\\n~[Y^i,Y^d]_1/\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}}  & \\text{if }k=j,~l=d, \\\\\n~-{\\widehat{[Y^d,Y^d]}}^n_1/\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}}  & \\text{if }k=l=d  \\\\\n~-[Y^i,Y^j]_1/\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}} & \\text{if }k=i, l=j\\\\\n0 & \\text{otherwise}.   \n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ for $i,j=1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}$ and $k,l=1,\\dots,d$. We also define the ${\\underline{d}}^2\\times d^2$ matrix ${\\underline{\\Upsilon}}_n$ by $${\\underline{\\Upsilon}}_n^{(i-1){\\underline{d}}+j,(k-1)d+l}=\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{cl}\n1  & \\text{if }k\\in\\{i,j\\}, l=d , \\\\\n-1 & \\text{if }k=i, l=j\\text{ or }k=l=d, \\\\\n0 & \\text{otherwise}   \n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ for $i,j=1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}$ and $k,l=1,\\dots,d$. Then we set $$\\Xi_n=\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{c}\n{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n   \\\\ \n-{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\n\\end{array}\n\\right),\\qquad\n\\hat{\\Xi}_n=\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n   \\\\ \n-\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n\n\\end{array}\n\\right),\\qquad\n\\Upsilon_n=\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{c}\n{\\underline{\\Upsilon}}_n   \\\\ \n-{\\underline{\\Upsilon}}_n\n\\end{array}\n\\right).$$ Since we have $$\\hat{\\Xi}_nS_n=\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\operatorname{vec}(T_n)   \\\\ \n-\\operatorname{vec}(T_n)\n\\end{array}\n\\right),\\qquad\n\\hat{\\Xi}_nS_n^*=\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\operatorname{vec}(T_n^*)   \\\\ \n-\\operatorname{vec}(T_n^*)\n\\end{array}\n\\right)$$ as well as all the diagonal entries of $\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{C}_n\\Xi_n^\\top$ are equal to 1 by the definition of ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n$, Lemma \\[lemma:approx\\] and Proposition \\[prop:comparison\\] imply that it suffices to prove the following equations: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sup_{y\\in(\\infty,\\infty]^{2{\\underline{d}}^2}}|P(\\Xi_nS_n\\leq y)-P(\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n\\leq y)|\\to0,\\label{factor-aim1}\\\\\n&\\sqrt{\\log d}\\|\\hat{\\Xi}_nS_n-\\Xi_nS_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\to^p0,\\label{factor-aim2}\\\\\n&(\\log d)^2\\|\\hat{\\Xi}_n\\hat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n\\hat{\\Xi}_n^\\top-\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{C}_n\\Xi_n^\\top\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\to^p0\\label{factor-aim3}\\end{aligned}$$ as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\nWe begin by proving . Since ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n={\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\circ{\\underline{\\Upsilon}}_n$ and ${\\@ifstar{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  s\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{  \\mathopen{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n  }\n  \\mathclose{|\\mkern-1.5mu|\\mkern-1.5mu|}\n}{{\\underline{\\Upsilon}}_n}_\\infty=4$, an application of Theorem \\[thm:rc\\] implies that the desired result follows once we show that ${\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}(\\mathbb{R}^{{\\underline{d}}^2}\\otimes \\mathbb{R}^{d^2})$ and $$\\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\\max_{1\\leq i\\leq{\\underline{d}}^2,1\\leq j\\leq d^2}\\left(\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\\|_p+\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\|D_t{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n+\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\|D_{s,t}{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n^{ij}\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n\\right)<\\infty$$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$. By Remark 15.87 of [@Janson1997], we have $[Y^i,Y^j]_1\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$ and $D^q[Y^i,Y^j]_1=\\int_0^1D^q\\Sigma_t^{ij}dt$ for any $i,j=1,\\dots,d$ and $q=1,2$. Therefore, by Corollary 15.80 of [@Janson1997], the desired result follows once we show that $1/\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$ for any $i,j=1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}$ and $$\\label{v-half-moment}\n\\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq{\\underline{d}}}\\left(\\left\\|\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}}\\right\\|_p\n+\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_t\\left(\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}}\\right)\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n+\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_{s,t}\\left(\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}}\\right)\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n\\right)<\\infty$$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$. Note that we have $$\\|D_t[Y^i,Y^j]_1\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\\leq\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq1}\\|D_t\\Sigma_u^{ij}\\|_{p,\\ell_2},\\qquad\n\\left\\|D_{s,t}[Y^i,Y^j]_1\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\\leq\\sup_{0\\leq u\\leq1}\\left\\|D_{s,t}\\Sigma_u^{ij}\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}$$ for all $i,j=1,\\dots,d$, $p\\in[2,\\infty)$ and $s,t\\in[0,1]$ by Proposition \\[minkowski\\]. Therefore, Lemmas \\[S-deriv\\]\u2013\\[C-deriv\\] and Corollary 15.80 of [@Janson1997] imply that $\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$ for any $i,j=1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}$ and $$\\sup_{n\\in\\mathbb{N}}\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq{\\underline{d}}}\\left(\\left\\|\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}\\right\\|_p\n+\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_t\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n+\\sup_{0\\leq s,t\\leq 1}\\left\\|D_{s,t}\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}\\right\\|_{p,\\ell_2}\n\\right)<\\infty$$ for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$. Now, since we can write $1/\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}=(\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij})^{5/2}(\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij})^{-3}$, Theorem 15.78 and Lemma 15.152 of [@Janson1997] as well as imply that $1/\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}\\in\\mathbb{D}_{2,\\infty}$ for any $i,j=1,\\dots,{\\underline{d}}$ and holds true for all $p\\in[2,\\infty)$. Hence we complete the proof of .\n\nNext we prove \u2013. First, note that we have $\\|S_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}=O_p(n^\\eta)$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\eta>0$ by Corollary \\[coro:rc\\] and . Since $\\|[Y,Y]_1\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}=O_p(n^\\eta)$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\eta>0$ by assumptions, this especially yields $\\|{\\widehat{[Y,Y]}}^n_1\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}=O_p(n^\\eta)$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\eta>0$. Next we verify $$\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq {\\underline{d}}}|\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}-\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}|=O_p(n^{-\\varpi})$$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\varpi\\in(0,\\gamma)$. In fact, by definition we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq {\\underline{d}}}|\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}-\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}|\\\\\n&\\lesssim \\left(\\left\\|{\\widehat{[Y,Y]}}^n_1\\right\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}+\\left\\|[Y,Y]_1\\right\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right)\n\\left(\\left\\|\\hat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n\\right\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}+\\left\\|\\mathfrak{C}_n\\right\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right)\n\\left(\\left\\|{\\widehat{[Y,Y]}}^n_1-[Y,Y]_1\\right\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\n+\\left\\|\\hat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n-\\mathfrak{C}_n\\right\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\|\\mathfrak{C}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}=O_p(n^\\eta)$ for any $\\eta>0$ by assumptions, the desired result follows from Proposition \\[prop:acov\\] and the results noted above. In particular, it holds that $\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq{\\underline{d}}}|1/\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}}|=O_p(n^\\eta)$ for any $\\eta>0$ because $\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq{\\underline{d}}}|1/\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}|=O_p(n^\\eta)$ for any $\\eta>0$ by assumptions. Moreover, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n-{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\n\\leq\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq {\\underline{d}}}\\left|\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}}}\\right|\\left\\|{\\widehat{[Y,Y]}}^n_1-[Y,Y]_1\\right\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\n+\\max_{1\\leq i,j\\leq {\\underline{d}}}\\left|\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\hat{\\mathfrak{V}}_n^{ij}}}-\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{V}_n^{ij}}}\\right|\\left\\|[Y,Y]_1\\right\\|_{\\ell_\\infty},\\end{aligned}$$ it holds that $\\|\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n-{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}=O_p(n^{-\\varpi})$ as $n\\to\\infty$ for any $\\varpi\\in(0,\\gamma)$. Noting that we have $\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}=O_p(n^\\eta)$ for any $\\eta>0$ by assumptions, this particularly implies that $\\|\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}=O_p(n^\\eta)$ for any $\\eta>0$.\n\nNow since we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\hat{\\Xi}_nS_n-\\Xi_nS_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\n&\\leq4\\|\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n-{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\|S_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\n$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\hat{\\Xi}_n\\hat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n\\hat{\\Xi}_n^\\top-\\Xi_n\\mathfrak{C}_n\\Xi_n^\\top\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}&\\leq16\\left\\{\n\\|\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}^2\\|\\hat{\\mathfrak{C}}_n-\\mathfrak{C}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\n+\\left(\\|\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}+\\|{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\right)\\|\\mathfrak{C}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\\|\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{X}}}_n-{\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\|_{\\ell_\\infty}\n\\right\\},\\end{aligned}$$ \u2013 follow from the results remarked above. Thus we complete the proof.\n\nProof of Corollary \\[coro:testing\\]\n-----------------------------------\n\nBy construction both the Bonferroni-Holm and Romano-Wolf methods evidently satisfy condition \\[monotone\\]. So it remains to check that they also satisfy \\[max-quantile\\]. Since it holds that $\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}\\mathsf{T}_n^\\ell=\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}\\max_{\\lambda\\in\\Lambda^{\\ell}_n}|\\tilde{T}_n^\\lambda|$, Proposition \\[prop:factor-test\\] yields $$P\\left(\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}\\mathsf{T}_n^\\ell >c_n^{\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}(1-\\alpha)\\right)\n-P\\left(\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}\\max_{k\\in\\mathcal{K}^\\ell_n}\\left|\\tilde{\\zeta}_n^k\\right| >c_n^{\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}(1-\\alpha)\\right)\\to0$$ as $n\\to\\infty$, where $\\mathcal{K}^\\ell_n:=\\{(i-1){\\underline{d}}+j:(i,j)\\in\\Lambda^{\\ell}_n\\}$ and $\\tilde{\\zeta}_n:={\\boldsymbol{X}}_n\\mathfrak{C}_n^{1/2}\\zeta_n$. Now if we use the Bonferroni-Holm method, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}\\max_{k\\in\\mathcal{K}^\\ell_n}\\left|\\tilde{\\zeta}_n^k\\right| >c_n^{\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}(1-\\alpha)\\right)\n\\leq\\sum_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}\\sum_{k\\in\\mathcal{K}^\\ell_n}P\\left(\\left|\\tilde{\\zeta}_n^k\\right| >q_{N(0,1)}\\left(1-\\frac{\\alpha}{2\\#[\\bigcup_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}\\mathcal{K}^\\ell_n]}\\right)\\right)\n=\\alpha,\\end{aligned}$$ condition \\[max-quantile\\] is satisfied. Meanwhile, if we use the Romano-Wolf method, Propositions \\[prop:quantile\\] and \\[prop:factor-test\\] yield $$P\\left(\\max_{\\ell\\in\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}\\max_{k\\in\\mathcal{K}^\\ell_n}\\left|\\tilde{\\zeta}_n^k\\right| >c_n^{\\mathcal{L}_n(\\theta_n)}(1-\\alpha)\\right)\\to\\alpha$$ as $n\\to\\infty$, condition \\[max-quantile\\] is satisfied. Thus we complete the proof.\n\n0\n\nAdditional simulation results {#appendix:simulate}\n=============================\n\nAs noted in Section \\[sec:simulation\\], we conduct a similar simulation study to Section \\[sec:simulation\\] while we change the volatility process from model to the following one (known as a continuous-time GARCH-type volatility process): $$\\label{garch}\ndv_t=\\kappa(\\theta-v_t)dt+\\eta v_t\\left(\\rho dB^d_t+\\sqrt{1-\\rho^2}dB^{d+1}_t\\right),$$ where the parameters $\\kappa,\\theta,\\eta,\\rho$ are chosen in the same way as in Section \\[sec:simulation\\]. The initial value $v_0$ is drawn from the stationary distribution of the process $(v_t)_{t\\in[0,1]}$ as in Section \\[sec:simulation\\]. Namely, $1/v_0$ is drawn from the gamma distribution with shape $1+2\\kappa/\\eta^2$ and rate $2\\theta\\kappa/\\eta^2$ (cf.\u00a0Theorem 2.3 of [@Nelson1990]).\n\nThe results are reported in Tables \\[garch:fwer\\]\u2013\\[garch:power\\]. We find that the reported values are very close to the ones in Tables \\[table:fwer\\]\u2013\\[table:power\\].\n\n  rn                     $n=26$   $n=39$   $n=78$   $n=130$   $n=195$   $n=390$\n  -------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------\n                                                                      \n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.020    0.016    0.016     0.028     0.038     0.062\n  RW                      0.043    0.028    0.023     0.034     0.044     0.068\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.019    0.015    0.018     0.028     0.041     0.059\n  RW                      0.046    0.029    0.026     0.039     0.049     0.070\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.018    0.014    0.016     0.025     0.036     0.049\n  RW                      0.051    0.033    0.033     0.042     0.058     0.073\n                                                                      \n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.018    0.009    0.006     0.010     0.020     0.041\n  RW                      0.072    0.026    0.012     0.016     0.026     0.047\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.018    0.009    0.006     0.012     0.020     0.039\n  RW                      0.073    0.032    0.014     0.020     0.030     0.050\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.015    0.007    0.006     0.008     0.015     0.025\n  RW                      0.076    0.040    0.025     0.026     0.040     0.060\n\n  : Family-wise error rates at the 5% level (GARCH)[]{data-label=\"garch:fwer\"}\n\n                         $n=26$   $n=39$   $n=78$   $n=130$   $n=195$   $n=390$\n  -------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------- --------- ---------\n                                                                      \n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.000    0.001    0.010     0.074     0.272     0.863\n  RW                      0.001    0.002    0.012     0.084     0.286     0.868\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.004    0.015    0.290     0.902     0.999     1.000\n  RW                      0.008    0.025    0.343     0.919     0.999     1.000\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.018    0.091    0.838     1.000     1.000     1.000\n  RW                      0.042    0.161    0.903     1.000     1.000     1.000\n                                                                      \n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.25$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.000    0.000    0.001     0.011     0.077     0.647\n  RW                      0.000    0.000    0.001     0.014     0.086     0.658\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.50$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.000    0.001    0.055     0.573     0.978     1.000\n  RW                      0.002    0.004    0.086     0.637     0.984     1.000\n  $\\rho_\\gamma=0.75$                                                  \n  Holm                    0.002    0.013    0.404     0.987     1.000     1.000\n  RW                      0.011    0.044    0.607     0.996     1.000     1.000\n\n  : Average powers at the 5% level (GARCH)[]{data-label=\"garch:power\"}\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThe author wishes to thank the associate editor and the referee for their careful reading and valuable comments that substantially improved the original version of this paper. This work was supported by JST, CREST and JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP16K17105, JP17H01100, JP18H00836.\n\n[^1]: Mathematics and Informatics Center and Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8914 Japan\n\n[^2]: Department of Business Administration, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Marunouchi Eiraku Bldg. 18F, 1-4-1 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0005 Japan\n\n[^3]: The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 10-3 Midori-cho, Tachikawa, Tokyo 190-8562, Japan\n\n[^4]: CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency\n\n[^5]: It is also known that empirical bootstrap fails in the present context as well; see e.g.\u00a0[@DGM2013] for a discussion.\n\n[^6]: One can show that the volatility process $\\sigma$ generated by *locally* satisfy the condition for any $p\\in[1,\\infty)$ as long as the Feller condition $2\\kappa\\theta>\\eta^2$ is satisfied. In fact, one can show this by setting $\\Omega_n(\\nu):=\\{\\inf_{t\\in[0,1]}\\sigma_t\\geq\\nu^{-1}\\}$ and taking smoothed versions of $\\sigma_t$ analogous to the one considered in [@AE2008] as $\\sigma(\\nu)$\u2019s for $\\nu=1,2,\\dots$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Automated decision making systems are increasingly being used in real-world applications. In these systems for the most part, the decision rules are derived by minimizing the training error on the available historical data. Therefore, if there is a bias related to a sensitive attribute such as gender, race, religion, etc. in the data, say, due to cultural/historical discriminatory practices against a certain demographic, the system could continue discrimination in decisions by including the said bias in its decision rule. We present an information theoretic framework for designing fair predictors from data, which aim to prevent discrimination against a specified sensitive attribute in a supervised learning setting. We use equalized odds as the criterion for discrimination, which demands that the prediction should be independent of the protected attribute conditioned on the actual label. To ensure fairness and generalization simultaneously, we compress the data to an auxiliary variable, which is used for the prediction task. This auxiliary variable is chosen such that it is decontaminated from the discriminatory attribute in the sense of equalized odds. The final predictor is obtained by applying a Bayesian decision rule to the auxiliary variable.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    AmirEmad Ghassami$^*$, Sajad Khodadadian$^*$, Negar Kiyavash$^{*\\dagger}$\\\n    Departments of ECE$^*$ and ISE$^\\dagger$, and Coordinated Science Laboratory$^*$,\\\n    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, USA.\\\n    `{ghassam2,sajadk2,kiyavash}@illinois.edu`\nbibliography:\n- 'Refs.bib'\ntitle: |\n    Fairness in Supervised Learning:\\\n    An Information Theoretic Approach\n---\n\nFairness, Equalized odds, Supervised learning.\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nAutomated decision making systems based on statistical inference and learning are increasingly common in a wide range of real-world applications such as health care, law enforcement, education, and finance. These systems are trained based on historical data, which might be biased towards certain attributes of the data points [@dwork2012fairness; @hardt2016equality; @celis2017ranking]. Hence, such data without noticing possible biases could result in discrimination, which is defined as gratuitous distinction between individuals with different sensitive attribute. These attributes include sex, race, religion, and are referred to as protected attributes in the literature. As an example, in the US justice system, courts use features of criminals such as their age, race, sex, years being in jail, etc., to estimate their possible recidivism\u2013future arrest. After considering these features, the court assigns a score to each in-jail individual, and decides on whether to release that person. If the score exceeds some certain limit, it will be safe to release that individual. For instance, as noted by Angwin et al. analysis [@angwin2016machine], risk scores in the criminal justice system\u2013the COMPAS risk tool\u2013are biased negatively towards African-Americans. They showed that this risk score unjustifiably shows high risk of recidivism for African-American people compared to what it should actually be. As another example, the authors in [@kay2015unequal] have studied the accuracy of gender representation in online image searches. The results indicate that for instance, in a Google image search for \u201cC.E.O.\u201d, 11 percent of the depicted results are women, even though 27 percent of U.S. chef executives are women; and in a search for \u201ctelemarketer\u201d, 64 percent of the people depicted were female, while the occupation is evenly split between men and women.\n\nThere is an interesting connection between the problem of fairness and differential privacy [@dwork2008differential; @dwork2006calibrating; @kalantari2016optimal]. As in the differential privacy problem, one tries to hide the identity of individuals, in the fairness problem, the goal is to hide the information about the protected attribute. More details regarding this connection is presented in [@dwork2012fairness].\n\nDifferent criteria for assessing discrimination has been suggested in the literature. The most commonly used criterion is the so-called *demographic parity*, which requires the predictor to be statistically independent from the protected attribute. That is, denoting the protected attribute and the prediction by $A$ and $\\hat{Y}$, respectively, demographic parity requires the model to satisfy $$P(A,\\hat{Y})=P(A)P(\\hat{Y}).$$ While demographic parity and its variants have been used in several works [@zemel2013learning; @feldman2015certifying; @zafar2017fairness; @edwards2015censoring], in some scenarios this criterion fails to provide fairness to all demographics [@dwork2012fairness]. For example, in the case of hiring an employee, where majority of the applicants are from a certain demographic, if we force the decision making system to be independent of that demographic, the system has to pick equal number of applicants from each demographic. Therefore, the system may admit a lower qualified individual from the smaller demographic to guarantee that the percentages of hired people from different demographics matches. Moreover, denoting the true label by $Y$, in most of the cases, as in the image search example, $Y$ is correlated with the protected attribute (see Figure \\[fig:GM\\]). Therefore, as demographic parity forces $\\hat{Y}$ to be independent of $A$, this criterion will not be satisfied for the ideal predictor $\\hat{Y}=Y$.\n\nHardt, Price and Srebro have recently proposed *equalized odds* as a new criterion of fairness [@hardt2016equality]. This notion demands that the predictor should be independent of the protected attribute conditioned on the actual label $Y$. Therefore, equalized odds requires the model to satisfy $$\\label{eq:EO}\nP(A,\\hat{Y}|Y)=P(A|Y)P(\\hat{Y}|Y).$$ Returning to the example of hiring an employee, this measure implies that *among the qualified applicants*, the probability of hiring two people from different demographics should be the same. That is, if two people from different demographics are both qualified, or both not qualified, the system should hire them with equal probability. Also, note that unlike demographic parity, equalized odds allows for the ideal predictor $\\hat{Y}=Y$.\n\nIn this paper, we present a new framework for designing fair predictors from data. We utilize an information theoretic approach to model the information content of variables in the system relative to one another. We use equalized odds as the criterion to assess discrimination. In our proposed scheme, a data variable $X$, is first mapped to an auxiliary variable $U$, to decontaminate it from the discriminatory attribute as well as ensuring generalization. To design this auxiliary variable, for input variable $X$ and true label $Y$, we seek to find a compact representation $U$ of $X$ that contains at most a certain level of information about the variable $X$ (to avoid overfitting), but maximizes $I(Y;U)$ (quality of decision). The auxiliary variable $U$ is in turn used as the input for the prediction task. Similar to [@hardt2016equality], our framework is only based on joint statistics of the variables rather than functional forms; hence, such a formulation is more general. Furthermore, as in many cases, the functional form of the score and underlying training data are not public. Our formulation (unlike that of [@hardt2016equality], for instance) allows both $A$ and $Y$ to have arbitrary cardinality, which implies that we can have multi-level protected attributes and labels. We cast the task of finding a fair predictor as an optimization problem and propose an iterative solution for solving this problem. We observe that the proposed solution does not necessarily converge for some levels of fairness. This suggests that for a given requirement on the accuracy of a predictor, certain levels of fairness may not be achievable.\n\nA somewhat similar idea to our approach is presented in [@zemel2013learning], in which the authors used an intermediate representation space with elements called prototypes. However, besides the fact that in that work demographic parity is used as the measure of discrimination, the method used for choosing the prototypes is quite different. Specifically, the main approach to avoid overfitting in the learning process is limiting the number of prototypes[^1], while we achieve the same goal by controlling the information in the auxiliary variable about the data. The approach in [@zemel2013learning] has extended in [@louizos2015variational] with deep variational auto-encoders with priors that encourage independence between sensitive and latent factors of variation.\n\nThe rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \\[sec:model\\] we review the notion of equalized odds and introduce our model as well as the details of our proposed learning procedure. Additionally, we propose the optimization that must be solved to address the fairness issue. In Section \\[sec:solve\\] we propose an iterative approach for solving the optimization problem introduced. Our concluding remarks are presented in Section \\[sec:conc\\].\n\nModel Description {#sec:model}\n=================\n\nWe consider a purely observational setting in which we train a predictor from labeled data. For each sample, we have a set of attributes, which includes protected attributes such as gender, race, religion, etc. The protected attributes are denoted by $A$. We use $X$ to denote the rest of the attributes. We denote the true label by $Y$ and the prediction of the label $Y$ by $\\hat{Y}$. For instance, for the example regarding risk of recidivism explained in Section \\[sec:intro\\], $A$ represents the race of each individual, $X$ represents other features of that individual (which could be correlated to the individual\u2019s race) and $Y$ determines whether he/she has committed any crimes after being released from the jail.\n\n![Graphical model of the proposed framework. $A$, $X$ and $Y$ denote the protected attribute, the rest of the attributes and the true label, respectively. $U$ is the compressed representor of $X$, which is used for designing the prediction $\\hat{Y}$.[]{data-label=\"fig:GM\"}](GM)\n\nThe graphical model of our setup is depicted in Figure \\[fig:GM\\]. As seen in this figure, $X$ and $A$ can be correlated, and given $X$, $A$ is independent of the true label $Y$. This property is essential, otherwise, the protected attribute is in fact a direct cause of the label and using this attribute in the prediction process should not be considered as discriminatory.\n\nIn order to find a fair predictor, if the joint distribution $P(A,X,Y)$ was known, we could find $P(\\Hat{Y}|X)$ close to $P(Y|X)$ in the sense of equalized odds. However in reality only the empirical distribution $\\Hat{P}(A,X,Y)$, which is obtained from data is available; therefore it is required to make sure that the predictor generalizes.\n\n*Generalization*: Since the number of available samples is finite, to prevent overfitting (ensuring generalization) we should constraint our hypothesis space. To do so, we compress our variable $X$ to an auxiliary variable $U$, which in turn is used for the prediction task. We also choose $U$ such that it is not contaminated by discrimination in the sense of equalized odds [@hardt2016equality] defined in the following.\n\n\\[def:EO\\] \\[Equalized odds\\] We say that a variable $U$ satisfies equalized odds with respect to protected attribute $A$ and outcome $Y$, if $U$ and $A$ are independent conditional on $Y$, that is, $$I(A;U|Y)=0.$$\n\nThis definition is equivalent to the one in expression .\n\nOnce $U$ is decontaminated from discriminatory attribute $A$, one can use any predictor to predict $Y$ from this auxiliary variable. We propose to apply a Bayesian empirical risk minimization decision rule in this work for the prediction task.\n\nTo obtain the mechanism for generating the auxiliary variable, we seek for a compact representation $U$ of $X$ that maximizes the utility/quality of prediction $I(Y;U)$, while it contains at most a certain level of information about the variable $X$. This is in essence similar to the goal in the information bottleneck (IB) method [@tishby2000information]. Maximizing $I(Y;U)$ corresponds to maximizing the utility of $U$, and keeping $I(X;U)$ bounded could be viewed as regularization, which rejects complex hypotheses to ensure generalization. See [@xu2017information] for a detailed discussion regarding using mutual information for finding bounds on generalization error. Note that the fact that we present fairness, accuracy and compactness via mutual information, provides us with a setting in which we do not need to have any requirement on the cardinality of variables (as opposed to [@hardt2016equality; @zemel2013learning]).\n\nNext, we present the details of designing the transition probability kernel for generating the auxiliary variable, as well as designing the final predictor.\n\nDesigning the Auxiliary Variable {#sec:aux}\n--------------------------------\n\nAs stated earlier, the goal of our learning scheme is to produce a compressed representor of $X$, which has as much information about the true label as possible, and is fair in the sense of Definition \\[def:EO\\]. We relax the equalized odds requirement in that we allow $U$ to have a certain amount of information about the variable $A$ conditioned on $Y$. The reason for this choice will become clear in Section \\[sec:solve\\]. Therefore, the objective is to find mechanism $P(U|X)$, which maximizes $I(U;Y)$ as well as\n\n1.  Ensures fairness: The information shared between the protected attribute and $U$ given the true label does not exceed a certain threshold $C$, that is $$I(A;U|Y)\\le C.$$\n\n2.  Ensures generalization: The mutual information in $X$ and $U$ does not exceed a certain threshold $D$, that is $$I(X;U)\\le D.$$\n\nTherefore, we aim to solve the following optimization problem. $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{P(U|X)} ~I(U;Y)\\\\\n&\\text{s.t. }~~~I(A;U|Y)\\le C,\\\\\n&~~~~~~~I(X;U)\\le D.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nDesigning the Predictor {#sec:hat}\n-----------------------\n\nAs stated before, after obtaining a decontaminated variable $U$, this variable can be used for the prediction task. We utilize a Bayesian decision rule described in the following.\n\nLet $\\mathcal{U}$ be the alphabet of the variable $U$ and $\\mathcal{Y}$ be the alphabet of variables $Y$ and $\\hat{Y}$. To quantify the quality of a decision, define a loss function $\\ell:\\mathcal{Y}\\times\\mathcal{Y}\\rightarrow\\mathbb{R}^+$, where $\\ell(\\hat{y},y)$ determines the cost of predicting $\\hat{y}$ when the true label was $y$. The decisions are based on auxiliary variable $U$, which is statistically related to the true label. We denote the decision rule by $\\delta:\\mathcal{U}\\rightarrow\\mathcal{Y}$. The loss of the decision rule $\\delta$ is defined as follows. $$L(\\delta)=\\mathbb{E}_{U,Y}[\\ell(\\delta(U),Y)].$$ Using $L(\\delta)$, the Bayesian risk minimization decision rule is $$\\delta^*=\\arg\\min_{\\delta}L(\\delta).$$ For instance, for the case of binary labels with Hamming loss, defined as $\\ell(y,\\hat{y})=\\mathbbm{1}[y\\neq\\hat{y}]$, we have $$\\delta^*(u)=\\mathbbm{1}\\bigg[P(Y=1|u)\\ge P(Y=0|u)\\bigg],$$ which implies that we vote for the label with the maximum posterior probability.\n\nSolving the Fairness Optimization Problem {#sec:solve}\n=========================================\n\nIn this Section, we propose a solution for the fairness optimization problem presented in Section \\[sec:model\\]. The Lagrangian for this problem will be as follows[^2] $$\\label{eq:lag}\n    \\mathcal{L}(P(U|X)) = \\alpha I(X;U) +\\beta I(A;U|Y)-I(U;Y),$$ where the parameters $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ determine the trade off between accuracy, information compression, and fairness.\n\nEquation is similar to the objective function in [@chechik2003extracting], where for given variables $X$, $Y^+$, and $Y^-$, the authors aimed to uncover structures in $P(X,Y^+)$ that do not exist in $P(X,Y^-)$, used for hierarchical text categorization.\n\nWe propose an alternating optimization method to solve the aforementioned problem. The pseudo-code of the proposed approach is presented in Algorithm \\[alg:itt\\]. In each iteration, $\\mathcal{L}$ is reduced by minimizing objective function over three distributions $Q(U|X)$, $R(U)$, and $S(Y|U)$ separately. Functions $f(X,U,\\alpha,\\beta)$ and $Z(X,\\alpha,\\beta)$ are used for updating $Q(U|X)$, which are defined as follows: $$\\label{eq:Z}\nZ(x,\\alpha,\\beta)=\\sum_u R(u)\\exp(f(x,u,\\alpha,\\beta)),\n\\vspace{-4mm}$$ and $$\\label{eq:f}\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{aligned}\n    f&(x,u,\\alpha,\\beta)=\\\\\n    &\\frac{\\beta}{\\alpha}\\sum_{y'} P(y'|x)D(P(A|x)||\\frac{\\sum_{x''}Q(u|x'')P(x,y,A)}{\\sum_{x''}Q(u|x'')P(x,y)})\\\\\n    &-\\frac{1}{\\alpha}D(P(Y|x)|S(Y|u)).\n\\end{aligned}\n\\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\[thm:1\\] For values of $\\beta$ small enough, and any arbitrary value $\\alpha$, Algorithm \\[alg:itt\\] converges to a stationary point of the Lagrangian functions $\\mathcal{L}$ given in equation .\n\nSee Appendix \\[sec:Ap1\\] for a proof.\n\nEmpirical distribution $\\hat{P}(A,X,Y)$, initial distributions $Q^0{(U|X)}$, $R^0{(U)}$, and $S^0{(Y|U)}$ parameters $\\alpha$, $\\beta$, termination threshold $\\epsilon > 0$. Initiate $\\mathcal{L}^0=0$, $\\mathcal{L}^1=\\epsilon$, and $t=1$. $Q^t(u|x)\\leftarrow\\frac{R^{t-1}(u)}{Z^{t-1}(x,\\alpha,\\beta)}\\exp(f^{t-1}(x,u,\\alpha,\\beta))$, $\\forall u,x$. $R^{t}(u)\\leftarrow\\sum_{x'} Q^t(u|x')P(x')$, $\\forall u$. $S^t(y|u)\\leftarrow\\frac{1}{R^t(u)}\\sum_{x'} Q^{t}(u|x')P(y,x')$, $\\forall u,y$.\n\n$\\mathcal{L}^{t+1} \\leftarrow\\alpha I(X;U) +\\beta I(A;U|Y)-I(U;Y)$. $t=t+1$. Conditional distribution $Q(U|X)$.\n\nIn general there is no guarantee that Algorithm \\[alg:itt\\] converges to the global minimum of the Lagrangian. Nevertheless, experimental results show that this altenative optimization algorithm almost always converges to a local minimum of the objective function in . Note that since achieving the global optimum is not guaranteed, one should initiate the algorithm from several different starting distributions.\n\nThe fact that convergence occurs only for a certain range of values for parameter $\\beta$, suggests that for a given requirement on the accuracy of a predictor, certain levels of fairness may not be achievable. This can imply an inherent bound for the level of fairness that any algorithm can achieve, a conclusion which could have not been obtained from the other existing works.\n\nConclusion {#sec:conc}\n==========\n\nWe studied the problem of fairness in supervised learning, which is motivated by the fact that automated decision making systems may inherit biases related to sensitive attributes, such as gender, race, religion, etc., from the historical data that they have been trained on. We presented a new framework for designing fair predictors from data via an information theoretic machinery. Equalized odds was used as the criterion for discrimination, which demands that the prediction should be independent of the protected attribute conditioned on the actual label. In our proposed scheme, a data variable is first mapped to an auxiliary variable to decontaminate it from the discriminatory attribute as well as ensuring generalization. We modeled the task of designing the auxiliary variable as an optimization problem which aims to force the variable to be fair in the sense of equalized odds and maximizes the mutual information between the auxiliary variable and the true label, whilst keeping the information that this variable contains about the data limited. We proposed an alternative solution for solving this optimization problem. We observed that the proposed solution does not necessarily converge for some levels of fairness. This suggests that for a given requirement on the accuracy of a predictor, certain levels of fairness may not be achievable. The final predictor is obtained by applying a Bayesian decision rule to the auxiliary variable. Finding an exact bound on the achievable level of fairness, as well as applying the proposed method to real data is considered as our future work.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[thm:1\\] {#sec:Ap1}\n==========================\n\nThe Lagrangian in equation can be written as follows: $$\\label{eq:prf2}\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathcal{L}(P(U|X))=&\\alpha \\sum_{x,u}P(x) P(u|x)\\log\\frac{P(u|x)}{P(u)}+\\beta G(P(U|X))\\\\\n&+\\sum_{x,u,y}P(x,y)P(u|x)\\log\\frac{P(y|x)}{P(y|u)}-I(X;Y),\n\\end{aligned}\n%\\vspace{-3mm}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n&G(P(U|X))=I(A;U|Y)\\\\ \n&= \\sum_{a,u,y,x} P(u|x)P(a,y,x) \\log \\frac{\\sum_{x'}P(u|x')P(x',y,a)}{\\sum_{x'}P(u|x')P(x',y)}.\n\\end{aligned}$$ We note that, the only unknown parameters are $P(U|X)$, and all of the other distributions can be estimated from the given samples of $(X,Y,A)$.\\\nChanging the notation of $P(u|x)$ to $Q(u|x)$ (to emphasize that it is designed), and using [@cover2012elements Lemma 10.8.1], we can write the optimization as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\min_{Q(u|x)}\\mathcal{L}(Q(U|X))=\\min_{Q(u|x)}\\Bigg[\\alpha \\sum_{x,u}P(x) Q(u|x)\\log\\frac{Q(u|x)}{P(u)}\\\\\n&+\\beta G(Q(U|X))\n+\\sum_{x,u,y}P(x,y)Q(u|x)\\log\\frac{P(y|x)}{P(y|u)}\\Bigg] - I(X;Y)\n\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n&=\\min_{Q(u|x)}\\Bigg[\\min_{S(Y|U)}\\min_{R(U)}\\big[\\alpha \\sum_{x,u}P(x) Q(u|x)\\log\\frac{Q(u|x)}{R(u)}\\\\\n&+\\beta G(Q(U|X))\n+\\sum_{x,u,y}P(x,y)Q(u|x)\\log\\frac{P(y|x)}{S(y|u)}\\Big]\\Bigg] - I(X;Y),\n\\end{aligned}$$ where the inner minimizations are over all probability distributions. Changing the order of three minimizations, we obtain $$\\label{eq:finop}\n\\begin{aligned}\n&\\min_{S(Y|U)}\\min_{R(U)}\\min_{Q(u|x)}\\alpha \\sum_{x,u}P(x) Q(u|x)\\log\\frac{Q(u|x)}{R(u)}\\\\\n&+\\beta G(Q(U|X))\n+\\sum_{x,u,y}P(x,y)Q(u|x)\\log\\frac{P(y|x)}{S(y|u)} - I(X;Y).\n\\end{aligned}$$ Since $x\\mapsto x\\log x$ is a convex function, and summation of a convex function with a linear function remains convex, the first and the third terms of equation combined is a convex function of $Q(u|x),~ \\forall u,x$. For any function $G(Q(U|X))$, there exist $\\beta$ small enough such that the combination of the first three terms of equation remains convex with respect to each $Q(u|x),~ \\forall u,x$.\n\nWe add one more term $\\lambda(x)(\\sum_{u}Q({u|x})-1), ~\\forall x$ to the Lagrangian for the constraint that for each $x$, $Q({u|x})$ should sum up to 1. As a result, taking the derivative of this function with respect to $Q(u|x)~ \\forall u,x$, and setting it equal to zero, the minimum of the function can be found. Below, the derivative of each term is taken separately:\n\n$$L_1=\\sum_{x',u'}P(x')Q(u'|x')\\log\\frac{Q(u'|x')}{R(u')}.$$ Therefore, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\partial L_1}{\\partial Q(u|x)}&=P(x)\\log\\frac{Q(u|x)}{R(u)}\n+\\sum_{x',u'}P(x')\\times\\delta_{uu'}\\delta_{xx'}\\\\\n&=P(x)\\log\\frac{Q(u|x)}{R(u)}+P(x).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFor the second term in $\\mathcal{L}$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nL_2&=I(A;U|Y)\\\\\n&=\\sum_{a',u',y',x'} P(a',u',y',x')\\log\\frac{P(u'|a',y')}{P(u'|y')}.\\end{aligned}$$ Due to the graphical model in Figure \\[fig:GM\\], we have $$P(a',u',y',x') = P(a')P(x'|a')Q(u'|x')P(y'|x'),$$\n\nTherefore, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\partial P(a',u',y',x') }{\\partial Q(u|x)}\n= P(a')P(x'|a')\\delta_{uu'}\\delta_{xx'}P(y'|x').\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe derivative of $P(u|a,y)$ and $P(u|y)$ can be obtained similarly. Therefore, we have\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\frac{\\partial L_2}{\\partial Q(u|x)} \n=\\sum_{a',y'} P(y',x)P(a'|x)\\log\\frac{P(a'|y',u)}{P(a'|y')}\\\\\n&=-\\sum_{y'}P(y',x)D(P(A|x)||\\frac{\\sum_{x''}Q(u|x'')P(x,y,A)}{\\sum_{x''}Q(u|x'')P(x,y)})\\\\\n&+\\sum_{y'}P(y',x)D(P(A|x)||P(A|y))\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFor the third term in $\\mathcal{L}$ we have $$L_3=\\sum_{u',y'}P(u',y')\\log\\frac{S(y'|u')}{P(y')}.$$ Therefore, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\partial L_3}{\\partial P(u|x)}=&-P(x)D(P(Y|x)||S(Y|u))\\\\\n&+P(x)D(P(Y|x)||P(Y)).\\end{aligned}$$ Summing up all terms of the derivative and setting it equal to zero, we get the desired result in and .\n\nUsing the calculated $Q(u|x), ~\\forall u,x$, we can minimize over $R(U)$ and $S(Y|U)$. Again using [@cover2012elements Lemma 10.8.1], minimum is achieved in marginal distributions $P(Y|U)$ and $P(U)$, which can be found from $Q(U|X)$ according to Algorithm \\[alg:itt\\].\n\nRegarding convergence, we note that the Lagrangian in equation could be written as follows $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathcal{L}&\n= \\alpha \\mathbb{E}_{X}[D(P(U|x)||P(U))]\\\\\n&+\\beta \\mathbb{E}_{A,Y}[D(P(U|a,y)||P(U|y))]\\\\\n&+\\mathbb{E}_{X,U}D(P(Y|x)||P(Y|u))\\\\\n&-I(X;Y).\\end{aligned}$$ Since the first three terms of $\\mathcal{L}$ are linear combinations of KL-divergences, and hence non-negative, $\\mathcal{L}$ is lower bounded by $-I(X;Y)$ which is a constant. In addition, in Algorithm \\[alg:itt\\], assuming small enough $\\beta$, in each of three steps of the alternating algorithm, the value of $\\mathcal{L}$ decreases. Therefore, there exists $\\beta_\\max$, such that for values of $\\beta\\le\\beta_\\max$, the algorithm converges to a stationary point of the objective function in .\n\nAcknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}\n==============\n\nThis work was in part supported by MURI grant ARMY W911NF-15-1-0479, Navy N00014-16-1-2804 and NSF CNS 17-18952.\n\n[^1]: Unfortunately, nothing is said in that work about choosing the number of prototypes.\n\n[^2]: Throughout the paper, uppercase letters for the argument of a distribution indicate all the parameters of the distribution, e.g., $P(U|X) \\equiv \\{P(u|x), ~\\forall u,x\\}$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'R. Zhao-Geisler[^1]'\n- 'A. Quirrenbach'\n- 'R. K\u00f6hler'\n- 'B. Lopez'\n- 'C. Leinert'\ndate: 'Received 14 December 2010 / Accepted 17 March 2011'\ntitle: 'The mid-infrared diameter of W\u00a0Hydrae[^2]$^{,}$[^3]'\n---\n\n[Asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars are among the largest distributors of dust into the interstellar medium, and it is therefore important to understand the dust formation process and sequence in their strongly pulsating extended atmosphere. By monitoring the AGB star W\u00a0Hya interferometrically over a few pulsations cycles, the upper atmospheric layers can be studied to obtain information on their chemical gas and dust composition and their intracycle and cycle-to-cycle behavior.]{} [Mid-infrared ($8-13$\u00a0$\\mu$m) interferometric data of W\u00a0Hya were obtained with MIDI/VLTI between April\u00a02007 and September\u00a02009, covering nearly three pulsation cycles. The spectrally dispersed visibility data of all 75 observations were analyzed by fitting a circular fully limb-darkened disk (FDD) model to all data and individual pulsation phases. Asymmetries were studied with an elliptical FDD.]{} [Modeling results in an apparent angular FDD diameter of W\u00a0Hya of about (80\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a01.2)\u00a0mas (7.8\u00a0AU) between 8 and 10\u00a0$\\mu$m, which corresponds to an about 1.9\u00a0times larger diameter than the photospheric one. The diameter gradually increases up to (105\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a01.2)\u00a0mas (10.3\u00a0AU) at 12\u00a0$\\mu$m. In contrast, the FDD relative flux fraction decreases from (0.85\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02) to (0.77\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02), reflecting the increased flux contribution from a fully resolved surrounding silicate dust shell. The asymmetric character of the extended structure could be confirmed. An elliptical FDD yields a position angle of (11\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a020)$^\\circ$ and an axis ratio of (0.87\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.07). A weak pulsation dependency is revealed with a diameter increase of (5.4\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a01.8)\u00a0mas between visual minimum and maximum, while detected cycle-to-cycle variations are smaller.]{} [W\u00a0Hya\u2019s diameter shows a behavior that is very similar to the Mira stars RR\u00a0Sco and S\u00a0Ori and can be described by an analogous model. The constant diameter part results from a partially resolved stellar disk, including a close molecular layer of H$_2$O, while the increase beyond 10\u00a0$\\mu$m can most likely be attributed to the contribution of a spatially resolved nearby Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell. Probably due to the low mass-loss rate, close Fe-free silicate dust could not be detected. The results suggest that the formation of amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ occurs mainly at visual minimum. A possible close Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell has now been revealed in a few objects calling for self-consistent dynamic atmospheric models including dust formation close to the star. The asymmetry might be explained by an enhanced dust concentration along an N-S axis.]{}\n\nIntroduction {#secIntro}\n============\n\nAsymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars have high luminosities, a high mass-loss rate, and a relatively cool atmospheric temperature, and they represent a late stage of stellar evolution. Most of the AGB stars pulsate (as Miras, semi-regular variables or irregular variables) and have typical main-sequence progenitor masses of 0.8 to 10\u00a0M$_\\odot$. A\u00a0large fraction of the mass is concentrated in a tiny degenerate carbon-oxygen core, surrounded by a helium- and hydrogen-burning shell and an extended stellar envelope with a very extended convective zone. Photospheric diameters are typically a few AU. The star is embedded in a dusty circumstellar envelope (CSE) (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0review book by Habing & Olofsson [@Habing_Olofsson_04]).\n\nThe M-type (O-rich) star is interferometrically observed in the thermal N-band to resolve the upper atmospheric layers over a few pulsations cycles. This gives the possibility of obtaining information on its chemical gas and dust composition and its behavior throughout and between pulsation cycles. This can lead to a better understanding of the complex dynamical atmospheric processes attributed to AGB stars. Since AGB stars are one of the most important distributors of dust into the interstellar medium, besides red super giant (RSG) stars and supernovae (SN), it is especially important to understand the dust formation process and sequence in their strongly pulsating extended atmosphere.\n\nIn addition, asymmetries (e.g.\u00a0oblateness due to rotation or a companion, or non-symmetric brightness distributions due to stellar spots or large convection zones), which are not uncommon for AGB stars, can be investigated. Past asymmetry determinations of W\u00a0Hya were not very conclusive, in the sense that position angles over a wide range were reported, ranging from about $70^\\circ$ (Szymczak et al.\u00a0[@Szymczak_et98]) in the radio to about $143^\\circ$ (Lattanzi et al.\u00a0[@Lattanzi97]) in the visual, while no departures from symmetry could be detected in the near-infrared (IR) within the measurement uncertainties (Ireland et al.\u00a0[@Ireland04] and Monnier et al.\u00a0[@Monnier04]).\n\nW\u00a0Hya is one of the best observed AGB stars in the southern hemisphere. In particular, many interferometric diameter measurements at visual and near-IR wavelengths have been carried out (e.g.\u00a0Ireland et al.\u00a0[@Ireland04] and Woodruff et al.\u00a0[@Woodruff09], cf.\u00a0Sect.\u00a0\\[secPhaseSubWave\\]). Because of the very extended atmosphere, it is expected that different wavelengths probe different atmospheric layers in AGB stars (Baschek et al.\u00a0[@Baschek_et91] and Scholz et al.\u00a0[@Scholz01]). The visual and near-IR diameters of the star W\u00a0Hya range from about 30 up to 70\u00a0mas, correlated to the absorption and emission bands of the most abundant and radiatively important molecular species, such as H$_2$O, OH, CO, TiO, SiO, CO$_2$ and SO$_2$, besides H$_2$ (Hofmann et al.\u00a0[@Hofmann_et98] and Jacob et al.\u00a0[@Jacob_et00]). Therefore it is difficult to measure a continuum diameter, while these opaque molecular layers can easily have radii twice the continuum radius (e.g.\u00a0Mennesson et al.\u00a0[@Mennesson_et02], Tej et al.\u00a0[@Tej_et03] and Ohnaka [@Ohnaka04]) with temperatures of 1000 to 2000\u00a0K, i.e.\u00a0below the temperature of the continuum-forming surface of the star, but higher than the temperature of the surrounding circumstellar dust envelope.\n\nDust grains with high sublimation temperatures are already present in the outer atmosphere and are the seed particles for further dust growth (e.g.\u00a0Lorenz-Martins & Pompeia [@LorenzMartins_Pompeia00] and Verhoelst et al.\u00a0[@Verhoelst_et09] and references therein). Radiative pressure leads then at larger radii to an acceleration of the dust and the gas (through frictional coupling), resulting in the characteristic high mass-loss rates of AGB stars (e.g.\u00a0Woitke [@Woitke06] and H\u00f6fner [@Hoefner08]). Several attempts have been made to include different dust species, such as aluminum oxide (Al$_2$O$_3$), silicates (e.g.\u00a0Mg$_2$SiO$_4$), spinel (MgAl$_2$O$_4$), and olivine (MgFeSiO$_4$), to model the spectral energy distribution and to explain the nearly two times larger mid-IR diameters by adding a dust shell to a dust-free atmospheric model (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0for Mira stars Ohnaka et al.\u00a0[@Ohnaka_et05] and Wittkowski et al.\u00a0[@Wittkowski_et07], and for RSG stars Perrin et al.\u00a0[@Perrin_et07] and Verhoelst et al.\u00a0[@Verhoelst_et09]). The radiative importance of dust in an extended molecular shell depends on the local temperature, the time dependent growth rate, and the wavelength-dependent optical properties. The former can be very different for different pulsation phases and cycles.\n\nDynamical atmospheric and wind models for AGB stars were developed by Hofmann et al.\u00a0([@Hofmann_et98]), Woitke et al.\u00a0([@Woitke_et99], [@Woitke06]), Scholz et al.\u00a0([@Scholz01]), H\u00f6fner et al.\u00a0([@Hoefner_et03]), Ireland & Scholz [@Ireland_Scholz06], H\u00f6fner & Andersen ([@HoefnerAndersen_07]), Ireland et al.\u00a0([@Ireland_et08]), Nowotny et al.\u00a0([@Nowotny_et10]) and Lebzelter et al.\u00a0([@Lebzelter_et10]). The exact chemical composition, pulsation phase, and pulsation cycle behavior of AGB stars, e.g.\u00a0the location of molecular and dust layers, is still very uncertain. Observations presented in this work can help to improve this situation and provide the opportunity to compare with theoretical model predictions.\n\nW\u00a0Hya is a large-amplitude, semi-regular variable (SRa, but sometimes also classified as Mira) with a pulsation period of about one year, and it is located in the P-L-diagram on sequence\u00a0C (fundamental mode pulsator, Lebzelter et al.\u00a0[@Lebzelter_et05]; sequence\u00a01 in Riebel et al.\u00a0[@Riebel_et10]). The visual magnitude varies strongly, while the amplitude in the N-band is rather small (cf.\u00a0Sect.\u00a0\\[secObsSubLC\\]). The radial velocity amplitude, derived from CO $\\Delta\\nu~=~3$ lines, is about 15 km$\\,$s$^{-1}$ (Hinkle et al.\u00a0[@Hinkle_et97], Lebzelter et al.\u00a0[@Lebzelter_et05]). Distance estimates to W\u00a0Hya range from 78\u00a0pc (Knapp et al.\u00a0[@Knapp_et03], revised *Hipparcos* value) to 115\u00a0pc (Perryman et al.\u00a0[@Perryman_et97], *Hipparcos* value). Throughout this paper an intermediate value of 98$^{+30}_{-18}$\u00a0pc from Vlemmings et al.\u00a0([@Vlemmings_et03]) will be assumed (Very Long Baseline Interferometry maser measurement). W\u00a0Hya\u2019s luminosity is about 5400\u00a0$L_{\\odot}$ (Justtanont et al.\u00a0[@Justtanont_et05]).\n\nAfter a description of the observational method and data reduction in Sect.\u00a0\\[secObs\\], the model is explained in Sect.\u00a0\\[secMod\\], where the results will be interpreted by the presence of dust close to a molecular layer. Sect.\u00a0\\[secPhase\\] investigates the pulsation dependence of the apparent diameter, as well as departures from symmetry. A summary is given in Sect.\u00a0\\[secConc\\].\n\nObservations and data reduction {#secObs}\n===============================\n\nInterferometric observations with MIDI/VLTI {#secObsSubInt}\n-------------------------------------------\n\nThe data presented here were obtained with the mid-IR ($8-13$\u00a0$\\mu$m) interferometer MIDI (Leinert et al.\u00a0[@Leinert_et03], [@Leinert_et04]) at the Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) in service mode. W\u00a0Hya is one of five stars monitored from P79 to P83 (April\u00a02007 to September\u00a02009) under the program IDs 079.D-0140, 080.D-0005, 081.D-0198, 082.D-0641, and 083.D-0294. An observation log is given in Table\u00a0\\[TableObsLog\\], showing all 83 individual observations. Six different baseline configurations of two auxiliary telescopes (ATs) were used. This results in projected baselines from 13 to 71 meter and a wide range of position angles (PA, $\\vartheta$; east of north). The uv-coverage of all used data can be seen in the right hand panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[FigUVall\\].\n\n[ccccccc|ccccccc]{} Date & AT$^{\\mathrm{a}}$ & Disp$^{\\mathrm{b}}$ & B$^{\\mathrm{c}}$ ($\\mathrm{m}$) & PA$^{\\mathrm{d}}$ ($^\\circ$) & Phase & QF$^{\\mathrm{e}}$ & Date & AT$^{\\mathrm{a}}$ & Disp$^{\\mathrm{b}}$ & B$^{\\mathrm{c}}$ ($\\mathrm{m}$) & PA$^{\\mathrm{d}}$ ($^\\circ$) & Phase & QF$^{\\mathrm{e}}$\\\n2007-04-12 & A & grism & 14.54 & 51.81 & 0.30 & used & 2008-04-03 & B & prism & 29.19 & 82.75 & 0.22 & used\\\n2007-04-13 & B & grism & 29.10 & 51.92 & 0.30 & used & 2008-04-28 & D & prism & 59.43 & 54.70 & 0.29 & used\\\n2007-04-17 & B & grism & 22.34 & 94.12 & 0.31 & used & 2008-04-28 & E & prism & 70.58 & 130.03& 0.29 & n.\u00a0u.\\\n2007-04-22 & D & grism & 59.53 & 54.92 & 0.33 & used & 2008-04-28 & E & prism & 71.32 & 10.41 & 0.29 & n.\u00a0u.\\\n2007-04-22 & D & grism & 59.53 & 54.92 & 0.33 & used & 2008-04-28 & D & prism & 45.23 & 93.72 & 0.29 & used\\\n2007-04-22 & D & grism & 42.06 & 96.19 & 0.33 & used & 2008-05-25 & D & prism & 61.21 & 58.90 & 0.36 & used\\\n2007-04-22 & D & grism & 38.56 & 99.06 & 0.33 & used & 2008-05-30 & D & prism & 30.02 & 107.46& 0.37 & used\\\n2007-04-24 & E & grism & 67.30 & 125.04& 0.33 & n.\u00a0u. & 2008-07-03 & A & prism & 13.67 & 86.31 & 0.46 & used\\\n2007-04-25 & E & grism & 64.92 & 123.16& 0.34 & n.\u00a0u. & 2008-07-03 & C & prism & 32.03 & 95.67 & 0.46 & used\\\n2007-04-25 & F & grism & 71.47 & 2.19 & 0.34 & used & 2008-07-06 & D & prism & 36.87 & 100.52 & 0.46 & used\\\n2007-06-18 & A & grism & 13.25 & 87.72 & 0.47 & used & 2009-01-16 & F & prism & 71.23 &$-12.23$& 0.96 & used\\\n2007-06-20 & C & grism & 46.98 & 62.82 & 0.48 & used & 2009-01-16 & D & prism & 60.22 & 56.51 & 0.96 & used\\\n2007-06-20 & C & grism & 43.73 & 82.84 & 0.48 & used & 2009-01-17 & E & prism & 65.19 & 123.34 & 0.97 & n.\u00a0u.\\\n2007-07-02 & C & grism & 48.00 & 70.64 & 0.51 & used & 2009-01-20 & C & prism & 46.78 & 61.99 & 0.97 & used\\\n2007-07-02 & C & grism & 40.49 & 86.86 & 0.51 & n.\u00a0u. & 2009-01-21 & B & prism & 25.33 & 32.67 & 0.98 & used\\\n2007-07-04 & B & grism & 31.55 & 75.51 & 0.52 & used & 2009-01-21 & B & prism & 28.19 & 47.79 & 0.98 & used\\\n2007-07-04 & B & grism & 24.39 & 90.99 & 0.52 & used & 2009-01-21 & B & prism & 29.88 & 55.45 & 0.98 & used\\\n2008-01-10 & B & prism & 30.08 & 56.39 & 0.01 & used & 2009-01-22 & C & prism & 43.10 & 50.26 & 0.98 & used\\\n2008-02-20 & D & grism & 59.95 & 55.89 & 0.11 & used & 2009-01-22 & C & prism & 44.68 & 55.03 & 0.98 & used\\\n2008-02-20 & D & prism & 62.76 & 63.21 & 0.11 & used & 2009-01-22 & A & prism & 45.94 & 59.00 & 0.98 & used\\\n2008-02-21 & D & prism & 63.89 & 68.30 & 0.11 & n.\u00a0u. & 2009-01-25 & A & prism & 12.34 & 28.13 & 0.99 & used\\\n2008-02-22 & B\\* & prism & 31.85 & 73.49 & 0.12 & used & 2009-01-25 & A & prism & 13.05 & 37.34 & 0.99 & used\\\n2008-02-22 & B\\* & prism & 31.00 & 78.00 & 0.12 & used & 2009-01-25 & A & prism & 14.35 & 50.06 & 0.99 & used\\\n2008-03-02 & E & prism & 66.93 & 124.69& 0.14 & used & 2009-01-25 & A & prism & 15.78 & 64.41 & 0.99 & used\\\n2008-03-02 & F & prism & 71.45 & 4.51 & 0.14 & used & 2009-01-27 & C & prism & 41.69 & 45.93 & 0.99 & used\\\n2008-03-03 & D & prism & 63.91 & 72.10 & 0.14 & used & 2009-01-27 & C & prism & 43.52 & 51.53 & 0.99 & used\\\n2008-03-06 & D & grism & 61.71 & 78.46 & 0.15 & used & 2009-02-16 & D & prism & 63.97 & 69.21 & 0.04 & used\\\n2008-03-11 & A & grism & 12.33 & 28.02 & 0.16 & used & 2009-02-16 & D & prism & 63.24 & 75.18 & 0.04 & used\\\n2008-03-11 & A & prism & 13.98 & 46.70 & 0.16 & used & 2009-03-16 & D & prism & 62.93 & 76.01 & 0.12 & used\\\n2008-03-12 & A & grism & 15.23 & 79.71 & 0.17 & used & 2009-04-20 & B & prism & 20.28 & 97.36 & 0.21 & used\\\n2008-03-13 & B & grism & 30.54 & 79.42 & 0.17 & used & 2009-04-23 & C & prism & 45.26 & 80.46 & 0.21 & used\\\n2008-03-13 & B & prism & 31.94 & 68.34 & 0.17 & used & 2009-04-23 & C & prism & 36.25 & 91.34 & 0.21 & used\\\n2008-03-13 & B & prism & 29.95 & 81.01 & 0.17 & used & 2009-04-24 & B & prism & 27.75 & 85.53 & 0.22 & used\\\n2008-03-14 & A & prism & 15.86 & 65.67 & 0.17 & n.\u00a0u. & 2009-05-02 & D & prism & 55.99 & 46.91 & 0.24 & used\\\n2008-03-14 & A & prism & 15.80 & 75.37 & 0.17 & used & 2009-05-03 & E & prism & 69.19 & 127.28& 0.24 & used\\\n2008-03-14 & A & prism & 15.26 & 79.55 & 0.17 & used & 2009-05-03 & F & prism & 71.42 & 7.00 & 0.24 & used\\\n2008-03-25 & C & prism & 47.86 & 67.68 & 0.20 & used & 2009-05-03 & D & prism & 52.46 & 38.03 & 0.24 & used\\\n2008-03-25 & C & prism & 47.38 & 75.34 & 0.20 & used & 2009-06-04 & C & prism & 45.75 & 58.37 & 0.32 & used\\\n2008-03-25 & C & prism & 41.85 & 85.29 & 0.20 & used & 2009-06-04 & C & prism & 46.29 & 60.19 & 0.32 & used\\\n2008-04-01 & B & prism & 28.32 & 48.37 & 0.22 & used & 2009-06-04 & A & prism & 12.40 & 90.40 & 0.32 & used\\\n2008-04-02 & C & prism & 44.91 & 81.06 & 0.22 & used & 2009-08-15 & A & prism & 11.73 & 92.45 & 0.51 & used\\\n2008-04-02 & A & prism & 12.96 & 88.65 & 0.22 & used & & & & & & &\\\n\n$^{\\mathrm{a}}$\u00a0AT stations: A\u00a0=\u00a0E0$-$G0, B\u00a0=\u00a0G0$-$H0, B\\*\u00a0=\u00a0A0$-$D0, C\u00a0=\u00a0E0$-$H0, D\u00a0=\u00a0D0$-$H0, E\u00a0=\u00a0D0$-$G1 and F\u00a0=\u00a0H0$-$G1; $^{\\mathrm{b}}$\u00a0dispersive element; $^{\\mathrm{c}}$\u00a0projected baseline length; $^{\\mathrm{d}}$\u00a0position angle of the projected baseline on the sky; $^{\\mathrm{e}}$\u00a0quality flag showing if that observation is used for the model fitting or not (n.\u00a0u.), see Sect.\u00a0\\[secModSubFDD\\] for reasons that a value had not been used\n\n![image](16310_fg01.ps){width=\"0.59\\linewidth\"} ![image](16310_fg02.ps){width=\"0.40\\linewidth\"}\n\nBefore or after each target observation the calibrator 2\u00a0Cen () was observed with the same setup to calibrate the visibility measurements. The calibrator star has a diameter of (13.25\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.06)\u00a0mas (model diameter from Verhoelst\u00a0[@Verhoelst_05][^4]), a spectral type of M4.5\u00a0III, a 12\u00a0$\\mu$m flux of (256\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a026)\u00a0Jy (IRAS[^5]), and an angular separation to the target of about 6$^\\circ$. Observations were executed in `SCI-PHOT` mode, where the photometric and the interferometric spectra are recorded simultaneously. This has the advantage that the photometry and the fringe signal are observed under the same atmospheric conditions. Either the prism, with a spectral resolution of $R = \\lambda/\\Delta\\lambda = 30$, or the grism, with a spectral resolution of 230, were used to obtain spectrally dispersed fringes.\n\nMIDI Sci-Phot data reduction {#secObsSubRed}\n----------------------------\n\nThe standard `MIA+EWS`[^6] (version\u00a01.6) data reduction package with additional routines for processing `SCI-PHOT` data (Walter Jaffe, private communication) was used. In any observation in `SCI-PHOT` mode, all four read-out windows (channels) are illuminated simultaneously. The two central channels record the interferometric signals, while the two outer channels are dedicated to measuring photometric fluxes (cf.\u00a0Fig.\u00a0\\[FigMidi\\]). To measure these signals, the two telescope beams (one beam from each telescope) are separated by a beamsplitter. One of the separated beams of each telescope is sent directly to the photometric detector window, while the other two remaining beams (one from each telescope) are combined in the beam combiner to obtain two interferometric signals with opposite phases.\n\n![MIDI setup in `SCI-PHOT` mode (adopted from Leinert et al.\u00a0[@Leinert_et03]).[]{data-label=\"FigMidi\"}](16310_fg03.ps){width=\"0.95\\linewidth\"}\n\nTo be able to calculate the instrumental visibility by dividing the interferometric fringe signal (correlated flux) by the photometric signal (uncorrelated flux), the exact light split ratios between these channels have to be known as functions of wavelength. This requires recording *additional photometry*. By closing the shutter of one telescope, the light from the other telescope illuminates one of the photometric channels and both interferometric channels. From these data, the light split ratio between photometric and interferometric channels for this telescope beam can be computed. This is repeated for the other telescope beam as well. In principle, this would only be necessary once per night or less often, but is done for every observation to check for consistency.\n\nAccordingly, the first step in the reduction is the calculation of these ratios (or better the mapping behavior between interferometric and photometric channels). After unchopping the *additional photometry* data, a point spread function is fitted perpendicular to the wavelength direction as a function of wavelength to each of the three read-out windows to obtain the spectra. This step also includes the determination of the sky and instrumental background, remaining after the unchopping, and its removal. The spectra of all channels are then divided by each other to derive the respective split ratios. One of the largest error sources here is the determination of the correct background, since it can result in too high or too low fluxes in affected channels and can therefore lead to errors in the final visibility and photometric spectra. Typical final errors are on the order of 10% and 30%, respectively.\n\nWith the obtained light split ratios (mapping behavior), the `SCI-PHOT` data are reduced in the next step. After unchopping the `SCI-PHOT` data, the simultaneously recorded photometric spectra (in the photometric channels) are multiplied by the appropriate split ratios; i.e.,\u00a0each photometric spectrum is mapped to each interferometric channel to get an estimate of the uncorrelated (photometric) fluxes at the location of the interferometric channels. The average of the summed images of each channel gives the final raw photometry. To obtain the visibility, the interferometric fringe signal (correlated flux) in each interferometric channel is divided by the estimated geometric mean image of the mapped uncorrelated (photometric) spectra. Prior to the division, the fringes are coherently averaged after determining the group delay, similar to the `HIGH-SENS` reduction (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0Ratzka [@Ratzka05]). Both visibility spectra are then averaged to get the final raw visibility. A more detailed description can be found in Zhao-Geisler ([@ZhGeisler10]).\n\nThese steps are taken separately for the target (W\u00a0Hya) and the calibrator (2\u00a0Cen). With the known calibrator diameter the raw target visibility is calibrated with the calibrator\u2019s transfer function, assuming a wavelength-independent uniform disk diameter. The raw photometry is calibrated by assuming that the spectrum of the calibrator looks close enough to the Rayleigh-Jeans part of a blackbody and by using the known 12\u00a0$\\mu$m flux of the calibrator. The Rayleigh-Jeans assumption is not fully valid between 8 and 9\u00a0$\\mu$m since 2\u00a0Cen shows a weak SiO absorption feature in its ISO spectrum.\n\nAfter reducing and calibrating all data, results with unphysical visibilities (due to bad environmental conditions or failure of the reduction process) are rejected. Eight of the 83 observations were thus excluded and are flagged as \u201cnot used\u201d in Table\u00a0\\[TableObsLog\\]. Since several observations of W\u00a0Hya were executed in some nights, more than one calibrator observation was available. For those nights, the calibrators nearest in time were used to calculate a median calibrated visibility with the standard deviation as a typical error.\n\nGrism data were interpolated to the prism grid. The wavelength range between 8 and 12\u00a0$\\mu$m was binned into 25 wavelength bins to allow a faster computation of the model fits. Within each wavelength bin a mean visibility and error were calculated. For the fits later on, we always checked that this approach does not mask any additional spectral features, with the result that in all cases the shapes of the wavelength-dependent parameters were not altered significantly. Measurements beyond 12\u00a0$\\mu$m were not used because the recorded flux was too low, making the reduction inconsistent.\n\nTo avoid the problem of underestimating the error and to allocate an error to visibilities where only one calibrator observation exists, all available visibility errors within the same wavelength bin were averaged. The resulting mean error was then assigned to *all* visibilities within this wavelength bin. The final 75 visibility curves are shown in the left hand panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[FigUVall\\]. The central wavelengths and assigned visibility errors of each bin are given in the first and second columns of Table\u00a0\\[TableResults\\], respectively.\n\nAssuming the same error for all measurements within a wavelength bin improves the model fits as well. In a fitting method based on a chi-square technique (cf.\u00a0Sect.\u00a0\\[secModSubFDD\\]), all visibility measurements are then represented with the same significance. In the case that each value has an individual uncertainty, values with higher errors are underrepresented, while values with low errors are overrepresented. Consequently, higher visibilities, with in general higher absolute errors, are not weighted accordingly, and the importance of lower visibilities, at generally higher spatial frequencies with lower absolute errors, is overestimated. Only equal weighting ensures that over the whole spatial frequency range a model fits all data well, assuming that all measurements are equally significant. This has the consequence that chi-square values are only useful in a relative sense. For this reason chi-square values are not given.\n\nLight curves {#secObsSubLC}\n------------\n\n![image](16310_fg04.ps){width=\"0.95\\linewidth\"}\n\n![image](16310_fg05.ps){width=\"0.95\\linewidth\"}\n\nTo assign a pulsation phase to the observations, visual data from the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO[^7]) and the All Sky Automated Survey (ASAS[^8]; Pojmanski et al.\u00a0[@Pojmanski_et2005]) are used. After binning the AAVSO data into ten-day bins, a simple sinusoid was fitted to the AAVSO and ASAS data over a period of about 10\u00a0years ($2000-2010$). The fit gives a period of (388\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a05)\u00a0days, a mean visual magnitude of (7.6\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.1)\u00a0mag, a semi-amplitude of (1.4\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.1)\u00a0mag and a Julian Date of maximum brightness of (2452922\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a05)\u00a0days (defined as phase 0.0). These data, including the fit, are plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_t\\] versus time and in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_p\\] versus visual light phase. The visual amplitude of the semi-regular variable W\u00a0Hya is much lower than typical Mira variables.\n\nIn both plots, the times of the 75 used MIDI observations are included as tick marks above the light curve, color-coded by phase in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_t\\] and color-coded by position angle in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_p\\]. This allows recognizing different distributions of position angles throughout the pulsation cycle. It can be seen that the position angles are not sampled well over the pulsation period. At around maximum light, position angles cluster around 50$^\\circ$, while around minimum light, position angles are mostly at around 90$^\\circ$. Only for the intermediate phase is the position angle sampling more uniform. This will be important in Sect.\u00a0\\[secPhase\\], where asymmetries, intracycle variations and cycle-to-cycle variations are investigated. The regions used for this study are already shaded in both figures. It is also notable that the whole pulsation cycle is not equally sampled because the pulsation period is around one year (also true for the AAVSO and ASAS sampling).\n\nThe MIDI photometry is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_t\\] directly below the tick marks with the magnitude scale given on the right and as flux values below the magnitude plot in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_p\\]. Only the averaged fluxes between 11.5 and 12.5\u00a0$\\mu$m are plotted in order to be comparable with observations made with other instruments (e.g.\u00a0IRAS). Even though the MIDI fluxes are afflicted by fairly large errors, a clear phase dependence is detectable in the phase-folded plot. A sinusoidal fit gives a semi-amplitude of (510\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a0100)\u00a0Jy, which is equivalent to a flux variation on the order of 20% between maximum and minimum light, with a mean mid-IR flux of (4.9\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.2)\u00a0kJy. The maximum occurs after the visual maximum at visual phase 0.15\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.05.\n\nThis phase shift is consistent with previous studies of AGB stars (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0 Lattanzio & Wood [@Lattanzio_Wood_04], Smith et al.\u00a0[@Smith_et06] and references therein, and Nowotny et al.\u00a0[@Nowotny_et10]). The reasons for this are that most of the flux is emitted in the infrared and that the visual spectrum is strongly influenced by features of the temperature-sensitive TiO molecule (Nowotny et al.\u00a0[@Nowotny_et10]). Similar flux variations have been reported for other AGB stars by Ohnaka (private communication; preliminary results for R\u00a0Car, R\u00a0Cnc and Z\u00a0Pup) for MIDI AT observations, by Wittkowski et al.\u00a0([@Wittkowski_et07]) (O-rich Mira S\u00a0Ori), and Ohnaka et al.\u00a0([@Ohnaka_et07]) (C-rich Mira V\u00a0Oph) for MIDI Unit Telescope (UT) observations, and by Karovicova (private communication; preliminary result for RR\u00a0Aql) for both AT and UT observations. Since the photometric accuracy of MIDI used with the ATs is very low, these values should be used with caution. For this reason all data are interpreted with respect to the visual light curve instead of the mid-IR light curve. It should also be kept in mind that folding consecutive cycles might not always be appropriate since the pulsation is not strictly regular. The irregularity can clearly be inferred from the plots.\n\nSpectra {#secObsSubSpec}\n-------\n\nThe median of all calibrated photometric MIDI spectra (scaled with the 12\u00a0$\\mu$m flux of the calibrator as described above) is shown in the spectral energy distribution (SED) in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigSpec\\]. The uncertainties are given by the standard deviation. Even if this averaging over all pulsation phases and cycles might be questionable, it is not important here, since the spectrum is not used for any modeling. In addition to fully scientifically verified spectra from ISO[^9] and IRAS, photometric data from HIPPARCOS, USNO-B1, 2MASS, and IRAS[^10], not corrected for reddening effects, are plotted as well. A blackbody with an effective temperature of 2300\u00a0K is overplotted as guidance. Due to the infrared excess, strong metallic oxide line, and molecule absorption at shorter wavelengths, and dust extinction, it is not expected that a blackbody curve fits the spectral data in an appropriate way.\n\nThe ISO SWS spectrum is mainly dominated by absorption bands of H$_2$O between $2.5-3.0$\u00a0$\\mu$m (stretching mode) and $5.0-8.0$\u00a0$\\mu$m (bending mode), and an SiO absorption band between 8 and\u00a09\u00a0$\\mu$m ($\\nu$\u00a0=\u00a0$1-0$). Distinct absorption lines of CO at around 2.4\u00a0$\\mu$m, OH at $2.9-4.0$\u00a0$\\mu$m, CO$_2$ at 4.25\u00a0$\\mu$m and SO$_2$ at 7.4\u00a0$\\mu$m can be weakly seen in the spectrum as well. Justtanont et al.\u00a0([@Justtanont_et04]) derived from temperature investigations that these absorptions originate in different molecular layers in the circumstellar shell. The OH, CO, and CO$_2$ absorption bands arise mainly from a hot (about 3000\u00a0K), dense region very close to the stellar photosphere, where H$_2$O is still photodissociated by shocks. The H$_2$O and a second CO$_2$ absorption band originate in a layer with a temperature of 1000\u00a0K, i.e.\u00a0a molecular layer (molsphere[^11]) farther out. The SiO molecule absorption arises in the same region where the H$_2$O molecular shell exists and where SiO is still not condensed in dust grains. Dust emission can also be identified in the ISO spectra. The features between 10 and 20\u00a0$\\mu$m are a combination of emission from amorphous silicates at around 10\u00a0$\\mu$m, compact Al$_2$O$_3$ at around 11\u00a0$\\mu$m, and MgFeO at around 19\u00a0$\\mu$m. Justtanont et al.\u00a0([@Justtanont_et04]) have obtained a satisfactory SED fit to all three emission features. They derived a low[^12] total mass-loss rate of (3.5$-$8)\u00a0$\\times$\u00a0$10^{-8} M_{\\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, and a lower limit to the dust mass-loss rate for silicates, Al$_2$O$_3$ and MgFeO of 1.5\u00a0$\\times$\u00a0$10^{-10} M_{\\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, 1.3\u00a0$\\times$\u00a0$10^{-10} M_{\\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ and 2.5\u00a0$\\times$\u00a0$10^{-11} M_{\\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ respectively. Hinkle et al.\u00a0([@Hinkle_et97]) and de Beck at al.\u00a0([@deBeck_et10]) obtained similar total mass-loss rates of 2\u00a0$\\times$\u00a0$10^{-8} M_{\\odot}$yr$^{-1}$ and 7.8\u00a0$\\times$\u00a0$10^{-8} M_{\\odot}$yr$^{-1}$, respectively. The derived low dust mass-loss rate and pulsation behavior is typical of a star at the beginning of the AGB phase and the transformation from a semi-regular variable to a Mira star (Hinkle et al.\u00a0[@Hinkle_et97]). W\u00a0Hya is classified in the dust emission scheme of Sloan and Price ([@SloanPrice_98]) as SE8 (classic narrow silicate emission type).\n\nIf the MIDI spectrum is compared with the ISO SWS spectrum, it is obvious that the silicate emission is not detected. This is shown in more detail in the inset of Fig.\u00a0\\[FigSpec\\]. In the MIDI spectrum of W\u00a0Hya, a weak emission of amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ at around 11\u00a0$\\mu$m is present, while no silicate feature at around 10\u00a0$\\mu$m can be seen[^13]. This behavior can be attributed to instrumental characteristics. ISO has a much larger field of view (FOV) compared to MIDI. With a small FOV of about 1 to 2\u00a0arcsec[^14], the emission of the extended silicate dust shell is not detected in the MIDI spectrum.\n\nHowever, this non-detection allows a lower limit to be derived for the inner boundary of the silicate dust shell. Assuming a conservative value of the FOV of 1\u00a0arcsec, the main emission of the silicate dust shell in W\u00a0Hya originates in a region with an inner radius larger than 28 photospheric radii[^15] ($>$50\u00a0AU, $>$0.5\u00a0arcsec). This is consistent with knowing that the dust envelope is very extended, up to 40\u00a0arcsec (Hawkins [@Hawkins90]). The higher flux measured with MIDI compared to ISO can be attributed to the circumstance that the averaged spectrum is dominated by observations conducted around mid-IR maximum phases, while the ISO spectrum were obtained in a post visual minimum phase (phase\u00a00.8, which is close to the mid-IR minimum; cf.\u00a0Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_p\\]). Together with the calibration uncertainty of the averaged MIDI spectrum of larger than 10%, this apparent discrepancy can be understood.\n\nModeling the visibility data {#secMod}\n============================\n\nThe most straight forward way of interpreting sparsely sampled interferometric data (visibilities) is by fitting the Fourier transform of an assumed brightness distribution of the object. Simple size estimations can be obtained by elementary models with only a few free parameters. As mentioned in the introduction, the definition of a diameter is difficult because of its strong wavelength dependence, as well as of the intracycle and possible long-term cycle-to-cycle variations (e.g.\u00a0Haniff et al.\u00a0[@Haniff_et95]) expected from models (e.g.\u00a0Hofmann et al.\u00a0[@Hofmann_et98]). On the other hand, the size and its wavelength-dependent shape can tell which layer of the atmosphere is actually observed and which chemical and physical mechanism are responsible for this appearance. The low surface gravity results in an extended atmosphere and temperature structure and in the formation of molecular layers around late-type stars. Therefore, no sharp transition between star and circumstellar environment exists and limb-darkening effects (center-to-limb variations) are very pronounced.\n\nAll 75\u00a0visibility measurements of W\u00a0Hya are plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigSymModel\\] for one example wavelength bin (9.07\u00a0$\\mu$m) as function of spatial frequency (projected baseline divided by wavelength). There is a considerable spread in the data, but this should be expected since the measurements were obtained at different pulsation phases, pulsation cycles and position angles. In addition, some uncertainties in the reduction process remain. The left hand panel shows the data color-coded by visual light phase, while the right hand panel shows the data color-coded by position angle. In both plots systematically displaced distributions are noticeable. In the left hand panel, observations at visual maximum (dark points) have lower visibilities than those at pre-minimum (red points), if measurements with similar spatial frequencies are compared. However, this trend is very weak. In comparison, the displacement of the two distributions with different position angles is more significant in the right hand panel. For a discussion of this see Sect.\u00a0\\[secPhase\\].\n\nAfter the first zero, the visibilities in the second lobe at around 24\u00a0arcsec$^{-1}$ remain low. This indicates that a uniform disk (UD), with a constant brightness distribution up to the edge of the disk, cannot be applied to the data. A UD gives a higher second lobe in Fourier space. On the other hand, a simple Gaussian is not appropriate either, since a second lobe is clearly detected. Only a model that takes an extended atmosphere into account, which results in limb-darkening, can fit the data properly. The simplest possibility with only a few free parameters and a low second lobe is a fully limb-darkened disk (FDD). To account for a flux contribution of the extended silicate dust shell, the visibility function is not forced to be 1 at zero spatial frequency. Due to the lack of measurements at very low spatial frequencies, the dimension of the silicate dust shell cannot be constrained interferometrically.\n\n![image](16310_fg06.ps){width=\"0.95\\linewidth\"}\n\n![image](16310_fg07.ps){width=\"0.49\\linewidth\"} ![image](16310_fg08.ps){width=\"0.49\\linewidth\"}\n\nFully limb-darkened disk (FDD) {#secModSubFDD}\n------------------------------\n\nA fully limb-darkened disk model is fitted to the visibility measurements in order to get diameter estimates. The visibility and intensity functions of a circular FDD are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n      V \\; (r)&=& \\left|\\,\\epsilon\\;\\;\\frac{3\\sqrt{\\pi}\\;J_{3/2}(\\pi\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD}} r)}{\\sqrt{2}\\;(\\pi\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD}} r)^{3/2}}\\,\\right|\\;\\mbox{and}\\\\[4mm]\n      I \\; (\\rho) &=& \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{ll}\n         \\epsilon\\;\\;\\frac{8}{\\pi^2 \\theta^2_{\\mathrm{FDD}}}\\sqrt{1-\\left(\\frac{2\\rho}{\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD}}}\\right)^2} & \\;\\mbox{if} \\;\\rho \\leq \\frac{\\theta}{2}\\\\[3mm]\n         0 & \\;\\mbox{otherwise,} \\end{array} \\right.\n    \\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where $J_{3/2}$ is a Bessel function of the first kind of order 3/2, $\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD}}$\u00a0the FDD diameter and $\\epsilon$\u00a0the flux contribution of the FDD. The flux contribution $\\epsilon$ can be less than\u00a01 if a fully resolved component (FRC), e.g.\u00a0a surrounding silicate dust shell, adds flux at the given wavelength, since the total visibility consists of both components: $$\\begin{aligned}\n      V_{\\mathrm{total}} &=& |\\,\\epsilon \\; \\mathcal{V}_{\\mathrm{FDD}} + (1-\\epsilon) \\; \\mathcal{V}_{\\mathrm{FRC}}\\,|\n    \\end{aligned}$$ The complex visibility of a fully resolved component, $\\mathcal{V}_{\\mathrm{FRC}}$, then does not contribute to the total visibility, but the flux fraction, $f_{\\mathrm{FRC}}$, of that component still modifies $\\epsilon$ via $\\epsilon = f_{\\mathrm{FDD}} / (f_{\\mathrm{FDD}} + f_{\\mathrm{FRC}})$. The radius $r$ in Fourier space is given by the spatial frequencies as $r = \\sqrt{u^2+v^2}$. The spatial frequencies $u$ and $v$ are calculated from the projected baseline B, the position angle $\\vartheta$, and the wavelength $\\lambda$ via $u=B\\sin{\\vartheta}/\\lambda$ and $v=B\\cos{\\vartheta}/\\lambda$. The radial coordinate $\\rho$ on the sky is defined by the angular coordinates $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ (angular separation relative to the center of the object on the tangential sky plane) with $\\rho = \\sqrt{\\alpha^2+\\beta^2}$.\n\nThe elliptical FDD, used in Sect.\u00a0\\[secPhaseSubAsy\\] to analyze asymmetries, is derived from the circular FDD by applying a rotation (with an orientation given by the position angle $\\vartheta$) and a compression to one of the axes (which becomes the minor axis). The rotation can be obtained by changing the Fourier and sky reference frames via $$\\begin{aligned}\n      u_{\\vartheta} &=&  u \\cos\\vartheta - v \\sin\\vartheta \\\\[1mm]\n      v_{\\vartheta} &=&  u \\sin\\vartheta + v \\cos\\vartheta\n    \\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n      \\alpha_{\\vartheta} &=&  \\alpha \\cos\\vartheta - \\beta \\sin\\vartheta \\\\[1mm]\n      \\beta_{\\vartheta}  &=&  \\alpha \\sin\\vartheta + \\beta \\cos\\vartheta \\mathrm{,}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ respectively.\n\nApplying the compression factor of $\\eta = \\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,min}} / \\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,maj}}$, with $\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,min}}$ the minor diameter and $\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,maj}}$ the major diameter in Fourier space, yields the new variables $$\\begin{aligned}\n      r_{\\vartheta,\\eta}    &=& \\sqrt{u_{\\vartheta}^2\\eta^2+v_{\\vartheta}^2} \\;\\;\\;\\; \\mathrm{and}\\\\\n      \\rho_{\\vartheta,\\eta} &=& \\sqrt{\\alpha_{\\vartheta}^2/\\eta^2+\\beta_{\\vartheta}^2} \\mathrm{,}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ respectively. The visibility and intensity functions then become $$\\begin{aligned}\n      V \\; (r_{\\vartheta,\\eta}) &=& \\left|\\,\\epsilon\\;\\;\\frac{3\\sqrt{\\pi}\\;J_{3/2}(\\pi\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,maj}} r_{\\vartheta,\\eta})}{\\sqrt{2}\\;(\\pi\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,maj}} r_{\\vartheta,\\eta})^{3/2}} \\,\\right|\\;\\mbox{and}\\\\[4mm]\n      I \\; (\\rho_{\\vartheta,\\eta}) &=& \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{ll}\n        \\epsilon\\;\\;\\frac{8}{\\eta\\pi^2\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,maj}}^2}\\; \\sqrt{1-\\left(\\frac{2\\rho_{\\vartheta,\\eta}}{\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,maj}}}\\right)^2} & \\mbox{if} \\;\\; \\delta \\leq 1\\\\[3mm]\n         0 & \\mbox{otherwise,} \\end{array} \\right.\n    \\end{aligned}$$ respectively, with $$\\begin{aligned}\n      \\delta &=& \\frac{4 \\alpha^2_{\\vartheta}}{\\theta^2_{\\mathrm{FDD,min}}} + \\frac{4 \\beta^2_{\\vartheta}}{\\theta^2_{\\mathrm{FDD,maj}}} \\,\\mbox{.}\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nBest-model parameters are derived by performing the Levenberg-Marquardt least-squares minimization procedure programmed for the interactive data language IDL as `MPFIT` by C.\u00a0B.\u00a0Markwardt[^16]. To avoid the problem of running into local minima and to check for degeneracies, a global grid search was implemented. This is done in such a way that the least-squares minimization always operates only between two grid points in each parameter, while going through the whole parameter space. Formal 1$\\,\\sigma$ errors were computed by taking the difference between the best fit value and the value given at the lowest non-reduced chi-square plus one, knowing that this is only an approximation, since the chi-square values are not Gaussian distributed. To get a more appropriate parameter error, the visibility errors are scaled to a value yielding a reduced chi-square of one. Besides this, the final parameter error is always a multiple of the shortest grid distance. This approach leads to an adequate description of the data by an FDD and to reasonable error estimates.\n\nModel fitting results {#secModSubModel}\n---------------------\n\nThe left hand panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[FigSymModel\\] shows the fit of a circular FDD and UD to all 75\u00a0visibility measurements for wavelength bin\u00a06 (9.07\u00a0$\\mu$m). Clearly, the second lobe is better fitted by an FDD. A comparison of the reduced chi-square values verified that a UD is not a good representation of the brightness distribution of W\u00a0Hya. The best-fit parameters of the circular FDD are given in Table\u00a0\\[TableResults\\] for all 25\u00a0wavelength bins. Formal errors are computed as mentioned in the previous section, while the listed mean visibility errors are derived as described in Sect.\u00a0\\[secObsSubRed\\]. A residual analysis shows that for each wavelength bin on average about 60% of the measurements are inside the 3$\\,\\sigma$ range. This low value stems from using rather low uncertainties for the visibilities and this fit not accounting for the scatter of the data due to the influences of the pulsation phase and the asymmetry.\n\n[cc|cc|cccc]{} & & &\\\nWavelength & Visibility & $\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD}}$ & Flux $\\epsilon$ & $\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,maj}}$ & Axis Ratio $\\eta$ & PA $\\vartheta$ & Flux $\\epsilon$\\\n($\\mu\\mathrm{m}$) & error$^{\\mathrm{a}}$ & ($\\mathrm{mas}$) & & ($\\mathrm{mas}$) & & ($^\\circ$) &\\\n$\\;$ 8.12& 0.007& $\\;$ 81.0 $\\pm$ 1.0& 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.02& $\\;$ 92.5 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.87 $\\pm$ 0.07 & $-1$ $\\pm$ 4 & 0.89 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 8.33& 0.007& $\\;$ 79.9 $\\pm$ 1.2& 0.84 $\\pm$ 0.01& $\\;$ 88.4 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.89 $\\pm$ 0.08 &$\\;\\,$6 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.87 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 8.54& 0.006& $\\;$ 80.8 $\\pm$ 1.0& 0.83 $\\pm$ 0.01& $\\;$ 89.3 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.89 $\\pm$ 0.07 & $-1$ $\\pm$ 4 & 0.84 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 8.71& 0.006& $\\;$ 80.9 $\\pm$ 1.6& 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.02& $\\;$ 90.5 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.07 & $-1$ $\\pm$ 4 & 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 8.87& 0.006& $\\;$ 79.6 $\\pm$ 1.0& 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.01& $\\;$ 84.9 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.91 $\\pm$ 0.08 & 14 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 9.07& 0.006& $\\;$ 79.2 $\\pm$ 1.0& 0.85 $\\pm$ 0.01& $\\;$ 85.3 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.89 $\\pm$ 0.08 & 15 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 9.26& 0.006& $\\;$ 78.0 $\\pm$ 1.0& 0.83 $\\pm$ 0.02& $\\;$ 85.1 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\\pm$ 0.08 & 18 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.85 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 9.45& 0.006& $\\;$ 77.9 $\\pm$ 1.2& 0.81 $\\pm$ 0.02& $\\;$ 87.5 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.08 & 13 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.83 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 9.63& 0.006& $\\;$ 79.6 $\\pm$ 1.2& 0.80 $\\pm$ 0.02& $\\;$ 89.4 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 14 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.81 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 9.78& 0.006& $\\;$ 79.8 $\\pm$ 1.2& 0.79 $\\pm$ 0.02& $\\;$ 90.5 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.84 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 14 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.81 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n$\\;$ 9.92& 0.006& $\\;$ 79.0 $\\pm$ 1.2& 0.78 $\\pm$ 0.01& $\\;$ 89.7 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\\pm$ 0.07 &$\\;\\,$3 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n10.09& 0.005& $\\;$ 78.8 $\\pm$ 1.0& 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.01& $\\;$ 89.7 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\\pm$ 0.07 &$\\;\\,$3 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n10.26& 0.005& $\\;$ 80.4 $\\pm$ 1.0& 0.76 $\\pm$ 0.01& $\\;$ 91.5 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\\pm$ 0.07 &$\\;\\,$5 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n10.42& 0.005& $\\;$ 84.5 $\\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.01& $\\;$ 93.7 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 13 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n10.58& 0.005& $\\;$ 87.3 $\\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.02& $\\;$ 98.1 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.84 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 15 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n10.71& 0.005& $\\;$ 89.2 $\\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.01& $\\;$ 99.6 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.85 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 15 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n10.84& 0.005& $\\;$ 91.2 $\\pm$ 1.2& 0.76 $\\pm$ 0.01& 102.2 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 11 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n10.99& 0.004& $\\;$ 94.8 $\\pm$ 1.4& 0.76 $\\pm$ 0.01& 104.5 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.86 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 15 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.76 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n11.14& 0.004& $\\;$ 96.3 $\\pm$ 1.2& 0.76 $\\pm$ 0.01& 105.7 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.87 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 14 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n11.29& 0.004& $\\;$ 97.8 $\\pm$ 1.2& 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.01& 106.8 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 15 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n11.43& 0.005& $\\;$ 98.9 $\\pm$ 1.4& 0.76 $\\pm$ 0.01& 108.2 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.87 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 15 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n11.55& 0.005& 100.5 $\\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.01& 109.8 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 14 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n11.67& 0.005& 101.6 $\\pm$ 1.4& 0.77 $\\pm$ 0.01& 110.8 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 15 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.78 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n11.81& 0.004& 103.4 $\\pm$ 1.4& 0.78 $\\pm$ 0.02& 112.3 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 16 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.79 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n11.95& 0.004& 104.7 $\\pm$ 1.2& 0.79 $\\pm$ 0.01& 113.2 $\\pm$ 5.0& 0.88 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 19 $\\pm$ 4 & 0.80 $\\pm$ 0.03\\\n\nThis is the mean visibility error used for the corresponding wavelength bin. See Sect.\u00a0\\[secObsSubRed\\] for the definition of this value.\n\nThe left hand panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig3D\\] shows the fit to all 25 wavelength bins. Clearly, the first zero shifts to lower spatial frequencies with increasing wavelength, i.e.\u00a0the FDD diameter,\u00a0$\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD}}$, increases with increasing wavelength. At the same time, the relative flux contribution, $\\epsilon$, of the FDD decreases. This behavior is shown more exactly in the two parameter plots in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigPara\\]. From these panels it can be derived that $\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD}}$ actually stays constant at a value of about (80\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a01.2)\u00a0mas between 8 and 10\u00a0$\\mu$m, while it gradually increases at wavelengths longer than 10\u00a0$\\mu$m to reach (105\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a01.2)\u00a0mas at 12\u00a0$\\mu$m. The diameter increase in the longer wavelength regime corresponds to a relative increase, $\\theta_{FDD,12\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$/$\\theta_{FDD,10\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$, of (31\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a03)%. This apparent increase from 80\u00a0mas to 105\u00a0mas is equivalent to an increase from 7.1\u00a0AU to 9.5\u00a0AU at the distance of W\u00a0Hya. The molecules and close dust species causing this shape are already indicated inside the plot, but will be discussed further in Sect.\u00a0\\[secModSubRes\\]. In contrast, the relative flux decreases from (0.85\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02) to (0.77\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02), reflecting the increased flux contribution from the fully resolved colder surrounding silicate dust shell going to longer wavelengths. A fit to the unbinned grism data results in the same shapes and does not reveal any additional features.\n\n![image](16310_fg09.ps){width=\"0.49\\linewidth\"} ![image](16310_fg10.ps){width=\"0.49\\linewidth\"}\n\n![image](16310_fg11.ps){width=\"0.49\\linewidth\"} ![image](16310_fg12.ps){width=\"0.49\\linewidth\"}\n\nWavelength dependence of the diameter {#secPhaseSubWave}\n-------------------------------------\n\nBefore interpreting the previously obtained FDD diameter behavior in the next section, it is set in relation to measurements at other wavelengths. Figure\u00a0\\[FigDia\\] shows interferometric the diameter determinations reported by various authors from the visual to the mid-IR. They were obtained by fitting a Gaussian (green), a uniform disk (UD, red) or a fully limb-darkened disk (FDD, blue). A conversion between the models is not performed, since the various diameter determinations depend on the spatial frequency coverage[^17]. Information on visual light phases and position angles (if applicable) of these observations can be found in Table\u00a0\\[TableAuthor\\]. In addition to the FDD diameter, derived in this study from the fit to the full data set, the diameter trends at visual maximum (upper curve) and visual minimum (lower curve) are plotted as well (cf.\u00a0Sect.\u00a0\\[secPhaseSubLight\\]).\n\nThe observed apparent diameter changes dramatically within the given wavelength range due to the strong wavelength-dependent opacities of the atmospheric constituents (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0Baschek et al.\u00a0[@Baschek_et91] and Scholz et al.\u00a0[@Scholz01]). In the optical, the measured diameters are sensitive to TiO bands. The largest variations are around the strongest bands at 712\u00a0nm and 670\u00a0nm with apparent diameter enlargements of up to a factor of\u00a02. It is notable that the diameters observed at around visual minimum by Ireland et al.\u00a0([@Ireland04]) are systematically larger compared to the diameters obtained at around visual maximum by Tuthill et al.\u00a0([@Tuthill99]). Ireland et al.\u00a0([@Ireland04]) conclude that significant dust production occurs near minimum, and suggest that the large increase in apparent diameter towards the blue is caused by light scattered by dust. Gaussian diameters between 0.7 and 1.0\u00a0$\\mu$m were measured by Ireland et al.\u00a0([@Ireland04]) at two position angles ($120^{\\circ}$ and $252^{\\circ}$). Even though the diameters at both position angles are slightly different, the authors conclude that this is not significant.\n\nIn the near-IR, H$_2$O and CO in different layers are predominantly responsible for the wavelength dependence of the diameter. Most of the observations are conducted at J, H, and K\u00a0bands (1.25, 1.65, and 2.2\u00a0$\\mu$m, respectively). It can be inferred that also in the near-IR diameters vary by a factor of\u00a02 and that there is a complex diameter dependence on pulsation cycle and pulsation phase (cf.\u00a0 e.g.\u00a0Weiner et al.\u00a0[@Weiner_et03]; Woodruff et al.\u00a0[@Woodruff09]). The gap at around 2.7\u00a0$\\mu$m in the curve of Woodruff et al.\u00a0([@Woodruff09]) comes from telluric contamination. A reasonable estimate for the true photospheric diameter of an AGB star can be obtained from uniform disk measurements at K-Band. The 2.2\u00a0$\\mu$m diameter is approximately 1.2\u00a0times the true photospheric diameter (e.g.\u00a0Millan-Gabet et al.\u00a0[@Millan05]).\n\nWishnow et al.\u00a0([@Wishnow_et10]) assume a UD diameter of the stellar component in the mid-IR (11.15\u00a0$\\mu$m) of about 50\u00a0mas for their model. However, this value was reported as not very accurate. Since the FDD diameters obtained with MIDI describe a region whose exact location depends on the flux contribution of all constituents (continuum photosphere, atmospheric molecular layers, and nearby dust shells; cf.\u00a0Sect.\u00a0\\[secModSubRes\\]) as function of wavelength and pulsation phase, and not only the photosphere of the star, both diameters are not comparable, and the apparent discrepancy can be explained. The average of all diameters at 2.2\u00a0$\\mu$m of the authors given in Table\u00a0\\[TableAuthor\\] is (42.8\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a03.5)\u00a0mas. This gives a ratio, $\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD},10\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$/$\\theta_{\\mathrm{UD},2.2\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$, of 1.8\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.2. The UD fit value should be used to compare similar models, and the ratio, $\\theta_{\\mathrm{UD},10\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$/$\\theta_{\\mathrm{UD},2.2\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$, becomes 1.6\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.2. From the mean K-band diameter the photospheric diameter, $\\theta_{\\mathrm{phot}}$, can be estimated to about 36\u00a0mas (42.8\u00a0mas divided by 1.2, cf.\u00a0previous paragraph). This value is assumed for $\\theta_{\\mathrm{phot}}$ throughout this paper and gives a mid-IR to photospheric diameter ratio, $\\theta_{\\mathrm{UD},10\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$/$\\theta_{\\mathrm{phot}}$, of 1.9\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.2.\n\nMaser observations of different molecules give additional diameter constraints. SiO and H$_2$O masers probe inner regions where the molecular spheres are present and dust formation takes place, while OH masers trace wind regions farther out. Ring diameters for SiO masers were determined by Miyoshi et al.\u00a0([@Miyoshi_et94]), Cotton et al.\u00a0([@Cotton_et04], [@Cotton_et08]), Reid\u00a0& Menten\u00a0([@Reid_Menten07]), and Imai et al.\u00a0([@Imai_et10]). The average of their diameters is about (77\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a011)\u00a0mas, which gives a ratio, $\\theta_{\\mathrm{SiO}}$/$\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD},10\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$, of 1.0\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.1 ($\\theta_{\\mathrm{SiO}}$/$\\theta_{\\mathrm{UD},10\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$\u00a0= 0.9\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.1). H$_2$O maser ring diameters for W\u00a0Hya are on the order of 300\u00a0mas (Reid & Menten [@Reid_Menten90]), while OH maser ring diameters at 1665 and 1667\u00a0MHz were determined to about 700 and 1130\u00a0mas, respectively (Szymczak et al.\u00a0[@Szymczak_et98], but see also Shintani et al.\u00a0[@Shintani_et08]). In addition, thermal line emissions of HCN (Muller et al.\u00a0[@Muller_et08] and Ziurys et al.\u00a0[@Ziurys_et09]) and CO (e.g.\u00a0Olofsson et al.\u00a0[@Olofsson_et02] and Ziurys et al.\u00a0[@Ziurys_et09]) were repeatedly detected as well.\n\n![image](16310_fg13.ps){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\n[llccl]{} & Author & Model & Phase$^{\\mathrm{a}}$ & Comments and position angles (PA)\\\nA:& Lattanzi et al.\u00a0([@Lattanzi97]) & UD & 0.64 & two perpendicular axes ($\\eta$\u00a0$\\approx$\u00a00.86, PA\u00a0$\\approx$\u00a0$143^{\\circ}$, 583\u00a0nm)\\\nB:& Ireland et al.\u00a0([@Ireland04]) & Gaussian & 0.44 & upper curve for PA\u00a0$120^{\\circ}$ and lower curve for PA\u00a0$252^{\\circ}$ ($0.7-1.0$\u00a0$\\mu$m)\\\nC:& Haniff et al.\u00a0([@Haniff_et95]) & UD & 0.04 & uniform disk diameter at 700 and 710\u00a0nm\\\nD:& Tuthill et al.\u00a0([@Tuthill99]) & Gaussian & 0.04 & elliptical Gaussian at 700 and 710\u00a0nm ($\\eta$\u00a0$\\approx$\u00a00.94, PA\u00a0$\\approx$\u00a0$93^{\\circ}$)\\\nE:& Monnier et al.\u00a0([@Monnier04]) & UD & 0.50 & UD model was reported as a bad fit to the data (K band)\\\nF:& Woodruff et al.\u00a0([@Woodruff09]) & UD & $0.58-1.53$ & curves for phase 0.58\u00a0(middle), 0.79\u00a0(lower) and 1.53\u00a0(upper)\\\nG:& Woodruff et al.\u00a0([@Woodruff08]) & UD & $0.50-1.00$ & mean of multiple measurements in given phase range (J, H, K, & L band)\\\nH:& Millan-Gabet et al.\u00a0([@Millan05])& UD & 0.60 & UD diameter for H and K bands\\\nI:& Wishnow et al.\u00a0([@Wishnow_et10]) & UD & $0.1-1.1$ & assumed photospheric UD diameter at 11.15\u00a0$\\mu$m, reported as not very accurate\\\nJ:& this work & FDD & 0.00 & 0.50 & curves for full data set (middle), max (upper), and min (lower) light\\\n\n$^{\\mathrm{a}}$\u00a0visual light phase (phases refer to the phases determined by the original authors)\n\nDiscussion and interpretation {#secModSubRes}\n-----------------------------\n\nStudying the interplay of the extended pulsating atmosphere with molecular spheres directly above and the dust formation and wind acceleration zone farther out is crucial for understanding the physical and chemical processes working in AGB stars. With the MIDI interferometer, the photosphere and molecular layers of W\u00a0Hya are probed, sampling also the region where the first seeds for dust formation originate.\n\nThe spectrum in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigSpec\\] shows that molecules, such as CO, H$_2$O, and SiO, are present in the upper atmosphere. In the N-band between 8 and 13\u00a0$\\mu$m, strong pure-rotation lines of H$_2$O are expected. In addition, SiO exhibits fundamental bands between 8 and 10\u00a0$\\mu$m (Decin\u00a0[@Decin00]). Modeling by Justtanont et al.\u00a0([@Justtanont_et04]) also reveals at least three different dust species, namely amorphous silicate, Al$_2$O$_3$, and MgFeO, which are likely located at different distances from the star. In particular, amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ provides significant opacity for wavelengths longwards of 10\u00a0$\\mu$m (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0Koike et al.\u00a0[@Koike_et95], Begemann et al.\u00a0[@Begemann_et97], Posch et al.\u00a0[@Posch_et99], Egan & Sloan\u00a0[@Egan_Sloan01], Woitke et al.\u00a0[@Woitke06], Ireland & Scholz\u00a0[@Ireland_Scholz06] and Robinson & Maldoni\u00a0[@Robinson_Maldoni10]), and it can survive at high temperatures.\n\nQuasi-static, warm, and dense molecular layers close to the star, at typically $2-3$\u00a0photospheric radii ($R_{\\mathrm{phot}}$), are detected for O-rich (e.g.\u00a0Mennesson et al.\u00a0[@Mennesson_et02]; Perrin et al.\u00a0[@Perrin_et04]; Ireland et al.\u00a0[@Ireland_et04d]; Woodruff et al.\u00a0[@Woodruff_et04] and Fedele et al.\u00a0[@Fedele_et2005]) and C-rich (e.g.\u00a0Hron et al.\u00a0[@Hron_et98] and Ohnaka et al.\u00a0[@Ohnaka_et07]) AGB stars, as well as for RSG stars (e.g.\u00a0Perrin et al.\u00a0[@Perrin_et07]). These layers were introduced earlier to explain spectroscopic observations (e.g.\u00a0Hinkle & Barnes\u00a0[@Hinkle_Barnes_79]; Tsuji et al.\u00a0[@Tsuji_et97] and Yamamura et al.\u00a0[@Yamamura_et99]).\n\nIn particular, the O-rich Miras RR\u00a0Sco (Ohnaka et al.\u00a0[@Ohnaka_et05]) and S\u00a0Ori (Wittkowski et al.\u00a0[@Wittkowski_et07]) show a diameter behavior very similar to that of W\u00a0Hya throughout the N-band. Comparing the shape from the left hand panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[FigPara\\] with Fig.\u00a01e in Ohnaka et al.\u00a0([@Ohnaka_et05]) and Figs.\u00a0$2-5$d in Wittkowski et al.\u00a0([@Wittkowski_et07]) leads to the idea that, in all three stars, the same constituents and mechanisms are responsible for this appearance.\n\nThe diameter ratio $\\theta_{12\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$/$\\theta_{10\\mu\\mathrm{m}}$ is approximately\u00a01.3 for RR\u00a0Sco, for S\u00a0Ori between 1.3 and 1.5, and for W\u00a0Hya approximately\u00a01.3 (Sect.\u00a0\\[secModSubModel\\]). Even the increase between the K-band diameter and the diameter at 10\u00a0$\\mu$m is similar. The ratio $\\theta_{\\mathrm{UD},10 \\mu\\mathrm{m}}$/$\\theta_{\\mathrm{UD},2.2 \\mu\\mathrm{m}}$ is for RR\u00a0Sco approximately 1.8, for S\u00a0Ori between 1.6 and 2.2 and for W\u00a0Hya approximately\u00a01.6 (Sect.\u00a0\\[secPhaseSubWave\\]).\n\nOhnaka et al.\u00a0([@Ohnaka_et05]) modeled RR\u00a0Sco by adding a molecular layer of H$_2$O and SiO, and a dust layer, consisting of aluminum oxide and silicates, to a static star with a fixed temperature. This composition reproduced the N-band diameter behavior very reasonably, with an inner radius for the dust shell of 7.5\u00a0$R_{\\mathrm{phot}}$, while the molecular layers were located at a radius of 2.3\u00a0$R_{\\mathrm{phot}}$. The large dust shell radius might be due to the mix of 80% aluminum oxide (Al$_2$O$_3$) and 20% silicates and because the same density profile and inner condensation radius were used for both dust species.\n\nWittkowski et al.\u00a0([@Wittkowski_et07]) modeled S\u00a0Ori with the dynamic atmospheric models of Ireland et al.\u00a0([@Ireland_et04b], [@Ireland_et04c]), where the molecular layers are naturally included and only the dust shell has to be added ad hoc. This assumes that the stellar atmosphere and dust shell are spatially separated. They allowed different density profiles and condensation radii for the aluminum oxide and silicate dust. The model without silicates fitted the data better. The inner boundary of the Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell varied between 1.8 and 2.4 photospheric radii. At visual minimum, the dust shell was more compact with a larger optical depth, and it had a smaller radius, while at visual maximum the opposite was the case.\n\nW\u00a0Hya can be explained by a similar model. The overall larger diameter in the mid-IR is caused by a warm molecular layer of H$_2$O, and the gradual increase longward of 10\u00a0$\\mu$m arises most likely from the presence of Al$_2$O$_3$ dust close to this layer. A nearby SiO molecular shell might be of some relevance for the diameter enlargement between 8 and 10\u00a0$\\mu$m as well. The formation of Al$_2$O$_3$ dust at these short distances from the stellar surface would be consistent with the empirical results by Lorenz-Martins & Pompeia ([@LorenzMartins_Pompeia00]), as well as with recent theoretical calculations by Ireland & Scholz ([@Ireland_Scholz06]) and Woitke ([@Woitke06]).\n\nDust can only exist close to the star if the temperature is below the condensation temperature of the dust species. A rough estimate of the equivalent blackbody temperature from the total MIDI flux, the flux fraction\u00a0$\\epsilon$, and the diameter\u00a0$\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD}}$ gives a value of about (800\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a0100)\u00a0K at the location of the FDD radius. This temperature is low enough that aluminum oxide dust can condensate (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0Woitke\u00a0[@Woitke_et99]). Since Al$_2$O$_3$ has only a moderate abundance and a low absorption efficiency at optical and near-IR wavelengths, i.e.\u00a0near the flux maximum at around 1\u00a0$\\mu$m, it cannot be responsible for initiating the mass loss (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0Woitke\u00a0[@Woitke06]). Al$_2$O$_3$ can exist close to the star without inducing mass loss.\n\nScattering off large Fe-free silicate grains may solve this problem, as these micron-sized silicates do not have a considerable absorption cross-section, but a high radiative scattering cross-section around the flux maximum at 1\u00a0$\\mu$m (cf.\u00a0H[\u00f6]{}fner\u00a0[@Hoefner08]). However, these grains are not detected with MIDI. If a large amount of Fe-free silicates existed *close* to the star, an emission feature in the MIDI spectrum at around 10\u00a0$\\mu$m would be present (due to strong vibrational resonances), and it would also modify the apparent FDD diameter around this wavelength. Therefore, the wind acceleration mechanism proposed by H[\u00f6]{}fner\u00a0([@Hoefner08]) cannot be directly verified. However, since the mass-loss rate of W\u00a0Hya is very low (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0Nowotny et al.\u00a0[@Nowotny_et10]), this behavior is not surprising. This applies not only to W\u00a0Hya, but also to RR\u00a0Sco and S\u00a0Ori. All three O-rich AGB stars have moderate to low mass-loss rates. The similar behavior of the apparent diameter throughout the N-band suggests that the appropriate mechanism for a moderate-to-low mass-loss rate is similar, since the conditions appear similar in the transition region (between the photosphere and the silicate dust shell) where the wind should be initiated, even if the mechanism cannot be clarified here. In general, another possibility of forming a wind in O-rich AGB stars is to accelerate small amounts of carbon grains (H[\u00f6]{}fner & Anderson\u00a0[@HoefnerAndersen_07]). Unfortunately, these carbon grains, formed in nonequilibrium environments, do not show any spectral features in the mid-infrared and would probably produce IR colors that are not consistent with the observations (H[\u00f6]{}fner, private communication). In this context it might be interesting to know whether scattering on Al$_2$O$_3$ grains is important, even if they are probably not abundant enough. Also the role of large amounts of water vapor in molecular shells and the radiation pressure on water molecules may need more detailed calculations.\n\nAs described in the previous section, W\u00a0Hya exhibits SiO maser emission at a distance of about 0.9 times the equivalent UD diameter. The SiO maser spots are therefore co-located with the close aluminum oxide dust shell. This is very similar to what was found for S\u00a0Ori (Wittkowski et al.\u00a0[@Wittkowski_et07]), and supports an explanation by a similar model.\n\nFrom the analysis of the spectrum and the fact that the flux contribution of the star/layer is below one, it was concluded that a circumstellar silicate dust shell exists around W\u00a0Hya with a lower limit to the condensation radius of about 28\u00a0times the photospheric radius. At these large radii, aluminum oxide dust grains are no longer detectable, since silicon and magnesium are much more abundant than aluminum, and they dominate the dust opacities. The low flux contribution of the silicate dust shell is consistent with a low mass-loss rate of W\u00a0Hya.\n\nWith the previous results, the shape of the visibility curves in the left hand panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[FigUVall\\] can be understood qualitatively. The visibility increase between 8 and 10\u00a0$\\mu$m corresponds to the partially resolved stellar disk (including the close molecular layers) at an almost constant FDD diameter, while in the region between 10 and 12\u00a0$\\mu$m, the flux contribution of the spatially resolved Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell becomes more relevant. This leads longward of 10\u00a0$\\mu$m to the nearly flat visibility curve and an increased FDD diameter (cf.\u00a0Ohnaka et al.\u00a0[@Ohnaka_et05] and Wittkowski et al.\u00a0[@Wittkowski_et07]). In addition, extinction of the outer silicate dust shell becomes important. The comparison with RR\u00a0Sco and S\u00a0Ori suggests that the partially resolved molecular layers are optically thick and that the nearby Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell is optically thin.\n\nIt is clear that quantitative modeling is needed to support the above findings, in particular, if the derived constituents of the close molecular and dust layers (H$_2$O, SiO?, Al$_2$O$_3$) can really provide sufficient opacities to explain the observed diameter dependence on wavelength, in particular if Al$_2$O$_3$ could cause the apparent diameter increase beyond 10\u00a0$\\mu$m. To quantify the results, it will be necessary to apply dynamic atmospheric models of e.g.\u00a0Ireland & Scholz ([@Ireland_Scholz06]). Even if Al$_2$O$_3$ dust has not been consistently included in these models so far, and has often to be added ad hoc[^18]. This will give more detailed insight into the physical processes at work there.\n\nAsymmetry, intracycle variations, and cycle-to-cycle variations {#secPhase}\n===============================================================\n\nSince observations at similar pulsation phases were mostly conducted at similar position angles, the effects of different diameters, owing to asymmetry and pulsation, are unfortunately not easy to disentangle. At visual minimum, the position angles (PA) cluster at around 90$^\\circ$ (green tick marks in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_p\\]). At these position angles, the visibilities are higher than expected for a circular FDD, i.e.,\u00a0a smaller diameter is observed. At visual maximum, the PA is around 50$^\\circ$ (red tick marks in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_p\\]) with the result of getting lower visibilities as expected for a circular FDD, i.e.,\u00a0a larger diameter. This trend is more clearly shown in the right hand panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig3D\\], where the visibilities of the observations and the visibilities of a circular FDD are compared as a function of position angle. Obviously, the difference between both quantities changes its sign by going from 0$^\\circ$ to 90$^\\circ$.\n\nThe above behavior is notable if all 75 observations over all three pulsation cycles are included in the investigation. A careful analysis, as described below, reveals both effects in W\u00a0Hya. The result will be that the diameter variation due to an elliptical asymmetry and due to the pulsation effect have the same order of magnitude.\n\nThe pulsation cycle is divided into four bins as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_p\\]. Bins\u00a01, 2, and 3 consist of 23, 42, and 10 observations with phase ranges $0.875-0.125$, $0.125-0.375$, and $0.375-0.625$, respectively. There are no observations for bin\u00a04 with a phase range of $0.625-0.875$. Bin\u00a01 contains observations at visual maximum and bin\u00a03 observations at visual minimum.\n\nElliptical asymmetry {#secPhaseSubAsy}\n--------------------\n\n![image](16310_fg14.ps){width=\"0.49\\linewidth\"} ![image](16310_fg15.ps){width=\"0.49\\linewidth\"}\n\nStudying asymmetric features requires a good angular uv-coverage at each projected baseline length obtained within a reasonable time. Since the dependence on the visual light phase introduces already additional complexity into the model, only a simple elliptical model can be applied in order to get an indication for a departure from symmetry.\n\nFor these reasons, an elliptical FDD is fitted to subsets of the full data set. Each subset contains data with similar spatial frequencies and a narrow visual light phase range at a certain pulsation cycle. For all these configurations the resulting fits show similar nonuniformity with comparable position angles and axis ratios. The fit was repeated for the full data set to obtain an overall departure from symmetry and to have a more reliable uncertainty estimation, since the subsets have a high scatter and can contain discordant values due to fewer data points. The similarity of the results for the subsets shows that the ellipticity is stable to first order over a few years, over a certain stellar extension, and not dependent on the pulsation phase. Therefore, the parameters obtained for the full data set are given in Table\u00a0\\[TableResults\\].\n\nListed are the major diameters, $\\theta_{\\mathrm{FDD,maj}}$, the axis ratios, $\\eta$, the position angles, $\\vartheta$, and the relative fluxes, $\\epsilon$. The mean $\\vartheta$ and $\\eta$ over the full wavelength range are (11.2\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a06.2)$^\\circ$ and (0.87\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.07), respectively. Compared to the symmetric FDD, the fluxes are identical within the errors as expected, while the reduced chi square estimates gave lower values, thus indicating a slightly better model. The right hand panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[FigSymModel\\] shows the fit of the elliptical FDD for wavelength bin\u00a06 (9.07\u00a0$\\mu$m). The visibility model curves for the minor and major axes are drawn together with the data points, showing that they fit the measurements at the corresponding angles.\n\nHowever, the parameter errors are most probably underestimated because of the high number of free parameters in combination with not negligible uncertainties in the data. In particular, the PA estimation is not very well constrained, and the error might be more on the order of 15$^\\circ$ to 20$^\\circ$, if compared with all fitted subsets. Figure\u00a0\\[FigAsymModel\\] shows the asymmetric appearance of W\u00a0Hya. The left hand panel shows the fit of the elliptical FDD for a representative wavelength, and the right hand panel displays the corresponding appearance on the sky for this model and mid-IR wavelength. The investigation of the differential phases obtained with MIDI are unfortunately not conclusive, since they are smaller than the assumed errors, and no additional constrains can be inferred from them.\n\nPosition angle estimations in the literature are very contradictory and are summarized in Table\u00a0\\[TablePA\\] and illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigGlobal\\]. Lattanzi et al.\u00a0([@Lattanzi97])[^19] and Tuthill et al.\u00a0([@Tuthill99]) have found in the visual a PA of 143$^\\circ$ and (94\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a033)$^\\circ$, respectively, while no asymmetries could be detected in the near IR within the measurement uncertainties (Ireland et al.\u00a0[@Ireland04] and Monnier et al.\u00a0[@Monnier04]). From the photospheric radio continuum, Reid\u00a0& Menten\u00a0([@Reid_Menten07]) determine a PA of (83\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a018)$^\\circ$, whereas Szymczak et al.\u00a0([@Szymczak_et98]) find for the projected angle of the magnetic field on the plane of the sky, obtained from OH maser observations, a value of about $-20^\\circ$ (the PA of the underlying OH maser distribution is 70$^\\circ$), and a velocity discontinuity along the N$\\rightarrow$S axis. The 215.2\u00a0GHz SO line, observed by Vlemmings et al.\u00a0([@Vlemmings_et11]), also shows an velocity gradient along an N$\\rightarrow$S axis with an PA of the structure of (3\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a010)$^\\circ$. Muller et al.\u00a0([@Muller_et08]) detect in the HCN velocity an NW$\\rightarrow$SE gradient. Interestingly, the outer dust envelope, observed by Marengo et al.\u00a0([@Marengo_et00]) at 18\u00a0$\\mu$m, shows a very similar N$-$S elongation as determined in this work. Asymmetries in the SiO and H$_2$O maser spot distributions were, e.g., reported by Reid & Menten ([@Reid_Menten90],[@Reid_Menten07]) and Imai et al.\u00a0([@Imai_et10]).\n\n![image](16310_fg16.ps){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\n[lclccc]{} Author & Ref$^{\\mathrm{a}}$ & Obs Date & PA ($^\\circ$) & Wavelength & Region$^{\\mathrm{b}}$\\\nLattanzi et al.\u00a0([@Lattanzi97]) & \\[8\\] & 1995 Dec 17 & 143$^{\\mathrm{c}}$ & 583 nm & inner\\\nTuthill et al.\u00a0([@Tuthill99]) & \\[7\\] & 1993 Jun & 94\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a033 & 700 and 710\u00a0nm & inner\\\nIreland et al.\u00a0([@Ireland04]) & $-$ & 2001 Feb 8/9 & $-^{\\mathrm{d}}$ & $680-940$\u00a0nm & inner\\\nMonnier et al.\u00a0([@Monnier04]) & $-$ & 2000 Jan/Feb & $-^{\\mathrm{d}}$ & 2.25\u00a0$\\mu$m (K band) & inner\\\nthis work & \\[9\\] & $2007-2009$ & 11\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a020 & $8-12$\u00a0$\\mu$m (N band) & inner\\\nReid & Menten ([@Reid_Menten07]) & \\[6\\] & 2000 Oct/Nov & 83\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a018 & 43\u00a0GHz (radio continuum) & inner\\\n& \\[5\\] & 2000 Oct/Nov & contours & 43\u00a0GHz (SiO maser) & inner\\\nImai et al.\u00a0([@Imai_et10]) & \\[10\\] & 2009 Feb & spots & 43\u00a0GHz (SiO maser) & inner\\\nReid & Menten ([@Reid_Menten90]) & \\[4\\] & 1990 Feb & contours & 22\u00a0GHz (H$_2$O maser) & intermediate\\\nMarengo et al.\u00a0([@Marengo_et00]) & $-^{\\mathrm{e}}$ & 1999 Jun & N$-$S & $18$\u00a0$\\mu$m (1.18\u201d$\\times$1.45\u201d $FWHM$) & outer\\\nSzymczak et al.\u00a0([@Szymczak_et98])& \\[1\\] & 1996 Jan 15 & N$\\rightarrow$S & 1667\u00a0MHz (OH maser), velocity gradient & outer\\\n& \\[2\\] & 1996 Jan 15 & $-20$\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a020$^{\\mathrm{f}}$ & 1667\u00a0MHz (OH maser), magnetic field & outer\\\nMuller et al.\u00a0([@Muller_et08]) & \\[3\\] & 2008 Apr 13/15& NW$\\rightarrow$SE & 266\u00a0GHz (thermal HCN), velocity gradient & outer\\\nVlemmings et al.\u00a0([@Vlemmings_et11])& $-^{\\mathrm{e}}$ & 2008 Jul 20 & 3\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a010 & 215\u00a0GHz (SO $5_5-4_4$) & outer\\\n\n$^{\\mathrm{a}}$\u00a0numbering used in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigGlobal\\]; $^{\\mathrm{b}}$\u00a0probed regions: inner\u00a0=\u00a0$50-100$\u00a0mas, outer\u00a0$\\approx$\u00a01000\u00a0mas; $^{\\mathrm{c}}$\u00a0the true major axis cannot be recovered since observations are at two perpendicular baselines; $^{\\mathrm{d}}$\u00a0no departures from symmetry could be detected within the measurement uncertainties; $^{\\mathrm{e}}$\u00a0not shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigGlobal\\] since the whole structure does not fit into the illustration; $^{\\mathrm{f}}$\u00a0the position angle of the major axis of the underlying OH maser distribution is 70$^\\circ$\n\nFrom Fig.\u00a0\\[FigGlobal\\] it can be inferred that the reported velocity gradients and the magnetic field alignment are approximately in a direction perpendicular to an E-W axis where most of the maser spots are located. If the velocity gradients originate from a general rotation of the circumstellar environment and the maser spots trace the highest molecule concentrations, then this might suggest that molecular gas is primarily ejected along this E-W polar axis. This would be also consistent with the PA of the photospheric radio continuum. The dust emission traced by the observations at $18$\u00a0$\\mu$m and the N-band are approximately elongated in a more perpendicular direction to this. This might suggest that the dust is more concentrated in an equatorial disk (or ring) located along an N-S axis. Therefore, one could conclude that the molecular gas and the dust are spatially separated, i.e., they have preferred ejection directions, and the different observational wavelengths probe this.\n\nHowever, this is still very uncertain since not all PA determinations fit into this picture or deviate quite a lot from this, e.g., the PAs at optical wavelengths and the 215\u00a0GHz PA. Therefore, a strict connection between the outer structures and the close stellar regions also cannot really be established. One has to keep in mind that the concentration of maser spots along the E-W polar axis may only reflect that no velocity gradients exists along this axis and masers are traceable because of the inexistent Doppler shifts.\n\nOther explanations are therefore still possible, in particular if time-dependent effects are important. The wide range of measured PAs at close photospheric radii might be related to a nonradial pulsation or due to clumpy dust formation. A temporally varying non-symmetric brightness distribution could also be caused by stellar spots or large convection zones. A deformation as a result of a close companion can most probably be excluded, since no evidence for such a scenario has been observed so far. However, from the data collected here, no significant temporal trends could be derived. In particular, the MIDI observations did not show any time variations of the asymmetry over about three years. This calls for more high-resolution observations and more detailed modeling. A connection to the highly elongated structures seen in planetary nebulae cannot be drawn, since W\u00a0Hya is believed to be still in an early AGB phase.\n\nIntracycle variations {#secPhaseSubLight}\n---------------------\n\nTo estimate a light phase dependent angular diameter in the presence of a position angle dependence, the projected baseline values of the input data are transformed in a way such that the elliptical model transforms into a circular model. This means that the projected baselines are artificially shortened (around the major axis) or lengthened (around the minor axis), i.e.\u00a0as function of position angle, so that an elliptical model fit to the data shows no departure from circular symmetry in the new coordinate system. The parameters derived from the elliptical FFD fit are used for this shearing. This transformation keeps the fitted absolute diameter values from being meaningful, so only differences with respect to a fit of a circular FDD to the full sheared data set are given.\n\nThe fit of a circular FDD to the sheared data of the intermediate phase bin (bin\u00a02) gives on average a (1.2\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a02.3)\u00a0mas smaller diameter. The difference between maximum phase, with an on average (2.2\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a02.3)\u00a0mas larger diameter, and minimum phase, with an on average (3.2\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a03.7)\u00a0mas smaller diameter, is (5.4\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a01.8)\u00a0mas (cf.\u00a0left hand panel of Table\u00a0\\[TableVar\\]). This corresponds to a percentage change of (6\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a02)%. The individual wavelength-dependent trends can be seen in the left hand panel of Figure\u00a0\\[FigPara\\]. As can be inferred from the plot, the shapes for all individual phase bins are very similar, indicating again that the different constituents probed at different wavelengths behave similarly. The relative flux was fixed to the value obtained for the full data set (shown in the right hand panel of Fig.\u00a0\\[FigPara\\]).\n\n[ccccc]{} Phase & Phase & No of & Absolute$^{\\mathrm{c}}$ FDD & Relative$^{\\mathrm{c}}$ FDD\\\n\u00a0Bin$^{\\mathrm{a}}$ & Range & Obs. & Difference (mas) & Diameter\\\n1 & 0.875$-$0.125 & 23 & $+$(2.2\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a02.3) & 1.02\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02\\\n2 & 0.125$-$0.375 & 42 & $-$(1.2\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a02.3) & 0.99\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02\\\n3 & 0.375$-$0.625 & 10 & $-$(3.2\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a03.7) & 0.96\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.04\\\n4 & 0.625$-$0.875 & 0 & \u2013 & \u2013\\\n\n[cccc]{} Cycle$^{\\mathrm{b}}$ & No of & Absolute$^{\\mathrm{c}}$ FDD & Relative$^{\\mathrm{c}}$ FDD\\\n& Obs. & Difference (mas) & Diameter\\\n\u00a0\u00a01 & 8 & $-$(2.9\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a02.4) & 0.97\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02\\\n\u00a0\u00a02 & 8 & $-$(3.1\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a02.4) & 0.96\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02\\\n\u00a0\u00a03 & 11 & $+$(1.5\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a03.0) & 1.02\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.03\\\n\n$^{\\mathrm{a}}$\u00a0cf.\u00a0Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_p\\]; $^{\\mathrm{b}}$\u00a0cf.\u00a0Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_t\\]; $^{\\mathrm{c}}$\u00a0in respect to the full data set value\n\nThe diameter variation is relatively small compared to the findings by Wittkowski et al.\u00a0([@Wittkowski_et07]) for the Mira variable S\u00a0Ori. A phase-dependent diameter of S\u00a0Ori cannot be derived directly from their measurements, since observations at visual maximum and visual minimum were executed at different projected baselines. However, from the modeling results shown in their Fig.\u00a012, it can be roughly estimated that the photospheric diameter changes by approximately (15\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a05)% and show a similar behavior as function of visual phase. The smaller variation for W\u00a0Hya can be expected since it has a smaller visual amplitude and is classified as an SRa/Mira variable, but it could also be related to the large phase-binning used in this study.\n\nThe observed smaller angular diameter at visual minimum and the larger angular diameter at visual maximum can be explained by the phase-dependent presence of water vapor (Matsuura et al.\u00a0[@Matsuura_et02]) and aluminum oxide dust (Ireland & Scholz [@Ireland_Scholz06] and Wittkowski et al.\u00a0[@Wittkowski_et07]). The star is hotter at visual maximum and H$_2$O and Al$_2$O$_3$ dust can only exist farther out. At visual minimum, dust forms closer to the stellar surface and in larger amounts (otherwise it would be not detectable with MIDI close to the star), and suggests that the mass-loss rate is higher in this phase or shortly after this phase.\n\nWhile the observations made in this work show that possible Al$_2$O$_3$ dust exists closer to the star at visual minimum and farther out at visual maximum, it cannot be determined conclusively how this relates to the acceleration of the wind and the low mass-loss rate. Al$_2$O$_3$ can exist in the upper atmosphere without mass loss, and potentially relevant micrometer-sized Fe-free silicates were not detected with MIDI due to the low mass-loss rate and a therefore low abundance. Therefore, it is still possible that the wind formation and mass-loss mechanism is to a certain amount decoupled from the pulsation, even if it can be speculated that the relevant constituents for the wind acceleration are formed along with Al$_2$O$_3$.\n\nSimultaneous observations, tracing the relevant constituents and providing kinematic information, are necessary (e.g., high-resolution radio and mm observations of molecules/masers), and a comparison with dynamic atmospheric models can only be of limited success as long as the dust formation is not included.\n\nCycle-to-cycle variations {#secPhaseSubCycle}\n-------------------------\n\nW\u00a0Hya was observed over three consecutive pulsation cycles. For each cycle, data between phases 0.2 and 0.4 are used to search for cycle-to-cycle variations. These three ranges are shaded in Fig.\u00a0\\[FigLight\\_t\\]. The ranges contain 8, 8, and 11\u00a0observations, respectively, and have a sufficient spatial frequency coverage. A circular FDD is fitted to these observations (which are sheared as described in Sect.\u00a0\\[secPhaseSubLight\\]), while the relative flux is fixed to the value obtained for the full data set. This compensates for fewer measurements and avoids the problem of being too dependent on fewer points at low spatial frequencies (i.e.\u00a0$<$\u00a010\u00a0arcsec$^{-1}$).\n\nCycles\u00a01 and 2 give similar diameters, with values on average of about (3.0\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a02.4)\u00a0mas below the diameter obtained for the full data set (cf.\u00a0right hand panel of Table\u00a0\\[TableVar\\]). The diameter for cycle\u00a03 is marginally higher, being on average (1.5\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a03.0)\u00a0mas above the full data set value. This means that the maximal variation due to non-repeatability of the pulsation is on the order of (5\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a04)%, and is thus lower than intracycle variations. However, regarding the uncertainties, this is only marginally significant. The wavelength-dependent shape of the diameter does not change notably between cycles.\n\nThis gives an order of magnitude estimate of how large pulsation instabilities in SR variables are, but also reflects the chaotic atmospheric behavior. These variations are smaller than might be expected. From models by e.g.\u00a0H[\u00f6]{}fner & Dorfi\u00a0([@HoefnerDorfi_97]), Hofmann et al.\u00a0[@Hofmann_et98], Ireland et al.\u00a0([@Ireland_et04c]), Ireland & Scholz\u00a0([@Ireland_Scholz06]), and Nowotny et al.\u00a0([@Nowotny_et10]) for Mira variables, it can be derived that the location of mass shells and dust condensation radii can vary by up to 20% with a characteristic mean of 10%. However, it should be kept in mind that the movement of mass shells and dust condensation radii cannot be directly compared to changes in the atmospheric radius-density structure that is traced by interferometric observations. On the other hand, these marginal size changes are not surprising if compared with the relatively small intracycle variations and the fact that W\u00a0Hya is an SR variable. Finally, this verifies that the folding of consecutive pulsation cycles in the previous diameter and intracycle analysis is an acceptable assumption.\n\nSummary {#secConc}\n=======\n\nW\u00a0Hya was monitored over about three years in the thermal IR ($8-12$\u00a0$\\mu$m). These are the first high-resolution interferometric N-band observations of W\u00a0Hya with MIDI. A photometric study reveals a clear phase dependency of the N-band flux with a flux variation on the order of 20% between maximum and minimum light. The mid-IR maximum occurs after the visual maximum at visual phase 0.15\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.05.\n\nThe visibility data can be best fitted with a fully limb-darkened disk, which accounts to some extent for surrounding atmospheric layers. The resulting FDD diameter of W\u00a0Hya is almost constant between 8 and 10\u00a0$\\mu$m at a value of about (80\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a01.2)\u00a0mas (7.8\u00a0AU), while it gradually increases at wavelengths longer than 10\u00a0$\\mu$m to reach (105\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a01.2)\u00a0mas (10.3\u00a0AU) at 12\u00a0$\\mu$m. In contrast, the relative flux decreases from (0.85\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02) to (0.77\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.02), reflecting the increased flux contribution from a fully resolved surrounding silicate dust shell. From field-of-view effects, it could be derived that the silicate dust shell has an inner radius larger than 28 photospheric radii ($>$50\u00a0AU, $>$0.5\u00a0arcsec).\n\nThe measured apparent mid-IR diameter at 10\u00a0$\\mu$m is about 1.6\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.2 times larger than the near K-band diameter ($\\theta_{\\mathrm{UD},10 \\mu\\mathrm{m}}$/$\\theta_{\\mathrm{UD},2.2 \\mu\\mathrm{m}}$), i.e.\u00a0about 1.9 times the photospheric diameter. This is very similar to findings by Weiner et al.\u00a0([@Weiner_et03]), Perrin et al.\u00a0([@Perrin_et04]) and Tatebe et al.\u00a0([@Tatebe_et06]) for similar stars. In particular, the diameter behavior throughout the N-band is comparable with observations of the O-rich Mira stars RR\u00a0Sco and S\u00a0Ori by Ohnaka et al.\u00a0([@Ohnaka_et05]) and Wittkowski et al.\u00a0([@Wittkowski_et07]), respectively.\n\nW\u00a0Hya is therefore described by an analogous model. The constant diameter part results from a partially resolved stellar disk, including the close molecular layer of H$_2$O, while the increase beyond 10\u00a0$\\mu$m can be most likely attributed to the contribution of a spatially resolved nearby amorphous Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell. Probably owing to the low mass-loss rate, close Fe-free silicate dust, as proposed by H[\u00f6]{}fner\u00a0[@Hoefner08], could not be detected with MIDI.\n\nSince observations at similar pulsation phases were mostly conducted at similar position angles, the effects of different diameters, owing to elliptical asymmetry and pulsation, are unfortunately not easy to disentangle. By only using certain pulsation phases and projected baselines an asymmetric character of the extended structure could be confirmed. An elliptical FDD, with a position angle of (11\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a020)$^\\circ$ and an axis ratio of (0.87\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.07), fits the data. The asymmetry might be explained by an enhanced dust concentration along an N-S axis.\n\nTo estimate the dependence of the angular diameter as a function of visual light phase, the input data are sheared. The observed angular diameter is smaller at visual minimum and larger at visual maximum with a periodic change of (5.4\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a01.8)\u00a0mas between maximum and minimum, corresponding to about (6\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a02)%. This is much less than reported for the high amplitude pulsating Mira star S\u00a0Ori (Wittkowski et al.\u00a0[@Wittkowski_et07]). The smaller observed angular diameter at visual minimum can be explained by the phase-dependent presence of water vapor and likely aluminum oxide dust and their temperature sensitivity. Since this variation only traces the location of constituents that are probably not relevant for the wind formation, no firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the mass-loss mechanism. One can only speculate that more dust forms at visual minimum and that the mechanism for a moderate-to-low mass-loss rate is similar for O-rich SR and Mira variables. The detected cycle-to-cycle variations are smaller than intracycle variations and on the order of (5\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a04)%.\n\nThe observation of nearby molecular layers and a nearby dust shell, like in other AGB stars, confirms the emerging standard picture and supports the need for self-consistent dynamic atmospheric models with consistently included dust formation close to the star. Primarily, the close Al$_2$O$_3$ dust shell most likely detected in our observations, well below the distance at which the silicate dust shell is traced, has now been revealed in a few objects. It has also been shown that a good phase and uv-coverage over the whole pulsation cycle can be crucial, while interferometric observations in the N-band are an irreplaceable tool for resolving close stellar structures and for searching for atmospheric constituents. Future work will concentrate on improving the data reduction process further and on applying dynamical atmospheric models to the data.\n\nWe thank Michael Scholz and Mike Ireland for providing new theoretical models, Markus Wittkowski and Keiichi Ohnaka for fruitful discussion, and Henry Woodroff and Mike Ireland for making diameter data sets available. The first author would also like to thank the *International Max-Planck Research School* (IMPRS) for its financial support with a fellowship. We acknowledge with thanks the variable star observations from the AAVSO International Database contributed by observers worldwide and used in this research. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at the CDS, France, the ISO/IRAS database and NASA\u2019s Astrophysical Data System. We would also thank the referee for his or her very valuable comments.\n\nBaschek, B., Scholz, M., & Wehrse, R.\u00a01991, , 246, 374\n\nBedding, T.\u00a0R., Jacob, A.\u00a0P., Scholz, M., & Wood, P.\u00a0R.\u00a02001, , 325, 1487\n\nBegemann, B., Dorschner, J., Henning, T., Mutschke, H., Guertler, J., Koempe, C., & Nass, R.\u00a01997, , 476, 199\n\nCotton, W.\u00a0D., et al.\u00a02004, , 414, 275\n\nCotton, W.\u00a0D., Perrin, G., & Lopez, B.\u00a02008, , 477, 853\n\nde Beck, E., Decin, L., de Koter, A., Justtanont, K., Verhoelst, T., Kemper, F., & Menten, K.\u00a0M.\u00a02010, , 523, A18\n\nDecin, L.\u00a02000, Ph.D.\u00a0Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven\n\nEgan, M.\u00a0P., & Sloan, G.\u00a0C.\u00a02001, , 558, 165\n\nFedele, D., Wittkowski, M., Paresce, F., Scholz, M., Wood, P.\u00a0R., & Ciroi, S.\u00a02005, , 431, 1019\n\nHabing, H.\u00a0J., & Olofsson, H. 2004, Springer, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars\n\nHaniff, C.\u00a0A., Scholz, M., & Tuthill, P.\u00a0G.\u00a01995, , 276, 640\n\nHawkins, G.\u00a0W.\u00a01990, , 229, L5\n\nHinkle, K.\u00a0H., & Barnes, T.\u00a0G.\u00a01979, , 227, 923\n\nHinkle, K.\u00a0H., Lebzelter, T., & Scharlach, W.\u00a0W.\u00a0G.\u00a01997, , 114, 2686\n\nHofmann, K.-H., Scholz, M., & Wood, P.\u00a0R.\u00a01998, , 339, 846\n\nH[\u00f6]{}fner, S., & Dorfi, E.\u00a0A.\u00a01997, , 319, 648\n\nH[\u00f6]{}fner, S., Gautschy-Loidl, R., Aringer, B., & J[\u00f8]{}rgensen, U.\u00a0G.\u00a02003, , 399, 589\n\nH[\u00f6]{}fner, S., & Andersen, A.\u00a0C.\u00a02007, , 465, L39\n\nH[\u00f6]{}fner, S.\u00a02008, , 491, L1\n\nHron, J., Loidl, R., H[\u00f6]{}fner, S., Jorgensen, U.\u00a0G., Aringer, B., & Kerschbaum, F.\u00a01998, , 335, L69\n\nImai, H., Nakashima, J.-I., Deguchi, S., Yamauchi, A., Nakagawa, A., & Nagayama, T.\u00a02010, , 62, 431\n\nIreland, M.\u00a0J., Tuthill, P.\u00a0G., Bedding, T.\u00a0R., Robertson, J.\u00a0G., & Jacob, A.\u00a0P.\u00a02004a, , 350, 365\n\nIreland, M.\u00a0J., Scholz, M., & Wood, P.\u00a0R.\u00a02004b, , 352, 318\n\nIreland, M.\u00a0J., Scholz, M., Tuthill, P.\u00a0G., & Wood, P.\u00a0R.\u00a02004c, , 355, 444\n\nIreland, M., Tuthill, P., Robertson, G., Bedding, T., Jacob, A., Monnier, J., & Danchi, W.\u00a02004d, IAU Colloq.\u00a0193: Variable Stars in the Local Group, 310, 327\n\nIreland, M.\u00a0J., & Scholz, M.\u00a02006, , 367, 1585\n\nIreland, M.\u00a0J., Scholz, M., & Wood, P.\u00a0R.\u00a02008, , 391, 1994\n\nJacob, A.\u00a0P., Bedding, T.\u00a0R., Robertson, J.\u00a0G., & Scholz, M.\u00a02000, , 312, 733\n\nJusttanont, K., de Jong, T., Tielens, A.\u00a0G.\u00a0G.\u00a0M., Feuchtgruber, H., & Waters, L.\u00a0B.\u00a0F.\u00a0M.\u00a02004, , 417, 625\n\nJusttanont, K., et al.\u00a02005, , 439, 627\n\nKnapp, G.\u00a0R., Pourbaix, D., Platais, I., & Jorissen, A.\u00a02003, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 340, 30993\n\nKoike, C., Kaito, C., Yamamoto, T., Shibai, H., Kimura, S., & Suto, H.\u00a01995, , 114, 203\n\nLattanzi, M.\u00a0G., Munari, U., Whitelock, P.\u00a0A., & Feast, M.\u00a0W.\u00a01997, , 485, 328\n\nLattanzio, J. C., & Wood, P. 2004, in Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars, ed. H. J. Habing, & H. Olofsson (Springer), chap. 2, 83\n\nLebzelter, T., Hinkle, K.\u00a0H., Wood, P.\u00a0R., Joyce, R.\u00a0R., & Fekel, F.\u00a0C.\u00a02005, , 431, 623\n\nLebzelter, T., Nowotny, W., H[\u00f6]{}fner, S., Lederer, M.\u00a0T., Hinkle, K.\u00a0H., & Aringer, B.\u00a02010, , 517, A6\n\nLeinert, C., et al.\u00a02003, , 286, 73\n\nLeinert, C., et al.\u00a02004, , 423, 537\n\nLorenz-Martins, S., & Pompeia, L.\u00a02000, , 315, 856\n\nMarengo, M., Fazio, G.\u00a0G., Hora, J.\u00a0L., Hoffmann, W.\u00a0F., Dayal, A., & Deutsch, L.\u00a0K.\u00a02000, Asymmetrical Planetary Nebulae II: From Origins to Microstructures, 199, 91\n\nMatsuura, M., Yamamura, I., Cami, J., Onaka, T., & Murakami, H.\u00a02002, , 383, 972\n\nMaercker, M., et al.\u00a02009, , 494, 243\n\nMennesson, B., et al.\u00a02002, , 579, 446\n\nMillan-Gabet, R., Pedretti, E., Monnier, J.\u00a0D., Schloerb, F.\u00a0P., Traub, W.\u00a0A., Carleton, N.\u00a0P., Lacasse, M.\u00a0G., & Segransan, D.\u00a02005, , 620, 961\n\nMiyoshi, M., Matsumoto, K., Kameno, S., Takaba, H., & Lwata, T.\u00a01994, , 371, 395\n\nMonnier, J.\u00a0D., et al.\u00a02004, , 605, 436\n\nMuller, S., Dinh-V-Trung, He, J.-H., & Lim, J.\u00a02008, , 684, L33\n\nNowotny, W., H[\u00f6]{}fner, S., & Aringer, B.\u00a02010, , 514, A35\n\nOlofsson, H., Gonz[\u00e1]{}lez Delgado, D., Kerschbaum, F., & Sch[\u00f6]{}ier, F.\u00a0L.\u00a02002, , 391, 1053\n\nOhnaka, K.\u00a02004, , 424, 1011\n\nOhnaka, K., et al.\u00a02005, , 429, 1057\n\nOhnaka, K., Driebe, T., Weigelt, G., & Wittkowski, M.\u00a02007, , 466, 1099\n\nPerrin, G., et al.\u00a02004, , 426, 279\n\nPerrin, G., et al.\u00a02007, , 474, 599\n\nPerryman, M.\u00a0A.\u00a0C., et al.\u00a01997, , 323, L49\n\nPojmanski, G., Pilecki, B., & Szczygiel, D.\u00a02005, , 55, 275\n\nPosch, T., Kerschbaum, F., Mutschke, H., Fabian, D., Dorschner, J., & Hron, J.\u00a01999, , 352, 609\n\nRatzka, T.\u00a02005, Ph.D. Thesis, University Heidelberg\n\nReid, M.\u00a0J., & Menten, K.\u00a0M.\u00a01990, , 360, L51\n\nReid, M.\u00a0J., & Menten, K.\u00a0M.\u00a02007, , 671, 2068\n\nRiebel, D., Meixner, M., Fraser, O., Srinivasan, S., Cook, K., & Vijh, U.\u00a02010, , 723, 1195\n\nRobinson, G., & Maldoni, M.\u00a0M.\u00a02010, , 408, 1956\n\nScholz, M.\u00a02001, , 321, 347\n\nShintani, M., et al.\u00a02008, , 60, 1077\n\nSloan, G.\u00a0C., & Price, S.\u00a0D.\u00a01998b, , 119, 141\n\nSmith, B.\u00a0J., Price, S.\u00a0D., & Moffett, A.\u00a0J.\u00a02006, , 131, 612\n\nSzymczak, M., Cohen, R.\u00a0J., & Richards, A.\u00a0M.\u00a0S.\u00a01998, , 297, 1151\n\nTatebe, K., Chandler, A.\u00a0A., Hale, D.\u00a0D.\u00a0S., & Townes, C.\u00a0H.\u00a02006, , 652, 666\n\nTej, A., Lan[\u00e7]{}on, A., & Scholz, M.\u00a02003, , 401, 347\n\nTsuji, T., Ohnaka, K., Aoki, W., & Yamamura, I.\u00a01997, , 320, L1\n\nTuthill, P.\u00a0G., Haniff, C.\u00a0A., & Baldwin, J.\u00a0E.\u00a01999, , 306, 353\n\nVerhoelst, T.\u00a02005, Ph.D.\u00a0Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven\n\nVerhoelst, T., van der Zypen, N., Hony, S., Decin, L., Cami, J., & Eriksson, K.\u00a02009, , 498, 127\n\nVlemmings, W.\u00a0H.\u00a0T., van Langevelde, H.\u00a0J., Diamond, P.\u00a0J., Habing, H.\u00a0J., & Schilizzi, R.\u00a0T.\u00a02003, , 407, 213\n\nVlemmings, W.\u00a0H.\u00a0T., Humphreys, E.\u00a0M.\u00a0L., & Franco-Hern[\u00e1]{}ndez, R.\u00a02011, , 728, 149\n\nWeiner, J., Hale, D.\u00a0D.\u00a0S., & Townes, C.\u00a0H.\u00a02003, , 589, 976\n\nWeiner, J.\u00a02004, , 611, L37\n\nWishnow, E.\u00a0H., Townes, C.\u00a0H., Walp, B., & Lockwood, S.\u00a02010, , 712, L135\n\nWittkowski, M., Boboltz, D.\u00a0A., Ohnaka, K., Driebe, T., & Scholz, M.\u00a02007, , 470, 191\n\nWoitke, P., Helling, C., Winters, J.\u00a0M., & Jeong, K.\u00a0S.\u00a01999, , 348, L17\n\nWoitke, P.\u00a02006, , 452, 537\n\nWoodruff, H.\u00a0C., et al.\u00a02004, , 421, 703\n\nWoodruff, H.\u00a0C., Tuthill, P.\u00a0G., Monnier, J.\u00a0D., Ireland, M.\u00a0J., Bedding, T.\u00a0R., Lacour, S., Danchi, W.\u00a0C., & Scholz, M.\u00a02008, , 673, 418\n\nWoodruff, H.\u00a0C., et al.\u00a02009, , 691, 1328\n\nYamamura, I., de Jong, T., & Cami, J.\u00a01999, , 348, L55\n\nZhao-Geisler, R.\u00a02010, Ph.D.\u00a0Thesis, University of Heidelberg\n\nZiurys, L.\u00a0M., Tenenbaum, E.\u00a0D., Pulliam, R.\u00a0L., Woolf, N.\u00a0J., & Milam, S.\u00a0N.\u00a02009, , 695, 1604\n\n[^1]: Fellow of the International Max Planck Research School (IMPRS),\n\n[^2]: Based on observations made with the Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) at the Paranal Observatory under program IDs 079.D-0140, 080.D-0005, 081.D-0198, 082.D-0641 and 083.D-0294.\n\n[^3]: Color versions of the figures are available in electronic form via http://www.aanda.org\n\n[^4]: http://www.ster.kuleuven.ac.be/$\\sim$tijl/MIDI\\_calibration/mcc.txt;\u00a0see also ESO CalVin database: http://www.eso.org/observing/etc/\n\n[^5]: http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/Missions/iras.html\n\n[^6]: http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/$\\sim$koehler/MIDI\n\n[^7]: http://www.aavso.org/\n\n[^8]: http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/asas/\n\n[^9]: http://iso.esac.esa.int/ida/\n\n[^10]: all from http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR\n\n[^11]: The occurrence of molecular layers is the result of the capability of forming certain molecules at a specific distance from the star and their dilution when reaching larger distances. Such a shell exists for all atmospheric molecules, and only their total abundance and radiative properties determine whether such a molsphere can be detected or not.\n\n[^12]: If compared with a typical AGB star.\n\n[^13]: Fluctuations between 9.3 and 10\u00a0$\\mu$m are caused by difficulties in the reduction caused by the telluric ozone feature, and flux measurements beyond 12\u00a0$\\mu$m are probably not calibrated well.\n\n[^14]: The exact value depends on the used AT baseline, the slit/mask position and other instrumental specifications.\n\n[^15]: The value of the photospheric radius, $R_{\\mathrm{phot}} = \\theta_{\\mathrm{phot}}$/2, is defined in Sect.\u00a0\\[secPhaseSubWave\\]\n\n[^16]: http://cow.physics.wisc.edu/$\\sim$craigm/idl/idl.html\n\n[^17]: Empirical conversion factors are approximately: FDD $\\approx$ 1.15\u00a0UD $\\approx$ 1.68\u00a0$FWHM$ (assuming a uniform spatial frequency coverage in the first lobe).\n\n[^18]: Dynamic atmospheric models, including both the molecular layers and close dust formation, are in development (Scholz and Ireland, private communication).\n\n[^19]: Since observations were obtained only on two perpendicular baselines, the true major axis cannot be recovered.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Universal grasping of a diverse range of previously unseen objects from heaps is a grand challenge in e-commerce order fulfillment, manufacturing, and home service robotics. Recently, deep learning based grasping approaches have demonstrated results that make them increasingly interesting for industrial deployments. This paper explores the problem from an automation systems point-of-view. We develop a robotics grasping system using Dex-Net, which is fully integrated at the controller level. Two neural networks are deployed on a novel industrial AI hardware acceleration module close to a PLC with a power footprint of less than 10 W for the overall system. The software is tightly integrated with the hardware allowing for fast and efficient data processing and real-time communication. The success rate of grasping an object form a bin is up to 95% with more than 350 picks per hour, if object and receptive bins are in close proximity. The system was presented at the Hannover Fair 2019 (world\u2019s largest industrial trade fair) and other events, where it performed over 5,000 grasps per event.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Eugen Solowjow$^{1}$, Ines Ugalde$^{1}$, Yash Shahapurkar$^{1}$, Juan Aparicio$^{1}$,\\\n    Jeff Mahler$^{2,3}$, Vishal Satish$^{2}$, Ken Goldberg$^{2}$, Heiko Claussen$^{1}$[^1][^2][^3]\ntitle: |\n    **Industrial Robot Grasping with Deep Learning\\\n    using a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC)**\n---\n\nINTRODUCTION\n============\n\nUniversal reliable robot grasping of a diverse range of objects is a challenging task. The challenges arise from imprecisions and uncertainties in sensing and actuation. A solution to universal grasping will enable automation of many industrial tasks that are mostly performed by humans today such as e-commerce order fulfillment, manufacturing and home service robotics. Recently, deep learning based approaches to universal grasping demonstrated progress in terms of accuracy, reliability and cycle times, showing promise for industrial deployment. However, designing a flexible automation system that has deep learning at its core is from an automation systems point of view a challenging undertaking, which received little attention from the robotics community so far.\n\nRobot control systems in today\u2019s industrial environments give robots the ability to follow predefined trajectories. These systems are considered mature and ten thousands of them have been deployed across factories in different industries. However, most robots in factories lack the ability to handle variability and uncertainty, which are key elements in universal grasping. On the other hand, robot control systems based on machine learning methods have not yet been widely adopted in factories. They are mainly situated in research environments where the focus is on algorithmic innovation.\n\n[1.0]{} ![Industrial system for universal grasping at Hannover Fair 2019, Germany.[]{data-label=\"fig:system_at_hmi\"}](figs/fig1_robot.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nWith the increasing interest in deep learning based automation, the question arises how these algorithmic progresses can be adopted by industry and integrated into the existing automation landscape [@luo18; @johannink19]. Conventional automation typically assumes full predictability of the world the system deals with. This assumption does not hold true for universal grasping with its shear endless number of object constellations, which requires automating of the unpredictable. A paradigm shift is required from traditional automation systems to machine learning based automation systems.\n\nIn this paper we describe an industry-compatible robotic system for universal grasping enabled by deep learning. We study the problem from an automation systems point of view: \u201cHow to design a deep learning based automation system that is tightly integrated with current automation paradigms such as PLC control and can be deployed in an industrial production?\u201d The resulting system was exhibited at Hannover Fair 2019 (world\u2019s largest industrial trade fair), where it ran for five consecutive days and performed over 5,000 grasps, see Fig. \\[fig:system\\_at\\_hmi\\] Since its debut it has been replicated and has been shown at various other events.\n\nPROBLEM DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS\n===================================\n\nThe problem of universal grasping gives robots the ability to pick previously not encountered objects in arbitrary constellations. It can be defined by the constellation of the objects (e.g. singulated or heaps), the type of hardware (e.g. single or dual robot arms), as well as on the type of end-effector (e.g. vacuum gripper, two finger parallel jaw gripper, or custom gripper designs). Moreover, the task description can vary. For example, clearing a bin of objects requires a different approach than picking one desired object from a heap. The problem addressed in this paper is as follows. A bin of objects is presented to the system as shown in Fig. \\[fig:sample\\_bin\\] A user selects through a Human Machine Interface (HMI) the objects to be picked from the bin and the amount of requested objects. The robot picks the requested objects from the bin and places them into another bin. The system informs the user, if any of the requested objects are not available.\n\n[1.0]{} ![Sample objects for grasping in bin.[]{data-label=\"fig:sample_bin\"}](figs/fig2a_problem_statement.png \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nRELATED WORK\n============\n\nUniversal robotic grasping has been widely studied during the last decades, and, until today, it is still considered a challenging problem. Initiatives, like the Amazon Robotic Challenge aim at pushing the state of the bin picking research towards production [@c0; @c1; @c2]. The difficulty of universal grasping lies in the great variability of bin picking scenarios, such as heterogeneous, potentially unknown objects, which may be arbitrarily positioned in presence of occlusions, super-positions, hindered reachability, etc. Early approaches computed grasps on known 3D models of objects using analytic methods and planned grasps online by matching sensor data to known objects. However, these approaches proved susceptible to uncertainty in sensing and could not generalize well to novel objects. Recent learning-based approaches have leveraged deep neural networks trained on large amounts of data that can quickly generalize to novel objects. Empirical approaches to collecting this data have proven to be time-consuming and prone to mislabeled data. An alternative promising approach is to rapidly generate massive synthetic datasets using analytic metrics and domain randomization for robust sim-to-real transfer.\n\nA large number of object recognition bin picking solutions follow a two-step approach: object detection and pose estimation followed by model-based grasp planning. Typically, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) are employed in the object recognition task [@c1; @c2] to provide either bounding boxes or segmentations of objects of interest. Other approaches [@c3; @c4] build on this pipeline to integrate pose correction in the robot motion stage. A representative example of the two-step approach is presented in [@c2] where a 3D segmentation is obtained by projecting and merging individual RGB-D segmentations from multiple cameras positioned to capture the whole scene. Pose estimation is achieved by fitting given 3D models of the objects to the 3D segmented point cloud. A series of heuristics is then applied to calculate optimal grasping points. This sophisticated approach leads to a total perception time of 15-20 seconds on a workstation equipped with large-scale processors (such as an Intel E2-1241 CPU 3.5 GHz and an NVIDIA GTX 1080).\n\nPrevious work often assumed given 3D models of objects, and some even labeling of training data for the segmentation CNNs. These approaches may prove impractical for scalable applications which continuously deal with novel objects for which limited data is available, as typically seen in intralogistics and warehousing scenarios. As an alternative, object-agnostic data-driven grasping has been studied in [@c5; @c6; @Bohg_c7_0; @Kappler_c7_1; @Morrison_c7_2; @Mahler17_c7_3; @c7]. In [@c7] the authors present Dex-Net 4.0, where bin picking is formalized as a POMDP problem to enable simulate and learn from synthetic data (synthesizing depth images of over 5000 unique object heaps) robust grasping policies for parallel-jaw and suction grippers. Experiments on 50 novel objects using the high-end Photoneo Phoxi 3D camera suggest that Dex-Net 4.0 generalizes to new objects. Similar to other approaches, this system was deployed on a large-scale processing workstation (equipped with quad-core Intel i7-6700 and NVIDIA TITAN Xp).\n\nComputer vision bin picking solutions can be found in industry as well, however there is reduced information as to what algorithms or principles are applied in the search for grasping points. iRVision [@c8] is FANUC\u2019s visual detection system which uses 3D vision (structured light mapping and laser projection) to achieve some form of detection and pose estimation of workpieces in aid of different manufacturing processes, such as bin picking. Some algorithms used by the manufacturer are Geometric Pattern Matching and Blob Detection; it is then understood that substantial prior information about the objects is required.\n\nMECHATRONIC SYSTEM DESIGN\n=========================\n\n[0.95]{} ![The screen (Human-Machine-Interface) displays a list of objects for the user to select. The PLC receives request from the HMI and consequently triggers the algorithm in the TM Neural Processing Unit (TM NPU). Once a grasp is found, the PLC actuates both robot and gripper to execute the grasp.[]{data-label=\"fig:system_design\"}](figs/fig2_system_overview.png \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe system design of the industrial bin picking solution is centered around an industrial Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), a Siemens S7-1516. PLCs are high-reliability automation controllers suitable for harsh environments that provide hard-realtime capabilities. Choosing the computational components at the controller level is in contrast to most other work, where typically PC workstations are used. The advantages are the highly embedded nature of the solution, the small power footprint and the seamless integration into the existing automation ecosystem. In Fig. \\[fig:system\\_design\\] the PLC can be seen as the master of the system; it orchestrates the interactions among all the devices. A Human Machine Interface (HMI) touch panel was integrated with the PLC program to present an array of objects which the user can select to be picked. The HMI also allowed maintenance-mode control of the robotic elements and showed diagnostic information of all connected elements. An E-Stop push button was also integrated with the PLC; its activation halts the entire system. Both HMI and E-stop are connected using industrial standard communication PROFINET to the PLC. The mechanical components of our bin picking solution comprise the KUKA KR 3 Agilus 6-DOF robotic arm and the Robotiq 2F-85 parallel jaw gripper. The KUKA KR 3 and controller (KR C4 Compact) are connected via PROFINET to the PLC, where seamless control over the robot is enabled with the KUKA PLC mxAutomation package [@c9]. An Intel RealSense D435 RGB-D camera serves as the sensory input to the system. It is mounted on the robot wrist and connects via USB3. The D435 is widely available and offers a low price point.\n\nThe Technology Module Neural Processing Unit (TM NPU)[^4] in Fig. \\[fig:system\\_design\\] is dedicated to Deep Learning and allows PLC-based automation systems to incorporate efficient Neural Network computations. The TM NPU is equipped with an Intel MyriadX SoC, which has two LEON CPUs and 16 SHAVE parallel processors capable of accelerating neural networks in hardware with a compute capacity of up to 4 TOPs. The TM NPU couples with the PLC using Siemens S7 backplane communication [@c10] by which they share information in real-time. The NPU algorithms is invoked by the PLC, upon HMI user requests. The TM NPU uses RGB-D inputs from the RealSense D435. The algorithm returns pixel coordinates for grasping as well as object identity. The PLC transforms the coordinates to the robot frame and commands the robot motion; at the same time, the identified object is highlighted in the HMI.\n\nSOFTWARE DESIGN\n===============\n\nThe challenges in designing the software arise from the required flexibility and the unpredictability of the grasping scenario as described in Sec. II. The system comprises of two main computational entities: A PLC and the TM NPU. The architecture of the control system has to reflect the use case flexibility by means of Deep Learning and at the same time to preserve the benefits of an industrial automation system, namely real-time properties, robustness, and safety.\n\nThe desired system behavior can be described with states, between which the system transitions based on events, and their relationships. We use a Deterministic Finite Automaton (DFA) to model the desired system behavior, which is illustrated in Fig. \\[fig:automaton\\] for one RGB-D camera frame. The automaton describes the actions and states for a successful grasp, but also actions for common failures such as \u201cno object grasped\u201d. The system maintains a list of user desired objects, which is provided through the HMI. The automaton is repeatedly traversed until the list has been either fulfilled or none of the requested objects can be detected in the bin.\n\n[1.0]{} ![Simplified Deterministic Finite Automaton (DFA) for processing of one RGB-D frame.[]{data-label=\"fig:automaton\"}](figs/fig4_automaton.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nSOFTWARE ARCHITECTURE AND MODULES\n---------------------------------\n\nFollowing the hybrid automaton of the previous subsection, we can derive the key software modules, which enable the system to react to events and cope with the flexibility of the usecase. Figure \\[fig:software\\_modules\\] illustrates the main software modules and their relations. All software modules related to image processing including the grasp computation are implemented on the TM NPU, whereas robot control, the interfacing with the HMI and safety functions are implemented on the PLC. The TM NPU and PLC communicate through a backplane, while the PLC and the HMI communicate through Ethernet, which is a typical setup for this type of automation hardware.\n\n![image](figs/fig5_software_modules.PNG){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn the remainder of this subsection we describe the key functionalities of the main software modules. All software modules that run on the TM NPU are implemented in C/C++ on top of the real-time operating system RTEMS[^5]. The RGB-D input to the TM NPU is an RGB-D camera (in this case an Intel RealSense D435), which provides streams of color and depth frames.\n\n**Preprocessing and Conversion (color frame):** Camera interfaces provide frames in a variety of different encodings such as YCbCr422i. Depending on the encoding the color frames need to go through several basic image processing steps such as scaling, cropping, de-interleaving and conversion to BGR or RGB, which are the most common formats for neural network inputs. These image processing steps are efficiently implemented and parallelized on the SHAVE processors of the TM NPU MyriadX SoC.\n\n**Object Detection (color frame):** The preprocessed color frames are fed into an object detection neural network. Popular neural networks are MobileNet-SSD, YOLO, and Faster RCNN. The output of an object detection algorithm are bounding boxes with corresponding labels and the classification score. The object detection neural network is described in the following Subsection.\n\n**Preprocessing (depth frame):** Depth information is usually encoded as a single channel 2 byte stream. The preprocessing consists of scaling and cropping operations.\n\n**Inpainting (depth frame):** Depth frames have often missing data when surfaces are too glossy, thin, bright, far or close from the camera. Depth inpainting fills these \u201choles\u201d. With increasing popularity of commodity-grade depth cameras (e.g. Intel RealSense, Microsoft Kinect) inpainting algorithms received a lot of attention in recent years. We implemented a custom inpainting approach that is based on [@inpaint_c11].\n\n**Object Selection and Bounding Box based Cropping:** The detected objects are compared with the user selected objects and a matching is determined. For all detected objects that are also part of the user list, a pairwise bounding box overlapping is computed. The object that overlaps least with other bounding boxes is chosen for grasping. This object is cropped out in the depth frame. Note this is a decisive step, which couples object detection with grasping and where the decision is made which object to grasp. Other methods can be used to choose the next best object or even a unified approach of detection and grasping can be deployed.\n\n**Grasp Computation:** The grasp is computed in this deployment with an FC-GQ-CNN [@Satish19_c13]. The cropped depth image is fed into the network, which outputs a tensor representing the grasps and their quality score. The grasp neural network is covered in Subsection V. C.\n\n**PLC and HMI:** The PLC contains the main state machine and orchestrates the overall process. It is programmed with ladder logic. The PLC receives the user specified object list from the HMI, tasks the NPU to compute grasps against the current active object list, executes the robot and gripper motions and reports back to the HMI to keep the user informed.\n\nOBJECT DETECTION\n----------------\n\nThe object detection algorithm inputs color images. It outputs bounding boxes for each object in the image, the class label associated with each bounding box and the confidence score associated with each bounding box and label. Since the advent of deep learning, neural network based object detection approaches have shown to be the most accurate algorithms. In recent years, MobileNet SSD (Single Shot Multibox Detection) has proven to be an efficient Convolution Neural Network architecture targeted towards mobile and embedded vision applications. The classification base network is thereby MobileNet, which is pretrained on ImageNet for set of discerning, discriminating filters. By performing depth wise separable convolutions, MobileNet allows a lesser number of tunable parameters which results in light weight deep neural networks. The SSD part of the object detection pipeline discretizes the output space of bounding boxes into a set of default boxes over different aspect ratios. At prediction time, the network generates scores for the presence of each object category in each default box and produces adjustments to the box to better match the object shape. MobileNet SSD has to be trained on a dataset that is recorded prior to deployment. The dataset contains images of the objects that the system is supposed to recognize for grasping at runtime. We use 200 training images for sufficient performance.\n\nGRASP COMPUTATION\n-----------------\n\nOnce an object is chosen, a robust grasp must be quickly planned in order to transport the object to the collection bin.\n\n![image](figs/res_sequence.PNG){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe system in this paper utilizes an extension of Dex-Net 4.0, the Fully Convolutional Grasp Quality Convolutional Neural Network (FC-GQ-CNN), which given an input point cloud rapidly evaluates millions of four degrees-of-freedom (3D position and planar orientation) grasps in a single forward pass of the network and chooses the highest quality one for execution. The network is trained on synthetic data using the methodology of Dex-Net 4.0 with a Robotiq 2F-85 parallel jaw gripper and an Intel RealSense D435 depth camera. In order to model the noise in the RealSense camera, the images are augmented with synthetic noise sampled from a Gaussian Process [@Mahler17_c7_3] to reflect the significant levels of noise compared to the Photoneo PhoXi S sensor that is used in Dex-Net 4.0. After training, the network was compiled for the MyriadX SoC and deployed on the TM NPU. While the neural network is not trained using any of the demo objects, it generalizes and is able to grasp them as noted by the performance in Section VI.\n\nEVALUATION\n==========\n\nThe robotic system was integrated into a custom robot cell of 1m$\\times$1m footprint so that it can be shipped and deployed at exhibitions and fairs worldwide. The cell was equipped with two bins of size 45m$\\times$25m$\\times$8m from which the robot can pick and place objects. The object detector was trained for six different objects, which are shown in Fig. \\[fig:res\\_obj\\_det\\]. Note that while the object detector cannot recognize objects that it was not trained for, the FC-GQ-CNN is capable of grasping any previously unseen object. One of the requirements for the system was ease of use. The robot cell would be displayed at various exhibitions world-wide, where local personal (usually neither robotics nor Deep Learning experts) should be able to setup and run the demo within short time. We implemented an easy-to-use user and debugging interface so that within few minutes anyone can run the flexible grasping system.\n\nPerformance\n-----------\n\nThe bin picking system was introduced at Hannover Fair 2019 in Germany. The system ran for five consecutive days, eight hours each day. It performed approximately 1500 grasps per day. The workflow usually consisted of packing the input bin with objects and then selecting desired objects on the HMI screen for the robot to pick. Figure \\[fig:res\\_sequence\\] shows snapshots for a representative grasping task, where the robot was tasked to get the hammer, the dog, and the eggplant. The grasping accuracy of the system is in general dependant on the amount of objects in the bin. The denser the bin is packed, the more difficulties the system experiences to retrieve the objects of interest, in particular if the selected objects are not easily reachable. For lightly packed bins, where each object allows for a grasp as shown in Fig. \\[fig:sample\\_bin\\], the success rate of grasping an object from the bin was ca. 90%-95%. A detailed analysis of failure modes is discussed in the subsequent subsection.\n\nAs expected, the system\u2019s the computational times and power footprint are its strengths. The tight integration of HMI, PLC, TM NPU and robot control results in a total processing time of less than 1sec from sending the object request to the PLC until the start of the robot motion. During this time the computations detailed in Figs. \\[fig:automaton\\] and \\[fig:software\\_modules\\] are performed, which includes execution of two deep neural networks. The inference times of MobileNet SSD and FC-GQ-CNN are 350ms and 70ms respectively. The system performs 200-250 picks per hour. However, the receptive bin is placed at the opposite side of the robot cell resulting in the maximum travel distance for the robot arm to drop off a picked object. If the bins are placed in close proximity the system achieves over 350 picks per hour. The combined power consumption of PLC and TM NPU is less than 10W.\n\nFigure \\[fig:res\\_obj\\_det\\] illustrates the output of the object detection pipeline with MobileNet SSD.\n\n![Object detection results with confidence levels computed with MobileNet SSD.[]{data-label=\"fig:res_obj_det\"}](figs/res_obj_det.PNG){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nWhile most objects are recognized reliably, note that some objects are not detected at all. In our case this is usually not a problem, because the objects that are not detected are usually covered objects lying at the bottom of the bin, which would not be grasped at this instance. Since object detection is repeated after every grasp, the covered objects will be \u201cdiscovered\u201d after the top objects are cleared. However, if the user selects the few objects that are the bottom of the bin, the system can miss them.\n\nA representative grasp computation output can be seen in Fig. \\[fig:res\\_grasp\\]. After a bounding box provided by the object detector has been selected in the color frame as seen in Subfig. \\[fig:res\\_grasp\\_a\\], the depth frame is aligned to the color frame. Next, the cropped and centered depth image is processed by the FC-GQ-CNN, which outputs grasp coordinates as shown in Subfig. \\[fig:res\\_grasp\\_b\\]. Only grasps within the bounding box are considered.\n\nOne of the advantages of deep learning based approaches is the capability to adapt to variations in the environment. This behaviour is demonstrated in Fig. \\[fig:res\\_hammer\\].\n\n[0.45]{} ![Sample grasp computation result, where toy animal was selected for grasping.[]{data-label=\"fig:res_grasp\"}](figs/res_grasp_color.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\n[0.45]{} ![Sample grasp computation result, where toy animal was selected for grasping.[]{data-label=\"fig:res_grasp\"}](figs/res_grasp_depth.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\n[0.45]{} ![On the fly adjustment of grasp computation by FC-GQ-CNN without explicit behaviour programming.[]{data-label=\"fig:res_hammer\"}](figs/res_hammer_1.png \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\n[0.45]{} ![On the fly adjustment of grasp computation by FC-GQ-CNN without explicit behaviour programming.[]{data-label=\"fig:res_hammer\"}](figs/res_hammer_2.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nA hammer is presented to the system for grasping. The system generally picks the hammer by the handle as shown in Subfig. \\[fig:res\\_hammer\\_a\\]. If the handle is obstructed by obstacles, so that the system cannot grasp the hammer by the handle anymore, FC-GQ-CNN computes other grasp points in order to avoid collisions with the obstacles, see Subfig. \\[fig:res\\_hammer\\_b\\]. This logic is not explicitly programmed, but emerges from the synthetic training samples that the neural network used to \u201clearn\u201d grasping.\n\nFailure Modes\n-------------\n\nDuring the Hannover Fair 2019 the system performed more than 5000 grasps. This gives us the opportunity to study common failure modes. The sources of grasping failures are due to sensor modalities, object detection output, grasp computation output or grasp execution. Two failure cases due to object detection and grasp computation are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:failure\\_cases\\]. In both subfigures the respective bounding box of the selected object and the grasp axis (in cyan) are shown. The depth frames of consumer-grade RGB-D cameras often have missing data. While inpainting algorithms can compensate for some of the missing information, they are also prone to create artifacts in the depth image. These artifacts can appear as a bulge part of the object. If such depth images are fed into the FC-GQ-CNN, grasps can be computed on these bulges. In Subfig. \\[fig:failure\\_inpaint\\] the object is flat, but the depth image shows a bulge and FC-GQ-CNN computes a grasp there. A common failure mode in object detection, besides objects not being detected at all, is the wrong size or number of bounding boxes, when objects of the same class cluster together as seen in Subfig. \\[fig:failure\\_obj\\_det\\].\n\n[0.45]{} ![Failure modes in object detection and grasp computation.[]{data-label=\"fig:failure_cases\"}](figs/res_failure_inpaint.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\n[0.45]{} ![Failure modes in object detection and grasp computation.[]{data-label=\"fig:failure_cases\"}](figs/res_failure_detection_color.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nCONCLUSION\n==========\n\nIn this paper we presented an industrial robotic system for universal grasping. The system uses deep learning and was implemented as a PLC-based automation system. We demonstrated the system during Hannover Fair 2019, where it ran for five consecutive days and performed more than 5,000 grasps. The tight integration of HMI, PLC, TM NPU and robot control allowed for fast data processing. The total computation time was less than 1sec from sending the object request to the PLC until the robot starts moving towards the object, which includes execution of two deep neural networks. The system performed 200-250 picks per hour, whereby the receptive bin was placed at the opposite side of the robot cell resulting in the maximum travel distance for the robot arm. For bins placed in close proximity the system achieved over 350 picks per hour. The combined power consumption of PLC and TM NPU was less than 10W. The system consisted of off-the-shelf automation components. One of the limitations of the presented system was due to depth sensing. Consumer grade RGB-D cameras, as the one used in the presented system, provide more noisy depth frames than industrial grade depth scanners. However, the latter are significantly more expensive rendering them often as uneconomic solutions.\n\nIn our future work, we will extend the functionality to other end-effectors such as vacuum grippers to give the system more flexibility. We will explore semantic segmentation instead of object detection, because it leads to exact shapes of the object instances as opposed to bounding boxes. The dataset creation for semantic segmentation will adopt the methodology presented in [@danielczuk17_c12].\n\n[99]{}\n\nJ. Luo, E. Solowjow, C. Wen, J. Aparicio, A.M. Agogino, \u201cDeep reinforcement learning for robotic assembly of mixed deformable and rigid objects\u201d in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) pp. 2062-2069, 2018.\n\nT. Johannink, S. Bahl, A. Nair, J. Luo, A. Kumar, M. Loskyll, J. Aparicio, E. Solowjow, S. Levine, \u201cResidual reinforcement learning for robot control.\u201d in IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) pp. 6023-6029, 2019.\n\nC. Eppner, S. H\u00f6fer, R. Jonschkowski, R. Mart\u00edn-Mart\u00edn, A. Sieverling, V. Wall, and O. Brock, \u201cLessons from the amazon picking challenge: four aspects of building robotic systems.\u201d in Robotics: Science and Systems, 2016.\n\nC. Hernandez, M. Bharatheesha, W. Ko, H. Gaiser, J. Tan, K. van Deurzen, M. de Vries, B. Van Mil, et al., \u201cTeam delft\u2019s robot winner of the amazon picking challenge 2016,\u201d in Robot World Cup. Springer, pp. 613\u2013624, 2016.\n\nA. Zeng, K.-T. Yu, S. Song, D. Suo, E. Walker, A. Rodriguez, and J. Xiao, \u201cMulti-view self-supervised deep learning for 6d pose estimation in the amazon picking challenge,\u201d in IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) pp. 1386\u20131383, 2017.\n\nM. Nieuwenhuisen, D. Droeschel, D. Holz, J. St\u00fcckler, A. Berner, J. Li,R. Klein, and S. Behnke, \u201cMobile bin picking with an anthropomorphic service robot,\u201d in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation pp. 2327\u20132334, 2013.\n\nM.-Y. Liu, O. Tuzel, A. Veeraraghavan, Y. Taguchi, T. K. Marks, and R. Chellappa, \u201cFast object localization and pose estimation in heavy clutter for robotic bin picking,\u201d The International Journal of Robotics Research, 31(8), pp. 951\u2013973, 2012.\n\nLenz, H. Lee, and A. Saxena, \u201cDeep learning for detecting robotic grasps,\u201d The International Journal of Robotics Research, 34(4), pp. 705\u2013724, 2015.\n\nL. Pinto, J. Davidson, and A. Gupta, \u201cSupervision via competition: Robot adversaries for learning tasks,\u201d in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 1601\u20131608, 2017.\n\nJ. Bohg, A. Morales, T. Asfour, and D. Kragic (2013). \u201cData-driven grasp synthesis\u2014a survey\u201d. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 30(2), pp. 289-309, 2013.\n\nD. Kappler, J. Bohg, and S. Schaal, \u201cLeveraging big data for grasp planning\u201d. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 4304-4311, 2015.\n\nD. Morrison, P. Corke, and J. Leitner, \u201cClosing the loop for robotic grasping: A real-time, generative grasp synthesis approach.\u201d In Robotics: Science and Systems, 2018.\n\nJ. Mahler et al. \u201cDex-Net 2.0: Deep Learning to Plan Robust Grasps with Synthetic Point Clouds and Analytic Grasp Metrics.\u201d, In Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2017.\n\nJ. Mahler, M. Matl, V. Satish, M. Danielczuk, B. DeRose, S. McKinley, and K. Goldberg, \u201cLearning ambidextrous robot grasping policies,\u201d Science Robotics, 4(26), 2019.\n\nFANUC, \u201cVision Functions for robots\u201d, https://www.fanuc.eu/pt/en/robots/accessories/robot-vision, Website and Product brochure, Accessed on 22 Feb. 2020.\n\nKUKA, \u201cKUKA.PLC mxAutomation\u201d, www.kuka.com/en-us/products/robotics-systems/software/hub-technologies/kuka,-d-,plc-mxautomation, Website, Accessed on 24 Feb. 2020.\n\nSiemens, \u201cSIMATIC S7-1500/ET 200MP Automation System in a Nutshell\u201d, siemens.com, Oct. 2016.\n\nA. Telea, \u201cAn image inpainting technique based on the fast marching method\u201d, in Journal of graphics tools 9(1), Taylor & Francis, pp. 23\u201334, 2004.\n\nV. Satish, J. Mahler and K. Goldberg, \u201cOn-policy dataset synthesis for learning robot grasping policies using fully convolutional deep networks\u201d, in IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 4(2), pp. 1357\u20131364, 2019.\n\nM. Danielczuk, M. Matl, S. Gupta, A. Li, A. Lee, J. Mahler, K. Goldberg, \u201cSegmenting unknown 3d objects from real depth images using mask r-cnn trained on synthetic data\u201d, IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pp. 7283\u20137290, 2019.\n\n[^1]: $^{1}$Siemens [{eugen.solowjow, ines.ugalde, yash.shahapurkar, juan.aparicio, heiko.claussen}@siemens.com]{}\n\n[^2]: $^{2}$AUTOLAB at University of California, Berkeley[{jmahler, vsatish, goldberg}@berkeley.edu]{}\n\n[^3]: $^{3}$Ambidextrous Laboratories, Inc\n\n[^4]: www.siemens.com/tm-npu\n\n[^5]: www.rtems.org\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Word embeddings have been widely adopted across several NLP applications. Most existing word embedding methods utilize *sequential context* of a word to learn its embedding. While there have been some attempts at utilizing *syntactic context* of a word, such methods result in an explosion of the vocabulary size. In this paper, we overcome this problem by proposing , a flexible Graph Convolution based method for learning word embeddings. utilizes the dependency context of a word without increasing the vocabulary size. Word embeddings learned by outperform existing methods on various intrinsic and extrinsic tasks and provide an advantage when used with ELMo. We also propose , an effective framework for incorporating diverse semantic knowledge for further enhancing learned word representations. We make the source code of both models available to encourage reproducible research.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Shikhar Vashishth$^1$ Manik Bhandari$^{2*}$ Prateek Yadav$^3$[^1]\\\n    **Piyush Rai**$^4$ **Chiranjib Bhattacharyya**$^1$ **Partha Talukdar**$^1$\\\n    \\\n    $^1$Indian Institute of Science, $^2$Carnegie Mellon University\\\n    $^4$Microsoft Research, $^4$IIT Kanpur\\\n    [{shikhar,chiru,ppt}@iisc.ac.in]{}, [mbhandar@andrew.cmu.edu]{}\\\n    \\\n    [t-pryad@microsoft.com, piyush@cse.iitk.ac.in]{}\\\nbibliography:\n- 'acl2019.bib'\ntitle: |\n    Incorporating Syntactic and Semantic Information in\\\n    Word Embeddings using Graph Convolutional Networks\n---\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nWe thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. This work is supported in part by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Government of India) and Google PhD Fellowship.\n\n[^1]: \u00a0\u00a0Contributed equally to the work.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Nuclear stellar cluster (NSCs) are known to exist around massive black holes (MBHs) in galactic nuclei. They are thought to have formed through in-situ star formation following gas inflow to the nucleus of the galaxy and/or through the infall of multiple stellar clusters. Here we study the latter, and explore the composite structure of the NSC, and its relation to the various stellar populations originating from its progenitor infalling clusters. We use N-body simulations of clusters infall, and show that this scenario may produce observational signatures in the form of age segregation: the distribution of the stellar properties (e.g. stellar age and/or metallicity) in the NSCs reflect the infall history of the different clusters. The stellar populations of clusters infalling at different times (dynamical ages), are differentially segregated in the NSC, and are not fully mixed even after few Gyrs of evolution. Moreover, the radial properties of stellar populations in the progenitor cluster are mapped to their radial distribution in the final NSC, potentially leading to efficient mass segregation in NSCs, even those where relaxation times are longer than a Hubble time. Finally, the overall structures of the stellar populations present non-spherical configurations and show significant cluster to cluster population differences.'\nauthor:\n- 'Hagai B. Perets and Alessandra Mastrobuono-Battisti'\ntitle: Age and mass segregation of multiple stellar populations in galactic nuclei and their observational signatures \n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nNuclear stellar clusters (NSCs) hosting massive black holes (MBHs) are thought to exist in a significant fraction of all galactic nuclei. The build-up of such dense clusters is likely linked to the growth of the MBH, and the evolution of the galaxy and its nucleus, as suggested by statistical correlations between their properties (e.g. [@fer+00; @tre+02]). Two scenarios were suggested for the origin of nuclear clusters: (1) The cluster infall scenario, in which stellar clusters inspiral to the galactic nucleus, disrupted, and thereby build up the nuclear cluster ([bek+ @tre+75; @cap93; @bek+04; @aga+11; @ant+12; @ant+13; @gne+13] and references therein) the inspiraling clusters may also be the NSC of two galaxies in a merger scenario). (2) The nuclear star formation scenario, in which gas infalls into the nucleus and then transforms into stars through star formation processes ([@loo+82]; possibly in a disk like configuration, e.g. observations of the Milky Way NSC; [@lev+03; @lu+09; @bar+10]). Over time the in-situ star formation builds up the NSC. Naturally, both processes can work in concert, and both could be important for the formation and evolution of NSCs.\n\nIn this paper we explore the cluster infall scenario by means of N-body simulations, and neglect star formation processesand their effects, which are beyond the scope of this paper. Previous studies have dealt with the global structure and build-up of NSCs from inspiral of globular clusters (GCs). Here we focus on the multiple stellar populations in NSC and their mapping and relations to their original host GCs. We study the evolution of the multiple GC populations both during the evolution of the NSC and in its final form. In particular, we show that the cluster infall scenario introduces population segregation in NSCs, and provides signatures of the cluster infall history in the radial distribution of the stars in the NSC. In addition we suggest that the formation of NSCs from cluster infall can produce mass segregated NSCs, even in cases where two-body relaxation processes are too slow. We suggest that such variations in the kinematic properties of different stellar populations might be observable and serve as fossilized evidence for the evolution and build-up of galactic nuclei.\n\nIn the following we begin by a brief description of our cluster infall scenario (described in more details in Paper I). We then present the distribution of the stellar populations of the different infalling cluster in the fully formed NSC, and show the existence of the age-segregation and mass segregation phenomena. Finally, we discuss our results, discuss their implications and summarize.\n\nSimulation of the cluster infall formation of a nuclear cluster\n===============================================================\n\nOur modeling of the cluster infall formation of an NSC follows the same methods, and make use of the same code as used in paper I [@ant+12], where detailed description of the initial conditions of GCs and the galaxy model of the background stellar population can be found. In brief, we used direct N-body simulations (using the $\\phi$GRAPE code [@har+07]) of the consecutive infall and merging of a set of 12 single-mass globular clusters each starting from a galactocentric distance of $20$\u00a0pc. One simplification that we make is taking a constant time interval between cluster infalls, as done in previous works (e.g. Paper I). The total mass of these clusters sums to $\\sim1.5\\times10^{7}M_{\\odot}$, which is roughly the observed mass of the Milky Way nuclear star cluster [@gen+10]. The mass of the GCs is comparable to currently observed Milky Way GCs [see @gne+97 for Milky-Way GC paramters], though a better comparison would be to young superclusters (or their leftover nuclei) that would have inspiarlled to the nucleus (e.g. [@kro98]), and are currently observed only in other galaxies (e.g. young super star-clusters such as R136 observed in the LMC). with a MBH of $4\\times10^{6}$${\\rm M_{\\odot}}$ . After the first cluster had spiraled in to the center, we let the system reach a nearly steady state (as evaluated via Lagrange radii), and then added a second cluster. We iterated this procedure until all clusters accumulated and merged to form an NSC around the central MBH. We note a few differences from the original simulations discussed in paper I: (1) The scaling of the relaxation time used in paper I assumed a fully collisional simulation, where as in effect a softening radius of 0.01 pc is used; we now scale the relaxation times correctly, accounting for the lower cut-off of the Coloumb logarithm due to the softening radius used. The times used in paper I were therefore 2.9 times shorter than the now corrected estimates. (2) We now assume a random distribution of the initial inclinations and phases of the inspiraling clusters, rather than a the contrived model in paper I; the initial conditions are shown in Table \\[tab:Initial-orbital-paramters\\]. (3) The total scaled time of the simulation is 12 Gyrs, comparable to the age of the Galaxy; the time passed since the infall of the last cluster until the end of the simulation is shorter than the relaxation time of the NSC, but we have also followed the simulation up to the relaxation time of the NSC. We emphasize that the times used here are only an approximation, based on scaling arguments of the relaxation time, and should not be treated as an accurate time representation.\n\nWe have made two realizations of the infall scenario for the formation of the NSC. Both realizations show generally similar results, and we present results only from one of them (see Table \\[tab:Initial-orbital-paramters\\] for the relevant initial conditions). We briefly remark on some differences observed between the two realizations.\n\n   n    $\\Omega$ (deg)   $i$ (deg)   $R_{t}$(pc)\n  ---- ---------------- ----------- -------------\n   1         82.4          60.7         1.29\n   2        327.7          178.7        1.29\n   3         76.2          139.5        1.29\n   4        290.6          171.3        1.34\n   5        335.4          24.6         1.48\n   6        300.6          18.2         1.54\n   7        343.9          173.9        1.55\n   8         47.9          128.9         1.6\n   9        272.0           2.3         1.78\n   10        41.3          139.0        1.80\n   11       300.9          153.5        1.85\n   12       318.2          120.2        1.86\n\n  : \\[tab:Initial-orbital-paramters\\]Initial orbital parameters of the infalling clusters (inclination i and longitude of ascending node $\\Omega$), and their tidal disruption radius as found from the simulations.\n\nResults\n=======\n\nIn this study we explore the mapping between the properties of stellar populations in NSC, and their relation to the initial characteristics of the stellar populations in the progenitor clusters. We focus on two points in time during the NSC evolution; the first after the infall and initial relaxation of the last cluster, and the second, after more relaxation has occurred at an age comparable to a Hubble time. Our findings show that the dynamical history of the cluster infall is still reflected in the radial distribution of the stellar populations in the NSC, even Gyrs after the last infall.\n\nWe find that stars in the NSC originating from early-infall clusters are more segregated to the center of the NSC than their stellar counterparts from late-infall clusters. This is true both after the last infall and even later after a few Gyrs of evolution (See Fig. \\[fig:Radial-distribution\\]). In particular the cluster inner population (central hundred particles), show a clear segregation when comparing early and late infalls, with relatively little additional mixing over the last two Gyrs of evolution (See the evolution of the Lagrangian radii of these populations in the NSC in Fig. \\[fig:Lagrange\\]). Note that the age segregation is reversed between the inner regions of the NSC and the outer regions, due to the later (earlier) stripping of the early (late)-infalling clusters.\n\nAs can be seen in Fig. \\[fig:Lagrange\\], the infall of each new cluster affects the evolution of the stellar population of the previous infalling cluster, effectively \u201ccompressing\u201d it into a more compact configuration around the MBH. The last infalling cluster did not experience such a later infall, and the distribution of its stars is significantly less segregated. Observing such a distinct population in a galactic nucleus could therefore provide an interesting clue on a relatively recent infall. The more robust results apply for the earlier 11 clusters, in which the age segregation signatures can be observed even long after their infall.\n\nWe also find that the 3D structure of the stellar populations of each of the GCs could significantly differ. In Fig. \\[fig:triaxial\\] we show the triaxiality parameter (see Paper I) for each of the GC populations as a function of the distance from the MBH. As can be seen, such structure could vary significantly even between consecutive infalling clusters.\n\n![\\[fig:Radial-distribution\\]Radial distribution of the infalling clusters stellar populations. Top: the radial distribution following the last cluster infall (after the initial relaxation). Bottom: The same at 12 Gyrs. As can be seen in both cases the clusters populations show clear differences, with the earlier infalling clusters showing systematically more compact configuration in the central region ($<2$ pc), and then an opposite behavior outside. Insets show the large scale (20 pc) distribution; note linear scales in insets.](fig1a)\n\n![\\[fig:Radial-distribution\\]Radial distribution of the infalling clusters stellar populations. Top: the radial distribution following the last cluster infall (after the initial relaxation). Bottom: The same at 12 Gyrs. As can be seen in both cases the clusters populations show clear differences, with the earlier infalling clusters showing systematically more compact configuration in the central region ($<2$ pc), and then an opposite behavior outside. Insets show the large scale (20 pc) distribution; note linear scales in insets.](fig1b)\n\n![\\[fig:Lagrange\\] Evolution of the Lagrangian radii for the central hundred stars of each of the clusters.The initial Lagrange radius is 0.2 pc for each cluster. Once the cluster is disrupted (see star symbols), the Lagrange radius transitions from being relative to the location of the central density of the cluster to effectively become the distance from the MBH, hence the rise from 0.2 pc (no seen) to the tidal radius central density of each cluster. As can be clearly seen, the stellar population of the earlier falling clusters is progressively more centrally concentrated than the populations of later falling clusters. ](fig2)\n\nWe note that some bunching of the population of several consecutive clusters can be observed (e.g. GCs 1-4, then GCs 5-8, and then 9-11). This bunching relates to the specific initial conditions for each cluster (i.e. its inclination and orbital phase; i and $\\Omega$), and different bunching is observed when different random initial conditions are used (not shown). However, this interesting phenomena do not affect the overall age and mass segregation processes discussed here, and are beyond the scope of this paper.\n\n![\\[fig:triaxial\\]Triaxiality of the NSC stellar populations. The triaxiality parameter of the different cluster populations (smoothed for clarity with a 1 pc window) is shown as a function of distance from the MBH. As can be seen the different populations show distinctly different behavior, and significant triaxiality. In particular, some of the cluster show highly anisotropic properties; somewhat resembling thick-disk-like structures in some cases even Gyrs after their infall. ](fig3)\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nAge segregation\n---------------\n\nAn additional aspect of NSC build-up from cluster infall is the mapping of the infalling clusters structure to the final configuration of the NSC. Typically stars at a distance $R_{c}$ (which contains $M(<R_{c})$ of the cluster mass) from the center of their infalling host cluster are stripped by the tidal forces due to the combined mass of the MBH and the stellar mass of the NSC, $M_{NSC}$ at the stripping radius, $R_{s}$, defined as the tidal radius for stars at that position:\n\n$$R_{s}=\\left(\\frac{M_{BH}+M_{NSC}(<R_{s})}{M_{c}(<R_{c})}\\right)^{1/3}R_{c}.\\label{eq:Rt}$$\n\nAt early stages, the NSC mass is dominated by the MBH ($M_{BH}\\gg M(<R$)) and the early falling clusters should have very similar tidal radii. At later stages the NSC is slowly built up from the infalling clusters, until it reaches a mass comparable and even larger than the MBH ($M_{NSC}\\sim2-3\\times M_{BH}$). We therefore expect stars from later clusters to be stripped earlier, at a stripping radius which is up to $2^{1/3}-3^{1/3}$ (1.26-1.44) larger than the corresponding stripping radius for stars from earlier GCs (i.e. initially at comparable distances from the GC center in both clusters). This expectation is consistent with our results in table 1 and Fig. \\[fig:Lagrange\\]; indeed the first infalling clusters show the same tidal radii, and the ratio between the tidal radii of the last and the first infalling clusters is $1.86/1.29\\simeq3^{1/3}$. This phenomenon produces a dynamical age gradient, where **stars from earlier infalling clusters are stripped at later stages, and dominate inner regions of the NSC**. If earlier falling clusters are older (e.g. they formed earlier and therefore spiraled earlier to the nucleus) then such gradient would be translated into a stellar age gradient. Alternatively, if earlier falling clusters differ in metallicity/color than their later counterparts (e.g. later falling cluster arrive from larger distances where colors differ; e.g. [@bal+94] ), such gradient would be translated into a color/metallicity gradient in the NSC. The dynamical age segregation process may therefore give rise to potentially observable stellar age/metallicity gradients.\n\nWe do note an important complication with this simplified picture. In particular, more compact and massive GCs will be stripped later (see Eq. \\[eq:Rt\\]), and may therefore dispose their stars closer to the MBH, compared with the stars of the earlier, more dispersed clusters. Note, however, that less compact clusters are less likely to inspiral to the nucleus from large distances during a Hubble time (see [@ant+12]), and therefore we expect only the most dense massive clusters to contribute to the stellar population in the NSC. Moreover, given the shorter inspiral time of more massive clusters, these are likely to arrive earlier, on average, than their lighter counterparts, which would also contribute to their later stripping.\n\nMass segregation\n----------------\n\nIrrespective of the age segregation process discussed above, the mapping between the structure of the infalling GC and the structure of the stripped population of stars in the NSC suggested by Eq. \\[eq:Rt\\] could have an important role in building mass segregated NSCs. It is thought that massive clusters are likely to be mass segregated either primordially or from an early stage in their evolution [e.g. @bau+08; @all+09; @por+10 and references therein]; and in even in the absence of such early mass segregation, GCs may have sufficient time to segregate during their infall. Such mass segregation could potentially be mapped into a mass segregation of galactic nuclei stellar population. Indeed, the locations of stars initially outside the GC cores are strongly correlated with their positions in the galaxy nucleus at the end of the simulation (linear correlation coefficients, $R$, almost monotonically rise between the first infalling clusters, $R=0.48$ to the last infalling cluster, $R=0.18)$. Note, however, that we find such direct mapping of closer in stars do not hold for stars initially inside the GC cores. These stars would still be more centrally concentrated around the MBH at the end of the simulation than stars initially residing in the outer parts of the GCs (by a factor of 2-3), but among these core stars any direct correlation between their initial position in the GC and their final position in the galaxy nucleus is lost.\n\nThe infall scenario would therefore suggest that **NSCs are likely to be mass segregated even when the relaxation times in such NSCs are longer than a Hubble time** (true for most NSCs hosting MBHs with $M_{BH}>{\\rm few}\\times10^{7}$). More generally, NSCs could be more mass segregated than expected from typical relaxation processes (e.g. [@bah+77]; though strong mass segregation process may also contribute; [@ale+09]). As a side note, it is interesting to point out that clues for an extreme mass segregation are apparent in the stellar population of the Galactic NSC (see [@ale07] for a discussion).\n\nSuch dynamical-mapping age segregation could have an important role in leading to the concentration of massive stars, and in particular stellar black holes in the central region of nuclear cusps around MBHs. The built-up of a centrally concentrated dark cusp made of black holes is therefore an interesting potential outcome of the cluster infall scenario for NSC formation (see Antonini 2014, in prep. for a detailed discussion of these issues). We also note that in cases an infalling GC harbors an intermediate mass black hole ($10^{3}-10^{4}$${\\rm M_{\\odot}}$), it could bring stars much closer in to the NSC MBH, thereby producing an even more compact configuration (see Mastrobuono and Perets, in prep. for such a scenario).\n\nRelaxation time vs. mixing time\n-------------------------------\n\nFollowing the cluster infall formation of NSC, they may continue to evolve through two-body relaxation processes. In theory, such later evolution may progressively erase some or all of the signatures of the cluster infall scenario discussed above given sufficient time for evolution. However, as shown above, we find that signatures of the infall scenario are observed even at the age of the universe. Moreover, even at later times, comparable to the relaxation time of the NSC after the last infall, the NSC still shows clear signatures of the dynamical-mapping age and mass segregation. This may appear counter intuitive, as one might expect any initial conditions in the cluster to be erased after a relaxation time. Relaxation time is defined as the time it takes a star to change its kinetic energy by the order of itself (e.g. [@bin+87]). However, in order for a star in the outer region of an NSC to be transported to the inner region of the NSC, it needs a much more significant change in energy, i.e. of the order of the energy of the star in the inner region, were the gravitational potential and velocities are much higher. As a first simplified approximation for the time it takes a stellar population at some distance $r_{out}$ from MBH to mix with another stellar population at an inner region, $r_{in},$ one can replace the velocity dispersion in relaxation time formula at the position $r_{out}$ with that in the position $r_{in}$ while keeping the number densities and the relative velocities between stars, the same i.e. the \u201cmixing time\u201d for the two populations would be defined by\n\n$$t_{mix(r_{out},r_{in})}=\\left(\\frac{\\sigma(r_{in})^{2}}{\\sigma(r_{out})^{2}}\\right)t_{r_{out}}\\thickapprox\\left(\\frac{r_{out}}{r_{in}}\\right)t_{r_{out}},$$ where $t_{r_{out}}$ is the relaxation time at $r_{out}$ and the last equality is obtained for regions where the MBH dominates the gravitational potential of the NSC (i.e. up to the MBH influence radius). A more accurate definition would account for the changing diffusion time as the stellar environment changes during the diffusive transport of a star from one environment to another; a full discussion of the mixing time is beyond this scope and will be discussed in details elsewhere. Irrespective of the accurate definition, it is clear that $t_{mix}>t_{r}$ ; stellar population segregation could therefore survive much longer than a relaxation time. One should note, however, that every infall of an additional cluster does not only bring new stars to the NSC, that would slowly change the two-body relaxation time, but can produce significant changes in the gravitational potential on dynamical timescales. Though this may not significantly affect the inner regions deep in the potential of the MBH+NSC, such changes may give rise to a more violent relaxation in the outer regions that can mix the stellar populations much more efficiently than two-body relaxation processes. One would therefore expect segregated populations to be more pronounced in the inner regions of NSCs, and around more massive MBHs.\n\nStructure of the multiple stellar populations\n---------------------------------------------\n\nThe particular final structure of the stellar population of each GC is complex, as can be seen in Fig. \\[fig:triaxial\\], and its detailed exploration is beyond the scope of this letter. Here we only note that the significant differences between these structures could provide an additional signature for the multi-cluster infall scenario, similar to the radial segregation discussed above. In particular infalling clusters can produce thick flattened structures with varied orientations, possibly related to \u201cdisky\u201d like structures are observed in galactic nuclei and clusters (see [@mas+13] for discussion of the evolution of such disks).\n\nSummary\n=======\n\nIn this *letter* we explore the signatures and the implications of the cluster infall scenario on the structure of nuclear stellar clusters and their multiple stellar populations. We use N-body simulations to study the infall of 12 globular clusters into a galactic nucleus hosting a MBH of $4\\times10^{6}$ ${\\rm M}_{\\odot}$, and we follow the evolution of the stellar populations from each cluster and their final distribution in the NSC. We find that the infall history is reflected in the final structure of the NSC, where stellar populations from earlier falling clusters are more concentrated in the central parts of the NSC compared to late ones. This dynamical age segregation process can potentially leave behind a signature in the form of an age and/or metallicity radial gradient in the NSC stellar population. The stellar population of each cluster forms a non-spherical complex structure, which behavior significantly differs from one cluster population to another. In addition, any primordial/early mass segregation in the infalling GCs is mapped into a mass segregated populations in the galactic nucleus; in particular even NSCs where relaxation time is longer than a Hubble time could show a mass segregated stellar population, which could not arise from two-body relaxation processes.\n\n[26]{} natexlab\\#1[\\#1]{}\n\n, M. & [Milosavljevi[\u0107]{}]{}, M. 2011, , 729, 35\n\n, T. 2007, ArXiv:0708.0688\n\n, T. & [Hopman]{}, C. 2009, , 697, 1861\n\n, R.\u00a0J., [Goodwin]{}, S.\u00a0P., [Parker]{}, R.\u00a0J., [de Grijs]{}, R., [Portegies Zwart]{}, S.\u00a0F., & [Kouwenhoven]{}, M.\u00a0B.\u00a0N. 2009, , 700, L99\n\n, F. 2013, , 763, 62\n\n, F., [Capuzzo-Dolcetta]{}, R., [Mastrobuono-Battisti]{}, A., & [Merritt]{}, D. 2012, , 750, 111\n\n, J.\u00a0N. & [Wolf]{}, R.\u00a0A. 1977, , 216, 883\n\n, M. & [Peletier]{}, R.\u00a0F. 1994, , 107, 135\n\n, H., [Martins]{}, F., [Fritz]{}, T.\u00a0K., [Genzel]{}, R., [Levin]{}, Y., [Perets]{}, H.\u00a0B., [Paumard]{}, T., [Nayakshin]{}, S., [Gerhard]{}, O., [Alexander]{}, T., [Dodds-Eden]{}, K., [Eisenhauer]{}, F., [Gillessen]{}, S., [Mascetti]{}, L., [Ott]{}, T., [Perrin]{}, G., [Pfuhl]{}, O., [Reid]{}, M.\u00a0J., [Rouan]{}, D., [Sternberg]{}, A., & [Trippe]{}, S. 2009, , 697, 1741\n\n, H., [De Marchi]{}, G., & [Kroupa]{}, P. 2008, , 685, 247\n\n, K., [Couch]{}, W.\u00a0J., [Drinkwater]{}, M.\u00a0J., & [Shioya]{}, Y. 2004, , 610, L13\n\n, J. & [Tremaine]{}, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press)\n\n, R. 1993, , 415, 616\n\n, L. & [Merritt]{}, D. 2000, , 539, L9\n\n, R., [Eisenhauer]{}, F., & [Gillessen]{}, S. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121\n\n, N.\u00a0Y. & [Ostriker]{}, J.\u00a0P. 1997, , 486, 581\n\n, O.\u00a0Y., [Ostriker]{}, J.\u00a0P., & [Tremaine]{}, S. 2013, ArXiv:1308.0021\n\n, S., [Gualandris]{}, A., [Merritt]{}, D., [Spurzem]{}, R., [Zwart]{}, S.\u00a0P., & [Berczik]{}, P. 2007, New Astronomy, 12, 357\n\n, P. 1998, , 300, 200\n\n, Y. & [Beloborodov]{}, A.\u00a0M. 2003, , 590, L33\n\n, H.\u00a0H., [Kruegel]{}, E., & [Tutukov]{}, A. 1982, , 105, 342\n\n, J.\u00a0R., [Ghez]{}, A.\u00a0M., [Hornstein]{}, S.\u00a0D., [Morris]{}, M.\u00a0R., [Becklin]{}, E.\u00a0E., & [Matthews]{}, K. 2009, , 690, 1463\n\n, A. & [Perets]{}, H.\u00a0B. 2013, , 779, 85\n\n, S.\u00a0F., [McMillan]{}, S.\u00a0L.\u00a0W., & [Gieles]{}, M. 2010, , 48, 431\n\n, S. [et\u00a0al.]{} 2002, , 574, 740\n\n, S.\u00a0D., [Ostriker]{}, J.\u00a0P., & [Spitzer]{}, Jr., L. 1975, , 196, 407\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We study the diffusion of a Brownian probe particle of size $R$ in a dilute dispersion of active Brownian particles (ABPs) of size $a$, characteristic swim speed $U_0$, reorientation time $\\tau_R$, and mechanical energy $k_s T_s = \\zeta_a U_0^2 \\tau_R /6$, where $\\zeta_a$ is the Stokes drag coefficient of a swimmer. The probe has a thermal diffusivity $D_P = k_B T/\\zeta_P$, where $k_B T$ is the thermal energy of the solvent and $\\zeta_P$ is the Stokes drag coefficient for the probe. When the swimmers are inactive, collisions between the probe and the swimmers sterically hinder the probe\u2019s diffusive motion. In competition with this steric hindrance is an enhancement driven by the activity of the swimmers. The strength of swimming relative to thermal diffusion is set by $Pe_s = U_0 a /D_P$. The active contribution to the diffusivity scales as $Pe_s^2$ for weak swimming and $Pe_s$ for strong swimming, but the transition between these two regimes is nonmonotonic. When fluctuations in the probe motion decay on the time scale $\\tau_R$, the active diffusivity scales as $k_s T_s /\\zeta_P$: the probe moves as if it were immersed in a solvent with energy $k_s T_s$ rather than $k_B T$.'\nauthor:\n- 'Eric W. Burkholder, John F. Brady'\nbibliography:\n- 'library.bib'\ntitle: Tracer diffusion in active suspensions\n---\n\nDiffusive and rheological properties of active suspensions are important for understanding many biological systems and processes, such as transport within cells. Active Brownian particles (ABPs), which move with a self-propulsive velocity $\\bU_0$ and randomly reorient with a characteristic time scale $\\tau_R$, provide a minimal model for active suspensions; even the precise mechanism of their autonomous motion need not be specified. The motion of these active particles, or \u201cswimmers,\u201d affects not only material properties (e.g. viscosity), but also the motion of passive constituents, such as nutrients or signaling proteins that may be important for cell survival.\n\nIn a passive suspension where particles lack the ability to self-propel, it is well known that \u201ccollisions\u201d between a probe and the bath particles sterically hinder the long-time diffusive motion of a probe; the effective long-time diffusivity is less than the isolated Stokes-Einstein-Sutherland (SES) value [@Batchelor1976; @Zia2010]. By contrast, experiments have confirmed that colloidal tracers (both Brownian and non-Brownian) in active bacterial suspensions undergo enhanced diffusive motion at long times due to bath activity. This is observed not only in liquid cultures, but also in porous media and on agar surfaces [@Kim2004; @Wu2000; @Wu2011]. As a result, recent theoretical and experimental investigations have been motivated to understand the character of this enhanced diffusive motion and to provide models that describe this behavior [@Jepson2013; @Mino2011; @Mino2013; @Morozov2014; @Kasyap2014; @Lin2011; @Thiffeault2010]. For example, Kasyap et al. [@Kasyap2014] developed a mean-field hydrodynamic theory to describe the effects of binary interactions between point tracers and ellipsoidal bacterial swimmers. This theory predicts a net enhancement of tracer diffusivity arising from the fluid flow induced by the swimming bacteria, which was shown to be a nonmonotonic function of a P\u00e9clet number relating the strength of bacterial advection to the Brownian motion of the tracer. Experimental studies have also observed a nonmonotonicity in P\u00e9clet number when varying the size of the tracer particle [@Patteson2016]. Other theory and experiments propose that the enhancement to the diffusivity is linear in the \u201cactive flux\" due to the swimmers\u2019 autonomous motion [@Jepson2013; @Mino2011; @Mino2013; @Morozov2014].\n\nHere we show that these same qualitative features are recovered without considering hydrodynamic interactions (HI)\u2014the enhanced diffusivity of passive particles may be understood as a result of the activity of the bath particles and excluded volume interactions alone. This does not mean the HI are not important, only that their effect is quantitative, not qualitative. We use a Smoluchowski-level analysis to model the active suspension and compute the long-time diffusivity of a passive probe using generalized Taylor dispersion theory and expansions in orientational tensor harmonics [@Yan2015; @Zia2010; @Saintillan2015]. The derivation and complete expressions for the active diffusivity of the probe are given in the supplemental material [@SuppInfo2017]; here we focus on limiting behaviors. Additionally, we show that these excluded volume interactions have important implications for experimental measurements of activity-enhanced diffusion: steric hindrance to passive diffusion is in competition with active enhancement and both effects must be considered when designing and analyzing experiments.\n\nConsider a passive Brownian particle of size $R$ moving through a bath comprised of a Newtonian solvent of viscosity $\\eta$, and a dispersion of ABPs of size $a$, swim speed $U_0$, and reorientation time $\\tau_R$. In the absence of the probe, the swimmers undergo both a thermal and an active random-walk, where the thermal walk is characterized by the SES diffusivity $D_a$, and the random walk due to their self-propulsion is characterized by a swim diffusivity $D^{swim} = U_0 ^2 \\tau_R /6$. We define the mechanical activity of the bath as the Stokes drag times the swim diffusivity: $k_s T_s = \\zeta_a D^{swim}$, just as $k_B T = \\zeta_a D_a$ [@Takatori2014; @Takatori2014b]. The volume fraction of swimmers is $\\phi = 4\\pi a^3 n^\\infty/3$, where $n^\\infty$ is the uniform number density of swimmers far from the probe. The probe has a thermal diffusivity $D_P = k_B T/\\zeta_P$, and the probe-swimmer pair has a relative thermal diffusivity $D^{rel} = D_a + D_P$. The competition between swimming and Brownian motion is governed by the swim P\u00e9clet number: $Pe_s = U_0 R_c /D^{rel} =U_0 R/D_a = U_0 a/D_P$, and $R_c = R + a$ is the center-to-center separation distance of the probe and swimmer upon contact.\n\nIn the absence of activity, the (passive) bath particles hinder the probe\u2019s motion due to steric interactions [@Batchelor1976]. For dilute suspensions the active contribution to the diffusivity is $\\langle \\bm{D^{act}} \\rangle \\equiv \\langle \\bm{D^{eff}} \\rangle  -D_P \\bm{I}(1-\\phi_{act}),$ where $\\langle \\bm{D^{eff}} \\rangle$ is the effective diffusivity of the probe and $\\phi_{act} \\equiv \\phi (R_c/a)^2 /2$ measures the number of swimmers colliding with the probe (which can be much larger than the actual volume fraction $\\phi$ for large probes). The diffusivity of a probe in a suspension of inactive swimmers is $D_P \\bm{I} (1-\\phi_{act})$. When the probe and ABP are the same size, $\\phi_{act} = 2\\phi$, and the steric reduction is $1 - 2\\phi$, a well-known result in the absence of HI [@Batchelor1976]. Both the effective and active diffusivities are isotropic.\n\nWe can predict $D^{act}$ with simple scaling arguments. The kinematic definition of the diffusivity is $D^{act} = N (U^\\prime)^2 \\tau$, where $U^\\prime$ is the magnitude of the probe\u2019s velocity fluctuations due to collisions with the swimmers, $\\tau$ is the time scale over which these fluctuations become decorrelated, and $N$ is the number of swimmers colliding with the probe. Upon collision a swimmer pushes the probe with its propulsive swim force ${\\bF^{swim}} = \\zeta_a {\\bU_0}$, while the solvent resists this motion via the probe\u2019s Stokes drag. Thus, the magnitude of velocity fluctuations is $U^\\prime \\sim \\zeta_a U_0 / \\zeta_P$. (When the probe is small compared to the swimmers, the velocity fluctuations scale with the swim speed, $U^\\prime \\sim U_0$.) On average the probe will experience $N \\sim n^\\infty R_c ^3$ collisions, where $R_c^3$ is the volume occupied by a swimmer-probe pair. Hence, $$\\begin{aligned}\nD^{act} & \\sim &  n^\\infty R_c^3 \\left(\\frac{\\zeta_a}{\\zeta_P}\\right)^2 U_0 ^2 \\, \\tau, \\quad R\\gtrsim a, \\nonumber\\\\*\n &  & n^\\infty R_c^3 \\, U_0^2 \\, \\tau , \\quad  R \\ll a \\, .\n \\label{eq:scaling}\\end{aligned}$$ The time scale $\\tau$ differs depending on the dominant physical process governing the decorrelation and can take one of three values: (1) the diffusive time $\\tau_D = R_c^2/D^{rel}$, (2) the advective time $\\tau_{adv} = R_c/U_0$ and (3) the reorientation time $\\tau_R$.\n\n\\(1) When the decorrelation time $\\tau = \\tau_D \\equiv R_c^2/D^{rel}$, the probe\u2019s fluctuations are induced by the swimming bath particles, but the fluctuations are sufficiently weak ($Pe_s \\ll 1$) that they decay on the time scale of Brownian diffusion. The scaling argument predicts $D^{act} \\sim D_P Pe_s ^2 \\phi_{act}$, and the detailed calculations give $$D^{act} = \\frac{29}{54}D_P Pe_s^2 \\phi_{act},\n\\label{eqn:pe2}$$ as one would expect for Taylor dispersion: the linear response diffusivity scales as $Pe_s ^2$ (or $U_0^2$). Kasyap et al.\u00a0[@Kasyap2014] found that the hydrodynamically-driven diffusivity of a point tracer scales as $Pe_s^{3/2} \\sqrt{U_0 \\tau_R /a}$ when swimming is weak, which is also quadratic in $U_0$. We predict that $D^{act} \\sim Pe_s^2$ for all $a/R$, but curiously we find no explicit dependence on $\\tau_R$, although such a dependence is evident in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:peclet\\]; we address this in (3) below.\n\n\\(2) When swimming is strong compared to Brownian motion, the appropriate time scale is $\\tau = \\tau_{adv} = R_c/U_0$. The swimmers are bombarding the probe so rapidly that the resulting fluctuations become decorrelated on the time it takes for a swimmers to traverse the distance $R_c$. The scaling analysis (\\[eq:scaling\\]) predicts $D^{act} \\sim D_P Pe_s \\phi_{act} \\sim U_0 a \\phi_{act}$, and the detailed Smoluchowski approach gives: $$D^{act} = \\frac{1}{3 \\sqrt{3}} U_0 a \\left(\\frac{2+\\sqrt{2 \\tau_D/\\tau_R}}{1+\\sqrt{2 \\tau_D/\\tau_R}}\\right)\\phi_{act}.$$ The probe\u2019s diffusivity is now linear in the swim speed $U_0$ (or linear in $Pe_s$), as expected from Taylor dispersion theory. Kasyap et al.\u00a0[@Kasyap2014] find that $D^{act} \\sim n^\\infty a^3 U_0 a$ (because the tracers have no size in their analysis the only geometric length scale is the swimmer size $a$), but their result is independent of $\\tau_R$. The transition from diffusive to advective behavior is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:peclet\\].\n\nIn this limit the run length of a swimmer, $\\ell \\equiv U_0 \\tau_R$, is large compared to the pair size $R_c$, and a swimmer collides with the probe before it is able to traverse its full run length. The swimmer pushes the probe with force $\\zeta_a U_0$, but is only able to move it a distance of $O(a)$ on average. One might think that the swimmer should be able to push the probe the contact length $R_c$, but the no-flux boundary condition allows the swimmer to slide along the probe\u2019s surface, and thus the average distance of a push is only $O(a)$. Just as in the diffusion-controlled regime, the result is insensitive to the swimmer-probe size ratio $a/R$. It manifests only in $\\phi_{act}$, which simply becomes $\\phi$ for point tracers. Finally, we note that the ratio of the other two time scales $\\tau_D/\\tau_R$ has no bearing on the scaling of the diffusivity in this limit\u2014it can only change the result by a factor of two.\n\nHowever, $\\tau_D/\\tau_R$ significantly affects the behavior in the diffusion-dominated regime and the location of the transition from the diffusive to advective behavior. When $\\tau_D/\\tau_R \\ll 1$, reorientations are slow and the transition occurs for $Pe_s \\sim O(1)$ as one would expect. However, as reorientations become faster ($\\tau_D/\\tau_R$ increases), the transition occurs at much higher values of $Pe_s$ (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:peclet\\]). In the athermal limit of no translational diffusion ($\\tau_D \\rightarrow \\infty$), the transition to strong swimming is governed by the reorienation P\u00e9clet number $Pe_R \\equiv \\tau_{adv} /\\tau_R = R_c/\\ell \\sim O(1)$ rather than the swim P\u00e9clet number $Pe_s$.\n\n\\(3) When Brownian motion is weak compared to the swimmers\u2019 reorientations, the decorrelation time is set by the reorientation time: $\\tau = \\tau_R$. The scaling arguments predict $D^{act} \\sim (k_s T_s / \\zeta_P) \\phi_{act}$, or $D^{act} \\sim D^{swim}\\phi$ for small probes. The result of the Smoluchowski analysis is in agreement: $$D^{act} = \\left(\\frac{k_s T_s}{\\zeta_P}\\right)\\frac{R}{R_c}\\phi_{act}\\, .$$ Note that there is no dependence on $k_B T$.\n\nSuppose that the swimmers and probe are large enough so that Brownian motion is not important, but the swimmers\u2019 reorientation time is relatively fast. The probe receives many small active kicks of size $k_s T_s$ from the swimmers, which are dissipated by the Stokes drag $\\zeta_P$. Thus, the diffusivity looks like what one would expect from a stochastic \u201cBrownian\" process, where the energy is $k_s T_s$ rather than $k_B T$. In the limit when the probe is very small, $(k_s T_s /\\zeta_P)(R/R_c) \\rightarrow U_0 ^2 \\tau_R /6$, $\\phi_{act} \\rightarrow \\phi$, and the active diffusivity is simply the swim diffusivity times the volume fraction of swimmers: $D^{act} = D^{swim} \\phi$. As a swimmer hops in one direction and equal volume for solvent is displaced in the opposite direction.\n\nBecause the probe receives many small kicks from the swimmers, its motion is governed by a Langevin equation $0 = -\\zeta_P \\bm{U} + \\bm{F}^{swim},$ where $\\bm U$ is the probe velocity and the swimmers exert a fluctuating force with zero mean $\\langle \\bm{F}^{swim} \\rangle = \\bm 0$ and autocorrelation $\\langle \\bm{F}^{swim}(t)\\bm{F}^{swim}(t')\\rangle = 2 k_s T_s \\zeta_P \\bm{I} \\delta(t-t')$ for times long compared to $\\tau_R$. The mean-squared displacement follows as $\\langle (\\Delta \\bm{x}(t))^2\\rangle = 2 (k_s T_s/\\zeta_P) t \\bm{I}$ for the diffusivity of a particle immersed in such an active medium.\n\nIn this \u201ccontinuum limit\" the probe acts as a thermometer that measures the swimmers\u2019 activity $k_s T_s$. When $\\ell/R_c \\rightarrow 0$, active suspensions have a well-defined \u2018temperature\u2019 through their activity $k_s T_s$ [@Takatori2015] because the motion looks like a stochastic Brownian process. When $\\ell/R_c \\gg 1$, as is the case in the strong swimming regime, the definition of temperature breaks down because the swimmers no longer move the probe a distance $\\ell$, they only push it a distance $a$ between reorientations. Thus, the swimmers do not \u201cshare\" their activity fully with the probe; the appropriate shared quantity in this limit is $Pe_R$. Figure \\[fig:continuum\\] shows $D^{act}$ as a function of $\\tau_D/\\tau_R$ for various values of $D^{swim}/D^{rel} = (\\tau_D/\\tau_R)/\\tau_{adv}^2 \\sim k_s T_s/k_B T$. For $\\tau_D/\\tau_R \\rightarrow \\infty$ we recover the continuum-like scaling for any value of $k_s T_s /k_BT$. Though intuition might say that the diffusivity should be dominated by thermal kicks when $k_s T_s \\ll k_B T$, it is important to remember that it is the solvent, not the bath particles, that give the probe thermal kicks. The swimmers can only give kicks of size $k_s T_s$. The finite size of the swimmers replaces a volume of solvent, thus reducing the number of thermal kicks the probe receives. The $O(\\phi_{act})$ change in the probe diffusivity is actually [*negative*]{} when $k_s T_s  < k_B T$ (see the inset of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:nonmonotonic\\]): steric hinderance exceeds active enhancement.\n\nAn interesting feature predicted by the detailed theory is a nonmontonic dependence of $D^{act}$ on both $\\tau_D/\\tau_R$ and $Pe_s$, as seen in Figs\u00a0\\[fig:continuum\\] and \\[fig:nonmonotonic\\], respectively. As $Pe_s$ increases, thermal diffusion slows and swimming becomes more important, so we transition from a diffusive to advective behavior. This transition does not occur monotonically with $Pe_s$ because $Pe_R = \\tau_{adv}/\\tau_R$ also influences the dynamics. Imagine a scenario where $\\tau_D$ and $\\tau_R$ are fixed and $R\\gg a$, but we adjust the swimmers\u2019 speed (perhaps by altering the amount of available fuel). When the swimmers move slowly, Brownian motion dominates: $\\overline{D^{act}} \\equiv D^{act}/(U_0 a \\phi_{act}) \\sim Pe_s$. When the swim speed is large, advection dominates and $\\overline{D^{act}}$ is constant. When $\\tau_D \\sim \\tau_{adv}$, neither wins out and the reorientations are allowed to influence the dynamics. Finite Brownian motion keeps the swimmers close to the probe after a collision, and slow reorientation allows the swimmer to collide with the probe again rather than run off, thus the diffusivity is slightly higher than the advective scaling. When reorientations are too fast, this peak dissapears. This is corroborated by Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:continuum\\], which reveals that $D^{act}$ is only nonmonotonic when $k_s T_s < k_B T$. The nonmontonicity still occurs when $\\tau_D \\sim \\tau_R$, but Brownian motion is only strong enough to compete with activity if the thermal energy of the solvent exceeds the activity of the bath.\n\nKasyap et al.\u00a0[@Kasyap2014] find the same phenomenon in their treatment. When the diffusion is hydrodynamic in origin and advection dominates, the tracer follows a straight trajectory along fluid streamlines. Weak Brownian motion allows the tracer to sample more trajectories, and the odd symmetry of the bacterium\u2019s dipolar flow field results in an increased correlation in probe motion. When Brownian motion is strong, the probe\u2019s motion decorrelates and the diffusivity decreases. Thus the diffusivity decreases nonmonotonically with increasing Brownian motion (i.e. as one moves from right to left in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:nonmonotonic\\]). Patteson et al.\u00a0[@Patteson2016] see something similar in experiments by varying the probe size, which is equivalent to varying $Pe_s$ when all other parameters are fixed. They scale $D^{act}$ by $n^\\infty L^3 U_0 L$, where $L$ is the total bacterium length. They find that this scaled diffusivity first increases with probe size as approximately $R^2$ and then decreases to a plateau. Our scaling analysis predicts that $\\overline{D^{act}}$ is linear in probe size when diffusion dominates, and indepedent of probe size when advection dominates. In between, when the appropriate time scale is $\\tau_R$, $\\overline{D^{act}}$ scales as $1/R$, thus capturing the nonmonotonicity. The peak in $\\overline{D^{act}}$ is predicted around $Pe_s \\sim 5$ in our study and in [@Kasyap2014], but is found experimentally around $Pe_s \\sim O(10^3)$; the source of such a large discrepancy is not known. Lastly, we note that the inset of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:nonmonotonic\\] shows that this nonmonotonicity is obscured by the steric hindrance, reinforcing the importance of considering excluded-volume interactions in active suspensions.\n\nAnother common model, used by Mi\u00f1o et al.\u00a0[@Mino2011] to describe enhanced diffusion of tracers in bacterial suspensions, says that the active enhancement is proportional to the advective flux of the active particles: $D^{eff} = D_P + \\beta J_a$, where $J_a = n^\\infty U_0$ in our notation, similar to what we find for strong swimming. Lin et al.\u00a0[@Lin2011] predict that $\\beta$ scales as the body size to the fourth power for squirmers, but subsequent theoretical derivations indicate that $\\beta^{1/4}$ also depends on the swimmer\u2019s hydrodynamic dipole moment, particle size, system geometry, swimming efficiency, etc. As in [@Kasyap2014], these studies do not take the swimmers to be thermally active. Additionally, they argue that the size of the tracer particle does not affect $\\beta$ [@Mino2011], and thus excluded-volume effects are generally neglected. This is valid when the tracer particles are always far enough away from the bacteria that the size effects in the Fax\u00e9n expression for their velocity are negligible, which is consistent with theoretical models that assume the bacteria to be simple hydrodynamic dipoles (which is only true in the far field [@Drescher2010; @Drescher2011]).\n\nFor this $\\beta$ model, our Smoluchowski theory predicts $\\beta = (2 \\pi / 9\\sqrt{3})R_c^2 a^2[(2+\\sqrt{2 \\tau_D/\\tau_R})/(1+\\sqrt{2 \\tau_D/\\tau_R})]$. The ability of the swimmer to randomly reorient is not required for this enhancement to the diffusivity, as argued in [@Mino2013]. In contrast to some of these experimental studies, our result depends on the size of the tracer particle. In the system of Jepson et al. [@Jepson2013] the tracers are non-motile *E. Coli* in a suspension of motile *E. Coli* with equivalent spherical dimension $a = 1.4 \\mu m$. From their experimental parameters, we predict $\\beta = 3.22 a^4 - 6.45 a^4$. To match the experimentally found value of $\\beta = 7.1 \\mu m^4$, our theory predicts that the *E. Coli* would have an equivalent spherical dimension of $a = 1.02 - 1.22 \\mu m$. As previously proposed, this advective flux model ignores the steric hinderance of the passive suspension, which should accounted for by $$D^{eff} = D_P(1-\\phi_{act}) + \\beta J_a\\, .$$ The steric hinderance is especially important when swimming is weak (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:nonmonotonic\\]). Experimentally, one should measure the bare diffusivity of a tracer, and then the change in diffusivity among non-motile swimmers to recover the effective particle size $R_c$ from Batchelor\u2019s theory [@Batchelor1976]. Knowing $R_c$, the average swim speed, reorienation time, and the bare particle diffusivities, one can calculate the active diffusivity from our theory, and then compare to experimental measurements.\n\nWe presented a micromechanical model for the effective diffusivity of a passive particle embedded in a suspension of ABPs. Using a generalized Taylor dispersion approach, and employing an expansion in orientational tensor harmonics, we found an exact analytical expression for the effective diffusivity of a Brownian probe for arbitrary particle sizes, swimmer activity, and time scales ([@SuppInfo2017]). Our theory agrees qualitatively with previous experimental and theoretical investigations of enhanced diffusion in active suspensions, and is able to explore regimes of parameter space not typically considered in most experiments. It highlights several key features of diffusion in active suspensions: (1) the diffusion of a tracer is nonomontonic in a P\u00e9clet number comparing swimming to thermal diffusion, (2) steric hindrance of tracer motion is in competition with the enhancement due to bath activity, and (3), when fluctuations of the tracer\u2019s motion decorrelate on the same time scale as swimmers\u2019 reorientations, the bath mimics a homogenous solvent with energy $k_s T_s$.\n\nThis work is funded by NSF grant no. CBET 1437570. We thank S.C. Takatori for helpful discussions.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present [*HST*]{}/NICMOS observations of a sample of LIRGs. We show that active star formation appears to be occurring not only in the bright nuclei of these galaxies, but also in luminous super-star clusters and giant H[ii]{} regions with ages of up to $20-40\\,$Myr. This population of bright clusters and H[ii]{} regions is unprecedented in normal galaxies and emphasizes the effects of the extreme star formation in LIRGs.'\nauthor:\n- 'Almudena Alonso-Herrero, George H. Rieke, Marcia J. Rieke'\n- 'Nick Z. Scoville'\ntitle: Massive star formation in Luminous Infrared Galaxies\n---\n\n\\#1[[*\\#1*]{}]{} \\#1[[*\\#1*]{}]{} =\n\n\\#1 1.25in .125in .25in\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLuminous and ultraluminous infrared galaxies (LIRGs and ULIRGs, with $L_{\\rm IR} = 10^{11} - 10^{12}\\,$L$_\\odot$ and $L_{\\rm IR} > 10^{12}\\,$L$_\\odot,$ respectively) have long been recognized as one of the best laboratories to study the process of violent star formation in the Local Universe. The dust-rich environments of LIRGs and ULIRGs are thought to be similar to the conditions in which star formation occurred at high redshift.\n\nThe [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} (HST) is proving to be an invaluable tool for unveiling the star formation processes in galaxies over spatial scales previously unattainable \u2013 scales of a few tens of parsecs. Most remarkable is the discovery of the so-called super star clusters (SSC) in interacting/merging galaxies (e.g., the Antennae). Although there is no precise definition, SSCs are massive star clusters with luminosities a few orders of magnitude brighter than globular clusters (see a recent review by Whitmore 2000). It is now clear that this population of SSCs is not only inherent to interacting galaxies, but also to LIRGs (see e.g., Alonso-Herrero et al. 2000; 2001; 2002), ULIRGs (Scoville et al. 2000), groups of galaxies (Gallagher et al. 2001) and even isolated galaxies (e.g., Maoz et al. 2001).\n\nOne of the main difficulties in quantifying the age of SSCs in LIRGs and interacting galaxies is breaking the age-extinction degeneracy. This usually translates into only rough age estimates for SSCs \u2013 5 and 900Myr, from photometric data (Whitmore 2000). H[ii]{} regions, on the other hand, will highlight the youngest regions of star formation, with ages of $< 5-10\\,$Myr, as these are the lifetimes of the O and B stars required to ionize the gas. In this paper we analyze the physical properties of H[ii]{} regions and star clusters in a sample of LIRGs, as well as their relation and evolution to provide further insight into the nature of the off-nuclear star formation in LIRGs.\n\nSample and Observations\n=======================\n\nWe have selected a sample of eight LIRGs with both [*HST*]{}/NICMOS narrow-band Pa$\\alpha$ ($\\lambda_{\\rm rest} = 1.87\\,\\mu$m) images and broad-band $H$ ($1.6\\,\\mu$m) continuum images (Table\u00a01) to identify H[ii]{} regions and star clusters, respectively.\n\n  ------------ ------------------- ------- ------------------------ --------------------------------------- -------------------------------\n   [Galaxy]{}   $\\log L_{\\rm IR}$   Dist    [FOV of Pa$\\alpha$ ]{}   [$\\log L({\\rm H}\\alpha)_{\\rm tot}$]{}   [$L_{\\rm nuc}/L_{\\rm tot}$]{}\n                   (L$_\\odot$)      (Mpc)      (kpc$\\times$kpc)               [(erg s$^{-1}$)]{}            \n      (1)              (2)           (3)             (4)                              (5)                                 (6)\n    NGC\u00a06808          10.94          46         $11\\times 11$                        41.38                            $\\simeq 0$\n    NGC\u00a05653          11.01          47         $11\\times 11$                        41.72                            $\\simeq 0$\n   Zw\u00a0049.057         11.22          52        $4.9\\times 4.9$                       41.21                                 \u2013\n    NGC\u00a03256          11.48          37        $3.5\\times 3.5$                       42.11                               0.41\n    NGC\u00a01614          11.62          64        $6.4\\times 6.4$                       42.60                               0.65\n     VV\u00a0114           11.62          80        $9.3\\times 9.3$                     42.55$^*$                             0.37\n     IC\u00a0694           11.91          42        $3.8\\times 3.8$                       41.95                               0.58\n    NGC\u00a03690                         42        $3.8\\times 3.8$                       42.16                               0.18\n    NGC\u00a06240          11.82          97        $9.2\\times 9.2$                     43.19$^*$                         $\\simeq 1^*$\n  ------------ ------------------- ------- ------------------------ --------------------------------------- -------------------------------\n\n  : Sample of LIRGs.\n\n[Notes. \u2014 Column\u00a0(1): Galaxy. The two components of Arp\u00a0299 are usually referred to as IC\u00a0694 and NGC\u00a03690. Column\u00a0(2): IR ($8-1000\\,\\mu$m) luminosity. Column\u00a0(3): Distance. Columns\u00a0(4) and (5): Area imaged in Pa$\\alpha$ and H$\\alpha$ luminosity over that area. Column\u00a0(6): Ratio of the nuclear to total H$\\alpha$ luminosity. $^*$ Uncertain because of the large correction needed to account for the total Pa$\\alpha$ flux (see AAH02 for details).]{}\n\nSuper Star Clusters\n===================\n\nMuch of the recent star formation in our sample of LIRGs appears to be occurring not only in the bright nuclei, but also in luminous clusters and H[ii]{} regions (e.g., Table\u00a01, last column), similar to those found in other interacting and highly luminous IR galaxies (e.g., Scoville et al. 2000; AAH02). The absolute $H$-band magnitudes for clusters in LIRGs (not corrected for extinction) range up to approximately $M_H =-17\\,$mag to $M_H =-18\\,$mag (see histogram for the clusters of NGC\u00a03256 in Fig.\u00a01, left panel). The lower detection limit depends on the emission from the underlying galaxy and the degree of crowding. For instance the distribution of $H$-band luminosities of clusters detected in NGC\u00a03256 appears to be complete down to $M_H\\simeq -14\\,$mag (Fig.\u00a01).\n\nThe luminosities of the brightest IR clusters in LIRGs may exceed the limits found in more normal conditions. For example, the intermediate-age clusters in M100 (Ryder & Knapen 1999) have $M_H = -12\\,$mag to $M_H = -15\\,$mag assuming ($H-K \\simeq 0.2$). Since the IR luminosities change only slowly with time after approximately 20 million years (see Fig.\u00a02), we can compare directly to see that the luminosities of clusters in normal galaxies may be about $1.5-2\\,$mag lower than for LIRGs. Even when compared to starburst galaxies, LIRGs appear to have an excess of luminous IR clusters, as illustrated in Fig.\u00a01 (left panels). This figure compares the distribution of luminosities of clusters in the central region of the starburst galaxy NGC\u00a01530 (at a distance similar to NGC\u00a03256 and thus same spatial resolution) with those detected in NGC\u00a03256.\n\nGiant H[ii]{} Regions\n=====================\n\nIn two previous studies we showed the presence of a population of bright H[ii]{} regions in two LIRGs, Arp\u00a0299 (AAH00) and NGC\u00a01614 (AAH01). A significant fraction of these H[ii]{} regions displays H$\\alpha$ luminosities in excess of that of 30 Doradus, the prototypical giant H[ii]{} region. The analysis of the sample of LIRGs in Table\u00a01 has revealed that giant H[ii]{} regions are ubiquitous in LIRGs and are located not only in and near the nuclei of interacting galaxies, but also at the interface of interacting galaxies and along the spiral arms of isolated systems.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a01 (right panels) we compare the H$\\alpha$ luminosities (not corrected for extinction) of H[ii]{} regions in LIRGs with those in a small sample of normal galaxies observed with the same spatial resolution from Alonso-Herrero & Knapen (2001). Giant H[ii]{} regions (the luminosity of 30 Doradus is indicated with an arrow in Fig.\u00a01) are more common in LIRGs than in normal galaxies. The measured sizes of giant H[ii]{} regions in LIRGs when compared to those of normal galaxies rule out the possibility that these giant H[ii]{} regions are just aggregations of \u201cnormal\u201d H[ii]{} regions. A more plausible explanation for this population of luminous H[ii]{} regions in LIRGs is that regions of high gas pressure and density in LIRGs, ULIRGs, and interacting galaxies provide the necessary conditions for the formation of a large number of massive star (ionizing) clusters. Such extreme conditions are not likely to occur in normal galaxies.\n\nGiant H[ii]{} Regions and their relation to SSC: the age sequence\n=================================================================\n\nDespite the large numbers of near-IR SSCs and H[ii]{} regions identified in LIRGs, there is only a small fraction of coincidences ($4-30\\,$%) between H[ii]{} regions and star clusters. We can use evolutionary synthesis models to reproduce the observed relative fractions of young and intermediate H[ii]{} regions or clusters and old clusters in Arp\u00a0299 and NGC\u00a03256. In Fig.\u00a02 we show outputs of Starburst99 (Leitherer et al. 1999) for the time evolution of the absolute $H$-band magnitude and number of ionizing photons. We show two cluster masses and instantaneous star formation with a Salpeter IMF. For these assumptions and taking into account the detection limits for the complete distributions of $H$-band luminosities of clusters in NGC\u00a03256 and Arp\u00a0299 we infer photometric masses for the detected clusters of between $\\simeq 5 \\times 10^4$ and $10^6\\,{\\rm M}_\\odot$.\n\nThe fact that the peak of the $H$-band luminosity occurs after approximately 9Myr, whereas at the same time the number of ionizing photons has dropped by about 2 orders of magnitude from the maximum, provides an explanation for the limited number of coincidences. Within the present detection limits in Arp\u00a0299 and NGC\u00a03256, we can detect both H[ii]{} region emission and a star cluster for the most massive clusters ($\\simeq 10^6\\,{\\rm M}_\\odot$) only during the first 7Myr (Fig.\u00a02). The near-IR clusters with no detected H[ii]{} region emission will be older than approximately 7Myr. The H[ii]{} regions with no detected cluster counterpart are most likely younger than 5Myr, and have intermediate-mass ($5 \\times 10^4-10^5\\,{\\rm M}_\\odot$) ionizing clusters. If, as observed in obscured Galactic H[ii]{} regions, there are significant amounts of extinction during the first million years of the evolution of clusters and associated H[ii]{} regions, then the observed fractions of H[ii]{} regions and coincidences will be lower limits.\n\nAn estimate of the age distribution of the observed clusters can be inferred from the relative numbers of H[ii]{} regions and near-IR star clusters and the model predictions: The higher the fraction of near-IR clusters compared to that of H[ii]{} regions, the older the ages of the detected star clusters will be. The ages of the detected star clusters in Arp\u00a0299 and NGC\u00a03256 range up to $20-40\\,$Myr. Older clusters possibly created in this or previous episodes of star formation are likely to exist in these systems but cannot be identified with the present detection threshold. Another possibility to explain the apparent youth of the clusters in Arp\u00a0299 and NGC\u00a03256 would be destruction of clusters. In that case, if the clusters have been created at a constant rate for the last 100Myr, then roughly 50% of the clusters are destroyed during that time to account for the observed fraction of clusters in these two systems. The data presented in this paper does not allow us to distinguish between these two possibilities.\n\nFrom the present observations and modeling we find that a large fraction of the youngest clusters (that is, the ionizing clusters of the H[ii]{} regions with ages less than $5-6\\,$Myr) will not be detected from near-IR continuum imaging alone, as only some 8%\u201316% of these H[ii]{} regions in our sample of LIRGs appear to have near-IR cluster counterparts. This suggests that studies of the young star clusters in galaxies performed using only near-IR continuum imaging may be missing a significant fraction of the youngest star-forming regions.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nAAH participation in this conference was made possible by a travel grant from the AAS. The AAS travel grant program is supported by the National Science Foundation.\n\nAlonso-Herrero, A. et al. 2000, , 532, 845 (AAH00)\n\nAlonso-Herrero, A. et al. 2001, , 546, 952 (AAH01)\n\nAlonso-Herrero, A. & Knapen, J. H. 2001, , 122, 1350\n\nAlonso-Herrero, A. et al. 2002, , 124, 166 (AAH02)\n\nGallagher, S. C. et al. 2001, , 122, 163\n\nKissler-Patig, M., Brodie, J. P., & Minniti, D. 2002, , 391, 441\n\nLeitherer, C. et al. 1999, 1999, , 123, 3\n\nMaoz, D. et al. 2001, , 121, 3048\n\nRyder, S. D. & Knapen, J. H. 1999, , 302, L7\n\nScoville, N. Z. et al. 2000, , 119, 991\n\nWhitmore, B. 2000, in STScI Symposium Ser 14 (ed. M. Livio) (astro-ph/0012546)\n\nDiscussion {#discussion .unnumbered}\n==========\n\n[*J. M. Mas-Hesse:*]{} The peak in $H$-band emission predicted by evolutionary synthesis models at around 10Myr is due to the formation of Red Supergiants. Predictions for RSGs are very much model-dependent, since they are strongly affected by rotation, so that they have to be taken with care.\\\n[*A. Alonso-Herrero:*]{} Yes, I\u2019m aware of this problem and obviously some of the results I\u2019ve presented are model-dependent.\\\n[*G. Tenorio-Tagle:*]{} Can you please indicate the physical size of the SSCs.\\\n[*A. Alonso-Herrero:*]{} The sizes of the super star clusters are somewhat dependent on the spatial resolution (i.e., the distance of the galaxy). For the closest galaxies in our sample the typical diameters are of the order of $20-30\\,$pc.\\\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In the wake of the vast population of smart device users worldwide, mobile health (mHealth) technologies are hopeful to generate positive and wide influence on people\u2019s health. They are able to provide flexible, affordable and portable health guides to device users. Current online decision-making methods for mHealth assume that the users are completely heterogeneous. They share no information among users and learn a separate policy for each user. However, data for each user is very limited in size to support the separate online learning, leading to unstable policies that contain lots of variances. Besides, we find the truth that a user may be similar with some, but not all, users, and connected users tend to have similar behaviors. In this paper, we propose a network cohesion constrained (actor-critic) Reinforcement Learning (RL) method for mHealth. The goal is to explore how to share information among similar users to better convert the limited user information into sharper learned policies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first online actor-critic RL for mHealth and first network cohesion constrained (actor-critic) RL method in all applications. The network cohesion is important to derive effective policies. We come up with a novel method to learn the network by using the warm start trajectory, which directly reflects the users\u2019 property. The optimization of our model is difficult and very different from the general supervised learning due to the indirect observation of values. As a contribution, we propose two algorithms for the proposed online RLs. Apart from mHealth, the proposed methods can be easily applied or adapted to other health-related tasks. Extensive experiment results on the HeartSteps dataset demonstrates that in a variety of parameter settings, the proposed two methods obtain obvious improvements over the state-of-the-art methods.'\nauthor:\n- 'Feiyun Zhu$^{\\star,\\ddagger}$, Peng Liao$^{\\ddagger}$, Xinliang Zhu$^{\\star}$, Yaowen Yao$^{\\star}$, Junzhou Huang$^{\\star}$ [^1]'\nbibliography:\n- '4\\_home\\_fyzhu\\_link2dropbox\\_self\\_Folder\\_myWorksOnDropboxs\\_bibFiles\\_referenceBib2.bib'\n- '5\\_home\\_fyzhu\\_link2dropbox\\_self\\_Folder\\_myWorksOnDropboxs\\_bibFiles\\_referenceBib.bib'\ntitle: 'Cohesion-based Online Actor-Critic Reinforcement Learning for mHealth Intervention'\n---\n\n@path[[/home/fyzhu/link2dropbox/self\\_Folder/myWorksOnDropboxs/201702\\_SigKDD\\_CohesionDiscovery4onlineGraphRL\\_self/IEEE\\_TPAMI//]{}]{}\n\nActor-Critic, Reinforcement Learning, Mobile Health (mHealth) Intervention, Cohesion\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nWith billions of smart device[^2] users globally, it is increasingly popular among the scientist community to make use of the state-of-the-art articial intelligence and mobile health technologies to leverage supercomputers and big data to facilicate the prediction of healthcare tasks\u00a0[@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI; @huitian_2016_PhdThesis_actCriticAlgorithm; @SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd; @PengLiao_2015_Proposal_offPolicyRL; @yaoyao_2017_MICCAI; @xinliang_2017_CVPR_WSISA; @zhengxu_2017_ACMBCB]. In this paper, the goal of mobile health (mHealth) is to make use of various smart devices as great platforms to collect and analyze raw data (weather, location, social activity, stress, etc.). Based on that, the aim is to provide effective intervention that helps users to change to or adapt to healthy behaviors, such as reducing the alcohol abuse\u00a0[@Gustafson_2014_JAMA_drinking; @Witkiewitz_2014_JAB_drinkingSmoking] and promoting physical activities\u00a0[@Abby_2013_PlosONE_mobileIntervention]. The traditional adaptive treatment has restrictions on the time, location and frequency\u2014patients have to visit the doctor\u2019s office for treatments. Compared with them, mHealth is more affordable, portable and much more flexible in the sense that smart devices allow for the real-time collection and analysis of data as well as in-time delivery of interventions. Thus, mHealth technologies are widely used in lots of health-related tasks, such as physical activity\u00a0[@Abby_2013_PlosONE_mobileIntervention], eating disorders\u00a0[@Bauer_2012_JCCP_eatingDisorder], alcohol use\u00a0[@Gustafson_2014_JAMA_drinking; @Witkiewitz_2014_JAB_drinkingSmoking], mental illness[@Depp_2010_JNMD_mentalIllness; @Ben_2013_APMHMHSRZZZZ_mentalIllness], obesity/weight management [@Patrick_2009_JMIR_weightManagement].\n\nFormally, the mHealth intervention is modeled as a sequential decision making (SDM) problem. It aims to learn the optimal policy to determine when, where and how to deliver the intervention\u00a0[@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI; @PengLiao_2015_Proposal_offPolicyRL; @SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd] to best serve users. This is a new research topic that lacks of methodological guidance. In 2014, Lei\u00a0[@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI] made a first attempt to formulate the mHealth intervention as an online actor-critic contextual bandit problem. Lei\u2019s method served a good starting point for the mHealth study. However, this method did not consider the important delayed effect in the SDM\u2014the current action may influence not only the immediate reward but also the next states and, through that, all the subsequent rewards\u00a0[@Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning; @YihongLi_2010_WWW_contextualBandit4newsArticleRecommend]. Dr. Murphy\u00a0[@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd] proposed an average reward based RL to consider the delayed effect in the mHealth. However, those two methods rely on some ideal assumptions. They either assume that all the users are completely homogenous or completely heterogeneous. We find the truth lying between those extremes: a user might be similar with some, but not all, users. Their methods are easy to bring in too much bias or too much variance. Besides, [@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd] is in the batch learning setting, which is different from this paper\u2019s focuses.\n\nRecently, Dr. Cesa-Bianchi\u00a0[@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit] proposed a contextual bandit algorithm that considers the network information. It is for the recommendation system, which is very different from the mHealth task. Besides, there are three drawbacks making the method in\u00a0[@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit] impractical for the mHealth: (1) Cesa-Bianchi\u2019s method focues on the bandit algorithm. It doesn\u2019t consider the important delayed effect in mHealth. (2) They assume the network information is given beforehand from the social information. The given network may not be targeted for the mHealth study. There is lots of misleading network information for the mHealth study\u00a0[@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit; @Claudio_2014_ICML_olineClusteringBandits; @Alexandra_2016_AISTATS_GraphBandits]. (3) In their work, however, it is unable to control the amount of information shared among linked users, which is not flexible for the mHealth study\u00a0[@fyzhu_2014_IJPRS_SSNMF; @haichangLi_2016_IJRS_LablePropagationHyperClassification].\n\nIn this paper, we propose a cohesion-based reinforcement learning for the mHealth and derive two algorithms. It is in an online, actor-critic setting. The aim is to explore how to share information across similar users in order to improve the performance. The main contributions of this paper are summarized as follows: (**1**) to the best of our knowledge, this is the first online (actor-critic) RL method for the mHealth. (**2**) Current evidence verifies the wide existence of networks among users\u00a0[@Tianxi_2016_CORR_PredictModels4NetworkLinkedData; @fyzhu_2014_IJPRS_SSNMF; @haichangLi_2016_IJRS_LablePropagationHyperClassification]. We improve the online RL by considering the network cohesion among users. Such improvement makes it the first network constrained (actor-critic) RL method to the best of our knowledge. It is able to relieve the tough problem of current online decision-making methods for the mHealth by reducing variance at the cost of inducing bias. Current online RL learns a separate policy for each user. However, there are too few of samples to support the separate online learning, which leads to unsatisfactory interventions (policies) for the users. (**3**) Our method doesn\u2019t require the given network cohesion. We propose a method to learn the network intentionally for the mHealth study. It makes use of the warm start trajectories in the online learning, which are expected to represent the users\u2019 properties. (**4**) Compared with\u00a0[@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit], the proposed method has a tuning parameter, which allows us to control how much information we should share with similar users. It is worth mentioning that our method may not be limited to mHealth. It can be applied to other health-related tasks. Extensive experiment results on the HeartSteps dataset verifies that our method can achieve clear improvement over the Separate-RL.\n\nPreliminaries\n=============\n\nMarkov Decision Process (MDP)\n-----------------------------\n\nWe assume the mHealth intervention is a Markov Decision Process (MDP)\u00a0[@Geist_2013_TNNLS_RL_valueFunctionApproximation; @Grondman_2012_IEEEts_surveyOfActorCriticRL; @Pednault_2002_SIGKDD_CostSensitiveRL; @Michail_2003_JMLR_LSPI_LSTDQ] that consists of a 5-tuple $\\left\\{ \\mtcalS,\\mtcalA,\\mtcalP,\\mtcalR,\\gamma\\right\\} $, where $\\mtcalS$ is the state space and $\\mtcalA$ is the action space. $\\mtcalP\\!\\!:\\!\\mtcalS\\!\\times\\!\\mtcalA\\!\\times\\!\\mtcalS\\!\\mapsto\\!\\left[0,1\\right]$ is the state transition model in which $\\mtcalP\\left(s,a,s'\\right)$ indicates the probability of transiting from one state $s$ to another $s'$ after taking action $a$; $\\mtcalR\\left(s,a,s'\\right)$ is the corresponding immediate reward for such transition where $\\mtcalR\\!:\\mtcalS\\times\\mtcalA\\times\\mtcalS\\mapsto\\mtbbR$. For simplicity, the expected immediate reward $\\mtcalR\\left(s,a\\right)=\\mtexpect_{s'\\sim\\mtcalP}\\left[\\mtcalR\\left(s,a,s'\\right)\\right]$ is assumed to be bounded over the state and action spaces. $\\gamma\\in[0,1)$ is the discount factor that reduces the influence of future rewards. To allow for the matrix operators, the state space $\\mtcalS$ and action space $\\mtcalA$ are assumed to be finite, though very large in mHealth.\n\nThe policy of an MDP is to choose actions for any state $s\\in\\mtcalS$ in the system\u00a0[@Grondman_2012_IEEEts_surveyOfActorCriticRL; @Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning]. There are two types of policies: (1) the deterministic policy $\\pi:\\mtcalS\\mapsto\\mtcalA$ selects an action directly for the state, and (2) the stochastic policy $\\pi:s\\in\\mtcalS\\mapsto\\pi\\left(\\cdot\\mid s\\right)\\in\\mtcalP\\left(\\mtcalA\\right)$ chooses the action for any state $s$ by providing $s$ with a probability distribution over all the possible actions\u00a0[@Geist_2013_TNNLS_RL_valueFunctionApproximation]. In mHealth, the stochastic policy is preferred due to two reasons: (a) current evidence shows that some randomness in the action is likely to draw users\u2019 interest, thus helpful to reduce the intervention burden/habituation\u00a0[@Epstein_2009_AJCN_varietyInfluencesHab; @huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI; @SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd]; (b) though some deterministic policy is theoretically optimal for the MDP, however, we do not know where it is for the large state space on the one hand and the MDP is a simplification for the complex behavioral process on the other; some variation may be helpful to explore the system and search for a desirable policy\u00a0[@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd]. We consider the parameterized stochastic policy, $\\pi_{\\theta}\\left(a\\mid s\\right)$, where $\\theta\\in\\mtbbR^{m}$ is the unknown parameter. Such policy is interpretable in the sense that we could know the key features that contribute most to the policy by analyzing the estimated $\\widehat{\\theta}$, which is important to behavior scientists for the state (feature) design\u00a0[@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI; @SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd].\n\nIn RL, value is a core concept that quantifies the quality of a policy $\\pi$\u00a0[@Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning]. There are two definitions of values: the state value and the state-action ($Q$-) value\u00a0[@Abe_2004_SIGKDD_CrossChannelRL]. In mHealth, the $Q$-value is considered because the model (i.e. state transition and immediate reward) is assumed to be unknown, and $Q$-value allows for action selection without knowing the model while the state value requires the model for the action selection\u00a0[@Michail_2003_JMLR_LSPI_LSTDQ]. Formally, the $Q$-value $Q^{\\pi}\\left(s,a\\right)\\in\\mtbbR^{\\left|\\mtcalS\\right|\\times\\left|\\mtcalA\\right|}$ measures the total amount of rewards an agent can obtain when starting from state $s$, first choosing action $a$ and then following the policy $\\pi$. Specially, the discounted reward is one of the most commonly used value measures $$Q^{\\pi}\\left(s,a\\right)=\\mtexpect_{a_{i}\\sim\\pi,s_{i}\\sim\\mtcalP}\\left\\{ \\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty}\\gamma^{i}r_{i}\\mid s_{0}=s,a_{0}=a\\right\\} .\\label{eq:Q_value}$$\n\nThe goal of RL is to learn an optimal policy $\\pi^{*}$ that maximizes the $Q$-value for all the state-action pairs via interactions with the dynamic system\u00a0[@Geist_2013_TNNLS_RL_valueFunctionApproximation]. The objective is ${\\displaystyle \\theta^{*}=\\arg\\max_{\\theta}\\widehat{J}\\left(\\theta\\right)},$ where $$\\widehat{J}\\left(\\theta\\right)=\\sum_{s\\in\\mtcalS}d_{\\text{ref}}\\left(s\\right)\\sum_{a\\in\\mtcalA}\\pi_{\\theta}\\left(a\\mid s\\right)Q^{\\pi_{\\theta}}\\left(s,a\\right)\\label{eq:actor-objective_thoery}$$ and $d_{\\text{ref}}\\left(s\\right)$ is the reference distribution of states (e.g. the distribution of initial states); $Q^{\\pi_{\\theta}}$ is the value for the policy $\\pi_{\\theta}$. According to\u00a0, we have to learn the $Q^{\\pi_{\\theta}}$ for all the state-action pairs to determine the objective\u00a0 and, after then, to improve the policy. Thus in this paper, we employ the actor-critic algorithm. It is an alternating updating algorithm between two steps untill convergence. At each iteration, the critic updating estimates the $Q$-value function (i.e. policy evaluation, cf. Section\u00a0\\[sub:BellmanEquation\\_MC\\_TD\\] and\u00a0\\[sub:CriticUpdating\\_LSTDQ\\]) for the lastest policy; the actor updating (i.e. policy improvement, cf. Section\u00a0\\[sub:ActorUpdating\\_fmincon\\]) learns a better policy based on the newly estimated $Q$-value. Moreover, the actor-critic algorithm has great properties of quick convergence with low variance and learning continuous policies\u00a0[@Grondman_2012_IEEEts_surveyOfActorCriticRL].\n\nBellman Equation and Q-value Estimation {#sub:BellmanEquation_MC_TD}\n---------------------------------------\n\nIt is well known that due to the Markovian property, the $Q$-value satisfies the linear Bellman equation\u00a0[@Abe_2010_SIGKDD_optimizingDebt] for any policy $\\pi$: $$\\begin{aligned}\nQ^{\\pi}\\left(s,a\\right)=\\  & \\mtcalR\\left(s,a\\right)+\\gamma\\sum_{s^{'}\\in\\mtcalS}\\mtcalP\\left(s,a,s'\\right)\\sum_{a^{'}\\in\\mtcalA}\\pi\\left(a'\\mid s'\\right)Q^{\\pi}\\left(s',a'\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ It has the matrix form as $$\\mtbfq^{\\pi}=\\mtbfr+\\gamma\\mtbfP\\Pi_{\\pi}\\mtbfq^{\\pi},\\label{eq:Q_linearBellmanEquation_detail}$$ where $\\mtbfq^{\\pi}$ and $\\mtbfr$ are vectors both with $\\left|\\mtcalS\\right|\\left|\\mtcalA\\right|$ elements; $\\mtbfP\\in\\mtbbR^{\\left|\\mtcalS\\right|\\left|\\mtcalA\\right|\\times\\left|\\mtcalS\\right|}$ is the stochastic state transition matrix, in which $P\\left(\\left(s,a\\right),s'\\right)=\\mtcalP\\left(s,a,s'\\right)$; $\\Pi_{\\pi}\\in\\mtbbR^{\\left|\\mtcalS\\right|\\times\\left|\\mtcalS\\right|\\left|\\mtcalA\\right|}$ is the stochastic policy matrix, where $\\Pi_{\\pi}\\left(s,\\left(s,a\\right)\\right)=\\pi\\left(a\\mid s\\right)$\u00a0[@Michail_2003_JMLR_LSPI_LSTDQ]. Once both the reward and the state transition models are given\u00a0[@AndrewNg_2009_ICML_RLsparity], it is easy to obtain the analytical solution as $\\mtbfq^{\\pi}=\\left(\\mtbfI-\\gamma\\mtbfP\\Pi_{\\pi}\\right)^{-1}\\mtbfr$.\n\nHowever, there are two factors making it impossible to have the analytical solution for the $Q$-value estimation: (a) in mHealth, both reward $\\mtbfr$ and state transition $\\mtcalP$ (i.e. $\\mtbfP$) models are unknown. (b) the state space in mHealth is usually very large or even infinite, which makes it impossible to directly learn the $Q$-value due to lack of observations for sharper learning and too high storage requirements, i.e. $O\\left(\\left|\\mtcalS\\right|\\left|\\mtcalA\\right|\\right)$ to only store the $Q$-value table. We resolve these problems via the parameterized function approximation, which assumes that $Q^{\\pi}$ is in a low dimensional space: $Q^{\\pi}\\approx Q_{\\mtbfw}=\\mtbfw^{\\intercal}\\mtbfx\\left(s,a\\right)$, where $\\mtbfw\\in\\mtbbR^{u}$ is the unknown variable and $\\mtbfx\\left(s,a\\right)$ is a feature processing step that combines information in the state and action. We then learn the value $Q_{\\mtbfw}$ from observations via a supervised learning paramdigm, which, however, is much more challenging than the general supervised learning since the $Q$-value is not directly observed\u00a0[@Geist_2013_TNNLS_RL_valueFunctionApproximation]. As a direct solution, the Monte Carlo (MC) method draws very deep trajectories to obtain the observation of actual $Q$ value. Although MC can provide an unbiased estimation of $Q_{\\mtbfw}$, it is not suitable for mHealth since MC can\u2019t learn from the incomplete trajectory\u00a0[@Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning]. Such case requires massive sampling from users, which, however, is very labor-intensive and expensive in time. As a central idea of RL\u00a0[@Sutton_2012_Book_ReinforcementLearning], the temporal-difference (TD) learning is able to make use of the Bellman equation\u00a0 and to learn the value from the incomplete trajectories. The learned result of TD has the property of low variance.\n\nThe critic updating: Least-Squares TD for $Q$-value (LSTD$Q$) Estimation {#sub:CriticUpdating_LSTDQ}\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn mHealth, though the data for all users is abundant, the data for each user is limited in size. We employ the least-square TD for the Q-value (LSTD$Q$) estimation, due to its advantage of efficient use of samples over the pure temporal-difference algorithms\u00a0[@Michail_2003_JMLR_LSPI_LSTDQ; @Sakuma_2008_ICML_PrivacyPreservingRL]. The goal of LSTD$Q$ is to learn a $Q_{\\mtbfw}$ to approximately satisfy the Bellman equation\u00a0, by minimizing the TD error\u00a0[@AndrewNg_2009_ICML_RLsparity] as $$\\mtbfw=\\mhbfh=\\min_{\\mtbfh\\in\\mtbbR^{K}}\\left\\Vert \\mebfX^{\\intercal}\\mtbfh-\\left(\\mebfr+\\gamma\\mtbfP\\Pi_{\\pi}\\mebfX^{\\intercal}\\mtbfw\\right)\\right\\Vert _{D}^{2},\\label{eq:LSTDQ_distribution}$$ where $\\mtbfw=\\mhbfh$ is a fixed point problem and $\\mhbfh$ is a function of $\\mtbfw$; $\\mebfX$ is a designed matrix consisting of all the state and action pairs in the MDP; $D$ describes the distributions over the state and action pairs.\n\nSince the state transition $\\mtbfP$ is unknown and $\\mebfX$ is too large to form in mHealth, we can not directly solve\u00a0. Instead, we have to make use of the trajectories collected from $N$ users, i.e. $\\mtcalD=\\left\\{ \\mtcalD_{n}\\right\\} _{n=1}^{N}$, where $\\mtcalD_{n}=\\left\\{ \\mtcalU_{i}=\\left(s_{i},a_{i,}r_{i},s_{i}'\\right)\\mid i=0,\\cdots,t\\right\\} $ summarizes all the $t+1$ tuples for the $n$-th user and $\\mtcalU_{i}$ is the $i$-th tuple in $\\mtcalD_{n}$.\n\nCurrent online contextual bandit (i.e. a special RL with $\\gamma=0$) methods for mHealth assume that all users are completely heterogeneous. They share no information and run a separate algorithm for each user\u00a0[@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI]. Following this idea, we extend\u00a0[@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI] to the separate RL setting. The objective for the $n$-th user is defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mtbfw_{n} & =\\mhbfh_{n}=\\arg\\min_{\\mtbfh_{n}}\\sum_{\\mtcalU_{i}\\in\\mtcalD_{n}}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfx{}_{i}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfh_{n}-\\left(r_{i}+\\gamma\\mtbfy{}_{i}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfw_{n}\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}\\end{aligned}$$ $\\mtfor\\ n\\in\\left\\{ 1,\\cdots,N\\right\\} $, where $\\mtbfx_{i}=\\mtbfx\\left(s_{i},a_{i}\\right)$ is the value feature at time $i$ and $\\mtbfy{}_{i}=\\sum_{a'\\in\\mtcalA}\\mathbf{x}\\left(s_{i}',a'\\right)\\pi_{\\theta}\\left(a'\\mid s_{i}'\\right)$ is the value feature at the next time point. For the sake of easy derivation, we define the following matrices to store the actual observations $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mtbfX_{n} & =\\left[\\mathbf{x}\\left(s_{1},a_{1}\\right),\\mathbf{x}\\left(s_{2},a_{2}\\right)\\cdots,\\mathbf{x}\\left(s_{t},a_{t}\\right)\\right]\\in\\mathbb{R}^{u\\times t}\\nonumber \\\\\n\\mtbfY_{n} & =\\left[\\mtbfy\\left(s_{1}';\\theta_{n}\\right),\\cdots,\\mtbfy\\left(s_{t}';\\theta_{n}\\right)\\right]\\in\\mathbb{R}^{u\\times t}\\label{eq:featureConstruction_4_value}\\\\\n\\mtbfr_{n} & =\\left[r_{1},r_{2},\\cdots,r_{t}\\right]^{\\intercal}\\in\\mathbb{R}^{t},\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ where $u$ is the length of the sample feature for the $Q$-value approximation, $t$ is the current time point in the online RL learning procedure (i.e. the current trajectory length), $\\mtbfy\\left(s_{i}';\\theta_{n}\\right)=\\sum_{a^{'}\\in\\mtcalA}\\mathbf{x}\\left(s_{i}',a'\\right)\\pi_{\\theta_{n}}\\left(a'\\mid s_{i}'\\right)$, and $\\pi_{\\theta_{n}}\\left(a\\mid s\\right)$ is the policy for the $n$-th user. Let $\\mtbfR=\\left[\\mtbfr_{1},\\cdots,\\mtbfr_{N}\\right]\\in\\mtbbR^{t\\times N}$ store the reward of all $N$ users at all the $t$ time points. To prevent the overfitting when $t$ is small at the beginning of online RL learning, the $\\ell_{2}$ norm based constraint is considered in the objective as follows $$\\mtbfw_{n}=\\mhbfh_{n}=\\arg\\min_{\\mtbfh_{n}}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfX_{n}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfh_{n}-\\left(\\mtbfr_{n}+\\gamma\\mtbfY_{n}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfw_{n}\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}+\\zeta_{c}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfh_{n}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}$$ $\\mtfor\\ n\\in\\left\\{ 1,\\cdots,N\\right\\} $. The LSTD$Q$ provides a closed-form solution $$\\mhbfw_{\\theta_{n}}=\\left[\\mtbfX_{n}\\left(\\mtbfX_{n}-\\gamma\\mtbfY_{n}\\right)^{\\intercal}+\\zeta\\mtbfI\\right]^{-1}\\mtbfX_{n}\\mtbfr_{n},\\label{eq:LSTDQ_4_wn}$$ for $\\left\\{ n\\right\\} _{n=1}^{N}$, where $\\mhbfw_{\\theta_{n}}$ is a function of the policy parameter $\\theta_{n}$.\n\nThe actor updating for policy improvement \\[sub:ActorUpdating\\_fmincon\\]\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn mHealth, the reference distribution of states $d_{\\text{ref}}\\left(s\\right)$ is unknown and hard to estimate due to the lack of samples. We set $d_{\\text{ref}}\\left(s\\right)$ as the empirical distribution of states. Accordingly, the observations in the trajectory, i.e. $\\mtcalD_{n}$, are used to form the objective for the actor updating $\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}={\\displaystyle \\arg\\max_{\\theta_{n}}\\widehat{J}\\left(\\theta_{n}\\right)}$, where $$\\widehat{J}\\left(\\theta_{n}\\right)=\\frac{1}{\\left|\\mtcalD_{n}\\right|}\\sum_{s_{i}\\in\\mtcalD_{n}}\\sum_{a\\in\\mtcalA}Q\\left(s_{i},a;\\mhbfw_{\\theta_{n}}\\right)\\pi_{\\theta_{n}}\\!\\left(a|s_{i}\\right)-\\frac{\\zeta_{a}}{2}\\left\\Vert \\theta_{n}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}\\label{eq:Actor_objective_trajectory}$$ $\\mtfor\\ n\\in\\left\\{ 1,\\cdots,N\\right\\} $. Here $\\left\\Vert \\theta_{n}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}$ is the constraint to make\u00a0 a well-posed problem and $\\zeta_{a}$ is the tuning parameter that controls the strength of the smooth penalization\u00a0[@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI]. We use $\\widehat{J}\\left(\\theta_{n}\\right)$ rather than $J\\left(\\theta_{n}\\right)$ in\u00a0 to indicate that the objective function for the actor updating is defined based on the $Q$-value estimation.\n\nSince the critic updating results in a closed-form solution\u00a0, we could substitute the expression\u00a0 into the objective for the actor updating\u00a0. Such case, however, leads to a very complex optimization problem. In the case of large feature space, one can recursively update $\\mhbfw_{\\theta}$ and $\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}$ to reduce the computational cost.\n\nNetwork Cohesion based online Actor-Critic RL\n=============================================\n\nIt is a famous phenomenon observed in lots of social behavior studies\u00a0[@Haynie_2001_AJOS_NetworkStructure; @Fujimoto_2012_SocialScience_NetworkInfluence] that people are widely connected in a network and linked users tend to have similar behaviors. Advances in social media help a lot to record the relational information among users, which ensures the availability of network information for health-related studies. Besides, individuals are widely connected due to the similar features, such as age, gender, race, religion, education level, work, income, other socioeconomic status, medical records and genetics features etc\u00a0[@Tianxi_2016_CORR_PredictModels4NetworkLinkedData]. However, for simple study, current online methods for the mHealth simply assume that users are completely different; they share no information among users and learn a separate RL for each user by only using his or her data. Such assumption works well in the ideal condition where the sample drawn from each user is large in size to support the separate online learning. However, though the data for all users is abundant, the data for each user is limited in size. For example at the beginning of online learning, there are $t=5$ tuples, which is hardly enough to support a separate learning and likely to result in unstable policies. From the perspective of optimization, the problem of lack of samples badly affects the actor-critic updating not only at the beginning of online learning but also along the whole learning process. This is because the actor-critic objective functions are non-convex and nonlinear; the bad solution at the beginning of online learning would bias the optimization to sub-optimal directions. Besides, the policy achieved at the early stage of online learning is of bad user experience, which is likely for the users to be inactive with or even to abandon the mHealth.\n\nDifferent from current methods, we consider the phenomenon that a user is similar to some (but not all) users, and similar users behave similar but not completely identical to each other. To this end, we propose a cohesion-based online RL method for the mHealth study. We aim to understand how to share information across similar users in order to improve the performance.\n\nConstruct the network cohesion by using the warm start trajectory (WST) {#sub:ConstructCohesionNetwork}\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe assume there is an undirected network cohesion connecting similar users, i.e. $\\mtcalG=\\left(\\mtcalV,\\mtcalE\\right)$, where $\\mtcalV=\\left\\{ 1,2,\\cdots,N\\right\\} $ is the set of nodes (representing users) and $\\mtcalE\\subset\\mtcalV\\times\\mtcalV$ is the edge set. Altough advanced social medias, like Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin, could provide us ith various network information, they are not designed for the mHealth. There is noisy and misleading relational information in the network for mHealth\u00a0WS[@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit; @guangliangCheng_2016_JStars_robustHyperClassification; @Alexandra_2016_AISTATS_GraphBandits; @Claudio_2014_ICML_olineClusteringBandits; @guangliangCheng_2016_TGRSL; @fyzhu_2014_TIP_DgS_NMF; @guangliangCheng_2014_ICIP; @fyzhu_2014_AAAI_ARSS; @guangliangCheng_2015_ICIP; @yingWang_2015_TIP_RobustUnmixing; @xiaoping_2017_ICASSP; @guangliangCheng_2016_neurocomputing; @fyzhu_2014_JSTSP_RRLbS]. Thus, we want to learn the network cohesion intentionally for the mHealth by measuring the similarities between the related behaviors of users.\n\nIn RL, the MDP provides a mathematical tool to describe the property of users in a specific mHealth study[^3]. By measuring the similarities among the users\u2019 MDPs , we could learn the network cohesion targeted to that mHealth study. However, the MDP models are unknown to the RL problem. Instead, the warm start trajectories (WSTs) of all the $N$ users are available, which provide the observation of users. Thus, we use the WSTs for the graph learning, i.e. $\\mtcalD^{\\left(0\\right)}=\\left\\{ \\mtcalD_{n}^{\\left(0\\right)}\\mid n=1,\\cdots,N\\right\\} $, where $\\mtcalD_{n}^{\\left(0\\right)}=\\left\\{ \\left(s_{i,n},a_{i,n,}r_{i,n}\\right)\\right\\} _{i=1}^{T_{0}}$ is the WST for the $n$-th user. Since an MDP consists of the state transistion and immediate reward model, the feature for the cohesion network learning is constructed by stacking the states and rewards in the WST as follows $$\\mtbfv_{n}=\\left[s_{1,n}^{\\intercal},r_{1,n},\\cdots,s_{T_{0},n}^{\\intercal},r_{T_{0},n}\\right]^{\\intercal}\\in\\mtbbR^{pT_{0}+T_{0}},\\label{eq:feature_4_GraphLearning}$$ for $n\\in\\left\\{ 1,\\cdots,N\\right\\} $. Note that the action or policy is not part of an MDP. To reduce the influence of random actions in the WST, we get rid of the temporal order by sorting all the elements in $\\mtbfv_{n}$\u00a0. Then the benchmark method, i.e. $K$-nearest neighbor ($K$NN), is used to learn the neighboring information among users $$c_{ij}=\\begin{cases}\n1, & \\mtif\\ \\mtbfv_{i}\\in\\mtcalN\\left(\\mtbfv_{j}\\right)\\ \\text{or}\\ \\mtbfv_{j}\\in\\mtcalN\\left(\\mtbfv_{i}\\right)\\\\\n0, & \\text{otherwise}\n\\end{cases},\\label{eq:KNN_4_GraphLearning}$$ where $\\mtbfv_{i}\\in\\mtcalN\\left(\\mtbfv_{j}\\right)$ indicates that $i$-th node is the $K$NN of the $j$-th node\u00a0[@Luxburg_2007_SC_SpectralClustering];\u00a0 is an undirected Graph. The value of $K$ controls how widely the users are connected. A large $K$ indicates a wide connection among users and vice versa.\n\nModel of cohesion based Actor-Critic RL \\[sub:Objective\\_4\\_GraphRL\\]\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe underlying assumption throughout this paper is that if two users are connected, their values and policies are constrained to be similar, e.g. $\\left\\Vert \\mtbfw_{i}-\\mtbfw_{j}\\right\\Vert $ and $\\left\\Vert \\theta_{i}-\\theta_{j}\\right\\Vert $ are small if $i\\leftrightarrow j$\u00a0[@fyzhu_2014_JSTSP_RRLbS; @fyzhu_2015_PhDthesis]. With the network cohesion $\\mtbfC=\\left(c_{ij}\\right)_{N\\times N}$, the objective function for the critic updating is formed as follows [ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mtbfW=\\mhbfH & =\\arg\\min_{\\mtbfH}\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\sum_{\\mtcalU_{i}\\in\\mtcalD_{n}}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfx{}_{i}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfh_{n}-\\left(r_{i}+\\gamma\\mtbfy{}_{i}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfw_{n}\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}\\label{eq:CriticUpdat_Graph_theory}\\\\\n\\mtsubTo & \\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}d\\left(\\mtbfh_{i},\\mtbfh_{j}\\right)\\leq\\delta_{1}\\ \\text{and}\\ \\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}d\\left(\\mtbfw_{i},\\mtbfw_{j}\\right)\\leq\\delta_{2},\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ ]{}where $\\mtbfH\\!=\\left[\\mtbfh_{1},\\cdots,\\mtbfh_{N}\\right]\\in\\mtbbR^{u\\times N}$ and $\\mtbfW=\\left[\\mtbfw_{1},\\cdots,\\mtbfw_{N}\\right]\\in\\mtbbR^{u\\times N}$ are designed matrices that consist of all the $N$ users\u2019 variables (each column summarizes the unknown varibile of one user); $d\\left(\\mtbfh_{i},\\mtbfh_{j}\\right)$ is a distance measure between two vectors; usually we set $d\\left(\\cdot,\\cdot\\right)$ as the Euler distance. With the matrix notations in Section\u00a0\\[sub:CriticUpdating\\_LSTDQ\\], we turn\u00a0 into the following two-level nested optimization problems $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mhbfH\\!=\\arg\\min_{\\mtbfH} & \\Bigg(\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfX_{n}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfh_{n}-\\left(\\mtbfr_{n}+\\gamma\\mtbfY_{n}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfw_{n}\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}+\\label{eq:criticUpdating_projection}\\\\\n & \\quad\\mu_{1}\\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfh_{i}-\\mtbfh_{j}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}+\\zeta_{1}\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfh_{n}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}\\Bigg),\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mhbfW\\!=\\arg\\min_{\\mtbfW} & \\Bigg(\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\left\\Vert \\Phi_{n}\\mtbfw_{n}-\\Phi_{n}\\mhbfh_{n}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}+\\label{eq:criticUpdating_fixedPoint}\\\\\n & \\quad\\mu_{2}\\!\\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfw_{i}-\\mtbfw_{j}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}+\\zeta_{2}\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfw_{n}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}\\Bigg),\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Phi_{n}$ is a designed matrix to facilitate the optimization of\u00a0. The 1st level\u00a0 projects the Bellman image onto a linear space (we refer\u00a0 as the projection step); the 2nd level\u00a0 deals with the fixed point problem (i.e. the fixed-point step)\u00a0[@Mohammad_2011_RARL_RegularizedLSTD_L1L2].\n\nThe objective for the actor updating is defined as follows $$\\left\\{ \\widehat{\\theta}_{1},\\cdots,\\widehat{\\theta}_{n},\\cdots,\\widehat{\\theta}_{N}\\right\\} =\\arg\\max_{\\left\\{ \\theta_{n}\\right\\} _{n=1}^{N}}\\widehat{J}\\left(\\theta_{1},\\cdots,\\theta_{N}\\right),\\label{eq:objective_actorUpdate}$$ where $\\Theta=\\left[\\theta_{1},\\cdots,\\theta_{N}\\right]$, $Q\\left(s_{i},a;\\widehat{\\mathbf{w}}_{\\theta_{n}}\\right)=\\mathbf{x}\\left(s_{i},a\\right)^{T}\\widehat{\\mathbf{w}}_{\\theta_{n}}$ is the estimated value for the $n$-th policy $\\pi_{\\theta_{n}}$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widehat{J}\\left(\\Theta\\right)\\!= & \\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\left(\\frac{1}{\\left|\\mtcalD_{n}\\right|}\\sum_{\\mtcalU_{i}\\in\\mtcalD_{n}}\\sum_{a\\in\\mtcalA}Q\\left(s_{i},a;\\mathbf{\\mhbfw}_{\\theta_{n}}\\right)\\pi_{\\theta_{n}}\\!\\left(a|s_{i}\\right)\\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n & \\ -\\frac{\\mu_{3}}{2}\\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}\\left\\Vert \\theta_{i}-\\theta_{j}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}-\\frac{\\zeta_{3}}{2}\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\left\\Vert \\theta_{n}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}.\\label{eq:actorUpdating_GraphRL}\\end{aligned}$$ Although we are able to obtain a closed-form solution for the critic updating\u00a0, to reduce the computational costs, we substitute the solution in value for $\\left\\{ \\mhbfw_{n}\\right\\} _{n=1}^{N}$ rather than the closed-form expression of $\\left\\{ \\mhbfw_{\\theta_{n}}\\right\\} _{n=1}^{N}$ into the actor updating. The actor updating algorithm performs the maximization of\u00a0 over $\\Theta$, which is computed via the Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) algorithm. We use the implementation of SQP with finite-difference approximation to the gradient in the <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">fmincon</span> function of Matlab.\n\nIn the objectives\u00a0, and , $\\mu_{1}$, $\\mu_{2}$ and $\\mu_{3}$ are the tuning parmaters to control the strength of the network cohesion constraints. It is an advantage of our methods over the network based bandit\u00a0[@Bianchi_2013_NIPS_GangOfBandit]. When $\\mu_{1},\\mu_{2},\\mu_{3}\\rightarrow\\infty$, the connected users are enforced to have identical values and policies. When $\\mu_{1},\\mu_{2},\\mu_{3}=0$, there is no network cohesion constraint. In such case, our method is equivalent to the separate online RL method. Compared with the Separate-RL, the model complexity of our methods is reduced since their parameter domain is constrained via the network cohesion regularization. Such case ensures our methods to work well when the sample size is small. However, the optimization of our method is much more complex than that of the separate-RL. The updating rules of all the users are independent with each other in the separate-RL; while in our method, the optimization of all the users is all coupled together. In the following section, two actor-critic RL algorithms are proposed to deal the objectives\u00a0 and .\n\n**Input**: $T,T_{0},\\mu_{\\left\\{ 1,2,3\\right\\} },\\zeta_{\\left\\{ 1,2,3\\right\\} },nAlg$ (i.e. the algorithm index).\n\nInitialize the states $\\left(s_{t,n}\\right)_{p\\times N}$, where $t=0$, and the policy parameters $\\Theta=\\left[\\theta_{1},\\cdots,\\theta_{N}\\right]\\in\\mtbbR^{m\\times N}$ for $N$ users.\n\nAt time point $t,$ observe context $s_{t,n}$ for the $n$-th user.\n\nDraw an action $a_{t,n}$ according to the policy $\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}}(a|s_{t,n}).$\n\nObserve an immediate reward $r_{t,n}$.\n\nConstruct the network cohesion via\u00a0,$\\ $.\n\nData preparation and feature construction\u00a0 for the critic update and the actor update.\n\nCritic update to learn $\\mhbfW_{t}$ (value parameter) via\u00a0.\n\nCritic update to learn $\\mhbfW_{t}$ (value parameter) via\u00a0.\n\nActor update to learn $\\widehat{\\Theta}_{t}$ (policy paramter) via\u00a0.\n\n**Output**: the policy for $N$ users, i.e. $\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}}\\left(a\\mid s\\right)$, for $\\left\\{ n\\right\\} _{n=1}^{N}$.\n\nAlgorithm\\#1 for the Critic update\n==================================\n\nUpdating Rules for the Projection Step\u00a0 \\[sub:UpdatingRule4ProjectionStep\\]\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe first discuss how to minimize the objective for the projection step. The objective is $$J\\!=\\!\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\!\\left\\Vert \\mtbfX_{n}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfh_{n}\\!-\\!\\left(\\mtbfr_{n}\\!+\\!\\gamma\\mtbfY_{n}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfw_{n}\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}+\\mu_{1}\\mttrace\\left(\\mtbfH\\mtbfL\\mtbfH^{\\intercal}\\right)\\!+\\!\\zeta_{1}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfH\\right\\Vert _{F}^{2},\\label{eq:critic_obj_Graph}$$ where $\\left\\Vert \\cdot\\right\\Vert _{F}^{2}$ is the Frobenius norm of a matrix, $${\\displaystyle \\mttrace\\left(\\mtbfH\\mtbfL\\mtbfH^{\\intercal}\\right)=\\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\sum_{j=1}^{N}c_{ij}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfh_{i}-\\mtbfh_{j}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}}\\label{eq:Deviation_Graph_Constraint}$$ and $\\mtbfL=\\mtbfD-\\mtbfC\\in\\mtbbR^{N\\times N}$ is a graph laplacian; $\\mtbfD$ is a diagonal matrix whose elements are column (or row, as $\\mtbfC$ is a symmetric matrix) sums of $\\mtbfC$, i.e. $d_{ii}=\\sum_{i}c_{ij}$. The partial derivative of $J_{1}$, i.e. the 1st term in\u00a0, with respect to $\\mtbfh_{n}$ is $$\\frac{\\partial J_{1}}{\\partial\\mtbfh_{n}}=2\\mtbfX_{n}\\mtbfX_{n}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfh_{n}-2\\mtbfX_{n}\\mtbfr_{n}-2\\gamma\\mtbfX_{n}\\mtbfY_{n}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfw_{n}.$$ Summarizing the partial derivatives with respect to all the variables in $\\mtbfH=\\left(\\mtbfh_{1},\\cdots,\\mtbfh_{N}\\right)\\in\\mtbbR^{K\\times N}$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\partial J_{1}}{\\partial\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)}=\\  & 2\\left(\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\mtbfE_{n}\\otimes\\left(\\mtbfX_{n}\\mtbfX_{n}^{\\intercal}\\right)\\right)\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n & -2\\left(\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\mtbfE_{n}\\otimes\\mtbfX_{n}\\right)\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfR\\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n & -2\\gamma\\left(\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\mtbfE_{n}\\otimes\\left(\\mtbfX_{n}\\mtbfY_{n}^{\\intercal}\\right)\\right)\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)\\!=\\!\\left[\\mtbfh_{1}^{\\intercal},\\cdots,\\mtbfh_{N}^{\\intercal}\\right]^{\\intercal}\\!\\in\\!\\mtbbR^{uN}$ is the vectorization process for a matrix; $\\mtbfE_{n}=\\mtdiag\\left(0,\\cdots,1,\\cdots,0\\right)\\in\\mtbbR^{N\\times N}$ is a diagonal matrix with the $n$-th diagonal element equal to 1, all the other equal to zero; $\\otimes$ indicates the Kronecker product between two matrices resulting in a block matrix. Let $\\mtbfF_{1}=\\sum_{n}\\mtbfE_{n}\\otimes\\left(\\mtbfX_{n}\\mtbfX_{n}^{\\intercal}\\right)$, $\\mtbfF_{2}=\\sum_{n}\\mtbfE_{n}\\otimes\\mtbfX_{n}$ and $\\mtbfF_{3}=\\sum_{n}\\mtbfE_{n}\\otimes\\left(\\mtbfX_{n}\\mtbfY_{n}^{\\intercal}\\right)$. We have a simpler formulation for the $\\partial J_{1}/\\partial\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)$ as follows $$\\frac{\\partial J_{1}}{\\partial\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)}=2\\mtbfF_{1}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)-2\\left[\\mtbfF_{2}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfR\\right)+\\gamma\\mtbfF_{3}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)\\right].$$ The partial derivatives of the 2nd term in\u00a0, i.e. $J_{2}=\\mu_{1}\\mttrace\\left(\\mtbfH\\mtbfL\\mtbfH^{\\intercal}\\right)+\\zeta_{1}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfH\\right\\Vert _{F}^{2}$, with respect to $\\mtbfH$ is $$\\frac{\\partial J_{2}}{\\partial\\mtbfH}=2\\mu_{1}\\mtbfH\\mtbfL+2\\zeta_{1}\\mtbfH.$$ According to the Encapsulating Sum\u00a0[@Petersen_2012_MatrixCookbook], we have $$\\frac{\\partial J_{2}}{\\partial\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)}=2\\left[\\left(\\mu_{1}\\mtbfL^{\\intercal}+\\zeta_{1}\\mtbfI_{N}\\right)\\otimes\\mtbfI_{u}\\right]\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)\\label{eq:gradient_with_Graph_constraint}$$ where $\\mtbfI_{N}\\in\\mtbbR^{N\\times N}$ and $\\mtbfI_{u}\\in\\mtbbR^{u\\times u}$ are identical matrices. Setting the gradient of $J$ in\u00a0 with respect to $\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)$ to zero gives the closed-form solution for the projection step as follows $$\\mtvec\\left(\\mhbfH\\right)=\\left[\\mtbfF_{1}+\\mtbfL_{\\otimes}\\left(\\mu_{1},\\zeta_{1}\\right)\\right]^{-1}\\left[\\mtbfF_{2}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfR\\right)+\\gamma\\mtbfF_{3}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)\\right],\\label{eq:closedFormSolution_4_projectionStep}$$ where $\\mtbfL_{\\otimes}\\left(\\mu_{1},\\zeta_{1}\\right)=\\left(\\mu_{1}\\mtbfL^{\\intercal}+\\zeta_{1}\\mtbfI_{N}\\right)\\otimes\\mtbfI_{u}\\in\\mtbbR^{uN\\times uN}$.\n\nUpdating Rules for the Fixed Point step\u00a0\n----------------------------------------\n\nConsidering the 1st term in the fixed point step\u00a0 gives\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nO_{1} & =\\sum_{n}\\left\\Vert \\Phi_{n}\\mtbfw_{n}-\\Phi_{n}\\mhbfh_{n}\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}=\\left\\Vert \\Phi_{\\otimes}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)-\\Phi_{\\otimes}\\mtvec\\left(\\mhbfH\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $\\Phi_{\\otimes}=\\left(\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\mtbfE_{n}\\otimes\\Phi_{n}\\right)$. To facilitate the optimization, we design $\\left\\{ \\Phi_{n}\\right\\} _{n=1}^{N}$ to let $\\Phi_{\\otimes}=\\mtbfF_{1}+\\mtbfL_{\\otimes}\\left(\\mu_{1},\\zeta_{1}\\right)$, which leads to $$\\begin{aligned}\nO_{1} & =\\left\\Vert \\Phi_{\\otimes}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)-\\Phi_{\\otimes}\\mtvec\\left(\\mhbfH\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}\\\\\n & =\\left\\Vert \\Phi_{\\otimes}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)-\\left[\\mtbfF_{2}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfR\\right)+\\gamma\\mtbfF_{3}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)\\right]\\right\\Vert \\\\\n & =\\left\\Vert \\left(\\Phi_{\\otimes}-\\gamma\\mtbfF_{3}\\right)\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)-\\mtbfF_{2}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfR\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2},\\end{aligned}$$ and finally results in an easy solution for the critic updating\u00a0 (cf. Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:B\\_sysmmetirc\\_positive\\_definite\\]). Letting $\\mtbfP=\\Phi_{\\otimes}-\\gamma\\mtbfF_{3}$, we have $$O_{1}=\\left\\Vert \\mtbfP\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)-\\mtbfF_{2}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfR\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}.$$ The partial derivative of $O_{1}$ with respect to $\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)$ is $$\\frac{\\partial O_{1}}{\\partial\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)}=2\\mtbfP^{\\intercal}\\mtbfP\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)-2\\mtbfP^{\\intercal}\\mtbfF_{2}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfR\\right).$$ Considering the partial derivative of the cohesion constraint and the Frobenius norm based smooth constraint with respect to $\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfH\\right)$, and setting the overll partial derivative to zero, i.e. $\\partial O/\\partial\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)=\\mtbfzero$, we can obtain the following closed-form solution $$\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW^{*}\\right)=\\left[\\mtbfP^{\\intercal}\\mtbfP+\\mtbfL_{\\otimes}\\left(\\mu_{2},\\zeta_{2}\\right)\\right]^{-1}\\mtbfP^{\\intercal}\\mtbfF_{2}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfR\\right),\\label{eq:CriticUpdatingRule_=00003D0000231_GraphRL}$$ where $\\mtbfL_{\\otimes}\\left(\\mu_{2},\\zeta_{2}\\right)=\\left(\\mu_{2}\\mtbfL^{\\intercal}+\\zeta_{2}\\mtbfI_{N}\\right)\\otimes\\mtbfI_{u}$.\n\n\\[thm:B\\_sysmmetirc\\_positive\\_definite\\] $\\mtbfB=\\mtbfP^{\\intercal}\\mtbfP+\\mtbfL_{\\otimes}\\left(\\mu_{2},\\zeta_{2}\\right)$ is a symmetric and positive definite matrix, which leads to an easy critic updating rule in\u00a0.\n\n\\[lem:KroneckerProduct\\_eigenvalues\\] Suppose that $\\mtbfA\\in\\mtbbR^{n\\times n}$ and $\\mtbfB\\in\\mtbbR^{m\\times m}$ are square matrices. Let $\\lambda_{1},\\cdots,\\lambda_{n}$ be the eigenvalues of $\\mtbfA$ and $\\nu_{1},\\cdots,\\nu_{m}$ be those of $\\mtbfB$. Then the eigenvalues of $\\mtbfA\\otimes\\mtbfB$\u00a0[@Langville_2004_JCAM_KroneckerProduct], where $\\otimes$ is the Kronecker Product, are $$\\lambda_{i}\\nu_{j},\\qquad\\mtfor\\ i\\in\\left\\{ 1,\\cdots,n\\right\\} ,\\ j\\in\\left\\{ 1,\\cdots,m\\right\\} .$$\n\n  -------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------\n                                                                                                       \n              Separate-RL     Cohesion-RL\\#1     Cohesion-RL\\#2        Separate-RL     Cohesion-RL\\#1     Cohesion-RL\\#2\n    $0$     1238.4$\\pm$81.6                    **1394.4$\\pm$68.5**   1239.5$\\pm$83.9                    **1397.4$\\pm$68.6**\n   $0.2$    1272.9$\\pm$83.7                    **1428.1$\\pm$64.1**   1279.5$\\pm$83.4                    **1429.2$\\pm$64.3**\n   $0.4$    1286.7$\\pm$85.3                    **1472.4$\\pm$58.7**   1316.4$\\pm$77.5                    **1472.4$\\pm$59.0**\n   $0.6$    1346.3$\\pm$75.9                    **1505.1$\\pm$55.4**   1388.5$\\pm$70.8                    **1515.3$\\pm$55.9**\n   $0.8$    1373.9$\\pm$66.2                    **1556.7$\\pm$54.0**   1440.7$\\pm$63.5                    **1570.0$\\pm$54.0**\n   $0.95$                                      **1556.5$\\pm$49.6**   1315.2$\\pm$68.6                    **1577.8$\\pm$51.3**\n    Avg.        1297.2                             **1485.5**            1330.0                             **1493.7**\n  -------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------------------\n\n  -------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------\n                                                                                                        \n              Separate-RL     Cohesion-RL\\#1     Cohesion-RL\\#2        Separate-RL     Cohesion-RL\\#1      Cohesion-RL\\#2\n    $0$     1194.0$\\pm$86.8                    **1396.7$\\pm$68.5**                     1358.9$\\pm$63.6   **1399.1$\\pm$68.0**\n   $0.2$    1183.8$\\pm$87.8                    **1427.4$\\pm$64.5**                     1408.0$\\pm$57.8   **1430.2$\\pm$63.6**\n   $0.4$    1200.4$\\pm$81.1                    **1469.2$\\pm$58.2**   1423.7$\\pm$63.9                     **1471.3$\\pm$59.3**\n   $0.6$    1254.1$\\pm$75.7                    **1515.2$\\pm$55.0**   1463.6$\\pm$58.1                     **1516.8$\\pm$56.1**\n   $0.8$    1291.8$\\pm$76.8                    **1562.3$\\pm$53.8**   1519.8$\\pm$53.9                     **1552.9$\\pm$54.0**\n   $0.95$                                      **1568.5$\\pm$51.0**   1434.4$\\pm$53.3                     **1574.6$\\pm$50.0**\n    Avg.        1228.2                             **1489.9**            1438.7                              **1490.8**\n  -------- ----------------- ---------------- --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ---------------------\n\n*The value of $\\gamma$ specifies different RL methods: (a) $\\gamma=0$ means the contextual bandit\u00a0[@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI]; (b) $0<\\gamma<1$ is the discounted reward RL, which is first compared in the online actor-critic setting for mHealth. In each comparision, the* ***bold value*** *is the best, and the* ** *is the 2nd best.*\n\nAlgorithm\\#2 for the Critic update\n==================================\n\nIn this section, we provide another updating rule for the critic update (i.e. policy improvement). Note that to prevent the overfitting when the sample size is very small, the conventional LSTD$Q$ usually employs the $\\ell_{2}$ constraint on the variable $\\mtbfH$ in the projection step. They do not put the $\\ell_{2}$ constraint on the fixed-point variable $\\mtbfW$\u00a0[@Mohammad_2011_RARL_RegularizedLSTD_L1L2; @AndrewNg_2009_ICML_RLsparity]. Following this idea, we have a simpler objective function for the critic update as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mtbfw_{n} & =\\mhbfh_{n}=\\arg\\min_{\\mtbfh_{n}}\\sum_{\\mtcalU_{i}\\in\\mtcalD_{n}}\\left\\Vert \\mtbfx{}_{i}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfh_{n}-\\left(r_{i}+\\gamma\\mtbfy{}_{i}^{\\intercal}\\mtbfw_{n}\\right)\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2},\\\\\n & \\mtfor\\ n\\in\\left\\{ 1,\\cdots,N\\right\\} \\ \\text{and}\\ \\mtsubTo\\ \\sum_{i,j=1}^{N}c_{ij}d\\left(\\mtbfh_{i},\\mtbfh_{j}\\right)\\leq\\delta_{1}.\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ According to the derivation in Section\u00a0\\[sub:UpdatingRule4ProjectionStep\\] that considers the Frobenius norm based smooth constraint, the updating rule for the projection step is\u00a0. In the fixed-point step, the objective is simply $\\mtbfw_{n}=\\mhbfh_{n}$ (i.e. a fixed-point problem), which leads to $$\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)=\\mtvec\\left(\\mhbfH\\right).$$ Thus, we have the closed-form solution for $\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfW\\right)$ as follows $$\\mtvec\\left(\\mhbfW\\right)=\\left[\\mtbfF_{1}-\\gamma\\mtbfF_{3}+\\mtbfL_{\\otimes}\\left(\\mu_{1},\\zeta_{1}\\right)\\right]^{-1}\\mtbfF_{2}\\mtvec\\left(\\mtbfR\\right).\\label{eq:CriticUpdatingRule_=00003D0000232_GraphRL}$$ It is simpler than the 1st updating rule for the critic update\u00a0.\n\nExperiment Results {#sec:Evaluation}\n==================\n\nWe verify the proposed methods on the HeartSteps dataset. It has two choices for an action, i.e. $\\left\\{ 0,1\\right\\} ,$ where $a=1$ means sending the positive intervention, while $a=0$ indicates no intervention\u00a0[@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd]. Specifically, the stochastic policy is assumed to be in the form $\\pi_{\\theta}\\left(a\\mid s\\right)\\!=\\!\\frac{\\exp\\left[-\\theta^{\\intercal}\\phi\\left(s,a\\right)\\right]}{\\sum_{a'}\\exp\\left[-\\theta^{\\intercal}\\phi\\left(s,a'\\right)\\right]}$, where $\\theta\\in\\mtbbR^{m}$ is the unknown parameter and $\\phi\\left(\\cdot,\\cdot\\right)$ is a feature process that combines the information in actions and states, i.e. $\\phi\\left(s,a\\right)=\\left[as^{\\intercal},a\\right]^{\\intercal}\\in\\mtbbR^{m}$.\n\nThe HeartSteps Dataset\n----------------------\n\nTo verify the performance of our method, we use a dataset from a mobile health study, called HeartSteps\u00a0[@Walter_2015_Significance_RandomTrialForFitbitGeneration], to approximate the generative model. This is a 42-day mHealth intervention that aims to increase the users\u2019 steps they take each day by providing positive treatments (i.e. interventions), which are adapted to users\u2019 ongoing status, such as suggesting users to take a walk after long sitting\u00a0[@Walter_2015_Significance_RandomTrialForFitbitGeneration], or to do some exercises after work.\n\nA trajectory of $T$ tuples $\\mtcalD=\\left\\{ \\left(s_{i},a_{i,}r_{i}\\right)\\mid i=1,\\cdots,T\\right\\} $ are generated for each user\u00a0[@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd; @huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI]. The initial state is drawn from the Gaussian distribution $S{}_{0}\\sim\\mtcalN_{p}\\left\\lbrace 0,\\Sigma\\right\\rbrace $, where $\\Sigma$ is a $p\\times p$ covariance matrix with pre-defined elements. The action $a_{t}$ for $0\\leq t\\leq T_{0}$ is drawn from the random policy, with a probability of $0.5$ to provide interventions, i.e. $\\mu\\left(1\\mid s\\right)=0.5$ for all states $s$. Such process is called drawing warm start trajectory (WST) via the micro-randomized trials\u00a0[@PengLiao_2015_Proposal_offPolicyRL; @Walter_2015_Significance_RandomTrialForFitbitGeneration], and $T_{0}$ is the length of the WST. When $t\\geq T_{0}$, we start the actor-critic updating, and the action is drawn from the learned policy, i.e. $a_{t}\\sim\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{t}}\\left(\\cdot\\mid s_{t}\\right)$. When $t\\geq1$, the state and immediate reward are generated as follows $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{t,1}=\\  & \\beta_{1}S_{t-1,1}+\\xi_{t,1},\\nonumber \\\\\nS_{t,2}=\\  & \\beta_{2}S_{t-1,2}+\\beta_{3}A_{t-1}+\\xi_{t,2},\\label{eq:Dat=00003D0000231_stateTrans_cmp3}\\\\\nS_{t,3}=\\  & \\beta_{4}S_{t-1,3}+\\beta_{5}S_{t-1,3}A_{t-1}+\\beta_{6}A_{t-1}+\\xi_{t,3},\\nonumber \\\\\nS_{t,j}=\\  & \\beta_{7}S_{t-1,j}+\\xi_{t,j},\\qquad\\mtfor\\ j=4,\\ldots,p\\nonumber \\\\\nR_{t}=\\  & \\beta_{14}\\times[\\beta_{8}+A_{t}\\times(\\beta_{9}+\\beta_{10}S_{t,1}+\\beta_{11}S_{t,2})\\label{eq:Dat=00003D0000231_ImmediateRwd_cmp3}\\\\\n & +\\beta_{12}S_{t,1}-\\beta_{13}S_{t,3}+\\varrho_{t}],\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ where $\\bm{\\beta}\\!=\\!\\left\\{ \\beta_{i}\\right\\} _{i=1}^{14}$ is the main parameter for the MDP and $-\\beta_{13}S_{t,3}$ is the treatment fatigue; $\\left\\{ \\xi_{t,i}\\right\\} _{i=1}^{p}\\sim\\mtcalN\\left(0,\\sigma_{s}^{2}\\right)$ is the noise in the state\u00a0 and $\\varrho_{t}\\sim\\mtcalN\\left(0,\\sigma_{r}^{2}\\right)$ is the noise in the reward model\u00a0.\n\nAs it is known to us, the individuals are generally more or less different from each other, and each individual is similar to a part, but not all, of the individuals. In the mHealth and RL study, an individual is abstracted as an MDP, which is determined by the value of $\\bm{\\beta}$, cf.\u00a0 and\u00a0. To achieve a more practical dataset compared with\u00a0[@SusanMurphy_2016_CORR_BatchOffPolicyAvgRwd; @PengLiao_2015_Proposal_offPolicyRL; @huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI], we come up with a method to generate $N$ users (i.e. $\\bm{\\beta}$s) that satisfy the above requirements in two steps: (a) manually design $V$ basic $\\bm{\\beta}$s, i.e. $\\left\\{ \\bm{\\beta}_{v}^{\\text{basic}}\\mid v=1,\\cdots,V\\right\\} $, that are very different from each other; (b) a set of $N_{v}$ different individuals (i.e. $\\bm{\\beta}$s) are generated for each $\\bm{\\beta}_{v}^{\\text{basic}}$ via the following process $\\bm{\\beta}_{i}=\\bm{\\beta}_{v}^{\\text{basic}}+\\bm{\\delta}_{i},\\ \\text{for}\\ i\\in\\left\\{ 1,2,\\cdots,N_{v}\\right\\} $, where $\\bm{\\delta}_{i}\\sim\\mtcalN\\left(0,\\sigma_{b}\\mtbfI_{14}\\right)$ is the noise in the MDPs and $\\mtbfI_{14}\\in\\mtbbR^{14\\times14}$ is an identity matrix. After such processing, the individuals are all different from the others. The value of $\\sigma_{b}$ specifies how different the individuals are. In the experiments, the number of groups is set as $V=3$ (each group has $N_{v}=15$ people, leading to $N=45$ users involved in the experiment). The $\\bm{\\beta}^{\\text{basic}}$\u2019s for the $V$ groups are set as follows $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\bm{\\beta}_{1}^{\\text{basic}}= & [0.40,0.25,0.35,0.65,0.10,0.50,0.22,\\\\\n & 2.00,0.15,0.20,0.32,0.10,0.45,800]\\\\\n\\bm{\\beta}_{2}^{\\text{basic}}= & [0.35,0.30,0.30,0.60,0.05,0.65,0.28,\\\\\n & 2.60,0.35,0.45,0.45,0.15,0.50,650]\\\\\n\\bm{\\beta}_{3}^{\\text{basic}}= & [0.20,0.50,0.20,0.62,0.06,0.52,0.27,\\\\\n & 3.00,0.15,0.15,0.50,0.16,0.70,450].\\end{aligned}$$\n\n![image](1_home_fyzhu_link2dropbox_self_Folder_myWorksOn___lineGraphRL_self_IEEE_TPAMI_figs_fig_P_vs_T.pdf){width=\"0.94\\linewidth\"}\n\n![image](2_home_fyzhu_link2dropbox_self_Folder_myWorksOn___ineGraphRL_self_IEEE_TPAMI_figs_fig_P_vs_T0.pdf){width=\"0.94\\linewidth\"}\n\n\\[sub:ComparedMethods\\_ParameterSetting\\]Compared Methods and Parameter Settings\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThere are three online actor-critic RL methods for the comparison: (a) Separate-RL, which is an extension of the online actor-critic contextual bandit in\u00a0[@huitian_2014_NIPS_ActCriticBandit4JITAI] to the online actor-critic reinforcement learning. It learns a separate RL policy for each user by only using his or her data. (b) Cohesion-RL\\#1 is the first version of our method. (c) Cohesion-RL\\#2 is the second version of our method (cf. Algorithm\u00a0\\[alg:2\\_actor\\_critic\\_algorithms\\_4\\_GraphRL\\] for detail). Specially, Cohesion-RL\\#1 and Cohesion-RL\\#2 share the same actor updating. The difference between them is the different critic updating rules that they employ.\n\nThe noises in the MDP are set as $\\sigma_{s}\\!=\\!0.5$, $\\sigma_{r}\\!=\\!1$ and $\\sigma_{\\beta}\\!=\\!0.05$. The state has dimension $p=3$ and the policy feature has $m\\!=\\!4$ elements. We set the $\\ell_{2}$ constraint in the Separate-RL as $\\zeta_{a}=\\zeta_{c}=0.1$. When the cohesion constraint in our methods are too small ($10^{-4}$, say), we need the $\\ell_{2}$ constraint for the actor-critic updating to avoid the overfitting, with the parameters as $\\zeta_{1}=\\zeta_{2}=\\zeta_{3}=0.1$. Otherwise, we set $\\zeta_{1}=\\zeta_{2}=\\zeta_{3}\\rightarrow0$. The feature processing for the value estimation is $\\mtbfx\\left(s,a\\right)=\\left[1,s^{\\intercal},a,s^{\\intercal}a\\right]^{\\intercal}\\in\\mtbbR^{u},$ where $u=2p+2$, for all the compared methods. The feature for the policy is processed as $\\phi\\left(s,a\\right)=\\left[as^{\\intercal},a\\right]^{\\intercal}\\in\\mtbbR^{m}$ where $m=p+1$. We set $K=8$ for the $K$-NN based network cohesion learning. If there is no special setting, the following three paremeters are set as: (a) the trajectory length in mHealth is $T=80$, which indicates that the online RL learning ends at $t=80$; (b) the length of warm start trajectory is set as $T_{0}=10$; (c) to reduce the number of parameters in the algorithm, the parameters for the cohesion constraint in our methods are set as $\\mu_{1}=0.1$, $\\mu_{3}=\\mu_{1}$ and $\\mu_{2}=0.01\\mu_{1}$.\n\nEvaluation Metrics\n------------------\n\nWe use the expectation of long run average reward (ElrAR) $\\mathbb{E}\\left[\\eta^{\\pi_{\\widehat{\\Theta}}}\\right]$ to quantify the quality of the estimated policy $\\pi_{\\widehat{\\Theta}}$ on a set of $N$=45 individuals. Here $\\pi_{\\widehat{\\Theta}}$ summarizes the policies for all the $45$ users, in which $\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}}$ is the $n$-th user\u2019s policy. Intuitively, ElrAR measures how much average reward in the long run we could totally get by using the learned policy $\\pi_{\\widehat{\\Theta}}$ on the testing users (i.e. MDPs), for example measuring how much alcohol users have in a fixed time period in the alcohol use study\u00a0[@Gustafson_2014_JAMA_drinking; @Witkiewitz_2014_JAB_drinkingSmoking]. Specifically in the HeartSteps, ElrAR measures the average steps that users take per day over a long time; a larger ElrAR corresponds to a better performance. The average reward for the $n$-th user, i.e. $\\eta^{\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}}}$, is calculated by averaging the rewards over the last $4,000$ elements in a trajectory of $5,000$ tuples under the policy $\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}}$, i.e. $\\eta^{\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}}}=\\frac{1}{T-i}\\sum_{j=i}^{T}\\mtcalR\\left(s_{j,n},a_{j,n}\\sim\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}}\\right)$, where $T=5000$ and $i=1000$. Then ElrAR $\\mathbb{E}\\left[\\eta^{\\pi_{\\widehat{\\Theta}}}\\right]$ is approximated by averaging over the $45$ $\\eta^{\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}}}$\u2019s, i.e. $\\mathbb{E}\\left[\\eta^{\\pi_{\\widehat{\\Theta}}}\\right]\\approx\\frac{1}{N}\\sum_{n=1}^{N}\\eta^{\\pi_{\\widehat{\\theta}_{n}}}$.\n\nComparisons in three experiment settings \n-----------------------------------------\n\nThe following experiments are carried out to verify different aspects of the three online actor-critic RL algorithms:\n\n(**S1**) In this part, the trajectory length of all users ranges as $T\\!\\in\\left\\{ 50,80,110,150\\right\\} $. The experiment results are showed in Table\u00a0\\[tab:\\_ExpSetting\\_S1\\] and Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:\\_ExpSetting\\_S2\\]. There are two sub-tables in Table\u00a0\\[tab:\\_ExpSetting\\_S1\\]; each sub-table displays the ElrAR of three RL methods (i.e. Separate-RL, Cohesion-RL\\#1 and Cohesion-RL\\#2 respectively) under six $\\gamma$ settings; the last row shows the average ElrAR over the results of all the six $\\gamma$s. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:\\_ExpSetting\\_S2\\], there are three sub-figures; each sub-figure illustrates the results of three methods under one $\\gamma$ setting. As we shall see that the performance of three methods generally increases as $T$ rises. The performance of our RL methods, i.e. Cohesion-RL\\#1 and Cohesion-RL\\#2, have an obvious advantage over the Separate-RL under all the parameters settings in (**S1**). Besides, the advantage of our methods over Separate-RL slowly decreases as $T$ rises. Compared with Separate-RL, our methods averagely improve $156.0$ steps and $188.3$ steps when $T=50$, and averagely improve $136.3$ steps and $163.7$ steps when $T=150$.\n\n(**S2**) In this part, the length of warm start trajectory ranges as $T_{0}=\\left\\{ 5,10,15,20\\right\\} $, which indicates that the RL methods wait longer and longer before starting the online learning. The experiment results are summarized in Table\u00a0\\[tab:\\_ExpSetting\\_S2\\] and Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:\\_ExpSetting\\_S2\\]. As we shall see that as $T_{0}$ rises across this range, the performance of Separate-RL increases dramatically and Cohesion-RL\\#1 rises gradually, while Cohesion-RL\\#2 remains stable. Thus, the average advantage of our method over Separate-RL decreases dramatically as $T_{0}$ rises, i.e., from $224.07$ steps and $261.67$ steps when $T_{0}=5$ to $33.26$ steps and $52.09$ steps when $T_{0}=20$. Such case suggests that our methods work perfectly when the WST is very short. In this case, the mining of network cohesion is necessary for the online RL learning. In general, however, our methods still outperform Separate-RL significantly.\n\n(**S3**) The parameter of the Network-Cohesion constraint $\\mu_{1}$ for the projection step ranges from $0.001$ to $10$. To reduce the number of parameters in our algorithm, we simply set $\\mu_{2}=0.01\\mu_{1}$ (i.e. the cohesion constraint for the fixed-point step) and $\\mu_{3}=\\mu_{1}$ (i.e. the cohesion constraint for the actor updating). The experiment results are illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:\\_ExpSetting\\_S3\\], where there are three sub-figures. Each sub-figure shows the results of three online RLs vs. five $\\mu_{1}$ settings under one $\\gamma$. As we shall see that as $\\mu_{1}$ rises across this range, our method always obtains superior performance compared with Separate-RL. Specially, Cohesion-RL\\#2 is very stable and always better than Cohesion-RL\\#1. Such case indicates that it is reliable to follow the idea on how to introduce the $\\ell_{2}$ constraint in LSTD$Q$. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:\\_ExpSetting\\_S3\\], since Separate-RL does not have the Network-Cohesion constraint, its result keeps unchanged.\n\nConsider (**S1**) and (**S2**) for the Separate-RL, we find: (a) the lack of samples at the beginning of the online learning may bias the optimization direction, which badly influence the performance even when the trajectory is very long; (b) Compared with $T$, the increase of $T_{0}$ has a more important influence on the performance. In (**S1**), where $T_{0}=10$ is fixed and $T$ ranges from $T=50$ to $T=150$, the performance of Separate-RL increases $32.74$ steps. In (**S2**), where $T=80$ is fixed and $T_{0}$ rises from $T_{0}=5$ to $T_{0}=20$, Separate-RL achieve an improvement of $210.51$ steps, which is much significant than the rise caused by the rising $T$.\n\n![image](3_home_fyzhu_link2dropbox_self_Folder_myWorksOn___ineGraphRL_self_IEEE_TPAMI_figs_fig_P_vs_Mu.pdf){width=\"0.94\\linewidth\"}\n\nConclusions and Discuss \\[sec:Conclusions\\]\n===========================================\n\nThis paper presents a first attempt to employ the online actor-critic reinforcement learning for the mHealth. Following the current methods that learn a separate policy for each user, the Separate-RL can not achieve satisfactory results. This is due to that data for each user is very limited in size to support the separate learning, leading to unstable policies that contain lots of variances. After considering the universal phenomenon that users are generally connected in a network and linked users tend to have similar behaviors, we propose a network cohesion constrained actor-critic reinforcement learning for mHealth. It is able to share the information among similar users to convert the limited user information into sharper learned policies. Extensive experiment results demonstrate that our methods outperform the Separate-RL significantly. We find it easy to apply the proposed methods to other health-related tasks.\n\nAppendix: the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:B\\_sysmmetirc\\_positive\\_definite\\]  {#appendix-the-proof-of-theoremthmb_sysmmetirc_positive_definite .unnumbered}\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nConsidering $\\mtbfL_{\\otimes}\\left(\\mu_{2},\\zeta_{2}\\right)=\\left(\\mu_{2}\\mtbfL^{\\intercal}+\\zeta_{2}\\mtbfI_{N}\\right)\\otimes\\mtbfI_{u}$ gives the equation $\\mtbfB=\\mtbfP^{\\intercal}\\mtbfP+\\mu_{2}\\mtbfL^{\\intercal}\\otimes\\mtbfI_{u}+\\zeta_{2}\\mtbfI_{uN}$. The first term $\\mtbfB_{1}=\\mtbfP^{\\intercal}\\mtbfP$ is obviously positive semi-definite as $\\forall\\mtbfx$, we have $\\mtbfx^{\\intercal}\\mtbfP^{\\intercal}\\mtbfP\\mtbfx=\\left\\Vert \\mtbfP\\mtbfx\\right\\Vert _{2}^{2}\\geq0$. The graph laplacian $\\mtbfL$ is positive semi-definite, which indicates that its eigenvalues are non-negative, i.e. $\\lambda_{1},\\cdots,\\lambda_{N}\\geq0$. The eigenvalues of $\\mtbfI_{u}$ are $\\mu_{1}=\\cdots=\\mu_{u}=1$. According to Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:KroneckerProduct\\_eigenvalues\\], we have the conclusion that the eigenvalues of $\\mtbfL^{\\intercal}\\otimes\\mtbfI_{u}$ are non-negative, which indicates that it is a positive semi-definite matrix. The last term in $\\mtbfB$ is an identical matrix, which is surely positive definite. The sum of two positive semi-definite matrices and a positive definite matrix results in a positive definite matrix.\n\nSince for any matrices $\\mtbfA\\in\\mtbbR^{l\\times k}$ and $\\mtbfD\\in\\mtbbR^{m\\times n}$, the Kronecker product has the property $\\left(\\mtbfA\\otimes\\mtbfD\\right)^{\\intercal}=\\left(\\mtbfA^{\\intercal}\\otimes\\mtbfD^{\\intercal}\\right)$\u00a0[@Langville_2004_JCAM_KroneckerProduct]. Besides, the graph laplacian $\\mtbfL$ is symmetric. We have $$\\mtbfB^{\\intercal}=\\left(\\mtbfP^{\\intercal}\\mtbfP+\\mu_{2}\\mtbfL^{\\intercal}\\otimes\\mtbfI_{u}+\\zeta_{2}\\mtbfI_{uN}\\right)^{\\intercal}=\\mtbfB.$$\n\n[^1]: $\\star$ Feiyun\u00a0Zhu, Xinliang Zhu, Yaowen Yao and Junzhou Huang are with the Department of CSE in the University of Texas at Arlington. $\\ddagger$ Feiyun Zhu and Peng Liao are with the Department of Statistics in the University of Michigan.\n\n[^2]: i.e. smartphones and wearable devices, such as Fitbit Fuelband and Jawbone etc.\n\n[^3]: The MDPs of one user on two diverse mHealth studies should be very different; for example, the MDP in the HeartSteps study\u00a0[@Walter_2015_Significance_RandomTrialForFitbitGeneration] for one user should be different from that in the alcohol control\u00a0[@Gustafson_2014_JAMA_drinking; @Witkiewitz_2014_JAB_drinkingSmoking] study.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    During the last decade bike sharing systems have emerged as a public transport mode in urban short trips in more than 500 major cities around the world. For the mobility service mode, many challenges from its operations are not well addressed yet, for example, how to develop the bike sharing systems to be able to effectively satisfy the fluctuating demands both for bikes and for vacant lockers. To this end, it is a key to give performance analysis of the bike sharing systems. This paper first describes a large-scale bike sharing system. Then the bike sharing system is abstracted as a closed queueing network with multi-class customers, where the virtual customers and the virtual nodes are set up, and the service rates as well as the relative arrival rates are established. Finally, this paper gives a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths, and gives performance analysis of the bike sharing system. Therefore, this paper provides a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems. We hope the methodology and results of this paper can be applicable in the study of more general bike sharing systems.\n\n    0.5cm\n\n    **Keywords:** Bike sharing system; closed queueing network; product-form solution; problematic station.\nauthor:\n- |\n    Quan-Lin Li, Rui-Na Fan and Jing-Yu Ma\\\n    School of Economics and Management Sciences\\\n    Yanshan University, Qinhuangdao 066004, P.R. China\ndate: 'Published in [**Information Technologies and Mathematical Modelling**]{}, Springer, 2016'\ntitle: 'A Unified Framework for Analyzing Closed Queueing Networks in Bike Sharing Systems[^1]'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nDuring the last decade the bike sharing systems are fast increasing as a public transport mode in urban short trips, and have been launched in more than 500 major cities around the world. Also, the bike sharing systems offer a low cost and environmental protection\u00a0mobility service through sharing one-way use. Now, the bike sharing systems are regarded as an effective way to jointly solve traffic congestion, parking difficulties, traffic noise, air pollution and so forth. DeMaio [@DeM:2009] reviewed the history, impacts, models of provision and future of the bike sharing systems. Larsen [@Lar:2013] reported that over 500 major cities host advanced bike sharing systems with a combined fleet of more than half a million bikes up to April 2013. A synthesis of the literature for the bike sharing systems was given by Fishman et al. [@Fis:2013] and Labadi et al. [@Lab:2015]. At the same time, for some countries or cities developing the bike sharing systems, readers may refer to, such as, Europe, the Americas and Asia by Shaheen et al. [@Sha:2010], the European OBIS Project by Janett and Hendrik [@Jan:2011], the France by Faye [@Fay:2008], China by Tang et al. [@Tang:2011], London by Lathia et al. [@Lat:2012], Montreal by Morency et al. [@Mor:2011], and a number of famous cities by Shu et al. [@Shu:2013].\n\nIn operations of the bike sharing systems, a crucial question is the ability not only to meet the fluctuating demand for renting bikes at each station but also to provide enough vacant lockers to allow the renters to return the bikes at their destinations. Since the number of bikes packed in each station is always randomly dynamically changed, this causes an unpredictable imbalance, such as, some stations contain more bikes but the others are seriously short of available bikes. Such a randomly dynamic unbalance of bikes distributed among the stations often leads to occurrence of the problematic stations (i.e., full or empty stations). Notice that the problematic stations reflect a common challenge faced by the bike sharing systems in practice due to the stochastic and time-inhomogeneous nature of both the customer arrivals and the bike returns, thus the probability of problematic stations has been regarded as a main factor to measure the satisfaction of customers and even to estimate the quality of service. Obviously, how to effectively reduce the probability of problematic stations becomes a key way to improve the satisfaction of customers and further to promote the quality of system service. Therefore, it is a major task to develop effective methods for computing the probability of problematic stations in the study of bike sharing systems.\n\nQueueing theory and Markov processes are very useful for computing the probability of problematic stations, and more generally, analyzing performance measures of the bike sharing systems. However, available works on such a research line are still fewer up to now. We would like to refer readers to four classes of recent literature as follows. **(a) Simple queues:** Leurent [@Leu:2012] used the $M/M/1/C$ queue to study a vehicle-sharing system in which each station contains an additional waiting room which helps those customers arriving at a problematic station, and analyzed performance measures of this system in terms of a geometric distribution. Schuijbroek et al. [@Sch:2013] evaluated the service level by means of the transient distribution of the $M/M/1/C$ queue, and the service level is used to establish some optimal models to discuss the inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing. Raviv et al [@Rav:2013] and Raviv and Kolka [@Rav:2013a] employed the transient distribution of a time-inhomogeneous $M\\left(\nt\\right)  /M\\left(  t\\right)  /1/C$ queue to compute the expected number of bike shortages at each station. **(b) The mean-field theory:** Fricker et al. [@Fri:2012] considered a space inhomogeneous bike sharing system with different clusters, and expressed the minimal proportion of problematic stations within each cluster. For a space homogeneous bike sharing system, Fricker and Gast [@Fri:2014] used the $M/M/1/K$ queue to provide a more detailed analysis for some simple mean-field models (including the *power of two choices*), derived a closed-form solution to the minimal proportion of problematic stations, and compared the incentives and redistribution mechanisms. Fricker and Tibi [@Fri:2015] studied the central limit and local limit theorems for the independent (perhaps non identically distributed) random variables which effectively support analysis of a generalized Jackson network with product-form solution; and used these obtained results to evaluate performance measures of the space inhomogeneous bike sharing systems, where its asymptotics gives a complete picture for equilibrium state analysis of the locally space homogeneous bike sharing systems. Li et al. [@Li:2016] provided a mean-field queueing method to study a large-scale bike sharing system through using a combination of, such as, the virtual time-inhomogeneous queue, the mean-field equations, the martingale limit, the nonlinear birth-death process, numerical computation of the fixed point, and numerical analysis for the steady state probability of the problematic stations. **(c) Queueing networks:** Savin et al. [@Sav:2005] used a loss network as well as admission control to discuss capacity allocation of a rental model with two classes of customers, and studied the revenue management and fleet sizing decision in the rental system. Adelman [@Ade:2007] applied a closed queueing network to set up an internal pricing mechanism for managing a fleet of service units, and also used a nonlinear flow model to discuss the price-based policy for the vehicle redistribution. George and Xia [@Geo:2011] provided a queueing network method in the study of vehicle rental systems, and determined the optimal number of parking spaces for each rental location. **(d) Markov decision processes:** Stochastic optimization and Markov decision processes are applied to analysis of the bike sharing systems. From a dynamic price mechanism, Waserhole and Jost [@Was:2012] used the closed queuing networks to propose a Markov decision model of a bike sharing system. To overcome the curse of dimensionality in the Markov decision process with a high dimension, they established a fluid approximation that computes a static policy and gave an upper bound on the potential optimization. Such a fluid approximation for the Markov decision processes of the bike sharing systems was further developed in Waserhole and Jost [@Was:2013] [@Was:2014] and Waserhole et al. [@Was:2013a].\n\nThe main purposes of this paper are to provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems. This framework of closed queueing networks is interesting, difficult and challenging from three crucial features: (a) Stations and roads have very different physical attributes, but all of them are abstracted as indistinguishable nodes in the closed queueing networks; (b) the service discipline of the stations is First Come First Service (abbreviated as FCFS), while the service discipline of the roads is Processor Sharing (abbreviated as PS); and (c) the virtual customers (i.e., bikes) in the stations are of a single class, while the virtual customers (i.e., bikes) in the roads are of two classes, and their classes may change on the roads according to the first bike-return or the at least two successive bike-returns due to the full stations, respectively. For such a closed queueing network, this paper provides a detailed analysis both for establishing a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths, and for computing the steady state probability of problematic stations, more generally, for analyzing performance measures of the bike sharing system. The main contributions of this paper are twofold. The first contribution is to describe a large-scale bike sharing system and to provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks through establishing some basic factors: The service rates from stations or roads; and the routing matrix as well as the relative arrival rates to stations or roads. Notice that the basic factors play a key role in the study of closed queueing networks. The second contribution of this paper is to provide a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths in the closed queueing network, and give performance analysis of the bike sharing system in terms of the steady state joint probabilities.\n\nThe remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe a large-scale bike sharing system with $N$ different stations and with at most $N\\left(  N-1\\right)  $ different roads. In Section 3, we provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems, and also compute the service rates, the routing matrix, and the relative arrival rates. In Section 4, we give a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths in the closed queueing network, and analyze performance measures of the bike sharing system by means of the steady state joint probabilities. Some concluding remarks are given in Section 5.\n\nModel Description\n=================\n\nIn this section, we describe a large-scale bike sharing system with $N$ different stations and with at most $N\\left(  N-1\\right)  $ different roads due to the riding-bike directed connection between any two stations. To analyze such a bike sharing system, we provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems.\n\nIn a large-scale bike sharing system, a customer arrives at a station, rents a bike, and uses it for a while; then she returns the bike to a destination station, and immediately leaves this system. Obviously, for any customer renting and using a bike, her first return-bike time is different from those return-bike times that she has successively returned the bike for at least two times due to arriving at the full stations. At the same time, it is easy to understand that for any customer, her first road selection as well as her first riding-bike speed are different from those of having successively returned her bike for at least two times. Also, it is noted that the customer must return her bike to a station, then she can immediately leave the bike sharing system.\n\nNow, we describe the bike sharing system, including operation mechanism, system parameters and mathematical notation, as follows:\n\n**(1) Stations and roads:** There are $N$ different stations and at most $N\\left(  N-1\\right)  $ different roads, where the $N\\left(  N-1\\right)  $ roads are observed from the fact that there must exist a directed road from a station to another station. In addition, we assume that at the initial time $t=0$, every station has $C$ bikes and $K$ parking places, where $1\\leq\nC<K<\\infty$; and $NC\\geq K$, which makes that some of the $NC$ bikes can result in at least a full station.\n\n**(2) Customer arrival process:** The arrivals of the outside customers at the $i$th station are a Poisson process with arrival rate $\\lambda_{i}>0$ for $1\\leq i\\leq N$.\n\n**(3) The first riding-bike time:** Once an outside customer arrives at the $i$th station, she immediately goes to rent a bike. If there is no bike in the $i$th station (i.e., the $i$th station is empty), then the customer directly leaves this bike sharing system. If there is at least one bike in the $i$th station, then the customer rents a bike, and then goes to Road $i\\rightarrow j$. We assume that for $j\\neq i$ with $1\\leq i,j\\leq N$, the customer at the $i$th station rides the bike into Road $i\\rightarrow j$ with probability $p_{i,j}$ for $\\sum_{j\\neq i}^{N}p_{i,j}=1$; and her riding-bike time from the $i$th station to the $j$th station (i.e., riding on Road $i\\rightarrow j$) is an exponential random variable with riding-bike rate $\\mu_{i,j}>0$, where the expected riding-bike time is $1/\\mu_{i,j}$.\n\n**(4) The bike return times:**\n\n\u2013 When the customer completes her short trip on the above Road $i\\rightarrow j$ (see Assumption (3)), she needs to return her bike to the $j$th station. If there is at least one available parking position (i.e., a vacant docker), then the customer directly returns her bike to the $j$th station, and immediately leaves this bike sharing system.\n\n\u2013 If no parking position is available at the $j$th station, then she has to ride the bike to another station $l_{1}$ with probability $\\alpha_{j,l_{1}}$ for $l_{1}\\neq j$ for $\\sum_{l_{1}\\neq j}^{N}\\alpha_{j,l_{1}}=1$; and her riding-bike time from the $j$th station to the $l_{1}$th station (i.e., riding on Road $j\\rightarrow l_{1}$) is an exponential random variable with riding-bike rate $\\xi_{j,l_{1}}>0$. If there is at least one available parking position, then the customer directly returns her bike to the $l_{1}$th station, and immediately leaves this bike sharing system.\n\n\u2013 If no parking position is available at the $l_{1}$th station, then she has to ride the bike to another station $l_{2}$ with probability $\\alpha_{l_{1},l_{2}}$ for $l_{2}\\neq l_{1}$ for $\\sum\n_{l_{2}\\neq l_{1}}^{N}\\alpha_{l_{1},l_{2}}=1$; and her riding-bike time from the $l_{1}$th station to the $l_{2}$th station (i.e., riding on Road $l_{1}\\rightarrow l_{2}$) is an exponential random variable with riding-bike rate $\\xi_{l_{1},l_{2}}>0$. If there is at least one available parking position, then the customer directly returns her bike to the $l_{2}$th station, and immediately leaves this bike sharing system.\n\n\u2013 We assume that this bike has not been returned at any station yet through $k$ consecutive return processes. In this case, the customer has to try her ($k+1$)st lucky return. Notice that the customer goes to the $l_{k}$th station from the $l_{k-1}$th full station with probability $\\alpha_{l_{k-1},l_{k}}$ for $l_{k}\\neq l_{k-1}$ for $\\sum_{l_{k}\\neq l_{k-1}}^{N}\\alpha_{l_{k-1},l_{k}}=1$; and her riding-bike time from the $l_{k-1}$th station to the $l_{k}$th station (i.e., riding on Road $l_{k-1}\\rightarrow l_{k}$) is an exponential random variable with riding-bike rate $\\xi_{l_{k-1},l_{k}}>0$. If there is at least one available parking position, then the customer directly returns her bike to the $l_{k}$th station, and immediately leaves this bike sharing system; otherwise she has to continuously try another station again.\n\nWe further assume that the returning-bike process is persistent in the sense that the customer must find a station with an empty position to return her bike, because the bike is the public property so that no one can make it her own.\n\nIt is seen from the above description that the parameters: $p_{i,j}$ and $\\mu_{i,j}$ for $j\\neq i$ and $1\\leq i,j\\leq N$, of the first return, may be different from the parameters: $\\alpha_{i,j}$ and $\\xi_{i,j}$ for $j\\neq i$ and $1\\leq i,j\\leq N$, of the $k$th return for $k\\geq2$. Notice that such an assumption with respect to these different parameters is actually reasonable because the customer possibly has more things (for example, tourism, shopping, visiting friends and so on) in the first return process, but she become to have only one return task during the $k$ successive return processes for $k\\geq2$.\n\n**(5) The departure discipline:** The customer departure has two different cases: (a) An outside customer directly leaves the bike sharing system if she arrives at an empty station; or (b) if one customer rents and uses a bike, and she finally returns the bike to a station, then the customer completes her trip, and immediately leaves the bike sharing system.\n\nWe assume that the customer arrival and riding-bike processes are independent, and also all the above random variables are independent of each other. For such a bike sharing system, Figure 1 provides some physical interpretation.\n\n![The physical structure of the bike sharing system[]{data-label=\"figure:fig-1\"}](fig-1.eps){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nA Closed Queueing Network\n=========================\n\nIn this section, we first provide a closed queueing network to express the bike sharing system, as seen in Figure 1. Then we determine the service rates, the routing matrix, and the relative arrival rates of the closed queueing network. Notice that there are two classes of customers in the $N\\left(\nN-1\\right)  $ roads.\n\nIn the bike sharing system described in the above section, there are $NC$ bikes, $N$ stations and $N\\left(  N-1\\right)  $ roads. Now, we abstract the bike sharing system as a closed queueing network as follows:\n\n**(1) Virtual nodes:** \n\n:   Although the stations and roads have different physical attributes such as functions, and geographical topologies, the stations and roads are all regarded as the same nodes in the closed queueing network.\n\n**(2) Virtual customers:**\n\n:   The bikes at the stations or roads are described as follows:\n\nThe virtual customers are abstracted by the bikes, which are either parked in the stations or ridden on the roads. Notice that the total number of bikes in the bike sharing system is fixed as $NC$ due to the fact that bikes can neither enter nor leave this system, thus the bike sharing system can be regarded as a closed queueing network.\n\nFrom Assumption (2) in Section 2, it is seen that there are only one class of customers in the nodes abstracted from the stations. From Assumptions (3) and (4) in Section 2, we understand that there are two different classes of customers in the nodes abstracted from the roads, where the first class of customers are the bikes ridden on the roads for the first time; while the second class of customers are the bikes which are successively ridden on the at least two different roads due to the full station.\n\n(3) Service disciplines:\n\n:   The First Come First Service (or FCFS) is used in the nodes abstracted from the stations; while a new processor sharing (or PS) is used in the nodes abstracted from the roads.\n\nIn the above closed queueing network, let $Q_{i}\\left(  t\\right)  $\u00a0be the number of bikes parked in $i$th station at time $t\\geq0$ for $1\\leq i\\leq N$, and $R_{k,l}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  $ the number of bikes of class $r$ ridden on Road $k\\rightarrow l$ at time $t$ for $r=1,2$, and $k\\neq\nl$ with $1\\leq k,l\\leq N$. We write$$\\mathbf{X}\\left(  t\\right)  =\\left(  \\mathbf{L}_{1}\\left(  t\\right)\n,\\mathbf{L}_{2}\\left(  t\\right)  ,\\ldots,\\mathbf{L}_{N-1}\\left(  t\\right)\n,\\mathbf{L}_{N}\\left(  t\\right)  \\right)  ,$$ where for $1\\leq i\\leq N$$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbf{L}_{i}\\left(  t\\right)  = &  \\left(  Q_{i}\\left(  t\\right)\n;R_{i,1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ,R_{i,1}^{\\left(  2\\right)\n}\\left(  t\\right)  ;R_{i,2}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)\n,R_{i,2}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ;\\ldots;R_{i,i-1}^{\\left(\n1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ,R_{i,i-1}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)\n;\\right.  \\\\\n&  \\left.  R_{i,i+1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ,R_{i,i+1}^{\\left(\n2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ;R_{i,i+2}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)\n,R_{i,i+2}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ;\\ldots;R_{i,N}^{\\left(\n1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ,R_{i,N}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)\n\\right)  .\\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, $\\left\\{  \\mathbf{X}\\left(  t\\right)  :t\\geq0\\right\\}  $ is a Markov process of size $N\\left(  2N-1\\right)  $ due to the exponential and Poisson assumptions of this bike sharing system.\n\nNow, we describe the state space of the Markov process $\\left\\{\n\\mathbf{X}\\left(  t\\right)  :t\\geq0\\right\\}  $. It is seen from Section 2 that$$0\\leq Q_{i}\\left(  t\\right)  \\leq K,\\text{ \\ }1\\leq i\\leq N,\\label{Cequ-1}$$$$0\\leq R_{k,l}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  \\leq NC,\\text{\n\\ \\ \\ \\ }r=1,2,\\text{ }k\\neq l,\\text{ }1\\leq k,l\\leq N,\\label{Cequ-2}$$ and$$\\sum_{i=1}^{N}Q_{i}\\left(  t\\right)  +\\sum_{k=1}^{N}\\sum_{l\\neq k}^{N}R_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  +\\sum_{k=1}^{N}\\sum_{l\\neq\nk}^{N}R_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  =NC.\\label{Cequ-3}$$ From (\\[Cequ-1\\]) to (\\[Cequ-3\\]), it is seen the state space of Markov process $\\left\\{  \\mathbf{X}\\left(  t\\right)  :t\\geq0\\right\\}  $ of size $N\\left(  2N-1\\right)  $ is given by$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Omega= &  \\left\\{  \\overrightarrow{n}:0\\leq n_{i}\\leq K,0\\leq m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  },m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\leq NC,\\right.  \\\\\n&  \\left.  \\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{N}n_{i}+\\sum_{k=1}^{N}\\sum_{l\\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }+\\sum_{k=1}^{N}\\sum_{l\\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}^{\\left(\n2\\right)  }=NC\\right\\}  ,\\end{aligned}$$ where$$\\overrightarrow{n}=\\left(  \\mathbf{n}_{1},\\mathbf{n}_{2},\\ldots,\\mathbf{n}_{N-1},\\mathbf{n}_{N}\\right)  ,$$ and for $1\\leq i\\leq N$$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbf{n}_{i}= &  \\left(  n_{i};m_{i,1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  },m_{i,1}^{\\left(\n2\\right)  };m_{i,2}^{\\left(  1\\right)  },m_{i,2}^{\\left(  2\\right)  };\\ldots;m_{i,i-1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  },m_{i,i-1}^{\\left(  2\\right)  };\\right.\n\\\\\n&  \\left.  m_{i,i+1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  },m_{i,i+1}^{\\left(  2\\right)\n};m_{i,i+2}^{\\left(  1\\right)  },m_{i,i+2}^{\\left(  2\\right)  };\\ldots\n;m_{i,N}^{\\left(  1\\right)  },m_{i,N}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\right)  .\\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $m_{k,l}=m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }+m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)\n}$ is the total number of bikes being ridden on Road $k\\rightarrow l$ for $k\\neq l$ with $1\\leq k,l\\leq N$, and also the state space $\\Omega$ contains $\\left(  K+1\\right)  ^{N}\\left(  NC+1\\right)  ^{2N\\left(  N-1\\right)  }$ elements.\n\nTo compute the steady state joint probabilities of $N\\left(  2N-1\\right)  $ queue lengths in the bike sharing system, it is seen from Chapter 7 in Bolch et al. [@Bol:2006] that we need to determine the service rate, the routing matrix and the relative arrival rate for each node in the closed queueing network.\n\n**(a) The service rates**\n\nFrom Figure 2, it is seen that the service rates of the closed queueing network are given from two different cases as follows:\n\n![The queueing processes in the closed queueing network[]{data-label=\"figure:fig-2\"}](fig-2.eps){width=\"9cm\"}\n\n*Case one: The node is one of the* $N$ *stations*\n\nThe departure process of bikes from the $i$th station, renting at the $i$th station and immediately ridden on one of the $N-1$ roads (such as, Road $i\\rightarrow l$ for $l\\neq i$ with $1\\leq l\\leq N$), is Poisson with service rate$$b_{i}=\\lambda_{i}\\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\{  1\\leq n_{i}\\leq K\\right\\}  }\\sum_{l\\neq\ni}^{N}p_{i,l}=\\lambda_{i}\\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\{  1\\leq n_{i}\\leq K\\right\\}\n}\\label{Cequ-5}$$ by means of the condition: $\\sum_{l\\neq i}^{N}p_{i,l}=1$.\n\n*Case two: The node is one of the* $N\\left(  N-1\\right)  $ *roads*\n\nIn this case, two different processor sharing queueing processes of Road $i\\rightarrow l$ (with two classes of different customers) are explained in Figure 2. Now, we describe the service rates with respect to the two classes of different customers as follows:\n\nThe departure process of bikes from Road $i\\rightarrow l$, rented from Station $i$ and being ridden on Road $i\\rightarrow l$ for the first time, is Poisson with service rate$$b_{i,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }=m_{i,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\mu_{i,l}.\n\\label{Cequ-6}$$\n\nThe departure process of bikes from Road $i\\rightarrow l$, having successively been ridden on the roads for at least two times but now on Road $i\\rightarrow l$, is Poisson with service rate$$b_{i,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }=m_{i,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\xi_{i,l}.\n\\label{Cequ-7}$$\n\n**(b) The routing matrix and the relative arrival rates**\n\nNow, we compute the relative arrival rate of each node in the closed queueing network. Differently from the service rates analyzed above, it is more complicated to determine the relative arrival rates by means of the routing matrix.\n\nBased on Chapter 7 in Bolch et al. [@Bol:2006], we denote by $e_{i}\\left(\nn_{i}\\right)  $ and $e_{i,l}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }\\left(  m_{i,l}^{\\left(\nr\\right)  }\\right)  $ the relative arrival rates of the $i$th station with $n_{i}$ parking bikes, and of Road $i\\rightarrow l$ with $m_{i,l}^{\\left(\nr\\right)  }$ riding bikes of class $r$,\u00a0respectively. We write$$\\mathbb{E}=\\left\\{  \\overrightarrow{e}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)\n:\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega\\right\\}  ,$$ where$$\\overrightarrow{e}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  =\\left(  \\mathbf{e}_{1}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  ,\\mathbf{e}_{2}\\left(  \\overrightarrow\n{n}\\right)  ,\\ldots,\\mathbf{e}_{N-1}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)\n,\\mathbf{e}_{N}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  \\right)  ,$$ and for $1\\leq i\\leq N$$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbf{e}_{i}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  = &  \\left(  e_{i}\\left(\nn_{i}\\right)  ;e_{i,1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  m_{i,1}^{\\left(  1\\right)\n}\\right)  ,e_{i,1}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  m_{i,1}^{\\left(  2\\right)\n}\\right)  ;\\ldots;e_{i,i-1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  m_{i,i-1}^{\\left(\n1\\right)  }\\right)  ,e_{i,i-1}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  m_{i,i-1}^{\\left(\n2\\right)  }\\right)  ;\\right.  \\\\\n&  \\left.  e_{i,i+1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  m_{i,i+1}^{\\left(  1\\right)\n}\\right)  ,e_{i,i+1}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  m_{i,i+1}^{\\left(  2\\right)\n}\\right)  ;\\ldots;e_{i,N}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  m_{i,N}^{\\left(\n1\\right)  }\\right)  ,e_{i,N}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  m_{i,N}^{\\left(\n2\\right)  }\\right)  \\right)  .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNow, we introduce two useful notations: $\\overrightarrow{g}_{i}$ and $\\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }$ as follows:\n\n$\\overrightarrow{g}_{i}:$\n\n:   A unit row vector of size $N\\left(  2N-1\\right)  $, which is given by a method of replacing elements from $\\overrightarrow{n}$ to $\\overrightarrow{g}_{i}$, that is, corresponding to the row vector $\\overrightarrow{n}$, the element $n_{i}$ is replaced by one, while all other elements of the vector $\\overrightarrow\n    {n}$ are replaced by zeros.\n\n$\\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }:$\n\n:   A unit row vector of size $N\\left(  2N-1\\right)  $, which is given by a method of replacing elements from $\\overrightarrow{n}$ to $\\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }$, that is, corresponding to the row vector $\\overrightarrow{n}$, the element $m_{i,l}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }$ is replaced by one, while all other elements of the vector $\\overrightarrow{n}$ are replaced by zeros.\n\nTo compute the vector $\\overrightarrow{e}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  $, we first need to give the routing matrix $\\mathbf{P}$ of the closed queueing network as follows:$$\\mathbf{P}=\\left(  P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}^{\\prime}}\\right)\n_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}^{\\prime}\\in\\Omega},$$ where the routing matrix $\\mathbf{P}$ is of order $\\left(  K+1\\right)  ^{N}\\left(  NC+1\\right)  ^{2N\\left(  N-1\\right)  }$, and the element $P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}^{\\prime}}$ is computed from the following three cases:\n\n*Case one: From a station to a road*\n\nFor $1\\leq i,l\\leq N$ with $l\\neq i$, we observe a transition route from the $i$th station to Road $i\\rightarrow l$. If a rented bike leaves the $i$th station and enters Road $i\\rightarrow l$, then $1\\leq n_{i}\\leq K$, and there is a two-element change: $\\left(  n_{i},m_{i,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\right)\n\\rightarrow\\left(  n_{i}-1,m_{i,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }+1\\right)  $. Thus we obtain that for $1\\leq n_{i}\\leq K$$$P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}^{\\prime}}=P_{\\overrightarrow\n{n},\\overrightarrow{n}-\\overrightarrow{g}_{i}+\\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }}=p_{i,l}$$ by means of Assumption (3) of Section 2. There are $NK\\left(  N-1\\right)  $ such elements with $P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}^{\\prime}}=P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}-\\overrightarrow{g}_{i}+\\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }}=p_{i,l}$ in the closed queueing network.\n\n*Case two: From a road to a station*\n\nFor $r=1,2$ and $1\\leq k,i,l\\leq N$ with $i\\neq k$ and $l\\neq i$, we observe a transition route from Road $k\\rightarrow i$ to the $i$th station. If a riding bike of class $r$ leaves Road $k\\rightarrow i$, then either it enters the $i$th station if $0\\leq n_{i}\\leq K-1$; or it goes to Road $i\\rightarrow l$ if $n_{i}=K$.\n\nIn the former case (the riding bike of class $r$ enters the $i$th station if $0\\leq n_{i}\\leq K-1$), we obtain that for $0\\leq n_{i}\\leq K-1$, there is a two-element change: $\\left(  m_{k,i}^{\\left(  r\\right)  },n_{i}\\right)\n\\rightarrow\\left(  m_{k,i}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }-1,n_{i}+1\\right)  $, hence this gives that for $0\\leq n_{i}\\leq K-1$$$P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}^{\\prime}}=P_{\\overrightarrow\n{n},\\overrightarrow{n}-\\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\\left(  r\\right)\n}+\\overrightarrow{g}_{i}}=1,$$ since the end of Road $k\\rightarrow i$ is only the $i$th station. There are $2N^{2}\\left(  N-1\\right)  CK$ such elements with $P_{\\overrightarrow\n{n},\\overrightarrow{n}^{\\prime}}=P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow\n{n}-\\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }+\\overrightarrow{g}_{i}}=1$ in the closed queueing network.\n\n*Case three: From a road to another road*\n\nIn the latter case (the riding bike of class $r$ goes to Road $i\\rightarrow l$ if $n_{i}=K$), we get that there is a two-element change: $\\left(\nm_{k,i}^{\\left(  r\\right)  },m_{i,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\right)\n\\rightarrow\\left(  m_{k,i}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }-1,m_{i,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)\n}+1\\right)  $. Thus we obtain that for $n_{i}=K$$$P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}^{\\prime}}=P_{\\overrightarrow\n{n},\\overrightarrow{n}-\\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\\left(  r\\right)\n}+\\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }}=\\alpha_{i,l}$$ by means of Assumption (4) of Section 2. There are $2N^{3}\\left(  N-1\\right)\n^{2}C^{2}$ such elements with $P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow\n{n}^{\\prime}}=P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}-\\overrightarrow\n{g}_{k,i}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }+\\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }}=\\alpha_{i,l}$ in the closed queueing network.\n\nIn summary, the above analysis gives$$P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}^{\\prime}}=\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}\n[c]{lll}P_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}-\\overrightarrow{g}_{i}+\\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }}=p_{i,l}, & \\text{if }1\\leq\nn_{i}\\leq K, & \\text{(station }\\rightarrow\\text{ road)}\\\\\nP_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}-\\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\\left(\nr\\right)  }+\\overrightarrow{g}_{i}}=1, & \\text{if }0\\leq n_{i}\\leq K-1, &\n\\text{(road }\\rightarrow\\text{ station)}\\\\\nP_{\\overrightarrow{n},\\overrightarrow{n}-\\overrightarrow{g}_{k,i}^{\\left(\nr\\right)  }+\\overrightarrow{g}_{i,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }}=\\alpha_{i,l}, &\n\\text{if }n_{i}=K, & \\text{(road }\\rightarrow\\text{ road, a full station)}\\\\\n0, & \\text{otherwise.} &\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ At the same time, the minimal number of zero elements in the routing matrix $\\mathbf{P}$ is given by$$\\left[  \\left(  K+1\\right)  ^{N}\\left(  NC+1\\right)  ^{2N\\left(  N-1\\right)\n}\\right]  ^{2}-NK\\left(  N-1\\right)  -2N^{2}\\left(  N-1\\right)  CK-2N^{3}\\left(  N-1\\right)  ^{2}C^{2}$$ This also shows that there exist more zero elements in the routing matrix $\\mathbf{P}$.\n\nWe write a row vector$$\\overrightarrow{\\Re}=\\left(  \\overrightarrow{e}\\left(  \\overrightarrow\n{n}\\right)  :\\overrightarrow{e}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)\n\\in\\mathbb{E}\\right)  ,$$ where $$\\mathbb{E}=\\left\\{  \\overrightarrow{e}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)\n:\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega\\right\\}  .$$\n\nThe routing matrix $\\mathbf{P}$ is irreducible and stochastic (i.e., $\\mathbf{P1}=\\mathbf{1}$, where $\\mathbf{1}$ is a column vector of ones), and there exists a unique positive solution to the following system of linear equations$$\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}\n[c]{c}\\overrightarrow{\\Re}=\\overrightarrow{\\Re}\\text{ }\\mathbf{P},\\\\\n\\left(  \\overrightarrow{\\Re}\\right)  _{1}=1,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $\\left(  \\overrightarrow{\\Re}\\right)  _{1}$ is the first element of the row vector $\\overrightarrow{\\Re}$.\n\n**Proof:** \u00a0The outline of this proof is described as follows. It is well-known that the routing structure of the closed queueing network indicates that the routing matrix $\\mathbf{P}$ is stochastic, and the accessibility of each station or road of the bike sharing system shows that the routing matrix $\\mathbf{P}$ is irreducible. Thus the routing matrix $\\mathbf{P}$ is not only irreducible but also stochastic. Notice that the size of the routing matrix $\\mathbf{P}$ is $\\left(  K+1\\right)  ^{N}\\left(  NC+1\\right)  ^{2N\\left(  N-1\\right)  }$, it follows from Theorem 1.1 (a) and (b) of Chapter 1 in Seneta [@Sen:1981] that the left eigenvector $\\overrightarrow{\\Re}$ of the irreducible stochastic matrix $\\mathbf{P}$ corresponding to the maximal eigenvalue $1$ is more than $0$, that is, $\\overrightarrow{\\Re}>0$, and $\\overrightarrow{\\Re}$ is unique for $\\left(  \\overrightarrow{\\Re}\\right)\n_{1}=1$. This completes this proof.\n\nA Product-Form Solution and Performance Analysis\n================================================\n\nIn this section, we first provide a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of $N\\left(  2N-1\\right)  $ queue lengths in the closed queueing network. Then we analyze performance measures of the bike sharing system by means of the steady state joint probabilities.\n\nNotice that $$\\mathbf{X}\\left(  t\\right)  =\\left(  \\mathbf{L}_{1}\\left(  t\\right)\n,\\mathbf{L}_{2}\\left(  t\\right)  ,\\ldots,\\mathbf{L}_{N-1}\\left(  t\\right)\n,\\mathbf{L}_{N}\\left(  t\\right)  \\right)  ,$$ where for $1\\leq i\\leq N$$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbf{L}_{i}\\left(  t\\right)  = &  \\left(  Q_{i}\\left(  t\\right)\n;R_{i,1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ,R_{i,1}^{\\left(  2\\right)\n}\\left(  t\\right)  ;R_{i,2}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)\n,R_{i,2}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ;\\ldots;R_{i,i-1}^{\\left(\n1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ,R_{i,i-1}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)\n;\\right.  \\\\\n&  \\left.  R_{i,i+1}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ,R_{i,i+1}^{\\left(\n2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ;R_{i,i+2}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)\n,R_{i,i+2}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ;\\ldots;R_{i,N}^{\\left(\n1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  ,R_{i,N}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)\n\\right)  .\\end{aligned}$$ At the same time, $\\left\\{  \\mathbf{X}\\left(  t\\right)  :t\\geq0\\right\\}  $ is an irreducible continuous-time Markov process on state space $\\Omega$ which contains $\\left(  K+1\\right)  ^{N}\\left(  NC+1\\right)  ^{2N\\left(  N-1\\right)  }$ states. Therefore, the Markov process $\\left\\{  \\mathbf{X}\\left(  t\\right)  :t\\geq0\\right\\}  $ is irreducible and positive recurrent. In this case, we set $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbf{\\pi}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  = &  \\lim_{t\\rightarrow+\\infty\n}P\\left\\{  Q_{i}\\left(  t\\right)  =n_{i},1\\leq i\\leq N;\\text{ }R_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  =m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  },R_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  t\\right)  =m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)\n},\\right.  \\\\\n&  \\left.  1\\leq k,l\\leq N\\text{ with }k\\neq l,\\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{N}n_{i}+\\sum_{r=1,2}\\sum\\limits_{k=1}^{N}\\sum\\limits_{l\\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}^{\\left(\nr\\right)  }=NC\\right\\}  .\\end{aligned}$$\n\n**(a) A product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities**\n\nThe following theorem provides a product-form solution to the steady state joint probability $\\mathbf{\\pi}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  $ for $\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega$; while its proof is easy by means of Chapter 7 in Bolch et al. [@Bol:2006] and is omitted here.\n\nFor the closed queueing network of the bike sharing system, the steady state joint probability $\\mathbf{\\pi}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  $ is given by $$\\mathbf{\\pi}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  =\\frac{1}{\\mathbf{G}}\\prod_{i=1}^{N}F\\left(  n_{i}\\right)  \\prod_{k=1}^{N}\\prod_{l\\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}!H^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\right)\nH^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\right)  ,$$ where $\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega$, $m_{k,l}=m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)\n}+m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }$,$$F\\left(  n_{i}\\right)  =\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}\n[c]{ll}\\left[  \\frac{e_{i}\\left(  n_{i}\\right)  }{\\lambda_{i}}\\right]  ^{n_{i}}, &\n1\\leq n_{i}\\leq K,\\\\\n1, & n_{i}=0,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.  \\text{ }$$$$H^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\left(  m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\right)  =\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}\n[c]{ll}\\frac{1}{m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }!}\\left[  \\frac{e_{k,l}^{\\left(\n1\\right)  }\\left(  m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\right)  }{m_{k,l}^{\\left(\n1\\right)  }\\mu_{k,l}}\\right]  ^{m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }}, & 1\\leq\nm_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\leq NC,\\\\\n1, & m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }=0,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.  ,$$$$H^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(  m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\right)  =\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}\n[c]{ll}\\frac{1}{m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }!}\\left[  \\frac{e_{k,l}^{\\left(\n2\\right)  }\\left(  m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\right)  }{m_{k,l}^{\\left(\n2\\right)  }\\xi_{k,l}}\\right]  ^{m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }}, & 1\\leq\nm_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\leq NC,\\\\\n1, & m_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }=0,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ and $\\mathbf{G}$ is a normalization constant, given by $$\\mathbf{G}=\\sum_{\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega}\\prod_{i=1}^{N}F\\left(\nn_{i}\\right)  \\prod_{k=1}^{N}\\prod_{l\\neq k}^{N}m_{k,l}!H^{\\left(  1\\right)\n}\\left(  m_{k,l}^{\\left(  1\\right)  }\\right)  H^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\left(\nm_{k,l}^{\\left(  2\\right)  }\\right)  .$$\n\n**(b) Performance analysis**\n\nNow, we consider three key performance measures of the bike sharing system in terms of the steady state joint probability $\\mathbf{\\pi}\\left(\n\\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  $ for $\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega$.\n\n*(1) The steady state probability of problematic stations*\n\nIn the study of bike sharing systems, it is a key task to compute the steady state probability of problematic stations. To this end, our aim is to care for the $i$th station with respect to its full or empty cases. Thus the steady state probability $\\Im$ of problematic stations is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Im &  =P\\left\\{  n_{i}=0\\text{ or }n_{i}=K\\right\\}  =P\\left\\{  n_{i}=0\\right\\}  +P\\left\\{  n_{i}=K\\right\\}  \\\\\n&  =\\sum\\limits_{\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega\\text{ \\& }n_{i}=0}\\mathbf{\\pi\n}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  +\\sum\\limits_{\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\n\\Omega\\text{ \\& }n_{i}=K}\\mathbf{\\pi}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  .\\end{aligned}$$\n\n*(2) The means of steady state queue lengths*\n\nThe steady state mean of the number of bikes parked *at* the $i$th station is given by$$\\mathbf{Q}_{i}=\\sum\\limits_{\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega\\text{ \\& }1\\leq\nn_{i}\\leq K}n_{i}\\mathbf{\\pi}\\left(  \\overrightarrow{n}\\right)  ,\\text{\n\\ }1\\leq i\\leq N,$$ and the steady state mean of the number of bikes ridden on the $N\\left(  N-1\\right)  $ roads is given by$$\\mathbf{Q}_{0}=NC-\\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\left[  \\sum\\limits_{\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega\\text{ \\& }1\\leq n_{i}\\leq K}n_{i}\\mathbf{\\pi}\\left(  \\overrightarrow\n{n}\\right)  \\right]  ,$$ or$$\\mathbf{Q}_{0}=\\sum_{r=1,2}\\sum_{k=1}^{N}\\sum_{l\\neq k}^{N}\\sum\n_{\\overrightarrow{n}\\in\\Omega\\text{ \\& }1\\leq m_{k,l}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }\\leq\nNC}^{N}m_{k,l}^{\\left(  r\\right)  }\\mathbf{\\pi}\\left(  \\overrightarrow\n{n}\\right)  .$$\n\nConcluding Remarks\n==================\n\nIn this paper, we provide a unified framework for analyzing closed queueing networks in the study of bike sharing systems, and show that this framework of closed queueing networks is interesting, difficult and challenging. We describe and analyze a closed queueing network corresponding to a large-scale bike sharing system, and specifically, we provide a product-form solution to the steady state joint probabilities of $N\\left(  2N-1\\right)  $ queue lengths, which leads to be able to calculate the steady state probability of problematic stations, and more generally, to analyze performance measures of this bike sharing system. We hope the methodology and results of this paper can be applicable in the study of more general bike sharing systems by means of the closed queueing networks. Along these lines, there are a number of interesting directions for potential future research, for example:\n\n-   Developing effective algorithms for computing the routing matrix, the relative arrival rates, and the steady state joint probabilities of queue lengths;\n\n-   analyzing bike sharing systems with Markovian arrival processes (MAPs) of customers to rent bikes, and phase type (PH) riding-bike times on the roads;\n\n-   considering heterogeneity of bike sharing systems under an irreducible graph with stations, roads and their connections;\n\n-   discussing repositioning bikes by trucks in bike sharing systems with information technologies; and\n\n-   applying periodic MAPs, periodic PH distributions, or periodic Markov processes to studying time-inhomogeneous bike sharing systems.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nQ.L. Li was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant No. 71271187 and No. 71471160, and the Fostering Plan of Innovation Team and Leading Talent in Hebei Universities under grant No. LJRC027.\n\n[9]{} Adelman, D.: Price-directed control of a closed logistics queueing network. Operations Research, **55**(6), 1022\u20131038 (2007)\n\nBolch, G., Greiner, S., de Meer, H., Trivedi, K.S.: Queueing Networks and Markov Chains: Modeling and Performance Evaluation with Computer Science Applications. John Wiley & Sons (2006).\n\nDeMaio, P.: Bike-sharing: history, impacts, models of provision, and future. Journal of Public Transportation, **12**(4), 41\u201356 (2009)\n\nFaye, V.: French Network of Bike: Cities and Bikesharing Systems in France. le Club des Villes Cyclables, Paris (2008)\n\nFishman, E., Washington, S., Haworth, N.: Bike share: a synthesis of the literature. Transport Reviews, **33**(2), 148\u2013165 (2013)\n\nFricker, C., Gast, N.: Incentives and redistribution in homogeneous bike-sharing systems with stations of finite capacity. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, Published online June 7, 2014, pp. 1\u201331 (2014)\n\nFricker, C., Gast, N., Mohamed, A.: Mean field analysis for inhomogeneous bikesharing systems. In: DMTCS Proceedings, vol. 1, 365\u2013376 (2012)\n\nFricker, C., Tibi, D.: Equivalence of ensembles for large vehicle-sharing models. arXiv Preprint: arXiv:1507.07792, pp. 1\u201328 (2015)\n\nGeorge, D.K., Xia, C.H.: Fleet-sizing and service availability for a vehicle rental system via closed queueing networks. European Journal of Operational Research, **211**(1), 198\u2013207 (2011)\n\nJanett, B., Hendrik, M.: Optimising Bike-Sharing in European Cities: A Handbook. OBIS Project (2011)\n\nLabadi, K., Benarbia, T., Barbot, J.P., Hamaci, S., Omari, A.: Stochastic Petri net modeling, simulation and analysis of public bicycle sharing systems. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, **12**(4), 1380\u20131395 (2015)\n\nLarsen, J.: Bike-sharing programs hit the streets in over 500 cities worldwide. Earth Policy Institute, 25 (2013)\n\nLathia, N., Ahmed, S., Capra, L.: Measuring the impact of opening the London shared bicycle scheme to casual users. Transportation Research Part C, **22**(1), 88\u2013102 (2012)\n\nLeurent, F.: Modelling a vehicle-sharing station as a dual waiting system: stochastic framework and stationary analysis. HAL Id: hal-00757228, pp. 1\u201319 (2012)\n\nLi, Q.L., Chen, C., Fan, R.N., Xu, L., Ma, J.Y.: Queueing analysis of a large-scale bike sharing system through mean-field theory. arXiv Preprint: arXiv:1603.09560, pp. 1\u201350 (2016)\n\nMorency, C., Tr\u00e9panier, M., Godefroy, F.: Insight into the Montreal bikesharing system. In: TRB-Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, USA (2011)\n\nRaviv, T., Kolka, O.: Optimal inventory management of a bikesharing station. IIE Transactions, **45**(10), 1077\u20131093 (2013)\n\nRaviv, T., Tzur, M., Forma, I.A.: Static repositioning in a bike-sharing system: models and solution approaches. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, **2**(3), 187\u2013229 (2013)\n\nSavin, S., Cohen, M., Gans, N., Katala, Z.: Capacity management in rental businesses with two customer bases. Operations Research, **53**(4), 617\u2013631 (2005)\n\nSchuijbroek, J., Hampshire, R., van Hoeve, W.J.: Inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing in bike-sharing systems. Technical Report 2013-2, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, pp. 1\u201327 (2013)\n\nSeneta, E.: Non-negative Matrices and Markov Chains. Springer-Verlag (1981)\n\nShaheen, S., Guzman, S., Zhang, H.: Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: past, present, and future. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2143, 159\u2013167 (2010)\n\nShu, J., Chou, M.C., Liu, Q., Teo, C.P., Wang, I.L.: Models for effective deployment and redistribution of bicycles within public bicycle-sharing systems. Operations Research, **61**(6), 1346\u20131359 (2013)\n\nTang, Y., Pan, H., Shen, Q.: Bike-sharing systems in Beijing, Shanghai, and Hangzhou and their impact on travel behavior. In: The 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (2011)\n\nWaserhole, A., Jost, V.: Vehicle sharing system pricing regulation: transit optimization of intractable queuing network. HAL Id: hal-00751744, pp. 1\u201320 (2012)\n\nWaserhole, A., Jost, V.: Vehicle sharing system pricing regulation: A fluid approximation. HAL Id: hal-00727041, pp. 1\u201335 (2013)\n\nWaserhole, A., Jost, V.: Pricing in vehicle sharing systems: Optimization in queuing networks with product forms. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, Published online: November 4, 2014, pp. 1\u201328 (2014)\n\nWaserhole, A., Jost, V., Brauner, N.: Pricing techniques for self regulation in vehicle sharing systems. Electronic Notes in Discrete Mathematics, vol. 41, 149\u2013156 (2013)\n\n[^1]: [Interpretation:]{} After this paper was published, we find an interesting work by Rick Zhang and Marco Pavone \u201cR. Zhang and M. Pavone (2014). A queueing network approach to the analysis and control of mobility-on-demand systems. Published Online: arXiv:1409.6775, Pages 1-9.\"\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Cache-aided content delivery is studied in a multi-server system with $P$ servers and $K$ users, each equipped with a local cache memory. In the delivery phase, each user connects randomly to any $\\rho$ out of $P$ servers. Thanks to the availability of multiple servers, which model small-cell base stations (SBSs), demands can be satisfied with reduced storage capacity at each server and reduced delivery rate per server; however, this also leads to reduced multicasting opportunities compared to the single-server scenario. A joint storage and proactive caching scheme is proposed, which exploits coded storage across the servers, uncoded cache placement at the users, and coded delivery. The delivery *latency* is studied for both *successive* and *parallel* transmissions from the servers. It is shown that, with successive transmissions the achievable average delivery latency is comparable to the one achieved in the single-server scenario, while the gap between the two depends on $\\rho$, the available redundancy across the servers, and can be reduced by increasing the storage capacity at the SBSs. The optimality of the proposed scheme with uncoded cache placement and MDS-coded server storage is also proved for successive transmissions.'\nauthor:\n- '\\'\ntitle: |\n    Coded Caching in a Multi-Server System\\\n    with Random Topology\n---\n\nCoded caching, distributed storage, partial connectivity, multi-server caching, femtocaching.\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nCoded caching and distributed storage have received significant attention in recent years to exploit the available memory space and processing power of individual network nodes to increase the throughput and efficiency of data availability. With proactive caching, part of the data can be pushed to nodes\u2019 local cache memories during off-peak hours, called the *placement phase*, to reduce the burden on the network during peak traffic periods, called the *delivery phase* [@maddah] - [@comb1]. A different type of coded caching also improves the delivery performance in the so-called \u201cfemtocaching\u201d scenario [@femtocaching], where multiple cache-equipped small-cell base stations (SBSs) collaboratively deliver contents to users. Coding for distributed storage systems has been extensively studied in the literature (see, for example, [@dimakis_networkcodes]), and in the femtocaching scenario, ideal maximum distance separable (MDS) codes allow users to recover contents by collecting parity bits from only a subset of SBSs they connect to [@femtocaching].\n\n  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   \u00a0\u00a0 ![Examples of different network topologies for $P=3$ and $K=4$ with $\\rho=2$.[]{data-label=\"fig:f1\"}](fig2b.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"22.00000%\"} \\[fig:f11\\]\n                                                            $(a)$ $\\rho=2$, $q_1=2, q_2=4, q_3=2$.\n  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   ![Examples of different network topologies for $P=3$ and $K=4$ with $\\rho=2$.[]{data-label=\"fig:f1\"}](fig2c_2.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"24.00000%\"} \\[fig:f12\\]\n              $(b)$ $\\rho=2$, $q_1=4, q_2=4, q_3=0$ (best topology (for successive transmissions), worst topology (for parallel transmissions)).\n  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   ![Examples of different network topologies for $P=3$ and $K=4$ with $\\rho=2$.[]{data-label=\"fig:f1\"}](fig2c1.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"22.00000%\"}\\[fig:f13\\] ![Examples of different network topologies for $P=3$ and $K=4$ with $\\rho=2$.[]{data-label=\"fig:f1\"}](fig2c2.PNG \"fig:\"){width=\"22.00000%\"}\\[fig:f1\\]\n                                                                                         $(c)$ $\\rho=2, q_1=3, q_2=3, q_3=2$ (worst topology (for successive transmissions), best topology (for parallel transmissions))\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this work, we combine distributed storage at the SBSs, similar to the \u201cfemtocaching\u201d framework [@femtocaching], with cache storage at the users, and consider coded delivery over error-free shared broadcast links [@nmital]. We consider a library of $N$ files stored across $P$ SBSs, each equipped with a limited-capacity storage space (see Fig. \\[fig:f1\\]). Unlike the existing literature, we consider a random connectivity model: during the delivery phase, each user connects only to a random subset of $\\rho$ SBSs, where $\\rho \\leq P$. This may be due to physical variations in the channel, or due to resource constraints. Most importantly, the connections that form the network topology are not known in advance during the placement phase; therefore, the cache placement cannot be designed for a particular network topology. Storing the files across multiple SBSs, and allowing users to connect randomly to a subset of them results in a loss in multicasting opportunities for the servers, indicating a trade-off between the coded caching gain and the flexibility provided by distributed storage across the servers, which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been studied before.\n\nOn the other hand, the presence of multiple servers may improve the latency if user requests can be satisfied in parallel. Accordingly, two scenarios are discussed depending on the delivery protocol. If the servers transmit *successively*, i.e., time-division transmission, the total latency is the sum of the latencies on each link in delivering all the requests. If the servers operate in parallel, then the latency is given by the link with the maximum latency. We propose a practical coded storage and delivery scheme that exploits MDS coded storage across servers simultaneously with coded caching and delivery to users. In the successive transmission scenario, we show that the cost of the flexibility of distributed storage is a scaling of the latency by a constant. We also characterize the average worst-case latency (over all user-server associations) of the proposed scheme by assuming that the users connect to a uniformly random subset of the servers; and show that it is relatively close to the best-case performance, which is the single-server centralized delivery latency derived in[@maddah], achieved when all the users connect to the same set of servers, maximizing the multicasting opportunities. We observe that, as the server storage capacities increase, the average delivery latency vs. user cache memory trade-off improves, approaching the single-server performance. We give an analytical expression to compute the average delivery latency for different server storage capacities, which is shown to give a fairly accurate estimate of the expected delivery latency when the number of servers is large. We then consider the delivery latency when the servers can transmit in parallel. We characterize the achievable average worst case delivery latency of the proposed coded storage and delivery scheme as a function of the server storage capacity for different $\\rho$ values.\n\nIn a related work [@Vaneet], the authors study coded caching schemes presented in [@maddah] and [@chao] when parity servers are available. The authors consider special scenarios with one and two parity servers. They propose a scheme that stripes the files into blocks, and codes them across the servers with a systematic MDS code, and they also propose a scheme for the scenario in which files are stored as whole units in the servers, without striping. In our work, we do not specify servers as parity servers, and instead propose a scheme that generalizes to the use of any type of MDS code and any number of storage servers. We study the impact of the topology on the sum and maximum delivery rates, and the trade-off between the server storage capacity and the average of these rates.\n\nIn [@shariatpanahi], the authors consider multiple servers, each having access to all the files in the library, serving the users through an intermediate network of relays. They consider the so-called *linear network* model, in which the network topology is fixed but unknown at the relay nodes. The authors study the delivery latency considering parallel transmissions from the servers, and show that there is a gain from using multiple servers when the relay nodes employ simple random linear network coding. Note that, our model considers both limited storage servers and random network topology over the delivery network, which is unknown during the placement phase, but known during the delivery phase. Compared to the linear network model, our model corresponds to an identity network transfer matrix, in which the scheme of [@shariatpanahi] does not provide any gains, since it is not optimized for the realization of the topology.\n\nAnother line of related works study caching in combination networks [@comb1],[@comb3], which consider a single server serving cache-equipped users through multiple relay nodes. The server is connected to these relays through unicast links, which in turn serve a distinct subset of a fixed number of users through unicast links. A combination network with cache-enabled relay nodes is considered in [@comb3]. In our paper, we relax the symmetry of a standard combination network and the assumption of a fixed and known network topology, which would be unrealistic in many practical scenarios, to a certain degree by allowing each user to connect to a random fixed number of servers, thus breaking the symmetry from the servers\u2019 perspective while maintaining the symmetry from the end-users\u2019 perspective.\\\n***Notations***. For two integers $i<j$, we denote the set $\\{i,i+1,\\ldots, j \\}$ by $[i:j]$, while the set $[1:j]$ is denoted by $[j]$. Sets are denoted with the calligraphic font, and $|\\mathcal{A}|$ denotes the cardinality of set $\\mathcal{A}$. For $\\mathcal{A} =\\{a_1,a_2,\\ldots,a_p\\}$, we define $X_{\\mathcal{A}} \\triangleq (X_{a_1}, \\ldots, X_{a_p})$. $\\mathbbm{1}_{E}$ denotes the indicator function of the event $E$, i.e., its value is $1$ when the event $E$ happens. $\\lfloor x \\rfloor$ denotes the largest integer less than or equal to $x$. $\\lceil x \\rceil$ denotes the smallest integer greater than or equal to $x$.\n\nProblem Setting {#sec:app:1}\n===============\n\nWe consider the system model illustrated in Fig. \\[fig:f1\\] with $P$ servers, denoted by $\\mathrm{S}_1, \\mathrm{S}_2, \\ldots, \\mathrm{S}_P$, serving $K$ users, denoted by $\\mathrm{U}_1,\\mathrm{U}_2, \\ldots, \\mathrm{U}_K$. There is a library of $N$ files $W_1, W_2, \\ldots, W_N$, each of length $F$ bits uniformly distributed over $[2^{F}]$. Each user has access to a local cache memory of capacity $M_UF$ bits, $0 \\leq M_U \\leq N$, while each server has a storage memory of capacity $M_SF$ bits. The caching scheme consists of two phases: placement phase and delivery phase. We consider a centralized placement scenario as in [@maddah], which is carried out centrally with the knowledge of the servers and the users participating in the delivery phase. However, neither the user demands, nor the network topology is known in advance during the placement phase. In the delivery phase, we assume that each user randomly connects to $\\rho$ servers out of $P$ with a uniform distribution over all $\\rho-$subsets, where $\\rho \\leq P$, and requests a single file from the library. We define $\\alpha\\triangleq \\frac{\\rho}{P}$ as the *connectivity* of the network, where $0 \\leq \\alpha \\leq 1$. For $j \\in [K]$, let $\\mathcal{Z}_j$ denote the set of servers $\\mathrm{U}_j$ connects to, where $|\\mathcal{Z}_j|=\\rho$, and $d_j \\in [N]$ denotes the index of the file it requests. For example, in Fig. \\[fig:f1\\](a), $\\mathcal{Z}_1=\\{ \\mathrm{S}_1, \\mathrm{S}_2 \\}$, $\\mathcal{Z}_2=\\{ \\mathrm{S}_1, \\mathrm{S}_2 \\}$, $\\mathcal{Z}_3=\\{ \\mathrm{S}_2, \\mathrm{S}_3 \\}$ and $\\mathcal{Z}_4=\\{ \\mathrm{S}_2, \\mathrm{S}_3 \\}$. Let the demand vector be denoted by $\\mathbf{d}\\triangleq(d_1, d_2,..., d_K)$. The topology of the network, i.e., which users are connected to which servers, and the demands of the users are revealed to the servers at the beginning of the delivery phase.\n\nThe complete library must be stored at the servers in a coded manner to provide redundancy, since each user connects only to a random subset of the servers. Since any user should be able to reconstruct any requested file from its own cache memory and the servers it is connected to, the total cache capacity of a user and any $\\rho$ servers must be sufficient to recover the whole library; that is, we must have $M_U+\\rho M_S\\geq N$.\n\nLet $\\mathcal{K}_p$ denote the set of users served by $\\mathrm{S}_p$, for $p\\in [P]$, and define the random variable $Q_p \\triangleq \\left| \\mathcal{K}_p \\right|$, which denotes the number of users served by $\\mathrm{S}_p$. We shall denote a particular realization of $Q_p$ as $q_p$ and define $\\mathbf{q}\\triangleq ( q_1, \\ldots , q_p )$, where we have $\\sum_{p=1}^{P} q_p = K\\rho$. For example, in Fig. \\[fig:f1\\](a), we have $\\mathcal{K}_1=\\{ \\mathrm{U}_1,\\mathrm{U}_2 \\}, \\mathcal{K}_2=\\{ \\mathrm{U}_1, \\mathrm{U}_2, \\mathrm{U}_3, \\mathrm{U}_4\\}, \\mathcal{K}_3=\\{ \\mathrm{U}_3, \\mathrm{U}_4 \\}$, and $\\mathbf{q}=(2,4,2)$. In the delivery phase, server $\\mathrm{S}_p$ transmits message $X_p$ of size $R_p F$ bits to the users connected to it, i.e., the users in set $\\mathcal{K}_{p}$, over the corresponding shared link. We assume that each server is allocated a separate orthogonal delivery channel, and the message it transmits is received by all the users connected to this server. The message $X_{p}$ is a function of the demand vector $\\mathbf{d}$, the network topology, the storage contents of server $\\mathrm{S}_p$, and the cache contents of the users in $\\mathcal{K}_p$. User $U_k$ receives the messages $X_{\\mathcal{Z}_k} \\triangleq \\{ X_p : p \\in \\mathcal{Z}_k \\}$, and reconstructs its requested file $W_{d_k}$ using these messages and its local cache contents.\n\nFormal Problem Statement\n------------------------\n\nWe now provide the formal definition of the caching problem. Let $\\{W_n\\}_{n=1}^{N}$ be $N$ independent random variables each uniformly distributed over $[2^F]$ for some $F \\in \\mathbb{N}$. Each $W_n$ represents a file of size $F$ bits. Let $R_p, p\\in [P],$ be the number of bits, normalized by the size of a file, transmitted by server $p\\in [P]$ during the delivery phase. A $(M_S,M_U,R_1,\\ldots,R_P)$ storage and caching scheme consists of $P$ server storage functions, $K$ caching functions, $P{P\\choose \\rho}^K$ encoding functions, and $K{P\\choose \\rho}^K$ decoding functions.\n\nThe caching function $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\phi_k : [2^F]^N \\rightarrow [2^{\\lfloor FM_U\\rfloor}],\\quad  k \\in [K],\\end{aligned}$$ maps the library $\\{ W_n \\}_{n=1}^{N}$ into the cache contents, of user $U_k$ during the placement phase: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    V_k \\triangleq \\phi_k (W_1,\\ldots, W_N)\\end{aligned}$$ The server storage function $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\sigma_{p}: [2^F]^N \\rightarrow [2^{\\lfloor FM_S\\rfloor}], \\quad  p\\in [P]\\end{aligned}$$ maps the library $\\{W_n\\}_{n=1}^{N}$ into the storage of server $S_p$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    Y_p \\triangleq \\sigma_p (W_1,\\ldots,W_N).\\end{aligned}$$ We define a separate encoding function for each server depending on the network topology. Hence, the encoding function for server $S_p, p\\in [P],$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\psi^{p}_{\\{\\mathcal{K}_p\\}_{p=1}^{P}}: [N]^K \\times [2^{\\lfloor FM_S\\rfloor}] \\rightarrow [2^{\\lfloor FR_p\\rfloor}]\\end{aligned}$$ maps the demand vector and the memory contents of server $S_p$ to message $X_p, $ i.e., $$\\begin{aligned}\n    X_{p} \\triangleq  \\psi^{p}_{\\{\\mathcal{K}_p\\}_{p=1}^{P}}(\\mathbf{d},Y_p),\\end{aligned}$$ which is delivered to the users in $\\mathcal{K}_p$ during the delivery phase. Finally, we define a separate decoding function for each user depending on the network topology. Hence, the decoding function for user $U_k, k\\in [K],$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\mu^k_{\\left(\\{\\mathcal{Z}_k\\}_{k=1}^{K}\\right)} :[N]^K \\times [2^{\\lfloor FR_{\\pi^k(1)} \\rfloor}] \\times \\cdots \\times [2^{\\lfloor FR_{\\pi^k(\\rho)} \\rfloor}] \\times [2^{\\lfloor FM_U \\rfloor}] \\rightarrow [2^{\\lfloor F \\rfloor}],\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\pi^k(1),\\ldots, \\pi^k(\\rho)$ denote the $\\rho$ servers in set $\\mathcal{Z}_k$, maps the demand vector $\\mathbf{d}$, the received signals $X_{\\mathcal{Z}_k}$ from the servers in $\\mathcal{Z}_k$, and the local cache content $V_k$ to the estimate $\\hat{W}_{d_k},$ i.e., $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\hat{W}_{d_k} \\triangleq \\mu^k_{\\left(\\{\\mathcal{Z}_k\\}_{k=1}^{K}\\right)} (\\mathbf{d},X_{\\mathcal{Z}_k},V_k)\\end{aligned}$$ The probability of error for this scheme, for a fixed topology, is defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\max_{\\mathbf{d}\\in [N]^K} \\max_{k\\in [K]} \\mathrm{Pr}(\\hat{W}_{d_k} \\neq W_{d_k}).\\end{aligned}$$ We remark here that the storage and caching functions $\\sigma_p$ and $\\phi_k$ do not depend on the network topology, while the encoding and decoding functions do.\n\nThe tuple $(M_S,M_U,R_1,\\ldots,R_P)$ is said to be achievable if for every $\\epsilon >0$ and large enough file size $F$ there exists a $(M_S,M_U,R_1,\\ldots,R_P)$ caching scheme with probability of error less than $\\epsilon$.\n\nOur goal is to minimize the delivery latency, which is the time by which all the user requests can be satisfied. Among other parameters, delivery latency also depends on the operation of the SBSs. If each SBS transmits over an orthogonal frequency band, the requests can be delivered in parallel, and the delivery latency is given by $T_{pd}=\\max_{p} R_p$. If, instead, the servers transmit successively in a time-division manner, which is suitable for user devices that are simple and not capable of multihoming on multiple frequencies, the normalized delivery latency will be given by $T_{sd}=\\sum_{p=1}^{P} R_p$. Our goal will be to find the average worst-case delivery latency, where the worst case refers to the fact that all the users can correctly decode their requested files, independent of the combination of files requested by them, and the averaging is over all possible network topologies. Assuming that $N\\geq K$ (i.e., the number of files is larger than the number of users), it is not difficult to see that all the users requesting a different file corresponds to the worst-case scenario. We would also like to remark that, under uniform file popularity, the probability of experiencing this worst-case demand distribution increases significantly with $N$, and approaches $1$ for $N$ values that one expects to experience in practice.\n\nCoded Distributed Storage and Caching Scheme\n============================================\n\nWe first note that our system model brings together aspects of distributed storage and proactive caching/coded delivery. To see this, consider the system without any user caches, i.e., $M_U=0$, which is equivalent to a distributed storage system with unreliable servers, where random $P-\\rho$ out of $P$ servers are inactive. It is known that MDS codes provide much higher reliability and efficiency compared to replication in this scenario [@dimakis_networkcodes]. On the other hand, when the servers are reliable, i.e., $\\rho = P$, our system is equivalent to the one in [@maddah], and coded delivery provides significant reductions in the delivery latency. Accordingly, our proposed scheme brings together benefits from coded storage and coded delivery. To illustrate the main ingredients of the proposed scheme we assume $M_S=\\frac{N}{\\rho}$ in this section, and extend to other server capacities in later sections.\n\nServer Storage Placement  {#sec:serverstorage}\n-------------------------\n\nWe first describe how the files are stored across the SBS servers in order to guarantee that each user request can be satisfied from any $\\rho$ servers a user may connect to (see Fig. \\[fig:seg\\]). We define $t \\triangleq \\frac{KM_U}{N}$, and assume initially that $t$ is an integer, i.e., $t\\in [0:M_U]$. The solution for non-integer $t$ values will be obtained through memory-sharing [@maddah]. Each file is divided into $K\\choose t$ equal-size non-overlapping segments. We enumerate them according to distinct $t$-element subsets of $[K]$, where $W_{j, \\mathcal{A}}$ denotes the segment of $W_j$ that corresponds to subset $\\mathcal{A}$. We have $W_j = \\bigcup_{\\mathcal{A} \\subset [K]: |\\mathcal{A}| = t} W_{j, \\mathcal{A}}$, $j \\in [N]$.\n\nEach segment is further divided into $\\rho$ equal-size non-overlapping sub-segments denoted by $W_{j,\\mathcal{A}}^l$, $l\\in[\\rho]$. The $\\rho$ sub-segments of each segment are coded together using a $(P,\\rho)$ linear MDS code with generator matrix $G$, giving as output $P$ coded subsegments for segment $W_{j,\\mathcal{A}}$, denoted by $C_{j,\\mathcal{A}}^{l}, l\\in [P]$. $C_{j,\\mathcal{A}}^{l}$ is a linear combination of the subsegments of the segment corresponding to subset $\\mathcal{A}$, of file $W_j$. $C_{j,\\mathcal{A}}^{l}$ will be stored in server $\\mathrm{S}_l$, $\\forall l \\in [P],j\\in [N]$, and $\\mathcal{A}\\subset [K], \\vert \\mathcal{A} \\vert=t$. Since each sub-segment is of length $\\frac{F}{\\rho{K\\choose t}}$, every linear combination $C_{j,\\mathcal{A}}^{l}$ is of the same length; and hence, server storage capacity constraint of $M_S F=\\frac{NF}{\\rho}$ is met with equality.\n\nWe assume that each user knows the generator matrix of the MDS code to be able to reconstruct any coded subsegment $C_{j,\\mathcal{A}}^{l}$ from the uncoded segment $W_{j,\\mathcal{A}}$.\n\nUser Cache Placement\n--------------------\n\nUsing the placement scheme proposed in [@maddah] for user caches, each segment of a file, $W_{j,\\mathcal{A}}$, is placed into the caches of all the users $\\mathrm{U}_k$ for which $k\\in \\mathcal{A}$, i.e., each user caches ${K-1 \\choose t-1}$ segments of each file, or $\\frac{{K-1 \\choose t-1}}{{K \\choose t}}NF = \\frac{t}{K}N = M_U F$ bits, meeting the user cache capacity constraint.\n\nDelivery Phase  {#sec:delivery}\n---------------\n\nWe first make the following observation about the above placement scheme: in the worst-case demand scenario, consider any $t+1$ users. Any $t$ out of these $t+1$ users share in their caches one segment of the file requested by the remaining user. Enumerate these subsets of $t+1$ users as $\\mathcal{H}_i$, $i\\in \\left[{K\\choose t+1}\\right]$. Consider server $\\mathrm{S}_p$, $p \\in [P]$, and one of the $q_p$ users connected to it, say $U_k$. Then, for any subset $\\mathcal{H}_i$, that includes $k$, i.e., $k \\in \\mathcal{H}_i$, the segment $W_{d_k,\\mathcal{H}_i \\setminus \\{k\\}}$ is needed by user $\\mathrm{U}_k$, but is not available in its cache because $k \\notin  \\mathcal{H}_i \\setminus \\{k\\}$, while it is available in the caches of the users in $\\mathcal{K}_p \\bigcap \\mathcal{H}_i \\setminus \\{k \\}$. The MDS coded subsegment of $W_{d_k, \\mathcal{H}_i \\backslash \\{k\\}} $ stored by $\\mathrm{S}_p$ is $C_{d_k, \\mathcal{H}_i \\backslash \\{k\\}}^{p}$, and since the users know the generator matrix $G$, each user which has $W_{d_k, \\mathcal{H}_i \\backslash \\{k\\}} $ in its cache can reconstruct $C_{d_k, \\mathcal{H}_i \\backslash \\{k\\}}^{p} $ as well. Then, for each $\\mathcal{H}_i$ that includes at least one user from $\\mathcal{K}_p$, $\\mathrm{S}_p$ transmits $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{Tx}\n    X_p(\\mathcal{H}_i) = \\bigoplus_{k \\in \\mathcal{K}_p \\bigcap \\mathcal{H}_i \\setminus \\{k\\}} C_{d_k,\\mathcal{H}_i \\backslash \\{k\\}}^{p} ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\bigoplus$ denotes the bitwise XOR operation. Then, $\\Bigl| \\left\\{i \\in \\left[{K\\choose t+1}\\right]: k \\in \\mathcal{H}_i \\right\\} \\Bigr| = {K-1 \\choose t} $ is the number of messages transmitted by server $\\mathrm{S}_p$ that contain the coded version of a segment requested by $\\mathrm{U}_k$, and is also equal to the number of segments of $W_{d_k}$ not present in the cache of user $\\mathrm{U}_k$. Overall, the message transmitted by $S_p$ is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{Tx_all}\n   X_p = \\bigcup_{i \\in \\left[{K\\choose t+1}\\right]: \\mathcal{K}_p \\bigcap \\mathcal{H}_i\\neq \\phi} X_p( \\mathcal{H}_i).\\end{aligned}$$ From the transmitted message $X_p(\\mathcal{H}_i)$ in for each set $\\mathcal{H}_i$, user $\\mathrm{U}_k$ can decode the MDS coded version $C_{d_k,\\mathcal{H}_i \\backslash \\{ k\\}}^{p}$ of its requested segment $W_{d_k, \\mathcal{H}_i \\backslash \\{k\\}}$. With the transmissions from all the servers, $\\mathrm{U}_k$ receives $\\rho$ coded versions of each missing segment from the $\\rho$ servers it is connected to. Since each segment is coded with a $(P,\\rho)$ MDS code, the user is able to decode each missing segment of its request.\n\nNote that each transmitted message $X_p(\\mathcal{H}_i)$ by a server is of length $\\left. F \\right/ \\rho {K\\choose t}$ bits. The number of messages transmitted by $\\mathrm{S}_p$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\left| \\left\\{ i\\in \\left[{K\\choose t+1}\\right]: \\mathcal{K}_p \\bigcap \\mathcal{H}_i \\neq \\phi \\right\\} \\right|&= {K\\choose t+1}-\\left| \\left\\{ i\\in \\left[{K\\choose t+1}\\right]: \\mathcal{K}_p \\bigcap \\mathcal{H}_i = \\phi \\right\\} \\right|\\\\\n    &={K\\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\\choose t+1}.\\end{aligned}$$ That is, server $\\mathrm{S}_p$ transmits a total of $R_p=\\sfrac{F}  {\\rho {K\\choose t}}\\left[{K\\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\\choose t+1}\\right]$ bits.\n\nThe delivery latency performance of this proposed coded storage and delivery scheme with both successive and parallel SBS transmissions will be studied in the following two sections.\n\nDue to the symmetry in the network across servers and users, the delivery latency of this scheme depends only on the $\\mathbf{q}$ vector, not the particular network topology, i.e., what matters is the number of users served by each server, not the identity of the users. More specifically, all permutations of a $\\mathbf{q}$ vector, and the associated users, result in the same latency. Hence, we define the \u201ctype\" of a network topology as a vector of dimension $K+1$, $\\mathbf{g}$, where $g_i$ denotes the number of servers serving $i$ users, for $i=0,1,\\ldots, K$. We have $0\\leq g_i \\leq P$, $\\sum_{i=0}^{K} g_i = P$ and $\\sum_{i=0}^{K} ig_i=K\\rho$.\n\nSuccessive SBS Transmissions {#s:Successive}\n============================\n\nIn this section we assume that the SBSs share the same communication resources, and hence, transmit successively to avoid interference. When the SBSs transmit successively in time, the normalized delivery latency is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n   T_{sd} \\triangleq \\sum_{p=1}^P R_p &= \\frac{1}{\\rho {K\\choose t}} \\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\left[{K\\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\\choose t+1} \\right] \\\\\n    &=\\frac{1}{\\alpha} \\frac{(K-t)}{(t+1)} - \\frac{1}{\\rho {K\\choose t}} \\sum_{p=1}^{P}  {K-q_p \\choose t+1} \\label{eq:sumrate1} \\\\\n    &= \\frac{1}{\\alpha} \\frac{(K-t)}{(t+1)} - \\frac{1}{\\rho {K\\choose t}} \\sum_{i=0}^{K} g_i {K-i \\choose t+1}.\\label{eq:sumrate}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTo characterize the \u201cbest\u201d and \u201cworst\u201d network topologies that lead to the minimum and maximum delivery latency, respectively, we present the following lemma without proof.\n\n\\[convexity\\] For $n_1, n_2 , r \\in \\mathcal{Z}^{+}$ satisfying $r \\leq n_1$ and $n_1 + 2 \\leq n_2$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    {n_1 \\choose r} + {n_2 \\choose r} \\geq {n_1+1 \\choose r} + {n_2-1 \\choose r}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe lemma above indicates the \u201cconvex\u201d nature of the binomial coefficients in ; that is, the points $(r, {r \\choose r})$, $(r+1, {r+1 \\choose r})$, \u2026, $(n_1+n_2-r, {n_1+n_2-r \\choose r})$ form a convex region. From Lemma \\[convexity\\], it can be deduced that the second summation term in takes its minimum when $\\max_{p}(q_p) \\leq \\min_{p}(q_p) + 1$, $p\\in [P]$, i.e., the values of $q_p$ are as close to each other as possible. This corresponds to the class of topologies with the highest delivery latency (see Fig. \\[fig:f1\\](c) for an example). The topology that requires the minimum delivery latency of $T_{sd} =\\frac{K-t}{t+1}$ is when $q_p$ is either $0$ or $K$ for each server, or equivalently, when all the users are connected to the same $\\rho$ servers (see Fig. \\[fig:f1\\](b) for an example).\n\nNext we study the average worst-case normalized delivery latency, where the average is taken over all possible network topologies. As we have seen above, the delivery latency depends on the topology, and for a given topology, the \u201cworst-case\u201d delivery latency refers to the worst-case demand combination when each user requests a different file. Note that, in the worst case, due to the symmetry in the network and the proposed caching and delivery scheme, the latency depends only on the type of the network topology. We further assume that the probability of having any network of the same type is the same.\n\n\\[lemma\\_prob\\] Let $w_i$ be the probability of exactly $i$ users being served by a server; that is, $w_i=Pr\\{ q_p=i \\}, p\\in [P]$. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}[g_i] = w_i P.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe number of servers serving exactly $i$ users, $g_i$, can be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\ng_i=\\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\mathbbm{1}_{\\{q_p=i\\}}.\\end{aligned}$$ Taking expectation on both sides, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}[g_i] &= \\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\mathrm{Pr}\\{ q_p=i \\}\\\\\n&=w_i P.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe following theorem presents the average normalized worst-case delivery latency of the proposed scheme under successive transmissions, which follows by taking the expectation of both sides of Eq. and Lemma \\[lemma\\_prob\\].\n\nThe average worst-case normalized delivery latency of the proposed scheme over all topologies under random user-server association is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}[T_{sd}]=\\frac{1}{\\alpha} \\frac{(K-t)}{(t+1)} - \\frac{1}{\\alpha {K\\choose t}}\\sum_{i=0}^{K} w_i {K-i\\choose t+1} .\\label{eq:avgrate}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSince we have assumed uniform random connectivity, we have $w_i=\\sfrac{{K\\choose i}{P-1 \\choose \\rho -1}^{i} {P-1 \\choose \\rho}^{K-i}}{{P\\choose \\rho}^K}={K\\choose i} \\alpha^{i} (1-\\alpha)^{K-i}$. The average worst-case latency is given in the following corollary.\n\nThe average worst-case normalized delivery latency with successive transmissions under uniformly random user-server association is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}[T_{sd}]= \\frac{K-t}{t+1} \\left[ \\frac{1-(1-\\alpha)^{t+1}}{\\alpha} \\right].\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy plugging in $w_i={K\\choose i} \\alpha^{i} (1-\\alpha)^{K-i}$ in Eq. , we obtain the above simplified expression.\n\nRedundancy in Server Storage Capacity {#sec:incservercache}\n-------------------------------------\n\nIn the analysis above, we have set the server storage capacity to $M_S=\\frac{N}{\\rho}$. On the other hand, for a given user cache capacity $M_U$, the minimum server storage capacity that would allow the reconstruction of any demand combination is given by $M_S=\\frac{N-M_U}{\\rho}$. In this case, we cache the same $\\frac{M_U}{N}$ fraction of the library in all the user caches during the placement phase, and deliver the remaining fraction of the demands from the servers, which is identical to the scheme in [@comb3] when the user and its connected servers have just enough space to store the entire library. The worst-case delivery latency in this case is given by $T_{sd}=K\\left( 1-\\frac{M_U}{N}\\right)= K-t$.\\\nNext, we consider the case when there is redundancy in server memories; that is, $\\frac{N}{\\rho}< M_S \\leq N$. Assume that $M_S=\\frac{N}{\\rho - z}$ for some integer $ z\\in [\\rho -1]$. Define $ \\hat{\\alpha}\\triangleq \\frac{\\rho-z}{P}  $. Since $\\alpha$ is defined as the connectivity of the network, $\\alpha-\\hat{\\alpha}$ is the storage redundancy. For non-integer values of $z$, the solution can be obtained by memory-sharing.\n\n![An example $7 \\times 5$ incidence matrix ($P=7, K=5$) with $\\rho = 4$.[]{data-label=\"fig:conn_matrix\"}](conn_matrix.PNG)\n\nIn this case, a $(P,\\rho-z)$ MDS code is used for server storage placement, allowing each user to reconstruct any requested file by connecting to $\\rho -z$ servers. The user cache placement is done as in the previous section. In the delivery phase, each user randomly connects to $\\rho$ servers. We now have a degree of freedom thanks to the additional storage space available at each server. Each user can obtain a segment from any $\\rho -z$ of the $\\rho$ servers it is connected to by receiving one coded subsegment from each of them. The choice of the servers that deliver the coded subsegments to the users is made such that the multicasting opportunities across the network are maximized. We construct an incidence matrix $A$ of dimensions $P \\times K$ such that $a_{ij}=1$ if $S_i$ is connected to $U_j$, $a_{ij}=0$ otherwise. Consider the $(t+1)-$element subset $\\mathcal{H}_i$, and the file segments $W_{d_k,\\mathcal{H}_i\\backslash \\{ k\\}}, \\forall k\\in \\mathcal{H}_i$. Consider the columns of $A$ corresponding to the users in $\\mathcal{H}_i$ and the matrix $Q$ formed by them. Define the minimum cover of $\\mathcal{H}_i$ as the smallest $l$ for which a $l\\times (t+1)$ submatrix of $Q$ has at least $\\rho-z$ non-zero values in each column. The servers corresponding to the $l$ rows of this submatrix have to transmit one coded message each to satisfy the requests for the missing segments corresponding to $\\mathcal{H}_i$. Therefore, the total number of transmissions required to deliver the segments $W_{d_k,\\mathcal{H}_i\\backslash \\{ k\\}}, k\\in \\mathcal{H}_i$, is equal to the minimum cover of $\\mathcal{H}_i$.\\\nAs an example, consider the incidence matrix as shown in Fig. \\[fig:conn\\_matrix\\], which corresponds to a system with $P=7$ servers and $K=5$ users, where each user connects to $\\rho=4$ servers. Assume that the server storage capacity is $M_S=\\frac{N}{\\rho-2}$ and $t=1$. In this setting, coded subsegments of requested files can be delivered to $t+1=2$ users through multicasting, and it is sufficient for each user to receive coded segments from $\\rho-2=2$ servers. Then, for the user set $\\mathcal{H}_i=\\{1,2\\}$, we consider the submatrix corresponding to the columns $1$ and $2$ and rows $1$ and $2$ (marked by the blue dashed lines in Fig. \\[fig:conn\\_matrix\\]), which is the smallest submatrix satisfying the condition that each column has at least $\\rho-z=2$ $1$s. Hence, the minimum cover for $\\mathcal{H}_i=\\{ 1,2 \\}$ is equal to the number of rows of this submatrix, that is, $2$. For $\\mathcal{H}_i=\\{3,4\\}$ (marked by the red dashed lines in Fig. \\[fig:conn\\_matrix\\]), the minimum cover is $3$. Thus, from , for segments $W_{d_k,\\{3,4\\} \\backslash \\{ k\\}}, k\\in \\{3,4\\}$, $S_3$ transmits the message $X_3(\\{3,4\\}) = \\bigoplus_{k \\in \\{3,4\\}} C_{d_k,\\{3,4\\} \\backslash \\{k\\}}^{3}$, $S_4$ transmits $X_4(\\{3,4\\})=C_{d_3,\\{4\\}}^{4}$, and $S_5$ transmits $X_5(\\{3,4\\})=C_{d_4,\\{3\\}}^{5}$. The total number of transmissions is $3$. We can go through all the $(t+1)-$ element subsets of the users and identify for each of them the minimum cover. We note that in the successive transmission scenario, the total latency does not depend on the server transmitting each subsegment, since the contribution to the total latency is the same. In the above example servers $S_1$ and $S_6$ could also deliver the two coded subsegments to users $U_1$ and $U_2$. The selection of the servers matters in the case of parallel transmissions.\n\nPerformance analysis {#performance_analysis}\n--------------------\n\nIn this section, we derive an analytical expression for the expected delivery latency in the asymptotic regime, i.e., when $P \\rightarrow \\infty$, while $\\alpha$ and $\\hat{\\alpha}$ are fixed. Consider a particular subset $\\mathcal{H}$ of $t+1$ users. Define $\\beta_i$ as the fraction of servers serving $i$ users in $\\mathcal{H}$, $i=0,1,\\ldots,t+1$. Thus, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{beta_def}\n\\beta_i = \\frac{1}{P}\\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\mathbbm{1}_{\\{ \\vert \\mathcal{H} \\cap \\mathcal{K}_p\\vert = i\\}}.\\end{aligned}$$ Taking expectation on both sides of Eq. , we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}[\\beta_i]&=\\frac{1}{P} \\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\mathbb{E}[\\mathbbm{1}_{\\{ \\vert \\mathcal{H} \\cap \\mathcal{K}_p\\vert = i\\}}] \\\\\n&= \\frac{1}{P}  \\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\mathrm{Pr}( \\vert \\mathcal{H} \\cap \\mathcal{K}_p\\vert = i)\\\\\n&= \\mathrm{Pr}( \\vert \\mathcal{H} \\cap \\mathcal{K}_p\\vert = i) \\label{exp_beta_1}\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n= {t+1 \\choose i} \\alpha^i (1-\\alpha)^{(t+1-i)}, \\label{exp_beta}\\end{aligned}$$ where follows due to the symmetry across all the servers. By the law of large numbers, $\\beta_i \\rightarrow \\mathbb{E}[\\beta_i]$ for all $i\\in [K]$, as $P \\rightarrow \\infty$. Also, the topology becomes symmetric across all users as $P \\rightarrow \\infty$, i.e., almost all user subsets of the same size are served by the same number of servers.\n\n![The ordering of servers to count the minimum cover. The dashed line indicates the point at which enough servers have been counted to deliver $\\hat{\\alpha}$ coded subsegments to all users in $\\mathcal{H}$.[]{data-label=\"fig:server_ord\"}](server_ordering.png)\n\nWe group the servers serving the same number of users and arrange them in the order as illustrated in Fig. \\[fig:server\\_ord\\], where the first $P\\beta_{t+1}$ servers serve $t+1$ users in $\\mathcal{H}$, the next $P\\beta_{t}$ servers serve exactly $t$ users in $\\mathcal{H}$, and so on. To compute the minimum cover $l$, i.e., the minimum number of servers that are needed to deliver $\\hat{\\alpha}$ coded subsegments to each user in $\\mathcal{H}$, we start counting from the left, until each user in $\\mathcal{H}$ collects $\\hat{\\alpha}$ coded subsegments. For some $u\\in [0:t]$, we count till the $(u+1)$-th set of servers which serve $t+1-u$ users in $\\mathcal{H}$, as in Fig. \\[fig:server\\_ord\\]. When counting the set of servers serving $t+1-u$ users, note that, according to our scheme, the $t+1-u$ users can each extract one coded subsegment from a message transmitted by a server in that set. Therefore, $\\lceil \\frac{t+1}{t+1-u} \\rceil$ servers are required to serve one coded subsegment each to the $t+1$ users in $\\mathcal{H}$. Define $\\delta$ as the number of coded subsegments required by a single user in $\\mathcal{H}$ from the set of servers serving $t+1-u$ users. Therefore, for $P\\rightarrow \\infty$, the minimum cover can be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{min_cover}\nl\\approx P \\sum_{j=0}^{u-1} \\beta_{t+1-j} + \\delta \\left\\lceil \\frac{t+1}{t+1-u} \\right\\rceil \\end{aligned}$$ for some $u\\in [0:t]$, where follows thanks to the symmetry across users. Note that the above analysis is asymptotic, and does not hold in general for a finite $P$. Since a message transmitted by a server serving $i$ users in $\\mathcal{H}$ delivers $i$ coded subsegments in total to the $i$ users, the total number of coded subsegments delivered by the $l$ servers that form the minimum cover for the users in $\\mathcal{H}$ must be at least $(t+1)\\hat{\\alpha}$; that is, $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\sum_{j=0}^{u-1}(t+1-j)\\beta_{t+1-j} + \\delta^{'} \\left\\lceil \\frac{t+1}{t+1-u} \\right\\rceil \\geq (t+1)P\\hat{\\alpha}, \\label{total_segments}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\delta^{'}\\triangleq (t+1-u)\\delta$. The value of $u$ is determined by solving for $$\\begin{aligned}\n0 \\leq (t+1)P\\hat{\\alpha}-P\\sum_{j=0}^{u-1}(t+1-j)\\beta_{t+1-j} \\leq  (t+1-u)\\beta_{t+1-u} .\\label{determine_u}\\end{aligned}$$ From Eq. and the asymptotic convergence of $\\beta_i$ to its expectation, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\sum_{j=0}^{u-1} (t+1-j) \\beta_{t+1-j}\\overset{P\\rightarrow \\infty}{\\rightarrow}& \\sum_{j=0}^{u-1} {t+1\\choose t+1-j} (t+1-j)\\alpha^{(t+1-j)} (1-\\alpha)^{j}\\\\\n    =& \\alpha^{t+1}(t+1)\\sum_{j=0}^{u-1} {t\\choose s}  \\left( \\frac{\\alpha}{1-\\alpha}  \\right)^{-j} \\label{solving_u}\\end{aligned}$$ We substitute into to solve for $u$. Having first determined $u$ from Eq. , and then $\\delta$ from , we can find the minimum cover $l$ from Eq. for $P\\rightarrow \\infty$. The delivery latency can thus be estimated as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{closedform_redundant}\n    \\mathbb{E}[T_{sd}]= \\frac{1}{(\\rho-z)}\\left( \\frac{K-t}{t+1}\\right)l,\\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $\\frac{1}{(\\rho-z)}\\left( \\frac{K-t}{t+1}\\right)$ is obtained by multiplying the normalized size of each coded subsegment, given by $\\frac{1}{(\\rho-z){K\\choose t}}$, with the number of $(t+1)-$user subsets, given by ${K\\choose t+1}$. It will be seen in Section \\[s:Discussion\\] that Eq. provides a fairly accurate estimate of the expected delivery latency when the number of servers $P$ is large.\n\nLower Bound\n===========\n\nIn this section, we derive a tight lower bound on the minimum expected delivery latency with uncoded cache placement, coded distributed storage in the servers, and successive transmissions, which shows the optimality of the caching and delivery scheme proposed in Section \\[s:Successive\\] in certain regimes. Following [@optimality_1], we will first represent the problem as a set of index coding problems.\\\nIn the index coding problem [@index_coding], a sender wishes to communicate an independent message $M_j, j \\in [B]$, uniformly distributed over $[2^{nr_j}]$, to the $j^{th}$ user among $B$ users by broadcasting a message $X^n$ of length $n$. Each user $j$ knows a subset of the messages targeting these $B$ users, indicated by $\\mathcal{B}_j, \\mathcal{B}_j \\subset \\{M_1,\\ldots,M_B \\}$, referred to as side information. A rate tuple $(r_1, \\ldots,r_B)$ is achievable, for large enough $n$, if every user can restore its desired message with high probability based on $X^n$ and its side information. The index coding problem can be represented as a directed graph $G$ with $B$ nodes, where node $i$ represents message $M_i$, and a directed edge connects node $i$ to node $j$ if user $j$ knows message $M_i$ as side information.\n\nFor our problem setting, where we have the file library $\\{W_i \\}_{i=1}^N$, each file $W_i, i\\in [N]$, of size $F$ bits is divided into $2^{K}$ non-overlapping segments denoted by $W_{i,\\mathcal{A}}$, $\\mathcal{A}\\in 2^{[K]}$, where $2^{[K]}$ indicates the power set $\\{ \\phi , \\{1 \\}, \\{2 \\}, \\{ 3 \\}, \\{ 1,2 \\}$ $, \\ldots ,[K] \\}$. The segment $W_{i,\\mathcal{A}}$ denotes the part of file $W_i$ cached exclusively by users in set $\\mathcal{A}$. This is the most general representation of an uncoded caching scheme at the users. For each demand vector $\\mathbf{d}$ with distinct requests, corresponding to the worst case scenario, we consider an index coding problem with $K2^{K-1}$ independent messages, each of which represents a segment requested by a particular user and cached by a different subset of the remaining users.\n\nWe generate a directed graph with $K2^{K-1}$ nodes corresponding to these messages, such that, for $i \\neq j$ and $\\mathcal{A}_i \\subset [K]\\setminus \\{ i \\}$ and $\\mathcal{A}_j \\subset [K]\\setminus \\{ j \\}$, there is a directed edge from node $W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}_i}$ to $W_{d_j,\\mathcal{A}_j}$, $i\\neq j$, if user $U_j$ caches the segment $W_{d_i, \\mathcal{A}_i}$; that is, if $j \\in \\mathcal{A}_i$. In the single server centralized setting, we get a lower bound using the index coding bound [@optimality_2]. Multi-server index coding has been studied as the distributed index coding problem in [@distr_index_coding],[@cooperative_index_coding]. In the distributed index coding problem, the servers are considered to store a subset of the messages in uncoded form, and each user is connected to all the servers, whereas in our problem each user can connect to $\\rho$ out of $P$ servers randomly. Therefore, for the user to be able to retrieve any requested file from the servers it connects to, the files must be stored using a distributed storage scheme in the servers. Therefore, we analyse the case where the files are stored using erasure codes in the servers. In that, we encode the segment $W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}$ into $P$ distinct coded subsegments, denoted by $(C_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^1,\\ldots,C_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^P) \\in \\prod_{p\\in [P]}\\left[ 2^{n_pr_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^p} \\right]$, where $n_p=FR_p$ is the length of message in bits transmitted by server $S_p$, such that any $\\rho$ coded subsegments can be used to reconstruct the original segment. $r_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^p$ is the rate at which server $S_p$ transmits the coded subsegment $C_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^p$ corresponding to user $U_i's$ request, and we have $\\sum_{j=1}^{\\rho} n_{\\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^{\\pi(j)} \\geq \\vert W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}} \\vert$ as a necessary condition to ensure that the segment $\\vert W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}} \\vert$ can be reconstructed by receiving any $\\rho$ distinct coded subsegments, where $\\pi(j),j\\in [\\rho]$, are the $\\rho$ servers in set $\\mathcal{Z}_i$. Recall that $\\mathcal{Z}_i$ is the set of $\\rho$ servers that serve user $U_i$. Also note that we do not code across files, but encode each file separately.\n\nFor the multi-server scenario, we consider $P$ index coding problems, each represented as a distinct directed graph $G_p, p\\in [P]$. Each node in $G_p$ corresponds to a distinct coded subsegment $C_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^{p}$, which is requested by user $U_i$ and available in server $S_p$. By distinct coded subsegments we mean that $H(W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}\\vert C^p_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}},C^q_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}) < H(W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}\\vert C^p_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}})$ for all $p,q \\in [P], p\\neq q$. $G_p$ has the same structure as $G$, with the subsegments requested by users not served by server $S_p$ removed. Let the set of nodes in the index coding problem represented by graph $G_p$ be denoted by $\\mathcal{I}_p$.\n\nWe have the following multi-server index coding bound applying the result in [@optimality_2] separately on each of the $P$ index coding problems.\n\n\\[multiple server bound\\] If the rate tuple $\\{r_{1,\\mathcal{A}}^1,\\ldots, r_{K,\\mathcal{A}}^1,\\ldots, r_{1,\\mathcal{A}}^p,\\ldots, r_{K,\\mathcal{A}}^p,\\ldots, r_{1,\\mathcal{A}}^{P},\\ldots,r_{K,\\mathcal{A}}^{P}\\}_{\\mathcal{A}\\subseteq [K]}$ is achievable for the multi-server index coding problem represented by the set of directed graphs $G_p,p=1,\\ldots,P$, under the constraint $\\sum_{j=1}^{\\rho} n_{\\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^{\\pi(j)} \\geq \\vert W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}} \\vert$, and inter-file coding is not allowed, then $r_{j,\\mathcal{A}}^p=0$ if server $S_p$ does not serve user $U_j$, and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{p=1}^P \\sum_{\\mathcal{J}_p} r_{j,\\mathcal{A}}^p \\leq 1\\end{aligned}$$ for all $\\mathcal{J}_p\\subseteq \\mathcal{I}_p $ where the subgraph of $G_p$ over $\\mathcal{J}_p$ does not contain a directed cycle.\n\nTheorem \\[multiple server bound\\] holds when the nodes in the $P$ index coding problems correspond to distinct coded subsegments, that is, there are no repeating nodes in any two index coding problems. Distributed storage schemes which concatenate repetition codes with other storage codes may not satisfy the bound in Theorem \\[multiple server bound\\] (for example, see [@FR_codes]). References [@distr_index_coding] and [@cooperative_index_coding] may indicate how to compute the capacity under such distributed storage schemes, but they are outside the scope of this paper.\n\nThere are non-MDS distributed storage codes, called regenerating codes, that utilize increased storage capacity on the servers to reduce the repair bandwidth [@dimakis_networkcodes]. Theorem \\[multiple server bound\\] holds for them unless some repetition code is used, because the problem can still be represented as $P$ independent index coding problems. For example, Theorem \\[multiple server bound\\] holds if a product matrix code [@product_matrix] is used for distributed storage. However, a sub-optimal delivery latency is achieved, because each server stores a larger number of packets that have to be transmitted to the connected users for successful file reconstruction.\n\nTo identify the acyclic sets $\\mathcal{J}_p$ in the subgraph $G_p$, consider the permutations $\\mathbf{u}=(u_1, \\ldots, u_K)$ of $[K]$. To determine the tightest bound, we may only consider the largest such sets without a directed cycle. For a given $\\mathbf{u}$, the largest set of nodes not containing a directed cycle is $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\left\\{ C^p_{d_{u_i},\\mathcal{A}_i}  : \\mathcal{A}_i \\subseteq [1:K]\\setminus \\{ u_1, \\ldots, u_i \\},i=1,\\ldots, K\\right\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Each permutation $\\mathbf{u}$ gives a unique acyclic set of nodes of the graph. The subsegment $C^p_{d_i,\\phi}$ is not cached in any user, so there is no outgoing edge from $C^p_{d_i,\\phi}$ to any other nodes in any sub-index coding problem. Therefore $C^p_{d_i,\\phi}$ is always in the set $\\mathcal{J}_p$.\n\nConsider first $M_S=\\frac{N}{\\rho}$. In that case, $\\sum_{j=1}^{\\rho} n_{\\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^{\\pi(j)} = \\sum_{j=1}^{\\rho} \\vert C_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^{\\pi(j)} \\vert = \\vert W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}} \\vert$. Following Theorem \\[multiple server bound\\], in order to recover all the desired segments for each user, the deliver latency, $T_{sd}$ must satisfy $$\\begin{aligned}\n FT_{sd} &\\geq \\sum_{p=1}^{P}\\left(\\sum_{ \\mathcal{A}\\subseteq [1:K]\\setminus \\{u_1\\}} \\lvert C^{p}_{d_{u_1},\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert +  \\cdots + \\sum_{\\mathclap{\\mathcal{A}\\subseteq [1:K]\\setminus (\\{u^i\\}\\cap \\mathcal{K}_p)  } } \\lvert C^{p}_{d_{u_i},\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert + \\cdots + \\sum_{\\mathclap{ \\mathcal{A}\\subseteq [1:K]\\setminus (\\{u^K\\} \\cap \\mathcal{K}_p) }} \\lvert C^{p}_{d_{u_K},\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert \\right) \\label{eq:bound} \\\\\n & \\ \\ \\ \\  \\text{s.t.}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\sum_{p\\in \\mathcal{Z}_j} \\lvert C^{p}_{d_{u_j},\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert =  \\lvert W_{d_{u_j},\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert \\quad \\quad j\\in [K],\\label{eq:constraint}\\end{aligned}$$ for every permutation $\\mathbf{u}$, and for every network topology.\n\nWe have $\\lvert C^{p}_{d,\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert = \\frac{\\lvert W_{d,\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert}{\\rho}$ for $M_S=\\frac{N}{\\rho}$, due to $(P,\\rho)$ MDS coded storage. In Eq. , in the summation for a fixed value of $p$, the number of terms with $\\vert \\mathcal{A} \\vert =i$ is $ {K\\choose i+1}-{K-q_p\\choose i+1}$. Thus we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n FT_{sd} \\geq &  \\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\sum_{i=0}^{K-1} \\frac{\\left( {K\\choose i+1}-{K-q_p\\choose i+1}\\right)}{{K\\choose i}} x^{p}_i \\\\\n= & \\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\sum_{i=0}^{K-1} \\frac{\\left( {K\\choose i+1}-{K-q_p\\choose i+1}\\right)}{\\rho {K\\choose i}} x_i\\\\\n= &  \\sum_{i=0}^{K-1} \\left[ \\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\frac{\\left( {K\\choose i+1}-{K-q_p\\choose i+1}\\right)}{\\rho {K\\choose i}}\\right] x_i \\label{lower_bound}\\\\\n\\text{while} \\ \\ & x_0 + x_1 + \\cdots + x_K \\geq F , \\label{constraint1}\\\\\n\\text{and} \\ \\  & x_1 + 2x_2 + \\cdots + Kx_K \\leq \\frac{KM_U}{N}F \\label{constraint2}\\end{aligned}$$ where $x_i\\triangleq \\sum_{\\mathcal{A} \\subset [K]: \\lvert \\mathcal{A} \\rvert = i} \\lvert W_{j,\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert  = {K \\choose i} \\lvert W_{j,\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert = \\rho {K \\choose i} \\lvert C^p_{j,\\mathcal{A}} \\rvert$ is the total normalized size of all segments of file $j$ cached by $i$ users; or equivalently, $x_i^p \\triangleq  {K \\choose i} \\vert C_{j,\\mathcal{A}}^p \\vert = \\frac{1}{\\rho} x_i $ is the total normalized size of all subsegments of file $j$ cached by $i$ users and stored in server $S_p$. We minimize the lower bound in Eq. over all segment sizes $x_i$, which is a linear program with two linear constraints and , where the former follows from the sum of all fractions of the files being one, while the latter follows from the user cache memory constraint. The solution of a linear program lies on one of the corner points of the feasible region. The feasible region defined by the constraints has only one corner point characterized by $$\\begin{aligned}\n    x_i=\\left\\{  \\begin{array}{cc}\n        F & i=t, t=\\frac{KM_U}{N} \\\\\n        0 & \\text{otherwise}\n    \\end{array}\n    \\right. .\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, Eq. simplifies to $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{sd} \\geq \\sum_{p=1}^{P} \\frac{\\left( {K\\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\\choose t+1}\\right)}{\\rho{K\\choose t}},\\end{aligned}$$ which is achieved by our delivery scheme. This proves the optimality of the delivery scheme for successive transmission proposed in Section \\[s:Successive\\] under the assumption of MDS coded storage at the servers and uncoded caching at the users.\n\nRedundancy in server storage\n----------------------------\n\nWhen there is redundant server storage capacity, i.e., server storage capacity is $M_S=\\frac{N}{\\rho-z}$, consider the constraint $\\sum_{j=1}^{\\rho} n_{\\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^{\\pi(j)} \\geq \\vert W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}} \\vert$ in Theorem \\[multiple server bound\\]. Since the bound in Theorem \\[multiple server bound\\] is a linear program of the rates of transmission of the coded subsegments from the servers, the optimal solution lies on one of the corner points of the feasible region defined by the constraint. The corner points for $M_S=\\frac{N}{\\rho-z}, z\\in [\\rho-2]$, are those where $ n_{\\pi(j)} r_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}}^{\\pi(j)}=\\frac{ \\vert W_{d_i,\\mathcal{A}} \\vert}{\\rho-z}$ for all $j\\in \\mathcal{R}, \\mathcal{R}\\subset \\mathcal{Z}_i, \\vert \\mathcal{R} \\vert = \\rho - z$, and equal to $0$ for all $j \\in \\mathcal{Z}_i \\setminus \\mathcal{R}$. The optimal solution should lie on the corner point which chooses $\\mathcal{R}$ such that the servers in $\\mathcal{R}$ have the most multicasting opportunities, and can thus deliver $\\rho-z$ coded subsegments of the requested segments to the users in the minimum number of transmissions. This is equivalent to finding the minimum cover for each multicast group as described in Section \\[sec:incservercache\\].\n\nWhen fractional repetition (FR) codes are used for server storage [@fr_codes], the minimum cover scheme may not be optimal. However, since FR codes have a maximum code rate of $\\frac{1}{2}$, we cannot have distributed storage schemes where $M_S \\leq \\frac{2N}{P}$. Thus the minimum cover scheme is optimal for server storage capacities $M_S \\leq \\frac{2N}{P}$. We illustrate with a toy example that the bound in Theorem \\[multiple server bound\\] does not hold when FR codes are used.\n\n\\[toy\\_ex\\] Consider the simple scenario with $P=2$ servers, $K=3$ users illustrated in Fig. \\[fig:toy\\], where we assume each server can store all the $N=3$ files, i.e., $M_S=3$, and each user has cache capacity $M_U=1$. Let the cache contents of $U_1, U_2, U_3$ be $W_2, W_3, W_1$, respectively, and the demand vector $\\mathbf{d}=\\{ W_1, W_2, W_3\\}$. In this example, the demands can be satisfied by $S_1$ transmitting $W_1 \\oplus W_2$, and $S_2$ transmitting $W_1 \\oplus W_3$, that is, the delivery latency of $T_{sd}=2$ is achievable. However, Theorem \\[multiple server bound\\] gives the bound on delivery latency as $T_{sd}\\geq 3$. $U_2$ receives its requested file $W_2$ with added interference of $W_1$ from $S_1$, which it cannot remove using its cache contents. However, $U_2$ adds the messages from $S_1$ and $S_2$ to align the interference on $W_2$ with $W_3$, which it can remove by using its cache contents, thus doing a sort of interference alignment. In contrast, if MDS coded storage were used, the interference alignment type of scheme would not be possible due to distinct coded subsegments transmitted by both servers.\n\n![Toy example with $P=2, K=N=M_S=3, M_U=1$[]{data-label=\"fig:toy\"}](toy_ex.png)\n\nThe polymatroidal capacity region for multi-server index coding has been characterized in [@distr_index_coding] for full user-server connectivity and uncoded server storage. Characterizing the capacity region for partial user-server connectivity, and constructing an optimal joint server storage and caching scheme for FR coded distributed storage is an interesting open problem for future work.\n\nParallel SBS Transmissions {#s:parallel}\n==========================\n\nWhen SBSs can deliver in parallel without interfering with each other, the normalized delivery latency is dictated by the SBS that has to deliver the maximum number of bits: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:link_load}\nT_{pd} \\triangleq \\max_{q_p} \\frac{1}{\\rho {K\\choose t}} \\left[{K\\choose t+1}-{K-q_p\\choose t+1} \\right].\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe \u201cbest\u201d and \u201cworst\u201d network topologies in the parallel transmission scenario are different from those in the successive transmission scenario. The most balanced topology, i.e., the one with the minimum value of the maximum $q_p$ has the \u201cbest\u201d (lowest) delivery latency, contrary to the successive transmission scenario, in which this would be the \u201cworst\u201d topology. The corresponding delivery latency can be obtained by substituting $q_p=\\lceil \\frac{K\\rho}{P} \\rceil$ in . The topology with the maximum possible $q_p$, i.e., any topology with at least one server connected to all $K$ users, is the \u201cworst\u201d topology since it has the highest delivery latency.\n\nRedundant server storage capacity\n---------------------------------\n\nThe minimum server storage capacity that would allow the reconstruction of any demand combination is given by $M_S=\\frac{N-M_U}{\\rho}$. In this case, we cache the same $\\frac{M_U}{N}$ fraction of the library in all the user caches during the placement phase, and deliver the remaining fraction of the demands from the servers without multicasting. The worst-case delivery latency in this case is $T_{pd}=\\frac{K}{\\rho}\\left(1-\\frac{M_U}{N} \\right)$.\n\nNext, we consider the case when there is redundancy in server memories; that is, $\\frac{N}{\\rho}< M_S \\leq N$. Assume that $M_S=\\frac{N}{\\rho - z}$ for some integer $ z\\in [\\rho -1]$. For non-integer values of $z$, the solution can be obtained by memory-sharing. Notice that, as for successive transmissions, users can select the servers from which to receive coded subsegments. A greedy server allocation algorithm is used. The algorithm assigns the multicast messages to the servers trying to keep the number of messages delivered by each server as evenly distributed as possible. At any point in time, if a server has delivered a higher number of messages than all the other servers, even if a better multicasting opportunity is available to this server, that server is not assigned a multicast message in order to balance the number of messages delivered by each server in a greedy manner. Instead, the server with the next best multicasting opportunity and a smaller count of transmissions is assigned to transmit a particular coded subsegment to a multicast group. Compare this with the algorithm for successive transmission, where a multicast message is always assigned to the server with the maximum multicasting opportunity. It is easy to see that the delivery latency achieved depends on the order in which the algorithm assigns multicast messages to the servers. Thus the proposed algorithm is suboptimal. Numerical results illustrating the performance of the proposed delivery algorithm will be presented in the next section.\n\nResults and Discussions {#s:Discussion}\n=======================\n\n![Average normalized delivery latency vs. user cache capacity $M_U$, for $P=7, N=K=5, \\rho=4$, and for server storage capacities of $M_S=\\frac{5}{4}, \\frac{5}{3}, \\frac{5}{2}, 5$. []{data-label=\"fig:f3\"}](plot1.pdf){width=\"5.2cm\" height=\"4.7cm\"}\n\nIn Fig. \\[fig:f3\\] we plot the achievable trade-off between the user cache capacity and the normalized delivery latency, $T_{sd}$, for the best and worst topologies, and the average normalized delivery latency over all topologies, for successive transmission. The trade-off curves are plotted for different server storage capacities. We observe that the gap between the worst and the best topologies can be significant. From and we can deduce that, for successive transmission the worst topology delivery latency; and hence, the average delivery latency of the proposed scheme are both within a multiplicative factor of $\\frac{1}{\\alpha}$ of the best topology delivery latency. We observe from Fig. \\[fig:f3\\] that the delivery latency decreases significantly, particularly for low $M_U$ values, as the redundancy in server storage increases.\n\n![Average normalized delivery latency vs. server storage capacity $M_S$, for $P=7, N=K=5, M_U=1$ for successive SBS transmissions. []{data-label=\"fig:f4\"}](plot2.pdf){width=\"5.2cm\" height=\"4.7cm\"}\n\nIn Fig. \\[fig:f4\\] the average delivery latency for successive transmission is plotted as a function of the server storage capacity for server storage capacities $M_S\\in [\\frac{N-M_U}{\\rho}, N]$. The figure is obtained by performing Monte Carlo simulations with uniform random realizations of the topology and averaging the delivery latency over them. We observe from Fig. \\[fig:f4\\] that the average delivery latency decreases rapidly for an initial increase in the server storage capacity, which is more significant for high $\\rho$ values. This is because, thanks to MDS-coded storage at the servers, the number of available multicasting opportunities increases with the redundancy across servers. Fig. \\[fig:f4\\] highlights the fact that, for successive delivery and sufficient network connectivity, increasing the server storage beyond a certain value has little or no impact on the delivery latency.\n\nIn Fig. \\[fig:f7\\], it is shown that Eq. in Section \\[performance\\_analysis\\] gives a fairly accurate estimate of the expected delivery latency for successive transmissions with redundant server storage capacity, especially for small server storage capacities. The theoretical estimate diverges a little from the expected rate for large server storage capacity, before again converging where the delivery latency saturates at the minimum. Also, comparing the plot for $\\rho=9, P=21$ in Fig. \\[fig:f7\\] with the plot for $\\rho=3, P=7$ in Fig. \\[fig:f4\\], where the connectivity $\\alpha$ is the same, we observe that the average delivery latency decreases faster for $\\rho=9, P=21$; that is, for larger values of $P$.\n\n![Comparing the simulation with the theoretical, Average normalized delivery latency vs. server storage capacity, for $P=21, N=K=5, M_U=1$ for successive SBS transmissions. []{data-label=\"fig:f7\"}](plot_asymp.pdf){width=\"5.5cm\" height=\"5.0cm\"}\n\n![Average normalized delivery latency vs. server storage capacity $M_S$, for $P=7, N=K=5, M_U=1$ for parallel transmissions. []{data-label=\"fig:f5\"}](parallel_tx.pdf){width=\"4.7cm\" height=\"4.2cm\"}\n\n![Average normalized delivery latency vs. server storage capacity $M_S$, for $P=7, N=K=5, M_U=1$ for parallel transmissions. []{data-label=\"fig:f5\"}](plot_4.pdf){width=\"4.7cm\" height=\"4.2cm\"}\n\nThe average delivery latency for parallel transmissions is plotted with respect to the user cache capacity in Fig. \\[fig:f6\\], using . We observe as before that increasing the server storage capacity gives significant gains in the average delivery latency, especially for low values of $M_U$. Unlike the case for successive transmissions, the average delivery latency for $M_U=0$ also reduces as the server storage capacity is increased.\n\nThe average delivery latency for parallel transmissions is plotted with respect to the server storage capacity, $M_S$, in Fig. \\[fig:f5\\]. Unlike the delivery latency for successive transmissions, we can see that the delivery latency does not saturate, and keeps decreasing until all the files are stored at each of the servers. We also observe as before that the increase in network connectivity $\\alpha$ helps reduce the delivery latency significantly, especially for low server storage capacity $M_S$.\n\nConclusions and future work\n===========================\n\nWe have studied a multi-server coded caching and delivery network, in which cache-equipped users connect randomly to a subset of the available servers, each with its own limited storage capacity. While this allows each server to have only a limited amount of storage capacity, it requires coded storage across servers to account for the random topology. We proposed a joint coded storage, caching and delivery scheme that jointly applies MDS-coded storage at the servers, and uncoded caching and coded delivery to the users. The achievable delivery latency of this scheme for both successive and parallel transmissions from the SBSs are presented, with increasing user cache memory as well as increasing server storage capacity, and their averages over random network topologies are plotted. The analysis shows that when the server storage capacity is increased, the delivery latency can be reduced significantly, for both successive transmissions as well as parallel transmissions. However, it is also observed that for sufficient network connectivity, increasing server storage beyond a certain value provides little benefit. Increasing server storage has a more significant impact when there is low connectivity, and when user cache capacities are small.\n\nAn interesting open problem for future work is finding a lower bound and an optimal scheme when FR codes are used for distributed storage. A toy example \\[toy\\_ex\\] is given in this paper which illustrates the potential benefits of such codes. The toy example also presents an asymmetry in the user connections to the servers, where users 1 and 3 connect to one server each, while user 2 connects to 2 servers. An interesting problem is constructing a general scheme for heterogeneous network topologies and extracting gains from such topologies as demonstrated in the toy example. Another question relates to gains from heterogeneous distributed storage. For instance, if there is knowledge of user dynamics and non-uniform probabilities of the user-server connections, can a heterogeneous distributed storage scheme be designed to extract higher average gains? An extreme case of this scenario would mimic the combination network model where the user-server connections are completely fixed and known, which achieves higher gains. Such open problems present ripe material for future research.\n\n[15]{} M. A. Maddah-Ali and U. Niesen, \u201cFundamental Limits of Caching,\" in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 2856-2867, May 2014 N. Mital, D. G[\u00fc]{}nd[\u00fc]{}z and C. Ling, \u201cCoded caching in a multi-server system with random topology,\" 2018 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), Barcelona, 2018, pp. 1-6. M. M. Amiri, Q. Yang and D. G[\u00fc]{}nd[\u00fc]{}z, \u201cDecentralized Caching and Coded Delivery With Distinct Cache Capacities,\" in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 4657-4669, Nov. 2017. K. Shanmugam, N. Golrezaei, A. G. Dimakis, A. F. Molisch and G. Caire, \u201cFemtoCaching: Wireless Content Delivery Through Distributed Caching Helpers,\" in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 8402-8413, Dec. 2013. M. M. Amiri and D. G[\u00fc]{}nd[\u00fc]{}z, \u201cFundamental Limits of Coded Caching: Improved Delivery Rate-Cache Capacity Tradeoff,\" in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 806-815, Feb. 2017. M. Gregori, J. G[\u00f3]{}mez-Vilardeb[\u00f3]{}, J. Matamoros and D. G[\u00fc]{}nd[\u00fc]{}z, \u201cWireless Content Caching for Small Cell and D2D Networks,\" in IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 1222-1234, May 2016. J. G[\u00f3]{}mez-Vilardeb[\u00f3]{}, \u201cFundamental Limits of Caching: Improved Rate-Memory Tradeoff With Coded Prefetching,\" in IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 66, no. 10, pp. 4488-4497, Oct. 2018. C. Tian and J. Chen, \u201cCaching and Delivery via Interference Elimination,\" in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 1548-1560, March 2018. T. Luo, V. Aggarwal, and B. Peleato, \u201cCoded caching with Distributed Storage\", *ArXiv*:1611.06591v1 \\[cs.IT\\] Nov 2016. S. P. Shariatpanahi, S. A. Motahari and B. H. Khalaj, \u201cMulti-Server Coded Caching,\" in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 62, no. 12, pp. 7253-7271, Dec. 2016. M. Ji, A. M. Tulino, J. Llorca and G. Caire, \u201cCaching in combination networks,\" 2015 49th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, 2015, pp. 1269-1273. A. G. Dimakis, P. B. Godfrey, Y. Wu, M. J. Wainwright and K. Ramchandran, \u201cNetwork Coding for Distributed Storage Systems,\" in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 4539-4551, Sept. 2010. A. A. Zewail and A. Yener, \u201cCoded caching for combination networks with cache-aided relays,\" 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT), Aachen, 2017, pp. 2433-2437. K. Wan, D. Tuninetti and P. Piantanida, \u201cOn the optimality of uncoded cache placement,\" 2016 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Cambridge, 2016, pp. 161-165. F. Arbabjolfaei, B. Bandemer, Y. Kim, E. \u015ea\u015fo\u011flu and L. Wang, \u201cOn the capacity region for index coding,\" 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory, Istanbul, 2013, pp. 962-966. Z. Bar-Yossef, Y. Birk, T. S. Jayram and T. Kol, \u201cIndex Coding with Side Information,\u201d 2006 47th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS\u201906), Berkeley, CA, 2006, pp. 197-206. P. Sadeghi, F. Arbabjolfaei and Y. Kim, \u201cDistributed index coding,\" 2016 IEEE Information Theory Workshop (ITW), Cambridge, 2016, pp. 330-334. M. Li, L. Ong and S. J. Johnson, \u201cCooperative Multi-Sender Index Coding,\" in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1725-1739, March 2019. O. Olmez and A. Ramamoorthy, \u201cFractional Repetition Codes With Flexible Repair From Combinatorial Designs,\" in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 1565-1591, April 2016. K. V. Rashmi, N. B. Shah and P. V. Kumar, \u201cOptimal Exact-Regenerating Codes for Distributed Storage at the MSR and MBR Points via a Product-Matrix Construction,\u201d in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 57, no. 8, pp. 5227-5239, Aug. 2011. O. Olmez and A. Ramamoorthy, \u201cConstructions of fractional repetition codes from combinatorial designs,\u201d 2013 Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, CA, 2013, pp. 647-651.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We calculate the spin relaxation rates in a parabolic InSb quantum dots due to the spin interaction with acoustical phonons. We considered the deformation potential mechanism as the dominant electron-phonon coupling in the Pavlov-Firsov spin-phonon Hamiltonian. By studying suitable choices of magnetic field and lateral dot size, we determine regions where the spin relaxation rates can be practically suppressed. We analyze the behavior of the spin relaxation rates as a function of an external magnetic field and mean quantum dot radius. Effects of the spin admixture due to Dresselhaus contribution to spin-orbit interaction are also discussed.'\naddress:\n- '$^1$ Instituto de F\u00edsica, Universidade Federal de Uberl\u00e2ndia, 38400-902 Uberl\u00e2ndia MG, Brazil'\n- '$^2$ Departamento de F\u00edsica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, C1428EHA Buenos Aires, Argentina'\n- '$^3$ Departamento de F\u00edsica, Universidade Federal de S\u00e3o Carlos, 13565-905 S\u00e3o Carlos SP, Brazil'\nauthor:\n- 'A. M. Alcalde$^1$, C. L. Romano$^2$, L. Sanz$^1$ and G. E. Marques$^3$'\ntitle: 'Phonon modulation of the spin-orbit interaction as a spin relaxation mechanism in InSb quantum dots'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe ability to manipulate and control processes that involve transitions between spin states is, at the moment, of extreme importance due to the recent applications in polarized spin electronics and quantum computation. Spin dephasing is the most critical aspect that should be considered in the elaboration of proposals of quantum computation based in single spin states as qubits in quantum dots (QDs)\u00a0[@Imamoglu99]. While for bulk and for 2D systems the spin relaxation processes has been studied in some detail, the problem for QD\u2019s still require deeper and further discussions. Several processes that can induce spin relaxation in semiconductors have been identified and were studied. At the moment remains in discussion which, between these processes, is dominant in zero-dimensional systems. Some experimental results have shown good agreement with the theoretical predictions for 2D systems\u00a0[@Lau01] but, in general, the identification of the processes through direct comparison with the experimental results may become a formidable task. This problem is more critical for QDs, since few experimental results exist and the theoretical discussion of the spin relaxation mechanisms is still an open subject. Extensive theoretical works in QD systems have studied the main phonon mediated spin-flip mechanisms, including admixture processes due to spin-orbit coupling\u00a0[@Khaetskii01] and phonon coupling due to interface motion (ripple mechanism)\u00a0[@Woods02]. Spin relaxation rates strongly dependent on the dot size, magnetic field strength, and temperature, as reported by several authors\u00a0[@Khaetskii01; @Falko05]. It was shown that the quantum confinement produces, in general, a strong reduction of the QD relaxation rates.\n\nIn this work, we calculate the spin-flip transition rates, considering the phonon modulation by the spin-orbit interaction. For this purpose will use the spin-phonon interaction Hamiltonian proposed by Pavlov and Firsov\u00a0[@Pavlov66; @Pavlov67]. In this model, the Hamiltonian describing the transitions with spin reversal, due to the scattering of electrons by phonons, can be written in a general form, $H_{ph}=V_\\mathrm{ph} + \\beta[\\sigma \\times \\nabla V_\\mathrm{ph}]\\cdot (\\mathbf{p}+e/c \\mathbf{A})$, where $V_\\mathrm{ph}$ is the phonon operator, $\\sigma$ is the spin operator, $\\mathbf{p}$ is the linear momentum operator and $\\mathbf{A}$ is the vectorial potential related with the external magnetic field $\\mathbf{B}$. This model has the advantage of being easily adapted to the study of other interaction mechanisms with phonons.\n\nTheory\n======\n\nBased on the effective mass theory applied to the problem of the interaction of an electron with lattice vibrations, including the spin-orbit interaction and in presence of an external magnetic field, Pavlov and Firsov\u00a0[@Pavlov66; @Pavlov67] have obtained the spin-phonon Hamiltonian that describes the transitions with spin reversal of the conduction band electrons due to scattering with longitudinal lattice vibrations as $$\\begin{aligned}\nH_{ph}&=& d(q)\\left( \\frac{\\hbar}{\\rho_M V v q}\\right)^{1/2}\n\\left\\{ e^{i \\mathbf{q \\cdot r}} b_\\mathbf{q}\n\\left[\\begin{array}{cc}\n0 &\\mathbf{\\hat{n}}^-\\times \\mathbf{\\hat{e}_q}  \\\\\n\\mathbf{\\hat{n}}^+\\times \\mathbf{\\hat{e}_q} & 0\n\\end{array}\n\\right] %\\right.\\nonumber \\\\\n%&&\\left.\n\\left( \\frac{\\mathbf{p}}{\\hbar} + \\frac{e\\mathbf{A}}{\\hbar c} + \\mathbf{q} \\right)\n+ \\mathrm{h.c}\\right\\},\n\\label{spinphonon}\\end{aligned}$$ where, $b_\\mathbf{q} (b_\\mathbf{q}^\\dagger)$ are annihilation (creation) phonon operators, the magnetic vector potential $\\mathbf{A}$ is obtained in the symmetric gauge considering an external magnetic field $\\mathbf{B}$ oriented along the $z$ axis. $\\mathbf{\\hat{n}}^\\pm= \\mathbf{\\hat{x}} \\pm \\mathbf{\\hat{y}}$, where $\\mathbf{\\hat{x}}$, $\\mathbf{\\hat{y}}$ are unitary vectors along the $x$ and $y$ axis. $\\mathbf{\\hat{e}_q}$ is a unit vectors in the direction of the phonon polarization, $\\mathbf{q}$ is the phonon wave vector, $\\mathbf{p}$ is the momentum operator, $v$ is the average sound velocity, $\\rho_M$ is the mass density, $V$ is the system volume and $d(q)$ is a coupling constant that depends on the electron-phonon coupling mechanism. Detailed expressions for the parameter $d(q)$ can be found in Ref.\u00a0[@Pavlov67].\n\nIt has been assumed that the confinement along the $z$ axis is much stronger than the lateral confinement. Thus, the lateral motion is decoupled from the one along $z$ and the envelope functions separate $\\psi(\\mathbf{r})=f(x,y)\\phi(z)$. The $z$-dependent part of $\\psi(\\mathbf{r})$ is an eigenfunction of a symmetric quantum well of width $L$. In lens-shaped quasi-two dimensional self assembled QDs, the bound states of both electrons and valence-band holes can be understood by assuming a lateral spatial confinement modeled by a parabolic potential with rotational symmetry in the $x-y$ plane [@Hawrylak99], $V(\\rho)=\\frac{1}{2}m\\omega_0^2\\rho^2$, where $\\hbar\\omega_0$ is the characteristic confinement energy, and $\\rho$ is the radial coordinate. By using the one-band effective mass approximation and considering an external magnetic field $B$ applied normal to plane of the QD, the electron lateral wave function can be written as $$f_{n,l,\\sigma}= C_{n,l}\\frac{\\rho^{|l|}}{a^{|l|+1}} e^{-\\frac{\\rho^2}{2a^2}} e^{il\\varphi}\nL_n^{|l|}\\left(\\rho^2 / a^2 \\right) \\chi(\\sigma),\n\\label{funciondeonda}$$ where $C_{n,l}=\\sqrt{n!/[{\\pi(n + |l|)!}] }$, $L_n^{|l|}$ is the Laguerre polynomial, $n$ ($l$) is the principal (azimuthal) quantum number, and $\\chi(\\sigma)$ is the spin wave function for the spin variable $\\sigma$. The corresponding eigenenergies are $E_{n,l,\\sigma }=(2n+|l|+1)\\hbar \\Omega\n+(l/2)\\hbar \\omega _{c}+(\\sigma /2)g\\mu _{B}B,$ where $\\Omega =(\\omega\n_{0}^{2}+\\omega _{c}^{2}/4)^{1/2}$, $\\mu _{B}$ is the Bohr magneton, $%\na=(\\hbar /m\\Omega )^{1/2}$ is the effective length and $\\omega _{c}=eB/m$. In our model, we also consider the effects of the Dresselhaus contribution that provides additional admixture between spin states. For 2D systems, the linear Dresselhaus Hamiltonian can be written as $$H_D=\\frac{\\beta}{\\hbar}\\left(\\sigma_xp_x -\\sigma_yp_y\\right),$$ where $p_i = -i\\hbar \\nabla_i + (e/c)A_i$ and $\\beta$ is the Dresselhaus coupling parameter for this confinement. If the confinement potential in the $z$-direction is considered highly symmetrical, then $\\nabla V_z \\sim 0$ and the Rashba contribution can be safely ignored.\n\nThe spin relaxation rates ($W$) between the electronic states: $(n,l,\\uparrow (\\downarrow)) \\rightarrow (n^\\prime, l^\\prime, \\uparrow (\\downarrow))$, with emission of one acoustic phonon, are calculated from the Fermi golden rule. In the Hamiltonian (\\[spinphonon\\]), we only consider the deformation potential (DP) electron-phonon coupling, this is due to the large $g$-factor in narrow gap InSb ($|g| \\sim 51$), the dominant electron-phonon coupling for spin relaxation is the DP mechanism [@Alcalde04]. The piezoelectric (PE) coupling governs the spin relaxation processes in wide or intermediate gap semiconductors. In the transition matrix elements calculation, we not only consider the linear term $i \\mathbf{q}\\cdot \\mathbf{r}$ in the expansion of $\\exp(i\\mathbf{q} \\cdot \\mathbf{r})$\u00a0[@Khaetskii01], but the integral representation of Bessel function is used in the evaluation of electron-phonon overlap integrals. The linear approximation of $\\exp(i\\mathbf{q} \\cdot \\mathbf{r})$ may be valid for spin inversion transitions in the spin polarized ground-states of GaAs based QDs where, due to the small value of the electron $g$-factor, only long wavelength phonons are involved.\n\nResults and discussion\n======================\n\nThe calculations were performed for a parabolic InSb QD at $T\\sim 0$\u00a0K. The material parameters for the InSb system are listed in Ref.\u00a0[@Destefani04a]. We only have considered electron transitions between ground state electron Zeeman levels $(0,0,\\uparrow) \\rightarrow (0,0,\\downarrow)$ and $(0,1,\\downarrow) \\rightarrow (0,1,\\uparrow)$. The temperature dependence for one-phonon emission rate is determined from $W=W_{0}(n_{B}+1)$, where $%\nn_{B}$ is the Bose-Einstein distribution function and $W_{0}$ is the rate at $T=0$\u00a0K. In the temperature regime $T \\leq $10\u00a0K, we obtain $n_{B}+1\\approx\n1 $ and $W\\approx W_{0}$. For temperatures larger than few Kelvin degrees, two-phonon processes should be considered as the dominant spin relaxation mechanism. These types of processes have not been considered in the present calculation.\n\n![Spin relaxation rates, $W$, for a parabolic InSb QD considering the DP coupling mechanism. Panel a) shows $W$ as a function of the magnetic field $B$, for two different electronic transitions and several lateral dot radius $r_0$ = 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, and 200 \u00c5(same $r_0$ ordering for both transitions). b) Contour plot of the spin relaxation rate as a function of $B$ and $r_0$.[]{data-label=\"rates\"}](figura2a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"18pc\"} ![Spin relaxation rates, $W$, for a parabolic InSb QD considering the DP coupling mechanism. Panel a) shows $W$ as a function of the magnetic field $B$, for two different electronic transitions and several lateral dot radius $r_0$ = 50, 75, 100, 125, 150, 175, and 200 \u00c5(same $r_0$ ordering for both transitions). b) Contour plot of the spin relaxation rate as a function of $B$ and $r_0$.[]{data-label=\"rates\"}](figura2b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"18pc\"}\n\nIn the Figs.\u00a0\\[rates\\]a) and \\[rates\\]b) we show the spin relaxation rates due to DP electron-phonon mechanism, as a function of the external magnetic field $B$ and considering some typical values for the effective lateral QD size, $r_0=\\sqrt{\\hbar/m\\omega_0}$. Some interesting facts about these results should be pointed out: i) The rates show a strong dependence with the magnetic field. This fact can be explained from the dependence of the rates with the transition energy $\\Delta E$. In general, we obtain that $W \\sim [g^\\ast \\mu_B B]^n=(\\Delta E)^n$, $n$ being an integer number that depends on the electron-phonon coupling process and $g^\\ast$ the effective $g$-factor. As can be seen in Fig. \\[rates\\] a), when the magnetic field increases, the rates also increase until reaching a maximum near $B \\sim 0.5$ T. The position of this maximum it is defined from the transition energy conservation: $E_{n l \\sigma^\\prime}-E_{n^\\prime l^\\prime \\sigma^\\prime}=\\hbar v q$. ii) The oscillatory behavior of the rates, observed for $B>0.7$T are mainly produced by the Dresselhaus spin admixture, which modifies the effective Land\u00e8 $g^\\ast$-factor. As is showed in Fig. \\[rates\\] a), the $g^\\ast$-factor effects are particulary important for the ground-state Zeeman transition. For small magnetic fields, $g^\\ast \\rightarrow g_\\mathrm{bulk}$ and we may neglect the spin admixture effects. Therefore, the spin relaxation shows no oscillations and becomes almost independent of $r_0$. This small QD size dependence is in agreement with the experimental observations of Gupta and Kikkawa\u00a0[@Gupta99]. iii) The rates dependence with the lateral QD size $r_0$, are related to the interplay effects between the spatial and magnetic confinements. This competing effects are contained in the electron-phonon overlap integral, $I \\propto \\int f^\\ast_{n^\\prime,l^\\prime,\\sigma^\\prime}(\\rho) \\exp(i\\mathbf{q}\\cdot\\mathbf{r}) f_{n,l,\\sigma}(\\rho) d\\mathbf{r}$. For large fields, the magnetic confinement causes a gradual decrease in the overlap integral as the $r_0$ increases. For small magnetic fields, the spatial confinement is dominant. Thus, when $r_0$ diminishes the wave functions become more localized and the overlap integral should increase. This effects explain the behavior of the spin transition $(0,1,\\downarrow) \\rightarrow (0,1,\\uparrow)$ showed in Fig.\u00a0\\[rates\\] a) (red lines). The Zeeman ground-state rates (black lines) are strongly dependent on $\\Delta E$ and, for small $B$, the rates are weakly dependent on $I$. iv) The same rates calculated for GaAs (not showed here), are in general, one order of magnitude smaller than InSb rates. As we expected, the relaxation via PE coupling is more efficient than via the DP phonon processes.\n\nIn Fig. \\[rates\\] b) we have plotted the spin relaxation rates for the ground-state Zeeman transition as a function of $r_0$ and $B$. We clearly identify a region of strong spin coherence, defined by $B > 1$ T and $r_0 > 100$ \u00c5. In this regime, the relaxation times are in the ns order and this is an important feature for spin qubit engineering. In the $B < 0.1 $T regime, the relaxation times are approximately of few $\\mu$s. This spin frozen region are not robust against the temperature and will disappear whenever the thermal energy is larger than the spin transition energy.\n\nThis work has been supported by Funda\u00e7\u00e3o de Amparo \u00e0 Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient\u00edfico e Tecnol\u00f3gico (CNPq).\n\nReferences {#references .unnumbered}\n==========\n\n[10]{}\n\nA.\u00a0Imamo\u011flu, D.\u00a0D. Awschalom, G.\u00a0Burkard, D.\u00a0P. [DiVincenzo]{}, D.\u00a0Loss, M.\u00a0Sherwin, and A.\u00a0Small. Quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cavity [QED]{}. , 83:4204\u20134207, 1999.\n\nW\u00a0H Lau, J\u00a0T Olesberg, and M\u00a0E Flate\u00e9. Electron-spin decoherence in bulk and quantum-well zinc-blende semiconductors. , 64:161301, 2001.\n\nA\u00a0V Khaetskii and Y\u00a0V Nazarov. Spin-flip transitions between [Zeeman]{} sublevels in semiconductor quantum dots. , 64:125316, 2001.\n\nL.\u00a0M. Woods, T.\u00a0L. Reinecke, and Y.\u00a0Lyanda-Geller. Spin relaxation in quantum dots. , 66:161318(R), 2002.\n\nVladimir\u00a0I Falko, B.\u00a0L. Altshuler, and O.\u00a0Tsyplyatyev. Anisotropy of spin splitting and spin relaxation in lateral quantum dots. , 95:076603, 2005.\n\nS\u00a0T Pavlov and Yu\u00a0A. Firsov. Spin-reversal interaction of electrons with optical phonons in semiconductors. , 7:2131\u20132140, 1966.\n\nS\u00a0T Pavlov and Yu\u00a0A Firsov. The spin-phonon interaction of electrons and the oscillations of the longitudinal magnetoresistance in semiconductors. , 9:1394\u20131402, 1967.\n\nP.\u00a0Hawrylak. Excitonic artificial atoms: Engineering optical properties of quantum dots. , 60:5597\u20135608, 1999.\n\nA.\u00a0M. Alcalde, Qu\u00a0Fanyao, and G.\u00a0E. Marques. Electron-phonon induced spin relaxation in [InAs]{} quantum dots. , 20:228, 2004.\n\nC.\u00a0F. Destefani, Sergio\u00a0E. Ulloa, and G.\u00a0E. Marques. Spin-orbit coupling and intrinsic spin mixing in quantum dots. , 69:125302, 2004.\n\nJ\u00a0A Gupta, D\u00a0D Awschalom, X\u00a0Peng, and P\u00a0Alivisatos. Spin coherence in semiconductor quantum dots. , 59(16):R10421\u2013R10424, 1999.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The late-time tail behaviors of massive scalar fields are examined analytically in the background of a black hole with a global monopole. It is found that the presence of a solid deficit angle in the background metric makes the massive scalar fields decay faster in the intermediate times. However, the asymptotically late-time tail is not affected and it has the same decay rate of $t^{-5/6}$ as in the Schwarzschild and nearly extreme Reissner-Nordstr\u00f6m backgrounds.'\naddress: |\n    Institute of Physics, Hunan Normal University,\\\n    Changsha, Hunan 410081, China\nauthor:\n- Hongwei Yu\ntitle: |\n    **Decay of massive scalar hair in the background\\\n    of a black hole with a global mononpole** \n---\n\nintroduction\n============\n\nEver since Wheeler put forward the no-hair theorem [@W], which states that the external field of a black hole relaxes to a Kerr-Newman type characterized solely by the black-hole\u2019s mass, charge and angular momentum, there have been a lot of investigations concerning the dynamical mechanism by which perturbations fields outside a black hole are radiated away. The massless scalar, gravitational and electromagnetic external perturbations were first studied by Price [@Price] in the Schwarzschild background and an inverse power-law tail, $t^{2l+3}$, has been found to dominate the late-time behavior of these perturbations for a fixed position, if there is no initial static field. Here $l$ is the multiple moment of the wave mode and $t$ is the Schwarzschild time coordinate. The late-time behaviors of these massless neutral perturbations along the null infinity and along the future event horizon were further examined by Gundlach et al [@GPP1; @GPP2]. Recently the late-time tail has also been considered in the case of a rotating black hole by Barack and Ori [@BaO].\n\nAlthough these works are mainly concerned with massless fields, the evolution of massive scalar fields is also important and it has attracted a lot of attention recently. Behaviors qualitatively different from those of massless fields have been found. For instance, It has been shown in Ref.[@HandP] that an oscillatory power-law tail of the form $ \\sim t^{-l-{3\\over\n2}}\\sin (\\mu t)$ for massive scalar fields develops at the intermediate late-time characterized by $ \\mu M\\ll 1$ in Reissner-Nordstr\u00f6m background. Here $\\mu $ is the mass of the scalar field and $M$ is that of the black hole. Note that the massive scalar fields decay slower than massless ones. It should be pointed out, however, that this intermediate tail is not the final pattern that dominates at very late times [@HandP]. In fact, a transition from the intermediate behavior to an oscillatory tail with the decay rate of $t^{-5/6}$ has been demonstrated to occur at asymptotically late times both in the Schwarzschild and nearly extreme Reissner-Nordstr\u00f6m backgrounds [@KandT; @KandT1].\n\nIn this paper, we will examine both the intermediate and asymptotic late time behaviors for massive scalar fields at a fixed radius in the background of a black hole with a global monopole. A global monopole is one of the topological defects that may have been formed during phase transitions in the evolution of the early universe and a black hole with a global monopole is the result of an interesting process in which a black hole swallows a global monopole [@BV]. An unusual property of the black-hole-global-monopole system is that it possesses a solid deficit angle, which makes it quite different topologically from that of a Schwarzschild black hole alone. The physical properties of the black-hole-global-monopole system have been studied extensively in recent years. These include, but are not limited to, the gravitational [@BV; @HL] and the vacuum polarization effects [@ML; @MBK], the particle creation in the formation of the system [@L], the black hole thermodynamics [@HY1], and more recently the energy spectra of non-relativistic quantum system in the background[@MB].\n\nOur purpose here is to see what effects the solid deficit angle in the background metric due to the presence of a global monopole will have on the late-time evolution of massive scalar fields. In Sec. II we describe the physical system and formulate the problem in terms of the black-hole Green\u2019s function using the spectral decomposition method [@Leaver]. In Sec. III, we examine both the intermediate and asymptotic late-time behaviors of massive scalar fields. We conclude in Sec. IV with a brief summary and some discussions.\n\n description of the system and Green\u2019s function formalism\n=========================================================\n\nWe examine the time evolution of a massive scalar field in the background of a black hole with a global monopole. The metric is described by $$ds^2= -\\biggl( 1-8\\pi G\\eta_0^2- {2Gm\\over r}\n\\biggr)\\;dt^2+\\biggl( 1-8\\pi G\\eta_0^2- {2Gm\\over r}\n\\biggr)^{-1}\\;dr^2+ r^2d\\Omega^2 \\;, \\label{eq:metric1}$$ where $ m $ is the mass of the black hole and $\\eta_0$ is the symmetry breaking scale when the monopole is formed [@BV] . Introducing the coordinate transformation $$t\\longrightarrow(1-8\\pi G\\eta_0^2)^{\\frac12}t, \\qquad\nr\\longrightarrow (1-8\\pi G\\eta_0^2)^{\\frac{-1}2}r$$ and new parameters $$M=(1-8\\pi G\\eta_0^2)^{-3/2}m, \\qquad\nb=1-8\\pi G\\eta_0^2$$ then we can rewrite metric Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:metric1\\]) as $$ds^2=-\\left(1-\\frac{2GM}r\\right)dt^2+\\left(1-\\frac{2GM}r\\right)^{-1}dr^2\n+r^2 b(d\\theta^2+\\sin^2\\theta d\\phi^2)\\label{eq:metric2}$$ This metric is, apart from the deficit solid angle $\\Delta=4\\pi\nb=32\\pi G\\eta_0^2$, very similar to the Schwarzschild metric and we will use this form thereafter. The equation of motion for a minimally coupled scalar field with mass $\\mu$ is $$\\label{eq:K-G}\n  \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{-g}}\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\nx^{\\mu}}\\bigg(\\sqrt{-g}g^{\\mu\\nu}\\frac{\\partial\\phi}{\\partial\nx^{\\nu}}\\biggr) -\\mu^2\\phi=0\\;.$$ $\\phi$ can be separated in the given metric as $$\\label{eq:harmonics}\n  \\phi =\\sum _{l,m}\\frac{\\psi ^l(r)}{r}Y_{lm}(\\theta ,\\varphi),$$ hereafter we omit the index $l$ of $\\psi ^l$ for simplicity. Using the tortoise coordinate $r_{\\ast} $ defined by $$\\label{eq:tortoise}\n  dr_{\\ast}=\\frac{dr}{1-\\frac{2M}{r}}\\>,$$ we obtain a wave equation for each multiple moment: $$\\psi _{,tt}-\\psi _{,r_{\\ast}r_{\\ast}}+V\\psi =0,$$ where the effective potential $V$ is $$V=\\left(1-\\frac{2M}{r}\\right)\n\\left[\\frac{l(l+1)b^{-1}}{r^2}+\\frac{2M}{r^3} +\\mu^2\\right].$$ Define the retarded Green\u2019s function $G(r_{\\ast},r_{\\ast}';t)$ by $$\\label{eq:retarded}\n  \\left[\\frac{\\partial ^2}{\\partial t^2}\n-\\frac{\\partial ^2}{\\partial r_{\\ast}^2} +V\n\\right]G(r_{\\ast},r_{\\ast}';t) = \\delta (t)\\delta\n(r_{\\ast}-r_{\\ast}')\\;,$$ for $t>0$. The causality condition gives the initial condition that $G(r_{\\ast},r_{\\ast}';t)=0$ for $t\\le 0$. Then the time evolution of the massive scalar field is given by $$\\psi (r_{\\ast},t)=\\int \\left[G(r_{\\ast},r_{\\ast}';t)\\psi _t(r',0)\n+ G_t(r_{\\ast},r_{\\ast}';t)\\psi (r_{\\ast}',0) \\right] dr_{\\ast}'$$ In order to find $G(r_{\\ast},r_{\\ast}';t)$ we use the Fourier transform $$\\label{eq:fourier}\n  \\tilde{G}(r_{\\ast},r'_{\\ast};\\omega)\n=\\int _{0^{-}}^{+\\infty} G(r_{\\ast},r'_{\\ast};t)e^{i\\omega t}dt.$$ The Fourier transform is analytic in the upper half $\\omega$ plane, and the corresponding inversion formula is $$\\label{eq:inverse}\n  G(r_{\\ast},r_{\\ast}';t)= -\\frac{1}{2\\pi}\\int _{-\\infty +ic}^{\\infty +ic}\n\\tilde{G}(r_{\\ast},r'_{\\ast};\\omega) e^{\\scriptscriptstyle\n-i\\omega t}d\\omega$$ where $c$ is some positive constant.\n\nLet $\\tilde\\psi_1(r_{\\ast},\\omega)$ and $\\tilde\\psi_2(r_{\\ast},\\omega)$ be two linearly independent solutions to the homogenous equation $$\\label{eq:homo}\n  \\left(\\frac{d^2}{dr_{\\ast}^2}+\\omega ^2 -V\\right)\n\\tilde{\\psi}_i =0 \\quad i=1,2.$$ The Green\u2019s function can be constructed as follows $$\\label{eq:Green}\n \\tilde{G}(r_{\\ast},r'_{\\ast};\\omega )= -\\frac{1}{W(\\omega)}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{l@{\\quad,\\quad}l}\n\\tilde{\\psi} _1(r'_{\\ast},\\omega) \\tilde{\\psi\n}_2(r_{\\ast},\\omega)&\n\\qquad  r'_{\\ast} >r _{\\ast},\\\\\n\\tilde{\\psi} _1(r_{\\ast},\\omega) \\tilde{\\psi }_2(r'_{\\ast},\\omega)\n&\\qquad r'_{\\ast}< r_{\\ast} .\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Here $W(\\omega)$ is the Wronskian defined as $$W(\\omega )=\\tilde{\\psi}_1\\tilde{\\psi}_{2,r_{\\ast}}\n-\\tilde{\\psi}_{1,r_{\\ast}}\\tilde{\\psi}_2.$$ To calculate $ G(r_{\\ast},r_{\\ast}';t)$ using Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:inverse\\]), one needs to close the contour of integration into the lower half of the complex frequency plane. It has been argued that the asymptotic tail is associated with the existence of a branch cut (in $\\tilde\\psi_2$) placed along the interval $-m \\le \\omega \\le m$ [@Leaver; @HandP]. This tail arises from the integral of $\\tilde{G}(r_{\\ast},r'_{\\ast};\\omega\n)$ around the branch cut (denoted by $G^C$) which gives rise to an oscillatory inverse power-law behavior of the field. Therefore our goal is to evaluate $G^C (r_{\\ast},r'_{\\ast};\\omega )$.\n\nEvolution of massive scalar fields\n==================================\n\nNow let us assume that both the observer and the initial data are situated far away from the black-hole such that $r \\gg M$. We expand the wave-equation (\\[eq:homo\\]) in $M/r$ to obtain (neglecting terms of order $O[({{M} \\over r})^{2}]$ and higher) $$\\label{eq:field}\n  \\left[ {{d^2} \\over {dr^2}} +w^{2}-\\mu^{2} +{{4Mw^{2}-2M\\mu^{2}} \\over r} -\n{{l(l+1)b^{-1}} \\over {r^{2}}} \\right ] \\xi =0\\  ,$$ where $\\xi=(1-{2M\\over r})^{1/2} \\tilde \\psi$. This equation can be solved in terms of Whittaker\u2019s functions. The two basic solutions needed to construct the Green\u2019s function are (for $|w|\n\\leq m$) $$\\label{sol1}\n\\tilde \\psi_1 =M_{\\kappa,\\rho}(2\\varpi r)\\  ,$$ and $$\\label{sol2}\n\\tilde \\psi_2 =W_{\\kappa,\\rho}(2\\varpi r)\\  ,$$ where $$\\varpi=\\sqrt{\\mu^2-\\omega^2},\\quad\\quad \\kappa={3\\over\n2}{M\\mu^2\\over \\varpi}-2M\\varpi,  \\quad\\quad \\rho=\\sqrt {\nl(l+1)b^{-1}+{1\\over 4}}.$$ Let us note that these solutions can also be written in terms of two standard confluent hypergeometric functions, $ M(a,b,z)$ and $U(a,b,z)$, as follows, $$\\tilde \\psi_1 =M_{\\kappa,\\rho}(2\\varpi r)=e^{-\\varpi r}(2\\varpi\nr)^{{1\\over 2}+\\rho}\\;M(\\rho+{1\\over2}-\\kappa,\\;1+2\\rho,\\; 2\\varpi\nr)\\ ,$$ and $$\\tilde \\psi_2 =W_{\\kappa,\\rho}(2\\varpi r)=e^{-\\varpi r}(2\\varpi\nr)^{{1\\over 2}+\\rho}\\;U(\\rho+{1\\over2}-\\kappa,\\;1+2\\rho,\\;\n2\\varpi r) \\  ,$$\n\nUsing Eq. (\\[eq:inverse\\]), one finds that the branch cut contribution to the Green\u2019s function is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:GC}\nG^C(r'_{\\ast},r_{\\ast};t)&=&{1 \\over {2\\pi}} \\int_{-\\mu}^{\\mu}\n\\left[{\\tilde \\psi_1(r_{\\ast}',\\varpi e^{\\pi i})  {\\tilde\n\\psi_2(r_{\\ast},\\varpi e^{\\pi i})} \\over {W(\\varpi e^{\\pi i})}} -\n{\\tilde \\psi_1(r_{\\ast}',\\varpi ){\\tilde \\psi_2(r_{\\ast},\\varpi\n)} \\over\n{W(\\varpi )}} \\right] e^{-iwt} dw\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&{1 \\over {2\\pi}} \\int_{-\\mu}^{\\mu} f(\\varpi)e^{-iwt} dw\\;.\\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity we assume that the initial data has a considerable support only for $r$-values which are smaller than the observer\u2019s location. This, of course, does not change the late-time behavior. Let us note that when $t$ is large, the term $e^{-iwt}$ oscillates rapidly. This leads to a mutual cancellation between the positive and the negative parts of the integrand, so that the effective contribution to the integral arises from $|w|$=$O(\\mu-{1 \\over\nt})$ or equivalently $\\varpi = O(\\sqrt {{\\mu \\over t}})$ [@HandP].\n\nUsing the following relations $$\\begin{aligned}\nW_{\\kappa,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi r)&=&{\\Gamma(-2\\rho)\\over\n\\Gamma({1\\over2}-\\rho-\\kappa)}\\;M_{\\kappa,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi r)\n \\nonumber\\\\&&+{\\Gamma(2\\rho)\\over\n\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho-\\kappa)}\\; M_{\\kappa,\\;-\\rho}(2\\varpi r)\\;,\\end{aligned}$$ and $$M_{\\kappa,\\; \\rho}(e^{\\pi i}2\\varpi r)=e^{({1\\over2}+\\rho)\\pi\ni}M_{-\\kappa, \\;\\rho}(2\\varpi r)\\;,$$ we find, with the help of 13.1.20 of Ref. [@Abramo], that $$W(\\varpi e^{\\pi i})=-W(\\varpi)={\\Gamma(2\\rho)\\over\n\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho-\\kappa)}\\;4\\rho\\varpi\\;,$$ and consequently, $$\\begin{aligned}\nf(\\varpi)&=&{1\\over4\\rho\\varpi}\\;\\left[ M_{\\kappa,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi\nr'_{\\ast})M_{\\kappa,\\;-\\rho}(2\\varpi\nr_{\\ast})-M_{-\\kappa,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi\nr'_{\\ast})M_{-\\kappa,\\;-\\rho}(2\\varpi\nr_{\\ast})\\right]\\nonumber\\\\&&+ {1\\over4\\rho\\varpi}\n{\\Gamma(-2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho-\\kappa)\\over\n\\Gamma(2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}-\\rho-\\kappa)}\\biggl[\nM_{\\kappa,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi r'_{\\ast})M_{\\kappa,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi\nr_{\\ast}) \\nonumber\\\\&& \\quad +e^{(2\\rho+1)\\pi\ni}\\;M_{-\\kappa,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi\nr'_{\\ast})M_{-\\kappa,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi r_{\\ast})\\biggr]\\;.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIntermediate late-time Tails\n----------------------------\n\nFirst we discuss the intermediate asymptotic behavior of the massive scalar field. That is the tail in the range $$\\begin{aligned}\n  M \\ll r\\ll t \\ll \\frac{M}{(\\mu M)^2}\\;.\\end{aligned}$$ In this time scale, the frequency range $\\varpi = O(\\sqrt {{\\mu\n\\over t}})$ , which gives the dominant contribution to the integral, implies $$\\label{eq:inter} \\kappa\\ll 1\\;.$$ Notice that $\\kappa$ originates from the $1/r$ term in the massive scalar field equation. It describes the effect of backscattering off the spacetime curvature. If the relation Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:inter\\]) is satisfied, the backscattering off the curvature from asymptotically far regions (which dominates the tails of massless fields) is negligible. However, it is worthwhile to point out that the intermediate time tail here will be different from that in the case without a global monopole because of the nontrivial topology in the background metric , i.e. , the presence of the solid deficit angle since $b\\neq 1$. So, we have in this case, $$f(\\varpi)\\approx {(1+e^{(2\\rho+1)\\pi i})\\over4\\rho\\varpi}\n{\\Gamma(-2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho)\\over\n\\Gamma(2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}-\\rho)} M_{0,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi\nr'_{\\ast})M_{0,\\;\\rho}(2\\varpi r_{\\ast})\\;.$$ Since $\\varpi r\\ll 1$, the above equation can be further approximated, by using $ M(a,b,z)\\approx 1$ as $z\\rightarrow 0$, to give $$f(\\varpi)\\approx {(1+e^{(2\\rho+1)\\pi\ni})\\Gamma(-2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho)\\over4\\rho\n\\Gamma(2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}-\\rho)2^{-2\\rho-1}}\n(r'_{\\ast}r_{\\ast})^{{1\\over 2}+\\rho}\\varpi ^{2\\rho}\\;.$$ Substituting the above result into Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:GC\\]), we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nG^C(r'_{\\ast},r_{\\ast};t)&=& {(1+e^{(2\\rho+1)\\pi\ni})\\Gamma(-2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho)\\over 8\\pi\\rho\n\\Gamma(2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}-\\rho)2^{-2\\rho-1}}\n(r'_{\\ast}r_{\\ast})^{{1\\over\n2}+\\rho}\\;\\int_{-\\mu}^{\\mu}\\;\\varpi ^{2\\rho}\\;e^{-iwt}\\nonumber\\\\\n&=& {(1+e^{(2\\rho+1)\\pi\ni})\\Gamma(-2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho)\\Gamma(\\rho+1)\\mu^{\\rho+{1\\over2}}\\over\n\\sqrt{\\pi}\\rho\n\\Gamma(2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}-\\rho)2^{-3\\rho-{3\\over2}}}\n(r'_{\\ast}r_{\\ast})^{{1\\over\n2}+\\rho}\\;t^{-\\rho-{1\\over2}}J_{\\rho+{1\\over2}}(\\mu t)\\;,\\end{aligned}$$ where $J_{\\rho+{1\\over2}}$ is the Bessel function. In the limit $t\\gg \\mu^{-1}$, it becomes $$\\label{eq:intermediate}\n G^C(r'_{\\ast},r_{\\ast};t)={(1+e^{(2\\rho+1)\\pi\ni})\\Gamma(-2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho)\\Gamma(\\rho+1)\\mu^{\\rho}\\over\n\\pi\\rho \\Gamma(2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}-\\rho)2^{-3\\rho-2}}\n(r'_{\\ast}r_{\\ast})^{{1\\over 2}+\\rho}\\;t^{-\\rho-1}\\cos(\\mu\nt-(\\rho+1)\\pi/2)\\;,$$ which clearly exhibits an oscillatory inverse power-law behavior. Let\u2019s note that in general $ b< 1$ and recall that $$\\rho=\\sqrt { l(l+1)b^{-1}+{1\\over 4}}\\nonumber\\;,$$ then a comparison of the result here with Eq.\u00a0(32) of Ref. [@HandP] tells us that in the intermediate times the power-law tail depends not only on the multiple number of the wave mode but also on the the parameter ($b$) characterizing the space-time metric, and the massive scalar field decays faster in the black hole background with a global monopole than in that without it. So, although the intermediate tail is not affected significantly by the curvature, it is by the topology of the background metric.\n\nasymptotic late-time tails\n--------------------------\n\nIn the above calculation, we have used the approximation of $\\kappa\\ll 1$, which only holds when $ \\mu t \\ll 1/\\mu^2M^2 $. Therefore, the power-law tail found in the last section is not the final one, and a change to a different pattern of decay is expected when $\\kappa$ is not negligibly small. In this section, we examine the asymptotic tail behavior at very late times such that $$\\mu t \\gg  {1\\over \\mu^2M^2}.$$ Now we have $$\\kappa \\simeq {3M\\mu^2\\over 2\\varpi}\\gg 1\\;.$$ So the backscattering off the curvature will be important in this case. Using Eq.\u00a0(13.5.13) of Ref.[@Abramo], we have, in the limit $\\kappa\\gg1$, that $$M_{\\pm\\kappa,\\;\\pm \\rho}(2\\varpi r)\\approx \\Gamma(1\\pm\n2\\rho)(2\\varpi r)^{1\\over 2}(\\pm \\kappa )^{\\mp\\rho} J_{\\pm\n2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\pm \\alpha r})\\;\\,$$ where $\\alpha=8\\kappa\\varpi\\approx 12M\\mu^2$. Consequently, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nf(\\varpi)&\\approx\n&{\\Gamma(1+2\\rho)\\Gamma(1-2\\rho)r_{\\ast}'r_{\\ast}\\over2\\rho}\\;\\left[J_{\n2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha r_{\\ast}'\\;})J_{ -2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha\nr_{\\ast}})-I_{ 2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha r_{\\ast}'\\;})I_{\n-2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha r_{\\ast}})\\right] \\nonumber\\\\&&+\n{1\\over2\\rho}\n{\\Gamma(1+2\\rho)^2\\Gamma(-2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho-\\kappa)r_{\\ast}'r_{\\ast}\\over\n\\Gamma(2\\rho)\\Gamma({1\\over2}-\\rho-\\kappa)}\\;\\kappa^{-2\\rho}\\;\\biggl[J_{\n2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha r_{\\ast}'\\;})J_{ 2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha\nr_{\\ast}}) \\nonumber\\\\&& \\quad +I_{ 2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha\nr_{\\ast}'\\;})I_{ 2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha r_{\\ast}})\\biggr]\\;,\\end{aligned}$$ where $ I_{ \\pm 2\\rho}$ is the modified Bessel functions. Clearly, the late time tail arising from the first term will be $\\sim\nt^{-1}$. Now let us try to figure out what behavior the second term gives rise to. For this purpose, we define $$\\begin{aligned}\nA&=&{1\\over2\\rho}\n{\\Gamma(1+2\\rho)^2\\Gamma(-2\\rho)r_{\\ast}'r_{\\ast}\\over\n\\Gamma(2\\rho)}\\;\\biggl[J_{ 2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha r_{\\ast}'\\;})J_{\n2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha r_{\\ast}})+I_{ 2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha\nr_{\\ast}'\\;})I_{ 2\\rho}(\\sqrt{\\alpha r_{\\ast}})\\biggr]\\;,\\end{aligned}$$ then the contribution from the second term to the Green\u2019s function can be written as $${A \\over 2\\pi}\\;\\int_{-\\mu}^{\\mu}\\;\n{\\Gamma({1\\over2}+\\rho-\\kappa)\\over\n\\Gamma({1\\over2}-\\rho-\\kappa)}\\;\\kappa^{-2\\rho}\\;e^{-iwt}\\;,$$ which can be approximated, in the limit $\\kappa\\gg1$, by using $$\\Gamma(z)\\Gamma(-z)=-{\\pi\\over z \\sin\\pi z}\\;,$$ and Eq.\u00a0(6.1.39) in Ref.[@Abramo], as follows $$\\label{eq:Integral}\n {A \\over 2\\pi}\\;\\int_{-\\mu}^{\\mu}\\;\n\\;e^{i(2\\pi\\kappa-wt)}\\;e^{i\\phi}\\;dw\\;.$$ Here the phase $\\phi $ is defined by $$e^{i\\phi}={ 1+(-1)^{2\\rho}\\;e^{-i2\\pi\\kappa} \\over\n1+(-1)^{2\\rho}\\;e^{i2\\pi\\kappa}}\\;.$$ The integral Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:Integral\\]) is very similar to that of Eq.\u00a0(61) in Ref.[@KandT] and it can be evaluated by method of the saddle-point integration as in such. Hence the asymptotic late time tail arising from the second term is $ \\sim t^{-{5 \\over 6}}\n $, and it dominates over the tail from the first term. So, we have $$G^C(r'_{\\ast},r_{\\ast};t)\\sim t^{-{5 \\over 6}}\\;.$$\n\nSummary\n=======\n\nWe have studied analytically both the intermediate and asymptotically late-time evolution of massive scalar fields in the background of a black hole with a global monopole. We find that if $\\mu M\\ll 1$ the intermediate tails given by Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:intermediate\\]) dominates at the intermediate late-time $\\mu M\\ll \\mu t\\ll 1/(\\mu M)^2$ at a fixed radius. Because of the presence of the solid deficit angle in the background metric, the decay is faster than those in the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstr\u00f6m backgrounds [@HandP; @KandT; @KandT1]. Therefore, in the intermediate late-times, the oscillatory power-law tail depends not only on the multiple number of the wave mode but also on the the parameter ($b$) characterizing the space-time metric. Hence although the intermediate late-time tail is not affected significantly by the curvature, it is by the topology of the background metric. However, the intermediate late-time tail is not the final pattern and a transition to an oscillatory tail with the decay rate of $t^{-5/6}$ is to occur when $\\mu t\\gg 1/(\\mu M)^2$. The origin of the tail may be attributed to the resonance backscattering off the space-time curvature. It is interesting to note that this tail behavior is independent of the field mass, the multiple moment of the wave mode and the space-time parameter $b$ and it is same as that in the black hole backgrounds without global monopoles studied in [@KandT; @KandT1]. It should be pointed out, however, that this late time tail begins to dominate only when $\\mu t\\gg 1/(\\mu M)^2$ i.e. $\\kappa\\gg 1$. So, the tail of massive scalar fields will still be dependent on the multiple moment of the wave mode and the topology of the space-time during the transitional intermediate times when this condition is not satisfied. Our result seems to suggest that the oscillatory $t^{-5/6}$ tail may be a quite general feature for the late-time decay of massive scalar fields in any static black hole backgrounds.\n\nThis work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China under Grant 10075019.\n\nR. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today [**24**]{}, 30 (1971), C. W. Misner, K. S. Thone, and J. A. Wheeler, [*Gravitation*]{} (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973). R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. D [**5**]{}, 2419 (1972). C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 883 (1994). C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D [**49**]{}, 890 (1994). S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 104022 (1998); L. Barack and A. Ori, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4388 (1999); S. Hod, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 10 (2000). S. Hod and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 044018 (1998). H. Koyama and A. Tomimatsu, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 064032 (2001). H. Koyama and A. Tomimatsu, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 044014 (2001). M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**63**]{}, 341 (1989). D. Harari and C. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{}, 2626 (1990). F. D. Mazzitelli and C. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D [**43**]{}, 468 (1991). E. R. Bezerra de Mello, V. B. Bezerra, and N. R. Khusnutdinov, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 063506 (1999). C. Lousto, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**6**]{}, 3613, (1991). Hongwei Yu, Nucl. Phys. B [**430**]{}, 427, (1994). G. A. Marques and and V. B. Bezerra, gr-qc/0111019. E. W. Leaver, Phys. Rev. D [**34**]{}, 384 (1986). edited by M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun (Dover, New York, 1970).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- |\n    George F. Viamontes[^1]\\\n    [*Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002*]{}\\\n    \\\n    Igor L. Markov and John P. Hayes[^2]\\\n    [*Department of EECS, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2121*]{}\ntitle: Checking Equivalence of Quantum Circuits and States\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nQuantum computing (QC) is a recently discovered alternative to conventional computer technology that offers not only miniaturization, but massive performance speed-ups for certain tasks [@Hey99; @Shor1997; @Grover1997] and new levels of protection in secure communications [@BB84; @B92]. Information is stored in particle states and processed using quantum-mechanical operations referred to as quantum gates. The analogue of the classical bit, qubit, has two basic states denoted $\\ket{0}$ and $\\ket{1}$, but can also exist in a superposition of these two states $\\ket{\\phi} = \\alpha \\ket{0} + \\beta \\ket{1}$, where $|\\alpha|^2+ |\\beta|^2=1$. A composite system consisting of $n$ such qubits requires $2^n$ parameters (amplitudes) indexed by $n$-bit binary numbers $\\ket{\\Phi}=\\Sigma_{i=1}^{2^n} \\alpha_i \\ket{i}$, where $\\Sigma |\\alpha_i|^2=1$. Quantum gates transform such states by applying unitary matrices to them. Measurement of a quantum state produces classical bits with probabilities dependent on $\\alpha_i$. Combining several gates, as in Figure \\[fig:margolus\\], yields [*quantum circuits*]{} [@NielsenC2000] that compactly describe more sophisticated transformations that play the role of quantum algorithms.\n\nBased on the success of CAD for classical logic circuits, new algorithms have been proposed for synthesis and simulation of quantum circuits [@BarencoEtAl1995; @ShendeEtAl2006; @Song2003; @Gottesman1998; @AaronsonG2004; @ViamontesEtAl2005; @Vidal2003]. In particular, the DAC 2007 paper [@MaslovFM07], describes what amounts to placement and physical synthesis for quantum circuits \u2014 \u201cadapting the circuit to particulars of the physical environment which restricts/complicates the establishment of certain direct interactions between qubits.\u201d Another example is given in [@ShendeEtAl2006 Section 6].[^3] Traditionally, such transformations must be verified by equivalence-checking, but the quantum context is more difficult because qubits and quantum gates may differ by global and relative phase (defined below), yet be equivalent upon measurement [@NielsenC2000]. To this end, our work is the first to develop techniques for quantum phase-equivalence checking.\n\nTwo quantum states $\\ket{\\psi}$ and $\\ket{\\varphi}$ are equivalent up to [*global phase*]{} if $\\ket{\\varphi} = e^{i \\theta} \\ket{\\psi}$, where $\\theta \\in \\mathbb{R}$. The phase $e^{i \\theta}$ will not be observed upon measurement of either state [@NielsenC2000]. By contrast, two states are equal up to [*relative phase*]{} if a unitary diagonal matrix can transform one into the other:\n\n$$\\label{eq:relative_phase}\n   \\ket{\\varphi} = \\mathrm{diag}(e^{i \\theta _0}, e^{i \\theta_1}, \\ldots, e^{i \\theta _{N - 1}}) \\ket{\\psi}.$$\n\nThe probability amplitudes of the state $U \\ket{\\psi}$ will in general differ by more than relative phase from those of $U \\ket{\\varphi}$, but the measurement outcomes may be equivalent. One can consider a hierarchy in which exact equivalence implies global-phase equivalence, which implies relative-phase equivalence, which in turn implies measurement outcome equivalence. The equivalence checking problem is also extensible to quantum operators with applications to quantum-circuit synthesis and verification, which involves computer-aided generation of minimal quantum circuits with correct functionality. Extended notions of equivalence create several design opportunities. For example, the well-known three-qubit Toffoli gate can be implemented with fewer controlled-NOT (CNOT) and $1$-qubit gates up to relative phase [@BarencoEtAl1995; @Song2003] as shown in Figure \\[fig:margolus\\]. The relative-phase differences can be canceled out if every pair of these gates in the circuit is strategically placed [@Song2003]. Since circuit minimization is being pursued for a number of key quantum arithmetic circuits with many Toffoli gates, such as modular exponentiation [@VanMeter2005; @Cuccaro2004; @ShendeEtAl2005; @ShendeEtAl2006], this optimization could reduce the number of gates even further.\n\n$$\\Qcircuit @C=.7em @R=.1em @!R {\n& \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\ctrl{2} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw \\\\\n& \\qw & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\qw \\\\\n& \\gate{R_y(\\frac{\\pi}{4})} & \\targ & \\gate{R_y(\\frac{\\pi}{4})} & \\targ & \\gate{R_y(\\frac{- \\pi}{4})} & \\targ & \\gate{R_y(\\frac{- \\pi}{4})} & \\qw\n}$$\n\nThe inner product and matrix product may be used to determine such equivalences, but in this work, we present new decision-diagram (DD) algorithms to accomplish the task more efficiently. In particular, we make use of the quantum information decision diagram (QuIDD) [@ViamontesEtAl2003; @ViamontesEtAl2005], a datastructure with unique properties that are exploited to solve this problem asymptotically faster in practical cases.\n\nEmpirical results confirm the algorithms\u2019 effectiveness and show that the improvements are more significant for the operators than for the states. Interestingly, solving the equivalence problems for the benchmarks considered requires significantly less time than creating the DD representations, which indicates that such problems can be reasonably solved in practice using quantum-circuit CAD tools.\n\nThe structure of this work is as follows. Section \\[sec:background\\] provides a review of the QuIDD datastructure. Section \\[sec:global\\_phase\\] describes both linear-algebraic and QuIDD algorithms for checking global-phase equivalence of states and operators. Section \\[sec:relative\\_phase\\] covers relative-phase equivalence checking algorithms. Sections \\[sec:global\\_phase\\] and \\[sec:relative\\_phase\\] also contain empirical studies comparing the algorithms\u2019 performance on various benchmarks. Lastly, conclusions and a summary of computational complexity results for all algorithms are provided in Section \\[sec:conclusions\\].\n\nBackground {#sec:background}\n==========\n\nThe QuIDD is a variant of the reduced ordered binary decision diagram (ROBDD or BDD) datastructure [@Bryant86] applied to quantum circuit simulation [@ViamontesEtAl2003; @ViamontesEtAl2005]. Like other DD variants, it has all of the key properties of BDDs as well as a few other application-specific attributes (see Figure \\[fig:quidds\\] for examples).\n\nIt is a directed acyclic graph with internal nodes whose edges represent assignments to binary variables\n\nThe leaf or terminal nodes contain complex values\n\nEach path from the root to a terminal node is a functional mapping of row and column indices to complex-valued matrix elements ($f : \\{0, 1\\}^n \\to \\mathbb{C}$)\n\nNodes are unique and shared, meaning that any nodes $v$ and $v'$ with isomorphic subgraphs do not exist\n\nVariables whose values do not affect the function output for a particular path (not in the [*support*]{}) are absent\n\nBinary row ($R_i$) and column ($C_i$) index variables have evaluation order $R_0 \\prec C_0 \\prec \\ldots R_{n - 1} \\prec C_{n -\n  1}$\n\n[c|cc]{}\n\n  ------------------------------------------------------------\n            \\[0pt\\][$\\mspace{-5mu}\\begin{array}{rl}\n                              R_0 R_1 & \\\\\n                            \\begin{array}{c}\n                                 0\\ 0 \\\\\n                                 0\\ 1 \\\\\n                                 1\\ 0 \\\\\n                                   1\\ 1\n                             \\end{array} &\n                  \\mspace{-25mu}\\left[\\begin{array}{c}\n                              0.707107 \\\\\n                              -0.707107 \\\\\n                              0.707107 \\\\\n                               -0.707107\n                            \\end{array}\\right]\n                           \\end{array}$]{}\n\n                   \\[0pt\\][$\\updownarrow$]{}\n\n   \\[0pt\\][![image](FIGS/example1_prime.ps){width=\"3.7cm\"}]{}\n  ------------------------------------------------------------\n\n& ![image](FIGS/example4.eps){width=\"3.5cm\"} & \\[0pt\\][$\\mspace{-15mu}\\leftrightarrow \\mspace{-10mu} \\begin{array}{rc}\n    & C_0 C_1 \\\\\n    R_0 R_1 & \\mspace{-25mu} 00 \\mspace{9mu} 01 \\mspace{9mu} 10 \\mspace{9mu} 11 \\\\\n    \\begin{array}{c}\n      0\\ 0 \\\\\n      0\\ 1 \\\\\n      1\\ 0 \\\\\n      1\\ 1\n    \\end{array} &\n    \\mspace{-25mu}\\left[\\begin{array}{cccc}\n        1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n        0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n        0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\\\\n        0 & 0 & 1 & 0\n      \\end{array}\\right]\n      \\end{array}$]{}\\\n(a) &\\\n\nThe algorithms which manipulate DDs are just as important as the properties of the DDs. In particular, the $\\mathbf{Apply}$ algorithm (see Figure \\[fig:apply\\]) performs recursive traversals on DD operands to build new DDs using any desired unary or binary function [@Bryant86]. Although originally intended for digital logic operations, $\\mathbf{Apply}$ has been extended to linear-algebraic operations such as matrix addition and multiplication [@Bahar97; @Clarke96], as well as quantum-mechanical operations such as measurement and partial trace [@ViamontesEtAl2003; @ViamontesEtAl2005]. The runtime and memory complexity of $\\mathbf{Apply}$ is $O(|A||B|)$, where $|A|$ and $|B|$ are the sizes in number of internal and terminal nodes of the DDs $A$ and $B$, respectively [@Bryant86].[^4] Thus, the complexity of DD-based algorithms is tied to the compression achieved by the datastructure. These complexity bounds are important for analyzing many of the algorithms presented in this work.\n\n[c]{}\n\nAnother important aspect of $\\mathbf{Apply}$ is that it utilizes a cache of internal nodes and binary operators ($Table\\_Lookup$ and $Table\\_Insert$) to ensure that the new DD being created obeys the DD uniqueness properties. Maintaining these properties makes many DDs such as QuIDDs canonical, meaning that two different DDs do not implement the same function. Thus, exact equivalence checking is trivial with canonical DDs and may be performed in $O(1)$ time by comparing the root nodes, a technique which has been long exploited in the classical domain [@tsunami]. Quantum state and operator equivalence is less trivial as we show.\n\nChecking Equivalence up to Global Phase {#sec:global_phase}\n=======================================\n\nThis section describes algorithms that check global-phase equivalence of two quantum states or operators. The first two algorithms are known QuIDD-based linear-algebraic operations, while the remaining algorithms are the new ones that exploit DD properties explicitly. The section concludes with experiments comparing all algorithms.\n\nInner Product Check {#sec:inner_product}\n-------------------\n\nSince the quantum-circuit formalism models an arbitrary quantum state $\\ket{\\psi}$ as a unit vector, then the inner product ${\\langle \\psi ~|~ \\psi \\rangle} = 1$. In the case of a global-phase difference between two states $\\ket{\\psi}$ and $\\ket{\\varphi}$, the inner product is the global-phase factor, ${\\langle \\varphi ~|~ \\psi \\rangle} = e^{i \\theta}\n{\\langle \\psi ~|~ \\psi \\rangle} = e^{i \\theta}$. Since $|e^{i \\theta}| = 1$ for any $\\theta$, checking if the complex modulus of the inner product is $1$ suffices to check global-phase equivalence for states.\n\nAlthough the inner product may be computed using explicit arrays, a QuIDD-based implementation is easily derived. The complex-conjugate transpose and matrix product with QuIDD operands have been previously defined [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. Thus, the algorithm computes the complex-conjugate transpose of $A$ and multiplies the result with $B$. The complexity of this algorithm is given by the following lemma.\n\n\\[lemma:inner\\_prod\\] Consider state QuIDDs $A$ and $B$ with sizes $|A|$ and $|B|$, respectively, in nodes. Computing the global-phase difference via the inner product uses $O(|A||B|)$ time and memory.\n\n[**Proof.**]{} Computing the complex-conjugate transpose of $A$ requires $O(|A|)$ time and memory since it is a unary call to $\\mathbf{Apply}$ [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. Matrix multiplication of two ADDs of sizes $|A|$ and $|B|$ requires $O((|A||B|)^2)$ time and memory [@Bahar97]. However, this bound is loose for an inner product because only a single dot product must be performed. In this case, the ADD matrix multiplication algorithm reduces to a single call of $C =\n\\mathbf{Apply}(A, B, *)$ followed by $D = \\mathbf{Apply}(C, +)$ [@Bahar97]. $D$ is a single terminal node containing the global-phase factor if $|value(D)| = 1$. $\\mathbf{Apply}(A, B, *)$ and $\\mathbf{Apply}(C, +)$ are computed in $O(|A||B|)$ time and memory [@Bryant86], while $|value(D)|$ is computed in $O(1)$ time and memory. $\\Box$\n\nMatrix Product {#sec:matrix_product}\n--------------\n\nThe matrix product of two operators can be used for global-phase equivalence checking. In particular, since all quantum operators are unitary, the adjoint of each operator is its inverse. Thus, if two operators $U$ and $V$ differ by a global phase, then $U V^{\\dagger} =\ne^{i \\theta} I$.\n\nWith QuIDDs for $U$ and $V$, computing $V^{\\dagger}$ requires $O(|V|)$ time and memory [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. Computing $W = U\nV^{\\dagger}$ requires $O((|U||V|)^2)$ time and memory [@Bahar97]. To check if $W = e^{i \\theta} I$, any terminal value $t$ is chosen from $W$, and scalar division is performed as $W' =\n\\mathbf{Apply}(W, t, /)$, which takes $O((|U||V|)^2)$ time and memory. Canonicity ensures that checking if $W' = I$ requires only $O(1)$ time and memory. If $W' = I$, then $t$ is the global-phase factor.\n\nNode-Count Check {#sec:node_count_check}\n----------------\n\nThe previous algorithms merely translate linear-algebraic operations to QuIDDs, but exploiting the following QuIDD property leads to faster checks.\n\n\\[lemma:scalar\\_iso\\] The QuIDD $A' = \\mathbf{Apply}(A, c, *)$, where $c \\in \\mathbb{C}$ and $c \\ne 0$, is isomorphic to $A$, hence $|A'| = |A|$.\n\n[**Proof.**]{} In creating $A'$, $\\mathbf{Apply}$ expands all of the internal nodes of $A$ since $c$ is a scalar, and the new terminals are the terminals of $A$ multiplied by $c$. All terminal values $t_i$ of $A$ are unique by definition of a QuIDD [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. Thus, $c t_i \\ne c t_j$ for all $i, j$ such that $i \\ne j$. As a result, the number of terminals in $A'$ is the same as in $A$. $\\Box$\n\nLemma \\[lemma:scalar\\_iso\\] states that two QuIDD states or operators that differ by a non-zero scalar, such as a global-phase factor, have the same number of nodes. Thus, equal node counts in QuIDDs are a necessary but not sufficient condition for global-phase equivalence. To see why it is not sufficient, consider two state vectors $\\ket{\\psi}$ and $\\ket{\\varphi}$ with elements $w_j$ and $v_k$, respectively, where $j, k = 0, 1, \\ldots N - 1$. If some $w_j =\nv_k = 0$ such that $j \\ne k$, then $\\ket{\\varphi} \\ne e^{i \\theta}\n\\ket{\\psi}$. The QuIDD representations of these states can in general have the same node counts. Despite this drawback, the node-count check requires only $O(1)$ time since $\\mathbf{Apply}$ is easily augmented to recursively sum the number of nodes as a QuIDD is created.\n\nRecursive Check {#sec:global_rec}\n---------------\n\nLemma \\[lemma:scalar\\_iso\\] implies that a QuIDD-based algorithm can implement a sufficient condition for global-phase equivalence by accounting for terminal value differences. The pseudo code for such an algorithm ($\\mathbf{GPRC}$) is presented in Figure \\[fig:global\\_rec\\].\n\n[c]{}\n\n$\\mathbf{GPRC}$ returns $\\mathbf{true}$ if two QuIDDs $A$ and $B$ differ by global phase and $\\mathbf{false}$ otherwise. $gp$ and $have\\_gp$ are global variables containing the global-phase factor and a flag signifying whether or not a terminal node has been reached, respectively. $gp$ is defined only if $\\mathbf{true}$ is returned.\n\nThe first conditional block of $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ deals with terminal values. The potential global-phase factor $ngp$ is computed after handling division by $0$. If $|ngp| \\ne 1$ or if $ngp \\ne gp$ when $gp$ has been set,then the two QuIDDs do not differ by a global phase. Next, the condition specified by Lemma \\[lemma:scalar\\_iso\\] is addressed. If the node of $A$ depends on a different row or column variable than the node of $B$, then $A$ and $B$ are not isomorphic and thus cannot differ by global phase. Finally, $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ is called recursively, and the results of these calls are combined via the logical $AND$ operation.\n\nEarly termination occurs when isomorphism is violated or more than one phase difference is computed. In the worst case, both QuIDDs are isomorphic and all nodes are visisted, but the last terminal visited in each QuIDD will not be equal up to global phase. Thus, the overall runtime and memory complexity of $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ for states or operators is $O(|A| + |B|)$. Also, the node-count check can be run before $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ to quickly eliminate many nonequivalences.\n\nEmpirical Results for Global-Phase\\\nEquivalence Algorithms {#sec:gp_results}\n-----------------------------------\n\n$$\\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.4em @!R {\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{0}} & \\gate{H} & \\gate{H} & \\multigate{6}{CPS} & \\gate{H} & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw \\\\\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{0}} & \\gate{H} & \\gate{H} & \\ghost{CPS} & \\gate{H} & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw \\\\\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{0}} & \\gate{H} & \\gate{H} & \\ghost{CPS} & \\gate{H} & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw \\\\\n      & & & & & & & & & \\\\\n      & & \\vdots & \\vdots & & \\vdots & \\vdots &  & & \\\\\n      & & & & & & & & & \\\\\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{1}} & \\gate{H} & \\qw & \\ghost{CPS} & \\qw & \\targ \\qwx[-1] & \\qw & \\gate{H} & \\qw\n      \\gategroup{1}{4}{7}{7}{.7em}{--}\n    }$$\n\nThe first benchmark considered is a single iteration of Grover\u2019s quantum search algorithm [@Grover1997], which is depicted in Figure \\[fig:grover\\_iter\\]. The oracle searches for the last item in the database [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. One iteration is sufficient to test the effectiveness of the algorithms since the state vector QuIDD remains isomorphic across all iterations [@ViamontesEtAl2003].\n\n[cc]{} ![image](DATA/grover_state_gp_time.eps){width=\"6cm\"} & ![image](DATA/grover_state_gp_nodes.eps){width=\"6cm\"}\\\n(a) & (b)\\\n\nFigure \\[fig:grover\\_state\\_gp\\]a shows the runtime results for the inner product and $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ algorithms (no results are given for the node-count check algorithm since it runs in $O(1)$ time). The results confirm the asymptotic complexity differences between the algorithms. The number of nodes in the QuIDD state vector after a Grover iteration is $O(n)$ [@ViamontesEtAl2003], which is confirmed in Figure \\[fig:grover\\_state\\_gp\\]b. As a result, the runtime complexity of the inner product should be $O(n^2)$, which is confirmed by a regression plot within $1\\%$ error. By contrast, the runtime complexity of the $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ algorithm should be $O(n)$, which is also confirmed by another regression plot within $1\\%$ error.\n\nFigure \\[fig:grover\\_op\\_gp\\]a shows runtime results for the matrix product and $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ algorithms checking the Grover operator. Like the state vector, it has been shown that the QuIDD for this operator grows in size as $O(n)$ [@ViamontesEtAl2003], which is confirmed in Figure \\[fig:grover\\_op\\_gp\\]b. Therefore, the runtime of the matrix product should be quadratic in $n$ but linear in $n$ for $\\mathbf{GPRC}$. Regression plots verify these complexities within $0.3\\%$ error.\n\n[cc]{} ![image](DATA/grover_op_gp_time.eps){width=\"6cm\"} & ![image](DATA/grover_op_gp_nodes.eps){width=\"6cm\"}\\\n(a) & (b)\\\n\nThe next benchmark compares states in Shor\u2019s integer factorization algorithm [@Shor1997]. Specifically, we consider states created by the modular exponentiation sub-circuit that represent all possible combinations of $x$ and $f(x, N) = a^x mod N$, where $N$ is the integer to be factored [@Shor1997] (see Figure \\[fig:shor\\_state\\]). Each of the $O(2^n)$ paths to a non-$0$ terminal represents a binary value for $x$ and $f(x, N)$. Thus, this benchmark tests performance with exponentially-growing QuIDDs.\n\n[@r@@l@]{}\n\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n             \\[0pt\\][${\\scriptstyle x}\\left[\\begin{array}{l}\\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\end{array}\\right.$]{}\n    \\[0pt\\][${\\scriptstyle 7^x mod 15}\\left[\\begin{array}{l}\\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\end{array}\\right.$]{}\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n& ![image](FIGS/simple_shor_state.ps){width=\"6cm\"}\n\nTables \\[tab:shor\\_states\\]a-d show the results of the inner product and $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ for this benchmark. Each $N$ is an integer whose two non-trivial factors are prime.[^5] $a$ is set to $N -\n2$ since it may be chosen randomly from the range $[2 . . N - 2]$. In the case of Table \\[tab:shor\\_states\\]a, states $\\ket{\\psi}$ and $\\ket{\\varphi}$ are equal up to global phase. The node counts for both states are equal as predicted by Lemma \\[lemma:scalar\\_iso\\]. Interestingly, both algorithms exhibit nearly the same performance. Tables \\[tab:shor\\_states\\]b, \\[tab:shor\\_states\\]c and \\[tab:shor\\_states\\]d contain results for the cases in which Hadamard gates are applied to the first, middle, and last qubits, respectively, of $\\ket{\\varphi}$. The results show that early termination in $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ can enhance performance by factors of roughly 1.5x to 10x.\n\n[cc]{}\n\n  -------- -------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------------\n   No. of                  Creation         No. of                No. of           Inner Product      GPRC\n   Qubits   \\[0pt\\][N]{}   Time (s)   Nodes $\\ket{\\psi}$   Nodes $\\ket{\\varphi}$    Runtime (s)    Runtime (s)\n    $12$       $4031$       $11.9$          $9391$                $9391$              $0.30$         $0.26$\n    $13$       $6973$       $24.8$         $10680$                $10680$             $0.34$         $0.28$\n    $14$      $12127$       $55.1$         $18236$                $18236$             $0.54$         $0.46$\n    $15$      $19093$      $128.3$         $12766$                $12766$             $0.41$         $0.32$\n    $16$      $50501$      $934.1$         $51326$                $51326$              $1.7$          $1.6$\n    $17$      $69707$       $1969$         $26417$                $26417$             $0.87$         $0.78$\n    $18$      $163507$     $12788$         $458064$              $458064$             $19.6$         $19.6$\n    $19$      $387929$     $93547$         $182579$              $182579$             $6.62$         $6.02$\n  -------- -------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------------\n\n&\n\n  ----------------------- --------------- -------------\n          No. of           Inner Product      GPRC\n   Nodes $\\ket{\\varphi}$    Runtime (s)    Runtime (s)\n          $10969$             $0.27$         $0.036$\n          $11649$             $0.31$         $0.036$\n          $19978$             $0.54$         $0.06$\n          $13446$             $0.41$         $0.036$\n          $55447$             $1.53$          $0.2$\n          $27797$             $0.78$         $0.084$\n         $521725$             $19.0$         $9.18$\n         $194964$             $6.44$         $4.40$\n  ----------------------- --------------- -------------\n\n\\\n(a) & (b)\\\n\n  -------- -------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------------\n   No. of                  Creation         No. of                No. of           Inner Product      GPRC\n   Qubits   \\[0pt\\][N]{}   Time (s)   Nodes $\\ket{\\psi}$   Nodes $\\ket{\\varphi}$    Runtime (s)    Runtime (s)\n    $12$       $4031$       $11.9$          $9391$                $11773$             $0.27$         $0.076$\n    $13$       $6973$       $24.8$         $10680$                $16431$             $0.43$         $0.14$\n    $14$      $12127$       $55.1$         $18236$                $29584$             $0.65$         $0.22$\n    $15$      $19093$      $128.3$         $12766$                $19207$             $0.56$         $0.20$\n    $16$      $50501$      $934.1$         $51326$                $71062$             $1.76$         $0.84$\n    $17$      $69707$       $1969$         $26417$                $46942$             $1.24$         $0.55$\n    $18$      $163507$     $12788$         $458064$              $653048$             $31.7$         $26.1$\n    $19$      $387929$     $93547$         $182579$              $312626$             $9.33$         $6.44$\n  -------- -------------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------- -------------\n\n&\n\n  ----------------------- --------------- -------------\n          No. of           Inner Product      GPRC\n   Nodes $\\ket{\\varphi}$    Runtime (s)    Runtime (s)\n          $14092$             $0.21$         $0.088$\n          $16431$             $0.27$         $0.084$\n          $29584$             $0.53$         $0.13$\n          $19207$             $0.50$         $0.084$\n          $74919$             $1.51$         $0.66$\n          $46942$             $1.13$         $0.25$\n         $629533$             $29.6$         $23.7$\n         $312626$             $13.0$         $8.62$\n  ----------------------- --------------- -------------\n\n\\\n(c) & (d)\\\n\nIn almost every case, both algorithms represent far less than $1\\%$ of the total runtime. Thus, checking for global-phase equivalence among QuIDD states appears to be an easily achievable task once the representations are created. An interesting side note is that some modular exponentiation QuIDD states with more qubits can have more exploitable structure than those with fewer qubits. For instance, the $N=387929$ ($19$ qubits) QuIDD has fewer than half the nodes of the $N\n= 163507$ ($18$ qubits) QuIDD.\n\nTable \\[tab:qft\\_gp\\] contains results for the matrix product and $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ algorithm checking the inverse Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) operator. The inverse QFT is a key operator in Shor\u2019s algorithm [@Shor1997], and it has been previously shown that its $n$-qubit QuIDD representation grows as $O(2^{2n})$ [@ViamontesEtAl2003]. In this case, the asymptotic differences in the matrix product and $\\mathbf{GPRC}$ are very noticeable. Also, the memory usage indicates that the matrix product may need asymptotically more intermediate memory despite operating on QuIDDs with the same number of nodes as $\\mathbf{GPRC}$.\n\n  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------\n   No. of                                   \n   Qubits   Time (s)   Mem (MB)   Time (s)   Mem (MB)\n     5        2.53       1.41      0.064       0.25\n     6       22.55       6.90       0.24       0.66\n     7       271.62     46.14       0.98       2.03\n     8      3637.14     306.69      4.97       7.02\n     9       22717     1800.42     17.19      26.48\n     10        \u2014        $>2GB$     75.38      102.4\n     11        \u2014        $>2GB$     401.34     403.9\n  -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------\n\nChecking Equivalence up to Relative Phase {#sec:relative_phase}\n=========================================\n\nThe relative-phase checking problem can also be solved in many ways. The first three algorithms are adapted from linear algebra to QuIDDs, while the last two exploit DD properties directly, offering asymptotic improvements.\n\nModulus and Inner Product {#sec:mod_inner_product}\n-------------------------\n\nConsider two state vectors $\\ket{\\psi}$ and $\\ket{\\varphi}$ that are equal up to relative phase and have complex-valued elements $w_j$ and $v_k$, respectively, where $j, k = 0, 1, \\ldots, N - 1$. Computing $\\ket{\\varphi '} = \\Sigma_{i = 0}^{N - 1} |v_j| \\ket{j}$ and $\\ket{\\psi '} = \\Sigma_{k = 0}^{N - 1} |w_k| \\ket{k} = \\Sigma_{k =\n0}^{N - 1} |e^{i \\theta_k} v_k| \\ket{k}$ sets each phase factor to a $1$, allowing the inner product to be applied as in Subsection \\[sec:inner\\_product\\]. The complex modulus operations are computed as $C = \\mathbf{Apply}(A, |\\cdot|)$ and $D = \\mathbf{Apply}(B,\n|\\cdot|)$ with runtime and memory complexity $O(|A| + |B|)$, which is dominated by the $O(|A||B|)$ inner product complexity.\n\nModulus and Matrix Product {#sec:mod_matrix_product}\n--------------------------\n\nFor operator equivalence up to relative phase, two cases are considered, namely the diagonal relative-phase matrix appearing on the left or right side of one of the operators. Consider two operators $U$ and $V$ with elements $u_{j, k}$ and $v_{j, k}$, respectively, where $j, k = 0, \\ldots N - 1$. The two cases in which the relative-phase factors appear on either side of $V$ are described as $u_{j, k} = e^{i\n\\theta _j} v_{j, k}$ (left side) and $u_{j, k} = e^{i \\theta _k} v_{j,\nk}$ (right side). In either case the the matrix product check discussed in Subsection \\[sec:matrix\\_product\\] may be extended by computing the complex modulus without increasing the overall complexity. Note that neither this algorithm nor the modulus and inner product algorithm calculate the relative-phase factors.\n\nElement-wise Division {#sec:elem_wise_div}\n---------------------\n\nGiven the states discussed in Subsection \\[sec:mod\\_inner\\_product\\], $w_k = e^{i \\theta_k} v_k$, the operation $w_k / v_j$ for each $j = k$ is a relative-phase factor, $e^{i \\theta _k}$. The condition $|w_k /\nv_j| = 1$ is used to check if each division yields a relative phase. If this condition is satisfied for all divisions, the states are equal up to relative phase.\n\nThe QuIDD implementation for states is simply $C = \\mathbf{Apply}(A,\nB, /)$, where $\\mathbf{Apply}$ is augmented to avoid division by $0$ and instead return $1$ when two terminal values being compared equal $0$ and return $0$ otherwise. $\\mathbf{Apply}$ can be further augmented to terminate early when $|w_j / v_i| \\ne 1$. $C$ is a QuIDD vector containing the relative-phase factors. If $C$ contains a terminal value of $0$, then $A$ and $B$ do not differ by relative phase. Since a call to $\\mathbf{Apply}$ implements this algorithm, the runtime and memory complexity are $O(|A||B|)$.\n\nElement-wise division for operators is more complicated. For QuIDD operators $U$ and $V$, $W = \\mathbf{Apply}(U, V, /)$ is a QuIDD matrix with the relative-phase factor $e^{i \\theta _j}$ along row $j$ in the case of phases appearing on the left side and along column $j$ in the case of phases appearing on the right side. In the first case, all rows of $W$ are identical, meaning that the support of $W$ does not contain any row variables. Similarly, in the second case the support of $W$ does not contain any column variables. A complication arises when $0$ values appear in either operator. In such cases, the support of $W$ may contain both variable types, but the operators may in fact be equal up to relative phase. Figure \\[fig:rp\\_div\\] presents an algorithm based on $\\mathbf{Apply}$ which accounts for these special cases by using a sentinel value of $2$ to mark valid $0$ entries that do not affect relative-phase equivalence.[^6] These entries are recursively ignored by skipping either row or column variables with sentinel children ($S$ specifies row or column variables), which effectively fills copies of neighboring row or column phase values in their place in $W$. The algorithm must be run twice, once for each variable type. The size of $W$ is $O(|U||V|)$ since it is created with a variant of $\\mathbf{Apply}$.\n\n[c]{}\n\nNon-0 Terminal Merge {#sec:non_zero}\n--------------------\n\nA necessary condition for relative-phase equivalence is that zero-valued elements of each state vector appear in the same locations, as expressed by the following lemma.\n\n\\[lemma:zero\\_loc\\] A necessary but not sufficient condition for two states $\\ket{\\varphi} = \\Sigma_{j = 0}^{N - 1} v_j \\ket{j}$ and $\\ket{\\psi}\n  = \\Sigma_{k = 0}^{N - 1} w_k \\ket{k}$ to be equal up to relative phase is that $\\forall v_j = w_k = 0$, $j = k$.\n\n[**Proof.**]{} If $\\ket{\\psi} = \\ket{\\varphi}$ up to relative phase, $\\ket{\\psi} = \\Sigma_{k = 0}^{N - 1} e^{i \\theta_k} v_k\n\\ket{k}$. Since $e^{i \\theta _k} \\ne 0$ for any $\\theta$, if any $w_k\n= 0$, then $v_j = 0$ must also be true where $j = k$. A counter-example proving insufficiency is $\\ket{\\psi} = (0, 1/\\sqrt{3},\n1/\\sqrt{3}, 1/\\sqrt{3})^T$ and $\\ket{\\varphi} = (0, 1/2, 1/\\sqrt{2},\n1/2)^T$. $\\Box$\n\nQuIDD canonicity may now be exploited. Let $A$ and $B$ be the QuIDD representations of the states $\\ket{\\psi}$ and $\\ket{\\varphi}$, respectively. First compute $C = \\mathbf{Apply}(A, \\lceil | \\cdot |\n\\rceil)$ and $D = \\mathbf{Apply}(B, \\lceil | \\cdot | \\rceil)$, which converts every non-zero terminal value of $A$ and $B$ into a $1$. Since $C$ and $D$ have only two terminal values, $0$ and $1$, checking if $C = D$ satisfies Lemma \\[lemma:zero\\_loc\\]. Canonicity ensures this check requires $O(1)$ time and memory. The overall runtime and memory complexity of this algorithm is $O(|A| + |B|)$ due to the unary $\\mathbf{Apply}$ operations. This algorithm also applies to operators since Lemma \\[lemma:zero\\_loc\\] also applies to $u_{j,\nk} = e^{i \\theta _j} v_{j, k}$ (phases on the left) and $u_{j, k} =\ne^{i \\theta _k} v_{j, k}$ (phases on the right) for operators $U$ and $V$.\n\nModulus and DD Compare {#sec:mod_dd_compare}\n----------------------\n\nA variant of the algorithm presented in Subsection \\[sec:mod\\_inner\\_product\\], which also exploits canonicity, provides an asymptotic improvement for checking a necessary and sufficient condition of relative-phase equivalence of states and operators. As in Subsection \\[sec:mod\\_inner\\_product\\], compute $C = \\mathbf{Apply}(A,\n|\\cdot|)$ and $D = \\mathbf{Apply}(B, |\\cdot|)$. If $A$ and $B$ are equal up to relative phase, then $C = D$ since each phase factor becomes a $1$. This check requires $O(1)$ time and memory due to canonicity. Thus, the runtime and memory complexity is dominated by the unary $\\mathbf{Apply}$ operations, giving $O(|A| + |B|)$.\n\nEmpirical Results for Relative-Phase\\\nEquivalence Algorithms {#sec:rp_results}\n-------------------------------------\n\nThe first benchmark for the relative-phase equivalence checking algorithms creates a remote EPR pair, which is an EPR pair between the first and last qubits, via nearest-neighbor interactions [@Berman2002]. The circuit is shown in Figure \\[fig:remote\\_epr\\]. Specifically, it transforms the initial state $\\ket{00 \\ldots 0}$ into $(1/\\sqrt{2})(\\ket{00 \\ldots 0} + \\ket{10\n\\ldots 1})$. The circuit size is varied, and the final state is compared to the state $(e^{0.345i}/\\sqrt{2})\\ket{00 \\ldots 0} +\n(e^{0.457i}/\\sqrt{2})\\ket{10 \\ldots 1}$.\n\n$$\\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.01em @!R {\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{0}} & \\gate{H} & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw \\\\\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{0}} & \\qw & \\targ & \\ctrl{1} & \\targ & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw \\\\\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{0}} & \\qw & \\qw & \\targ & \\ctrl{-1} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw \\\\\n      & & & & & \\vdots & & & & \\\\\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{0}} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\ctrl{1} & \\targ & \\qw \\\\\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{0}} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\targ & \\ctrl{-1} & \\qw\n    }$$\n\nThe results in Figure \\[fig:teleport\\_state\\_rp\\]a show that all algorithms run quickly. The inner product is the slowest, yet it runs in approximately 0.2 seconds at $1000$ qubits, a small fraction of the 7.6 seconds required to create the QuIDD state vectors. Regressions of the runtime and memory data reveal linear complexity for all algorithms to within $1\\%$ error. This is not unexpected since the QuIDD representations of the states grow linearly with the number of qubits (see Figure \\[fig:teleport\\_state\\_rp\\]b), and the complex modulus reduces the number of different terminals prior to computing the inner product. These results illustrate that in practice, the inner product and element-wise division algorithms can perform better than their worst-case complexity. Element-wise division should be preferred when QuIDD states are compact since unlike the other algorithms, it computes the relative-phase factors.\n\n  ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------\n   ![image](DATA/teleport_time.eps){width=\"6cm\"}   ![image](DATA/teleport_nodes.eps){width=\"6cm\"}\n                        (a)                                             (b)\n  ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------\n\n$$\\Qcircuit @C=1em @R=.0005em @!R {\n      & & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\\\\n      & & & & & & & & & & \\\\\n      & & \\vdots & & & & & & \\vdots & & \\\\\n      & & & & & & & & & & \\\\\n      & & \\qw & \\ctrl{2} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\ctrl{2} & \\qw & \\qw & \\\\\n      & & \\qw & \\qw & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\ctrl{1} & \\qw & \\qw & \\qw & \\\\\n      & \\lstick{\\ket{0}} & \\targ \\qwx[-3] & \\targ & \\targ & \\gate{e^{-i \\Delta t Z}} & \\targ & \\targ & \\targ \\qwx[-3] & \\qw & \\rstick{\\ket{0}}\n    }$$\n\nThe Hamiltonian simulation circuit shown in Figure \\[fig:ham\\_ckt\\] is taken from [@NielsenC2000 Figure 4.19, p. 210]. When its one-qubit gate (boxed) varies with $\\Delta t$, it produces a variety of diagonal operators, all of which are equivalent up to relative phase. Empirical results for such equivalence checking are shown in Figure \\[fig:hamiltonian\\_rp\\]. As before, the matrix product and element-wise division algorithms perform better than their worst-case bounds, indicating that element-wise division is the best choice for compact QuIDDs.\n\n[cc]{} ![image](DATA/hamiltonian_time.eps){width=\"6cm\"} & ![image](DATA/hamiltonian_nodes.eps){width=\"6cm\"}\\\n(a) & (b)\\\n\nConclusions {#sec:conclusions}\n===========\n\nAlthough DD properties like canonicity enable exact equivalence checking in $O(1)$ time, we have shown that such properties may be exploited to develop efficient algorithms for the difficult problem of equivalence checking up to global and relative phase. In particular, the global-phase recursive check and element-wise division algorithms efficiently determine equivalence of states and operators up to global and relative phase, and compute the phases. In practice, they outperform QuIDD matrix and inner products, which do not compute relative-phase factors. Other QuIDD algorithms presented in this work, such as the node-count check, non-$0$ terminal merge, and modulus and DD compare, exploit other DD properties to provide even faster checks but only satisfy necessary equivalence conditions. Thus, they should be used to aid the more robust algorithms. A summary of the theoretical results is provided in Table \\[tab:all\\_methods\\].\n\n  ---------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------------------\n                                                                                                        $O(\\cdot)$ time                  $O(\\cdot)$ time\n        Algorithm            \\[0pt\\][Phase]{}        \\[0pt\\][Finds]{}   \\[0pt\\][Necessary &]{}            complexity:                      complexity:\n                              \\[0pt\\][type]{}       \\[0pt\\][phases?]{}  \\[0pt\\][sufficient?]{}             best-case                       worst-case\n          Inner                                                                                                                 \n         Product             \\[0pt\\][Global]{}        \\[0pt\\][Yes]{}    \\[0pt\\][N. & S.]{}            \\[0pt\\][$|A||B|$]{}              \\[0pt\\][$|A||B|$]{}\n          Matrix                                                                                                                \n         Product             \\[0pt\\][Global]{}        \\[0pt\\][Yes]{}    \\[0pt\\][N. & S.]{}          \\[0pt\\][$(|A||B|)^2$]{}          \\[0pt\\][$(|A||B|)^2$]{}\n        Node-Count                Global                    No          N. only                               $1$                              $1$\n    [**Recursive**]{}                                                                                                           \n      [**Check**]{}        \\[0pt\\][**Global**]{}    \\[0pt\\][**Yes**]{}  \\[0pt\\][**N. & S.**]{}      \\[0pt\\][$\\mathbf{1}$]{}      \\[0pt\\][$\\mathbf{|A| + |B|}$]{}\n       Modulus and                                                                                                              \n      Inner Product         \\[0pt\\][Relative]{}       \\[0pt\\][No]{}     \\[0pt\\][N. & S.]{}            \\[0pt\\][$|A||B|$]{}              \\[0pt\\][$|A||B|$]{}\n   [**Element-wise**]{}                                                                                                         \n     [**Division**]{}     \\[0pt\\][**Relative**]{}   \\[0pt\\][**Yes**]{}  \\[0pt\\][**N. & S.**]{}    \\[0pt\\][$\\mathbf{|A||B|}$]{}    \\[0pt\\][$\\mathbf{|A||B|}$]{}\n         Non-$0$                                                                                                                \n      Terminal Merge        \\[0pt\\][Relative]{}       \\[0pt\\][No]{}     \\[0pt\\][N. only]{}           \\[0pt\\][$|A| + |B|$]{}          \\[0pt\\][$|A| + |B|$]{}\n       Modulus and                                                                                                              \n        DD Compare          \\[0pt\\][Relative]{}       \\[0pt\\][No]{}     \\[0pt\\][N. & S.]{}           \\[0pt\\][$|A| + |B|$]{}          \\[0pt\\][$|A| + |B|$]{}\n  ---------------------- ------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------------ ---------------------------------\n\nThe algorithms presented here enable QuIDDs and other DD datastructures to be used in synthesis and verification of quantum circuits. A fair amount of work has been done on optimal synthesis for small quantum circuits as well as heuristics for larger circuits via circuit transformations [@PrasadEtAl2007; @ShendeEtAl2006]. Equivalence checking in particular plays a key role in some of these techniques since it is often necessary to verify the correctness of the transformations. Future work will determine how these equivalence checking algorithms may be used as primitives to enhance such heuristics.\n\n[**Acknowledgements.** ]{} This work was funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing official policies or endorsements of employers and funding agencies.\n\nS. Aaronson and D. Gottesman, \u201cImproved simulation of stabilizer circuits\u201d, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**70**]{}, 052328, 2004.\n\nR. I. Bahar et al., \u201cAlgebraic decision diagrams and their applications,\u201d [*Journal of Formal Methods in System Design*]{}, [**10**]{} (2/3), 1997.\n\nA. Barenco et al., \u201cElementary gates for quantum computation,\u201d [*Phys. Rev. A*]{}, [**52**]{}, 3457-3467, 1995.\n\nC. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, \u201cQuantum cryptography: public key distribution and coin tossing\u201d, [*In Proc. of IEEE Intl. Conf. on Computers, Systems, and Signal Processing*]{}, pp. 175-179, 1984.\n\nC.H. Bennett, \u201cQuantum cryptography using any two nonorthogonal states\u201d, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**68**]{}, 3121, 1992.\n\nG. P. Berman, G. V. L\u00f3pez, and V. I. Tsifrinovich, \u201cTeleportation in a nuclear spin quantum computer,\u201d [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**66**]{}, 042312, 2002.\n\nR. Bryant, \u201cGraph-based algorithms for Boolean function manipulation,\u201d [*IEEE Trans. on Computers*]{}, [**C35**]{}, pp. 677-691, 1986.\n\nE. Clarke et al., \u201cMulti-terminal binary decision diagrams and hybrid decision diagrams,\u201d in T. Sasao and M. Fujita, eds, [*Representations of Discrete Functions*]{}, pp. 93-108, Kluwer, 1996.\n\nS. A. Cuccaro, T. G. Draper, S. A. Kutin, and D. P. Moulton, \u201cA new quantum ripple-carry addition circuit,\u201d [quant-ph/0410184]{}, 2004.\n\nD. Gottesman, \u201cThe Heisenberg representation of quantum computers,\u201d [*Plenary speech at the 1998 International Conference on Group Theoretic Methods in Physics*]{}, [quant-ph/9807006]{}, 1998.\n\nL. Grover, \u201cQuantum mechanics helps in searching for a needle in a haystack,\u201d [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**79**]{}, 325, 1997.\n\nA. J. G. Hey, ed., [*Feynman and Computation: Exploring the Limits of Computers*]{}, Perseus Books, 1999.\n\nD. Maslov, S. M. Falconer, M. Mosca, \u201cQuantum Circuit Placement: Optimizing Qubit-to-qubit Interactions through Mapping Quantum Circuits into a Physical Experiment,\u201d [*to appear in DAC 2007*]{}, [quant-ph/0703256]{}.\n\nM. A. Nielsen, I. L. Chuang, [*Quantum Computation and Quantum Information*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000.\n\nA. K. Prasad, V. V. Shende, K. N. Patel, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, \u201cAlgorithms and data structures for simplifying reversible circuits\u201d, to appear in [*ACM J. of Emerging Technologies in Computing*]{}, 2007.\n\nV. V. Shende, Personal communication, September 2006.\n\nV. V. Shende, S. S. Bullock, I. L. Markov, \u201cSynthesis of quantum logic circuits,\u201d [*IEEE Trans. on CAD*]{} [**25**]{}, pp. 1000-1010, 2006.\n\nV. V. Shende and I. L. Markov, \u201cQuantum circuits for incompletely specified two-qubit operators,\u201d [*Quantum Information and Computation*]{} [**5**]{} (1), pp. 49-57, 2005.\n\nP. W. Shor, \u201cPolynomial-time algorithms for prime factorization and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer,\u201d [*SIAM J. of Computing*]{}, [**26**]{}, p. 1484, 1997.\n\nG. Song and A. Klappenecker, \u201cOptimal realizations of simplified Toffoli gates,\u201d [**4**]{}, pp. 361-372, 2004.\n\nR. T. Stanion, D. Bhattacharya, and C. Sechen, \u201cAn efficient method for generating exhaustive test sets,\u201d [*IEEE Trans. on CAD*]{} [**14**]{}, pp. 1516-1525, 1995.\n\nR. Van Meter and K. M. Itoh, \u201cFast quantum modular exponentiation,\u201d [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**71**]{}, 052320, 2005.\n\nG. F. Viamontes, I. L. Markov, J. P. Hayes, \u201cGraph-based simulation of quantum computation in the density matrix representation,\u201d [*Quantum Information and Computation*]{} [**5**]{} (2), pp. 113-130, 2005.\n\nG. F. Viamontes, I. L. Markov, and J. P. Hayes, \u201cImproving gate-level simulation of quantum circuits,\u201d [*Quantum Information Processing*]{} [**2**]{}, pp. 347-380, 2003.\n\nG. Vidal, \u201cEfficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations,\u201d [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{}, 147902, 2003.\n\nJ. Yepez, \u201cA quantum lattice-gas model for computational fluid dynamics,\u201d [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**63**]{}, 046702, 2001.\n\n[^1]: gviamont@atl.lmco.com\n\n[^2]: {imarkov, jhayes}@eecs.umich.edu\n\n[^3]: For example, in a spin chain architecture the qubits are laid out in a line, and all CNOT gates must act only on adjacent (nearest-neighbor) qubits. The work in [@ShendeEtAl2006] shows that such a restriction can be accomodated by restructuring an existing circuit in such a way that worst-case circuit sizes grow by no more than nine times.\n\n[^4]: The runtime and memory complexity of the unary version acting on one DD $A$ is $O(|A|)$ [@Bryant86].\n\n[^5]: Such integers are likely to be the ones input to Shor\u2019s algorithm since they are the foundation of modern public key cryptography [@Shor1997].\n\n[^6]: Any sentinel value larger than $1$ may be used since such values do not appear in the context of quantum circuits.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'For a probability measure with compact and non-polar support in the complex plane we relate dynamical properties of the associated sequence of orthogonal polynomials $\\{P_n\\}$ to properties of the support. More precisely we relate the Julia set of $P_n$ to the outer boundary of the support, the filled Julia set to the polynomial convex hull $K$ of the support, and the Green\u2019s function associated with $P_n$ to the Green\u2019s function for the complement of $K$.'\nauthor:\n- 'Jacob Stordal Christiansen, Christian Henriksen, Henrik Laurberg Pedersen and Carsten Lunde Petersen'\ntitle: 'Julia Sets of Orthogonal Polynomials [^1] '\n---\n\n[*2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary: 42C05, Secondary: 37F10, 31A15*]{}\n\n[*Keywords: Orthogonal Polynomials, Julia set, Green\u2019s function*]{}\n\nIntroduction and main results {#intro}\n=============================\n\nIn this paper, we study orthonormal polynomials $\\{P_n(z)\\}\\equiv \\{P_n(\\mu; z)\\}$ given by a Borel probability measure $\\mu$ on ${\\mathbb C}$ with compact and non-polar support $S(\\mu)$. We relate the non-escaping set for $P_n$, the locus of non-normality (the boundary of the non-escaping set) for $P_n$, and an associated Green\u2019s function to the support of the measure, getting a fairly complete picture of the limiting behavior of these objects as $n \\to \\infty$.\n\nWe build on the classical monograph [@StahlandTotik] by Stahl and Totik, where the authors relate potential and measure theoretic properties of, e.g., the asymptotic zero distribution for the sequence of orthonormal polynomials defined by $\\mu$ to the potential and measure theoretic properties of the support of $\\mu$. We shall also use [@Randsford] as a reference to the basic concepts of potential theory in the complex plane.\n\nRecall that $\\{P_n(z)\\}$ is the unique orthonormal sequence in $L^2(\\mu)$ with $$\\label{normalpol}\nP_n(z)\n= {\\gamma}_n z^n + \\textrm{~lower order terms}, $$ where ${\\gamma}_n>0$.\n\nLet ${\\mathcal B}$ denote the set of Borel probability measures on ${\\mathbb C}$ with compact, non-polar support. Furthermore, let ${\\mathcal B}_+\\subset{\\mathcal B}$ be defined as $${\\mathcal B}_+ := \\{\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}\\,|\\, \\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}\\,{\\gamma}_n^{1/n} < \\infty \\},\n$$ where ${\\gamma}_n$ is given in .\n\nFor $\\mu \\in {\\mathcal B}$ we denote by ${\\Omega}$ the unbounded connected component of ${\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}S(\\mu)$ and define $$K={\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}{\\Omega},\\quad   J=\\partial K.$$ The set $K$ is the *filled* $S(\\mu)$ and $J= \\partial{\\Omega}\\subset S(\\mu)$ is the outer boundary of $S(\\mu)$. We shall also say that $S(\\mu)$ is *full* if ${\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}S(\\mu)$ has no bounded connected components.\n\nFurthermore, we define the exceptional subset $E\\subset S(\\mu)$ by $$E = \\{ z \\in J \\,|\\, z \\textrm{ is \\emph{not} a Dirichlet regular boundary point}\\}.$$ This set is an $F_{\\sigma}$ polar subset, see [@Randsford Theorem 4.2.5]. We let ${g_{\\Omega}}: {\\mathbb C}\\to [0,\\infty)$ be the Green\u2019s function for ${\\Omega}$ with pole at infinity (in short, just the Green\u2019s function for ${\\Omega}$). This is the unique non-negative subharmonic function which is harmonic and positive on ${\\Omega}$, zero precisely on $K{\\setminus}E$, (see [@Randsford Theorem 4.4.9]) and which satisfies $$g_{\\Omega}(z) = \\log|z| + O(1) \\;\\mbox{ at infinity}.$$ Finally, we denote by ${\\omega}_J$ the equilibrium measure on $J$, which equals harmonic measure on ${\\Omega}$ from $\\infty$ and which is the distributional Laplacian ${\\Delta}g_{\\Omega}$ of the Green\u2019s function $g_{\\Omega}$.\n\nWe shall also use (see [@StahlandTotik Section 1.2]) the extended notion of the Green\u2019s function $g_B: {\\mathbb C}\\to [0,\\infty)$ for an arbitrary connected Borel set $B\\subset{\\mathbb C}$ with bounded complement $L$ of positive logarithmic capacity, $\\operatorname{Cap}(L)>0$. This is the unique non-negative subharmonic function which is harmonic and positive on the interior of $B$, satisfies $$g_B(z) = \\log|z| - \\log\\operatorname{Cap}(L) + o(1)\\; \\textrm{ at infinity},$$ and equals zero qu.e.\u00a0on ${\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}B$. Here, qu.e.\u00a0is short for quasi everywhere meaning except on a polar set ([@Randsford] uses n.e., nearly everywhere).\n\nFurthermore, for $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}$ we denote by $g_\\mu: {\\mathbb C}\\to [0,\\infty)$ [the minimal carrier Green\u2019s function for]{} $\\mu$ (see [@StahlandTotik Definition 1.1.1 and Lemma 1.2.4]), $$g_\\mu(z) = \\log|z| - \\log c_\\mu + o(1)\\; \\textrm{ at infinity},$$ where $c_\\mu$ is the minimal carrier capacity. Moreover, we denote by $E_\\mu$ the exceptional set for $g_\\mu$ defined by $$E_\\mu = \\{ z\\in S(\\mu) \\,|\\, g_\\mu(z) > 0 \\}.$$ The following fundamental result concerning the distribution of zeros of the orthogonal polymonials was originally obtained by Fej\u00e9r in [@Fejer]; see also [@StahlandTotik Lemma 1.1.3].\n\n\\[thm:fejer\\] If $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}$, then all zeros of the orthonormal polynomials $P_n$ are contained in the convex hull $\\operatorname{Co}(S(\\mu))$. Moreover, for any compact subset $V\\subset{\\Omega}$ the number of zeros of $P_n$ in $V$ is bounded as $n\\to\\infty$.\n\nOur main result, Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\], concerns measures in the class ${\\mathcal B}_+$ and it is proved in Section \\[sec:3\\]. The first part of the theorem should be compared with [@StahlandTotik Theorem 1.1.4], while the second part does not have an immediate counterpart in the classical theory of orthogonal polynomials. We remark that ${\\mathcal B}_+$ is a large subclass of ${\\mathcal B}$ since only measures in ${\\mathcal B}$ with zero carrier capacity are left out.\n\nBefore stating our main result, some more notation is needed. We denote by ${\\Omega}_n$ the attracted basin of $\\infty$ for $P_n$, by $K_n = {\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}{\\Omega}_n$ the filled Julia set, and by $J_n =\\partial K_n = \\partial{\\Omega}_n$ the Julia set. Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\] is motivated by the following questions: What is the relation between $K$ and limits of $K_n$ and, similarly, what is the relation between $J$ and limits of $J_n$? Inspired by [@Douady], we answer these questions in terms of limits involving the Hausdorff distance on the space of compact subsets of ${\\mathbb C}$ (see the beginning of Section \\[sec:3\\] for details and the notions of $\\liminf$ and $\\limsup$ of sequences of compact sets).\n\n\\[THMlimsupliminf\\] Let $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}_+$. Then the following assertions hold.\n\n1.  We have$$\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} K_n \\subseteq \\operatorname{Co}(K).$$ Moreover, for any ${\\epsilon}>0$ and with $V_{\\epsilon}:= \\{z\\in {\\mathbb C}\\,|\\, g_{\\Omega}(z) \\geq {\\epsilon}\\}$, $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\operatorname{Cap}(V_{\\epsilon}\\cap K_n) = 0.$$\n\n2.  We have $$\\overline{J{\\setminus}E_\\mu} \\subseteq \\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} J_n.$$\n\nThe figure below illustrates Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\] in the case where $\\mu$ is the equilibrium measure for the boundary of the boomerang-shaped white set $K$ in the top left image. The black fractal sets in the other images are the Julia sets $J_{10}$, $J_{15}$, and $J_{20}$ (which in these cases appear to be equal to the filled Julia sets). The Green\u2019s functions are visualised by colouring alternating intervals of level sets blue and red. We remark that equilibrium measures belong to a special class of measures, the so-called [*regular measures*]{} to be discussed in Sections \\[sec:4\\] and \\[sec:5\\].\n\n  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------\n   ![image](curve_pot.pdf){width=\"56mm\"}   ![image](p10_pot.pdf){width=\"56mm\"}\n    ![image](p15_pot.pdf){width=\"56mm\"}    ![image](p20_pot.pdf){width=\"56mm\"}\n  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------\n\nPolynomial dynamics and technical preparations {#sec:2}\n==============================================\n\nFor any polynomial $P$ of degree $d>1$, there clearly exists $R>0$ such that $|P(z)| \\geq 2|z|$ for all $z$ with $|z|>R$. Thus the orbit, $\\{z_n\\}$, of such $z$ under iteration by $P$ converges to $\\infty$. The basin of attraction for $\\infty$ for $P$, denoted ${\\Omega}_P$, may therefore be written as $$\\label{basinofinfty}\n {\\Omega}_P = \\{z\\in{\\mathbb C}\\,|\\, P^k(z) \\underset{k\\to\\infty}\\longrightarrow \\infty \\}\n= \\bigcup_{k\\geq 0} P^{-k}({\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(0,R)}).$$ Here $P^k = \\overset{k \\textrm{ times}}{\\overbrace{P\\circ P \\circ \\ldots \\circ P}}$, whereas $P^{-k}$ denotes inverse image and ${\\mathbb D}(0,R)$ is the open ball of radius $R$ centered at $0$. It follows immediately that ${\\Omega}_P$ is open and completely invariant, that is, $P^{-1}({\\Omega}_P) = {\\Omega}_P = P({\\Omega}_P)$. Denote by $K_P = {\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}{\\Omega}_P\\subseteq\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(0,R)}$ the filled Julia set for $P$ and by $J_P = \\partial{\\Omega}_P = \\partial K_P$ the Julia set for $P$. Then $K_P$ and $J_P$ are compact and also completely invariant. Clearly, any periodic point (i.e., a solution of the equation $P^k(z) = z$ for some $k\\in{\\mathbb N}$) belongs to $K_P$, so that $K_P$ is non-empty. It follows from that the filled Julia set $K_P$ can also be described as the nested intersection $$\\label{filledJuliaset}\nK_P = \\bigcap_{k\\geq 0} P^{-k}(\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(0,R)}).$$ To ease notation we denote the Green\u2019s function for ${\\Omega}_P$ with pole at infinity by $g_P$ (and not by $g_{{\\Omega}_P}$). It follows from that $g_P$ satisfies $$g_P(z) = \\lim_{k\\to\\infty} \\frac{1}{d^k}\\log^+(|P^k(z)|/R) = \\lim_{k\\to\\infty} \\frac{1}{d^k}\\log^+|P^k(z)|.$$ Here and elsewhere, $\\log^+$ is the positive part of $\\log$. Thus $g_P$ vanishes precisely on $K_P$ and hence ([@Randsford Theorem 4.4.9]) every point in $J_P$ is a Dirichlet regular boundary point of ${\\Omega}_P$. Moreover, denoting the leading coefficient of $P$ by $\\gamma$, $$g_P(P(z)) = d\\cdot g_P(z)\n\\quad\\textrm{and}\\quad\n\\operatorname{Cap}(K_P) = \\frac{1}{|{\\gamma}|^{\\frac{1}{d-1}}}.$$ When $P=P_n$, we thus have in our notation $$\\label{capacityformula}\n\\frac{1}{{\\gamma}_n^{\\frac{1}{n-1}}} = \\operatorname{Cap}(K_n).$$ As $$\\label{infsup}\n\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} {\\gamma}_n^{\\frac{1}{n-1}} = \\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} {\\gamma}_n^{\\frac{1}{n}}\n\\quad\\textrm{and}\\quad\n\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} {\\gamma}_n^{\\frac{1}{n-1}} = \\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} {\\gamma}_n^{\\frac{1}{n}},$$ we immediately obtain, by combining with [@StahlandTotik Cor.\u00a01.1.7, formula (1.13)],\n\nFor $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}$ we have $$\\label{capacitybounds}\nc_\\mu \\leq \\liminf_{n\\to\\infty}\\;\\operatorname{Cap}(K_n) \\leq\n\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}\\; \\operatorname{Cap}(K_n) \\leq \\operatorname{Cap}(K),$$ where $c_\\mu$ is the minimal carrier capacity.\n\nThe examples in [@StahlandTotik Section 1.5] show that all the inequalities in can be strict. However, in this paper we only need $\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty}\\;\\operatorname{Cap}(K_n)>0$, which is implied for $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}_+$.\n\nFurthermore, we have\n\nLet $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}$ and choose $R>0$ so that $K\\subset {\\mathbb D}(0,R)$. Then there exists $N$ such that for all $n\\geq N$: $$K_n \\subset P_n^{-1}(\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(0,R)}) \\subset {\\mathbb D}(0,R).$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} By [@StahlandTotik Theorem 1.1.4], we have $$\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty}\\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)| \\geq g_{\\Omega}(z)$$ locally uniformly on ${\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}\\operatorname{Co}(K)$. Taking $R$ such that $K\\subset {\\mathbb D}(0,R)$ then $\\partial {\\mathbb D}(0,R)$ is a compact set disjoint from $K$ on which $g_{\\Omega}$ is continuous, and hence ${\\epsilon}= \\inf\\{g_{\\Omega}(z) \\,|\\, |z| = R \\} > 0$. By the above inequality and compactness of $\\partial{\\mathbb D}(0,R)$, there exists $N$ such that $$\\forall\\; n \\geq N \\; \\forall\\; z\\in \\partial {\\mathbb D}(0,R) :\\quad \\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)| \\geq {\\epsilon}/2.\n$$ By increasing $N$ if necessary, we can suppose $\\log(R) < N{\\epsilon}/2$. Then since the zeros of $P_n$ are contained in $\\operatorname{Co}(K) \\subset {\\mathbb D}(0,R)$ (by Theorem \\[thm:fejer\\]), the minimal modulus principle implies $$\\forall\\; n \\geq N :\\quad P_n({\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}{\\mathbb D}(0,R)) \\subset {\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(0,R)}.\n$$ Thus, by , $$\\forall\\; n \\geq N :\\quad K_n\\subset P_n^{-1}(\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(0,R)}) \\subset {\\mathbb D}(0,R)\n$$ and this completes the proof. $\\square$\n\n\\[THMlogPnvsgn\\] Let $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}_+$. Then there exists $N\\in{\\mathbb N}$ and $M>0$ such that $$\\label{logPnvsgnformula}\n\\forall\\; n\\geq N:\\quad \\Bigl\\Vert \\,g_n(z) - \\frac{1}{n}\\log^+|P_n(z)|\\, \\Bigr\\Vert_\\infty \\leq \\frac{M}{n}.$$\n\nProposition \\[THMlogPnvsgn\\] plays a key role in the proofs of our main results. It links the Green\u2019s functions $g_n$ for ${\\Omega}_n$ to the potentials $\\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)|$ or rather to the Green\u2019s functions $\\frac{1}{n}\\log^+|P_n(z)|$ of the set $\\{z \\,|\\, |P_n(z)| > 1\\}$. The literature on orthogonal polynomials, and [@StahlandTotik] in particular, does not seem to study the latter Green\u2019s function in connection with orthogonal polynomials, though this restriction of $\\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)|$ is quite natural. For instance, the equilibrium measure ${\\Delta}(\\frac{1}{n}\\log^+|P_n(z)|)$ on $\\{z \\,|\\, |P_n(z)| = 1\\}$ is the balayage in $\\{z \\,|\\, |P_n(z)| < 1\\}$ of the purely atomic measure ${\\Delta}(\\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)|)$ with an atom of weight $\\frac{1}{n}$ at each root of $P_n$ (counting multiplicities).\n\n[*Proof of Proposition \\[THMlogPnvsgn\\].*]{} By \u2013, we have $${\\mathcal B}_+ = \\{\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}\\,|\\, \\displaystyle{\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty}}\\,\\operatorname{Cap}(K_n) >0 \\}.$$ Hence $c:=\\displaystyle{\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty}\\; \\operatorname{Cap}(K_n)} > 0$ and we can choose $R' >1$ such that $K\\subset{\\mathbb D}(0,R')$. Further, let $R = 2R'$, $c' = c/2$ and choose $N$ so that $$\\forall\\; n \\geq N :\\quad K_n\\subset P_n^{-1}(\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(0,R')}) \\subset{\\mathbb D}(0,R')\n\\quad\\textrm{and}\\quad R'\\geq \\operatorname{Cap}(K_n) > c'.\n$$ The Green\u2019s functions $g_n$ can be written as $$g_n(z) = \\log|z| - \\log\\operatorname{Cap}(K_n) + \\int \\log|1-w/z| \\,d{\\omega}_n(w),$$ where ${\\omega}_n$ is harmonic measure from $\\infty$. Writing $$M' = \\max\\{\\log R', -\\log c'\\} + \\log 2 \\; \\mbox{ and } \\; M = 3M',$$ we find $$\\forall\\; n\\geq N \\; \\forall\\; z, |z| \\geq R: \\quad \\bigl| g_n(z) - \\log|z| \\bigr|\n< M'.\n\\quad$$ For each $n$, denote by $A_n$ the set $\\{z \\,|\\, |P_n(z)| < R\\}$. Then for each $n\\geq N$ and all $z\\in{\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}A_n$, we have $|P_n(z)| \\geq R$ so that $\\log^+|P_n(z)| = \\log|P_n(z)|$ and $$\\left|g_n(z) - \\frac{1}{n}\\log^+|P_n(z)| \\right| =\n\\left|\\frac{1}{n}g_n(P_n(z)) - \\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)| \\right| \\leq \\frac{M'}{n}.$$ Moreover, for all $z\\in\\partial A_n$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n0 < g_n(z) &= \\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)|  + \\biggl(g_n(z) - \\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)|\\biggr) \\\\\n&<  \\biggl|\\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)| \\biggr| + \\left|g_n(z) - \\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)| \\right|\n< \\frac{2M'}{n}.\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by the maximum principle for subharmonic functions, $g_n(z) < {2M'}/{n}$ on all of $A_n$. Since $$0 \\leq \\frac{1}{n}\\log^+|P_n(z)| \\leq \\frac{M'}{n}$$ on $A_n$ by construction, we have $$\\left| g_n(z) - \\frac{1}{n}\\log^+|P_n(z)| \\right| < \\frac{3M'}{n} = \\frac{M}{n}$$ on $A_n$ and thus on all of ${\\mathbb C}$. $\\square$\n\n\\(i) If $\\liminf_{k\\to\\infty}\\; \\operatorname{Cap}(K_{n_k})>0$ for some subsequence $\\{n_k\\}$, then the proof shows that holds when $n$ is replaced by $n_k$. (ii) By , the hypothesis in the proposition is satisfied if the minimal carrier capacity is strictly positive. However, according to [@StahlandTotik Example 1.5.4], there are measures $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}$ for which $0 = c_\\mu < \\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\; \\operatorname{Cap}(K_{n})$.\n\nCombining Proposition \\[THMlogPnvsgn\\] with [@StahlandTotik Theorem 1.1.4], we can now prove the following proposition.\n\n\\[prop:oldthmB\\] For all $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}_+$ we have $$\\label{newSandTupperbound}\n\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}g_n(z) \\leq g_\\mu(z)$$ locally uniformly in ${\\mathbb C}$ and $$\\label{newSandTlowerbound}\n\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty}g_n(z) \\geq g_{\\Omega}(z)$$ locally uniformly in ${\\mathbb C}\\setminus \\operatorname{Co}(K)$. In $\\operatorname{Co}(K)\\cap{\\Omega}$, the lower bound holds true only in capacity, that is, for every compact set $V\\subseteq{\\Omega}$ and every ${\\epsilon}>0$, we have $$\\label{newSandTlowerboundincapacity}\n\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\operatorname{Cap}(\\{z\\in V \\,|\\, g_n(z) < g_{\\Omega}(z) -{\\epsilon}\\}) = 0.$$\n\n\\(i) As with [@StahlandTotik (1.6)], the bound holds for every $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}$. (ii) For a sequence of real valued functions $h_n$ on an open set $U$ and $h: U\\to \\mathbb R$, the relation $$\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} h_n(z) \\leq h(z) \\ \\text{locally uniformly in\\ } U\n$$means that for every $z\\in U$ and every sequence $\\{z_n\\}\\subset U$ converging to $z$, we have $\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} h_n(z_n) \\leq h(z)$. Similar statements hold for $\\liminf$ and $\\lim$.\n\n[*Proof of Proposition \\[prop:oldthmB\\].*]{} If $c_\\mu = 0$, then $g_\\mu\\equiv\\infty$ and trivially holds. The relations and are straightforward translations of the relations (1.6) and (1.7) from [@StahlandTotik Theorem 1.1.4] by using Proposition \\[THMlogPnvsgn\\] and noting that for any ${\\epsilon}>0$, $$\\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)| \\leq g_\\mu(z)+{\\epsilon}\\; \\implies \\; \\frac{1}{n}\\log^+|P_n(z)| \\leq g_\\mu(z)+{\\epsilon}.$$ This implication holds by definition of $\\log^+$, since $g_\\mu(z) \\geq 0$. For , let ${\\epsilon}>0$ be given and choose according to Proposition \\[THMlogPnvsgn\\] an $N$ such that $$\\forall n\\geq N \\; \\forall z\\in \\mathbb C: \\quad\n\\left|g_n(z) - \\frac{1}{n}\\log^+|P_n(z)| \\right| < {\\epsilon}/2.$$ Then for $n\\geq N$, we have $$g_n(z)+{\\epsilon}\\geq \\frac{1}{n}\\log^+|P_n(z)| +{\\epsilon}/2 \\geq \\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)| + {\\epsilon}/2$$ so that $g_n(z) < g_{\\Omega}(z) - {\\epsilon}$ implies $\\frac{1}{n}\\log|P_n(z)|  < g_{\\Omega}(z) - {\\epsilon}/2$. Hence, $$|P_n(z)|^{\\frac{1}{n}} \\leq e^{g_{\\Omega}(z) - {\\epsilon}/2} = e^{g_{\\Omega}(z)} -(1 - e^{-{\\epsilon}/2})e^{g_{\\Omega}(z)}\n\\leq e^{g_{\\Omega}(z)} -(1 - e^{-{\\epsilon}/2}),$$ recalling that $g_{\\Omega}(z)\\geq 0$. Thus, with ${\\epsilon}' := (1 - e^{-{\\epsilon}/2}) > 0$ and $V\\subset {\\Omega}$ a compact subset, we have $$\\{z\\in V \\,|\\, g_n(z) < g_{\\Omega}(z) - {\\epsilon}\\} \\subseteq\n\\{z \\in V \\,|\\, |P_n(z)|^{\\frac{1}{n}} < e^{g_{\\Omega}(z)} - {\\epsilon}' \\}$$ and applies. $\\square$\n\nRelating the sequences $K_n$, $J_n$ to $K$ and $J$ {#NearlyHaussdorfconv}\n==================================================\n\n\\[sec:3\\] This section contains the proof of Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\]. We shall equip the space of non-empty compact subsets of ${\\mathbb C}$ with the Hausdorff distance, which is the natural choice in dynamical systems (see, e.g., [@Douady]). We begin by briefly recalling the main definitions and then characterize $\\liminf$ and $\\limsup$ in this setup.\n\nLet ${\\mathcal K}$ denote the set of non-empty compact subsets of ${\\mathbb C}$. For $L, M \\in {\\mathcal K}$, we define the Hausdorff semi-distance from $L$ to $M$ by $${\\ensuremath{{\\operatorname{d_H}}}}(L, M) := \\sup\\{{\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{d}}}(z, M) \\,|\\, z\\in L\\}\n= \\sup_{z\\in L}\\;\\inf_{w\\in M}\\; |z-w|$$ and the Hausdorff distance between the two sets as $${\\ensuremath{{\\operatorname{D_H}}}}(L, M) := \\max\\{{\\ensuremath{{\\operatorname{d_H}}}}(L, M), {\\ensuremath{{\\operatorname{d_H}}}}(M, L)\\}.$$ The Hausdorff distance is a metric on the space ${\\mathcal K}$ of compact subsets. When $\\{K_n\\}\\subset{\\mathcal K}$ is a bounded sequence of compact sets (i.e., a sequence for which there exists $R>0$ such that $K_n\\subset{\\mathbb D}(0,R)$ for all $n$), we define the symbols $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} K_n &:= \\{ z\\in{\\mathbb C}\\,|\\,\n\\exists \\, \\{z_n\\},\\, K_n\\ni z_n \\underset{n\\to\\infty}\\longrightarrow z\\},\\\\ \\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} K_n &:= \\{ z\\in{\\mathbb C}\\,|\\, \\exists \\, \\{n_k\\}, \\, n_k\\nearrow \\infty\n\\textrm{ and }\n\\exists \\, \\{z_{n_k}\\}, \\, K_{n_k}\\ni z_{n_k} \\underset{k\\to\\infty}\\longrightarrow z\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, $\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} K_n\\subseteq \\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} K_n$ and by Lemma \\[liminfandlimsupcompact\\], the sets $$I= \\displaystyle{\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} K_n, \\quad S=\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} K_n}$$ are compact. The set $I$ may be empty whereas $S$ is always non-empty. Moreover, to illustrate that $({\\mathcal K}, {\\ensuremath{{\\operatorname{D_H}}}})$ is a nice metric space, let us remark that it can be shown that $I$ is either empty or it is the largest compact set for which $$\\displaystyle{\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}}{\\ensuremath{{\\operatorname{d_H}}}}(I,K_n) = 0.$$ Likewise, $S$ is the smallest compact set for which $$\\displaystyle{\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}}{\\ensuremath{{\\operatorname{d_H}}}}(K_n,S) = 0.$$ Thus, $I = S$ if and only the sequence $\\{K_n\\}$ is convergent to the common value $I = S$. If the sequence $\\{K_n\\}$ is Cauchy, then the equality $I = S$ easily follows and this shows that ${\\mathcal K}$ is a complete metric space. Also, the above statements serve to explain the names $\\liminf$ and $\\limsup$.\n\n\\[liminfandlimsupcompact\\] Let $\\{K_n\\}$ be a bounded sequence from ${\\mathcal K}$. The complements of $I= \\displaystyle{\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty}}\\, K_n$ and $S = \\displaystyle{\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}}\\, K_n$ are open and characterized by $$\\label{eq:lemma-liminf}\nz_0\\in{\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}I \\; \\Longleftrightarrow \\; \\exists\\;{\\delta}_0>0\\;\n\\exists\\, \\{n_k\\},\\, n_k\\nearrow \\infty\\textrm{ s.t. }\\; \\forall\\; k: \\,\n{\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_{n_k}) > {\\delta}_0$$ and $$\\label{eq:lemma-limsup}\nz_0\\in {\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}S \\; \\Longleftrightarrow \\; \\exists\\;{\\delta}_0>0\\; \\exists\\; N\\textrm{ s.t. }\\;\n\\forall n\\geq N: \\, {\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_n) > {\\delta}_0.$$ As a consequence, both $I$ and $S$ are compact.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} The implication \u201c$\\Leftarrow$\u201d in is trivial. For the reverse implication, let $z_0\\in{\\mathbb C}$ and suppose the right hand side is false. Then $$\\forall {\\delta}>0\\;\\exists\\; N\\textrm{ s.t. }\\;\\forall\\;n\\geq N : \\, {\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_n) \\leq {\\delta}.$$For each $n$, let $z_n\\in K_n$ be a point with $|z_n-z_0| = {\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_n)$. Then $K_n\\ni z_n\\to z_0$ which shows that $z_0\\in I$.\n\nThe implication \u201c$\\Leftarrow$\u201d in is also trivial. For the reverse implication, take an arbitrary $z_0\\in{\\mathbb C}$ and assume the right hand side is false. Then for any ${\\delta}>0$ there are infinitely many values of $n$ for which ${\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_n) \\leq {\\delta}$. Thus we may construct an increasing sequence $\\{n_k\\}$ of integers such that ${\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_{n_k}) \\leq 1/k$, say. Take as above, for each $k$, a point $z_k\\in K_{n_k}$ with $|z_k - z_0| = {\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{d}}}(z_0, K_{n_k}) \\leq 1/k$. Hence $z_0\\in S$.\n\nOpenness of ${\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}I$ and of ${\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}S$ follow from the relations and . Thus $I$ and $S$ are both closed, and also bounded. $\\square$\n\nAfter these preliminaries we are ready to prove Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\].\n\n[*Proof of Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\](i).*]{} Since $z\\in K_n$ if and only if $g_n(z) = 0$ and since $g_{\\Omega}(z)>0$ on ${\\Omega}= {\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}K$, the inclusion $$\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} K_n \\subseteq \\operatorname{Co}(K)$$ follows immediately from and Lemma \\[liminfandlimsupcompact\\]. Next, choose $R>0$ so large that $K_n \\subset {\\mathbb D}(0,R)$ for all $n\\geq 2$. For given ${\\epsilon}>0$ we obtain from that $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\operatorname{Cap}(\\{z\\in V_{\\epsilon}\\cap\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(0,R)} \\,|\\,\ng_n(z) < g_{\\Omega}(z) - {\\epsilon}/2\\}) = 0,$$ where $V_{{\\epsilon}}=\\{z\\in {\\mathbb C}\\, | \\, g_{{\\Omega}}(z)\\geq {\\epsilon}\\}$. Since $g_n(z) = 0$ on $K_n$, we deduce that $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\operatorname{Cap}(V_{\\epsilon}\\cap K_n) = 0$$ and the proof is complete. $\\square$\n\n[*Proof of Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\](ii).*]{} Since the right hand side of the relation is closed, it suffices to prove that $J{\\setminus}E_\\mu \\subseteq \\displaystyle{\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty}}\\; J_n$. Suppose to the contrary that there exists $z_0\\in J{\\setminus}E_\\mu$ which does *not* belong to $\\displaystyle{\\liminf_{n\\to\\infty}}\\; J_n$. Then $g_\\mu(z_0) = 0$ and according to Lemma \\[liminfandlimsupcompact\\], $$\\label{Jdedisjoint}\n\\exists\\;{\\delta}>0 \\;\n\\exists \\, \\{n_k\\}, \\, n_k\\nearrow \\infty \\, \\textrm{ s.t. } \\; \\forall\\; k : \\,\n{\\mathbb D}(z_0, {\\delta})\\cap J_{n_k} = \\emptyset.$$ Since $z_0\\in J$, there exists $w_0\\in{\\mathbb D}(z_0, {\\delta}/4)\\cap{\\Omega}$. Choose $r \\leq {\\delta}/4$ such that $\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(w_0, r)}\\subset{\\Omega}$. Let $2{\\epsilon}= g_{\\Omega}(w_0)>0$ and define $$L := \\{ w \\in \\overline{{\\mathbb D}(w_0, r)}\\; |\\; g_{\\Omega}(w) \\geq 2{\\epsilon}\\}.$$ Let $L_0$ denote the connected component of $L$ containing $w_0$. Since $g_{\\Omega}$ is subharmonic, it has no local maxima. It follows that $L_0\\subset{\\Omega}\\cap\\overline{{\\mathbb D}(z_0, {\\delta}/2)}$ is a non-trivial compact continuum and hence $\\operatorname{Cap}(L_0)>0$. Thus, by there exists $N$ such that $$\\forall\\;k\\geq N : \\; \\operatorname{Cap}(\\{z\\in L_0| g_{n_k}(z) \\leq g_{\\Omega}(z) -{\\epsilon}\\}) < \\operatorname{Cap}(L_0).$$ Since $g_{\\Omega}(z)\\geq 2{\\epsilon}$ on $L_0$, it follows that $$\\forall\\;k\\geq N \\; \\exists\\; z_k\\in L_0 \\, \\textrm{ s.t. } g_{n_k}(z_k) \\geq {\\epsilon}.$$ Combining with , we find that ${\\mathbb D}(z_0,{\\delta})\\subset{\\Omega}_{n_k}$ for $k\\geq N$. By applying Harnacks inequality, we obtain $$g_{n_k}(z_0) \\geq g_{n_k}(z_k)\\frac{1-1/2}{1+1/2} \\geq {\\epsilon}/3 >0.$$ On the other hand, by , $$\\limsup_{k\\to\\infty} g_{n_k}(z_0) \\leq g_\\mu(z_0) = 0,$$ which is a contradiction. $\\square$\n\nResults for $n$-th root regular measures {#sec:4}\n========================================\n\nIn this section, we specialize the general results of the previous sections to the important class of regular measures. According to Stahl and Totik, a measure $\\mu\\in {\\mathcal B}$ is $n$th-root regular, in short $\\mu\\in{\\ensuremath{{\\mathrm{Reg}}}}$, if $$\\label{regdef}\n\\lim_{n\\to\\infty} {\\textstyle\\frac{1}{n}}\\log|P_n(z)| = g_{\\Omega}(z)$$ locally uniformly for $z\\in{\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}\\operatorname{Co}(K)$. In particular, we see that ${\\ensuremath{{\\mathrm{Reg}}}}\\subset{\\mathcal B}_+$. Note that is equivalent to [@StahlandTotik Theorem\u00a03.2.1, formula (2.1)] $$\\label{SandTregbound}\n\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty}|P_n(z)|^{1/n} \\leq e^{g_{\\Omega}(z)}$$ locally uniformly in ${\\mathbb C}$.\n\nA prime example of $\\mu\\in{\\ensuremath{{\\mathrm{Reg}}}}$ is the equilibrium measure for the boundary $J$ of a full compact non-polar subset $K$ or, equivalently, the harmonic measure on ${\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}K$ viewed from infinity. This follows immediately from Erd[\u00f6]{}s-Tur[\u00e1]{}n\u2019s theorem, see [@StahlandTotik Theorem\u00a04.1.1].\n\nCombining \u2013 with Proposition \\[THMlogPnvsgn\\], we have as an immediate corollary\n\n\\[cor eq\\] The following statements are equivalent:\n\n(i) $\\mu\\in{\\ensuremath{{\\mathrm{Reg}}}}$,\n\n(ii) $\\displaystyle{\\lim_{n\\to\\infty} g_n(z) = g_{\\Omega}(z)}$ locally uniformly for $z\\in{\\mathbb C}{\\setminus}\\operatorname{Co}(K)$,\n\n(iii) $\\displaystyle{\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} g_n(z) \\leq g_{\\Omega}(z)}$ locally uniformly on ${\\mathbb C}$,\n\n(iv) $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}_+$ and $\\displaystyle{\\lim_{n\\to\\infty} g_n(z) = 0}$ qu.\u00a0e.\u00a0on $J$.\n\nProceeding as in the proof of Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\](ii), but using Corollary \\[cor eq\\](iii) instead of , we obtain a stronger result (compare also with Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\](i)).\n\n\\[RegJalmostinliminfofJn\\] Suppose $\\mu\\in{\\ensuremath{{\\mathrm{Reg}}}}$. Then $$\\overline{J{\\setminus}E} \\subseteq \\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} J_n,$$ where $E$ denotes the ($F_\\sigma$ and polar) exceptional set for the Green\u2019s function $g_{\\Omega}$. In particular, if $J$ is Dirichlet regular, then $$\\label{eq:special-case}\nJ\\subseteq \\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} J_n.$$\n\nIn the convex case we note the following proposition.\n\n\\[convex\\] If $\\mu\\in{\\ensuremath{{\\mathrm{Reg}}}}$ and $K = \\operatorname{Co}(K)$, then $$J \\subseteq \\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} K_n \\subseteq\n\\limsup _{n\\to\\infty} K_n \\subseteq K.$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} For a compact convex set $K$, every boundary point is Dirichlet regular. Moreover, $J_n\\subset K_n$ so that the first inclusion follows from . The latter follows from Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\](i). $\\square$\n\nFor any compact convex subset $K$ and any ${\\epsilon}>0$, there exists a polynomial $P_n$ (of high degree $n$) with $$D(\\partial K, K_n) < {\\epsilon}\\; \\textrm{ and } \\; D(K_n, K) < {\\epsilon}.$$\n\nIt has recently been shown that a general compact connected subset $K\\subset{\\mathbb C}$ can be approximated arbitrarily well in the Hausdorff topology by (filled) Julia sets of polynomials, see Lindsay [@Lindsay] and Bishop\u2013Pilgrim [@BishopandPilgrim]. Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\](i), Corollary \\[RegJalmostinliminfofJn\\], and Proposition \\[convex\\] of this paper deal with approximation of general compact sets $K\\subset{\\mathbb C}$ by the (filled) Julia sets of orthogonal polynomials for probability measures supported on $\\partial K$. These results can be viewed as a complement to the results of [@Lindsay; @BishopandPilgrim] in the connected case and an extension in the general case. At the same time, our results are statements about the dynamical behaviour of orthogonal polynomials.\n\nWe cannot expect that $$\\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} K_n \\subseteq K$$ for general non-convex sets $K$. To see this, suppose $K\\subset {\\mathbb C}$ is any full compact subset of ${\\mathbb C}$ with $K = -K$ (i.e., $z\\mapsto -z$ is an involution of $K$) and let ${\\omega}$ denote the equilibrium measure on $J = \\partial K$. Then the corresponding orthonormal polynomials $P_n$ are even for $n$ even and odd for $n$ odd. In particular, $0$ is a fixed point of each $P_{2n+1}$, $n\\geq 0$, and so $0\\in K_{2n+1}$. This implies that $0 \\in \\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} K_n$. However, we may choose $K$ as above with $0\\notin K$. Note that $K$ cannot be connected in this case.\n\nThe orthogonal polynomials for the measure of maximal entropy of a polynomial {#sec:5}\n=============================================================================\n\nOur main results apply to measures $\\mu\\in{\\mathcal B}_+$ or $\\mu\\in{\\ensuremath{{\\mathrm{Reg}}}}$. A natural way of generating non-trivial examples of such measures is to take a monic polynomial $Q$ of degree $d\\geq 2$ and construct the unique balanced invariant measure ${\\omega}$ for $Q$ (see, e.g., [@Brolin]). This measure is known to coincide with the (unique) measure of maximal entropy for $Q$ (see [@Lyubich]) and is in fact the equilibrium measure of $J_Q$, the Julia set of $Q$. Note that, with $K_Q$ the filled Julia set of $Q$, we have $$\\operatorname{Cap}(J_Q)=\\operatorname{Cap}(K_Q)=1.$$\n\nThe orthogonal polynomials associated with $\\omega$ (as above) were studied in a series of papers of Barnsley et al. One of their basic results reads:\n\n\\[BanGerHar\\] Let $Q(z) = z^d + az^{d-1} + \\cdots$ be a polynomial of degree $\\geq 2$ and let ${\\omega}$ denote the unique measure of maximal entropy for $Q$. Then the monic orthogonal polynomials $\\{p_n\\}$ with respect to ${\\omega}$ satisfy\n\n1.  $p_1(z) = z + a/d$,\n\n2.  $\\forall k\\in{\\mathbb N}$ : $p_{kd}(z) = p_k(Q(z))$,\n\n3.  $\\forall k\\in{\\mathbb N}$ : $p_{d^k}(z) = p_1(Q^k(z)) = Q^k(z) + a/d$.\n\nThe last part of this theorem in particular shows that if $Q$ is centered (i.e., $a=0$), then the iterates of $Q$ fit neatly into the sequence of monic orthogonal polynomials. To be specific, $$Q^k=p_{d^k} \\; \\mbox{ for all $k\\geq 0$}.$$ A natural question in this context is: Are the remaining orthogonal polynomials dynamically related to $Q$? As a corollary of Theorem\u00a0\\[THMlimsupliminf\\] we obtain the following answer to this question:\n\nIn the setting of Theorem \\[BanGerHar\\], let $J_n$ and $K_n$ be the Julia set, resp. filled Julia set, of the orthonormal polynomial $P_n={\\gamma}_np_n$. Then $$J_Q \\subseteq \\liminf_{n\\to\\infty} J_n \\subseteq \\limsup_{n\\to\\infty} K_n \\subseteq \\operatorname{Co}(K_Q).$$ Moreover, for any ${\\epsilon}>0$ and $V_{\\epsilon}:= \\{z\\in {\\mathbb C}\\,|\\, g_{\\Omega}(z) \\geq {\\epsilon}\\}$, $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\operatorname{Cap}(V_{\\epsilon}\\cap K_n) = 0.$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Since ${\\omega}\\in{\\ensuremath{{\\mathrm{Reg}}}}$ and $J_Q$ is Dirichlet regular, this follows from Corollary \\[RegJalmostinliminfofJn\\] and Theorem \\[THMlimsupliminf\\]. $\\square$\n\n\\[references\\] C.\u00a0J.\u00a0Bishop and K.\u00a0M.\u00a0Pilgrim, *Dynamical dessins are dense*. Rev.\u00a0Mat.\u00a0Iberoam.\u00a031 (2015), no.\u00a03, 1033\u20131040.\n\nH.\u00a0Brolin, *Invariant sets under iteration of rational functions*. Arkiv f\u00f6r Math. Band 6 nr 6 (1965), [103\u2013144]{}.\n\nM.\u00a0F.\u00a0Barnsley, J.\u00a0S.\u00a0Geronimo, and A.\u00a0N.\u00a0Harrington, *Orthogonal polynomials associated with invariant measures on Julia sets.* Bulletin of the AMS (new series) Vol [**7**]{} No 2 1982, [381\u2013384]{}.\n\nM.\u00a0F.\u00a0Barnsley, J.\u00a0S.\u00a0Geronimo, and A.\u00a0N.\u00a0Harrington, *Geometry, electrostatic measure and orthogonal polynomials on Julia sets for polynomials.* Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. [**3**]{} (1983), [509\u2013520]{}.\n\nA.\u00a0Douady, *Does a Julia set depend continuously on the polynomial?* Complex dynamical systems (Cincinnati, OH, 1994) Proc. Sympos. Appl. Math., vol. 49, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994, 91\u2013138. L.\u00a0Fej[\u00e9]{}r, *[\u00dc]{}ber die Lage der Nullstellen von Polynomen, die aus Minimumforderungen gewisser Art entspringen*. Math. Ann. [**85**]{} (1922), 41\u201348.\n\nK.\u00a0A.\u00a0Lindsay, *Shapes of polynomial Julia sets*. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. [**35**]{} (2014), 1913\u20131924.\n\nM.\u00a0Lyubich, *Entropy properties of rational endomorphisms of the Riemann sphere.* Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys. [**3**]{} (1983), pp. [351\u2013385]{}.\n\nH.\u00a0Stahl and V.\u00a0Totik, *General Orthogonal Polynomials*. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Cambridge University Press, 1992.\n\nT.\u00a0Ransford, *Potential Theory in the Complex Plane*. London Mathematical Society Student Texts 28, Cambridge Uinversity Press 1995.\n\nJacob Stordal Christiansen, Lund University, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Box 118, 22100 Lund, Sweden\\\n`stordal@maths.lth.se`\n\nChristian Henriksen, DTU Compute, Technical University of Denmark, Build. 303B, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark\\\n`chrh@dtu.dk` Henrik Laurberg Pedersen, Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark\\\n`henrikp@math.ku.dk` Carsten Lunde Petersen, Department of Science and Environment, Roskilde University, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark\\\n`lunde@ruc.dk`\n\n[^1]: The authors would like to thank the Danish Council for Independent Research $|$ Natural Sciences for support via the grant DFF \u2013 4181-00502. The last author would also like to thank the Institute of Mathematical Sciences of Stony Brook University for support and hosting during the writings of the paper.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    Let $p$ be an odd prime and $r\\geq 1$. Suppose that $\\alpha$ is a $p$-adic integer with $\\alpha\\equiv2a\\pmod p$ for some $1\\leq a<(p+r)/(2r+1)$. We confirm a conjecture of Sun and prove that $${}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}\\alpha&\\alpha&\\ldots&\\alpha\\\\\n    &1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}\\equiv0\\pmod{p^2},$$ where the truncated hypergeometric series $${}_{q+1}F_{q}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}x_0&x_1&\\ldots&x_{q}\\\\\n    &y_1&\\ldots&y_q\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,z\\bigg]_{n}:=\\sum_{k=0}^n\\frac{(x_0)_k(x_1)_k\\cdots(x_q)_k}{(y_1)_k\\cdot (y_q)_k}\\cdot\\frac{z^k}{k!}.$$\naddress:\n- 'Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, People\u2019s Republic of China'\n- 'Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, People\u2019s Republic of China'\nauthor:\n- 'Guo-Shuai Mao'\n- Hao Pan\ntitle: On the divisibility of some truncated hypergeometric series\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nFor an odd prime $p$, let $\\Z_p$ denote the ring of all $p$-adic integers. In [@SunZW12 Theorem 1.3 (i)], Sun proved that if $x\\in\\Z_p$ and $x\\equiv -2a\\pmod p$ for some $1\\leq a\\leq (p-1)/3$, then $$\\label{Sunr3}\n\\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}(-1)^k\\binom{x}{k}^3\\equiv 0\\pmod{p^3}.$$ Motivated by (\\[Sunr3\\]), Sun conjectured [@SunZW12 Conjecture 4.4] that for any integer $r\\geq 2$ and odd prime $p$, if $x\\in\\Z_p$ and $x\\equiv -2a\\pmod p$ for some $1\\leq a\\leq (p+1)/(2r+1)$, then $$\\label{SunConj}\n\\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}(-1)^k\\binom{x}{k}^{2r+1}\\equiv 0\\pmod{p^2}.$$\n\nDefine the truncated hypergeometric series $${}_{r+1}F_{r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}x_0&x_1&\\ldots&x_{r}\\\\\n&y_1&\\ldots&y_r\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,z\\bigg]_{n}=\\sum_{k=0}^n\\frac{(x_0)_k(x_1)_k\\cdots(x_r)_k}{(y_1)_k\\cdot (y_r)_k}\\cdot\\frac{z^k}{k!},$$ where $$(x)_k=\\begin{cases}\nx(x+1)\\cdots(x+k-1),&\\text{if }k\\geq 1,\\\\\n1,&\\text{if }k=0.\n\\end{cases}$$ In fact, the truncated hypergeometric series is just the sum of the first finite terms of the original hypergeometric series. In the recent years, the arithmetic properties of the truncated hypergeometric series have been widely investigated (cf. [@AhOn00; @DFLST16; @He17; @Liu17; @LoRa16; @Mo04; @Mo05; @OsSc09; @OsStZu; @SunZH13; @SunZW13; @Ta12]). Note that $$\\binom{x}{k}=(-1)^k\\cdot\\frac{(-x)_k}{(1)_k}\n.$$ Clearly the left side of (\\[SunConj\\]) coincides with $${}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}-x&-x&\\ldots&-x\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}.$$\n\nIn this short note, we shall give an affirmative answer to Sun\u2019s conjecture.\n\n\\[main\\] Let $p$ be an odd prime and $r\\geq 1$. Suppose that $\\alpha\\in\\Z_p$ and $\\alpha\\equiv 2a\\pmod p$ for some $1\\leq a<(p+r)/(2r+1)$. Then $$\\label{SunTH}\n{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}\\alpha&\\alpha&\\ldots&\\alpha\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}\\equiv 0\\pmod{p^2}.$$\n\nNotice that the permitted range of $\\alpha$ in Theorem \\[main\\] is a little larger than the one conjectured by Sun.\n\nFurthermore, we mention that Theorem \\[main\\] (or just (\\[Sunr3\\])) also implies another conjecture of Sun. In [@SunZW11 Remark 1.2], Sun conjectured that for any prime $p$ with $p\\equiv1\\pmod{4}$, $$\\label{SunConjCat}\n\\sum_{k=0}^{\\frac{1}2(p-1)}\\frac{C_k^{3}}{64^{k}}\\equiv8\\pmod{p^2},$$ where $$C_k:=\\frac1{k+1}\\binom{2k}{k}$$ is the $k$-th Catalan number. It is easy to check that $$\\frac{C_k}{4^k}=\\frac{1}{k+1}\\cdot\\frac{(\\frac12)_k}{(1)_k}=-2\\cdot\\frac{(-\\frac12)_{k+1}}{(1)_{k+1}}.$$ We also have $C_k\\equiv 0\\pmod{p}$ for each $(p+1)/2\\leq k\\leq p-2$. So (\\[SunConjCat\\]) is actually equivalent to $$\\label{3F212}\n\\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\\frac{(-\\frac12)_k^3}{(1)_k^3}\\equiv 0\\pmod{p^2}.$$ When $p\\equiv 1\\pmod{4}$, $$-\\frac12\\equiv\\frac{p-1}{2}=2\\cdot\\frac{p-1}{4}\\pmod{p}.$$ Thus since $(p-1)/4<(p+1)/3$, (\\[3F212\\]) immediately follows from Theorem \\[main\\] by setting $\\alpha=-1/2$ and $r=1$.\n\nOur proof of Theorem \\[main\\], which will be given in the subsequent section, follows a similar way in [@MP]. We shall construct a polynomial $\\psi(x)\\in\\Z_p[x]$ with $\\psi(p)=0$ such that $${}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}\\alpha&\\alpha&\\ldots&\\alpha\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}=\\psi(sp)$$ for some $s\\in\\Z_p$. Then the proof of (\\[SunTH\\]) can be easily reduced to show that $\\psi'(0)$ is divisible by $p$.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[main\\]\n=========================\n\nFirst, let us introduce several auxiliary lemmas.\n\n\\[KM\\] Let $m_1,\\ldots,m_r$ be non-negative integers and $a$ be a positive integer. If $a>m_1+\\ldots+m_r$, then $$\\label{KMe}\n{}_{r+1}F_{r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}-a&1+m_1&\\ldots&1+m_r\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]=0.$$\n\nThis is a consequence of the Karlsson-Minton formula [@Ka71 (12)].\n\n\\[r1Frm1\\] Suppose that $m$ is a positive odd integer and $r\\geq 0$ is even. Then $$\\label{r1Frm1e}\n{}_{r+1}F_{r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}-m&-m&\\ldots&-m\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]=0.$$\n\nWe have $${}_{r+1}F_{r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}-m&-m&\\ldots&-m\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]=\\sum_{k=0}^m\\frac{(-m)_k^{r+1}}{(1)_k^{r+1}}=\n\\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^k\\binom{m}{k}^{r+1}.$$ Then (\\[r1Frm1e\\]) follows from the fact $$\\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^k\\binom{m}{k}^{r+1}=\\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^{m-k}\\binom{m}{m-k}^{r+1}=\n-\\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^{k}\\binom{m}{k}^{r+1}.$$\n\nDefine the $n$-th harmonic number $$H_n:=\\sum_{k=1}^n\\frac1k.$$ In particular, we set $H_0=0$.\n\n\\[2a2r1HkH2ak1\\] Suppose that $p$ is an odd prime and $0\\leq a<p/2$ is an integer. Then for any $r\\geq 0$, $$\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\\cdot H_k\\equiv\n-\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\\cdot H_{2a+k-1}\\pmod{p}.$$\n\nClearly $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\\cdot H_k\\equiv&\n\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a-p)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\\cdot H_k\n=\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}(-1)^kH_k\\binom{p-2a}k^{2r+1}\\\\\n=&\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}(-1)^{p-2a-k}H_{p-2a-k}\\binom{p-2a}{p-2a-k}^{2r+1}\\\\\n\\equiv&-\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}(-1)^{k}H_{2a+k-1}\\binom{p-2a}{k}^{2r+1}\\pmod{p},\\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we use the well-known fact $$H_{k}\\equiv H_{p-1-k}\\pmod{p}$$ for any $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$.\n\nNow we are ready to prove Theorem \\[main\\]. Let $$\\psi(x)={}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}2a-x&2a-x&\\ldots&2a-x\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}.$$ Then by Lemma \\[r1Frm1\\], $$\\psi(p)={}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}2a-p&2a-p&\\ldots&2a-p\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]=0.$$ Furthermore, for any integers $s_0,s_1,\\ldots,s_r,t_1,\\ldots,t_r$, evidently we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{2r1F2rstp}\n&{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}2a-s_0p&2a-s_1p&\\ldots&2a-s_rp\\\\\n&1+t_1p&\\ldots&1+t_rp\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}\\notag\\\\\n\\equiv&\n{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}2a-p&2a-p&\\ldots&2a-p\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}=0\\pmod{p}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nLet $s=(2a-\\alpha)/p$. By the Taylor expansion of $\\psi(x)$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}\\alpha&\\alpha&\\ldots&\\alpha\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}=\\psi(sp)\\equiv&\\psi(p)+(s-1)p\\cdot\\psi'(p)\\\\\n\\equiv&(s-1)p\\cdot\\psi'(0)\\pmod{p^2}.\\end{aligned}$$ It suffices to show that $\\psi'(0)$ is divisible by $p$. Let$$\\phi(x)={}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}2a-x&2a&\\ldots&2a\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}.$$ Then $$\\label{psi2r1phi}\n\\psi'(x)=(2r+1)\\phi'(x).$$ If $2r+1\\equiv 0\\pmod{p}$, clearly $\\psi'(0)\\equiv 0\\pmod{p}$. So we may assume that $2r+1$ is not divisible by $p$. Below we only need to prove that $$\\phi'(0)\\equiv0\\pmod{p}.$$\n\nOur strategy is to compute $\\phi'(0)$ modulo $p$ in two different ways. One way is simple. Clearly $$\\label{difffactoral}\n\\frac{d((m-x)_k)}{dx}\\bigg|_{x=0}=-(m)_k\\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}\\frac1{m+i}=(m)_k(H_{m-1}-H_{m+k-1})$$ for any positive integer $m$. So we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{phi0p}\n\\phi'(0)=&\\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\\frac{(2a)_k^{2r}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\\cdot\\frac{d((2a-x)_k)}{dx}\\bigg|_{x=0}\\notag\\\\\n=&\\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\\cdot(H_{2a-1}-H_{2a+k-1})\\notag\\\\\n\\equiv&-\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a)_k^{2r+1}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\\cdot H_{2a+k-1}\\pmod p,\\end{aligned}$$ by noting that $p$ divides $(2a)_k$ for $2a+1\\leq k\\leq p-1$.\n\nHowever, the other way is a little complicated. According to Lemma \\[KM\\], we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{phi2psum}\n\\phi(2p)=&{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}2a-2p&2a&\\ldots&2a\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}\\notag\\\\\n=&{}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}2a-2p&2a&\\ldots&2a\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]-\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a-2p)_{p+k}(2a)_{p+k}^{2r}}{(1)_{p+k}^{2r+1}}\\notag\\\\\n=&-\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a-2p)_{p+k}(2a)_{p+k}^{2r}}{(1)_{p+k}^{2r+1}},\\end{aligned}$$ since $\n2p-2a>2r(2a-1)\n$ now. It is easy to check that $$\\frac{(2a-2p)_p(2a)_p^{2r}}{(1)_p^{2r+1}}\\equiv-1\\pmod{p}.$$ Then we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{2a2p2a1pk}\n\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a-2p)_{p+k}(2a)_{p+k}^{2r}}{(1)_{p+k}^{2r+1}}=&\n\\frac{(2a-2p)_p(2a)_p^{2r}}{(1)_p^{2r+1}}\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a-p)_{k}(2a+p)_{k}^{2r}}{(1+p)_{k}^{2r+1}}\\notag\\\\\n\\equiv&-\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a-p)_{k}(2a+p)_{k}^{2r}}{(1+p)_{k}^{2r+1}}\n\\pmod{p^2},\\end{aligned}$$ since $p$ divides the last sum by (\\[2r1F2rstp\\]).\n\nWhile in view of (\\[difffactoral\\]), for any $t\\in\\Z_p$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n(2a-tp)_k-(2a)_k\\equiv&tp\\cdot \\frac{d((2a-x)_k)}{dx}\\bigg|_{x=0}\\\\\n\\equiv&\ntp\\cdot (2a)_k(H_{2a-1}-H_{2a+k-1})\\pmod{p^2}.\\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{2ap2ap1p2a1}\n&\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a-p)_{k}(2a+p)_{k}^{2r}}{(1+p)_{k}^{2r+1}}-\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2a}\\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\\notag\\\\\n\\equiv&p\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2k}\\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\\cdot\n\\big((1-2r)\\cdot (H_{2a-1}-H_{2a+k-1})-(2r+1)H_k\\big)\\notag\\\\\n\\equiv&p\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2k}\\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\\cdot\n\\big((2r-1)H_{2a+k-1}-(2r+1)H_k\\big)\n\\pmod{p^2},\\end{aligned}$$ where (\\[2r1F2rstp\\]) is applied again in the last step.\n\nFinally, combining (\\[2ap2ap1p2a1\\]) with (\\[phi2psum\\]) and (\\[2a2p2a1pk\\]), and applying Lemma \\[2a2r1HkH2ak1\\], we obtain that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{phi0p2r}\n\\phi'(0)\\equiv&\\frac{\\phi(2p)-\\phi(0)}{2p}\\notag\\\\\n\\equiv&\\frac12\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2k}\\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\\cdot\n\\big((2r-1)H_{2a+k-1}-(2r+1)H_k\\big)\\notag\\\\\n\\equiv&2r\\sum_{k=0}^{p-2k}\\frac{(2a)_{k}^{2r+1}}{(1)_{k}^{2r+1}}\\cdot\nH_{2a+k-1}\\pmod{p}.\\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $2r+1$ has been assumed to be co-prime to $p$. Hence by (\\[phi0p\\]) and (\\[phi0p2r\\]), we must have $$\\phi'(0)\\equiv 0\\pmod{p}.$$ All are done.\n\nIn view of (\\[psi2r1phi\\]), we always have $\\psi'(0)\\equiv0\\pmod{p}$ whenever $p$ divides $2r+1$. So if $\\alpha\\in\\Z_p$ and $\\alpha\\equiv 2a\\pmod{p}$ for some $1\\leq a\\leq (p-1)/2$, then $${}_{np}F_{np-1}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}\\alpha&\\alpha&\\ldots&\\alpha\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}\\equiv 0\\pmod{p^2}$$ for any odd $n\\geq 1$.\n\nSuppose that $r\\geq 1$ is not divisible by $(p-1)/2$. Let $r_*\\geq 1$ be the least positive residue of $r$ modulo $(p-1)/2$. Then by the Fermat little theorem, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d}{dx}\\bigg(\\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\\frac{(2a-x)_k(2a)_k^{2r}}{(1)_k^{2r+1}}\\bigg)\\bigg|_{x=0}\n\\equiv\\frac{d}{dx}\\bigg(\\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\\frac{(2a-x)_k(2a)_k^{2r_*}}{(1)_k^{2r_*+1}}\\bigg)\\bigg|_{x=0}\\pmod{p}.\\end{aligned}$$ It follows that for any $p$-adic integer $\\alpha$ with $\\alpha\\equiv2a\\pmod{p}$ for some $1\\leq a<(p+r_*)/(2r_*+1)$, $${}_{2r+1}F_{2r}\\bigg[\\begin{matrix}\\alpha&\\alpha&\\ldots&\\alpha\\\\\n&1&\\ldots&1\\end{matrix}\\bigg|\\,1\\bigg]_{p-1}\\equiv 0\\pmod{p^2}$$\n\n. The authors are grateful to Professor Zhi-Wei Sun for his very helpful comments on this paper.\n\n[ST10]{}\n\nS. Ahlgren and K. Ono, [*A Gaussian hypergeometric series evaluation and Ap\u00e9ry number congruences*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 518 (2000), 187\u2013212.\n\nA. Deines, J. G. Fuselier, L. Long, H. Swisher and F.-T. Tu, [*Hypergeometric series, truncated hypergeometric series, and Gaussian hypergeometric functions*]{}, Directions in number theory, 125\u2013159, Assoc. Women Math. Ser., 3, Springer, 2016.\n\nB. He, [*Supercongruences and truncated hypergeometric series*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 145 (2017), 501-508.\n\nP. W. Karlsson, [*Hypergeometric functions with integral parameter differences*]{}, J. Math. Phys. [**12**]{} (1971), 270-271.\n\nJ.-C. Liu, [*Congruences for truncated hypergeometric series $_2F_1$*]{}, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. [**96**]{} (2017), 14-23.\n\nL. Long and R. Ramakrishna, [*Some supercongruences occurring in truncated hypergeometric series*]{}, Adv. Math. 290 (2016), 773-808.\n\nG.-S. Mao and H. Pan, [*$p$-adic analogues of hypergeometric identities*]{}, preprint, arXiv:1703.01215.\n\nE. Mortenson, [*Supercongruences between truncated ${}\\sb 2F\\sb 1$ hypergeometric functions and their Gaussian analogs*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), 987-1007.\n\nE. Mortenson, [*Supercongruences for truncated ${}_{n+1}F_n$ hypergeometric series with applications to certain weight three newforms*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 133 (2005), 321-330.\n\nR. Osburn and C. Schneider, [*Gaussian hypergeometric series and supercongruences*]{}, Math. Comp. [**78**]{} (2009), 275-292.\n\nR. Osburn, A. Straub and W. Zudilin, [*A modular supercongruence for $_6F_5$: an Ap\u00e9ry-like story*]{}, preprint, arXiv:1701.04098 .\n\nZ.-H. Sun, [*Congruences concerning Legendre polynomials II*]{}, J. Number Theory [**133**]{} (2013), 1950-1976.\n\nZ.-W. Sun, [*On congruences related to central binomal coefficients*]{}, J. Number Theory [**131**]{} (2011), 2219-2238.\n\nZ.-W. Sun, [*On sums of Ap\u00e9ry polynomials and related congruences*]{}, J. Number Theory [**132**]{} (2012), 2673-2690.\n\nZ.-W. Sun, [*Supecongruences involving products of two binomial coefficients*]{}, Finite Fields Appl. [**22**]{} (2013), 24-44.\n\nR. Tauraso, [*Supercongruences for a truncated hypergeometric series*]{}, Integers [**12**]{} (2012), Paper No. A45, 12 pp.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Leveraging grant-free radio access for enabling low-power wide-area (LPWA) Internet of Things (IoT) connectivity has attracted lots of attention in recent years. Regarding lack of research on LPWA IoT networks, this work is devoted to reliability modeling, battery-lifetime analysis, and operation-control of such networks. We derive the interplay amongst density of the access points, communication bandwidth, volume of traffic from heterogeneous sources, and quality of service (QoS) in communications. The presented analytical framework comprises modeling of interference from heterogeneous sources with correlated deployment locations and time-frequency asynchronous radio-resource usage patterns. The derived expressions represent the operation regions and rates in which, energy and cost resources of devices and the access network, respectively, could be traded to achieve a given level of QoS in communications. For example, our expressions indicate the expected increase in QoS by increasing number of transmitted replicas, transmit power, density of the access points, and communication bandwidth. Our results further shed light on scalability of such networks and figure out the bounds up to which, scaling resources can compensate the increase in traffic volume and QoS demand. Finally, we present an energy-optimized operation control policy for IoT devices. The simulation results confirm tightness of the derived analytical expressions, and indicate usefulness of them in planning and operation control of IoT networks.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Amin Azari and Cicek Cavdar\\\n    KTH Royal Institue of Technology, Email: {aazari, cavdar}@kth.se\nbibliography:\n- 'bibs.bib'\ntitle: 'Performance Evaluation and Optimization of LPWA IoT Networks: A Stochastic Geometry Approach'\n---\n\n5G, Coexistence, Grant-free, Reliability and durability, LPWA IoT.\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nProviding connectivity for massive Internet-of-Things (IoT) devices is a key driver of 5G [@5g_iot]. Until now, several solutions have been proposed for enabling large-scale IoT connectivity, including evolutionary and revolutionary solutions [@mag_all]. Evolutionary solutions aim at enhancing connectivity procedure of existing LTE networks, e.g. access reservation and scheduling improvement [@isl; @nL]. On the other hand, revolutionary solutions aim at providing scalable low-power IoT connectivity by redesigning the access network. In 3GPP LTE Rel. 13, narrowband IoT (NB-IoT) has been announced as a revolutionary solution which handles communications over a 200 KHz bandwidth [@ciot]. This narrow bandwidth brings high link budget, and offers extended coverage [@ciot]. To provide autonomous low-latency access to radio resources, grant-free radio access is a study item in 3GPP IoT working groups, and it is expected to be included in future 3GPP standards [@gf31]. Thanks to the simplified connectivity procedure, and removing the need for pairing and fine synchronization, grant-free radio access has attracted lots of interests in recent years for providing low-power ultra-durable IoT connectivity, especially when more than 10 years lifetime is required. SigFox and LoRa are two dominant grant-free radio access solutions over the public ISM-band, which is used for industrial, scientific, and medical purposes [@mag_all]. While energy consumptions of LoRa and SigFox solutions are extremely low, and their provided link budget is enough to penetrate to most indoor areas, e.g. LoRa signal can be decoded when it is 20 dB less than the noise level, reliability of their communications in coexistence scenarios is questionable [@int2; @mey]. [@int2] presents experimental measurements in such coexistence scenarios, where multiple IoT technologies are sharing a set of radio resources, and confirms significant impact of interference on IoT communications. Regarding the growing interest in grant-free radio access for IoT communications in public and proprietary cellular networks [@gf31; @mag_all], it is required to investigate the reliability, battery lifetime, and scalability of such networks in serving multi-type IoT devices.\n\nLiterature Study\n----------------\n\nNon-orthogonal radio access has attracted lots of attentions in recent years as a complementary radio access scheme for future generations of wireless networks [@noma; @jsacS]. In literature, non-orthogonal access has been mainly employed in order to increase the network throughput [@reem], reliability [@url], battery lifetime [@gf], and reduce access delay [@reem] in serving non-IoT traffic. In [@miao2016MAC], grant-free access to uplink radio resources of cellular networks has been analyzed for intra-group communications of IoT devices. In [@gf], a novel receiver for grant-free radio access IoT networks has been designed, which benefits from oscillator imperfection of cheap IoT devices for contention resolution. In [@2d], outage probability in grant-free access has been studied by assuming a constant received power from all contending devices, which is not the case in practice regarding the limited transmit-power of IoT devices, as well as lack of channel state information at the device-side for power control. The success probability in grant-free radio access has been also analyzed in [@sic; @mey] by assuming a Poisson point process (PPP) distribution of IoT devices.\n\nOne sees the research on grant-free radio access has been mainly focused on success probability analysis in homogeneous scenarios, and there is lack of research on performance analysis of large-scale IoT networks with multi-type IoT devices with heterogeneous communications characteristics. Furthermore, when it comes to the distribution of devices in wide-area IoT networks, PPP has been mainly used. However, this assumption may lead to inaccurate results [@math; @pcp] due to the cell ranges that can go up to tens of kilometers [@mag_all] and hot-spots. In hot-spots, e.g. buildings and shopping centers, a high density of IoT devices exist; while outside them, a low density of devices exists. Then, a Poisson cluster process (PCP), which takes the correlation between locations of devices into account, suits well for the distribution process of devices in LPWA IoT networks [@math; @pcp].\n\nContributions\n-------------\n\nHere, we address an important problem, not tackled previously: network design in coexistence scenarios with grant-free radio access. Enabling IoT connectivity requires deployment of access points (APs) and allocation of frequency resources, which increase the network costs. On the other hand, the experienced delay, consumed energy, and success of IoT applications have strong couplings with reliability of data transfer, which is a function of provisioned network resources. This tradeoff is investigated in this work. The main contributions of this work include:\n\n-   Provide a rigorous analytical model of reliability for heterogeneous LPWA IoT networks in terms of provisioned resources, e.g. density of the APs, and characteristics of traffic, e.g. activity factor of each traffic type.\n\n-   Provide an analytical model of battery lifetime for IoT devices in terms of device\u2019s parameters, e.g. battery capacity, and network parameters, e.g. reliability of communications.\n\n-   Analyze the tradeoffs among network cost, battery lifetime, and reliability of communications. Present the operation regions in which tuning a communication parameter, e.g. number of replica transmissions, increases both reliability and battery lifetime, offers a tradeoff between them, and decreases both of them.\n\n-   Propose a reliability-constrained lifetime-optimized operation control policy for IoT devices.\n\n-   Analyze scalability of the network. Figuring out the bounds up to which, scaling network\u2019s and devices\u2019 resources can compensate the increase in traffic volume and QoS demand.\n\nThe remainder of paper has been organized as follows. System model and problem description are presented in the next section. Modeling of KPIs is presented in section III. Section IV presents the optimized operation control strategies. Simulation results are presented in section V. Concluding remarks are given in section VI.\n\nSystem Model and Problem Description\n====================================\n\nSystem Model {#sys}\n------------\n\nA set of IoT devices, denoted by $\\Phi$, have been distributed according to different spatial PCPs in a wide service area. $\\Phi$ comprises of $K$ subsets, $\\Phi_k$ for $k\\in \\mathcal K \\buildrel \\Delta \\over = \\{1,\\cdots, K\\}$, where each subset refers to a specific type of IoT service. Traffic from different subsets differ in the way they use the time-frequency resources, i.e. in frequency of packet generation $1/T_k$, signal bandwidth $w_k$, packet transmission time $\\tau_k$, number of replicas[^1] transmitted per packet $n_k$, and transmit power $P_k$. Subscript $k$ refers to the type of IoT devices. For PCP of type-$k$ IoT traffic, the $(\\lambda_k, \\upsilon_k, \\text{f}({\\bf x}))$ tuple characterizes the distribution process in which, $\\lambda_k$ is the density of the parent points and $\\upsilon_k$ is the average number of daughter points per parent point[^2], as defined in [@pcp]. Also, $\\text{f}({\\bf x})$ is an isotropic function representing scattering density of the daughter points around a parent point, e.g. a normal distribution: $$\\label{nor}\\text{f}({\\bf x})={\\exp(-||{\\bf x}-{\\bf x}_0||^2/(2\\sigma^2))}/{\\sqrt{2\\pi\\sigma^2}},$$ where $\\sigma$ is the variance of distribution and ${\\bf x}_0$ is the location of parent point. A frequency spectrum of $W$ is shared for communications, on which the power spectral density of noise is denoted by $\\mathcal N$. We aim at collecting data from a subset of $\\mathcal K$, denoted by $\\phi$, where $|\\phi|\\le |\\mathcal K|$. Devices in $\\phi$ may also share a set of semi-orthogonal codes denoted by $\\varpi $ with cardinality $|\\varpi|$, which reduces the interference from other devices reusing the same radio resource with a different code by factor of $\\mathcal Q$. Examples of such codes are semi-orthogonal spreading codes in LoRa technology [@mag_all].\n\nAnalytical Modeling of KPIs\n===========================\n\nModeling of Reliability\n-----------------------\n\nIn the grant-free radio access system, transmitting devices are asynchronous in time and frequency domains, and hence, the received packets at the receiver could have partial overlaps in time-frequency. To model reliability in communications, we first derive analytical models for interference in subsection \\[siI\\], and for probability of success in subsection \\[su1\\]. These models are then employed in deriving reliability of communications in subsection \\[rels\\].\n\n### Interference Analysis {#siI}\n\nWe assume a type-$i$ device has been located at point $\\bf z$ in a 2D plane, and its respective AP has been located at the origin. In order to derive probability of success in data transmission from the device to the AP, we need to characterize the received interfere at the AP. A common practice in interference analysis is to determine its moments, which is possible by finding its generating function, i.e. the Laplace functional [@adhoc; @math]. Towards this end, let us introduce three stationary and isotropic processes: i) $ \\Psi^{(1)} =\\cup_{k\\in \\mathcal K} \\Psi_k^{(1)}$, where $\\Psi_{k}^{(1)}$ represents the PCP containing locations of type-$k$ transmitting nodes which are reusing radio resources with a similar code to the code[^3] of transmitter of interest; ii) $ \\Psi^{(2)} =\\cup_{k\\in \\mathcal K}  \\Psi_k^{(2)}$, where $ \\Psi_{k}^{(2)}$ represents the PCP containing locations of type-$k$ transmitting nodes which are reusing radio resources with a different code (or no code, in case $k\\notin \\phi$) than the transmitter of interest; and iii) $\\Psi=\\cup_{j\\in\\{1,2\\}} \\Psi_k^{(j)}$. For an AP located at the origin, the Laplace functional of the received interference at the receiver is given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\mathcal L_{I_{\\Psi}}(s)&=\\mathbb E\\big[\\exp(-s I_{\\Psi})\\big]\\label{base}\\\\\n &=\\mathbb E\\big[  \\prod\\nolimits_{j\\in \\{1,2\\}} \\prod\\nolimits_{k\\in \\mathcal K}  \\prod\\nolimits_{{\\bf x}\\in \\Psi_k^{(j)}}\\mathcal L_h({sQ_j P_k  \\text{g}({\\bf x})})\\big],\\nonumber\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where $ Q_j P_k  \\text{g}({\\bf x})$ is the average received power due to a type-$k$ transmitter at point ${\\bf x}$, $Q_1=1$, $Q_2=\\mathcal Q$, and $\\mathcal Q$ is the rate of rejection of interference between two devices with different multiple access codes, as defined in section \\[sys\\]. Also, $h$ is the power fading coefficient associated with the channel between the device and the AP, and $\\mathcal L_{h}\\big(s Q_j  P_k \\text{g}({\\bf x})\\big)$ is the Laplace functional of the received power. We consider the following general path-loss model $ \\text{g}({\\bf x}) = 1/(\\alpha_1 + \\alpha_2||{\\bf x}||^\\delta),$ where $\\delta$ is the pathloss exponent, and $\\alpha_1$ and $\\alpha_2$ are control parameters. When $h$ follows Nakagami-$m$ fading, with the shaping and spread parameters of $m\\in \\mathbb Z^i$ and $\\Omega>0$ respectively, the probability density function (PDF) of the power fading coefficient is given by: $$\\text{p}_h(q)= \\frac{1}{{\\Gamma(m)}}(\\frac{m}{\\Omega})^m q^{m-1}\\exp\\big({-\\frac{mq}{\\Omega}}\\big),\\label{nm}$$ where $\\Gamma$ is the Gamma function. Then, using Laplace table, $\\mathcal L_{h}\\big(sQ_j  P_k \\text{g}({\\bf x})\\big)$ is derived as: $$\\label{laph}L_h(s  Q_j P_k \\text{g}({\\bf x}))={\\big(1+{\\Omega}s P_k \\text{g}({\\bf x})/m\\big)^{-m}}.$$ By inserting in and considering the fact that the received interferences from different devices are independent, we have: $$\\mathcal L_{I_{\\Psi}}(s)=  \\prod\\nolimits_{j,k}\\mathbb E_{{\\bf x},{\\bf y}}\\bigg[  \\prod\\nolimits_{{\\bf y}\\in \\Theta_{k}}\\big(  \\prod\\nolimits_{{\\bf x}\\in \\theta_{\\bf y}^{(j)}}u({\\bf x},{\\bf y})\\big)\\bigg],\\nonumber$$ where $k\\in\\mathcal K$, $j\\in\\{1,2\\}$, the set of parent points of type-$k$ is denoted by $\\Theta_{k}$, and transmitting nodes which are daughter points of $y$ as $\\theta_{\\bf y}^{(j)}$. Also, $\\mathbb E_x$ represents expectation over $x$, and $$u({\\bf x},{\\bf y})={\\big(1 {+}{\\Omega}s Q_j P_k \\text{g}({\\bf x} {-}{\\bf y})/{m}\\big)^{-m}}.$$ The received interference over the packet of interest can be decomposed into two parts: i) interference from transmitters belonging to the cluster of transmitter, i.e. daughter points of the same parent point; and ii) other transmitters. Let us denote the Laplace functional of interference from the former and latter transmitters as $\\mathcal L_{I_{\\Psi}}^{\\dag}(s)$ and $\\mathcal L_{I_{\\Psi}}^{\\ddag}(s)$ respectively. Then, we have: $$\\label{taj}\\mathcal L_{I_{\\Psi}}(s)=\\mathcal L_{I_{\\Psi}}^{\\ddag}(s)\\mathcal L_{I_{\\Psi}}^{\\dag}(s).$$ Using equation (18) in [@math], and by conditioning on $\\Theta_{k}$ and $\\theta_{\\bf y}^{(j)}$, one has: $$\\begin{aligned}\n &\\mathcal L_{I_{\\Psi}}^{\\ddag}(s)\\label{li}\\\\\n&  =  \\prod\\nolimits_{j,k}\\mathbb E_{y}\\bigg[  \\prod\\limits_{{\\bf y}\\in \\Theta_{k}}\\big\\{\\exp\\big(\\text{-}\\hat \\upsilon_{k,j}  \\int\\nolimits_{\\mathbb R^2} [1\\text{-}{u({\\bf x},{\\bf y})}]\\text{f}({\\bf x})d {\\bf x}\\big)\\big\\} \\bigg]\\nonumber,\\\\\n &  =\\exp\\big( \\text{-} {\\textstyle \\sum\\limits_{j,k}}\\lambda_k \\int\\limits_{\\mathbb R^2}\\big\\{1\\text{-}\\exp\\big(\\text{-}\\hat\\upsilon_{k,j} \\int\\limits_{\\mathbb R^2}[1\\text{-} {u({\\bf x},{\\bf y})}]\\text{f}({\\bf x})d {\\bf x} \\big)\\big\\}d {\\bf y}\\big).\\nonumber\n \\end{aligned}$$ Also, in the average numbers of interfering type-$k$ devices in each cluster for $j\\in\\{1,2\\}$ are denoted as $\\hat \\upsilon_{k,1}=\\upsilon_k\\frac{n_k\\tau_k}{T_k} \\frac{w_k}{W}\\frac{1}{|\\varpi| }$ and $\\hat \\upsilon_{k,2}=\\upsilon_k\\frac{n_k\\tau_k}{T_k} \\frac{w_k}{W}\\frac{|\\varpi| -1}{|\\varpi| }$ for $k\\in\\phi$. In these two expressions, the first fraction represents the percentage of time in which device is active, i.e. the time activity factor, the second fraction represents the ratio of bandwidth that device occupies in each transmission, i.e. the frequency activity-factor, and the third fraction represents the code-domain activity factor, i.e. the probability that two devices select the same code, i.e. $\\frac{1}{|\\varpi| }$, or different codes $\\frac{|\\varpi| -1}{|\\varpi| }$. Then, for $k\\notin \\phi$, in which devices don\u2019t share semi-orthogonal codes for communications, it is clear that $\\hat \\upsilon_{k,1}=0$, and $\\hat \\upsilon_{k,2}=\\upsilon_k\\frac{n_k\\tau_k}{T_k} \\frac{w_k}{W}$. Following the same procedure used for deriving $\\mathcal L_{I_\\Psi}^{\\ddag}(s)$, one can derive $\\mathcal L_{I_\\Psi}^{\\dag}(s)$ as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathcal L_{I_\\Psi}^{\\dag}(s)\\text{=}&\\prod\\nolimits_{j\\in\\{1,2\\}}\\mathbb E_y \\big[\\mathbb E_x [  \\prod\\nolimits_{{\\bf x}\\in \\theta_{\\bf y}^{(j)}}u({\\bf x},{\\bf y}) ]\\big]\\label{lik}\\\\\n\\text{=}& \\int\\nolimits_{\\mathbb R^2}\\exp\\big(\\text{-}{\\textstyle\\sum_j}\\hat \\upsilon_{i,j}  \\int\\nolimits_{\\mathbb R^2} \\big(1\\text{-}{u({\\bf x},{\\bf y})}\\big)\\text{f}({\\bf x})d {\\bf x}\\bigg)\\text{f}({\\bf y}) d {\\bf y}\\nonumber.\\end{aligned}$$\n\n### Probability of Success in Transmission {#su1}\n\nLet $N$ denote the additive noise at the receiver. Using the interference model, probability of success in packet transmission of a type-$i$ device, located at $\\bf z$, to the AP, located at the origin, is: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\text{p}_{\\text{s}}(i,{\\bf z})&=\\text{Pr}({  P_ih \\text{g}({\\bf z})}\\ge[{N+I_{\\Psi}}] \\gamma_{\\text{th}})\\label{suc}\\\\\n&\\buildrel (\\text{a}) \\over =   \\sum\\limits_{\\nu=0}^{m\\text{-}1}\\frac{1}{{\\nu}!}\\int\\nolimits_{0}^{\\infty}\\exp({-}\\frac{\\gamma_{\\text{th}}m q}{\\Omega   P_i \\text{g}({\\bf z})}) q^{\\nu}  d \\text{Pr}(I_\\Psi\\text{+}N\\ge q)\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\buildrel (\\text{b}) \\over =  \\sum\\nolimits_{{\\nu}=0}^{m\\text{-}1}\\frac{(-1)^{\\nu}}{{\\nu}!}[\\mathcal L_{I_{\\Psi}}(s)\\mathcal L_{N}(s)]^{({\\nu})} \\big|_{s=\\frac{\\gamma_{\\text{th}}m}{\\Omega   P_i \\text{g}({\\bf z})}}, \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $[F(s)]^{({\\nu})}=\\frac{\\partial^{\\nu}}{\\partial s^{\\nu}}F(s)$, (a) follows from [@adhoc Appendix\u00a0C] and equation in which $\\text{p}_h(q)$ has been defined, and finally (b) follows from [@alm Lemma\u00a03.1] and the fact that $\\mathcal L (t^n \\text{f}(t))=(-1)^n\\frac{\\partial^n}{\\partial s^n}F(s)$. Furthermore, $L_{I_{\\Psi}}$ has been characterized in and , and $\\mathcal L_N(s)$ is the Laplace transform of noise. In order to get insights on how coexisting services affect each other, in the following we focus on $m=1$, i.e. the Rayleigh fading, and present a closed-form approximation of the success probability. In section \\[simsec\\], we will evaluate tightness of this expression.\n\n\\[t1\\] For $m=1$, success probability in packet transmission can be approximated as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\text{p}_{\\text{s}}(i,{\\bf z})\\approx \\text{P}_{{\\text{\\tiny N} }} \\big[\\exp\\big(-\\sum\\limits_{j\\in\\{1,2\\}} \\sum\\limits_{k\\in\\mathcal K}\\lambda_k\\hat \\upsilon_{k,j} \\text{H}({\\bf z},1, \\frac{Q_j P_k\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{\\Omega  P_i})\\big)\\big]\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\hspace{1cm}\\times\\exp\\big(-\\sum\\nolimits_{j\\in\\{1,2\\}}{\\hat\\upsilon_{i,j}}  \\text{H}({\\bf z},\\text{f}^*({\\bf x}), \\frac{Q_j\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{\\Omega })\\big),\\label{ps}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\text{f}^*(\\cdot)=\\text{conv}\\big(\\text{f}(\\cdot),\\text{f}(\\cdot)\\big)$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\text{H}\\big({\\bf z},\\text{f}^*({\\bf x}), \\xi)&=\\int\\nolimits_{x\\in\\mathbb R^2}\\frac{\\text{g}({\\bf x})}{\\text{g}({\\bf  x})+\\text{g}({\\bf z})/\\xi}\\text{f}^*({\\bf x})d {\\bf x}\\label{hf},\\\\\n   \\text{P}_{{\\text{\\tiny N} }}&=\\exp\\big(-\\mathcal N\\gamma_{\\text{th}}/[\\Omega  P_i \\text{g}({\\bf z})] \\big)\\label{pn},\n  \\end{aligned}$$ and $\\mathcal N$ is the noise power.\n\nThe proof is given in theorem 3.2 of the extended version [@opd].\n\n$\\text{H}({\\bf z},\\text{f}^*({\\bf x}),\\xi)$ and $\\text{H}({\\bf z},1,\\xi)$ could be derived in closed-form for most well-known pathloss and distribution functions, as follows.\n\nFor $\\text{g}({\\bf x})=\\alpha||{\\bf x}||^{-\\delta}$, $$\\label{hfd} \\text{H}({\\bf z},1,\\xi)=  ||{\\bf z}||^2 \\xi^{\\frac{2}{\\delta}} 2\\pi^{2} \\text{csc}({2\\pi/\\delta})/\\delta.$$\n\nBy change of coordinates, ${\\bf x}\\to (r,\\theta)$, we have: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\text{H}\\big({\\bf z},1, \\xi)&=\\int\\nolimits_{x\\in\\mathbb R^2}\\frac{\\alpha{||\\bf x||}^{-\\delta}}{\\alpha{||\\bf x||}^{-\\delta}+\\alpha{||\\bf z||}^{-\\delta}/\\xi} d {\\bf x},\\nonumber\\\\\n&=2\\pi\\int\\nolimits_{0}^{\\infty}\\frac{1}{1+(r/||{\\bf z}||)^\\delta/\\xi}  { r  d r}.\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Solving this integral by using [@seri Eq.\u00a03.352], is derived. [ &lt;1.5em - 1.5em plus0em minus0.5em height0.75em width0.5em depth0.25em]{}\n\n\\[cne\\] For $\\text{g}({\\bf x})=\\alpha||{\\bf x}||^{-4}$, and $\\text{f}({\\bf x})$ given in , $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\text{H}({\\bf z},\\text{f}^*({\\bf x}),\\xi)=&  \\frac{||{\\bf z}||^2  }{4 \\sigma^2\\sqrt\\xi    }\\bigg[\\text{ci}(\\frac{ ||{\\bf z}||^2 }{4\\sigma^2\\sqrt{\\xi}}  )\\sin(\\frac{||{\\bf z}||^2 }{4\\sigma^2\\sqrt{\\xi}}  )-\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\hspace{1.7cm}\\text{si}(\\frac{||{\\bf z}||^2 }{4\\sigma^2\\sqrt{\\xi}}  )\\cos( \\frac{||{\\bf z}||^2 }{4\\sigma^2\\sqrt{\\xi}} )\\bigg],\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\text{si}(\\cdot)$ and $\\text{ci}(\\cdot)$ are well-known sine and cosine integrals, as follows: $$\\text{si}(x)=-\\int\\nolimits_{x}^{\\infty}\\frac{\\text{sin} (t)}{t}dt,\\hspace{2mm} \\text{ci}(x)=-\\int\\nolimits_{x}^{\\infty}\\frac{\\text{cos}(t)}{t}dt.$$\n\nThe proof is given in corollary 3.4 of the extended version [@opd].\n\n\\[r1\\] Analysis of $\\text{H}\\big({\\bf z},\\text{f}^*({\\bf x}), \\xi)$ shows that it can be well approximated by $1$ for $\\frac{\\sqrt\\xi||{\\bf z}||^2   }{4  \\sigma^2  }\\gg1$. For theorem \\[t1\\] in which $\\xi=Q_j\\gamma_{\\text {th}}/{\\Omega}$, $ \\text{H}\\big({\\bf z},\\text{f}^*({\\bf x}), \\xi)\\approx 0$ for $j=1$ because $Q_1=\\mathcal Q\\approx 0$; and $\\text{H}\\big({\\bf z},\\text{f}^*({\\bf x}), \\xi)\\approx 1$ for $j=2$ when $z\\gg z_0 \\buildrel \\Delta \\over =\\frac{2\\sigma \\sqrt[4]\\Omega}{\\sqrt[4]{\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}}$ because $Q_2=1$.\n\nFrom theorem \\[t1\\], one sees that probability of success, $\\text{p}_{\\text s}(i,{\\bf z})$, is a function of $||\\bf z||$ rather than phase of $\\bf z$. Then, hereafter we use $\\text{p}(i,z)$ to denote probability of success for communication distance of $z$.\n\nUntil now, we have derived the probability of success for a given communication distance to an AP. In the following, we investigate success probability where multiple APs might be able to decode a packet, i.e. the coverage areas of neighboring APs are overlapping. Regarding the fact that theorem \\[t1\\] provides probability of success as a function of communication distance, given the distribution process of APs, the expected communication distance to the neighboring APs, and hence, probability of success in data transmission could be derived. In PPP deployment of APs with density $\\lambda_{\\text{a}}$, the PDF of distance from a random point to the $\\ell$th nearest AP, denoted by $d_{\\ell}$ is given by [@dis]: $$\\text{P}_{d_{\\ell}}(r)=\\exp(-\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi r^2) {2(\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi r^2)^{\\ell}}/[{r({\\ell}-1)!}].$$ Then, one can derive the average probability of success in packet transmission from a random point for type-$i$ as: $$\\text{P}_\\text{s}(i)=  1-\\prod\\nolimits_{{\\ell}=1}^{\\ell_{\\max}} \\int\\nolimits_{0}^{\\infty} \\big(1-\\text{p}_\\text{s}(i,r)\\big) ~ \\text{P}_{d_{\\ell}}(r) dr.\\label{cov}$$\n\n\\[t3\\] For $\\text{f}(x)$ given in , and $\\text{g}({\\bf z})=\\alpha||{\\bf z}||^{-4}$, we have: $$\\text{P}_\\text{s}(i)\\approx  1-\\prod\\nolimits_{{\\ell}=1}^{\\ell_{\\max}} \\big[1-\\frac{X_0}{\\sqrt{{X_1}^{\\ell-1}}} \\exp(\\frac{{X_2}^2}{4{X_1}^2} ) \\mathcal G(X_3,\\ell)\\big],$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\text{where } X_0=\\frac{(\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi)^\\ell}{(\\ell-1)!}\\exp\\big(-{\\hat\\upsilon_{i,2}} \\big), X_1=\\frac{ \\mathcal N\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{\\Omega  P_i \\alpha},\\nonumber\\\\ \n  & X_2=\\sum\\limits_{j,k} \\lambda_k\\hat \\upsilon_{k,j} \n  (\\frac{\\gamma_{\\text{th}}Q_j P_k}{\\Omega  P_i})^{0.5} \\frac{\\pi^{2}}{2} \\text{csc}(\\frac{\\pi}{2})+\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi, X_3=\\frac{X_2}{2\\sqrt{X_1}}.\\nonumber\n   \\end{aligned}$$ Also, $\\mathcal G(X_3,\\ell)=\\int\\nolimits_{\\frac{{X_2}^2}{2X_1}}^{\\infty}  (z\\text{-}X_3)^{(\\ell-1)}\\exp(-z^2)dz,$ and could be derived for any $\\ell$ in the form of error function, e.g. for $\\ell_{\\max}=2$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\mathcal G(X_3,1)=-(\\sqrt{\\pi}(\\text{erf}(X_3) - 1))/2,\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\mathcal G(X_3,2)=\\exp(-X_3^2)/2 + (X_3 \\sqrt{\\pi}(\\text{erf}(X_3) - 1))/2.\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe proof is given in theorem 3.5 of the extended version [@opd].\n\n### Reliability of IoT Communication {#rels}\n\nNow, we have the required tools to investigate reliability of IoT communications. Once a type-$i$ device has a packet to transmit, it transmits $n_k$ replicas of the packet, and listens for ACK from the AP(s). If No ACK is received in a bounded listening window, device retransmits the packet, and this procedure could be repeated up to $B_{i}-1$ times, where the bound may come from the fair use of the shared medium [@int2; @mag_all] or expiration of data. If data transmission is unsuccessful in $B_i$ attempts, we call it an outage event. The probability of outage for type $i$ in such setting could be derived as: $$\\label{rel}\\text{P}_{\\text o}(i)=\\big[1-\\text{P}_{\\text s}(i) \\big]^{n_iB_i},$$ where $\\text{P}_{\\text s}(i)$ has been derived in theorem \\[t3\\].\n\nBattery Lifetime Performance (Durability) {#bl}\n-----------------------------------------\n\nPacket generation at each device for most reporting IoT applications can be seen as a Poisson process [@3g]. Then, one can model energy consumption of a device as a semi-regenerative process where the regeneration point has been located at the end of each successful data transmission epoch [@nL]. For a given device of type-$i$, let us denote the stored energy in batteries as $E_{0}$, static energy consumption per reporting period for data acquisition from environment and processing as $E_{\\text{st}}$, circuit power consumption in transmission mode as $P_{c}$, and inverse of power amplifier efficiency as $\\eta$. Then, the expected battery lifetime is [@nL]: $$\\mathbb L(i)= \\frac{E_{0}}{{E_{\\text{st}}+\\hat \\beta_i E_\\text{c}+   \\hat\\beta_in_i (\\eta P_{i}+ P_{\\text c}) \\tau_i}}T_i,\\label{lif}$$ where $E_\\text{c}$ represents the average energy consumption in listening after each trial for ACK reception, and $\\hat \\beta_i$ represents the average number of trials and is derived as: $$\\label{beta}\\hat \\beta_i=\\sum\\nolimits_{j=1}^{B_i}j\\big[1\\text{-}[1\\text{-}\\text{P}_{\\text{s}}(i )]^{n_i}\\big]\\big[1\\text{-}\\text{P}_{\\text s}(i )\\big]^{n_i[j-1]},$$ where $\\text{P}_{\\text s}(i)$ have been derived in theorem \\[t3\\].\n\nOptimized Operation Control\n===========================\n\nFrom the battery lifetime analysis in , one sees that battery lifetime of devices may decrease in $n_i$ and $P_i$ because of the potential increase in the energy consumption per reporting period. Furthermore, when reliability of communication is lower than a threshold, increase in $n_i$ and $ {P}_i$ may decrease the need for listening to the channel for ACK arrival and retransmissions, and hence, increasing $n_i$ and $ {P}_i$ may increase the battery lifetime. Taking this into account, one sees there should be an operation point beyond which, increase in $ {P}_i$ and/or $n_i$ offers a tradeoff between reliability and lifetime, and before it, increase in $ {P}_i$ and/or $n_i$ increases both reliability and durability of communications. This observation will be evaluated using simulation results in the next section. Here, we aim at finding the optimized operation point of the network with respect to the battery lifetime. Using the battery lifetime definition in , one may define the optimization problem for deriving the optimized operating point of type $i$ IoT devices as follows:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\operatorname*{maximize}_{n_i, P_i } & \\hspace{3mm}\\mathbb L(i); \\label{op2}\\\\\n&\\text{s.t.:} ~\\text{P}_{\\text o}(i)\\le \\text{P}_{\\text o}^{\\text{req}}(i), n_i\\le n_{max}, P_i\\le P_{\\max}, \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $\\text{P}_{\\text o}^{\\text{req}}(i)$ is the maximum tolerated outage probability for type $i$ IoT devices. The reliability constraint in could be rewritten as the minimum required success probability in communications as follows: $$\\label{con}1-\\sqrt[n_iB_i]{\\text{P}_{\\text o}^{\\text{req}}}(i)\\le \\text{P}_{\\text s}(i).$$ Furthermore, by using the $\\text{P}_{\\text s}(i)$ expression in theorem \\[t3\\], we have: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\text{P}_{\\text s}(i)&= \\int\\nolimits_{0}^{\\infty} X_0 \\exp(\\text{-}X_5r^{2})2rdr\\nonumber\\\\\n&=\\frac{0.5\\sqrt{\\pi}{\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi}\\exp\\big(-{\\hat\\upsilon_{i,2}} \\big)}{\\sum_{k}\\lambda_{k}\\hat \\upsilon_{k,2} \n  (\\frac{P_k\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{P_i\\Omega   })^{0.5} \\frac{\\pi^{2}}{2} \\text{csc}(\\frac{\\pi}{2})\\text{+}\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi\\text{+}\\frac{ \\mathcal N\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{\\Omega  P_i \\alpha}},\\label{den}\\end{aligned}$$ in which, $\\ell_{\\max}=1$, $\\delta=2$, and $\\mathcal Q\\approx1$ have been assumed for brevity of expressions. Also, $X_5$ is an auxiliary variable equal to the denominator of . The expression in could be rewritten as: $$\\text{P}_{\\text{s}}(i)=\\frac{D_0}{\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{P_i}}D_1+\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi+\\frac{ \\mathcal N\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{P_i\\Omega   \\alpha}},\\label{rpi}$$ where the auxiliary variables $D_0$ and $D_1$ are defined as: $$\\begin{aligned}\nD_0&=0.5\\sqrt{\\pi}{\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi}\\exp\\big(-{\\hat\\upsilon_{i,2}} \\big),\\nonumber\\\\\n D_1&=\\sum\\nolimits_{k}\\lambda_{k}\\hat \\upsilon_{k,2} \n  (\\frac{P_k\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{\\Omega   })^{0.5} \\frac{\\pi^{2}}{2} \\text{csc}(\\frac{\\pi}{2}).\\nonumber\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Satisfying with equality, we have: $$\\sqrt[n_iB_i]{\\text{P}_{\\text o}^{\\text{req}}}(i)=1- \\frac{D_0}{\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{P_i}}D_1+\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi+\\frac{ \\mathcal N\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{P_i\\Omega   \\alpha}}.$$ By simplifying the expression, $n_i$ is derived as a function of $B_i$ as follows: $${n_i}=\\left \\lceil {\\log(\\sqrt[B_i]{\\text{P}_{\\text o}^{\\text{req}}})}\\bigg/{\\log(1- \\frac{D_0}{\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{P_i}}D_1+\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi+\\frac{ \\mathcal N\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{P_i\\Omega   \\alpha}})}\\right \\rceil.\\label{rni}$$ Also, the constraint on $n_i$ is translated to a constraint on $P_i$ as: $$P_i\\ge P_{\\min} \\buildrel \\Delta \\over =\\big(\\frac{-{D_1}\\text{+}\\sqrt{{D_1}^2\\text{-}4\\frac{\\mathcal N\\gamma_{\\text{th}}}{\\Omega \\pi}(\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi\\text{-}\\frac{D_0}{1\\text{-}\\sqrt[n_{\\max}B_i]{\\text{P}_{\\text o}^{\\text{req}}}})}}{2(\\lambda_{\\text a}\\pi\\text{-}\\frac{D_0}{1-\\sqrt[n_{\\max}B_i]{\\text{P}_{\\text o}^{\\text {req}}}})}\\bigg)^2.$$ Then, the optimization problem in reduces to a simple search over $ P_{\\min} \\le \\mathcal{P}_i\\le P_{\\max} $ for minimization of : $$\\label{ecprp}\n {\\hat \\beta_i E_\\text{c}+   \\hat \\beta_in_i (\\eta P_{i}+ P_{\\text c}) \\tau_i},$$ in which $n_i$ has been found as a function of $P_i$ in , $\\hat \\beta_i$ has been found as a function of $\\text{P}_{\\text s} (i)$ and $n_i$ in , and $\\text{P}_{\\text s} (i)$ has been found as a function of $P_i$ in . This operation control optimization problem is investigated numerically in the next section (Fig. \\[oo\\]).\n\n  [*Parameters* ]{}                                   [*Value*]{}\n  --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------\n  Service area                                        $20\\times 20 \\text{ Km}^2$\n  Pathloss                                            $133+38.3\\log (\\frac{x}{1000})$\n  Thermal noise power                                 $-174$ dBm/Hz\n  Distribution of devices                             PCP$\\big(\\lambda_i\\times$1e-6,$200$, Eq. with $\\sigma$=100)\n  Packet arrival of each device                       Poisson distributed with average reporting period ($T_i$) of 300 s\n  Packet transmission time ($\\tau_i$)                 100 ms\n  Signal BW                                           10 KHz\n  $E_0,P_{\\text c} , E_{\\text{st}}=0.5 E_{\\text c}$   1000 J, 10 mW, 0.1 J\n  $P_{\\text r}$, $P_{\\text a}$                        0.5 W, 1.5 W\n  $\\gamma_{\\text{th}}$, $|\\varpi|$, $\\eta$            1,1,0.5\n  $P_i, n_i,\\lambda_{a}, W$                           Default: 21 dBm, 1, 5.5[e]{}-8, 100 KHz\n  $\\ell_{\\max},\\mathcal Q$                            1, 0\n\n  : Simulation Parameters []{data-label=\"sim\"}\n\nPerformance Evaluation {#simsec}\n======================\n\nIn order to investigate usefulness of our findings in IoT-network planning and operation control, here we implement a MATLAB simulator for a heterogeneous IoT network. In our simulator, 2 types of IoT devices have been considered, that differ in the distribution processes describing locations of their respective nodes, and communications\u2019 parameters such as transmit power. Motivations for this setup are the coexistence of IoT technologies over the public ISM spectrum, e.g. SigFox and LoRa [@int2], and the coexistence of different IoT services over cellular networks, which are sharing a set of uplink resources, as described in [@gf31]. For type $i$, the distribution process of locations is characterized by PCP$(\\lambda_i,\\upsilon_i,f(x))$, where $\\lambda_i$ is the density of cluster points (in Km$^{-2}$), $\\upsilon_i=200$ is the average number of nodes in each cluster, and distribution of cluster nodes around the cluster center, i.e. $f(x)$, is modeled by a normal distribution with standard deviation of 100 meters. The reliability constraint is described as $\\text{p}_{\\text s}(i,d_{\\text{eg}})$, where $d_{\\text{eg}}=\\sqrt{{1}/{(\\pi\\lambda_{\\text a})}}$ is equivalent to the cell-edge communication distance in the case of grid deployment of APs. The packet arrival at each node follows a PPP with rate $\\frac{1}{T_i}$. The default values of other parameters can be found in Table \\[sim\\].\n\nFirst, we investigate tightness of the derived analytical expressions. By considering an IoT network comprising of two IoT types with different distributions and transmit powers, Fig. \\[val\\] represents probability of success in packet transmission for type-1 as a function of distance from the AP. One sees that the analytical model matches well with the simulation results. We have further depicted the contributions of noise, interferences from the same and other clusters of type-1 devices, as well as interference from type-2 devices. Regarding the fact that transmit power of type-2 devices is 4 dB higher than type-1 devices in this figure, it is clear that interference from type-2 traffic (plus-marked curve) is the most limiting factor.\n\n![Validation of analytical and simulation results. Device distribution: $K$=$2$, $\\lambda_1$=0.19, $ \\lambda_2$=3.8, $\\upsilon_1$=1200, $\\upsilon_2$=30, $P_1$=21 dBm, and $P_2$=25 dBm. []{data-label=\"val\"}](Figs/Sim/fig_cov.eps){width=\"3.5in\"}\n\n[0.5]{} ![Optimized operation control ($K=2, \\lambda_2$=2.4, $\\lambda_1$=2.4 in Sc1 and $\\lambda_1$=1.2 in Sc2). In circle-marked curves, $n_1=1$ and $P_1$ is varying. In plus-marked curves, $P_1=126$ mW and $n_1$ is varying. []{data-label=\"oo\"}](Figs/Sim/opt_oper2.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"3.5in\"}\n\n\\\n\n[0.5]{}\n\nFig. \\[oo\\] represents the interplay among success probability, battery lifetime, $n_i$, and $P_i$. The $x$-axis in Fig. \\[oo2\\] and Fig. \\[oo1\\] represents $P_1$ for circle-marked curves, and $n_1$ for cross-marked curves. In these figures, Sc1 and Sc2 differ in density of type-2 devices, which is 2.4 in Sc1, and 1.2 in Sc2. One observes in Fig. \\[oo2\\] that battery lifetime is a quasi-concave function of both $P_i$ and $n_i$. Furthermore, in Sc1, where density of nodes is higher than Sc2, battery lifetime decreases significantly by increase in the number of replica transmissions. In both scenarios, we see that the energy-optimized operation strategy for type-1 devices is to send 2 replicas per data packet to maximize their battery lifetimes. Fig. \\[oo1\\] represents the success probability for type-1 and type-2 traffic as a function of $n_1$ and $P_1$. One sees that success probability for type-1 increases to a point beyond which, the resulting interference from extra transmitted packets starts deteriorating the performance. On the other hand, increase in the transmit power for type-1 devices, increases the success probability for this type and severely decreases the performance of type-2 devices. It is also worthy to note that in Fig. \\[oo1\\], success probability increases in $n_1$ till $n_1=4$, however, from the battery lifetime analysis in Fig. \\[oo2\\], it is evident that battery lifetime decreases in $n_1$ for $n_1\\ge 3$. To conclude, we see that increase in the number of replica transmissions, i.e. $n_1$, increases both battery lifetime and reliability for $n_1\\in\\{1,2\\}$, offers a tradeoff between battery lifetime and reliability for $n_1\\in\\{3,4\\}$, and decreases both reliability and battery lifetime for $n\\ge 5$. These results confirm importance of the derived results in this work, as they shed light to the operation point after which, it is not feasible to trade battery lifetime in hope of reliability.\n\nScalability analysis has been presented in Fig. \\[scc\\]. The analytical model of reliability has been found in as a function of: i) transmit power, ii) number of replica transmissions, iii) density of APs, and iv) bandwidth of communications. Fig. \\[scc\\] represents the rate at which, the amount of provisioned resources at the network-side, or energy resources at the device-side, could be scaled to comply with the increase in the level of required reliability. It is clear that transmit power of devices could be increased up to a certain level in order to combat noise. However, beyond a certain point, increase in the transmit power cannot increase the success probability because it cannot compensate the impact of interference. On the other hand, one sees that increase in the number of replicas per packet could be leveraged to increase reliability of communications. However, there is a saturation point in scenarios with higher densities of nodes, where increasing number of replicas increases traffic load significantly, and may even reduce reliability of communications. Example of such event was observed in Fig. \\[oo1\\] for $n_1\\ge5$. Finally, the rate of increase in reliability of communications by increasing the number of APs, which reduces the communications\u2019 distance, and increasing the bandwidth, which decreases the collision probability, could be observed in Fig. \\[scc\\].\n\n![Scalability analysis versus required reliability ($K=1$, $\\lambda_1$=3.2). []{data-label=\"scc\"}](Figs/Sim/scal_vs_cov.eps){width=\"3.5in\"}\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nA tractable analytical model of reliability in large-scale heterogeneous IoT networks has been presented as a function of IoT traffic intensity and access network\u2019s resources. This model has been employed to analyze the impacts of resource provisioning at the network-side and operation control at the device-side on reliability and battery lifetime of IoT devices. The derived expressions illustrate the rate of increase in reliability and battery lifetime achieved by increasing the bandwidth of communications and number of APs. Our analyses indicated that depending on the operating point, increasing transmit power and number of replica transmissions may increase both reliability and battery lifetime, offer a tradeoff between them, or decrease both of them. Then, we developed a lifetime-optimal operation control policy for IoT devices. The simulation results confirmed existence of such an optimal operation point before which, battery lifetime and reliability are increasing in transmit power and number of replica transmissions; while beyond that point, there is a tradeoff between them. Finally, we have presented the scalability analysis to figure out the bounds up to which, increasing the provisioned resources at the network-side, or increasing energy consumption of IoT devices per packet transfer, can compensate the impact of increase in number of devices or their required QoS. The tightness and tractability of the derived expressions promote use of them in IoT-network planning and operation control.\n\n[^1]: Practical motivations for modeling such replicas can be found in state of the art IoT technologies like NB-IoT and SigFox in which, coverage extension and resilience to interference are achieved by repetitions of transmitted packets [@ciot; @mag_all]. When it is not the case, $n_k=1$ can be used.\n\n[^2]: In PCP deployment, we have clusters of devices, where each cluster models a hot-spot. $\\lambda_k$ represents density of such clusters of devices, i.e. the parent points. $\\upsilon_k$ represents the average number of devices in each cluster, i.e. the daughter points. Finally, $\\text{f}(x)$ represents how devices are distributed in each cluster.\n\n[^3]: Note: as mentioned in the system model, devices in $\\phi$ share a set of semi-orthogonal codes for partial interference management.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In traditional Ergodic Optimization, one seeks to maximize Birkhoff averages. The most useful tool in this area is the celebrated Ma\u00f1\u00e9 Lemma, in its various forms. In this paper, we prove a non-commutative Ma\u00f1\u00e9 Lemma, suited to the problem of maximization of Lyapunov exponents of linear cocycles or, more generally, vector bundle automorphisms. More precisely, we provide conditions that ensure the existence of an extremal norm, that is, a Finsler norm with respect to which no vector can be expanded in a single iterate by a factor bigger than the maximal asymptotic expansion rate. These conditions are essentially irreducibility and sufficiently strong fiber-bunching. Therefore we extend the classic concept of Barabanov norm, which is used in the study of the joint spectral radius. We obtain several consequences, including sufficient conditions for the existence of Lyapunov maximizing sets.'\nauthor:\n- Jairo Bochi\n- Eduardo Garibaldi\ndate: 'October 4, 2019'\ntitle: 'Extremal Norms for Fiber-Bunched Cocycles'\n---\n\n[ oldtitletitle title[oldtitle]{}]{}\n\n[ @oldtitletitle title[@oldtitle]{}]{}\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nExtremal norms {#ss.intro_extremal}\n--------------\n\nLet ${\\mathbb{E}}$ be a $d$-dimensional real vector bundle over a compact metric space $X$, with projection map $\\pi$. Let $T \\colon X \\to X$ be a homeomorphism. We say that $\\Phi$ is an *automorphism of ${\\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$* if the diagram $$\\begin{tikzcd}\n{\\mathbb{E}}\\arrow[r,\"\\Phi\"] \\arrow[d,swap,\"\\pi\"]   & {\\mathbb{E}}\\arrow[d,\"\\pi\"] \\\\\nX   \\arrow[r,swap,\"T\"]                      & X\n\\end{tikzcd}$$ commutes and moreover the restriction of $\\Phi$ to each fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_x \\coloneqq \\pi^{-1}(x)$ is a linear isomorphism $\\Phi_x$ onto the fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_{Tx}$. The set of such automorphisms is denoted ${\\mathrm{Aut}}({\\mathbb{E}},T)$. The simplest situation is when the vector bundle is trivial, say ${\\mathbb{E}}= X \\times {\\mathbb{R}}^d$. Then $\\Phi$ takes the form $$\\label{e.cocycle}\n\\Phi(x,u) = (T(x),F(x)u) \\, ,$$ for some continuous map $F \\colon X \\to {\\mathit{GL}}(d,{\\mathbb{R}})$. The pair $(T,F)$ is called a *(linear) cocycle*.\n\nA *Finsler norm*[^1] on ${\\mathbb{E}}$ is a continuous map $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\| \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ whose restriction to each fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$ is a norm. If $L$ is a linear map from a fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$ to another fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_y$, then we define the operator norm: $$\\label{e.def_operator_norm}\n\\|L\\|_{y \\gets x} \\coloneqq \\sup_{\\substack{u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x \\\\ u\\neq 0}} \\frac{\\|L(u)\\|}{\\|u\\|} \\, .$$ When no confusion is likely to arise we denote this simply by $\\|L\\|$.\n\nFix an automorphism $\\Phi$ covering $T$ and a Finsler norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$. Given $x \\in X$, the limit $$\\chi_1(\\Phi, x) \\coloneqq \\lim_{n \\to +\\infty} \\frac{1}{n} \\log \\|\\Phi^n_x\\|\n= \\lim_{n \\to +\\infty} \\frac{1}{n} \\log \\| \\Phi_{T^{n-1}x} \\circ \\cdots \\circ \\Phi_{Tx} \\circ \\Phi_x\\| \\, ,$$ if it exists, is called the *(first) Lyapunov exponent* of $\\Phi$ at the point $x$. The Lyapunov exponent is obviously independent of the choice of the Finsler norm. If $\\mu$ is a $T$-invariant Borel probability measure for $T$, then the Lyapunov exponent $\\chi_1(\\Phi, x)$ exists for $\\mu$-almost every $x\\in X$; this is a well-known consequence of Kingman\u2019s subadditive ergodic theorem; see e.g.\u00a0[@Krengel]. Let us denote $\\chi_1(\\Phi, \\mu) \\coloneqq \\int \\chi_1(\\Phi,\\mathord{\\cdot}) \\, d\\mu$. If the measure $\\mu$ is ergodic then $\\chi_1(\\Phi, x)  =  \\chi_1(\\Phi,\\mu)$ for $\\mu$-almost every $x\\in X$.\n\nIn this paper we are interested in the *maximal Lyapunov exponent*, defined as: $$\\label{e.def_beta}\n\\beta(\\Phi) \\coloneqq \\sup_{\\mu \\in {\\mathcal{M}}_T} \\chi_1(\\Phi, \\mu) \\, ,$$ where ${\\mathcal{M}}_T$ denotes the set of all $T$-invariant Borel probability measures. The supremum is always attained by an ergodic measure \u2013 this follows from upper semicontinuity of $\\chi_1(\\Phi, \\mathord{\\cdot})$ with respect to the weak-star topology, and the fact that ${\\mathcal{M}}_T$ is a compact convex set whose extreme points are exactly the ergodic measures. Let us mention that the maximal Lyapunov exponent can also be characterized in more elementary terms as follows: $$\\label{e.beta_other}\n\\beta(\\Phi) = \\operatorname*{linf}_{n \\to \\infty} \\frac{1}{n} \\sup_{x \\in X} \\log \\| \\Phi^n_x \\|\n= \\sup_{x \\in X} \\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} \\frac{1}{n} \\log \\| \\Phi^n_x \\| \\, .$$ (We use \u201c$\\operatorname*{linf}$\u201d to denote a limit that is also an infimum.) These equalities follow from general results on \u201csubadditive ergodic optimization\u201d: see [@Morris_Mather Appendix\u00a0A].\n\nA trivial upper bound for the maximal Lyapunov exponent, which depends on the chosen Finsler norm, is given by: $$\\label{e.starting_point}\n\\beta(\\Phi) \\le  \\log  \\sup_{x \\in X} \\| \\Phi_x \\| \\, .$$ If equality holds then $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ is called an *extremal norm* for $\\Phi$. More precisely, the norm is so \u201ctight\u201d that there is *no* vector $u \\neq 0$ in ${\\mathbb{E}}$ whose expansion factor $\\|\\Phi(u)\\| / \\|u\\|$ exceeds the maximum asymptotic expansion rate $e^{\\beta(\\Phi)}$. In particular, if $\\beta(\\Phi) \\le 0$ then the extremal norm is a (non-strict) Lyapunov function for $\\Phi$.\n\nExtremal norms first appeared in the 1960 paper [@RS] by Rota and Strang, who considered the particular setting of one-step cocycles (details are given below), but apparently were not considered in our level of generality before.\n\nThe existence of an extremal norm is far from automatic[^2], and has strong consequences. In this paper we construct extremal norms for a large and natural class of vector bundle automorphisms.\n\nPrevious results {#ss.known}\n----------------\n\nConsider the case of a $1$-dimensional vector bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}$, with an arbitrary Finsler norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$. Given $\\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}({\\mathbb{E}},T)$, there exists a unique continuous function $f \\colon X \\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\\label{e.operator}\nu \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad \\|\\Phi(u)\\|_{Tx} = e^{f(x)} \\| u\\|_x \\, .$$ Note that in this case the maximal Lyapunov exponent $\\beta(\\Phi)$ equals: $$\\label{e.beta_f}\n\\beta (f) \\coloneqq \\sup_{\\mu \\in {\\mathcal{M}}_T} \\int f \\, d\\mu \\, .$$ Any other Finsler norm ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\cdot}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is of the form: $${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}_x = e^{h(x)} \\| u\\|_x \\, ,$$ for some continuous function $h \\colon X \\to {\\mathbb{R}}$. Then ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\cdot}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is a extremal norm if and only if $h$ satisfies the \u201ccohomological inequality\u201d: $$f + h \\circ T  - h \\le \\beta(f) \\, .$$ Such a function $h$ is called a *subaction* for $(T,f)$. Existence of subactions can fail dramatically: see e.g.\u00a0[@Bousch_Jenkinson [\u00a7]{}3] and [@Garibaldi_book Appendix]. However, if the dynamics $T$ is in some sense hyperbolic (e.g., a shift) and the function $f$ is regular enough (e.g., H\u00f6lder) then subactions $h$ do exist. Results of this type are sometimes called *Ma\u00f1\u00e9 lemmas*; see [@CG; @Sav; @CLT; @Bousch_Walters; @Bousch_amphi] for various versions and approaches, and see [@Bochi_ICM Prop.\u00a02.1] for a negative result. Important applications include [@Bousch_Mairesse; @Contreras]. The study of invariant measures that attain that supremum in is called *ergodic optimization*; we refer the reader to [@Jenkinson_survey; @Jenkinson_survey_new; @Garibaldi_book] for much more information. For a discussion of ergodic optimization in a more general context, including optimization of Lyapunov exponents, see [@Bochi_ICM].\n\nWhen $\\dim {\\mathbb{E}}> 1$, commutativity is lost and much less is known. The most studied situation is the following one. Let $T \\colon X \\to X$ be the full shift on $N$ symbols, defined on the space $X \\coloneqq \\{0,1,\\dots,N-1\\}^{\\mathbb{Z}}$. Given a $N$-tuple $(A_0,\\dots,A_{N-1})$ of invertible $d \\times d$ matrices, let $F \\colon X \\to {\\mathit{GL}}(d,{\\mathbb{R}})$ be given by $F(x) = A_{x_0}$. We say that $(T,F)$ is a *one-step cocycle*. Let $\\Phi$ the associated automorphism . In that case, the quantity $e^{\\beta(\\Phi)}$ is known as the *joint spectral radius* of the set $\\{A_0,\\dots,A_{N-1}\\}$.[^3] It was introduced by Rota and Strang [@RS].\n\nIf, for example, $N=1$ and $A_0 = \\left( \\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 1 \\\\ 0 & 1 \\end{smallmatrix} \\right)$, then no extremal norm exists. However, if the set $\\{A_0,\\dots,A_{N-1}\\}$ is *irreducible*, in the sense that there is no common invariant non-trivial subspace, then extremal norms ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\cdot}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ do exist, and can be taken so that ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}_x$ is independent of $x \\in X$. Actually, Barabanov\u00a0[@Barabanov] proved that there exists a norm ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\cdot}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ on ${\\mathbb{R}}^d$ with the following stronger property: $$\\label{e.Barabanov}\n\\forall u \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^d, \\quad\n\\max_{i \\in \\{0,\\dots,N-1\\}} {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {A_i u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{\\beta(\\Phi)} {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\, .$$ For more information on the joint spectral radius and Barabanov norms, see [@Wirth; @Jungers]. Further applications of extremal norms were obtained by Morris [@Morris_rapidly; @Morris_Mather].\n\nStill in the setting of one-step cocycles, a modification of the concept of Barabanov norm was used in [@BR; @BM] to study Lyapunov-maximizing and also Lyapunov-minimizing measures.\n\nExtremal norms for certain locally constant cocycles over sofic shifts have been studied in the papers [@PEDJ; @CGP].\n\nThe main purpose of this paper is to establish existence of extremal norms in a far more general setting.\n\nThe main result\n---------------\n\nWe now describe the hypotheses on the automorphism $\\Phi$ and the underlying dynamics $T$ from which we will prove the existence of extremal norms. We first describe them informally, leaving the precise definitions for later sections. First, we assume that $T \\colon X \\to X$ is a transitive *hyperbolic homeomorphism* of a compact metric space $X$. Hyperbolicity means that $T$ has local stable and unstable sets with uniform exponential bounds, which satisfy a local product property. Examples include subshifts of finite type and Anosov diffeomorphisms.\n\nSecond, we assume that the vector bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}$ has a H\u00f6lder structure, and that the automorphism $\\Phi$ respects this structure. In the case of trivial vector bundles, this means that the matrix function $F$ in formula is H\u00f6lder continuous.\n\nThird, we assume that the automorphism $\\Phi$ is *fiber-bunched*. In crude terms, this means that the non-conformality of the linear maps $\\Phi_x$ is small when compared to the hyperbolicity rates of $T$. The precise condition involves the H\u00f6lder exponent of the automorphism, so that more regular automorphisms are allowed to be less conformal. In the case that $T$ and $\\Phi$ are differentiable, fiber-bunching means that the projectivization of $\\Phi$ is a *partially hyperbolic* diffeomorphism.\n\nActually, for $d \\ge 3$ we need to assume a stronger form of fiber-bunching.\n\nOur last assumption is *irreducibility*, meaning that $\\Phi$ admits no nontrivial regular subbundle, where regular means as regular as the automorphism itself. We remark that this condition is satisfied for typical fiber-bunched automorphisms: it holds on an open and dense subset of infinite codimension.\n\nThe main result of this paper is that *under the conditions above, extremal norms exist*. See \\[c.extremal\\] for a precise statement.\n\nIn the case where the base dynamics $T$ is a subshift of finite type, we are able to improve our main result and obtain an extremal norm with a further property akin to the Barabanov property: see \\[ss.Barabanov\\].\n\nClassical Barabanov norms are usually non-Riemannian (that is, they do not come from inner products), and it is easy to produce examples[^4]. On the other hand, in our setting, there is more flexibility as the norm is allowed to depend on the basepoint. So one could wonder if the Finsler extremal norms in our main result could be taken Riemannian. Unfortunately, that is not the case: we construct an explicit example in \\[ss.Riemann\\].\n\nConsequences\n------------\n\nAs a consequence of our result on the existence of extremal norms, we can show that the maximal Lyapunov exponent is a locally Lipschitz function on the space of strongly bunched irreducible automorphisms (see \\[p.Wirth\\] for a more precise statement), thus extending a result of Wirth\u00a0[@Wirth].\n\nWe are also able to obtain several general properties of strongly bunched automorphisms $\\Phi$ (not necessarily irreducible):\n\n-   Their growth obeys certain uniform bounds: see \\[t.polynomial\\].\n\n-   They obey the *subordination principle*: if $\\mu$ and $\\nu$ are invariant probability measures such that $\\nu$ is Lyapunov maximizing in the sense that $\\chi_1(\\Phi,\\nu) = \\beta(\\Phi)$, and $\\operatorname{supp}\\mu \\subseteq \\operatorname{supp}\\nu$, then $\\mu$ is Lyapunov maximizing as well: see \\[t.subordination\\]. This property is far from being tautological, even in the commutative setting; in fact it was introduced in this setting by Bousch [@Bousch_Walters].\n\n-   The maximal Lyapunov exponent $\\beta(\\Phi)$ can be approximated by Lyapunov exponents of measures supported on periodic orbits, and moreover the quality of this approximation is superpolynomial with respect to the period: see \\[t.super\\_pol\\]. This extends a result of Morris [@Morris_rapidly], who gave a quantitative version of the celebrated theorem of Berger\u2013Wang [@BWang].\n\nWe also introduce *Mather sets* in our context; these sets are the habitat of Lyapunov maximizing measures. We prove an important structural result on the existence of *dominated splittings* on the Mather sets, namely \\[t.dom\\], which is an essential ingredient in the proof of the aforementioned \\[t.super\\_pol\\].\n\nOrganization of the paper\n-------------------------\n\nIn \\[s.setting\\] we introduce the setting for our results, providing the definitions and properties of fiber-bunched automorphisms and related concepts. In \\[s.subbundles\\] we study irreducibility and related concepts.\n\nIn \\[s.bounded\\] we provide sufficient conditions for *relative product boundedness*, an intermediate property which is required for the existence of extremal norms.\n\nThe construction of extremal norms is given in \\[s.norms\\], together with the construction of Barabanov-like norms for shifts and an application to the regularity of $\\beta (\\mathord{\\cdot})$.\n\nIn \\[s.Mather\\] we introduce Mather sets in a very general setting and, under the assumption of existence of an extremal norm, establish fine properties about them.\n\nIn \\[s.app\\] we collect several applications of our results.\n\n\\[s.technical\\] contains the proofs of several subsidiary results, therefore making the paper self-contained.\n\nIn \\[s.examples\\] we exhibit some \u201cpathological\u201d examples, including an example that fits in the setting of our main results, but where no Riemannian extremal norm exists.\n\nThe fiber-bunched setting {#s.setting}\n=========================\n\nIn this , we fix the basic setting for our theorems. Namely, we define and state the basic properties of H\u00f6lder vector bundles, intrinsically hyperbolic homeomorphisms, fiber-bunching, holonomies, and irreducibility. Our approach is influenced by [@BGV; @Viana; @KalSad], and we tried to make it as general as possible. We also obtain some new regularity results that are essential for the main theorems of the paper. However, to make the presentation more fluid, we postpone most proofs to \\[s.technical\\].\n\nThe H\u00f6lder exponent {#ss.theta}\n-------------------\n\nFrom now on, assume that $(X,{\\mathrm{d}})$ is a compact metric space. We also fix $\\theta > 0$ such that the algebra of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder functions on $X$ is *normal*, that is, given any two disjoint compact subsets of $X$, there exists a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder function that takes values in the interval $[0,1]$ and equals $0$ on one set and $1$ on the other. This assumption is automatically satisfied if $\\theta \\le 1$. If $X$ is a Cantor set, then the assumption holds for any $\\theta>0$. Normality implies the existence of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder partitions of unity: see e.g.\u00a0[@Katz p.\u00a0221].\n\nH\u00f6lder vector bundles\n---------------------\n\nLet ${\\mathbb{E}}$ be a $d$-dimensional vector bundle over $X$. We recall the definition and fix the terminology. ${\\mathbb{E}}$ is a topological space endowed with a continuous map ${\\pi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to X}$ (called the *projection*), a cover of $X$ by open sets $U_i$ (called *coordinate neighborhoods*), and a family of homeomorphisms (called *coordinate maps*) $$\\psi_i \\colon U_i \\times {\\mathbb{R}}^d \\to \\pi^{-1}(U_i) \\quad\n\\text{such that $\\pi( \\psi_i(x, u) ) = x$ for all $(x,u) \\in  U_i \\times {\\mathbb{R}}^d$,}$$ which is required to have the following compatibility property: whenever $x \\in U_i \\cap U_j$, the map $$g_{j \\gets i}(x) \\coloneqq \\big[ \\psi_j(x, \\mathord{\\cdot})\\big]^{-1} \\circ \\psi_i(x, \\mathord{\\cdot}) \\colon {\\mathbb{R}}^d \\to {\\mathbb{R}}^d$$ is linear. Therefore we obtain a family of continuous maps: $$\\label{e.g}\ng_{j \\gets i} \\colon U_i \\cap U_j \\to {\\mathit{GL}}(d,{\\mathbb{R}}),$$ which are called *coordinate transformations*. Moreover, each *fiber* ${\\mathbb{E}}_x \\coloneqq \\pi^{-1}(x)$ has a unique structure of $d$-dimensional vector space such that the maps $$\\label{e.h_i}\nh_i(x) \\coloneqq \\psi_i(x, \\mathord{\\cdot}) \\colon {\\mathbb{R}}^d \\to {\\mathbb{E}}_x$$ become isomorphisms. Since $X$ is assumed to be compact, we will from now on assume that the cover $\\{U_i\\}$ is finite.\n\nWe say that ${\\mathbb{E}}$ is a *$\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle* if the coordinate transformations are locally $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder. By compactness, we can reduce the coordinate neighborhoods so that the coordinate transformations become (uniformly) $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder.\n\nAs mentioned in \\[ss.intro\\_extremal\\], a *Finsler norm* is a continuous function $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ on ${\\mathbb{E}}$ that restricts to a norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|_x$ on each fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$. A Finsler norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ is called *Riemannian* if each $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|_x$ is induced by an inner product $\\langle \\mathord{\\cdot}, \\mathord{\\cdot} \\rangle_x$. A Finsler norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ is called *$\\theta$-H\u00f6lder* if for every $u \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^d$ and every coordinate neighborhood, the function $x \\in U_i \\mapsto \\| h_i(x) u \\| $ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder. Every $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}$ admits a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder Riemannian norm; the proof is straightforward using a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder partition of unity.\n\nWe will also need a way of \u201ctransporting\u201d vectors from one fiber to another:\n\n\\[p.transport\\] Let ${\\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle. There exists a family of linear maps $I_{y \\gets x} \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}_x \\to {\\mathbb{E}}_y$ with the following properties:\n\n1.  For every point $x \\in X$, the linear map $I_{x \\gets x}$ equals the identity.\n\n2.  For every pair of indices $i$, $j$, the matrix-valued map $$(x,y)  \\in U_i \\times U_j \\mapsto [h_j(y)]^{-1} \\circ I_{y \\gets x} \\circ h_i(x)$$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder.\n\nSee \\[ss.basic\\] for the proof of \\[p.transport\\]. The next propositions, also proved in \\[ss.basic\\], give additional quantitative properties of the transport maps that will be useful in subsequent calculations. Recall that we agree to denote a norm and its induced operator norm by the same symbol, as in .\n\n\\[p.transport\\_groupoid\\] Let ${\\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle, endowed with a Finsler norm. Let $\\{I_{y\\gets x}\\}$ be the family of transport maps provided by \\[p.transport\\]. Then there is $C>0$ such that for all points $x$, $y$, $z \\in X$, $$\\| I_{y \\gets z} \\circ I_{z \\gets x} - I_{y \\gets x} \\| \\le C \\max\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}(x,z)^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(y,z)^\\theta \\} \\, ,$$\n\n\\[p.norm\\_Holder\\] Let ${\\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle, endowed with a Finsler norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot}\\|$. Let $\\{I_{y\\gets x}\\}$ be the family of transport maps provided by \\[p.transport\\]. Then the Finsler norm $\\|\\mathord{\\cdot}\\|$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder if and only if there exists $C>0$ such that for all points $x$, $y \\in X$, $$\\big| \\|I_{y \\gets x}\\| - 1 \\big| \\le C {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) ^\\theta \\, .$$\n\ntheta-H\u00f6lder bundle automorphisms {#ss.auto}\n---------------------------------\n\nAssume that ${\\mathbb{E}}$ is a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle over the compact metric space\u00a0$X$. Fix a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder Riemannian norm on ${\\mathbb{E}}$.\n\nA map $\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ is called an *endomorphism* of ${\\mathbb{E}}$ if there exists a continuous map $T \\colon X \\to X$ such that $\\pi \\circ \\Phi = T \\circ \\pi$ (we say that $\\Phi$ *covers* $T$) and for each $x \\in X$, the restriction of $\\Phi$ to the fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$ is a linear map $\\Phi_x$ to the fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_{Tx}$. If $T$ is a homeomorphism and each $\\Phi_x$ is a isomorphism then we say that $\\Phi$ is an *automorphism*.\n\nWe say that the endomorphism $\\Phi$ covering $T$ is *$\\theta$-H\u00f6lder* if $T$ is Lipschitz and the maps $$x \\in U_i \\cap T^{-1}(U_j) \\mapsto [h_j(Tx)]^{-1} \\circ \\Phi_x \\circ h_i(x) \\in {\\mathit{GL}}(d,{\\mathbb{R}})$$ are $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder.[^5] As an immediate consequence, the function $x \\in X \\mapsto \\|\\Phi_x\\|$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder.\n\nWe can characterize $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphisms in terms of the transport maps from \\[p.transport\\]:\n\n\\[p.endo\\_Holder\\] An endomorphism $\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ covering a Lipschitz map $T$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder if and only if there exists $K>0$ such that for all $x$, $y \\in X$, we have $$\\big\\| I_{Ty \\gets Tx} \\circ \\Phi_x - \\Phi_y \\circ I_{y \\gets x} \\big\\| \\le K {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta \\, .$$\n\nA proof is provided in \\[ss.basic\\].\n\nNext, we want to topologize the set of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphisms.\n\nLet ${\\mathrm{End}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ denote the vector space of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder endomorphisms $\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$. Define the *$C^0$ norm*: $$\\label{e.C0_norm}\n\\|\\Phi\\|_0 \\coloneqq \\sup_{x \\in X} \\|\\Phi_x\\| \\, .$$ The stronger *$\\theta$-H\u00f6lder norm* makes ${\\mathrm{End}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ a Banach space: $$\\label{e.Holder_norm}\n\\|\\Phi\\|_\\theta \\coloneqq \\max \\left\\{ \\|\\Phi\\|_0 , \\ \\sup_{x \\neq y} \\frac{\\|I_{Ty \\gets Tx} \\circ \\Phi_x - \\Phi_y \\circ I_{y \\gets x}\\|}{{\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta} \\right\\} \\, .$$ The set ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphisms is a $C^0$-open subset of ${\\mathrm{End}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$. Given $K\\ge 1$, let: $$\\label{e.bounded_set}\n{\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T) \\coloneqq \\big\\{ \\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T) {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}\\|\\Phi\\|_\\theta \\le K, \\ \\|\\Phi^{-1}\\|_\\theta \\le K \\big\\} \\, .$$\n\nHyperbolic homeomorphisms {#ss.hyp_homeo}\n-------------------------\n\nThe concept of hyperbolicity in differentiable dynamical systems was introduced by Anosov [@Anosov] and Smale [@Smale]. Even without recourse to a differentiable structure, it is possible to define hyperbolicity (and to prove interesting theorems); this has been done in various ways: [@Bowen; @Ruelle; @AY; @Akin; @AH]. In this paper, we will use a minor variation of the definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism given by Sakai [@Sakai] (see \\[r.hyperb\\] below).\n\nRecall that $X$ is a compact metric space. Let $T \\colon X \\to X$ be a homeomorphism. Given $x \\in X$ and ${\\varepsilon}>0$, we define the following sets:\n\n-   *local unstable set* $W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{\\varepsilon}(x) \\coloneqq \\big\\{ y \\in X {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}{\\mathrm{d}}(T^{-n} y, T^{-n} x) \\le {\\varepsilon}\\text{ for all } n\\ge 0\\big\\}$;\n\n-   *local stable set* $W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{\\varepsilon}(x) \\coloneqq \\big\\{ y \\in X {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}{\\mathrm{d}}(T^n y, T^n x) \\le {\\varepsilon}\\text{ for all } n\\ge 0\\big\\}$.\n\nWe say that $T$ is a *hyperbolic homeomorphism* if the following axioms hold:\n\n1.  \\[i.biLip\\] $T$ is bi-Lipschitz, i.e., both $T$ and $T^{-1}$ are Lipschitz;\n\n2.  \\[i.lambdas\\] there exist a constant ${\\varepsilon}_0 > 0$ and a pair of continuous positive functions $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}$, $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}$ (called the *hyperbolicity exponents*) such that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    {4}\n    \\label{e.lambda_u}\n    x &\\in X, &\\  x', x'' &\\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x) &\\quad &\\Rightarrow &\\quad\n    {\\mathrm{d}}(T^{-1} x', T^{-1} x'') &\\le e^{-\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(x)} \\, {\\mathrm{d}}(x',x'') \\, , \\\\\n    \\label{e.lambda_s}\n    y &\\in X, &\\  y', y'' &\\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(y) &\\quad &\\Rightarrow &\\quad\n    {\\mathrm{d}}(T y', T y'') &\\le e^{-\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}(y)} \\, {\\mathrm{d}}(y', y'') \\, ;\\end{aligned}$$\n\n3.  \\[i.bracket\\] there exists a constant ${\\varepsilon}_1 \\in (0,{\\varepsilon}_0)$ such that for any pair of points $x$, $y \\in X$ with ${\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \\le 2{\\varepsilon}_1$, the intersection $W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x) \\cap W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(y)$ contains exactly one point, denoted by $[x,y]$ and called *the bracket of $x$ and $y$*, which depends continuously on $x$ and $y$;\n\n4.  \\[i.bounded\\_angles\\] there exists a constant $C>0$ such that: $$\\label{e.bounded_angles} \n    x, y \\in X, \\ {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \\le 2{\\varepsilon}_1 \\ \\Rightarrow \\ \n    \\max \\big\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}([x,y],x) , {\\mathrm{d}}([x,y],y) \\big\\} \\le C {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \\, .$$\n\n\\[r.hyperb\\] Sakai [@Sakai] uses the terminology *$\\mathcal{L}$-hyperbolic homeomorphism*, while Ruelle [@Ruelle] uses *Smale spaces*. Modulo a change of metric, both definitions are equivalent to ours, and also to expansivity plus the shadowing property: see [@Sakai] and references cited there.\n\nLet us also define other sets associated with $T$:\n\n-   *unstable set* $W^{\\mathrm{u}}(x) \\coloneqq \\left\\{ y \\in X {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}{\\mathrm{d}}(T^{-n} y, T^{-n} x) \\to 0 \\text{ as } n \\to +\\infty \\right\\}$;\n\n-   *stable set* $W^{\\mathrm{s}}(x) \\coloneqq \\left\\{ y \\in X {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}{\\mathrm{d}}(T^{n} y, T^{n} x) \\to 0 \\text{ as } n \\to +\\infty \\right\\}$;\n\nIf $T$ is a hyperbolic homeomorphism then, as an immediate consequence of part\u00a0(\\[i.lambdas\\]) of the definition, for every ${\\varepsilon}\\in (0,{\\varepsilon}_0]$ we have the following set relations: $$\\label{e.longW}\nW^{\\mathrm{u}}(x) = \\bigcup_{n\\ge 0} T^n(W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{\\varepsilon}(T^{-n} x)) \\, , \\qquad\nW^{\\mathrm{s}}(x) = \\bigcup_{n\\ge 0} T^{-n}(W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{\\varepsilon}(T^n x)) \\, .$$\n\nThe transverse regularity of the unstable and stable sets is a classical subject, and fine results about hyperbolicity rely on it: see [@KH Chapter\u00a019]. Nevertheless, we could not find a reference for the following property for hyperbolic homeomorphisms:\n\n\\[p.regularity\\_base\\] Let $T$ be a hyperbolic homeomorphism. There exist constants $0 < \\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}\\le 1$ and $C>0$ such that if $x$, $x'$, $y$, $y' \\in X$ satisfy (see \\[f.rectangle\\]): $$\\label{e.rectangle}\nx' \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x), \\\ny' \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(y), \\\ny  \\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x), \\\ny' \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x'),$$ then: $${\\mathrm{d}}(y,y') \\le C \\, {\\mathrm{d}}(x, x')^{\\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}} \\, .$$\n\n(-1,0)\u2013(2,0) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (-1,5)\u2013(2,5) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (0,-1)\u2013(0,6.5) node\\[midway,left\\][$W^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (1,-1)\u2013(1,6.5) node\\[midway,right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (0,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below left\\][$x$]{}; (1,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below right\\][$x'$]{}; (0,5) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above left\\][$y$]{}; (1,5) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above right\\][$y'$]{};\n\nThe proof, which includes an estimate for the constant $\\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}$, is given in \\[s.technical\\]. If $T$ is the restriction of a $C^2$ diffeomorphism to a basic hyperbolic basic set then a better estimate for $\\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}$ is given in [@SS]. Even better regularity estimates can be obtained under various types of extra assumptions: see [@PintoRand] and references therein.\n\nFiber-bunched automorphisms and their holonomies\n------------------------------------------------\n\nWe now discuss the notion of *fiber-bunching*. It was introduced in a setting very similar to ours by Bonatti, G\u00f3mez-Mont, and Viana [@BGV], though related concepts can be traced back to Brin and Pesin [@BrinP] and Hirsch, Pugh, and Shub [@HPS]. Earlier papers [@BGV; @BV] use a different terminology (\u201cdominated cocycles\u201d), but subsequently the term \u201cfiber-bunched cocycles\u201d prevailed: [@AV_Portugalia; @AV_Inventiones; @KalSad].\n\nIf $L$ is a linear isomorphism between inner product spaces, we define its *bolicity*[^6] as $$\\label{e.def_bol}\n\\operatorname{bol}(L) \\coloneqq \\|L\\| \\, \\|L^{-1}\\| \\, ,$$ which measures the lack of conformality of $L$ (see \\[p.Lip\\_bol\\]).\n\nLet ${\\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder $d$-dimensional vector bundle over $X$. Assume that $T$ is a hyperbolic homeomorphism, and that $\\Phi$ is a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphism of ${\\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$. We say that ${\\mathbb{E}}$ is *fiber-bunched* if there exists a Riemannian norm (sometimes called an *adapted norm*) such that for all $x \\in X$, $$\\label{e.def_fiber_bunched}\n\\log \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_x)\n<  \\min \\left\\{ \\theta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(x), \\theta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}(x)\\right\\} \\, ,$$ where $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}$, $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}$ are the hyperbolicity rates of $T$. By perturbing the adapted norm if necessary, we can assume it is also $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder.\n\nConsider the subset of fiber-bunched automorphisms in the space ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphisms; then this set is open with respect to the $C^0$ norm , and therefore also open with respect to the stronger $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder norm .\n\nSometimes we need stronger bunching: we say that it is *$(\\eta_{\\mathrm{u}},\\eta_{\\mathrm{s}})$-bunched* for certain constants $\\eta_{\\mathrm{u}}$, $\\eta_s \\in (0,\\theta]$ if, for some adapted norm, and all $x\\in X$, $$\\label{e.def_strongly_bunched}\n\\log \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_x)\n<  \\min \\left\\{ \\eta_{\\mathrm{u}}\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(x), \\eta_{\\mathrm{s}}\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}(x)\\right\\} \\, .$$\n\n\\[r.pointwise\\_vs\\_absolute\\] We have used the *pointwise* definition of fiber-bunching; the more stringent notion of *absolute* fiber-bunching requires the same condition with *constant* hyperbolicity exponents $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}$, $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}$. Furthermore, our definition of fiber-bunching is *immediate* in the sense that it manifests itself in a single iterate; one can also define a notion of *eventual* fiber-bunching.\n\nThe most basic and fruitful consequence of fiber-bunching is the existence of certain unstable and stable holonomy maps. Like the transport maps from \\[p.transport\\], unstable and stable holonomy maps provide a way of linearly transporting vectors from a fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$ to another fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_y$ (as long as the points $x$, $y$ belong to the same unstable or stable set), but with several extra properties:\n\n\\[p.holonomies\\] Let $\\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism. For each $\\star \\in \\{{\\mathrm{u}},{\\mathrm{s}}\\}$, there exist a unique family of linear maps $H^\\star_{y \\gets x} \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}_x \\to {\\mathbb{E}}_y$, defined whenever $y \\in W^\\star(x)$, such that the following properties hold:\n\n1.  \\[i.groupoid\\_1\\] $H^\\star_{x \\gets x} = {\\mathrm{id}}$.\n\n2.  \\[i.groupoid\\_2\\] $H^\\star_{z \\gets y} \\circ H^\\star_{y \\gets x} = H^\\star_{z \\gets x}$.\n\n3.  \\[i.equivariance\\] $\\Phi_y \\circ H^\\star_{y \\gets x} = H^\\star_{Ty \\gets Tx} \\circ \\Phi_x$.\n\n4.  \\[i.holonomy\\_Holder\\] There exists a constant $C>0$ such that: $$\\label{e.holonomy_Holder}\n    y \\in W^\\star_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x) \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad\n    \\| H^\\star_{y \\gets x} - I_{y \\gets x} \\| \\le C {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta \\, .$$\n\n5.  \\[i.holonomy\\_cont\\] The following map is continuous: $$\\label{e.joint_holonomy}\n    \\begin{aligned}\n    \\big\\{ (u,y) \\in {\\mathbb{E}}\\times X {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}y \\in W^\\star_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(\\pi(u)) \\big\\} &\\to {\\mathbb{E}}\\\\\n    (u,y) &\\mapsto H^\\star_{y \\gets \\pi(u)} (u)\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nFurthermore, the constant $C$ in works for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\\Phi$ in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$, and the the right-hand side in depends continuously on the automorphism in that neighborhood.\n\nThe maps $H^{\\mathrm{u}}$ and $H^{\\mathrm{s}}$ are called *unstable* and *stable* holonomies, respectively. Properties (\\[i.groupoid\\_1\\]) and (\\[i.groupoid\\_2\\]) are called *groupoid properties*, and property (\\[i.equivariance\\]) is called *equivariance*.\n\nThe stable holonomies are actually defined by the following formula: $$H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y \\gets x} \\coloneqq \\lim_{n \\to + \\infty} (\\Phi_y^n)^{-1} \\circ I_{T^n y \\gets T^n x} \\circ \\Phi_x^n \\, ,$$ and unstable holonomies are defined likewise, taking $n \\to -\\infty$ instead. The proof of \\[p.holonomies\\] consists essentially in proving uniform convergence in these formulas, and it turns out that fiber-bunching is the precise condition for this to work. Except for minor adjustments, the argument is the same as in [@BGV [\u00a7]{}1.4], [@KalSad [\u00a7]{}4.1], but for completeness and convenience of the reader we present the proof in \\[ss.holonomies\\].\n\nFiber-bunched automorphisms satisfy a non-commutative version of Walters\u2019 condition [@Bousch_Walters], namely: $$\\forall {\\varepsilon}>0 \\ \\exists \\delta> 0 \\ \\text{such that } \\sup_{i \\in \\ldbrack 0,n \\rdbrack} {\\mathrm{d}}(T^i x, T^i y) < \\delta  \\ \\Rightarrow \\ \\big\\| \\Phi_y^n \\circ I_{y \\gets x} - I_{T^n y \\gets T^n x} \\circ \\Phi_x^n \\big\\| < {\\varepsilon}\\, .$$ Indeed, consider $z \\coloneqq [x,y]$ and note the following identity: $$\\Phi_y^n = H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{T^n x \\gets T^n z} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{T^n z \\gets T^n x} \\circ \\Phi^n_x \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{x \\gets z} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{z \\gets y} \\, .$$ Then, using the continuity of the bracket and the regularity of the holonomies, it is straightforward to obtain the non-commutative Walters\u2019 condition.\n\nWe use the holonomies to define certain subsets of ${\\mathbb{E}}$. For ${\\varepsilon}>0$, $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$, and $x = \\pi(u)$, let: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{\\varepsilon}(u)  &\\coloneqq \\big\\{ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y \\gets x}(u) {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}y \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{\\varepsilon}(x) \\big\\} \\, ,  \\\\\n{\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}(u)           &\\coloneqq \\big\\{ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y \\gets x}(u) {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}y \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}(x)      \\big\\}\n= \\bigcup_{n\\ge 0} \\Phi^n({\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(\\Phi^{-n}(u)))\\, ,\\end{aligned}$$ Analogously we define ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}_{\\varepsilon}(u)$ and ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}(u)$. The sets ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$ (resp.\u00a0${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}$) form a $\\Phi$-invariant partition of ${\\mathbb{E}}$ and project by $\\pi$ onto the sets $W^{\\mathrm{u}}$ (resp.\u00a0$W^{\\mathrm{s}}$).\n\nPart (\\[i.holonomy\\_Holder\\]) of \\[p.holonomies\\] basically says that the \u201cleaves\u201d ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$, ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}$ are H\u00f6lder-continuous. We will need the transverse regularity of the holonomies:\n\n\\[p.regularity\\_above\\] Let $\\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism. There exist $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}\\in (0,\\theta \\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}]$ and $C>0$ such that if $x$, $x'$, $y$, $y' \\in X$ satisfy conditions as in \\[f.rectangle\\] then: $$\\left\\| H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y' \\gets y} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y \\gets x} - H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y' \\gets x'} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{x'\\gets x} \\right\\|\n\\le C {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}} \\, .$$ Furthermore, the same constants $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}$ and $C$ work for every automorphism in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\\Phi$ in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$.\n\nWe were not able to find such a statement in the literature, so we provide a proof in \\[ss.regularity\\].\n\nInvariant subbundles {#s.subbundles}\n====================\n\nSubbundles and rigidity {#ss.rigidity}\n-----------------------\n\nLet $E$ be an inner product space of dimension $d$, and let $p \\in \\ldbrack 1, d \\rdbrack$. We denote by ${\\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$ the *$p$-th Grassmannian* of $E$, i.e., the set of all $p$-dimensional subspaces of $E$. There are many metrics on this set that are \u201cnatural\u201d in the sense that they are preserved by the action of orthogonal linear maps: see [@QZL]. As shown in \\[ss.Grass\\], we can find one such metric ${\\mathrm{d}}$ with the useful properties stated in the following :\n\n\\[p.Lip\\_bol\\] If $L \\colon E \\to F$ is a linear isomorphism between $d$-dimensional inner product spaces and $p<d$, then the induced map ${\\mathcal{G}}_p(E) \\to {\\mathcal{G}}_p(F)$ is Lipschitz with a constant equal to the bolicity of $L$ .\n\n\\[p.close\\_id\\] If $L \\colon E \\to E$ is a linear isomorphism of a inner product space such that $\\|L-{\\mathrm{id}}\\| \\le \\delta$ then the induced map on ${\\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$ is $O(\\delta)$-close to the identity, provided $\\delta$ is sufficiently small.\n\n\\[p.span\\_Lip\\] The map that associates a $p$-tuple of linearly independent vectors to its span is locally Lipschitz.\n\nIn particular, the metric ${\\mathrm{d}}$ induces the usual topology on the Grassmannian.\n\nNow consider a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder $d$-dimensional vector bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}$ over $X$. For each $p \\in \\ldbrack 1 , d-1 \\rdbrack$, let ${\\mathcal{G}}_p({\\mathbb{E}})$ denote the fiber bundle whose fiber over $x\\in X$ is ${\\mathcal{G}}_p({\\mathbb{E}}_x)$. As just explained, the fixed Riemannian norm on ${\\mathbb{E}}$ induces a distance on each fiber of this bundle.\n\nLet ${\\mathbb{F}}$ be a continuous $p$-dimensional subbundle of ${\\mathbb{E}}$. We say that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is *$\\eta$-H\u00f6lder*, for some $\\eta \\in (0,\\theta]$, if there exists $C>0$ such that for all sufficiently close points $x$, $y \\in X$ we have: $$\\label{e.Holder_subbundle}\n{\\mathrm{d}}\\big( {\\mathbb{F}}_y, I_{y \\gets x} ({\\mathbb{F}}_x) \\big) \\le C \\, {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^{\\eta} \\, ,$$ where the ${\\mathrm{d}}$ in the left hand side is the distance in ${\\mathcal{G}}_p({\\mathbb{E}}_y)$. (Recall that $I_{y \\gets x}$ is an isomorphism when $x$ and $y$ are close enough.)\n\nLet $\\Phi$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism of ${\\mathbb{E}}$. We say that a subbundle ${\\mathbb{F}}\\subseteq {\\mathbb{E}}$ is *$\\Phi$-invariant* if for all $x \\in X$, we have $$\\Phi_x ({\\mathbb{F}}_x) = {\\mathbb{F}}_{Tx} \\, .$$ We say that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is *$H^{\\mathrm{u}}$-invariant* (or *${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$-saturated*) if for all $x \\in X$ and all $y \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}(x)$, we have $$H_{y \\gets x}^{\\mathrm{u}}({\\mathbb{F}}_x) = {\\mathbb{F}}_y \\, .$$ We say that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is *$\\eta$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets*, for some $\\eta \\in (0,\\theta]$, if there exists $C>0$ and ${\\varepsilon}>0$ such that the estimate holds whenever $y \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}}(x)$. Equivalently, there exists $C \\ge 0$ such that for all $x \\in X$ and all $y \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x)$, we have: $$\\label{e.Holder_section}\n{\\mathrm{d}}\\big( {\\mathbb{F}}_y, H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y \\gets x} ({\\mathbb{F}}_x) \\big) \\le C \\, {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^{\\eta} \\, ;$$ to see the equivalence, use $\\theta$-H\u00f6lderness of the holonomy and \\[p.close\\_id\\]. $H^{\\mathrm{s}}$-invariance and $\\eta$-H\u00f6lderness along stable sets are defined analogously.\n\n\\[p.rigidity\\] Let $\\eta \\in (0,\\theta]$. Suppose that $\\Phi$ is $(\\eta,\\theta)$-bunched. Let ${\\mathbb{F}}\\subseteq {\\mathbb{E}}$ be a continuous $\\Phi$-invariant subbundle. If ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $\\eta$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets then ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $H^{\\mathrm{u}}$-invariant, and in particular ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is actually $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets.\n\nSince $\\Phi$ is $(\\eta,\\theta)$-bunched, there is a constant $r \\in (0,1)$ such that $\\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_x) < r e^{\\eta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(x)}$ for every $x \\in X$. Now fix $x \\in X$ and $y \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x)$. For each $n \\ge 0$, let $x_n \\coloneqq T^{-n} x$ and $y_n \\coloneqq T^{-n} y$. Then: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{2}\n{\\mathrm{d}}\\big ({\\mathbb{F}}_y, \\, H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y \\gets x} ({\\mathbb{F}}_x) \\big)\n&= {\\mathrm{d}}\\big (\\Phi^n_{y_n}({\\mathbb{F}}_{y_n}), \\, \\Phi^n_{y_n} (H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y_n \\gets x_n} ({\\mathbb{F}}_{x_n}) \\big) &\\quad&\\text{(by $\\Phi$-invariance of ${\\mathbb{F}}$)}\\\\\n&\\le \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi^n_{y_n}) \\, {\\mathrm{d}}\\big ({\\mathbb{F}}_{y_n}, \\, H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y_n \\gets x_n} ({\\mathbb{F}}_{x_n}) \\big) &\\quad&\\text{(by \\cref{p.Lip_bol})}\\\\\n&\\le C \\, \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi^n_{y_n})  \\, {\\mathrm{d}}(x_n,y_n)^{\\eta}\n&\\quad&\\text{(by $\\eta$-H\\\"olderness of ${\\mathbb{F}}$).}\\end{aligned}$$ On one hand, by submultiplicativity of bolicity, $\\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi^n_{y_n}) \\le \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_{y_1}) \\cdots \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_{y_n})$. On the other hand, using recursively, $$\\begin{gathered}\n{\\mathrm{d}}(x_n,y_n) = {\\mathrm{d}}(T^{-1} x_{n-1}, T^{-1} y_{n-1}) \\le e^{-\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(y_{n-1})} {\\mathrm{d}}(x_{n-1}, y_{n-1}) \\le \\cdots  \\\\ \\le e^{-\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(y_0) - \\cdots -\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(y_{n-1})} {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \\, .\\end{gathered}$$ Combining these estimates, we have: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathrm{d}}\\big ({\\mathbb{F}}_y, \\, H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y \\gets x} ({\\mathbb{F}}_x) \\big)\n&\\le C \\, \\left[ \\prod_{j=1}^{n} \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_{y_j})\\right] \\left[ \\prod_{j=0}^{n-1} e^{-\\eta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(y_j)} \\right] {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^{\\eta} \\\\\n&\\le  C B^2 r^{n-2} \\, {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^{\\eta} \\, ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $B \\ge 1$ is the maximal bolicity. As $n \\to \\infty$, the right hand side tends to zero. So ${\\mathbb{F}}_y = H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y \\gets x} ({\\mathbb{F}}_x)$, proving that the subbundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $H^{\\mathrm{u}}$-invariant. Since holds with $C=0$, the subbundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets.\n\n\\[c.irred\\] Let $\\Phi$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism of ${\\mathbb{E}}$. Let ${\\mathbb{F}}\\subseteq {\\mathbb{E}}$ be a $\\Phi$-invariant continuous subbundle. Then the following conditions are equivalent:\n\n1.  \\[i.irred1\\] ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder subbundle;\n\n2.  \\[i.irred2\\] ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is both $H^{\\mathrm{u}}$- and $H^{\\mathrm{s}}$-invariant.\n\nIf condition (\\[i.irred1\\]) holds then ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets, and so \\[p.rigidity\\] (with $\\eta = \\theta$) guarantees that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $H^{\\mathrm{u}}$-invariant. By symmetry, ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is also $H^{\\mathrm{s}}$-invariant. That is, condition (\\[i.irred2\\]) holds. Conversely, assume that condition (\\[i.irred2\\]) holds, and consider a pair $x$, $y$ of nearby points. Then the bracket $z \\coloneqq [x,y]$ is well-defined, and by property , it is $O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y))$-close to either $x$ or $y$. By hypothesis, ${\\mathbb{F}}_y = H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y\\gets z} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{z \\gets x} ({\\mathbb{F}}_x)$. Using \\[p.transport\\_groupoid\\] and $\\theta$-H\u00f6lderness of the holonomies , we see that $\\|I_{y \\gets x} - H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y\\gets z} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{z \\gets x}\\| = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta)$. It follows from \\[p.close\\_id\\] that ${\\mathrm{d}}( {\\mathbb{F}}_y, I_{y \\gets x} ({\\mathbb{F}}_x)) = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta)$, i.e., condition (\\[i.irred1\\]) holds.\n\nIrreducibility\n--------------\n\nThe *trivial* subbundles of ${\\mathbb{E}}$ are the zero section and ${\\mathbb{E}}$ itself. A fiber-bunched automorphism $\\Phi$ is called *reducible* if it has a nontrivial $\\Phi$-invariant subbundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ satisfying either of the equivalent conditions of \\[c.irred\\], and *irreducible* otherwise.\n\nWhile the existence of continuous $\\Phi$-invariant subbundles is common, the existence of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder ones is not. For example, if the automorphism admits a dominated splitting[^7], then the subbundles that form the splitting are $\\Phi$-invariant, continuous, and actually H\u00f6lder, but usually with smaller H\u00f6lder exponent. Actually, the dominating bundle is $H^{\\mathrm{u}}$-invariant and so $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets, but usually not so well behaved along stable sets.\n\nA precise formulation of the fact that reducibility is uncommon among fiber-bunched automorphisms is provided by \\[p.irred\\_typical\\].\n\nThe strong bunching hypothesis\n------------------------------\n\nIf $d=2$ then ordinary fiber-bunching suffices for our main results, while if $d\\ge 3$ we need $\\Phi$ to be not only fiber-bunched, but $(\\eta_0,\\theta)$-bunched, where $\\eta_0$ is given by the following:\n\n\\[l.needed\\_strength\\] There exists $\\eta_0 \\in (0,\\theta]$ that depends only on the hyperbolic homeomorphism $T$ (or, more precisely, on its hyperbolicity exponents) and on the H\u00f6lder exponent $\\theta$ such that if $\\Phi$ is a $(\\eta_0,\\theta)$-bunched automorphism then the associated regularity exponent $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}$ from \\[p.regularity\\_above\\] satisfies: $$\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}\\ge \\eta_0 \\, .$$\n\nFor the proof (and an explicit value for $\\eta_0$), see \\[ss.regularity\\].\n\nLet us say that a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphism $\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$ is *strongly bunched* if:\n\n-   the vector bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}$ has fibers of dimension $d \\le 2$, and $\\Phi$ is fiber-bunched; **or**\n\n-   $\\Phi$ is a $(\\eta_0,\\theta)$-bunched automorphism.\n\nThe precise point of our proofs where we need strong bunching is for the validity of \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\], explained in the next .\n\nSpannability {#ss.span}\n------------\n\nThe following concept of *spannability* will play an important role in this paper; it is vaguely similar to the concept of accessibility in partially hyperbolic dynamics (see e.g.\u00a0[@Pesin_book [\u00a7]{}8.1]).\n\nLet us say that a fiber-bunched automorphism $\\Phi$ is *spannable* if for all $x$, $y \\in X$, and all nonzero $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x$, there exist:\n\n-   points $x_1, \\dots, x_d \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}(x)$;\n\n-   integers $n_1, \\dots, n_d \\ge 0$ such that the points $y_i \\coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ all belong to $W^{\\mathrm{s}}(y)$;\n\nwith the property that the vectors $v_1, \\dots, v_d \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_y$ defined by $$\\label{e.spanners}\nv_i \\coloneqq H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y \\gets y_i} \\circ \\Phi^{n_i}_{x_i} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{x_i \\gets x} (u)$$ form a basis for ${\\mathbb{E}}_y$.\n\nIt is clear that every spannable automorphism is irreducible. The following important result provides a converse under extra assumptions:\n\n\\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\] Let $T$ be a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $\\Phi$ be a strongly bunched irreducible automorphism covering $T$. Then $\\Phi$ is spannable.\n\nIn particular (see \\[p.irred\\_typical\\]), typical strongly bunched automorphisms are spannable (provided $T$ is transitive).\n\nIt would be interesting to know whether or not strong bunching is really necessary for the validity of \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\]; see \\[r.Clark\\] below for a possible approach to this question.\n\nIn order to prove the , we need the following easy property of the unstable and stable sets for the base dynamics:\n\n\\[l.transitive\\] For every $x \\in X$, the sets $\\bigcup_{n \\ge 0} W^{\\mathrm{u}}(T^n x)$ and $\\bigcup_{n \\ge 0} W^{\\mathrm{s}}(T^{-n} x)$ are dense in $X$.\n\nLet $D$ be the set of points whose forward orbits are dense. Since $T$ is transitive, $D$ is itself dense. Moreover, $D$ is $W^{\\mathrm{s}}$-saturated (i.e., it is a union of stable sets). By definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism, local stable and unstable sets whose basepoints are sufficiently close always intersect. It follows that $D$ intersects all unstable sets. This implies that for every $x \\in X$, the set $\\bigcup_{n \\ge 0} W^{\\mathrm{u}}(T^n x)$ is dense. Applying this to $T^{-1}$ we obtain that $\\bigcup_{n \\ge 0} W^{\\mathrm{s}}(T^{-n} x)$ is also dense.\n\nFix a point $x \\in X$ and a nonzero vector $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x$. Let $\\Lambda \\coloneqq \\bigcup_{n \\ge 0} W^{\\mathrm{u}}(T^n x)$, which by \\[l.transitive\\] is a dense subset of $X$. Define the following subsets of the vector bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}$: $$\\mathbb{U} \\coloneqq \\bigcup_{n \\ge 0} {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}(\\Phi^n (u)) \\, ,\n\\qquad\n\\mathbb{S} \\coloneqq \\bigcup_{v \\in \\mathbb{U}} {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}(v) \\, ,\n\\qquad\n{\\mathbb{F}}\\coloneqq \\mathrm{span}(\\mathbb{S}) \\, ,$$ where the latter equation means that for each $y \\in X$, the fiber ${\\mathbb{F}}_y \\coloneqq {\\mathbb{E}}_y \\cap {\\mathbb{F}}$ is the vector space spanned by $\\mathbb{S}_y \\coloneqq {\\mathbb{E}}_y \\cap \\mathbb{S}$. In order to prove the , we need to show that ${\\mathbb{F}}= {\\mathbb{E}}$. Clearly,\n\n-   $\\mathbb{U}$ projects onto $\\Lambda$, and is both forward-$\\Phi$-invariant (i.e., $\\Phi(\\mathbb{U}) \\subseteq \\mathbb{U}$) and ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$-saturated (i.e., it is a union of ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$ sets);\n\n-   $\\mathbb{S}$ projects onto $X$, and is both forward-$\\Phi$-invariant and ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}$-saturated; therefore ${\\mathbb{F}}$ has the same properties.\n\nWe claim that the function $y \\in X \\mapsto \\dim {\\mathbb{F}}_y$ has the following properties:\n\n1.  \\[i.dim1\\] it is non-decreasing along orbits of $T$ (i.e., $\\dim {\\mathbb{F}}_{Ty} \\ge \\dim {\\mathbb{F}}_y$);\n\n2.  \\[i.dim2\\] it is constant along $W^{\\mathrm{s}}$ sets;\n\n3.  \\[i.dim3\\] it is lower semicontinuous.\n\nIndeed, properties (\\[i.dim1\\]) and (\\[i.dim2\\]) follow from the facts that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is forward-invariant and ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}$-saturated, respectively. In order to check property (\\[i.dim3\\]), fix an arbitrary point $y \\in X$ and let $p \\coloneqq \\dim {\\mathbb{F}}_y$. Then there exist points $x_1, \\dots, x_p \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}(x)$ and integers $n_1, \\dots, n_p \\ge 0$ such that the points $y_i \\coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ all belong to $W^{\\mathrm{s}}(y)$, and the vectors $v_i$ given by formula span ${\\mathbb{F}}_y$. If $y'$ is sufficiently close to $y$, then for each $i$ we can find $y_i' \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}(y_i)\\cap W^{\\mathrm{s}}(y')$ such that the holonomies $H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y_i' \\gets y_i}$ and $H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y' \\gets y_i'}$ are respectively close to the identity and $H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y \\gets y_i}$. Then each vector $v_i' \\coloneqq H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y' \\gets y'_i} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y'_i \\gets y_i} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y_i \\gets y} (v_i)$ is close to $v_i$, and so the span of $\\{v_1', \\dots, v_p'\\}$ has dimension $p$. Since each $v_i'$ belongs to ${\\mathbb{F}}_{y'}$, we conclude that $\\dim {\\mathbb{F}}_{y'} \\ge p$, therefore proving the semicontinuity property (\\[i.dim3\\]).\n\nLet $C$ be the set of points $y \\in X$ where $\\dim {\\mathbb{F}}_y$ attains its minimum. By the properties (\\[i.dim1\\]), (\\[i.dim2\\]), and (\\[i.dim3\\]) that we have just proved, the set $C$ is nonempty, backwards-invariant (i.e., $T^{-1}(C) \\subseteq C$), $W^{\\mathrm{s}}$-saturated, and closed. It follows from \\[l.transitive\\] that $C=X$. In other words, ${\\mathbb{F}}$ has constant dimension, say $p$. So ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is not only forward-$\\Phi$-invariant, but $\\Phi$-invariant.\n\nLet $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}$ be given by \\[p.regularity\\_above\\]. We claim that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets, in the sense defined in \\[ss.rigidity\\]. By compactness, it suffices to prove this claim on a neighborhood of each point $y \\in X$. Take points $x_1, \\dots, x_p \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}(x)$ and integers $n_1, \\dots, n_p \\ge 0$ such that the points $y_i \\coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ all belong to $W^{\\mathrm{s}}(y)$, and the vectors $v_i$ given by formula span ${\\mathbb{F}}_y$. Take $k \\ge 0$ large enough so that the points $T^k y_i$ all belong to $W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(T^k y)$, where ${\\varepsilon}_1$ is constant from condition (\\[i.bracket\\]) in the definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism. If we prove that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets on a neighborhood of $T^k y$ then, by invariance, it will follow that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets on a neighborhood of $y$. So let us assume that $k=0$, for simplicity of notation. Let $y' \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(y)$ be close to $y$. Then the brackets $y'_i \\coloneqq [y_i, y']$ are well-defined; see \\[f.spanning\\]. We need to compare the following two subspaces of\u00a0${\\mathbb{E}}_{y'}$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathbb{F}}_{y'} &= \\mathrm{span} \\big\\{ H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y' \\gets y'_i} \\circ \\underbrace{H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y'_i \\gets y_i} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y_i \\gets y}}_{{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}}} (v_i) \\big\\}_{i=1}^p \\, , \\\\\nH^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y' \\gets y} ({\\mathbb{F}}_y) &= \\mathrm{span} \\big\\{H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y' \\gets y'_i} \\circ \\underbrace{H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y'_i \\gets y'} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y' \\gets y}}_{{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}}} (v_i) \\big\\}_{i=1}^p \\, .\\end{aligned}$$ By \\[p.regularity\\_above\\], $\\|{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}} - {\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}}\\| = O({\\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}})$; moreover $\\| H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y' \\gets y'_i}\\| = O(1)$. So, by \\[p.span\\_Lip\\], we conclude that ${\\mathrm{d}}\\big( {\\mathbb{F}}_{y'} , H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y' \\gets y} ({\\mathbb{F}}_y) \\big) = O({\\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}})$. This concludes the proof that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets. A fortiori, ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is continuous (since it is invariant under stable holonomies).\n\n(-7,0) node\\[left\\][$W^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}\u2013(-3,0); (-6,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below\\][$x_1$]{}; (-5,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below\\][$x$]{}; (-4,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below\\][$x_2$]{}; (-6,.5) arc(180:90:4.5) node\\[midway, left\\][$T^{n_1}$]{}; (-4,.5) arc(180:90:2.5) node\\[midway, left\\][$T^{n_2}$]{}; (-1,0)\u2013(2.5,0) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (-1,3)\u2013(2.5,3); (-1,5)\u2013(2.5,5); (0,-1)\u2013(0,6.5) node\\[above\\][$W^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (1,-1)\u2013(1,6.5); (0,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below left\\][$y$]{}; (1,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below right\\][$y'$]{}; (0,3) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above left\\][$y_2$]{}; (1,3) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above right\\][$y_2'$]{}; (0,5) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above left\\][$y_1$]{}; (1,5) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above right\\][$y_1'$]{};\n\nThe proof ends differently according to the dimension of ${\\mathbb{E}}$. If $d=1$ then ${\\mathbb{F}}= {\\mathbb{E}}$ and we are done.\n\nNext, consider the case $d=2$. Assume for a contradiction that ${\\mathbb{F}}\\neq {\\mathbb{E}}$, i.e., that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ has $1$-dimensional fibers. For each $y \\in \\Lambda$, the set $\\mathbb{U}_y$ contains a nonzero vector and therefore spans ${\\mathbb{F}}_y$. Since $\\Lambda$ is dense in $X$ and ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is continuous, we conclude that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is the closure of $\\mathrm{span}(\\mathbb{U})$. In particular, ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$-saturated. Recalling that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is also ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}$-saturated, we contradict irreducibility. This concludes the proof in the case $d=2$.\n\nNow consider the case $d\\ge 3$. Then, by definition of strong bunching, $\\Phi$ is $(\\eta_0,\\theta)$-bunched. Recall from \\[l.needed\\_strength\\] that $\\eta_0 \\le \\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}$. So \\[p.rigidity\\] (rigidity) applies and the regularity of the subbundle is upgraded: it is actually $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets. Irreducibility implies that ${\\mathbb{F}}= {\\mathbb{E}}$, thus concluding the proof.\n\nWe will use an apparently stronger, but equivalent form of spannability. Recall that ${\\varepsilon}_1>0$ is one of the constants that appear in the definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism (\\[ss.hyp\\_homeo\\]).\n\n\\[p.unif\\_span\\] Suppose $\\Phi$ is a spannable automorphism. Then there exist constants $\\bar{n} \\ge 0$ and $C_0 > 0$ with the following properties: For all points $x$, $y \\in X$, and all unit vectors $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x$, there exist:\n\n-   points $x_1, \\dots, x_d \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(x)$;\n\n-   integers $n_1, \\dots, n_d \\in \\ldbrack 0, \\bar{n} \\rdbrack$ such that the points $y_i \\coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ all belong to $W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(y)$;\n\nwith the property that the vectors $v_1, \\dots, v_d \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_y$ defined by form a basis for ${\\mathbb{E}}_y$; moreover, if $L \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}_y \\to {\\mathbb{E}}_y$ is a linear map that sends this basis to an orthonormal basis then $\\|L\\| < C_0$.\n\nIf $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$ is a nonzero vector, let $[u]$ denote its class in the projective bundle $\\hat{{\\mathbb{E}}} \\coloneqq  {\\mathcal{G}}_1({\\mathbb{E}})$. Let $\\Phi$ be a spannable automorphism. Given $([u], y) \\in \\hat{{\\mathbb{E}}} \\times X$, consider $x = \\pi(u)$ and let $x_i$, $n_i$, $y_i$, and $v_i$, where $i \\in \\ldbrack 1,d \\rdbrack$, be as in the definition of spannability. Note that if $([\\tilde u], \\tilde y)$ belongs to a sufficiently small neighborhood of $([u],y)$ then we can find the corresponding data $(\\tilde x_i, \\tilde n_i, \\tilde y_i, [\\tilde v_i])$ close to $(x_i, n_i, y_i, [v_i])$ (so $\\tilde n_i = n_i$) and actually depending continuously on $([\\tilde u], \\tilde y)$. Since the space $\\hat{{\\mathbb{E}}} \\times X$ is compact, we can cover it by finitely many such neighborhoods $U_j$. We can also assume that the sets $U_j$ are compact.\n\nFix any set $U_j$ and an element $([u],y) \\in U_j$. Let $x = \\pi(u)$ and let $(x_i, n_i, y_i, [v_i])$, $i \\in \\ldbrack 1,d \\rdbrack$ be the corresponding spannability data. For each $k \\ge 0$, the pair $([\\Phi^{-k}(u)], T^k y) \\in \\hat{{\\mathbb{E}}} \\times X$ has $(T^{-k} x_i, n_i+2k, T^k y_i, [\\Phi^k(v_i)])$, $i \\in \\ldbrack 1,d \\rdbrack$ as valid spannability data. By , if $k$ is large enough then $$T^{-k} x_i \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(T^{-k} x) \\quad\\text{and}\\quad T^k y_i \\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(T^k y) \\quad \\text{for each $i \\in \\ldbrack 1,d \\rdbrack$.}$$ By continuity of the spannability data on the compact set $U_j$, this conclusion holds provided $k$ is bigger than some $k_j$. There are finitely many indices $j$ to consider, so let us fix a definitive $k$ bigger than all $k_j$\u2019s. The compact sets $V_j \\coloneqq \\{([\\Phi^{-k}(u)], T^k y) {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}([u],y) \\in U_j\\}$ also cover the space $\\hat{{\\mathbb{E}}} \\times X$. They provide the spannability data with the required uniformity properties. This proves the .\n\n\\[c.open\\_span\\] Given a spannable automorphism $\\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$, we can choose $\\bar{n} \\ge 0$ and $C_0 > 0$ such that the the statement of \\[p.unif\\_span\\] holds for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\\Phi$ in the space ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$.\n\nIn particular, spannable automorphisms form a $C^0$-open subset of ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$.\n\nBy part\u00a0(\\[i.holonomy\\_cont\\]) of \\[p.holonomies\\], holonomies depend continuously on the fiber-bunched automorphism $\\Phi$, with respect to the $C^0$-norm. So, in the situation of \\[p.unif\\_span\\], if we make a $C^0$-perturbation of $\\Phi$ (among $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphisms) then the vectors $v_1$, \u2026, $v_d$ change little and therefore stay linearly independent.\n\nLet us say that a automorphism is *topologically irreducible* if it admits no *continuous* proper invariant subbundle. As the proof of \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\] shows, if a fiber-bunched automorphism over a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism is topologically irreducible then it is spannable.\n\n\\[r.Clark\\] As Clark Butler has pointed out to us, if a fiber-bunched automorphism satisfies the *pinching-and-twisting* condition from [@BV Def.\u00a01.3], [@AV_Portugalia Def.\u00a01.2] then it is spannable. In other words, one can remove the strong bunching hypothesis from \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\], provided one replaces irreducibility with the (strictly stronger) pinching-and-twisting condition.\n\nLet us sketch the proof. Let $\\mathbb{U} \\subseteq {\\mathbb{F}}$ be as in proof of \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\]. Let $\\mathbb{V}$ be the closure of the span of $\\bigcup_{n\\ge 0} \\Phi^{-n}(\\mathbb{U})$; then $\\mathbb{V}$ is $\\Phi$-invariant, ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$-saturated, projects down on $X$, and is contained in ${\\mathbb{F}}$. Let $\\mu$ be the $T$-invariant probability measure on $X$ with maximal entropy (other choices are possible). Let ${\\mathbb{P}}\\Phi$ be the projectivization of the automorphism $\\Phi$. Then ${\\mathbb{P}}\\Phi$ admits an *invariant $\\mathrm{u}$-state*, that is, an invariant measure $\\hat m$ that projects on $\\mu$ and whose disintegration w.r.t.\u00a0to this projection is $\\mu$-a.e.\u00a0 invariant under unstable holonomies: see [@AV_Portugalia \u00a7\u00a04.1]. By adapting the construction, we can ensure that the invariant $\\mathrm{u}$-state $\\hat m$ gives full weight to ${\\mathbb{P}}\\mathbb{V}$, and in particular to ${\\mathbb{P}}{\\mathbb{F}}$, which is a continuous ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}$-saturated invariant subbundle of ${\\mathbb{P}}{\\mathbb{E}}$. Under the pinching-and-twisting assumption, [@BV Prop.\u00a05.1] or [@AV_Portugalia Prop.\u00a05.1] say that such a situation is impossible unless ${\\mathbb{F}}= {\\mathbb{E}}$. (Actually in these papers $T$ is a shift, but the proofs can be adapted to the general situation, or we can use a Markov partition.) Therefore $\\Phi$ is spannable.\n\nIt is not clear how to relax the pinching-and-twisting hypothesis in the arguments from [@BV; @AV_Portugalia]. Therefore we still lack an optimal criterion for spannability.\n\nBounding the growth {#s.bounded}\n===================\n\nRelative product boundedness {#ss.RPB}\n----------------------------\n\nA vector bundle automorphism $\\Phi$ is called *product bounded* if $$\\sup_{n \\ge 0} \\, \\sup_{x\\in X} \\|\\Phi^n_x\\| < \\infty$$ for some and hence any Finsler norm on ${\\mathbb{E}}$. This condition evidently implies that $\\beta(\\Phi)\\le 0$, i.e.\u00a0the maximal Lyapunov exponent is nonpositive. On the other hand, we say that $\\Phi$ is *relatively product bounded* if $e^{-\\beta(\\Phi)} \\Phi$ is product bounded, that is, $$\\sup_{n \\ge 0} e^{-\\beta(\\Phi) n} \\sup_{x\\in X} \\|(\\Phi^n)_x\\| < \\infty \\, .$$ Of course, if $\\Phi$ has an extremal norm then it is relatively product bounded. The converse is true in the $1$-step case, as noted by Rota and Strang [@RS]. But the converse is not true in general[^8]; in fact it may fail even in dimension $1$, as shown by Morris [@Morris_sufficient Proposition 2]. In Morris\u2019 example, the dynamics is uniformly hyperbolic (actually a full shift), but the function is not H\u00f6lder.\n\nIn this paper, we need to prove relative product boundedness as an essential preliminary step in the construction of extremal norms. We will show the following:\n\n\\[p.bounded\\] Every spannable automorphism is relatively product bounded.\n\nThe proof, which will occupy \\[ss.local\\_RPB,ss.bounded\\_proof\\], is roughly as follows: first, we find pieces of ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$ sets of uniform size that stay relatively product bounded for a long time (\\[l.anti\\_claim\\]), then we use a compactness argument to find small pieces of ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$ sets that stay relatively product bounded forever (\\[l.input\\]), and finally we use spannability to spread this property to the whole bundle (\\[l.key\\]).\n\nLet us close this with some remarks about product boundedness and relative product boundedness.\n\nIt was shown by Blondel and Tsitsiklis [@BT] that the product boundedness of a pair of rational matrices is algorithmically undecidable.\n\nA result of Coronel, Navas, and Ponce [@CNP] states if $T$ is a *minimal* homeomorphism (i.e.\u00a0all its orbits are dense) and $\\Phi$ and $\\Phi^{-1}$ are both product bounded then there exists an *invariant* Riemannian norm.\n\nIt is easy to give examples of regular (e.g.\u00a0H\u00f6lder) automorphisms that are not relatively product bounded: any cocycle constant equal to $\\left( \\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & 1 \\\\ 0 & 1 \\end{smallmatrix} \\right)$ will do. Here is a more interesting example:\n\n\\[ex.Herman\\] Let the base dynamics $T$ be an irrational rotation of the circle ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$, and consider the matrix-valued map $F(x) \\coloneqq \\left( \\begin{smallmatrix} 2 & 0 \\\\ 0 & 1/2 \\end{smallmatrix} \\right) R_{2\\pi x}$, where $R_\\theta$ denotes the rotation matrix by angle\u00a0$\\theta$. As shown by Herman [@Herman p.\u00a0471\u2013473], the ${\\mathit{SL}}(2,{\\mathbb{R}})$-cocycle $(T,F)$ has a positive Lyapunov exponent, but it is not uniformly hyperbolic. Therefore it cannot be relatively product bounded, because otherwise it would contradict a result of Morris [@Morris_rapidly Theorem\u00a02.1].\n\nExistence of local unstable sets with relatively bounded orbits {#ss.local_RPB}\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLet $\\Phi$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism in the set ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$. By the definition of this set, $$\\label{e.bound_Phi}\n\\|\\Phi^{\\pm 1}_x\\| \\le K  \\quad \\text{for all } x \\in X.$$ By equicontinuity of local holonomies, there exists a constant $C_1 > 1$ such that: $$\\label{e.bound_H}\n\\|H^\\star_{y \\gets x}\\| < C_1 \n\\quad \\text{for all } x \\in X, \\ \\star \\in \\{{\\mathrm{u}},{\\mathrm{s}}\\}, \\  y \\in W^\\star_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x).$$ Moreover, by \\[p.holonomies\\], it is possible to choose a constant $C_1$ that works for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\\Phi$ in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$.\n\nLet ${\\mathbb{E}}^\\times$ denote the complement of the zero section in ${\\mathbb{E}}$. Recall that ${\\varepsilon}_0$ comes from the definition of hyperbolic homeomorphism.\n\n\\[l.anti\\_claim\\] Let $\\Phi$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism. Then there exists ${\\varepsilon}_2 \\in (0,{\\varepsilon}_0)$, depending only on $T$, such that for every integer $m > 0$ there exists $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}^\\times$ with the following property: $$\\sup_{n \\in \\ldbrack 1, m \\rdbrack} \\, \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_2} (u)}  e^{-\\beta(\\Phi) n} \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\le 2  \\|u\\| \\, .$$\n\nMultiplying $\\Phi$ by a nonzero constant, we can assume that $\\beta(\\Phi) = 0$. Let $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}$ be the hyperbolicity exponent of $T$ along unstable sets, and let $$\\label{e.hyp_rate}\na \\coloneqq \\sup_{x \\in X} e^{-\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(x)}  < 1 \\, .$$ Hyperbolicity implies: $$\\label{e.W_contraction}\n\\forall x \\in X , \\ \\forall {\\varepsilon}\\in (0, {\\varepsilon}_0], \\quad\nT^{-1}(W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{\\varepsilon}(x)) \\subseteq W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{a{\\varepsilon}}(T^{-1} x) \\, .$$ Let ${\\varepsilon}_2 \\coloneqq (1-a){\\varepsilon}_0$. In order to show that the conclusion of the holds for this ${\\varepsilon}_2$, let us assume for a contradiction that there exists an integer $m > 0$ such that: $$\\label{e.old_claim}\n\\forall u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}^\\times \\\n\\exists n=n(u) \\in \\ldbrack 1, m \\rdbrack \\\n\\exists v=v(u) \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_2} (u) \\text{ s.t.\\ }\n\\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| > 2 \\|u\\| \\, .$$\n\nWe recursively define sequences $(u_k)$, $(v_k)$ in ${\\mathbb{E}}^\\times$ and $(n_k)$ in $\\ldbrack 1, m \\rdbrack$ as follows: We choose $u_0 \\in {\\mathbb{E}}^\\times$ arbitrarily. Assuming $u_k$ was already defined, we let $n_k \\coloneqq n(u_k)$ and $v_k \\coloneqq v(u_k)$ be given by , and let $u_{k+1} \\coloneqq \\Phi^{n_k}(v_k)$. Note that for each $k\\ge 0$ we have $\\|u_{k+1}\\| > 2 \\|u_k\\|$ and so $\\| u_k \\| \\ge 2^k \\|u_0\\|$.\n\nNow let $\\ell_k \\coloneqq n_0 + n_1 + \\cdots + n_{k-1}$ (so $\\ell_0 \\coloneqq 0$), and $w_k \\coloneqq \\Phi^{-\\ell_k}(v_k)$. We claim that each $w_k$ belongs to ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0} (u_0)$; indeed: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{2}\nv_k &\\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_2}(u_k) &&\\Rightarrow \\\\\n\\Phi^{-n_{k-1}}(v_k) &\\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{a {\\varepsilon}_2}(v_{k-1}) \\subseteq {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{(1+a) {\\varepsilon}_2}(u_{k-1}) &&\\Rightarrow \\\\\n\\Phi^{-n_{k-2}-n_{k-1}}(v_k) &\\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{(a+a^2) {\\varepsilon}_2}(v_{k-2}) \\subseteq {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{(1 + a+a^2) {\\varepsilon}_2}(u_{k-2}) &&\\Rightarrow \\\\\n&\\ \\vdots \\\\\nw_k = \\Phi^{-n_{0} - \\cdots -n_{k-1}}(v_k) &\\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{(a+\\cdots+a^k) {\\varepsilon}_2}(v_0) \\subseteq {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{(1 + a + \\cdots + a^k) {\\varepsilon}_2}(u_0) \\, ,\\end{aligned}$$ proving the claim. In particular, by we obtain $\\|w_k\\| \\le C_1 \\|u_0\\|$. Since $v_k \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_2}(u_k)$, using again we have $\\|u_k\\| \\le C_1 \\|v_k\\|$. Therefore: $$\\frac{\\|\\Phi^{\\ell_k} (w_k)\\|}{\\|w_k\\|} \n= \\frac{\\|v_k\\|}{\\|w_k\\|} \n\\ge \\frac{C_1^{-1} \\|u_k\\|}{C_1 \\|u_0\\|}\n\\ge C_1^{-2} 2^k \n\\, .$$ Since $\\ell_k \\le mk$, using we obtain $$\\beta(\\Phi) = \\lim_{k \\to \\infty} \\sup_{x\\in X} \\frac{ \\log \\|\\Phi^{\\ell_k}_x \\|}{\\ell_k}\n\\ge \\limsup_{k \\to \\infty} \\frac{ \\log (\\|\\Phi^{\\ell_k} w_k \\|/\\|w_k\\|)}{\\ell_k} \\ge \\frac{\\log 2}{m} > 0 \\, .$$ This contradiction concludes the proof.\n\nThe next supersedes the previous one:\n\n\\[l.input\\] Let $\\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ be a fiber-bunched automorphism. Then there exist a constant $C_2>1$ and a vector $u_* \\in {\\mathbb{E}}^\\times$ such that $$\\sup_{n \\ge 0} \\, \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u_*)} e^{-\\beta(\\Phi) n} \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\le C_2 \\|u_*\\|  \\, .$$ Moreover, the same constant $C_2$ works for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\\Phi$ in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$.\n\nAgain, multiplying $\\Phi$ by a nonzero constant (and increasing $K$ if necessary), we can assume that $\\beta(\\Phi) = 0$.\n\nLet ${\\varepsilon}_2$ be given by \\[l.anti\\_claim\\]. By the continuity of the bracket, there exists ${\\varepsilon}_3 \\in (0,{\\varepsilon}_1)$ such that: $$z_1,z_2 \\in X, \\ {\\mathrm{d}}(z_1,z_2) < 2{\\varepsilon}_3 \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad {\\mathrm{d}}([z_1,z_2], z_i) \\le {\\varepsilon}_2 \\, .$$\n\nFor each integer $m \\ge 1$, \\[l.input\\] provides $u_m \\in {\\mathbb{E}}^\\times$, say with $\\|u_m\\|=1$, such that for every $n \\in \\ldbrack 1, m \\rdbrack$ and every $v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_2}(u_m)$ we have $\\| \\Phi^n(v) \\| \\le 2$. Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we assume that $(u_m)$ converges to some $\\bar{u}$, which has $\\|\\bar{u}\\|=1$. Let $x_m \\coloneqq \\pi(u_m)$ and $\\bar{x} \\coloneqq \\pi(\\bar{u})$.\n\nWe claim that $$\\label{e.almost_there}\n\\sup_{n \\ge 0} \\, \\sup_{\\bar{v} \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_3}(\\bar{u})} \\| \\Phi^n (\\bar{v}) \\|  \\le 2C_1 \\, .$$ Indeed, given $\\bar{v} \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_3}(\\bar{u})$ and $n \\ge 0$, consider $\\bar{y} \\coloneqq \\pi(\\bar{v})$. Since $x_m \\to \\bar{x}$, for every sufficiently large $m \\ge n$ we have ${\\mathrm{d}}(x_m,\\bar{y}) < 2{\\varepsilon}_3$, and in particular $y_m \\coloneqq [x_m,\\bar{y}]$ is well-defined and belongs to $W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_2}(x_m)$. Let $v_m \\coloneqq H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y_m \\gets x_m}(u_m)$ and $w_m \\coloneqq H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{\\bar{y} \\gets y_m}(v_m)$ (see \\[f.input\\]).\n\n(0,0)\u2013(8,0) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (2,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above left\\][$x_m$]{}; (6,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above left\\][$y_m$]{}; plot \\[smooth, tension=1\\] coordinates [ (0,4.3) (2,4) (4,3.8) (6,4) (8,3.65)]{} node\\[right\\][${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (2,0)\u2013(2,4); (2,4) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below left\\][$u_m$]{}; (6,4) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above left\\][$v_m$]{}; (6,0)\u2013(6,4);\n\n(1,1)\u2013(9,1) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (3.25,1) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below right\\][$\\bar{x}$]{}; (7,1) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below right\\][$\\bar y$]{}; plot \\[smooth, tension=1\\] coordinates [ (1,5.4) (3.25,5) (5,4.8) (7,4.9) (9,4.75)]{} node\\[right\\][${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (3.25,1)\u2013(3.25,5); (3.25,5) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below left\\][$\\bar{u}$]{};\n\n(1.5,-.5)\u2013(3.5,1.5); (1.75,-.5)\u2013(3.75,1.5) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (5.5,-.5)\u2013(7.5,1.5) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{}; plot \\[smooth, tension=1\\] coordinates [ (5.5,3.4) (6,4) (7,5.5) (7.5,6.1)]{} node\\[right\\][${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{};\n\n(7,4.9) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below right\\][$\\bar{v}$]{}; (7,5.5) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[right\\][$w_m$]{}; (7,1)\u2013(7,5.5);\n\nThen: $$\\|\\Phi^n(w_m) \\|\n=   \\left\\| H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{T^m \\bar{y} \\gets T^m y_m} (\\Phi^n(v_m)) \\right\\|\n\\le C_1 \\left\\| \\Phi^n(v_m) \\right\\|\n\\le 2C_1 \\, .$$ As $m \\to \\infty$ (recall that $n$ is fixed), we have $y_m \\to [\\bar{x},\\bar{y}] = \\bar{y}$ and so: $$w_m = H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{\\bar{y} \\gets y_m} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y_m \\gets x_m}(u_m) \\to H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{\\bar{y} \\gets \\bar{x}}(\\bar{u}) = \\bar{v} \\, ,$$ by continuity of holonomies. It follows that $\\|\\Phi^n(\\bar{v}) \\| \\le 2 C_1$, completing the proof of the claim .\n\nFix a constant $\\ell > 0$ depending only on $T$ such that $W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(T^\\ell \\bar{x}) \\subseteq T^\\ell(W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_3}(\\bar{x}))$. Let $u_* \\coloneqq \\Phi^\\ell(\\bar{u})$. Then $$\\sup_{n \\ge 0} \\, \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u_*)} \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\le \n\\sup_{n \\ge 0} \\, \\sup_{\\bar{v} \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_3}(\\bar{u})} \\| \\Phi^{n+\\ell} (\\bar{v}) \\|  \\le 2C_1 \\, ,$$ by . On the other hand, recalling , we have $\\|u_*\\| \\ge K^{-\\ell} \\|u\\| = K^{-\\ell}$. So the vector $u_*$ has the desired property with $C_2 \\coloneqq 2 K^\\ell C_1$, completing the proof of the .\n\nProof of relative product boundedness {#ss.bounded_proof}\n-------------------------------------\n\nThe next lemma uses spannability to spread local product boundedness from a local unstable set to the whole space:\n\n\\[l.key\\] Let $\\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ be a spannable automorphism. There exists $C_3 > 1$ with the following properties. Suppose $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$ is a nonzero vector such the following quantity is finite: $$r \\coloneqq \\frac{1}{\\|u\\|}\n\\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} e^{-n \\beta(\\Phi)}\\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \\|\\Phi^n(v)\\| \\, .$$ Then $$\\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} e^{-n \\beta(\\Phi)} \\sup_{y \\in X} \\|\\Phi^n_y \\| \\le C_3 r \\, .$$ Furthermore, the same constant $C_3$ works for all automorphisms in a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\\Phi$ in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$.\n\nNote that the hypothesis of \\[l.key\\] is non-void by \\[l.input\\], and that its conclusion implies that $\\Phi$ is relatively product bounded. So \\[l.key\\] implies \\[p.bounded\\]. However, the more technical statement of \\[l.key\\] is necessary for the construction of an extremal norm in the next section.\n\nIt is sufficient to consider $\\beta(\\Phi)=0$. Let $\\bar{n}$ and $C_0$ be the uniform spannability constants provided by \\[p.unif\\_span\\]. Fix a nonzero vector $u$ for which the associated quantity $r$ is finite, and without loss of generality, let us assume that $\\|u\\| = 1$. Let $r'>r$ be arbitrary. Then there exists $n_*$ such that $$\\sup_{n \\ge n_*} \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \\|\\Phi^n(v)\\| \\le r'  \\, .$$ Consider arbitrary $y \\in X$ and $w \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_y$. Apply \\[p.unif\\_span\\] to the points $x \\coloneqq \\pi(u)$ and $y$ and the vector $u$, obtaining points $x_1, \\dots, x_d \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(x)$ and times $n_1, \\dots, n_d \\in \\ldbrack 0, \\bar{n} \\rdbrack$ such that each point $y_i \\coloneqq T^{n_i} x_i$ belongs to $W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(y)$ and the vectors $v_i$ defined by form a basis for ${\\mathbb{E}}_y$. Moreover, if we express $w$ as a linear combination $a_1 v_1 + \\dots + a_d v_d$, then the also yields that $(\\sum_i a_i^2)^{1/2} \\le C_0 \\|w\\|$. So each $|a_i| \\le C_0\\|w\\|$. For each $i$ and $n \\ge n_*$, we have $$\\Phi^n(v_i) = \\underbrace{H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{T^n y \\gets T^n y_i}}_{{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}}} \\circ \\underbrace{\\Phi^{n_i+n}_{x_i} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{x_i \\gets x} (u)}_{{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}}} \\, .$$ We have $\\| {\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}} \\| \\le C_1$ by , and $\\| {\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}} \\| \\le r'$ by definition. Combining these estimates, we obtain: $$\\|\\Phi^n(w) \\| \\le d C_0 C_1 r' \\|w\\| \\, ,$$ that is, $\\|\\Phi^n_y\\| \\le C_3 r'$, where $C_3 \\coloneqq d C_0 C_1$. So $\\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} \\sup_{y \\in X} \\|\\Phi^n_y \\|$ is bounded by $C_3 r'$, and actually by $C_3 r$, since $r'>r$ is arbitrary. This proves the desired inequality.\n\nNow consider a $C^0$-perturbation of $\\Phi$ in the set ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$. By \\[c.open\\_span\\], this perturbation is also spannable, and we can use the same constants $\\bar{n}$ and $C_0$. So the argument above applies verbatim for the perturbed automorphism.\n\nApplication: polynomial bounds {#ss.polynomial}\n------------------------------\n\nLet us give an application of what we have proved so far, namely that under the hypothesis of strong fiber-bunching, relative product boundedness fails at most by a polynomial factor. The reader anxious to see extremal norms may skip this .\n\n\\[t.polynomial\\] Let $T$ be a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ be strongly bunched automorphism covering $T$. Then there exists an integer $d' \\in \\ldbrack 0, d-1 \\rdbrack$ and $C>0$ such that $$\\|\\Phi_x^n\\| \\le C n^{d'} e^{n \\beta(\\Phi)} \\quad \\text{for all $x\\in X$ and $n \\ge 0$.}$$\n\nFor related results, see [@KalSad Theorem 3.10], [@Jungers \u00a73.5\u20133.6].\n\nBefore proving this , let us fix some terminology. Suppose ${\\mathbb{E}}$ is a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle over $X$, with a fixed $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder Riemannian norm, and that ${\\mathbb{F}}\\subseteq {\\mathbb{E}}$ is a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder subbundle. Let ${\\mathbb{F}}^\\perp \\subseteq {\\mathbb{E}}$ be the orthogonal complement subbundle, which is also $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder. Then the orthogonal projections $$\\label{e.projections}\nP \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{F}}\\quad \\text{and} \\quad Q \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{F}}^\\perp$$ are $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder endomorphisms covering ${\\mathrm{id}}_X$. Now suppose $\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphism covering $T$ and that ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is $\\Phi$-invariant. Then there are two induced $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphisms, both covering $T$, namely the obvious *restricted automorphism* $\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}}\\colon {\\mathbb{F}}\\to {\\mathbb{F}}$, and the *quotient automorphism* $\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}} \\colon {\\mathbb{F}}^\\perp \\to {\\mathbb{F}}^\\perp$ defined by $\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}} \\coloneqq (Q \\circ \\Phi )|_{{\\mathbb{F}}^\\perp}$. If the automorphism $\\Phi$ is fiber-bunched (or strongly bunched) then so are $\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}}$ and $\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}$.\n\nLet $\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ be a strongly bunched automorphism. If $\\Phi$ is irreducible then by \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\] it is spannable, and by \\[p.bounded\\] it is relatively product bounded, hence our claim holds with $d'=0$. In particular, the holds when $d=1$. Now suppose $\\Phi$ is reducible, that is, there exists a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder $\\Phi$-invariant nontrivial subbundle ${\\mathbb{F}}\\subset {\\mathbb{E}}$. By induction on dimension, we can assume that the holds for the restricted automorphism $\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}$ and the quotient automorphism $\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}$, that is, there are nonnegative integers $d_1 < \\dim {\\mathbb{F}}$ and $d_2 < d - \\dim {\\mathbb{F}}$ such that: $$\\label{e.trouxa1}\n\\| (\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}})_x^n \\| = O \\left(n^{d_1} e^{n \\beta(\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}})} \\right)\n\\quad \\text{and} \\quad \n\\| (\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})_x^n \\| = O \\left(n^{d_2} e^{n \\beta(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})} \\right) \\, .$$ Note that, by the definitions of the automorphisms $\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}}$ and $\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}$, $$\\max \\big\\{ \\| (\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}})_x^n \\| , \\  \\| (\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})_x^n \\| \\big\\} \\le \\| \\Phi_x^n \\|\n\\quad \\text{for all $x\\in X$ and $n \\ge 0$,}$$ and therefore $$\\label{e.trouxa2}\n\\max \\big\\{ \\beta(\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}}) , \\ \\beta(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}) \\big\\} \\le \\beta(\\Phi) \\, .$$ Letting $P$ and $Q$ be the orthogonal projections , note the identity: $$\\Phi_x = (\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}})_x \\circ P_x + P_{Tx} \\circ \\Phi_x \\circ Q_x + (\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})_x \\circ Q_x \\, .$$ More generally, for every $n \\ge 1$, we have: $$\\label{e.trouxa3}\n\\Phi^n_x = (\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}})^n_x \\circ P_x + \n\\left[ \\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} (\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}})^{n-j-1}_{T^{j+1}x} \\circ P_{T^{j+1} x} \\circ \\Phi_{T^j x} \\circ (\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})^j_x \\circ Q_x \\right] + \n(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})^n_x \\circ Q_x  \\, ,$$ which can be checked by induction. Using the bounds , it follows that: $$\\| \\Phi_x^n \\| = O \\left(n^{d_1+d_2+1} \\, e^{n \\max \\{ \\beta(\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}}) , \\beta(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})\\} }\\right) \\, .$$ Noting that $d_1 + d_2 + 1 < d$ and recalling , we obtain the desired polynomial bound.\n\nIncidentally, note that implies that is an equality, that is: $$\\label{e.split_beta}\n\\beta(\\Phi)  = \\max \\big\\{ \\beta(\\Phi|_{\\mathbb{F}}) , \\ \\beta(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}) \\big\\} \\, .$$ Actually, a more general fact holds: for any $T$-invariant ergodic probability measure $\\mu$, $$\\label{e.split_chi}\n\\chi_1(\\Phi, \\mu) = \\max \\big\\{ \\chi_1(\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}, \\mu) , \\chi_1(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}, \\mu)  \\big\\} \\, .$$ We will use this fact in \\[ss.subordination\\]. We were not able to find a precise reference for it, but it follows easily from the identity together with an estimate such as [@B_Oseledets Lemma\u00a012].\n\nConstruction of extremal norms {#s.norms}\n==============================\n\nExtremal norms for spannable automorphisms {#ss.extremal_norms}\n------------------------------------------\n\nIn this we state and prove the central result of this paper, \\[t.extremal\\] below. Let us present a simple consequence first:\n\n\\[c.extremal\\] Let $T$ be a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $\\Phi$ be a strongly bunched irreducible automorphism covering $T$. Then $\\Phi$ admits an extremal norm.\n\nHere is the full statement of our result on extremal norms. Let $\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}$ be the exponent provided by applying \\[p.regularity\\_above\\] to $\\Phi^{-1}$.\n\n\\[t.extremal\\] Every spannable automorphism $\\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ admits an extremal norm ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$, which has the following additional properties:\n\n1.  \\[i.norm\\_eccentricity\\] there exists $C_4 > 1$ such that for every $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$, $$\\label{e.eccentricity} \n    C_4^{-1} \\|u\\| \\le {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le C_4 \\|u\\| \\, ;$$\n\n2.  \\[i.norm\\_Holder\\] ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is $\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}$-H\u00f6lder, that is, there is a constant $C_5>0$ such that for all $x$, $x'\\in X$, $$\\label{e.norm_Holder}\n    \\big| {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {I_{x' \\gets x}}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} - 1 \\big| \\le C_5 {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}} \\, .$$\n\n3.  \\[i.norm\\_u\\_Holder\\] ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is $\\bar\\theta$-H\u00f6lder along unstable sets with $\\bar\\theta \\coloneqq \\max\\{\\theta,1\\}$, that is, there is a constant $C_6>0$ such that for all $x \\in X$ and $x' \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x)$, $$\\label{e.norm_u_Holder} \n    \\big| {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{x' \\gets x}}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} - 1 \\big| \\le C_6 {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\bar\\theta} \\, ;$$\n\nFurthermore, for every sufficiently $C^0$-small perturbation of the automorphism $\\Phi$ in the set ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$, we can find an extremal norm that satisfies the properties above with the same constants $\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}$, $C_4$, $C_5$, $C_6$.\n\nCombining the above with \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\] we immediately obtain \\[c.extremal\\].\n\nNote that part (\\[i.norm\\_Holder\\]) of the statement of \\[t.extremal\\] is compatible with the characterization of H\u00f6lderness of a norm given by \\[p.norm\\_Holder\\]. In summary, our extremal norm is H\u00f6lder, but perhaps with a smaller H\u00f6lder exponent than the original $\\Phi$.[^9] Nevertheless, part (\\[i.norm\\_u\\_Holder\\]) says that the norm is more regular along unstable sets: there is no loss of exponent, and if $\\theta<1$ there is a gain.\n\nConcerning the final part of the statement of \\[t.extremal\\], recall from \\[c.open\\_span\\] that the set of spannable automorphisms is a $C^0$-open subset of the set ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$. So the also says that our extremal norms vary in a bounded way if the automorphism is perturbed; this is useful to certain applications (see \\[ss.Wirth\\]).\n\nBefore commencing the actual proof, let us establish an auxiliary fact:\n\n\\[l.bump\\] Let $0<a<1$. Let $\\bar\\theta \\coloneqq \\max\\{\\theta,1\\}$. Then there exists a $\\bar{\\theta}$-H\u00f6lder function $\\zeta \\colon X \\times X \\to [0,1]$ such that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{3}\n\\zeta(x,y) &= 1 &\\quad &\\text{if} &\\quad {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) &\\le a{\\varepsilon}_1 \\, ; \\\\\n\\zeta(x,y) &= 0 &\\quad &\\text{if} &\\quad {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) &\\ge {\\varepsilon}_1 \\, .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIf $\\theta \\le 1$, let $f \\colon [0,+\\infty) \\to [0,1]$ be a non-increasing smooth function such that $f(a{\\varepsilon}_1)=1$ and $f({\\varepsilon}_1)=0$. Then the function $\\zeta(x,y) \\coloneqq f({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y))$ meets our requirements.\n\nIf $\\theta > 1$ then the existence of $\\zeta$ is an immediate consequence of the fact that the algebra of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder functions on $X \\times X$ is normal (\\[l.square\\]).\n\nAs in , let $a \\coloneqq \\exp(-\\min \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}) \\in (0,1)$. Let $\\zeta$ be given by \\[l.bump\\]. For each $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$, let $$\\label{e.formula_extremal}\n{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\coloneqq \\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} e^{-\\beta(\\Phi) n} \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \\zeta(\\pi(u),\\pi(v))  \\,  \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\, .$$ We will check that formula defines an extremal norm with the additional properties stated in \\[t.extremal\\]. To simplify writing, we assume from now on that $\\beta(\\Phi) = 0$.\n\nSince $0 \\le \\zeta \\le 1$ and $\\Phi$ is relatively product bounded (thanks to \\[p.bounded\\]), the quantity is always finite, and therefore defines a seminorm on each fiber of ${\\mathbb{E}}$.\n\nTake arbitrary nonzero $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$. Since $\\zeta(x,y) = 1$ whenever $y \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{a {\\varepsilon}_1}(x)$, we have: $$\\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{a{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\le {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\, .$$ Recalling the hyperbolicity property , we have ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{a {\\varepsilon}_1}(u) \\supseteq \\Phi^{-1}\\big({\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(\\Phi(u))\\big)$, and so: $$\\label{e.nice1}\n\\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(\\Phi(u))} \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\le {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\, .$$ So, letting $\\tilde u \\coloneqq \\Phi(u)$, we have: $$\\frac{1}{\\|\\tilde u\\|}\n\\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(\\tilde u)} \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\le \\frac{{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}}{\\|\\tilde u\\|} \\le K \\frac{{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}}{\\|u\\|} \\, ,$$ using the bound . This allows us to apply \\[l.key\\] to $\\tilde u$ and conclude that, for some constant $C_3>1$ that only depends on $\\Phi$, $$\\label{e.nice2}\n\\limsup_{n \\to \\infty}  \\sup_{y \\in X} \\|\\Phi^n_y \\| \\le C_3 K \\frac{{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}}{\\|u\\|} \\, ,  \\quad\\text{for all } u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}^\\times \\, .$$ The left-hand side is at least $1$; indeed by , for every $n>0$ there exists $y \\in X$ such that $\\|\\Phi^n_y \\| \\ge e^{n\\beta(\\Phi)} = 1$. Therefore: $$\\label{e.comparison_below}\n{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\ge K^{-1} C_3^{-1} \\|u\\| \\, , \\quad\\text{for all } u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}\\, .$$ In particular, the seminorm ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is actually a norm.\n\nSince $0 \\le \\zeta \\le 1$ and $\\zeta(x,y) = 0$ whenever $y \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(x)$, inequality implies: $${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi(u)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}\\, , \\quad\\text{for all } u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}\\, ,$$ that is, ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is an extremal norm.\n\nNow consider the vector $u_* \\in {\\mathbb{E}}^\\times$ given by \\[l.input\\]. It satisfies ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u_*}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le C_2 \\|u_*\\|$, where $C_2>1$ is a constant depending only on $\\Phi$. Applying to this vector we obtain: $$\\limsup_{n \\to \\infty}  \\sup_{y \\in X} \\|\\Phi^n_y \\| \\le K C_2 C_3 \\, .$$ Therefore, for all $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$, $${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le \\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\|\n\\le K C_2 C_3 \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \\| v \\|\n\\le K C_1 C_2 C_3  \\|u\\| \\, ,$$ where $C_1 > 1$ is the constant from . So, letting $C_4 \\coloneq K C_1 C_2 C_3$ and recalling the lower bound , we obtain : the extremal norm is uniformly comparable to the original norm by a factor $C_4$ that works not only for $\\Phi$ but also for its $C^0$ perturbations in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$.\n\nBefore proving regularity properties of the extremal norm, let us establish a few auxiliary facts. For all $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$, $v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)$, and $n\\ge 0$, using , extremality, and , we obtain: $$\\label{e.nice3}\n\\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\le C_4 {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi^n(v)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le C_4 {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {v}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le C_4^2 \\| v\\| \\le C_1 C_4^2 \\|u\\| \\le C_1 C_4^3 {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\, .$$ Fix a constant $b<1$ sufficiently close to $1$ so that: $${\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \\ge b{\\varepsilon}_1  \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad\n\\zeta(x,y) < \\tfrac{1}{2} C_1^{-1} C_4^{-3} \\, .$$ Then: $$v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u) {\\smallsetminus}{\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{b{\\varepsilon}_1}(u) \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad\n\\zeta(\\pi(u),\\pi(v)) \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\le \\tfrac{1}{2}{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\, .$$ So vectors $v$ outside ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{b{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)$ do not contribute in formula , which therefore can be rewritten as: $$\\label{e.cutoff}\n{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\coloneqq \\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{b{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)} \\zeta(\\pi(u),\\pi(v)) \\, \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\, .$$\n\nWe will prove property (\\[i.norm\\_u\\_Holder\\]) first, and use it later in the proof of property (\\[i.norm\\_Holder\\]). In order to simplify writing, let us use the $O$ notation to denote constants that depend only on $\\Phi$ and can be taken uniform on a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\\Phi$ in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$. In order to prove property (\\[i.norm\\_u\\_Holder\\]), we need to show: $$x \\in X, \\ x' \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x), \\ u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x, \\  \\|u\\| = 1 \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad\n\\big| {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{x' \\gets x}(u)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} - {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\big| = O \\big( {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\bar \\theta}  \\big)\\, .$$ It is sufficient to consider $x'$ very close to $x$, so assume ${\\mathrm{d}}(x',x)\\le (1-b){\\varepsilon}_1$. Fix a unit vector $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x$ and let $u' \\coloneqq H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{x' \\gets x}(u)$. For all $v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)$, and $n\\ge 0$, using and the fact that $\\zeta$ is $\\bar\\theta$-H\u00f6lder, we estimate: $$\\Big| \\zeta(x', \\pi(v)) \\|\\Phi^n(v)\\| - \\zeta(x,\\pi(v)) \\|\\Phi^n(v)\\| \\Big| = O \\big( {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\bar \\theta}  \\big)\\, .$$ Noting that ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{b{\\varepsilon}_1}(u') \\subseteq {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)$, we have: $$\\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{b{\\varepsilon}_1}(u')} \\zeta(x', \\pi(v)) \\|\\Phi^n(v)\\| \\le \n\\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{ {\\varepsilon}_1}(u )} \\zeta(x,  \\pi(v)) \\|\\Phi^n(v)\\| + O \\big( {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\bar\\theta} \\big) {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}  \\, .$$ Using and , we obtain: $${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u'}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} + O \\big( {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\bar \\theta}  \\big)\\, .$$ On the other hand, using ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{b{\\varepsilon}_1}(u) \\subseteq {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u')$, a similar argument shows that: $${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u'}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} + O \\big( {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\bar \\theta}  \\big)\\, .$$ This completes the proof of property (\\[i.norm\\_u\\_Holder\\]).\n\nWe are left to check $\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}$-H\u00f6lderness of the norm, that is, property (\\[i.norm\\_Holder\\]). In fact, it is sufficient to prove $\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}$-H\u00f6lderness along stable sets, that is: $$\\label{e.last_thing}\nx \\in X, \\ x' \\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x), \\ u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x, \\  \\|u\\|=1 \\ \\Rightarrow \\ \n\\big| {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{x' \\gets x}(u) }\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} - {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\big| = O \\big( {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}}  \\big)\\, .$$ Since we have already proven $\\bar\\theta$-H\u00f6lderness of the norm along unstable sets, and $\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}\\le \\bar\\theta$, property (\\[i.norm\\_Holder\\]) will follow from : just mimic the proof of (\\[i.irred2\\])\u00a0$\\Rightarrow$\u00a0(\\[i.irred1\\]) in \\[c.irred\\].\n\nIn order to prove , it is sufficient to consider $x'$ very close to $x$. Fix a unit vector $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x$ and let $u' \\coloneqq H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{x' \\gets x}(u)$. Consider arbitrary $v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u)$, and write $y \\coloneqq \\pi(v)$. Since ${\\mathrm{d}}(x',y) \\le {\\varepsilon}_1 + {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x') < 2{\\varepsilon}_1$, the bracket $[x',y] \\eqcolon y'$ is well-defined. Let also $w \\coloneqq H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y' \\gets y}(v)$, and $v' \\coloneqq H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y' \\gets x'}(u')$: see \\[f.coffee\\].\n\n(0,0)\u2013(8,0) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (2,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above left\\][$x$]{}; (6,0) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above left\\][$y$]{}; plot \\[smooth, tension=1\\] coordinates [ (0,4.3) (2,4) (4,3.8) (6,4) (8,3.65)]{} node\\[right\\][${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (2,0)\u2013(2,4); (2,4) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above\\][$u$]{}; (6,4) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above left\\][$v$]{}; (6,0)\u2013(6,4);\n\n(1,1)\u2013(9,1) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (3,1) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below right\\][$x'$]{}; (7,1) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below right\\][$y'$]{}; plot \\[smooth, tension=1\\] coordinates [ (1,5.4) (3.25,5) (5,4.8) (7,4.9) (9,4.75)]{} node\\[right\\][${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}$]{}; (3,1)\u2013(3,5); (3,5) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[above\\][$u'$]{};\n\n(1.5,-.5)\u2013(3.5,1.5) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{}; plot \\[smooth, tension=1\\] coordinates [ (1.5,3.7) (2,4) (3,5) (3.5,5.4)]{} node\\[right\\][${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{}; (5.5,-.5)\u2013(7.5,1.5) node\\[right\\][$W^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{}; plot \\[smooth, tension=1\\] coordinates [ (5.5,3.4) (6,4) (7,5.5) (7.5,6.1)]{} node\\[right\\][${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{s}}$]{};\n\n(7,4.9) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[below right\\][$v'$]{}; (7,5.5) circle\\[radius=2pt\\] node\\[right\\][$w$]{}; (7,1)\u2013(7,5.5);\n\nThen for each $n \\ge 0$ we estimate: $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\big| \\zeta(x,y) \\|\\Phi^n (v)\\| - \\zeta(x',y') \\|\\Phi^n (v')\\| \\big| \\le\n{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}} + {\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}} + {\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{3}};}} \\, , \n\\qquad \\text{where}\n\\\\\n\\begin{aligned}\n{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}} &\\coloneqq | \\zeta(x,y) - \\zeta(x',y')| \\,  \\|\\Phi^n (v)\\|  \\, , \\\\\n{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}} &\\coloneqq \\big|  \\|\\Phi^n (v)\\| - \\|\\Phi^n (w)\\| \\big| \\, , \\\\\n{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{3}};}} &\\coloneqq \\| \\Phi^n(w - v') \\| \\, .\n\\end{aligned}\\end{gathered}$$\n\nIn order to estimate ${\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}}$, recall that by , $\\|\\Phi^n(v)\\| = O(1)$. On the other hand, by H\u00f6lder-continuity of $\\zeta$, $$| \\zeta(x,y) - \\zeta(x',y')| = O \\big(\\max\\big\\{{\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\bar \\theta} , {\\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^{\\bar \\theta} \\big\\} \\big)\\, .$$ Using \\[p.regularity\\_base\\] for $T^{-1}$, we have ${\\mathrm{d}}(y,y') = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\kappa_{\\mathrm{u}}})$, where the exponent $\\kappa_{\\mathrm{u}}$ is at most $1$. So: $$| \\zeta(x,y) - \\zeta(x',y')| = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\kappa_{\\mathrm{u}}\\bar\\theta} ) \\, .$$ Note that $\\kappa_{\\mathrm{u}}\\bar{\\theta} \\ge \\kappa_{\\mathrm{u}}\\theta \\ge \\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}$, so the weaker estimate ${\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}} = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}})$ holds.\n\nThe next term is estimated as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}}\n&=   \\left|  \\|  H^s_{T^n y' \\gets T^n y} \\Phi^n (v) \\| - \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\| \\right | \\\\\n&\\le \\left| \\| H^s_{T^n y' \\gets T^n y} - I_{T^n y' \\gets T^n y}\\| + \\|I_{T^n y' \\gets T^n y} \\| - 1 \\right| \\|\\Phi^n(v)\\| \\, . \\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\\mathrm{d}}(T^n y', T^n y) = o(1)$ (i.e., it tends to $0$ as $n \\to \\infty$), using regularity of holonomies and of the transport maps (\\[p.norm\\_Holder\\]) together with product boundedness , we conclude that ${\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}} = o(1)$.\n\nIn order to estimate the last term, we use \\[p.regularity\\_above\\] applied to $ T^{-1} $: $${\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{3}};}} = O(\\| v' - w \\|)\n= O\\big( \\| H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y'\\gets x'} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{x' \\gets x} - H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y' \\gets y} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y \\gets x} \\|  \\big)\n= O\\big( {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}} \\big) \\, ,$$\n\nSumming the three estimates, $$\\label{e.3parts}\n\\big| \\zeta(x,y) \\|\\Phi^n (v)\\| - \\zeta(x',y') \\|\\Phi^n (v')\\| \\big| =\nO \\big( {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}}  \\big) + o(1) \\, .$$\n\nAs in the proof of the previous property (\\[i.norm\\_u\\_Holder\\]), we need to use the cutoff property to conclude. If we are careful enough to take ${\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')$ sufficiently small then ${\\mathrm{d}}(y,y') = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\kappa_{\\mathrm{u}}})$ is also small and therefore the following two implications are correct: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \\le b {\\varepsilon}_1 \\ &\\Rightarrow \\  {\\mathrm{d}}(x',y') \\le {\\varepsilon}_1 \\, , \\\\\n    {\\mathrm{d}}(x',y') \\le b {\\varepsilon}_1 \\  &\\Rightarrow \\  {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \\le {\\varepsilon}_1 \\, .\\end{aligned}$$ That is, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{b {\\varepsilon}_1}(u) \\  &\\Rightarrow \\  v' \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u') \\, , \\\\\n    v' \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{b {\\varepsilon}_1}(u') \\  &\\Rightarrow \\  v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u) \\, .\\end{aligned}$$ Then, using , , and , we obtain: $$\\big| {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} - {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u'}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\big| = O \\big( {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{u}}}  \\big) \\, ,$$ proving and the .\n\nApplication: Lipschitz continuity of the maximal Lyapunov exponent {#ss.Wirth}\n------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nAs a simple application of \\[t.extremal\\], let us establish a local regularity result for the maximal Lyapunov exponent. A similar property for the joint spectral radius (under the assumption of irreducibility) was established by Wirth [@Wirth Corol.\u00a04.2], also using extremal norms; see also [@Kozyakin] for a more precise result.\n\nLet ${\\mathcal{S}}_K$ denote the set of spannable automorphisms in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$, which by \\[c.open\\_span\\] is relatively $C^0$-open.\n\n\\[p.Wirth\\] The maximal Lyapunov exponent $\\beta(\\mathord{\\cdot})$ is a locally Lipschitz function on the set ${\\mathcal{S}}_K$, with respect to the $C^0$-norm .\n\nLet $\\Phi \\in {\\mathcal{S}}_K$. Let ${\\mathcal{U}}\\subset {\\mathcal{S}}_K$ be a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\\Phi$ where \\[t.extremal\\] applies with uniform constants. Take any two automorphisms $\\Phi_1$ and $\\Phi_2$ in ${\\mathcal{U}}$, and let ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}_1$ and ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}_2$ be the corresponding extremal norms provided by \\[t.extremal\\]. Then, using the bound , we obtain: $$\\begin{gathered}\ne^{\\beta(\\Phi_2)}   \\le \\sup_x {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi_{2x}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}_1 \n                    \\le \\sup_x {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi_{1x}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}_1 + \\sup_x {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi_{1x} - \\Phi_{2x}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}_1 \\\\\n                    \\le e^{\\beta(\\Phi_1)} + C_4 \\sup_x \\| \\Phi_{1x} - \\Phi_{2x} \\| \n                    =   e^{\\beta(\\Phi_1)} + C_4 \\|\\Phi_1 - \\Phi_2\\|_0 \\, ,\\end{gathered}$$ where $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|_0$ is the $C^0$-norm . By symmetry, we obtain $|e^{\\beta(\\Phi_1)} - e^{\\beta(\\Phi_1)}| \\le C_4 \\|\\Phi_1 - \\Phi_2\\|_0$. This shows that the function $e^{\\beta(\\mathord{\\cdot})}$ is Lipschitz on the neighborhood ${\\mathcal{U}}$, with respect to the $C^0$-norm. Since the function $\\beta(\\mathord{\\cdot})$ is uniformly bounded on ${\\mathcal{U}}$ (and in the whole set ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$, in fact), it is Lipschitz as well.\n\n\\[r.regularity\\_beta\\] For reducible automorphisms, it is clear that $\\beta$ is not locally Lipschitz: see e.g.\u00a0[@Wirth p.\u00a027]. Nevertheless, $\\beta$ is continuous on the whole space of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphisms: indeed, upper semicontinuity is automatic from , while lower semicontinuity follows by a theorem of Kalinin [@Kalinin Theorem\u00a01.4] that allows one to approximate $\\beta$ by the Lyapunov exponents of periodic orbits. Let us also remark that if $T$ is no longer hyperbolic, then $\\beta$ becomes discontinuous with respect to the $C^0$ topology. For example, the cocycle from \\[ex.Herman\\] can be $C^0$-perturbed so that $\\beta$ drops to $0$, as it follows e.g.\u00a0from the the result of [@AB].\n\nBarabanov-like norms for linear cocycles over shifts {#ss.Barabanov}\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nLet us consider subshifts of finite type, that is, $X$ is the set of two-sided sequences $(x_n)_{n\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}}$ in an alphabet $\\{0,1,\\dots, N-1\\}$ whose neighboring pairs are those allowed by a fixed 0-1 matrix, and $T \\colon X \\to X$ is the (left) shift map. As usual, we consider on $X$ the (ultra)metric $$\\label{e.ultrametric}\n{\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \\coloneqq e^{-\\lambda k}\\, \\quad \\text{where } k = \\min \\{|n| {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}x_n \\neq y_n \\},$$ and $\\lambda>0$ is a fixed parameter. Then $T$ is a hyperbolic homeomorphism. Indeed letting ${\\varepsilon}_0 \\coloneqq e^{-\\lambda}$, the corresponding local unstable and stable sets at $x=(x_n) \\in X$ are: $$\\begin{aligned}\nW_\\mathrm{loc}^{\\mathrm{u}}(x) &\\coloneqq W_{{\\varepsilon}_0}^{\\mathrm{u}}(x) = \\big\\{ (y_n) \\in X {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}y_n = x_n \\text{ for all } n\\le 0\\big\\} \\, , \\\\\nW_\\mathrm{loc}^{\\mathrm{s}}(x) &\\coloneqq W_{{\\varepsilon}_0}^{\\mathrm{s}}(x) = \\big\\{ (y_n) \\in X {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}y_n = x_n \\text{ for all } n\\ge 0\\big\\} \\, .\\end{aligned}$$ and so hyperbolicity property (\\[i.lambdas\\]) holds with $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}= \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}= \\lambda$, property (\\[i.bracket\\]) holds with $2{\\varepsilon}_1 = {\\varepsilon}_0$, and property (\\[i.bounded\\_angles\\]) holds with $C=1$. Also note that \\[p.regularity\\_base\\] holds with $\\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}= 1 = C$.\n\nWe will consider $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphisms covering the subshift $T \\colon X \\to X$. Since $X$ is a Cantor set, every $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle is trivial, i.e., $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder isomorphic to the product bundle. So we are actually dealing with $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder linear cocycles; nevertheless, we will keep using the vector bundle terminology.\n\n\\[ex.one-step\\] As mentioned in \\[ss.known\\], the *one-step cocycle* determined by a $N$-tuple of matrices $(A_0,\\dots,A_{N-1}) \\in {\\mathit{GL}}(d,{\\mathbb{R}})^N$ is the pair $(T,F)$ where $T$ is the full shift on $N$ symbols and $F \\colon X \\to {\\mathit{GL}}(d,{\\mathbb{R}})$ is given by $F(x) \\coloneqq A_{x_0}$. Let $\\Phi$ the associated automorphism . Then $e^{\\beta(\\Phi)}$ is joint spectral radius of the set $\\{A_0,\\dots,A_{N-1}\\}$. Since $F$ is locally constant, it is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder for any $\\theta \\in (0,+\\infty)$. Choosing $\\theta$ large enough, the automorphism $\\Phi$ becomes fiber-bunched. (Alternatively, we can take $\\theta=1$, say, and then take the parameter $\\lambda$ large enough.) The holonomies are locally trivial: $$\\label{e.trivial_holonomies}\n\\star \\in \\{{\\mathrm{u}}, {\\mathrm{s}}\\}, \\ \ny \\in W^\\star_\\mathrm{loc}(x) \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad H^\\star_{y \\gets x} = {\\mathrm{id}}\\, .$$\n\nA useful generalization of one-step cocycles are the *sofic cocycles* from [@BPS \u00a7\u00a05.1]; the same concept appears in [@PEDJ] under the terminology *constrained switching systems*.\n\nLet us present an improved version of \\[t.extremal\\] for subshifts of finite type. We obtain an extremal norm with an additional Barabanov-like property: given any vector $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$, there always exists a vector in its local unstable set ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_\\mathrm{loc}(u) \\coloneqq {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(u)$ whose expansion factor in a single iterate equals the maximum asymptotic expansion rate $ e^{\\beta(\\Phi)}  $. Furthermore, the norm is invariant under local unstable holonomies. Therefore, for the case of one-step cocycles, we reobtain the Barabanov property .\n\n\\[t.Barabanov\\] Let $ T $ be a two-sided subshift of finite type. Let $ {\\mathbb{E}}$ be a $d$-dimensional $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle. Let $ \\Phi $ be a spannable automorphism of $ {\\mathbb{E}}$ covering $ T $. Then $$\\label{e.formula_Barabanov}\n{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\coloneqq \\limsup_{n \\to \\infty} e^{-\\beta(\\Phi) n} \\sup_{v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{{\\mathrm{u}}}_{\\mathrm{loc}}(u)} \\| \\Phi^n (v) \\|$$ is a well-defined *Barabanov norm* on $ {\\mathbb{E}}$, namely, an extremal norm satisfying, for all $ u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$,\n\n1.  \\[i.Barabanov\\_invariance\\] *local $H^{{\\mathrm{u}}}$-invariance:* $ {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {v}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ for all $ v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{{\\mathrm{u}}}_{\\mathrm{loc}}(u) $;\n\n2.  \\[i.Barabanov\\_calibration\\] *calibration:* there exists $ v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{{\\mathrm{u}}}_{\\mathrm{loc}}(u) $ such that $ {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi(v)}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{\\beta(\\Phi)} {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {v}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$.\n\nFurthermore, ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ satisfies the other properties stated in \\[t.extremal\\].\n\nLet us comment on the hypotheses. Given $\\theta>0$, \\[l.needed\\_strength\\] holds with the value $\\eta_0 = \\theta/3$; indeed, this follows from formula\u00a0, recalling that $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}= \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}= \\lambda$, and noting that we can also take $\\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}= \\lambda$ in . Therefore $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphism $\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ covering $T$ is strongly bunched if $\\Phi$ is fiber-bunched and the fibers of ${\\mathbb{E}}$ have dimension $d \\le 2$, or $\\Phi$ is a $(\\theta/3,\\theta)$-bunched. In that case, it follows from \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\] that $\\Phi$ is spannable, provided it is irreducible and $T$ is transitive.\n\nSince $X$ is a Cantor set, we can simplify the construction in \\[t.extremal\\] and dispense with the bump function $\\zeta$ from \\[l.bump\\]. Ultimately, we can replace the definition of the extremal norm by the simpler formula . Note that in the latter formula we maximize over ${\\mathbb{W}}^{{\\mathrm{u}}}_{\\mathrm{loc}}(u) \\coloneqq {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(u)$ instead of ${\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(u) = {\\mathbb{W}}^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0/2}(u)$; this is possible because the metric on $X$ is an ultrametric. It is straightforward to check that the proof in \\[t.extremal\\] applies, with simplifications. It is immediate from its definition that the norm satisfies local $H^{{\\mathrm{u}}}$-invariance, that is property (\\[i.Barabanov\\_invariance\\]), which of course subsumes property (\\[i.norm\\_u\\_Holder\\]) from \\[t.extremal\\].\n\nWe only left to check the calibration property (\\[i.Barabanov\\_calibration\\]). Given $ u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}$, by definition, there exist sequences $n_i \\nearrow \\infty$ and $ v_i \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{{\\mathrm{u}}}_\\mathrm{loc}(u) $ such that $${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = \\lim_{i\\to\\infty} e^{-\\beta(\\Phi) n_i} \\| \\Phi^{n_i}v_i \\| \\, .$$ Denote $ y_i = \\pi(v_i) $. By compactness, we may suppose that $ y_i \\to y \\in W^{{\\mathrm{u}}}_{\\mathrm{loc}}(x) $ and $ v_i \\to v \\in {\\mathbb{W}}^{{\\mathrm{u}}}_\\mathrm{loc}(u) $. For $ i $ large enough, $y'_i \\coloneqq T(y_i) \\in W^{{\\mathrm{u}}}_{\\mathrm{loc}}(T(y))$. We can assume that this property is true for all $i$. Let $ v'_i \\coloneqq \\Phi(v_i) $. Thus, we have: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi(v)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}\n&= \\limsup_{n\\to \\infty}  e^{- \\beta(\\Phi) n} \\sup_{v' \\in  {\\mathbb{W}}^{{\\mathrm{u}}}_{\\mathrm{loc}}(\\Phi(v))} \\| \\Phi^n v' \\| \\\\\n&\\ge \\limsup_{i \\to \\infty}  e^{-(n_i-1) \\beta(\\Phi) } \\| \\Phi^{n_i-1}v'_i \\| \\\\\n&=   \\lim_{i \\to \\infty}  e^{-(n_i-1) \\beta(\\Phi) } \\| \\Phi^{n_i}v_i \\| \\, = \\, e^{\\beta(\\Phi)} {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\, = \\, e^{\\beta(\\Phi)} {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {v}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\, .\\end{aligned}$$ By extremality, the inequality is actually an equality. This proves calibration.\n\nMather sets {#s.Mather}\n===========\n\nIn traditional ergodic optimization, that is, the optimization of Birkhoff averages (see [@Jenkinson_survey; @Jenkinson_survey_new; @Garibaldi_book]), a *maximizing set* is a closed subset such that an invariant probability is maximizing if and only if its support lies on this subset. The existence of such sets is guaranteed in any context where a Ma\u00f1\u00e9 Lemma holds. The *Mather set* is the smallest maximizing set: it is defined as the union of the supports of all maximizing measures. The nomenclature is borrowed from Lagrangian dynamics, where the concept of minimizing measures proved to be a useful generalization of the notion of action minimizing orbits: see [@Mat]. There are other canonical maximizing sets, such as the Aubry set: see e.g.\u00a0[@Garibaldi_book]. Some of these concepts have been already considered in the optimization of the top Lyapunov exponent: see [@Morris_Mather; @GG].\n\nIn this , we are going to study some notions of Mather sets for continuous vector bundle automorphisms, not necessarily with any H\u00f6lder or hyperbolicity structures. Our approach was profoundly influenced by some works of Morris [@Morris_rapidly; @Morris_Mather].\n\nThroughout the , we assume that $X$ is a compact metric space, $T \\colon X \\to X$ is a homeomorphism, ${\\mathbb{E}}$ is a $d$-dimensional vector bundle over $X$, and $\\Phi$ is an automorphism covering $T$.\n\nThe first Mather set {#ss.first_Mather}\n--------------------\n\nBy a *Lyapunov maximizing measure* we mean any $T$-invariant probability $\\mu$ whose upper Lyapunov exponent $ \\chi_1(\\Phi, \\mu)$ equals $\\beta(\\Phi) $. Following Morris [@Morris_Mather], we define the *(first) Mather set* $M(\\Phi) \\subseteq X$ as the union of the supports of all Lyapunov maximizing measures.\n\n\\[p.Mather\\_support\\] The Mather set $M(\\Phi)$ is the support of some Lyapunov maximizing measure and, a fortiori, it is a nonempty, compact, and $T$-invariant set.\n\nThe argument is quite standard, but we add it for completeness. For simplicity, write $M = M(\\Phi)$. As explained at the introduction, at least one Lyapunov maximizing measure exists, so $M \\neq {\\varnothing}$. Given a countable basis $\\{B_j\\}_{j\\in{\\mathbb{N}}}$ for the topology of $X$, consider the subset of indices $ J \\coloneqq \\{ j \\in {\\mathbb{N}}{\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}B_j \\cap M \\neq {\\varnothing}\\} $. For each $ j \\in J $, we assign a Lyapunov maximizing measure $\\mu_j$ such that $B_j \\cap \\operatorname{supp}\\mu_j \\neq {\\varnothing}$, which means $\\mu_j(B_j)>0$. Define then $ \\mu\\coloneqq\\sum_{j \\in J} \\alpha_j \\mu_j$, where $ \\alpha_j>0$ and $ \\sum_{j \\in J} \\alpha_j = 1 $. As a convex combination of Lyapunov maximizing measures, $ \\mu$ is also Lyapunov maximizing. Now consider an arbitrary $k \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ such that $B_k \\cap \\operatorname{supp}\\mu = {\\varnothing}$. Then for all $ j \\in J $ we have $B_k \\cap \\operatorname{supp}\\mu_j = {\\varnothing}$ and therefore $\\mu_j(B_k)=0$. This implies that $k\\not\\in J$, and so $B_k \\cap M = {\\varnothing}$. We have shown that $ X {\\smallsetminus}\\operatorname{supp}\\mu \\subseteq X {\\smallsetminus}M$, which yields $M(\\Phi) = \\operatorname{supp}\\mu$.\n\n\\[p.Mather\\_calibration\\] If $\\Phi$ admits an extremal norm $ {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\cdot}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ then $${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi_x^n}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{n \\beta(\\Phi)}, \\qquad  \\forall \\, x \\in M(\\Phi) \\, , \\forall \\, n \\ge 1 \\, ,$$ and, in particular, every $T$-invariant probability measure whose support is contained in $M(\\Phi)$ is Lyapunov-maximizing.\n\nBy extremality, $$f_n(x) \\coloneqq \\frac{1}{n}\\log {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi_x^n}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le \\beta(\\Phi), \\qquad \\forall \\, x \\in X, \\forall \\, n \\ge 1.$$ On the other hand, if $\\mu$ is the Lyapunov maximizing measure with $\\operatorname{supp}\\mu = M(\\Phi)$ constructed in \\[p.Mather\\_support\\] then, by Kingman\u2019s subadditive theorem, $ \\inf_n \\frac{1}{n} \\int f_n \\, d\\mu = \\beta(\\Phi) $. It follows that $\\frac{1}{n} \\int f_n \\, d\\mu = \\beta(\\Phi)$ for each $n \\ge 1$. Since the functions $f_n$ are continuous, they must be identically equal to $\\beta(\\Phi)$ over $\\operatorname{supp}\\mu = M(\\Phi)$, as we wanted to show.\n\nMather sets of higher index {#ss.other_Mathers}\n---------------------------\n\nUp to here we have only considered the first Lyapunov exponent $\\chi_1$, but now we will need to consider the full Lyapunov spectrum. Let us recall the definitions and main properties, referring to [@Arnold] for details.\n\nIf $\\mu$ is a $T$-invariant probability measure then the *Lyapunov exponents* of the automorphism $\\Phi$ with respect to $\\mu$ are the numbers $$\\label{e.Lyapunov_spectrum}\n\\chi_1(\\Phi,\\mu) \\ge \\chi_2(\\Phi,\\mu) \\ge \\cdots \\ge \\chi_d(\\Phi,\\mu)$$ uniquely defined by the following equations: for every $p \\in \\ldbrack 1,d \\rdbrack$, $$\\label{e.Lyapunov_wedge}\n\\sum_{i=1}^p \\chi_i(\\Phi,\\mu) = \n\\chi_1({\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^p \\Phi, \\mu) \\, ,\n$$ where the automorphism ${\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^p \\Phi \\colon {\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^p {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^p {\\mathbb{E}}$ is the $p$-fold exterior power of the automorphism ${\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}}$.\n\nSuppose $\\mu$ is ergodic, and that $\\lambda$ is a Lyapunov exponent with respect to $\\mu$ of *multiplicity* $k$, in the sense that it appears $k$ times in the list . Then Oseledets\u2019 theorem says that for $\\mu$-a.e.\u00a0$x\\in X$, there exists a $k$-dimensional subspace $\\mathbb{O}_x(\\lambda)$ of the fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$, called a *Oseledets space*, such that: $$u \\in \\mathbb{O}_x(\\lambda) {\\smallsetminus}\\{0\\} \\quad \\text{if and only if} \\quad\n\\lim_{n \\to \\pm \\infty} \\frac{1}{n} \\log \\|\\Phi^n(u)\\| = \\lambda \\, .$$ Moreover, Oseledets spaces form a splitting of ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$, depend measurably on the point $x$, and are $\\Phi$-equivariant.\n\nWe now consider other Mather sets that take multiplicity into account. Define a chain of sets $$\\label{e.chain_Mathers}\nM(\\Phi) = M_1(\\Phi) \\supseteq M_2(\\Phi) \\supseteq \\cdots \\supseteq M_d(\\Phi)$$ as follows: the *$p$-th Mather set* $M_p(\\Phi)$ is the union of the supports of all $T$-invariant probabilities $ \\mu $ whose $p$ first Lyapunov exponents are all maximal, that is, $$\\chi_1(\\Phi,\\mu) = \\chi_2(\\Phi,\\mu) = \\cdots = \\chi_p(\\Phi,\\mu) = \\beta(\\Phi) \\, .$$ Repeating the argument of the proof of \\[p.Mather\\_support\\], we see that if the set $M_p(\\Phi)$ is nonempty then there exists a measure $\\mu$ with $p$ maximal Lyapunov exponents and whose support is exactly $M_p(\\Phi)$; in particular, $M_p(\\Phi)$ is compact and $T$-invariant.\n\nThe following properties follow immediately from the definition of Mather sets and relations and :\n\n\\[p.Mathers\\] For any $p \\in \\ldbrack 1,d \\rdbrack$, we have: $$\\beta({\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^p \\Phi) \\le p \\beta(\\Phi)\n\\quad \\text{and} \\quad\nM_p(\\Phi)\\subseteq M_1({\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^p \\Phi) \\, .$$ Furthermore, these two relations become equalities if and only if $M_p(\\Phi) \\neq {\\varnothing}$.\n\nLet us extend the chain of sets . Let $M_{d+1}(\\Phi) \\coloneqq {\\varnothing}$ and let $M_0(\\Phi)$ be defined as the union of the supports of all $T$-invariant probability measures (which is also the support of one of them). So $M_0(\\Phi)$ only depends on $T$, and is in fact the classical *minimal center of attraction* of $T$: see [@Sigmund], [@Akin p.\u00a0164].\n\nDominated splittings over the Mather sets {#ss.Mather_dom}\n-----------------------------------------\n\nWe want to provide more information about the action of $\\Phi$ on the fibers above the Mather sets, assuming the existence of a extremal norm. We will use the notion of dominated splitting, which is very useful in Differentiable Dynamics (see [@BDV_book]). It appears in the celebrated book [@HPS] as *relative pseudo hyperbolicity*. It also appears in ODE and Control Theory under the terminology *exponentially separated splitting* (see [@CK_book]), and is intimately related to the concept of Anosov representations in Geometric Group Theory (see [@BPS]).\n\nLet $Y \\subseteq X$ be a nonempty $T$-invariant compact set, and let ${\\mathbb{E}}_Y \\coloneqq \\pi^{-1}(Y)$ be the restricted vector bundle. (Recall that $\\pi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to X$ denotes the bundle projection.) Let $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ be a Finsler norm on ${\\mathbb{E}}$. Suppose that the bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}_Y$ splits as a direct sum ${\\mathbb{F}}\\oplus {\\mathbb{G}}$ of two (continuous) subbundles whose fibers ${\\mathbb{F}}_x$, ${\\mathbb{G}}_x$ have constant dimensions, and are equivariant in the sense that $\\Phi_x({\\mathbb{F}}_x) = {\\mathbb{F}}_{Tx}$, $\\Phi_x({\\mathbb{G}}_x) = {\\mathbb{G}}_{Tx}$. We say that ${\\mathbb{F}}\\oplus {\\mathbb{G}}$ is a *dominated splitting* with *dominating* bundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ and *dominated* bundle ${\\mathbb{G}}$ if there are positive constants $c$ and $\\tau$ such that for each point $x \\in Y$, if $u \\in {\\mathbb{F}}_x$, $v \\in {\\mathbb{G}}_x$ are unit vectors then $$\\label{e.def_DS}\n\\| \\Phi_x^n(v) \\| \\le c e^{-\\tau n} \\| \\Phi_x^n(u) \\| \\quad \\text{for all } n \\ge 0.$$\n\nAn equivalent definition is to say that there exists an *adapted norm* $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ for which relation holds with $c=1$ (and therefore only needs to be checked for $n=1$): see [@Gourmelon]. Dominated splittings are unique given the dimensions: see [@CroPo Prop.\u00a02.2]. Continuity of the subbundles actually follows from the uniform estimates and therefore could be removed from the definition: see [@CroPo Prop.\u00a02.5]. Actually, if $\\Phi$ is H\u00f6lder then the bundles of a dominated splitting are always H\u00f6lder (with a smaller exponent): see [@CroPo Thrm.\u00a04.11]. Domination can be characterized in terms of existence of invariant cone fields: see [@CroPo Thrm.\u00a02.6]. This implies strong robustness properties: see [@CroPo Corol.\u00a02.8].\n\nWe will use another criterion for the existence of dominated splittings, expressed in terms of singular values. Recall that if $L \\colon E \\to F$ is a linear map between $d$-dimensional inner product spaces, then the *singular values* $\\sigma_1 (L) \\ge \\cdots \\ge \\sigma_d (L)$ are the eigenvalues of the symmetric operator $(L^* L)^{1/2}$. So $\\sigma_1(L)$ coincides with the Euclidean operator norm $\\|L\\|$. Endowing the exterior power spaces with the induced inner products, the exterior powers of $L$ have norm: $$\\label{e.singular_wedge}\n\\| {\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^p L \\| = \\sigma_1(L) \\sigma_2(L) \\cdots \\sigma_p(L) \\, ;$$ see e.g.\u00a0[@Arnold p.\u00a0120]. Another useful characterization of the singular values is: $$\\label{e.maxmin}\n\\sigma_p(L) = \\max_{V \\in {\\mathcal{G}}_p(E)} \\min_{u \\in V} \\frac{\\|L u\\|}{\\|u\\|} \\, ;$$ see e.g.\u00a0[@Stewart p.\u00a068].\n\nA theorem from [@BG] says that the domination is equivalent to a uniform exponential gap between singular values of the powers of $\\Phi$ (computed with respect to a Riemannian norm fixed a priori). More precisely:\n\n\\[t.BG\\] The bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}_Y$ admits a dominated splitting with a dominating bundle of dimension $p$ if and only if there exist positive constants $c$ and $\\tau$ such that $$\\sigma_{p+1}(\\Phi_x^n) \\le c e^{-\\tau n} \\sigma_p(\\Phi_x^n)  \\quad \\text{for all $x \\in Y$ and $n \\ge 0$.}$$\n\nWe now come back to the Mather sets:\n\n\\[t.dom\\] Suppose $\\Phi$ admits an extremal norm ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\cdot}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$. Let $p \\in \\ldbrack 1, d \\rdbrack$. Suppose $Y$ is a nonempty compact $T$-invariant set contained in $M_p(\\Phi) {\\smallsetminus}M_{p+1}(\\Phi)$. Then the restricted bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}_Y$ admits a dominated splitting ${\\mathbb{F}}\\oplus {\\mathbb{G}}$ where the dominating bundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ has fibers of dimension $p$ and is calibrated in the sense that ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi(u)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{\\beta(\\Phi)} {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ for every $u \\in {\\mathbb{F}}$.\n\nIn particular, if exactly one of the sets $M_p(\\Phi) {\\smallsetminus}M_{p+1}(\\Phi)$ is nonempty then we obtain a dominated splitting over the whole Mather set $M(\\Phi)$.\n\nRelated results were previously obtained by Morris: [@Morris_rapidly Theorem\u00a02.1] produces a dominated splitting under the weaker assumption of relative product boundedness, but with the strong hypothesis that the set $Y$ is minimal (i.e., all orbits in $Y$ are dense). Assuming existence of an extremal norm, Morris also proves the calibration property of the dominating bundle in his Theorem\u00a02.2.\n\nFor a complement to \\[t.dom\\], see \\[p.Riem\\_weak\\] in \\[ss.Riemann\\].\n\nProof of the domination theorem\n-------------------------------\n\nConsider the set of vectors whose bi-infinite orbits under $\\Phi$ are *calibrated* with respect to the extremal norm ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$: $$\\label{e.calibrated}\n{\\mathbb{K}}\\coloneqq \\big\\{ u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}{\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi^n(u)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{n \\beta(\\Phi)}{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\text{ for all } n \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}\\big\\}.$$ This is a closed, $\\Phi$-invariant subset of ${\\mathbb{E}}$. Denote its fibers by ${\\mathbb{K}}_x \\coloneqq {\\mathbb{E}}_x \\cap {\\mathbb{K}}$.\n\n\\[p.Oseledets\\] There exists a $T$-invariant Borel set $R \\subseteq M(\\Phi)$ such that:\n\n-   $\\mu ( M(\\Phi) {\\smallsetminus}R ) = 0$ for every $T$-invariant probability measure $\\mu$;\n\n-   for all $x \\in R$, the Oseledets space corresponding to the Lyapunov exponent $\\beta(\\Phi)$ exists and coincides with\u00a0${\\mathbb{K}}_x$.\n\nWithout loss of generality, assume that $\\beta(\\Phi)=0$. Let $R_0 \\subseteq X$ be the Borel set of points that satisfy the conclusions of Oseledets theorem. For each $x \\in R_0 \\cap M(\\Phi)$, the Oseledets space $\\mathbb{O}_x = \\mathbb{O}_x(0) \\subseteq {\\mathbb{E}}_x$ is well-defined and has positive dimension, say $p(x)$. Calibrated vectors have zero Lyapunov exponent, so ${\\mathbb{K}}_x \\subseteq \\mathbb{O}_x$. Consider the unit balls on these Oseledets spaces, i.e., ${\\mathcal{B}}_x \\coloneqq \\{ u \\in \\mathbb{O}_x {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\le 1\\}$. Then $\\Phi_x({\\mathcal{B}}_{x}) \\subseteq {\\mathcal{B}}_{Tx}$, and therefore the following function is non-positive: $$\\psi(x) \\coloneqq \\log \\frac{\\operatorname{vol}(\\Phi_x({\\mathcal{B}}_{x}))}{\\operatorname{vol}({\\mathcal{B}}_{Tx})} \\, .$$ Here $\\operatorname{vol}$ means $p(x)$-dimensional volume with respect to a fixed Riemannian norm on the bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}$; of course, the choice of this metric does not affect the function $\\psi$. Then $\\psi$ is cohomologous to the function $\\tilde \\psi(x) \\coloneqq \\log \\det \\Phi(x)|_{\\mathbb{O}_x}$, where $\\det$ denotes the signless determinant induced by the Riemannian metric (see [@Arnold p.\u00a0213]); indeed $\\psi = \\tilde \\psi + {\\varphi}- {\\varphi}\\circ T$ where ${\\varphi}(x) \\coloneqq \\log \\operatorname{vol}({\\mathcal{B}}_{x})$. All these functions are Borel measurable and bounded. Let $\\mu$ be any $T$-invariant probability measure supported on $M(\\Phi)$, that is, any Lyapunov maximizing measure. As a consequence of Oseledets theorem, we have $\\int \\tilde\\psi \\, d\\mu = 0$ (see [@Arnold p.\u00a0214]). Since $\\psi$ is cohomologous to $\\tilde \\psi$, its integral is zero as well. But $\\psi \\le 0$, so $\\psi = 0$ $\\mu$-a.e. Let $R_1 \\coloneqq \\{ x \\in R_0 \\cap M(\\Phi) {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}\\psi(x)=0 \\}$ and $R \\coloneqq \\bigcap_{n \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}} T^{-n}(R_1)$; then $\\mu (R) = 1$. Noting that $\\psi(x) = 0$ if and only if $\\Phi(x)|_{\\mathbb{O}_x}$ preserves ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$, we see that if $x \\in R$ then $\\mathbb{O}_x \\subseteq {\\mathbb{K}}_x$. As remarked before, the reverse inclusion is automatic, so $\\mathbb{O}_x = {\\mathbb{K}}_x$ for every $x \\in R$. Since set $R$ has full measure with respect to any Lyapunov maximizing measure, the set $M(\\Phi) {\\smallsetminus}R$ has zero measure with respect to any $T$-invariant probability measure, as we wanted to show.\n\n\\[c.dimension\\] Suppose $\\Phi$ admits an extremal norm $ {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\cdot}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$. For each $p \\in \\ldbrack 1, d \\rdbrack$ and $x \\in M_p(\\Phi)$, the set ${\\mathbb{K}}_x$ contains a vector space of dimension $p$.\n\nLet $\\mu$ be a measure whose $p$ first Lyapunov exponents equal $\\beta(\\Phi)$ and whose support equals $M_p(\\Phi)$. Given $x \\in M_p(\\Phi)$, take a sequence of neighborhoods $U_i$ converging to $x$. Since $\\mu(U_i)>0$, by \\[p.Oseledets\\] we can find $x_i \\in U_i$ such that the Oseledets space corresponding to the Lyapunov exponent $\\beta(\\Phi)$ exists and coincides with\u00a0${\\mathbb{K}}_{x_i}$. Moreover, these spaces have dimensions at least $p$. Passing to subsequences, we can assume that these dimensions are constant equal to some $q \\ge p$, and that ${\\mathbb{K}}_{x_i}$ converges to some $q$-dimensional space $V$. As ${\\mathbb{K}}$ is a closed subset of ${\\mathbb{E}}$, we conclude that $V \\subseteq {\\mathbb{K}}_x$, completing the proof.\n\n\\[r.exceptional\\_fibers\\] It is not necessarily the case that ${\\mathbb{K}}_x$ is a subspace: see \\[ex.non\\_space\\] in \\[ss.examples\\_calibrated\\]. On the other hand, if ${\\mathbb{K}}_x$ is a subspace, then by \\[c.dimension\\] its dimension is at least the number $p$ such that $x \\in M_p(\\Phi) {\\smallsetminus}M_{p+1}(\\Phi)$. However, it is not necessarily true that $\\dim {\\mathbb{K}}_x  = p$: see \\[ex.bad\\_dim\\] in \\[ss.examples\\_calibrated\\].\n\nAs usual, it is sufficient to consider $\\beta(\\Phi) = 0$.\n\nIn the case $p=d$, we have $Y \\subseteq M_d(\\Phi)$ and so by \\[c.dimension\\] the extremal norm is preserved along the bundle\u00a0${\\mathbb{E}}_Y$. So the trivial splitting ${\\mathbb{E}}_Y \\oplus 0$ has the required properties. So let us suppose that $p<d$.\n\nFix a Riemannian norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ on ${\\mathbb{E}}$. For each $x \\in Y$, by \\[c.dimension\\] the fiber ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$ contains a $p$-dimensional subspace formed by vectors $u$ such that for every $n \\ge 0$, we have ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi^n(u)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ and therefore $c_1^{-1} \\|u\\| \\le \\| \\Phi^n(u) \\| \\le c_1 \\|u\\|$, for some constant $c_1 \\ge 1$. Recalling the maxmin characterization of singular values , we conclude that: $$\\label{e.almost_calibration}\nc_1^{-1} \\le \\sigma_p(\\Phi^n_x) \\le \\cdots \\le \\sigma_1(\\Phi^n_x) \\le c_1 \\quad \\text{for all $x \\in Y$ and $n \\ge 0$.}$$ On the other hand, note that the set $M_{p+1} (\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{E}}_Y})$ is contained in $Y \\cap M_{p+1}(\\Phi)$ and therefore is empty. So \\[p.Mathers\\] yields $$\\beta \\left( {\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^{p+1} (\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{E}}_Y}) \\right) < (p+1) \\beta(\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{E}}_Y}) = 0 \\, .$$ Recalling that $\\beta(\\mathord{\\cdot})$ can also be characterized by , we conclude that there exist positive constants $c_2$ and $\\tau$ such that for all $x \\in Y$ and $n \\ge 0$, $$\\| {\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^{p+1} \\Phi^n_x \\| \\le c_2 e^{-\\tau n} \\, .$$ So, using and , we have: $$\\sigma_{p+1} (\\Phi^n_x) = \\frac{\\| {\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^{p+1} \\Phi^n_x \\|}{\\| {\\mathsf{\\Lambda}}^p \\Phi^n_x \\|} \\le c_1^p c_2 e^{-\\tau n}$$ and $\\sigma_p (\\Phi^n_x) \\ge c_1^{-1}$. So we have a uniform exponential gap between the $p$-th and $p+1$-th singular values. By \\[t.BG\\], the bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}_Y$ admits a dominated splitting ${\\mathbb{F}}\\oplus {\\mathbb{G}}$ with a dominating bundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ of dimension $p$.\n\nTo conclude, we need to check that $\\Phi$ preserves the extremal norm along the bundle\u00a0${\\mathbb{F}}$. We will actually show that, in terms of notation , ${\\mathbb{K}}_x = {\\mathbb{F}}_x$ for every $x \\in Y$. Since $\\Phi$ is product bounded, domination implies that vectors in ${\\mathbb{G}}$ are uniformly contracted in the future, and therefore uniformly expanded in the past. Furthermore, any vector in $u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x {\\smallsetminus}{\\mathbb{F}}_x$ is uniformly expanded in the past, since we can write $u = v + w$ with $v \\in {\\mathbb{F}}_x$, $w \\in {\\mathbb{G}}_x {\\smallsetminus}\\{0\\}$ and then $${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi^{-n}(u)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\ge {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi^{-n}(w)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\left( 1 - \\frac{{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi^{-n}(v)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}}{{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi^{-n}(w)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}} \\right) \\to \\infty \\quad \\text{as $n \\to +\\infty$ . }$$ In particular, vectors in ${\\mathbb{E}}_x {\\smallsetminus}{\\mathbb{F}}_x$ cannot be calibrated; that is, ${\\mathbb{K}}_x \\subseteq {\\mathbb{F}}_x$. This inclusion cannot be strict, thanks to \\[c.dimension\\]. So ${\\mathbb{K}}_x = {\\mathbb{F}}_x$, as claimed.\n\nFurther applications of extremal norms and Mather sets {#s.app}\n======================================================\n\nSubordination {#ss.subordination}\n-------------\n\nBy definition, the Mather set $M(\\Phi)$ contains the support of every Lyapunov maximizing measure. Let us see that the converse holds under the hypothesis of strong fiber-bunching, regardless of reducibility:\n\n\\[t.subordination\\] Let $T$ be a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $\\Phi$ be strongly bunched automorphism covering $T$. Then every $T$-invariant probability measure whose support is contained in the Mather set $M(\\Phi)$ is Lyapunov maximizing.\n\nLet $\\Phi \\colon {\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ be a strongly bunched automorphism and let $\\nu$ be a $T$-invariant probability measure whose support is contained in $M(\\Phi)$; we want to prove that $\\chi_1(\\Phi, \\nu) = \\beta(\\Phi)$. By ergodic decomposition, it is sufficient to consider the case of ergodic $\\nu$.\n\nIf $\\Phi$ is irreducible (which is certainly the case if $d=1$) then $\\Phi$ is spannable by \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\], and so $\\Phi$ admits an extremal norm by \\[t.extremal\\]. Then \\[p.Mather\\_calibration\\] yields the desired conclusion.\n\nFrom now on, assume that $\\Phi$ is reducible, that is, there exists a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder $\\Phi$-invariant nontrivial subbundle ${\\mathbb{F}}\\subset {\\mathbb{E}}$. By induction on dimension, we can assume that the holds for the restricted automorphism $\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}$ and the quotient automorphism $\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}$. Recall from that $\\beta(\\Phi) = \\max\\{ \\beta(\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}) , \\beta(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}) \\}$.\n\nAs a first case, suppose that $\\beta(\\Phi) = \\beta(\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}) > \\beta(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})$. Then it follows from that an ergodic measure $\\mu$ is Lyapunov maximizing for $\\Phi$ if and only if it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}$. Therefore the Mather sets coincide: $M(\\Phi) = M(\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}})$. The measure $\\nu$ fixed at the beginning is supported on this set; so, by the induction hypothesis, it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}$, that is, it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\\Phi$, as we wanted to show.\n\nThe second case where $\\beta(\\Phi) = \\beta(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}) > \\beta(\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}})$ is entirely analogous.\n\nIn the last case, we have $\\beta(\\Phi) = \\beta(\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}) = \\beta(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})$. Then it follows from that an ergodic measure $\\mu$ is Lyapunov maximizing for $\\Phi$ if and only if it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}$ or for $\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}$. Therefore $M(\\Phi) = M(\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}) \\cup M(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})$. So the measure $\\nu$ fixed at the beginning has a support contained in the union of the two closed $T$-invariant sets $M(\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}})$ and $M(\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}})$. By ergodicity, this support must be contained in one of the two sets. By the induction hypothesis, $\\nu$ is Lyapunov maximizing for $\\Phi|_{{\\mathbb{F}}}$ or for $\\nicefrac{\\Phi}{{\\mathbb{F}}}$. In either case, it is Lyapunov maximizing for $\\Phi$, as we wanted to show.\n\nLyapunov almost-maximizing periodic orbits of low period\n--------------------------------------------------------\n\nLet $\\Phi$ be a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphism covering a hyperbolic homeomorphism. For each integer $n \\ge 1$, let $$\\beta_n(\\Phi) \\coloneqq \\max \\big\\{\\chi_1(\\Phi, \\mu) {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}\\text{$\\mu$ is supported on a periodic orbit of period $\\le n$} \\big\\} \\, .$$ This is a bounded non-decreasing sequence, and so it is convergent. Actually, the limit is: $$\\label{e.BergerWang}\n\\lim_{n \\to \\infty} \\beta_n(\\Phi)  = \\beta(\\Phi) \\, .$$ Indeed, this follows from a much more general result of Kalinin [@Kalinin Theorem 1.4] on the approximation of Lyapunov exponents using measures supported on periodic orbits. In the case of one-step cocycles, formula is known as the *Berger\u2013Wang theorem*, and it was first proved in [@BWang]. For other extensions of Berger\u2013Wang theorem, see [@Oregon; @BreuF].\n\nIt is quite possible that the limit is attained for some finite $n$ (and indeed this is expected to be the typical situation). On the other hand, in the worst-case scenario, what can we say about the speed of the approximation in formula ? A result of Morris [@Morris_rapidly] says that for one-step cocycles, this speed is always superpolynomial. Here we show that the same is true for strongly bunched automorphisms:\n\n\\[t.super\\_pol\\] If $\\Phi$ is a strongly bunched automorphism then for every $\\tau>0$, $$\\beta(\\Phi) - \\beta_n(\\Phi) = O(n^{-\\tau}) \\, .$$\n\nThe first result of superpolynomial approximation was actually obtained in the context of ergodic optimization of Birkhoff averages by Bressaud and Quas [@BQuas], who also showed that this type of bound is essentially sharp. The key ingredient is a quantitative version of Anosov Closing Lemma, also due to Bressaud and Quas [@BQuas], which we state as follows:\n\n\\[t.BQ\\] Let $T \\colon X \\to X$ be a hyperbolic homeomorphism. Let $Y \\subseteq X$ be a nonempty compact $T$-invariant set. Then for every $\\tau>0$ and every sufficiently large $n$, there exists a periodic orbit of period at most $n$ entirely contained in the $n^{-\\tau}$-neighborhood of $Y$.\n\nThis result is proved in [@BQuas] for the one-sided full shift; as remarked in that paper, one can use standard techniques to reduce to that case. Alternatively, one can prove \\[t.BQ\\] directly, and we do so in \\[ss.BQ\\].\n\nRecall from that if $\\Phi$ is reducible then we can replace it by either a restricted or a quotient automorphism with the same maximal Lyapunov exponent. Repeating this procedure a finite number of times, we eventually find a irreducible automorphism with the same maximal Lyapunov exponent; this induced automorphism will also be strongly bunched. So, without loss of generality, we assume that $\\Phi$ is irreducible. By \\[t.irr\\_to\\_span\\], $\\Phi$ is spannable, and by \\[t.extremal\\], $\\Phi$ admits a H\u00f6lder extremal norm ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$. Let $p \\in \\ldbrack 1, d \\rdbrack$ be maximal such that the $p$-th Mather set $M_p(\\Phi) \\eqcolon Y$ is nonempty. By \\[t.dom\\], the restricted bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}_Y$ admits a dominated splitting ${\\mathbb{F}}\\oplus {\\mathbb{G}}$ where the dominating bundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ has fibers of dimension $p$ and is calibrated in the sense that for every $x \\in Y$ and $u \\in {\\mathbb{F}}_x$, we have ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi(u)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = e^{\\beta(\\Phi)} {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$.\n\nBy robustness of dominated splittings [@CroPo Corol.\u00a02.8], there exists a closed neighborhood $U$ of $Y$ such that if $Z \\coloneqq \\bigcap_{k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}} T^{-k}(U) \\supseteq Y$ is the maximal invariant set in this neighborhood, then the restricted bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}_Z$ over the compact invariant set admits a dominated splitting ${\\mathbb{F}}\\oplus {\\mathbb{G}}$, extending the previously found dominated splitting on ${\\mathbb{E}}_Y$. Recall that the bundles of a dominated splitting are H\u00f6lder-continuous [@CroPo Thrm.\u00a04.11]. Furthermore, the extremal norm is also H\u00f6lder-continuous. It follows that there exist $\\rho>0$ and $C_0>0$ such that for every $x \\in Z$ and every $u \\in {\\mathbb{F}}_x$, $$e^{\\beta(\\Phi) - C_0 {\\mathrm{d}}(x,Y)^\\rho} {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}  \\le \n{\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\Phi(u)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}  \\le e^{\\beta(\\Phi)} {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\, .$$\n\nFix $\\tau>0$. Let $C$ be given by \\[t.BQ\\]; so for all sufficiently large $n$, there exists a periodic orbit of period at most $n$ supported on the $C n^{-\\tau}$-neighborhood of $Y$, and so contained in $Z$. Let $\\nu_n$ be the invariant probability measure supported on that orbit. The bound obtained before implies: $$\\chi_1(\\Phi,\\nu) \\ge \\beta(\\Phi) - C_0 (C n^{-\\tau})^\\rho \\, .$$ So $\\beta(\\Phi) - \\beta_n(\\Phi) = O(n^{-\\rho \\tau})$. Since $\\tau>0$ is arbitrary, the is proved.\n\nAppendix: Proof of some technical results {#s.technical}\n=========================================\n\nBasic constructions on theta-H\u00f6lder bundles {#ss.basic}\n-------------------------------------------\n\nRecall our assumption from \\[ss.theta\\] that the algebra of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder functions on $X$ is normal. Let us metrize the product $X \\times X$ by ${\\mathrm{d}}\\big( (x,y), (x',y') \\big) \\coloneq \\max\\big\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y), {\\mathrm{d}}(x',y') \\big\\}$.\n\n\\[l.square\\] The algebra of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder functions on $X \\times X$ is normal.\n\nLet $K_0$, $K_1 \\subset X \\times X$ be two disjoint nonempty compact sets. Let ${\\varepsilon}>0$ be a lower bound for the distance between a point in $K_0$ and a point in $K_1$. Let $\\{B_i\\}$ be a finite cover of $X$ by open sets of diameter less than ${\\varepsilon}$. Let $\\{\\rho_i\\}$ be a partition of unity subordinated to this cover and formed by $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder functions. Define a function $f \\colon X \\times X \\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ by: $$f(x,y) \\coloneq \\sum_{\\substack{(i,j) \\text{ such that} \\\\ (B_i \\times B_j)\\cap K_1 \\neq {\\varnothing}}} \\rho_i(x) \\rho_j(y) \\, .$$ Then $f$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder, takes values in the interval $[0,1]$, equals\u00a0$0$ on $K_0$, and equals\u00a0$1$ on $K_1$. This proves normality.\n\n[^10] Consider the finite cover of $X \\times X$ formed by the following open sets: $$V_{k,\\ell} \\coloneqq\n\\begin{cases}\n    U_k \\times U_k &\\text{if $k=\\ell$;} \\\\\n    U_k \\times U_\\ell {\\smallsetminus}\\Delta  &\\text{if $k\\neq\\ell$,} \n\\end{cases}$$ where $\\Delta \\subseteq X \\times X$ is the diagonal. Consider a partition of unity subordinate to this cover, composed of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder functions $\\rho_{k,\\ell}$; its existence is a consequence of \\[l.square\\]. Given any pair of points $x$, $y \\in X$, define a linear map from ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$ to ${\\mathbb{E}}_y$ by: $$I_{y \\gets x} \\coloneqq \\sum_{(k, \\ell)} \\rho_{k,\\ell}(x,y)  \\, h_\\ell(y) \\circ [h_k(x)]^{-1}  \\, ,$$ where the sum is taken over the indices $(k, \\ell)$ such that $V_{k,\\ell} \\ni (x,y)$. If $(x,y) \\in U_i \\times U_j$ then the matrix: $$[h_j(y)]^{-1} \\circ I_{y \\gets x} \\circ h_i(x) =\n \\sum_{(k, \\ell)} \\rho_{k,\\ell}(x,y)  \\, g_{j \\gets \\ell}(y) \\circ g_{k \\gets i}(x)$$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder continuous as a function of $(x,y)$, and equals the identity when $x = y$.\n\nFor the following proofs, it is convenient to fix another open cover $\\{V_i\\}$ of $X$ such that $\\overline{V_i} \\subset U_i$ for each $k$. Note that for any Finsler norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ on ${\\mathbb{E}}$, we have: $$\\label{e.h_i_bounded}\n\\max_i \\sup_{x \\in V_i} \\max \\big\\{ \\|h_i(x)\\| , \\|[h_i(x)]^{-1}\\| \\big\\} < \\infty \\, ,$$ where these operators norms are relative to the norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|_x$ on ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$ and the Euclidean norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|_\\mathrm{eucl}$ on ${\\mathbb{R}}^d$.\n\nIn order to prove the assertion, it is sufficient to consider triples of points $x$, $y$, $z$ that are close enough so that they belong to a common coordinate neighborhood $V_i$. Consider the matrix $$\\label{e.tilde_I}\n\\tilde I_{y \\gets x} \\coloneqq [h_i(y)]^{-1} \\circ I_{y \\gets x} \\circ h_i(x) \\, ,$$ which by \\[p.transport\\] is $O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta)$-close to the identity matrix. Using a similar notation for the other points, we have: $$\\| \\tilde I_{z \\gets x} - \\mathrm{Id} \\|_\\mathrm{eucl} = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,z)^\\theta) \\quad \\text{and} \\quad \n\\| \\tilde I_{y \\gets z} - \\mathrm{Id} \\|_\\mathrm{eucl} = O({\\mathrm{d}}(y,z)^\\theta)  \\, .$$ Therefore: $$\\| \\tilde I_{y \\gets z} \\circ \\tilde I_{z \\gets x} - \\tilde I_{y \\gets x} \\|_\\mathrm{eucl} = O \\big( \\max\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}(x,z)^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(y,z)^\\theta \\} \\big) \\, .$$ Since $I_{y \\gets z} \\circ I_{z \\gets x} - I_{y \\gets x}  = h_i(y) \\circ \\big( \\tilde I_{y \\gets z} \\circ \\tilde I_{z \\gets x} - \\tilde I_{y \\gets x} \\big) \\circ [h_i(x)]^{-1}$, using the boundedness property we obtain $$\\| I_{y \\gets z} \\circ I_{z \\gets x} - I_{y \\gets x} \\|_\\mathrm{eucl} = O \\big( \\max\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}(x,z)^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(y,z)^\\theta \\} \\big) \\, ,$$ as we wanted to show.\n\nLet $\\|\\mathord{\\cdot}\\|$ be a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder Finsler norm. In order to prove the desired estimate, it is sufficient to consider pairs of points $x$, $y$ that are close enough so that they belong to a same set $V_i$. By definition, for every $u \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^d$, the map $x \\in V_i \\mapsto \\|h_i(x) u \\|$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder, and so there is a constant $C > 0$ such that, for all $x$, $y \\in V_i$, $$\\label{i.intermediate_Holder}\n\\big| \\| h_i(y) u \\|  - \\| h_i(x) u \\|  \\big| \\le C \\|u\\|_\\mathrm{eucl} \\, {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta \\, .$$ Using the boundedness property and compactness of the unit sphere, we can find a uniform $C$ so that the estimate above holds for every $u \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^d$.\n\nRecall that that the matrix defined in satisfies $\\| \\tilde I_{y \\gets x} -\\mathrm{Id}\\|_\\mathrm{eucl} = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta)$. Now, given $v \\in {\\mathbb{E}}_x$, consider $u \\coloneqq [h_i(x)]^{-1} v$. Then: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\big| \\| I_{y \\gets x} v\\|  - \\| v \\|  \\big| \n&= \n\\big| \\| h_i(y) \\tilde I_{y \\gets x} u \\|  - \\| h_i(x) u \\|  \\big| \\\\\n&\\le\n\\big| \\| h_i(y) \\tilde I_{y \\gets x} u \\|  - \\| h_i(y) u \\|  \\big|  + \n\\big| \\| h_i(y) u\\|  - \\| h_i(x) u \\|  \\big| \\end{aligned}$$ Using and , we conclude that $\\big| \\| I_{y \\gets x} v\\|  - \\| v \\|  \\big| = O(\\|v\\| {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta)$, that is, $\\big| \\| I_{y \\gets x} \\|  - 1  \\big| = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta)$, as claimed.\n\nThe proof of the converse is entirely analogous.\n\nSuppose $\\Phi$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder. In order to prove the desired estimate, it is sufficient to consider pairs of points $x$, $y$ that are close enough so that they belong to a same set $V_i \\cap T^{-1}(V_j)$. Let $\\tilde \\Phi_x \\coloneqq [h_j(Tx)]^{-1} \\circ \\Phi_x \\circ h_i(x)$ and similarly define $\\tilde \\Phi_y$. Let $\\tilde I_{y \\gets x}$ be defined by , and similarly define $\\tilde I_{Tx \\gets Ty}$; by \\[p.transport\\] these matrix-valued maps are $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder as functions of $(x,y)$. So the map $(x,y) \\mapsto \\tilde I_{Ty \\gets Tx} \\circ  \\tilde\\Phi_x - \\tilde \\Phi_y \\circ \\tilde I_{y \\gets x}$ is also $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder, and since it vanishes on $(x,x)$ we conclude that: $$\\label{e.tildes}\n\\big\\| \\tilde I_{Ty \\gets Tx} \\circ \\tilde \\Phi_x - \\tilde \\Phi_y \\circ \\tilde I_{y \\gets x} \\big\\| = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta ) \\, .$$ Using the boundedness property we obtain: $$\\big\\| I_{Ty \\gets Tx} \\circ \\Phi_x - \\Phi_y \\circ I_{y \\gets x} \\big\\| = O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta) \\, ,$$ as desired.\n\nConversely, assume that such an estimate holds; then follows from . By \\[p.transport\\], the matrices $\\tilde I_{y \\gets x}$ and $\\tilde I_{Ty \\gets Tx}$ are $O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta)$-close to the identity. It follows that the matrices $\\tilde \\Phi_x$ and $\\tilde \\Phi_y$ are $O({\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta)$-close. This means that $\\Phi$ is $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder.\n\nExistence of holonomies {#ss.holonomies}\n-----------------------\n\nWe begin with a straightforward estimate:\n\n\\[l.bol\\] Let $\\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$. For every $x$, $y \\in X$ and $n \\ge 0$ we have: $$\\| (\\Phi^n_y)^{-1} \\| \\, \\| \\Phi^n_x \\| \\le \\prod_{j=0}^{n-1} e^{K_1 {\\mathrm{d}}(T^j x, T^j y)^\\theta} \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_{T^j y}) \\, ,$$ where $K_1$ depends only on $K$.\n\nBy submultiplicativity of norms and the definition of bolicity, we have: $$\\| (\\Phi^n_y)^{-1} \\| \\, \\| \\Phi^n_x \\|\n\\le \\prod_{j=0}^{n-1} \\| (\\Phi_{T^j y})^{-1} \\| \\, \\| \\Phi_{T^j x} \\|\n= \\prod_{j=0}^{n-1} \\| \\Phi_{T^j y} \\|^{-1} \\, \\| \\Phi_{T^j x} \\| \\, \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_{T^j y}) \\, ,$$ and so the claimed inequality holds with $K_1$ being the $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder constant of $\\log \\|\\Phi\\|$. This constant can be estimated in terms of $K$, using .\n\nBy symmetry, it is sufficient to consider $\\star = {\\mathrm{s}}$. The stable holonomy is defined as: $$\\label{e.def_holonomy}\nH^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y \\gets x} \\coloneqq \\lim_{n \\to + \\infty} \\underbrace{(\\Phi_y^n)^{-1} \\circ I_{T^n y \\gets T^n x} \\circ \\Phi_x^n}_{H_n} \\, ,$$ where $x$ and $y$ are in a same stable set. Let us establish convergence. Assume first that $y \\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x)$. We have: $$H_{n+1} - H_n = (\\Phi_y^{n+1})^{-1} \\circ \\underbrace{\\big( I_{T^{n+1} y \\gets T^{n+1} x} \\circ \\Phi_{T^n x} - \\Phi_{T^n y} \\circ I_{T^n y \\gets T^n x} \\big)}_{\\Delta_n}  \\circ \\Phi_x^n  \\, ,$$ and so, using the definition of the set ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ and \\[l.bol\\], $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|H_{n+1} - H_n\\| \n&\\le K \\|\\Delta_n\\| \\,  \\| (\\Phi_y^n)^{-1}\\| \\,  \\|\\Phi_x^n\\| \\\\ \n&\\le K^2 \\, {\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x, T^n y)^\\theta \\, \\prod_{j=0}^{n-1} e^{K_1 {\\mathrm{d}}(T^j x, T^j y)^\\theta} \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_{T^j y}) \\, .\\end{aligned}$$ By property in the definition of hyperbolicity, for every $j \\ge 0$ we have $${\\mathrm{d}}(T^j x, T^j y) \\le e^{-\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(j)}(y)} {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y) \\, , \\quad \\text{where} \\quad\n\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(j)}(y) \\coloneqq \\sum_{i=0}^{j-1}\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}(T^i y) \\, .$$ Since $\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}$ is strictly positive, the series $\\sum_{j=0}^\\infty {\\mathrm{d}}(T^j x, T^j y)^\\theta$ is convergent. Therefore $$\\|H_{n+1} - H_n\\| \n\\le K_2 \\, e^{-\\theta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(y)} \\left( \\prod_{j=0}^{n-1} \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_{T^j y}) \\right) {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta \\, ,$$ where $K_2>0$ is another constant. Take a small constant $\\eta>0$ such that the fiber-bunching condition still holds if the right hand side is multiplied by $1-\\eta$. In particular, $\\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_{T^j y})  < e^{(1-\\eta)\\theta\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}(T^j y)}$ and so $$\\label{e.exp_convergence}\n\\|H_{n+1} - H_n\\| \n\\le K_2 \\, e^{-\\eta \\theta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(y)} {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta \\, ,$$ This establishes uniform exponential convergence in formula when $y \\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(x)$. Using we see that convergence holds whenever $y \\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}(x)$. The groupoid properties (\\[i.groupoid\\_1\\]) and (\\[i.groupoid\\_2\\]) are the equivariance property (\\[i.equivariance\\]) are automatic from the definition. The H\u00f6lderness property (\\[i.holonomy\\_Holder\\]) follows by summing for $n=0$ to $\\infty$, and noting that $H_0 = I_{y\\gets x}$. The joint continuity property (\\[i.holonomy\\_cont\\]) also follows from the uniformity of our estimates. Finally, if we consider a small $C^0$ perturbation of $\\Phi$ in the set ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$, then we can use the same constants $K_2$ and $\\eta$ in , and so the remaining assertions of the follow.\n\nRegularity estimates {#ss.regularity}\n--------------------\n\nIn this , we prove \\[p.regularity\\_base,p.regularity\\_above\\]. Before going into the proofs, let us state our estimates for H\u00f6lder exponents.\n\nSince $T$ is Lipschitz, we can find ${\\varepsilon}_1 \\in (0,{\\varepsilon}_0)$ and a continuous strictly positive function $\\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}$ such that for all $x$, $x'$, $x''\\in X$, $$\\label{e.Lambda_u}\nx',x''\\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_1}(x) \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{l}\n    Tx', Tx'' \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(Tx)  \\, , \\\\\n    {\\mathrm{d}}(Tx', Tx'') \\le e^{\\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}(x)} {\\mathrm{d}}(x', x'') \\, .\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ We will show that the conclusion of \\[p.regularity\\_base\\] holds for any $\\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}$ in the range: $$\\label{e.regularity_estimate_base}\n0 < \\kappa_{{\\mathrm{s}}} < \\inf_{X} \\frac{\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}}{\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+\\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}} \\, .$$\n\nLet $$\\label{e.def_phi}\n{\\varphi}(x) \\coloneqq \\log \\operatorname{bol}(\\Phi_x);$$ We will show that the conclusion of \\[p.regularity\\_above\\] holds for any $\\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}$ in the range: $$\\label{e.regularity_estimate_above}\n\\theta_{{\\mathrm{s}}} < \\inf_{X} \\frac{\\theta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}- {\\varphi}}{\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+\\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}} \\, .$$ (Note that the numerator is positive by fiber-bunching.)\n\nThe idea of the proof of \\[p.regularity\\_base\\] is roughly as follows. Without loss of generality, we can assume that the \u201cquadrilateral\u201d in \\[f.rectangle\\] has a \u201cbase\u201d ${\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')$ much smaller than the two \u201clegs\u201d ${\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')$, ${\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)$. We take $N \\ge 0$ as big as possible for which we can guarantee that the $T^N$-image of that quadrilateral has a base smaller than the legs. We estimate the \u201csummit\u201d ${\\mathrm{d}}(T^N y, T^N y')$ using the triangle inequality, and finally we iterate backwards to obtain the desired estimate for ${\\mathrm{d}}(y, y')$. The proof of \\[p.regularity\\_above\\] uses the same \u201cthere and back again\u201d idea. Formal proofs follow.\n\nLet us denote the Birkhoff sums of a function $f \\colon X \\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ as: $$f^{(n)} \\coloneqq f + f \\circ T + \\cdots + f \\circ T^{n-1} \\, ,\n\\qquad f^{(0)} \\coloneqq 0.$$\n\n\\[l.loss\\] For any strictly positive continuous function $f$ on $X$ and any $a \\in (0,1)$, there exists $b(f,a)>0$ such that for any $z \\in X$ and any $n \\ge 0$, $$z' \\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(z) \\cup T^{-n}(W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(T^n z)) \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad\nf^{(n)}(z') \\ge a f^{(n)}(z) - b(f,a) \\, .$$\n\nIt is sufficient to consider the case $z' \\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(z)$, since the case $z' \\in T^{-n}(W^{\\mathrm{u}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(T^n z))$ follows by reversing the time. By uniform continuity of $f$ and uniform contraction on local stable sets, we can find an integer $k = k(f,a) \\ge 0$ such that if $z' \\in W^{\\mathrm{s}}_{{\\varepsilon}_0}(z)$ then $f(T^j z') \\ge a f(T^j z)$ for every $j \\ge k$. Letting $b(f,a) \\coloneqq ak \\sup_X f$, we obtain the desired conclusion.\n\nWe start the proofs of \\[p.regularity\\_base,p.regularity\\_above\\] with some estimates that are common to them. Fix $\\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}$ and $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}$ satisfying and , respectively. Fix a number $a\\in(0,1)$ sufficiently close to $1$ such that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\kappa_{{\\mathrm{s}}} &< \\inf_{X} \\frac{a (\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+ \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}})}{a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+ \\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}} \\, ,\n\\label{e.folga_base}\n\\\\\n\\theta_{{\\mathrm{s}}} &< \\inf_{X} \\frac{a (\\theta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}- {\\varphi})}{a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+ \\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}} \\, .\n\\label{e.folga_above}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFix four points $x$, $x'$, $y$, $y'$ satisfying . Let $\\delta \\coloneqq {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')$. Note that to prove \\[p.regularity\\_base,p.regularity\\_above\\], it is sufficient to consider $\\delta$ smaller than a fixed positive constant, say ${\\varepsilon}_1$ from . Let $N$ be the largest nonnegative integer such that: $$\\label{e.optimal}\na \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x) <  \\log({\\varepsilon}_1/\\delta) \\, ;$$ Then: $$\\label{e.optimal_other_side}\na \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x) \\ge \\log({\\varepsilon}_1/\\delta) - c \\, ,$$ for some constant $c$, namely $c \\coloneqq \\sup_X (a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+ \\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}})$. In particular, assuming that $\\delta$ is small enough, $N$ will be large and so the following inequality will hold: $$\\label{e.WLOG}\ne^{a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x)} > 2 + e^{b(\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}},a)}$$ (where $b$ comes from \\[l.loss\\]).\n\nUsing and , one checks by induction that the following chain of inequalities hold for each $n \\in \\ldbrack 0, N \\rdbrack$: $$\\label{e.base}\n{\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x, T^n x')\n\\le \\delta e^{\\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}^{(n)}(x)}\n\\le {\\varepsilon}_1 e^{- a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x)}\n\\le {\\varepsilon}_1 \\, .$$ This gives estimates for the base of the \u201cquadrilateral\u201d obtained as the $T^n$-image of that of \\[f.rectangle\\]. Let us estimate the other sides; the \u201clegs\u201d are: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x , T^n y)  &\\le {\\varepsilon}_0 e^{- \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x)} \\, ,  \\label{e.leg1} \\\\\n{\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x', T^n y') &\\le {\\varepsilon}_0 e^{- \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x')}\n                   \\le {\\varepsilon}_0 e^{- a\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x) + b(\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}},a)}  \\, , \\label{e.leg2}\\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we used \\[l.loss\\]. Therefore the \u201csummit\u201d is: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathrm{d}}(T^n y, T^n y')\n&\\le {\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x, T^n y) + {\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x, T^n x') + {\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x', T^n y') \\\\\n&\\le (2 + e^{b(\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}},a)}) {\\varepsilon}_0 e^{-a\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x)} \\label{e.summit1} \\\\\n&\\le {\\varepsilon}_0 \\, , \\label{e.summit2}\\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we used assumption .\n\nWe estimate the base of the original quadrilateral by iterating backwards: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{2}\n{\\mathrm{d}}(y,y')\n&\\le e^{-\\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(y)} {\\mathrm{d}}(T^N y, T^N y')\n&\\qquad&\\text{(by \\eqref{e.summit2})} \\\\\n&= O \\big( e^{-a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x)} {\\mathrm{d}}(T^N y, T^N y') \\big)\n&\\qquad&\\text{(by \\cref{l.loss})} \\\\\n&= O \\big( e^{-a [\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x)]} \\big)\n&\\qquad&\\text{(by \\eqref{e.summit1})}  \\\\\n&= O \\big( e^{- \\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}[a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x)]} \\big)\n&\\qquad&\\text{(by \\eqref{e.folga_base})}  \\\\\n&= O \\big( \\delta^{\\kappa_{\\mathrm{s}}} \\big)\n&\\quad&\\text{(by \\eqref{e.optimal_other_side})} \\, . $$ This proves \\[p.regularity\\_base\\].\n\nWe proceed to the proof of \\[p.regularity\\_above\\]. In what follows, the constants implicit in $O$ can be taken uniform on a a $C^0$-neighborhood of $\\Phi$ in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta_K({\\mathbb{E}},T)$. For $n \\ge 0$, define $$\\Gamma_n \\coloneqq H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{T^n y' \\gets T^n y} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{T^n y \\gets T^n x} - H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{T^n y' \\gets T^n x'} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{T^n x' \\gets T^n x} \\, .$$ Let us estimate the norm of these linear maps. First, $$\\| \\Gamma_0 \\| \\le \\left\\| H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y' \\gets y} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y \\gets x} - I_{y' \\gets x} \\right\\|\n+ \\left\\| H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y' \\gets x'} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{x'\\gets x} - I_{y' \\gets x} \\right\\|\n\\eqcolon {\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}} + {\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}} \\, .$$ We estimate the first term: $${\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}} \\le\n\\left\\| H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y' \\gets y} \\circ (H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{y\\gets x} - I_{y \\gets x}) \\right\\| +\n\\left\\| (H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{y' \\gets y} - I_{y' \\gets y}) \\circ I_{y \\gets x} \\right\\| +\n\\left\\| I_{y' \\gets y} \\circ I_{y \\gets x} - I_{y' \\gets x} \\right\\| \\, .$$ Using and \\[p.transport\\_groupoid\\], we conclude that $${\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{1}};}} = O \\big( \\max \\big\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^\\theta \\big\\} \\big) \\, .$$ An analogous reasoning yields: $${\\tikz[baseline=(char.base)]{\n    \\node[shape=circle,draw,inner sep=1pt] (char) {\\footnotesize{2}};}} = O \\big(  \\max \\big\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(x',y')^\\theta \\big\\} \\big) \\, .$$ So we obtain: $$\\|\\Gamma_0 \\| = O \\big( \\max \\big\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(y,y')^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(x',y')^\\theta \\big\\} \\big) \\, .$$ Any of these four distances, say ${\\mathrm{d}}(y,y')$, is less than the sum of the other three; so: $$\\|\\Gamma_0 \\| = O \\big(  \\max \\big\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}(x,x')^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(x',y')^\\theta \\big\\} \\big) \\, .$$ Now if $n \\in \\ldbrack 0, N \\rdbrack$, the corresponding quadrilateral has sides are bounded by ${\\varepsilon}_0$ (estimates \u2013), and the exact same argument yields: $$\\|\\Gamma_n \\| = O \\big( \\max \\big\\{ {\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x,T^n x')^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x,T^n y)^\\theta, {\\mathrm{d}}(T^n x',T^n y')^\\theta \\big\\} \\big) \\, .$$ Then, using estimates , , and we obtain: $$\\label{e.Delta}\n\\|\\Gamma_n \\| = O \\big( e^{-\\theta a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(n)}(x)} \\big) \\, .$$\n\nAs a consequence of estimates and , if $j \\in \\ldbrack 0, N \\rdbrack$ then ${\\mathrm{d}}(T^j y' , T^j x) = O \\big( e^{-a\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(j)}(x)} \\big)$. So it follows from \\[l.bol\\] that $$\\label{e.new_bol}\n\\| (\\Phi^n_{y'})^{-1} \\| \\, \\| \\Phi^n_x \\| = O\\big(e^{{\\varphi}^{(n)}(y')}\\big) , \\quad \\text{for } n \\in \\ldbrack 0, N \\rdbrack \\, .$$\n\nNow we want to iterate backwards to obtain a finer estimate for $\\| \\Gamma_0 \\|$. By the groupoid properties of holonomies, $\\Gamma_0 = (\\Phi^n_{y'})^{-1} \\circ \\Gamma_n \\circ \\Phi^n_x$. Therefore: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{2}\n\\|\\Gamma_0\\|\n&= O \\big( e^{{\\varphi}^{(N)}(y')} \\, \\| \\Gamma_N \\| \\big)\n&\\qquad&\\text{(by \\eqref{e.new_bol})} \\\\\n&= O \\big( e^{-\\theta a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + a {\\varphi}^{(N)}(x)} \\big)\n&\\qquad&\\text{(by \\eqref{e.Delta} and \\cref{l.loss})} \\\\\n&= O \\big( e^{-\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}[a \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}^{(N)}(x) + \\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}^{(N)}(x)]} \\big)\n&\\qquad&\\text{(by \\eqref{e.folga_above})} \\\\\n&= O \\big( \\delta^{\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}} \\big)\n&\\qquad&\\text{(by \\eqref{e.optimal_other_side})} \\, .\\end{aligned}$$ \\[p.regularity\\_above\\] is proved.\n\nFix any positive $$\\label{e.needed_strength}\n\\eta_0 \\le \\inf_X \\frac{\\theta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}}{\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+ \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}+ \\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}} \\, .$$ Suppose $\\Phi$ is a $(\\eta_0,\\theta)$-bunched automorphism. This means that the function ${\\varphi}$ defined by is less than $ \\eta_0 \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}$. Therefore we have pointwise inequalities: $$\\frac{\\theta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}- {\\varphi}}{\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+\\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}} > \\frac{\\theta \\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}- \\eta_0 \\lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}}{\\lambda_{\\mathrm{s}}+\\Lambda_{\\mathrm{u}}} \\ge \\eta_0.$$ So there exists $\\theta_{\\mathrm{s}}\\ge \\eta_0$ that satisfies .\n\nThe metric on the Grassmannian {#ss.Grass}\n------------------------------\n\nLet $E$ be an inner product space of dimension $d$. If $V_1$, $V_2 \\subseteq E$ are subspaces of the same dimension $p>0$, we define: $$\\label{e.def_metric}\n{\\mathrm{d}}(V_1,V_2) \\coloneqq \\inf_{F_1, F_2} \\| F_1 - F_2 \\| \\, ,$$ where each $F_i$ runs over all linear isomorphisms $F_i \\colon {\\mathbb{R}}^p \\to V_i$ such that $\\|F_i^{-1}\\| \\le 1$. (We consider ${\\mathbb{R}}^p$ endowed with the canonical inner product, and $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ always denotes the operator norm.)\n\n\\[p.metric\\] ${\\mathrm{d}}$ is a metric on the Grassmannian ${\\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$.\n\nSymmetry and the triangular inequality are trivially satisfied, so let us check non-degeneracy. Suppose $V_1 \\neq V_2 \\in {\\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$. Take a unit vector $v_1$ in $V_1$ but not in $V_2$. Then there exists $\\delta>0$ such that $\\|v_1-v_2\\| \\ge \\delta$ for every $v_2 \\in V_2$. For each $i \\in \\{1,2\\}$, let $F_i \\colon {\\mathbb{R}}^p \\to V_i$ be a linear isomorphism such that $\\|F_i^{-1}\\| \\le 1$. Then: $$\\|F_1 - F_2\\| \\ge \\frac{\\|v_1 - F_2(F_1^{-1}(v_1))\\|}{\\|F_1^{-1}(v_1))\\|} \\ge \\|v_1 - F_2(F_1^{-1}(v_1))\\| \\ge \\delta \\, .$$ This shows that ${\\mathrm{d}}(V_1,V_2) \\ge \\delta > 0$.\n\nConsider a linear isomorphism $L \\colon E \\to F$ between $d$-dimensional inner product spaces. For each $i \\in \\{1,2\\}$, let $V_i \\in {\\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$, and let $W_i \\coloneqq L(V_i)$. Let $F_i \\colon {\\mathbb{R}}^p \\to V_i$ be a linear isomorphism such that $\\|F_i^{-1}\\| \\le 1$. Define $G_i \\colon {\\mathbb{R}}^p \\to W_i$ by $G_i \\coloneqq \\|L^{-1}\\| \\, L \\circ F_i$. Then $G_i$ is a linear isomorphism and $\\|G_i^{-1}\\| \\le 1$. So $${\\mathrm{d}}(W_1,W_2) \\le \\| G_1 - G_2 \\| =  \\|L^{-1}\\| \\,  \\|L \\circ F_1 - L \\circ F_2 \\| \\le \\operatorname{bol}(L)  \\| F_1 - F_2 \\|  \\, .$$ Taking infimum over the $F_i$\u2019s, we obtain ${\\mathrm{d}}(W_1,W_2) \\le \\operatorname{bol}(L) {\\mathrm{d}}(V_1,V_2)$. This proves that the map induced by $L$ has Lipschitz constant $\\operatorname{bol}(L)$.\n\nSuppose $L \\colon E \\to {\\mathbb{E}}$ satisfies $\\|L - {\\mathrm{id}}\\|\\le \\delta \\le \\tfrac{1}{2}$. Note that $\\|L^{-1}\\| \\le (1-\\delta)^{-1}$. Fix an arbitrary $V \\in {\\mathcal{G}}_p(E)$. Let $F_1 \\colon {\\mathbb{R}}^p \\to V$ be an isometry, and let $F_2 \\coloneqq (1-\\delta)^{-1} L \\circ F_1$. Then $\\|F_1^{-1}\\|=1$, $\\|F_2^{-1}\\| \\le 1$, and so $${\\mathrm{d}}(V, LV) \\le \\|F_1 - F_2\\| = \\| {\\mathrm{id}}- (1-\\delta)^{-1} L\\| \\le \\| {\\mathrm{id}}- L\\| +  \\frac{\\delta}{1-\\delta} \\|L\\| \\le \\frac{2\\delta}{1-\\delta} \\le 4 \\delta.\n\\qedhere$$\n\nThis is an easy consequence of the definition , and details are left to the reader.\n\nIt can be shown that our metric coincides with the metric used in [@BPS \u00a7\u00a0A.1].\n\nTypical fiber-bunched automorphisms are irreducible {#ss.irred_typical}\n---------------------------------------------------\n\nRecall from \\[ss.auto\\] that ${\\mathrm{End}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ denotes the vector space of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder endomorphisms, which becomes a Banach space with the $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder norm . The set ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ of $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder automorphisms and the subset ${\\mathcal{B}}\\subset {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ of fiber-bunched automorphisms are both open subsets of ${\\mathrm{End}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ (actually they are $C^0$-open).\n\nA subset of a Banach space is said to be of *infinite codimension* if it is locally contained in the union of finitely many closed submanifolds of arbitrarily large codimension.\n\n\\[p.irred\\_typical\\] Suppose $X$ is infinite, $T \\colon X \\to X$ is a transitive hyperbolic homeomorphism, and ${\\mathbb{E}}$ is a $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle over $X$. Then there exists an open and dense subset ${\\mathcal{I}}$ of the set ${\\mathcal{B}}\\subset {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ of fiber-bunched automorphisms such that every $\\Phi \\in {\\mathcal{I}}$ is irreducible. Furthermore, the set ${\\mathcal{B}}{\\smallsetminus}{\\mathcal{I}}$ has infinite codimension.\n\nThe proof is an obvious adaptation of arguments from [@BGV; @Viana], so we will make it concise.\n\nAs a consequence of shadowing and expansivity, the hyperbolic homeomorphism $T$ has infinitely many periodic points (see e.g.\u00a0[@Akin p.\u00a0228]). Select one of these, say a point $p$ of period $k$, and a homoclinic point $q$ associated to $p$. If $\\Phi$ is reducible then it admits a non-trivial $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder $\\Phi$-invariant subbundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ which by \\[c.irred\\] is both $H^{\\mathrm{u}}$- and $H^{\\mathrm{s}}$-invariant. Then the subspace ${\\mathbb{F}}_p \\subseteq {\\mathbb{E}}_p$ is invariant under two different linear maps, namely $\\Phi^k_p$ and $H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{p \\gets q} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{q \\gets p}$. On the other hand, we claim that the property that these two maps admit a common nontrivial invariant subspace is *atypical* in the space ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$; more precisely, it has positive codimension and, a fortiori, empty interior.\n\nFirst note that the property that an element of ${\\mathit{GL}}(d,{\\mathbb{R}})$ admits infinitely many invariant subspaces is atypical (because it implies the existence of a complex eigenvalue of geometric multiplicity bigger than $1$). So for typical $\\Phi \\in {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$, the collection of $\\Phi^k_p$-invariant subspaces is finite.\n\nOn the other hand, choose a closed neighborhood $U$ of $q$ that is disjoint from the future and past iterates of $q$. If we perturb the automorphism in this neighborhood (or rather in $\\pi^{-1}(U)$) then the maps $\\Phi^k_p$ and $H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{q \\gets p}$ are unaffected, but $H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{p \\gets q}$ changes, and actually any small perturbation of $H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{p \\gets q}$ can be realized with a perturbation of $\\Phi$ supported in $U$. In particular, with a well-chosen perturbation, the composition of holonomies sends each of the (finitely many) $\\Phi^k_p$-invariant nontrivial subspaces of ${\\mathbb{E}}_p$ into something transverse to it. Such an automorphism $\\Phi$ cannot be reducible. This shows that irreducibility has dense interior in ${\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$.\n\nThe argument actually shows that if $\\Phi$ is reducible then it must satisfy infinitely many independent conditions of positive codimension, at least one for each homoclinic orbit. Therefore reducibility has infinite codimension. See [@Viana [\u00a7]{}4] for full details.\n\nBressaud\u2013Quas Closing Lemma {#ss.BQ}\n---------------------------\n\nHere we will prove \\[t.BQ\\]. Though our formulation is different, the key ideas come from [@BQuas].\n\nLet $f \\colon Y \\to Y$ be *any* homeomorphism of a compact metric space $(Y,{\\mathrm{d}})$. For ${\\varepsilon}>0$, an *$({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}}, f)$-pseudoorbit* is a string of points $(x_0,x_1, \\dots, x_{n-1})$ such that ${\\mathrm{d}}(f(x_i), x_{i+1})< {\\varepsilon}$ for every $i \\in \\ldbrack 0, n-2\\rdbrack$. If additionally ${\\mathrm{d}}(f (x_{n-1}), x_0)< {\\varepsilon}$ then we say that the pseudo-orbit is *periodic*, with *period* $n$; in that case indices can be taken as integers mod $n$ instead. Let $R({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}}, f)$ denote the minimal period of a periodic $({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}}, f)$-pseudoorbit. Note that: $$\\label{e.R_power}\nR({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}}, f) \\le n R({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}}, f^n) \\quad \\text{for every $n \\ge 1$.}$$\n\nA set $E \\subseteq Y$ is called *$({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}})$-separated* if ${\\mathrm{d}}(x,y)\\ge {\\varepsilon}$ for every pair of distinct points $x$, $y\\in E$. Let $S({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}})$ be the maximal cardinality of a $({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}})$-separated set.\n\nDefine a sequence of metrics by: $${\\mathrm{d}}_{n,f}(x,y) \\coloneqq \\max_{i \\in \\ldbrack 0, n-1\\rdbrack} {\\mathrm{d}}(f^i(x), f^i(y)) \\, .$$\n\n\\[l.BQ\\_estimate\\] Let ${\\varepsilon}>0$. Suppose that $R({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}},f) > m > 0$. Then: $$\\log m \\le \\log S(\\tfrac{{\\varepsilon}}{2}, {\\mathrm{d}})  - \\tfrac{1}{m} \\log S({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}}_{m,f})  + 1 \\, .$$\n\nLet $E$ be a $({\\mathrm{d}}, \\tfrac{{\\varepsilon}}{2})$-separated set of maximal cardinality. Note that the ${\\mathrm{d}}$-balls of radius $\\tfrac{{\\varepsilon}}{2}$ and centers at the points of $E$ cover $Y$, because otherwise we could enlarge $E$ by adding any point not covered. Let $F$ be a $({\\mathrm{d}}_{m,f}, {\\varepsilon})$-separated set of maximal cardinality. For each $y \\in F$, choose a $m$-tuple $(x_0, \\dots, x_{m-1})$ of points in $E$ such that ${\\mathrm{d}}(x_j, f^j(y)) < \\tfrac{{\\varepsilon}}{2}$ for each $j \\in \\ldbrack 0, m-1 \\rdbrack$. First, we claim that these $x_j$\u2019s are all distinct. Indeed, if $x_j = x_k$ with $j < k$, then ${\\mathrm{d}}(f^j(y), f^k(y)) < {\\varepsilon}$, so $\\big( f^i(y) \\big)_{i \\in \\ldbrack j, k-1 \\rdbrack}$ is a periodic $({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}})$-pseudoorbit of period $k-j \\le m-1 < R({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}})$, contradiction.\n\nSecond, we claim that if $y \\neq y' \\in F$ then the corresponding $m$-tuples $(x_0, \\dots, x_{m-1})$ and $(x'_0, \\dots, x'_{m-1})$ are distinct. Indeed, if the two $m$-tuples coincide then for each $j \\in \\ldbrack 0, m-1\\rdbrack$ we have ${\\mathrm{d}}(f^j(y), f^j(y')) < {\\varepsilon}$. This means that ${\\mathrm{d}}_{m,f}(y,y') < {\\varepsilon}$. Since the set $F$ is $({\\mathrm{d}}_{m,f}, {\\varepsilon})$-separated, we conclude that $y=y'$.\n\nThird, we claim that if $y \\neq y' \\in F$ then the sets $\\{x_0, \\dots, x_{m-1}\\}$ and $\\{x'_0, \\dots, x'_{m-1}\\}$ are distinct. Indeed, if the two sets coincide then $x'_i = x_{\\sigma(i)}$ for some permutation $\\sigma$ of $\\ldbrack 0, m-1\\rdbrack$. By the previous claim, this permutation is not the identity; therefore there exists $\\ell \\in \\ldbrack 0, m-2\\rdbrack$ such that $k \\coloneqq \\sigma(\\ell) > \\sigma(\\ell+1) \\eqcolon j$. Then ${\\mathrm{d}}(f^{\\ell}(y'), f^{k}(y)) < {\\varepsilon}$ and ${\\mathrm{d}}(f^{\\ell+1}(y'), f^{j}(y)) < {\\varepsilon}$. Therefore $\\big(f^{j}(y), f^{j+1}(y), \\dots, f^{k-1}(y), f^{\\ell}(y') \\big)$ is a periodic $({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}})$-pseudoorbit of period $k-j+1 \\le m < R({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}})$, contradiction.\n\nWe conclude that the number of elements of the set $F$ cannot exceed the number of subsets of the set $E$ with exactly $m$ elements, that is, $$|F| \\le \\binom{|E|}{m} \\le \\frac{|E|^m}{m!} \\le \\left( \\frac{e |E|}{m} \\right)^m \\, .$$ Taking $\\log$\u2019s, recalling that $|E| = S({\\mathrm{d}}, \\tfrac{{\\varepsilon}}{2})$ and $|F| = S({\\mathrm{d}}_{m,f}, \\tfrac{{\\varepsilon}}{2})$, and rearranging, we obtain the inequality stated in the .\n\nRecall that a homeomorphism $f \\colon Y \\to Y$ is called *expansive* if there is a uniform separation between every pair of distinct orbits. In that case, the topological entropy $h_\\mathrm{top}(f)$ is finite; furthermore, for every sufficiently small ${\\varepsilon}>0$, the limit $$\\label{e.htop}\n\\lim_{n \\to \\infty} \\frac{\\log S({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}}_{n,f})}{n} \\quad \\text{exists and equals } h_\\mathrm{top}(f); \\nopagebreak$$ see [@Walters p.\u00a0174, 177].\n\n\\[p.subexp\\] If $f$ is expansive then for every sufficiently small ${\\varepsilon}>0$ we have: $$\\lim_{n \\to \\infty} \\frac{\\log R({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}}_{n,f},f)}{n} = 0 \\, .$$\n\nFix a small ${\\varepsilon}>0$ and a large integer $n$. Write $R_n \\coloneqq R({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}}_{n,f},f)$ and $m_n \\coloneqq \\lfloor (R_n-1)/n \\rfloor$. Assume that $m_n>0$, otherwise $(\\log R_n)/n$ is already small. Using , we have $R({\\varepsilon},{\\mathrm{d}}_{n,f},f^n) > m_n$. Applying \\[l.BQ\\_estimate\\], we obtain that $$\\frac{\\log m_n}{n} \\le \\frac{\\log S({\\varepsilon}/2, {\\mathrm{d}}_{n,f})}{n} - \\frac{\\log S({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}}_{nm_n,f})}{nm_n} + \\frac{1}{n} \\, .$$ By , the right-hand side is small: the first two terms essentially cancel each other. It follows that $(\\log R_n)/n$ is small.\n\nGiven the hyperbolic homeomorphism $T$ and the compact $T$-invariant set $Y \\neq {\\varnothing}$, let $f$ be the restriction of $T$ to $Y$. Hyperbolic homeomorphisms are expansive (recall \\[r.hyperb\\]), so $f$ is expansive as well.\n\nFix ${\\varepsilon}>0$ small enough so that \\[p.subexp\\] applies. Note that if $(x_i)_{i \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}/k{\\mathbb{Z}}}$ is a periodic $({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}}_n,f)$-pseudoorbit then, letting $y_i \\coloneqq f^{\\lceil n/2 \\rceil}(x_i)$, we have, for all $i \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}/k{\\mathbb{Z}}$, $$\\max_{j \\in \\left\\ldbrack -\\lceil n/2 \\rceil, \\lceil n/2 \\rceil -1 \\right\\rdbrack}\n{\\mathrm{d}}( f^{j+1}(y_i), f^j(y_{i+1}) ) < {\\varepsilon}\\, .$$ Hyperbolicity implies that ${\\mathrm{d}}( f(y_i), y_{i+1}) ) < C e^{-\\lambda n} {\\varepsilon}\\eqcolon {\\varepsilon}_n$, where $C$ and $\\lambda$ are positive constants. That is, $(y_i)_{i \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}/k{\\mathbb{Z}}}$ is a periodic $({\\varepsilon}_n, {\\mathrm{d}}, f)$-pseudoorbit. So $R({\\varepsilon}, {\\mathrm{d}}_{f,n}, f) \\ge R({\\varepsilon}_n, {\\mathrm{d}}, f) \\eqcolon N_n$. In particular, $$\\frac{\\log N_n}{n} \\quad\\text{and}\\quad\n\\frac{\\log N_n}{\\log {\\varepsilon}_n^{-1}}\n\\quad\\text{also tend to $0$ as $n \\to \\infty$.}$$ Therefore, for any given $\\tau>0$, if $n$ is large enough then ${\\varepsilon}_n < N_n^{-\\tau}$. By definition, there exists a periodic $({\\varepsilon}_n, {\\mathrm{d}}, T)$-pseudoorbit of period $N_n$ in the set $Y$. By the Lipschitz shadowing lemma [@Sakai Thrm.\u00a02], there exist a periodic orbit for $T$ of period $N_n$ within distance $O({\\varepsilon}_n) = O(N_n^{-\\tau})$. This proves the .\n\nAppendix: Examples {#s.examples}\n==================\n\nHere we present examples that show some of the limits of our results.\n\nExamples of sets of calibrated vectors with exceptional behavior {#ss.examples_calibrated}\n----------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe following two examples show that the set ${\\mathbb{K}}$ of calibrated vectors defined by can have exceptional fibers, justifying \\[r.exceptional\\_fibers\\].\n\n\\[ex.non\\_space\\] Let $T \\colon X \\to X$ be a hyperbolic homeomorphism having a fixed point $x_0$. Let $f$ be a non-negative H\u00f6lder function vanishing only at $x_0$. Consider the cocycle $$A(x) \\coloneqq \\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\\\ 0 & e^{-f(x)} \\end{pmatrix} \\, .$$ Then the corresponding automorphism $\\Phi$ on the trivial bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}\\coloneqq X \\times {\\mathbb{R}}^2$ has $\\beta(\\Phi) = 0$, and its Mather sets are $M_1(\\Phi) = X$ and $M_2(\\Phi) = \\{x_0\\}$. The max norm ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {(u_1,u_2)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\coloneqq \\max \\{|u_1|,|u_2|\\}$ is extremal. Consider the corresponding set ${\\mathbb{K}}$ of calibrated vectors, defined by . If $x \\in W^{\\mathrm{u}}(x_0) {\\smallsetminus}\\{x_0\\}$ then the fiber $${\\mathbb{K}}_x = \\big\\{ (u_1,u_2) \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^2 {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}|u_2| \\le e^{\\sum_{n=1}^\\infty f(T^{-n} x)} |u_1| \\big\\}$$ is not a subspace.\n\n\\[ex.bad\\_dim\\] Suppose $T \\colon X \\to X$ is a homeomorphism admitting two nonempty compact invariant sets $X_1$, $X_2$ such that:\n\n-   each $X_i$ equals the support of some $T$-invariant probability measure $\\mu_i$;\n\n-   $X_1 \\cup X_2 = X$;\n\n-   $X_1 \\cap X_2 = \\{x_0\\} \\cup \\{T^n y_0 {\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}n \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$ where $x_0$ is a fixed point and $y_0 \\neq x_0$ is an homoclinic point.\n\nLet $f$ be a non-negative continuous function vanishing only at $X_1 \\cap X_2$. Consider the cocycle $$A(x) \\coloneqq \\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\\\ 0 & e^{-f(x)} \\end{pmatrix} \\quad \\text{if $x \\in X_1$,} \\qquad\nA(x) \\coloneqq \\begin{pmatrix} e^{-f(x)} & 0 \\\\ 0 & 1 \\end{pmatrix} \\quad \\text{if $x \\in X_2$.}$$ Then the corresponding automorphism $\\Phi$ on the trivial bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}\\coloneqq X \\times {\\mathbb{R}}^2$ has $\\beta(\\Phi) = 0$, and its Mather sets are $M_1(\\Phi) = X$ and $M_2(\\Phi) = \\{x_0\\}$. The Euclidean norm is extremal. Consider the corresponding set ${\\mathbb{K}}$ of calibrated vectors, defined by . Then ${\\mathbb{K}}_{y_0} = {\\mathbb{R}}^2$ despite the fact that $y_0 \\in M_1(\\Phi) {\\smallsetminus}M_2(\\Phi)$.\n\nOne may contend that \u201ccorrectly\u201d defined Mather sets should not lie in the base $X$, but instead in the bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}$, or in its projectivization $\\hat {\\mathbb{E}}$. Fix a norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|$ on ${\\mathbb{E}}$ and define a function $f \\colon \\hat{\\mathbb{E}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ by $f([u]) \\coloneqq \\log(\\|\\Phi u\\| / \\|u\\|)$. Let $\\hat {\\mathbb{M}}$ be the union of the supports of all probability measures on $\\hat {\\mathbb{E}}$ that are invariant under the automorphism $\\hat{\\Phi}$ and that maximize the integral of the function $f$. Let ${\\mathbb{M}}\\coloneqq \\{u \\in {\\mathbb{E}}{\\;\\mathord{;}\\;}u=0 \\text{ or } [u] \\in \\hat{{\\mathbb{M}}} \\}$. This is a closed subset of ${\\mathbb{E}}$ that projects down on the Mather set $M(\\Phi) \\subseteq X$. Given an extremal norm, it is clear that the fibers of ${\\mathbb{M}}$ are calibrated, i.e.\u00a0${\\mathbb{M}}_x \\subseteq {\\mathbb{K}}_x$ for every $x \\in M(\\Phi)$. A stronger property actually holds: $\\mathrm{span}({\\mathbb{M}}_x) \\subseteq {\\mathbb{K}}_x$ for every $x \\in M(\\Phi)$; we omit the proof. However, ${\\mathbb{M}}_x$ may fail to be a subspace. Indeed, in \\[ex.bad\\_dim\\] the set ${\\mathbb{M}}_{y_0}$ is a union of two lines.\n\nOn Riemannian extremal norms {#ss.Riemann}\n----------------------------\n\nAfter having established the existence of extremal *Finsler* norms (under appropriate hypotheses), one naturally wonders about the existence of extremal *Riemannian* norms. Let us begin with a weak positive result:\n\n\\[p.Riem\\_weak\\] In the situation of \\[t.dom\\], there exists a Riemannian norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|'$ such that for all $x \\in Y$, the spaces ${\\mathbb{F}}_x$ and ${\\mathbb{G}}_x$ are orthogonal, and $$\\| \\Phi(v) \\|' = e^{\\beta(\\Phi)} > \\|\\Phi(w)\\|'\n\\quad \\text{for all unit vectors $v \\in {\\mathbb{F}}_x$, $w \\in {\\mathbb{G}}_x$.}$$\n\nAs usual, assume $\\beta(\\Phi) = 0$. For each $x \\in Y$, consider the restriction of the extremal norm to the space ${\\mathbb{F}}_x$, and let ${\\mathcal{B}}_x \\subseteq {\\mathbb{F}}_x$ be the unit ball. Let ${\\mathcal{E}}_x$ be the John ellipsoid of ${\\mathcal{B}}_x$, namely the unique ellipsoid of maximal volume contained in ${\\mathcal{B}}_x$ (see e.g.\u00a0[@Ball]). This field of ellipsoids is continuous, since finding the John ellipsoid is a continuous operation (as a consequence of its uniqueness). Consider the Riemannian norm on the bundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ whose unit balls are the ${\\mathcal{E}}_x$\u2019s. Since $\\Phi_x ({\\mathcal{B}}_x) = {\\mathcal{B}}_{Tx}$ and the John ellipsoid is equivariant with respect to linear isomorphisms, we obtain $\\Phi_x ({\\mathcal{E}}_x) = {\\mathcal{E}}_{Tx}$. This means that the Riemannian norm just constructed on the bundle ${\\mathbb{F}}$ is preserved by $\\Phi$.[^11]\n\nIn the bundle ${\\mathbb{G}}$, we use the standard construction of Lyapunov norms (see e.g.\u00a0[@KH p.\u00a0667]). Fix a small positive ${\\varepsilon}$, and for each $x \\in M_p$ and $w \\in {\\mathbb{G}}_x$, let: $$\\| w \\|'_x \\coloneqq \\left( \\sum_{n=0}^\\infty e^{2 {\\varepsilon}n} \\|\\Phi_x^n (v) \\|^2 \\right)^{1/2} \\, .$$ As a consequence of domination, the series converges exponentially, so the formula yields a well-defined continuous Riemannian norm on the bundle ${\\mathbb{G}}$. It is immediate that $\\|\\Phi_x(w)\\|' \\le e^{-{\\varepsilon}} \\|w\\|'$, so the norm along ${\\mathbb{G}}$ is uniformly contracted. Finally, we extend the Riemannian norm to the fibers ${\\mathbb{E}}_x$ for $x \\in Y$ by declaring ${\\mathbb{F}}_x$ and ${\\mathbb{G}}_x$ to be orthogonal. This completes the construction.\n\nThe Riemannian norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|'$ provided by \\[p.Riem\\_weak\\] is extremal over the restricted subbundle ${\\mathbb{E}}_Y = \\pi^{-1}(Y)$. Can one extend this Riemannian norm to the whole bundle, keeping it extremal? The answer is no, as we will see next.\n\nWe will present an example of an irreducible fiber-bunched automorphism in dimension $2$ that admits no *Riemannian* extremal norm.\n\nConsider the following two matrices: $$\\label{e.two_matrices}\nA_0 \\coloneqq \\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\\\ 1 & 0 \\end{pmatrix} , \\qquad\nA_1 \\coloneqq \\begin{pmatrix} 0.8 & -0.1 \\\\ 0.8 & 0.1 \\end{pmatrix} .$$ Let $(T,F)$ be the corresponding one-step cocycle (see \\[ex.one-step\\]), and let $\\Phi$ be the corresponding automorphism of the trivial vector bundle ${\\mathbb{E}}= X \\times {\\mathbb{R}}^2$. Consider a H\u00f6lder exponent $\\theta = 1$, and take the parameter $\\lambda$ in the metric large enough so that $\\Phi$ becomes fiber-bunched. Consider the fixed point $p=(p_n)$ where each $p_n \\coloneqq 0$. Since $F(p) = A_0$ has non-real eigenvalues, the automorphism $\\Phi$ is irreducible: there can be no nontrivial $\\Phi$-invariant subbundle. Then \\[t.extremal\\] yields the existence of an extremal norm. Actually, the max norm in ${\\mathbb{R}}^2$, defined by ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {(u_1,u_2)}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\coloneqq \\max\\{|u_1|,|u_2|\\}$, is an extremal norm. Indeed, the operator norms of our two matrices are: $${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {A_0}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = 1 \\, , \\quad {\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {A_1}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} = 0.9 \\, .$$ Since the spectral radius of $A_0$ is $1$, it follows that $\\beta(\\Phi) = 0$, and so ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {\\mathord{\\cdot}}\n\\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}}$ is a (constant) extremal norm, as claimed. Also note that $\\delta_p$ is the unique Lyapunov-maximizing measure.\n\n\\[p.no\\_Riemann\\] The automorphism $\\Phi$ admits no Riemannian extremal norm.\n\nAssume for a contradiction that $\\Phi$ admits a Riemannian extremal norm $\\{\\| \\mathrm{\\cdot} \\|_x\\}_{x \\in X}$. Since $e^{\\beta(\\Phi)} = 1$ is the spectral radius of $F(p) = A_0$, we must have: $$\\| A_0 \\|_{p \\gets p} \\le 1 \\, ,$$ in the operator norm notation . This means that if $D\\subset {\\mathbb{R}}^2$ denotes the unit ball in the norm $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|_p$, we have $A_0(D) \\subseteq D$. Since the norm is assumed to be Riemannian, $D$ is a (filled) ellipse, and since $A_0$ is a rotation, this ellipse must be a disk. Rescaling the norm if necessary, we can assume that $D$ is the unit disk. Equivalently, $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|_{p \\gets p}$ is the usual Euclidean operator norm, which for emphasis we will write $\\| \\mathord{\\cdot} \\|_{\\mathrm{eucl}}$.\n\nConsider the homoclinic point $q \\coloneq (\\dots 0,0,{\\underaccent{\\dot}{1}},0,0\\dots)$, i.e., the sequence that has a unique symbol $1$ at position $0$. Note that for any $k > 0$ we have the identity: $$\\label{e.loop_identity}\nH^{\\mathrm{s}}_{p \\gets q} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{q \\gets p} = \\Phi_p^{-k} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{p \\gets T^k q} \\circ \\Phi^{2k}_{T^{-k} q} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{T^{-k} q \\gets p} \\circ \\Phi_p^{-k} \\, .$$ In particular, taking $k=1$, by triviality of local holonomies we obtain: $$\\begin{aligned}\nH^{\\mathrm{s}}_{p \\gets q} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{q \\gets p} &= A_0^{-1} \\circ {\\mathrm{id}}\\circ A_1A_0 \\circ {\\mathrm{id}}\\circ A_0^{-1} \\\\ &= A_0^{-1} A_1 \\, .\\end{aligned}$$ Using that $A_0$ preserves Euclidean norm, applying the extremal Riemannian norm to : $$\\|A_1 \\|_{\\mathrm{eucl}} = \\|A_0^{-1} A_1\\|_{\\mathrm{eucl}}  = \\|H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{p \\gets q} \\circ H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{q \\gets p}\\|\n\\le\n\\underbrace{\\|\\Phi_p^{-k}\\|}_{=1} \\ \\underbrace{\\|H^{\\mathrm{s}}_{p \\gets T^k q}\\|}_{\\to 1} \\ \\underbrace{\\|\\Phi^{2k}_{T^{-k} q}\\|}_{\\le 1} \\ \\underbrace{\\| H^{\\mathrm{u}}_{T^{-k} q \\gets p}\\|}_{\\to 1} \\ \\underbrace{\\|\\Phi_p^{-k}\\|}_{=1} \\, .$$ Taking $k \\to \\infty$ we obtain that $\\|A_1 \\|_{\\mathrm{eucl}} \\le 1$. This is a contradiction: actually $\\|A_1 \\|_{\\mathrm{eucl}} = 0.8 \\sqrt{2} > 1$ (see \\[f.MO\\]).\n\n(1,1)\u2013(-1,1)\u2013(-1,-1)\u2013(1,-1)\u2013cycle; (.7,.9)\u2013(-.9,-.7)\u2013(-.7,-.9)\u2013(.9,.7)\u2013cycle; (0,0) circle (1) ; (0,0) ellipse (1.1314 and 0.1414);\n\nLet us comment on other properties of our example. We claim that there are perturbations $\\tilde \\Phi$ of $\\Phi$ for which the measure $\\delta_p$ ceases to be Lyapunov-maximizing; so the \u201clocking property\u201d (*verrouillage*) is not satisfied. Indeed, let $k \\gg 1$ be an integer, let $m \\coloneqq 4k+2$, and let $\\tilde A_0$ be rotation matrix of angle $\\frac{\\pi}{2} - \\frac{\\pi}{4m}$. Then: $$\\tilde{A}_0^{m} A_1 = \\begin{pmatrix} -0.8 \\sqrt{2} & 0 \\\\ 0 & -0.1 \\sqrt{2}\\end{pmatrix} \\, .$$ Consider the associated one-step cocycle $\\tilde F$, and the associated automorphism $\\tilde \\Phi$. Then the probability measure $\\tilde \\mu$ supported on the orbit of the periodic point $$\\tilde p \\coloneqq\n(\\dots, {\\underaccent{\\dot}{1}}, \\underbrace{0, \\dots, 0}_m , 1, \\underbrace{0, \\dots, 0}_m , \\dots) , \\quad \\text{i.e., $\\tilde p_n = 1$ iff $m+1$ divides $n$,}$$ has Lyapunov exponent $$\\chi_1(\\tilde\\Phi, \\tilde \\mu) = \\frac{\\log(0.8 \\sqrt{2})}{m+1} > 0 = \\chi_1(\\tilde\\Phi, \\delta_p) \\, ,$$ showing that $\\delta_p$ was \u201cunlocked\u201d. Therefore the argument of the proof of \\[p.no\\_Riemann\\] does not apply to the perturbation $\\tilde\\Phi$, and it is possible that these perturbations $\\tilde \\Phi$ admit Riemannian extremal norms (though there is no obvious candidate). So the main property of our example $\\Phi$, namely not to possess Riemannian extremal norms, may be fragile. Going beyond this specific example, we ask:\n\nLet $T \\colon X \\to X$ be a hyperbolic automorphism. Let ${\\mathbb{E}}$ be a $2$-dimensional $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder vector bundle over $X$. Let ${\\mathcal{B}}\\subset {\\mathrm{Aut}}^\\theta({\\mathbb{E}},T)$ be the set of fiber-bunched irreducible automorphisms, endowed with the $\\theta$-H\u00f6lder topology. Let ${\\mathcal{R}}\\subset {\\mathcal{B}}$ be the subset of automorphisms that admit a Riemannian extremal norm. Is ${\\mathcal{R}}$ dense in ${\\mathcal{B}}$? Is the interior of ${\\mathcal{R}}$ dense in ${\\mathcal{B}}$?\n\nWe are very much indebted to Rafael Potrie for numerous illuminating and influential conversations. We also thank Clark Butler and Kiho Park for interesting discussions, and the referee for corrections and suggestions.\n\n[00]{}\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Akin, E.</span> \u2013 *The general topology of dynamical systems.* Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 1. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1993.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Alekseev, V.M.; Yakobson, M.V.</span> \u2013 Symbolic dynamics and hyperbolic dynamic systems. *Phys.\u00a0Rep.\u00a0*75 (1981), no.\u00a05, 287\u2013325.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Anosov, D.V.</span> \u2013 Roughness of geodesic flows on compact Riemannian manifolds of negative curvature. (Russian) *Dokl.\u00a0Akad.\u00a0Nauk SSSR* 145 (1962), 707\u2013709.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Aoki, N.; Hiraide, K.</span> \u2013 *Topological theory of dynamical systems. Recent advances.* North-Holland Mathematical Library, 52. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1994.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Arnold, L.</span> \u2013 *Random dynamical systems.* Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Avila, A.; Bochi, J.</span> \u2013 A uniform dichotomy for generic $\\mathrm{SL}(2,\\mathbb{R})$ cocycles over a minimal base. *Bull.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0Math.\u00a0France* 135 (2007), no.\u00a03, 407\u2013417.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Avila, A.; Viana, M.</span> \u2013 Simplicity of Lyapunov spectra: a sufficient criterion. *Port.\u00a0Math.\u00a0*64 (2007), no.\u00a03, 311\u2013376.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Avila, A.; Viana, M.</span> \u2013 Extremal Lyapunov exponents: an invariance principle and applications. *Invent.\u00a0Math.\u00a0*181 (2010), no.\u00a01, 115\u2013189.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Ball, K.</span> \u2013 An elementary introduction to modern convex geometry. *Flavors of geometry*, 1\u201358, Math.\u00a0Sci.\u00a0Res.\u00a0Inst.\u00a0Publ., 31, Cambridge Univ.\u00a0Press, Cambridge, 1997.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Barabanov, N.E.</span> \u2013 On the Lyapunov exponent of discrete inclusions.\u00a0I. *Automat.\u00a0Remote Control* 49 (1988), no.\u00a02, part 1, 152\u2013157.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Berger, M.A.; Wang, Y.</span> \u2013 Bounded semigroups of matrices. *Linear Algebra Appl.\u00a0*166 (1992), 21\u201327.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Blondel, V.D.; Tsitsiklis, J.N.</span> \u2013 The boundedness of all products of a pair of matrices is undecidable. *Systems Control Lett.\u00a0*41 (2000), no.\u00a02, 135\u2013140.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bochi, J.</span> \u2013 *The multiplicative ergodic theorem of Oseledets.* Note available at [www.mat.uc.cl/$\\sim$jairo.bochi/docs/oseledets.pdf](http://www.mat.uc.cl/~jairo.bochi/docs/oseledets.pdf) (2008).\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bochi, J.</span> \u2013 Ergodic optimization of Birkhoff averages and Lyapunov exponents. *Proc.\u00a0Int.\u00a0Cong.\u00a0of Math. \u2013 2018 Rio de Janeiro*, Vol.\u00a02, 1821\u20131842. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bochi, J.; Gourmelon, N.</span> \u2013 Some characterizations of domination. *Math.\u00a0Z.\u00a0*263 (2009), no.\u00a01, 221\u2013231.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bochi, J.; Morris, I.D.</span> \u2013 Continuity properties of the lower spectral radius. *Proc.\u00a0Lond.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0*110 (2015), no.\u00a02, 477\u2013509.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bochi, J.; Potrie, R.; Sambarino, A.</span> \u2013 Anosov representations and dominated splittings. *J.\u00a0Eur.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0*21 (2019), no.\u00a011, 3343\u20133414. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bochi, J.; Rams, M.</span> \u2013 The entropy of Lyapunov-optimizing measures of some matrix cocycles. *J.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Dyn.\u00a0*10 (2016), 255\u2013286.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bonatti, C.; D\u00edaz, L.J.; Viana, M.</span> \u2013 *Dynamics beyond uniform hyperbolicity. A global geometric and probabilistic perspective.* Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 102. Mathematical Physics, III. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bonatti, C.; G\u00f3mez-Mont, X.; Viana, M.</span> \u2013 G\u00e9n\u00e9ricit\u00e9 d\u2019exposants de Lyapunov non-nuls pour des produits d\u00e9terministes de matrices. *Ann.\u00a0Inst.\u00a0H.\u00a0Poincar\u00e9 Anal.\u00a0Non Lin\u00e9aire* 20 (2003), no.\u00a04, 579\u2013624.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bonatti, C.; Viana, M.</span> \u2013 Lyapunov exponents with multiplicity $1$ for deterministic products of matrices. *Ergodic Theory Dynam.\u00a0Systems* 24 (2004), no.\u00a05, 1295\u20131330.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bousch, T.</span> \u2013 La condition de Walters. *Ann.\u00a0Sci.\u00a0\u00c9cole Norm.\u00a0Sup.\u00a0*34 (2001), no.\u00a02, 287\u2013311.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bousch, T.</span> \u2013 Le lemme de Ma\u00f1\u00e9-Conze-Guivarc\u2019h pour les syst\u00e8mes amphidynamiques rectifiables. *Ann.\u00a0Fac.\u00a0Sci.\u00a0Toulouse Math.\u00a0*20 (2011), no.\u00a01, 114.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bousch, T.; Jenkinson, O.</span> \u2013 Cohomology classes of dynamically non-negative $C^k$ functions. *Invent.\u00a0Math.\u00a0*148 (2002), no.\u00a01, 207\u2013217.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bousch, T.; Mairesse, J.</span> \u2013 Asymptotic height optimization for topical IFS, Tetris heaps, and the finiteness conjecture. *J.\u00a0Amer.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0*15 (2002), no.\u00a01, 77\u2013111.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bowen, R.</span> \u2013 Periodic points and measures for Axiom A diffeomorphisms. *Trans.\u00a0Amer.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0*154 (1971), 377\u2013397.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Bressaud, X.; Quas, A.</span> \u2013 Rate of approximation of minimizing measures. *Nonlinearity* 20 (2007), no. 4, 845\u2013853.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Breuillard, E.; Fujiwara, K.</span> \u2013 On the joint spectral radius for isometries of non-positively curved spaces and uniform growth. [Preprint [arXiv:[1804.00748]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.00748)]{}\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Brin, M.I.; Pesin, Ja.B.</span> \u2013 Partially hyperbolic dynamical systems. (Russian) *Izv.\u00a0Akad.\u00a0Nauk SSSR Ser.\u00a0Mat.\u00a0*38 (1974), 170\u2013212.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Cicone, A.; Guglielmi, N.; Protasov, V.\u00a0Yu.</span> \u2013 Linear switched dynamical systems on graphs. *Nonlinear Anal.\u00a0Hybrid Syst.\u00a0*29 (2018), 165\u2013186.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Colonius, F.; Kliemann, W.</span> \u2013 *The dynamics of control.* Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications. Birkh\u00e4user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2000.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Contreras, G.</span> \u2013 Ground states are generically a periodic orbit. *Invent.\u00a0Math.\u00a0*205 (2016), no.\u00a02, 383\u2013412.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Contreras, G.; Lopes, A.O.; Thieullen, P.</span> \u2013 Lyapunov minimizing measures for expanding maps of the circle. *Ergodic Theory Dynam.\u00a0Systems* 21 (2001), no.\u00a05, 1379\u20131409.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Conze, J.P.; Guivarc\u2019h, Y.</span> \u2013 Croissance des sommes ergodiques et principe variationnel. Unpublished manuscript, circa 1993.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Coronel, D.; Navas, A.; Ponce, M.</span> \u2013 On bounded cocycles of isometries over minimal dynamics. *J.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Dyn.\u00a0*7 (2013), no.\u00a01, 45\u201374.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Crovisier, S.; Potrie, R.</span> \u2013 Introduction to partially hyperbolic dynamics. Notes ICTP, 2015.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Garibaldi, E.</span> \u2013 *Ergodic optimization in the expanding case: concepts, tools ad applications.* SpringerBriefs in Mathematics. Springer, Cham, 2017.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Garibaldi, E.; Gomes, J.T.A.</span> \u2013 Aubry set for asymptotically sub-additive potentials. *Stoch.\u00a0Dyn.\u00a0*16 (2016), no.\u00a02, 1660009, 13 pp.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Gourmelon, N.</span> \u2013 Adapted metrics for dominated splittings. *Ergodic Theory Dynam.\u00a0Systems* 27 (2007), no.\u00a06, 1839\u20131849.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Herman, M.-R.</span> \u2013 Une m\u00e9thode pour minorer les exposants de Lyapounov et quelques exemples montrant le caract\u00e8re local d\u2019un th\u00e9or\u00e8me d\u2019Arnol\u2019d et de Moser sur le tore de dimension $2$. *Comment.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Helv.\u00a0*58 (1983), no.\u00a03, 453\u2013502.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Hirsch, M.W.; Pugh, C.C.; Shub, M.</span> \u2013 *Invariant manifolds.* Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol.\u00a0583. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1977.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Jenkinson, O.</span> \u2013 Ergodic optimization. *Discrete Contin.\u00a0Dyn.\u00a0Syst.\u00a0*15 (2006), no.\u00a01, 197\u2013224.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Jenkinson, O.</span> \u2013 Ergodic optimization in dynamical systems. *Ergodic Theory Dynam.\u00a0Systems* 39 (2019), no.\u00a010, 2593\u20132618. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Jungers, R.M.</span> \u2013 *The joint spectral radius: theory and applications.* Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, 385. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Kalinin, B.</span> \u2013 Liv\u0161ic theorem for matrix cocycles. *Ann.\u00a0of Math.\u00a0*173 (2011), no.\u00a02, 1025\u20131042.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Kalinin, B.; Sadovskaya, V.</span> \u2013 Cocycles with one exponent over partially hyperbolic systems. *Geom.\u00a0Dedicata* 167 (2013), 167\u2013188.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Katok, A.; Hasselblatt, B.</span> \u2013 *Introduction to the modern theory of dynamical systems.* Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Katznelson, Y.</span> \u2013 *An introduction to harmonic analysis.* 2nd corrected edition. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Kozyakin, V.</span> \u2013 An explicit Lipschitz constant for the joint spectral radius. *Linear Algebra Appl.\u00a0*433 (2010), no.\u00a01, 12\u201318.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Krengel, U.</span> \u2013 *Ergodic theorems.* de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics, 6. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1985.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Lopes, A.O.; Thieullen, P.</span> \u2013 Sub-actions for Anosov diffeomorphisms. Geometric methods in dynamics. II. *Ast\u00e9risque* No.\u00a0287 (2003), xix, 135\u2013146.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Mather, J.N.</span> \u2013 Action minimizing invariant measures for positive definite Lagrangian systems. *Math.\u00a0Z.\u00a0*207 (1991), no.\u00a02, 169\u2013207.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Morris, I.D.</span> \u2013 A sufficient condition for the subordination principle in ergodic optimization. *Bull.\u00a0Lond.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0*39 (2007), no.\u00a02, 214\u2013220.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Morris, I.D.</span> \u2013 A rapidly-converging lower bound for the joint spectral radius via multiplicative ergodic theory. *Adv.\u00a0Math.\u00a0*225 (2010), no.\u00a06, 3425\u20133445.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Morris, I.D.</span> \u2013 Mather sets for sequences of matrices and applications to the study of joint spectral radii. *Proc.\u00a0Lond.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0*(3) 107 (2013), no.\u00a01, 121\u2013150.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Oreg\u00f3n-Reyes, E.</span> \u2013 A new inequality about matrix products and a Berger-Wang formula. [Preprint [arXiv:[1710.00639]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00639)]{}\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Pesin, Ya.</span> \u2013 *Lectures on partial hyperbolicity and stable ergodicity.* Zurich Lectures in Advanced Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Z\u00fcrich, 2004.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Philippe, M.; Essick, R.; Dullerud, G.E.; Jungers, R.M.</span> \u2013 Stability of discrete-time switching systems with constrained switching sequences. *Automatica* 72 (2016), 242\u2013250.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Pinto, A.A.; Rand, D.A.</span> \u2013 Smoothness of holonomies for codimension $1$ hyperbolic dynamics. *Bull.\u00a0London Math.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0*34 (2002), no.\u00a03, 341\u2013352.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Pugh, C.</span> \u2013 On arbitrary sequences of isomorphisms in $R^m \\to R^m$. *Trans.\u00a0Amer.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0*184 (1973), 387\u2013400.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Pugh, C.; Shub, M.; Wilkinson, A.</span> \u2013 H\u00f6lder foliations. *Duke Math.\u00a0J.\u00a0*86 (1997), no.\u00a03, 517\u2013546. Correction: ibid.\u00a0105 (2000), no.\u00a01, 105\u2013106.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Pugh, C.; Shub, M.; Wilkinson, A.</span> \u2013 H\u00f6lder foliations, revisited. *J.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Dyn.\u00a0*6 (2012), no.\u00a01, 79\u2013120.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Qiu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, C.-K.</span> \u2013 Unitarily invariant metrics on the Grassmann space. *SIAM J.\u00a0Matrix Anal.\u00a0Appl.\u00a0*27 (2005), no.\u00a02, 507\u2013531.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Rota, G.-C.; Strang, G.</span> \u2013 A note on the joint spectral radius. *Indag.\u00a0Math.\u00a0*22 (1960), 379\u2013381.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Ruelle, D.</span> \u2013 *Thermodynamic formalism.* Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, 5. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass., 1978.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Sakai, K.</span> \u2013 Shadowing properties of [$\\mathcal{L}$]{}-hyperbolic homeomorphisms. *Topology Appl.\u00a0*112 (2001), no.\u00a03, 229\u2013243.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Savchenko, S.V.</span> \u2013 Homological inequalities for finite topological Markov chains. *Funct.\u00a0Anal.\u00a0Appl.\u00a0*33 (1999), no.\u00a03, 236\u2013238.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Schmeling, J.; Siegmund-Schultze, R.</span> \u2013 H\u00f6lder continuity of the holonomy maps for hyperbolic basic sets I. *Ergodic theory and related topics, III (G\u00fcstrow, 1990)*, 174\u2013191, Lecture Notes in Math., 1514, Springer, Berlin, 1992.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Sigmund, K.</span> \u2013 On minimal centers of attraction and generic points. *J.\u00a0Reine Angew.\u00a0Math.\u00a0*295 (1977), 72\u201379.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Smale, S.</span> \u2013 Differentiable dynamical systems. *Bull.\u00a0Amer.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0*73 (1967), 747\u2013817.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Stewart, G.W.</span> \u2013 *Matrix algorithms. Vol.\u00a0I: Basic decompositions.* SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1998.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Viana, M.</span> \u2013 Almost all cocycles over any hyperbolic system have nonvanishing Lyapunov exponents. *Ann.\u00a0of Math.\u00a0*167 (2008), no.\u00a02, 643\u2013680.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Walters, P.</span> \u2013 *An introduction to ergodic theory.* Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 79. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1982.\n\n<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Wirth, F.</span> \u2013 The generalized spectral radius and extremal norms. *Linear Algebra Appl.\u00a0*342 (2002), 17\u201340.\n\nJairo Bochi\n\nFacultad de Matem\u00e1ticas, Pontificia Universidad Cat\u00f3lica de Chile\n\n[www.mat.uc.cl/$\\sim$jairo.bochi](http://www.mat.uc.cl/~jairo.bochi)\n\n<jairo.bochi@mat.uc.cl>\n\nEduardo Garibaldi\n\nIMECC, Unicamp\n\n[www.ime.unicamp.br/$\\sim$garibaldi](http://www.ime.unicamp.br/~garibaldi/)\n\n<garibaldi@ime.unicamp.br>\n\n[^1]: Beware that other definitions of Finsler norms appear in the literature; here the main point is that the norm is not necessarily induced by inner products (i.e.\u00a0\u201cRiemannian\u201d).\n\n[^2]: On the other hand, one can always construct \u201calmost-extremal\u201d norms, i.e., norms for which the inequality is an approximate equality, and such norms can be taken Riemannian. Furthermore, it is possible to find a Riemannian norm with respect to which all the singular values of the linear maps $\\Phi_x$ (and not only the first) are suitably controlled: see [@Bochi_ICM Prop.\u00a04.1].\n\n[^3]: More generally, one could consider (possibly infinite) bounded sets of (possibly non-invertible) square matrices.\n\n[^4]: The pair of matrices is one such example.\n\n[^5]: This is similar to the definition of *$\\theta$-bounded vertical shear* in [@PSW2].\n\n[^6]: The term and the notation come from [@Pugh; @PSW1]. In numerical analysis, the bolicity is called *condition number*.\n\n[^7]: See \\[ss.Mather\\_dom\\] for the definition and properties of dominated splittings\n\n[^8]: The naive attempt of defining an extremal norm by ${\\mathopen{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |} {u}\n    \\mathclose{| {\\kern -1.5pt} | {\\kern -1.5pt} |}} \\coloneqq \\sup_{n\\ge 0} e^{-\\beta(\\Phi) n}\\|\\Phi^n(u)\\|$ does not necessarily work because continuity may fail.\n\n[^9]: A similar loss of exponent also appears in the first version of Ma\u00f1\u00e9 Lemma for Anosov diffeomorphisms, obtained by Lopes and Thieullen [@LopesT]. Later, Bousch [@Bousch_amphi] obtained a stronger Ma\u00f1\u00e9 Lemma without loss of exponent. However, it is unclear whether Bousch\u2019s strategy can be applied in our setting.\n\n[^10]: A different construction that provides the additional property $(I_{y \\gets x})^{-1} = I_{x \\gets y}$ (for sufficiently close $x$, $y$) can be found in [@KalSad p.\u00a0169]; however, we will not need that property.\n\n[^11]: Incidentally, note that if the John ellipsoid were monotonic with respect to set inclusion, then we could use it to \u201cRiemannize\u201d any given Finsler extremal norm. However, monotonicity fails: consider for instance a pair of rectangles as in \\[f.MO\\].\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We study a class of topological black hole solutions in RSII braneworld scenario in the presence of a localized Maxwell field on the brane. Such a black hole can carry two types of charge, one arising from the extra dimension, the tidal charge, and the other one from a localized gauge field confined to the brane. We find that the localized charge on the brane modifies the bulk geometry and in particular the bulk Weyl tensor. The bulk geometry does not depend on different topologies of the horizons. We present the temperature and entropy expressions associated with the event horizon of the braneworld black hole and by using the first law of black hole thermodynamics we calculate the mass of the black hole.'\naddress: |\n    $^1$Department of Physics, Shahid Bahonar University, P.O. Box 76175, Kerman, Iran\\\n    $^2$Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM), Maragha, Iran\\\n    $^3$ Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China\nauthor:\n- 'Ahmad Sheykhi $^{1,2}$[^1] and Bin Wang $^{3}$[^2]'\ntitle: On topological charged braneworld black holes\n---\n\nIn the past years there has been a lot of interest in the braneworld scenario, based on the assumption that all gauge fields in standard model of particle physics are confined on a $3$-brane, playing the role of our $4$-dimensional universe, embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime, while the gravitational field, in contrast, is usually considered to live in the whole spacetime. The first picture appeared in braneworld scenarios was the second Randall-Sundrum model (RSII) in which, our universe observed as a positive tension $3$-brane embedded in a $5$-dimensional anti de-Sitter bulk [@RS]. In this model the localization of gravity happens on the brane due to the negative bulk cosmological constant and the cross over between $4$-dimensional and $5$-dimensional gravity is set by the anti de-Sitter radius. Within the context of the RSII scenario, it is important that the induced metric on the brane is, in the low energy regime, the solution predicted by standard general relativity in four dimensions. Otherwise the usual astrophysical properties of black holes and stars would not be recovered. Therefore it is natural to assume the formation of black hole in the braneworld due to gravitational collapse of matter trapped on the brane. In fact, the construction and study of black hole solutions on the brane has been one of the most important and intriguing challenge in braneworld physics. There are several reasons why this problem is so challenging. First, the effective gravitational field equation on the brane is not the usual Einstein one but contains higher correction terms due to the nonlocal bulk effects on the brane and therefore is more complicated compared with the usual gravitational field equations. Second, even one finds the solution of the effective gravitational field equations on the brane, one can not regard it as a braneworld black hole solution. One can just consider this solution as an initial data for the evolution of the brane into the bulk. The first attack on this problem was done by Chamblin, Hawking and Reall who investigated the gravitational collapse of uncharged, non-rotating matter in RSII braneworld model [@Cham1]. They showed that a static uncharged black hole on the brane is described by a \u201cblack cigar\" solution in five dimensions. If this cigar extends all the way down to the anti-de Sitter horizon, then we recover the metric for a black string in anti-de Sitter spacetime. However, such a black string is unstable near the anti-de Sitter horizon [@Gre1; @Gre2]. An exact braneworld black hole solution satisfies a closed system of effective gravitational field equations on the brane, describing an uncharged black hole in the RSII scenario was obtained in [@Dad]. By using the braneworld gravitational field equations derived in [@Shi], it was shown that a Reissner-Nordstrom geometry could arise on the brane provided that the bulk Weyl tensor takes a particular form. The solution in [@Dad] carries a \u201ctidal charge\", arising from the projection of the bulk free gravitational field effects onto the brane. However, it was argued in [@Cham2] that although the solution in [@Dad] was claimed to describe an uncharged black hole, one can not regard it as a braneworld black hole solution. One can just consider this solution as an initial data for the evolution of the brane into the bulk. Until this evolution is performed and boundary conditions in the bulk are imposed, it is not clear what this solution represents. For example, it might give rise to some pathology such as a naked curvature singularity. Therefore the main problem remains in the braneworld black hole physics is to study the effect of the braneworld black hole on the bulk geometry, and in particular the nature of the off-brane horizon structure. Indeed, the analytical solution for the bulk spacetime has not been found until now. The numerical calculations on the bulk geometry in the case of charged and uncharged braneworld black holes have been investigated in [@Cham2] and [@Shibata], respectively. Other attempts on the study of braneworld black holes and their physical properties have been carried out in [@Cas1; @Cas2; @Bro; @Gre3; @Ali; @kof; @Bwang; @Bwang2; @Yosh; @Yosh2].\n\nThe purpose of the present Letter is to tackle the first problem mentioned above in the braneworld black hole physics. We will consider the Maxwell gauge fields confined onto the brane. Employing a simple strategy, we solve gravitational field equations on the brane and obtain the charged topological braneworld black hole solutions. Our solution is the generalization of [@Cham2] to different horizon topologies. We also present the temperature and entropy expressions associated with the event horizon of the braneworld black hole and calculate the mass of the black hole by using the first law of black hole thermodynamics. Since the flux lines of gauge fields can pierce the horizon only when they intersect the brane, our bulk theory is the same as that of the uncharged case and one might expect that the \u201cblack cigar\" solution still describes the bulk containing the charged braneworld black hole. Here we will not repeat the discussion on the bulk metric, since we see that the bulk geometry does not depend on different topologies of the horizons, thus our bulk metric is the same as that discussed in [@Cham2] for the spherically symmetric braneworld black hole.\n\nWe start with the effective field equations on a 3-brane embedded in the 5-dimensional anti de-Sitter spacetime with $\\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry expressed as [@Shi] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eqn}\nG_{\\mu\\nu}=-\\Lambda g_{\\mu\\nu} +8\\pi G\nT_{\\mu\\nu}+\\kappa_5^4\\pi_{\\mu\\nu}-E_{\\mu\\nu},\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\nG&=&\\frac{\\kappa^4_5}{48\\pi} \\lambda,  \\hspace{0.7cm}\n\\Lambda=\\frac{\\kappa_5^2}{2}\\Bigl(\n\\Lambda_5+\\frac{\\kappa_5^2}{6}\\lambda^2\n\\Bigr).\\\\\\end{aligned}$$ Here $\\kappa_5$ and $\\Lambda_5$ are, respectively, the five-dimensional gravity coupling constant and cosmological constant. The factor $\\Lambda$ is the effective cosmological constant on the brane, $\\lambda$ is the brane tension, and $T_{\\mu\\nu}$ is the stress energy tensor confined onto the brane, so $T_{AB}\\,n^B=0$, where $n^A$ is the unit normal to the brane. The first correction term relative to Einstein\u2019s gravity is the inclusion of a quadratic term $\\pi_{\\mu\\nu}$ in the stress-energy tensor, arising from the extrinsic curvature term in the projected Einstein tensor, and is given by $$\\pi_{\\mu\\nu}=\\frac{1}{12}T T_{\\mu\\nu}-\\frac{1}{4}\nT_{\\mu\\alpha}T_{\\nu}^{\\ \\alpha}{}+\n\\frac{1}{8}\\,g_{\\mu\\nu}\\left(T_{\\alpha\\beta}T^{\\alpha\\beta}-\\frac{1}{3}T^2\n\\right) \\,.\n    \\label{inducedEFE}$$ The second correction term, ${E}_{\\mu\\nu}$, is the projection of the five-dimensional bulk Weyl tensor onto the brane, which is defined as $ E_{\\mu\\nu} = {}^{(5)}C_{\\mu\\alpha\\nu\\beta} n^\\alpha\nn^\\beta $ and encompasses the nonlocal bulk effect. The only general known property of this nonlocal term is that it is traceless, namely ${ E}^{\\mu}{}_{\\mu}=0$. Using the traceless property of the projected Weyl tensor, Eq. (\\[eqn\\]) can be simplified into $$\\label{R}\nR=4\\Lambda-8\\pi G \\,T-\n\\frac{\\kappa_5^4}{4}\\left(T_{\\alpha\\beta}T^{\\alpha\\beta}-\\frac{1}{3}\nT^2 \\right) \\,.$$ We would like to find the topological black hole solutions of the field equations (\\[eqn\\]). We assume the induced metric on the brane in the form $$\\label{metric}\nds^2=-f(r)dt^2 +{dr^2\\over f(r)}+ r^2d\\Omega_{k}^2 ,$$ where $d\\Omega_{k}^2$ is the line element of a two-dimensional hypersurface $\\Sigma$ with constant curvature, $$\\label{met}\nd\\Omega_k^2=\\left\\{\n  \\begin{array}{ll}\n    $$d\\theta^2+\\sin^2\\theta d\\phi^2$$,\\quad \\quad\\!\\!{\\rm for}\\quad $$k=1$$, &  \\\\\n    $$d\\theta^2+\\theta^2 d\\phi^2$$,\\quad\\quad\\quad {\\rm for}\\quad $$k=0$$,&  \\\\\n    $$d\\theta^2+\\sinh^2\\theta d\\phi^2$$, \\quad {\\rm for}\\quad $$k=-1$$.&\n  \\end{array}\n\\right.$$ For $k = 1$, the topology of the event horizon is the two-sphere $S^2$, and the spacetime has the topology $R^2 \\times S^2$. For $k\n= 0$, the topology of the event horizon is a torus and the spacetime has the topology $R^2 \\times T^2$. For $k = -1$, the surface $\\Sigma$ is a two-dimensional hypersurface $H^2$ with constant negative curvature. In this case the topology of spacetime is $R^2 \\times H^2$. It is not necessary to take the exact metric describing a topological braneworld black hole in the form (6). In general one may expect that $g_{rr}\\neq -\n{g_{tt}}^{-1}$. But, it is well known that the induced metric describing a charged black hole should be close to Reissner-Nordstrom metric, so our ansatz for the braneworld black hole metric is a good guess [@Cham2].\n\nAssuming the localized gauge field on the brane is the Maxwell field with action $$S = -\\frac{1}{16 \\pi G} \\int d^4 x \\sqrt{-g} F_{\\mu\\nu}\nF^{\\mu\\nu}.$$ The corresponding localized energy-momentum tensor on the brane can be written as $$\\label{Tem}\nT_{\\mu\\nu} = \\frac{1}{4\\pi G} \\left(F_{\\mu \\rho} F_{\\nu}\\,^{\\rho}\n- \\frac{1}{4} g_{\\mu\\nu} F_{\\rho\\sigma} F^{\\rho\\sigma} \\right).$$ which is traceless, satisfying $T=T_{\\mu}^{\\ \\mu}=0$. We also assume that there is a localized static point charge on the brane which produces an electric field $$\\label{Ftr}\nF_{tr}=\\frac{q}{r^2},$$ where $q$ is the charge parameter. Using metric (\\[metric\\]), the electric field (\\[Ftr\\]) and Eq. (\\[Tem\\]) for the total energy-momentum tensor localized on the brane, one can show that Eq. (\\[R\\]) has a solution of the form $$\\label{f}\nf(r)=k-{\\frac {2m}{r}}-\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}{r}^2+{\\frac\n{\\beta+q^2}{{r}^{2}}}+{\\frac {1}{240}}\\,{\\frac\n{{\\kappa_5}^{4}{q}^{4}}{{r}^{6}}},$$ where $m$ and $\\beta$ are arbitrary integration constants and we have assumed $4\\pi G =1$, for simplicity. Although in [@Dad], $\\beta>0$ has been interpreted as a tidal charge associated with the bulk Weyl tensor, in the presence of localized charge on the brane, it is quite possible to take $\\beta<0$ as pointed out in [@Cham2]. Indeed, the projected Weyl tensor, transmits the tidal charge stresses from the bulk to the brane. One may also interpret $\\beta$ as a five-dimensional mass parameter [@Cham2]. The horizons can be found by solving Eq. $f(r)=0$. This equation cannot be solved analytically except for $q=0$. The event horizon of the charged braneworld black hole locates at $r_{+}$ where $r=r_{+}$ is the largest root of equation $f(r)=0$. Inserting solution (\\[f\\]) into field equations (\\[eqn\\]), we obtain the components of the five-dimensional bulk Weyl tensor. The result is $$\\label{weyl}\nE^{t}_{\\ t}=E^{r}_{\\ r}=-E^{i}_{\\\ni}=\\frac{\\beta}{r^4}+\\frac{1}{24}\\frac{\\kappa_5^4 q^4}{r^8},$$ where $i=1,2$. Clearly the traceless nature of the Weyl tensor is obeyed. Eqs. (\\[eqn\\]) with solutions (\\[f\\]) and (\\[weyl\\]) form a closed system of equations on the brane.\n\nSome discussions on our solution are needed. In the special case $k=1$ and $\\Lambda=0$, $q=0$, our solution (11) reduces to the uncharged braneworld black hole solution found in [@Dad]. In the case $k=1$ and $\\Lambda=0$, our solution (11) reduces to the charged black hole solution presented in [@Cham2]. With the presence of the charge on the brane, the bulk geometry has to change, since now $T_{\\mu\\nu}\\neq0$. In other words, the localized charge on the brane will induce changes in the bulk geometry and therefore modifies the bulk Weyl tensor. This property keeps for different topologies of the horizon. Further from Eq. (\\[weyl\\]) we see that the horizon topology of the braneworld black hole does not affect the bulk geometry and therefore the bulk Weyl tensor is independent of the constant curvature $k$.\n\nIn the following we are going to calculate the conserved and thermodynamic quantities of the braneworld black hole. We will adopt a simple strategy based on the profound connection between gravity and thermodynamics which has recently been revealed in various gravity theories [@Jac]-[@Sheywang], showing the deep correspondence between the gravitational equation describing the gravity in the bulk and the first law of thermodynamics on the apparent horizon. This connection sheds the light on holography since the gravitation equations persist the information in the bulk while the first law of thermodynamics on the apparent horizon contains the information on the boundary. Besides, this connection was shown as a useful tool to extract the entropy of the braneworld. In the general case, gravity on the brane does not obey the Einstein theory and the usual area formula for the black hole entropy does not hold on the brane. The relation between the braneworld black hole horizon entropy and its geometry is not known. It was argued in [@Shey1; @Shey2] that the entropy associated with the apparent horizon on the brane can be extracted from the obtained gravity and thermodynamics correspondence. The entropy and temperature associated with the apparent horizon of the FRW universe on the brane, in the RSII braneworld model, are found in [@Cai4; @Shey1] with form $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{S}\n S&=&\\frac{2 \\pi \\ell\n}{G_{5}}{\\displaystyle\\int^{\\tilde r_A}_0\\frac{\\tilde{r}_A^{2}\n}{\\sqrt{\\tilde{r}_A^2+\\ell^2}}d\\tilde{r}_A}\n=\\frac{2\\pi{\\tilde{r}_A}^{3}}{3G_{5}}\n \\times\n{}_2F_1\\left(\\frac{3}{2},\\frac{1}{2},\\frac{5}{2},\n-\\frac{{\\tilde{r}_A}^2}{\\ell^2}\\right),\\\\\nT&=&\\frac{1}{2\\pi {\\tilde{r}_A}},\\label{T}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\tilde{r}_A$ is the apparent horizon radius and $\\ell$ is the AdS radius of the bulk spacetime which is related to the bulk cosmological constant. Here ${}_2F_1(a,b,c,z)$ is a hypergeometric function and $G_{5}=\\kappa_{5}^2/8\\pi$ is the gravitational constant in five dimensions. Recently, we have shown that the extracted apparent horizon entropy, given in Eq. (\\[S\\]), satisfies the generalized second law of thermodynamics [@Sheywang]. The satisfaction of the generalized second law of thermodynamics further supports that the entropy (13) is a reasonable thermodynamical entropy describing the brane.\n\nNow we suppose that the temperature and entropy formula (\\[S\\]) and (\\[T\\]) also hold on the event horizon of the black hole on the brane. Replacing the apparent horizon radius $\\tilde r_A$ by the black hole horizon radius $r_{+}$, we have the temperature and entropy on the event horizon of the braneworld black hole $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{S2}\nS&=&\\frac{2 \\pi \\ell\n}{G_{5}}{\\displaystyle\\int^{r_{+}}_0\\frac{r_{+}^{2}\n}{\\sqrt{r_{+}^2+\\ell^2}}dr_{+}}=\\frac{2\\pi{r_{+}}^{3}}{3G_{5}}\n \\times\n{}_2F_1\\left(\\frac{3}{2},\\frac{1}{2},\\frac{5}{2},\n-\\frac{r_{+}^2}{\\ell^2}\\right),\\\\\nT&=&\\frac{1}{2\\pi r_{+}}.\\label{T2}\\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (16) is exactly the Hawking temperature on the event horizon. The validity of (15) to describe the event horizon entropy of the braneworld black hole can be justified by considering its limiting case with $\\tilde{r}_{+} \\ll\\ell$. Physically this limit means that the size of extra dimension is very large if compared with the black hole event horizon radius. In this limit Eq. (15) reduces to the five-dimensional area formula for the black hole entropy $S =2\\Omega_{3}{\\tilde{r}_+}^{3}/4G_{5}$, where $\\Omega_{3}=4\\pi/3$ is the volume of a unit sphere. The factor $2$ comes from the $\\mathbb{Z}_2$ symmetry in the bulk. This is an expected result since in this regime the anti de-Sitter bulk reduces to the Minkowski spacetime. And due to the absence of the negative cosmological constant in the Minkowski bulk, no localization of gravity happens on the brane. Thus the gravity on the brane is still five-dimensional and the entropy formula on the black hole event horizon obeys the five-dimensional area formula [@Shey1].\n\nAdopting the first law of black hole thermodynamics on the event horizon $r_{+}$ and considering that the electric charge of black hole does not affect its mass, we just need to discuss the uncharged case with the first law $$\\label{frst}\ndM=TdS.$$ Integrating (\\[frst\\]) and inserting (\\[S2\\]) and (\\[T2\\]), we obtain the mass of the braneworld black hole $$\\label{mass2}\nM=\\frac{\\ell}{G_{5}}\\int^{r_{+}}_0 \\frac{ r_{+}d\nr_{+}}{\\sqrt{r_{+}^2+\\ell^2}}=\\frac{\\ell}{G_{5}}\\left(\\sqrt{r_{+}^2+\\ell^2}-\\ell\n\\right).$$ It is interesting to see that in the limiting case $\\tilde{r}_{+}\n\\ll\\ell$, the mass formula (\\[mass2\\]) reduces to $$\\label{mass3}\nM=\\frac{r_{+}^2}{2 G_{5}},$$ which is exactly the mass of the five-dimensional black hole in Einstein gravity.\n\nIn conclusion, we have obtained a class of topological black hole solutions in RSII braneworld scenario in the presence of a localized Maxwell field on the brane. We have shown that the localized charge on the brane modifies the bulk geometry and in particular the bulk Weyl tensor. The horizon topology of the braneworld black holes does not affect the geometry of extra dimension. We presented the temperature and entropy expressions associated with the event horizon of the braneworld black hole. We also obtained the mass of the braneworld black holes through the use of the first law of black hole thermodynamics.\n\nWe would like to mention here that in this Letter we have not studied fully the effect of the braneworld black hole on the bulk geometry, and in particular the nature of the off-brane horizon structure. This has been done for solutions which reduce to the Schwarzschild black hole on the brane [@Cham1]. We have adopted a different approach: instead of starting from an induced metric on the brane, we have solved the closed system of the effective field equations for the induced metric on the brane in RSII model, and found a class of topological braneworld black holes. Therefore the main problem remains to find the exact bulk metric that describes a topological braneworld black hole. This was solved for uncharged black holes in three dimensions [@Emp]. Unfortunately, the higher dimensional generalization of this metric is still not known. In general the bulk spacetime may be given, by solving the full five-dimensional equations, and the geometry of the embedded brane is then deduced. Due to the complexity of the five-dimensional equations, one may follow the strategy outlined in this Letter, by considering the intrinsic geometry on the brane, which encompasses the imprint from the bulk, and consequently evolve the metric off the brane. However, in this Letter we did not study the effects of the braneworld black hole on the bulk geometry, and in particular the nature of the topological horizon structure in the bulk. Indeed, determining the bulk geometry is an extremely difficult task which needs numerical calculations, so it was not explored here.\n\n[99]{} L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999). A. Chamblin, S.W. Hawking and H.S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D [**61**]{}, 065007 (2000).\n\nR. Gregory and R. Laflamme, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2837 (1993). R. Gregory, Class. Quantum Grav. [**17**]{}, L125 (2000).\n\nN. Dadhich, R. Maartens, P. Papadopoulos and V. Rezania, Phys. Lett. B [**487**]{}, 1 (2000).\n\nT.\u00a0Shiromizu, K.\u00a0Maeda and M.\u00a0Sasaki, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 024012 (2000).\n\nA. Chamblin, H. S. Reall, H. Shinkai and T. Shiromizu, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 064015 (2001).\n\nT. Shiromizu and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 127502 (2000).\n\nR. Casadio, A. Fabbri and L. Mazzacurati, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 084040 (2002). R. Casadio and L. Mazzacurati, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**18**]{}, 651 (2003). K. A. Bronnikov, H. Dehnen, V. N. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 024025 (2003). R. Gregory, R. Whisker, K. Beckwith and C. Done, JCAP [**0410**]{}, 013 (2003). A. N. Aliev, A. E. Gumrukcuoglu, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 104027 (2005). G. Kofinas, E. Papantonopoulos and V. Zamarias, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 104028 (2002).\n\nL.H. Liu, B. Wang, G. H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 064014 (2007). J. Shen, B. Wang, R. K. Su, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{}, 044036 (2006).\n\nH. Kudoh, T. Tanaka and T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{}, 024035 (2003). H. Yoshino, JHEP [**0901**]{}, 068 (2009).\n\nT. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1260 (1995).\n\nC. Eling, R. Guedens, and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 121301 (2006). M. Akbar and R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B [**635**]{}, 7 (2006) . M.\u00a0Akbar and R.\u00a0G.\u00a0Cai, Phys. Lett. B [**648**]{}, 243 (2007).\n\nT. Padmanabhan, Class. Quant. Grav. [**19**]{}, 5387 (2002). T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. [**406**]{}, 49 (2005). A.\u00a0Paranjape, S.\u00a0Sarkar and T.\u00a0Padmanabhan, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**74**]{}, 104015 (2006). T.\u00a0Padmanabhan and A.\u00a0Paranjape, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{} (2007) 064004. S. F. Wu, B. Wang, and G. H Yang, Nucl. Phys. B [**799**]{} (2008) 330.\n\nM.\u00a0Akbar and R.\u00a0G.\u00a0Cai, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 084003 (2007). R.\u00a0G.\u00a0Cai and L.\u00a0M.\u00a0Cao, Phys.Rev. D [**75**]{}, 064008 (2007).\n\nR. G. Cai and S. P. Kim, JHEP [**0502**]{}, 050 (2005). R. G. Cai, L.M. Cao, Y.P. Hu, arXiv: 0809.1554.\n\nA. V. Frolov and L. Kofman, JCAP [**0305**]{}, 009 (2003). U. K. Danielsson, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 023516(2005) . R. Bousso, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{}, 064024 (2005). G. Calcagni, JHEP [**0509**]{}, 060 (2005). B. Wang, E. Abdalla and R. K. Su, Phys.Lett. B [**503**]{}, 394 (2001). B. Wang, E. Abdalla and R. K. Su, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**17**]{}, 23 (2002). R.\u00a0G.\u00a0Cai and Y.\u00a0S.\u00a0Myung, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**67**]{}, 124021 (2003). R.\u00a0G.\u00a0Cai and L.\u00a0M.\u00a0Cao, Nucl. Phys. B [**785**]{} (2007) 135.\n\nA. Sheykhi, B. Wang and R. G. Cai, Nucl. Phys. B [**779**]{} (2007)1. A. Sheykhi, B. Wang and R. G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 023515.\n\nA. Sheykhi, B. Wang, arXiv:0811.4477. A. Sheykhi, B. Wang, arXiv:0811.4478.\n\nR.\u00a0Emparan, G.\u00a0T.\u00a0Horowitz, and R.\u00a0C.\u00a0Myers, JHEP [**0001**]{}, 007 (2000).\n\n[^1]: sheykhi@mail.uk.ac.ir\n\n[^2]: wangb@fudan.edu.cn\n"}
-{"text": "**Persistence of Chaos in Coupled Lorenz Systems**\n\n**Mehmet Onur Fen**\\\n***Basic Sciences Unit, TED University, 06420 Ankara, Turkey***\\\n***E-mail: monur.fen@gmail.com, Tel: +90 312 585 0217***\\\n\n**Abstract**\n\nThe dynamics of unidirectionally coupled chaotic Lorenz systems is investigated. It is revealed that chaos is present in the response system regardless of generalized synchronization. The presence of sensitivity is theoretically proved, and the auxiliary system approach and conditional Lyapunov exponents are utilized to demonstrate the absence of synchronization. Periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor of the response system is demonstrated by taking advantage of a period-doubling cascade of the drive. The obtained results may shed light on the global unpredictability of the weather dynamics and can be useful for investigations concerning coupled Lorenz lasers.\n\n**Keywords:** Lorenz system; Persistence of chaos; Sensitivity; Period-doubling cascade; Generalized synchronization\n\nIntroduction {#lorenz_intro}\n============\n\nChaos theory, whose foundations were laid by Poincar\u00e9 [@Poincare57], has attracted a great deal of attention beginning with the studies of Lorenz [@Lorenz60; @Lorenz63]. A mathematical model consisting of a system of three ordinary differential equations were introduced by Lorenz [@Lorenz63] in order to investigate the dynamics of the atmosphere. This model is a simplification of the one derived by Saltzman [@Saltzman62] which originate from the Rayleigh-B\u00e9nard convection. The demonstration of sensitivity in the Lorenz system can be considered as a milestone in the theory of dynamical systems. Nowadays, this property is considered as the main ingredient of chaos [@Wiggins88].\n\nA remarkable behavior of coupled chaotic systems is the synchronization [@Fujisaka83]-[@Rulkov95]. This concept was studied for identical systems in [@Pecora90] and was generalized to non-identical systems by Rulkov et al. [@Rulkov95]. Generalized synchronization (GS) is characterized by the existence of a transformation from the trajectories of the drive to the trajectories of the response. A necessary and sufficient condition concerning the asymptotic stability of the response system for the presence of GS was mentioned in [@Kocarev96], and some numerical techniques were developed in the papers [@Rulkov95; @Abarbanel96] for its detection.\n\nEven though coupled chaotic systems exhibiting GS have been widely investigated in the literature, the presence of chaos in the dynamics of the response system is still questionable in the absence of GS. The main goal of the present study is the verification of the persistence of chaos in unidirectionally coupled Lorenz systems even if they are not synchronized in the generalized sense. We rigorously prove that sensitivity is a permanent feature of the response system, and we numerically demonstrate the existence of unstable periodic orbits embedded in the chaotic attractor of the response benefiting from a period-doubling cascade [@Franceschini80] of the drive. Conditional Lyapunov exponents [@Pecora90] and auxiliary system approach [@Abarbanel96] are utilized to show the absence of GS. Our results reveal that the chaos of the drive system does not annihilate the chaos of the response, i.e., the response remains to be unpredictable under the applied perturbation.\n\nThe usage of exogenous perturbations to generate chaos in coupled systems was proposed in the studies [@Akh1]-[@Akh6]. In particular, the paper [@Akhmet2015] was concerned with the extension of sensitivity and periodic motions in unidirectionally coupled Lorenz systems in which the response system is initially non-chaotic, i.e., it either admits an asymptotically stable equilibrium or an orbitally stable periodic orbit in the absence of the driving. However, in the present study, we investigate the dynamics of coupled Lorenz systems in which the response system is chaotic in the absence of the driving.\n\nAnother issue that was considered in [@Akhmet2015] is the global unpredictable behavior of the weather dynamics. We made an effort in [@Akhmet2015] to answer the question *why the weather is unpredictable at each point of the Earth* on the basis of Lorenz systems. This subject was discussed by assuming that the whole atmosphere of the Earth is partitioned in a finite number of subregions such that in each of them the dynamics of the weather is governed by the Lorenz system with certain coefficients. It was further assumed that there are subregions for which the corresponding Lorenz systems admit chaos with the main ingredient as sensitivity, which means unpredictability of weather in the meteorological sense, and there are subregions in which the Lorenz systems are non-chaotic. It was demonstrated in [@Akhmet2015] that if a subregion with a chaotic dynamics influences another one with a non-chaotic dynamics, then the latter also becomes unpredictable. The present study takes the results obtained in [@Akhmet2015] a step further such that the interaction of two subregions whose dynamics are both governed by chaotic Lorenz systems lead to the persistence of unpredictability.\n\nThe rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \\[LorenzSec2\\], the model of coupled Lorenz systems is introduced. Section \\[theory\\] is devoted to the theoretical discussion of the sensitivity feature in the response system. Section \\[simulations\\], on the other hand, is concerned with the numerical analyses of coupled Lorenz systems for the persistence of chaos as well as the absence of GS. The existence of unstable periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor of the response is demonstrated in Section \\[Lorenzzpdc\\]. Some concluding remarks are given in Section \\[Lorenz\\_Conc\\], and finally, the proof of the main theorem concerning sensitivity is provided in the Appendix.\n\nThe model {#LorenzSec2}\n=========\n\nConsider the following Lorenz system [@Lorenz63] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{array}{l} \\label{lorenz_system}\n\\dot{x}_1 = -\\sigma x_1 + \\sigma x_2 \\\\\n\\dot{x}_2 = - x_1x_3 +rx_1 -x_2\\\\\n\\dot{x}_3 = x_1x_2-bx_3,\n\\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\sigma$, $r$, and $b$ are constants.\n\nSystem (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) has a rich dynamics such that for different values of the parameters $\\sigma,$ $r$ and $b,$ the system can exhibit stable periodic orbits, homoclinic explosions, period-doubling bifurcations, and chaotic attractors [@Sparrow82]. In the remaining parts of the paper, we suppose that the dynamics of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) is chaotic, i.e., the system admits sensitivity and infinitely many unstable periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor. In this case, (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) possesses a compact invariant set $\\Lambda \\subset \\mathbb R^3.$\n\nNext, we take into account another Lorenz system, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{array}{l} \\label{nonperturbed_lorenz_system}\n\\dot{u}_1 = - \\overline{\\sigma} u_1 + \\overline{\\sigma} u_2 \\\\\n\\dot{u}_2 = - u_1u_3 +\\overline{r} u_1 -u_2  \\\\\n\\dot{u}_3 = u_1u_2-\\overline{b}u_3,\n\\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ where the parameters $\\overline{\\sigma},$ $\\overline{r}$ and $\\overline{b}$ are such that system (\\[nonperturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) is also chaotic. Systems (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and (\\[nonperturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) are, in general, non-identical, since the coefficients $\\sigma,$ $r,$ $b$ and $\\overline{\\sigma},$ $\\overline{r},$ $\\overline{b}$ can be different.\n\nWe perturb (\\[nonperturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) with the solutions of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) to set up the system $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{array}{l} \\label{perturbed_lorenz_system}\n\\dot{y}_1  = - \\overline{\\sigma} y_1 + \\overline{\\sigma} y_2 + g_1(x(t)) \\\\\n\\dot{y}_2  = -y_1y_3 +\\overline{r} y_1 -y_2 + g_2(x(t)) \\\\\n\\dot{y}_3  = y_1y_2-\\overline{b}y_3 + g_3(x(t)),\n\\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ where $x(t)=(x_1(t),x_2(t),x_3(t))$ is a solution of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and $g(x)=(g_1(x),g_2(x),g_3(x))$ is a continuous function such that there exists a positive number $L_g$ satisfying $\\left\\|g(x) - g(\\overline{x})\\right\\| \\ge L_g \\left\\|x-\\overline{x}\\right\\|$ for all $x,$ $\\overline{x} \\in \\Lambda.$ Here, $\\left\\|.\\right\\|$ denotes the usual Euclidean norm in $\\mathbb R^3.$ It is worth noting that the coupled system $(\\ref{lorenz_system})+(\\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})$ has a skew product structure. We refer to (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) as the drive and response systems, respectively.\n\nIn the next section, we will demonstrate the existence of sensitivity in the dynamics of the response system.\n\nSensitivity in the response system {#theory}\n==================================\n\nFix a point $x_0$ from the chaotic attractor of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and take a solution $x(t)$ with $x(0)=x_0.$ Since we use the solution $x(t)$ as a perturbation in (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]), we call it a *chaotic function*. Chaotic functions may be irregular as well as regular (periodic and unstable) [@Lorenz63; @Sparrow82]. We suppose that the response system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) possesses a compact invariant set $\\mathscr{U} \\subset \\mathbb R^3$ for each chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]). The existence of such an invariant set can be shown, for example, using Lyapunov functions [@Akhmet2015; @Yoshizawa75].\n\nOne of main ingredients of chaos is sensitivity [@Lorenz63; @Wiggins88]. Let us describe this feature for both the drive and response systems.\n\nSystem (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) is called sensitive if there exist positive numbers $\\epsilon_0$ and $\\Delta$ such that for an arbitrary positive number $\\delta_0$ and for each chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]), there exist a chaotic solution $\\overline{x}(t)$ of the same system and an interval $J \\subset [0,\\infty),$ with a length no less than $\\Delta,$ such that $\\left\\|x(0)-\\overline{x}(0)\\right\\|<\\delta_0$ and $\\left\\|x(t)-\\overline{x}(t)\\right\\| > \\epsilon_0$ for all $t \\in J.$\n\nFor a given solution $x(t)$ of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]), let us denote by $\\phi_{x(t)}(t,y_0)$ the unique solution of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) satisfying the condition $\\phi_{x(t)}(0,y_0)=y_0.$ We say that system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) is sensitive if there exist positive numbers $\\epsilon_1$ and $\\overline{\\Delta}$ such that for an arbitrary positive number $\\delta_1,$ each $y_0\\in \\mathscr{U}$, and a chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]), there exist $y_1\\in \\mathscr{U},$ a chaotic solution $\\overline{x}(t)$ of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]), and an interval $J^1 \\subset [0,\\infty),$ with a length no less than $\\overline{\\Delta},$ such that $\\left\\|y_0-y_1\\right\\|<\\delta_1$ and $\\left\\|\\phi_{x(t)}(t,y_0)-\\phi_{\\overline{x}(t)}(t,y_1)\\right\\| > \\epsilon_1$ for all $t \\in J^1.$\n\nNext theorem confirms that the sensitivity feature remains persistent for (\\[nonperturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) when it is perturbed with the solutions of the drive system (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]). This feature is true even if the systems (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) are not synchronized in the generalized sense.\n\n\\[theorem\\_sensitivity\\] The response system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) is sensitive.\n\nThe proof of Theorem \\[theorem\\_sensitivity\\] is provided in the Appendix. In the next section, we will demonstrate that the response system possesses chaotic motions regardless of the presence of GS.\n\nChaotic dynamics in the absence of generalized synchronization {#simulations}\n==============================================================\n\nLet us take into account the drive system (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) with the parameter values $\\sigma=10,$ $r=28,$ $b=8/3$ such that the system possesses a chaotic attractor [@Lorenz63; @Sparrow82]. Moreover, we set $\\overline{\\sigma}=10,$ $\\overline{r}=60,$ $\\overline{b}=8/3$ and $g_1(x_1, x_2, x_3) = 2.95 x_1-0.25\\sin x_1,$ $g_2(x_1, x_2, x_3) = 3.06\\arctan x_2,$ $g_3(x_1, x_2, x_3) = 3.12 x_3+1.75 e^{-x_3}$ in the response system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]). The unperturbed Lorenz system (\\[nonperturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) is also chaotic with the aforementioned values of $\\overline{\\sigma},$ $\\overline{r},$ and $\\overline{b}$ [@Gon04; @Sparrow82].\n\nIn order to demonstrate the presence of sensitivity in the response system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) numerically, we depict in Figure \\[fig1\\] the projections of two initially nearby trajectories of the coupled system $(\\ref{lorenz_system})+(\\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})$ on the $y_1-y_2-y_3$ space. In Figure \\[fig1\\], the projection of the trajectory corresponding to the initial data $x_1(0)=-8.631,$ $x_2(0)=-2.382,$ $x_3(0)=33.096,$ $y_1(0)=10.871,$ $y_2(0)=-4.558,$ $y_3(0)=70.541$ is shown in blue, and the one corresponding to the initial data $x_1(0)=-8.615,$ $x_2(0)=-2.464,$ $x_3(0)=33.067,$ $y_1(0)=10.869,$ $y_2(0)=-4.561,$ $y_3(0)=70.537$ is shown in red. The time interval $[0,2.96]$ is used in the simulation. One can observe in Figure \\[fig1\\] that even if the trajectories in blue and red are initially nearby, later they diverge, and this behavior supports the result of Theorem \\[theorem\\_sensitivity\\] such that sensitivity is present in the dynamics of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]). In other words, the figure confirms that sensitivity is a permanent feature of (\\[nonperturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) even if it is perturbed with the solutions of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]).\n\n![Sensitivity in the response system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]). The simulation supports the result of Theorem \\[theorem\\_sensitivity\\] such that sensitivity is permanent in system (\\[nonperturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) although it is driven by the solutions of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]).[]{data-label=\"fig1\"}](fig1.eps){width=\"9.0cm\"}\n\nOn the other hand, in Figure \\[fig2\\], we represent the trajectory of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) corresponding to $x_1(0)=4.43,$ $x_2(0)=-2.27,$ $x_3(0)=30.81,$ $y_1(0)=3.09,$ $y_2(0)=4.98,$ $y_3(0)=46.21.$ It is seen in Figure \\[fig2\\] that the trajectory is chaotic, and this reveals the persistence of chaos in the dynamics of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]).\n\n![Chaotic trajectory of system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]). The figure manifests the persistence of chaos.[]{data-label=\"fig2\"}](fig2.eps){width=\"9.0cm\"}\n\nGS [@Rulkov95] is said to occur in the coupled system $(\\ref{lorenz_system})+(\\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})$ if there exist sets $\\mathscr{X},$ $\\mathscr{Y} \\subset \\mathbb R^3$ of initial conditions and a transformation $\\psi$ defined on the chaotic attractor of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) such that for all $x_0 \\in \\mathscr{X},$ $y_0 \\in \\mathscr{Y}$ the relation $\\displaystyle \\lim_{t\\to\\infty} \\left\\|y(t)-\\psi(x(t))\\right\\|=0$ holds, where $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ are respectively the solutions of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) satisfying $x(0)=x_0$ and $y(0)=y_0.$ If GS occurs, a motion that starts on $\\mathscr{X} \\times \\mathscr{Y}$ collapses onto a manifold $M\\subset \\mathscr{X}\\times \\mathscr{Y}$ of synchronized motions. The transformation $\\psi$ is not required to exist for the transient trajectories. When $\\psi$ is the identity transformation, the identical synchronization takes place [@Pecora90].\n\nIt was formulated by Kocarev and Parlitz [@Kocarev96] that the systems (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) are synchronized in the generalized sense if and only if for all $x_0\\in \\mathscr{X},$ $y_{0},$ $\\overline{y}_{0}\\in \\mathscr{Y},$ the asymptotic stability criterion $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\displaystyle \\lim_{t\\to\\infty} \\left\\| y(t,x_0,y_{0}) - y(t,x_0,\\overline{y}_{0}) \\right\\|=0,\\end{aligned}$$ holds, where $y(t,x_0,y_{0}),$ $y(t,x_0,\\overline{y}_{0})$ denote the solutions of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) with the initial data $y(0,x_0,y_{0})=y_{0},$ $y(0,x_0,\\overline{y}_{0})=\\overline{y}_{0}$ and the same solution $x(t),$ $x(0)=x_0,$ of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]).\n\nA numerical technique that can be used to analyze coupled systems for the presence or absence of GS is the auxiliary system approach [@Abarbanel96]. We will make use of this technique for the coupled system (\\[lorenz\\_system\\])+(\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]). For that purpose, we consider the auxiliary system $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{array}{l} \\label{aux_lorenz_system}\n\\dot{z}_1 = - 10 z_1 + 10 z_2 + 2.95 x_1(t)-0.25\\sin (x_1(t)) \\\\\n\\dot{z}_2 = -z_1 z_3 +60 z_1 -z_2 + 3.06\\arctan (x_2(t)) \\\\\n\\dot{z}_3 = z_1 z_2- \\displaystyle \\frac{8}{3} z_3 + 3.12 x_3(t)+1.75 e^{-x_3(t)},\n\\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ which is an identical copy of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]).\n\nUsing the initial data $x_1(0)=4.43,$ $x_2(0)=-2.27,$ $x_3(0)=30.81,$ $y_1(0)=3.09,$ $y_2(0)=4.98,$ $y_3(0)=46.21,$ $z_1(0)=7.69,$ $z_2(0)=6.25,$ $z_3(0)=52.65,$ we depict in Figure \\[fig3\\] the projection of the stroboscopic plot of the $9-$dimensional system $(\\ref{lorenz_system})+(\\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})+(\\ref{aux_lorenz_system})$ on the $y_2-z_2$ plane. In the simulation, the first $200$ iterations are omitted. Since the stroboscopic plot does not take place on the line $z_2=y_2,$ the systems (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) are unsynchronized. Hence, the response system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) exhibits chaotic behavior even if GS does not occur in the systems (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]).\n\n![The result of the auxiliary system approach applied to the coupled Lorenz systems (\\[lorenz\\_system\\])+(\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]). The figure confirms the absence of GS.[]{data-label=\"fig3\"}](fig3.eps){width=\"8.0cm\"}\n\nIn order to demonstrate the absence of GS one more time by evaluating the conditional Lyapunov exponents [@Gon04; @Pecora90; @Kocarev96], we consider the following variational system for (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]), $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{array}{l} \\label{cond_lyp_exp1}\n\\dot{\\xi}_1 = -10 \\xi_1 + 10 \\xi_2  \\\\\n\\dot{\\xi}_2 = (-y_3(t) +60) \\xi_1 -\\xi_2 -y_1(t) \\xi_3\\\\\n\\dot{\\xi}_3 = y_2(t)\\xi_1 +y_1(t)\\xi_2 -(8/3)\\xi_3.\n\\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ Making use of the solution $y(t)=(y_1(t),y_2(t),y_3(t))$ of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) corresponding to the initial conditions $x_1(0) =9.47,$ $x_2(0) =3.29,$ $x_3(0)=34.49,$ $y_1(0) =10.67,$ $y_2(0) =-8.06,$ $y_3(0)=71.89,$ the largest Lyapunov exponent of (\\[cond\\_lyp\\_exp1\\]) is evaluated as $0.7693.$ In other words, the response (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) possesses a positive conditional Lyapunov exponent, and this corroborates the absence of GS for the coupled systems $(\\ref{lorenz_system})+(\\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system}).$\n\nThe next section is devoted to the presence of periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor of the response system.\n\nPeriodic solutions of the response system {#Lorenzzpdc}\n=========================================\n\nTo demonstrate the existence of periodic motions embedded in the chaotic attractor of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]), we will take into account (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) with the parameter values in such a way that the system exhibits a period-doubling cascade [@Feigenbaum80; @Sander12].\n\nConsider the drive system (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) in which $\\sigma=10,$ $b=8/3$ and $r$ is a parameter [@Franceschini80; @Sparrow82]. For the values of $r$ between $99.98$ and $100.795$ the system possesses two symmetric stable periodic orbits such that one of them spirals round twice in $x_1>0$ and once in $x_1<0,$ whereas another spirals round twice in $x_1<0$ and once in $x_1>0.$ The book [@Sparrow82] calls such periodic orbits as $x^2y$ and $y^2x,$ respectively. More precisely, $``x\"$ is written every time when the orbit spirals round in $x_1>0,$ while $``y\"$ is written every time when it spirals round in $x_1<0.$ As the value of the parameter $r$ decreases towards $99.98$ a period-doubling bifurcation occurs in (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) such that two new symmetric stable periodic orbits ($x^2yx^2y$ and $y^2xy^2x$) appear, and the previous periodic orbits lose their stability [@Franceschini80; @Sparrow82]. According to Franceschini [@Franceschini80], system (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) undergoes infinitely many period-doubling bifurcations at the parameter values $99.547,$ $99.529,$ $99.5255$ and so on. The sequence of bifurcation parameter values accumulates at $r_{\\infty} = 99.524.$ For values of $r$ smaller than $r_{\\infty}$, infinitely many unstable periodic orbits take place in the dynamics of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) [@Franceschini80; @Sparrow82].\n\nWe say that the response (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) replicates the period-doubling cascade of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) if for each periodic $x(t)$, system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) possesses a periodic solution with the same period. To illustrate the replication of period-doubling cascade, let us use $\\overline{\\sigma}=10,$ $\\overline{r}=28,$ $\\overline{b}=8/3$ in (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) such that the corresponding non-perturbed Lorenz system (\\[nonperturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) is chaotic [@Lorenz63; @Sparrow82]. Moreover, we set $g_1(x_1,x_2,x_3)= 6.5 x_1,$ $g_2(x_1,x_2,x_3)=5.2x_2,$ $g_3(x_1,x_2,x_3)=7.1 x_3.$ One can numerically verify that the solutions of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) are ultimately bounded by a bound common for each $x(t)$. Therefore, according to Theorem $15.8$ [@Yoshizawa75], the response (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) replicates the period-doubling cascade of the drive (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]). It is worth noting that the coupled system (\\[lorenz\\_system\\])+(\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) possesses a period-doubling cascade as well. For the value of the parameter $r<r_{\\infty},$ the instability of the infinite number of periodic solutions is ensured by Theorem \\[theorem\\_sensitivity\\].\n\nFigure \\[fig4\\] shows the stable periodic orbits of system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]). The period-$1$ and period-$2$ orbits of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) corresponding to the $y^2x$ and $y^2xy^2x$ periodic orbits of the drive system (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) are depicted in Figure \\[fig4\\] (a) and (b), respectively. The value $r=100.36$ is used in Figure \\[fig4\\] (a), whereas $r=99.75$ is used in Figure \\[fig4\\] (b). The figure reveals the presence of periodic motions in the dynamics of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]). Figure \\[fig5\\], on the other hand, represents the projection of the chaotic trajectory of the coupled system $(\\ref{lorenz_system})+(\\ref{perturbed_lorenz_system})$ with $r=99.51$ on the $y_1-y_3$ plane. The initial data $x_1(0)=-1.15,$ $x_2(0)=3.52,$ $x_3(0)=77.01,$ $y_1(0)=0.27,$ $y_2(0)=2.17,$ $y_3(0)=254.09$ are used in the simulation. Figures \\[fig5\\] manifests that (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) replicates the period-doubling cascade of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]).\n\n![Stable periodic orbits of the response system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]). (a) Period-1 orbit corresponding to $r=100.36;$ (b) Period-2 orbit corresponding to $r=99.75.$ The pictures in (a) and (b) demonstrate the presence of periodic motions in the dynamics of (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]).[]{data-label=\"fig4\"}](fig4.eps){width=\"14.3cm\"}\n\n![The trajectory of the response system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) with $r=99.51.$ Chaotic behavior is observable in the figure.[]{data-label=\"fig5\"}](fig5.eps){width=\"7.2cm\"}\n\nConclusions {#Lorenz_Conc}\n===========\n\nIn the present study, we demonstrate the persistence of chaos in unidirectionally coupled Lorenz systems by checking for the existence of sensitivity and infinitely many unstable periodic motions. This is the first time in the literature that the presence of sensitivity in the dynamics of the response is theoretically proved regardless of GS. The obtained results certify that the applied perturbation does not suppress the chaos of the response. We make use of conditional Lyapunov exponents [@Pecora90] and the auxiliary system approach [@Abarbanel96] to show the absence of GS in the investigated systems. It is worth noting that the results are valid for both identical and non-identical systems, i.e., the coefficients of the coupled Lorenz systems can be same or different.\n\nOne of the concepts related to our results is the global unpredictable behavior of the weather dynamics. This subject was considered in [@Akhmet2015] on the basis of Lorenz systems assuming that the whole atmosphere of the Earth is partitioned in a finite number of subregions such that in each of them the dynamics of the weather is governed by the Lorenz system with certain coefficients. The present paper plays a complementary role to the discussions of [@Akhmet2015] in such a way that the unpredictable behavior of the weather dynamics is permanent under the interaction of two subregions whose dynamics are both governed by chaotic Lorenz systems. Another concept in which Lorenz systems are encountered is the laser dynamics. It was shown by Haken [@Haken75] that the Lorenz model is identical with that of the single mode laser. Therefore, our results may also be used as an engineering tool to design unsynchronized chaotic Lorenz lasers [@Lawandy87].\n\nAppendix: Proof of Theorem \\[theorem\\_sensitivity\\] {#appendix-proof-of-theorem-theorem_sensitivity .unnumbered}\n===================================================\n\nThe proof of Theorem \\[theorem\\_sensitivity\\] is as follows.\n\n**Proof.** Fix an arbitrary positive number $\\delta_1,$ a point $y_0\\in \\mathscr{U},$ and a chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]). One can find $\\epsilon_0>0$ and $\\Delta>0$ such that for arbitrary $\\delta_0>0$ both of the inequalities $\\left\\|x(0)-\\overline{x}(0)\\right\\|<\\delta_0$ and $\\left\\|x(t)-\\overline{x}(t)\\right\\| > \\epsilon_0,$ $t \\in J,$ hold for some chaotic solution $\\overline{x}(t)$ of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) and for some interval $J \\subset [0,\\infty),$ whose length is not less than $\\Delta.$\n\nTake an arbitrary $y_1\\in \\mathscr{U}$ such that $\\left\\|y_0-y_1\\right\\|<\\delta_1.$ For the sake of brevity, let us denote $y(t)=\\phi_{x(t)}(t,y_0)$ and $\\overline{y}(t)=\\phi_{\\overline{x}(t)}(t,y_1).$ It is worth noting that there exist positive numbers $K_0$ and $H_0$ such that $\\left\\|y(t)\\right\\|, \\left\\|\\overline y(t)\\right\\| \\le K_0$ for all $t\\ge 0$, and $\\displaystyle \\sup_{t \\ge 0} \\left\\|x(t)\\right\\| \\leq H_0$ for each chaotic solution $x(t)$ of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]).\n\nOur aim is to determine positive numbers $\\epsilon_1,$ $\\overline{\\Delta}$ and an interval $J^1\\subset [0,\\infty)$ with length $\\overline{\\Delta}$ such that the inequality $\\left\\|y(t)-\\overline{y}(t)\\right\\| > \\epsilon_1$ holds for all $t \\in J^1.$\n\nIt is clear that the collection of chaotic solutions of system (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]) is an equicontinuous family on $[0,\\infty).$ Making use of the uniform continuity of the function $\\overline{g}: \\mathbb R^3 \\times \\mathbb R^3  \\to \\mathbb R^3,$ defined as $\\overline{g}(\\nu_1,\\nu_2)=g(\\nu_1)-g(\\nu_2),$ on the compact region $\n\\mathscr{R}=\\left\\{(\\nu_1,\\nu_2) \\in \\mathbb R^3 \\times \\mathbb R^3 : \\left\\|\\nu_1\\right\\| \\leq H_0, \\left\\|\\nu_2\\right\\| \\leq H_0 \\right\\} \n$ together with the equicontinuity of the collection of chaotic solutions of (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]), one can verify that the collection $\\mathscr{F}$ consisting of the functions of the form $g_j(x_1(t))-g_j(x_2(t)),$ $j=1,2,3,$ where $x_1(t)$ and $x_2(t)$ are chaotic solutions of system (\\[lorenz\\_system\\]), is an equicontinuous family on $[0,\\infty).$\n\nAccording to the equicontinuity of the family $\\mathscr{F},$ one can find a positive number $\\tau<\\Delta,$ which is independent of $x(t)$ and $\\overline{x}(t),$ such that for any $t_1,t_2\\in [0,\\infty)$ with $\\left|t_1-t_2\\right|<\\tau,$ the inequality $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{sensitivity_proof_1}\n\\begin{array}{l}\n\\left| \\left(g_j\\left(x(t_1)\\right) - g_j\\left(\\overline{x}(t_1)\\right)  \\right) - \\left(g_j\\left(x(t_2)\\right) - g_j\\left(\\overline{x}(t_2)\\right)  \\right)   \\right| <\\displaystyle \\frac{L_g\\epsilon_0}{6}\n\\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ holds for all $j=1,2,3.$\n\nOn the other hand, for each $t\\in J,$ there exists an integer $j_0,$ $1 \\leq j_0 \\leq 3,$ which possibly depends on $t,$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{array}{l}\n\\left|g_{j_0}(x(t))-g_{j_0}(\\overline{x}(t))\\right|   \\geq \\displaystyle \\frac{L_g}{3} \\left\\|x(t)-\\overline{x}(t)\\right\\| \\nonumber.\n\\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ Otherwise, if there exists $s\\in J$ such that the inequality $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{array}{l}\n\\left|g_{j} \\left(x\\left(s\\right)  \\right)-g_{j}(\\overline{x}(s)) \\right|< \\displaystyle \\frac{L_g}{3} \\left\\|x(s)-\\overline{x}(s)\\right\\| \\nonumber\n\\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ holds for each $j=1,2,3,$ then one encounters with a contradiction since $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\|g(x(s))-g(\\overline{x}(s))  \\right\\|   \\leq \\sum_{j=1}^{3}\\left| g_{j}(x(s))-g_{j}(\\overline{x}(s)) \\right|  < L_g \\left\\|x(s)-\\overline{x}(s)\\right\\|. \\end{aligned}$$\n\nDenote by $s_0$ the midpoint of the interval $J,$ and let $\\displaystyle \\theta=s_0-\\tau/2.$ There exists an integer $j_0,$ $1 \\leq j_0 \\leq 3,$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{array}{l} \\label{sensitivity_proof_2}\n\\left|g_{j_0}(x(s_0))-g_{j_0}(\\overline{x}(s_0))\\right|   \\geq \\displaystyle\\frac{L_g}{3} \\left\\|x(s_0)-\\overline{x}(s_0)\\right\\| > \\displaystyle\\frac{L_g\\epsilon_0}{3}. \n\\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ Using the inequality (\\[sensitivity\\_proof\\_1\\]) it can be verified for all $t \\in \\left[\\theta, \\theta+\\tau\\right]$ that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\left|g_{j_0}\\left(x(s_0)\\right) - g_{j_0}\\left(\\overline{x}(s_0)\\right) \\right| - \\left|g_{j_0}\\left(x(t)\\right) - g_{j_0}\\left(\\overline{x}(t)\\right) \\right| \\\\\n&& \\leq \\left| \\left(g_{j_0}\\left(x(t)\\right) - g_{j_0}\\left(\\overline{x}(t)\\right)  \\right) - \\left(g_{j_0}\\left(x(s_0)\\right) - g_{j_0}\\left(\\overline{x}(s_0)\\right)  \\right)   \\right| \\\\\n&&<\\frac{L_g\\epsilon_0}{6}.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by means of (\\[sensitivity\\_proof\\_2\\]), we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{sensitivity_proof_3}\n\\begin{array}{l} \n \\left|g_{j_0}\\left(x(t)\\right) - g_{j_0}\\left(\\overline{x}(t)\\right) \\right| > \\left|g_{j_0}\\left(x(s_0)\\right) - g_{j_0}\\left(\\overline{x}(s_0)\\right) \\right|  - \\displaystyle \\frac{L_g\\epsilon_0}{6} > \\displaystyle \\frac{L_g\\epsilon_0}{6}\n \\end{array}\\end{aligned}$$ for $t\\in \\left[\\theta, \\theta+\\tau\\right].$\n\nOne can find numbers $s_1, s_2, s_3 \\in [\\theta,\\theta+\\tau]$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\displaystyle\\int^{\\theta + \\tau}_{\\theta} \\left[g(x(s))-g(\\overline{x}(s))\\right] ds   = \\Big(  \n\\tau \\left[g_1(x(s_1))-g_1(\\overline{x}(s_1))\\right],  \n\\tau \\left[g_2(x(s_2))-g_2(\\overline{x}(s_2))\\right],  \\\\ \n\\tau \\left[g_3(x(s_3))-g_3(\\overline{x}(s_3))\\right] \n  \\Big).\\end{aligned}$$ Inequality (\\[sensitivity\\_proof\\_3\\]) yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Big\\|\\displaystyle\\int^{\\theta + \\tau}_{\\theta} \\left[g(x(s))-g(\\overline{x}(s))\\right] ds \\Big\\| \\geq \\tau  \\left|g_{j_0}(x(s_{j_0}))-g_{j_0}(\\overline{x}(s_{j_0}))\\right| > \\displaystyle \\frac{\\tau  L_g \\epsilon_0}{6}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nLet us define the function $f:\\mathbb R^3 \\to \\mathbb R^3$ as $\nf(v) = ( - \\overline{\\sigma} v_1 + \\overline{\\sigma} v_2, -v_1v_3 +\\overline{r} v_1 -v_2, v_1v_2-\\overline{b}v_3),\n$ where $v=(v_1,v_2,v_3).$ One can confirm the presence of a positive number $L_f$ such that $\\left\\|f(v)-f(\\overline{v})\\right\\| \\le L_f \\left\\|v-\\overline{v}\\right\\|$ for all $v,$ $\\overline{v} \\in \\mathscr{U}.$ The relation $$\\begin{aligned}\ny(t)-\\overline{y}(t)  = (y(\\theta)-\\overline{y}(\\theta)) + \\displaystyle\\int^{t}_{\\theta}  \\left[ f(y(s))-f(\\overline{y}(s)) \\right]   ds  + \\displaystyle\\int^{t}_{\\theta} [g(x(s))-g(\\overline{x}(s))]  ds,   ~t\\in [\\theta,\\theta+\\tau]\\end{aligned}$$ implies that $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\left\\| y(\\theta+\\tau)-\\overline{y}(\\theta+\\tau) \\right\\| & \\geq  \\Big\\|\\displaystyle\\int^{\\theta+\\tau}_{\\theta}  [g(x(s))-g(\\overline{x}(s))] ds \\Big\\|  - \\left\\| y(\\theta)-\\overline{y}(\\theta) \\right\\|\\\\\n&& - \\displaystyle\\int^{\\theta+\\tau}_{\\theta}  L_f\\left\\| y(s)-\\overline{y}(s) \\right\\| ds \\\\\n&& > \\displaystyle \\frac{\\tau  L_g \\epsilon_0}{6} - \\left\\| y(\\theta)-\\overline{y}(\\theta) \\right\\| - \\displaystyle\\int^{\\theta+\\tau}_{\\theta}  L_f\\left\\| y(s)-\\overline{y}(s) \\right\\| ds.\\end{aligned}$$ According to the last inequality we have that $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\displaystyle \\max_{t\\in [\\theta,\\theta+\\tau]}\\left\\| y(t)-\\overline{y}(t)\\right\\| & \\geq \\left\\| y(\\theta+\\tau)-\\overline{y}(\\theta+\\tau) \\right\\| \\\\\n&& > \\frac{\\tau L_g \\epsilon_0}{6}  - (1+ \\tau L_f) \\displaystyle \\max_{t\\in [\\theta,\\theta+\\tau]}\\left\\| y(t)-\\overline{y}(t) \\right\\|.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $\n\\displaystyle \\max_{t\\in [\\theta,\\theta+\\tau]}\\left\\| y(t)-\\overline{y}(t) \\right\\| > \\frac{\\tau L_g \\epsilon_0}{6(2+\\tau L_f)}.\n$\n\nSuppose that $\n\\displaystyle \\max_{t \\in [\\theta,\\theta+\\tau]} \\left\\|y(t)-\\overline{y}(t)\\right\\|  = \\left\\|y(\\xi)-\\overline{y}(\\xi)\\right\\| \n$ for some $\\xi \\in [\\theta, \\theta+\\tau].$ Define the number $$\\overline{\\Delta}=\\min \\displaystyle \\left\\{ \\frac{\\tau}{2}, \\frac{\\tau L_g \\epsilon_0}{24(K_0L_f+M_g)(2+\\tau L_f)}   \\right\\},$$ where $M_g = \\displaystyle \\sup_{x \\in \\Lambda} \\left\\|g(x)\\right\\|,$ and let $$\\theta^1=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll} \\xi, & ~\\textrm{if}~  \\xi \\leq \\theta + \\tau/2   \\\\\n\\xi - \\overline{\\Delta}, & ~\\textrm{if}~  \\xi > \\theta + \\tau/2  \\\\\n\\end{array} \\right. .\\nonumber$$\n\nFor $t\\in [\\theta^1, \\theta^1+\\overline{\\Delta}],$ by favour of the equation $$\\begin{aligned}\ny(t)-\\overline{y}(t) = (y(\\xi)-\\overline{y}(\\xi)) + \\displaystyle\\int^{t}_{\\xi} \\left[f(y(s))-f(\\overline{y}(s))\\right] ds  + \\displaystyle\\int^{t}_{\\xi} [g(x(s))-g(\\overline{x}(s))]  ds,\\end{aligned}$$ one can obtain that $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\left\\|y(t)-\\overline{y}(t)\\right\\| & \\geq  \\left\\|y(\\xi)-\\overline{y}(\\xi)\\right\\|  - \\left|  \\displaystyle\\int^{t}_{\\xi} L_f \\left\\| y(s)-\\overline{y}(s)\\right\\| ds  \\right|\\\\ \n&& -  \\left|  \\displaystyle\\int^{t}_{\\xi} \\left\\|  g(x(s))-g(\\overline{x}(s))  \\right\\| ds  \\right| \\\\\n&& > \\displaystyle\\frac{ \\tau L_g \\epsilon_0}{6(2+\\tau L_f)} -2\\overline{\\Delta} \\left(K_0L_f+M_g \\right) \\\\\n&& \\geq \\displaystyle\\frac{\\tau L_g \\epsilon_0}{12(2+\\tau L_f)}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe length of the interval $J^1=[\\theta^1, \\theta^1+\\overline{\\Delta}]$ does not depend on $x(t),$ $\\overline{x}(t),$ and for $t \\in J^1$ the inequality $\n\\left\\|y(t)-\\overline{y}(t)\\right\\| > \\epsilon_1\n$ holds, where $\\epsilon_1=\\displaystyle \\frac{\\tau L_g \\epsilon_0}{12(2+\\tau L_f)}.$ Consequently, the response system (\\[perturbed\\_lorenz\\_system\\]) is sensitive. $\\square$\n\n[30]{}\n\nH. Poincar\u00e9, Les Methodes Nouvelles de la Mecanique Celeste, Vol. I, II, III, Paris, 1899; reprint, Dover, New York, 1957.\n\nE.N. Lorenz, Maximum simplification of the dynamic equations, Tellus 12 (1960) 243\u2013254.\n\nE.N. Lorenz, Deterministic nonperiodic flow, J. Atmos. Sci. 20 (1963) 130\u2013141.\n\nB. Saltzman, Finite amplitude free convection as an initial value problem, J. Atmos. Sci. 19 (1962) 329\u2013341.\n\nS. Wiggins, Global Bifurcations and Chaos, Springer, New York, 1988.\n\nH. Fujisaka, T. Yamada, Stability theory of synchronized motion in coupled-oscillator systems, Prog. Theor. Phys. 69 (1983) 32\u201347.\n\nV.S. Afraimovich, N.N. Verichev, M.I. Rabinovich, Stochastic synchronization of oscillation in dissipative systems, Radiophys. Quantum Electron. 29 (1986) 795\u2013803.\n\nJ.M. Gonz\u00e1les-Miranda, Synchronization and Control of Chaos, Imperial College Press, London, 2004.\n\nL.M. Pecora, T.L. Carroll, Synchronization in chaotic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 821\u2013825.\n\nN.F. Rulkov, M.M. Sushchik, L.S. Tsimring, H.D.I. Abarbanel, Generalized synchronization of chaos in directionally coupled chaotic systems, Phys. Rev. E 51 (1995) 980\u2013994.\n\nL. Kocarev, U. Parlitz, Generalized synchronization, predictability, and equivalence of unidirectionally coupled dynamical systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 1816\u20131819.\n\nH.D.I. Abarbanel, N.F. Rulkov, M.M. Sushchik, Generalized synchronization of chaos: The auxiliary system approach, Phys. Rev. E 53 (1996) 4528\u20134535.\n\nV. Franceschini, A Feigenbaum sequence of bifurcations in the Lorenz model, J. Stat. Phys. 22 (1980) 397\u2013406.\n\nM.U. Akhmet, Devaney chaos of a relay system, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 14 (2009) 1486\u20131493.\n\nM.U. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Replication of chaos, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat. 18 (2013) 2626\u20132666.\n\nM.U. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Shunting inhibitory cellular neural networks with chaotic external inputs, Chaos 23 (2013) 023112.\n\nM.U. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Entrainment by chaos, J. Nonlinear Sci. 24 (2014) 411\u2013439.\n\nM. Akhmet, I. Rafatov, M.O. Fen, Extension of spatiotemporal chaos in glow discharge-semiconductor systems, Chaos 24 (2014) 043127.\n\nM. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Extension of Lorenz unpredictability, Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos 25 (2015) 1550126.\n\nM. Akhmet, M.O. Fen, Replication of Chaos in Neural Networks, Economics and Physics, Springer-Verlag/HEP, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016.\n\nC. Sparrow, The Lorenz Equations: Bifurcations, Chaos and Strange Attractors, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982.\n\nT. Yoshizawa, Stability Theory and the Existence of Periodic Solutions and Almost Periodic Solutions, Springer-Verlag, New-York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1975.\n\nM.J. Feigenbaum, Universal behavior in nonlinear systems, Los Alamos Science 1 (1980) 4\u201327.\n\nE. Sander, J.A. Yorke, Connecting period-doubling cascades to chaos, Int. J. Bifurcat. Chaos 22 (2012) 1250022.\n\nH. Haken, Analogy between higher instabilities in fluids and lasers, Phys. Lett. A 53 (1975) 77\u201378.\n\nN.M. Lawandy, K. Lee, Stability analysis of two coupled Lorenz lasers and the coupling-induced periodic $\\to$ chaotic transition, Opt. Commun. 61 (1987) 137\u2013141.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this paper, we prove that Wright\u2019s equation $y''(t) = - \\alpha y(t-1) \\{1 + y(t)\\}$ has a unique slowly oscillating periodic solution for parameter values $\\alpha \\in (\\tfrac{\\pi}{2},  1.9]$, up to time translation. This result proves Jones\u2019 Conjecture formulated in 1962, that there is a unique slowly oscillating periodic orbit for all $ \\alpha > \\tfrac{\\pi}{2}$. Furthermore, there are no isolas of periodic solutions to Wright\u2019s equation; all periodic orbits arise from Hopf bifurcations.'\nauthor:\n- 'Jonathan Jaquette [^1] [^2]'\nbibliography:\n- 'BibWright.bib'\ntitle: 'A proof of Jones\u2019 conjecture'\n---\n\n[**Key words.**]{} [ Wright\u2019s Equation $\\cdot$ Jones\u2019 Conjecture $\\cdot$ Delay Differential Equations\\\nComputer-Assisted Proofs $\\cdot$ Branch and Bound $\\cdot$ Krawczyk method]{}\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nAn often studied class of delay differential equations are negative feedback systems of the form: $$x'(t) = - \\alpha f(x(t-1)) \n\\label{eq:MNF}$$ where $ xf(x) > 0 $ for $x \\neq 0$ and $ f'(0) >0$. One particularly well studied example of is when $f(x) =e^x -1$, better known as Wright\u2019s equation, which after making the change of variables $ y =e^x -1 $ can be written in the following form: $$y'(t) = - \\alpha \\,y(t-1) \\left[  1+ y(t)  \\right].\n\\label{eq:Wright}$$\n\nIn [@jones1962existence], Jones proved that for $\\alpha > {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$ there exists at least one *slowly oscillating periodic solution (SOPS)*. That is, a periodic solution $y:{\\mathbb{R}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ which is positive for at least one unit of time (the delay time in Wright\u2019s equation), negative for at least one unit of time, and then repeats. In this paper we prove there is a unique SOPS to for $ \\alpha \\in ( {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}},1.9]$, thus completing a proof of Jones\u2019 conjecture:\n\n\\[prop:Jones\\] For every $ \\alpha > {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$ there exists a unique slowly oscillating periodic solution to .\n\n[l]{}[0.5]{}\n\nThis work contributes a capstone to many decades of mathematical work studying Wright\u2019s equation. To briefly review, a *principal branch* of slowly oscillating periodic orbits is born at $ \\alpha = {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$ and continues on for all $ \\alpha > {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$ [@nussbaum1975global]. Moreover, Wright\u2019s equation has supercritical Hopf bifurcations at $ \\alpha = {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+ 2 n\\pi$ for integers $ n \\geq 0$, with slowly oscillating periodic orbits arising when $n=0$, and rapidly oscillating periodic orbits arising when $n\\geq1$ (see Figure \\[fig:BifurcationDiagram\\]) [@chow1977integral]. Together with the parameter $\\alpha$, the collection of periodic orbits forms a 2-dimensional manifold [@regala1989periodic].\n\nA two-part geometric version of Jones\u2019 conjecture was proposed in [@lessard2010recent]: (i) the principal branch of SOPS does not fold back on itself, and (ii) there are no other connected components (*isolas*) of SOPS. By [@BergJaquette; @lessard2010recent; @jlm2016Floquet; @xie1991thesis] the principal branch does not have any folds $ \\alpha > {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$.\n\nIn [@jlm2016Floquet; @xie1991thesis] it is shown that there is a unique SOPS for $ \\alpha \\geq 1.9$. These proofs use that fact that if every SOPS is asymptotically stable for some $ \\alpha > {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$, then there is a unique SOPS [@xie1993uniqueness]. Using estimates describing SOPS for when $\\alpha$ is large [@nussbaum1982asymptotic], Xie showed that there is a unique SOPS for all $ \\alpha \\geq 5.67$ [@xie1991thesis]. By using computer-assisted proofs to characterize SOPS to Wright\u2019s equation [@jlm2016Floquet], this method was extended to show there is a unique SOPS for $ \\alpha \\in [1.9,6.0]$.\n\nHowever, for $ \\alpha$ close to the bifurcation value $ {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$ the dynamics becomes center-like, and proving uniqueness through these stability arguments becomes infeasible. To overcome this obstacle, we equate the problem of finding periodic orbits to with a zero\u2013finding problem in a space of Fourier coefficients. We then employ rigorous numerics to derive a computer-assisted proof that there is a unique SOPS to Wright\u2019s equation for $\\alpha \\in ( {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}, 1.9]$, thus proving the Jones conjecture.\n\nFurthermore, Theorem \\[prop:Jones\\] allows us to deduce that there are no isolas of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions. Since the nonlinearity in depends only on $x(t-1)$, in fact any periodic orbit is either a SOPS or rescaling thereof. This rescaling between slowly and rapidly oscillating periodic solutions is given in terms of a solution\u2019s lap number [@mallet1988morse] and its period, as detailed in the following theorem:\n\n\\[prop:Rescaling\\] Let $ x_0$ be a periodic solution to at parameter $\\alpha_0$ with period $L_0$ and lap number $ N $. Then there exists a SOPS $x_1(t) = x_0(r t) $ to at parameter $\\alpha_1= r\\alpha_0$ where $r := 1- \\tfrac{N-1}{2} L_0  $.\n\nThus, every periodic orbit is on a branch originating from one of the Hopf bifurcations at $ \\alpha = {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+ 2 n \\pi$. That is to say, there are no isolas of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions. However, this is not sufficient to show there are no folds in the branches of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions. The proofs for Theorem \\[prop:Jones\\] and Theorem \\[prop:Rescaling\\] are presented at the end of Section \\[sec:GlobalAlgorithm\\], and we discuss future directions in Section \\[sec:FutureWork\\].\n\nOutline of Proof\n================\n\nIn this paper we show that there is a unique slowly oscillating periodic orbit to for all $ \\alpha \\in ( {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}, 1.9]$. Like in [@BergJaquette; @lessard2010recent], we recast the problem of studying the periodic orbits of as the problem of finding the zeros of a functional $F$ defined in a space of Fourier coefficients (see Section \\[sec:FunctionDomain\\]). Since periodic solutions to must have a high degree of smoothness, in particular real analyticity [@wright1955non; @nussbaum-analytic], their Fourier coefficients will decay very rapidly. That is to say, the functional we are interested in can be well approximated by a Galerkin projection onto a finite number of Fourier modes.\n\nIn finite dimensions, there are efficacious techniques for rigorously locating and enumerating the solutions to a system of nonlinear equations by way of interval arithmetic [@neumaier1990interval; @hansen2003global; @moore2009introduction]. We apply these techniques in infinite dimensions, specifically the *branch and bound* method, also referred to as a *branch and prune* method. That is, we first construct a bounded set $X$ of Fourier coefficients which contains all the zeros of $F$ (see Section \\[sec:SolutionSpace\\]). Then we partition $X$ into a finite number of pieces $\\{X_n \\}$ which we refer to as *cubes* (see Definition \\[def:cube\\]). For each cube $X_n$ we are interested to know whether:\n\n1.  there exists a unique point $\\hat{x} \\in X_n$ for which $ F(\\hat{x})=0$, or\n\n2.  there does not exist any points $\\hat{x} \\in X_n$ for which $F(\\hat{x})=0$.\n\nIf we can show that $(a)$ holds for one cube, and $(b)$ holds for all the other cubes, then we will have shown that $ F=0$ has a unique solution.\n\nThis approach requires some additional preparation. Since periodic orbits to form a 2-manifold in phase space [@regala1989periodic], the functional $F$ we construct in Section \\[sec:FunctionDomain\\] will not have isolated zeros. The numerical techniques we employ are suited to finding isolated zeros, so it is necessary to reduce the dimension of the kernel by two. Along the principal branch $\\alpha$ can be taken as one of the coordinate dimensions. We reduce this dimension by treating $\\alpha$ as a parameter and performing our estimates uniformly in $\\alpha$. The other dimension can be attributed to time translation; if $y(t)$ is a periodic orbit, then so is $ y(t+\\tau)$ for any $\\tau \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$. We reduce this dimension by imposing a phase condition; we may assume without loss of generality that the first Fourier coefficient is a positive real number (see Proposition \\[prop:TimeTranslation\\]).\n\nThe central technique we use to determine whether $(a)$ or $(b)$ holds for a given cube is the Krawczyk method [@neumaier1990interval; @moore2009introduction; @hansen2003global; @moore1977test]. For a function $f\\in C^1({\\mathbb{R}}^n,{\\mathbb{R}}^n)$ the Krawczyk operator takes as input a rectangular set $X\\subseteq  {\\mathbb{R}}^n$ and produces as output a rectangular set $K(X) \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^n$. This set $K(X)$ has the properties that, $(i)$ if $K(X) \\subseteq X$, then there exists a unique point $ \\hat{x} \\in X$ for which $f(\\hat{x})=0$, and $(ii)$ if $\\hat{x} \\in X$ and $f(\\hat{x}) =0$, then $ \\hat{x} \\in K(X)$. Clearly $(i) $ implies $(a)$, and if $ X \\cap K(X) = \\emptyset$ then $(b)$ follows. Additionally, even if we can prove neither $(a)$ nor $(b)$ our situation could still improve; we can replace $X \\mapsto X \\cap K(X)$ without losing any solutions.\n\nAdjustments are needed to generalize the Krawczyk operator to infinite dimensional systems. In [@galias2007infinite] a Krawczyk operator is defined in Hilbert space to study fixed points and period-2 orbits in an infinite dimensional map. In Section \\[sec:KrawczykBanach\\] we present a generalization of the Krawczyk operator to Banach spaces.\n\n[r]{}[0.6]{}\n\nTo determine whether $(a)$ or $(b)$ holds the Krawczyk operator by itself is not always sufficient, and we combine several additional tests to create a single *pruning operator* (see Section \\[sec:Prune\\]). One problem is that $y \\equiv 0$ is always a trivial periodic solution to . To avoid this pitfall, we use Lemma \\[prop:zeroneighborhood2\\] which rules out small periodic solutions [@BergJaquette]. A further difficulty is that at the Hopf bifurcation, the principal branch of periodic solutions is pinched to a point as their amplitudes approach zero. To handle this case, we use Lemma \\[prop:BifNbd\\] which explicitly gives a neighborhood about the Hopf bifurcation within which the only solutions that could exist are on the principal branch [@BergJaquette]. Lastly, and most simply, if we can directly show that $\\|F\\|$ is bounded away from zero on a cube $X_n$, then $(b)$ holds.\n\nAlgorithm \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\] follows the standard format of a global branch and bound method. In short, for a collection of cubes we successively prune each of its cubes. If $(a)$ holds for a given cube, then it is set aside and added to a list of solutions. If $(b)$ holds for a given cube, then that cube is discarded. If the pruning operator significantly reduces the size of a cube, then the pruning operator is applied again. If none of these are the case, then the cube is split in half, and both pieces are added back to the collection of cubes to inspect. This process repeats until all of the cubes have been removed or reduced to a sufficiently small size.\n\nThe output of Algorithm \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\] is three collections of cubes: ${\\mathcal{A}}$, ${\\mathcal{B}}$, and ${\\mathcal{R}}$ (see Figure \\[fig:Verified\\]). In Theorem \\[prop:BnB\\] we show that these sets have the properties that, $(i)$ each cube in ${\\mathcal{A}}$ has a unique solution with respect to $\\alpha$, $(ii)$ the cubes in ${\\mathcal{B}}$ are near the Hopf bifurcation, with any solutions contained therein residing on the principal branch, and $(iii)$ all solutions to $F=0$ are contained in $\\bigcup {\\mathcal{A}}\\cup {\\mathcal{B}}\\cup {\\mathcal{R}}$.\n\nIdeally ${\\mathcal{R}}= \\emptyset$, and this will often be the case if the zeros of $F$ are simple and the algorithm is allowed to run a sufficiently long time. However we are trying to verify not just simple, isolated solutions, but a 1-parameter family of solutions. As such, sometimes when a cube is split in two this division will bisect the curve of solutions (see Figure \\[fig:BranchANDBound\\]). When this occurs the algorithm will be forced to subdivide many cubes near where the solution curve was bisected, resulting in the variably sized cubes noticeable in Figure \\[fig:Verified\\]. To address this we recombine the cubes in ${\\mathcal{R}}$ which have the same $\\alpha$ values, then subsequently use the Krawczyk operator to show that $(a)$ holds on the recombined cubes (see Algorithm \\[alg:Recombine\\]). In this fashion, we prove Theorem \\[prop:Jones\\].\n\nKrawczyk Operator {#sec:KrawczykBanach}\n-----------------\n\nIn numerical analysis there are many variations on the theme of Newton\u2019s method: $\n    x_{n+1} \\mapsto x_n - Df(x_n)^{-1} f(x_n). \n$ As inverting a matrix is computationally expensive, one alternative method is to replace $ DF(x_n)^{-1}$ with a fixed matrix $A^\\dagger \\approx Df(x_0)^{-1}$. If $f(x_0) \\approx 0$, then the Newton-Kantorovich theorem gives conditions for when the map $ T(x) = x - A^\\dagger f(x)$ defines a contraction map in a neighborhood about $x_0$. The Krawczyk operator may be thought of as a way of bounding the image of $T$, itself being defined on rectangular sets $ X \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^n$ and having the property that $T(X) \\subseteq K(X,x_0)$. Rectangular, in the sense that $X$ can be given as the product of intervals in the coordinate directions of ${\\mathbb{R}}^n$. Here we generalize the Krawczyk operator to non-rectangular subsets of Banach spaces.\n\n\\[def:Krawczyk\\] Let $Y,Z$ denote Banach spaces and let $ A^\\dagger:Z \\to Y$ be an injective, bounded linear operator. Fix a convex, closed and bounded set $X \\subseteq Y$, a neighborhood $ U \\supseteq X$, and a Frechet differentiable function $f:U \\to Z $. Let $$( I - A^\\dagger Df(X))(X-\\bar{x}) = \\overline{conv} \\left( \\bigcup_{x_1,x_2 \\in X}  ( I - A^\\dagger Df(x_1)) (x_2-\\bar{x})  \\right),$$ where $\\overline{conv}$ denotes the closure of the convex hull. For a point $ \\bar{x} \\in X$ we define the Krawczyk operator $K(X,\\bar{x})$ as: $$\\label{eq:KrawczykDef}\n    K(X,\\bar{x}) := \\bar{x} - A^\\dagger f( \\bar{x}) + ( I - A^\\dagger Df(X))(X-\\bar{x}) \\subseteq Y.$$\n\nTypically $ \\bar{x}$ is taken to be the center of $ X$, and $A^\\dagger$ is taken to be an approximate inverse of $ DF(\\bar{x})$. If $ K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq X$ for a rectangular set $X \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^n$, then there exists a unique $\\hat{x}$ such that $ f(\\hat{x})=0$. In Theorem \\[prop:Krawczyk\\] we prove an analogous result. The existence of a fixed point is achieved by the Schauder fixed point theorem. However to prove uniqueness, dropping the rectangular condition causes problems even in finite dimensions; in Theorem \\[prop:Krawczyk\\] $(iv)$ we prescribe a hypothesis sufficient for proving uniquessness in our level of generality.\n\n\\[prop:Krawczyk\\] Suppose $K$ is a Krawczyk operator as given in Definition \\[def:Krawczyk\\] and $ T:= x - A^\\dagger f(x)$.\n\n(i) If $x \\in X$, then $ T(x) \\in K(X,\\bar{x})$.\n\n(ii) If $ \\hat{x} \\in X$ and $ f(\\hat{x} )=0$, then $ \\hat{x} \\in K(X,\\bar{x})$.\n\n(iii) If $K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq X$ and $X$ is compact, then there exists a point $ \\hat{x} \\in X$ such that $ f(\\hat{x})=0$.\n\n(iv) If $K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq X$ and there exists $0 \\leq \\lambda < 1$ such that $( I - A^\\dagger Df(X))(X-\\bar{x}) \\subseteq \\lambda \\cdot ( X - \\bar{x})$, then there exists a unique point $ \\hat{x} \\in X$ such that $ f(\\hat{x})=0$.\n\n$\\,$\n\n(i) Fix a point $x \\in X$ and write $ h = x - \\bar{x}$. By the mean-value theorem for Frechet differentiable functions [@ambrosetti1995primer], we have: $$\\begin{aligned}\n            T(x) \n            &= \\bar{x} - A^\\dagger f(\\bar{x}) + \\int_{0}^{1} DT( \\bar{x} + t h)  \\cdot h \\, dt  \\nonumber \\\\ \n            &=  \\bar{x} - A^\\dagger f(\\bar{x}) + \\lim_{N \\to \\infty}    \\sum_{i=1}^N  \\tfrac{1}{N} \\left( I - A^\\dagger Df(\\bar{x} + \\tfrac{i}{N}h) \\right) \\cdot h  \\nonumber \\\\\n            &\\in   \\bar{x} - A^\\dagger f(\\bar{x}) + \\overline{conv} \\left(  \\left( I - A^\\dagger Df(X) \\right) \\cdot (x - \\bar{x}) \\right)   \\\\\n            &\\subseteq K(X,\\bar{x}). \\label{eq:TsubK}\n            \\end{aligned}$$\n\n(ii) If there is some $ \\hat{x} \\in X$ such that $ f(\\hat{x} )=0$, then $\\hat{x} =  T(\\hat{x}) \\in K(X,\\bar{x})$.\n\n(iii) Since $ T(X) \\subseteq K(X,\\bar{x})$ by *(i)* and $K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq X$ by assumption, therefore $ T(X) \\subseteq X$. As $T$ is continuous and $X$ is convex and compact, then by the Schauder fixed point theorem there exists some $ \\hat{x} \\in X$ such that $\\hat{x} =T(\\hat{x})$. Since $A$ is injective, the zeros of $f$ are in bijective correspondence with the fixed points of $ T$, thereby $ f(\\hat{x})=0$.\n\n(iv) Inductively define: $X_0=X$, $x_0 = \\bar{x}$, and $X_{n+1} = T(X_n)$, $x_{n+1} = T(x_n) $. Note that as $T(X) \\subseteq X$ then $X_{n+1} \\subseteq X_n$ for all $n$. We show that $ X_n \\subseteq x_n + \\lambda^n (X_0 - x_0)$. This is clearly true for $ n=0$. For $ n \\geq 1$ then: $$\\begin{aligned}\n            X_{n+1} &\\subseteq K(X_n,x_n) \\\\\n            &=  x_n - A^\\dagger f(x_n) + (I -A^\\dagger Df(X_n)) \\cdot (X_n -x_n) \\\\\n            &\\subseteq x_{n+1} + (I -A^\\dagger D f(X_0)) \\cdot \\lambda^n (X_0 -x_0) \\\\\n            &\\subseteq x_{n+1} + \\lambda^{n+1} (X_0 - x_0). \n            \\end{aligned}$$ Since $ \\lambda^{n}  \\| X_0-x_0 \\|$ can be made arbitrarily small and $ \\{ x_n\\}_{n=N }^\\infty\\subseteq X_N$, it follows that $ \\{x_n\\}$ is a Cauchy sequence. As $X$ is complete, then $ \\lim x_n = \\hat{x} $ and additionally $  \\bigcap_{n=0}^\\infty X_n = \\hat{x}$. Thereby $\\hat{x}$ is the unique fixed point of $T$ in $X_0=X$ and the unique zero of $ f$ in $X$.\n\nFunctions and Domains {#sec:FunctionDomain}\n---------------------\n\nAs in [@BergJaquette; @lessard2010recent], we convert Wright\u2019s equation into a functional equation on the space of Fourier coefficients. For a continuous periodic function $y:{\\mathbb{R}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ with frequency $\\omega >0$, we may write it as: $$y(t)  = \\sum_{k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}} c_{k} e^{ i \\omega k t }\n\\label{eq:FourierEquation}$$ where $ c_k \\in {\\mathbb{C}}$ and $\\sum_{k\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}} |c_k|^2 < \\infty$. By [@BergJaquette] it suffices to work with sequences $ \\{ c_k \\}_{k=1}^{\\infty}$ to study periodic solutions to . This is because real-valued functions have Fourier coefficients satisfying $ c_{-k} =c^*_k$, and periodic solutions to necessarily satisfy $c_0 =0$. Hence we define the following Banach spaces: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ell^1 :=& \\left\\{ \\{ c_k \\}_{k=1}^\\infty : c_k \\in {\\mathbb{C}}\\mbox{ and } \\sum_{k=1}^\\infty | c_k| < \\infty  \\right\\} & \\| c \\|_{\\ell^1} =& 2 \\sum_{k = 1}^\\infty | c_k| \\\\\n\\Omega^s :=& \\left\\{ \\{ c_k \\}_{k=1}^\\infty : c_k \\in {\\mathbb{C}}\\mbox{ and } \\sup_{k \\in{\\mathbb{N}}} k^s |c_k| < \\infty  \\right\\} & \\| c \\|_{s} =&  \\sup_{k \\in{\\mathbb{N}}} k^s | c_k|.\\end{aligned}$$ The smoother a function is the faster its Fourier coefficients will decay; if a function is $s$\u2013times continuously differentiable, then its Fourier coefficients will be in $ {\\Omega}^s$. Since periodic solutions to are real analytic [@wright1955non; @nussbaum-analytic], it follows that their Fourier coefficients will be in $ {\\Omega}^s$ for all $ s \\geq 0$.\n\nIf $y$ is a solution to Wright\u2019s equation, then by substituting into we obtain: $$\\sum_{k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}} i \\omega k c_k e^{ i \\omega k t} = - \\alpha \\left(\\sum_{k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}}  c_k e^{-i \\omega k}  e^{ i \\omega k t}\\right) \\left( 1 + \\sum_{k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}}  c_k e^{ i \\omega k t}\\right).$$ By matching the $ e^{ i \\omega k t}$ terms, subtracting the RHS, and dividing through by $\\alpha$, we obtain the following sequence of equations for $k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$ below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n[F(\\alpha,\\omega,c)]_k=&\\,\n\\left( i \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\alpha} k +  e^{ - i \\omega k} \\right) c_k +  \\sum_{\\substack{k_1,k_2\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}\\\\ k_1 + k_2 = k}} e^{- i \\omega k_1} c_{k_1} c_{k_2} \n\\label{eq:FourierSequenceEquation} \\\\\n  =&\\,\n\\left( i \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\alpha}  k + e^{ - i \\omega k }\\right) c_k +   \\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} e^{-i \\omega j } c_j c_{k-j}  + \\sum_{j=1}^{\\infty} \\left(e^{-i \\omega (j+k) }  +e^{i \\omega j } \\right) c_j^* c_{j+k}.\n\\label{eq:FourierSequenceEquation_2} \\end{aligned}$$ Dividing through by $\\alpha$ ensures that the parameter dependence in $F$ is solely concentrated in the linear part. In this manner $y$ is a periodic solution with frequency $ \\omega$ to Wright\u2019s equation at parameter $ \\alpha$ if and only if $ [F(\\alpha,\\omega, c)]_k=0$ for all $ k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$ [@BergJaquette; @jlm2016Floquet].\n\nTo more succinctly express the functional $F$ we introduce additional notation. For a sequence $ c=\\{ c_k\\}_{k=1}^\\infty$ we denote the projection onto the $k$-coefficient by $ [c]_k := c_k$. We define unnormalized basis elements $ e_j \\in \\ell^1,{\\Omega}^s$ for $ j\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    [e_j]_k = \n    \\begin{cases}\n    1 & \\mbox{ if } k = j, \\\\\n    0 & \\mbox{ if } k \\neq j.\n    \\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$ We define the discrete convolution $a*b$ for $ a,b \\in \\ell^1$ component-wise by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\left[ a * b \\right]_k &:= \\sum_{|k_1| + |k_2| = k} a_{k_1} b_{k_2}  & \n    & = \\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} a_j b_{k-j} + \\sum_{j=1}^\\infty a_j^* b_{k+j} + a_{k+j} b_j^*,\\end{aligned}$$ where $  a_{-k} = a_k^*$ and $ b_{-k}=b_k^*$, and the sum is taken over $ k_1 , k_2 \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$. The space $\\ell^1$ is a Banach algebra, which is to say that $\\| a * b \\|_{\\ell^1} \\leq \\|a \\|_{\\ell^1}   \\| b\\|_{\\ell^1} $ for all $ a , b \\in \\ell^1$. While $ {\\Omega}^s$ is not a Banach algebra *per se*, if $ s \\geq 2$ then there exists a constant $B \\geq 0$ such that $ \\| a * b \\|_s \\leq B \\| a \\|_s   \\| b \\|_s$ for all $a ,b \\in \\Omega^s$ (see [@lessard2010recent; @berg2008chaotic]). Lastly, we define a linear operator ${\\mathcal{K}}: \\Omega^{s} \\to \\Omega^{s+1}$ and a continuous family of linear operators $U_\\omega :  \\Omega^{s }\\to \\Omega^{s-1}$ as below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n[{\\mathcal{K}}c ]_k &:=  c_k  /k ,&&&\n[ U_\\omega c ]_k &:= e^{-i k \\omega} c_k .\\end{aligned}$$ The loss of regularity in the range of $U_\\omega$ is necessary for its continuity, as $\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} U_{\\omega} = - i {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\\omega}$. We may extend $ U_\\omega$ to act on bi-infinite sequences $\\{c_k\\}_{k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}}$ using the same component-wise definition. Additionally, this extension is compatible with our definition of the discrete convolution, as $[U_\\omega c]_k^* = [U_\\omega c]_{-k}$ whenever $c_{k}^* = c_{-k}$. In Definition \\[def:Functional\\] we rewrite in operator notation and list several propositions, the proofs of which are left to the reader.\n\n\\[def:Functional\\] Define the function $F:{\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times  \\Omega^{s} \\to  \\Omega^{s-1}$ as: $$F(\\alpha,\\omega,c) := ( i \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\alpha} {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} +  U_{\\omega}) c +  (U_{\\omega} c) * c.$$\n\n\\[prop:Equivalence\\] Let $\\alpha, \\omega>0$. If $ c \\in \\ell^1$ solves $F(\\alpha,\\omega,c) =0$, then $y(t)$, given by\u00a0 with $ c_0=0$ and $ c_{-k} = c^*_k$, is a periodic solution of\u00a0 with period\u00a0$2\\pi/\\omega$. Vice versa, if $y(t)$ is a periodic solution of\u00a0 with period\u00a0$2\\pi/\\omega$, then its Fourier coefficients satisfy $c_0 = 0 $, $c_{-k} =c_{k}^*$, $\\{c_k\\}_{k=1}^\\infty \\in \\ell^1 $ and solve $F(\\alpha,\\omega,\\{c_k\\}_{k=1}^\\infty) =0$.\n\n\\[prop:Frechet\\] For each $\\alpha > 0$ and $ s \\geq 2 $ the function $F:{\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times  \\Omega^{s} \\to    \\Omega^{s-1}$ is Frechet differentiable, with partial derivatives given as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} \n    F(\\alpha,\\omega,c) &= i {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} (\\alpha^{-1}  I - U_{\\omega}) c - i  ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\\omega} c) * c  \\label{eq:dFdW} \\\\\n            \\frac{\\partial }{\\partial c} F(\\alpha,\\omega,c) \\cdot h &= ( i \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\alpha} {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} + U_\\omega) h + (U_\\omega c) * h + (U_\\omega h )*c, \\label{eq:dFdC} \n    \\end{aligned}$$ where $ h \\in \\Omega^{s}$.\n\n\\[prop:DerivativeComponent\\] Define $\\gamma_1(k,n) := e^{-i \\omega(n+k)} + e^{i \\omega n} $ and $ \\gamma_2(k,n) := e^{-i \\omega n} + e^{i \\omega (n-k) } $. Writing $ c_k = a_k + i b_k$, the component-wise derivatives of $ F$ are given as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega }\n    [F(\\alpha, \\omega,c)]_k \n    =& \\;\n    i k ( \\alpha^{-1}  -    e^{ - i \\omega k }) c_k \n    -i   \\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} j e^{-i \\omega j } c_j c_{k-j}  \\nonumber \\\\ &\n    \\;- i  \\sum_{j=1}^{\\infty} \\left( (j+k)e^{-i \\omega (j+k) }  -j e^{i \\omega j } \\right) c_j^* c_{j+k}   . \\\\\n    \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial a_n} [F(\\alpha,\\omega,c)]_k \n    =& \\;\n        ( i \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\alpha}  k + e^{ - i \\omega k })+\n    \\begin{cases}\n    \\gamma_1 c_{n+k} + \\gamma_2  c_{k-n}  & \\mbox{if } 1\\leq n < k \\\\\n    \\gamma_1 c_{n+k} + \\gamma_2  c_{n-k}^* \n    & \\mbox{if } k \\leq n . \n    \\end{cases} \\\\\n                \\frac{1}{i} \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial b_n} [F(\\alpha,\\omega,c)]_k \n    =& \\;\n    ( i \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\alpha}  k + e^{ - i \\omega k })+\n    \\begin{cases}\n    -\\gamma_1  c_{n+k} + \\gamma_2  c_{k-n}  & \\mbox{if } 1 \\leq n < k \\\\\n    -\\gamma_1 c_{n+k} + \\gamma_2  c_{n-k}^* \n    & \\mbox{if } k \\leq  n. \n    \\end{cases} \n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nDecomposition of Phase Space\n----------------------------\n\nBy working in a space of rapidly decaying Fourier coefficients, we are able to closely approximate the value of $F$ using a Galerkin projection. Since $F: {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times  {\\Omega}^{s} \\to {\\Omega}^{s-1}$ has distinct domain and range, we need to define two sets of projection maps. We define projection maps $ \\pi_\\alpha ,\\pi_{\\omega} : {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s  \\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ and $ \\pi_c : {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s \\to {\\Omega}^s$ on points $ x= ( \\tilde{\\alpha},\\tilde{\\omega},\\tilde{ c}) \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s$ as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\pi_{\\alpha} (x) &:= \\tilde{\\alpha} \n    &\n    \\pi_{\\omega} (x) &:= \\tilde{\\omega}\n    &\n    \\pi_{c} (x) &:= \\tilde{c} .\\end{aligned}$$ For a fixed integer $M \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, define the projection maps $\\pi_{M}, \\pi_{\\infty} : {\\Omega}^s \\to {\\Omega}^s$ by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\pi_{M}(c) &:= \\sum_{k=1}^M [c]_k e_k &&&\n\\pi_{\\infty}(c) &:= c - \\pi_{M} (c).\n\\label{eq:Galerkin1}\\end{aligned}$$ Define the projection maps $\\pi_{M}' ,\\pi_\\infty': {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s \\to {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s$ by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\pi_{M}'(c) &:=  (\\pi_\\alpha(x), \\pi_\\omega(x), \\pi_{M} \\circ \\pi_c (x)) &&&\n\\pi_{\\infty}'(c) &:= (0,0, \\pi_{\\infty} \\circ \\pi_c (x)).\n\\label{eq:Galerkin2}\\end{aligned}$$ For any bounded set $X \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s$, define: $$|X|_k := \\sup_{x \\in X} \\left| [\\pi_{c} (x)]_k \\right|.$$ We define for $ F$ its Galerkin projection and remainder $ F_M, F_\\infty : {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^{s} \\to {\\Omega}^{s-1}$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_M( x) &:= \\pi_M \\circ F( \\pi_M'(x)),  &\nF_\\infty(x) &:= F(x) - F_M(x).\\end{aligned}$$ By construction $ F = F_M + F_\\infty$.\n\nTo show that there is a unique SOPS to we need to evaluate $F$ not just on single points but on voluminous subsets of its domain. The central subset of ${\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s$ we consider in this paper are *cubes* which we define as follows:\n\n\\[def:cube\\] For $M \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, $s\\geq 0$, $C_0>0$ define a cube $ X := X_M \\times X_\\infty \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times \\Omega^s$ to be of the following form: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    X_{M}       &:= [\\underline{\\alpha},\\overline{\\alpha}] \\times [\\underline{\\omega},\\overline{\\omega}]   \\times \\prod_{k=1}^M [\\underline{A}_k , \\overline{A}_k] \\times [\\underline{B}_k , \\overline{B}_k]  \\label{eq:XMdef} \\\\   \n    X_\\infty    &:= \\left\\{ c_k  \\in {\\mathbb{C}}: |c_k| \\leq C_0 /k^s  \\right\\}_{k=M+1}^\\infty \\label{eq:XIdef}. \n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nTo denote the union of a collection of cubes ${\\mathcal{S}}: = \\{  X_i \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s \\}$ we define $    \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}:= \\bigcup_{X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}} X        \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s$.\n\nThere are primarily two reasons we have chosen to consider cubical subsets of $ {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s$. Firstly, cubes are particularly easy to refine into smaller pieces. This is useful because to begin using a branch and bound method, we need to obtain global bounds on the solution space, and then partition these bounds into smaller pieces. In practice, we reduce the size of a cube by either subdividing it along a lower dimension into two cubes, or replacing the cube by its intersection with the Krawczyk operator: $X \\mapsto X \\cap K(X,\\bar{x})$. In both these cases the resulting object is again a cube. In this manner, we can use cubes to cover the solutions to $ F=0$, and then refine the cover using successively smaller cubes.\n\nSecondly, cubes facilitate explicit computations of $F_M$ and analytical estimates of $F_\\infty$. While formally $F_M$ is an infinite dimensional map, computationally, we may consider $F_M$ to be a map $ {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\mathbb{C}}^M \\to {\\mathbb{C}}^M$. To calculate $F_M$, we simply truncate the second sum in at $ j = M-k$. As the $\\pi'_M$ projection of a cube is given as a finite product of intervals, it is well suited for using interval arithmetic [@moore2009introduction] to bound the image of $F_M(X)$. On the other hand, bounding $F_\\infty$ requires significantly more analysis. Below is a simple, yet ever recurring estimate in our calculations: $$\\label{eq:SumIntegral}\n     \\sum_{k=M+1}^\\infty \\frac{1}{k^s} \\leq \\int_M^\\infty \\frac{1}{x^s} dx = \\frac{1}{(s-1)M^{s-1}},$$ where we take $ s >1$. For example, if a cube $ X \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s$ satisfies $ s >1$, then $ \\| \\pi_c x \\|_{\\ell^1} \\leq   2 \\sum_{k=1}^M |X|_k  + \\frac{2 C_0 }{(s-1)M^{s-1}} $ for all $ x \\in X$. This specific bound on the $\\ell^1$ norm is later used in Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] to check whether Lemmas \\[prop:zeroneighborhood2\\] or \\[prop:BifNbd\\] apply.\n\n\\[prop:zeroneighborhood2\\] Let $\\omega \\geq 1.1$, $\\alpha \\in (0,2]$, and define $$g(\\alpha,\\omega) := \\sqrt{ \\left(1- \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\alpha} \\right)^2 + 2   \\, \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\alpha} \\left( 1- \\sin  \\omega \\right)} .\n    \\label{eq:ZeroNbd}$$ If $F(\\alpha,\\omega,c)=0$, then either $c \\equiv 0$ or $     g(\\alpha,\\omega) \\leq  \\|c \\|_{\\ell^1}   $.\n\n\\[prop:BifNbd\\] For each $\\alpha  \\in  ({\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}, {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+ 0.00553] $ there is a unique (up to time translation) periodic solution to Wright\u2019s equation with Fourier coefficients satisfying $  \\|c \\|_{\\ell^1} \\leq  0.18$ and having frequency $ | \\omega - {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}| \\leq 0.0924$.\n\nWe note that while Lemma \\[prop:zeroneighborhood2\\] is stated only for $ \\omega \\geq 1.1$ and $ \\alpha \\in (0,2]$, a more general formula is given in [@BergJaquette]. Also, we present the hypothesis of Lemma \\[prop:BifNbd\\] in terms of a bound on $ \\| c\\|_{\\ell^1}$ as opposed to a bound on $ \\| y'\\|_{L^2}$ as in the original paper. This allows us to use the stronger result derived in the proof of [@BergJaquette Theorem 4.10], namely that the solution *exists* and is unique, as opposed to the exact result stated in [@BergJaquette Theorem 4.10], which is that there is most one periodic solution.\n\nThe remainder of this section is dedicated to proving Lemma \\[prop:CentralLemma\\], which estimates $F_\\infty$, its derivatives, and convolution products resulting from points inside of a cube. These estimates are used in Definition \\[def:KrawczykApprox\\] to construct an outer approximation to the Krawczyk operator. The reader is encouraged to skip the proof of Lemma \\[prop:CentralLemma\\] on a first reading, which is best summarized as bounding various infinite sums by various finite sums and the estimate in . These bounds are presented in Definition \\[def:Gfunctions\\], all of which are given as a finite number of operations, explicitly computable in terms of $C_0$ and the $\\pi'_M$-projection of a given cube. In Lemma \\[prop:DiscreteConv\\] we define the constant $\\gamma_M$ which is needed for the definition of .\n\n\\[prop:DiscreteConv\\] Let $s \\geq 2$ and let $s_*$ be the largest integer such that $ s_* \\leq s$ and define: $$\\gamma_k := 2 \\left[ \\frac{k}{k-1}\\right]^s + \\left[ \\frac{4 \\ln (k-2)}{k} + \\frac{\\pi^2 -6}{3} \\right] \\left[ \\frac{2}{k} + \\frac{1}{2} \\right]^{s_*-2}.$$ For $k \\geq 4$, we have that $  \\sum_{k_1 =1}^{k-1} \\frac{k^s}{k_1^{s} (k-k_1)^s} \\leq  \\gamma_k $. If $ 6 \\leq M \\leq k$, then $ \\gamma_k \\leq  \\gamma_M $.\n\n\\[def:Gfunctions\\] Fix a cube $ X  $ with $ s >2$, define $C_1 := \\sup_{x\\in X} \\| \\pi_c x \\|_s$, and select a point $ \\bar{x} = (\\bar{\\alpha},\\bar{\\omega} , \\bar{c}) \\in X$ such that $ \\bar{x} = \\pi'_M(\\bar{x} )$. Define $ H = X - \\bar{x}$, and define $ \\Delta_\\omega \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$ such that $\\Delta_\\omega \\geq \\sup_{x \\in H} |\\pi_\\omega (x) - \\bar{\\omega}| $.\n\nDefine $h,g_M^{i},g_M^{ii} $ to be functions of the form $ g_M : X \\mapsto g_M(X) \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^M$ and define $g_\\infty^i,g_\\infty^{ii,a},g_\\infty^{ii,b}$ to be functions of the form $ g_\\infty: X \\mapsto g_\\infty(X) \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$ as follows:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    [h(X)]_k := &\\; \\frac{2 C_0^2}{(s-1)M^{s-1} (M+k+1)^{s} }+  2 C_0 \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M  \\frac{ |X|_j}{(j+k)^s} \\label{eq:F_tail} \\\\\n            [g_M^{i}(X)]_k  := &\\;\n    2 C_0  \\Delta_\\omega \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M  \\frac{|X|_j}{(j+k)^{(s-1)}}    \\nonumber \\\\\n        &+ \\frac{C_0^2  \\Delta_\\omega}{(s-2)(M+k+1)^sM^{(s-2)} }   + \n    \\frac{C_0^2  \\Delta_\\omega }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^{(s-1)}M^{(s-1)} }   \\label{eq:giM}  \\\\\n        [g_M^{ii}(X)]_k  := & \\;\n    \\frac{4 C_0^2 }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^s M^{s-1}}    + \n    2 C_0 \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M  \\frac{|H|_j}{(j+k)^s}   \\label{eq:giiM}  \\\\\n        g_\\infty^i(X) := &\\;\n    \\max_{ M+1 \\leq k \\leq 2M } k^{s} \\sum_{j=k-M}^{M}   |\\bar{c}_j \\bar{c}_{k-j}|    \\label{eq:giInfty}\\\\\n        g_\\infty^{ii,a}(X) := &\\; \\max_{M+1 \\leq k \\leq 2 M}  k^s  \\sum_{j=k-m}^M |H|_j |X|_{k-j}   \\nonumber  \\\\\n    &+ \\frac{2 C_0^2 (2^s+1)}{(s-1)M^{s-1}} + C_0    \\sum_{j=1}^{M} \\left(|X|_j +|H|_j \\right) \\left( \\left( \\frac{M+j+1}{M+1} \\right)^s +1 \\right)    \n    \\label{def:giiB}    \\\\\n        g_\\infty^{ii,b}(X) := &\\;  \\frac{C_1^2 \\gamma_{M+1}}{2} +    C_ 0C_1 \\left( \\frac{s-1}{(M+2)(s-2)} + \\frac{s}{s-1} \\right)  .       \\label{def:giiC} \n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\[prop:CentralLemma\\] Fix a cube $X$ with $ M \\geq 5$, $s >2$, a point $ \\bar{x} \\in X$ such that $ \\bar{x} = \\pi'_M(\\bar{x} )$, and define $H = X - \\bar{x}$. Then the following inequalities hold: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{eq:prop_F_tail} \n    \\sup_{x \\in X} \n    \\left|F_{\\infty}(x)  \\right|_k &< [h(X)]_k\n    &  1 \\leq  k \\leq M \\\\\n        \\label{eq:prop_finite_defect_w}\n    \\sup_{x \\in X , h \\in H} \n    \\left|\\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} F_{\\infty}(x)\n     \\cdot \\pi_\\omega(h) \\right|_k \n    &\\leq [g_M^{i}(X)  ]_k\n    &  1 \\leq  k \\leq M \\\\\n        \\label{eq:prop_finite_defect_c}\n        \\sup_{x \\in X , h \\in H} \n    \\left|\\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial c} F_{\\infty}(x) \n    \\cdot \\pi_c(h)  \\right|_k \n    & \\leq[ g_M^{ii}(X) ]_k \n    & 1 \\leq  k \\leq M  \\\\\n        \\label{eq:prop_F_infty_center}\n    \\left|      F_\\infty(  \\bar{x})  \\right|_k &\\leq    \\frac{1}{ k^s} g_\\infty^i(X)        \n    & M + 1 \\leq  k \\\\\n        \\label{eq:prop_giiB}\n    \\sup_{x \\in X , h \\in H} \n    \\left|\\pi_c(h)* \\pi_c(x) \\right|_k  &\\leq \\frac{1}{k^s}  g_\\infty^{ii,a}(X) \n    & M + 1 \\leq  k \\\\\n        \\label{eq:prop_giiC}\n        \\sup_{x_1  , x_2 \\in X} \n    \\left|({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} \\pi_c(x_1)) * \\pi_c(x_2) \\right|_k &\\leq \\frac{1}{k^{s-1}} g_\\infty^{ii,b}(X) \n    & M + 1 \\leq  k .\n        \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThroughout, let us write $X_M = \\pi'_M (X)$, $H_M = \\pi'_M (H)$, and $H_\\infty = \\pi_\\infty' (H)$, noting also that $ H_\\infty = \\pi_\\infty'(X)$.\n\nWe show that $\\left|F_{\\infty}(x)  \\right|_k  < [h(X)]_k$ for $   1 \\leq  k \\leq M$ and all $x \\in X$. Fix $x =  (\\alpha,\\omega,c)  \\in X$, and write $c_M = \\pi_M(c) $ and $c_\\infty = \\pi_\\infty (c)$. We compute: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\pi_M \\circ F_\\infty (x) &= \\pi_M \\circ  \\left(F(x) - F( \\pi'_M x) \\right)\\\\\n    &= \\pi_M \\circ   \n    \\left(\n    ( U_\\omega  c ) * c - ( U_\\omega c_M) * c_M \n    \\right)\n    \\\\\n    &= \n    \\pi_M \\circ   \n    \\left(   ( U_\\omega c_M) * c_\\infty   +  (  U_\\omega c_\\infty) * c_M + (U_\\omega c_\\infty) * c_\\infty \n    \\right)\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Since $ |U_\\omega c |_k = |c|_k$, it follows that for $1 \\leq k \\leq M$ we compute the estimate below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\left|   ( U_\\omega c_M) * c_\\infty  \\right|_k  + \\left| (U_\\omega c_\\infty )* c_M  \\right|_k \n    \\leq& 2 \\sum_{j=1}^\\infty \n    |c_M^*|_j  |c_\\infty|_{k+j} + |c_M|_{k+j}  |c_\\infty^*|_{j} \\\\\n    =& 2  \n    \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M   \\left| c_M^*   \\right|_{j}  \\left| c_\\infty \\right|_{j+k} \\\\\n    \\leq& 2  \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M  | X|_j  \\frac{C_0}{(j+k)^s} .\n    \\end{aligned}$$ The last estimate uses the property that $ |c_j| \\leq C_0/j^s$ for $ j \\geq M+1$.\n\nWe calculate $( U_\\omega  c_\\infty) * c_\\infty$ as below, again using $ |c_j| \\leq C_0/j^s$ for $ j \\geq M+1$. $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\left| ( U_\\omega  c_\\infty) * c_\\infty  \\right|_k \n        &\\leq  \\sum_{j=M+1}^\\infty  |c^*_\\infty|_j |c_\\infty |_{k+j} + | c_\\infty |_{j+k} |c_\\infty^*|_j  \\\\\n        &\\leq  \\sum_{j=M+1}^\\infty \\frac{2 C_0^2}{j^s (j+k)^s}  \n        \\leq \\frac{2 C_0^2}{(s-1)M^{s-1} (M+k+1)^{s} }.\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Hence for $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$, it follows that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n        \\left|F_{\\infty}(x)  \\right|_k  &\\leq \\; \\frac{2 C_0^2}{(s-1)M^{s-1} (M+k+1)^{s} }+  2 C_0 \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M  \\frac{ |X|_j}{(j+k)^s}  \\\\\n        &= [h(X)]_k .\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe show that $\\left|\\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} F_{\\infty}(x) \\cdot \\pi_\\omega(h) \\right|_k \n    \\leq [g_M^{i}(X)  ]_k $ for $\n    1 \\leq  k \\leq M  $ and all $ x \\in X$ and $h \\in H$. Select some $x = (\\alpha , \\omega , c) \\in X$ and write $c_M = \\pi_M(c) $ and $c_\\infty = \\pi_\\infty (c)$. From we can calculate $\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega}  \n    F_\\infty(x)   $ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega}       F_\\infty (x) \n     &= - i  ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\\omega} c) * c  +   i  \\pi_M ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\\omega} c_M) * c_M  \n     \\nonumber \\\\\n         &= -i \\pi_{\\infty}\\left( {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_\\omega c_M \\right) *c_M \n    - i \\left( {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_\\omega c_M \\right) * c_\\infty  \n    - i \\left( {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\\omega} c_\\infty \\right) ( c_M + c_\\infty) .\n    \\nonumber \n        \\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$ we may calculate the following: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\left| \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega}   F_\\infty(x)   \\right|_k& \n    \\leq    \\sup_{c_M \\in X_M; \\,c_\\infty,c_\\infty' \\in H_\\infty}\n    \\left| ( {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_M) * c_\\infty   \n    +  ( {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_\\infty) * c_M + ( {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_\\infty) * c_\\infty' \\right|_k. \\label{eq:dF_infty_dW}\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nFor $1 \\leq k \\leq M$ and any $c_M \\in X_M,c_\\infty \\in H_\\infty$ we can simplify the first two summands in as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n         ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_M) *_k c_\\infty  \n        &= \n        \\sum_{j =1}^\\infty  [{\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_M^*]_j [c_\\infty]_{k+j} + [{\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_M]_{k+j} [c_\\infty^*]_{j} &\n        &= \n        \\sum_{j =M+1-k}^\\infty j [c_M^*]_j [c_\\infty]_{k+j} \\\\\n                 ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_\\infty) *_k c_M \n        &= \n        \\sum_{j =1}^\\infty  [{\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\\infty^*]_j [c_M]_{k+j} + [{\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_\\infty]_{k+j} [c_M^*]_{j} & \n        &= \n        \\sum_{j =M+1-k}^\\infty  (k+j) [c_\\infty]_{k+j}  [c_M^*]_j   .\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we have the following estimate: $$\\begin{aligned}\n     ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_M) *_k c_\\infty  +  ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_\\infty) *_k c_M \n      &= \n    \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M   (2j+k)[c_\\infty]_{j+k} [c_M^*]_j \n    \\nonumber\n     \\\\\n\\left| ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_M) * c_\\infty\\right|_k  +  \\left|({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_\\infty) * c_M  \\right|_k  &\\leq  \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M  \\frac{(2j+k)C_0}{(j+k)^s} |X|_j\n    \\nonumber\n \\\\\n    &\\leq 2 C_0 \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M  \\frac{|X|_j}{(j+k)^{s-1}}  .\n    \\label{eq:dF_infty_dW_A}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Again, we used the estimate $ |c_j| \\leq C_0/j^s$ for $ j \\geq M+1$. We estimate the third summand in for $c_\\infty ,c_\\infty' \\in H_\\infty$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n     ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_\\infty) *_k c_\\infty'  &=  \\sum_{j=M+1}^\\infty j [c_\\infty^*]_j [c_\\infty']_{k+j} + (j+k) [c_\\infty]_{j+k} [c_\\infty'{}^*]_j \n        \\nonumber \\\\\n    \\left| ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}   c_\\infty) * c_\\infty'  \\right|_k &\\leq  \\sum_{j=M+1}^\\infty \\frac{C_0^2}{j^{(s-1)} (j+k)^s} + \\frac{C_0^2}{j^{s} (j+k)^{(s-1)}} \n        \\nonumber \\\\\n    &\\leq \\frac{C_0^2 }{(s-2)(M+k+1)^sM^{(s-2)} }   + \n    \\frac{C_0^2 }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^{(s-1)}M^{(s-1)} }   .\n        \\label{eq:dF_infty_dW_B}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ By combining the estimates from and into , and recalling our choice of $\\Delta_\\omega$ in Definition \\[def:Gfunctions\\], then for $   1 \\leq  k \\leq M  $ we obtain the following: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sup_{x \\in X, h \\in H}     \\left|\\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} F_{\\infty}(x) \\cdot \\pi_\\omega(h) \\right|_k \n        \\leq    &\\;\n        2 C_0 \\Delta_\\omega \\sum_{j = M-k+1}^M  \\frac{|X|_j}{(j+k)^{(s-1)}}    + \\frac{C_0^2 \\Delta_\\omega }{(s-2)(M+k+1)^sM^{(s-2)} }  \\nonumber \\\\\n        &  + \n        \\frac{C_0^2 \\Delta_\\omega }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^{(s-1)}M^{(s-1)} }    \\\\\n        =&\\;[g_M^{i}(X)  ]_k .      \n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe show that $ \\left|\\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial c} F_{\\infty}(x) \\cdot \\pi_c(h)  \\right|_k \n    \\leq[ g_M^{ii}(X) ]_k $ for $\n    1 \\leq  k \\leq M   $ and all $ x \\in X$ and $h \\in H$. Let $(\\alpha , \\omega , c) \\in X$ and $ h \\in \\pi_c(H)$. From we calculate $ \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial c} (F(X)-F_M(X)) \\cdot h $ below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial c} (F(x)-F(\\pi_M'x)) \\cdot h  =&  \\left(  (U_\\omega h) * c + (U_\\omega c)*h \\right)  - \\left( (U_\\omega h) * c_M + (U_\\omega c_M)*h \\right)  \\\\\n    =&   (U_\\omega h) * (c-c_M) + (U_\\omega (c-c_M) )*h  .\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Since $ c-c_M \\in H_\\infty$, it follows that: $$| \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial c} [F(x)-F(\\pi'_Mx)] \\cdot h |_k \n        \\leq  \\sup_{h \\in H , h' \\in H_{\\infty}} 2 \\cdot |h  * h'_{\\infty} |_k.$$ For $h \\in H$ and $ h' \\in H_\\infty$ and for $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$, we calculate $h*_k h'$ below, using the property that $[h']_j=0$ for $j \\leq M$. $$\\begin{aligned}\n     h*_k h' &=  \n    \\sum_{j=1}^\\infty \\, [h^*]_j  [h']_{k+j} + [h]_{k+j} [h'{}^{*}]_j \\\\\n    &=  \\sum_{j=M-k+1}^{M}  [h^*]_{j} [h']_{ k+j} + \n     \\sum_{j=M+1}^{\\infty }  [h^*]_{j} [h']_{k+j} + [h]_{k+j} [h'{}^{*}]_j  .\n    \\end{aligned}$$ By applying the estimates $|h_j| \\leq |H|_j$ for $j \\leq M$, and $ |h|_j,|h'|_j \\leq C_0 / j^s$ for $ j \\geq M+1$, we obtain the following: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\left|    \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial c } F_\\infty(x) \\cdot h \\right|_k   \n    &\\leq 2\n    \\left(\n     \\sum_{j=M-k+1}^{M} |H|_j \\frac{C_0}{(j+k)^s} + \n    \\sum_{j=M+1}^{\\infty } \\frac{2 C_0^2 }{j^s (j+k)^s}  \\right)\\\\\n    &\\leq \n    2C_0    \\sum_{j=M-k+1}^{M}  \\frac{|H|_{j}}{(j+k)^s}  \\; +\\; \\frac{4 C_0^2 }{(s-1)(M+k+1)^s M^{s-1}} \\\\\n        &= [g_M^{ii}(X)]_k.\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe show that $\\left|        F_\\infty( \\bar{\\alpha}, \\bar{\\omega} , \\bar{c})  \\right|_k  \\leq    \\frac{1}{ k^s} g_\\infty^i(X)    $ for $ \n    M + 1 \\leq  k  $. Since $ \\pi'_M (\\bar{x}) = \\bar{x}$ and $  [ \\bar{c}]_k =0$ for $ k \\geq M+1$, it follows that: $$[   F_\\infty ( \\bar{\\alpha}, \\bar{\\omega} , \\bar{c})]_k = \n    \\begin{cases}\n    0  & \\mbox{ if } k \\leq M \\\\\n    \\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} e^{-i \\omega j } \\bar{c}_j \\bar{c}_{k-j}       & \\mbox{ otherwise.}\n    \\end{cases}\n    \\label{eq:F_infty_center}$$ As $ \\bar{c}_j\\bar{c}_{k-j}=0$ when either $ j > M$ or $ k - j >M$, then it follows that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n|F_\\infty ( \\bar{\\alpha}, \\bar{\\omega} , \\bar{c}) |_k \\leq \\sum_{j=k-M}^{M} |\\bar{c}_j \\bar{c}_{k-j}|  .\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $ |F_\\infty ( \\bar{\\alpha}, \\bar{\\omega} , \\bar{c}) |_k=0 $ for $ k > 2 M$, we calculate: $$\\begin{aligned}\n        |F_\\infty ( \\bar{\\alpha}, \\bar{\\omega} , \\bar{c}) |_k &\\leq  k^{-s}\n        \\max_{ M+1 \\leq k_0 \\leq 2M } k_0^{s} \\sum_{j=k_0-M}^{M}   |\\bar{c}_j \\bar{c}_{k_0-j}| \\\\\n        &= k^{-s}  g_\\infty^i(X) .\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe show that $\\left|h* c \\right|_k   \\leq \\frac{1}{k^s}  g_\\infty^{ii,a}(X) $ for $ M + 1 \\leq  k  $ and all $ c \\in \\pi_c (X)$ and $h \\in \\pi_c (H)$. Fix $x=(\\alpha , \\omega , c) \\in X$ and $  h  \\in \\pi_c(H)$, and write $c_M = \\pi_M(c), c_\\infty= \\pi _\\infty(c), h_M = \\pi_M(h)$, and $h_\\infty = \\pi_\\infty(h)$. We may expand $ h*c$ as follows: $$h*c = h_M * c_M + h_M * c_\\infty + c_M * h_\\infty + h_\\infty*c_\\infty.\n        \\label{eq:H*X}$$ The composition $ h_M * c_M $ only has non-zero components for $ M+1 \\leq k \\leq 2M $, thereby it is bounded by the computable value below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n        h_M *_k c_M &\\leq \\tfrac{1}{k^s}  \\max \\{ k_0^s \\cdot h_M *_{k_0} c_M : M+1 \\leq k_0 \\leq 2 M \\} \\nonumber \\\\ \n&\\leq       \\frac{1}{k^s}   \\max_{M+1 \\leq k_0 \\leq 2 M}  k_0^s  \\sum_{j=k_0-m}^M |H|_j |X|_{k_0-j}   .\n            \\label{eq:HM*XM}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ We calculate $c_M  * h_\\infty$ for $ k \\geq M+1$, noting that $ [h_\\infty]_{k-j}=0$ if $ k-j \\leq M$, as below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n            c_M      *_k h_\\infty  =& \\;\n              \\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} [c_M ]_{j} [h_\\infty]_{k-j}  \n            + \\sum_{j=1}^{\\infty} [c_M^* ]_{j} [h_\\infty]_{k+j}\n            + [c_M]_{k+j} [h_\\infty^*]_{j} \n            \\\\\n            =&  \\sum_{j=k-M-1}^{M} [c_M]_{j} [h_\\infty]_{k-j}  \n            + \\sum_{j=1}^{M} [c_M^*]_{j} [h_\\infty]_{k+j} \n    \\end{aligned}$$ Using the estimates $ |c_j| \\leq |X|_j$ for $j \\leq M$ and $ |h_j| \\leq C_0 / j^s$ for $ j \\geq M+1$, we calculate the following: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    |c_M  * h_\\infty |_k \\leq&  \n    \\sum_{j=k-M-1}^M | X|_j  \\frac{C_0}{(k-j)^s}\n    + \\sum_{j=1}^{M} | X|_j \\frac{C_0}{(k+j)^s} \n    \\nonumber \n    \\\\\n    \\leq&  \\frac{C_0}{k^s}  \\left(  \n    \\sum_{j=k-M-1}^{M} | X|_j \\left( \\frac{k}{k-j} \\right)^s \n    + \\sum_{j=1}^M | X|_j   \\right) .\n    \\label{eq:SumWeird}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\\tfrac{k}{k-j}$ is decreasing with $k$. To maximize the coefficient of $ | X|_j $ in the first sum of , we choose the smallest $k$ such that $ j \\leq k - M -1$. Hence, for each coefficient, we choose $k=M+j+1$ as an upper bound. We obtain the following: $$\\label{eq:XM*Hinfty}\n        |c_M * h_\\infty|_k \\leq \\frac{C_0}{k^s}   \\sum_{j=1}^M |X|_j  \\left(  \\left( \\frac{M+j+1}{M+1} \\right)^s +1 \\right) .$$ An analogous calculation produces a bound for $ | h_M * c_\\infty|$ as given below: $$\\label{eq:HM*Cinfty}\n|h_M * c_\\infty|_k \\leq \\frac{C_0}{k^s}   \\sum_{j=1}^M |H|_j  \\left(  \\left( \\frac{M+j+1}{M+1} \\right)^s +1 \\right) .$$ Lastly we estimate $|h_\\infty * c_\\infty|_k$. For $h_\\infty,c_\\infty \\in H_\\infty$ and $ k \\geq M+1$ we calculate: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    h_\\infty * c_\\infty \n    &= \\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} [h_\\infty]_j [c_\\infty ]_{k-j} \n    +   \\sum_{j=1}^\\infty [h_\\infty^*]_j  [c_\\infty ]_{k+j} \n                        + [h_\\infty]_{k+j} [c_\\infty^{*}]_j \\\\\n        &= \\sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} [h_\\infty]_j [c_\\infty ]_{k-j}  + \n        \\sum_{j=M+1}^\\infty[h_\\infty^*]_j  [c_\\infty ]_{k+j} \n        + [h_\\infty]_{k+j} [c_\\infty^{*}]_j . \n    \\end{aligned}$$ Taking norms and using the estimate $ |h_j| \\leq C_0/j^s$ for $M+1 \\leq j$ we obtain: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    |h_\\infty * c_\\infty|_k \n    &\\leq  \\sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} \\frac{C_0^2}{j^s(k-j)^s} + 2  \\sum_{j=M+1}^{\\infty} \\frac{C_0^2}{j^s(k+j)^s} \\\\\n    &\\leq C_0^2  \\left( \\sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} \\frac{1}{j^s(k-j)^s} \\right)  +   \\frac{2}{k^s} \\frac{C_0^2}{(s-1)M^{s-1}}  .\n    \\end{aligned}$$ The remaining sum is only nonzero for $ k \\geq 2 (M+1)$, and we bound it as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n        \\sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} \\frac{1}{j^s(k-j)^s}  \n        &= \\frac{1}{k^s} \\sum_{j=M+1}^{k-M-1} \\left( \\frac{1}{j} + \\frac{1}{k-j} \\right)^s \\\\\n        &\\leq \\frac{2}{k^s} \\sum_{j=M+1}^{k/2} \\left( \\frac{2}{j}  \\right)^s \\\\\n        &\\leq    \\frac{2^{s+1}}{k^s(s-1)} \\left(\\frac{1}{M^{s-1}} - \\frac{1}{(k/2)^{s-1}} \\right).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ This estimate is maximized in the $ \\| \\cdot \\|_s$ norm by taking $k \\to \\infty$. Thereby, we obtain the following estimate: $$\\label{eq:Hinfty*Hinfty}\n            \\left| h_\\infty * c_\\infty \\right|_k \\leq  \\frac{1}{k^s} \\frac{2 C_0^2 (2^s+1)}{(s-1)M^{s-1}}.$$ By combining the results from (\\[eq:HM\\*XM\\]\u00a0-\u00a0\\[eq:Hinfty\\*Hinfty\\]) into , it follows that if $ M + 1 \\leq  k  $, then $\\left|h* c \\right|_k   \\leq \\frac{1}{k^s}  g_\\infty^{ii,a}(X) $.\n\nWe show that $ \\left|({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} \\pi_c(x_1)) * \\pi_c(x_2) \\right|_k  \\leq \\frac{1}{k^{s-1}} g_\\infty^{ii,b}(X) $ for $\n    M + 1 \\leq  k $ and all $ x_1,x_2 \\in X$. For $ i=1,2$ let us fix $c_i  \\in \\pi_c(X)$ and recall that $ C_1 \\geq \\| c_i \\|_s$ by Definition \\[def:Gfunctions\\]. We can write $  ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_1 )*_k c_2 $ as below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n        ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_1 )*_k c_2\n        &= \n        \\sum_{j = 1 }^{k-1}  j [c_1]_{j} [c_2]_{k-j}  +     \n        \\sum_{j = k+1 }^{\\infty}  j [c_1^*]_{j} [c_2]_{k+j} + (k+j) [c_1]_{k+j} [c_2^*]_j .\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Using $ |c|_j \\leq C_1 / j^s$ and $ |c|_{k+j} \\leq C_0 / (k+j)^s$ for $ k \\geq M+1$, we obtain a bound on $ | ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_1 )* c_2|_k$ as below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n     | ({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} c_1 )* c_2|_k\n    &\\leq \n    \\sum_{j = 1 }^{k-1} \\frac{j C_1 C_1}{j^{s}(k-j)^s}  +   \n        \\sum_{j = 1}^{\\infty}  \\frac{ C_1 C_0}{j^{s-1}(k+j)^s} +  \\sum_{j = 1}^{\\infty} \\frac{C_0 C_1}{(k+j)^{s-1}j^{s}} \\\\ \n    &\\leq \n    C_1^2 \\left(\\sum_{j = 1 }^{k-1} \\frac{1 }{j^{s-1}(k-j)^s} \\right)\n    +   \n    \\frac{C_1 C_0}{(k+1)^s}\\left( 1 + \\frac{1}{s-2}\\right)  \n    +   \n    \\frac{C_1 C_0}{(k+1)^{s-1}}\\left( 1 + \\frac{1}{s-1}\\right).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Since $ 5 \\leq M$, thereby $6 \\leq M+1 \\leq k$ and by Lemma \\[prop:DiscreteConv\\] we can simplify the remaining sum as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\sum_{j =1}^{k-1} \\frac{1}{j^{s-1} (k-j)^s} = \\frac{k}{2}\n    \\sum_{j =1}^{k-1} \\frac{1}{j^{s} (k-j)^s} \\leq \\frac{k}{2} \\frac{\\gamma_k}{k^s} \\leq    \\frac{\\gamma_{M+1}}{2 k^{s-1}}.\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Taking $ k \\geq M+1$, it follows that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n        |({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} \\pi_c(x_1)) * \\pi_c(x_2)|_k \n        &\\leq \n        \\frac{1}{k^{s-1}} \\left( \n        \\frac{C_1^2 \\gamma_{M+1}}{2} \n        + C_1C_0 \\left( \\frac{s-1}{(M+2)(s-2)} + \\frac{s}{s-1} \\right)  \\right) \\\\\n        &= \\frac{1}{k^{s-1}} g_\\infty^{ii,b}(X) .\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nBounding the Krawczyk Operator {#sec:Krawczyk}\n==============================\n\nWhen defining a Krawczyk operator $K(X,\\bar{x})$ for a function $f: Y\\to Z$ one must choose a linear operator $ A^\\dagger : Z \\to Y$. The map $A^\\dagger$ is typically chosen to approximate $Df(\\bar{x})^{-1}$. Even in finite dimensions it may be impossible to exactly calculate the inverse of a matrix using floating point arithmetic. To denote a fixed but numerically approximate definition, we introduce the notation $: \\approx$. Since we set up our theorems in an *a posteriori* format, the question of whether our numerical approximation is sufficiently accurate is answered by whether our computer-assisted proof is successful or not.\n\nAs with any method relying on a contraction mapping argument, the Krawczyk operator is only truly effective in locating the zeros of a function if they are isolated. Since the non-trivial zeros of $F$ are not isolated, and in fact form a 2-manifold [@regala1989periodic], we do not define a Krawczyk operator corresponding directly to $F:{\\mathbb{R}}^ 2 \\times {\\Omega}^s \\to {\\Omega}^{s-1}$. We must first reduce the dimensionality of its domain by two.\n\nWe reduce one of the dimensions by imposing a phase condition; we may assume without loss of generality that the first Fourier coefficient is a positive real number (see Proposition \\[prop:TimeTranslation\\]). To that end, we define a codimension$-1$ subspace $ \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s \\subseteq {\\Omega}^s$ as follows: $$\\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s := \\{ c \\in {\\Omega}^s : c_1=c_1^*\\}.$$ To reduce the other dimension, we consider $\\alpha$ as a parameter and perform our estimates uniformly in $\\alpha$.\n\nFor a cube $ X \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^ 2 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s$ we define a Krawczyk operator to find the zeros of functions $ F_\\alpha :  {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{ {\\Omega}}^{s} \\to {\\Omega}^{s-1}$ for all $\\alpha \\in \\pi_{\\alpha}(X). $ To that end, we would like to define a map $ A^\\dagger $ to be an approximate inverse of the derivative $ DF_{\\bar{\\alpha}}(\\bar{\\omega},\\bar{c}) \\in {\\mathcal{L}}( {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s,{\\Omega}^{s-1})$ for some $ ( \\bar{\\alpha} , \\bar{\\omega} , \\bar{c}) \\in X$. We construct this approximate inverse by combining $A^\\dagger_M$, a $2M \\times 2M$ real matrix on the lower Fourier modes, with the operator $ - ( i\\tfrac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\bar{\\omega}}) {\\mathcal{K}}\\pi_\\infty'$ on the higher Fourier modes.\n\nAs is ever the case, we may only explicitly perform a finite number of operations on fundamentally finite dimensional objects, and because of this we defined Galerkin projections in and . To ensure the sum $F = F_M + F_\\infty$ makes sense, the maps $ \\pi_M, \\pi_M'$ are defined to be but finite rank maps onto a subspace of an infinite dimensional Banach space. To emphasize this finite dimensional subspace as a space in its own right, as well as the new domain ${\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s $, we define the following projection and inclusion maps: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\tilde{\\pi}_M   &: {\\Omega}^s \\twoheadrightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}^ {2M} ,& \n    \\tilde{\\pi}_M'  &:{\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times  \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s \\twoheadrightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}^ {2M}  ,&  \n    \\tilde{i}_M     &:   {\\mathbb{R}}^ {2M} \\hookrightarrow  {\\Omega}^s ,& \n    \\tilde{i}_M'    &: {\\mathbb{R}}^ {2M} \\hookrightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{ {\\Omega}}^s.\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\tilde{\\pi}_M \\circ \\tilde{i}_M     &= id_{{\\mathbb{R}}^{2M}}, & \n\\tilde{\\pi}_M' \\circ \\tilde{i}_M'   &= id_{{\\mathbb{R}}^{2M}} ,&  \n\\tilde{i}_M \\circ \\tilde{\\pi}_M     &= id_{{\\Omega}^s}  ,& \n\\tilde{i}_M' \\circ \\tilde{\\pi}_M'   &= id_{{\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}^s}}.\\end{aligned}$$ We define the linear operator $A^\\dagger$ below in Definition \\[def:Adagger\\] as follows: We note that $A^\\dagger$ will be injective if the $2M\\times 2M$ matrix $A^{\\dagger}_M$ has rank $2M$.\n\n\\[def:Adagger\\] Fix a cube $X \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2  \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^{s}$. For a point $(\\bar{\\alpha},\\bar{\\omega},\\bar{c}) =  \\bar{x}    \\in X$ such that $ \\bar{x} = \\pi'_M(\\bar{x} )$, define the following linear operators: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    A_M \n        &:\\approx \\, \\tilde{\\pi}_M \\circ D     F_{\\bar{\\alpha}} (\\bar{\\omega},\\bar{c}) \\circ \\tilde{i}_M' \n        &A_M &\\in \\mathcal{L}({\\mathbb{R}}^{2M},{\\mathbb{R}}^{2M})\n    \\\\\n    A_M^\\dagger \n        & :\\approx A_M^{-1}\n        &A_M^\\dagger &\\in \\mathcal{L}({\\mathbb{R}}^{2M},{\\mathbb{R}}^{2M}) \n    \\\\\n    A(\\bar{x},M) \n        &:= \\tilde{i}_M \\circ A_M \\circ \\tilde{\\pi}'_M + i \\tfrac{\\bar{\\omega}}{\\bar{\\alpha}} {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} \\pi'_{\\infty} \n        &A(\\bar{x},M)  & \\in  \\mathcal{L}({\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^{s} , {\\Omega}^{s-1} ) \n    \\\\  \n    A^{\\dagger}(\\bar{x},M)   \n        &:= \\tilde{i}'_M \\circ A^{\\dagger}_M \\circ \\tilde{\\pi}_M - i \\tfrac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\bar{\\omega}}   {\\mathcal{K}}\\pi_{\\infty} \n        &A^{\\dagger}(\\bar{x},M)  & \\in  \\mathcal{L}( {\\Omega}^{s-1}, {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^{s}  ) .\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nWhile a Krawczyk operator $K(X,\\bar{x})$ given as in Definition \\[def:Krawczyk\\] is sufficient from a mathematical perspective, from a computational perspective it leaves something to be desired. We address this deficiency in Definition \\[def:KrawczykApprox\\] by defining an explicitly computable operator $ K'(X,\\bar{x})$ as an outer approximation to $K(X,\\bar{x})$, which is to say that $K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq K'(X,\\bar{x})$. In Theorem \\[prop:K\\_Inclusion\\] we prove this, and in Theorem \\[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\\] we give an analogue of Theorem \\[prop:Krawczyk\\].\n\nIn practice, use *interval arithmetic* [@moore2009introduction] to compute an outer approximations for the arithmetic combination of sets (e.g. $A + B = \\bigcup_{a\\in A, b\\in B} a + b$). This allows us to bound the image of functions over rectangular domains, which is to say domains given as the product of intervals. By employing outward rounding, interval arithmetic can be rigorously implemented on a computer [@rump1999intlab]. In every step an outer approximation is constructed as a rectangular domain, and the end result will too be an outer approximation. While obtaining a tight approximation is desirable, it is not required; as long as we have an outer approximation, that is sufficient.\n\n\\[def:KrawczykApprox\\]\n\nFix a cube $X\\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s$ as in Definition \\[def:cube\\] with $M \\geq 5$, $s >2$ and $C_0 >0$. Fix some $ \\bar{x} = ( \\bar{\\alpha} , \\bar{\\omega},\\bar{c}) \\in X$ such that $\\bar{x} = \\pi'_M(\\bar{x})$ and $ \\Delta_{\\omega} \\geq \\sup_{x \\in X}  | \\pi_\\omega(x)-\\bar{\\omega}| $. Fix $ A := A(\\bar{x},M)$ and $ A^{\\dagger } := A^\\dagger(\\bar{x},M)$ as in Definition \\[def:Adagger\\]. Define the following functions: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    g_\\infty^{ii}(X) := & \\frac{2 \\bar{\\alpha}}{\\bar{\\omega} (M+1)} g_\\infty^{ii,a}(X)  +\n    \\sup_{\\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X)}\n    \\Delta_\\omega\n    \\tfrac{  \\bar{\\alpha }}{\\bar{\\omega}}  \\left(  ( \\alpha^{-1} +1) C_0 + g_\\infty^{ii,b}(X)  \\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n        &\\;+  \\sup_{\\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X),\\omega \\in \\pi_\\omega(X)}\n    \\left( |1- \\tfrac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\alpha} \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\bar{\\omega}} | + \\frac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\bar{\\omega} ( M+1)} \\right) C_0 \n     \\label{eq:giiInfty}  \\\\\n    g_M(X)  := & g_M^{i}(X)  +  g_M^{ii}(X) \\\\\n    g_\\infty(X)  := & \\tfrac{\\bar{\\alpha}/\\bar{\\omega}}{M+1} g_\\infty^{i}(X)  +  g_\\infty^{ii}(X) .\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Define $    K'(X,\\bar{x}) :=  K'_M(X,\\bar{x})  \\times K'_\\infty(X,\\bar{x})$ by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    K'_M(X,\\bar{x})  :=& \\, \\bar{x} - A_M^{\\dagger} F_M( \\bar{x}) +\n    (I_M - A_M^{\\dagger}A_M) \\cdot \\pi_M' (X-\\bar{x}) \\nonumber \n    \\\\\n    & +         A_M^{\\dagger}( A_M- DF_M(X))(X-\\bar{x}) \n        \\pm A_M^\\dagger  g_M(X) \n    \\label{eq:K'M}\n    \\\\\n    K'_\\infty(X,\\bar{x}) :=&    \\left\\{ c_k  \\in {\\mathbb{C}}: |c_k| < g_\\infty(X) /k^s  \\right\\}_{k=M+1}^\\infty, \n    \\end{aligned}$$ where $F_M(\\bar{x}) \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^{2M}$ is calculated to include the image of $F_M(\\bar{x})$ for all $ \\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha (X)$, where $DF_M(X) \\subseteq {\\mathcal{L}}({\\mathbb{R}}^{2M},{\\mathbb{R}}^{2M}) $ is calculated to include the image of ${\\tilde{\\pi}}_M \\circ DF_\\alpha(\\omega,c) \\circ \\tilde{i}_M'$ for all $(\\alpha,\\omega,c) \\in X$, and where $ \\pm  A^\\dagger_M g_M(X) \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^{2M}$ is calculated to be a set satisfying: $$\\bigcup_{|v|_k \\leq |g_M(X)|_k} A_M^\\dagger \\cdot v \\subseteq \\pm A^\\dagger_M  g_M(X).$$\n\n\\[prop:K\\_Inclusion\\] Fix a cube $X$ as in Definition \\[def:cube\\] with $M \\geq 5$, $s >2$ and $C_0>0$. Fix a point $ \\bar{x}   \\in X$ such that $\\bar{x} = \\pi'_M(\\bar{x} )$, and fix $ A := A(\\bar{x},M)$, $ A^{\\dagger } := A^\\dagger(\\bar{x},M)$ as in Definition \\[def:Adagger\\]. Fix some $ \\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X)$, and for $ f \\equiv F_\\alpha :{\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s \\to {\\Omega}^{s-1}$ let $K$ be given as in Definition \\[def:Krawczyk\\]. Then $ K(X,\\bar{x} ) \\subseteq K'(X,\\bar{x}).$\n\nLet $H := X - \\bar{x}$. We begin by proving that $\\pi_M'  (K(X,\\bar{x})) \\subseteq  \\pi_M' ( K'(X,\\bar{x}))$, first showing that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\pi_{M}' \\circ   (I- A^\\dagger  DF (X)) \\cdot H \n    \\subseteq &\n    K'_M(X,\\bar{x}) -\\left(\\bar{x} - A_M^{\\dagger} F_M( \\bar{x}) \\right). \n    \\label{eq:prop:K_M_inclusion}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Fix some $ x \\in X$ and $h = (h_\\omega,h_c) \\in H$. We start by adding and subtracting $ A^\\dagger A$, rewriting the LHS of as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\pi_{M}'     (I- A^\\dagger  DF (x)) \\cdot h\n    =& \n    (I_M-A^\\dagger_M A_M)\\cdot  \\pi_{M}' (h)  \n    +   \\pi_{M}'     A^\\dagger (A-  DF (x)) \\cdot h \\\\\n    =& \n    (I_M-A^\\dagger_M A_M)\\cdot  \\pi_{M}' (h)  \\\\\n    &+      A_M^{\\dagger}( A_M- DF_M(x)) \\cdot \\pi_{M}' (h) + A^\\dagger_M  \\pi_M  DF_\\infty (x) \\cdot \\pi_{M}' (h).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ By and it follows that $ | \\pi_M D F_\\infty (x) \\cdot h |_k \\leq [g_M^i (X) + g_M^{ii}(X)]_k $. Thereby, it follows that: $  A_M^\\dagger   \\pi_M D F_\\infty (x) \\cdot h  \\subseteq \\pm |A_M^\\dagger |   \\cdot  g_M(X)$ for all $x \\in X$ and $h\\in H$. Hence from the definition of $ K'(X,\\bar{x}) $ given in , then follows. From we have that $ \\pi_M F_\\infty(\\bar{x}) =0$, hence $ \\pi_M'  ( \\bar{x } - A^\\dagger F(\\bar{x})) = \\bar{x} -A_M^\\dagger F_M(\\bar{x})$. It then follows that $ \\pi_M \\circ K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq K'_M(X,\\bar{x})$.\n\nWe now prove that $\\pi_\\infty'(K(X,\\bar{x})) \\subseteq \\pi_\\infty'(K'(X,\\bar{x}))$, first showing that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\left\\| \\pi_{\\infty}' \\circ      (I- A^\\dagger  DF (X)) \\cdot (X - \\bar{x})  \\right\\|_s   \\leq& g_\\infty^{ii}(X). \n    \\label{eq:prop:F_infty_tail}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Fix some $ x = (\\alpha ,\\omega,c) \\in X$ and $h = (h_\\omega,h_c) \\in H$. We start by adding and subtracting $ A^\\dagger A$, rewriting the LHS of as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\pi'_{\\infty}    (I- A^\\dagger  DF (x)) \\cdot h     \n     =&  \\;  \\pi'_{\\infty}   (I- A^\\dagger A )\\cdot h  +   \\pi'_{\\infty} A^\\dagger  (A- DF (x)) \\cdot h  \\\\\n    =&\\;  \\pi'_\\infty \\circ A^\\dagger ( A - DF(x)) \\cdot h \\\\\n    =& \\; \n     \\pi'_\\infty \\circ A^\\dagger  \\left(A- \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial c} DF  (x) \\right) \\cdot h_c -      \n     \\pi'_\\infty \\circ A^\\dagger  \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} DF  (x) \\cdot h_\\omega .\n    \\end{aligned}$$ We calculate $- \\pi_\\infty A^\\dagger \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} F(x) \\cdot h_\\omega$ writing $\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} F(x)$ as in below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n-   \\pi_\\infty \\circ A^\\dagger  \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} F (X)) \\cdot h_\\omega \n =&\n  -i \\pi_{\\infty}\\frac{ \\bar{\\alpha} }{\\bar{\\omega}} {\\mathcal{K}}\\left( i {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} ( \\alpha^{-1} I   -      U_{\\omega}) c - i  ( {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\\omega} c) * c \\right) \\cdot  h_\\omega \\\\\n=& h_\\omega\n \\frac{  \\bar{\\alpha }}{\\bar{\\omega}}  \\pi_{\\infty} \\left(  ( \\alpha^{-1} I   -      U_{\\omega}) c -  {\\mathcal{K}}({\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} U_{\\omega} c) * c \\right) .\\end{aligned}$$ Using $|c|_j \\leq C_0 /j^s$ and we obtain for $k \\geq M+1$ that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left|  \\pi_\\infty \\circ A^\\dagger  \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} F(x)) \\cdot \\Delta_\\omega  \\right|_k\n\\leq&\n\\Delta_\\omega\n\\frac{  \\bar{\\alpha }}{\\bar{\\omega}}  \\left(  ( \\alpha^{-1} +1) \\frac{C_0}{k^s} + \\frac{1}{k} \\frac{g_\\infty^{ii,b}(X)}{k^{s-1}} \\right) \n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n\\left\\| \\pi_\\infty \\circ A^\\dagger  \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial \\omega} F(x)) \\cdot \\Delta_\\omega  \\right\\|_{s} \n\\leq& \n\\Delta_\\omega\n\\frac{  \\bar{\\alpha }}{\\bar{\\omega}}  \\left(  ( \\alpha^{-1} +1) C_0 + g_\\infty^{ii,b}(X)  \\right).\n\\label{eq:dKdW}\\end{aligned}$$ For $(\\alpha , \\omega, c ) \\in X$ we calculate $ \\pi_\\infty A^\\dagger( A-  \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial c} F) \\cdot h_c$ below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\pi_\\infty \\circ A^\\dagger  (A- \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial c} F (x)) \\cdot h_c \n&= -i   \\frac{\\bar{\\alpha} }{\\bar{\\omega}} {\\mathcal{K}}\\left( \n\\left( i\\tfrac{ \\bar{\\omega}}{\\bar{\\alpha} }{\\mathcal{K}}^{-1} - \n(i \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\alpha} {\\mathcal{K}}^{-1}  + U_\\omega)\n\\right) h_c  -  (U_\\omega h_c) * c - (U_\\omega c) * h_c  \\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n&= \\pi_\\infty \\left( (1- \\tfrac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\alpha} \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\bar{\\omega}} ) I + i \\tfrac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\bar{\\omega}} {\\mathcal{K}}U_\\omega \\right) h_c - \\pi_\\infty i  \\tfrac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\bar{\\omega}} {\\mathcal{K}}\\left( (U_\\omega c) *h_c + (U_\\omega h_c ) *c \\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Taking norms and using we obtain: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\| \\pi_\\infty \\circ A^\\dagger  (A- \\tfrac{\\partial}{\\partial c} F (x)) \\cdot h_c  \\right\\|_s \\leq& \\left( |1- \\tfrac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\alpha} \\tfrac{\\omega}{\\bar{\\omega}} | + \\frac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\bar{\\omega} ( M+1)} \\right) C_0 + \\frac{2 \\bar{\\alpha}}{\\bar{\\omega} (M+1)} g_\\infty^{ii,a}(X). \\label{eq:dKdC}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ By combining and and taking a supremum over $\\alpha$ and $\\omega$, we obtain the definition of $g^{ii}_\\infty$ in , whereby follows.\n\nTo show that $\\pi_\\infty K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq K_\\infty'(X,\\bar{x})$ note that from it follows that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n         \\|\\pi_\\infty(\\bar{x} - A^\\dagger F(\\bar{x} ) ) \\|_s \n         =  \\| - i \\tfrac{\\bar{\\alpha}}{\\bar{\\omega}} {\\mathcal{K}}\\pi_\\infty F(\\bar{x}) \\|_s\n         \\leq \\frac{\\bar{\\alpha}/\\bar{\\omega}}{M+1}g_\\infty^i( X).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Expanding out $ \\pi_\\infty K(X,\\bar{x})$, it follows that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\|  \\pi_\\infty K(X,\\bar{x}) \\|_s \n    \\leq  & \\|\\pi_\\infty(\\bar{x} - A^\\dagger F(\\bar{x} ) ) \\|_s  + \n    \\left\\| \\pi_{\\infty}     (I- A  DF (X)) \\cdot (X - \\bar{x})  \\right\\|_s   \\\\\n    \\leq & \\frac{\\bar{\\alpha}/\\bar{\\omega}}{M+1}g_\\infty^i( X) + g_\\infty^{ii}(X) = g_\\infty(X).\\end{aligned}$$ Thus $  \\pi_\\infty K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq K_\\infty'(X,\\bar{x})$. Thus, we have proved both that $\\pi_M'(K'(X,\\bar{x}))  \\subseteq  \\pi_M'(K(X,\\bar{x}))$ and $\\pi_\\infty'(K'(X,\\bar{x})) \\subseteq \\pi_\\infty'(K(X,\\bar{x}))$. Hence it follows that $ K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq K'(X,\\bar{x})$.\n\n\\[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\\] Fix a cube $X$ as in Definition \\[def:cube\\] with $M \\geq 5$, $s >2$ and $C_0>0$. Fix a point $ \\bar{x} \\in X$ such that $ \\bar{x} = \\pi'_M(\\bar{x} )$. Let $K(X,\\bar{x})$ and $K'(X,\\bar{x})$ be given as in Definition \\[def:Krawczyk\\] and \\[def:KrawczykApprox\\] respectively. If $ K'(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq X$, and moreover $g_\\infty(X) < C_0$ and: $$\\tilde{\\pi}_M' \\left(  K'_M(X,\\bar{x}) + A^\\dagger_M F_M(\\bar{x})\\right) \n    \\subseteq int(\\tilde{\\pi}_M'(X)) ,$$ then for all $\\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X)$ there exists a unique point $ \\hat{x}_\\alpha = ( \\alpha, \\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha , \\hat{c}_\\alpha)   \\in X$ such that $ F(\\hat{x}_\\alpha ) =0$.\n\nFix $\\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X)$. By Theorem \\[prop:Krawczyk\\], in order to show that there exists a unique solution to $F_\\alpha = 0$, it suffices to show that there is some $ 0 \\leq \\lambda < 1$ for which: $$(I-A^\\dagger DF(X)) (X-\\bar{x}) \\subseteq \\lambda(X-\\bar{x}) .$$\n\nWe find a $\\lambda_M$ which works for the $\\pi_M'$-projection and a $\\lambda_\\infty$ which works for the $ \\pi_\\infty'$-projection. Since $K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq K'(X,\\bar{x})$ by Theorem \\[prop:K\\_Inclusion\\] and $\\tilde{\\pi}_M' \\left(  K'_M(X,\\bar{x}) + A^\\dagger_M F_M(\\bar{x})\\right) \\subseteq int(\\tilde{\\pi}_M'(X))$, it follows from the definition of $K(X,\\bar{x})$ in that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nonumber\n\\tilde{\\pi}_M '\\left(   K(X,\\bar{x}) + A^\\dagger F(\\bar{x}) \\right)\n    &\\subseteq int(\\tilde{\\pi}_M'(X))  \n    \\\\\n    \\tilde{\\pi}_M'\\left((I-A^\\dagger DF(X)) (X-\\bar{x}) \\right)\n    &\\subseteq int \\left(\\tilde{\\pi}_M'(X  - \\bar{x})  \\right)\n    \\label{eq:CompactContainment}\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\tilde{\\pi}_M'\\left((I-A^\\dagger DF(X)) (X-\\bar{x}) \\right)$ is compactly contained inside of $   \\tilde{\\pi}_M'(X  - \\bar{x})   \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^ {2 M} $, there is some positive distance separating the LHS of away from the boundary of $\\tilde{\\pi}_M'(X  - \\bar{x})$. It follows that there must exist some $0 \\leq \\lambda_M < 1$ such that $\\tilde{\\pi}_M' \\left((I-A^\\dagger DF(X)) (X-\\bar{x}) \\right) \\subseteq \\lambda_M\\cdot  \\tilde{\\pi}_M'(X  - \\bar{x}) $.\n\nSince $ K'_\\infty(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq  \\pi_\\infty' X$ it follows that $g_\\infty(X) \\leq C_0$, and by our additional assumption this is in fact a strict inequality. If we define $\\lambda_\\infty := g^{ii}_\\infty(X)/C_0<1$, then by it follows that: $$\\pi_{\\infty}     (I- A^\\dagger  DF (X)) \\cdot (X - \\bar{x})  \\leq \\lambda_\\infty \\pi_\\infty(X- \\bar{x}).$$ If we define $ \\lambda := \\max \\{ \\lambda_M,\\lambda_\\infty\\} < 1$ then it follows that: $$(I- A^\\dagger  DF (X)) \\cdot (X - \\bar{x})  \\leq \\lambda (X- \\bar{x}).$$ By Theorem \\[prop:Krawczyk\\] there exists a unique point $ \\hat{x}_\\alpha = ( \\alpha, \\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha , \\hat{c}_\\alpha)   \\in X$ such that $ F_\\alpha(\\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha ,\\hat{c}_\\alpha ) =0$. Moreover, this is true for all $\\alpha \\in   \\pi_\\alpha (X)$.\n\nPruning Operator {#sec:Prune}\n================\n\nFor a given cube, we want to know if it contains any solutions to $ F=0$. We try to determine this by combining several different tests into one *pruning* operator described in Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\]. It is called a pruning operator because even if we cannot determine whether a cube contains a solution, we may still be able to reduce the size of the cube without losing any solutions.\n\nWe describe the tests performed in Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\]. Most simply, if we can prove that $ | F(X)|_k>0$ for some $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$, then $F$ has no zeros in $X$. From Lemma \\[prop:zeroneighborhood2\\], we know that if a cube has a small $ \\| \\cdot \\|_{\\ell^1}$ norm then it cannot contain any nontrivial zeros. Furthermore, if a cube is contained in the neighborhood of the Hopf bifurcation explicitly given by Lemma \\[prop:BifNbd\\], then the only solutions that can exist therein are on the principal branch. If none of those situations apply, then we calculate the outer approximation of the Krawczyk operator given in Definition \\[def:KrawczykApprox\\]. If the hypothesis of Theorem \\[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\\] is satisfied, then there exists a unique solution. Alternatively, if $ X \\cap K(X,\\bar{x}) = \\emptyset$, then there do not exist any solutions in $X$. If none of these other situations apply, then we replace $ X $ by $ X \\cap K(X, \\bar{x})$. Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] arranges these steps in order of ease of computation.\n\n\\[alg:Prune\\] Take as input a cube $X$ with $ M\\geq 5$ and $s >2$. The output is a pair $\\{flag,X'\\} $ where $ flag \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$ and $X'\\subseteq X$ is a cube.\n\n1.  Compute $\\delta :=2 \\sum_{k=1}^M |X|_k+ \\frac{2 C_0 }{(s-1) M^{s-1}} $.\n\n2.  If for all $ (\\alpha,\\omega,\\cdot) \\in X$ we have $ \\alpha \\in (0,2]$, $\\omega \\geq 1.1$, and $\\delta < g(\\alpha , \\omega)$ for $g$ defined in , then return $  \\{1,\\emptyset\\}$.\n\n3.  If for all $ (\\alpha,\\omega,\\cdot) \\in X$ we have $| \\alpha -{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}| \\leq 0.00553$, $ | \\omega - {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}| \\leq 0.0924$ and $\\delta < 0.18$, then return $  \\{2,X\\}$.\n\n4.  If $ \\inf_{x \\in X} |F_M(x)|_k > h_k(X)$ for $h_k$ defined in and some $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$, then return $ \\{1,\\emptyset\\}$.\n\n5.  Fix some $ \\bar{x} \\in X$ such that $\\bar{x} = \\pi_{M}'(\\bar{x})$ and $ \\pi_{M}'(\\bar{x})$ is approximately the center of $ \\pi_{M}'(X)$. Construct $K'(X,\\bar{x}) $ as in Definition \\[def:KrawczykApprox\\].\n\n6.  If $  K'(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq X $, $g_\\infty(X)<C_0$, and $\\tilde{\\pi}_M \\left(  K'_M(X,\\bar{x}) + A^\\dagger_M F_M(\\bar{x})\\right)       \\subseteq int(\\tilde{\\pi}_M(X))$, then return $\\{3,X\\}$.\n\n7.  If $ X \\cap K'(X,\\bar{x}) = \\emptyset$, then return $\\{1,\\emptyset\\}$.\n\n8.  Else return $ \\{0,X \\cap K'(X,\\bar{x})\\}$.\n\n\\[prop:Prune\\] Let $ \\{flag,X'\\}$ denote the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] with input a cube $X$.\n\n(i) If $flag=1$, then $ F(x) \\neq 0$ for all nontrivial $ x \\in X$.\n\n(ii) If $flag =2$, then the only solutions to $F=0$ in $X$ are on the principal branch.\n\n(iii) If $flag =3$, then for all $\\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X) $ there is a unique $\\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha \\in \\pi_{\\omega}(X)$ and $ \\hat{c}_\\alpha \\in \\pi_c(X)$ such that $F(\\alpha,\\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha,\\hat{c}_\\alpha)=0$.\n\n(iv) If there are any points $ \\hat{x} \\in X$ for which $ F(\\hat{x})=0$, then $ \\hat{x} \\in X'$.\n\nTo prove $(i)$ we must check the output from Steps 2, 4, and 7. To prove $(ii)$ we must check Step 3. To prove $(iii)$ we must check Step 6. The proof of $(iv)$ follows from $(i)$, $(ii)$, $(iii)$, and Step 8. We organize the proof into the steps of the algorithm.\n\n1.  It follows from that $ \\|c\\|_{\\ell^1} < \\delta $ for all $ c  \\in \\pi_c(X)$.\n\n2.  Since $\\alpha \\in (0,2]$ and $\\omega \\geq 1.1$, Lemma \\[prop:zeroneighborhood2\\] applies. If $ \\|c\\|_{\\ell^1} < \\delta  < g(\\alpha , \\omega)$, then by Lemma \\[prop:zeroneighborhood2\\] the only solutions to $F(\\alpha,\\omega,c)=0$ are trivial, which is to say $ c =0$.\n\n3.  If Step 3 returns $flag=2$, then by Lemma \\[prop:BifNbd\\] there is at most one SOPS $ c \\in X$ with frequency $ \\omega$, and it lies on the branch of SOPS originating from the Hopf bifurcation at $\\alpha = {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$.\n\n4.  Suppose that $ \\inf_{x \\in X} |F_M(x)|_k > h_k(X)$ for some $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$. Since $ \\sup_{x \\in X} |F_\\infty(x)|_k < h_k(X)$ by , it follows from the triangle inequality that for all $ x \\in X$ we have: $$|F(x)|_k \\geq \\inf_{x \\in X} |F_M(x)|_k - \\sup_{x \\in X} |F_\\infty(x)|_k >0.$$ Hence $|F(x)|_k >0$, and so $X$ cannot contain any zeros of $F$.\n\n5.  Note that $ K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq K'(X,\\bar{x})$ by Theorem \\[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\\].\n\n6.  If Step 6 returns $flag=3$, then the hypothesis of Theorem \\[prop:KrawczykOuterApprox\\] is satisfied. Hence for all $ \\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X) $ there is a unique $\\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha \\in \\pi_{\\omega}(X)$ and $ \\hat{c}_\\alpha \\in \\pi_c(X)$ such that $F(\\alpha,\\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha,\\hat{c}_\\alpha)=0$.\n\n7.  By Theorem \\[prop:Krawczyk\\] all solutions in $X$ are contained in $K(X,\\bar{x})$. Hence, all of the zeros of $F$ in $X$ are contained in $ X \\cap K(X,\\bar{x}) \\subseteq X \\cap K'(X,\\bar{x})$.\n\n    If $ X \\cap K'(X,\\bar{x}) = \\emptyset$ then $ X \\cap K(X,\\bar{x}) = \\emptyset$, whereby there cannot be any solutions in $X$.\n\n8.  As proved in Step 7, all solutions in $X$ are contained in $X \\cap K'(X,\\bar{x})$.\n\nGlobal Bounds on the Fourier Coefficients {#sec:SolutionSpace}\n=========================================\n\nThe goal of this section is to construct a bounded region in ${\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times {\\Omega}^s$ which contains all of the nontrivial zeros of $F$. This is ultimately achieved in Algorithm \\[alg:Comprehensive\\], which is discussed in Section \\[sec:FourierProjWright\\], along with other estimates pertaining specifically to Wright\u2019s equation.\n\nIn Section \\[sec:FourierProj\\], we discuss generic algorithms used to construct bounds in Fourier space. Algorithm \\[alg:FourierProjection\\] converts pointwise bounds on a periodic function and its derivatives into a cube containing its Fourier coefficients. Algorithm \\[alg:TimeTranslate\\] modifies a cube so that after a time translation, any periodic function contained therein will satisfy the phase condition $ c_1 = c_1^*$.\n\nConverting Pointwise Bounds into Fourier Bounds {#sec:FourierProj}\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nTo translate pointwise bounds on a periodic function into bounds on its Fourier coefficients we use the unnormalized $L^2$ inner product, which we define for $g,h \\in L^2([0,2 \\pi / \\omega],{\\mathbb{C}})$ as: $$\\left< g ,h \\right> :=  \\int_0^{2 \\pi / \\omega } g(t) h(t)^* \\,dt.\n    \\label{eq:L2InnerProduct}$$ For a function $y$ given as in , its Fourier coefficients may be calculated as $c_k =  \\tfrac{1}{2 \\pi / \\omega} \\left< y(t), e^{i \\omega k t}  \\right> $. By applying to *a priori* estimates on $y$ we are able to derive bounds on its Fourier coefficients. For example, in [@wright1955non] it is shown that $ -1 < y(t) < e^\\alpha -1$ for any global solution to . Hence, when $e^\\alpha \\geq 2$ the Fourier coefficients of any periodic solution to must satisfy $|c_k|  \\leq \\tfrac{1 }{2 \\pi /\\omega } ( e^\\alpha -1)$ for all $ k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$.\n\nWith more detailed estimates on $y$ we can produce tighter bounds on its Fourier coefficients. In [@jlm2016Floquet; @neumaier2014global] such estimates are numerically derived in a rigorous fashion. One of the results from this analysis is a pair of bounding functions which provide upper and lower bounds on SOPS to at a given parameter value. Formally, a *bounding function* is defined to be an interval valued function $\\chi(t) = [ \\ell(t), u(t)]$ where $ \\ell,u:{\\mathbb{R}}\\to  {\\mathbb{R}}$.\n\nThese functions $\\ell,u$ are constructed in [@neumaier2014global; @jlm2016Floquet] using rigorous numerics, and in particular interval arithmetic. As a matter of computational convenience, these functions are defined as piecewise constant functions which change value only finitely many times (see Figure \\[fig:FourierDerivativeProjections\\]). For functions of this form, calculating a supremum over a bounded domain is reduced to finding the maximum of a finite set, and calculating an integral is reduced into a finite sum. For elementary functions such as $\\sin$ or $\\cos$, interval arithmetic packages have been developed which allow us to rigorously bound their image over arbitrary domains[@rump1999intlab].\n\n$$\\begin{array}{c|c|c}\n        k & A_{k,0} & B_{k,0} \\\\ \n        \\hline\n        1&  [   -0.103,    \\;\\;\\;0.181] &[   -0.544,   -0.317] \\\\\n        2&  [   -0.238,    \\;\\;\\;0.110] &[   -0.142,   \\;\\;\\; 0.187] \\\\\n        3&  [   -0.207,    \\;\\;\\;0.228] &[   -0.205,    \\;\\;\\; 0.211] \n        \\end{array}$$\n\n$$\\begin{array}{c|c|c}\n        k & A_{k,1} & B_{k,1} \\\\ \n        \\hline\n        1&  [   -0.154,    \\;\\;\\;0.205] & [   -0.673,            -0.192] \\\\\n        2&  [   -0.215,     \\;\\;\\;0.031] & [   -0.100,    \\;\\;\\;0.179] \\\\\n        3&  [   -0.094,    \\;\\;\\;0.109] & [   -0.090,    \\;\\;\\;0.125] \n        \\end{array}$$\n\n\\\n\n$$\\begin{array}{c|c|c}\n        k & A_{k,2} & B_{k,2} \\\\ \n        \\hline\n        1&      [   -0.384,    \\;\\;\\; 0.525] &[   -0.848,        -0.103] \\\\\n        2&      [   -0.205,    \\;\\;\\; 0.037] &[   -0.094,    \\;\\;\\;0.155] \\\\\n        3&      [   -0.051,    \\;\\;\\; 0.077] &[   -0.054,    \\;\\;\\;0.071] \n        \\end{array}$$\n\n$$\\begin{array}{c|c|c}\n        k & A_{k,3} & B_{k,3} \\\\ \n        \\hline\n        1&      [   -0.995,    \\;\\;\\; 1.160] &[   -1.713,    \\;\\;\\;0.715] \\\\\n        2&      [   -0.279,    \\;\\;\\; 0.053] &[   -0.120,    \\;\\;\\;0.194] \\\\\n        3&      [   -0.039,    \\;\\;\\; 0.068] &[   -0.045,    \\;\\;\\;0.063] \n        \\end{array}$$\n\n\\[fig:FourierDerivativeProjections\\]\n\nAlgorithm \\[alg:FourierProjection\\] describes a method for obtaining rigorous bounds on the Fourier coefficients of a periodic function $y$. This algorithm applies the inner product $\\left< \\cdot , \\cdot \\right>$ to bounds not just on the function $y$ but on its derivatives as well. Examples of these bounds are given in Figure \\[fig:FourierDerivativeProjections\\], where we note that by the third Fourier coefficient, the tightest estimate is given by the third derivative. We will use $ y^{(s)}$ denotes the $s$^th^ derivative of a function $y$, whereas we will use $Y^s$ to denote a bounding function of index $s$, which bounds the derivative $y^{(s)}$.\n\nWe have stated Algorithm \\[alg:FourierProjection\\] so that it does not estimate the zeroth Fourier coefficient, as periodic solutions to necessarily have a trivial zeroth Fourier coefficient. The algorithm could be modified in the obvious way to bound the zeroth Fourier coefficient of a function as well.\n\n\\[alg:FourierProjection\\] Take as input projection dimension $M \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, period bounds $ [\\underline{L},\\overline{L}]$, and a collection of interval-valued functions: $$\\left\\{\n         Y^{s}(t) = [ \\ell^{s}(t),u^{s}(t)] : \\ell^{s},u^{s}:{\\mathbb{R}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}\\right\\}_{s=0}^S .$$ The output is an ($\\alpha$-parameterless) cube $ X \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times {\\Omega}^S$.\n\n1.  Define $I_{\\omega} := [2 \\pi /  \\overline{L} , 2 \\pi/ \\underline{L}]$.\n\n2.  For $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$ and $ 0 \\leq s \\leq S$ define $ \\delta_c,\\delta_s \\in {\\mathbb{R}}_+$ so that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                \\delta_{c} &\\geq \\sup_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega, y^{s} \\in Y^{s}}  \n                \\int_{\\underline{L}}^{\\overline{L}}\n                \\left| \\cos( \\omega k t )  y^{s}(t)  \\right| dt,  & \n                \\delta_{s} &\\geq\n                \\sup_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega, y^{s} \\in Y^{s}}  \n                \\int_{\\underline{L}}^{\\overline{L}}\n                \\left| \\sin( \\omega k t )  y^{s}(t)  \\right| dt,\n                \\end{aligned}$$ and define $ a^+_{k,s},a^-_{k,s},b^+_{k,s},b^-_{k,s} \\in {\\mathbb{R}}_+$ so that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                    a^+_{k,s} &\\geq \\;\\;\\; \\delta_c +\n                     \\sup_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega, y^{s} \\in Y^{s}}  \n                     \\int_{0}^{\\underline{L}} \\cos( \\omega k t ) y^{s}(t)  dt\n                                      \\\\\n                     a^-_{k,s} &\\leq - \\delta_c +\n                      \\inf_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega, y^{s} \\in Y^{s}}  \n                     \\int_{0}^{\\underline{L}} \\cos( \\omega k t ) y^{s}(t)  dt\n                                      \\\\\n                     b^+_{k,s} &\\geq \\;\\;\\; \\delta_s +\n                     \\sup_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega, y^{s} \\in Y^{s}}  \n                     \\int_{0}^{\\underline{L}} \\sin( \\omega k t ) y^{s}(t)  dt\n                                      \\\\\n                      b^-_{k,s} &\\leq -\\delta_s +\n                      \\inf_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega, y^{s} \\in Y^{s}}  \n                     \\int_{0}^{\\underline{L}} \\sin( \\omega k t ) y^{s}(t)  dt. \n                \\end{aligned}$$\n\n3.  For $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$ and $ 0 \\leq s \\leq S$ define: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                    A'_{k,s} &:= \n    \\frac{1}{2 \\pi k^s}\n                    \\left[ \n                         \\inf_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega} \\frac{a^-_{k,s}}{\\omega^{s-1}},                    \n                        \\sup_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega} \\frac{a^+_{k,s}}{\\omega^{s-1}}\n                    \\right], & \n                                    B'_{k,s} &:= \n                    \\frac{1}{2 \\pi k^s}\n                    \\left[ \n                    \\inf_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega} \\frac{b^-_{k,s}}{\\omega^{s-1}},                 \n                    \\sup_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega} \\frac{b^+_{k,s}}{\\omega^{s-1}}\n                    \\right].\n                                \\label{eq:A'B'}\n                \\end{aligned}$$ Define the intervals $A_{k,s}$ and $B_{k,s}$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                A_{k,s} &:=\n                \\begin{cases}\n                \\;\\;\\;A'_{k,s}  & \\mbox{ if }   s\\equiv 0  \\pmod 4  \\\\\n                -B'_{k,s}  & \\mbox{ if }   s\\equiv 1  \\pmod 4  \\\\               \n                -A'_{k,s}  & \\mbox{ if }   s\\equiv 2  \\pmod 4  \\\\\n                \\;\\;\\;B'_{k,s} & \\mbox{ if }   s\\equiv 3  \\pmod 4 \n                \\end{cases} ,\n                &\n                B_{k,s} &:=\n                \\begin{cases}\n                -B'_{k,s}  & \\mbox{ if }   s\\equiv 0  \\pmod 4  \\\\\n                -A'_{k,s}  & \\mbox{ if }   s\\equiv 1  \\pmod 4  \\\\               \n                \\;\\;\\;B'_{k,s}  & \\mbox{ if }   s\\equiv 2 \\pmod 4  \\\\\n                \\;\\;\\;A'_{k,s}  & \\mbox{ if }   s\\equiv 3  \\pmod 4 \n                \\end{cases}.\n                \\end{aligned}$$\n\n4.  For $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$ define: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                A_k &:= \\bigcap_{0\\leq s \\leq S} A_{k,s} ,\n                &\n                B_k &:= \\bigcap_{0\\leq s \\leq S} B_{k,s}.\n                \\end{aligned}$$\n\n5.  For each $1 \\leq k \\leq M$, define $ \\bar{a}_k := mid(A_{k,S})$, $ \\bar{b}_k := mid(B_{k,S})$, $ \\bar{c}_k = \\bar{a}_k + i \\bar{b}_k$, and $ \\bar{c}_{-k} = \\bar{c}_{k}^*$. Define $y_M^{S}(t,\\omega) $ as in , and define $C_0>0$ so that holds. $$\\begin{aligned}\n                y_M^{S}(t,\\omega) &:= \\sum_{k=-M}^{M} \\bar{c}_{k} (i \\omega k )^S e^{i \\omega k t} \\label{eq:MidProjection}\\\\ \n                            C_0 &\\geq  \\sup_{\\omega \\in I_{\\omega }, y^{S} \\in Y^{S} } \\frac{1 }{2 \\pi \\omega^{S-1}} \\int_0^{\\overline{L}} \\left| y^{S} (t)- y_M^{S}(t,\\omega) \\right|dt . \\label{eq:TailBound}\n                \\end{aligned}$$\n\n6.  Define a cube $ X := X_M \\times X_\\infty \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\Omega^S$ by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                X_{M}       &:=   I_\\omega  \\times \\prod_{k=1}^M A_k \\times B_k  \\\\ \n                X_\\infty    &:= \\left\\{ c_k  \\in {\\mathbb{C}}: |c_k| \\leq C_0 /k^S  \\right\\}_{k=M+1}^\\infty .\n                \\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\[prop:FourierProjection\\] Let the cube $X$ be the output of Algorithm \\[alg:FourierProjection\\] with input $M \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, $ [ \\underline{L},\\overline{L}] \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}$ and bounding functions $\\{Y^{s}\\}_{s=0}^{S}$. Fix a function $ \\hat{y}$ with period $L$ and continuous derivatives $ \\hat{y}^{(s)}$ for $ 0 \\leq s \\leq S$. If $L \\in [\\underline{L},\\overline{L}]$ and $ \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t) \\in Y^{s}(t)$ for all $ 0 \\leq s \\leq S$ and $ t \\in [0,\\overline{L}]$, then the frequency and Fourier coefficients of $ \\hat{y}$ satisfy $(\\omega, \\{c_k\\}_{k=1}^\\infty ) \\in X$.\n\nWe organize the proof into the steps of the algorithm.\n\n1.  If the period of $\\hat{y}$ is $L \\in [ \\underline{L} ,  \\overline{L}]$ then it will have frequency $ \\hat{\\omega} = 2 \\pi / L$ and $ \\hat{\\omega} \\in \n                [2 \\pi /  \\overline{L} , 2 \\pi/ \\underline{L}]$.\n\n2.  Let us define $$\\begin{aligned}\n                a_{k,s}     &:= \\left< \\cos( \\hat{\\omega}  k t) , \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t) \\right>, &\n                b_{k,s}     &:= \\left< \\sin ( \\hat{\\omega}  k t) , \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t) \\right> .\n                \\end{aligned}$$ We show that $ a_{k,s} \\in [a^-_{k,s},a^+_{k,s}]$. Since $L \\in [ \\underline{L} ,  \\overline{L}]$ it follows that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                \\left< \\cos( \\hat{\\omega}  k t) , \\hat{y}^{(s)} (t) \\right> \n                 &=     \\int_0^{L } \\cos( \\hat{\\omega}  k t ) \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t)  dt \\nonumber \\\\\n                 &=     \\int_0^{\\underline{L}} \\cos( \\hat{\\omega}  k t ) \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t)  dt \n                 +      \\int_{\\underline{L}}^{L}\\cos( \\hat{\\omega}  k t ) \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t)  dt .\n                 \\label{eq:TailPeriod}\n                \\end{aligned}$$ To estimate the rightmost summand in we calculate: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                \\left|  \\int_{\\underline{L}}^{L}\\cos( \\hat{\\omega}  k t ) \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t)  dt \\right| \\leq \\int_{\\underline{L}}^{\\overline{L}}  \\left|  \\cos( \\hat{\\omega}  k t ) \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t)  \\right| dt  \n                \\leq  \\sup_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega, y^{s} \\in Y^{s}}  \n                \\int_{\\underline{L}}^{\\overline{L}}\n                \\left| \\cos( \\omega k t )  y^{s}(t)  \\right| dt \\leq \\delta_c.\n                \\end{aligned}$$ We obtain a bound on $a_{k,s}$ by appropriately taking an infimum and a supremum in as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                    \\inf_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega, y^{s} \\in Y^{s}}  \n                \\int_{0}^{\\underline{L}} \\cos( \\omega k t ) y^{s}(t)  dt\n                -\\delta_c\n                    \\leq \n                     a_{k,s}\n                    \\leq   \n                    \\sup_{ \\omega \\in I_\\omega, y^{s} \\in Y^{s}}  \n                \\int_{0}^{\\underline{L}} \\cos( \\omega k t ) y^{s}(t)  dt\n                +   \\delta_c.\n                \\end{aligned}$$ Hence $ a_{k,s} \\in [a^-_{k,s},a^+_{k,s}]$, and by analogy $ b_{k,s} \\in [b^-_{k,s},b^+_{k,s}]$.\n\n3.  Let $ c_k = a_k + i b_k$ denote the Fourier coefficients of $ \\hat{y}$. We show that $a_k \\in  A_{k,s}$ and $b_k \\in B_{k,s}$. Firstly, we calculate the derivative $\\hat{y}^{(s)}$ as follows: $$\\hat{y}^{(s)}(t) = \\sum_{k\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}} c_k (i \\hat{\\omega}  k)^s e^{i \\hat{\\omega}  k t}.$$ We can express the Fourier coefficients of $ \\hat{y}$ in terms of the Fourier coefficients of its derivatives $ \\hat{y}^{(s)}$; below, we calculate $c_k$ in terms of $ a_{k,s}$ and $ b_{k,s}$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                \\int_0^{2 \\pi / \\hat{\\omega}  }    c_k (i \\hat{\\omega}  k)^s e^{i \\hat{\\omega}  k t} \\cdot e^{- i \\hat{\\omega} k t}dt    \n                &=              \n                \\left<  \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t) ,e^{ i \\hat{\\omega}  k t} \\right>\n                \\label{eq:FourierDerivativeInnerProduct}\n                \\\\\n                \\frac{2 \\pi }{\\hat{\\omega} } c_k ( i \\hat{\\omega}  k )^s            \n                &=      \\left<  \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t) ,\\cos( \\hat{\\omega}  k t) \\right> \n                -i \\left< \\hat{y}^{(s)}(t),\\sin ( \\hat{\\omega}  k t)  \\right> \n                \\nonumber           \\\\\n                            i^{s}a_{k}   +i^{s+1}b_{k}  \n                &=   \n                 \\frac{a_{k,s} - i \\, b_{k,s} }{2 \\pi  \\hat{\\omega} ^{s-1}  k^{s}}  \\nonumber \n                 .\n                \\end{aligned}$$ From the definition of $ A'_{k,s}$ and $ B_{k,s}'$ in it follows that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                     \\frac{a_{k,s} }{2 \\pi  \\hat{\\omega}^{s-1}  k^{s}}  & \\in A_{k,s}' ,&\n                     \\frac{ \\, b_{k,s} }{2 \\pi  \\hat{\\omega}^{s-1}  k^{s}}  & \\in B_{k,s}'. \n                \\end{aligned}$$ By matching the real and imaginary parts, which only depend on $ s \\pmod 4$, we obtain that $a_k \\in A_{k,s}$ and $b_k \\in B_{k,s}$.\n\n4.  Since $a_k \\in A_{k,s}$ and $b_k \\in B_{k,s}$ for all $ k$ and $0 \\leq s \\leq  S$, it follows that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                    a_k &\\in \\bigcap_{0 \\leq s \\leq S} A_{k,s}, &\n                    b_k &\\in \\bigcap_{0 \\leq s \\leq S} B_{k,s} .\n                \\end{aligned}$$\n\n5.  We calculate $c_k$ for $ k \\geq M+1$ starting from and using the fact that the functions $e^{i \\hat{\\omega} k t}$ are $L^2$\u2013orthogonal: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                c_k  ( i \\hat{\\omega }k )^S \n                &= \\frac{1}{2 \\pi / \\hat{\\omega}}\n                \\left< e^{i \\hat{\\omega } k t} , \\hat{y}^{(S)}(t)  \\right> \\\\\n                &= \\frac{1}{2 \\pi / \\hat{\\omega}}\n                \\left< e^{i \\hat{\\omega } k t} , \\hat{y}^{(S)}(t) \n                -  \\sum_{j=-M}^{M} \\bar{c}_{j} (i \\hat{\\omega } j )^S e^{i \\hat{\\omega } j t} \\right>  \\\\\n                &= \\frac{1}{2 \\pi / \\hat{\\omega}}\n                \\left< e^{i \\hat{\\omega } k t} , \\hat{y}^{(S)}(t) -  y_M^S(t,\\hat{\\omega }) \\right> .\n                \\end{aligned}$$ By taking absolute values, and the suprema over $ \\omega \\in I_\\omega$ and $  y ^S \\in Y^S$ we obtain the following. $$\\begin{aligned}\n                \\left|   c_k  ( i \\hat{\\omega } k )^S \\right|\n                &\\leq \n                 \\frac{1 }{2 \\pi / \\hat{\\omega }} \n                 \\int_0^{L} \n                 \\left|e^{-i \\hat{\\omega } k t}\\right| \\left| \\hat{y}^{(S)} (t)- y_M^{S}(t,\\hat{\\omega }) \\right|dt \\\\\n                                           |c_k| k^S\n                    &\\leq \\sup_{\\omega \\in I_{\\omega } , y^{S} \\in Y^{S}} \\frac{1 }{2 \\pi \\omega^{S-1}} \\int_0^{\\overline{L}} \\left| y^{S} (t)- y_M^{S}(t,\\omega) \\right|dt \\\\\n                    &\\leq C_0.\n                \\end{aligned}$$ Hence $ |c_k| \\leq C_0 / k^S$ for all $ k \\geq M+1$.\n\n6.  In Step 1 we showed that $ \\hat{\\omega} \\in I_\\omega$. In Steps 2-4 we showed that $ c_k \\in [X]_k$ for $ 1 \\leq k \\leq M$, and in Step $5$ we showed that $ |c_k| \\leq C_0 / k^S$ for $ k \\geq M+1$.\n\n\\[alg:TimeTranslate\\] Take as input an ($\\alpha$-parameterless) cube $X \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times {\\Omega}^s$. The output is an ($\\alpha$-parameterless) cube $ X' \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s$.\n\n1.  For $ [X]_1 = A_1 \\times B_1$, with $ A_1=  [ \\underline{A}_1 , \\overline{A}_1 ]$ and $B_1 = [ \\underline{B}_1 , \n                     \\overline{B}_1 ]$, define an interval $\\Theta \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}$ so that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\Theta & \\supseteq  \n    \\begin{cases}\n        \\bigcup_{a_1 \\in A_1,b_1 \\in B_1} \n        \\;\\;\\;\\tan^{-1}  ( b_1/a_1)\n        & \\mbox{ if } \\underline{A}_1 > 0 \n        \\\\\n        \\bigcup_{a_1 \\in A_1,b_1 \\in B_1} \n        \\;\\;\\;\\tan^{-1}  ( b_1/a_1) \n        + \\pi \n        & \\mbox{ if } \\overline{A}_1 < 0 \n        \\\\\n        \\bigcup_{a_1 \\in A_1,b_1 \\in B_1} \n        -\\tan^{-1} ( a_1/b_1) \n        +{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}& \\mbox{ if } \\underline{B}_1 > 0 \n        \\\\\n        \\bigcup_{a_1 \\in A_1,b_1 \\in B_1} \n        -\\tan^{-1} ( a_1/b_1) \n        -{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}& \\mbox{ if } \\overline{B}_1 < 0 \n        \\\\\n        [-\\pi,\\pi]   & \\mbox{ otherwise.}  \n    \\end{cases} \n    $$\n\n2.  Rotate every Fourier coefficient\u2019s phase by $ - \\Theta k$. That is, define: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    A_1' &:= \\left[ \\inf_{a_1 \\in A_1 , b_1 \\in B_1} \\sqrt{a_1^2 + b_1^2}, \\sup_{a_1 \\in A_1 , b_1 \\in B_1} \\sqrt{a_1^2 + b_1^2}\\right],        &    B_1' := [0,0],\n                \\end{aligned}$$ and for $2 \\leq  k \\leq M$ define intervals $ A_k', B_k' \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}$ such that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                A_k' &\\supseteq \n                \\bigcup_{\\theta \\in \\Theta, a_k \\in A_k, b_k \\in B_k} \\;\\;\\; \\cos ( \\theta k)  a_k + \\sin( \\theta k) b_k  \n                \\\\ \n                B_k' &\\supseteq\n                \\bigcup_{\\theta \\in \\Theta, a_k \\in A_k, b_k \\in B_k} -\\sin (\\theta k)  a_k + \\cos( \\theta k) b_k.\n                \\end{aligned}$$\n\n3.  Define a cube $ X' := X_M' \\times X_\\infty' \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\Omega^S$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\n                X_{M}'      &:=  I_\\omega \\times \\prod_{k=1}^M A_k' \\times B_k'  \\\\ \n                X_\\infty'   &:= \\left\\{ c_k  \\in {\\mathbb{C}}: |c_k| \\leq C_0 /k^S  \\right\\}_{k=M+1}^\\infty .\n                \\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\[prop:TimeTranslation\\] For an input cube $X $, let $ X'$ denote the output of Algorithm \\[alg:TimeTranslate\\]. Suppose that $y:{\\mathbb{R}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ is a periodic function given as in with frequency and Fourier coefficients satisfying $(\\omega, \\{c_k\\}_{k=1}^\\infty) \\in X$. Then there exists some $ \\tau \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$ such that the Fourier coefficients $c'$ of $ y(t+\\tau)$ satisfy $(\\omega,\\{c'_k\\}_{k=1}^\\infty) \\in X'$. Furthermore $c_1'$ is a real non-negative number.\n\nWe organize the proof into the steps of the algorithm.\n\n1.  Write the first Fourier coefficient of $y$ as $ c_1 = a_1  + i b_1 $. We may write $c_1  = r e^{i \\theta}$ where $r = \\sqrt{a_1^2 + b_1^2}$ and if $c_1 \\neq 0$, then $\\theta$ is unique up to an integer multiple of $ 2 \\pi$. By the rules for $\\arctan$ we can calculate: $$\\theta = \n                \\begin{cases}\n                \\;\\;\\;\\tan^{-1} (b_1 / a_1)             & \\mbox{ if } a_1 > 0 \\\\\n                \\;\\;\\;\\tan^{-1} (b_1 / a_1)  + \\pi      & \\mbox{ if } a_1 < 0 \\\\\n                -\\tan^{-1} (a_1 / b_1)  +{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}& \\mbox{ if } b_1 > 0 \\\\\n                -\\tan^{-1} (a_1 /b_1)  -{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}& \\mbox{ if } b_1 < 0. \n                \\end{cases}$$ Since $a_1 \\in A_1 $ and $b_1 \\in B_1 $, it follows that $ \\theta \\in \\Theta$.\n\n2.  For any $ \\tau$ we can calculate the Fourier series of $ y(t + \\tau)$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                y(t+\\tau)  = \\sum_{k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}} c_{k} e^{ i \\omega k (t + \\tau)} \n                =  \\sum_{k \\in {\\mathbb{Z}}} c_{k}e^{ i \\omega k \\tau}  e^{ i \\omega k t}.\n                \\end{aligned}$$ If we choose $ \\tau = - \\theta / \\omega$, then $ c_1' = c_1 e^{i \\omega \\tau} = \\sqrt{a_1^2+b_1^2}$ is a real, non-negative number and moreover $ c_1' \\in [X']_1$.\n\n3.  The Fourier coefficients of $ y(t + \\tau)$ are given by $ c'_k = e^{-ik\\theta} c_k$, hence $(\\omega, \\{c'_k\\}_{k=1}^\\infty) \\in X'$.\n\nBounds for Wright\u2019s Equation {#sec:FourierProjWright}\n----------------------------\n\nThe culmination of this subsection is Algorithm 5.7 which, for a given range of parameters, constructs a collection of cubes covering the solution space to $ F_\\alpha = 0$. This algorithm begins with pointwise bounds on SOPS to . To obtain these pointwise bounds, we use the results from [@jlm2016Floquet]. One of the results [@jlm2016Floquet] achieves is, for a given range of parameters $I_\\alpha$, it produces a collection of bounding functions ${\\mathcal{X}}$, such that if there is a SOPS to the exponential version of Wright\u2019s equation at parameter $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha$, then it will be bounded by one of the bounding functions in ${\\mathcal{X}}$. Recall that solutions to the exponential version of Wright\u2019s equation solve where $f(x) = e^x -1$, and can be transformed into the quadratic version of Wright\u2019s equation using the change of variable $y = e^x -1$.\n\nAs this is a computational result, it requires the selection of several computational parameters which, while immaterial to the proof, are necessary for implementation. We describe them here with a brief description of [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1]. To begin, this algorithm starts off with *a priori* estimates, some of which are iteratively constructed, and require a selection of parameters $ i_0, j_0  \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$. These are used to construct numerical bounding functions having time resolution $ n_{Time} \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$. A pruning operator is defined on these bounding functions, and the spacing between the zeros of a SOPS, and the parameter $N_{Period} \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ defines how many times this pruning operator is applied in this initial construction of the bounding functions. Then a branch and prune algorithm is executed, with a stopping criterion defined by the parameters $\n    \\epsilon_1,\\epsilon_2  \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$. We formally state the results of this algorithm below:\n\n\\[prop:APbounds\\] Fix some $ I_\\alpha = [ \\alpha_{min }, \\alpha_{max}]$ such that $ \\alpha_{min} \\geq  {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$. Suppose that $x:{\\mathbb{R}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ is periodic with period $L$, and is a SOPS to at parameter $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha$ with $ f(x) = e^x -1$. Furthermore, assume without loss of generality that $ x(0) = 0 $ and $ x'(0) > 0$.\n\nIf ${\\mathcal{L}}$ and ${\\mathcal{X}}$ denote the output of [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1] ran with input $I_\\alpha$, then there exists some $[\\underline{L}_i, \\overline{L}_i]\\in {\\mathcal{L}}$ and $\\chi_i \\in {\\mathcal{X}}$ for which $L \\in [\\underline{L}_i, \\overline{L}_i]  $ and $ x(t) \\in \\chi_i(t)$ for all $t$.\n\nIn [@jlm2016Floquet] the authors applied this algorithm to prove there is a unique SOPS for $ \\alpha \\in [1.9,6.0]$. However, one of the shortcomings of this algorithm is that it has difficulty discarding low amplitude solutions near the Hopf bifurcation at $ \\alpha = {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$. To remedy this, we modify the pruning operator in [@jlm2016Floquet] with the addition of the following Proposition \\[prop:PruningMod\\]. This allows for a new way to potentially conclude that a given bounding function cannot contain any SOPS.\n\n\\[prop:PruningMod\\] If $y$ is a nontrivial periodic solution to at parameter $ \\alpha \\in ( 0 , 2]$ and frequency $\\omega \\geq 1.1$, then: $$\\sup |y(t)| >   -\\tfrac{1}{2} + \\tfrac{1}{2}\\sqrt{1 + \\tfrac{4 \\sqrt{3} \\omega}{\\pi \\alpha } g(\\alpha, \\omega) }  .$$\n\nDefine $ M := \\sup |y(t)|$. From [@BergJaquette Lemma 4.1] we know that if $F(\\alpha,\\omega,c)=0$, then: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\| c \\|_{\\ell^1} \n    \\leq  \\frac{\\pi}{\\omega \\sqrt{3}} \\| y'\\|_{\\infty} \n    \\leq \\frac{\\pi}{\\omega \\sqrt{3}} \\alpha M (1 + M).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ From Lemma \\[prop:zeroneighborhood2\\], the only solutions satisfying $ \\| c\\|_{\\ell^1} < g(\\alpha , \\omega)$ are trivial. Hence $(\\alpha, \\omega,c)$ would only be a trivial solution at best if the following inequality is satisfied: $$\\| c\\|_{\\ell^1} \\leq    \\frac{\\pi}{\\omega \\sqrt{3}} \\alpha M(1+M) <    g(\\alpha ,\\omega).$$ Solving the quadratic equation $M^2 +M -   \\frac{\\omega \\sqrt{3}}{\\pi \\alpha } g(\\alpha ,\\omega) <0$ produces the desired inequality.\n\nThe higher derivatives of a function can be very useful in constructing bounds on its Fourier coefficients and their rate of decay. While the bounding functions constructed in [@jlm2016Floquet] are not even continuous, we can use them to construct bounding functions for the derivative of SOPS to Wright\u2019s equation via a bootstrapping argument. Namely, by taking a derivative on both sides of we obtain an equation for the second derivative of solutions to . In a similar manner, can obtain an expression for the third derivative of solutions to , both of which are presented below: $$\\begin{aligned}\ny''(t) &= -\\alpha \n\\left[  y'(t-1) \\left[1 + y(t) \\right] +\ny(t-1) y'(t)\\right]  \\\\\ny'''(t) &= - \\alpha  \\left[ y''(t-1) [1+y(t) ] + 2 y'(t-1)y'(t) + y(t-1) y''(t) \\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Note that we can always express the derivative $ y^{(s)}(t)$ in terms of $ y^{(r)}(t) $ and $ y^{(r)}(t-1) $ where $ 0 \\leq r \\leq s-1$. That is, we can inductively define functions $ f^s : {\\mathbb{R}}^{2s} \\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ such that for all $t$ we have: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    y^{(s)}(t) = f^s\\left(  y(t),y(t-1), y'(t),y'(t-1),\\dots,  y^{(s-1)}(t),y^{(s-1)}(t-1)  \\right). \n    \\label{eq:Bootstrap}\\end{aligned}$$ If we start with a bounding function for $y$, then by appropriately adding and multiplying the bounding functions for $y^{(r)}$, taking wider bounds whenever necessary, we can obtain bounding functions for any derivative of $y$ (see for example Figure \\[fig:FourierDerivativeProjections\\]).\n\nAlgorithm \\[alg:Comprehensive\\] proceeds by first constructing bounding functions for $y$ and its derivatives, and then applying Algorithm \\[alg:FourierProjection\\] to obtain a cube containing its Fourier coefficients. Then it applies Algorithm \\[alg:TimeTranslate\\] to impose the phase condition that $ c_1 = c_1^*$.\n\nIn this manner we obtain a collection of cubes which contains all of the Fourier coefficients to SOPS to . We then apply Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] to each cube, discarding it if possible. This allows us to discard between 5% and 60% of cubes (see $N_{grid}'$ in Table \\[table:RunTimes\\]).\n\nOne problem however, is that the Fourier projection of two distinct bounding functions often overlap considerably. To address this we combine overlapping cubes together. While we could combine all of our cubes into one big cube, this would not be efficient. Instead, we divide our cover along a grid in the $ \\omega\\times a_1$ plane (see Figure \\[fig:InitialPrep\\]).\n\n\\[alg:Comprehensive\\] Fix an interval of $ I_{\\alpha} \\subseteq [\\alpha_{min},\\alpha_{max}]$, integers $M,S \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ and a subdivision number $ N \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, and the computational parameters for [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1]. The output is a (finite) collection of cubes ${\\mathcal{S}}= \\{ X_i \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s  \\}$.\n\n1.  Let $ {\\mathcal{X}},{\\mathcal{L}}$ be the output of [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1] with input $I_\\alpha$ and appropriate computational parameters.\n\n2.  Use the change of variables $ y = e^x -1$ to define a collection of functions: $${\\mathcal{Y}}^{0} :=  \\left\\{ Y_i(t) = [ e^{\\ell_i(t) } -1, e^{u_i(t) } -1]: \\chi_i = [ \\ell_i(t) , u_i(t)]  \\in {\\mathcal{X}}\\right\\} .$$\n\n3.  Inductively define $ {\\mathcal{Y}}^s$ for $ 1 \\leq s \\leq S$ so that corresponding to each $ Y_i^0 \\in {\\mathcal{Y}}^0$ there exists a $Y_i^s = [\\underline{Y_i^s},\\overline{Y_i^s}] \\in {\\mathcal{Y}}^s$ such that for $f^s$ defined in we have: $$\\begin{aligned}\n            \\underline{Y_i^s}(t) \\leq& \\inf_{\\{y^{r}\\}_{r=0}^{s-1} \\in \\{Y_i^r\\}_{r=0}^{s-1}} \n            f^s\\left(  y^0(t),y^0(t-1), \\dots,  y^{s-1}(t),y^{s-1}(t-1) \\right) \\\\\n            \\overline{Y_i^s}(t) \\geq& \\sup_{\\{y^{r}\\}_{r=0}^{s-1} \\in \\{Y_i^r\\}_{r=0}^{s-1}} \n            f^s\\left(  y^0(t),y^0(t-1), \\dots,  y^{s-1}(t),y^{s-1}(t-1) \\right).\n            \\end{aligned}$$\n\n4.  Define ${\\mathcal{S}}' := \\{ X_i' \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times {\\Omega}^s   \\}$ to be the collective output of Algorithm \\[alg:FourierProjection\\] run with $M \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, and each of the sets $ L_i \\in {\\mathcal{L}}$ and $\\{Y_i^{s}\\}_{s=0}^S \\in \\{{\\mathcal{Y}}^{s} \\}_{s=0}^S $ as input.\n\n5.  Define ${\\mathcal{S}}'' := \\{ X_i'' \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^1 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s\\}$ to be the collective output of Algorithm \\[alg:TimeTranslate\\] run with each of the sets $ X_i' \\in {\\mathcal{S}}'$ as input.\n\n6.  Define ${\\mathcal{S}}'''$ by taking the product of $ I_\\alpha$ with the cubes in $ {\\mathcal{S}}''$. That is, define $ {\\mathcal{S}}''':= \\{ I_\\alpha \\times X_i'' \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s : X_i'' \\in {\\mathcal{S}}''\\}$.\n\n7.  For each $ X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}'''$, let $ \\{flag,X'\\}$ denote the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] with input $X$. If $flag=1$, then remove $X$ from $ {\\mathcal{S}}'''$. Otherwise replace $X$ by $X'$.\n\n8.  Subdivide the $ \\omega \\times a_1$ space covered by $ {\\mathcal{S}}'''$ into an $N \\times N$ grid. That is, define an index set $ B := \\{ 1 ,2 , \\dots, N\\} \\times \\{1, 2, \\dots,   N\\}$ and define intervals $ I^\\omega , I^{a_1} \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}$ so that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n            I^\\omega \n            &\\supseteq \\bigcup_{X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}'''} \\pi_\\omega(X),&\n             I^{a_1} \n            &\\supseteq \\bigcup_{X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}'''} \\pi_{a_1}(X).\n            \\end{aligned}$$ Subdivide $I^\\omega$ and $I^{a_1}$ into $N$ subintervals of equal width, $\\{I^{\\omega}_i\\}_{i=1}^N$ and $\\{I^{a_1}_i\\}_{i=1}^N$, so that $I^\\omega  =  \\bigcup_{i=1}^N I^\\omega_{i} $ and $I^{a_1}  =  \\bigcup_{i=1}^N I^{a_1}_{i} $.\n\n9.  For each $ \\beta =(\\beta_1 , \\beta_2) \\in B$, take the union of cubes in $ {\\mathcal{S}}'''$ whose $ (\\omega ,a_1)$\u2013projection intersects $ I^\\omega_{\\beta_1} \\times I^{a_1}_{\\beta_2}$. That is, define: $$\\begin{aligned}\n            \\tilde{X}_\\beta &:= \\{ (\\alpha ,  \\omega , c) \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times  \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s : \\omega \\in  I^\\omega_{\\beta_1}, [c]_1 \\in I^{a_1}_{\\beta_2}  \\} ,\n            \\end{aligned}$$ and define $ X_\\beta$ to be a cube such that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n                X_\\beta &\\supseteq \\bigcup_{X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}'''} X \\cap \\tilde{X}_\\beta.\n            \\end{aligned}$$\n\n10. Define $ {\\mathcal{S}}:= \\{ X_{\\beta} : \\beta \\in B\\}$.\n\n\\[prop:Comprehensive\\] Fix an interval $ I_{\\alpha} = [\\alpha_{min},\\alpha_{max}]$ such that $ \\alpha_{min} \\geq {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$, and let ${\\mathcal{S}}$ denote the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Comprehensive\\]. If a function $ y$ as given in is a SOPS to Wright\u2019s equation at $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha$, then there exists a time translation so that its Fourier coefficients are in $\\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}$.\n\nEvery SOPS $y$ to the quadratic version of Wright\u2019s equation given in corresponds to a SOPS $x$ to the exponential version of Wright\u2019s equation given in with $ f(x) = e^x -1$. Fix a SOPS $x : {\\mathbb{R}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ to the exponential version of Wright\u2019s equation with period $L$. We organize the proof into the steps of the algorithm.\n\n1.  By Theorem \\[prop:APbounds\\] there exists an interval $ L_i \\in {\\mathcal{L}}$ and a bounding function $\\chi_i \\in {\\mathcal{X}}$ and such that $L \\in L_i$ and $ x(t) \\in \\chi_i(t)$ for all $ t \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$.\n\n2.  The change of variables between the exponential and quadratic versions of Wright\u2019s equation is given by $y = e^x -1$. Hence for the interval $ L_i \\in {\\mathcal{L}}$ and the bounding function $Y_i \\in {\\mathcal{Y}}^{0}$, it follows that $L \\in L_i$ and $ y(t) \\in Y_i(t)$ for all $ t \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$.\n\n3.  Since $y \\in Y_i^0$ it follows that its derivatives satisfy $ y^{(s)} \\in Y_i^{s}$ for all $ 0 \\leq s \\leq S$.\n\n4.  Let $\\omega$ and $ c$ denote the frequency and Fourier coefficients of $y$ respectively. If $X_i'$ is the output of Algorithm \\[alg:FourierProjection\\] with input $M \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, $L_i$ and $ \\{ Y_i^{s} \\}_{s=0}^{S}$, then by Proposition \\[prop:FourierProjection\\] it follows that $(\\omega, \\{c_k\\}_{k=1}^\\infty ) \\in X_i'$.\n\n5.  Let $ X_i''$ denote the output of Algorithm \\[alg:TimeTranslate\\] with input $X_i'$. By Theorem \\[prop:TimeTranslation\\], there exists a $ \\tau \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$ such that the Fourier coefficients $ c'$ of $ y(t+\\tau)$ satisfy $(\\omega, \\{c'_k\\}_{k=1}^\\infty ) \\in X_i''$.\n\n6.  We have shown that if $y$ is a SOPS to at parameter $ \\alpha$ having frequency $ \\omega$, then up to a time translation $( \\alpha , \\omega , c) \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}'''$. By Proposition \\[prop:Equivalence\\] the SOPS to at parameter $\\alpha \\in I_\\alpha$ correspond to the non-trivial zeros of $F$ in $\\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}'''$. Hence, if there is a solution $ F(\\hat{x}) =0$ for some $ x \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s$ with $ \\pi_\\alpha (\\hat{x})\\in I_\\alpha$, then $ \\hat{x} \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}'''$.\n\n7.  Let $ \\{flag,X_i^{(4)}\\}$ denote the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] with input $X_i''' \\in {\\mathcal{S}}'''$. By Theorem \\[prop:Prune\\] we can replace each $X''' \\in {\\mathcal{S}}'''$ with $X_i^{(4)}$, and it will still be the case that $\\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}'''$ contains all of the solutions to $ F=0$. In particular, if $ flag=1$ then $X_i^{(4)} = \\emptyset$ and we may remove $X_i'''$ in this case.\n\n8.  If $(\\alpha,\\omega,c) \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}'''$ and $ a_1 = [c]_1$, then by construction $ \\omega \\in I^\\omega$ and $ a_1 \\in I^{a_1}$. As $I^\\omega \\times  I^{a_1} =  \\bigcup_{(\\beta_1,\\beta_2) \\in B} I^\\omega_{\\beta_1} \\times  I^{a_1}_{\\beta_2} $, then there is some $ (\\beta_1, \\beta_2) \\in B$ such that $ (\\omega,a_1) \\in I^\\omega_{\\beta_1} \\times I^{a_1}_{\\beta_2}$.\n\n9.  As $ \\bigcup_{X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}'''} X \\subseteq \\bigcup_{\\beta \\in B} \\tilde{X}_\\beta$, then it follows that $\\bigcup_{X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}'''} X \\subseteq \\bigcup_{\\beta \\in B} X_\\beta $. That is to say $\\bigcup  {\\mathcal{S}}''' \\subseteq \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}$.\n\n10. Hence, $\\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}$ contains the Fourier coefficients of any possible SOPS.\n\nGlobal Algorithm {#sec:GlobalAlgorithm}\n================\n\nAfter Algorithm \\[alg:Comprehensive\\] has constructed a collection of cubes ${\\mathcal{S}}$ covering the solution space to $F=0$, we run a branch and prune algorithm. This algorithm iteratively inspects the elements in $X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}$ and then constructs three new lists of cubes: ${\\mathcal{A}}$, ${\\mathcal{B}}$ and ${\\mathcal{R}}$. To summarize, first we compute the output $Prune(X) = \\{flag,X'\\}$ from Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\]. If $flag =1$, then there are no solutions in $X$, and we can remove $X$ from ${\\mathcal{S}}$. If $flag =2$, then the cube is in the neighborhood of the Hopf bifurcation, and we add $X'$ to $ {\\mathcal{B}}$. If $flag =3$, then for all $\\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha (X)$ there exists a unique solution to $F_\\alpha = 0 $ in $X'$, and we add $X'$ to $ {\\mathcal{A}}$. If $X'$ is too small, then we add it to $ {\\mathcal{R}}$. If the Krawczyk operator appears to be effective at reducing the size of the cube, then the pruning operation is performed again. Otherwise $X'$ is subdivided along some lower dimension and the resulting pieces are added back to ${\\mathcal{S}}$.\n\nThe most obvious difference between our algorithm and the classical algorithm is that we are working in infinite dimensions. While we store $2M+1$ real valued coordinates in a given cube, as in [@galias2007infinite; @day2013rigorous] the subdivision is only performed along a subset of these dimensions. Choosing which dimension to subdivide along can greatly affect the efficiency of a branch and bound algorithm, and there are heuristic methods for optimizing this choice [@csendes1997subdivision]. However since we are finding all the zeros along a 1-parameter family of solutions, these branching methods are not entirely applicable. To determine which dimension to subdivide we select the dimension with the largest weighted diameter. That is, for a collection of weights $ \\{ \\lambda_i \\}_{i=0}^{d}$ we define: $$w(X,i) := \n    \\begin{cases}\n    \\lambda_i \\cdot \\mbox{diam}\\left( \\pi_\\alpha (X )\\right) & \\mbox{ if } i=0, \\\\\n    \\lambda_i \\cdot \\mbox{diam}\\left(\\left[\\tilde{\\pi}_M'(X )\\right]_i\\right) & \\mbox{ otherwise.} \\\\\n    \\end{cases}$$\n\n\\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\] Take as input a collection of cubes ${\\mathcal{S}}= \\{ X_i \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s\\}$ with $ M\\geq 5$ and $s >2$, and as computational parameters: a halting criteria $\\epsilon>0 $, a continue-pruning criteria $ \\delta \\geq0$, a maximum subdivision dimension $0 \\leq d \\leq 2M$ and a set of weights $\\{\\lambda_i\\}_{i=0}^{d}$. The output is three lists of cubes: $ {\\mathcal{A}}, {\\mathcal{B}}$ and ${\\mathcal{R}}$.\n\n1.  If ${\\mathcal{S}}$ is empty, terminate the algorithm.\n\n2.  Select an element $X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}$ and remove $X$ from ${\\mathcal{S}}$.\n\n3.  Define $\\{flag,X'\\} = Prune(X)$ to be the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] with input $X$.\n\n4.  If $flag=1$, then reject $X$ and GOTO Step 1.\n\n5.  If $flag=2$, then add $X'$ to ${\\mathcal{B}}$ and GOTO Step 1.\n\n6.  If $flag=3$, then add $ X'$ to ${\\mathcal{A}}$ and GOTO Step 1.\n\n7.  If $\\max_{0\\leq i\\leq d} w(X',i) < \\epsilon$, then add $X'$ to ${\\mathcal{R}}$ and GOTO Step 1.\n\n8.  Define $m=\\lfloor d/2 \\rfloor$. If $(1+\\delta ) < \\frac{vol( \\tilde{\\pi}_m'(X))}{vol( \\tilde{\\pi}_m'(X') )}$, then define $ X:= X'$ and GOTO Step 3.\n\n9.  Subdivide $X'$ into two pieces, $X_1'$ and $X_2'$, along a dimension which maximizes $w(X',i)$, and so that $ X' = X_1' \\cup X_2'$. Add the two new cubes to ${\\mathcal{S}}$ and GOTO Step 1.\n\n\\[prop:BnB\\] Let $ {\\mathcal{S}}= \\{ X_i \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s\\}$ with $ M \\geq 5$ and $ s>2$. Let ${\\mathcal{A}}, {\\mathcal{B}}$ and ${\\mathcal{R}}$ be the output of Algorithm \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\] run with input ${\\mathcal{S}}$ and various computational parameters.\n\n(i) If $F(\\hat{x}) =0$ for some $ \\hat{x} \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}$, then $ \\hat{x}  \\in  \\bigcup {\\mathcal{A}}\\cup  {\\mathcal{B}}\\cup  {\\mathcal{R}}$.\n\n(ii) For each $ X \\in {\\mathcal{A}}$ and $ \\alpha  \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X)$, there is a unique $ \\hat{x}  = ( \\alpha , \\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha, \\hat{c}_\\alpha)\\in X$ such that $ F(\\hat{x}) =0$.\n\n(iii) For each $ X \\in {\\mathcal{B}}$, if there is a solution $ \\hat{x} \\in  X$ to $F=0$, then $\\hat{x}$ is on the principal branch.\n\nWe prove the claims of the theorem.\n\n(i) Suppose there is some solution $ \\hat{x} \\in X$ for some $X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}$. We show that $\\hat{x} \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}\\cup {\\mathcal{A}}\\cup {\\mathcal{B}}\\cup {\\mathcal{R}}$ at every step of the algorithm. If we replace $X$ by $X'$ as in Step 3, then $\\hat{x} \\in X'$ by Theorem \\[prop:Prune\\]. In Step 4, if $ flag =1$ then in fact $ X' = \\emptyset$, so $X$ could not have contained any solutions in the first place. In Steps 5, 6 and 7, the cube $ X' $ is added to one of $ {\\mathcal{A}}$, ${\\mathcal{B}}$ or ${\\mathcal{R}}$. Hence, as $\\hat{x} \\in X'$ then $ \\hat{x} \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}\\cup  {\\mathcal{A}}\\cup {\\mathcal{B}}\\cup {\\mathcal{R}}$. If in Step 8 we decide to prune the cube $X'$ again, then we may repeat the argument made for Steps 3-7. In Step 9 we divide $X'$ into two new cubes $X_1'$ and $X_2'$ for which $ X' = X_1' \\cup X_2'$. Hence $\\hat{x} $ will be contained in at least one of $ X_1'$ or $X_2'$, and both cubes are added to $ {\\mathcal{S}}$, so we cannot lose the solution in Step 9.\n\n    Thus we have shown that $\\hat{x} \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}\\cup {\\mathcal{A}}\\cup {\\mathcal{B}}\\cup {\\mathcal{R}}$ at every step. Since the algorithm can only stop when ${\\mathcal{S}}= \\emptyset$, it follows that every solution $\\hat{x}$ initially contained in $ \\bigcup  {\\mathcal{S}}$ will eventually be contained in $ \\bigcup {\\mathcal{A}}\\cup {\\mathcal{B}}\\cup {\\mathcal{R}}$.\n\n(ii) The only way a cube $X'$ can be added to ${\\mathcal{A}}$ is in Step 6. That is, for some cube $ X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}$ the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] returned $ \\{3,X'\\}$. Thus, it follows from Theorem \\[prop:Prune\\] that for all $ \\alpha  \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X)$ there is a unique $ \\hat{x}  = ( \\alpha , \\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha, \\hat{c}_\\alpha)\\in X$ such that $ F(\\hat{x}) =0$.\n\n(iii) The only way a cube $X'$ can be added to ${\\mathcal{B}}$ is in Step 5. That is, for some cube $ X \\in {\\mathcal{S}}$ the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] returned $ \\{2,X'\\}$. Thus, it follows from Lemma \\[prop:BifNbd\\] that the only solutions to $F=0$ in $X'$ are those on the principal branch.\n\nIf a cube has no zeros inside of it yet there is a solution close to its boundary, then proving that the cube does not contain any solutions can be very difficult, resulting in an excessive number of subdivisions. This phenomenon is common to branch and bound algorithms and is referred to as the cluster effect [@schichl2004exclusion]. As we wish to enumerate not just isolated solutions but a 1-parameter family of solutions, the difficulty of the cluster effect is multiplied. Furthermore, we cannot expect that the boundary of a cube will almost never contain a solution. In particular, when we subdivide a cube we may also bisect the curve of solutions, and further subdivisions will not remedy this problem (see Figure \\[fig:BranchANDBound\\]). As such, we should not expect that $ {\\mathcal{R}}\\neq \\emptyset$.\n\nTo address this issue we apply Algorithm \\[alg:Recombine\\] to the output of Algorithm \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\]. In Step 1 we recombine cubes in ${\\mathcal{R}}$ which overlap in the $\\alpha$ dimension. In Step 2 we split the cubes in ${\\mathcal{R}}$ along the $\\alpha$-dimension to make them easier to prune, which we do in Step 3. Ideally by Step 4 all of the cubes have been removed from $ {\\mathcal{R}}$, having been added to either $ {\\mathcal{A}}$ or ${\\mathcal{B}}$.\n\nEven if ${\\mathcal{R}}= \\emptyset$ at this point, it is not immediately clear that the only solutions are on the principal branch. For two distinct cubes $ X_1,X_2 \\in {\\mathcal{A}}$, if there is some $ \\alpha_0$ such that $ \\alpha_0 \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X_1)$ and $ \\alpha_0 \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X_2)$, then there could very well be two distinct solutions at the parameter $ \\alpha_0$. In fact, since we subdivide along the $ \\alpha$\u2013dimension it is to be expected that a cube will share an $\\alpha$\u2013value with one or two other cubes. In Steps 6-9 of Algorithm \\[alg:Recombine\\] we check to make sure that when two cubes have $ \\alpha$\u2013values in common, then there is a unique solution associated to each $\\alpha_0 \\in \\pi_\\alpha(X_1) \\cap \\pi_\\alpha(X_2)$.\n\n\\[alg:Recombine\\] Take as input sets $ {\\mathcal{A}}, {\\mathcal{B}}, {\\mathcal{R}}$ produced by Algorithm \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\] and a computational parameter $n \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$. The output is a pair of intervals $ I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{A}}$, $I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}$ and either success or failure.\n\n1.  Combine the elements in ${\\mathcal{R}}$ whose $\\alpha$-components overlap in more than just a point. That is, for all $ X,Y \\in {\\mathcal{R}}$, if $diam( \\pi_\\alpha(X) \\cap \\pi_\\alpha(Y)) >0$, then replace $ X$ and $Y$ in the set $ {\\mathcal{R}}$ with a new cube $Z $ containing $ X \\cup Y$.\n\n2.  Subdivide each $ X \\in {\\mathcal{R}}$ along the $ \\alpha$-dimension.\n\n3.  For all $ X \\in {\\mathcal{R}}$ calculate $ \\{flag, X'\\} = Prune^{(n)}(X)$, the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] iterated at most $n$ times with initial input $X$. If $flag =1$, then remove $ X$ from $ {\\mathcal{R}}$. If $flag =2$, then remove $ X$ from $ {\\mathcal{R}}$ and add $ X' $ to ${\\mathcal{B}}$. If $flag =3$, then remove $ X$ from $ {\\mathcal{R}}$ and add $ X' $ to ${\\mathcal{A}}$.\n\n4.  If $ {\\mathcal{R}}\\neq \\emptyset$ then return FAILURE.\n\n5.  Define $I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{A}}=  \\bigcup_{X \\in {\\mathcal{A}}} \\pi_\\alpha(X)$ and $I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}=  \\bigcup_{X \\in  {\\mathcal{B}}} \\pi_\\alpha(X)$.\n\n6.  Construct a cover $ {\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{B}}}'$ of the parts of cubes in ${\\mathcal{A}}$ which intersect with $ \\bigcup {\\mathcal{B}}$. That is, define $ {\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{B}}} = \\{ X \\in {\\mathcal{A}}: \\pi_\\alpha (X) \\cap I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}\\}$. Then define $ {\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{B}}}'$ by, for each $ X \\in {\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{B}}}$, taking the $\\alpha$-component of $X$ and setting it equal to $ \\pi_\\alpha(X) \\cap I_{\\alpha}^{\\mathcal{B}}$ and adding the modified cube to ${\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{B}}}'$.\n\n7.  For all $ X \\in {\\mathcal{I}}_{\\mathcal{B}}'$ calculate $\\{flag,X'\\} = Prune^{(n)}(X)$, the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] iterated $n$\u2013times with initial input $X$. If $flag \\neq 2 $ then return FAILURE.\n\n8.  Construct a cover $ {\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{A}}}'$ of the parts of cubes in ${\\mathcal{A}}$ which intersect with another cube in ${\\mathcal{A}}$. That is, define $ {\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{A}}} = \\{ (X,Y) \\in {\\mathcal{A}}\\times {\\mathcal{A}}: X \\neq Y,  \\pi_\\alpha (X) \\cap  \\pi_\\alpha (Y) \\neq \\emptyset  \\}$. Then define $ {\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{A}}}'$ by, for each $ (X,Y) \\in {\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{A}}}$, defining a new cube $ Z$ which contains $ X \\cup Y$, replacing the $\\alpha$-component of $Z$ by $ \\pi_\\alpha(X) \\cap \\pi_\\alpha(Y)$, and adding $Z$ to ${\\mathcal{I}}_{{\\mathcal{A}}}'$.\n\n9.  For all $ Z \\in {\\mathcal{I}}_{\\mathcal{A}}'$ calculate $\\{flag,Z'\\} = Prune^{(n)}(Z)$, the output of Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] iterated $n$\u2013times with initial input $Z$. If $flag \\neq 3 $ then return FAILURE.\n\n10. If the algorithm reaches this point, return SUCCESS.\n\nLet $ {\\mathcal{A}},{\\mathcal{B}},{\\mathcal{R}}$ denote the output of Algorithm \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\] run with input $ {\\mathcal{S}}= \\{ X_i \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^2 \\times \\tilde{{\\Omega}}^s  \\}$ where $M \\geq 5$ and $ s>2$. Suppose having received input $ {\\mathcal{A}},{\\mathcal{B}},{\\mathcal{R}}$ and $ n \\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, Algorithm \\[alg:Recombine\\] returns SUCCESS and intervals $I_{\\alpha}^{\\mathcal{A}}$ and $I_{\\alpha}^{\\mathcal{B}}$.\n\n(i) If $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{A}}\\backslash I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}$, then there is a unique solution $\\hat{x}_\\alpha = (\\alpha , \\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha,\\hat{c}_\\alpha) \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}$ such that $ F_\\alpha (\\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha,\\hat{c}_\\alpha)=0$.\n\n(ii) If $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}$, then the only solutions to $F_\\alpha = 0$ in $\\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}$ are on the principal branch.\n\n\\[prop:Rescale\\]\n\nWe describe the first 4 steps of the algorithm and then prove the theorem.\n\n1.  Let ${\\mathcal{R}}$ denote the initial input to the algorithm and $ {\\mathcal{R}}'$ denote the resulting set produced by Step 1. By its construction, it follows that $ \\bigcup {\\mathcal{R}}\\subseteq  \\bigcup {\\mathcal{R}}'$.\n\n2.  If we subdivide the cubes in ${\\mathcal{R}}'$, then it is still true that $ \\bigcup {\\mathcal{R}}\\subseteq \\bigcup {\\mathcal{R}}'$.\n\n3.  As described in the proof of Theorem \\[prop:BnB\\], if $flag = 1,2,3$ then it is appropriate to respectively, discard $X$, add $X'$ to ${\\mathcal{B}}$ and add $X'$ to ${\\mathcal{A}}$. Appropriate, that is, in the sense that the conclusion of Theorem \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\] will hold for these modified sets $ {\\mathcal{A}}$, ${\\mathcal{B}}$ and $ {\\mathcal{R}}$.\n\n4.  If we cannot show that every region of phase-space lies in either ${\\mathcal{A}}$ or ${\\mathcal{B}}$ then we are unable to prove the theorem. Otherwise, every solution to $ F=0$ in $\\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}$ is contained in $\\bigcup {\\mathcal{A}}\\cup {\\mathcal{B}}$.\n\nWe prove claim $(i)$. If $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{A}}\\backslash I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}$ there is a solution $\\hat{x}_\\alpha$ to $ F_\\alpha =0$ in $ \\bigcup {\\mathcal{A}}$. Suppose there exists a second distinct solution $ \\hat{x}_\\alpha'$ to $F_\\alpha =0$. Since each cube $X \\in {\\mathcal{A}}$ contains a unique solution for all $\\alpha \\in \\pi_\\alpha (X)$, there would exist distinct cubes $X,Y \\in {\\mathcal{A}}$ such that $ \\hat{x}_\\alpha \\in X$ and $ \\hat{x}_\\alpha' \\in Y$. It follows then that there exists some $Z \\in {\\mathcal{I}}_\\alpha'$ such that $ \\hat{x}_\\alpha,\\hat{x}_\\alpha'\\in Z$. Since it is determined by Step 9 that $ flag=3$ in the output of $Prune^{(n)}(Z)$, therefore by Theorem \\[prop:Prune\\] there exists a unique solution to $F=0$ in $Z$. Thereby $\\hat{x}_\\alpha = \\hat{x}_\\alpha'$, and if $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{A}}\\backslash I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}$, then there is a unique solution $\\hat{x}_\\alpha = (\\alpha , \\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha,\\hat{c}_\\alpha) \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}$ such that $ F_\\alpha (\\hat{\\omega}_\\alpha,\\hat{c}_\\alpha)=0$.\n\nWe prove claim $(ii)$. Suppose there exists some $\\hat{x}_\\alpha$ such that $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}$ and $ F_\\alpha (\\hat{\\omega},\\hat{c})=0$. Since the algorithm passed through Step 4, it follows that $\\hat{x}_\\alpha \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{A}}\\cup {\\mathcal{B}}$. If $ \\hat{x}_\\alpha \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{B}}$, then $\\hat{x}_\\alpha$ is on the principal branch by Theorem \\[prop:BnB\\]. If $ \\hat{x}_\\alpha \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{A}}$, then there exists a cube $X \\in {\\mathcal{I}}_{\\mathcal{B}}'$ such that $ \\hat{x}_\\alpha \\in X$. If the Algorithm \\[alg:Recombine\\] is successful, then when Algorithm \\[alg:Prune\\] is run $n$\u2013times with initial input $X$ it will produce $flag =2$. Hence by Theorem \\[prop:Prune\\] this solution $\\hat{x}_\\alpha \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{A}}$ must be on the principal branch.\n\nWe implemented the algorithms discussed in this paper using MATLAB version R2017b (see [@JonesCode] for the code). The calculations were performed on Intel Xeon E5-2670 and Intel Xeon E5-2680 processors, and used INTLAB for the interval arithmetic [@rump1999intlab]. A summary of the algorithms\u2019 runtime is given in Table \\[table:RunTimes\\].\n\nFor the intervals $I_\\alpha$ taking the values (containing at least) $ [{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}},1.6]$, $ [1.6,1.7]$, $ [1.7,1.8]$, and $ [1.8,1.9]$, we ran [@jlm2016Floquet Algorithm 5.1] using computational parameters $i_0=2$, $j_0=20$, $n_{Time} = 32$, $N_{Period} =10$, $N_{Prune} =4$, $\\epsilon_1 = 0.05$ and $\\epsilon_2 = 0.05$. We then ran Algorithm \\[alg:Comprehensive\\] using computational parameters $M=10$ and $S=3$, and $N=15$ producing outputs ${\\mathcal{S}}_{I_\\alpha}$ (see Figure \\[fig:InitialPrep\\]). By Theorem \\[prop:Comprehensive\\], if $y$ is a SOPS at parameter $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha$ given as in , then $ (\\alpha,\\omega,c) \\in \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}_{I_\\alpha}$. By Proposition \\[prop:Equivalence\\] the SOPS to at parameters $ \\alpha \\in I_\\alpha$ are in bijective correspondence with the nontrivial zeros of $F$ inside $ \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}_{I_\\alpha}$.\n\nOn each of the collections of cubes ${\\mathcal{S}}_{I_\\alpha}$ we ran Algorithm \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\], using the following computational parameters: For the stopping criterion we used $ \\epsilon = 0.0001$ for $\\alpha \\in  [{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}},1.6]$ and $ \\epsilon = 0.01$ otherwise. For the continue-pruning criterion, in every case we used $\\delta = 0.5$. For the maximal subdivision dimension, in each case we used $d =6$, corresponding to the variables $ \\alpha,\\omega,a_1 \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$ and $ c_2 , c_3 \\in {\\mathbb{C}}$. For the set of weights, in each case we used $ \\lambda_{0} = 8$ (corresponding to $\\alpha$) and $ \\lambda_i = 1$ otherwise.\n\nThe output of Algorithm \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\] are sets ${\\mathcal{A}}_{I_\\alpha},{\\mathcal{B}}_{I_\\alpha},{\\mathcal{R}}_{I_\\alpha}$. On each of these resulting outputs we ran Algorithm \\[alg:Recombine\\] using $n=5$, and in each case it was successful, producing sets $ I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{A}}$ and $I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}$. When $I_\\alpha =  [{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}},1.6]$ then $I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{B}}=[{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}},{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+ 0.00550]$ and $I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{A}}= [{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+ 0.00550,1.6]$, and otherwise $I_\\alpha^{\\mathcal{A}}= I_\\alpha$. By Theorem \\[prop:BnB\\], this shows that for all $ \\alpha \\in [{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+ 0.00550,1.9]$ there exists a unique solution to $ F_\\alpha =0$ in $ \\bigcup {\\mathcal{S}}$, and if $ \\alpha \\in [{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}, {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+ 0.00550]$ then the only solutions that exist are on the principal branch. Note that by [@BergJaquette] there are no solutions at $ \\alpha = {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$ on or off the principal branch, and there are no folds in the principal branch for $ \\alpha \\in ( {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}, {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+0.00553]$. Hence for all $ \\alpha \\in ( {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}, 1.9]$ there exists a unique solution to . By [@jlm2016Floquet] and [@xie1991thesis] there exists a unique SOPS to for $ \\alpha \\in [1.9,6.0]$ and $ \\alpha \\geq 5.67$ respectively. Hence there exists a unique SOPS to for all $ \\alpha > {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$.\n\n                  $I_\\alpha$   $N_{bf}$   $N_{grid}'$   $N_{grid}$   $T_{bf}$   $T_{grid}$   $T_{bb}^*$   $T_{verify}$\n  -------------------------- ---------- ------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ --------------\n    $[{\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}},1.6]$       1604           614          181      602.5          5.2    $2.7^{*}$            1.4\n                 $[1.6,1.7]$        985           861          165      461.6          5.6      $4.6^*$            1.2\n                 $[1.7,1.8]$        604           566          143      335.1          3.6     $10.1^*$            0.4\n                 $[1.8,1.9]$        292           277           97      135.6          1.9     $67.0^*$            0.6\n\n\\[table:RunTimes\\]\n\nBy [@mallet1988morse] every global solution to has a positive, integer valued lap number $V(x,t)$. For non-zero $x$ the lap number will be an odd integer, defined by fixing the smallest possible $ \\sigma \\geq t$ such that $ x(\\sigma)=0$ and defining: $$V(x,t) = \n    \\begin{cases}\n    \\mbox{the \\# of zeros (counting multiplicity) of $x(s)$ in $(\\sigma-1,\\sigma]$; or } \\\\\n    \\mbox{$1$ if no $\\sigma $ exists}.\n    \\end{cases}$$\n\nLet us fix $x_0$ as a periodic solution to with period $L_0$. For any $t\\in {\\mathbb{R}}$ the lap number $ V(x_0,t)$ remains constant, and we can define $ N:= V(x_0,t)$. If $ N=1$ then $x_0$ must be a SOPS. If $ N \\geq 3$ then define the integer $n:= \\tfrac{N-1}{2}$ and $r := 1 - n L_0 $. By [@mallet1988morse], it follows that $2/N < L_0 < 2/(N-1)$, hence $ 0<r<N^{-1}$. Defining $x_1(t):= x_0(r t)$ and $ \\alpha_1 = r \\alpha_0 $ we calculate the derivative of $ x_1(t)$ as: $  x_1'(t)= -  \\alpha_1 f( x_0(rt -1))$. We may further compute: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    x_0(rt-1) = x_0(rt -1 + n L_0) = x_0(r(t-1)) = x_1(t-1).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Hence it follows that $ x_1'(t) = - \\alpha_1 f( x_1(t-1))$. Thus we have shown that if $V(x_0) \\geq 3$ then $x_0$ is a rescaling of a periodic solution $x_1$ with period length $L_1 = L_0/r >2$. Hence $x_0$ is a rescaling of a SOPS.\n\nFuture Work {#sec:FutureWork}\n===========\n\nOne pertinent question that remains concerns the period length of SOPS to Wright\u2019s equation.\n\n\\[prop:LengthConj\\] The period length of SOPS to increases monotonically in $\\alpha$.\n\nThe rigorous numerics in [@lessard2010recent; @jlm2016Floquet] strongly suggests this to be true when $ \\alpha \\leq 6$, and when $ \\alpha \\geq 3.8$ the period length $L$ satisfies $|L - \\alpha^{-1} e^\\alpha| < 7.66 \\alpha^{-1}$ by [@nussbaum1982asymptotic]. It is known that the period length increases monotonically when $ \\alpha \\in ( {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}, {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+6.830 \\times 10^{-3}]$ by [@BergJaquette]. However Conjecture \\[prop:LengthConj\\] is unresolved for $ \\alpha > {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}+ 6.830 \\times 10^{-3}$.\n\nAnother question, proposed in [@neumaier2014global], is the generalized Wright\u2019s conjecture.\n\n\\[prop:GenWright\\] For every $ \\alpha >0$ the set $\\overline{U(\\alpha)}$, the closure of the forward extension by the semiflow of a local unstable manifold at zero, is the global attractor for .\n\nThis is known to be true for $\\alpha \\leq {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$ by [@wright1955non; @neumaier2014global; @BergJaquette] and is unresolved for $ \\alpha > {\\tfrac{\\pi}{2}}$. Conjecture \\[prop:GenWright\\] can be reduced to a question about the number of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions, and moreover Conjecture \\[prop:LengthConj\\] implies Conjecture \\[prop:GenWright\\]. To wit, by the Poincar\u00e9-Bendixson theorem for monotone feedback systems [@mallet1996poincare], the $\\omega$-limit set of any initial data to is either $ 0$ or a periodic orbit. The lap number organizes the attractor into Morse sets $S_N$ by [@mallet1988morse], and by [@fiedler1989connections] there is always a connecting orbit from the unstable manifold of the origin to the Morse set $ S_N$. Hence, to prove Conjecture \\[prop:GenWright\\], it would suffice to show that each Morse set consists of exactly one periodic orbit.\n\nBy Theorem \\[prop:Rescaling\\] there are no isolas of periodic orbits, so multiple rapidly oscillating periodic solutions can only arise if there is a fold in one of the branches of rapidly oscillating periodic solutions. If Conjecture \\[prop:LengthConj\\] holds, then such a fold can be ruled out using rescaling equation in Theorem \\[prop:Rescaling\\]. In particular, if there are two SOPS at parameters $ \\alpha_1 < \\alpha_2$ with period lengths $L_1, L_2$ and the equality $ \\alpha_0 = \\alpha_1 ( 1 + n L_1) = \\alpha_2 (1 + n L_2)$ holds, then there will be two distinct rapidly oscillating periodic solutions at parameter $\\alpha_0$. This equality cannot hold if $L_1 < L_2$ whenever $ \\alpha_1 <\\alpha_2$. Thereby Conjecture \\[prop:LengthConj\\] implies Conjecture \\[prop:GenWright\\].\n\nThere are still further questions about Wright\u2019s equation. In [@mccord1996global] the authors show a semi-conjugacy of Wright\u2019s equation, and negative feedback systems more generally, onto a family of finite dimensional ODEs. Outside the dynamics described by this semi-conjugacy, are there any other interesting dynamics in ? Furthermore, do the stable and unstable manifolds of the periodic orbits in intersect transversely?\n\nThere are many future directions for the rigorous numerics of infinite dimensional dynamical systems. Perhaps one of the most striking features of Figure \\[fig:Verified\\] and Figure \\[fig:BranchANDBound\\] is the non-uniform size of cubes. This seems to be a result of applying the branch and bound method to a 1-parameter family of solutions instead of a collection of isolated solutions. One approach would be to first validate a neighborhood around the branch of solutions (*\u00e1 la* [@lessard2010recent]) and then use a branch and bound method to ensure that there are no solutions outside of this neighborhood. In this paper, we used a collection of weights $\\{ \\lambda\\}_{i=0}^d$ to mitigate this problem. When using all equal weights ($\\lambda_i=1$ for all $i$), the vast majority of cubes output by Algorithm \\[alg:BranchAndPrune\\] ended up in ${\\mathcal{R}}$. Having a better heuristic for deciding along which dimension to branch would be very useful, particularly so if it does away with the *a priori* need to select a maximal subdivision dimension $d$ as a computational parameter.\n\nIntegral to the success of our algorithm (allowing it to finish in finite time) are the estimates derived in [@jlm2016Floquet] which bound *all* of the slowly oscillating periodic solutions to Wright\u2019s equation. Since most initial conditions are attracted to the single SOPS in Wright\u2019s equation, it was sufficient for the methods in [@jlm2016Floquet] to be relatively simple. Future work could be done toward bounding all periodic orbits when there are multiple (unstable) solutions, or when the dimension is higher, as well as bounding all periodic solutions to ODEs and PDEs.\n\nAnother question, explored in [@lessard2017computer], is \u201cwhat the best Banach space to work in?\u201d In this paper we consider the space $ {\\Omega}^s$ of Fourier coefficients with algebraic decay. In Algorithm \\[alg:Comprehensive\\], the estimates for obtaining *a priori* estimates on the Fourier coefficients of SOPS always improve in absolute terms by using larger value of $S$. However, the value of $C_0$ will increase when using a larger $S$. It would likely be beneficial to initially run Algorithm \\[alg:Comprehensive\\] with a large $S$, and then convert these bounds into a smaller $S$ so that $ C_0$ will shrink as well. However, for other applications and other infinite dimensional problems, the question of what is the optimal Banach space remains.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThe author thanks Konstantin Mischaikow for many insightful discussions, as well as John Mallet-Paret and Roger Nussbaum for discussions on future work.\n\nThe author acknowledges the Office of Advanced Research Computing (OARC) at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey for providing access to the Amarel cluster and associated research computing resources that have contributed to the results reported here.\n\n[^1]: Partially supported by NSF DMS 0915019, NSF DMS 1248071\n\n[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Hill Center-Busch Campus, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 08854-8019. [jaquette@math.rutgers.edu]{}\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'A Lehmer number modulo a prime $p$ is an integer $a$ with $1 \\leq a \\leq p-1$ whose inverse $\\bar{a}$ within the same range has opposite parity. Lehmer numbers that are also primitive roots have been discussed by Wang and Wang [@WW] in an endeavour to count the number of ways $1$ can be expressed as the sum of two primitive roots that are also Lehmer numbers (an extension of a question of S.\u00a0Golomb). In this paper we give an explicit estimate for the number of Lehmer primitive roots modulo $p$ and prove that, for all primes $p \\neq 2,3,7$, Lehmer primitive roots exist. We also make explicit the known expression for the number of Lehmer numbers modulo $p$ and improve the Wang\u2013Wang estimate for the number of solutions to the Golomb\u2013Lehmer primitive root problem.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Stephen D. Cohen [^1]\\\n    [University of Glasgow, Scotland]{}\\\n    [Stephen.Cohen@glasgow.ac.uk]{}\n- |\n    Tim Trudgian[^2]\\\n    [School of Physical, Environmental and Mathematical Sciences]{}\\\n    [The University of New South Wales Canberra, Australia ]{}\\\n    [t.trudgian@adfa.edu.au ]{}\ntitle: Lehmer numbers and primitive roots modulo a prime\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLet $p$ be an odd prime and $a$ an integer with $1 \\leq a \\leq p-1$. Define $\\bar{a} $ to be integer with $1 \\leq \\bar{a} \\leq p-1$ such that $\\bar{a}$ is the inverse of $a$ modulo $p$. Following the interest in such integers by D. H. Lehmer (see, e.g.\u00a0[@Guy \u00a7F12]) we define $a$ to be a [*Lehmer number*]{} if $a$ and $\\bar{a}$ have opposite parity, i.e., $a+\\bar{a}$ is odd. Thus $a$ is a Lehmer number if and only if $\\bar{a}$ is a Lehmer number. It is easily checked that there are no Lehmer numbers modulo $p$ when $p=3$ or $7$.\n\nW. Zhang [@zhang94] has shown that $M_p$, the number of Lehmer numbers modulo $p$, satisfies $$\\label{zhang}\nM_p =\\frac{p-1}{2} + O(p^{\\frac{1}{2}} \\log^2 p).$$ We make this explicit in Theorem \\[straw\\] below. A Lehmer number which is also a primitive root modulo $p$ will be called a [*Lehmer primitive root*]{} or an [*LPR*]{}. The inverse $\\bar{a}$ of an LPR is also an LPR. Since there is no Lehmer number modulo $3$, we can suppose $p>3$. Wang and Wang [@WW] consider LPRs in an analogue of the question of Golomb relating to pairs $(a,b)$ of primitive roots modulo $p$ for which $a+b \\equiv 1 \\pmod p$. Specifically, Wang and Wang derive an asymptotic estimate for $G_p$, the number of pairs $(a,b)$ of LPRs for which $a+b \\equiv 1 \\pmod p$ (thus $a+b=p+1$), namely, $$\\label{wangwang}\nG_p = \\theta_{p-1}^2\\left(\\frac{p-1}{4} +O(W_{p-1}^2 p^{\\frac{3}{4}}\\log^2 p)\\right),$$ where, for a positive integer $m$, $\\theta_m = \\frac{\\phi(m)}{m}$ ($\\phi$ being Euler\u2019s function) and $W_m = 2^{\\omega(m)}$ is the number of square-free divisors of $m$. It follows from (\\[wangwang\\]) that there is always a pair $(a,b)$ of LPRs modulo $p$ for which $a+b=p+1$ for sufficiently large $p$. Since the result is inexplicit it is an open problem to specify which primes $p$ (if any) fail to possess such a pair $(a,b)$.\n\nAs a preliminary it is clearly desirable to possess an asymptotic expression analogous to (\\[zhang\\]) and (\\[wangwang\\]) for $N_p$ defined simply as the number of LPRs modulo a prime $p \\ (>3)$ and also to exhibit explicitly the finite list of primes $p$ for which there exists no LPR modulo $p$. This is the main purpose of the present article.\n\nFor odd integers $m\\geq3$ define the positive number $T_m$ by $$\\label{Tm}\nT_m=\\frac{2\\sum_{j=1}^{(m-1)/2}\\tan\\left(\\frac{\\pi j}{m}\\right)}{m\\log m}.$$ The asymptotic result to be proved is the following.\n\n\\[Np\\] Let $p>3$ be a prime. Then $$\\label{Npeq}\n\\left|N_{p}- \\frac{\\phi(p-1)}{2}\\right| < T_p^2\\theta_{p-1} W_{p-1}p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\\log^2 p .$$ In particular, if $p >3$, then $$\\label{Npeq1}\n\\left|N_{p}- \\frac{\\phi(p-1)}{2}\\right| <\\frac{1}{2}\\theta_{p-1}W_{p-1}p^{\\frac{1}{2}} \\log^2 p.$$\n\nA criterion for the existence of an LPR follows immediately from Theorem \\[Np\\].\n\n\\[exist\\] Let $p>3$ be a prime. Suppose that $$p^{\\frac{1}{2}}>2T_p^2W_{p-1} \\log^2 p + p^{-\\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Then there exists an LPR modulo $p$. In particular, provided $p > 7$, it suffices that $$\\label{dundee}\np^{\\frac{1}{2}}> W_{p-1}\\log^2 p + p^{-\\frac{1}{2}}.$$\n\nIn fact, a complete existence result will be proved as follows.\n\n\\[lpr\\] Suppose $p (\\neq3, 7)$ is an odd prime. Then there exists an [*LPR*]{} modulo $p$.\n\nFinally we obtain an improvement to (\\[wangwang\\]), namely, $$\\label{indigo}\n\\left|G_p- \\frac{\\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}(p-2)\\right| <\\frac{\\theta_{p-1}^2}{8}[W_{p-1}^2(9\\log^2 p+1) -1]p^{\\frac{1}{2}}, \\quad p> 3.$$ Of course, (\\[indigo\\]) implies that. for sufficiently large primes $p$, there exists a pair $(a,b)$ of LPR modulo $p$ such that $a+b\\equiv 1  \\pmod p$. We defer a full discussion of the existence question, however, to a future investigation.\n\nThe outline of this paper is as follows. In \u00a7\\[Twain\\] we give bounds for the function $T_{m}$ introduced in (\\[Tm\\]). In \u00a7\\[Thackeray\\] we prove Theorem \\[straw\\], which is an explicit version of (\\[zhang\\]). In \u00a7\\[Forster\\] we prove Theorem \\[Np\\] and introduce a sieve. This enables us to prove Theorem \\[lpr\\] in \u00a7\\[Conrad\\]. Finally, in \u00a7\\[Macauley\\] we prove (\\[indigo\\]) in Theorem \\[cream\\] thereby improving on the main result from Wang and Wang [@WW].\n\nThe authors are grateful to Maike Massierer who provided much useful advice relating to the computations in \u00a7\\[Conrad\\].\n\nBounds for $T_m$ {#Twain}\n================\n\nThe sum $T_m$ is relevant to previous work on Lehmer numbers (such as [@zhang94] and [@WW]). For explicit results it is helpful to have better bounds than those used in these papers. Here, Lemma \\[red\\] below (while not best possible) is sufficient for our purposes. Indeed, only the upper bound is needed in what follows. We remark that $1+\\log(\\frac{2}{\\pi})=0.54841\\ldots$.\n\n\\[red\\] For any odd integer $m \\geq 3$ we have $$\\label{tartan}\n\\frac{2}{\\pi}\\left(1+ \\frac{0.548}{\\log {m}}\\right) <T_m< \\frac{2}{\\pi}\\left(1+ \\frac{1.549}{\\log {m}}\\right).$$ In particular, if $m\\geq 1637$, then $T_m^2< \\frac{1}{2}$.\n\nWe begin with the upper bound for $T_m$ in (\\[tartan\\]). Since $\\tan x$ is an increasing function for $0 \\leq x < \\pi/2$, then $$S_m=\\sum_{j=0}^{(m-3)/2} \\tan  \\left(\\frac{\\pi j}{m}\\right)= \\sum_{j=1}^{(m-3)/2} \\tan\\left(\\frac{\\pi j}{m}\\right)$$ is a left-Riemmann sum (with unit intervals) for the integral $\\int_{0}^{(m-1)/2}  \\tan\\left(\\frac{\\pi x}{2}\\right) dx$, so that $$S_m < \\frac{m}{\\pi}\\log \\sec\\left(\\frac{\\pi(m-1)}{2m}\\right)= \\frac{m}{\\pi}\\log \\csc\\left(\\frac{\\pi }{2m}\\right)$$ Hence $$T_m m \\log m<\\frac{2m}{\\pi}\\log \\csc\\left(\\frac{\\pi }{2m}\\right)+ 2\\tan\\left(\\frac{\\pi (m-1)}{2m}\\right)<\\frac{2m}{\\pi}\\log \\csc\\left(\\frac{\\pi }{2m}\\right)+2 \\csc\\left(\\frac{\\pi}{2m}\\right)$$ Now $\\sin x > x-x^3/6$, whence, with $\\beta= \\pi^2/(24m^2)$, $$\\csc \\left(\\frac{\\pi}{2m}\\right)<\\frac{2m}{\\pi}(1-\\beta)^{-1}< \\frac{2m}{\\pi}(1+2 \\beta),$$ since, certainly, $\\beta< 1/2$. It follows that $$T_m m\\log m < \\frac{2m}{\\pi}(\\log m + \\log(2/\\pi)+ 2\\beta+ 2+ 4 \\beta)<\\frac{2m}{\\pi}(\\log m + 1.549)$$ provided $m >101$. The first claimed inequality follows for $m\\geq 101$. In fact, by calculation it is also true for all smaller values of $m$.\n\nFrom this, if $m>1200001$, we have $T_m< 0.7071$ and hence $T_m^2< 1/2$. By direct calculation, this inequality also holds for $1637 \\leq m <1200001$.\n\nFor the left hand inequality of (\\[tartan\\]), we exploit the fact that $S_m+\\tan\\left(\\frac{\\pi (m-1)}{2m}\\right)$ is the trapezoidal rule approximation to the integral $\\int_{0}^{(m-1)/2} 2 \\tan\\left(\\frac{\\pi x}{2}\\right) dx$. Indeed, since the integrand is concave up, the error term (involving the second derivative) is negative, i.e., the sum exceeds the integral. Hence $$T_m m \\log m>  \\frac{2m}{\\pi}\\log \\csc\\left(\\frac{\\pi }{2m}\\right)+ \\tan\\left(\\frac{\\pi (m-1)}{2m}\\right)> \\frac{2m}{\\pi}\\log\\frac{2m}{\\pi}+\\cot\\frac{\\pi}{2m}.$$ For $0<x<1, \\cos x >1-x^2/2$ and $\\sin x <x$ so that $\\cot\\frac{\\pi}{2m}>\\frac{2m}{\\pi}\\left(1-\\frac{\\pi^2}{8m^2}\\right)>\\frac{2m}{\\pi}(1-0.0001)$ whenever $m\\geq111$. Moreover, $ \\csc\\left(\\frac{\\pi }{2m}\\right) >\\frac{2m}{\\pi}$, whence, whenever $m \\geq 111$, $$T_m>\\frac{2}{\\pi}\\left(1+\\frac{\\frac{2}{\\pi}+1-0.0001}{\\log m}\\right)$$ The result follows for $m\\geq 111$. It also holds when $3\\leq m<111$ by direct calculation.\n\nThe number of Lehmer numbers modulo $p$ {#Thackeray}\n=======================================\n\nWe turn to making (\\[zhang\\]) explicit. For this we acknowledge the ideas of [@zhang94] and [@WW].\n\n\\[straw\\] Suppose $p>3$ is a prime. Then $$\\label{zhang2}\n  \\left|M_p -\\frac{p-1}{2}\\right| <T_p^2 p^{\\frac{1}{2}} \\log^2 p.$$ Moreover, for all $p$ we have $$\\label{chips}\n\\left|M_p -\\frac{p-1}{2}\\right| <\\frac{1}{2}p^{\\frac{1}{2}} \\log^2 p.$$\n\nEvidently, $$\\label{lime}\nM_p = \\frac{1}{2} \\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}(1-(-1)^{a+\\bar{a}})=\\frac{p-1}{2} -\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}(-1)^{a+\\bar{a}}=\\frac{p-1}{2} -\\frac{1}{2}E_p,$$ say. Let $\\psi$ be the additive character on the integers modulo $p$ defined by $\\psi(a)=\\exp(2\\pi i a/p)$. Express the function $(-1)^a$ in terms of additive characters modulo $p$ using the transformation $$(-1)^a =\\frac{1}{p}\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}\\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(j(a-r))=\\frac{1}{p}\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\sum_{j=0}^{p-1}\\psi(j(a-r)).$$ Similarly, $$(-1)^{\\bar{a}} =\\frac{1}{p}\\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s\\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\\psi(k(\\bar{a}-s)).$$ Hence, $$E_p= \\frac{1}{p^2}\\sum_{j,k=0}^{p-1}\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})\n\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(-jr)\\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s \\psi(-ks).$$ Notice that, if $j=0$, then $\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(-jr) =\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r=0$, since $p$ is odd. Hence, we can suppose the range of $j$ and, similarly, of $k$ in $E_p$ runs from $1$ to $p-1$. Thus $$\\label{pink}\n|E_p|=\\frac{1}{p^2}\\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\\big{|}\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})\\big{|} \\left|\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(-jr)\\right|\n\\left|\\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s \\psi(-ks)\\right|.$$ Now $\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})$ is a Kloosterman sum and so is bounded by $2p^{\\frac{1}{2}}$, whatever the values of $j,k$.\n\nNext, in (\\[pink\\]),\n\n$$\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(-jr)=\\frac{1-\\exp(2\\pi ij/p)}{1+\\exp(2\\pi ij/p)}=\\frac {i \\sin (\\pi j/p)}{\\cos (\\pi j/p)}.$$ Moreover, $$\\sum_{j=1}^{(p-1)}\\left|\\frac { \\sin (\\pi j/p)}{\\cos (\\pi j/p)}\\right|=2\\sum_{j=1}^{(p-1)/2} \\tan \\left(\\frac{\\pi j}{p}\\right)=T_p\\ p \\log p,$$ by the definition (\\[Tm\\]). It follows that $$\\left|\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(-jr)\\right| < T_p \\  p \\log p,$$ and, similarly, for the sum in (\\[pink\\]) over $k$.\n\nApplying these bounds to (\\[pink\\]), from (\\[lime\\]) we deduce (\\[zhang2\\]). Using Lemma 1 and a small computation we deduce (\\[chips\\]).\n\nA slight extension of Theorem \\[Np\\] and its proof {#Forster}\n==================================================\n\nThroughout let $p >3$ be a prime. All references given will be modulo $p$ (unless otherwise mentioned). We begin by extending the concept of a primitive root (as used in a number of papers such as [@COT]). For any [*even*]{} divisor $e$ of $p-1$ an integer $a$ (indivisible by $p$) will be said to be $e$-free if $a \\equiv b^d \\pmod p$ for an integer $b$ and divisor $d$ of $e$ implies $d=1$. Thus $a$ is a primitive root if it is $p-1$-free, Indeed, $a$ is a primitive root if and only if $a$ is $l$-free for all prime divisors $l$ of $p-1$. More generally, $a$ is $e$-free if and only if it is $l$-free for all prime divisors $l$ of $e$. It follows that the proportion of integers in $[1,p-1]$ which are $e$-free is $\\theta_e$ and therefore that their total number is $\\theta_e (p-1)$.\n\nNow, the function $$\\label{efree}\n\\theta_e\\sum_{d|e}\\frac{\\mu(d)}{\\phi(d)} \\sum_{\\chi_d}\\chi_d$$ acting on integers $a$ (indivisible by $p$) takes the value $1$ if $a$ is $e$-free and is zero, otherwise. Here the sum over $\\chi_d$ is over all $\\phi(d)$ multiplicative characters $\\chi_d$ modulo $p$ of order $d$.\n\nThe criterion for an integer $a$ with $1 \\leq a \\leq p-1$ to be a Lehmer number is that $\\frac{1}{2}(1- (-1)^{a+\\bar{a}})=1$ (and not 0). For any divisor $e$ of $p-1$, write $N_p(e)=N(e)$ for the number of Lehmer numbers $a$ such that $a$ is also $e$-free. In particular, $N(p-1)=N_p$ is the number of LPRs modulo $p$. By the above, $$\\label{Neexpr}\nN(e) = \\frac{1}{2} \\theta_e \\sum_{d|e} \\frac{\\mu(d)}{\\phi(d)} \\sum_{\\chi_d}\\sum_{1 \\leq a \\leq p-1}(1-(-1)^{a+\\bar{a}})\\chi_d(a).$$ In fact the sum $\\theta_e \\sum_{d|e} \\frac{\\mu(d)}{\\phi(d)} \\sum_{\\chi_d}\\sum_{1 \\leq a \\leq p-1}\\chi_d(a)$ simply yields the number of $e$-free integers modulo $p$, namely $\\theta_e (p-1)$. Hence $$\\label{white}\nN(e)=\\frac{\\theta_e}{2} (p-1)-\\frac{1}{2}E(e),$$ where $$\\label{grey}\nE(e) = \\theta_e \\sum_{d|e} \\frac{\\mu(d)}{\\phi(d)} \\sum_{\\chi_d}\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}(-1)^{a+\\bar{a}}\\chi_d(a).$$\n\nAs for (\\[pink\\]) we obtain $$\\label{black}\n|E(e)|=\\frac{\\theta_e}{p^2}\\sum_{d|e}\\frac{|\\mu(d)|}{\\phi(d)}\\sum_{\\chi_d}\\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\\big{|}\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\\chi_d(a)\\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})\\big{|} \\left|\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(-jr)\\right|\n\\left|\\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s \\psi(-ks)\\right|.$$\n\nNow, regarding $(ja+k\\bar{a})$ in (\\[black\\]) as the rational function $(ja^2+k)/a$, we have, by a theorem of Castro and Moreno (see (1.4) of [@CP]), that, for each pair $(j,k)$ with $1 \\leq j,k \\leq p-1$, $$\\label{blue}\n\\big{|}\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\\chi_d(a)\\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})\\big{|} \\leq 2p^{\\frac{1}{2}},$$ a bound which is independent of $j$ and $k$.\n\nAs we have already seen $$\\label{Tp}\n\\left|\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(-jr)\\right | < T_p \\  p \\log p,$$ and, similarly, for the sum in (\\[black\\]) over $k$.\n\nSince there are $\\phi(d)$ characters $\\chi_d$ of degree $d$ and $\\sum_{d|e}|\\mu(d)|=W_e$, we deduce from (\\[black\\]) by means of the bounds (\\[blue\\]) and (\\[Tp\\]) that $$\\label{green}\n |E(e)| <2\\theta_eW_eT_p^2 \\ p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\\log^2 p.$$\n\nHence (\\[Npeq\\]) is immediate from (\\[green\\]) with $e=p-1$ and (\\[Npeq1\\]) follows by Lemma \\[red\\]. More generally, by means of Lemma \\[red\\], we have established the following extension of Theorem \\[Np\\].\n\n\\[Ne\\] Let $p>3$ be a prime and $e$ an even divisor of $p-1$. Then $$\\label{Neeq}\n\\left|N_p(e)- \\frac{\\theta_e}{2}(p-1)\\right| < T_p^2\\theta_e W_ep^{\\frac{1}{2}}\\log^2 p.$$\n\nThe estimate (\\[Npeq\\]) of Theorem \\[Np\\] follows from Theorem \\[Ne\\] by selecting $e=p-1$. We deduce (\\[Npeq1\\]) by Lemma \\[red\\] for $p \\geq 1637$ and then for smaller prime values by simple direct calculation.\n\nProof of the existence theorem {#Conrad}\n==============================\n\nWe shall use Theorem \\[Np\\] to obtain an existence result for (explicitly) large primes $p$. In order to extend the range of the method, however, we first describe a \u201csieving\" approach based on Theorem \\[Ne\\] similar to that used in [@COT] and many other papers associated with the authors.\n\nSet $\\omega=\\omega(p-1)$. Let $f$ be an even divisor of $p-1$ which is the product of the $r(\\geq 1)$ smallest distinct prime factors of $p-1$ ($f$ is the [*core*]{}). Further let the remaining distinct prime factors of $p-1$ be $p_1, \\ldots, p_s$ (the sieving primes). Define $\\delta= 1 - \\sum_{i=1}^s\\frac{1}{p_i}$. As in previous work on related problems ([@COT15] and [@COT]) we have the following.\n\n\\[sieve\\] With the above notation, $$N_p \\geq \\sum_{i=1}^sN(p_if)- (s-1)N(f).$$ Hence $$\\label{old}\n N_p \\geq \\sum_{i=1}^s[N(p_if)- \\theta_{p_i}N(f)]+\\delta N(f).$$\n\n\\[brown\\] Let $f$ be the core of $p-1$ and let $p_i$ be any prime dividing $p-1$ but not $f$ (as before). Then\n\n$$|N(p_if)- \\theta_{p_i}N(f)|<2\\left(1-\\frac{1}{p_i}\\right)W_fT_p^2 \\ p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\\log^2 p.$$\n\nWe have $D=N(p_if)- \\theta_{p_i}N(f)=\\frac{1}{2}(E(p_i f)-\\theta_{p_i}E(f))$, where $E(e)$ is defined in (\\[grey\\]). Since $\\theta_{p_i f}=\\theta_{p_i} \\theta_f=\\left(1-\\frac{1}{p_i}\\right)\\theta_f$ then, as in (\\[black\\]), $$\\label{mauve}\n|D|=\\frac{\\theta(p_if)}{p^2}\\sum_{d|f}\\frac{|\\mu(p_id)|}{\\phi(p_id)}\\sum_{\\chi_{p_id}}\\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\\big{|}\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\\chi_d(a)\\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})\\big{|} \\left|\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(-jr)\\right|\n\\left|\\sum_{s=1}^{p-1}(-1)^s \\psi(-ks)\\right|.$$ The result follows from (\\[mauve\\]) as the deduction of (\\[green\\]) from (\\[blue\\]) and (\\[Tp\\]).\n\n\\[silver\\] Let $p (>3)$ be an odd prime such that $p-1$ has (even) core $f$ and sieving primes $p_1,\\ldots, p_s$, Assume that $\\delta>0$. Then\n\n$$N_p>\\frac{\\theta(f)}{2}\\left\\{(p-1)-2T_p^2W(f)\\left(\\frac{s-1}{\\delta}+2\\right)p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\\log ^2 p\\right\\}.$$ Hence there exists an LPR modulo $p$ whenever $$\\label{gold}\np^{\\frac{1}{2}}>2T_p^2W(f)\\left(\\frac{s-1}{\\delta}+2\\right)\\log^2p + p^{-\\frac{1}{2}}.$$ For example, if $p \\geq 1637$, then it suffices that $$\\label{purple}\np^{\\frac{1}{2}}> W(f)\\left(\\frac{s-1}{\\delta}+2\\right)\\log^2p + p^{-\\frac{1}{2}}.$$\n\nInequality (\\[gold\\]) follows from (\\[old\\]) using Lemma \\[brown\\] and (\\[Neeq\\]). For (\\[purple\\]), recall Lemma\u00a0\\[red\\].\n\nTheorem \\[silver\\] extends Theorem \\[Np\\] and allows us to proceed to a complete existence result. We begin with the Corollary \\[exist\\]. We use a result of Robin [@Robin Thm 1], namely that $\\omega(n) \\leq 1.4 \\log n/ (\\log\\log n)$ for all $n\\geq 3$. Sharper versions of this inequality are known, but this is sufficient to show that (\\[dundee\\]) holds, and thus there is an LPR mod $p$, for all $\\omega(p-1) \\geq 13$.\n\nNext, we use (\\[purple\\]) in Theorem \\[silver\\] to eliminate $\\omega(p-1) = 12$ by choosing $s=3$. We have $\\delta \\geq 1 - 1/29 - 1/31- 1/37$ so that (\\[purple\\]) is true for all $p> 3.2\\cdot 10^{12}$. But, since $\\omega(p-1) = 12$ we have $p-1\\geq p_{1} \\cdots p_{12} > 7\\cdot 10^{12}$, whence we are done. Similarly, we choose $s=5,6$ for $\\omega(p-1) = 11,10$.\n\nWhen $\\omega(p-1) = 9$ we choose $s=7$, which means that (\\[purple\\]) is true for all $p\\geq 1.3\\cdot 10^{9}$. However, since we only know that $p-1 \\geq p_{1} \\cdots p_{9} > 2.2\\cdot 10^{8}$ we still have some cases to check. We proceed according to the \u2018divide and conquer\u2019 scheme of [@MTT].\n\nWe have that $3|p-1$ since otherwise $p-1 \\geq 2\\cdot 5 \\cdots p_{10} > 2.1\\cdot 10^{9}$. Moreover, we have that $5$ divides $p-1$, since, if not, then our value of $\\delta$ increases by $1/5 - 1/\\prime{10}$, which is enough to show that (\\[purple\\]) holds. A similar conclusion holds with the case $7|(p-1)$. While we cannot deduce that $11|(p-1)$ using this method, this is more than sufficient for our needs. We have that $p-1 = 2\\cdot 3 \\cdot 5 \\cdot 7 k = 210k$ where, since $p< 1.3\\cdot 10^{9}$ we have $k\\leq 6.2\\cdot 10^{6}$.\n\nWe now enumerate all values of $n=210k+1$ for $1\\leq k \\leq 6.2\\cdot 10^{6}$, and test whether these $n$ are prime and whether $\\omega(n-1) =9$. We are left with a list of 81 values, which we can test[^3] this directly to see whether they have an LPR: all do.\n\nFor $\\omega(p-1) = 8, 7$ we choose $s=6,5$ which shows that we need only check those $p\\leq 6.3\\cdot 10^{8}$ and $p\\leq 3.1\\cdot 10^{8}$ respectively. For $\\omega(p-1)\\leq 6$ we use the unsieved (\\[dundee\\]) to show that we need only check $p\\leq 7.1\\cdot 10^{8}$. While we could refine each of these searches, we shall simply verify that each of the 36,743,905 primes not exceeding $7.1\\cdot 10^{8}$ have an LPR.\n\nWe simply search for the first positive primitive root mod $p$, and test whether the sum of it and its inverse is odd. Once we have verified this for one value of $p$ we move on to the next one. It took less than an hour on a standard desktop (3.4 GHz Intel^^ Corei7-6700).\n\nThe Golomb pairs problem {#Macauley}\n========================\n\nThe following application of the theorem of Castro and Moreno (see [@CP]), is an instant improvement of Lemma 2.3 of [@WW].\n\n\\[orange\\] Let $p>3$ be prime and $\\psi$ be the additive character on the integers modulo $p$. Further let $\\chi^{(1)}, \\chi^{(2)}$ be multiplicative characters modulo $p$. Then for integers $j,k$ with $1 \\leq j,k\\leq p-1$, $$\\left|\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1} \\chi^{(1)}(a)\\chi^{(2)}(1-a) \\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})\\right|\\leq 3p^{\\frac{1}{2}}.$$\n\nFrom now on abbreviate $\\theta_{p-1}$ to $\\theta$ and $W_{p-1}$ to $W$. We allow the consideration of arbitrary integers modulo $p$ but continue to restrict $\\bar{a}$ for $a$ indivisible by $p$ to mean its inverse in the range $1 \\leq \\bar{a} \\leq  p-1$. In particular, if $a \\equiv a' \\pmod p$, then $\\chi(a)= \\chi(a')$ and $\\bar{a}=\\bar{a'}$.\n\nDrawing on [@WW \u00a73] we have\n\n$$G_p=\\frac{1}{4}\\theta^2 \\sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1} \\frac{\\mu(d_1)\\mu(d_2)}{\\phi(d_1)\\phi(d_2)} \\sum_{\\chi_{d_1},\\chi_{d_2}}\\sum_{a=1}^{p-1}\\chi_{d_1}(a)\\chi_{d_2}(1-a)(1-(-1)^{a + \\bar{a}}) (1-(-1)^{p+1-a+\\overline{p+1-a}}).$$ Here, the sum over $a$ can omit $a=1$ because of the factor $\\chi_{d_2}(1-a)$. Thus, $G_p=A_1-A_2-A_3+A_4$, where, for $i=1,\\ldots,4$, $$\\label{theAs}\nA_i=\\frac{1}{4}\\theta^2 \\sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1} \\frac{\\mu(d_1)\\mu(d_2)}{\\phi(d_1)\\phi(d_2)}\\sum_{a=2}^{p-1} \\sum_{\\chi_{d_1},\\chi_{d_2}}\\chi_{d_1}(a)\\chi_{d_2}(1-a)\\alpha_i,$$ with $\\alpha_1=1, \\alpha_2=(-1)^{a+\\bar{a}}, \\alpha_3=(-1)^{a+\\overline{p+1-a}}, \\alpha_4=(-1)^{\\bar{a}+ \\overline{p+1-a}}$. In fact, as noted in the proof in [@WW \u00a73], $\\overline{p+1-a}=p-\\overline{a-1}$, so that $\\alpha_4=-(-1)^{\\bar{a}-\\overline{a-1}}=-(-1)^{\\bar{a}+\\overline{a-1}}.$ Now $4A_1$ is just the total number of pairs $(a,b)$ of primitive roots (not necessarily Lehmer numbers for which $a+b \\equiv 1 \\pmod p$). Hence (see, for example [@COT15 Lem.\u00a02]), $$\\label{taupe}\n \\left|A_1-\\frac{\\theta_{p-1}^2 (p-2)}{4}\\right|\\leq \\frac{\\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}(W^2-1)p^{\\frac{1}{2}}.$$\n\nNext, as at (\\[black\\]), $$| A_2| =\\frac{\\theta^2}{4p^2}\\sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1}\\frac{|\\mu(d_1)\\mu(d_2)|}{\\phi_{d_1}\\phi_{d_2}}\\sum_{\\chi_{d_1}, \\chi_{d_2}} \\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\\big{|}\\sum_{a=2}^{p-1}\\chi_{d_1}(a)\\chi_{d_2}(1-a)\\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})\\big{|} |U_j||U_k|,$$ where $U_j=\\left|\\sum_{r=1}^{p-1}(-1)^r\\psi(-jr)\\right|$. It makes no difference if, here, the sum over $a$ starts at $1$. Hence, using Lemma \\[orange\\] (with the $+$ sign) instead of (\\[blue\\]), the following bound holds when $i=2$, namely $$\\label{lilac}\n|A_i| \\leq \\frac{3\\theta^2}{4} W_{p-1}^2 p^{\\frac{1}{2}}\\log^2 p.$$\n\nWe demonstrate that (\\[lilac\\]) also holds when $i=3,4$. First, consider $A_3$. Observe $\\alpha_3=-(-1)^{1-a+\\overline{1-a}}$. Replace $a$ (which runs between $2$ and $p-1$) by $p+1-a$ (which also runs between $2$ and $p-1$ and $\\alpha_3 =-(-1)^{p+a+\\overline{p+a}}=(-1)^{a+\\bar{a}}$. Moreover, in (\\[theAs\\]), with $j=3$, $\\chi_{d_1}(a)\\chi_{d_2}(1-a)$ is transformed into $\\chi_{d_2}(a)\\chi_{d_1}(1-a)$. Then, as for $A_2$, $$| A_3| =\\frac{\\theta^2}{4p^2}\\sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1}\\frac{|\\mu(d_1)\\mu(d_2)|}{\\phi_{d_1}\\phi_{d_2}}\\sum_{\\chi_{d_1}, \\chi_{d_2}}\n  \\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\\big{|}\\sum_{a=2}^{p-1}\\chi_{d_2}(a)\\chi_{d_1}(1-a)\\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})\\big{|} |U_j||U_k|,$$ and (\\[lilac\\]) also holds when $i=3$.\n\nFinally, consider $A_4$. First, set $b=a+1$ so that $b$ runs between $1$ and $p-2$ and $\\alpha_4=(-1)^{b+1+\\bar{b}}$. Then set $c=\\bar{b}$ (whence $b=\\bar{c}$) so that $c$ also runs from $1$ to $p-2$ (because evidently $\\overline{p-1} =p-1)$. Moreover, $$\\alpha_4=-(-1)^{c+\\overline{\\bar{c}+1}}=-(-1)^{c+p+1-\\overline{c+1}}=(-1)^{c+1+\\overline{c+1}}.$$ Finally, set $c=a-1$ so that this last variable $a$ again runs between $2$ and $p-1$ and $\\alpha_4=(-1)^{a+\\bar{a}}$. We have effectively replaced the original variable $a$ by $\\frac{1}{a-1}+1= \\frac{a}{a-1}$. Hence, in the expression (\\[theAs\\]) for $A_4$ we have replaced $\\chi_{d_1}(a)\\chi_{d_2}(1-a)$ by $\\chi_{d_1}(a/(a-1))\\chi_{d_2}(-1/(a-1))=\\chi_{d_1}(-1)\\chi_{d_1}(a)(\\chi_{d_1}\\chi_{d_2})^{-1}(1-a)$. This yields $$| A_4| =\\frac{\\theta^2}{4p^2}\\sum_{d_1,d_2|p-1}\\frac{|\\mu(d_1)\\mu(d_2)|}{\\phi_{d_1}\\phi_{d_2}}\\sum_{\\chi_{d_1}, \\chi_{d_2}}\n  \\sum_{j,k=1}^{p-1}\\big{|}\\sum_{a=2}^{p-1}\\chi_{d_1}(a)(\\chi_{d_1}\\chi_{d_2})^{-1}(1-a)\\psi(ja+k\\bar{a})\\big{|} |U_j||U_k|.$$ We conclude that (\\[lilac\\]) holds also when $i=4$.\n\nBy combining (\\[taupe\\]) and (\\[lilac\\]) with Lemma \\[red\\] we obtain a final theorem that justifies (\\[indigo\\]). The inequality (\\[kipling\\]) follows from (\\[rushdie\\]) after a simple calculation.\n\n\\[cream\\] Let $p>3$ be a prime. Then $$\\label{rushdie}\n\\left|G_p- \\frac{\\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}(p-2)\\right|<\\frac{\\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}T_p^2[W_{p-1}^2(9\\log^2 p+1) -1]p^{\\frac{1}{2}}.$$ In particular, if $p >3$, then $$\\label{kipling}\n\\left|G_p- \\frac{\\theta_{p-1}^2}{4}(p-2)\\right| <\\frac{\\theta_{p-1}^2}{8}[W_{p-1}^2(9\\log^2 p+1) -1]p^{\\frac{1}{2}}.$$\n\n[99]{} T. Cochrane and C. Pinner Using Stepanov\u2019s method for exponential sums involving rational functions. , 116, 270\u2013292, 2006.\n\nR. K. Guy. Third edition. Problem Books in Mathematics. *Springer-Verlag, New York*, 2004.\n\nS.\u00a0D. Cohen, T.\u00a0Oliveira\u00a0e Silva, and T.\u00a0S. Trudgian. A proof of the conjecture of Cohen and Mullen on sums of primitive roots. 84, 2979\u20132986, 2015.\n\nS.\u00a0D. Cohen, T.\u00a0Oliveira\u00a0e Silva, and T.\u00a0S. Trudgian. On Grosswald\u2019s conjecture on primitive roots. 172(3), 263\u2013270, 2016\n\nK.\u00a0McGown, E.\u00a0Trevi\u00f1o, and T.\u00a0S. Trudgian. Resolving Grosswald\u2019s conjecture on GRH. , 55(2), 215\u2013225, 2016.\n\nG.\u00a0Robin, Estimation de la fonction de [T]{}chebychef $\\theta$ sur le $k$-i\u00e8me nombre premier et grandes valeurs de la fonction $\\omega(n)$ nombre de diviseurs premiers de $n$. , 42(4), 367\u2013389, 1983.\n\nWang Tingting and Wang Xiaonen. On the Golomb\u2019s conjecture and Lehmer\u2019s numbers. 15, 1003\u20131009, 2017.\n\nZhang Wenpeng A problem of D. H. Lehmer and its generalization. 91, 47\u201351, 1994.\n\n[^1]: Postal address: 6 Bracken Road, Portlethen, Aberdeen AB12 4TA, Scotland.\n\n[^2]: Supported by Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT160100094.\n\n[^3]: We could proceed, as in [@COT15] and [@COT], to compute the *exact* value of $\\delta$ for these values. For example, the largest element in our list is 1,295,163,870: when $s=7$ this gives $\\delta = 0.39\\ldots$, which is an improvement on the worst-case scenario of $\\delta = 0.33\\ldots$. We find that all but 39 values in our list satisfy (\\[purple\\]).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $d$, and assume that $X$ is general if $d=1$. We prove that the spaces ${\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ are either empty or irreducible, if $(d, \\beta ) \\neq (1, -K_X)$. When $(d, \\beta ) = (1, -K_X)$ it is well known that ${\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ consists of twelve reduced points.'\nauthor:\n- Damiano Testa\ntitle: |\n    The irreducibility of the spaces of\\\n    rational curves on del Pezzo surfaces\n---\n\nIntroduction {#introduction .unnumbered}\n------------\n\nLet $X$ be a del Pezzo surface. If the degree of $X$ is one, assume that $X$ is general. Let $\\beta \\in {\\rm H}_2 \\bigl( X, {\\mathbb Z}\\bigr)$ be the class of a curve on $X$. Denote by $R(\\beta )$ the subscheme of the linear system $|\\beta |$ consisting of the integral nodal curves of geometric genus zero. The Kontsevich mapping space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ is a natural compactification of the space $R(\\beta )$. Some care is required, since the mapping spaces in general have more irreducible components than the corresponding spaces $R(\\beta )$, arising from degenerate configurations of curves on the surface. In fact it may happen that $R(\\beta ) = \\emptyset $, while $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) \\neq \\emptyset $.\n\nThe mapping spaces parametrize the set of all (stable) maps to the surface $X$ from possibly reducible curves. The domain curves of the maps in $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ are connected and nodal, have all components isomorphic to ${\\mathbb P}^1$ and the components are attached in such a way that the resulting topological space is simply connected. We refer to such a domain curve as a \u201crational tree.\u201d Taking the image of a map yields a morphism $FC$ from (the semi-normalization of) $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ to the closure in $|\\beta |$ of $R(\\beta )$ (see [@Ko] Section I.6).\n\nLet ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ be the closure of the subspace of ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)}$ consisting of morphisms $f : C \\rightarrow X$, with $C \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^1$ and $f$ birational onto its image. In many interesting cases it is true and easy to check that the map $FC$ defined above is in fact birational, when restricted to ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$.\n\nThe main result of this paper is that the space ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ is irreducible or empty, except in the case where $X$ has degree one and $\\beta = - K_X$.\n\nThe idea of the proof is straightforward. First, prove that in the boundary of all the irreducible components of ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ there are special morphisms of a given type (called in what follows \u201cmorphisms in standard form\u201d). Second, show that the locus of morphisms in standard form is connected and contained in the smooth locus of ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$.\n\nFrom these two facts we conclude immediately that the smooth locus of ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ is connected. Since the smooth locus is dense, we deduce that ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ is irreducible.\n\nThe methods used in the proof are of two different kinds. First, there are general techniques, mainly Mori\u2019s Bend and Break Theorem, to break curves into components with low anticanonical degree. In the case where $X$ is the projective plane, this shows that we may specialize a morphism in ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ so that its image is a union of lines. Second, we need explicit geometric arguments to deal with the low degree cases. Again, in the case of the projective plane, this step is used to bring the domain to a standard form (a chain of rational curves, rather than a general rational tree), while preserving the property that the image of the morphism consists of a union of lines.\n\nTo analyze the curves of low anticanonical degree on a del Pezzo surface, we need a detailed description of their divisor classes in ${\\rm Pic} (X)$. In particular, we use the group of symmetries of the Picard lattice to reduce the number of cases to treat. Section \\[sporco\\] is devoted to this analysis.\n\nTwo technical deformation-theoretic tools prove useful. The first is a description of the obstruction space of a stable map to a smooth surface in terms of combinatorial invariants of the map. This is proved in Section \\[conormale\\]. The second is a lifting result that allows us, given a deformation of a component of a curve, to get a deformation of the whole curve. The statement is proved in Lemma \\[ovvio\\] and the construction following it is the way in which we are typically going to use it. This is specific to the surface case. The lifting result allows us to deform a map with reducible domain by deforming only a few components at a time. This is done systematically in Section \\[rompisezione\\]. We are therefore able to reduce the general problem to relatively few special cases, cf. Theorem \\[passo\\]. The explicit computation of the obstruction spaces allows us to prove that in the deformations performed we never move to a different irreducible component of the moduli space.\n\nThe connectedness of the locus of morphisms in standard form is a consequence of some explicit computations, some of which are reformulations of classical geometric statements, such as the fact that the ramification locus of the projection from a general point on a smooth cubic surface in ${\\mathbb P}^3$ is a smooth plane quartic curve. This is the content of Section \\[pochipochi\\], but see also Section \\[conichette\\].\n\nCohomology Groups and Obstruction Spaces\n========================================\n\nRational Trees\n--------------\n\nThe purpose of this section is to prove some general results which are useful to compute the cohomology groups of coherent sheaves on rational trees.\n\nA [rational tree]{} $C$ is a connected, projective, nodal curve of arithmetic genus zero. If $C$ is a rational tree, we call a component $E$ of $C$ an [end]{} if $E$ contains at most one node of $C$.\n\nGiven a connected projective nodal curve $C$, define the dual graph of $C$ to be the graph $\\Gamma _C$ whose vertices are indexed by the components $C_i$ of $C$ and whose edges between the distinct vertices $[C_i]$ and $[C_j]$ are indexed by $\\{ p\\in C_i \\cap C_j \\}$.\n\n[*Remark*]{}. A connected projective nodal curve $C$ is a rational tree if and only if all its components are smooth rational curves and its dual graph $\\Gamma _C$ is a tree (for a proof see [@De]).\n\n\\[basspl\\] Let $C$ be a rational tree, and let $\\nu : \\tilde C \\rightarrow C$ be the normalization of $C$ at the points $\\{p_1, \\ldots , p_r \\} \\subset Sing(C)$; denote by $\\iota : \\{p _1, \n\\ldots , p_r \\} \\hookrightarrow C$ the inclusion morphism. For any locally free sheaf ${\\mathcal F}$ of finite rank on $C$ we have the following short exact sequence of sheaves on $C$: $$0 \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal F}\\longrightarrow \\nu _* \\nu ^* {\\mathcal F}\\longrightarrow \\iota _* {\\mathcal F}|_{\\{ p_1, \\ldots , p_r \\}} \\longrightarrow 0$$\n\n[*Remark*]{}. From now on, we may sometimes denote the sheaf $\\iota _* {\\mathcal F}|_{\\{ p_1, \\ldots , p_r \\}}$ simply by $\\oplus {\\mathcal F}_{p_i}$, and similarly for the pushforwards of sheaves on irreducible components of a curve.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Consider the sequence defining the sheaf ${\\mathcal Q}$: $$\\label{defqu}\n0 \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal O}_C \\longrightarrow \\nu _* {\\mathcal O}_{\\tilde C} \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal Q}\\longrightarrow 0$$\n\nSince $\\nu $ is an isomorphism away from the inverse image of the $p_i$\u2019s, it follows that ${\\mathcal Q}$ is supported at the union of the $p_i$\u2019s. We now want to prove that ${\\mathcal Q}_{p_i}$ is a skyscraper sheaf, i.e. that it has length one. Since this is a local property, it is enough to check it when $C$ has a unique node. In this case, $C$ is the nodal union of two smooth ${\\mathbb P}^1$\u2019s, and $\\tilde C$ is their disjoint union. Since the normalization map is finite, it is affine, and therefore ${\\rm H}^j (\\nu _* {\\mathcal O}_{\\tilde C}, C) \\simeq {\\rm H}^j \n({\\mathcal O}_{\\tilde C}, \\tilde C)$. Therefore the long exact sequence defining ${\\mathcal Q}$ is given by $$0 \\longrightarrow k \\longrightarrow k + k \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal Q}\\longrightarrow 0$$ and we deduce that the length of ${\\mathcal Q}$ is 1. Thus it follows in general that ${\\mathcal Q}= \n\\oplus {\\mathcal O}_{p_i}$, the direct sum of the skyscraper sheaves of the nodes $p_1, \\ldots , \np_r$.\n\nLet us now go back to the sequence (\\[defqu\\]). Since the sheaf ${\\mathcal F}$ is locally free, we may tensor the sequence by ${\\mathcal F}$, preserving exactness. To identify the tensor product in the middle we use the projection formula: $$\\nu _* {\\mathcal O}_{\\tilde C} \\otimes {\\mathcal F}\\cong \\nu _* ({\\mathcal O}_{\\tilde C} \\otimes \\nu ^* {\\mathcal F}) \n\\cong \\nu _* ( \\nu ^* {\\mathcal F})$$ and we may therefore write the tensored sequence as $$0 \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal F}\\longrightarrow \\nu _* \\nu ^* {\\mathcal F}\\longrightarrow \n\\mathop {\\oplus } \\limits _i {\\mathcal F}_{p_i} \\longrightarrow 0$$ thus proving the lemma. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nGiven a rational tree $C$ and a node $p \\in C$, construct a new curve $C'$ as follows: consider the normalization of $\\nu : \\tilde C \\rightarrow C$ of $C$ at the point $p$, and let $\\{p_1, p_2 \\} = \\nu ^{-1} (p)$. Attach to $\\tilde C$ a smooth rational curve $E$ so that $\\tilde C \\cap E = \\{p_1, p_2 \\}$ and $C' := \\tilde C \\cup E$ is a nodal curve. Clearly we have a morphism $\\pi : C' \\rightarrow C$, which is an isomorphism away from $E$ and contracts $E$ to the node $p$. We call the morphism $\\pi$ the contraction of $E$. The curve $C'$ so obtained is called the \u201ctotal transform\u201d of $C$ at the node $p$ and $E$ the \u201cexceptional component.\u201d\n\n\\[blodo\\] Let $C$ be a rational tree, and let ${\\mathcal F}$ be a locally free coherent sheaf on $C$. Let $\\pi : C' \\rightarrow C$ denote the total transform of $C$ at a node $p \\in C$; then ${\\rm H}^1 (C, {\\mathcal F}) \\cong {\\rm H}^1 (C', \\pi ^* {\\mathcal F})$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} The result follows immediately from the Leray\u2019s spectral sequence associated to the map $\\pi $ and the fact that $R ^i \\pi _* ({\\mathcal O}_{C'}) = 0$, for $i > 0$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[pieces\\] Let $C$ be a rational tree and let ${\\mathcal F}$ be a locally free sheaf on $C$. Suppose that $C = C_1 \\cup C_2$, where $C_1$ and $C_2$ are unions of components having no components in common. Let $\\{ p_1, \\ldots , p_r \\} = C_1 \\cap C_2$ be the nodes of $C$ lying on $C_1$ and $C_2$. If $h^1 (C_1, {\\mathcal F}| _{C_1} (-p_1 - \\ldots -p_r)) = 0$, then ${\\rm H}^1 (C, {\\mathcal F}) \\cong {\\rm H}^1 (C_2, {\\mathcal F}| _{C_2})$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Simply consider the long exact sequence associated to the \u201ccomponent sequence\u201d $$0 \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal F}| _{C_1} (-p_1 - \\ldots -p_r) \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal F}\\longrightarrow {\\mathcal F}| _{C_2} \\longrightarrow 0$$ where the first map is extension by zero and the second map is restriction. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[easyredu\\] Let $C$ be a rational tree and let $R \\subset C$ be a connected union of irreducible components of $C$. Let ${\\mathcal F}$ be a locally free sheaf on $C$ such that the restriction of ${\\mathcal F}$ to each irreducible component of $C$ which is not in $R$ is generated by global sections. Then $h^1 (C, {\\mathcal F}) = h^1 (R, {\\mathcal F}|_R )$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Proceed by induction on the number $\\ell $ of irreducible components of $C$ not in $R$. If $\\ell = 0$, there is nothing to prove. Suppose $\\ell \\geq 1$. Let $C_1$ be an end of $C$ which is not an end of $R$, and let $p\\in C_1$ be the node. The existence of such a component is easy to prove: since $R$ is a proper subcurve of $C$, there must be a node of $C$ where $R$ meets a component not in $R$. Removing this node disconnects $C$ into a connected component containing $R$ and a connected component $K$ disjoint from $R$. Clearly an end $C_1$ of the component $K$ (different from the one meeting $R$ if there is more than one end) is then also an end of $C$ not contained in $R$. Since $C_1$ is a smooth rational curve, ${\\mathcal F}| _{C_1} \\simeq \\bigoplus {\\mathcal O}(a_j)$, with $a_j \\geq 0$, thanks to the fact that ${\\mathcal F}| _{C_1}$ is globally generated. In particular $h^1 (C_1, {\\mathcal F}(-p)) = 1$, and it is clear that we can now apply Lemma \\[pieces\\] to remove the component $C_1$ without changing $h^1$ and conclude using induction. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nThe last lemma of this section is an explicit computation of the cohomology of a locally free sheaf on a curve which will be extremely useful in the later sections.\n\n\\[tretre\\] Let $C$ be a rational tree and $f: C \\rightarrow S$ a morphism to a smooth surface. Let $p \n\\in C$ be a node, denote by $C_a$ and $C_b$ the two irreducible components of $C$ meeting at $p$. Let $\\nu : \\tilde C \\rightarrow C$ be the normalization of $C$ at $p$ and let $\\tilde f = f \\circ \\nu $. Suppose that:\n\n1.  the valences of the vertices $C_a$ and $C_b$ in the dual graph of $C$ are at most 3, and\n\n2.  the map $f_* : {\\mathcal T}_{C_a, p} + {\\mathcal T}_{C_b, p} \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)} $ is surjective.\n\nThen $${\\rm H}^1 (C, f^* {\\mathcal T}_S ) \\cong {\\rm H}^1 (\\tilde C, \\tilde f ^* {\\mathcal T}_S )$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Consider the sequence on $C$ $$0 \\longrightarrow f^* {\\mathcal T}_S \\longrightarrow \\tilde f ^* {\\mathcal T}_S \\stackrel {\\varepsilon} \n{\\longrightarrow } {\\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)} \\longrightarrow 0$$\n\nBecause ${\\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)}$ is supported in dimension 0, ${\\rm H}^1 (C, {\\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)}) = 0$, and it is enough to prove that the sequence is exact on global sections. Let $\\{ p, q_a, r_a \\}$ contain all the nodes of $C$ on $C_a$ and let $\\{p, q_b, r_b \\}$ contain the nodes on $C_b$. Consider now the following diagram: $$\\xymatrix {0 \\ar[d] & 0 \\ar[d] \\\\\n{\\mathcal T}_{C_a} (-p -q_a -r_a) \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{C_b} (-p -q_b -r_b) \\ar[d] & f^* {\\mathcal T}_S \\ar[d] \\\\\n{\\mathcal T}_{C_a} (-q_a -r_a) \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{C_b} (-q_b -r_b) \\ar[d] ^{\\alpha } \\ar[r] & \n\\tilde f ^* {\\mathcal T}_S \\ar[d] ^{\\varepsilon } \\\\\n{\\mathcal T}_{C_a, p} \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{C_b, p} \\ar[d] \\ar[r] ^{f_*} & {\\mathcal T}_{S, f(p)} \\ar[d] \\\\\n0 & 0}$$ where the unlabeled horizontal map is extension by zero. Since $C_a$ and $C_b$ are rational curves, their tangent bundles have degree 2 and $\\alpha $ is surjective on global sections; $f_*$ is surjective by assumption. It follows that $\\varepsilon $ is also surjective on global sections. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[*Remark*]{}. The second condition in the lemma is certainly satisfied if $f|_{C_a}$ and $f|_{C_b}$ are birational and the intersection of $f(C_a)$ and $f(C_b)$ is transverse at $f(p)$.\n\nThe Conormal Sheaf {#conormale}\n------------------\n\nLet $f:C \\rightarrow X$ be a morphism from a connected, projective, at worst nodal curve $C$ to a smooth projective variety $X$.\n\nThe morphism $f : C \\rightarrow X$ is called a stable map if $C$ is a connected, projective, at worst nodal curve and every contracted component of geometric genus zero contains at least three singular points of $C$ and every contracted component of geometric genus one contains at least one.\n\nWe are interested in computing the obstruction space to deforming the stable map $f : C \\rightarrow X$. Let $f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\rightarrow\n\\Omega ^1 _C$ be the natural complex of sheaves associated with the differential of $f$ and where the sheaf $f^* \\Omega ^1 _X$ is in degree -1 and the sheaf $\\Omega ^1 _C$ is in degree 0. We know that the stability condition is equivalent to the vanishing of the group ${\\rm Hom} \\bigl( f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\rightarrow\n\\Omega ^1 _C , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr)$. The tangent space to $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ at $f$ is given by the hypercohomology group ${\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^1 \\bigl( f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\rightarrow\n\\Omega ^1 _C , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr)$. The obstruction space is a quotient of the hypercohomology group ${\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \\bigl( f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\rightarrow \\Omega ^1 _C , \n{\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr)$. Denote by $L _f ^\\bullet $ the complex $f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\rightarrow \\Omega ^1 _C$, where the first sheaf is in degree -1 and the second one is in degree 0. Our strategy to compute these groups is to use the short exact sequence of complexes of sheaves: $$\\xymatrix@R=17pt { \\left( 0 \\rightarrow 0 \\right) \\ar[d] \\\\\n\\left( 0 \\rightarrow \\Omega ^1 _C \\right) \\ar[d] \\\\\n\\left( f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\rightarrow \\Omega ^1 _C \\right) \\ar[d] \\\\\n\\left( f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\rightarrow 0 \\ar[d] \\right) \\\\\n\\left( 0 \\rightarrow 0 \\right) }$$\n\nApplying the functor ${\\rm Hom } ( - , {\\mathcal O}_C)$ and using the long exact hypercohomology sequence we obtain: $$\\xymatrix @R=3pt {& 0 \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm Hom } \\bigl( L _f ^\\bullet , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr) \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm Hom } (0 \\rightarrow \\Omega ^1 _C , {\\mathcal O}_C) \\\\ \\ar[r] &\n{\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^1 (f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\rightarrow 0 , {\\mathcal O}_C) \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^1 \\bigl( L _f ^\\bullet , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr) \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^1 (0 \\rightarrow \\Omega ^1 _C , {\\mathcal O}_C) \\\\ \\ar[r] &\n{\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^2 (f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\rightarrow 0 , {\\mathcal O}_C) \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \\bigl( L _f ^\\bullet , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr) \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^2 (0 \\rightarrow \\Omega ^1 _C , {\\mathcal O}_C)}$$\n\nWe can now rewrite many of these terms. First of all, the stability condition is equivalent to ${\\rm Hom } \\bigl( L _f ^\\bullet , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr) = 0$. Also, remembering the fact that all the complexes are concentrated in degrees $-1$ and 0, and using the fact that $f^* \\Omega _X ^1$ is locally free, that its dual is $f^* {\\mathcal T}_X$ and the isomorphisms ${\\rm Ext} ^i (f^* \\Omega _X ^1 , {\\mathcal O}_C) \\simeq \n{\\rm H} ^i (C, {\\mathcal T}_X)$ we obtain the sequence $$\\label{preserra}\n\\xymatrix@C=20pt @R=3pt {0 \\ar[r] & {\\rm Hom } (\\Omega ^1 _C , {\\mathcal O}_C) \\ar[r] &\n{\\rm H}^0 (C, f^* {\\mathcal T}_X) \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^1 \\bigl( L _f ^\\bullet , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr) \\ar[r] &\\\\\n\\ar[r] & {\\rm Ext } ^1 (\\Omega ^1 _C , {\\mathcal O}_C) \\ar[r] &\n{\\rm H}^1 (C, f^* {\\mathcal T}_X) \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \\bigl( L _f ^\\bullet , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr) \\ar[r] & 0}$$\n\nIn particular we see that if ${\\rm H}^1 (C, f^* {\\mathcal T}_X)=0$, then the obstruction group ${\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \\bigl( L _f ^\\bullet , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr)$ vanishes as well, i.e. the map is unobstructed, the space of stable maps has the expected dimension at $f$ and the point represented by $f$ is smooth (for the stack).\n\nIf we consider the dual sequence of (\\[preserra\\]) and use Serre duality we obtain the sequence $$\\xymatrix @R=3pt {0 \\ar[r] & \\bigl( {\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \\bigr) ^{\\vee } \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm H}^0 (C, f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\otimes \\omega _C ) \\ar[r] ^\\alpha & \n{\\rm H} ^0 (C , \\Omega ^1 _C \\otimes \\omega _C ) \\ar[r] & \\\\\n\\ar[r] & \\bigl( {\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^1 \\bigr) ^{\\vee } \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm H} ^1 (C, f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\otimes \\omega _C ) \\ar[r] & \n{\\rm H} ^1 (C, \\Omega ^1 _C \\otimes \\omega _C) \\ar[r] & 0}$$\n\nIt is easy to convince oneself that the morphism $\\alpha $ is the morphism induced by the differential map $df : f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\longrightarrow \\Omega _C$, by tensoring with the dualizing sheaf and taking global sections. Associated to $f$ we may define the sheaves ${\\mathcal C}_f$ and ${\\mathcal Q}_f$ on $C$, by requiring the following sequence to be exact: $$\\label{conor}\n\\xymatrix{ 0 \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal C}_f \\ar[r] & f^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\ar[r]^{df} & \n\\Omega ^1 _C \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal Q}_f \\ar[r] & 0 }$$ Since the dualizing sheaf $\\omega _C$ is locally free, tensoring by $\\omega _C$ is exact and taking global sections is left exact. From these remarks we deduce that $${\\rm H}^0 \\bigl( C, {\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _C \\bigr) \\simeq \n{\\rm {\\mathbb E}xt } ^2 \\bigl( L _f ^\\bullet , {\\mathcal O}_C \\bigr) ^\\vee$$ and we conclude that in order to compute the obstruction space of $f$, it is enough to compute the global sections of the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _C$.\n\nThe sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_f$ defined in (\\[conor\\]) is the [conormal sheaf of $f$]{}.\n\nWe drop the subscript $f$, when the morphism is clear from the context.\n\nA sheaf ${\\mathcal F}$ on a scheme of pure dimension one is [pure]{} if the support of every non-zero section has pure dimension one.\n\nIt is clear that a locally free sheaf is pure. In fact, any subsheaf of a locally free sheaf is pure, and more generally any subsheaf of a pure sheaf is pure. In particular, the sheaves ${\\mathcal C}_f$ defined in (\\[conor\\]) are pure.\n\nA point $p \\in C$ is called a [break for the morphism $f$]{} (or simply a [break]{}), if the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free at $p$. We say that the morphism $f$ has no breaks if the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free.\n\nIt is clear from the definition that a smooth point of $C$ is never a break.\n\nSuppose the morphism $f$ is finite. A point $p \\in C$ is called a [ramification point]{}, if it belongs to the support of the sheaf ${\\mathcal Q}_f$. We call [ ramification divisor of $f$]{} the (Weil) divisor whose multiplicity at $p\\in C$ is the length of ${\\mathcal Q}$ at $p$.\n\nLet $f_1 : C_1 \\rightarrow X$ and $f_2 : C_2 \\rightarrow X$ be non-constant morphisms from two smooth curves to a smooth surface. Suppose $p_1 \\in C_1$ and $p_2 \\in C_2$ are points such that $f_1 (p_1) = f_2 (p_2) = q$, let $u$ and $v$ be local coordinates on $X$ near $q$ and let $x_1$ and $x_2$ be local parameters for $C_1$ and $C_2$ near $p_1$ and $p_2$ respectively. Since $f_1$ and $f_2$ are not constant, there exist integers $k_1$ and $k_2$ such that $$ f\\_1 \\^\\* : {\n\n  ----- ------------------------\n   $u$   $x_1 ^{k_1} U_1 (x_1)$\n   $v$   $x_1 ^{k_1} V_1 (x_1)$\n  ----- ------------------------\n\n. f\\_2 \\^\\* : {\n\n  ----- ------------------------\n   $u$   $x_2 ^{k_2} U_2 (x_2)$\n   $v$   $x_2 ^{k_2} V_2 (x_2)$\n  ----- ------------------------\n\n. $$ and $\\bigl( U_1 (0), V_1 (0) \\bigr) , \\bigl( U_2 (0), V_2 (0) \\bigr) \\neq (0,0)$. We call a [*tangent vector to $C_i$ at $p_i$*]{} any non-zero vector in ${\\mathcal T}_q X$ proportional to $\\bigl( U_i (0), V_i (0) \\bigr)$, and [*tangent direction to $C_i$ at $p_i$*]{} the point in ${\\mathbb P}\\left( {\\mathcal T}_q X \\right)$ determined by a tangent vector to $C_i$ at $p_i$. Geometrically, we may easily associate to each smooth point of $f_i (C_i)$ a tangent vector in the same way we did above, and then the tangent direction at any point is simply the limiting position of the tangent directions at the smooth points.\n\nWe say that [*$C_1$ and $C_2$ are transverse at the point $q = f_i (p_i) \\in X$*]{} if their respective tangent directions at $p_1$ and $p_2$ are distinct and we will say that [*$C_1$ and $C_2$ are not transverse at the point $q \\in X$*]{} if the tangent directions coincide.\n\nFinally, we say that the morphism $f_i$ is ramified at $p_i$ on $C_i$ if $k_i > 1$ and we say it is unramified at $C_i$ if $k_i = 1$.\n\nLet $f_i : C_i \\rightarrow X$, $i \\in \\{ 1, 2 \\}$ be two non-constant morphisms from two smooth curves to a smooth surface $X$ and let $p_1 \\in C_1$ and $p_2 \\in C_2$ be points such that $f_1 (p_1) = f_2 (p_2) = q$. Denote by $\\tilde f _1$ and $\\tilde f _2$ the morphisms induced by $f_1$ and $f_2$ from each curve to the blow-up of $X$ at $q$, and assume $\\tilde f _1 (p_1) = \\tilde f _2 (p_2) = \\tilde q$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:\n\n1.  $\\tilde f _1$ and $\\tilde f _2$ are unramified at $\\tilde q$ and $C_1$ and $C_2$ are transverse at $\\tilde q$;\n\n2.  after possibly renumbering the curves $C_1$ and $C_2$, there are coordinates $u,v$ on $X$ near $q$ and $x_i$ on $C_i$ near $p_i$ such that $$\\label{bln2}\n    \\begin{array} {ll}\n    f_1 ^* : \n    \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto$ }c}\n    $u$ & $x_1 U_1 (x_1)$ \\\\[5pt]\n    $v$ & $x_1 ^3 V_1 (x_1)$ \\\\[5pt]\n    \\end{tabular} \\right. & U_1 (0) \\neq 0 \\vspace{10pt} \\\\ \n    f_2 ^* : \\left\\{ \n    \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto $ }c}\n    $u$&$x_2 ^{m} U_2 (x_2)$ \\vphantom{$\\frac{\\frac{1}{1}}{\\frac{1}{1}}$} \\\\\n    $v$&$x_2 ^{m+1} V_2 (x_2)$ \\vphantom{$\\frac{\\frac{1}{1}}{\\frac{1}{1}}$} \n    \\end{tabular} \\right. & \n    \\begin{tabular} {l} $U_2 (0)$, $V_2 (0) \\neq 0 $ \\\\ $m \\geq 1$ \\end{tabular}\n    \\end{array}$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Suppose we are given coordinates so that the $f_i$\u2019s are given by (\\[bln2\\]). Let $b : \\tilde X \\rightarrow X$ be the blow-up morphism. Let $\\tilde u := b^* u$, and note that near the point $\\tilde q$ the function $\\tilde u$ is a local equation for $E := b^{-1} (q)$, since the tangent vector to the curve locally defined by the vanishing of $u$ is $(0,1)$, while a tangent vector to the curve $C_1$ at $q$ is $(1,0)$. It follows that we may write $b^* v = \\tilde u \\cdot \\tilde v$, and $\\tilde u , \\tilde v$ is a local system of parameters on $\\tilde X$ at $\\tilde q$ such that $b$ and its rational inverse $b ^{-1}$ are given by: $$\\label{bloco}\nb ^* : \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto $ }c}\n$u$& $\\tilde u$ \\\\$v$& $\\tilde u \\tilde v$ \\end{tabular} \\right. \\hspace{20pt} \n(b ^*) ^{-1} : \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto $ }c}\n$\\tilde u$& $u$ \\\\$\\tilde v$& $v / u$ \\end{tabular} \\right.$$\n\nThus the morphisms $\\tilde f _i : C_i \\rightarrow \\tilde X$ are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\tilde f_1 ^* : & \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto $ }c}\n$\\tilde u$&$x_1 U_1 (x_1)$ \\vphantom{$\\frac{\\frac{1}{1}}{\\frac{1}{1}}$} \\\\\n$\\tilde v$&$x_1 ^2 \\frac {V_1 (x_1)} {U_1 (x_1)}$\n\\end{tabular} \\right. & U_1 (0) \\neq 0 \\\\[5pt]\n\\tilde f_2 ^* : & \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto $ }c}\n$\\tilde u$&$x_2 ^{m} U_2 (x_2)$ \\vphantom{$\\frac{\\frac{1}{1}}{\\frac{1}{1}}$} \\\\\n$\\tilde v$&$x_2 \\frac {V_2 (x_2)} {U_2 (x_2)}$ \n\\end{tabular} \\right. & U_2 (0), V_2 (0) \\neq 0\\end{aligned}$$\n\nClearly these maps are unramified at $x_i = 0$ and since $(1,0)$ and $(\\star ,1)$ are tangent vectors at $\\tilde q$ to $C_1$ and $C_2$ respectively, the maps are also transverse at $\\tilde q$. This simple computation proves the first half of the lemma.\n\nSuppose conversely that in the blow-up $\\tilde X$ of $X$ at $q$, the curves $C_1$ and $C_2$ meet transversely at the point $\\tilde q = \\tilde f_i (p_i) \\in \\tilde X$. Fix coordinates $x_1$ on $C_1$ at $p_1$ and $x_2$ on $C_2$ at $p_2$, and choose coordinates $u,v$ near $q$ and $\\tilde u , \\tilde v$ near $\\tilde q$ such that (\\[bloco\\]) are the equations of the blow-up morphism. We have $$ f\\_1 \\^\\* : {\n\n  ------------- -------------------------\n   $\\tilde u $   $x_1 ^{k_1} U _1 (x_1)$\n   $\\tilde v $   $x_1 ^{k_1} V _1 (x_1)$\n  ------------- -------------------------\n\n. f\\_2 \\^\\* : {\n\n  ------------- -------------------------\n   $\\tilde u $   $x_2 ^{k_2} U _2 (x_2)$\n   $\\tilde v $   $x_2 ^{k_2} V _2 (x_2)$\n  ------------- -------------------------\n\n. $$ with $\\bigl( U _1 (0), V _1 (0) \\bigr) , \\bigl( U _2 (0), V _2 (0) \\bigr)$ linearly independent. By changing $v$ to $v - \\frac{V_1 (0)} {U_1 (0)} u$ and $\\tilde v$ to $\\tilde v - \\frac{V_1 (0)} {U_1 (0)} \\tilde u$, we may assume that $V_1 (0) = 0 $, while preserving the equations of $b$. With these assumptions, $(1,0)$ and $(\\star , 1)$ are tangent vectors at $\\tilde q$ to $C_1$ and $C_2$ respectively. Moreover, since $\\tilde f _i$ is not ramified at $p_i$, necessarily $k_i = 1$. We have therefore $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\tilde f_1 ^* : \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto $ }c}\n$\\tilde u $&$x_1 U _1 (x_1)$ \\vphantom{$\\frac{\\frac{1}{1}}{\\frac{1}{1}}$} \\\\\n$\\tilde v $&$x_1 ^2 \\overline V _1 (x_1)$\n\\end{tabular} \\right. & &\nf_1 ^* = \\tilde f_1 ^* \\circ b ^*: \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto $ }c}\n$u $&$x_1 U _1 (x_1)$ \\vphantom{$\\frac{\\frac{1}{1}}{\\frac{1}{1}}$} \\\\\n$v $&$x_1 ^3 U _1 (x_1) \\overline V _1 (x_1)$\n\\end{tabular} \\right. \\\\  &  \\Longrightarrow & \\\\\n\\tilde f_2 ^* : \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto $ }c}\n$\\tilde u $&$x_2 U _2 (x_2)$ \\vphantom{$\\frac{\\frac{1}{1}}{\\frac{1}{1}}$} \\\\\n$\\tilde v $&$x_2 V _2 (x_2)$\n\\end{tabular} \\right. & &\nf_2 ^* = \\tilde f_2 ^* \\circ b ^* : \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $\\longmapsto $ }c}\n$u $&$x_2 U _2 (x_2)$ \\vphantom{$\\frac{\\frac{1}{1}}{\\frac{1}{1}}$} \\\\\n$v $&$x_2 ^2 U _2 (x_2) V _2 (x_2)$\n\\end{tabular} \\right.\\end{aligned}$$ where $U_1 (0), V_2 (0) \\neq 0$.\n\nIn order to conclude we still need to show that $U_2 (x_2)$ is not identically zero, but this is clear, since otherwise the morphism $f _2$ would be constant (i.e. the morphism $\\tilde \nf_2$ would map $C_2$ to the exceptional divisor $E$). [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[semtang\\] In the situation described by the previous lemma, the two curves $C_1$ and $C_2$ are [simply tangent at $q$]{}.\n\nWe will see later (Lemma \\[conota\\]) that being simply tangent is closely related to the local structure of the conormal sheaf.\n\n\\[conotra\\] Suppose that $X$ is a smooth surface and let $f: C \\rightarrow X$ be a morphism from a curve $C$ consisting of two irreducible components $C_1$ and $C_2$, meeting in a node $p$. Denote by $f_i$ the restriction of $f$ to $C_i$ and by $p_i \\in C_i$ the point $p \\in C$, and suppose that $f$ does not contract any component of $C$ and that $C_1$ and $C_2$ meet transversely at $f(p)$. Then there are the following cases:\n\n1.  \\[tuu\\] Both maps $f_1$ and $f_2$ are unramified at $p$.\n\n    Then ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free and the following sequence is exact $$\\xymatrix{ 0 \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal C}_f \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p) \\ar[r] & \n    {\\mathcal C}_{f,p} \\ar[r] & 0 }$$\n\n2.  \\[tur\\] $f_i$ is unramified at $p$ on $C_i$ and $f_{3-i}$ is ramified at $p$ on $C_{3-i}$ ($i \\in \\{ 1, 2 \\}$)\n\n    Then ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free (i.e. $p$ is a break point) and $${\\mathcal C}_f \\cong {\\mathcal C}_{f_i} (-p) \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_{f_{3-i}} (-2p)$$\n\n3.  \\[trr\\] Both maps $f_1$ and $f_2$ are ramified at $p$.\n\n    Then ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free and $${\\mathcal C}_f \\cong {\\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p)$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We can write $$ f \\^\\* : {\n\n  ----- -------------------------------------\n   $u$   $x^{k_1} U_1 (x) + y^{k_2} U_2 (y)$\n   $v$   $x^{l_1} V_1 (x) + y^{l_2} V_2 (y)$\n  ----- -------------------------------------\n\n. $$ where $l_1 > k_1$, $k_2 > l_2$ and $U_1(0), V_2(0) \\neq 0$. We thus have $$\\xymatrix @R=3pt @C=-30.5pt { \n{\\mathcal O}_{C,p} \\cdot du + {\\mathcal O}_{C,p} \\cdot dv \\ar[r]^{df \\hspace{30pt}} & \n\\raisebox {3pt} {$\\Bigl( {\\mathcal O}_{C,p} \\cdot dx + {\\mathcal O}_{C,p} \\cdot dy \\Bigr) $} / \\raisebox \n{-3pt} {$\\bigl( ydx + xdy \\bigr)$} \\\\\ndu \\ar[r] & x^{k_1-1} \\Bigl( k_1 U_1(x) + x U_1 '(x) \\Bigr) dx + y^{k_2-1} \n\\Bigl( k_2 U_2(y) + y U_2 '(y) \\Bigr) dy \\\\\ndv \\ar[r] & x^{l_1-1} \\Bigl( l_1 V_1(x) + x V_1 '(x) \\Bigr) dx + y^{l_2-1} \n\\Bigl( l_2 V_2(y) + y V_2 '(y) \\Bigr) dy }$$\n\nIn order to simplify this expression, let us define $\\alpha _1 $ to be the invertible function $k_1 U_1(x) + x U_1 '(x)$ and $\\alpha _2$ to be the invertible function $l_2 V_2(y) + y V_2 '(y)$. Choosing $\\frac {du } {\\alpha _1}$ and $\\frac {dv} {\\alpha _2}$ as a basis for the ${\\mathcal O}_{C,p} -$module $f^* \\Omega ^1 _{X,p}$ we may write $$\\xymatrix{ \n\\frac{du} {\\alpha _1} \\ar[r] & x^{k_1-1} dx + y^{k_2-1} \\varphi (y) dy \\\\\n\\frac{dv} {\\alpha _2} \\ar[r] & x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x) dx + y^{l_2-1} dy }$$\n\nNote that $$\\begin{aligned}\ny^{k_2-1} \\varphi (y) & = & \\frac {y^{k_2-1}} {k_1 U_1(0)} \n\\Bigl( k_2 U_2(y) + y U_2 ' (y) \\Bigr) \\\\\nx^{l_1-1} \\psi (x) & = & \\frac {x^{l_1-1}} {l_2 V_2(0)} \n\\Bigl( l_1 V_1(x) + x V_1 ' (x) \\Bigr)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe elements of the kernel of $df$ are determined by the condition $$f_1 (x,y) \\frac{du} {\\alpha _1} + f_2 (x,y) \\frac{dv} {\\alpha _2} \\longmapsto \nr(x,y) \\bigl( ydx + xdy \\bigr)$$ which translates to $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\nonumber\nx^{k_1-1} \\Bigl(f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-k_1} f_2 (x,y) \\psi (x) \\Bigr) & = & y r(x,y) = \ny r(0,y) \\\\ \\label{equara} \\\\ \\nonumber\ny^{l_2-1} \\Bigl(y^{k_2-l_2} f_1 (x,y) \\varphi (y) + f_2 (x,y) \\Bigr) & = & x r(x,y) = \nx r(x,0)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe are now going to split the three cases.\n\n[**Case \\[tuu\\]**]{}. In this case $k_1 = l_2 = 1$, and equation (\\[equara\\]) becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\nf_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-1} f_2 (x,y) \\psi (x) & = & y r(x,y) = y r(0,y) \n\\\\ \\\\\ny^{k_2-1} f_1 (x,y) \\varphi (y) + f_2 (x,y) & = & x r(x,y) = x r(x,0)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThis clearly implies that neither $f_1$ nor $f_2$ have constant term and hence we may write $f_1(x,y) = x g_1(x) + y h_1 (y)$ and $f_2(x,y) = x g_2 (x) + y h_2(y)$ and we have $$\\begin{aligned}\ny h_1(y) + x \\Bigl( g_1 (x) + x^{l_1-1} g_2 (x) \\psi (x) \\Bigr) & = & y r(x,y) \\\\[7pt]\nx g_2(x) + y \\Bigl( y^{k_2-1} h_1 (y) \\varphi (y) + h_2 (y) \\Bigr) & = & x r(x,y)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTherefore $$\\begin{aligned}\nx g_1 (x) & = & - x^{l_1} g_2 (x) \\psi (x) \\\\\ny h_2(y) & = & - y^{k_2} h_1 (y) \\varphi (y) \\\\\ny h_1(y) & = & y r(x,y) \\\\\nx g_2(x) & = & x r(x,y)\\end{aligned}$$ and near $p$ all elements of the kernel of $df$ are multiples of $$\\kappa := \\Bigl( - x^{l_1} \\psi (x) + y \\Bigr) \\frac {du} {\\alpha _1} + \n\\Bigl( x - y^{k_2} \\varphi (y) \\Bigr) \\frac {dv} {\\alpha _2}$$\n\nIt is very easy to check that $\\kappa $ is also in the kernel of $df$. This in particular implies that ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free near $p$. The restriction of $\\kappa $ to $C_1$ (which is defined near $p$ by $y=0$) is $$\\frac { - x^{l_1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} du + \\frac {x} {l_2 V_2 (0)} dv = \\frac {x} \n{l_2 V_2 (0)} \\left( \\frac { - x^{l_1-1} \\Bigl( l_1 V_1 (x) + x V_1 ' (x) \\Bigr)} \n{U_1 (x) + x U_1 ' (x)} du +  dv \\right)$$\n\nOn the other hand, the restriction of $f$ to $C_1$ is given by $$ f\\_1 \\^\\* : {\n\n  ----- -------------------\n   $u$      $x U_1 (x)$\n   $v$   $x^{l_1} V_1 (x)$\n  ----- -------------------\n\n. $$ and the kernel of $df_1$ is clearly generated by $$\\frac { - x^{l_1-1} \\Bigl( l_1 V_1 (x) + x V_1 ' (x) \\Bigr)} \n{U_1 (x) + x U_1 ' (x)} du + dv$$\n\nThus ${\\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p)$ is generated near $p$ by the same generator of ${\\mathcal C}_f |_{C_1}$. Similarly, ${\\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p)$ and ${\\mathcal C}_f |_{C_2}$ have the same generator near $p$. Hence \\[tuu\\] follows.\n\n[**Case \\[tur\\]**]{}. Let us go back to equation (\\[equara\\]) and substitute $k_1=1$ and $l_2 \\geq 2$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\vphantom{\\frac{1}{1}} f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-1} f_2 (x,y) \\psi (x) & = & y r(x,y) = y r(0,y) \\\\[7pt]\ny^{l_2-1} \\Bigl( y^{k_2-l_2} f_1 (x,y) \\varphi (y) + f_2 (x,y) \\Bigr) & = & x r(x,y) = x r(x,0)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThis implies that $r(x,0) = 0$, i.e. $r(x,y) = yr(y)$. Thus we have $f_1 (x,y) = x g_1(x) + y^2 r (y)$, and finally $f_2 (x,y) = x g_2(x) - y^{k_2- l_2 +2} \\varphi (y) r (y)$. Substituting back, we find $$x g_1 (x) + x^{l_1} g_2 (x) \\psi (x) = 0$$\n\nTherefore $x g_1 (x) = - x^{l_1} g_2 (x) \\psi (x) $ and near $p$ the kernel of $df$ is generated by $$\\begin{aligned}\nx \\left( - x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x) \\frac{du} {\\alpha _1} + \\frac{dv} {\\alpha _2} \\right) \n& \\hspace{20pt} {\\rm and} \\hspace{20pt}\n& y^2 \\left( \\frac{du} {\\alpha _1} - y^{k_2- l_2} \\varphi (y) \\frac{dv} {\\alpha _2} \\right)\\end{aligned}$$ (as before, it is very easy to check that these elements lie indeed in the kernel of $df$).\n\nWe thus see that ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free near $p$; since clearly the terms in brackets in the previous expression are local generators for ${\\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\\mathcal C}_{f_2}$ respectively near $p$, we deduce that ${\\mathcal C}_f \\cong {\\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-2p)$. Thus \\[tur\\] follows.\n\n[**Case \\[trr\\]**]{}. Once more we refer to (\\[equara\\]), now with $k_1, l_2 \\geq 2$. In this case, the equations imply that $r(x,y) = 0$, and thus $f_1 (x,y) = - x^{l_1-k_1} \nf_2 (x,y) \\psi (x) + y h_1 (y)$. Substituting back in (\\[equara\\]), we find $$y^{l_2-1} \\Bigl( y^{k_2-l_2 +1} h_1 (y) \\varphi (y) + f_2 (x,y) \\Bigr) = 0$$ i.e. $f_2 (x,y) = x g_2 (x) - y^{k_2-l_2 +1} h_1 (y) \\varphi (y)$ and therefore $$f_1 (x,y) = - x^{l_1-k_1 +1} g_2 (x) \\psi (x) + y h_1 (y)$$\n\nBy inspection we see that choosing $\\bigl( g_2(x), h_1 (y) \\bigr) = (1, 0)$ or $(0, 1)$ yields elements of the kernel of $df$. Thus near $p$ the kernel of $df$ is generated by $$\\begin{aligned}\nx \\left( - x^{l_1-k_1} \\psi (x) \\frac{du} {\\alpha _1} + \\frac{dv} {\\alpha _2} \\right) \n& \\hspace{20pt} {\\rm and} \\hspace{20pt}\n& y \\Bigl( \\frac{du} {\\alpha _1} +  y^{k_2-l_2} \\varphi (y)\\frac{dv} {\\alpha _2} \\Bigr)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe thus see again that ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free near $p$. Since clearly the terms in brackets in the previous expression are local generators for ${\\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\\mathcal C}_{f_2}$ respectively near $p$, it follows that ${\\mathcal C}_f \\cong {\\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p)$. Thus \\[trr\\] is established, and with it the lemma. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nNow that we have treated the transverse case, we need an analogous lemma for the non-transverse case.\n\n\\[conota\\] Suppose that $X$ is a smooth surface and let $f: C \\rightarrow X$ be a morphism from a curve $C$ consisting of two irreducible components $C_1$ and $C_2$, meeting in a node $p$. Denote by $f_i$ the restriction of $f$ to $C_i$ and let $p_i \\in C_i$ be the point $p \\in C$. Suppose that $f$ does not contract any component of $C$ and that $C_1$ and $C_2$ do not meet transversely at $f(p)$. Then there are the following cases:\n\n1.  \\[n2\\] $C_1$ and $C_2$ are simply tangent at $f(p)$.\n\n    Then ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is not locally free and $${\\mathcal C}_f \\cong {\\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p)$$\n\n2.  \\[nl\\] $C_1$ and $C_2$ are not simply tangent at $f(p)$.\n\n    Then ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free and the following sequence is exact $$\\label{sesnf}\n    \\xymatrix{ 0 \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal C}_f \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal C}_{f_1} \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_{f_2} \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal C}_{f,p} \\ar[r] & 0 }$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We proceed as before, and we can write $$ f \\^\\* : {\n\n  ----- -------------------------------------\n   $u$   $x^{k_1} U_1 (x) + y^{k_2} U_2 (y)$\n   $v$   $x^{l_1} V_1 (x) + y^{l_2} V_2 (y)$\n  ----- -------------------------------------\n\n. $$ where $l_1 > k_1$, $l_2 > k_2$ and $U_1 (0), U_2 (0) \\neq 0$. By exchanging if necessary the roles of $C_1$ and $C_2$, we may further assume that $k_1 \\leq k_2$. Then we have $$\\xymatrix @C=-30.5pt @R=3pt { \n{\\mathcal O}_{C,p} \\cdot du + {\\mathcal O}_{C,p} \\cdot dv \\ar[r]^{df \\hspace{30pt}} & \n\\raisebox {3pt} {$\\Bigl( {\\mathcal O}_{C,p} \\cdot dx + {\\mathcal O}_{C,p} \\cdot dy \\Bigr) $} / \\raisebox \n{-3pt} {$(ydx + xdy)$} \\\\\ndu \\ar[r] & x^{k_1-1} \\Bigl( k_1 U_1(x) + x U_1 '(x) \\Bigr) dx + \n            y^{k_2-1} \\Bigl( k_2 U_2(y) + y U_2 '(y) \\Bigr) dy \\\\\ndv \\ar[r] & x^{l_1-1} \\Bigl( l_1 V_1(x) + x V_1 '(x) \\Bigr) dx + \n            y^{l_2-1} \\Bigl( l_2 V_2(y) + y V_2 '(y) \\Bigr) dy }$$\n\nLet $\\alpha _1 := k_1 U_1(x) + x U_1 '(x)$ and $\\alpha _2 := l_2 V_2(y) + y V_2 '(y)$. We may write $$\\xymatrix{ \ndu \\ar[r] & \\alpha _1 x^{k_1-1} dx + \\alpha _2 y^{k_2-1} dy \\\\\ndv \\ar[r] & x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x) dx + y^{l_2-1} \\varphi (y) dy }$$ Note that $\\alpha _1 (0)$, $\\alpha _2 (0) \\neq 0$. The kernel of this morphism is determined by the condition $$f_1 (x,y) du + f_2 (x,y) dv \\longmapsto r(x,y) \\bigl( ydx + xdy \\bigr)$$ which translates to $$\\label{equata}\nf ^* : \\left\\{ \\begin{tabular}{c@{ $=$ }c}\n$x^{k_1-1} \\left( \\alpha _1 f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-k_1} \\psi (x) f_2 (x,y) \n \\vphantom{\\frac {\\frac{1}{1}} {\\frac{1}{1}}} \\right) $&$y r(x,y) = y r(0,y) $ \\vspace{10pt} \\\\\n$y^{k_2-1} \\left( \\alpha _2 f_1 (x,y) + y^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y) f_2 (x,y) \n \\vphantom{\\frac{\\frac{1}{1}}{\\frac{1}{1}}} \\right) $&$x r(x,y) = x r(x,0) $\n\\end{tabular} \\right.$$\n\nLet us now consider separately some cases.\n\n[**Case \\[n2\\]**]{}. $k_1 = 1$ and $l_2 = k_2 + 1$. (i.e. $f$ is not ramified on $C_1$ and $f(C_1)$ and $f(C_2)$ are simply tangent). We know we may also assume $l_1 \\geq 3$. Equations (\\[equata\\]) imply (multiplying the second one by $y$ if $k_2=1$) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha _1 f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x) f_2 (x,y) & = & y r(x,y) \\\\[7pt]\ny \\Bigl( \\alpha _2 f_1 (x,y) + y \\varphi (y) f_2 (x,y) \\vphantom{y^{l_2-k_2}} \\Bigr) & = & 0\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFrom the second equation we deduce that $f_1 (x,y) = x g(x) - \\frac {y \\varphi (y)} \n{\\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y)$, and substituting in the first equation we find $$x g(x) = - \\frac {x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) + \\frac {y \\varphi (y)} \n{\\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y) + \\frac {y r(x,y)} {\\alpha _1}$$\n\nThis gives us the equations $$\\begin{aligned}\nx g(x) & = & - \\frac {x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) \\\\[7pt]\n\\frac {y \\varphi (y)} {\\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y) & = & - \\frac {y r(x,y)} {\\alpha _1}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIt follows that $f_2 (x,y) = x h(x) - \\frac{\\alpha _2} {\\alpha _1 \\varphi (y)} r(x,y)$. Observe now that choosing $h(x)=0$ and $r (x,y) = 1$ gives the element $\\left( \\frac \n{x^{l_1-1} \\alpha _2 \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1 ^2 \\varphi (y)} + \\frac {y} {\\alpha _1} \\right) \ndu - \\frac{\\alpha _2} {\\alpha _1 \\varphi (y)} dv $ whose image under $df$ is $y dx$ (remember we are assuming $l_1 \\geq 3$), which is not zero. Therefore, $r(x,y)$ (and hence $f_2$) cannot have a constant term, which implies that all elements of the kernel are combinations of $$\\begin{aligned}\nx \\Bigl( - \\frac {x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} du + dv \\Bigr)\n& \\hspace{20pt} {\\rm and} \\hspace{20pt} &\ny \\Bigl( - \\frac {y \\varphi (y)} {\\alpha _2} du + dv \\Bigr)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nClearly these elements are also in the kernel of $df$ and the terms in the brackets are local generators for ${\\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\\mathcal C}_{f_2}$. Thus ${\\mathcal C}_f \\cong {\\mathcal C}_{f_1} (-p) \\oplus \n{\\mathcal C}_{f_2} (-p)$.\n\n[**Case \\[nl\\]a**]{}. $k_1 = 1$, $l_2 \\geq k_2 + 2$. Equations (\\[equata\\]) imply $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha _1 f_1 (x,y) + x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x) f_2 (x,y) & = & y r(x,y) \\\\[7pt]\ny \\Bigl( \\alpha _2 f_1 (x,y) + y^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y) f_2 (x,y) \\Bigr) & = & 0\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFrom the second equation we deduce that $$f_1 (x,y) = x g(x) - \\frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y)} {\\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y)$$ and substituting in the first equation we find $$x g(x) = - \\frac {x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) + \\frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \n\\varphi (y)} {\\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y) + \\frac {y r(x,y)} {\\alpha _1}$$\n\nThis gives us the equations $$\\begin{aligned}\nx g(x) & = & - \\frac {x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) \\\\[7pt]\n\\frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y)} {\\alpha _2} f_2 (x,y) & = & - \\frac {y r(x,y)} {\\alpha _1}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTherefore all elements of the kernel are multiples of $$- \\left( \\frac {x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} + \\frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y)} \n{\\alpha _2} \\right) du + dv$$\n\nBy inspection these elements are also in the kernel of $df$ and the restrictions $-\\frac \n{x^{l_1-1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} du + dv $ and $-\\frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y)} {\\alpha _2} \ndu + dv $ are generators for ${\\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\\mathcal C}_{f_2}$. In particular there is a short exact sequence as in (\\[sesnf\\]).\n\n[**Case \\[nl\\]b**]{}. $k_1, k_2 \\geq 2$. Then (\\[equata\\]) implies $r(x,y) = 0$ and from the first equation we may write $f_1 (x,y) = -\\frac {x^{l_1-k_1} \\psi (x)} \n{\\alpha _1} f_2 (x,y) + yh (y)$ and substituting in the second equation we obtain $$y^{k_2-1} \\Bigl( y \\alpha _2 h (y) + y^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y) f_2 (x,y) \\Bigr) = 0 \n\\hspace{4pt} \\Longrightarrow \\hspace{4pt} y h (y) = - \\frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y)} \n{\\alpha _2 } f_2 (x,y)$$\n\nTherefore near $p$ any element of the kernel of $df$ is a multiple of $$- \\left( \\frac {x^{l_1-k_1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} + \\frac {y^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y)} \n{\\alpha _2 } \\right) du + dv$$ and it is easy to check that this element lies indeed in the kernel of $df$. Thus ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free and since $- \\frac {x^{l_1-k_1} \\psi (x)} {\\alpha _1} du + dv $ and $- \\frac {y ^{l_2-k_2} \\varphi (y)} {\\alpha _2 } du + dv $ are the local generators for ${\\mathcal C}_{f_1}$ and ${\\mathcal C}_{f_2}$, we deduce that we have a short exact sequence as in (\\[sesnf\\]). This completes the proof of the lemma. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nLet $f: C \\rightarrow X$ be a morphism from a connected, projective, nodal curve of arithmetic genus zero to a smooth surface $X$. In view of the two previous lemmas, we partition the set of nodes of $C$ in five disjoint sets:\n\n[$\\tau _{uu} $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are transverse at $f(p)$ and both are unramified;\n\n[$\\tau _{ur} $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are transverse at $f(p)$ and one is unramified and the other one is ramified;\n\n[$\\tau _{rr} $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are transverse at $f(p)$ and both are ramified;\n\n[$\\nu _2 $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are simply tangent at $f(p)$;\n\n[$\\nu _l $]{} is the set of nodes $p$ such that the two components of $C$ meeting at $p$ are not transverse and not simply tangent at $f(p)$.\n\nThus it follows from the lemmas that the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is locally free at the nodes $\\tau _{uu}$ and $\\nu _l$, while it is not free at the others. Let $C_1, \\ldots , C_\\ell $ be the components of $C$. Then we let $\\tau _{uu} ^i $ denote the divisor on $C_i$ of nodes lying in $\\tau _{uu}$, and similarly for the other types of nodes. Note that only one of the definitions above is not symmetric, namely $\\tau _{ur}$ (and $\\tau _{ur} ^i$). To take care of this, let us introduce one more divisor on each component of $C$: let $\\tau _{ru} ^i$ be the divisor on $C_i$ consisting of all nodes $p$ of $C$ on $C_i$, such that the two components of $C$ through $p$ are transverse at $f(p)$, and the restriction of $f$ to these two components is ramified only on $C_i$.\n\nOften we will denote by the same symbol a divisor on a curve and its degree. For instance we write equations like $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum _i \\left( \\tau _{uu} ^i + \\tau _{ur} ^i + \\tau _{rr} ^i + \\nu _2 ^i + \\nu _l ^i \\right) \n& = & 2 \\# \\{ \\text{nodes of } C \\} \\\\\n\\sum _i \\left( \\tau _{uu} ^i + \\tau _{ur} ^i + \\tau _{ru} ^i + \\tau _{rr} ^i + \\nu _2 ^i + \\nu _l ^i \\right) \n& = & 2 \\# \\{ \\text{nodes of } C \\} + \\tau _{ur}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nGiven a coherent sheaf ${\\mathcal F}$ on a curve $C$, let $\\tau ({\\mathcal F})$ denote the subsheaf generated by the sections whose support has dimension at most 0 and let ${\\mathcal F}^{free}$ be the sheaf ${\\mathcal F}/ \\tau ({\\mathcal F})$. By definition the sheaf ${\\mathcal F}^{free}$ is pure.\n\n\\[grafico\\] Let $f: C \\rightarrow X$ be a stable map of genus zero with no contracted components to a smooth surface $X$, with canonical divisor $K_X$. Let $C_1, \\ldots , C_\\ell $ be the irreducible components of $C$. Then we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{graco}\n\\deg \\left( \\left. \\left( {\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _C \\right) \\vphantom{^{2}} \\right| ^{free} _{C_i} \n\\right) & = & \nf_* [C_i] \\cdot K_X - \\deg \\tau _{ru} ^i + \\deg \\nu _l ^i + \\deg {\\mathcal Q}_i \\\\[5pt]\n\\nonumber\n\\chi \\left( {\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _C \\right) & = & \nf_* [C] \\cdot K_X + \\deg \\tau _{rr} + \\deg \\nu _2 + \\\\\\nonumber\n& & + 2 \\deg \\nu _l + \\sum \\deg {\\mathcal Q}_i + 1\\end{aligned}$$\n\nMoreover, let $\\nu : \\tilde C \\rightarrow C$ be the normalization of $C$ at the nodes in $\\tau _{ur} \\cup \\tau _{rr} \\cup \\nu _2$. Then, the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_f$ is the pushforward of a locally free sheaf on $\\tilde C$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} This is simply a matter of collecting the information we already proved in the previous lemmas. Thanks to Lemma \\[conotra\\] and Lemma \\[conota\\] we have the following short exact sequence of sheaves on $C$ $$\\xymatrix@C=15pt { \n0 \\ar[r]& {\\mathcal C}_f \\ar[r]& \\oplus _i {\\mathcal C}_{f_i} \\left( -\\tau _{uu} ^i - \\tau _{ur} ^i \n- 2 \\tau _{ru} ^i - \\tau _{rr} ^i - \\nu _2 ^i \\right) \\ar[r]&\n{\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\tau _{uu}} \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\nu _l} \\ar[r]& 0 }$$\n\nNote that the sheaf in the middle on the component $C_i$ is twisted down by all nodes of $C$ on $C_i$, with the exception of the nodes in $\\nu _l ^i$, which do not appear, and the nodes in $\\tau _{ru} ^i$, which \u201cappear twice.\u201d Hence we can write the divisor by which we are twisting ${\\mathcal C}_{f_i}$ as $- val [C_i] - \\tau _{ru} ^i + \\nu _l ^i$ (we denote by $val [C_i]$ the valence of the vertex $[C_i]$ in the dual graph of $C$).\n\nTo compute the degree of the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_{f_i}$, remember that there is an exact sequence $$\\xymatrix{ 0 \\ar[r]& {\\mathcal C}_{f_i} \\ar[r]& f_i ^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\ar[r]& \\Omega ^1 _{C_i} \\ar[r]& \n{\\mathcal Q}_i \\ar[r]& 0 }$$\n\nTherefore we have $\\deg {\\mathcal C}_{f_i} = f_*[C_i] \\cdot K_X + 2 + \\deg {\\mathcal Q}_i$. Thus, we may rewrite the previous sequence as follows $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\hspace{-2pt} \\xymatrix@C=15pt { 0 \\ar[r]& {\\mathcal C}_f \\ar[r]& \\oplus _i \n{\\mathcal O}_{C_i} \\Bigl( f_*[C_i] \\cdot K_X +2-val [C_i] \n- \\tau _{ru} ^i + \\nu _l ^i + \\deg {\\mathcal Q}_i \\Bigr) \n\\ar[r]& } \\\\[7pt]\n& \\hspace{-2pt} \\xymatrix@C=15pt {\\ar[r] & \n{\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\tau _{uu}} \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\nu _l} \\ar[r]& 0 }\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe dualizing sheaf $\\omega _C$ is invertible and on the component $C_i$ has degree equal to $-2+val [C_i]$. Thus twisting the previous sequence by $\\omega _C$ we obtain (using the isomorphisms ${\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\tau _{uu}} \\otimes \\omega _C \\simeq {\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\tau _{uu}}$ and ${\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\nu _l} \\otimes \\omega _C \\simeq {\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\nu _l}$) $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\xymatrix@C=15pt { 0 \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _C \\ar[r] & \\oplus _i \n{\\mathcal O}_{C_i} \\Bigl( f_*[C_i] \\cdot K_X - \\tau _{ru} ^i + \\nu _l ^i + \\deg {\\mathcal Q}_i \\Bigr) \n\\ar[r] & } \\nonumber \\\\[7pt] \\label{gallo}\n& \\xymatrix@C=15pt { \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\tau _{uu}} \\oplus {\\mathcal C}_f|_{\\nu _l} \\ar[r] & 0 }\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe first identity in (\\[graco\\]) follows. For the second one, note that $\\sum \\tau _{ru}^i = \\tau _{ur}$ and $\\sum \\nu _l ^i = 2 \\nu _l$ and compute Euler characteristics of (\\[gallo\\]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\chi \\left( {\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _C \\right) & \\hspace{-8pt} = & \\hspace{-8pt} \n\\sum _i \\left( f_*[C_i] \\cdot K_X - \\tau _{ru} ^i + \\nu _l ^i + \\deg {\\mathcal Q}_i  +1 \\right) \\!-\\! \n\\deg \\tau _{uu} \\!-\\! \\deg \\nu _l \\!= \\\\\n& \\hspace{-8pt} = & \\hspace{-8pt} f_*[C] \\cdot K_X - \\tau _{ur} + 2 \\nu _l + \\sum _i \\deg {\\mathcal Q}_i + \\\\\n& & \\hspace{-8pt} + \\# \\bigl\\{ \\text{components of $C$} \\bigr\\} - \\tau _{uu} - \\nu _l\\end{aligned}$$\n\nRemember that the dual graph of $f$ is a tree and hence $\\# \\bigl\\{ \\text{components}\\bigr \\} = \\# \\bigl\\{ \\text{nodes of $C$} \\bigr\\} + 1 = \n\\tau _{uu} + \\tau _{ur} + \\tau _{rr} + \\nu _2 + \\nu _l + 1$. Using this, we conclude $$\\chi \\left( {\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _C \\right) = \nf_*[C] \\cdot K_X + \\tau _{rr} + \\nu _2 + 2 \\nu _l + 1 + \\sum _i \\deg {\\mathcal Q}_i$$ and the proposition is proved. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nThe next proposition has a similar proof, but deals with morphisms with contracted components. As for the previous case, it is useful to introduce two more subsets of the nodes on contracted components, depending on the behaviour of $f : \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ near the node. We let\n\n[$\\rho _{u} $]{} be the set of nodes $p$ such that $f$ is constant on one of the two components, and it is unramified on the other;\n\n[$\\rho _{r} $]{} be the set of nodes $p$ such that $f$ is constant on one of the two components, and it is ramified on the other.\n\n\\[graficone\\] Let $f: \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ be a stable map of genus zero to a smooth surface $X$, with canonical divisor $K_X$. Let $\\bar C = C \\cup R$, where $C=C_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup C_\\ell$ is the union of all components of $\\bar C$ which are not contracted by $f$, and $R$ is the union of all components of $\\bar C$ contracted by $f$. Let $r$ be the number of connected components of the curve $R$ (equivalently, $r = \\chi ({\\mathcal O}_R)$). Then we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{gracone}\n\\deg \\left( \\left. \\left( {\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) \\vphantom{^{2}} \n\\right| _{C_i} ^{free} \\right) & = & \nf_* [C_i] \\cdot K_X + {\\mathcal Q}_i - \\tau _{ru} ^i + \\nu _l ^i + \\rho _u ^i + \\rho _r ^i \\\\[5pt]\n\\nonumber\n\\chi \\left( {\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) & = & \nf_* [C] \\cdot K_X + \\sum {\\mathcal Q}_i + 1 + \\tau _{rr} + \\nu _2 + 2 \\nu _l + \\\\ \\nonumber\n& & + \\rho _u + 2 \\rho _r - 3r\\end{aligned}$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} For the first formula in (\\[gracone\\]), we only need to check the local behaviour of ${\\mathcal C}_f$ near a node between $C_i$ and a contracted component $R_j$. As before, let $x$ be a local coordinate on $C_i$ near the node $p$ between $C_i$ and $R_j$ and let $y$ be a local coordinate on $R_j$ near $p$. Let $u,v$ be local coordinates on $X$ near $f(p)$ and suppose that the tangent direction to the vanishing set of $u$ near $f(p)$ is the tangent direction to $C_i$ at $f(p)$. We have $$f ^* : \\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\nu & \\longmapsto & x^{k} U(x) \\\\\nv & \\longmapsto & x^{k+1} V(x) \n\\end{array} \\right. ~~~ U(0) \\neq 0$$ for some $k \\geq 1$. The sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_f$ near $p$ is the kernel of the map $$\\xymatrix @C=30pt { df : \n{\\mathcal O}_{\\bar C, p} \\cdot du + {\\mathcal O}_{\\bar C, p} \\cdot dv \\ar[r] &\n\\raisebox {3pt} {$\\Bigl( {\\mathcal O}_{\\bar C, p} \\cdot dx + \n{\\mathcal O}_{\\bar C, p} \\cdot dy \\Bigr) $} / \\raisebox \n{-3pt} {$\\bigl( ydx + xdy \\bigr)$} \\\\\ndu \\ar[r] & x^{k-1} \\Bigl( k U(x) + x U '(x) \\Bigr) dx \\\\\ndv \\ar[r] & x^{k} \\Bigl( (k+1) V(x) + x V '(x) \\Bigr) dx }$$ It is readily seen that $$x \\Bigl( (k+1) V(x) + x V '(x) \\Bigr) du - \n\\Bigl( k U(x) + x U '(x) \\Bigr) dv$$ is a local generator for the kernel of $df$. Note that this means that we may pretend that the component $R_j$ is not there for the purpose of computing the contribution of the node $p$, regardless of whether $f|_{C_i}$ ramifies or not at $p$. This is enough to prove the first formula in (\\[gracone\\]).\n\nTo prove the second one, we carry the previous analysis slightly further, and note that the image of $df$ contains the torsion section $y dx$ if and only if $f$ does not ramify at $p$. Remember that we have the diagram $$\\xymatrix { & & & 0 \\ar[d] \\\\\n& & 0 \\ar[d] & \\tau \\ar[d] \\\\\n0 \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal C}_f \\ar[r] & f^* \\Omega ^1_X \\ar[r] \\ar[d] & \n\\Omega ^1 _{\\bar C} \\ar[r] \\ar[d] & {\\mathcal Q}_{\\bar C} \\ar[r] & 0 \\\\\n& & \\mathop {\\bigoplus } \\limits _{C' \\subset \\bar C} \n\\left( f|_{C'} \\right) ^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\ar[d] & \n\\mathop {\\bigoplus } \\limits _{C' \\subset \\bar C} \\Omega ^1 _{C'} \\ar[d] \\\\\n& & \\mathop {\\bigoplus } \\limits _{\\nu \\in Sing(\\bar C)} \n\\hspace{-10pt} \\Omega ^1 _{X , \\nu } \\ar[d] & 0 \\\\\n& & 0 }$$ where $C'$ ranges over the irreducible components of $\\bar C$ and $\\tau $ denotes the torsion subsheaf of $\\Omega ^1 _{\\bar C}$. We deduce that $$\\chi \\left( {\\mathcal C}_f \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) \n= \\chi \\left( f^* \\Omega ^1_X \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) \n- \\chi \\left( \\Omega ^1 _{\\bar C} \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) \n+ \\chi \\left( {\\mathcal Q}_{\\bar C} \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right)$$ and we know that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\chi \\left( f^* \\Omega ^1_X \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) & \\hspace{-5pt}= & \\hspace{-5pt}\nf_*[\\bar C] \\cdot K_X - 4 \\# \\{ {\\text {components of }}\\bar C \\} \n+ 2 \\sum _{C' \\subset \\bar C} val (C') + \\\\\n& & \\hspace{-5pt} + 2 \\# \\{ {\\text {components of }}\\bar C \\} \n- 2 \\# \\{ {\\text {nodes of }}\\bar C \\} = \\\\\n& \\hspace{-5pt} = & \\hspace{-5pt} f_*[\\bar C] \\cdot K_X - 2\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\chi \\left( \\Omega ^1 _{\\bar C} \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) = \n\\# \\{ {\\text {nodes of }}\\bar C \\} - 3 \\# \\{ {\\text {components of }}\\bar C \\} + \n\\sum _{C' \\subset \\bar C} val (C') = -3$$ $$\\chi \\left( {\\mathcal Q}_{\\bar C} \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) = \n\\chi \\left( {\\mathcal Q}_C \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) + \n\\chi \\left( \\Omega ^1_R \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) + \\rho _r$$ where ${\\mathcal Q}_C$ is the cokernel of the differential of the restriction of $f$ to the union $C$ of the non-contracted components. By what we saw above, the sheaf ${\\mathcal Q}_C$ behaves like when there are no contracted components. The Euler characteristic of $\\Omega ^1_R \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C}$ is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\chi \\left( \\Omega ^1_R \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar C} \\right) & = & \n\\# \\{ {\\text {nodes of }}\\bar R \\} \n- 3 \\# \\{ {\\text {irreducible components of }}\\bar R \\} + \\\\[5pt]\n& & + \\sum _{R' \\subset R} val (R') = \n- 3 \\# \\{ {\\text {connected components of }}\\bar R \\} = \\\\[7pt]\n& = & -3r\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe collect all these numbers as we did before and conclude. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nDeformations of Stable Maps\n---------------------------\n\nDimension Estimates\n-------------------\n\nIn what follows we refer to the integer $- C \\cdot K_X$ as the anticanonical degree (or simply as the degree) of a curve $C$ in $X$, where $K_X$ is the canonical divisor of $X$.\n\nWe consistently use the following notational convention: if $f: \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ is a morphism and $\\bar C_1$ denotes a component of $\\bar C$, we denote the image of $\\bar C_1$ by $C_1$, and in general, a symbol with a bar over it denotes an object on the source curve $\\bar C$, while the same symbol without the bar over it denotes the image of the object in $X$.\n\n([@Ko] II.3.6). Let $f,g \\in {\\rm Hom } (\\bar C , X)$; we say $g$ is a deformation of $f$, if there is an irreducible subscheme of ${\\rm Hom } (\\bar C , X)$ containing $f$ and $g$. We say that a general deformation of $f$ has some property if there is an open subset $U \\subset {\\rm Hom } (\\bar C , X)$ containing $f$ and a dense open subset $V \\subset U$ such that all $f' \\in V$ have that property.\n\nWhen we choose a general deformation $g$ of a morphism $f$, we assume that $g$ is a deformation of $f$, i.e. that $f$ and $g$ lie in the same irreducible component of ${\\rm Hom } (\\bar C , X)$.\n\n\\[immersione\\] Let $f: {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be a free morphism; then $-f({\\mathbb P}^1) \\cdot K_X \\geq 2$. If moreover $f$ is birational onto its image, then a general deformation of $f$ is free and it is an immersion.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Since $f$ is free, $f^*{\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated, and hence the normal sheaf ${\\mathcal N}_f$ is also. Thus we have $$0 \\leq \\deg {\\mathcal N}_f = \\deg f^*{\\mathcal T}_X - 2 = - f({\\mathbb P}^1) \\cdot K_X - 2$$\n\nFor the second assertion, by [@Ko] Complement II.3.14.4, a general deformation of $f$ is of the form $f_t : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\stackrel{g_t} {\\rightarrow } \n{\\mathbb P}^1 \\stackrel {h_t} {\\rightarrow } X$, where $h_t$ is an immersion. Since it is also true that a general deformation of a birational map is still birational, we see that for a general deformation $f_t$ of $f$, $g_t$ is an isomorphism, and $f_t$ is an immersion. Clearly being free is also an open property. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nFix a free rational curve $\\beta \\subset X$ and let $d = - \\beta \\cdot K_X$.\n\nDenote by ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ the closure in ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)}$ of the set of free morphisms $f: {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ such that $f$ is birational onto its image.\n\nWe want to prove that given $r \\leq d-1$ general points $p_1, \\ldots , p_r \\in X$, in all irreducible components of ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ there is an $f$ whose image contains all the $p_i$\u2019s.\n\n\\[rpunti\\] Let $f: {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be an immersion, and let $d$ be the degree of the image of $f$. Let $c_1, \\ldots , c_r $ be distinct points where $f$ is an embedding. The natural morphism $$\\xymatrix @R=10pt { F^{(r)} : ({\\mathbb P}^1)^r \\times {\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1,X) \\ar[r] & X^r \\\\\n\\bigl( d_1, \\ldots , d_r ; [g] \\bigr) \\ar@{|->} [r] & \n\\bigl( g(d_1) , \\ldots , g(d_r) \\bigr) }$$ is smooth at the point $\\bigl( c_1, \\ldots , c_r ; [f] \\bigr)$ if and only if $r\\leq d-1$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Recall the sequence defining ${\\mathcal N}_f$: $$\\label{dinuovo}\n\\xymatrix{ 0 \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal T}{\\mathbb P}^1 \\ar[r] ^{df^t} & f^* {\\mathcal T}X \\ar[r]& \n{\\mathcal N}_f \\ar[r] & 0 }$$\n\nLet us prove first of all that ${\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1,X)$ is smooth at $[f]$. From (\\[dinuovo\\]), it follows that $\\deg {\\mathcal N}_f = -f_* ({\\mathbb P}^1) \n\\cdot K_X -2 = d-2 \\geq -1$, and since $f$ is an immersion, ${\\mathcal N}_f$ is locally free. Thus from the long exact sequence associated to (\\[dinuovo\\]) we deduce that ${\\rm H}^1 ({\\mathbb P}^1 , f^* {\\mathcal T}X ) = 0$, and by [@Ko] Theorem II.1.2 it follows that ${\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1,X)$ is smooth at $[f]$.\n\nConsider now the following commutative diagram with exact rows $$\\xymatrix @C=15.3pt { 0 \\ar[r] & \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{c_i} {\\mathbb P}^1 \\ar[r] \\ar [d]^{\\sim} & \n{\\mathcal T}_{(\\underline {c}; [f])} ({\\mathbb P}^1)^r \\times {\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1,X) \\ar[r] \\ar[d]^{dF^{(r)}} & \n{\\mathcal T}_{[f]} {\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1,X) \\ar[r] \\ar[d]^{\\delta} & 0 \\\\\n0 \\ar[r] & \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{f(c_i)} f({\\mathbb P}^1) \\ar[r] & \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{f(c_i)} X \n\\ar[r] & \\oplus {\\mathcal N}_{f,c_i} \\ar[r] & 0}$$ The top row is clear, since we have the isomorphism $${\\mathcal T}_{(\\underline {c}; [f])} ({\\mathbb P}^1)^r \\times \n{\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1,X) \\simeq \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{c_i} {\\mathbb P}^1 \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{[f]} {\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1,X)$$ For the second row, restrict the sequence (\\[dinuovo\\]) to $\\{ c_1 , \\ldots , c_r \\}$ and note that $f$ induces an isomorphism ${\\mathcal T}_{c_i} {\\mathbb P}^1 \n\\simeq {\\mathcal T}_{f(c_i)} f({\\mathbb P}^1)$, since $f$ is an embedding at the $c_i$. The first vertical arrow is induced by $f$, while $\\delta $ is the quotient map, followed by the evaluation map ([@Ko] Proposition II.3.5): $$\\xymatrix{ {\\mathcal T}_{[f]} {\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1,X) \\simeq {\\rm H}^0 ({\\mathbb P}^1, f^* {\\mathcal T}_X) \n\\ar[r] ^{\\hspace{45pt}q} \\ar[dr] _\\delta & {\\rm H}^0 ({\\mathbb P}^1, {\\mathcal N}_f) \\ar[d] ^{ev} \\\\\n& \\oplus {\\mathcal N}_{f,c_i} }$$\n\nThe morphism $q$ is induced by the long exact sequence associated to (\\[dinuovo\\]), and the next term in the sequence is ${\\rm H}^1 ({\\mathbb P}^1, {\\mathcal T}_{{\\mathbb P}^1}) = 0$. Therefore $q$ is surjective. Observe that $dF^{(r)}$ is surjective if and only if $\\delta $ is surjective, and finally, $\\delta $ is surjective if and only if the evaluation map $ev$ is surjective. Consider the exact sequence of sheaves $$\\label{sse}\n\\xymatrix{ 0 \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal N}_f (-c_1 - \\ldots - c_r) \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal N}_f \\ar[r] & \n\\oplus {\\mathcal N}_{f,c_i} \\ar[r] & 0 }$$\n\nRemember that $\\deg {\\mathcal N}_f = d-2$, and since $f$ is an immersion, ${\\mathcal N}_f \\simeq {\\mathcal O}_{{\\mathbb P}^1} (d-2)$. Thus ${\\rm H}^1 ( {\\mathbb P}^1 , {\\mathcal N}_f) = 0$, and the sequence on global sections induced by (\\[sse\\]) is exact if and only if ${\\rm H}^1 ( {\\mathbb P}^1 , {\\mathcal N}_f (-c_1 - \\ldots - c_r)) = 0$, i.e. if and only if $\\deg {\\mathcal N}_f (-c_1 - \\ldots - c_r) = d-2-r \\geq -1$. Therefore ${\\rm H}^0 ({\\mathbb P}^1, {\\mathcal N}_f) \\rightarrow \\oplus {\\mathcal N}_{f,c_i}$ is surjective if and only if $r \\leq d-1$, and hence $dF^{(r)}$ is surjective if and only if $r \\leq d-1$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nLet $f: {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be an immersion representing an element of ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$, and denote by $_f {\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ the irreducible component of ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ containing $f$. Denote by ${\\mathcal H}^f \\subset {\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1 , X)$ the irreducible component of ${\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1 , X)$ containing $[f]$ (remember that ${\\rm Hom} ({\\mathbb P}^1 , X)$ is smooth at $[f]$).\n\nThere is an action $$\\xymatrix @R=0pt {\n{\\rm Aut} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\bigr) \\times \\left( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\right) ^r \\times \n{\\rm Hom} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 , X \\bigr) \\ar[r] \n& \\left( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\right) ^r \\times {\\rm Hom} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 , X \\bigr) \\\\\n\\bigl( \\varphi , (c_1, \\ldots , c_r \\,;\\, [g]) \\bigr) \\ar@{|->} [r] & \n\\bigl( \\varphi (c_1), \\ldots , \\varphi (c_r) \\,;\\, [g \\circ \\varphi ^{-1}] \\bigr) }$$ which clearly preserves the irreducible components of ${\\rm Hom} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 , X \\bigr)$. Since $f$ is not constant, the action of ${\\rm Aut} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\bigr)$ has finite stabilizers.\n\nConsider the diagram $$\\xymatrix{ & \\left( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\right) ^r \\times {\\mathcal H}^f \n\\ar[dr] _{M \\vphantom{^{F^{(r)}}}} \\ar[dl] ^{F^{(r)}} \\\\\nX^r & & _f {\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }}$$ where $M$ is the projection onto the factor ${\\mathcal H}^f $ followed by the natural map that quotients out the action of ${\\rm Aut} ({\\mathbb P}^1)$.\n\nLet us compute the dimensions of some of these spaces. The morphism $M$ is obviously dominant, while Proposition \\[rpunti\\] (together with Lemma \\[immersione\\]) implies that $F^{(r)}$ is dominant if $r\\leq d-1$. Thus we may compute $$\\dim \\left( _f {\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }\\right) = \\dim \\Bigl( \\left( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\right) ^r \\times {\\mathcal H}\\Bigr) \n- r - 3 = -f({\\mathbb P}^1) \\cdot K_X - 1 = d - 1$$\n\nLet $c_1, \\ldots , c_r \\in {\\mathbb P}^1$ be $r\\leq d-1$ distinct points where $f$ is an isomorphism onto its image and let $p_i = f(c_i)$.\n\nLet $p:= (c_1, \\ldots , c_r; [f]) \\in \\left( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\right) ^r \\times {\\rm Hom} \n({\\mathbb P}^1 , X)$; it follows from Proposition \\[rpunti\\] that $$\\dim \\bigl( F^{(r)} \\bigr) ^{-1} (p_1, \\ldots , p_r) = r + \\dim {\\mathcal H}^f - 2r = \n-f({\\mathbb P}^1) \\cdot K_X + 2 - r = d-r+2$$\n\nDenote by ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }(p_1, \\ldots , p_r)$ the (closure of the) image under $M$ of $\\bigl( F^{(r)} \\bigr) ^{-1} (p_1, \\ldots , p_r)$, alternatively $${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }(p_1, \\ldots , p_r) := \\left\\{ [f] \\in {\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }~ \\Bigl| \n~ Image(f) \\supset \\{p_1, \\ldots , p_r\\} \\right\\}$$\n\nSince ${\\rm Aut} ({\\mathbb P}^1)$ acts with finite stabilizers on $\\bigl( F^{(r)} \\bigr) ^{-1} (p_1, \\ldots , p_r)$, we may compute $$\\label{dimdibarbi}\n\\dim {\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }(p_1, \\ldots , p_r) = d-r-1$$\n\nIndependent Points\n------------------\n\nThe next lemma analyzes the case of curves through $d-1$ general points.\n\n\\[dimme\\] For a general $(d-1)-$tuple $(p_1, \\ldots , p_{d-1})$ of points of $X^{d-1}$, all the morphisms in ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }(p_1, \\ldots , p_{d-1})$ are immersions.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Let ${\\mathcal I}\\subset \\left( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\right) ^{d-1} \\times {\\mathcal H}^f$ be the set of all $d-$tuples $(c_1, \\ldots , c_{d-1}; [g])$ such that $g$ is not an immersion; Lemma \\[immersione\\] implies that ${\\mathcal I}$ is a proper closed subset of $\\left( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\right) ^{d-1} \\times {\\mathcal H}^f$. Note that ${\\mathcal I}$ is ${\\rm Aut }({\\mathbb P}^1)-$invariant. Consider the morphism $F^{(d-1)}$. By Proposition \\[rpunti\\] and Lemma \\[immersione\\] this morphism is dominant, hence the general fiber of this morphism has dimension $d-1-f({\\mathbb P}^1) \\cdot K_X + 2 - 2(d-1) = d+2-d+1 = 3$, thus the fibers of this morphism are ${\\rm Aut }({\\mathbb P}^1)-$orbits, since they are stable under the action of ${\\rm Aut }({\\mathbb P}^1)$. If the general fiber of $F^{(d-1)}$ met ${\\mathcal I}$, then we would have $$\\dim {\\mathcal I}\\geq 2(d-1) + 3 = 2d +1 = (d-1)+(d+2) = \n\\dim \\left( \\left( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\right) ^{d-1} \\times {\\mathcal H}^f \\right)$$ and ${\\mathcal I}$ would equal $\\left( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\right) ^{d-1} \\times {\\mathcal H}^f $, which contradicts Lemma \\[immersione\\]. Thus there is an open dense subset ${\\mathcal U}$ in $X^{d-1}$ not meeting the image of ${\\mathcal I}$. For any $(d-1)-$tuple $(p_1, \\ldots , p_{d-1}) \\in {\\mathcal U}$ we have that $${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }(p_1, \\ldots , p_{d-1}) := \nM \\left( \\bigl( F^{(d-1)} \\bigr) ^{-1} (p_1, \\ldots , p_{d-1}) \\right) \n\\subset {\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$$ consists only of (finitely many) immersions. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nWe now want to prove that for a general choice of $d-2$ points on $X$, all the resulting morphisms in ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) }$ through them have reduced image. To achieve this, let us first introduce the following notion.\n\n\\[indip\\] We say that $r$ points $p_1, \\ldots , p_r$ in $X$ are [independent]{} if the following conditions hold:\n\n1.  no $k$ of them are contained in a rational curve of degree $k$; \\[finoak\\]\n\n2.  the normalization of a rational curve of degree $k$ in $X$ through $k-1$ of them is an immersion. \\[nok\\]\n\nProposition \\[rpunti\\], Lemma \\[dimme\\] and the dimension estimates (\\[dimdibarbi\\]) easily imply that for any $r \\geq 1$ there are $r-$tuples of independent points if there are free rational curves of anticanonical degree $d \\geq r+1$, and that there are rational curves of anticanonical degree $d$ through $r$ independent points if $d \\geq r+1$.\n\nWe are ready to prove the following result.\n\n\\[nonnonred\\] Let $C \\subset X$ be a divisor of anticanonical degree $d \\geq 3$ such that each reduced irreducible component is rational. Let $p_1, \\ldots , p_{d-2} \\in C$ be a $(d-2)-$tuple of independent points. The divisor $C$ has at most two irreducible components and it is reduced.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Denote by $C_1, \\ldots , C_\\ell$ the reduced irreducible components of $C$. For each curve $C_i$ let $d_i$ be the degree of $C_i$, $m_i$ be the multiplicity of $C_i$ in $C$ and $\\delta _i$ be the number of points $p_1, \\ldots , p_{d-2}$ lying on $C_i$. Then we have $ \\sum m_i d_i = d$ and $\\delta _i \\leq d_i-1$. Therefore $$d-2 = \\sum \\delta _i \\leq \\sum d_i - \\ell \\leq \\sum m_i d_i - \\ell = d-\\ell$$\n\nThus $\\ell \\leq 2$, and if $\\ell = 2$, then all inequalities are equalities and hence $m_1 = m_2 = 1$. If $\\ell = 1$, then $C_1$ is a rational curve of degree $d_1$ on $X$ containing $d-2$ independent points. It follows that $d_1 \\geq d-1$ and $m_1 d_1 = d$ and hence $d \\geq m_1 (d-1)$, or $(m_1-1) d \\leq m_1$. Since $d \\geq 3$ this implies $d_1 = d$ and $m_1=1$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[niette\\] Let $p_1, \\ldots , p_r \\in X$ be $r \\geq 2$ independent points, and let $\\alpha \\subset X$ be an integral curve of degree $r+2$ of geometric genus zero containing $p_1 , \\ldots , p_r$. Let $B$ be a smooth connected projective curve and let $F: B \\rightarrow \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} ^\\alpha (p_1, \\ldots , p_r)$ be a non-constant morphism. The reducible curves in the family parametrized by $B$ cannot always contain a component mapped isomorphically to a curve of anticanonical degree strictly smaller than two.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Consider the following fiber product diagram $$\\xymatrix{ S \\ar[rr] \\ar[d] & & \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,1} (X, \\alpha ) \\ar[d] \\\\\nB \\ar[r] & \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} ^\\alpha (p_1, \\ldots , p_r) \\ar@{^(->} [r] & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} (X, \\alpha) }$$ thus $S \\rightarrow B$ is the pull-back of the universal family.\n\nIt follows that $S \\rightarrow B$ is a surface whose general fiber over $B$ is a smooth rational curve and with a finite number of fibers consisting of exactly two smooth rational curves (Lemma \\[nonnonred\\]) meeting transversely at a point, corresponding to the reducible curves in the family $B$. By hypothesis $S \\rightarrow B$ admits $r$ contractible sections. Suppose that in all reducible fibers of $S$ one component is mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree strictly smaller than two. Denote the components in $S$ mapped to such curves by $L_1, \\ldots , L_t$, and the other components in the respective fiber by $Q_1, \\ldots , Q_t$ (thus $L_i + Q_i$ represents the numerical class of a fiber, for all $i$\u2019s). By definition of independent points, the sections of $S \\rightarrow B$ cannot meet the components $L_i$. Since $L_i \\subset S$ is a smooth rational curve of self-intersection $L_i^2 = L_i \\cdot (Q_i + L_i) - L_i \\cdot Q_i = -1$, we may contract all the $L_i$ to obtain a smooth surface $S' \\rightarrow B$, which is a ${\\mathbb P}^1-$bundle over the curve $B$. Since the contracted curves did not meet the $r$ sections, there still are $r \\geq 2$ negative sections of $S' \\rightarrow B$, but there can be at most one negative section in a ${\\mathbb P}^1-$bundle. Thus there must be reducible fibers in the family $B$ all of whose components are mapped to curves of anticanonical degree at least two. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[sovrappo\\] Let $f: {\\mathbb P}^1 \\longrightarrow X$ be a non-constant morphism to a smooth surface $X$ and suppose that $f^* {\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated. Denote by ${\\mathcal M}_f$ the irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} (X, f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1])$ containing $[f]$ and by $C \\subset X$ the integral curve $f({\\mathbb P}^1)$. Let ${\\mathcal M}_{f,C}$ be the locus of stable maps $${\\mathcal M}_{f,C} := \\biggl\\{ [g] \\in {\\mathcal M}_f ~ \\bigl| ~ \n\\text{image}(g) = C \\biggr\\}$$\n\nThen we have $${\\rm codim} \\bigl( {\\mathcal M}_{f,C} , {\\mathcal M}_f \\bigr) \\leq 1$$ Equality holds if and only if $f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] = \\delta C$ for some positive integer $\\delta $ and $K_X \\cdot C = -2$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Using [@Ko] Proposition II.3.7, we may deform $f$ so that the image of the resulting morphism avoids a point on $C$. It follows that ${\\mathcal M}_{f,C} \\subsetneq {\\mathcal M}_f$, and hence, ${\\mathcal M}_{f,C}$ being closed, that it has codimension at least one.\n\nTo prove the second assertion, note that any morphism $\\phi : R \\rightarrow X$ from a rational tree with image contained in $C$ is such that $\\phi ^* {\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated. This is obvious on each irreducible component of $R$: the morphism factors through the normalization of $C$ and a multiple cover, and under the normalization the pull-back of ${\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated. Thus $\\phi ^* {\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on each component of $R$, and hence it is globally generated on $R$.\n\nLet $\\Gamma $ be the dual graph of some morphism in ${\\mathcal M}_f$. Let ${\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma $ be the subscheme of ${\\mathcal M}_f$ consisting of morphisms with dual graph $\\Gamma $; then $$\\label{disestu}\n{\\rm codim} \\bigl( {\\mathcal M}_{f,C} \\cap {\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma , {\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma \\bigr) \\geq 1$$\n\nIndeed, let $n$ be the number of vertices of $\\Gamma $ and consider the scheme $\\widetilde {\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma $: $$ { [M]{}\\_[0,n]{} ( X, f\\_\\*\\[[P]{}\\^1\\] ) |\n\n  --------------------------------------------------- --\n  $[g] \\in {\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma  $ and the points   \n  $p_1$, \u2026, $p_n$ lie in different                    \n  components of $K$                                   \n  --------------------------------------------------- --\n\n. } $$\n\nClearly there is a surjective morphism $\\widetilde {\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma $, and let $$\\widetilde {\\mathcal M}_{f,C} ^\\Gamma := \\left( {\\mathcal M}_{f,C} \\cap {\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma \\right) \n\\times _{{\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma }\\widetilde {\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma$$ Let $g : K \\rightarrow X$ represent a morphism in $\\widetilde {\\mathcal M}_{f,C} ^\\Gamma $; again by [@Ko] Proposition II.3.7 we may deform $g$ to miss a point of $C$, while still lying in $\\widetilde {\\mathcal M}_f ^\\Gamma $ and thus (\\[disestu\\]) follows.\n\nSuppose that ${\\rm codim} ({\\mathcal M}_{f,C} , {\\mathcal M}_f) = 1$. It is clear that $f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1] = \\delta C$ for some positive integer $\\delta $.\n\nUsing (\\[disestu\\]) it follows that the general morphism in every component of maximal dimension of ${\\mathcal M}_{f,C}$ has irreducible domain, and hence these components of ${\\mathcal M}_{f,C}$ are dominated by ${\\mathcal M}_{0,0} ({\\mathbb P}^1 , \\delta )$, where the morphisms are induced by composition with the normalization map $\\nu : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\longrightarrow C$. We have $\\dim {\\mathcal M}_{f,C} \\leq \\dim {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} ({\\mathbb P}^1 , \\delta ) = 2 \\delta - 2$, and also $\\dim {\\mathcal M}_f = \\left( - K_X \\cdot C \\right) \\delta - 1$. We already know (Lemma \\[immersione\\]) that $- K_X \\cdot C \\geq 2$, and hence we must have $- K_X \\cdot C = 2$ and $\\dim {\\mathcal M}_{f,C} = 2 \\delta - 2$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nSliding moves {#slittino}\n-------------\n\nThe next lemma and its corollary allow us to construct irreducible subschemes in the boundary of the spaces ${\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)}$. First, let us introduce some notation that will be used in the lemma.\n\nLet $f : \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ be a stable map of genus zero to the smooth surface $X$. Let $\\bar C_0$ be a connected subcurve, let $\\bar C_1 , \\ldots , \\bar C_\\ell $ be the connected components of the closure of $\\bar C \\setminus \\bar C_0$. Let $\\bar C_{0i}$ be the irreducible component of $\\bar C_0$ meeting $\\bar C_i$, and let $\\bar C_{i,1}$ be the irreducible component of $\\bar C_i$ meeting $\\bar C_0$ and let the intersection point of $\\bar C_{0i}$ and $\\bar C_{i,1}$ be $\\bar p_i$. Denote by $f_i$ the restriction of $f$ to $\\bar C_i$, for $i \\in \\{ 0, \\ldots , \\ell \\}$.\n\nLet $V \\subset \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,\\ell} \\bigl( X , f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1]\\bigr)  \\times \n\\left( \\bar C_1 \\times \\cdots \\times \\bar C_\\ell \\right) $ be the subscheme consisting of all points $\\bigl( [g \\,;\\, \\bar c_1 , \\ldots , \\bar c_\\ell ] \\,;\\, \n\\bar c_1 ' , \\ldots , \\bar c_\\ell '\\bigr) $, such that $g(\\bar c_i) = f (c_i ')$ and $[g \\,;\\, \\bar c_1 , \\ldots , \\bar c_\\ell ]$ is in the same irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,\\ell} \\bigl( X , f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1]\\bigr) $ as $[f \\,;\\, \\bar p_1 , \\ldots , \\bar p_\\ell ]$.\n\n\\[ovvio\\] With notation as above, assume also that a general deformation of $f_0$ is generated by global sections, $\\bar C_{0i}$ is not contracted by $f$ and $f \\bigl( \\bar C_{0i}\\bigr)  \\not \\supset f \\bigl( \\bar C_{i,1}\\bigr) $, for all $i$\u2019s. It follows that every irreducible component of $V$ containing $\\bigl( [f _0 \\,;\\, \\bar p_1 , \\ldots , \\bar p_\\ell ] \\,;\\, \n\\bar p_1 , \\ldots , \\bar p_\\ell \\bigr) $ surjects onto the irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X , f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1]\\bigr) $ containing $[f]$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Let $\\Phi $ be an irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X , f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1]\\bigr) $ containing (the stable reduction of) $[f]$. Define ${\\mathcal C}$ by the Cartesian square on the left and $\\underline {ev}$ as the composite of the maps in the diagram $$\\xymatrix { {\\mathcal C}\\ar[rr] \\ar[d] \n\\ar@/^2pc/ ^{\\underline {ev} := (ev _1 , \\ldots , ev _\\ell )} [rrrr] && \n{\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,\\ell} \\bigl( X , f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1]\\bigr) } \\ar[d] \\ar[rr] && X ^\\ell \\\\ \n\\Phi \\ar@{^{(}->} [rr] && {\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X , f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1]\\bigr) }}$$\n\nClearly, $V$ is then defined by the diagram $$\\xymatrix { V \\ar[rr] \\ar[d] ^\\iota \\ar@/_2pc/ ^{\\pi } [dd] && \n{\\left( \\bar C_1 \\times \\cdots \\times \\bar C_\\ell \\right) } \n\\ar[d] ^{(f_1, \\ldots , f_\\ell )} \\\\\n{\\mathcal C}\\ar[rr] ^{\\underline {ev} } \\ar[d] && X ^\\ell \\\\ \n\\Phi }$$ and we have $$\\xymatrix { {}\\save[]+<-78pt,0pt>*{ V \\subset W := \n{\\mathcal C}\\times \\left( \\bar C_1 \\times \\cdots \\times \\bar C_\\ell \\right) } \\restore \n\\ar[rr] ^{P} && {\\mathcal C}}$$\n\nObviously $P$ is flat and since ${\\mathcal C}\\longrightarrow \\Phi$ is flat, it follows that $W \\longrightarrow \\Phi $ is flat. The fiber of $\\pi $ at the point $[g]$ is given by $$\\pi ^{-1} \\bigl( [g] \\bigr) = \\biggl\\{ \n\\bigl( [\\tilde g \\,;\\, \\bar c_1 , \\ldots , \\bar c_\\ell ] \\,;\\, \n\\bar c_1 ' , \\ldots , \\bar c_\\ell ' \\bigr) \n~\\Bigl|~ \\tilde g (\\bar c_i) = f_i (\\bar c_i ') \\biggr\\}$$ where the stable reduction of $\\tilde g$ is $g$. If $g$ has irreducible domain, and if the image of $g$ does not contain any singular point of (the reduced scheme) $f \\bigl(  \\bar C_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_\\ell \\bigr) $, nor does it contain any component of $f\\bigl( \\bar C_i\\bigr) $, then the scheme $\\pi ^{-1} \\bigl( [g] \\bigr) $ is finite. Thanks to [@Ko] Theorem II.7.6 and Proposition II.3.7, a general deformation $g$ of $f _0 $ satisfies the previous conditions; thus the general fiber of $\\pi $ in a neighbourhood of $[f]$ is finite and hence, letting $v_0 := \\bigl( [f _0 \\,;\\, \\bar p_1 , \\ldots , \\bar p_\\ell ] \\,;\\, \n\\bar p_1  , \\ldots , \\bar p_\\ell \\bigr) $, we conclude that $\\dim _{v_0} V = \\dim \\Phi = \\dim {\\mathcal C}- \\ell $.\n\nLet $\\kappa _i \\in {\\mathcal O}_{X, f_(\\bar p_i)}$ be a local equation of $f_i \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1\\bigr) $; clearly the $\\ell $ equations $P^* ev_1 ^* (\\kappa _1 ) $, \u2026, $P^* ev_\\ell ^* (\\kappa _\\ell )$ define $V$ near $v_0$. Since $\\dim V = \\dim {\\mathcal C}- \\ell $, it follows that ${\\mathcal O}_{V, v_0}$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ${\\mathcal O}_{W , v_0}-$module. Using [@EGA4] Proposition 6.1.5, we deduce that ${\\mathcal O}_{V, v_0}$ is a flat ${\\mathcal O}_{\\Phi , [f _0 ]}-$module, and the result follows. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[**Construction.**]{} Suppose $f: \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ is a stable map, and suppose $\\bar C = \\bar C _0 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_\\ell $, where $\\bar C_i$ is a connected union of components for all $i$\u2019s, such that ${\\rm H}^1 \\bigl( \\bar C_0 , f^* {\\mathcal T}_X|_{\\bar C_0} \\bigr) = 0$ and all the irreducible components of $\\bar C_0$ meeting $\\bar C_i$ are not contracted by $f$ and the image of the component of $\\bar C_0$ meeting $\\bar C_i$ does not contain the image of the corresponding component of $\\bar C_i$ for all $i$\u2019s (this is the same condition required in Lemma \\[ovvio\\]).\n\nWe construct an irreducible subscheme ${\\rm Sl} _f (\\bar C_0)$ of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X , f_* [\\bar C] \\bigr) $, consisting of morphisms $g : \\bar C' \\rightarrow X$ with the following properties:\n\n-   there is a decomposition $\\bar C' = \\bar C_0' \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_\\ell '$, where $\\bar C_i'$ is a connected subcurve;\n\n-   there are isomorphisms $g|_{\\bar C_i'} \\simeq f|_{\\bar C_i}$;\n\n-   there is a morphism $res : {\\rm Sl} _f (\\bar C_0) \\rightarrow \n    \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X , f_* [\\bar C_0] \\bigr)$, which is surjective on the irreducible component containing $f|_{\\bar C_0}$;\n\n-   there are morphisms $a_i : {\\rm Sl} _f (\\bar C_0) \\rightarrow \\bar C_i$, for $i \\in \\{ 1 , \\ldots , \\ell \\}$.\n\nLet $\\bar p_i \\in \\bar C_0$ be the node between $\\bar C_0$ and $\\bar C_i$ and $f_i := f|_{\\bar C_i}$; by Lemma \\[ovvio\\] we may find an irreducible subscheme $V \\subset \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,\\ell} \\bigl( X , f _* [\\bar C_0] \\bigr) \\times _{X ^\\ell } \n\\bigl( \\bar C_1 \\times \\ldots \\times \\bar C_\\ell \\bigr)$ and a morphism $V \\rightarrow \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X , f _* [\\bar C_0] \\bigr)$ which is surjective onto the irreducible component containing $f_0$.\n\nIdentify $\\bar C_i$ with $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,1} \\bigl( \\bar C_i , [\\bar C_i] \\bigr)$; thus we may write $$V \\subset \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,\\ell} \\bigl( X , f _* [\\bar C_0] \\bigr) \\times _{X ^\\ell } \n\\Bigl( \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,1} \\bigl( \\bar C_1 , [\\bar C_1] \\bigr) \\times \\ldots \n\\times \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,1} \\bigl( \\bar C_\\ell , [\\bar C_\\ell] \\bigr) \\Bigr)$$ Let $M_i \\subset \\bar C_0 \\times P$ be the closed subscheme with closed points of the form $\\bigl( \\bar c_{0i} \\,;\\, [g \\,;\\, \\bar c_{01} , \\ldots , \\bar c_{0\\ell} ] \n\\,;\\, \\bar c_1 , \\ldots , \\bar c_\\ell \\bigr)$. Let $N_i \\subset \\bar C_i \\times P'$ be the closed subscheme with closed points of the form $\\bigl( \\bar c_i \\,;\\, [g \\,;\\, \\bar c_{01} , \\ldots , \\bar c_{0\\ell} ] \n\\,;\\, \\bar c_1 , \\ldots , \\bar c_\\ell \\bigr)$. It is clear that projection onto the $P'$ factor induces isomorphisms $M_i \\simeq P'$ and $N_i \\simeq P'$, and that $M_i \\cap M_j = \\emptyset $ for all $i \\neq j$.\n\nConstruct the scheme $\\bar {\\mathcal C}$: glue to $\\bar C_0 \\times P'$ the schemes $\\bar C_i \\times P'$ along the subschemes $M_i \\simeq N_i$, where the isomorphisms are the ones induced by projection onto the factor $P'$. By construction, there is a morphism $\\bar {\\mathcal C}\\longrightarrow P'$, whose fiber over the point $\\bar c = \\bigl( [g \\,;\\, \\bar c_{01} , \\ldots , \\bar c_{0\\ell} ] \\,;\\, \n\\bar c_1 , \\ldots , \\bar c_\\ell \\bigr)$ is the curve $\\bar {\\mathcal C}_{\\bar c}$ obtained by the nodal union of $\\bar C_0$ and $\\bar C_i$, for all $i$\u2019s, where the nodes of $\\bar {\\mathcal C}_{\\bar c}$ are at the points $\\bar c_{0i} \\in \\bar C_0$ and $\\bar c_i \\in \\bar C_{i,1} \\subset \\bar C_i$.\n\nThe morphism $\\bar {\\mathcal C}\\rightarrow P'$ is flat on all irreducible components of $P'$ (remember that $P'$ is smooth) thanks to Theorem III.9.9 of [@Ha], since all fibers $\\bar {\\mathcal C}_{\\bar c}$ have geometric genus zero. Thus $\\bar {\\mathcal C}\\rightarrow P'$ is a family of connected nodal projective curves of arithmetic genus zero.\n\nA typical application of this construction can be found in the proof of Theorem \\[maschera\\] as well as in many of the later proofs.\n\nDivisors of Small Degree: the Picard Lattice\n============================================\n\nThe Nef Cone\n------------\n\nWe collect here some results on the nef cone of a del Pezzo surface. We prove a \u201cnumerical\u201d decomposition of any nef divisor on a del Pezzo surface in Corollary \\[maquale\\]. In the later sections we will show how to realize geometrically this decomposition.\n\nLet $X _\\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\\delta$. Suppose that $X_\\delta \\neq {\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$. We call an integral basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\}$ of ${\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$ a [standard basis]{} if there is a presentation $b: X_\\delta \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^2$ of $X_\\delta $ as the blow up of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ at $\\delta $ points such that $\\ell $ is the pull-back of the class of a line and the $e_i$\u2019s are the exceptional divisors of $b$.\n\n\\[dispari\\] Let $C \\subset X$ be an integral curve of canonical degree -1 on the smooth surface $X$. Then $C^2$ is odd and it is at least -1.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} This is immediate from the adjunction formula: $$\\begin{array} {c}\nC^2 + K_X \\cdot C = 2 p_a(C) - 2 \\hspace{20pt} \\Longrightarrow \n\\hspace{20pt} C^2 = 2 p_a(C) - 1 \\geq -1 \n\\end{array}$$ The lemma is proved. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[meno\\] Let $C \\subset X$ be a curve of canonical degree -1 on a del Pezzo surface of degree $d$. Either $C$ is a $(-1)-$curve, or $d=1$ and the divisor class of $C$ is $-K_X$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Note that since $-K_X$ is ample, a curve of canonical degree $-1$ must be integral. If $X \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$, all divisor classes on $X$ have even canonical degree, thus we may exclude this case. Let $\\rho := C^2$ and $\\delta = 9-d$; by the previous lemma we know that $\\rho \\geq -1$ and it is odd. Moreover, if $\\rho = -1$ then $C$ is a $(-1)-$curve; suppose therefore that $\\rho \\geq 1$. By [@Ma] Proposition IV.25.1 we may find a standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\}$ of the Picard group of $X$. If we write $C = a\\ell - b_1 e_1 - \\ldots - b_\\delta e_\\delta $, we have $$\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {r@{ ~=~ }l} \\displaystyle\n3a - \\sum _{i=1} ^\\delta b_i & 1 \\\\[15pt] \\displaystyle\na^2 - \\sum _{i=1} ^\\delta b_i ^2 & \\rho \n\\end{array} \\right.$$ and these equations are easily seen to be equivalent to the following: $$\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl} \\displaystyle\n3a - \\sum _{i=1} ^8 b_i & = & 1 \\\\[7pt] \\displaystyle\n\\sum _{i=1} ^8 \\bigl( a - 2b_i - 1 \\bigr) ^2 & = & \n4 \\bigl( 1 - \\rho \\bigr) \\\\[7pt] \n\\displaystyle b_i & = & 0 \\hspace{20pt} i \\geq \\delta +1\n\\end{array} \\right.$$\n\nWe deduce that $\\rho \\leq 1$, and hence $\\rho = 1$. We conclude that $a - 2b_i - 1 = 0$ for all $i$\u2019s and hence $\\bigl( a \\,;\\, b_1 , \\ldots , b_8 \\bigr) = \n\\bigl( 2b+1 \\,;\\, b , \\ldots , b \\bigr)$ and $3a - \\sum b_i = 1$. Therefore $b=1$, $\\delta = 8$ and the divisor class of $C$ is $\\bigl( 3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_8 \\bigr) = -K_X$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nWe need a criterion to determine which classes are nef on any del Pezzo surface $X$. This is immediate in the cases of del Pezzo surfaces of degree 9 and 8. If the degree is 9, then $X$ is isomorphic to ${\\mathbb P}^2$. The non-negative multiples of the class of a line are the only nef divisors, and the only ample divisors are the positive such multiples. If the degree of the del Pezzo surface is 8, then there are two cases: either $X$ is isomorphic to ${\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$ or $X$ is isomorphic to the blow-up of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ at one point.\n\nIf $X \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$, then any divisor class $C$ on $X$ is of the form $a_1 F_1 + a_2 F_2$, where $F_1$ and $F_2$ are the two divisor classes of $\\{p\\} \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$ and ${\\mathbb P}^1 \\times \\{p\\}$ and $a_1$ and $a_2$ are integers. Then $C$ is nef if and only if $a_1 , a_2 \\geq 0$, while $C$ is ample if and only if $a_1 , a_2 > 0$.\n\nIf $X \\simeq Bl _p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$, then any divisor class $C$ on $X$ is of the form $a \\ell - b e$, where $\\ell $ is the pull-back of the divisor class of a line in ${\\mathbb P}^2$, while $e$ is the exceptional divisor. The divisor class $C$ is nef if and only if $a\\geq b \\geq 0$, while $C$ is ample if and only if $a > b > 0$.\n\nThe remaining cases are dealt with in the next Proposition.\n\n\\[clane\\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $d \\leq 7$. A divisor class $C \\in {\\rm Pic} (X)$ is nef (respectively ample) if and only if $C \\cdot L \\geq 0$ (respectively $C \\cdot L > 0$) for all $(-1)-$curves $L \\subset X$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} The necessity of the conditions is obvious. To establish the sufficiency, we only need to prove the result for nef classes, since the ample classes are precisely the ones in the interior of the nef cone. Proceed by induction on $r := 9 - d$.\n\nIf $r=2$ write $C = a \\ell - b_1 e_1 - b_2 e_2$, in some standard basis $\\{\\ell , e_1 , e_2 \\}$. By assumption we know that $b_i \\geq 0$ and $a \\geq b_1 + b_2$. Thus we can write $$C = \\bigl( a - b_1 - b_2 \\bigr) \\ell + \nb_1 \\bigl( \\ell - e_1 \\bigr) + b_2 \\bigl( \\ell - e_2 \\bigr)$$ which shows that $C$ is a non-negative combination of nef classes.\n\nSuppose $r>2$. Let $n := \\min \\bigl\\{ C \\cdot L ~;~ \nL \\subset X \\text{ is a $(-1)-$curve} \\bigr\\}$; by assumption we know that $n \\geq 0$. Let $\\tilde C := C + nK_X$; for any $(-1)-$curve $L \\subset X$ we have $\\tilde C \\cdot L = C \\cdot L -n \\geq 0$, and there is a $(-1)-$curve $L'$ such that $\\tilde C \\cdot L' = 0$, by the definition of $n$.\n\nLet $b : X \\rightarrow X'$ be the contraction of the curve $L'$ and note that $X'$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-(r-1)$. We have $\\tilde C = b^* b_* \\tilde C - r L'$ and $$0 = \\tilde C \\cdot L' = b^* b_* \\tilde C \\cdot L' - r L' \\cdot L' \n= b_* \\tilde C \\cdot b_* L' + r = r$$ and therefore $\\tilde C = b^*b_*\\tilde C$ is the pull-back of the divisor class $C' := b_* \\tilde C$ on $X'$. Since all $(-1)-$curves on $X'$ are images of $(-1)-$curves on $X$, by induction we know that $C'$ is nef, and thus $\\tilde C$ is nef. Hence $C = \\tilde C + n (-K_X)$ is a non-negative linear combination of nef divisors, and thus $C$ is nef. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nFrom this Proposition we deduce immediately the following Corollary.\n\n\\[maquale\\] Let $X_\\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9 - \\delta \\leq 8$. Let $D \\in {\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$ be a nef divisor. Then we can find\n\n-   non-negative integers $n_2 , \\ldots , n_\\delta $;\n\n-   a sequence of contraction of $(-1)-$curves $$\\xymatrix { X_\\delta \\ar[r] & X_{\\delta -1} \\ar[r] & {\\cdots} \\ar[r] & \n    X_2 \\ar[r] & X_1 } ;$$\n\n-   a nef divisor $D' \\in {\\rm Pic} (X_1)$;\n\nsuch that $$D = n_\\delta (-K_{X_\\delta }) + n_{\\delta -1} (-K_{X_{\\delta -1}}) + \n\\ldots + n_2 (-K_{X_2}) + D'$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We proceed by induction on $\\delta $. If $\\delta \\leq 1$, there is nothing to prove.\n\nSuppose that $\\delta \\geq 2$ and let $n := \\min \\bigl\\{ L \\cdot D ~|~ \nL \\subset X {\\text{ a $(-1)-$curve} } \\} $. By assumption we have $n \\geq 0$. Let $\\bar D := D + n K_{X_\\delta}$; for every $(-1)-$curve $L \\subset X_\\delta $ we have $$\\bar D \\cdot L = D \\cdot L + n K_{X_\\delta} \\cdot L  \\geq n - n = 0$$\n\nThus thanks to the previous Proposition, $\\bar D$ is nef. By construction there is a $(-1)-$curve $L_0 \\subset X$ such that $\\bar D \\cdot L_0 = 0$. Thus $\\bar D$ is the pull-back of a nef divisor on the del Pezzo surface $X_{\\delta -1}$ obtained by contracting $L_0$. By induction, we have a sequence of contractions $$\\xymatrix { X_{\\delta -1} \\ar[r] & {\\cdots} \\ar[r] & X_2 \\ar[r] & X_1 } ,$$ non-negative integers $n_2$,\u2026, $n_{\\delta - 1}$ and a nef divisor $D'$ on $X_1$ such that we may write $\\bar D = n_{\\delta - 1} (-K_{X_{\\delta -1}}) + \\ldots \n+ n_2 (-K_{X_2}) + D'$. Let $n_\\delta := n$; with this notation we have $$D = n_\\delta (-K_{X_\\delta }) + \\bar D' = n_\\delta (-K_{X_\\delta }) + \\ldots \n+ n_2 (-K_{X_2}) + D'$$ and a sequence of contractions as in the statement of the corollary. This concludes the proof. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nFirst Cases of the Main Theorem\n-------------------------------\n\n\\[pumba\\] Let $X_\\delta$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\\delta$; then the linear system $|-K_{X_\\delta}|$ has dimension $9-\\delta$. If $\\delta = 8$, then $|-K_{X_8}|$ has a unique base-point; if $\\delta \\leq 7$, then $|-K_{X_\\delta}|$ is base-point free and if $\\delta \\leq 6$ it is very ample.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} This result is well-known (cf. [@Ma]). [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[cane\\] Let $X_\\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\\delta \\geq 3$. The scheme $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , -K_{X_\\delta} \\bigr)$ is birational to a ${\\mathbb P}^ {6-\\delta }-$bundle over $X_\\delta $; in particular, it is rational and irreducible.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} The surface $X_\\delta $ is embedded in ${\\mathbb P}^{9-\\delta}$ by the linear system $|-K_{X_\\delta}|$. A general point $[f : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X_\\delta]$ of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , -K_{X_\\delta} \\bigr)$ corresponds to a morphism whose image has a unique singular point $p \\in X_\\delta $ and is uniquely determined by the hyperplane containing $f({\\mathbb P}^1)$. Such a hyperplane is tangent to $X_\\delta $ at $p$. The hyperplanes in ${\\mathbb P}^{9-\\delta}$ intersecting $X_\\delta $ in a curve with a singular point at $p$ are precisely the hyperplanes containing the tangent plane to $X_\\delta $ at $p$.\n\nWe thus have a rational morphism $$\\xymatrix {\\pi : \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , -K_{X_\\delta} \\bigr) \\ar@{-->} [r] & X_\\delta }$$ assigning to $[f : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X_\\delta]$ the unique singular point of $f({\\mathbb P}^1)$. The general point of the fiber of $\\pi $ over a general point $p \\in X_\\delta $ corresponds to a hyperplane containing the tangent plane to $X_\\delta$ at $p$. The space of such hyperplanes is isomorphic to ${\\mathbb P}^{6-\\delta}$. Since $X_\\delta $ is irreducible and the general fiber of $\\pi$ is also, it follows that $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , -K_{X_\\delta} \\bigr)$ is irreducible. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[*Remark*]{}. The schemes $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X_\\delta , -K_X \\bigr)$ are not irreducible if $X_\\delta$ is the blow-up of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ at $\\delta = 1$ or 2 points. Indeed, let $X_1$ be the blow-up of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ at one point $p$; there are two morphisms $$\\xymatrix { & X_1 \\ar[dl] _{\\pi _1} \\ar[dr] ^{\\pi_2} \n{}\\save[]+<33pt,2pt>*{\\subset {\\mathbb P}^2 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1} \\restore \\\\ \n{\\mathbb P}^2 && {\\mathbb P}^1 }$$ and the divisor class of a fiber of $\\pi _2$ is $\\ell - e$, where $\\ell $ is the pull-back of the class of a line in ${\\mathbb P}^2$ under $\\pi_1$ and $e$ is the exceptional fiber of $\\pi_1$. It is clear that the space of morphisms from a curve with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{} \n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ where $\\bar C_1$ is a (rational) triple cover of a fiber of $\\pi_2$ and $\\bar C_2$ is a double cover of the exceptional fiber of $\\pi_1$ has dimension at least 7: there are 4 parameters for the triple cover of $\\ell - e$, 1 for the choice of fiber of $\\pi_2$ and 2 for the double cover of $e$.\n\nSimilarly, let $X_2$ be the blow-up of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ at two distinct points $p,q$ and let $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , e_2 \\}$ be a standard basis. It is clear that the space of morphisms from a curve with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar D$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{} \n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ where $\\bar C_i$ is a double cover of the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_i$ and $\\bar D$ is a triple cover of the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $\\ell - e_1 - e_2$ has dimension at least 8.\n\nIn both these cases it is easy to check (Proposition \\[grafico\\]) that in fact the dimension of the components described is precisely the indicated lower bound.\n\nIt is also possible to show that these are the only irreducible components of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X , -K_X \\bigr)$ besides the closure of ${\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X , -K_X \\bigr)$, when $X$ is a del Pezzo surface.\n\n\\[cadute\\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree two and let $K_X$ be the canonical divisor of $X$. The scheme $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X , -K_X \\bigr)$ is isomorphic to a smooth plane quartic.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We know (Lemma \\[pumba\\]) that there is a morphism $\\kappa : X \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^2$ associated to the anticanonical sheaf and since $(-K_X)^2 = 2$ (and $-K_X$ is ample), this morphism is finite of degree two. Let $R \\subset {\\mathbb P}^2$ be the branch curve, and let $2r$ be its degree; denote by $\\bar R \\subset X$ the ramification divisor. Let ${\\mathcal O}_X (1) = \\kappa ^* {\\mathcal O}_{{\\mathbb P}^2} (1) \\simeq \n{\\mathcal O}_X (-K_X)$; then using the identity $K_X = \\kappa ^* K_{{\\mathbb P}^2} + \\bar R$, we have ${\\mathcal O}_X (-1) \\simeq {\\mathcal O}_X (-3+r)$ and we deduce that $r=2$. Thus $R$ is a plane quartic. It is smooth since the morphism $\\kappa $ has degree two and $X$ is smooth.\n\nThe general point of every irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X , -K_X \\bigr)$ corresponds to a singular divisor in $|-K_X|$. These in turn are parameterized by the tangent lines to the ramification curve $R$ of $\\kappa $. Let $p \\in R$ be a point and let $L_p$ be the tangent line to $R$ at $p$. It is easy to convince oneself that by associating to each point $p$ in $R$ the morphism which is the normalization of $\\kappa ^{-1} (L_p)$ at $\\kappa ^{-1} (p)$, gives an isomorphism $R \\simeq \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X , -K_X \\bigr)$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nWe now deal with the three spaces $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,-nK \\bigr)$ for $n \\in \\{ 1,2,3 \\}$, where $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree one.\n\nLet $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one and let $K_X$ be the canonical divisor of $X$. The scheme $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X , -K_X \\bigr)$ has dimension zero and length twelve. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nThe next two results prove that $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,-2K \\bigr)$ and $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,-3K \\bigr)$ are irreducible assuming that the del Pezzo surface $X$ is general.\n\n\\[cabala\\] Let $X$ be a general del Pezzo surface of degree one and let $C$ be the closure of the set of points of $|-2K_X|$ corresponding to reduced curves whose normalization is irreducible and of genus zero. Then $C$ is a smooth irreducible curve.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} The linear system associated to the line bundle ${\\mathcal O}_X(-2K_X)$ on the del Pezzo surface of degree one is base-point free and determines a finite morphism $\\kappa $ of degree two to ${\\mathbb P}^3$, whose image is a quadric cone $Q$. The image $R$ of the ramification divisor of $\\kappa $ is a smooth canonically embedded curve of genus four which does not contain the vertex of the cone. Clearly, the vertex $v$ of $Q$ is an isolated ramification point, since $X$ is smooth.\n\nLet $C \\subset |-2K_X| \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^3$ be the closure of the set of all points corresponding to integral curves whose normalization is irreducible and of genus zero. In order to prove that $C$ is smooth and irreducible, we will first prove it is connected, and then that it is smooth.\n\nSince the arithmetic genus of a divisor $D$ in $|-2K_X|$ is two, in order for $D$ to be integral and have geometric genus zero, $D$ must be tangent to the ramification divisor $\\bar R$ at two points. If we translate this in terms of the image of the morphism $\\kappa $, this implies that the plane $P$ corresponding to the divisor $D$ intersects $R$ along a divisor of the form $2(p) + 2(q) + (r) + (s)$, for some points $p,q,r,s \\in R$. The condition that $D$ should be integral translates to the requirement that the plane $P$ should not contain a line of $Q$. If this happens, then we have $P \\cap R = 2 \\bigl( (p)+ (q) + (r) \\bigr)$ and $2 \\bigl( (p) + (q) + (r) \\bigr)$ is the (scheme-theoretic) fiber of the projection $p|_R$ away from the vertex $v$ (alternatively, $(p) + (q) + (r)$ is the scheme-theoretic intersection of a line on $Q$ with $R$).\n\nConsider the smooth surface $R \\times R$ and the two projection morphisms $$\\xymatrix { & R \\times R \\ar[dl] _{\\pi _1} \\ar[dr] ^{\\pi _2} \\\\\nR && R }$$ where $\\pi _1$ is the projection onto the first factor and $\\pi _2$ onto the second. Denote by $\\Delta \\subset R\\times R$ the diagonal. Let ${\\mathcal F}:= {\\mathcal O}_{R \\times R} \\bigl( \\pi _2 ^* K_R - 2 \\Delta \\bigr)$ be a sheaf on $R \\times R$ and let ${\\mathcal E}:= (\\pi _1) _* {\\mathcal F}$ be a sheaf on $R$.\n\nClearly ${\\mathcal F}$ is invertible. The sheaf ${\\mathcal E}$ is locally free of rank two. To prove this, we compute for any $p \\in R$ $$h^0 \\bigl( p , {\\mathcal F}\\bigr) := \n\\dim {\\rm H}^0 \\Bigl( (\\pi _1) ^{-1} (p) , {\\mathcal F}|_{(\\pi _1) ^{-1} (p)} \\Bigr) \n= \\dim {\\rm H}^0 \\Bigl( R , {\\mathcal O}_R \\bigl( K_R - 2(p) \\bigr) \\Bigr)$$ We know that the last dimension is at least two, since there is a pencil of planes in ${\\mathbb P}^3$ containing the tangent line to $R$ at $p$. By Riemann-Roch it follows that the sheaf ${\\mathcal O}_R \\bigl( K_R - 2(p) \\bigr)$ has non-vanishing first cohomology group. By Clifford\u2019s Theorem ([@Ha] Theorem IV.5.4) the dimension of ${\\rm H}^0 \\Bigl( R , {\\mathcal O}_R \\bigl( K_R - 2(p) \\bigr) \\Bigr)$ is at most 3 and since $R$ is not hyperelliptic (because it is a canonical curve) and obviously $K_R - 2(p)$ is not 0 nor $K_R$, it follows that $h^0 \\bigl( p , {\\mathcal F}\\bigr) = 2$ for all $p \\in R$.\n\nWe may now apply the first part of Grauert\u2019s Theorem ([@Ha] Corollary III.12.9) to conclude that ${\\mathcal E}= (\\pi _1) _* {\\mathcal F}$ is locally free and the second part of the same theorem to conclude that the natural morphism of sheaves on $R \\times R$ $$\\xymatrix { \\pi _1 ^* {\\mathcal E}= \\pi _1 ^* \\bigl( (\\pi _1 )_* {\\mathcal F}\\bigr) \n\\ar[r] & {\\mathcal F}}$$ is surjective. In turn, this implies ([@Ha] Proposition II.7.12) that there is a commutative diagram $$\\xymatrix { R \\times R \\ar[r] ^{\\varphi } \\ar[d] _{\\pi _1} & \n{\\mathbb P}\\bigl( {\\mathcal E}\\bigr) \\ar[d] ^{\\pi } \\\\ \nR  \\ar[r] ^{id} & R }$$\n\nThe morphism $\\varphi $ is finite of degree four. Let $\\bar C \\subset R \\times R$ be the ramification divisor of $\\varphi $ and let $F \\subset R \\times R$ be the closure of the set of points $\\bigl\\{ (p,q) ~ \\bigl| ~ p_v (p) = p_v (q) ~,~ p \\neq q \\bigr\\}$ (remember that $p_v$ is the projection away from the cone vertex $v$ of $Q$). Note that $\\bar C$ does not contain any fiber of $\\pi $, since all the induced morphisms $\\varphi _p : R_p := (\\pi _1)^{-1} (p) \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^1 _p := \\pi ^{-1} (p)$ are ramified covers of degree 4. Moreover we have $R_p \\cdot \\bar C = 14$, since for all $p$ such intersection represents the ramification divisor of the morphism $\\varphi _p$ which has degree four, and we may therefore compute the intersection using the Hurwitz formula.\n\nBy definition, $\\bar C$ is the set of pairs $(p,q)$ such that if we denote by $P _p ^q$ the plane containing $q$ and the tangent line to $R$ at $p$ (or the osculating plane to $R$ at $p$, if $p=q$), then we have $P_p ^q \\cap R \\geq 2\\bigl( (p) + (q) \\bigr)$.\n\nWe clearly have $F \\subset \\bar C$, since if $(p,q) \\in F$ then $P_p ^q $ is in fact the tangent plane to $Q$ at $p$ and thus $P_p ^q \\cap R = 2 \\bigl( (p) + (q) + (r) \\bigr) \\geq 2 \\bigl( (p) + (q) \\bigr)$.\n\nBy definition we have $C \\subset \\bar C$ and no component of $C$ is also a component of $F$, since the plane corresponding to a point in $F$ intersects $Q$ in a non-reduced curve. It is also immediate to check that in fact $C$ is the residual curve to $F$ in $\\bar C$, that is we have $\\bar C = C \\cup F$.\n\nWe now prove that the residual curve $C$ to $F$ in $\\bar C$ is connected and (for general $X$) smooth.\n\nThe connectedness of $C$ is a consequence of a theorem of Kouvidakis: the divisor class of $C$ in $R\\times R$ is $4 (F_1 + F_2) - \\Delta $, where $\\Delta $ is the diagonal and the $F_i$\u2019s are the fibers of the two projections to $R$. Thanks to [@La] Example 1.5.13, we know that $C$ is an ample divisor. In particular, $C$ is connected.\n\nTo prove the smoothness of $C$, we will show that for any point $(p,q) \\in C$ the two numbers $mult _{(p,q)} \\Bigl( \\bigl( \\pi _1 \\bigl|_C \\bigr) ^{-1} \\bigl( p \\bigr) \\Bigr)$ and $mult _{(p,q)} \\Bigl( \\bigl( \\pi _2 \\bigl|_C \\bigr) ^{-1} \\bigl( q \\bigr) \\Bigr)$ cannot both be at least two. Since this would be the case if $(p,q)$ were a singular point, the theorem follows.\n\nLet $p \\in R$ and let $(p')+(p'')$ be the divisor obtained by intersecting the curve $R$ with the line on $Q$ through $p$; we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Bigl( \\pi _1 \\bigl|_{\\bar C} \\Bigr) ^{-1} \\bigl( p \\bigr) & \\hspace{-5pt} = & \\hspace{-7pt}\n\\sum _{q \\in R_p} \\Bigl( mult _q \\bigl( P_p ^q \\cap R \\bigr) - 1 \\Bigr) \n\\bigl( p , q \\bigr) - 2 \\bigl( p , p \\bigr) \\\\\n\\Bigl( \\pi _1 \\bigl|_F \\Bigr) ^{-1} \\bigl( p \\bigr) & \\hspace{-5pt} = & \\hspace{-7pt}\n\\bigl( p , p' \\bigr) + \\bigl( p , p'' \\bigr) \\\\\n\\Bigl( \\pi _1 \\bigl|_C \\Bigr) ^{-1} \\bigl( p \\bigr) & \\hspace{-5pt} = & \\hspace{-7pt}\n\\sum _{q \\in R_p} \\Bigl( mult _q \\bigl( P_p ^q \\cap R \\bigr) - 1 \\Bigr) \\bigl( p , q \\bigr) \n- \\bigl( p , p' \\bigr) - \\bigl( p , p'' \\bigr) - 2 \\bigl( p , p \\bigr) \\end{aligned}$$ and thus we deduce that $$\\begin{aligned}\nRam \\Bigl( \\pi _1 \\bigl|_C \\Bigr) & = & \nRam \\Bigl( \\pi _1 \\bigl|_{\\bar C} \\Bigr) \n- Ram \\Bigl( \\pi _1 \\bigl|_F \\Bigr) = \\\\[7pt]\n& = & \\sum _{p \\in R} \\left( \\sum _{q \\in R_p \\cap \\bar C} \n\\Bigl( mult _q \\bigl( P_p ^q \\cap R \\bigr) - 2 \\Bigr) \\bigl( p,q \\bigr) \\right) - \\\\[7pt]\n& & ~~~- \n\\Bigl( \\bigl( p_1 , p_1' \\bigr) + \\ldots + \\bigl( p_{12} , p_{12}' \\bigr) \\Bigr) \\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{p_i} \\cap F = 2 \\bigl( p_i , p_i' \\bigr) + \\bigl( p_i , p_i \\bigr)$ (equivalently, the line $L_i$ on $Q$ containing $p_i$ is tangent to the image of the ramification divisor of $\\kappa $ at $p_i' \\neq p_i$).\n\nWe conclude that $\\bigl( p , q \\bigr) \\in C$ is a ramification point for $\\pi _1 \\bigl| _C$ if and only if $P_p^q \\cap R = 2 (p) + 3(q) + (r)$, for some $r \\in R$. In view of this asymmetry between $p$ and $q$, we deduce that $\\bigl( p , q \\bigr)$ can be a ramification for both projections $\\pi _1 \\bigl| _C$ and $\\pi _2 \\bigl| _C$ if and only if $P_p^q \\cap R = 3 (p) + 3(q)$. If $p$ and $q$ are on the same line on $Q$, then the inverse image under $\\kappa $ of that line would be a cuspidal divisor in $|-K_X|$, which we are excluding. We will now prove that the dimension of the space of smooth canonically embedded curves $R$ of arithmetic genus four lying on a singular quadric and having a plane $P$ transverse to the quadric cone and intersecting $R$ along a divisor of the form $3 \\bigl( (p) + (q) \\bigr)$ is at most seven, and thus for the general del Pezzo surface of degree one, this configuration does not happen. This will conclude the proof.\n\nThis is simply a dimension count: using automorphisms of ${\\mathbb P}^3$ we may assume that the plane $P$ has equation $X_3 = 0$ and that the quadric cone has equations $X_0 X_1 = X_2 ^2$. We may also assume that $p$ and $q$ have coordinates $[1,0,0,0]$ and $[0,1,0,0]$ respectively. Note that we still have a two-dimensional group of automorphisms (with one generator corresponding to rescaling the coordinate $X_3$, and the other corresponding to multiplying the coordinate $X_0$ by a non-zero scalar and the coordinate $X_1$ by its inverse). With these choices, the quadric cone is completely determined, as well as the plane $P$. We still need to compute how many parameters are accounted for by the cubic intersecting the cone in $R$.\n\nFor this last computation, we consider the short exact sequences of sheaves $$\\xymatrix @R=10pt { \n0 \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal O}_{{\\mathbb P}^3} \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal O}_{{\\mathbb P}^3} (2) \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal O}_Q (2) \\ar[r] & 0 \\\\\n0 \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal O}_Q (2) \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal O}_Q (3) \\ar[r] & {\\mathcal O}_R (3) \\ar[r] & 0 }$$\n\nThe first sequence implies that the cohomology groups ${\\rm H} ^i \\bigl( Q , {\\mathcal O}_Q (2) \\bigr)$ are zero for $i \\geq 1$; therefore, from the second sequence we deduce that the dimension of the space of cubics vanishing on $R$ is nine. Subtracting the two-dimensional automorphism group leaves us with a family of dimension seven. Since there is a family of dimension eight of del Pezzo surfaces of degree one, we conclude. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nIn order to prove a similar result for the divisor class $-3K_X$, we first establish a lemma.\n\n\\[pizzica\\] Let $X$ be a smooth projective surface and let $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K_3$ be three distinct nodal rational divisors of anticanonical degree one meeting at a point $p \\in X$. Suppose that two of the components meet transversely at $p$. Let $f : \\bar C := \\bar K_1 \\cup \\bar K_2 \\cup \\bar K_3 \\cup \\bar E \n\\longrightarrow X$ be the stable map of genus zero, such that\n\n-   the morphism $f_i := f|_{\\bar K_i}$ is the normalization of $K_i$ followed by the inclusion in $X$;\n\n-   the component $\\bar E$ is contracted to the point $p \\in K_1 \\cap K_2 \\cap K_3$;\n\n-   the dual graph of the morphism $f$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}} \n    !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n    {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n    *\\cir<2pt>{}\n    !{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_3$}  \\restore}\n    - [ul]\n    *\\cir<2pt>{}\n    !{\\save +<-1pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n    - [ur]\n    *\\cir<2pt>{} \n    !{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore}\n     [dl] - [ll]\n    *\\cir<2pt>{}\n    !{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_1$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nThen the point represented by the morphism $f$ in $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , -3K_X \\bigr)$ lies in a unique irreducible component.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} The expected dimension of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , -3K_X \\bigr)$ is $-K_X \\cdot (K_1 + K_2 + K_3) - 1 = 2$. The first step of the proof consists of proving that the embedding dimension of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \\bigr)$ at $[f]$ is at most three. To prove this, it suffices to prove that ${\\rm H}^1 \\bigl( \\bar C , f^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr)$ is one-dimensional. This in turn will follow from the fact that ${\\rm H}^0 \\bigl( \\bar C , f^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr)$ has dimension six. On each irreducible component $\\bar K_i$ we have $f_i ^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\simeq {\\mathcal O}_{\\bar K_i} (2) \\oplus {\\mathcal O}_{\\bar K_i} (-1)$, where the ${\\mathcal O}_{\\bar K_i} (2)$ summand is the tangent sheaf of $\\bar K_i$. Denote by $f_E$ the restriction of $f$ to the component $\\bar E$; we have $f_E ^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\simeq {\\mathcal O}_{\\bar E} \\oplus {\\mathcal O}_{\\bar E}$. Consider the sequence $$\\label{paganini}\n\\xymatrix @C=15pt { 0 \\ar[r] & f^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\ar[r] &  \nf_1^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\oplus f_2^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\oplus f_3^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\oplus f_E^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\ar[r] & \n{\\mathcal T}_{X,p} \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{X,p} \\oplus {\\mathcal T}_{X,p} \\ar[r] & 0 }$$\n\nSince two if the $K_i$\u2019s meet transversely at $p$, it follows that in order for the global sections on the irreducible components of $\\bar C$ to glue together, it is necessary that the sections on the $\\bar K_i$\u2019s vanish at the node with $\\bar E$. Moreover, if such a condition is satisfied, clearly the sections on the components $\\bar K_i$ together with the zero section on $\\bar E$ glue to give a global section of $f^* {\\mathcal T}_X$. We deduce that ${\\rm H}^0 \\bigl( \\bar C , f^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr)$ has dimension six, and it is isomorphic to ${\\rm H} ^0 \\bigl( \\bar K_1 , {\\mathcal T}_{\\bar K_1} (-\\bar p_1) \\bigr) \\oplus \n {\\rm H} ^0 \\bigl( \\bar K_2 , {\\mathcal T}_{\\bar K_2} (-\\bar p_2) \\bigr) \\oplus \n {\\rm H} ^0 \\bigl( \\bar K_3 , {\\mathcal T}_{\\bar K_3} (-\\bar p_3) \\bigr) \\bigr)$, where $\\bar p_i \\in \\bar K_i$ is the node with $\\bar E$. From the exact sequence (\\[paganini\\]) and the fact that ${\\rm H} ^1 \\bigl( \\bar C , f_1^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\oplus f_2^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\oplus f_3^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\oplus \nf_E^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr) = 0$, we deduce that $$h^1 \\bigl( \\bar C , f^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr) = 6 - \\chi \\bigl( \\bar C , f^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr) = \n6 - (3+3+3+2) + 6 = 1$$\n\nThus the embedding dimension of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \\bigr)$ at $[f]$ is at most three, as stated above. It follows that we may write $$\\hat {{\\mathcal O}} _{[f]} \\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \\bigr) \n\\simeq k [\\![ t_1 , t_2 , t_3 ]\\!] / (g)$$\n\nWe thus deduce that all the components through $[f]$ have dimension equal to two, since there is a component of dimension two through $[f]$ and if there were also a component of dimension three or more containing $[f]$, then the embedding dimension would be more than three. Moreover, if there are two components containing $[f]$, then the singular points of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \\bigr)$ near $[f]$ must have dimension equal to one. We prove that $[f]$ is an isolated singular point, and thus we conclude that there is a unique component containing $[f]$.\n\nLet $U \\subset \\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \\bigr)$ be the open subset of morphisms $g : \\bar D \\rightarrow X$ which are immersions and birational to their image.\n\nThe subset $U$ is contained in the smooth locus of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \\bigr)$ thanks to Proposition \\[grafico\\]. Moreover $U \\cup \\bigl\\{ [f] \\bigr\\}$ is a neighbourhood of $[f]$: all the morphisms in a neighbourhood of $[f]$ must have image consisting of at most two components, since the morphisms $f_i$ have no infinitesimal deformations. It follows that there are neighbourhoods of $[f]$ such that $[f]$ is the only morphism with a contracted component. Since the image of $f$ has no cusps and any two components meet transversely, the same statement holds for all the morphisms in a neighbourhood of $[f]$. It follows that $U \\cup \\bigl\\{ [f] \\bigr\\}$ is a neighbourhood of $[f]$. Thus $[f]$ is an isolated singular point (possibly a smooth point) and since the embedding dimension of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \\bigr)$ at $[f]$ is at most three it follows that $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X , K_1 + K_2 + K_3 \\bigr)$ is locally irreducible near $[f]$, thus concluding the proof of the lemma. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[maschera\\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one such that the space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , -2K_X \\bigr)$ is irreducible and all the rational divisors in $|-K_X|$ are nodal. Let $S$ be the closure of the set of points of $|-3K_X|$ corresponding to reduced curves whose normalization is irreducible and of genus zero. Then $S$ is an irreducible surface.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Let $f : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be a morphism in $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , -3K_X \\bigr)$. Thanks to Proposition \\[rpunti\\] and Lemma \\[immersione\\], we may assume that $f$ is an immersion and that its image contains a general point $p$ of $X$. In particular it follows that $[f]$ represents a smooth point of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , -3K_X \\bigr)$. We choose the point $p$ to be an independent point (Definition \\[indip\\]).\n\nConsider the space of morphisms of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , -3K_X \\bigr)$ in the same irreducible component as $[f]$ which contain the point $p$ in their image, denote this space by $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$. It follows immediately from the dimension estimates (\\[dimdibarbi\\]) that $\\dim _{[f]} \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} (p) = 1$ and that $[f]$ is a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$. We may therefore find a smooth irreducible projective curve $B$, a normal surface $\\pi : S \\rightarrow B$ and a morphism $F : S \\rightarrow X$ such that the induced morphism $B \\rightarrow \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$ is surjective onto the component containing $[f]$. From [@Ko] Corollary II.3.5.4, it follows immediately that the morphism $F$ is dominant. We want to show that there are fibers of $\\pi$ that are reducible. This is clear, since the morphism $F^* : {\\rm Pic} (X) \\rightarrow {\\rm Num} (S)$ is injective, and ${\\rm Pic} (X)$ has rank nine, while if every fiber of $\\pi$ were a smooth rational curve, it would follow that $\\pi : S \\rightarrow B$ is a ruled surface ([@Ha] V.2) and thus that the rank of ${\\rm Num} (S)$ is two.\n\nThis implies that there must be a morphism $f_0 : \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ with reducible domain in the family of stable maps parametrized by $B$, and since all such morphisms contain the general point $p$ in their image, the same is true of the morphism $f_0$. In particular, since the point $p$ does not lie on any rational curve of anticanonical degree 1, it follows that $\\bar C$ consists of exactly two components $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$, where each $\\bar C_i$ is irreducible and we may assume that $f_0 (\\bar C_1)$ has anticanonical degree one and $f_0 (\\bar C_2)$ has anticanonical degree two. Denote by $C_i$ the image of $\\bar C_i$. It also follows from the definition of an independent point and Proposition \\[grafico\\] that $f_0$ represents a smooth point of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , -3K_X \\bigr)$.\n\nThere are two possibilities for the divisor $C_1$: it is either a $(-1)-$curve (there are 240 such divisors on $X$), or it is rational curve in the anticanonical divisor class (there are 12 such divisors on $X$). We will prove that we may assume that $C_1$ is a rational divisor in the anticanonical linear system.\n\nSuppose that $C_1$ is a $(-1)-$curve and let $C_1' \\subset X$ be the $(-1)-$curve such that $C_1 + C_1' = -2K_X$. The curve $C_2$ is thus an integral curve in the linear system $-3K_X - C_1 = -K_X - C_1'$. It follows that $C_2$ is in the anticanonical linear system on the del Pezzo surface of degree two obtained by contracting $C_1'$.\n\nThe morphism $\\varphi : X \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^2$ associated to the divisor $C_2$ is the contraction of the $(-1)-$curve $C_1'$ followed by the degree two morphism to ${\\mathbb P}^2$ induced by the anticanonical divisor on the resulting surface $X'$. In the plane ${\\mathbb P}^2$ we therefore have\n\n-   the image of the ramification curve $R$, which is a smooth plane quartic;\n\n-   the image of $C_1'$, which is a point $q$;\n\n-   the image of $C_1$, which is a plane quartic with a triple point at $q$ and is everywhere tangent to $\\varphi (R)$;\n\n-   the image of $C_2$, which is a tangent line to $\\varphi (R)$.\n\nTo be precise, the ramification divisor of $\\varphi$ consists of two disjoint components, one is the $(-1)-$curve $C_1'$, whose image is the point $q$, and the other is a curve whose image is a smooth plane quartic.\n\nConsider the morphism $$\\xymatrix { {\\rm Sl}_{f_0} (\\bar C_2) \\ar[r] ^{\\hspace{10pt}a} & \\bar C_1 }$$ and let $\\bar p \\in \\bar C_1$ be one of the (three) points mapping to the intersection $C_1 \\cap C_1'$ (and in particular, $\\varphi \\bigl( f_0 (\\bar p) \\bigr) = q$). Let $f_1$ be a morphism in the fiber of $a$ above the point $\\bar p$. The image of $f_1$ consists of the divisor $\\varphi (C_1)$ together with one of the tangent lines $L$ to $\\varphi (R)$ containing the point $q$.\n\nThe domain curve of $f_1$ consists of possibly a contracted component and three more non-contracted components $\\bar C_1$ mapped to $C_1$, $\\bar L$ mapped to the closure of $\\varphi ^{-1} \\bigl( L \\bigr) \\setminus C_1'$ and finally $\\bar C_1'$ mapped to the $(-1)-$curve $C_1'$. The possible dual graphs of $f_1$ are $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{} \n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L$}  \\restore} } \n\\hspace{20pt}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1'$}  \\restore}\n- [ul] -[ur] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore}\n [dl] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{} \n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nNote that in the first case $f_1$ represents a smooth point of the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X,-3K_X \\bigr)$; in the second case, we may apply Lemma \\[pizzica\\] to conclude that even if $[f_1]$ is not a smooth point, deforming it produces morphisms in the same irreducible component as $f_1$. Smoothing out the components $\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_1'$ (or $\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar E \\cup \\bar C_1'$ if there is a contracted component) we obtain a morphism which has one component (the one obtained by smoothing) mapped birationally to a rational curve in $|-2K_X|$ and another component (the component $\\bar L$, with notation as above) mapped birationally to a rational divisor in $|-K_X|$.\n\nThus we may deform the original morphism $f$ to a morphism $f_0 : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\rightarrow X$ such that $\\bar C_1$ is mapped birationally to a rational curve in the anticanonical linear system and $\\bar C_2$ is mapped birationally to a rational curve in $|-2K_X|$.\n\nChoose three nodal rational curves $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K_3$ in the linear system $-K_X$. We prove now that we may deform $f_0$ without changing the irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X,-3K_X \\bigr)$ to the morphism $g : \\bar K_1 \\cup \\bar K_2 \\cup \\bar K_3 \\cup \\bar E \\longrightarrow X$ such that $\\bar K_i$ is the normalization of $K_i$, $\\bar E$ is contracted to the point in the intersection $K_1 \\cap K_2 \\cap K_3$ and the dual graph of $g$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_3$}  \\restore}\n- [ul]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-1pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{} \n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore}\n [dl] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_1$}  \\restore} }$$ It follows from this and Lemma \\[pizzica\\] that $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,-3K_X \\bigr)$ is irreducible.\n\nTo achieve the required deformation, we consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\\rm Sl}_{f_0} (\\bar C_2) \\ar[r] ^{\\pi \\hspace{25pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,-2K_X \\bigr) }$$ and note that $\\pi $ is surjective since $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,-2K_X \\bigr)$ is irreducible by assumption.\n\nRelabeling $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K_3$, we may suppose that $C_1 \\neq K_2, K_3$. Thus we may specialize $f_0$ to a morphism $f_1 : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar K_2 \\cup \\bar K_3 \\cup \\bar E \\longrightarrow X$ such that $f_1 (\\bar K_i) = K_i$, $\\bar E$ is contracted by $f_1$ and the dual graph of $f_1$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_3$}  \\restore}\n- [ul]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-1pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{} \n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore}\n [dl] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ Thanks to Lemma \\[pizzica\\] any deformation of such morphism is in the same irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X,-3K_X \\bigr)$ as $f_0$ and hence in the same irreducible component as the morphism $f$.\n\nWe may now smooth the components $\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar K_2 \\cup \\bar E$ to a single irreducible component mapped birationally to the divisor class $-2K_X$ and then we may use irreducibility of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,-2K_X \\bigr)$ again to prove that we may specialize the component thus obtained to break as $\\bar K_1 \\cup \\bar K_2$. The morphism $g$ thus obtained is the one we were looking for, and the theorem is proved. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[*Remark.*]{} Thanks to Theorem \\[cabala\\], the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,-2K_X \\bigr)$ is irreducible for the general del Pezzo surface of degree one. Thus it follows from Theorem \\[maschera\\] that also the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,-3K_X \\bigr)$ is irreducible for the general del Pezzo surface of degree one.\n\nThe Picard Group and the Orbits of the Weyl Group {#sporco}\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this section we prove some results on the divisor classes of the blow-up of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ at eight or fewer general points. In particular we analyze several questions regarding the divisor classes of the conics and their orbits under the Weyl group.\n\nLet $X_\\delta $ be the blow-up of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ at $\\delta \\leq 8$ points such that no three are on a line, no six of them are on a conic and there is no cubic through seven of them with a node at the eighth.\n\nA divisor $C$ on $X_\\delta $ is called a [conic]{} if $-K_{X_\\delta } \\cdot C = 2$ and $C^2 = 0$.\n\nSuppose that $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\}$ is a standard basis of ${\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$. If $C = a\\ell - b_1 e_1 - \\ldots - b_\\delta e_\\delta $ is a divisor class on $X_\\delta$, then to simplify the notation we simply write it as $(a \\,;\\, b_1 , \\ldots , b_\\delta )$.\n\nThe conics on $X_8$ are given, up to permutation of the $e_i$\u2019s, by the following table: $$\\label{soluco} \n\\begin{array} {@{ \\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }\nc@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline }}\n\\hline Type & \\ell & e_1 & e_2 & e_3 & e_4 & e_5 & e_6 & e_7 & e_8 \\vphantom{\\Bigl|} \\\\[-1pt]\n\\hline \\vphantom{\\Bigl|} \nA & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\[-3pt]\nB & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\[-3pt]\nC & 3 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\\\[-3pt]\nD & 4 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\\\[-3pt]\nE & 5 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 0 \\\\[-3pt]\nD'& 4 & 3 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\\\[-3pt]\nF & 5 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\\\[-3pt]\nG & 6 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 \\\\[-3pt]\nH & 7 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 \\\\[-3pt]\nH'& 7 & 4 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\\\[-3pt]\nI & 8 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\\\[-3pt]\nI'& 8 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 1 \\\\[-3pt]\nJ & 9 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 2 \\\\[-3pt]\nK & 10& 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\\\[-3pt]\nL & 11& 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 3 \\\\ \\hline \n\\end{array}$$ Their numbers are given by the table: $$\\begin{array} {|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\n\\hline \\delta &    8 &   7 &  6 &  5 & 4 & 3 & 2 \\\\ \\hline \nconics & 2160 & 126 & 27 & 10 & 5 & 3 & 2 \\\\ \\hline \n\\end{array}$$\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We proceed just like in [@Ma] IV, \u00a725. The condition of being a conic translates to the equations $$\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl} \\displaystyle \na^2 - \\sum _{i=1} ^8 b_i ^2 & = & 0 \\\\[15pt] \\displaystyle \n3a - \\sum _{i=1} ^8 b_i & = & 2\n\\end{array} \\right.$$ and we may equivalently rewrite these as $$\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl} \\displaystyle \n\\sum _{i=1} ^8 \\bigl( a - 2 b_i - 2 \\bigr) ^2 & = & 16 \\\\[15pt] \\displaystyle \n3a - \\sum _{i=1} ^8 b_i & = & 2\n\\end{array} \\right.$$ It is now easy (but somewhat long) to check that (\\[soluco\\]) is the complete list of solutions up to permutations. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[*Remark*]{}. The classes of conics on $X_\\delta $ for $\\delta \\leq 7$ are obtained from the ones in list (\\[soluco\\]) by erasing $8-\\delta$ zeros and permuting the remaining coordinates. Thus (up to permutations) the first five rows and seven columns describe conics on $X_7$, the first three rows and six columns are the conics on $X_6$ and so on.\n\nWe introduce the following notation (which luckily won\u2019t be extremely useful, but allows us to name conics!) for the classes of the conics on $X_\\delta $, $\\delta \\leq 8$ (we set also $\\bar E := e_1 + \\ldots + e_8$): $$\\label{nomico}\n\\hspace{-11.3pt}\n\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {l@{ \\,=\\, }l}\nA_i & \\ell - e_i \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nB_{ijkl} & 2 \\ell - e_i - e_j - e_k - e_l \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nC_i ^{jk} & 3 \\ell -\\bar E - e_i + e_j + e_k \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nD_{ijk} ^l & 4 \\ell - \\bar E - e_i - e_j - e_k + e_l \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nE_i ^j & 5 \\ell - 2\\bar E + e_i + 2e_j \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nD' _i & 4 \\ell - \\bar E - 2e_i \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nF_i ^{jkl} & 5 \\ell - \\bar E -2e_i - e_j - e_k - e_l \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nG_{ij} ^{kl} & 6 \\ell - 2 \\bar E - e_i - e_j + e_k + e_l\n\\end{array} \\right. \\hspace{-5pt}\n\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {l@{ \\,=\\, }l}\nH_{ijk} ^l & 7 \\ell - 3 \\bar E + e_i + e_j + e_k + 2e_l \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\n(H')_i ^l & 7 \\ell - 2 \\bar E - 2e_i - e_j \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nI_i ^{ijk} & 8 \\ell - 3 \\bar E - e_i + e_j + e_k + e_l \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nI' _i & 8 \\ell - 3 \\bar E + 2e_i \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nJ_{ij} ^k & 9 \\ell - 3 \\bar E - e_i - e_j + e_k \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nK_{ijkl} & 10 \\ell - 3 \\bar E - e_i - e_j - e_k - e_l \\\\ \\vphantom{\\vdots}\nL_i & 11 \\ell - 4 \\bar E + e_i \n\\end{array} \\right.$$\n\nDenote by $\\, \\cdot \\, $ the intersection form on the lattice ${\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$. From now on by an automorphism of ${\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$ we will always mean a group automorphism of the lattice which preserves the intersection form and the canonical class; we let $W_\\delta := {\\rm Aut } \\bigl( {\\rm Pic } (X_\\delta ) , \nK_{X_\\delta } \\, , \\, \\, \\cdot \\, \\bigr)$, and we refer to $W_\\delta$ as the Weyl group. It will be useful later to know what are the orbits of pairs of conics under the automorphism group $W_\\delta $ of ${\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$.\n\n\\[trave\\] The group $W_\\delta $, $2 \\leq \\delta \\leq 8$, acts transitively on the conics.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We only prove this in the case $\\delta = 8$ and it will be clear from the proof that the same argument applies to the other cases.\n\nChoose a standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_8 \\}$ of ${\\rm Pic} (X)$; it is enough to prove that the elements in the list (\\[soluco\\]) are in the same orbit, since any permutation of the indices is an element of $W_8$.\n\nIntroduce the following automorphism of ${\\rm Pic} (X_8)$: $$T_{123} : \\left\\{ \\begin{array} {l} \n\\begin{array} {rcl@{\\hspace{30pt}}rcl} \n\\ell & \\longmapsto & 2 \\ell - e_1 - e_2 - e_3 \\\\ \ne _1 & \\longmapsto & \\ell - e _2 - e _3 \\\\\ne _2 & \\longmapsto & \\ell - e _1 - e _3 \\\\\ne _3 & \\longmapsto & \\ell - e _1 - e _2 \\\\\ne _\\alpha & \\longmapsto & e_\\alpha \\end{array} \\\\\n\\text{ ~~\\small $4 \\leq \\alpha \\leq 8$} \n\\end{array} \\right.$$ and note that applying $T_{123}$ to an element $\\bigl( a \\,;\\, b_1 , \\ldots , b_8 \\bigr)$ transforms it to $$\\bigl( a \\,;\\, b_1 , \\ldots , b_8 \\bigr) \\stackrel {T_{123}} \n{\\longrightarrow} \\bigl( 2a-b_1-b_2-b_3 \\,;\\, \na-b_2-b_3 , a-b_1-b_3, a-b_1-b_2 , b_4 , \\ldots , b_8 \\bigr)$$ By inspection, the quantity $2a - b_1 - b_2 - b_3$ for elements in list (\\[soluco\\]) is always strictly smaller than the initial value of $a$ unless $a=1$. Permuting the indices so that $b_1,b_2,b_3$ are the three largest coefficients among the $b_i$\u2019s and iterating this strategy finishes the argument. Note that we are always \u201cclimbing up\u201d list (\\[soluco\\]) and the conics on $X_7$ are the ones above line 5, and are hence preserved by the automorphism $T_{123}$ and the permutations needed. Similar remarks are valid for $X_\\delta $, with $3 \\leq \\delta \\leq 6$, and the result is obvious for $X_2$, where the automorphism $T_{123}$ is not defined. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[*Remark*]{}. It is known ([@Ma] Theorem IV.23.9) that the group $W_\\delta $ is generated by the permutations of the indices of the $e_i$\u2019s together with the transformation $T_{123}$.\n\nSuppose now we consider the action of the Weyl group on ordered pairs of conics $\\bigl( Q_1 , Q_2 \\bigr)$. Clearly the number $Q_1 \\cdot Q_2$ is an invariant of this action, and by looking at the list (\\[soluco\\]) it is easy to convince oneself that $$\\begin{array} {@{ \\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c\n@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline }} \\hline\n\\delta =           & 8 & 7 & 6 & 5 & 4 & 3 & 2 \\\\ \\hline\nQ_1 \\cdot Q_2 \\leq & 8 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\\\ \\hline\n\\end{array}$$ and that all the possible values between 0 and the number given above are attained.\n\nThus, for example, we know that the action of $W_8$ on pairs of conics has at least 9 orbits.\n\nIf $\\delta = 8$, there is one more \u201cinvariant\u201d under $W_8$ of pairs of conics: define a pair $\\bigl( Q_1 , Q_2 \\bigr)$ to be [*ample*]{} if $Q_1 + Q_2$ is an ample divisor on $X_8$. Since the property of being ample is a numerical property, it follows that it is a property of the $W_8 -$orbit of the pair.\n\nThe next proposition proves that the lower bounds on the number of orbits obtained by considering the intersection product and ampleness (in case $\\delta = 8$) of the pair are in fact the correct number of orbits. Indeed, unless $\\delta = 8$ it is enough to consider the intersection product, while if $\\delta = 8$, there are two orbits with $Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 4$, and only one of the two consists of ample pairs.\n\n\\[codico\\] Let $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ be two conics in $X_\\delta $, $2 \\leq \\delta \\leq 8$. The intersection product $Q_1 \\cdot Q_2$ determines uniquely the orbit of the (ordered) pair $\\bigl( Q_1 , Q_2 \\bigl)$ under $W_\\delta $ with the only exception of $\\delta = 8$ and $Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 4$ which has exactly two orbits.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} As for the previous lemma, we will only prove this proposition in the case $\\delta = 8$; for the remaining cases simply ignore the inexistent indices.\n\nThanks to the previous lemma, we already know that we may assume $Q_1 = \\ell - e_1$ which is the conic labeled $A_1$ in (\\[nomico\\]).\n\nThe strategy is very simple: we again climb up the list (\\[soluco\\]) using the automorphism $T_{123}$ followed by a permutation of the indices $\\{ 2 , \\ldots , 8 \\}$ so that the resulting $b_2$ and $b_3$ are the two largest $b_i$\u2019s, with $i \\geq 2$. Note that the elements of $W _\\delta $ described above do indeed fix $Q_1$.\n\nThe case $Q_2 = 11 \\ell - 4 \\bar E + e_1$ is easily seen to be fixed by all permutations of $\\{2, \\ldots , 8 \\}$ and by the automorphism $T_{123}$.\n\nIn the following diagrams we write all possible conics with the given intersection product with $A_1$, sorting the entries $b_2, \\ldots , b_8$ in non-increasing order. An arrow going up means: apply $T_{123}$ and permute the indices different from 1 so that the entries under $e_2 , \\ldots , e_8$ are in non-increasing order.\n\n![image](figura1.eps)\n\n![image](figura2.eps)\n\nNext is the case in which there is the exception. Note that if $\\delta = 7$, the possible intersection numbers $A_1 \\cdot Q_2$ are at most 4, and $A_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 4$ only if $Q_2 = 5 \\ell - e_1 - 2e_2 - 2e_3 - 2e_4 - 2e_5 - 2e_6 - 2e_7 $; thus the \u201ctop orbit\u201d of the next diagram does not appear for $\\delta \\leq 7$.\n\n![image](figura3.eps)\n\n![image](figura4.eps)\n\nFinally, note that $A_1 + D_{234} ^1 = -K_{X_8} + B_{234}$ is ample (being the sum of an ample divisor and a nef divisor), while $\\bigl( A_1 + E_1 ^8 \\bigr) \\cdot e_8 = 0$. Thus the pair $\\bigl( A_1 , D_{234} ^1 \\bigr)$ is ample, while the pair $\\bigl( A_1 , E_1 ^8 \\bigr)$ is not ample and therefore they cannot lie in the same orbit under the Weyl group. This concludes the proof. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[*Remark*]{}. The same statement of Proposition \\[codico\\] is clearly true if we are only interested in unordered pairs of conics. This is obvious because the invariants we needed to detect all the orbits are invariants of unordered pairs, rather than ordered pairs.\n\nThe next two lemmas deal with a del Pezzo surface of degree one.\n\n\\[orco\\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one and let $L \\subset X$ be a $(-1)-$curve. If $L_1, L_2 \\subset X$ are $(-1)-$curves such that $L_1 \\cdot L = L_2 \\cdot L$, then $L_1$ and $L_2$ are in the same orbit of the stabilizer of $L$ in ${\\rm Aut} \\bigl( {\\rm Pic} (X) \\bigr)$.\n\n[*Remark*]{}. The possible intersection numbers between any two $(-1)-$curves on a del Pezzo surface of degree one are -1, 0, 1, 2 and 3. Moreover, the group $W_8 := {\\rm Aut} \\bigl( {\\rm Pic} (X) \\bigr)$ acts transitively on $(-1)-$curves ([@Ma] Corollary 25.1.1). Thus as a consequence of this fact and the lemma we conclude that the stabilizer in the group $W_8$ of a $(-1)-$curve has exactly five orbits on the set of $(-1)-$curves.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We may choose a standard basis $\\bigl\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_8 \\bigr\\}$ of ${\\rm Pic} (X)$ such that $L = e_8$. Given any divisor class $D \\in {\\rm Pic} (X)$, we write $D = a \\ell - b_1 e_1 - \\ldots - b_8 e_8$. With these conventions, the classes of the $(-1)-$curves up to permutations of the indices $1, \\ldots , 8$ are ([@Ma] Table IV.8) $$\\label{radic8} \n\\begin{array} {@{ \\vline~~~ }l@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }\nc@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline~~ }c@{ ~~\\vline }}\n\\hline a & b_1 & b_2 & b_3 & b_4 & b_5 & b_6 & b_7 & b_8 \\vphantom{\\Bigl|} \\\\ \n\\hline \\vphantom{\\Bigl|} \n0 &-1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\[-2pt] \n1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\[-2pt] \n2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\[-2pt] \n3 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \\\\[-2pt] \n4 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\\\[-2pt] \n5 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 \\\\[-2pt] \n6 & 3 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\\\ \\hline \n\\end{array}$$ and the stabilizer of $e_8$ contains the group $S$ generated by all permutations of $1, \\ldots , 7$ and the automorphism $ T_{123}$ considered above. In fact the stabilizer of $e_8$ is equal to the group $S$ just described, but we do not need this fact.\n\nThe proof consists simply in fixing one value for the coordinate $b_8$ and checking that all vectors with that last coordinate are in the same orbit of the group $S$.\n\n[$b_8 = 3$]{}. There is only one vector in the list (\\[radic8\\]) with an entry 3 in one of the $b_i$ columns and there is nothing to prove in this case.\n\n[$b_8 = 2$]{}. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{123} \\bigl( 6 \\,;\\, 3 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 2 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \\bigr) \\\\\nT_{145} \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 2 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 \\bigr) \\\\\nT_{167} \\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 \\bigr)\\end{aligned}$$ and using permutations of $1, \\ldots , 7$ we conclude.\n\n[$b_8 = 1$]{}. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{123} \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) \\\\\nT_{145} \\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) \\\\\nT_{456} \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) \\\\\nT_{236} \\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) \\end{aligned}$$\n\n[$b_8 = 0$]{}. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{123} \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 2 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 \\bigr) \\\\\nT_{145} \\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 0 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 \\bigr) \\\\\nT_{167} \\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 \\bigr) & = & \n\\bigl( 0 \\,;\\,-1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 \\bigr)\\end{aligned}$$\n\n[$b_8 =-1$]{}. The only divisor class of a $(-1)-$curve with $b_8 =-1$ is $e_8$.\n\nThis completes the cases we needed to check and the proof of the lemma. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nThe following is the last lemma of the section.\n\n\\[tremendi\\] Let $L$ be the divisor class of a $(-1)-$curve on a del Pezzo surface $X$ of degree one, and let $$B := \\left\\{ \\bigl\\{ \\lambda _1 , \\lambda _2 , \\lambda _3 \\bigr\\} ~ \\Bigr| ~ \n\\lambda _i {\\text{ is a $(-1)-$curve, and }} \n\\lambda _1 + \\lambda _2 + \\lambda _3 = -2K_X + L \\right\\}$$ The stabilizer in $W_8$ of $L$ has exactly four orbits on $B$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Choose a standard basis of ${\\rm Pic} (X)$ such that $L = e_8$. With this choice of basis, we have $$\\lambda _1 + \\lambda _2 + \\lambda _3 = \\bigl( 6 \\,;\\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 \\bigr)$$\n\nLet $\\beta _i$ be the coefficient of $-e_8$ in the chosen basis of $\\lambda _i$. We deduce from above that $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\beta _1 + \\beta _2 + \\beta _3 = 1 \\\\[5pt]\n& -1 \\leq \\beta _i \\leq 3 \\end{aligned}$$ and thus, the solutions $\\bigl\\{ \\beta _1 , \\beta _2 , \\beta _3 \\bigr\\}$ of the above system are $\\bigl\\{ 3 , -1 , -1 \\bigr\\}$, $\\bigl\\{ 2 , -1 , 0 \\bigr\\}$, $\\bigl\\{ 1 , 1 ,-1 \\bigr\\}$ and $\\bigl\\{ 1 , 0 , 0 \\bigr\\}$.\n\nPermuting the $\\lambda _i$\u2019s we may assume that $\\beta _1 \\geq \\beta _2 \\geq \\beta _3$ and using Lemma \\[orco\\], we may assume that the divisor class of $\\lambda _1$ is $$\\begin{array} {c@{\\text{ ~if~ }}l}\n\\bigl( 6 \\,;\\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 3 \\bigr) & \\beta _1 = 3, \\\\[5pt]\n\\bigl( 6 \\,;\\, 3 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \\bigr) & \\beta _1 = 2, \\\\[5pt]\n\\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) & \\beta _1 = 1.\n\\end{array}$$\n\nIt follows immediately that we must therefore have $$\\begin{array} {c}\n\\beta _1 = 3 ~:~ \\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\n\\lambda _1 & = & \\bigl( 6 \\,;\\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 3 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\lambda _2 & = & \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\lambda _3 & = & \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\right. \n\\end{array}$$ $$\\begin{array} {c} \n\\beta _1 = 2 ~:~ \\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\n\\lambda _1 & = & \\bigl( 6 \\,;\\, 3 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\lambda _2 & = & \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\lambda _3 & = & \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\,-1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\right. \n\\end{array}$$\n\n$$\\begin{array} {c} \n\\begin{array} {c} \n\\beta _1 = 1 \\\\[-2pt]\n{\\text{ and }} \\\\[-2pt]\n\\beta _2 = 1 \n\\end{array} ~:~ \\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\n\\lambda _1 & = & \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\lambda _2 & = & \\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\lambda _3 & = & \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\right. \n\\end{array}$$\n\n$$\\begin{array} {c} \n\\begin{array} {c} \n\\beta _1 = 1 \\\\[-2pt]\n{\\text{ and }} \\\\[-2pt]\n\\beta _2 = 0 \n\\end{array} ~:~ \\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\n\\lambda _1 & = & \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\lambda _2 & = & \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\,-1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\lambda _3 & = & \\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 0 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\right. \n\\end{array}$$ thus proving the lemma. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nRealizing the Deformation: from Large to Small Degree\n=====================================================\n\nBreaking the Curve {#rompisezione}\n------------------\n\nIn this section we construct deformations of a general point in every irreducible component of the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ to morphisms with image containing only curves of small anticanonical degree.\n\n\\[pezzenti\\] Let $f : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be a free birational morphism to a del Pezzo surface. In the same irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] \\bigr)$ as $f$ there is a morphism $g : \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ birational to its image such that for every irreducible component $\\bar C' \\subset \\bar C$, $g|_{\\bar C'}$ is a free morphism whose image has anticanonical degree two or three.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We establish the lemma by induction on $d := -K_X \\cdot f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1]$. There is nothing to prove if $d \\leq 3$, since the image of a free morphism has anticanonical degree at least two (Lemma \\[immersione\\]).\n\nSuppose that $d \\geq 4$. Thanks to Proposition \\[rpunti\\], we may assume that the image of $f$ contains $d-2 \\geq 2$ general points $p_1 , \\ldots , p_{d-2}$ of $X$. Denote by $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( p_1 , \\ldots , p_{d-2} \\bigr)$ the locus of morphisms of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] \\bigr)$ whose image contains the points $p_1 , \\ldots , p_{d-2}$. Using the dimension estimate (\\[dimdibarbi\\]), we deduce that $\\dim_{[f]} \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( p_1 , \\ldots , p_{d-2} \\bigr) = 1$ and thus there is a one-parameter family of morphisms containing $f$ whose images contain the general points $p_1 , \\ldots , p_{d-2}$. Thanks to Lemmas \\[nonnonred\\] and \\[niette\\] we deduce that in the same irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] \\bigr)$ as $f$ we can find a morphism $f_0 : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\rightarrow X$ such that $f_0$ is birational to its image, $\\bar C_i \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^1$ and $f_0 |_{\\bar C_i}$ is a free morphism. We also have $d_i := -K_X \\cdot f_1(\\bar C_i) \\geq 2$, and thus by induction on $d$, we know that the irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, f_0 (\\bar C_i) \\bigr)$ containing $f_0|_{\\bar C_i}$ contains a morphism $g_i : \\bar C^i _1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C^i _{r_i} \\longrightarrow X$ with all the required properties. Thus considering the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=30pt { {\\rm Sl}_{f_0} (\\bar C_2) \\ar[r] ^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, f_0 (\\bar C_2) \\bigr) }$$ we deduce that we may find a morphism $f_1 : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C^2 _1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C^2 _{r_2} \\longrightarrow X$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n [u] !{\\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\\txt{ {\\begin{tabular} {c} \n\\tiny dual \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny graph \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny of $g_2$ \n\\end{tabular}}} }  \\restore}\n [d] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_c$}  \\restore}\n: [ul]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_a$}  \\restore}\n: [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_b$}  \\restore}\n [dl] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nSimilarly, considering the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=30pt { {\\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\\bar C_1) \\ar[r] ^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, f_0 (\\bar C_1) \\bigr) }$$ we deduce that we may find a morphism $f_2 : \\bar C^1 _1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C^1 _{r_1} \\cup \n\\bar C^2 _1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C^2 _{r_2} \\longrightarrow X$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [d] !{\\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\\txt{ {\\begin{tabular} {c} \n\\tiny dual \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny graph \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny of $g_1$ \n\\end{tabular}}} }  \\restore} [d] \n{\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n [u] !{\\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\\txt{ {\\begin{tabular} {c} \n\\tiny dual \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny graph \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny of $g_2$ \n\\end{tabular}}} }  \\restore} [d] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_c$}  \\restore}\n: [ul]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_a$}  \\restore}\n: [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_b$}  \\restore}\n [dl] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^1_a$}  \\restore} \n: [dl] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^1_c$}  \\restore} \n [ur] : [ul] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^1_b$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nTo conclude, we need to show that the images $C^1_a$ and $C^2_a$ of $\\bar C^1_a$ and $\\bar C^2_a$ respectively can be assumed to be distinct.\n\nSuppose $C^1_a = C^2_a$. If the anticanonical degree of $C^1_a$ is at least three, then we may deform one of them, keeping the image of the node between $\\bar C^1_a$ and $C^2_a$ fixed and conclude. Suppose therefore that $-K_X \\cdot C^1_a = 2$. Let $\\varphi : \\bar C^1_a \\rightarrow \\bar C^2_a$ be the morphism $(f_2)^{-1} \\circ (f_2)|_{\\bar C^1_a}$ and let $\\bar p_i \\in \\bar C^i_a$ be the point in the intersection $\\bar C^1_a \\cap \\bar C^2_a$. There are two possibilities: either $\\varphi (\\bar p_1) \\neq \\bar p_2$, or $\\varphi (\\bar p_1) = \\bar p_2$. In the first case, the deformations of the morphism $f_2|_{\\bar C^1_a \\cup \\bar C^2_a}$ fixing the component $\\bar C^1_a$ actually change the image of the other component, allowing us to conclude. In the second case, there is a one-dimensional space of deformations of the stable map obtained by \u201csliding the point $\\bar\np_i$ along $\\bar C^i_a$.\u201d Moreover, there must be components in the image of $f_2$ different from $C^i_a$, since otherwise the morphism $f$ could not have been birational to its image. Thus we may assume that $\\bar C^2_a$ is adjacent to a curve mapped to a curve different from $C^1_a = C^2_a$, call this curve $\\bar D$ (remember that $g_i$ is birational to its image). Let $\\bar q \\in \\bar C^2_a$ be the node between $\\bar C^2_a$ and $\\bar D$. We may slide the node $\\bar p_i$ until it reaches the point $\\bar q$ to obtain a morphism $f_3$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [d] !{\\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\\txt{ {\\begin{tabular} {c} \n\\tiny dual \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny graph \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny of $g_1$ \n\\end{tabular}}} }  \\restore} [d] \n{\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [u] {\\bullet} [drr] \n{\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n [u] !{\\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\\txt{ {\\begin{tabular} {c} \n\\tiny dual \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny graph \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny of $g_2$ \n\\end{tabular}}} }  \\restore} [d] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_c$}  \\restore}\n: [ul]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_a$}  \\restore}\n: [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_b$}  \\restore}\n [dl] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore} \n- [u] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar D$}  \\restore} \n: [ur] [dl] : [ul] [ddr] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^1_a$}  \\restore} \n: [dl] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^1_c$}  \\restore} \n [ur] : [ul] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^1_b$}  \\restore} }$$ where the component labeled $\\bar E$ is contracted to the point $f_2(\\bar q)$. Since the sheaf $f_3 ^* {\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on each component of the domain of $f_3$ it follows that $f_3$ is a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] \\bigr)$.\n\nClearly the morphism $f_3$ is also a limit of morphisms $f_4$ with dual graphs $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [d] !{\\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\\txt{ {\\begin{tabular} {c} \n\\tiny dual \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny graph \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny of $g_1$ \n\\end{tabular}}} }  \\restore} [d] \n{\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] \n{\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n [u] !{\\save +<0pt,1pt>*{\\txt{ {\\begin{tabular} {c} \n\\tiny dual \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny graph \\\\[-7pt]\n\\tiny of $g_2$ \n\\end{tabular}}} }  \\restore} [d] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_c$}  \\restore}\n: [ul]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_a$}  \\restore}\n: [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^2_b$}  \\restore}\n [dl] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar D$}  \\restore} \n: [ur] [dl] : [ul] [dr] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar {C^1_a}'$}  \\restore} \n: [dl] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^1_c$}  \\restore} \n [ur] : [ul] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C^1_b$}  \\restore} }$$ where $\\bar C^1_a{}'$ is mapped to a general divisor linearly equivalent to $C^1_a$ and transverse to it. This concludes the proof of the lemma. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[piuma\\] Let $f : \\bar C := \\bar C_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_r \\longrightarrow X$ be a stable map of genus zero and suppose that $f_i := f|_{\\bar C_i}$ is a free morphism. If $f(\\bar C_1) \\cdot f(\\bar C_2) > 0$, then in the same irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \n\\bigl( X, f_*[\\bar C] \\bigr)$ containing $[f]$ there is a morphism $g : \\bar D_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar D_r\n\\longrightarrow X$ such that $\\bar D_1$ and $\\bar D_2$ are adjacent, $g|_{\\bar D_i}$ is a free morphism and $f_*[\\bar C_i] = g_*[\\bar D_i]$ for all $i$\u2019s.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Renumbering the components of the domain of $f$, we may assume that the curve $\\bar C_{12} := \\bar C_3 \\cup \\bar C_4 \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_s$ is the connected component of $\\bar C_3 \\cup \\bar C_4 \\ldots \\cup \\bar\nC_r$ which has a point in common with both $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$. Moreover, we may also assume that no component of $\\bar C_{12}$ is mapped to a curve in the same divisor class as $\\bar C_1$ or $\\bar\nC_2$.\n\nSince all the morphisms $f|_{\\bar C_i}$ are free, we may deform $f|_{\\bar C_{12}}$ to a free morphism with irreducible domain $\\bar C_{12}'$. Consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt \n{{\\rm Sl}_f (\\bar C_{12}) \\ar[r]^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, f_*[\\bar C_{12}] \\bigr) }$$ and note that it is dominant on the component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\bar C_{12} \\bigr)$ containing $f|_{\\bar C_{12}}$. Thus we can find a morphism $$f_1 : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_{12}' \\cup \\bar C_2 \\cup \\bar C_{s+1} \\cup \n\\ldots \\cup \\bar C_r \\longrightarrow X$$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n[ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet} *\\cir<2pt>{} : [ul] : [ur] [dl] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_{12}'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore}\n: [dl] [ur] : [ul] }$$\n\nWe want to deform $f_1$ to a morphism $f_2$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [u] {\\bullet}\n[drr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet} *\\cir<2pt>{} \n: [ul] : [ur] [dl] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [u]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_{12}'$}  \\restore}\n [d] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1'$}  \\restore}\n: [dl] [ur] : [ul] }$$ where $\\bar E$ is a contracted component. This is immediate considering the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt \n{{\\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\\bar C_1) \\ar[r]^{\\hspace{10pt} a} & \n\\bar C_{12}' }$$ and noting that it is dominant.\n\nIt is clear that we may similarly deform $f_2$ to a morphism $f_3$ obtained by sliding $\\bar C_1'$ along $\\bar C_2$ away from the component $\\bar C_{12}'$. The dual graph of the morphism $f_3$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [d] {\\bullet}\n[urr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet} *\\cir<2pt>{} \n: [ul] : [ur] [dl] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1''$}  \\restore}\n- [d]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<10pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_{12}'$}  \\restore}\n [u] : [dl] [ur] : [ul] }$$\n\nTo conclude we consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt \n{{\\rm Sl}_{f_3} (\\bar C_{12}') \\ar[r]^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, f_*[\\bar C_{12}] \\bigr) }$$ to deform $f_3|_{\\bar C_{12}'} \\simeq f_1|_{\\bar C_{12}'}$ back to $f|_{\\bar C_{12}}$ and conclude the proof of the lemma. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nEasy Cases: ${\\mathbb P}^2$, ${\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$ and $Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThis section proves the irreducibility of the spaces $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , \\alpha \\bigr)$ where $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree eight or nine. Of course, in the case of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ this result is obvious: for a given degree $d$ of the image, the space ${\\rm Hom }_{d} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 , {\\mathbb P}^2 \\bigr)$ of maps with image of degree $d$ is birational to the set of triples of homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$ up to scaling. Since the space ${\\rm Hom }_{d} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 , {\\mathbb P}^2 \\bigr)$ dominates $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^2 , d[line] \\bigr)$, we deduce the stated irreducibility. Similar considerations apply to ${\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$. The result is less obvious for $Bl _p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$. We prove the result for $Bl _p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$, but similar techniques would also apply to the other two cases.\n\nNote that the same result for the cases ${\\mathbb P}^2$ and ${\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$ follows also from [@KP].\n\n\\[barbapapa\\] The spaces of stable maps $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^2 , \\alpha \\bigr)$, $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1 , \\beta \\bigr)$ and $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( Bl_p({\\mathbb P}^2) , \\gamma \\bigr)$ are irreducible for all divisor classes $\\alpha$, $\\beta $ and $\\gamma $.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} As remarked above, we only treat the case of $Bl _p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$. To simplify the notation, let ${\\mathbb P}$ denote $Bl _p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$. Let $f: {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow Bl _p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$ be a general morphism in an irreducible component of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}, \\delta \\bigr)$.\n\nWe first examine the cases $-K_{\\mathbb P}\\cdot f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] \\leq 3$ separately.\n\nIf $K_{\\mathbb P}\\cdot f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] = -1$, then $f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1]$ is the unique $(-1)-$curve $E$. In this case we clearly have $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( Bl_p({\\mathbb P}^2) , E \\bigr) = \n\\bigl\\{ [f] \\bigr\\}$.\n\nFrom now on, we may assume that $f({\\mathbb P}^1)$ is not a $(-1)-$curve, and thus $f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1]$ is a nef divisor, since the only integral curve on ${\\mathbb P}$ having negative square is the exceptional divisor.\n\nSuppose that $-K_{\\mathbb P}\\cdot f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1] = 2$. It follows easily that $f_*({\\mathbb P}^1)$ is the strict transform of a line in ${\\mathbb P}^2$. In this case the result is evidently true, since the mapping space is identified with the linear $|f_*({\\mathbb P}^1)|$.\n\nSuppose that $-K_{\\mathbb P}\\cdot f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1] = 3$. Let $E \\subset Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$ be the exceptional divisor and let $L \\subset Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$ be an irreducible divisor representing the class obtained by pulling-back the divisor class of a line in ${\\mathbb P}^2$. The divisor classes of $L$ and $E$ generate the Picard group of $Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$. The canonical divisor class on $Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$ is $K = -3 [L] + [E]$.\n\nWe have $f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1] = a \\cdot [L] - b \\cdot [E]$, with $a \\geq b \\geq 0$, since $f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1]$ is a nef divisor. Moreover we know that $3a - b = 3$, and thus we see that we necessarily have $a=1$ and $b=0$. Thus we deduce that $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}, f_* [{\\mathbb P}^1] \\bigr) \\simeq \n\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^2 , [L] \\bigr) \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^2$, in the case of a divisor of anticanonical degree three.\n\nSuppose that $-K_{\\mathbb P}\\cdot f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] \\geq 4$. We may use Lemma \\[pezzenti\\] to deform $f$ to a morphism $f' : \\bar C \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}$ where $\\bar C = \\bar C_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_\\ell $ are the irreducible components, all immersed by $f'$ and each having anticanonical degree two or three.\n\nWe have a morphism $f' : \\bar C \\rightarrow Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$, birational to its image, such that each component of $\\bar C$ is mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree two or three. We already saw that this means that each component represents one of the two divisor classes $[L] - [E]$ or $[L]$.\n\nSince $f(\\bar C)$ is connected, if all the components of $\\bar C$ were mapped to curves whose divisor class is $[L] - [E]$ (there are at least two such components because we are assuming the anticanonical degree of the image is at least four), then they would all have the same image, which is ruled out by the fact that $f'$ is birational to its image. It follows that at least one component of $\\bar C$, say $\\bar C_1$, is mapped to the divisor class $[L]$.\n\nUsing Lemma \\[piuma\\] we may slide all the components of $\\bar C$ mapped to the divisor class $[L] - [E]$ to be adjacent to the component $\\bar C_1$. After having done this, let $\\bar F_1$, \u2026, $\\bar F_l$ denote the components mapped to the divisor class $[L] - [E]$, and let $\\bar C_1'$, \u2026, $\\bar C_k'$ denote the components mapped to the divisor class $[L]$, where $\\bar C_1'$ is the only component adjacent to all the components $\\bar F_j$ and no other component $\\bar C_r'$ is adjacent to any $\\bar F_j$.\n\nConsider the subgraph of the dual graph spanned by the components $\\bar C_r'$; this is clearly a tree. Suppose that one of the components adjacent to $\\bar C_1'$ is $\\bar C_2'$. Using Lemma \\[piuma\\], we may slide all the components adjacent to $\\bar C_1'$ (and mapped to $[L]$) to be adjacent to $\\bar C_2'$, making $\\bar C_1'$ a leaf of the resulting tree. Similarly, considering the subgraph spanned by the components mapped to the divisor class $[L]$ different from $\\bar C_1'$, we may again assume that $\\bar C_2'$ is a leaf, and so on. Eventually we end up with a morphism $g : \\bar D \\rightarrow Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$, where the components of $\\bar D$ mapped to $[L] - [E]$ are $\\bar F_1$, \u2026, $\\bar F_l$ and the components mapped to $[L]$ are $\\bar H_1$, \u2026, $\\bar H_k$ and the dual graph of $g$ is $$\\label{grablo}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [ll] {\\bullet} [ll] {\\bullet} [ll] {\\bullet} [ul] {\\bullet} \n[dd] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_l$}  \\restore}\n [u] {\\mathop {\\vdots} \\limits _{\\vphantom {a}}} [u]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_1$}  \\restore}\n- [dr]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar H_1 $}  \\restore}\n- [dl]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n [ur]\n- [rr]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar H_2 $}  \\restore}\n- [r] *\\txt{\\dots}\n- [r]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar H_{k-1} $}  \\restore}\n- [rr]\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar H_k $}  \\restore} }$$\n\nNote that there are isomorphisms $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2) , [L] \\bigr) \\simeq \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^2 , [line] \\bigr) \\simeq \n\\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^2 \\bigr) ^\\vee \\\\ & {\\rm and} \\\\\n& \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2) , [L] - [E] \\bigr) \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^1\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThus, since $[L] \\cdot [L] = 1$ and $[L] \\cdot ([L]-[E]) = 1$, we deduce that the space of all morphisms with dual graph (\\[grablo\\]) is birational to $\\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^2 \\bigr) ^k \\times \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\bigr) ^l$, and in particular it is irreducible. Since all the components of the morphisms with dual graph (\\[grablo\\]) are free smooth rational curves, it follows that this locus contains smooth points of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2) , f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] \\bigr)$, and therefore we deduce that the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2) , f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] \\bigr)$ is irreducible. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nRealizing the Deformation: from Small to Large Degree\n=====================================================\n\nGrowing from the Conics {#conichette}\n-----------------------\n\nIn this section we prove some results that allow us to deform unions of conics to divisors which are the anticanonical divisor on a del Pezzo surface dominated by $X$. These results will be the main building blocks in the proof of Theorem \\[passo\\].\n\n\\[struttura\\] Let $X_\\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\\delta $ such that the spaces $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , \\beta \\bigr)$ are irreducible or empty if $-K_{X_\\delta} \\cdot \\beta = 2, 3$. In the case $\\delta = 8$, or equivalently if the degree of $X_\\delta $ is one, suppose also that all the rational divisors in the anticanonical linear system are nodal. Let $f: \\bar Q \\rightarrow X_\\delta $ be a morphism from a connected, projective, nodal curve of arithmetic genus zero. Suppose that $\\bar Q_1$ and $\\bar Q_2$ are the irreducible components of $\\bar Q$ and that $f_*[\\bar Q_1]$ and $f_*[\\bar Q_2]$ are conics. If $f(\\bar Q_1) \\cdot f(\\bar Q_2) \\geq 2$, then in the irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X_\\delta , f_*[\\bar Q] \\bigr)$ containing $[f]$ there is a morphism $g: \\bar C \\rightarrow X_\\delta $ such that\n\n-   all the irreducible components of $\\bar C$ are immersed and represent nef divisor classes;\n\n-   there is a component $\\bar C_1 \\subset \\bar C$ and a standard basis $\\bigl\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\bigr\\}$ of ${\\rm Pic } (X_\\delta )$ with $$g_*[\\bar C_1] = 3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_\\alpha$$ for some $\\alpha \\leq \\delta $;\n\n-   if $g_*[\\bar C_1] = -K_{X_8}$, then we may choose which of the twelve rational divisors in $|-K_{X_8}|$ the image of $\\bar C_1$ is;\n\n-   the point $[g]$ is smooth.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Observe that $f$ represents a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X_\\delta , f_*[\\bar Q] \\bigr)$, since $f^*{\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on both components of $\\bar Q$. Note also that by considering ${\\rm Sl }_f (\\bar Q_i)$ we may assume that $Q_i:= f(\\bar Q_i)$ misses any preassigned subscheme of $X$ of codimension 2. In particular, we may suppose that $Q_i$ does not contain the intersection points between any two $(-1)-$curves.\n\nWe first take care of the case $Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 2$: we may assume by Proposition \\[codico\\] that $Q_1 = \\ell - e_1$ and $Q_2 = 2 \\ell - e_2 - e_3 - e_4 - e_5$. It is therefore enough to smooth $\\bar Q_1 \\cup \\bar Q_2$ to prove the proposition.\n\nThis concludes the proof if $\\delta \\leq 6$ since on a del Pezzo surface of degree at least three there do not exist conics $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ such that $Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 \\geq 3$.\n\nSuppose that $Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 \\geq 3$. Our first step is to write $Q_2$ as a sum of two $(-1)-$curves $M_1$ and $M_2$ so that in some standard basis $\\{ \\ell' , e_1' , \\ldots , e_\\delta ' \\}$ we have $$Q_1 + M_1 = \\bigl( 3 \\ell' - e_1' - \\ldots - e_\\alpha' \\bigr) + N$$ where $N$ is a nef divisor. We assume $Q_1 = A_1 = \\ell - e_1$ (Lemma \\[trave\\]). Here is the explicit decomposition $Q_2 = M_1 + M_2$ in all the needed cases (Proposition \\[codico\\]):\n\n$$\\begin{array} {c} \\\\ Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 3 \\\\ \\fbox{\\( \\begin{array} {c} \nQ_2 = \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 2,2,2,2,2,2,1,0 \\bigr) \\\\[3pt]\nM_1 = \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 1,2,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr) \\\\\nM_2 = \\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\)} \\end{array}\n\\hspace{11pt}\n\\begin{array} {c} Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 4 \\\\ \n(Q_1+Q_2) \\cdot e_8 = 0 \\\\ \\fbox{\\( \\begin{array} {c} \nQ_2 = \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 1,2,2,2,2,2,2,0 \\bigr) \\\\[3pt]\nM_1 = \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 1,2,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr) \\\\\nM_2 = \\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\)} \\end{array}$$ $$\\begin{array} {c} Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 4 \\\\ \nQ_1+Q_2 \\text{ ample (on $X_8$)}\\\\ \\fbox{\\( \\begin{array} {c} \nQ_2 = \\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 0,2,2,2,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\[3pt]\nM_1 = \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 0,2,1,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\\nM_2 = \\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\)} \\end{array} \n\\hspace{11pt}\n\\begin{array} {c} \\\\ Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 5 \\\\ \\fbox{\\( \\begin{array} {c} \nQ_2 = \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 0,2,2,2,2,2,2,1 \\bigr) \\\\[3pt]\nM_1 = \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 0,2,1,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\\nM_2 = \\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\)} \\end{array}$$ $$\\begin{array} {c} Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 6 \\\\ \\fbox{\\( \\begin{array} {c} \nQ_2 = \\bigl( 7 \\,;\\, 1,3,3,3,3,2,2,2 \\bigr) \\\\[3pt]\nM_1 = \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 0,2,1,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\\nM_2 = \\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 1,1,2,2,2,1,1,1 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\)} \\end{array} \n\\hspace{11pt}\n\\begin{array} {c} Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 7 \\\\ \\fbox{\\( \\begin{array} {c} \nQ_2 = \\bigl( 8 \\,;\\, 1,3,3,3,3,3,3,3 \\bigr) \\\\[3pt]\nM_1 = \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 0,2,1,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\\nM_2 = \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\)} \\end{array}$$ $$\\hspace{32pt} \\begin{array} {c} Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 8 \\\\ \\fbox{\\( \\begin{array} {r} \nQ_2 = \\bigl( 11 \\,;\\, 3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4 \\bigr) \\\\[3pt]\nM_1 = \\bigl(  5 \\,;\\, 1,2,2,2,2,2,2,1 \\bigr) \\\\\nM_2 = \\bigl(  6 \\,;\\, 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\)} \\end{array}$$\n\nLet us check that the previous decomposition has the required property: $$\\begin{array} {lr@{\\,=\\,}l}\nQ_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 3 & \nQ_1 + M_1 & T_{127} \\bigl( 3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_6 \\bigr) \\\\[7pt]\nQ_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 4 & Q_1 + M_1 & \\left\\{ \\hspace{-5pt} \\begin{array} {ll}\nT_{127} \\bigl( 3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_6 \\bigr) & \\hspace{-7pt} {\\text{ if }}(Q_1+Q_2) \\cdot e_8 = 0 \\\\[6pt]\n-K_{X_8} + \\bigl( \\ell - e_2 \\bigr) & \\hspace{-7pt} {\\text{ if }}Q_1+Q_2 \\text{ is ample} \n\\end{array} \\right. \\\\[15pt]\nQ_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 5 & \nQ_1 + M_1 & -K_{X_8} + \\bigl( \\ell - e_2 \\bigr) \\\\[7pt]\nQ_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 6 & \nQ_1 + M_1 & -K_{X_8} + \\bigl( \\ell - e_2 \\bigr) \\\\[7pt]\nQ_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 7 & \nQ_1 + M_1 & -K_{X_8} + \\bigl( \\ell - e_2 \\bigr) \\\\[7pt]\nQ_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 8 & \nQ_1 + M_1 & -K_{X_8} + \\bigl(  3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_7 \\bigr)\n\\end{array}$$\n\nNext we show that we can deform $f$ so that the dual graph of the resulting morphism $f_1$ is $$\\label{quasi}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{=}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar M_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar M_1$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar Q _1$}  \\restore} }$$ where of course $\\bar M_i$ maps to the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $M_i$. To achieve this, consider $$\\xymatrix { a : {\\rm Sl}_f (\\bar Q_2) \\ar[r] & \\bar Q_1 }$$\n\nThe morphism $a$ is not constant because $f|_{\\bar Q_2}$ is free, and hence it is surjective. We denote with the symbols $M_1$ and $M_2$ both the divisor classes and the $(-1)-$curves on $X$ with the same divisor class. Let $\\bar p \\in \\bar Q_1$ be a point such that $f(\\bar p) =: p \\in M_1$; such a point exists, since $Q_1 \\cdot M_1 \\geq 2$ by inspection.\n\nThanks to the surjectivity of $a$, we may find $f_1 : \\bar Q_1 \\cup \\bar Q_2' \\rightarrow X$ such that $a(f_1) = \\bar p$, and in particular, the node between $\\bar Q_1$ and $\\bar Q_2'$ maps to $p \\in M_1$. Since $Q_2 \\cdot M_1 = 0$ and since $f_1(\\bar Q_2') \\cap M_1 \\ni p$, it follows that $f_1 (\\bar Q_2') \\supset M_1$. Thus we have that $\\bar Q_2' = \\bar M_1 \\cup \\bar M_2$, where $\\bar M_2$ maps to the $(-1)-$curve $M_2 \\subset X$; the dual graph of $f_1$ is the one in (\\[quasi\\]): by construction $\\bar Q_1$ and $\\bar M_1$ are adjacent, and by connectedness of $\\bar Q_2$ it follows that $\\bar M_1$ and $\\bar M_2$ are adjacent; the assumption that $Q_1$ does not contain the intersections of two $(-1)-$curves shows that there cannot be contracted components. Note that the node between $\\bar M_1$ and $\\bar M_2$ maps to a node, since the intersection number $M_1 \\cdot M_2$ equals one.\n\nLet us check that $f_1$ represents a smooth point of its moduli space. Thanks to Proposition \\[grafico\\], we have that the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_1 := {\\mathcal C}_{f_1} \\otimes \\omega _{\\bar Q_1 \\cup \\bar Q_2'}$, whose global sections represent the obstructions, has degrees given by the following diagram: $$\\xygraph{[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar M_2$}  \\restore}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle -1$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar M_1$}  \\restore}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\leq 0$}  \\restore}\n: [ll]\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar Q_1$}  \\restore}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\leq -1$}  \\restore} }$$ A solid edge means that the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_1$ is locally free at the corresponding node, while a dotted edge means that the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_1$ need not be locally free at that node (we could make sure that the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_1$ is locally free by reducing to the case in which $Q_1$ intersects transversely $M_1$, but this is not needed). It is now clear that ${\\mathcal C}_1$ has no global sections, and thus the point $f_1$ is smooth.\n\nWe smooth the components $\\bar Q_1 \\cup \\bar M_1$ to a single irreducible component $\\bar Q_1'$. We obtain a morphism $g' : \\bar Q_1' \\cup \\bar M_2 \\rightarrow X$, such that in some standard basis $\\{ \\ell' , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta' \\}$ we have $g'_* [\\bar Q_1'] = \\bigl( 3 \\ell' - e_1' - \\ldots - e_\\alpha' \\bigr) + N$ where $\\alpha \\geq 6$ and $N$ is a nef divisor. By construction the anticanonical degree of $g'_* [\\bar Q_1']$ is three.\n\nIn the first two cases above, that is if $Q_2$ equals $\\bigl( 5\\,;\\, 2,2,2,2,2,2,1,0 \\bigr)$ or $\\bigl( 5\\,;\\, 1,2,2,2,2,2,2,0 \\bigr)$, the divisor $N$ above is zero, but in both cases we may write $$Q_1' = \\bigl( 3\\,;\\, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr) + \\bigl( 1\\,;\\, 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \\bigr)$$ We let $C_2$ be the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $\\bigl( 1\\,;\\, 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \\bigr)$. By inspection we see that $C_2 \\cdot M_2 \\geq 1$, and therefore we may find a point $\\bar c$ of $\\bar Q_2$ such that $g' (\\bar p) \\in C_2$. Considering the morphism $$\\xymatrix { a : {\\rm Sl}_{g'} (\\bar Q_1') \\ar[r] & \\bar M_2 }$$ we let $g_1 : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\cup \\bar M_2 \\longrightarrow X$ be a morphism such that $a(g_1) = \\bar c$, where we denote by $\\bar C_2$ the component mapped to $C_2$ and by $\\bar C_1$ the component mapped to $g'_*[\\bar Q_1'] - C_2 = \\bigl( 3\\,;\\, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr)$. By construction, the dual graph of $g_1$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar M_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ Smoothing the components $\\bar C_2 \\cup \\bar M_2$ we conclude the proof of the proposition in these cases.\n\nIn the remaining cases (the ones for which $Q_1+Q_2$ is ample on a del Pezzo surface of degree one) we write $g'_*[\\bar Q_1'] = -K_{X_8} + N$, where $N$ is $\\bigl( \\ell - e_2 \\bigr)$, if $Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 \\leq 7$ and $N$ is $\\bigl(  3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_7 \\bigr)$, if $Q_1 \\cdot Q_2 = 8$.\n\nBy assumption the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , g'_*[\\bar Q_1'] \\bigr)$ is irreducible. We may therefore deform the morphism $g'$ to a morphism $g_1 : \\bar K \\cup \\bar N \\cup \\bar M_2 \\longrightarrow X$, such that $\\bar K$ is mapped to any preassigned rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and $\\bar N$ is mapped to a general divisor in $|N|$. The possible dual graphs for $g_1$ are $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar M_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar N$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K$}  \\restore} } \n\\hspace{30pt}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar M_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar N$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nWe smooth the two components $\\bar M_2$ and the one adjacent to it. In either case, the proposition is proved: this is obvious if $\\bar N$ is adjacent to $\\bar M_2$; if $\\bar K$ is adjacent to $\\bar M_2$, note that $-K_{X_8} + M_2$ is the pull-back of the anticanonical divisor on the del Pezzo surface obtained by contracting $M_2$. This concludes the proof of the proposition. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[*Remark.*]{} The proof above only requires the existence of one nodal rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$.\n\n\\[infradito\\] Let $X_\\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\\delta $. Let $f: \\bar Q \\rightarrow X_\\delta $ be a morphism from a connected, projective, nodal curve of arithmetic genus zero. Suppose that $\\bar Q_1$, $\\bar Q_2$, $\\bar Q_3$ are the irreducible components of $\\bar Q$ and that $f_*[\\bar Q_i]$ is a conic, for all $i$. If $f(\\bar Q_i) \\cdot f(\\bar Q_j) = 1$ for all $i \\neq j$, then in the irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X_\\delta , f_*[\\bar Q] \\bigr)$ containing $[f]$ there is an immersion $g: \\bar C \\rightarrow X_\\delta $ such that $\\bar C$ is irreducible and $g_* [\\bar C] = 3 \\ell - e_1 - e_2 - e_3$, for some choice of standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\}$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} It is enough to show that we may find a standard basis such that $f_*[\\bar Q_i] = \\ell - e_i$, for $i \\in \\{ 1,2,3 \\}$, since then smoothing out all the components we conclude. Denote by $Q_i$ the image of $\\bar Q_i$. Thanks to Proposition \\[codico\\] we may assume that $Q_1 = \\ell - e_1$ and $Q_2 = \\ell - e_2$. Looking at the list (\\[soluco\\]) we easily see that either we may assume that $Q_3 = \\ell - e_3$ and we are done, or $Q_3 = 2 \\ell - e_1 - e_2 - e_3 - e_4$, up to permutations of the coordinates. In this last case, we apply $T_{124}$ to all three divisor classes. Both $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are fixed by $T_{124}$, while $T_{124} \\bigl( Q_3 \\bigr) = \\ell - e_3$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nReduction of the Problem to Finitely Many Cases {#pochipochi}\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nThis section gathers the information obtained in the previous sections to prove that the irreducibility of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X , \\beta \\bigr)$ for all $\\beta $ can be checked by examining only finitely many cases.\n\nFirst we prove two simple results.\n\nLet $X$ be a smooth projective surface and let $D \\in {\\rm Pic} (X)$ be a base-point free nef divisor such that $D^2 > 0$. If $N$ is a nef divisor such that $D \\cdot N = 0$, then $N \\equiv 0$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Let $\\varphi : X \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^n$ be the morphism induced by the linear system $|D|$ and denote by $X'$ the image of $\\varphi $. We clearly have that $D' := \\varphi _* [D]$ is an ample divisor on $X'$.\n\nThe push-forward of a nef divisor $N$ on $X$ is a nef on $X'$: let $C \\subset X'$ be an effective curve; we have $\\varphi _*N \\cdot C = N \\cdot \\varphi ^* C \\geq 0$, since $\\varphi ^* C$ is an effective curve.\n\nLet $N$ be a nef divisor on $X$ such that $N \\cdot D = 0$. We have $\\varphi _*N \\cdot D' = N \\cdot \\varphi ^* D' = N \\cdot D = 0$, and therefore by the Hodge Index Theorem we deduce that either $\\varphi _*N \\equiv 0$ or $(\\varphi _*N) ^2 < 0$. Since $\\varphi _*N$ is nef, it is a limit of ample divisors and it follows that $(\\varphi _*N) ^2 \\geq 0$. We deduce that $\\varphi _*N \\equiv 0$ and thus that $N$ is numerically equivalent to a linear combination of curves contracted by $\\varphi $. Since the intersection form on the span of the contracted curves is negative definite and $N$ is nef, we deduce that $N \\equiv 0$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[benaco\\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface and let $D$ be a nef divisor on $X$ which is not a multiple of a conic. If a nef divisor $N$ on $X$ is such that $D \\cdot N = 0$, then $N=0$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} The result is obvious in the case $X = {\\mathbb P}^2$. Thanks to the previous lemma and the fact that numerical equivalence is the same as equality of divisor classes on a del Pezzo surface, it is enough to check that a multiple of a nef divisor class $D$ on $X$ is base-point free and has positive square, unless $D$ is the divisor class of a conic.\n\nWrite $D = n_\\delta (-K_{X_\\delta}) + \\ldots + n_2 (-K_2) + D'$ as in Corollary \\[maquale\\]. It is immediate to check that $2D$ is base-point free (in fact, unless $D = -K_X$ and $X$ has degree one, then $D$ itself is base-point free). If one of the $n_\\alpha $\u2019s is non-zero, then clearly the square of $D$ is positive (note that all the divisors appearing in the above expression of $D$ are nef and thus effective since $X$ is a del Pezzo surface). If all the $n_\\alpha $\u2019s are zero, then $D = D'$ is a nef divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree eight.\n\nIf $X = {\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$, let $\\ell _1$ and $\\ell _2$ be the two divisor classes $\\{ p \\} \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$ and ${\\mathbb P}^1 \\times \\{ p \\}$ respectively. Any nef divisor class is a non-negative linear combination of $\\ell _1$ and $\\ell _2$; thus we may write $D = a_1 \\ell _1 + a_2 \\ell _2$, with $a_1, a_2 \\geq 0$. Moreover, if one of the $a_i$\u2019s were zero, then $D$ would be a multiple of a conic: we deduce that $a_i > 0$. Thus we compute $D^2 = 2 a_1 a_2 > 0$.\n\nIf $X = Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2 )$, let $\\ell $ and $e$ be the pull-back of the divisor class of a line and the exceptional divisor under the blow down morphism to ${\\mathbb P}^2$ respectively. Any nef divisor class is a non-negative linear combination of $\\ell $ and $\\ell - e$; thus we may write $D = a \\ell + b (\\ell - e)$, with $a, b \\geq 0$. Moreover, if $a = 0$, then $D$ is a multiple of a conic: we deduce that $a > 0$. Thus we compute $D^2 = a (a + 2 b) > 0$ and the proof is complete. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nWe are now ready to prove the main result of the section. The proof involves several steps and is quite long.\n\n\\[passo\\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface such that the spaces $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ are irreducible (or empty) for all nef divisors $\\beta $ such that $2 \\leq - K_X \\cdot \\beta \\leq 3$. In the case $\\deg X = 1$, suppose that all the rational divisors in the anticanonical system are nodal. Then, for any nef divisor $D \\subset X$ such that $-K_X \\cdot D \\geq 2$, the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, D \\bigr)$ is irreducible or empty.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We establish the theorem by induction on $d := -K_X \\cdot D$. By hypothesis, the theorem is true if $d \\leq 3$.\n\nSuppose that $d \\geq 4$. Let $f : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be a general morphism in an irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, D \\bigr)$. Since the morphism $f$ is a general point on an irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, D \\bigr)$ and $d \\geq 2$, it follows that $f$ is an immersion and that it is a free morphism.\n\nIf there is a $(-1)-$curve $L \\subset X$ such that $L \\cdot D = 0$, then let $b : X \\rightarrow X'$ be the contraction of $L$. We have $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, D \\bigr) \\simeq \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X', b_* D \\bigr)$, and thus we reduce to the case in which the divisor $D$ intersects strictly positively every $(-1)-$curve. By Theorem \\[barbapapa\\] we may also assume that the degree of $X$ is at most seven. Thus Proposition \\[clane\\] implies that $D$ is an ample divisor.\n\nThanks to Lemma \\[pezzenti\\] we may deform $f$ to a morphism $g : \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ such that each component $\\bar C_0 \\subset\n\\bar C$ is immersed to a curve of anticanonical degree two or three. We want to show that we may specialize $g$ to a morphism in which one component is mapped to a multiple of the divisor class $-K_X$. We will prove this in a series of steps.\n\n[**Step 1.**]{} There is a standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\}$ of ${\\rm Pic} (X)$ and a component $\\bar C_1$ of $\\bar C$ mapped birationally either to the divisor class $3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_{\\alpha}$, for $\\alpha \\in \\{ 1 , \\ldots , 7 \\}$, or to $-rK_{X_8}$, for $r \\in \\{ 1,2,3 \\}$. If the image of $\\bar C_1$ represents $-K_{X_8}$, then we can choose to which of the twelve rational divisors in $|-K_{X_8}|$ the component $\\bar C_1$ maps. The morphism is free on all the components of $\\bar C$, except on $\\bar C_1$ if it represents $-K_{X_8}$.\n\nThe divisors of anticanonical degree two on $X$ are\n\n-   the divisor $-2K_X$, if $\\deg X = 1$;\n\n-   the divisor $-K_X$, if $\\deg X = 2$;\n\n-   the divisor class of a conic.\n\nThe divisors of anticanonical degree three on $X$ are\n\n-   the divisor $-3K_X$, if $\\deg X = 1$;\n\n-   the divisor $-K_X-K_{X'}$, if $\\deg X = 1$ and $X'$ is obtained from $X$ by contracting a $(-1)-$curve;\n\n-   the divisor $-K_X + C$, if $\\deg X = 1$ and $C$ is the class of a conic;\n\n-   the divisor $-K_X$, if $\\deg X = 3$;\n\n-   the divisor $\\ell $, for some standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\}$.\n\nThanks to the irreducibility assumption on the spaces $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$, for $2 \\leq -K_X \\cdot \\beta \\leq 3$, we reduce to the case in which all components of $\\bar C$ are mapped to either the divisor class of a conic or the divisor class $\\ell $, for some choice of standard basis.\n\nWe reduce further to the following case:\n\n[l@c]{} ($\\star$) &\n\n[c]{} There is a standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\}$ of ${\\rm Pic} (X)$ such that all\\\ncurves of degree three in the image of $g$ have divisor class $\\ell $.\n\nThis is easily accomplished. Suppose that $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$ are components of $\\bar C$ such that $g_*[\\bar C_1] = \\ell _1$ and $g_*[\\bar C_2] = \\ell _2$, where $\\{ \\ell _i , e^i_1 , \\ldots , e^i_\\delta \\}$ are two standard basis of ${\\rm Pic} (X)$ and $\\ell _1 \\neq \\ell _2$. We may first of all apply Lemma \\[piuma\\] to reduce to the case in which $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$ are adjacent in the dual graph of $g$. If $\\ell _2$ were orthogonal to $e^1_1 , \\ldots , e^1_\\delta $, then $\\ell _2$ would be proportional and hence equal to $\\ell_1$. It follows that $\\ell _2$ is not orthogonal to all the $e^1_j$\u2019s. By permuting the indices if necessary, we may assume that $\\ell _2 \\cdot e^1_1 > 0$. Since $g|_{\\bar C_2}$ is free, we may assume that $g(\\bar C_2)$ and $E := E^1_1$, the $(-1)-$curve whose divisor class is $e^1_1$, meet transversely. Denote by $\\bar p \\in \\bar C_2$ a point such that $g(\\bar p) \\in E$. Consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt \n{{\\rm Sl}_{g} (\\bar C_1) \\ar[r]^{\\hspace{10pt} a} & \\bar C_2 }$$ and note that it is dominant, since $g|_{\\bar C_1}$ is free. It follows that we may find a morphism $g_1 : \\bar C_1' \\cup \\bar C_2 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_r \\longrightarrow X$ such that $a(g_1) = \\bar p$. We deduce that $g_1(\\bar C_1') \\ni p$ and $(g_1)_* [\\bar C_1'] = \\ell _1$. Since $\\ell _1 \\cdot e^1_1 = 0$, we conclude that $g_1(\\bar C_1')$ contains $E$ and another (irreducible) component whose divisor class is $\\ell _1 - e^1_1$. Finally, the subgraph of the dual graph of $g_1$ spanned by $\\bar C_1'$ and $\\bar C_2$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1''$}  \\restore} }$$ where $(g_1)_* [\\bar C_1''] = \\ell _1 - e^1_1$ and $(g_1)_*[\\bar E] = e^1_1$. We may now smooth $\\bar E \\cup \\bar C_2$ to a single irreducible component $\\bar C_2'$ mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree four. With the usual argument of fixing two general points on the image of $\\bar C_2'$ we may deform the morphism so that $\\bar C_2'$ breaks in two components each mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree two. The result of this deformation was to replace two components mapped to the different divisor classes $\\ell _1$ and $\\ell _2$ by three components mapped to divisor classes of curves of anticanonical degree two.\n\nIterating the previous argument we deduce that we may assume that condition ($\\star$) holds.\n\nWe first treat the case in which there are no components mapped to $\\ell$. If all the irreducible components of the domain of $g$ are mapped to conics, and two of them have images with intersection number at least two, then we may use Proposition \\[struttura\\] to conclude. If all the conics in the image of $g$ have intersection number at most one, then there must be at least three having pairwise intersection products exactly one. Otherwise we would be able to find a standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\}$ such that the divisor classes of the components of the image of $g$ are in the span of $\\ell - e_1$ and $\\ell - e_2$. Clearly, no linear combination of these divisors is ample, since $$\\bigl( \\ell - e_1 - e_2 \\bigr) \\cdot \n\\Bigl( a_1 \\bigl( \\ell - e_1 \\bigr) + a_2 \\bigl( \\ell - e_2 \\bigr) \\Bigr) = 0$$ Thus there must be at least three components mapped to divisor classes of conics with pairwise intersection products exactly one. Lemma \\[piuma\\] allows us to assume that three of these components are adjacent and using Proposition \\[infradito\\] we conclude.\n\nSuppose now that there is a component mapped to a curve with divisor class $\\ell$. Since on a del Pezzo surface of degree at most seven no multiple of $\\ell $ is ample, it follows that there must be components of the domain of $g$ mapped to divisor classes of conics.\n\nSuppose that $\\bar C_1$ is mapped to the divisor class $\\ell $ and $\\bar C_2$ is mapped to the divisor class of a conic $Q$. Thanks to Lemma \\[piuma\\] we may assume that $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$ are adjacent. Permuting the indices $1, \\ldots , \\delta $ if necessary, we may assume that the component $\\bar C_2$ mapped to the conic $Q = a \\ell - b_1 e_1 - \\ldots - b_\\delta e_\\delta $ has largest possible $b_1$. Looking at the table (\\[soluco\\]), it is easy to check that\n\n-   if $Q$ is of type $H',I,J,K,L$, then $Q+e_1 = -K_{X_8} - K_{X'}$, where $X'$ is obtained by contracting a $(-1)-$curve on $X$;\n\n-   if $Q$ is of type $D',F,G,H,I'$, then $Q+e_1 = -K_{X_8} + Q'$, where $Q'$ is a conic;\n\n-   if $Q$ is of type $C,D,E$, then $Q+e_1$ is already of the required form (for a different choice of standard basis, when $Q=D$ or $E$);\n\n-   if $Q$ is of type $B$, then $Q+\\ell $ is of the required form.\n\nIf $Q$ is of type $B$, then we smooth $\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2$ to a single irreducible component to conclude. Otherwise, we deform the morphism so that $\\bar C_1$ breaks into a component mapped to $\\ell - e_1$ and a component $e_1$ adjacent to $\\bar C_2$. To achieve this splitting, consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt \n{{\\rm Sl}_{g} (\\bar C_1) \\ar[r]^{\\hspace{10pt} a} & \\bar C_2 }$$ and let $\\bar p \\in \\bar C_2$ be a point mapped to the $(-1)-$curve whose divisor class is $e_1$ (note that $Q \\cdot e_1 \\geq 1$). Since the restriction of $g$ to each irreducible component of its domain free, we may assume that $g(\\bar p)$, as well as the image of the node between $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$ are general points of $X$. Since the morphism $a$ is dominant, we may find a deformation $g'$ of $g$ such that $a(g') = \\bar p$. This means that the \u201climiting component\u201d of $\\bar C_1$ breaks in the desired way. Smoothing the union of $\\bar C_2$ and the component mapped to $e_1$, we obtain a morphism $\\bar g' : \\bar C_1' \\cup \\bar C_2' \\rightarrow X$ where $\\bar g'_*[\\bar C_1'] = \\ell - e_1$ and $\\bar g'_*[\\bar C_2'] = Q+ e_1$. The hypotheses of the theorem imply that $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\bar g'_*[\\bar C_2'] \\bigr)$ is irreducible since $-K_X \\cdot \\bigl( Q + e_1 \\bigr) = 3$. Thanks to the previous analysis of the divisor class $Q+e_1$, we conclude considering the dominant morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt \n{{\\rm Sl}_{\\bar g'} (\\bar C_2') \\ar[r]^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\bar g'_*[\\bar C_2'] \\bigr) }$$ that we may assume that there is a component of $g$ mapped to the divisor class $3\\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_\\alpha $, for some $\\alpha \\leq 8$.\n\nThe only remaining case is the one in which the conic $Q$ is of type $A$. We may therefore suppose that if a component of the domain of $g$ is mapped to the divisor class of a conic, then the divisor class of the image is $\\ell - e_j$ for some $j$. Since the image of $g$ is an ample divisor, it follows that there must be components $\\bar Q_1, \\ldots , \\bar Q_\\delta $ mapped to $\\ell - e_1, \\ldots , \\ell - e_\\delta $ respectively.\n\nRepeated application of Lemma \\[piuma\\] allows us to assume that the component mapped to $\\ell $ and the two components $\\bar Q_1$ $\\bar Q_2$ are adjacent. Smoothing the union of these three components to a single irreducible free morphism, concludes the first step of the proof.\n\n[**Step 2.**]{} There is a component $\\bar C_1$ of $\\bar C$ mapped to the divisor class $-K_{X_\\delta}$, if $\\delta \\leq 7$. If $\\delta = 8$ (that is, the degree of $X = X_8$ is one), then $\\bar C_1$ mapped to $-rK_{X_8}$, for $r \\in \\{1,2,3 \\}$. If $r = 1$, then we may choose to which rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ the component $\\bar C_1$ maps.\n\nIf the component $\\bar C_1$ of [**Step 1**]{} is mapped to $-rK_{X_8}$, there is nothing to prove.\n\nLet $\\bar C_1$ be the component of $g$ mapped to the divisor class $3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_\\alpha $. If $\\alpha = \\delta $, then again there is nothing to prove. Suppose therefore that $\\alpha < \\delta $. There is a component of $\\bar C$, say $\\bar C_2$, such that $g_*[\\bar C_2] \\cdot e_{\\alpha +1} \\geq 1$, since the image of $g$ is an ample divisor; let $C_2 := g_*[\\bar C_2]$ Moreover, $C_1 := \ng_*[\\bar C_1] = 3\\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_\\alpha $ intersects positively every non-zero nef divisor, thanks to Corollary \\[benaco\\]. Thus $C_1 \\cdot C_2 > 0$ and thanks to Lemma \\[piuma\\] we may assume that $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$ are adjacent in the dual graph of $g$. Since the morphism $g|_{\\bar C_2}$ is free, we assume also that $C_2$ meets transversely the $(-1)-$curve $E_{\\alpha + 1}$ whose divisor class is $e_{\\alpha + 1}$. Let $\\bar p \\in \\bar C_2$ be a point such that $p := g(\\bar p) \\in E_{\\alpha + 1}$. Consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt \n{{\\rm Sl}_{g} (\\bar C_1) \\ar[r]^{\\hspace{10pt} a} & \\bar C_2 }$$ and note that it is dominant, since $g|_{\\bar C_1}$ is free. It follows that we may find a morphism $g_1 : \\bar C_1' \\cup \\bar C_2 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_r \\longrightarrow X$ such that $a(g_1) = \\bar p$. We deduce that $g_1(\\bar C_1') \\ni p$ and $(g_1)_* [\\bar C_1'] = 3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_\\alpha $. Since $\\bigl( 3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_\\alpha \\bigr) \\cdot e_{\\alpha + 1} = 0$, we conclude that $g_1(\\bar C_1')$ contains $E_{\\alpha + 1}$ and another (irreducible) component whose divisor class is $3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_{\\alpha + 1}$. Thus the subgraph of the dual graph of $g_1$ spanned by $\\bar C_1'$ and $\\bar C_2$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_{\\alpha + 1}$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1''$}  \\restore} }$$ where $(g_1)_* [\\bar C_1''] = 3 \\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_{\\alpha + 1}$ and $(g_1)_*[\\bar E_{\\alpha + 1}] = e_{\\alpha + 1}$. We may now smooth $\\bar E_{\\alpha + 1} \\cup \\bar C_2$ to a single irreducible component $\\bar C_2'$ mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree three or four. If this new component has degree four, we break it into two components of anticanonical degree two.\n\nIf the degree of $X$ is at least two, iterating this procedure allows us to produce a component of $\\bar C$ whose image represents the divisor class $-K_X$. If the degree of $X$ is one, we may apply the same procedure to obtain a component $\\bar C_1$ mapped to $-K_{X_8}$, but we still have to prove that we may choose which nodal rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ is in the image of the morphism.\n\nIf the component $\\bar C_2$ adjacent to the component $\\bar C_1$ has degree two, we smooth these two components to a single irreducible one and using the irreducibility of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$, for $-K_{X_8} \\cdot \\beta=3$ we conclude.\n\nIf the component $\\bar C_2$ adjacent to the component $\\bar C_1$ mapped to $-K_{X_8}$ has degree three, then it represents one of the five divisor classes $-3K_{X_8}$, $\\bigl( -K_{X_8} - K_{X_7} \\bigr)$, $\\bigl( -K_{X_8} + Q \\bigr)$, $-K_{X_6}$ or $\\ell $, where $Q$ is a conic, $-K_{X_7}$ and $-K_{X_6}$ are del Pezzo surfaces of degree two and three respectively dominated by $X_8$.\n\nIn the first three cases, we deform the morphism so that the component $\\bar C_2$ breaks into a component mapped to a preassigned nodal divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and into a component where the morphism is free. In these cases, smoothing the component $\\bar C_1$ with the component adjacent to it into which $\\bar C_2$ broke finishes the proof.\n\nIf $\\bar C_2$ is mapped to $-K_{X_6}$ or $\\ell $, then we may choose a standard basis so that $-K_{X_6} = 3\\ell - e_1 - \\ldots - e_6$. The morphism $\\varphi : X_8 \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^2$ determined by the linear system $|\\ell |$ is the contraction of the $(-1)-$curves with divisor classes $e_1$, \u2026, $e_8$ to the points $q_1, \\ldots , q_8 \\in {\\mathbb P}^2$. The image of $\\bar C_1$ in ${\\mathbb P}^2$ is a nodal plane cubic through the eight points $q_1$, \u2026, $q_8$. The image of $\\bar C_2$ is either a rational cubic through $q_1$, \u2026, $q_6$ or a line. We treat only the case in which the image of $\\bar C_2$ is a nodal cubic, since the other one is simpler and the arguments are similar.\n\nDeform the nodal cubic through $q_1$, \u2026, $q_6$ until it contains a general point $q \\in {\\mathbb P}^2$. We may now slide the node between $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$ along $\\bar C_1$ until it reaches a point on $\\bar C_1$ mapped to the point $q_7 \\in {\\mathbb P}^2$. As we slide the node, we let the image of $\\bar C_2$ always contain the general point $q$. When the deformation is finished, the component $\\bar C_2$ breaks as the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_7$ and the divisor class $-K_{X_6} - e_7$. Since the point $q$ is general, we know that there are only finitely many (in fact twelve) possible configurations for these limiting positions and we may assume that they are all transverse to the image of $\\bar C_1$. Thus the dual graph of the resulting morphism $g' : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2' \\cup \\bar E_7 \\longrightarrow X_8$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_7$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nWe may smooth the components $\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar E_7$ to a unique irreducible component mapped to a curve of anticanonical degree two. The assumptions of the theorem imply that $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X_8, C_1 + e_7 \\bigr)$ is irreducible and we may therefore deform the morphism so that its domain breaks as a preassigned rational nodal divisor $C''$ in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and a curve mapped to the divisor class $e_7$. The dual graph of the resulting morphism $g''$ is of one of the following types: $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_7$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1''$}  \\restore} } \n\\hspace{30pt}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1''$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_7$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nIn the first case we smooth $\\bar E_7 \\cup \\bar C_2'$ to a single irreducible component and conclude. In the second case, we slide the node between $\\bar C_1''$ and $\\bar C_2'$ until it reaches the node between $\\bar C_1'$ and $\\bar E_7$, in such a way that the limiting position of $\\bar C_2'$ does not coincide with the image of $\\bar C_1''$ (we can do this thanks to the irreducibility of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X_8, C_1'' + C_2' \\bigr)$). It follows that the dual graph of the morphism $\\bar g$ thus obtained is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<9pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2''$}  \\restore}\n- [ul] - [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_7$}  \\restore}\n [dl] \n!{\\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore} \n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1''$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nIt is easy to check that $\\bar g$ represents a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X_8, C_1'' + C_2'' + e_7 \\bigr)$, since the sheaf $\\bar g ^* {\\mathcal T}_{X_8}$ is globally generated on $\\bar C_2''$ and has no first cohomology group on the remaining components, thanks to Lemmas \\[blodo\\] and \\[tretre\\]. We may now smooth the components $\\bar E_7 \\cup \\bar E \\cup \\bar C_2''$ to a single irreducible component on which the morphism is free to conclude.\n\nA similar and simpler argument proves the same result if $\\bar C_2$ has divisor class $\\ell $. This finishes the proof of this step.\n\n[**Step 3.**]{} We may deform $g : \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ to a morphism $h : \\bar D_1 \\cup \\bar D_2 \\rightarrow X$ where $\\bar D_1$ and $\\bar D_2$ are irreducible, $h_*[\\bar D_1] = -rK_X$ ($r \\in \\{1,2,3\\}$), $h(\\bar D_1) \\neq h(\\bar D_2)$ and $h|_{\\bar D_2}$ is free. If the degree of $X$ is at least two, then $r=1$. If the degree of $X$ is one and $r = 1$, we may choose which rational divisor in $|-K_X|$ $h(\\bar D_1)$ is. Note that we are not requiring $h|_{\\bar D_2}$ to be birational to its image.\n\nThanks to the previous steps, we may assume that $g_* [\\bar C_1] = -rK_X$ (with the required restriction for $r$) and that all the components of $\\bar C$ different from $\\bar C_1$ are immersed to curves of anticanonical degree two or three. Let $C_2$, \u2026, $C_r$ be the components of the image of $g$ different from $g(\\bar C_1)$, and let $\\bar C_i$ be the component of $\\bar C$ whose image is $C_i$.\n\nThe divisor class $C_2 + \\ldots + C_r$ is nef and if it is not a multiple of a conic, then it meets all nef curves positively, thanks to Corollary \\[benaco\\]. Thus, still assuming that $C_2 + \\ldots + C_r$ is not a multiple of a conic, we may deform the morphism using Lemma \\[piuma\\] and assume that the union of all the components of the domain of $g$ different from $\\bar C_1$ is connected. Smoothing the resulting union $\\bar C_2 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_r$ concludes the proof of this step in this case.\n\nSuppose that $C_2 + \\ldots + C_r$ is a multiple of a conic. Then it follows that $C_2 = \\ldots = C_r = C$ is a conic. Since $g$ is birational to its image and two divisors linearly equivalent to the same conic are either disjoint or they coincide, it follows that the dual graph of $g$ must be $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [ul] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [d] {\\vdots} [d] {\\bullet} [ll] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_r$}  \\restore}\n- [ur] - [dr] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<13pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_{r-1}$}  \\restore}\n [uu] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_3$}  \\restore}\n- [dl] - [ul] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore} \n [dr] \n!{\\save +<0pt,9pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ By sliding each $\\bar C_i$ along $\\bar C_1$, we may assume that the images of all the components mapped to a conic coincide and that the nodes in the source curve all map to the same general point $p \\in X$. Thus the dual graph of the resulting morphism $g''$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ul] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [d] {\\vdots} [d] \n{\\bullet} [ll] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_r$}  \\restore}\n- [ur] - [dr] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<13pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_{r-1}$}  \\restore}\n [uu] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_3$}  \\restore}\n- [dl] - [ul] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore} \n [dr] \n!{\\save +<0pt,9pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore} \n- [ll] \n!{\\save +<0pt,9pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ where $\\bar E$ is a contracted component whose image is $p$. The morphism $g''$ is a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, g_* [\\bar C] \\bigr)$ since the sheaf $(g'') ^* {\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on each irreducible component of the domain curve of $g''$.\n\nWe may smooth all the components $\\bar E \\cup \\bar C_2 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar C_r$ to a single irreducible component which represents a multiple cover (in fact a degree $r-1$ cover) of its image. The resulting morphism $h : \\bar D_1 \\cup \\bar D_2 \\rightarrow X$ is therefore such that the image of $\\bar D_1$ is a rational divisor in the linear system $|-rK_X|$ ($r=1$ unless the degree of $X$ is one, in which case $r \\leq 3$), which is an arbitrary preassigned one in case $\\deg X = 1$ and $r=1$, and the morphism $h|_{\\bar D_2}$ is a multiple cover of the divisor class of a conic. This concludes the proof of the third step.\n\nWe may write $h_*[\\bar D_2] = n_8 (-K_{X_8}) + \\ldots + n_2 (-K_2) + \nD_2'$ as in Corollary \\[maquale\\] (to simplify the notation we will assume that $\\deg X = 1$; if this is not the case, simply set to zero all the coefficients $n_\\alpha $, with $\\alpha > 9 - \\deg X$). Let $n := [\\frac {n_8} {2}]$, if $n_8 \\neq 1$ and let $n = 1$, if $n_8 = 1$. Thus we have $n_8 = 2(n-1) + 3$, if $n_8$ is odd and at least three, and $n_8 = 2n$, if $n$ is even.\n\n[**Step 4.**]{} Let $S \\subset X$ be a nodal rational divisor in the linear system $|-K_X|$. We may deform $h$ to a morphism $k : \\bar K := \\bar K_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_\\ell \\longrightarrow X$ with the following properties:\n\n1.  \\[aringoli\\] the morphism $k$ restricted to each irreducible component of $\\bar K$ is free, except possibly on $\\bar K_1$;\n\n2.  each irreducible component of $\\bar K$ represents one of the divisor classes $-3K_{X_8}$, $-2K_{X_8}$, $-K_{X_7}$, \u2026, $-K_{X_2}$, $D_2'$, except $\\bar K_1$, whose image may also be $S$;\n\n3.  the dual graph of $k$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n    {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rrrr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n    *\\cir<2pt>{}\n    !{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_\\ell $}  \\restore}\n    - [ll] \n    *\\cir<2pt>{}\n    !{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_{\\ell -1}$}  \\restore}\n    - [ll] {\\cdots} -[ll]\n    *\\cir<2pt>{}\n    !{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore}\n    - [ll] \n    *\\cir<2pt>{}\n    !{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_1$}  \\restore} }$$\n\n4.  the component $\\bar K_1$ is mapped to $-3K_{X_8}$ if $n_8$ is odd and at least three, to $S$ if $n_8 = 1$ and to $-2K_{X_8}$ if $n_8$ is even and bigger than zero;\n\n5.  the components $\\bar K_2$, $\\bar K_3$, \u2026, $\\bar K_n $ are mapped to $-2K_{X_8}$;\n\n6.  let $N_\\alpha := n+n_7 + \\ldots + n_{\\alpha + 1}$; the components $\\bar K_{N_\\alpha + 1}$, \u2026, $\\bar K_{N_{\\alpha - 1} }$ are mapped to $-K_{X_\\alpha }$;\n\n7.  if $D_2' \\neq 0$, then $\\bar K_\\ell $ is mapped to $D_2'$;\n\n8.  the morphism $k|_{\\bar K_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_{\\ell -1}}$ is birational to its image. \\[testa\\]\n\nWe call a morphism satisfying all the above properties a [*morphism in standard form*]{}.\n\nBy induction on the anticanonical degree of the divisor, we know that the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, h_* [\\bar D_2] \\bigr)$ is irreducible (or empty if $h_* [\\bar D_2]$ is a multiple of a conic and it is clear how to proceed in this case; we will not mention this issue anymore). We may therefore deform the morphism $h|_{\\bar D_2}$ to a morphism $l : \\bar E := \\bar E_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar E_t \\longrightarrow X$ in standard form. Considering the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=40pt \n{{\\rm Sl}_{h} (\\bar D_2) \\ar[r]^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, h_*[\\bar D_2] \\bigr) }$$ we may find a deformation $\\widetilde l$ of $h$ such that $\\pi (\\widetilde l ) = l$. The dual graph of $\\widetilde l$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rrrr] {\\bullet} [d] {\\bullet} [urrrr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_t$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_{t-1}$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] {\\cdots} -[ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_j$}  \\restore}\n- [d] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar D_1$}  \\restore}\n [u] - [ll] {\\cdots} -[ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_1$}  \\restore} }$$ for some $ 1 \\leq j \\leq t$. We want to show by induction on $j$ that we may assume that $j = 1$. In the case $j=1$ there is nothing to prove.\n\nSuppose $j \\geq 2$ and consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt \n{{\\rm Sl}_{\\widetilde l} (\\bar E_{j-1}) \\ar[r]^{\\hspace{15pt} a} & \\bar E_j }$$\n\nUnless $j=2$ and $\\bar E_1$ represents $|-K_{X_8}|$, the morphism $a$ is dominant and we may find a morphism $l_1$ such that $a(l_1)$ is the node between $\\bar D_1$ and $\\bar E_j$. The dual graph of the morphism $l_1$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rrrr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [d] {\\bullet} [urr] \n{\\bullet} [rrrr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_t$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_{t-1}$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] {\\cdots} -[ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_j$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [d] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar D_1$}  \\restore}\n [u] \n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<6pt,6pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_{j-1}'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] {\\cdots} -[ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_1$}  \\restore} }$$ and the component $\\bar E$ is contracted. The morphism $l_1$ represents a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, h_*[\\bar C] \\bigr)$, since $l_1^* {\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on all components different from $\\bar D_1$, and ${\\rm H}^1 \\bigl( \\bar D_1 , l_1^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr) = 0$.\n\nThe morphism $l_1$ is also a limit of morphisms with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rrrr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [d] {\\bullet} [urr] \n{\\bullet} [rrrr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_t$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_{t-1}$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] {\\cdots} -[ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_j$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<6pt,6pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_{j-1}''$}  \\restore}\n- [d] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar D_1$}  \\restore}\n [u] \n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<6pt,6pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_{j-2}$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] {\\cdots} -[ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_1$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nWe can apply the induction hypothesis to these last morphisms to conclude that we may deform the morphism $f$ to a morphism $m : \\bar F := \\bar D_1 \\cup \\bar F_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar F_t \\longrightarrow X$, where $m|_{\\bar F_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar F_t}$ is a morphism in standard form and $m|_{\\bar D_1}$ is birational onto its image and the image is a rational divisor in $|-K_X|$, or $|-rK_X|$ if $\\deg X = 1$. We may specify which rational curve $m(\\bar D_1)$ is if it represents $-K_{X_8}$, and we assume it is $S$ if and only if $\\bar F_1$ is not mapped to $S$. If $\\bar F_1$ represents a divisor class different from $|-K_{X_8}|$, then we may assume that $\\bar D_1$ is adjacent to $\\bar F_1$ and conclude; if $\\bar F_1$ represents the divisor class $|-K_{X_8}|$, then $\\bar D_1$ is adjacent to $\\bar F_2$ and $\\bar D_1$ represents the divisor class $-rK_{X_8}$ for some $r \\in \\{ 1,2,3 \\}$. The divisor represented by $\\bar F_2$ is either $-K_{X_\\alpha}$, for some $\\alpha \\leq 7$ or it is a divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree eight, i.e. ${\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$ or $Bl_p({\\mathbb P}^2)$.\n\nWe are only going to treat the case $m_*[\\bar F_2] = -K_{X_7}$, and $m_*[\\bar D_1] = -K_{X_8}$. The remaining cases are simpler and can be treated with similar techniques.\n\nLet $J \\subset \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, h_*[\\bar C] \\bigr)$ be the closure of the set of morphisms $m' : \\bar D_1' \\cup \\bar F_1' \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar F_t' \\longrightarrow X_8$ such that $m'|_{\\bar F_2' \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar F_t'} \\simeq \nm|_{\\bar F_2 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar F_t}$, $m'|_{\\bar D_1'} \\simeq m|_{\\bar D_1}$ the image of $\\bar F_2'$ is a general rational divisor in $|-K_{X_7}|$ and the dual graphs of $m$ and $m'$ coincide.\n\nWe clearly have a morphism $J \\rightarrow \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \\bigr)$ obtained by \u201crestricting a morphism in $J$ to its $\\bar F_2'$ component.\u201d Since the intersection number $m_*[\\bar F_2] \\cdot m_*[\\bar D_1]$ equals two, it follows that $J$ has at most two irreducible components. Moreover, even if the space $J$ is reducible, its components meet. To see this, we construct a point in common to the two components. Let $\\psi : X_8 \\longrightarrow {\\mathbb P}^2$ be the morphism induced by the linear system $|-K_{X_7}|$. The morphism $\\psi $ contracts a $(-1)-$curve and ramifies above a smooth plane quartic $R$. The images of $\\bar D_1$ and $\\bar F_1$ are two distinct tangent lines in ${\\mathbb P}^2$ which contain the image $c$ of the contracted component and are tangent to $R$, but are not bitangent lines to $R$. The images of the curves $\\bar F_2'$ are tangent lines to $R$. Since $R$ has degree four, it follows that there is a point $c' \\in R$ where the image of $\\bar F_1$ meets transversely $R$. Through such a point $c'$, there are ten tangent lines to $R$, different from the tangent line to $R$ at $c'$. Each of these lines corresponds to a point in the intersection of the two components of $J$. Moreover, these points in common to the components are easily seen to be smooth points of the mapping space, using Proposition \\[grafico\\]. We deduce that $J$ is connected, and thus in the same irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, h_*[\\bar C] \\bigr)$ containing $m$ there is a morphism $m_1$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [d] {\\bullet} [urr] \n{\\bullet} [d] {\\bullet} [urr] {\\bullet} [rrrr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_t$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_{t-1}$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] {\\cdots} -[ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_3$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_2'$}  \\restore}\n- [d] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_2''$}  \\restore}\n [u] \n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [d] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar D_1$}  \\restore}\n [u] \n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_1$}  \\restore} }$$ which agrees with $m$ on the components with the same label and such that $\\bar F_2''$ is mapped to the divisor class contracted by $\\psi$ and $\\bar F_2'$ is mapped to a rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ distinct from the images of $\\bar D_1$ and $\\bar F_1$. It follows from the computations in [**Step 6, Case 4**]{} below that $m_1$ represents a smooth point of the mapping space. We may now smooth $\\bar D_1 \\cup \\bar E \\cup \\bar F_1$ to a single irreducible component $\\bar G_1$ representing a nodal rational divisor in $|-2K_{X_8}|$. Similarly, we may smooth $\\bar F_2' \\cup \\bar F_2''$ to an irreducible component $\\bar G_2$ representing a nodal rational divisor in $|-K_{X_7}|$. The resulting morphism $m_2$ has dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} !{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rrrr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_t$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_{t-1}$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] {\\cdots} -[ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar F_3$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar G_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar G_1$}  \\restore} }$$ This concludes the proof of this step.\n\nWe now define a locally closed subset $K_\\beta $ of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$. Let $\\bar K_\\beta $ be the closure of the set of morphisms in standard form. The subspace $K_\\beta \\subset \\bar K_\\beta $ is the open subset of points lying in a unique irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$, or equivalently $K_\\beta $ is the complement in $\\bar K_\\beta $ of the union of all the pairwise intersections of the irreducible components of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$. In particular, all the points of $\\bar K_\\beta $ that are smooth points in $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ lie in $K_\\beta $.\n\n[**Step 5.**]{} The morphisms in standard form are contained in $K_\\beta $.\n\nIt is enough to prove that a morphism in standard form is a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$. Let $k : \\bar K \\rightarrow X$ be a morphism in standard form and let $\\bar K_1$, \u2026, $\\bar K_\\ell $ be the components of $\\bar K$. We will always assume that the numbering of the components is the \u201cstandard\u201d one. The morphism $k$ represents a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ since $k^* {\\mathcal T}_X$ is globally generated on all components $\\bar K_i$, for $i \\geq 2$ and ${\\rm H}^1 \\bigl( \\bar K_1 , k^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr) = 0$.\n\n[**Step 6.**]{} The space $K_\\beta $ is connected.\n\nTo prove connectedness of $K_\\beta $, let $k : \\bar K \\rightarrow X$ be a morphism in standard form and suppose that all the nodes of $\\bar K$ are mapped to points of $X$ not lying on $(-1)-$curves. There are such morphisms in all the connected components of $K_\\beta$ since $k|_{\\bar K_i}$ is a free morphism, for $i \\geq 2$ and $S$ is not a $(-1)-$curve. Given any $k' : \\bar K' \\rightarrow X$, we construct a deformation from $k'$ to $k$ entirely contained in $K_\\beta $. This is clearly enough to prove the connectedness of $K_\\beta$.\n\nWe are going to construct the deformation in stages.\n\nWe prove that in the same connected component of $K_\\beta $ containing $k'$ there is a morphism $k_1 : \\bar K_1^1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_\\ell ^1 \\longrightarrow X$ such that $k_1|_{\\bar K_1^1} \\simeq k|_{\\bar K_1}$.\n\nThis is true by assumption if $k_*[\\bar K_1] = -K_{X_8}$, since in this case $k(\\bar K_1) = S = k'(\\bar K_1')$ and $k$ and $k'$ are birational. Thus in this case we may choose $k_1 = k'$.\n\nSuppose that $k_*[\\bar K_1] \\neq -K_{X_8}$. Since $k'|_{\\bar K_i}$ is free for all $i$\u2019s, we may assume that $k' (\\bar K_i)$ is not contained in the image of $k$, for all $i$\u2019s. Thanks to Theorem \\[maschera\\], Theorem \\[cabala\\] and Theorem \\[barbapapa\\], we conclude that there is an irreducible curve $P \\subset K_{k_*[\\bar K_1]} \\subset \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, k_*[\\bar K_1] \\bigr)$ containing $k'|_{\\bar K_1'}$ and $k|_{\\bar K_1}$. Consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt { \n{\\rm Sl}_{k'} \\bigl( \\bar K_1' \\bigr) \\ar[r] ^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\Bigl( X, k_* [\\bar K_1] \\Bigr) }$$ and let $\\bar P \\subset \\pi ^{-1} (P)$ be an irreducible curve dominating $P$ and containing $k'$. The curve $\\bar P$ has finitely many points not lying in $K_\\beta $: they are the points $\\tilde k$ for which the image of $\\pi (\\tilde k)$ contains a component of $k'(\\bar K_2' \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_\\ell ')$. By construction, $\\bar P$ contains a morphism $k_1 : \\bar K_1^1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_\\ell ^1 \\longrightarrow X$ such that $k_1|_{\\bar K_1^1} \\simeq k|_{\\bar K_1}$ and $k_1|_{\\bar K_2^1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_\\ell ^1} \\simeq \nk'|_{\\bar K_2' \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_\\ell '}$. It follows that $\\bar P \\cap K_{\\beta }$ is an irreducible curve contained in $K_{\\beta }$ and containing $k'$ and $k_1$. Therefore $k'$ and $k_1$ are in the same connected (in fact irreducible) component of $K_\\beta $.\n\nThus to prove that $K_\\beta $ is connected we may assume that $k'|_{\\bar K_1'} \\simeq k|_{\\bar K_1}$. Suppose that we found a morphism $k_{j-1}$ in the same connected component of $K_\\beta $ as $k'$ such that $k_{j-1}|_{\\bar K_1^{j-1} \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_{j-1}^{j-1}} \\simeq \nk|_{\\bar K_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_{j-1}}$ for some $2 \\leq j \\leq \\ell $. If we can find a connected subset of $K_\\beta $ containing $k_{j-1}$ and a morphism $k_j : \\bar K_1^j \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_\\ell ^j \\longrightarrow X$ such that $k_j|_{\\bar K_1^j \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_j^j} \\simeq \nk|_{\\bar K_1 \\cup \\ldots \\cup \\bar K_j}$, then we may conclude by induction on $j$.\n\nThe remaining part of the proof will examine the several cases separately. To simplify the notation we assume that $j=2$, we write $\\bar K_1$ also for $\\bar K_1^1$ since $k|_{\\bar K_1} \\simeq k_2|_{\\bar K_1^1}$, and we let $k = k|_{\\bar K_1 \\cup \\bar K_2}$ and $k_1 = k_1|_{\\bar K_1 \\cup \\bar K_2^1}$; to get the result for $k$ and $k_1$ simply consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=35pt { \n{\\rm Sl}_{k_1} \\bigl( \\bar K_2^1 \\bigr) \\ar[r] ^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\Bigl( X, k_* [\\bar K_2] \\Bigr) }$$ and lift the path in $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\Bigl( X, k_* [\\bar K_2] \\Bigr)$ to a path in $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\Bigl( X, k_* [\\bar K] \\Bigr)$, and note that the lift lies in the space $K_\\beta $.\n\n[**Case 1: $k_*[\\bar K_2]$ is a multiple of a conic.**]{} We may assume that the node between $\\bar K_1$ and $\\bar K_2^1$ is mapped to the same point where the node between $\\bar K_1$ and $\\bar K_2$ is mapped; denote this point by $p_2$. It follows that the image of $\\bar K_2$ is uniquely determined. From the irreducibility of the Hurwitz spaces ([@FuHu]) it follows that we may find an irreducible curve in $K_\\beta $ containing $k_1$ and a morphism $k_2$ as above.\n\n[**Case 2: $k_*[\\bar K_2] = -K_{X_\\alpha}$, for $1 \\leq \\alpha \\leq 6$.**]{} We may assume that the node between $\\bar K_1$ and $\\bar K_2^1$ is mapped to the same point where the node between $\\bar K_1$ and $\\bar K_2$ is mapped; denote this point by $p_2$.\n\nSince the point $p_2$ does not lie on any $(-1)-$curve, the space of all rational divisors in $|-K_{X_\\alpha}|$ containing the point $p_2$ is isomorphic to the space of all rational divisors in $|-K_{\\tilde X_\\alpha}|$, where $\\tilde X_\\alpha $ is the blow up of $X_\\alpha $ at $p_2$. It follows from the fact that $\\tilde X_\\alpha$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree at least two, that the space of rational curves in $|-K_{\\tilde X_\\alpha}|$ irreducible and thus we conclude also in this case.\n\n[**Case 3: $k_*[\\bar K_2] = -K_{X_7}$ and $k_*[\\bar K_1] = -K_{X_7}$ or $-K_{X_8}$.**]{} The dual graphs of $k$ and $k_1$ are $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_1$}  \\restore} } \n\\hspace{30pt}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2 ^1$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_1$}  \\restore} }$$ and we have $ k_1 \\bigl( \\bar K_1 \\bigr) \\cdot k_1 \\bigl( \\bar K_2^1 \\bigr) = 2 $. Consider the diagram $$\\xymatrix @C=40pt @R=35pt { S_{bir} \\ar[r] \\ar[dd]^F & S_2 \\ar[r] \\ar[d] & \n\\bar K_1 \\times \\bar K_1 \n\\ar[d] ^{( k|_{\\bar K_1} , k|_{\\bar K_1} )} \\\\\n& \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,2} \\bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \\bigr) \n\\ar[r]^{\\hspace{20pt} \\underline {ev}} \\ar[d] & X \\times X \\\\\n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \\bigr) \\ar[r] & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \\bigr) }$$ where all squares are fiber products. The morphism $F$ is dominant and its fiber over a stable map $f$ has length two, unless the image of $f$ contains $k(\\bar K_1)$. We denote by $S_{bir}' \\subset S_{bir}$ the union of the components of $S_{bir}$ dominating $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \\bigr)$. Clearly $k$ and $k_1$ both lie in $S_{bir}'$. Moreover, since the fibers of $F':= F|_{S_{bir}'}$ have length two, it follows that $S_{bir}'$ has at most two components. To prove the connectedness of $S_{bir}'$, we assume it is reducible and check that there is a point in $K_\\beta $ common to the two components of $S_{bir}'$. This will conclude the proof in this case.\n\nConsider the morphism $\\varphi : X \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^2$ determined by $|-K_{X_7}|$. We can factor $\\varphi $ as the contraction of the divisor class $e_8$ followed by the double cover of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ branched along a smooth plane quartic curve $R$. The image of $\\bar K_2^1$ is a line tangent to $R$. The image of the component $\\bar K_1$ is herself a tangent line to the branch curve $R$. Note that in case $k_*[\\bar K_1] = -K_{X_7}$ we may assume that this tangent line is not a bitangent line nor a flex line. In case $k_*[\\bar K_1] = -K_{X_8}$, it follows from the fact that all the rational divisors in $|-K_{X_8}|$ are nodal that the image of $\\bar K_1$ is not a flex line; the fact that it is not a bitangent line follows from the fact that $X$ is a del Pezzo surface.\n\nLet $s \\in {\\mathbb P}^2$ be one of the two points such that $s \\in R \\cap \\varphi \\bigl( k(\\bar K_1) \\bigr)$, but $s$ is not the point where $R$ and $\\varphi \\bigl( k(\\bar K_1) \\bigr)$ are tangent. Through the point $s$ there are ten tangent lines to $R$ (counted with multiplicity, and not counting the tangent line to $R$ at $s$): tangent lines through $s$ correspond to ramification points of the morphism $R \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^1$ obtained by projecting away from the point $s$. Since $R$ has genus three and the morphism has degree three, by the Hurwitz formula we deduce that the degree of the ramification divisor is ten, as asserted above. Let $L \\subset {\\mathbb P}^2$ be one of the tangent lines to $R$ through $s$ different from $\\varphi \\bigl( k(\\bar K_1) \\bigr)$ and let $f : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be a morphism birational to its image and whose image is $\\varphi ^{-1} \\bigl( L \\bigr)$. The morphism $f$ represents a point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_{X_7} \\bigr)$ above which the two components of $S_{bir}'$ must meet. Such a point is smooth thanks to Proposition \\[grafico\\]. This concludes the proof in this case.\n\n[**Case 4: $k_*[\\bar K_2] = -K_{X_7}$ and $k_*[\\bar K_2] = -2K_{X_8}$.**]{} The dual graphs of $k$ and $k_1$ are $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_1$}  \\restore} } \n\\hspace{30pt}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2 ^1$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_1$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nWe reduce this case to the previous on with the following construction. We deform $k$ and $k_1$ inside $K_\\beta $ to morphisms $k'$ and $k_1'$ respectively with dual graphs $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<1pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} } \n\\hspace{30pt}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle (\\bar K_2 ^1)'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ where $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$ are mapped to two given distinct rational divisors $M_1$ and $M_2$ in $|-K_{X_8}|$.\n\nThe strategy is the same for $k$ and for $k_1$, therefore we will only describe the deformation for $k$. We may deform $k|_{\\bar K_1}$ to the morphism $k'|_{\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2}$, thanks to the irreducibility of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -2K_{X_8} \\bigr)$. This means we may deform $k$ to a morphism $\\bar k$ which is either $k'$ or it has dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} \n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nSince $\\bigl( -K_{X_8} \\bigr) \\cdot \\bigl( -K_{X_7} \\bigr) = 2$, there are at most two irreducible components of the space of morphisms with dual graph as above. Thanks to the previous case, we know that this space is connected.\n\nLet $\\tilde k' : \\bar L \\cup \\bar C_3 \\rightarrow X$ be a stable map birational to its image, where $\\bar L$ is mapped to the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_8$, $\\bar C_3$ is mapped to a rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ different from the images of both $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$. By the connectedness established above, the (closure of the) same connected component of $K_\\beta$ containing $\\bar k$ contains a morphism $\\tilde k : \\tilde C \\rightarrow X$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ul] - [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore}\n [dl] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-2pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_3$}  \\restore} \n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L$}  \\restore} }$$ where $\\bar E$ is contracted to the base-point of $|-K_{X_8}|$. To check that $\\tilde k$ is in $K_\\beta$ it is enough to check that $\\tilde k$ represents a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, k_*[\\bar K] \\bigr)$.\n\nThe point represented by $\\tilde k : \\tilde C \\rightarrow X$ in $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, k_*[\\bar K] \\bigr)$ is smooth if ${\\rm H}^0 \\bigl( \\tilde C , {\\mathcal C}_{\\tilde k} \\bigr) = 0$ (we are using the notation of (\\[conor\\])). We have a natural inclusion $${\\rm H}^0 \\bigl( \\tilde C , {\\mathcal C}_{\\tilde k} \\bigr) \\subset \n{\\rm H}^0 \\bigl( \\tilde C , \\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C} \\bigr)$$\n\nWe prove first that any global section of ${\\mathcal C}_{\\tilde k}$ is zero on $\\bar L \\cup \\bar C_3$ and then that any global section of $\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C}$ vanishing on $\\bar L \\cup \\bar C_3$ is the zero section.\n\nThe first assertion is clear from Proposition \\[graficone\\]: there are no non-zero global sections of ${\\mathcal C}_{\\tilde k}$ on $\\bar L$, and since the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_{\\tilde k}$ is locally free near the node between $\\bar L$ and $\\bar C_3$, it follows that a global section of ${\\mathcal C}_{\\tilde k}$ must vanish at the node. Since the degree of the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_{\\tilde k}$ on $\\bar C_3$ is zero, it follows that a global section of ${\\mathcal C}_{\\tilde k}$ must vanish on $\\bar L \\cup \\bar C_3$.\n\nThe second assertion is a consequence of the fact that $h^0 \\bigl( \\tilde C , \n\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C} \\bigr) = 1$, and that a non-zero section of the sheaf $\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C}$ is not identically zero on $\\bar C_3$.\n\nTo compute $h^0 \\bigl( \\tilde C , \n\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C} \\bigr)$, we use Serre duality to deduce that $$h^0 \\bigl( \\tilde C , \\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1 _X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C} \\bigr) \n= h^1 \\bigl( \\tilde C , \\tilde k ^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr)$$ There is a short exact sequence of sheaves\n\n$ \\xymatrix { 0 \\ar[r] & \\tilde k ^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\ar[r] & k_{\\bar L} ^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\oplus \nk_{\\bar E} ^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\oplus \\bigoplus _i k_i ^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\ar[r] & \\!\\!\\!\\!\n\\mathop {\\bigoplus } \\limits _{\n\\raisebox{5pt} {\\begin{tabular} {c} \n\\scriptsize $\\nu $ a node \\\\[-5pt]\n\\scriptsize of $\\tilde C$\n\\end{tabular} } }\n^{\\vphantom{{\n\\raisebox{-5pt} {\\begin{tabular} {c} \n\\scriptsize $\\nu $ a node \\\\[-5pt]\n\\scriptsize of $\\tilde C$\n\\end{tabular} }}}} \\!\\!\\!\\!\n{\\mathcal T}_{X, \\tilde k (\\nu)} \\ar[r] & 0 } $\n\nNote that the restriction of $\\tilde k ^* {\\mathcal T}_X$ to every non contracted component is isomorphic to ${\\mathcal O}_{{\\mathbb P}^1} (2) \\oplus {\\mathcal O}_{{\\mathbb P}^1} (-1)$, where the subsheaf of degree two is canonically the tangent sheaf of the component. The associated long exact sequence to the sequence above is $$0 \\longrightarrow k^{h^0} \\longrightarrow k^{14} \n\\longrightarrow k^8 \\longrightarrow k^{h^1} \\longrightarrow 0$$\n\nSince the images of all the non-contracted components are pairwise transverse (all the intersection numbers are one), and since the only global sections come from the tangent vector fields, it follows that any global section must vanish at all nodes. Thus, there are two global sections coming from the each of the curves $\\bar L$, $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$ and only one coming from $\\bar C_3$. We deduce that $h^0 = 7$ and finally $h^1 = 1$, as asserted above.\n\nLet us go back to the sheaf $\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1_X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C}$. We just computed that this sheaf has exactly one global section. We have the following decomposition for the degrees of the restrictions of the sheaf $\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1_X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C}$ to each component: $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle (-3,0)$}  \\restore}\n!{\\save +<8pt,2pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ul] - [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle (-3,0)$}  \\restore}\n!{\\save +<8pt,-2pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore}\n [dl] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-4pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle (1,1)$}  \\restore}\n!{\\save +<-2pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle (-2,1)$}  \\restore} \n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_3$}  \\restore} \n- [ll] \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle (-3,0)$}  \\restore} \n!{\\save +<0pt,-8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L$}  \\restore} }$$ where the pair of numbers next to a vertex represent the degrees of $\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1_X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C}$ restricted to the component represented by the corresponding vertex. We examine the vertex of valence three in the dual graph. Necessary conditions for a section of $\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1_X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C}$ on $\\bar E$ to extend to a global section are that the section \u201cpoints in the right direction\u201d at the nodes. These are clearly linear conditions and there are three such conditions. Moreover, every section satisfying the stated conditions extends uniquely to a global section: this is obvious on the components $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$. For the remaining components, note that every global section must vanish at the node between $\\bar L$ and $\\bar C_3$, since the intersection number $\\tilde k (\\bar L) \\cdot \\tilde k (\\bar C_3)$ equals one, and therefore the intersection is transverse. Thus every global section of $\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1_X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C}$ is uniquely determined by its restriction to $\\bar E$. Thus the only way a section can be identically zero on $\\bar C_3$ is if the sections on $\\bar E$ all vanish at the node $\\bar C_3 \\cap \\bar E$. Note that the three tangent directions of the images of $\\bar C_1$, $\\bar C_2$ and $\\bar C_3$ at their common point $p$ are pairwise independent. Choose homogeneous coordinates $E_1, E_2$ on $\\bar E$ such that $[0,1] = \\bar E \\cap C_1$, $[1,0] = \\bar E \\cap C_2$. Choose local coordinates $u,v$ on $X$ near $p$ such that the zero set of $u$ is tangent to the image of $\\bar C_1$ and the zero set of $v$ is tangent to the image of $\\bar C_2$. Rescaling by a non-zero constant $u$ and $v$ we may also assume that the zero set of $u+v$ is tangent to the image of $\\bar C_3$. The restrictions of the global sections of $\\tilde k ^* \\Omega ^1_X \\otimes \\omega _{\\tilde C}$ to $\\bar E$ are multiples of the section $$\\sigma := E_0 du + E_1 dv$$\n\nIn particular, if a section vanishes at one of the nodes between $\\bar E$ and $\\bar C_i$, then it vanishes identically. This concludes the proof that the sheaf ${\\mathcal C}_{\\tilde k}$ has no global sections and thus we conclude that $\\tilde k$ is a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, k_*[\\bar K] \\bigr)$.\n\nWe now resume our argument. It is clear that $\\tilde k$ is also a limit of morphisms $\\tilde k'$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<1pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\tilde K_2'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ which is precisely what we wanted to prove. This completes the reduction of this case to [**Case 3**]{}, and thus this case is proved.\n\n[**Case 5: $k_*[\\bar K_2] = -K_{X_7}$ and $k_*[\\bar K_1] = -3K_{X_8}$.**]{} We also reduce this case to [**Case 3**]{}. As before, thanks to the irreducibility of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -3K_{X_8} \\bigr)$ we may deform the morphism $k$ so that $k|_{\\bar K_1}$ is replaced by the birational morphism $k' : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\rightarrow X$, where $\\bar C_1$ is immersed and represents $|-2K_{X_8}|$, and $\\bar C_2$ is mapped to a given rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$. After possibly sliding the component $\\bar K_2$ along $\\bar C_1$, we may suppose that the dual graph of $k'$ is the following: $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<1pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ Similar remarks apply to $k_2$. This completes the reduction to [**Case 3**]{} and the proof in this case.\n\n[**Case 6: $k_*[\\bar K_2] = -2K_{X_8}$ and $k_*[\\bar K_1] = -2K_{X_8}$.**]{} Since the intersection product $\\bigl( -2K_{X_8} \\bigr) ^2$ equals four, and the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -2K_{X_8} \\bigr)$ is irreducible, it follows that there are at most four irreducible components of morphisms in standard form representing the divisor class $-4K_{X_8}$. Let $c : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\longrightarrow X$ be a stable map birational to its image such that $\\bar C_i$ is mapped to a $(-1)-$curve $C_i$ and $C_1 + C_2 = -2K_{X_8}$. Consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\\rm Sl} _k (\\bar K_1) \\ar[r]^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -2K_{X_8} \\bigr) }$$\n\nThe morphism $\\pi $ is dominant. Thus we may find a morphism $k' : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\cup \\bar K_2 \\longrightarrow X$ such that $k' |_{\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2} \\simeq c$, lying in the same irreducible component of $K_\\beta $ as $k$. We have two possibilities for the dual graph of $k'$: $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<1pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} } \n\\hspace{30pt}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nWe want to reduce to the case in which $\\bar K_2$ is adjacent to $\\bar C_2$. Consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=40pt { \n{\\rm Sl} _{k'} (\\bar K_2) \\ar[r]^{\\hspace{10pt}a} & \\bar C_1 }$$ and as usual this morphism is dominant. This means that we may slide the node between $\\bar K_2$ and $\\bar C_1$ until it reaches the node between $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$. The resulting morphism $\\tilde k$ has dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ul]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<-3pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore}\n [dl] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\tilde K_2$}  \\restore} }$$ where $\\bar E$ is contracted by $\\tilde k$. It is easy to check that this morphism represents a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, -4K_{X_8} \\bigr)$ and that it is also a limit of morphisms $\\tilde k'$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<1pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar K_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nThus we may indeed assume that $\\bar K_2$ is adjacent to $\\bar C_2$. Note that since $-2K_{X_8} \\cdot C_1 = 2$, it follows that there are at most two connected components in the space of morphisms in standard form representing the divisor class $-4K_{X_8}$. To conclude, it is enough to show that we may \u201cexchange\u201d the two intersection points $C_2 \\cap k'(\\bar K_2)$ by a connected path contained in $K_\\beta $.\n\nConsider the morphism $\\varphi : X \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^3$ induced by the linear system $|-2K_{X_8}|$. We have already seen that the image is a quadric cone $Q$ and that the morphism is ramified along a smooth curve $R$ which is the complete intersection of $Q$ with a cubic surface. The $(-1)-$curves $C_1$ and $C_2$ have as image the intersection of $Q$ with a plane which is everywhere tangent to the curve $R$ (and does not contain the vertex of the cone). Let $p$ be one of the intersection points of $\\varphi (C_2)$ with $R$. Projection away from the tangent line $L$ to $R$ at $p$ determines a morphism $\\pi _L : R \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^1$ of degree four. Since the genus of $R$ is four, it follows from the Hurwitz formula that the degree of the ramification divisor of $\\pi _L$ is 14. It is immediate to check that $\\pi _L$ ramifies above the tangent plane to $Q$ at $p$, and that the ramification index is two. It is also immediate that above the plane containing $\\varphi (C_2)$ the ramification index is two. We deduce that there are planes in the pencil containing $L$ which are tangent to $R$ and are not the tangent plane to $Q$ at $p$ nor the plane containing $\\varphi (C_2)$. Such planes correspond to rational divisors $H$ in $|-2K_{X_8}|$ with the property that $H \\cap C_2$ consists of the unique point $\\varphi ^{-1} (p)$. Let $\\nu : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be a birational morphism whose image is one of the divisors $H$ constructed above. The morphism $\\nu$ represents a morphism in $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -2K_{X_8} \\bigr)$, and since this space is irreducible, we may deform $\\tilde k'$ to a morphism $\\bar k : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\cup \\bar H \\longrightarrow X$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet}\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<1pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar H$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ and such that $\\bar k|_{\\bar H} \\simeq \\nu$. The morphism $\\bar k$ represents a smooth point of the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, -4K_{X_8} \\bigr)$, thanks to Proposition \\[grafico\\]. Thus $\\bar k \\in K_\\beta $ and it lies in the same connected component of $K_\\beta $ as $k$.\n\nApplying the same construction to the morphism $k_2$, we obtain that also $k_2$ lies in the same connected component of $K_\\beta $ as $\\bar k$. This concludes the proof of this case.\n\n[**Case 7: $k_*[\\bar K_2] = -2K_{X_8}$ and $k_*[\\bar K_1] = -3K_{X_8}$.**]{} Let $c : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\longrightarrow X$ be a morphism birational to its image, such that $c (\\bar C_2)$ is a rational divisor in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and $c (\\bar C_1)$ is a general rational divisor in $|-2K_{X_8}|$. Consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\\rm Sl} _k (\\bar K_1) \\ar[r]^{\\pi \\hspace{20pt}} & \n\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -3K_{X_8} \\bigr) }$$ and note that as usual it is dominant. Therefore we may deform $k$ to a morphism $k' : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\cup \\bar K_2 \\longrightarrow X$ such that $k' |_{\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2} \\simeq c$.\n\nAs before, we may slide the component $\\bar K_2$ along $\\bar C_1$ until it reaches $\\bar C_2$, and reduce to the case in which $\\bar K_2$ is adjacent to $\\bar C_2$. The same considerations of the final step of the previous case allow us to conclude.\n\nThis concludes the proof of the connectedness of $K_\\beta $.\n\n[**Step 7.**]{} We now simply collect all the information we obtained, to conclude the proof of the theorem. [**Step 4**]{} and [**Step 5**]{} imply (under the hypotheses of the theorem) that every irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ is either empty or it contains a point lying in $K _\\beta$. [**Step 6**]{} then implies that there is at most one component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ containing $K_\\beta $. Thus if $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ is not empty, then it consists of exactly one irreducible component. This concludes the proof of the theorem. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nLet $X$ be a del Pezzo surface. If $\\beta $ is a nef divisor which is not a multiple of a conic, then the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$ is not empty.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} We may write $$\\beta = n_8 (-K_{X_8}) + \\ldots + n_2 (-K_{X_2}) + \\beta '$$ where $n_8, \\ldots , n_2 \\geq 0$ and $\\beta '$ is a nef divisor on a del Pezzo surface $X_1$ of degree eight dominated by $X$ (if $X \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^2$ the assertion is obvious).\n\nIf $n_8 \\geq 2$, then we define $n$ and $r$ by the conditions $n_8 = 2(n-1) + r$, where $r = 2,3$; if $n_8 = 1$, then we define $n = r = 1$; if $n_8 = 0$, then we define $n = r = 0$. Let $$\\begin{array} {rcl@{~~{\\text{ where }}}l} \n{\\rm Pic} \\bigl( {\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1 \\bigr) & \\simeq & {\\mathbb Z}\\ell _1 \\oplus {\\mathbb Z}\\ell _2 \n& \\ell _1 = \\{ p \\} \\times {\\mathbb P}^1 ~,~ \\ell _2 = {\\mathbb P}^1 \\times \\{ p \\} \\\\[10pt]\n{\\rm Pic} \\bigl( Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2) \\bigr) & \\simeq & {\\mathbb Z}\\ell \\oplus {\\mathbb Z}e & \n\\ell ^2 = 1 ~,~ \\ell \\cdot e = 0 ~,~ e^2 = -1\n\\end{array}$$ and write $$\\begin{array} {rcl@{~~{\\text{ if }}}l}\n\\beta ' & = & n_1 \\bigl( \\ell _1 + \\ell _2 \\bigr) + n_0 \\ell _2 \n& X \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1 \\\\[7pt]\n\\beta ' & = & n_1 \\ell + n_0 \\bigl( \\ell - e \\bigr) & X \\simeq Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2)\n\\end{array}$$ where $n_1 \\geq 0$, $n_0 \\geq 0$ (we may need to exchange $\\ell _1$, $\\ell _2$). Note that with this notation the divisor $\\beta $ is multiple of a conic if and only if $n_8 = n_7 = \\ldots = n_1 = 0$. Choose\n\n-   $n-1$ distinct rational integral nodal divisors $C_2^8, \\ldots , C_n^8$ in $|-2K_{X_8}|$;\n\n-   a rational integral nodal divisor $C_1^8$ (different from the previous ones if $r=2$) in $|-rK_{X_8}|$;\n\n-   $n_i$ distinct rational integral nodal divisors $C_1^i, \\ldots , C_{n_i}^i$ in $|-K_{X_i}|$;\n\n-   $n_1$ distinct integral divisors $C_1 , \\ldots , C_{n_1}$ lying in $|\\ell _1 + \\ell _2|$, if $X_1 \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^1 \\times {\\mathbb P}^1$ and lying in $|\\ell |$, if $X_1 \\simeq Bl_p ({\\mathbb P}^2)$;\n\n-   an integral divisor $C'$ in $|\\ell _2|$ or $|\\ell - e|$.\n\nHaving made these choices, we may now consider the stable map of genus zero $f : \\bar C \\rightarrow X$, with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] \n{\\bullet} [rr] \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_{n_1}^1$}  \\restore}\n- [l] {\\cdots} - [l]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_{n_7}^7$}  \\restore}\n- [l] {\\cdots} - [l]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1^7$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_n^8$}  \\restore}\n- [l] {\\cdots} - [l]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2^8$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1^8$}  \\restore} }$$ where of course we ignore a component if the corresponding curve without a bar has not been defined. The morphism $f$ on a component $\\bar D$ is the normalization of the curve $D$ followed by inclusion in $X$, if $D \\neq C'$, and it is a multiple cover of degree $n_0$, if $D = C'$.\n\nAll the restrictions of $f$ to the irreducible components of $\\bar C$ different from $\\bar C_1^8$ are free morphisms; the cohomology group ${\\rm H}^1 \\bigl( \\bar C_1^8 , f^* {\\mathcal T}_X \\bigr)$ is immediately seen to be zero. Thus we may deform $f$ to a morphism lying in ${\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr)$. If the general deformation of $f$ were a morphism not birational to its image, then $f_*[\\bar C]$ would not be reduced. Since this is not the case, it follows that we may deform $f$ to a morphism with irreducible domain, which is birational to its image. This proves that ${\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, \\beta \\bigr) \\neq \\emptyset $, if $\\beta $ is not a multiple of a conic. This concludes the proof of the proposition. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[*Remark 1*]{}. The spaces ${\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, m C \\bigr)$, where $C$ is the class of a conic, are easily seen to be irreducible, for $m \\geq 1$. If $m = 1$, we have $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, C \\bigr) \\simeq {\\mathbb P}^1$. If $m \\geq 1$, then there is a morphism ${\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, m C \\bigr) \\longrightarrow {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, C \\bigr)$, obtained by \u201cforgetting the multiple cover.\u201d The fibers of this morphism are birational to Hurwitz schemes, which are irreducible ([@FuHu]). The irreducibility of ${\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, m C \\bigr)$ follows.\n\n[*Remark 2*]{}. If $L$ is an integral divisor of anticanonical degree one, then either $L$ is a $(-1)-$curve, or it is the anticanonical divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree one.\n\nIf $L$ is a $(-1)-$curve, the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, L \\bigr)$ has dimension zero and length one; it therefore consists of a single reduced point and is irreducible.\n\nIf $L = -K_X$, the three spaces $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, -K_X \\bigr)$, ${\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, -K_X \\bigr)$ and $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X \\bigr)$ are all equal and have dimension zero and length twelve. They are not irreducible. For a general del Pezzo surface of degree one, the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X \\bigr)$ is reduced and consists of exactly twelve points. This happens precisely when the rational divisors in $|-K_X|$ are all nodal.\n\nDivisors of Small Degree on $X_8$\n=================================\n\nThe Divisor $-K_{X_8} - K_{X_7}$\n--------------------------------\n\nHere we prove the irreducibility of the spaces $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , \\beta ) \\bigr)$, where the degree of $X$ is one, $\\beta $ is ample and the anticanonical degree of $\\beta $ is three. We already saw (Theorem \\[maschera\\]) that the space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , -3K_X \\bigr)$ is irreducible. The following proofs are similar to the proof of Theorem \\[maschera\\].\n\n\\[coccode\\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one. Suppose that all the rational divisors in $|-K_X|$ are nodal and that $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X,-2K_X \\bigr)$ is irreducible. Let $L \\subset X$ be a $(-1)-$curve and let $b : X \\rightarrow X'$ be the contraction of $L$. Then the space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X,-K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$ is irreducible.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Let $f : {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be a morphism in $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X,-K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$ and suppose that the image of $f$ contains the independent point $p$. Consider the space of morphisms of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X,-K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$ in the same irreducible component as $[f]$ which contain the point $p$ in their image, denote this space by $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$. It follows immediately from the dimension estimates (\\[dimdibarbi\\]) that $\\dim _{[f]} \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} (p) = 1$ and that $[f]$ is a smooth point of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$. We may therefore find a smooth irreducible projective curve $B$, a normal surface $\\pi : S \\rightarrow B$ and a morphism $F : S \\rightarrow X$ such that the induced morphism $B \\rightarrow \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} (p)$ is surjective onto the component containing $[f]$. From [@Ko] Corollary II.3.5.4, it follows immediately that the morphism $F$ is dominant. We want to show that there are reducible fibers of $\\pi$. The argument is the same that appears at the beginning of the proof of Theorem \\[maschera\\].\n\nThus there must be a morphism $f_0 : \\bar C \\rightarrow X$ with reducible domain in the family of stable maps parametrized by $B$, and since all such morphisms contain the general point $p$ in their image, the same is true of the morphism $f_0$. In particular, since the point $p$ does not lie on any rational curve of anticanonical degree one, it follows that $\\bar C$ consists of exactly two components $\\bar C_1$ and $\\bar C_2$, where each $\\bar C_i$ is irreducible and we may assume that $f_0 (\\bar C_1)$ has anticanonical degree one and $f_0 (\\bar C_2)$ has anticanonical degree two. Denote by $C_i$ the image of $\\bar C_i$. It also follows from the definition of an independent point and Proposition \\[grafico\\] that $f_0$ represents a smooth point of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , -K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$.\n\nThere are two possibilities for $C_1$: either it is a $(-1)-$curve or it is a rational divisor in the anticanonical system. We want to prove that we may assume that $C_1$ is not a $(-1)-$curve.\n\nSuppose $C_1$ is a $(-1)-$curve. The morphism $f_0 |_{\\bar C_2}$ is a free morphism, because the image contains a general point and has anticanonical degree two. Moreover the image $C_2$, being a curve of anticanonical degree two, is one of the following: a conic, the anticanonical divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree two dominated by $X$ or a divisor in $|-2K_X|$. In all these cases we know that the space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X , (f_0)_* [\\bar C_2] \\bigr)$ is irreducible. Thus we may deform $f_0|_{\\bar C_2}$ to a curve with two irreducible components, both mapped to $(-1)-$curves. Considering the space ${\\rm Sl}_{f_0} (\\bar C_2)$ we conclude that we may deform $f_0$ to a morphism $f_1 : \\bar L_1 \\cup \\bar L_2 \\cup \\bar L_3 \\rightarrow X$ where each component $\\bar L_i$ is mapped to a different $(-1)-$curve $L_i$ on $X$.\n\nWe deduce that we have $L_1 + L_2 + L_3 = -2K_X + L$ and $L_1$, $L_2$ and $L_3$ are distinct $(-1)-$curves. Thanks to Lemma \\[tremendi\\] we conclude that there is a standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_8 \\}$ of ${\\rm Pic} (X)$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{noduno}\n\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\nL_1 & = & -2K_X - e_1 \\\\[5pt]\nL_2 & = & e _8 \\\\[5pt]\nL_3 & = & e_1 \n\\end{array} \n\\right. &\n{\\text{ ~,~ }} &\n\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\nL_1 & = & -2K_X - (\\ell - e_7 - e_8 ) \\\\[5pt]\nL_2 & = & \\ell - e_7 - e _8 \\\\[5pt]\nL_3 & = & e_8 \n\\end{array} \n\\right. \\end{aligned}$$ or $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{nodini}\n&\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\nL_1 & = & -2K_X - (\\ell - e_7 - e_8) \\\\[5pt]\nL_2 & = & e_1 \\\\[5pt]\nL_3 & = & \\ell - e_1 - e_7 \n\\end{array} \\right. \\end{aligned}$$ after possibly permuting the indices 1, 2 and 3.\n\nThe next step in the deformation is to produce a component mapped to the divisor class $-2K_X$.\n\nIn the first case of (\\[noduno\\]), the component $\\bar L_1$ is adjacent to both $\\bar L_2$ and $\\bar L_3$, since $L_2 \\cdot L_3 = 0$. We may therefore consider ${\\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\\bar L_1 \\cup \\bar L_3)$ to smooth $\\bar L_1 \\cup \\bar L_3$ to a single component $\\bar K$ mapped to $-2K_X$.\n\nIn the second case of (\\[noduno\\]), either $\\bar L_1$ and $\\bar L_2$ are adjacent and it is enough to smooth their union to conclude, or $\\bar L_2$ is adjacent to $\\bar L_3$ and not to $\\bar L_1$. If this happens, then we may smooth the union $\\bar L_2 \\cup \\bar L_3$ to a single irreducible component $\\bar Q$, mapped to the conic $\\ell - e_7$. Denote the resulting morphism by $f_1'$. We may consider the dominant morphism $$a: {\\rm Sl} _{f_1'} (\\bar Q) \\longrightarrow \\bar L_1$$ and let $\\bar e \\in \\bar L_1$ be a point mapped to a point lying on the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $L_2 = \\ell - e_7 - e_8$. Since $a$ is dominant, we may find a morphism $f_1''$ such that $a(f_1'') = \\bar e$. By construction, the dual graph of the morphism $f_1''$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L_3$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L_2$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L_1$}  \\restore} }$$ and we may now smooth $\\bar L_1 \\cup \\bar L_2$ to conclude.\n\nIn the case of (\\[nodini\\]), we first prove that we may assume that $\\bar L_2$ and $\\bar L_3$ are adjacent. If $\\bar L_2$ and $\\bar L_3$ are not adjacent, then $\\bar L_1$ is adjacent to both $\\bar L_2$ and $\\bar L_3$ and we may consider ${\\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\\bar L_1 \\cup \\bar L_2)$ to smooth $\\bar L_1 \\cup \\bar L_2$ to a single irreducible component $\\bar K$ mapped to a curve with divisor class $K:= \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr)$. Note that the divisor class of $K$ is the divisor class of the anticanonical divisor on a del Pezzo surface of degree two dominated by $X$. Thus we know that the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X,K \\bigr)$ is irreducible and it contains a point whose image consists of the union of the two $(-1)-$curves with divisor classes $L_1' := \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 \\bigr)$ and $L_2' := \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \\bigr)$. Considering ${\\rm Sl}_{f_1} (\\bar L_1 \\cup \\bar L_2)$ we may therefore deform $f_1$ to a morphism $f_2 : \\bar L_1' \\cup \\bar L_2' \\cup \\bar L_3 \\rightarrow X$ such that the image of $\\bar L_i'$ is the $(-1)-$curve $L_i'$. Thus we have\n\n$$\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {r@{\\,=\\,}l}\nL_1' & \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 1 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 2 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\nL_2' & \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\nL_3 & \\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 0 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\right. \n\\hspace{3.5pt} \\stackrel {T_{127}} {-\\!\\!\\!-\\!\\!\\!-\\!\\!\\!\\longrightarrow } \n\\hspace{4.3pt} \n\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {r@{\\,=\\,}l}\nL_1' & \\bigl( 6 \\,;\\, 2 , 3 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\nL_2' & \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 ,-1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\nL_3 &  \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\, 0 ,-1 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 \\bigr) \n\\end{array} \\right.$$ which is (up to a permutation) the first case of (\\[nodini\\]).\n\nWe still need to examine the case in which $\\bar L_2$ and $\\bar L_3$ are adjacent and are given by the second set of equalities in (\\[nodini\\]). Smoothing the union $\\bar L_2 \\cup \\bar L_3$ to a single irreducible component $\\bar Q$ we obtain a morphism $f_2$ with dual graph $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar Q$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L_1$}  \\restore} }$$ and $$\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\n(f_2)_* \\bar L_1 & = & \\bigl( 5 \\,;\\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n(f_2)_* \\bar Q   & = & \\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 0 , 1 , 0 \\bigr)\n\\end{array} \\right.$$\n\nLet $\\bar p \\in \\bar L_1$ be a point such that $f_2(\\bar p) \\in M$, where $M \\subset X$ is the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $\\ell - e_7 - e_8$. Considering the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\\rm Sl} _{f_2} (\\bar Q) \n\\ar[r]^{\\hspace{10pt} a} & \\bar L_1 }$$ we deduce that we may slide $\\bar Q$ along $\\bar L_1$ until the node between these two components reaches the point $\\bar p$. When this happens, the image of the limiting position of the image of $\\bar Q$ contains a point of $M$. Since the intersection product $(f_2)_* [\\bar Q] \\cdot M$ equals zero, it follows that the image of the limiting position of $\\bar Q$ must contain $M$. Thus the limit of the morphism $f_2$ under this deformation is a morphism $f_3$ whose dual graph is one of the graphs $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_8$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar M$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L_1$}  \\restore} } \n\\hspace{30pt}\n\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [ur] {\\bullet} [dd] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<8pt,0pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_8$}  \\restore}\n- [ul]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E$}  \\restore}\n- [ur]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar M$}  \\restore}\n [dl] - [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar L_1$}  \\restore} }$$ where $\\bar E_8$ is mapped to the divisor class $e_8$, and the component $\\bar E$ is contracted by $f_3$. The second case happens if the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_8$ contains the point $f_2(\\bar p)$. In both cases the point represented by $f_3$ lies in a unique irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$: in the first case thanks to Proposition \\[grafico\\]; in the second case thanks to Lemma \\[pizzica\\] and the fact that the intersection number $(f_2)_* [\\bar L_1] \\cdot E_8$ is one.\n\nWe may therefore deform $\\bar L_1 \\cup \\bar E \\cup \\bar M$ to a unique irreducible component $\\bar K$ mapped to the divisor $K$ with class $\\bigl( 6 \\,;\\, 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 \\bigr) = -2K_X$.\n\nThus in all cases we found a morphism in the same irreducible component of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$ as $f$ whose image contains a nodal integral divisor in $|-2K_X|$. Let $E \\subset \\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$ be the subspace consisting of those morphisms containing a component mapped birationally to an irreducible divisor in $-2K_X$. We are going to prove that the space $E$ is connected and contained in the smooth locus of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$. This concludes the proof of the irreducibility of $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$.\n\nAny morphism $[f: \\bar K \\cup \\bar E_8 \\rightarrow X] \\in E$ is determined by its image together with one of the points $f(\\bar K \\cap \\bar E_8) \\in K \\cap E_8$. Since $-2K_X \\cdot E_8 = 2$, it follows that $E$ has at most two irreducible components.\n\nSuppose $E$ has two irreducible components. Consider the morphism $\\varphi : X \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^3$ induced by the linear system $|-2K_X|$. We have already seen that the image is a quadric cone $Q$ and that the morphism is ramified along a smooth curve $R$ which is the complete intersection of $Q$ with a cubic surface. The $(-1)-$curve $E_8$ has as image the intersection of $Q$ with a plane which is everywhere tangent to the curve $R$ (and does not contain the vertex of the cone). Let $e$ be one of the intersection points of $\\varphi (E_8)$ with $R$. Projection away from the tangent line $L$ to $R$ at $e$ determines a morphism $\\pi _L : R \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^1$ of degree four. Since the genus of $R$ is four, it follows from the Hurwitz formula that the degree of the ramification divisor of $\\pi _L$ is 14. It is immediate to check that $\\pi _L$ ramifies above the tangent plane to $Q$ at $e$, and that the ramification index is two. It is also immediate that above the plane containing $\\varphi (E_8)$ the ramification index is two. We deduce that there are planes in the pencil containing $L$ which are tangent to $R$ and are not the tangent plane to $Q$ at $e$ nor the plane containing $\\varphi (E_8)$. Such planes correspond to rational divisors $H$ in $|-2K_X|$ with the property that $H \\cap E_8$ consists of the unique point $\\varphi ^{-1} (e)$. Let $\\nu : \\bar H \\rightarrow X$ be a birational morphism whose image is one of the divisors $H$ constructed above. The morphism $\\nu$ represents a morphism in $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -2K_X \\bigr)$, and since this space is irreducible by assumption, we may deform $f$ to a morphism $\\bar f : \\bar H \\cup \\bar E_8 \\longrightarrow X$, such that $\\bar f|_{\\bar H} \\simeq \\nu$. Thus $\\bar f \\in E$ and it clearly lies in the intersection of the two irreducible components of $E$. The space $E$ is therefore connected.\n\nApplying Proposition \\[grafico\\] we immediately see that all the points of $E$ are smooth in $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{0,0} \\bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$, and thus we conclude that the space $\\overline {\\mathcal M}_{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X -K_{X'} \\bigr)$ is irreducible. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nThe Divisor $-K_{X_8} + Q$\n--------------------------\n\nWe prove now a similar result for the Divisor $-K_{X_8} + Q$.\n\n\\[chicchirichi\\] Let $X$ be a del Pezzo surface of degree one and suppose that all the rational divisors in $|-K_X|$ are nodal. Let $Q$ be the divisor class of a conic, then the space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X + Q \\bigr)$ is irreducible.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Let $f: {\\mathbb P}^1 \\rightarrow X$ be a free morphism birational to its image, such that $f_*[{\\mathbb P}^1] = -K_X + Q$. As before, we may assume that the image of $f$ contains a general point $p$. Since there is a one parameter family of deformations of $f$ whose image contains the general point $p$, we may deform $f$ to a morphism $f' : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar C_2 \\longrightarrow X$ such that $- K_X \\cdot f'_*[\\bar C_i] = i$. Since $p$ is general and contained in the image of $f'$ and there are no rational cuspidal divisors in $|-K_X|$, it follows that the point represented by $f'$ in $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X + Q \\bigr)$ is smooth.\n\nOur next step is to show that we may assume that $f'_*[\\bar C_1] = -K_X$. Suppose that $f'_*[\\bar C_1]$ is a $(-1)-$curve $L \\subset X$. We may choose a standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_8 \\}$ such that $Q = \\ell - e_1$ and thus $-K_X + Q = \\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr)$. By examining [@Ma] Table IV.8, we see that the only possible ways of writing $-K_X + Q$ as a sum of a $(-1)-$curve $C_1$ and a nef divisor class $C_2$ are (up to permutation of the coordinates 2, \u2026, 8): $$\\label{ancoratre}\n -K_X + Q = \n\\left\\{ \\begin{array} {rcl}\n\\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr) &+& \\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 \\bigr) &+& \\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\[10pt]\n\\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1 \\bigr) &+& \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\bigl( 0 \\,;\\,-1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \\bigr) &+& \\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 3,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\[10pt]\n\\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \\bigr) &+& \\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\[5pt]\n\\bigl( 0 \\,;\\,0,0,-1,0,0,0,0,0 \\bigr) &+& \\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\[10pt]\n\\end{array} \\right.$$\n\nThe automorphisms of ${\\rm Pic} (X)$ of the form $T_{1jk}$ preserve the conic $Q$, for all $1 < j < k \\leq 8$. We use these automorphisms to reduce the number of cases. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{167} \\Bigl( \n\\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr) + \n\\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1 \\bigr) \\Bigr) & = \\\\\n= \\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0 \\bigr) + \n\\bigl( 2 \\,;\\, 1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\[10pt]\nT_{178} \\Bigl( \n\\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1 \\bigr) + \n\\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,0,0 \\bigr) \\Bigr) & = \\\\\n= \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\,-1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 \\bigr) + \n\\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 3,1,1,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\\\[10pt]\nT_{123} \\Bigl( \n\\bigl( 1 \\,;\\, 1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0 \\bigr) + \n\\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\Bigr) & = \\\\\n= \\bigl( 0 \\,;\\,0,0,-1,0,0,0,0,0 \\bigr) + \n\\bigl( 4 \\,;\\, 2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1 \\bigr) \\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe therefore only need to consider the first, third and fifth case in list (\\[ancoratre\\]). We reduce the first and third case to the fifth one.\n\nIf $\\bar C_1$ is mapped to the divisor class $\\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr)$, then we consider the morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\\rm Sl} _{f'} (\\bar C_2) \n\\ar[r]^{\\hspace{10pt}a} & \\bar C_1 }$$ Since $f'|_{\\bar C_2}$ is a free morphism, $a$ is dominant. Let $\\bar p \\in \\bar C_1$ be a point such that $p := f'(\\bar p)$ lies on the $(-1)-$curve with divisor class $e_1$. Let $g : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar E_1 \\cup \\bar C_2' \\longrightarrow X$ be a morphism such that $a(g) = \\bar p$. By construction, the dual graph of $g$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_2'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_1$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$ where $\\bar E_1$ is mapped to the divisor class $e_1$ and $\\bar C_2'$ to the divisor class $\\ell - e_1 - e_8$. We now smooth the union $\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar E_1$ to a single irreducible component. Thus, after a permutation of the indices, we reduced to the fifth case in (\\[ancoratre\\]).\n\nIf $\\bar C_1$ is mapped to the divisor class $e_1$, then we proceed similarly: break $\\bar C_2$ into a component mapping to the divisor class $\\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr)$ adjacent to $\\bar C_1$, and a component mapped to the divisor class $\\ell - e_1 - e_8$. Smoothing the union of the component $\\bar C_1$ with the component mapped to $\\bigl( 3 \\,;\\, 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0 \\bigr)$ reduces us to the fifth case in (\\[ancoratre\\]).\n\nSuppose therefore that the component $\\bar C_1$ is mapped to $\\ell - e_1 - e_2$ and the component $\\bar C_2$ is mapped to $3 \\ell - e_1 - e_3 - \\ldots - e_8$. As above, we may deform the morphism $f'$ to a morphism $g$ so that the component $\\bar C_2$ breaks into a component $\\bar E_2$ adjacent to $\\bar C_1$ and mapped to $e_2$, and into a component $\\bar C_2'$ mapped to the divisor class $-K_X$. Smoothing the union $\\bar E_2 \\cup \\bar C_2'$ to a single irreducible component, we obtain a morphism $g' : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar Q \\longrightarrow X$, where $\\bar C_1$ is mapped to $-K_X$ and $\\bar Q$ is mapped to $Q$. Note that we have at the moment no control over which rational divisor in the linear system $|-K_X|$ the component $\\bar C_1$ is mapped to. Remember that with our choice of standard basis we have $Q = \\ell - e_1$. We may write $Q = \\bigl( \\ell - e_1 - e_8 \\bigr) + e_8$, and since $-K_X \\cdot e_8 = 1$, there is a unique point $\\bar c$ of $\\bar C_1$ whose image $c \\in X$ lies in $E_8$, the $(-1)-$curve on $X$ with divisor class $e_8$. Considering the dominant morphism $$\\xymatrix @C=40pt { {\\rm Sl} _{g'} (\\bar Q) \n\\ar[r]^{\\hspace{10pt}a} & \\bar C_1 }$$ we may find a morphism $h : \\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar E_8 \\cup \\bar Q' \n\\longrightarrow X$ such that $a(h) = \\bar c$. The dual graph of $h$ is $$\\xygraph {[] !~:{@{.}} \n!{<0pt,0pt>;<20pt,0pt>:} \n{\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} [rr] {\\bullet} \n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar Q'$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar E_8$}  \\restore}\n- [ll]\n*\\cir<2pt>{}\n!{\\save +<0pt,8pt>*\\txt{$\\scriptstyle \\bar C_1$}  \\restore} }$$\n\nSmoothing the components $\\bar C_1 \\cup \\bar E_8$ to a single irreducible component $\\bar K'$ we obtain a morphism $h' : \\bar K' \\cup \\bar Q' \\longrightarrow X$ such that $Q' := h'_*[\\bar Q'] = \\ell - e_1 - e_8$ and $h'_*[\\bar K'] = -K_X + e_8 = -K_{X'}$, where $X'$ is the del Pezzo surface obtained from $X$ by contracting the $(-1)-$curve $E_8$.\n\nLet $H \\subset \\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X + Q \\bigr)$ be the space of morphisms whose image contains $E_8$ and an integral rational divisor in $|-K_{X'}|$. We have a dominant morphism $$\\pi : H \\longrightarrow \\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_{X'} \\bigr)$$ whose fibers have length two, since $-K_{X'} \\cdot Q' = 2$. It follows that $H$ has at most two irreducible components. Note that the fibers of $\\pi $ over the general point of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_{X'} \\bigr)$ are smooth points of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X + Q \\bigr)$. It follows that the space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X + Q \\bigr)$ itself has at most two irreducible components, and is irreducible if $H$ is. We prove that if $H$ is reducible, then we can find a smooth point of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X + Q \\bigr)$ lying in the intersection of the two components of $H$. This is enough to imply that $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X + Q \\bigr)$ is irreducible.\n\nSuppose thus that $H$ as two irreducible components. Let $\\varphi : X \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^2$ be the morphism induced by the linear system $-K_{X'}$. The morphism $\\varphi $ is the contraction of $E_8$ to $X'$ followed by the anticanonical double cover of ${\\mathbb P}^2$ ramified above a smooth plane quartic $R$. The image of $Q'$ in ${\\mathbb P}^2$ is a conic $\\tilde Q$ containing the image of $E_8$ and everywhere tangent to $R$. The image of $K'$ is a tangent line to $R$. To conclude it is enough to find a line in ${\\mathbb P}^2$ which is tangent to both $R$ and $\\tilde Q$ at a point not on $R$. The dual curve of $R$ is a plane curve of degree twelve and the dual curve of $\\tilde Q$ is a plane conic. Thus they meet along a scheme of length 24 and they are tangent at the points corresponding to the points where $R$ and $\\tilde Q$ are tangent. Since there are four such points, it follows that we may find a line which is tangent to $R$ and $\\tilde Q$ at distinct points. Such a line corresponds to a point in the intersection of the two components of $H$. Using Proposition \\[grafico\\] it is easy to check that this point is smooth in $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X, -K_X + Q \\bigr)$. This completes the proof of the lemma. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nThe Irreducibility of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , \\beta \\bigr)$\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe are now ready to prove the main theorems of this article.\n\n\\[nonuno\\] Let $X_\\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\\delta \\geq 2$. The spaces $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , \\beta \\bigr)$ are irreducible or empty for every divisor $\\beta \\in {\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Suppose $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , \\beta \\bigr)$ is not empty. Then $\\beta $ is represented by an effective integral curve on $X_\\delta $.\n\nIf $\\beta $ is not nef, then it follows that $\\beta ^2 < 0$. We deduce that $\\beta $ is a positive multiple $d$ of a $(-1)-$curve. If $d = 1$, then $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , \\beta \\bigr)$ consists of a single point. If $d > 1$, then the space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , \\beta \\bigr)$ is empty. In this case, the space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{0,0} \\bigl( X_\\delta , \\beta \\bigr)$ is irreducible, since it is dominated by the space of triples of homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$ in two variables.\n\nSuppose now that $\\beta $ is a nef divisor. Thanks to Theorem \\[passo\\], we simply need to check that on a del Pezzo surface of degree at least two, the spaces $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , \\beta \\bigr)$ are irreducible for all effective integral divisor classes $\\beta $ such that $-K_{X_\\delta } \\cdot \\beta $ equals two or three. The divisors of degree two on $X_\\delta $ are the conics and, if $\\delta = 7$, the divisor $-K_{X_7}$. If $\\beta $ is a conic, then $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_\\delta , \\beta \\bigr)$ is isomorphic to ${\\mathbb P}^1$. If $\\beta = -K_{X_7}$, then $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_7 , -K_{X_7} \\bigr)$ is isomorphic to a smooth plane quartic curve, Proposition \\[cadute\\].\n\nThe nef divisors of degree three on $X_\\delta $ are $-K_{X_6}$ and $\\ell $, where $X_6$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree three dominated by $X_\\delta $ and $\\ell $ is part of a standard basis $\\{ \\ell , e_1 , \\ldots , e_\\delta \\}$. The first case is treated in Proposition \\[cane\\], the second case is treated in Theorem \\[barbapapa\\]. This concludes the proof of the theorem. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n\\[nonplusuno\\] Let $X_8$ be a general del Pezzo surface of degree one. The spaces $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_8 , \\beta \\bigr)$ are irreducible or empty for every divisor $\\beta \\in {\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$, with the unique exception of $\\beta = -K_{X_8}$. The space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_8 , -K_{X_8} \\bigr)$ is a reduced scheme of length twelve.\n\n[*Proof.*]{} Proceeding as before, we only need to prove the irreducibility of $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_8 , \\beta \\bigr)$ for the nef divisors of anticanonical degree two or three. The nef divisor classes on $X_8$ which are not ample, are the pull-back of nef divisor classes from del Pezzo surfaces of larger degree. Thus we only need to consider ample divisor classes of anticanonical degree two or three.\n\nThe only ample divisor of degree two is $-2K_{X_8}$ and the mapping space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_8 , -2K_{X_8} \\bigr)$ is irreducible thanks to Theorem \\[cabala\\].\n\nThe ample divisor classes of degree three on $X_8$ are $-3K_{X_8}$, $-K_{X_8} - K_{X_7}$ and $-K_{X_8} + Q$, where $X_7$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree two dominated by $X_8$ and $Q$ is the divisor class of a conic. The space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_8 , -3K_{X_8} \\bigr)$ is irreducible thanks to Theorem \\[maschera\\]. The space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_8 , -K_{X_8} - K_{X_7} \\bigr)$ is irreducible thanks to Lemma \\[coccode\\]. The space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_8 , -K_{X_8} + Q \\bigr)$ is irreducible thanks to Lemma \\[chicchirichi\\]. This concludes the proof of the theorem. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[*Remark*]{}. The genericity assumption on $X_8$ in the statement of the Theorem \\[nonuno\\] can be made more explicit. Our argument requires the surface $X_8$ to have only nodal rational divisors in $|-K_{X_8}|$ and the space $\\overline { {\\mathcal M}} _{bir} \\bigl( X_8 , -2K_{X_8} \\bigr)$ to be irreducible. This last condition in turn is certainly satisfied (cf. Theorem \\[cabala\\] and its proof) if the ramification curve $R \\subset {\\mathbb P}^3$ of the morphism $\\varphi : X_8 \\rightarrow {\\mathbb P}^3$ induced by $-2K_{X_8}$ does not admit planes $P \\subset {\\mathbb P}^3$ transverse to the image of $\\varphi$ and intersecting $R$ along a divisor of the form $3 \\bigl( (p) + (q) \\bigr)$.\n\nAs a corollary of the above Theorems, we deduce the irreducibility of the Severi varieties of rational curves on the del Pezzo surfaces. Let $\\beta $ be a divisor class in ${\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$ and let $V_{0,\\beta } \\subset |\\beta |$ be the closure of the set of points corresponding to integral rational divisors. We call $V_{0,\\beta }$ the Severi variety of rational curves on $X$ with divisor class $\\beta $.\n\nLet $X_\\delta $ be a del Pezzo surface of degree $9-\\delta \\geq 2$. The Severi varieties $V_{0,\\beta }$ of rational curves on $X_\\delta $ are either empty of irreducible for every divisor $\\beta \\in {\\rm Pic} (X_\\delta )$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\nLet $X_8$ be a general del Pezzo surface of degree one. The Severi varieties $V_{0,\\beta }$ of rational curves on $X_8$ are either empty or irreducible for every divisor $\\beta \\in {\\rm Pic} (X_8)$, with the unique exception of $\\beta = -K_{X_8}$. [ $\\Box $ ]{}\n\n[99]{} F. R. Cossec, I. V. Dolgachev, [*Enriques surfaces I*]{}, Birkh\u00e4user (1989). O. DeBarre, [*Higher-dimensional algebraic geometry*]{}, Universitext, Springer (2001). W. Fulton, [*Hurwitz schemes and irreducibility of moduli of algebraic curves*]{}, Ann. of Math. 90 (1969) 542-575. W. Fulton, [*Intersection Theory*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1984). W. Fulton, R. Pandharipande, [*Notes on stable maps and quantum cohomology*]{}, Algebraic geometry, Santa Cruz 1995, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997, 45-96. A. Grothendieck, [*\u00c9l\u00e9ment de g\u00e9ometrie alg\u00e9brique IV*]{}, Publ. Math. I.H.E.S. Vol. 20 (1964). J. Harris, [*On the Severi problem*]{}, Invent. math 84, 445-461 (1986). R. Hartshorne, [*Algebraic Geometry*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (1977). B. Kim, R. Pandharipande, [*The connectedness of the moduli space of maps to homogeneous spaces*]{}, math.AG/0003168. J. Koll\u00e1r, [*Rational curves on algebraic varieties*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1996. R. Lazarsfeld, [*Positivity In Algebraic Geometry I: Classical Setting: Line Bundles And Linear Series*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 2004. Iu. I. Manin, [*Cubic Forms, 2nd ed.*]{}, North-Holland Math. Library, vol. 4, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986. F. Severi, [*Vorlesungen \u00fcber Algebraische Geometrie, Anhang F*]{}, Leipzig, Teubner 1921.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The main result of this paper is to extend from $\\Q$ to each of the nine imaginary quadratic fields of class number one a result of Serre (1987) and Mestre-Oesterl\u00e9 (1989), namely that if $E$ is an elliptic curve of prime conductor then either $E$ or a $2$-, $3$- or $5$-isogenous curve has prime discriminant. For four of the nine fields, the theorem holds with no change, while for the remaining five fields the discriminant of a curve with prime conductor is (up to isogeny) either prime or the square of a prime. The proof is conditional in two ways: first that the curves are modular, so are associated to suitable Bianchi newforms; and second that a certain level-lowering conjecture holds for Bianchi newforms. We also classify all elliptic curves of prime power conductor and non-trivial torsion over each of the nine fields: in the case of $2$-torsion, we find that such curves either have CM or with a small finite number of exceptions arise from a family analogous to the Setzer-Neumann family over $\\Q$.'\naddress:\n- 'Warwick Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK'\n- 'FaMAF-CIEM, Universidad Nacional de C\u00f3rdoba. C.P:5000, C\u00f3rdoba, Argentina.'\nauthor:\n- John Cremona\n- John Cremona and Ariel Pacetti\ntitle: On elliptic curves of prime power conductor over imaginary quadratic fields with class number one\n---\n\nIntroduction {#introduction .unnumbered}\n============\n\nThe theory of elliptic curves plays a crucial role in modern number theory. An important advance came with the systematic construction of tables, as done by the first author for elliptic curves defined over $\\Q$ ([@CremonaAlgo]). The original purpose of the present article was to prove analogues over imaginary quadratic fields of class number one to well-known bounds relating the conductor and discriminant of an elliptic curve over $\\Q$ with prime power conductor. A useful application of such a result is an effective algorithm to construct tables of elliptic curves of prime power conductor, via solving Thue equations. While succeeding in carrying out our original aim, we also found several examples of phenomena for curves over imaginary quadratic fields that do not occur over $\\Q$, and were able to classify all elliptic curves with prime power conductor and nontrivial torsion over the fields in question, extending the results of Miyawaki [@Miyawaki] for elliptic curves over $\\Q$ and Shumbusho [@Shumbusho] over imaginary quadratic fields.\n\nOver $\\Q$, there are only finitely many elliptic curves with complex multiplication (CM curves) of prime power conductor $p^r$. The reason is, first, that there are finitely many imaginary quadratic orders ${{\\mathcal{O}}}$ of class number $1$, and second, that if $p$ divides the discriminant of ${{\\mathcal{O}}}$, then all curves\u00a0$E$ with endomorphism ring isomorphic to\u00a0${{\\mathcal{O}}}$ have additive reduction at $p$, and the field where $E$ attains good reduction is not abelian. In particular, any other rational curve isomorphic to\u00a0$E$ (that is, a twist of\u00a0$E$) will also have bad reduction at $p$, so the prime power discriminant condition gives at most one curve per order.\n\nOver an imaginary quadratic field\u00a0$K$, this finiteness statement no longer holds true. If $E/K$ has CM by ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$, the ring of integers of $K$, and $p$ ramifies in $K$, the curve attains good reduction over an abelian extension of the completion $K_p$. In particular, some twist of $E$ (quadratic, quartic or sextic, depending on the number of roots of unity in $K$) attains good reduction at $p$. However the required local extension does not come from a global one, so we do not get a curve over\u00a0$K$ of conductor $1$ (which do not exist), but an infinite family, all twists of each other, of CM curves of prime square conductor; moreover in each case the density of primes of $K$ whose squares arise in this way is in each case $1/\\#{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$. In Section\u00a0\\[section CM\\], we explain this phenomenon, and describe precisely all elliptic curves of prime power conductor and complex multiplication.\n\nAnother notable new phenomenon that occurs over imaginary quadratic fields, is the existence of elliptic curves of prime conductor whose residual Galois representations modulo $p$ are irreducible but not absolutely irreducible. When $p$ is odd, this phenomenon does not occur for elliptic curves over\u00a0$\\Q$: the reason is the existence of complex conjugation in the absolute Galois group, whose image under the mod-$p$ representation is similar to $\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}1 & 0\\\\ 0 & -1 \\end{smallmatrix}\n\\right)$. Over an imaginary quadratic field, or any number field which is totally complex (i.e. has no real embedding), the absolute Galois group has no such complex conjugation elements and this argument does not apply.\n\nAt the prime $2$ the situation is more exciting! Over\u00a0$\\Q$, if $E$ is a semistable elliptic curve whose discriminant is a square, then its residual image is reducible. There are two different ways to prove such an assertion: one comes from the study of finite flat group schemes over $\\operatorname{Spec}(\\Z)$. The hypotheses ($E$ being semistable and the discriminant being a square) imply by a theorem of Mazur (see Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:Mazur\\] below) that $E[2]$ is a finite flat group scheme of type $(2,2)$. As explained in [@Mestre], there are only $4$ such group schemes, and only two of them satisfy that the determinant of the group scheme is isomorphic to the group scheme $\\mu_2$; they both have an invariant subspace. A different approach comes from the study of the mod-$2$ Galois representation itself: if it is irreducible, then by Ribet\u2019s level-lowering result, there would exist a modular form of level $1$ and weight $2$, while if the image were irreducible but not absolutely irreducible (i.e. it is the cyclic subgroup of order $3$ in $\\operatorname{GL}_2(\\F_2)$), then there would exist a cubic extension of $\\Q$ unramified outside $2$; but such an extension does not exist.\n\nOver an imaginary quadratic field\u00a0$K$ of class number one, in four cases such an extension does not exist either, so the same result holds (for modular elliptic curves, assuming an analogous level-lowering conjecture). However for $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for $d\\in\\{11,19,43,67,163\\}$ where $2$ is inert in $K$, there is no reason for such Galois representation not to exist. In particular, they supply new examples of irreducible finite flat group schemes of type $(2,2)$ over $\\operatorname{Spec}({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K)$ (the irreducibility comes from the fact that irreducible $2$-groups are only the additive and the multiplicative ones as proved in [@Oort-Tate Corollary page 21], which give rational $2$-torsion). One simple example of this phenomenon comes from the elliptic curves over\u00a0$\\Q$ of conductor\u00a0$11$, which have minimal discriminant either $-11$ or $-11^5$; after base-change to $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-11})$ the conductor is still prime but the minimal discriminants are all now square. For an example which is not a base-change, the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/47.1/a/1)]{} (using its LMFDB label, see [@lmfdb]): $$E:\\quad y^2+y=x^3+\\alpha x^2-x$$ where $\\alpha=(1+\\sqrt{-11})/2$, has prime conductor $\\p=(\\pi)$ of norm\u00a0$47$, with $\\pi=7-2\\alpha$, and discriminant $\\pi^2$, and is alone in its isogeny class. This phenomenon is studied in detail in Section\u00a0\\[section:evenexponents\\] below. We suspect that there are infinitely many examples like this over each of these five fields.\n\nAnother interesting problem that arose is that of classifying elliptic curves (up to $2$-isogenies and twists) with a rational $2$-torsion point. The prime $2$ is always hard to handle, and we develop tools (including a result characterizing such curves, see Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:classification2torsion\\]) that allow us to give a complete description of them. The ideas developed here could be adapted to more general situations, but the fact that $K$ has finitely many units appears to play an important role.\n\nThe main results of the article are Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:mainthm\\] and Corollary\u00a0\\[coro:Szpiro\\], which establish Szpiro\u2019s conjecture for \u201cmodular\u201d prime power conductor elliptic curves over $K$, assuming a form of level-lowering result (Conjecture\u00a0\\[conj:loweringlevel\\]). The general strategy of the proof is as follows: let $E/K$ be a modular elliptic curve (see Conjecture\u00a0\\[conj:modularity\\]) of prime power conductor. If $E$ has potentially good reduction, there is a well-known bound for its minimal discriminant\u00a0${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, so we can focus on the semistable case. If $\\ell$ is a rational prime dividing the valuation of ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, by a theorem of Mazur, $E[\\ell]$ is a finite flat group scheme. If the residual Galois representation is absolutely irreducible, then the level-lowering conjecture implies the existence of a Bianchi modular form modulo\u00a0$\\ell$ of level $1$ and weight $2$ whose Galois representation matches that of $E$. Since for $\\ell$ odd, there are no such forms over the fields in question, we get a contradiction. We want to emphasise that the level-lowering result might be hard to prove for small primes (which divide the order of elliptic points). For this reason, we include an unconditional proof (not relying on modularity) for $\\ell=2$ and $3$ in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:mainthm\\] for the nine fields considered.\n\nAssume otherwise that the residual image is absolutely reducible, i.e. it is either reducible over\u00a0$\\F_{\\ell}$, or irreducible but reducible over\u00a0$\\F_{\\ell^2}$. For the first possibility, we prove that either such curves do not exist, or otherwise there is an isogenous curve whose discriminant valuation is prime to $\\ell$ (the case $\\ell=2$ being hardest). When $\\ell$ is odd, the second case is eliminated by a detailed study of the residual Galois representation. Lastly, for $\\ell=2$ we prove that the discriminant valuation is at most $2$, where (for certain of the fields\u00a0$K$ only) the exceptional curves with square discriminant arise as described above.\n\nThe article is organized as follows. The first section contains a brief description of Bianchi modular forms and modularity of elliptic curves. It also contains the conjectural level-lowering statement in the spirit of Ribet\u2019s result, which we expect to hold in the setting of Bianchi modular forms. An important difference in our statement comes from the fact that we do not expect forms of minimal level to always lift to characteristic zero: this is why the statement of Conjecture\u00a0\\[conj:loweringlevel\\] is in terms of group cohomology over\u00a0$\\F_{\\ell}$.\n\nThe second section contains the main theorem, and its proof when the image is absolutely irreducible. The third section studies elliptic curves over $K$ with complex multiplication. The main results includes a complete classification of all CM curves of odd prime power discriminant. The case of small image at an odd prime is treated in the fourth section, where elliptic curves over $K$ of odd prime power conductor with a rational point of odd order\u00a0$\\ell$ are considered. In Theorem \\[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\\] we prove that if $\\ell=3$ and $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$, then any such curve either has discriminant valuation not divisible by $3$, or its $3$-isogenous curve satisfies this property. For all other choices of $\\ell$ and $K$, we give a finite list of possible curves: see Table\u00a0\\[table:oddtorsioncurves\\].\n\nThe fifth section studies curves of odd conductor over $K$ with a rational $2$-torsion point. An important result is Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:classification2torsion\\], where a description of all such curves (up to twist) is given. This result is very general, and can be applied to different situations. Using this characterization, we describe all curves of prime power conductor $\\id{p}^r$ with a rational $2$-torsion point, according to the following possible cases: either a twist of the curve has good reduction at $\\id{p}$, or all twists have additive reduction at $\\id{p}$, or the curve has a twist of multiplicative reduction. We prove that in the first case all curves have CM and come in families, described explicitly in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:goodtwist\\], using the results from Section\u00a0\\[section CM\\]. For the additive ones, we prove in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:additivetwist\\] that there are only some sporadic cases (also all CM), and for multiplicative ones, we prove that there are potentially (and probably) infinitely many, almost all belonging to a family analogous to the so-called *Setzer-Neumann* family (as in [@Setzer]) for curves defined over $\\Q$. As in the classical case, all such curves have rank $0$.\n\nThe important consequence of this detailed case by case study for our main result is that if $E$ is an elliptic curve defined over $K$ of odd prime conductor with a rational $2$-torsion point, then either $E$ or a $2$-isogenous curve has odd discriminant valuation.\n\nFinally, in the last section, we study the case of curves whose Galois image modulo\u00a0$2$ is cyclic of order $3$, giving curves of prime conductor but prime square discriminant, as explained above.\n\nNotation and terminology. {#notation-and-terminology. .unnumbered}\n-------------------------\n\n$K$ will denote an imaginary quadratic field $\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ of class number\u00a0$1$, with ring of integers ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$. As is well known, there are\u00a0$9$ such fields, with $d\\in\\{1,2,3,7,11,19,43,67,163\\}$. Many of the results of Section\u00a0\\[section 2 torsion\\] also apply to the case $K=\\Q$.\n\nWe say that an ideal or element of ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ is *odd* if it is coprime to\u00a0$2$. Let $e_2$ be the ramification degree of $2$ in $K/\\Q$, so that $e_2=1$ except for $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ and $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$. Note also that $2$ splits only in $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-7})$. The primes dividing $2$ play a crucial role in Section\u00a0\\[section 2 torsion\\], where we will denote by $\\q$ a prime dividing $2$, and by $\\p$ any prime ideal (which might divide $2$ or not). The valuation at\u00a0$\\p$ is denoted\u00a0$\\vp()$. We denote by\u00a0$\\varepsilon$ a generator of the finite unit group\u00a0${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ so that $\\varepsilon=-1$ except for $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ and $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ when $\\varepsilon=\\sqrt{-1}$, or $\\varepsilon$ is a $6$th root of unity, respectively.\n\nAll curves explicitly mentioned will be labeled with their LMFDB label, see [@lmfdb].\n\nIt is well-known that given an elliptic curve $E/K$, if the class number of $K$ equals $1$ then $E$ has a global minimal model. Such model might not be unique, hence there is in general no notion of a *minimal discriminant*. However, over an imaginary quadratic field, all units are annihilated by $12$, and hence the value of the minimal discriminant\u00a0${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is well-defined.\n\n**Acknowledgments:** we would like to thank Nicolas Vescovo for participating in some discussions of the present article, to Luis Dieulefait, for explaining to us some technicalities used in the proof of Theorem \\[thm:Kraus\\], to Angelos Koutsianas for his computations used in the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:mainthm\\], and to Samir Siksek and Haluk [\u015e]{}eng\u00fcn for many useful conversations. The second author would like to thank the University of Warwick for its hospitality during his visit as a Leverhulme Visiting Professor. Last but not least, we would like to thank the anonymous referee for many useful comments and corrections.\n\nBianchi modular forms and modularity of elliptic curves\n=======================================================\n\nFor background on Bianchi modular forms and modularity of elliptic curves defined over imaginary quadratic fields, we refer to the survey article of [\u015e]{}eng\u00fcn [@Sengun] and the work of the first author ([@CremonaTessellations], [@CremonaTwist], [@Cremona-Whitley]). For our purposes we may restrict our attention to the space $S_2(\\id{n})$ of Bianchi modular forms which are cuspidal and of weight\u00a0$2$ for the congruence subgroup $\\Gamma_0(\\id{n})\\leq\\operatorname{GL}_2({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K)$, where the level $\\id{n}\\subseteq{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ is an integral ideal of\u00a0$K$. This space is a finite-dimensional vector space equipped with a Hecke action. Its newforms subspace is spanned by eigenforms which are simultaneous eigenvectors for the algebra of Hecke operators. Bianchi modular forms can also be seen within the context of cohomological automorphic forms, since we have the isomorphism $S_2(\\id{n})\\cong H^1(Y_0(\\id{n}),\\C)$, where $Y_0(\\id{n})$ is the quotient of hyperbolic $3$-space $\\mathcal{H}_3$ by\u00a0$\\Gamma_0(\\id{n})$. A more concrete description of these Bianchi modular forms is as real analytic functions $\\mathcal{H}_3\\to\\C^3$ satisfying certain conditions. In the work of the second author and his students ([@CremonaTessellations], [@Cremona-Whitley]) explicit methods were developed to compute the spaces $S_2(\\id{n})$ over\u00a0$K$ for each of the nine imaginary quadratic fields\u00a0$K$ of class number\u00a0$1$. Recall that the orders of the isotropy groups of points of $Y_0(1)$ are only divisible by the primes $2$ and $3$, hence for $\\ell \\ge 5$ the cohomology $H^1(Y_0(1),\\F_\\ell)$ matches the group cohomology $H^1(\\operatorname{PGL}_2({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K),\\F_\\ell) = H^1(\\operatorname{PGL}_2({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K),\\Z)\\otimes \\F_\\ell$ (see for example [@Ash-Stevens Section 1.4]). Then the previous computations, together with results of [@Haluk-expmath], establish the following result:\n\nFor each of the nine imaginary quadratic fields of class number\u00a0$1$, the space $S_2(1)$ of weight\u00a0$2$ cuspidal Bianchi modular forms of level\u00a0$1$ is trivial. Moreover for all primes $\\ell\\ge 5$ the space $H^1(Y_0({1}),\\F_{\\ell})$ is also trivial. \\[thm:noleveloneforms\\]\n\nIt is known that these Bianchi modular forms have associated $\\ell$-adic Galois representations $\\rho_{F,\\ell}$. These were first constructed by Taylor *et al.*\u00a0in [@TaylorI], [@TaylorII] with subsequent results by Berger and Harcos in\u00a0[@Berger]. Below we only need to refer to the residual mod-$\\ell$ representations $\\overline{\\rho_{F,\\ell}}$.\n\nFor an elliptic curve\u00a0$E$ defined over an imaginary quadratic field\u00a0$K$, we say that $E$ is modular if $L(E,s)=L(F,s)$ for some $F\\in S_2(\\id{n})$ over\u00a0$K$, where $\\id{n}$ is the conductor of\u00a0$E$. The following conjecture, a version of which was first made by Mennicke, is part of Conjecture\u00a09.1 of [@Sengun], following [@CremonaTwist]:\n\nLet $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over an imaginary quadratic field\u00a0$K$ of class number\u00a0$1$ that does not have complex multiplication by an order in\u00a0$K$. Then $E$ is modular. \\[conj:modularity\\]\n\nSome cases of the conjecture have been proved (see [@DGP]), and under some mild hypothesis it can be shown that any such curve is potentially modular (see [@Calegari-Geraghty Theorem 1.1]). Curves with complex multiplication correspond to Hecke characters and belong to non-cuspidal modular forms. These will be considered in Section\u00a0\\[section CM\\].\n\nFollowing the classical result of Ribet ([@Ribetlowering]), we make the following conjecture.\n\nLet $F$ be a weight $2$ Bianchi newform of level $\\Gamma_0(\\id{n}\\id{p})$, with $\\id{p}$ a prime number. Suppose that $\\ell\\ge 5$ is a prime for which the representation $\\rho_{F,\\ell}$ satisfies:\n\n1.  The residual representation is absolutely irreducible.\n\n2.  The residual representation is finite at $\\id{p}$.\n\nThen there is an automorphic form $G \\in H^1(Y_0(\\id{n}),\\F_{\\ell})$ whose Galois representation is isomorphic to $\\overline{\\rho_{F,\\ell}}$. \\[conj:loweringlevel\\]\n\nSome results in the direction of the conjecture are proven in [@Calegari]. Note that the conjecture refers to an element in the mod $\\ell$ cohomology. In contrast to modular forms for $\\operatorname{SL}_2(\\ZZ)$, for Bianchi modular forms the homology (and the cohomology) of $Y_0(\\id{n})$ contains a big torsion part. By results of Scholze ([@Scholze]) the torsion forms do have Galois representations attached, but these are residual representations that in general do not admit a lift of level $\\id{n}$ to characteristic zero, so the form in Conjecture\u00a0\\[conj:loweringlevel\\] is not expected to be global.\n\nModular elliptic curves of prime power conductor\n================================================\n\nRecall the following result due to Serre and Mestre-Oesterl\u00e9 (see [@Mestre]).\n\nLet $E/\\Q$ be a modular elliptic curve of prime conductor $p$. If $p >37$ then ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E) = \\pm p$ up to $2$-isogenies (i.e., either ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E) = \\pm p$, or there exists a curve $2$-isogenous to\u00a0$E$ over\u00a0$\\Q$ with discriminant\u00a0$\\pm p$). \\[thm:MO\\]\n\nA key ingredient in the proof is the following result of Mazur.\n\nLet $K$ be a number field, let $E/K$ be a semistable elliptic curve with discriminant\u00a0${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, and let $\\ell$ be a prime number. Then $E[\\ell]$ is a finite flat group scheme if and only if $\\ell \\mid v_{\\id{q}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ for all primes $\\id{q}$ in ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$, i.e. if the ideal $({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ is an $\\ell$-th power. \\[thm:Mazur\\]\n\nSee [@Mazur2 Proposition 9.1].\n\nIf $E/K$ is an elliptic curve of prime conductor\u00a0$\\id{p}$, and $\\ell$ is a prime dividing the valuation $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ of ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, then $E[\\ell]$ is a finite flat group scheme over $\\operatorname{Spec}({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K)$ by Mazur\u2019s theorem. To apply a level-lowering result such as Conjecture\u00a0\\[conj:loweringlevel\\], one also needs a *big image* hypothesis, i.e. that the residual representation at $\\ell$ is absolutely irreducible. While working over the rationals, either the residual image is reducible, in which case the curve has a $\\Q$-point (which does not happen for $\\ell>7$) or it is absolutely irreducible. The reducible case for small primes can be discarded by a result of Fontaine ([@Fontaine Theorem B]).\n\nOne of the main results of this article is a generalization of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:MO\\] to $K$.\n\nLet $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$. Let $E/K$ be a modular elliptic curve of prime conductor. Assume Conjecture \\[conj:loweringlevel\\] holds. Then there exists a curve isogenous to\u00a0$E$ over\u00a0$K$ with prime or prime square discriminant. \\[thm:mainthm\\]\n\nLet $\\id{p}$ be the conductor of $E$. For the case $\\id{p}\\mid 2$, A.\u00a0Koutsianas used the methods of [@Angelos] to compute for us all elliptic curves with conductor a power of $\\id{p}$, and found that over each of the nine fields there are none with conductor $\\id{p}$. This is consistent with the tables of automorphic forms of [@CremonaTessellations] and [@Cremona-Whitley].\n\nFrom now on we may assume that $\\id{p} \\nmid 2$. Suppose that ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is not prime, and let $\\ell$ be a prime number dividing $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$. Recall that by semistability and Mazur\u2019s result, the Galois module $E[\\ell]$ is unramified away from\u00a0$\\ell$, and also that its determinant is the $\\ell$th cyclotomic character. We claim that the hypotheses of the theorem imply that for every prime number $\\ell$ dividing $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$, the module *$E[\\ell]$ is not absolutely irreducible*.\n\nAssume the claim. For odd $\\ell$, Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:Kraus\\] below implies that either\u00a0$E$, or an $\\ell$-isogenous curve, has a rational torsion point of order\u00a0$\\ell$. In Section \\[smallimage\\] all curves of odd prime conductor with an $\\ell$-torsion point are computed (see Table\u00a0\\[table:oddtorsioncurves\\]) with the exception of curves with a rational $3$-torsion point over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$. It is easy to verify from Table\u00a0\\[table:oddtorsioncurves\\] that all curves of prime conductor listed there have (up to an $\\ell$-isogeny) discriminant with valuation prime to $\\ell$. Finally, Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\\] proves that any curve with a rational $3$-torsion point over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ either has discriminant valuation prime to $3$, or a $3$-isogenous curve does. Hence, up to isogeny, the claim (for all odd $\\ell$) implies that $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ has no odd prime factors.\n\nSuppose that $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ is even. The hypothesis implies that ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)=\\varepsilon\\pi^2$ for some\u00a0$\\varepsilon\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ and $\\pi\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$. If $E[2]$ is absolutely irreducible, then ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is not a square, and the extension $K(\\sqrt{\\varepsilon})/K$ has degree\u00a0$2$ and is unramified away from\u00a0$2$. However, using explicit class field theory (as implemented in [@PARI2]), we may check that none of the nine fields\u00a0$K$ has an extension\u00a0$L/K$ with Galois group $\\operatorname{GL}_2(\\F_2)\\cong S_3$ which is unramified away from\u00a0$2$ and has quadratic subfield $K(\\sqrt{\\varepsilon})$. Hence $E[2]$ is not absolutely irreducible, establishing the claim for $\\ell=2$. Now either $E[2]$ is reducible, in which case Corollary\u00a0\\[coro:2torsion-odddiscriminant\\] shows that up to $2$-isogeny $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))=1$; or $E[2]$ is irreducible (but not absolutely irreducible) in which case Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:absred2\\] implies that $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))=2$.\n\nIt remains to prove the claim for odd primes\u00a0$\\ell$ which divide $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$. We consider first the case $\\ell=3$, where as with $\\ell=2$ an elementary argument establishes the claim unconditionally. If $K\\ne\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$, then every unit in\u00a0$K$ is a cube, so the hypothesis that $3\\mid v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ implies that ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is a cube in\u00a0$K$. In case $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ we can only say that $\\Delta(E)$ is a unit times a cube, and we may have $K(\\sqrt[3]{{{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)})=\\Q(\\zeta_9)$. In general, $K(\\sqrt[3]{{{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)})$ is the subfield of $K(E[3])$ cut out by the Sylow $2$-subgroup, which has index\u00a0$3$ and order\u00a0$16$, in $\\operatorname{GL}_2(\\F_3)$; this subgroup is the normaliser of the non-split Cartan subgroup. Hence the field $K(E[3])$ is obtained by a succession of quadratic extensions of $K(\\sqrt[3]{{{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)})$ each unramified away from\u00a0$3$. Neither $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ nor $\\Q(\\zeta_9)$ possesses any such quadratic extension, so for $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ the image of the mod-$3$ representation is either trivial (when $\\Delta$ is a cube) or of order\u00a0$3$, in which case it is conjugate to $\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix} 1 & *\\\\ 0 & 1\\end{smallmatrix} \\right)$.\n\nFor the other fields, the residual image is contained in the normaliser of the non-split Cartan subgroup, of order\u00a0$16$. If $E[3]$ were absolutely irreducible then the residual image could not be contained in the non-split Cartan subgroup itself, since that is absolutely reducible; hence there would be a (non-trivial) quadratic character unramified outside\u00a0$3$ whose kernel has residual image equal to the non-split Cartan subgroup. However, for each of the eight fields\u00a0$K$ in question, the only quadratic extension ramified only above $3$ is $K(\\zeta_3)$, which cuts out a *different* index\u00a0$2$ subgroup of the non-split Cartan normaliser, since the non-split Cartan contains matrices of determinant\u00a0$-1$. (Here we are using the fact that the determinant of the representation is the cyclotomic character.) This contradiction shows that $E[3]$ is not absolutely irreducible.\n\nFinally, we prove the claim when $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))$ is divisible by a prime\u00a0$\\ell\\ge5$. By Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:Mazur\\], $E[\\ell]$ is a finite flat group scheme. If the residual representation of $E$ at the prime $\\ell$ is absolutely irreducible, the modularity assumption on $E$ gives the hypothesis of Conjecture \\[conj:loweringlevel\\], so there must exist a mod $\\ell$ Bianchi modular form of level $1$ whose Galois representation matches the residual representation of $E$ modulo $\\ell$; this contradicts Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:noleveloneforms\\].\n\nAs a corollary, we have the following version of Szpiro\u2019s conjecture.\n\nLet $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$. Assume that Conjecture\u00a0\\[conj:loweringlevel\\] holds. Let $E/K$ be a modular elliptic curve of prime power conductor. Then $\\operatorname{{\\mathcal N}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E)) \\le \\operatorname{{\\mathcal N}}(\\operatorname{cond}(E))^{6}$, except for the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{} over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-11})$, whose conductor has valuation\u00a0$1$ while its discriminant has valuation\u00a0$10$. \\[coro:Szpiro\\]\n\nIf $E$ has potentially good reduction, then the result is well-known, see for example [@Silverman2 p.\u00a0365, Table\u00a04.1]. Otherwise, either $E$ is semistable or is a quadratic twist of a semistable curve. Recall that there are no curves of prime conductor dividing $2$, so we can restrict to odd conductor. It is enough to consider the semistable case, since if $E$ has prime conductor $\\id{p}$ and satisfies $\\operatorname{{\\mathcal N}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E)) \\le \\normid{p}^{6}$, the twisted curve $E'$ satisfies $\\operatorname{{\\mathcal N}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E'))=\\operatorname{{\\mathcal N}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E)) \\cdot \\normid{p}^6$ and $\\operatorname{cond}(E')=\\id{p}^2$.\n\nBy Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:mainthm\\] the result holds for some curve in the isogeny class. Furthermore, when the isogeny class of a semistable curve has at most $2$ elements, Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:absred2\\] and Corollary\u00a0\\[coro:2torsion-odddiscriminant\\] prove that the discriminant valuation is at most $2$.\n\nWhen there is a $3$-isogeny, the isogenous curve has discriminant valuation $3$ or $6$ (depending on whether or not the conductor is ramified in $K$), and there is a unique semistable case with a $5$-isogeny (see Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:5-torsion\\]), which is precisely the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{}.\n\nWe end this section with a result used in the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:mainthm\\] above.\n\nLet $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ and $E/K$ be a semistable elliptic curve. Let $\\ell \\ge 3$ be a prime number such that the residual representation of $E$ at $\\ell$ is not absolutely irreducible. Then either $E$, or a curve $\\ell$-isogenous to\u00a0$E$ over\u00a0$K$, has a point of order $\\ell$ defined over $K$. \\[thm:Kraus\\]\n\nThe residual representation associated to $E$ takes values in $\\operatorname{GL}(2,\\F_\\ell)$, and may be either reducible (over\u00a0$\\F_{\\ell}$), irreducible but absolutely reducible (i.e., reducible over $\\F_{\\ell^2}$) or absolutely irreducible. The hypothesis in the theorem excludes only the absolutely irreducible case. Over $\\Q$, or any number field with at least one real place, the second case cannot occur, due to the action of complex conjugation: any invariant line over $\\F_{\\ell^2}$ must be defined over\u00a0$\\F_{\\ell}$. In our situation, we need to consider both the reducible and the absolutely reducible cases separately.\n\n$\\bullet$ [**Reducible case:**]{} without loss of generality, the residual representation is of the form $$\\label{eq:reducibledecomposition}\n      \\overline{\\rho_{E,\\ell}} \\simeq \\left(\\begin{smallmatrix} \\theta_1 & *\\\\ 0\n    & \\theta_2\\end{smallmatrix} \\right),$$ for $\\theta_i$ characters of $\\operatorname{Gal}(\\overline{K}/K)$ such that $\\theta_1 \\theta_2 = {\\chi_{\\ell}}$ (the cyclotomic character). Since $E$ is semistable, the conductors of the characters $\\theta_i$ are supported in $\\ell$ (see [@Kraus Lemme 1]). Also since $K$ has class number\u00a0$1$, the only unramified character is the trivial character. Hence we must show that at least one of the characters is unramified, since $\\theta_1$ trivial implies that $E$ has a point of order\u00a0$\\ell$ while if $\\theta_2$ is trivial then the isogenous curve has such a point. If $\\ell$ is unramified in $K$, then the result follows from the proof of [@Kraus Corollaire 1] (pages 249-250), as we now explain.\n\nIf $\\ell$ is inert in\u00a0$K$ then only one of the $\\theta_i$ can be ramified at $\\ell$ (see [@Kraus Lemme 1]), hence the statement. Then we can restrict to the case when both characters are ramified at a prime dividing $\\ell$.\n\nIf $\\ell = \\id{l}_1 \\id{l_2}$ splits, we can assume that $\\theta_i$ has conductor $\\id{l}_i$ since by [@Kraus Lemme 1] they cannot both be ramified at the same prime. Then on one hand the restriction of $\\theta_i$ to the inertia group at $\\id{l}_i$ is the cyclotomic character, so $\\theta_i(-1)=-1$, and on the other hand it is a character of $({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K/\\id{l}_i)^\\times$ which is trivial in ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^\\times$ (as it factors through the Artin map), so $\\theta_i(-1)=1$. This is impossible since $\\ell\\not=2$.\n\nLastly, suppose that $\\ell$ ramifies in $K$, so $\\ell \\equiv 3 \\pmod\n  4$ and $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-\\ell})$. In particular, the restriction of the cyclotomic character to\u00a0$\\operatorname{Gal}(\\overline{K}/K)$ has (odd) order $(\\ell-1)/2$. Let $\\id{l}$ denote the prime of $K$ dividing\u00a0$\\ell$ and $I_{\\id{l}}$ the associated inertia subgroup. Then the $\\theta_i$ are both characters of level $1$ at $\\id{l}$ (since characters of level $2$ have irreducible image), $\\theta_1 \\theta_2\n  = \\chi_{\\ell}$ and $E$ has good supersingular reduction at $\\ell$. In the notation of [@Serre2], let $a_\\ell$ denote the $\\ell$-th coefficient in the series for multiplication by $\\ell$ in the formal group of $\\tilde{E}$, the reduced curve over ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K/\\id{l}\\cong\\F_{\\ell}$. By [@Serre2 Proposition 10, page 272], if $v_\\ell(a_\\ell) > 1$, then $\\theta_i|_{I_{\\id{l}}}$ for $i=1,2$ would both be squares of fundamental characters of level $2$, whose image is not in $\\FF_{\\ell}$; hence the valuation is $1$, and the same proposition implies that $\\theta_i|_{I_{\\id{l}}}$ equals the fundamental character of level $1$ for $i=1,2$, and $*$ is unramified at $\\ell$. So $\\theta_1/\\theta_2$ is unramified, hence trivial, and so $\\theta_1 = \\theta_2$ and $\\theta_1^2=\\chi_{\\ell}$.\n\nThe order of $\\theta_1$ equals $\\ell -1$ and it factors through a cyclic degree $(\\ell-1)$ extension of $K$ unramified outside $\\ell$, containing $\\zeta_{\\ell}$ (the $\\ell$-th roots of unity). This implies in particular the existence of a quadratic extension of $K$ unramified outside $\\ell$. It can be easily verified (using [@PARI2] for example) that there are no such quadratic extensions, hence this case cannot occur.\n\n$\\bullet$ [**Irreducible but absolutely reducible case**]{}. In this case, there is a character of $K$ of order ${\\ell^2-1}$ or $\\frac{\\ell^2-1}{2}$ unramified outside $\\ell$ (by the same argument as before). This implies the existence of a quadratic extension of $K$ unramified outside $\\ell$ which, as we saw in the previous case, does not exist.\n\nCurves with complex multiplication {#section CM}\n==================================\n\nLet $K$ denote one of the nine imaginary quadratic fields with class number one. Let $E/K$ be an elliptic curve with complex multiplication by an order\u00a0${{\\mathcal{O}}}$ in\u00a0$K$. Since $K$ has class number one, the $j$-invariant $j(E)$ is rational, in fact in $\\Z$, so $E$ is a twist of the base extension of an elliptic curve defined over $\\Q$.\n\nFor each field\u00a0$K$, we fix one such curve $E$, choosing it to have bad reduction only at the unique ramified prime $\\id{p}$ of\u00a0$K$, and to have endomorphism ring isomorphic to the maximal order\u00a0${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$. Every other elliptic curve with CM by an order in $K$ is then isogenous to a twist of this base curve\u00a0$E$. For $d=1,2,3,7,11,19,43,67,163$ respectively we take the base curve to be the base-change to $K$ of the elliptic curve over $\\Q$ with LMFDB label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a/4)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/256/d/1)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/4)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/121/b/2)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/361/a/2)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/1849/b/2)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/4489/b/2)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/26569/a/2)]{}, respectively. Our goal in this section is to determine which twists of these base curves $E$ have odd prime power conductor, recalling that for $d=1$ and $d=3$ respectively, we must consider quartic and sextic twists, not only quadratic twists.\n\nFor $d>3$ the base curve listed is uniquely determined (up to isomorphism over\u00a0$K$) by the condition that it has CM by ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ and bad reduction only at the ramified prime $\\id{p}=(\\sqrt{-d})$. However for $d=1,2,3$ there are several choices. In the results of this section, we consider elliptic curves with prime power conductor as explicit twists of the base curve, so it is important to fix this choice.\n\nThe automorphic form attached to $E/K$ consists of the sum of two conjugate Hecke Grossencharacters $\\{\\chi,\\bar{\\chi}\\}$ of infinity types $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$, and conductor $\\id{n}$ which is a power of\u00a0$\\id{p}$. In particular, $\\operatorname{cond}(E) = \\id{n}^2$. Note that the Grossencharacters take values in $K^\\times$. The character $\\chi$ is unramified outside $\\id{p}$, so has conductor a power of\u00a0$\\id{p}$, and the local character $\\chi_{\\id{p}}$ restricted to ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_{\\id{p}}^\\times$ is a finite character taking values in the roots of unity of $K$. In particular, it is quadratic except for $d=-1,\n-3$.\n\n$K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ with $d \\neq 1, 3$\n------------------------------------\n\nThe character $\\chi$ is quadratic, and unramified outside the prime $\\id{p}=(\\sqrt{-d})$, the unique ramified prime of $K$. If we twist $E$ by a quadratic character whose ramification at $\\id{p}$ matches that of $\\chi$, we get a curve with good reduction at $\\id{p}$. Note that there is no global quadratic Grossencharacter unramified outside $\\id{p}$ which locally matches $\\chi_{\\id{p}}$, as the Archimedean part of all such characters is trivial. In particular, although we can move the ramification by twisting, there is no twist with everywhere good reduction.\n\nRational $2$-torsion is preserved under twisting, so the quadratic twists of $E$ have rational $2$-torsion if and only if $E$ does. The fields $K$ for which the curves $E$ have a $K$-rational two torsion point are $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=2, 7$. \\[rem:2-torsionCM\\]\n\nLet $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$, with $d \\neq 1,3$, and let $E/K$ be the base elliptic curve with CM by\u00a0${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ defined above. Then all elliptic curves with complex multiplication over $K$ of odd prime power conductor are isogenous to $E$ or to the quadratic twist of $E$ by $\\pi\\sqrt{-d}$, where $\\pi$ is a prime such that $\\pi \\equiv\n  u^2\\sqrt{-d} \\pmod 4$ for $d\\not=2$, respectively $\\pi \\equiv\n  u^2(1+\\sqrt{-d}) \\pmod 4$ for $d=2$, with $u$ odd. In particular, for $d=7$, the condition reads $\\pi \\equiv \\sqrt{-7} \\pmod 4$, for $d=2$ the condition reads $\\pi \\equiv \\pm1 + \\sqrt{-2} \\pmod 4$ and for $d\\ge11$, the condition reads $\\pi \\equiv w^{2k}\\sqrt{-d}\\pmod\n  4$, for $0\\le k\\le2$, where $w =\\frac{1+\\sqrt{-d}}{2}$. \\[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\\]\n\nBefore giving the proof, we need an auxiliary result.\n\nLet $K$ be a $2$-adic field, and $\\alpha \\in {{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ be a $2$-adic integer which is a unit and is not a square. Then the extension $K(\\sqrt{\\alpha})$ is unramified if and only if there exist a unit $u \\in {{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $u^2 \\equiv \\alpha \\pmod 4$. \\[lemma:ramificationat2\\]\n\nLet $L=K(\\sqrt{\\alpha})$ be the quadratic extension. The ring ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K[\\sqrt{\\alpha}] \\subset {{\\mathcal{O}}}_L$ has discriminant $4\\alpha$ over ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$. Then the extension ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_L$ is unramified if and only if $[{{\\mathcal{O}}}_L:{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K[\\sqrt{\\alpha}]]=2$, if and only if $\\frac{u+v\\sqrt{\\alpha}}{2} \\in {{\\mathcal{O}}}_L$ for some $u,v \\in {{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$. The minimal polynomial of any such element is $x^2 - ux + \\frac{u^2-\\alpha v^2}{4}$, hence the index is $2$ if and only if there exist units $u,v$ in ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $u^2 \\equiv \\alpha v^2 \\pmod\n  4$. Multiplying by the inverse of $v$ we get the result.\n\n\\[of Theorem\u00a0\\[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\\]\\] Since all curves with complex multiplication over $K$ are isogenous to a quadratic twist of $E$, we are led to determine which quadratic twists have bad reduction at exactly one odd prime. Any global character corresponds to a quadratic extension $K(\\sqrt{\\alpha})$. If the twist has good reduction at $\\id{p}$, then $\\id{p} \\mid \\alpha$ (and the twist attains good reduction at $\\id{p}$), and the curve will have bad reduction at all other primes dividing $\\alpha$. Thus $(\\alpha) = \\id{p} \\id{q}$, for $\\id{q}$ an odd prime. Finally, we need to check whether the character is unramified at $2$, which follows from Lemma\u00a0\\[lemma:ramificationat2\\], and a description in each case of the squares modulo\u00a0$4$.\n\nExplicitly, for odd\u00a0$d$ we require $\\alpha=\\pi\\sqrt{-d}$, where $\\id{q}=(\\pi)$, such that $\\alpha\\equiv u^2\\pmod4$. For $d=7$ the only odd square modulo\u00a0$4$ is\u00a0$1$. For $d\\ge11$, since $2$ is inert in $K$ the odd squares modulo\u00a0$4$ are the squares of the odd residues modulo\u00a0$2$, which are $1,w,w^2$. For $d=2$, the twist of the base curve by $(1+\\sqrt{-2})\\sqrt{-2}$ has odd conductor $(1+\\sqrt{-2})^2$, so we must twist by $\\pi\\sqrt{-2}$ where $\\pi\\equiv(1+\\sqrt{-2})u^2\\pmod{4}$; since the odd squares modulo\u00a0$4$ are $1$ and\u00a0$-1+2\\sqrt{-2}$ we obtain the condition stated.\n\nIn each case in Theorem\u00a0\\[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\\], the condition on\u00a0$\\pi$ is satisfied by one quarter of the odd residue classes modulo\u00a0$4$. Since $\\id{q}=(\\pi)$ has two generators\u00a0$\\pm\\pi$, our construction gives curves of conductor\u00a0$\\id{q}^2$ for half the odd primes of\u00a0$K$.\n\n$K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$\n-----------------\n\nThe elliptic curve with complex multiplication by $\\Z[\\sqrt{-1}]$ is $$E:y^2=x^3+x  \\qquad \\text{ with label {\\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a/4}{{\\text{\\rm64.a4}}}}}.$$ Its conductor over $K$ equals $\\id{p}^8$, where $\\id{p}=(1+\\sqrt{-1})$. In particular, $\\chi_{\\id{p}}$ has conductor $\\id{p}^4$ and order $4$. Note that since the automorphism group of\u00a0$E$ is cyclic of order\u00a0$4$ we must consider *quartic twists*. For $\\alpha \\in K^*$, the quartic twist of $E$ by $\\alpha$ equals $$\\label{eq:quartictwist}\n  E_{\\alpha}:y^2=x^3+\\alpha x.$$ Note that this operation does not coincide with the twist of the L-series by a quartic character (as such L-series do not satisfy a functional equation). Indeed, if $E$ corresponds to the automorphic form $\\chi \\oplus \\bar{\\chi}$ (where $\\chi$ is a Grossencharacter), then $E_{\\alpha}$ corresponds to the automorphic form $\\chi \\psi \\oplus \\bar{\\chi} \\bar{\\psi}$, where $\\psi = \\kro{}{\\alpha}_4$ (the quartic Legendre symbol). It is still true that the curve $E_{\\alpha}$ is isomorphic to $E$ over the extension $K(\\sqrt[4]{\\alpha})$.\n\nAll the quartic twists of $E$ have a non-trivial $K$-rational $2$-torsion point.\n\nWe first need a local result about when a pure quartic extension is unramified above\u00a0$2$.\n\nLet $K=\\Q_2(\\sqrt{-1})$, and let $\\alpha \\in {{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ be a unit. Then the extension $K(\\sqrt[4]{\\alpha})$ is unramified over $K$ if and only if $\\alpha \\equiv 1, 1+4\\sqrt{-1} \\pmod8$. \\[lemma:quartictwist\\]\n\nThe extension $K(\\sqrt[4]{\\alpha})$ depends on $\\alpha$ up to $4$-th powers, i.e. two elements give the same extension if and only if they differ by a $4$-th power. By Hensel\u2019s Lemma, an odd element of $\\Q_2(\\sqrt{-1})$ is a fourth power if and only if it is congruent to $1$ modulo $(1+\\sqrt{-1})^7$, hence the extension is characterized by $\\alpha$ modulo $(1+\\sqrt{-1})^7$. Also, $K(\\sqrt[4]{\\alpha})$ is unramified if and only if it is contained in the unique unramified extension of $K$ of degree\u00a0$4$, which is $K(\\zeta_5) = K(\\sqrt[4]{1+4\\sqrt{-1}})$, as can be easily checked. Thus, for $K(\\sqrt[4]{\\alpha})$ to be unramified, $\\alpha$ must be congruent to a power of $1+4\\sqrt{-1}$, i.e. $\\alpha \\equiv\n  1, 1+4\\sqrt{-1}, 9,\\text{ or } 9+4\\sqrt{-1} \\pmod{(1+\\sqrt{-1})^7}$; this simplifies to $\\alpha\\equiv 1, 1+4\\sqrt{-1}\\pmod{8}$ as stated.\n\nLet $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ and let $E/K$ be the elliptic curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a/4)]{}. Then all elliptic curves with complex multiplication over $K$ of odd prime power conductor are isogenous to the quartic twist of $E$ by $\\pi$, where $\\pi$ is a prime power such that $\\pi \\equiv -1 \\pm 2\\sqrt{-1} \\pmod 8$. \\[theorem:CMGaussian\\]\n\nLet $\\pi = -1+2\\sqrt{-1}$. One may check that the quartic twist of\u00a0$E$ by $\\pi$ has good reduction at $2$ and bad additive reduction at $(-1+2\\sqrt{-1})$. Then any quartic twist of $E$ of odd conductor is a twist of $E_{-1+2\\sqrt{-1}}$ by a quartic character of odd conductor, which by Lemma\u00a0\\[lemma:quartictwist\\] correspond to elements which are congruent to $1$ or\u00a0$1+4\\sqrt{-1}\\pmod8$. Multiplying by $-1+2\\sqrt{-1}$ gives the classes\u00a0$-1\\pm2\\sqrt{-1}\\pmod8$ as stated.\n\nOf all odd primes\u00a0$\\id{q}$ of $K$, one quarter have a generator\u00a0$\\pi$ satisfying the condition in Theorem\u00a0\\[theorem:CMGaussian\\]. Hence our construction gives elliptic curves of conductor\u00a0$\\id{q}^2$ for one quarter of all primes\u00a0$\\id{q}$ of\u00a0$K$.\n\n$K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$\n-----------------\n\nThe elliptic curve with complex multiplication by $\\Z[\\frac{1+\\sqrt{-3}}{2}]$ is the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}, with (non-minimal) equation $$E:y^2=x^3+16.$$ Its conductor over $K$ is $\\id{p}^4$, where $\\id{p}=(\\sqrt{-3})$. In particular, $\\chi_{\\id{p}}$ has conductor $\\id{p}^2=(3)$ and order $6$ (note that $({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K/3)^\\times \\simeq\n\\Z/6\\Z$). Since $E$ has automorphism group of order\u00a0$6$, we must consider sextic twists, where the sextic twist by $\\alpha \\in K^*$ of the previous model is $$\\label{eq:sextictwist}\n  E_{\\alpha}:y^2=x^3+16\\alpha.$$ Similar considerations as for the quartic twists apply. In particular, the curve $E_{\\alpha}$ is isomorphic to $E$ over the extension $K(\\sqrt[6]{\\alpha})$; such twists are needed to cancel the CM character $\\chi_{\\id{p}}$.\n\nAs before, we need local results, now at both\u00a0$2$ and\u00a0$3$:\n\nLet $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$, let $w=(1+\\sqrt{-3})/2\\in K$ be a $6$th root of unity, and let $\\alpha \\in {{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ be a $2$-adic and $3$-adic unit. Then the extension $K(\\sqrt[6]{\\alpha})/K$ is unramified over both $2$ and\u00a0$3$ if and only if\n\n1.  $\\alpha \\equiv 1, w^2$, or $w^4\\pmod 4$ (equivalently, $\\alpha$ is congruent to a square modulo\u00a0$4$); and\n\n2.  $\\alpha \\equiv \\pm 1 \\pmod {\\sqrt{-3}^3}$ (equivalently, $\\alpha$ is congruent to a cube modulo\u00a0$\\sqrt{-3}^3$).\n\n\\[lemma:sextictwist\\]\n\nSince $K(\\sqrt[6]{\\alpha}) =\n  K(\\sqrt{\\alpha},\\sqrt[3]{\\alpha})$ we require both $K(\\sqrt{\\alpha})/K$ and $K(\\sqrt[3]{\\alpha})/K$ to be unramified. The first is certainly unramified over\u00a0$3$, and over\u00a0$2$ we may apply Lemma\u00a0\\[lemma:ramificationat2\\] to obtain the first condition stated.\n\nSimilarly, $K(\\sqrt[3]{\\alpha})/K$ is always unramified over\u00a0$2$, so we need the condition for it to be unramified also over\u00a0$3$. By Hensel\u2019s Lemma, a unit of $\\Q_3(\\sqrt{-3})$ is a cube if and only if it is congruent to $\\pm1$ modulo\u00a0$9$, hence the extension is characterized by $\\alpha$ modulo\u00a0$9$. We may check that $K(\\sqrt[3]{\\alpha_1})$ is unramified, for $\\alpha_1=2+3w$. Hence $K(\\sqrt[3]{\\alpha})/K$ is unramified at\u00a0$3$ if and only if $\\alpha\\equiv\\pm1, \\pm\\alpha_1, \\pm\\alpha_1^2\\pmod9$, which is if and only if $\\alpha\\equiv\\pm1\\pmod{\\sqrt{-3}^3}$.\n\nLet $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ let $E/K$ be the elliptic curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}. Then all elliptic curves with complex multiplication over $K$ of odd prime power conductor are isogenous to $E$ or to the sextic twist $E_{\\alpha}$ of $E$ by $\\alpha=\\sqrt{-3}^3\\, \\pi$, where $\\pi$ is a prime power such that:\n\n1.  $\\pi \\equiv \\sqrt{-3}, \\sqrt{-3}w^2$, or $\\sqrt{-3}w^4\\pmod 4$, and\n\n2.  $\\pi \\equiv \\pm 4 \\pmod {\\sqrt{-3}^3}$,\n\nwhere $w=(1+\\sqrt{-3})/2$ is a 6th root of unity. \\[theorem:CMEisenstein\\]\n\n$E$ itself has good reduction except at $\\sqrt{-3}$; by Lemma\u00a0\\[lemma:sextictwist\\], the sextic twist $E_{\\alpha}$ will also have good reduction at\u00a0$2$ provided that $\\alpha$ is an odd square modulo\u00a0$4$, equivalently $\\alpha\\equiv1,w^2,w^4\\pmod4$. Hence the first condition on\u00a0$\\pi$ ensures that $E_{\\alpha}$ has good reduction except at $\\pi$ and (possibly) at\u00a0$\\sqrt{-3}$.\n\nThe twist $E_{\\alpha_1}$ with $\\alpha_1=\\sqrt{-3}^3\\cdot 4$ has good reduction at $\\sqrt{-3}$. Hence by Lemma\u00a0\\[lemma:sextictwist\\], $E_{\\alpha}$ has good reduction at\u00a0$\\sqrt{-3}$ if $\\alpha/\\alpha_1$ is a cube modulo\u00a0$\\sqrt{-3}^3$, or equivalently $\\alpha/\\alpha_1\\equiv\\pm1\\pmod{\\sqrt{-3}^3}$. This is ensured by the second condition, since $\\pi/4=\\alpha/\\alpha_1$.\n\nThe curves in the previous family never have a rational $2$-torsion point, since $2\\alpha$ is not a cube.\n\nOf all primes of $K$ other than\u00a0$(2)$ and $(\\sqrt{-3})$, half have a generator\u00a0$\\pi$ satisfying the $2$-adic condition in Theorem\u00a0\\[theorem:CMEisenstein\\], and one third have a generator satisfying the $3$-adic condition. Hence our construction gives elliptic curves of conductor\u00a0$\\id{p}^2$ for one sixth of all primes\u00a0$\\id{p}$ of\u00a0$K$.\n\n### Curves with complex multiplication by $K$ over an imaginary quadratic field $L$.\n\nA natural question is what happens if we consider a curve $E$ with complex multiplication by an order in $K$, over a possibly different imaginary quadratic field $L$: are there twists of $E$ with good reduction at primes dividing $\\operatorname{cond}(E)$?\n\nThe proofs of the previous results are of a local nature, hence if $L$ has the same completion at a prime dividing $\\operatorname{cond}(E)$ as $K$ we are in exactly the same situation.\n\nLet $E/\\Q$ be an elliptic curve of conductor $p^r$ with complex multiplication by an order in $K$. Let $L=\\Q(\\sqrt{-t})$ be an imaginary quadratic field different from $K$ and $\\id{p}$ a prime ideal of $L$ dividing $p$. If the completion of $L$ at $\\id{p}$ is isomorphic to the completion of $K$ at the prime dividing $p$, then there exists $\\alpha \\in L$ such that:\n\n1.  if $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$, $d \\neq 1,3$, then the quadratic twist of $E/L$ by $\\sqrt{-t}\\, \\alpha$ has good reduction at $\\id{p}$.\n\n2.  if $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$, let $\\sqrt{-1}$ denote an element of $L$ whose square is congruent to $-1$ modulo $8$. Then the quartic twist of the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a/4)]{} by $\\alpha$ has good reduction at $2$ for $\\alpha \\equiv -1 \\pm 2\\sqrt{-1} \\pmod 8$.\n\n3.  if $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$, let $\\sqrt{-3}$ denote an element of $L$ whose square is congruent to $-3$ modulo $9$. Then the sextic twist of the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{} by $\\alpha$ has good reduction at $3$ for $\\alpha \\equiv \\pm 4\\sqrt{-3}^3 \\pmod {\\sqrt{-3}^3}$.\n\nOn the other hand, if the completions are not isomorphic, no such twist exists. \\[thm:otherfields\\]\n\nThe proof of the first facts mimics that of Theorems \\[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\\], \\[theorem:CMGaussian\\] and \\[theorem:CMEisenstein\\], as the completions being isomorphic implies that the local reduction types are the same. Suppose that the local completions are not isomorphic. Consider the Weil representation at $p$ attached to our elliptic curve $E/\\Q$ (recall that CM elliptic curves have no monodromy, hence we do not need to consider the whole Weil-Deligne representation). Then it is easy to check that the image of inertia at $p$ equals:\n\n1.  a cyclic group of order $4$ if $d \\neq 1, 3$,\n\n2.  the dihedral group of order $8$ if $d = 1$,\n\n3.  the dihedral group of order 12 if $d=3$.\n\nRecall that the curve $E/L$ will have good reduction at $\\id{p}$ if the restriction of the Weil representation to the inertia subgroup of $L$ at $\\id{p}$ is trivial.\n\nIn the first case, since the completion of $L$ at $\\id{p}$ is not isomorphic to the completion of $K$ at $\\id{p}$, the restriction to the inertia subgroup of $L$ at $\\id{p}$ still has order $4$. But since $d \\neq 1$, we cannot take quartic twists, hence we cannot cancel the ramification, and all such curves $E/L$ will have bad reduction at $\\id{p}$. In the other two cases, the image of the inertia subgroup of $\\Q$ at $p$ is not abelian, and the unique quadratic extension whose restriction becomes abelian is $K_{\\id{p}}$, hence by twisting we cannot kill the ramification for any other quadratic extension of $\\Q_p$.\n\nIf $E/\\Q$ is an elliptic curve with complex multiplication by an order in $K$ and $L$ is an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ different from $K$, then $E$ is the unique curve in its family of appropriate twists (quadratic, quartic or sextic) which has prime power conductor. \\[coro:differentfields\\]\n\nLet $D=\\{1,2,3,7,11,19,43,67,163\\}$. The field $\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for each odd $d \\in D$ has a different ramification set, hence we cannot get good reduction at $d$ by Theorem \\[thm:otherfields\\]. For $d$ equal to $1$ or $2$ the completions are also different, hence we cannot get odd conductor from the curve with CM by an order of $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$, or vice versa.\n\nPrime power conductor curves with rational odd torsion {#smallimage}\n======================================================\n\nRecall the following result of [@Kenku] and [@Kamienny]:\n\nLet $K$ be a quadratic field, and $E/K$ be an elliptic curve. Then $E(K)_{tors}$ is isomorphic to one of the following groups:\n\n1.  $\\ZZ/N$, with $ 1 \\le N \\le 18$ but $N \\neq 17$.\n\n2.  $\\ZZ/2N \\times \\ZZ/2$ with $1 \\le N \\le 6$.\n\n3.  $\\ZZ/4 \\times \\ZZ/4$.\n\n4.  $\\ZZ/3 \\times \\ZZ/3N$ with $N=1,2$.\n\nIn particular the primes dividing the order of the torsion subgroup are $2, 3, 5, 7, 11$ and $13$. Let $\\id{q} \\mid 2$ be a prime and $E$ be an elliptic curve of odd conductor. By Hasse\u2019s bound $$\\#E(\\FF_{\\id{q}})=|\\normid{q}+1-a_E(\\id{q}) | \\le \\normid{q}+1 + 2 \\sqrt{\\normid{q}} < 11.$$ In particular a curve of odd prime power conductor over $K$ can only have a torsion point of odd prime order $\\ell$ for $\\ell \\in \\{3,5,7\\}$.\n\nWhile studying the possible torsion of an elliptic curve over $K$, the case $\\ell =3$ and $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ is quite different from the others. The reason is that since $K$ contains the sixth roots of unity, the determinant of the Galois representation acting on $3$-torsion points is trivial. The main results of the present section are Theorem \\[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\\], which implies that curves over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ of odd prime conductor and with a rational $3$-torsion point, have (up to $3$-isogeny) discriminant valuation not divisible by\u00a0$3$; and a list of all elliptic curves of prime power conductor and a point of order $\\ell \\in \\{3, 5, 7\\}$ is given for all the other fields. The complete list (omitting Galois conjugates) is given in Table\u00a0\\[table:oddtorsioncurves\\], whose completeness will be proved in this section, in Theorems \\[thm:3-torsion\\],\u00a0\\[thm:5-torsion\\], and\u00a0\\[thm:7-torsion\\].\n\nBesides curves over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ with a rational $3$-torsion point, the only curves of prime conductor over imaginary quadratic fields with a rational $\\ell$-torsion point are those over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ with a $3$-torsion point, and base-changes of elliptic curves defined over\u00a0$\\Q$.\n\nLet $p$ be an odd prime, $K/\\Q$ be a quadratic extension and $E/K$ be an elliptic curve with a global minimal model. If $P \\in E(K)$ has order $p$, then by [@Silverman VII, Theorem 3.4] $P$ has algebraic integer coordinates in the minimal model, except when $p=3$ and $K/\\Q$ is ramified at $3$ where, if $\\id{p}_3$ denotes the prime dividing $3$, the case $v_{\\id{p}_3}(x(P),y(P))= (-2,-3)$ might occur.\n\nLet $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$, and let $E/K$ be a curve with a point $P$ of order $3$ and prime power conductor $\\id{p}^r$ and let $\\tilde{E}$ be the $3$-isogenous curve obtained by taking the quotient of $E$ by the group generated by $P$. Then the valuations at $\\id{p}$ of ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ and ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(\\tilde{E})$ are not both divisible by $3$, unless $E$ is one of the CM curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/729.1/CMa/1)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/729.1/CMb/1)]{}. \\[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\\]\n\nSuppose that $({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))=\\id{p}^{3r}$. Let $P$ denote the point of order $3$ in $E(K)$. If $P$ has integral coordinates, we use the parametrization of elliptic curves with a rational point of order\u00a0$3$ given by Kubert in [@Kubert Table 1]: such curves have a minimal model of the form $$E:y^2+a_1 xy+ a_3 y= x^3,\n\\label{eq3-torsion1}$$ where $a_i$ are algebraic integers, $P=(0,0)$ has order\u00a0$3$, with discriminant $${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E) = a_3^3 (a_1^3 -27 a_3).\n\\label{eq:discriminant3torsion1}$$ If $P$ does not have integral coordinates, then we take the minimal equation to one of the form (\\[eq3-torsion1\\]), with $v_{\\id{p}}(a_1) \\ge 0$ and $v_{\\id{p}}(a_3)=-3$.\n\nNote that over a field containing the $3$-rd roots of unity the cyclotomic character modulo $3$ is trivial so the representation of the Galois group acting on $E[3]$ has image in $\\operatorname{SL}(2,3)$. Then if it is reducible, with upper triangular matrices, the diagonal entries are both $+1$ or both $-1$. So if the curve\u00a0$E$ has a rational point of order $3$, so does the isogenous curve $\\tilde{E}$. We find that $\\tilde{E}$ has equation $y^2+a_1 xy+ a_3\n  y= x^3-5a_1a_3x-a_1^3a_3-7a_3^2$, and discriminant $$\\label{eq:discEt}\n    {{\\mathcal{D}}}(\\tilde{E})=a_3(a_1^3-27a_3)^3.$$ Suppose that both ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ and ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(\\tilde{E})$ generate ideals which are cubes. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n    a_1^3-27a_3 & = u \\alpha^3\\\\\n    a_3& =  v \\beta^3,\n  \\end{aligned}$$ for $u,v$ units and $\\alpha, \\beta \\in\n  K^\\times$; in fact, $\\alpha,\\sqrt{-3}\\beta\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$. In particular, $(a_1: -\\alpha: -3\\beta)$ is a $K$-rational point on the cubic curve $$x^3+uy^3+vz^3=0,     \\label{eq:fermatcubics}$$ a twist of the Fermat cubic. By Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:fermatcubics\\] below, all $K$-rational points\u00a0$(x:y:z)$ on all curves of the form\u00a0(\\[eq:fermatcubics\\]) either satisfy $xyz=0$, or (after scaling so that $x,y,z\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ are coprime) that $x,y,z$ are all units.\n\nSince $\\alpha\\beta\\not=0$ the first case is possible only when $a_1=0$. Then $a_3$ is a unit times a cube, so by minimality is a unit: this leads to the three isomorphism classes of curves with conductor\u00a0$(9)$ or $(27)$. The first of these is [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/81.1/CMa/1)]{}, whose discriminant valuation is\u00a0$6$ but has a $3$-isogenous curve with discriminant valuation\u00a0$10$; the other two, which are given in the statement of the theorem, are each isomorphic to their $3$-isogenous curves (the isogeny being an endomorphism) and have discriminant valuation\u00a0$6$.\n\nIn case none of the coordinates is zero, we consider separately the finitely many cases where $\\beta$ is integral or has valuation\u00a0$-1$, and find that there are no more solutions.\n\n\\[lem:fermatcubics\\] Let $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ and $u,v\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$. The cubic curve\u00a0(\\[eq:fermatcubics\\]) has either $3$ or $9$ rational points, which either lie on one of the lines $x=0$, $y=0$ or $z=0$, or have projective coordinates which are all units.\n\nAfter permuting the coordinates, scaling by units and absorbing cubes, there are only three essentially different equations, those with $(u,v)=(1,1)$, $(1,\\zeta)$, and $(\\zeta,\\zeta^2)$ where $\\zeta\\in K$ is a $6$th root of unity. When $u=1$, it is well-known that all points have one zero coordinate (see [@Ireland-Rosen Proposition 17.8.1]). There are $9$ such points (all the flexes) when $v=1$, and $3$ when $u=\\zeta$. The curve with $(u,v)=(\\zeta,\\zeta^2)$ is isomorphic to the one with $(u,v)=(1,1)$, since the isomorphism class depends only on $uv$ modulo cubes, and hence also has $9$ points; these are $(\\zeta^{2k}:\\zeta^{2l+1}:1)$ for $k,l\\in\\{0,1,2\\}$.\n\nLet $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$, $K \\neq \\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ and $E/K$ an elliptic curve of odd prime power conductor with a point of order $3$. Then $E$ is isomorphic to one of the following:\n\n1.  the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/3)]{} over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=1, 7, 11, 19, 43, 163$;\n\n2.  the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/3)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{} over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=1, 7, 19, 43, 67, 163$;\n\n3.  the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/37/b/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/37/b/3)]{} over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=2, 19, 43, 163$;\n\n4.  the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/243/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/243/b/2)]{} over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=1, 7, 19, 43, 67, 163$;\n\n5.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ and $E$ is one of the $3$-isogenous curves $$y^2 + (1+i) xy + i y = x^3 + (-1+i) x^2 + (-14-8i) x + (-10-20i),$$ with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.1/a/1)]{}, $$y^2 + (1+i) xy + i y = x^3 + (1+i) x^2 + (1-i) x + 2,$$ with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.1/a/2)]{}, or their Galois conjugates with labels [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.2/a/1)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.2/a/2)]{}.\n\n6.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$ and $E$ is the curve $$y^2 + \\sqrt{-2} xy + y = x^3 + (1-\\sqrt{-2}) x^2 -x,$$ , or its Galois conjugate with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.8.1/9.3/CMa/1)]{};\n\n7.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-11})$ and $E$ is the curve $$y^2 + y = x^3 + \\frac{1-\\sqrt{-11}}{2} x^2 +\n        \\frac{-5-\\sqrt{-11}}{2} x - 2,$$with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/9.3/CMa/1)]{}, or its Galois conjugate with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/9.1/CMa/1)]{}.\n\n\\[thm:3-torsion\\]\n\nAs in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:3-torsionspecialcase\\], we use the parametrization of elliptic curves with a rational point of order\u00a0$3$ given by Kubert in [@Kubert Table 1]: such curves have a model of the form $$E:y^2+a_1 xy+ a_3 y= x^3,\n\\label{eq3-torsion}$$ where $P=(0,0)$ has order\u00a0$3$, with discriminant $${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E) = a_3^3 (a_1^3 -27 a_3).\n\\label{eq:discriminant3torsion}$$ By scaling, we can choose a model of this form such that for all primes\u00a0$\\id{q}$ either $\\id{q}\\nmid a_1$ or $\\id{q}^3\\nmid a_3$. Then the model is minimal at all primes, as we now show. To be non-minimal at a prime $\\q$ implies that $\\id{q}^6\\mid c_6$ and $\\id{q}^{12}\\mid\n{{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$, where $c_6$ is the usual invariant of the model. The ideal generated by $c_6$ and ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ in the ring $\\Z[a_1,a_3]$ contains both $a_1^{15}$ and $3^3a_3^5$, so $\\id{q}\\mid a_1$ and $\\id{q}\\mid\na_3$: in case $\\id{q}\\mid3$, we need the fact that $3$ is not ramified in\u00a0$K$. By minimality, $v_{\\id{q}}(a_3)\\in\\{1,2\\}$; this implies $v_{\\id{q}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))\\le11$, contradiction.\n\nLet $\\id{p}=(\\pi)$ be the unique prime dividing ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$. As above, we can assume that either $\\id{p}\\nmid a_1$ or $\\id{p}^3\\nmid a_3$. We can also scale by units, replacing $(a_1,a_3)$ by $(ua_1,u^3a_3)$, and we note that for the fields under consideration every unit is a cube. Our strategy is to prove that $(a_1,a_3)$ lies in a small finite set, and then systematically search through all possible values.\n\n1.  If $a_3$ is a unit, we may assume by scaling that $a_3=1$. Then we can factor (\\[eq:discriminant3torsion\\]) as $${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E) = a_1^3 -27 = (a_1 -3) (a_1^2 + 3  a_1 +9 ).$$ We consider the following cases:\n\n    1.  If $\\id{p}\\nmid3$ then the factors are coprime, so one is a unit. If $u=a_1-3\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ we get four solutions $(a_1,a_3)=(4,1)$, $(2,1)$, $(3\\pm\\sqrt{-1},1)$ which give the curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/37/b/3)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/3)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.1/a/2)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/757.2/a/2)]{}. If $a_1^2 + 3 a_1\n              +9 = u \\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ then $(2a_1+3)^2 = 4u-27 \\in\n              \\{-23,-31,-27\\pm4\\sqrt{-1}\\}$ which has no solution in\u00a0$K$.\n\n    2.  If $\\id{p} \\mid 3$ then $\\id{p} \\mid a_1$. If $v_{\\id{p}}(a_1)=1$, we write $a_1=\\pi b$. In the inert case, $\\pi=3$ and ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)=27(b^3-1)=27(b-1)(b^2+b+1)$. If either factor is a unit one finds no solutions, otherwise both are divisible by\u00a0$3$, so write $b=1+3c$; now the second factor is $3(1+3c+3c^2)$ so $1+3c+3c^2$ is a unit. Only $u=1$ gives a solution: $c=-1$, $b=-2$ and $a_1=-6$. The pair $(a_1,a_3)=(-6,1)$ yields the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}. In the split case we get ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E) =\n          \\pi^3(b^3-\\overline{\\pi}^3) = \\pi^3(b-\\overline{\\pi})\n          (b^2+b\\overline{\\pi}+\\overline{\\pi}^2)$. Elementary computations reveal two solutions: $b=\\sqrt{-2}$ giving $(a_1,a_3)=(\\sqrt{-2}-2,1)$ and the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.8.1/9.1/CMa/1)]{}; and $b=-2$ giving $(a_1,a_3)=(-1-\\sqrt{-11},1)$ and the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/9.1/CMa/1)]{}; together with their Galois conjugates.\n\n        If $a_1=0$ or $v_{\\id{p}}(a_1)\\ge2$ then $v_{\\id{p}}({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))=3$. This gives the equation $a_1^3=27+\\pi^3u$ with $u$ a unit. When $3$ is inert we have $\\pi=3$ and $(a_1/3)^3=1+u\\in\\{2,0,1\\pm\\sqrt{-1}\\}$, giving just one solution $(a_1,a_3)=(0,1)$ and the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/4)]{}. When $3=\\pi\\overline{\\pi}$ we have $(a_1/\\pi)^3=\\overline{\\pi}^3\\pm1$ but this is not a cube. (Here, $\\pi=1\\pm\\sqrt{-2}$ or $\\pi=(1\\pm\\sqrt{-11})/2$.)\n\n2.  Now suppose that $a_3$ is not a unit. If $a_1=0$, then $3$ is inert in $K$ and $a_3 = 3^j$, with $j \\in \\{1,2\\}$ by the minimality of the model, corresponding to the curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/243/b/2)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/243/a/2)]{} respectively. Suppose that $a_1 \\neq 0$.\n\n    1.  If $\\id{p} \\mid a_1$, the minimality of the model implies that $v_{\\id{p}}(a_3) < 3$; scaling by units we can assume that $a_3=\\pi^j$ with $j\\in\\{1,2\\}$.\n\n        If $\\id{p}\\nmid3$ then $v_{\\id{p}}(a_1^3-27a_3)=v_{\\id{p}}(a_3)=j$ so $a_1^3=\\pi^j(27+v)$ for some unit\u00a0$v$, but none of these expressions is a cube. Hence $\\id{p}\\mid3$.\n\n        If $v_{\\id{p}}(a_1)=1$, we have $v_{\\id{p}}(a_1^3-27a_3)=3$ so $a_1^3=27a_3+\\pi^3u$ with $u$ a unit. In the inert cases $(a_1/3)^3=a_3+u$, whose only solution is $(a_1,a_3)=(6,9)$ which yields the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/3)]{}. In the split cases we find no solutions.\n\n        If $v_{\\id{p}}(a_1)\\ge2$, we have $v_{\\id{p}}(a_1^3-27a_3)=v_{\\id{p}}(27a_3)=3+j$ so $0\\not=a_1^3=27a_3+\\pi^{3+j}u=\\pi^j(27+\\pi^3u)$ with $u$ a unit. This has no solutions.\n\n    2.  If $\\id{p} \\nmid a_1$, then $a_1^3-27a_3$ is a unit and we can scale so the unit is\u00a0$1$, so $a_1^3=1+27a_3$.\n\n        If $\\id{p}\\mid3$ then from $27a_3=a_1^3-1\\equiv(a_1-1)^3\\pmod3$ we have $\\id{p}\\mid a_1=1$ and either $a_1-1$ or $a_1^2+a_1+1$ has valuation\u00a0$1$, but no solutions arise.\n\n        Hence $\\id{p}\\nmid3$. Now $27a_3 = a_1^3-1 = (a_1-1)(a_1^2+a_1+1)$, where the gcd of the factors divides\u00a0$3$. One of the factors is coprime to\u00a0$\\id{p}$, so divides\u00a0$27$, and both factors are divisible by the prime or primes dividing\u00a0$3$, so $3\\mid(a_1-1)$. Suppose that we are in the case that $a_1-1\\mid27$. In case $3$ is inert, write $a_1-1=3^ku$ with $u$ a unit and $k\\in\\{1,2,3\\}$. The only cases where $a_1^3\\equiv1\\pmod{27}$ are $(a_1,a_3)=(10,37)$ and $(-8,-19)$, giving the curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/37/b/2)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/2)]{} respectively. In case $3$ splits as $3=\\omega\\overline{\\omega}$ we have $a_1=1\\pm\\omega^k\\overline{\\omega}^l$ with $k,l\\in\\{1,2,3\\}$; the only solutions are those with have $k=l=2$ which have already been seen. Secondly, if $a_1^2+a_1+1=d\\mid27$ then the quadratic in\u00a0$a_1$ has discriminant $4d-3$ which must be a square; enumeration of cases shows no solutions.\n\nIn summary we find that the only solutions\u00a0$(a_1,a_3)$, up to scaling by units and Galois conjugates, are $(a_1,1)$ for $a_1\\in\\{0, 2, 4,\n-6, 3+\\sqrt{-1}, -2+\\sqrt{-2}, -1-\\sqrt{-11}\\}$, and $(0,3)$, $(0,9)$, $(6,9),(10,37)$, and $(-8,-19)$.\n\nIt is an interesting question to determine whether there are infinitely many curves over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ with a point of order $3$ and prime conductor. Based on numerical evidence, it seems quite plausible that this is indeed the case, but we did not focus on this particular problem.\n\nLet $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ and $E/K$ an elliptic curve of odd prime power conductor with a point of order $5$. Then either $E$ is isomorphic to the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/3)]{} for $d=1, 3, 11, 67, 163$ or $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ and $E$ is the curve: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{eq:curves5torsion}\n    y^2 + (i+1) xy+iy = x^3 + ix^2,\\qquad&&\\text{with label {\\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/25.3/CMa/1}{{\\text{\\rm2.0.4.1-25.3-CMa1}}}}},\n  \\end{aligned}$$ or its Galois conjugate with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/25.1/CMa/1)]{}. \\[thm:5-torsion\\]\n\nNote that the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/25.3/CMa/1)]{} has CM by $\\ZZ[i]$; in particular, the conductor valuation is $2$.\n\nAgain we use Kubert\u2019s parametrization from [@Kubert Table 1]: such curves have a model of the form $$y^2+(1-d)xy-dy = x^3-dx^2,$$ with $d \\in K$. An integral model is then given by $$E_{a,b}:y^2+(b-a)xy-ab^2y = x^3 -abx^2, \\qquad \\text{ with }\\gcd(a,b)=1.$$ This model has discriminant ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}) = a^5b^5(a^2-11ab-b^2)$, and $c_4$-invariant $a^{4} - 12 a^{3} b + 14 a^{2} b^{2} + 12 a b^{3}\n+ b^{4}$. In the polynomial ring $\\Z[a,b]$ the ideal these generate contains $5a^{15}$ and\u00a0$5b^{15}$, so they are coprime away from\u00a0$5$. Hence at all primes except possibly those dividing\u00a0$5$ the model $E_{a,b}$ is minimal, and has multiplicative reduction.\n\nLet $\\id{p}$ be a prime above\u00a0$5$ and suppose that $\\id{p}$ divides both ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b})$ and $c_4(E_{a,b})$. Then ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}) \\equiv\na^5b^5(a+2b)^2\\pmod{\\id{p}}$ and $c_4(E_{a,b})\\equiv(a+2b)^4\\pmod{\\id{p}}$, so $\\id{p}\\mid(a+2b)$. Writing $a=-2b+c$ where $\\id{p}\\mid c$ and using the fact that $5$ is not ramified in\u00a0$K$, we find that $c_4\\equiv-5b^4\\pmod{\\id{p}^2}$, so $\\id{p}^2\\nmid c_4$. Hence $E_{a,b}$ is also minimal at\u00a0$\\id{p}$. Examples show that the reduction at such a prime may be either good or additive.\n\nIn the factorization ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}) = a^5b^5(a^2-11ab-b^2)$, the three factors are pairwise coprime. Then for ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b})$ to be a prime power, two of $a$, $b$ and $a^2-11ab-b^2$ are units. Since we may scale $a$ and\u00a0$b$ simultaneously by a unit we may assume that either $a=1$ or $b=1$. When $a=1$, $b=\\pm1$ leads to discriminant\u00a0$-11$ while $a^2-11ab-b^2=\\pm1$ leads to discriminant\u00a0$-11^5$, giving the curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{} or [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/3)]{} over any field in which $11$ is not split. Over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$, additionally, $(a,b)=(1,\\pm\\sqrt{-1})$ gives the curves with conductor\u00a0$(2\\pm\\sqrt{-1})^2$ as stated, while over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ none of the additional units gives a solution. Lastly if $a$ is not a unit we may assume that $b=1$ and require $u=a^2-11a-1\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$ so that $125+4u$ is a square in\u00a0$K$; the only possibility is $u=-1$ and $a=11$ giving discriminant $-11^5$ again.\n\nLet $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ and $E/K$ be an elliptic curve of odd prime power conductor with a point of order $7$. Then $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ and $E$ is isomorphic to $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{eq:curves7torsion}\n    y^2 + a y = x^3 + (a-2)x^2+(1-a)x\\qquad&&\\text{with label {\\href{http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/49.3/CMa/1}{{\\text{\\rm2.0.3.1-49.3-CMa1}}}}},\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where $a = \\frac{1+\\sqrt{-3}}{2}$. \\[thm:7-torsion\\]\n\nIn this case, a general elliptic curve with a $7$-torsion point is given by $$E_{a,b}: y^2+(b^2+ab-a^2) xy-(a^3b^3-a^2b^4)y = x^3-(a^3b-a^2b^2) x^2 ,$$ where $a,b \\in \\mathcal{O}_{K}$ and $\\gcd(a,b)=1$ (see [@Kubert]). Its discriminant is given by ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}) = a^7 b^7 (a-b)^7 (a^3-8a^2b+5a b^2+b^3)$. As in the previous theorem, we find that $\\gcd({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E_{a,b}), c_4(E_{a,b}))$ is not divisible by any prime except possibly those dividing\u00a0$7$, and that the model $E_{a,b}$ is minimal even at such primes.\n\nSince $(a,b)=1$, two of $a$, $b$ and $c=(a-b)^7 (a^3-8a^2b+5a b^2+b^3)$ are units. If $a$ is a unit but not $b$ then we can scale so $a=1$ and now $1-b$ is a unit. None of the possibilities gives an odd prime power discriminant. Similarly if $b=1$ and $a$ is not a unit. Lastly if $a=1$ and $b$ is a unit, the only possibility which works is when $b$ is a 6th root of unity, giving the curve as stated in the theorem (which is isomorphic to its Galois conjugate, while not being a base-change from $\\Q$).\n\nNote that in all the exceptional cases, the discriminant valuation is at most $5$, except for the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/2)]{} over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-11})$, where it is $10$ (as $11$ ramifies in the extension).\n\nPrime power conductor curves with rational $2$-torsion {#section 2 torsion}\n======================================================\n\nOur goal in this section is to classify all elliptic curves\u00a0$E$ defined over\u00a0$K$ with odd prime power conductor which have a $K$-rational point of order\u00a0$2$. As a result we will see (Corollary\u00a0\\[coro:2torsion-odddiscriminant\\] below) that each isogeny class of such curves contains a curve whose discriminant has odd valuation. Our results here extend those of Shumbusho, who in his 2004 thesis\u00a0[@Shumbusho] considered elliptic curves over the same fields as we do, with prime conductor and rational $2$-torsion.\n\nIn this section we will make essential use of the local criterion of Kraus from [@Kraus-c4c6 Th\u00e9or\u00e8me 2], which we state here for the reader\u2019s convenience.\n\nLet $K$ be a finite extension of $\\Q_2$ with valuation ring\u00a0${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$, normalized valuation $v$ and ramification degree\u00a0$e=v(2)$. Let $c_4$, $c_6$, $\\Delta$ in ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ satisfy $c_4^3-c_6^2=1728\\Delta\\not=0$. Then there exists an integral Weierstrass model of an elliptic curve over\u00a0$K$ with invariants $c_4$ and\u00a0$c_6$ if and only if one of the following holds:\n\n1.  $v(c_4)=0$, and there exists $a_1\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $a_1^2\\equiv -c_6\\pmod{4}$.\n\n2.  $0<v(c_4)<4e$, and there exist $a_1,a_3\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n           d=-a_1^6+3a_1^2c_4+2c_6 &\\equiv& 0 \\pmod{16};\\\\\n           a_3^2 &\\equiv& d/16 \\pmod{4};\\\\\n           4a_1^2d &\\equiv& (a_1^4-c_4)^2 \\pmod{256}.\n           \\end{aligned}$$\n\n3.  $v(c_4)\\ge 4e$, and there exists $a_3\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ such that $a_3^2\\equiv c_6/8\\pmod{4}$.\n\n\\[prop:Kraus\\]\n\nPreliminaries on curves with odd conductor and rational $2$-torsion\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection and the next we assume that $E$ is an elliptic curve defined over\u00a0$K$, with odd conductor, and with a rational $2$-torsion point; later we will specialize to the case where the conductor is an odd prime power. Such an elliptic curve $E$ has an equation of the form $$\\label{eq:equation}\n  E_{a,b}:y^2 = x(x^2 + ax+b),$$ where $a,b\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ and the given $2$-torsion point is $(0,0)$. However, while it is easy to see that this model can be taken to be minimal at all odd primes, we need to be more precise concerning the primes dividing\u00a0$2$ where such a model cannot have good reduction. To this end, we need to consider carefully the transformation from a global minimal model for $E$ (which exists since $K$ has class number\u00a0$1$) to this form. Let $$\\label{eqn:min-model}\ny^2+a_1xy+a_3y=x^3+a_2x^2+a_4x+a_6$$ be a global minimal model for\u00a0$E$; its discriminant ${{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E)$ is odd since $E$ has odd conductor. To transform this model into $E_{a,b}$ we first complete the square, then scale to make the equation integral, and finally translate the $x$-coordinate so that the $2$-torsion point has $x=0$.\n\nAfter completing the square the right-hand side of the equation is $$\\label{eq:2torsionpoly}\nx^3 + (a_2+(a_1/2)^2)x^2 + (a_4+(a_1/2)a_3)x + (a_6+(a_3/2)^2)$$ which is still integral, and minimal, at all odd primes. Let $\\q=(\\tau)$ be a prime of\u00a0$K$ dividing\u00a0$2$. Then $a_1$ and $a_3$ are not both divisible by\u00a0$\\q$, as otherwise $\\q$ would divide the discriminant, so (\\[eq:2torsionpoly\\]) is not integral at\u00a0$\\q$. To make the equation integral we scale $x$ by $\\tau^{2r}$ for some $r\\ge1$ chosen to be minimal. The minimal\u00a0$r$ depends on whether $E$ is ordinary or supersingular at\u00a0$\\q$, or equivalently whether $\\vq(a_1)=0$ or $\\vq(a_1)>0$.\n\n\\[Proposition:scaling\\] Let $E$ be an elliptic curve of odd conductor over\u00a0$K$ with a $K$-rational point of order\u00a0$2$ with minimal equation\u00a0(\\[eqn:min-model\\]). Let $\\q=(\\tau)$ be a prime of\u00a0$K$ dividing\u00a0$2$.\n\n1.  If $E$ has ordinary reduction at\u00a0$\\q$ (that is, if $\\vq(a_1)=0$), then the minimal scaling to make (\\[eq:2torsionpoly\\]) integral is $x\\mapsto 2^2x$ (with scaling valuation $r=2e_2$).\n\n2.  If $E$ has supersingular reduction at\u00a0$\\q$ (that is, if $\\vq(a_1)>0$), then $K$ is ramified at\u00a0$2$ and $\\vq(a_1)=1$. The minimal scaling is $x\\mapsto \\tau^2x$ (with $r=2$).\n\nIn both cases, after scaling, (\\[eq:2torsionpoly\\]) reduces to\u00a0$x^2(x+u)$ modulo\u00a0$\\q$ with $u$ odd. In the supersingular case, there is only one $K$-rational point of order\u00a0$2$, whose $x$-coordinate (after scaling) is odd.\n\nAfter scaling $x$ by $\\tau^{2r}$, the coefficient of $x^{3-j}$ is multiplied by\u00a0$\\tau^{2rj}$.\n\nFirst suppose that $\\vq(a_1)=0$ (the ordinary case). From the coefficient of $x^2$ in (\\[eq:2torsionpoly\\]) it is immediate that $x\\mapsto 4x$ is the minimal scaling which gives integral coefficients. After scaling, the coefficient of $x^2$ is $u=a_1^2+4a_2$, with $\\q$-valuation\u00a0$0$, and the others are divisible by\u00a0$8$ and $16$ respectively.\n\nNow suppose that $\\vq(a_1)>0$ (the supersingular case), which implies $\\vq(a_3)=0$. If $\\vq(a_1) \\ge e_2$, then all coefficients in (\\[eq:2torsionpoly\\]) are $\\q$-integral except the last one, which has $\\q$-valuation $-2e_2$. But then all roots have valuation $-2e_2/3$, which is not an integer, contradicting the fact that the polynomial has a root in\u00a0$K$. It follows that this supersingular case can only occur if $e_2=2$ and $\\vq(a_1) =1$. The coefficients in\u00a0(\\[eq:2torsionpoly\\]) now have valuations\u00a0$-2$, $-1$, $-4$, from which it follows that the roots (whether in\u00a0$K$ or an extension) have valuations\u00a0$-2$, $-1$, $-1$; since the $x$-coordinates of non-integral $K$-rational points must have even valuation, there can be only one $K$-rational point of order\u00a0$2$, with $x$-coordinate of valuation\u00a0$-2$. To achieve integrality we must scale\u00a0$x$ by\u00a0$\\tau^2$, after which the cubic reduces to $x^2(x+1)$ modulo\u00a0$\\q$ and the $x$-coordinate of the $K$-rational point of order\u00a0$2$ is odd.\n\nWe will refer to the two cases of this proposition as \u201cthe ordinary case\u201d and \u201cthe supersingular case\u201d respectively.\n\nThe model $E_{a,b}$ has invariants $$\\label{eqn:Eab-invariants}\n  \\Delta=2^4b^2(a^2-4b), \\qquad\n  c_4 = 2^4(a^2-3b), \\qquad\n  c_6 = 2^5a(9b-2a^2).$$ We set ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)=b^2(a^2-4b)$, and compare this with ${{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E)$. In the ordinary case, $\\Delta=2^{12}{{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E)$ so ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)=2^8{{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E)$; in the supersingular case, $\\Delta=\\tau^{12}{{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E)$ and ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)=\\pm2^2{{\\mathcal{D}}}_{\\min}(E)$, with sign $-1$ for $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ when $\\tau=1+\\sqrt{-1}$ and $+1$ for $\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$ when $\\tau=\\sqrt{-2}$.\n\n\\[Cor:ab-q-valuations\\] Let $(x_0,0)$ be the coordinates of the given $2$-torsion point on the scaled model, so $x_0\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$. We obtain a model of the form\u00a0$E_{a,b}$ by shifting the $x$-coordinate by\u00a0$x_0$.\n\n1.  In the ordinary case, if $\\vq(x_0)>0$ then we obtain $(a,b)$ with $(\\vq(a), \\vq(b)) = (0, 4e_2)$, while if $\\vq(x_0)=0$ then $(\\vq(a), \\vq(b)) = (e_2, 0)$.\n\n2.  In the supersingular case we always have $\\vq(x_0)=0$, and $(\\vq(a),\\vq(b))=(k,0)$ with $k\\ge3$. (We include the possibility that $a=0$ here.)\n\nAfter the shift by\u00a0$x_0$ we have $\\q\\mid b$ if $x_0$ reduces to the double root modulo\u00a0$\\q$ and $\\q\\mid a$ otherwise; $\\q$ does not divide both since there is no triple root modulo\u00a0$\\q$. In the supersingular case, $\\q$ must divide\u00a0$a$.\n\nSuppose that $\\q\\mid b$. Then we are in the ordinary case, and $8e_2=\\vq({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))=2\\vq(b)$ so $\\vq(b)=4e_2$.\n\nAlternatively, suppose that $\\q\\mid a$. Then in the ordinary case, $\\vq(a^2-4b)=\\vq({{\\mathcal{D}}}(E))=8e_2>2e_2=\n\\vq(4b)$, so $\\vq(a^2)=2e_2$ and $\\vq(a)=e_2$. In the supersingular case, $\\vq(a^2-4b)=4=\\vq(4b)$ so $\\vq(a)\\ge2$; however it is easy to see that $\\vq(a)=2$ leads to a contradiction since the residue field at\u00a0$\\q$ has only size\u00a0$2$.\n\nNote that $a=0$ can only happen in the supersingular case. Such curves have CM by $\\Z[\\sqrt{-1}]$ and were considered in Section\u00a0\\[section CM\\].\n\nIn what follows, it would be enough to determine curves up to quadratic twist, since given one elliptic curve it is straightforward (see [@CremonaLingham]) to find all of its twists with good reduction outside a fixed set of primes. The quadratic twists of\u00a0$E_{a,b}$ have the form $E_{\\lambda a,\\lambda^2b}$ for $\\lambda\\in K^*$. Taking $\\lambda=\\mu^{-1}$ with $\\mu\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$, where $\\mu\\mid a$ and $\\mu^2\\mid b$, we obtain a curve with a smaller discriminant, by a factor $\\mu^6$. In our situation of curves with odd conductor, such a factor\u00a0$\\mu$ must be odd, supported on primes of bad reduction, and also square-free (by minimality of the equation at all odd primes). However, if $\\p=(\\pi)$ is an odd prime factor of the conductor such that $\\pi\\mid a$ and $\\pi^2\\mid b$, it can happen[^1] that the twist $E^\\pi$ acquires bad reduction at a prime\u00a0$\\q$ dividing\u00a0$2$: this is the case if $\\q$ ramifies in $K(\\sqrt{\\pi})$.\n\nFor a prime\u00a0$\\p=(\\pi)$ we say that the pair $(a,b)$ is *minimal* at\u00a0$\\p$ (or\u00a0$\\pi$) if either $\\pi\\nmid a$ or $\\pi^2\\nmid b$. When $(a,b)$ are the parameters obtained from a curve of odd conductor, we have already seen that $(a,b)$ is minimal at\u00a0$\\q$ for all $\\q\\mid2$ since either $a$ or\u00a0$b$ is not divisible by\u00a0$\\q$, while for the primes\u00a0$\\p$ dividing the conductor, $(a,b)$ may not be $\\p$-minimal. However, as already observed, we can always assume that either $\\pi^2\\nmid a$ or $\\pi^4\\nmid b$.\n\nSince we cannot assume that a minimal twist of a curve with odd conductor still has odd conductor, we will need to consider curves with non-minimal $(a,b)$. In the prime power conductor case, this means that we will consider curves in sets of four twists, a base curve $E=E_{a,b}$ which is $\\p$-minimal, may have bad reduction at primes dividing\u00a0$2$, and may even have good reduction at\u00a0$\\p$; and the twists $E^s$ of $E$ by\u00a0$s\\in\\{\\varepsilon, \\pi, \\varepsilon\\pi\\}$, where $\\p=(\\pi)$.\n\nFor example, over $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$ we have seen in a previous section that the elliptic curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/256/d/2)]{}, which has conductor $(\\sqrt{-2})^{10}$, has infinitely many quadratic twists of odd prime square conductor.\n\nClassification of curves with odd conductor and $2$-torsion\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe continue with the notation of the previous subsection: $E$ is an elliptic curve with odd conductor and a $K$-rational point of order\u00a0$2$, and $(a,b)$ are parameters for the model $E_{a,b}$ for $E$ constructed above. Write $(2)=\\q_a\\q_b$ where $\\q_a$, with generator $\\tau_a$, (respectively $\\q_b$, with generator $\\tau_b$), is divisible only by primes dividing $a$ (respectively $b$), and $2=\\tau_a\\tau_b$. For $K\\not=\\Q(\\sqrt{-7})$ we have $(\\tau_a,\\tau_b)=(1,2)$ or\u00a0$(2,1)$ according to whether $(\\vq(a), \\vq(b)) = (0, 4e_2)$ or\u00a0$(e_2, 0)$ for the unique prime\u00a0$\\q$ dividing\u00a0$2$ in the ordinary case, and also $(\\tau_a,\\tau_b)=(2,1)$ in the supersingular case.\n\nThe following result completely classifies curves with odd conductor and a point of order\u00a0$2$ in terms of the solutions to a certain equation (\\[eq:twotorsioncases\\]).\n\nLet $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over\u00a0$K$, with a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point and odd conductor. Let $D={{\\mathcal{D}}}_{min}(E)$. Set\n\n1.  $P=\\gcd(D,b,a^2-4b) = As^2$ with $A$ square-free;\n\n2.  $B=(a^2-4b)/(\\tau_a^2P)$;\n\n3.  $C=4b/(\\tau_a^2P)$;\n\n4.  $\\tilde{a}=as/(\\tau_aP)$.\n\nThen $$\\tilde{a}^2A=B+C\n   \\label{eq:twotorsioncases}$$ and $\\tilde{a},A,B,C\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ satisfy the following conditions:\n\n1.  $\\gcd(B,C)=1$ and $A$ is square-free;\n\n2.  $A,B,C$ are only divisible by primes dividing $2D$.\n\nFurthermore,\n\n1.  For each prime $\\p \\mid D$ with $k=\\vp(D)$ and $k'=k-6$: $$(\\vp(A),\\vp(B),\\vp(C)) = (0,k,0), (0,k',0),\n    (0,0,\\frac12k), (0,0,\\frac12k')  \\quad\\text{or}\\quad (1,0,0);$$\n\n2.  In the ordinary case, for each prime $\\q \\mid 2$, $$(\\vq(A),\\vq(B),\\vq(C)) = (0,6e_2,0)\n    \\quad\\text{or}\\quad (0,0,6e_2).$$\n\n3.  In the supersingular case, for $\\q \\mid 2$, $(\\vq(A),\\vq(B),\\vq(C)) = (0,0,0)$.\n\nConversely, given integral $A,B,C,\\tilde{a}$ satisfying $\\tilde{a}^2A=B+C$ and the above conditions, if we set $a=2A\\tilde{a}/\\gcd(2,C)$ and $b=AC/\\gcd(2,C)^2$ then $E_{a,b}$ and its twists $E_{sa,s^2b}$ for all square-free $s\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ dividing\u00a0$D$, all have good reduction outside $2D$. \\[thm:classification2torsion\\]\n\nWe have $a^2=(a^2-4b)+4b=B_0+C_0$ where $B_0=a^2-4b={{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)/b^2$ and $C_0=4b$, and consider $\\gcd(B_0,C_0)$ one prime at a time, these primes all being divisors of $2D$.\n\nFirst consider odd primes\u00a0$\\p=(\\pi)$. These contribute to\u00a0$P$ if $\\p\\mid B_0$ and $\\p\\mid C_0$, so that $\\p\\mid b$ and $\\p\\mid a$. In general, the contribution to\u00a0$P$ from\u00a0$\\p$ is\u00a0$\\pi^j$ where $j=\\min\\{\\vp(b),\\vp(a^2-4b)\\}$, with $0\\le j\\le3$ as in Table\u00a0\\[table:p-valuations\\], where $k=\\vp(D)$. The entries above the line correspond to $(a,b)$ being $\\p$-minimal while those below are non-minimal. We include $a=0$ as a possibility in each row with ${}\\ge{}$\u00a0 in the first column.\n\n   $\\vp(a)$   $\\vp(b)=\\vp(C_0)$   $\\vp(a^2-4b)=\\vp(B_0)$   $j$       $k$        $\\vp(A)$   $\\vp(B)$      $\\vp(C)$\n  ---------- ------------------- ------------------------ ----- -------------- ---------- ---------- ----------------\n     $0$             $0$                  $\\ge0$           $0$      $\\ge0$        $0$        $k$           $0$\n    $\\ge1$           $0$                   $0$             $0$       $0$          $0$        $0$           $0$\n     $0$           $\\ge1$                  $0$             $0$   $\\ge2$, even     $0$        $0$        $\\frac12k$\n    $\\ge1$           $1$                   $1$             $1$       $3$          $1$        $0$           $0$\n     $1$             $2$                  $\\ge2$           $2$      $\\ge6$        $0$       $k-6$          $0$\n    $\\ge2$           $2$                   $2$             $2$       $6$          $0$        $0$           $0$\n     $1$           $\\ge3$                  $2$             $2$   $\\ge8$, even     $0$        $0$      $\\frac12(k-6)$\n    $\\ge2$           $3$                   $3$             $3$       $9$          $1$        $0$           $0$\n\n  : Possible parameter valuations at an odd prime[]{data-label=\"table:p-valuations\"}\n\nLet $P$ be the product of\u00a0$\\pi^j$ over all these odd prime ideals. We can write $P=As^2$ with $A$ and\u00a0$s$ square-free (since $j\\le3$ in all cases); $P$ is the odd part of $\\gcd(a^2-4b,4b)$, which is $\\gcd(D,b,a^2-4b)$.\n\nNow consider the prime (or primes) $\\q\\mid 2$, which divide $a$ or\u00a0$b$ but not both by Corollary\u00a0\\[Cor:ab-q-valuations\\]. The possible valuations are given in table\u00a0\\[table:q-valuations\\]. Since $e_2=2$ in the supersingular case, this prime(s) contributes $\\tau_a^2$ to $\\gcd(B_0,C_0)$.\n\nHence $\\gcd(B_0,C_0)= \\tau_a^2P$; dividing through gives $\\tilde{a}^2A=B+C$ with $B,C,\\tilde{a}$ as given. In the factorization $P=As^2$, $A$ is the product of those odd $\\pi$ for which $j$ is odd while $s$ is the product of those for which $j\\ge2$; both are square-free divisors of\u00a0$D$.\n\nFor all primes\u00a0$\\p$ dividing $2D$, the values of $\\vp(A)$, $\\vp(B)$, $\\vp(C)$ in the tables may easily be deduced from the previous columns.\n\nFor the converse, it suffices to observe that with $a,b$ as defined we have $b^2(a^2-4b)=4A^3BC^2/\\gcd(2,C)^6$, whose support lies in $2D$, and hence determines a base curve $E_{a,b}$, which has good reduction away from\u00a0$2D$. The same is true of twists by square-free\u00a0$s$ dividing\u00a0$D$.\n\nWe can scale solutions $(A,B,C)$ to (\\[eq:twotorsioncases\\]) by units without affecting the conditions, and scaling by squares of units gives isomorphic curves. Since $K$ has finitely many units, for each odd\u00a0$D\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$, we can use Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:classification2torsion\\] to compute all curves of discriminant $D$ with a $K$-rational two-torsion point. This will be our strategy in the following subsections, where we restrict to the case where there is only one odd prime factor.\n\nRecall that each curve $E_{a,b}$ has a $2$-isogenous curve $E_{-2a,a^2-4b}$, via the $2$-isogeny with kernel $(0,0)$, which has the same conductor as\u00a0$E$. At odd primes\u00a0$\\p$ it is immediate that $(a,b)$ is minimal at\u00a0$\\p$ if and only if $(a',b')=(-2a,a^2-4b)$ is minimal. When $E_{a,b}$ has odd conductor with $(a,b)$ given by our construction, at primes $\\q$ dividing\u00a0$2$ we see that in the ordinary case, $(\\vq(a),\n\\vq(b)) = (0, 4e_2)$ implies $(\\vq(-2a),\n\\vq(a^2-4b)) = (e_2, 0)$, while conversely if $(\\vq(a),\n\\vq(b)) = (e_2, 0)$ then $(\\vq(a'), \\vq(b')) =\n(2e_2, 8e_2)$ and the associated minimal pair is $(a'/\\tau^{2e_2},\nb'/\\tau^{4e_2})$ with valuations $(0,4e_2)$. In the supersingular case with valuations $(\\ge3,0)$, a minimal pair for the isogenous curve is $(a'/(-2), b'/4) = (a,(a/2)^2-b)$ with the same valuations as\u00a0$(a,b)$.\n\nFollowing the notation of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:classification2torsion\\], if $E_{a,b}$ is a curve with odd conductor associated to a triple $(A,B,C)$ satisfying\u00a0(\\[eq:twotorsioncases\\]), then the $2$-isogenous curve $E_{-2a,a^2-4b}$ has associated triple $(A,C,B)$.\n\nIt is clear that the parameter $A$ is the same for both curves, and then a straightforward computation gives the result, using the remarks about minimality stated above.\n\nGiven an odd prime ideal $\\p=(\\pi)$ of bad reduction, we have two different situations depending on whether $\\vp(A) =0$ or $\\vp(A)=1$. In the first case, one curve in each isogenous pair has double the discriminant valuation of the other, and one of the two isogenous pairs, which are $\\pi$-twists of each other, has good or multiplicative reduction at\u00a0$\\p$ (when the parameter $s$ of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:classification2torsion\\] is not divisible by\u00a0$\\pi$), while the other has additive reduction (when\u00a0 $s$ is divisible by\u00a0$\\pi$). In the second case, all curves have additive reduction at\u00a0$\\p$, one isogenous pair (with $\\pi\\nmid s$) has discriminant valuation\u00a0$3$ and the other (with $\\pi\\mid s$) has valuation\u00a0$9$.\n\nEach solution to\u00a0(\\[eq:twotorsioncases\\]) falls into one of these cases, according to whether $B+C$ has even or odd valuation at\u00a0$\\p$, unless $B+C=0$, corresponding to $a=0$, which we have treated separately. When seeking curves with conductor a power of the odd prime\u00a0$\\p$ in subsequent subsections, we will also treat separately solutions to\u00a0(\\[eq:twotorsioncases\\]) where all of $A$, $B$ and $C$ are units at\u00a0$\\p$, since in such cases we cannot recover\u00a0$\\p$ from the solution. Such cases occur when an elliptic curve\u00a0$E$ has conductor\u00a0$\\p^2$, so has additive reduction at\u00a0$\\p$, but is a quadratic twist of a curve\u00a0$E_0$ with good reduction at\u00a0$\\p$. Here we must consider twists of\u00a0$E_0$ by *all* odd primes to see which have good reduction above\u00a0$2$.\n\nIn the next three subsections we will determine all elliptic curves with odd prime power conductor\u00a0$\\p^r$, treating first this \u201cgood twist\u201d case where $E$ has a twist with good reduction at\u00a0$\\p$ (this includes the case $a=0$), then the \u201cadditive twist\u201d cases where all twists have additive reduction at\u00a0$\\p$ (here $A=\\pi$) and lastly the \u201cmultiplicative twist\u201d case where $E$ has a twist with multiplicative reduction at\u00a0$\\p$ (here $A=1$).\n\nIn each case we determine which $(B,C)$ pairs give an appropriate solution to (\\[eq:twotorsioncases\\]), thus obtaining a \u201cbase curve\u201d $E_{a,b}$, and then determine which of its twists have good reduction at primes dividing\u00a0$2$.\n\nCurves with odd prime power conductor: the good twist case\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection we determine all elliptic curves defined over one of the fields\u00a0$K$ with $K$-rational $2$-torsion and conductor a power of an odd prime\u00a0$\\p$, such that a quadratic twist of\u00a0$E$ by a generator\u00a0$\\pi$ of\u00a0$\\p$ has good reduction at\u00a0$\\p$. In fact all such curves have CM by an order in\u00a0$K$ and have been fully described previously.\n\n\\[thm:goodtwist\\] Let $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field with class number $1$, and let $\\p$ be an odd prime of\u00a0$K$. Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over\u00a0$K$, with a $K$-rational point of order\u00a0$2$ of conductor a power of\u00a0$\\p$. If $E$ has a quadratic twist with good reduction at\u00a0$\\p$ then $E$ belongs to one of the following complex multiplication families as studied in Section\u00a0\\[section CM\\]:\n\n1.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-7})$ and\u00a0$E$ is a twist of the base-change to\u00a0$K$ of one of the curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a)]{} over $\\Q$, with conductor $\\p^2=(\\pi)^2$ where $\\pi\\equiv 1\\pmod4$; or\n\n2.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ and\u00a0$E$ is a twist of the base-change to\u00a0$K$ of one of the curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/64/a)]{} over $\\Q$. $E$ has equation $y^2=x(x^2+b)$ and conductor\u00a0$\\p^2=(\\pi)^2$, where $b\\equiv-1\\pm2i\\pmod8$ with\u00a0$b=\\pi$ or $b=\\pi^3$; or\n\n3.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$ and $E$ is a twist of the base-change to $K$ of one of the curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/256/a)]{} over $\\Q$, with conductor $\\p^2=(\\pi)^2$ where $\\pi \\equiv \\pm 1 +\\sqrt{-2}\n        \\pmod 4$, for $(a,b)=(2\\pi\\sqrt{-2},-\\pi^2)$.\n\nIn each case, the elliptic curves have CM by an order in the field of definition\u00a0$K$: their $j$-invariants are either $-15^3$ or $255^3$ in the first case, either $12^3$ or $66^3$ in the second, and in the third they have $j=20^3$ and CM by $\\Z[\\sqrt{-2}]$.\n\nThere are four curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a)]{} over $\\Q$, linked by $2$- and $7$-isogenies and in two pairs of $-7$-twists, so that over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-7})$ they become isomorphic in pairs. The first two are [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/1)]{}, which has parameters $(a,b)=(21,112)$, and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/2)]{}, with $(a,b)=(-42,-7)$; the other two are their $-7$-twists and are $7$-isogenous to these.\n\nBy Theorems \\[theorem:CMnorootsofunity\\] and \\[theorem:CMGaussian\\] we know that the three families of curves do have good reduction away from $\\id{p}$, hence we are led to prove that these are the unique ones.\n\nIn the notation of Table\u00a0\\[table:p-valuations\\] such curves have discriminant valuation\u00a0$k=6$ so come from solutions with $\\p$-valuations given in the first two lines of the second half of the table. Hence $B$ and $C$ are not divisible by\u00a0$\\pi$, and from Table\u00a0\\[table:q-valuations\\] they have valuation\u00a0$6e_2$ or\u00a0$0$ at the prime(s) above\u00a0$2$ in the ordinary case, while in the supersingular case they are units. Up to scaling by units, and interchanging\u00a0$B$ and\u00a0$C$ (corresponding to applying a $2$-isogeny), we reduce to considering the following finite number of possibilities for\u00a0$(B,C)$:\n\n1.  over all fields, $(B,C) = (64\\eta,1)$ with\u00a0$\\eta\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$;\n\n2.  over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-7})$ where $2=\\tau\\overline{\\tau}$ with $\\tau=\\frac{1+\\sqrt{-7}}{2}$, $(B,C) =\n          (\\pm\\tau^6,\\overline{\\tau}^6)$;\n\n3.  over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ and $\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$, $(B,C)=(\\pm1,1)$ (the supersingular case).\n\nFor a solution we require $B+C$ to be either\u00a0$0$ or a non-zero square times a unit.\n\nCase (1) yields no solutions with $\\eta=1$ since $B+C=65=5\\cdot13$ is not a square since neither $5$ nor\u00a0$13$ ramifies in any of the fields. Taking $\\eta=-1$ in (1) gives $B+C=-63=3^2\\cdot7$, which is valid when $7$ is ramified, and leads to the base curves\u00a0$E=E_{a,b}$ with $(a,b)=(6\\sqrt{-7},1)$ (and its Galois conjugate). Such curves lie in the first family.\n\nA simple check shows that none of the additional units in $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ or $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ gives a value of $B+C$ of the required form.\n\nIn case (2) we have $B+C = \\pm\\tau^6\\pm\\overline{\\tau}^6 \\in\n  \\{\\pm9,\\pm5\\sqrt{-7}\\}$, giving a potential solution with $A=\\pm6$ and\u00a0$b=\\overline{\\tau}^6$ (or its Galois conjugate). Taking $(a,b)=(6,\\tau^6)$ we find a twist of\u00a0[[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/1)]{} and hence no curves not already encountered.\n\nIn case (3) with $B+C=0$ we obtain curves with $a=0$. All such curves have CM by $\\Z[\\sqrt{-1}]$, hence we get curves in the second family from Theorem\u00a0\\[theorem:CMGaussian\\].\n\nIn case (3) with $B+C=2$ we obtain a solution when $2$ is ramified, with base curve\u00a0$E=E_{a,b}$ where $(a,b)=(2(1+i),i)$ or\u00a0$(2\\sqrt{-2},-1)$. Both cases are isomorphic to the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/256/a/1)]{} with CM by $\\ZZ[\\sqrt{-2}]$. Then we get the third family from Theorem\u00a0\\[theorem:CMEisenstein\\] and Corollary\u00a0\\[coro:differentfields\\].\n\nCurves with odd prime power conductor: the additive twist case\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe continue to consider elliptic curves\u00a0$E$ whose conductor is a power of the odd prime $\\p=(\\pi)$, using Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:classification2torsion\\] to find all such curves by considering solutions to the parametrizing equation\u00a0(\\[eq:twotorsioncases\\]).\n\nIn this subsection, we consider the \u201cadditive twist\u201d case in which the parameter $A$ is divisible by\u00a0$\\pi$ so that the curves and their twists by\u00a0$\\pi$ and by units all have additive reduction at\u00a0$\\p$. The discriminant valuations are\u00a0$3$ or\u00a0$9$. We find that the only such curves are again the base changes of CM elliptic curves over $\\Q$ with conductor\u00a0$49$, but unlike the previous subsection, $K$ must be one of the six fields in which $7$ is inert. This corresponds to looking at elliptic curves with CM by an order in $K$ over a field $L \\neq K$, which furthermore have a $2$-torsion point and odd prime power conductor. By the results of Section\u00a0\\[section CM\\] (specifically Corollary\u00a0\\[coro:differentfields\\]), we have to restrict to odd values of $d$, and the unique curve with a $2$-torsion point corresponds to $d=7$.\n\nLet $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field with class number $1$, and let $\\p$ be an odd prime of\u00a0$K$. Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over\u00a0$K$, with a $K$-rational point of order\u00a0$2$ and conductor a power of\u00a0$\\p$, such that no quadratic twist of\u00a0$E$ has good or multiplicative reduction at\u00a0$\\p$. Then\n\n1.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=1,2,11,43,67,163$, $E$ has conductor\u00a0$\\p^2$ where $\\p=(7)$, and\u00a0$E$ is a base-change to\u00a0$K$ of one of the curves in the isogeny class [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a)]{} over $\\Q$.\n\n\\[thm:additivetwist\\]\n\nInspecting Table\u00a0\\[table:p-valuations\\], we are led to the same set of pairs $(B,C)$ as considered in the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:goodtwist\\], except that now we require $B+C$ to be nonzero, with odd valuation at exactly one odd prime\u00a0$\\p$. We use the same numbering of cases as before and recall that these are all possibilities, up to scaling by units and switching $B$ and\u00a0$C$.\n\nCase (1), where $B+C\\in\\{\\pm63,\\pm65\\}$ again yields no solutions with $B+C=65=5\\cdot13$ since neither $5$ nor\u00a0$13$ ramifies in any of the fields. However, $B+C=-63=3^2\\cdot7$ is valid when $7$ is inert in\u00a0$K$. This gives the base curve with $(a,b)=(-42,-7)$, which is the elliptic curve defined over\u00a0$\\Q$ with label [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/2)]{}. Note that this curve also appeared in the good twist case over\u00a0$\\Q(\\sqrt{-7})$, but here we require $7$ to be inert. The quadratic twist by\u00a0$-7$ (with label\u00a0[[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a/4)]{}) also has good reduction away from\u00a0$7$, so all four curves in the isogeny class\u00a0[[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/49/a)]{} have conductor\u00a0$(7)^2$ over the fields listed.\n\nA simple check shows that none of the additional units in $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ or $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ gives a value of $B+C$ of the required form.\n\nIn case (2) we have $B+C = \\pm\\tau^6\\pm\\overline{\\tau}^6 \\in\n  \\{\\pm9,\\pm5\\sqrt{-7}\\}$. Since $5$ is inert this gives no solutions.\n\nCase (3), with $B+C\\in\\{0,\\pm2\\}$, also provides no solutions.\n\nCurves with odd prime power conductor: the multiplicative twist case\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe now consider curves of odd prime power conductor\u00a0$\\p^r$ which in our parametrization have $A=1$, such that the base curve $E_{a,b}$ (with $\\p$-minimal $(a,b)$) has multiplicative reduction at\u00a0$\\p$.\n\nThe main result of this subsection is that these elliptic curves are of two types, up to quadratic twist by a generator of\u00a0$\\p$:\n\n1.  one of a finite number of \u201csporadic\u201d curves, with conductor either a prime dividing\u00a0$17$ (over all fields where\u00a0$17$ does not split), or a prime of norm\u00a0$257$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ only, or a prime of norm\u00a0$241$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ only;\n\n2.  one of a family analogous to the Setzer-Neumann family over\u00a0$\\Q$.\n\nThe sporadic curves are all given by a more general construction which we discuss first. Over any number field\u00a0$K$ let $u\\in\nK\\setminus\\{0,-16\\}$ and define $E_u = E_{-(u+32)/4,u+16}$, an elliptic curve with invariants $c_4=u^2+16u+256$, $c_6=(u-16)(u+8)(u+32)$ and discriminant $\\Delta_u=u^2(u+16)^2$.\n\n$E_u$ has full $2$-torsion over\u00a0$K$; the three curves $2$-isogenous to\u00a0$E$ are isomorphic to $E_{a,b}$ for $(a,b)=(2(u-16),u^2+32u+256)$, $(2(u+32),u^2)$ and $(u+8,16)$, with discriminants $-u(u+16)^4$, $u^4(u+16)$, and $u(u+16)$ respectively.\n\nElementary: note that $\\Delta_u$ is a square.\n\nIn fact the family of curves\u00a0$E_u$ is the universal family of elliptic curves with full $2$-torsion over\u00a0$K$, as it is easy to check that $E_u$ has Legendre parameter $\\lambda=(u+16)/u$. Our reason for writing the family this way is that if we specialize the parameter $u$ to a unit with certain properties, then we obtain elliptic curves with square-free odd conductor.\n\n\\[prop:sporadic-family\\] Let $K$ be any number field and $u\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*$. The quadratic twist $E_u^{(-u)}$ of $E_u$ by $-u$, together with its three $2$-isogenous curves, is semistable with bad reduction only at primes dividing $u+16$. The same is true of $E_u$ itself if $-u$ is congruent to a square modulo\u00a0$4$.\n\nFrom the invariants given above we see that $\\Delta_u$ is only divisible by primes dividing $u+16$ which is odd, and that $\\Delta_u$ is coprime to $c_4$ so the reduction is multiplicative at all bad primes. Also since $c_4$ and $c_6$ are odd the condition that $c_4$ and $c_6$ are the invariants of an integral model, which then has good reduction at primes dividing\u00a0$2$, is that $-c_6$ is a square modulo\u00a0$4$, which is the case when $-u$ is a square modulo\u00a0$4$ since $c_6\\equiv u^3\\pmod4$. Twisting by $-u$ gives a curve whose $c_6\\equiv-u^6\\pmod4$ which satisfies Kraus\u2019s condition unconditionally.\n\nFor example, over $\\Q$ we take $u=1$ and find that $E_{1}^{(-1)}$ is the elliptic curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/17/a/2)]{} of conductor\u00a0$17$, with $2$-isogenous curves [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/17/a/1)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/17/a/3)]{} and\u00a0[[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/17/a/4)]{}. Since $17 \\equiv 1 \\pmod 4$, its quadratic twists by $17$ also have good reduction at $2$. Taking $u=-1$ gives curves of conductor $15$, which are not relevant for us.\n\nMore generally we consider the curves given by this proposition over imaginary quadratic fields, for units $u$ such that $u+16$ is a prime power, so that we obtain curves of prime conductor. When $\\pm1$ are the only units, the only case is the one just considered with $u=1$, leading to curves whose conductors are divisible only by the primes above\u00a0$17$, which are primes except when $17$ splits in\u00a0$K$. Since $17 \\equiv 1 \\pmod 4$, the quadratic twists of such curves also have good reduction at $2$.\n\nOver $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ we can also take $u=\\pm \\sqrt{-1}$ since $16\\pm\n\\sqrt{-1}$ have prime norm\u00a0$257$. This gives\u00a0$8$ elliptic curves, $4$ in one isogeny class [[2.0.4.1-257.1-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/257.1/a)]{} with conductor $\\p=(16+\\sqrt{-1})$, linked by $2$-isogenies, and their Galois conjugates in isogeny class [[2.0.4.1-257.2-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/257.2/a)]{}. The quadratic twists by $1 \\pm 16\\sqrt{-1}$ have good reduction at $2$ and give curves of conductor $\\p^2$ in isogeny classes [[2.0.4.1-66049.1-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/66049.1/a)]{} and [[2.0.4.1-66049.3-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.4.1/66049.3/a)]{}.\n\nOver $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ let $\\varepsilon$ be a $6$th root of unity generating the unit group. Taking $u=\\varepsilon^2$ or its Galois conjugate, we obtain elliptic curves with prime conductors\u00a0$\\p$ of norm\u00a0$241$. Again there are two Galois conjugate isogeny classes [[2.0.3.1-241.1-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/241.1/a)]{} and [[2.0.3.1-241.3-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/241.3/a)]{}, each containing $4$ elliptic curves linked by $2$-isogenies. The quadratic twists by $16 \\pm u$ have good reduction at $2$, conductor\u00a0$\\p^2$, in isogeny classes [[2.0.3.1-58081.1-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/58081.1/a)]{} and [[2.0.3.1-58081.3-a](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.3.1/58081.3/a)]{}.\n\nThe next result shows that, apart from these sporadic cases, all elliptic curves with odd prime conductor and rational $2$-torsion come from an analogue of the Setzer-Neumann family over\u00a0$\\Q$.\n\nLet $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field with class number\u00a0$1$, and $\\varepsilon$ a generator of its unit group. Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over $K$ with conductor an odd prime power\u00a0$\\p^r$ and a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point. Assume that $E$ has a quadratic twist with multiplicative reduction at $\\p$. Then $E$ is either\n\n1.  one of the sporadic curves listed above, where $\\p$ has norm\u00a0$17$ (over all fields), or $257$ (over $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ only) or $241$ (over $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ only); or\n\n2.  isomorphic or $2$-isogenous to $E_{a,b}$ where $b=16\\varepsilon$ and $a$ satisfies an equation of the form $$a^2 = u\\pi^r + 64\\varepsilon,$$ with $r$ odd, $u$ a unit and $u \\pi^r \\equiv 1\n      \\pmod{\\frac{8}{e_2}}$; or\n\n3.  the quadratic twist by $u\\pi$ of the previous case, without any congruence condition. \\[thm:multiplicativecase\\]\n\nWe start with the observation that in each case $\\varepsilon$ is not congruent to a square modulo\u00a0$4$, which may be checked easily and which will be used repeatedly.\n\nAs before we use Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:classification2torsion\\] to first find the curves with minimal parameters, arising from solutions to (\\[eq:twotorsioncases\\]) with $A=s=1$. Up to $2$-isogeny, we may assume that $a=\\tilde{a}$ is odd, that $B$ is odd and $C$ divisible by\u00a0$64$ with $C/64$ odd, except in the case $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-7})$ where $B$ and $C$ are each divisible by the $6$th power of one of the two primes dividing\u00a0$2$, or the supersingular case over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ or $\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$. We will leave these last cases to the end.\n\nScaling by squares of units, we must solve each of the following equations: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  a^2 = P+64 \\label{eqn:case1}\\\\\n  a^2 = 1+64P \\label{eqn:case2}\\\\\n  a^2 = P+64\\varepsilon \\label{eqn:case3}\\\\\n  a^2 = \\varepsilon +64P \\label{eqn:case4}\\end{aligned}$$ where $P$ is an odd prime power, i.e. an element of ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ with precisely one prime factor. We immediately see that (\\[eqn:case4\\]) has no solution modulo\u00a0$4$.\n\n(\\[eqn:case1\\]) factors as $(a-8)(a+8)=P$. Without loss of generality (changing $a$ for $-a$ if necessary) we have $P\\mid(a-8)$; writing $a=8+Pt$ leads to $t(16+Pt)=1$, so $t$ is a unit, and $16-t^{-1}=-Pt$. Setting $u=-t^{-1}$ leads to one of the sporadic cases (we have one of the curves $2$-isogenous to $E_{-t^{-1}}$) and its quadratic twists.\n\n(\\[eqn:case2\\]) factors as $(a-1)(a+1)=64P$. Now $P$ divides one factor, and also one factor is divisible exactly by\u00a0$2$, the other by\u00a0$32$. By symmetry this gives two cases to consider: if $a=1+32Pt$ with $t$ odd then $t(1+16Pt)=1$ so $t$ is a unit and $16Pt=t^{-1}-1$ which is impossible. Otherwise $a=1+2Pt$ with $t$ odd, and $t(1+Pt)=16$ so again $t$ is a unit and we have a sporadic case (a twist of $E_{-t}$).\n\nIn (\\[eqn:case3\\]) we divide according to whether the valuation\u00a0$r$ of $P$ is even or odd. If even then we must have $P=Q^2$ with $Q$ a prime power, since $P=\\varepsilon Q^2$ gives a contradiction modulo\u00a0$4$. Now $(a-Q)(a+Q)=64\\varepsilon$; by symmetry $a=Q+32t$ with $t$ odd, so $t(Q+16t)=\\varepsilon$, leading to the third sporadic case (a twist of $E_{-\\varepsilon t^2}$).\n\nOtherwise in (\\[eqn:case3\\]) we have $P=u\\pi^r$ with $u$ a unit and $r$ odd, leading to the Setzer-Neumann family. Recall that $c_4$ is odd and $2c_6=a(9b-2a^2)$, hence Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:Kraus\\] implies that $a \\equiv \\square \\pmod 4$ so $a^2 \\equiv 1 \\pmod 8$ if $2$ is unramified in $K$ and $a^2 \\equiv 1 \\pmod 4$ otherwise. In any case, the same criterion implies that the quadratic twist by $u \\pi$ has good reduction at $2$.\n\nOver $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-7})$ we must also consider the equation $$a^2 = \\pm T +UP$$ (up to Galois conjugation and $2$-isogeny) where $T=\\alpha^6$ with $\\alpha=(1+\\sqrt{-7})/2$ and $U=\\overline{T}$ so that $TU=64$; here $P$ again denotes a prime power. The minus sign is impossible modulo\u00a0$\\overline{\\alpha}^2$, and with the plus sign we can factor as $(a-\\alpha^3)(a+\\alpha^3)=UP$. Arguing as in earlier cases one finds that this equation has no solutions.\n\nLastly we consider curves which are supersingular at $\\q \\mid 2$, which by Theorem \\[thm:classification2torsion\\] and Corollary\u00a0\\[Cor:ab-q-valuations\\] arise from solutions to the following equations: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\tilde{a}^2=P+1 \\label{eqn:sscase1}\\\\\n  \\tilde{a}^2=P+\\epsilon \\label{eqn:sscase2}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ with $a=2\\tilde{a}$.\n\n(\\[eqn:sscase1\\]) factors as $(\\tilde{a}-1)(\\tilde{a}+1)$, and one of the factors is a unit. This gives solutions $P=3$ and $P=-1\\pm 2i$ over $\\Q(i)$ but the associated curves with $(a,b)=(4,1)$ and $(2\\pm2i,1)$ have bad reduction at\u00a0$1+i$ as do all their quadratic twists.\n\nIn (\\[eqn:sscase2\\]) the base curve has $(a,b)=(2\\tilde{a},\\varepsilon)$ with $(c_4,c_6)=(2^4(4P+\\varepsilon),2^6\\tilde{a}(-8P+\\varepsilon))$. We scale by\u00a0$\\tau=1+i$ (respectively $\\sqrt{-2}$) to get\u00a0$(c_4,c_6)=(\\tau^4(4P+i),\\tau^6\\tilde{a}(8P-i))$ over $\\Q(i)$ or\u00a0$(c_4,c_6)=(\\tau^4(4P-1),\\tau^6\\tilde{a}(-8P-1))$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$ respectively. We must test whether these, or their twists by $s\\in\\{1,\\varepsilon,\\pi,\\varepsilon\\pi\\}$ have good reduction at\u00a0$\\tau$. Note that $\\vq(c_4)=4$ and $\\vq(c_6) \\ge 7$, and that we are in the second case of Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:Kraus\\], with $a_1=\\tau$ (since we are in the supersingular case).\n\nOver $\\Q(i)$ the first congruence in Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:Kraus\\] reduces to $1+is^2\\equiv0\\pmod2$ which is impossible.\n\nOver $\\Q(\\sqrt{-2})$, in the notation of Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:Kraus\\] the first condition on\u00a0$d$ is always satisfied (since $s$ is odd), while the second is that either $(1-s^2)/2$ or $(1-s^2)/2+2\\tau$ is a square modulo\u00a0$4$, depending on whether $\\vq(\\tilde{a})\\ge2$ or $\\vq(\\tilde{a})=1$. At least one of these is satisfied provided that $s\\equiv\\pm1\\pmod{\\tau^3}$, and in either case $d/16\\equiv0\\pmod4$. But now the final condition implies $s^2\\equiv-1\\pmod4$, contradiction.\n\nThe above classification implies the following crucial fact, used in the main theorem of the paper, and which was an important motivation for this section.\n\nEvery isogeny class of elliptic curves defined over $K$ with prime conductor and a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point contains a curve whose discriminant has odd valuation. \\[coro:2torsion-odddiscriminant\\]\n\nIf $E$ is a curve over $K$ of prime conductor $\\id{p}$ and a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point, we are in the multiplicative case. By Theorem \\[thm:multiplicativecase\\] $E$ is either a sporadic curve of conductor norm $17$, $241$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-1})$ or $257$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-3})$ (all of these have a curve with prime discriminant in their isogeny class) or is isogenous to $E_{a,b}$ with $b=16 \\varepsilon$ and $a^2=u \\pi^r + 64 \\varepsilon$ with $r$ odd. Such curves have discriminant $2^8 u\\varepsilon^2 \\pi^r$, so odd valuation.\n\nThe computations done in this section could be generalized to other number fields of class number one, as the number of units modulo squares is always finite. The case of real quadratic fields is of particular interest, requiring almost no modification except to allow for ${{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*/({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K^*)^2$ having order\u00a0$4$. In this case, Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:sporadic-family\\] gives a possibly infinite family of elliptic curves with bad reduction only at the primes dividing $u^k+16$, where $u$ is a fundamental unit. For example, over $\\Q(\\sqrt{5})$, we get curves of prime conductor with norms $1009, 35569, 1659169, \\ldots$, but to our knowledge it is not known whether we can get infinitely many curves of prime conductor in this way.\n\nWe end this section with an interesting phenomenon concerning curves of prime conductor and rational $2$-torsion.\n\nLet $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field with class number $1$, and $E/K$ be an elliptic curve of prime power conductor with a $K$-rational $2$-torsion point. Then $E$ has rank $0$.\n\nA simple $2$-descent computation shows that this is the case for curves in the Setzer-Neumann family (this phenomenon also occurs for rational elliptic curves, and the proof is the same). The remaining sporadic cases can be handled by looking at tables [@lmfdb] or computing the rank of the curve [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/27/a/1)]{} over the different fields $K$ directly, for example using SageMath [@sage] (using a Pari/GP implementation due to Denis Simon based on the article [@Simon]).\n\nOn some irreducible finite flat group schemes over $\\operatorname{Spec}({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K)$ {#section:evenexponents}\n===========================================================================================\n\nLet $E/K$ be a modular elliptic curve of odd prime conductor, whose discriminant is a square. Then by Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:Mazur\\] $E[2]$ is a finite flat group scheme over $\\operatorname{Spec}({{\\mathcal{O}}}_K)$ of type $(2,2)$. It is either reducible or irreducible. In the reducible case, it contains a factor isomorphic to the multiplicative or the additive group ([@Oort-Tate Corollary page 21]), hence the curve has a point of order $2$ as studied in the previous section. The group $\\operatorname{Aut}_{G_K}(E[2])$ cannot be isomorphic to the whole of $\\operatorname{GL}_2(\\F_2)$ as proved in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:mainthm\\], so the only remaining possibility for it is the cyclic group of order $3$. Note that such a group scheme $E[2]$ does not occur over $\\operatorname{Spec}(\\ZZ)$ as there are no cubic extensions of $\\Q$ unramified outside $2$. The same is true for four of the nine imaginary quadratic fields under consideration here.\n\nThere are no elliptic curves $E/K$ of odd prime conductor and even discriminant valuation whose residual $2$-adic Galois representation is cyclic of order $3$ for $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$, $d=1, 2, 3$ or $7$. \\[lemma:cyclic2image\\]\n\nBy the aforementioned result of Mazur, the extension $L/K$ obtained by adjoining the $2$-torsion points of $E$ is a cyclic cubic extension unramified outside $2$. It is easy to verify (for example using explicit class field theory as implemented in [@PARI2]) that there is no such extension for these particular fields $K$.\n\nFor the remaining fields $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for $d\\in\\{11,19,43,67,163\\}$, there is a unique cyclic cubic extension $L/K$ unramified outside $2$, namely the ring class field associated to the order $\\Z[\\sqrt{-d}]$ of index\u00a0$2$, which has class number\u00a0$3$ (since $2$ is inert). These are the splitting fields of the following polynomials\u00a0$p(x)$ of discriminant $-4d$:\n\n(i) $p(x) = x^3-x^2+x+1$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-11})$,\n\n(ii) $p(x) = x^3-2x-2$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-19})$,\n\n(iii) $p(x) = x^3-x^2-x+3$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-43})$,\n\n(iv) $p(x) = x^3-x^2-3x+5$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-67})$,\n\n(v) $p(x) = x^3-8x+10$ over $\\Q(\\sqrt{-163})$.\n\nIn particular the splitting field of $E[2]$ must be one of these fields\u00a0$L$. Moreover, for each of these five values of\u00a0$d$ there is an elliptic curve $E$ defined over $\\Q$ with prime conductor $d$ and discriminant $-d$, namely [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/11/a/3)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/19/a/3)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/43/a/1)]{}, [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/67/a/1)]{} and [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/Q/163/a/1)]{}. In each case the base-change to $\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ has prime conductor $(\\sqrt{-d})$ and square discriminant $-d=\\sqrt{-d}^2$, and the $2$-division field is the splitting field of the corresponding cubic $p(x)$.\n\nWe can construct further examples over each field as follows. Rubin and Silverberg showed in [@R-S Theorem 1] how to parametrize all elliptic curves with given level\u00a0$2$ structure: given one curve $E:y^2=x^3+ax+b$, all curves with residual $2$-adic representation isomorphic to that of $E$ are obtained by specializing the family of curves $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:residual2-rep}\n  y^2&=x^3+A_4(u,v)x+A_6(u,v)\\\\\n  \\noalign{\\text{with}}\n A_4(u,v)&=3(3av^2+9buv-a^2u^2),\\nonumber\\\\\n A_6(u,v)&=27bv^3-18a^2uv^2-27abu^2v-(2a^3+27b^2)u^3\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ at a pair of elements $(u,v)$ of $K$. Note that scaling $u,v$ by $c\\in K^*$ gives the quadratic twist by\u00a0$c$; hence, up to isomorphism, we may assume that $u,v\\in{{\\mathcal{O}}}_K$ with square-free gcd. The discriminant of (\\[eq:residual2-rep\\]) is $2^43^6\\Delta(F)F^2$ where $F(u,v)=v^3+avu^2+bu^3$ with discriminant $\\Delta(F)=-(4a^3+27b^2)$.\n\nLet $K$ be an imaginary quadratic field of class number $1$ and $E/K$ be a semistable elliptic curve whose residual $2$-adic representation has image cyclic of order $3$. Then $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-d})$ for $d=11, 19, 43, 67, 163$ and the valuation of ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ at each prime of bad reduction is exactly $2$. \\[thm:absred2\\]\n\nThe first condition comes from Lemma\u00a0\\[lemma:cyclic2image\\]. Secondly, by the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:mainthm\\] the valuation of ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is a power of\u00a0$2$. It remains to show that the discriminant cannot be a fourth power: to see this, we use the parametrized families (\\[eq:residual2-rep\\]), recalling that $2$ is inert in each case.\n\nFrom (\\[eq:residual2-rep\\]) for each field, after a little simplification we get $A_4 = -6 P(u,v)$ and $A_6 = 2 Q(u,v)$, with discriminant $1728(8P(u,v)^3 - Q(u,v)^2)$ where\n\n1.  $P=2u^2-17uv-v^2$, $Q=586u^3+102u^2v+12uv^2-17v^3$ for $d=11$,\n\n2.  $P=2u^2+9uv+3v^2$, $Q=46u^3+54u^2v+36uv^2+27v^3$ for $d=19$,\n\n3.  $P=8u^2-35uv+2v^2$, $Q=-2386u^3+420u^2v-48uv^2+35v^3$ for $d=43$,\n\n4.  $P=50u^2-53uv+5v^2$, $Q=-4618u^3+1590u^2v-300uv^2+53v^3$ for $d=67$,\n\n5.  $P=32u^2+45uv+12v^2$, $Q=838u^3+1080u^2v+576uv^2+135v^3$ for $d=163$.\n\nIf $E$ has good reduction at $2$, since ${{\\mathcal{D}}}(E)$ is even, it must be divisible by $2^{12}$, so $4 \\mid Q(u,v)$. Since $Q(u,v) \\equiv v^3\n\\pmod 2$, $v$ must be even, and the condition $4 \\mid Q(u,v)$ implies that $u$ is even as well. After the substitution $(u,v) \\to\n(u/2,v/2)$, the new $Q(u,v)$ is odd (from the minimality condition) with invariants $c_4=72P(u,v)$ and $c_6=-216Q(u,v)$. Clearly $v_2(c_4)\n\\ge 3$, but if it equals 3, we cannot get good reduction at 2 by Kraus\u2019s criterion since the conditions $$\\begin{aligned}\nd= -a_1^6 +3a_1^2c_4 + 2c_6 &\\equiv& 0 \\pmod{16}\\\\\n4a_1^2 d &\\equiv& (a_1^4-c_4)^2 \\pmod{256},\\end{aligned}$$ are not compatible. The first one implies that $a_1$ is even, hence the left hand side of the second equation is zero, while the right hand side is not. Then $2 \\mid P(u,v)$ and $v_2(c_4) \\ge 4$. Kraus\u2019s criterion now implies that there exists $a_1$ such that $a_1^2 \\equiv c_6/8 = -27Q(u,v) \\equiv Q(u,v)\\pmod 4$. The discriminant is now $27(8P^3-Q^2)\\equiv 5Q^2 \\equiv 5a_1^4\\pmod8$, which cannot be a fourth power since $5$ is not a fourth power modulo\u00a0$8$.\n\nA natural question is whether there are infinitely many curves of prime conductor, whose discriminant is a prime square. They are all obtained by evaluating the previous equations at suitable pairs $(u,v)$. The model described above has discriminant $-2^63^6dF(u,v)^2$, where $F(u,v)$ is an explicit cubic form of discriminant\u00a0$-4d$. The values of $(u,v)$ to get good reduction at $2$, $3$ and $\\sqrt{-d}$ are given by congruence conditions, each one giving a potentially infinite family, where one expects the cubic $F(u,v)$ to attain infinitely many prime values.\n\nTo end the paper we give an example of an elliptic curve of this type over each field, in addition to the base-change examples given above.\n\n1.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-11})=\\Q(\\alpha)$ where $\\alpha^2-\\alpha+3=0$: $$E:\\quad y^2+y=x^3+\\alpha x^2-x$$ (with LMFDB label[^2] [[](http://www.lmfdb.org/EllipticCurve/2.0.11.1/47.1/a/1)]{}) has prime conductor $\\p=(\\pi)$ with $\\pi=7-2\\alpha$ of norm $47$, and discriminant\u00a0$\\pi^2$.\n\n2.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-19})=\\Q(\\alpha)$ where $\\alpha^2-\\alpha+5=0$: $$E:\\quad y^2+y=x^3+(-\\alpha-1)x^2+(2\\alpha)x+(-\\alpha-1)$$ has prime conductor $\\p=(\\pi)$ with $\\pi=18\\alpha-7$ of norm $1543$, and discriminant\u00a0$\\pi^2$.\n\n3.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-43})=\\Q(\\alpha)$ where $\\alpha^2-\\alpha+11=0$: $$E:\\quad y^2+y=x^3+(\\alpha-1)x^2+(-\\alpha-2)x+2$$ has prime conductor $\\p=(\\pi)$ with $\\pi=29-2\\alpha$ of norm $827$, and discriminant\u00a0$\\pi^2$.\n\n4.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-67})=\\Q(\\alpha)$ where $\\alpha^2-\\alpha+17=0$: $$E:\\quad y^2+y=x^3+(\\alpha+1)x^2+2\\alpha x+(\\alpha-1)$$ has prime conductor $\\p=(\\pi)$ with $\\pi=6\\alpha-65$ of norm $4447$, and discriminant\u00a0$\\pi^2$.\n\n5.  $K=\\Q(\\sqrt{-163})=\\Q(\\alpha)$ where $\\alpha^2-\\alpha+41=0$: $$E:\\quad y^2+y=x^3+(\\alpha+1)x^2+(\\alpha-18)x+(-3\\alpha-4)$$ has prime conductor $\\p=(\\pi)$ with $\\pi=47+6\\alpha$ of norm $3967$, and discriminant\u00a0$\\pi^2$.\n\n[10]{}\n\nAvner Ash and Glenn Stevens. Cohomology of arithmetic groups and congruences between systems of [H]{}ecke eigenvalues. , 365:192\u2013220, 1986.\n\nTobias Berger and Gergely Harcos. -adic representations associated to modular forms over imaginary quadratic fields. , 23:Art. ID rnm113, 16, 2007.\n\nFrank Calegari and David Geraghty. Modularity lifting beyond the [T]{}aylor-[W]{}iles method. pages 1\u2013137, 07 2017.\n\nFrank Calegari and Akshay Venkatesh. A torsion [J]{}acquet-[L]{}anglands correspondence. , 2012.\n\nJ.\u00a0E. Cremona. Hyperbolic tessellations, modular symbols, and elliptic curves over complex quadratic fields. , 51(3):275\u2013324, 1984.\n\nJ.\u00a0E. Cremona. Abelian varieties with extra twist, cusp forms, and elliptic curves over imaginary quadratic fields. , 45(3):404\u2013416, 1992.\n\nJ.\u00a0E. Cremona. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 1997.\n\nJ.\u00a0E. Cremona and M.\u00a0P. Lingham. Finding all elliptic curves with good reduction outside a given set of primes. , 16(3):303\u2013312, 2007.\n\nJ.\u00a0E. Cremona and E.\u00a0Whitley. Periods of cusp forms and elliptic curves over imaginary quadratic fields. , 62(205):407\u2013429, 1994.\n\nLuis Dieulefait, Lucio Guerberoff, and Ariel Pacetti. Proving modularity for a given elliptic curve over an imaginary quadratic field. , 79(270):1145\u20131170, 2010.\n\nJean-Marc Fontaine. Il n\u2019y a pas de vari\u00e9t\u00e9 ab\u00e9lienne sur [${\\bf Z}$]{}. , 81(3):515\u2013538, 1985.\n\nMichael Harris, David Soudry, and Richard Taylor. -adic representations associated to modular forms over imaginary quadratic fields. [I]{}. [L]{}ifting to [${\\rm GSp}_4({\\bf Q})$]{}. , 112(2):377\u2013411, 1993.\n\nK.\u00a0Ireland and M.\u00a0Rosen. . Number\u00a084 in Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, 1982.\n\nS.\u00a0Kamienny. Torsion points on elliptic curves and [$q$]{}-coefficients of modular forms. , 109(2):221\u2013229, 1992.\n\nM.\u00a0A. Kenku and F.\u00a0Momose. Torsion points on elliptic curves defined over quadratic fields. , 109:125\u2013149, 1988.\n\nA.\u00a0Koutsianas. Computing all elliptic curves over an arbitrary number field with prescribed primes of bad reduction. , pages 1\u201315 (electronic), 2017.\n\nAlain Kraus. Quelques remarques \u00e0 propos des invariants $c_4$, $c_6$ et [$\\Delta$]{} d\u2019une courbe elliptique. , 54:75\u201380, 1989.\n\nAlain Kraus. Courbes elliptiques semi-stables et corps quadratiques. , 60(2):245\u2013253, 1996.\n\nDaniel\u00a0Sion Kubert. Universal bounds on the torsion of elliptic curves. , 33(2):193\u2013237, 1976.\n\nThe [LMFDB Collaboration]{}. The [L]{}-functions and [M]{}odular [F]{}orms [D]{}atabase. <http://www.lmfdb.org>, 2017. .\n\nBarry Mazur. Rational points of abelian varieties with values in towers of number fields. , 18:183\u2013266, 1972.\n\nJ.-F. Mestre and J.\u00a0Oesterl[\u00e9]{}. Courbes de [W]{}eil semi-stables de discriminant une puissance [$m$]{}-i\u00e8me. , 400:173\u2013184, 1989.\n\nIsao Miyawaki. Elliptic curves of prime power conductor with [${\\bf Q}$]{}-rational points of finite order. , 10:309\u2013323, 1973.\n\nThe PARI\u00a0Group, Bordeaux. , 2014. available from <http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/>.\n\nKenneth\u00a0A. Ribet. Lowering the levels of modular representations without multiplicity one. , (2):15\u201319, 1991.\n\nK.\u00a0Rubin and A.\u00a0Silverberg. Mod [$2$]{} representations of elliptic curves. , 129(1):53\u201357, 2001.\n\nPeter Scholze. On torsion in the cohomology of locally symmetric varieties. , 182(3):945\u20131066, 2015.\n\nRen\u00e9-Michel Shumbusho. Elliptic Curves with Prime Conductor and a Conjecture of Cremona , 2004.\n\nMehmet\u00a0Haluk [\u015eeng\u00fcn]{}. On the integral cohomology of [B]{}ianchi groups. , 20(4):487\u2013505, 2011.\n\nMehmet\u00a0Haluk [\u015eeng\u00fcn]{}. Arithmetic aspects of [B]{}ianchi groups. In [*Computations with modular forms*]{}, volume\u00a06 of [*Contrib. Math. Comput. Sci.*]{}, pages 279\u2013315. Springer, Cham, 2014.\n\nJean-Pierre Serre. Propri\u00e9t\u00e9s galoisiennes des points d\u2019ordre fini des courbes elliptiques. , 15(4):259\u2013331, 1972.\n\nBennett Setzer. Elliptic curves of prime conductor. , 10:367\u2013378, 1975.\n\nJoseph\u00a0H. Silverman. , volume 151 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.\n\nJoseph\u00a0H. Silverman. , volume 106 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer, Dordrecht, second edition, 2009.\n\nW.A. Stein et\u00a0al. . The Sage Development Team, 2017. .\n\nJohn Tate and Frans Oort. Group schemes of prime order. , 3:1\u201321, 1970.\n\nDenis Simon. Computing the Rank of Elliptic Curves over Number Fields , 5:7\u201317, 2002.\n\nRichard Taylor. -adic representations associated to modular forms over imaginary quadratic fields. [II]{}. , 116(1-3):619\u2013643, 1994.\n\n[^1]: This can be avoided over\u00a0$\\Q$, since for every odd prime ideal $(p)$, either $\\pm p\\equiv1\\pmod{4}$, and $\\Q(\\sqrt{\\pm p})$ is unramified at\u00a0$2$.\n\n[^2]: The other curves here do not yet have LMFDB labels.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The Health and Retirement Study is a longitudinal study of US adults enrolled at age 50 and older. We were interested in investigating the effect of a sudden large decline in wealth on the cognitive score of subjects. Our analysis was complicated by the lack of randomization, confounding by indication, and a substantial fraction of the sample and population will die during follow-up leading to some of our outcomes being censored. Common methods to handle these problems for example marginal structural models, may not be appropriate because it upweights subjects who are more likely to die to obtain a population that over time resembles that would have been obtained in the absence of death. We propose a refined approach by comparing the treatment effect among subjects who would survive under both sets of treatment regimes being considered. We do so by viewing this as a large missing data problem and impute the survival status and outcomes of the counterfactual. To improve the robustness of our imputation, we used a modified version of the penalized spline of propensity methods in treatment comparisons approach. We found that our proposed method worked well in various simulation scenarios and our data analysis.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Yaoyuan V. Tan[^1]\\\n    Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Rutgers University\\\n    and\\\n    Carol A.C. Flannagan\\\n    \u00a0Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan\\\n    Lindsay R. Pool\\\n    Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University\\\n    and\\\n    Michael R. Elliott\\\n    Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\ntitle: Accounting for selection bias due to death in estimating the effect of wealth shock on cognition for the Health and Retirement Study\n---\n\n[**Keywords:**]{} Bayesian additive regression trees; Causal inference; Confounding by indication; Longitudinal Study; Missing data; Penalized spline of propensity methods in treatment comparisons.\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLate middle age adults commonly experience chronic health conditions like high blood pressure or diabetes as well as declining cognitive abilities. Factors known to be associated with accelerated decrease in cognitive abilities include smoking, high alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, high dietary intake of sodium and saturated fats, low dietary intake of fruits and vegetables [@lee_back; @stuck]; hypertension, elevated serum cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease [@plassman]; depression, lower socioeconomic status, and exposure to acute stressful life events and chronic perceived stress [@krieger]. In particular, the acute stress of a sudden decrease in wealth \u2013 \u201ca negative wealth shock\u201d \u2013 may have a negative impact on the cognitive ability of late middle aged adults. Because income typically exceeds consumption at this stage in life, sudden decreases in wealth during this period not only decrease the amount of wealth saved for retirement, but there are fewer remaining years left to replenish the lost wealth [@butrica]. The stress of losing substantial wealth during the savings period of the life cycle coupled with the pressure to replenish the lost wealth can lead to stress-related health conditions which in turn reduces the cognitive ability of an individual [@shrira]. In addition, individuals who have received a negative wealth shock may have to reduce consumption of health-enhancing goods and services which in turn leads to poor management of existing chronic conditions, further reducing cognitive abilities [@friedman_con].\n\nThree issues arise when trying to estimate the causal effect of a negative wealth shock on cognitive ability. The first of these is the lack of randomization: negative wealth shocks are not randomly distributed in the population, but rather are confounded by factors such as gender and socio-economic status. The second issue is confounding by indication: the risk of the wealth shock at any point in time may depend on the prior cognitive ability up to the point. Finally, a sufficiently large fraction of the sample and the population will die during our follow-up, leading to \u201ccensoring by death\u201d. Those observed to have survived a negative wealth shock include those who would survive under either condition together with those that would survive only if they experienced a negative wealth shock (if any), while those observed to have survived in the absence of a negative wealth shock include those that would survive under either condition together with those that would survive only in the absence of a negative wealth shock. These \u201cmissing values\u201d associated with cognition among the deceased are different from the measure of cognition being \u201cmissing\u201d due to dropout, where the cognitive ability measure exists but is unobserved. As with wealth shock, death is not a random occurrence, and is positively associated with demographic measures that increase the risk of a negative wealth shock, increased cognitive ability decline, and the experience of a negative wealth shock. Hence, the measure for cognitive ability may be confounded by death if not considered appropriately.\n\nMethods have been developed to deal with these barriers to causal inference. To deal with the lack of randomization, we might hope that, conditional on available covariates, negative wealth shocks would truly be random. In this case, conditioning on the probability of receiving a negative wealth shock as a function of these covariates \u2013 the propensity scores [@rosenbaum] \u2013 can be used to remove the effect of confounding, either by regression, matching, or weighting [@imbens_rubin]. For the second issue \u2013 confounding by indication \u2013 marginal structural models [MSM, @msm] and more recently, penalized spline of propensity methods in treatment comparisons [PENCOMP, @zhou_t], have been used to account for confounding by the time-dependence association of the cognitive measures, either by weighting using the inverse probability of treatment actually received based on the previous values of the time-varying covariates and outcomes (MSM), or by imputation of the missing counterfactual values (PENCOMP). For censoring by death, MSMs have typically been extended by multiplying the treatment assignment weights with the inverse of the predicted probability of death [@weuve]. The issue with this approach \u2013 perhaps under appreciated \u2013 is that the resulting pseudo-population is not only balanced with respect to exposure \u201cassignment\u201d, but also \u201cimmortal\u201d, in the sense that those more likely to die are upweighted so that the population over time resembles that would have been obtained in the absence of death up till time $t$ [@chaix]. This is arguably not a sensible population for inference, at least from a policy and public health perspective.\n\nA more refined approach would be to compare the difference in the effect of negative wealth shock on cognitive ability among subjects who would have survived whether they experienced a negative wealth shock or not. This approach is consistent with the potential outcomes approach of [@neyman] and [@rubin_po], which defines causal effects as the within-subject difference of an outcome at a particular time under different exposure or treatment regimen, averaged over the population. This idea is not new [@elliott_bio] and can be viewed as a specific example of the principal stratification (PS) method discussed in [@frangakis]. Our innovation here is to embed this in a longitudinal setting where confounding by indication is present. We view this as a large missing data problem where survival status and, among survivors, unobserved outcomes under a given treatment pattern, are imputed. We extend the method proposed in Example 3 of [@elliott], which provides a Bayesian MSM approach to compare two treatments at two time points. This approach was further extended by PENCOMP in [@zhou_t] which, like augmented inverse probability weighting [AIPWT, @rrz], has a doubly-robust property in that if either the mean or propensity model is correctly specified, consistent estimates of the causal effect will be obtained. We modified PENCOMP slightly using Bayesian additive regression trees (BART), a flexible model to ease the burden of model specification by the researcher, and apply this to our proposed method.\n\nWe organize our paper as follows. We set up the framework for our problem, and provide a brief review of of MSM, PENCOMP, and Bayesian additive regression trees (BART) in Section 2. We develop our proposed method in Section 3. We then explore some of the empirical properties of our proposed method compared to a na\u00efve method and MSM using a simulation study in Section 4. Section 5 describes the HRS data and the results of our negative wealth shock analysis. Section 6 concludes with a discussion of the implication of our results as well as future work.\n\nReview of Relevant Methods {#chap3:review}\n==========================\n\nSetup and notation\n------------------\n\nLet $V=\\{V_1,V_2,\\ldots,V_p\\}$ be $p$ baseline covariates, $Z_t$ be the treatment allocation at time $t=1,\\ldots,T$ where $Z_t=1$ indicates a subject receiving a negative wealth shock at $t$ and $Z_t=0$ indicates no negative wealth shock, and $W_t=\\{W_{1t},W_{2t},\\ldots,W_{qt}\\}$ be $q$ covariates that may vary with time, but are unaffected by a given treatment regimen. For example, fixed covariates by definition would belong to this class. Let $Y_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}$ be the potential outcome under treatments $Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t$ and $X_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}=\\{X_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t,1},X_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t,2},\\ldots,X_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t,r}\\}$ be the time-varying covariates affected by treatments $Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t$. Similarly, we define the potential survival indicator $S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}}$, for survival at time $t$. The survival outcome at $t$ measures whether a subject would survive after being exposed to treatment $Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}$; hence, the lagged notation for the potential survival outcome, $S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}}$. $v$, $z_t$, $w_t$, $y_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t}$, $x_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t}$, and $s_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t}$ indicate the observed baseline, treatment allocation, time varying covariates unaffected by a given treatment regimen, outcome, time-varying covariates affected by a given treatment regime, and survival status variables respectively. As in [@pool], we assume that a negative wealth shock is an \u201cabsorbing state\u201d so that once a subject receives a negative wealth shock at time $t$, i.e. $Z_t=1$, the subject is \u201cforever\u201d shocked, i.e. $Z_{t+1}=\\ldots=Z_T=1$. Note that this need not be the case for a more general set up where we could have $Z_t=0$ when $Z_j=1$ for any $j=1,\\ldots,t-1$. In our context, the potential outcomes for time $t=2$ are then $Y_{Z_1=0,Z_2=0}=Y_{00}$, $Y_{Z_1=0,Z_2=1}=Y_{01}$, and $Y_{Z_1=1,Z_2=1}=Y_{11}$; similarly, $X_{Z_1=0,Z_2=0}=X_{00}$, $X_{Z_1=0,Z_2=1}=X_{01}$, and $X_{Z_1=1,Z_2=1}=X_{11}$ for time-varying covariates under the various treatment regimes; and $S_{Z_1=0}=S_0$, $S_{Z_1=1}=S_1$ for survival states. Subjects who die at time $t$ have structurally missing data for outcomes and covariates i.e., $S_0=0$ implies that $Y_{00}=Y_{01}=NA$ and $X_{00}=X_{01}=NA$, while $S_1=0$ implies that $Y_{11}=NA$ and $X_{11}=NA$, where \u2018NA\u2019 indicates a structurally missing observation.\n\nMarginal structural model \\[chap3:msm\\]\n---------------------------------------\n\nTo estimate the causal effect for confounding by indication and censoring by death problems, MSM makes the following assumptions. First, MSM assumes that $$\\label{chap3:surv_mod}\n    P(S_{z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}}|z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1},y_{z_1},\\ldots,y_{z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}},x_{z_1},\\ldots,x_{z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}},w_1,\\ldots,w_{t-1},v)>0.$$ and $$\\label{chap3:treat_mod}\n    P(Z_t|z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1},y_{z_1},\\ldots,y_{z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}},x_{z_1},\\ldots,x_{z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}},w_1,\\ldots,w_{t-1},v)>0$$ for any $z_t$ i.e. the probability of survival under treatment profile $z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}$ and the probability of treatment allocation for time $t$ is bounded away from 0. This is an extension of the standard positivity assumption to allow that at least some subjects will survive under a given treatment regimen. Second, MSM assumes that there is no interference between subjects i.e. the potential outcome of subject $i$, $Y_{i,Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}=Y_{i,z_1,\\ldots,z_t}$, is independent of whatever treatment regimen subject $j$ is allocated to $i\\neq j$. Third, MSM assumes no unmeasured confounding and sequential randomization condition $$Y_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}\\bot Z_t|z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1},y_{z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}},\\ldots,y_{z_1},x_{z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}},\\ldots,x_{z_1},w_1,\\ldots,w_{t-1},v.$$ Finally, MSM assumes that the model specifications for Equations \\[chap3:surv\\_mod\\], \\[chap3:treat\\_mod\\], and $$Y_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t}|z_1,\\ldots,z_{t},y_{z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}},\\ldots,y_{z_1},x_{z_1,\\ldots,z_{t-1}},\\ldots,x_{z_1},w_1,\\ldots,w_{t-1},v$$ are correct.\n\nWith these assumptions in place, $E[Y_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t}-Y_{z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t}]$ (note that this estimand is not conditioned on the survival status) is obtained by maximizing the weighted likelihood of $$\\prod_{i=1}^n f(Y_{i;z_1,\\ldots,z_t}|\\mathbf{\\theta}_{it})^{w_{it}},$$ where $i$ indexes the subjects and $\\mathbf{\\theta}_{it}$ are the parameters involved in the model for $Y_{i;z_1,\\ldots,z_t}$ and $$\\label{chap3:w_treat}\n    \\small\n    w_{it}=[\\prod_{j=1}^tP(Z_{ij}=z_{ij}|z_{i1},\\ldots,z_{i,j-1},y_{i1},\\ldots,y_{i,j-1},x_{i1},\\ldots,x_{i,j-1},w_{i1},\\ldots,w_{i,j-1},v_i;\\mathbf{\\tau}_j)]^{-1}.$$ By weighting using the inverse probability of receiving the observed treatment regime given all covariates and previous treatments, the association between treatment and all observed confounders, including confounding by indication, are broken. Under these four assumptions, inference about the treatment effects under a pseudo-population in which treatment is randomized can then be obtained.\n\nSimilarly, this weighting method can be used to remove bias due to dropout. Let $R_i=1$ indicate that the subject\u2019s cognitive score is observed and $R_i=0$ indicate that the subject\u2019s cognitive score is missing. The weight used to account for missing cognitive score is $$\\label{chap3:w_miss}\n    \\scriptsize\n    w_{it}^r=[\\prod_{j=1}^tP(R_{ij}=r_{ij}|r_{i1},\\ldots,r_{i,j-1},z_{i1},\\ldots,z_{i,j-1},y_{i1},\\ldots,y_{i,j-1},x_{i1},\\ldots,x_{i,j-1},w_{i1},\\ldots,w_{i,j-1},v_i;\\mathbf{\\gamma}_j)]^{-1}.$$\n\nFinally, death is typically treated as equivalent to dropout in MSM [@do; @pool]. Let $D_{it}=1$ indicate that subject $i$ is dead at time $t$ and $D_{it}=0$ indicate that the subject survived at time $t$ (thus $D_{it}=1-S_{it}$). The weight for death censoring is then $$\\label{chap3:w_death}\n    \\small\n    w_{it}^d=[\\prod_{j=1}^tP(D_{ij}=d_{ij}|z_{i1},\\ldots,z_{i,j-1},y_{i1},\\ldots,y_{i,j-1},x_{i1},\\ldots,x_{i,j-1},w_{i1},\\ldots,w_{i,j-1},v_i;\\mathbf{\\lambda}_j)]^{-1}.$$\n\nAssuming that these three weights are independent of each other, the final weight that we used becomes $w_{it}^f=w_{it}w_{it}^dw_{it}^r$. To stabilize the weights, the numerators of Equations \\[chap3:w\\_treat\\], \\[chap3:w\\_miss\\], and \\[chap3:w\\_death\\] are replaced by the marginal probabilities of treatment, dropout, and death at baseline given by $$\\prod_{j=1}^tP(Z_{ij}=z_{ij}|z_{i1},\\ldots,z_{i,j-1},v_i;\\mathbf{\\tau}_j'),$$ $$\\prod_{j=1}^tP(R_{ij}=r_{ij}|r_{i1},\\ldots,r_{i,j-1},v_i;\\mathbf{\\gamma}_j'),$$ and $$\\prod_{j=1}^tP(D_{ij}=d_{ij}|v_i;\\mathbf{\\lambda}_j')$$ respectively. We use the stabilized weights in our simulations and analysis.\n\nPenalized Spline of Propensity Methods for Treatment Comparison\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nPENCOMP uses the same four assumptions made by MSM excluding Equation \\[chap3:surv\\_mod\\] for confounding by indication problems. Full details of PENCOMP can be found in [@zhou_t]. We briefly describe the algorithm for PENCOMP using multiple imputation (MI) with longitudinal treatment assignments here. Without loss of generality, we assume no time-varying covariates in the data.\n\n1.  For $b=1,\\dots,B$, generate a bootstrap sample $S^{(b)}$ from the original data $S$ by sampling units with replacement, stratified on treatment group. For each sample $b$, carry out steps 2-7.\n\n2.  Estimate a logistic regression model for the distribution of $Z_1$ given baseline covariates $V$ with regression parameters $\\gamma_{z_1}$. Estimate the propensity to be assigned treatment $Z_1=z_1$ as $\\hat{P}_{z_1}(V)=Pr(Z_1=z_1|V;\\hat{\\gamma}_{z_1}^b)$, where $\\hat{\\gamma}_{z_1}^b$ is the maximum likelihood (ML) estimate of $\\gamma_{z_1}$. Define $\\hat{P}^*_{z_1}=\\log[\\frac{\\hat{P}_{z_1}(V)}{1-\\hat{P}_{z_1}(V)}]$.\n\n3.  Using the cases assigned to treatment group $Z_1=z_1$, estimate a normal linear regression of $Y_{z_1}$ on $V$, with mean $$\\label{chap3:pencomp}\n            E(Y_{z_1}|V,Z_1=z_1,\\theta_{z_1},\\beta_{z_1})=s(\\hat{P}^*_{z_1}|\\theta_{z_1})+g_{z_1}(\\hat{P}^*_{z_1},V;\\beta_{z_1}),$$ where $s(\\hat{P}*_{z_1}|\\theta_{z_1})$ denotes a penalized spline with fixed knots and parameters $\\theta_{z_1}$ and $g_{z_1}(.)$ represents a parametric function of other predictors of the outcome, indexed by parameters $\\beta_{z_1}$. One of the covariates might be omitted to avoid collinearity in the covariates in Equation \\[chap3:pencomp\\].\n\n4.  For $z_1=0,1$, impute the values of $Y_{z_1}$ for subjects in treatment group $1-z_1$ in the original data with draws from the predictive distribution of $Y_{z_1}$ given $V$ from the regression in Step 3, with the ML estimates $\\hat{\\theta}_{z_1}^{(b)},\\hat{\\beta}_{z_1}^{(b)}$ substituted for the parameters $\\theta_{z_1}^{(b)},\\beta_{z_1}^{(b)}$.\n\n5.  Estimate a logistic regression model for the distribution of $Z_2$ given $V,Z_1,(Y_0,Y_1)$, with regression parameters $\\gamma_{z_2}$ and missing values of $(Y_0,Y_1)$ imputed from Step 4. Estimate the propensity to be assigned treatment $Z_2=z_2$ given $Z_1$, $Y_{Z_1}$, and $V$ as $\\hat{P}_{z_2}(Z_1,Y_{Z_1},V)=Pr(Z_2=z_2|Z_1=z_1,Y_{z_1},V;\\hat{\\gamma}_{z_2}^{(b)})$, where $\\hat{\\gamma}_{z_2}^{(b)}$ is the ML estimate of $\\gamma_{z_2}$. The probability of treatment regimen $(Z_1=z_1,Z_2=z_2)$ is denoted as $\\hat{P}_{z_1z_2}=\\hat{P}_{z_1}(V)\\hat{P}_{z_2}(Z_1,Y_{Z_1},V)$, and define $\\hat{P}^*_{z_1,z_2}=\\log[\\frac{\\hat{P}_{z_1z_2}}{1-\\hat{P}_{z_1z_2}}]$.\n\n6.  Using the cases assigned to treatment group $(z_1,z_2)$, estimate a normal linear regression of $Y_{z_1,z_2}$ on $Z_2$, $Z_1$, $Y_{Z_1}$, and $V$ with mean [ $$\\label{chap3:pencomp2}\n            E(Y_{z_1,z_2}|V,Y_{z_1},Z_1=z_1,Z_1=z_2,\\theta_{z_1,z_2},\\beta_{z_1,z_2})=s(\\hat{P}^*_{z_1,z_2}|\\theta_{z_1,z_2})+g_{z_1,z_2}(\\hat{P}^*_{z_1,z_2},Z_2,Z_1,Y_{Z_1},V;\\beta_{z_1,z_2}).$$ ]{}\n\n7.  For each combination of $(z_1,z_2)$ impute the values of $Y_{z_1,z_2}$ for subjects not assigned this treatment combination in the original data with draws from the predictive distribution of $Y_{z_1,z_2}$ in Step 6, with ML estimates $\\hat{\\theta}_{z_1,z_2}^{(b)},\\hat{\\beta}_{z_1,z_2}^{(b)}$ substituted for the parameters $\\theta_{z_1,z_2}^{(b)},\\beta_{z_1,z_2}^{(b)}$. Let $\\hat{\\Delta}_{01,00}^{(b)}=E[Y_{01}-Y_{00}]$, $\\hat{\\Delta}_{11,00}^{(b)}=E[Y_{11}-Y_{00}]$, and $\\hat{\\Delta}_{11,01}^{(b)}=E[Y_{11}-Y_{01}]$ denote the average treatment effects, $\\hat{\\Delta}_{jk,lm}^{(b)}$, with associated pooled variance estimates $W_{jk,lm}^{(b)}$, based on the observed and imputed values of $Y$ for each treatment regimen.\n\n8.  The MI estimate of $\\Delta_{jk,lm}$ is then $\\bar{\\Delta}_{jk,lm,B}=\\sum_{b=1}^B\\hat{\\Delta}_{jk,lm}^{(b)}$, and the MI estimate of the variance of $\\bar{\\Delta}_{jk,lm}$ is $T_B=\\bar{W}_{jk,lm,B}+(1+1/B)D_{jk,lm,B}$, where $\\bar{W}_{jk,lm,B}=\\sum_{b=1}^BW_{jk,lm}^{(b)}/B$, $D_{jk,lm,B}=\\sum_{b=1}^B\\frac{(\\hat{\\Delta}_{jk,lm}^{(b)}-\\bar{\\Delta}_{jk,lm,B})^2}{B-1}$. The estimate $\\Delta_{jk,lm}$ follows a $t$ distribution with degree of freedom $\\nu$, $\\frac{\\Delta_{jk,lm}-\\bar{\\Delta}_{jk,lm,B}}{\\sqrt{T_B}}\\sim t_{\\nu}$, where $\\nu=(B-1)(1+\\frac{\\bar{W}_{jk,lm,B}}{D_{jk,lm,B}(B+1)})^2$.\n\nBayesian additive regression trees\n----------------------------------\n\nBART [@chipman_bart] is a flexible estimation technique for any arbitrary function. Suppose we have a continuous outcome $Y$ and corresponding $p$ predictors $X=(X_1,\\ldots,X_p)$. Suppose $Y$ is related to $X$ via $$Y=f(X)+e$$ where $f(.)$ is any arbitrary function which could involve complicated non-linear and multiple-way interactions and $e\\sim N(0,\\sigma^2)$. Formally, BART is written as $$\\label{chap3:bart_eq}\n    Y=\\sum_{j=1}^mg(X,T_j,M_j)+e$$ where $(T_j,M_j)$ is the joint distribution of the $j^{\\text{th}}$ binary tree structure $T_j$ with its corresponding $b_j$ terminal node parameters $M_j=(\\mu_{1j},\\ldots,\\mu_{b_jj})$. $m$ is the number of regression trees used to estimate $f(X)$ and it is usually fixed at 200.\n\nBART is able to model multiple-way interactions by using regression trees. In essence, a binary regression tree in BART may be viewed as a penalized form of an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model. When the binary regression tree only splits on one variable for the whole tree, a main effects model is obtained. When the regression tree involve splits on many different variables, a multiple-way interaction model is obtained. BART combines all $m$ regression trees together in an additive manner to obtain non-linear estimates of the main and interaction effects. This additive procedure is done by first \u2018breaking\u2019 $Y$ into $m$ equal \u2018pieces\u2019 and fitting a regression tree to each piece. Subsequently, the regression tree in each $m$ piece is then estimated by looking at the residual produced by the other $m-1$ most updated regression trees. MCMC procedures are then used to obtain the posterior distribution of $f(X)$. When the default priors of BART suggested by [@chipman_bart] are assumed, the MCMC ensures that the eventual distribution of the the sum of regression trees is concentrated around the true distribution of the model [@rockova].\n\nFor binary outcomes, BART uses a probit link where $$\\label{chap3:bin_bart_eq}\n    P(Y=1|X)=\\Phi(\\sum_{j=1}^mg[X,T_j,M_j])$$ where $\\Phi(.)$ is the cdf of a standard normal distribution. Estimation of the posterior distribution is similar to that of continuous outcomes but with the use of data augmentation methods, i.e. draw a continuous latent variable based on whether $Y=1$ or $Y=0$ and then run the BART algorithm on the drawn latent variables.\n\n[@kapelner_miss] suggested a procedure to allow the BART algorithm to include covariates that might contain missing values. In brief, the missingness in the covariates are not imputed but instead, viewed as a \u2018value level\u2019 in the MCMC algorithm. The MCMC algorithm then \u2018sends\u2019 missing data to terminal nodes in the regression trees that would maximize the likelihood. This is termed as \u201cMissing Incorporated in Attributes\u201d [MIA, @twala Section 2]. [@kapelner_miss] showed using simulation examples that incorporating MIA within BART allows the appropriate handling of different types of missing mechanism, MCAR, MAR, and NMAR, for each covariate. We utilize this approach to accommodate the missingness in our covariates for the data analysis.\n\nDealing with Censoring by Death {#chap3:method}\n===============================\n\nDetermining the principal strata\n--------------------------------\n\nTo determine the principal strata definition, we first investigated what the data for our problem could potentially look like. We constructed Table \\[chap3:eg2\\_1\\] for $t=3$, $p=1$, and no time-varying covariates without loss of generality. In this table, \u2018x\u2019 indicates an observed value, \u2018?\u2019 represent a missing observation which needs to be imputed, and \u2018NA\u2019 indicates a structurally missing observation. For the potential survival outcomes, we did not indicate whether they were missing or observed because we wanted to use Table \\[chap3:eg2\\_1\\] to help us decide how we should be stratifying our subjects once our proposed method imputes the counterfactual survival status.\n\nFrom Table \\[chap3:eg2\\_1\\], we can see that the goal of our analysis is to provide inference about $E[Y_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_t}|S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1]$, where $Z_l\\neq Z'_l$ for at least one $l$ with $l=1,\\ldots,t$ i.e. we condition on subjects who would potentially survive under two different treatment regimes $Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}$ and $Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_{t-1}$. Thus, the distribution of $(S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}},S_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_{t-1}})$ form our principal strata and meaningful contrasts are defined only in the stratum where $S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1$ since the potential outcomes for the two different treatment regimes exist only in this stratum. For example, if we want to estimate the effect for a negative wealth shock at $t=2$ versus no negative wealth shock by $t=2$ that is $E[Y_{01}-Y_{00}|S_0=1]$, we restrict to subjects who survive if they did not receive a negative wealth shock at $t=1$ i.e. subjects with $S_0=1$ (Subjects 1-12 in Table \\[chap3:eg2\\_1\\]). Note that the definition, $E[Y_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_t}|S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1]$, is different from the parameter MSM estimates which is $E[Y_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_t}]$.\n\nProposed method {#chap3:prop_meth}\n---------------\n\nWe make the same four assumptions used by MSM (See Section \\[chap3:msm\\]). We impose a further fifth assumption of strict monotonicity in that $$\\label{monotonicity}\n    \\text{If}\\,Z_1\\leq Z'_1,Z_2\\leq Z'_2,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}\\leq Z'_{t-1},\\,Z_i\\neq Z'_i\\,\\text{for any }i,\\,\\text{then}\\,S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}}\\geq S_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}.$$ As a consequence, we have for example, when $t=2$, if $S_0=0$ then $S_1=0$ and if $S_1=1$ then $S_0=1$. This means that we rule out the possibility of a subject who does not receive a negative wealth shock and dies but would survive if having received a neagtive wealth shock. Conversely, if a subject survives after having received a negative wealth shock, we rule out the possibility that this same subject would die if he or she did not receive a negative wealth shock.\n\nOur proposed method then estimates $E[Y_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_t}|S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1]$ by imputing the survival status of each subject at the current time $t$ and then combine the imputed counterfactual survival status together with the observed survival status to determine which principal stratum a subject belongs to. We then use a slightly modified PENCOMP to impute the counterfactual outcomes among the potentially surviving subjects to account for the bias due to confounding by indication. This approach is doubly robust and reduces the burden of model specification by the researcher. Subsequently, the average difference in the treatment effect within the desired principal strata is calculated. Variance is estimated using Rubin\u2019s combine rule to account for the imputation uncertainty [@heitjan]. Detailed steps for our method are given below.\n\n1.  Generate a bootstrap sample $b$ from the data by sampling the units with replacement.\n\n2.  Estimate the model $X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. Use this model to compute the counterfactual of $X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}$ for bootstrap sample $b$.\n\n3.  Estimate the distribution of $Z_1^{(b)}|W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. Use this model to estimate the propensity to be assigned treatment $Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)}$ as $P^*_{z_1^{(b)}}=Pr(Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)}|W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)})$. Note that we did not perform a logit transformation to obtain $P^*_{z_1^{(b)}}$ (See PENCOMP Steps 2 and 5). This is because by using PENCOMP modified with BART to predict the outcomes, the non-linear effect of the propensity of assigned treatment will be handled automatically. Hence, any non-linear transformation on the propensity of assigned treatment would not be needed.\n\n4.  Estimate the model $Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}|P^*_{z_1^{(b)}},Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. As mentioned, we used PENCOMP modified with BART to estimate this model. The advantage of using BART is the researcher no longer needs to specify the model. BART automatically takes care of any linear or non-linear main effects as well as linear or non-linear interactions. If we observe Equations \\[chap3:pencomp\\] and \\[chap3:pencomp2\\], we can see that these two equations are constructed using a non-linear spline specification on the propensity of assigned treatment combined with possible linear interactions between the propensity of assigned treatment and remaining covariates. This fits well with the type of estimation problems that BART was designed to solve. We then use the model produced by BART-modified PENCOMP to compute the counterfactual of $Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}$ for bootstrap sample $b$.\n\n5.  Estimate the distribution for $S_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$ at $t=2$. Use this model to generate a survival status for the counterfactual of $S_{z_1^b}^{(b)}$ taking into account the assumption of monotonicity in Equation (\\[monotonicity\\]) i.e. if $S_0$ is observed and $S_0=0$ then $S_1=0$. Similarly, if $S_1$ is observed and $S_1=1$ then $S_0=1$.\n\n6.  Estimate the model $X_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},W_2^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. Use the respective models to impute the counterfactual of $X_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}$, using any previously imputed values for the unobserved treatment regimes and restricting to the subjects that are observed and predicted to survive under the given treatment regimen of interest at $t=1$.\n\n7.  Estimate the distribution of $Z_2^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},W_2^{(b)},V^{(b)}$. Use this model to estimate the propensity to be assigned treatment $Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)}$ as $P_{z_2^{(b)}}=Pr(Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)}|X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)})$. The probability of treatment regimen $(Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)})$ is denoted as $P^*_{z_2^{(b)}}=P_{z_2^{(b)}}P^*_{z_1^{(b)}}$.\n\n8.  Estimate the model $$Y_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}|P^*_{z_2^{(b)}},Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},W_2^{(b)},V^{(b)}$$ again restricting to subjects that are observed and predicted to survive under the treatment regimes of interest at $t=2$. Use the respective models to impute the counterfactual of $Y_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}$.\n\n9.  Using a similar procedure for steps 5-8 with the restriction determined by $S_{z_1^{(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)}}^{(b)}=S_{z_1^{'(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}=1$ for time $t$ where at least one $z_t^{(b)}\\neq z_t^{'(b)}$, extend the estimation until the desired time point $t=T$.\n\n10. Repeat Steps 1-9 to obtain $B$ bootstrap values for $$\\hat{\\Delta}_{z_1^{(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}=E[Y_{z_1^{(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)}}^{(b)}-Y_{z_1^{'(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}|S_{z_1^{(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)}}^{(b)}=S_{z_1^{'(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}=1].$$ with associated pooled variance $W_{z_1^{(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}$.\n\n11. The estimate of $$\\Delta_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t,Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_t}=E[Y_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}-Y_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_t}|S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1]$$ is then $$\\bar{\\Delta}_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B}=\\sum_{b=1}^B(\\hat{\\Delta}_{z_1^{(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)})/B,$$ and the estimate of the variance of $\\bar{\\Delta}_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B}$ is $$T_B=\\bar{W}_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B}+(1+1/B)D_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B},$$ where $$\\bar{W}_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B}=\\sum_{b=1}^B(W_{z_1^{(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)})/B$$ and $$D_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B}=\\sum_{b=1}^B\\frac{(\\hat{\\Delta}_{z_1^{(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{(b)},z_1^{'(b)},\\ldots,z_{t-1}^{'(b)}}^{(b)}-\\bar{\\Delta}_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B})^2}{B-1}.$$ The estimate $\\Delta_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t,Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_t}$ follows a $t$ distribution with degree of freedom $\\nu$, $$\\frac{\\Delta_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t,Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_t}-\\bar{\\Delta}_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B}}{\\sqrt{T_B}}\\sim t_{\\nu},$$ where $\\nu=(B-1)(1+\\frac{\\bar{W}_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B}}{D_{z_1,\\ldots,z_t,z'_1,\\ldots,z'_t,B}(B+1)})^2$.\n\n*Remark*. The idea of including the BART estimated propensity score within BART as a predictor in Steps 4 and 8 is not new. [@hahn] showed that including a BART estimated propensity score as a predictor within BART improved the estimation of heterogenous treatment effects for observational studies. [@tan] also reported that the inclusion of the BART estimated propensity score as a predictor within BART to impute missing data, under the missing at random assumption, worked well in situations where the non-linear main and interaction effects are complex for the mean and propensity model. For situations with simpler non-linear effects like a quadratic relationship, using BART to estimate the propensity score and imputing the missing values using penalized splines of propensity prediction [@zhang_little PENCOMP version for missing data] worked better. Using PENCOMP with a BART estimated propensity score for Steps 4 and 8 would be an interesting alternative. However, our aim of Steps 4 and 8 was to ease the implementation burden on the researcher. Hence, we suggest the use of PENCOMP with a BART estimated propensity score for Steps 4 and 8 only if the researcher is certain that the non-linear effect has a simple form for example, a quadratic or cubic relationship.\n\nSimulation\n==========\n\nWe conducted a simulation study to determine how well our proposed method would perform compared to the na\u00efve method and MSM in three scenarios: 1) where there is low association between treatment allocation and confounder as well as treatment and survival status; 2) where there is a strong association between treatment and confounder as well as treatment and survival status; and finally 3) where there is a strong association between treatment and confounder, treatment and survival status, and an interaction between treatment, confounder, and survival status. We expect all three methods to perform well in the first scenario because there is little to no confounding. For the second scenario, we expect MSM and our proposed method to perform well because there is no difference in the treatment effect between the principal strata, and other stratification groups. The na\u00efve method should not perform well due to the strong association between treatment and confounder as well as treatment and survival status. Finally, for scenario three, we expect only our proposed method to perform well because an association between the treatment effect and principal strata, $S_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_{t-1}}=S_{Z'_1,\\ldots,Z'_{t-1}}=1$, is induced by the stronger interaction effect between treatment, confounder, and survival status. We fit standard linear and logistic regression models rather than BART and PENCOMP with BART since our focus is not on model misspecification but rather, the effect of confounding by indication and censoring by death.\n\nSetup\n-----\n\nTo set up our simulation study, we set the size of our target population as 1 million. We then generate a single baseline variable $V$ from a normal distribution. We set $T=3$ and model our treatment allocation, $Z_1$, as $$\\label{chap3:ztime1}\n    logit[P(Z_1=1|V)]=\\gamma_0+\\gamma_1V.$$ For the potential outcome at $t=1$, $Y_{Z_1}$, we model it as $$\\label{chap3:ytime1}\n    Y_{Z_1}=\\beta_0+\\beta_ZI\\{Z_1=1\\}+\\beta_VV+\\beta_{VZ}VI\\{Z_1=1\\}+e,$$ where $e\\sim N(0,1)$.\n\nWe model the potential survival status at $t=2$, $S_{Z_1}$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{chap3:stime2}\n    logit(P[S_{Z_1}=1|V,Y_{Z_1}])&=\\alpha_0+\\alpha_{Y_1}Y_1I\\{Z_1=1\\}+\\alpha_{Y_0}Y_0[1-I\\{Z_1=1\\}] \\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\alpha_ZI\\{Z_1=1\\}+\\alpha_VV+\\alpha_{VZ}VI\\{Z_1=1\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Monotonicity is imposed by setting $S_0=1$ if $S_1=1$. Because a negative wealth shock is an absorbing state, if $Z_1=1$, then $Z_2=1$. So when $Z_1=0$, we have $$\\label{chap3:ztime2}\n    logit(P[Z_2=1|V,Y_0])=\\gamma_0+\\gamma_{Y_0,2}Y_0+\\gamma_2V.$$ We model the potential outcome at $t=2$, $Y_{Z_1,Z_2}$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{chap3:ytime2}\n    Y_{Z_1,Z_2}&=\\beta_0+\\beta_{Z_{01}}I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\\}+\\beta_{Z_{11}}I\\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{Y_0Z_{00}}Y_0I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0\\}+\\beta_{Y_0Z_{01}}Y_0I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{Y_1Z_{11}}Y_1I\\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\\}+\\beta_VV+\\beta_{VZ_{01}}VI\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{VZ_{11}}VI\\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\\}+e,\\end{aligned}$$ where $e\\sim N(0,1)$.\n\nFor the potential survival status at $t=3$, $S_{Z_1,Z_2}$, if $S_{Z_1}=0$, then $S_{Z_1,Z_2}=0$. When $S_{Z_1}=1$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{chap3:stime3}\n    logit(P[S_{Z_1,Z_2}=1|X,Y_{Z_1,Z_2},S_{Z_1}=1])&=\\alpha_0+\\alpha_{Z_{01}}I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\alpha_{Z_{11}}I\\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\alpha_{Y_{00}Z_{00}}Y_{00}I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\alpha_{Y_{01}Z_{01}}Y_{01}I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\alpha_{Y_{11}Z_{11}}Y_{11}I\\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\alpha_VV+\\alpha_{VZ_{01}}VI\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\alpha_{VZ_{11}}VI\\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Again, we impose monotonicity by setting $S_{00}=S_{01}=1$ if $S_{11}=1$ and $S_{00}=1$ if $S_{01}=1$. For the treatment allocation at $t=3$, $Z_3$, if $Z_1=Z_2=0$, we have $$\\label{chap3:ztime3}\n    logit(P[Z_3=1|X,Y_{00}])=\\gamma_0+\\gamma_{Y_{00}}Y_{00}+\\gamma_{Y_{0,3}}Y_0+\\gamma_3V.$$ For the potential outcome at $t=3$, $Y_{Z_1,Z_2,Z_3}$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\label{chap3:ytime3}\n    Y_{Z_1,Z_2,Z_3}&=\\beta_0+\\beta_{Z_{001}}I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0,Z_3=1\\}+\\beta_{Z_{011}}I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{Z_{111}}I\\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\\}+\\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{000}}Y_{00}I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0,Z_3=0\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{001}}Y_{00}I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0,Z_3=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{Y_{01}Z_{011}}Y_{01}I\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{Y_{11}Z_{111}}Y_{11}I\\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\\}+\\beta_{Y_0Z_0}Y_0I\\{Z_1=0\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{Y_1Z_1}Y_1I\\{Z_1=1\\}+\\beta_VV+\\beta_{VZ_{001}}VI\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=0,Z_3=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{VZ_{011}}VI\\{Z_1=0,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\quad+\\beta_{VZ_{111}}VI\\{Z_1=1,Z_2=1,Z_3=1\\}+e.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTable \\[chap3:sim\\_para1\\] shows the parameters we used to achieve the three different simulation scenarios. Scenario 1 is achieved by setting $\\gamma_1$, $\\alpha_Z$, $\\gamma_2$, $\\gamma_{Y_0,2}$, $\\alpha_{Z_{01}}$, $\\alpha_{Z_{11}}$, $\\gamma_3$, $\\gamma_{Y_0,3}$, and $\\gamma_{Y_{00}}$ to be about 10 times smaller than the values in Scenarios 2 and 3. The rest of the differences between Scenario 1 versus 2 and 3 were to ensure the resulting simulated population would have enough deaths and subjects in the various different treatment regimes for the assumptions used by MSM and our proposed method to be valid. The difference between Scenario 2 versus 3 lie in $\\beta_{VZ}$, $\\alpha_{Y_1}$, $\\alpha_{Y_0}$, $\\beta_{Y_0Z_{00}}$, $\\beta_{Y_0Z_{01}}$, $\\beta_{Y_1Z_{11}}$, $\\alpha_{Y_0Z_{00}}$, $\\alpha_{Y_0Z_{01}}$, $\\alpha_{Y_1Z_{11}}$, $\\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{000}}$, $\\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{001}}$, $\\beta_{Y_{01}Z_{011}}$, and $\\beta_{Y_{11}Z_{111}}$ where the values for Scenario 2 is about 10 times smaller compared to Scenario 3.\n\nTo calculate the true parameters, we used the generated population data (size 1 million), and then took:\n\n1.  $\\Delta_{1,0}=\\bar{Y}_1-\\bar{Y}_0$;\n\n2.  $\\Delta_{01,00}=\\bar{Y}_{01}-\\bar{Y}_{00}$ given $S_0=1$;\n\n3.  $\\Delta_{11,00}=\\bar{Y}_{11}-\\bar{Y}_{00}$ given $S_0=S_1=1$;\n\n4.  $\\Delta_{11,01}=\\bar{Y}_{11}-\\bar{Y}_{01}$ given $S_0=S_1=1$;\n\n5.  $\\Delta_{001,000}=\\bar{Y}_{001}-\\bar{Y}_{000}$ given $S_{00}=1$;\n\n6.  $\\Delta_{011,000}=\\bar{Y}_{011}-\\bar{Y}_{000}$ given $S_{00}=S_{01}=1$;\n\n7.  $\\Delta_{111,000}=\\bar{Y}_{111}-\\bar{Y}_{000}$ given $S_{00}=S_{11}=1$;\n\n8.  $\\Delta_{011,001}=\\bar{Y}_{011}-\\bar{Y}_{001}$ given $S_{00}=S_{01}=1$;\n\n9.  $\\Delta_{111,001}=\\bar{Y}_{111}-\\bar{Y}_{001}$ given $S_{00}=S_{11}=1$; and\n\n10. $\\Delta_{111,011}=\\bar{Y}_{111}-\\bar{Y}_{011}$ given $S_{01}=S_{11}=1$.\n\nWe measured performance using the empirical bias, root mean squared error (RMSE), 95% coverage, and the average 95% Confidence Interval (CI) length (AIL). 1000 simulations were used to estimate these quantities. Under each simulation, a simple random sample of 4,000 or 8,000 subjects was drawn from the target population data. All methods were then implemented on the sampled data to obtain the effect estimates. For MSM and our proposed method, the models were specified using Equations \\[chap3:ztime1\\] to \\[chap3:ytime3\\] respectively. For our proposed method, because our focus is not on model misspecification but rather, confounding by indication and censoring by death, we chose to implement a simpler version of our method by skipping Steps 3 and 7 of our algorithm and using $Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},V^{(b)}$ and $Y_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)}|Z_1^{(b)}=z_1^{(b)},Z_2^{(b)}=z_2^{(b)},Y_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)}}^{(b)},X_{z_1^{(b)},z_2^{(b)}}^{(b)},W_1^{(b)},W_2^{(b)},V^{(b)}$ for Steps 4 and 8 respectively. We also simplified the prediction of the potential outcomes and survival status by using linear and logistic regression instead of BART.\n\nResults\n-------\n\nTable \\[chap3:sim\\_res1\\] shows the simulation results for sample size of 4,000. As expected, under Scenario 1, all three methods were relatively unbiased with all three methods achieving similar RMSE. MSM and our proposed method reported slightly greater than nominal coverage due to the wider AIL. Under Scenario 2, the absolute bias of the na\u00efve method was always larger than MSM and our proposed method. RMSE was larger as well in comparison and coverage was often far below the nominal 95% value. For this scenario MSM produced the less conservative coverage while our proposed method suggested better bias performance and reduced RMSE. Finally, under Scenario 3, the na\u00efve method was clearly biased with poor RMSE and coverage. MSM performed slightly better compared to the na\u00efve method but absolute bias clearly increased compared to Scenario 2. Coverage for some treatment effects were poor as well. Our proposed method remained unbiased, produced a lower RMSE compared to the other two methods, and reached nominal coverage under Scenario 3. All methods behaved as expected under these three scenarios.\n\nTable \\[chap3:sim\\_res2\\] shows the results with the sample size increased to 8,000, approximately the sample size in our application. The simulation results for all three methods under Scenario 1 remained relatively similar. Under Scenario 2, an increase in sample size did not affect the absolute bias of all three methods but, the coverage of the na\u00efve method was clearly affected with huge decreases in the coverage for all parameters. Coverage for MSM and our proposed method remained fairly similar. Finally, under Scenario 3, we observe once again that the amount of bias for the three methods remained the same but, coverage for the na\u00efve method and MSM decreased for most of the treatment effects when the sample size increased to 8,000. Coverage for our proposed method remained relatively similar to the results observed for the sample size of 4,000. In summary, bias for the three methods was rather stable when the sample size changed. However, if the method is poor in the estimation of the particular treatment effect, increasing the sample size can cause large decreases in coverage.\n\nDetermining the effect of a negative wealth shock on cognitive score for Health and Retirement Study subjects\n=============================================================================================================\n\nHealth and Retirement Study\n---------------------------\n\nTo investigate the association between negative wealth shock and cognitive ability in late middle aged US adults, we used data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). HRS is a longitudinal study of US adults, enrolled at age 50 and older. These individuals have been surveyed biennially since 1992 with detailed modules on financial status and health [@sonnega].\n\nWe use HRS data collected from 1996 to 2002 for our analysis. Subjects were obtained from the original HRS cohort, born in the years 1931-1941. Although data collection began in 1992, consistent collection of a subject\u2019s cognitive ability only began in 1996. Hence, we excluded the data collected before 1996 and treated the variables collected in 1996 as the baseline for our analysis. We excluded subjects who did not have longitudinal measurements for net worth because we were unable to distinguish whether they have already experienced a negative wealth shock. Subjects with zero or negative net worth at baseline were excluded since we did not know if these subjects have lifelong asset poverty or experienced a negative wealth shock prior to study entry. We also removed subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock and death between 1992 to 1996. These subjects were removed because they were no longer at risk for a negative wealth shock or death. There were 9,750 participants in the original HRS cohort, and of these, 7,106 participants (72.9%) were eligible for this analysis. These participants consists of a representative sample of the 1996 US population aged 55 to 65 who had not experienced a negative wealth shock in the previous five years.\n\n### Determining negative wealth shock\n\nTo determine whether a subject experienced a negative wealth shock from the previous follow-up period to the current follow-up period, we first obtained data from the module assessing net worth administered at every wave of HRS. Measured assets include housing value, net value of businesses, individual retirement accounts, checking/savings accounts, certificates of deposits and savings bonds, investment holdings, net value of vehicles, and the value of any other substantial assets. From this asset total, debts were subtracted, including home mortgages, other home equity loans, and unsecured debt values, like credit card balances, student loans, and medical debts. Missing values for wealth were imputed at the level of each asset or debt, using an unfolding bracket imputation method [@juster]. Wealth data were not imputed for those who do not participate in a given wave. Negative wealth shock was measured and then dichotomized (yes or no) for each time point. Loss of 75% or more of total wealth between two consecutive waves was used as the cut-point for negative wealth shock [@pool2]. Subjects were considered at risk for negative wealth shock until they have experienced a negative wealth shock or reached age 65.\n\n### Cognitive ability\n\nThe cognitive ability of a subject is assessed in HRS using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS). Unfortunately, the full HRS cognitive battery is not available for participants under 65. Hence, we used an abbreviated measure that included questions about episodic memory (Immediate Word recall \\[10 points\\] and Delayed Word recall \\[10 points\\]) and mental status (Serial 7\u2019s \\[5 points\\], backwards counting from 20 \\[2 points\\]) [@crimmins]. All responses were combined to create a composite score ranging from 0 to 27, with a higher score indicating higher cognitive ability. Some of these measures may be imputed implying that the cognitive summary score may include one or more imputed scores [@fisher]. We treated this measure as continuous and normally distributed.\n\n### Descriptive statistics at baseline\n\nTables \\[chap3:des\\_stat1\\] to \\[chap3:des\\_stat2\\] show the descriptive statistics of the subjects at baseline by whether or not they experienced a negative wealth shock over the next six years regardless of survival status. At baseline, aside from whether the subject eventually survived until 2002 and health conditions like whether the subject ever had heart problems, high blood pressure, and stroke, all the other variables in Tables \\[chap3:des\\_stat1\\] to \\[chap3:des\\_stat2\\] were significantly associated with experiencing a negative wealth shock. A typical subject who would eventually experience a wealth shock would have a lower cognitive score at baseline; slightly higher BMI; lower opinion about his or her health; lower word recall score; likely still smoking; not insured; have depression; slightly lower income; either working, unemployed, or disabled; divorced or never married; lower wealth rank; have diabetes and/or psychological problems; younger; lesser years of education; and likely non-White.\n\nTable \\[chap3:cog\\_score\\_ts\\] shows the change in unadjusted mean cognitive score between consecutive waves for subjects who did not receive a wealth shock versus those who ever received a negative wealth shock. Follow-up surveys occurred at years 2, 4, and 6. We can see that for a subject who ever got shocked, the largest observed decline in cognitive score occurs from Baseline to Wave 1. Subsequently, the decline in cognitive score is no longer as large between waves. Similarly, the bulk of our subjects were shocked at Wave 1 (second year of follow up). In later waves, the proportion of new subjects who received a negative wealth shock decreases.\n\nAnalysis\n--------\n\nWe were interested in how a negative wealth shock would affect the cognitive ability of late middle aged adults in the HRS during the six years of follow-up as well as how the duration of a negative wealth shock affects cognitive ability accounting for missingness in the cognitive outcome as well as censoring by death. We employed four different methods to estimate this effect and make inference. The four methods were the na\u00efve method, where all subjects who died under their observed negative wealth shock status were removed from analysis; baseline adjusted method, where similar to the na\u00efve method, all subjects who died were removed from analysis but the mean cognitive score was adjusted using a model that included all baseline covariates; MSM, where negative wealth shock allocation, missingness, and censoring by death were accounted for by inverse probability weighting; and our proposed method including the PENCOMP modification described in Subsection \\[chap3:prop\\_meth\\]. We assumed that depression was the time-varying covariate that depends on the negative wealth shock status ($X_{Z_1,\\ldots,Z_t}$ in Section \\[chap3:review\\]) and the rest of the time-varying covariates are: self-reported health status, whether subject was insured, labor force status of subject, income, level of alcohol consumption, current smoking status, and number of health conditions ($W_t$ in Section \\[chap3:method\\]). We also assumed that the cognitive score is missing at random given the baseline variables presented in Tables \\[chap3:des\\_stat1\\] to \\[chap3:des\\_stat2\\], past negative wealth shock status, time-varying covariates, and cognitive score. For MSM, we accounted for this missingness by modeling the propensity of response while for our proposed method, we imputed the missing cognitive score by using the modified version of PENCOMP discussed in Subsection \\[chap3:prop\\_meth\\]. All our models (baseline adjusted, MSM, and our proposed method) were specified using BART. For the na\u00efve, baseline adjusted, and MSM method, we employed 1,000 bootstrap samples to calculate the mean and the 95% Confidence Interval (CI). The 95% CI was determined by taking the $2.5$ and $97.5$ percentile. For our proposed method, we estimated the effect and accounted for our uncertainty using our algorithm described in Subsection \\[chap3:prop\\_meth\\].\n\nResults\n-------\n\nTable \\[chap3:anal\\_res\\] shows the adjusted effect estimate of a negative wealth shock on cognitive score depending on the duration of the shock for late middle aged adults in the original HRS cohort from 1996 to 2002. In general, the na\u00efve and baseline adjusted method suggests that experiencing a negative wealth shock has a much larger negative effect on the cognitive score of subjects in our sample compared to the adjusted estimates reported by MSM and our proposed method. The na\u00efve and baseline adjusted method produced very similar results suggesting low association between cognitive score and the baseline covariates. The effect for subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock within the first 2 years of follow up versus no shock (6 years vs. no shock), subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock within the first 2 years of follow up versus subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock between the second and fourth year of follow up (6 years vs. 2 years), and subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock within the first 2 years of follow up versus subjects who experienced a negative wealth shock between the fourth and sixth year of follow up (6 years vs. no shock), were significantly larger than 0 under the na\u00efve and baseline adjusted method. For MSM and our proposed method all effects were reported to be not significant.\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nIn this paper, we were interested in how a negative wealth shock affects the cognitive ability of late middle aged Americans participating in the HRS from 1996 to 2002. The main difficulty we faced was the presence of death in some subjects causing their cognitive score to be censored. Under situations where we believe death does not depend on the cognitive ability or whether a subject received a negative wealth shock, removing subjects who have died from our analysis would yield an unbiased estimate of the effect of negative wealth shock on cognitive ability as our simulation results suggest. Unfortunately, it is very possible that subjects with lower cognitive ability and/or have experienced a negative wealth shock would have a higher risk of death. In this situation, accounting for the censoring by death would be needed. This is because without randomization, there is a high likelihood that the proportion of deaths between subjects who did not receive a negative wealth shock versus those who received a wealth shock, would be imbalanced. In addition, subjects who die are more likely to have a lower cognition score. As a result, if we remove the subjects who died from our analysis, the effect of the negative wealth shock on cognitive ability that we measure would be confounded by death. Although MSM is commonly employed to weight the subjects who survived, this approach is arguably not sensible and would likely produce biased estimates when the effect depends on the principal strata as well as when adjustments on the weights have to be employed in order to stabilize the MSM estimate. To overcome these issues, we propose a new method to estimate the effect by imputing the counterfactual survival status of each subject in order to compare outcomes among individuals who would survive only under both sets of treatments being considered. Our method remained unbiased for all the simulation scenarios we tried and produced reasonable coverage. When applied to the HRS dataset, our method suggested that the effect of a negative wealth shock on the cognitive ability is close to null whereas the na\u00efve method and MSM suggested an estimate with a slightly larger effect.\n\nOne shortcoming of our approach is our failure to incorporate the HRS sample design, in particular the sampling weights, in our inference. Given that a key use of weights in regression-type analysis is to reduce the effect of model misspecification [@korn], we hope that our use of BART will minimize the degree of model misspecification. We leave the incorporation of such features in a general approach to future work. Another aspect of our method which could be improved is to allow our method to be applicable to studies where the follow-up time is not fixed. In such a situation, Cox based survival models would have to be employed and time would have to be included as a covariate in the survival and outcome models. The difficulty in this extension would be how to develop a systematic way, applicable to all subjects, to determine the relation in time between the allocation of the treatment, measuring the outcome, and death.\n\n                $V$   $Z_1$   $Y_1$   $Y_0$   $S_1$   $S_0$   $Z_2$   $Y_{00}$   $Y_{01}$   $Y_{11}$   $S_{00}$   $S_{01}$   $S_{11}$   $Z_3$   $Y_{000}$   $Y_{001}$   $Y_{011}$   $Y_{111}$  \n  ------------ ----- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --\n   Subject 1     x      1       x       ?       1       1       1        ?          ?          x          1          1          1         1         ?           ?           ?           x      \n   Subject 2     x      0       ?       x       1       1       1        ?          x          ?          1          1          1         1         ?           ?           x           ?      \n   Subject 3     x      1       x       ?       1       1       1        ?          ?          x          1          1          0        NA         ?           ?           ?          NA      \n   Subject 4     x      0       ?       x       1       1       1        ?          x          ?          1          1          0         1         ?           ?           x          NA      \n   Subject 5     x      0       ?       x       1       1       0        x          ?          ?          1          0          1         0         x           ?          NA           ?      \n   Subject 6     x      0       ?       x       1       1       0        x          ?          ?          0          1          1        NA        NA          NA           ?           ?      \n   Subject 7     x      0       ?       x       1       1       0        x          ?          ?          0          1          1        NA        NA          NA           ?           ?      \n   Subject 8     x      0       ?       x       1       1       0        x          ?          ?          1          0          0         0         x           ?          NA          NA      \n   Subject 9     x      1       x       ?       0       1      NA        ?          ?          NA         1          1          0        NA         ?           ?           ?          NA      \n   Subject 10    x      1       x       ?       0       1      NA        ?          ?          NA         0          1          0        NA        NA          NA           ?          NA      \n   Subject 11    x      0       ?       x       0       1       1        ?          x          NA         0          1          0         1        NA          NA           x          NA      \n   Subject 12    x      0       ?       x       0       1       0        x          ?          NA         0          1          0        NA        NA          NA           ?          NA      \n   Subject 13    x      1       x       ?       1       0       1        NA         NA         x          0          0          1         1        NA          NA          NA           x      \n   Subject 14    x      0       ?       x       1       0      NA        NA         NA         ?          0          0          1        NA        NA          NA          NA           ?      \n\n  : Sample example of a censoring by death dataset until $t=3$ where $Z_t=1$ indicates a subject having experienced a negative wealth shock and $Z_t=0$ indicates a subject have not experienced any negative wealth shock till time $t$ \\[chap3:eg2\\_1\\]\n\n                             Scenario 1   Scenario 2    Scenario 3\n  ------------------------- ------------ ------------- -------------\n             $V$             $N(0,2^2)$   $N(17,2^2)$   $N(17,2^2)$\n         $\\gamma_0$              0             2             2\n         $\\gamma_1$            -0.02         -0.2          -0.2\n          $\\beta_0$              0            5.3           5.3\n          $\\beta_Z$             -1.5         -1.5          -1.5\n          $\\beta_V$            0.015         0.15           0.2\n        $\\beta_{VZ}$           -0.005        -0.11         -0.05\n         $\\alpha_0$              0             1             0\n       $\\alpha_{Y_1}$          0.005        0.00625       0.0625\n       $\\alpha_{Y_0}$           0.01        0.0125         0.125\n         $\\alpha_Z$            -0.01         -0.2          -0.2\n         $\\alpha_V$            0.002         0.02          0.02\n        $\\alpha_{VZ}$          -0.002        -0.02         -0.02\n         $\\gamma_2$            -0.002        -0.02         -0.02\n      $\\gamma_{Y_0,2}$         -0.02         -0.2          -0.2\n      $\\beta_{Z_{01}}$          -1.5         -1.5          -1.5\n      $\\beta_{Z_{11}}$           -1           -1            -1\n     $\\beta_{Y_0Z_{00}}$       0.015         0.02           0.3\n     $\\beta_{Y_0Z_{01}}$        0.01         0.015          0.2\n     $\\beta_{Y_1Z_{11}}$       0.005         0.01           0.1\n      $\\beta_{VZ_{01}}$       -0.00011      -0.011        -0.011\n      $\\beta_{VZ_{11}}$       -0.00005      -0.005        -0.005\n      $\\alpha_{Z_{01}}$        -0.01         -0.2          -0.2\n      $\\alpha_{Z_{11}}$        -0.015        -0.1          -0.1\n    $\\alpha_{Y_0Z_{00}}$        0.01        0.0125         0.125\n    $\\alpha_{Y_0Z_{01}}$       0.005        0.00625       0.0625\n    $\\alpha_{Y_1Z_{11}}$       0.0025      0.003125       0.03125\n     $\\alpha_{VZ_{01}}$       -0.0001        -0.02         -0.02\n     $\\alpha_{VZ_{11}}$       -0.0005        -0.05         -0.05\n         $\\gamma_3$           -0.0002       -0.002        -0.002\n      $\\gamma_{Y_0,3}$         -0.002        -0.02         -0.02\n      $\\gamma_{Y_{00}}$        -0.02         -0.2          -0.2\n      $\\beta_{Z_{001}}$         -1.5         -1.5          -1.5\n      $\\beta_{Z_{011}}$          -1           -1            -1\n      $\\beta_{Z_{111}}$         -0.5         -0.5          -0.5\n   $\\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{000}}$     0.015         0.02           0.3\n   $\\beta_{Y_{00}Z_{001}}$      0.01         0.015          0.2\n   $\\beta_{Y_{01}Z_{011}}$     0.005         0.01           0.1\n   $\\beta_{Y_{11}Z_{111}}$     0.0025        0.005         0.05\n      $\\beta_{Y_0Z_0}$         0.0008        0.08          0.08\n      $\\beta_{Y_1Z_1}$         0.0003        0.03          0.03\n     $\\beta_{VZ_{001}}$       -0.00011      -0.011        -0.011\n     $\\beta_{VZ_{011}}$       -0.00005      -0.005        -0.005\n     $\\beta_{VZ_{111}}$       -0.00003      -0.003        -0.003\n\n  : Table of parameters for simulation \\[chap3:sim\\_para1\\]\n\n  -------------------- ------------ --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- -------\n                                                                                                                                                       \n  Parameter             True value    Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL\n  $\\Delta_{1,0}$          -1.497     -0.001    0.032       95.4       0.123   -0.0002   0.032       95.1       0.123   -0.0001   0.032       97.0       0.143\n  $\\Delta_{01,00}$        -1.499     -0.003    0.050       95.3       0.202   -0.003    0.050       95.3       0.202   -0.003    0.050       95.7       0.214\n  $\\Delta_{11,00}$        -1.005     -0.003    0.049       95.0       0.189   -0.001    0.049       94.7       0.189   -0.001    0.049       99.2       0.262\n  $\\Delta_{11,01}$        0.493       0.002    0.048       94.4       0.189    0.003    0.048       94.5       0.189    0.002    0.049       99.1       0.262\n  $\\Delta_{001,000}$      -1.502      0.005    0.081       93.9       0.314    0.005    0.081       98.9       0.411    0.005    0.082       94.6       0.333\n  $\\Delta_{011,000}$      -1.008      0.004    0.074       94.8       0.284    0.004    0.074       99.0       0.370    0.004    0.075       97.8       0.350\n  $\\Delta_{111,000}$      -0.504      0.006    0.072       95.2       0.284    0.007    0.072       99.4       0.371    0.007    0.074      100.0       0.529\n  $\\Delta_{011,001}$      0.495      -0.001    0.071       95.0       0.284   -0.0001   0.072       99.1       0.370   -0.0009   0.072       97.8       0.348\n  $\\Delta_{111,001}$      1.000      -0.0001   0.072       95.6       0.284    0.001    0.072       99.0       0.371    0.001    0.074       99.9       0.528\n  $\\Delta_{111,011}$      0.502       0.003    0.065       94.3       0.250    0.005    0.065       98.9       0.325    0.005    0.067       99.9       0.440\n                                                                                                                                                       \n  Parameter             True value    Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL\n  $\\Delta_{1,0}$          -3.367     -0.047    0.061       78.5       0.154    0.002    0.041       93.8       0.160    0.002    0.041       96.1       0.177\n  $\\Delta_{01,00}$        -1.727     -0.037    0.054       83.2       0.149   -0.032    0.051       86.9       0.150   -0.002    0.037       96.4       0.161\n  $\\Delta_{11,00}$        -1.199     -0.136    0.146       24.5       0.202   -0.020    0.057       92.5       0.204   -0.004    0.053       96.5       0.229\n  $\\Delta_{11,01}$        0.528      -0.098    0.111       49.2       0.199    0.013    0.054       93.7       0.201   -0.001    0.053       97.0       0.226\n  $\\Delta_{001,000}$      -1.727     -0.029    0.062       91.9       0.220   -0.023    0.060       94.8       0.240    0.001    0.053       96.1       0.227\n  $\\Delta_{011,000}$      -1.183     -0.065    0.082       75.0       0.199   -0.047    0.069       87.5       0.217   0.0004    0.048       97.8       0.220\n  $\\Delta_{111,000}$      -1.169     -0.167    0.181       33.8       0.273   -0.042    0.084       93.2       0.305   -0.004    0.071       98.7       0.350\n  $\\Delta_{011,001}$      0.544      -0.036    0.059       88.0       0.185   -0.024    0.053       94.4       0.202   -0.002    0.045       96.7       0.206\n  $\\Delta_{111,001}$      0.558      -0.139    0.153       45.7       0.264   -0.019    0.071       96.3       0.294   -0.007    0.067       98.4       0.331\n  $\\Delta_{111,011}$      0.013      -0.101    0.119       62.9       0.246    0.007    0.065       96.1       0.276   -0.002    0.063       98.1       0.299\n                                                                                                                                                       \n  Parameter             True value    Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL\n  $\\Delta_{1,0}$          -2.347     -0.123    0.130       14.5       0.160    0.002    0.042       94.0       0.160    0.002    0.042       95.9       0.177\n  $\\Delta_{01,00}$        -2.559     -0.114    0.122       23.9       0.165   -0.060    0.074       70.2       0.164   -0.001    0.038       96.4       0.163\n  $\\Delta_{11,00}$        -3.062     -0.231    0.239       2.8        0.232   -0.033    0.068       89.9       0.226   -0.004    0.058       97.0       0.260\n  $\\Delta_{11,01}$        -0.502     -0.118    0.132       48.9       0.233    0.026    0.065       92.2       0.227   -0.003    0.059       96.7       0.260\n  $\\Delta_{001,000}$      -2.820     -0.125    0.139       47.9       0.242   -0.062    0.087       88.7       0.273   -0.0004   0.054       95.9       0.224\n  $\\Delta_{011,000}$      -3.605     -0.143    0.152       19.6       0.198   -0.087    0.101       69.2       0.225   -0.006    0.045       96.4       0.202\n  $\\Delta_{111,000}$      -4.032     -0.290    0.301       5.2        0.319   -0.082    0.117       89.4       0.376   -0.009    0.080       98.6       0.400\n  $\\Delta_{011,001}$      -0.785     -0.019    0.060       93.3       0.225   -0.026    0.063       95.0       0.256   -0.006    0.052       96.7       0.226\n  $\\Delta_{111,001}$      -1.217     -0.160    0.181       54.4       0.336   -0.015    0.087       97.2       0.396   -0.009    0.083       99.3       0.442\n  $\\Delta_{111,011}$      -0.432     -0.141    0.160       54.9       0.306    0.011    0.080       97.4       0.363   -0.006    0.075       98.7       0.373\n  -------------------- ------------ --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- -------\n\n  : Simulation results for sample size 4,000 \\[chap3:sim\\_res1\\]\n\n  -------------------- ------------ -------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- -------\n                                                                                                                                                      \n  Parameter             True value    Bias    RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL\n  $\\Delta_{1,0}$          -1.497     -0.001   0.023       94.2       0.087   0.0003    0.023       94.0       0.087   0.0003    0.023       96.2       0.100\n  $\\Delta_{01,00}$        -1.499     -0.002   0.036       95.3       0.143   -0.001    0.036       94.8       0.143   -0.001    0.037       95.5       0.151\n  $\\Delta_{11,00}$        -1.005     -0.002   0.034       94.8       0.134   -0.0007   0.034       95.1       0.134   -0.001    0.035       98.7       0.183\n  $\\Delta_{11,01}$        0.493      0.001    0.034       94.6       0.134    0.002    0.034       94.4       0.134    0.002    0.035       98.6       0.184\n  $\\Delta_{001,000}$      -1.502     0.005    0.057       95.0       0.222    0.005    0.057       99.0       0.289    0.005    0.058       95.4       0.235\n  $\\Delta_{011,000}$      -1.008     0.004    0.051       94.5       0.201    0.004    0.051       98.4       0.260    0.004    0.052       97.1       0.246\n  $\\Delta_{111,000}$      -0.504     0.005    0.051       95.1       0.201    0.007    0.052       98.3       0.261    0.006    0.053       99.7       0.369\n  $\\Delta_{011,001}$      0.495      -0.002   0.051       94.6       0.200   -0.002    0.051       99.1       0.260   -0.002    0.052       97.8       0.247\n  $\\Delta_{111,001}$      1.000      -0.001   0.052       94.2       0.201   0.0001    0.052       98.7       0.261   -0.0005   0.054       99.8       0.369\n  $\\Delta_{111,011}$      0.502      0.003    0.046       93.8       0.177    0.004    0.047       98.4       0.229    0.004    0.048       99.8       0.308\n                                                                                                                                                      \n  Parameter             True value    Bias    RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL\n  $\\Delta_{1,0}$          -3.367     -0.047   0.055       59.6       0.109    0.002    0.029       94.0       0.113    0.003    0.029       95.9       0.125\n  $\\Delta_{01,00}$        -1.727     -0.036   0.045       73.4       0.105   -0.031    0.041       78.8       0.106   -0.001    0.026       96.1       0.113\n  $\\Delta_{11,00}$        -1.199     -0.134   0.139       4.0        0.142   -0.018    0.041       92.4       0.144   -0.001    0.036       96.9       0.161\n  $\\Delta_{11,01}$        0.528      -0.098   0.105       21.9       0.140    0.013    0.038       94.0       0.142   -0.001    0.036       97.4       0.158\n  $\\Delta_{001,000}$      -1.727     -0.029   0.049       87.9       0.156   -0.024    0.047       93.2       0.170   0.0001    0.038       96.2       0.160\n  $\\Delta_{011,000}$      -1.183     -0.066   0.075       54.3       0.141   -0.048    0.060       77.7       0.153   -0.001    0.036       97.7       0.156\n  $\\Delta_{111,000}$      -1.169     -0.166   0.173       7.8        0.193   -0.040    0.065       90.4       0.215   -0.003    0.049       98.9       0.246\n  $\\Delta_{011,001}$      0.544      -0.038   0.050       81.5       0.131   -0.025    0.042       92.1       0.142   -0.002    0.032       97.2       0.145\n  $\\Delta_{111,001}$      0.558      -0.137   0.145       17.3       0.186   -0.017    0.050       96.7       0.208   -0.005    0.046       98.7       0.233\n  $\\Delta_{111,011}$      0.013      -0.098   0.108       38.0       0.174    0.010    0.046       96.4       0.194   0.0004    0.044       98.2       0.210\n                                                                                                                                                      \n  Parameter             True value    Bias    RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL     Bias     RMSE    95% Coverage    AIL\n  $\\Delta_{1,0}$          -2.347     -0.123   0.126       1.5        0.113    0.002    0.029       94.5       0.113    0.003    0.029       95.7       0.124\n  $\\Delta_{01,00}$        -2.559     -0.114   0.118       3.4        0.117   -0.060    0.067       49.3       0.113   -0.001    0.028       96.1       0.115\n  $\\Delta_{11,00}$        -3.062     -0.230   0.234       0.1        0.164   -0.032    0.052       86.5       0.159   -0.004    0.040       97.3       0.183\n  $\\Delta_{11,01}$        -0.502     -0.118   0.125       19.4       0.164    0.026    0.048       91.0       0.160   -0.003    0.040       98.2       0.184\n  $\\Delta_{001,000}$      -2.820     -0.125   0.133       16.6       0.171   -0.063    0.076       78.3       0.192   -0.002    0.039       95.6       0.157\n  $\\Delta_{011,000}$      -3.605     -0.143   0.147       2.2        0.140   -0.087    0.093       40.8       0.159   -0.007    0.032       96.7       0.142\n  $\\Delta_{111,000}$      -4.032     -0.290   0.296       0.1        0.225   -0.081    0.099       81.5       0.265   -0.010    0.057       98.7       0.282\n  $\\Delta_{011,001}$      -0.785     -0.018   0.044       93.4       0.159   -0.024    0.047       94.7       0.181   -0.005    0.037       97.0       0.161\n  $\\Delta_{111,001}$      -1.217     -0.160   0.171       22.4       0.238   -0.013    0.062       97.1       0.278   -0.008    0.059       98.7       0.311\n  $\\Delta_{111,011}$      -0.432     -0.142   0.152       26.4       0.216    0.011    0.056       97.9       0.255   -0.006    0.052       98.7       0.264\n  -------------------- ------------ -------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- ------- --------- ------- -------------- -------\n\n  : Simulation results for sample size 8,000 \\[chap3:sim\\_res2\\]\n\n  ---------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----------\n                                    No wealth shock          Ever wealth shock     \n  Variables                     Mean/Frequency (S.E./%)   Mean/Frequency (S.E./%)   $p$-value\n  Eventually survived?:                                                               0.57\n  $\\quad$ Yes                        6,207 (94.7)               516 (94.0)         \n  $\\quad$ No                           350 (5.3)                 33 (6.0)          \n  Cognitive score                    17.07 (4.07)              16.26 (4.35)          $<0.01$\n  BMI                                27.21 (4.84)              27.73 (5.40)           0.03\n  Self-reported health                                                               $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ Excellent                  1,207 (19.9)                83 (15.7)         \n  $\\quad$ Very Good                  2,126 (35.0)               128 (24.3)         \n  $\\quad$ Good                       1,715 (28.2)               163 (30.9)         \n  $\\quad$ Fair                        763 (12.6)                103 (19.5)         \n  $\\quad$ Poor                         261 (4.3)                 50 (9.5)          \n  Current Smoking status:                                                            $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ Never                      2,353 (40.0)               166 (32.4)         \n  $\\quad$ Former                     2,410 (41.0)               187 (36.5)         \n  $\\quad$ Current                    1,116 (19.0)               159 (31.1)         \n  Alcohol consumption:                                                               $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ Never                      3,799 (62.9)               347 (66.1)         \n  $\\quad$ Moderate                   1,686 (27.9)               116 (22.1)         \n  $\\quad$ Heavy                        555 (9.2)                 62 (11.8)         \n  Insured?:                                                                          $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ No                         1,014 (15.5)               120 (21.9)         \n  $\\quad$ Yes                        5,543 (84.5)               429 (78.1)         \n  Depression?:                                                                       $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ No                         4,922 (85.5)               361 (73.1)         \n  $\\quad$ Yes                         832 (14.5)                133 (26.9)         \n  Income (log transformed)           10.48 (1.21)              10.18 (1.45)          $<0.01$\n  Labor force status:                                                                $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ Working                    3,111 (51.2)               314 (59.6)         \n  $\\quad$ Unemployed                   96 (1.6)                  13 (2.5)          \n  $\\quad$ Retired                    2,178 (35.9)               104 (19.7)         \n  $\\quad$ Disabled                     143 (2.4)                 43 (8.2)          \n  $\\quad$ Not in labor force           547 (9.0)                 53 (10.1)         \n  Martial status:                                                                    $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ Married                    4,897 (80.8)               373 (70.8)         \n  $\\quad$ Divorced                     591 (9.7)                 90 (17.1)         \n  $\\quad$ Widowed                      426 (7.0)                 42 (8.0)          \n  $\\quad$ Never Married                149 (2.5)                 22 (4.2)          \n  Wealth rank in tertiles:                                                           $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ 0                          1,728 (26.4)               326 (59.4)         \n  $\\quad$ 1                          2,360 (36.0)               124 (22.6)         \n  $\\quad$ 2                          2,469 (37.7)                99 (18.0)         \n  Gender:                                                                             0.08\n  $\\quad$ Male                       3,113 (47.5)               239 (43.5)         \n  $\\quad$ Female                     3,444 (52.5)               310 (56.5)         \n  ---------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----------\n\n  : Descriptive statistics of 1996 Health and Retirement Study (baseline), part 1 \\[chap3:des\\_stat1\\]\n\n  ------------------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -----------\n                                            No wealth shock          Ever wealth shock     \n  Variables                             Mean/Frequency (S.E./%)   Mean/Frequency (S.E./%)   $p$-value\n  Ever had diabetes?:                                                                        $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ No                                 5,474 (90.2)               451 (85.6)         \n  $\\quad$ Yes                                  596 (9.8)                 76 (14.4)         \n  Ever had heart problems?:                                                                   0.43\n  $\\quad$ No                                 5,343 (88.0)               457 (86.7)         \n  $\\quad$ Yes                                 730 (12.0)                 70 (13.3)         \n  Ever had HBP?:                                                                              0.07\n  $\\quad$ No                                 3,888 (64.0)               316 (60.0)         \n  $\\quad$ Yes                                2,183 (36.0)               211 (40.0)         \n  Ever had psych problems?:                                                                  $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ No                                 5,691 (93.7)               469 (89.2)         \n  $\\quad$ Yes                                  380 (6.3)                 57 (10.8)         \n  Ever had stroke?:                                                                            0.1\n  $\\quad$ No                                 5,912 (97.3)               506 (96.0)         \n  $\\quad$ Yes                                  161 (2.7)                 21 (4.0)          \n  Age                                        59.73 (3.19)              57.26 (2.18)          $<0.01$\n  Number of education years centered          0.52 (2.93)              -0.17 (3.32)          $<0.01$\n  Race:                                                                                      $<0.01$\n  $\\quad$ Non-hispanic White                 5,236 (79.9)               342 (62.3)         \n  $\\quad$ Non-hispanic Black                  759 (11.6)                120 (21.9)         \n  $\\quad$ Hispanic                             449 (6.8)                 70 (12.8)         \n  $\\quad$ Other                                113 (1.7)                 17 (3.1)          \n  ------------------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------- -----------\n\n  : Descriptive statistics of 1996 Health and Retirement Study (baseline), part 2 \\[chap3:des\\_stat2\\]\n\n                        Never shocked   Ever shocked   Change in proportion shocked\n  -------------------- --------------- -------------- ------------------------------\n  Baseline to Wave 1        0.19           -1.61                   3.5%\n  Wave 1 to Wave 2          -0.55           0.06                   2.1%\n  Wave 2 to Wave 3          -0.05          -0.10                   1.3%\n\n  : Change in unadjusted cognitive score between consecutive waves stratified by negative wealth shock status\\[chap3:cog\\_score\\_ts\\]\n\n  ---------------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- ---------------\n                                                                                                                      \n                          Estimate       95% CI       Estimate      95% CI       Estimate      95% CI       Estimate      95% CI\n  2 years vs. no shock     -0.51     (-1.45, 0.35)     -0.51     (-1.37, 0.3)     -0.01     (-1.18, 1.07)    -0.13     (-0.83, 0.58)\n  4 years vs. no shock     -0.69     (-1.45, 0.05)      -0.7     (-1.4, 0.03)     -0.31     (-1.23, 0.58)     0.18     (-0.73, 1.09)\n  6 years vs. no shock     -1.95     (-2.62, -1.25)    -1.94     (-2.6, -1.26)    -0.12     (-1.12, 0.89)    -0.18     (-0.87, 0.51)\n  4 years vs. 2 years      -0.18     (-1.33, 1.04)     -0.19     (-1.26, 0.94)     -0.3     (-1.78, 1.15)     0.31     (-0.58, 1.20)\n  6 years vs. 2 years      -1.45     (-2.54, -0.38)    -1.43     (-2.46, -0.4)     -0.1     (-1.61, 1.36)    -0.03     (-0.83, 0.78)\n  6 years vs. 4 years      -1.26     (-2.27, -0.2)     -1.24     (-2.2, -0.24)     0.19     (-1.11, 1.61)    -0.38     (-1.36, 0.61)\n  ---------------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- --------------- ---------- ---------------\n\n  : Effect estimate of negative wealth shock on cognitive score for late middle aged adults in original Health Retirment Study cohort from 1996 to 2002. \\[chap3:anal\\_res\\]\n\nAdjusted by gender, education category, race, cognitive score, BMI, self-reported health status, alcohol consumption, insurance status, depression status, income, labor force status, marital status, age, smoking status, diabetes status, heart condition, HBP status, psychological problem status, and stroke status at baseline as well as time-varying self-reported health status, alcohol consumption, insurance status, income, labor force status, smoking status, number of health conditions, and depression.\n\n$\\dagger$Adjusted by gender, education category, race, cognitive score, BMI, self-reported health status, alcohol consumption, insurance status, depression status, income, labor force status, marital status, age, smoking status, diabetes status, heart condition, HBP status, psychological problem status, and stroke status at baseline.\n\n[^1]: (e-mail: yvt4@sph.rutgers.edu)\n"}
-{"text": "---\nbibliography:\n- 'eddy\\_clean.bib'\ntitle: 'Quantifying the eddy-jet feedback strength of the annular mode in an idealized GCM and reanalysis data'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe annular mode is a dominant mode of variability of the extratropical circulation in both hemispheres on intraseasonal to interannual timescales [@Kidson1988; @Thompson1998; @Gong1999; @Thompson2000]. The annular mode corresponds to the leading empirical orthogonal function (EOF) of zonal mean zonal wind, which features an equivalent barotropic dipolar structure and represents latitudinal shifts of the eddy-driven midlatitude jet [@Nigam1990; @Hartmann1998; @Thompson2014; @Thompson2015]. The zonal index, the time series associated with the annular mode, is essentially the same concept as that discussed in the pioneering studies of the variability of the general circulation [@Rossby1939; @Namias1950; @Wallace1985]. The annular mode in the Northern Hemisphere is often considered in recent studies as the hemispheric manifestation of the North Atlantic Oscillation [e.g., @Wallace2000; @Vallis2004]. The annular mode is characterized by temporal persistence [@Baldwin2003; @Gerber2008a; @Gerber2008b], for which it has been suggested that a positive feedback between anomalous zonal flow and eddy fluxes is responsible [e.g., @Feldstein1998; @Robinson2000; @Gerber2006; @Lorenz2001 hereafter, LH01]. For example, @Robinson2000 suggested that at the latitudes of a positive anomaly of barotropic zonal wind, while surface drag tends to slow down low-level westerlies, it also enhances baroclinicity, which leads to stronger eddy generation. When the eddies propagate away, in the upper troposphere, from the latitudes where they are generated, the associated anomalies of eddy momentum flux reinforce the original zonal wind anomaly. As another example, @Gerber2006 argued that anomalous baroclinicity is not necessarily required for a positive eddy-jet feedback, as the mean flow anomaly can change the position of the critical latitudes for wave breaking and influence the eddy momentum flux convergence.\n\nQuantifying the strength of eddy-jet feedback is important for understanding both internal variability and response to external forcing. One common issue with the current GCMs is that the simulated annular mode is too persistent compared to observations [@Gerber2008a], which not only indicates biases of jet variability, but also suggests overestimation of changes in the extratropical circulation in response to anthropogenic forcing in the models. According to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@Leith1975], the magnitude of the forced response is positively related to the timescale of the unforced variability, a relationship that has been confirmed qualitatively in some atmospheric models [e.g., @Ring2008; @Chen2009].\n\nBased on the assumption that the mean-state-independent eddy forcing does not have long-term memory, LH01 and @Simpson2013b [hereafter, S13] attributed positive values of lagged correlations between the zonal index and the eddy forcing, when the zonal index leads eddy forcing by a few days, to a positive feedback, and proposed statistical methods to quantify the strength of eddy-jet feedback in observations and simulations to improve understanding of the persistence of the jet. [Even though]{} S13 validated their method using synthetic time series generated by a second-order autoregressive process, [their]{} statistical method[, as well as the statistical method proposed by LH01, would benefit from an assessment]{} with more realistic time series of zonal index and eddy forcing. Due to the chaotic nature of eddies, the mean-state-dependent eddy forcing cannot be separated from the mean-state-independent part in the reanalysis data, and as a result, it is difficult to validate the assumptions of these statistical methods. Furthermore, a recent study showed that the existence of an internal eddy feedback cannot be distinguished from the presence of external interannual forcing using only the statistical methods (Byrne et al. 2016).\n\nIn the present study a linear response function (LRF), following @Pedram2016a, is used to identify the anomalous eddy fluxes in response to mean state anomalies that match the spatial pattern of annular mode in an idealized GCM. This provides the \u201cground truth\" in the idealized GCM, and serves as a benchmark against which one can assess the statistical methods. The LRF will be briefly explained in Section 2, along with model configuration and the reanalysis data. In Section 3, the annular mode and a simple model of eddy-jet feedback will be introduced, followed by quantification of the feedback strength using different methods in Section 4. Discussions and a brief summary are presented in Section 5.\n\nMethodology\n===========\n\nFor the numerical simulations, we use the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory dry dynamical core, which solves the primitive equations with Held-Suarez forcing [@Held1994]. Temperature is relaxed to an equinoctial radiative-equilibrium state with an equator-to-pole temperature difference of 60 K. Similar setups have been widely used to study the midlatitude circulation and its low-frequency variability [e.g., @Gerber2008b; @Chen2009; @Hassanzadeh2014; @Hassanzadeh2015; @McGraw2016]. Each simulation is integrated for 45000 days at the T63 resolution (horizontal spacing of around 200 km) with 40 vertical levels and 6-hourly outputs, and the first 500 days are discarded. Ten ensemble simulations are conducted for the control (CTL) and an experiment (EXP). In EXP, a zonally symmetric time-invariant forcing is applied to zonal wind and temperature, so that the difference of the equilibrium mean states between EXP and CTL matches the pattern of the annular mode in CTL. This external forcing is calculated using the LRF found by @Pedram2016a, and EXP is essentially the same as Test 3 in their article. The LRF ($\\mathbf{L}$ in Equation 1) relates anomalous state vector $\\mathbf{x}$ to its temporal tendency and an external forcing $\\mathbf{f}$ as,\n\n$$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{1}\n\\frac{d\\mathbf{x}}{dt} = \\mathbf{L} \\mathbf{x} + \\mathbf{f},$$\n\nin which $\\mathbf{x}$ consists of $[\\mathbf{u}]$ and $[\\mathbf{T}]$, zonally averaged (denoted by square brackets) zonal wind and temperature anomalies from the mean state of CTL. Assuming that eddies are in statistical equilibrium with the mean flow in the long-term integrations, Equation 1 is valid for weak external forcings (see Hassanzadeh and Kuang 2016a for more details). With $\\mathbf{x}_{o}$ denoting the anomalous state vector associated with the annular mode, the particular external forcing for EXP is $\\mathbf{f}_{o} = -\\mathbf{L} \\mathbf{x}_{o}$.\n\n[It is worth mentioning that Hassanzadeh and Kuang (2016a) have shown that the leading EOF of \\[u\\] and \\[T\\] strongly resembles the singular vector of the LRF that has the smallest singular number]{} [the so-called neutral vector, see @Goodman2002], [which confirms that the annular mode is indeed a dynamical mode, rather than a statistical artifact, in the idealized GCM. They further argued that given the similarities between the annular mode in the real atmosphere and the one simulated in the idealized GCM, it is plausible that the annular mode is also the neutral vector and hence a real dynamical mode of the real atmosphere (and atmospheres modeled with more complex GCMs), which can explain the ubiquity of annular-mode-like responses in the forced atmospheric circulations.]{}\n\nFor the observational analysis, National Centers for Environmental Prediction reanalysis 2.5$^\\circ$ latitude $\\times$ 2.5$^\\circ$ longitude 6-hourly wind and temperature from 1951 to 2014 are used. Anomalies are calculated by removing the annual average and the first four Fourier harmonics as in LH01. Following @Baldwin2009, spatial weighting is applied to EOF analysis and projections of spatial patterns to compensate for the uneven distribution of grids in both model outputs and reanalysis data. For spectral analyses, input data is divided into 1024-day segments unless otherwise noted.\n\n[Here, we emphasize that 6-hourly data, rather than daily data, is used in the present study in order to capture the medium-scale waves]{} [@Sato2000]. [It has been shown that the medium-scale waves, which have timescales shorter than 2 days, play an important role in the annular mode dynamics despite their weak climatological amplitudes]{} [@Kuroda2011].\n\nAnnular mode and eddy-jet feedback\n==================================\n\nJet climatology and annular mode structure\n------------------------------------------\n\n[We]{} will be focusing on the Southern annular mode in the reanalysis data [for simplicity, considering the longitudinal symmetry in the Southern Hemisphere]{}. There are two separate jets in the Southern Hemisphere [climatology]{} (Figure 1a), namely, the subtropical jet centering around 35$^\\circ$S and the midlatitude jet at around 50$^\\circ$S. [Strictly following LH01, the zonal index is defined as the leading principal component (PC) of $\\langle [\\mathbf{u}]\\rangle$, in which the angle brackets denote vertical average. The leading EOF of $\\langle [\\mathbf{u}]\\rangle$ explains 40$\\%$ of the total variance, while the second EOF explains 20$\\%$. Here the zonal index is normalized so that its standard deviation is one. The latitude-pressure pattern of $[\\mathbf{u}]$ and $[\\mathbf{T}]$ associated with the annular mode in the reanalysis data can be seen by regressing $[\\mathbf{u}]$ and $[\\mathbf{T}]$ on the zonal index at zero-day lag (Figures 1bc). Note that the correlation between the zonal index and the leading PC of $[\\mathbf{u}]$ is 0.995, so Figure 1b is essentially equivalent to the leading EOF of $ [\\mathbf{u}]$.]{} The anomalous zonal mean zonal wind associated with the annular mode is characterized by an equivalent barotropic dipole, which is, as expected, in thermal wind balance with the zonal mean temperature anomaly. Variations in the zonal index represent [north-south]{} vacillations of the eddy-driven jet [e.g., @Hartmann1998].\n\n![image](g01.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nFor model outputs, both hemispheres are analyzed, but the Northern Hemisphere is flipped and plotted as the Southern Hemisphere, as the model is symmetric about the equator. The climatology in the simulations with the same model configuration has been well documented [e.g., @Held1994]. In brief, a confined midlatitude jet centering around 40$^\\circ$S, 10$^\\circ$ equatorward to the eddy-driven jet in the reanalysis data, is produced in the CTL (Figure 2a). The zonal index is again calculated as the leading PC of $\\langle [\\mathbf{u}]\\rangle$. The leading EOF of $\\langle [\\mathbf{u}]\\rangle$ explains 50$\\%$ of the total variance in the model, while the second EOF explains 18$\\%$. Despite the idealized nature of the GCM, [the tropospheric dipolar]{} pattern of zonal wind of the annular mode produced in the model compares reasonably well with the Southern annular mode in the reanalysis data (Figures 2bc).\n\n![image](F01.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nSimple model of feedback\n------------------------\n\n[In their seminal work]{}, LH01 introduced a simple model of the eddy-jet feedback, which will be briefly explained in this section. With the same notations as in LH01, $z(t)$ indicates the zonal index, and $m(t)$ denotes the time series of eddy forcing on the annular mode, which is defined as the projection of the anomalous eddy momentum convergence onto the leading EOF of $\\langle [\\mathbf{u}]\\rangle$. As discussed in LH01, the tendency of $z$ is formulated as, $$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{2a}\n dz/dt = m - z/\\tau,$$\n\nin which $\\tau$ is the damping timescale. Equation 2a can be interpreted as the zonally and vertically averaged zonal momentum equation (LH01), $$%\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{}\n \\frac{\\partial \\langle[u]\\rangle}{\\partial t} = \\frac{1}{\\cos^2 \\phi} \\frac{\\partial(\\langle[u'v']\\rangle \\cos^2 \\phi)}{a \\partial \\phi} - F,$$ [where $u'$ and $v'$ are deviations of zonal wind and meridional wind from their respective zonal means, $\\phi$ is the latitude, $a$ is the Earth\u2019s radius, and $F$ includes the effects of surface drag and secondary circulation.]{}\n\nWith capital letters denoting the Fourier transform of the corresponding lower case variables and $\\omega$ denoting [angular]{} frequency, Equation 2a can be written as,\n\n$$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{2b}\ni\\omega Z = M - {Z}/{\\tau}$$\n\nFigure 3a shows the power spectrum of the zonal index in the reanalysis data, with a lowest resolved frequency of 1/1024 cycles per day (cpd). The zonal index features increasing power with decreasing frequency. At intraseasonal and shorter timescales, where the dominant balance of Equation 2b is between $i\\omega Z$ and $M$, the power spectrum of zonal index can be interpreted, to the first order, as reddening of the power spectrum of eddy forcing (Figure 3b). The broad peak at synoptic timescale in the power spectrum of eddy forcing (Figure 3c) is an intrinsic characteristic of the mean-state-independent eddies (LH01). At timescales longer than around 50 days, a positive eddy-jet feedback is suggested to be responsible for the high power of both of the zonal index and eddy forcing, where the dominant balance of Equation 2b is between $Z/\\tau$ and $M$. [A linear feedback model for]{} $M$ (e.g., Hasselmann 1976; LH01) can be [written as]{},\n\n$$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{3}\nM = \\tilde{M} + bZ,$$\n\nwhere $\\tilde{M}$ is the mean-state-independent eddy forcing, and $b$ is the strength of the eddy-jet feedback. In equilibrium, $b$ must be smaller than $1/\\tau$ in both GCMs and the realistic atmosphere, otherwise the zonal index grows unboundedly. Plugging Equation 3 into Equation 2b returns,\n\n$$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{4}\ni\\omega Z = \\tilde{M}  + (b - 1/{\\tau})Z$$\n\nIf we consider $\\tilde{M}$ as [white noise at low frequencies]{}, the amplitude of $Z$ is inversely proportional to the difference between $1/\\tau$ and $b$ at the low-frequency limit (i.e., neglecting the left hand side of Equation 4). The stronger the eddy feedback is (i.e., the closer $b$ is to $1/\\tau$), the higher power $Z$ has at intraseasonal and longer timescales. Note that if $b=0$, the amplitude of $Z$ is inversely proportional to $1/\\tau$ at the low-frequency limit, and at intraseasonal to interannual timescales the zonal index will still have increasing power with decreasing frequency [@Hasselmann1976], although the annular mode will be less persistent than that with a positive eddy feedback.\n\n![image](g02.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThe autocorrelation function of the zonal index decreases more slowly with lag time than that of the eddy forcing (Figure 3cd). The negative autocorrelations of eddy forcing at small lag time indicates the quasi-oscillatory nature of the eddies (Figure 3d), which is consistent with the broad maximum in the power spectrum at 7-15 days. The cross-correlation of $m$ and $z$ peaks at around 0.53, when the zonal index lags eddy forcing by 1-2 days as the zonal index is driven by the eddy forcing (Figure 4). Negative cross-correlations when the zonal index leads eddy forcing by a fews days result from the oscillatory behavior of eddy forcing, and positive values at large lags suggest a positive eddy-jet feedback according to LH01.\n\n![image](g03.pdf){width=\"50.00000%\"}\n\nDespite some biases, the CTL is able to capture the general features of the system as in the reanalysis data described above (Figure 5). The broad peak of eddy forcing at synoptic timescales in the power spectrum is more pronounced in the model, which indicates that the eddy forcing is more oscillatory in the idealized GCM. @Chen2009 argued that the shoulders in the autocorrelation function of the zonal index at around $\\pm$4-day lag can be attributed to the strong oscillatory nature of eddy forcing in the idealized GCM. Also, the annular mode is more persistent in this GCM, as the cross-correlation between $m$ and $z$ decays more slowly compared to that in the reanalysis data (Figures 4 and 6), or equivalently, the simulated zonal index has higher power at intraseasonal and longer timescales compared to that in the reanalysis data. Note that this is not just a bias of this idealized GCM. Too persistent annular modes are seen in GCMs of varying degrees of complexity, the cause of which is unknown and remains an important topic of research [@Gerber2008a; @Gerber2008b; @Nie2014].\n\n![image](F02.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\n![image](F03.pdf){width=\"50.00000%\"}\n\nEddy-jet feedback strength\n==========================\n\nThe LRF will first be used to calculate the \u201cground truth\" of the eddy-jet feedback strength associated with the leading EOF of $\\langle [u] \\rangle$ (i.e., the annular mode), as well as the second EOF, in the idealized GCM. Three different statistical methods, namely, fitting cross-correlation functions (LH01), lag regression (S13) and regression using low-pass filtered data (introduced in the present study), will be used to estimate the eddy feedback strength of the annular mode in the idealized GCM, and evaluated against the result from the LRF. Then we will apply the statistical methods to investigate the eddy feedback associated with the annular mode in the reanalysis data.\n\nLinear response function\n------------------------\n\nWith a zonally symmetric time-invariant forcing, the deviations of mean state in EXP from that in CTL (Figures 7ab) are nearly identical to the pattern of the annular mode (Figures 2bc)[, with a pattern correlation of 0.995]{}. Note that the changes in the mean state from CTL to EXP are caused by the imposed external forcing and are long term averages so that the eddies are in statistical equilibrium with the mean state. The changes of eddy fluxes from CTL to EXP are the response to the mean state changes, rather than the cause of the deviation of the mean state. The anomalous eddy fluxes are shown in Figures 7cd, the pattern of which largely agrees with LH01. In the region of positive zonal wind anomalies (around 50$^\\circ$), meridional temperature gradient increases at low levels (Figures 7ab), leading to enhanced baroclinic wave generation and stronger eddy heat flux (Figure 7d). Correspondingly, the equatorward propagation of waves enhances the poleward eddy momentum flux at around 45$^\\circ$, which reinforces the zonal wind anomaly (Figure 7c). The strength of the eddy feedback can be calculated by projecting the anomalous eddy momentum flux convergence onto the anomalous zonal wind (see Baldwin et al. 2009 for details about projection of data with spatial weighting). The averaged feedback strength of the 10 ensemble simulations (referred to as $b_{LRF}$ hereafter) is around 0.137 day$^{-1}$, which is denoted by the red solid line in Figure 8. The red dashed lines in Figure 8 show the 95$\\%$ confidence intervals of $b_{LRF}$, indicating little spread across the ensemble members. $b_{LRF}$ is considered as the ground truth in the idealized GCM.\n\n![image](F04.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\n![image](F05.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThe mean-state-independent eddy forcing is not directly observable and cannot be separated from the mean-state-dependent eddy forcing in the reanalysis data, but can be computed in the idealized GCM as $\\tilde{M} = M - b_{LRF}Z$. The power spectrum of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is shown in Figure 9. At timescales shorter than around 50 days, the mean-state-independent eddy forcing dominates the total eddy forcing. In particular, it is confirmed that the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is responsible for the broad peak of total eddy forcing at synoptic timescales. At timescales longer than 50 days, the strength of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing decreases with decreasing frequency, while the strength of the total eddy forcing rises as frequency decreases.\n\n![image](F06.pdf){width=\"22pc\"}\n\n[At intraseasonal to interannual timescales, the total eddy forcing is dominated by mean-state-dependent eddy forcing. Here, the role of the medium-scale waves, whose period is shorter than 2 days, in the annular mode dynamics is emphasized. It has been shown that the amplitude of the medium-scale waves, which is weak in the climatology, is strongly modified by the annular mode, and the fluxes resulting from these waves have a substantial contribution to the annular mode dynamics]{} [@Kuroda2011]. At interannual timescales, the total eddy forcing calculated from daily wind anomalies captures less than half of the total eddy forcing calculated from 6-hourly wind anomalies in the idealized GCM (Figure 10a). The results suggest that the eddy-jet feedback will be strongly underestimated without accounting for medium-scale waves. In fact, with daily model outputs, $b_{LRF}$ is around 0.083 day$^{-1}$, 40$\\%$ weaker than that calculated using 6-hourly model outputs.\n\n![image](g06.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\n[Although the focus of the present work is on the annular mode (i.e., the leading EOF of the zonal mean zonal wind), we also apply the LRF framework to the second EOF, which is characterized by a tripolar pattern of zonal wind anomalies and corresponds to the fluctuations of the amplitude of the jet (Figure 11a). With a stronger midlatitude jet, temperature gradient is enhanced between 30$^\\circ$S-40$^\\circ$S below around 300 hPa (Figure 11b). Poleward eddy heat flux is strengthened due to sharper temperature gradient (Figure 11d), and the anomalous eddy momentum flux associated with second EOF tends to export momentum out of the jet (Figure 11c). Using another ensemble of 10 simulations with an external forcing calculated for the second EOF, it is found that the eddy feedback associated with the second EOF is negative, and the strength of the feedback is -0.264 day$^{-1}$. This is consistent with the findings of LH01, who inferred from a lag-regression analysis that the feedback is negative. LH01 also argued that the anomalous eddy momentum flux associated with the second EOF tend to weaken the jet as a result of increased barotropic shear, i.e. the barotropic governor effect]{} [@James1987].\n\n![image](F04b.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nFitting cross-correlation functions (LH01)\n------------------------------------------\n\nIn a pioneering study, LH01 inferred the existence of a positive eddy-jet feedback in the annular mode dynamics from the reanalysis data and based on the the assumption that the mean-state-independent eddy forcing has short memory (i.e., the time series of $\\tilde{m}$ has a short decorrelation timescale), and proposed the following method to quantify the strength of the feedback by fitting the covariance functions. If $b$ = 0, Equation 4 becomes,\n\n$$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{5}\ni\\omega \\tilde{Z} = \\tilde{M} - \\tilde{Z}/{\\tau},$$\n\nwhere $\\tilde{Z}$ denotes the zonal index in a system without eddy-jet feedback. The covariance between $\\tilde{z}$ and $\\tilde{m}$ must be close to zero when $\\tilde{z}$ leads $\\tilde{m}$ by a period longer than the decorrelation timescale of the mean-state-independent eddies. It has been shown that the covariance between $\\tilde{z}$ and $\\tilde{m}$ is a function of $b$ and the covariance between ${z}$ and ${m}$ (see LH01 for details), and $b$ can be estimated by minimizing the mean squared cross-correlations at lags longer than a particular decorrelation timescale. For instance, assuming a decorrelation time of 7 days, the estimated strength of eddy-jet feedback (hereafter $b_{LH}$) is around 0.13 day$^{-1}$, and the red curve in Figure 6 shows the corresponding cross-correlations between $\\tilde{z}$ and $\\tilde{m}$. Bootstrap confidence intervals (at 95$\\%$ confidence levels) are plotted to indicate errors (black dashed curves in Figure 8a). A bootstrap ensemble of 5000 members is constructed by resampling from the original time series. Feedback strength is calculated for each of the bootstrap ensemble member, which provides the probability density function of $b_{LH}$ and thus the confidence intervals. $b_{LH}$ varies with the choices of decorrelation time. Note that it is difficult to determine an optimal decorrelation time [*a priori* due to the quasi-oscillatory behavior of $\\tilde{m}$]{}, especially when the decorrelation timescale varies by season [e.g., @Sheshadri2016].\n\nLag regressions\n---------------\n\nLag regression is applied to find the feedback strength following S13. Denote the auto-covariance function of $z$ with lag $l$ as $\\gamma_z (l)$, and write the cross-covariance function between $z$ and $m$ as $\\gamma_{zm} (l)$ when $z$ leads $m$ by $l$ days. Consider the lag regression model $m(t) = \\beta(l)z(t-l) $, the lag regression coefficient $\\beta$ is, $$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{6}\n\\beta(l) = \\frac{\\gamma_{zm}(l)}{\\gamma_{z}(0)}$$\n\nWith Equation 3, the right hand side of Equation 6 can be decomposed into two parts: $$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{7}\n\\beta(l) = \\frac{\\gamma_{z\\tilde{m}}(l)}{\\gamma_{z}(0)} +b\\frac{\\gamma_{z}(l)}{\\gamma_{z}(0)},$$ in which the first term on the right hand side [is negligible]{} if $z$ is decorrelated with $\\tilde{m}$ beyond lag $l$ days, and therefore the feedback strength can be estimated as,\n\n$$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{8}\nb_{S} = \\beta(l) \\frac{\\gamma_{z}(0)} {\\gamma_{z}(l)}$$\n\nFigure 8b shows the strength of eddy-jet feedback calculated using Equation 8, with 95$\\%$ confidence intervals estimated with bootstrapping as in Section 4b. While the margin of error grows with lag time, the strength of eddy-jet feedback is largely underestimated, and the bias results from the quasi-oscillatory nature of the eddy forcing. Using lag regression, we are also able to estimate the pattern of anomalous eddy fluxes associated with the annular mode. The pressure-latitude distribution of eddy flux anomaly generally agrees with the results from LRF, with a pattern correlation over 0.9 through a wide range of lag days (figures not shown).\n\nLow-pass filtering\n------------------\n\nThe bias with lag regression suggests that the correlation between $\\tilde{m}$ and $z$ is not negligible [relative to the correlation between $m$ and $z$]{} at a lag as long as 30 days (Figure 8b). One can expect that at longer lag timescales, $\\tilde{m}$ and $z$ eventually become decorrelated and thus Equation 8 will be valid, but it can also be expected that with such long lag time, the margin of error will be large so that the estimation is uninformative. Inspired by the observation that the strength of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing vanishes at the low-frequency limit (Figure 9), here we propose a new method to bypass this issue. Multiplied by ${Z^{*}}/{(ZZ^{*})}$ on both sides, where $Z^{*}$ denotes the conjugate of $Z$, Equation 3 becomes:\n\n$$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{9}\n\\frac{MZ^*}{ZZ^*} = \\frac{\\tilde{M}Z^*}{ZZ^*} + b$$\n\nUsing the LRF, the real component of the first term on the right hand side can be explicitly calculated and is found to be negligible at the low-frequency limit (Figure 12). As a result, the feedback strength equals the real component of the left hand side of Equation 9 at the lowest frequencies, which can be calculated as the regression coefficient of low-pass filtered $m$ on low-pass filtered $z$. [In practice, Lanczos filtering is applied with the number of weights covering the length of four times of the cut-off periods.]{} The estimated feedback strength (denoted as $b_{FIL}$) is plotted in Figure 8c. When timescales longer than 200 days are used for the low-pass filtering, this method yields remarkably accurate results. [$b_{FIL}$ is calculated for each hemisphere of the 10 ensemble members of CTL, and 95$\\%$ confidence intervals are then calculated assuming these samples follow Gaussian distribution. ]{} The pressure-latitude pattern of eddy flux anomaly associated with the annular mode is also constructed by regressing low-pass filtered eddy fluxes onto the low-pass filtered zonal index, and the results compares well with those from LRF, with a pattern correlation exceeding 0.9.\n\n![image](F07.pdf){width=\"50.00000%\"}\n\nApplication to the reanalysis data\n----------------------------------\n\nThe above three statistical methods are applied to estimate the strength of eddy-jet feedback in the reanalysis data, and the results are summarized in Figure 13.\n\n![image](g05.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nBy minimizing the mean squared cross-correlations at lags longer than certain number of days as illustrated in Figure 4, $b_{LH}$ spans a range of values from around $0.06$ to $0.12$ day$^{-1}$ with the choices of decorrelation timescales of 5-20 days. The estimation for the reanalysis data is more sensitive to the choices of decorrelation and has larger margin of error compared to that of the idealized GCM (Figure 13a), which may partly be attributed to the shorter temporal length of the reanalysis data. Using lag regression, the estimated feedback strength is a function of lag days, and the margin of error grows with increasing lag (Figure 13b). Also, $b_{S}$ is more sensitive to the choices of lag days and has larger uncertainties than its counterpart with model outputs.\n\nAlthough there is no \u201cground truth\" for the reanalysis data, the result obtained from regression with low-pass filtered data seems encouraging (Figure 13c). $b_{FIL}$ converges to around 0.121 day$^{-1}$ at low-frequency limit, which matches well with $b_{LH}$ with the decorrelation time of around 2 weeks. [There is also a significant contribution of medium-scales waves to total eddy forcing at intreaseasonal to interannual timescales in the reanalysis data (Figure 10b), and with daily data, $b_{FIL}$ is only around 0.053 day$^{-1}$.]{} The pattern of anomalous eddy fluxes associated with the annular mode is also calculated by regressing low-pass filtered time series (Figure 14). As expected, anomalous eddy flux converges zonal momentum into 60$^\\circ$S-70$^\\circ$S in the upper troposphere, and reinforces the anomalous zonal wind. Eddy anomalies originate from 60$^\\circ$S-75$^\\circ$S near the surface, where eddy heat flux is strengthened due to increased baroclinicity.\n\n![image](g04.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nWhile we do not have the LRF to separate out the mean-state-independent eddy forcing in the reanalysis, the low-pass filtering method only assumes that the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is sufficiently weak at the low-frequency limit so that the first term on the right hand side of Equation 9 is substantially smaller than the feedback factor $b$. Given that eddies are mostly generated at synoptic timescales, this seems a rather reasonable assumption. [A caveat of this assumption is that in the presence of an external low-frequency forcing (for example, due to stratospheric variability), the mean-state-independent eddy forcing might not be small at low frequencies (see an illustrative example in]{} @Byrne2016 [and more discussions in the next section).]{}\n\nDiscussions and summary\n=======================\n\nThe temporal persistence of the atmospheric annular mode has long been attributed to a positive eddy-jet feedback (e.g., Feldstein and Lee 1998; Robinson 2000; LH01), and statistical methods have been used to quantify the strength of the eddy feedback (LH01; S13). However, a recent study argues that one cannot discern the difference between the presence of an internal eddy feedback and external interrannual forcing using only the statistical methods [@Byrne2016]. Due to the stochastic nature of eddies, it is indeed impossible to separate the mean-state-dependent eddy flux from the mean-state-independent eddy flux and infer causality in the reanalysis data. In the present study, an LRF is used to identify the eddy response to anomalous mean flow associated with the annular mode in an idealized GCM, in which a positive eddy-jet feedback is confirmed unequivocally. With little spread across ten 44500-day integrations, EXP yields an eddy feedback strength of around 0.137 day$^{-1}$. [When the LRF is applied to the second EOF of zonal mean zonal wind, it yields a negative eddy feedback of -0.264 day$^{-1}$, consistent with the findings of LH01 who inferred the existence of a negative feedback in the second EOF of the observed Southern annular mode and attributed it to the barotropic governor effect (James 1987)]{}.\n\nUsing the LRF, the present study is able to provide a reasonably accurate estimation of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing. It is found that the spectral peak at synoptic timescales in the power spectrum of total eddy forcing ($m$) is dominated by the mean-state-independent eddy forcing ($\\tilde{m}$). At intraseasonal and longer timescales, the amplitude of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing decreases with decreasing frequency[, and the total eddy forcing is dominated by mean-state-dependent eddy forcing. The role of the medium-scale waves on the annular mode is emphasized in the present study, which shows that less than half of the total eddy forcing can be captured using daily wind anomalies at interannual timescales as reported before in Kuroda and Mukougawa (2011). Without accounting for the medium-scales waves, the eddy feedback strength is underestimated by around 40$\\%$.]{}\n\nThe present study focuses on an equinoctial mean state in the idealized GCM. While a number of previous studies [e.g., @Barnes2010; @Byrne2016; @Sheshadri2016] have brought attention to the seasonality of the annular mode. Seasonal variations of the persistence of the annular mode and eddy-jet feedback will be explored using the present methodology in a future study.\n\nThe statistical methods proposed by LH01 and S13 are evaluated against the result from the LRF. By fitting the cross-correlations between the zonal index and eddy forcing as in LH01, the estimated feedback strength is fairly close to the result from the LRF, but it is difficult to determine *a priori* an optimal value of decorrelation timescales, a parameter needed to calculate the best-fit. Following S13, the output from lag-regression varies with lag days, and the feedback strength is largely underestimated, which suggests that the estimator is biased, and the assumption of S13 that the zonal index is decorrelated with the mean-state-independent eddy forcing beyond a lag time of a few days is not valid. To be specific, the correlation between $\\tilde{m}$ and $z$ cannot be neglected with a lag time spanning from a few days to as long as 30 days, as the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is quasi-oscillatory, with a broad peak in the power spectrum at synoptic timescale.\n\nTo reduce the interference from the spectral peak of eddy forcing at synoptic timescales, we applied regressions on low-pass filtered eddy forcing and zonal index. The results converge to the value produced by the LRF when timescales longer than 200 days are used for the low-pass filtering. Given that the left hand side of Equation 4 is negligible at the low frequency limit, the fact that the power of the mean-state-independent eddy forcing is low at low frequencies implies that $b$ and $1/\\tau$ are close to each other. The difference between $1/\\tau$ and $b$, denoted as $1/\\tau_{e}$, is constrained by examining $|Z / \\tilde{M}|$, which can be derived from Equation 4:\n\n$$\\renewcommand{\\theequation}{10}\n\\big|\\frac{Z}{\\tilde{M}} \\big|= \\big|\\frac{1}{i\\omega - 1/\\tau_{e}}\\big| = \\frac{1}{\\sqrt {\\omega^2 + 1/\\tau_{e}^2}}$$\n\nTaking advantage of the length of CTL, spectral analysis is conducted at very fine spectral resolution, i.e., 1/10000 cpd as in Figure 15. At intraseasonal and shorter timescales, when $1/\\tau_e$ is small compared to $\\omega$, $|Z / \\tilde{M}|$ is close to the $1/\\omega$ curve (Figure 15). At the lowest frequencies, $|Z / \\tilde{M}|$ is limited by $\\tau_e$. The best-fit value of $\\tau_e$ is 91 days from least squares fitting. The difference between $1/\\tau$ and $b$ is smaller than 0.011 day$^{-1}$. The result is robust as $1/\\tau_e$ ranges from 0.009 to 0.014 day$^{-1}$ when we applied least squares fitting to the ten ensemble members of CTL. It leaves an intriguing question as to what physical processes determine the difference between $1/\\tau$ and $b$, as $1/\\tau$ and $b$ are connected, for example, via surface friction [@Chen2009].\n\n![image](F08.pdf){width=\"25pc\"}\n\nWhen the statistical methods are applied to the reanalysis data, the performance of the methods proposed by LH01 and S13 is [influenced by the mean-state-independent eddy forcing]{}. For the reanalysis data, $b_{LH}$ and $b_{S}$ are more sensitive to the choices of parameters compared to their counterparts with model results. When the synoptic spectral peak is filtered out by low-pass filtering, with timescales longer than 200 days used for the low-pass filtering, $b_{FIL}$ converges to around 0.121 day$^{-1}$, which is close to the strength of eddy feedback in the idealized GCM.\n\nAlthough we cannot deny the presence of external eddy forcing at interannual timescale in the reanalysis data and its contribution to the persistence of the annular mode as suggested by @Byrne2016, the present study confirms the importance of a positive eddy-jet feedback to the persistence of the annular mode in an idealized GCM. The annular mode in this GCM compares well with that in reanalysis data, in terms of the spatial pattern of the leading EOF and the statistics of the zonal index and eddy forcing. The resemblance between the simulated annular mode and that in the reanalysis data suggests that the dry dynamical core with Held-Suarez physics, despite its idealized nature, is able to capture the essential dynamics of the annular mode. However, it should also be highlighted that the idealized model indeed produces a too persistent annular mode compared to the reanalysis. The eddy feedback is too strong in the idealized GCM, and it can be inferred that the difference between $1/\\tau$ and $b$ is too small in the model. To what extent the results of the idealized GCM connect to the real atmosphere requires further research using observational data and a hierarchy of models.\n\nIn addition, the present article provides another application of the LRF [@Hassanzadeh2015; @Pedram2016a; @Pedram2016b]. To quantify the strength of the eddy-jet feedback, one must be able to separate the anomalous eddies in response to a mean flow anomaly from the anomalous eddies that leads to the mean flow anomaly, which is difficult to do with statistical methods alone. Here the LRF is used to untangle the causal relationship in this eddy-jet feedback system, and provides the \u201cground truth\u201d in the idealized GCM. Statistical methods are evaluated using model outputs, and then applied to the reanalysis data. The LRF can be calculated for GCMs of varying complexities, and the paradigm can be applied to a variety of problems involving identification of internal feedbacks.\n\nThis work is supported by NSF grants AGS-1062016 and AGS-1552385. The simulations are conducted on Harvard Odyssey cluster. Sincere thanks go to Nicholas Byrne for sharing analysis scripts and pointing out an important issue in an earlier draft of the manuscript that led us to realize the significance of using 6-hourly data. The authors thank Nicholas Byrne, Dennis Hartmann and Aditi Sheshadri for very constructive reviews and Martin Singh for discussions and comments on the manuscript.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'It is shown that the endpoint of the first order transition line which merges into a crossover regime in the phase diagram of the Nambu\u2013Jona-Lasinio model, extended to include the six-quark \u2019t Hooft and eight-quark interaction Lagrangians, is pushed towards vanishing chemical potential and higher temperatures with increasing strength of the OZI-violating eight-quark interactions. We clarify the connection between the location of the endpoint in the phase diagram and the mechanism of chiral symmetry breaking at the quark level. We show how the $8q$ interactions affect the number of effective quark degrees of freedom. We are able to obtain the correct asymptotics for this number at large temperatures by using the Pauli-Villars regularization.'\nauthor:\n- 'B. Hiller, J. Moreira, A. A. Osipov[^1], A. H. Blin'\ntitle: '**The phase diagram for the Nambu\u2013Jona-Lasinio model with \u2019t Hooft and eight-quark interactions**'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe last two decades have witnessed great efforts towards the understanding of the QCD phase diagram, in terms of effective low energy theories paralleled by QCD lattice calculations, see e.g. the recent reviews [@Wilczek:2001]-[@Fukushima:2008], or the paper [@Weise:2006]. The domain of small to moderate baryonic chemical potential $0<\\mu <400$ MeV and temperatures $0<T < 200$ MeV, is of specific relevance for relativistic heavy ion collisions. Of fundamental importance in the study of the phase diagram are chiral symmetry and confinement, however the finite size ($m_u, m_d, m_s\\neq 0$) as well as the difference in the bare quark masses ($m_u\\neq m_d\\neq m_s$) pose major problems both from the calculational point of view and in the implications due to deviations from the ideal situations, where the chiral condensate and the Polyakov loop are known to be the appropriate order parameters to characterize the phase state of the quark-gluon system.\n\nThe present study focuses on the chiral symmetry breaking aspects related to non-zero current quark mass values. Our arguments will be based on the successful model of Nambu\u2013Jona-Lasinio (NJL) [@Nambu:1961], combined with the $U_A(1)$ breaking $2N_f$ flavor determinant of \u2019t Hooft [@Hooft:1976]-[@Reinhardt:1988] (NJLH). Moreover the most general $U(3)_L\\otimes U(3)_R$ chiral invariant non derivative eight-quark ($8q$) interactions [@Osipov:2005b] are included. These terms were proven to render the effective potential of the NJLH model globally stable, and their effect has been thoroughly studied in low energy characteristics of pseudoscalar and scalar mesons [@Osipov:2006a], at finite temperature [@Osipov:2007b; @Osipov:2008] and in presence of a constant magnetic field [@Osipov:2007c]. These studies have lead at instances to sizeable and unforeseen effects. Of particular importance for the present work is that the strength of the $8q$ coupling is strongly correlated with the temperature and slope at which the crossover occurs and that it can be regulated together with the four-quark coupling, leaving the meson spectra at $T=0$ unaffected (with exception of the scalar $\\sigma$ meson mass which decreases with increasing $8q$ coupling) [@Osipov:2008]. As a result the symmetry breaking for large $8q$ couplings is induced by the $6q$ \u2019t Hooft coupling strength, as opposed to the case with small $8q$ coupling, where the dynamical breaking of symmetry is controlled by the $4q$ coupling strength [@Osipov:2006a]. We would like to comment on a natural question which arises here, namely, can higher order many-quark interactions be also important? With regard to this, explicit argumets of A. A. Andrianov and V. A. Andrianov are known [@Andrianov:1993], which show that the structure of the QCD-motivated models at low energies with effective multi-fermion interactions and a finite cut-off in the chiral symmetry-breaking regime should contain only the vertices with four, six and eight-fermion interactions in four dimensions. This result explains partly the approximation used in our work.\n\nThus, in this paper we give a quantitative account of local multi-fermion forces on the phase diagram in the $(T,\\mu )$ plane, by comparing the results for two sets of parameters, in the small and large coupling regimes of the $8q$ strengths, corresponding to the two above mentioned alternative mechanisms of chiral symmetry breaking.\n\nThroughout the paper we work for simplicity in the isospin limit $m_u=m_d\n\\ne m_s$, breaking explicitly the chiral $SU(3)_L\\otimes SU(3)_R$ symmetry to the $SU(2)_I\\otimes U(1)_Y$ (isospin-hypercharge) subgroup, and take the same baryonic chemical potential $\\mu$ for all quark species. Generalizations to take into account the nonzero isospin chemical potential can be implemented as for instace in [@Klimenko:2006].\n\nEffective Lagrangian\n====================\n\nThe explicit form of the multi-quark Lagrangian considered is presented in [@Osipov:2005b; @Osipov:2006a] $$\\label{efflag}\n  {\\cal L}_{\\mathrm{eff}}=\\bar{q}(i\\gamma^\\mu\\partial_\\mu - m)q\n          +{\\cal L}_{4q} + {\\cal L}_{6q}\n          +{\\cal L}_{8q}^{(1)}+{\\cal L}_{8q}^{(2)}.$$ Quark fields $q$ have color $(N_c=3)$ and flavor $(N_f=3)$ indices which are suppressed, $\\mu =0,1,2,3$. Here $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{L4q}\n   {\\cal L}_{4q} &\\!\\! =\\!\\! & \\frac{G}{2}\\left[(\\bar{q}\\lambda_aq)^2+\n                      (\\bar{q}i\\gamma_5\\lambda_aq)^2\\right], \\\\\n\\label{Ldet}\n   {\\cal L}_{6q} &\\!\\! =\\!\\! & \\kappa (\\mbox{det}\\ \\bar{q}P_Lq\n                      + \\mbox{det}\\ \\bar{q}P_Rq), \\\\  \n   {\\cal L}_{8q}^{(1)}&\\!\\! = \\!\\! & \n   8g_1\\left[ (\\bar q_iP_Rq_m)(\\bar q_mP_Lq_i) \\right]^2, \\\\ \n   {\\cal L}_{8q}^{(2)}&\\!\\! = \\!\\!& \n   16 g_2\\left[ (\\bar q_iP_Rq_m)(\\bar q_mP_Lq_j) \n   (\\bar q_jP_Rq_k)(\\bar q_kP_Lq_i) \\right]. \\end{aligned}$$ The matrices acting in flavor space, $\\lambda_a,\\ a=0,1,\\ldots ,8,$ are normalized such that $\\mbox{tr} (\\lambda_a \\lambda_b )=2\\delta_{ab}$; $\\lambda_0=\\sqrt{\\frac{2}{3}}\\, 1$, and $\\lambda_k,\\ k=1,2,\\ldots ,8$ are the standard $SU(3)$ Gell-Mann matrices; $P_{L,R}=(1\\mp\\gamma_5)/2$ are chiral projectors and the determinant is over flavor indices. The large $N_c$ behaviour of the model is reflected in the dimensionful coupling constants, $[G]=M^{-2},\\, [\\kappa ]=M^{-5},\\, [g_1]=[g_2]=M^{-8}$, which count as $G\\sim 1/N_c$, $\\kappa\\sim 1/N_c^{N_f}$, and $g_1,g_2\\sim 1/N_c^4$ or less. As a result the NJL interaction (\\[L4q\\]) dominates over ${\\cal L}_{6q}$ at large $N_c$, as one would expect, because Zweig\u2019s rule is exact at $N_c = \n\\infty$. Let us note that the $8q$-interaction ${\\cal L}_{8q}^{(1)}$ breaks Zweig\u2019s rule as well.\n\nSince the coupling constants $G, \\kappa, g_1, g_2$ are dimensionful, the model is not renormalizable. We use the cut-off $\\Lambda$ to render quark loops finite. The global chiral $SU(3)_L\\times SU(3)_R$ symmetry of the Lagrangian (\\[efflag\\]) at $m=0$ is spontaneously broken to the $SU(3)$ group, showing the dynamical instability of the fully symmetric solutions of the theory. In addition, the current quark mass $m$, being a diagonal matrix in flavor space with elements $\\mbox{diag} (m_u, m_d, m_s)$, explicitly breaks this symmetry down, retaining only the reduced $SU(2)_I\\times U(1)_Y$ symmetries of isospin and hypercharge conservation, if $m_u = m_d \\neq m_s$.\n\nThe model has been bosonized in the framework of functional integrals in the stationary phase approximation leading to the following effective mesonic Lagrangian ${\\cal L}_{{\\rm bos}}$ at $T=\\mu=0$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{bos}\n    &&{\\cal L}_{\\mathrm{eff}}\\to {\\cal L}_{{\\rm bos}}={\\cal L}_{{{\\mathrm{st}}}}+{\\cal L}_{{\\rm ql}}, \n    \\qquad\n    {\\cal L}_{{{\\mathrm{st}}}}=h_a\\sigma_a+\\frac{1}{2} h_{ab}^{(1)}\n                  \\sigma_a\\sigma_b+\\frac{1}{2} h_{ab}^{(2)}\n                  \\phi_a\\phi_b +{\\cal O}({\\mbox{f\\mbox{}ield}}^3),\n                  \\nonumber\\\\\n    &&W_{{\\rm ql}}(\\sigma,\\phi )=\\frac{1}{2}\\mbox{ln}|{{\\mathrm{det}}}D^{\\dagger}_E D_E|=-\\!\\int\\!\n                 \\frac{{\\mathrm{d}}^4 x_E}{32 \\pi^2}\n                 \\sum_{i=0}^\\infty I_{i-1}\\mbox{tr}(b_i)=\\int\\!{\\mathrm{d}}^4 x_E\n                 {\\cal L}_{{\\rm ql}},\n                 \\nonumber\\\\\n    &&b_0 =1,\\hspace{0.2cm} b_1=-Y,\n                 \\hspace{0.2cm} b_2=\\frac{Y^2}{2} \n                 +\\frac{\\Delta_{us}}{\\sqrt{3}}\\lambda_8 \n                 Y, \\hspace{0.2cm} \\ldots , \n                 \\nonumber\\\\\n    &&Y=i\\gamma_{\\alpha}(\\partial_{\\alpha}\\sigma \n                 +i\\gamma_5\\partial_{\\alpha}\\phi )\n                 +\\sigma^2+\\{{\\cal M},\\sigma\\}+\\phi^2 \n                 +i\\gamma_5[\\sigma+{\\cal M},\\phi ]\\end{aligned}$$ written in terms of the scalar, $\\sigma=\\lambda_a\\sigma_a$, and pseudoscalar, $\\phi=\\lambda_a\\phi_a$, nonet valued quantum fields. The result of the stationary phase integration at leading order, ${\\cal L}_{{\\mathrm{st}}}$, is shown here as a series in growing powers of $\\sigma$ and $\\phi$. The result of the remaining Gaussian integration over the quark fields is given by $W_{\\rm ql}$. Here the Laplacian in euclidean space-time ${D^{\\dagger}_E D}_E={\\cal M}^2-\n\\partial_\\alpha^2+Y$ is associated with the euclidean Dirac operator $D_E=i\n\\gamma_\\alpha\\partial_\\alpha -{\\cal M}-\\sigma -i\\gamma_5\\phi$ (the $\\gamma_\\alpha,\n\\,\\alpha =1,2,3,4$ are antihermitian and obey $\\{\\gamma_\\alpha,\\gamma_\\beta\\}=-2\n\\delta_{\\alpha\\beta}$); ${\\cal M}=\\mbox{diag}(M_u,M_d,M_s)$ is the constituent quark mass matrix (to explore the properties of the spontaneously broken theory, we define quantum fields $\\sigma_a, \\phi_a$ as having vanishing vacuum expectation values in the asymmetric phase).\n\nThe expression for the one-quark-loop action $W_{\\rm ql}$ has been obtained by using a modified inverse mass expansion of the heat kernel associated to the given Laplacian [@Osipov:2001]. The procedure takes into account the differences $\\Delta_{us}=M_u^2-M_s^2$ in the nonstrange and strange constituent quark masses in a chiral invariant way at each order of the expansion, $b_i$ being the generalized Seeley\u2013DeWitt coefficients of the new series. This modification distinguishes our calculation from the one made in [@Ebert:1986]. In fact we consider the series up to and including the order $b_2$ that corresponds to the first nontrivial step in the expansion of the induced effective hadron Lagrangian at long distances. At this stage meson fields obtain their kinetic terms, but are still considered to be elementary objects. The information about their quark-antiquark origin enters only through the coefficients such as the average $$\\label{I-i}\n   I_i=\\frac{1}{3}\\left[J_i(M_u^2)+J_i(M_d^2)+J_i(M_s^2)\\right]$$ over the 1-loop euclidean momentum integrals $J_i$ with $i+1$ vertices ($i=0,1,\\ldots$) $$\\label{Ji}\n    J_i(M^2)=16\\pi^2\\Gamma (i+1)\\!\\int              \\frac{{\\mathrm{d}}^4p_E}{(2\\pi)^4}\\,\\hat\\rho_\\Lambda \n             \\frac{1}{(p_E^2+M^2)^{i+1}}.$$ For the explicit evaluation of $J_i(M^2)$ we use the Pauli\u2013Villars regularization method with two subtractions in the integrand. The procedure is fully defined by the insertion of the particular operator $$\\label{reg-2}\n    \\hat\\rho_\\Lambda =1-\\left(1-\\Lambda^2\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial M^2}\n    \\right) \\exp\\left(\\Lambda^2\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial M^2}\\right).$$ Here the covariant cut-off $\\Lambda$ is a free dimensionful parameter which characterizes the scale of the chiral symmetry breaking in the effective model considered. To the order of the heat kernel series truncated, only the integrals $J_0,J_1$ are needed. These are quadratic and logarithmic divergent respectively with $\\Lambda\\to\\infty$, all other $J_i$ are finite. Note that the recurrence relation $$\\label{rec}\n    J_{i+1}(M^2)=-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial M^2} J_i(M^2)$$ is fulfilled. If $J_i$ is known for one value of $i$, then the function may be computed for other values of $i$ by successive applications of the relation.\n\nIn ${\\cal L}_{{{\\mathrm{st}}}}$ the $h_a$ are determined via the stationary phase conditions. These conditions and the pattern of explicit symmetry breaking show that in general $h_a$ can have only three non-zero components at most with indices $a=0,3,8$, i.e. $h_a\\lambda_a=\\mbox{diag} (h_u,h_d,h_s)$, which can be found from a system of three independent equations $$\\label{SPA}\n   \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l}\n\\vspace{0.2cm}   \n   Gh_u + \\Delta_u +\\displaystyle\\frac{\\kappa}{16}\\ h_dh_s\n   +\\displaystyle\\frac{g_1}{4}\\ h_u(h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2)\n   +\\displaystyle\\frac{g_2}{2}\\ h_u^3=0, \\\\\n\\vspace{0.2cm}   \n   Gh_d + \\Delta_d +\\displaystyle\\frac{\\kappa}{16}\\ h_uh_s\n   +\\displaystyle\\frac{g_1}{4}\\ h_d(h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2)\n   +\\displaystyle\\frac{g_2}{2}\\ h_d^3=0, \\\\\n\\vspace{0.2cm}   \n   Gh_s + \\Delta_s +\\displaystyle\\frac{\\kappa}{16}\\ h_uh_d\n   +\\displaystyle\\frac{g_1}{4}\\ h_s(h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2)\n   +\\displaystyle\\frac{g_2}{2}\\ h_s^3=0. \n   \\end{array} \\right.$$ Here $\\Delta_f=M_f-m_f$, $f=u,d,s$. The matrix valued constants of higher order, like for instance $h_{ab}^{(1,2)}$ in ${\\cal L}_{{\\mathrm{st}}}$, are uniquely determined once the $h_f$ are known [@Osipov:2004a; @Osipov:2006a]. The stability of the effective potential is guaranteed if the system (\\[SPA\\]) has only one real solution. For that the couplings must fulfill the inequalities [@Osipov:2005b]: $g_1>0,\\, g_1+3g_2>0,\\, \nGg_1>(\\kappa/16)^2$.\n\n[TABLE I. Parameters of the model: $m_u=m_d,\\, m_s$ (MeV), $G$ (GeV$^{-2}$), $\\Lambda$ (MeV), $\\kappa$ (GeV$^{-5}$), $g_1,\\, g_2$ (GeV$^{-8}$). We also show the corresponding values of constituent quark masses $M_u=M_d$ and $M_s$ (MeV). ]{}\n\n        $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_u$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_s$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ M_u$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ M_s$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\Lambda$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ G$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ -\\kappa$    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ g_1$     $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ -g_2\\ \\ $     \n  ---- --------------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------------ -- --\n  \u00a0a           \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a05.9                  \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0186                \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0359               \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0554                 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0851               \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a010.92             \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a01001         $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1000^*$     $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 47\\ \\ $       \n  \u00a0b           \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a05.9                  \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0186                \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0359               \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0554                 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0851               \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a07.03             \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a01001         $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 8000^*$     $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 47\\ \\ $       \n\n[TABLE II. The masses, weak decay constants of light pseudoscalars (in MeV), the singlet-octet mixing angle $\\theta_p$ (in degrees), and the quark condensates $\\langle\\bar uu\\rangle =\\langle\\bar dd\\rangle, \\langle\\bar ss\\rangle$ expressed as usual by positive combinations in MeV. ]{}\n\n        $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_\\pi$    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_K$    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_\\eta$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_{\\eta'}$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ f_\\pi$    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ f_K$    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\theta_p$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ -\\langle\\bar uu\\rangle^{\\frac{1}{3}}$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ -\\langle\\bar ss\\rangle^{\\frac{1}{3}}$  \n  ---- ----------------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ --\n  \u00a0a    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 138^*$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 494^*$    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 477$       $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 958^*$     $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 92^*$    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 117^*$      $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ -14$                       $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 235$                                  $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 187\\ \\ $                 \n  \u00a0b    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 138^*$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 494^*$    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 477$       $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 958^*$     $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 92^*$    $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 117^*$      $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ -14$                       $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 235$                                  $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 187\\ \\ $                 \n\n[TABLE III. The masses of the scalar nonet (in MeV), and the corresponding singlet-octet mixing angle $\\theta_s$ (in degrees). ]{}\n\n        $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_{a_0(980)}$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_{K_0^*(800)}$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_{f_0(600)}$   $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ m_{f_0(1370)}$      $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\theta_s\\ $\n  ---- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------\n  \u00a0a       $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 980^*$             $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1201$              $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 691$              $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1368$         $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 23\\ \\ \\ \\ $\n  \u00a0b       $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 980^*$             $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1201$              $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 463$              $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1350$         $\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 19\\ \\ \\ \\ $\n\nIn this paper we use the two parameter sets of Table I, which differ only in the choice of the $4q$ coupling $G$ and the $8q$ strength $g_1$. Set (b) is the same as in [@Osipov:2008] (there was a misprint in the value for the constituent strange quark mass, which we corrected). Tables II-III display the numerical fits at $T=\\mu=0$ (input is denoted by a \\*). The only difference in the observables of the two sets occurs in the singlet-octet flavor mixing channel of the scalars, mainly in the $\\sigma$-meson (i.e. $f_0(600)$) mass. The model parameters are kept unchanged in the calculation of the $T$ and $\\mu$ dependent solutions of the gap equations (see next sections).\n\nIt is worthwhile to stress that there is an essential difference between the two alternative ground states chosen here as the configurations on top of which the $T\\neq 0$ and $\\mu\\neq 0$ effects are studied: Case (a) corresponds to the standard picture of the NJL hadronic vacuum. In this picture chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken at $T=\\mu =0$ when $G>G_{crit}$. Case (b) corresponds to a new alternative, related to the pattern where $G<G_{crit}$. In this case chiral symmetry can be broken only due to the six-quark interactions, when $|\\kappa |$ exceeds some critical value (the $8q$-interactions could in principle also induce symmetry breaking, however the mass spectra are then not well reproduced). One can hardly distinguish between the two cases at $T=\\mu=0$, the spectra of $0^{-+}$ and $0^{++}$ low-lying mesons do not show much difference: the model parameters are the same, except for the correlated $G$ and $g_1$ values. The larger value of $g_1$ in the case (b) is a signal of the increasing role played by the eight-quark OZI-violating interactions, but this does not affect the value of the mixing angle $\\theta_p$, and only slightly diminishes $\\theta_s$. Such insensitivity follows from the observation that the stationary phase equations (\\[SPA\\]) and mass formulae of the light $0^{-+}$ and $0^{++}$ states [@Osipov:2006a] only depend on the couplings $G$ and $g_1$ through the linear combination $\\xi=G+\ng_1(h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2)/4$, except for the $00,\\, 08$ and $88$ states inside the scalar nonet. However as soon as $T$ or $\\mu$ are finite, the $h_f$ start to change due to their intrinsic $T,\\mu$ dependence, acquired through the coupling to the quark loop integrals in the gap equations, eqs. (\\[gap\\]) below. The $T,\\mu$ dependence of the combination $\\xi$ above is steered by the strength $g_1$. This is the main reason why the $8q$-interactions may strongly affect the thermodynamic observables, without changing the spectra at $T=\\mu=0$.\n\nThermodynamic potential\n=======================\n\nCase of vanishing temperarure and chemical potential\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nBefore addressing the thermodynamical potential it is instructive to briefly discuss the effective potential of the model at $T=\\mu=0$. Using standard techniques [@Osipov:2004a], we obtain from the gap-equations $$\\label{gap}\n            h_f + \\frac{N_c}{2\\pi^2} M_f J_0(M_f^2)=0$$ the effective potential $V(M_f)$ as a function of three independent variables $M_f=\\{M_u,M_d,M_s\\}$. If the parameters of the model are fixed in such a way that eqs. (\\[SPA\\]) have only one real solution, the effective potential is $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{effpot1}\n     V(M_f)&\\!\\! =\\!\\!&-\\frac{1}{2}\\int_0^{M_f}\\!\\!\\sum_{f=u,d,s}h_f {\\mathrm{d}}M_f\n           -\\frac{N_c}{4\\pi^2}\\int_0^{M_f}\\!\\!\\sum_{f=u,d,s}M_fJ_0(M_f^2){\\mathrm{d}}M_f\n           \\nonumber \\\\\n           &\\!\\! = \\!\\!&\\frac{1}{16}\\left.\\left(4Gh_f^2+\\kappa h_uh_dh_s \n           +\\frac{3g_1}{2}\\left(h_f^2\\right)^2+3g_2h_f^4\\right)\\right|^{M_f}_0 \n           +\\frac{N_c}{8\\pi^2}\\sum_{f=u,d,s}\\! J_{-1}(M_f^2),\\end{aligned}$$ where $h_f^2=h_u^2+h_d^2+h_s^2, \\,\\, h_f^4=h_u^4+h_d^4+h_s^4$, and we extend definition (\\[I-i\\]) for index $i=-1$ with $$\\label{J_1}\n     J_{-1}(M^2)=-\\int_0^{M^2}\\!\\! J_0(M^2){\\mathrm{d}}M^2\n     =-\\frac{1}{2}\\left(M^2J_0(M^2)+\\Lambda^4\\ln\n     \\left(1+\\frac{M^2}{\\Lambda^2}\\right)\\right).$$ Here $J_0$ has the explicit form $$J_0(M^2)=\\Lambda^2 -M^2\\ln\\left(1+\\frac{\\Lambda^2}{M^2}\\right)$$ for the given choice of regulator.\n\nThe first integral in (\\[effpot1\\]) accounts for the leading order stationary phase contribution. The second integral describes the quark one-loop part. Since both integrands in (\\[effpot1\\]) are exact differentials, the line integrals depend only on the end points. The low limit of the integrals is adjusted so that $V(0)=0$ (to understand this, it is enough to notice that the power-series expansion of $V(M_f)$ at small $M_f$ starts from $V(0)$; this term does not depend on $M_f$ and, therefore, does not affect the physical content of the theory; so we simply subtract it, calculating the potential energy of the system with regard to the energy of the symmetric vacuum in the imaginary world of massless quarks).\n\nCase of finite temperature and chemical potential\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nThe extension to finite $T$ and $\\mu$ of the bosonized Lagrangian (\\[bos\\]) is effected through the quark loop integrals $J_i$ (see eq.(\\[Ji\\])). Due to the recurrence relation (\\[rec\\]) it is sufficient to get it just for one of them, $J_0$, by introducing the Matsubara frequencies, $\\omega_n$, and the chemical potential, $\\mu$, through the substitutions [@Kapusta] $$\\label{subst}\n      \\int\\!{\\mathrm{d}}p_{0E}\\to 2\\pi T\\!\\!\\!\\sum_{n=-\\infty}^\\infty,\n      \\quad p_{0E}\\to\\omega_n-i\\mu,\\quad\\omega_n= \\pi T (2n+1).$$ Inserting (\\[subst\\]) into $J_0$ we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n    J_0(M^2)&\\!\\!\\to\\!\\! &J_0(M^2,T,\\mu )=16\\pi^2 T\\int\n    \\frac{{\\mathrm{d}}^3\\vec{p}_E}{(2\\pi )^3}\\hat{\\rho}_\\Lambda\n    \\sum_{n=-\\infty}^{+\\infty}\\frac{1}{C_n-2i\\mu\\pi T(2n+1)}\n    \\nonumber\\\\\n    C_n&\\!\\! =\\!\\!&E_p^2+\\pi^2 T^2 \\left(2n+1\\right)^2 -\\mu^2, \\quad\n    E_p = \\sqrt{M^2+\\vec{p}^{\\, 2}_E}.\\end{aligned}$$ The sum over $n$ is evaluated to give $$\\sum_{n=-\\infty}^{+\\infty}\\frac{1}{C_n-i2\\mu\\omega_n}\n    =\\frac{1}{(2\\pi T)^2}\\sum^{+\\infty}_{n=-\\infty}\\frac{1}{(n+a)(n+b)}\n    =\\frac{1}{4TE_p}\\left(\\tanh\\frac{\\mu +E_p}{2T}-\\tanh \\frac{\\mu \n    -E_p}{2T}\\right)$$ where we use the abbreviations $a=\\frac{1}{2}+\\frac{i}{2\\pi T}\\left(E_p-\\mu\n\\right)$ and $b=\\frac{1}{2}-\\frac{i}{2\\pi T}\\left(E_p+\\mu\\right)$. Thus we have $$\\label{J0t}\n     J_0(M^2,T,\\mu )=4\\int_0^\\infty{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E| |\\vec{p}_E|^2\n     \\hat{\\rho}_\\Lambda\\frac{1}{E_p}\\left(1-n_{q}-n_{\\overline{q}}\\right)\n     =J_0(M^2)- 4\\int_0^\\infty{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E| |\\vec{p}_E|^2\n     \\hat{\\rho}_\\Lambda\\frac{n_{q}+n_{\\overline{q}}}{E_p}$$ where the quark, anti-quark occupation numbers are given by $$\\label{n-occup}\n     n_{q}=\\frac{1}{1+e^{\\frac{E_p-\\mu}{T}}}, \\quad \n     n_{\\overline{q}}=\\frac{1}{1+e^{\\frac{E_p+\\mu}{T}}}.$$ Notice that $J_0(M^2,0,0)=J_0(M^2)$, therefore the vacuum piece is well isolated from the matter part. The remaining integral containing the quark number occupation densities $n_q, n_{\\bar q}$ is strictly finite, the $\\Lambda$ dependent terms being a remnant of the Pauli\u2013Villars regularization scheme. At small $T$ and $M\\neq 0$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{J0-asymp}\n     \\int_0^\\infty\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E| |\\vec{p}_E|^2\\frac{n_{q}}{E_p}\n     &\\!\\!\\simeq\\!\\!&\n     \\int_0^\\infty\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E| \\frac{|\\vec{p}_E|^2}{E_p}e^{-\\frac{E_p}{T}}\n     =T\\sqrt{2TM}e^{-\\frac{M}{T}}\\int_0^\\infty\\!{\\mathrm{d}}x\\sqrt{x}e^{-x}\\sqrt{1\n     +\\frac{xT}{2M}} \\nonumber \\\\\n     &\\!\\! =\\!\\!&\\sqrt{\\frac{\\pi M}{2}}T^{\\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\\frac{M}{T}}\n     \\left(1+\\frac{3T}{8M}+\\ldots \\right).\\end{aligned}$$ The special feature of this integral is that it vanishes exponentially with $T\\to 0$.\n\nNow we are ready to evaluate the thermodynamical potential. Indeed, the gap-equations at finite $T$ and $\\mu$ are $$\\label{gap-t}\n            h_f + \\frac{N_c}{2\\pi^2} M_f J_0(M_f^2,T,\\mu )=0.$$ Consequently, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{effpot-t}\n     V(M_f,T,\\mu )&\\!\\! =\\!\\!& -\\frac{1}{2}\\int_0^{M_f}\\!\\!\\sum_{f=u,d,s}h_f{\\mathrm{d}}M_f-\\frac{N_c}{4\\pi^2}\\int_0^{M_f}\\!\\!\\sum_{f=u,d,s}M_fJ_0(M_f^2,T,\\mu ){\\mathrm{d}}M_f + C(T,\\mu )\\nonumber \\\\\n     &\\!\\! = \\!\\!&\\frac{1}{16}\\left.\\left(4Gh_f^2+\\kappa h_uh_dh_s \n     +\\frac{3g_1}{2}\\left(h_f^2\\right)^2+3g_2h_f^4\\right)\\right|_0^{M_f} \n     \\!\\! +\\frac{N_c}{8\\pi^2}\\!\\sum_{f=u,d,s}\\!\\! J_{-1}(M_f^2,T,\\mu ) \n     + C(T,\\mu ),\\end{aligned}$$ where the function $C(T,\\mu )$ does not depend on $M$, and therefore cannot be determined from the gap equation; it will be found from other arguments in the end of this section, but obviously $C(0,0)=0$. The integral $J_{-1}(M^2,T,\\mu )$ is the immediate generalization of the $T=\\mu =0$ case (\\[J\\_1\\]) $$\\label{J-1}\n     J_{-1}(M^2,T,\\mu )=-\\int_0^{M^2}\\!\\!\\! J_0(M^2,T,\\mu ){\\mathrm{d}}M^2\n     =J_{-1}(M^2)+J^{\\mathrm{med}}_{-1}(M^2,T,\\mu ),$$ where the medium contribution to $J_{-1}(M^2,T,\\mu )$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n     J_{-1}^{\\mathrm{med}}(M^2,T,\\mu )&\\!\\! =\\!\\!& 4\\int_0^{M^2}\\!\\!\\!{\\mathrm{d}}M^2 \n     \\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E||\\vec{p}_E|^2 \\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda}\n     \\frac{n_{q}+n_{\\overline{q}}}{E_p} =  \n     4\\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E||\\vec{p}_E|^2\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}\n     \\int^{M^2}_0\\!\\!\\!{\\mathrm{d}}M^2\\,\\frac{n_{q}+n_{\\overline{q}}}{E_p}\n     \\nonumber\\\\\n     &\\!\\! =\\!\\!&8\\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E||\\vec{p}_E|^2\n     \\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}\\left(2\\left(E_p(M)-E_p(0)\\right) \n     +T\\ln\\frac{n_{q M}n_{\\overline{q} M}}{n_{q 0}n_{\\overline{q} 0}}\\right)\n     \\nonumber\\\\\n     &\\!\\! =\\!\\!&8T\\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E||\\vec{p}_E|^2\n     \\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}\\ln\\frac{\\left(1+e^{-\\frac{E_p(0)-\\mu}{T}}\\right)\n     \\left(1+e^{-\\frac{E_p(0)+\\mu}{T}}\\right)}{\\left(1+e^{-\\frac{E_p(M)-\\mu}{T}}\n     \\right)\\left(1+e^{-\\frac{E_p(M)+\\mu}{T}}\\right)}\\end{aligned}$$ with $n_{q0}, n_{\\overline{q}0}$ and $n_{qM}, n_{\\overline{q}M}$ referring to the occupation numbers for massless and massive particles correspondingly, $E_p(M)\n=\\sqrt{M^2+\\vec{p}^{\\, 2}_E}$, $E_p(0)=|\\vec{p}_E|$. In spite of the fact that the integral $J_{-1}^{\\mathrm{med}}(M^2,T,\\mu )$ is convergent, we still keep the regularization $\\hat{\\rho}_\\Lambda$ to be consistent. Note that the action of the operator $\\hat{\\rho}_\\Lambda$ (see eq. (\\[reg-2\\])) on any smooth function, depending on $M^2$ through the energy, $f(E_p(M))$, can also be expressed in terms of momentum as $\\hat{\\rho}_\\Lambda f(E_p)=\n\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}f(E_p)$, where $$\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}\n     =1-\\left(1-\\Lambda^2 \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\vec{p}_E^{\\, 2}}\\right)\n     \\exp\\left(\\Lambda^2\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\vec{p}_E^{\\, 2}}\\right).$$\n\nThen, noting that, for instance, $$\\begin{aligned}\n     &&\\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E||\\vec{p}_E|^2 \n     \\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}\\ln\\left(1+e^{-\\frac{E_p(M)-\\mu}{T}}\\right)\n     \\nonumber\\\\\n     &\\!\\! =\\!\\!&\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda}\\left(\\left.\\frac{|\\vec{p}_E|^3}{3}\\ln\n     \\left(1+e^{-\\frac{E_p(M)-\\mu}{T}}\\right)\\right|^{\\infty}_0\\right) \n     -\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda}\\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E|\\frac{|\\vec{p}_E|^3}{3}\n     \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial |\\vec{p}_E|}\\ln\n     \\left(1+e^{-\\frac{E_p(M)-\\mu}{T}}\\right)\n     \\nonumber\\\\\n     &\\!\\! =\\!\\!&\\hat{\\rho}_\\Lambda\\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E|\n     \\frac{|\\vec{p}_E|^4n_{qM}}{3TE_p(M)}=\\frac{1}{3T}\\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E||\\vec{p}_E|^4\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}\\frac{n_{qM}}{E_p(M)}\\end{aligned}$$ where we used the fact the surface term disappears, we get finally $$\\label{J-1med}\n     J_{-1}^{\\mathrm{med}}(M^2,T,\\mu )=-\\frac{8}{3}\\int^\\infty_0{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E||\\vec{p}_E|^4\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}\\left(\n     \\frac{n_{qM}+n_{\\overline{q}M}}{E_p(M)}-\n     \\frac{n_{q0}+n_{\\overline{q}0}}{E_p(0)}\\right).$$\n\nIt is important to realize that the expansion of the integral (\\[J-1med\\]) for small values of $T$ and at $\\mu =0$ starts from the term $$\\label{limit}\n     J^{\\mathrm{med}}_{-1}(M^2,T,0)=\\frac{16}{3}\\int_0^\\infty\n     \\frac{|\\vec{p}_E|^3{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E|}{1+e^{{\\frac{|\\vec{p}_E|}{T}}}}\n     +{\\cal O}(T^{\\frac{5}{2}}M^{\\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\\frac{M}{T}})=\\frac{14}{45}\n     \\pi^4T^4+{\\cal O}(T^{\\frac{5}{2}}M^{\\frac{3}{2}}e^{-\\frac{M}{T}}).$$ This leading contribution in $T$ arises from the combination $\\sim (n_{q0}+\nn_{\\overline{q}0})$ and does not depend on the cut-off, i.e. the Pauli-Villars regulator $\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}$ does not affect the leading order of the low-temperature asymptotics of the integral. To make this clear let us consider the typical integral in eq. (\\[J-1med\\]) $$\\label{int4}\n     \\int^\\infty_0{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E||\\vec{p}_E|^4\\frac{n_{qM}}{E_p(M)}\n     =\\int^\\infty_M\\frac{|\\vec{p}_E|^3{\\mathrm{d}}E_p}{1+e^{\\frac{E_p(M)}{T}}} \n     =T^4\\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}x\\frac{(x^2+2x\\frac{M}{T})^{\\frac{3}{2}}}{1+\n     e^{x+\\frac{M}{T}}}.$$ If $M=0$, then the integral can be evaluated explicitly and is found to be $\\frac{7\\pi^4}{120}T^4$, leading us to the result (\\[limit\\]). If $M\\neq 0$, we obtain at once the estimate at small $T$ $$\\int^\\infty_0\\!{\\mathrm{d}}x\\frac{(x^2+2x\\frac{M}{T})^{\\frac{3}{2}}}{1+\n     e^{x+\\frac{M}{T}}}\n     =\\frac{3\\sqrt{\\pi}}{4}\\left(2\\frac{M}{T}\\right)^{\\frac{3}{2}}\n     e^{-\\frac{M}{T}} \n     \\left(1+{\\cal O}(T)\\right).$$ We conclude that the integral vanishes exponentially for small $T$ and does not contribute to the leading order term in eq. (\\[limit\\]). It is then clear that the action of the Pauli-Villars regulator $\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}$ on the integrand, which consists in subtracting the contribution of the massive Pauli-Villars states, will not affect the leading term as well.\n\nOne might worry that the low-temperature expansion of the integral (\\[limit\\]) starts from the unphysical contribution which corresponds to the massless quark states. This fear would be valid if the potential had not the term $C(T,\\mu )$. Let us fix the $M_f$-independent function $C(T,\\mu )$ in eq. (\\[effpot-t\\]) to avoid the problem. For that it is instructive to compare the matter quark-loop part of the thermodynamic potential obtained here (i.e. the $J^{\\mathrm{med}}_{-1}$-part) with the corresponding result of the standard NJL approach. There is only one difference between such calculations: we use the Pauli-Villars subtractions instead of a 3-dimensional cut-off $\\Lambda_3$. Therefore we can expect that if one removes the regularizations in both approaches ($\\hat{\\rho}_{\\Lambda\\vec{p}_E}\\to 1$ and $\\Lambda_3\\to\\infty$) the finite matter part of the thermodynamic potentials must coincide. From this requirement of consistency we find $$\\label{FTP}\n       C(T,\\mu )= -\\frac{N_c}{\\pi^2}\\int_0^\\infty{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E||\\vec{p}_E|^4\n       \\frac{n_{q0}+n_{\\bar q0}}{E_p(0)}\\ \\to\\ C(T,0)\n       =-\\frac{7N_cN_f}{180}\\pi^2T^4.$$ As a result, the unwanted massless quark contribution to the vacuum energy at small $T$ disappears.\n\nEffective number of quark degrees of freedom\n--------------------------------------------\n\nA quantity of interest related with the thermodynamic potential is the number of quark degrees of freedom present at a certain temperature. For that we consider the quark pressure difference from the zero-temperature value $$\\label{nu}\n      \\nu (T) = \\frac{p(T)-p(0)}{\\pi^2T^4/90},$$ in order that the total $\\nu (0)=0$. Here $p(T)=-V(M^*_f,T,\\mu =0)$, where $M^*_f$ denotes the gap equation solution at a given $T$. Dividing the pressure in eq. (\\[nu\\]) by $\\pi^2T^4/90$, the result is presented in Stefan-Boltzmann units, i.e. one explicitly counts the number of relevant degrees of freedom.\n\nIt is known that in the case of massless quarks of two and three flavors the fermionic degrees of freedom at $T>T_c$ are estimated as $\\nu =(7/8)\\times \n3\\times 2\\times 4=21$ and $\\nu =(7/8)\\times 3\\times 3\\times 4=31.5$, respectively. The system studied here consists of three-types of light quarks: $u,d,s$. Hence $\\nu$ is expected to be in the interval $21<\\nu <31.5$ in the region $T>T_c$, where chiral symmetry is \u201crestored\u201d (up to the explicit symmetry breaking effects caused by the current quark masses). Indeed, the solid curves $\\nu (T/T_c)$, plotted for the sets (a) and (b) in fig. \\[fig-1\\], at some values $T/T_c>1$ enter the interval and approach asymptotically the upper bound $\\nu =31.5$ at high $T$: in particular, we have already at $T/T_c =2.5$ that $\\nu (2.5)=30.95$ (set (a)) and $\\nu (2.5) =30.25$ (set (b)). This is too fast as compared with the lattice estimates [@Bazavov:2009] in 2+1 flavor QCD, but the difference can be ascribed to the simplifications introduced by the model under consideration (the essential difference is that the NJL model does not possess the quark-confinement property of QCD).\n\nWe can gain some understanding of the asymptotic behavior of $\\nu (T)$ by considering eqs. (\\[J0t\\]) and (\\[J-1\\]). Firstly, it is easy to see that the integral $J_0(M^2,T,\\mu )\\to 0$ at $T\\to\\infty$. The reason for this is very simple and is contained in the integrand $(1-n_q-n_{\\bar q})$ which vanishes at $T\\to\\infty$, as it explicitly follows from eqs. (\\[n-occup\\]). Secondly, eq. (\\[J-1\\]) contains $J_0$ as an integrand. Thus we conclude that $J_{-1}(M^2,T,\\mu )\\to 0$ at $T\\to\\infty$. Next, from the gap equation (\\[gap-t\\]) it follows that $h_f(T)\\to 0$ at $T\\to\\infty$. Therefore $V(M_f,T,\\mu )\\sim C(T,\\mu )$ at large $T$, i.e. we can say that the asymptotics is totally determined by the term $C(T,\\mu )$, yielding $\\nu(T\\to\n\\infty )=31.5$, which is independent of any model parameters. This conclusion is attractive because it agrees with the general arguments of the previous paragraph. In fact, to many readers our conclusion that $\\nu (T)$ has the correct asymptotics, may seem to be a much more compelling argument for fixing $C(T,\\mu )$ than the assumption made that the different cut-off procedures must give the same result when cut-offs are removed.\n\nA clear insight into the origin of this result can be obtained by considering the contribution of $C(T,\\mu )$ and the term $\\sim (n_{q0}+n_{\\bar q0})$ in eq. (\\[J-1med\\]) to the number of effective degrees of freedom $\\nu (T)$, because exactly these terms determine the correct low-temperature behavior of the function $\\nu (T)$. We designate this contribution by $\\nu_\\Lambda (T)$, and plot it in fig. \\[fig-1a\\]. Thus, we consider the following function of temperature $$\\label{intconst} \n     \\nu_\\Lambda (T)=\\frac{90 N_c}{\\pi^4 T^4}\\int_0^\\infty |\\vec{p}_E|^4\n     {\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E|\\,(1-\\hat\\rho_{\\Lambda \\vec{p}_E})\n     \\frac{n_{q0}+n_{\\bar q0}}{E_p(0)}$$ calculated at a fixed value of the cut-off parameter $\\Lambda$ (the value taken is the same for both parameter sets considered, see Table I). At first glance one might wish to associate $\\nu_\\Lambda (T)$ with the contribution of massless states, introduced to $J_{-1}^{\\mathrm{med}}$ by assigning the low limit $M=0$ to the integral (\\[J-1\\]). However, this expectation is potentially fallacious. One can easily see from eq. (\\[intconst\\]) that $\\nu_{\\Lambda}(T)$ vanishes for all $T$ if the the integral is not regularized $\\hat\\rho_{\\Lambda \\vec{p}_E}\\to 1$. Hence only the auxiliary Pauli-Villars states of mass $\\Lambda$ contribute to $\\nu_\\Lambda(T)$ $$\\label{intconst-2} \n     \\nu_\\Lambda (T)=\\frac{90 N_c}{\\pi^4 T^4}\\int_0^\\infty |\\vec{p}_E|^4\n     {\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E|\\left(1-\\Lambda^2\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\vec{p}_E^{\\,2}}   \n     \\right)\\frac{n_{q\\Lambda}+n_{\\bar q\\Lambda}}{E_p(\\Lambda )}.$$ This contribution is given by an integral with a positive integrand. Here we have two dimensionful parameters, $T$ and $\\Lambda$. Therefore, at large $T$ the series for $\\nu_{\\Lambda}(T)$ can be organized in powers of the dimensionless ratio $\\Lambda/T$, i.e. $$\\label{sb-1}\n     \\nu_\\Lambda (T)=\\frac{180N_c}{\\pi^4}\\int_{\\frac{\\Lambda}{T}}^\\infty\\!{\\mathrm{d}}x\n     \\frac{(x^2-\\frac{\\Lambda^2}{T^2})^{\\frac{3}{2}}}{1+e^x}\\left[1+\n     \\frac{\\Lambda^2}{2T^2x^2}\\left(1+\\frac{xe^x}{1+e^x}\\right)\\right]=   \n     \\frac{21N_c}{2}\\left[1+\n     {\\cal O}\\left(\\frac{\\Lambda}{T}\\right)\\right].$$ A useful observation is that although the heavy mass states determine the value of the integral, it still has the correct asymptotics at large $T$, which does not depend on $\\Lambda$. In other words, the integral $\\sim (n_{q0}+n_{\\bar q0})$ in eq. (\\[J-1med\\]) must vanish at $T\\to\\infty$, in order that the function $\\nu (T)$ has the right asymptotic behavior. This really happens, due to the Pauli-Villars regulator $\\hat\\rho_{\\Lambda \\vec{p}_E}$. In fig. \\[fig-1a\\] one can see that up to around $T\\sim 100\\,\\mbox{MeV}$ the contribution to the effective number of degrees of freedom is practically constant and nearly zero, then it increases and reaches asymptotically the value $31.5$. The constant dashed curve shows the same quantity if the integral is not regularized. Such a big difference in the behavior of $\\nu_\\Lambda (T)$ translates in $\\nu (T)$ (see fig. \\[fig-1\\]) to an enhancement in the number of quark degrees of freedom around the critical temperature in the presence of a regulator.\n\nThe conclusion that the Pauli-Villars regularization leads to the correct asymptotics is attractive because in the NJL model with 3-dimensional cut-off the Stefan-Boltzmann limit can be reached only when the cut-off is removed in the matter integrals [@Klevansky:1994], which are finite in themselves. Such a selective removal of the cut-off must be taken \u201ccum grano salis\u201d, since technically the NJL model requires the presence of a finite ultraviolet cut-off throughout all integrals. Nevertheless, one might think of criticizing our result on the grounds that we seem to get the correct asymptotics due to the auxiliary and therefore unphysical Pauli-Villars terms. This is certainly not true. To see this let us return to eq. (\\[J-1med\\]) and consider now the contribution of the term $\\sim (n_{qM}+n_{\\bar qM})$ to $\\nu(T)$. (Our arguments will be based on considering the simplified case $M_u^*=M_d^*=M_s^*=M_*$. We need not be rigorous in the following discussion, because the unitary symmetry breaking effects are unimportant for the asymptotics.) The integral describes the thermal energy of massive quarks, but does not contribute at large $T$ $$\\label{sb-2}\n     \\nu_{M_*} (T) =\\frac{90 N_c}{\\pi^4 T^4}\\int_0^\\infty |\\vec{p}_E|^4{\\mathrm{d}}|\\vec{p}_E|\\hat\\rho_{\\Lambda \\vec{p}_E}\\frac{n_{qM_*}+n_{\\bar qM_*}}{E_p(M_*)} \n     =\\frac{21N_c}{2}\\left[1-1+{\\cal O}\n     \\left(\\frac{M_*}{T},\\frac{\\sqrt{\\Lambda^2+M_*^2}}{T}\\right)\\right].$$ The vanishing result is a consequence of a total cancellation of two contributions: the first, $1$, in the square brackets represents the contribution of the physical states with mass $M_*$; the second, $-1$, comes from the Pauli-Villars regulator. What is interesting here is that the second term, if one joins it with the other unphysical contributions of eq. (\\[sb-1\\]), cancels them entirely. In other words, the correct large $T$ asymptotics in (\\[nu\\]) can equally be assigned to the pure physical states contribution as well.\n\nLet us compare our results with the recent estimates of Fukushima [@Fukushima2:2008], made on the basis of the three-flavor NJL model with and without the Polyakov loop. The starting values are very similar: our curve for the set (a) agrees well with the Fukushima estimate made in the standard NJL model approach with the \u2019t Hooft six-quark interactions. Indeed, if we remove the cut-off dependence in the quark number occupation integrals (\\[J-1med\\]), like it has been done in [@Fukushima2:2008], the curves almost coincide: compare the upper thin solid line of our set (a), where the regulator has been removed, with the long dashed curve of Fukushima, almost on top of it in fig. \\[fig-1\\]. Taking systematically into account the finite value of the cut-off, we obtain the upper bold curve corresponding to the set (a). The set (b), compared with set (a), shows a rather strong (more than 50%) suppression of the abundant artificial quark excitations at $T/T_c>0.2$ due to the large OZI-violating eight-quark interactions (see lower bold curve in fig. \\[fig-1\\] for the finite cut-off result and lower thin solid line, where the cut-off condition has been relaxed. Notice that in both cases (a) and (b) the finite cut-off leads to larger values of $\\nu$, because $\\nu_\\Lambda (T)$ is non-zero and positive at $\\Lambda =\\infty$; this effect is more pronounced in the case of set (a)). Although with set (b) the model still fails to describe accurately the pressure at $0.3<T/T_c<1$, it leads to an improved description of the number of quark degrees of freedom as compared to set (a). Thus the OZI-violating interactions could potentially play an important role in the description of quark excitations. At least one should not exclude the set (b) if one includes the Polyakov loop effects in the framework of effective NJL-type models with multi-quark interactions, see [@Bhattacharyya:2010] for results with the 3-dimensional cut-off.\n\nPhase diagram\n=============\n\nFig. \\[fig-2\\] shows the phase diagrams for the two sets of parameters. One observes a larger window for the first order transition regime in the case of stronger $8q$ interaction coupling $g_1$, the critical endpoint is situated at $(\\mu_E,T_E)=(155,108)$ MeV, whereas for the smaller coupling it is at $(\\mu_E,T_E)=(338,53)$ MeV. The temperature at zero chemical potential, in the crossover regime, is substantially smaller for the large $8q$ coupling case, around $T_c\\simeq 135\\,\\mbox{MeV}$ compared to $T_c\\simeq 193\\,\n\\mbox{MeV}$ for the sets (b) and (a) respectively [@Osipov:2007b]. The approximate values for $T_c$ were obtained as usual, through the condition ${\\rm d}^2M/{\\rm d}T^2=0$ of strongest change in the slope of the constituent quark masses.\n\nThe length of the line of first order transitions can be increased further with increase of the $8q$ coupling $g_1$ and after some critical value it goes all the way through to the $\\mu =0$ end. A corresponding set of parameters has been considered in [@Osipov:2008]. In this way we obtain the thin solid line in figs. \\[fig-2\\], \\[fig-2a\\] that connects all CEP obtained by varying $g_1$ in the allowed interval for stability of the effective potential.\n\nHowever we point out that also in the case of strong $8q$ couplings our results have with other approaches in common that the dynamical $u$ and $d$ quark masses suffer a considerable reduction at the transition temperatures, while the strange quark mass remains roughly the same. For instance for set (b) at $\\mu=170\\,\\mbox{MeV}$ at the first order transition temperature $T=103\\,\\mbox{MeV}$, $M_u$ jumps from $M_u=208\\,\\mbox{MeV}$ to $128\\,\n\\mbox{MeV}$, while the strange quark mass changes only from $M_s=487\\,\n\\mbox{MeV}$ to $448\\,\\mbox{MeV}$. By increasing the temperature keeping $\\mu$ fixed, one obtains at $T=160\\,\\mbox{MeV}$ the values $M_u=24\\,\n\\mbox{MeV}$ and $M_s=381\\,\\mbox{MeV}$. Profiles of the quark masses are given in [@Moreira:2010] for the $T=0,\\mu\\ne 0$ case. The slow decrease of the strange quark mass is present in studies involving realistic values for the strange current quark mass [@Fukushima:2008].\n\nThe position of the critical endpoint in the three flavor NJL model with $U_A(1)$ breaking has been analyzed in [@Fukushima2:2008], with the parameter set of [@Hatsuda:1994], $(\\mu_E,T_E)=(324,48)\\,\\mbox{MeV}$ in comparison with the case with inclusion of the Polyakov loop, $(\\mu_E,T_E)=\n(313,102)\\,\\mbox{MeV}$. The increase of $T_E$ is explained by the suppression of the artificial quark excitations at finite temperature and density in the presence of the Polyakov loop contribution [@Fukushima2:2008]. Our set (a) with $(\\mu_E,T_E)=(338,53)\\,\\mbox{MeV}$ is in reasonable agreement with the above estimates.\n\nOur result for set (b), $(\\mu_E,T_E)=(155,108)\\,\\mbox{MeV}$, yields a twice lower value for the critical $\\mu_E$ as compared to set (a). This new feature is related with the OZI-violating eight-quark interactions: it is well-known that NJL-type models without $8q$-forces have the tendency in common to lead to a critical endpoint at relatively high density, above $\\mu_E\\sim 300\\,\n\\mbox{MeV}$ [@Fukushima2:2008]. The small value found here is a good indicator that the main force responsible for dynamical chiral symmetry breaking has changed, being now associated with the \u2019t Hooft $6q$-interactions.\n\nLet us also take notice of the difference between the critical temperatures for the case (b), $T_c=108\\,\\mbox{MeV}$, and the Fukushima\u2019s case with Polyakov loop, $T_c=204.8\\,\\mbox{MeV}$. We expect that the inclusion of the Polyakov loop in our analysis will increase somewhat the value of $T_c$.\n\nThe NJL model with $8q$ interactions and without $U_A(1)$ symmetry breaking has been analyzed as well for the $SU(2)$ flavor case [@Kashiwa:2006; @Kashiwa:2008]. Although the $8q$ forces are not needed to stabilize the effective potential of the model in the two flavor case, the same tendency as above in i) was observed, for instance: $(\\mu_E,T_E)=(276,62)\\,\\mbox{MeV}$ with the $8q$ interactions, whereas $(\\mu_E,T_E)=(330,47)\\,\\mbox{MeV}$ without them [@Kashiwa:2008].\n\nAnother variant without $8q$ terms of the two flavor NJL model, including the vector-isoscalar interactions, which induce an effective chemical potential, has been considered a long time ago [@Asakawa]. In this case, the critical endpoint is located at larger $\\mu$ and lower temperatures $(\\mu_E,T_E)=(350,40)\\,\\mbox{MeV}$. This effect has been studied also recently in [@Kashiwa:2008; @Fukushima2:2008].\n\nFurther results concerning the position of the critical endpoint within other model approaches is given in the review [@Stephanov:2004] (note the notation there is in terms of $\\mu_B= 3\\mu$), in comparison with lattice results and the freezeout points extracted from heavy-ion experiments. For our two sets the critical endpoints are situated in case (a) slightly above and in case (b) slightly below the freezeout points obtained at different collision energies [@Braun-Munzinger:2003; @Stephanov:2004].\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nThe thermodynamic potential of the three flavor NJL model with \u2019t Hooft and $8q$ interactions has been obtained in stationary phase approximation (at leading order) and using the Pauli-Villars regularization in quark loops (at one-loop level).\n\nThe main conclusions of this work can be classified as follows.\n\nFirstly, we argued that a non-renormalizable effective theory at finite temperature and chemical potential, can be self-consistently studied with the use of the Pauli-Villars regularization. The importance of the regulator in the matter parts for consistency has also been discussed in [@Florkowski:1997] in connection with correlators. Instead, our present study is devoted to the construction of the thermodinamic potential. Unlike the conventional approach with 3-dimensional cut-off, the Pauli-Villars technique leads to the right asymptotic behavior of relevant thermodynamic observables. It is one of the main results of this paper.\n\nSecondly, we quantified the effect of the new $8q$ terms on the number of degrees of freedom and on the phase diagram. We observe that in the large $8q$ coupling regime a strong depletion of the number of degrees of freedom below $T_c$ is reached in comparison with the weak coupling case, working in the same direction as the effect produced through inclusion of the Polyakov loop in the model without $8q$ interactions.\n\nThirdly, we conclude that the NJL model with the $8q$ stabilizing interactions does not impede the possibility of having a phase diagram consisting only of first order transitions even for realistic quark masses. This will depend on the strength of the OZI-violating $8q$ interactions. At $\\mu =0$ there is growing evidence from lattice calculations that the transition is a crossover [@Aoki:2006]. This would set an upper limit for the $8q$ coupling, which nevertheless can be sufficiently strong to trigger the first order transitions regime at low values of $\\mu\\ne 0$. This point deserves to be studied more carefully especially because it can help us to clarify the quark dynamics which is responsible for the mechanism of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Indeed as it is shown above the shift of the critical endpoint to lower values of $\\mu_E$ is possible only when the $6q$ interactions are responsible for the chiral phase transition (set (b)); however if the $4q$ coupling $G$ exceeds its critical value, the $4q$ interactions drive the chiral phase transition in NJL-type models and as a result the critical endpoint is located at large values of $\\mu_E$ (set (a)).\n\n**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**\n\nThis work has been supported in part by grants of Fundao para a Ci\u00eancia e Tecnologia, FEDER, OE, POCI 2010, CERN/FP/83510/2008, SFRH/BD/13528/2003 and Centro de Fsica Computacional, unit 405.\n\nWe acknowledge the support of the European Community-Research Infrastructure Integrating Activity \u201cStudy of Strongly Interacting Matter\u201d (acronym HadronPhysics2, Grant Agreement n. 227431) under the Seventh Framework Programme of EU.\n\n[99]{} K. Rajagopal, F. Wilczek, Chapter 35 in the Festschrift in honor of B.L. Ioffe, \u201cAt the Frontier of Particle Physics / Handbook of QCD\u201d, M. Shifman, ed., (World Scientific). In Shifman, M. (ed.): At the frontier of particle physics, vol. 3, 2061-2151; hep-ph/0011333. T. Schafer, Lectures given at 20th Annual Hampton University Graduate Studies Program (HUGS 2005), Newport News, Virginia, 31 May - 17 Jun 2005; hep-ph/0509068. M. Stephanov, Acta Physica Polonica B [**35**]{}, 2939 (2004). K. Fukushima, J. Phys. G [**35**]{}, 104020 (2008); arXiv:0806.0292 \\[hep-ph\\]. C. Ratti, M.A. Thaler, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 014019 (2006). Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. [**122**]{}, 345 (1961); [**124**]{}, 246 (1961); V.G. Vaks and A.I. Larkin, Zh. \u00c9ksp. Teor. Fiz. [**40**]{}, 282 (1961) \\[Sov. Phys. JETP [**13**]{}, 192 (1961)\\]. G.\u2019t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D [**14**]{}, 3432 (1976); G.\u2019t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D [**18**]{}, 2199 (1978). V. Bernard, R.L. Jaffe and U.-G. Meissner, Phys. Lett. B [**198**]{}, 92 (1987); V. Bernard, R.L. Jaffe and U.-G. Meissner, Nucl. Phys. B [**308**]{}, 753 (1988). H. Reinhardt and R. Alkofer, Phys. Lett. B [**207**]{}, 482 (1988). A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller and J.da Provid\u00eancia, Phys. Lett. B [**634**]{}, 48 (2006); hep-ph/0508058. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, A.H. Blin and J.da Provid\u00eancia, Ann. of Phys. [**322**]{}, 2021 (2007); hep-ph/0607066. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, J. Moreira, A.H. Blin, J.da Provid\u00eancia, Phys. Lett. B [**646**]{}, 91 (2007); hep-ph/0612082. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, J. Moreira, A.H. Blin, Phys. Lett. B [**659**]{}, 270 (2008); arXiv:0709.3507 \\[hep-ph\\]. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, A.H. Blin, J.da Provid\u00eancia, Phys. Lett. B [**650**]{}, 262 (2007); hep-ph/0701090. A.A. Andrianov and V.A. Andrianov, Teor. Mat. Phys. 94 (1993) 6 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/9309297\\]; A.A. Andrianov and V.A. Andrianov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 8 (1993) 1981. D. Ebert, K.G. Klimenko, Eur. Phys. J. C [**46**]{}, 771 (2006); D. Ebert, K.G. Klimenko, V. Ch. Zhukovsky, A.M. Fedotov, Eur. Phys. J. C [**49**]{}, 709 (2007); hep-ph/0606029; D. Ebert, K.G. Klimenko, A.V. Tyukov, V.Ch. Zhukovsky, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 045008 (2008); arXiv:0804.4826 \\[hep-ph\\]. A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, Phys. Lett. B [**515**]{}, 458 (2001); A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 087701 (2001); hep-th/0106226; A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 094009 (2001); hep-ph/0012294. D. Ebert, H. Reinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B [**271**]{}, 188 (1986). A.A. Osipov, B. Hiller, Eur. Phys. J. C [**35**]{}, 223 (2004); hep-th/0307035. J.I. Kapusta, \u201cFinite Temperature Field Theory\u201d, Cambridge University Press (1989). A. Bazavov et al., Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 014504 (2009), arXiv:0903.4379 \\[hep-lat\\]. P. Zhuang, J. Huefner, S.P. Klevansky, Nucl. Phys. A [**576**]{}, 525 (1994). K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 114028 (2008); arXiv:0803.3318 \\[hep-ph\\]. A. Bhattacharyya, P. Deb, S. K. Ghosh, R. Ray, arXiv:1003.3337v1 \\[hep-ph\\]. J. Moreira, B. Hiller, A. A. Osipov, A. H. Blin, to appear in the Proceedings of Hadron 2009: XIII International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy, Tallahassee, Florida, USA (2009), arXiv:1001.3565 \\[hep-ph\\]. T. Hatsuda, T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rep. [**247**]{}, 221 (1994). K. Kashiwa, H. Kouno, M. Matsuzaki, M. Yahiro, Phys. Lett. B [**662**]{}, 26 (2008); arXiv:0710.2180 \\[hep-ph\\]. K. Kashiwa, H. Kouno, T. Sakaguchi, M. Matsuzaki, M. Yahiro, Phys. Lett. B [**647**]{}, 446 (2007); nucl-th/0608078; K. Kashiwa, M. Matsuzaki, H. Kouno, M. Yahiro, arXiv:0705.1196 \\[hep-ph\\]. M. Asakawa, K. Yazaki, Nucl Phys. A [**504**]{}, 668 (1989). P. Braun-Munzinger, K. Redlich, J. Stachel, \u201cQuark Gluon Plasma 3\u201d, eds. R.C. Hwa and Xin-Nian Wang, World Scientific Publishing, 491 (2003); nucl-th/0304013. Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz, K.K. Szabo, Nature [**443**]{}, 675 (2006); hep-lat/0611014; Y. Aoki, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz, K.K. Szabo, Phys. Lett. B [**643**]{}, 46 (2006); hep-lat/0609068. W. Florkowski, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**28**]{}, 2079 (1997); arXiv e-Print: hep-ph/9701223.\n\n[^1]: On leave from Dzhelepov Laboratory of Nuclear Problems, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 141980 Dubna, Moscow Region, Russia\n"}
-{"text": "0 true cm 0 pt 0 pt 0 pt 21 true cm 14 true cm =1.0mm 0.2 true cm =0.5cm\n\nJianxun Hu\n\nDepartment of Mathematics, Zhongshan University,\\\nGuangzhou 510275\n\nWanchuan Zhang\n\nDepartment of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin-Madison,\\\nMadison WI 53706, USA\n\n0.5cm\n\n[**Abstract**]{}\n\nSuppose that two compact manifolds $X, X'$ are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops. In this paper, we construct a ring isomorphism between cohomology ring of $X$ and $X'$. Using the localization technique, we prove that the quantum corrected products on $X, X'$ are the ordinary intersection products. Furthermore, $X, X'$ have isomorphic Ruan cohomology. i.e. we proved the cohomological minimal model conjecture proposed by Ruan.\n\n0.5cm [**Keywords:**]{} Mukai Flop, Ruan cohomology, quantum cohomology, localization\n\n0.5cm [**2000 AMS Classification:**]{} Primary 14N35, Secondary 53D45.\n\n0.5cm\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nAfter the mathematical foundation of quantum cohomology was established during last decade, see [@RT1], now the focus of the research is on its computation and application. We think that the fundamental problem in quantum cohomology is the [**quantum naturality problem**]{}[@R1; @R2; @H]: [*Define \u201c morphism\u201d of symplectic manifolds so that quantum cohomology is natural.*]{} Qin and Ruan [@QR] showed that the quantum cohomology is not natural for fibrations. Their results also shows that possible \u201cmorphism\u201d must be very rigid. The existence of these rigid morphisms will set apart quantum cohomology from ordinary cohomology and gives it its own identity. Although this result let us feel depressed, the result of [@LR] discovers some amazing relations between quantum cohomology and birational geometry. Their result said that threefolds which are connected by a sequence of flops have isomorphic quantum cohomology. This gives us some suggestions to look for the suitable \u201cmorphism\" from some birational transformations.\n\nIn the study of higher dimensional algebraic geometry, the famous \u201cminimal model program\u201d initiated by Mori is one of the main research topics. So far the existence problem of minimal models is still completely open in dimensions higher than three. Moreover, in contrast to the two dimensional case, the minimal model is not unique in higher dimensions. It is then an important question to see what kind of invariants are shared by all the birationally equivalent minimal models, and more generally, are preserved under certain elementary birational transformations.\n\nIt is well-known that the crepant resolutions are not unique in dimensions higher than three. But Wang [@W] showed that the different crepant resolutions are connected by \u201cK-equivalence\u201d. Two smooth complex manifolds $X,Y$ are [**K-equivalent**]{} if and only if there is a common resolution $\\phi: Z \\longrightarrow X$ and $\\varphi : Z \\longrightarrow Y$ such that $\\phi^* K_X = \\varphi^* K_Y$. Batyrev [@B] and Wang [@W] showed that two K-equivalent projective manifolds have the same betti number. It is natural to ask if they have the same cohomology ring structure. Unfortunately, they usually have different ring structures. About this problem, Wang [@W; @W1] proposed his following conjecture:\n\n[**Wang\u2019s conjecture:**]{} For K-equivalent manifolds under birational map $f: X \\cdots \\rightarrow X'$, there is a naturally attached correspondence $T \\in A^{\\dim X}(X \\times X')$ of the form $T = \\overline{\\Gamma}_f + \n\\sum _i T_i$ with $\\overline{\\Gamma}_f \\subset X \\times X'$ the cycle of graph closure of $f$ and with $T_i$\u2019s being certain degenerate correspondences (i. e. $T_i$ has positive dimensional fibers when projecting to $X$ or $X'$) such that $T$ is an isomorphism of Chow motives.\n\nIn other words, Wang\u2019s conjecture implies that for K-equivalent manifolds $X$ and $X'$, the canonical morphism $\\varphi_* \\phi^* : H^*(X, Q) \\longrightarrow H^*(X', Q)$ gives rise to an isomorphism with some modification in the middle dimension. In the case of hyperk\u00e4hler manifolds, using Bishop\u2019s theorem [@Bi], Huybrechts [@Huy1; @Huy2] proved this conjecture by showing the existence of the correction cycles $T_i$. In this paper, for arbitrary projective manifolds connected by Mokai flops, we proved that $\\varphi_*\\phi^*$ gives rise to an isomorphism of cohomology rings of $X, X'$ with an explicit expression of the correction cycles $T_i$(see the definition of the map $T$ in section 3).\n\nWe will concentrated our attention on a special kind of birational transformations\u2013[**Mukai Flops**]{} [@Mukai]. Here we first recall the definition of certain known flops.The simplest type of flops are called [**ordinary flops**]{}. An ordinary ${\\bf P}^r$-flop(or simply ${\\bf P}^r$-flop) $f: X \\longrightarrow X'$ is a birational map such that the exceptional set $Z \\subset X$ has a ${\\bf P}^r$-bundle structure $\\varphi : Z \\longrightarrow S$ over some smooth variety S and the normal bundle $N_{Z/X}$ is isomorphic to ${\\cal O}(-1)^{r+1}$ when restricting to any fiber of $\\varphi$. The map $f$ and the space $X'$ are then obtained by first blowing up $X$ along $Z$ to get $Y$, with exceptional divisor $E$ a ${\\bf P}^r \\times \n{\\bf P}^r$-bundle over $S$, then blowing down $E$ along another fiber direction. Ordinary ${\\bf P}^r$-flops are also called classical flops. Three dimensional classical flops are the most well-known Atiyah flops over $(-1,-1)$ rational curves.\n\nAnother important example is the [ **Mukai flops**]{} $f: X \\longrightarrow X'$. In this case it is required that the exceptional set $Z \\subset X$ is of codimension $r$ and has a ${\\bf P}^r$-bundle structure $\\varphi : Z={\\bf P}_S(F)\\longrightarrow S$ (for some rank $r+1$ vector bundle $F$) over a smooth base $S$, moreover the normal bundle $N_{Z/X}\\equiv T^*_{Z/S}$, the relative cotangent bundle of $\\varphi$. To get $f$, one first blows up $X$ along $Z$ to get $\\phi: Y \\longrightarrow X$ with exceptional divisor $E=\n{\\bf P}_S(T^*_{Z/S})\\subset {\\bf P}_Z(F)\\times {\\bf P}_S(F^*)$ as the incidence variety. The first projection corresponds to $\\phi$ and one may contract $E$ through the second projection to get $\\phi':Y \\longrightarrow X'$.\n\nIn this paper, we will only consider the following simplest Mukai flops:\n\n[**Definition:**]{} Let $X$ be a projective manifold of complex dimension $2n$. A Mukai flop from $(X,Z)$ to $(X', Z')$ is the following birational transformation $$\\begin{array}{rcl}\n        & E \\subset Y&\\\\\n        &\\phi \\swarrow \\searrow \\varphi&\\\\\n        Z \\cong {\\bf P}^n \\subset X& \\cdots \\longrightarrow & X' \\supset\n        Z' \\cong ({\\bf P}^n)^*\n   \\end{array}$$ where $E$ is the incidence correspondence between $Z$ and $Z'$. We also call $X$ and $X'$ are connected by a [**Mukai flop**]{}.\n\nThroughout this paper, we will call this simplest Mukai flops as Mukai flops.\n\nIn the study of birational geometry, one of the most important problems is to find that what kind of cohomology is preserved by K-equivalene. For this purpose, Ruan [@R3] proposed\n\n[**Quantum Minimal Model Conjecture:**]{} Two K-equivalent projective manifolds have the same quantum cohomology.\n\nIn dimensions higher than three, quantum minimal model conjecture seems to be a difficult problem. We think the difficulty comes from the fact we used all quantum information involving the GW-invariants. So Ruan proposed that we should consider another kind of cohomology with a minimal set of quantum information involving the GW-invariants of exceptional rational curves. We call this new cohomology as Ruan Cohomology, and will give its definition in section 2. In section 4, we will also prove Ruan cohomology is invariant under Mukai flops.\n\nOur main theorem in this paper is\n\n[**Theorem:**]{} Two compact projective manifolds which are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops have isomorphic cohomology and Ruan cohomology.\n\nWe will divide the proof of the theorem into two cases: ordinary cohomology and Ruan cohomology. In section 3, we will prove that $X, X'$ have isomorphic cohomology, see Theorem 3.2. In section 4, we will prove that for $X, X'$ the quantum correction all vanish. So they have isomorphic Ruan cohomology, see Theorem 4.4.\n\n[**Acknowledgements:**]{} We would like to thank Prof. Yongbin Ruan, Prof. Weiping Li for their many-hour-long suggestive discussion and encouragement. The first author would like to Prof. Banghe Li and Yaqing Li for their discussion and help during my visiting The Hongkong University of Science and Technology. Thanks also to the organizer of the satellite conference\u201c Stringy orbifolds\" of ICM2002 in Chengdu for inviting us to announce our results.\n\nRuan Cohomology\n===============\n\nIn [@R3], Ruan defined his quantum corrected cohomology with respect to a birational map. Suppose that $X, X'$ are K-equivalent and $\\pi : X \\cdots\\rightarrow\nX'$ is the birational map. Denote by $\\pi ^{-1}:X' \\cdots\\rightarrow\nX$ the inverse birational transformation of $\\pi$. Let $A_1,\n\\cdots, A_k$ be an integral basis of the homology classes of exceptional effective curves. We call $\\pi$ nondegenerate if $A_1,\n\\cdots, A_k$ are linearly independent. Then the homology class of any exceptional effective curve can be written as $A= \\sum_i a_i\nA_i$ for $a_i\\geq 0$. For each $A_i$, we assign a formal variable $q_i$. Then $A$ corresponds to $q_1^{a_1}\\cdots q_k^{a_k}$. We define a 3-point function $$<\\alpha, \\beta, \\gamma>_{qc}(q_1,\\cdots, q_k) =\n      \\sum_{a_1,\\cdots, a_k} \\Psi^X_A(\\alpha, \\beta,\n      \\gamma)q_1^{a_1}\\cdots q_k^{a_k},$$ where $\\Psi^X_A(\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma)$ is Gromov-Witten invariant and $qc$ stands for the quantum correction and $\\alpha, \\beta, \\gamma\\in H^*X$. We view $<\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma>_{qc}(q_1,\\cdots,q_k)$ as analytic function of $q_1,\\cdots, q_k$ and set $q_i = -1$ and let $$<\\alpha, \\beta,\\gamma>_{qc} = <\\alpha, \\beta,\n   \\gamma>_{qc}(-1,\\cdots,-1).$$ We define a quantum corrected triple intersection $$<\\alpha, \\beta,\\gamma>_{\\pi} = <\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma> +\n  <\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma>_{qc},$$ where $<\\alpha, \\beta,\\gamma>= \\int _X \\alpha \\cup \\beta \\cup \\gamma$ is the ordinary triple intersection. Then we define the quantum corrected product $\\alpha *_{\\pi}\\beta$ by the equation $$<\\alpha *_{\\pi}\\beta, \\gamma> = <\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma>_{\\pi}$$ for arbitrary $\\gamma$. Another way to understand $\\alpha *_{\\pi}\\beta$ is as follows. Define a product as the ordinary intersection product corrected by $\\alpha *_{qc}\\beta$. Namely, $$\\alpha *_{\\pi}\\beta = \\alpha \\cup \\beta + \\alpha\n       *_{qc}\\beta.$$ It is easy to see that the quantum corrected product gives rise to a ring structure on the cohomology group of $X$, Denote this cohomology ring as $RH_{\\pi}^*(X, {\\bf C})$.\n\n[**Definition 2.1:**]{} Define the quantum corrected cohomology ring $RH^*_{\\pi}(X,{\\bf C})$ as [**Ruan cohomology**]{} of $X$.\n\nRuan computed some examples of his cohomology in [@R3; @R4]. About this cohomology, Ruan [@R3] proposed the following conjecture\n\n[**Cohomological Minimal Model Conjecture:**]{} Suppose that $\\pi: X\\longrightarrow X'$ and its inverse $\\pi^{-1}$ are nondegenerate. Then $RH^*_{\\pi}(X, {\\bf C})$ is isomorphic to $RH^*_{\\pi^{-1}}(X', {\\bf C})$.\n\n[**Example 2.2:**]{} The first example is the flop in dimension three. This case has been worked out in great detail by Li-Ruan[@LR]. For example, they proved a theorem that quantum cohomology rings are isomorphic under the change of the variable $q\\longrightarrow \\frac{1}{q}$. Notes that if we set $q=-1$, $\\frac{1}{q}= -1$. We set other quantum variables zero. Then, the quantum product becomes the quantum corrected product $\\alpha \\cup _{\\pi}\\beta$. Hence, Cohomological Minimal Model conjecture follows from LI-Ruan\u2019s theorem. In fact, it is easy to calculate the quantum corrected product in this case and verify the Cohomological Minimal Model conjecture without using Li-Ruan\u2019s theorem.\n\nIsomorphism of ordinary cohomology \n===================================\n\nIn this section, we will consider the cohomology of compact projective manifolds of complex dimension $2n$ connected by Mukai flops. Suppose that $X$ and $X'$ are compact projective manifolds of complex dimension $2n$, and $(X,{\\bf P}^n)$ and $(X', ({\\bf P}^n)^*)$ are connected by a Mukai flop. Now the normal bundle of ${\\bf P}^n$ in $X$ is its cotangent bundle $T^*{\\bf P}^n$. So we have the following Mukai transformation $$\\begin{array}{rcl}\n        & E \\subset \\tilde{X}&\\\\\n        &\\phi \\swarrow \\searrow \\phi'&\\\\\n        Z \\cong {\\bf P}^n \\subset X& -- \\longrightarrow & X' \\supset\n        ({\\bf P}^n)^* \\cong Z'\n   \\end{array}$$ where $\\tilde{X}$ is the blowup of $X$ along $Z={\\bf P}^n$ and $E$ is the incidence correspondence between $Z$ and $Z'$, i.e. $$\\begin{array}{rcl}\n      E & = & \\{(P,L)\\mid P \\in L \\}\\subset {\\bf P}^n \\times ({\\bf P}^n)^*\\\\\n        p \\swarrow& & \\searrow q \\\\\n        P \\in {\\bf P}^n & & L \\in ({\\bf P}^n)^*.\n    \\end{array}$$\n\nBefore we prove our theorem, we want to first introduce some notations and preliminary results. Let $X$ be a regularly embedded subscheme of a scheme $Y$ of codimension $d$ with normal bundle $N$. Let $A_k(X)$ be the group of $k$-cycles modulo rational equivalence on $X$. Denote by $s(X,Y)\\in A_*(X)$ the Segre class of $X$ in $Y$, for its definition see Section 4.2 of [@F], so $s(X,Y)$ is the cap product of the total inverse Chern class of the normal bundle with $[X]$. Let $\\tilde{Y}$ be the blowup of $Y$ along $X$, and let $\\tilde{X} = {\\bf P}(N)$ be the exceptional divisor. We have a fiber square $$\\begin{array}{ccc}\n    \\tilde{X}& \\stackrel{j}{\\longrightarrow}& \\tilde{Y}\\\\\n    g \\downarrow & & \\downarrow f\\\\\n     X &\\stackrel{\\longrightarrow}{i}& Y .\n     \\end{array}$$ Since $N_{\\tilde{X}}\\tilde{Y} = {\\cal O}(-1)$, the excess normal bundle $\\xi$ is the universal quotient bundle on ${\\bf P}(N)$: $$\\xi = g^*N/N_{\\tilde{X}}\\tilde{Y} = g^*N/{\\cal O}(-1).$$ Then we have the following [**Blowup formula**]{}, which is the [**Theorem 6.7**]{}, see P. 116, of [@F],\n\n[**Proposition 3.1:**]{} Let $V$ be a $k$-dimensional subvariety of $Y$, and let $\\tilde{V}\\subset \\tilde{Y}$ be the proper transform of $V$, i. e. the blow-up of $V$ along $V \\cap X$. Then $$f^*[V] = [\\tilde{V}] + j_*\\{c(\\xi)\\cap g^*s(V \\cap X, V)\\}_k$$ in $A_k \\tilde{Y}$. In particular, for all $x \\in A_k X$, $$f^*i_*(x) = j_*(c_{d-1}(E)\\cap g^*x).$$\n\nIn our proof, we will use Borel-Moore homology as a tool. Therefore we first want to briefly introduce some basics of Borel-Moore homology, see [@CG; @F]. Borel-Moore homology can be defined using singular cohomology. If a space $X$ is imbedded as a closed subspace of ${\\bf R}^n$, then we define the Borel-Moore homology with rational coefficients $$H^{BM}_iX := H^{n-i}({\\bf R}^n, {\\bf R}^n-X)$$ where the group on the right is relative singular cohomology with rational coefficients. From the difinition, it is easy to know if $X$ is compact then the ordinary homology of $X$ and the Borel-Moore homology of $X$ coincide. In this paper, we will reserve the symbol $H_*$ for the ordinary homology.\n\nIf $X$ is the complement of $U$ in $Y$, $i : X\\longrightarrow Y$ the closed imbedding, there is a long exact sequence $$\\cdots \\rightarrow H^{BM}_{i+1}U\\rightarrow H^{BM}_i X \\stackrel{i_*}{\\rightarrow}H^{BM}_i Y \\stackrel{j^*}{\\rightarrow} H^{BM}_i U \\rightarrow H^{BM}_{i-1}X \\rightarrow \\cdots.$$\n\nIn this section, we will prove the following theorem\n\n[**Theorem 3.2:**]{} Suppose that non-singular compact projective manifolds $X$ and $X'$ of complex dimension $2n$ are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops. Then $X$ and $X' $ have isomorphic cohomology rings.\n\n[**Proof:**]{} By the Poincare duality, it is sufficient to prove that $X$ and $X'$ have isomorphic intersection rings. In fact, we want to prove the following morphism $T : H_*X \\longrightarrow H_*X'$ given by $$T( \\alpha):= \\left\\{ \n  \\begin{array}{ll}\n      \\phi'_*\\phi^* \\alpha,& \\mbox{if} \\dim \\alpha \\not= 2n\\\\\n       \\phi'_* (\\phi^*\\alpha + (-1)^{n+1}\\alpha({\\bf P}^n)[p^{-1}({\\bf P}^1)]), & \\mbox{if} \\dim \\alpha = 2n \n  \\end{array}\\right.$$ is a ring isomorphism, where $\\alpha ({\\bf P}^n)$ is the topological intersection number of $\\alpha$ with ${\\bf P}^n$ and ${\\bf P}^1$ is a line in ${\\bf P}^n$. It is obvious that $T$ is a linear map.\n\nFirst of all, we want to prove that the restriction of $T$ to $i_* H_k ({\\bf P}^n)$ is an isomorphism from $i_* H_k ({\\bf P}^n)$ to $i'_* H_k (({\\bf P}^n)^*)$. By the linearity of $T$, we only need to prove that $T$ maps a basis of $i_* H_* ({\\bf P}^n)$ to a basis of $i'_* H_* (({\\bf P}^n)^*)$. Since all elements in $i_* H_* ({\\bf P}^n)$ are algebraic, so we may apply proposition 3.1. In our case, we have the following blowup fiber square $$\\begin{array}{ccc}\n    E& \\stackrel{j}{\\longrightarrow}& \\tilde{X}\\\\\n    p \\downarrow & & \\downarrow \\phi\\\\\n     {\\bf P}^n &\\stackrel{\\longrightarrow}{i}& X.\n     \\end{array}$$ where $i$ embedded ${\\bf P}^n$ into $X$ with its cotangent bundle $N_{{\\bf P}^n|X}\\cong T^*{\\bf P}^n$ as the normal bundle and $E$ is the exceptional divisor. The excess normal bundle $Q$ is the universal quotient bundle on $E$ $$Q = \\frac{p^*T^*{\\bf P}^n}{{\\cal O}_E(-1)}$$ i. e. we have the exact sequence $$0 \\longrightarrow {\\cal O}_E(-1)\\longrightarrow p^*T^*{\\bf P}^n \\longrightarrow Q \\longrightarrow 0$$ According to Proposition 3.1, we need to compute the Chern class $c_{n-1}(Q)$. Since $c(p^*T^*{\\bf P}^n) = \nc(Q)c({\\cal O}_E(-1))$, so we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nc(Q) & = & \\frac{c(p^*T^*{\\bf P}^n)}{c({\\cal O}_E(-1))}\\\\\n    & = & \\sum _{k=0}^{2n-1}\\sum _{i+j = k}(-1)^i\n    \\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n       n+1\\\\\n       i\n       \\end{array}\\right)(p^*H)^i c_1({\\cal O}_E(1))^j\\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the hyperplane class of ${\\bf P}^n$. Therefore $$\\begin{aligned}\n c_{n-1}(Q) & = & \\sum_{i+j=n-1} (-1)^i \\left (\\begin{array}{c}\n       n+1\\\\\n       i\n       \\end{array}\\right )(p^*H)^ic_1({\\cal O}_E(1))^j\\\\\n       & = & \\sum _{i=0}^{n-1}\\sum _{j=0}^{n-i-1}(-1)^i \\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n       n+1\\\\\n       i\n       \\end{array}\\right)\\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n       n-i-1\\\\\n       j\n       \\end{array}\\right)(q^*H^*)^{n-i-j-1}(p^*H)^{i+j}.\\end{aligned}$$ where $H^*$ is the hyperplane class of $({\\bf P}^n)^*$ and we used that $c_1({\\cal O}_E(1)) = p^*H + q^*H^*$.\n\nChoose $i_*[{\\bf P}^k]$, $k=0,\\cdots,n$ as a basis of $i_* H_* ({\\bf P}^n)$. For arbitrary $1 \\leq k < n$, i. e. $x = i_*[{\\bf P}^k]\\in i_*H_*({\\bf P}^n)$, by Proposition $3.1$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\phi^*(i_*[{\\bf P}^k])& = & j_*\\{ \\sum _{i=0}^{n-1}\\sum _{j=0}^{n-i-1}(-1)^i \\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n       n+1\\\\\n       i\n       \\end{array}\\right)\\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n       n-i-1\\\\\n       j\n       \\end{array}\\right)(q^*H^*)^{n-i-j-1}(p^*H)^{i+j}\\cap p^*[{\\bf P}^k]\\}\\\\\n       & = & j_*\\{ \\sum _{i=0}^{n-1}\\sum _{j=0}^{n-i-1}(-1)^i \\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n       n+1\\\\\n       i\n       \\end{array}\\right)\\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n       n-i-1\\\\\n       j\n       \\end{array}\\right)(q^*H^*)^{n-i-j-1}\\cap p^*(H^{i+j}\\cap [{\\bf P}^k])\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\phi'_*\\phi^*(i_*[{\\bf P}^k]) & = & \\{\\sum _{i=0}^k(-1)^i \\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n         n+1\\\\\n         i \\end{array}\\right)\\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n         n-i\\\\\n         k-i \\end{array}\\right)\\}i'_*([({\\bf P}^k)^*]) \\nonumber\\\\\n    & = & (-1)^k i'_*([({\\bf P}^k)^*])\\end{aligned}$$ where we used the facts that for any $k \\geq 2$ the maps $\\phi' : p^*[{\\bf P}^k]\\longrightarrow \n({\\bf P}^n)^*$ have positive dimensional fibers.\n\nFor the case $k=n$, i. e. $x= i_*({\\bf P}^n)\\in i_*H_*({\\bf P}^n)$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\phi^*(i_*[{\\bf P}^n]) & = & j_*\\{ \\sum _{i=0}^{n-1}\\sum _{j=0}^{n-i-1}(-1)^i \\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n       n+1\\\\\n       i\n       \\end{array}\\right)\\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n       n-i-1\\\\\n       j\n       \\end{array}\\right)(q^*H^*)^{n-i-j-1}(p^*H)^{i+j}\\cap p^*[{\\bf P}^n]\\}\\\\\n    & = & \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}(-1)^i \\left(\\begin{array}{c}\n      n+1\\\\\n      i \\end{array} \\right)p^*[{\\bf P}^1]\\\\\n    & = & (-1)^{n+1}n p^*[{\\bf P}^1].\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\\phi'_*\\phi^*(i_*({\\bf P}^n)) = (-1)^{n+1}n\\phi'_*(p^*[{\\bf P}^1]) = (-1)^{n+1}n i'_*({\\bf P}^n)^*.$$\n\nFurthermore, by the definition of the map $T$, we have $$T(i_*({\\bf P}^n)) = (-1)^n i'_*({\\bf P}^n)^*.$$\n\nSince $i'_*({\\bf P}^k)^*$, $k=0,\\cdots, n$ is a basis of $i'_*H_*(({\\bf P}^n)^*)$, so the restriction of $T $ to $i_*H_*({\\bf P}^n)$ is an isomorphism from $i_*H_*({\\bf P}^n)$ to $i'_*H_*(({\\bf P}^n)^*)$.\n\nNext we want to prove that $T$ is an isomorphism of additive homology.\n\nDenote $U:=X-{\\bf P }^n$ and $U' := X'-({\\bf P}^n)^*$. Since $H^{BM}_i{\\bf P}^n$ has at most one generator for all $i$, then, from $(6)$, we have the following exact sequences: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   0 \\longrightarrow i_*H^{BM}_k{\\bf P}^n \\stackrel{\\subset}{\\longrightarrow} H^{BM}_k X \\stackrel{j^*}{\\longrightarrow} \n      H^{BM}_k U \\longrightarrow 0 \\\\\n   0 \\longrightarrow i_*H^{BM}_k ({\\bf P}^n)^* \\stackrel{\\subset}{\\longrightarrow} H^{BM}_k X' \\stackrel{j^*}{\\longrightarrow} \n      H^{BM}_k U' \\longrightarrow 0. \\end{aligned}$$ Since $H^{BM}_k {\\bf P}^n$, $H^{BM}_k X$, $H^{BM}_k U$, $H^{BM}_k ({\\bf P}^n)^*$, $H^{BM}_k X'$, $H^{BM}_k U'$ all are free Abelian groups, so we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n      H^{BM}_k X & \\cong & i_*H^{BM}_k {\\bf P}^n \\oplus H^{BM}_k U \\\\\n      H^{BM}_k X'& \\cong & i_*H^{BM}_k({\\bf P}^n)^* \\oplus H^{BM}_k U'.\\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the following elementary fact from extension theory:\n\n[**Proposition 3.3: ([@Bott], P. 168)** ]{} In a short exact sequence of Abelian groups $$0 \\longrightarrow A \\longrightarrow B \\longrightarrow C \\longrightarrow 0,$$ if $A$ and $C$ are free, then $ B \\cong A \\oplus C$.\n\nIn fact, the previous proof shows that the restriction of $T$ to $i_*H^{BM}_k({\\bf P}^n)$ is an isomorphism from $i_*H^{BM}_k({\\bf P}^n)$ to $i'_*H^{BM}_k(({\\bf P}^n)^*)$. On the other hand, since $\\phi$ and $\\phi'$ are the identity map outside ${\\bf P}^n$ and $({\\bf P}^n)^*$ respectively, i. e. $U \\cong U'$, the restriction of $T$ to $H^{BM}_k U$ is also an isomorphism from $H^{BM}_k U$ to $H^{BM}_k U'$. By the linearity of $T$, from $(13)$ and $(14)$, we have that $T$ is an isomorphism from $H^{BM}_k X$ to $H^{BM}_k X'$ as additive groups. Since $X$ and $X'$ are compact, Therefore, $T$ also gives an isomorphism from the ordinary homology $H_k X$ to $H_k X'$ as additive groups.\n\nNow it remains to prove that $T$ preserves the multiplication, i. e. for any classes $\\alpha, \\beta \\in H_*X$, we have $$T(\\alpha \\cdot \\beta) = T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta).$$\n\nBy the transverality theorem, for any homology classes $\\alpha, \\beta$, we may choose their representatives $M$(for $\\alpha$) and $N$(for $\\beta$) respectively such that they transversally intersect, i. e. $\\dim (M\\cap N) = \\dim M + \\dim N - 4n$. In the rest proof of this theorem, we will use the same symbol to denote the homology class and its representatives.\n\nSince $T$ is linear and the intersection product is distributive, we only need to prove $(15)$ holds for generator classes. From the fact that the intersection product is a map from $H_k X \\otimes H_l X$ to $H_{k+l-4n}X$, we know that $(15)$ holds if $\\dim \\alpha + \\dim \\beta < 4n$. Therefore, we may assume that $\\dim \\beta \\geq 2n$. Since $U:= X-Z$ is isomorphic to $U':=X'-Z'$, we have that the map $T$ is the identity map on $ H_*(X-Z)$. Therefore, If at least one of the supports of $\\alpha, \\beta$ does not intersect with ${\\bf P}^n$, then $(15)$ holds. Therefore, we only need to consider the following four cases.\n\n[**Case I:**]{} $\\dim \\alpha <2n$, $\\beta $ is an arbitrary class.\n\nIn this case, we may choose a representative submanifold $\\alpha $ with support away from ${\\bf P}^n$. Therefore, by the construction of the intersection product and the fact that $T $ is an identity map from $H_*(U)$ to $H_*(U')$, we have $$T(\\alpha\\cdot \\beta) = T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta).$$\n\n[**Case II:**]{} $\\dim \\alpha = 2n$ and $\\dim \\beta = 2n$.\n\nFrom $(13)$ and the distributivity of intersection product, we only need to consider the case: $\\alpha = i_*({\\bf P}^n)$ and $\\beta = i_*({\\bf P}^n)$. In this case, we have $$T(\\alpha\\cdot\\beta) = T(-(n+1)[pt]) = -(n+1)[pt] = i'_*({\\bf P}^n)^*\\cdot i'_*({\\bf P}^n)^* = T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta).$$\n\n[**Case III:**]{} $\\dim \\alpha >2n $ and $\\dim \\beta >2n$.\n\nHere we first prove the following claim:\n\n[**Claim:**]{}If $\\phi : \\tilde{X}\\longrightarrow X$ is the blowup of $X$ along a subvariety, then $\\phi^*\\alpha\\cdot\\phi^*\\beta = \\phi^*(\\alpha\\cdot \\beta)$ for any classes $\\alpha, \\beta \\in H_*X$.\n\nIn fact, by definition, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\phi^*(\\alpha \\cdot \\beta) & = & PD \\phi^* PD (\\alpha \\cdot \\beta)\n                            = PD \\phi^*(PD(\\alpha)\\cup PD(\\beta))\\\\\n  & = & PD(\\phi^*PD(\\alpha)\\cup \\phi^*PD(\\beta) = PD\\phi^*PD(\\alpha)\\cdot PD\\phi^* PD(\\beta)\\\\\n  & = & \\phi^* \\alpha \\cdot \\phi^*\\beta\\end{aligned}$$ where $PD$ stands for Poincare dual.\n\nSince $\\phi': \\tilde{X'}\\longrightarrow X'$ is the projection of blowup, so we have $\\phi'_*\\phi'^*\\alpha = \\alpha$ for any $\\alpha \\in H_*X'$. From the definition of $T$, we have $\\phi'^* T(\\alpha) = \\phi^*\\alpha + \\xi$, $\\phi'^* T(\\beta) = \\phi^*\\beta +\\eta$ where $\\phi'_*\\xi = \\phi'_*\\eta = 0$, i. e. $\\phi'\\mid _{\\xi}$ and $\\phi'\\mid _{\\eta}$ have positive dimensional fiber. Therefore, if $\\dim (\\alpha \\cdot \\beta)\\not= 2n$, from the above claim and the projection formula, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n   T(\\alpha\\cdot \\beta) & = & \\phi'_*\\phi^*(\\alpha\\cdot\\beta)\n                         =  \\phi'_*\\{\\phi^*\\alpha\\cdot\\phi^*\\beta\\}\\\\\n    & = & \\phi'_*\\{\\phi'^*T(\\alpha)\\cdot \\phi'^*T(\\beta)-\\phi'^*T(\\alpha)\\cdot\\eta - \\phi'^*T(\\beta)\\cdot                  \\xi + \\xi\\cdot\\eta\\}\\\\\n    & = & T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIf $\\dim (\\alpha \\cdot \\beta )= 2n$, i. e., $\\dim \\alpha + \\dim \\beta = 5n$, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\\alpha \\cdot \\beta = k i_*{\\bf P}^n$ and $\\dim \\beta <4n$. By the definition of $T$ and the intersection product, we also may assume that $T(\\alpha) \\cdot\nT(\\beta) = m i'_*({\\bf P}^n)^*$. Choose a $l$-dimensional class $\\gamma$ where $l$ satisfies $\\dim \\beta + l\n- 4n < 2n$ and $l < 2n$. Then from the associativity of the intersection product and Case I, we have the triple intersection equality. $$T(\\alpha\\cdot\\beta\\cdot\\gamma) = T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta\\cdot\\gamma)= T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta)\\cdot T(\\gamma).$$ Since $T(\\alpha \\cdot \\beta \\cdot \\gamma)= T((\\alpha\\cdot\\beta)\\cdot\\gamma)= T(\\alpha\\cdot\\beta)\n\\cdot T(\\gamma) = (-1)^nk i'_*({\\bf P}^n)^*\\cdot T(\\gamma)$ and $T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta)\\cdot \nT(\\gamma) = m i'_*({\\bf P}^n)^* \\cdot T(\\gamma)$, so we have $m = (-1)^n k$. Therefore $(15)$ holds.\n\n[**Case IV:**]{} $\\alpha = i_*{\\bf P}^n$, $\\dim \\beta >2n$ and $\\beta$ transverally intersects with ${\\bf P}^n$.\n\nSince all odd-dimensional classes in ${\\bf P}^n$ are homologous to zero, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\\dim \\beta$ is even. Suppose that $\\gamma$ is any $(6n-\\dim \\beta)$-dimensional class in $H_*X$. Then the intersection product $\\beta\\cdot\\gamma$ is a $2n$-dimensional class in $H_{2n}X$. From the associativity of the intersection product and Case II and III, we have the triple intersection equality $$T(\\alpha\\cdot\\beta\\cdot\\gamma) = T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta\\cdot\\gamma)= T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta)\\cdot T(\\gamma).$$\n\nSuppose that ${\\bf P}^n \\cdot\\beta = m i_*[{\\bf P}^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} -n}]$ and $({\\bf P}^n)^*\\cdot T(\\beta) = \nk i'_*([{\\bf P}^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} - n}]^*)$. Then by Case I we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n   T(\\alpha\\cdot\\beta\\cdot\\gamma)& = & m T(i_*[{\\bf P}^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} -n}] \\cdot\\gamma ) \\\\\n   & = & m T(i_*[{\\bf P}^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} -n}])\n   \\cdot T(\\gamma) = (-1)^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} -n}m i'_*([{\\bf P}^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta} - n}])^*\\cdot T(\\gamma).\\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, $$T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta)\\cdot T(\\gamma) = k i'_*([{\\bf P}^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} - n}])^*\\cdot T(\\gamma).$$ Therefore we have $m=(-1)^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} -n}k$. Therefore $$\\begin{aligned}\n  T(\\alpha\\cdot\\beta) & = & m T(i_*[{\\bf P}^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} -n}])= (-1)^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} -n}k T( i_*[{\\bf P}^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} -n}])\\\\ \n    & = & k i'_*([{\\bf P}^{\\frac{\\dim \\beta}{2} - n}]^*) = ({\\bf P}^n)^*\\cdot T(\\beta) = T(\\alpha)\\cdot T(\\beta).\\end{aligned}$$ So we proved the equality $(15)$. This proves Theorem $3.2$.\n\nIsomorphism of Ruan Cohomology\n==============================\n\nIn this section, we will study Ruan cohomologies of $X$ and $X'$. From the previous section, we know that in order to prove isomorphisim of Ruan cohomology for the pair ,$X$ and $X'$, we need to calculate the quantum corrected product coming from exceptional effective curves on $X$ and $X'$ respectively. In fact, we will prove vanishing of the exceptional Gromov-Witten invariants appearing in the definition of quantum corrected product by localization technique.\n\nIntroduction to Localization\n----------------------------\n\nThe calculation of the exceptional quantum product is local in nature, i.e. only a neighborhood of the embeded ${\\bf P}^n$ in $X$ or $X'$ is relevant to the quantumn product with base homology being exceptional curves living in the embeded ${\\bf P}^n$. Similar local invariants appeared in the study of local mirror symmetry. As explained in [@CKYZ], local mirror symmetry refers to a specialization of mirror symmetry technique to study geometry of Fano surfaces inside Calabi-Yau manifolds.\n\nFollowing [@CKYZ], we first briefly describe the calculation setup. Let $\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,0}({\\bf P},d)$ be Kontsevich\u2019s moduli space of stable maps of genus 0(could be of higher genus) with no marked points. Denote a point in the space by $(C,f)$, where $f : C \\longrightarrow {\\bf P}$ (${\\bf P}$ is some toric variety ), and $[f(C)] = d \\in H_2({\\bf P})$. Let $\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,1}({\\bf P},d)$ be the same but with one marked point. Consider the following diagram $$\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,0}({\\bf P},d)\\longleftarrow \\overline{\\cal M}_{0,1}({\\bf P},d)\\longrightarrow {\\bf P},$$ where the first arrow denotes the forgetting map $\\rho : \\overline{\\cal M}_{0,1}({\\bf P},d)\\longrightarrow \n\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,0}({\\bf P},d)$ which forgets the marked point following stablization of the domain curve and the second arrow denotes the evaluation map $ev : \\overline{\\cal M}_{0,1}({\\bf P}, d)\\longrightarrow {\\bf P}$ sending $(C,f, x_1)$ to $f(x_1)$.\n\nLet [**Q**]{} be Calabi-Yau defined as the zero section of a convex bundle $V $ over ${\\bf P}$ (here convex means $H^1(C,f^*V)=0$ for any stable map $(C,f)$). Then $U_d$ is the bundle over $\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,0}({\\bf P},d)$ defined by $$U_d := \\rho_*ev^*(V).$$ The fiber of $U_d$ over a point $(C,f)$ is $H^0(C,f^*V)$. And the Kontsevich numbers (Gromov-Witten type invariant) are defined to be $$K_d := \\int_{\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,0}({\\bf P},d)}c(U_d)$$ where $c$ is the appropriate Chern class in the context.\n\nIn case the bundle $V$ is also concave (meaning $H^0(C,f^*V) = 0$ for any stable map $(C,f)$), there is also an induced bundle over the moduli space of maps whose fiber over a point $(C,f)$ is given by $H^1(C, f^*V)$. In particular if $V$ is the normal bundle of ${\\bf P}$ with respect to certain embedding of ${\\bf P}$, the induced bundle is usually called the obstruction bundle.\n\nIn the same spirit of the above setup, there is another well known example (the multiple cover contribution) which we now describe.\n\nLet $C_0 = {\\bf P}^1$ be a smooth ${\\bf P}^1$ embedded in a Calabi-Yau 3-fold $M$ with balanced normal bundle ${\\cal O}(-1)\\oplus {\\cal O}(-1)$. The moduli space of stable maps $\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,0}(M, d[C_0])$ has a connected component $\\overline{\\cal M}_{C_0}$ isomorphic to $\\overline{\\cal M}({\\bf P}^1, d[{\\bf P}^1])$ consisting stable d-fold covers of $C_0$. This component has dimension $2 d -2$ while the virtual dimension is $0$. So to correctly count the number of maps (or to define the corresponding Gromov-Witten invariant), we have to consider the obstruction bundle $U_d$ whose fiber over $(C,f)$ is given by $H^1(C,f^*N_{C_0|M}) = {\\bf C}^2 \\otimes H^1(C, f^*{\\cal O}(-1))$. Note that the rank of the obstruction bundle is also $2d-2$. And the contribution of $\\overline{\\cal M}_{C_0}$ is given by $$M_d := \\int_{\\overline{\\cal M}({\\bf P}^1, d)}c_{2d-2}(U_d).$$\n\nThe above definition is proposed by Kontsevich who also derived a graph summation formula for it. And the value is checked by Y. Manin to be $\\frac{1}{d^3}$. ( there is difficulty in summing up all the contributions from admmisible graphs).\n\nThe essence in both examples described above is to determine and evaluate certain cohomology class (over the space of stable maps) which come from bundles induced from bundles over the target space. And solutions to both problems come out of application of localization techniques. Since the target space is toric, the moduli space of maps together with the induced bundles inherit torus action ( action on space of maps by translating maps). Hence the classes under consideration can be localized to the fixed points loci and become much more accessible.\n\nIn [@CKYZ], the authors considered the cases where the bundle $V$ is a direct sum of line bundles, while in this paper we will consider the case where the target space is ${\\bf P}^n$ and the bundle $V$ is the cotangent bundle of ${\\bf P}^n$ which is a natural example of concave bundles. It is of interest also because it demonstrate rather different phenomena from the examples described above. We will describe obstruction bundle induced from cotangent bundle of ${\\bf P}^n$ and define related Gromov-Witten type invariants. Surprising we will see that all these invariants are $0$.\n\nThe essential fact used in the proof is the following [**observation:**]{} let $C$ be a smooth ${\\bf P}^1$ mapping onto a line (${\\bf P}^1$) inside ${\\bf P}^n$ with degree d. Denote the map by $f$. Standard torus action (diagonal action) on ${\\bf P}^n$ naturally lifted to $T^*{\\bf P}^n$ induces an action on the vector space $H^1(C,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^n)$. Calculate the weights of the action, we see that there is a $0$ weight piece.\n\nThis observation of the $0$ weight piece also leads to other interesting applications. For instance, by utilizing it, we can calculate all the Gromov-Witten invariant, hence determine the quantum cohomology ring structure of the projective bundle ${\\bf P}(T^*{\\bf P}^2\\oplus {\\cal O})$ over ${\\bf P}^2$. Again the difficulty lies in how to sum up, granted with the graph summation machinery developed by Kontsevich. And the simple observation we have will greatly simplify the summation procedure.\n\nThe rest of this section is organized as follows: In subsection $4.2$, we define our invariant and state the vanishing theorem. In subsection $4.3$, we introduce the Bott\u2019s residue formula and Kontsevich\u2019s graph summation formula for computing the invariants. In subsection $4.4$, we prove our vanishing theorem and our result about isomorphism of Ruan cohomology.\n\nDefinition of invariants\n------------------------\n\nIn this subsection we define our invariants. Let $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)$ be the moduli space of stable maps from genus $g$ curves with $k$ marked points into ${\\bf P}^n$ which carries the fundamental class $d[{\\bf P}^1]\\in H_2({\\bf P}^n)$. Denote a typical element in $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)$ by $(C,f,x_1,\\cdots,x_k)$. The cotangent bundle of ${\\bf P}^n$ induces an obstruction bundle over $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)$ whose fiber at $(C,f, x_1,\\cdots,x_k)$ is $H^1(C,fT^*{\\bf P}^n)$. Its Euler class ( denoted by $\\Phi$) plays an important role in defining our invariants.\n\nThere are also other cohomology classes on $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)$. For instance there is the evaluation maps $ev_i : \\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d) \\longrightarrow {\\bf P}^n$, sending $(C,f,x_1,\\cdots, x_k)$ to $f(x_i)$, So we can pull back cohomology classes from ${\\bf P}^n$ via the evaluation maps. Also there is the forgetting map $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d) \\longrightarrow \\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}$ by forgetting the map $f$ of $(C,f,x_1,\\cdots, x_k)$ where $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}$ is the Deligne-Munford space of stable curves with $k$ marked points. So we can also pull back classes from $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}$.\n\nIntegrating polynomials in these classes over the moduli space $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)$, we get numbers.\n\nIn particular, if ${\\bf P}^n$ is embedded in a variety $X$ with normal bundle naturally isomorphic to its cotangent bundle, then to correctly define Gromov-Witten invariant out of the moduli space $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}(M, d[{\\bf P}^1])$, we have to take acount of the Euler class of the obstruction bundle as described above.\n\nSo we want to consider the integrals where the class $\\Phi$ appears in the integrand. Formally, we have\n\n[**Definition 4.1:**]{} $K_{(k,g,d,\\Theta)} := \\int_{\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)}\\Theta\\wedge \\Phi$, where $\\Theta$ is a polynomial in Chern classes of certain equivariant vector bundles over $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)$.\n\nFor example, let us consider the case of mukai flop. It is well known that the normal bundle of the embeded ${\\bf P}^n$ is actaully naturally isomorphic to its cotangent bundle because of the existence of holomorphic 2-forms.\n\n[**Definition 4.2:**]{} $K_{(3,0,d,ev^*(\\alpha) \\wedge ev^*(\\beta) \\wedge ev^*(\\gamma))}:= \\int_{\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,3}({\\bf P}^n,d)} ev^*(\\alpha)\\wedge ev^*(\\beta)\\wedge ev^*(\\gamma) \\wedge \\Phi$. where $\\alpha$,$\\beta$,$\\gamma$ are any cohomogy classes of ${\\bf P} ^n$ with appropriate degrees, i.e. $$\\deg (\\alpha)+ \\deg(\\beta)+ \\deg(\\gamma)+ \\deg(\\Phi) = \\dim {\\cal M}_{0,3}({\\bf P}^n,d).$$\n\nNote that the invariant defined above includes all qauntum correction coming from exceptional effective curve in the case of mukai flop.\n\nAbout these invariants, we have the following vanishing theorem\n\n[**Theorem 4.3:**]{} The invariants $K_{(k,g,d, \\Theta)}$ all vanish regardless of the flexibility of $\\Theta$.\n\nBott\u2019s residue formula and normal bundle contibution\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection, we introduce the technique we use to compute the invariants as defined in previous subsections. The basic ideal is to consider torus action and use the Bott\u2019s residue formula to reduce the integral to fixed points loci of the action.\n\nStarting from [@K], a lot of work has been done towards localization techniques applied to the computation of Gromov-Witten invariants and verification of mirror symmetry predictions. In the most general case, one has to consider localization of virtual classes as done in [@GP; @LLY]. In [@CKYZ], the authors developed effective ways to compute similar invariants involving Euler classes of obstruction bundles. But they mainly treat direct sums of line bundles. For our computation, the machinery introduced by [@K] suffices. Here we will follow the presentation in [@K] closely. To keep notation simple, we will only consider integration formula in genus zero case. The proof of vanishing of the invariants in higher genus case will be almost identical. We will point out the slight difference later.\n\nBefore proving theorem $4.3$, we first want to introduce [**Bott\u2019s residue formula:**]{}\n\nLet $X$ be a compact complex projective manifold (orbifold allowed) and $E$ a holomorphic vector bundle (or orbibundle) over $X$. Suppose $T:=(C^*)^{n+1}$ a complex torus acts on $(X,E)$. Denote the fixed points loci by $X^T$ and its connected components by $X^{\\gamma}$. Since the irreducible representations of torus are dimensional one, over $X^{\\gamma}$ the bundle $E$ splits into direct sum of line bundles $E^{\\gamma, \\lambda}$ twisted by character $\\lambda : T \\longrightarrow C^*$, $\\lambda\\in T^\\vee = Z \\oplus Z \\oplus\\cdots\\oplus Z$. The normal bundle of $X^{\\lambda}$ (denoted by $N^{\\lambda}$) also splits into sum of line bundles $N^{\\gamma, \\lambda }$ over characters $\\lambda\\in T^\\vee\\setminus \\{0 \\}$.\n\nBy splitting principle, we suppose the Chern classes of bundle $E$ are given by homogeneous symmetric polynomials in degree 2 generators $e_i$\u2019s as follows: $$\\sum_{k \\geq 0}c_k(E) = \\Pi_i(1+e_i), \\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\\, e_i \\in H^2(X, Q).$$\n\nAnalogously, we add generators $e_i^{\\gamma, \\lambda}$ and $n_i^{\\gamma, \\lambda}$ to $H^2(X^{\\gamma}, Q)$.\n\nLet $ P$ be a homogeneous symmetric polynomial. Then the [**Bott\u2019s residue formula**]{} reads: $$\\int_X P(e_i) = \\sum_{\\gamma}\\int_{X^\\gamma}\\frac{P(e_i^{\\gamma,\\lambda} + \\lambda)}{\\Pi(n_i^{\\gamma,\\lambda})}.$$\n\nThe right hand side of the above formula is considered as rational function in $\\lambda$\u2019s. It turns out to have homogeneous degree 0 ( actually a constant independent of choice of $\\lambda$\u2019s). The numerator of r.h.s. is actually the equivariant extension of the pullback of class $P(e_i)$ to $X^\\gamma$. The denominator is the equivariant Euler class of normal bundle of $X^\\gamma$.\n\nNow, we want to calculate the fixed points in the moduli space of stable maps in order to apply the Bott\u2019s residue formula.\n\nLet $T= (C^*)^{n+1}$ acts diagonally on ${\\bf P}^n$ with generic weights $-\\lambda_1, -\\lambda_2,\\cdots,-\\lambda_{n+1}$. The fixed points are projectivization of coordinate lines of $C^{n+1}$, denoted by $p_i$. And the only invariant curves are lines connecting the fixed points labeled by $l_{ij} = l_{ji}$, where $i\\not= j$.\n\nThe action of $T$ on ${\\bf P}^n$ induces an action of $T$ on the moduli space of stable maps $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)$ by moving the image of the map. Let $(C,f,x_1,\\cdots, x_k)$ be a fixed point in the stable map space. Then the geometric image of the map is fixed. So we have\n\n1.  The contracted components, the marked points, the ramification points, the nodes all are mapped to the fixed points $p_i$\u2019s in ${\\bf P}^n$.\n\n2.  A non-contracted component is map onto one of the lines $l_{ij}$\u2019s, ramifying over the two fixed points(end points of the line ), thus is forced to be rational and completely determined by its degree.\n\nWe associate with each fixed map a marked graph $\\Gamma$ as follows. The vertices of the graph $v \\in Vert(\\Gamma)$ correspond to the connected components $C_v$ of $f^{-1}(p_1,p_2,\\cdots, p_{n+1})$. Here the component can be either a point or union of irreducible components of the curve $C$. The edges $\\alpha\\in Edge(\\Gamma)$ correspond to non-contracted component of $C^\\alpha$ of genus $0$ mapping onto the $l_{ij}$\u2019s. There are also tails on the vertices coming from the marked points. We also mark the graph by the following labels:\n\n1.  Label the vertices numbers $f_v$ from $1$ to $n+1$ defined by $f(C_v):= p_{f_v}$. Also label a vertex by $g_v$ (the genus of the $1$-dimensional part of $C_v$, for a point the genus is $0$) and a set $S_v \\subset \\{1,2,\\cdots,k \\}$ the indices of the marked points.\n\n2.  Label the edges by the mapping degree $d_{\\alpha}\\in N$\n\nThe claim is that the connected components of $\\overline{\\cal M}_{g,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)^T$ are isomorphic to $\\Pi_{v\\in Vert(\\Gamma)} \\overline{\\bf M}_{g_v,val(v)}/\\mbox{\\bf Aut}(\\Gamma)$ and can be identified as equivalent classes of connected graphs $\\Gamma$ with labeling satisfying the following conditions:\n\n1.  For $\\alpha\\in Edge(\\Gamma)$ connecting vertices $u,v \\in  Vert(\\Gamma)$, then $f_u \\not= f_v$,\n\n2.  $1 - \\chi (\\Gamma) + \\sum_{v \\in Vert(\\Gamma)} g_v = g$,\n\n3.  $\\sum_{\\alpha\\in Edge(\\Gamma)} d_{\\alpha} = d$,\n\n4.  $\\cup_{v \\in Vert(\\Gamma)}S_v = \\{1,2,\\cdots,k \\}$.\n\nFrom now on we only consider the integration formula for genus $0$ case. We first want to give some notations:\n\n1.  For a graph, we define an incident pair of vertex and edge $(v, \\alpha)$ to be a flag $F = (v,\\alpha)$ and denote by $w_F$ the expression $\\frac{\\lambda_{f_v}-\\lambda_{f_u}}{d_\\alpha}$ where $u\\not=v$ is the other vertex of the edge $\\alpha$.\n\n2.  Recall that $\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,k}$ is the Deligne-Mumford space of marked stable curves. For each marking $i$, there is a line bundle $L_i\\longrightarrow \\overline{\\cal M}_{0,k}$ with fiber $T^*_{C,p_i}$ over the moduli point $C$. Define $\\psi_i := c_1(L_i)$.\n\nNow we describe the normal bundle of the fixed points components. For an equivariant bundle $E$, denote by $[E]$ its class in the corresponding equivariant K-group. Also we denote $\\overline{\\cal M}_{0,k}({\\bf P}^n,d)$ by $\\overline{\\cal M}$ for simplicity and often denote a bundle by its geometric fiber at a point $(C,f)$.\n\nTo keep notation simple, we ignore the marked points as in [@K] and explain the difference along the way.\n\nThe class of normal bundle for a component $\\overline{\\cal M}^{\\gamma}$ having graph type $\\Gamma$ is\n\n$$[N_{\\overline{\\cal M}^\\gamma}]  =  [T_{\\overline{\\cal M}}] - [T_{\\overline{\\cal M}^\\gamma}]$$\n\n$$[T_{\\overline{\\cal M}}]  =  [H^0(C,f^*(T{\\bf P}^n))] + \\sum_{y \\in C^\\alpha\\cap C^\\beta} [T_y(C^\\alpha)\\otimes T_y(C^\\beta)] \\nonumber$$ $$+  \\sum_{y \\in C^\\alpha\\cap C^\\beta : \\alpha\\not= \\beta}([T_y(C^\\alpha)] + [T_y(C^\\beta)]) - \\sum_\\alpha[H^0(C^\\alpha,TC^\\alpha)]$$\n\nThe first summand corresponds to infinitesmal deformation of the map $f$ from $C$. The second summand corresponds to smoothing of nodes. And the third comes from deformation of the curve $C$ fixing the singular points. If there is a marked point $x$ on $C^\\alpha$, it should also be fixed and in the third summand there would be an additional term $ \\sum_\\alpha[H^0(T_x(C^\\alpha))]$. (Same remark applies to the formula below).\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n[T_{\\overline{\\cal M}^\\gamma}] & = & \\sum_{y \\in C^\\alpha\\cap C^\\beta: \\alpha\\not=\\beta:\\alpha,\\beta \\not\\in Edge(\\Gamma)}\n[T_y(C^\\alpha)\\otimes T_y(C^\\beta)]\\nonumber \\\\\n & + & \\sum_{y \\in C^\\alpha\\cap C^\\beta: \\alpha\\not=\\beta:\\alpha \\not\\in Edge(\\Gamma)}\n [T_y(C^\\alpha)] - \\sum_{\\alpha \\not\\in Edge(\\Gamma)}[H^0(C^\\alpha, T C^\\alpha)].\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere the first term corresponds to smoothing of nodes which are intersection of two contracted components. The second term and the third come from deformation of the components preserving singular points.\n\nSo we have the following formula $$[N_{\\overline{\\cal M}^\\gamma}] = [H^0(C,f^*(T{\\bf P}^n))]+ [N_{\\overline{\\cal M}^\\gamma}^{abs}]$$ where $$[N_{\\overline{\\cal M}^\\gamma}^{abs}] := \\sum_{y \\in C^\\alpha\\cap C^\\beta: \\alpha\\not=\\beta:\\alpha,\\beta \\in Edge(\\Gamma)}\n[T_y(C^\\alpha)\\otimes T_y(C^\\beta)]$$ $$+ \\sum_{y \\in C^\\alpha\\cap C^\\beta: \\alpha\\in Edge(\\Gamma),\\beta \\not\\in Edge(\\Gamma)}\n[T_y(C^\\alpha)\\otimes T_y(C^\\beta)]$$ $$+ \\sum_{y \\in C^\\alpha\\cap C^\\beta: \\alpha\\not=\\beta:\\alpha\\in Edge(\\Gamma)}[T_y(C^\\alpha)]\n - \\sum_{\\alpha\\in  Edge(\\Gamma)}[H^0(C^\\alpha,T C^\\alpha)].$$\n\nIn the formula for $ [N_{\\overline{\\cal M}^\\gamma}^{abs}]$ above the first and third summand are trivial bundles twisted with characters of the torus. The term $[H^0(C,f^*(T{\\bf P}^n))]$ and the classes from the bundle $E$ restricted to $X^\\gamma$ in our application later have same nature. When we take the Chern classes of these summand, we just get weights of torus action on the fibers of these bundles (expressed in terms of $\\lambda_i$\u2019s), hence can be pulled out of the integral. In the second summand, the tangent space of the non-contracted component at $y$ is fixed but twisted, while the tangent space of the contracted component at $y$ is moving without twisting. Taking equivariant Chern class we get a sum of certain tangential weight and the $\\psi$ class over suitable space of pointed stable curves. This reduce the integral on the right hand side of Bott\u2019s formula integral to integral of $\\psi$ classes over space of pointed curves for which the answer has been conjectured by Witten and verified by Kontsevich rigorously. Thus we have a contribution (as rational function in $\\lambda$\u2019s) from each of the admissible graphs. The invariant is given by a graph summation collecting all these contributions:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n  & &\\prod_{\\alpha \\in Edge(\\Gamma );v_1, v_2:vertices \\ of \\ \\alpha}\n      (\\frac{(-1)^{d_\\alpha}(\\frac{d_\\alpha}{\\lambda _{V_1}-\\lambda _{V_2}})^{2 d_\\alpha}}{(d_\\alpha !)^2}) \\nonumber \\\\\n  & \\times & \\prod_{\\alpha \\in {Edge(\\Gamma )}}\\prod_{k \\not= f_{v_1},k \\not= f_{v_2}}\\prod_{a,b \\geq\n     0:a+b=d_{\\alpha }}\\frac{1}{\\frac{a}{d_\\alpha }\\lambda _{f_{v_1}}+\\frac{b}{d_\\alpha }\\lambda _{f_{v_2}}-\\lambda _k}\\nonumber \\\\\n  & \\times & \\prod_{v \\in Vert(\\Gamma)}\\{(\\sum_{flags:F=(v,\\alpha )}w_F^{-1})^{ val (v)-3}\\times \n  \\prod_{ flags:F=(v,\\alpha )}w_F^{-1}\\nonumber  \\\\\n  &\\times & \\prod_{j \\not= f_v}(\\lambda _{f_v}-\\lambda _j)^{val (v)-1}\\}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHere the valence of a vertex includes the counts of the number of tails. The detailed calculation of the weights can be found in [@K] which we refer the interested readers to.\n\nProof of the vanishing theorem.\n-------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection, we prove the vanishing theorem stated in Section 4.2. We show the calculation for the specific example defined in Definition [**4.2** ]{} with n=2. The proof for the general cases is almost identical. We will briefly explain the difference at the end of the proof.\n\n[**Proof of Theorem 4.3:**]{} First of all, note that the invariant is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n& & \\sum _{\\Gamma }\\frac{1}{|\\mbox{Aut}(\\Gamma )|}\\times\n(\\mbox{contribution from }{ev}^*(\\alpha)\\wedge {ev}^*(\\beta) \\wedge {ev}^*(\\gamma) )\\nonumber  \\\\\n& \\times & (\\mbox{contribution from} \\Phi )\\times (\\mbox{formula} (25)).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHere the contribution of the second and the third terms are just a product of the weights of induced torus action on the corresponding vector bundles. We show that the contribution from the Euler class $\\Phi $ of the obstruction bundle restricted to the fixed point component is zero and thus conclude.\n\nTo deal with nodal curves, we need the following normalization sequence. First let us consider the simple case where $\\bf C=C_\\alpha \\cup C_\\beta $. There is an exact sequence of maps of sheaves (of the holomorphic functions): $$0 \\longrightarrow {\\cal O}_C \\longrightarrow {\\cal O}_{C_\\alpha}\\oplus {\\cal O}_{C_\\beta}\\longrightarrow\n {\\cal O}_{ C_\\alpha\\cap C_\\beta}\\longrightarrow 0.$$\n\nHere all the maps except the last one are obtained from inclusions.\u00a0And the last one maps $(f_1,f_2)$ to $f_1-f_2$.\n\nIn general we have the normalization sequence resolving all the nodes of ${\\bf C}$ which are forced by a graph type $\\Gamma $ $$\\begin{aligned}\n 0 \\longrightarrow {\\cal O}_C & \\longrightarrow & \\left(\\oplus _{v \\in Vert(\\Gamma )}{\\cal O}_{C_v}\\right) \n \\oplus \\left( \\oplus _{\\alpha \\in Edge(\\Gamma )}{\\cal O}_{C_\\alpha }\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n & \\longrightarrow & \\oplus _{F \\in Flag(\\Gamma )}{\\cal O}_{x_F}\\longrightarrow  0,\n \\end{aligned}$$ where $x_F=C_v \\cap C_\\alpha$ for a flag $(v,\\alpha )$, and the last map sends $(g|_{C_V},h|_{C_\\alpha})$ to $g-h$ on the intersection point.\n\nTwist the above sequence by $f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2$ and take cohomology to get $$\\begin{aligned}\n0 & \\longrightarrow & H^0(C,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^{2})  \\nonumber  \\\\\n& \\longrightarrow & \\left( \\oplus _{v \\in Vert(\\Gamma )}H^0(C_v,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^{2})\\right) \\oplus \n\\left( \\oplus _{\\alpha \\in Edge(\\Gamma )}H^0(C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^{2})\\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n & \\longrightarrow & \\oplus _{F \\in Flag(\\Gamma )}T_{f(x_F)}^*{\\bf P}^{2}\\longrightarrow H^1(C,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^{2})\n \\nonumber \\\\\n & \\longrightarrow & \\left( \\oplus _{v \\in Vert(\\Gamma )}H^1(C_v,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^{2})\\right) \\oplus \n \\left( \\oplus _{\\alpha \\in Edge(\\Gamma )}H^1(C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^{2})\\right)\\nonumber \\\\ \n & \\longrightarrow & 0.\n \\end{aligned}$$ The first term in the third line follows since $x_F$ is a point, which is why the last term in the last line is 0. Note that $f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2|_{C_v}$ is trivial since $C_v$ is mapped to a point , hence $H^0(C_v,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)\n=T^*{\\bf P}^2|_{P_{f(v)}}$ and $H^1(C_v,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)=H^1(C_v,{\\cal O})\\otimes f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2$. Since we are considering genus zero case, $H^1(C_v,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)$ is also zero( In general, it can be expressed in terms of the first Chern class $C_1$ of Hodge bundle over space of pointed curves). Because of the concavity of $T^*{\\bf P}^2$, $H^0(C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)$ is zero. And by looking at the maps in the first line of $(29)$, we see $H^0(C,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)$ is also zero. So we have $$[H^1(C,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)]=[\\prod _{v \\in Vert(\\Gamma )}T_{p_{f(v)}}^*{\\bf P}^2]+[\\prod _{a \\in Edge(\\Gamma )}H^1\n (C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)].$$ The contribution from the l.h.s is the product of those of the two terms on the r.h.s.\n\nSince a non-contracted component is rigid, $[H^1(C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)]$ is a trivial bundle when restricted to fixed point components. To compute the weights, we consider the following description of the cotangent bundle of ${\\bf P}^2$ by an exact sequence of bundles over ${\\bf P}^2={\\bf P}(V)$ where $V$ is a complex vector space of dimension 3. First we have $$0 \\longrightarrow {\\cal O}(-1)\\longrightarrow V \\longrightarrow Q \\longrightarrow 0,$$ where $V$ represents the trivial bundle with vector space $V$ as fiber and ${\\cal O}(-1)$ is the universal bundle. Tensoring with ${\\cal O}(1)$, we have $$0 \\longrightarrow {\\cal O}\\longrightarrow {\\cal O}(1)\\otimes V \\longrightarrow {\\cal O}(1)\\otimes \nQ \\longrightarrow 0,$$ where ${\\cal O}(1)\\otimes Q ={\\bf T P}^2$. Dualizing we have $$0 \\longrightarrow T^*{\\bf P}^2 \\longrightarrow \n{\\cal O}(-1)\\otimes V^*\\longrightarrow {\\cal O}\\longrightarrow 0.$$\n\nPulling back by $f$ over $C_\\alpha$ and taking cohomology, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n0 & \\longrightarrow & H^0(C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)\\longrightarrow H^0(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O}(-d)\\otimes V^*)\\nonumber \\\\\n & \\longrightarrow & H^0(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O})\\longrightarrow H^1(C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2) \\nonumber \\\\\n& \\longrightarrow & H^1(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O}(-d)\\otimes V^*)\\longrightarrow H^1(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O})\\longrightarrow 0.\\end{aligned}$$ Note that $C_\\alpha $ is rational. $H^0(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O}(-d)\\otimes V^*)$ and $H^1(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O})$ are both $0$. So we have $$0 \\longrightarrow H^0(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O})\\longrightarrow H^1(C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)\\longrightarrow\n H^1(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O}(-d)\\otimes V^*)\\longrightarrow 0.$$ So the contribution of $[H^1(C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)]$ is given by a product of weights on $H^1(C_\\alpha$, ${\\cal O}(-d)\\otimes V^*)$ and weight on $H^0(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O})$. Obviously the weight on $H^0(C_\\alpha,{\\cal O})$ is zero. So the contribution of $[H^1(C_\\alpha, f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)]$ is zero for each $\\alpha \\in Edge(\\Gamma )$.\n\nFrom $(30)$, we see that the total contribution of the Euler class $\\Phi $ is zero. Thus we conclude our proof of the genus zero case.\n\nIn the general case of higher genus, formula $(26)$ needs to be modified. $\\lambda$ classes (coming from the deformation of the complex structures on ${\\bf C})$ and hence Hodge integrals will appear in the computation of the normal bundle contribution and the details can be found in [@GP]. But the point is that the contribution of Euler class $\\Phi $ is still zero, since there is a 0 weight coming from $H^1(C_\\alpha,f^*T^*{\\bf P}^2)$ for each non-contracted component (necessarily rational as explained earlier). So Theorem $ 4.3$ still holds.\n\n[**Theorem 4.4:**]{} Suppose that non-singular projective manifolds $X$ and $X'$ of complex dimension $2n$ are connected by a sequence of Mukai flops. Then $X$ and $X' $ have isomorphic Ruan cohomologies.\n\n[**Proof:**]{} By theorem 4.3, we have that all Gromov-Witten invariants appearing in the right hand side of $(1)$ vanish. Therefore, we have that for $X, X'$ their quantum corrections all vanish. Thus their quantum cohomology are the same as their ordinary Chow ring. By theorem 3.2, we know that $X, X'$ have isomorphic Ruan cohomology. This proves the theorem.\n\n[**Corollary 4.5:**]{} For Mukai flops, cohomological minimal model conjecture holds.\n\nFinally, we present a well known proposition to point out that local existence of a holomorphic symplectic 2-form implies natural isomorphism of the normal bundle and the cotangent bundle for a embedded ${\\bf P}^n$.\n\n[**Proposition 4.6: (see [@Mukai])**]{} Suppose that ${\\bf P}^n$ is embedded in a smooth variety $X$ with a neighborhood $N$ admitting a holomorphic symplectic 2-form $\\omega$, then we have the following\n\n1.  $ \\mbox{codim}_X{\\bf P}^n \\geq n$.\n\n2.  In case $\\mbox{codim}_X{\\bf P}^n = n$, there is a natural isomorphism $T^*{\\bf P}^n = N_{X|{\\bf P}^n}$.\n\n[**Proof:**]{} Since $H^{2,0}({\\bf P}^n) = 0$, $\\omega \\mid _{{\\bf P}^n} = 0$. Thus $T_p{\\bf P}^n \n \\subset (T_p{\\bf P}^n)^\\bot$ for any point $p \\in {\\bf P}^n$, where $T_p{\\bf P}^n \\subset T_pX$ is considered as a subspace of $T_pX$. Hence codim$_X{\\bf P}^n = \\dim (T_p{\\bf P}^n)^\\bot \\geq \\dim T_p{\\bf P}^n = n $. In case equality holds, $T_p{\\bf P}^n = (T_p{\\bf P}^n)^\\bot$.\n\n$\\omega \\mid _{T_pX}$ is nondegenerate, so there is an isomorphism $\\phi : T_p X = (T_p X)^*$. Thus we have $T_p{\\bf P}^n =(T_p{\\bf P}^n)^\\bot = \\mbox{Ann}(T_p{\\bf P}^n) = N^*_{X \\setminus{\\bf P}^n}$, where the second isomorphism is via the map $\\phi$.\n\n[9999]{} V. Batyrev, Birational Calabi-Yau n-folds have the equal betti numbers, New trends in algebraic geometry(Warwick, 1996), 1-11. London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser. 264. Cambridge Uni. Press, Cambridge, 1999. A. Beauville, Some remarks on k\u00e4hler manifolds with $c_1 = 0$, in Classification of algebraic and analytic manifolds, Prog. Math. 39(1983), 1-26. A. Burns, Y. Hu, T. Luo, Hyperk\u00e4hler manifolds and birational transformations in dimension 4. math.AG/0004154 E. Bishop, Conditions for the analyticity of certain sets, Mich. Math. J. 11(1964), 289-304. R. Bott, L. Tu, Differential Forms in Algebraic Topology, GTM 82, Springer-Verlag Press, 1982. N. Chriss, V. Ginzburg, Representation theory and complex geometry, Birkh\u00e4user, 1997 T. M. Chiang, A. Klemm, S. T. Yau, E. Zaslow, Local mirror symmetry : Calculation and Interpretations, Adv. Theory Math. Phys., 3(1999), 495-565 W. Fulton, Intersection theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heideberg, 1984 P. Griffiths, J. Harris, Principles of Algebraic Geometry, Wiley Interscience, 1978. T. Graber, R. Pandharipande, Localization of virtual classes, alg-geom/9708001 J. Hu, Quantum cohomology of blowups of surfaces and its functoriality property, MPI-preprint, 2000-118 D. Huybrechts, Birational symplectic manifolds and their deformations, alg-geom/9601015. D. Huybrechts, Compact hyperk\u00e4hler manifolds: Basic Results. alg-geom/9705025. M. Kontsevich, \u201cEnumeration of Rational curves via torus actions,\u201d in The Moduli Space of Curves, Dijkgraaf et al eds., Progress in Mathematics 129, Birkh\u00fcser(Boston) 1995 Weiping Li, Several-hour-long discussion. B. Lian, K. Liu, S. T. Yau, Mirror principle I, Asian J. Math., 1(1997), 729-763. A. Li, Y. Ruan, Symplectic surgery and Gromov-Witten invariants of Calabi-Yau $3$-folds,I, Invent. Math. 145(2001),151-218, alg-geom/9803036 D. McDuff, Blow-ups and symplectic embeddings in dimension 4, Topology, 30(1991), 409-421. S. Mukai, Symplectic structure of the moduli space of sheaves on an abelian or $K3$ surfaces, Invent. Math. 77(1984), 101-116. Z. Qin, Y. Ruan, Quantum cohomology of projective bundle over ${\\bf P}^2$, Trans. AMS, 350(1998), 3615-3638 Y. Ruan, Quantum cohomology and its applications, Lecture at ICM98, Doc. Math. (1998)Extra vol. II, 411-420 Y. Ruan, Surgery, quantum cohomology and birational geometry, in Northern California Symplectic Geometry Seminar(Y. Eliashberg, D. Fuchs, T. Ratiu, A. Weinstein, eds), AMS Translations, Series 2, vol. 196(1999), 183-198. Y. Ruan, Cohomology ring of crepant resolutions of orbifolds, math.AG/0108195 Y. Ruan, Stingy orbifolds, math.AG/0201123 Y. Ruan, G. Tian, A mathematical theory of quantum cohomology, J. Diff. Geom. 42(1995), 259-367. C-L. Wang, On the topology of birational minimal models, J. Diff. Geom. 50(1998), 129-146 C-L. Wang, K-equivalence in birational geometry, math.AG/0204160\n\nEmail address: stsjxhu@zsu.edu.cn\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We study the two-species symbiotic contact process (2SCP), recently proposed in \\[de Oliveira, Santos and Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**86**]{}, 011121 (2012)\\] . In this model, each site of a lattice may be vacant or host single individuals of species A and/or B. Individuals at sites with both species present interact in a symbiotic manner, having a reduced death rate, $\\mu < 1$. Otherwise, the dynamics follows the rules of the basic CP, with individuals reproducing to vacant neighbor sites at rate $\\lambda$ and dying at a rate of unity. We determine the full phase diagram in the $\\lambda-\\mu$ plane in one and two dimensions by means of exact numerical quasistationary distributions, cluster approximations, and Monte Carlo simulations. We also study the effects of asymmetric creation rates and diffusion of individuals. In two dimensions, for sufficiently strong symbiosis (i.e., small $\\mu$), the absorbing-state phase transition becomes discontinuous for diffusion rates $D$ within a certain range. We report preliminary results on the critical surface and tricritical line in the $\\lambda-\\mu-D$ space. Our results raise the possibility that strongly symbiotic associations of mobile species may be vulnerable to sudden extinction under increasingly adverse conditions.'\naddress: |\n     $^1$Departamento de F\u00edsica e Matem\u00e1tica, CAP, Universidade Federal de S\u00e3o Jo\u00e3o del Rei, 36420-000 Ouro Branco, Minas Gerais - Brazil\\\n    $^2$Departamento de F\u00edsica and National Institute of Science and Technology for Complex Systems, ICEx, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, C. P. 702, 30123-970 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais - Brazil \nauthor:\n- 'Marcelo Martins de Oliveira$^1$[^1] and Ronald Dickman$^2$[^2]'\ntitle: 'Phase diagram of the symbiotic two-species contact process'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nOriginally proposed as a toy model for epidemic spreading, the contact process (CP) [@harris-CP] can also be interpreted as a stochastic single species birth-and-death process with a spatial structure [@durrett]. In the CP, each individual can reproduce assexually with rate $\\lambda$, or die with unitary rate. When the reproduction rate $\\lambda$ is varied, the system undergoes a phase transition between extinction and survival.\n\nInteracting, spatially extended, multi-species processes are a subject of recent interest [@jansen; @iwata; @multisp; @tauber; @tubay; @parasites; @competing]. In particular, multispecies (or multitype) contact processes have been used to model systems with neutral community structure, and have proven useful in understanding abundance distributions and species-area relationships [@weitz; @munoz].\n\nSymbiosis is the \u201cliving together of two phylogenetically unrelated species in close association\" [@boucher], and is thought to develop as a consequence of coevolution [@douglas; @sapp]; it is a rather common phenomenon in nature. For example, lichens are symbiotic complexes of algae living inside fungi, and the roots of higher plants use symbiotic associations with fungi to receive important nutrients [@paracer].\n\nMacroscopic models derived from modifications of the Lotka-Volterra competition equations have been employed to model symbiotic relations for decades [@rockwood; @yukalov]. Such model however neglect stochastic effects, relevant due to the discrete nature of the individuals and in spatially extended systems [@discrete]. More recently, the effects of mutualistic interactions in one-dimensional stepping stone models were studied by Korolev and Nelson [@korolev], and by Dall\u2019Asta et.al. [@asta], who found that fluctuations and spatial structure favors symmetric mutualism (in which species benefit equally from the interaction). The fixation(absorbing)-coexistence(active) phase transition was found to belong to the voter model universality class if mutualism is symmetric, and to the directed percolation class if asymmetric. Lavrentovich and Nelson extended the results of [@lav] to asymmetric interactions in two and three dimensions, finding that the mutualist phase is more accessible in higher dimensional range expansions. Pigolotti et. al [@pigolotti] studied competition and cooperation between two species when the population size is not constrained as it is in stepping-stone models.\n\nRecently, we studied symbiotic interactions in a two-species CP [@scp]. This was done by allowing two CPs (species A and B), to inhabit the same lattice. The symbiotic interaction is modeled via a reduced death rate, $\\mu < 1$, at sites occupied by individuals of each species. Aside from this interaction, the two populations evolve independently. We found that, as one would expect, the symbiotic interaction favors survival of a mixed population, in that the critical reproduction rate $\\lambda_c$ decreases as we reduce $\\mu$ [@scp].\n\nApart from its interest as an elementary model of symbiosis, the critical behavior of the two-species symbiotic CP (2SCP) is interesting for the study of nonequilibrium universality classes. Extinction represents an absorbing state, a frozen state with no fluctuations [@marro; @henkel; @odor07; @hinrichsen; @odor04]. Absorbing-state phase transitions have been a topic of much interest in recent decades. In addition to their connection with population dynamics, they appear in a wide variety of problems, such as heterogeneous catalysis [@zgb], interface growth [@tang], and epidemics [@bart], and have been shown to underlie self-organized criticality [@vdmz; @bjp]. Recent experimental realizations in the context of spatio-temporal chaos in liquid crystal electroconvection [@take07], driven suspensions [@pine] and superconducting vortices [@okuma] have heightened interest in such transitions. In this context, in [@scp] we employed extensive simulations and field-theoretical arguments to show that the critical scaling of the 2SCP is consistent with that of directed percolation (DP), which is known to describe the basic CP [@note1], and is generic for absorbing-state phase transitions [@janssen; @grassberger].\n\nIn this work we examine some of the issues regarding the 2SCP left open in the original study [@scp]: (1) Can mean-field predictions be improved on? (2) What is the phase boundary for unequal creation rates? (3) Does the model exhibit a discontinuous phase transition in two dimensions, for strong symbiosis, or in the presence of diffusion?\n\nThe mean-field theory for the 2SCP [@scp], at both one- and two-site levels, predicts a discontinuous phase transition for strong symbiosis in any number of dimensions. Discontinuous phase transitions to an absorbing state are not possible, however, in one-dimensional systems with short-range interactions and free of boundary fields [@hinrichsen]. We have indeed verified this general principle in simulations of the one-dimensional model. The simulations reported in [@scp] did not reveal a discontinuous transition in two dimensions ($d=2$) either. In the present work we aim to provide a better theoretical understanding of the phase diagram of the 2SCP, using exact quasistationary probability distributions for small systems, cluster approximations, and simulations. In two dimensions, we extend the model to include diffusion (nearest-neighbor hopping) of individuals. While we find no evidence of a discontinuous transition without diffusion, it becomes discontinuous for sufficiently small $\\mu$ and large $D$.\n\nThe remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we review the definition of the model and the mean-field analysis, and in Sec. III present results of cluster approximations and quasistationary analysis. Then, in Sec. IV we study the diffusive process. Sec. V is devoted to discussion and conclusions.\n\nModel\n=====\n\nTo begin we review the definition of the two-species symbiotic contact process (2SCP) [@scp]. We denote the variables for occupation of a site $i$ by species A and B as $\\sigma_i$ and $\\eta_i$, respectively. The possible states $(\\sigma_i, \\eta_i)$ of a given site are $(0,0)$ (empty), $(1,0)$ (occupied by species A only), $(0,1)$ (species B only), and $(1,1)$ (occupied by both species). Birth of $A$ individuals, represented by the transitions $(0,0) \\to (1,0)$ and $(0,1) \\to (1,1)$, occur at rate $\\lambda_A r_A$, with $r_A$ the fraction of nearest neighbor sites (NNs) bearing a particle of species A. Similarly, birth of $B$ individuals \\[i.e., the transitions $(0,0) \\to (0,1)$ and $(1,0) \\to (1,1)$\\], occurs at rate $\\lambda_B r_B$, with $r_B$ the fraction of NNs bearing a particle of species B. Death at singly occupied sites, $(1,0) \\to (0,0)$ and $(0,1) \\to (0,0)$, occurs at a rate of unity, as in the basic CP. The transitions $(1,1) \\to (1,0)$ and $(1,1) \\to (0,1)$, corresponding to death at a doubly occupied site, occur at rate $\\mu$. The set of transition rates defined above describes a pair of contact processes inhabiting the same lattice. If $\\mu=1$ the two processes evolve independently, but for $\\mu < 1$ they interact [*symbiotically*]{} since the annihilation rates are reduced at sites with both species present.\n\nThe phase diagram of the 2SCP exhibits four phases: (i) the fully active phase with nonzero populations of both species; (ii) a partly active phase with only $A$ species; (iii) a partly active phase with only $B$ species; (iv) the inactive phase in which both species are extinct. The latter is absorbing while the partly active phases represent absorbing subspaces of the dynamics. Extensive simulations on rings and on the square lattice indicate that the critical behavior is compatible with the directed percolation (DP) universality class; this conclusion is also supported by field-theoretic arguments [@scp].\n\nIn [@scp], we studied the model with symmetrical rates under exchange of species labels A and B, i.e., with $\\lambda_A=\\lambda_B=\\lambda$. We found that for $\\mu < 1$ the transition from the fully active to the absorbing phase occurs at some $\\lambda_{c} (\\mu) < \\lambda_{c} (\\mu=1)$, since the annihilation rate is reduced. The effect of asymmetric creation rates is shown in Fig.\u00a01 : if one of the species, for instance A, has its creation rate below (above) $\\lambda_c$, the transition occurs for a $\\lambda_B$ above (below) $\\lambda_c$. (The simulation algorithm is detailed in Sec. IV.) The results for $d=2$ are qualitatively the same, as shown in Fig.\u00a02. Suppose we let $\\lambda_A \\to \\infty$. Then all sites will bear an A particle, so that the dynamics of species B is a contact process with death rate $\\mu$. It follows that the critical value of $\\lambda_B$ is $\\mu \\, \\lambda_c (\\mu=1)$; this determines the asymptotic form of the phase boundaries in Figs. 1 and 2. The simulation data in Figs.\u00a01 and 2 are obtained by extrapolating moment ratio crossings [@moments]. The system sizes are $L=200$, 400, 800 and 1600 in one dimension, and $L=40$, 80, 160 and 320 in two dimensions.\n\n![[]{data-label=\"lalb1\"}](pb25.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\n![[]{data-label=\"lalb2\"}](lambdaAB.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\nThe basic mean-field theory (MFT) (i.e., the one-site approximation), for the 2SCP was derived in [@scp]. Generalized to include different creation rates, $\\lambda_A$ and $\\lambda_B$, for the two species, and diffusion (nearest-neighbor hopping) of both species at rate $D$, the MFT equations read:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d p_0}{dt} &=& - (\\lambda_A \\rho_A + \\lambda_B \\rho_B)p_0 + p_A + p_B\n+D[p_A \\tilde{\\rho}_A + p_B\\tilde{\\rho}_B - \\rho p_0],\n\\\\\n\\frac{d p_A}{dt} &=&  \\lambda_A p_0 \\rho_A + \\mu p_{AB} - (1 + \\lambda_B \\rho_B) p_A\n+D[p_0\\rho_A \\!-\\! p_A\\rho_B +p_{AB}\\tilde{\\rho}_B \\!-\\! p_A\\tilde{\\rho}_A],\n\\\\\n\\frac{d p_B}{dt} &=&  \\lambda_B p_0 \\rho_B + \\mu p_{AB} - (1 + \\lambda_A \\rho_A) p_B\n+D[p_0\\rho_B \\!-\\! p_B\\rho_A +p_{AB}\\tilde{\\rho}_A \\!-\\! p_B\\tilde{\\rho}_B],\n\\\\\n\\frac{d p_{AB}}{dt} &=& \\lambda_B p_A \\rho_B + \\lambda_A p_B \\rho_A - 2 \\mu p_{AB}\n+D[p_A \\rho_B + p_B\\rho_A - p_{AB}(2-\\rho)],\n\\label{pab}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere the probabilities for a given site to be vacant, occupied by species A only, by species B only, and doubly occupied are denoted by $p_0$, $p_A$, $p_B$, and $p_{AB}$, respectively, $\\rho_A = p_A + p_{AB}$, and $\\rho_B = p_B + p_{AB}$. We have further defined $\\rho = \\rho_A + \\rho_B$, $\\tilde{\\rho}_A = 1-\\rho_A$ and $\\tilde{\\rho}_B = 1-\\rho_B$. If one species is absent (for example, if $p_B = p_{AB} = 0$) this system reduces to the MFT for the basic contact process, $\\dot{p}_A = \\lambda p_A (1-p_A) - p_A$, with a critical point at $\\lambda = 1$. Under the effect of symbiosis we seek a symmetric stationary solution, $p_A = p_B = p$, leading, for $D=0$, to\n\n$$\\overline{p} = \\frac{\\mu}{2 \\lambda (1-\\mu)} \\left[ 2(1-\\mu) - \\lambda\n+ \\sqrt{\\lambda^2 - 4\\mu (1-\\mu)} \\right].\n\\label{pMFT}$$\n\nand $$\\overline{p}_{AB} = \\frac{\\lambda p^2}{\\mu - \\lambda p}\n\\label{pabmft}$$\n\nFor $\\mu \\geq 1/2$, $p$ grows continuously from zero at $\\lambda=1$, marking the latter value as the critical point. The activity grows linearly, $p \\simeq [\\mu/(2\\mu -1)](\\lambda-1)$, in this regime. For $\\mu < 1/2$, however, the expression is already positive for $\\lambda = \\sqrt{4 \\mu(1-\\mu)} < 1$, and there is a [*discontinuous*]{} transition at this point.\n\nIn the limit $D \\to \\infty$, we expect $p_{AB} = \\rho_A \\rho_B$, as is required by the condition that, in this limit, a time-independent solution requires that the coefficient of $D$ in Eq.\u00a0\\[pab\\] be zero.\n\nCluster approximations and quasistationary analysis\n===================================================\n\nAs noted above, the discontinuous phase transition predicted by one- and two-site MFT is impossible in one dimension. Simulations in both one and two dimensions, covering a broad range of $\\mu$ values, yield no evidence of a discontinuous transition. Here we attempt to develop more reliable theoretical descriptions, using cluster approximations and quasistationary (QS) solutions of small systems, for the symmetric case, $\\lambda_A = \\lambda_B = \\lambda$. In the following analysis we set $D=0$, i.e., the non-diffusive limit of Eqs. 1 - 4.\n\nIt is often the case that MFT predictions improve, both qualitatively and quantitatively, as the cluster size used in the analysis is increased. We therefore investigate MFT approximations using clusters of up to six sites in one dimension, and clusters of four sites on the square lattice. Following the usual procedure [@mftzgb; @marro; @benav], we deduce a set of coupled, nonlinear differential equations for the cluster occupation probabilities, which are then integrated numerically to obtain the stationary solution. As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[lm1d\\], for the one-dimensional case, the prediction for the phase boundary in the $\\lambda-\\mu$ plane does improve as we increase the cluster size from $n=2$ to $n=6$. The $n=2$ approximation correctly predicts a continuous phase transition for $\\mu \\geq 0.75$, but on this range it yields $\\lambda_c$ independent of $\\mu$, contrary to simulations, which show $\\lambda_c$ varying smoothly with $\\mu$. For $n=6$ the transition is predicted to be continuous for $\\mu < 0.45$, [*discontinuous*]{} for $0.45\\leq\\mu < 0.88 $, and again continuous for $0.88 \\leq \\mu \\leq 1$. (Note that on the latter interval $\\lambda_c$ is again independent of $\\mu$). Thus the $n=6$ approximation exhibits the same qualitative problems as for $n=2$, despite the overall improvement. The four-site approximation on the square lattice, shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[lm2d\\], furnishes a reasonable prediction for the phase boundary, but suffers from similar defects: for $\\mu < 0.66$ the transition is discontinuous, while for $\\mu \\geq 0.7$, $\\lambda_c$ is independent of $\\mu$.\n\nIn the context of absorbing-state phase transitions, we generally look to MFT as a guide to the overall phase diagram, expecting the critical point to have the correct order of magnitude and, perhaps more importantly, the nature (continuous or discontinuous) of the transition to be predicted correctly. The latter criterion is not always satisfied, however [@trpcr2009]. In light of this, and in the hope of devising a more reliable approximation method that is still relatively simple to apply, we consider analyses based on the quasistationary (QS) probability distribution of small systems. The QS distribution (or [*Yaglom limit*]{}, as it is known in the probability literature), is the probability distribution at long times, conditioned on survival of the process [@QSS]. For the one-dimensional CP and allied models [@exact], and an activated random walker model [@sleepy], finite-size scaling analysis of numerically exact QS results on a sequence of lattice sizes yields good estimates for the critical point, exponents and moment ratios. In the present case, with four states per site, attaining the sizes required for a precise analysis appears to be very costly, computationally, and we shall merely attempt to obtain reasonable estimates for the phase boundary $\\lambda_{c}(\\mu)$.\n\nAs described in detail in [@exact], obtaining the QS distribution numerically requires (1) enumerating all configurations on a lattice of a given size; (2) enumerating all transitions between configurations, and their associated rates; and (3) using this information in an iterative procedure to generate the QS distribution. Once the latter is known, one may calculate properties such as the order parameter or lifetime. For small systems these quantities are smooth functions of the control parameter and show no hint of the critical singularity. It is known, however, that the moment ratio $m(\\lambda;L) \\equiv \\langle \\rho^2 \\rangle/\\langle \\rho \\rangle^2$ exhibits crossings, analogous to those of the Binder cumulant [@moments]. (Here $\\rho$ is the density of active sites.) That is, defining $\\lambda_\\times (L)$ via the condition $m[\\lambda_\\times (L);L] = m[\\lambda_\\times (L);L\\!-\\!1]$, the $\\lambda_\\times (L)$ converge to $\\lambda_c$ as $L \\to \\infty$, as follows from a scaling property of the order-parameter probability distribution. Our procedure, therefore, is to calculate $m(\\lambda;L)$ for a series of sizes $L$, locate the crossings $\\lambda_\\times (L)$, and use them to estimate $\\lambda_c$.\n\nIn one dimension we calculate $m(\\lambda;L)$ for rings of size $L=6$ to 11. We treat configurations with only one species as absorbing, as well as, naturally, the configuration devoid of any individuals. To estimate $\\lambda_c$ we perform a quadratic fit to $\\lambda_\\times (L)$ as a function of $L^{-\\gamma}$, using $\\gamma$ in the range 1-3. (The precise value of $\\gamma$ is chosen so as to render the plot of $\\lambda(L)$ versus $L^{-\\gamma}$ as close to linear as possible.) Similar estimates for $\\lambda_c$ are obtained using the Bulirsch-Stoer procedure [@BS]. As is evident in Fig.\u00a0\\[lm1d\\], the resulting phase boundary is in good accord with simulation, predicting $\\lambda_{c,\\mu}$ with an accuracy of 10% or better. (The simulation data in Fig.\u00a03 are obtained by extrapolating moment ratio crossings [@moments] for system sizes $L=200$, 400, 800 and 1600). The extrapolated value of $m$ at the crossings is not particularly good (for $\\mu=1$ we find $m_c = 1.110$, compared with the best estimate of 1.1736(1) [@moments]). Although we expect that this would improve using larger systems, our objective here is to find a relatively fast and simple method to predict the phase boundary. (The cpu time required to converge to the QS distribution is comparable to that required to integrate the equations numerically in the $n=6$ cluster approximation.)\n\nTo apply the QS method to the two-dimensional 2SCP, we devised an algorithm that enumerates configurations and transitions for a general graph of $N$ vertices; the graph structure is specified by the set of bonds ${\\cal B} = \\{(i_1,j_1), (i_2,j_2), ..., (i_m,j_m)\\}$ linking pairs of vertices $i_k$ and $j_k$. To represent a portion of the square lattice, with periodic boundaries, each vertex must be linked to four others. This can be achieved rather naturally for a square ($m \\times m$) or rectangle ($m \\times (m+1)$); for other values of $N$ we use a cluster close to a square, and define the bonds required for periodicity by tiling the plane with this cluster, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[11site\\].\n\nWe study clusters of 8 to 12 sites on the square lattice. For $N=12$, there are about 1.7 $\\times 10^7$ configurations and about 3.9 $\\times 10^8$ transitions; restrictions of computer time and storage prevent us from going beyond this size. The crossings of $m$ between successive sizes do not yield useful predictions for $\\lambda_c$ in this case. Evidently, the linear extent of the clusters is too small to probe the scaling regime. We instead derive estimates for the critical point by locating the maximum of $d\\rho/d\\lambda$, since in the infinite-size limit, this derivative (taken from the left) diverges at the critical point. The resulting predictions, for clusters of 11 and 12 sites, are compared with simulation in Fig.\u00a0\\[lm2d\\], showing that the QS analysis provides a semiquantitative prediction for $\\lambda_c$, and captures the shape of the phase boundary. (The simulation data in Fig. 5 are obtained by extrapolating moment ratio crossings [@moments] for system with linear sizes $L=40$, 80, 160 and 320). This analysis suggests that the phase transition is continuous (as found in simulation) since the QS probability distribution is unimodal in all cases.\n\n![[]{data-label=\"lm1d\"}](lm1d.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\n![[]{data-label=\"11site\"}](11site.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\n![[]{data-label=\"lm2d\"}](lambda-mu.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\nThe Diffusive SCP\n=================\n\nAlthough the one-site MFT predicts a discontinuous phase transition in the 2SCP in any number of dimensions, such a transition is not possible in one-dimensional systems with short-range interactions and free of boundary fields [@hinrichsen]. In one dimension the active-absorbing transition should be continuous, as we have indeed verified in simulations. In two dimensions ($d=2$), previous studies did not reveal any evidence for a discontinuous transition. These studies did not, however, include diffusion, which is expected to facilitate the appearance of discontinuous transitions. Here we study the 2SCP with diffusion on the square lattice.\n\nWe modify the process so that, in addition to creation and death, each individual can hop to one of its NN sites at rate $D$. In the simulation algorithm for the diffusive 2SCP, we maintain two lists, one of singly and another of doubly occupied sites. Let $N_s$ and $N_d$ denote, respectively, the numbers of such sites, so that $N_p = N_s + 2 N_d$ is the total number of individuals. The total rate of (attempted) transitions is $\\lambda N_p + N_s + 2\\mu N_d + D N_p\\equiv 1/\\Delta t$, where $\\Delta t$ is the time increment associated with a given step in the simulation.\n\nAt each such step, we choose among the events: (1) creation attempt by an isolated individual, with probability $\\lambda N_s \\Delta t$; (2) creation attempt by an individual at a doubly occupied site, with probability $2 \\lambda N_d \\Delta t$; (3) death of an isolated individual, with probability $N_s \\Delta t$; (4) death of an individual at a doubly occupied site, with probability $2 \\mu N_d$ and (5) diffusion of an individual, with probability $D N_p \\Delta t$.\n\nOnce the event type is selected a site $i$ is randomly chosen from the appropriate list. Creation occurs at a site $j$, a randomly chosen first-neighbor of site $i$, if $j$ is not already occupied by an individual of the species to be created. If site $i$ is doubly occupied, the species of the daughter (in a creation event) is chosen to be A or B with equal probability. Similarly, in an annihilation event at a doubly-occupied site, the species to be removed is chosen at random.\n\nFor the SCP with diffusion, we performed QS simulations [@qssim; @qssim2] for systems of linear sizes up to $L= 100$, with each run lasting $10^8$ time units. Averages are taken in the QS regime, after discarding an initial transient which depends on the system size and diffusion rate used.\n\n![[]{data-label=\"scpD\"}](scpD.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\nFigure \\[scpD\\] shows that with increasing diffusion rate, the critical creation rate $\\lambda_c$ tends to unity, the value predicted by simple mean-field theory. (The increase in $\\lambda_c$ in the small-$D$ regime reflects the elimination symbiotic A-B pairs due to diffusion.) In Fig.\u00a0\\[mu25d0\\] we plot near-critical quasistationary probability distributions of single individuals, $\\rho$, and of doubly occupied sites, $q$, for $\\mu=0.25$ and $D=0$. The distributions are unimodal, showing that the transition is continuous. We verify that in the absence of diffusion, the absorbing phase transition is always continuous, regardless the value of $\\mu$. For diffusion rates considerably in excess of unity, we observe a discontinuous transition for certain values of $\\mu$. An example of bimodal QS probability distributions, signaling a discontinuous transition, is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[mu25d5\\], for $D=5.0$.\\\n\n![[]{data-label=\"mu25d0\"}](mu25D0L100.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\n![[]{data-label=\"mu25d5\"}](mu25D5L100.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\n![[]{data-label=\"mu01d.1\"}](mu001D01L100.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\n![[]{data-label=\"rqd01\"}](rqd01.eps){width=\"0.95\\hsize\"}\n\n![[]{data-label=\"mu25d100\"}](mu25D100L100.eps){width=\"0.8\\hsize\"}\n\nThe mechanism by which diffusion gives rise to a discontinuous transition can be understood as follows. Under strong symbiosis ($\\mu$ close to zero), only doubly occupied sites are observed near the critical point, in the absence of diffusion. Since the transition is continuous in this case, the overall density is very low near the critical point. In the presence of diffusion, pairs tend to be destroyed; the resulting isolated individuals then rapidly die. Thus diffusion renders low-density active states inviable. Under moderate diffusion, a finite density is required to maintain a significant concentration of doubly occupied sites, and thereby maintain activity. Hence the population density jumps from zero to a finite value at the transition. For small $\\mu$ we observe a discontinuous phase transition even for small values of the diffusion rate, as shown in Figs.\u00a0\\[mu01d.1\\] and \\[rqd01\\].\n\n![[]{data-label=\"crsurf\"}](crsurf.eps){width=\"0.95\\hsize\"}\n\nAlthough we have verified that the phase transition is discontinuous for small $\\mu$ and moderate diffusion rates $D$, increasing $D$ further, the transition becomes continuous again. In the limit $D \\to \\infty$, we expect mean field-like behavior, with the effects of diffusion suppressing the clustering which permits symbiosis. In this limit, the one-site MFT predicts a [*continuous*]{} phase transition, with $\\lambda_c = 1$, for any value of $\\mu$. Reversion to a continuous transition under rapid diffusion ($D=100$, $\\mu=0.25$) is evident in Fig.\u00a0\\[mu25d100\\]: the QS probability distributions are again unimodal. At criticality, fewer than $4\\%$ of the individuals are located at doubly occupied sites for $D=100$, in comparison with $25\\%$ for $D=5$.\n\nIn the three-dimensional parameter space space of $\\lambda$, $\\mu$, and $D$, there is a critical surface separating the active and absorbing phases. On this surface, a [*tricritical line*]{} separates regions exhibiting continuous and discontinuous phase transitions (see Fig.\u00a0\\[crsurf\\]). The mean-field theory of Eqs.\u00a0(1)-(4) yields a tricritical line that begins at $\\lambda=1$, $\\mu=1/2$ (for $D=0$), and then tends, for increasing $D$, to ever smaller values of $\\mu$ (asymptotically, $\\mu = 1/D$, with $\\lambda=1$ all the while). Simulations show a somewhat different picture, with the tricritical line approaching the point $\\lambda=\\mu=D=0$, and then curving toward larger $\\mu$ and $\\lambda$ values for small but nonzero $D$, before doubling back towards $\\mu=0$, as shown in Fig\u00a0\\[crsurf\\]. This means that for a given, nonzero value of $\\mu$, the transition is discontinuous (if at all), only within a restricted range of $D$ values. For example, our simulations reveal that for $\\mu=0.25$, the transition is discontinuous for $3 < D < 10$, but becomes continuous for $D \\geq 100$. We defer a full mapping of the tricritical line to future work.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nWe present a detailed study of the phase diagram of the symbiotic contact process, using simulation, cluster approximations, and exact (numerical) quasistationary distributions of small systems. We study the effect of asymmetric creation rates and of diffusion of individuals. Exact quasistationary distributions and cluster approximations provide fair predictions for the phase boundary in the symmetric case. In simulations, the phase transition is always found to be continuous in one dimension, but in two dimensions we observe a discontinuous phase transition when symbiosis is strong ($\\mu\\to 0$), in the presence of moderate diffusion. For $D \\to \\infty$ the transition is again continuous.\n\nAlthough the model studied here is much too simple to apply to real ecosystems, our results raise the possibility of catastrophic (discontinuous) collapse of strongly symbiotic interspecies alliances under increasingly adverse conditions, even if the change is gradual. Possible extensions of this work include precise determination of the tricritical line for the diffusive process, as well as the design of more precise theoretical approaches for two-dimensional problems. The latter task assumes even greater significance when one observes that despite the simplicity of the model, the full parameter space, including distinct reproduction, death, and diffusion rates for each species, is far too vast to be mapped out via simulation alone. Finally, the possibility of discontinuous phase transitions in more complex models of symbiosis merits investigation.\n\n[**Acknowledgments**]{}\n\nThis work was supported by CNPq and FAPEMIG, Brazil.\n\n[100]{}\n\nT.\u00a0E. Harris, Ann. Probab., [**2**]{}, 969 (1974).\n\nR. Durrett, SIAM Rev. [**41**]{}, 677 (1994).\n\nH. Janssen, J. Stat. Phys. 103, 801 (2001).\n\nS. Iwata, K. Kobayashi, S. Higa, J. Yoshimura and K. Tainaka, Ecol. Modelling [**222**]{}, 2042 (2011).\n\nD.\u00a0C. Markham, M.\u00a0J. Simpson, P.\u00a0K. Maini, E.\u00a0A. Gaffney and R.\u00a0E. Baker, Phys. Rev. E [**88**]{}, 052713 (2013).\n\nS. J. Court , R.A. Blythe and R. J. Allen, Europhys. Lett. [**101**]{}, 50001 (2013).\n\nT. B. Pedro, M. M. Szortyka and W. Figueiredo, J. Stat. Mech. [**2014**]{} P05016 (2014).\n\nU. Dobramysl and U. C. Tauber, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 048105 (2013).\n\nJ. M. Tubay et.al, Sci. Reports [**3**]{}, 2835 (2013).\n\nJ. S. Weitz and D. H. Rothman, J. Theor. Biol. 225, 205 (2003).\n\nM. Cencini, S. Pigolotti, M. A. Mu\u00f1oz, PloS One 7 (6), e38232 (2012).\n\nD. Boucher, [*The Biology of Mutualism: Ecology and Evolution*]{} (Oxford University, New York, 1988).\n\nA. E. Douglas, [*Symbiotic Interactions*]{} (Oxford University, Oxford, 1994).\n\nJ. Sapp, [*Evolution by Association: A History of Symbiosis*]{} (Oxford University, Oxford,1994).\n\nS. Paracer and V. Ahmadjian, [*Symbiosis: An introduction to biological associations*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2nd ed., 2000).\n\nL. L. Rockwood, [*Introduction to Population Ecology*]{} (Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 2006).\n\nV. I. Yukalov, E. P. Yukalova and D. Sornette, Physica D [**241**]{}, 1270 (2012).\n\nR. Durrett and S. Levin, Theor. Pop. Biol. [**46**]{}, 363 (1994).\n\nK. Korolev and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 088103 (2011).\n\nL. Dall\u2019Asta, F. Caccioli, and D. Begh\u00e9, Europhys. Lett. [**101**]{}, 18003 (2013).\n\nS. Pigolotti, R. Benzi, P. Perlekar, M. H. Jensen, F. Toschi and D. R. Nelson, Theor. Pop. Biol. [**84**]{}, 72 (2013).\n\nM. O. Lavrentovich and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 138102 (2014).\n\nM.\u00a0M. de Oliveira, R.\u00a0V. dos Santos and R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**86**]{}, 011121 (2012).\n\nJ. Marro and R. Dickman, [*Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).\n\nG. \u00d3dor, [*Universality In Nonequilibrium Lattice Systems: Theoretical Foundations*]{} (World Scientific,Singapore, 2007)\n\nM. Henkel, H. Hinrichsen and S. Lubeck, [*Non-Equilibrium Phase Transitions Volume I: Absorbing Phase Transitions*]{} (Springer-Verlag, The Netherlands, 2008).\n\nH. Hinrichsen, Adv. Phys. [**49**]{}, 815 (2000).\n\nG. \u00d3dor, Rev. Mod. Phys [**76**]{}, 663 (2004).\n\nR. M. Ziff, E. Gulari, and Y. Barshad, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 2553 (1986).\n\nL. H. Tang and H. Leschhorn, Phys. Rev. A 45, R8309(1992).\n\nM.\u00a0S. Bartlett, [*Stochastic Population Models in Ecology and Epidemiology*]{} (Methuen, London, 1960).\n\nA. Vespignani, R. Dickman, M. A. Mu\u00f1oz, and S. Zapperi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5676 (1998).\n\nR. Dickman, M.\u00a0A. Mu\u00f1oz, A. Vespignani, and S. Zapperi, Braz. J. Phys. [**30**]{}, 27 (2000).\n\nK.\u00a0A. Takeuchi, M. Kuroda, H. Chat\u00e9, and M. Sano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 234503 (2007).\n\nL. Cort\u00e9, P. M. Chaikin, J. P. Gollub, and D. J. Pine, Nature Physics [**4**]{}, 420 (2008).\n\nS. Okuma, Y. Tsugawa, and A. Motohashi, Phys. Rev. B[**83**]{}, 012503 (2011).\n\nM. M. de Oliveira and R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**84**]{}, 011125 (2011)\n\nSimilar conclusions apply to a related model, the CP with creation at second-neighbor sites, in which each species inhabits a distinct sublattice [@cpsl] with enhanced survival at first neighbors.\n\nH.\u00a0K. Janssen, Z. Phys. B [**42**]{}, 151 (1981).\n\nP. Grassberger, Z. Phys. B [**47**]{}, 365 (1982).\n\nR. Dickman, Phys. Rev. A [**34**]{}, 4246 (1986).\n\nD. [ben-Avraham]{} and J. K\u00f6hler, Phys. Rev. [**A**]{} 45, 8358 (1992).\n\nA well known example is the triplet-creation model; see G. \u00d3dor and R. Dickman, J. Stat. Mech. [**2009**]{} P08024, and references therein.\n\nSee R. Dickman and R. Vidigal, J. Phys. A [**35**]{}, 1147 (2002), and references therein.\n\nR. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**73**]{}, 036131 (2006).\n\nJ.\u00a0C. Mansur Filho and R. Dickman, J. Stat. Mech. [**2011**]{}, P05029 (2011).\n\nR. Dickman and J. [Kamphorst Leal da Silva]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 4266 (1998).\n\nM. Henkel and G. Sch\u00fctz, J. Phys. A [**21**]{}, 2617 (1988).\n\nM.\u00a0M. de Oliveira and R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. E [**71**]{}, 016129 (2005); R. Dickman and M. M. de Oliveira, Physica A [**357**]{}, 134 (2005).\n\nM.\u00a0M. de Oliveira and R. Dickman, Braz. J. Phys. [**36**]{}, 685 (2006).\n\n[^1]: email: mmdeoliveira@ufsj.edu.br\n\n[^2]: email: dickman@fisica.ufmg.br\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'Quinton Aboud[^1] and Anton Izosimov[^2]'\nbibliography:\n- 'ref.bib'\ntitle: The limit point of the pentagram map and infinitesimal monodromy\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe pentagram map, introduced by R.Schwartz in [@schwartz1992pentagram], is a discrete dynamical system on the space of planar polygons. The definition of this map is illustrated in Figure \\[Fig1\\]: the image of the polygon $P$ under the pentagram map is the polygon $P'$ whose vertices are the intersection points of consecutive shortest diagonals of\u00a0$P$ (i.e., diagonals connecting second-nearest vertices).\n\n(VK7) at (0,0); (VK6) at (1.5,-0.5); (VK5) at (3,1); (VK4) at (3,2); (VK3) at (1,3); (VK2) at (-0.5,2.5); (VK1) at (-1,1.5);\n\n(VK7) \u2013 (VK6) \u2013 (VK5) \u2013 (VK4) \u2013 (VK3) \u2013 (VK2) \u2013 (VK1) \u2013 cycle; (VK7) \u2013 (VK5); (VK6) \u2013 (VK4); (VK5) \u2013 (VK3); (VK4) \u2013 (VK2); (VK3) \u2013 (VK1); (VK2) \u2013 (VK7); (VK1) \u2013 (VK6);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(Ap) \u2013 (Bp) \u2013 (Cp) \u2013 (Dp) \u2013 (Ep) \u2013 (Fp) \u2013 (Gp) \u2013 cycle;\n\nat (-0.9,2.3) () [$P$]{}; at (2,1.5) () [$P'$]{};\n\nThe pentagram map has been an especially popular topic in the last decade, mainly due to its connections with integrability [@ovsienko2010pentagram; @soloviev2013integrability] and the theory of cluster algebras [@GLICK20111019; @Gekhtman2016; @fock2014loop]. Most works on the the pentagram map regard it as a dynamical system on the space of polygons modulo projective equivalence. And indeed that is the setting where most remarkable features of that map such as integrability reveal themselves. That said, the pentagram map on actual [polygons]{} (as opposed to projective equivalence classes) also has interesting geometry. One of the early results in this direction was Schwartz\u2019s proof of the exponential convergence of successive images of a convex polygon under the pentagram map to a point (see Figure \\[Fig2\\]). That limit point is a natural invariant of a polygon and can be thought of as a projectively natural version of the center of mass. However, it is not clear a priori whether this limit point can be expressed in terms of coordinates of the vertices by any kind of an explicit formula. A remarkable recent result by M.Glick [@glick2020limit] is that this dependence is in fact algebraic. Moreover, there exists an operator in ${\\mathbb R}^3$ whose matrix entries are rational in terms of polygon\u2019s vertices, while the coordinates of the limit point are given by an eigenvector of that operator. Therefore, coordinates of the limit point can be found by solving a cubic equation.\n\n(A1) at (-16.97,-8.49) ; (B1) at (-16.97,1.70) ; (C1) at (-5.09,10.18) ; (D1) at (11.88,11.03) ; (E1) at (18.67,4.24) ; (F1) at (11.88,-6.79) ; (G1) at (-3.39,-11.88) ;\n\n(A1) \u2013 (B1) \u2013 (C1) \u2013 (D1) \u2013 (E1) \u2013 (F1) \u2013 (G1) \u2013 (A1);\n\n(A1) \u2013 (C1); (C1) \u2013 (E1); (E1) \u2013 (G1); (G1) \u2013 (B1); (B1) \u2013 (D1); (D1) \u2013 (F1); (F1) \u2013 (A1);\n\n; at (A2) ; ; at (B2) ; ; at (C2) ; ; at (D2) ; ; at (E2) ; ; at (F2) ; ; at (G2) ;\n\n(A2) \u2013 (B2) \u2013 (C2) \u2013 (D2) \u2013 (E2) \u2013 (F2) \u2013 (G2) \u2013 (A2);\n\n(A2) \u2013 (C2); (C2) \u2013 (E2); (E2) \u2013 (G2); (G2) \u2013 (B2); (B2) \u2013 (D2); (D2) \u2013 (F2); (F2) \u2013 (A2);\n\n; at (A3) ; ; at (B3) ; ; at (C3) ; ; at (D3) ; ; at (E3) ; ; at (F3) ; ; at (G3) ;\n\n(A3) \u2013 (B3) \u2013 (C3) \u2013 (D3) \u2013 (E3) \u2013 (F3) \u2013 (G3) \u2013 (A3);\n\n(A3) \u2013 (C3); (C3) \u2013 (E3); (E3) \u2013 (G3); (G3) \u2013 (B3); (B3) \u2013 (D3); (D3) \u2013 (F3); (F3) \u2013 (A3);\n\n; at (A4) ; ; at (B4) ; ; at (C4) ; ; at (D4) ; ; at (E4) ; ; at (F4) ; ; at (G4) ;\n\n(A4) \u2013 (B4) \u2013 (C4) \u2013 (D4) \u2013 (E4) \u2013 (F4) \u2013 (G4) \u2013 (A4);\n\n(A4) \u2013 (C4); (C4) \u2013 (E4); (E4) \u2013 (G4); (G4) \u2013 (B4); (B4) \u2013 (D4); (D4) \u2013 (F4); (F4) \u2013 (A4);\n\n; at (A5) ; ; at (B5) ; ; at (C5) ; ; at (D5) ; ; at (E5) ; ; at (F5) ; ; at (G5) ;\n\n(A5) \u2013 (B5) \u2013 (C5) \u2013 (D5) \u2013 (E5) \u2013 (F5) \u2013 (G5) \u2013 (A5);\n\n(A5) \u2013 (C5); (C5) \u2013 (E5); (E5) \u2013 (G5); (G5) \u2013 (B5); (B5) \u2013 (D5); (D5) \u2013 (F5); (F5) \u2013 (A5);\n\n; at (A6) ; ; at (B6) ; ; at (C6) ; ; at (D6) ; ; at (E6) ; ; at (F6) ; ; at (G6) ;\n\n(A6) \u2013 (B6) \u2013 (C6) \u2013 (D6) \u2013 (E6) \u2013 (F6) \u2013 (G6) \u2013 (A6);\n\n(A6) \u2013 (C6); (C6) \u2013 (E6); (E6) \u2013 (G6); (G6) \u2013 (B6); (B6) \u2013 (D6); (D6) \u2013 (F6); (F6) \u2013 (A6);\n\n; at (A7) ; ; at (B7) ; ; at (C7) ; ; at (D7) ; ; at (E7) ; ; at (F7) ; ; at (G7) ;\n\n(A7) \u2013 (B7) \u2013 (C7) \u2013 (D7) \u2013 (E7) \u2013 (F7) \u2013 (G7) \u2013 (A7);\n\n(A7) \u2013 (C7); (C7) \u2013 (E7); (E7) \u2013 (G7); (G7) \u2013 (B7); (B7) \u2013 (D7); (D7) \u2013 (F7); (F7) \u2013 (A7);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(A8) \u2013 (B8) \u2013 (C8) \u2013 (D8) \u2013 (E8) \u2013 (F8) \u2013 (G8) \u2013 (A8);\n\n(A8) \u2013 (C8); (C8) \u2013 (E8); (E8) \u2013 (G8); (G8) \u2013 (B8); (B8) \u2013 (D8); (D8) \u2013 (F8); (F8) \u2013 (A8);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(A9) \u2013 (B9) \u2013 (C9) \u2013 (D9) \u2013 (E9) \u2013 (F9) \u2013 (G9) \u2013 (A9);\n\n(A9) \u2013 (C9); (C9) \u2013 (E9); (E9) \u2013 (G9); (G9) \u2013 (B9); (B9) \u2013 (D9); (D9) \u2013 (F9); (F9) \u2013 (A9);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(A10) \u2013 (B10) \u2013 (C10) \u2013 (D10) \u2013 (E10) \u2013 (F10) \u2013 (G10) \u2013 (A10);\n\n(A10) \u2013 (C10); (C10) \u2013 (E10); (E10) \u2013 (G10); (G10) \u2013 (B10); (B10) \u2013 (D10); (D10) \u2013 (F10); (F10) \u2013 (A10);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(A11) \u2013 (B11) \u2013 (C11) \u2013 (D11) \u2013 (E11) \u2013 (F11) \u2013 (G11) \u2013 (A11);\n\n(A11) \u2013 (C11); (C11) \u2013 (E11); (E11) \u2013 (G11); (G11) \u2013 (B11); (B11) \u2013 (D11); (D11) \u2013 (F11); (F11) \u2013 (A11);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(A11) \u2013 (B11) \u2013 (C11) \u2013 (D11) \u2013 (E11) \u2013 (F11) \u2013 (G11) \u2013 (A11);\n\n(A12) \u2013 (C12); (C12) \u2013 (E12); (E12) \u2013 (G12); (G12) \u2013 (B12); (B12) \u2013 (D12); (D12) \u2013 (F12); (F12) \u2013 (A12);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(A12) \u2013 (B12) \u2013 (C12) \u2013 (D12) \u2013 (E12) \u2013 (F12) \u2013 (G12) \u2013 (A12);\n\n(A13) \u2013 (C13); (C13) \u2013 (E13); (E13) \u2013 (G13); (G13) \u2013 (B13); (B13) \u2013 (D13); (D13) \u2013 (F13); (F13) \u2013 (A13);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(A13) \u2013 (B13) \u2013 (C13) \u2013 (D13) \u2013 (E13) \u2013 (F13) \u2013 (G13) \u2013 (A13);\n\n(A14) \u2013 (C14); (C14) \u2013 (E14); (E14) \u2013 (G14); (G14) \u2013 (B14); (B14) \u2013 (D14); (D14) \u2013 (F14); (F14) \u2013 (A14);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(A14) \u2013 (B14) \u2013 (C14) \u2013 (D14) \u2013 (E14) \u2013 (F14) \u2013 (G14) \u2013 (A14);\n\n(A15) \u2013 (C15); (C15) \u2013 (E15); (E15) \u2013 (G15); (G15) \u2013 (B15); (B15) \u2013 (D15); (D15) \u2013 (F15); (F15) \u2013 (A15);\n\n; ; ; ; ; ; ;\n\n(A15) \u2013 (B15) \u2013 (C15) \u2013 (D15) \u2013 (E15) \u2013 (F15) \u2013 (G15) \u2013 (A15);\n\nSpecifically, suppose we are given an $n$-gon $P$ in the projectivization ${\\mathbb P}{\\mathbb {V}}$ of a $3$-dimensional vector space ${\\mathbb {V}}$. Lift the vertices of the polygon to vectors $V_i \\in {\\mathbb {V}}$, $i = 1, \\dots, n$. Define an operator $G_P \\colon {\\mathbb {V}}\\to {\\mathbb {V}}$ by the formula $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:glick}\nG_p(V) := n V - \\sum_{i=1}^n \\frac{V_{i-1}\\wedge V \\wedge V_{i+1}}{V_{i-1}\\wedge V_i \\wedge V_{i+1}}\\,V_i,\\end{aligned}$$ where all indices are understood modulo $n$. Note that this operator does not change under a rescaling of $V_i$\u2019s and hence depends only on the polygon $P$. What Glick proved is that the limit point of successive images of $P$ under the pentagram map is one of the eigenvectors of $G_P$ (equivalently, a fixed point of the associated projective mapping ${\\mathbb P}{\\mathbb {V}}\\to {\\mathbb P}{\\mathbb {V}}$).\n\nWe believe that the significance of Glick\u2019s operator actually goes beyond the limit point. In particular, as was observed by Glick himself, the operator $G_P$ has a natural geometric meaning for both pentagons and hexagons. Namely, by Clebsch\u2019s theorem every pentagon is projectively equivalent to its pentagram map image, and it turns out that the corresponding projective transformation is given by $G_P - 3I$, where $I$ is the identity matrix. Indeed, consider e.g. the first vertex of the pentagon and its lift $V_1$. Then the above formula gives $$(G_P - 3{ {I}})(V_1) = V_1 - \\frac{V_{2}\\wedge V_1 \\wedge V_{4}}{V_{2}\\wedge V_3 \\wedge V_{4}}\\,V_3 - \\frac{V_{3}\\wedge V_1 \\wedge V_{5}}{V_{3}\\wedge V_4 \\wedge V_{5}}\\,V_4.$$ Taking the wedge product of this expression with $V_2 \\wedge V_4$ or $V_3 \\wedge V_5$ we get zero. This means that $$(G_P - 3{ {I}})(V_1) \\in \\mathrm{span}(V_2, V_4) \\cap \\mathrm{span}(V_3, V_5),$$ so the corresponding point in the projective plane is the intersection of diagonals of the pentagon. Furthermore, since Glick\u2019s operator is invariant under cyclic permutations, the same holds for all vertices, meaning that the operator $G_P - 3{ {I}}$ indeed takes a pentagon to its pentagram map image.\n\nLikewise, the second iterate of the pentagram map on hexagons also leads to an equivalent hexagon, and the equivalence is again realized by $G_P - 3I$. Finally, notice that for quadrilaterals $G_P - 2I$ is a constant map onto the intersection of diagonals. These observations make us believe that the operator $G_P$ is per se an important object in projective geometry, whose full significance is yet to be understood.\n\nIn the present paper we show that Glick\u2019s operator $G_P$ can be interpreted as *infinitesimal monodromy*. To define the latter, consider the space of *twisted polygons*, that are polygons closed up to a projective transformation, known as the *monodromy*. Any closed polygon can be viewed as a twisted one, with trivial monodromy. To define the infinitesimal monodromy we deform a closed polygon into a genuine twisted one. To construct such a deformation, we use what is known as the *scaling symmetry*. The scaling symmetry is a $1$-parametric group of transformations of twisted polygons which commutes with the pentagram map. That symmetry was instrumental for the proof of complete integrability of the pentagram map\u00a0[@ovsienko2010pentagram].\n\nApplying the scaling symmetry to a given closed polygon $P$ we get a family $P_z$ of polygons depending on a real parameter $z$ and such that $P_1 = P$. Thus, the monodromy $M_z$ of $P_z$ is a projective transformation depending on $z$ which is the identity for $z = 1$. By definition, the infinitesimal monodromy of $P$ is the derivative $dM_z/dz$ at $z = 1$. This makes the infinitesimal monodromy an element of the Lie algebra of the projective group ${{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$, i.e. a linear operator on ${\\mathbb R}^3$ defined up to adding a scalar matrix. The following is our main result.\n\n\\[thm1\\] The infinitesimal monodromy of a closed polygon $P$ coincides with Glick\u2019s operator $G_P$, up to addition of a scalar matrix.\n\nThis result provides another perspective on the limit point. Namely, observe that for $z \\approx 1$ the monodromy $M_z$ of the deformed polygon is given by $$M_z \\approx I + (z-1)(G_P + \\lambda I),$$ up to higher order terms. Thus, the eigenvectors of $G_P$, and in particular the limit point, coincide with limiting positions of eigenvectors of $M_z$ as $z \\to 1$. At least one of the eigenvectors of $M_z$ has a geometric meaning. Namely, the deformed polygon $P(z)$ can be thought of as a spiral, and the center of that spiral must be an eigenvector of the monodromy. We believe that as $z \\to 1$ that eigenvector converges to the limiting point of the pentagram map (and not to one of the two other eigenvectors). If this is true, then we have the following picture. The scaling symmetry turns a closed polygon into a spiral. As the scaling parameter $z$ goes to $1$, the spiral approaches the initial polygon, while its center approaches the limit point of the pentagram map, see Figure \\[Fig:scaling\\].\n\nWe note that the scaling symmetry is actually only defined on projective equivalence classes of polygons as opposed to actual polygons. This makes the family of polygons $P_z$ we used to define the infinitesimal monodromy non-unique. After reviewing basic notions in Section \\[Sec:back\\], we show in Section \\[Sec:im\\] that the infinitesimal monodromy does not depend on the family used to define it. The proof of Theorem \\[thm1\\] is given in Section \\[Sec:proof\\].\n\nWe end the introduction by mentioning a possible future direction. The notion of infinitesimal monodromy is well-defined for polygons in any dimension and any scaling operation. For multidimensional polygons, there are different possible scalings, corresponding to different integrable generalizations of the pentagram map [@khesin2013; @khesin2016]. It would be interesting to investigate the infinitesimal monodromy in those cases, along with its possible relation to the limit point of the corresponding pentagram maps. As for now, it is not even known if such a limit point exists for any class of multidimensional polygons satisfying a convexity-type condition.\n\nIt also seems that the infinitesimal monodromy in ${\\mathbb P}^1$ is related to so-called cross-ratio dynamics, see [@arnold2018cross Section 6.2.1].\n\n[**Acknowledgments.**]{} The authors are grateful to Boris Khesin, Valentin Ovsienko, Richard Schwartz, and Sergei Tabachnikov for comments and discussions. A.I. was supported by NSF grant DMS-2008021.\n\nBackground: twisted polygons, corner invariants, and scaling {#Sec:back}\n============================================================\n\nIn this section we briefly recall standard notions related to the pentagram map, concentrating on what will be used in the sequel.\n\nA [*twisted $n$-gon*]{} is a bi-infinite sequence of points $v_i \\in {\\mathbb P}^2$ such that $v_{i+n}=M(v_i)$ for all $i\\in \\mathbb{Z}$ and a certain projective transformation $M\\in {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ called the [*monodromy*]{}. A twisted $n$-gon generalizes the notion of a closed $n$-gon as we recover a closed $n$-gon when the monodromy is equal to the identity. We denote the space of twisted $n$-gons by ${\\mathcal{P}}_n$.\n\nThe pentagram map takes a twisted $n$-gon to a twisted $n$-gon (preserving the monodromy) so it can be regarded as a densely defined map from the space ${\\mathcal{P}}_n$ of twisted $n$-gons to itself. From now on, we will assume that polygons are in sufficiently general position so as to allow for all constructions to go through unhindered.\n\nWe say that two twisted $n$-gons $\\{v_i\\}$ and $\\{v_i'\\}$ are projectively equivalent when there is a projective transformation $\\Phi$ such that $\\Phi (v_i)=v_i'$. Notice, if two twisted $n$-gons are projectively equivalent, then their monodromies $M,M'$ are related by $M'=\\Phi \\circ M \\circ \\Phi^{-1}$.\n\nThe pentagram map on twisted $n$-gons commutes with projective transformations and as such descends to a map on the space ${\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ of projective equivalence classes of twisted $n$-gons.\n\nWe now recall a construction of coordinates on the space ${\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ of projective equivalence classes of twisted $n$-gons. These coordinates are known as *corner invariants* and were introduced in [@schwartz2008discrete].\n\nLet $\\{v_i \\in {\\mathbb P}^2\\}$ be a twisted polygon. Then the corner invariants $x_i,y_i$ of the vertex $v_i$ are defined as follows. $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{split}\n    x_i &:=\\Big[\n        v_{i-2},v_{i-1},\\big((v_{i-2},v_{i-1})\\cap (v_i,v_{i+1})\\big), \\big((v_{i-2},v_{i-1})\\cap (v_{i+1},v_{i+2})\\big)\n        \\Big], \\\\\n    y_i &:= \\Big[\n        \\big( (v_{i-2},v_{i-1})\\cap (v_{i+1},v_{i+2})\\big), \\big((v_{i-1},v_i)\\cap (v_{i+1},v_{i+2}) \\big), v_{i+1}, v_{i+2}\n    \\Big],\n\\end{split} \\label{eq2}\\end{aligned}$$ where we define the cross-ratio $[a,b,c,d]$ of $4$ points $a,b,c,d$ on a projective line as $$\\begin{aligned}\n  [a,b,c,d]:=\\frac{(a-b)(c-d)}{(a-c)(b-d)}. \\label{eq1}\\end{aligned}$$ Consider Figure \\[Fig:CI\\]. The value of $x_i$ is the cross ratio of the four points drawn on the line $(v_{i-2},v_{i-1})$ (i.e. the line on the left) and $y_i$ is the cross ratio of the four points drawn on the line $(v_{i+1},v_{i+2})$ (i.e. the line on the right).\n\nThese corner invariants are defined on almost the entire space ${\\mathcal{P}}_n$ of twisted $n$-gons. Furthermore, these numbers are invariant under projective transformations and hence descend to the space ${\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ of projective equivalence classes of twisted polygons. As shown in [@schwartz2008discrete], the functions $x_1, \\dots, x_n, y_1, \\dots, y_n$ constitute a coordinate system on an open dense subset of ${\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$. This in particular allows one to express the pentagram map, viewed as a transformation of ${\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$, in terms of the corner invariants.\n\n(v1) at (-4,2.5) ; (v2) at (-3,1) ; (v3) at (0,0) ; (v4) at (2,1) ; (v5) at (3,2.5) ;\n\n(v1)\u2013(v2); (v5)\u2013(v4); (v4) \u2013 (v3); (v2) \u2013 (v3); (i1) at (-.5,-2.75) ; (i2) at (-1.75,-.875) ; (i3) at (1.0909,-.363636) ;\n\n(v2) \u2013 (i1); (v4) \u2013 (i1);\n\n(v3) \u2013 (i2); (v3) \u2013 (i3);\n\nIf we are given a twisted $n$-gon with corner invariants $(x_i,y_i)$, then the corner invariants $(x_i,y_i)$ of its image under the pentagram are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq3}\n    x'_i=x_i\\frac{1-x_{i-1} y_{i-1}}{1-x_{i+1} y_{i+1}} \\qquad\n    y'_i=y_{i+1} \\frac{1-x_{i+2}y_{i+2}}{1-x_iy_i}. \\end{aligned}$$ These formulas assume a specific labeling of vertices of the pentagram map image. For a different labeling the resulting formulas differ by a shift in indices. The choice of labeling, and more generally, the specific form of the above formulas will be of no importance to us. We will only use the following corollary. Consider a $1$-parametric group of densely defined transformations ${\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2) \\to {\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq: scaling}\n{R}_z\\colon(x_i,y_i)\\mapsto (x_i z, y_iz^{-1})\\end{aligned}$$ These transformations are known as *scaling symmetries*.\n\nThe scaling symmetry $R_z \\colon {\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2) \\to {\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ on projective equivalence classes of twisted polygons commutes with the pentagram map for any $z \\neq 0$.\n\nThe above formulas for the pentagram map in $x,y$ coordinates remain unchanged if all $x$ variables are multiplied by $z$ and all $y$ variables by are multiplied by $z^{-1}$.\n\nThis proposition was a key tool in the proof of integrability of the pentagram map. Namely, consider a (twisted or closed) polygon $P$ defined up to a projective transformation, and let $P_z$ be its image under the scaling symmetry. Then, since the pentagram map commutes with scaling and preserves the monodromy, it follows that the monodromy $M_z$ of $P_z$ (which does not have to be the identity even if the initial polygon is closed!) is invariant under the map. Since $P_z$ is only defined as a projective equivalence class, this means that $M_z$ is only defined up to conjugation. Nevertheless, taking conjugation invariant functions (e.g. appropriately normalized eigenvalues) of $M_z$, we obtain, for every $z$, functions that are invariant under the pentagram map. It is shown in [@ovsienko2010pentagram] that the so-obtained functions commute under an appropriately defined Poisson bracket and turn the pentagram map into a discrete completely integrable system. See also [@ovsienko2013liouville] for a mode detailed proof. In our paper we utilize pretty much the same idea, but instead of looking at the eigenvalues of $M_z$ we will consider $M_z$ itself. It is not quite well-defined, but we will show that its $z$ derivative at $z = 1$ is, and that it coincides with Glick\u2019s operator.\n\nInfinitesimal monodromy {#Sec:im}\n=======================\n\nIn this section we define the infinitesimal monodromy and show that it does not depend on the choices we need to make to formulate the definition, namely on the way we lift the scaling symmetry from projective equivalence classes of polygons to actual polygons.\n\nWe start with a closed $n$-gon, $P$, in ${\\mathbb P}^2$. Let $[P] \\in {\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ be its projective equivalence class. Then, applying the scaling transformation $R_z$ given by to $[P]$, we get a path $R_z[P]$ in $ {\\mathcal{P}}_n \\,/\\, {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ such that $R_1[P] = [P]$. Now, choose a smooth in $z$ lift $P_z$ of the path $R_z[P]$ to the space ${\\mathcal{P}}_n$ of actual twisted polygons such that $P_1 = P$ (we will construct an explicit example of such a lift later on). Denote by $M_z \\in {{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ the monodromy of $P_z$. It is a family of projective transformations such that $M_1$ is the identity, $M_1 = { {I}}$. This family [does]{} depend on the choice of the lift $P_z$ of the path $R_z[P]$. However, as we show below, the tangent vector $dM_z/dz$ at $z = 1$ does not depend on that choice, and this is what we call the *infinitesimal monodromy*.\n\n\\[def:im\\] The *infinitesimal monodromy* of a closed polygon $P$ is the derivative $dM_z / dz$ at $z=1$, where $M_z$ is the monodromy of any path $P_z$ of polygons such that $P_1 = 1$ and $[P_z] = R_z[P]$.\n\nThe infinitesimal monodromy is therefore a tangent vector to the projective group ${{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ at the identity, and, upon a choice of basis, can be viewed as a $3 \\times 3$ matrix defined up to addition of a scalar matrix. Our main result can thus be formulated as follows.\n\n\\[thm2\\] The tangent vector to ${{\\mathbb P}\\mathrm{GL}}({\\mathbb P}^2)$ represented by Glick\u2019s operator $G_P$ coincides with the infinitesimal monodromy of $P$.\n\nThe proof will be given in Section \\[Sec:proof\\]. But first we need to check that Definition \\[def:im\\] makes sense, i.e. that the infinitesimal monodromy does not depend on the choice of the path $P_z$. This is established by the following:\n\nLet $P_z$ and $\\tilde P_z$ be two families of polygons such that $P_1 = \\tilde P_1$ is a closed polygon and $\\tilde P_z$ is projectively equivalent to $P_z$ for every $z$. Then, for the monodromies $M_z$ and $\\tilde M_z$ of these families, at $z = 1$ we have $dM_z / dz = d\\tilde M_z / dz$.\n\nLet $\\Phi_z$ be a projective transformation taking $P_z$ to $\\tilde P_z$. Since $P_1 = \\tilde P_1$, we have that $\\Phi_1 = { {I}}$ (a generic $n$-gon in ${\\mathbb P}^2$ does not admit any non-trivial projective automorphisms, provided that $n \\geq 4$). Then we know that the monodromies are related by $\\tilde M_z=\\Phi_z M_z\\Phi_z^{-1}.$ Differentiating this and using that $\\Phi_1 = { {I}}$, we get $$\\left.\\frac{d}{dz}\\right\\vert_{z=1}\\tilde M_z = \n\\left.\\frac{d}{dz}\\right\\vert_{z=1} M_z + \\left[\\left.\\frac{d}{dz}\\right\\vert_{z=1} \\Phi_z, M_1 \\right].$$ This identity in particular shows that the infinitesimal monodromy of a *twisted* polygon is in general not well-defined, due to the extra commutator term in the right-hand side. But for a closed polygon we have $M_1 = { {I}}$, so the extra term vanishes and we get the desired identity.\n\nBefore we proceed to the proof of the main theorem, let us mention one property of the infinitesimal monodromy:\n\nThe infinitesimal monodromy of a closed polygon is preserved by the pentagram map.\n\nThe pentagram map preserves the monodromy and commutes with the scaling. The infinitesimal monodromy is defined using monodromy and scaling and is thus preserved as well.\n\nThis result in fact follows from our main theorem, because Glick shows in [@glick2020limit Theorem 3.1] that his operator has this property. However, the proof based on Glick\u2019s definition is quite non-trivial, while in our approach it is immediate. The observation that the infinitesimal monodromy is preserved by the pentagram map was in fact our motivation to conjecture that it should coincide with Glick\u2019s operator. And, as we show below, this is indeed true.\n\nThe infinitesimal monodromy and Glick\u2019s operator {#Sec:proof}\n================================================\n\nIn this section we prove our main result, Theorem \\[thm1\\] (=Theorem \\[thm2\\]). To that end, we explicitly construct a deformation $P_z$ of a polygon $P$ as in Definition\u00a0\\[def:im\\]. Such a deformation is not unique, but we know that the infinitesimal monodromy does not depend on the deformation. We will in fact use this ambiguity to our advantage by choosing a deformation for which the infinitesimal monodromy can be computed explicitly. We will then compute it and see that it coincides with Glick\u2019s operator.\n\nConsider a closed $n$-gon $P$. Lift the $n$-periodic sequence $\\{v_i \\in {\\mathbb P}^2\\}$ of its vertices to an $n$-periodic sequence of non-zero vectors $V_i \\in {\\mathbb R}^3$. Then, for every $i \\in {\\mathbb Z}$, there exist $a_i, b_i, c_i \\in {\\mathbb R}$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq4}\n    V_{i+3}=a_i V_{i+2} + b_i V_{i+1} + c_i V_i. \\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, for a generic polygon the numbers $a_i, b_i, c_i$ are uniquely determined because the points $v_{i}, v_{i+1}, v_{i+2}$ are not collinear so the vectors $V_i, V_{i+1}, V_{i+3}$ are linearly independent. Also, we have $c_i \\neq 0$ for any $i$ because the points $v_{i+1}, v_{i+2}, v_{i+3}$ are not collinear. In addition to that, since $V_{i+n} = V_i$ we have that the sequences $a_i,b_i,c_i$ are $n$-periodic. Finally, notice that for fixed $a_i, b_i, c_i$ the sequence $V_i$ is uniquely determined by equation and initial condition $V_0, V_1, V_2$. Indeed, given $V_0, V_1, V_2$ and using that $c_i \\neq 0$, we can successively find all $V_i$\u2019s from . This gives us a way to deform the polygon $P$: keeping $V_0, V_1, V_2$ unchanged, we deform the coefficients in . Namely, consider the following equation $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq6}\n     V_{i+3} = a_iV_{i+2} +z^{-1}\\big( b_i V_{i+1}+c_iV_i \\big), \\end{aligned}$$ We assume that the vectors $V_0, V_1, V_2$ do not depend on $z$ and coincide with the above-constructed lifts of vertices of $P$. For any $z \\neq 0$, equation has a unique solution with such initial condition. For $z = 1$ we recover the initial polygon, while for other values of $z$ we get its deformation. Note that for $i \\neq 0,1,2$ the solutions $V_i$ of are actually functions of the parameter $z$, i.e. $V_i = V_i(z)$.\n\nTaking the solution of such that $V_0, V_1, V_2$ are fixed lifts of vertices $v_0, v_1, v_2$ of $P$ and projecting the vectors $V_i \\in {\\mathbb R}^3$ to ${\\mathbb P}^2$, we get a family $P_z$ of twisted polygons as in Definition\u00a0\\[def:im\\]. Namely, we have that $P_1 = P$, and also $[P_z] = R_z[P]$, where $R_z$ is the scaling symmetry .\n\nFirst, we need to show that if a sequence $V_i$ is a solution of with given initial condition, then $V_i(z) \\neq 0$ for any $i$ and every $z \\neq 0$, so we can indeed project those vectors to get a sequence of points in ${\\mathbb P}^2$. Assume that $V_j(z) = 0$ for some $j$ and $z$. Then, using\u00a0, we can express all vectors $V_i(z)$ in terms of $V_{j+1}(z), V_{j+2}(z)$. This means that the span of all vectors $V_i(z)$ is at most two-dimensional. But this is impossible, since $V_0, V_1, V_2$ are linearly independent by construction. Further, observe that since the coefficients of equation\u00a0 are periodic, its solution is quasi-periodic: $V_{i+n}(z) = M_z V_i(z)$ for a certain invertible matrix $M_z$ depending on $z$. Therefore, the projections $v_i(z) \\in {\\mathbb P}^2$ of the vectors $V_i(z) \\in {\\mathbb R}^3$ form a twisted polygon whose monodromy is the projective transformation defined by $M_z$. Furthermore since equations\u00a0 and agree for $z = 1$, and the initial conditions are the same too, it follows that for the so-obtained family $P_z$ of twisted polygons we have $P_1 = P$. Finally, we need to show that the projective equivalence classes of $P$ and $P_z$ are related by scaling $[P_z] = R_z[P]$. To that end, we use formulas expressing corner invariants in terms of coefficients of a recurrence relation satisfied by the lifts of vertices. Arguing as in the proof of [@ovsienko2010pentagram Lemma 4.5] one gets the following expressions for the corner invariants of $P$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    x_{i+2}=\\frac{a_ic_i}{b_i b_{i+1}} \\qquad y_{i+2}=-\\frac{b_{i+1} }{a_i a_{i+1}}. \\end{aligned}$$ Accordingly, since equations and encoding $P$ and $P_z$ are connected by the transformation $b_i \\mapsto z^{-1}b_i$, $c_i \\mapsto z^{-1}c_i $, the corner invariants of $P_z$ are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n    x_{i+2}(z)=\\frac{a_i(z^{-1}c_i)}{(z^{-1}b_i) (z^{-1}b_{i+1})} = z x_{i+2} \\qquad y_{i+2}(z)=-\\frac{z^{-1}b_{i+1} }{a_i a_{i+1}} = z^{-1}y_{i+2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the projective equivalence classes of the polygons $P$ and $P_z$ are indeed related by scaling, as desired.\n\nWe are now in a position to prove our main result. To that end, we will compute the monodromy of the polygon defined by , take its derivative at $z=1$, and hence find the infinitesimal monodromy.\n\nWe put the vectors $V_i(z)$ into columns of matrices as follows: define $$W_i(z):=\\big[V_{i+2}(z) \\quad V_{i+1}(z) \\quad V_i(z) \\big].$$ Then the relation gives us the matrix equation $$W_{i+1}(z)=W_i(z) U_i(z),$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:ui}\n    U_i(z):=\\begin{bmatrix}\na_i & 1 & 0 \\\\\nz^{-1}b_i & 0 & 1 \\\\\nz^{-1}c_i & 0 & 0\n\\end{bmatrix}.\\end{aligned}$$ We stop explicitly recording the dependence on $z$ as it is notationally cumbersome. Inductively, we have that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq11}\nW_i = W_0U_0U_1 \\dots U_{i-1}.\\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$W_{n}=W_0U$$ where $U:= U_0U_{1}\\dots U_{n-1}$. At the same time, we have that $V_{i+ n}=M_zV_i$, where $M_z$ is a matrix representing the monodromy of the polygon defined by the vectors $V_i$. This means that $W_{n}=M_zW_0$. Relating these two expressions for $W_{n}$ we get $$W_0U=M_zW_0  \\quad \\iff \\quad M_z=W_0UW_0^{-1}.$$ Notice that because $V_0,V_1,V_2$ are fixed we have that $W_0=[V_0 \\quad V_1 \\quad V_2]$ is constant while $z$ varies. This means that all the dependence of $M_z$ on $z$ is contained in the expression for $U$. This gives $$\\begin{aligned}\n   \\frac{dM_z}{dz} &=\\frac{d}{dz} \\left( W_0 U_0 \\dots U_{n-1}  W_0^{-1} \\right) \n   \\\\ &=  \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} W_0 U_0 \\dots U_{i-1}\\frac{dU_i}{dz}U_{i+1} \\dots U_{n-1}   W_0^{-1} \n       = \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} W_i \\frac{dU_i}{dz}U_{i+1} \\dots U_{n-1}   W_0^{-1},\\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality uses that $W_{i}=P_0U_0\\dots U_{i-1}$. Further, observe that $$\\begin{aligned}\nU_{i+1}\\dots U_{n-1}&=(U_0\\dots U_{i})^{-1}(U_0\\dots U_{n-1}) =(W_0^{-1}W_{i+1})^{-1}(W_0^{-1}W_{n})=W_{i+1}^{-1}W_{n}.\\end{aligned}$$ Also using that $W_n W_0^{-1}=M_z$, we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n   \\frac{dM_z}{dz} = \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} W_i \\frac{dU_i}{dz} W_{i+1}^{-1}W_{n}  W_0^{-1} = \\left(\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} W_i \\frac{dU_i}{dz} W_{i+1}^{-1}\\right)M_z.\\end{aligned}$$ Further, using that the monodromy satisfies $M_1={ {I}}$ because we started with a closed $n$-gon, we arrive at $$\\left.\\frac{dM_z}{dz}\\right|_{z=1} \\!\\!\\!= \\,\\,\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} S_i,$$ where $$S_i := \\left.\\left(W_i \\frac{dU_i}{dz} W_{i+1}^{-1}\\right)\\,\\right\\vert_{z=1}.$$ Now, we will show that summing these $S_i$ with $i=0,1,\\ldots,n-1$ gives up to a scalar matrix. Using , we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left.\\frac{dU_i}{dz}\\right|_{z=1} \\!\\!=\\,\\, \n\\begin{bmatrix}\n0 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n-b_i & 0 & 0 \\\\\n-c_i & 0 & 0\n\\end{bmatrix}.\\end{aligned}$$ Further, observe that for $z=1$ the matrix $W_i$ sends the standard basis to the lifts $V_{i+2}, V_{i+1}, V_i$ of the vertices of $P$. Therefore $W_{i+1}^{-1}$ takes the vectors $V_{i+3},V_{i+2},V_{i+1}$ to the standard basis, from which we find that the matrix $S_i$ acts on these vectors as $$V_{i+3} \\mapsto -b_iV_{i+1} - c_iV_i,\n       \\quad V_{i+2} \\mapsto 0\n       \\quad V_{i+1} \\mapsto 0.$$ Using also , we find that $$S_i(V_i) = \\frac{1}{c_i}S_i(V_{i+3}) =  -\\frac{b_i}{c_i} V_{i+1} - V_i,$$ which means that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    S_i(V)=\\frac{|V,V_{i+1},V_{i+2}|}{|V_i,V_{i+1},V_{i+2}|}\\Big(-V_i-\\frac{b_i}{c_i}V_{i+1}\\Big) \\quad \\forall \\,\\,V \\in {\\mathbb R}^3, \\label{eq13}\\end{aligned}$$ where $|A,B,C|$ is the determinant of the matrix with columns $A, B, C$. Further, rewriting as $$-V_i-\\frac{b_i}{c_i}V_{i+1} = \\frac{a_i}{c_i}V_{i+2} -\\frac{1}{c_i}V_{i+3}$$ we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n    S_i(V)=\n    \\frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_i|}\\Big( \\frac{a_i}{c_i}V_{i+2} -\\frac{1}{c_i}V_{i+3} \\Big) = \\frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},c_i^{-1}V_{i+3}|}\\Big( \\frac{a_i}{c_i}V_{i+2} -\\frac{1}{c_i}V_{i+3} \\Big),\\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we used to express $V_i$ in terms of $V_{i+1}, V_{i+2}, V_{i+3}$. This can be rewritten as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:si}\n\\begin{aligned}\n    S_i(V)= \\frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} a_iV_{i+2} - \\frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+3},\n\\end{aligned}\\end{aligned}$$ and the first term can be further rewritten as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:si2}\n\\begin{aligned}\n    \\frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} a_iV_{i+2} &= \n    \\frac{|V_{i+1},a_iV_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2} \n   = \\frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+3}-c_iV_i,V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2} \\\\ &= - \\frac{|V_{i+1},V,V_{i+3}|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2} + \\frac{|V_{i},V_{i+1},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} c_iV_{i+2}\n      \\end{aligned}\\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equality we used to express $a_iV_{i+2}$ in terms of $V_i, V_{i+1}, V_{i+3}$. Furthermore, using to express $V_{i+3}$ in terms of $V_i, V_{i+1}, V_{i+2}$, the last term in the latter expression can be rewritten as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:si3}\n\\frac{|V_{i},V_{i+1},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} c_iV_{i+2} = \\frac{|V_{i},V_{i+1},V|}{|V_i, V_{i+1},V_{i+2}|} V_{i+2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Combining , , and , we arrive at the following expression $$\\begin{aligned}\n    S_i(V)&=\n  -\\frac{|V_{i+1},V,V_{i+3}|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2} + \\frac{|V_{i},V_{i+1},V|}{|V_i, V_{i+1},V_{i+2}|} V_{i+2}\n    - \\frac{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+3}. \\label{eq15}\\end{aligned}$$ Since the last two terms only differ by a shift in index, and the sequence of $V_i$\u2019s in $n$-periodic, we get $$\\left.\\frac{dM_z}{dz}\\right|_{z=1} \\!\\!\\!(V)= -\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} S_i(V) = \\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \\frac{|V_{i+1},V,V_{i+3}|}{|V_{i+1},V_{i+2},V_{i+3}|} V_{i+2} = -\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \\frac{|V_{i-1},V,V_{i+1}|}{|V_{i-1},V_{i},V_{i+1}|} V_{i},$$ which coincides with Glick\u2019s operator up to a scalar matrix. Thus, Theorem \\[thm1\\] (=Theorem\u00a0\\[thm2\\]) is proved.\n\n[^1]: Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona, e-mail:\n\n[^2]: Department of Mathematics, University of Arizona, e-mail:\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- Author\n- 'Harris V. Georgiou'\nbibliography:\n- 'math-econ-proofs\\_apa-custom\\_HG-ver1a.bib'\nnocite: '[@*]'\ntitle: Feedback models and stability analysis of three economic paradigms\n---\n\n[T]{}HERE is a frequently-stated assertion that labor cost is not the driving factor for production cost per unit, even when the selling unit is not a product but some service. However, in times of crisis and austerity, labor costs are almost always the first (and usually the only) factor that is \u2019relaxed\u2019 to lower and lower levels by enterprises, in an effort to keep the margin of profit stable when selling rates decline. Some economists justify these policies as the typical \u2019rule of thumb\u2019: when profits decline, the workers will be paid less and less, until either the business recovers or bankrupts. Others say that its is exactly the recipe of failure, since underpaid workers will rarely work twice as hard to get the business back on it feet - quite the opposite.\n\nSimilarly, incentives for new private investments, e.g. low tax rates, are often compared to public spending and the regulatory policies are usually criticized as \u2019killers\u2019 for those incentives. However, there is a definite link between changes in the investment flows and the inherent gap between market value and true value of products and services: excessively positive prospects cause a positive feedback in new investments flow, while the exact opposite happens in times of crises and markets downfall. This oscillatory feedback is (should be) negated by an opposite feedback, usually realized under regulatory policies (e.g. increasing tax rates and government spending), in order to avoid the systemic risk of value \u2019bubbles\u2019 in both the market level and a country\u2019s overall GDP change rate.\n\nHowever, this is not the case in the real world; in fact, the exact opposite happens. This is a \u2019paradox\u2019 of budgeting policies and government spending that are based on false paradigms, hence the end result is typically a self-reinforcing spiral: when things go well, hope and money flow go up too; when things turn bad, more austerity policies lead to the typical \u2019spiral of death\u2019, for a business or a whole country\u2019s economy. This is a fundamental issue of high controversy among leading economists and one that will be investigated in-depth under several mathematical formulations in the next sections.\n\nThis is by no means a complete paper on economic policies nor in-depth analysis of some of the most important issues in modern economics; it is rather a simple, purely mathematical approach to three very important paradigms, a short study that can be used as an example of how feedback models and stability analysis from classic Control Theory can be applied as a guideline of \u2019proofs\u2019 in the context of economic policies.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows: The first section is a short formulation for the problem of minimum wages and their importance in self-regulating markets, under the scope of gain-cost analysis of private firms. Next, the core issues of currency rates and differences between market value and true (hidden) value are investigated under the scope of a first-order feedback model, as well as a stability analysis with regard to private-versus-public spending rates. Finally, government spending, public workers\u2019 wages and the general taxation level are described in the context of a differential equations model as mutually dependent variables of the same (economic) system. Analytical solutions are provided in all three paradigms and some useful conclusions are drawn in terms of variable analysis.\n\nMinimum wages and self-regulating labor markets\n===============================================\n\nIn order to investigate this \u2019labor cost shrinkage\u2019 dilemma and provide some model-based guidelines, the driving force of every profit-focused enterprise can be formulated in correspondence to the \u2019labor cost\u2019 variable. Let $w=\\sum p_{k}$ be the sum of the $p_{k}$ wages for all $k$ workers, i.e., the enterprise\u2019s total labor cost per production unit. Let $NC\\left(w\\right)$ be the total cost per production unit, including labor cost, as a weighted sum of $n$ individual factors. Without loss of generality, assume that the labor cost is at index $i=1$, hence its weight in the total production cost is $\\alpha_{1}$ and is singled out from the sum:\n\n$$NC\\left(w\\right)=\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{n}{\\sum}}\\alpha_{i}\\cdot z_{i}=\\alpha_{1}\\cdot w+\\underset{i=2}{\\overset{n}{\\sum}}\\alpha_{i}\\cdot z_{i}\\label{eq:NCw-def}$$\n\nThe net profit $NP\\left(w\\right)$ per sold unit is proportional to the difference between the maximum attainable market (selling) price $MPr_{max}$ and the total cost per unit $NC\\left(w\\right)$, i.e., the maximum margin of profit, while inversely proportional to the total labor cost $w$:\n\n$$NP\\left(w\\right)\\propto\\frac{MPr_{max}-NC\\left(w\\right)}{w}\\label{eq:NPw-def}$$\n\nSubstituting (\\[eq:NCw-def\\]) in (\\[eq:NPw-def\\]) we have:\n\n$$NP\\left(w\\right)=\\frac{MP_{max}-\\left(\\alpha_{1}\\cdot w+\\underset{i=2}{\\overset{n}{\\sum}}\\alpha_{i}\\cdot z_{i}\\right)}{w}=\\frac{C}{w}-\\alpha_{1}\\label{eq:NPw-std}$$\n\nwhere $C=MPr_{max}-\\underset{i=2}{\\overset{n}{\\sum}}\\alpha_{i}\\cdot z_{i}>0$ is a constant with respect to $w$ and $\\alpha_{i}$ are typical convex weighting factors, i.e.:$\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{n}{\\sum}}\\alpha_{i}=1\\;,\\;0\\leq\\alpha_{i}\\leq1$.\n\nIn order to find the maximum attainable value for $NP\\left(w\\right)$, the first- and second-order derivatives against $w$ must be calculated:\n\n$$\\frac{\\partial NP(w)}{\\partial w}=\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial w}\\left(\\frac{C}{w}-\\alpha_{1}\\right)=\\frac{-C}{w^{2}}\\underset{C>0}{\\overset{w\\geq w_{0}\\geq0}{\\Longrightarrow}}\\frac{\\partial NP(w)}{\\partial w}\\leq0$$\n\n$$\\frac{\\partial^{2}NP(w)}{\\partial w^{2}}=\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial w}\\left(\\frac{-C}{w^{2}}\\right)=\\frac{2C}{w^{3}}\\underset{C>0}{\\overset{w\\geq w_{0}\\geq0}{\\Longrightarrow}}\\frac{\\partial^{2}NP(w)}{\\partial w^{2}}\\geq0$$\n\nIn other words, the negative sign of the first-order derivative shows (as expected) that $NP\\left(w\\right)$ decreases as $w$ increases above some minimum allowable value $w_{0}$ (employing minimum wages for the workers), while the positive sign of the second-order derivative shows that the function curves upwards. These conditions are typical to all functions $y=x^{p}$ where $k\\leq1$, like in this case. Hence, the function is maximized at the lower limit $w=w_{0}$:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{c}\n\\left.\\begin{array}{c}\n\\underset{w}{\\max}NP\\left(w\\right)\\\\\ns.t.:\\: w\\geq w_{0}\\geq0\n\\end{array}\\right\\} \\Rightarrow\\underset{w\\rightarrow w_{0}}{\\lim}NP\\left(w\\right)=\\\\\n=\\underset{w\\rightarrow w_{0}}{\\lim}\\left(\\frac{C}{w}-\\alpha_{1}\\right)=\\frac{C}{w_{0}}-\\alpha_{1}=NP_{w_{0}}\n\\end{array}\\label{eq:Wmin-0}$$\n\nwhere $NP_{w_{0}}$ is the maximum attainable net profit per sold unit with regard to labor cost. Obviously, when there is no minimum-wage limit, i.e., $w_{0}=0$, the net profit w.r.t. labor cost is sky-rocketed to infinity:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{c}\n\\left.\\begin{array}{c}\n\\underset{w}{\\max}NP\\left(w\\right)\\\\\ns.t.:\\: w\\geq w_{0}=0\n\\end{array}\\right\\} \\Rightarrow\\underset{w\\rightarrow0}{\\lim}NP\\left(w\\right)=\\\\\n=\\underset{w\\rightarrow0}{\\lim}\\left(\\frac{C}{w}-\\alpha_{1}\\right)=+\\infty=NP_{0}\n\\end{array}\\label{eq:Wmin-inf}$$\n\nWhat (\\[eq:Wmin-inf\\]) proves is nothing new:\n\nHowever, the most important conclusion from this result is the fact that the minimum wage limit, as it is usually legislated by laws and government policies, is actually not something that can be \u2019discovered\u2019 by a totally free (unregulated) market. If salaries can go down to zero, no enterprise has a serious incentive, profit-wise, to offer a decent wage to anyone. In fact, even when minimum wage limits do exist in a labor market, the difference between this lower threshold and the actual mean value of offered wages is only marginal; it only relies on the various enterprises\u2019 competitiveness over very few capable candidates for many open positions. Of course, this is hardly the case in the real world where the exact opposite is the rule, i.e., many highly qualified candidates have to compete for a limited number of job openings.\n\nA first-order feedback control model for stable currency rates\n==============================================================\n\nThe starting point for the following model-based approach is the assertion that there is a distinct difference between the true economy and the currency used in it. That is, each commodity or labor effort has a specific \u2019hidden\u2019 value that is *invariant* with respect to a currency that is used to \u2019translate\u2019 it into monetary value. This assertion is valid for *any* such currency, even those that are bounded to a specific commodity, e.g. gold or silver, since no one commodity can be used a the universal baseline for this evaluation: a huge amount of gold is next to worthless when it can not buy food or water if there are nowhere to be found. On the other hand, a single worker can produce a specific amount of work (on average), just as one apple tree can produce (on the same soil and climate) more or less the same amount of apples, which in turn contain the same amount of nutrients and calories. Hence, the *market price* of a single apple or a single man-hour of work, which is mainly a factor offer and demand, is not a valid invariant metric of its *true value*.\n\nFurthermore, on monetary systems that are based on a representative currency, i.e., some form of printed money or bonds, there is no inherent link between the total volume of currency available to spend and the total volume of commodities and labor to purchase - when there is more money than goods, inflation occurs. More money means higher prices for the exact same commodities, just like less commodities means higher prices at the same total amount of money. It all depends on who controls the total amount of currency available for spending and how this is carefully balanced against the total amount of commodities to purchase.\n\nBasic model\n-----------\n\nLet $V_{m}$ be the market price of the commodity, labor effort or even the currency itself and let $V_{t}$ be the corresponding \u2019true\u2019 value. These two values are correlated linearly by a parameter $\\rho$ that corresponds to inflation and deflation effects in the economy:\n\n$$V_{m}=\\left(\\rho+1\\right)\\cdot V_{t}\\label{eq:Vm-r-Vt}$$\n\nWhen $\\rho>0$ then inflation occurs, i.e., the market price is higher than it should for some specific commodity or work effort unit, while $\\rho<0$ means deflation, i.e., the market price of the same commodity gets devalued. Grouping inflation effects as $\\varepsilon^{+}$ and deflation effects as $\\varepsilon^{-}$, the adjustment parameter now becomes $\\rho=\\varepsilon^{+}-\\varepsilon^{-}$.\n\nLet us now consider these two factors, $\\varepsilon^{+}$ and $\\varepsilon^{-}$. During inflation, there is a positive sign in the change rate of the market price $V_{m}$ against the true value $V_{t}$, i.e.:\n\n$$\\varepsilon^{+}=c^{+}\\cdot\\frac{dV_{m}}{dV_{t}}\\label{eq:e-dVmdVt-p}$$\n\nwhere $c^{+}\\geq0$ is a constant. Likewise, during deflation, there is a negative sign in the change rate of the market price $V_{m}$ against the true value $V_{t}$, i.e.:\n\n$$\\varepsilon^{-}=c^{-}\\cdot\\frac{dV_{m}}{dV_{t}}\\label{eq:e-dVmdVt-n}$$\n\nwhere $c^{-}\\geq0$ is a constant. Equations (\\[eq:e-dVmdVt-p\\]) and (\\[eq:e-dVmdVt-n\\]) essentially link the parameter $\\rho$ in (\\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\\]) with the change rate of the market price $V_{m}$ against the true value $V_{t}$. In other words, the inflation and deflation effects are expressed as a function of the first derivative of $V_{m}$ against $V_{t}$.\n\nThe terms \u2019inflation\u2019 and \u2019deflation\u2019 here are somewhat misleading, since they are usually linked to increasing and decreasing prices, respectively, in the market. Here, \u2019inflation\u2019 is linked to its primary definition, i.e., the increasing availability and flow of money in the market, a situation that favors \u2019cheaper\u2019 currency, easier loans and incentives for riskier investments. This means that when the money flow increases, *into* the economy (private investments, low taxation levels, economy growth, etc), the incentives for moving even more money into it increases, since profitable businesses are plenty. On the other hand, \u2019deflation\u2019 here is also linked to its primary definition, i.e., the decreasing availability and flow of money in the market, a situation that results in \u2019expensive\u2019 currency, harder loans and incentives for more conservative (or no) investments. This means that when the money flow decreases, *out of* the economy (outgoing foreign exchange, high taxation levels, economy shrinking, etc), the incentives for putting more and more money away from it increases, since profitable investments are scarce. In other words, equations (\\[eq:e-dVmdVt-p\\]) and (\\[eq:e-dVmdVt-n\\]) translate the momentum of $V_{m}$ against $V_{t}$ into quantifiable feedback, reinforcing (positive) or dampening (negative), according to the relation between $c^{+}$ and $c^{-}$.\n\nThere is also a definite link between inflation/deflation and interest rates in bank loans: during inflation, the governments and central banks try to \u2019slow down\u2019 excessive loaning and credit card use by raising the baseline for interest rates, while during deflation they try to \u2019boost\u2019 the economy by lowering this baseline and thus enabling more money flow in the market. Here, these \u2019correcting\u2019 actions are essentially included in both $c^{+}$ and $c^{-}$, according to the direction these authorities want to employ into (\\[eq:e-dVmdVt-p\\]) and (\\[eq:e-dVmdVt-n\\]) and, in the end, into (\\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\\]) as well.\n\nAnalytical solution\n-------------------\n\nThe model described by (\\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\\]) now becomes a differential equation that is to be solved, i.e., fully defines $V_{m}$ as a function of $V_{t}$. The following steps show how:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{cc}\nV_{m} & =\\left(\\rho+1\\right)\\cdot V_{t}=(\\varepsilon^{+}-\\varepsilon^{-}+1)\\cdot V_{t}\\\\\n & =\\left(\\left(c^{+}-c^{-}\\right)\\cdot\\frac{dV_{m}}{dV_{t}}+1\\right)\\cdot V_{t}\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & \\left(c^{+}-c^{-}\\right)\\cdot V_{t}\\cdot\\frac{dV_{m}}{dV_{t}}-V_{m}+V_{t}=0\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & \\left(c^{+}-c^{-}\\right)\\cdot x\\cdot\\frac{dy}{dx}-y+x=0\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & \\frac{dy}{dx}+\\left(\\frac{-1}{c^{+}-c^{-}}\\right)\\cdot\\frac{y}{x}+\\left(\\frac{1}{c^{+}-c^{-}}\\right)=0\n\\end{array}$$\n\n$$\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\Leftrightarrow & \\frac{dy}{dx}=\\beta\\cdot\\frac{y}{x}-\\beta=F\\left(\\frac{y}{x}\\right)\\end{array}\\label{eq:dydx-Fyx}$$\n\nwhere $y=V_{m}$, $x=V_{t}$ and $\\beta=\\frac{1}{c^{+}-c^{-}}$. The last step in the previous sequence is essentially a typical transformation into a well-known form of differential equations that can be solved by substituting $z=\\frac{y}{x}$ and calculating the integral:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{cc}\n & \\frac{dy}{dx}=\\beta\\cdot\\frac{y}{x}-\\beta=F\\left(\\frac{y}{x}\\right)\\\\\n\\left(z=\\frac{y}{x}\\right) & \\Rightarrow\\ln x=\\int\\frac{dz}{F\\left(z\\right)-z}+\\alpha\\\\\n & \\ln x=\\int\\frac{dz}{F\\left(z\\right)-z}=\\int\\frac{d\\left(\\frac{y}{x}\\right)}{\\left(\\beta\\cdot\\frac{y}{x}-\\beta\\right)-\\left(\\frac{y}{x}\\right)}\\\\\n & =\\int\\frac{d\\left(\\frac{y}{x}\\right)}{\\frac{y}{x}\\cdot\\left(\\beta-1\\right)+\\left(-\\beta\\right)}=\\int\\frac{dz}{z\\cdot\\left(\\beta-1\\right)+\\left(-\\beta\\right)}\\\\\n & =\\frac{1}{\\left(\\beta-1\\right)}\\cdot\\ln\\left(z\\cdot\\left(\\beta-1\\right)+\\left(-\\beta\\right)\\right)\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & \\ln x=\\frac{1}{\\left(\\beta-1\\right)}\\cdot\\ln\\left(z\\cdot\\left(\\beta-1\\right)+\\left(-\\beta\\right)\\right)\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & \\ln x^{\\left(\\beta-1\\right)}=\\ln\\left(\\frac{y}{x}\\cdot\\left(\\beta-1\\right)+\\left(-\\beta\\right)\\right)\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & x^{\\left(\\beta-1\\right)}=\\frac{y}{x}\\cdot\\left(\\beta-1\\right)+\\left(-\\beta\\right)\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & \\left(\\beta-1\\right)\\cdot y=x^{\\beta}+\\beta\\cdot x\n\\end{array}$$\n\n$$\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\Leftrightarrow & y=\\left(\\frac{1}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot x^{\\beta}+\\left(\\frac{\\beta}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot x\\end{array}\\label{eq:y-exp-x}$$\n\nHence, from the final result an analytical formula of $V_{m}$ with regard to $V_{t}$ becomes available:\n\n$$V_{m}=\\left(\\frac{1}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot V_{t}^{\\beta}+\\left(\\frac{\\beta}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot V_{t}\\qquad\\beta=\\frac{1}{c^{+}-c^{-}}\\label{eq:Vm-exp-Vt}$$\n\nNote that (\\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\\]) is more or less the long-term expansion of (\\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\\]). That is, (\\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\\]) is the \u2019instance\u2019 definition of $V_{m}$ with regard to $V_{t}$ as a differential equation, while in (\\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\\]) $V_{m}$ is defined only as a function of $V_{t}$ (no differentials) and some constant parameters. This analytical form is appropriate for calculating stability and feedback factors as the result of these constant parameters and how they affect the relation between $V_{m}$ and $V_{t}$.\n\nAs a verification step, one can calculate the differential term $\\frac{dy}{dx}$ by its starting definition in (\\[eq:dydx-Fyx\\]) and by its analytical solution in (\\[eq:y-exp-x\\]). From (\\[eq:dydx-Fyx\\]) this calculation gives:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\frac{dy}{dx} & =\\beta\\cdot\\frac{y}{x}-\\beta=\\beta\\cdot\\left(\\frac{x^{\\beta}+\\beta\\cdot x}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot x^{-1}=...=\\left(\\frac{\\beta}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot\\left(x^{\\beta-1}+\\beta\\right)\\end{array}$$\n\nSimilarly, from (\\[eq:y-exp-x\\]) the same calculation gives:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\frac{dy}{dx} & =\\left(\\frac{1}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot\\frac{d\\left(x^{\\beta}+\\beta\\cdot x\\right)}{dx}=\\frac{\\beta\\cdot x^{\\beta-1}+\\beta}{\\beta-1}=\\left(\\frac{\\beta}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot\\left(x^{\\beta-1}+\\beta\\right)\\end{array}$$\n\nHence, (\\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\\]) is a valid analytical solution of (\\[eq:Vm-r-Vt\\]).\n\nStability and feedback analysis\n-------------------------------\n\nEquation (\\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\\]) provides a full description for $V_{m}$ with regard to $V_{t}$ and the means to analyze its asymptotic behavior. Since $\\beta$ is the only parameter that includes all model configuration, it is the main factor of interest here. Specifically, it is evident that as $|\\beta|$ increases, i.e., as the difference $|c^{+}-c^{-}|$ becomes smaller, $V_{m}$ exhibits larger exponent in $V_{t}$. This means that $V_{m}$ either increases at higher rates (when $\\beta>0$) or drives the first term to zero (when $\\beta<0$). Furthermore, as $|\\beta|$ becomes larger, the coefficient $\\frac{\\beta}{\\beta-1}$ of the second term in (\\[eq:Vm-exp-Vt\\]) approaches unity. In other words, as $c^{+}$ approaches $c^{-}$, $V_{m}$ and $V_{t}$ become directly proportional (not just linearly dependent).\n\nCombining these previous comments with respect to $\\beta$, it is clear that if $V_{m}$ is to be \u2019stabilized\u2019 against $V_{t}$, $\\beta$ can be selected accordingly in order to diminish the first (higher-order) term and reinforce the second (linear) term. This happens only when $|\\beta|\\gg1$ and $\\beta<0$, i.e., as $\\beta\\rightarrow-\\infty$:\n\n$$V_{m}=\\left(\\frac{1}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot V_{t}^{\\beta}+\\left(\\frac{\\beta}{\\beta-1}\\right)\\cdot V_{t}\\overset{\\beta\\rightarrow-\\infty}{\\longrightarrow}V_{t}^{+}\\label{eq:Vm-lim-Vt}$$\n\nwhere $V_{t}^{+}$ means that it is approached from higher values as $\\beta$ becomes more and more negative. In other words:\n\n$$\\beta\\rightarrow-\\infty\\Leftrightarrow c^{+}-c^{-}\\rightarrow0^{-}\\Longrightarrow V_{m}\\rightarrow V_{t}^{+}\\label{eq:Vm-lim-Vt-cc}$$\n\nWhat equation (\\[eq:Vm-lim-Vt-cc\\]) says is pretty clear:\n\nThis result is not something unexpected; keeping taxes and interest rates high is the standard policy for slowing down a booming economy into a \u2019controlled growth\u2019 state. This is necessary to avoid excessive debt increase in both public and private sector, as well as decreasing the incentives of \u2019bubbles\u2019 in stock markets. However, what is very interesting is that the proper control policy is for the authorities to *counter match* the positive feedback with *proportional* negative feedback actions. In other words, government spending, taxation levels and interest rates should *always* increase/decrease in proportion to private investments, creation of new businesses and incoming flow of foreign capital.\n\nUnfortunately, the idea of a deliberate slowdown in the economy is something that is often unthinkable for modern free trades and stock markets - this is why (\\[eq:Vm-lim-Vt\\]) and (\\[eq:Vm-lim-Vt-cc\\]) also constitute a very realistic explanation of the various financial crises, like the dot-com bubble of the late \u201990s or the 2008 house market crash in USA: *when negative feedback is not enforced, the catastrophic deviation of $V_{m}$ from $V_{t}$ becomes a mathematical certainty*.\n\nGovernment spending and stable taxation level\n=============================================\n\nOne of the most controversial issues in all economic models is the acceptable amount of government spending for public services, infrastructure and government salaries. In general, the amount of government budget available for spending is directly proportional to the country\u2019s Gross Domestic Product (GDP):\n\n$$\\left\\{ GDP\\right\\} =C+I+G+\\left(X-M\\right)\\thicksim S+P=W\\label{eq:GDP-gen}$$\n\nBasic model\n-----------\n\nEquation (\\[eq:GDP-gen\\]) is the typical calculation of GDP: $C$ is for consumption, $I$ is for investments and savings (domestic), $G$ is for government spending and $\\left(X-M\\right)$ is the exports-imports (net) balance. Reformulating these parameters, let $W$ be the GDP portion attributed to salaries of workers in the public and the private sector, i.e., $S$ and $P$ respectively. Public spending on infrastructure can be reformulated as the weighted sum of $N$ factors, each contributing $\\alpha_{i}$ to the total spending:\n\n$$G_{s}=\\sum\\alpha_{i}g_{i}\\quad i=1,...,N$$\n\n$$\\sum\\alpha_{i}=1\\quad0\\leq\\alpha_{i}\\leq1$$\n\nSimilarly, a \u2019public welfare\u2019 index can be calculated as a weighted sum of $K$ factors, each contributing $\\gamma_{i}$ to the index, that affect availability of public services to the people:\n\n$$G_{w}=\\sum\\gamma_{k}\\left(1-h_{k}\\right)\\quad k=1,...,K$$\n\n$$\\sum\\gamma_{k}=1\\quad0\\leq\\gamma_{k}\\leq1$$\n\nwhere $h_{k}$ is the fraction of people without access to public service $k$. Clearly, there is a link between $G_{s}$ and $G_{w}$, i.e., $G_{w}\\thicksim G_{s}$.\n\nLet us now focus on the government budget that need to cover for public workers\u2019 salaries $S$ and public spending $G_{s}$. Let $Q^{+}$be the positive flow, which is essentially the sum of taxes on wages to all workers (public and private sector), and let $Q^{-}$ be the negative flow, which goes to $S$ and public spending $G_{s}$. If $0\\leq c\\leq1$ is the balancing factor between salaries and infrastructure in government spending and $p$ is the balancing factor between private sector and public sector fractions in the total work force, then:\n\n$$Q^{+}=\\left(S+P\\right)\\cdot t=\\left(W\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)+W\\cdot p\\right)\\cdot t=W\\cdot t$$\n\n$$Q^{-}=\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\hat{S}+G_{s}\\cdot c=\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot S+G_{s}\\cdot c$$\n\nFor a long-term viable budget management without deficiencies, huge reserving and external loans, then the positive/negative flows should be roughly equal:\n\n$$Q^{+}\\simeq Q^{-}\\Leftrightarrow S\\cdot t+P\\cdot t\\simeq\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot S+G_{s}\\cdot c$$\n\n$$Q^{+}-Q^{-}=W\\cdot t-\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)\\cdot W-G_{s}\\cdot c=\\varphi\\label{eq:QQ-phi-def}$$\n\nwhere $\\varphi$ is the instantaneous (annual) balance in the government budget. The model presented above assumes perfect mechanisms for spending, paying salaries and collecting taxes. For a more realistic calculation, deficiency factors have to be introduced in all the major components in (\\[eq:QQ-phi-def\\]), i.e.:\n\n$$\\hat{t}=t\\cdot\\left(1-\\varepsilon_{t}\\right)\\;,\\;0\\leq\\varepsilon_{t}\\leq1\\;,\\;0\\leq t\\leq1$$\n\n$$\\hat{W}=W\\cdot\\left(1-\\varepsilon_{w}\\right)\\;,\\;0\\leq\\varepsilon_{w}\\leq1$$\n\n$$\\hat{G}=G\\cdot\\left(1-\\varepsilon_{g}\\right)\\;,\\;0\\leq\\varepsilon_{g}\\leq1$$\n\n$$\\hat{\\varphi}=\\varphi\\cdot\\left(1-\\varepsilon_{\\varphi}\\right)\\;,\\;0\\leq\\varepsilon_{\\varphi}\\leq1$$\n\nHere, $\\varepsilon_{t}$ stands for deficiency in collecting taxes, $\\varepsilon_{w}$ stands for deficiency in work effort (outsourced workers), $\\varepsilon_{g}$ stands for deficiency in constructing and maintaining public services (corruption) and $\\varepsilon_{\\varphi}$ stands for deficiency due to inflation (domestic currency devaluation). These adjusted components can be introduced directly into (\\[eq:QQ-phi-def\\]) for proper calculations; however, for the shake of simplicity, the simplified model of (\\[eq:QQ-phi-def\\]) will be used as-is, since this choice does not affect the analysis that follows.\n\nAnalytical solution\n-------------------\n\nReturning now to (\\[eq:GDP-gen\\]), the investments component $I$ can be expressed as a factor of $W$, meaning that the amount of money available for domestic spending drives the incentives for more investments, new businesses and foreign capitals:\n\n$$I=\\xi\\cdot W\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1+\\vartheta\\right)\\quad\\vartheta,\\xi\\geq0\\label{eq:Invest-W}$$\n\nwhere $\\xi$ is the amount of available money $W\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)$ (after taxation) that goes into investments and $\\vartheta$ is the multiplier that is attributed to foreign capital that comes into the domestic economy as investments too. Hence, the true annual change in $W$ can now be stated as a function of $\\varphi$ and $I$ as:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{ccc}\n\\triangle W & = & \\varphi+I\\\\\n & = & W\\cdot t-\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)\\cdot W-G_{s}\\cdot c\\\\\n & + & \\xi\\cdot W\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1+\\vartheta\\right)\n\\end{array}\\label{eq:DW-phi-Inv}$$\n\nEquation (\\[eq:DW-phi-Inv\\]) is a differential model that links $W$ with its change rate and all the other factors. Since it is stated in a discrete form (annual changes), it can be solved as a first-order iterative equation, defining $a_{n}=W_{n}$ and substituting for all the other factors:\n\n$$a_{n+1}=a_{n}\\cdot\\left(A+B\\right)+C\\Leftrightarrow a_{n+1}-a_{n}\\cdot\\left(A+B\\right)=C\\label{eq:an-diff}$$\n\n$$A=t-\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)\\label{eq:A-diff}$$\n\n$$B=\\xi\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1+\\vartheta\\right)\\label{eq:B-diff}$$\n\n$$C=-G_{s}\\cdot c\\label{eq:C-diff}$$\n\nEquation (\\[eq:an-diff\\]) is solved by calculating the solution of the corresponding homogeneous system $\\left(C=0\\right)$ and then trying a solution similar to the right-hand side of the general equation. The solution of the homogeneous system is:\n\n$$d_{n+1}-d_{n}\\cdot\\left(A+B\\right)=0$$\n\n$$\\lambda-\\left(A+B\\right)=0\\Rightarrow\\lambda=A+B\\Rightarrow d_{n}=\\left(A+B\\right)^{n}\\cdot d_{0}\\label{eq:dn-diff}$$\n\nSince the right-hand side of (\\[eq:an-diff\\]) is a zero-order polynomial, a constant can be introduced as a solution to the general equation:\n\n$$\\hat{a}=b_{0}\\Rightarrow b_{0}-\\left(A+B\\right)\\cdot b_{0}=C\\Leftrightarrow b_{0}=\\frac{C}{1-\\left(A+B\\right)}\\label{eq:b0-diff}$$\n\nThen, the complete solution of (\\[eq:an-diff\\]) is the sum of the partial solutions of (\\[eq:dn-diff\\]) and (\\[eq:b0-diff\\]), i.e.:\n\n$$a_{n}=d_{n}+\\hat{a}=\\left(A+B\\right)^{n}\\cdot d_{0}+b_{0}\\label{eq:an-d0-b0}$$\n\nwhere $d_{0}$ is a constant that can be calculated directly by using any value for $n$, i.e.:\n\n$$n=0\\rightarrow a_{0}=1\\cdot d_{0}+b_{0}\\Leftrightarrow d_{0}=a_{0}-b_{0}\\label{eq:d0-value}$$\n\nSubstituting (\\[eq:b0-diff\\]) and (\\[eq:d0-value\\]) into (\\[eq:an-d0-b0\\]), the final solution for $a_{n}$ becomes:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{ccc}\na_{n} & = & \\left(A+B\\right)^{n}\\cdot\\left(a_{0}-b_{0}\\right)+b_{0}\\\\\n & = & \\left(A+B\\right)^{n}\\cdot\\left(a_{0}-\\frac{C}{1-\\left(A+B\\right)}\\right)+\\frac{C}{1-\\left(A+B\\right)}\n\\end{array}$$\n\nor in terms of the original $W$ parameter:\n\n$$W_{n+1}=\\left(A+B\\right)^{n}\\cdot\\left(W_{0}-\\frac{C}{1-\\left(A+B\\right)}\\right)+\\frac{C}{1-\\left(A+B\\right)}\\label{eq:Wn-full}$$\n\nwhere $W_{0}$ is a constant corresponding to some starting value for $W$. Hence, the total amount of money available as workers\u2019 salaries (public and private sectors) is now expressed as a function of all the other parameters of (\\[eq:QQ-phi-def\\]) and (\\[eq:Invest-W\\]).\n\nStability and feedback analysis\n-------------------------------\n\nIn order to evaluate the stability constraints for the model described in (\\[eq:Wn-full\\]), the most important factor is the base of the exponent, i.e., $\\left(A+B\\right)$. The same result can be drawn by applying the z-transformation to the original model in (\\[eq:an-diff\\]):\n\n$$W_{n+1}-\\left(A+B\\right)\\cdot W_{n}=C\\overset{F(z)}{\\longrightarrow}H\\left(z\\right)$$\n\n$$H\\left(z\\right)=\\frac{C}{1-\\left(A+B\\right)\\cdot z^{-1}}\\longleftrightarrow h\\left(n\\right)=C\\cdot\\left(A+B\\right)^{n}\\cdot u\\left(n\\right)\\label{eq:Hz-AB}$$\n\nIt is clear from (\\[eq:Hz-AB\\]) that, in order for the system to be stable, the constraint $|A+B|\\leq1$ needs to be true in all cases. Let us now examine the case $A+B\\leq1$ with regard to the taxation level $t$, applying (\\[eq:A-diff\\]) for $A$ and (\\[eq:B-diff\\]) for $B$:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{ccc}\n & A+B & \\leq1\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & t-\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)+\\xi\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1+\\vartheta\\right) & \\leq1\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & t\\cdot\\left(1+\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)-\\xi\\cdot\\left(1+\\vartheta\\right)\\right)\\\\\n & -\\left(\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)-\\xi\\cdot\\left(1+\\vartheta\\right)\\right) & \\leq1\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & t\\cdot\\left(1+\\tau\\right)-\\tau & \\leq1\n\\end{array}$$\n\nwhere:\n\n$$\\tau=\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)-\\xi\\cdot\\left(1+\\vartheta\\right)\\label{eq:tau-tt}$$\n\nand finally we get:\n\n$$t\\leq\\frac{1+\\tau}{1+\\tau}=1\\label{eq:tt-upper}$$\n\nSimilarly, for the lower bound we get:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{ccc}\n & A+B & \\geq-1\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & t-\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)+\\xi\\cdot\\left(1-t\\right)\\cdot\\left(1+\\vartheta\\right) & \\geq-1\\\\\n\\Leftrightarrow & t\\cdot\\left(1+\\tau\\right)-\\tau & \\geq-1\n\\end{array}$$\n\nwhich gives:\n\n$$t\\cdot\\left(1+\\tau\\right)-\\tau\\geq-1\\Leftrightarrow t\\geq\\frac{-1+\\tau}{1+\\tau}\\label{eq:tt-lower}$$\n\nCombining (\\[eq:tt-upper\\]) and (\\[eq:tt-lower\\]), and since $0\\leq t\\leq1$, we get the final range for \u2019stable\u2019 taxation level:\n\n$$\\max\\left\\{ 0,\\frac{-1+\\tau}{1+\\tau}\\right\\} \\leq t\\leq1\\label{eq:tt-st-range}$$\n\nEquation (\\[eq:tt-st-range\\]) is essentially a range constraint for $t$ and describes the stability conditions for $W$ with respect to the taxation level. In practice, if the lower bound becomes positive, this range is shrinking towards the upper bound, i.e., the taxation levels are forced to be higher in order to maintain a stable budget management. Using (\\[eq:tau-tt\\]) this translates to:\n\n$$\\frac{-1+\\tau}{1+\\tau}>0\\Leftrightarrow\\tau>1\\Leftrightarrow\\left(1-c\\right)\\cdot\\left(1-p\\right)>1+\\xi\\cdot\\left(1+\\vartheta\\right)\\label{eq:tau-stability}$$\n\nThe result stated by (\\[eq:tau-stability\\]) is indeed a very interesting one:\n\nThis statement per-se is completely expected, as government budget comes from taxes and foreign capital investments (assuming no long-term policies for debt deficiencies are allowed). However, if the total government spending is assumed constant, (\\[eq:tau-stability\\]) states that the system can also be stabilized by allocating more funds to public infrastructure and services instead of public workers\u2019 wages. In other words, *budgets cuts (austerity) is not necessarily the only solution available.*\n\nEquation (\\[eq:tau-stability\\]) incorporates $c$ and $p$ as negative terms, while $\\xi$ and $\\vartheta$ as positive ones, hence it is fairly easy to come with another interesting result: Since $p$ corresponds to the fraction of work force employed in the private sector, (\\[eq:tau-stability\\]) implies that having an excessively large number of private sector workers, with regard to true investments, essentially destabilizes the system. This assertion can be explained by the fact that excessive private worker force means excessive sum of salaries available for spending, thus increased attraction of domestic and foreign funds for new investments. This incentive essentially destabilizes the control of $\\triangle W$ in (\\[eq:DW-phi-Inv\\]) and may cause a catastrophic oscillation (market bubbles). Therefore, *the proper stabilization action is for the government to \u2019slow down\u2019 any excessive increases*, a result similar to the one stated at the end of the previous paradigm (see previous section). This action is usually executed by employing higher taxes and limiting incoming flow of investment funds - policies that are usually considered unthinkable for modern free trades and stock markets.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nIn this paper, simple mathematical models from Control Theory were applied to three very important economic paradigms, namely (a) minimum wages in self-regulating markets, (b) market-versus-true values and currency rates, and (c) government spending and taxation levels.\n\nThe main conclusions are:\n\nThe best labor wages policy, i.e., the one that provides the maximum gain-per-salary ratio, is *slavery* (free labor - no salaries at all).\n\nEven when minimum wage limits do exist in a labor market, the difference between this lower threshold and the actual mean value of offered wages is only marginal.\n\nIf market prices of commodities and work effort are to be kept close to their true values, the negative feedback factors (high taxes, high interest rates, high government spending, etc) should *closely match* the positive feedback factors (low taxes, low interest rates, strict government spending, etc).\n\nFor stable economies, the proper control policy is for the authorities (government) to *counter match* the positive feedback (private investments) with *proportional* negative feedback actions.\n\nFor a stable spending of government budget, the available range for the taxation level is *shrinking towards the higher limit* as the total number of public workers and/or the spending weight (i.e., wages level) of their salaries becomes larger than the domestic and foreign investments (incoming flow).\n\nIf the total government spending is assumed constant, the budget can also be stabilized by allocating more funds to public infrastructure and services instead of public workers\u2019 wages (i.e. wages cuts is not the only \u2019correcting\u2019 solution).\n\nThis short study that can be used as an example of how feedback models and stability analysis can be applied as a guideline of \u2019proofs\u2019 in the context of economic policies.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Instance search is an interesting task as well as a challenging issue due to the lack of effective feature representation. In this paper, an instance level feature representation built upon fully convolutional instance-aware segmentation is proposed. The feature is ROI-pooled from the segmented instance region. So that instances in various sizes and layouts are represented by deep features in uniform length. This representation is further enhanced by the use of deformable ResNeXt blocks. Superior performance is observed in terms of its distinctiveness and scalability on a challenging evaluation dataset built by ourselves. In addition, the proposed enhancement on the network structure also shows superior performance on the instance segmentation task.'\naddress: |\n    The School of Information Science and Technology,\\\n    Xiamen University\\\n    Xiamen, 361005, P. R. China.\\\nauthor:\n- Yu Zhan\n- 'Wan-Lei Zhao'\nbibliography:\n- 'yzhan.bib'\ntitle: |\n    Instance Search via Instance Level\\\n    Segmentation and Feature Representation\n---\n\nInstance search ,Instance segmentation ,CNN\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nWith the proliferation of massive multimedia contents in our daily life, it is desired that users are allowed to browse over relevant images/videos in which the specified visual instance (e.g., an object or a landmark or a person) appears. This is known as instance search\u00a0[@Awad17], which arises from several application scenarios such as online product search in the shopping website, video editing, and person re-identification, etc.\n\nInstance search is essentially different from conventional content-based image retrieval (CBIR)\u00a0[@RuiHC99; @AlZubiAR15] in several perspectives. First of all, in instance search, the query is a visual object that is outlined (usually by a bounding box) in an image. While in CBIR, the whole image is treated as the query. Secondly, instance search requires the intended visual objects to come from the same instance (while possibly under different transformations) as the query\u00a0[@Awad17]. In contrast, CBIR only requires the returned contents to be visually similar as the query image no matter whether they share the same origin. Moreover, instance search should localize the target instance in the returned images.\n\nThere are basically two stages in visual content search system, namely feature representation\u00a0[@Sivic03; @Jegou10; @JegouDS10; @RetaCMGAD18; @DalalT05; @PerronninSM10; @ZhangLZCY15; @RaveauxBO13; @WANG201363; @Babenko14; @Razavian14; @Babenko15; @NgYD15] and fast retrieval\u00a0[@JegouDS11; @DatarIIM04; @MujaL09; @MujaL14]. In the whole process, feature representation plays the key role to the success of the system. On one hand, features are required to be robust to various image transformations, such as scaling, rotation and occlusions, motion blur, etc. On the other hand, they should be distinctive enough so that the retrieval quality does not suffer severe degradation as the scale of the reference set grows.\n\nIn the existing solutions, instance search has been mainly addressed by conventional approaches that are originally designed for image search\u00a0[@Awad17; @RuiHC99], such as bag-of-visual words (BoVW)\u00a0[@Sivic03], RoI-BoVW\u00a0[@ZhangLZCY15], VLAD\u00a0[@Jegou10] and FV\u00a0[@PerronninSM10]. All these approaches are built upon image local features such as SIFT\u00a0[@Lowe04], RootSIFT\u00a0[@ArandjelovicZ12], SURF\u00a0[@BayTG06]. Although local features are much more distinctive than global features, they are still unsuitable for instance search task. First of all, local features are not robust to out-of-plane rotation and deformation, both of which are widely observed in the real world. Moreover, it is not rare that very few local features are extracted from transparent objects (e.g., bottles) or objects with flat surface (e.g., balls). Additionally, it is not guaranteed that the regions covered by local features are exactly from one instance. As a result, the local features used to describe a target instance are more or less contaminated by the contents from the background. For this reason, similar as global features, isolated feature representation for individual instances is not desirable.\n\nRecently, pre-trained CNNs are gradually introduced to image retrieval tasks\u00a0[@Babenko14; @Razavian14; @Babenko15; @NgYD15; @ZhengZWWT16; @ArandjelovicGTP16; @XieZWYT16] due to their great success in visual object classification tasks\u00a0[@DengDSLL009]. In the existing practices, image features are typically extracted from the whole image or a series of local regions with convolution or fully connected layers. Encouraging results are observed on the landmark retrieval tasks in\u00a0[@Razavian14; @Babenko15]. However, they are unfeasible for instance representation since it is essentially a type of global feature. The feature vector is comprised by a mixture of activations from a variety of latent instances in the image. Although recent research\u00a0[@Tolias15; @Kalantidis16] attempts to localize the representation to regional level, exhaustive sliding search or feature aggregation is still inevitable. Moreover, since such region level representation is given by a coarsely restricted region, their improvement is still limited.\n\nIn this paper, an instance level feature representation is proposed, which is based on an effective instance segmentation approach, namely fully convolutional instance-aware semantic segmentation (FCIS)\u00a0[@Li17]. Individual instances present in the image are detected and segmented on pixel level by FCIS. This is essentially different from the approach presented in\u00a0[@Salvador16], in which the segmentation only reaches to the semantic category level. With the instance level segmentation, feature representation of each instance is derived from the feature maps of convolution layers using ROI pooling. So that instances in different sizes and layouts are represented with the feature vectors of the same size. In order to enhance the performance, two modifications have been made on the FCIS network.\n\n-   The back-bone network of FCIS is replaced with a more powerful ResNeXt-101\u00a0[@Xie17] without increasing extra FLOPs complexity or the number of parameters;\n\n-   To enable the receptive field to be adaptive to the various shape of potential objects, the plain layer in ResNeXt-101\u2019s final stage is replaced with deformable convolution\u00a0[@Dai17].\n\nTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first piece of work that visual instances are represented by features derived exactly from the instance region. Moreover, due to the lack of publicly available testing benchmark for instance search, a new dataset called *Instance-160* is constructed by harvesting test videos that are originally used for visual object tracking evaluation.\n\nFramework for Instance Search {#sec:mthd}\n=============================\n\nInstance Level Feature Representation\n-------------------------------------\n\nFully convolutional instance-aware semantic segmentation (FCIS)\u00a0[@Li17] is designed primarily for instance segmentation and detection. The framework of FCIS is given as a sub-figure in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:framework\\], which is inside the bounding box in green. In the network, the idea of \u201cposition-sensitive score map\u201d is adopted to perform segmentation and detection simultaneously. These two sub-tasks share the same set of score maps by assembling operation according to the region of interest (ROI). ROIs are generated by region proposal network (RPN), which is added on top of \u201cconv4\u201d. The score maps output \u201cinside\u201d and \u201coutside\u201d scores for the mask prediction and classification jointly. For details, readers are referred to\u00a0[@Li17].\n\n![Framework of instance-level feature representation from convolutional activations of FCIS\u00a0[@Li17]. Processing flow with black arrows and dashed lines denote the proposed modification and enhancement over FCIS.[]{data-label=\"fig:framework\"}](framework){width=\"0.84\\linewidth\"}\n\nAs seen from Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:framework\\], there are three outputs from FCIS for one image, namely, the segmented instances (given as instance masks) and the corresponding category label, along with the bounding box of each instance. In order to extract the feature for each segmented instance, another pipeline is introduced into FCIS framework. Namely, with the generated bounding box, ROI pooling is performed on the feature maps that are generated in the convolution stages. This feature extraction pipeline is shown on the up-right of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:framework\\]. Since the size of feature map is different from the input image and varies from layer to layer, bounding box of each instance is scaled accordingly to fit the size of the feature map when we perform ROI pooling. The maximum activation is extracted from the scaled ROI region as one dimension of the feature representation. This ROI pooling is applied on all feature maps in the same layer. As a consequence, the size of the output feature equals to the number of the feature maps. Instances in different sizes and layouts are represented with the same size of feature vectors. Since the segmentation is precise and clean, this feature representation is on instance level of real sense. All per-ROI computation is simple and fast with a negligible cost, compared with forward pass.\n\nIntuitively, convolution layers keep more abstract visual information as network goes deeper. It is therefore widely believed that shallower convolution layers are more suitable for low level feature representation. In our framework, the ROI pooling could be possibly applied on \u201cconv2\u201d to \u201cconv5\u201d and \u201cconv\u201d in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:framework\\]. In the experiment, a comparative study is made to show the distinctiveness of the feature extracted from these layers. In addition, we also test the possibility of concatenating features ROI-pooled from different stages. Features are *l$_{2}$*-normalized before and after the concatenation.\n\nPerformance Enhancement {#sec:boost}\n-----------------------\n\nIn order to boost the performance of the proposed feature representation, the FCIS is modified in two aspects. Namely, the ResNet-101\u00a0[@He16], upon which FCIS is built, is replaced by more powerful ResNeXt-101\u00a0[@Xie17]. In addition, to enable the network to be more robust to severe shape variations, deformable convolution\u00a0[@Dai17] is adopted in the last three bottle-neck blocks of ResNeXt-101.\n\nAs pointed out in\u00a0[@Li17], the performance of ResNet\u00a0[@He16] gets saturated when its depth reaches to *152*. To further improve the accuracy of this back-bone network, ResNet-101 is replaced by ResNeXt-101\u00a0[@Xie17] which corresponds to \u201cconv1-4\u201d and \u201cconv-5\u201d in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:framework\\]. Compared to ResNet, ResNeXt increases the *cardinality* of the building blocks. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blcok\\] show the difference between blocks of ResNet and ResNeXt. *Cardinality* refers to the size of same-topology transformation aggregated in the building block. The cardinality of building blocks in our case is set to *32*. This is to control the FLOPs complexity on the same level as ResNet. Similar as ResNet-101, the weights of the model are initialized from ImageNet\u00a0[@DengDSLL009] classification task. The layers (i.e., deformable convolution layer and RPN) absent from the pre-trained model are randomly initialized.\n\n![Comparison between ResNet and ResNeXt blocks. In figure (b), ResNeXt\u2019s block\u00a0[@Xie17] is embedded with deformable convolution\u00a0[@Dai17] with cardinality of *32*. The size of filter and the number of filters are shown on each convolution layer. In the enhanced instance feature design, structure in (b) is adopted. The last *3* bottle-neck blocks of ResNeXt-101 are replaced by deformable convolution given in figure (d).[]{data-label=\"fig:blcok\"}](block){width=\"0.86\\linewidth\"}\n\nVisual instances usually undergo various irregular geometric transformations in real scenario, which causes heavy deformations in their appearances. Plain convolution modules in CNNs are inherently vulnerable to such kind of transformations. Inspired from\u00a0[@Dai17], deformable convolutions are introduced to replace the plain convolution in the last three bottle-neck blocks of ResNeXt-101 to alleviate this problem\u00a0(illustrated in Fig. \\[fig:blcok\\]). Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blcok\\](d) shows the sampling structure of deformable convolution in contrast to plain one (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blcok\\](c)). The deformable convolution calculates a set of offsets for the ultimate sampling locations to better adapt to the deformations of the instance. The offsets are easily learned by applying a convolutional layer over the same input feature maps. As is revealed later in the experiments, both modifications proposed in this section boost the performance of instance segmentation and instance search.\n\nEvaluation Dataset Construction {#sec:data}\n===============================\n\nSince the initiatives of instance search task in TRECVID\u00a0[@Awad17], several instance search approaches have been proposed one after another over the past few years. However, the publicly available evaluation benchmark is slow to occur. Approaches\u00a0[@Tolias15; @Kalantidis16; @Salvador16] aiming for instance search are only evaluated on landmark datasets, typically Oxford5k\u00a0[@Philbin07], Paris6k\u00a0[@Jegou08] and Holidays\u00a0[@Jegou08]. The evaluation does not reflect the real challenges, such as motion blur, partial occlusion, deformation and mutual object embedding, that instance search faces in the general cases. Dataset maintained by TRECVID\u00a0[@Awad17] avoids such kind of disadvantages, whereas it is only open to TRECVID participants. In this paper, a new dataset, namely *Instance-160* is introduced. As visual object tracking and instance search are two similar tasks, *Instance-160* is built based on the video sequences used for visual object tracking evaluation. On one hand, this avoids the painstaking efforts to annotate the instances from new video sequences. On the other hand, videos that are used for visual object tracking have been widely accepted benchmarks. The variety of variations and transformations that could happen on visual instances are incorporated.\n\nIn the object tracking, the tracking algorithm is required to track the target object (selected on the first frame) in the rest of video frames. In order to verify the robustness of the tracking algorithm, the test videos are collected from different scenarios and cover a wide range of objects. Most popular evaluation benchmarks are OTB2015\u00a0[@Wu15] and ALOV++\u00a0[@Smeulders14]. They are collected from diverse circumstance including illuminations, transparency, specularity, confusion with similar objects, clutter, occlusion, severe deformation, motion blur and low contrast. Since instance search arises from similar application scenarios as object tracking, the same challenges are seen in instance search. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that instance search is different from object tracking. The latter assumes the visual object varies following the temporal order. For this reason, the temporal information is more or less capitalized in various object tracking algorithms. While this is not the case for instance search. Moreover, the tracking algorithm is allowed to update the feature representation from time to time as the tracking continues. In contrast, feature representation, once has been designed, is fixed all the way in instance search.\n\nWhen we construct *Instance-160*, *58* and *102* sequences are selected from *100* and *300* video sequences from OTB2015 and ALOV++ respectively. The videos inside which the target instances are not covered by Microsoft COCO\u2019s *80* categories are omitted. For each video, the first frame in which the query instance is given by a bounding box is extracted as the query side. For the rest, one frame is extracted for every other *4* frames as the reference dataset. This results in *11,885* reference images in total. Sample queries are seen in Fig. \\[fig:query\\](a). The distribution about the number of true-positives for all queries are shown in Fig. \\[fig:query\\](b). As shown in the figure, more than *90%* of the queries have more than *20* true-positives for each.\n\nExperiments\n===========\n\nIn this section, the proposed approach for instance search is evaluated on the dataset introduced in Section\u00a0\\[sec:data\\]. Additionally, in order to verify the scalability of the presented approach, another *1* million images randomly crawled from Flickr are incorporated as distractors. The performance evaluation is studied in comparison to several representative approaches. They are BoVW\u00a0[@Sivic03], BoVW+HE\u00a0[@Jegou08], R-MAC\u00a0[@Tolias15], Deepvision\u00a0[@Salvador16] and CroW\u00a0[@Kalantidis16]. The last three are based on deep features. For each CNN-based method, the network is initialized with the default pre-trained model and configuration described in the corresponding paper. For BoVW and BoVW+HE, the same visual vocabulary sized of *65,536* are used. The binary signature in HE is set to *64* bits. The performance is measured by mAP at top-*k*, where *k* varies from *10* to *100*. This is due to the fact that more than *95%* the queries have more than *10* corresponding true-positives as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:query\\](b).\n\nUnder the same training protocol introduced in\u00a0[@Li17], the feasibility of the proposed enhancement strategies is validated on PASCAL VOC 2012\u00a0[@EveringhamGWWZ10]. Thereby, FCIS and FCIS in-planted with the proposed enhancement strategies are trained on Microsoft COCO 2014\u00a0[@LinMBHPRDZ14]. All the experiments are conducted on a workstation with four Nvidia Titan X GPUs and one *3.20*GHz Intel CPU setup.\n\nConfiguration Test on FCIS\n--------------------------\n\nTheoretically speaking, feature ROI-pooled from any layer could be used to represent the detected instance. The distinctiveness of these features varies from layer to layer. In the first experiment, the distinctiveness of instance-wise representation that are extracted from different layers is studied. The feature representation with the best distinctiveness (reflected by the highest mAP) is selected as the final feature representation. Additionally, we also investigate the possibility of concatenating features from different layers.\n\n![Performance of deep features extracted from different stages\u2019 convolution layer, including experiments with feature concatenation.[]{data-label=\"fig:baseline\"}](baseline){width=\"0.84\\linewidth\"}\n\nAccording to our observation, the category label for the segmented instance from FCIS is in high accuracy. It is therefore could be adopted for early pruning. Namely, the instance query only needs to compare with the candidate instances which share the same category label. Such pruning strategy speeds up the retrieval by two times without notable drop in mAP. In the following experiments, pruning scheme is adopted as default configuration for our approach.\n\nIn the first experiment, the distinctiveness of features from different layers of FCIS network is studied. We also investigate the performance of hybrid features that combining features from two layers. Feature derived from the \u201cconv\u201d (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:framework\\]) layer is given as comparison baseline.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:baseline\\] summarizes the performance with features extracted from different stages. In the figure, mAP@*10* and mAP@*20* for all the configurations are low since not all potential true-positives are considered due to the fact that *90%* queries have more than *20* true-positives (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:query\\](b)). As expected, features derived from intermediate layers perform better over feature from baseline (\u201cconv\u201d). Performance drops when features are derived from the shallow layers, such as \u201cconv2\u201d and \u201cconv3\u201d. This basically indicates that it is sub-optimal to employ representations only kept with local visual patterns. As seen in the figure, all three different combinations between features from different layers lead to better results. The combination of features from \u201cconv3\u201d and \u201cconv4\u201d achieves the best performance. As revealed in later experiment, this observation is consistent even we change the back-bone network from ResNet to ResNeXt.\n\nFCIS+XD versus FCIS\n-------------------\n\nIn this section, we are going to investigate the performance achieved by two enhancement strategies proposed in Section\u00a0\\[sec:boost\\]. Since FCIS is primarily designed for instance segmentation, the effectiveness of the enhanced FCIS network is studied first on instance segmentation task. In the experiment, the performance of FCIS with ResNeXt back-bone network and deformable convolution layer are studied both as separate runs and as a combination. FCIS supported with deformable convolution is denoted as FCIS+D. FCIS supported with ResNeXt-101 is denoted as FCIS+X. FCIS+XD denotes that FCIS powered by both enhancement strategies.\n\nThe performance evaluation is conducted on PASCAL VOC 2012\u00a0[@EveringhamGWWZ10] and Microsoft COCO 2014 test-dev\u00a0[@LinMBHPRDZ14]. $mAP^r@r$ is adopted for the evaluation. It basically calculates the mean of Average Precision (AP) measured for a method for which the corresponding recall exceeds *r*. Notice that it is essentially different from mAP that we use to evaluate the instance search performance.\n\nThe performance of instance segmentation using FCIS and its variants is summarized in Table\u00a0\\[tab:segmentation\\_voc\\] and Table\u00a0\\[tab:segmentation\\_coco\\]. On the two datasets PASCAL VOC 2012 and Microsoft COCO 2014, both networks individually supported by deformable convolution layers and ResNeXt bottle-neck blocks (denoted as FCIS+D and FCIS+X respectively) are able to achieve better results in comparison to original FCIS architecture. When both of these enhancement strategies are adopted (given as FCIS+XD), the best segmentation accuracy is attained. As we verified on PASCAL VOC 2012 and Microsoft COCO 2014, the segmentation accuracy of FCIS is relatively improved by *2.7%* and *5.5%* measured with mAP$^r$@0.5 respectively by FCIS+XD. Such results indicate that the enhancement strategies proposed in Section\u00a0\\[sec:boost\\] are all effective in boosting the performance of instance segmentation task.\n\n![Performance of FCIS, FCIS+D, FCIS+D and FCIS+XD with the hybrid features from different layers. The performance is measured by mAP at top-*50* on *Instance-160*.[]{data-label=\"fig:modification\"}](modification){width=\"0.78\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn addition, we further study the performance of the features derived from FCIS+D, FCIS+X and FCIS+XD when they are adopted for instance search task. Similar as FCIS, the other three networks are trained on Microsoft COCO 2014\u00a0[@LinMBHPRDZ14]. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:modification\\] presents the performance of FCIS and its variants on *Instance-160*. mAPs at top-*50* are presented. Since hybrid features from different layers are always better than the ones from single layer, the results of features derived from single layer are omitted. As seen from the figure, hybrid features from \u201cconv3 + conv4\u201d achieve the best result. This is consistent with the observation on the results shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:baseline\\]. In the following experiments, hybrid feature from \u201cconv3\u201d and \u201cconv4\u201d is selected as the feature representation for each detected instance.\n\nTable\u00a0\\[tab:self-cmpr\\] further shows the performance of FCIS and its enhancements on *Instance-160*. For all different networks, the features are extracted from \u201cconv3\u201d and \u201cconv4\u201d. Due to the high accuracy on instance level segmentation, superior performance is observed with FCIS+XD across all the rankings. It outperforms FCIS by a constant *2-3%* margin. In the rest of our experiments, FCIS with ResNeXt back-bone network and deformable convolution, namely FCIS+XD is selected as the standard configuration for our approach.\n\nComparison to State-of-the-art Approaches\n-----------------------------------------\n\nIn this section, the performance of proposed FCIS+XD is studied in comparison to five representative approaches in the literature. They are two local feature based approaches BoVW\u00a0[@Sivic03] and BoVW+HE\u00a0[@Jegou08] and three deep feature based approaches R-MAC\u00a0[@Tolias15], Deepvision\u00a0[@Salvador16] (denoted as DV-Vgg) and CroW\u00a0[@Kalantidis16]. For Deepvision, the search is carried out in two steps. In the first step, the top-ranked candidates are produced by image level comparison. In the second step, instance level search is carried out on the top-*100* candidates. In order to make a more fair comparison between Deepvision and our approach, another run is also conducted for Deepvision. In this new run, back-bone network of Deepvision is replaced by ResNet-101, which becomes the same as FCIS. The filtering scheme in the first step is disabled. This run is denoted as DV-Res.\n\nTable\u00a0\\[tab:comparison\\] shows the performance from all approaches. As seen from the table, DV-Vgg and FCIS+XD show considerably better performance than the rest. BoVW+HE still shows competitive performance in comparison to deep feature approaches such as R-MAC and CroW. Although the results from Deepvision are very close to FCIS+XD, they do not reflect real behavior of Deepvision. In *Instance-160*, the videos are primarily collected from visual tracking evaluation. In many cases, the query instance shares similar background scene as the reference images. So that true instances are retrieved by Deepvision due to their similar background. For this reason, the image-wise feature representation in Deepvision still works seemingly well. However, the performance of Deepvision drops considerably when the target instances are cluttered in different backgrounds. This will be confirmed by another experiment afterwards. Another disadvantage for Deepvision lies in its low accuracy of generated instance bounding box. As shown in the table, the mAP of DV-Res is even lower than original FCIS (see Table\u00a0\\[tab:self-cmpr\\]) although it is already powered by ResNet. This is mainly caused by its imprecise feature representation of each instance. In contrast, FCIS+XD is able to generate precise instance-level bounding-boxes owing to its precise object category-level classification and pixel-level mask prediction.\n\nIn order to further confirm our observation about Deepvision, *40* queries from *Instance-160*, in which severe background variations are observed, are selected to verify its real behavior. Table \\[tab:subset\\] shows the performance of FCIS, FCIS+XD and Deepvision on *40* queries. As observed from the table, the performance of Deepvision drops considerably compared to that of Table\u00a0\\[tab:comparison\\]. As the background scenes from the instance query and the reference images are dissimilar, the first round search in Deepvision becomes ineffective since it is based on image-wise feature. As the consequence, decent results are not expected from the re-ranking stage since many true-positives are already missed in the first stage. Another disadvantage of this approach is that one has to keep two types of features. One is on image level, another is on region level, which induce heavy computational overhead.\n\nScalability Test\n----------------\n\n![Scalability test in comparison to five state-of-the-art approaches. The performance is measured by mAP at top-*50*.[]{data-label=\"fig:distract\"}](distract){width=\"0.8\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn this section, the scalability of the proposed feature representation is studied. In the experiment, *1* million distractor images are added in the reference set. The same processing pipeline is undertaken on this *1* million images. In the experiment, five representative approaches are considered. For FCIS+XD, *1,648,654* instances are extracted from the distractor images, each of which is represented as an *1,536*-dimensional feature vector.\n\nAs seen from Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:distract\\], FCIS+XD shows the best scalability. It outperforms Deepvision by a constant margin. As the computation cost is high and the results from BoVW, BoVW+HE, R-MAC, CroW and DV-Res are already much poorer than FCIS+XD and Deepvision (DV-Vgg) with 100K distractors, further verification on the whole *1* million distractors is not carried out for these approaches. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:result\\] shows six instance search results produced by FCIS+XD. As shown in the figure, all the top-*8* results for each individual query are meaningful. Although a few false-positive instances are returned, they indeed exhibit very close appearance as the query.\n\n![Top-*8* search results of six sample queries produced by FCIS+XD with *1* million distractor images.[]{data-label=\"fig:result\"}](result){width=\"0.98\\linewidth\"}\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe have presented a promising way of instance level feature representation for instance search. This representation is built upon a fully convolutional network that is originally used for instance segmentation. With the precise instance segmentation, the feature is derived by ROI pooling on the feature maps. To further boost its performance, two enhancement strategies are proposed. The distinctiveness and scalability of this feature have been comprehensively studied. As shown in the experiment, it outperforms most of the representative approaches in the literature. Considering the lack of publicly available evaluation benchmark, a medium-scale dataset for instance search is introduced by harvesting videos from object tracking benchmarks. Currently, the types of instances that our approach could handle with are restricted to Microsoft COCO-*80* categories. Although it already covers variety of instances that we encounter in the daily life, exploring more generic instance segmentation model that works beyond *80* categories will be our future research focus.\n\nAcknowledgments\n===============\n\nThis work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants 61572408 and grants of Xiamen University 0630-ZK1083.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'A connected graph $G$ with at least $2m + 2n + 2$ vertices which contains a perfect matching is $E(m, n)$-[*extendable*]{}, if for any two sets of disjoint independent edges $M$ and $N$ with $|M| = m$ and $|N|= n$, there is a perfect matching $F$ in $G$ such that $M\\subseteq F$ and $N\\cap F=\\emptyset$. Similarly, a connected graph with at least $n+2k+2$ vertices is called $(n,k)$-[*extendable*]{} if for any vertex set $S$ of size $n$ and any matching $M$ of size $k$ of $G-S$, $G-S-V(M)$ contains a perfect matching. Let $\\varepsilon$ be a small positive constant, $b(G)$ and $t(G)$ be the binding number and toughness of a graph $G$. The two main theorems of this paper are: for every graph $G$ with sufficiently large order, 1) if $b(G)\\geq 4/3+\\varepsilon$, then $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable and also $(n,k)$-extendable; 2) if $t(G)\\geq 1+\\varepsilon$ and $G$ has a high connectivity, then $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable and also $(n,k)$-extendable. It is worth to point out that the binding number and toughness conditions for the existence of the general matching extension properties are almost same as that for the existence of perfect matchings.'\nauthor:\n- 'Hongliang Lu[^1]'\n- 'Qinglin Yu[^2]'\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\nnocite: '[@*]'\ntitle: 'Binding Number, Toughness and General Matching Extendability in Graphs'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:in}\n============\n\nIn this paper, we only consider simple connected graphs. Let $G$ be a graph with vertex set $V(G)$ and edge set $E(G)$. A *matching* is a set of independent edges and we often refer a matching with $k$ edges as a $k$-[*matching*]{}. For a matching $M$, we use $V(M)$ to denote the set of the endvertices of the edges in $M$ and $|M|$ to denote the number of edges in $M$. A matching is called a *perfect matching* if it covers all vertices of graph $G$. For $S\\subseteq V(G)$, we write $G[S]$ for the subgraph of $G$ induced by $S$ and $G - S$ for $G[V(G)\\backslash S]$. The number of odd components (i.e., components with odd order) and the number of components of $G$ are denoted by $c_0(G)$ and $c(G)$, respectively. Let $N_G(S)$ denote the set of neighbors of a set $S$ in a graph $G$, and $\\kappa(G)$ denote the vertex connectivity of graph $G$.\n\nLet $M$ be a matching of $G$. If there is a matching $M'$ of $G $ such that $M\\subseteq M'$, we say that $M$ can be extended to $M'$ or $M'$ is an *extension* of $M$. Suppose that $G$ is a connected graph with perfect matchings. If each $k$-matching can be extended to a perfect matching in $G$, then $G$ is called *$k$-extendable*. To avoid triviality, we require that $|V(G)|\\geq  2k+2$ for $k$-extendable graphs. This family of graphs was introduced and studied first by [@Pl80]. A graph $G$ is called [*$n$-factor-critical*]{} if after deleting any $n$ vertices the remaining subgraph of $G$ has a perfect matching, which was introduced in [@Yu] and was a generalization of the notions of the well-known factor-critical graphs and bicritical graphs (the cases corresponding to $n = 1$ and $2$, respectively). Note that every connected factor-critical graph is 2-edge-connected (see [@Yu]).\n\nLet $G$ be a graph and let $n, k$ be nonnegative integers such that $|V(G)|\\geq  n+2k+2$ and $|V(G)|-n \\equiv 0 \\pmod{2}$. If deleting any $n$ vertices from $G$ the remaining subgraph of $G$ contains a $k$-matching and moreover, each $k$-matching in the subgraph can be extended to a perfect matching, then $G$ is called *$(n, k)$-extendable* ([@LY01]). This term can be considered as a general framework to unify the concepts of $n$-factor-criticality and $k$-extendability. In particular, $(n, 0)$-extendable graphs are exactly $n$-factor-critical graphs and $(0, k)$-extendable graphs are the same as $k$-extendable graphs. A graph is called *$E(m,n)$-extendable* if deleting edges of any $n$-matching, the resulted graph is $m$-extendable ([@PA96]). $E(m,0)$-extendability is equivalent to $m$-extendability, and $(n,k)$-extendability and $E(m, n)$-extendability are referred as general matching extensions, which are widely studied in graph theory (see [@Plu94; @Plu96; @Plu]).\n\nFor a non-complete graph $G$, its *toughness* is defined by $$t(G) = \\min_{S\\subset V(G)} \\frac{|S|}{c(G-S)}$$ where $S$ is taken over all cut-sets of $G$. The *binding number* $b(G)$ is defined to be the minimum, taken over all $S\\subseteq V (G)$ with $S\\neq \\emptyset$ and $N_G(S)\\neq V (G)$, of the ratios $\\frac{|N_G(S)|}{|S|}$.\n\nToughness and binding number have been effective graphic parameters for studying factors and matching extensions in graphs. For instances, 1-tough graphs guarantee the existence of perfect matchings (see [@Chvatal73]) and graphs with $b(G) \\geq \\frac{4}{3}$ contain perfect matchings (see [@Wood73]). There are sufficient conditions with respect to $t(G)$ and $b(G)$ in terms of $m, n, k$ to ensure the existences of $k$-extendability, $E(m,n)$-extendability and other matching extensions (see [@Chen95; @LY98; @Plu88; @Plu]). Moreover, [@RW02] proved a remarkable result that a graph with $b(G)$ slightly greater than $\\frac{4}{3}$ ensure $k$-extendability if the order of $G$ is sufficiently large. Recently, [@PS2016] extended this result to $E(m,n)$-extendability. In this paper, we continue the study in this direction and prove that the essential bounds of $t(G)$ and $b(G)$ (i.e., $1$ and $\\frac{4}{3}$) which guarantee the existence of a perfect matching can also ensure the existence of all general matching extensions mentioned earlier.\n\n[@Tutte47] gave a characterization for a graph to have a perfect matching.\n\n\\[Tutte\\] Let $G$ be a graph with even order. Then $G$ contains a perfect matching if and only if for any $S\\subseteq V(G)$ $$c_0(G-S)\\leq |S|.$$\n\nThe following result is an extension of Tutte\u2019s theorem and also a lean version of a comprehensive structure theorem for matchings, due to Gallai (1964) and Edmonds (1965). See [@LoPl86] for a detailed statement and discussion of this theorem.\n\n\\[GE645\\] Let $G$ be a graph with even order. Then $G$ contains no perfect matchings if and only if there exists a set $S\\subset V(G)$ such that $$fc(G-S)\\ge |S|+2,$$ where $fc(G-S)$ denotes the number of factor-critical components of $G-S$.\n\nThe proofs of the main theorems require the following two results as lemmas.\n\n\\[LY01\\] If $G$ is an $(n, k)$-extendable graph and $n\\geq 1,k\\geq 2$, then $G$ is also $(n + 2,\nk-2)$-extendable.\n\n\\[P88\\] If a graph $G$ is connected and $k$-extendable graph ($k \\geq 1$), then $G-e$ is $(k-1)$-extendable for any edge $e$ of $G$.\n\nBinding Number and Matching Extendability {#sec:bing}\n=========================================\n\n[@Chen95] proved that a graph $G$ of even order at least $2m + 2$ is $m$-extendable if $b(G) >\n\\max\\{m, (7m + 13)/12\\}$. [@RW02] proved a stronger result (in most cases). We state their result in a simpler but slightly weaker form below.\n\n\\[Bind-k-ex\\] For any positive real number $\\varepsilon$ and nonnegative integer $m$, there exists an integer $N = N(\\varepsilon, m)$ such that every graph $G$ of even order greater than $N$ and $b(G)>4/3 + \\varepsilon$ is $m$-extendable.\n\nIn this section, we extend the above result using a different proof technique.\n\n\\[Thm2-1\\] Let $k,g$ be two positive integers such that $g\\geq 3$ and let $g_0=2\\lfloor\\frac{g}{2}\\rfloor+1$. For any positive real number $\\varepsilon<\\frac{1}{g_0}$, there exists $N=N(\\varepsilon, k, g_0)$ such that for every graph $G$ with order at least $N$ and girth $g$, if $b(G)>\\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\\varepsilon$, then $G$ is $k$-extendable.\n\nSuppose that the result does not hold. Then there exists a graph $G$ with order at least $N$ and $b(G)> \\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\\varepsilon$ such that $G$ is not $k$-extendable. By the definition of $k$-extendable graphs, there exists a $k$-matching $M$ such that $G-V(M)$ contains no perfect matchings. From Theorem \\[GE645\\], there exists $S\\subset V(G)-V(M)$ such that $$fc(G-V(M)-S)= s+q,$$ where $q\\geq 2$ is even by parity and $s:=|S|$. Let $C_1,\\ldots, C_{s+q}$ denote these factor-critical components of $G-S-V(M)$ such that $|C_1|\\leq \\cdots\\leq |C_{s+q}|$. Without loss of generality, we assume $|C_1|=\\ldots =|C_l|=1$. Note that $|C_i| \\geq 3$ implies $g(C_i)\\geq g$ as $C_i$ is 2-edge-connected. Thus we have $|C_i|\\geq g_0$ for $l+1\\leq i\\leq s+q$. Write $U=\\cup_{i=2}^{s+q}V(C_i)$ and $W=V(G)-U-S-V(M)$. Note that $V(C_1)\\subseteq W$ and $s+q \\geq 2$. So we have $U \\neq \\emptyset$ and $W\\neq \\emptyset$. One may see that $N(U) \\cap W = \\emptyset$ and $N(W) \\cap U = \\emptyset$. Hence $N(U) \\not= V(G)$ and $N(W) \\not= V(G)$. Denote $r=\\max\\{2,l+1\\}$. Thus we have\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nb(G)&\\leq \\min\\{\\frac{|N(U)|}{|U|},\\frac{|N(W)|}{|W|}\\}\\\\\n&\\leq\\min\\{\\frac{2k+s+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{r-2+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}, \\frac{|G|-\\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}{|G|-2k-s-\\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}\\}\\\\\n&=\\min\\{f,h\\}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $f=\\frac{2k+s+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{r-2+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}$ and $h=\\frac{|G|-\\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}{|G|-2k-s-\\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}$.\n\n**Claim 1.\u00a0** $2k+s > r-2$.\n\nThis claim is implied by the following inequality: $$\\begin{aligned}\n1<\\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\\varepsilon < b(G) \\leq f = \\frac{2k+s+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{r-2+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|},\\end{aligned}$$\n\n**Claim 2.\u00a0** $\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|< g_0(2k+s)$.\n\nSuppose that $\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|\\ge g_0(2k+s)$. By Claim 1, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nb(G)\\leq f&\\leq \\frac{2k+s+g_0(2k+s)}{r-2+g_0(2k+s)}\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{2k+s+g_0(2k+s)}{g_0(2k+s)}\\\\\n&= \\frac{g_0+1}{g_0},\\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction.\n\n**Claim 3.\u00a0** $s< \\max\\{2(g_0-1)k,\\frac{2k}{g_0\\varepsilon}\\}$.\n\nSuppose that $s\\ge \\max\\{2(g_0-1)k,\\frac{2k}{g_0\\varepsilon}\\}$. Since $s\\geq 2(g_0-1)k$, we infer that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{g0-ratio}\n\\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k}{g_0s}\\leq\\frac{g_0}{g_0-1}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIf $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{small-s}\n\\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\\varepsilon < \\frac{(g_0+1)s+2k}{g_0s},\\end{aligned}$$ then $s<\\frac{2k}{g_0\\varepsilon}$, a contradiction. So it is enough for us to show (\\[small-s\\]). Consider $q< r-1$. Then we infer that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\\varepsilon < f &\\leq \\frac{2k+s+g_0(s+q-r+1)}{r-2+g_0(s+q-r+1)} \\quad\\quad\\mbox{(by Claim 1 and $\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i| \\ge g_0(s+q-r+1)$})\\\\\n&=\\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k+g_0(q-r+1)}{g_0s+g_0(q-r+1)+r-2}\\\\\n&<\\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k+g_0(q-r+1)}{g_0s+g_0(q-r+1)+r-1-q} \\\\\n&=\\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k-g_0(r-1-q)}{g_0s-(g_0-1)(r-1-q)}\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{(g_0+1)s+2k}{g_0s}. \\quad\\quad\\mbox{(by (\\ref{g0-ratio}) and $g_0s+g_0(q-r+1)>q-r+1$)}\\end{aligned}$$ Next, we consider $q\\ge r-1$, then $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\\varepsilon < f &\\leq \\frac{2k+s+g_0(s+q-r+1)}{r-2+g_0(s+q-r+1)} \\quad\\quad\\mbox{(by Claim 1 and $\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i| \\ge g_0(s+q-r+1)$})\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{2k+s+g_0(s+q'-r+1)}{r-2+g_0(s+q'-r+1)} \\quad\\quad\\mbox{(for any $q'$ satisfying $q \\geq q' \\geq r-1$}) \\\\\n&=\\frac{s(g_0+1)+2k}{g_0s+r-2}\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{(g_0+1)s+2k}{g_0s}.\\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of Claim 3.\n\n**Claim 4.\u00a0** $l< \\max\\{2g_0k+1,\\frac{2k}{g_0\\varepsilon}+1\\}$.\n\nSuppose that $l\\ge \\max\\{2g_0k+1,\\frac{2k}{g_0\\varepsilon}+1\\}$. From Claim 3, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{s-upp}\ns<\\max\\{2(g_0-1)k,\\frac{2k}{g_0\\varepsilon}\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ From (\\[s-upp\\]), we see $l\\geq s+1$ and thus $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\\varepsilon < \\ f & = \\frac{2k+s+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{r-2+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}\\\\\n&=\\frac{2k+s+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{l-1+\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{2k+s}{l-1} \\quad \\quad \\mbox{(by Claim 1)}\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{2k+l-1}{l-1}\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}, \\quad \\quad \\mbox{(since $l\\geq 2g_0k+1$)}\\end{aligned}$$ a contradiction.\n\nFrom Claim 2, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{sum-Ci}\n\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|< g_0(2k+s).\\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\\varepsilon < h&=\\frac{|G|-\\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}{|G|-2k-s-\\sum_{i=2}^{s+q} |C_i|}\\\\\n&= \\frac{|G|-(r-2)-\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}{|G|-2k-s-(r-2)-\\sum_{i=r}^{s+q} |C_i|}\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{|G|-(r-2)-g_0(2k+s)}{|G|-2k-s-(r-2)-g_0(2k+s)} \\quad\\mbox{(by (\\ref{sum-Ci}))}\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{|G|-l-g_0(2k+s)}{|G|-2k-s-l-g_0(2k+s)} \\quad\\mbox{(since $r=\\max\\{2, l+1\\}\\le l+2$)}\\\\\n&= \\frac{|G|-2kg_0-g_0s-l}{|G|-2k-2kg_0-(g_0+1)s-l},\\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{contra}\n\\frac{g_0+1}{g_1}+\\varepsilon < \\frac{|G|-2kg_0-g_0s-l}{|G|-2k-2kg_0-(g_0+1)s-l}.\\end{aligned}$$ Claims 2 and 3 imply that $s, l$ are bounded, therefore $$\\lim_{|G|\\rightarrow \\infty}  \\frac{|G|-2kg_0-g_0s-l}{|G|-2k-2kg_0-(g_0+1)s-l}=1.$$\n\nFor a large $N$, (\\[contra\\]) leads to a contradiction when $|G|>N$. This completes the proof.\n\nClearly, Theorem \\[Thm2-1\\] is a generalization of Theorem \\[Bind-k-ex\\]. For connected graphs $G$, the girth $g$ of $G$ is at least three. Setting $g_0=3$, we obtain the following results regarding the general matching extensions (i.e., stronger properties).\n\n\\[bind-n-k-ex\\] Let $n, k$ be two positive integers. For any $\\varepsilon<1/3$, there exists $N=N(\\varepsilon,n,k)$ such that if $b(G)>\\frac{4}{3}+\\varepsilon$ and the order of $G$ is at least $N$, then $G$ is $(n,k)$-extendable.\n\nSince $b(G)>\\frac{4}{3}+\\varepsilon$, by Theorem \\[Bind-k-ex\\], for a sufficiently large $|G|$, $G$ is $(k+2n)$-extendable or $(0, k+2n)$-extendable. By Theorem \\[LY01\\], $G$ is $(n,k)$-extendable.\n\nWith similar discussion as in Corollary \\[bind-n-k-ex\\], we can deduce $E(m, n)$-extendability with the same conditions, which is a result proved in [@PS2016] but here we gave a much shorter proof.\n\n\\[bind-E(m,n)\\] Let $m,n$ be two positive integers. For any $\\varepsilon<\\frac{1}{3}$, there exists $N=N(\\varepsilon,m,n)$ such that for every graph $G$ with order at least $N$, if $b(G)>\\frac{4}{3}+\\varepsilon$, then $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable.\n\nSince $b(G)>\\frac{4}{3}+\\varepsilon$, by Theorem \\[Bind-k-ex\\], for a sufficiently large $|G|$, $G$ is $(m+n)$-extendable. Let $M = \\{e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_n\\}$ be any $n$-matching. By Theorem \\[P88\\], $G_1=G-e_1$ is $(m+n-1)$-extendable. Applying Theorem \\[P88\\] recursively, we conclude that $G_n=G-\\{e_1, e_2, \\dots, e_n\\}$ is $m$-extendable, that is, $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable.\n\n**Remark:** Clearly, Corollaries \\[bind-n-k-ex\\] and \\[bind-E(m,n)\\] can be easily stated in terms of the more general condition $b(G)>\\frac{g_0+1}{g_0}+\\varepsilon$. However, without the parameter $g$, the results look more neatly.\n\nToughness and Matching Extendability {#sec:toughness}\n====================================\n\nIt is not hard to construct examples with any given large toughness, but do not have $(n, k)$-extendability or $E(m, n)$-extendability. Therefore toughness alone is insufficient to guarantee the general matching extension properties. However, with an additional condition in terms of connectivity, it only requires slightly large than 1-toughness to deduce the desired matching extendability.\n\n\\[tough\\] Let $n$ be a positive integer, $\\varepsilon$ be a small positive constant and $G$ be a graph with $t(G)\\geq 1+\\varepsilon$ and $|V(G)|  \\equiv n \\pmod 2$. If $\\kappa(G)>\\frac{(n-2)(1+\\varepsilon)}{\\varepsilon}$, then $G$ is $n$-factor-critical.\n\nSuppose that $G$ is not $n$-factor-critical. By the definition of $n$-factor-critical, there exists a subset $S$ of order $n$ such that $G-S$ contains no perfect matchings. By Theorem \\[Tutte\\], there exists $T\\subseteq V(G)-S$ such that $$q=c_0(G-S-T)\\geq |T|+2.$$ Note that $q\\geq 2$. So $$\\begin{aligned}\n1+\\varepsilon\\leq t(G)&\\leq \\frac{|S|+|T|}{|T|+2}\\\\\n&\\leq\\frac{\\kappa}{\\kappa-n+2}, \\quad \\quad \\mbox{(since $\\kappa \\leq n+|T|$)}\\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\\kappa\\leq \\frac{(n-2)(1+\\varepsilon)}{\\varepsilon},$$ a contradiction. This completes the proof.\n\n**Remark:** The connectivity condition in the theorem is sharp. Let $n,t$ be two positive integers and $\\varepsilon$ be a small constant such that $n+t<\\frac{(n-2)(1+\\varepsilon)}{\\varepsilon}$. Let $G_1 = K_{n+t}$, $G_2 = (t+1)K_1$, and $G_3 = K_{r}$ ($r$ is any positive integer). Define $G = G_1+(G_2 \\cup G_3)$, that is, $G$ is a graph obtained by connecting each vertex in $G_1$ to each vertex in $G_2$ and $G_3$. Let $S=V(G_1)$. Then $S$ is a cut set of $G$ and thus $\\kappa \\leq n+t \\leq \\frac{(n-2)(1+\\varepsilon)}{\\varepsilon}$. It is easy to verify that $$t(G) = \\frac{|S|}{c(G-S)}=\\frac{n+t}{t+2}\\geq 1+\\varepsilon.$$ However, for any set $R$ of $n$ vertices in $S$, $G-R$ has no perfect matchings. So $G$ is not $n$-factor-critical.\\\nFrom Theorem \\[tough\\], it is easy to see the following.\n\nLet $n,k$ be two positive integers. Let $\\varepsilon$ be a positive constant and $G$ be a graph with $t(G)\\geq 1+\\varepsilon$. If $\\kappa(G)>\\frac{(2k-2)(1+\\varepsilon)}{\\varepsilon}$, then $G$ is $k$-extendable.\n\nWith the same arguments as in the proof of Corollary \\[bind-E(m,n)\\], Theorem \\[tough\\] implies the following.\n\nLet $m,n$ be two positive integers. Let $\\varepsilon$ be a positive constant and $G$ be a graph with $t(G)\\geq 1+\\varepsilon$. If $\\kappa(G)>\\frac{(2m+2n-2)(1+\\varepsilon)}{\\varepsilon}$, then $G$ is $E(m,n)$-extendable.\n\n\\[sec:ack\\] The authors are grateful to an anonymous referee for his/her useful suggestions.\n\n\\[sec:biblio\\]\n\n[^1]: Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 11471257 and 11871391.\n\n[^2]: Supported by the Discovery Grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Shanxi Hundred-Talent Program of Shanxi Province.\\\n    Corresponding email: yu@tru.ca\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The large branching ratios for pure annihilation $\\bar{B}_s^0$ $\\to$ $\\pi^+ \\pi^-$ and $\\bar{B}_d^0$ $\\to$ $K^+ K^-$ decays reported by CDF and LHCb collaborations recently and the so-called ${\\pi}K$ and ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ puzzles indicate that spectator scattering and annihilation contributions are important to the penguin-dominated, color-suppressed tree dominated, and pure annihilation nonleptonic $B$ decays. Combining the available experimental data for $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi \\pi$, ${\\pi}K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays, we do a global fit on the spectator scattering and annihilation parameters $X_H({\\rho}_H$, ${\\phi}_H)$, $X_A^i({\\rho}_A^{i},{\\phi}_A^{i})$ and $X_A^f({\\rho}_A^{f},{\\phi}_A^{f})$, which are used to parameterize the endpoint singularity in amplitudes of spectator scattering, nonfactorizable and factorizable annihilation topologies within the QCD factorization framework, in three scenarios for different purpose. Numerically, in scenario II, we get $({\\rho}_A^{i},{\\phi}_A^{i}[^{\\circ}])=(2.88^{+1.52}_{-1.30},-103^{+33}_{-40})$ and $({\\rho}_A^{f},{\\phi}_A^{f}[^{\\circ}])=(1.21^{+0.22}_{-0.25},-40^{+12}_{-8})$ at the $68\\%$ confidence level, which are mainly demanded by resolving ${\\pi}K$ puzzle and confirm the presupposition that $X_A^i\\neq X_A^f$. In addition, correspondingly, the $B$-meson wave function parameter $\\lambda_B$ is also fitted to be $0.18^{+0.11}_{-0.08}\\, MeV$, which plays an important role for resolving both ${\\pi}K$ and $\\pi\\pi$ puzzles. With the fitted parameters, the QCDF results for observables of $B_{u,d}$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays are in good agreement with experimental measurements. Much more experimental and theoretical efforts are expected to understand the underlying QCD dynamics of spectator scattering and annihilation contributions.'\nauthor:\n- Qin Chang\n- Junfeng Sun\n- Yueling Yang\n- Xiaonan Li\ntitle: |\n    Spectator Scattering and Annihilation Contributions\\\n    as a Solution to the ${\\pi}K$ and ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ Puzzles\\\n    within QCD Factorization Approach\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec01}\n============\n\nCharmless hadronic $B$-meson decays provide a fertile ground for testing the Standard Model (SM) and exploring the source of $CP$ violation, which attract much attention in the past years. Thanks to the fruitful accomplishment of BABAR and Belle, the constraints on the sides and interior angles of the unitarity triangle significantly reduce the allowed ranges of some of the CKM elements, and many rare $B$ decays are well measured. With the successful running of LHC and the advent of Belle II at SuperKEKB, heavy flavour physics has entered a new exciting era and more $B$ decay modes will be measured precisely soon.\n\nRecently, the evidence of pure annihilation decays $\\bar{B}_{s}^{0}$ ${\\to}$ ${\\pi}^{+}{\\pi}^{-}$ and $\\bar{B}_{d}^{0}$ ${\\to}$ $K^{+}K^{-}$ are firstly reported by CDF Collaboration [@CDFanni], and soon confirmed by LHCb Collaboration [@LHCbanni]. The Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG) presents their branching ratios [@HFAG] $${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}_{s}^{0}{\\to}{\\pi}^{+}{\\pi}^{-})\n  =(0.73{\\pm}0.14){\\times}10^{-6}\n  \\label{HFAGpipi},$$ $${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}_{d}^{0}{\\to}K^{+}K^{-})\n  =(0.12{\\pm}0.05){\\times}10^{-6}\n  \\label{HFAGKK}.$$ Such results, if confirmed, imply unexpectedly large annihilation contributions in $B$ decays and significant flavour symmetry breaking effects between the annihilation amplitudes of $B_{u,d}$ and $B_{s}$ decays, which attract much attention recently, for instance Refs. [@zhu1; @zhu2; @chang1; @xiao1].\n\nTheoretically, as noticed already in Refs. [@pqcd; @relaRef; @du1; @Beneke2], even though the annihilation contributions are formally $\\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$ power suppressed, they are very important and indispensable for charmless $B$ decays. By introducing the parton transverse momentum and the Sudakov factor to regulate the endpoint divergence, there is a large complex annihilation contribution within the perturbative QCD (pQCD) approach [@pqcd; @relaRef]. The latest renewed pQCD estimations ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}_s^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-)$ $=$ $(5.10^{+1.96+0.25+1.05+0.29}_{-1.68-0.19-0.83-0.20}) \\times 10^{-7}$ and ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}_d^0 \\to K^+ K^-)$ $=$ $(1.56^{+0.44+0.23+0.22+0.13}_{-0.42-0.22-0.19-0.09}) \\times 10^{-7}$ [@xiao1] give an appropriate account of the CDF and LHCb measurements within uncertainties. In the QCD factorization (QCDF) framework [@Beneke1], the endpoint divergence in annihilation amplitudes is usually parameterized by $X_{A}(\\rho_A,\\phi_A)$ (see Eq.(\\[XA\\])). The parameters $\\rho_A$ $\\sim$ $1$ and $\\phi_A$ $\\sim$ $-55^{\\circ}$ (scenario S4) [@Beneke2] are adopted conservatively in evaluating the amplitudes of $B$ $\\to$ $PP$ decays, which lead to the predictions ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}_s^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-)$ $=$ $(0.26^{+0.00+0.10}_{-0.00-0.09}) \\times 10^{-6}$ and ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}_d^0 \\to K^+ K^-)$ $=$ $(0.10^{+0.03+0.03}_{-0.02-0.03}) \\times 10^{-6}$ [@Cheng2]. It is obvious that the QCDF prediction of ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}_d^0 \\to K^+ K^-)$ agrees well with the data Eq.(\\[HFAGKK\\]), but the one of ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}_s^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-)$ is much smaller than the present experimental measurement Eq.(\\[HFAGpipi\\]). This discrepancy kindles the passions of restudy on annihilation contributions [@zhu1; @zhu2; @chang1].\n\nAt present, there are two major issues among the well-concerning focus on the annihilation contributions within the QCDF framework, one is whether $X_A(\\rho_A,\\phi_A)$ is universal for $B$ decays, and the other is what its value should be. As to the first issue, there is no an imperative reason for the annihilation parameters $\\rho_A$ and $\\phi_A$ to be the same for different $B_{u,d,s}$ decays, even for different annihilation topologies, although they were usually taken to be universal in the previous numerical calculation for simplicity [@du1; @Beneke2]. Phenomenologically, it is almost impossible to account for all of the well-measured two-body charmless $B$ decays with the universal values of $\\rho_A$ and $\\phi_A$ based on the QCDF approach [@zhu2; @chang1; @Beneke2; @Cheng2]. In addition, the pQCD study on $B$ meson decays also indicate that the annihilation parameters $\\rho_A$ and $\\phi_A$ should be process-dependent. In fact, in the practical QCDF application to the $B$ ${\\to}$ $PP$, $PV$ decays (where $P$ and $V$ denote the light pseudoscalar and vector $SU(3)$ meson nonet, respectively), the non-universal values of annihilation phase $\\phi_A$ with respect to PP and PV final states are favored (scenario S4) [@Beneke2]; the process-dependent values of $\\rho_A$ and $\\phi_A$ are given based on an educated guess [@Cheng2; @Cheng1] or the comparison with the updated measurements [@chang1]; the flavour-dependent values of $\\rho_A$ and $\\phi_A$ are suggested recently in the nonfactorizable annihilation contributions [@zhu2]. In principle the value of $\\rho_A$ and $\\phi_A$ should differ from each other for different topologies with different flavours, but we hope that the QCDF approach can accommodate and predict much more hadronic $B$ decays with less input parameters. So much attention in phenomenological analysis on the weak annihilation $B$ decays is devoted to what the appropriate values of the parameters $\\rho_A$ and $\\phi_A$ should be. This is the second issue. In principle, a large value of $\\rho_A$ is unexpected by the power counting rules and the self-consistency validation within the QCDF framework. The original proposal is that $\\rho_A$ ${\\leq}$ $1$ and an arbitrary strong interaction phase $\\phi_A$ are universal for all decay processes, and that a fine-tuning of the phase $\\phi_A$ is required to be reconciled with experimental data when $\\rho_A$ is significantly larger than 1 [@Beneke2]. The recent study on the annihilation contributions show that $\\rho_A$ $>$ $2$ and ${\\vert}\\phi_A{\\vert}$ $\\geq$ $30^{\\circ}$ are acceptable, even necessary, to reproduce the data for some two-body nonleptonic $B_{u,d,s}$ decay modes [@zhu2; @chang1]. In this paper, we will perform a fitting on the parameters $\\rho_A$ and $\\phi_A$ by considering $B$ ${\\to}$ ${\\pi}{\\pi}$, ${\\pi}K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decay modes, on one hand, to investigate the strength of annihilation contribution, on the other hand, to study their effects on the anomalies in $B$ physics, such as the well-known ${\\pi}K$ and ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ puzzles.\n\nThe so-called ${\\pi}K$ puzzle is reflected by the difference between the direct $CP$ asymmetries for $B^{-}$ ${\\to}$ $K^{-}\\pi^{0}$ and $\\bar{B}^{0}$ ${\\to}$ $K^{-}\\pi^{+}$ decays. With the up-to-date HFAG results [@HFAG], we get $$\\Delta A \\equiv A_{CP}(B^{-} {\\to} K^{-} {\\pi}^{0})\n   - A_{CP}(\\bar{B}^{0} \\to K^{-} \\pi^{+})\n   = (12.2 \\pm 2.2) \\%\n \\label{acppi},$$ which differs from zero by about $5.5\\sigma$. However, the direct $CP$ asymmetries of $A_{CP}(B^{-} \\to K^{-} \\pi^{0})$ and $A_{CP}(\\bar{B}^{0} \\to K^{-} \\pi^{+})$ are expected to be approximately equal with the isospin symmetry in the SM, numerically for instance $\\Delta A \\sim 0.5 \\%$ in the S4 scenario of QCDF [@Beneke2].\n\nThe so-called ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ puzzle is reflected by the following two ratios of the $CP$-averaged branching fractions [@pipipuz]: $$R_{+-}^{\\pi \\pi}\n \\equiv 2 \\Big[\n \\frac{ {\\cal B}(B^{-} \\to \\pi^{-} \\pi^0) }\n      { {\\cal B}(\\bar{B}^{0} \\to \\pi^{+} \\pi^{-}) }\n \\Big]\n \\frac{ \\tau_{B^0} }{ \\tau_{B^+} },\n \\qquad\n R_{00}^{\\pi \\pi}\n \\equiv  2 \\Big[\n \\frac{ {\\cal B}( \\bar{B}^{0} \\to \\pi^0 \\pi^0) }\n      { {\\cal B}( \\bar{B}^{0} \\to \\pi^{+} \\pi^{-}) }\\Big]\n \\label{pipipuzzle}.$$ It is generally expected that branching ratio ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}^{0} \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-) \\gtrsim\n  {\\cal B}(B^{-} \\to \\pi^{-} \\pi^0)$ and ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}^{0} \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-) \\gg\n  {\\cal B}(\\bar{B}^{0} \\to \\pi^0 \\pi^0)$ within the SM. To date, the agreement of $R_{+-}^{\\pi \\pi}$ between the S4 scenario QCDF $R_{+-}^{\\pi \\pi}(\\text{QCDF})$ $=$ $1.83$ [@Beneke2] and the refined experimental data $R_{+-}^{\\pi \\pi}(\\text{Exp.})$ $=$ $1.99 \\pm 0.15$ [@HFAG] can be achieved consistently within experimental error, while the discrepancy in $R_{00}^{\\pi \\pi}$ between the S4 scenario QCDF $R_{00}^{\\pi \\pi}(\\text{QCDF})$ $=$ $0.27$ (where theoretical uncertainties are unenclosed) [@Beneke2] and the progressive experimental data $R_{+-}^{\\pi \\pi}(\\text{Exp.})$ $=$ $1.99 \\pm 0.15$ [@HFAG] is unexpectedly large.\n\nIt is claimed [@pipipuz] that the so-called ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ puzzle could be accommodated by the nonfactorizable contributions in SM. It is argued [@Cheng1; @pipipuz] that to solve the so-called ${\\pi}K$ puzzle, a large complex color-suppressed tree amplitude $C^{\\prime}$ or a large complex electroweak penguin contribution $P_{\\rm EW}^{\\prime}$ or a combination of them are essential. An enhanced complex $P_{\\rm EW}^{\\prime}$ with a nontrivial strong phase can be obtained from new physics effects [@pipipuz]. To get a large complex $C^{\\prime}$, one can resort to spectator scattering and final state interactions [@Cheng1; @Cheng2]. Recently, the annihilation amplitudes with large parameters $\\rho_A$ is suggested to conciliate the recent measurements Eq.(\\[HFAGpipi\\]) and Eq.(\\[HFAGKK\\]), so surprisingly, the ${\\pi}K$ puzzle is also resolved simultaneously [@zhu2]. Theoretically, the power corrections, such as spectator scattering at the twist-3 order and annihilation amplitudes, are important to account for the large branching ratios and $CP$ asymmetries of penguin-dominated and/or color-suppressed tree-dominated $B$ decays. So, before claiming a new physics signal, it is essential to examine whether power corrections could retrieve \u201cproblematic\u201d deviations from the SM expectations. Interestingly, our study show that with appropriate parameters, the annihilation and spectator scattering contributions could provide some possible solutions to the $\\pi K$ and $\\pi \\pi$ puzzles.\n\nOur paper is organized as following. In section \\[sec02\\], we give a brief overview of the hard spectator and annihilation calculations and recent studies within QCDF. In section \\[sec03\\], focusing on $\\pi K$ and $\\pi \\pi$ puzzles, the effects of spectator scattering and annihilation contributions on $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays are studied in detail in blue[three]{} scenarios. In each scenario, a fitting on relevant parameters are performed. Our conclusions are summarized in section \\[sec04\\]. Appendix \\[app01\\] recapitulates the building blocks of annihilation and spectator scattering amplitudes. The input parameters and our fitting approach are given in Appendix \\[app02\\] and \\[app03\\], respectively.\n\nBrief Review of Spectator Scattering and Annihilation Amplitudes within QCDF {#sec02}\n============================================================================\n\nThe effective Hamiltonian for nonleptonic $B$ weak decays is [@Buchalla:1996vs] $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\cal H}_{\\rm eff} &=&\n  \\frac{G_F}{\\sqrt{2}}\n  \\sum\\limits_{p,q}\n  V_{pb} V_{pq}^{\\ast}\n  \\Big\\{\n  \\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{10}\n   C_i O_i + C_{7 \\gamma} O_{7 \\gamma}\n   + C_{8g} O_{8g} \\Big\\}\n   + {\\rm h.c.}\n \\label{eq:eff},\n \\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{pb} V_{pq}^{\\ast}$ ($p$ $=$ $u$, $c$ and $q$ $=$ $d$, $s$) is the product of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements; $C_{i}$ is the Wilson coefficient corresponding to the local four-quark operator $O_i$; $O_{7 \\gamma}$ and $O_{8g}$ are the electromagnetic and chromomagnetic dipole operators.\n\n\\\n\nWith the effective Hamiltonian Eq.(\\[eq:eff\\]), the QCDF method has been fully developed and extensively employed to calculate the hadronic two-body $B$ decays, for example, see [@du1; @Beneke1; @Beneke2; @Cheng2]. The spectator scattering and annihilation amplitudes (see Fig.\\[diag\\]) are expressed as the convolution of scattering functions with the light-cone wave functions of the participating mesons [@Beneke1; @Beneke2]. The explicit expressions for the basic building blocks of spectator scattering and annihilation amplitudes have been given by Ref. [@Beneke2], which are also listed in the appendix \\[app01\\] for convenience. With the asymptotic light-cone distribution amplitudes, the building blocks for annihilation amplitudes of Eq.(\\[ai1\\]-\\[af3\\]) could be simplified as [@Beneke2] $$\\begin{aligned}\n  A_1^i & \\simeq & A_2^i \\simeq\n  2 \\pi \\alpha_s \\Big[ 9\\,\\Big( X_A - 4 + \\frac{\\pi^2}{3} \\Big)\n + r_\\chi^{M_1} r_\\chi^{M_2} X_A^2 \\Big]\n \\label{xai12}, \\\\\n  A_3^i & \\simeq &\n  6 \\pi \\alpha_s \\big(r_\\chi^{M_1} - r_\\chi^{M_2} \\big)\n  \\Big( X_A^2 - 2 X_A + \\frac{\\pi^2}{3} \\Big)\n \\label{xai3}, \\\\\n  A_3^f & \\simeq &\n  6 \\pi \\alpha_s ( r_\\chi^{M_1} + r_\\chi^{M_2} )\n  (2 X_A^2 - X_A)\n \\label{xaf3},\n \\end{aligned}$$ where the superscripts $i$ (or $f$) refers to gluon emission from the initial (or final) state quarks, respectively (see Fig.\\[diag\\]). For the $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ final-state, $A_3^i$ is numerically negligible due to $r_\\chi^{M_1}$ $\\simeq$ $r_\\chi^{M_2}$. The model-dependent parameter $X_A$ is used to estimate the endpoint contributions, and expressed as $$\\int_0^1 \\frac{dx}{x} \\to\n X_A = (1+ \\rho_A e^{i\\phi_A})\n \\ln \\frac{m_B}{\\Lambda_h}\n \\label{XA},$$ where $\\Lambda_h$ $=$ $0.5$ GeV. For spectator scattering contributions, the calculation of twist-3 distribution amplitudes also suffers from endpoint divergence, which is usually dealt with the same manner as Eq.(\\[XA\\]) and labelled by $X_H$ [@Beneke2]. Moreover, a quantity $\\lambda_B$ is used to parameterize our ignorance about $B$-meson distribution amplitude \\[see Eq.(\\[hardblock\\])\\] through [@Beneke2] $$\\int_0^1 \\frac{ d \\xi }{\\xi} \\Phi_B(\\xi)\n \\ \\equiv \\ \\frac{m_B}{\\lambda_B}\n \\label{lamdef}.$$\n\nThe QCDF approach itself cannot give information or/and constraint on the phenomenological parameters of $X_A$, $X_H$ and ${\\lambda_B}$. These parameters should be determined from experimental data. To conform with measurements of nonleptonic $B$ ${\\to}$ $PP$ decays, we will adopt a similar method used in Ref.[@zhu2] to deal with the contributions from weak annihilation and spectator scattering. Focusing on the flavor dependence, without consideration of theoretical uncertainties, annihilation contributions are reevaluated in detail [@zhu2] to explain the ${\\pi}K$ puzzle and the recent measurements on pure annihilation decays $\\bar{B}_{s}^{0}$ ${\\to}$ ${\\pi}^{+}{\\pi}^{-}$ and $\\bar{B}_{d}^{0}$ ${\\to}$ $K^{+}K^{-}$ \\[see Eq.(\\[HFAGpipi\\],\\[HFAGKK\\])\\]. The authors of Ref. [@zhu2] find that the flavour symmetry breaking effects should be carefully considered for $B_{u,d,s}$ decays, and suggest that the parameters of $\\rho_A$ and $\\phi_A$ in nonfactorizable annihilation topologies $A^{i}_{k}$ \\[see Eq.(\\[xai12\\],\\[xai3\\])\\] should be different from those in factorizable annihilation topologies $A^{f}_{k}$ \\[see Eq.(\\[xaf3\\])\\]. (1) For factorizable annihilation topologies, i.e., the gluon emission from the final states Fig.\\[diag\\](c,d), the flavor symmetry breaking effects are embodied in the decay constants, because the asymptotic light-cone distribution amplitudes of final states are the same. In addition, all decay constants have been factorized outside from the hadronic matrix elements of factorizable annihilation topologies. So $A^{f}_k$ is independent of the initial state, and is the same for $B_{u,d,s}$ annihilation decays to two light pseudoscalar mesons, that is to say, $\\rho^f_A$ and $\\phi^f_A$ should be universal for $B_{u,d,s}$ $\\to$ $PP$ decays. (2) For nonfactorizable annihilation topologies, i.e., the gluon emission from the initial $B$ meson Fig.\\[diag\\](a,b), besides the factorized decay constants and the same asymptotic light-cone distribution amplitudes, $B$ meson wave functions $\\Phi_{B}(\\xi)$ are involved in the convolution integrals of hadronic matrix elements. Hence, $A^{i}_k$ should depend on the initial state and be different for $B_{u,d}$ from $B_{s}$ meosn due to flavor symmetry breaking effects, i.e., parameters of $\\rho^i_A$ and $\\phi^i_A$ should be non-universal for $B_s$ and $B_{u,d}$ meson decays, and be different from parameters of $\\rho^f_A$ and $\\phi^f_A$ for $A^{f}_k$. In fact, the symmetry breaking effects have been considered in pervious QCDF study on two-body hadronic $B$ decays [@Cheng1; @Cheng2; @Cheng3; @Beneke2; @chang1], but with parameters of $\\rho^f_A$ $=$ $\\rho^i_A$ and $\\phi^f_A$ $=$ $\\phi^i_A$. So, it is essential to systematically reevaluate factorizable and nonfactorizable annihilation contributions and preform a global fit on the annihilation parameters with the current available experimental data. In this paper, we will pay much attention to $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $KK$, ${\\pi}K$, ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ decays and the aforementioned ${\\pi}K$, ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ puzzles with a distinction between ($\\rho^f_A$, $\\phi^f_A$) and ($\\rho^i_A$, $\\phi^i_A$), i.e., $X_A^i$ $\\neq$ $X_A^f$.\n\nAs aforesaid [@Cheng1; @pipipuz], the nonfactorizable spectator scattering amplitudes contribute to a large complex $C^{\\prime}$, which is important to resolve the ${\\pi}K$, ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ puzzles. From the building block Eq.(\\[hardblock\\]), it can be easily seen that $B$ meson wave functions $\\Phi_{B}(\\xi)$ appear in the spectator scattering amplitudes. Therefore, the symmetry breaking effects should also be considered for the quantity $X_H$ that is introduced to parameterize the endpoint singularity in the twist-3 level spectator scattering corrections. Similar to $X_A^i$, the quantity $X_H$ is related to the topologies that gluon emit from the initial $B$ meson. So, for simplicity, the approximation $X_H$ $=$ $X_A^i$ is assumed in our coming numerical evaluation (scenarios I and II, see the next section for detail). Of course, this approximation is neither based on solid ground or from some underlying principle, and should be carefully studied and deserve much research. In fact, our coming phenomenological study (scenarios III) shows that the approximation $X_H$ $=$ $X_A^i$ is allowable with the up-to-date measurement on $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $KK$, ${\\pi}K$, ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ decays. In addition, it can be seen from Eq.(\\[hardblock\\]) that the spectator scattering corrections depend strongly on the inverse moment parameter ${\\lambda}_{B}$ given in Eq.(\\[lamdef\\]). Recently, the value of ${\\lambda}_{B}$ is an increasing concern of theoretical and experimental physicists [@Beneke5; @Beneke4; @Braun; @BaBarBA1; @BaBarBA2; @lambda]. A scrutiny of parameter ${\\lambda}_{B}$ becomes imperative. In this paper, we will give some information on ${\\lambda}_{B}$ required by present experimental data of $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $K \\bar{K}$, ${\\pi}K$, ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ decays.\n\nnumerical analysis and discussions {#sec03}\n==================================\n\nWith the conventions in Ref. [@Beneke2], the decay amplitudes for $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$, $\\pi \\pi $ decays within the QCDF framework can be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B- -> pi- k0\n {\\cal A}_{ B^- \\to \\pi^- \\bar{K}^0 }\n  &=&\n \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{ps}^{\\ast}\n A_{ \\pi K }\n \\Big\\{ \\alpha_{4}^{p} - \\frac{1}{2} \\alpha_{4,{\\rm EW}}^{p}\n + {\\delta}_{pu} \\beta_{2} + \\beta_{3}^{p} +\n \\beta_{3,{\\rm EW}}^{p} \\Big\\}\n \\label{bm2pimkz}, \\\\\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B- -> piz k-\n \\sqrt{2} {\\cal A}_{ B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^- }\n &=&\n \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{ps}^{\\ast}\n \\Big\\{ A_{ \\pi K} \\Big[ \\delta_{pu} ( \\alpha_1 + \\beta_2 )\n + \\alpha_4^p + \\alpha_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p + \\beta_3^p\n + \\beta_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big]\n \\nonumber \\\\\n & & + A_{ K \\pi } \\Big[ \\delta_{pu} \\alpha_2\n + \\frac{3}{2} \\alpha_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big] \\Big\\}\n \\label{amp2}, \\\\\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> pi+ k-\n {\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^- }\n &=& \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{ps}^{\\ast}\n  A_{ \\pi K} \\Big\\{ \\delta_{pu} \\alpha_1\n + \\alpha_4^p + \\alpha_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p\n + \\beta_3^p - \\frac{1}{2} \\beta_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p\n   \\Big\\}\n \\label{amp3}, \\\\\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> pi0 k0\n \\sqrt{2} {\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\bar{K}^0 }\n &=&\n \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{ps}^{\\ast}\n \\Big\\{ A_{ \\pi K} \\Big[ - \\alpha_4^p\n + \\frac{1}{2} \\alpha_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p - \\beta_3^p\n + \\frac{1}{2} \\beta_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big]\n \\nonumber \\\\\n & & + A_{ K \\pi } \\Big[ \\delta_{pu} \\alpha_2\n + \\frac{3}{2} \\alpha_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big] \\Big\\}\n \\label{b02pi0k0}, \\\\\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B- -> k- k0\n {\\cal A}_{ B^- \\to K^0 \\bar{K}^0 }\n &=& \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\\ast}\n A_{ K K} \\Big\\{ \\alpha_4^p\n - \\frac{1}{2} \\alpha_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p\n + \\delta_{pu} \\beta_2 + \\beta_{3}^{p}\n + \\beta_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big\\}\n \\label{bm2kk}, \\\\\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> k+ k-\n {\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to K^- K^+}\n  &=& \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\\ast}\n  \\Big\\{ B_{ \\bar{K} K} \\Big[ \\delta_{pu} b_1 + b_4^p\n  + b_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big] + B_{ K \\bar{K} } \\Big[\n  b_4^p - \\frac{1}{2} b_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big] \\Big\\}\n  \\label{amp4}, \\\\\n  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> k0 k0\n {\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to \\bar{K}^0 K^0}\n  &=& \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\\ast}\n  \\Big\\{ A_{ \\bar{K} K} \\Big[ \\alpha_4^p\n  - \\frac{1}{2} \\alpha_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p + \\beta_3^p\n  + \\beta_4^p - \\frac{1}{2} \\beta_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p\n  - \\frac{1}{2} \\beta_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big]\n  \\nonumber \\\\ & &\n  + B_{ K \\bar{K} } \\Big[\n  b_4^p - \\frac{1}{2} b_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big] \\Big\\}\n  \\label{b02kzkz}, \\\\\n  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B- -> pi- pi0\n \\sqrt{2} {\\cal A}_{ B^- \\to \\pi^- \\pi^0 }\n  &=& \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\\ast}\n  A_{ \\pi \\pi }\n  \\Big\\{ \\delta_{pu} ( \\alpha_1 + \\alpha_2 )\n  + \\frac{3}{2} ( \\alpha_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p\n  + \\alpha_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p) \\Big\\}\n  \\label{amp5}, \\\\\n  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> pi+ pi-\n {\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^- }\n  &=& \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\\ast}\n  A_{ \\pi \\pi }\n  \\Big\\{ \\delta_{pu} ( \\alpha_1 + \\beta_1 )\n  + \\alpha_{4}^p + \\alpha_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p\n  + \\beta_3^p + 2 \\beta_4^p\n  \\nonumber \\\\ & &\n  - \\frac{1}{2} \\beta_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p\n  + \\frac{1}{2} \\beta_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p \\Big\\}\n  \\label{amp6}, \\\\\n  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% B0 -> pi0 pi0\n -{\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\pi^0 }\n  &=& \\sum\\limits_{p=u,c} V_{pb}V_{pd}^{\\ast}\n  A_{ \\pi \\pi } \\Big\\{ \\delta_{pu} ( \\alpha_2 - \\beta_1 )\n  - \\alpha_{4}^p + \\frac{3}{2}\\alpha_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p\n  + \\frac{1}{2} \\alpha_{4,{\\rm  EW}}^p\n  \\nonumber \\\\ & &\n  - \\beta_3^p -2 \\beta_4^p\n  + \\frac{1}{2} \\beta_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p\n  - \\frac{1}{2} \\beta_{4,{\\rm EW}}^p) \\Big\\}\n  \\label{amp7}.\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nFor the sake for convenient discussion, we reiterate the expressions of the annihilation coefficients [@Beneke2], $$\\begin{aligned}\n  {\\beta}_{i}^{p} &=& b_{i}^{p} B_{M_{1}M_{2}}/A_{M_{1}M_{2}}\n   \\label{betai}, \\\\\n   b_{1} &=&\n   \\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\\, C_{1} A_{1}^{i},\n   \\quad \\quad \\quad\n   b_{2} =\n   \\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\\, C_{2} A_{1}^{i}\n   \\label{b12}, \\\\\n   b_{3}^{p} &=&\n   \\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\\,\n   \\Big[ C_{3} A_{1}^{i} + C_{5}( A_{3}^{i} + A_{3}^{f} )\n   +N_{c} C_{6} A_{3}^{f} \\Big]\n   \\label{b3}, \\\\\n   b_{4}^{p} &=&\n   \\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\\,\n   \\Big[ C_{4} A_{1}^{i} + C_6 A_2^i \\Big]\n   \\label{b4}, \\\\\n   b_{3,\\rm EW}^p &=&\n   \\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\\,\n   \\Big[ C_9 A_1^i + C_7 ( A_3^i + A_3^f )\n   + N_c C_8 A_3^f \\Big]\n   \\label{b3ew}, \\\\\n   b_{4,\\rm EW}^p &=&\n   \\frac{C_{F}}{N_{c}^{2}}\\,\n   \\Big[ C_{10} A_1^i + C_8 A_2^i \\Big]\n   \\label{b4ew}.\n   \\end{aligned}$$\n\nNumerically, coefficients of $b_{3,\\rm EW}^p$ and $b_{4,\\rm EW}^p$ are negligible compared with the other effective coefficients due to the small electroweak Wilson coefficients, and so their effects would be not discussed in this paper.\n\nIn order to illustrate the contributions of annihilation and spectator scattering, we explore three parameter scenarios in which certain parameters are changed freely.\n\n-   Scenario I: $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays, including the $\\pi K$ puzzle and pure annihilation decay $B_{d}$ $\\to$ $K^- K^+$, are studied in detail. Combining the latest experimental data on the $CP$-averaged branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$-asymmetries, total 14 observables (see Table.\\[pikbr\\], \\[pikdcp\\], \\[pikmcp\\]) for seven $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$ decay modes \\[see Eq.(\\[bm2pimkz\\]\u2014\\[b02kzkz\\])\\], the fit on four parameters ($\\rho^f_A$, $\\phi^f_A$) and ($\\rho^i_A$, $\\phi^i_A$) is performed with the fixed value $\\lambda_B$ $=$ 0.2 GeV and the approximation ($\\rho_H$, $\\phi_H$) = ($\\rho^i_A$, $\\phi^i_A$), where ($\\rho^f_A$, $\\phi^f_A$), ($\\rho^i_A$, $\\phi^i_A$) and ($\\rho_H$, $\\phi_H$) are assumed to be universal for factorizable annihilation amplitudes, nonfactorizable annihilation amplitudes and spectator scattering corrections, respectively.\n\n-   Scenario II: $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$ and $\\pi \\pi$ decays, including $\\pi \\pi$ puzzle, are studied. Combining the latest experimental data on the $CP$-averaged branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$-asymmetries, total 21 observables (see Table.\\[pikbr\\], \\[pikdcp\\], \\[pikmcp\\]) for ten $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$, $\\pi \\pi$ decay modes \\[see Eq.(\\[bm2pimkz\\]\u2014\\[amp7\\])\\], the fit on five parameters ($\\rho^f_A$, $\\phi^f_A$), ($\\rho^i_A$, $\\phi^i_A$) and $\\lambda_B$ is performed with the approximation ($\\rho_H$, $\\phi_H$) = ($\\rho^i_A$, $\\phi^i_A$).\n\n-   Scenario III: As a general scenario, to clarify the relative strength among ($\\rho^f_A$, $\\phi^f_A$), ($\\rho^i_A$, $\\phi^i_A$) and ($\\rho_H$, $\\phi_H$), and check whether the approximation ($\\rho_H$, $\\phi_H$) = ($\\rho^i_A$, $\\phi^i_A$) is allowed or not, a fit on such six free parameters is performed.\n\nOther input parameters used in our evaluation are summarized in Appendix \\[app02\\]. Our fit approach is illustrated in detail in Appendix \\[app03\\].\n\nScenario I {#sec0301}\n----------\n\nComparing Eq.(\\[amp2\\]) with Eq.(\\[amp3\\]), it can be clearly seen that $\\sqrt{2} {\\cal A}_{ B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-}$ $\\simeq$ ${\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-}$ if $\\delta_{pu} \\alpha_2$ $+$ $\\frac{3}{2} \\alpha_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p$ is negligible compared with $\\delta_{pu} \\alpha_1$ $+$ $\\alpha_4^p$. Hence it is expected $\\Delta A$ $\\simeq$ 0 in SM, which significantly disagrees with the current experimental data in Eq.(\\[acppi\\]), this is the so-called $\\pi K$ puzzle. To resolve the $\\pi K$ puzzle, one possible solution is that there is a large complex contributions from $\\delta_{pu} \\alpha_2$ $+$ $\\frac{3}{2} \\alpha_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p$. Many proposals have been offered, such as the enhancement of color-suppressed tree amplitude $\\alpha_2$ in Ref.[@Cheng1], significant new physics corrections to the electroweak penguin coefficient $\\alpha_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p$ in Ref.[@pipipuz], and so on. Indeed, it has been shown [@Beneke2] that the coefficients $\\alpha_2$ and $\\alpha_{3,{\\rm EW}}^p$ are seriously affected by spectator scattering corrections within QCDF framework. Consequently, the nonfactorizable spectator scattering parameters $X_H$ or ($\\rho_H$, $\\phi_H$) will have great influence on the observable $\\Delta A$. Furthermore, a scrutiny of difference between Eq.(\\[amp2\\]) and Eq.(\\[amp3\\]), another possible resolution to the $\\pi K$ puzzle might be provided by annihilation contributions, such as coefficient $\\beta_2$, as suggested in Ref.[@zhu2]. If so, then $\\Delta A$ will depend strongly on the nonfactorizable annihilation parameters ($\\rho_A^i$, $\\phi_A^i$) because $\\beta_2$ is proportional to $A_1^i$ in Eq.(\\[b12\\]). Additionally, it can be seen from Eq.(\\[amp2\\]) and Eq.(\\[amp3\\]) that annihilation coefficient $\\beta_3^p$ contributes to amplitudes both ${\\cal A}_{ B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-}$ and ${\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-}$. If $\\beta_3^p$ could offer a large strong phase, then its effect should contribute to the direct $CP$ asymmetries $A_{CP}(B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-)$ and $A_{CP}(\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-)$ rather than $\\Delta A$. Due to the fact that the lion\u2019s share of $\\beta_3^p$ comes from $N_{c} C_6 A_3^f$ in Eq.(\\[b3\\]), the direct $CP$ asymmetries $A_{CP}(B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-)$ and $A_{CP}(\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-)$ should vary greatly with the factorizable annihilation parameters $X_A^f$, while $\\Delta A$ should be insensitive to variation of parameters ($\\rho_A^f$, $\\phi_A^f$). The above analysis and speculations are confirmed by Fig.\\[cpanni\\].\n\nFrom Eq.(\\[amp4\\]), it is seen that the amplitude ${\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to K^- K^+}$ depends heavily on coefficients $\\beta_1$ and $\\beta_4^p$, which are closely associated with the nonfactorizable annihilation parameter $X_A^i$ only. The factorizable annihilation contributions vanish due to the isospin symmetry, which is consistent with the pQCD calculation [@xiao1]. The large branching ratio Eq.(\\[HFAGKK\\]) would appeal for large nonfactorizable annihilation parameter $X_A^i$ or $\\rho_A^i$. The dependence of branching ratio ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}^0 \\to K^- K^+)$ on the parameters ($\\rho_A^i$, $\\phi_A^i$) is displayed in Fig.\\[branni\\].\n\n![The dependence of branching ratio ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}^0 \\to K^- K^+)$ on nonfactorizable annihilation parameters ($\\rho_A^i$, $\\phi_A^{i}$). The notes are the same as Fig.\\[cpanni\\].[]{data-label=\"branni\"}](kkphi.pdf){width=\"40.00000%\"}\n\n            $\\rho_H$ $=$ $\\rho_A^i$   $\\phi_H$ $=$ $\\phi_A^i\\,[^{\\circ}]$         $\\rho_A^f$         $\\phi_A^f[^{\\circ}]$\n  -------- ------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------ ----------------------\n  Part A    $2.82^{+2.73}_{-1.15}$            $-108^{+44}_{-50}$            $1.07^{+0.30}_{-0.20}$    $-40^{+10}_{-11}$\n  Part B    $2.86^{+2.68}_{-1.20}$            $-108^{+42}_{-51}$            $2.72^{+0.30}_{-0.22}$     $166^{+3}_{-4}$\n\n  : Numerical results of annihilation parameters in scenario I.[]{data-label=\"pikfit\"}\n\n                                          Exp. [@HFAG]                    scenario I                          scenario II              S4 [@Beneke2]\n  --------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------\n  $B^- \\to \\pi^- \\bar{K}^0$             $23.79 \\pm 0.75$       $20.53^{+1.52+4.28}_{-0.65-3.87}$   $21.54^{+1.60+4.40}_{-0.68-3.99}$      $20.3$\n  $B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-$                $12.94^{+0.52}_{-0.51}$   $11.29^{+0.88+2.14}_{-0.45-1.96}$   $11.78^{+0.92+2.20}_{-0.47-2.01}$      $11.7$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-$          $19.57^{+0.53}_{-0.52}$   $17.54^{+1.34+3.61}_{-0.65-3.27}$   $18.51^{+1.41+3.73}_{-0.67-3.38}$      $18.4$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\bar{K}^0$        $9.93 \\pm 0.49$       $8.05^{+0.60+1.84}_{-0.27-1.65}$    $8.60^{+0.65+1.90}_{-0.29-1.72}$        $8.0$\n  $B^- \\to K^- K^0$                      $1.19 \\pm 0.18$       $1.45^{+0.13+0.32}_{-0.09-0.29}$    $1.51^{+0.13+0.32}_{-0.09-0.29}$       $1.46$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to K^- K^+$                $0.12 \\pm 0.05$       $0.13^{+0.01+0.02}_{-0.01-0.02}$    $0.15^{+0.02+0.02}_{-0.01-0.02}$       $0.07$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to K^0 \\bar{K}^0$          $1.21 \\pm 0.16$       $1.22^{+0.11+0.27}_{-0.08-0.24}$    $1.32^{+0.12+0.27}_{-0.08-0.25}$       $1.58$\n  $B^- \\to \\pi^- \\pi^0$              $5.48^{+0.35}_{-0.34}$    $5.20^{+0.64+1.11}_{-0.47-1.00}$    $5.59^{+0.68+1.15}_{-0.51-1.04}$        $5.1$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-$            $5.10 \\pm 0.19$       $5.88^{+0.66+1.66}_{-0.49-1.45}$    $5.74^{+0.64+1.63}_{-0.47-1.42}$        $5.2$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\pi^0$        $1.91^{+0.22}_{-0.23}$    $1.67^{+0.22+0.25}_{-0.19-0.23}$    $2.13^{+0.29+0.32}_{-0.24-0.29}$        $0.7$\n  $R_{+-}^{\\pi \\pi}$                     $1.99 \\pm 0.15$       $1.64^{+0.06+0.13}_{-0.06-0.11}$    $1.80^{+0.07+0.17}_{-0.07-0.13}$       $1.82$\n  $R_{00}^{\\pi \\pi}$                     $0.75 \\pm 0.09$       $0.57^{+0.06+0.16}_{-0.06-0.12}$    $0.74^{+0.08+0.22}_{-0.08-0.17}$       $0.27$\n\n  : The CP-averaged branching ratios (in units of $10^{-6}$) of $B$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$, $\\pi \\pi$ decays. For the Part A results of scenario I and II, the first and second theoretical uncertainties are caused by the CKM and other input parameters, respectively.[]{data-label=\"pikbr\"}\n\n                                      Exp. [@HFAG]               scenario I                          scenario II              S4 [@Beneke2]\n  --------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------\n  $B^- \\to \\pi^- \\bar{K}^0$          $-1.5 \\pm 1.9$   $-0.05^{+0.00+0.13}_{-0.00-0.15}$   $-0.17^{+0.01+0.14}_{-0.01-0.15}$       $0.3$\n  $B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-$                $4.0 \\pm 2.1$       $3.2^{+0.2+0.6}_{-0.2-0.6}$         $2.5^{+0.1+0.6}_{-0.1-0.6}$         $-3.6$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-$          $-8.2 \\pm 0.6$     $-7.7^{+0.4+0.9}_{-0.4-0.9}$        $-9.1^{+0.4+0.9}_{-0.5-0.9}$         $-4.1$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\bar{K}^0$     $-1 \\pm 10$       $-10.3^{+0.6+0.9}_{-0.6-1.0}$       $-10.6^{+0.6+0.9}_{-0.6-0.9}$         $0.8$\n  $\\Delta A$                         $12.2 \\pm 2.2$     $10.9^{+0.6+0.9}_{-0.5-0.8}$        $11.6^{+0.6+0.9}_{-0.6-0.8}$          $0.5$\n  $B^- \\to K^- K^0$                  $3.9 \\pm 14.1$     $-0.6^{+0.0+3.2}_{-0.0-2.9}$         $2.0^{+0.1+3.4}_{-0.1-3.0}$         $-4.3$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to K^0 \\bar{K}^0$       $-6 \\pm 26$            $-17^{+1+2}_{-1-2}$                 $-16^{+1+2}_{-1-2}$             $-11.5$\n  $B^- \\to \\pi^- \\pi^0$              $2.6 \\pm 3.9$      $-1.1^{+0.1+0.1}_{-0.1-0.1}$        $-1.2^{+0.1+0.1}_{-0.1-0.1}$         $-0.02$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-$          $29 \\pm 5$            $19^{+1+4}_{-1-4}$                  $24^{+2+5}_{-2-4}$              $10.3$\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\pi^0$         $43 \\pm 24$            $46^{+3+6}_{+3-6}$                  $38^{+2+6}_{-2-6}$              $-19.0$\n\n  : The direct CP asymmetries (in units of $10^{-2}$) of $B$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$, $\\pi \\pi$ decays. The notes on uncertainties are the same as Table\\[pikbr\\].[]{data-label=\"pikdcp\"}\n\n                                     Exp. [@HFAG]         scenario I              scenario II       \n  --------------------------------- --------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- --\n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\bar{K}^0$     $57 \\pm 17$     $78^{+3+1}_{-3-1}$      $79^{+3+1}_{-3-1}$    \n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to K^- K^+$                  \u2014          $-86^{+6+0}_{-5-0}$     $-86^{+6+0}_{-5-0}$   \n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to K^0 \\bar{K}^0$      $-108 \\pm 49$    $-10^{+1+0}_{-1-0}$     $-11^{+1+0}_{-1-0}$   \n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-$         $-65 \\pm 6$    $-59^{+11+2}_{-10-3}$   $-60^{+10+2}_{-10-2}$  \n  $\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\pi^0$              \u2014          $77^{+6+1}_{-8-2}$      $77^{+7+1}_{-9-2}$    \n\n  : The mixing-induced $CP$ asymmetries (in units of $10^{-2}$) of $B$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$, $\\pi \\pi$ decays. The notes on uncertainties are the same as Table\\[pikbr\\].[]{data-label=\"pikmcp\"}\n\nTo get more information on annihilation and spectator scattering, we perform a fit on the parameters $X_H$ $=$ $X_A^i$ and $X_A^f$, considering the constraints of the $CP$-averaged branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$-asymmetries, from $B$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$ decays. The experimental data are summarized in the second column of Tables \\[pikbr\\]-\\[pikmcp\\]. Our fitting results are shown by Fig.\\[ParaSpacI\\], and the corresponding numerical results are listed in Table \\[pikfit\\]-\\[pikmcp\\].\n\nIt is found that two possible solutions entitled Part A and B in Table \\[pikfit\\], correspond to almost the same $(\\rho_A^i, \\phi_A^i)$ $\\approx$ $(2.8,-108^{\\circ})$. The large errors on parameter $(\\rho_A^i, \\phi_A^i)$ are mainly caused by the current loose experimental constraints on $CP$ asymmetries measurements for $B$ ${\\to}$ ${\\pi}K$, $K \\bar{K}$ decays. In principle, the pure annihilation $\\bar{B}^0 \\to K^- K^+$ decays whose amplitudes depend predominantly on $(\\rho_A^i, \\phi_A^i)$, besides the decays constants, should give rigorous constraint on $X_A^i$. It\u2019s a pity that the available measurement accuracy on its branching ratio is too poor to efficiently confine $(\\rho_A^i, \\phi_A^i)$ to some tiny spaces. The large $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$ mean large $X_A^i$ and $X_H$, i.e., there must exist large nonfactorizable annihilation and spectator scattering contributions to accommodate the current measurements. Our fit results on parameter $\\rho_A^i$ provide a robust evidence to the educated guesswrok about $\\rho_{Ad}^i$ $=$ 2.5 in Ref.[@zhu2]. In fact, the strong phase $\\phi_A^i$ educed from measurements of branching ratios for $B^0$ $\\to$ $K \\bar{K}$ decays in Ref.[@zhu2] can have either positive or negative values with the magnitudes of $\\gtrsim$ $100^{\\circ}$ (see Fig.5 of Ref.[@zhu2]), where the positive value $\\phi_A^i$ $=$ $+100^{\\circ}$ used in Ref.[@zhu2] will be excluded by our fit with much more experimental data on $B$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$ decays. The large value of $\\phi_A^i$, corresponding to a large imaginary part of the enhanced complex corrections, also lends some support to the pQCD claim that the annihilation amplitudes can provide a large strong phase [@pqcd].\n\nThere are two possible solutions for the factorizable annihilation parameters, namely, Part A $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$ $\\approx$ $(1.1,-40^{\\circ})$ and Part B $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$ $\\approx$ $(2.7,166^{\\circ})$. From Fig.\\[ParaSpacI\\], it can be seen that there is no overlap between the regions of $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$ and $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$ at the 95% confidence level, which indicates that it might be wrong to treat $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$ $=$ $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$ $=$ $(\\rho_A,\\phi_A)$ as universal parameters for nonfactorizable and factorizable annihilation topologies in pervious studies. Our fit results certify the suggestion of Ref.[@zhu1; @zhu2] that different annihilation topologies should be parameterized by different annihilation parameters, i.e., $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$ $\\neq$ $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$. Compared with the results of $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$, the errors on parameter $(\\rho_A^f, \\phi_A^f)$ are relatively small (see Table \\[pikfit\\]), because the available measurements on branching ratios for $B$ ${\\to}$ ${\\pi}K$ decays are highly precise. The conjecture about $(\\rho_A^f, \\phi_A^f)$ in [@zhu2] is somewhat alike to our fit results of Part A.\n\nThe value of term $(2X_A^f-X_A^f)$ in Eq.(\\[af3\\]) is about $(27.2-i26.2)$ with parameters for Part A and $(28.9-i25.5)$ for Part B, that is to say, these two solutions, Part A and B, will present similar factorizable annihilation contributions. Nevertheless, a small value of $\\rho_A^f$ is more easily accepted by the QCDF approach [@Beneke2]. So with the best fit parameters of Part A in Table \\[pikfit\\], we present our evaluations on branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$ asymmetries for $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$, $\\pi \\pi$ decays in the \u201cscenario I\u201d column of Table \\[pikbr\\], \\[pikdcp\\] and \\[pikmcp\\], respectively. For comparison, the results of scenario S4 QCDF [@Beneke2] are also collected in the \u201cS4\u201d column. It is easily found that all theoretical results are in good agreement with experimental data within errors. Especially, the difference $\\Delta A$, which $\\sim$ 0.5% in scenario S4 QCDF, is enhanced to the experimental level $\\sim$ 11%. It is interesting that although $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$ decays are not considered in the \u201cscenario I\u201d fit, all predictions on these decays, including the ratios $R_{+-}^{\\pi\\pi}$ and $R_{00}^{\\pi\\pi}$, are also in good consistence with the experimental measurements within errors, which implies that the $\\pi K$ and $\\pi \\pi$ puzzles could be resolved by annihilation and spectator corrections, at the same time, without violating the agreement of other observables. The reason will be excavated in Scenario II.\n\nScenario II {#sec0302}\n-----------\n\nFrom Eq.(\\[amp5\\]), it is obviously found that the amplitude of $B^-\\to\\pi^-\\pi^0$ decay is independent of annihilation contributions, and dominated by $\\alpha_1$ $+$ $\\alpha_2$. Moreover, comparing Eq.(\\[amp6\\]) with Eq.(\\[amp7\\]), it is easily found that the annihilation contributions are almost helpless for $R_{00}^{\\pi \\pi}$ puzzle due to ${\\cal A}_{B^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^-}^{\\rm anni}$ $\\simeq$ ${\\cal A}_{B^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\pi^0}^{\\rm anni}$. So, the spectator scattering corrections, which play an important role in the color-suppressed coefficient $\\alpha_2$ [@Beneke2; @Cheng1; @Cheng3], would be another important key for the good results of scenario I, especially for $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi\\pi$ decays.\n\nWithin QCDF framework, besides $X_H$, the inverse moment $\\lambda_B$ of $B$ wave function defined by Eq.(\\[lamdef\\]) is another important quantity in evaluating the contributions of spectator scattering. Unfortunately, its value is hardly to be obtained reliably with theoretical methods until now, for instance $350{\\pm}150$ MeV (200 MeV in scenario S2) in Ref.[@Beneke2], $200^{+250}_{-0}$ MeV in Ref.[@Beneke4] and $300{\\pm}100$ MeV in Ref.[@Cheng1], though QCD sum rule prefer $460{\\pm}110$ MeV at the scale of 1 GeV [@Braun]. Experimentally, the upper limit on parameter $\\lambda_B$ are set at the 90% C.L. via measurements on branching fraction of radiative leptonic $B$ $\\to$ $\\ell \\bar{\\nu}_{\\ell} \\gamma $ decay by BABAR collaboration, $\\lambda_B$ $>$ 669 (591) MeV with different priors based on 232 million $B\\bar{B}$ sample where the photon is not required to be sufficiently energetic in order not to sacrifice statistics [@BaBarBA1], and $\\lambda_B$ $>$ 300 MeV based on 465 million $B\\bar{B}$ pairs [@BaBarBA2]. Considering radiative and power corrections, an improved analysis is preformed in Ref.[@Beneke5] with the conclusion that present BABAR measurements cannot put significant constrains on $\\lambda_B$ and that $\\lambda_B$ $>$ 115 MeV from the experimental results [@BaBarBA2]. Anyway, the study of hadronic $B$ decays favors a relative small value of $\\lambda_B$ $\\approx$ 200 MeV to achieve a satisfactory description of color-suppressed tree decay modes [@lambda]. At the present time, the value of $\\lambda_B$ is still a point of controversy. In the following analysis and evaluations, we treat $\\lambda_B$ as a free parameter.\n\n![The dependance of the direct $CP$ asymmetries $A_{CP}(B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-)$, $A_{CP}(\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-)$ and their difference $\\Delta A$ on $\\lambda_B$ (in unites of GeV) with the fitted annihilation parameters of scenario I (Part A). Their experimental results with $1\\sigma$ error are shown by shaded bands with the same color as the lines.[]{data-label=\"LBpik\"}](pikLB.pdf){width=\"30.00000%\"}\n\n\\\n\n                  $\\rho_A^i$         $\\phi_A^i[^{\\circ}]$         $\\rho_A^f$         $\\phi_A^f[^{\\circ}]$    $\\lambda_B$ \\[GeV\\]\n  -------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------\n  Part A    $2.88^{+1.52}_{-1.30}$    $-103^{+33}_{-40}$    $1.21^{+0.22}_{-0.25}$     $-40^{+12}_{-8}$     $0.18^{+0.11}_{-0.08}$\n  Part B    $2.98^{+1.50}_{-1.40}$    $-106^{+35}_{-39}$    $2.78^{+0.29}_{-0.18}$     $165^{+4}_{-3}$      $0.19^{+0.09}_{-0.10}$\n\n  : Numerical results of annihilation parameters and moment parameter $\\lambda_B$ in Scenario II.[]{data-label=\"pipikfit\"}\n\nTo explicitly show the effects of spectator scattering contributions on $\\pi K$ puzzle, dependance of $A_{CP}(B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-)$, $A_{CP}(\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-)$ and their difference $\\Delta A$ on parameter $\\lambda_B$ are displayed in Fig.\\[LBpik\\]. It is found that (1) observables of $A_{CP}(B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-)$ and $\\Delta A$ are more sensitive to variation of $\\lambda_B$ than $A_{CP}(\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-)$ in the region of $\\lambda_B$ $\\geq$ 100 MeV. The reason is aforementioned fact that coefficient $\\alpha_2$ in amplitude ${\\cal A}_{ B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-}$ \\[see Eq.(\\[amp2\\])\\] receives significant spectator scattering corrections. A noticeable change of observables is easily seen in the low region of $\\lambda_B$ because spectator scattering corrections are inversely proportional to $\\lambda_B$ \\[see Eq.(\\[lamdef\\]) and Eq.(\\[hardblock\\])\\]. (2) a relative small value of $\\lambda_B$ $\\in$ \\[150 MeV, 220 MeV\\], as expected in [@lambda], is required to confront with available measurements. Especially, the value $\\lambda_B$ $\\approx$ 190 MeV provides a perfect description of the experimental data on $A_{CP}(B^- \\to \\pi^0 K^-)$, $A_{CP}(\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ K^-)$ and $\\Delta A$ simultaneously. For $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$ decays, from Eqs.(\\[amp5\\]-\\[amp7\\]), it is easily seen that amplitude ${\\cal A}_{ B^- \\to \\pi^- \\pi^0 }$ $\\propto$ $\\alpha_1$ + $\\alpha_2$, ${\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^+ \\pi^- }$ $\\propto$ $\\alpha_1$, ${\\cal A}_{ \\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\pi^0 }$ $\\propto$ $\\alpha_2$. The coefficient $\\alpha_2$, corresponding to the color-suppressed tree contribution, its value is small relative to $\\alpha_1$, so the experimental data on $R_{+-}^{\\pi \\pi}$ can be well explained with scenario S4 QCDF where $X_A^i$ $=$ $X_A^f$ and $\\rho_A^{f,i}$ = 1 (see Table \\[pikbr\\]). But as to observable $R_{00}^{\\pi \\pi}$ or/and branching ratio ${\\cal B}(\\bar{B}^0 \\to \\pi^0 \\pi^0)$, an enhanced $\\alpha_2$ is desirable. Hence, the nonfactorizable spectator scattering contributions, which have significant effects on $\\alpha_2$, would play an important role in studying the color-suppressed tree $B$ decays, and possibly provide a solution to the $\\pi \\pi$ puzzle. The dependencies of the branching fractions of $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi\\pi$ decays and ratios $R_{+-}^{\\pi\\pi}$, $R_{00}^{\\pi\\pi}$ on $\\lambda_B$ are shown in Fig.\\[LBpipi\\] where the fitted parameters of Part A in Table \\[pikfit\\] is used. It is interesting that beside a large value $\\rho_H$, a small value of $\\lambda_B$ $\\sim$ 200 MeV is also required to confront with experimental data on ${\\cal B}(B \\to \\pi \\pi)$, $R_{+-}^{\\pi\\pi}$ and $R_{00}^{\\pi\\pi}$.\n\nWith the available experimental data on $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays, we perform a comprehensive fit on both annihilation parameters ($\\rho_{A}^{i,f}$, $\\phi_{A}^{i,f}$) and $B$-meson wave function parameter $\\lambda_B$. The allowed parameter spaces are shown in Fig.\\[ParaSpacII\\], and the corresponding numerical results are summarized in Table \\[pipikfit\\]. Like scenario I, there are two allowed spaces which are labelled by part A and B. It is easily found that (1) parameters $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$ $=$ $(\\rho_H,\\phi_H)$ are still required to have large values (see Table \\[pipikfit\\]), that is to say, it is necessary for penguin-dominated or color-suppressed tree $B$ decays to own large corrections from nonfactorizable annihilation and spectator scattering topologies. (2) There is still no overlap between the regions of $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$ and $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$ at the 95% confidence level. (3) The cental values of $\\rho_A^{i,f}$ are a little larger than those in scenario I. The uncertainties on $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$ are a little smaller than those in scenario I, because more processes from $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$ decays are considered in fitting and the amplitudes for $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$ decays are sensitive to $X_A^i$ and $X_H$ rather than $X_A^f$. (4) A small value of parameter $\\lambda_B$ $\\leq$ 350 MeV at the 95% confidence level is strongly required to reconcile discrepancies between results of QCDF approach and available experimental data on $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays.\n\nThe two solutions of scenario II, Part A and B, will give similar results, as discussed before. With the best fit parameters of Part A in Table \\[pipikfit\\], we present our evaluations on branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$ asymmetries for $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$, $\\pi \\pi$ decays in the \u201cscenario II\u201d column of Table \\[pikbr\\], \\[pikdcp\\] and \\[pikmcp\\], respectively. It is found that the central values of branching ratios for $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays, expect $\\bar{B}^0$ $\\to$ $\\pi^+ \\pi^-$ decay, with the Part A parameters of scenario II, are a little larger than those of scenario I (see Table \\[pikbr\\]), because a bit larger values of $\\rho_A^{i,f}$ and a bit smaller value of $\\lambda_B$ than those of scenario I are taken in scenario II. Compared with results of scenario S4 QCDF, agreement between theoretical results within two scenarios and experimental measurements is improved, especially for the observables $\\Delta A$, $R_{00}^{\\pi \\pi}$ and $A_{CP}(B^0 \\to \\pi \\pi)$.\n\nScenario III {#sec0303}\n------------\n\nThe above analyses and results are based on the assumption that $X_A^{i}$ $=$ $X_{H}$ (i.e. $(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i})$ $=$ $(\\rho_H, \\phi_H)$) for simplicity. While, there is no compellent requirement for such simplification, except for the fact that wave functions of $B$ mesons are involved in the convolution integrals of both spectator scattering and nonfactorizable annihilation corrections, but are irrelevant to the factorable annihilation amplitudes. So, as a general scenario\u00a0(named scenario III), we would reevaluate the strength of annihilation and hard-spectator contributions without any simplification for the parameters $(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i})$, $(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i})$ and $(\\rho_H, \\phi_H)$.\n\n![The allowed regions of annihilation and hard-spectator parameters ($\\rho_A^{f}$, $\\phi_A^{f}$), ($\\rho_A^{i}$, $\\phi_A^{i}$) and ($\\rho_H$, $\\phi_H$) at $68\\%$ C.L.. The two solutions of ($\\rho_A^{f}$, $\\phi_A^{f}$) and ($\\rho_A^{i}$, $\\phi_A^{i}$) are labeled as Part A, B and $\\rm A^{\\prime}$, $\\rm B^{\\prime}$, respectively.[]{data-label=\"SpecFig\"}](SpecFig.pdf){width=\"35.00000%\"}\n\nConsidering the constraints from observables of $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $K \\bar{K}$, ${\\pi}K$ and ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ decays, a fit for the annihilation and hard-spectator parameters is performed again. In this fit, $(\\rho_A^{f}, \\phi_A^{f})$, $(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i})$ and $(\\rho_H, \\phi_H)$ are treated as six free parameters. Moreover, from the hard-spectator corrections illustrated by Eq. (\\[hardblock\\]), it can be seen that $\\lambda_B$ and $X_H$ are always combined together.\n\nAlthough the inverse moment $\\lambda_B$ of $B$ wave function could be determined or constricted by further experiments [@Beneke5; @BaBarBA1; @BaBarBA2; @lambda], $\\lambda_B$ is more like a free parameter for the moment due to loose limitation on it. So it is impossible to strictly bound on $\\lambda_B$ and $X_H$ simultaneously due to the interference effects between them. In our following fit, we will fix $\\lambda_B=200\\,{\\rm MeV}$. Our fitting results at $68\\%$ C.L. are presented in Fig.\u00a0\\[SpecFig\\], where the range of ${\\phi}$ ${\\in}$ $[-360^{\\circ},0^{\\circ}]$ is assigned to illustrate their relative magnitude. Numerically, we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n &&(\\rho_A^{f}, \\phi_A^{f}[^{\\circ}])=\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{ll}\n & (1.18^{+0.26}_{-0.23}, -40^{+12}_{-8})\\qquad \\text{Part A } \\\\\n& (2.79^{+0.26}_{-0.20}, -196^{+5}_{-3})\\qquad  \\text{Part B } \n  \\end{array} \\right. \\\\\n &&(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i}[^{\\circ}])=\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{ll}\n & (2.85^{+2.18}_{-1.92}, -103^{+52}_{-63})\\qquad   \\text{Part ${\\rm A}^{\\prime}$ } \\\\\n & (6.54^{+1.81}_{-3.30}, -206^{+23}_{-24})\\qquad   \\text{Part ${\\rm B}^{\\prime}$ } \n  \\end{array} \\right. \\\\\n && (\\rho_{H}, \\phi_{H}[^{\\circ}])=(3.09^{+1.64}_{-1.53}, -102^{+40}_{-31})\\,.\n \\label{soluSIII}\n \\end{aligned}$$\n\nIt can be easily seen from Fig.\u00a0\\[SpecFig\\] that: (1) for factorizable annihilation parameters $(\\rho_A^{f}, \\phi_A^{f})$, similar to scenarios I and II, there are two allowed regions (labelled by part A and B); (2) for nonfactorizable annihilation parameters $(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i})$, besides the solution similar to scenarios I and II (labelled by part ${\\rm A}^{\\prime}$), another solution (labelled by part ${\\rm B}^{\\prime}$) with a very large value of $\\rho_A^{i}$ is gotten. (3) It is very intersting that the allowed space of $(\\rho_{H}, \\phi_{H})$ overlaps almost entirely with the \u201cpart ${\\rm A}^{\\prime}$\u201d allowed space of $(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i})$. Moreover, their best-fit points $(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i})$ $=$ $(2.85, -103^{\\circ})$ of \u201cpart ${\\rm A}^{\\prime}$\u201d and $(\\rho_{H}, \\phi_{H})$ $=$ $(3.09, -102^{\\circ})$ are very close to each other. It might imply that the assumption $X_A^{i}$ $(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i})$ $=$ $X_H$ $(\\rho_H, \\phi_H)$ used in scenarios I and II is a good simplification.\n\nWith the best fit parameters in scenarios III, either the small value of $\\rho_A^{i}$ in \u201cpart ${\\rm A}^{\\prime}$\u201d or the large value in \u201cpart ${\\rm B}^{\\prime}$\u201d, our evaluations on branching ratios, direct and mixing-induced $CP$ asymmetries for $B_{u,d}$ ${\\to}$ $\\pi K$, $K \\bar{K}$, $\\pi \\pi$ decays are similar to those given in our scenarios I and II, so no longer listed here. For the two solutions ${\\rm A}^{\\prime}$ and ${\\rm B}^{\\prime}$ of $(\\rho_A^{i}, \\phi_A^{i})$, it is expected by QCDF approach [@Beneke2] that the parameter $\\rho_A^{i}$ should have a small value, which is also favored by our scenarios I and II fit. In fact, such two solutions lead to the same results of $A^{i}_{1,2}$, but the different ones of $A^{i}_{3}$, which principally provides an opportunity to refute one of them. However, because $A^{i}_{3}$ is numerically trivial due to $(r_\\chi^{M_1}-r_\\chi^{M_2}) \\sim 0$ for the light mesons, such way is practically unfeasible for current accuracies of theoretical calculation and experimentally measurement.\n\nConclusions {#sec04}\n===========\n\nThe recent CDF and LHCb measurements of large branching ratios for pure annihilation $\\bar{B}_s^0$ $\\to$ $\\pi^+ \\pi^-$ and $\\bar{B}_d^0$ $\\to$ $K^+ K^-$ decays imply possible large annihilation contributions, which induce us to modify the traditional QCDF treatment for annihilation parameters. Following the suggestion of Ref.[@zhu2], two sets of annihilation parameters $X_A^i$ and $X_A^f$ are used to parameterize the endpoint singularity in nonfactorizable and factorizable annihilation amplitudes, respectively. Besides annihilation effects, the resolution of so-called ${\\pi}K$ and ${\\pi}{\\pi}$ puzzles also expect constructive contributions from spectator scattering topologies. With the approximation of $X_A^i$ $=$ $X_H$, we perform a global fit on both annihilation parameters ($\\rho_{A}^{i,f}$, $\\phi_{A}^{i,f}$) and $B$-meson wave function parameter $\\lambda_B$ based on available experimental data for $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays. Our main conclusions and findings are summarized as:\n\n-   The $95\\%$ C.L. allowed region of $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$ is entirely different from that of $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$. This fact means that the traditional QCDF treatment $(\\rho_A,\\phi_A)$ as universal parameters for different annihilation topologies might be unapplicable to hadronic $B$ decays.\n\n-   The current experimental data on $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays seems to favor a large value of $\\rho_A^i$ $\\sim$ 2.9, which corresponds to a sizable nonfactorizable annihilation contributions. But the range of $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$ is still very large, because the measurement precision of $CP$ asymmetries is low now.\n\n-   There are two possible choices for parameters $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$. One is $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$ $\\sim$ $(1.1,-40^{\\circ})$, the other is $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$ $\\sim$ $(2.7,165^{\\circ})$. These two choices correspond to similar factorizable annihilation contributions, although the QCDF approach tends to have a small value of $\\rho_A^f$ [@Beneke2]. The space for $(\\rho_A^f,\\phi_A^f)$ is relatively tight due to the well measured branching ratios for $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays.\n\n-   The spectator scattering corrections play an important role in resolving both $\\pi K$ and $\\pi \\pi$ puzzles. Within QCDF approach, the spectator scattering amplitudes depend on parameters $(\\rho_H,\\phi_H)$ and $B$-meson wave function parameter $\\lambda_B$. In our analysis, the approximation $(\\rho_H,\\phi_H)$ $=$ $(\\rho_A^i,\\phi_A^i)$ is assumed, which is proven to be a good simplification by a global fit in scenario III. A small value of $\\lambda_B$ $\\leq$ 350 MeV at the 95% C.L. is obtained by the global fit on $B$ $\\to$ $\\pi \\pi$, $\\pi K$ and $K \\bar{K}$ decays, which needs to be further tested by future improved measurement on $B$ $\\to$ $\\ell \\nu_\\ell \\gamma$ decays. An enhanced color-suppressed tree coefficient $\\alpha_2$, which is supported by both large value of $\\rho_H$ $\\sim$ 2.9 and small value of $\\lambda_B$ $\\sim$ 200 MeV, is helpful to reconcile discrepancies on $\\Delta A$ and $R_{00}^{\\pi \\pi}$ between QCDF approach and experiments.\n\nThe spectator scattering and annihilation contributions can offer significant corrections to observables of hadronic $B$ decays, and deserve intensive research especially when we apply the QCDF approach to the penguin-dominated, color-suppressed tree, and pure annihilation nonleptonic $B$ decays. As suggested in Ref.[@zhu1; @zhu2] and proofed by the pQCD approach [@pqcd], different parameters corresponding to different topologies should be introduced to regulate the endpoint divergences in spectator scattering and annihilation amplitudes within QCDF approach, even parameters reflecting the flavor symmetry-breaking effects should be considered for $B_{u,d,s}$ decays [@zhu1; @zhu2; @Cheng1; @Cheng2; @Cheng3; @Beneke2; @chang1]. This treatment might provide possible solution to \u201cproblematic\u201d discrepancies between QCDF results and available measurements. Of course, a fine-tuning of these parameters is required to be compatible with the experimental constraints. With the running LHCb and the upcoming SuperKEKB experiments, more refined measurements on $B$-meson decays can be obtained, which will provide more powerful grounds to test various approach and confirm or refute some theoretical hypotheses.\n\nAcknowledgments {#thanks .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThis work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 11147008, 11105043 and U1232101, 11475055. Q. Chang is also supported by Foundation for the Author of National Excellent Doctoral Dissertation of P. R. China under Grant No. 201317, Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China under Grant No. 20114104120002 and Program for Science and Technology Innovation Talents in Universities of Henan Province (Grant No. 14HASTIT036).\n\nBuilding blocks of annihilation and spectator scattering contributions {#app01}\n======================================================================\n\nThe annihilation amplitudes for two-body nonleptonic $B$ $\\to$ $M_{1}M_{2}$ decays (here $M_{i}$ denotes the light pseudoscalar meson) can be expressed as the following building blocks [@Beneke2], $$\\begin{aligned}\n  A_1^i &=&\n \\pi \\alpha_s \\int_0^1 dx dy\n \\Big\\{ \\Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y)\n \\Big[ \\frac{1}{y(1-x \\bar{y})}\n     + \\frac{1}{\\bar{x}^2 y} \\Big]\n     + r_\\chi^{M_1} r_\\chi^{M_2}\n     \\frac{2 \\Phi_{M_2}^{p}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y)}\n          {\\bar{x}y} \\Big\\}\n \\label{ai1}, \\\\\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n A_2^i &=&\n \\pi \\alpha_s \\int_0^1  dx dy\n \\Big\\{ \\Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y)\n \\Big[ \\frac{1}{\\bar x(1-x \\bar{y})}\n     + \\frac{1}{\\bar{x} y^2} \\Big]\n     + r_\\chi^{M_1} r_\\chi^{M_2}\n     \\frac{2 \\Phi_{M_2}^{p}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y)}\n     {\\bar{x} y} \\Big\\}\n \\label{ai2}, \\\\\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n A_3^i &=&\n \\pi \\alpha_s \\int_0^1 dx dy\n \\Big\\{ r_\\chi^{M_1}\n    \\frac{2 \\bar{y}\\ \\Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y)}\n         {\\bar{x}y(1-x\\bar{y})}\n      - r_\\chi^{M_2}\n    \\frac{2x\\ \\Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y) \\Phi_{M_2}^{p}(x)}\n         {\\bar{x}y(1-x\\bar{y})} \\Big\\}\n \\label{ai3}, \\\\\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n A_1^f &=& A_2^f =0\n \\label{af12}, \\\\\n %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\n A_3^f &=&\n \\pi \\alpha_s \\int_0^1 dx dy\n \\Big\\{ r_\\chi^{M_1}\n    \\frac{2(1+\\bar x)\\ \\Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y)}\n         {\\bar{x}^2 y}\n      + r_\\chi^{M_2}\n    \\frac{2(1+y)\\  \\Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y) \\Phi_{M_2}^{p}(x)}\n         {\\bar{x} y^2} \\Big\\}\n \\label{af3},\n \\end{aligned}$$ where the subscripts $k$ on $A^{i,f}_{k}$ correspond to three possible Dirac current structures, namely, $k$ $=$ $1$, $2$, $3$ for $(V-A)\\otimes(V-A)$, $(V-A)\\otimes(V+A)$, $-2(S-P)\\otimes(S+P)$, respectively. $r_\\chi^{M}$ $=$ $2m_{M}^{2}/m_{b}(m_{1}+m_{2})$, where $m_{1,2}$ are the current quark mass of the pseudoscalar meson with mass $m_{M}$. $\\Phi_{M}^{a}$ and $\\Phi_{M}^{p}$ are the twist-2 and twist-3 light-cone distribution amplitudes, respectively. Their asymptotic forms are $\\Phi_{M}^{a}(x)$ $=$ $6x\\bar{x}$ and $\\Phi_{M}^{p}(x)$ $=$ $1$.\n\nThe spectator scattering corrections are given by [@Beneke2] $$H_i ( M_1 M_2) =\n   \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{l}\n   \\displaystyle\n  +\\frac{B_{M_1 M_2}}{A_{M_1 M_2}}\n  {\\int}_{0}^{1}d{\\xi}\n   \\frac{ \\Phi_{B}(\\xi) }{ \\xi }\n   \\int_0^1 dx dy \\Big[\n   \\frac{ \\Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y) }\n        { \\bar{x} \\bar{y} }\n   + r_\\chi^{M_1}\n   \\frac{ \\Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y) }\n        { x \\bar{y} } \\Big],\n   \\\\ \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad\n   \\text{for }\\, i=1,2,3,4,9,10\n   \\\\\n   \\displaystyle\n   -\\frac{B_{M_1 M_2}}{A_{M_1 M_2}}\n   {\\int}_{0}^{1}d{\\xi}\n    \\frac{ \\Phi_{B}(\\xi) }{ \\xi }\n    \\int_0^1 dx dy \\Big[\n    \\frac{ \\Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{a}(y) }\n        { x \\bar{y} }\n   + r_\\chi^{M_1}\n   \\frac{ \\Phi_{M_2}^{a}(x) \\Phi_{M_1}^{p}(y) }\n        { \\bar{x} \\bar{y} } \\Big],\n   \\\\ \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad\n   \\text{for }\\, i=5,7\n   \\\\\n   0, \\qquad \\qquad \\quad\n   \\text{for }\\, i=6,8\n  \\end{array} \\right.\n  \\label{hardblock}$$ where the factorized matrix elements are parameterized as [@Beneke2] $$A_{M_{1}M_{2}} =\n  i\\frac{G_{F}}{\\sqrt{2}}\n  m_{B}^{2}F_{0}^{B{\\to}M_{1}}f_{M_{2}},\n  \\qquad \\qquad\n  B_{M_{1}M_{2}} =\n  i\\frac{G_{F}}{\\sqrt{2}}\n  f_{B}f_{M_{1}}f_{M_{2}}.$$\n\nTheoretical input parameters {#app02}\n============================\n\nFor the CKM matrix elements, we adopt the fitting results for the Wolfenstein parameters given by the CKMfitter group [@CKMfitter] $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\bar{\\rho} = 0.140^{+0.027}_{-0.026}, \\quad\n \\bar{\\eta} = 0.343^{+0.015}_{-0.014}, \\quad\n  A = 0.802^{+0.029}_{-0.011}, \\quad\n \\lambda = 0.22543^{+0.00059}_{-0.00094}.\n \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe pole masses of quarks are [@PDG12] $$\\begin{aligned}\n &&m_u=m_d=m_s=0, \\quad\n   m_c=1.67 \\pm 0.07 \\, {\\rm GeV},\n   \\nonumber\\\\\n &&m_b=4.78 \\pm 0.06 \\, {\\rm GeV}, \\quad\n    m_t=173.5 \\pm 1.0\\,{\\rm GeV}\n \\label{polemass}.\n \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe running masses of quarks are [@PDG12] $$\\begin{aligned}\n &&\\frac{\\bar{m}_s(\\mu)}{\\bar{m}_q(\\mu)} = 27 \\pm 1, \\quad\n   \\bar{m}_{s}(2\\,{\\rm GeV}) = 95 \\pm 5 \\,{\\rm MeV}, \\quad\n   \\bar{m}_{c}(\\bar{m}_{c}) = 1.275 \\pm 0.025 \\,{\\rm GeV},\n   \\nonumber \\\\\n &&\\bar{m}_{b}(\\bar{m}_{b}) = 4.18 \\pm 0.03 \\,{\\rm GeV}, \\quad\n   \\bar{m}_{t}(\\bar{m}_{t}) = 160.0^{+4.8}_{-4.3}\\,{\\rm GeV}\n \\label{runningmass}.\n \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe decay constants of $B$-meson and light mesons are [@PDG12] $$f_{B} = (0.190 \\pm 0.013)\\,{\\rm GeV}, \\quad\n f_{\\pi} = (130.4 \\pm 0.2)\\,{\\rm MeV}, \\quad\n f_{K} = (156.1 \\pm 0.8)\\,{\\rm MeV}.$$\n\nWe take the following heavy-to-light transition form factors [@BallZwicky] $$F^{B \\to \\pi }_{0}(0) = 0.258 \\pm 0.031, \\qquad\n F^{B \\to K }_{0}(0) = 0.331 \\pm 0.041.$$ Moreover, for the Gegenbauer coefficients, we take [@BallG] $$a_{1}^{\\pi}({\\rm 2 GeV}) =0, \\quad\n a_2^{\\pi}({\\rm 2 GeV}) =0.17, \\quad\n a_{1}^{K}({\\rm 2 GeV}) =0.05, \\quad\n a_{2}^{K}({\\rm 2 GeV}) =0.17.$$\n\nFor the other inputs, such as the masses and lifetimes of mesons and so on, we take their central values given by PDG [@PDG12].\n\nFitting Approach {#app03}\n================\n\nOur fit is performed in a simple way, which is similar to the one adopted in Ref.[@Vernazza] based on the frequentist framework. Considering a set of $N$ observables $f_j$, the experimental measurements are assumed to be Gaussian distributed with the mean value $f_{j\\,\\rm exp}$ and error $\\sigma_{j\\,\\rm exp}$. The theoretical prediction $f_{j\\,\\rm theo}$ for each observable could be treated as a function of a set of \u201cunknown\u201d free parameters $\\{y_i\\}$ (here $y_i$ $=$ $\\rho_{A}^{i,f}$, $\\phi_{A}^{i,f}$ and $\\lambda_B$ in this paper). To estimate the values of \u201cunknown\u201d parameters $\\{y_i\\}$ and compare the theoretical results $f_{j\\,\\rm theo}$ with the experimental data $f_{j\\,\\rm exp}$, typically, it is need to construct a $\\chi^2$ function as $$\\chi^2(\\{y_i\\}) =\n \\sum\\limits_{j=1}^N\n \\frac{(f_{j\\,\\rm theo}(\\{y_i\\})-f_{j\\,\\rm exp})^2}\n      {\\sigma_{j\\,\\rm exp}^2}.\n \\label{chi2I}$$\n\nIn the evaluation of $f_{j\\,\\rm theo}$ for hadronic B decays, ones always encounter theoretical uncertainties induced by input parameters, like form factor and decay constant, whose probability distribution is unknown. Following the treatment of Rfit scheme [@CKMfitter; @Rfit] that input values are treated on an equal footing, irrespective of how close they are from the edge of the allowed range, the $\\chi^2$ function is modified as [@Vernazza] $$\\chi^2 = \\sum_{j=1}^N\n \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{cl}\n \\displaystyle\n \\frac{([ f_{j\\,\\rm theo}-\\delta_{j\\,\\rm theo,\\,sub} ]\n       -f_{j\\,\\rm exp})^2}{\\sigma_{j\\,\\rm exp}^2}\n  & \\quad \\text{if } f_{j\\,\\rm exp} <\n   [f_{j\\,\\rm theo}-\\delta_{j\\,\\rm theo,\\,sub}],\n \\\\\n \\displaystyle\n \\frac{(f_{j\\,\\rm exp}-\n   [f_{j\\,\\rm theo}+\\delta_{j\\,\\rm theo,\\,sup}])^2}\n     {\\sigma_{j\\,\\rm exp}^2}\n & \\quad \\text{if  } f_{j\\,\\rm exp} >\n  [f_{j\\,\\rm theo}+\\delta_{j\\,\\rm theo,\\,sup}],\n \\\\\n 0 & \\quad \\text{otherwise}\n \\end{array} \\right.\n \\label{chi2II}$$ where $\\delta_{j\\,\\rm theo,\\,sup}$ and $\\delta_{j\\,\\rm theo,\\,sub}$ denote asymmetric theoretical uncertainties, and are defined as $(f_{j\\,\\rm theo})^{+\\delta_{j\\,\\rm theo,\\,sup}}_{-\\delta_{j\\,\\rm theo,\\,sub}}$. As to the asymmetric experimental errors, we choose the larger one as weighting factor. Correspondingly, the confidence levels are defined by the function $${\\rm CL}(\\{y_i\\}) = \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2^{N_{\\rm dof}}} \\Gamma(N_{\\rm dof}/2)}\n  \\int_{\\Delta \\chi^2(\\{y_i\\})}^{\\infty} e^{-t/2}t^{N_{\\rm dof}/2 -1}dt\n  \\label{CLfun},$$ with $\\Delta \\chi^2$ $=$ $\\chi^2$ $-$ $\\chi^2_{\\rm min}$ and $N_{\\rm dof}$ the number of degrees of freedom of free parameters.\n\nWith the input parameters summarized in Appendix \\[app02\\], we scan the space of the parameters $y_i$ and calculate the theoretical results $f_{j\\,\\rm theo}$. The $\\chi^2 $ could be obtained with Eq.(\\[chi2II\\]). The numerical results at $1 \\sigma$ and $2 \\sigma$ confidence levels are gotten from Eq.(\\[CLfun\\]) by taking ${\\rm CL}$ $=$ $1 - 68.27\\%$ and ${\\rm CL}$ $=$ $1 - 95.45\\%$, respectively.\n\n[99]{} T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{} (2012) 211803 \\[arXiv:1111.0485\\].\n\nR. Aaij [*et al.*]{} (LHCb Collaboration), JHEP [**1210**]{} (2012) 037 \\[arXiv:1206.2794\\].\n\nY. Amhis [*et al.*]{} (HFAG), arXiv:1207.1158; and online update at: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag.\n\nG. H. Zhu, Phys. Lett. B [**702**]{} (2011) 408 \\[arXiv:1106.4709\\].\n\nK. Wang and G. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) 014043 \\[arXiv:1304.7438\\].\n\nQ. Chang, X. W. Cui, L. Han and Y. D. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 054016 \\[arXiv:1205.4325\\].\n\nZ. J. Xiao, W. F. Wang and Y. Y. Fan, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{} (2012) 094003 \\[arXiv:1111.6264\\].\n\nY. Y. Keum, H. N. Li and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B [**504**]{} (2001) 6 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0004004\\]; Y. Y. Keum, H. N. Li and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 054008 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0004173\\]; C. D. Lu, K. Ukai and M.-Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{} (2001) 074009 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0004213\\].\n\nA. Ali, G. Kramer, Y. Li, C. D. Lu, Y. L. Shen, W. Wang and Y. M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{} (2007) 074018 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0703162\\]; Y. Li and C. D. Lu, Commun. Theor. Phys. [**44**]{} (2005) 659 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0502038\\].\n\nD. Du, H, Gong, J. Sun, D. Yang, and G. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 074001 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0108141\\]; Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{} (2002) 094025 Erratum, ibid. [**66**]{} (2002) 079904 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0201253\\]; J. Sun, G. Zhu and D. Du, Phys. Rev. D [**68**]{} (2003) 054003 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0211154\\].\n\nM. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B [**606**]{} (2001) 245 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0104110\\]; M. Beneke and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B [**651**]{} (2003) 225 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0210085\\]; M. Beneke and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B [**675**]{} (2003) 333 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0308039\\].\n\nM. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} (1999) 1914 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/9905312\\]; Nucl. Phys. B [**591**]{} (2000) 313 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0006142\\].\n\nH. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 114026 \\[arXiv:0910.5237\\].\n\nH. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 114008 \\[arXiv:0909.5229\\].\n\nA. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, S. Recksiegel and F. Schwab, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{} (2004) 101804 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0312259\\]; Nucl. Phys. B [**697**]{} (2004) 133 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0402112\\].\n\nG. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{} (1996) 1125 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/9512380\\]; A. J. Buras, arXiv:hep-ph/9806471; arXiv:hep-ph/0101336.\n\nH. Y. Cheng and C. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 074031 \\[arXiv:0908.3506\\].\n\nM. Beneke and J. Rohrwild, Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{} (2011) 1818 \\[arXiv:1110.3228\\].\n\nM. Beneke, J. Rohrer and D. S. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B [**774**]{} (2007) 64 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0612290\\].\n\nV. M. Braun, D.Yu. Ivanov, G. P. Korchemsky, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{} (2004) 034014 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0309330\\].\n\nB. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BaBar Collaboration), arXiv:0704.1478.\n\nB. Aubert [*et al.*]{} (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 111105 \\[arXiv:0907.1681\\].\n\nM. Beneke, S. J\u00e4ger, Nucl. Phys. B [**751**]{} (2006) 160 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0512351\\]; G. Bell, V. Pilipp, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 054024 \\[arXiv:0907.1016\\]; M. Beneke, T. Huber, X. Q. Li, Nucl. Phys. B [**832**]{} (2010) 109 \\[arXiv:0911.3655\\].\n\nJ. Charles [*et al.*]{} (CKMfitter Group), Eur. Phys. J. C [**41**]{}, 1 (2005); updated results and plots available at: http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr.\n\nJ. Beringer [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 010001.\n\nP. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D [**71**]{} (2005) 014015 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0406232\\].\n\nP. Ball, V. M. Braun, A. Lenz, JHEP [**0605**]{} (2006) 004 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0603063\\].\n\nL. Hofer, D. Scherer and L. Vernazza, JHEP [**1102**]{} (2011) 080 \\[arXiv:1011.6319\\].\n\nA. Hocker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace and F. Le Diberder, Eur. Phys. J. C [**21**]{} (2001) 225 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0104062\\].\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    Let $\\mathcal{M}$ be the set of Borel probability measures on $\\mathbb{R}$. We denote by $\\mu^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ the absolutely continuous part of $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the supports and regularity for measures of the form $(\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p})^{\\uplus q}$, $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, where $\\boxplus$ and $\\uplus$ are the operations of free additive and Boolean convolution on $\\mathcal{M}$, respectively, and $p\\geq1$, $q>0$. We show that for any $q$ the supports of $((\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\uplus\n    q})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ and $(\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ contain the same number of components and this number is a decreasing function of $p$. Explicit formulas for the densities of $((\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\uplus q})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ and criteria for determining the atoms of $(\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\uplus q}$ are given. Based on the subordination functions of free convolution powers, we give another point of view to analyze the set of $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures and provide explicit expressions for their Voiculescu transforms in terms of free and Boolean convolutions.\naddress: 'Department of Mathematics, Indiana University, 831 East 3rd Street, Bloomington, IN 47405'\nauthor:\n- 'Hao-Wei Huang'\ntitle: |\n    Supports, regularity, and $\\boxplus$-infinite\\\n    divisibility for measures of the form $(\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\uplus q}$\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nFor measures $\\mu$ and $\\nu$ in $\\mathcal{M}$, the measure $\\mu\\boxplus\\nu$ is the free (additive) convolution of $\\mu$ and $\\nu$. Thus, $\\mu\\boxplus\\nu$ is the distribution of $X+Y$, where $X$ and $Y$ are free random variables with distributions $\\mu$ and $\\nu$, respectively. Denote by $\\phi_\\mu$ the Voiculescu transform of $\\mu$ which satisfies the identity $\\phi_{\\mu\\boxplus\\nu}=\\phi_\\mu+\\phi_\\nu$ in some truncated cone in the upper half-plane $\\mathbb{C}^+$.\n\nFor $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, the $n$-fold free convolution $\\mu\\boxplus\\cdots\\boxplus\\mu$ is denoted by $\\mu^{\\boxplus n}$. It was shown in \\[\\[NS\\]\\] that the discrete semigroup $\\{\\mu^{\\boxplus\nn}:n\\in\\mathbb{N}\\}$ can be embedded in a continuous family $\\{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}:p\\geq1\\}$ which satisfies $\\mu^{\\boxplus\np_1}\\boxplus\\mu^{\\boxplus p_2}=\\mu^{\\boxplus(p_1+p_2)}$, $p_1,p_2\\geq1$. Any measure in this family satisfies $\\phi_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}=p\\phi_\\mu$ in some truncated cone in $\\mathbb{C}^+$. We refer the reader to \\[\\[BB1\\],\\[BB2\\], and \\[HV3\\]\\] for complete developments on the existence of this continuous family. In the full generalization, Belinschi and Bercovici used the subordination function to construct the measure $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$, $p>1$, and obtained certain regularity properties. In \\[\\[Huang\\]\\], an explicit formula for the density of $(\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ was provided and the relation between the supports of $\\mu$ and $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ was analyzed. As a consequence, the number $n(p)$ of components in the support of $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ was shown to be a decreasing function of $p$.\n\nAn important class of measures in $\\mathcal{M}$ is the set of $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures $\\mu$. Recall that $\\mu$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible if for any $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$ there exists a measure $\\mu_n\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $\\mu_n^{\\boxplus\nn}=\\mu$. Another operation of convolution is the Boolean convolution $\\uplus$ introduced by Speicher and Woroudi \\[\\[Boolean\\]\\]. The connection among free, Boolean, and classical infinite divisibilities was thoroughly studied by Bercovici and Pata \\[\\[BP\\]\\]. An aspect of this connection between infinite divisibility with respect to $\\boxplus$ and $\\uplus$ is the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection $\\mathbb{B}$.\n\nAnother map $\\mathbb{B}_t:\\mathcal{M}\\to\\mathcal{M}$ connecting free and Boolean convolutions is defined by $$\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu)=\\left(\\mu^{\\boxplus(t+1)}\\right)^{\\uplus\\frac{1}{t+1}},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;t\\geq0,\\;\\;\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}.$$ This map introduced by Belinshi and Nica \\[\\[BN1\\]\\] satisfies $\\mathbb{B}_t\\circ\\mathbb{B}_s=\\mathbb{B}_{t+s}$, $s,t\\geq0$. More importantly, the map $\\mathbb{B}_1$ coincides with the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection $\\mathbb{B}$. As a result, $\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu)$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible for any $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $t\\geq1$. This led the authors to associate to each measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ a nonnegative number $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$, which is called $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicator. For instance, the semicircular and Cauchy distributions have $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicators $1$ and $\\infty$, respectively. It was also shown that $\\mu$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible if and only if $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)\\geq1$. For any measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ with mean zero and unit variance, denote by $\\Phi(\\mu)$ the unique measure in $\\mathcal{M}$ such that $E_\\mu=G_{\\Phi(\\mu)}$. Recall that the free Brownian motion started at $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ is the process $\\{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_t:t>0\\}$, where $\\gamma_t$ is the centered semicircular distribution of variance $t$. The connection between this process and the map $\\mathbb{B}_t$ is via the identity $E_{\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu)}=G_{\\Phi(\\mu)\\boxplus\\gamma_t}$. These authors also studied the regularity of measures in $\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mathcal{M})$. In \\[\\[BN2\\]\\], the same authors studied the map $\\mathbb{B}_t$ on the space $\\mathcal{D}_c(k)$ of distributions of $k$-tuples of self-adjoint elements in a $C^*$-probability space based on moments and combinatorics. As in \\[\\[BN1\\]\\], they showed that $\\mathbb{B}_1$ is the multi-variable Boolean Bercovic-Pata bijection and investigated the relation between $\\mathbb{B}_t$ and free Brownian motion. Later, for measures $\\mu,\\nu\\in\\mathcal{D}_c(k)$, Nica \\[\\[Nica\\]\\] studied the so-called subordination distribution of $\\mu\\boxplus\\nu$ with respect to $\\nu$, in which a property related to the present paper is that $(\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\uplus(p-1)/p}$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible for any $p>1$. For other further developments on $\\mathbb{B}_t$ and the $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicator of the measure $(\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\uplus q}$, we refer the reader to \\[\\[Japan\\]\\].\n\nIn the present paper, we mainly use the subordination functions for the $\\boxplus$-convolution powers to study $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. We show that measures of the form $(\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\uplus q}$ are $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible for $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, $p>1$, and $0<q\\leq(p-1)/p$. We also provide explicit formulas for the Voiculescu transforms of $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. particularly, the compound free Poisson distribution with the rate $\\lambda$ and jump distribution $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ is shown to be of the form $(\\nu_1^{\\boxplus(\\lambda+1)})^{\\uplus\\lambda/(\\lambda+1)}$, $\\nu_1\\in\\mathcal{M}$, and its $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicator is calculated as well. In the study of the measures with mean zero and finite variance $\\sigma^2$, we reformulate their $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicators in terms of free Brownian motion: $$\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=\\sup\\left\\{t\\geq0:E_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu_t\\boxplus\\gamma_{t\\sigma^2}}\\;\\;\n\\mathrm{for}\\;\\;\\mathrm{some}\\;\\;\\nu_t\\in\\mathcal{M}\\right\\}.$$ As a consequence of this reformulation, a measure $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ can be written as $\\nu_1\\boxplus\\gamma_t$ for some $\\nu_1\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $t>0$ if and only if $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\Phi^{-1}(\\nu))>0$. Moreover, we have $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>1$ if and only if $\\phi_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_t}$ for some $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $t>0$. The work \\[4\\] provides solid foundations for the current research and leads us to investigate the supports and regularity for the measures $\\left(\\mu^{\\boxplus\np}\\right)^{\\uplus q}$, $p\\geq1$, $q>0$. We prove that the nonatomic parts of this type of measure are absolutely continuous and the densities are analytic wherever they are positive. More importantly, the number of components in the support of $((\\mu^{\\boxplus\np})^{\\uplus q})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ is independent of $q$ and a decreasing function of $p$. Particularly, $(\\mu^{\\uplus\nq})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ contains the same number of components in the support for any $q>0$ provided that $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>0$.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. Section 2 contains definitions and basic facts in free probability theory. Section 3 provides complete descriptions about the connections among free, Boolean convolutions, and $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. Section 4 investigates the set of $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures with mean zero and finite variance. Section 5 contains results about the supports and regularity for the measures $\\left(\\mu^{\\boxplus\np}\\right)^{\\uplus q}$, where $p\\geq1$ and $q>0$.\n\nPreliminary\n===========\n\nFor any complex number $z$ in $\\mathbb{C}$, let $\\Re z$ and $\\Im z$ be the real and imaginary parts of $z$, respectively. Denote by $\\mathbb{C}^+=\\{z\\in\\mathbb{C}:\\Im z>0\\}$ the complex upper half-plane. Consider the set $\\mathcal{G}$ defined as $$\\mathcal{G}=\\left\\{G|G:\\mathbb{C}^+\\to\\mathbb{C}^-\\;\\;\\mathrm{is}\\;\\;\\mathrm{analytic}\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\n\\;\\;\\lim_{y\\to\\infty}iyG(iy)=1\\right\\}.$$ It is known that a function $G$ is in $\\mathcal{G}$ if and only if there exists some measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $G$ can be written as $$G(z)=G_\\mu(z):=\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{1}{z-s}\\;d\\mu(s),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+.$$ The function $G_\\mu$ is called the Cauchy transform of $\\mu$. The measure $\\mu$ can be recovered from $G_\\mu$ as the weak limit of the measures $$\\label{inversion}\nd\\mu_\\epsilon(s)=-\\frac{1}{\\pi}\\Im G_\\mu(s+i\\epsilon)\\;ds$$ as $\\epsilon\\to0^+$. This is the Stieltjes inversion formula. Particularly, if $\\Im G$ extends continuously to an open interval containing some point $x\\in\\mathbb{R}$ then the density of the absolutely continuous part of $\\mu$ at $x$ is given by $-\\Im\nG(x)/\\pi$.\n\nAnother class of functions which is closely related to $\\mathcal{G}$ and plays a significant role in free probability theory is the following set $$\\mathcal{F}=\\left\\{F|F:\\mathbb{C}^+\\to\\mathbb{C}^+\\;\\;\\mathrm{is}\\;\\;\\mathrm{analytic}\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\n\\;\\;\\lim_{y\\to\\infty}\\frac{F(iy)}{iy}=1\\right\\}.$$ A function $F$ belongs to $\\mathcal{F}$ if and only if $F=F_\\mu:=1/G_\\mu$ for some $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$. The function $F_\\mu$ is called the reciprocal Cauchy transform of $\\mu$. Any function $F\\in\\mathcal{F}$ has the property $\\Im F(z)\\geq\\Im z$ for $z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+$ and has a Nevanlinna representation of the form $$\\label{NeF}\nF(z)=\\Re F(i)+z+\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{1+sz}{s-z}\\;d\\rho(s),$$ where $\\rho$ is some finite positive Borel measure on $\\mathbb{R}$. Moreover, the function $F$ has a right inverse $F_\\mu^{-1}$ with respect to composition, which is defined on the truncated cone $$\\Gamma_{\\alpha,\\beta}=\\{x+iy\\in\\mathbb{C}^+:|x|\\leq\\alpha\ny,\\;|y|\\geq\\beta\\}$$ of the upper half-plane for some $\\alpha,\\beta>0$. The function $\\phi_\\mu:\\Gamma_{\\alpha,\\beta}\\to\\mathbb{C}^-\\cup\\mathbb{R}$ defined by $$\\phi_\\mu(z)=F_\\mu^{-1}(z)-z,\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\Gamma_{\\alpha,\\beta},$$ is called the Voiculescu transform of $\\mu$. As indicated in the introduction, for $\\mu,\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $z$ in some truncated cone in $\\mathbb{C}^+$ the following identity holds: $$\\phi_{\\mu\\boxplus\\nu}(z)=\\phi_\\mu(z)+\\phi_\\nu(z).$$ Particularly, the identity $F_{\\mu\\boxplus\\delta_a}(z)=F_\\mu(z-a)$ holds for $z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+$ and $a\\in\\mathbb{R}$.\n\nThe reciprocal Cauchy transform $F_\\mu$ can be used to locate the atoms of $\\mu$. A point $\\alpha$ is an atom of $\\mu$ if and only if $F_\\mu(\\alpha)=0$ (that is, $F_\\mu$ is defined and takes the value $0$ at the point $\\alpha$) and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(\\alpha)$ (which is the limit of $$\\frac{F_\\mu(z)-F_\\mu(\\alpha)}{z-\\alpha}$$ as $z\\to\\alpha$ nontangentially, i.e., $(\\Re\nz-\\alpha)/\\Im z$ stays bounded and $z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+$) is finite, in which case $\\mu(\\{\\alpha\\})=1/F_\\mu'(\\alpha)$.\n\nGiven any measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, the function $E_\\mu(z)=z-F_\\mu(z)$ is called the energy function associated with $\\mu$ and belongs to the following set $$\\mathcal{E}=\\left\\{E|E:\\mathbb{C}^+\\to\\mathbb{C}^-\\cup\\mathbb{R}\\;\\;\\mathrm{is}\\;\\;\\mathrm{analytic}\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\n\\;\\;\\lim_{y\\to\\infty}\\frac{E(iy)}{iy}=0\\right\\}.$$ Conversely, any function $E$ in $\\mathcal{E}$ is the energy function of some $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ whose Nevanlinna representation is given by $$\\label{NeE}\nE(z)=\\Re E(i)+\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{1+sz}{z-s}\\;d\\rho(s),$$ where $\\rho$ is some finite positive Borel measure on $\\mathbb{R}$. Observe that we have the inclusion $\\mathcal{G}\\subset\\mathcal{E}$. Indeed, for any measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ it was proved in \\[\\[Maa\\]\\] that $\\mu$ has mean zero and finite variance $\\sigma^2$, i.e., $$\\int_\\mathbb{R}s\\;d\\mu(s)=0\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\int_\\mathbb{R}s^2\\;d\\mu(s)=\\sigma^2$$ if and only if there exists some unique $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $$\\label{EMaa} E_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_\\nu.$$ If $\\sigma^2=1$, let $\\Phi(\\mu)$ be the unique measure satisfying $E_\\mu=G_{\\Phi(\\mu)}$. The Eq. (\\[EMaa\\]) particularly shows that $\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2}$ has mean zero and unit variance, i.e., $E_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_{\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})}$.\n\nNext, consider the set $$\\mathcal{H}=\\left\\{H|H:\\mathbb{C}^+\\to\\mathbb{C}\\;\\;\\mathrm{is}\\;\\;\\mathrm{analytic},\\;\\Im H(z)\\leq\\Im\nz, \\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\n\\;\\;\\lim_{y\\to\\infty}\\frac{H(iy)}{iy}=1\\right\\},$$ which plays an important role in the investigation of the free convolution powers of measures in $\\mathcal{M}$. Indeed, for any $H\\in\\mathcal{H}$ the function $2z-H(z)\\in\\mathcal{F}$ is the reciprocal Cauchy transform of some measure in $\\mathcal{M}$. More importantly, the right inverses of the functions in $\\mathcal{H}$ can be used to construct the $p$-th $\\boxplus$-convolution power $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$, $p\\geq1$, of any measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$. We list below the properties needed in this paper. For more details, we refer the reader to \\[\\[BB1\\],\\[BB2\\], and \\[Huang\\]\\].\n\n\\[prop2.1\\] For any $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $p>1$, define the function $$H_p(z)=pz+(1-p)F_\\mu(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,$$ the set $\\Omega_p=\\{z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+:\\Im H_p(z)>0\\}$, and the function $f_\\mu:\\mathbb{R}\\to\\mathbb{R}_+\\cup\\{\\infty\\}$ as $$\\label{fmu}\nf_\\mu(x)=\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s^2+1}{(s-x)^2}\\;d\\rho(s),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;x\\in\\mathbb{R},$$ where $\\rho$ is the measure in the Nevanlinna representation $(\\ref{NeF})$ of $F_\\mu$.\n\n1.  [The function $H_p$ is in $\\mathcal{H}$ and the set $\\Omega_p$ is a simply connected domain whose boundary is the graph of the continuous function $f_p:\\mathbb{R}\\to[0,\\infty)$, where $$f_p(x)=\\inf\\left\\{y>0:\\frac{\\Im\n    E_\\mu(x+iy)}{y}>\\frac{-1}{p-1}\\right\\},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;x\\in\\mathbb{R}.$$]{}\n\n2.  [For $x\\in\\mathbb{R}$, $f_p(x)=0$ if and only if $f_\\mu(x)\\leq1/(p-1)$, while $z\\in\\Omega_p$ if and only if $$\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s^2+1}{|s-z|^2}\\;d\\rho(s)<\\frac{1}{p-1}.$$ Consequently, the functions $E_\\mu$ and $H_p$ have continuous extensions to $\\overline{\\Omega_p}$ which are Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constants $1/(p-1)$ and $2$, respectively. Moreover, Eq. $(\\ref{NeF})$ holds for $z\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}$.]{}\n\n3.  [There exists an analytic function $\\omega_p:\\mathbb{C}^+\\to\\mathbb{C}^+$ extending continuously to $\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$ such that $H_p(\\omega_p(z))=z$ holds for $z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$. Consequently, $\\Omega_p=\\omega_p(\\mathbb{C}^+)$, $\\omega_p(H_p(z))=z$ holds for $z\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}$, and $$\\frac{|z_1-z_2|}{2}\\leq|\\omega_p(z_1)-\\omega_p(z_2)|,\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z_1,z_2\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}.$$]{}\n\n4.  [The function $\\omega_p$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $x$ wherever $\\omega_p(x)\\not\\in\\mathbb{R}$.]{}\n\n5.  [Let $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ be the unique measure in $\\mathcal{M}$ whose reciprocal Cauchy transform satisfies $$\\label{p-power}\n    F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}}(z)=\\frac{p\\omega_p(z)-z}{p-1},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+.$$ Then there exist some $\\alpha,\\beta>0$ such that $$\\phi_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}}(z)=p\\phi_\\mu(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\Gamma_{\\alpha,\\beta}.$$ Moreover, the function $\\omega_p$ is the subordination function of $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ with respect to $\\mu$, i.e., $$F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}}(z)=F_\\mu(\\omega_p(z)),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R},$$ and consequently $$F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}}(H_p(z))=F_\\mu(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}.$$]{}\n\nComplete characterizations of the supports of $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ were given in \\[\\[Huang\\]\\]. Following the notations in Proposition \\[prop2.1\\], we give below the results needed in the current research.\n\n\\[Hthm\\] For $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, define the function $\\psi_p:\\mathbb{R}\\to\\mathbb{R}$ by $\\psi_p(x)=H_p(x+if_p(x))$, $x\\in\\mathbb{R}$, and the set $V_p^+=\\{x\\in\\mathbb{R}:f_p(x)>0\\}$. Then the following statements are true.\n\n1.  [The function $\\psi_p$ is a homeomorphism on $\\mathbb{R}$.]{}\n\n2.  [The measure $(\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ is concentrated on the set $\\psi_p(\\overline{V_p^+})$ with density $$\\label{density}\n    \\frac{d(\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p})^{\\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}(\\psi_p(x))=\\frac{(p-1)pf_p(x)}{\\pi|px-\\psi_p(x)+ipf_p(x)|},\n    \\;\\;\\;\\;\\;x\\in V_p^+.$$ ]{}\n\n3.  [The number of the components in the support of $\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}$ is a decreasing function of $p$.]{}\n\nThe set of $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures in $\\mathcal{M}$ is closed under weak convergence of probability measures. As shown in \\[\\[HV2\\]\\], a necessary and sufficient condition for $\\mu$ to be $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible is that $\\phi_\\mu$ belong to $\\mathcal{E}$.\n\nThe Boolean convolution introduced in \\[\\[Boolean\\]\\] was defined via the functions in $\\mathcal{E}$. Given $\\mu_1$ and $\\mu_2$ in $\\mathcal{M}$, the measure $\\nu$ satisfying the relation $$E_\\nu=E_{\\mu_1}+E_{\\mu_2}$$ is called the Boolean convolution of $\\mu_1$ and $\\mu_2$, and it is denoted $\\mu_1\\uplus\\mu_2$. For $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and a positive integer $n$, the $n$-fold Boolean convolution $\\mu\\uplus\\cdots\\uplus\\mu$ denoted by $\\mu^{\\uplus n}$ satisfies $E_{\\mu^{\\uplus n}}=nE_\\mu$. This can be extended naturally to the case when the exponent $n$ is not an integer. That is, for every $q\\geq0$ the $q$-th $\\uplus$-convolution power $\\mu^{\\uplus q}$ is defined as the unique measure in $\\mathcal{M}$ satisfying $$E_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}=qE_\\mu.$$\n\nThe following theorem builds the connection between $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures and the Boolean convolution, which was thoroughly investigated in \\[\\[BP\\]\\].\n\n\\[thm2.2\\] Let $\\{\\mu_n\\}$ be a sequence in $\\mathcal{M}$ and let $k_1<k_2<\\cdots$ be a sequence of positive integers. Then the following statements $(1)$-$(3)$ are equivalent:\n\n1.  [$\\mu_n^{\\boxplus k_n}\\to\\mu_{\\boxplus}^{c,\\rho}$ weakly as $n\\to\\infty$;]{}\n\n2.  [$\\mu_n^{\\uplus k_n}\\to\\mu_{\\uplus}^{c,\\rho}$ weakly as $n\\to\\infty$;]{}\n\n3.  [the measures $$k_n\\frac{s^2}{s^2+1}\\;d\\mu_n(s)\\to d\\rho(s)$$ weakly as $n\\to\\infty$ and $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{k_ns}{s^2+1}\\;d\\mu_n(s)=c.$$]{}\n\nIf $(1)$-$(3)$ hold then $\\mu_{\\boxplus}^{c,\\rho}$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible and $$\\phi_{\\mu_{\\boxplus}^{c,\\rho}}(z)=E_{\\mu_{\\uplus}^{c,\\rho}}(z)=c+\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{1+sz}{z-s}\\;d\\rho(s),\n\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+.$$\n\nFor $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, Theorem \\[thm2.2\\] shows that $(\\mu^{\\uplus1/n})^{\\boxplus n}$ converges weakly to some $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure $\\mathbb{B}(\\mu)$ satisfying $\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}(\\mu)}=E_\\mu$. Conversely, for any $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure $\\nu$ the sequence $(\\nu^{\\boxplus1/n})^{\\uplus n}$ converges weakly to some $\\mu$ satisfying $\\phi_\\nu=E_\\mu$. Since $E$ determines the measure uniquely, the map $\\mathbb{B}$ induces a bijective map from $\\mathcal{M}$ onto the set of $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. This map $\\mathbb{B}$ is called the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection, which coincides with $\\mathbb{B}_1$ as indicated in the introduction.\n\nIn the study of $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures, there is one useful tool introduced in \\[\\[BN1\\]\\] called $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicator: $$\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=\\sup\\{t\\geq0:\\mu\\in\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mathcal{M})\\},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}.$$ Any measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ with finite support has $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=0$, while $\\mu$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible if and only if $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)\\geq1$. In general, for any $t\\geq0$ and $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ we have $$\\label{Nindicator}\n\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu))=t+\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$$ For $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicators of some specific measures, we refer the reader to \\[\\[BN1\\]\\].\n\n$\\boxplus$-infinite divisibility of $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$\n===========================================================\n\nFor any $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $p\\geq1$, $q>0$, denote $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)=\\left(\\mu^{\\boxplus p}\\right)^{\\uplus q}$. Particularly, $\\mathbb{B}_{t+1,1/(t+1)}=\\mathbb{B}_t$ for any $t\\geq0$ and $\\mathbb{B}_{2,1/2}=\\mathbb{B}$. In this section, we mainly use Proposition \\[prop2.1\\] to investigate the measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$. Throughout the paper, the number $r^*$ stands for the conjugate exponent of any number $r>0$, i.e., $$\\frac{1}{r}+\\frac{1}{r^*}=1,\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;r\\neq1$$ and $r^*=\\infty$ if $r=1$. Note that we have $r^*<0$ if $r\\in(0,1)$.\n\nFor $p>1$, by (\\[p-power\\]) and the definition of Boolean convolution power we have $$\\label{general}\nF_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)}(z)=\\frac{pq\\omega_p(z)-(1+pq-p)z}{p-1},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}.$$ As a special case of (\\[general\\]), if $1+pq-p=0$, i.e., $q=1/p^*$ then $$F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)}(z)\n=\\frac{p\\omega_p(z)}{p^*(p-1)}=\\omega_p(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}.$$ This yields that the Voiculescu transform $\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)}$ of the measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)$ has an analytic continuation to $\\mathbb{C}^+$, which is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)}(z)&=F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)}^{-1}(z)-z=H_p(z)-z \\\\\n&=E_{\\mu^{\\uplus(p-1)}}(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+.\\end{aligned}$$ These observations are recorded in the following result.\n\n\\[3.1\\] For any measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and number $p>1$, the measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible, the function $F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)}$ extends continuously to $\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$, $$F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}(z)=F_\\mu\\left(F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)}(z)\\right),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R},$$ and the Voiculescu transform of $\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)$ can be expressed as $$\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)}=E_{\\mu^{\\uplus(p-1)}}.$$ In particular, the above statements hold for $\\mathbb{B}_1$.\n\nObserve that Proposition \\[3.1\\] provides an easy way to prove that $\\mathbb{B}_1(\\mu)$, $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, is identically equal to the image $\\mathbb{B}(\\mu)$ of $\\mu$ under the Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection. Indeed, by Theorem \\[thm2.2\\] and Proposition \\[3.1\\] we obtain $$\\label{bijection}\n\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}(\\mu)}=E_\\mu=\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}_1(\\mu)}.$$ In \\[\\[Nica\\]\\], results similar to Proposition \\[3.1\\] for the joint distributions for $k$-tuples of selfadjoint elements in a $C^*$-probability space were obtained by combinatorial tools. We refer the reader to the same paper for the so-called $k$-tuple Boolean Bercovici-Pata bijection and related results.\n\nThe following lemma contains some basic properties of the map $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}$ which is frequently used in the sequel. The identity in (\\[formula\\]) can be obtained by \\[\\[BN1\\], Proposition 3.1\\]. Here we provide an alternative proof using Proposition \\[3.1\\].\n\nIf $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, $p,p_1\\geq1$, and $q,q_1>0$ then $$\\label{formula}\n\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus q}\\right)^{\\boxplus\np}=\\mathbb{B}_{1+pq-q,\\frac{pq}{1+pq-q}}(\\mu),$$ $$\\label{two}\n\\mathbb{B}_{p_1,q_1}\\circ\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}=\n\\mathbb{B}_{p(1+p_1q-q),\\frac{p_1q_1q}{1+p_1q-q}},$$ and $$\\label{t}\n\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}=\\mathbb{B}_t\\circ\\mathbb{B}_{p(1-qt),\\frac{q}{1-qt}},\n\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;0\\leq t\\leq\\frac{1}{p^*q}.$$\n\nIt suffices to show the lemma for $p>1$. By Proposition \\[prop2.1\\], we have $$F_{(\\mu^{\\uplus q})^{\\boxplus p}}(z)=\\frac{p\\omega(z)-z}{p-1},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,$$ where the function $\\omega$ is the right inverse of the function $$\\begin{aligned}\nH(z)&=pz+(1-p)F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}} \\\\\n&=(1+pq-q)z+(q-pq)F_\\mu(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+.\\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, since the number $1+pq-q>1$ whose conjugate exponent is $$(1+pq-q)^*=\\frac{1+pq-q}{pq-q},$$ by Proposition \\[3.1\\] we see that $\\omega=F_\\nu$, where $$\\label{nu} \\nu=\\mathbb{B}_{1+pq-q,\\frac{pq-q}{1+pq-q}}(\\mu).$$ Then using the definition of the Boolean convolution power and (\\[nu\\]) gives $$\\frac{p\\omega(z)-z}{p-1}=\\frac{pF_\\nu(z)-z}{p-1}=F_{\\nu^{\\uplus p^*}}(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,$$ and $\\nu^{\\uplus p^*}=\\mathbb{B}_{1+pq-q,\\frac{pq}{1+pq-q}}(\\mu)$, whence the formula in (\\[formula\\]) follows. The equality in (\\[two\\]) follows directly from (\\[formula\\]). Finally, note that if $t\\in[0,1/(p^*q)]$ then $$p(1-qt)\\geq1\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\frac{q}{1-qt}>0,$$ whence the measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p(1-qt),q/(1-qt)}(\\mu)$ is defined and (\\[t\\]) holds by (\\[two\\]).\n\nIf $p>1$ and $0<q<1/p^*$ (or, equivalently, $1+pq-p<0$) then (\\[t\\]) yields $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}=\\mathbb{B}_1\\circ\\mathbb{B}_{p_1,q_1}$, where $$p_1=p(1-q)>1\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;q_1=\\frac{q}{1-q}>0.$$ Using Proposition \\[3.1\\] and the preceding discussions gives the following result.\n\n\\[3.3\\] If $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, $p>1$, and $0<q\\leq1/p^*$ then the following statements hold.\n\n1.  [The measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible.]{}\n\n2.  [For any $n\\in\\mathbb{N}$, $${\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)}=\n    \\left({\\mathbb{B}_{\\frac{p(n+q-nq)}{n},\\frac{q}{n(1-q)+q}}(\\mu)}\\right)^{\\boxplus\n    n}.$$]{}\n\n3.  [The Voiculescu transform of $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$ can be expressed as $$\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)}=E_{\\mathbb{B}_{p_1,q_1}(\\mu)}.$$]{}\n\n4.  [For $r>0$, let $\\nu_r=\\mathbb{B}_{p_1,r}(\\mu)$. Then $$F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,(1-q)r+q}(\\mu)}(z)\n    =F_{\\nu_r}\\left(F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)}(z)\\right),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}.$$]{}\n\nParticularly, for any $t\\geq1$ the measure $\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu)$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible, $$\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu)}=E_{\\mathbb{B}_{t-1}(\\mu)},$$ and $F_{\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu)}$ is the subordination function of $\\mu^{\\boxplus(t+1)}$ with respect to $\\mu^{\\boxplus t}$, that is, $$F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus(t+1)}}(z)=F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus t}}(F_{\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu)}(z)),\n\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}.$$\n\nThe assertions (1) and (3) were proved (particularly, $p=t+1$ and $q=(t+1)^{-1}$ satisfy the condition $1+pq-p\\leq0$ if and only if $t\\geq1$). Next, observe that $$\\frac{p(n+q-nq)}{n}>p-pq\\geq1\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\n\\frac{q}{n(1-q)+q}>0,$$ whence the assertion (2) follows from (\\[two\\]). By (3), $F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)}^{-1}$ can be expressed as $$\\label{1}\nF_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)}^{-1}(z)=\n\\left(1+\\frac{q_1}{r}\\right)z-\\frac{q_1}{r}F_{\\nu_r}(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+.$$ Since $\\nu_r^{\\boxplus\\left(1+q_1/r\\right)}=\\mathbb{B}_{p,(1-q)r+q}(\\mu)$ by (\\[formula\\]), Proposition \\[prop2.1\\](4) and (\\[1\\]) imply the assertion (4). Letting $r=1$ in (4) yields the last assertion.\n\nObserve that if $\\mu$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible then $\\mu\\in\\mathbb{B}(\\mathcal{M})$, i.e., the measure $\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)=(\\mu^{\\uplus2})^{\\boxplus1/2}$ is defined. In order to investigate the measure of the form $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$, $0<p<1$ (that is, $\\mu=\\nu^{\\boxplus1/p}$ for some $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ ), we need the following lemma. This lemma was also provided in \\[\\[Japan\\]\\]; however, the case $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=\\infty$ was not considered there.\n\n\\[3.4\\] For any measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and any number $q>0$, we have $$\\mathrm{Ind}\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus q}\\right)=\\frac{\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)}{q}.$$\n\nFirst claim the inequality $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu^{\\uplus q})\\geq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)/q$ holds. It clearly holds if $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=0$. Next, consider the case $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>0$. Then for any finite $r$ with $0<r<\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$ pick a measure $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $\\mu=\\mathbb{B}_r(\\nu)$, from which we obtain that $$\\mathrm{Ind}\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus q}\\right)=\\mathrm{Ind}\\left(\\left(\\nu^{\\boxplus(r+1)}\\right)^{\\uplus\n\\frac{q}{r+1}}\\right)=\\mathrm{Ind}\\left(\\mathbb{B}_{r/q}(\\nu_1)\\right)\\geq\n\\frac{r}{q},$$ where $\\nu_1\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and (\\[t\\]) is used in the second equality above. If $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=\\infty$ then letting $r\\uparrow\\infty$ gives $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu^{\\uplus\nq})=\\infty$ as well, which implies the desired inequality. Otherwise, letting $r\\uparrow\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)<\\infty$ yields the claim. By considering the identity $\\mu=\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus\nq}\\right)^{\\uplus1/q}$ and using the claim, we obtain the opposite inequality, and then the proof is complete.\n\nNow we are able to determine for what value of $p\\in(0,1)$ the $p$-th $\\boxplus$-convolution power of a measure is defined. The following implication that (2) implies (1) was proved in \\[\\[BN1\\]\\].\n\n\\[3.5\\] Suppose that $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and fix a number $p\\in(0,1)$. Then the following statements $(1)$-$(3)$ are equivalent:\n\n1.  [$\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ is defined, that is, $\\mu=\\nu^{\\boxplus1/p}$ for some $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$;]{}\n\n2.  [$1-p\\leq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$;]{}\n\n3.  [$\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible.]{}\n\nIf $(1)$-$(3)$ hold and $\\Omega_p=F_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}(\\mathbb{C}^+)$ then the following statements are true.\n\n1.  [The reciprocal Cauchy transform $F_\\mu$ extends continuously to $\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$.]{}\n\n2.  [The identity $F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}}\\left(F_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}(z)\\right)=F_\\mu(z)$ holds for $z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$.]{}\n\n3.  [The identity $F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}}(z)=F_\\mu\\left(F_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}^{-1}(z)\\right)$ holds for $z\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}$.]{}\n\n4.  [The Voiculescu transform of $\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}$ can be expressed as $$\\phi_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}=E_{\\left(\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}\\right)^{\\uplus(1/p-1)}}=E_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)})}.$$]{}\n\nIf $\\nu^{\\boxplus1/p}=\\mu$ then by Lemma \\[3.4\\] we have $$\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=p\n\\mathrm{Ind}\\left(\\mathbb{B}_{1/p-1}(\\nu)\\right)\\geq\np\\left(\\frac{1}{p}-1\\right)=1-p,$$ which shows that (1) implies (2). Applying Proposition \\[3.1\\] to $\\nu$ and $1/p$ yields the assertions (3). If (3) holds, i.e., $\\phi_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}\\in\\mathcal{E}$ then the following function $$F(z)=\\frac{-p\\phi_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}(z)+(1-p)z}{1-p},\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,$$ belongs to $\\mathcal{F}$, i.e., $F=F_\\nu$ for some $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, by which $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}^{-1}$ can be written as $$\\label{p<1o}\nF_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}^{-1}(z)=\\frac{1}{p}z+\\left(1-\\frac{1}{p}\\right)F_\\nu(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+.$$ Then by Proposition 2.1 and the definition of the $\\uplus$-convolution power we have $$F_{\\nu^{\\boxplus1/p}}(z)=\\frac{\\frac{1}{p}F_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}(z)-z}{\\frac{1}{p}-1}\n=F_\\mu(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,$$ whence (1) holds. The assertion (a) holds since $\\mu=\\nu^{\\boxplus1/p}$ and $1/p>1$, while (b)-(d) follow from the preceding discussions, (\\[bijection\\]), and Proposition \\[prop2.1\\](5).\n\nThe proof of the preceding proposition also gives the construction of the measure $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ whenever it is defined for $p\\in(0,1)$. Indeed, by (\\[p&lt;1o\\]) the right inverse $\\omega_p$ of the function $H_p(z)=pz+(1-p)F_\\mu(z)$ ($H_p=F_{\\mu^{\\uplus(1-p)}}$) satisfies the relation $$\\label{p<1} F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\np}}(z)=\\frac{p\\omega_p(z)-z}{p-1},\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,$$ and we have $F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}(z)=F_\\mu(\\omega_p(z))$ for $z\\in H_p(\\mathbb{C}^+)$.\n\nThe following proposition can be proved by \\[\\[BN1\\], Proposition 3.1\\]. It can be also obtained by using (\\[formula\\]), (\\[general\\]), and (\\[p&lt;1\\]), and we leave the proof for the reader.\n\n\\[3.6\\] Let $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and for $p,q>0$ let $q'=1+pq-p$ and $p'=pq/q'$.\n\n1.  [If $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ is defined and $q'>0$ then we have the following identity $$\\label{formula2}\\left(\\mu^{\\boxplus p}\\right)^{\\uplus q}=\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus q'}\\right)^{\\boxplus\n    p'}.$$]{}\n\n2.  The formula $(\\ref{formula})$ holds for either\n\n    1.  [$p\\geq1$ or]{}\n\n    2.  [$1-\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu^{\\uplus q})\\leq p<1$ and $1+pq-q>0$.]{}\n\nIt was proved in \\[\\[BN1\\]\\] that $\\mu\\in\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mathcal{M})$ for any finite $t$ with $0\\leq t\\leq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$. In the following proposition we give an explicit expression for the measure $\\mu_t$ so that $\\mu=\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu_t)$. The reader should be aware of that this conclusion holds under the essential condition that $t$ has to be finite and this condition may not be noticed without caution.\n\nIf $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ then for any finite number $t$ with $-1<t\\leq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$ there exists a unique measure $\\mu_t\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $$\\label{N}\n\\mu=\\left(\\mu_t^{\\boxplus(1+t)}\\right)^{\\uplus\\frac{1}{1+t}},$$ in which case $\\mu_t$ can be expressed as $$\\label{N1}\n\\mu_t=\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus(t+1)}\\right)^{\\boxplus\\frac{1}{t+1}}.$$ Particularly, we have $\\mu=\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu_t)$ if $t\\geq0$. In addition, if $0<t\\leq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$ then the measure $\\mu^{\\uplus t}$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible and its Voiculescu transform can be expressed as $$\\label{N2}\n\\phi_{\\mu^{\\uplus t}}=E_{\\mu_t^{\\uplus t}}=\nE_{(\\mu^{\\uplus(2t)})^{\\boxplus1/2}}.$$\n\nIt is clear that the measure $\\mu_t$ in (\\[N1\\]) is defined and (\\[N\\]) holds if $-1<t\\leq0$. If $t=\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)<\\infty$ then $1-\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu^{\\uplus(t+1)})=1/(t+1)$ by Lemma \\[3.4\\], whence the measure $\\mu_t$ in (\\[N1\\]) is defined by Proposition \\[3.5\\]. The same result also holds for $0<t<\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)\\in(0,\\infty]$, and hence the identity $\\mu=\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu_t)$ holds. Next, observe that $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu^{\\uplus t})\\geq1$ for $0<t\\leq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$, and therefore $\\mu^{\\uplus t}$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible. The first equality in (\\[N2\\]) follows by replacing $\\mu$ with $\\mu^{\\uplus(t+1)}$ and letting $p=1/(t+1)$ in Proposition \\[3.5\\], while the second equality follows from (\\[bijection\\]).\n\nNext, we relate the limit laws to $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicators.\n\n\\[limit\\] Let $q>0$ and $\\{\\mu_n\\}$ be a sequence of measures in $\\mathcal{M}$ such that $\\mu_n\\to\\mu$ weakly as $n\\to\\infty$ for some $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$. Then the following statements hold.\n\n1.  [The inequality $\\lim\\sup_n\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu_n)\\leq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$ holds.]{}\n\n2.  [For any $p>0$ with $1-\\inf_n\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu_n)\\leq p$, $\\mu_n^{\\boxplus\n    p}\\to\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ weakly as $n\\to\\infty$.]{}\n\n3.  [The measures $\\mu_n^{\\uplus q}\\to\\mu^{\\uplus q}$ weakly as $n\\to\\infty$.]{}\n\nThe measure $\\mu_n^{\\boxplus p}$ in (2) is defined for all $n$ by Proposition \\[3.5\\], whence (2) holds by \\[\\[HV2\\], Proposition 5.7\\]. The assertion (3) holds by \\[\\[BP\\], Proposition 6.2\\]. To prove (1), first consider the case that $0<t:=\\lim\\sup_n\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu_n)<\\infty$. Then for sufficiently small $\\epsilon>0$ we have $1<\\lim\\sup_n\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu_n^{\\uplus(t-\\epsilon)})$ by Lemma \\[3.4\\], whence there exists a subsequence $\\{\\mu_{n_k}\\}$ such that $\\mu_{n_k}^{\\uplus(t-\\epsilon)}$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible for all $k$. Since the set of $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures is weakly closed, we see that $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu^{\\uplus(t-\\epsilon)})\\geq1$ by (3), which yields $t-\\epsilon\\leq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$. Letting $\\epsilon\\to0$ shows $t\\leq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$. If $t=\\infty$ then by similar arguments it is easy to see that $m\\leq\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)$ for any $m>0$, and therefore $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=\\infty$. The assertion (1) clearly holds if $t=0$, and hence the proof is complete.\n\nIt was shown in Proposition \\[3.1\\] that the subordination function for the $\\boxplus$-convolution power appearing in (\\[p-power\\]) is in fact the reciprocal Cauchy transform of some $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure. The following theorem states that the converse is also true. For other related results about the $\\boxplus$-infinite divisibility of the subordination functions, we refer the reader to \\[\\[G4\\]\\] and \\[\\[Nica\\]\\].\n\n\\[sub\\] If $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ then the following statements $(1)$ and $(2)$ are equivalent.\n\n1.  [The measure $\\mu$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible.]{}\n\n2.  [The function $F_\\mu$ is the right inverse of some function $H\\in\\mathcal{H}$.]{}\n\nIf $(1)$ and $(2)$ hold then $F_\\mu$ extends continuously to $\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$, $H$ can be written as $$\\label{H}\nH(z)=F_\\mu^{-1}(z)=pz+(1-p)F_{\\mu_p}(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,$$ $\\phi_\\mu=E_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)}$, and $$F_{\\mu^{\\uplus\np^*}}(z)=F_{\\mu_p}(F_\\mu(z)),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,$$ where $$\\label{mup} \\mu_p=\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus\np^*}\\right)^{\\boxplus\\frac{1}{p}},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;p>1.$$ Moreover, for $r>0$ the measure $\\mu^{\\boxplus r}$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible and $$\\phi_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\nr}}=E_{\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus(1+r)}\\right)^{\\boxplus\\frac{r}{1+r}}}.$$\n\nFirst suppose that (2) holds, i.e., there exists some $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $H(z)=2z-F_\\nu(z)$ and $H(F_\\mu(z))=z$, $z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+$. By Proposition \\[prop2.1\\](5) we see that $F_\\mu(z)=\\left[F_{\\nu^{\\boxplus2}}(z)+z\\right]/2$ or, equivalently, $\\mu=\\mathbb{B}_1(\\nu)$, whence (1) holds by Proposition \\[3.1\\]. Conversely, if $\\mu$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible then the measure $\\mu_p$ in (\\[mup\\]) is defined by Lemma \\[3.4\\] and Proposition \\[3.5\\]. Moreover, by the fact $\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu_p)=\\mu$ and Proposition \\[3.1\\], we obtain $\\phi_\\mu=E_{\\mu_p^{\\uplus(p-1)}}$, which yields the implications that (1) implies (2), and (\\[H\\]). The last assertion follows from (\\[bijection\\]) and Proposition \\[3.6\\](1). Indeed, we have $$\\phi_{\\mu^{\\boxplus r}}=rE_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)}=E_{((\\mu^{\\uplus2})^{\\boxplus1/2})^{\\uplus r}}\n=E_{(\\mu^{\\uplus(1+r)})^{\\boxplus r/(1+r)}},$$ as desired. This finishes the proof.\n\nNext, we analyze the supports and regularity of $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures. Given such a measure $\\mu$, let $\\Omega=F_\\mu(\\mathbb{C}^+)$. Then by Proposition \\[prop2.1\\](1) and \\[sub\\], $\\Omega=\\{z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+:\\Im\nF_\\mu^{-1}(z)>0\\}$ is a simply connected domain and $\\partial\\Omega=F_\\mu(\\mathbb{R})$ is the graph of the continuous function $$\\begin{aligned}\nf(x)&=\\inf\\left\\{y>0:\\Im F_\\mu^{-1}(x+iy)>0\\right\\} \\\\\n&=\\inf\\left\\{y>0:\\frac{\\Im\nE_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)}(x+iy)}{y}>-1\\right\\},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;x\\in\\mathbb{R}.\\end{aligned}$$ Then Theorem \\[Hthm\\](1) shows that the function $\\psi(x)=F_\\mu^{-1}(x+if(x))$, $x\\in\\mathbb{R}$, is homeomorphism on $\\mathbb{R}$. With the help of Proposition \\[prop2.1\\], we have the following conclusions.\n\n\\[3.10\\] Suppose that $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible.\n\n1.  [The function $\\phi_\\mu$ has a continuous extension to $\\partial\\Omega$ and for any $z_1,z_2\\in\\overline{\\Omega}$, $$|\\phi_\\mu(z_1)-\\phi_\\mu(z_2)|\\leq|z_1-z_2|.$$]{}\n\n2.  [For any $z_1,z_2\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$, $$\\frac{|z_1-z_2|}{2}\\leq|F_\\mu(z_1)-F_\\mu(z_2)|.$$ Consequently, $G_\\mu$ has a continuous extension to $\\mathbb{R}$ except one point and the measure $\\mu$ has at most one atom.]{}\n\n3.  [The measure $\\mu$ has an atom if and only if $0\\in\\partial\\Omega$ and $$\\lim_{\\epsilon\\downarrow0}\\frac{F_\\mu^{-1}(i\\epsilon)-F_\\mu^{-1}(0)}{i\\epsilon}=m>0,$$ in which case the point $F_\\mu^{-1}(0)$ is an atom of $\\mu$ with mass $m$.]{}\n\n4.  [The nonatomic part of $\\mu$ is absolutely continuous $($with respect to Lebesgue measure$)$.]{}\n\n5.  [The measure $\\mu^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ is concentrated on the set $\\psi(\\overline{V^+})$, where $V^+=\\{x:f(x)>0\\}$.]{}\n\n6.  [At the point $\\psi(x)$, $x\\in V^+$, the density of $\\mu^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ is analytic and given by $$\\frac{d\\mu^{\\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}(\\psi(x))=\\frac{f(x)}{\\pi(x^2+f^2(x))}.$$]{}\n\n7.  [The measure $\\mu$ is compactly supported if and only if so is $f$.]{}\n\nBy letting $p=2$ in Proposition \\[prop2.1\\] and Theorem \\[sub\\], we have $H(z)=F_\\mu^{-1}(z)=2z-F_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)}(z)$, $z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+$. Then it follows from \\[prop2.1\\](2) that $$\\label{in}\n\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s^2+1}{|s-z|^2}\\;d\\sigma(s)\\leq1,\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\overline{\\Omega}.$$ where $\\sigma$ is the measure in the Nevanlinna representation of $F_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)}$. Since $\\phi_\\mu=E_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)}$, the inequality in (1) holds for $z\\in\\Omega$ by H\u00f6lder inequality and (\\[in\\]), whence (1) holds by continuous extension. The assertion (2) follows from Proposition \\[prop2.1\\] (3). Observer that $\\mu$ has an atom at $\\alpha$ if and only if $F_\\mu(\\alpha)=0$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(\\alpha)<\\infty$, which happens if and only if $0\\in\\partial\\Omega$ and $$0<\\frac{1}{F_\\mu'(\\alpha)}=(F_\\mu^{-1})'(0),$$ where $(F_\\mu^{-1})'(0)$ is the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative of $F_\\mu^{-1}$ at $0$. Hence $\\mu(\\{\\alpha\\})=(F_\\mu^{-1})'(0)$ and (3) holds. Next, note that for any $x\\in\\mathbb{R}$ we have $F_\\mu(\\psi(x))=x+if(x)$. Since $F_\\mu$ extends continuously to $\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$, applying the inversion formula (\\[inversion\\]) gives $$\\frac{d\\mu^{\\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}(\\psi(x))=\\frac{-1}{\\pi}\\Im G_\\mu(\\psi(x))=\n\\frac{f(x)}{\\pi(x^2+f^2(x))},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;x\\in V^+,$$ which, along with \\[prop2.1\\](4) gives (5) and (6). As noted above, $F_\\mu(x)=0$ a.e. relative to the singular part of $\\mu$, from which we deduce that the singular part of $\\mu$ is atomic, which gives (4). That (7) follows from (5) and the fact that $\\mu$ has at most one atom.\n\nThe constants appearing in \\[3.10\\](1) and (2) are sharp. Indeed, by considering the standard semicircular distribution we have $\\Omega=\\{z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+:|z|>1\\}$, and then taking $z_1=1$ and $z_2=-1$ shows that $1$ is the best constant in (1), whence the same conclusion for (2) follows immediately.\n\nRecall that the compound free Poisson distribution $p(\\lambda,\\nu)$ with the rate $\\lambda>0$ and jump distribution $\\nu$is defined as the weak limit as $n\\to\\infty$ of $\\mu_n^{\\boxplus n}$, where $$\\mu_n=\\left(1-\\frac{\\lambda}{n}\\right)\\delta_0+\\frac{\\lambda}{n}\\nu$$ and $\\nu$ is compactly supported. The next proposition generalizes the jump distribution with compact support to any measure in $\\mathcal{M}$.\n\n\\[Poisson\\] Given $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$, define $$d\\rho(s)=\\frac{s^2}{s^2+1}\\;d\\nu(s).$$ Then $p(\\lambda,\\nu)=\\mathbb{B}_{1+\\lambda,1/(1+\\lambda)^*}(\\mu_0)$, where $\\mu_0$ is a measure in $\\mathcal{M}$ whose reciprocal Cauchy transform satisfies $$F_{\\mu_0}(z)=-\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s}{s^2+1}\\;d\\nu(s)+z+\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{1+sz}{s-z}\\;d\\rho(s).$$ Consequently, $p(\\lambda,\\nu)$ is a $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure with an atom at $0$ of mass $1-\\lambda$ for $\\lambda<1$ and no atom for $\\lambda\\geq1$, $$\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)}(z)=\\lambda E_{\\mu_0}(z)=\\lambda z\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s}{z-s}\\;d\\nu(s),$$ and $$\\mathrm{Ind}(p(\\lambda,\\nu))=\\frac{\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu_0)+\\lambda}{\\lambda}.$$\n\nSince $s^2/(s^2+1)\\in L^1(d\\nu)$, the measure $\\rho$ is finite and positive, and the limit $$\\lim_{n\\to\\infty}\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{ns}{s^2+1}\\;d\\mu_n(s)=\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{\\lambda s}{s^2+1}\\;d\\nu(s)$$ exists. Moreover, it is easy to see that $$\\frac{ns^2}{s^2+1}\\;d\\mu_n(s)\\to \\lambda d\\rho(s)$$ weakly. By Theorem \\[thm2.2\\], the measure $\\mu_n^{\\boxplus n}$ converges weakly to $p(\\lambda,\\nu)$, which satisfies $$\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)}(z)=\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{\\lambda s}{s^2+1}\\;d\\nu(s)+\n\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{\\lambda(1+sz)}{z-s}\\;d\\rho(s)=\\lambda\nz\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s}{z-s}\\;d\\nu(s).$$ On the other hand, the definition of $\\mu_0$ and Proposition 3.1 show that $$\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}_{1+\\lambda,1/(1+\\lambda)^*}\n(\\mu_0)}=\\lambda E_{\\mu_0}=\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)}.$$ Then by Lemma \\[3.4\\] and (\\[Nindicator\\]) we have $$\\mathrm{Ind}(p(\\lambda,\\nu))=\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mathbb{B}_\\lambda(\\mu_0)^{\\uplus \\lambda})\n=\\frac{\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu_0)+\\lambda}{\\lambda}.$$ Next, we apply Theorem \\[3.10\\](3) to locate the atom of $p(\\lambda,\\nu)$. Since $\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)}(0)=0$, $0\\in\\partial\nF_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)}(\\mathbb{C}^+)$. Moreover, by the dominated convergence theorem we obtain $$\\lim_{\\epsilon\\downarrow0}\\frac{\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)}(i\\epsilon)-\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)}(0)}{i\\epsilon}\n=\\lambda\\lim_{\\epsilon\\downarrow0}\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s}{i\\epsilon-s}\\;d\\nu(s)=-\\lambda,$$ which gives the desired result. This completes the proof.\n\nSince the $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicator is zero for any measure with finite support, we have the following result.\n\nWe have $p(\\lambda,\\delta_a)=\\mathbb{B}_{1+\\lambda,1/(1+\\lambda)^*}(\\mu_0)$, where $\\mu_0=(\\delta_0+\\delta_{2a})/2$, $\\mathrm{Ind}(p(\\lambda,\\delta_a))=1$, and $\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\delta_a)}(z)=a\\lambda z/(z-a)$.\n\nWe finish this section with an interesting observation. If $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>1$ then $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu))=\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)-1>0$ by (\\[Nindicator\\]) and (\\[bijection\\]). This implies that $\\phi_\\mu=E_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)}$ has a continuous extension to $\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$ by Proposition \\[3.5\\], whence we have the following proposition.\n\nIf $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ with $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>1$ then $\\phi_\\mu$ has a continuous extension to $\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$.\n\nMeasures with mean zero and finite variance\n===========================================\n\nRecall that for $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ with mean zero and unit variance, $\\Phi(\\mu)$ is the unique measure in $\\mathcal{M}$ satisfying the Eq. (\\[EMaa\\]) with $\\sigma^2=1$, i.e.,$\nE_\\mu=G_{\\Phi(\\mu)}$. In general, a measure $\\mu$ has mean $m$ and finite variance $\\sigma^2$ if and only if $\\mu\\boxplus\\delta_{-m}$ has mean zero and variance $\\sigma^2$ because $d(\\mu\\boxplus\\delta_{-m})(s)=d\\mu(s+m)$, and hence $E_{\\mu\\boxplus\\delta_{-m}}=\\sigma^2G_{\\Phi((\\mu\\boxplus\\delta_{-m})^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})}$. Since $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu\\boxplus\\delta_a)$ for any $a\\in\\mathbb{R}$ by \\[\\[Japan\\], Proposition 3.7\\], in what follows we only consider measures with mean zero and finite variance.\n\nRecall that the free Brownian motion started at $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ is the process $\\{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_t:t\\geq0\\}$. The connection among this process, the map $\\mathbb{B}_t$, and the subordination function of the $\\boxplus$-convolution powers is described in the following theorem, which was proved in \\[\\[BN1\\]\\] and \\[\\[Biane1\\]\\]. For the completeness, we provide its statement and proof.\n\n\\[Brownian\\] If $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and variance $\\sigma^2$, and $\\nu=\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})$ then $$\\label{Gmotion}\nG_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{t\\sigma^2}}(z)=\nG_\\nu(F_{\\mathbb{B}_{t+1,t/(t+1)}(\\mu)}(z))=\\frac{E_{\\mathbb{B}_{t+1,t/(t+1)}(\\mu)}(z)}{t\\sigma^2},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\nz\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R},$$ where $t>0$. Consequently, we have $\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}_{t+1,t/(t+1)}(\\mu)}=t\\sigma^2G_\\nu$ and $$\\label{motion}\nE_{\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu)}=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{t\\sigma^2}}.$$\n\nLet $p=t+1>1$. Since $E_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_\\nu$, it follows that $$H_p(z):=pz+(1-p)F_\\mu(z)=z+(p-1)\\sigma^2G_\\nu(z),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+.$$ If $\\omega_p$ is the right inverse of $H_p$ then \\[\\[Biane1\\], Proposition 2\\] shows that $$G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{(p-1)\\sigma^2}}(z)=G_\\nu(\\omega_p(z))=\\frac{z-\\omega_p(z)}{(p-1)\\sigma^2},\n\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}.$$ Since $\\omega_p=F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)}$ by Proposition \\[3.1\\], the above identity yields (\\[Gmotion\\]). Finally, the rest assertions follow from $\\phi_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}}=E_{\\mu^{\\uplus(p-1)}}=(p-1)\\sigma^2G_\\nu$ and (\\[Gmotion\\]).\n\nThe identity (\\[motion\\]) indicates that $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ has mean zero and finite variance $p\\sigma^2$ if $p\\geq1$. The next result shows that this is also true for the measure $\\mu^{\\boxplus\np}$ whenever it is defined.\n\n\\[4.1\\] Suppose that $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and variance $\\sigma^2$. If the measure $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ is defined for some $p>0$ then it has mean zero and variance $p$, in which case $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\Phi\\left(\\left(\\mu^{\\boxplus\np}\\right)^{\\uplus1/(p\\sigma^2)}\\right)=\\Phi\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2}\\right)\n\\boxplus\\gamma_{(p-1)\\sigma^2},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;p\\geq1, \\\\\n&\\Phi\\left(\\left(\\mu^{\\boxplus\np}\\right)^{\\uplus1/(p\\sigma^2)}\\right)\\boxplus\\gamma_{(1-p)\\sigma^2}=\\Phi\n\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2}\\right),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;p<1.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy (\\[motion\\]), it suffices to show the lemma for the case $1-\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)\\leq p<1$. Let $\\nu=\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})$, $\\mu_p=\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$, and $H(z)=z/p+(1-1/p)F_{\\mu_p}(z)$. Then it follows from (\\[p&lt;1\\]) that $F_{\\mu_p}(iy)=F_\\mu(H(iy))$ or, equivalently, $E_{\\mu_p}(iy)=iy-H(iy)+\\sigma^2G_\\nu(H(iy))$ for sufficiently large $y>0$. Since $z-H(z)=(1-1/p)E_\\mu(z)$, we see that $E_{\\mu_p}(iy)=p\\sigma^2G_\\nu(H(iy))$ for sufficiently large $y>0$. Next, we claim that $E_{\\mu_p}/(p\\sigma^2)\\in\\mathcal{G}$. Indeed, since $\\lim_{y\\to\\infty}H(iy)/(iy)=1$, for any $\\alpha>0$ there exists a number $\\beta>0$ such that $$\\left|\\frac{H(iy)}{iy}-1\\right|<c_\\alpha:=\\frac{\\alpha}{\\sqrt{1+\\alpha^2}},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;y>\\beta,$$ from which we deduce that $H(iy)\\in\\Gamma_{\\alpha,\\beta'}$ for $y>\\beta$, where $\\beta'=(1-c_\\alpha)\\beta$. By \\[\\[HV2\\], Proposition 5.1\\], we obtain $$\\lim_{y\\to\\infty}iyE_{\\mu_p}(iy)=p\\sigma^2\\left(\\lim_{y\\to\\infty}\\frac{iy}{H(iy)}\\right)\n\\left(\\lim_{y\\to\\infty}H(iy)G_\\nu(H(iy))\\right)=p\\sigma^2,$$ which yields that $E_{\\mu_p}/(p\\sigma^2)\\in\\mathcal{G}$, as desired. Finally, let $\\nu_p=\\Phi((\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\uplus1/(p\\sigma^2)})$. Then $E_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}=p\\sigma^2G_{\\nu_p}$ and (\\[motion\\]) show that $$p\\sigma^2G_{\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})}=E_{\\mu^{\\uplus\np}}=E_{\\mathbb{B}_{1/p-1}(\\mu^{\\boxplus\np})}=p\\sigma^2G_{\\nu_p\\boxplus\\gamma_{(1-p)\\sigma^2}},$$ which gives the last assertion. If $p>1$ then $E_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_{\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})}$ and (\\[motion\\]) yield $$E_{\\mathbb{B}_{p-1}(\\mu)}=\\sigma^2G_{\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})\\boxplus\\gamma_{(p-1)\\sigma^2}},$$ as desired. This completes the proof.\n\n\\[meanbasic\\] Suppose that $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and finite variance $\\sigma^2$. If $t$ is a finite number with $0\\leq\nt\\leq \\varphi(\\mu)$ and $\\mu_t$ is the measure defined in $(\\ref{N1})$ then $$E_{\\mu_t}=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu_t}\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\nE_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu_t\\boxplus\\gamma_{t\\sigma^2}},$$ where $\\nu_t=\\Phi\\left(\\mu_t^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2}\\right)$.\n\nBy Lemma \\[4.1\\], it is clear that $\\mu_t$ has mean zero and variance $\\sigma^2$, whence the conclusions follows from (\\[motion\\]).\n\nThe preceding proposition gives a reformulation for the $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicator of measures with mean zero and finite variance.\n\n\\[Ind\\] If $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and finite variance $\\sigma^2$ then $$\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=\\sup\\left\\{t\\geq0:E_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu_t\\boxplus\\gamma_{t\\sigma^2}}\\;\\;\\mathrm{for}\\;\\;\n\\mathrm{some}\\;\\;\\nu_t\\in\\mathcal{M}\\right\\}.$$\n\nThe preceding corollary enables us to associate to each measure $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ a nonnegative number: $$C(\\nu)=\\sup\\{t\\geq0:\\nu=\\nu_t\\boxplus\\gamma_t\\;\\;\\mathrm{for\\;\\;some\\;\\;}\\nu_t\\in\\mathcal{M}\\}.$$ We will call $C(\\nu)$ the semicircular decomposition indicator of $\\nu$. The connection between $\\boxplus$-divisibility indicator and semicircular decomposition indicator is described in the next result.\n\n\\[BInd\\] For any $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ we have $B(\\nu)=\\mathrm{Ind}(\\Phi^{-1}(\\nu))$.\n\nWe now characterize $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measures with mean zero and finite variance.\n\n\\[divisible\\] If $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $\\sigma\\in(0,\\infty)$ then the following statements are equivalent:\n\n1.  [$\\mu$ is a $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure with mean zero and variance $\\sigma^2$;]{}\n\n2.  [there exists a measure $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $\\phi_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_\\nu$;]{}\n\n3.  [$F_\\mu$ is the right inverse of some $H\\in\\mathcal{H}$ satisfying $\\lim_{y\\to\\infty}iy(H(iy)-iy)=\\sigma^2$;]{}\n\n4.  [there exists a measure $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $E_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{\\sigma^2}}$.]{}\n\nIf $(1)$-$(4)$ hold and $p=1+\\sigma^2$ then the measure $\\nu$ in $(2)$ and $(4)$ can be expressed as $$\\nu=\\Phi\\left(\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus p^*}\\right)^{\\boxplus1/p}\\right).$$ The function $H$ in $(3)$ can be expressed as $$\\label{HG} H(z)=z+\\sigma^2G_\\nu(z),$$ and $$\\label{HG2} G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{\\sigma^2}}(z)\n=G_\\nu(F_\\mu(z)),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}.$$ Moreover, for any $r>0$ we have $$E_{\\mu^{\\boxplus r}}=r\\sigma^2G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{r\\sigma^2}}.$$\n\nFirst suppose that (1) holds. Then the measure $(\\mu^{\\uplus2})^{\\boxplus1/2}=\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)$ has mean zero and variance $\\sigma^2$ by Lemma \\[4.1\\], whence $\\phi_\\mu=E_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)}=\\sigma^2G_\\nu$ for some $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and (2) follows. The definition of $\\Phi$ shows that $\\nu$ can be expressed as $$\\nu=\\Phi\\left((\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu))^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2}\\right)=\\Phi\\left(\\left(\\mu^{\\uplus q^*}\\right)^\n{\\boxplus1/q}\\right),$$ where the Eq. (\\[formula2\\]) is used in the second equality above. If (2) holds then $H(z)=F_\\mu^{-1}(z)=\\phi_\\mu(z)+z$, which implies (3). If the statement (3) holds then $H(z)=z+\\sigma^2G_{\\nu_1}$ for some $\\nu_1\\in\\mathcal{M}$. Then \\[\\[Biane1\\], Proposition 2\\] shows that $F_\\mu$ is the subordination function of $\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{\\sigma^2}$ with respect to $\\nu$, whence we have $$G_{\\nu_1\\boxplus\\gamma_{\\sigma^2}}(z)=G_{\\nu_1}(F_\\mu(z))=\\frac{z-F_\\mu(z)}{\\sigma^2},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+,$$ and the assertion (4) holds. The implication that (4) implies (1) follows from Corollary \\[Ind\\]. Moreover, the identity (\\[motion\\]) shows that $E_\\mu=E_{\\mathbb{B}(\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu))}=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu_2\\boxplus\\gamma_{\\sigma^2}}$, whence the assertions (\\[HG\\]) and (\\[HG2\\]) hold by the preceding discussions. For the last assertion it suffices to show that $\\nu_r:=\\Phi((\\mu^{\\boxplus r})^{\\uplus1/(r\\sigma^2)})=\n\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{r\\sigma^2}$. If $r<1$ then $\\nu_r\\boxplus\\gamma_{(1-r)\\sigma^2}=\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})$ by Lemma \\[4.1\\]. Since $\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})=\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{\\sigma^2}$, the desired equality follows. Similarly, if $r>1$ then $\\nu_r=\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})\\boxplus\\gamma_{(r-1)\\sigma^2}=\n\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{r\\sigma^2}$, as desired.\n\nLet $H$ be the function defined as in (\\[HG\\]) and $$\\Omega=\\{z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+:\\Im H(z)>0\\}.$$ It was shown in \\[\\[Biane1\\]\\] that the function $G_\\nu$ extends continuously to $\\overline{\\Omega}$ and this extension is Lipschitz continuous on $\\overline{\\Omega}$ with the Lipschitz constant $1/\\sigma^2$. Moreover, $$|G_\\nu(z)|\\leq\\frac{1}{\\sigma},\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\overline{\\Omega}.$$ Combining these facts and Theorem \\[divisible\\] gives the following result.\n\nIf $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ is a $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible measure with mean zero and finite variance $\\sigma^2$ then $$|G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{\\sigma^2}}(z_1)-G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_{\\sigma^2}}(z_2)|\\leq\n\\frac{1}{\\sigma^2}|F_\\mu(z_1)-F_\\mu(z_2)|,\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z_1,z_2\\in\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R},$$ and $$|\\phi_\\mu(z)|\\leq\\sigma,\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;\nz\\in\\overline{\\Omega},$$ where $\\nu=\\Phi(\\mu^{\\uplus1/\\sigma^2})$ and $\\Omega=F_\\mu(\\mathbb{C}^+)$.\n\nIt was shown before that $E_\\mu$ has a continuous extension to $\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{R}$ if $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>0$. In general, the converse is not true. Indeed, let $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ be so that $E_\\mu=G_N=1/(z+i)$, where $N$ is the Cauchy distribution. Since $\\phi_N=-i$, it is easy to see that $N$ cannot be written as a free Brownian motion stated at some measure, whence $B(N)=0$, which yields $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=0$ by Theorem \\[BInd\\]. In the following theorem, we improve this result for measures with mean zero and finite variance.\n\n\\[NandS\\] If $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ has mean zero and finite variance $\\sigma^2$ then\n\n1.  [$\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>0$ if and only if $E_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_t}$ for some $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $t>0$;]{}\n\n2.  [$\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>1$ if and only if $\\phi_\\mu=\\sigma^2G_{\\nu\\boxplus\\gamma_t}$ for some $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $t>0$]{}.\n\nThe assertion (1) was proved in Proposition \\[meanbasic\\]. Since $\\phi_\\mu=E_{\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu)}$ and $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)=1+\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mathbb{B}^{-1}(\\mu))$ if $\\mu$ is $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisible, the assertion (2) follows (1).\n\nFor $a\\in\\mathbb{R}$, by the fact $(\\mu\\boxplus\\delta_a)^{\\boxplus\np}=\\mu^{\\boxplus p}\\boxplus\\delta_{pa}$ and the identity $(\\mu\\boxplus\\delta_a)^{\\uplus q}=(\\mu^{\\uplus\nq}\\boxplus\\delta_a)\\uplus\\delta_{(q-1)a}$ shown in \\[\\[Japan\\], Proposition 3.7\\] we have $$\\label{Bpq} \\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu\\boxplus\\delta_a)=\n(\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)\\boxplus\\delta_{pa})\\uplus\\delta_{p(q-1)a}.$$ Next, we use (\\[Bpq\\]) to investigate the free compound Poisson distribution $p(\\lambda,\\nu)$, where $\\nu$ has finite variance.\n\nSuppose that $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ has mean $m$ and finite variance $\\sigma^2$. Then $$E_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)\\boxplus\\delta_{-\\lambda m}}=\n\\lambda m_2G_{\\nu_0\\boxplus\\gamma_{\\lambda m_2}}$$ and $$\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)\\boxplus\\delta_{-\\lambda\nm}}=\\lambda m_2G_{\\nu_0},$$ where $m_2=m^2+\\sigma^2$ is the second moment of $\\nu$ and $d\\nu_0(s)=s^2/m_2d\\nu(s)$. Consequently, $p(\\lambda,\\nu)$ has mean $\\lambda m$ and variance $\\lambda m_2$, and $\\mathrm{Ind}(p(\\lambda,\\nu))>1$ if $B(\\nu_0)>0$.\n\nIf $\\mu_0$ is the measure defined in Proposition \\[Poisson\\] then $$\\label{4.2} E_{\\mu_0}(z)=\\int_\\mathbb{R}s\\;d\\nu(s)+\n\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s^2}{z-s}\\;d\\nu(s)=m+m_2G_{\\nu_0}(z),$$ from which we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nE_{\\mu_0\\boxplus\\delta_{-m}}(z)&=E_{\\mu_0}(z+m)-m \\\\\n&=m_2G_{\\nu_0}(z+m)=m_2G_{\\nu_0\\boxplus\\delta_{-m}}(z).\\end{aligned}$$ Then Theorem \\[Brownian\\] shows that for any $p>1$ we have $$\\label{4.3} E_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*(\\mu_0\\boxplus\\delta_{-m})}}\n=(p-1)E_{\\mathbb{B}_{p-1}(\\mu_0\\boxplus\\delta_{-m})}\n=(p-1)m_2G_{\\nu_0\\boxplus\\delta_{-m}\\boxplus\\gamma_{(p-1)m_2}}.$$ On the other hand, by (\\[Bpq\\]) we have $$E_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*(\\mu_0\\boxplus\\delta_{-m})}}(z)\n=E_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu_0)}(z-pm)+(1-p)m,$$ from which, along with (\\[4.3\\]), we deduce that $$E_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu_0)}(z)+(1-p)m=(p-1)m_2G_{\\nu_0\\boxplus\\delta_{-m}\\boxplus\\gamma_{(p-1)m_2}}(z-pm)$$ or, equivalently, $$E_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu_0)\\boxplus\\delta_{(1-p)m}}=\n(p-1)m_2G_{\\nu_0\\boxplus\\delta_{(p-1)m}\\boxplus\\gamma_{(p-1)m_2}}.$$ Letting $p=\\lambda+1$ in the above identity gives that $p(\\lambda,\\nu)$ have mean $\\lambda m$ and variance $\\lambda m_2$. Since $\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)}=\\lambda E_{\\mu_0}$, it follows from (\\[4.2\\]) that $$\\phi_{p(\\lambda,\\nu)\\boxplus\\delta_{-\\lambda\nm}}=\\lambda m_2G_{\\nu_0}.$$ The last assertion follows from \\[\\[Japan\\], Proposition 3.7\\] and Corollary \\[NandS\\].\n\nFrom the preceding proposition, it is easy to see that $p(\\lambda,\\delta_a)$ has mean $\\lambda a$ and variance $\\lambda\na^2$, and $\\mathrm{Ind}(p(\\lambda,\\delta_a))=1$ since $\\nu_0=\\delta_a$.\n\nSupport and regularity for measures in $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mathcal{M})$\n======================================================================\n\nIf $p,q>0$ then the measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$ (if $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ is defined) is a Dirac measure $\\delta_a$ if and only if $\\mu=\\delta_{a/(pq)}$. For the rest of the paper we confine our attention to the case of $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ which is not a point mass and follow the notations used in Proposition \\[prop2.1\\] and \\[Hthm\\]. We denote by $\\rho$ the unique nonzero (because $\\mu\\neq\\delta_a$) measure in the Nevanlinna representation (\\[NeF\\]) of $F_\\mu$. Therefore, the Nevanlinna representation of $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}$ is $$\\label{Neq}\nF_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}(z)=q\\Re\nF_\\mu(1)+z+q\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{1+sz}{s-z}\\;d\\rho(s),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\mathbb{C}^+.$$\n\nIn certain situation, $F_\\mu$ is defined and takes a real value at some $x\\in\\mathbb{R}$ (for instance, $x$ is an atom of $\\mu$), in which case we write $F_\\mu(x)\\in\\mathbb{R}$. The following result shows that for $p>1,q>0$, $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}$ is Lipschitz continuous on $\\overline{\\Omega_p}$ and takes real values on $\\overline{\\Omega_p}\\cap\\mathbb{R}$.\n\n\\[Lip\\] For $p>1,q>0$, $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus\nq}}$ extends continuously to $\\overline{\\Omega_p}$ and satisfies $$\\left|\\frac{F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}(z_1)-F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}(z_2)}{z_1-z_2}\\right|\n\\leq1+\\frac{q}{p-1},\\;\\;\\;\\;z_1,z_2\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}.$$ Moreover, $(\\ref{Neq})$ holds for $z\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}'$ is $$\\label{JCq}\nF_{\\mu^{\\uplus\nq}}'(z)=1+q\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s^2+1}{(s-z)^2}\\;d\\rho(s),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}.$$\n\nFirst, applying Proposition \\[prop2.1\\](2) and the H\u00f6lder inequality to $E_\\mu$ gives $$\\left|\\frac{E_\\mu(z_1)-E_\\mu(z_2)}{z_1-z_2}\\right|\\leq\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{(s^2+1)d\\rho(s)}{|s-z_1||s-z_2|}\n\\leq\\frac{1}{p-1},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z_1,z_2\\in\\Omega_p.$$ Then by the continuous extension, the above inequality holds for $z_1,z_2\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}$, and therefore the Nevanlinna representation (\\[NeE\\]) of $E_\\mu$ holds for $z\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}$. Using the dominated convergence theorem, the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory $E_\\mu'$ is then given by $$E_\\mu'(z)=\\lim_{\\epsilon\\downarrow0}\n\\frac{E_\\mu(z+i\\epsilon)-E_\\mu(z)}{i\\epsilon}\n=-\\int_\\mathbb{R}\\frac{s^2+1}{(s-z)^2}\\;d\\rho(s),\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;z\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p},$$ whence the desired results follow from the identities $E_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}=qE_\\mu$ and $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus\nq}}'=1-E_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}'$.\n\nThe following lemma plays an important role in the investigation of atoms of the measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$.\n\n\\[basic\\] Let $x\\in\\mathbb{R}$ and $f_\\mu$ be the function defined as in $(\\ref{fmu})$. Then\\\n$(1)$ $F_\\mu(x)\\in\\mathbb{R}$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(x)\\in(1,\\infty)$\\\nif and only if\\\n$(2)$ $F_\\mu(x)\\in\\mathbb{R}$ and $f_\\mu(x)\\in(0,\\infty)$,\\\nin which case $(\\ref{NeF})$ holds for $z=x$ and $F_\\mu'(x)=1+f_\\mu(x)$.\n\nFirst, suppose that (2) holds. Then $x\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}$ for some $p>1$ and (\\[NeF\\]) holds for $z=x$ by Proposition \\[prop2.1\\](2). As shown in Proposition \\[Lip\\], we have the Julia-Catath\u00e9odory $E_\\mu'(x)=f_\\mu(x)$, whence Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(x)=1+f_\\mu(x)\\in(1,\\infty)$ and (1) follows. On the other hand, if both $F_\\mu(x)$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(x)$ are real numbers then $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_\\mu'(x)&=\\lim_{\\epsilon\\downarrow0}\\frac{\\Re[F_\\mu(x+i\\epsilon)-F_\\mu(x)]}{i\\epsilon}\n+\\lim_{\\epsilon\\downarrow0}\\frac{i\\Im[F_\\mu(x+i\\epsilon)-F_\\mu(x)]}{i\\epsilon} \\\\\n&=\\lim_{\\epsilon\\downarrow0}\\frac{\\Im[F_\\mu(x+i\\epsilon)-F_\\mu(x)]}{\\epsilon}\n=\\lim_{\\epsilon\\downarrow0}\\frac{\\Im F_\\mu(x+i\\epsilon)}{\\epsilon} \\\\\n&=\\lim_{\\epsilon\\downarrow0}\\left(1+\\int_{\\mathbb{R}}\\frac{s^2+1}{(s-x)^2+\\epsilon^2}\\;d\\rho(s)\\right) \\\\\n&=1+\\int_{\\mathbb{R}}\\frac{s^2+1}{(s-x)^2}\\;d\\rho(s),\\end{aligned}$$ where the monotone convergence theorem is used in the last equality. This yields the implication that (1) implies (2) and the proof is complete.\n\nRecall that $\\alpha$ is an atom of a measure $\\nu$ if and only if $F_\\nu(\\alpha)=0$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\nu'(\\alpha)\\in[1,\\infty)$, in which case $\\nu(\\{\\alpha\\})=1/F_\\nu'(\\alpha)$. The atoms of $\\mu^{\\uplus q}$, $q>0$, are characterized in the following proposition, which is a direct consequence of Lemma \\[basic\\] and the identity $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}'=qF_\\mu'+1-q$, where $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}'$ and $F_\\mu'$ are the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivatives.\n\n\\[qatom\\] If $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ $(\\mu\\neq\\delta_a)$, $q>0$, and $\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{R}$ then $(1)$-$(3)$ are equivalent:\n\n1.  [the point $\\alpha$ is an atom of the measure $\\mu^{\\uplus\n    q}$;]{}\n\n2.  [$F_\\mu(\\alpha)=\\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(\\alpha)\\in(1,\\infty)$;]{}\n\n3.  [$F_\\mu(\\alpha)=\\alpha/q^*$ and $f_\\mu(\\alpha)\\in(0,\\infty)$.]{}\n\nIf $r=(1-\\mu^{\\uplus q}(\\{\\alpha\\}))^{-1}>1$ then $(\\ref{NeF})$ holds for $z=\\alpha$ and $$F_\\mu'(\\alpha)=1+f_\\mu(\\alpha)=1+\\frac{1}{q(r-1)}.$$\n\nUsing the identity $\\mu=(\\mu^{\\uplus q})^{\\uplus 1/q}$, $q>0$, gives the following corollary.\n\nIf $q>0$, $r>1$, and $\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{R}$ then the following statements are equivalent:\n\n1.  [$\\alpha$ is an atom of $\\mu$;]{}\n\n2.  [$F_\\mu(\\alpha)=0$ and $f_\\mu(\\alpha)\\in(0,\\infty)$;]{}\n\n3.  [$F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}(\\alpha)=(1-q)\\alpha$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus\n    q}}'(\\alpha)\\in(1,\\infty)$;]{}\n\n4.  [$F_{\\mu^{\\uplus1/q}}(\\alpha)=\\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus1/q}}'(\\alpha)\\in(1,\\infty)$.]{}\n\nIf $\\mu(\\{\\alpha\\})=1-r^{-1}$ then $f_\\mu(\\alpha)=1/r-1$, $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus q}}'(\\alpha)=1+q/(r-1)$, and $F_{\\mu^{\\uplus1/q}}'(\\alpha)=1+[q(r-1)]^{-1}$.\n\nNext, we characterize the points in $\\mathbb{R}$ at which $F_\\mu$ is defined, takes real values, and has finite Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivatives.\n\n\\[preal\\] Let $p>1$ and let $x,\\alpha$, and $\\beta$ be real numbers. If $px+(1-p)\\beta=\\alpha$ then $(1)$-$(4)$ are equivalent:\n\n1.  [$F_\\mu(x)=\\beta$ and $0<f_\\mu(x)<1/(p-1)$;]{}\n\n2.  [$F_\\mu(x)=\\beta$ and Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(x)\\in(1,p^*)$;]{}\n\n3.  [$H_p(x)=\\alpha$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $H_p'(x)\\in(0,1)$;]{}\n\n4.  [$\\omega_p(\\alpha)=x$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $\\omega_p'(\\alpha)\\in(1,\\infty)$;]{}\n\n5.  [$F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}(\\alpha)=\\beta$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}}'(\\alpha)\\in(1,\\infty)$.]{}\n\nIf $(1)$-$(5)$ holds then $(2.1)$ holds for $z=x$ and $$F_\\mu'(x)=1+f_\\mu(x)=\\frac{p-H_p'(x)}{p-1}=\\frac{p\\omega_p'(\\alpha)-1}{(p-1)\\omega_p'(\\alpha)}=\\frac{pF_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\np}}'(\\alpha)}{1+(p-1)F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}'(\\alpha)}.$$\n\nThe equivalence of (1) and (2) was proved in Lemma \\[basic\\]. The equivalence of (2) and (3) and that of (4) and (5) follow from the identities of Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivatives $H_p'(x)=p+(1-p)F_\\mu'(x)$ and $F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}'(\\alpha)=(p\\omega_p'(\\alpha)-1)/(p-1)$, respectively. The implication that (4) implies (3) holds by the fact $\\omega_p'(\\alpha)=1/H_p'(x)$, where the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $\\omega_p'(\\alpha)$ must be understood as $+\\infty$ if the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $H_p'(x)=0$. Conversely, if (3) holds, i.e., (1) holds (because (1) and (3) was proved to be equivalent) then $x\\in\\overline{\\Omega_p}$, whence we have $\\omega_p(H_p(x))=x$ by Proposition \\[prop2.1\\] (3), and the statement (4) holds by the equality $\\omega_p'(\\alpha)=1/H_p'(x)$. The last assertion follows from the preceding discussions.\n\nWe are now in a position to characterize the atoms of the measures in $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mathcal{M})$.\n\n\\[pqatom\\] Suppose $\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{R}$, $p>1$, and $q>0$, and let $p',q'$ be the numbers defined in Proposition $\\ref{3.6}$. If $p^*q\\neq1$ then the following statements are equivalent:\n\n1.  [the point $\\alpha$ is an atom of $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$;]{}\n\n2.  [$F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}(\\alpha)=\\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\n    p}}'(\\alpha)\\in(1,\\infty)$;]{}\n\n3.  [$F_\\mu(\\alpha/p')=\\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(\\alpha/p')\\in(1,p^*)$;]{}\n\n4.  [$F_\\mu(\\alpha/p')=\\alpha/q^*$ and $0<f_\\mu(\\alpha/p')<1/(p-1)$.]{}\n\nMoreover, if $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)(\\{\\alpha\\})=1-r^{-1}$ for some $r>1$ then $$F'_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}(\\alpha)=1+\\frac{1}{q(r-1)}$$ and $$F_\\mu'(\\alpha/p')=1+f_\\mu(\\alpha/p')=\\frac{pq(r-1)+p}{pq(r-1)+p-1}=1+\\frac{1}{q'(rp'-1)}.$$ In addition, if $p^*q<1$ then $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$ has at most one atom. Particularly, the above assertions hold for $\\mathbb{B}_t$, $t\\in(0,\\infty)\\backslash\\{1\\}$, as well.\n\nThe equivalence of (1) and (2) follows from Proposition \\[qatom\\]. Next, note that the hypothesis $p^*q\\neq1$ shows that $p'\\neq\\infty$. Then letting $x=\\alpha/p'$ and $\\beta=\\alpha/q^*$ gives the equivalence of (2) and (3) by Proposition \\[preal\\]. By Lemma \\[basic\\] we see that (3) and (4) are equivalent. By simple computations, the rest desired equalities also follow from Lemma \\[basic\\], Proposition \\[qatom\\], and \\[preal\\]. That the measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$, $p^*q<1$, has at most one atom is a direct consequence of Theorem \\[3.3\\] and \\[3.10\\].\n\nProposition \\[pqatom\\] indicates that the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'<p^*$ is one of the necessary conditions to guarantee the existence of an atom of $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$, $p^*q\\neq1$. Indeed, consider the symmetric Bernoulli distribution $\\mu=\\frac{1}{2}(\\delta_{-1}+\\delta_1)$ and the arcsine law of distribution $\\mathbb{B}_{1/2}(\\mu)$ whose density is given by $$d(\\mathbb{B}_{1/2}(\\mu))(x)=\\frac{1}{\\pi\\sqrt{2-x^2}}\\;dx,\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;[-\\sqrt{2},\\sqrt{2}].$$ In this case $(p=3/2,q=2/3,p'=2,q'=1/2,p^*=3,\\;\\mathrm{and}\\;q^*=-2)$, if $\\alpha=\\pm\\sqrt{2}$ then it is easy to check that $F_\\mu(\\alpha/2)=-\\alpha/2$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(\\alpha/2)=3$. However, the points $\\pm\\sqrt{2}$ fail to be atoms of $\\mathbb{B}_{1/2}(\\mu)$. This example also reveals an inaccuracy in the statement of \\[Proposition 5.1(2), \\[BN1\\]\\], which only requires the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'\\leq p^*$.\n\nNow we are ready to state the main theorem in this section whose proof is basically based on Proposition \\[prop2.1\\] and Theorem \\[Hthm\\].\n\n\\[main\\] Suppose that $\\mu$ is a measure $(\\mu\\neq\\delta_a)$ in $\\mathcal{M}$, and that $p>1,q>0$ such that $p^*q\\neq1$ $(q'=1+pq-p\\neq0)$. Using the notations in Proposition $\\ref{prop2.1}$ and Theorem $\\ref{Hthm}$, the following statements hold.\n\n1.  [The nonatomic part of the measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$ is absolutely continuous.]{}\n\n2.  [The measure $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ is concentrated on the closure of $\\psi_p(V_p^+)$.]{}\n\n3.  [The density of $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ on the set $\\psi_p(V_p^+)$ is given by $$\\frac{d(\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}\n    (\\psi_p(x))=\\frac{(p-1)pqf_p(x)}{\\pi|pqx-q'\\psi_p(x)+ipqf_p(x)|^2}.$$]{}\n\n4.  [The density of $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ is analytic on the set $\\psi_p(V_p^+)$.]{}\n\n5.  [Let $n(p,q)$ be the number of the components in the support of $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$. Then $n(p_1,q_1)\\geq\n    n(p_2,q_2)$ whenever $p_1\\leq p_2$ and $q_1,q_2>0$.]{}\n\nParticularly, the statements $(1)$-$(5)$ holds for $\\mathbb{B}_t(\\mu)$, $t\\in(0,\\infty)\\backslash\\{1\\}$.\n\nSince the function $\\psi_p$ defined in Theorem \\[Hthm\\] is a homeomorphism on $\\mathbb{R}$ and $\\omega_p$ extends continuously to $\\mathbb{R}$ by Proposition \\[prop2.1\\](3), it follows from (\\[general\\]) that $$\\label{F}\nF_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)}(\\psi_p(x))=\\frac{pqx-q'\\psi_p(x)+ipqf_p(x)}{p-1},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;x\\in\\mathbb{R}.$$ Since $F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}}(\\mu)$ extends continuously to $\\mathbb{C}^+\\cup\\mathbb{\\mathbb{R}}$, by the inversion formula (\\[inversion\\]) we obtain $$\\frac{d(\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}\n(\\psi_p(x))=\\frac{(p-1)pqf_p(x)}{\\pi|pqx-q'\\psi_p(x)+ipqf_p(x)|^2},\\;\\;\\;\\;\\;x\\in\nV_t^+.$$ Comparing the above formula with (\\[density\\])shows that the supports of $(\\mu^{\\boxplus p})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ and $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ coincide for any $q>0$. Observe that $\\Im\\omega_p(\\psi_p(x))=f_p(x)>0$ for $x\\in V_p^+$, whence $\\omega_p$ is analytic on $V_p^+$ by Proposition \\[prop2.1\\](4). From the preceding discussion, we deduce that statements (2)-(5) hold by Theorem \\[Hthm\\].\n\nNext, let $p'=pq/q'$. We claim that if a point $\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{R}$ such that $F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)}(\\alpha)=0$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_{\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)}'(\\alpha)=\\infty$ or, equivalently, $F_\\mu(\\alpha/p')=\\alpha/q^*$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(\\alpha/p')=p^*$, then $\\alpha$ belongs to the set $\\psi_p\\left(\\overline{V_p^+}\\right)$, which is the closure of $\\psi_p(V_p^+)$. Note that we have $f_p(\\alpha/p')=0$ by Proposition \\[prop2.1\\](2) and Lemma \\[basic\\], and there does not exist an open interval $I$ containing $\\alpha/p'$ such that $f_p(x)=0$ for all $x\\in I$. Indeed, if such an interval $I$ exists then $\\rho(I)=0$ by \\[Corollary 3.6, \\[Huang\\]\\]. This implies that the second order derivative of $f_\\mu$ on $I$ is positive, whence $f_\\mu$ is strictly convex on $I$. But $f_\\mu(x)\\leq(p-1)^{-1}$ for all $x\\in I$ and $f_\\mu(\\alpha/p')=(p-1)^{-1}$, a contradiction. This particularly implies that the point $\\alpha/p'\\in\\overline{V_p^+}$, whence $$\\psi_p(\\alpha/p')=H_p(\\alpha/p')=\\frac{p\\alpha}{p'}+(1-p)F_\\mu(\\alpha/p')=\\alpha\\in\\psi_p\n\\left(\\overline{V_p^+}\\right),$$ and the claim follows. Moreover, we see that the set $$\\{x\\in\\mathbb{R}:f_p(x/p')=0,\\;\\;\\psi_p(x/p')=x\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\\;\\;F_\\mu'(x/p')<p^*\\}$$ is the collection of all atoms of $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$ by Proposition \\[pqatom\\], and the set $$\\{\\psi_p(x/p'):x\\in\\mathbb{R},\\;f_p(x/p')=0,\\;\\;\\mathrm{and}\\;\\;\\psi_p(x/p')\\neq x\\}$$ has $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$-measure zero by the established result (2). Then the preceding discussions and the established results (2) and (3) show that $\\mathbb{R}=\\psi_p(\\mathbb{R})$ consists of the atoms of $\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu)$ and the support of $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$, and therefore the assertion (1) follows.\n\nFor the rest of the paper, we turn the attention to numbers $p>1$ and $q>0$ such that $p^*q=1$. The following proposition follows from Lemma \\[basic\\], Proposition \\[qatom\\], and \\[preal\\] and the proof is left to the reader.\n\n\\[p\\*\\] If $p>1$ and $\\alpha\\in\\mathbb{R}$ then the following statements are equivalent:\n\n1.  [the point $\\alpha$ is an atom of the measure $\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)$;]{}\n\n2.  [$F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}(\\alpha)=\\alpha/(1-p)$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus p}}'(\\alpha)\\in(1,\\infty)$.]{}\n\n3.  [$F_\\mu(0)=\\alpha/(1-p)$ and the Julia-Carath\u00e9odory derivative $F_\\mu'(0)\\in(1,p^*)$;]{}\n\n4.  [$F_\\mu(0)=\\alpha/(1-p)$ and $0<f_\\mu(0)<1/(p-1)$.]{}\n\nIf $\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)(\\{\\alpha\\})=1-r^{-1}$ for some $r>1$ then $$F_\\mu'(0)=1+f_\\mu(0)=1+\\frac{1}{r(p-1)}\\;\\;\\;\n\\mathrm{and}\\;\\;\\;F_{\\mu^{\\boxplus\np}}'(\\alpha)=1+\\frac{p}{(p-1)(r-1)}.$$ Particularly, the above statements also holds for $\\mathbb{B}_1$.\n\nIf $\\mu_0$ is the measure defined in Proposition \\[Poisson\\] then it is clear that $F_{\\mu_0}(0)=0$ and $f_{\\mu_0}(0)=1$. This yields that the compound free Poisson distribution $p(\\lambda,\\nu)$ has an atom at $0$ of mass $1-\\lambda$ for $0<\\lambda<1$ and no atom for $\\lambda\\geq1$ by Proposition \\[p\\*\\].\n\nThe following theorem is a reformulation of Theorem \\[3.10\\] since $\\Omega=\\Omega_p$, $\\psi=\\psi_p$, and $f=f_p$. Therefore, its proof is practically identical with that of Theorem \\[3.10\\] or Theorem \\[main\\], and is omitted.\n\n\\[main1\\] If $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $p>1$ then the following statements hold.\n\n1.  [The nonatomic part of $\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu)$ is absolutely continuous.]{}\n\n2.  [The measure $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ is concentrated on the closure of $\\psi_p(V_p^+)$.]{}\n\n3.  [The density of $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ on the set $\\psi_p(V_p^+)$ is given by $$\\frac{d(\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}}{dx}(\\psi_p(x))=\\frac{f_p(x)}{\\pi(x^2+f_p^2(x))}.$$]{}\n\n4.  [The density of $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ is analytic on the set $\\psi_p(V_p^+)$.]{}\n\n5.  [The number of the components in the support of $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,1/p^*}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ is a decreasing function of $p$.]{}\n\nParticularly, the above statements also holds for $\\mathbb{B}_1$.\n\nSince $\\mu=\\nu^{\\boxplus p}$ for some $\\nu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ and $p>1$ if $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>0$ by Proposition \\[3.5\\], we have the next result by Theorem \\[main\\] and \\[main1\\].\n\nIf $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ with $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu)>0$ then $(\\mu^{\\uplus\nq})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ and $\\mu^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ contain the same number of components in their supports for any $q>0$.\n\nIt was shown in \\[\\[Huang\\]\\] that there exists a measure $\\mu\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $\\mu^{\\boxplus p}$ contains infinitely many components in the support for any $p>1$. Since $(\\mathbb{B}_{p,q}(\\mu))^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ and $(\\mu^{\\boxplus\np})^{\\mathrm{ac}}$ have the number of components in their supports, we have the following result.\n\nFor any $t>0$, there exists a measure $\\mu_t\\in\\mathcal{M}$ such that $\\mathrm{Ind}(\\mu_t)=t$ and the support of $\\mu_t$ contains infinitely many components.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThe author wishes to thank his advisor, Professor Hari Bercovici, for his generosity, and invaluable discussion during the course of the investigation.\n\n[99]{}\n\n\\[moment\\] N. I. Achieser, [*The classical moment problem*]{}, in Russian, Fizmatgiz, Moscow, 1961.\n\n\\[Japan\\] O. Arizmendi, T. Hasebe, Semigroups related to additive and multiplicative, free and Boolean convolutions. Arxiv:1105.3344v3.\n\n\\[BB1\\] S.T. Belinschi, H. Bercovici, Atoms and regularity for measures in a partially defined free convolution semigroup, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**248**]{} (4) 665-674 (2004).\n\n\\[BB2\\] S.T. Belinschi, H. Bercovici, Partially defined semigroups relative to multiplicative free convolution, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*]{} [**2**]{} 65-101 (2005).\n\n\\[BN1\\] S.T. Belinschi, A. Nica, On a remarkable semigroup of homomorphisms with respect to free multiplicative convolution, [*Indiana. Univ. Math J.*]{} [**57**]{} (4) 1679-1713 (2008).\n\n\\[BN2\\] S.T. Belinschi, A. Nica, Free Brownian motion and evolution towards $\\boxplus$-infinitely divisibility for $k$-tuples, [*Int. J. Math.*]{} [**20**]{} (3) 309-338 (2009).\n\n\\[BP\\] H. Bercovici, V. Pata, Stable laws and domains of attraction in free probability theory, [*Ann. of Math.*]{}, [**149**]{}, 1023-1060 (1999).\n\n\\[HV1\\] H. Bercovici, D. Voiculescu, L\u00e9vy-Hin\u010din type theorems for multiplicatrive and additive free convolution [*Pacific Journal of Mathematics*]{} [**153**]{} No.2 217-248 (1992).\n\n\\[HV2\\] H. Bercovici, D. Voiculescu, Free Convolutions of measures with unbounded support, [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**42**]{} (3) 733-773 (1993).\n\n\\[HV3\\] H. Bercovici, D. Voiculescu, Superconvergence to the central limit and failure of the Cram\u00e9r theorem for free random variables, [*Probab. Theory Relat. Fields*]{} [**103**]{} 215-222 (1995).\n\n\\[BV4\\] H. Bercovici, D. Voiculescu, Regularity questions for free convolution, in: Nonselfadjoint Operator Algebras, Operator Theory, and Related Topics, in: Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., vol. 104, Birkhauser, Basel, 1998, pp. 37-47.\n\n\\[Biane1\\] P. Biane, On the free convolution with a semi-circular distribution, [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**46**]{} (3) 705-718 (1997).\n\n\\[Biane2\\] P. Biane, Processes with free increments, [*Math. Z.*]{} [**227**]{} (1) 143-174 (1998).\n\n\\[G1\\] G. P. Chistyakov, F. G\u00f6tze, Limit theorems in free probability theory. I, [*Ann. Probab.*]{} [**36**]{} No.1 54-90 (2008).\n\n\\[G4\\] G. P. Chistyakov, F. G\u00f6tze, The arithmetic of distributions in free probability theory, [*Cent. Eur. J. Math.*]{} [**9**]{} No.5 997-1050 (2011).\n\n\\[G2\\] G. P. Chistyakov, F. G\u00f6tze, Asymptotic Expansions in the CLT in Free Probability. ArXiv: 1109.4844.\n\n\\[G3\\] G. P. Chistyakov, F. G\u00f6tze, Rate of Convergence in the entropic free CLT. ArXiv: 1112.5087.\n\n\\[Huang\\] H.-W., Huang, Supports of measures in a free additive convolution semigroup. Arxiv:1205.5542.\n\n\\[Maa\\] H. Maassen, Addition of freely independent random variables, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**106**]{} 409-438 (1992).\n\n\\[Nica\\] A. Nica, Multi-variable subordination distributions for free additive convolution, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**257**]{} 428-463 (2009).\n\n\\[NS\\] A. Nica, R. Speicher, On the multiplication of free $N$-tuples of noncommutative random variables. [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**118**]{}(4), 799-837 (1996).\n\n\\[Boolean\\] R. Speicher, R. Woroudi, Boolean convolution, in free probability theory, Ed. D. Voiculescu, [*Fields. Inst. Commun.*]{} [**12**]{} 267-280 (1997).\n\n\\[V1\\] D.V. Voiculescu, Addition of certain non-commuting random variables, [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**66**]{} 323-346(1986).\n\n\\[V2\\] D.V. Voiculescu, The analogues of entropy and of Fisher\u2019s information measure in free probability theory I, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**155**]{} (1) 411-440 (1993).\n\n\\[V3\\] D.V. Voiculescu, The coalgebra of the free difference quotient and free probability, [*Internat. Math. Res. Notices*]{} [**2**]{} 79-106 (2000).\n\n\\[V4\\] D.V. Voiculescu, K.J. Dykema, A. Nica, Free Random Variables. CRM Monograph Series, Vol. 1 Am. Math. Soc. Providence, RI, (1992).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Refractive processes in strong-field QED are pure quantum processes, which involve only external photons and the background electromagnetic field. We show analytically that such processes occurring in a plane-wave field and involving external real photons are all characterized by a surprisingly modest net exchange of energy and momentum with the laser field, corresponding to a few laser photons, even in the limit of ultra-relativistic laser intensities. We obtain this result by a direct calculation of the transition matrix element of an arbitrary refractive QED process and accounting exactly for the background plane-wave field. A simple physical explanation of this modest net exchange of laser photons is provided, based on the fact that the laser field couples with the external photons only indirectly through virtual electron-positron pairs. For stronger and stronger laser fields, the pairs cover a shorter and shorter distance before they annihilate again, such that the laser can transfer to them an energy corresponding to only a few photons. These results can be relevant for future experiments aiming to test strong-field QED at present and next-generation facilities.'\naddress: 'Max-Planck-Institut f\u00fcr Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany'\nauthor:\n- 'A. Di Piazza'\nbibliography:\n- 'Refr\\_AP.bib'\ntitle: On refractive processes in strong laser field quantum electrodynamics\n---\n\nQED in strong laser fields, vacuum polarization effects\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nNonlinear processes have always played a fundamental role in different areas of physics, spanning from hydrodynamics, atomic and laser physics to plasma and high-energy physics [@Scott_b_2005]. From a theoretical point of view the description of such nonlinear processes, though attractive, is also particularly challenging. Since the invention of the laser, it was manifest that one of its unique features, the coherence, would allow for the experimental investigation of nonlinear phenomena. In a laser beam, in fact, a large number of photons propagate in phase and, depending on the laser intensity and on the process at hand, they may act cooperatively. One example is atomic high-order harmonic generation (HHG), in which a large number of laser photons is absorbed by a single atom and only one high-energy photon is emitted (see the reviews [@Agostini_2004; @Midorikawa_2011]). When laser-driven electrons (mass $m$ and charge $e<0$) are bound in atoms, nonlinear phenomena start at laser field amplitudes $E_0$ of the order of the typical atomic binding field $E_{\\text{at}}=m^2|e|^5$, which corresponds to a laser intensity of $I_{\\text{at}}=E_{\\text{at}}^2/4\\pi=7.0\\times 10^{16}\\;\\text{W/cm$^2$}$ (units with $\\hbar=c=1$ are employed throughout). In this case the average number of photons absorbed from the laser by the electron is of the order of $U_p/\\omega_0$, where $U_p=e^2E_0^2/m\\omega_0^2$ is its ponderomotive energy and $\\omega_0$ is the central laser photon energy. HHG has also been observed for free electrons driven by an intense laser beam, being named nonlinear Thomson or nonlinear Compton scattering, depending on if quantum effects are negligible or not [@Moore_1995; @Bula_1996]. In both nonlinear Thomson and Compton scattering, the typical electric field strength, at which nonlinear effects set on, is given by $E_{\\text{rel}}=m\\omega_0/|e|$. The corresponding intensity is of the order of $10^{18}\\;\\text{W/cm$^2$}$ at optical photon energies $\\omega_0\\approx 1\\;\\text{eV}$. An electron in a laser field with central laser photon energy $\\omega_0$ and electric field strength of the order of $E_{\\text{rel}}$ is accelerated to relativistic velocities already within one laser period and its dynamic becomes highly nonlinear with respect to the laser field amplitude [@Landau_b_2_1975]. On the other hand, quantum effects such as the recoil of the photons emitted by the laser-driven electron, strongly modify the emission process when the electric field strength of the laser in the initial rest frame of the incoming electron is of the order of the so-called critical field $E_{\\text{cr}}=m^2/|e|$ of QED, corresponding to the laser intensity $I_{\\text{cr}}=4.6\\times 10^{29}\\;\\text{W/cm$^2$}$ [@Di_Piazza_2012]. Relativistic quantum effects also allow for the nonlinear interaction of a photon with a laser field, as in the case of electron-positron pair photo-production (nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production (NBWPP)) [@Ritus_1985; @Heinzl_2010; @Titov_2012; @Krajewska_2013]. This process, as well as any QED process occurring in the collision of a photon with a strong laser field[^1], is essentially controlled by the two Lorentz- and gauge-invariant parameters $\\xi=E_0/E_{\\text{rel}}$ and $\\varkappa=[(k_0k)/m\\omega_0]E_0/E_{\\text{cr}}$. Here, $(k_0k)=\\omega_0\\omega-\\bm{k}_0\\cdot\\bm{k}$, with $k_0^{\\mu}=(\\omega_0,\\bm{k}_0)$ and $k^{\\mu}=(\\omega,\\bm{k})$ being the four-momentum of the laser photons and of the incoming photon, respectively. It is worth observing that in the so-called \u201cultra-relativistic\u201d limit $\\xi\\to \\infty$, the net number of laser photons absorbed in NBWPP is very large and of the order of $\\xi^3$ [@Ritus_1985]. Since presently available optical lasers allow for values of $\\xi$ of the order of $10^2$ [@Yanovsky_2008], unprecedented degrees of nonlinearity of the order of one million are in principle achievable.\n\nRefractive QED processes in a strong laser field involve only initial and final photons, and the background field [@Dittrich_b_2000]. Such processes of genuinely quantum nature are a unique tool for testing the predictions of strong-field QED on the nonlinear evolution of the electromagnetic field in vacuum. Vacuum polarization [@Baier_1976_b] and photon splitting [@Di_Piazza_2007] in a laser field are two examples of refractive QED processes, which have been considered in the literature. It has been observed in both cases, that the net number of laser photons exchanged with the laser field is very small (of the order of unity) even in the ultra-relativistic limit $\\xi\\to \\infty$. As a general remark to be kept in mind throughout in the paper, we observe that the laser field is treated as a classical field in those papers and here as well. Thus, an expression like \u201cthe net number of laser photons exchanged with the laser field is very small\u201d has to be intended more precisely as \u201cthe net energy and momentum exchanged with the laser field is very small, corresponding to a few laser photons.\u201d\n\nIn the present paper, by analyzing the amplitude of a general refractive QED effect, we indicate analytically that this is a general feature of such processes in a strong laser field. The physical origin of this effect lies in the fact that in a refractive QED process, the laser field couples to the external photons only indirectly via a virtual electron-positron pair. As we will see below, at higher and higher laser intensities the distance covered by the virtual electron and positron before annihilating decreases accordingly, in such a way that the process occurs with a net exchange of a low number of laser photons. This is in contrast, as we have mentioned, to the NBWPP, which is also primed in the collision of a (real) photon and a laser field. However, in NBWPP the final electron and positron are on the mass shell, requiring a large amount of laser photons to be absorbed for the process to occur at all in the presence of an ultra-relativistic laser field. Although the analysis is limited to the one-loop amplitude of a refractive QED effects and does not cover observable quantities as cross-sections or rates, the present results can be of relevance for future experimental campaigns, aiming to measure strong-field QED effects in the presence of a background laser field. As we will see, they indicate, for example, that, in order to detect refractive QED effects in a regime where higher-order effects in the laser-field amplitude are important, it is more convenient to measure the yield of final photons, rather than to measure the angular distribution or the energies of the final photons.\n\nCalculation of the amplitude of a generic refractive QED process\n================================================================\n\nRefractive QED processes in a laser field involve in general $N_i$ incoming, $N_o$ outgoing photons, with $N_i+N_o>1$, and the laser photons (the special case $N_i+N_o=1$, corresponding to the tadpole diagram, is trivial in the case of a background plane-wave field [@Schwinger_1951] and it will not be considered here). However, for the sake of notational simplicity, we consider here the abstract case of only incoming photons ($N_o=0$) and we set $N_i=N$. The external photons have momenta $k_j^{\\mu}$ and polarization four-vectors $e_j^{\\mu}$, with $j=1,\\ldots,N$ (see Fig. 1): the $j$th incoming photon can be \u201ctransformed\u201d into an outgoing one via the substitutions $k_j^{\\mu}\\to -k_j^{\\mu}$ and $e_j^{\\mu}\\to e_j^{\\mu\\,*}$ in the amplitude (see Eq. (\\[M\\]) below). As it will be clear below, the results of the paper are unaffected by this particular choice. Moreover, we limit here to the case of external real photons ($k_j^2=0$), although the analysis and the conclusions can be correspondingly extended to the case of off-shell external photons, as those representing external fields as, for example, a Coulomb field.\n\n![Two typical Feynman diagrams relative to a generic refractive QED process in a laser field. The thin wavy lines indicate the external photons with four-momenta $k_1^{\\mu},\\ldots,k_N^{\\mu}$ and polarization four-vectors $e_1^{\\mu},\\ldots,e_N^{\\mu}$, respectively, and the thick plain lines indicate the laser-dressed electron propagators.](Figure_1.eps){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe mentioned process is described by the sum of all Feynman diagrams, which can be obtained from the one in the left side of Fig. 1 by permuting the labels in the photon legs. Among them, we consider here only the one in the right part of Fig. 1, and the treatment of the remaining diagrams can be performed in an analogous way (any diagram contributing to a refractive QED process can always be considered together with the other one, differing only in the direction of circulation of the four-momentum through the electron loop)[^2]. The reason for considering these two diagrams together is that this allows to formulate a simple set of substitution rules, which in turn clearly show the general structure of the amplitude of the process (see the discussions below Eq. (\\[M\\_s\\]) here below and between Eqs. (\\[T\\_p\\_3\\]) and (\\[T\\_3\\_T\\]) in Appendix A). The amplitude $M$ corresponding to the diagrams in Fig. 1 is given by [@Landau_b_4_1982] $$\\label{M}\n\\begin{split}\nM=&-e^N\\int d^4x_1\\cdots d^4x_Ne^{-i[(k_1x_1)+\\cdots+(k_Nx_N)]}\\\\\n&\\times\\text{Tr}[\\hat{e}_1G(x_1,x_2|A)\\hat{e}_2G(x_2,x_3|A)\\cdots\\hat{e}_NG(x_N,x_1|A)]+\\circlearrowleft,\n\\end{split}$$ where the \u201chat\u201d indicates the contraction of a four-vector with the Dirac gamma matrices $\\gamma^{\\mu}$ and where the symbol $\\circlearrowleft$ indicates the amplitude corresponding to the diagram on the right in Fig. 1. In Eq. (\\[M\\]) the quantity $G(x,y|A)$ is the dressed electron propagator in the laser field. The latter is described by the four-vector potential $A^{\\mu}=A^{\\mu}(\\phi)$, where $\\phi=(nx)$, with $n^{\\mu}=(1,\\bm{n})$ and $\\bm{n}$ being the propagation direction of the laser field. By working in the Lorentz gauge, the four-vector potential $A^{\\mu}(\\phi)$ of the laser field can be chosen in the form $A^{\\mu}(\\phi)=(0,\\bm{A}(\\phi))$, with $\\bm{n}\\cdot\\bm{A}(\\phi)=0$. Let $\\bm{a}_1$ and $\\bm{a}_2$ indicate the two possible independent laser polarization directions, such that $\\bm{a}_r\\cdot\\bm{a}_s=\\delta_{rs}$, with $r,s=1,2$, and that $\\bm{a}_1\\times\\bm{a}_2=\\bm{n}$. Then, the four-vector potential $A^{\\mu}(\\phi)$ can be written as $A^{\\mu}(\\phi)=A_0[a^{\\mu}_1\\psi_1(\\phi)+a^{\\mu}_2\\psi_2(\\phi)]$, where $A_0=-E_0/\\omega_0$, $a^{\\mu}_r=(0,\\bm{a}_r)$, and the two shape-functions $\\psi_r(\\phi)$ are arbitrary, smooth functions except that they satisfy the relation $\\sqrt{\\psi^{\\prime 2}_1(\\phi)+\\psi^{\\prime 2}_2(\\phi)}\\le 1$ for all values of $\\phi$, with $\\psi'_{1/2}(\\phi)=d\\psi_{1/2}(\\phi)/d\\phi$. Here, $E_0$ and $\\omega_0$ indicate the laser-electric-field amplitude and its central angular frequency, respectively[^3]. Since the interaction of the $j$th photon with the laser field is controlled by the parameter $\\varkappa_j=\\eta_j\\xi$, with $\\eta_j=\\omega_0k_{j,X}/m^2$ [@Ritus_1985; @Di_Piazza_2012], it is natural to assume here that $\\varkappa_j\\ne 0$ for all $j$s, which means $k_{j,X}\\ne 0$ for all $j$s. This means that none of the external photons propagate along the same direction of the laser photons (of course, we exclude the trivial case of an external photon with vanishing energy).\n\nIn order to calculate the amplitude $M$, we employ below the operator technique, developed in [@Baier_1976_a; @Baier_1976_b] for the case of a background plane-wave laser field (the calculation of the amplitude can of course also be performed by employing the standard Feynman rules in the Furry picture [@Landau_b_4_1982], the advantage of the operator technique being to provide a more suitable expression of the amplitude to estimate the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field (see, in particular, the discussion below Eq. (\\[Exp\\_2\\]))). In the operator technique the electron propagator in the laser field is written as $G(x,y|A)=\\langle x|G(A)|y\\rangle$, where $$G(A)=\\frac{1}{\\hat{\\Pi}-m+i\\epsilon},$$ with $\\Pi^{\\mu}=\\Pi^{\\mu}(A)=P^{\\mu}-eA^{\\mu}(\\phi)$ and with $\\epsilon$ being a positive infinitesimal quantity. Here, the four-vector $P^{\\mu}$ is the four-momentum operator, satisfying the commutation rules $[x^{\\mu},P^{\\nu}]=-ig^{\\mu\\nu}$, where $g^{\\mu\\nu}=\\text{diag}(+1,-1,-1,-1)$. By employing the above representation of the electron propagator and by using the cyclic property of the trace, the amplitude in Eq. (\\[M\\]) can be simply written as $$\\label{M_op}\nM=-e^N\\int d^4x\\,\\text{Tr}\\,\\langle x\\vert G_1(A)\\cdots G_N(A)\\vert x\\rangle+\\circlearrowleft,$$ where we have introduced the block operators $G_j(A)=G(A)\\hat{e}_j\\exp[-i(k_jx)]$. It is convenient to express the amplitude $M$ in terms of the \u201csquare\u201d propagator $$\\label{D_0}\nD(A)=\\frac{1}{\\hat{\\Pi}^2-m^2+i\\epsilon}$$ rather than in terms of $G(A)$. The details of the procedure to carry this out are reported in the Appendix A. Here, we only provide a summary of this procedure in terms of substitution rules. The amplitude $M$, in fact, turns out to be expressed as $$\\label{M_s}\nM=\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{i=1}^{[N/2]+1}(M^{(i)}+\\{1\\ldots N\\to N\\ldots 1\\}),$$ where $M^{(i)}$ are partial amplitudes, with $[N/2]$ indicating the integer part of $N/2$. The quantity $\\{1\\ldots N\\to N\\ldots 1\\}$ refers to the fact that each partial amplitude $M^{(i)}$ will have $N$ indexes corresponding to the $N$ ordered operators $G_j(A)$ in Eq. (\\[M\\_op\\]), and it indicates that the same partial amplitude $M^{(i)}$ has to be added, but with the indexes $1,\\ldots,N$ appearing in the opposite order $N,\\ldots,1$. In turn, each partial amplitude $M^{(i)}$ is expressed as a sum $\\sum_{J=1}^{J_i} M_J^{(i)}$ of terms $M_J^{(i)}$ and the number $J_i$ of terms in each partial amplitude depends on the partial amplitude itself. Each term $M_J^{(i)}$ has the form $-e^N\\int d^4x\\,\\text{Tr}\\,\\langle x\\vert O_J^{(i)}\\vert x\\rangle$, with the operator $O_J^{(i)}$ being obtained from the original operator product $G_1(A)\\cdots G_N(A)$ by means of the following substitution rules:\n\n1.  Partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$: substitute each block $G_j(A)$ by $D_j(A)\\equiv D(A)\\exp[-i(k_jx)][2(\\Pi e_j)+\\hat{k}_j\\hat{e}_j]$ (this partial amplitude contains one term).\n\n2.  Partial amplitude $M^{(2)}$: combine two successive blocks $G_j(A) G_{j+1}(A)$ (for $j=1,\\ldots, N$) and substitute this quantity with the \u201ccontraction\u201d\\\n    $-C_{j,j+1}(A)=-D(A)\\hat{e}_j\\exp[-i(k_jx)] \\hat{e}_{j+1}\\exp[-i(k_{j+1}x)]$, then substitute the remaining blocks as in 1.; it is understood that $G_{N+1}(A)\\equiv G_1(A)$ and that $C_{N,N+1}(A)\\equiv C_{N,1}(A)$; this partial amplitude contains $N$ terms.\n\n3.  Partial amplitude $M^{(3)}$: combine twice two successive blocks $G_j(A)G_{j+1}(A)$ and $G_{j'}(A)G_{j'+1}(A)$ (for $j=1,\\ldots,N-2$, and for $j'=3,\\ldots,N-1$ (if $j=1$) or for $j'=j+2,\\ldots,N$ (if $j>1$)), and substitute these quantities with the contractions $-C_{j,j+1}(A)$ and $-C_{j',j'+1}(A)$, respectively; then substitute the remaining blocks as in 1.; it is understood that $G_{N+1}(A)\\equiv G_1(A)$ and that $C_{N,N+1}(A)\\equiv C_{N,1}(A)$; this partial amplitude has to be considered only if $N\\ge 4$ and it contains $N(N-3)/2$ terms.\n\n4.  The above procedure continues by increasing by one the number of combinations of successive blocks. The last partial amplitude $M^{([N/2]+1)}$ contains the two terms $(-1)^{N/2}C_{1,2}(A)C_{3,4}(A)\\cdots C_{N-1,N}(A)$ and\\\n    $(-1)^{N/2}C_{N,1}(A)C_{2,3}(A)\\cdots C_{N-2,N-1}(A)$ with $N/2$ contractions if $N$ is even, or the $N$ terms $(-1)^{(N-1)/2}D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)\\cdots C_{N-1,N}(A)$,\\\n    $(-1)^{(N-1)/2}C_{N,1}(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)\\cdots C_{N-2,N-1}(A)$,...,\\\n    $(-1)^{(N-1)/2}C_{1,2}(A)C_{3,4}(A)\\cdots C_{N-2,N-1}(A)D_N(A)$ with $(N-1)/2$ contractions if $N$ is odd.\n\nNow, a useful exponential representation of the square propagator $D(A)$ has been found in [@Baier_1976_a; @Baier_1976_b] (see also [@Di_Piazza_2007][^4]): $$\\label{D}\n\\begin{split}\nD(A)=&-i\\int_0^{\\infty}ds\\, e^{is(\\hat{\\Pi}^2-m^2+i\\epsilon)}=-i\\int_0^{\\infty}ds\\, e^{-i(m^2-i\\epsilon)s}\\\\\n&\\times \\bigg\\{1+\\frac{e\\hat{n}}{2P_X}\n[\\hat{A}(\\phi+2sP_X)-\\hat{A}(\\phi)]\\bigg\\}\\\\\n&\\times e^{-i\\int_0^sds'\\left[{\\bm P}_\\perp-e{\\bm\nA}(\\phi+2s'P_X)\\right]^2}e^{-2isP_\\phi P_X},\n\\end{split}$$ where we have introduced the operators $P_{\\phi}=(P_t+P_{x_{\\parallel}})/2$ and $P_X=-(P_t-P_{x_{\\parallel}})=-(nP)$ of the conjugated momenta to the coordinates $\\phi=t-x_{\\parallel}$ and $X=(t+x_{\\parallel})/2$, with $x_{\\parallel}=\\bm{n}\\cdot\\bm{x}$, such that $\\phi$ and $X$ can be interpreted as a \u201ctime\u201d and a \u201cspace\u201d coordinate, respectively, i.e., $[\\phi,P_{\\phi}]=-i$ and $[X,P_{X}]=i$. Note that $t=X+\\phi/2$, $x_{\\parallel}=X-\\phi/2$, $P_t=P_{\\phi}-P_X/2$, and $P_{x_{\\parallel}}=P_{\\phi}+P_X/2$.\n\nOut of the different partial amplitudes which arise from the above substitutions, we work out only the following one $$\\label{M_op_1}\n\\begin{split}\nM^{(1)}=&-e^N\\int d^4x\\,\\text{Tr}\\,\\langle x|D(A)\\text{e}^{-i(k_1x)}[2(\\Pi e_1)+\\hat{k}_1\\hat{e}_1]\\cdots \\\\\n&\\times D(A)\\text{e}^{-i(k_Nx)}[2(\\Pi e_N)+\\hat{k}_N\\hat{e}_N]|x\\rangle,\n\\end{split}$$ which arises from the substitution in 1.. This partial amplitude is always present, independently of the number of the external photons and, as it will also be clear from the considerations below, the analysis of the other partial amplitudes proceeds analogously. By looking at the expression of the operators $D(A)$ (see Eq. (\\[D\\])), the coordinate operators $X$ and $\\bm{x}_{\\perp}$ appear to occur only in the exponentials relative to the external photons. By employing the operator identity $e^{i(k_jx)}f(P)e^{-i(k_jx)}=f(P+k_j)$, we can move all the operators $e^{i(k_{j,X}X+\\bm{k}_{j,\\perp}\\cdot\\bm{x}_{\\perp})}$ to the left and let them act on the bra $\\langle x|$. The result is $$\\label{M_op_2}\n\\begin{split}\nM^{(1)}=&-e^N\\int d^4x\\,e^{i(K_XX+\\bm{K}_{\\perp}\\cdot\\bm{x}_{\\perp})}\\text{Tr}\\,\\langle x|e^{-ik_{1,\\phi}\\phi}\\{2[(\\Pi^{\\mu}+\\kappa^{\\mu}_2) e_{1,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_1\\hat{e}_1\\}D_2(A)\\\\\n&\\cdots\\times e^{-ik_{N-1,\\phi}\\phi}\\{2[(\\Pi^{\\mu}+\\kappa^{\\mu}_N) e_{N-1,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_{N-1}\\hat{e}_{N-1}\\}D_N(A)\\\\\n&\\times e^{-ik_{N,\\phi}\\phi}[2(\\Pi e_N)+\\hat{k}_N\\hat{e}_N]D(A)|x\\rangle,\n\\end{split}$$ where $K^{\\mu}=\\sum_{j=1}^Nk_j^{\\mu}$, $\\kappa_j^{\\mu}=\\sum_{i=j}^Nk_i^{\\mu}$ (note that $\\kappa_1^{\\mu}=K^{\\mu}$), and $D_l(A)=D(A)\\vert_{P_X\\to P_X+\\kappa_{l,X},\\bm{P}_{\\perp}\\to \\bm{P}_{\\perp}+\\bm{\\kappa}_{l,\\perp}}$, with $l=2,\\ldots,N$. Now, the operators between the bra $\\langle x|$ and the ket $|x\\rangle$ do not contain the coordinates $X$ and $\\bm{x}_{\\perp}$, and the identities $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{x_f_x}\n\\langle X|f(P_X)|X\\rangle=\\int\\frac{dp_X}{2\\pi}f(p_X), && \\langle \\bm{x}_{\\perp}|g(\\bm{P}_{\\perp})|\\bm{x}_{\\perp}\\rangle=\\int\\frac{d^2p_{\\perp}}{(2\\pi)^2}g(\\bm{p}_{\\perp})\\end{aligned}$$ valid for arbitrary functions $f(P_X)$ and $g(\\bm{P}_{\\perp})$ can be applied (we assumed here that the eigenstates $|p\\rangle$ of the four-momentum operator $P^{\\mu}$, i.e., $P^{\\mu}|p\\rangle=p^{\\mu}|p\\rangle$, are such that $\\langle x\\vert p\\rangle=e^{-i(px)}$ and $\\langle p|p'\\rangle=(2\\pi)^4\\delta^4(p-p')$). Moreover, the integrals in $X$ and $\\bm{x}_{\\perp}$ are easily taken and the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$ becomes $$\\label{M_op_3}\n\\begin{split}\nM^{(1)}=&-(-ie)^N\\delta(K_X)\\delta^2(\\bm{K}_{\\perp})\\int d\\phi \\int d p_X \\int d^2 p_{\\perp} \\int_0^{\\infty} ds_1\\cdots ds_N\\, e^{-i(m^2-i\\epsilon)S} \\\\\n&\\times\\text{Tr}\\,\\langle \\phi|\\{2[(p^{\\mu}-eA^{\\mu}(\\phi)) e_{N,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_N\\hat{e}_N\\}\\\\\n&\\times\\left\\{1+\\frac{e}{2p_X}\\hat{n}[\\hat{A}(\\phi+2s_1p_X))-\\hat{A}(\\phi)]\\right\\}\\\\\n&\\times e^{-i\\int_0^{s_1}ds'_1[\\bm{p}_{\\perp}-e\\bm{A}(\\phi+2s'_1p_X)]^2}e^{-2is_1P_{\\phi}p_X}e^{-i\\kappa_{1,\\phi}\\phi}\\\\\n&\\times \\{2[(p^{\\mu}-eA^{\\mu}(\\phi)+\\kappa^{\\mu}_1) e_{1,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_1\\hat{e}_1\\}\\\\\n&\\times\\left\\{1+\\frac{e}{2(p_X+\\kappa_{2,X})}\\hat{n}[\\hat{A}(\\phi+2s_2(p_X+\\kappa_{2,X}))-\\hat{A}(\\phi)]\\right\\}\\\\\n&\\times e^{-i\\int_0^{s_2}ds'_2[\\bm{p}_{\\perp}+\\bm{\\kappa}_{2,\\perp}-e\\bm{A}(\\phi+2s'_2(p_X+\\kappa_{2,X}))]^2}e^{-2is_2P_{\\phi}(p_X+\\kappa_{2,X})}e^{-i\\kappa_{2,\\phi}\\phi}\\\\\n&\\cdots\\times \\{2[(p^{\\mu}-eA^{\\mu}(\\phi)+\\kappa^{\\mu}_{N-1}) e_{N-1,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_{N-1}\\hat{e}_{N-1}\\}\\\\\n&\\times\\left\\{1+\\frac{e}{2(p_X+\\kappa_{N,X})}\\hat{n}[\\hat{A}(\\phi+2s_N(p_X+\\kappa_{N,X}))-\\hat{A}(\\phi)]\\right\\}\\\\\n&\\times e^{-i\\int_0^{s_N}ds'_N[\\bm{p}_{\\perp}+\\bm{\\kappa}_{N,\\perp}-e\\bm{A}(\\phi+2s'_N(p_X+\\kappa_{N,X}))]^2}e^{-2is_NP_{\\phi}(p_X+\\kappa_{N,X})}e^{-i\\kappa_{N,\\phi}\\phi}|\\phi\\rangle,\n\\end{split}$$ where $S=s_1+\\cdots+s_N$. We note that in this expression of the amplitude, we have substituted the operator $P^{\\mu}$ with the number $p^{\\mu}+\\kappa^{\\mu}_j$ in the four-dimensional scalar products $(Pe_j)$. First, we observe that, since $(k_je_j)=0$, then it is $(\\kappa_je_j)=(\\kappa_{j+1}e_j)$, for $j=1,\\ldots,N-1$ and $(\\kappa_Ne_N)=0$. Moreover, although the substitution $(Pe_j)\\to (p^{\\mu}+\\kappa^{\\mu}_j)e_{j,\\mu}$ is evident for the components $p_X$ and $\\bm{p}_{\\perp}$ (see Eq. (\\[x\\_f\\_x\\]) and the definition of the operators $D_l(A)$ below Eq. (\\[M\\_op\\_2\\])), it is in principle not justified for the remaining component $P_{\\phi}$. However, we show in the Appendix B that gauge invariance implies that the four-dimensional scalar products $(Pe_j)$ actually do not involve the component $P_{\\phi}$. The remaining matrix element can be calculated by employing the identity $$\\begin{aligned}\ne^{-i\\phi_0P_\\phi}|\\phi\\rangle=|\\phi-\\phi_0\\rangle,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\phi_0$ is a constant, and the fact that $\\langle \\phi|\\phi'\\rangle=\\delta(\\phi-\\phi')$. The resulting $\\delta$-function $\\delta(2s_1(p_X+\\kappa_{1,X})+\\cdots+2s_N(p_X+\\kappa_{N,X}))$ can be exploited to perform the integral in $p_X$ and the result is $$\\label{M_op_4}\n\\begin{split}\nM^{(1)}=&-\\frac{(-ie)^N}{2}\\delta(K_X)\\delta^2(\\bm{K}_{\\perp})\\int d\\phi \\int d^2 p_{\\perp}\\int_0^{\\infty} \\frac{ds_1\\cdots ds_N}{S}\\, e^{-i(m^2-i\\epsilon)S} e^{-iK_{\\phi}\\phi}\\\\\n&\\times e^{-i\\sum_{j=1}^N\\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j\\{\\delta\\kappa_{j,\\phi}\\delta\\kappa_{j,X}+[\\bm{p}_{\\perp}+\\bm{\\pi}_{j,\\perp}(\\phi,s'_j)]^2\\}}\\\\\n&\\times\\text{Tr}\\,\\left\\langle \\{2[(p^{\\mu}-eA^{\\mu}(\\phi)) e_{N,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_N\\hat{e}_N\\}\\left\\{1+\\frac{e}{2\\delta\\kappa_{1,X}}\\hat{n}[\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\phi_1)-\\hat{A}(\\phi)]\\right\\}\\right.\\\\\n&\\times \\{2[(p^{\\mu}-eA^{\\mu}(\\phi+\\phi_1)+\\kappa^{\\mu}_1) e_{1,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_1\\hat{e}_1\\}\\\\\n&\\times\\left\\{1+\\frac{e}{2\\delta\\kappa_{2,X}}\\hat{n}[\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\phi_2)-\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\phi_1)]\\right\\}\\\\\n&\\cdots\\times\\{2[(p^{\\mu}-eA^{\\mu}(\\phi+\\phi_{N-1})+\\kappa^{\\mu}_{N-1}) e_{N-1,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_{N-1}\\hat{e}_{N-1}\\}\\\\\n&\\left.\\times\\left\\{1+\\frac{e}{2\\delta\\kappa_{N,X}}\\hat{n}[\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\phi_N)-\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\phi_{N-1})]\\right\\}\\right\\rangle.\n\\end{split}$$ In this expression we have simplified the notation by introducing the \u201caverage\u201d $$\\label{Av}\n\\bar{f}=\\frac{1}{S}\\sum_{j=1}^N\\int_0^{s_j}ds'_jf_j(s'_j)$$ of $N$ arbitrary functions $f_j(s'_j)$, the residuals $$\\label{Res}\n\\delta f_j(s'_j)=f_j(s'_j)-\\bar{f},$$ and the quantities $$\\label{phi_l}\n\\phi_j=2\\sum_{i=1}^j\\delta\\kappa_{i,X}s_i$$ and $$\\label{pi_j}\n\\pi^{\\mu}_j(\\phi,s'_j)=\\kappa_j^{\\mu}-eA^{\\mu}(\\phi+\\phi'_j),$$ with $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{phi_p_1}\n\\phi'_1&=2\\delta\\kappa_{1,X}s'_1\\\\\n\\label{phi_p_l}\n\\phi'_l&=2\\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\\delta\\kappa_{i,X}s_i+2\\delta\\kappa_{l,X}s'_l, &&l=2,\\ldots,N.\\end{aligned}$$ Note also that $p_X=-\\bar{\\kappa}_X$, that $\\phi_N=0$ and that in our gauge $\\pi_{j,X/\\phi}(\\phi,s'_j)=\\kappa_{j,X/\\phi}$. Moreover, in Eq. (\\[M\\_op\\_4\\]) and in the successive expressions of $M^{(1)}$, the quantity $p_X$ in the trace has to be interpreted as $-\\bar{\\kappa}_X$.\n\nIn order to take the integral in $\\bm{p}_{\\perp}$, it is convenient first to shift $\\bm{p}_{\\perp}$ as $\\bm{p}_{\\perp}\\to\\bm{p}_{\\perp}-\\bar{\\bm{\\pi}}_{\\perp}(\\phi,\\{s\\})$, where $\\{s\\}=s_1,\\ldots, s_N$. In this way, the resulting expression of the amplitude can be written as $$\\label{M_op_5}\n\\begin{split}\nM^{(1)}=&-\\frac{(-ie)^N}{2}\\delta(K_X)\\delta^2(\\bm{K}_{\\perp})\\int d\\phi \\int d^2 p_{\\perp}\\int_0^{\\infty} \\frac{ds_1\\cdots ds_N}{S}\\, e^{-i[K_{\\phi}\\phi-F(\\phi,\\{s\\})]}\\\\\n&\\times e^{-iS\\bm{p}_{\\perp}^2}\\text{Tr}\\bigg\\langle\\prod_{j=1}^N\\{2[(p^{\\mu}+\\delta\\pi_j^{\\mu}(\\phi,s_j)) e_{j,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_j\\hat{e}_j\\}\\\\\n&\\left.\\times\\left\\{1+\\frac{e}{2\\delta\\kappa_{j+1,X}}\\hat{n}[\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\phi_{j+1})-\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\phi_j)]\\right\\}\\right\\rangle,\n\\end{split}$$ where $$\\label{F}\nF(\\phi,\\{s\\})=\\sum_{j=1}^N\\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j[\\delta\\pi^{\\mu}_j(\\phi,s'_j)\\delta\\pi_{j,\\mu}(\\phi,s'_j)-m^2+i\\epsilon],$$ where $\\delta\\kappa_{N+1}\\equiv\\delta\\kappa_1$ and $\\phi_{N+1}\\equiv\\phi_1$. The integral in $\\bm{p}_{\\perp}=(p_1,p_2)$ can be written as a sum of integrals of the form $$I_{n_1,n_2}=\\int d^2p_{\\perp}\\, p_1^{n_1}p_2^{n_2}\\, e^{-iS\\bm{p}_{\\perp}^2},$$ where $n_1$ and $n_2$ are two non-negative integers. The integral $I_{n_1,n_2}$ vanishes if $n_1$ and/or $n_2$ are odd, whereas it is equal to $$I_{n_1,n_2}=2\\pi\\frac{(n_1-1)!!(n_2-1)!!}{(2iS)^{(n_1+n_2+2)/2}}$$ if $n_1$ and $n_2$ are both even. In conclusion, we can write the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$ in the compact form $$\\label{M_op_5_C}\n\\begin{split}\nM^{(1)}=&\\frac{i\\pi}{2}(-ie)^N\\delta(K_X)\\delta^2(\\bm{K}_{\\perp})\\int d\\phi \\int_0^{\\infty} \\frac{ds_1\\cdots ds_N}{S^2}\\, e^{-i[K_{\\phi}\\phi-F(\\phi,\\{s\\})]}\\\\\n&\\times\\text{Tr}\\bigg\\langle\\prod_{j=1}^N\\{2[(p^{\\mu}+\\delta\\pi_j^{\\mu}(\\phi,s_j)) e_{j,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_j\\hat{e}_j\\}\\\\\n&\\left.\\times\\left\\{1+\\frac{e}{2\\delta\\kappa_{j+1,X}}\\hat{n}[\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\phi_{j+1})-\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\phi_j)]\\right\\}\\right\\rangle,\n\\end{split}$$ where the substitution rules $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Sub_X}\np_X\\to&-\\bar{\\kappa}_X\\\\\n\\label{Sub_perp}\n\\left(\\frac{(pa_1)}{\\sqrt{-a_1^2}}\\right)^{n_1}\\left(\\frac{(pa_2)}{\\sqrt{-a_2^2}}\\right)^{n_2}\\to&\n\\begin{cases}\n0 & \\text{if $n_1$ and/or $n_2$ are odd}\\\\\n\\frac{(n_1-1)!!(n_2-1)!!}{(2iS)^{(n_1+n_2)/2}} & \\text{if $n_1$ and $n_2$ are even}\n\\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$ in the expression of the trace are understood. The amplitude in Eq. (\\[M\\_op\\_5\\_C\\]) may diverge for $N<5$ [@Landau_b_4_1982; @Liang_2012]. The case $N=2$ (polarization operator) has been explicitly investigated in [@Baier_1976_b] and the case $N=3$ has been considered in [@Di_Piazza_2007; @Di_Piazza_2008_a]. The regularization procedure can be carried out by first subtracting and adding the corresponding amplitude $M_0^{(1)}$ at zero external field, i.e. by writing $M^{(1)}=(M^{(1)}-M_0^{(1)})+M_0^{(1)}$. Gauge invariance ensures that the quantity $M^{(1)}-M_0^{(1)}$ is finite and that only the vacuum-term $M_0^{(1)}$ needs to be regularized (see, in particular, [@Baier_1976_b]). The same procedure can be applied to the remaining case $N=4$, where the divergences are in general less severe than, e.g., for $N=2$. As it will be clear below, the present analysis is based essentially on the behavior of the field-dependent phase function $F(\\phi,\\{s\\})$, then the conclusions, drawn starting from the unregularized amplitude $M^{(1)}$, also apply to the regularized one $M^{(1)}-M_0^{(1)}$. Since the regularization procedure is necessary only for $N<5$, in order to keep general the following formulas, we will still analyze the unregularized amplitude $M^{(1)}$, being understood, however, that for $N<5$, actually, the regularized amplitude $M^{(1)}-M_0^{(1)}$ has to be considered.\n\nBefore passing to the estimation of the net number of laser photon exchanged in a refractive QED process, we observe here that the integral representation $$\\label{Prop}\n\\prod_{j=1}^N\\frac{1}{p_j^2-m^2+i\\epsilon}=(-i)^N\\int_0^{\\infty}ds_1\\cdots ds_N\\,e^{i\\sum_{j=1}^N\\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j(p_j^2-m^2+i\\epsilon)},$$ of the electron propagator in vacuum in momentum space, suggests to interpret the quantity $\\delta\\pi^{\\mu}_j(\\phi,s'_j)$ as an \u201ceffective\u201d instantaneous four-momentum of the virtual particle flowing between the $(j-1)$th and the $j$th vertex (see Eqs. (\\[M\\_op\\_5\\_C\\]) and (\\[F\\])).\n\nEstimation of the net number of exchanged laser photons {#Estimation}\n=======================================================\n\nIf there were no external laser field, the remaining integral in $\\phi$ in Eq. (\\[M\\_op\\_5\\_C\\]) would provide the $\\delta$-function $\\delta(K_{\\phi})$, which, together with the other three $\\delta$-functions, would imply the overall energy-momentum conservation $K^{\\mu}=0$, as expected. In the presence of the laser field, a measure of the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field during the refractive QED process is determined by the quantity $K_{\\phi}/\\omega_0$, where $\\omega_0$ is the central laser angular frequency. In order to estimate the net number of laser photons exchanged, we recall that the multiphoton nature of the process is controlled by the parameter $\\xi=|e|E_0/m\\omega_0$, where $E_0$ is the amplitude of the electric field of the laser [@Ritus_1985; @Di_Piazza_2012]. From the physical meaning of this parameter, in fact, it is not surprising that if $\\xi\\lesssim 1$, the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field is of the order of unity. This regime is the relevant one for present and future x-ray laser facilities [@Di_Piazza_2012], for which the parameter $\\xi$ is not expected to exceed unity due to the relatively large photon energy ($\\omega_0\\gtrsim 1\\;\\text{KeV}$). Thus, we directly consider below the ultra-relativistic limit where $\\xi\\to \\infty$, having in mind an optical laser system with $\\omega_0\\sim 1\\;\\text{eV}$. In order to further specify the physical regime, we have also to consider the parameters $\\varkappa_j$ (see the discussion below Eq. (\\[M\\])). If $\\varkappa_j$ largely exceeds unity, an electron-positron pair can be in principle created in the collision of the laser field and the $j$th external photon. The subsequent emission of radiation by such a pair would represent a background for the refractive QED process. Thus, we limit here to the case where the parameters $\\varkappa_j$ are fixed and less or of the order of unity, such that electron-positron pair production from laser-external photons is negligible. Correspondingly, we also exclude the possibility that electron-positron pairs can be created only by the external photons, even though, as it will be clear below, the following considerations will not depend formally on this condition.\n\nIt is convenient to write explicitly $$\\delta\\pi^{\\mu}_j(\\phi,s'_j)\\delta\\pi_{j,\\mu}(\\phi,s'_j)=-2\\delta\\kappa_{j,X}\\delta\\kappa_{j,\\phi}-[\\delta\\bm{\\pi}_{j,\\perp}(\\phi,s'_j)]^2$$ and to shift the variable $\\phi$ as $\\phi\\to\\phi+\\Phi$, with $\\Phi$ such that $$\\label{Shift}\nK_{\\phi}\\Phi+2\\sum_{j=1}^N\\delta\\kappa_{j,X}\\delta\\kappa_{j,\\phi}s_j=0.$$ In this way, the the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$ can be written in the convenient form $$\\label{M_f}\n\\begin{split}\nM^{(1)}=&\\frac{i\\pi}{2}(-ie)^N\\delta(K_X)\\delta^2(\\bm{K}_{\\perp})\\int d\\phi \\int_0^{\\infty} \\frac{ds_1\\cdots ds_N}{S^2}\\, e^{-i[K_{\\phi}\\phi+F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})]}\\\\\n&\\times\\text{Tr}\\bigg\\langle\\prod_{j=1}^N\\{2[(p^{\\mu}+\\delta\\pi_j^{\\mu}(\\phi+\\Phi,s_j)) e_{j,\\mu}]+\\hat{k}_j\\hat{e}_j\\}\\\\\n&\\left.\\times\\left\\{1+\\frac{e}{2\\delta\\kappa_{j+1,X}}\\hat{n}[\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\Phi+\\phi_{j+1})-\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\Phi+\\phi_j)]\\right\\}\\right\\rangle,\n\\end{split}$$ where $$\\label{F_perp}\nF_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})=\\sum_{j=1}^N\\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j\\{[\\delta\\bm{\\pi}_{j,\\perp}(\\phi+\\Phi,s'_j)]^2+m^2-i\\epsilon\\}.$$ The advantage of this form with respect to that in Eq. (\\[M\\_op\\_5\\_C\\]) is that all the $N$ integrands in $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})$ are strictly positive and therefore that $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})\\ge 0$. This implies, in fact, that the integration region in $ds_1\\cdots ds_N$ mainly contributing to the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$ is confined to sufficiently small values of $s_j$ such that that $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})\\lesssim 1$, as otherwise the function $\\exp(-iF_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\}))$ would be highly oscillating. From what we mentioned at the beginning of this section, this would already indicate that the net number of photon exchanged during the refractive QED process is of the order of unity. However, in order to complete the proof, we have still to analyze the pre-exponential function. In fact, if $N$ is small, then the different powers of the external field present in this function would not essentially change the net number of laser photons exchanged. However, this could in principle occur for large $N$s. In order to show that this is not the case, we recall that in the considered regime, the parameters $\\eta_j=\\varkappa_j/\\xi$ are much smaller than unity and therefore, in the effective integration region with respect to the variables $s_1,\\ldots,s_N$, it is $\\omega_0|\\delta\\kappa_{j,X}|s_j\\lesssim\\omega_0|\\delta\\kappa_{j,X}|/m^2\\ll 1$, where we used the fact that $s_j\\lesssim 1/m^2$ (see Eq. (\\[F\\_perp\\])). Consequently, it results that $\\omega_0|\\phi_j|,\\omega_0|\\phi'_j|\\ll 1$ and, by assuming that $|k_{j,\\phi}|\\lesssim |K_{\\phi}|$ for all $j$s, that $\\omega_0|\\Phi|\\ll 1$ (see Eq. (\\[Shift\\])). This observation allows one to expand the four-vector potential in Eq. (\\[M\\_f\\]) as[^5] $$\\begin{aligned}\nA^{\\mu}(\\phi+\\Phi+\\phi_j)\\approx &A^{\\mu}(\\phi)-2E^{\\mu}(\\phi)\\bigg(\\Phi+\\sum_{i=1}^j\\delta\\kappa_{i,X}s_i\\bigg)\\\\\nA^{\\mu}(\\phi+\\Phi+\\phi'_j)\\approx &A^{\\mu}(\\phi)-2E^{\\mu}(\\phi)\\bigg(\\Phi+\\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\\delta\\kappa_{i,X}s_i+\\delta\\kappa_{j,X}s'_j\\bigg),\\end{aligned}$$ where $E^{\\mu}(\\phi)=-dA^{\\mu}(\\phi)/d\\phi$ (note that $E^{\\mu}(\\phi)$ is not a four-vector). Analogously, one obtains $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Exp_1}\n\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\Phi+\\phi_{j+1})-\\hat{A}(\\phi+\\Phi+\\phi_j)\\approx &-2\\hat{E}(\\phi)\\delta\\kappa_{j+1,X}s_{j+1}\\\\\n\\label{Exp_2}\n\\begin{split}\n\\delta\\pi_j^{\\mu}(\\phi+\\Phi,s'_j)\\approx &\\delta \\kappa_j^{\\mu}+2eE^{\\mu}(\\phi)\\bigg[\\sum_{i=1}^{j-1}\\delta\\kappa_{i,X}s_i+\\delta\\kappa_{j,X}s'_j\\\\\n&-\\frac{1}{S}\\sum_{l=1}^Ns_l\\bigg(\\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}\\delta\\kappa_{i,X}s_i+\\frac{1}{2}\\delta\\kappa_{l,X}s_l\\bigg)\\bigg].\n\\end{split}\\end{aligned}$$ Now, the fact that $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})\\lesssim 1$ implies, as an order-of-magnitude estimate, that $[\\delta\\bm{\\pi}_{j,\\perp}(\\phi+\\Phi,s_j)]^2s_j\\lesssim 1/N$. Thus, the above expansions, together with the fact that $|\\bm{p}_{\\perp}|\\sim 1/\\sqrt{S}$ (see Eq. (\\[Sub\\_perp\\])), indicate that in the effective formation region of the process, the ratio between the terms in the pre-exponent proportional to the laser field and those which do not contain the laser field itself is less than unity. Therefore, terms containing higher powers of the external field are subdominant and, in conclusion, the probability of an exchange of a net number of photons much larger than unity is suppressed also for large values of $N$.\n\nIn order to make our analysis more concrete, we consider the particular case of a monochromatic, circularly polarized laser field. In this case, the vector potential is given by $\\bm{A}(\\phi)=-(E_0/\\omega_0)[\\cos(\\omega_0\\phi)\\bm{a}_1+\\sin(\\omega_0\\phi)\\bm{a}_2]$. Starting again from the general expression in Eq. (\\[M\\_f\\]) (see also Eq. (\\[F\\_perp\\])), it is convenient to introduce the vectors $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\bm{a}_{j,c}(s'_j)&=C_j(s'_j)\\bm{a}_1+S_j(s'_j)\\bm{a}_2\\\\\n\\bm{a}_{j,s}(s'_j)&=-S_j(s'_j)\\bm{a}_1+C_j(s'_j)\\bm{a}_2,\\end{aligned}$$ where $C_j(s'_j)=\\cos(\\omega_0(\\Phi+\\phi'_j))$ and $S_j(s'_j)=\\sin(\\omega_0(\\Phi+\\phi'_j))$. In this way, we obtain $$\\delta\\bm{\\pi}_{j,\\perp}(\\phi+\\Phi,s'_j)=\\delta\\bm{\\kappa}_{j,\\perp}-m\\xi[\\cos(\\omega_0\\phi)\\delta\\bm{a}_{j,c}(s'_j)+\\sin(\\omega_0\\phi)\\delta\\bm{a}_{j,s}(s'_j)]$$ and the function $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})$ can be written as $$F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})=F_0(\\{s\\})+F_c(\\{s\\})\\cos(\\omega_0\\phi)+F_s(\\{s\\})\\sin(\\omega_0\\phi),$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_0(\\{s\\})=&\\sum_{j=1}^N\\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j\\bm{(}(\\delta\\bm{\\kappa}_{j,\\perp})^2+m^2\\{1+\\xi^2[(\\delta C_j(s'_j))^2+(\\delta S_j(s'_j))^2]\\}-i\\epsilon\\bm{)},\\\\\nF_{c/s}(\\{s\\})=&-2m\\xi\\sum_{j=1}^N\\int_0^{s_j}ds'_j\\delta\\bm{\\kappa}_{j,\\perp}\\cdot\\delta\\bm{a}_{j,c/s}(s'_j).\\end{aligned}$$ Note that the integrals in $ds'_j$ in $F_0(\\{s\\})$ and $F_{c/s}(\\{s\\})$ can be easily taken in the present case, which is however not necessary here. The discussion below Eq. (\\[F\\_perp\\]) indicates that in the effective integration region it is $F_0(\\{s\\}),|F_{c/s}(\\{s\\})|\\lesssim 1$. We consider now the prototype integral in $\\phi$ $$\\label{I}\n\\mathcal{I}(\\{s\\})=\\int d\\phi\\, \\text{e}^{-i[K_{\\phi}\\phi+F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})]},$$ which is present in the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$. After introducing the quantities $F_A(\\{s\\})$ and $\\varphi_0(\\{s\\})$ according to the definitions $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_c(\\{s\\})&=F_A(\\{s\\})\\cos(\\varphi_0(\\{s\\})),\\\\\nF_s(\\{s\\})&=F_A(\\{s\\})\\sin(\\varphi_0(\\{s\\})),\\end{aligned}$$ and after passing to the variable $\\varphi=\\omega_0\\phi-\\varphi_0(\\{s\\})$, we obtain $$\\label{I_f}\n\\mathcal{I}(\\{s\\})=2\\pi \\text{e}^{-i[(K_{\\phi}/\\omega_0)\\varphi_0(\\{s\\})+F_0 (\\{s\\})]}\\sum_{n_l=-\\infty}^{\\infty}i^{-n_l}\\delta(K_{\\phi}-n_l\\omega_0)J_{n_l}(F_A(\\{s\\})),$$ where we employed the identity $\\exp(iz\\cos\\varphi)=\\sum_{n=-\\infty}^{\\infty}i^nJ_n(z)\\exp(in\\varphi)$ in terms of the ordinary Bessel functions $J_n(z)$ of integer order $n$, valid for an arbitrary complex number $z$ [@Gradshteyn_b_2000]. Equation (\\[I\\_f\\]) shows that $n_l$ indicates the net number of photons absorbed from (if $n_l<0$) or ceded to (if $n_l>0$) the laser field. The well-known property of ordinary Bessel functions $J_n(x)$ of a real (positive) argument of being much smaller than unity at $n\\gg x$ and the fact that $F_A(\\{s\\})=\\sqrt{F^2_c(\\{s\\})+F^2_s(\\{s\\})}\\lesssim 1$ shows, at least for the terms in the pre-exponent independent of the laser field, that the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field is of the order of unity. The general observation below Eq. (\\[Exp\\_2\\]) indicates that also high-order terms in the laser field in the pre-exponential will not essentially increase the net number of laser photons exchanged during the refractive QED process. Note that the fact that only a low net number of laser photons are exchanged during a refractive QED effects implies that the strong background laser field is practically not altered by the process itself. This is in agreement with the use here of the Furry picture, which includes the external field as a \u201cgiven\u201d field.\n\nBefore discussing the obtained results, it is worth observing that in the special case where $N=2$ and with two external real photons the net exchange of laser photons is exactly zero, due to *kinematical* reasons [@Baier_1976_b; @Dittrich_b_2000]. Our results show that there is a *dynamical* reason such that the net exchange of laser photons is small also for arbitrary $N$.\n\nDiscussion {#Discussion}\n==========\n\nAs we have already mentioned above, it is interesting to compare the low net exchange of laser photon in a refractive QED process with what happens in the case of the NBWPP, which does also occur in the collision of a real photon and a laser field. Again, we limit in particular to the strong-field limit corresponding to $\\xi\\gg 1$ at fixed invariant parameters $\\varkappa_j\\sim 1$. The real electron and positron created via the NBWPP at $\\xi\\gg 1$ are already ultra-relativistic and a large net number of laser photons of the order of $\\xi^3$ are absorbed from the laser field in order to fulfill energy-momentum conservation [@Ritus_1985]. On the other hand, a refractive QED process occurs via a virtual electron-positron pair and this manifests itself in the appearance of the integrals in $ds_1\\cdots ds_N$ in the partial amplitude $M^{(1)}$. At larger and larger values of the electric field amplitude, the effective integration region in $ds_1\\cdots ds_N$ reduces accordingly, in such a way that the function $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})$ is always of the order of or less than unity, and then that the net number of laser photons exchanged is of the order of unity, too. More specifically, we recall that if $p^{\\mu}=(\\varepsilon,\\bm{p})$ is the momentum of a classical electron at the initial value $\\phi=0$ ($\\bm{A}(0)=\\bm{0}$), then the component $p_{\\phi}(\\phi)$ of the four-momentum $p^{\\mu}(\\phi)=(\\varepsilon(\\phi),\\bm{p}(\\phi))$ at $\\phi$ is given by [@Landau_b_2_1975] $$p_{\\phi}(\\phi)=-\\frac{m^2+[\\bm{p}_{\\perp}-e\\bm{A}(\\phi)]^2}{2p_X}.$$ By performing the change of variable $\\phi'_j=2\\delta\\kappa_{j,X}s'_j$ in Eq. (\\[F\\_perp\\]), we see that $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})$ qualitatively corresponds to the quantity $\\sum_{j=1}^N\\int_{\\phi_{j-1}}^{\\phi_j}d\\phi'_j\\mathcal{P}_{j,\\phi}(\\phi'_j)$, where $\\phi_0=0$ and where $\\mathcal{P}_{j,\\phi}(\\phi'_j)$ is the component $\\phi$ of the four-momentum of the virtual electron/positron flowing between the $(j-1)$th vertex and the $j$th vertex. Thus, the condition $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})\\lesssim 1$ corresponds to the fact that, according to Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the virtual electron-positron pair annihilates after an interval $\\Delta\\phi'_j$ in $\\phi'_j$ given by $\\Delta\\phi'_j\\sim 1/\\mathcal{P}_{\\phi,j}$, where $\\mathcal{P}_{\\phi,j}$ indicates the order of magnitude of the momentum flowing between the $(j-1)$th vertex and the $j$th vertex. This corroborates the interpretation that in a refractive QED process, the stronger is the laser field, the higher is the four-momentum flowing through the electron-positron loop. Accordingly, the virtual electron-positron pair propagates for a shorter distance inside the laser field, such that the net number of photons, that can be exchanged in the process is always of the order of unity.\n\nThis difference between the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field in a general refractive QED process, inferred here from the investigation of the amplitude of such processes, and in NBWPP could appear at first sight not to be compatible with the optical theorem, when the imaginary part of the (reduced) amplitude of a refractive QED process can be related to the total rate of the corresponding pair-production process (e.g., the refractive QED process corresponding to NBWPP is essentially the polarization operator) [@Landau_b_4_1982]. However, this is not the case, because the *total* rate of a pair-production process does not contain information on the net number of photons exchanged with the laser field, as the rate is integrated over the whole phase space of the created electron and positron. More quantitatively, since a plane-wave field depends only on the spacetime variable $\\phi$, it is possible to write th $S$-matrix element $S_{fi}$ of an arbitrary process occurring in such a background field as $$S_{fi}=\\delta_{fi}+i(2\\pi)^3\\delta^2(\\bm{P}_{f,\\perp}-\\bm{P}_{i,\\perp})\\delta(P_{f,X}-P_{i,X})R_{fi},$$ where $P_{i/f}^{\\mu}$ indicates the total initial/final four-momentum. The optical theorem [@Landau_b_4_1982] here reads $$2\\,\\text{Im}(R_{ii})=\\sum_f(2\\pi)^3\\delta^2(\\bm{P}_{f,\\perp}-\\bm{P}_{i,\\perp})\\delta(P_{f,X}-P_{i,X})|R_{fi}|^2$$ and we are interested to the case in which in the initial state there are a certain number of photons, whereas in the final state an electron-positron pair is present. By limiting, for simplicity, to the case of a monochromatic laser field with angular frequency $\\omega_0$, we can expand the amplitude $R_{fi}$ as $$\\label{R_fi}\nR_{fi}=\\sum_{n_l=-\\infty}^{\\infty}(2\\pi)\\delta(P_{f,\\phi}-P_{i,\\phi}-n_l\\omega_0)T_{n_l,fi},$$ and the optical theorem provides the relation $$2\\,\\text{Im}(T_{0,ii})=\\sum_{n_l=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\sum_f(2\\pi)^4\\delta(P_f^{\\mu}-P_i^{\\mu}-n_l\\omega_0n^{\\mu})|T_{n_l,fi}|^2.$$ On the one hand, this identity shows that only the quantity $T_{0,ii}$ corresponding to no net exchange of laser photons in a refractive QED process is relevant for the optical theorem. On the other hand, as already mentioned, all the quantities $|T_{n_l,fi}|^2$ corresponding to a given net exchange of an arbitrary number of laser photons in the pair-production process are summed up in the right-hand side of Eq. (\\[R\\_fi\\]), in such a way that the resulting quantity does not contain any information on the typical number of laser photons net-exchanged during the process. In the specific example of NBWPP, the above conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the total pair production rate at $\\xi\\gg 1$ becomes independent of the parameter $\\xi$ (it depends only on the parameter $\\varkappa=(\\omega_0k_X/m^2)(E_0/E_{cr})$, where $k^{\\mu}$ is the four-momentum of the external photon), and it coincides with the corresponding total rate in a \u201cphase-dependent\u201d constant-crossed field but averaged over the laser phase [@Ritus_1985].\n\nIt is also worth observing that, although, according to the analysis above of the amplitude of a refractive QED process, the net number of laser photons exchanged in such a process is of the order of unity, high-order terms in the laser field amplitude contribute to the process (as, for example, in the Bessel functions in Eq. (\\[I\\_f\\])). Such nonlinear terms stem for the exchange of laser photons without a net absorption or emission during the process. The fact that $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})\\lesssim 1$ (that $F_A(\\{s\\})\\lesssim 1$ in Eq. (\\[I\\_f\\]) for the case of a circularly-polarized, monochromatic laser field) suggests that in general the exchange of a large number of laser photons is suppressed. At the same time, however, such higher-order nonlinear effects can strongly modify the amplitude of a refractive QED process. This observation suggests that, in general, in order to detect higher-order nonlinear effects in the laser amplitude in a refractive QED process, it is more convenient to measure yields of final photons, rather than to measure, for example, the energy or the angular distribution of the final photons (note that refractive QED processes involving an odd number of external photons cannot occur in vacuum, i.e., in the absence of any background field, due to parity conservation (Furry theorem [@Furry_1937])). In fact, the optimal regime of parameters to detect higher-order nonlinear effects in the laser-field amplitude in a refractive QED process is at $\\varkappa_j\\sim 1$, as $if \\varkappa_j\\ll 1$ the amplitude is approximately equal to its corresponding expression including only the leading-order term(s) in $\\varkappa_j$. Now, even considering next generation of 10-PW optical laser systems [@Di_Piazza_2012], providing an intensity of the order of $10^{23}\\;\\text{W/cm$^2$}$, the ratio $E_0/E_{\\text{cr}}$ is smaller that $5\\times 10^{-4}$. Thus, in order to have $\\varkappa_j\\sim 1$, initial photon energies are required of the order of $1\\;\\text{GeV}$. For final photon energies of this order of magnitude, if only a few photons from an optical laser ($\\omega_0\\sim 1\\;\\text{eV}$) are effectively exchanged, it is not feasible in practice at $\\varkappa_j\\sim 1$ to detect higher-order effects in the laser-field amplitude by measuring the final photons\u2019 energies and/or angular distribution (note that the typical energy and angular resolutions of electromagnetic calorimeters in the GeV range are of the order of 100 MeV and of a few mrad, respectively [@CMS_ECAL], whereas the energy and the angle resolutions required here would be of the order of $\\omega_0\\sim 1\\;\\text{eV}$ and of $\\omega_0/1\\;\\text{GeV}\\sim 10^{-9}\\;\\text{rad}$, respectively). On the other hand, at $\\varkappa_j\\sim 1$ the amplitude of a refractive QED effect is expected to be substantially altered by higher-order terms in $\\varkappa_j$ (see, for example, the Bessel functions in Eq. (\\[I\\_f\\])), indicating that the measurement of the photon yield could be a more convenient observable to detect such higher-order effects. However, since the above discussion does not contain an estimate of the expected cross section or rate of a general refractive QED process, it cannot be considered as an experimental proposal but rather as an observation on what it could be convenient to measure, in order to detect higher-order nonlinear effects in refractive QED effects. If one is not interested in detecting higher-order effects in the laser-field amplitude, one can also allow for $\\varkappa_j\\ll 1$ and try to measure only leading-order effects. In fact, there are already more concrete suggestions in order to detect leading-order refractive QED effects at $N=2$ (vacuum polarization effects), e.g., by measuring the change in polarization of a probe photon passing through a laser field [@Heinzl_2006; @Di_Piazza_2006], or by directly detecting photon-photon scattering [@Bernard_2000; @Lundstroem_2006; @Tommasini_2008; @King_2010; @Kryuchkyan_2011] (see [@Di_Piazza_2012] for a more complete review on such experimental suggestions). We also shortly mention analogous experiments to detect vacuum polarization effects in a magnetic field [@Bregant_2008; @Zavattini_2012] and in waveguides [@Brodin_2001]. The mentioned experiments employ low-energy photons (optical and/or x-ray) such that they are not suitable to detect *higher-order* nonlinear effects in the laser field, because, in the notation of the present manuscript, $\\varkappa_j\\ll 1$ there. However, this does not imply that the processes themselves cannot be observed. On the contrary, it has already been noticed (see, e.g., [@Varfolomeev_1966; @Bernard_2000; @Lundstroem_2006]) that, employing intense optical lasers, leads to a large enhancement of the photon-photon scattering signal, by exploiting the stimulated emission of a photon in the presence of a large number of photons in the same mode.\n\nIn the analysis carried out so far, it has been assumed that radiative corrections are negligible. In the presence of an ultra-relativistic external plane-wave field this is the case if $\\alpha\\varkappa_j^{2/3}\\ll 1$ for all $j$, where $\\alpha=e^2\\approx 1/137$ is the fine-structure constant, i.e., if $\\varkappa_j\\ll 1/\\alpha^{3/2}\\approx 10^3$ [@Ritus_1985]. However, radiative corrections and high-order diagrams would in any case involve only virtual particles in such a way that the physical argument given above and concerning the net number of laser photon exchanged would again apply. On the other hand, as we have already mentioned, the regime $\\varkappa_j\\gg 1$ is not suitable for observing a refractive QED process, due to the background photons emitted by the produced electron-positron pairs.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nIn conclusion, by employing the operator technique, we have shown that refractive QED processes in a laser field are likely to occur with a net absorption/emission of only a few laser photons even in the ultra-relativistic regime $\\xi\\gg 1$. The above analysis has been carried out only on the one-loop amplitude of a general refractive QED process and, for a final, conclusive answer, observables as the cross sections or the rates should be investigated. However, the present investigation can be already of relevance for experimental campaigns at future laser facilities. On this respect, our main conclusion is that in order to experimentally observe higher-order nonlinear effects in the laser-field amplitude in such processes, it is more convenient to measure yields of final photons in a refractive QED process, rather than, for example, to measure the energies or the angular distribution of the final photons.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThe author is grateful to K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, S. Meuren, and A. I. Milstein for useful discussions and to C. H. Keitel and F. Mackenroth for reading the manuscript.\n\nIn the present appendix we will indicate how to express the amplitude (\\[M\\_op\\]) in such a way that it contains only the square propagators $D(A)$ (see Eq. (\\[D\\_0\\])). It is convenient to introduce here the notation (note that some of the above symbols have been already introduced between Eq. (\\[M\\_op\\]) and Eq. (\\[D\\])) $$\\begin{aligned}\nG_j(A)=&G(A)\\hat{e}_j\\exp[-i(k_jx)],\\\\\nD_j(A)=&D(A)\\exp[-i(k_jx)][2(\\Pi e_j)+\\hat{k}_j\\hat{e}_j],\\\\\nQ_j(A)=&D(A)\\hat{e}_j\\exp[-i(k_jx)]G^{-1}(A),\\\\\nC_{j,j+1}(A)=&D(A)\\hat{e}_j\\exp[-i(k_jx)] \\hat{e}_{j+1}\\exp[-i(k_{j+1}x)].\\end{aligned}$$ The following identities can be easily proven $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{GDQ}\nG_j(A)=&D_j(A)-Q_j(A),\\\\\n\\label{QD}\nQ_j(A)D_{j+1}(A)=&Q_j(A)Q_{j+1}(A)+C_{j,j+1}(A),\\end{aligned}$$ where for $j=N$, the index $N+1$ has to be intended as $1$ (recall the cyclic property of the trace). In order to further simplify the notation, we also define the generalized trace of a matrix operator $O$ $$\\text{Tr}_x(O)=\\int d^4x \\text{Tr}\\langle x|O|x\\rangle$$ such that it is sufficient to analyze the quantity $$T_N(A)=\\text{Tr}_x[G_1(A)\\cdots G_N(A)]+\\circlearrowleft.$$ Since, as will be clear, the procedure to transform the quantity $T_N(A)$ only depends on if $N$ is odd or even, we explicitly work out only the cases $N=3$ and $N=4$, being the cases $N>4$ completely analogous. Now, $$\\begin{split}\nT_3(A)&=\\text{Tr}_x[G_1(A)G_2(A)G_3(A)]+\\circlearrowleft\\\\\n&=\\text{Tr}_x[(D_1(A)-Q_1(A))(D_2(A)-Q_2(A))(D_3(A)-Q_3(A))]+\\circlearrowleft\\\\\n&=\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad+\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad+\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]+\\circlearrowleft.\\\\\n\\end{split}$$ The first term already contains only square propagators and, by applying the identity (\\[QD\\]) to the three terms containing only one operator $Q_j(A)$, we see that the contributions coming from the first term in Eq. (\\[QD\\]) exactly cancel the terms containing two operators $Q_j(A)Q_{j+1}(A)$. Thus, we obtain $$\\begin{split}\nT_3(A)&=\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{3,1}(A)D_2(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]+\\circlearrowleft.\n\\end{split}$$ Now, we consider separately the quantity $$\\label{T_p_3}\n\\begin{split}\nT_{+,3}(A)&=\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]\\\\\n&=\\text{Tr}_x\\left[G_+(A)\\hat{e}_1e^{-i(k_1x)}G_+(A)\\hat{e}_2e^{-i(k_2x)}G_+(A)\\hat{e}_3e^{-i(k_3x)}\\right],\n\\end{split}$$ where we have introduced the quantity $G_+(A)=(\\hat{\\Pi}+m+i\\epsilon)^{-1}$, which corresponds to the electron propagator but with $m\\to -m$. By imagining to work in the Dirac representation of the gamma matrices [@Landau_b_4_1982], we consider the unitary matrix $U=\\gamma^0\\gamma^2\\gamma^5$ and we note that $U\\gamma^{\\mu}U^{\\dag}=\\gamma^{\\mu,t}$, where the upper index $t$ indicates the transpose with respect to the Dirac-matrices indexes. Since the four-momentum operator is hermitian, it is easy to show that $UG_+(A)U^{\\dag}=-[G(-A)]^{t_x}$, where the upper index $t_x$ indicates the transpose with respect to the Dirac-matrices and to the spacetime indexes. In this way, by inserting the unity operator $UU^{\\dag}$ in Eq. (\\[T\\_p\\_3\\]) before and after each $\\hat{e}_j$ and by exploiting the fact that $\\text{Tr}_x(O^{t_x}_1O^{t_x}_2)=\\text{Tr}_x[(O_2O_1)^{t_x}]=\\text{Tr}_x(O_2O_1)$ for arbitrary operators $O_1$ and $O_2$, we obtain $$\\begin{split}\nT_{+,3}(A)=&\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)]=\\\\\n=&-\\text{Tr}_x\\left[G(-A)\\hat{e}_3e^{-i(k_3x)}G(-A)\\hat{e}_2e^{-i(k_2x)}G(-A)\\hat{e}_1e^{-i(k_1x)}\\right]\\\\\n=&-\\text{Tr}_x[G_3(-A)G_2(-A)G_1(-A)].\n\\end{split}$$ Now, we recall that, in general, the quantity $T_N(A)$ also contain the contribution from the Feynman diagram where the electron arrows are reversed (see Fig. 1) and that, due to Furry theorem [@Landau_b_4_1982], only terms proportional to an odd power of laser amplitude effectively contribute to $T_3(A)$, i.e., $T_3(A)=-T_3(-A)$. Therefore, by applying the same above procedure to the additional contribution from the Feynman diagram where the electron arrows are reversed, we obtain $$\\label{T_3_T}\n\\begin{split}\nT_3(A)=&\\frac{1}{2}\\{\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)]\\\\\n&-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{3,1}(A)D_2(A)]+\\{123\\to 321\\})\\},\n\\end{split}$$ where the quantity $\\{123\\to 321\\}$ means that the previous terms have to be added, but with the indexes $1,2$ and $3$ appearing in the opposite order $3,2$ and $1$. This result exactly corresponds to the general procedure given in the main text below Eq. (\\[M\\_op\\]) for the case $N=3$.\n\nThe case with $N=4$ can be worked out in a completely analogous way and we only stress the differences with respect to the case $N=3$. The starting point is the quantity $$\\begin{split}\nT_4(A)&=\\text{Tr}_x[G_1(A)G_2(A)G_3(A)G_4(A)]+\\circlearrowleft\\\\\n&=\\text{Tr}_x[(D_1(A)-Q_1(A))(D_2(A)-Q_2(A))(D_3(A)-Q_3(A))\\\\\n&\\quad\\times(D_4(A)-Q_4(A))]+\\circlearrowleft\\\\\n&=\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad+\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad+\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad+\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\\circlearrowleft.\n\\end{split}$$ By applying the identity (\\[QD\\]) in the terms containing only one operator $Q_j(A)$, four of the six terms with two operators $Q_j(A)$ and $Q_{j'}(A)$ cancel, and we obtain $$\\begin{split}\nT_4(A)&=\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad+\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\\circlearrowleft.\n\\end{split}$$ By applying the identity (\\[QD\\]) in the remaining terms containing two operators $Q_j(A)$ and $Q_{j'}(A)$, two of the four terms with three operators $Q_j(A)$, $Q_{j'}(A)$ and $Q_{j''}(A)$ cancel, and we obtain $$\\begin{split}\nT_4(A)&=\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)Q_3(A)D_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad+\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)Q_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)D_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)D_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\\circlearrowleft.\n\\end{split}$$ Finally, by applying again the identity (\\[QD\\]) in the two terms containing two operators $Q_j(A)$ and $Q_{j'}(A)$, the new terms containing three operators $Q_j(A)$, $Q_{j'}(A)$ and $Q_{j''}(A)$ combine to the remaining two terms also containing three operators $Q_j(A)$, $Q_{j'}(A)$ and $Q_{j''}(A)$, and give two terms $\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]$ with a minus sign. In conclusion, we have $$\\begin{split}\nT_4(A)&=\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad+\\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)C_{2,3}(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]+\\circlearrowleft.\n\\end{split}$$ The trace $\\text{Tr}_x[Q_1(A)Q_2(A)Q_3(A)Q_4(A)]$ can be manipulated exactly as in the case $N=3$ and we arrive to the final result $$\\begin{split}\nT_4(A)&=\\frac{1}{2}\\{\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)D_3(A)D_4(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)C_{2,3}(A)D_4(A)]-\\text{Tr}_x[D_1(A)D_2(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad-\\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)D_2(A)D_3(A)]+\\text{Tr}_x[C_{1,2}(A)C_{3,4}(A)]\\\\\n&\\quad+\\text{Tr}_x[C_{4,1}(A)C_{2,3}(A)]+\\{1234\\to 4321\\}\\},\n\\end{split}$$ which again corresponds to the substitution rules given below Eq. (\\[M\\_op\\]) for the case $N=4$.\n\nIn this appendix, we show that the four-dimensional scalar products $(Pe_j)$ do not contain the operator $P_{\\phi}$. We temporarily assume that ${k_j}^2\\neq 0$ for all $j$s. In this way, by introducing the quantities $f_r^{\\mu\\nu}=n^{\\mu}a_r^{\\nu}-n^{\\nu}a_r^{\\mu}$, with $r=1,2$, the four-vector $e_j^{\\mu}$ can be expanded with respect to the basis [@Baier_1976_b] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Lambda_j^{(1),\\mu}&=-\\frac{k_{j,\\lambda}f_1^{\\lambda\\mu}}{k_{j,X}}, & \\Lambda_j^{(2),\\mu}&=-\\frac{k_{j,\\lambda}f_2^{\\lambda\\mu}}{k_{j,X}},\\\\\n\\label{Lambda_34}\n\\Lambda_j^{(3),\\mu}&=\\frac{k_j^{\\mu}}{\\sqrt{{k_j}^2}}, &\\Lambda_j^{(4),\\mu}&=-\\frac{n^{\\mu}{k_j}^2+k_j^{\\mu}k_{j,X}}{k_{j,X}\\sqrt{{k_j}^2}}\\end{aligned}$$ as $e_j^{\\mu}=\\sum_{u=1}^4b^{(u)}_j\\Lambda_j^{(u),\\mu}$, with $b^{(u)}_j=-(\\Lambda_j^{(u)}e_j)$ (note that $(\\Lambda_j^{(u)}\\Lambda_j^{(v)})=-\\delta_{uv}$, with $u,v=1,\\ldots,4$). If we write the total amplitude $M$ as $M=e_{1,\\mu_1}\\cdots e_{N,\\mu_N}M^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_N}$, then $$\\label{M_exp}\nM=\\sum_{u_1,\\ldots,u_N=1}^4b^{(u_1)}_1\\cdots b^{(u_N)}_N\\Lambda_{1,\\mu_1}^{(u_1)}\\cdots\\Lambda_{N,\\mu_N}^{(u_N)}M^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_N}$$ and gauge invariance requires that $k_{1,\\mu_1}M^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_N}=\\cdots=k_{N,\\mu_N}M^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_N}=0$ [@Landau_b_4_1982]. This implies that the terms proportional to the four-vectors $\\Lambda_{j,\\mu_j}^{(3)}$ and those proportional to the divergent part of the four-vectors $\\Lambda_{j,\\mu_j}^{(4)}$ in the limits ${k_j}^2\\to 0$, do not contribute to $M$. Thus, the amplitude $M$ remains finite in the same limits ${k_j}^2\\to 0$. Moreover, the quantities $(Pe_j)$ only effectively involve contractions of $P^{\\mu}$ either with $n^{\\mu}$ or with $a^{\\mu}_{1/2}$, so that they do not contain the operator $P_{\\phi}$. It is also worth pointing out here that in the limit ${k_j}^2\\to 0$, although the contributing part of $\\Lambda_{j,\\mu_j}^{(4)}$ goes to zero as $\\sqrt{{k_j}^2}$, the corresponding contribution to the amplitude $M$ remains finite because the quantity $b^{(4)}_j=-(\\Lambda_j^{(4)}e_j)$ diverges as $1/\\sqrt{{k_j}^2}$ in the same limit (see Eq. (\\[Lambda\\_34\\])). In conclusion, by means of the above limiting procedure, our analysis can also be applied to the case in which the external photons are real, i.e., on-shell..\n\n[^1]: The expressions \u201claser field\u201d and \u201cplane wave\u201d will be used as synonyms throughout.\n\n[^2]: In the case $N=2$ the two diagrams in Fig. 1 coincide. Thus, if the amplitude $M$ is employed to calculate a rate, it has to be first divided by two to avoid over-counting.\n\n[^3]: More abstractly, but more in general, the quantity $\\omega_0$ can be defined as a parameter characterizing the time dependence of the laser field and such that $\\omega_0\\phi$ is a dimensionless Lorentz scalar.\n\n[^4]: Due to a typographical misprint, the quantity $s$ is missing in the last exponent in Eq. (16) in [@Di_Piazza_2007].\n\n[^5]: We note that the above expansions also hold for larger values of the parameters $\\varkappa_j$. In fact, instead of assuming that the parameters $\\eta_j$ are much smaller than unity as in the text, we assume here that they are such that $\\delta \\kappa_{j,X}s_j\\sim 1$. In this case, one cannot perform the mentioned expansions and the condition $F_{\\phi}(\\phi+\\Phi,\\{s\\})\\lesssim 1$ would imply that $s_j\\lesssim 1/m^2\\xi^2$. In turn, the condition $\\delta \\kappa_{j,X}s_j\\sim 1$ would require that $\\varkappa_j\\sim \\xi^3$. However, since it is assumed that $\\xi\\gg 1$, then in order the mentioned expansions not to be valid, it should be $\\varkappa_j\\sim 10^3$, where even the perturbative approach in the photon-electron interaction in QED in the presence of the laser field would break down [@Ritus_1985] (see also the discussion at the end of sec. \\[Discussion\\]).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this expository paper, we give a complete proof of van den Essen\u2019s theorem that the de Rham cohomology spaces of a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module are finite-dimensional in the case of a formal power series ring over a field of characteristic zero. This proof requires results from at least five of van den Essen\u2019s papers as well as his unpublished thesis, and until now has not been available in a self-contained document.'\naddress: |\n    School of Mathematics\\\n    University of Minnesota\\\n    127 Vincent Hall\\\n    206 Church St. SE\\\n    Minneapolis, MN 55455\nauthor:\n- Nicholas Switala\ntitle: 'Van den Essen\u2019s theorem on the de Rham cohomology of a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module over a formal power series ring'\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction {#intro}\n============\n\nLet $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, let $R = k[x_1, \\ldots, x_n]$ be a polynomial ring over $k$, and let ${\\mathcal{D}}= {\\mathcal{D}}(R,k)$ be the ring of $k$-linear differential operators on $R$ (the *Weyl algebra*). To any finitely generated left ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$, we can associate its *dimension* $d(M)$: if $M$ is nonzero, this dimension is an integer between $n$ and $2n$. The left ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules of minimal dimension (those for which $d(M) = n$) are called *holonomic*. A basic result in the theory of ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules, due to Bernstein, states that the de Rham cohomology spaces of a holonomic left ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ are finite-dimensional over $k$. These spaces are the cohomology objects of a complex defined using the usual exterior derivative formulas with respect to the action of the partial derivatives $\\partial_1, \\ldots, \\partial_n \\in {\\mathcal{D}}$ on $M$. The key idea in the proof of this finiteness is that the kernel and cokernel of $\\partial_n$ acting on $M$ are holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules, where ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1} = {\\mathcal{D}}(k[x_1, \\ldots, x_{n-1}],k)$; with this statement in hand, the finiteness of the de Rham cohomology follows by a routine induction.\n\nNow consider the case where $R$ is a formal power series ring $k[[x_1, \\ldots, x_n]]$, again over a field of characteristic zero. We again have the ring ${\\mathcal{D}}= {\\mathcal{D}}(R,k)$ of $k$-linear differential operators on $R$, and a well-defined notion of dimension for finitely generated left ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules (hence a notion of holonomy for left ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules). In this case, the analogue of Bernstein\u2019s result is due to van den Essen. If $M$ is a holonomic left ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, its de Rham cohomology spaces are again finite-dimensional over $k$, just as in the polynomial case; in contrast to this case, however, it is not true in general that the cokernel of $\\partial_n$ acting on $M$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module, which makes the proof more difficult. The kernel of $\\partial_n$ is again holonomic, and the cokernel is holonomic whenever $M$ satisfies a certain generic condition called *$x_n$-regularity*. It turns out that if $M$ is holonomic, we can always make a linear change of coordinates (which does not affect de Rham cohomology) after which $M$ becomes $x_n$-regular. The same routine induction argument used by Bernstein is then sufficient to prove finiteness of the de Rham cohomology in the formal power series case as well:\n\n[@essen Prop. 2.2]\\[mainthm\\] Let $k$ be a field of characteristic zero, let $R = k[[x_1, \\ldots, x_n]]$ be a formal power series ring over $k$, and let ${\\mathcal{D}}= {\\mathcal{D}}(R,k)$ be the ring of $k$-linear differential operators on $R$. If $M$ is a holonomic left ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, its de Rham cohomology spaces $H^i_{dR}(M)$ are finite-dimensional over $k$ for all $i$.\n\nVan den Essen\u2019s proof is not contained in a single paper. The complete argument requires results from at least five of his papers, as well as his (unpublished) thesis. Moreover, some of the necessary results are proved more than once in these papers, with simpler and better proofs superseding more complicated ones. The purpose of this expository paper is to assemble these preliminary results and proofs in one place, giving only the shortest argument in each case.\n\nIdeally, this paper would be entirely self-contained except for basic commutative algebra, but the amount of necessary background material on ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules is too large for this ideal to be reasonable. Our compromise is the following. Bj\u00f6rk\u2019s book [@bjork] is our basic reference for the theory of ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules (it is also the basic reference cited in van den Essen\u2019s papers), and we freely quote without proof results appearing in this book. We will also appeal to Gabber\u2019s deep result [@gabber Thm. I] on the involutivity of characteristic ideals without providing a proof. We will, however, give full proofs for all preliminary results taken from van den Essen\u2019s papers. We stress that nothing in this paper is original, neither the results nor the proofs; our goal in writing it is merely to make available a complete proof of Theorem \\[mainthm\\] in one document.\n\nIn this paper, we only state and prove precisely what we need for Theorem \\[mainthm\\]. The papers of van den Essen cited here contain many more results on kernels and cokernels of differential operators that are not strictly necessary for the proof of this theorem, and we encourage the interested reader to investigate further.\n\nThe structure of this paper is as follows. In section \\[prelim\\], we collect preliminary material on formal power series rings, ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules, de Rham cohomology, and Gabber\u2019s theorem. In section \\[kernels\\], we give the proof that the kernel of $\\partial_n$ acting on a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module is again holonomic (with no further conditions on the module). In section \\[regularity\\], we define the $x_n$-regularity condition for a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module and prove some technical results concerning the consequences of this condition. In section \\[cokernels\\], we give the proof that (possibly after a linear change of coordinates) the cokernel of $\\partial_n$ acting on a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module is again holonomic, and then complete the proof of Theorem \\[mainthm\\].\n\nPreliminaries {#prelim}\n=============\n\nThroughout the paper, $k$ denotes a field of characteristic zero, $R$ denotes the formal power series ring $k[[x_1, \\ldots, x_n]]$, and $R_{n-1}$ denotes the subring $k[[x_1, \\ldots, x_{n-1}]]$. The rings $R$ and $R_{n-1}$ are commutative, Noetherian, regular local rings. We denote by $\\mathfrak{m}$ the unique maximal ideal $(x_1, \\ldots, x_n)$ of $R$ (similarly, $\\mathfrak{m}_{n-1}$ is the unique maximal ideal of $R_{n-1}$). Since $R$ is local, any element of $R$ with a nonzero constant term is a unit.\n\n\\[xnregf\\] A formal power series $f \\in R$ is said to be *$x_n$-regular* if $f(0,0,\\ldots, 0, x_n) \\neq 0$ in $k[[x_n]]$, that is, if a term $c_{0,\\ldots, 0, i}x_n^i$ with $c_{0,\\ldots, 0, i} \\in k \\setminus \\{0\\}$ occurs in $f$.\n\nThe following theorem clarifies the significance of the $x_n$-regularity hypothesis:\n\n[@lang Thm. IV.9.2]\\[weierprep\\] Suppose that $f \\in R$ is $x_n$-regular. There exists a unique expression $f = u(x_n^d + b_{n-1}x_n^{d-1} + \\cdots + b_0)$ where $u \\in R$ is a unit and each $b_i \\in \\mathfrak{m}_{n-1}$.\n\n\\[wpfingen\\] The Weierstrass preparation theorem has the following consequence: if $f \\in R$ is $x_n$-regular, then $R/fR$ is finitely generated (by the classes of $x_n^i$ with $0 \\leq i \\leq d-1$) as a module over $R_{n-1}$. It follows that *any* finitely generated $R/fR$-module is in fact a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. In the sequel, our appeals to the \u201cWeierstrass preparation theorem\u201d will in fact be appeals to this consequence.\n\nWe now review some definitions and properties of ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules and de Rham complexes. Our basic reference for what follows is [@bjork]. The ring ${\\mathcal{D}}= {\\mathcal{D}}(R,k)$ of $k$-linear differential operators, a subring of $\\operatorname{End}_k(R)$, takes the form ${\\mathcal{D}}= R\\langle \\partial_1, \\ldots, \\partial_n \\rangle$, where $\\partial_i = \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial x_i}$. (This notation is meant to indicate that, after adjoining the new variables $\\partial_i$ to $R$, we do *not* obtain a commutative ring.) As a left $R$-module, ${\\mathcal{D}}$ is free on monomials in the $\\partial_i$. If $R$ is any commutative ring and $A \\subset R$ any commutative subring, there is a more general definition ([@EGAIV \u00a716]) of the ring ${\\mathcal{D}}(R,A)$ of $A$-linear differential operators on $R$. See [@EGAIV Thm. 16.11.2] for a proof that our definition coincides with this more general one in the formal power series case.\n\nUnless expressly indicated otherwise, by a *${\\mathcal{D}}$-module* we will always mean a *left* module over ${\\mathcal{D}}$.\n\nThe ring ${\\mathcal{D}}$ has an increasing, exhaustive filtration $\\{{\\mathcal{D}}_j\\}$, called the *order filtration*, where ${\\mathcal{D}}_j$ is the $R$-submodule consisting of those differential operators of order $\\leq j$ (the order of an element of ${\\mathcal{D}}$ is the maximum of the orders of its summands, and the order of a single summand $\\rho \\partial_1^{a_1} \\cdots \\partial_n^{a_n}$ with $\\rho \\in R$ is $\\sum a_i$). Note that for all $f \\in R$ and for all $i$, we have the relation $$[\\partial_i, f] = \\partial_i f - f \\partial_i = \\partial_i(f) \\in R \\subset {\\mathcal{D}},$$ where $[,]$ denotes the commutator of two elements of ${\\mathcal{D}}$ and the operator $\\partial_i(f) \\in {\\mathcal{D}}$ is *multiplication* by $\\partial_i(f) \\in R$. Consequently, the associated graded object $\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}= \\oplus_j {\\mathcal{D}}_j/{\\mathcal{D}}_{j-1}$ with respect to the order filtration is isomorphic to the polynomial ring $R[\\zeta_1, \\ldots, \\zeta_n]$, where $\\zeta_i$ is the image of $\\partial_i$ in ${\\mathcal{D}}_1/{\\mathcal{D}}_0 \\subset \\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$. (In particular, $\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$ is commutative.) For all $i$, $\\zeta_i$ is called the *principal symbol* of $\\partial_i$, and we write $\\zeta_i = \\sigma(\\partial_i)$. More generally, if $\\delta \\in {\\mathcal{D}}_j \\setminus {\\mathcal{D}}_{j-1}$, its principal symbol $\\sigma(\\delta)$ is its class in $\\operatorname{gr}^j {\\mathcal{D}}= {\\mathcal{D}}_j/{\\mathcal{D}}_{j-1} \\subset \\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$.\n\nIf $M$ is a finitely generated ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, there exists an increasing, exhaustive filtration $\\{M_j\\}$ of $M$ such that $M$ becomes a filtered ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module with respect to the order filtration on ${\\mathcal{D}}$ (so ${\\mathcal{D}}_i \\cdot M_j \\subset M_{i+j}$ for all $i$ and $j$) *and* $\\operatorname{gr}M = \\oplus_j M_j/M_{j-1}$ is a finitely generated $\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$-module. We call such a filtration *good*. Let $J$ be the radical of $\\operatorname{Ann}_{\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}} \\operatorname{gr}M$ (the *characteristic ideal* of $M$) and set $d(M) = \\dim \\, (\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}})/J$ where $\\dim$ denotes Krull dimension. The ideal $J$, and hence the number $d(M)$, is independent of the choice of good filtration on $M$. By *Bernstein\u2019s theorem*, if $M$ is a (nonzero) finitely generated ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, we have $n \\leq d(M) \\leq 2n$. In the case where $d(M) = n$ we say that $M$ is *holonomic*.\n\nSome basic facts about holonomic modules are the following: submodules and quotients of holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules are holonomic, an extension of a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module by another holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module is holonomic, holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules are of finite length over ${\\mathcal{D}}$, and holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules are cyclic (generated over ${\\mathcal{D}}$ by a single element). We will use these basic facts below without comment.\n\nIf $M$ is a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, the operator $\\partial_n \\in {\\mathcal{D}}$ acts on $M$ via a ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-linear map, and so its kernel and cokernel are ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules. The main question we will be concerned with in this paper is the following: if $M$ is holonomic, are the kernel and cokernel of $\\partial_n$ acting on $M$ holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules?\n\nExactly the same question can be asked about the operator $x_n \\in {\\mathcal{D}}$. This question is easier, and we have the following unconditional affirmative answer:\n\n[@bjork Thm. 3.4.2, Prop. 3.4.4]\\[bjorkxn\\] Let $M$ be a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. The kernel and cokernel of $x_n$ acting on $M$ are holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules.\n\nWe remark that in the polynomial ring case, $x_n$ and $\\partial_n$ play essentially symmetric roles, and so the question for $\\partial_n$ is no more difficult than the question for $x_n$ (and has the same unconditional affirmative answer). The symmetry between $x_n$ and $\\partial_n$ does not persist in the formal power series case, which is why the question for $\\partial_n$ is significantly more difficult.\n\nWe next discuss the *de Rham complex* of a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$. This is a complex of length $n$, denoted $M \\otimes \\Omega_R^{\\bullet}$, whose objects are $R$-modules but whose differentials are merely $k$-linear. It is defined as follows: for $0 \\leq i \\leq n$, $M \\otimes \\Omega^i_R$ is a direct sum of $n \\choose i$ copies of $M$, indexed by $i$-tuples $1 \\leq j_1 < \\cdots < j_i \\leq n$. The summand corresponding to such an $i$-tuple will be written $M \\, dx_{j_1} \\wedge \\cdots \\wedge dx_{j_i}$.\n\nThe $k$-linear differentials $d^i: M \\otimes \\Omega_R^i \\rightarrow M \\otimes \\Omega_R^{i+1}$ are defined by $$d^i(m \\,dx_{j_1} \\wedge \\cdots \\wedge dx_{j_i}) = \\sum_{s=1}^n \\partial_s(m)\\, dx_s \\wedge dx_{j_1} \\wedge \\cdots \\wedge dx_{j_i},$$ with the usual exterior algebra conventions for rearranging the wedge terms, and extended by linearity to the direct sum. The cohomology objects $h^i(M \\otimes \\Omega_R^{\\bullet})$, which are $k$-spaces, are called the *de Rham cohomology spaces* of the ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$, and are denoted $H^i_{dR}(M)$.\n\nWe have defined the de Rham complex of a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module using a chosen regular system of parameters $x_1, \\ldots, x_n$ for the formal power series ring $R$. There is an alternate definition from which it is easier to see that this complex does not depend on the chosen parameters, based on the characterization of ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules in terms of *integrable connections*. Let $\\Omega_R^1$ be the $R$-module of ($\\mathfrak{m}$-adically) *continuous* K\u00e4hler differentials of $R$ over $k$ [@EGAIVa 20.7.14], and $d: R \\rightarrow \\Omega_R^1$ the corresponding universal continuous derivation. In coordinates, if $x_1, \\ldots, x_n$ is a regular system of parameters for $R$, we have $\\Omega_R^1 \\simeq \\oplus_i R \\, dx_i$ and $d(f) = \\sum_i \\partial_i(f) \\, dx_i$ for all $f \\in R$. However, $\\Omega_R^1$ and $d$ can also be defined using a universal property, with no reference to coordinates: every $\\mathfrak{m}$-adically continuous derivation $\\delta: R \\rightarrow M$ where $M$ is an $R$-module factors uniquely through $d$. Now recall that a *connection* on an $R$-module $M$ is a $k$-linear map $\\nabla: M \\rightarrow \\Omega_R^1 \\otimes_R M$ such that $\\nabla(rm) = dr \\otimes m + r \\cdot \\nabla(m)$ for all $r \\in R$ and $m \\in M$. A connection $\\nabla = \\nabla^0$ on $M$ induces $k$-linear maps $\\nabla^l: \\Omega_R^l \\otimes_R M \\rightarrow \\Omega_R^{l+1} \\otimes_R M$ for all $l \\geq 0$, where $\\Omega_R^l$ is the $l$th exterior power of $\\Omega_R^1$. If $\\nabla^1 \\circ \\nabla^0$ is the zero map, the connection $\\nabla$ is said to be *integrable*, in which case $\\nabla^{l+1} \\circ \\nabla^l$ is the zero map for all $l$. Since ${\\mathcal{D}}$ is generated over $R$ by derivations, the data of a left ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module structure on an $R$-module $M$ is equivalent to that of an integrable connection on $M$ [@bjork 3.2.9], and the complex $(\\Omega_R^{\\bullet} \\otimes_R M, \\nabla^{\\bullet})$ induced by $\\nabla$ is the *de Rham complex* of $M$, which in coordinates $\\{x_i\\}$ is exactly the complex $M \\otimes \\Omega^{\\bullet}_R$ defined above. The only use we will have in this paper for this alternate definition of $M \\otimes \\Omega^{\\bullet}_R$ is the following obvious consequence:\n\n\\[dRind\\] The de Rham cohomology spaces $H^i_{dR}(M)$ of any ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ are independent of the choice of a regular system of parameters $x_1, \\ldots, x_n$ for $R$.\n\nThere is a long exact sequence relating the de Rham cohomology of a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ with the de Rham cohomology of the kernel and cokernel of $\\partial_n$ acting on $M$ (which are ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules):\n\n[@bjork Prop. 2.4.13]\\[derhamles\\] Let $M$ be a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. Let $M_*$ (resp. $\\overline{M}$) be the kernel (resp. cokernel) of $\\partial_n$ acting on $M$. Then there is a long exact sequence $$\\cdots \\rightarrow H^{i-2}_{dR}(\\overline{M}) \\rightarrow H^i_{dR}(M_*) \\rightarrow H^i_{dR}(M) \\rightarrow H^{i-1}_{dR}(\\overline{M}) \\rightarrow \\cdots$$ of $k$-spaces, where $H^j_{dR}(M_*)$ and $H^j_{dR}(\\overline{M})$ are de Rham cohomology spaces of the ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules $M_*$ and $\\overline{M}$, defined using only $\\partial_1, \\ldots, \\partial_{n-1}$.\n\nFinally, we will need Gabber\u2019s theorem on involutivity of characteristic ideals, originally proved in [@gabber]. We need to introduce the Poisson bracket (see [@gabber] or [@hotta App. D]). Its definition makes sense, and Gabber\u2019s theorem holds, for more general filtered rings, but we content ourselves here with stating everything for the ring ${\\mathcal{D}}$ and its order filtration $\\{{\\mathcal{D}}_j\\}$. Suppose that $\\delta \\in \\operatorname{gr}^i {\\mathcal{D}}$ and $\\delta' \\in \\operatorname{gr}^j {\\mathcal{D}}$ for some $i$ and $j$. Then we can write $\\delta = \\sigma(d)$ and $\\delta' = \\sigma(d')$ for some $d \\in {\\mathcal{D}}_i$ and $d' \\in {\\mathcal{D}}_j$, where $\\sigma$ denotes the principal symbol. Since $\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$ is commutative, the commutator $[d,d']$ belongs to ${\\mathcal{D}}_{i+j-1}$, and we define $\\{\\delta, \\delta'\\} \\in \\operatorname{gr}^{i+j-1} {\\mathcal{D}}$ to be the principal symbol of $[d,d']$. It is easy to check that $\\{\\delta, \\delta'\\}$ does not depend on the choices of $d$ and $d'$. The unique biadditive extension $$\\{,\\}: \\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}\\times \\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}\\rightarrow \\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$$ is called the *Poisson bracket* on $\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$, and, in particular, is a biderivation. An ideal $I \\subset \\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$ is called *involutive* if it is closed under the Poisson bracket, that is, if $\\{I,I\\} \\subset I$.\n\n[@gabber Thm. I]\\[gabber\\] Let $M$ be a finitely generated left ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. Let $\\operatorname{gr}M$ be the associated graded $\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$-module of $M$ with respect to a chosen good filtration on $M$. Let $J = \\sqrt{\\operatorname{Ann}_{\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}} \\operatorname{gr}M} \\subset \\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$ be the *characteristic ideal* of $M$ (as stated earlier, $J$ does not depend on the choice of good filtration). Then $J$ is involutive.\n\n[@essen Lemma 1.12]\\[primeinvol\\] With the notation of Theorem \\[gabber\\], let $\\mathfrak{p}$ be a minimal prime ideal over $J$. Then $\\mathfrak{p}$ is again involutive.\n\nAs $J$ is a radical ideal in a Noetherian ring, we can write $J$ as an intersection $J = \\mathfrak{p}_1 \\cap \\cdots \\cap \\mathfrak{p}_t$ of prime ideals of $\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}$, and we may assume that each $\\mathfrak{p}_i$ is minimal over $J$. If $t=1$, $J$ is prime and there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, fix $i$, write $\\mathfrak{p}$ for $\\mathfrak{p}_i$, and let $\\mathfrak{q} = \\cap_{j \\neq i} \\mathfrak{p}_j$. There exists some $c \\in \\mathfrak{q} \\setminus \\mathfrak{p}$. Let $a, b \\in \\mathfrak{p}$ be given. We have $ac, bc \\in \\cap_j \\mathfrak{p}_j = J$, and hence $\\{ac,bc\\} \\in J$, since $J$ is involutive by Theorem \\[gabber\\]. We now use the fact that the Poisson bracket is a biderivation, which gives $$\\{ac,bc\\} = a\\{c,b\\}c + a\\{c,c\\}b + c\\{a,b\\}c + c\\{a,c\\}b.$$ The first, second, and fourth summands on the right-hand side all have a factor of $a$ or $b$ and thus belong to $\\mathfrak{p}$. Since the sum belongs to $\\mathfrak{p}$, the third summand, $c^2\\{a,b\\}$, belongs to $\\mathfrak{p}$ as well. As $\\mathfrak{p}$ is prime and $c^2 \\notin \\mathfrak{p}$, we must have $\\{a,b\\} \\in \\mathfrak{p}$, and so $\\mathfrak{p}$ is involutive.\n\n\\[zetahom\\] If $M$, $J$, and $\\mathfrak{p}$ are as above, we note that $J$ is homogeneous with respect to $\\zeta_1, \\ldots, \\zeta_n$ by definition, and by [@matsumura Thm. 13.7(i)], $\\mathfrak{p}$ is homogeneous with respect to the $\\zeta_i$ as well.\n\nKernels\n=======\n\nIn this section, we prove that the kernel $M_*$ of $\\partial_n$ acting on a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module, with no further conditions on $M$. After some reductions, it suffices to check that the *cokernel* of $x_n$ is holonomic, which is Proposition \\[bjorkxn\\]. These reductions are made possible by the following key lemma, which states that $R$-linear dependence relations among elements of $M_*$ hold homogeneously in $x_n$. (We write $\\partial$ for $\\partial_n$; this shorthand will be used throughout the rest of the paper.)\n\n[@kernel Lemme 1]\\[kerlemma\\] Let $M$ be any ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, and let $M_* = \\ker(\\partial: M \\rightarrow M)$. Suppose that $m_1, \\ldots, m_l \\in M_*$ are such that $f_1m_1 + \\cdots + f_lm_l = 0$ for some $f_1, \\ldots, f_l \\in R$. Then $f_{1,j}m_1 + \\cdots + f_{l,j}m_l = 0$ for every $j \\geq 0$, where $f_{i,j} \\in R_{n-1}$ denotes the coefficient of $x_n^j$ in $f_i$.\n\nWe first assume that the statement holds for $j = 0$ and prove that it follows for all $j > 0$. Note that for any $j \\geq 0$ and any $f \\in R$, we have $f_j = \\frac{1}{j!}(\\partial^j f)_0$, where the subscript $0$ denotes the constant term with respect to $x_n$. If $m_1, \\ldots, m_l \\in M_*$ and $f_1m_1 + \\cdots + f_lm_l = 0$, then $\\partial^j(f_1m_1 + \\cdots + f_lm_l) = 0$. By the Leibniz rule, $$\\partial^j(\\sum_{i=1}^l f_im_i) = \\sum_{i=1}^l (\\partial^j(f_i)) m_i,$$ as all other terms have a factor of $\\partial^{\\alpha}(m_i)$ for some $\\alpha > 0$ and some $i$ and hence vanish since $m_i \\in M_*$. Multiplying by a harmless constant, we see that $\\frac{1}{j!} \\sum_{i=1}^l (\\partial^j(f_i)) m_i = 0$. By our assumption, $\\sum_{i=1}^l (\\frac{1}{j!}\\partial^j(f_i))_0 m_i = 0$, but this sum is nothing but $\\sum_{i=1}^l f_{i,j}m_i$. We have thus reduced ourselves to the case $j=0$.\n\nLet $m = \\sum_{i=1}^l f_{i,0} m_i$, and let $E$ be the $R$-submodule of $M$ generated by $\\{m_1, \\ldots, m_l\\}$. We claim that $m \\in x_n^q E$ for all $q \\geq 1$. As $E$ is a finitely generated $R$-module and $R$ is a Noetherian local domain (whose maximal ideal contains $x_n$), this will imply that $m = 0$ [@matsumura Thm. 8.10(ii)], as desired. We prove $m \\in x_n^q E$ for all $q$ by induction on $q$. For the base case, $q=1$, consider the difference $\\sum_{i=1}^l f_i m_i - \\sum_{i=1}^l f_{i,0}m_i$. On the one hand, by definition, this difference belongs to $x_nE$, as we have removed all terms which *a priori* may lack an $x_n$ factor. On the other hand, the first term is $0$ by hypothesis and the second is $m$, so $-m \\in x_nE$. Now suppose that $m \\in x_n^qE$ for some $q \\geq 1$, and write $m = x_n^q \\sum_{i=1}^l r_im_i$ for some $r_1, \\ldots, r_l \\in R$. As $m$ is an $R_{n-1}$-linear combination of elements of $M$ killed by $\\partial$, we have $\\partial(m) = 0$, so $\\frac{1}{q!}x_n^q\\partial^q m = 0$. Substituting $x_n^q \\sum_{i=1}^l r_im_i$ for $m$ in the left-hand side of this equation and using the Leibniz rule, we see that the only terms which *a priori* may lack an $x_n^{q+1}$ factor are those in the sum $\\sum_{i=1}^l r_{i,0}x_n^qm_i$: we obtain, for some $\\mu \\in E$, an expression $$0 = \\frac{1}{q!}x_n^q\\partial^q m = \\frac{1}{q!}x_n^q\\partial^q(x_n^q \\sum_{i=1}^l r_im_i) = \\sum_{i=1}^l r_{i,0}x_n^qm_i + x_n^{q+1}\\mu,$$ so that $\\sum_{i=1}^l r_{i,0}x_n^qm_i \\in x_n^{q+1}E$. It follows that $m \\in x_n^{q+1}E$, as $$m - \\sum_{i=1}^l r_{i,0}x_n^qm_i = \\sum_{i=1}^l(\\sum_{s=1}^{\\infty} r_{i,s}x_n^{s+q}m_i)$$ and we have an $x_n^{q+1}$ factor in every remaining term. This completes the proof.\n\n[@kernel Thm. (iii)]\\[holkernel\\] Let $M$ be a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. Then $M_*$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module.\n\nConsider the $R$-submodule $R \\cdot M_*$ of $M$ generated by $M_*$. If $r \\in R$ and $m \\in M_*$, then $\\partial(rm) = \\partial(r)m + r\\partial(m) = \\partial(r)m$; since $M_*$ is already a ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-submodule of $M$, this calculation shows that $R \\cdot M_*$ is a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-submodule of $M$. Furthermore, it is clear that $\\ker(\\partial: R \\cdot M_* \\rightarrow R \\cdot M_*)$ coincides with $M_*$. Therefore, we may assume that $M = R \\cdot M_*$. With this assumption, we conclude at once that $M = M_* + x_nM$ as ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules, since $M_*$ is an $R_{n-1}$-module. We claim that this sum is direct. Suppose that $m \\in M_* \\cap x_nM$. Since $x_nM = x_n(R \\cdot M_*)$, we can write $m = x_n(\\sum r_im_i)$ for some $r_i \\in R$ and $m_i \\in M_*$. From this, we obtain an equation $m - x_n(\\sum r_im_i) = 0$ where $m$ and all the $m_i$ belong to $M_*$. By Lemma \\[kerlemma\\], the constant term of the left-hand side with respect to $x_n$, which is simply $m$, also vanishes. Thus $M_* \\cap x_nM = 0$, and so $M = M_* \\oplus x_nM$. This direct sum decomposition implies that $M_* \\simeq M/x_nM$, which is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module by Proposition \\[bjorkxn\\]. This completes the proof.\n\nRegularity\n==========\n\nIn this section, we define what it means for a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ to be *$x_n$-regular*. If $M$ is holonomic, this is a weak condition that is always satisfied up to a linear change of variables in $R$. This is the technical assumption necessary for the cokernel of $\\partial$ acting on a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module to again be holonomic.\n\n[@essthesis p. 21]\\[E\\] Let $M$ be a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, let $m \\in M$, and suppose that $\\tau \\in {\\mathcal{D}}$ is a $k$-linear derivation. We write $E_{\\tau}(m)$ for the $R$-submodule $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} R \\cdot \\tau^i(m)$ of $M$ generated by the family $\\{\\tau^i(m)\\}$. If $N \\subset M$ is an $R$-submodule, $E_{\\tau}(N)$ is the $R$-submodule of $M$ generated by $E_{\\tau}(n)$ for $n \\in N$.\n\nFor a given $\\tau$ and $m$, if $E_{\\tau}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module, then there exists $p$ such that $\\tau^p(m) \\in \\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \\cdot \\tau^i(m)$. In this case, $E_{\\tau}(m) = \\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \\cdot \\tau^i(m)$.\n\n[@essthesis Ch. II, Prop. 1.16]\\[reglink\\] Let $M$ be a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, and suppose there exists a nonzero $f \\in R$ such that the localization $M_f$ is a finitely generated $R_f$-module. Then for any $m \\in M$, there exists $s \\geq 0$ such that $E_{f^s \\partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module.\n\nLet $m \\in M$ be given. Since $R$ (and hence $R_f$) is Noetherian, any $R$-submodule of $M_f$ is also finitely generated over $R$. In particular, this is true of the $R$-submodule $E_{\\partial}(R_f \\cdot m) \\subset M_f$, where here we are regarding $M_f$ as a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module in the obvious way (and replacing $R$ with $R_f$ in our definition of the $E_{\\partial}$ construction). Therefore, for some $p \\geq 1$, $E_{\\partial}(R_f \\cdot m) = R_f \\cdot m + R_f \\cdot \\partial(m) + \\cdots + R_f \\cdot \\partial^{p-1}(m)$, and consequently $\\partial^p(m)$ can be written $\\rho_0 m + \\rho_1 \\partial(m) + \\cdots + \\rho_{p-1} \\partial^{p-1}(m)$ for some $\\rho_0, \\ldots, \\rho_{p-1} \\in R_f$. Clearing denominators (and multiplying by a further power of $f$ if necessary), we see that there exists $s \\geq 0$ such that $f^s \\partial^p(m) = r_0 m + r_1 \\partial(m) + \\cdots r_{p-1} \\partial^{p-1}(m)$ for some $r_0, \\ldots, r_{p-1} \\in R$. Write $N$ for the $R$-submodule $\\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \\cdot \\partial^i(m)$ of $M$. Then the fact that $f^s \\partial^p(m) \\in N$ implies that $f^s \\partial(N) \\subset N$, from which it follows at once that $E_{f^s \\partial}(N) \\subset N$. By definition, $N$ is a finitely generated $R$-module, so $E_{f^s \\partial}(N)$ and its $R$-submodule $E_{f^s \\partial}(m)$ are finitely generated $R$-modules, completing the proof.\n\nLemma \\[reglink\\] is useful because its hypothesis is satisfied for *every* holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module.\n\n[@example Prop. 1]\\[fgloc\\] Let $M$ be a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. There exists a nonzero $f \\in R$ such that $M_f$ is a finitely generated $R_f$-module.\n\nWe first consider two special cases. If $M$ is $R$-torsionfree, this is [@bjork Lemma 3.3.19]. If $M$ is simple as a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module and is not $R$-torsionfree, there exist nonzero $f \\in R$ and $m \\in M$ such that $fm = 0$. By the simplicity of $M$, $M = {\\mathcal{D}}\\cdot m$, from which it follows that $M_f$ is zero and *a fortiori* finitely generated. To prove the proposition for all holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules $M$, we use the fact that any such $M$ is of finite length as a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. If $$0 \\rightarrow M' \\rightarrow M \\rightarrow M'' \\rightarrow 0$$ is a short exact sequence of ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules and there exist nonzero $g,h \\in R$ such that $M'_f$ (resp. $M''_g$) is a finitely generated $R_f$- (resp. $R_g$-) module, then $M_{fg}$ is a finitely generated $R_{fg}$-module. Therefore induction on length, which reduces us to the case of a simple ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module and hence to the previous two special cases, completes the proof.\n\nRecall from section \\[prelim\\] that $f \\in R$ is said to be *$x_n$-regular* if $f(0,0,\\ldots, 0, x_n) \\neq 0$, in which case $f$ can be written as the product of a unit and a \u201cWeierstrass polynomial\u201d in $x_n$.\n\n[@cokernel p. 903]\\[Mreg\\] Let $M$ be a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. We say that $M$ is *$x_n$-regular* if for every $m \\in M$, there exists an $x_n$-regular $f \\in R$ such that $E_{f \\partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module. (Any $m \\in M$ for which this holds is said to be an *$x_n$-regular element*.)\n\n\\[holMreg\\] In what follows, we will frequently consider ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules $M$ which are holonomic, hence cyclic, together with a choice of $m$ such that $M = {\\mathcal{D}}\\cdot m$. It is not hard to check that if $E_{\\tau}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module for some derivation $\\tau \\in {\\mathcal{D}}$, then $E_{\\tau}(\\delta(m))$ is also finitely generated for every $\\delta \\in {\\mathcal{D}}$. It follows that if $M = {\\mathcal{D}}\\cdot m$ is cyclic, then $M$ is $x_n$-regular as long as $E_{\\tau}(m)$ is finitely generated over $R$, and this does not depend on the choice of ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module generator $m$ for $M$.\n\nHaving now stated all necessary definitions, we begin working toward the crucial technical result (Lemma \\[coklemma\\]) on the cokernel of $\\partial$ acting on a holonomic, $x_n$-regular ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. The following proposition can be viewed as a generalization of the Weierstrass preparation theorem (which we recover by taking $l=0$):\n\n[@several2 Thm. 1]\\[weiergen\\] Let $\\Delta: R \\rightarrow R$ be a differential operator of the form $\\Delta = \\sum_{i=0}^{l} r_i \\partial^i$ where $r_i \\in R$ for all $i$ and $r_l$ is $x_n$-regular. Then $R/\\Delta(R)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module.\n\nWe state and prove a special case of Proposition \\[weiergen\\], due to Malgrange, separately:\n\n[@malgrange Prop. 1.3]\\[malglem\\] Let $R = k[[x]]$ and let $\\Delta: R \\rightarrow R$ be a nonzero differential operator. Then $R/\\Delta(R)$ is a finite-dimensional $k$-space.\n\nFor any formal power series $r = \\sum \\alpha_i x^i \\in R$, we let $\\nu(r) = \\min{\\{i | \\alpha_i \\neq 0\\}}$. The differential operator $\\Delta$ takes the form $\\Delta = \\sum_{i=0}^{l} r_i \\partial^i$ where $r_l \\neq 0$. Set $s = \\max{\\{i - \\nu(r_i)\\}}$, and let $I \\subset \\{0, \\ldots, l\\}$ be the set of indices for which this maximum is attained, that is, for which $s = i - \\nu(r_i)$. For each $i \\in I$, $r_i = x^{i-s}\\rho_i$ for some $\\rho_i \\in R$ such that $\\rho_i(0) \\neq 0$. For any integer $t \\geq s$, we have $$\\Delta(x^t) = \\sum_{i \\in I} t(t-1)\\cdots (t-i+1) \\rho_i(0) x^{t-s} + \\textrm{higher order terms}.$$ The coefficient of $x^{t-s}$ in the above expression, namely $\\sum_{i \\in I} t(t-1)\\cdots (t-i+1) \\rho_i(0)$, is a polynomial in $t$ whose leading term is $\\rho_{\\max I}(0) t^{\\max I}$. Since $\\max I \\in I$, we have $\\rho_{\\max I}(0) \\neq 0$, and so for large enough $t$, this leading term dominates the polynomial: there exists $t_0$ such that for all $t \\geq t_0$, $$\\Delta(x^t) = (\\textrm{nonzero})x^{t-s} + \\textrm{higher order terms}.$$ Since $k$ is of characteristic zero, it follows that if $t \\geq t_0$, given any $g \\in R$ such that $\\nu(g) \\geq t-s$ (that is, $g \\in \\mathfrak{m}^{t-s}$, where $\\mathfrak{m} \\subset R$ is the maximal ideal), we can solve the equation $\\Delta(f) = g$ uniquely for $f \\in R$ by recursion on the coefficients, and the unique solution $f$ belongs to $\\mathfrak{m}^t$. Therefore the restriction of $\\Delta$ is an isomorphism of $k$-spaces $\\mathfrak{m}^t \\xrightarrow{\\sim} \\mathfrak{m}^{t-s}$ for any $t \\geq t_0$. Fix such a $t$, and consider the commutative diagram $$\\begin{CD}\n0 @>>> \\mathfrak{m}^t @>>> R @>>> R/\\mathfrak{m}^t @>>> 0\\\\\n@.            @VV \\Delta V     @VV \\Delta V   @VV \\overline{\\Delta} V    @.\\\\\n0 @>>> \\mathfrak{m}^{t-s} @>>> R @>>> R/\\mathfrak{m}^{t-s} @>>> 0\\\\\n\\end{CD}$$ of $k$-spaces with exact rows, where $\\overline{\\Delta}$ is the map induced on quotients by $\\Delta$. We know that the left vertical arrow is an isomorphism, and the source and target of the right vertical arrow are finite-dimensional $k$-spaces. It follows at once from the snake lemma that the middle vertical arrow has finite-dimensional cokernel, as desired.\n\nWe proceed by induction on $n$. In the base case $n = 1$, the hypothesis that $r_l$ be $x_n$-regular reduces to the hypothesis that $r_l \\neq 0$, and so we are done by Lemma \\[malglem\\]. Now assume that the proposition holds over $R_{n-1}$. Let $R'$ be the formal power series ring $k[[x_1, \\ldots, x_{n-2}, x_n]]$, and define a differential operator $\\Delta': R' \\rightarrow R'$ by $$\\Delta' = \\sum_{i=0}^l r_i(x_1, \\ldots, x_{n-2}, 0, x_n) \\partial^i.$$ Since $r_l$ is $x_n$-regular by hypothesis, so is $r_l(x_1, \\ldots, x_{n-2}, 0, x_n)$. Therefore, by the inductive hypothesis, $R'/\\Delta'(R')$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-2}$-module. As we have isomorphisms $$\\frac{R'}{\\Delta'(R')} \\simeq \\frac{R}{x_{n-1}R + \\Delta'(R)} \\simeq \\frac{R}{\\Delta(R) + x_{n-1}R}$$ of $R'$-modules (and hence of $R_{n-2}$-modules) it follows that $R/(\\Delta(R) + x_{n-1}R)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-2}$-module. Let $f_1, \\ldots, f_m \\in R$ be such that $R \\subset \\sum_{j=1}^m R_{n-2} \\cdot f_j + x_{n-1}R + \\Delta(R)$. If $r \\in R$ is given, then there exist $\\alpha_1, \\ldots, \\alpha_m \\in R_{n-2}$ and $g,h \\in R$ such that $$r = \\sum_{j=1}^m \\alpha_j f_j + x_{n-1}g + \\Delta(h).$$ Likewise, since $g \\in R$, there exist $\\beta_1, \\ldots, \\beta_m \\in R_{n-2}$ and $g',h' \\in R$ such that $g = \\sum_{j=1}^m \\beta_j f_j + x_{n-1}g' + \\Delta(h')$. Substituting this expression for $g$ in the previous equation gives $$r = \\sum_{j=1}^m (\\alpha_j + \\beta_j x_{n-1})f_j + x_{n-1}^2 g' + \\Delta(h + x_{n-1}h'),$$ and we can find a similar expression to substitute for $g'$ and continue. Since $R$ and $R_{n-1}$ are Noetherian complete local rings and $x_{n-1}$ belongs to their maximal ideals, this process converges to an expression $$r = \\sum_{j=1}^m \\rho_j f_j + 0 + \\Delta(\\eta)$$ where $\\eta \\in R$ and all $\\rho_j \\in R_{n-1}$; that is, we have $R \\subset \\sum_{j=1}^m R_{n-1} \\cdot f_j + \\Delta(R)$, so $R/\\Delta(R)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module, completing the proof.\n\nThe following is the key technical result in our study of the cokernel of $\\partial$ acting on a holonomic, $x_n$-regular ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module:\n\n[@cokernel Cor. 2]\\[coklemma\\] Let $M$ be a ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, and let $m \\in M$ be an $x_n$-regular element. There exists $p \\geq 1$ and a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-submodule $E_0$ of $R \\cdot m$ such that $R \\cdot m \\subset E_0 + \\sum_{i=1}^p \\partial^i(R \\cdot m)$. In particular, $R \\cdot m \\subset E_0 + \\partial(M)$.\n\nWe remark that $E_0$ can be taken to be the $R_{n-1}$-submodule generated by $m, x_n m, \\ldots, x_n^N m$ for some $N$ [@several Thm. 3.2]; however, we will not need this more precise statement, and its proof is more complicated than the proof below.\n\nBy the definition of $x_n$-regularity of $m$, there exists an $x_n$-regular $f \\in R$ such that $E_{f\\partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module. Write $E$ for $E_{f\\partial}(m)$ and $\\tau$ for the derivation $f\\partial: R \\rightarrow R$. The finite generation of $E_{\\tau}(m)$ over $R$ implies that for some $p$, $\\tau^p(m) \\in \\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \\cdot \\tau^i(m)$ (so that $E$ can be identified with the $R$-module on the right-hand side). We claim that $E/\\tau(E)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. Let $r_0, \\ldots, r_{p-1} \\in R$ be such that $\\tau^p(m) = r_0m + r_1\\tau(m) + \\cdots + r_{p-1}\\tau^{p-1}(m)$. Define $\\delta: R \\rightarrow R$ to be the differential operator $\\tau^p - \\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} r_i\\tau^i$. Then $\\delta(m) = 0$, and therefore $E$ is a quotient of the $R$-module $N = R\\langle \\tau \\rangle/(R\\langle\\tau\\rangle \\cdot \\delta)$. It will suffice to show that $N/\\tau(N)$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. As we have isomorphisms $$\\frac{N}{\\tau(N)} \\simeq \\frac{R\\langle\\tau\\rangle/(R\\langle\\tau\\rangle \\cdot \\delta)}{\\tau(R\\langle\\tau\\rangle/(R\\langle\\tau\\rangle \\cdot \\delta))} \\simeq \\frac{R\\langle\\tau\\rangle}{R\\langle\\tau\\rangle \\cdot \\delta + \\tau R\\langle\\tau\\rangle} \\simeq \\frac{R}{R \\cap (R \\cdot \\delta + \\tau R\\langle\\tau\\rangle)}$$ of $R_{n-1}$-modules, it suffices to show $R/(R \\cap (R \\cdot \\delta + \\tau R\\langle\\tau\\rangle))$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. We claim that this module can be identified with $R/\\Delta(R)$ for some choice of differential operator $\\Delta$ satisfying the hypothesis of Proposition \\[weiergen\\].\n\nTo this end, we introduce a \u201ctransposition\u201d operation on the ring $R\\langle\\tau\\rangle$. Let $\\phi: R\\langle\\tau\\rangle \\rightarrow R\\langle\\tau\\rangle$ be the unique additive map such that $\\phi(\\tau) = -\\tau$, $\\phi(g) = g$ for all $g \\in R$, and $\\phi(ST) = \\phi(T)\\phi(S)$ for all $S,T \\in R\\langle\\tau\\rangle$. We will use the notation $S^*$ for $\\phi(S)$. For all $g \\in R$ and $S \\in R\\langle\\tau\\rangle$, we have $gS \\equiv S^*g$ mod $\\tau R\\langle\\tau\\rangle$ (this follows by induction on the $\\tau$-degree of $S$: if $\\deg_{\\tau}(S) = 0$, then $S^* = S \\in R$ and the statement is immediate). Therefore $$R \\cap (R \\cdot \\delta + \\tau R\\langle\\tau\\rangle) = \\delta^*R.$$ Since $(\\tau^p)^* = (-1)^p\\tau^p$, the leading term of $\\delta^*$ with respect to $\\partial$ is $(-f)^p\\partial^p$. By hypothesis, $f$ is $x_n$-regular, and so $(-f)^p$ is $x_n$-regular as well. It follows that $\\Delta = \\delta^*$ satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition \\[weiergen\\], and so $$\\frac{N}{\\tau(N)} \\simeq \\frac{R}{R \\cap (R \\cdot \\delta + \\tau R\\langle\\tau\\rangle)} \\simeq \\frac{R}{\\Delta(R)}$$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module. As explained above, this proves that $E/\\tau(E) = E/f \\partial(E)$ is finitely generated over $R_{n-1}$.\n\nThe ring $R_{n-1}$ is Noetherian, so the $R_{n-1}$-submodule $$(fE + f\\partial (E))/f\\partial (E) \\subset E/f \\partial(E)$$ is also finitely generated. This implies that there exists a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-submodule $G \\subset E$ such that $fE \\subset fG + f\\partial(E)$. Now define $K = (0 :_{E + \\partial(E)} f)$. Clearly $K$ is a finitely generated $R$-module, since $E$ is. As $K$ is annihilated by $f$, $K$ is in fact a finitely generated $R/fR$-module. Since $f$ is $x_n$-regular by assumption, it follows from the Weierstrass preparation theorem that $K$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module.\n\nWe assert now that $E \\subset G + K + \\partial(E)$. Given $\\mu \\in E$, we have $f\\mu \\in fE \\subset fG + f\\partial(E)$, so there exist $\\mu' \\in G$ and $\\mu'' \\in E$ such that $f\\mu = f\\mu' + f\\partial(\\mu'')$. Rewrite this equation as $$f(\\mu-\\mu') + f\\partial(-\\mu'') = f((\\mu-\\mu') + \\partial(-\\mu'')) = 0$$ to see that, by definition, $(\\mu-\\mu') + \\partial(-\\mu'')$ is an element of $K$ (since $\\mu-\\mu' \\in E$). Then $\\mu = \\mu' + ((\\mu-\\mu') + \\partial(-\\mu'')) + \\partial(\\mu'') \\in G + K + \\partial(E)$, as desired. If we define $E_0 = G + K$, a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module (being the sum of two such), we have $E \\subset E_0 + \\partial(E)$, so that $R \\cdot m \\subset E \\subset E_0 + \\partial(E)$.\n\nBy the Leibniz rule, it is straightforward to see that $$\\partial(E) = \\partial(\\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \\cdot (f\\partial)^i(m)) \\subset \\sum_{i=1}^p \\partial^i(R \\cdot m),$$ so all that remains to check is that the finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module $E_0$, which we have shown satisfies $R \\cdot m \\subset E_0 + \\sum_{i=1}^p \\partial^i(R \\cdot m)$, can be replaced with another finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module which is actually a submodule of $R \\cdot m$. This can be done since every element of $E_0$ is a sum of terms belonging either to $E = \\sum_{i=0}^{p-1} R \\cdot (f\\partial)^i(m)$ or to $\\partial(E)$ and is thus congruent modulo $\\sum_{i=1}^p \\partial^i(R \\cdot m)$ to an element of $R \\cdot m$: given a finite set of $R_{n-1}$-generators for $E_0$, if we replace each of them by an element of $R \\cdot m$ in the same $(\\sum_{i=1}^p \\partial^i(R \\cdot m))$-congruence class and then replace $E_0$ with the $R_{n-1}$-module having these new generators, we obtain the statement of the proposition.\n\nCokernels\n=========\n\nIn light of Proposition \\[holkernel\\], we may be led to conjecture that the analogue holds for cokernels: that if $M$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, then $\\overline{M} = \\operatorname{coker}(\\partial: M \\rightarrow M)$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module. This conjecture is false:\n\n[@example Thm.]\\[counterex\\] There exists a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module $M$ such that $\\overline{M} = M/\\partial(M)$ is not a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module. Specifically, take $n=4$, let $f = x_1x_4 + x_2 + x_3x_4e^{x_4}$, and define $M = R_f$. Then $M/\\partial_4(M)$ is not a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_3$-module.\n\nAs the details of this counterexample are not necessary for the proof of Theorem \\[mainthm\\], we omit them here, contenting ourselves with the following outline.\n\n1.  If $f = x_1x_4 + x_2 + x_3x_4e^{x_4}$, then $R_3 \\cap (R \\cdot f + R \\cdot \\partial_4 f) = 0$ (a tricky but explicit calculation).\n\n2.  For any $f \\in R$, if $R_f/\\partial_4(R_f)$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_3$-module, then there exists a nonzero $g \\in R_3$ such that $(R_f/\\partial_4(R_f))_g$ is a finitely generated $(R_3)_g$-module (by Proposition \\[fgloc\\]).\n\n3.  For any $f \\in R$, if $f$ is irreducible and coprime to $\\partial_4(f)$ and $(R_f/\\partial_4(R_f))_g$ is a finitely generated $(R_3)_g$-module for some nonzero $g \\in R_3$, then $$R_3 \\cap (R \\cdot f + R \\cdot \\partial_4 f) \\neq 0$$ (another tricky calculation).\n\n4.  If $f = x_1x_4 + x_2 + x_3x_4e^{x_4}$, then $f$ is irreducible and coprime to $\\partial_4(f)$. It follows that if $R_f/\\partial_4(R_f)$ were a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_3$-module, (1), (2), and (3) above would produce a contradiction.\n\nIt follows that the analogue of Proposition \\[holkernel\\] will only hold under additional hypotheses on $M$. In this section, we will show that an $x_n$-regularity hypothesis suffices. If $M = {\\mathcal{D}}\\cdot m$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, there is a natural choice of good filtration on $M$ defined using the chosen generator $m$ and the order filtration on ${\\mathcal{D}}$. This filtration descends to a filtration on the cokernel $\\overline{M} = M/\\partial(M)$. The import of our key lemma for cokernels, Lemma \\[coklemma\\], is that if $m$ is an *$x_n$-regular* element, this filtration is also good:\n\n[@cokernel Cor. 3]\\[goodfil\\] Let $M = {\\mathcal{D}}\\cdot m$ be a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, and suppose that $m$ is an $x_n$-regular element. Let $\\{M_j\\}$ be the good filtration on $M$ defined by $M_j = {\\mathcal{D}}_j \\cdot m$ for all $j$, and let $\\{\\overline{M}_j\\}$ be the corresponding filtration on $\\overline{M} = M/\\partial(M)$ defined by $\\overline{M}_j = (M_j + \\partial(M))/\\partial(M)$ for all $j$. Then $\\overline{M}$ is a finitely generated ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module, and $\\{\\overline{M}_j\\}$ is a good filtration on $\\overline{M}$.\n\nBy Lemma \\[coklemma\\], there exists $p \\geq 1$ and a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-submodule $E_0$ of $R \\cdot m$ such that $R \\cdot m \\subset E_0 + \\partial(M)$. Suppose that $m_1, \\ldots, m_l$ are $R_{n-1}$-generators of $E_0$, so that $R \\cdot m \\subset (\\sum_{i=1}^l R_{n-1} \\cdot m_i) + \\partial(M)$. Then if $\\overline{m_i}$ is the class of $m_i$ in $\\overline{M}$, we have $\\overline{M} = \\sum_{i=1}^l {\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1} \\cdot \\overline{m_i}$ (so $\\overline{M}$ is a finitely generated ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module) and $\\overline{M}_j = \\sum_{i=1}^l ({\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1})_j \\overline{m_i}$, so that $\\{\\overline{M}_j\\}$ is a good filtration (the associated graded $\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module is generated by the images of the $\\overline{m_i}$).\n\nWe can now state and prove the analogue of Proposition \\[holkernel\\] with a suitable additional hypothesis:\n\n[@essen Cor. 1.7]\\[coker\\] Let $M$ be a holonomic, $x_n$-regular ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. Then $\\overline{M} = M/\\partial(M)$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module.\n\nFix $m \\in M$ such that $M = {\\mathcal{D}}\\cdot m$. Let $L \\subset {\\mathcal{D}}$ be the annihilator of $m$ in ${\\mathcal{D}}$ (a left ideal) so that $M \\simeq {\\mathcal{D}}/L$ as (left) ${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules. By hypothesis, there exists an $x_n$-regular $f \\in R$ such that $E_{f\\partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module. Let $\\{M_j\\}$ and $\\{\\overline{M}_j\\}$ be the good filtrations defined (on $M$ and $\\overline{M}$, respectively) in the statement of Lemma \\[goodfil\\].\n\nWe now consider various associated graded objects. Let $S_{n-1} = R_{n-1}[\\zeta_1, \\ldots, \\zeta_{n-1}]$ be the associated graded ring $\\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$ of ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$ with respect to the order filtration, where $\\zeta_i$ is the principal symbol of $\\partial_i$. Similarly, let $S = \\operatorname{gr}{\\mathcal{D}}= R[\\zeta_1, \\ldots, \\zeta_n]$. Let $\\sigma(L) \\subset S$ be the ideal generated by the principal symbols of the elements of $L$. Let $\\operatorname{gr}M$ be the associated graded $S$-module of $M$ with respect to the filtration $\\{M_j\\}$, and $\\operatorname{gr}\\overline{M}$ the associated graded $S_{n-1}$-module of $\\overline{M}$ with respect to the filtration $\\{\\overline{M}_j\\}$. Since $M \\simeq {\\mathcal{D}}/L$, we have $\\operatorname{gr}M \\simeq \\operatorname{gr}({\\mathcal{D}}/L) \\simeq S/\\sigma(L)$ as $S$-modules. Consider the natural surjective map $\\operatorname{gr}M \\rightarrow \\operatorname{gr}\\overline{M}$ defined by associating, to the class of an element of $M_j$ modulo $M_{j-1}$, its class modulo $M_{j-1} + \\partial(M)$. This map is $S_{n-1}$-linear, and as the principal symbol of $\\partial$ is $\\zeta_n$, it is clear that $\\zeta_n \\operatorname{gr}M$ lies in its kernel. We therefore obtain an $S_{n-1}$-linear surjection $$\\operatorname{gr}M/\\zeta_n \\operatorname{gr}M \\rightarrow \\operatorname{gr}\\overline{M}.$$ Since $\\operatorname{gr}M \\simeq S/\\sigma(L)$, the source of this surjection can be identified with $S/(\\sigma(L) + (\\zeta_n))$ as an $S$-module, and since this surjection is $S_{n-1}$-linear, we see that $$S_{n-1} \\cap (\\sigma(L) + (\\zeta_n)) \\subset \\operatorname{Ann}_{S_{n-1}} \\operatorname{gr}\\overline{M},$$ where both sides are ideals of $S_{n-1}$. Therefore we have $$d(\\overline{M}) = \\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(\\operatorname{Ann}_{S_{n-1}} \\operatorname{gr}\\overline{M}) \\leq \\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (\\sigma(L) + (\\zeta_n))),$$ where the equality holds by the definition of dimension of a ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-module (as $\\{\\overline{M}_j\\}$ is a good filtration) and the inequality follows from the containment of ideals above.\n\nWe now state two basic facts about radicals of ideals, whose proofs are immediate and which hold in general for commutative rings. Let $\\mathfrak{a}$ and $\\mathfrak{b}$ be ideals of $S$. Then $$\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{a} + \\mathfrak{b}} = \\sqrt{\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{a}} + \\mathfrak{b}} = \\sqrt{\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{a}} + \\sqrt{\\mathfrak{b}}},$$ and if $\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{a}} = \\sqrt{\\mathfrak{b}}$, then $\\sqrt{S_{n-1} \\cap \\mathfrak{a}} = \\sqrt{S_{n-1} \\cap \\mathfrak{b}}$. Together, these facts imply that if $J = \\sqrt{\\sigma(L)}$, then $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (\\sigma(L) + (\\zeta_n))) &= \\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (J + (\\zeta_n)))\\\\ &= \\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap \\sqrt{J + (\\zeta_n)}),\\end{aligned}$$ since the three denominators all have the same radical. In particular, we have $$d(\\overline{M}) \\leq \\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (J + (\\zeta_n))).$$ Note that $J = \\sqrt{\\operatorname{Ann}_S \\operatorname{gr}M}$. Since $M$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module, $d(M) = \\dim \\, S/J = n$. By Bernstein\u2019s inequality, $d(\\overline{M}) \\geq n-1$, and so it suffices to prove that $d(\\overline{M}) \\leq n-1 = \\dim \\, S/J - 1$. That is, we have reduced ourselves to showing that $$\\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (J + (\\zeta_n))) \\leq \\dim \\, S/J - 1.$$ As $J \\subset S$ is a radical ideal in a Noetherian ring, we can write it as an intersection of finitely many prime ideals: let $J = \\mathfrak{p}_1 \\cap \\cdots \\cap \\mathfrak{p}_t$ be such an expression where each $\\mathfrak{p}_i$ is minimal over $J$. We claim that $$\\sqrt{J + (\\zeta_n)} = \\cap_{i=1}^t \\sqrt{\\mathfrak{p}_i + (\\zeta_n)}.$$ One containment is obvious. For the other, let $x$ belong to $\\sqrt{\\mathfrak{p}_i + (\\zeta_n)}$ for all $i$, and suppose $m$ is large enough that $x^m \\in \\mathfrak{p}_i + (\\zeta_n)$ for all $i$. Then there exist $y_i \\in \\mathfrak{p}_i$ and $z_i \\in R$ such that $$x^m = y_1 + z_1\\zeta_n = \\cdots = y_t + z_t\\zeta_n,$$ and so $x^{mt} - y_1 \\cdots y_t \\in (\\zeta_n)$. Since $y_1 \\cdots y_t \\in \\cap_{i=1}^t \\mathfrak{p}_i = J$, it follows that $x \\in \\sqrt{J + (\\zeta_n)}$, as claimed. Therefore, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (J + (\\zeta_n))) &= \\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap \\sqrt{J + (\\zeta_n)})\\\\ &= \\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (\\cap_{i=1}^t \\sqrt{\\mathfrak{p}_i + (\\zeta_n)})),\\end{aligned}$$ and so it suffices to prove $$\\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (\\mathfrak{p} + (\\zeta_n))) \\leq \\dim \\, S/\\mathfrak{p} - 1$$ where $\\mathfrak{p}$ is a minimal prime ideal containing $J$.\n\nFirst suppose that $f \\in \\mathfrak{p}$. As $f$ is $x_n$-regular, $R/fR$ is a finitely generated $R_{n-1}$-module by the Weierstrass preparation theorem. Therefore, since $f \\in \\mathfrak{p}$, $S/\\mathfrak{p}$, and, *a fortiori*, $S/(\\mathfrak{p} + (\\zeta_n))$, is a finitely generated $S_{n-1}$-module. It follows that $$S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (\\mathfrak{p} + (\\zeta_n))) \\subset S/(\\mathfrak{p} + (\\zeta_n))$$ is a finite (hence integral) extension of Noetherian rings, and so both rings have the same dimension [@matsumura Ex. 9.2]. We have therefore reduced ourselves to proving that $$\\dim \\, S/(\\mathfrak{p} + (\\zeta_n)) \\leq \\dim \\, S/\\mathfrak{p} - 1,$$ that is (since $S/\\mathfrak{p}$ is an integral domain), that $\\zeta_n \\notin \\mathfrak{p}$. Suppose for contradiction that $\\zeta_n \\in \\mathfrak{p}$. The ideal $J = \\sqrt{\\operatorname{Ann}_S \\operatorname{gr}M}$ is involutive by Gabber\u2019s theorem, and so $\\mathfrak{p}$ is also involutive by Corollary \\[primeinvol\\]. Since $f$ and $\\zeta_n$ both belong to $\\mathfrak{p}$, so does the Poisson bracket $\\{\\zeta_n, f\\} = \\partial(f)$; continuing in this way, $\\partial^l(f) \\in \\mathfrak{p}$ for all $l$. Taking $l$ to be the smallest index such that $x_n^l$ appears in the expansion of $f$ with a nonzero scalar coefficient (such $l$ exists since $f$ is $x_n$-regular), we see that $\\mathfrak{p}$ contains a unit, a contradiction. Therefore $\\zeta_n \\notin \\mathfrak{p}$, as desired.\n\nFor the other (harder) case, suppose that $f \\notin \\mathfrak{p}$. Recall that by hypothesis $E_{f \\partial}(m)$ is a finitely generated $R$-module, so there exists $q$ such that $(f \\partial)^q(m)$ belongs to the $R$-submodule of $M$ generated by $\\{(f \\partial)^j(m)\\}_{j=0}^{q-1}$. Let $\\rho_0, \\ldots, \\rho_{q-1} \\in R$ be such that $$(f \\partial)^q(m) = \\sum_{j=0}^{q-1} \\rho_j (f \\partial)^j(m);$$ it follows that $(f \\partial)^q - \\sum_{j=0}^{q-1} \\rho_j (f \\partial)^j \\in {\\mathcal{D}}$ annihilates $m$, and hence its principal symbol $(f \\zeta_n)^q$ belongs to $\\sigma(L)$. Therefore $f\\zeta_n \\in \\sqrt{\\sigma(L)} = J \\subset \\mathfrak{p}$. As we have assumed that $f \\notin \\mathfrak{p}$ and $\\mathfrak{p}$ is prime, this implies that $\\zeta_n \\in \\mathfrak{p}$.\n\nFor any $\\alpha \\in \\mathfrak{p}$, let $\\alpha_{\\circ} = \\alpha(x_1, \\ldots, x_{n-1}, 0, \\zeta_1, \\ldots, \\zeta_{n-1}, 0) \\in S_{n-1}$, and let $\\mathfrak{p}_{\\circ}$ be the ideal of $S_{n-1}$ consisting of all $\\alpha_{\\circ}$ where $\\alpha$ ranges over $\\mathfrak{p}$. We have $$\\mathfrak{p}_{\\circ} + (x_n, \\zeta_n) = \\mathfrak{p} + (x_n, \\zeta_n) = \\mathfrak{p} + (x_n)$$ as ideals of $S$, since $\\zeta_n \\in \\mathfrak{p}$. We note that $\\mathfrak{p} + (x_n) \\neq S$ as a consequence of the fact that $\\mathfrak{p}$ is homogeneous with respect to $\\zeta_1, \\ldots, \\zeta_n$ (Remark \\[zetahom\\]): if $1 + sx_n \\in \\mathfrak{p}$ for some $s \\in S$, then $1 + s_0x_n \\in \\mathfrak{p}$ where $s_0 \\in R$ is the constant term of $s$ with respect to the $\\zeta_i$; but then $\\mathfrak{p}$ contains a unit of $R$, a contradiction.\n\nIt is clear that $\\mathfrak{p} \\cap S_{n-1} \\subset \\mathfrak{p}_{\\circ}$, and we claim that equality holds, that is, that $\\mathfrak{p}_{\\circ} \\subset \\mathfrak{p}$. Since $\\zeta_n \\in \\mathfrak{p}$, it suffices to check that if $a \\in \\mathfrak{p}$ is of the form $\\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} a_i x_n^i$ with $a_i \\in S_{n-1}$, then the $x_n$-constant term $a_0$ belongs to $\\mathfrak{p}$. We will verify this by showing that $a_0 \\in \\mathfrak{p} + x_n^q S'$ for all $q \\geq 1$, where $S' = R[\\zeta_1, \\ldots, \\zeta_{n-1}] \\subset S$. This suffices because then $$a \\in \\cap_{q=1}^{\\infty} \\mathfrak{p} + (x_n^q) \\subset S,$$ and the right-hand side is simply $\\mathfrak{p}$ by Krull\u2019s intersection theorem [@matsumura Thm. 8.10(ii)] applied to the integral domain $S/\\mathfrak{p}$ and its ideal $(\\mathfrak{p} + (x_n))/\\mathfrak{p}$, which is a proper ideal since we have already checked that $\\mathfrak{p} + (x_n) \\neq S$.\n\nIt is clear that $a_0 \\in \\mathfrak{p} + x_nS'$. Now assume for some $q \\geq 1$ that $a_0 = g + x_n^q h$ for some $g \\in \\mathfrak{p}$ and $h \\in S'$, and let $h_0$ be the $x_n$-constant term of $h$. On the one hand, since $a_0$ belongs to $S'$, the Poisson bracket $\\{\\zeta_n, a_0\\}$ is zero. On the other hand, using the biderivation property, we see that $$0 = \\{\\zeta_n, a_0\\} = \\{\\zeta_n, g\\} + x_n^q\\{\\zeta_n, h\\} + qx_n^{q-1}h.$$ Since $\\mathfrak{p}$ is involutive by Corollary \\[primeinvol\\], we have $\\{\\zeta_n, g\\} \\in \\mathfrak{p}$, from which it follows that $qx_n^{q-1}h_0 \\in \\mathfrak{p} + x_n^qS'$, hence $x_n^qh_0 \\in \\mathfrak{p} + x_n^{q+1}S'$, and finally $a_0 = g + x_n^qh \\in \\mathfrak{p} + x_n^{q+1}S'$, completing the induction. We conclude that $\\mathfrak{p}_{\\circ} = \\mathfrak{p} \\cap S_{n-1}$.\n\nWe can now finish the proof. We have isomorphisms of rings $$\\frac{S_{n-1}}{S_{n-1} \\cap (\\mathfrak{p} + (\\zeta_n))} \\simeq \\frac{S_{n-1}}{\\mathfrak{p}_{\\circ}} \\simeq \\frac{S}{\\mathfrak{p}_{\\circ} + (x_n, \\zeta_n)} \\simeq \\frac{S}{\\mathfrak{p} + (x_n)},$$ and hence $\\dim \\, S_{n-1}/(S_{n-1} \\cap (\\mathfrak{p} + (\\zeta_n))) = \\dim \\, S/(\\mathfrak{p} + (x_n))$. We need only show that $\\dim \\, S/(\\mathfrak{p} + (x_n)) \\leq \\dim \\, S/\\mathfrak{p} - 1$, that is (since $S/\\mathfrak{p}$ is an integral domain) that $x_n \\notin \\mathfrak{p}$. But this is immediate: if $x_n \\in \\mathfrak{p}$, then since $\\mathfrak{p}$ is involutive, $\\{\\zeta_n, x_n\\} = 1 \\in \\mathfrak{p}$, a contradiction. This completes the proof.\n\nWe now have all we need for the proof of Theorem \\[mainthm\\]:\n\nWe proceed by induction on $n$. The case $n=0$ is obvious, since a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_0$-module is nothing but a finite-dimensional $k$-space. Now suppose that $n > 0$ and $M$ is a holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}$-module. By Proposition \\[fgloc\\], there exists a nonzero $f \\in R$ such that $M_f$ is a finitely generated $R_f$-module. After a linear change of coordinates, we may assume $f$ is $x_n$-regular; by Proposition \\[dRind\\], this change of coordinates does not affect the de Rham cohomology of $M$. Assuming this change of coordinates has been made, $M$ is $x_n$-regular by Lemma \\[reglink\\]. By Propositions \\[holkernel\\] and \\[coker\\], the kernel $M_*$ and cokernel $\\overline{M}$ of $\\partial$ acting on $M$ are holonomic ${\\mathcal{D}}_{n-1}$-modules, and by the inductive hypothesis have finite-dimensional de Rham cohomology. The exact sequences $$\\cdots \\rightarrow H_{dR}^i(M_*) \\rightarrow H_{dR}^i(M) \\rightarrow H_{dR}^{i-1}(\\overline{M}) \\rightarrow \\cdots$$ of Lemma \\[derhamles\\] finish the proof.\n\n[99]{} J.-E. Bj\u00f6rk, [*Rings of differential operators*]{}, North-Holland Mathematical Library **21**, North-Holland Publishing, Amsterdam-New York, 1979. A. van den Essen, [*Fuchsian modules*]{}, thesis, Katholieke universiteit Nijmegen (1979). A. van den Essen, \u2018Le noyau de l\u2019op\u00e9rateur $\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial x_n}$ agissant sur un $\\mathcal{D}_n$-module\u2019, [*C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{} **288** (1979), 687-690. A. van den Essen, \u2018Un $\\mathcal{D}$-module holonome tel que le conoyau de l\u2019op\u00e9rateur $\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial x_n}$ soit non-holonome\u2019, [*C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{} **295** (1982), 455-457. A. van den Essen, \u2018Le conoyau de l\u2019op\u00e9rateur $\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial x_n}$ agissant sur un $\\mathcal{D}_n$-module holonome\u2019, [*C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris*]{} **296** (1983), 903-906. A. van den Essen, \u2018The kernel and cokernel of a differential operator in several variables\u2019, [*Indag. Math.*]{} **45** (1) (1983), 67-76. A. van den Essen, \u2018The kernel and cokernel of a differential operator in several variables II\u2019, [*Indag. Math.*]{} **45** (4) (1983), 403-406. A. van den Essen, \u2018The cokernel of the operator $\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial x_n}$ acting on a $\\mathcal{D}_n$-module II\u2019, [*Compos. Math.*]{} **56** (2) (1985), 259-269. O. Gabber, \u2018The integrability of the characteristic variety\u2019, [*Amer. Journal of Math.*]{} **103** (3) (1981), 445-468. A. Grothendieck J. Dieudonn\u00e9, \u2018El\u00e9ments de g\u00e9om\u00e9trie alg\u00e9brique IV: \u00c9tude locale des sch\u00e9mas et des morphismes de sch\u00e9mas, premi\u00e8re partie\u2019, [*Publ. Math. IHES*]{}, **20** (1964). A. Grothendieck J. Dieudonn\u00e9, \u2018El\u00e9ments de g\u00e9om\u00e9trie alg\u00e9brique IV: \u00c9tude locale des sch\u00e9mas et des morphismes de sch\u00e9mas, quatri\u00e8me partie\u2019, [*Publ. Math. IHES*]{}, **32** (1967). R. Hotta, K. Takeuchi, T. Tanisaki, [*${\\mathcal{D}}$-modules, perverse sheaves, and representation theory*]{}, Progress in Mathematics **236**, Birkh\u00e4user, Boston, 2008. S. Lang, [*Algebra*]{}, revised third edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics **211**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002. B. Malgrange, \u2018Sur les points singuliers des \u00e9quations differentielles\u2019, [*L\u2019Enseignement Math.*]{} **20** (1974), 147-176. H. Matsumura, [*Commutative ring theory*]{}, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics **8**, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.\n\n[^1]: NSF support through grant DMS-0701127 is gratefully acknowledged.\n"}
-{"text": "ibvs2.sty\n\nEclipsing cataclysmic variables (CVs) are important because through detailed modeling of the eclipses it is possible to deduce the physical properties of the system. This paper reports the discovery of two new eclipsing CVs: PHL1445 and GALEXJ003535.7+462353.\n\nPHL1445 (= PB9151) is listed in the Palomar-Haro-Luyten catalogue as a faint blue object (Haro & Luyten, 1962). A spectrum (6dFGSg0242429-114646) taken by the 6dF Galaxy Survey (Jones et al., 2004 and 2009) showed it to be a cataclysmic variable (Wils, 2009). Because of the split emission lines and a number of anomalously faint points in the light curve of the Catalina Real-time Transient Survey (CRTS; Drake et al., 2009), it was suspected to be an eclipsing variable as well. Follow-up observations at the Astrokolkhoz Observatory with a C14 Schmidt-Cassegrain and an unfiltered CCD camera, showed this indeed to be the case. As shown in Fig.\u00a01, the light curve shows deep eclipses lasting about 6 minutes, with an amplitude of more than two magnitudes. In addition the period is very short, 76.3 minutes, near the minimum orbital period for CVs (G\u00e4nsicke et al., 2009). Such a short orbital period is usually observed in WZSagittae type dwarf novae like GWLib (orbital period 76.8 minutes) and SDSSJ074531.91+453829.5 (76.0 minutes), with rare large amplitude outbursts. Only SDSSJ150722.30+523039.8 has a shorter orbital period among the eclipsing CVs (Savoury et al., 2011).\n\nTable\u00a0\\[ToM\\] lists the observed times of eclipses. From these, the following eclipse ephemeris was derived: $$\\label{PHL1445}\n  HJD Min = 2455202.5579(1) + 0\\fday05298466(8) \\times E$$\n\nSince not many deeply eclipsing CVs are known at this orbital period, high speed photometry of the eclipses, such as done by Southworth and Copperwheat (2011) and Savoury et al. (2011) would certainly be of value for this object.\n\n\\[ToM\\]\n\n  ----------- ----------- ------------\n    PHL1445               \n               SuperWASP   This paper\n   5202.5579   4330.553    5477.5621\n   5202.6108   4331.589    5478.4228\n   5202.6640   4332.622    5478.5954\n   5202.7169   4333.655    5479.4560\n   5241.6075   4334.688    5479.6284\n   5242.6144   4335.551    5480.6625\n               4360.703    5481.3519\n               4407.388    5481.5239\n               4408.424    5482.3856\n                           5483.4192\n                           5486.6920\n                           5495.3052\n                           5495.6516\n                           5576.6190\n                           5577.6526\n                           5579.7207\n  ----------- ----------- ------------\n\n  : Observed times of eclipse for PHL1445 and GALEXJ003535.7+462353. The times are given as HJD - 2450000 (UTC based). The uncertainty on the times is about 0.0001 days for PHL1445 and 0.0005 days for GALEXJ003535.7+462353 for the minima obtained from our data, and 0.001 days for the minima obtained from SuperWASP data.\n\nGALEXJ003535.7+462353 was discovered as a variable source by the GALEX satellite (Martin et al., 2005) on 30 August 2008. Although the object is too faint itself, both the Northern Sky Variability Survey (NSVS; Wo\u017aniak et al., 2004) and SuperWASP (Butters et al., 2010) observed the combined magnitude of GALEXJ003535.7+462353 and GSC3249-1603, which lies some $18\\arcs$ to the West. Both surveys show a number of brightenings in the combined light curve, lasting several days, with an amplitude of up to 0.2 magnitudes from the normal combined magnitude of 12.9, indicating the possible variability of GALEXJ003535.7+462353 rising to about magnitude 14.5, from its normal magnitude of around 16.5. These may be an indication of a dwarf nova outburst with a fairly small amplitude. In addition, during these bright phases SuperWASP showed short periodic dimmings back to the normal combined magnitude with a period of around 0.1723 days. The likely cause of these periodic fadings are eclipses of the variable.\n\nGALEXJ003535.7+462353 was therefore followed extensively by the authors. The eclipses with a duration of about 30 minutes, could be easily confirmed. At quiescence the eclipse depth is about 2 magnitudes in $V$, but varying slightly. In a timespan of three months one definite outburst was observed, lasting about a week (see Fig.\u00a02), and possibly a few shorter outbursts. At the end of the observing season, the object was entering another outburst. The rise to outburst seems to be more gradual, like in some other dwarf novae with a short outburst cycle and relatively small amplitude (often classified as Z Cam type variables). During the long outburst, the eclipses could also be observed with a similar amplitude as during quiescence. Fig.\u00a03 shows eclipses observed during quiescence, during a rise to outburst and one during outburst.\n\nFrom the list of observed times of eclipse in Table\u00a0\\[ToM\\], together with the times of minimum that could be derived from the SuperWASP data, the following eclipse ephemeris was deduced:\n\n$$\\label{J003535}\n  HJD Min = 2455477.5615(4) + 0\\fday17227503(11) \\times E$$\n\n[**Acknowledgements:**]{} This study made use of the Simbad and VizieR databases (Ochsenbein et al., 2000), and of data provided by the NASA GALEX mission. Part of the data were obtained through AAVSONet, run by the American Association of Variable Star Observers, through the Tzec Maun Foundation and by using the Bradford Robotic Telescope.\n\nButters O.W., West R.G., Anderson D.R., et al., 2010, [*A&A*]{} [**520**]{}, L10\n\nDrake A.J., Djorgovski S.G., Mahabal A., Beshore E., Larson S., Graham M.J., Williams R., Christensen E., Catelan M., Boattini A., Gibbs A., Hill R., Kowalski R., 2009, [*ApJ*]{} [**696**]{}, 870\n\nG\u00e4nsicke B.T., Dillon M., Southworth J., et al., 2009, [*MNRAS*]{} [**397**]{}, 2170\n\nHaro G., Luyten W.J., 1962, [*Bol. Inst. Tonantzintla*]{} [**3**]{}, 37\n\nJones D.H., Saunders W., Colless M. et al., 2004, [*MNRAS*]{} [**355**]{}, 747\n\nJones D.H., Read M.A., Saunders W. et al., 2009, [*MNRAS*]{} [**399**]{}, 683\n\nMartin D.C., Fanson J., Schiminovich D., Morrissey P., Friedman P.G., Barlow T.A., Conrow T., Grange R., Jelinsky P.N., Milliard B., Siegmund O.H.W., Bianchi L., Byun Y.-I., Donas J., Forster K., Heckman T.M., Lee Y.-W., Madore B.F., Malina R.F., Neff S.G., Rich R.M., Small T., Surber F., Szalay A.S., Welsh B., Wyder T.K., 2005, [*ApJ Letters*]{} [**619**]{}, 1\n\nOchsenbein F., Bauer P., Marcout J., 2000, [*A&A Suppl.*]{} [**143**]{}, 221\n\nSavoury C.D.J., Littlefair S.P., Dhillon V.S. et al., 2011, arXiv:1103.2713v1 \\[astro-ph.SR\\]\n\nSouthworth J., Copperwheat C.M., 2011, arXiv:1101.2534v1 \\[astro-ph.SR\\]\n\nWils P., 2009, [*IBVS*]{} [**5916**]{}\n\nWo\u017aniak P.R., Vestrand W.T., Akerlof C.W., et al., 2004, [*AJ*]{} [**127**]{}, 2436\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'It is argued in a recent letter [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] that the effect of a large cosmological constant can be naturally hidden in Planck scale curvature fluctuations. We point out that there are problems with the author\u2019s arguments. The hiding of the cosmological constant proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] by choosing a suitable lapse function is just an illusion maintained by external forces. In particular, it can not be achieved if the cosmological constant is positive. Fortunately, it works for a negative cosmological constant in a different way, and, interestingly, the sign of the cosmological constant just needs to be negative to make the average spatial curvature $\\langle R\\rangle$ small.'\nauthor:\n- Qingdi Wang\n- 'William G. Unruh'\nbibliography:\n- 'how\\_vacuum\\_gravitates.bib'\ntitle: How the cosmological constant is hidden by Planck scale curvature fluctuations\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe cosmological constant problem is a long standing problem in mordern physics. The huge vacuum energy is usually expected to produce a large cosmological constant which leads to a disastrous gravitaional effect. In a recent letter [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] the author argues that the fluctuations in the metric at Planck scales (Wheeler\u2019s spactime foam) make it possible to hide the effect of a large cosmological constant.\n\nWe certainly agree with the author of [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] that the fluctuations in the metric must be taken into account, and have previously suggested how this might come about [@PhysRevD.95.103504; @Qingdi:2019; @Wang:2019mee]. Unfortunately the author\u2019s proposal suffers from some problems. In this paper, we first show in Sec.\\[comment\\] that the above arguments have problems and thus the hiding actually does not work in the way proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302]. We then investigate whether it is possible to make the idea of hiding the cosmological constant in Planck scale curvature fluctuations work in other ways. We show in Sec.\\[positive lambda\\] that this idea does not work for a positive cosmological constant due to the universal divergences of the geodesics. The small scale spacetime fluctuations do not help in this situation. Fortunately, this idea works for a negative cosmological constant in a different way. It is interesting that the sign of the cosmological constant just needs to be negative to make the average spatial curvature $\\langle R\\rangle$ small. We show this different way of hiding the cosmological constant in Sec.\\[negative lambda1\\].\n\nProblems with the author\u2019s arguments {#comment}\n====================================\n\nThe author of [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] employs the initial value formulation of general relativity and takes the shift vector to be zero for simplicity. This is essentially assuming the metric of the form $$\\label{metric}\nds^2=-N^2dt^2+g_{ij}dx^idx^j.$$ He considers the volume averaging on the initial hypersurface $t=0$ $$\\label{definition}\n\\left\\langle X\\right\\rangle_{\\mathcal{U}}=\\frac{1}{V_\\mathcal{U}}\\int_{\\mathcal{U}}X\\sqrt{g}d^3x\\quad\\text{with}\\quad V_{\\mathcal{U}}=\\int_{\\mathcal{U}}\\sqrt{g}d^3x,$$ where the region $\\mathcal{U}$ is defined in some time-independent way.\n\nIt is argued that a large class of initial data on the hypersurface $t=0$ can exhibit zero average expansion $\\langle K\\rangle=0$. It is further argued that the classical time evolution can preserve this property since one can choose a suitable lapse function $N$ to make $d^n\\langle K\\rangle/dt^n=0$ for all $n>0$.\n\nMore concretely, the author uses the equation for the rate of change of $K$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{K derivative equation}\n\\frac{dK}{dt}&=&N\\left(-K^2-R+3\\Lambda\\right)+D^iD_iN\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&N\\left(-\\frac{K^2}{3}-2\\sigma^2+\\Lambda\\right)+D^iD_iN\\end{aligned}$$ and the relation $$\\frac{d\\sqrt{g}}{dt}=NK\\sqrt{g}$$ to obtain the rate of change of the average expansion $\\langle K\\rangle$ with respect to the coordinate time $t$ : $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{correct}\n\\frac{d\\langle K\\rangle}{dt}=&&\\frac{1}{V_{\\mathcal{U}}}\\int_{\\mathcal{U}}N\\left(-R+3\\Lambda+\\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\\right)\\sqrt{g}d^3x\\\\\n=&&\\frac{1}{V_{\\mathcal{U}}}\\int_{\\mathcal{U}}N\\left(\\frac{2K^2}{3}-2\\sigma^2+\\Lambda+\\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\\right)\\sqrt{g}d^3x.\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding Eq.(7) in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] omitted the term $D^iD_iN$ since it is a total derivative that reduces to a surface integral. We keep this term in since it is not necessarily to be zero after integration.\n\nIt is then argued that since the integrand in doesn\u2019t have a definite sign, there will be infinite choices of $N$ for which the right-hand side of vanishes. Similar arguments are also made for higher order time derivatives of $\\langle K\\rangle$. In this way, the author finds a foliation of spacetime by slices of vanishing average expansion and then concludes that the effect of the large cosmological constant is nearly invisible at observable scales.\n\nUnfortunately there are problems with the above arguments. In fact, a choice of lapse corresponds to a choice of coordinates, and no physics can depend purely on the choice of coordinates. If distances between geodesics, or more importantly, the wavelengths of fields, grow with time (usually proper time, not coordinate time) they will do so in all coordinate systems, and cannot be hidden by a coordinate choice.\n\nAs a counterexample we can look at the de Sitter space which is a vacuum solution of the Einstein equations with a positive cosmological constant $\\Lambda$. In this spacetime one can choose the static slicing coordinate $$\\label{static coordinate}\nds^2=-\\left(1-\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}r^2\\right)dt^2+\\frac{1}{1-\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}r^2}dr^2+r^2d\\Omega^2.$$ The spatial slices $t=Constants$ of have expansion $K\\equiv 0$ but physically the de Sitter spacetime is exponentially expanding. This exponential expansion can be seen by transforming the static coordinate to the following flat slicing coordinate (FLRW) $$\\label{flat slicing}\nds^2=-d\\tau^2+e^{2\\sqrt{\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}}\\tau}\\left(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\\right).$$\n\nThe lesson learned from this counterexample is that we should not choose the lapse function $N$ arbitrarily. In fact, $K$ is the local volume expansion rate perceived by the stationary observers defined by $x^i=Constants$ (Eulerian observers). In the static slicing $N$ is position dependent, $x^i=Constants$ are not geodesics, so that these observers are accelerating. There are external forces acting on them to maintain their constant spatial positions. In the flat slicing $N=1$, $x^i=Constants$ are geodesics so that these observers are free falling. The expansion $K\\equiv 0$ in because the gravitational repulsions caused by the positive $\\Lambda$ are balanced by the external forces, it does not mean the effect of $\\Lambda$ is invisible.\n\nTherefore, we should use free falling observers who only feel gravity to test physically whether the space is expanding or contracting. Technically, the acceleration of the stationary observer is tangent to the hypersurfaces $t=Constants$ with the $i$th component of the accelearation given by $a_i=D_iN/N$ (see Eq.(3.17) in [@Gourgoulhon:2007ue]). So the lapse function $N$ should be chosen to be spatially independent to make sure $x^i=Constants$ are geodesics. In this case, the rate of change of the average expansion $\\langle K\\rangle$ perceived by these free falling observers given by is $$\\label{geodesic average}\n\\frac{d\\langle K\\rangle}{d\\tau}=3\\Lambda,$$ where $\\tau=\\int Ndt$ is the proper time of these observers and we have used the requirement that the average spatial curvature $\\langle R\\rangle=0$.\n\nOn the initial hypersurface $\\Sigma$, these free falling observers have the same unit tangent vectors with the Eulerian observers defined by $x^i=Constants$ when the lapse $N$ is position dependent, i.e., they have the same initial velocities. The only difference is that they have different accelerations\u2014the free falling observers have zero accelerations while the Eulerian observers have accelerations $a_i=D_iN/N$ produced by the external forces. We see from that the free falling observers still see the effect of the cosmological constant, the hiding of the cosmological constant seen by the Eulerian observers is just an illusion maintained by the external forces. This result is quite natural since one should not try to hide the cosmological constant by choosing $N$ in the first place.\n\nMoreover, even for the non-inertial Eulerian observers, $d\\langle K\\rangle/dt$ is not a physical quantity observed by them. One should use the Eulerian observers\u2019 proper times $\\tau$ instead of the coordinate time $t$. In fact, the infinitesimal local volume element observed by each Eulerian observer is $\\sqrt{g}d^3x$. The rate of change of $\\sqrt{g}$ and the rate of change of $d\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau$ perceived by each Eulerian observer are $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau}&=&K\\sqrt{g},\\\\\n\\frac{d^2\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau^2}&=&\\left(-R+3\\Lambda+\\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\\right)\\sqrt{g}.\\end{aligned}$$ Note that the proper times $\\tau$ are different from point to point.\n\nThe quantities $\\sqrt{g}$, $d\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau$ and $d^2\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau^2$ are physical quantities that actually observed by each Eulerian observer. Integrating $\\sqrt{g}$ over the region $\\mathcal{U}$ gives $$V_{\\mathcal{U}}=\\int_{\\mathcal{U}}\\sqrt{g}d^3x,$$ which is just the macroscopic volume defined by the second equation in . Integrating $d\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau$ over $\\mathcal{U}$ and then divide the volume $V_{\\mathcal{U}}$ gives the average of $d\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau$: $$\\overline{\\frac{d\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau}}=\\frac{1}{V_{\\mathcal{U}}}\\int_{\\mathcal{U}}K\\sqrt{g}d^3x,$$ which is just the average expansion $\\langle K\\rangle$ defined by the first equation in .\n\nHowever, integrating $d^2\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau^2$ over $\\mathcal{U}$ and then divide the volume $V_{\\mathcal{U}}$ gives the average of $d^2\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau^2$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{physical effect}\n\\overline{\\frac{d^2\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau^2}}&=&\\frac{1}{V_{\\mathcal{U}}}\\int_{\\mathcal{U}}\\left(-R+3\\Lambda+\\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\\right)\\sqrt{g}d^3x\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&3\\Lambda+\\frac{1}{V_{\\mathcal{U}}}\\int_{\\mathcal{U}}\\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\\sqrt{g}d^3x,\\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the requirement that the average spatial curvature $\\langle R\\rangle=0$ in obtaining the second line of . The integration of the term $D^iD_iN/N$ in represents the average effect of the external forces acting on the Eulerian observers.\n\nComparing to , the above expression does not have the factor $N$ in the integrand and since $N$ is position dependent as supposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302], we would have $$\\frac{d\\langle K\\rangle}{dt}\\neq\\overline{N}\\overline{\\frac{d^2\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau^2}}.$$ In other words, the unphysical quantity $d\\langle K\\rangle/dt$ is in general different from the physical quantity $\\overline{d^2\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau^2}$ and one can not choose $N$ in the way proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] to make $\\overline{d^2\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau^2}=0$. One may still choose $N$ in different ways to make $\\overline{d^2\\sqrt{g}/d\\tau^2}=0$, for example, one can choose $N$ to be the eigenfunction of the Laplace operator corresponding to the eigenvalue $3\\Lambda$, i.e., $-D^iD_iN=3\\Lambda N$. However, again, this choice of $N$ is just a coordinate choice, the hiding of $\\Lambda$ in this way is just an illusion maintained by the external force.\n\nIn summary, we have shown that the author\u2019s argument is problamatic. As a result, the hiding does not work in the way proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302]. Does it work in other ways? Further investigations will be given in the following sections.\n\n$\\Lambda>0$ does not work {#positive lambda}\n=========================\n\nIn this section we show from a different perspective that the inhomogeneous Planck scale curvature fluctuations can not hide the effect of a positive $\\Lambda$.\n\nConsider a free falling observer $\\gamma$ in a spacetime with $\\Lambda>0$. The dynamics of an infinitesimally nearby free falling test particle observed in $\\gamma$\u2019s own local inertial frame is given by the geodesic deviation equation (see e.g. pages 47, 225 of [@Wald:1984rg]): $$\\label{geodesic deviation1}\n\\frac{d^2\\xi^i}{d\\tau^2}=-\\sum_{j=1}^3  R^i_{0j0}(\\tau)\\xi^j, \\quad i=1, 2, 3,$$ where $\\tau$ is $\\gamma$\u2019s proper time, $\\xi^i$ is the coordinate of the deviation vector from $\\gamma$ to the test particle in $\\gamma$\u2019s local inertial frame, $R^i_{0j0}$ are components of the Riemann curvature tensor along $\\gamma$.\n\nThe Riemann tensor can be expressed in terms of the Weyl tensor and the Ricci tensor: $$R^a_{bcd}=C^a_{bcd}+\\delta^a_{[c}R_{d]b}-g_{b[c}R^a_{d]}-\\frac{1}{3}R\\delta^a_{[c}g_{d]b}.$$ In $\\gamma$\u2019s own local inertial frame the metric components $g_{\\mu\\nu}$ along $\\gamma$ is exactly $\\eta_{\\mu\\nu}=\\text{diag}(-1, 1, 1, 1)$ so that we have $$\\label{Weyl}\nR^i_{0j0}=C^i_{0j0}-\\frac{1}{2}R^i_j+\\frac{1}{2}\\delta^i_jR_{00}+\\frac{1}{6}R\\delta^i_j.$$\n\nThe Ricci tensor is determined by the Einstein equations: $$\\label{EFE}\nR_{ab}=\\Lambda g_{ab}.$$ Plugging into gives $$R^i_{0j0}=C^i_{0j0}-\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}\\delta^i_j.$$ Then the geodesic deviation equation can be written as $$\\label{geodesic deviation}\n\\frac{d^2\\mathbf{x}}{d\\tau^2}=\\left(\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}I-C\\right)\\mathbf{x},$$ where $\\mathbf{x}=(\\xi^1, \\xi^2, \\xi^3)^t$, $I=\\mathrm{diag}(1, 1, 1)$ is the identity matrix, $C=(C^i_{0j0})_{3\\times 3}$ is a matrix whose elements $C^i_{0j0}$ are components of the Weyl tensor along the world line of $\\gamma$. One important property of the Weyl tensor is that it is trace free: $$\\label{trace free}\nC^a_{0a0}=\\sum_{i=1}^3C^i_{0i0}=0,$$ where we have used $C^0_{000}=0$ which is required by the symmetry property of the Weyl tensor.\n\nThe Planck scale curvature fluctuations are encoded in the Weyl tensor. These fluctuations are inhomogeneous and anisotropic. However, the statistical properties of these fluctuations should still be homogeneous and isotropic, i.e., the observer $\\gamma$ should see the same magnitude of fluctuations in every point and in every direction. Thus we would have the expectation values of the off-diagonal components $$\\left\\langle C^i_{0j0}\\right\\rangle=0,\\quad i\\neq j,$$ and the diagonal components $$\\langle C^1_{010}\\rangle=\\langle C^2_{020}\\rangle=\\langle C^3_{030}\\rangle. \\label{equal diagonal component}$$ Taking expectation values on both sides of and use the property we obtain that the diagonal components $\\left\\langle C^i_{0i0}\\right\\rangle=0$. Thus the Weyl tensor term $C$ in fluctuates around $0$ and provides a fluctuating tidal force on the test particle. On average the test particle would move along a smooth path driven by the cosmological constant term $\\Lambda/3$ and at the same time execute oscillations around this path due to the fluctuations of the Weyl tensor term $C$. This averaged smooth path is given by the solution of when the fluctuation term $C$ is excluded: $$\\label{solution}\n\\bar{\\xi}^i= c_ie^{\\sqrt{\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}}\\tau}+c'_ie^{-\\sqrt{\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}}\\tau}, \\quad i=1, 2, 3,$$ where $c_i$ and $c'_i$ are integration constants. The constant $c_i$ is zero only for the very special case when initially the test particle is moving toward $\\gamma$ with a speed $\\frac{d\\bar{\\xi}^i}{d\\tau}(0)=-\\sqrt{\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}}\\bar{\\xi}^i(0)$. Consider the perpetual perturbation from the fluctuations of the Weyl tensor term $C$, this special initial condition is impossible to be satisfied so that $c_i$ must be nonzero. Then the first term in would quickly become dominant that the averaged smooth path goes as $$\\bar{\\xi}^i\\sim c_ie^{\\sqrt{\\frac{\\Lambda}{3}}\\tau}, \\quad i=1, 2, 3.$$ So repulsive force produced by the positive $\\Lambda$ would accelerate the nearby test particle away from $\\gamma$ exponentially fast. The Planck scale curvature fluctuations encoded in $C$ make the test particle oscillate around this exponential path.\n\nThe deviation vector describes how the infinitesimal distances between neighboring geodesics evolve with time. The distances between two far away geodesics in a geodesic congruence can be obtained by integrating these infinitesimal distances. Of course there are ambiguities in doing the integration since, in curved spacetime, the spatial distance is only well defined for infinitesimal distances. There is no unique definition for large spatial distances. However, since on average all the infinitesimal distances grow exponentially, any sensible definition of the integration would give, on average, exponential growth between large-distance geodesics.\n\nIn other words, consider a macroscopic ball of free falling test particles, each particle in this ball would be wildly fluctuating in response to the Weyl curvature fluctuations, and the average distance between any two nearby particles would finally be exponentially increasing. Since this average distance increasing is universal for any two neighboring particles, the volume of the macroscopic ball must also be exponentially increasing. This means that the effect of a positive $\\Lambda$ can not be hidden in Planck scale curvature fluctuations\u2014the spacetime would still explode.\n\n$\\Lambda<0$ works {#negative lambda1}\n=================\n\nIt seems that from the hiding does not work no matter the sign of $\\Lambda$. We have also shown in the last section that it is impossible for $\\Lambda>0$ to work by a more general proof. Fortunately, this is not the end of the story. $\\Lambda<0$ may work in a different way.\n\nDefine the local scale factor $a$ which describes the local \u201csize\" of space by $g=a^6$, then the expansion $K=\\frac{3}{a}\\frac{da}{d\\tau}$ and Eq. becomes $$\\label{evolution equation}\n\\frac{d^2a}{d\\tau^2}+\\frac{1}{3}\\left(2\\sigma^2-\\Lambda-\\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\\right)a=0.$$ As discussed in Sec.II that the lapse function $N$ needs to be spatially independent or at least the average of the term $D^iD_iN/N$ needs to be zero. Then since we always have $2\\sigma^2-\\Lambda>0$, $a$ must oscillate around $0$. Every time when $a$ crosses $0$, $K$ jumps discontinuously from $-\\infty$ to $+\\infty$. Similar to the derivative of the step function who jumps from $0$ to $1$ is a $\\delta$ function, $dK/d\\tau$ at $a=0$ is also a $\\delta$ function: $$\\frac{dK}{d\\tau}|_{a=0}=\\mu\\delta(a),$$ where $\\mu=+\\infty$ because $K$ jumps from $-\\infty$ to $+\\infty$. Then we have $$\\frac{d^2\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau^2}|_{a=0}=\\mu\\delta(a)\\sqrt{g}$$ and becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{correct average}\n\\overline{\\frac{d^2\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau^2}}=\\frac{1}{V_{\\mathcal{U}}}\\Bigg(&&\\int_{\\mathcal{U}\\cap \\{a\\neq 0\\}}\\left(-R+3\\Lambda+\\frac{D^iD_iN}{N}\\right)\\sqrt{g}d^3x\\nonumber\\\\\n+&&\\int_{\\mathcal{U}\\cap \\{a=0\\}}\\mu\\delta(a)\\sqrt{g}d^3x\\Bigg).\\end{aligned}$$ The first term on the right hand side of is negative while the second term is positive. They can cancel each other to make $\\overline{\\frac{d^2\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau^2}}=0$ if the average oscillation amplitude of $a$ is a constant.\n\nIn this picture, $a=0$ are actually curvature singularities. It has been proved that the singularities must occur for a globally hyperbolic vacuum spacetime with a negative cosmological constant [@1976ApJ...209...12T]. Physically, the negative cosmological constant produces attractive effect which makes $\\frac{d^2\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau^2}<0$ (the first term on the right hand side of ) at points away from the singularities, and at the singularities bounces happen which produces repulsive effect which makes $\\frac{d^2\\sqrt{g}}{d\\tau^2}>0$ (the second term on the right hand side of ). Macroscopically, the attractions at points away from the singularities are balanced by the the repulsions at the singularities. In this way, the effect of a large negative cosmological constant can be hidden in Planck scale curvature fluctuations. On the contrary, the effect of a large positive cosmological constant can not be hidden because a positive $\\Lambda$ always produce repulsive effects, no mechanisms to produce attractive effects to balance the repulsiveness.\n\nIn addition, the sign of the cosmological constant just needs to be negative to make the average spatial curvature $\\langle R\\rangle$ small. In fact, taking average on Eq.(1a) of [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] we have $$\\label{average constraint}\n\\left\\langle R\\right\\rangle=2\\Lambda+\\left\\langle K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2\\right\\rangle.$$ In order to make $\\langle R\\rangle\\approx 0$, we must have $$\\Lambda\\approx -\\frac{1}{2}\\left\\langle K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2\\right\\rangle.$$ Expanding the terms $K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2$ we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{kab-ksquare}\n&&K_{ij}K^{ij}-K^2 \\\\\n=&&\\sum_{i\\neq j\\neq k}M_kK_{ij}^2+\\sum_{\\{i, j\\}\\neq\\{k, l\\}}\\left(g^{ik}h^{jl}-g^{ij}g^{kl}\\right)K_{ij}K_{kl}, \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $$M_k=g^{ii}g^{jj}-\\left(g^{ij}\\right)^2, \\quad k\\neq i\\neq j,$$ is the $k$th principal minor of $g^{ij}$. Since by definition the metric matrix $g^{ij}$ is positive definite, we have $M_k>0$.\n\nAccording to [@PhysRevLett.123.131302], $K_{ij}$ and $-K_{ij}$ are equally likely, thus, for $\\{i, j\\}\\neq\\{k,l\\}$, the following four pairs of components $$(K_{ij}, K_{kl}),\\,(K_{ij}, -K_{kl}),\\,(-K_{ij}, K_{kl}),\\,(-K_{ij}, -K_{kl}) \\nonumber$$ are also equally likely. Then because in general, there is no particular relationship between the components of the extrinsic curvature, we have, for the second term in , the above four cases would statistically cancel each other that the macroscopic spatial average $$\\label{zero macroscpic average}\n\\left\\langle\\left(g^{ik}g^{jl}-g^{ij}g^{kl}\\right)K_{ij}K_{kl}\\right\\rangle=0, \\quad \\{i, j\\}\\neq\\{k, l\\}.$$ So only the first term in survives after the spatial averaging that we have $$\\label{negative lambda}\n\\Lambda\\approx -\\sum_{\\substack{1\\leq i<j\\leq 3\\\\i\\neq j\\neq k}}\\langle M_kK_{ij}^2\\rangle<0.$$\n\nThe cosmological constant $\\Lambda$ in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] is generated by quantum fields vacuum fluctuations. Its sign and magnitude depend on the exact particle content of the Universe, while the right hand side of depends on the Planck scale gravity fluctuations. There is no known physical mechanism to make them equal. So it is necessary to introduce the bare cosmological constant $\\Lambda_B$ so that we can adjust $\\Lambda_B$ to guarantee a negative cosmological constant and the following equation is satisfied to make $\\langle R\\rangle$ small: $$\\Lambda_{\\mathrm{eff}}=\\Lambda_B+\\Lambda\\approx -\\sum_{\\substack{1\\leq i<j\\leq 3\\\\i\\neq j\\neq k}}\\langle M_kK_{ij}^2\\rangle<0.$$ This approach to tackle the cosmological constant problem has been presented in [@Qingdi:2019; @Wang:2019mee].\n\nMore interestingly, the cosmological constant $\\Lambda$ generated by the quantum fields vacuum fluctuations is actually not a constant. $\\Lambda$ itself also fluctuates since the vacuum state is not an eigenstate of the stress energy tensor operator and the magnitude of this fluctuation is as large as $\\Lambda$ itself. This would lead to a parametric resonance effect on the oscillation of the local scale factor $a$ and the oscillation amplitude of $a$ would grow exponentially. When $\\Lambda_B$ is dominant over $\\Lambda$, the fluctuation in $\\Lambda$ serves as a perturbation on the Planck scale spacetime fluctuations and the parametric resonance effect is weak. This leads to the slowly accelerating expansion of the Universe which may explain the mysterious \u201cdark energy\". In this scenario, no fine-tuning of the bare cosmological constant $\\Lambda_B$ is needed. See more details about how this effect of fluctuations in $\\Lambda$ gives a small effective cosmological constant in references [@Qingdi:2019; @Wang:2019mee].\n\nOn the other hand, the phase transitions in the early Universe may effectively shift $\\Lambda_B$ to values comparable to the fluctuations of $\\Lambda$. In this case the parametric resonance becomes strong and thus be able to produce the inflation. This might explain the \u201cinflaton field\" which deserves further studies.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe have shown that the idea of hiding the cosmological constant in Planck scale curvature fluctuations does not work in the way proposed in [@PhysRevLett.123.131302]. The hiding is just an illusion maintained by the external forces acting on the Eulerian observers. In particular, it does not work for a positive cosmological constant due to the universal divergences of the geodesics. The small scale spacetime fluctuations do not help in this situation. Fortunately, this idea works for a negative cosmological constant in a different way. Interestingly, following the argument that the initial data $K_{ij}$ and $-K_{ij}$ are equally likely, the sign of the cosmological constant just needs to be negative to make the average spatial curvature $\\langle R\\rangle$ small.\n\nThe essential idea of [@PhysRevLett.123.131302] is that we should consider the inhomogeneity of spacetime at Planck scale and the expansion and contraction of space at that scale are equally likely so that they can cancel each other to hide the cosmological constant. This idea was originally presented in [@PhysRevD.95.103504] and further developed in [@Qingdi:2019; @Wang:2019mee], although there are some crucial differences.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'A relativistic effective charge model has been developed for computation of observable characteristics of multi-electron atoms and ions. A complete and orthogonal Dirac hydrogen basis set, depending on one parameter \u2014 effective nuclear charge $Z^{*}$ \u2014 identical for all single-electron wave functions of a given atom or ion, is employed for the construction of the secondary-quantized representation. The effective charge is uniquely determined by the charge of the nucleus and a set of electron occupation numbers for a given state. We thoroughly study the accuracy of the leading-order approximation for the total binding energy and demonstrate that it is independent of the number of electrons of a multi-electron atom. In addition, it is shown that the fully analytical leading-order approximation is especially suited for the description of highly charged ions since our wave functions are almost coincident with the Dirac-Hartree-Fock ones for the complete spectrum. Finally, we envision that our effective charge model is more accurate and thus can replace the Thomas-Fermi-Dirac model for all applications where it is still utilized.'\nauthor:\n- 'K. Dzikowski'\n- 'O. D. Skoromnik'\n- 'I. D. Feranchuk'\n- 'N. S. Oreshkina'\n- 'C. H. Keitel'\nbibliography:\n- 'relativistic\\_zeroth.bib'\ntitle: 'Relativistic effective charge model of a multi-electron atom'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:introduction}\n============\n\nDespite great advances in the accuracy and efficiency of modern numerical methods [@filippin_multiconfiguration_2016; @puchalski_relativistic_2017; @peach_fractional_2015; @jensen2007introduction], simple analytical models for describing multi-electron atoms and ions are still actively developed [@gomez_simple_2019; @tatewaki_relativistic_2018; @karpov_atomic-number_2017; @hey_forms_2017]. The most popular of them include the multi-parametric screening hydrogen orbitals [@hau2012high; @seaton_quantum_1983], Slater orbitals [@slater_atomic_1930] and the semi-classical Thomas-Fermi (TF) model [@thomas_1927; @landau1981quantum]. These models are widely used, whenever certain level of precision has to be sacrificed for improved computation time, e.g. in computational plasma physics [@ciricosta_direct_2012; @starrett_thomas-fermi_2017; @lee_model_1987; @scott_cretinradiative_2001; @chung_flychk:_2005; @dyachkov_region_2016], semiconductors [@schulze-halberg_position-dependent_2013; @smith_electronic_2014], screening effects in the cross sections of bremsstrahlung and pair production [@tsai_pair_1974; @olsen_photon_1959; @davies_theory_1954; @seltzer_bremsstrahlung_1985; @poskus_brems:_2018], X-ray scattering and diffraction [@hau2012high; @feranchuk_new_2002] and crystallography [@toraya_new_2016].\n\nIn addition, the wave functions obtained from these simple analytical models are used as the initial approximation for the solution of Hartree-Fock (HF) [@FockA1930naeherungs; @fischer1977hartree; @grant2007relativistic; @jonsson_new_2013] and post HF equations [@bostock_fully_2011], convergence of which is strongly dependent on the choice of the trial functions. Therefore, improving the choice of the initial wave functions can significantly reduce the number of iterations required for obtaining the desired solution or enable the convergence at all.\n\nAt the same time a lot of effort has gone into improving the accuracy of these models, while keeping their complexity low. For example, the inclusion of relativistic corrections [@dolg_relativistic_2012; @nakajima_douglaskrollhess_2012; @marini_relativistic_1981; @waber_relativistic_1975] and inhomogeneity corrections [@chau_systematic_2018] into the TF model was performed. However, solving the TF equation to produce numerically stable results of electronic densities is in general nontrivial problem and is an active area of research [@akgul_constructing_2017; @parand_accurate_2017; @liu_laguerre_2015].\n\nConsequently, finding a set of analytical wave functions, which provide better accuracy than the models described above would be advantageous. As was recently demonstrated for nonrelativistic atoms or ions, this can be achieved within the effective charge model [@skoromnik_analytic_2017], where the hydrogen-like wave functions can be used to analytically describe observable characteristics with high accuracy. In this approach, one specifies a complete and orthonormal hydrogen-like basis set with a single parameter \u2014 effective nuclear charge $Z^{*}$ \u2014 identical for all single-electron wave functions of a given atom. The basis completeness allows one to perform a transition into the secondary quantized representation, which is especially suited for the description of many-body problems.\n\nThen in order to compute observable characteristics one specifies the set of occupation numbers for the state in question and the charge of the nucleus. This allows one to determine the effective charge from the vanishing first-order correction to the energy of the system analytically. Then observable characteristics are expressed through the expectation values, computed with the hydrogen-like wave functions of this charge.\n\nWe point out here that perturbation theory in $Z^{-1}$ was developed in many works (see [@vainshtein_energy_1985; @fischer1977hartree] and citations therein), however, exactly the introduction of the effective charge $Z^{*}$, instead of the usage of the nuclear charge $Z$, significantly increases the accuracy of the leading zeroth-order approximation, while keeping the complexity of all calculations low as it contains the first-order correction implicitly.\n\nAs a result, it was demonstrated that the analytical leading-order approximation describes the whole spectrum of a nonrelativistic multi-electron atom or ion and the associated perturbation theory series was constructed, which converges fast with the rate of $\\sim 1/10$. The accuracy of these results does not depend on the number of electrons in an atom, i.e., the effective charge model is uniformly available for all states, both ground and excited ones, of all atoms or ions. Moreover, the results via second-order perturbation theory are comparable with those via multi-configuration HF (MCHF) [@fischer1977hartree].\n\nWe emphasize that the effective charge model is a completely *ab-initio* theory and thus crucially distinct from semi-empirical models, such as those based on quantum defects of Rydberg atoms [@foot2005atomic], screened hydrogen [@hau2012high] or empirical interpolation of X-ray measurements [@genoni_can_2017]. In addition, contrary to numerical methods such as solving the Hatree-Fock equations [@hartree_1928], the effective charge model provides analytical expressions for electron densities and scattering factors.\n\nSo far, the effective charge description has only been performed for the nonrelativistic Schr\u00f6dinger equation. However, it is well-known that when a product of a fine structure constant $\\alpha$ and the charge of the nucleus $Z$, i.e., $\\alpha Z$ is not much smaller than unity the relativistic corrections become important. Since the Dirac equation for the hydrogen-like atom can be solved exactly and the Dirac-Coulomb Green\u2019s function is known in closed form, it is possible to develop a relativistic version of the effective charge model. Consequently, this generalization is the main achievement of the present work.\n\nSimilarly to the nonrelativistic case, we employ Dirac hydrogen basis set with a single parameter \u2014 the effective charge and require it to be identical for all wave functions of a given atom. The basis completeness allows us to work in the secondary-quantized representation. We characterize states via electron occupation numbers and determine the value of the effective charge, by requiring the first-order perturbative correction to the energy of the system to vanish. With this we obtain a description of energy spectra, both ground and excited states together with wave functions. We have shown that the analytical description within the effective charge model agrees with the high accuracy with the numerical solution of Dirac-Hartree-Fock (DHF) equations for all ions and atoms of the periodic table.\n\nThe article is organized in the following way: in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:relat-effect-charge\\] we introduce the effective charge description and construct a perturbation theory series. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:zeroth-order-appr\\] we analyze the accuracy of the zeroth- and first-order approximations. Consequently, we start from computing numerical values of effective charges by solving Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:13\\]). After this in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:ground-state-energ\\] we determine the ground state energies for 118 atoms of the periodic table and the electronic densities for some selected atoms. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:atom-scatt-fact\\] we analyze atomic scattering factors. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:highly-charged-ions\\] we demonstrate that the leading-order approximation is especially suited for the description of highly charged ions, where our analytical functions are almost coincident with numerical DHF wave functions. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:conclusions\\] we provide conclusions and outlook. Finally, the details of the calculations are summarized in Appendices \\[sec:appendix-a.-details\\]-\\[sec:solut-relat-tf\\] and values of the energies are given in Appendix \\[sec:values-ground-state\\] and the atomic units with $\\hbar = m = e\n= 1$ are employed through the paper.\n\nRelativistic effective charge model {#sec:relat-effect-charge}\n===================================\n\nAs was discussed in the introduction, we can write down the Hamiltonian of the relativistic multi-electron atom in the secondary-quantized representation, using the complete and orthonormal Dirac hydrogen-like basis set, with a single parameter \u2014 effective charge $Z^{*}$ \u2014 identical for all wave functions of the basis set. Consequently, the Hamiltonian of the system reads $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\hat{H}\n  &= \\hat{H}_0 + \\hat{W} = \\hat{H}_{0} + \\hat{W}_{1} +\n    \\hat{W}_{2},\\label{eq:1}\n  \\\\\n  \\hat{H}_0\n  &=\\int \\hat{\\Psi}^\\dag({\\boldsymbol}{r}) \\left(c{\\boldsymbol}{\\alpha} \\cdot\n    \\hat{{\\boldsymbol}{p}} + \\beta c^{2} - \\frac{Z^*}{|{\\boldsymbol}{r}|}\\right)\n    \\hat{\\Psi}({\\boldsymbol}{r})d{\\boldsymbol}{r}, \\label{eq:2}\n  \\\\\n  \\hat{W}_1\n  &=\\int  \\hat{\\Psi}^\\dag({\\boldsymbol}{r}) \\frac{Z^*-Z}{|{\\boldsymbol}{r}|}\n    \\hat{\\Psi}({\\boldsymbol}{r})d{\\boldsymbol}{r}, \\label{eq:3}\n  \\\\\n  \\hat{W}_2\n  &= \\frac{1}{2}\\int \\frac{\\hat{\\Psi}^\\dag({\\boldsymbol}{r})\n    \\hat{\\Psi}^\\dag({\\boldsymbol}{r'}) \\hat{\\Psi}({\\boldsymbol}{r})\n    \\hat{\\Psi}({\\boldsymbol}{r'})}{|{\\boldsymbol}{r}-{\\boldsymbol}{r}'|}\n    d{\\boldsymbol}{r}d{\\boldsymbol}{r'}, \\label{eq:4}\\end{aligned}$$ where $c$ is the speed of light ($c = 1/\\alpha = 137.035999084$), $Z$ the charge of the nucleus, $Z^{*}$ the effective charge, which will be determined later, $\\hat{{\\boldsymbol}p} = -{\\mathrm{i}}\\boldsymbol{\\nabla}$ the momentum operator, ${\\boldsymbol}\\alpha$, $\\beta$ the Dirac matrices and $\\hat\\Psi({\\boldsymbol}r)$ the secondary-quantized wave function [@FeynmanB1998statistical]. Furthermore, we split the perturbation operator $\\hat{W}$ into the sum of single-electron $\\hat{W}_1$ and double-electron $\\hat{W}_2$ operator components. Moreover, we do not take into account the Breit part in the potential of the electron-electron interaction and radiative quantum electrodynamics corrections, thus limiting ourselves to the description of the multi-electron atom within DHF approximation. However, we mention here that for large $Z$ these corrections become relevant and would have to be included for all models. We stress here that Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:1\\]) is the exact transformation of the Hamiltonian of the multi-electron atom, since we just added and subtracted the term proportional to $Z^{*}$. The eigenvalues of $\\hat{H}$ define the values of the energy $E$ of a multi-electron atom.\n\nThe secondary-quantized wave function $\\hat{\\Psi}({\\boldsymbol}r)$ is expanded in the complete Dirac hydrogen-like basis, which is dependent on $Z^{*}$ $$\\hat{\\Psi}({\\boldsymbol}r) = \\sum_\\nu\\left( \\hat{a}_\\nu \\Psi_\\nu^\\epsilon(Z^{*},\n    {\\boldsymbol}r) + \\hat{b}^\\dag_\\nu  \\Psi_\\nu^{-\\epsilon}(Z^{*}, {\\boldsymbol}r)\\right), \\label{eq:5}$$ with $\\Psi^\\epsilon_{\\nu}(Z^{*}, {\\boldsymbol}r)$ and $\\Psi^{-\\epsilon}_{\\nu}(Z^{*}, {\\boldsymbol}r)$ being the positive and negative energy eigenstates of the single-particle Dirac Hamiltonian respectively, identified by the set of collective quantum numbers $\\nu=n_r l j m_{j}$ and $\\nu = {\\boldsymbol}p l j m_{j}$ for the discrete and continuous spectra correspondingly (actual expressions for the functions are given in Appendix \\[sec:appendix-a.-details\\]). The fermionic operators of positive and negative energies satisfy the standard anticommutation relations $\\{a_\\nu, a^\\dag_{\\nu'}\\}=\\{b_\\nu, b^\\dag_{\\nu'}\\}=\\delta_{\\nu,\\nu'}$, which ensures that multi-particle states $|\\nu_1...\\nu_N\\rangle$ correspond to fully antisymmetric Slater determinants. In the following, we will denote electron occupation numbers with $\\lambda_{i}$ and negative energy occupation numbers as $\\mu_{i}$.\n\nIn order to compute the energy of the system we specify a set of $N$ occupation numbers $\\lambda_{1}, \\ldots, \\lambda_{N}$, which characterizes the state of $N$ electrons $|\\lambda_{1},\\ldots,\\lambda_{N}\\rangle$ and construct a perturbation series by considering the operator $\\hat{W} = \\hat{W}_{1} + \\hat{W}_{2}$ as a perturbation $$\\begin{aligned}\n  E\n  &= E^{(0)} (Z^*) + \\Delta E^{(1)} (Z^*) + ... , \\label{eq:6}\n  \\\\\n  \\Delta E^{(1)} (Z^*)\n  &= \\langle\\lambda_{1},\\ldots,\\lambda_{N}| \\hat{W}\n  |\\lambda_{1},\\ldots,\\lambda_{N}\\rangle. \\label{eq:7}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSince the state $|\\lambda_{1},\\ldots,\\lambda_{N}\\rangle$ is the eigenstate of $\\hat{H}_{0}$ the zeroth-order energy $E^{(0)}(Z^{*})$ is a sum of hydrogen-like Dirac energies over the occupied states. The expression for the Dirac energy of the hydrogen-like atom is well-known [@flugge_practical_1971] and is given by $$E^D_{n_{r}jm_j} (Z^*) = \\frac{c^{2}}{\\sqrt{1 +\n      \\left(\\frac{\\alpha Z^{*}}{n_{r} + \\sqrt{(j+1/2)^{2} - (\\alpha\n            Z^{*})^{2}}}\\right)^{2}}}. \\label{eq:8}$$ For this reason the energy $E^{(0)}(Z^{*})$ reads $$\\begin{aligned}\n  E^{(0)}(Z^{*}) = \\sum_{{\\lambda_{i}}}\n  E_{n_{r}jm_{j}}^{D}(Z^{*}). \\label{eq:9} \\end{aligned}$$\n\nEvaluation of the first-order correction to the energy of the system is straightforward: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\Delta E^{(1)} (Z^*)\n  &= \\langle \\lambda_{1},...,\\lambda_{N} | \\hat{W}\n    |\\lambda_{1},...,\\lambda_{N}\\rangle \\nonumber\n  \\\\\n  &= (Z^*-Z)\\sum_{k = 1}^{N} A_{\\lambda_k}(Z^*) \\label{eq:10}\n  \\\\\n  &+ \\sum_{k<l = 1}^{N}\n    \\left(B_{\\lambda_k,\\lambda_l}^{\\lambda_k,\\lambda_l}(Z^*) -\n    B_{\\lambda_k,\\lambda_l}^{\\lambda_l,\\lambda_k}(Z^*)\\right),\n    \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  A_{\\lambda_{k}}\n  &= \\int\n    \\frac{|\\Psi_{\\lambda_{k}}^{\\epsilon}({\\boldsymbol}{r})|^2}{|{\\boldsymbol}{r}|}\n    d{\\boldsymbol}{r}, \\label{eq:11}\n  \\\\\n  B_{\\lambda_3,\\lambda_4}^{\\lambda_1,\\lambda_2}\n  &=\n    \\int\\frac{\\Psi_{\\lambda_1}^{\\epsilon*}({\\boldsymbol}{r})\n    \\Psi^{\\epsilon*}_{\\lambda_3}({\\boldsymbol}{r}')\n    \\Psi_{\\lambda_2}^{\\epsilon}({\\boldsymbol}{r})\n    \\Psi_{\\lambda_4}^{\\epsilon}({\\boldsymbol}{r}')}{|{\\boldsymbol}{r}-{\\boldsymbol}{r}'|}\n    d{\\boldsymbol}{r} d{\\boldsymbol}{r}', \\label{eq:12}\\end{aligned}$$ with the implied dependence on the effective charge ommited for simplicity. The $A_{\\lambda_{k}}$ describes the contribution from the single-particle operator $\\hat{W}_{1}$, while $B_{\\lambda_3,\\lambda_4}^{\\lambda_1,\\lambda_2}$ from the double-particle one $\\hat{W}_{2}$. The last term in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:10\\]) is the difference of the Coulomb and exchange integrals. Both $A_{\\lambda_{k}}$ and $B_{\\lambda_3,\\lambda_4}^{\\lambda_1,\\lambda_2}$ can be evaluated analytically for a given set of occupation numbers (See Appendix \\[sec:appendix-a.-details\\]).\n\n![(Color online) The relative difference between the values of ground state energies of the first 118 neutral atoms obtained via the effective charge model ($E^{(0)}$) and by solving the Dirac-Hartree-Fock equations ($E_{\\mathrm{DHF}}$)[@DESCLAUX1973311].[]{data-label=\"accuracy\"}](error_comparison.pdf){width=\"80mm\"}\n\nIn addition, we mention here that fermionic operators of negative energies do not contribute to the energy of the system in the zeroth- and first-order as we are considering the corrections only to the electronic states, that is the states that do not contain $\\mu_{i}$ occupation numbers. However, starting from second-order perturbation theory, the negative energy states will contribute to the observable characteristics, since there exist nonvanishing matrix elements due to the structure of the interaction operator $\\hat{W}$.\n\na\\) b) c) d)\n\nTo find the effective charge we proceed in analogy with Ref.\u00a0[@skoromnik_analytic_2017] and choose it from the condition that the first-order correction to the energy of the system for a given state is vanishing, i.e., $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\Delta E^{(1)}(Z^*) = 0. \\label{eq:13}\\end{aligned}$$ For this reason the expression for the energy of the system in first-order perturbation theory is given via a sum of hydrogen-like energies, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:9\\]) with the effective charge $Z^{*}$, defined as a solution of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:13\\]).\n\nIt is worth noting here, that the nontrivial dependence of Dirac hydrogen wave functions on the nuclear charge makes it impossible to separate the effective charge from the above integrals. This means that contrary to the nonrelativistic case, $A_{\\lambda_{k}}$ and $B^{\\lambda_{1},\\lambda_{2}}_{\\lambda_{3},\\lambda_{4}}$ are implicitly dependent on $Z^*$. This is related to the fact that the Dirac equation, unlike the Schr\u00f6dinger equation, is not scale invariant. In fact, rescaling the radial variable $r$ in a Schr\u00f6dinger hydrogen atom, effectively changes its charge, while in the Dirac hydrogen atom, it effectively changes its mass. Therefore, in order to solve Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:13\\]) a numerical method has to be used.\n\nFollowing the procedure of calculating the effective charge of the nucleus, we can easily obtain expressions for electronic densities of any atom or ion. Using the density operator: $\\hat{\\rho}({\\boldsymbol}r) = \\hat{\\Psi}^\\dag({\\boldsymbol}r)\\hat{\\Psi}({\\boldsymbol}r)$, we get the zeroth-order density of a given multi-electron state as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\rho^{(0)}({\\boldsymbol}r)\n  &= \\langle \\lambda_1, \\ldots, \\lambda_N | \\hat{\\rho}({\\boldsymbol}{r})\n  |\\lambda_1, \\ldots, \\lambda_N\\rangle \\nonumber\n  \\\\\n  &= \\sum_{k=1}^{N}\n    |\\Psi_{\\lambda_k}^{\\epsilon}(Z^{*}, {\\boldsymbol}{r})|^2, \\label{eq:14}\\end{aligned}$$ with the explicit expressions for hydrogen-like wave functions $\\Psi_{\\lambda_k}^{\\epsilon}({\\boldsymbol}r)$ given in Appendix \\[sec:appendix-a.-details\\]. In fact, expression (\\[eq:14\\]) represents very simple products of exponentials and polynomials, thus allowing its use in numerical plasma [@chung_flychk:_2005] or description of ionization in particle-in-cell (PIC) computer codes that describe laser-matter interactions [@arber_contemporary_2015].\n\nAccuracy of the zeroth-order approximation {#sec:zeroth-order-appr}\n==========================================\n\nGround state energies and electronic densities of neutral atoms {#sec:ground-state-energ}\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn order to calculate the ground-state energies of multi-electron atoms or ions, one needs to specify a set of occupation numbers, characterizing the state within our Dirac hydrogen-like basis. However, in the zeroth-order approximation the particular choice may not have the correct ordering due to relatively low ionization energies of heavy atoms.\n\nThe comparison of our analytical expressions obtained via Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:9\\]) for the values of ground state energies with the results obtained via solutions of DHF equations demonstrates that similarly to the nonrelativistic case, the optimal choice of the occupation numbers is given according to the \u201cAufbau\u201d or Madelung\u2013Janet\u2013Klechkovskii rule [@Madelung1936; @KlechkovskiiA1962justification; @doi:10.1021/ed056p714], as it provides a simple and consistent choice of occupation numbers for any number of electrons, while resulting in the lowest zeroth-order ground state energies in almost all cases. For example, from the three sets of occupation numbers $[\\mathrm{Xe}]6\\mathrm{s}^{1}$, $[\\mathrm{Xe}]4\\mathrm{f}^{1}$ and $[\\mathrm{Xe}]5\\mathrm{d}^{1}$ for cesium ($Z=55$), the first state possesses the lowest energy, while the remaining two are excited states. Compare the values for the energy $E_{[\\mathrm{Xe}]6\\mathrm{s}^{1}} = -7361.18$ a.u versus $E_{[\\mathrm{Xe}]4\\mathrm{f}^{1}} = -7346.19$ a.u and $E_{[\\mathrm{Xe}]5\\mathrm{d}^{1}} = -7354.40$ a.u, which corresponds to the \u201cAufbau\u201d rule.\n\nThe accuracy of the zeroth-order calculation is presented in Fig.\u00a0\\[accuracy\\] and numerical values of effective charges and energies are given in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:values-ground-state\\] in Tab.\u00a0\\[tab:ground\\_state\\_energies\\]. We compare our results with solutions of DHF equations from Ref.\u00a0[@DESCLAUX1973311]. As can be concluded from Fig.\u00a0\\[accuracy\\] the effective charge description leads to a uniform approximation, i.e., the relative accuracy is independent of the number of electrons of an atom and $\\sim 6.5\\%$ with respect to DHF for all elements of the periodic table. This is considerably better than the TF approximation [@landau1981quantum].\n\nWe point out here that if we take the energy of the system in first-order perturbation theory and consider the effective charge to be equal to the full nuclear charge, one obtains the perturbation theory over $Z^{-1}$. For this reason, we have compared the values of energies from the effective charge model with the ones from $Z^{-1}$ expansion. For example, for He one gets $-2.75$ a.u vs $-2.86$ a.u using $Z^{-1}$ expansion and effective charge model respectively, while for larger atoms the accuracy drops significantly.\n\nIn order to compute the electronic density, one needs to use Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:14\\]), i.e., to compute the sum of squares of absolute values of Dirac hydrogen-like wave functions. After simplification, this sum is just a product of exponentials and polynomials. Consequently, our method, unlike the DHF and TF calculations, provides fully analytical expressions for electronic densities and is therefore particularly useful for applications requiring repeated calculations. Relatively simple expressions resulting from our model can, therefore, be incorporated into existing software, used in the description of X-ray scattering on M\u00f6ssbauer crystals [@Sturhahn2000].\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:densities\\_neutral\\_atoms\\] we plot the resulting dependence of electronic densities on the radial coordinate $r$ for selected neutral atoms. It is immediately clear that the zeroth-order approximation correctly reproduces all qualitative features of the corresponding DHF result and contrary to the relativistic TFD model provides density oscillations and a correct asymptotic behavior for large values of $r$. In addition, we point out that the relativistic TFD model [@dolg_relativistic_2012; @nakajima_douglaskrollhess_2012; @marini_relativistic_1981; @waber_relativistic_1975], unlike its nonrelativistic counterpart [@landau1981quantum], does not have a universal dependence on the charge of the nucleus. For this reason, in order to obtain the electronic density, the relativistic TFD equation needs to be repeatedly solved numerically, which is a nontrivial procedure. (See Appendix \\[sec:solut-relat-tf\\]).\n\nAtomic scattering factors {#sec:atom-scatt-fact}\n-------------------------\n\nAnother observable characteristics that can be extracted from the effective charge model are the atomic scattering factors. According to their definition [@hau2012high], they are expressed by the Fourier transforms of electronic density [@prince_international_2006]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  f({\\boldsymbol}{q}) = \\int \\rho({\\boldsymbol}{r})e^{i {\\boldsymbol}{q} \\cdot {\\boldsymbol}{r}}\n  d{\\boldsymbol}{r}, \\label{eq:15}\\end{aligned}$$ which in our approach can be calculated analytically (see Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:appendix-a.-details\\]).\n\nThe atomic scattering factors are very important for crystallography and X-ray physics, since the crystal polarizability $\\chi$ as the function of X-ray frequency $\\omega_{\\mathrm{r}}$, can be evaluated by employing the relation [^1] [@ahmadi_parametric_2013; @baryshevsky2005parametric] $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\chi({\\boldsymbol}g, \\omega_{\\mathrm{r}}) = \\frac{4 \\pi S({\\boldsymbol}g)}{\\Omega_{0}\n  \\omega_{\\mathrm{r}}^{2}}\n  \\left(-\\frac{e^{2}}{m}f({\\boldsymbol}g)\\right), \\label{eq:17}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Omega_0$ is the volume of a crystal cell, ${\\boldsymbol}g$ the reciprocal lattice vector, $S({\\boldsymbol}g)$ the structure factor of the crystal, $m$ the electron mass and $e$ the electron charge.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:ASF\\] we present the results for gold, lead, uranium and xenon. Our analytical expressions for atomic scattering factors are comparable to the DHF calculation to within $25\\%$.\n\nAs a realistic example, we also evaluated the relative difference for the emission intensity of parametric X-ray radiation (PXR) [@feranchuk_theoretical_1985; @baryshevsky2005parametric; @skoromnik_radical_2017] from relativistic electrons in a tungsten crystal. The intensity of PXR is proportional to the square of the absolute value of crystal polarizability. Therefore, the relative difference for the intensity of radiation with crystal polarizabilities from DHF calculation and from effective charge model is given by $(|\\chi^{(0)}|^{2} -\n|\\chi_{\\mathrm{DHF}}|^{2})/|\\chi_{\\mathrm{DHF}}|^{2}$. Consequently, for the relevant range of frequencies and Bragg\u2019s angles the relative accuracy was $\\sim 20\\%$.\n\nHighly charged ions {#sec:highly-charged-ions}\n===================\n\nThe effective charge model is also suitable for the description of ions, since it does not require the charge of the nucleus to be equal to the number of electrons of an atom. Consequently, we fix the nuclear charge as $Z$ and use a state vector $|\\lambda_{1},\\ldots,\\lambda_{N}\\rangle$, where $N \\neq Z$. As an example we evaluated energies of ground and excited states of He-, Li- and B-like uranium ($Z = 92$) ions.\n\nWe want to stress here again, that the effective charge $Z^{*}$ is identical for all single particle states from a set that specifies the state. However, two different states will have different charges. For example, the He-like uranium ground state $1s_{\\uparrow}1s_{\\downarrow}$ and the He-like uranium excited state $1s_{\\uparrow}2s_{\\downarrow}$ possess unequal effective charges.\n\nThe results of the calculation of electronic densities are presented in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:HCI\\]. The electronic densities, despite being analytical expressions in the zeroth-order approximation, coincide remarkably well with the ones obtained from numerical solutions of the DHF equations.\n\nFurthermore, the energy eigenvalues are presented in Tab.\u00a0\\[tab:Ions\\]. It is clear that the accuracy is significantly better (below $0.02\\%$) than for neutral atoms and in fact sufficient to obtain correct ordering, even for very closely spaced excited states. It is worth pointing out that the accuracy can be further improved by forming linear combinations of all sub-configurations arising from the single $JLS$ configuration and subsequently diagonalizing the Hamiltonian exactly in such finite basis \u2014 a technique that has been successfully employed in the nonrelativistic case [@skoromnik_analytic_2017].\n\nFinally, we note that $Z^{-1}$ expansion gives reasonable results for highly charged ions. However, it is less accurate than the effective charge model by at least $50\\%$.\n\nConclusions and Outlook {#sec:conclusions}\n=======================\n\nWe have demonstrated that the relativistic effective charge model describes multi-electron atoms and ions and provides analytic expressions for energies, electronic densities and scattering factors with accuracy comparable to the numerical solutions of Dirac-Hartree-Fock equations. We have also shown that our approach is suitable for the description of arbitrary excited states and provides accuracy independent of the number of electrons already in the zeroth-order approximation. Furthermore, the zeroth-order approximation can be easily modified to include interactions with external fields.\n\n[|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{} Configuration, $J^{\\pm}$ & $Z^{*}$ & $E^{(0)}$ & $E_{\\mathrm{DHF}}$ & $\\Delta E/E_{\\mathrm{DHF}} \\cdot 100\\%$ & CI\\\n$1s^2,J=0^+$ & 91.7130 & -9651.35 & -9651.39 & 0.0004$\\%$&-9651.45\\\n$1s^1 2s^1,J=1^+$ & 91.8623 &-6096.96 & -6097.01 & 0.0008$\\%$&-6097.01\\\n$1s^1 2s^1,J=0^+$ & 91.8404 &-6093.51 & -6093.41 & -0.0016$\\%$&-6097.01\\\n$1s^1 2p^1_{1/2},J=0^-$ & 91.8148 & -6089.50 & -6090.16 &0.0108$\\%$ & -6090.17\\\n$1s^1 2p^1_{1/2},J=1^-$ & 91.8113 & -6088.95 & -6089.10 & 0.0025$\\%$ & -6089.11\\\n$1s^1 2p^1_{3/2},J=2^-$ & 91.8487 & -5928.36 & -5928.44 & 0.0013$\\%$ & -5928.44\\\n$1s^1 2p^1_{3/2},J=1^-$ & 91.8395 & -5927.00 & -5926.68 &-0.0054$\\%$ & -5928.44\\\n$1s^1 3s^1,J=1^+$ & 91.9086 & -5389.83 & -5389.88 & 0.0009$\\%$ & -5389.88\\\n$1s^1 3s^1,J=0^+$ & 91.9177 & -5388.95 & -5388.73 & -0.0041$\\%$ & -5389.88\\\n$1s^2 2s^1,J=\\frac{1}{2}^+$ & 91.5805 &-10862.2 & -10862.4 & 0.0018$\\%$&-10862.5\\\n$1s^2 2p^1_{1/2},J=\\frac{1}{2}^-$ & 91.5378 & -10850.3 & -10849.1 & -0.0104$\\%$&-10850.8\\\n$1s^2 2p^1_{3/2},J=\\frac{3}{2}^-$ & 91.5685 & -10694.8 & -10693.9 & -0.0084$\\%$&-10695.2\\\n$1s^2 3s^1,J=\\frac{1}{2}^+$ & 91.6447 & -10168.7 & -10168.9 & 0.0020$\\%$&-10169.0\\\n$1s^2 3p^1_{1/2},J=\\frac{1}{2}^-$ & 91.6323 & -10165.5 & -10165.4 & -0.0015$\\%$ &-10165.8\\\n$1s^2 3p^1_{3/2},J=\\frac{3}{2}^-$ & 91.6429 & -10119.2 & -10119.0 & 0.0004$\\%$&-10119.4\\\n$1s^2 3d^1_{3/2},J=\\frac{3}{2}^+$ & 91.6399 & -10118.4 & -10118.6 & -0.0020$\\%$&-10118.7\\\n$1s^2 3d^1_{5/2},J=\\frac{5}{2}^+$ & 91.6435 & -10106.7 & -10106.9 & 0.0022$\\%$ &-10107.0\\\n$1s^2 2s^2 2p^1_{1/2},J=\\frac{1}{2}^-$ & 91.2080 & -13221.1 & -13222.5 & 0.0104$\\%$&-13222.7\\\n$1s^2 2s^1 2p^2_{1/2},J=\\frac{1}{2}^+$ & 91.1604 & -13204.8 & -13206.7 & 0.0140$\\%$&-13206.9\\\n$1s^2 2s^2 2p^1_{3/2},J=\\frac{3}{2}^-$ & 91.2339 & -13068.9 & -13070.2 & 0.0099$\\%$&-13070.6\\\n$1s^2 2s^1 2p^1_{1/2} 2p^1_{3/2},J=\\frac{3}{2}$ & 91.1972 & -13056.6 & -13058.8 & 0.0168$\\%$&-13058.9\\\n$1s^2 2s^1 2p^1_{1/2} 2p^1_{3/2},J=\\frac{5}{2}$ & 91.1914 & -13054.7 & -13056.3 & 0.0128$\\%$&-13056.5\\\n$1s^2 2p^2_{1/2} 2p^1_{3/2},J=\\frac{3}{2}^-$ & 91.1327 & -13035.1 & -13037.2 & 0.0159$\\%$ &-13037.1\\\n$1s^2 2s^2 3s^1,J=\\frac{1}{2}^+$ & 91.3255 & -12556.2 & -12557.2 & 0.0080$\\%$&-12557.7\\\n\nExactly the introduction of the effective charge $Z^{*}$, instead of the usage of the nuclear charge $Z$, i.e., $Z^{*} \\neq Z$ significantly increases the accuracy of the zeroth-order approximation, while rendering the complexity of all calculations low.\n\nHowever, the fully relativistic description becomes much more complicated due to the structure of Dirac equation. First, the Dirac equation possesses negative energy states and, therefore, there exist matrix elements between electronic states and negative energy ones. This significantly increases the number of required matrix elements to be taken into account. Second, due to the mass term of the Dirac equation the energy of the system does not have a universal behavior of the quadratic function of the effective charge as in the nonrelativistic case. Therefore, it is impossible to separate explicitly the dependence of the matrix elements on the effective charge. For this reason, before investigating the second-order correction to the energy of the system we focused on the zeroth-order approximation first.\n\nAt the same time, we point out that since the Dirac-Coulomb Green\u2019s function is known in analytical closed-form [@wong_dirac_1985; @swainson_unified_1991], it is still possible to express all sums over intermediate states through it and therefore to perform calculations of higher-order perturbative corrections.\n\nODS is grateful to A. Leonau, S. Bragin and U. Sinha for helpful discussions. This article comprises parts of the PhD thesis work of Kamil Dzikowski to be submitted to the Heidelberg University, Germany.\n\nDetails of the calculation {#sec:appendix-a.-details}\n==========================\n\nHere, we present all formulas needed for the fully analytical evaluation of all integrals encountered in the calculation of the first-order correction to the energy of the system, as well as the computation of atomic scattering factors and electronic densities.\n\nThe key idea, allowing for the analytic calculation is the observation that both the basis wave functions and all appearing potentials can be split into their radial and angular components by simple expansion in spherical harmonics. Thus we get the hydrogen-like Dirac wave functions as [@flugge_practical_1971] $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\Psi_{n_{r}ljm}\n  &({\\boldsymbol}{r},Z^*) \\nonumber\n  \\\\\n  &=\n  \\frac{1}{r} \\left(\n  \\begin{array}{c}\n    G_{n_{r},\\kappa}(r,Z^*)\\Omega_{\\kappa,m}(\\theta,\\phi)\n    \\\\\n    F_{n_{r},\\kappa}(r,Z^*)\\Omega_{-\\kappa,m}(\\theta,\\phi)\n  \\end{array}\n  \\right), \\label{eq:28}\\end{aligned}$$ with the angular part given by spherical harmonics $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\Omega_{\\kappa,m}\n  &(\\theta,\\phi) \\nonumber\n  \\\\\n  &= \\left(\n  \\begin{array}{c}\n    \\sqrt{\\frac{1}{2} - \\frac{m}{2\\kappa+1}}\n    Y_\\kappa^{m-1/2}(\\theta,\\phi)\n    \\\\\n    -\\frac{\\kappa}{|\\kappa|}\\sqrt{\\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{m}{2\\kappa+1}}\n    Y_\\kappa^{m+1/2}(\\theta,\\phi)\n  \\end{array}\n  \\right), \\label{eq:29}\\end{aligned}$$ and the radial part by the Whittaker functions $M_{\\kappa,\\mu}(z)$ of the first kind [@whittaker_expression_1903]\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      G_{n_r,\\kappa}(Z^{*}, r)\n      \\\\\n      F_{n_r,\\kappa}(Z^{*}, r)\n    \\end{pmatrix}\n     = N\\left\\{\\frac{n_r}{2\\gamma}\\left(\n      \\begin{array}{c}\n        Z^*\\alpha\n        \\\\\n        i (\\gamma-\\kappa)\n      \\end{array}\\right) M_{\\gamma+n_r,\\gamma+\\frac{1}{2}}(2 \\chi  Z^*r)\n    -\\rho(1+2\\gamma)\\left(\n      \\begin{array}{c}\n        \\frac{\\gamma-\\kappa}{Z^* \\alpha}\n        \\\\\n        i\\end{array}\n    \\right) M_{\\gamma+n_r,\\gamma-\\frac{1}{2}}(2 \\chi\n    Z^*r)\\right\\}, \\label{eq:30}\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\rho\n  &=\\frac{1}{n_r+2\\gamma} \\left(\\kappa(n_r+\\gamma) -\n    \\frac{\\gamma}{\\chi}\\right),\n  \\\\\n  \\chi\n  &=(n_r^2+\\kappa^2+2n_r\\gamma)^{-\\frac{1}{2}},\n  \\\\\n  \\gamma\n  &= \\sqrt{\\kappa^2-(Z^* \\alpha)^2},\\end{aligned}$$ and $N$ is the corresponding normalization constant $$\\begin{aligned}\n  N=\\frac{\\chi}{\\Gamma(2\\gamma+2)} \\sqrt{\\Gamma(2\\gamma+n_r+1)\n  \\frac{(\\kappa+\\gamma)}{n_r!} \\frac{\\chi Z^*}{\\rho}}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe quantity $\\kappa$ is defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\kappa = \\left\\{\n  \\begin{aligned}\n    l, \\quad \\mathrm{if}\\ j = l - \\frac{1}{2},\n    \\\\\n    -(l+1), \\quad  \\mathrm{if}\\ j = l + \\frac{1}{2},\n  \\end{aligned}\\right. \\label{eq:31}\\end{aligned}$$ and $\\Gamma(z)$ is the Gamma function. In addition, we employ the spherical harmonics with a negative first index, which is used in Mathematica\u00a0[@Mathematica] and is defined by the following identity $Y_{l}^{m} = Y_{-(l+1)}^{m}$ for $l \\leq -1$ and $(l+1) \\leq m \\leq -(l+1)$ for $l \\leq -1$.\n\nWe also mention here that for the convenience we expressed the Dirac wave functions through the Whittaker functions and not through more commonly used hypergeometric ones [@flugge_practical_1971]. However, our definition in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:30\\]) is in full agreement with the commonly used wave functions from [@flugge_practical_1971].\n\nNow, by noting that $$\\int M_{a+\\gamma,\\gamma-1/2}(r) M_{a+\\gamma,\\gamma-1/2}(r)\n  \\frac{dr}{r} = \\frac{\\Gamma(2\\gamma)^2 a!}{\\Gamma(a-2\\gamma)},$$ we get (after lengthy but straightforward simplifications) $$\\begin{aligned}\n  A_{n_r \\kappa}(Z^*) =\n  Z^*\\chi ^3\\left(n_r+\\frac{\\kappa^2}{\\gamma}\\right). \\label{eq:32}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFurthermore, in order to evaluate $B_{\\nu_2,\\nu_4}^{\\nu_1,\\nu_3}$, we employ the expansion of the electron-electron interaction potential in spherical harmonics [@landau1981quantum] $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\frac{1}{|{\\boldsymbol}{r}-{\\boldsymbol}{r}'|} = \\sum_{l=0}^\\infty \\sum_{m=-l}^{l}\n  \\frac{4\\pi}{2l+1} \\frac{r_<^l}{r_>^{l+1}} Y_{l}^{m*}(\\Omega)\n  Y_{l}^{m}(\\Omega')\\end{aligned}$$ and note that the integration of three spherical harmonics yields $3j$ symbols [@Brink:104381]:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\int Y_{l_{1}}^{m_{1}}(\\Omega) Y_{l_{2}}^{m_{2}}(\\Omega)\n    Y_{l_{3}}^{m_{3}}(\\Omega) d\\Omega =\n    \\sqrt{\\frac{(2l_1+1)(2l_2+1)(2l_3+1)}{4 \\pi}}\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      l_1 & l_2 & l_3\n      \\\\\n      0 & 0 & 0\n    \\end{pmatrix}\n              \\begin{pmatrix}\n                l_1 & l_2 & l_3\n                \\\\\n                m_1 & m_2 & m_3\n              \\end{pmatrix}. \\label{eq:34}\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThis allows us to split the result into the radial and angular parts as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    B_{\\nu_2,\\nu_4}^{\\nu_1,\\nu_3} =\n    -\\delta_{m_{j2}-m_{j1}}^{m_{j3}-m_{j4}} (-1)^{2\n    m_{j1}-m_{j2}-m_{j3}} \\sum_p \\left( \\Phi_{\\nu_1,\\nu_2}^p \\otimes\n    \\Phi_{\\nu_3,\\nu_4}^p \\right) \\cdot\n    \\sigma_{\\nu_1,\\nu_2,\\nu_3,\\nu_4}^p, \\label{eq:35}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ with the angular part given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\Phi_{\\nu_1,\\nu_2}^p = \\left(\n    \\begin{array}{c}\n      \\begin{pmatrix}\n        \\kappa_1 & \\kappa_2 & p\n        \\\\\n        0 & 0 & 0\n      \\end{pmatrix}\n                \\left(\n                \\phi_{\\kappa_1,m_{j1} -\n                \\frac{1}{2}}^{\\kappa_2,m_{j2}-\\frac{1}{2}}\n                (p) -\n                \\phi_{\\kappa_1,\\frac{1}{2} -\n                m_{j1}}^{\\kappa_2,\\frac{1}{2}-m_{j2}}\n                (p)\\right)\n      \\\\\n      \\begin{pmatrix}\n        -\\kappa_1 & -\\kappa_2 & p\n        \\\\ 0 & 0 & 0\n      \\end{pmatrix}\n      \\left(\\phi_{-\\kappa_1,m_{j1} -\n                   \\frac{1}{2}}^{-\\kappa_2,m_{j2}-\\frac{1}{2}}(p) -\n                   \\phi_{-\\kappa_1,\\frac{1}{2} -\n                   m_{j1}}^{-\\kappa_2,\\frac{1}{2}-m_{j2}}(p)\\right)\n    \\end{array}\\right), \\label{eq:36}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\phi_{k_1,m_1}^{k_2,m_2}(p) = \\sqrt{(k_1-m_1)(k_2-m_2)}\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      \\kappa_1 & \\kappa_2 & p\n      \\\\\n      -m_{1} & m_{2} & m_{1}-m_{2}\n    \\end{pmatrix}. \\label{eq:37}\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nFurthermore, the radial part is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\sigma_{\\nu_1,\\nu_2,\\nu_3,\\nu_4}^p = \\int\n    {{G_{\\nu_1}^{*}(r)G_{\\nu_2}(r)}\\choose{F_{\\nu_1}^{*}(r) F_{\\nu_2}(r)}}\n    \\otimes\n    {{G_{\\nu_3}^{*}(r')G_{\\nu_4}(r')}\\choose{F_{\\nu_3}^{*}(r') F_{\\nu_4}(r')}}\n    \\frac{r_<^p}{r_>^{p+1}}drdr', \\label{eq:38}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where the dependence on $Z^*$ has been omitted for clarity. Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:38\\]) can be calculated analytically by noting that the integral of the four Whittaker functions reads [@gradstejn_table_2009] $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\int\n    &M_{a_1+b_1,b_1-1/2}(q_1 r) M_{a_2+b_2,b_2-1/2}(q_2 r)\n      M_{a_3+b_3,b_3-1/2}(q_3 r') M_{a_4+b_4,b_4-1/2}(q_4 r')\n      \\frac{r_<^l}{r_>^{l+1}} dr dr' \\nonumber\n    \\\\\n    &=\\sum_{i_1=0}^{a_1} \\sum_{i_2=0}^{a_2} \\sum_{i_3=0}^{a_3}\n      \\sum_{i_4=0}^{a_4} T_{{\\boldsymbol}{a},{\\boldsymbol}{b},{\\boldsymbol}{q}}({\\boldsymbol}{i})\n      \\left(f_{i_1+i_2+b_1+b_2+l+1}^{i_3+i_4+b_3+b_4-l}\n      \\left(\\frac{q_3+q_4}{2},\\frac{q_1+q_2}{2}\\right)\n      + f_{i_3+i_4+b_3+b_4+l+1}^{i_1+i_2+b_1+b_2-l}\n      \\left(\\frac{q_1+q_2}{2},\\frac{q_3+q_4}{2}\\right)\\right),\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n    T_{{\\boldsymbol}{a},{\\boldsymbol}{b},{\\boldsymbol}{q}}({\\boldsymbol}{i}) =\n    \\prod_{k=1}^4{{a_k}\\choose{i_k}}\n    \\frac{\\Gamma(2b_k)}{\\Gamma(2b_k+i_k)}\n    (-1)^{i_k}q_k^{b_k+i_k}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ and we have made use of $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f_{a}^{b}(x,y) = \\int_0^\\infty \\int_r^\\infty e^{-\\lambda r -\n    \\lambda' r'} r^{a-1}\n    {r'}^{b-1} dr' dr=\\frac{\\Gamma(a+b)}{a{\\lambda'}^{a+b}}\n    {_2F_1}\\left(a, a+b, a + 1, -\\frac{\\lambda}{\\lambda'}\\right).\n  \\end{aligned}$$ The properties of $f_{a}^{b}(x,y)$ functions are described in some detail in [@dzikowski_generating_2019]. The bold ${\\boldsymbol}a$, ${\\boldsymbol}b$, ${\\boldsymbol}q$ and ${\\boldsymbol}i$ are lists of four values, i.e., ${\\boldsymbol}a = \\{a_{1}, a_{2}, a_{3}, a_{4}\\}$ with similar expressions for ${\\boldsymbol}b$, ${\\boldsymbol}q$ and ${\\boldsymbol}i$.\n\nNow we would like to compute the scattering factors. For this we consider the electronic density, which is averaged over the angular variables. By using the orthogonality of spherical spinors the angular dependence integrates out trivially. Therefore, we get the radial density as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    r^2 \\rho_{n_r,\\kappa} (r,Z^*) =\n    |G_{n_r,\\kappa}(r,Z^*)|^2 + |F_{n_r,\\kappa}(r,Z^*)|^2, \\label{eq:39}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ which gives the scattering factors as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f_{n_r,\\kappa}(q,Z^*) = \\int \\left(|G_{n_r,\\kappa}(r,Z^*)|^2 +\n    |F_{n_r,\\kappa}(r,Z^*)|^2\\right) e^{i {{\\boldsymbol}q\\cdot{\\boldsymbol}r}}\n    d{\\boldsymbol}{r}. \\label{eq:40}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Expanding Whittaker functions in a finite series in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:30\\]) and using [@gradstejn_table_2009] $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\int e^{-\\alpha r}r^{n-2} e^{i {\\boldsymbol}{q} \\cdot {\\boldsymbol}{r}} d{\\boldsymbol}{r} =\n    4\\pi \\Gamma(n) \\frac{\\sin(n\n    \\tan^{-1}(\\frac{q}{\\alpha}))}{\\sqrt{(\\alpha^2+q^2)^n}}.\n    \\label{eq:42}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f_{n_r,\\kappa}(q,Z^*) = (N(2\\gamma+1)\\Gamma(2\\gamma))^2 \\left(\n    2\\kappa (\\kappa-\\gamma) n_r^2\\sigma_1 + 4(\\kappa-\\gamma) \\rho n_r\n    \\sigma_2 +\n    \\frac{2\\kappa}{\\kappa+\\gamma}\\rho^2\\sigma_3\\right), \\label{eq:41}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\sigma_{1}\n    &= \\sum_{\\substack{i=1\\\\j=1}}^{n_r} {{n_r-1}\\choose{i-1}}\n    {{n_r-1}\\choose{j-1}}\n    \\frac{\\Gamma(i+j+2\\gamma)}{\\Gamma(2\\gamma+i+1)!\n    \\Gamma(2\\gamma+j+1)!} \\xi_{i,j}(q,Z^*),\n    \\\\\n    \\sigma_{2}\n    &= \\sum_{\\substack{i=1\\\\j=0}}^{n_r} {{n_r-1}\\choose{i-1}}\n    {{n_r}\\choose{j}} \\frac{\\Gamma(i+j+2\\gamma)}{\\Gamma(2\\gamma+i+1)!\n    \\Gamma(2\\gamma+j)!} \\xi_{i,j}(q,Z^*),\n    \\\\\n    \\sigma_{3}\n    &= \\sum_{\\substack{i=0\\\\j=0}}^{n_r} {{n_r}\\choose{i}}\n    {{n_r}\\choose{j}}\n    \\frac{\\Gamma(i+j+2\\gamma)}{\\Gamma(2\\gamma+i)!\\Gamma(2\\gamma+j)!}\n    \\xi_{i,j}(q,Z^*),\n  \\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\xi_{i,j}(q,Z^*)\n    &= \\frac{(-1)^{i+j}}{q} \\sin\\left((i+j+2\\gamma)\n    \\tan^{-1}\\left(\\frac{q}{2\\chi Z^*}\\right)\\right) \\left(\\frac{2 \\chi  \n    Z^*}{\\sqrt{(2\\chi Z^*)^2+q^2}}\\right)^{i+j+2\\gamma}.\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nSolution of the relativistic Thomas-Fermi equation {#sec:solut-relat-tf}\n==================================================\n\nIn this appendix we describe the solution of the relativistic TF equation [@gilvarry_relativistic_1954]. The equation written in atomic units reads [@waber_relativistic_1975] $$\\begin{aligned}\n    x^{1/2}\\chi''(x) = \\chi^{3/2}(x)\\left(1 +\n    \\left(\\frac{128}{9\\pi^{2}}\\right)^{1/3} \\frac{Z^{4/3}}{c^{2}}\n    \\chi'(x) \\left(1 - \\frac{x\n    \\chi'(x)}{2\\chi(x)}\\right)\\right)^{3/2}, \\label{eq:18}\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $x = r / (b Z^{-1/3})$, $b = (9\\pi^{2} / 128)^{1/3}$ and the dimensionless self-consistent potential $\\chi(x)$ is related to the self-consistent potential of the TF model as $\\phi(r) = Z \\chi(rZ^{1/3}/b) - \\phi_{0}$, with the constant $\\phi_{0}$ defined from the normalization. For neutral atoms $\\phi_{0}$ equals zero. For ions it is chosen such that the self-consistent potential vanishes not at infinity, but rather at some finite value $x_{c}$. In the nonrelativistic limit, i.e., when the speed of light tends to infinity the relativistic TF equation coincides with its nonrelativistic counterpart.\n\nThe TF equation must be complemented with boundary conditions, which for neutral atoms are given by [@waber_relativistic_1975] $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\chi(0) = 1, \\quad \\chi(\\infty) = 0, \\label{eq:19}\\end{aligned}$$ and for ions [@marini_relativistic_1981] $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\chi(0) = 1, \\quad -x_{c}\\chi'(x_{c}) = 1 - N/Z, \\label{eq:20}\\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Here we also employed the fact that $\\chi(x_{c}) = 0$.\n\nAs was mentioned in the introduction solution of the TF equation is a nontrivial mathematical problem since it represents a boundary value problem on a semi-infinite interval. In order to solve the equation, we used the shooting method. For neutral atoms we reformulated the boundary value problem as an initial value one $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\chi(0) = 1, \\quad \\chi'(0) = \\mu, \\label{eq:21}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mu$ represents a parameter. Consequently, we were seeking for the root of the equation $\\chi(X, \\mu) = 0$, where $X$ we changed from some small value to the very large one. For every $X$ we were solving Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:21\\]) by varying $\\mu$. With this we obtained the following solutions $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\mu_{\\mathrm{Xe}}\n  &= -1.50965873266, \\quad \\chi(80,\n  \\mu_{\\mathrm{Xe}}) \\approx 10^{-6}, \\label{eq:22}\n  \\\\\n  \\mu_{\\mathrm{U}}\n  &= -1.49103044294, \\quad \\chi(80,\n  \\mu_{\\mathrm{U}}) \\approx 10^{-6} \\label{eq:23}\\end{aligned}$$ for atoms.\n\nFor ions we used a similar strategy, however, we \u201cshot\u201d from infinity. In this case the boundary value problem is already written as the initial value one $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\chi(x_{c}) = 0, \\quad \\chi'(x_{c}) =\n  -\\frac{1-N/Z}{x_{c}}. \\label{eq:24}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFor this reason we simply varied the value of $x_{c}$ till the value of $\\chi$ at zero becomes one. With this we got $$\\begin{aligned}\n  x_{c}\n  &= 0.34635, \\quad \\chi(10^{-6}) \\approx 1, \\label{eq:25}\n  \\\\\n  x_{c}\n  &= 0.47890, \\quad \\chi(10^{-6}) \\approx 1. \\label{eq:26}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFinally, the density of the atom or ion is expressed through the self-consistent potential as\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\rho(r) = \\frac{8\\sqrt{2}}{3\\pi} \\left(\\frac{Z\n    \\chi(x)}{r} - \\phi_{0}\\right)^{3/2} \\left(1 +\n    \\left(\\frac{128}{9\\pi^{2}}\\right)^{1/3} \\frac{Z^{4/3}}{c^{2}}\n    \\chi'(x) \\left(1 - \\frac{x\n    \\chi'(x)}{2\\chi(x)}\\right)\\right)^{3/2}. \\label{eq:27}\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nValues of ground state energies {#sec:values-ground-state}\n===============================\n\n[|ccccc|ccccc|]{} $Z$ &$Z^{*}_{\\mathrm{R}}$ & $E^{(0)}_{\\mathrm{NR}}$ & $E^{(0)}_{\\mathrm{R}}$ & $E_{\\mathrm{DHF}}$ & $Z$ & $Z^{*}_{\\mathrm{R}}$ & $E^{(0)}_{\\mathrm{NR}}$ & $E^{(0)}_{\\mathrm{R}}$ & $E_{\\mathrm{DHF}}$\\\n1 & 1.00000 & -0.50000 & -0.50000 & -0.50000 & 51 & 40.7062 & -5974.00 & -6160.94 & -6475.24\\\n2 & 1.68749 & -2.84766 & -2.84772 & -2.86175 & 52 & 41.5615 & -6259.79 & -6461.59 & -6788.06\\\n3 & 2.54539 & -7.28906 & -7.28951 & -7.43327 & 53 & 42.4156 & -6553.19 & -6770.65 & -7109.76\\\n4 & 3.37163 & -14.2096 & -14.2121 & -14.5752 & 54 & 43.2653 & -6854.26 & -7087.18 & -7440.46\\\n5 & 4.15118 & -23.6936 & -23.7003 & -24.5350 & 55 & 44.1573 & -7165.57 & -7415.35 & -7779.91\\\n6 & 4.90693 & -36.2016 & -36.1296 & -37.6732 & 56 & 45.0484 & -7484.40 & -7752.08 & -8128.34\\\n7 & 5.64987 & -52.0662 & -51.8941 & -54.3229 & 57 & 45.7984 & -7804.64 & -8083.37 & -8485.87\\\n8 & 6.42240 & -71.2844 & -72.2209 & -74.8172 & 58 & 46.5481 & -8125.81 & -8423.60 & -8852.82\\\n9 & 7.17595 & -94.4525 & -96.6125 & -99.4897 & 59 & 47.2966 & -8447.55 & -8772.63 & -9229.40\\\n10 & 7.88116 & -121.908 & -124.316 & -128.674 & 60 & 48.0432 & -8783.92 & -9130.29 & -9615.86\\\n11 & 8.72835 & -154.020 & -156.740 & -162.053 & 61 & 48.7880 & -9127.99 & -9496.65 & -10012.3\\\n12 & 9.56796 & -190.415 & -193.471 & -199.901 & 62 & 49.5310 & -9479.96 & -9871.77 & -10418.8\\\n13 & 10.3870 & -230.579 & -234.059 & -242.286 & 63 & 50.2713 & -9839.95 & -10255.2 & -10835.5\\\n14 & 11.1991 & -275.254 & -279.124 & -289.403 & 64 & 51.0151 & -10216.4 & -10649.8 & -11262.6\\\n15 & 12.0048 & -324.603 & -328.816 & -341.420 & 65 & 51.7609 & -10582.4 & -11055.1 & -11700.3\\\n16 & 12.8193 & -378.517 & -384.172 & -398.503 & 66 & 52.5067 & -10965.9 & -11470.4 & -12148.7\\\n17 & 13.6272 & -437.400 & -444.551 & -460.821 & 67 & 53.2510 & -11357.4 & -11895.2 & -12607.8\\\n18 & 14.4170 & -501.418 & -509.263 & -528.540 & 68 & 53.9927 & -11757.1 & -12329.1 & -13078.0\\\n19 & 15.2858 & -571.305 & -579.971 & -601.352 & 69 & 54.7306 & -12165.2 & -12771.4 & -13559.3\\\n20 & 16.1505 & -646.244 & -655.816 & -679.502 & 70 & 55.4635 & -12581.8 & -13221.8 & -14051.9\\\n21 & 16.9029 & -723.779 & -734.443 & -763.133 & 71 & 56.2925 & -13017.6 & -13695.5 & -14555.9\\\n22 & 17.6518 & -806.609 & -818.525 & -852.531 & 72 & 57.1215 & -13462.0 & -14179.9 & -15071.3\\\n23 & 18.3949 & -894.773 & -907.982 & -947.852 & 73 & 57.9500 & -13915.1 & -14674.8 & -15598.3\\\n24 & 19.1329 & -984.973 & -1002.97 & -1049.21 & 74 & 58.7777 & -14376.8 & -15180.3 & -16136.9\\\n25 & 19.8643 & -1087.71 & -1103.38 & -1156.87 & 75 & 59.6048 & -14847.3 & -15696.0 & -16687.4\\\n26 & 20.6041 & -1192.25 & -1211.07 & -1270.88 & 76 & 60.4345 & -15326.2 & -16224.1 & -17249.9\\\n27 & 21.3454 & -1302.72 & -1325.53 & -1391.42 & 77 & 61.2652 & -15813.9 & -16764.2 & -17824.6\\\n28 & 22.0817 & -1419.13 & -1446.14 & -1518.64 & 78 & 62.0954 & -16300.8 & -17315.4 & -18400.7\\\n29 & 22.8086 & -1536.57 & -1572.35 & -1652.71 & 79 & 62.9241 & -16806.4 & -17877.3 & -19011.3\\\n30 & 23.5219 & -1670.43 & -1703.53 & -1793.78 & 80 & 63.7501 & -17330.8 & -18449.2 & -19623.5\\\n31 & 24.3524 & -1809.22 & -1845.33 & -1941.63 & 81 & 64.6315 & -17861.7 & -19042.6 & -20248.3\\\n32 & 25.1804 & -1954.42 & -1993.69 & -2096.42 & 82 & 65.5128 & -18401.7 & -19647.9 & -20886.0\\\n33 & 26.0059 & -2106.13 & -2148.64 & -2258.28 & 83 & 66.3952 & -18950.8 & -20264.7 & -21536.7\\\n34 & 26.8353 & -2264.11 & -2311.42 & -2427.30 & 84 & 67.2796 & -19508.5 & -20894.9 & -22200.7\\\n35 & 27.6621 & -2428.77 & -2481.13 & -2603.59 & 85 & 68.1641 & -20075.4 & -21537.4 & -22878.2\\\n36 & 28.4813 & -2600.19 & -2656.87 & -2787.28 & 86 & 69.0467 & -20651.5 & -22191.1 & -23561.1\\\n37 & 29.3581 & -2780.21 & -2841.74 & -2978.07 & 87 & 69.9636 & -21241.1 & -22863.5 & -24237.8\\\n38 & 30.2331 & -2966.85 & -3033.62 & -3176.18 & 88 & 70.8808 & -21839.6 & -23548.8 & -24992.3\\\n39 & 31.0303 & -3155.02 & -3227.45 & -3381.68 & 89 & 71.6925 & -22437.9 & -24221.6 & -25724.9\\\n40 & 31.8263 & -3350.00 & -3428.61 & -3594.81 & 90 & 72.5050 & -23045.4 & -24907.7 & -26471.9\\\n41 & 32.6201 & -3546.33 & -3636.95 & -3815.67 & 91 & 73.3179 & -23639.5 & -25606.9 & -27233.7\\\n42 & 33.4115 & -3755.01 & -3852.55 & -4044.45 & 92 & 74.1309 & -24254.1 & -26319.2 & -28010.5\\\n43 & 34.2000 & -3976.23 & -4075.25 & -4281.19 & 93 & 74.9439 & -24878.0 & -27044.6 & -28802.9\\\n44 & 34.9923 & -4192.63 & -4306.84 & -4526.11 & 94 & 75.7568 & -25499.2 & -27783.2 & -29610.8\\\n45 & 35.7855 & -4422.14 & -4546.83 & -4779.23 & 95 & 76.5699 & -26141.7 & -28534.8 & -30434.9\\\n46 & 36.5766 & -4652.44 & -4794.58 & -5040.71 & 96 & 77.3858 & -26805.4 & -29302.3 & -31275.1\\\n47 & 37.3634 & -4902.97 & -5049.59 & -5310.66 & 97 & 78.2039 & -27466.1 & -30085.3 & -32132.1\\\n48 & 38.1440 & -5160.83 & -5311.30 & -5589.05 & 98 & 79.0232 & -28124.0 & -30883.5 & -33006.0\\\n49 & 38.9993 & -5424.43 & -5586.42 & -5875.84 & 99 & 79.8430 & -28803.8 & -31696.2 & -33897.2\\\n50 & 39.8532 & -5695.47 & -5869.68 & -6171.21 & 100 & 80.6627 & -29493.1 & -32523.3 & -34806.3\\\n\n[^1]: In this relation $\\omega_{\\mathrm{r}}$ and $m$ are measured in $\\mathrm{cm}^{-1}$ and $\\Omega_{0}$ in $\\mathrm{cm}^{3}$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The geometric median covariation matrix is a robust multivariate indicator of dispersion which can be extended without any difficulty to functional data. We define estimators, based on recursive algorithms, that can be simply updated at each new observation and are able to deal rapidly with large samples of high dimensional data without being obliged to store all the data in memory. Asymptotic convergence properties of the recursive algorithms are studied under weak conditions. The computation of the principal components can also be performed online and this approach can be useful for online outlier detection. A simulation study clearly shows that this robust indicator is a competitive alternative to minimum covariance determinant when the dimension of the data is small and robust principal components analysis based on projection pursuit and spherical projections for high dimension data. An illustration on a large sample and high dimensional dataset consisting of individual TV audiences measured at a minute scale over a period of 24 hours confirms the interest of considering the robust principal components analysis based on the median covariation matrix. All studied algorithms are available in the R package `Gmedian` on CRAN.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Herv\u00e9 <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Cardot</span>, Antoine <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Godichon-Baggioni</span>\\\n    Institut de Math\u00e9matiques de Bourgogne,\\\n    Universit\u00e9 de Bourgogne Franche-Comt\u00e9,\\\n    9, rue Alain Savary, 21078 Dijon, France\ntitle: Fast Estimation of the Median Covariation Matrix with Application to Online Robust Principal Components Analysis\n---\n\n**Keywords.** Averaging, Functional data, Geometric median, Online algorithms, Online principal components, Recursive robust estimation, Stochastic gradient, Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm.\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nPrincipal Components Analysis is one of the most useful statistical tool to extract information by reducing the dimension when one has to analyze large samples of multivariate or functional data (see [*e.g.*]{} [@Jolliffe2002] or [@RamsaySilverman2005]). When both the dimension and the sample size are large, outlying observations may be difficult to detect automatically. Principal components, which are derived from the spectral analysis of the covariance matrix, can be very sensitive to outliers (see [@DGK1981]) and many robust procedures for principal components analysis have been considered in the literature (see [@HRVA2008], [@HubR2009] and [@MR2238141]).\n\nThe most popular approaches are probably the minimum covariance determinant estimator (see [@RvD99]) and the robust projection pursuit (see [@CR-G2005] and [@CFO2007]). Robust PCA based on projection pursuit has been extended to deal with functional data in [@HyndmanUllah2007] and [@BBTW2011]. Adopting another point of view, robust modifications of the covariance matrix, based on projection of the data onto the unit sphere, have been proposed in [@LMSTZC1999] (see also [@Ger08] and [@TKO2012]).\n\nWe consider in this work another robust way of measuring association between variables, that can be extended directly to functional data. It is based on the notion of median covariation matrix (MCM) which is defined as the minimizer of an expected loss criterion based on the Hilbert-Schmidt norm (see [@KrausPanaretos2012] for a first definition in a more general $M$-estimation setting). It can be seen as a geometric median (see [@Kem87] or [@MNO2010]) in the particular Hilbert spaces of square matrices (or operators for functional data) equipped with the Frobenius (or Hilbert-Schmidt) norm. The MCM is non negative and unique under weak conditions. As shown in [@KrausPanaretos2012] it also has the same eigenspace as the usual covariance matrix when the distribution of the data is symmetric and the second order moment is finite. Being a spatial median in a particular Hilbert space of matrices, the MCM is also a robust indicator of central location, among the covariance matrices, which has a 50 % breakdown point (see [@Kem87] or [@MR2238141]) as well as a bounded gross sensitivity error (see [@CCZ11]).\n\nThe aim of this work is twofold. It provides efficient recursive estimation algorithms of the MCM that are able to deal with large samples of high dimensional data. By this recursive property, these algorithms can naturally deal with data that are observed sequentially and provide a natural update of the estimators at each new observation. Another advantage compared to classical approaches is that such recursive algorithms will not require to store all the data. Secondly, this work also aims at highlighting the interest of considering the median covariation matrix to perform principal components analysis of high dimensional contaminated data.\n\nDifferent algorithms can be considered to get effective estimators of the MCM. When the dimension of the data is not too high and the sample size is not too large, Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm (see [@Weiszfeld1937] and [@VZ00]) can be directly used to estimate effectively both the geometric median and the median covariation matrix. When both the dimension and the sample size are large this static algorithm which requires to store all the data may be inappropriate and ineffective. We show how the algorithm developed by [@CCZ11] for the geometric median in Hilbert spaces can be adapted to estimate recursively and simultaneously the median as well as the median covariation matrix. Then an averaging step ([@PolyakJud92]) of the two initial recursive estimators of the median and the MCM permits to improve the accuracy of the initial stochastic gradient algorithms. A simple modification of the stochastic gradient algorithm is proposed in order to ensure that the median covariance estimator is non negative. We also explain how the eigenelements of the estimator of the MCM can be updated online without being obliged to perform a new spectral decomposition at each new observation.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. The median covariation matrix as well as the recursive estimators are defined in Section 2. In Section 3, almost sure and quadratic mean consistency results are given for variables taking values in general separable Hilbert spaces. The proofs, which are based on new induction steps compared to [@CCZ11], allow to get better convergence rates in quadratic mean even if this new framework is much more complicated because two averaged non linear algorithms are running simultaneously. One can also note that the techniques generally employed to deal with two time scale Robbins Monro algorithms (see [@MR2260078] for the multivariate case) require assumptions on the rest of the Taylor expansion and the finite dimension of the data that are too restrictive in our framework. In Section 4, a comparison with some classic robust PCA techniques is made on simulated data. The interest of considering the MCM is also highlighted on the analysis of individual TV audiences, a large sample of high dimensional data which, because of its dimension, can not be analyzed in a reasonable time with classical robust PCA approaches. The main parts of the proofs are described in Section 5. Perspectives for future research are discussed in Section 6. Some technical parts of the proofs as well as a description of Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm in our context are gathered in an Appendix.\n\nPopulation point of view and recursive estimators\n=================================================\n\nLet $H$ be a separable Hilbert space (for example $H = {\\mathbb{R}}^d$ or $H = L^2(I)$, for some closed interval $I \\subset \\mathbb{R}$). We denote by $\\langle .,.\\rangle$ its inner product and by ${\\left\\| \\cdot \\right\\|}$ the associated norm.\n\nWe consider a random variable $X$ that takes values in $H$ and define its center $m \\in H$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\nm  & {\\mathrel{:=}}\\arg \\min_{u \\in H} {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[{\\left\\| X - u \\right\\|} - {\\left\\| X \\right\\|}\\right]} .\n\\label{defmed}\\end{aligned}$$ The solution $m \\in H$ is often called the geometric median of $X$. It is uniquely defined under broad assumptions on the distribution of $X$ (see [@Kem87]) which can be expressed as follows.\n\n\\[eq:supportCdtnmed\\] There exist two linearly independent unit vectors $(u_1,u_2) \\in H^2$, such that $${\\mathbf{Var}}( {\\left\\langle u,X \\right\\rangle} ) > 0, \\quad \\mbox{for }u \\in \\{u_1,u_2\\} .$$\n\nIf the distribution of $X-m$ is symmetric around zero and if $X$ admits a first moment that is finite then the geometric median is equal to the expectation of $X$, $m = {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[X\\right]}$. Note however that the general definition (\\[defmed\\]) does not require to assume that the first order moment of ${\\left\\| X \\right\\|}$ is finite since $| {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[ {\\left\\| X-u \\right\\|} - {\\left\\| X \\right\\|}\\right]} | \\leq {\\left\\| u \\right\\|}$.\n\nThe (geometric) median covariation matrix (MCM)\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nWe now consider the special vector space, denoted by $\\mathcal{S}(H)$, of $d \\times d$ matrices when $H= \\mathbb{R}^d$, or for general separable Hilbert spaces $H$, the vector space of linear operators mapping $H \\to H$. Denoting by $\\{e_j, j \\in J \\}$ an orthonormal basis in $H$, the vector space $\\mathcal{S}(H)$ equipped with the following inner product: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle A, B \\rangle_F &= \\sum_{j \\in J} \\langle A e_j, B e_j \\rangle\\end{aligned}$$ is also a separable Hilbert space. In $\\mathcal{S}(\\mathbb{R}^d)$, we have equivalently $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle A, B \\rangle_F &= \\mbox{tr} \\left( A^T B \\right),\\end{aligned}$$ where $A^T$ is the transpose matrix of $A$. The induced norm is the well known Frobenius norm (also called Hilbert-Schmidt norm) and is denoted by ${\\left\\| . \\right\\|}_F .$ When $X$ has finite second order moments, with expectation ${{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[X\\right]}=\\mu$, the covariance matrix of $X$, ${{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[(X-\\mu)(X-\\mu)^T\\right]}$ can be defined as the minimum argument, over all the elements belonging to $\\mathcal{S}(H)$, of the functional $G_{\\mu,2} : \\mathcal{S}(H) \\to \\mathbb{R}$, $$G_{\\mu,2}(\\Gamma) = {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[ {\\left\\| (X-\\mu)(X-\\mu)^T - \\Gamma \\right\\|}^2_F - {\\left\\| (X-\\mu)(X-\\mu)^T \\right\\|}_F^2\\right]}.$$ Note that in general Hilbert spaces with inner product $\\langle ., . \\rangle$, operator $(X-\\mu)(X-\\mu)^T$ should be understood as the operator $u \\in H \\mapsto \\langle u, X-\\mu \\rangle (X-\\mu)$. The MCM is obtained by removing the squares in previous function in order to get a more robust indicator of \u201ccovariation\u201d. For $\\alpha \\in H$, define $G_\\alpha : \\mathcal{S}(H) \\to \\mathbb{R}$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\nG_\\alpha (V) &:= {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[ {\\left\\| (X-\\alpha)(X-\\alpha)^T - V \\right\\|}_F - {\\left\\| (X-\\alpha)(X-\\alpha)^T \\right\\|}_F\\right]} . \n\\label{def:popriskcov}\\end{aligned}$$ The median covariation matrix, denoted by $\\Gamma_m$, is defined as the minimizer of $G_m(V)$ over all elements $V \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)$. The second term at the right-hand side of (\\[def:popriskcov\\]) prevents from having to introduce hypotheses on the existence of the moments of $X$. Introducing the random variable $Y := (X- m)(X- m)^T$ that takes values in $\\mathcal{S}(H)$, the MCM is unique provided that the support of $Y$ is not concentrated on a line and Assumption 1 can be rephrased as follows in $\\mathcal{S}(H)$,\n\n\\[eq:supportCdtnCov\\] There exist two linearly independent unit vectors $(V_1,V_2) \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)^2$, such that $${\\mathbf{Var}}( {\\left\\langle V,Y \\right\\rangle}_F ) > 0, \\quad \\mbox{for }V \\in \\{V_1,V_2\\} .$$\n\nWe can remark that Assumption \\[eq:supportCdtnmed\\] and Assumption \\[eq:supportCdtnCov\\] are strongly connected. Indeed, if Assumption \\[eq:supportCdtnmed\\] holds, then ${\\mathbf{Var}}( {\\left\\langle u,X \\right\\rangle} ) > 0$ for $ u \\in \\{u_1, u_2\\}$. Consider the rank one matrices $V_1 = u_1u_1^T$ and $V_2 = u_2 u_2^T$, we have ${\\left\\langle V_1,Y \\right\\rangle}_F = \\langle u_1, X-m \\rangle^2$ which has a strictly positive variance when the distribution of $X$ has no atom. More generally $ {\\mathbf{Var}}({\\left\\langle V_1,Y \\right\\rangle}_F) >0$ unless there is a scalar $a >0$ such that $\\mathbb{P}\\left[ \\langle u_1, X-m \\rangle = a\\right] = \\mathbb{P}\\left[ \\langle u_1, X-m \\rangle = -a\\right] = \\frac{1}{2}$ (assuming also that $\\mathbb{P}\\left[  X-m = 0\\right] = 0$).\n\nFurthermore it can be deduced easily that the MCM, which is a geometric median in the particular Hilbert spaces of Hilbert-Schmidt operators, is a robust indicator with a 50% breakdown point (see [@Kem87]) and a bounded sensitive gross error (see [@CCZ11]).\n\nWe also assume that\n\n\\[eq:invMomentCov\\] There is a constant $C$ such that for all $h \\in H$ and all $V \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n (a) &: \\quad    {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[ {\\left\\| (X- h)(X- h)^T - V \\right\\|}^{-1}_F \\right]} \\leq C. \\\\\n (b) &: \\quad    {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[ {\\left\\| (X- h)(X- h)^T - V \\right\\|}^{-2}_F \\right]} \\leq C. \\\\\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThis assumption implicitly forces the distribution of $(X- h)(X- h)^T$ to have no atoms. It is more \u201clikely\u201d to be satisfied when the dimension $d$ of the data is large (see [@Cha92] and [@CCZ11] for a discussion). Note that it could be weakened as in [@CCZ11] by allowing points, necessarily different from the MCM $\\Gamma_m$, to have strictly positive masses. Considering the particular case $V=0$, Assumption\u00a0\\[eq:invMomentCov\\](a) implies that for all $h \\in H$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n{{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[ \\frac{1}{{\\left\\| X- h \\right\\|}^{2}} \\right]} \\leq C,\n\\label{cond:mominv2x}\\end{aligned}$$ and this is not restrictive when the dimension $d$ of $H$ is equal or larger than 3.\n\nUnder Assumption\u00a0\\[eq:invMomentCov\\](a), the functional $G_h$ is twice Fr\u00e9chet differentiable, with gradient $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla G_h (V) &= - {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[ \\frac{(X- h)(X- h)^T - V}{{\\left\\| (X- h)(X- h)^T - V \\right\\|}_F}\\right]}.\n\\label{def:gradV}\\end{aligned}$$ and Hessian operator, $ \\nabla _h^2 G(V) : \\mathcal{S}(H) \\to \\mathcal{S}(H)$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla _h^2G (V) &=  {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[ \\frac{1}{{\\left\\| Y(h) - V \\right\\|}_F}\\left( I_{S(H)} - \\frac{(Y(h) - V) \\otimes_F  (Y(h) - V) }{{{\\left\\| Y(h) - V \\right\\|}_F}^2} \\right)\\right]}.\n\\label{def:HeV}\\end{aligned}$$ where $Y(h) = (X-h)(X-h)^T$, $I_{S(H)}$ is the identity operator on $\\mathcal{S}(H)$ and $A \\otimes_F B (V) = \\langle A, V \\rangle_F B$ for any elements $A, B$ and $V$ belonging to $\\mathcal{S}(H)$.\n\nFurthermore, $\\Gamma_m$ is also defined as the unique zero of the non linear equation: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla G_m (\\Gamma_m) &= 0.\n\\label{def:zeroV}\\end{aligned}$$ Remarking that previous equality can be rewritten as follows, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Gamma_m &=  \\frac{1}{{{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[\\frac{1}{ {\\left\\|  (X- m)(X-m)^T - \\Gamma_m \\right\\|}_F} \\right]}}{{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[\\frac{ (X-m)(X-m)^T }{ {\\left\\|  (X- m)(X-m)^T - \\Gamma_m \\right\\|}_F}\\right]},\n\\label{def:baseweiszfled}\\end{aligned}$$ it is clear that $\\Gamma_m$ is a bounded, symmetric and non negative operator in $\\mathcal{S}(H)$.\n\nAs stated in Proposition\u00a02 of [@KrausPanaretos2012], operator $\\Gamma_m$ has an important stability property when the distribution of $X$ is symmetric, with finite second moment, *i.e* ${{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[{\\left\\| X \\right\\|}^2\\right]}< \\infty$. Indeed, the covariance operator of $X$, $\\Sigma = {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[(X-m)(X-m)^T\\right]}$, which is well defined in this case, and $\\Gamma_m$ share the same eigenvectors: if $e_j$ is an eigenvector of $\\Sigma$ with corresponding eigenvalue $\\lambda_j$, then $\\Gamma_m e_j = \\tilde{\\lambda}_j e_j$, for some non negative value $\\tilde{\\lambda}_j$. This important result means that for Gaussian and more generally symmetric distribution (with finite second order moments), the covariance operator and the median covariation operator have the same eigenspaces. Note that it is also conjectured in [@KrausPanaretos2012] that the order of the eigenfunctions is also the same.\n\nEfficient recursive algorithms\n------------------------------\n\nWe suppose now that we have i.i.d. copies $X_1, \\ldots, X_n, \\ldots$ of random variables with the same law as $X$.\n\nFor simplicity, we temporarily suppose that the median $m$ of $X$ is known. We consider a sequence of (learning) weights $\\gamma_n = c_\\gamma / n^{\\alpha}$, with $c_\\gamma>0$ and $1/2 <\\alpha <1$ and we define the recursive estimation procedure as follows $$\\begin{aligned}\nW_{n+1} &= W_n + \\gamma_n \\frac{ (X_{n+1}-m)(X_{n+1}-m)^T - W_n}{ {\\left\\| (X_{n+1}-m)(X_{n+1}-m)^T - W_n \\right\\|}_F} \\label{def:algoRMcov}\\\\\n\\overline{W}_{n+1} &= \\overline{W}_{n} - \\frac{1}{n+1} \\left( \\overline{W}_{n}  - W_{n+1} \\right).\\end{aligned}$$ This algorithm can be seen as a particular case of the averaged stochastic gradient algorithm studied in [@CCZ11]. Indeed, the first recursive algorithm (\\[def:algoRMcov\\]) is a stochastic gradient algorithm, $${{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[ \\frac{ (X_{n+1}-m)(X_{n+1}-m)^T - W_n}{ {\\left\\| (X_{n+1}-m)(X_{n+1}-m)^T - W_n \\right\\|}_F} | {\\mathcal{F}}_n \\right]} = \\nabla G_m(W_n)$$ where ${\\mathcal{F}}_n =\\sigma(X_1, \\ldots, X_n)$ is the $\\sigma$-algebra generated by $X_1, \\ldots, X_n$ whereas the final estimator $\\overline{W}_n$ is obtained by averaging the past values of the first algorithm. The averaging step (see [@PolyakJud92]), [*i*.e.]{} the computation of the arithmetical mean of the past values of a slowly convergent estimator (see Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:RMVn\\] below), permits to obtain a new and efficient estimator converging at a parametric rate, with the same asymptotic variance as the empirical risk minimizer (see Theorem\u00a0\\[theo:asymptnorm\\] below).\n\nIn most of the cases the value of $m$ is unknown so that it also required to estimate the median. To build an estimator of $\\Gamma_m$, it is possible to estimate simultaneously $m$ and $\\Gamma_m$ by considering two averaged stochastic gradient algorithms that are running simultaneously. For $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\nm_{n+1} & = m_n + \\gamma_n^{(m)} \\frac{ X_{n+1}-m_n}{{\\left\\| X_{n+1}-m_n \\right\\|}} \\nonumber \\\\\n\\overline{m}_{n+1} &= \\overline{m}_{n} - \\frac{1}{n+1} \\left( \\overline{m}_{n}  - m_{n+1} \\right) \\label{def:medaver} \\\\\nV_{n+1} &= V_n + \\gamma_n \\frac{ (X_{n+1}-\\overline{m}_n)(X_{n+1}-\\overline{m}_n)^T - V_n}{ {\\left\\| (X_{n+1}-\\overline{m}_n)(X_{n+1}-\\overline{m}_n)^T - V_n \\right\\|}_F}  \\label{def:Gammarm} \\\\\n\\overline{V}_{n+1} &= \\overline{V}_{n} - \\frac{1}{n+1} \\left( \\overline{V}_{n}  - V_{n+1} \\right), \\label{def:Gammamedaver}\\end{aligned}$$ where the averaged recursive estimator $\\overline{m}_{n+1}$ of the median $m$ is controlled by a sequence of descent steps $ \\gamma_n^{(m)}$. The learning rates are generally chosen as follows, $ \\gamma_n^{(m)} = c_m n^{-\\alpha}$, where the tuning constants satisfy $c_m \\in [2,20]$ and $1/2 < \\alpha < 1$.\n\nNote that by construction, even if $V_n$ is non negative, $V_{n+1}$ may not be a non negative matrix when the learning steps do not satisfy $$\\frac{\\gamma_n}{{\\left\\| (X_{n+1}-\\overline{m}_n)(X_{n+1}-\\overline{m}_n)^T - V_n \\right\\|}_F} \\leq 1 .$$ Projecting $V_{n+1}$ onto the closed convex cone of non negative operators would require to compute the eigenvalues of $V_{n+1}$ which is time consuming in high dimension even if $V_{n+1}$ is a rank one perturbation to $V_n$ (see [@CD2015]). We consider the following simple approximation to this projection which consists in replacing in (\\[def:Gammarm\\]) the descent step $\\gamma_n$ by a thresholded one, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\gamma_{n,pos} &= \\min \\left( \\gamma_n , \\ {\\left\\| (X_{n+1}-\\overline{m}_n)(X_{n+1}-\\overline{m}_n)^T - V_n \\right\\|}_F \\right)\n\\label{def:gammamodif}\\end{aligned}$$ which ensures that $V_{n+1}$ remains non negative when $V_n$ is non negative. The use of these modified steps and an initialization of the recursive algorithm (\\[def:Gammarm\\]) with a non negative matrix (for example $V_0=0$) ensure that for all $n \\geq 1$, $V_n$ and $\\overline{V}_n$ are non negative.\n\nOnline estimation of the principal components\n---------------------------------------------\n\nIt is also possible to approximate recursively the $q$ eigenvectors (unique up to sign) of $\\Gamma_m$ associated to the $q$ largest eigenvalues without being obliged to perform a spectral decomposition of $\\overline{V}_{n+1}$ at each new observation. Many recursive strategies can be employed (see [@CD2015] for a review on various recursive estimation procedures of the eigenelements of a covariance matrix). Because of its simplicity and its accuracy, we consider the following one: $$\\begin{aligned}\n u_{j,n+1} &= u_{j,n} + \\frac{1}{n+1} \\left( \\overline{V}_{n+1} \\frac{u_{j,n}}{\\| u_{j,n}\\|} - u_{j,n} \\right), \\quad j=1, \\ldots, q \n \\label{algo:vectp}\\end{aligned}$$ combined with an orthogonalization by deflation of $u_{1,n+1}, \\ldots u_{q,n+1}$. This recursive algorithm is based on ideas developed by [@Wengetal2003] that are related to the power method for extracting eigenvectors. If we assume that the $q$ first eigenvalues $\\lambda_1 > \\cdots > \\lambda_q$ are distinct, the estimated eigenvectors $u_{1,n+1}, \\ldots u_{q,n+1}$, which are uniquely determined up to sign change, tend to $\\lambda_1 u_1, \\ldots, \\lambda_q u_q.$\n\nOnce the eigenvectors are computed, it is possible to compute the principal components as well as indices of outlyingness for each new observation (see [@HRVA2008] for a review of outliers detection with multivariate approaches).\n\nPractical issues, complexity and memory\n---------------------------------------\n\nThe recursive algorithms (\\[def:Gammarm\\]) and (\\[def:Gammamedaver\\]) require each $O(d^2)$ elementary operations at each update. With the additional online estimation given in (\\[algo:vectp\\]) of the $q$ eigenvectors associated to the $q$ largest eigenvalues, $O(qd^2)$ additional operations are required. The orthogonalization procedure only requires $O(q^2d)$ elementary operations.\n\nNote that the use of classical Newton-Raphson algorithms for estimating the MCM (see [@FFC2012]) can not be envisaged for high dimensional data since the computation or the approximation of the Hessian matrix would require $O(d^4)$ elementary operations. The well known and fast Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm requires $O(nd^2)$ elementary operations for each sample with size $n$. However, the estimation cannot be updated automatically if the data arrive sequentially. Another drawback compared to the recursive algorithms studied in this paper is that all the data must be stored in memory, which is of order $O(nd^2)$ elements whereas the recursive technique require an amount of memory of order $O(d^2)$.\n\nThe performances of the recursive algorithms depend on the values of tuning parameters $c_\\gamma$, $c_m$ and $\\alpha$. The value of parameter $\\alpha$ is often chosen to be $\\alpha=2/3$ or $\\alpha=3/4$. Previous empirical studies (see [@CCZ11] and [@CardCC10]) have shown that, thanks to the averaging step, estimator $\\overline{m}_n$ performs well and is not too sensitive to the choice of $c_m$, provided that the value of $c_m$ is not too small. An intuitive explanation could be that here the recursive process is in some sense \u201cself-normalized\u201d since the deviations at each iteration in (\\[def:algoRMcov\\]) have unit norm and finding some universal values for $c_m$ is possible. Usual values for $c_m$ and $c_\\gamma$ are in the interval $[2,20]$. When $n$ is fixed, this averaged recursive algorithm is about 30 times faster than the Weiszfeld\u2019s approach (see [@CCZ11]).\n\nAsymptotic properties\n=====================\n\nWhen $m$ is known, $\\overline{W}_n$ can be seen as an averaged stochastic gradient estimator of the geometric median in a particular Hilbert space and the asymptotic weak convergence of such estimator has been studied in [@CCZ11]. They have shown that:\n\n([@CCZ11], Theorem 3.4). \\[theo:asymptnorm\\]\\\nIf assumptions 1-3(a) hold, then as $n$ tends to infinity, $$\\sqrt{n} \\left(\\overline{W}_n - \\Gamma_m \\right)   \\rightsquigarrow \\mathcal{N}(0, \\Delta)$$ where $\\rightsquigarrow$ stands for convergence in distribution and $\\Delta = \\left(\\nabla _m^2 (\\Gamma_m)\\right)^{-1} \\Psi  \\left(\\nabla _m^2 (\\Gamma_m)\\right)^{-1}$ is the limiting covariance operator, with $\\Psi = {{\\mathbb{E}}\\left[\\frac{(Y(m) - \\Gamma_m) \\otimes_F  (Y(m) - \\Gamma_m) }{{{\\left\\| Y(m) - \\Gamma_m \\right\\|}_F}^2}\\right]}.$\n\nAs explained in [@CCZ11], the estimator $\\overline{W}_n$ is efficient in the sense that it has the same asymptotic distribution as the empirical risk minimizer related to $G_m(V)$ (see for the derivation of its asymptotic normality in [@MNO2010] in the multivariate case and [@ChaCha2014] in a more general functional framework).\n\nUsing the delta method for weak convergence in Hilbert spaces (see [@DauxoisPousseRomain82] or [@CGER2007]), one can deduce, from Theorem \\[theo:asymptnorm\\], the asymptotic normality of the estimated eigenvectors of $\\overline{W}_n$. It can also be proven (see [@godichon2015]), under Assumptions 1-3, that there is a positive constant $K$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{W}_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] \\leq \\frac{K}{n}.$$ Note finally that non asymptotic bounds for the deviation of $\\overline{W}_n$ around $\\Gamma_m$ can be derived readily with the general results given in [@CCG2015].\n\nThe more realistic case in which $m$ must also be estimated is more complicated because $\\overline{V}_n$ depends on $\\overline{m}_n$ which is also estimated recursively with the same data. We first state the strong consistency of the estimators $V_n$ and $\\overline{V}_n$.\n\n\\[theops\\] If assumptions 1-3(b) hold, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lim_{n \\rightarrow \\infty}\\left\\|V_{n} -\\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}=0 \\quad a.s.\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lim_{n \\rightarrow \\infty}\\left\\| \\overline{V}_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} &=0 \\quad a.s.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe obtention of the rate convergence of the averaged recursive algorithm relies on a fine control of the asymptotic behavior of the Robbins-Monro algorithms, as stated in the following proposition.\n\n\\[theol2l4\\] If assumptions 1-3(b) hold, there is a positive constant $C'$, and for all $\\beta \\in \\left( \\alpha , 2 \\alpha\\right)$, there is a positive constant $C_{\\beta}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n & \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\leq \\frac{C'}{n^{\\alpha}}, \\\\\n & \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} -  \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] \\leq \\frac{C''}{n^{\\beta}}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe obtention of an upper bound for the rate of convergence at the order four of the Robbins-Monro algorithm is crucial in the proofs. Furthermore, the following proposition ensures that the exhibited rate in quadratic mean is the optimal one.\n\nUnder assumptions 1-3(b), there is a positive constant $c'$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\geq \\frac{c'}{n^{\\alpha}}. \\end{aligned}$$ \\[prop:RMVn\\]\n\nFinally, the following theorem is the most important theoretical result of this work. It shows that, in spite of the fact that it only considers the observed data one by one, the averaged recursive estimation procedure gives an estimator which has a classical parametric $\\sqrt{n}$ rate of convergence in the Hilbert-Schmidt norm.\n\n\\[th:cvgeqm\\] Under Assumptions 1-3(b), there is a positive constant $K'$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{V}_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] &\\leq \\frac{K'}{n}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAssuming the eigenvalues of $\\Gamma_m$ are of multiplicity one, it can be deduced from Theorem\u00a0\\[th:cvgeqm\\] and Lemma 4.3 in [@Bosq], the convergence in quadratic mean of the eigenvectors of $\\overline{V}_{n}$ towards the corresponding (up to sign) eigenvector of $\\Gamma_m$ .\n\nAn illustration on simulated and real data\n==========================================\n\nA small comparison with other classical robust PCA techniques is performed in this section considering data in relatively high dimension but samples with moderate sizes. This permits to compare our approach with classical robust PCA techniques, which are generally not designed to deal with large samples of high dimensional data. In our comparison, we have employed the following well known robust techniques: robust projection pursuit (see [@CR-G2005] and [@CFO2007]), minimum covariance determinant (MCD, see [@RvD99]) and spherical PCA (see [@LMSTZC1999]). The computations were made in the R language ([@R10]), with the help of packages `pcaPP` and `rrcov`. For reproductible research, our codes for computing the MCM have been posted on CRAN in the `Gmedian` package. We will denote by MCM(R) the recursive estimator $\\overline{V}_{n}$ defined in (\\[def:Gammamedaver\\]) and MCM(R+) its non negative modification whose learning weights are defined in (\\[def:gammamodif\\]).\n\nIf the size of the data $n \\times d$ is not too large, an effective way for estimating $\\Gamma_m$ is to employ Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm (see [@Weiszfeld1937] and [@VZ00] as well the Supplementary file for a description of the algorithms in our particular situation). The estimate obtained thanks to Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm is denoted by MCM(W) in the following. Note that other optimization algorithms which may be preferred in small dimension (see [@FFC2012]) have not been considered here since they would require the computation of the Hessian matrix, whose size is $d^4$, and this would lead to much slower algorithms. Note finally that all these alternative algorithms do not admit a natural updating scheme when the data arrive sequentially so that they should be completely ran again at each new observation.\n\nSimulation protocol\n-------------------\n\nIndependent realizations of a random variable $Y \\in \\mathbb{R}^d$ are drawn, where $$\\begin{aligned}\nY &=& (1-O(\\delta)) X + O(\\delta) \\epsilon,\n\\label{def:melange}\\end{aligned}$$ is a mixture of two distributions and $X, O$ and $\\epsilon$ are independent random variables. The random vector $X$ has a centered Gaussian distribution in $\\mathbb{R}^d$ with covariance matrix $[\\Sigma]_{\\ell, j} = \\min (\\ell,j)/d$ and can be thought as a discretized version of a Brownian sample path in $[0,1]$. The multivariate contamination comes from $\\epsilon$, with different rates of contamination controlled by the Bernoulli variable $O(\\delta)$, independent from $X$ and $\\epsilon$, with $\\mathbb{P}(O(\\delta) =1) =  \\delta$ and $\\mathbb{P}(O(\\delta) =0) =  1-\\delta$. Three different scenarios (see Figure\u00a0\\[fig:traj\\]) are considered for the distribution of $\\epsilon$:\n\n-   The elements of vector $\\epsilon$ are $d$ independent realizations of a Student $t$ distribution with one degree of freedom. This means that the first moment of $Y$ is not defined when $\\delta>0$.\n\n-   The elements of vector $\\epsilon$ are $d$ independent realizations of a Student $t$ distribution with two degrees of freedom. This means that the second moment of $Y$ is not defined when $\\delta>0$.\n\n-   The vector $\\epsilon$ is distributed as a \u201creverse time\u201d Brownian motion. It has a Gaussian centered distribution, with covariance matrix $[\\Sigma_\\epsilon]_{\\ell, j} = 2\\min (d-\\ell,d-j)/d$. The covariance matrix of $Y$ is $(1-\\delta) \\Sigma + \\delta \\Sigma_\\epsilon$.\n\n![A sample of $n=20$ trajectories when $d=50$ and $\\delta=0.10$ for the three different contamination scenarios: Student $t$ with 1 degree of freedom, Student $t$ with 2 degrees of freedom and reverse time Brownian motion (from left to right).[]{data-label=\"fig:traj\"}](GraphesBruit.pdf){height=\"9cm\" width=\"18cm\"}\n\nFor the averaged recursive algorithms, we have considered tuning coefficients $c_m=c_\\gamma = 2$ and a speed rate of $\\alpha=3/4$. Note that the values of these tuning parameters have not been particularly optimised. We have noted that the simulation results were very stable, and did not depend much on the value of $c_m$ and $c_\\gamma$ for $c_m, c_\\gamma \\in [1,20]$.\n\nThe estimation error of the eigenspaces associated to the largest eigenvalues is evaluated by considering the squared Frobenius norm between the associated orthogonal projectors. Denoting by $\\mathbf{P}_q$ the orthogonal projector onto the space generated by the $q$ eigenvectors of the covariance matrix $\\Sigma$ associated to the $q$ largest eigenvalues and by $\\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q$ an estimation, we consider the following loss criterion, $$\\begin{aligned}\nR(\\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q, \\mathbf{P}_q) &= \\mbox{tr} \\left[ \\left( \\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q - \\mathbf{P}_q \\right)^T \\left( \\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q - \\mathbf{P}_q \\right) \\right] \\nonumber \\\\\n &= 2 q - 2 \\mbox{tr} \\left[ \\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q \\mathbf{P}_q \\right].\n\\label{def:errvecp} \\end{aligned}$$ Note that we always have $R(\\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q, \\mathbf{P}_q) \\leq 2q$ and $R(\\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q, \\mathbf{P}_q)=2q$ means that the eigenspaces generated by the true and the estimated eigenvectors are orthogonal.\n\nComparison with classical robust PCA techniques\n-----------------------------------------------\n\n![Estimation errors (at a logarithmic scale) over 500 Monte Carlo replications, for $n=200$, $d=50$ with no contamination ($\\delta=0$). MCM(W) stands for the estimation performed by the Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm whereas MCM(R) denotes the averaged recursive approach and MCM(R+) its non negative modification (see equation \\[def:gammamodif\\]).[]{data-label=\"fig:boxerr0\"}](MCMd50n200s500.pdf){height=\"10cm\" width=\"15.5cm\"}\n\n![Estimation errors (at a logarithmic scale) over 500 Monte Carlo replications, for $n=200$, $d=50$ and a contamination by a $t$ distribution with 2 degrees of freedom with $\\delta=0.02$. MCM(W) stands for the estimation performed by the Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm whereas MCM(R) denotes the averaged recursive approach and MCM(R+), its non negative modification with learning steps as in (\\[def:gammamodif\\]).[]{data-label=\"fig:boxerr\"}](MCMd50n200s490.pdf){height=\"10cm\" width=\"15.5cm\"}\n\nWe first compare the performances of the two estimators of the MCM based on the Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm and the recursive algorithms (see (\\[def:Gammamedaver\\])) with more classical robust PCA techniques.\n\nWe generated samples of $Y$ with size $n=500$ and dimension $d \\in \\{50,200\\}$, over 500 replications. Different levels of contamination are considered : $\\delta \\in \\{0, 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20 \\}$. For both dimensions $d =50$ and $d=200$, the first eigenvalue of the covariance matrix of $X$ represents about 81 % of the total variance, and the second one about 9 %.\n\n  ------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- --------\n            PCA      MCD     MCM(W)   MCM(R+)   MCM(R)   SphPCA     PP\n   d=50    0.0156   0.0199   0.0208   0.0211    0.0243   0.0287   0.0955\n   d=200   0.0148     -      0.0200   0.0209    0.0246   0.0275   0.0895\n  ------- -------- -------- -------- --------- -------- -------- --------\n\n  : Median estimation errors, according to criterion $R(\\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q, \\mathbf{P}_q) $ with a dimension $q=2$, for non contaminated samples of size $n=200$, over 500 Monte Carlo experiments.[]{data-label=\"tab:summary_mu0\"}\n\nThe median errors of estimation of the eigenspace generated by the first two eigenvectors ($q=2$), according to criterion (\\[def:errvecp\\]), are given in Table\u00a0\\[tab:summary\\_mu0\\] for non contaminated data ($\\delta=0$). The distribution of the estimation error $R(\\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q, \\mathbf{P}_q)$ is drawn for the different approaches in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:boxerr0\\] when the dimension is not large ($d=50$). As expected, the \u201cOracle\u201d, which is the classical PCA in this situation, provides the best estimations of the eigenspaces. Then, the MCD and the median covariation matrix, estimated by the Weiszfeld algorithm or the modified MCM(R+) recursive estimator, behave well and similarly. Note that when the dimension gets larger, the MCD cannot be used anymore and the MCM is the more effective robust estimator of the eigenspaces.\n\nWhen the data are contaminated, the median errors of estimation of the eigenspace generated by the first two eigenvectors ($q=2$), according to criterion (\\[def:errvecp\\]), are given in Table\u00a0\\[tab:summary\\_mu\\]. In Figure\u00a0\\[fig:boxerr\\], the distribution of the estimation error $R(\\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q, \\mathbf{P}_q)$ is drawn for the different approaches.\n\n  ---------- ----------------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- -------\n             $t$ 1 df           $t$ 2 df   inv. B.   $t$ 1 df   $t$ 2 df   inv. B.  \n   $\\delta$  Method                                                                 \n      2%     PCA                  3.13      1.04      0.698       3.95      1.87     0.731\n             PP                  0.086      0.097     0.090      0.085      0.094    0.084\n             MCD                 0.022      0.021     0.021        \u2013          \u2013        \u2013\n             Sph. PCA            0.028      0.029     0.027      0.027      0.030    0.028\n             MCM (Weiszfeld)     0.021      0.021     0.021      0.021      0.022    0.022\n             MCM (R+)            0.022      0.022     0.024      0.023      0.023    0.025\n             MCM (R)             0.026      0.025     0.027      0.026      0.027    0.028\n      5%     PCA                  3.82      1.91      0.862       3.96      1.98     0.910\n             PP                  0.090      0.103     0.093      0.089      0.098    0.087\n             MCD                 0.022      0.023     0.021        \u2013          \u2013        \u2013\n             Sph. PCA            0.029      0.031     0.033      0.029      0.031    0.034\n             MCM (Weiszfeld)     0.023      0.023     0.028      0.022      0.023    0.030\n             MCM (R+)            0.025      0.024     0.035      0.024      0.024    0.039\n             MCM (R)             0.029      0.027     0.037      0.028      0.028    0.040\n     10%     PCA                  3.83      1.96       1.03       3.96      1.99     1.10\n             PP                  0.107      0.108     0.099      0.088      0.101    0.097\n             MCD                 0.023      0.022     0.023        \u2013          \u2013        \u2013\n             Sph. PCA            0.033      0.033     0.054      0.031      0.033    0.057\n             MCM (Weiszfeld)     0.025      0.026     0.059      0.023      0.024    0.056\n             MCM (R+)            0.030      0.027     0.089      0.027      0.027    0.086\n             MCM (R)             0.035      0.032     0.088      0.032      0.031    0.086\n     20%     PCA                  3.84      2.02       1.19       3.96      2.01     1.25\n             PP                  0.110      0.135     0.138      0.091      0.122    0.137\n             MCD                 0.025      0.026     0.026        \u2013          \u2013        \u2013\n             Sph. PCA            0.037      0.038     0.140      0.034      0.037    0.150\n             MCM (Weiszfeld)     0.030      0.030     0.174      0.026      0.028    0.181\n             MCM (R+)            0.044      0.036     0.255      0.038      0.032    0.256\n             MCM (R)             0.050      0.041     0.251      0.042      0.037    0.256\n  ---------- ----------------- ---------- --------- ---------- ---------- --------- -------\n\n  : Median estimation errors, according to criterion $R(\\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q, \\mathbf{P}_q) $ with a dimension $q=2$, for datasets with a sample size $n=200$, over 500 Monte Carlo experiments.[]{data-label=\"tab:summary_mu\"}\n\nWe can make the following remarks. At first note that even when the level of contamination is small (2% and 5%), the performances of classical PCA are strongly affected by the presence of outlying values in such (large) dimensions. When $d=50$, the MCD algorithm and the MCM estimation provide the best estimations of the original two dimensional eigenspace, whereas when $d$ gets larger ($d=n=200$), the MCD estimator can not be used anymore (by construction) and the MCM estimators, obtained with Weiszfeld\u2019s and the non negative recursive algorithm, remain the most accurate. We can also remark that the recursive MCM algorithms, which are designed to deal with very large samples, performs well even for such moderate sample sizes (see also Figure\u00a0\\[fig:boxerr\\]). The modification of the descent step suggested in (\\[def:gammamodif\\]), which corresponds to estimator MCM(R+), permits to improve the accuracy the initial MCM estimator, specially when the noise level is not small. The performances of the spherical PCA are slightly less accurate whereas the median error of the robust PP is always the largest among the robust estimators. When, the contamination is highly structured temporally and the level of contamination is not small (contamination by a reverse time Brownian motion, with $\\delta=0.20$), the behavior of the MCM is different from the other robust estimators and, with our criterion, it can appear as less effective. However, one can think that we are in presence of two different populations with completely different multivariate correlation structure and the MCD completely ignores that part of the data, which is not necessarily a better behavior.\n\nOnline estimation of the principal components\n---------------------------------------------\n\nWe now consider an experiment in high dimension, $d=1000$, and evaluate the ability of the recursive algorithms defined in (\\[algo:vectp\\]) to estimate recursively the eigenvectors of $\\Gamma_m$ associated to the largest eigenvalues. Note that due to the high dimension of the data and limited computation time, we only make comparison of the recursive robust techniques with the classical PCA. For this we generate growing samples and compute, for each sample size the approximation error of the different (fast) strategies to the true eigenspace generated by the $q$ eigenvectors associated to the $q$ largest eigenvalues of $\\Gamma_m$.\n\nWe have drawn in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:evolR\\], the evolution of the mean (over 100 replications) approximation error $R(\\mathbf{P}_q,\\hat{\\mathbf{P}}_q)$, for a dimension $q=3$, as a function of the sample size for samples contaminated by a 2 degrees of freedom Student $t$ distribution with a rate $\\delta=0.1$. An important fact is that the recursive algorithm which approximates recursively the eigenelements behaves very well and we can see nearly no difference between the spectral decomposition of $\\overline{V}_n$ (denoted by MCM in Figure \\[fig:evolR\\]) and the estimates produced with the sequential algorithm (\\[algo:vectp\\]) for sample sizes larger than a few hundreds. We can also note that the error made by the classical PCA is always very high and does not decrease with the sample size.\n\n![Estimation errors of the eigenspaces (criterion $R(\\widehat{\\mathbf{P}}_q$)) with $d=1000$ and $q=3$ for classical PCA, the oracle PCA and the recursive MCM estimator with recursive estimation of the eigenelements (MCM-update) and with static estimation (based on the spectral decomposition of $\\overline{V}_{n}$) of the eigenelements (MCM).[]{data-label=\"fig:evolR\"}](fig-evolR10.pdf){width=\"13cm\"}\n\nRobust PCA of TV audience\n-------------------------\n\nThe last example is a high dimension and large sample case. Individual TV audiences are measured, by the French company M\u00e9diam\u00e9trie, every minutes for a panel of $n=5422$ people over a period of 24 hours, $d=1440$ (see [@CCM10] for a more detailed presentation of the data). With a classical PCA, the first eigenspace represents 24.4% of the total variability, whereas the second one reproduces 13.5% of the total variance, the third one 9.64% and the fourth one 6.79%. Thus, more than 54% of the variability of the data can be captured in a four dimensional space. Taking account of the large dimension of the data, these values indicate a high temporal correlation.\n\nBecause of the large dimension of the data, the Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm as well as the other robust PCA techniques can not be used anymore in a reasonable time with a personal computer. The MCM has been computed thanks to the recursive algorithm given in (\\[def:Gammamedaver\\]) in approximately 3 minutes on a laptop in the R language (without any specific C routine).\n\n![TV audience data measured the 6th September 2010, at the minute scale. Comparison of the principal components of the classical PCA (black) and robust PCA based on the Median Covariation Matrix (red). First eigenvectors on the left, second eigenvectors on the right.[]{data-label=\"fig1\"}](PC1_2mediametrie.pdf){height=\"10cm\" width=\"15.5cm\"}\n\nAs seen in Figure\u00a0\\[fig1\\], the first two eigenvectors obtained by a classical PCA and the robust PCA based on the MCM are rather different. This is confirmed by the relatively large distance between the two corresponding eigenspaces, $R(\\widehat{P}_2^{PCA},  \\widehat{P}_2^{MCM}) = 0.56$. The first robust eigenvector puts the stress on the time period comprised between 1000 minutes and 1200 minutes whereas the first non robust eigenvector focuses, with a smaller intensity, on a larger period of time comprised between 600 and 1200 minutes. The second robust eigenvector differentiates between people watching TV during the period between 890 and 1050 minutes (negative value of the second principal component) and people watching TV between minutes 1090 and 1220 (positive value of the second principal component). Rather surprisingly, the third and fourth eigenvectors of the non robust and robust covariance matrices look quite similar (see Figure\u00a0\\[fig2\\]).\n\n![TV audience data measured the 6th September 2010, at the minute scale. Comparison of the principal components of the classical PCA (black) and robust PCA based on the MCM (red). Third eigenvectors on the left, fourth eigenvectors on the right.[]{data-label=\"fig2\"}](PC3_4mediametrie.pdf){height=\"10cm\" width=\"15.5cm\"}\n\nProofs\n======\n\nWe give in this Section the proofs of Theorems \\[theops\\], \\[theol2l4\\] and \\[th:cvgeqm\\]. These proofs rely on several technical Lemmas whose proofs are given in the Supplementary file.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[theops\\]\n---------------------------\n\nLet us recall the Robbins-Monro algorithm, defined recursively by $$\\begin{aligned}\nV_{n+1} & =  V_{n} + \\gamma_{n} \\frac{\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)^{T}-V_{n}}{\\left\\| \\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)^{T}-V_{n} \\right\\|_{F}} \\\\\n& = V_{n} - \\gamma_{n} U_{n+1},\\end{aligned}$$ with $U_{n+1}:= - \\frac{\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)^{T}-V_{n}}{\\left\\| \\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)^{T}-V_{n} \\right\\|_{F}}$. Since $\\mathcal{F}_{n} := \\sigma \\left( X_{1},...,X_{n} \\right)$, we have $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ U_{n+1}|\\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right] = \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n})$. Thus $\\xi_{n+1}:= \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G(V_{n}) - U_{n+1}$, $\\left( \\xi_{n} \\right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\\left( \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right)$. Indeed, $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\xi_{n+1} | \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right] = \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\mathbb{E}\\left[ U_{n+1}|\\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right] = 0$. The algorithm can be written as follows $$V_{n+1} = V_{n} - \\gamma_{n} \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) + \\gamma_{n}\\xi_{n+1}.$$ Moreover, it can be considered as a stochastic gradient algorithm because it can be decomposed as follows: $$\\label{decxi} V_{n+1} = V_{n} -  \\gamma_{n}\\left( \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n})- \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}} ( \\Gamma_{m} )\\right) + \\gamma_{n}\\xi_{n+1} - \\gamma_{n}r_{n},$$ with $r_{n} := \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}} ( \\Gamma_{m}) - \\nabla G_{m} ( \\Gamma_{m})$. Finally, linearizing the gradient, $$\\label{decdelta} V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m} = \\left( I_{\\mathcal{S}(H)} - \\gamma_{n} \\nabla_{m}^{2}G(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right) \\left( V_{n} -  \\Gamma_{m}\\right) + \\gamma_{n}\\xi_{n+1} - \\gamma_{n}r_{n} - \\gamma_{n}r_{n}' - \\gamma_{n}\\delta_{n},$$ with $$\\begin{aligned}\n r_{n}' & := \\left( \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m}\\right) - \\nabla_{m}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m}\\right)\\right)\\left( V_{n}-\\Gamma_{m}\\right) , \\\\\n   \\delta_{n} & := \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}\\left( V_{n} \\right) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right) - \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m}\\right) \\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right) .  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe following lemma gives upper bounds of these remainder terms. Its proof is given in the Supplementary file.\n\n\\[lem3maj\\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), we can bound the three remainder terms. First,\n\n$$\\label{majdelta} \\left\\| \\delta_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 6C \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}.$$\n\nIn the same way, for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\label{majrn}\n\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 4 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\left\\|\\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}\\right) \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\| .$$ Finally, for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\label{marn'}\n\\left\\| r_{n}' \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 12 \\left( C \\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} + C^{3/4}\\right) \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\| \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}.$$\n\nWe deduce from decomposition (\\[decxi\\]) that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} & = \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} -2 \\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\rangle_{F} \\\\\n& +\\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\| \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\\\\n& + \\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\| \\xi_{n+1}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} + 2 \\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} - \\gamma_{n} \\left( \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right) , \\xi_{n+1} \\right\\rangle_{F} \\\\\n& + \\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} -2 \\gamma_{n}\\left\\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F} -2\\gamma_{n}^{2} \\left\\langle r_{n} , \\xi_{n+1} - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) + \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\rangle_{F} . \\end{aligned}$$ Note that for all $h \\in H$ and $V \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)$ we have $\\left\\| \\nabla G_{h}(V) \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 1$. Furthermore, $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$ and $\\left\\| \\xi_{n+1} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$. Using the fact that $\\left( \\xi_{n} \\right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\\left( \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right)$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} |\\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right] & \\leq \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} -2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G \\left( V_{n} \\right) - \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\right\\rangle_{F} \\\\\n& +  28\\gamma_{n}^{2}  -2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F}.\\end{aligned}$$ Let $\\alpha_{n} = n^{-\\beta}$, with $\\beta \\in ( 1-\\alpha ,  \\alpha )$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{majvitps}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} |\\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right] & \\leq \\left( 1+\\gamma_{n}\\alpha_{n} \\right) \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} -2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G \\left( V_{n} \\right) - \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\right\\rangle_{F}  \\\\\n\\notag & + 28\\gamma_{n}^{2} +\\frac{\\gamma_{n}}{\\alpha_{n}}\\left\\|  r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nMoreover, applying Lemma \\[lem3maj\\] and Theorem 5.1 in [@godichon2015], we get for all positive constant $\\delta$, $$\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} = O \\left( \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|^{2} \\right) = O \\left( \\frac{\\left( \\ln n \\right)^{1+\\delta}}{n} \\right) \\quad a.s.$$ Thus, since $2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G \\left( V_{n} \\right) - \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\right\\rangle_{F} \\geq 0$, the Robbins-Siegmund Theorem (see [@Duf97] for instance) ensures that $\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}$ converges almost surely to a finite random variable and $$\\sum_{n \\geq 1} \\gamma_{n}\\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G \\left( V_{n} \\right) - \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\right\\rangle_{F} < + \\infty \\quad a.s.$$ Furthermore, by induction, inequality (\\[majvitps\\]) becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] & \\leq  \\left( \\prod_{k=1}^{\\infty} \\left( 1+ \\gamma_{k}\\alpha_{k} \\right)\\right) \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] + 28\\left( \\prod_{k=1}^{\\infty} \\left( 1+ \\gamma_{k}\\alpha_{k} \\right) \\right)\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty}\\gamma_{k}^{2} \\\\\n&  + \\left( \\prod_{k=1}^{\\infty} \\left( 1+ \\gamma_{k}\\alpha_{k} \\right) \\right)  \\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty} \\frac{\\gamma_{k}}{\\alpha_{k}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{k} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] . \\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\beta < \\alpha$, applying Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015] and Lemma 6.1, there is a positive constant $C_{0}$ such that $$\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty}\\frac{\\gamma_{k}}{\\alpha_{k}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{k} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] = C_{0} \\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty}k^{-\\alpha -1 -\\beta} < +\\infty .$$ Thus, there is a positive constant $M$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] \\leq M$. Since $\\overline{m}_{n}$ converges almost surely to $m$, one can conclude the proof of the almost sure consistency of $V_n$ with the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 3.1 in [@CCZ11] and the convexity properties given in the Section B of the supplementary file.\n\nFinally, the almost sure consistency of $\\overline{V}_n$ is obtained by a direct application of Topelitz\u2019s lemma (see [*e.g.*]{} Lemma 2.2.13 in [@Duf97]).\n\nProof of Theorem \\[theol2l4\\]\n-----------------------------\n\nThe proof of Theorem \\[theol2l4\\] relies on properties of the $p$-th moments of $V_{n}$ for all $p \\geq 1$ given in the following three Lemmas. These properties enable us, with the application of Markov\u2019s inequality, to control the probability of the deviations of the Robbins Monro algorithm from $\\Gamma_{m}$.\n\n\\[lemmajordre\\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all integer $p$, there is a positive constant $M_{p}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right] &\\leq M_{p}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\[lem1\\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), there are positive constants $C_{1},C_{1}',C_{2},C_{3}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|^{2} \\right] &\\leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2}}{n^{\\alpha}}  + C_{3}\\sup_{E (n/2)+1 \\leq k \\leq n-1}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|^{4}\\right] , \\end{aligned}$$ where $E(x)$ is the integer part of the real number $x$.\n\n\\[lem2\\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all integer $p' \\geq 1$, there are a rank $n_{p'}$ and positive constants $C_{1,p'},C_{2,p'},C_{3,p'},c_{p'}$ such that for all $n \\geq n_{p'}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4} \\right] &\\leq \\left( 1-c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\right)\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] + \\frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\\alpha}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] + \\frac{C_{3,p'}}{n^{3\\alpha -3\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe can now prove Theorem \\[theol2l4\\].\n\nLet us choose an integer $p'$ such that $p' > 3/2$. Thus, $2~+~\\alpha ~ -~3\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}~\\geq ~3\\alpha$, and applying Lemma \\[lem2\\], there are positive constants $C_{1,p'},C_{2,p'},c_{p'}$ and a rank $n_{p'}$ such that for all $n \\geq n_{p'}$, $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4} \\right] \\leq \\left( 1-c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\right)\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] + \\frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\\alpha}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] .$$\n\nLet us now choose $\\beta \\in (\\alpha , 2\\alpha)$ and $p'$ such that $p' > \\frac{1-\\alpha}{2\\alpha - \\beta}$. Note that $ 3\\alpha - \\beta > \\alpha + \\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}$. One can check that there is a rank $n_{p'}' \\geq n_{p'}$ such that for all $n \\geq n_{p'}'$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n(n+1)^{\\alpha}C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} + \\frac{1}{2} + C_{3}2^{\\beta +1}\\frac{1}{(n+1)^{\\beta - \\alpha}} & \\leq 1 , \\\\\n\\left( 1-c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{n+1}{n}\\right)^{\\beta} + 2^{3\\alpha}\\frac{C_{1,p'} + C_{2,p'}}{(n+1)^{3\\alpha - \\beta}}  & \\leq 1 .\\end{aligned}$$ With the help of a strong induction, we are going to prove the announced results, that is to say that there are positive constants $C_{p'},C_{\\beta}$ such that $2C_{p'} \\geq C_{\\beta} \\geq C_{p'} \\geq 1$ and $C_{p'} \\geq 2^{\\alpha +1}C_{2}$ (with $C_{2}$ defined in Lemma \\[lem1\\]), such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq \\frac{C_{p'}}{n^{\\alpha}} , \\\\\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4} \\right] & \\leq \\frac{C_{\\beta}}{n^{\\beta}} .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFirst, let us choose $C_{p'}$ and $C_{\\beta}$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\nC_{p'} & \\geq \\max_{k \\leq n_{p'}'}\\left\\lbrace k^{\\alpha}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\right\\rbrace , \\\\\nC_{\\beta} &  \\geq \\max_{k \\leq n_{p'}'}\\left\\lbrace k^{\\beta}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n_{p'}'} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] \\right\\rbrace .\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for all $k \\leq n_{p'}'$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq \\frac{C_{p'}}{k^{\\alpha}} , \\\\\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4} \\right] & \\leq \\frac{C_{\\beta}}{k^{\\beta}} .\\end{aligned}$$ We suppose from now that $n \\geq n_{p'}'$ and that previous inequalities are verified for all $k \\leq n-1$. Applying Lemma \\[lemmajordre\\] and by induction, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2}}{n^{\\alpha}} + C_{3}\\sup_{E((n+1)/2) +1 \\leq k \\leq n}\\left\\lbrace\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] \\right\\rbrace \\\\\n& \\leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2}}{n^{\\alpha}} + C_{3}\\sup_{E((n+1)/2 ) +1 \\leq k \\leq n}\\left\\lbrace \\frac{C_{\\beta}}{k^{\\beta}} \\right\\rbrace \\\\\n& \\leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2}}{n^{\\alpha}} + C_{3}2^{\\beta}\\frac{C_{\\beta}}{n^{\\beta}}.\n \\end{aligned}$$ Since $2C_{p'} \\geq C_{\\beta} \\geq C_{p'} \\geq 1$ and since $C_{p'} \\geq 2^{\\alpha +1}C_{2}$, factorizing by $\\frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\\alpha}}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] &  \\leq  C_{p'}C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} + C_{p'}2^{-\\alpha -1}\\frac{1}{n^{\\alpha}} + C_{3}2^{\\beta}\\frac{2C_{p'}}{n^{\\beta}} \\\\\n& \\leq  \\frac{C_{p}'}{(n+1)^{\\alpha}}(n+1)^{\\alpha}C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} +  2^{-\\alpha}\\left(\\frac{n}{n+1}\\right)^{\\alpha}\\frac{C_{p'}}{2(n+1)^{\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{3}2^{\\beta +1}}{(n+1)^{\\beta - \\alpha}}\\frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\\alpha}} \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{C_{p}'}{(n+1)^{\\alpha}}C_{1}(n+1)^{\\alpha}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} +  \\frac{1}{2}\\frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\\alpha}} + C_{3}2^{\\beta +1} \\frac{1}{(n+1)^{\\beta -\\alpha}} \\frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\\alpha}} \\\\\n& \\leq \\left( (n+1)^{\\alpha}C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} + \\frac{1}{2} + C_{3}2^{\\beta +1}\\frac{1}{(n+1)^{\\beta - \\alpha}} \\right) \\frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\\alpha}} .\\end{aligned}$$ By definition of $n_{p'}'$, $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\leq \\frac{C_{p'}}{(n+1)^{\\alpha}}.$$ In the same way, applying Lemma \\[lem2\\] and by induction, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right]  & \\leq \\left( 1-c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}} \\right) \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] + \\frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\\alpha}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]  \\\\\n& \\leq \\left( 1-c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}} \\right)\\frac{C_{\\beta}}{n^{\\beta}}+ \\frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\\alpha}}\\frac{C_{p'}}{n^{\\alpha}}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since $C_{\\beta } \\geq C_{p'} \\geq 1$, factorizing by $\\frac{C_{\\beta}}{(n+1)^{\\beta}}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] & \\leq    \\left( 1-c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}} \\right)\\frac{C_{\\beta}}{n^{\\beta}}+ \\left( C_{1,p'} + C_{2,p'}\\right) \\frac{C_{\\beta}}{n^{3\\alpha}} \\\\\n& \\leq  \\left( 1-c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{n+1}{n}\\right)^{\\beta}\\frac{C_{\\beta}}{n^{\\beta}} + 2^{3\\alpha}\\frac{C_{1,p'} + C_{2,p'}}{(n+1)^{3\\alpha - \\beta}}\\frac{C_{\\beta}}{(n+1)^{\\beta}} \\\\\n& \\leq \\left( \\left( 1-c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}} \\right) \\left( \\frac{n+1}{n}\\right)^{\\beta} + 2^{3\\alpha}\\frac{C_{1,p'} + C_{2,p'}}{(n+1)^{3\\alpha - \\beta}} \\right) \\frac{C_{\\beta}}{(n+1)^{\\beta}}.\\end{aligned}$$ By definition of $n_{p'}'$, $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] \\leq \\frac{C_{\\beta}}{(n+1)^{\\beta}},$$ which concludes the induction and the proof.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[th:cvgeqm\\]\n------------------------------\n\nIn order to prove Theorem \\[th:cvgeqm\\], we first recall the following Lemma.\n\n\\[lemsumg\\] Let $Y_{1},...,Y_{n}$ be random variables taking values in a normed vector space such that for all positive constant $q$ and for all $k \\geq 1$, $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| Y_{k} \\right\\|^{q} \\right] < \\infty$. Then, for all real numbers $a_{1},...,a_{n}$ and for all integer $p$, we have $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\sum_{k=1}^{n} a_{k}Y_{k} \\right\\|^{p} \\right] \\leq \\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\left| a_{k} \\right| \\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| Y_{k} \\right\\|^{p} \\right] \\right)^{\\frac{1}{p}} \\right)^{p}$$\n\nWe can now prove Theorem \\[th:cvgeqm\\]. Let us rewrite decomposition (\\[decdelta\\]) as follows $$\\nabla_{m}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) = \\frac{T_{n}}{\\gamma_{n}} - \\frac{T_{n+1}}{\\gamma_{n}} + \\xi_{n+1} - r_{n} - r_{n}' - \\delta_{n},$$ with $T_{n} := V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}$. As in [@Pel00], we sum these equalities, apply Abel\u2019s transform and divide by $n$ to get $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla_{m}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\left( \\overline{V}_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) &= \\frac{1}{n}\\left(\\frac{T_{1}}{\\gamma_{1}} - \\frac{T_{n+1}}{\\gamma_{n+1}} + \\sum_{k=2}^{n} T_{k} \\left( \\frac{1}{\\gamma_{k}} - \\frac{1}{\\gamma_{k-1}}\\right) - \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\delta_{k} - \\sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{k} - \\sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{k}' + \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\xi_{k+1}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ We now bound the quadratic mean of each term at the right-hand side of previous equality. First, we have $\\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\frac{T_{1}}{\\gamma_{1}}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]= o \\left( \\frac{1}{n} \\right)$. Applying Theorem \\[theol2l4\\], $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\frac{T_{n+1}}{\\gamma_{n}}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq \\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\frac{C'c_{\\gamma}^{-2}}{n^{-\\alpha}} = o \\left( \\frac{1}{n}\\right) . \\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since $\\left| \\gamma_{k}^{-1} - \\gamma_{k-1}^{-1}\\right| \\leq 2\\alpha c_{\\gamma}^{-1}k^{\\alpha -1}$, the application of Lemma \\[lemsumg\\] and Theorem\u00a0\\[theol2l4\\] gives $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\sum_{k=2}^{n} \\left( \\gamma_{k}^{-1} - \\gamma_{k-1}^{-1}\\right)T_{k} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] & \\leq \\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=2}^{n} \\left| \\gamma_{k}^{-1} - \\gamma_{k-1}^{-1} \\right| \\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| T_{k} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]} \\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{1}{n^{2}}4\\alpha^{2}c_{\\gamma}^{-2}C'\\left( \\sum_{k=2}^{n} \\frac{1}{k^{1-\\alpha /2}} \\right)^{2} \\\\\n& = O \\left( \\frac{1}{n^{2-\\alpha}}\\right) \\\\\n& = o \\left( \\frac{1}{n} \\right) ,\\end{aligned}$$ since $\\alpha < 1$. In the same way, since $\\left\\| \\delta_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 6C \\left\\| T_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}$, applying Lemma \\[lemsumg\\] and Theorem\u00a0\\[theol2l4\\] with $\\beta > 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\delta_{k} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq \\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\delta_{k} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]} \\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{36C^{2}}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| T_{k} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right]} \\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{36C^{2}C_{\\beta}}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\frac{1}{k^{\\beta /2}} \\right)^{2} \\\\\n& = O \\left( \\frac{1}{n^{\\beta}}\\right) \\\\\n& = o \\left( \\frac{1}{n}\\right) ,\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, let $D := 12 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C \\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} \\right)$. Since $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq D \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|$, and since there is a positive constant $C''$ such that for all $n\\geq 1$, $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n}- m \\right\\|^{2}\\right] \\leq C''n^{-1}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{k} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq \\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{k} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]} \\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{D^{2}}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n}-m \\right \\|^{2}\\right]} \\right) \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{D^{2}C''}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n}\\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\\right)^{2} \\\\\n& = O \\left( \\frac{1}{n}\\right) .\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\left\\| r_{n}' \\right\\|_{F} \\leq C_{0} \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\| \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}$ with $C_{0} := 12\\left( C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}  + C^{3/4} \\right) $, Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality and Lemma \\[lemsumg\\] give $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{n}' \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq \\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n}\\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n}' \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]} \\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{C_{0}^{2}}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|^{2}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]}\\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{C_{0}^{2}}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|^{4}\\right] \\right)^{\\frac{1}{4}}\\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4} \\right] \\right)^{\\frac{1}{4}} \\right)^{2} .\\end{aligned}$$ Applying Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015] and Theorem 3.3, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\sum_{k=1}^{n} r_{n}' \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq \\frac{C_{0}^{2}\\sqrt{C_\\beta}\\sqrt{K_{2}}}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\frac{1}{k^{\\beta /4 + 1 /2}}\\right)^{2} \\\\\n& = O \\left( \\frac{1}{n^{1 + \\beta /2}}\\right) \\\\\n& = o \\left( \\frac{1}{n}\\right) ,\\end{aligned}$$ since $\\beta >0$. Finally, one can easily check that $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\xi_{n+1}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] \\leq 1$, and since $\\left( \\xi_{n} \\right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\\left( \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right)$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\xi_{k+1} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & = \\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\xi_{k+1}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] + 2\\sum_{k=1}^{n}\\sum_{k'=k+1}^{n}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\langle \\xi_{k+1},\\xi_{k'+1}\\right\\rangle_{F} \\right] \\right) \\\\\n& = \\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\xi_{k+1}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] + 2\\sum_{k=1}^{n}\\sum_{k'=k+1}^{n}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\langle \\xi_{k+1},\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\xi_{k'+1}\\Big| \\mathcal{F}_{k'}\\right] \\right\\rangle_{F} \\right] \\right) \\\\\n& = \\frac{1}{n^{2}}\\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\xi_{k+1} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{1}{n} .\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there is a positive constant $K$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\nabla_{m}^{2}G \\left( \\Gamma_{m}\\right) \\left( \\overline{V}_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right) \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\leq \\frac{K}{n}.$$ Let $\\lambda_{\\min}$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $\\nabla_{m}^{2}G \\left( \\Gamma_{m}\\right)$. We have, with Proposition B.1 in the supplementary file, that $\\lambda_{\\min}> 0$ and the announced result is proven, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{V}_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] &\\leq \\frac{K}{\\lambda_{\\min}^{2}n}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nConcluding remarks\n==================\n\nThe simulation study and the illustration on real data indicate that performing robust principal components analysis via the median covariation matrix, which can bring new information compared to classical PCA, is an interesting alternative to more classical robust principal components analysis techniques. The use of recursive algorithms permits to perform robust PCA on very large datasets, in which outlying observations may be hard to detect. Another interest of the use of such sequential algorithms is that estimation of the median covariation matrix as well as the principal components can be performed online with automatic update at each new observation and without being obliged to store all the data in memory. A simple modification of the averaged stochastic gradient algorithm is proposed that ensures non negativeness of the estimated covariation matrices. This modified algorithms has better performances on our simulated data.\n\nA deeper study of the asymptotic behaviour of the recursive algorithms would certainly deserve further investigations. Proving the asymptotic normality and obtaining the limiting variance of the sequence of estimators $\\overline{V}_n$ when $m$ is unknown would be of great interest. This is a challenging issue that is beyond the scope of the paper and would require to study the joint weak convergence of the two simultaneous recursive averaged estimators of $m$ and $\\Gamma_m$.\n\nThe use of the MCM could be interesting to robustify the estimation in many different statistical models, particularly with functional data. For example, it could be employed as an alternative to robust functional projection pursuit in robust functional time series prediction or for robust estimation in functional linear regression, with the introduction of the median cross-covariation matrix.\n\n**Acknowledgements.** We thank the company M\u00e9diam\u00e9trie for allowing us to illustrate our methodologies with their data. We also thank Dr. Peggy C\u00e9nac for a careful reading of the proofs.\n\nEstimating the median covariation matrix with Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm\n===================================================================\n\nSuppose we have a fixed size sample $X_1, \\ldots, X_n$ and we want to estimate the geometric median.\n\nThe iterative Weiszfeld\u2019s algorithm relies on the fact that the solution $m^*_n$ of the following optimization problem $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\min_{\\mu \\in H} & \\sum_{i=1}^n \\| X_i - \\mu \\|\\end{aligned}$$ satisfies, when $m_n^* \\neq X_i$, for all $i=1, \\ldots, n$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nm_n^*  &= \\sum_{i=1}^n w_i \\left({m}_n^{*} \\right) \\ X_i\\end{aligned}$$ where the weights $w_i(x)$ are defined by $$w_i(x) = \\frac{ {\\left\\| X_i-x \\right\\|}^{-1}}{\\displaystyle \\sum_{j=1}^n  {\\left\\| X_j-x \\right\\|}^{-1}}.$$\n\nWeiszfeld\u2019s algorithm is based on the following iterative scheme. Consider first a pilot estimator $\\widehat{m}^{(0)}$ of $m$. At step $(e)$, a new approximation $\\widehat{m}_n^{(e+1)}$ to $m$ is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widehat{m}_n^{(e+1)} &= \\sum_{i=1}^n w_i \\left(\\widehat{m}_n^{(e)} \\right) \\ X_i . \n\\label{def:weiszfeldMCM}\\end{aligned}$$ The iterative procedure is stopped when ${\\left\\| \\widehat{m}_n^{(e+1)} - \\widehat{m}_n^{(e)} \\right\\|} \\leq \\epsilon$, for some precision $\\epsilon$ known in advance. The final value of the algorithm is denoted by $\\widehat{m}_n$. The estimator of the MCM is computed similarly. Suppose $\\widehat{\\Gamma}^{(e)}$ has been calculated at step $(e)$, then at step $(e+1)$, the new approximation $\\widehat{\\Gamma}^{(e+1)}$ to $\\Gamma_m$ is defined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widehat{\\Gamma}^{(e+1)}_n &=  \\sum_{i=1}^n W_i \\left(\\widehat{\\Gamma}^{(e)}\\right) (X_i-\\widehat{m}_n)(X_i-\\widehat{m}_n)^T. \n\\label{def:algoiter}\\end{aligned}$$ The procedure is stopped when ${\\left\\| \\widehat{\\Gamma}^{(e+1)} - \\widehat{\\Gamma}^{(e)} \\right\\|}_F \\leq \\epsilon$, for some precision $\\epsilon$ fixed in advance.\n\nNote that by construction, this algorithm leads to an estimated median covariation matrix that is always non negative.\n\nConvexity results\n=================\n\nIn this section, we first give and recall some convexity properties of functional $G_{h}$. The following one gives some information on the spectrum of the Hessian of $G$.\n\n\\[convexity\\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all $h \\in H$ and $V \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)$, $\\mathcal{S}(H)$ admits an orthonormal basis composed of eigenvectors of $\\nabla_{h}^{2}G(V)$. Let us denote by $\\left\\lbrace \\lambda_{h,V,i} , i \\in \\mathbb{N}\\right\\rbrace$ the set of eigenvalues of $\\nabla_{h}^{2}G(V)$. For all $i \\in \\mathbb{N}$, $$0 \\leq \\lambda_{h,V,i} \\leq C.$$ Moreover, there is a positive constant $c_{m}$ such that for all $i \\in \\mathbb{N}$, $$0<c_{m} \\leq \\lambda_{m,\\Gamma_{m},i} \\leq C.$$ Finally, by continuity, there are positive constants $\\epsilon , \\epsilon '$ such that for all $h \\in \\mathcal{B}\\left( m , \\epsilon \\right)$ and $V \\in \\mathcal{B}\\left( \\Gamma_{m}, \\epsilon ' \\right)$, and for all $i \\in \\mathbb{N}$, $$\\frac{1}{2}c_{m} \\leq \\lambda_{h,V,i} \\leq C.$$\n\nThe proof is very similar to the one in [@CCZ11] and consequently it is not given here. Furthermore, as in [@CCG2015], it ensures the local strong convexity as shown in the following corollary.\n\n\\[corforconv\\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all positive constant $A$, there is a positive constant $c_{A}$ such that for all $V \\in \\mathcal{B}\\left( \\Gamma_{m} , A \\right)$ and $h \\in \\mathcal{B}\\left( m, \\epsilon \\right)$, $$\\left\\langle \\nabla_{h}G(V) - \\nabla_{h}G(\\Gamma_{m}) , V - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{H} \\geq c_{A} \\left\\| V - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}.$$\n\nFinally, the following lemma gives an upper bound on the remainder term in the Taylor\u2019s expansion of the gradient.\n\n\\[lemdelta\\] Under assumptions 1-3(b), for all $h \\in H$ and $V \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)$, $$\\left\\| \\nabla G_{h}(V) - \\nabla G_{h}\\left(\\Gamma_{m}\\right) - \\nabla_{h}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right)\\left( V - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 6C  \\left\\| V - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}.$$\n\nLet $\\delta_{V,h}:=\\nabla G_{h}(V) - \\nabla G_{h}\\left(\\Gamma_{m}\\right) - \\nabla_{h}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right)\\left( V - \\Gamma_{m} \\right)$, since\\\n$ \\nabla G_{h}(V)~ - ~\\nabla G_{h}\\left(\\Gamma_{m}\\right) =~ \\int_{0}^{1}\\nabla_{h}^{2}G\\left(\\Gamma_{m}+t\\left( V -\\Gamma_{m} \\right)\\right)\\left( V  - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) dt$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\| \\delta_{V,h} \\right\\|_{F} & = \\left\\| \\int_{0}^{1} \\nabla_{h}^{2}G\\left(\\Gamma_{m}+t\\left( V -\\Gamma_{m} \\right)\\right)\\left( (V  - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) dt - \\nabla_{h}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right)\\left( V - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\right\\|_{F} \\\\\n& \\leq \\int_{0}^{1} \\left\\| \\nabla_{h}^{2}G\\left(\\Gamma_{m}+t\\left( V -\\Gamma_{m} \\right)\\right)\\left( (V  - \\Gamma_{m} \\right)  - \\nabla_{h}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right)\\left( V - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\right\\|_{F} dt .\\end{aligned}$$ As in the proof of Lemma 5.1 in [@CCG2015], under assumptions 1-3(b), one can check that for all $h \\in H$, and $t \\in [0,1]$, $$\\left\\| \\nabla_{h}^{2}G\\left(\\Gamma_{m}+t\\left( V -\\Gamma_{m} \\right)\\right)\\left( (V  - \\Gamma_{m} \\right)  - \\nabla_{h}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right)\\left( V - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 6C \\left\\| V - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} ,$$ which concludes the proof.\n\nDecompositions of the Robbins-Monro algorithm and proof of Lemma 5.1\n====================================================================\n\nLet us recall that the Robbins-Monro algorithm is defined recursively by $$\\begin{aligned}\nV_{n+1} & =  V_{n} + \\gamma_{n} \\frac{\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)^{T}-V_{n}}{\\left\\| \\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)^{T}-V_{n} \\right\\|_{F}} \\\\\n& = V_{n} - \\gamma_{n} U_{n+1},\\end{aligned}$$ with $U_{n+1}:= - \\frac{\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)^{T}-V_{n}}{\\left\\| \\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)\\left( X_{n+1} - \\overline{m}_{n} \\right)^{T}-V_{n} \\right\\|_{F}}$. Let us remark that $\\xi_{n+1}:= \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}G(V_{n}) - U_{n+1}$, $\\left( \\xi_{n} \\right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\\left( \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right)$ and the algorithm can be written as follows $$\\label{decxi} V_{n+1} = V_{n} -  \\gamma_{n}\\left( \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n})- \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}} ( \\Gamma_{m} )\\right) + \\gamma_{n}\\xi_{n+1} - \\gamma_{n}r_{n},$$ with $r_{n} := \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}} ( \\Gamma_{m}) - \\nabla G_{m} ( \\Gamma_{m})$. Finally, let is consider the following linearization of the gradient, $$\\label{decdelta} V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m} = \\left( I_{\\mathcal{S}(H)} - \\gamma_{n} \\nabla_{m}^{2}G(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right) \\left( V_{n} -  \\Gamma_{m}\\right) + \\gamma_{n}\\xi_{n+1} - \\gamma_{n}r_{n} - \\gamma_{n}r_{n}' - \\gamma_{n}\\delta_{n},$$ with $$\\begin{aligned}\n r_{n}' & := \\left( \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m}\\right) - \\nabla_{m}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m}\\right)\\right)\\left( V_{n}-\\Gamma_{m}\\right) , \\\\\n   \\delta_{n} & := \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}\\left( V_{n} \\right) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}\\left( \\Gamma_{m} \\right) - \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m}\\right) \\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right) .  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe bound of $\\left\\| \\delta_{n} \\right\\|$ is a corollary of Lemma \\[lemdelta\\].\n\n**Bounding $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|$**\n\nLet us recall that for all $h \\in H$, $Y(h) := \\left( X - h \\right) \\left( X - h \\right)^{T}$. We now define for all $h \\in H$ the random function $\\varphi_{h}: [0,1] \\longrightarrow \\mathcal{S}(H)$ defined for all $t \\in [0,1]$ by $$\\varphi_{h}(t) := \\frac{Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}.$$ Note that $r_{n} = \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\varphi_{\\overline{m}_{n} - m}(0) - \\varphi_{\\overline{m}_{n} - m }(1)\\Big| \\mathcal{F}_{n}\\right]  $. Thus, by dominated convergence, $$\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq \\sup_{t \\in [0,1]}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\varphi_{\\overline{m}_{n}-m}'(t) \\right\\|_{F} \\Big| \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right] .$$ Moreover, one can check that for all $h \\in H$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi_{h}'(t) &  = -\\frac{h \\left( X -m-th \\right)^{T}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th)  - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} - \\frac{\\left( X-m-th \\right)h^{T}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th)  - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} \\\\\n& +  \\left\\langle Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} , h\\left( X - m-th \\right)^{T}  \\right\\rangle_{F} \\frac{Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{3}}  \\\\\n& + \\left\\langle Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} , \\left( X - m-th \\right)h^{T}  \\right\\rangle_{F} \\frac{Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{3}} .   \\end{aligned}$$ We now bound each term on the right-hand side of previous equality. First, applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality and using the fact that for all $h,h' \\in H$, $\\left\\| hh'^{T} \\right\\|_{F} = \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left\\| h' \\right\\|$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[  \\frac{\\left\\| h \\left( X -m-th \\right)^{T}\\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th)  - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}  \\right] & \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{\\left\\| X-m-th \\right\\|}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\|  \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{\\sqrt{\\left\\| Y(m+th) \\right\\|_{F}}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} \\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{\\sqrt{ \\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} \\right] + \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}}  \\right] \\right) . \\end{aligned}$$ Thus, since $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{1}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} \\right] \\leq C$, $$\\label{inequality1}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[  \\frac{\\left\\| h \\left( X -m-th \\right)^{T}\\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th)  - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}  \\right] \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left( C\\sqrt{ \\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} + \\sqrt{C} \\right) .$$ In the same way, $$\\label{inequality2}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[  \\frac{\\left\\| \\left( X -m-th \\right)h^{T}\\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th)  - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}  \\right] \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left( C\\sqrt{ \\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} + \\sqrt{C} \\right) .$$ Applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left|  \\left\\langle Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} , h\\left( X - m-th \\right)^{T}  \\right\\rangle_{F}\\right| \\frac{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{3}} \\right]& \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[  \\frac{\\left\\| h\\left( X - m-th \\right)^{T} \\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} \\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{\\left\\| X -m -th \\right\\|}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{\\sqrt{\\left\\| Y(m+th) \\right\\|_{F}} }{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, since $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{1}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}\\right] \\leq C$, and since for all positive constants $a,b$, $\\sqrt{a+b}~\\leq~ \\sqrt{a}~+ ~\\sqrt{b}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\| h \\right\\| \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{\\sqrt{\\left\\| Y(m+th) \\right\\|_{F}} }{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}\\right] & \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{\\sqrt{ \\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} \\right] + \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}}  \\right] \\right) \\\\\n& \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left( C\\sqrt{ \\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} + \\sqrt{C} \\right) .\\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{inequality3}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left| \\left\\langle Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} , h\\left( X - m-th \\right)^{T}  \\right\\rangle_{F}\\right| \\frac{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{3}} \\right] & \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left( C\\sqrt{ \\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} + \\sqrt{C} \\right) , \\\\\n\\label{inequality4}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left| \\left\\langle Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} , \\left( X - m-th \\right)h^{T}  \\right\\rangle_{F}\\right| \\frac{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{3}} \\right] & \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left( C\\sqrt{ \\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} + \\sqrt{C} \\right) .\\end{aligned}$$ Applying inequalities (\\[inequality1\\]) to (\\[inequality4\\]) with $h =  \\overline{m}_{n} - m $, the announced result is proven, $$\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 4 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C \\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}\\right) \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\| .$$\n\n**Bounding $\\left\\| r_{n}' \\right\\|$**\n\nFor all $h \\in H$ and $V \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)$, we define the random function $\\varphi_{h,V}:~\\left[ 0 , 1 \\right] ~\\longrightarrow ~ \\mathcal{S}(H)$ such that for all $t \\in [0,1]$, $$\\varphi_{h,V}(t):= \\frac{1}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}\\left( I_{\\mathcal{S}(H)} - \\frac{\\left( Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\otimes_{F} \\left( Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right)}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}}\\right)\\left( V \\right) .$$ Note that $r_{n}' = \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\varphi_{\\overline{m}_{n} - m , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}}(1) - \\varphi_{\\overline{m}_{n}-m , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}}(0) \\Big| \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right]$. By dominated convergence, $$\\left\\| r_{n}' \\right\\|_{F} \\leq \\sup_{t\\in [0,1]}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\varphi_{\\overline{m}_{n} -m , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}}'(t)\\right\\|_{F} \\Big| \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right] .$$ Moreover, as for the bound of $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|$, one can check, with an application of Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality, that for all $h \\in H$, $V \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)$, and $t \\in [0,1]$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi_{h,V}'(t)&  \\leq 6 \\frac{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| h^{T}(X-m-th) \\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{3}}\\left\\| V \\right\\|_{F} \\\\\n& + 6 \\frac{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| h (X-m-th)^{T}\\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{5}}\\left\\| \\left( Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) \\otimes_{F} \\left( Y (m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) (V) \\right\\|_{F} \\\\\n& \\leq 12 \\frac{\\left\\| h (X-m-th)^{T}\\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}}\\left\\| V \\right\\|_{F}.\\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\notag \\mathbb{E}\\left[  \\frac{\\left\\| h (X-m-th)^{T}\\right\\|_{F}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}}\\left\\| V \\right\\|_{F} \\right] & \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{\\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left\\| X-m-th \\right\\|}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}}\\left\\| V \\right\\|_{F} \\right] \\\\\n\\notag & \\leq \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left\\| V \\right\\|_{F} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}} \\right] \\\\\n\\notag & + \\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left\\| V \\right\\|_{F}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\frac{1}{\\left\\| Y(m+th) - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{3/2}}\\right] \\\\\n\\label{inequality1'} & \\leq \\left( C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} + C^{3/4}\\right)\\left\\| h \\right\\| \\left\\| V \\right\\|_{F}. \\end{aligned}$$ Then the announced result follows from an application of inequality (\\[inequality1\u2019\\]) with $h = \\overline{m}_{n} - m$ and $V=V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}$, $$\\left\\| r_{n}' \\right\\| \\leq 12\\left( C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} + C^{3/4}\\right)\\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\| \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}.$$\n\nProofs of Lemma 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4\n================================\n\nUsing decomposition (\\[decxi\\]), $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} & = \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} -2 \\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\rangle_{F} \\\\ & +\\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\| \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\\\\n& + \\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\| \\xi_{n+1}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} + 2 \\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} - \\gamma_{n} \\left( \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right) , \\xi_{n+1} \\right\\rangle_{F} \\\\\n& + \\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} -2 \\gamma_{n}\\left\\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F} -2\\gamma_{n}^{2} \\left\\langle r_{n} , \\xi_{n+1} - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) + \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\rangle_{F} . \\end{aligned}$$ Note that for all $h \\in H$ and $V \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)$ we have $\\left\\| \\nabla G_{h}(V) \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 1$. Moreover, $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$ and $\\left\\| \\xi_{n+1} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$. Since for all $h \\in H$, $G_{h}$ is a convex function, we get with Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{majord2}\n\\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} a\\leq \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} + 36\\gamma_{n}^{2} +2 \\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle \\xi_{n+1} , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\rangle_{F} -2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F} . \\end{aligned}$$ Let $C' := 4\\left( \\sqrt{C} + C \\sqrt{\\left\\|\\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}\\right)$, let us recall that $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq C' \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|$. We now prove by induction that for all integer $p \\geq 1$, there is a positive constant $M_{p}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right] \\leq M_{p}$.\n\nThe case $p=1$ has been studied in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Let $p \\geq 2$ and suppose from now that for all $k \\leq p-1$, there is a positive constant $M_{k}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2k}\\right] \\leq M_{k}.$$\n\n**Bounding $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right]$.** Let us apply inequality (\\[majord2\\]), for all $p \\geq 2$ and use the fact that $\\left( \\xi_{n} \\right) $ is a sequence of martingales differences adapted to the filtration $\\left( \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right)$, $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p} \\right]  \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} + 36\\gamma_{n}^{2} +2\\gamma_{n}\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} \\right)^{p} \\right] \\\\\n + \\sum_{k=2}^{p} \\binom{p}{k} \\mathbb{E}\\left[\\left( 2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\xi_{n+1} \\right\\rangle_{F} \\right)^{k} \\left( \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} + 36 \\gamma_{n}^{2} + 2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F} \\right)^{p-k} \\right] .\n\\label{decordp} \\end{gathered}$$ Let us denote by $(*)$ the second term on the right-hand side of inequality (\\[decordp\\]). Applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality and since $\\left\\| \\xi_{n+1} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n(*)&  =   \\sum_{k=2}^{n} \\binom{p}{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( 2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\xi_{n+1} \\right\\rangle \\right)^{k} \\left( \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} + 36 \\gamma_{n}^{2} + 2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F} \\right)^{p-k}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\sum_{k=2}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{2k}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{k}\\left( \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} + 36 \\gamma_{n}^{2} + 2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F} \\right)^{p-k}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ With the help of Lemma \\[lemtechnique\\], $$\\begin{aligned}\n(*) & \\leq \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-k}\\right] + \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}36^{p-k}\\gamma_{n}^{2p-k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{k}\\right] \\\\\n& + \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{p+k}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{p}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{p-k}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{p} \\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-k} \\right] & = \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{p-1}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{p+1-k}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2(p-1)}\\right]}\\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2(p+1-k)}\\right]}. \\\\\\end{aligned}$$ By induction, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\notag \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-k} \\right] & \\leq \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\sqrt{M_{p-1}}\\sqrt{M_{p+1-k}} \\\\\n& = O \\left( \\gamma_{n}^{2} \\right). \\label{eq1}\\end{aligned}$$ In the same way, applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality and by induction, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\notag \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}36^{p-k}\\gamma_{n}^{2p-k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{k} \\right] & = \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}36^{p-k}\\gamma_{n}^{2p-k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{k-1} \\right] \\\\\n\\notag & \\leq \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2k}3^{p-k-1}36^{p-k}\\gamma_{n}^{2p-k}\\sqrt{M_{1}}\\sqrt{M_{k-1}} \\\\\n\\label{eq2} & = O \\left( \\gamma_{n}^{2} \\right) ,\\end{aligned}$$ since $p \\geq 2$. Similarly, since $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$ and since $p \\geq 2$, applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality and by induction, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\notag \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{p+k}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{p}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{p-k} \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{p}\\right] & \\leq \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2p}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{p}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{p}\\right] \\\\\n\\notag & \\leq \\sum_{k=2}^{p}2^{2p}3^{p-k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{p}\\sqrt{M_{1}}\\sqrt{M_{p-1}} \\\\\n\\label{eq3} & = O \\left( \\gamma_{n}^{2}\\right) .\\end{aligned}$$ Finally, applying inequalities (\\[eq1\\]) to (\\[eq3\\]), there is a positive constant $A_{1}'$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\label{maj1}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\sum_{k=2}^{p} \\binom{p}{k}\\left( 2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\xi_{n+1} \\right\\rangle_{F} \\right)^{k} \\left( \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} + 36 \\gamma_{n}^{2} + 2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F} \\right)^{p-k} \\right] \\leq A_{1}'\\gamma_{n}^{2}.$$ We now denote by $(**)$ the first term at the right-hand side of inequality (\\[decordp\\]). With the help of Lemma \\[lemtechnique\\] and applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality, $$\\begin{aligned}\n(**) & \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right] + \\sum_{k=1}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( 36\\gamma_{n}^{2} +2\\gamma_{n}\\left\\langle r_{n} , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F}\\right)^{k}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p-2k}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right] + \\sum_{k=1}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( 36^{k}\\gamma_{n}^{2k} + 2^{k}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{k} \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{k} \\right) \\left\\| V_{n}-\\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p-2k} \\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, let $$\\begin{aligned}\n(***) & := \\sum_{k=1}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( 36^{k}\\gamma_{n}^{2k} + 2^{k}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{k} \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{k} \\right) \\left\\| V_{n}-\\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p-2k} \\right] \\\\\n& = \\sum_{k=1}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}36^{k}\\gamma_{n}^{2k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-2k} \\right] + \\sum_{k=1}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{2k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{k}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-k}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ By induction, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\sum_{k=1}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}36^{k}\\gamma_{n}^{2k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-2k} \\right] & =  \\sum_{k=1}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{k-1}36^{k}\\gamma_{n}^{2k}M_{p-k} \\\\\n & = O \\left( \\gamma_{n}^{2} \\right) .\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{k=1}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{2k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{k}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-k}\\right]  & = \\sum_{k=2}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{2k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{k}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-k}\\right] \\\\\n& + 2p\\gamma_{n}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p-1}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality and by induction, since $ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{k=2}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{2k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{k}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-k}\\right] & \\leq \\sum_{k=2}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{3k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p-k}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\sum_{k=2}^{p}\\binom{p}{k}2^{3k-1}\\gamma_{n}^{k}\\sqrt{M_{p+1-k}}\\sqrt{M_{p-1}} \\\\\n& = O \\left( \\gamma_{n}^{2} \\right). \\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, applying Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015] and H\u00f6lder\u2019s inequality, since $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}~ \\leq ~ C'~ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n2p\\gamma_{n} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F} ^{2p-1}\\right] & \\leq 2C' p \\gamma_{n} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\| \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p-1}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq 2C' p \\gamma_{n} \\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|^{2p}\\right]\\right)^{\\frac{1}{2p}}\\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right]\\right)^{\\frac{2p-1}{2p}} \\\\\n& \\leq 2C'p\\gamma_{n} \\frac{K_{p}^{\\frac{1}{2p}}}{n^{1/2}}\\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right]\\right)^{\\frac{2p-1}{2p}}.\\end{aligned}$$ Finally, $$\\begin{aligned}\n2C'p\\gamma_{n} \\frac{K_{p}^{\\frac{1}{2p}}}{n^{1/2}}\\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right]\\right)^{\\frac{2p-1}{2p}} & \\leq 2C'p\\gamma_{n} \\frac{K_{p}^{\\frac{1}{2p}}}{n^{1/2}} \\max\\left\\lbrace 1, \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right]\\right\\rbrace \\\\\n& \\leq 2C'p\\gamma_{n} \\frac{K_{p}^{\\frac{1}{2p}}}{n^{1/2}} \\left( 1 + \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right]\\right) .\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there are positive constants $A_{0}'',A_{1}''$ such that $$\\label{maj2} (**)  \\leq \\left( 1+ A_{0}''\\frac{1}{n^{\\alpha + 1/2}} \\right) \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right]  + A_{1}''\\frac{1}{n^{\\alpha + 1/2}} .$$\n\nFinally, thanks to inequalities (\\[maj1\\]) and (\\[maj2\\]), there are positive constants $A_{0}',A_{1}'$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right] & \\leq \\left( 1+A_{0}'\\frac{1}{n^{\\alpha + 1/2}}\\right)\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right] + A_{1}'\\frac{1}{n^{\\alpha + 1/2}} \\\\\n& \\leq \\prod_{k=1}^{n}\\left( 1+A_{0}'\\frac{1}{k^{\\alpha + 1/2}}\\right)\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right]+ \\sum_{k=1}^{n}\\prod_{j=k+1}^{n}\\left( 1+A_{0}' \\frac{1}{j^{\\alpha + 1/2}}\\right) A_{1}'\\frac{1}{k^{\\alpha + 1/2}} \\\\\n& \\leq \\prod_{k=1}^{\\infty}\\left( 1+A_{0}'\\frac{1}{k^{\\alpha + 1/2}}\\right)\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2p}\\right]+ \\prod_{j=1}^{\\infty}\\left( 1+A_{0}' \\frac{1}{j^{\\alpha + 1/2}}\\right)\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty} A_{1}'\\frac{1}{k^{\\alpha + 1/2}} \\\\\n& \\leq M_{p},\\end{aligned}$$ which concludes the induction and the proof.\n\nLet us define the following linear operators: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_{n} & := I_{\\mathcal{S}(H)} - \\gamma_{n}\\nabla_{m}^{2}G(\\Gamma_{m}) , \\\\\n\\beta_{n} & := \\prod_{k=1}^{n} \\alpha_{k} = \\prod_{k=1}^{n} \\left( I_{\\mathcal{S}(H)} - \\gamma_{k} \\nabla_{m}^{2}G(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right) , \\\\\n\\beta_{0} & := I_{\\mathcal{S}(H)} .\\end{aligned}$$ Using decomposition (\\[decdelta\\]) and by induction, for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\label{decbeta} V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} = \\beta_{n-1} \\left( V_{1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) + \\beta_{n-1}M_{n} - \\beta_{n-1}R_{n} - \\beta_{n-1} R_{n}' - \\beta_{n-1}\\Delta_{n} ,$$ with $$\\begin{aligned}\n& M_{n} := \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \\gamma_{k}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\xi_{k+1} , & R_{n} := \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \\gamma_{k}\\beta_{k}^{-1}r_{k} , \\\\\n& R_{n}' := \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \\gamma_{k}\\beta_{k}^{-1}r_{k}' , & \\Delta_{n} := \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\delta_{k} .\\end{aligned}$$ We now study the asymptotic behavior of the linear operators $\\beta_{n}$ and $\\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}$. As in [@CCZ11], one can check that there are positive constants $c_{0},c_{1}$ such that for all integers $k,n \\geq 1$ with $k \\leq n-1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{majbeta}\n& \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1} \\right\\|_{op} \\leq c_{0}e^{-\\lambda_{\\min}\\sum_{k=1}^{n}\\gamma_{n}}, & \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op} & \\leq c_{1}e^{-\\lambda_{\\min}\\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\gamma_{j}} ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\| . \\|_{op}$ is the usual spectral norm for linear operators. We now bound the quadratic mean of each term in decomposition (\\[decbeta\\]).\n\n**Step 1: the quasi deterministic term $\\beta_{n-1}(V_{1} - \\Gamma_{m})$.** Applying inequality (\\[majbeta\\]), there is a positive constant $c_{0}'$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eqdec1}\n\\notag \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\left(V_{1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right) \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] &  \\leq \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\right\\|_{op}^{2}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{1}-\\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\\\\n\\notag & \\leq c_{0}e^{-2\\lambda_{\\min}\\sum_{k=1}^{n}\\gamma_{n}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq c_{0}e^{-c_{0}'n^{1-\\alpha}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{1}- \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ This term converges exponentially fast to $0$.\n\n**Step 2: the martingale term $\\beta_{n-1}M_{n}$.** Since $\\left( \\xi_{n} \\right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\\left( \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right)$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}M_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & = \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\gamma_{k}\\xi_{k+1} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] + 2 \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\sum_{k'=k+1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\gamma_{k'}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\langle \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\xi_{k+1} , \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k'}^{-1}\\xi_{k'+1} \\right\\rangle_{F} \\right] \\\\\n& = \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\gamma_{k}\\xi_{k+1} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] + 2 \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\sum_{k'=k+1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\gamma_{k'}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\langle \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\xi_{k+1} , \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k'}^{-1}\\mathbb{E}\\left[\\xi_{k'+1}|\\mathcal{F}_{k'}\\right] \\right\\rangle_{F} \\right] \\\\\n& = \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\gamma_{k}\\xi_{k+1} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, as in [@CCG2015], Lemma \\[sumexp\\] ensures that there is a positive constant $C_{1}'$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\label{eqdec2} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}M_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\leq \\frac{C_{1}'}{n^{\\alpha}}.$$\n\n**Step 3: the first remainder term $\\beta_{n-1}R_{n}$.** Remarking that $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 4 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\left\\|\\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} \\right) \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] & \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \\gamma_{k} \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1} \\right\\|_{op}\\left\\| r_{k} \\right\\|_{F} \\right)^{2}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq 16 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + \\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}\\right)^{2} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op} \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{k}-m \\right\\| \\right)^{2}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma 4.3 and Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015], $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] & \\leq 16 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} \\right)^{2}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op}\\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{k} - m \\right\\|^{2}\\right]}\\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq  16 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} \\right)^{2}K_{1}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op}\\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\\right)^{2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Applying inequality (\\[majbeta\\]), $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq  16 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\Gamma_{m}} \\right)^{2}K_{1}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\gamma_{j}}\\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq   16 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\Gamma_{m}} \\right)^{2}K_{1}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n}\\gamma_{k}e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\gamma_{j}}\\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\\right)^{2}.\\end{aligned}$$ Splitting the sum into two parts and applying Lemma \\[sumexp\\], we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq 32 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} \\right)^{2}K_{1}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{E (n/2)}\\gamma_{k}e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\gamma_{j}}\\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\\right)^{2} \\\\\n& + 32 \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}} \\right)^{2}K_{1}\\left( \\sum_{k=E(n/2) +1}^{n}\\gamma_{k}e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\gamma_{j}}\\frac{1}{k^{1/2}}\\right)^{2} \\\\\n& = O \\left( \\frac{1}{n}\\right) .\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there is a positive constant $C_{2}'$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\label{eqdec3}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\leq  \\frac{C_{2}'}{n}.$$\n\n**Step 4: the second remainder term $\\beta_{n-1}R_{n}'$.** Let us recall that for all $n \\geq 1$, $\\left\\| r_{n}' \\right\\|_{F}~\\leq~12D\\left\\|  \\overline{m}_{n}-m  \\right\\|\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}$ with $D:= C \\sqrt{ \\left\\| \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}} ~+ ~C ^{3/4}$. Thus, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op}\\left\\| r_{k}' \\right\\|_{F} \\right)^{2}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq 144D^{2}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op}\\left\\| \\overline{m}_{k} - m \\right\\| \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} \\right)^{2}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma 4.3 in [@godichon2015], $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]  \\leq 144D^{2}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op}\\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{k} - m \\right\\|^{2} \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right]}\\right)^{2}.$$ Thanks to Lemma 5.2, there is a positive constant $M_{2}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right]~\\leq~M_{2}$. Thus, applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality and Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015], $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq 144D^{2}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op}\\left(\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{k} - m \\right\\|^{4}\\right]\\right)^{\\frac{1}{4}} \\left( \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4} \\right]\\right)^{\\frac{1}{4}}\\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq 144D^{2}\\sqrt{M_{2}K_{2}}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op} \\frac{1}{k^{1/2}} \\right)^{2}.\n \\end{aligned}$$ As in step 3, splitting the sum into two parts, one can check that there is a positive constant $C_{1}''$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\label{eqdec4}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\leq \\frac{C_{1}''}{n}.$$\n\n**Step 5: the third remainder term: $\\beta_{n-1}\\Delta_{n}$** Since $\\left\\| \\delta_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 6C \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}$, applying Lemma 4.3 in [@godichon2015], $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\Delta_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op}\\left\\| \\delta_{k} \\right\\|_{F}\\right)^{2}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq 36C^{2}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op}\\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right)^{2}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq 36C^{2} \\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \\gamma_{k}\\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\beta_{k}^{-1}\\right\\|_{op}\\sqrt{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right]} \\right)^{2} .\\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to Lemma 5.2, there is a positive constant $M_{2}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right]~\\leq~M_{2}$. Thus, splitting the sum into two parts and applying inequalities (\\[majbeta\\]) and Lemma \\[sumexp\\], there are positive constant $c_{0}' , C_{2}'$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\Delta_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] & \\leq 72C^{2}M_{2}^{2}\\left( \\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)}\\gamma_{k}e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\gamma_{j}} \\right)^{2} \\\\\n& + 72C^{2}\\sup_{E(n/2)+1 \\leq k \\leq n-1} \\left\\lbrace \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right]\\right\\rbrace \\left( \\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}\\gamma_{k}e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\gamma_{j}} \\right)^{2} \\\\\n& \\leq   C_{2}' \\sup_{E(n/2)+1 \\leq k \\leq n-1}\\left\\lbrace \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right]\\right\\rbrace  + O \\left( e^{-2c_{0}'n^{1-\\alpha}} \\right)  .\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there is a positive constant $C_{0}'$ such that for all $ n \\geq 1$, $$\\label{eqdec5}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\Delta_{n}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\leq C_{0}'e^{-2c_{0}'n^{1-\\alpha}} + C_{2}'\\sup_{E(n/2)+1 \\leq k \\leq n-1}\\left\\lbrace \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right]\\right\\rbrace .$$\n\n**Conclusion:** Applying Lemma \\[lemtechnique\\] and decomposition (\\[decbeta\\]), for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]  & \\leq 5  \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\left( V_{1}-\\Gamma_{m}\\right)\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] + 5 \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}M_{n}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] + 5 \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]\\\\\n&  + 5\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}R_{n}' \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] +5 \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\beta_{n-1}\\Delta_{n}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right]  .\\end{aligned}$$ Applying inequalities (\\[eqdec1\\]) to (\\[eqdec5\\]), there are positive constants $C_{1},C_{1}',C_{2},C_{3}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|^{2} \\right] \\leq C_{1}e^{-C_{1}'n^{1-\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2}}{n^{\\alpha}}  + C_{3}\\sup_{E(n/2)+1 \\leq k \\leq n-1}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{k} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] .$$\n\nLet us define $W_{n}:= V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} -\\gamma_{n} \\left( \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m})\\right)$ and use decomposition (\\[decxi\\]), $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} &  = \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} + \\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\| \\xi_{n+1}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} + \\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}    +2 \\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle \\xi_{n+1}, V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F} +2\\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\langle \\xi_{n+1} , \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n})\\right\\rangle_{F}\\\\\n& - 2\\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\langle r_{n} ,   \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\rangle_{F} -2\\gamma_{n}\\left\\langle r_{n} ,V_{n} -\\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\left\\| \\xi_{n+1}\\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$, $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$ and the fact that for all $h \\in H$, $V \\in \\mathcal{S}(H)$, $\\nabla_{h}G(V) \\leq 1$, we get with an application of Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality $$\\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\leq \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} +2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle \\xi_{n+1} , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\rangle_{F} +2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} + 20\\gamma_{n}^{2}.$$ Thus, since $\\left( \\xi_{n} \\right)$ is a sequence of martingale differences adapted to the filtration $\\left( \\mathcal{F}_{n} \\right)$, and since $\\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\leq \\left( 1+C^{2}c_{\\gamma}^{2}\\right) \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}$ (this inequality follows from Proposition \\[convexity\\] and from the fact that for all $h \\in H$, $G_{h}$ is a convex application), $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4} \\right] & \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] +2\\gamma_{n}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}\\right]  \\\\ & + 40 \\left( 1+C^{2}c_{\\gamma}^{2}\\right)\\gamma_{n}^{2}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] \\\\\n&  + 4\\gamma_{n}^{2}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\langle \\xi_{n+1} , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\rangle_{F}^{2}\\right] + 400\\gamma_{n}^{4} + 40\\gamma_{n}^{3}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\right] \\\\\n& + 4\\gamma_{n}^{2}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\left\\| \\xi_{n+1}\\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$ and $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq 2$, applying Cauchy-Schwarz\u2019s inequality, there are positive constants $C_{1}',C_{2}'$ such that for all $n\\geq 1$, $$\\label{majoord4}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1}-\\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] \\leq \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] +2\\gamma_{n}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}\\right] + \\frac{C_{1}'}{n^{3\\alpha}}+ \\frac{C_{2}'}{n^{2\\alpha}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right].$$ We now bound the two first terms at the right-hand side of inequality (\\[majoord4\\]).\n\n**Step 1: bounding $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right]$.** Since $\\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) = \\int_{0}^{1}\\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G \\left( \\Gamma_{m} + t \\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right) \\right)\\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right) dt  $, applying Proposition \\[convexity\\], one can check that $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|^{2} &  = \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} -2\\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\rangle_{H} + \\gamma_{n}^{2}\\left\\| \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\\\\n & \\leq \\left( 1+ C^{2}\\gamma_{n}^{2} \\right)\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2} -2 \\gamma_{n} \\left\\langle V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} , \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(V_{n}) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) \\right\\rangle_{H}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since for all $h \\in H$, $G_{h}$ is a convex application, $\\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\leq \\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}$. Let $p'$ be a positive integer. We now introduce the sequence of events $\\left( A_{n,p'}\\right)_{n \\in \\mathbb{N}}$ defined for all $n \\geq 1$ by $$A_{n,p'} := \\left\\lbrace \\omega \\in \\Omega , \\quad \\left\\| V_{n}(\\omega ) - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} \\leq n^{\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}} , \\quad \\text{and } \\quad \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n}(\\omega ) - m \\right\\| \\leq \\epsilon \\right\\rbrace ,$$ with $\\epsilon$ defined in Proposition \\[convexity\\]. For the sake of simplicity, we consider that $\\epsilon '$ defined in Proposition \\[convexity\\] verifies $\\epsilon ' \\leq 1$. Applying Proposition \\[convexity\\], let $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{majbn}\n\\notag B_{n}:& = \\left\\langle \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}( V_{n} ) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}\\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\lbrace \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} \\leq \\epsilon '\\right\\rbrace} \\\\\n\\notag  & = \\int_{0}^{1}\\left\\langle \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}G\\left( \\Gamma_{m} + t\\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right) \\right) \\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F}  \\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\lbrace \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} \\leq \\epsilon '\\right\\rbrace}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} dt \\\\\n& \\geq \\frac{1}{2} c_{m}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\lbrace \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} \\leq \\epsilon '\\right\\rbrace}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}  .\\end{aligned}$$ In the same way, since $G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}$ is convex, let $$\\begin{aligned}\nB_{n}':& = \\left\\langle \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}( V_{n} ) - \\nabla G_{\\overline{m}_{n}}(\\Gamma_{m}) , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle_{F}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}\\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\lbrace \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} > \\epsilon '\\right\\rbrace} \\\\\n& =  \\int_{0}^{1}\\left\\langle \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}\\left( \\Gamma_{m} + t\\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right) \\right) \\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle \\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\lbrace \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} > \\epsilon '\\right\\rbrace}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}   dt \\\\\n& \\geq \\int_{0}^{\\frac{\\epsilon '}{\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}}\\left\\langle \\nabla_{\\overline{m}_{n}}^{2}\\left( \\Gamma_{m} + t\\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right) \\right) \\left( V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right) , V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\rangle \\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\lbrace \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} > \\epsilon '\\right\\rbrace} \\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} dt\\end{aligned}$$ Applying Proposition \\[convexity\\], $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{majcn}\n\\notag B_{n}' & \\geq \\int_{0}^{\\frac{\\epsilon '}{\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}} \\frac{1}{2}c_{m} \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\lbrace \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} > \\epsilon '\\right\\rbrace} \\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} dt \\\\\n\\notag & \\geq \\frac{\\epsilon' c_{m}}{2 \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\lbrace \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} > \\epsilon '\\right\\rbrace} \\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} \\\\\n& \\geq \\frac{\\epsilon'c_{m}}{2}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\mathbf{1}_{\\left\\lbrace \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} > \\epsilon '\\right\\rbrace} \\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}. \\end{aligned}$$ There is a rank $n_{p'}'$ such that for all $n \\geq n_{p'}'$, we have $\\frac{\\epsilon 'c_{m}}{2}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p}}\\leq \\frac{1}{2}c_{m}$. Thus, applying inequalities (\\[majbn\\]) and (\\[majcn\\]), for all $n \\geq n_{p'}'$, $$\\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}} \\leq \\left( 1- \\frac{\\epsilon 'c_{m} }{2}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\right) \\left\\| V_{n}  - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}.$$ Thus, there are a positive constant $c_{p'}$ and a rank $n_{p'}$ such that for all $n \\geq n_{p'}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{majwnan}\n\\notag \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}\\right]  & \\leq \\left( 1- \\frac{\\epsilon 'c_{m} }{2}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\right)^{2} \\mathbb{E}\\left[  \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\left( 1- 2c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\right) \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Now, we must get an upper bound for $\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}}\\right]$. Since $\\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\leq \\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right) \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}$ and since there is a positive constant $c_{0}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}  & \\leq \\left\\| V_{1} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}~+ ~\\sum_{k=1}^{n} \\gamma_{k} \\leq ~c_{0}n^{1-\\alpha}\\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}}\\right] & \\leq \\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{2}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4} \\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}}\\right] \\\\ \n& \\leq \\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}n^{4-4\\alpha}\\mathbb{P}\\left[ A_{n,p'}^{c}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}n^{4-4\\alpha} \\left( \\mathbb{P}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\| \\geq \\epsilon \\right] + \\mathbb{P}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F} \\geq n^{\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\right] \\right) .\\end{aligned}$$ Applying Markov\u2019s inequality, Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015] and Lemma 5.2, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}}\\right] & \\leq \\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}n^{4-4\\alpha} \\left( \\frac{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n}-m \\right\\|^{2p''}\\right]}{\\epsilon^{2p''}} + \\frac{\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2q}\\right]}{n^{2q\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}} \\right) \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{K_{p''}}{\\epsilon^{2p''}}\\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}n^{4-4\\alpha - p''} + \\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{2}c_{0}^{4}M_{q}n^{4-4\\alpha - 2q \\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}. \\end{aligned}$$ Taking $p'' \\geq  4-\\alpha $ and $q \\geq p'\\frac{4-\\alpha}{2(1-\\alpha )}$, $$\\label{majwnanc}\n\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\mathbf{1}_{A_{n,p'}^{c}} \\right] = O \\left( \\frac{1}{n^{3\\alpha}}\\right) .$$ Thus, applying inequalities (\\[majwnan\\]) and (\\[majwnanc\\]), there are positive constants $c_{p'}$, $C_{1,p'}$ and a rank $n_{p'}$ such that for all $n \\geq n_{p'}$, $$\\label{majwn} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] \\leq \\left( 1- 2c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\right) \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] + \\frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\\alpha}}.$$\n\n**Step 2: bounding $2\\gamma_{n}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}\\right]$.** Since $\\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2} \\leq \\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right) \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}$, applying Lemma \\[lemtechnique\\], let $$\\begin{aligned}\nD_{n} :& =2\\gamma_{n}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| W_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq 2\\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right) \\gamma_{n} \\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{3}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{2}{c_{p'}}\\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{2}\\gamma_{n}n^{\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] + \\frac{1}{2}c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{2}{c_{p'}^{2}}\\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{4}\\gamma_{n}n^{3\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] + c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\left\\| r_{n} \\right\\|_{F} \\leq \\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}\\right) \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|_{F}$ and applying Theorem 4.2 in [@godichon2015], $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{majdn}\n\\notag D_{n} & \\leq \\frac{2}{c_{p'}^{2}}\\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{4}\\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}\\right)^{4}\\gamma_{n}n^{3\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| \\overline{m}_{n} - m \\right\\|^{4}\\right] + c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] \\\\\n\\notag & \\leq \\frac{2}{c_{p'}^{2}}K_{2}\\left( 1+c_{\\gamma}^{2}C^{2}\\right)^{4}\\left( \\sqrt{C} + C\\sqrt{\\left\\| \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}}\\right)^{4}\\gamma_{n}n^{3\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\frac{1}{n^{2}} + c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] \\\\\n& = c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] + O \\left( \\frac{1}{n^{2 + \\alpha -3(1-\\alpha)/p'}}\\right) .\\end{aligned}$$\n\n**Step 3: Conclusion.** Applying inequalities (\\[majoord4\\]), (\\[majwn\\]) and (\\[majdn\\]), there are a rank $n_{p'}$ and positive constants $c_{p'}, C_{1,p'},C_{2,p'},C_{3,p'}$ such that for all $n \\geq n_{p'}$, $$\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n+1} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{4} \\right] \\leq \\left( 1- c_{p'}\\gamma_{n}n^{-\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}\\right)\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m} \\right\\|_{F}^{4}\\right] + \\frac{C_{1,p'}}{n^{3\\alpha}} + \\frac{C_{2,p'}}{n^{2\\alpha}}\\mathbb{E}\\left[ \\left\\| V_{n} - \\Gamma_{m}\\right\\|_{F}^{2}\\right] + \\frac{C_{3,p'}}{n^{2+\\alpha -3\\frac{1-\\alpha}{p'}}}.$$\n\nSome technical inequalities\n===========================\n\nFirst, the following lemma recalls some well-known inequalities.\n\n\\[lemtechnique\\] Let $a,b,c$ be positive constants. Then, $$\\begin{aligned}\nab &  \\leq \\frac{a^{2}}{2c}+\\frac{b^{2}c}{2}, \\\\\na & \\leq \\frac{c}{2}+ \\frac{a^{2}}{2c}.\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, let $k,p$ be positive integers and $a_{1},...,a_{p}$ be positive constants. Then, $$\\left( \\sum_{j=1}^{p}a_{j} \\right)^{k} \\leq p^{k-1}\\sum_{j=1}^{p}a_{j}^{k}.$$\n\nThe following lemma gives the asymptotic behavior for some specific sequences of descent steps.\n\n\\[sumexp\\] Let $\\alpha,\\beta $ be non-negative constants such that $0<\\alpha<1$, and $\\left( u_{n}\\right)$, $\\left( v_{n} \\right)$ be two sequences defined for all $n \\geq 1$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\nu_{n} & := \\frac{c_{u}}{n^{\\alpha}}, & v_{n}:=\\frac{c_{v}}{n^{\\beta}},\\end{aligned}$$ with $c_{u},c_{v} > 0$. Thus, there is a positive constant $c_{0}$ such that for all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{sumexp1} & \\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} = O \\left(  e^{-c_{0}n^{1-\\alpha}} \\right) , \\\\\n\\label{sumexp2} & \\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k}  = O \\left( v_{n}\\right) ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $E(.)$ is the integer part function.\n\nWe first prove inequality (\\[sumexp1\\]). For all $n \\geq 1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} & = c_{u}c_{v}\\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}\\frac{1}{k^{\\alpha + \\beta}} \\\\\n& \\leq c_{u}c_{v}\\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-c_{u}\\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\frac{1}{j^{\\alpha}}} .\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for all $ k\\leq E(n/2)$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n c_{u}\\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\frac{1}{j^{\\alpha}} & \\geq  c_{u}\\frac{n}{2}\\frac{1}{n^{\\alpha}} \\\\\n & \\geq \\frac{c_{u}}{2}n^{1-\\alpha}.\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\\sum_{k=1}^{E(n/2)} e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} \\leq c_{u}c_{v}ne^{-\\frac{c_{u}}{2}n^{1-\\alpha}}.$$ We now prove inequality (\\[sumexp2\\]). With the help of an integral test for convergence, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j} & = c_{u} \\sum_{j=k}^{n}\\frac{1}{j^{\\alpha}} \\\\\n& \\geq c_{u}\\int_{k}^{n+1}\\frac{1}{t^{\\alpha}}dt \\\\\n& \\geq \\frac{c_{u}}{1-\\alpha}\\left( (n+1)^{1-\\alpha} - k^{-\\alpha} \\right). \\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} \\leq c_{u}c_{v}e^{-(n+1)^{1-\\alpha}}\\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{k^{1-\\alpha}}k^{-\\alpha - \\beta}$$ With the help of an integral test for convergence, there is a rank $n_{u,v}$ (for sake of simplicity, we consider that $n_{u,v}=1$) such that for all $n \\geq n_{u,v}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{k^{1-\\alpha}}k^{-\\alpha - \\beta} & \\leq \\int_{E(n/2)+1}^{n+1}e^{t^{1-\\alpha}}t^{-\\alpha - \\beta }dt \\\\\n& \\leq \\frac{1}{1-\\alpha} \\left[ e^{t^{1-\\alpha}}t^{-\\beta} \\right]_{E(n/2)+1}^{n} + \\beta\\int_{E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{t^{1-\\alpha}}t^{-1-\\beta}dt \\\\\n& = e^{(n+1)^{1-\\alpha}(n+1)^{-\\beta}} + o \\left( \\int_{E(n/2)+1}^{n+1}e^{t^{1-\\alpha}}t^{-\\alpha - \\beta }dt \\right) ,\\end{aligned}$$ since $\\alpha < 1$. Thus, $$\\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{k^{1-\\alpha}}k^{-\\alpha - \\beta} = O \\left( e^{n^{1-\\alpha}n^{-\\beta}} \\right) .$$ As a conclusion, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{k=E(n/2)+1}^{n}e^{-\\sum_{j=k}^{n}u_{j}}u_{k}v_{k} & = O \\left( e^{-(n+1)^{1-\\alpha} + n^{1-\\alpha}}v_{n} \\right)  \\\\\n& = O \\left( v_{n} \\right) .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBali, J.-L., Boente, G., Tyler, D.-E., and Wang, J.-L. (2011). Robust functional principal components: a projection-pursuit approach. , 39:2852\u20132882.\n\nBosq, D. (2000). , volume 149 of [*Lecture Notes in Statistics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York. Theory and applications.\n\nCardot, H., C\u00e9nac, P., and Chaouch, M. (2010). Stochastic approximation to the multivariate and the functional median. In Lechevallier, Y. and Saporta, G., editors, [*Compstat 2010*]{}, pages 421\u2013428. Physica Verlag, Springer.\n\nCardot, H., C\u00e9nac, P., and Godichon-Baggioni, A. (2016). Online estimation of the geometric median in [H]{}ilbert spaces: non asymptotic confidence balls. .\n\nCardot, H., C\u00e9nac, P., and Monnez, J.-M. (2012). A fast and recursive algorithm for clustering large datasets with k-medians. , 56:1434\u20131449.\n\nCardot, H., C\u00e9nac, P., and Zitt, P.-A. (2013). Efficient and fast estimation of the geometric median in [H]{}ilbert spaces with an averaged stochastic gradient algorithm. , 19:18\u201343.\n\nCardot, H. and Degras, D. (2015). Online principal components analysis: which algorithm to choose ? Technical report, arXiv:1511.03688.\n\nChakraborty, A. and Chaudhuri, P. (2014). The spatial distribution in infinite dimensional spaces and related quantiles and depths. , 42:1203\u20131231.\n\nChaudhuri, P. (1992). Multivariate location estimation using extension of [$R$]{}-estimates through [$U$]{}-statistics type approach. , 20(2):897\u2013916.\n\nCroux, C., Filzmoser, P., and Oliveira, M. (2007). Algorithms for projection-pursuit robust principal component analysis. , 87:218\u2013225.\n\nCroux, C. and Ruiz-Gazen, A. (2005). High breakdown estimators for principal components: the projection-pursuit approach revisited. , 95:206\u2013226.\n\nCupidon, J., Gilliam, D., Eubank, R., and Ruymgaart, F. (2007). The delta method for analytic functions of random operators with application to functional data. , 13:1179\u20131194.\n\nDauxois, J., Pousse, A., and Romain, Y. (1982). Asymptotic theory for principal components analysis of a random vector function: some applications to statistical inference. , 12:136\u2013154.\n\nDevlin, S., Gnanadesikan, R., and Kettenring, J. (1981). Robust estimation of dispersion matrices and principal components. , 76:354\u2013362.\n\nDuflo, M. (1997). , volume\u00a034 of [*Applications of Mathematics (New York)*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Translated from the 1990 French original by Stephen S. Wilson and revised by the author.\n\nFritz, H., Filzmoser, P., and Croux, C. (2012). A comparison of algorithms for the multivariate [$L_1$]{}-median. , 27:393\u2013410.\n\nGervini, D. (2008). Robust functional estimation using the median and spherical principal components. , 95(3):587\u2013600.\n\nGodichon-Baggioni, A. (2016). Estimating the geometric median in [H]{}ilbert spaces with stochastic gradient algorithms; [$L^{p}$]{} and almost sure rates of convergence. , 146:209\u2013222.\n\nHuber, P. and Ronchetti, E. (2009). . John Wiley and Sons, second edition.\n\nHubert, M., Rousseeuw, P., and Van\u00a0Aelst, S. (2008). High-breakdown robust multivariate methods. , 13:92\u2013119.\n\nHyndman, R. and Ullah, S. (2007). Robust forecasting of mortality and fertility rates: A functional data approach. , 51:4942\u20134956.\n\nJolliffe, I. (2002). . Springer Verlag, New York, second edition.\n\nKemperman, J. H.\u00a0B. (1987). The median of a finite measure on a [B]{}anach space. In [*Statistical data analysis based on the [$L\\sb 1$]{}-norm and related methods ([N]{}euch\u00e2tel, 1987)*]{}, pages 217\u2013230. North-Holland, Amsterdam.\n\nKraus, D. and Panaretos, V.\u00a0M. (2012). Dispersion operators and resistant second-order functional data analysis. , 99:813\u2013832.\n\nLocantore, N., Marron, J., Simpson, D., Tripoli, N., Zhang, J., and Cohen, K. (1999). Robust principal components for functional data. , 8:1\u201373.\n\nMaronna, R.\u00a0A., Martin, R.\u00a0D., and Yohai, V.\u00a0J. (2006). . Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester. Theory and methods.\n\nMokkadem, A. and Pelletier, M. (2006). Convergence rate and averaging of nonlinear two-time-scale stochastic approximation algorithms. , 16(3):1671\u20131702.\n\nM\u00f6tt\u00f6nen, J., Nordhausen, K., and Oja, H. (2010). Asymptotic theory of the spatial median. In [*Nonparametrics and Robustness in Modern Statistical Inference and Time Series Analysis: A Festschrift in honor of Professor Jana Jure[c]{}kov[\u00e1]{}*]{}, volume\u00a07, pages 182\u2013193. IMS Collection.\n\nPelletier, M. (2000). Asymptotic almost sure efficiency of averaged stochastic algorithms. , 39(1):49\u201372.\n\nPolyak, B. and Juditsky, A. (1992). Acceleration of stochastic approximation. , 30:838\u2013855.\n\n(2010). . R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 3-900051-07-0.\n\nRamsay, J.\u00a0O. and Silverman, B.\u00a0W. (2005). . Springer, New York, second edition.\n\nRousseeuw, P. and van Driessen, K. (1999). A fast algorithm for the minimum covariance determinant estimator. , 41:212\u2013223.\n\nTaskinen, S., Koch, I., and Oja, H. (2012). Robustifying principal components analysis with spatial sign vectors. , 82:765\u2013774.\n\nVardi, Y. and Zhang, C.-H. (2000). The multivariate [$L\\sb 1$]{}-median and associated data depth. , 97(4):1423\u20131426.\n\nWeiszfeld, E. (1937). On the point for which the sum of the distances to n given points is minimum. , 43:355\u2013386.\n\nWeng, J., Zhang, Y., and Hwang, W.-S. (2003). Candid covariance-free incremental principal component analysis. , 25:1034\u20131040.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We demonstrate how structured decompositions of unitary operators can be employed to derive control schemes for finite-level quantum systems that require only sequences of simple control pulses such as square wave pulses with finite rise and decay times or Gaussian wavepackets. To illustrate the technique, it is applied to find control schemes to achieve population transfers for pure-state systems, complete inversions of the ensemble populations for mixed-state systems, create arbitrary superposition states and optimize the ensemble average of dynamic observables.'\naddress:\n- 'Quantum Processes Group and Department of Applied Maths, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom'\n- 'Quantum Processes Group and Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom'\n- 'Center for Signals, Systems and Telecommunications and Dept of Mathematical Sciences , EC 35, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75083, USA'\n- 'Department of Chemistry, Frick Laboratories, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA'\nauthor:\n- 'S.\u00a0G.\u00a0Schirmer'\n- 'Andrew D.\u00a0Greentree'\n- Viswanath Ramakrishna\n- Herschel Rabitz\nbibliography:\n- 'papers2000.bib'\n- 'papers9599.bib'\n- 'papers8089.bib'\n- 'papers9094.bib'\n- 'books.bib'\n- 'Noordam.bib'\ndate: 'January 21, 2001'\ntitle: Constructive control of quantum systems using factorization of unitary operators\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nThe ability to control quantum-mechanical systems is an essential prerequisite for many novel applications that require the manipulation of atomic and molecular quantum states [@SCI288p0824]. Among the important applications of current interest are quantum state engineering [@PRA63n023408], control of chemical reactions [@JCP113p03510; @SCI292p709; @SCI282p919; @SCI279p1875; @SCI279p1879], control of molecular motion [@PRA61n033816], selective vibrational excitation of molecules [@PCCP2p1117], control of rotational coherence in linear molecules [@PRA61n033816], photo-dissociation [@JPCA104p4882], laser cooling of internal molecular degrees of freedom [@FD113p365; @PRA63n013407], and quantum computation [@qph0104030; @qph0103118; @CPL343p633; @SCI287p463; @PRA65n042301].\n\nDue to the wide range of applications, the immediate aims of quantum control may vary. However, the control objective can usually be classified as one of the following:\n\n1.  \\[a\\] To steer the system from its initial state to a target state with desired properties,\n\n2.  \\[b\\] To maximize the expectation value or ensemble average of a selected observable,\n\n3.  \\[c\\] To achieve a certain evolution of the system.\n\nDespite the apparent dissimilarity, these control objectives are closely related. Indeed, (\\[a\\]) is a special case of (\\[b\\]) in which the observable is the projector onto the subspace spanned by the target state. (\\[b\\]) is a special case of (\\[c\\]), where we attempt to find an evolution operator that maximizes the expectation value of the selected observable either at a specific target time or at some time in the future. Hence, one of the central problems of quantum control is to achieve a desired evolution of the system by applying external control fields, and the primary challenge is to find control pulses (or sequences of such pulses) that are feasible from a practical point of view and effectively achieve the control objective.\n\nMany control strategies for quantum systems have been proposed. Selective excitation of energy eigenstates, for instance, can be achieved using light-induced potentials and adiabatic passage techniques [@ARPC52p763; @EPJD14p147; @PRL85p4241; @JCP114p8820], which have the advantage of being relatively insensitive to perturbations of the control fields and Doppler shifts arising from atomic or molecular motion [@PRA61n043413; @PRA63n043415]. Efficient numerical algorithms based on optimal control techniques have been developed to address problems such as optimization of observables for pure-state [@JCP109p385; @JCP112p05081; @JCP110p7142] and mixed-state quantum systems [@PRA61n012101; @JCP110p9825]. Quantum feedback control using weak measurements or continuous state estimation has been applied to quantum state control problems [@PRA62n022108; @PRA62n012307; @PRA62n012105; @PRL85p3045; @PRA60p2700; @PRA49p2133]. Learning control based on genetic or evolutionary algorithms [@JCP113p10841; @JCP110p34; @PRE56p3854; @CP217p389; @JPC99p5206; @PRL68p1500] has been a useful tool for quantum control, especially for complex problems for which accurate models are not available and in experimental settings [@NAT406p164; @APB65p779]. Other approaches based on local control techniques [@JCP109p9318] or a hydrodynamical formulation [@JPA33p4643] have been suggested as well, and this list is not exhaustive.\n\nIn this paper we pursue an alternative, constructive approach to address the problem of control of non-dissipative quantum systems. Note that although real atomic or molecular systems are subject to dissipative processes due to the finite lifetimes of the excited states, etc., we can treat these systems as non-dissipative if we ensure that the time needed to complete the control process is *significantly* less than the relaxation times. The technique we develop is based on explicit generation of unitary operators using Lie group decompositions. Similar techniques have been applied to the problem of controlling two-level systems [@PRA62n053409; @IEEE39CDC1074] and especially particles with spin [@dalessandro; @qph0106115]. Here we employ decompositions of the type discussed in [@PRA61n032106] to derive constructive control schemes for $N$-level systems. We use the rotating wave approximation (RWA) and require that *each* allowed transition is *selectively* addressable, for example by applying a field of the appropriate frequency, or by appropriate selection rules depending on the field polarization. This means we must be able to ensure that each control pulse drives a single transition only, and that its effect on all other transitions is negligible. These assumptions limit the applicability of this approach to systems for which selective excitation of individual transitions is feasible such as atomic or molecular systems with well-separated transition frequencies or particles in anharmonic potentials. Certain other factors such as Doppler shifts and inhomogeneous or homogeneous broadening must also be taken into account, and may require special consideration in specific circumstances.\n\nHowever, for systems that satisfy the necessary conditions, the proposed technique has some very attractive features. It is constructive and can be used to solve a variety of control problems ranging from common problems with well-known solutions such as population transfer between energy eigenstates to novel problems such as preparation of arbitrary superposition states or optimization of observables for $N$-level systems. Moreover, although the control schemes derived using this technique depend on the effective areas, and to a lesser extent, phases of the control pulses, the pulse *shapes* are flexible, which implies that the control objective can be achieved using control pulses that are convenient from a practical point of view such as square wave pulses with finite rise and decay times (SWP) or Gaussian wavepackets (GWP). SWP are a realistic approximation of bang-bang controls, which play an important role in control theory and have been shown to be crucial for time-optimal control [@JMP41p5262]. Since both SWP and GWP can in principle be derived from continuous-wave (CW) lasers using Pockel cells or other intensity modulating devices, this also opens the possibility for control of certain quantum systems using CW lasers, rather than more complex pulsed laser systems and pulse-shaping techniques.\n\nMathematical and physical framework {#sec:basics}\n===================================\n\nWe consider a non-dissipative quantum system with a discrete, finite energy spectrum such as a generic $N$-level atom, molecule or particle in an (anharmonic) potential. The free evolution of the system is governed by the Schrodinger equation and determined by its internal Hamiltonian $\\op{H}_0$, whose spectral representation is $$\\label{eq:Hzero}\n  \\op{H}_0 = \\sum_{n=1}^N E_n \\ket{n}\\bra{n},$$ where $E_n$ are the energy levels and $\\ket{n}$ the corresponding energy eigenstates of the system, which satisfy the stationary Schrodinger equation $$\\label{eq:SSE}\n   \\op{H}_0 \\ket{n} = E_n \\ket{n}, \\quad 1\\le n\\le N.$$ Although this assumption is not required, we shall assume for simplicity that the energy levels $E_n$ are ordered in an increasing sequence, $E_1<E_2<\\cdots<E_N$, where $N<\\infty$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space of the system, and that the eigenstates $\\{\\ket{n}: \nn=1,\\ldots,N\\}$ form a complete orthonormal set.\n\nThe application of external control fields perturbs the system and gives rise to a new Hamiltonian $\\op{H}=\\op{H}_0+\\op{H}_I$, where $\\op{H}_I$ is an interaction term. If we apply a field $$\\label{eq:fm}\n  f_m(t) = 2 A_m(t) \\cos(\\omega_m t+\\phi_m)\n         = A_m(t) \\left[e^{\\rmi(\\omega_m t+\\phi_m)}+e^{-\\rmi(\\omega_m t+\\phi_m)}\\right]$$ which is resonant with the frequency $\\omega_m$ corresponding to the transition $\\ket{m} \n\\rightarrow \\ket{m+1}$, and the pulse envelope $2A_m(t)$ is slowly varying with respect to the frequency $\\omega_m$, then the rotating wave approximation (RWA) leads to the following interaction term $$\\label{eq:Hm}\n  \\op{H}_m(f_m) =  A_m(t) d_m \\left[e^{ \\rmi(\\omega_m t + \\phi_m)} \\ket{m}\\bra{m+1}\n                   + e^{-\\rmi(\\omega_m t + \\phi_m)} \\ket{m+1}\\bra{m} \\right]$$ provided that (a) there are no other transitions with the same frequency $\\omega_m$ and (b) off-resonant effects are negligible. Note that the latter assumption is generally valid only if the Rabi frequency $\\Omega_m$ of the driven transition is considerably less than the minimum detuning from off-resonant transitions $\\Delta\\omega_{min}$, i.e., $$\\label{eq:detuning}\n  \\max_t [\\Omega_m(t)] = \\max_t [2 A_m(t) d_m / \\hbar] \\ll \\Delta\\omega_{min},$$ where $d_m$ is the dipole moment of the transition $\\ket{m}\\rightarrow\\ket{m+1}$.\n\nThe evolution of the controlled system is determined by the operator $\\op{U}(t)$, which satisfies the Schrodinger equation $$\\label{eq:SE1}\n  \\rmi\\hbar\\frac{d}{dt}\\op{U}(t) =\n  \\left\\{ \\op{H}_0 + \\sum_{m=1}^M \\op{H}_m[f_m(t)] \\right\\} \\op{U}(t)$$ and the initial condition $\\op{U}(0)=\\op{I}$, where $\\op{I}$ is the identity operator.\n\nConstructive control using Lie group decompositions {#sec:Lie}\n===================================================\n\nOur aim is to achieve a certain evolution of the system by applying a sequence of simple control pulses. Concretely, we seek to dynamically realize a desired unitary operator $\\op{U}(t)$ at a certain target time $t=T$. In some cases, we may not wish to specify a target time in advance, in which case we attempt to achieve the control objective at some later time $T>0$.\n\nTo solve the problem of finding the right sequence of control pulses, we apply the interaction picture decomposition of the time-evolution operator $\\op{U}(t)$, $$\\label{eq:IPD}\n  \\op{U}(t) = \\op{U}_0(t)\\op{U}_I(t),$$ where $\\op{U}_0(t)$ is the time-evolution operator of the unperturbed system $$\\label{eq:U0}\n  \\op{U}_0(t) = \\exp\\left( -\\rmi\\op{H}_0 t/\\hbar \\right)\n              = \\sum_{n=1}^N e^{-\\rmi E_n t/\\hbar} \\ket{n}\\bra{n}$$ and $\\op{U}_I(t)$ comprises the interaction with the control fields. To obtain a dynamical law for the interaction operator $\\op{U}_I(t)$, we note that inserting $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\rmi\\hbar\\frac{d}{dt}\\op{U}(t)\n  &=& \\op{H}_0\\op{U}_0(t)\\op{U}_I(t) + \\rmi\\hbar\\op{U}_0(t) \\frac{d}{dt}\\op{U}_I(t) \\\\\n  \\op{H}\\op{U}(t) \n  &=& \\op{H}_0\\op{U}_0(t)\\op{U}_I(t) + \\sum_{m=1}^M \\op{H}_m[f_m(t)]\\op{U}_0(t)\\op{U}_I(t)\\end{aligned}$$ into the Schrodinger equation (\\[eq:SE1\\]) gives $$\\label{eq:SE2}\n   \\rmi\\hbar\\frac{d}{dt} \\op{U}_I(t) \n = \\op{U}_0(t)^\\dagger \\left\\{ \\sum_{m=1}^M \\op{H}_m[f_m(t)] \\right\\} \n   \\op{U}_0(t) \\op{U}_I(t).$$ Applying (\\[eq:U0\\]) and the rotating wave approximation Hamiltonian (\\[eq:Hm\\]) to this equation leads after some simplification (see \\[appendix:A\\]) to $$\\label{eq:Omega}\n  \\frac{d}{dt}\\op{U}_I(t)\n = \\sum_{m=1}^M A_m(t) d_m/\\hbar \\left( \\op{x}_m \\sin\\phi_m - \\op{y}_m \\cos\\phi_m \\right) \n   \\op{U}_I(t)$$ where we set $\\op{e}_{m,n}= \\ket{m}\\bra{n}$ and define $$\\op{x}_m    = \\op{e}_{m,m+1} - \\op{e}_{m+1,m}, \\qquad\n  \\op{y}_m    = \\rmi(\\op{e}_{m,m+1} + \\op{e}_{m+1,m}).$$\n\nHence, if we apply a control pulse $f_k(t) = 2 A_k(t) \\cos(\\omega_m t+\\phi_k)$ which is resonant with the transition frequency $\\omega_m$ for a time period $t_{k-1}\\le t\\le t_k$ (and no other fields are applied during this time period) then we have $$\\op{U}_I(t) = \\op{V}_k(t)\\op{U}_I(t_{k-1}),$$ where the operator $\\op{V}_k(t)$ is $$\\label{eq:Vk}\n  \\op{V}_k(t)\n  = \\exp\\left[ \\frac{d_m}{\\hbar} \\int_{t_{k-1}}^t \\!\\!\\! A_k(t') \\, dt' \n    \\left( \\op{x}_m \\sin\\phi_k - \\op{y}_m\\cos\\phi_k \\right)\\right].$$ Thus, if we partition the time interval $[0,T]$ into $K$ subintervals $[t_{k-1},t_k]$ such that $t_0=0$ and $t_K=T$, and apply a sequence of non-overlapping control pulses, each resonant with one of the transition frequencies $\\omega_m=\\omega_{\\sigma(k)}$, then $$\\op{U}(T) = \\op{U}_0(T)\\op{U}_I(T)\n            = e^{-\\rmi\\op{H}_0 T/\\hbar}\\op{V}_K \\op{V}_{K-1} \\cdots \\op{V}_1,$$ where the factors $\\op{V}_k$ are $$\\label{eq:Vk1}\n  \\op{V}_k = \\exp\\left[  \\frac{d_{\\sigma(k)}}{\\hbar} \\int_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} \\!\\!\\! A_k(t)\\,dt\n             \\left(\\op{x}_{\\sigma(k)}\\sin\\phi_k-\\op{y}_{\\sigma(k)}\\cos\\phi_k \\right)\\right].$$ $2 A_k(t)$ is the envelope of the $k$th pulse and $\\sigma$ is a mapping from the index set $\\{1,\\ldots,K\\}$ to the control index set $\\{1,\\ldots, M\\}$ that determines which of the control fields is active for $t \\in [t_{k-1},t_k]$.\n\nIt has been shown [@PRA61n032106] that any unitary operator $\\op{U}$ can be decomposed into a product of operators of the type $\\op{V}_k$ and a phase factor $e^{\\rmi\\Gamma}=\n\\det\\op{U}$, i.e., there exists a positive real number $\\Gamma$, real numbers $C_k$ and $\\phi_k$ for $1\\le k\\le K$, and a mapping $\\sigma$ from the index set $\\{1,\\ldots,K\\}$ to the control-sources index set $\\{1,\\ldots,M\\}$ such that $$\\label{eq:Udecomp}\n  \\op{U}= e^{\\rmi\\Gamma}\\op{V}_K\\op{V}_{K-1}\\cdots \\op{V}_1,$$ where the factors are $$\\label{eq:Vk2}\n  \\op{V}_k = \n  \\exp\\left[C_k (\\op{x}_{\\sigma(k)}\\sin\\phi_k - \\op{y}_{\\sigma(k)} \\cos\\phi_k)\\right].$$ This decomposition of the target operator into a product of generators of the dynamical Lie group determines the sequence in which the fields are to be turned on and off. A general algorithm to determine the Lie group decomposition for an arbitrary operator $\\op{U}$ is described in \\[appendix:Udecomp\\].\n\nNote that in many cases the target operator $\\op{U}$ is unique only up to phase factors, i.e., two unitary operators $\\op{U}_1$ and $\\op{U}_2$ in $U(N)$ are equivalent if there exist values $\\theta_n\\in [0,2\\pi]$ for $1\\le n\\le N$ such that $$\\label{eq:Uequiv}\n  \\op{U}_2 = \\op{U}_1 \\left(\\sum_{n=1}^N e^{\\rmi\\theta_n} \\ket{n}\\bra{n} \\right)$$ where $\\ket{n}$ are the energy eigenstates. For instance, if the initial state of the system is an arbitrary ensemble of energy eigenstates $$\\label{eq:rho0}\n  \\op{\\rho}_0 = \\sum_{n=1}^N w_n \\ket{n}\\bra{n},$$ where $w_n$ is the initial population of state $\\ket{n}$ satisfying $0\\le w_n\\le 1$ and $\\sum_{n=1}^N w_n=1$, then we have $$\\op{U}_2\\op{\\rho}_0\\op{U}_2^\\dagger \n = \\op{U}_1 \\left(\\sum_{n=1}^N \\ket{n} e^{\\rmi\\theta_n} w_n e^{-\\rmi\\theta_n} \\bra{n}\\right)\n            \\op{U}_1^\\dagger \n = \\op{U}_1\\op{\\rho}_0\\op{U}_1^\\dagger$$ i.e., the phase factors $e^{\\rmi\\theta_n}$ cancel. Thus, if the initial state of the system is an ensemble of energy eigenstates, which of course includes trivial ensembles such as pure energy eigenstates, then we only need to find a Lie group decomposition of the target operator $\\op{U}$ modulo phase factors, i.e., it suffices to find matrices $\\op{V}_k$ such that $$\\op{U} \\left(\\sum_{n=1}^N e^{\\rmi\\theta_n} \\ket{n}\\bra{n} \\right)\n         = \\op{V}_K \\op{V}_{K-1} \\cdots \\op{V}_1.$$ Note that decomposition modulo phase factors, when sufficient, is more efficient since it requires in general up to $2(N-1)$ fewer steps than the general decomposition algorithm. See \\[appendix:Udecomp\\] for details.\n\nChoice of pulse envelopes and pulse lengths {#sec:amp}\n===========================================\n\nComparing equations (\\[eq:Vk1\\]) and (\\[eq:Vk2\\]) shows that $$\\label{eq:pulsearea}\n   \\frac{d_{\\sigma(k)}}{\\hbar} \\int_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} \\!\\!\\! A_k(t) \\, dt = C_k \n   \\qquad \\forall k,$$ i.e., the effective pulse area of the $k$th pulse is $2C_k$ where $C_k$ is the constant in decomposition (\\[eq:Udecomp\\]). However, the decomposition does not fix the pulse shapes, i.e., we can choose pulse shapes that are convenient from a practical point of view such as square wave pulses with finite rise and decay times (SWP) and Gaussian wavepackets (GWP), which can easily be produced in the laboratory. For instance, in the optical regime both SWP and GWP can be created using a combination of continuous-wave lasers and Pockel cells or other intensity modulating devices. Moreover, GWP are naturally derived from most pulsed laser systems.\n\n  ------------------------ ---------------------\n  \\(a) Square-wave pulse   \\(b) Gaussian pulse\n                           \n  ------------------------ ---------------------\n\nSquare wave pulses {#subsec:SWP}\n------------------\n\nThe pulse area of an ideal square wave pulse of amplitude $2A_k$ and length $\\Delta t_k$ is $2 A_k \\Delta t_k$. In order to accurately determine the pulse area of a realistic square wave pulse, however, we must take into account the finite rise and decay time $\\tau_0$ of the pulse. We can model the pulse envelopes of realistic SWP \\[see figure \\[Fig:pulses\\] (a)\\] mathematically using $$2 A_k(t) = A_k\\left\\{2+\\mbox{erf}\\left[4(t-\\tau_0/2)/\\tau_0\\right]\n                 -\\mbox{erf}\\left[4(t-\\Delta t+\\tau_0/2)/\\tau_0\\right]\\right\\}$$ where $\\mbox{erf}(x)$ is the error function $$\\mbox{erf}(x) = \\frac{2}{\\sqrt{\\pi}} \\int_0^x \\!\\!\\! e^{-t^2} \\, dt.$$ Although this envelope function may appear complicated, it can easily be checked that the area bounded by this function and $t_{k-1}\\le t\\le t_k$ equals the area of a rectangle of width $\\Delta t_k - \\tau_0$ and height $2A_k$. Thus, the pulse area $\\int_{\\Delta t_k} \n2A_k(t)\\,dt$ of a realistic square wave pulse is $2A_k(\\Delta t_k-\\tau_0)$, and equation (\\[eq:pulsearea\\]) shows that the amplitude of the pulse is determined by $$\\label{eq:Ak1}\n   A_k = \\frac{1}{\\Delta t_k-\\tau_0} \\times \\frac{\\hbar}{d_{\\sigma(k)}} \\times C_k \n       = \\frac{\\hbar C_k}{(\\Delta t_k -\\tau_0) d_{\\sigma(k)}},$$ where $d_{\\sigma(k)}$ is the dipole moment of the driven transition.\n\nTo ensure selective excitation, the contribution of Fourier components with $\\Delta\\omega \n\\ge\\Delta\\omega_{min}$ must be negligeable. Noting that the Fourier transform of an ideal SWP ($\\tau_0=0$) of length $\\Delta t_k$ and amplitude $2A_k$ is $$F(\\Delta\\omega) = 2 A_k \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \n                    \\frac{\\sin(\\frac{1}{2}\\Delta t_k\\Delta\\omega)}{\\Delta\\omega},$$ where $\\Delta\\omega$ is the detuning from the pulse frequency $\\omega_m$, shows that $F(0)\n=\\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}}A_k\\Delta t_k$ and $$\\frac{F(\\Delta\\omega)}{F(0)} =\n  \\frac{\\sin(\\frac{1}{2}\\Delta t_k\\Delta\\omega)}{\\frac{1}{2}\\Delta t_k\\Delta\\omega},$$ i.e., $\\frac{F(\\Delta\\omega)}{F(0)} \\ll 1$ if $\\Delta t_k\\Delta\\omega\\gg 1$. Thus, contributions from Fourier components with $\\Delta\\omega \\ge \\Delta\\omega_{min}$ will be negligible if $\\Delta t_k\\gg\\Delta\\omega_{min}^{-1}$.\n\nFurthermore, noting that $C_k\\le\\frac{\\pi}{2}$, the peak Rabi frequency for a square wave pulse of length $\\Delta t_k$ with rise and decay time $\\tau_0$ is $$\\label{eq:Rabi1}\n  \\max_{t_{k-1} \\le t \\le t_k} \\left[ 2 A_k(t) d_{\\sigma(k)}/\\hbar \\right]\n                 = \\frac{2 C_k}{\\Delta t_k-\\tau_0}\n                 \\le \\frac{\\pi}{\\Delta t_k-\\tau_0}.$$ Hence, the Rabi frequency and the amplitude of the pulse can be adjusted by changing the pulse length $\\Delta t_k$, which allows us to ensure that (\\[eq:detuning\\]) is satisfied, and enforce laboratory constraints on the strengths of the control fields.\n\nWe can also give an estimate of the time required to implement arbitrary unitary operators given certain bounds on the field strength. If the maximum strength of the field produced by the $m$th laser is $A_{m,max}$, i.e, $f_m(t)=2 A_m(t)\\cos(\\omega_m t+\\phi_m)\\le A_{m,max}$ then the time required to perform a rotation by $C_k$ on the transition $\\ket{m}\\rightarrow\n\\ket{m+1}$ using a SWP with rise and decay time $\\tau_0$ is $$\\label{eq:tmax:SWP}\n  \\Delta t_m^{SWP} = \\frac{2 C_k\\hbar}{A_{m,max} d_m} + \\tau_0 \n                   \\le \\frac{\\pi\\hbar}{A_{m,max} d_m} + \\tau_0.$$ \\[appendix:Udecomp\\] shows that any unitary operator $\\op{U}$ can be generated up to equivalence (\\[eq:Uequiv\\]) by performing at most $N-m$ rotations by $C\\le\\frac{\\pi}{2}$ on each transition $\\ket{m}\\rightarrow\\ket{m+1}$ for $m=1,2,\\dots, N-1$. Hence, any unitary operator can be implemented up to equivalence using SWP of amplitude $A_{m,max}$ in at most time $T$, where $$T = \\sum_{m=1}^{N-1} \\max(\\Delta t_m^{SWP}) (N-m)\n    = \\sum_{m=1}^{N-1} \\left(\\frac{\\pi\\hbar}{A_{m,max}d_m} + \\tau_0\\right) (N-m).$$ Since two additional rotations on each transition are required to generate $\\op{U}$ exactly, the latter can be accomplished in time $T'\\ge\\sum_{m=1}^{N-1}\\max(\\Delta t_m^{SWP})(N-m+2)$.\n\nGaussian wavepackets {#subsec:GWP}\n--------------------\n\nTo model a Gaussian wavepacket \\[see figure \\[Fig:pulses\\] (b)\\] of peak amplitude $2A_k$ centered at $t_k^*=t_{k-1}+\\frac{1}{2}\\Delta t_k$, we choose the pulse envelope $$2A_k(t) = 2A_k \\exp\\left[-q_k^2 (t-\\Delta t_k/2 - t_{k-1})^2 \\right].$$ The constant $q_k$ determines the width of the wavepacket. The pulse area of a Gaussian wavepacket is $\\sqrt{\\pi}/q_k$ provided that the time interval $\\Delta t_k$ is large enough to justify the assumption $$\\int_{t_{k-1}}^{t_k} \\exp\\left[-q_k^2 (t-\\Delta t_k/2 - t_{k-1})^2 \\right]\\, dt\n  \\approx \\int_{-\\infty}^{+\\infty} e^{-q^2 \\tau^2} \\, d\\tau \n  = \\frac{\\sqrt{\\pi}}{q_k}.$$ In the following we choose $q_k = 4/\\Delta t_k$, which guarantees that over 99% of the $k$th pulse is contained in the control interval $[t_{k-1},t_k]$ since $$\\int_{-\\Delta t_k/2}^{\\Delta t_k/2} e^{-q_k^2 t^2}\\, dt\n = \\frac{\\sqrt{\\pi}}{q_k} \\mbox{erf}(q_k \\Delta t_k/2)$$ and $\\mbox{erf}(2)=0.995322$. Thus, (\\[eq:pulsearea\\]) shows that the peak amplitude $2A_k$ of the GWP is determined by $$\\label{eq:Ak2}\n  A_k = \\frac{q_k}{\\sqrt{\\pi}} \\times \\frac{\\hbar}{d_{\\sigma(k)}} \\times C_k \n      = \\frac{4\\hbar C_k}{\\sqrt{\\pi} \\Delta t_k d_{\\sigma(k)}}.$$\n\nAgain, to ensure selective excitation, the contribution of Fourier components with $\\Delta\n\\omega \\ge\\Delta\\omega_{min}$ must be negligeable. Noting that the Fourier transform of a Gaussian wavepacket with $q_k=4/\\Delta t_k$ and amplitude $2A_k$ is $$F(\\Delta\\omega) = \\frac{2 A_k}{\\sqrt{2}q_k} \n                    \\exp \\left[ -\\frac{\\Delta\\omega^2}{4q_k^2} \\right]\n                  = \\frac{\\Delta t_k A_k}{2\\sqrt{2}} \n                    \\exp ( -\\Delta\\omega^2\\Delta t_k^2/16)$$ where $\\Delta\\omega$ is the detuning from the pulse frequency $\\omega_m$, shows that $$\\frac{F(\\Delta\\omega)}{F(0)} = \\exp( -\\Delta\\omega^2\\Delta t_k^2/16)$$ i.e., $\\frac{F(\\Delta\\omega)}{F(0)} \\ll 1$ if $\\Delta t_k\\Delta\\omega\\gg 4$. Thus, contributions from Fourier components with $\\Delta\\omega \\ge \\Delta\\omega_{min}$ will be negligible if $\\Delta t_k\\gg 4\\Delta\\omega_{min}^{-1}$.\n\nFurthermore, noting that $C_k\\le\\frac{\\pi}{2}$, the peak Rabi frequency for a Gaussian pulse of length $\\Delta t_k$ with $q_k=4/\\Delta t_k$ is $$\\label{eq:Rabi2}\n  \\max_{t_{k-1} \\le t \\le t-k} \\left[ 2 A_k(t) d_{\\sigma(k)}/\\hbar \\right]\n                 = \\frac{8 C_k}{\\sqrt{\\pi}\\Delta t_k}\n                 \\le \\frac{4\\sqrt{\\pi}}{\\Delta t_k}.$$ Hence, the Rabi frequency can again be adjusted by changing the pulse length $\\Delta t_k$, which allows us to ensure that (\\[eq:detuning\\]) is satisfied and enforce laboratory constraints on the strengths of the control fields.\n\nAgain, we can give an estimate of the time required to implement arbitrary unitary operators given certain bounds on the field strength. If the maximum strength of the field produced by the $m$th laser is $A_{m,max}$, i.e, $f_m(t)=2 A_m(t)\\cos(\\omega_m t+\\phi_m)\\le A_{m,max}$ then the time required to perform a rotation by $C_k$ on the transition $\\ket{m}\\rightarrow\n\\ket{m+1}$ using GWP with $q_k=4/\\Delta t_k$ is $$\\label{eq:tmax:GWP}\n  \\Delta t_m^{GWP} = \\frac{8 C_k\\hbar}{\\sqrt{\\pi} A_{m,max} d_m}\n                   \\le \\frac{4\\sqrt{\\pi}\\hbar}{A_{m,max} d_m}.$$ Since any unitary operator $\\op{U}$ can be generated up to equivalence (\\[eq:Uequiv\\]) by performing at most $N-m$ rotations by $C_k \\le \\frac{\\pi}{2}$ on each transition $\\ket{m}\n\\rightarrow\\ket{m+1}$ for $m=1,2,\\dots, N-1$, the time required to implement $\\op{U}$ up to equivalence using GWP of (peak) amplitude $A_{m,max}$ is at most $$T = \\sum_{m=1}^{N-1} \\max(\\Delta t_m^{GWP}) (N-m)\n    = \\sum_{m=1}^{N-1} \\left(\\frac{4\\sqrt{\\pi}\\hbar}{A_{m,max}d_m}\\right) (N-m).$$ Since two additional rotations on each transition are required to generate $\\op{U}$ exactly, the latter can be accomplished in time $T'\\ge\\sum_{m=1}^{N-1}\\max(\\Delta t_m^{GWP})(N-m+2)$.\n\nPhysical systems used for illustration {#sec:examples}\n======================================\n\nIn the following sections we shall apply these results to various control problems. For numerical illustrations of our control schemes, we shall consider\n\n1.  a four-level model of the electronic states of Rubidium (87)\n\n2.  a four-level Morse oscillator model of the vibrational modes of hydrogen fluoride.\n\nFor Rubidium (87) we consider four electronic states, which we label as follows: $\\ket{1}=\\ket{5 S_{1/2}}$, $\\ket{2}=\\ket{5 P_{3/2}}$, $\\ket{3}=\\ket{4 D_{1/2}}$ and $\\ket{4}=\\ket{6 P_{3/2}}$, where $\\ket{1}$ is the ground state. Figure \\[fig:system\\] (a) shows the coupling diagram with transition frequencies and dipole moments.\n\nFor hydrogen fluoride (HF) we use the Morse oscillator model given in [@PRL65p2355]. The energy levels corresponding to the vibrational states $\\ket{n}$ are $$E_n = \\hbar\\omega_0 \\, (n - \\mbox{$\\frac{1}{2}$})\n        \\left[1 - \\mbox{$\\frac{B}{2}$}(n - \\mbox{$\\frac{1}{2}$})\\right]$$ where $\\omega_0=0.78 \\times 10^{15}$ Hz and $B=0.0419$. The frequencies for transitions between adjacent energy levels are $\\omega_n=\\hbar\\omega_0(1-B n)$ and the corresponding transition dipole moments are $d_n=p_0\\sqrt{n}$ with $p_0=3.24\\times 10^{-31}$ C m, which leads to the values shown in figure \\[fig:system\\] (b). Although there are 24 bound vibrational states for this model, we only consider the four lowest vibrational modes $n \n= 1,2,3,4$, where $\\ket{1}$ is the ground state.\n\nSince we have made several approximations in developing our control approach using Lie group decompositions, we must ensure that the assumptions we made are valid for the systems we consider:\n\n1.  No two transitions have the same transition frequency. [^1] \\[hyp:a\\]\n\n2.  Dissipative effects are negligible. \\[hyp:b\\]\n\n3.  The effect of the pulse on off-resonant transitions is negligible. \\[hyp:c\\]\n\nNote that both models satisfy hypothesis (\\[hyp:a\\]). Furthermore, the main source of dissipation for both systems is spontaneous emission. Thus, dissipative effects will be negligible provided that the control pulses are much shorter than the lifetimes of the excited states. Since the lifetimes of the excited electronic states for 87 are $28$, $90$ and $107$ ns, respectively, hypothesis (\\[hyp:b\\]) will be satisfied for control pulses in the sub-nanosecond regime. Similarly for HF.\n\nHypothesis (\\[hyp:c\\]) will be satisfied provided that:\n\n1.  The Fourier spectrum of the pulse does not overlap with other transition frequencies, i.e., the frequency dispersion of the pulse is less than the minimum detuning from off-resonant transitions.\n\n2.  Equation (\\[eq:detuning\\]) holds, i.e., the Rabi frequency of each driven transition is much smaller than the minimum detuning from off-resonant transitions.\n\nSince the minimum detuning from off-resonant transitions is $\\Delta\\omega_{min}\\approx 4\n\\times 10^{14}$ Hz for 87 and $\\Delta\\omega_{min}\\approx 3.27\\times 10^{13}$ Hz for HF, the pulse length $\\Delta t_k$ should be at least $10^{-12}$ and $10^{-11}$ seconds, respectively, to ensure that the frequency dispersion of the pulse is sufficiently small. Moreover, inserting the values for $\\Delta\\omega_{min}$ as well as (\\[eq:Rabi1\\]) and (\\[eq:Rabi2\\]), respectively, into equation (\\[eq:detuning\\]) shows again that we must choose the pulse lengths such that $\\Delta t_k\\gg 10^{-14}$ s for 87 and $\\Delta t_k\\gg\n10^{-13}$ s for HF to ensure that the second condition above is met. In the following, we shall choose $\\Delta t_k=2\\times 10^{-10}$ seconds (200 ps) for all pulses, which ensures that both hypotheses (\\[hyp:b\\]) and (\\[hyp:c\\]) are met for both 87 and HF. Moreover, such pulses are also experimentally realizable.\n\nNote that the energy levels for 87 are multiply degenerate due to hyperfine and other effects. Since the detuning between the $F=1$ and $F=2$ sublevels of the $5 S_{1/2}$ ground state is rather large (6.8 GHz), we may wish to be precise and choose $\\ket{1}=\\ket{5S_{1/2},\nF=1}$, for instance, but we shall generally ignore the hyperfine energy level structure here. For the cases we consider in this paper, this is justified since the frequency differences between the hyperfine levels (except for the ground state) are on the order of several hundred MHz or less, which corresponds to detunings of $\\Delta\\omega\\le 10^8$ Hz, which we cannot resolve with 200 ps pulses for reasons outlined above.\n\n  --------- ---------\n  \\(a) 87   \\(b) HF\n            \n  --------- ---------\n\nPopulation transfer $\\ket{1}\\rightarrow\\ket{N}$ for a $N$-level system {#sec:poptransfer}\n======================================================================\n\nWe shall first apply the decomposition technique described above to the rather elementary control problem of population transfer between energy eigenstates to better illustrate the technique. Concretely, we consider the problem of transferring the population of the ground state $\\ket{1}$ to the excited state $\\ket{N}$ by applying a sequence of control pulses, each resonant with one of the transitions frequencies $\\omega_m$. It can easily be verified that any evolution operator $\\op{U}$ of the form $$\\label{eq:U1}\n  \\op{U} = \\left( \\begin{array}{c|c}\n            \\vec{0}       & \\; A_{N-1} \\\\\\hline\n            e^{\\rmi\\theta}\\; & \\; \\vec{0}\n           \\end{array} \\right),$$ where $A_{N-1}$ is an arbitrary unitary $(N-1)\\times (N-1)$ matrix, $e^{\\rmi\\theta}$ is an arbitrary phase factor and $\\vec{0}$ is a vector whose $N-1$ elements are $0$, achieves the control objective since $$\\left(\\begin{array}{c|c}\n            \\vec{0}       & \\; A_{N-1} \\\\\\hline\n            e^{\\rmi\\theta}\\; & \\; \\vec{0}\n          \\end{array}\\right) \n   \\left( \\begin{array}{c} 1       \\\\ \\vec{0}       \\end{array} \\right)\n = \\left( \\begin{array}{c} \\vec{0} \\\\ e^{\\rmi\\theta_N} \\end{array} \\right)$$ and thus the population of state $\\ket{N}$ is equal to $\\sqrt{e^{-\\rmi\\theta_N}\ne^{\\rmi\\theta_N}}=1$ after application of $\\op{U}$. Next, we observe that setting $$\\label{eq:Udecomp1}\n   \\op{U}  = \\op{U}_0(T)\\op{U}_I, \\quad\n   \\op{U}_I= \\op{V}_{N-1} \\op{V}_{N-2} \\cdots \\op{V}_1,$$ where the factors are $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{eq:Vm}\n \\op{V}_m &=& \\exp\\left[ \\frac{\\pi}{2}\n              \\left(\\op{x}_m\\sin\\phi_m-\\op{y}_m\\cos\\phi_m\\right)\\right] \\\\\n          &=& -\\rmi(e^{\\rmi\\phi_m} \\op{e}_{m,m+1}+e^{-\\rmi\\phi_m}\\op{e}_{m+1,m})\n               + \\sum_{n\\neq m,m+1} \\op{e}_{n,n} \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ for $1\\le m\\le N-1$, always leads to a $\\op{U}$ of the form (\\[eq:U1\\]), independent of the initial pulse phases $\\phi_m$.\n\nThe factorization (\\[eq:Udecomp1\\]) corresponds to a sequence of $N-1$ control pulses in which the $m$th pulse is resonant with the frequency $\\omega_m$ of the transition $\\ket{m} \\rightarrow \\ket{m+1}$ and has effective pulse area $\\pi$. Thus, the solution obtained using the decomposition technique is an intuitive sequence of $\\pi$-pulses designed to transfer the population step by step to the target level.\n\n  ------------------------- ----------------------\n  \\(a) Square wave pulses   \\(b) Gaussian pulses\n                            \n  ------------------------- ----------------------\n\nThe results of illustrative computations for the four-level 87 system introduced above are shown in figure \\[Fig:PopTransfer\\]. The top graphs show the pulse sequence for square wave pulses (a) and Gaussian control pulses (b). The corresponding evolution of the energy-level populations shows that the populations of the intermediate levels increase and decrease intermittently as expected, while the population of target level $\\ket{4}$ reaches one at the final time. The bottom graph shows that the energy of the system increases monotonically from its kinematical minimum value at $t=0$ to its maximum value at the final time as predicted. The basic response of the system is the same for square wave pulses and Gaussian pulses. However, the energy increases more uniformly for square wave pulses, while Gaussian pulses tend to result in short, steep increases with long intermittent plateau regions. Square wave pulses may therefore be a better choice if one wishes to minimize the time the system spends in intermediate states with short lifetimes. Gaussian wavepackets, on the other hand, have the advantage of minimal frequency dispersion and are thus less likely to induce unwanted off-resonant effects.\n\nAs regards the field strengths, note that for 200 ps pulses up to 380 kV/m are required for SWP, and up to 780 kV/m for Gaussian pulses, which corresponds to (peak) intensities $I=\\epsilon_0 c E^2$ of up to $40 \\mbox{ kW/cm}^2$ (SWP) and $160 \\mbox{ kW/cm}^2$ (GWP), respectively. Achieving these intensities experimentally with CW lasers is feasible using a combination of sufficiently powerful lasers and beam focusing techniques. Since pulsed laser systems with 1 mJ output for picosecond pulses are common, intensities of up to $10^7\n\\mbox{ W/cm}^2$ should be easy to achieve for these systems.\n\nNote that we chose pulses of fixed length $200$ ps and allowed the pulse amplitudes to vary. Had we instead fixed the strength of the fields to be $2 A_k = 10^5$ V/m, say, then the length $\\Delta t_k$ of the control pulses according to (\\[eq:tmax:SWP\\]) would have been 124.2, 132.7 and 697.1 ps, respectively, for SWP with $\\tau_0=20$ ps. For Gaussian pulses with $q_k=4/\\Delta t_k$, the pulse length according to (\\[eq:tmax:GWP\\]) would have been 235.1, 254.7 and 1528.2 ps, respectively. Thus, instead of 600 ps in both cases, the time required to achieve the control objective would have been 954 ps for SWP and 2018 ps for GWP.\n\nInversion of ensemble populations for a mixed-state system {#sec:inversion}\n==========================================================\n\nSequences of $\\pi$-pulses similar to the ones derived in the previous section have played an important role in the theory of atomic excitation [@90Shore] and have been applied to the problem of vibrational excitation of molecules in both theory [@CP267p173] and experiment [@CPL270p45]. The decomposition technique is an important tool since it allows us to generalize the intuitive control schemes for population transfer between energy eigenstates to obtain similar schemes for a variety of more complicated problems, as we shall demonstrate now.\n\nThe first example we consider is a generalization of the population transfer problem to mixed-state systems. The objective is to achieve a complete inversion of the ensemble populations given an arbitrary initial state of the form (\\[eq:rho0\\]). This control operation can be regarded as an ensemble\u2013NOT gate for mixed-state systems, not to be confused with other NOT\u2013gates such as the U\u2013NOT gate [@JMO47p211]. Complete inversion of the ensemble populations requires an evolution operator $$\\label{eq:U2}\n  \\op{U}=\\left(\\begin{array}{cccccc}\n            0 & 0 & \\cdots & 0 & e^{\\rmi\\theta_1} \\\\\n            0 & 0 & \\cdots & e^{\\rmi\\theta_2} & 0 \\\\\n            \\vdots& \\vdots & & \\vdots & \\vdots \\\\\n            0 & e^{\\rmi\\theta_{N-1}} & \\cdots & 0 & 0\\\\\n            e^{\\rmi\\theta_N} & 0     & \\cdots & 0 & 0\n          \\end{array}\\right),$$ where the $e^{\\rmi\\theta_n}$ are arbitrary phase factors. Assuming as before that each transition between adjacent energy levels can be individually addressed, the generators of the dynamical Lie algebra are again of the form (\\[eq:Vk1\\]) and the target operator (\\[eq:U2\\]) can be written as a product of these generators $$\\label{eq:Udecomp2}\n  \\op{U} = \\op{U}_0(T) \\prod_{\\ell=N-1}^{1} \\left[\\prod_{m=1}^\\ell \\op{V}_m \\right],$$ where the factors $\\op{V}_m$ are as defined in (\\[eq:Vm\\]). The decomposition (\\[eq:Udecomp2\\]) corresponds to a sequence of $K=N(N-1)/2$ pulses in which the $k$th pulse is resonant with the transition $\\ket{\\sigma(k)}\\rightarrow \\ket{\\sigma(k)+1}$ and has effective pulse area $\\pi$, where $$\\sigma([1,\\ldots,K]) = \n  [1, 2, \\cdots, N-1; 1, 2 \\cdots N-2; 1, 2, \\cdots, N-3; \\cdots; 1, 2; 1].$$ This pulse scheme does *not* depend on the values of the initial populations, i.e., a complete inversion of the ensemble populations is achieved for any initial ensemble. Moreover, if the initial populations are mutually distinct, i.e., $w_n\\neq w_m$ for $n\n\\neq m$, then the decomposition is optimal in the sense that a complete inversion of the ensemble populations cannot be achieved with fewer than $K$ control pulses.\n\nTo illustrate the control scheme, let us apply it to the four-level Morse oscillator model for the vibrational modes of HF discussed above. For the purpose of the computer simulations, we randomly choose the initial populations to be $w_1=0.4$, $w_2=0.3$, $w_3=0.2$ and $w_4=0.1$, but recall that any initial ensemble would do, i.e., we could have chosen a thermal ensemble given by a Boltzmann distribution or another ensemble instead. Our goal is to create an ensemble where the populations of the energy eigenstates are reversed, i.e., where $\\ket{1}$ has population $w_4$, $\\ket{2}$ has population $w_3$, $\\ket{3}$ has population $w_2$, and $\\ket{4}$ has population $w_1$.\n\n  ------------------------- ----------------------\n  \\(a) Square wave pulses   \\(b) Gaussian pulses\n                            \n  ------------------------- ----------------------\n\nFigure \\[Fig:PopInversion\\] shows the results of control simulations using square wave and Gaussian control pulses, respectively. Note that each pulse in the control sequence interchanges the populations of two adjacent energy levels until a complete inversion of the populations is achieved. For our four-level system the effect of the controls on the populations can be summarized as follows\n\nwhere $f_m$, $m=1,2,3$, refers to a control pulse of frequency $\\omega_m$ with effective pulse area $\\pi$. The first pulse interchanges the populations of levels $\\ket{1}$ and $\\ket{2}$, the second pulse flips the populations of levels $\\ket{2}$ and $\\ket{3}$, the third pulse switches the populations of levels $\\ket{3}$ and $\\ket{4}$, etc. Since the populations of our initial ensemble satisfy $w_1<w_2<w_3<w_4$, the energy of the system assumes its kinematical minimum at $t=0$ and increases monotonically to its kinematical maximum value at the final time. Again, the gradient of approach is more uniform for square wave pulses.\n\nAs regards the field strengths, note that for 200 ps pulses up to 5.7 MV/m are required for SWP, and up to 12 MV/m for Gaussian pulses, which corresponds to (peak) intensities $I=\\epsilon_0 c E^2$ of up to $8.5 \\mbox{ MW/cm}^2$ (SWP) and $24 \\mbox{ MW/cm}^2$ (GWP), respectively. Achieving these intensities experimentally should be no problem for pulsed laser systems. For CW lasers, it would be challenging at the moment, but it should still be feasible using a combination of powerful lasers and beam focusing techniques. Moreover, such problems should disappear with improvements in laser technology in the future.\n\nHad we instead of fixing the pulse length at 200 ps, fixed the strength of the fields to be $2 A_k = 5 \\times 10^6$ V/m, say, then the length $\\Delta t_k$ of the control pulses according to (\\[eq:tmax:SWP\\]) would have been 224.5, 164.6, 138.1, 224.5, 164.6 and 224.5 ps, respectively, for SWP with $\\tau_0=20$ ps. For GWP with $q_k=4/\\Delta t_k$ the pulse lengths according to (\\[eq:tmax:GWP\\]) would have been 461.3, 326.2, 266.3, 461.3, 326.3 and 461.3 ps, respectively. Thus, instead of 1.2 ns in both cases, the time required to achieve the control objective would have been 1.14 ns for SWP, and 2.3 ns for GWP.\n\nNote that the problem of population transfer for a system initially in state $\\ket{1}$ is a special case of the problem of population inversion for a trivial ensemble with $w_1=1$ and $w_2=w_3=w_4=0$. It can easily been seen that pulses four, five and six in the pulse sequence above do no harm but have no effect for this initial ensemble\n\nand can therefore be omitted. Thus, the general six pulse sequence simplifies in this case to the three pulse sequence in the previous section. This can also be inferred directly from the decomposition (\\[eq:Udecomp2\\]) of the target operator. For a four level system (\\[eq:Udecomp2\\]) becomes $\\op{U}=\\op{U}_0(T)\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_3\\op{V}_2\n\\op{V}_1$ with $\\op{V}_m$ as in (\\[eq:Vm\\]). Thus, after applying the pulse sequence the state of the system is $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\op{\\rho} &=& \\op{U}_0(T)\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_3\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1 \\op{\\rho}_0\n                [\\op{U}_0(T)\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_3\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1]^\\dagger \\\\\n            &=& \\op{U}_0(T)\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_3\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1 \\op{\\rho}_0\n                \\op{V}_1^\\dagger \\op{V}_2^\\dagger\\op{V}_3^\\dagger\n                \\op{V}_1^\\dagger\\op{V}_2^\\dagger\\op{V}_1^\\dagger\\op{U}_0(T)^\\dagger.\\end{aligned}$$ If $\\op{\\rho}_0=\\ket{1}\\bra{1}$ then $\\op{V}_3\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1 \\op{\\rho}_0\\op{V}_1^\\dagger\n\\op{V}_2^\\dagger\\op{V}_3^\\dagger=\\ket{4}\\bra{4}$. Since $\\op{U}_0(T)\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_2\n\\op{V}_1$ commutes with this operator, the remaining factors cancel in the decomposition $$\\begin{aligned}\n & & \\op{U}_0(T)\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_3\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1 \\op{\\rho}_0\n                \\op{V}_1^\\dagger\\op{V}_2^\\dagger\\op{V}_3^\\dagger\n                \\op{V}_1^\\dagger\\op{V}_2^\\dagger\\op{V}_1^\\dagger\\op{U}_0(T)^\\dagger\\\\\n &=& \\op{U}_0(T)\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1\\ket{4}\\bra{4}\n                \\op{V}_1^\\dagger\\op{V}_2^\\dagger\\op{V}_1^\\dagger\\op{U}_0(T)^\\dagger\\\\\n &=& \\ket{4}\\bra{4}\\op{U}_0(T)\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_2\\op{V}_1\\op{V}_1^\\dagger\\op{V}_2^\\dagger\n     \\op{V}_1^\\dagger\\op{U}_0(T)^\\dagger = \\ket{4}\\bra{4}\\end{aligned}$$ and hence do not change the state of the system.\n\nCreation of arbitrary superposition states {#sec:superposition}\n==========================================\n\nIn this section we consider the problem of creating arbitrary superposition states from an initial energy eigenstate. Control schemes to create such superposition states may be useful in controlling quantum interference in multi-state systems, and can be considered a generalization of the $\\frac{\\pi}{2}$ pulses used routinely in free induction-decay experiments [@61Abraham].\n\nConcretely, assume that the system is initially in the ground state $\\ket{1}$. To create the superposition state $$\\label{eq:superpos}\n  \\ket{\\Psi(t)} = \\sum_{n=1}^N r_n e^{\\rmi\\theta_n} e^{\\rmi E_n t/\\hbar}\\ket{n}\n                = \\sum_{n=1}^N r_n e^{\\rmi\\theta_n} \\ket{\\tilde{n}(t)}$$ where the coefficients $r_n$ satisfy the normalization condition $\\sum_{n=1}^N r_n^2=1$, we need to find a unitary operator $\\op{U}_I$ such that $$\\label{eq:UI}\n  \\op{U}_I \\ket{1} = \\sum_{n=1}^N r_n e^{\\rmi\\theta_n} \\ket{n}$$ and decompose $\\op{U}_I$ according to the algorithm described in \\[appendix:Udecomp\\].\n\nTo find a unitary operator $\\op{U}_I$ that satisfies (\\[eq:U1\\]) we set $$\\op{W} =\\left( \\begin{array}{c|c} \n                r_1 & \\vec{0} \\\\\\hline\n                r_2 &  \\\\\n             \\vdots &  \\op{I}_{N-1}\\\\\n                r_N & \\\\ \n               \\end{array} \\right),$$ where $\\op{I}_{N-1}$ is the identity matrix in dimension $N-1$, and perform Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization on the columns of $\\op{W}$. This produces a matrix $\\op{U}_1$ which is unitary and satisfies $\\op{U}_1\\ket{1}=\\sum_{n=1}^N r_n \\ket{n}$. Hence, $\\op{U}_I=\n\\op{\\Theta}\\op{U}_1$ with $\\op{\\Theta}=\\sum_{n=1}^N e^{\\rmi\\theta_n}\\ket{n}\\bra{n}$ satisfies (\\[eq:UI\\]).\n\nAs an example, we consider the problem of creating the superposition state $\\ket{\\Psi(t)}\n=\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{n=1}^4 \\ket{\\tilde{n}(t)}$ for a four-level system initially in state $\\ket{1}$. As outlined above, we set $$\\op{W} =\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc} \n                1/2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n                1/2 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n                1/2 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\\\\n                1/2 & 0 & 0 & 1\n                \\end{array} \\right).$$ and perform Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization on the columns of $\\op{W}$, which gives $$\\label{eq:targetU1}\n  \\op{U}_1=\\left(\\begin{array}{cccc}\n   1/2 & -\\sqrt{3}/6 & -\\sqrt{6}/6 & -\\sqrt{2}/2 \\\\\n   1/2 & +\\sqrt{3}/2 & 0           & 0 \\\\\n   1/2 & -\\sqrt{3}/6 & +\\sqrt{6}/3 & 0 \\\\\n   1/2 & -\\sqrt{3}/6 & -\\sqrt{6}/6 & +\\sqrt{2}/2\n  \\end{array}\\right).$$ Since $\\op{\\Theta}=\\op{I}$ we have $\\op{U}_I = \\op{U}_1$ and applying the decomposition algorithm (appendix \\[appendix:Udecomp\\]) leads to the factorization $\\op{U}_1 = \n\\op{V}_5 \\op{V}_4 \\op{V}_3 \\op{V}_2 \\op{V}_1$, where the factors are $$\\label{eq:Udecomp3b}\n\\begin{array}{rcl}\n  \\op{V}_1 &=& \\exp\\left(+C_1\\op{x}_1 \\right), \\quad C_1 = \\frac{\\pi}{3},\\\\\n  \\op{V}_2 &=& \\exp\\left(-C_2\\op{x}_2 \\right), \\quad C_2 = \\arctan\\left(\\sqrt{2}\\right) \\\\\n  \\op{V}_3 &=& \\exp\\left(+C_3\\op{x}_3 \\right), \\quad C_3 = \\frac{\\pi}{4},\\\\\n  \\op{V}_4 &=& \\exp\\left(+C_4\\op{x}_2 \\right), \\quad C_4 = \\frac{\\pi}{2},\\\\\n  \\op{V}_5 &=& \\exp\\left(-C_5\\op{x}_1 \\right), \\quad C_5 = \\frac{\\pi}{2}.\n\\end{array}$$ This decomposition corresponds to the following sequence of five control pulses $$\\begin{array}{rll}\n  f_1(t) &= A_1(t) e^{i(\\omega_1 t +\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= -2A_1(t) \\sin(\\omega_1 t) \\\\\n  f_2(t) &= A_2(t) e^{i(\\omega_2 t -\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= +2A_2(t) \\sin(\\omega_2 t) \\\\ \n  f_3(t) &= A_3(t) e^{i(\\omega_3 t +\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= -2A_3(t) \\sin(\\omega_3 t) \\\\ \n  f_4(t) &= A_4(t) e^{i(\\omega_2 t +\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= -2A_4(t) \\sin(\\omega_2 t) \\\\ \n  f_5(t) &= A_5(t) e^{i(\\omega_1 t -\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= +2A_5(t) \\sin(\\omega_1 t) \\\\ \n\\end{array}$$ with pulse areas $\\frac{2}{3}\\pi$, $2\\arctan(\\sqrt{2})$, $\\frac{1}{2}\\pi$, $\\pi$ and $\\pi$, respectively. Note that only five instead of six pulses are required since the target operator $\\op{U}_1$ has two consecutive zeros in the last column, which implies that one of the six control pulses has zero amplitude and can thus be omitted.\n\n  ------------------------- ----------------------\n  \\(a) Square wave pulses   \\(b) Gaussian pulses\n                            \n  ------------------------- ----------------------\n\nFigure \\[Fig:Superpos\\] shows the results of a control simulation based on this decomposition of $\\op{U}_1$ for 87 using square wave and Gaussian control pulses, respectively. Note that all the populations and the absolute values of all the coherences are $0.25$ at the final time \u2014 exactly as required for the superposition state $\\ket{\\Psi(t)}=\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{n=1}^4 \\ket{\\tilde{n}(t)}$, whose density matrix representation is $$\\op{\\rho}(t) =\\ket{\\Psi(t)}\\bra{\\Psi(t)} \n              = \\frac{1}{4} \n                \\left( \\begin{array}{cccc} \n                1 & e^{\\rmi\\omega_{12}t} & e^{\\rmi\\omega_{13}t} & e^{\\rmi\\omega_{14}t} \\\\\n                e^{-\\rmi\\omega_{12}t} & 1 & e^{\\rmi\\omega_{23}t}& e^{\\rmi\\omega_{24}t} \\\\\n                e^{-\\rmi\\omega_{13}t} & e^{-\\rmi\\omega_{23}t} & 1 & e^{\\rmi\\omega_{34}t}\\\\\n                e^{-\\rmi\\omega_{14}t} & e^{-\\rmi\\omega_{24}t} & e^{-\\rmi\\omega_{34}t} &1 \n                 \\end{array}\\right),$$ i.e., $|\\op{\\rho}_{mn}|=\\frac{1}{4}$ for all $m,n$. Note that we have plotted the absolute values of the coherences $\\op{\\rho}_{mn}(t)$ (for $m\\neq n$) only since their phases are rapidly oscillating at frequencies $\\omega_{mn}=(E_n-E_m)/\\hbar$, which are on the order of $10^{15}$ Hz for 87. The pulse intensities are similar to those for population transfer in 87. Again, we chose pulses of fixed length 200 ps. Had we instead fixed the strength of the fields to be $2 A_k = 10^5$ V/m, say, then the length $\\Delta t_k$ of the control pulses according to (\\[eq:tmax:SWP\\]) and (\\[eq:tmax:GWP\\]) would have been 99.5, 88.6, 358.6, 132.9 and 155.4 ps, respectively, for SWP with $\\tau_0=20$ ps, and 156.7, 154.9, 764.1, 254.7 and 305.6 ps, respectively, for GWP with $q_k=4/\\Delta t_k$.\n\nUnlike decompositions (\\[eq:Udecomp1\\]) and (\\[eq:Udecomp2\\]) where the initial phases $\\phi_m$ of the control pulses were arbitrary, the factorization (\\[eq:Udecomp3b\\]) fixes the pulse area and frequency $\\omega_m$ as well as the initial phase $\\phi_m$ of each pulse. In order to determine the significance of the the initial pulse phases on the outcome of the control process, we compute the unitary operator $\\op{U}_2=\\tilde{V}_5 \\tilde{V}_4 \n\\tilde{V}_3 \\tilde{V}_2 \\tilde{V}_1$, where the factors are $$\\label{eq:Udecomp3c}\n\\begin{array}{rcl}\n  \\tilde{V}_1 &=& \\exp\\left[C_1(\\sin\\phi_1\\op{x}_1-\\cos\\phi_1\\op{y}_1)\\right] \\\\\n  \\tilde{V}_2 &=& \\exp\\left[C_2(\\sin\\phi_2\\op{x}_2-\\cos\\phi_2\\op{y}_2)\\right] \\\\\n  \\tilde{V}_3 &=& \\exp\\left[C_3(\\sin\\phi_3\\op{x}_3-\\cos\\phi_3\\op{y}_3)\\right] \\\\\n  \\tilde{V}_4 &=& \\exp\\left[C_4(\\sin\\phi_4\\op{x}_2-\\cos\\phi_4\\op{y}_2)\\right] \\\\\n  \\tilde{V}_5 &=& \\exp\\left[C_5(\\sin\\phi_5\\op{x}_1-\\cos\\phi_5\\op{y}_1)\\right]\n\\end{array}$$ and the constants $C_k$ are as in (\\[eq:Udecomp3b\\]) but the initial phases $\\phi_k$ of the control pulses are arbitrary, and apply this operator to the initial state $\\ket{1}$. The resulting state $$\\label{eq:phi}\n  \\op{U}_2 \\left(\\begin{array}{c} 1 \\\\ 0 \\\\ 0 \\\\ 0 \\end{array} \\right)\n= \\frac{1}{2}\n  \\left(\\begin{array}{l} e^{\\rmi(\\phi_4+\\phi_5-\\phi_1-\\phi_2)} \\\\ \n                         e^{\\rmi(-\\pi/2-\\phi_5) } \\\\ \n                         e^{\\rmi(\\pi-\\phi_1-\\phi_4)} \\\\ \n                         e^{\\rmi(\\pi/2-\\phi_1-\\phi_2-\\phi_3)} \n         \\end{array} \\right)$$ differs from the desired target state only in the phase factors, i.e., the pulse phases do not affect the relative amplitudes $r_n$ of the superposition state created. Moreover, we can use (\\[eq:phi\\]) to explicitly determine the pulse phases $\\phi_n$ as a function of the phases $\\theta_n$ of the target state: $$\\begin{array}{rcl}\n  \\phi_1 &=& \\mbox{arbitrary} \\\\\n  \\phi_2 &=& \\frac{\\pi}{2} - 2\\phi_1 - \\theta_1 - \\theta_2 - \\theta_3 \\\\\n  \\phi_3 &=& \\phi_1 + \\theta_1 + \\theta_2 + \\theta_3 - \\theta_4 \\\\\n  \\phi_4 &=& \\pi - \\phi_1 - \\theta_3 \\\\\n  \\phi_5 &=& -\\frac{\\pi}{2} - \\theta_2. \n\\end{array}$$ Setting $\\theta_n=0$ for $n=1,2,3,4$ and choosing $\\phi_1=\\pi/2$ leads to $\\phi_2=-\\pi/2$, $\\phi_3=\\pi/2$, $\\phi_4=\\pi/2$ and $\\phi_5=-\\pi/2$, which agrees with the phases in decomposition (\\[eq:Udecomp3b\\]).\n\nOptimization of observables {#sec:optimization}\n===========================\n\nFinally, we address the problem of maximizing the ensemble average of an observable for a system whose initial state is a statistical ensemble of energy eigenstates (\\[eq:rho0\\]). Let us first consider the case of a time-independent observable $\\op{A}$. To determine the target operator required to maximize the ensemble average $\\ave{\\op{A}}$ of $\\op{A}$ we observe that $\\ave{\\op{A}}$ is bounded above by the kinematical upper bound [@PRA58p2684] $$\\ave{\\op{A}} \\le \\sum_{n=1}^N w_{\\sigma(n)} \\lambda_n,$$ where $\\lambda_n$ are the eigenvalues of $\\op{A}$ counted with multiplicity and ordered in a non-increasing sequence $$\\lambda_1 \\ge \\lambda_2 \\ge \\cdots \\ge \\lambda_N,$$ $w_n$ are the populations of the energy levels $E_n$ of the initial ensemble, and $\\sigma$ is a permutation of $\\{1,\\ldots,N\\}$ such that $$w_{\\sigma(1)} \\ge w_{\\sigma(2)} \\ge \\cdots \\ge w_{\\sigma(N)}.$$ Observe that this universal upper bound for the ensemble average of any observable $\\op{A}$ is dynamically attainable since the systems considered in this paper are completely controllable [@PRA63n025403; @PRA63n063410].\n\nLet $\\ket{\\Psi_n}$ for $1\\le n\\le N$ denote the normalized eigenstates of $\\op{A}$ satisfying $\\op{A}\\ket{\\Psi_n}=\\lambda_n \\ket{\\Psi_n}$ and let $\\op{U}_1$ be a unitary transformation such that $$\\label{eq:U1def}\n    \\ket{\\Psi_{\\sigma(n)}}=\\op{U}_1\\ket{n}, \\quad 1\\le n \\le N.$$ Given an initial state $\\op{\\rho}_0$ of the form (\\[eq:rho0\\]), we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\Tr \\left(\\op{A}\\op{U}_1\\rho_0 \\op{U}_1^\\dagger\\right) \n  &=& \\Tr\\left(\\op{A}\\sum_n w_n \\op{U}_1\\ket{n}\\bra{n}\\op{U}_1^\\dagger\\right) \n  \\nonumber \\\\\n  &=& \\Tr\\left(\\sum_n w_n \\op{A}\\ket{\\Psi_{\\sigma(n)}}\\bra{\\Psi_{\\sigma(n)}}\\right)\n  \\nonumber\\\\\n  &=& \\Tr\\left(\\sum_n w_n\\lambda_{\\sigma(n)}\\ket{\\Psi_{\\sigma(n)}}\n                                            \\bra{\\Psi_{\\sigma(n)}}\\right)\n  \\nonumber\\\\\n  &=& \\sum_n w_n \\lambda_{\\sigma(n)} = \\sum_n w_{\\sigma(n)} \\lambda_n.\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, if the system is initially in the state (\\[eq:rho0\\]) then $\\op{U}_1$ is a target operator for which the observable $\\op{A}$ assumes its kinematical maximum, and we can use the decomposition algorithm described in \\[appendix:Udecomp\\] to obtain the required factorization of the operator $\\op{U}_I=\\op{U}_0(T)^\\dagger\\op{U}_1$.\n\nHowever, if $\\op{A}$ is an observable whose eigenstates are not energy eigenstates then the expectation value or ensemble average of $\\op{A}$ will usually oscillate rapidly as a result of the action of the free evolution operator $\\op{U}_0(t)$. These oscillations are rarely significant for the application at hand and often distracting. In such cases it is advantageous to define a dynamic observable $$\\tilde{A}(t) = \\op{U}_0(t) \\op{A} \\op{U}_0(t)^\\dagger$$ and optimize its ensemble average instead. To accomplish this, note that if $\\ket{\\Psi_n}$ are the eigenstates of $\\op{A}$ satisfying $\\op{A}\\ket{\\Psi_n}=\\lambda_n\\ket{\\Psi_n}$ then $\\ket{\\tilde{\\Psi}_n(t)}=\\op{U}_0(t)\\ket{\\Psi_n}$ are the corresponding eigenstates of $\\tilde{A}(t)$ since $$\\tilde{A}(t) \\ket{\\tilde{\\Psi}_n(t)}\n = \\op{U}_0(t)\\op{A} \\op{U}_0(t)^\\dagger \\op{U}_0(t) \\ket{\\Psi_n}\n = \\op{U}_0(t)\\lambda_n \\ket{\\Psi_n} \n = \\lambda_n \\ket{\\tilde{\\Psi}_n(t)}.$$ Hence, if $\\op{U}_1$ is a unitary operator such that equation (\\[eq:U1def\\]) holds then $\\op{U}_0(t)\\op{U}_1$ is a unitary operator that maps the energy eigenstates $\\ket{n}$ onto the $\\tilde{A}(t)$-eigenstates $\\ket{\\tilde{\\Psi}_n(t)}$ since $$\\op{U}_0(t) \\op{U}_1 \\ket{n}\n = \\op{U}_0(t) \\ket{\\Psi_{\\sigma(n)}}\n = \\ket{\\tilde{\\Psi}_{\\sigma(n)}(t)}$$ for $1\\le n\\le N$. Thus, the evolution operator required to maximize the ensemble average of $\\tilde{A}(t)$ at time $T>0$ is $\\op{U}_0(T)\\op{U}_1$ and the target operator to be decomposed is $\\op{U}=\\op{U}_0(T)^\\dagger\\op{U}_0(T)\\op{U}_1=\\op{U}_1$.\n\nFor instance, suppose we wish to maximize the ensemble average of the transition dipole moment operator $\\tilde{A}(t)=\\op{U}_0(t)\\op{A}\\op{U}_0(t)^\\dagger$, where $$\\label{eq:A}\n  \\op{A}= \\sum_{n=1}^{N-1} d_n \\left(\\ket{n}\\bra{n+1}+\\ket{n+1}\\bra{n}\\right),$$ for a system initially in state (\\[eq:rho0\\]) with $$w_1 > w_2 > \\cdots > w_N > 0.$$ First, we need to find a unitary operator that maps the initial state $\\ket{n}$ onto the $\\op{A}$-eigenstate $\\ket{\\Psi_n}$ for $1\\le n\\le N$. Let $\\op{U}_1$ be the $N\\times N$ matrix whose $n$th column is the normalized $\\op{A}$-eigenstate $\\ket{\\Psi_n}$. Then $\\op{U}_1$ clearly satisfies $\\op{U}_1\\ket{n}=\\ket{\\Psi_n}$. Furthermore, $\\op{U}_1$ is automatically unitary since the eigenstates $\\ket{\\Psi_n}$ are orthonormal by hypothesis.\n\nFor $N=4$ and $d_n=p_0\\sqrt{n}$ the eigenvalues of the operator $\\op{A}$ defined in (\\[eq:A\\]) are (in decreasing order) $$\\lambda_1=\\sqrt{3+\\sqrt{6}}, \\;\n \\lambda_2=\\sqrt{3-\\sqrt{6}}, \\;\n \\lambda_3=-\\lambda_2, \\;\n \\lambda_4=-\\lambda_1$$ and the corresponding eigenstates with respect to the standard basis $\\ket{n}$ are the columns of the operator $$\\op{U}_1=\\left[ \\begin{array}{cccc} \n \\frac{1}{2\\lambda_1}&\\frac{1}{2\\lambda_2}&\\frac{1}{2\\lambda_2}&\\frac{1}{2\\lambda_1}\\\\[1.ex]\n\\frac{1}{2}         &\\frac{1}{2}         &-\\frac{1}{2}        &-\\frac{1}{2} \\\\[1.ex]\n \\frac{\\sqrt{2}+\\sqrt{3}}{2\\lambda_1} & \\frac{\\sqrt{2}-\\sqrt{3}}{2\\lambda_2} &\n \\frac{\\sqrt{2}-\\sqrt{3}}{2\\lambda_2} & \\frac{\\sqrt{2}+\\sqrt{3}}{2\\lambda_1} \\\\[1.ex]\n \\frac{1}{2}         &-\\frac{1}{2}         &\\frac{1}{2}        &-\\frac{1}{2} \\\\\n\\end{array} \\right].$$\n\nApplying the decomposition algorithm described in \\[appendix:Udecomp\\] yields the product decomposition $\\op{U}_1 \\op{\\Theta}=\\op{V}_6 \\op{V}_5 \\op{V}_4 \\op{V}_3 \\op{V}_2 \n\\op{V}_1$, where the factors are $$\\label{eq:Cs}\n   \\begin{array}{ll}\n  \\op{V}_1 = \\exp\\left(-C_1\\op{x}_1 \\right), & C_1 = \\pi/4,\\\\\n  \\op{V}_2 = \\exp\\left(-C_2\\op{x}_2 \\right), & C_2 = \\arctan\\left(\\sqrt{2}\\right),\\\\\n  \\op{V}_3 = \\exp\\left(-C_3\\op{x}_1 \\right), & C_3 = \n                       \\mbox{arccot}\\left(\\frac{\\sqrt{6}-\\sqrt{3}+3\\sqrt{2}}{3}\\right),\\\\\n  \\op{V}_4 = \\exp\\left(-C_4\\op{x}_3 \\right), & C_4 = \\pi/3,\\\\\n  \\op{V}_5 = \\exp\\left(-C_5\\op{x}_2 \\right), & C_5 = \n                       \\arctan\\left(\\frac{\\sqrt{4+\\sqrt{6}}}{\\sqrt{2}+\\sqrt{3}}\\right),\\\\\n  \\op{V}_6 = \\exp\\left(-C_6\\op{x}_1 \\right), & C_5 = \n                        \\mbox{arccot}\\left(\\sqrt{3+\\sqrt{6}}\\right)\n\\end{array}$$ and $\\op{\\Theta}=\\mbox{diag}(1,-1,1,-1)$. Note that $\\op{U}_2\\equiv\\op{U}_1\\op{\\Theta}$ is equivalent to $\\op{U}_1$ since $\\op{\\Theta}$ commutes with $\\op{\\rho}_0$ as defined in equation (\\[eq:rho0\\]), i.e., $\\op{\\Theta}\\op{\\rho}_0\\op{\\Theta}^\\dagger=\\op{\\rho}_0$, and thus $$\\Tr\\left(\\op{A}\\op{U}_2\\op{\\rho}_0\\op{U}_2^\\dagger\\right) \n = \\Tr\\left(\\op{A}\\op{U}_1\\op{\\Theta}\\op{\\rho}_0\\op{\\Theta}^\\dagger\\op{U}_1^\\dagger\\right)\n =\\Tr\\left(\\op{A}\\op{U}_1 \\op{\\rho}_0\\op{U}_1\\right). \\label{eq:Theta-equiv}$$ This decomposition corresponds to a sequence of six control pulses $$\\begin{array}{rll}\n  f_1(t) &= A_1(t) e^{\\rmi(\\omega_1 t -\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_1(t) \\sin(\\omega_1 t) \\\\\n  f_2(t) &= A_2(t) e^{\\rmi(\\omega_2 t -\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_2(t) \\sin(\\omega_2 t) \\\\ \n  f_3(t) &= A_3(t) e^{\\rmi(\\omega_1 t -\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_3(t) \\sin(\\omega_1 t) \\\\ \n  f_4(t) &= A_4(t) e^{\\rmi(\\omega_3 t -\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_4(t) \\sin(\\omega_3 t) \\\\ \n  f_5(t) &= A_5(t) e^{\\rmi(\\omega_2 t -\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_5(t) \\sin(\\omega_2 t) \\\\ \n  f_6(t) &= A_6(t) e^{\\rmi(\\omega_1 t -\\pi/2)} + \\mbox{c.c.} &= 2A_6(t) \\sin(\\omega_1 t)  \n\\end{array}$$ with effective pulse areas $\\frac{\\pi}{2}$, $2C_2$, $2C_3$, $\\frac{2\\pi}{3}$, $2C_5$ and $2C_6$, respectively. Again, the decomposition fixes the frequency and pulse area as well as the initial phase of each pulse and the question thus arises what role the phases play. As we have already seen, the target operator $\\op{U}_1$ is not unique. In fact, equation (\\[eq:Theta-equiv\\]) shows that right multiplication of $\\op{U}_1$ by any unitary matrix that commutes with $\\op{\\rho}_0$ produces another unitary operator that leads to the same ensemble average of the target observable. Nevertheless, in general, the control process is sensitive to the phases $\\phi_m$. For instance, one can verify that changing the phase $\\phi_1$ of the first pulse from $-\\pi/2$ to $\\pi/2$ in the pulse sequence above leads to the following evolution operator $$\\op{U}_3 = \\left[ \\begin{array}{cccc} \n \\frac{1}{2\\lambda_2}&\\frac{1}{2\\lambda_1}&\\frac{1}{2\\lambda_2}&-\\frac{1}{2\\lambda_1}\\\\[1ex]\n \\frac{1}{2}         &\\frac{1}{2}         &-\\frac{1}{2}        &\\frac{1}{2} \\\\[1ex]\n \\frac{\\sqrt{2}-\\sqrt{3}}{2\\lambda_2} & \\frac{\\sqrt{2}+\\sqrt{3}}{2\\lambda_1} & \n \\frac{\\sqrt{2}-\\sqrt{3}}{2\\lambda_2} & \\frac{\\sqrt{2}+\\sqrt{3}}{-2\\lambda_1} \\\\[1ex]\n -\\frac{1}{2}        &\\frac{1}{2}     & \\frac{1}{2}            & \\frac{1}{2} \n\\end{array} \\right],$$ which maps $\\ket{3}$ onto $\\ket{\\Psi_3}$ and $\\ket{4}$ onto $-\\ket{\\Psi_4}$ but $\\ket{1}$ onto $\\ket{\\Psi_2}$ and $\\ket{2}$ onto $\\ket{\\Psi_1}$ and leads to the ensemble average $$\\ave{\\op{A}} = w_1 \\lambda_2 + w_2 \\lambda_1 + w_3 \\lambda_3 + w_4 \\lambda_4$$ at the final time, which is strictly less than the kinematical maximum if $w_1>w_2$.\n\n  ------------------------- ----------------------\n  \\(a) Square wave pulses   \\(b) Gaussian pulses\n                            \n  ------------------------- ----------------------\n\nFigure \\[Fig:Dipole\\] shows the results of control simulations for HF with initial populations $w_1=0.4$, $w_2=0.3$, $w_3=0.2$ and $w_4=0.1$ for square wave and Gaussian control pulses, respectively. The pulse intensities are similar to those for population inversion in HF. Notice that the observable indeed attains its kinematical upper bound at the final time, as desired. Furthermore, the target state for which the observable assumes its upper bound is $$\\op{\\rho} = \\op{U}_1 \\op{\\rho}_0 \\op{U}_1^\\dagger\n            =  \\left( \\begin{array}{cccc}\n                 \\frac{1}{4} & \\rho_{12} & 0 & \\rho_{14} \\\\ \n                 \\rho_{12}^\\dagger & \\frac{1}{4} & \\rho_{23} & 0 \\\\\n                 0 & \\rho_{23}^\\dagger & \\frac{1}{4} & \\rho_{34} \\\\\n                 \\rho_{14}^\\dagger & 0 & \\rho_{34}^\\dagger & \\frac{1}{4}  \n                \\end{array} \\right)$$ with $\\rho_{12}=\\lambda_1\\lambda_2(\\lambda_2+\\lambda_1/3)/40 \\approx 0.0658$, $\\rho_{14}=\\lambda_1\\lambda_2(\\lambda_2-\\lambda_1/3)/40 \\approx -0.0016$, $\\rho_{23}=\\lambda_2(\\lambda_1^2-1/\\sqrt{3})/40 \\approx 0.0904$, $\\rho_{34}=\\lambda_2(\\lambda_1^2+1/\\sqrt{3})/40 \\approx 0.1118$, which agrees with the final values of the populations and coherences in figure \\[Fig:Dipole\\]. Note that we chose pulses of fixed length 200 ps. Had we instead fixed the strength of the fields to be $2 A_k = 5 \\times 10^6$ V/m, say, then the length $\\Delta t_k$ of the control pulses according to (\\[eq:tmax:SWP\\]) and (\\[eq:tmax:GWP\\]) would have been 122.2, 97.9, 60.8, 156.3, 82.5 and 72.7 ps, respectively, for SWP with $\\tau_0=20$ ps, and 230.6, 198.4, 92.2, 307.5, 141.0 and 118.9 ps, respectively, for GWP with $q_k=4/\\Delta t_k$.\n\nConclusion {#sec:conclusion}\n==========\n\nWe have presented several control schemes designed to achieve control objectives ranging from population transfer and inversion of ensemble populations to the creation of arbitrary superposition states and the optimization of (dynamic) observables. A key feature of these schemes is that they rely only on sequences of simple control pulses such as square wave pulses with finite rise and decay times or Gaussian wavepackets to achieve the control objective. In the optical regime, for instance, such pulses can easily be created in the laboratory using pulsed laser sources, or by modulating the amplitude of CW lasers using Pockel cells. No sophisticated pulse shaping technology is required. A limitation of the approach is the need to be able to selectively address individual transitions, which restricts the application of this technique to systems where selection rules and frequency discrimination can be employed to achieve this. However, these requirements can be met for certain atomic or molecular systems, as we have demonstrated for Rubidium and hydrogen fluoride.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nWe sincerely thank A.\u00a0I.\u00a0Solomon and A.\u00a0V.\u00a0Durrant of the Open University for helpful discussions and suggestions. ADG would like to thank the EPSRC for financial support and VR would like to acknowledge the support of NSF Grant DMS 0072415.\n\nDerivation of equation (\\[eq:Omega\\]) {#appendix:A}\n=====================================\n\nLet $\\tilde{E}_n=E_n/\\hbar$ and $\\tilde{d}_n=d_n/\\hbar$. Inserting equations (\\[eq:U0\\]) and (\\[eq:Hm\\]) into (\\[eq:SE2\\]) leads to $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\fl \\rmi\\frac{d\\op{U}_I(t)}{dt} \n    &=& \\op{U}_0(t)^\\dagger\\left\\{\\sum_{m=1}^M\\op{H}_m[f_m(t)] /\\hbar \\right\\}\n        \\op{U}_0(t)\\op{U}_I(t)\\\\\n\\fl &=& \\sum_{n,m,n'} e^{\\rmi \\tilde{E}_n t} \\op{e}_{n,n} \n        A_m(t) \\tilde{d}_m \\left(e^{\\rmi(\\omega_m t + \\phi_m)}\\op{e}_{m,m+1} \n              e^{-\\rmi(\\omega_m t + \\phi_m)}\\op{e}_{m+1,m} \\right) \n              e^{-\\rmi \\tilde{E}_{n'} t} \\op{e}_{n',n'} \\op{U}_I(t)\\\\\n\\fl &=& \\sum_m A_m(t)\\tilde{d}_m \\left(e^{\\rmi\\tilde{E}_mt} e^{\\rmi(\\omega_m t+\\phi_m)} \n         e^{-\\rmi\\tilde{E}_{m+1} t} \\op{e}_{m,m+1}e^{\\rmi\\tilde{E}_{m+1} t} \n         e^{-\\rmi(\\omega_m t +\\phi_m)}e^{-\\rmi\\tilde{E}_m t}\\op{e}_{m+1,m}\\right)\n         \\op{U}_I(t)\\\\\n\\fl &=&\\sum_m A_m(t) \\tilde{d}_m \n    \\left( e^{\\rmi\\phi_m}\\op{e}_{m,m+1} + e^{-\\rmi\\phi_m}\\op{e}_{m+1,m}\\right)\\op{U}_I(t)\\\\\n\\fl &=&\\sum_m A_m(t) \\tilde{d}_m\\left[\\cos\\phi_m \\left(\\op{e}_{m,m+1}+\\op{e}_{m+1,m} \\right)\n    +\\rmi\\sin\\phi_m \\left(\\op{e}_{m,m+1}-\\op{e}_{m+1,m} \\right) \\right] \\op{U}_I(t)\\\\\n\\fl &=&\\sum_m A_m(t) \\tilde{d}_m \n    \\left( -\\rmi\\op{y}_m \\cos\\phi_m + \\op{x}_m \\rmi\\sin\\phi_m \\right) \\op{U}_I(t).\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, multiplying both sides by $-\\rmi$ gives $$\\frac{d\\op{U}_I(t)}{dt} = \\sum_m A_m(t) \\tilde{d}_m \n  \\left(\\op{x}_m  \\sin\\phi_m - \\op{y}_m \\cos\\phi_m \\right) \\op{U}_I(t).$$\n\nLie group decomposition algorithm {#appendix:Udecomp}\n=================================\n\nTo find a decomposition (\\[eq:Udecomp\\]) for the unitary operator $\\op{U}$ we define the equivalent operator $\\op{U}^{(0)}\\in SU(N)$ by $\\op{U}^{(0)}=e^{-\\rmi\\Gamma/N}\\op{U}$ where $e^{\\rmi\\Gamma}=\\det(\\op{U})$. Our goal is to reduce $\\op{U}^{(0)}$ step by step to a diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are arbitrary phase factors $e^{\\rmi\\theta_n}$. Recall that this reduction is always sufficient if the initial state of the system is an ensemble of energy eigenstates.\n\nLet $U_{ij}^{(0)}$ denote the $i$th row and $j$th column entry in the matrix representation of $\\op{U}^{(0)}$. In the first step of the decomposition we seek a matrix $$\\op{W}^{(1)}=\\exp\\left[-C_1\\left(\\sin\\phi_1\\op{x}_1 -\\cos\\phi_1\\op{y}_1\\right)\\right],$$ which is the identity matrix everywhere except for a $2\\times 2$ block of the form $$\\left( \\begin{array}{cc} \n       \\cos(C_1)                      & \\rmi e^{\\rmi\\phi_1} \\sin(C_1) \\\\\n       \\rmi e^{-\\rmi\\phi_1} \\sin(C_1) & \\cos(C_1)   \n  \\end{array} \\right)$$ in the top left corner, such that $$\\label{eq:W1}\n    \\op{W}^{(1)} \\left(\\begin{array}{c} U_{1,N}^{(0)} \\\\ \n                                        U_{2,N}^{(0)} \\\\\n                                        \\vdots\n                  \\end{array}\\right)\n  = \\left(\\begin{array}{c} 0 \\\\ c \\\\ \\vdots \\end{array}\\right)$$ where $c$ is some complex number. Noting that $U_{1,N}^{(0)}=r_1 e^{\\rmi\\alpha_1}$ and $U_{2,N}^{(0)} = r_2 e^{\\rmi\\alpha_2}$, it can easily be verified that setting $$\\label{eq:Cphi}\n    C_k    = -\\mbox{arccot}(-r_2/r_1), \\quad\n    \\phi_k = \\pi/2+\\alpha_1-\\alpha_2$$ achieves (\\[eq:W1\\]). Next we set $\\op{U}^{(1)} = \\op{W}^{(1)} \\op{U}^{(0)}$ and find $\\op{W}^{(2)}$ of the form $$\\op{W}^{(2)} = \\exp\\left[-C_2\\left(\\sin\\phi_2\\op{x}_2 -\\cos\\phi_2\\op{y}_2\\right)\\right]$$ such that $$\\label{eq:W2}\n    \\op{W}^{(2)} \\left(\\begin{array}{c} 0 \\\\\n                                        U_{2,N}^{(1)} \\\\ \n                                        U_{3,N}^{(1)} \\\\\n                                        \\vdots \n                  \\end{array}\\right)\n  = \\left(\\begin{array}{c} 0 \\\\ 0 \\\\ c \\\\ \\vdots \\end{array}\\right)$$ where $c$ is again some complex number. Repeating this procedure $N-1$ times leads to a matrix $\\op{U}^{(N-1)}$ whose last column is $(0,\\ldots,0,e^{\\rmi\\theta_N})^T$. Since we are not concerned about the phase factor $e^{\\rmi\\theta_N}$ in this paper, we stop here. Note that $$\\exp\\left(-C \\op{x}_{N-1}\\right) \\times \n \\exp\\left[-C (\\op{x}_{N-1}\\sin\\phi-\\op{y}_{N-1}\\cos\\phi) \\right]$$ with $C=\\pi/2$ and $\\phi=-\\pi/2-\\theta_n$ maps $(0,e^{\\rmi\\theta_{N-1}})^T$ onto $(0,1)^T$. Hence, a complete reduction to the identity matrix would require two additional steps to eliminate $e^{\\rmi\\theta_N}$, which would result in two additional control pulses.\n\nHaving reduced the last column, we continue with the $(N-1)$st column in the same fashion, noting that at most $N-2$ steps will be required to reduce the $(N-1)$st column to $(0,\n\\ldots,0, e^{\\rmi\\theta_{N-1}},0)^T$ since $\\op{U}^{(0)}$ is unitary. We repeat this procedure until after at most $K=N(N-1)/2$ steps $\\op{U}^{(0)}$ is reduced to a diagonal matrix $\\mbox{diag}(e^{\\rmi\\theta_1},\\ldots,e^{\\rmi\\theta_N})$ and we have $$\\op{W}^{(K)} \\cdots \\op{W}^{(1)} \\op{U}^{(0)} \n = \\mbox{diag}\\left(e^{\\rmi\\theta_1},\\ldots,e^{\\rmi\\theta_N} \\right).$$ Finally, setting $\\op{V}_k \\equiv \\left(\\op{W}^{(K+1-k)}\\right)^\\dagger$ leads to $$\\op{U}^{(0)} = \\op{V}_K \\op{V}_{K-1} \\cdots \\op{V}_1 \n              \\mbox{diag}\\left(e^{\\rmi\\theta_1},\\ldots,e^{\\rmi\\theta_N} \\right)$$ and therefore $\\op{U} = \\op{V}_K \\op{V}_{K-1} \\cdots \\op{V}_1 \\Theta$, where $\\Theta=\ne^{\\rmi\\Gamma/N}\\mbox{diag}\\left(e^{\\rmi\\theta_1},\\ldots,e^{\\rmi\\theta_N}\\right)$ is a diagonal matrix of phase factors.\n\nRecall that $\\op{U}$ can always be decomposed such that $\\Theta$ is the identity matrix. However, up to $2(N-1)$ additional terms would be required to eliminate the phase factors, which would result in additional control pulses. While some applications indeed require the elimination of these phase factors, they are often insignificant and the additional control pulses would be superfluous. For a more sophisticated decomposition algorithm that requires only very few phases the reader is referred to [@CP267p25].\n\nReferences {#references .unnumbered}\n==========\n\n[^1]: Assumption (\\[hyp:a\\]) can be relaxed if we can distinguish transitions with the same transition frequency by other means, e.g., by using fields with different polarizations.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We prove a new formula for the generating function of polynomials counting absolutely stable representations of quivers over finite fields. The case of irreducible representations is studied in more detail.'\nauthor:\n- Sergey Mozgovoy\n- Markus Reineke\ntitle: On the number of stable quiver representations over finite fields\n---\n\n[^1]\n\n[^1]:\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We have carried out measurements of domain wall dynamics in a Pt/Co/GdO$_x(t)$ wedge sample with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. When driven by an easy-axis field $H_{z}$ in the presence of an in-plane field $H_{x}$, the domain wall expansion along $\\pm x$ is anisotropic, as expected for samples presenting Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. In the creep regime, the sign and the value of the domain wall velocity asymmetry changes along the wedge. We show that in our samples the domain wall speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves in the creep regime cannot be explained simply in terms of the variation of the domain wall energy with $H_{x}$, as suggested by previous works. For this reason the strength and the sign of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) cannot be extracted from these measurements. To obtain reliable information on the DMI strength using magnetic field-induced domain wall dynamics, measurements have been performed with high fields, bringing the DW close to the flow regime of propagation. In this case we find large values of DMI, coherent with those obtained from current-driven domain wall dynamics.'\naddress:\n- 'CNRS, Institut N\u00e9el, 38042 Grenoble, France'\n- 'Univ.\u00a0Grenoble Alpes, Institut N\u00e9el, 38042 Grenoble, France'\n- 'Institute of Physical Engineering, Brno University of Technology, Technick\u00e1 2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic'\n- 'CNRS, Institut N\u00e9el, 38042 Grenoble, France'\n- 'Univ.\u00a0Grenoble Alpes, Institut N\u00e9el, 38042 Grenoble, France'\n- 'CNRS, Institut N\u00e9el, 38042 Grenoble, France'\n- 'Univ.\u00a0Grenoble Alpes, Institut N\u00e9el, 38042 Grenoble, France'\n- 'Departamento de Engenharia El\u00e9trica, Universidade Federal do Paran\u00e1, Curitiba, Brazil'\n- 'Laboratoire de Physique des Solides, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS UMR 8502, 91405 Orsay, France'\n- 'CNRS, Institut N\u00e9el, 38042 Grenoble, France'\n- 'Univ.\u00a0Grenoble Alpes, Institut N\u00e9el, 38042 Grenoble, France'\nauthor:\n- 'M.\u00a0Va\u0148atka'\n- 'J.-C.\u00a0Rojas-S\u00e1nchez'\n- 'J.\u00a0Vogel'\n- 'M.\u00a0Bonfim'\n- 'A.\u00a0Thiaville'\n- 'S.\u00a0Pizzini'\ntitle: Velocity asymmetry of Dzyaloshinskii domain walls in the creep and flow regimes\n---\n\nChiral magnetic textures such as Dzyaloshinskii domain walls (DDW) [@Thiaville2012] and skyrmions [@Skyrme1960] are attracting attention because of their possible applications as information carriers in spintronics devices. DDW are N\u00e9el walls with a fixed chirality, stabilised, in non-centrosymmetric stacks, by the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) [@Dzyaloshinskii1957; @Moriya1960] present at the interface between a magnetic layer and a heavy metal with large spin-orbit coupling. When driven by a Spin Hall effect related spin-orbit torque (SHE-SOT) [@LiuPRL2012; @Haazen2013; @Garello2013] DDW in systems with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA) move with large efficiency [@Miron2011; @Ryu2013; @Emori2013]. Also, it has been predicted that isolated skyrmions injected in nanotracks can be moved with very low current density and are moreover insensitive to defects [@Sampaio2013]. Engineering materials with large DMI has therefore become an important issue both for domain wall and skyrmion physics.\n\nSo far *ab-initio* calculations of interfacial DMI are rare and concern perfect interfaces difficult to compare with the mixed interfaces found in real\u00a0samples [@Freimuth2014; @Yang2015]. The information presently available on the DMI strengths relies on experimental work. A large input has been given by Spin-polarised Scanning Tunneling Microscopy measurements that show the presence of chiral magnetic textures or skyrmions in systems consisting of one monolayer of Fe (or Mn) on heavy metal substrates [@Bode2007; @Ferriani2008; @Meckler2009; @Heinze2011] in ultra-high vacuum and at low temperature. In the last few years, domain wall dynamics and nucleation measurements at room temperature have revealed the presence of DMI in less ordered, non centrosymmetric ultrathin magnetic layers with PMA, made by magnetron sputtering [@Ryu2013; @Emori2013; @Haazen2013; @Pizzini2014]. More recently, Brillouin light scattering experiments have also highlighted the presence of DMI in similar PMA samples [@DiPRL2015; @Belmeguenai2015].\n\nIt has been shown recently that when, in a nanostrip or in a bubble domain, an easy-axis field $H_{z}$ drives the DW dynamics in the presence of an in-plane field $H_{x}$ (aligned along $+x$), the DW speed is different for up/down and down/up DDWs propagating along $\\pm x$ [@Je2013; @Hrabec2014; @Jue2015]. This phenomenon is related to the symmetry breaking introduced by the in-plane field. The Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction acts as a longitudinal chiral field $H_{\\mathrm{DMI}}=D/(\\mu_{0}M_{s}\\Delta)$ (where $D$ is the DMI strength, $M_{s}$ is the saturation magnetisation and $\\Delta$ is the domain wall width parameter) localised on the domain walls, having opposite directions for up/down and down/up DWs. Beyond a critical strength, the DMI forces the DW magnetisation in the N\u00e9el configuration (see sketch in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:images\\]) [@Thiaville2012]. Although the in-plane field does not drive the dynamics, it will respectively stabilise (*vs.* destabilise) the DWs having their magnetisation $m$ parallel (*vs.* antiparallel) to it. For a parallel (*vs.* antiparallel) alignment between $H_{x}$ and $m$ the DW speed increases (*vs.* decreases) with respect to the $H_{x}$=0 case. In the high speed (flow) regime, the speed increase (vs. decrease) is mainly due to the widening (vs. narrowing) of the DW with $H_{x}$ [@Jue2015]. In the low speed (thermally-activated or creep) regime, the speed dependence on $H_{x}$ has been related to the variation of domain wall energy [@Je2013]. The DDW width (resp. DW energy) is expected to have a minimum (resp. maximum) value when the applied in-plane field is equal and opposite to the stabilising $H_{\\mathrm{DMI}}$ field i.e. when the DW acquires a Bloch form. In the two DW propagation regimes, this is the $H_{x}$ field for which the DW speed is predicted to exhibit a minimum. With these assumptions, $H_{x}$ could therefore be a direct measure of the DMI energy density $D$, provided that the domain wall width parameter $\\Delta= \\sqrt{A/K_{0}}$ ($K_{0}$ being the effective uniaxial anisotropy and $A$ the exchange constant) and $M_{s}$ are known.\n\nIn the following, we will show that the DW speed\u00a0*vs.*\u00a0in-plane field curves in the creep regime cannot in general be used to extract the strength and the sign of the DMI, as was done for Pt/Co/Pt samples [@Je2013; @Hrabec2014]. Moreover, we find that the $v(H_{x})$ curves measured for the same sample in the thermally activated and in the flow regimes can have different trends. Although the mechanism determining the exact trend of the velocity curves in the creep regime is not clear, we show that it cannot always be described simply in terms of the variation of DW energy with $H_{x}$. Our measurements on Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ films suggest that modifications of the pinning barrier landscape upon application of the in-plane field also contribute to the trend of the $v(H_{x})$ curves.\n\nA Pt(5nm)/Co(1nm)/Gd($t$) stack with varying Gd thickness ($t=2-5\\,$nm) was grown on a Si/SiO$_{2}$ substrate by magnetron sputtering in the shape of a wedge, and oxidised by O$_{2}$ plasma for 35 seconds. Consequently 2nm of Al were deposited on top of the stack to protect it from further oxidation. The varying thickness of the Gd layer is at the origin of a gradient in the oxygen content at the Co/Gd interface, which varies the interfacial anisotropy [@Manchon2008a]. All the samples present a well defined PMA, with in-plane saturation fields varying between 1.6T (for 2nm Gd) and 0.6T (for 5nm Gd). Domain wall dynamics was studied at room temperature by wide-field Magneto-Optical Kerr microscopy, using a combination of easy-axis and in-plane magnetic fields. $H_{z}$ pulses of amplitude $\\sim$10mT and duration $\\sim$20-100ms were obtained using a conventional, uncooled coil. The $H_{z}$ pulses, driving the displacement of the DWs, were applied in the presence of a continuous in-plane field $H_{x}$, along $\\pm\nx$, which tunes the stability of the DDW internal structure. With such amplitudes of the $H_{z}$ field, DW speeds are of the order of some 0.1mm/s, the dynamics is thermally activated and described by the so-called creep regime.\n\n![\\[fig:images\\] Left: Expansion by DW propagation of an up (black contrast) and a down (white contrast) domain in samples (A), (B), (C), (D). The Gd thickness increases from 2nm to 5nm going from (A) to (D). The DW displacements are obtained by an $H_{z}$ field pulse with amplitude $\\sim$10mT and duration $\\sim$20-100ms and a continuous in-plane field $H_{x}=+200$mT. Right: schematic view of a bubble domain expansion: the red arrows represent the equilibrium orientation of the magnetisation at the center of the DWs.](CreepDMI-Fig1-new.pdf){width=\"15cm\"}\n\nStarting from (down or up) saturation, a bubble domain was created by applying an up or a down $H_{z}$ pulse. The image of the domain was saved as a reference image. An $H_{z}$ pulse was then applied to enlarge the domain by DW propagation, and the new image was acquired. The difference between the two images gives the domain wall displacement that occurred during the field pulse. A black\u00a0(white) contrast in the images corresponds to the expansion of an up\u00a0(down) domain. The domain wall speed in a given direction can then be extracted from the ratio of the DW displacement and the pulse duration. DW displacements in the $\\pm x$ directions were measured for a fixed value of the $H_{z}$ field, for several values of the in-plane field between -300\u00a0mT and +300\u00a0mT. In order to correct the residual $H_{z}$ component that may arise from a misalignment of the in-plane electromagnet, measurements were taken for both down and up domains.\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:images\\] shows the differential images recorded in four positions of the wedge sample (called samples (A) to (D) from now on) corresponding to increasing values of the Gd thickness (from 2\u00a0to\u00a05nm) for $H_{z}$ field pulses of the order of $10$mT and an in-plane field of $+200$mT. Without in-plane field, the propagation of the DWs is isotropic and the domains are round. Similar to previously reported experiments, the $H_{x}$ field breaks the rotational symmetry and the propagation becomes asymmetric in the $\\pm x$ directions. Note that the sign and the amplitude of the speed asymmetry depend on the sample composition. Indeed, in sample (A) the down/up DWs move faster than the up/down DWs while in sample (B) the asymmetry is practically vanishing, *i.e.* up/down and down/up DWs move at the same speed. In sample (C) the DW speed asymmetry reverses with respect to (A), *i.e.* the up/down DWs move faster. Finally, in (D) the asymmetry found in (A) is recovered.\n\nAccording to previous work [@Je2013; @Hrabec2014], the cancellation (resp. change of sign) of the DW speed asymmetry may be attributed to a vanishing (resp. reversed) value of the DMI. This result is unexpected and counter-intuitive. As one moves across the sample, from (A) to (D), the decreasing degree of oxygen content modifies the composition of the Co/Gd interface, as shown experimentally by the changing PMA. However the sample presents a considerable PMA for the thinner Gd layers, which is an indication that the oxidation only concerns the top Co interface. Therefore the bottom Pt/Co interface, which is expected to provide the most important contribution to the DMI [@Freimuth2014], should not be affected by the varying Gd thickness. This is confirmed by X-ray reflectivity data.\n\nIn order to clarify the interpretation of the DW dynamics in the creep regime and to have an independent measurement of the sign of the DMI, we carried out current-induced DW dynamics measurements. For this purpose, the samples were patterned into $1\\,\\upmu$m wide strips by e-beam lithography and the DW dynamics was studied for a fixed value of the current-density $J=1.2 \\times 10^{12}\\,$A/m$^{2}$ and variable values of $H_{x}$. The results show that for all samples (note that sample (C) could not be measured, due to deterioration during the patterning process) the domain walls move in the same direction, opposite to the electron flow. Since in these systems the direction of the DW displacement is determined by the sign of the Spin-Hall angle in Pt (which is the same for samples (A) to (D)) and by the chirality of the DDW [@Thiaville2012; @Ryu2013; @Emori2013], this results is a strong indication that the domain walls in all the samples have the same chirality and therefore the sign of the DMI is sample independent. The results of the current-driven DW speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ field curves for samples (A) and (B) are shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:speed\\_J\\].\n\n![\\[fig:speed\\_J\\] Left: Domain wall speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves measured with constant current density $J=1.2 \\times 10^{12}\\,$A/m$^{2}$ for samples (A) and (B), for which a large and a vanishing field-induced domain wall speed asymmetry are found in the creep regime respectively. Right: Differential Kerr image showing an example of the displacement of DWs in nanostrips.](CreepDMI-Fig2-new.pdf){width=\"15cm\"}\n\nThe speed variation as a function of in-plane field $H_{x}$ is similar to that shown by other authors in strips of DMI materials [@Ryu2013; @Emori2013; @Ryu2014]. In all the curves, the speed of the down/up DWs increases for positive $H_{x}$ fields and decreases for negative fields. The symmetric curve is found for the up/down domain walls, as expected for chiral N\u00e9el walls. If we neglect the rotation of the magnetisation within the domains, the domain wall speed driven by the current $J$ *via* the SHE-SOT can be expressed as [@Thiaville2012] : $$\\label{DW_speed_vs_J}\nv = \\gamma_{0}\\frac{\\Delta}{\\alpha}\\frac{\\pi}{2}\\chi M_{s}\\cos \\psi$$ where $\\gamma_{0}$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $\\alpha$ is the damping parameter, $\\Delta$ is the domain wall width, $\\psi$ is the angle of the DW magnetisation with respect to the $x$-axis, and $\\chi=\\hbar \\theta_{H} J / (2e\\mu_{0} M_{s}^{2} t)$ where $\\theta_{H}$ is the Spin Hall angle and $t$ the magnetic layer thickness. It can be shown (see Suppl. Information) that for our samples the variation of $\\cos \\psi$ with $H_{x}$ is negligible except around $H_{x}=-H_{\\mathrm{DMI}}$ where it changes sign, so that the $v(H_{x})$ shape is mainly determined by the modification of the domain wall width with $H_{x}$. Since the DW width increases for an $H_{x}$ field parallel to the DW magnetisation, our measurement show that down/up DWs have their magnetisation parallel to the $+x$ direction and therefore that the DWs in the Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ samples have left-handed chirality, like in Pt/Co/AlO$_x$ [@Pizzini2014; @Jue2015]. This is not surprising, as we expect that the DMI interaction is mainly located at the Pt/Co interface.\n\nThe velocity of the down/up DW in sample (A) changes direction under the effect of a negative in-plane field $H_{x}\\approx -280$mT; this is associated with the switching of the DW chirality when the negative $H_{x}$ field exceeds the local chiral $H_{\\mathrm{DMI}}$ field. This in-plane field value is therefore a measure of $H_{\\mathrm{DMI}}$. Note that in sample (B) the switching of the DW velocity is hindered by the larger DW pinning [@Ryu2013; @Ryu2014].\n\nThe constant sign of the DMI for all the samples - assessed by the constant direction of current-driven DW motion at zero $H_{x}$ field - in contrast with the different DW velocity asymmetries observed for the different samples in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:images\\], sheds doubts on the possibility to deduce the sign of the DMI from the domain expansion images in the creep regime. In order to clarify the interpretation of the field-induced measurements, we measured the DW speeds as a function of $H_{x}$ field for the bubble domains shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:images\\].\n\nThe velocity curves are shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:speed\\_Hcreep\\] for the two domain walls propagating along the $x$-axis and having their magnetisation either parallel or antiparallel to the $H_{x}$ field. The up/down and the down/up DWs exhibit the same behaviour for opposite $H_{x}$ fields, as expected for chiral N\u00e9el walls. The curves for sample (D) - corresponding to the thicker Gd layer - present the main features found by other authors for DDWs in Pt/Co/Pt films [@Je2013; @Hrabec2014]. The speed of the down/up DW increases for a positive in-plane field, and for negative fields it decreases down to a minimum value between -100\u00a0mT and -200\u00a0mT, where the velocity starts increasing again. On the other hand, the curves measured for samples (A-C) strongly deviate from the expected behaviour, showing in particular a maximum rather than a minimum in the DW speed.\n\nIn the thermally activated regime, the DW velocity is given by: $$\\label{speed}\nv(H_{z)}=v_{o}\\exp(-\\eta H_{z}^{-\\mu})$$ where $v_{0}$ is the characteristic speed, $\\mu$=1/4 is the creep scaling exponent and $\\eta=U_{c} H_{\\mathrm{crit}}^{\\mu}/k_{B}T$ where $U_{c}$ is an energy scaling constant and $H_{\\mathrm{crit}}$ the critical magnetic field [@Lemerle1998; @Kim2009]. Following Ref. [@Kim2009], $U_{c}$ is related to $\\xi$ (the correlation length of the pinning potential) and to the Larkin length $L_{c}=(\\sigma_{\\mathrm{DW}}^{2}t^{2} \\xi^{2}/\\gamma)^{1/3}$ (the characteristic length of rigid microscopic DW segments) and $H_{\\mathrm{crit}}=\\sigma_{\\mathrm{DW}}\\xi/M_{s}L_{c}^{2}$ where $\\sigma_{\\mathrm{DW}}$ is the DW energy and $\\gamma$ is the pinning strength of the disorder. By assuming that neither $\\xi$ nor $\\gamma$ are modified by $H_{x}$, Je *et al.* [@Je2013] conclude that the shape of $v(H_{x})$ is solely due to the in-plane field dependence of the DW energy. According to [@Pizzini2014], the energy of a DDW, taking into account the modification of the DW profile with $H_x$ reads: $$\\label{full-DW-profile}\n\\sigma=\\sigma_{00}[\\sqrt{1-h^{2}}+(h+\\frac{2}{\\pi}\\frac{D}{D_{c0}}) (\\arcsin h \\mp \\pi/2)].$$ where $\\sigma_{00}=4\\sqrt{AK_{0}}$ is the DW energy at rest, $D_{c0} = 4 \\sqrt{A K_0}/\\pi \\equiv \\sigma_{00}/\\pi$ gives the onset of magnetisation cycloids, $h= H_x / H_{K0}$ and the $\\mp$ signs refer to the DW having its magnetisation parallel/antiparallel to the $H_x$ field. The energies of the DW favoured/unfavoured by the in-plane field are the same when $h=-(2/\\pi) (D/D_{c0})$ or when $H_{x}= -D/(\\mu_{0}M_{s}\\Delta)$ = -$H_{\\mathrm{DMI}}$. This is the in-plane field for which the DW energy is maximum. From equation \\[speed\\] it then follows that the DW velocity should exhibit a minimum for $H_{x}=-H{_\\mathrm{DMI}}$. This is indeed observed for sample (D). Note that the left-handed DW chirality deduced from the measurement agrees with the results of the current-induced measurements.\n\n![\\[fig:speed\\_Hcreep\\] Domain wall speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ field measured in the thermally activated regime for bubble domains in Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ samples (A) to (D), for the DW propagating along the $x$-axis direction. ](CreepDMI-Fig3-new.pdf){width=\"15cm\"}\n\nThe speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves obtained for samples (A-C) show a different behaviour. For sample (A) the speed asymmetry is the same as for sample (D), but the velocity of the down/up DW increases for negative fields and decreases up to a critical field for positive fields. In sample (B) the speed asymmetry practically disappears and the speeds of the up/down and down/up DWs continuously decrease with both positive and negative $H_{x}$ fields. In sample (C) the asymmetry is switched for down/up and up/down DW, with respect to sample (D). Therefore in these three samples the $v(H_{x})$ curves do not follow the variation of the DW energy. Curves deviating from the expected behaviour have also been recently reported in the literature [@Lavrijsen2015].\n\nNote that the anomalous\u00a0curves are found in particular for samples (B) and (C), for which the sign of the speed asymmetry would suggest that the value of $D$ is either vanishing (for (B)) or opposite (for (C)) to the one of sample (D). This indicates that in the creep regime extreme care should be taken when extracting information on the DMI sign and amplitude simply on the basis of the asymmetry (or lack of asymmetry) of the Kerr microscopy differential images. Before assessing about $D$, the full speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves should be examined and compared with the curves predicted by the existing theoretical models.\n\nIn order to verify the role of the DW pinning on the speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ field, we have repeated the field-dependent measurements for larger values of the $H_{z}$ fields, bringing the domain wall velocities to a regime ($\\gg$ 1m/s) where the propagation is much less sensitive to the pinning generated by local variations of the anisotropy field. Pulsed $H_{z}$ fields up to 200mT and duration down to 20ns were obtained using a $50\\,\\upmu$m wide microcoil coupled to a fast current pulse generator [@Mackay2000]. The results reported in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:speed\\_H\\_flow\\] for samples (A) to (D) show that in these conditions the speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ curves all acquire the trend expected for chiral N\u00e9el walls in the flow regime [@Jue2015].\n\n![\\[fig:speed\\_H\\_flow\\] Domain wall speed *vs.* $H_{x}$ field measured for bubble domains in Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ for samples (A) to (D) for 20ns-long $H_{z}$ field pulses varying between 70mT and 200mT. For samples (B) to (D) the curves were measured for two $H_{z}$ field values (empty symbols correspond to the scale to the right). The trends of the normalised speed curves are the same for each field value. For sample (D) the speeds are larger, as the depinning of the DWs occurs for lower fields. ](CreepDMI-Fig4-new.pdf){width=\"15cm\"}\n\nIn the high field regime, the stationary DW velocity is given by $v=\\gamma_{0}\\Delta_{T} H_{z}/\\alpha m_{z0}$, where $\\Delta_{T}$ is the Thiele domain wall width [@Thiele1974] and $m_{z0}$ is the easy-axis magnetisation within the domains. The speed variation with $H_{x}$ is mainly related to the modification of the Thiele DW width with the in-plane field (see Suppl. Information). In all the samples, the down/up DWs propagate faster than the up/down DWs for positive $H_{x}$ fields, confirming once again that the DW chirality is the same (left handed) in agreement with the current-induced measurements and the field-induced (creep) measurements for sample (D). For samples (A) to (C) the DW speed of the down/up DWs decrease down to the largest available negative $H_{x}$ field, with a saturation but not a clear minimum in the DW speed. This suggests that $H_{\\mathrm{DMI}}$ in these samples is of the order or more than $+300$mT.\n\nFor sample (D), where the PMA (and therefore the $H_{\\mathrm{DMI}}$ field) is reduced, the down/up DWs exhibit minimum speed for $H_{x}=\\approx-180$mT, a value close to that found for the same sample in the creep regime. By taking $M_{s}=1 \\times 10^{6}$A/m (measured by VSM-SQUID), $\\mu_{0}H_{K}=0.7$T (measured by EHE) and $A=2.2 \\times 10^{-11}$J/m [@Metaxas2007] the expression $H_{\\mathrm{DMI}}=D/(\\mu_{0}\\Delta~M_{s})$ gives rise to a value of $D=1.27$mJ/m$^{2}$, with $\\Delta=7.1$nm. Taking into account the larger thickness of the Co layer (1nm) in our Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ samples, this value scales reasonably well with the $D=2$mJ/m$^{2}$ value found for Pt/Co(0.6nm)/AlO$_x$ [@Pizzini2014; @Jue2015]. For samples (A) to (C) it is difficult to obtain a precise value of $D$ from the field-dependent measurements, where the minimum speed is not well defined. The value of $D$ for sample (A) may be derived from the in-plane field for which the DW chirality switches when driven by spin-polarised current ($H_{x}=\\approx-280$mT). Using the values of $M_{s}$ and $A$ used for sample (D), and the measured in plane saturation field $\\mu_{0}H_{K}=1.6$T giving rise to $\\Delta=4.7$nm, we obtain a value of $D=1.31$mJ/m$^{2}$. We estimate that the uncertainty associated to the value of the exchange parameter A, together with the error associated to the definition of the $H_{x}$ field where the DW velocity is minimum, allow the determination of $D$ with a precision not better than $\\pm0.2\\,$mJ/m$^{2}$. The similar $D$ values found for the two samples indicate that the DMI strength is homogeneous along the wedge sample and that it is mainly arising from the Pt/Co interface.\n\nAs a consequence, the anomalous\u00a0$v(H_{x}$) curves in the creep regime do not bear any information about the sign and strength of the DMI. In Figure\u00a0\\[fig:speed\\_Hcreep\\], the value for which the speed is maximum in samples (A) and (C) is not related to the $D$ value, and the absence of speed asymmetry for sample (B) is not a signature of a vanishing $D$. Since the anomalous behaviour of the $v(H_{x}$) curves is observed only in the creep regime and for samples (A) to (C), we conclude that this feature may be related to modifications of the domain wall pinning with $H_{x}$, which depends on the details of the Co/Gd interface. Since the measurements were taken with ms-long pulses in the creep regime and with ns-long pulses in the flow regime, the effect of the pulse length on the DW pinning may also play a role.\n\nSome information on the nature of the top interface, as the presence or not of CoO, can be obtained from the temperature dependence of magnetic hysteresis loops. We have carried out magnetisation measurements with variable temperature between 10K and 300K in a VSM-SQUID of Quantum Design (Figure\u00a0\\[fig:VSM\\]). For sample (C) a change of the hysteresis loops, which are square with 100% remanence at 300K, is observed around 225K, where they become partly tilted and the remanence decreases to about 60%. This indicates a decrease of the PMA. Upon decreasing the temperature further, the coercivity increases strongly and below 70K a shift of the hysteresis loop to negative fields develops. Both observations can be attributed to the presence of an ultrathin layer of CoO at the Co/Gd interface, which becomes antiferromagnetic around 225K with a blocking temperature around 70K. For sample (D), the only one presenting expected\u00a0$v(H_{x}$) curves in the creep regime, the cycles do not exhibit any exchange bias indicating that no CoO is formed at the top Co interface.\n\n![\\[fig:VSM\\] VSM-SQUID measurements carried out from 10K to 300K for an out-of-plane field up to 1T. Left: in sample (C), the shift of the cycle at low temperature is an indication of the presence of CoO at the top Co/Gd interface. Right: in sample (D), the cycle does not exhibit a shift, sign of the absence of relevant oxidation. Note the factor 10 difference in the field scale.](CreepDMI-Fig5-new.pdf){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nThe anomalous\u00a0behaviour of the $v(H_{x}$) curves in the creep regime seems therefore to be related to the presence of Co oxide at the top Co interface, and the details of the curves to the different degree of oxidation. Although the CoO is paramagnetic at the room temperature, it exhibits a magnetic susceptibility in the $x$-direction [@Ambrose1996]. We speculate that the CoO magnetic moments induced in the $x$ direction by the in-plane field may act as an extra pinning potential acting on the DWs. Since the magnetic susceptibility may depend on the CoO thickness, this could explain why different samples exhibit maximum velocity for different $H_{x}$ fields. The description of the creep law simply in terms of the variation of the DW energy may not be general, as the pinning potential landscape may be strongly affected by the in-plane field.\n\nIn conclusion, we have shown that in Pt/Co/GdO$_x$ samples with different oxidation degrees of the Co/Gd interface the dependence of the DW velocity as a function of the in-plane field cannot be interpreted within the creep law relating the DW speed changes exclusively to the DW energy variations. Therefore in these samples, the $v(H_{x}$) curves fail to give information about the sign and the strength of the DM interaction. We have correlated the failure of the proposed creep law with the modification of the pinning potential landscape induced by the in-plane field. When by applying strong and ultrashort out-of-plane field pulses we change the dynamic regime of the DW propagation, the $v(H_{x}$) curves indicate that the chirality of the DDW is left-handed, and $D$ is of the order of $1.3$mJ/m$^{2}$ for $1$nm Co.\n\nThis work was supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, project ANR 11 BS10 008 ESPERADO. SP acknowledges the support of E. Wagner and of the staff of the Nanofab facility in Institut N\u00e9el.\n\nReferences {#references .unnumbered}\n==========\n\n[10]{}\n\nA.\u00a0Thiaville, S.\u00a0Rohart, E.\u00a0Ju[\u00e9]{}, V.\u00a0Cros, and A.\u00a0Fert. , 100:57002, 2012.\n\nT.H.R. Skyrme. , 31:558, 1962.\n\nI.\u00a0E. Dzyaloshinskii. , 5:1259, 1957.\n\nT.\u00a0Moriya. , 120:91, 1960.\n\nL.\u00a0Liu, O.J. Lee, T.J. Gudmundsen, D.C. Ralph, and R.A. Buhrman. , 109:096602, 2012.\n\nP.\u00a0P.\u00a0J. Haazen, E.\u00a0Mur[\u00e8]{}, J.\u00a0H. Franken, R.\u00a0Lavrijsen, H.\u00a0J.\u00a0M. Swagten, and B.\u00a0Koopmans. , 12:299\u2013303, 2013.\n\nK.\u00a0Garello, I.M. Miron, C.O. Avci, F.\u00a0Freimuth, Y.\u00a0Mokrousov, S.\u00a0Bl[\u00fc]{}gel, S.\u00a0Auffret, O.\u00a0Boulle, G.\u00a0Gaudin, and P.\u00a0Gambardella. , 8:587, 2013.\n\nI.M. Miron, T.\u00a0Moore, H.\u00a0Szambolics, L.D. Buda-Prejbeanu, S.\u00a0Auffret, B.\u00a0Rodmacq, S.\u00a0Pizzini, J.\u00a0Vogel, M.\u00a0Bonfim, A.\u00a0Schuhl, and G.\u00a0Gaudin. , 10:419, 2011.\n\nK.-S. Ryu, L.\u00a0Thomas, S.-H. Yang, and S.\u00a0Parkin. , 8:527, 2013.\n\nS.\u00a0Emori, U.\u00a0Bauer, S.-M. Ahn, E.\u00a0Martinez, and G.S.D. Beach. , 12:611, 2013.\n\nJ.\u00a0Sampaio, V.\u00a0Cros, S.\u00a0Rohart, A.\u00a0Thiaville, and A.\u00a0Fert. , 8:839, 2013.\n\nF\u00a0Freimuth, S\u00a0Bl\u00fcgel, and Y\u00a0Mokrousov. , 26:104202, 2014.\n\nM.\u00a0Bode, M.\u00a0Heide, K.\u00a0von Bergmann, P.\u00a0Ferriani, S.\u00a0Heinze, G.\u00a0Bihlmayer, A.\u00a0Kubetzka, O.\u00a0Pietzsch, S.\u00a0Bl[\u00fc]{}gel, and R.\u00a0Wiesendanger. , 447:190, 2007.\n\nP.\u00a0Ferriani, K.\u00a0von Bergmann, E.\u00a0Y. Vedmedenko, S.\u00a0Heinze, M.\u00a0Bode, M.\u00a0Heide, G.\u00a0Bihlmayer, S.\u00a0Bl[\u00fc]{}gel, and R.\u00a0Wiesendanger. , 101:[027201]{}, 2008.\n\nS.\u00a0Meckler, N.\u00a0Mikuszeit, A.\u00a0Pre\u00dfler, E.\u00a0Y. Vedmedenko, O.\u00a0Pietzsch, and R.\u00a0Wiesendanger. , 103:157201, 2009.\n\nS.\u00a0Heinze, K.\u00a0von Bergmann, M.\u00a0Menzel, J.\u00a0Brede, A.\u00a0Kubetzka, R.\u00a0Wiesendanger, G.\u00a0Bihlmayer, and S.\u00a0Bl[\u00fc]{}gel. , 7:713, 2011.\n\nS.\u00a0Pizzini, J.\u00a0Vogel, S.\u00a0Rohart, L.D. Buda-Prejbeanu, E.\u00a0Ju\u00e9, O.\u00a0Boulle, I.M. Miron, C.K. Safeer, S.\u00a0Auffret, G.\u00a0Gaudin, and A.\u00a0Thiaville. , 113:047203, 2014.\n\nKai Di, Vanessa\u00a0Li Zhang, Hock\u00a0Siah Lim, Ser\u00a0Choon Ng, Meng\u00a0Hau Kuok, Jiawei Yu, Jungbum Yoon, Xuepeng Qiu, and Hyunsoo Yang. , 114:047201, 2015.\n\nM.\u00a0Belmeguenai, J.-P. Adam, Y.\u00a0Roussign\u00e9, S.\u00a0Eimer, T.\u00a0Devolder, J.-V. Kim, S.\u00a0Mourad Cherif, A.\u00a0Stashkevich, and A.\u00a0Thiaville. , \\[cond-mat.mtrl-sci\\]:1503.00372, 2015.\n\nS.-G. Je, D-H. Kim, S.-C. Yoo, B.-C. Min, K.-J. Lee, and S.-B. Choe. , 88:214401, 2013.\n\nA.\u00a0Hrabec, N.\u00a0A. Porter, A.\u00a0Wells, M.\u00a0J. Benitez, G.\u00a0Burnell, S.\u00a0McVitie, D.\u00a0McGrouther, T.\u00a0A. Moore, and C.\u00a0H. Marrows. , 90:020402, 2014.\n\nE.\u00a0Ju[\u00e9]{}, A.\u00a0Thiaville, S.\u00a0Pizzini, J.\u00a0Miltat, L.D. Buda-Prejbeanu, S.\u00a0Rohart, J.\u00a0Vogel, M.\u00a0Bonfim, O.\u00a0Boulle, S.\u00a0Auffret, I.M. Miron, and G.\u00a0Gaudin. , 2015.\n\nA.\u00a0Manchon, C.\u00a0Ducruet, L.\u00a0Lombard, S.\u00a0Auffret, B.\u00a0Rodmacq, B.\u00a0Dieny, S.\u00a0Pizzini, J.\u00a0Vogel, V.\u00a0Uhl\u00edr, M.\u00a0Hochstrasser, and G.\u00a0Panaccione. , 104:043914, 2008.\n\nL.\u00a0Thomas S.S.P.\u00a0Parkin K.-S.\u00a0Ryu, S.-H.\u00a0Yang. , 5:3910, 2014.\n\nS.\u00a0Lemerle, J.\u00a0Ferr\u00e9, C.\u00a0Chappert, V.\u00a0Mathet, T.\u00a0Giamarchi, and P.\u00a0Le\u00a0Doussal. , 80:849\u2013852, 1998.\n\nK.-J. Kim, J.-C. Lee, S.-M. Ahn, K.-S. Lee, C.-W. Lee, Y.\u00a0J. Cho, S.\u00a0Seo, K.-H. Shin, S.-B. Choe, and H.-W. Lee. Interdimensional universality of dynamic interfaces. , 458:740, 2009.\n\nR.\u00a0Lavrijsen, D.\u00a0M.\u00a0F. Hartmann, A.\u00a0van\u00a0den Brink, Y.\u00a0Yin, B.\u00a0Barcones, R.\u00a0A. Duine, M.\u00a0A. Verheijen, H.\u00a0J.\u00a0M. Swagten, and B.\u00a0Koopmans. , 91:104414, 2015.\n\nK.\u00a0Mackay, M.\u00a0Bonfim, D.\u00a0Givord, and A.\u00a0Fontaine. , 87:1996, 2000.\n\nA.A. Thiele. , 45:377, 1974.\n\nP.\u00a0J. Metaxas, J.\u00a0P. Jamet, A.\u00a0Mougin, M.\u00a0Cormier, J.\u00a0Ferr\u00e9, V.\u00a0Baltz, B.\u00a0Rodmacq, B.\u00a0Dieny, and R.\u00a0L. Stamps. , 99:217208, 2007.\n\nT.\u00a0Ambrose and C.L. Chien. , 76:1743, 1996.\n\n**SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL**\n\nMICROMAGNETIC SIMULATIONS\n=========================\n\nMicromagnetic simulations of domain wall (DW) velocities driven either by an out-of-plane magnetic field or by an electrical current in a nanostrip were performed using a full 1D micromagnetic model, as introduced in [@Thiaville2012]. The unknown parameter is the full $\\vec{m} (\\vec{x}, t)$ profile. The demagnetizing field is evaluated by direct summation for a given nanostrip width (500 nm). In our case, as the sample thickness and the DW width are much smaller than the typical strip width, the wall may be considered as infinitely long. The computed value of the demagnetizing field is averaged over the sample thickness and over the strip width. In practice, only the $x$ component of the demagnetizing field is evaluated; the $y$ component that is transverse to the strip is negligibly small and the $z$ component is approximated by a local value with unity demagnetizing factor. For the evaluation of DW dynamics, the finite box containing the DW is shifted along the strip so that the DW is always kept in its center. For field-driven dynamics, the case of bubble domains in the continuous layers is too complex to be treated specifically; the DW propagation along a given direction has been assimilated to that of a domain wall within a strip aligned along that particular direction. Having obtained the complete profile of magnetization in the domains and across the DW, all quantities of interest can be evaluated. These contain:\n\n\\(i) the Thiele DW width [@Thiele1974], defined as: $$\\label{Thiele}\n\\frac{2}{\\Delta_{T}}=\\frac{1}{S}\\int(\\frac{\\partial{\\vec{m}}}{\\partial{x}})^{2}d^{3}r$$ where S is the cross-section area of the nanostrip, oriented along the $x$ direction.\n\n\\(ii) the angle $\\Phi$ of the DW magnetic moment which controls the force exerted by the Spin Hall Effect (SHE) on the DW in the case of current-driven DW motion. In the presence of an in-plane field and SHE the domain magnetization rotates so that the straightforward evaluation of $\\cos\\Phi$ fails. To remedy this, we evaluate by integration the SHE force on the DW. This is proportional to $\\int(\\vec{m}\\times \\partial_{x}\\vec{m})_{y}$, with a value of $\\pi\\cos\\Phi$ in the simple case, $\\pi$ standing for the angle between the two domain magnetizations. Thus, to compute $\\Phi$, this integral is numerically evaluated, and then divided by the angle between the domain magnetizations.\n\nThe micromagnetic parameters chosen for the simulations are $M_{s}$ = 1000 kA/m, A = 22 pJ/m, $K_{u}$ = 0.87 and 1.17 MJ/m$^{3}$ where $K_{0} = K_{u}-\\mu_{0}M^{2}_{s}/ 2 $ is the effective anisotropy including the perpendicular demagnetizing field effect in the local approximation. For the strength of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction we used the value $D$ = 1.8 mJ/m$^{2}$, which is slightly larger than the one evaluated for our samples. For the magnetization dynamics, the gyromagnetic ratio of the free electron $\\gamma_{0} = 2.21 \\times 10^{5}$ m/(A$ \\cdot s)$ and the damping factor $\\alpha$ = 0.5 extracted from DW dynamics experiments were used.\n\nThe aim of these simulations is to explain qualitatively the observed trends in the speed *vs*. $H_{x}$ curves, in particular for samples with different magnetic anisotropy values.\n\nCurrent-driven dynamics\n-----------------------\n\nThe simulations were carried out for a fixed value of the current density $J=1\\times 10^{12}$ A/m$^{2}$. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Suppl-Figure1-speed-vs-Bx\\] (a) shows the variation of the domain wall speed as a function of longitudinal in-plane field $H_{x}$, for two values of the out-of-plane-anisotropy $K_{u}$ = 0.87 and 1.17 MJ/m$^{3}$ (A and B). The figure shows that the DW speed changes more rapidly for the low anisotropy value, in agreement with the experiments. For strong enough negative $H_{x}$ field (i.e. antiparallel to the DW magnetisation direction) the domain wall velocity changes sign, due to the reversal of the domain wall magnetisation. The reversal field ($H_{x}=-H_{DMI} =-D/(\\mu_{0}\\Delta M_{s})$) is smaller for the smaller anisotropy value, as the domain wall width is larger. As seen in the main text, the detailed shape of the speed vs. $H_{x}$ curve depends both on the variation of the Thiele domain wall width $\\Delta_{T}$ and on the value of $\\cos\\Phi$, where $\\Phi$ is the angle that the DW magnetisation forms with the $x$-axis along which the in-plane field is applied. Figures\u00a0\\[fig:Suppl-Figure1-speed-vs-Bx\\] (b-c) illustrate the simulated values of $\\Delta_{T}$ and $\\cos\\Phi$. For positive $H_{x}$ values the speed curve variations are only related to the variation of $\\Delta_{T}$, which is larger for the smaller anisotropy. For negative fields, the change of the $\\cos\\Phi$ sign (reversal of the DW magnetisation direction) is at the origin of the reversal of the DW speed.\n\n![image](Suppl-Fig1.pdf){width=\"16cm\"} \\[fig:Suppl-Figure1-speed-vs-Bx\\]**Figure S1** : (a) Current-driven domain wall speed *vs.* $\\mu_{0}H_{x}$ calculated for a fixed value of the current density $J=1\\times 10^{12}$ A/m$^{2}$ and two values of the anisotropy energy $K_{u}$ = 0.87 MJ/m$^{3}$ (curve A) and 1.17 MJ/m$^{3}$ (curve B); (b) variation of Thiele DW width with $\\mu_{0}H_{x}$ ; (c) variation of $\\cos\\Phi$ with $\\mu_{0}H_{x}$.\n\nField-driven dynamics in creep and flow regimes\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nThe field-driven domain wall dynamics under in-plane field is dependent on the working regime (creep or flow). The dynamics of chiral N\u00e9el domain walls in the presence of an in-plane field has been studied in the creep regime [@Je2012; @Hrabec2013] and in the flow regime [@Jue2015] . It has been shown that the $v(H_{x})$ curves can be explained in terms of the variation of the DW energy with the $H_{x}$ field. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Suppl-Figure2-DWenergy-vs-Bx\\](a) shows the variation of the domain wall energy *vs.* $H_{x}$ for a sample having the magnetic parameters given above and $\\mu_{0}H_{z}$=50 mT . The DW energy is maximum for the $H_{x}=-H_{DMI}$, where the DW has the Bloch form. This field is of course dependent of the anisotropy value.\n\n![image](Suppl-Fig2.pdf){width=\"16cm\"} \\[fig:Suppl-Figure2-DWenergy-vs-Bx\\]**Figure S2** : (a) Domain wall energy *vs.* $B_{x}$ simulated for a fixed $B_{x}$ value of 50mT. (b) variation of DW domain wall speed *vs.* $\\mu_{0}H_{x}$ assuming a $v_{0}$ value of $8\\times10^{-3}$ m/s and $\\eta=\\sigma(H_{x})/\\sigma(0)$ in equation (2) of the main text. (A) and (B) refer to the two anisotropy values.\n\nThe expected $H_{x}$ dependence of the DW speed in the creep regime is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Suppl-Figure2-DWenergy-vs-Bx\\](b) for the two anisotropy values. The curves present a minimum for $H_{x}=-H_{DMI}$ and have a symmetric behaviour on either sides of this field. The behaviour measured for sample (D) is in qualitative agreement with these curves. That found for samples (A) to (C) is in strong disagreement, showing that the $v(H_{x})$ curves are not simply related to the change of the DW energy with $H_{x}$.\n\nIf we neglect the tilt of the magnetisation in the domains, in the flow regime the stationary DW velocity is given by $v=\\gamma_{0}\\Delta_{T} H_{z}/\\alpha$ and the speed variation with $H_{x}$ is expected to be related to the modification of $\\Delta_{T}$ with the in-plane field. The two curves simulated for a $\\mu_{0}H_{x}$ = 50 mT are shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Suppl-Figure3-DWspeed-vs-Bx-flow\\]. As in the case of current-driven dynamics, the Thiele DW width increases (decreases) for positive (negative) in-plane field, and in a larger extent for the low anisotropy value (A). The dip in the DW speed in the vicinity of $H_{x}=-H_{DMI}$, corresponding to the precessional regime of the DW, is not observed in the experimental data. Although this discrepancy is still the object of our studies, we believe that the local changes of the DMI strength over the region swept by the DW during the measurements may contribute to the smoothening of the discontinuity associated to the precessional regime.\n\n![image](Suppl-Fig3.pdf){width=\"16cm\"} \\[fig:Suppl-Figure3-DWspeed-vs-Bx-flow\\]**Figure S3** : (a) Domain wall speed *vs.* $\\mu_{0}H_{x}$ in the flow regime simulated using $\\mu_{0}H_{x}$ = 50mT and the two anisotropy values given above; (b) the variation of the Thiele DW width.\n\n: A.\u00a0Thiaville, S.\u00a0Rohart, E.\u00a0Ju\u00e9, V.\u00a0Cros, A.\u00a0Fert, EPL **100**, 57002 (2012). A.A.\u00a0Thiele, J. Appl. Phys. **45**, 377 (1974). S.-G.\u00a0Je, D.-H.\u00a0Kim, S.-C.\u00a0Yoo, B.-C.\u00a0Min, K.-J.\u00a0Lee, and S.-B.\u00a0Choe, Phys. Rev. B **88**, 214401 (2013). A.\u00a0Hrabec, N.A.\u00a0Porter, A.\u00a0Wells, M.J.\u00a0Benitez, G.\u00a0Burnell, S.\u00a0McVitie, D.\u00a0McGrouther, T.A.\u00a0Moore, and C.H.\u00a0Marrows, Phys. Rev. B **90**, 020402(R) (2013). E. Ju\u00e9, A. Thiaville, S. Pizzini et al., submitted.\n"}
-{"text": "---\naddress:\n- 'Institute for Computational Mathematics, TU Braunschweig, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany.'\n- 'Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755, United States.'\nauthor:\n- Jan Glaubitz\n- Anne Gelb\nbibliography:\n- 'literature.bib'\ntitle: 'High Order Edge Sensors with $\\ell^1$ Regularization for Enhanced Discontinuous Galerkin Methods'\n---\n\ndiscontinuous Galerkin , $\\ell^1$ regularization , polynomial annihilation , shock capturing , discontinuity sensor , hyperbolic conservation laws\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThe authors would like to thank Chi-Wang Shu (Brown University) for helpful advice. Further, the authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for many helpful suggestions, resulting in an improved presentation of this work. Jan Glaubitz\u2019 work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) under grant SO 363/15-1. Anne Gelb\u2019s work was partially supported by AFOSR9550-18-1-0316 and NSF-DMS 1502640.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'A. K\u00fcpc\u00fc Yolda\u015f'\n- 'M. Salvato'\n- 'J. Greiner'\n- 'D. Pierini'\n- 'E. Pian'\n- 'A. Rau'\ndate: 'Received / Accepted 14 November 2006'\ntitle: 'The host galaxy of GRB011121: Morphology and Spectral Energy Distribution [^1] [^2]'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nGRB host galaxies\n-----------------\n\nFor nearly all localized Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) an underlying galaxy was detected after the decay of the optical/near-infrared (IR) afterglow. The current sample of long duration GRB (LGRB) host galaxies consists of $\\sim$80 members spanning a large range in magnitudes, i.e. 22 \u2013 28 mag in R-band. The observed redshifts of the current sample ranges from $z = 0.0085$ (Fynbo et al. [@fyn00]) to $z = 6.29$ (Berger et al. [@ber06])[^3].\n\nThe analysis of the observed $\\rm R - K$ colour of a subsample of GRB host galaxies detected until 2002, showed that these are faint blue galaxies with $\\rm R - K = 2.5$ mag in agreement with their nature of star-forming galaxies (Le Floch et al. [@lef03]). The blue colours of GRB host galaxies are indicators of the link between GRBs and massive-star formation. Other indicators of the GRB \u2013 massive star connection are Wolf-Rayet-star signatures (Mirabal et al. [@mir03]) and the offsets between the locations of the GRBs and their host galaxy centers (Bloom et al. [@blo02a]; Fruchter et al. [@fr06]). For four GRBs, the connection between the GRB and the death of a massive star has been proven unambiguously by the spectroscopic detection of a supernova underlying the GRB afterglow (Galama et al. [@gal98]; Hjorth et al. [@hjor03]; Matheson et al. [@mat03]; Stanek et al. [@sta03]; Malesani et al. [@male04]; Mirabal et al. [@mir06]; Pian et al. [@pian06]). Recent studies conclude that the specific star formation rate (SSFR), i.e the SFR per unit stellar mass, is particularly high for GRB host galaxies, indicating that they are among the most efficiently star-forming objects in the universe (Courty et al. [@cour04]; Christensen et al. [@chri04b]; Gorosabel et al. [@gor05]).\n\nAccurate studies of the morphology, stellar populations, SFRs, and masses of GRB host galaxies are obviously ideally conducted at low redshift, given the better S/N and angular resolution. Photometric and spectroscopic studies of a number of nearby LGRB hosts allowed to explore the fundamental characteristics (luminosity, age, intrinsic extinction, SFR, metallicity) of those galaxies and has proven that detailed host investigations provide important information on the close environment of the GRB explosion site (Fynbo et al. [@fyn00]; Sollerman et al. [@sol05]; Rau et al. [@rsg06]). In general, the faintness of the GRB host galaxies represents a limit for good S/N spectroscopy. Broad-band spectral energy distributions (SEDs) are effective substitutes of spectra for determining the galaxy properties. Analysis of the optical/near-IR SEDs of 11 GRB host galaxies revealed that the majority are best fitted with starburst galaxy templates (Sokolov et al. [@so01]) using stellar-population models from P\u00c9GASE (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange [@f97]) or again with a starburst type galaxy template (Gorosabel et al. [@go03a; @go03b]; Christensen et al. [@chri04a]) of Bruzal & Charlot ([@bc93]) using HyperZ (Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]). This, together with the optical faintness and colours, was recognized as an indication that long duration GRBs with a detected afterglow predominantly trace unobscured star-formation in subluminous blue galaxies.\n\n  -------- ---------------------- ------------ ---------- ---------------- ------------------ ------------------- ----------------------------\n   Filter           Date           Tele/Instr   Exposure   Sersic index n   Effective radius    Position angle     Ellipticity$^{\\mathrm{1}}$\n                                                  sec                             kpc               degree        \n   F450W    2002-04-21 (day 161)   HST/WFPC2      4500      2.1$\\pm$0.3       7.4$\\pm$1.4        30.7$\\pm$2.9            0.52$\\pm$0.03\n   F555W    2002-05-02 (day 172)   HST/WFPC2      4500      1.8$\\pm$0.1       7.2$\\pm$0.5        31.6$\\pm$7.5            0.13$\\pm$0.02\n   F702W    2002-04-29 (day 169)   HST/WFPC2      4500      2.7$\\pm$0.1       9.3$\\pm$0.6        27.5$\\pm$3.0            0.15$\\pm$0.01\n   F814W    2002-04-29 (day 169)   HST/WFPC2      4500      2.4$\\pm$0.1       7.6$\\pm$0.5        20.6$\\pm$4.8            0.13$\\pm$0.02\n   J$_s$    2002-02-09 (day 90)    VLT/ISAAC      1800      1.0$\\pm$0.5       3.9$\\pm$2.2      19$^{\\mathrm{2}}$      0.12$^{\\mathrm{3}}$\n  -------- ---------------------- ------------ ---------- ---------------- ------------------ ------------------- ----------------------------\n\nDefined as 1 - (semi-minor-axis/semi-major-axis).\n\nThe best-fit position angle value with an upper limit of 135$\\degr$.\n\nThe best-fit ellipticity value with an upper limit of 0.42.\n\nGRB 011121\n----------\n\nGRB011121 was detected by the Gamma-ray Burst Monitor/Wide-field Camera on board [*BeppoSAX*]{} on 2001 November 21, 18:47:21 UT (Piro [@pir01]). Piro et al. ([@piro05]) suggested that there is absorbing gas associated with a star-forming region within a few parsec around the burst in connection with a decreasing column density from N$_H$ = 7$\\pm$2$\\times$10$^{22}$cm$^{-2}$ to zero during the early phase of the prompt emission. The optical/near-IR afterglow was discovered independently by several groups (e.g., Wyrzykowski et al. [@wyr01]; Greiner et al. [@g01]). Further observations revealed excess emission in the light curve associated with a supernova (Bloom et al. [@blo02b]; Price et al. [@pri02]; Garnavich et al. [@gar03]; Greiner et al. [@g03]). The spectroscopic redshift of GRB011121 is $z$=0.362 from Greiner et al. ([@g03]) who determined it by fitting the strong host emission lines, i.e. H$\\alpha$, H$\\beta$, \\[OII\\], \\[OIII\\], underlying the spectrum of the afterglow.\n\nThe host galaxy of GRB 011121 is one of the most extensively and deeply imaged hosts. High resolution images are available in optical and near-IR filters covering the rest-frame wavelength range of $\\sim 3200$ \u2013 $\\rm 8000~\\AA$. This gives us the unique possibility to study the host galaxy properties through the parameter space from morphology to stellar mass.\n\nHere we present the morphological and spectral energy distribution analysis of the host galaxy of GRB011121 using archival HST/WFPC2 and VLT/ISAAC data. In Sections 2, 3 and 4 we present the data reduction, morphological analysis and the photometry of this galaxy, respectively. In Sect. 5 we analyse the spectral energy distribution of the host galaxy and derive properties of the stellar population and the interstellar medium (ISM). In Sect. 6 we calculate the SFR and SSFR and compare the values with other galaxies. Finally, we summarize our results in Sect. 7.\n\nWe adopt $\\Omega_\\Lambda$ = 0.7, $\\Omega_M$ = 0.3 and H$_0$ = 65 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ throughout this paper. The luminosity distance at the redshift of the host ($z = 0.362$) is D$_L$ = 2080.2 Mpc, and 1 arcsecond corresponds to 5.43 kpc.\n\nObservations and data\n=====================\n\nData reduction\n--------------\n\nImaging of the field of GRB011121 has been performed at many epochs. For the present analysis we have chosen the data acquired by the HST Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) and the VLT Infrared Spectrometer And Array Camera (ISAAC), sufficiently late after the GRB so that the afterglow does not contribute significantly to the brightness of the host galaxy. The HST data were acquired approximately 5 months after the burst, using 4 filters: F450W, F555W, F702W and F814W (see Tab.\\[tab:obs\\]). These data were obtained as a part of a large program (ID: 9180, PI: Kulkarni) intended to probe the environment of GRBs. The total exposure time in each filter is 4500 seconds. An independent analysis of these data has been published in Bloom et al. ([@blo02b]), concentrating on the supernova signature underlying the afterglow lightcurve.\n\nThe HST imaging data were pre-processed via \u201con the fly\u201d calibration, i.e. with the best bias, dark, and flat-field available at the time of retrieval from the archive. The Wide Field (WF) chips of WFPC2 have a pixel scale of 0$\\farcs$1/pixel. The images for each filter were dithered by subpixel offsets (resulting in a pixel scale of 005/pixel) using the IRAF/Dither2 package to remove cosmic rays and produce a better-sampled final image. For all HST observations, the host position falls near the serial readout register of WF chip 3 which minimizes the correction for charge transfer efficiency (CTE) to around 5 per cent in count rate, therefore we ignore the CTE correction for the photometry.\n\nThe VLT/ISAAC data were obtained in the $\\rm J_s$-band on February 9, 2002 with an exposure of 1800 seconds (see Tab.\\[tab:obs\\]), and reported earlier in Greiner et al. ([@g03]). These data were also obtained as a part of a large program (ID: 165H.-0464, PI: van den Heuvel) intended to understand the physics of GRBs and the nature of their hosts. The $\\rm J_s$-band images were reduced using the ESO Eclipse package (Devillard [@dev05]).\n\n![[*Top left*]{}: F702W image taken $\\sim$14days after the GRB. Two foreground stars, the positions of the host, and of the optical afterglow (circle in all panels) are indicated. [*Top right*]{} and [*Bottom left:*]{} F450W and F702W images taken $\\sim$5months post-burst. The contours show the light distribution in the F702W filter. [*Bottom right*]{}: J$_s$ image taken 3months after the burst. All images are tophat smoothed. North is up and East is to the left.[]{data-label=\"fig:hostim\"}](rbrjcontnew2.ps){width=\"8cm\"}\n\nZero-point magnitudes for the HST filters were taken from Dolphin (2000)[^4]. For the VLT images, two local photometric standard stars given by Greiner et al. ([@g03]) were used to obtain the photometric calibration. Both for the HST and the VLT data, the background values of the images were calculated using IRAF/imexamine in the corresponding filters. The 1$\\sigma$ surface brightness limits are calculated using the formula given by Temporin ([@tem01]): $$\\mu_{lim} =  -2.5 \\times log[\\sigma/(t \\times s^2)] + \\mu_0$$ where $\\sigma$ is the standard deviation from the mean of the background, $\\mu_0$ is the zero-point, $t$ is the exposure time in seconds and $s$ is the pixel scale.\n\nAstrometry\n----------\n\nImages obtained at different epochs and different filters were registered relatively to an early F702W image where the OT is clearly visible (top left image of Figure\\[fig:hostim\\]), using standard MIDAS routines. We used at least three isolated stars to find the relative shift and rotation of two images. The centers of the stars were computed assuming a point source. We did not re-scale the images since the HST images have the same scale. The estimated accuracy of our relative astrometry is 10 mas given by the rms error of the mapping using MIDAS routines. We note that the uncertainties due to optical distortion for the HST images are rather small and are largely removed by the dithering process (Fruchter & Hook [@fruh02]). The relative position of the OT in the $J_{s}-band$, as shown in the bottom right image of Figure\\[fig:hostim\\], is similarly estimated using an early VLT/ISAAC $J_{s}-band$ image from Nov 24, 2001 (see Greiner et al. [@g03]), with an rms of 30 mas.\n\nExtinction\n----------\n\nAs for the necessary correction for Galactic extinction, the study of Schlegel et al. ([@schl98]), based on COBE and IRAS extinction maps, gives a value of Galactic reddening along the line of sight of GRB011121 equal to $\\rm E(B-V) = 0.49$ mag. However, different authors have argued that extinction estimates based on far-IR measurements overpredict the true value by about 30% (Dutra et al. [@dut03]; Cambr\u00e9sy et al. [@cam05]). In particular, Dutra et al. ([@dut03]) recommend to scale the value of $\\rm E(B-V)$ given by Schlegel et al. ([@schl98]) by a factor of 0.75 for lines of sight corresponding to regions with $\\rm |b| < 25^o$ and $\\rm E(B-V) > 0.25$ mag. This holds for the line of sight of GRB011121, hence we assume $\\rm E(B-V) = 0.37$ mag as the correct value of Galactic reddening. This value corresponds to a V-band extinction $\\rm A_V = 1.15$ mag for the standard Galactic extinction curve of Cardelli et al. ([@car89]), where $\\rm R = A_V / E(B-V) = 3.1$. We correct the observed photometry of the host-galaxy of GRB011121 for Galactic extinction according to this law.\n\nUsing the broad-band spectral energy distribution of the optical transient (OT) of GRB011121, Garnavich et al. ([@gar03]) estimated $\\rm E(B-V) = 0.43 \\pm 0.07$ mag, and Price et al. ([@pri02]) estimated $\\rm A_V = 1.16 \\pm 0.25$ mag for the [*total*]{} (i.e. Galactic plus internal) reddening. These two analyses offer consistent results as for the [*total*]{} extinction and reddening, within the uncertainties. However, note that these authors implicitly assumed that the solution of radiative transfer for the light through the host-galaxy of GRB011121 is the same as for the light from a star in the Galaxy.\n\nOur assumed values of Galactic reddening and extinction are consistent with the previous [*total*]{} values, within 1 $\\sigma$. However, we do not conclude that the extinction produced by dust in the host-galaxy of GRB011121 is negligible. In fact, the optical spectra of two slightly different regions (due to different slit widths) containing the OT of GRB011121, taken by Greiner et al. ([@g03]) 4 and 21 days after the GRB event, give values of the Balmer-line flux ratio $\\rm H_{\\alpha} / H_{\\beta}$ equal to $4.8^{+1.6}_{-1.1}$ and $6.4^{+3.5}_{-1.9}$, respectively, after correcting the line fluxes for foreground extinction. Both Balmer-line flux ratios derived from Greiner et al. ([@g03]) are higher (by $>$ 2 $\\sigma$) than the value of 2.86 predicted for the standard case B recombination[^5]\n\nMorphology of the host galaxy\n=============================\n\nThe high-resolution data in 5 broad-band filters allow a colour-resolved morphological analysis. Figure \\[fig:hostim\\] shows images of the host galaxy of GRB011121 in various filters. This galaxy exhibits a different structure in the F450W band compared to the redder band data (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:hostim\\] top right and bottom left images). In the F702W image we see a nearly face-on extended structure. On the other hand, the F450W image \u2013 despite the lower sensitivity \u2013 reveals three emission regions , most probably indicating the sites of enhanced star formation in the galaxy, considering that the size of a star forming region ($\\sim$ few pc) is much smaller than the sizes of these blue emission regions ($\\sim$1-2 kpc). The difference of morphology in different filters is reflected in the F450W \u2013 F702W color image of the galaxy (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:bminr\\]). The center of the galaxy is red with $\\rm F450W - F702W = 3.0 \\pm 0.1$ mag, the background value being $\\rm F450W - F702W = 0.2 \\pm 0.2$ mag. The three emission regions seen in the F450W filter exhibit $\\rm F450W - F702W$ equal to 2.6$\\pm$0.1 mag, 1.5$\\pm$0.1 mag and 0.95$\\pm$0.15 mag, respectively. The morphological analysis of the host galaxy of GRB011121 was performed using Galfit (Peng et al. [@peng02]). Galfit is a 2D galaxy and point-source fitting algorithm which can fit an image with multiple analytical models simultaneously. For the galaxy under investigation, an initial model assuming a classical de Vaucouleurs bulge$+$exponential disk profile did not provide a good representation. Therefore, we made use of a Sersic profile (Sersic [@sers]) where all the related parameters (i.e. effective radius, Sersic index, position angle) were left free. The top panel of Figure \\[fig:galfres\\] shows the image of the field of the host galaxy in the F814W band, and the residual image after the subtraction of the galaxy model. The results of the best fits obtained with Galfit for each filter are listed in Table \\[tab:obs\\].\n\nThe best-fit values for ellipticity and position angle are in agreement with each other for all filters, except the ellipticity for the F450W filter (see the bottom panel of Fig.\\[fig:galfres\\]). There is a similar agreement for the effective radius and the Sersic index parameters. We note that the values for the F450W fit should be evaluated carefully, considering that the galaxy image has a relatively lower signal-to-noise ratio due to the sensitivity of the detector and therefore probably probes only the high surface brightness regions. Nevertheless, the values except the ellipticity are still in agreement for all images, indicating that we actually trace the profile of the galaxy in a decent way.\n\nGalaxies at cosmological redshifts are commonly classified according to their Sersic index as disk systems ($n < 2$) and bulge-dominated systems ($n > 2$, see Ravindranath et al. [@rav04]). However, we note that a central, dust-enshrouded starburst can produce a Sersic profile with index of about 2 and a redder $\\rm F450W - F702W$ colour in the inner region of a disk system as seen for the host of GRB 011121 (see Fig.\\[fig:bminr\\]). The detection of a bulge can be hindered by the fact that the galaxy is observed nearly face-on, the best-fit ellipticity value being 0.13 (0.50 for F450W). Although the Sersic index of our reddest band data ($\\rm J_s$-band) is consistent with values typical of a disk-dominated galaxy, this is still consistent with an extended disk structure dominating a small, unresolved bulge, since the spatial resolution of the $\\rm J_s$-band image is almost three times worse than that of the HST images. We also inspected the $\\rm F555W - J_s$ radial colour profile and found that it is constant within the errors, indicating that there is no significant difference in the radial profile of the galaxy in different filters except for F450W. Therefore, the host galaxy of GRB011121 can be either a disk system with a small bulge as also indicated by the enhanced traces of spiral arms in Figure\\[fig:white\\], i.e. an Sbc-like galaxy, or a disk system experiencing dust-enshrouded starburst activity in its central regions.\n\nSimilar results on the morphology of the host galaxy of GRB011121 were obtained by two other groups using different methods. Wainwright et al. ([@wain05]) performed a morphological analysis using Galfit on the same HST data as used here plus the F850L filter data; they concluded that the galaxy is a disk system. Our results are generally in agreement with those of Wainwright et al. ([@wain05]), except for the F450W filter, for which there is a $\\sim$4$\\sigma$ difference in the effective radius. Note that we cannot quantify the difference since Wainwright et al. did not quote any errors for their results. On the other hand, also Conselice et al. ([@con05]) performed a morphological analysis based on the concentration and asymmetry parameters using the F702W filter data taken $\\sim$3 months after the GRB. They concluded that the host is probably a late-type spiral consistent with our results.\n\nThe OT of GRB011121 was clearly distinguishable in earlier images taken with HST/WFPC2 since it is located in the outskirts of its host galaxy (top left image of Fig.\\[fig:hostim\\]). None of the emission regions seen in the F450W band data coincides with the OT position (see the top right image Fig.\\[fig:hostim\\]).\n\nIn addition, we investigated the nature of the two objects in the vicinity of the host galaxy. The radial surface brightness profile of these objects is described by the point spread function in the HST images, as estimated from the stars in the field. Furthermore, there was no X-ray emission associated with these objects in the X-ray imaging of the afterglow. Hence we conclude that the objects marked as number 1 and 2 in Figure \\[fig:hostim\\] (top left) are most probably foreground stars. We conducted the photometry of these objects including also the H and K data from Nov 24, 2001 (ID: 165H.-0464, PI: van den Heuvel) acquired by VLT/ISAAC, in order to estimate the spectral type assuming that they are stars. The colors of object 2 are $V-R$=1.16$\\pm$0.10 mag, $J-H$=0.62$\\pm$0.05 mag and $H-K$= 0.14$\\pm$0.03 mag. These colors indicate that object 2 is a main-sequence star of spectral type of M2 (Tokunaga [@tok00]). The colors of object 1 are much redder with $V-R$=2.85$\\pm$0.10 mag, $J-H$=0.17$\\pm$0.10 mag and $H-K$=0.61$\\pm$0.12 mag. These colors fit marginally with that of a late M-type or an early L-type star (Tokunaga [@tok00]; Leggett et al. [@leg03]). However, we do not exclude the possibility that object 1 may be an unresolved high-redshift galaxy.\n\nPhotometry\n==========\n\n![F450W \u2013 F702W color image of the field of GRB 011121. The position of the OT is indicated with an arrow. The thin-line contour is the the contour of the galaxy in the F702W filter and the thick-line is the contour in the F450W filter, overplotted on the color image.[]{data-label=\"fig:bminr\"}](Picture_19best.ps){width=\"8cm\"}\n\n![A white image of the field of GRB 011121 constructed using the images in the F450W ([*blue*]{}), F555W ([*green*]{}), F702W and F814W ([*red*]{}) filters.[]{data-label=\"fig:white\"}](rgbirvblogs1.ps){width=\"8cm\"}\n\n![[*Top Panel Left*]{}: The image of the field in the F814W filter in April 2002. [*Top Panel Right*]{}: The residuals after subtracting the best-fit Galfit galaxy model from the original image. [*Bottom Panel*]{} The contours of the best-fit model of the Galfit analysis for the F450W data (on the [*left*]{}) and for the F814W data (on the [*right*]{}).[]{data-label=\"fig:galfres\"}](ibandres.ps){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nPhotometry was extracted using the IRAF/Ellipse task which performs aperture photometry inside elliptical isophotes. To determine the size of an aperture which covers the galaxy and minimizes the contamination by the background noise, the 1$\\sigma$ surface brightness limit and the metric radius were calculated for each image. The metric radius is defined as the radius where the Petrosian index $\\eta$ = 0.2, the Petrosian index being the ratio of the average surface brightness within a radius $r$ to the surface brightness at $r$ (Petrosian [@pet76]; Djorgovski & Spinrad [@ds81]). Both values correspond to a semi-major axis length of 2.1 \u2013 2.4 arcsec for all images except for the F450W filter image for which the surface brightness limit is reached at $\\sim$1$\\arcsec$. In order to conduct a consistent analysis, we performed aperture photometry on each image with the same semi-major axis length of 2.25 arcseconds. Table \\[tab:phot\\] shows the resulting magnitudes and errors. The errors in magnitudes were calculated assuming Poisson noise and include the readout noise and zero-point errors. The background fluctuation values were obtained by calculating the standard deviation from the mean background values measured for several different areas near the galaxy. Then a correction due to dithering was applied to the background noise of the HST images, assuming that the dither pattern is uniform (see Fruchter & Hook [@fruh02]).\n\nMagnitudes were computed using i) the best-fit ellipticity and position angle for each filter obtained by Galfit, and ii) fixing the ellipticity and position angle to 0.13 and 275, respectively for all filters. The results were the same for both cases. Ellipse also provides the magnitudes inside a circular area having the same radius of the semi-major axis of the elliptical isophote. We compared the magnitudes determined within the circular and elliptical areas and found that the difference is $<$0.02 mag. This indicates the reliability of the 2$\\farcs$25 extent, the position angle and the ellipticity of the galaxy.\n\n  -------- --------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------\n   Filter   Brightness$^{\\mathrm{1}}$   Foreground extinction   Absolute magnitude$^{\\mathrm{2,3}}$\n                       mag                       mag                            mag\n   F450W         23.44$\\pm$0.04                 1.43                           -19.5\n   F555W         22.64$\\pm$0.02                 1.14                           -20.3\n   F702W         21.63$\\pm$0.01                 0.86                           -20.6\n   F814W         21.18$\\pm$0.02                 0.67                           -21.1\n   J$_s$         19.87$\\pm$0.06                 0.32                           -22.1\n  -------- --------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------\n\nMagnitudes are not corrected for Galactic extinction.\n\nThe absolute magnitudes are corrected for Galactic extinction.\n\nThe absolute magnitudes are given for the filters B, V, R, I, J in respective order.\n\nThe value of M$_B^*$ (uncorrected for dust attenuation) for redshifts between 0 and 0.5 is given by Dahlen et al. ([@dah05]) as -21.06$^{+0.10}_{-0.06}$ for $h = 0.65$. It is derived by fitting a Schechter luminosity function and using all types of galaxies, i.e. early type, late type and starbursts. From this value, we determine a luminosity ratio of L$_B$/L$^{*}_{B}$ = 0.26 for the host galaxy of GRB011121, which indicates that this galaxy is subluminous.\n\nAnalysis of the Spectral Energy Distribution\n============================================\n\nHereafter we analyze the SED of the host galaxy of GRB011121 to deduce galaxy properties like characteristic age and metallicity of the stellar populations and the SFR. We apply both the publicly available HyperZ code (Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]) as well as our own modelling, to explore the galaxy properties.\n\nAnalysis using HyperZ\n---------------------\n\nFollowing the seminal work on GRB host galaxies by Christensen et al. ([@chri04a; @chri04b]), we make use of [*HyperZ*]{} (Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]). In particular, this code considers a large grid of models based on 8 different synthetic star-formation histories (Bruzual & Charlot [@bc93]), roughly matching the observed properties of local field galaxies (starburst, elliptical, spiral, and irregular ones). For all models, metallicity is fixed to the solar value ($Z=0.02$). The empirical formula of Calzetti et al. ([@cal00]) for nearby starbursts is used to describe attenuation by dust in galaxies, independent of the star-formation history and morphology. Finally, a Miller & Scalo ([@ms79]) initial mass function with an upper mass limit for star formation of 125 $\\rm M_{\\sun}$ is used.\n\nAs a result of the fitting of the broad-band photometry of the host galaxy of GRB011121 with [*HyperZ*]{} models, we find that old ages (i.e. $\\ge$ 1 \u2013 2 Gyr) are not favoured (best-fit values of 45 Myr for starbursts and up to 720 Myr for spirals and irregulars), while the amount of internal extinction is non-negligible ($\\rm A_V$ = 0.80 \u2013 1.0 mag, rest frame) for all models producing equally valid fits with $\\chi_{\\nu}^2 <  0.26$. For a so-called Calzetti law, $\\rm A_V$ = 0.80 \u2013 1.0 mag corresponds to $\\rm E(B-V) = 0.20$ \u2013 0.25 mag. We note that this value of reddening by internal dust refers to the whole galaxy and, thus, is not directly comparable in a quantitative way to the values estimated from spectroscopy of the OT region, once the contribution of Galactic reddening is removed. These results hold independent of the synthetic star-formation history of the model, which mirrors the fact that the 4000 $\\AA$-break is not very prominent in stellar populations younger than $\\sim$1 Gyr and, thus, does not offer a robust constraint to discriminate different evolutionary patterns. Finally, we note that an even broader range of possible values for age and extinction exists if we consider fits with $\\chi_{\\nu}^2 < 1$. This increase in degeneracy of the solutions is not a shortcoming of [*HyperZ*]{} because it was designed to find photometric redshifts and provides only a rough estimate of the SED type (see Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]), independent of morphology.\n\nBroad-band SED fitting\n----------------------\n\nIn order to exploit the information on morphology available for the host galaxy of GRB011121 and better link the mode of star-formation and the properties of dust attenuation, we build our own set of physically motivated models. We combine different, composite stellar population models and models of radiative transfer of the stellar and scattered radiation through different dusty media. We use a tailored grid of parameters in order to probe the very wide parameter space available for models in an efficient way. A large suite of synthetic SEDs is built as a function of total (gas$+$stars) mass, age (i.e. the time elapsed since the onset of star formation) and a characteristic opacity of the model, as described in the following subsections. These three free model parameters are determined from the comparison of synthetic broad-band apparent magnitudes (observed frame) and the apparent magnitudes determined for the host galaxy of GRB011121 (see Sect. 4) through the standard least-square fitting technique.\n\n### Stellar population models\n\nWe model the intrinsic (i.e. not attenuated by internal dust) SED of the host galaxy of GRB011121 as a composite stellar population. We make use of the stellar population evolutionary synthesis code P\u00c9GASE (Fioc & Rocca-Volmerange [@f97]) (version 2.0) in order to compute both the stellar continuum emission and the nebular emission. Gas is assumed to be transformed into stars of increasing metallicity as the time elapsed since the onset of star formation increases, the initial metallicity of the ISM being equal to zero. The stellar initial mass function (IMF) is Salpeter ([@s55]), with lower and upper masses equal to 0.1 and 120 $\\rm M_{\\sun}$, respectively. Adopting a different IMF affects mostly the determination of the stellar mass; for instance, a Chabrier ([@cha03]) IMF produces stellar masses lower by about 30 per cent than a Salpeter ([@s55]) one.\n\nThe mass-normalized SFR of the models is assumed either to be constant ([*starburst*]{} models) or to decline exponentially as a function of time ([*normal star-forming galaxy*]{} models). For models of a normal star-forming galaxy, we adopt e-folding times equal to 1 and 5 Gyr to describe the star-formation histories of the bulge and disk components, respectively, the bulge-to-total mass ratio being set equal to 0.05, 0.1, 0.15 or 0.2. For starburst models, a range of 18 ages between 0.1 and 9 Gyr is considered[^6], the time step being fine (i.e 0.1 Gyr) up to an age of 1 Gyr and coarse (i.e. 1 Gyr) since then. On the other hand, for normal star-forming galaxy models, a range of 28 ages between 0.5 and 7 Gyr is considered. For these models, a fine time step is adopted for ages between 1 and 3 Gyr in order to better follow the different evolution of the stellar populations of the bulge and disk components. Finally, we assume that the total mass of the system ranges from $10^9$ to $\\rm 2 \\times 10^{11}~M_{\\sun}$, 200 steps in mass being considered.\n\n### Dust attenuation models\n\nAs a statistical description of dust attenuation in starbursts, we make use of the Monte Carlo calculations of radiative transfer of the stellar and scattered radiation by Witt & Gordon ([@wit00]) for the SHELL geometry. In this case, stars are surrounded by a shell where a two-phase clumpy medium hosts dust grains with an extinction curve like that of the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), as given by Gordon et al. ([@gcw97]). We note that these models describe dust attenuation in nearby starburst galaxies (Gordon et al. [@gcw97]) as well as in Lyman Break Galaxies at $2 < z < 4$ (Vijh et al. [@vij03]). We consider 14 values of the opacity $\\tau_V$ (0.25 \u2013 9), where $\\tau_V$ is the radial extinction optical depth from the center to the edge of the dust environment in the V-band, assuming a constant density, homogeneous distribution. On the other hand, for the normal star-forming galaxy models we assume that dust attenuation is described by the Monte Carlo calculations of radiative transfer of the stellar and scattered radiation for an axially symmetric disk geometry illustrated in Pierini et al. ([@dp04b]) and based on the DIRTY code (Gordon et al. [@gor01]). These models have been applied successfully to interpret multiwavelength photometry of edge-on late-type galaxies in the local Universe (Kuchinski et al. [@kuc98]). The physical properties of the dust grains are assumed to be the same as those in the diffuse ISM of the Milky Way (from Witt & Gordon [@wit00]). Furthermore, this time we use as a parameter the central opacity $\\tau_V^{\\rm c, 0}$, that refers to the face-on extinction optical-depth through the centre of the dusty disk in the V-band. In these disk models, the central opacity is equal to 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16. From the observed ellipticity of the host galaxy of GRB011121 (see Tab. \\[tab:obs\\]), we determine an inclination of about 18 degrees, for an intrinsic axial ratio of 0.2. Hence we adopt disk galaxy models with only this inclination since inclination effects on the total luminosity are small for inclinations much less than 70 degrees in a disk-dominated system (e.g. Pierini et al. [@dp03]) like the host galaxy of GRB011121. In fact, the Sersic index fitted to different light profiles of the host galaxy of GRB011121 (see Tab. \\[tab:obs\\]) is consistent with the presence of a small bulge like in Sbc galaxies. Greiner et al. ([@g03]) estimated the bulge-to-disk (B/D) $J_s$-band luminosity ratio to be about 0.28 using a de Vaucouleurs$+$exponential model to reproduce the $J_s$-band surface brightness profile of the host galaxy of GRB011121. Hence, we use a bulge-to-disk $J_s$-band luminosity ratio between 0.23 and 0.33 as a further constraint for our bulge$+$disk models allowing for mismatches between the fitting model of Greiner et al. ([@g03]) and the structure of the system described in Pierini et al. ([@dp04b]).\n\nFinally, for all models we assume that the gas emission at a given wavelength is attenuated by the same amount as the stellar emission at that wavelength, independent of whether the gas emission is in a line or in the continuum (see Pierini et al. [@dp04a] for a discussion).\n\n### Results\n\nFor a suite of 50,400 starburst models plus 124,800 normal star-forming models, synthetic SEDs and magnitudes are computed and evaluated against the observed broad-band SED of the host galaxy of GRB011121 (see Sect. 4). Reassuringly, each suite of models brackets the best-fit solution although the parameter space is not spanned in a uniform way. Hereafter we illustrate the basic aspects of those fit solutions that are called \u201cplausible\u201d, being characterized by $\\chi_{\\nu}^2 < 6.91$, that corresponds to a probability of 0.001 for two degrees of freedom (given by 5 photometric points minus 3 model parameters).\n\nAs Fig. \\[fig:fSB\\] shows, plausible solutions for the starburst case imply ages between 0.4 and 2 Gyr and, accordingly, an opacity decreasing from 1.5 to 0.5. This domain is narrower than the explored parameter space, nevertheless it still expresses the well-known age\u2013opacity degeneracy for starbursts (Takagi et al. [@tak99]). At the same time, the bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars increases from $3 \\times 10^{-4}$ to $1.6 \\times 10^{-3}$, while the total mass of the system drops from 18.5 to $\\rm 6.3 \\times 10^{10}~M_{\\sun}$. The latter range corresponds to a range of 3.1 \u2013 $\\rm 4.8 \\times 10^{9}~M_{\\sun}$ in stellar mass. In particular, the best-fit model for the starburst case has an age of 0.5 Gyr, a bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars equal to $3.7 \\times 10^{-4}$, a stellar mass of $\\rm 3.6 \\times 10^{9}~M_{\\sun}$ and an opacity equal to 1.5[^7]. We note that $\\tau_V = 1.5$ corresponds to an attenuation of the total flux at V-band (rest frame) $\\rm A_V = 0.76~mag$ and a reddening $\\rm E(B-V) = 0.20~mag$ on the scale of the system.\n\n![SED fit solutions with $\\chi_{\\nu}^2 < 6.91$, using starburst models. [*Left*]{}: Total (gas$+$stars) mass and age versus $\\tau_V$, [*Right*]{}: Total mass and age versus $\\chi_{\\nu}^2$.[]{data-label=\"fig:fSB\"}](fig_SB_new3.ps){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nOn the other hand, plausible solutions for the normal star-forming case have a bulge-to-total mass ratio equal to 0.15. They imply ages between 1.3 and 1.9 Gyr and, accordingly, a central opacity of the disk decreasing from 16 to 2 (see Fig. \\[fig:fSbc\\]). At the same time, the bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars of the disk increases from $3.9 \\times 10^{-3}$ to $5.8 \\times 10^{-3}$. The total mass of the system drops from 2.5 to $\\rm 1.7 \\times 10^{10}~M_{\\sun}$ from the youngest and most opaque systems to the oldest and least opaque ones. The range in stellar mass spanned by these plausible solutions is 4.9 \u2013 $\\rm 6.9 \\times 10^{9}~M_{\\sun}$. In particular, the best-fit model for the normal star-forming case has an age of 1.3 Gyr, a bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars of the disk equal to $3.9 \\times 10^{-3}$, a stellar mass of $\\rm 5.7 \\times 10^{9}~M_{\\sun}$ and a central opacity of the disk equal to 16. We note that $\\tau_V^{\\rm c, 0} = 16$ corresponds to an attenuation (along the line of sight) of the total rest-frame V-band flux $\\rm A_V = 0.57~mag$ for an inclination of 18 degrees. In terms of reddening of the stellar component of the only disk, the best-fit Sbc-like model implies $\\rm E(B-V) = 0.08~mag$ on the disk scale. Even smaller values of reddening will apply to a peripheral region of the disk, where the OT of GRB011121 was actually located. Hence plausible solutions for a normal star-forming bulge$+$disk system comfortably meet the constraints on a low amount of reddening in the OT region of GRB011121.\n\n![Same as Fig.\\[fig:fSB\\] for normal star-forming galaxy models.[]{data-label=\"fig:fSbc\"}](fig_Sbc_new3.ps){width=\"9cm\"}\n\n![The best-fit normal star-forming galaxy model (in black), and the best-fit starburst model (in red). The points are the fluxes of the host galaxy derived from the observed magnitudes corrected for the foreground extinction. The filter curves are shown in the lower panel, for the corresponding filters.[]{data-label=\"fig:bestf\"}](best_fits.ps){width=\"9cm\"}\n\nFigure \\[fig:bestf\\] shows how the best-fit models for a starburst system and a normal star-forming bulge$+$disk system reproduce the observed photometry of the host galaxy of GRB011121. The comparison with the data reveals that both best-fit models underpredict the observed $\\rm J_s$-band magnitude by about 0.1 mag, i.e. almost 2 $\\sigma$. This is the main reason for their rather high values of $\\chi_{\\nu}^2$. A posteriori, we interpret this discrepancy as due to the fact that P\u00c9GASE (version 2.0) does not include the contribution to the total emission from the thermally pulsating asymptotic giant branch (TP-AGB) phase of stellar evolution (see Maraston [@mar05]). TP-AGB stars are cool giants exhibiting very red optical/NIR colours (e.g. Persson et al. [@per83]). They are expected to play a significant role in the rest-frame visual-to-near-IR emission of galaxies containing 1-Gyr-old stellar populations (Maraston [@mar98; @mar05]). Now the best-fit models contain stellar populations that are up to 0.5 or 1.3 Gyr old (starburst or Sbc-like model, respectively), hence it is plausible that they can slightly underpredict the flux in the observed $\\rm J_s$-band magnitude[^8].\n\nWe tested that the previous results are not biased by the absence of the contribution to the total emission from the TP-AGB stars in P\u00c9GASE (version 2.0). We performed new fits where the range in the $\\rm J_s$-band B/D allowed by the estimate of Greiner et. al. ([@g03]) and/or the $\\rm J_s$-band flux were not used to constrain the solutions. In this case, plausible solutions were characterized by $\\chi_{\\nu}^2 < 5.41$, that corresponds to a probability of at least 0.001 for the only one degree of freedom for both starburst and Sbc-like models. The new plausible solutions for starburst models allowed a slightly larger parameter space but without major changes with the exception that a limited number of plausible solutions with a $\\chi_{\\nu}^2$ $<$ 1 did exist now (see Table \\[tab:fits\\]). Also for normal star-forming bulge$+$disk models the parameter space allowed by the new plausible solutions became slightly larger (see Table \\[tab:fits2\\]); in particular, the bulge-to-total mass ratio was unconstrained. These new solutions spanned the whole range in central opacity, the least opaque models ($\\tau_V^{\\rm c, 0} = 0.50$) having older ages (1.5 \u2013 2.9 Gyr) than the most opaque ones (with $\\tau_V^{\\rm c, 0} = 16$ and an age of 1.0 \u2013 1.7 Gyr). Models with larger bulge-to-total mass ratios tended to be younger, independent of the central opacity; however, the stellar mass was still a few to several times $\\rm 10^{9}~M_{\\sun}$ overall. This time plausible solutions with a $\\chi_{\\nu}^2 < 1$ did exist also for Sbc-like models, without major changes in terms of properties of the stellar populations and mass of the system.\n\n  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------------\n    $\\tau_V$       age          Z            M$_{\\star}$        $\\chi_{\\nu}^2$\n                   Gyr      $10^{-3}$   $\\rm 10^{9}~M_{\\sun}$  \n   0.25 \u2013 1.5   0.4 \u2013 2.0   0.3 \u2013 1.6         3.1 \u2013 4.9            $< 5.41$\n       1        0.8 \u2013 0.9   0.6 \u2013 0.7         3.5 \u2013 3.8            $< 1.00$\n  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------------\n\n  -------------------- --------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------------\n   B/T$^{\\mathrm{1}}$   $\\tau_V^{\\rm c, 0}$      age          Z            M$_{\\star}$        $\\chi_{\\nu}^2$\n                                                 Gyr      $10^{-3}$   $\\rm 10^{9}~M_{\\sun}$  \n          0.05               0.50 \u2013 16        1.0 \u2013 2.9   3.0 \u2013 8.5         3.6 \u2013 6.4            $< 5.41$\n          0.05                 4, 16          1.3 \u2013 1.5   3.9 \u2013 4.6         4.8 \u2013 5.0            $< 1.00$\n          0.10               0.50 \u2013 16        1.0 \u2013 2.6   3.0 \u2013 7.7         3.3 \u2013 6.4            $< 5.41$\n          0.10               0.50 \u2013 8         1.5 \u2013 2.1   4.6 \u2013 6.3         4.4 \u2013 5.1            $< 1.00$\n          0.15               0.50 \u2013 16        1.0 \u2013 2.5   3.0 \u2013 7.5         3.9 \u2013 6.9            $< 5.41$\n          0.15              0.50, 4, 8        1.3 \u2013 1.8   3.9 \u2013 5.5         4.4 \u2013 4.9            $< 1.00$\n          0.20               0.50 \u2013 16        1.0 \u2013 2.3   3.0 \u2013 6.9         3.6 \u2013 6.8            $< 5.41$\n          0.20            0.50, 1, 4, 16      1.2 \u2013 1.9   3.6 \u2013 5.8         4.6 \u2013 5.6            $< 1.00$\n  -------------------- --------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------------------- ----------------\n\nBulge-to-total mass ratio.\n\nStar Formation Rate\n===================\n\nThe previous plausible solutions give values of the SFR equal to 3.1 \u2013 $\\rm 9.4~M_{\\sun}~yr^{-1}$ (starburst models) or 2.4 \u2013 $\\rm 4.1~M_{\\sun}~yr^{-1}$ (normal star-forming, Sbc-like models), the value of SFR decreasing as the time elapsed since the start of star formation increases [^9]. For the same models, the SFR per unit stellar mass is equal to 0.6 \u2013 $\\rm 2.9 \\times 10^{-9}~yr^{-1}$ or 0.4 \u2013$\\rm 0.7 \\times 10^{-9}~yr^{-1}$, respectively. Consistently, for this subluminous galaxy ($\\rm L_B/L^{\\star}_B = 0.26$), the SFR per unit luminosity is equal to 11.9 \u2013 $\\rm 36.1~M_{\\sun}~yr^{-1}~(L_B/L^{\\star}_B)^{-1}$ or 9.2 \u2013 $\\rm 15.8~M_{\\sun}~yr^{-1}~(L_B/L^{\\star}_B)^{-1}$.\n\nThese values of the SFR per unit stellar mass are high compared to those of simulated galaxies in Courty et al. ([@cour04]), in agreement with their conclusion that the GRB-host galaxies are identified as the most efficient star-forming objects. Other GRB-host galaxies have high values of the SFR per unit luminosity (cf. Christensen et al. [@chri04a]), though not as high as our estimates. Recent calculations by Gorosabel et al. ([@gor05]) and Sollerman et al. ([@sol05]) give similar values of the extinction-corrected SFR per unit luminosity for the host galaxies of the two low-redshift GRB030329 and GRB031203.\n\nFinally, we compared the values obtained for the SFR per unit galaxy stellar mass of the host galaxy of GRB011121 with those of observed galaxies selected from the MUNICS and FORS deep field surveys (Bauer et al. [@bau05]) in the same redshift range $0.25 < z < 0.4$ as the previous GRBs and GRB011121 itself. The values of the specific SFR (SSFR) given by Bauer et al. ([@bau05]) were determined from the \\[OII\\] line flux without any correction for dust extinction. This comparison confirms that the host galaxy of GRB011121 is among the galaxies with highest specific SFR at these redshifts even after allowing for an extreme correction factor of 10 for the SSFRs given by Bauer et al. ([@bau05]).\n\nSummary\n=======\n\nThe existence of high-resolution imaging in 5 broad-band, optical and near-infrared filters with HST and VLT/ISAAC for the host galaxy of GRB011121 (at $z = 0.36$) allows a detailed study of both the morphology and the spectral energy distribution of this galaxy. Multi-band, high signal-to-noise ratio, high-resolution imaging of GRB host galaxies is still a luxury, only affordable for the brightest and most nearby galaxies.\n\nFirstly, we find that the surface brightness profile of the host galaxy of GRB011121 is best fitted by a Sersic law with index $n \\sim 2$ \u2013 2.5 and a rather large effective radius ($\\sim$ 7.5 kpc). Together with the F450W - F702W colour image, this suggests that this galaxy is either a disk-system with a rather small bulge (like an Sbc galaxy), or one hosting a central, dust-enshrouded starburst.\n\nAt variance with previous studies on GRB host galaxies, we combine stellar population models and Monte Carlo calculations of radiative transfer to reproduce the observed SED. Furthermore, we make use of the morphological information to constrain these models. Plausible solutions meeting all the morphological and/or photometric constraints indicate that the host galaxy of GRB011121 has a stellar mass of a few to several times $\\rm 10^9~M_{\\sun}$, stellar populations with a maximum age ranging from 0.4 to 2 Gyr, and a bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars (of the disk, in case) ranging from 1 to 29 per cent of the solar value.\n\nIn particular, normal star-forming, Sbc-like models provide plausible solutions pointing to a system as massive as 4.9 \u2013 $\\rm 6.9 \\times 10^{9}~M_{\\sun}$, with a bulge-to-total mass ratio equal to 0.15, an age of 1.3 \u2013 1.9 Gyr, and a bolometric luminosity-weighted metallicity in stars of the disk equal to 20 \u2013 29 per cent solar. On the other hand, starburst models provide plausible solutions biased towards a lower stellar mass (3.1 \u2013 $\\rm 4.8 \\times 10^{9}~M_{\\sun}$), a younger age (0.4 \u2013 2.0 Gyr) and a much lower metallicity (1 \u2013 8 per cent solar). As for the opacity, normal star-forming, Sbc-like models indicate the host galaxy of GRB011121 as a system with a central opacity $\\tau_V^{\\rm c, 0}$ in the range 2 \u2013 16, i.e. larger than the central opacity of local disks (0.5 \u2013 2, see Kuchinski et al. [@kuc98]). Nevertheless, the attenuation along the line of sight is moderate ($\\rm A_V = 0.12$ \u2013 0.57 mag) on the scale of the system since the host galaxy of GRB011121 has a low inclination (18 degrees). On the other hand, starburst models suggest this galaxy to be nearly as opaque ($\\tau_V = 0.5$ \u2013 1.5) as local starburst galaxies (with $\\tau_V \\sim 1.5$, see Gordon et al. [@gcw97]), the attenuation along the line of sight being $\\rm A_V = 0.27$ \u2013 0.76 mag on the scale of the system.\n\nThe SFR per unit stellar mass is equal to 0.6 \u2013 $\\rm 2.9 \\times 10^{-9}~yr^{-1}$ (starburst) or 0.4 \u2013$\\rm 0.7 \\times 10^{-9}~yr^{-1}$ (normal star-forming galaxy), while the SFR per unit luminosity is equal to 11.9 \u2013 $\\rm 36.1~M_{\\sun}~yr^{-1}~(L_B/L^{\\star}_B)^{-1}$ or 9.2 \u2013 $\\rm 15.8~M_{\\sun}~yr^{-1}~(L_B/L^{\\star}_B)^{-1}$, respectively.\n\nThis large (effective radius of $\\sim$ 7.5 kpc) but subluminous ($\\rm L_B/L^{\\star}_B = 0.26$) galaxy exhibits a specific SFR that is larger than that of the average galaxy at the same redshift (e.g. Bauer et al. [@bau05]) but consistent with the values determined for two other blue, low-metallicity, low-$z$ GRB host galaxies (i.e. GRB030329 and GRB031203, see Gorosabel et al. [@gor05], Sollerman et al. [@sol05]). Therefore, we conclude that the host galaxies of GRB011121 and, possibly, GRB030329 and GRB031203 are cought at relatively early phases of their star formation histories.\n\nWe thank to the anonymous referee for extensive comments that helped to improve the paper. AKY acknowledges support from the International Max-Planck Research School (IMPRS) on Astrophysics. MS acknowledges Sonia Temporin for a lively discussion. EP is grateful to the MPE for hospitality and support. AR acknowledges support and collaboration within the EU RTN Contract HPRN-CT-2002-00294.\n\nBauer, A. E., Drory, N., Hill, G. J., & Feulner, G. 2005, ApJ 621, L89 Bell, E. F., Papovich, C., Wolf, C. et al. 2005, ApJ 625, 23 Berger, E., Chary, R., Cowie, L. L. et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603689 Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., Djorgovski, S. G. 2002a, AJ 123, 1111 Bloom, J. S., Kulkarni, S. R., Price, P. A. et al. 2002b, ApJ 572, L45 Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M., Pell\u00f3, R. 2000, A&A 363, 476 Bruzual, G., & Charlot, S. 1993, ApJ 405, 538 Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C. et al. 2000, ApJ 533, 682 Cambr\u00e9sy, L., Jarrett, T. H., Beichman, C. A. 2005, A&A 435, 131 Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ 345, 245 Chabr\u00eder, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763 Chary, R., Becklin, E. E., & Armus, L. 2002, ApJ 566, 229 Christensen, L., Hjorth, J., Gorosabel, J. et al. 2004a, A&A 413, 121 Christensen, L., Hjorth, J., & Gorosabel, J. 2004b, A&A 425, 913 Conselice, C. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., Fruchter, A. S. et al. 2005, ApJ 633, 29 Courty, S., Bj\u00f6rnsson, G., Gudmundsson, E. H. 2004, MNRAS 354, 581 Cox, D. P., Mathews, W. G. 1969, ApJ 155, 859 Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., Somerville, R. S. et al. 2005, ApJ 631, 126 Devillard, N., 2005, Eclipse Users Guide, at URL [http://www.eso.org/projects/aot/eclipse/eug/index.html]{} Djorgovski, S. & Spinrad, H. 1981, ApJ 251, 417 Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S. 1996, ApJS 102, 161 Dutra, C. M., Ahumada, A. V., Clari\u00e1, J. J., Bica, E., Barbuy, B. 2003, A&A 408, 287 Fioc, M., & Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1997, A&A, 326, 950 Fruchter, A. S. & Hook, R. N. 2002, PASP 114, 144 Fruchter, A. S., Levan, A. J., Strogler, L. et al. 2006, Nature 441, 463 Fynbo, J. U., Holland, S., Andersen, M. I. et al. 2000, ApJ 542, 89 Galama, T. J., Vreeswijk, P. M., van Paradijs, J. et al. 1998, Nature 395, 670 Garnavich, P. M., Stanek, K. Z., Wyrzykowski, L. et al. 2003, ApJ 582, 924 Gordon, K.D., Calzetti, D., Witt, A. N. 1997, ApJ 487, 625 Gordon K. D., Misselt K. A., Witt A. N., Clayton G. C. 2001, ApJ 551, 277 Gorosabel, J., Klose, S., Christensen, L. et al. 2003a, A&A 409, 123 Gorosabel, J., Christensen, L., Hjorth, J. et al. 2003b, A&A 400, 127 Gorosabel, J., P\u00e9rez-Ram\u00edrez, D., Sollerman, J. et al. 2005, A&A 444, 711 Greiner, J., Klose, S., Zeh, A. et al. 2001, GCN Circ. 1166 Greiner, J., Klose, S., Salvato, M. et al. 2003, ApJ 599, 1223 Hjorth, J., Sollerman, J., M$\\o$ller, P. et al. 2003, Nature 423, 847 Kennicutt, R. C. 1998, ApJ 498, 541 K\u00fcpc\u00fc Yolda\u015f, A., Greiner, J. & Perna, R. 2006, A&A accepted, astro-ph/0607195 Kuchinski L. E., Terndrup, D. M., Gordon, K. D., Witt, A. N. 1998, AJ 115, 1438 Le Floch, E., Duc, P.-A., Mirabel, I. F. et al. 2003, A&A 400, 127 Leggett S.K., Golimowski D.A., Fan X., Geballe T.R., Knapp G.R., 2003, in \u201cCool stars, stellar systems and the Sun\u201d, Proc. 12th Cambridge workshop, University of Colorado, p. 120 Malesani, D., Tagliaferri, G., Chincarini, G. et al. 2004, ApJ 609, 5 Maraston, C. 1998, MNRAS 300, 872 Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS 362, 799 Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M., Stanek, K. Z. et al. 2003, ApJ 599, 394 Mathis, J. S. 1970, ApJ 159, 263 Miller, G. E., & Scalo, J. M. 1979, ApJS 41, 513 Mirabal, N., Halpern, J. P., Chornock, R. et al. 2003, ApJ 595, 935 Mirabal, N., Halpern, J. P., An, D., Thorstensen, J. R., Terndrup, D. M. 2006, ApJ 643, 99 Osterbrock, D. E. 1989, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei, University Science Books Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix H-W. 2002, AJ 124, 266 Perna, R., Raymond, J. & Loeb, A. 2000, ApJ 533, 658 Persson, S. E., Aaronson, M., Cohen, J. G., Frogel, J. A., Matthews, K. 1983, ApJ 266, 105 Petrosian, V. 1976, ApJ 209, L1 Pian, E., Mazzali, P. A., Masetti, N. et al. 2006, astro-ph/0603530 Pierini D., Gordon K. D., Witt A. N. 2003, in Galaxy Evolution: Theory & Observations, eds. V. Avila-Reese, C. Firmani, C. S. Frenk & C. Allen, RMxAC, 17, p. 200 Pierini, D., Maraston, C., Bender, R., Witt, A. N. 2004a, MNRAS 347, 1 Pierini, D., Gordon, K. D., Witt, A. N., Madsen, G. J. 2004b, ApJ 617, 1022 Piro, L. 2001, GCN Circ. 1147 Piro, L., De Pasquale, M., Soffitta, P. et al. 2005, ApJ 623, 314 Price, P. A., Berger, E., Reichart, D. E. et al. 2002, ApJ 572, L51 Rau, A., Salvato, M., Greiner, J. 2006, A&A 444, 425 Ravindranath, S., Ferguson, H.C., Conselice, C. et al. 2004, ApJ 604, L9 Reid, I.N., Kirkpatrick, J.D., Gizis, J.E., et al. 2000, AJ 119, 369 Salpeter, E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Schlegel, D., Finkbeiner, D., & Davis, M. 1998, ApJ 500, 525 Sersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (Cordoba: Obs. Astron.) Sokolov, V. V., Fatkhullin, T. A., Castro-Tirado, A. J. et al. 2001, A&A 372, 438 Sollerman, J., \u00d6stlin, G., Fynbo, J. P. U. et al. 2005, New Astr. 11, 103 Stanek, K. Z., Matheson, T., Garnavich, P. M. et al. 2003, ApJ 591, L17 Takagi, T., Arimoto, N., Vansevicius, V. 1999, ApJ 523, 107 Temporin, S. G. 2001, PhD Thesis, Leopold-Franzens-Universit\u00e4t Innsbruck (Austria) Tokunaga A.T., 2000, in Allen\u2019s \u201cAstrophysical Quantities\u201d, 4th edition, ed. A.N. Cox, Springer-Verlag, NY, p. 143 Vijh, U., Gordon, K. D., Witt, A. N. 2003, ApJ 587, 533 Wainwright, C., Berger, E., & Penprase, B. E. 2005, AAS 207, 1908 Witt, A. N., Gordon, K. D. 2000, ApJ 528, 799 Wyrzykowski, L., Stanek, K. Z., & Garnavich, P. M. 2001, GCN Circ. 1150\n\n[^1]: Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope under program with proposal ID 9180, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract NAS 5-26555\n\n[^2]: Based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla or Paranal Observatories under program ID 165H.-0464\n\n[^3]: see also Jochen Greiner\u2019s web page: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/$\\sim$jcg/grb.html\n\n[^4]: see also http://purcell.as.arizona.edu/wfpc2$\\_$calib/\n\n[^5]: Although the blast wave of the GRB may cause shock-ionization, Perna et al. [@prl] showed that it is expected to influence the ionization state of the gas on timescales of hundreds to thousands of years after the burst. Therefore we take the case B recombination as representative of the dust-free case, and assume that the photo-ionization effect of GRB prompt and afterglow emission on the circumburst environment is negligible (see K\u00fcpc\u00fc Yolda\u015f et al. [@aky]). (e.g. Osterbrock [@os89]) and implies an A$_V$ of 1.6$^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ and 2.5$^{+1.4}_{-1.9}$, respectively, derived using the extinction curve of Cardelli et al. ([@car89]). Higher than predicted Balmer-line flux ratios are due to dust present in the small-/large-scale environment of H[II]{} regions (Cox & Mathews [@cm69]; Mathis [@m70]). Hence the presence of a non-negligible amount of dust extinction in the host-galaxy of GRB011121 is a feasible working hypothesis.\n\n[^6]: Models older than 9 Gyr do not offer a physical representation of a galaxy at $z = 0.362$ as the host of GRB011121.\n\n[^7]: The two-phase, clumpy SHELL model of Witt & Gordon ([@wit00]) with SMC-type dust and $\\tau_V = 1.5$ produces an attenuation curve that best matches the so-called Calzetti law for nearby starbursts (see Calzetti et al. [@cal00] and references therein).\n\n[^8]: We note that the models of Bruzual & Charlot ([@bc93]) included in [*HyperZ*]{} (Bolzonella et al. [@bol00]) do not include the contribution to the total emission from the TP-AGB stars (see Maraston [@mar05]) as well. However, they have stellar populations with only solar metallicity, which are redder than those with lower metallicity.\n\n[^9]: For a [*different region of the host galaxy GRB011121 containing the OT*]{}, Greiner et al. ([@g03]) estimated values of the SFR from \\[OII\\] and $\\rm H\\alpha$ emission-line diagnostics [*at times when the afterglow was present*]{}. These values are: $\\rm 1.2~M_{\\sun}~yr^{-1}$ (SFR$_{OII}$) and 0.61 \u2013 $\\rm 0.72~M_{\\sun}~yr^{-1}$ (SFR$_{H\\alpha}$). It is clear that these values do not refer to the whole galaxy and are not corrected for the intrinsic extinction.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We investigate the anomalous metal arising by hole doping the Mott insulating state of the periodic Anderson model. Using Dynamical Mean-Field Theory we show that, as opposed to the electron-doped case, in the hole-doped regime the hybridization between localized and delocalized orbitals leads to the formation of composite quasi-particles reminiscent of the Zhang-Rice singlets. We compute the coherence temperature of this state, showing its extremely small value at low doping. As a consequence the weakly-doped Mott state deviates from the predictions of Fermi-liquid theory already at small temperatures. The onset of the Zhang-Rice state and of the consequent poor coherence is due to the electronic structure in which both localized and itinerant carriers have to be involved in the formation of the conduction states and to the proximity to the Mott state. By investigating the magnetic properties of this state, we discuss the relation between the anomalous metallic properties and the behavior of the magnetic degrees of freedom.'\nauthor:\n- 'A.\u00a0Amaricci$^{1}$, L.\u00a0de\u2019\u00a0Medici,$^{2}$, G.\u00a0Sordi$^{3}$, M.J.\u00a0Rozenberg$^{2,4}$, M.\u00a0Capone$^{1,5}$'\nbibliography:\n- 'bibliografia.bib'\ntitle: A path to poor coherence in heavy fermions from Mott physics and hybridization\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec0}\n============\n\nThe rise of the field of strongly correlated materials revealed a number of unexpected intriguing phenomena which can not be explained within the standard theory of solids. [@Ashcroft] The paradigm of correlation effects is based on the Mott insulating state and the Mott-Hubbard metal-insulator transition,[@imadaRMP; @mott] but a key role is also played by high-temperature superconductivity in copper oxides [@Bednorz86; @Anderson87] and the unconventional superconductivity at the edge of a magnetic phase observed in heavy fermions.[@Flouquet06; @CePd2Si2] More recently, the partnership between exotic superconductivity, strong correlations and magnetism has been strengthened by the discoveries in the iron-based superconductors,[@Hosono08] in the alkali-doped fullerides[@Takabayashi09; @Capone09] and possibly also in the molecular conductors based on aromatic molecules.[@kubozono10; @Giovannetti11; @nomura11]\n\nA common companion of Mott physics and anomalous superconductivity is the deviation from the standard Fermi-Liquid (FL) theory in the metallic phase, or non-Fermi-liquid (NFL) behavior.[@nflstewart] The FL theory describes a system of interacting fermions as a collection of renormalized non-interacting [*quasi-particles*]{} which propagate coherently in the solid.[@nozieres97] The main qualitative effect of the electron-electron correlations is to enhance the effective mass and accordingly reduce the coherence of the Fermi gas. This reflects in a reduction of the coherence temperature, the scale at which the thermal fluctuations destroy the coherent motion. However in many compounds, most notably heavy fermion materials and underdoped cuprates, this picture breaks down and the carriers can no longer be described as long-lived excitations as they acquire a finite lifetime. This behavior directly influences the transport properties leading to anomalies in the temperature dependence of the resistivity.\n\nIn this paper we present a general mechanism based on Mott physics and multi-band effects which leads to a metallic state with an extremely small FL coherence temperature. Empirically, this system will display a NFL behavior already at exceedingly small temperatures. The key element is the hybridization between a strongly correlated band and a weakly interacting band that leads to the formation of hybrid entities. The binding with the localized $f$-electrons hinders the motion of the carriers leading to a coherence temperature which is much smaller than the (already renormalized) scale predicted by FL theory on the basis of mass renormalization.\n\nOur approach is based on the periodic Anderson model (PAM), a widely accepted correlated electrons model for the description of the heavy fermion physics. In its minimal form the PAM describes a set of non-dispersive strongly correlated electrons, hybridizing with a band of conduction electrons. In a general framework the PAM provides a more detailed description of the electronic configuration of correlated materials with respect to the Hubbard model, by taking into account the effects of the inclusion of non-correlated bands. We solved the PAM using dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT),[@rmp] one of the most powerful and reliable tools to study correlated materials.\n\nFollowing previous studies[@sordi07; @amaricci08; @sordi09] we investigate the model around the Mott insulating state which takes place for large interactions and [*odd*]{} integer total occupation. The doping-driven transition has been thoroughly investigated in Ref.\u00a0, and a NFL behavior in the hole-doped side has been demonstrated in Ref.\u00a0. Here we extend this work by analyzing the coherence-incoherence crossover which leads to the NFL behavior and its dependence on doping. We will therefore focus on the scattering properties of the system and we will detail their relation with the magnetic degrees of freedom. Finally we establish a connection between the finite-temperature breakdown of the FL and the competition between anti-ferromagnetic and ferromagnetic short-ranged correlations.\n\nThe manuscript is structured as follows. In we introduce the PAM and the related DMFT equations. In section we briefly discuss the doping-driven Mott transition in the PAM. In we present the main results of this work, namely the strongly incoherent nature of the low temperature metallic state. A phase-diagram of the model is presented at the end of this section. In we study the magnetic properties of the model. Finally, we present a magnetic phase-diagram of the model which illustrates how magnetic competition helps stabilizing the incoherent behavior at low temperature.\n\nModel and theoretical framework {#sec1}\n===============================\n\nThe Periodic Anderson Model {#sec1.1}\n---------------------------\n\nThe periodic Anderson model describes a set of non-dispersive strongly correlated electrons, locally hybridizing with a band of conduction electrons. The model Hamiltonian is written in the following form: The operators $p_{i\\s}$ ($p_{i\\s}^+$) destroy (create) conduction band electrons with hopping amplitude $t_{ij}$ and energy $\\ep0$. The operators $f_{i\\s}$ ($f_{i\\s}^+$) destroy (create) electrons in the non-dispersive orbital with energy $\\ed0$. The terms proportional to $\\tpd$ describe the hybridization between the two species. The interaction term $H_I$ describes the strong on-site Coulomb repulsion experienced by $f$-orbital electrons.\n\nThe non-interacting lattice Green\u2019s function reads: with $\\epsk$ the dispersion of the conduction electrons: $\\epsk=\n\\sum_{<ij>}e^{-i\\ka\\cdot(\\mathbf{r}_i-\\mathbf{r}_j)}\\, t_{ij}$. The corresponding interacting Green\u2019s function can be expressed by means of the following matrix Dyson equation: where is the self-energy matrix $\\hat{\\Sigma}_\\s$. The non-interacting nature of the conduction band is reflected in the existence of only one non-zero self-energy for the $f$-electrons. Nevertheless, it is useful to define an [*effective*]{} self-energy also for the conduction electrons as: This function describes the dressing of the $p$-electrons as an effect of both their hybridization with the correlated $f$-electrons and, indirectly, of the Hubbard repulsion on the latter. In particular, the appearance of a finite imaginary part in the zero-frequency limit signals the breakdown of a FL picture for the conduction electrons.\n\nSince $\\Sigma_{p \\s}$ arises due to both the hybridization and the interaction $U$, it is not expected to vanish in the non-interacting limit $U=0$. On the other hand, it is easy to realize that in this limit the pure hybridization can not lead to a finite imaginary part of $\\Sigma_{p \\s}$ at zero frequency, and that any breakdown of the FL behavior can descend only from correlation effects.\n\nDMFT equations {#sec1.2}\n--------------\n\nThe PAM has been studied using a large variety of numerical[@Grewe88; @Newns87; @Schweitzer91; @Fazekas87; @Pruschke00] and analytical methods.[@canionoce; @Gurin01; @Gulacsi02; @Shiba90] To access the non-perturbative regime of the PAM, we investigate the solution of the model using the DMFT, which has been used to solve this model since its early stages.[@jarrell; @marcelo_PAM]\n\nWithin DMFT a lattice model is mapped onto an effective single-impurity problem, fixed by a self-consistency condition which enforces the equivalence between the two models as far as the local physics is concerned.[@phytoday; @rmp] The scheme is equivalent to a local approximation on the self-energy, which becomes momentum independent.\n\nThe DMFT equations can be obtained using a quantum cavity method. The effective action of the single $f$-orbital impurity problem is obtained integrating out all lattice degrees of freedom except for a chosen site (labeled conventionally as site $i=0$) and keeping only the first term in the expansion[@metzvol; @rmp] in terms of many-particle Green\u2019s functions:\n\nThe action $S_\\mathrm{eff}$ is expressed in terms of the local [*Weiss Field*]{} $\\GG_{0\\s}^{-1}(\\iome)$, describing the quantum fluctuations at the correlated $f$-orbital. The Weiss field satisfies a self-consistence equation which depends on the lattice under consideration. In this work we consider a Bethe lattice with semi-elliptical density of states of half-bandwidth $D$ (fixing the energy unit of the problem), $D(\\varepsilon) =\n\\frac{2}{\\pi D^2}\\sqrt{D^2-\\varepsilon^2}$. In this case the self-consistency is particularly simple and reads: where $G_{p\\s}$ is the conduction electron local Green\u2019s function. The functional form of $\\GG_{0\\s}^{-1}$ mirrors in the DMFT equations the relation between the two orbitals in the lattice problem. The fluctuations at the $f$-orbital are in fact composed of two contributions: (a) the on-site quantum fluctuations and (b) indirect delocalization through conduction band proportional to squared hybridization amplitude.\n\nThe DMFT solution requires therefore to compute the impurity Green\u2019s function where the symbol $\\bra \\, \\ket_{\\rm S_{\\rm eff}}$ indicates the average with respect to the effective action (\\[Seff\\]). From the knowledge of the impurity Green\u2019s function it is straightforward to determine the self-energy: $$\\Sigma(\\iome)_\\s=\\Sigma^{\\rm imp}_\\s(\\iome)=\\GG_{0\\s}^{-1}(\\iome)-{G^{\\rm imp}_\\s}^{-1}\n(\\iome)$$ and finally to evaluate the local Green\u2019s function: $$G_{p\\s}(\\iome)=\\int\nd\\varepsilon\\frac{D(\\varepsilon)}{\\iome+\\mu-\\ep0-\\Sigma_{p\\s}(\\iome)-\\varepsilon}$$ Then a new Weiss field can be computed and the procedure can be iterated until convergence is achieved.\n\nThe solution of the effective impurity problem, , is the bottleneck of the DMFT algorithm. In this work we use a combination of numerical techniques:[@rmp] Hirsch-Fye Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) [@kotliarRMP; @dosSantos03] and Exact Diagonalization (ED) methods, both in the full diagonalization and Lanczos algorithm implementations, at zero[@dagottoRMP] and finite temperature.[@lucaED] The ED method is based on a discretization of the effective bath on an adaptive energy grid. In this paper we present full ED calculations in which the bath is described by 7 energy levels and Lanczos calculations with 8 levels. The ED calculations have been cross-checked against Density Matrix Renormalization Group, which allows to substantially increase the number of bath levels. [@dmrgRMP; @karenPRB; @daniel1]\n\nThe hole-doped Mott insulator {#sec2}\n=============================\n\n![(Color online) Evolution of the $f$- (solid line) and $p$-orbital (dashed line) projections of the DOS. Data from QMC calculations at $T=0.0125$, $\\tpd=0.9$, $n_{tot}=3$, analytically continued on the real axis using Maximum Entropy Method [@mem]. The figure qualitatively illustrates the Mott metal-insulator transition driven by correlation in the PAM.[]{data-label=\"fig2.1\"}](fig2.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nThe PAM has been largely investigated in proximity of the Kondo insulator regime.[@schwolff; @Fazekas; @doniach] The Kondo insulator is a band insulator realized at [*even*]{} integer total filling ($n_\\mathrm{tot}=2$). In this regime the system has two hybridized bands with a central Kondo peak, corresponding to the resonant scattering of the conduction electrons on the localized moments and split by an indirect gap $\\Delta_\\mathrm{ind}$ (see ). Upon doping the Kondo resonance remains pinned at the chemical potential, and the system behaves like a heavy-fermion liquid.\n\nIn this work we focus on a different model regime, namely the correlated metal obtained by a state with [*odd*]{} total occupation ($n_\\mathrm{tot}=1$ or $3$) and large enough interaction. In the case of $n_\\mathrm{tot}=1$ or $3$, an important role is played by the ratio $U/\\Delta$, where $\\Delta=|\\ep0-\\ed0|$ is the charge-transfer energy, the separation in energy between the two electron orbitals. Two regimes can be distinguished:[@zsa] (a) for $\\Delta$ smaller than $U$ the model is in the so-called [*Charge-Transfer*]{} (CT) regime, that is expected to capture the properties of intermediate to late transition-metal oxides. Nevertheless in these systems the non-local hybridizations become important and require the introduction of other terms in the Hamiltonian to be properly described. (b) For $\\Delta$ larger than $U$ the model is in the [*Mott-Hubbard*]{} (MH) regime, which models the properties of early transition-metal oxides and heavy fermion systems, usually dominated by local physics. In this work we shall focus on this latter model regime and study the doping of a Mott insulator.\n\nIn the simplest sketch of this regime, the non-correlated band has a lower energy than the correlated one (which however is dispersive only because of the hybridization with the itinerant fermions). The latter band is in turn split by the Mott gap (see ). Similarly to the Kondo Insulating regime, a heavy fermion state is obtained upon finite doping as soon as the system develops a coherent Kondo resonance signature of the insulator-metal transition.\n\n![(Color online) Left panel: renormalization constant $Z$ as a function of the doping $\\d=|3-n_\\mathrm{tot}|$. Data are from Lanczos ED at $T=0$, $U=2$, $\\tpd=0.9$ and increasing size of the effective bath $N_s=8$ (diamonds, circles) and $10$ (triangles, squares). Right panel: moment-moment correlation $-\\bra m_{zp}\\cdot m_{zf}\\ket$ as a function of the doping $\\d$ in the hole doped regime. Data are from full ED calculations (see Appendix\u00a0\\[apx1\\]) for $T=0.008$ and for the same model parameters.[]{data-label=\"fig2.2\"}](fig3.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nIn the following we shall briefly review the formation of a correlated metallic state by hole doping[@sordi07; @sordi09]. Without loss of generality, we fix the energy of the correlated orbitals at the Fermi level $\\ed0=0$ and $\\ep0=-1$, so that $\\Delta=1$. For $U=\\tpd=0$ the model describes a system with completely filled conduction band $n_p=2$ and half-filled correlated orbitals with $n_f=1$. For finite values of the hybridization the correlated electrons can move with an effective hopping of the order of $t_{\\rm\neff}\\simeq\\tpd^2/\\Delta$, corresponding to the indirect delocalization through the conduction band (see top panel of ). The hybridization modifies the orbitals occupation, pushing a substantial amount of the $p$-electron states to the Fermi level, so that $n_p<2$ and consequently $n_f>1$ and the relevant carriers are hybrid in nature. However, the $f$- and $p$-character of the model solution can still be used to indicate the projection onto the correlated and non-correlated orbital respectively. Upon increasing the interaction strength (see central panel of ) we first observe the formation of a correlated metallic state. This is characterized by the presence in the density of states (DOS) of a metallic feature at the Fermi level, flanked by the two precursors of the Hubbard bands. A Mott insulating state is then obtained further increasing the correlation $U$. The system opens a spectral gap at the Fermi energy (see bottom panel of ) with a width controlled by the correlation $U$.[@sordi09] To fix ideas, in the remaining part of this work we shall set the correlation and the hybridization to, respectively, $U=2.0$ and $\\tpd=0.9$. This choice of the model parameters corresponds to a Mott insulating state for $n_\\mathrm{tot}=3$. Similar results can be obtained for different values of correlation and hybridization.\n\nThe Mott insulator can be destabilized in favor of a correlated metallic phase by either adding or removing electrons (creating holes). As first noticed in Ref.\u00a0 the two transitions have a different character, ultimately related to the different role played by the non interacting band in the two cases. Doping with electrons, the extra carriers populate essentially the correlated orbitals while the p-band remains almost filled and its role is to allow the delocalization of correlated electrons. In other words, in this regime there are no multi-band effects and the hybridization plays a minor role. Therefore the f-electrons behave essentially as in a single-band Hubbard model with an effective hopping of the order of $t_\\mathrm{eff}$.\n\n![(Color online) Evolution of the imaginary part of the conduction electrons self-energy $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome)$ for increasing temperature. Data are from finite temperature Lanczos ED with doping $\\d=0.1$. []{data-label=\"fig2.3\"}](fig4.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nIn the hole doped regime the electronic configuration is substantially different. The holes are essentially associated to the absence of $p$-electrons, and they tend to bind to the local moments of the almost half-filled correlated orbitals[@sordi09]. It is already apparent that this state can not be described by a single-band model. This effect is evident in the behavior of the inter-orbital moment-moment correlation $$\\bra m_{zp}\\cdot m_{zf}\\ket\n=\\bra\n(n_{p\\up}-n_{p\\dw})\\cdot(n_{f\\up}-n_{f\\dw})\n\\ket$$ reported in , which shows how the moment of the doped p-holes aligns with the moment of the localized f-electron. The doping-driven metalization appears as the process of delocalizing a multi-band \u201cZhang-Rice-like\" singlet state, formed by an itinerant hole bound to a localized spin, similar to that proposed in the framework of the high-T$_c$ superconductors.[@zr] The low-energy properties of this metallic state can not be straightforwardly interpreted in terms of a single-band Hubbard model,[@sordi07; @sordi09] and it leads to remarkable properties.\n\nA first partial indication of the anomalous nature of this state comes from an evaluation of the quasi-particle weight $Z=[1-\\partial\\Im\\Sigma_f(i\\o)/\\partial\\omega]_{|_{\\omega\\rightarrow0}}^{ -1}$, which measures the degree of metallicity of a system, being zero for a Mott insulator and one for a non-interacting metal. The results (see ) show that $Z$ is substantially smaller for the hole-doped than for the electron-doped case, already signaling that the Zhang-Rice liquid is a poorer metal than a standard correlated metal. In the following we will show that the difference goes well beyond the quasi-particle renormalization.\n\n![(Color online) Main panel: imaginary part of the conduction electrons self-energy $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome)$ for increasing value of the hole doping and $T=0.001$. Data are from Lanczos ED calculations. Inset: Comparison of the $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome)$ behavior from different numerical methods for $\\d=0.05$. The other model parameters are the same as in the main panel. The QMC and full ED calculations are performed at $T=0.008$. DMRG is a $T=0$ calculation performed with a cluster of $N_{\\rm s}=30$ sites and plotted down to the position of the lowest energy pole.[]{data-label=\"fig2.4\"}](fig5.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nThermal breakdown of the Fermi-liquid {#sec3}\n=====================================\n\nFermi-liquid theory is the standard paradigm for metallic systems and describes correlated Fermi systems as a collection of non-interacting renormalized quasi-particles. DMFT studies of various correlated models have shown that even very close to the Mott transition the correlated metallic state is typically a Fermi liquid with a reduced effective hopping proportional to the quasi-particle weight $Z$. This scale also controls the coherence temperature above which the coherent motion of the carriers is destroyed by thermal fluctuations.\n\nIn this section we will show that the correlated metallic state of the PAM in the weakly hole-doped regime turns out to be very fragile with respect to small temperatures. More precisely, our system will be a Fermi liquid only below an extremely small coherence temperature which, for small doping, can be substantially smaller than the renormalized Fermi energy controlled by $Z$. Therefore the corresponding metallic state can not be described in terms of long-lived quasi-particles but is rather a liquid of short-lived singlet-like electronic excitations.\n\n![ $\\s=\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome\\rightarrow0)$ as a function of the temperature for different values of the doping. The data shown are from full ED calculations. []{data-label=\"fig2.5\"}](fig6.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nTo substantiate this discussion we study the evolution of the imaginary part of the conduction electron self-energy $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome)$. The results of our calculations for $\\delta =0.1$ are presented in . A Fermi liquid state corresponds to a linear behavior of $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome)$ at low frequency, observed only at the lowest investigated temperature, $T=0.0005$. When we increase $T$ at values of the order of $T=0.0007$, two orders of magnitude smaller than the [*renormalized*]{} Fermi energy, the conduction-electron self-energy does not vanish in the $\\omega \\to 0$ limit, signaling a departure from the Fermi-liquid paradigm. Further increasing the temperature leads to an enhancement of this anomaly.\n\nIn we follow the evolution of $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome)$ for increasing doping at $T=0.001$. For small doping we have a clear NFL increase at small frequency which survives up to $\\delta \\simeq 0.16$. For larger doping the system is not strongly sensitive to the Mott-Hubbard physics and the standard Fermi-liquid behavior is restored around $\\delta = 0.2$.\n\nThe violation of the Fermi-liquid paradigm can be summarized by the temperature dependence of $\\s(T) = \\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome\\rightarrow0)$, reported in . This quantity is related to the scattering rate of the carriers. In a metallic regime $\\s(T)$ is expected to vanish at low temperature. While for large doping (right panel) $\\s(T)$ vanishes as $T \\to 0$ (even if for $\\delta = 0.15$ some anomaly is observed at intermediate temperature), the small-doping data clearly confirm the NFL behavior down to very small temperature, even if, strictly at $T=0$ the vanishing $\\s$ would be recovered.\n\nFinally, depicts the inverse life-time $\\t^{-1}=Z_p \\s$ of the doped carriers, where $Z_p^{-1}=1-\\Im\\Sigma_p(i\\o_1)/\\p T$. In a Fermi liquid $\\t^{-1}$ grows as $T^2\\sim \\o^2$ at low temperature. Our calculations for small doping show a decay faster than $T^2$ which strengthens the picture of an incoherent metallic state. Once again, a Fermi-liquid behavior is established only at extremely low temperatures if the doping is small, while the large-doping data recover the standard behavior.\n\nThe increasing scattering rate as a function of decreasing temperature is usually associated to scattering with impurities[@nflstewart]. In this spirit, in the following we will interpret our results as the scattering of the carriers with fluctuating local moments. This effect can be understood as the results of the competition between the aforementioned tendency to form local Zhang-Rice-singlets, driven by the hole-doping, and the incoherent nature of the scatterer provided by the $f$-electron local moments, driven by Mott physics. At large doping the increased number of available holes of $p$-type helps the formation of a many-body coherent state without breaking the local binding with $f$-moment. This arguments will be substantiated by the calculations that we report in the following sections.\n\n![(Color online) Scaling of the inverse life-time $\\tau^{-1}$ as a function of $T^2$ in the small temperature limit. Data are from Lanczos ED calculations. Lines are guide to the eye. []{data-label=\"fig2.6\"}](fig7.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nThe coherence temperature {#sec3.1}\n-------------------------\n\nThe analysis of the self-energy and of the carriers lifetime clearly shows the existence of a small doping-dependent energy scale associated with the appearance of an incoherent metal. We expect this scale to influence also other observables, like the local spin susceptibility: $$\\chi_\\mathrm{loc}(T)=\\intbeta\\bra S_{zf}(\\t)\\cdot S_{zf}(0)\\ket  d\\t$$\n\nThis quantity describes the response to a [*local*]{} magnetic field and easily discriminates between a Fermi-liquid, in which the zero-temperature limit is a constant (Pauli susceptibility), and a paramagnetic Mott insulator in which it diverges like $1/T$ (Curie behavior).\n\nThe results are reported in . In the Mott insulating state ($\\d=0$) the magnetic moments of the localized $f$-electrons essentially behave as free spins, we thus obtain the typical Curie behavior with a $1/T$ dependence for the spin susceptibility. The slightly hole-doped regime does not show the behavior of a standard metal, namely $\\chi_\\mathrm{loc}$ keeps on increasing down to the lowest investigated temperature $T\\simeq\n10^{-3}D$ without any sign of saturation. The enhancement of the spin susceptibility signals the presence of unquenched local moments and can be associated to protracted screening effect.[@tahv1] Only for larger doping, the susceptibility saturates to large constant value at very low temperature.\n\n![(Color online) Local spin susceptibility $\\chi_\\mathrm{loc}$ as a function of the temperature and increasing value of the hole doping. Data are from Lanczos ED (open symbols) and full ED (pluses, crosses and stars symbols) calculations. []{data-label=\"fig2.8\"}](fig8.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nThe presence of enhanced low-$T$ spin susceptibility coexisting with a (bad) metallic behavior substantiates the idea that the hole-doped system can be regarded as formed by nearly free (incoherent) moments, and an underlying metallic host formed by the doped holes which are prevented from coherently delocalize by local coupling to $f$-moments. This interpretation leads us to estimate the coherence temperature $T_\\mathrm{coh}$ from\n\nWe plot the resulting values, obtained with different numerical methods, in . In the same plot we report the crossover points estimated from the temperature evolution of the imaginary part of the self-energy $\\Sigma_p$ (red crosses). The good agreement of these points with the extrapolated data validates the physical interpretation of the coherence temperature. It is unfortunately very hard to identify the functional form of the coherence temperature due to the smallness of the scale involved and the numerical uncertainties. However, the data are compatible with an exponential behavior of the form $T_\\mathrm{coh}\\simeq Be^{-A/\\d}$, which has been obtained within the $1/N$ approximation in the infinite-$U$ Kondo limit[@burdin].\n\nThe phase diagram in the doping-temperature plane, presented in , can help us to summarize the scenario emerging from our calculations. The diagram reveals the character of the DMFT solution in proximity of the Mott insulating state through the behavior of the $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome\\rightarrow0)$. Using finite temperature Lanczos ED method we investigated a smaller temperature scale with respect to that studied in Ref.\u00a0. A large value of the $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome\\rightarrow0)$ testifies a NFL behavior and the results clearly show that the highly incoherent state emerges from the Mott state and occupies a sizable region of the phase diagram. The NFL region is separated from the coherent metal by a crossover taking place at $T_\\mathrm{coh}$ defined above, which therefore confirms its meaning as the temperature in which the metal loses coherence.\n\n![(Color online) Coherence temperature scale $T_\\mathrm{coh}$ as extrapolated from the inverse local spin susceptibility $\\chi^{-1}_\\mathrm{loc}(T)$. The extrapolations from different numerical methods are found to be in satisfactory agreement. []{data-label=\"fig2.7\"}](fig9.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nMagnetic properties {#sec4}\n===================\n\nExternal magnetic field {#sec4.1}\n-----------------------\n\n![(Color online) Phase-diagram of the PAM near the Mott insulating state as a function of temperature and hole-doping. The diagram is obtained from $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome\\rightarrow0)$. The dotted line indicates the crossover temperature scale $T_\\mathrm{coh}$. []{data-label=\"fig2.9\"}](fig10.eps){width=\"50.00000%\"}\n\nWe have shown that hole-doping the Mott insulating phase of the periodic Anderson model leads to peculiar charge carriers, so that the motion of the created $p$-holes occurs through the formation of Zhang-Rice singlets, in which the spins of the conduction electrons are anti-ferromagnetically correlated with the localized spins. As a consequence, we expect that a magnetic field can have important and surprising effects on this phase, showing a further difference with respect to a standard Fermi liquid.\n\nIn the model regime investigated in this work, the main source of magnetism comes from the $f$-electrons. The conduction band is almost completely filled, so that the magnetization of the few singly occupied orbitals, favored by hole doping, is not expected to contribute significantly to the magnetic properties of the system.\n\nNevertheless, conduction band electrons can be indirectly affected by the magnetic polarization of the $f$-orbital moments, through their local binding. To illustrate this point, we show in the evolution of the low energy part of $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome)$ as a function of a uniform magnetic field $\\mathbf{B}$. Apparently the NFL state turns into a normal metallic state by the action of an external magnetic field. It is however worth noting that the Fermi liquid is recovered for $B\\simeq0.05D$, a huge value if compared with experimentally accessible fields. This large value is a direct consequence of the large (order one) value of $\\tpd$, chosen to emphasize the hybridization effects and their role in the conduction properties of the model. Smaller and more realistic values of this parameter are expected to reduce the critical field by reducing the charge fluctuations at correlated $f$-orbitals.\n\nThe crossover to a Fermi liquid state driven by external magnetic field is not surprising in light of our analysis. Upon increasing the magnetic field a larger and larger number of local $f$-moments are polarized. When the moments are aligned, the $p$-holes can move essentially freely in the ferromagnetic background without breaking the singlet state with the localized spins. Therefore the source of scattering disappears and the metallic state recovers the Fermi-liquid coherence. In other words the polarization of $f$-orbital local moments allows the conduction electron cloud to dynamically screen the correlated electrons local moments, dramatically increasing the coherence scale of the system.\n\nThe coherent motion of the doped carriers with the opposite spin of the localized momenta (majority spin) should then be balanced by the insulating nature of the minority spins carriers. This effect is illustrated in the . In this figure we show the behavior of both spin species conduction electrons Green\u2019s function for the same strengths of the external magnetic field as used in . Left panel shows the increasing metalization of the majority spin charge carriers, whereas in the right panel we show how minority spins are driven towards an insulating state by increasing magnetic field.\n\n![(Color online) Imaginary part of the majority-spin $p$-electron self-energy for increasing external magnetic field $\\mathbf{B}$. The data are from QMC solution at $T=0.016$ and $\\d=0.05$. []{data-label=\"fig3.1\"}](fig11.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n![Imaginary part of conduction band electron Green\u2019s function $\\Im G_{p\\s}(\\iome)$ for $T=0.016$, $\\d=0.05$ and increasing strength of external magnetic field. Data from QMC calculations. []{data-label=\"fig3.2\"}](fig12.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nAnti-ferromagnetic ordering {#sec4.2}\n---------------------------\n\nAt low temperature, we expect the development of anti-ferromagnetic (AFM) correlations a result of super-exchange between neighboring $f$-electrons assisted by the hybridization with $p$-orbital states. In this section we investigate the onset of an AFM long-range ordered state and its effect on the coherence scale using the extension of the DMFT equations to long-range order detailed in Appendix \\[apx2\\].\n\nTo begin with we report in the staggered magnetization $m_{AF}=\n1/N\\sum_i (-1)^{i} \\bra n_{fi\\up}-n_{fi\\dw}\\ket$ as a function of the temperature for various doping. The transition appears to be of second order in the whole doping region. The N\u00e9el temperature $T_N$, extracted from a power-law fit of the data, is maximum at zero doping and decreases by adding holes, as in the single-band Hubbard model. [^1]\n\nThe onset of an AFM ordering of the local $f$-moments reinstates the Fermi liquid properties in the tiny hole-doped regime. This effect is illustrated in the left panel of , where we present the evolution of the imaginary part of $\\Sigma_{p\\s}(\\iome)$ from the paramagnetic NFL phase to the AFM ordered phase. The large finite intercept present in NFL phase is driven to zero in the AFM ordered phase. Nevertheless, the metallic character of the solution is preserved across the transition, as illustrated in the right panel of the same figure by comparing the imaginary parts of the conduction electrons Green\u2019s functions in the two phases. The ordering of the local moments in a N\u00e9el state, allows the doped charge carriers to form coherent electronic waves (with doubled wave-vector) and to get delocalized. However, as mentioned above, the AFM state is only stable in a small window of doping and the NFL remains stable for a wide range of parameters.\n\n![(Color online) Main panel: Staggered magnetization $m_{AF}$ as a function of temperature and increasing value of hole-doping. The data are from full ED calculations. []{data-label=\"fig3.3\"}](fig13.eps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nMagnetic stability {#sec4.3}\n------------------\n\nThe common wisdom about systems of concentrated impurities described by the PAM is that long-range magnetic ordering is likely to set in, especially if the metallic state is weakened by correlations as in our case.\n\nOur results for the AFM state suggest instead a remarkable stability of the incoherent metallic state as the long-range order is confined to low temperature and small doping concentration. In this section we discuss the physical origin of this surprising result.\n\nAt small doping near the Mott insulating state neighboring $f$-orbital electrons develop AFM correlations as a results of super-exchange. These processes are of the fourth order in the hybridization with a leading energy scale of the order: [@Fazekas] $J_{SE} \\propto {W_{\\rm eff}}^2/U\\sim \\tpd^4/\\Delta^2 U$\n\n![(Color online) Conduction electrons self-energy $\\Im\\Sigma_{p\\s}(\\iome)$ (left panel) and Green\u2019s function $\\Im{G}_p(\\iome)$ (right panel). Data from full ED calculations for $\\d=0.01$ and $T=0.005$. []{data-label=\"fig3.4\"}](fig14.eps){width=\".45\\textwidth\"}\n\nOn the other hand it is easy to realize that at large doping [*ferromagnetic*]{} correlations are expected because of the fact that the doped carriers are locked in singlets with the localized $f$-spins. In an AFM or disordered background, the motion of the $p$-holes requires to break the singlet and it is therefore strongly inhibited, leading to the lack of coherence that we discussed at length. Moreover it leaves a local moment unscreened, increasing the fluctuations in the local magnetization. Conversely, a ferromagnetic alignment of the localized spins allows for an unperturbed delocalization of the carriers, with a mechanism which is closely reminiscent of the double-exchange,[@Zener51; @Anderson55; @deGennes60] where the coupling between conduction electrons and localized spins is given by the ferromagnetic Hund\u2019s coupling.\n\nTherefore, upon increasing the doping the tendency to form AFM ordering is contrasted by the increased relevance of the kinetic energy and eventually it becomes more favorable to sacrifice the gain in super-exchange energy in order to gain the kinetic energy associated to the ferromagnetic background. This leads, most importantly, to an intermediate region between the two regimes in which the local magnetization is strongly fluctuating.\n\nFrom this discussion it is natural to associate the fluctuations of the local magnetization to the scattering mechanism that leads to the poor coherence. To test this idea we study the response of the system in the AFM ordered metallic phase to the application of a uniform magnetic field $\\mathbf{B}$ which will clearly favor the ferromagnetic tendency.\n\n![(Color online) Intensity plot of $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\omega\\to0)$ as a function of external magnetic field $\\mathbf{B}$ and $T$ at fixed doping $\\d = 0.01$. For visualization, the data have been normalized to $\\max\\{\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\omega_n)\\}$ at each ($\\mathbf{B}$, $T$). Dashed lines are drawn to better visualize the crossover regions in the phase-diagram. []{data-label=\"fig3.5\"}](fig15.eps){width=\"50.00000%\"}\n\nThe results are summarized in the phase diagram of , determined again using $\\Im\\Sigma_p(\\iome\\rightarrow0)$. Details of the calculations are given in Appendix \\[apx2\\]. Doping is fixed to $\\d=0.01$, safely into the AFM ordered region in the limit $\\mathbf{B}\\rightarrow0$.\n\nThe phase-diagram shows that the AFM order survives the effects of the external magnetic field up to small strengths ($B\\simeq0.01$). In this region the solution keeps the coherent metallic character enforced by the long-range magnetic ordering. Nevertheless, for larger values of the magnetic field the system is driven to an incoherent state with finite-temperature NFL behavior, as indicated by the increased scattering (light color). In this regime the large applied field tends to magnetically polarize the AFM ordered $f$-moments, producing their strong frustration and ultimately leading to the formation of an incoherent magnetic background for the motion of the doped carriers. Further increasing the strength of the magnetic field triggers the formation of a ferromagnetic ordering of the $f$-moments and a fully polarized (coherent) metallic state (right dark coloured area).\n\nThe most striking observation is that the present diagram faithfully mirrors the diagram as a function of doping, clearly suggesting that the evolution of the conduction properties as a function of doping is associated to the transition from the AFM state to the ferromagnetic regime and that the poorly coherent metal establishes precisely in the intermediate region, dominated by the local spin fluctuations which appear as the source of the scattering mechanism which opposes to the coherent motion of the holes.\n\nConclusions and perspectives {#conclusion}\n============================\n\nIn this work we presented a detailed dynamical mean-field theory study of the properties of the unconventional metallic state obtained by doping with holes the Mott insulator in the periodic Anderson model. We discuss in details the non-Fermi liquid behavior of the system and the mechanism that is behind the suppression of the coherence scale.\n\nIn this regime the holes have mainly $p$-character, but they tend to bind to the correlated $f$-electrons to form a Zhang-Rice-like singlet state. The formation of this composite object leads to a highly incoherent metallic state which deviates from a standard Fermi-liquid above a coherence temperature which decreases very rapidly upon reducing doping, and it is much smaller than the effective Fermi energy that one could estimate from the degree of correlation of the system, $T_\\mathrm{coh}\\ll ZD$.\n\nWe characterize this anomalous behavior by studying the scattering properties of the carriers and by computing the inverse lifetime and local spin susceptibility, which allow us to quantitatively estimate the coherence temperature characterizing the breakdown of the standard Fermi liquid and to describe the onset of an incoherent metal with finite lifetime.\n\nThe highly incoherent metal is unstable towards anti-ferromagnetic ordering only at very small doping, while at large doping ferromagnetic correlations develop and favour a regular metallic behavior supported by a mechanism which reminds the double-exchange physics. The intermediate region, where the motion of the holes is not coherent, is therefore dominated by large fluctuations of the $f$-spins, which provide the scattering channel responsible of the finite lifetime of the carriers.\n\nThe relation between magnetic fluctuations and the breakdown of the standard FL scenario is emphasized by observing that an external uniform magnetic field, which obviously destroys AFM ordering favoring a ferromagnetic alignment, mirrors the effect of doping and leads again to a wide region of high incoherence between the two magnetically ordered states.\n\nWe emphasize that the path to poor coherence discussed in this paper only depends on two general features of strongly correlated materials, namely the Mott physics which leads to the localization of carriers and multi-orbital physics necessary to the local singlet formation. In this light, we expect that the mechanism outlined here can be a rather general source of violation of Fermi liquid paradigm and incoherent behavior, and it can be relevant for example to heavy fermions, but also, with some important differences related to the d-wave symmetry of the Zhang-Rice singlets, to the cuprate superconductors.\n\nFinally, a natural question to address is to what extent our findings can be considered the local portrait of the presence of a quantum critical point, hidden by the absence of spatial fluctuations. Indeed, the existence of a quantum critical point in the PAM, although in a different model regime, has already been pointed in Ref.\u00a0, using cluster extension of the DMFT. The development of our work along this direction, in order to clarify the fate of the small coherence scale in presence of short-range spatial fluctuations, is left for future research.\n\nA.A., G.S. and M.R. thank M.\u00a0Gabay, D.J.\u00a0Garcia, E.\u00a0Miranda for the many useful discussions and suggestions. A.A. is also grateful to V.\u00a0Dobrosavljevi\u0107. A.A. acknowledges support from the ESRT Marie-Curie program during part of this work. L.dM. acknowledges support from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-09-RPDOC-019-01) and the RTRA \u201cTriangle de la Physique\". A.A. and M.C. are financed by European Research Council under FP7/ERC Starting Independent Research Grant \u201cSUPERBAD\" (Grant Agreement n. 240524)\n\nTwo-orbital effective impurity model {#apx1}\n====================================\n\nThe calculation of physical quantities internal to the local \u201c$pf$-dimer\u201c, such as the moment-moment correlation function $\\bra m_{zp}\\cdot m_{zf}\\ket$ can be performed within single-site DMFT using an alternative formulation of the effective impurity problem in which the local p-orbital is not integrated out in the construction of the effective action. Thus the original lattice system is reduced to the problem of a single dimer embedded in an electronic bath. The corresponding effective action has a $2\\times 2$ matrix structure in the orbital space and reads: The Weiss Field $\\hat{\\cal G}_0^{-1}(\\iome)$ describes the local quantum fluctuations at the tagged dimer. The Bethe lattice self-consistency becomes\n\nThe DMFT algorithm for the two-orbital representation proceeds as in the standard casse. The effective two-orbital impurity problem is solved to determine the impurity Green\u2019s functions: $$G^{\\mathrm imp}_\\a(\\iome)=-i\\bra \\a\\, \\a^+ \\ket_{\\hat{S'}_{\\rm eff}}$$ with $\\a=p,\\, f$. Next, the conduction electron self-energy $\\Sigma_p$ can be determined using the Dyson equation and used to evaluate the local Green\u2019s function $G_p$ which is necessary to update the local Weiss field. The whole algorithm is iterated until convergence is reached.\n\nLong range order {#apx2}\n================\n\nThe DMFT equations can be extended to describe phases with long range magnetic ordering[@rmp]. Here we derive the equations for the anti-ferromagnetic order in the two-orbital effective problem, considering also the effect of a uniform magnetic field. Similar equations can be derived for the single-orbital effective model.\n\nOn a bipartite lattice crystal as our Bethe lattice, we can define two sub-lattices $A$ and $B$, such that nearest-neighbor hopping always connects one $A$-site with a $B$-site. Then we can introduce a four-component spinor with orbital and sub-lattice indices so that the bare lattice propagator takes the form: $$\\hat{G}_{0\\ka\\s}^{-1}=\n\\begin{pmatrix}\n \\a_{A} & -\\epsk & -\\tpd & 0 \\\\\n -\\epsk & \\a_{B} & 0 & -\\tpd \\\\\n -\\tpd & 0 & \\iome-\\ed0+\\m_{A} & 0 \\\\\n 0 & -\\tpd & 0 & \\iome-\\ed0+\\m_{B}\n\\end{pmatrix}$$ with $\\a_{s}=\\iome-\\ep0+\\m_{s}$ and $s=A,B$. The corresponding Green\u2019s functions are obtained via the Dyson equation with the diagonal self-energy matrix with components $\\{0,0,\\Sigma_{A\\s},\\Sigma_{B\\s}\\}$. The $p$-electrons local Green\u2019s functions, required to close the DMFT equations, now read: where:\n\nIn the case of anti-ferromagnetic ordering it is not necessary to take explicitly into account both sublattices. Observing that: $$\\Sigma_{A\\s}(\\iome)=\\Sigma_{B-\\s}(\\iome)=\\Sigma_\\s(\\iome)$$ and thus: we can eliminate one of the two sublattices and recover a $2\\times 2$ formalism with a Weiss field given by $$\\hat{\\cal G}_{0\\s}^{-1}(\\iomn) =\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\a_\\s -\\frac{D^2}{4} \\,G_{p-\\s}(\\iome) & -\\tpd \\\\\n-\\tpd & \\iomn  +\\mu_\\s -\\ed0\n\\end{array} \\right)$$\n\nThe local conduction electron Green\u2019s function $G_{p\\s}(\\iome)$ can be expressed in terms of the following Hilbert transform: which closes the set of DMFT equations.\n\nIn presence of a uniform magnetic field $\\mathbf{B}$ in the ordered phase of the system, the symmetry relation between the two sublattices does not hold. Therefore the DMFT solution requires to explicitly consider the two sublattices and the self-consistency equations for the four components of the Weiss field $\\GG_{0\\s s}(\\iome)$ ($s=A,B$ and $\\overline{s}=B,A$) read where the coupling to the magnetic field $\\mathbf{B}$ has been included in a redefinition of the chemical potential $\\overline{\\mu}_{s\\,\\s}=\\m_{s\\s}+\\s\\mathbf{B}/2$. This means that at each iteration we need to solve two impurity models, one for each sub-lattice and that the solution of one sub-lattice will determine the Weiss field for the other.\n\n[^1]: The nature of the transition makes the precise determination of the doping value at which the ordering temperature vanishes numerically hard. Nevertheless, the data available at smaller doping concentrations suggest the AFM region to be bounded by $\\delta=0.1$ at zero temperature\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- Norman Haag\n- Daniel L\u00fcftner\n- Florian Haag\n- Johannes Seidel\n- 'Leah L. Kelly'\n- Giovanni Zamborlini\n- Matteo Jugovac\n- Vitaliy Feyer\n- Martin Aeschlimann\n- Peter Puschnig\n- Mirko Cinchetti\n- Benjamin Stadtm\u00fcller\ntitle: 'Signatures of an Atomic Crystal in the Band Structure of a Molecular Thin Film - Supplemental Material'\n---\n\nSample Preparation Procedure\n============================\n\nThe C$_{60}$ films were grown in situ on an Ag(111) single crystal. Prior to the deposition of C$_{60}$, the Ag(111) crystal surface was prepared by repeated cycles of argon ion bombardment and subsequent annealing. The quality and cleanness of the Ag(111) surface was confirmed by the existence of well defined diffraction spots in low energy electron diffraction (LEED) with narrow line profiles as well as by the presence of the Shockley surface state in momentum resolved photoemission spectroscopy. The C$_{60}$ films were subsequently grown by molecular beam epitaxy using a commercial Knudsen cell evaporator (Kentax GmbH) at a sublimation temperature of $633\\,$K. The film thickness was controlled by evaporation time and molecular flux and verified after the deposition procedure by core level spectroscopy of the C1s and Ag3d levels. In our study, the film thickness was determined to be $(5.0\\pm 0.7)\\,$ML.\n\nCrystal Structure of the C$_{60}$ thin film\n===========================================\n\nThe crystalline structure of the C$_{60}$ thin film was investigated by LEED. An exemplary LEED pattern of this film is shown in Fig.\u00a01a. The best agreement between our LEED data and theoretical simulations was obtained for a superposition of three different structures. The major part of the LEED pattern can be described by a $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ superstructure in agreement with previous studies [@Shi.2012; @Tamai.2005]. The simulated LEED pattern is superimposed onto the experimental data in Fig.\u00a01b as blue circles. In addition, we find diffraction spots of a $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ superstructure rotated by $\\pm18^\\circ$ (see LEED simulation in Fig.\u00a01c) and rotated by $\\pm 30^\\circ$ (see LEED simulation in Fig.\u00a01d). Note that the intensity of the diffraction spots of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$$\\pm30^\\circ$ structure is very low pointing to a marginal relative contribution of this structure to the C$_{60}$ thin film. In our further analysis, the latter domain can hence be neglected.\n\n![LEED image for a multilayer of C$_{60}$ grown on Ag(111) using a beam energy of $25\\,$eV (a).The structure is a superposition of two contributions: a $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ superstructure (blue circles in (b)) and two domains of a $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ superstructure rotated by $\\pm18^\\circ$ (orange circles in (c)). A minor contribution stems from additional domains rotated by $\\pm30^\\circ$ (green circles in (d)). []{data-label=\"fig:Fig1\"}](Fig_SI1.pdf){height=\"5.25cm\"}\n\nExperimental Methods\n====================\n\nAll photoemission experiments were conducted at the NanoEsca end station at the Elettra Synchrotron Light Source, Trieste. The momentum-resolved photoemission yield was recorded with the photoemission electron microscopy system NanoEsca (Focus GmbH) [@Kromker.2008] which was operated in k-space mode. All experiments were performed in a fixed experimental geometry, i.e., with a fixed angle of incidence of the synchrotron beam of $65^\\circ$ with respect to the surface normal as shown in Fig.\u00a02. Photoemission data were recorded with p- and s-polarized light. For p-polarization the electric field vector (blue arrow) is parallel to the plane of incidence and for s-polarized it is perpendicular to the plane of incidence, i.e., it is located parallel to surface plane.\n\n![Experimental geometry of the polarization dependent photoemission experiments.[]{data-label=\"fig:Fig2\"}](Fig_SI2.pdf){width=\"5cm\"}\n\nComputational Methods\n=====================\n\nThe electronic structure calculations and the simulations of the momentum maps are based on ab-initio computations within the framework of density functional theory (DFT) employing the VASP code [@Kresse1993; @Kresse1999]. The C$_{60}$ film is modeled by a free-standing layer of C$_{60}$-molecules in a hexagonal unit cell with an in-plane lattice parameter of [19.85\u00c5]{} containing four C$_{60}$ molecules with an additional vacuum layer of about [15\u00c5]{} in the out-of-plane direction. This structure corresponds to a (111)-cut through the low-temperature bulk crystal structure of C$_{60}$. For the geometry relaxations of the internal ionic degrees of freedom, the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) is used in conjunction with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) functional [@Perdew1996] and the van-der-Waals corrections according to the Tkatchenko-Scheffler method are added.[@Tkatchenko2009] Using the projector augmented wave (PAW) method,[@Bloechl1994] a plane-wave cutoff of $500\\,$eV is employed. For $k$-point sampling, a $\\Gamma$-centered grid of $8 \\times 8 \\times 1$ points is used and a first-order Methfessel- Paxton smearing of $0.1\\,$eV is utilized. Based on the relaxed adsorption geometries, we have computed the (projected) density of states. The Kohn-Sham eigenvalues and eigenstates are also the basis for the simulations of the photoemission intensity within the framework of photoemission tomography. Here, we have approximated the final state of the photoemission process by a plane-wave[@Luftner.2017] and assumed an inner potential $V_0$ of $13\\,$eV[@Hasegawa.1998]. For the simulations of the constant binding energy momentum maps and the band maps, an $8 \\times 8 \\times 4$ sampling of the Brillouin zone and Gaussian broadenings of $0.05\\,$\u00c5$^{-1}$ and $0.1\\,$eV in the momentum and energy axes have been chosen, respectively.\n\nRotational Domains in Photoemission Tomography Simulations\n==========================================================\n\n![(a) Structural model of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ structure with four C$_{60}$ molecules per unit cell. (b) Constant energy map of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ structure at E$_{\\mathrm{B}}=3.5\\,$eV simulated by PT. The same CE map is superimposed with the lattice of the surface Brillouin zones of the C$_{60}$ structure in (c). The CE maps of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$$\\pm18^\\circ$ are shown in (d) and (e). (f) Total momentum-resolved photoemission yield calculated by adding up the CE maps of the different structural domains.[]{data-label=\"fig:Fig2\"}](Fig_SI3.pdf){height=\"9cm\"}\n\nThe high accuracy of our photoemission tomography (PT) simulations for the valence bands of C$_{60}$ relies on a proper treatment of the additional structural domains observed in our LEED data. The band structure calculation and the PT simulations were performed for a freestanding $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ structure with four C$_{60}$ molecules per unit cell, see section *Computational Methods* above. A structural model of the unit cell used in the simulations is shown in Fig.\u00a03a. An exemplary constant energy (CE) map of the simulated momentum resolved photoemission yield is shown in Fig.\u00a03b for one energy within the HOMO-1 band (E$_{\\mathrm{B}}=3.5\\,$eV). This binding energy corresponds to one of the binding energy of the HOMO-1 CE maps discussed in Fig.\u00a02 of the main manuscript. The CE map consists of a regular arrangement of hexagonal emission features which follow the periodicity of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ superstructure in momentum space. The different hexagonal emission pattern represent the C$_{60}$ valence band structure in higher surface Brillouin zones as clearly visible in Fig.\u00a03c where the surface Brillouin zones are superimposed onto the same CE map as white hexagons. The directions and high symmetry points of the surface Brillouin zones are indicated in the inset.\\\n\n![(a) The simulated momentum resolved photoemission yield of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ at E$_{\\mathrm{B}}=3.9\\,$eV, $3.5\\,$eV and $2.9\\,$eV. (b) Total momentum-resolved photoemission yield of the C$_{60}$ thin film at the same binding energies.[]{data-label=\"fig:Fig4\"}](Fig_SI4.pdf){height=\"9cm\"}\n\nThe momentum resolved photoemission yield of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$$\\pm18^\\circ$ superstructure can be obtained by rotating the CE maps of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ (Fig.\u00a03b) superstructure by $\\pm18^\\circ$, see Fig.\u00a03d and e. The total momentum resolved photoemission yield is finally simulated by adding up the contributions of the three structural domains: $$I(k_x,k_y,E_B)=\\alpha \\times I_{ 0^\\circ} (k_x,k_y,E_B) + \\beta\\times \\left (I_{ +18^\\circ} (k_x,k_y,E_B)+ I_{-18^\\circ} (k_x,k_y,E_B) \\right )$$ Here, $\\alpha$, and $\\beta$ denote the relative contributions of the two different structural domains. The best agreement between our PT simulations and the experiment was obtained for an almost equal ratio of the $\\pm0^\\circ$ and the $\\pm18^\\circ$ domains with $\\alpha=1$ and $\\beta=0.9$. The corresponding CE map is shown in Fig.\u00a03f and in Fig.\u00a02 of the main manuscript. Note that no spectroscopic signature of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$$\\pm30^\\circ$ structure was observed in our momentum-resolved photoemission data. This is in line with the extremely weak intensity of the diffractions spots of this particular rotational domain in our LEED data discussed above. We therefore neglect any contribution of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$$\\pm30^\\circ$ superstructure in our PT simulations.\n\nThe same procedure is repeated for the second binding energy of the valence band structure shown in Fig.\u00a02 of the main manuscript. The momentum-resolved photoemission yield of the $(2\\sqrt{3}\\times 2\\sqrt{3})R30^\\circ$ superstructure as well as the total photoemission yield including both rotated domains is shown in Fig.\u00a04 for three characteristic binding energies of the HOMO-1 band.\n\nChallenges in Photoemission Tomography Simulations of Localized Molecular Orbitals\n==================================================================================\n\n![Experimental (a) and simulated (b) energy vs. momentum cut through the 3D ARPES data cube extracted along the $\\overline{\\Gamma}$\u00a0$\\overline{\\mathrm{M}}$\u00a0$\\overline{\\Gamma}'$-direction of the surface Brillouin zone of a crystalline C$_{60}$ thin film in the binding energy range of the $\\sigma$-states. The yellow line indicates the intramolecular band dispersion as guide-to-the-eye.[]{data-label=\"fig:Fig5\"}](Fig_SI5.pdf){height=\"6cm\"}\n\nDespite the overall excellent qualitative agreement between our momentum-resolved photoemission data and the PT simulations of the localized $\\sigma$-state of C$_{60}$ at large binding energies E$_{\\mathrm{B}}>5\\,$eV, there are also minor but distinct deviations between experiment and simulation in Fig.\u00a04 of the main manuscript. For instance, we observe a slightly different energy and momentum position of the molecular $\\sigma$- states in the energy vs. momentum cuts in Fig.\u00a05 leading to a different slope of the almost linear intramolecular dispersion curve. This discrepancy also coincides with a different radius and relative photoemission intensity of the concentric molecular emission features for different E$_\\mathrm{B}$ in experiment and theory. We attribute these deviations to the strong k$_\\mathrm{\\bot}$ dependency of the 3D Fourier transform of the localized molecular states of non-planar molecules. To support this conclusion, we depict the k$_\\mathrm{\\bot}$ dependency of the 3D Fourier transform of the highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) of a free C$_{60}$ molecule in Fig.\u00a06. Fig.\u00a06a shows a 2D cut through the 3D Fourier transform of the C$_{60}$ HOMO in the k$_\\mathrm{||}$- k$_\\mathrm{\\bot}$ plane. This 2D cut already illustrates the complex intensity pattern of the 3D Fourier transform with which varies as a function of both k$_\\mathrm{||}$ and k$_\\mathrm{\\bot}$. Consequently, small variations of the total momentum k$_\\mathrm{final}$ of the electrons in the photoemission final state result in a different spherical cut through the 3D Fourier transform of the localized molecular orbitals. This in turn severely alters the theoretically predicted CE emission characteristics of the HOMO as shown for three exemplary CE maps of the HOMO simulated for three different momentum k$_\\mathrm{final}$ in Fig.\u00a06b. In contrast, the k$_\\mathrm{\\bot}$ dependency of the 3D Fourier transform is almost neglectable for planar molecules. Fig.\u00a06c shows a k$_\\mathrm{||}$- k$_\\mathrm{\\bot}$ cut through the 3D Fourier transform of the HOMO of the planar molecule PTCDA. The 3D Fourier transformed reveals only a weak intensity modulation along the k$_\\mathrm{\\bot}$-direction. Consequently, the simulated momentum-dependent photoemission yield of the PTCDA HOMO is almost independent of the total electron momentum k$_\\mathrm{final}$ in the photoemission final state k$_\\mathrm{final}$. The latter was recently demonstrated experimentally by Weiss et al. for PTCDA/Ag(110)[@Weiss.2015]. This comparison clearly underlines the crucial role of the final state momentum k$_\\mathrm{final}$ for the PT of 3D molecules. The latter can be influenced either by the experimental uncertainty of the inner potential V$_0$ of the material or by small deviations of the initial state energy of molecular states in the band structure calculations and the experiment. In the case of C$_{60}$, the self-interaction errors in the band structure calculations result in a significant shift of the $\\sigma$-states with respect to the experiment. We hence propose that this effect is responsible for the qualitative difference observed for the PT simulations and the experimentally obtained CE maps of the C$_{60}$ $\\sigma$-states.\n\n![(a) 2D k$_\\mathrm{||}$ - k$_\\mathrm{\\bot}$ cut through the 3D Fourier transform of the C$_{60}$ HOMO. (b) Momentum-dependent photoemission yield of the C$_{60}$ HOMO for different total momentum k$_\\mathrm{final}$ of the electrons in the photoemission final state. (c) and (d) show similar plots for the HOMO of the planar model molecule PTCDA.[]{data-label=\"fig:Fig6\"}](Fig_SI6.pdf){height=\"9cm\"}\n\n[11]{} natexlab\\#1[\\#1]{}bibnamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}bibfnamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}citenamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}url \\#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\\[2\\][\\#2]{} \\[2\\]\\[\\][[\\#2](#2)]{}\n\n, , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial in several non-commuting variables with coefficients in an arbitrary field $K$. Kaplansky conjectured that for any $n$, the image of $p$ evaluated on the set $M_n(K)$ of $n$ by $n$ matrices is either zero, or the set of scalar matrices, or the set $sl_n(K)$ of matrices of trace $0$, or all of $M_n(K)$. This conjecture was proved for $n=2$ when $K$ is closed under quadratic extensions. In this paper the conjecture is verified for $K=\\mathbb{R}$ and $n=2$, also for semi-homogeneous polynomials $p$, with a partial solution for an arbitrary field $K$.'\naddress: 'Department of mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel'\nauthor:\n- Sergey Malev\ntitle: 'The images of non-commutative polynomials evaluated on $2\\times 2$ matrices over an arbitrary field.'\n---\n\n=5\n\n[^1] [^2]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThis paper is the continuation of [@BMR1], in which Kanel-Belov, Rowen and the author considered the question, reputedly raised by Kaplansky, of the possible image set ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ of a polynomial $p$ on matrices. (L\u2019vov later reformulated this for multilinear polynomials, asking whether ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is a vector subspace.)\n\nFor an arbitrary polynomial, the question was settled for the case when $K$ is a finite field by Chuang [@Ch], who proved that a subset $S \\subseteq\nM_n(K)$ containing $0$ is the image of a polynomial with constant term zero, if and only if $S$ is invariant under conjugation. Later Chuang\u2019s result was generalized by Kulyamin [@Ku1], [@Ku2] for graded algebras.\n\nFor homogeneous polynomials, the question was settled for the case when the field $K$ is algebraically closed by \u0160penko [@S], who proved that the union of the zero matrix and a standard open set closed under conjugation by ${{\\operatorname{GL}}}_n(K)$ and nonzero scalar multiplication is the image of a homogeneous polynomial.\n\nIn [@BMR1] the field $K$ was required to be quadratically closed. Even for the field $\\mathbb{R}$ of real numbers Kaplansky\u2019s question remained open, leading people to ask what happens if the field is not quadratically closed? This paper provides a positive answer.\n\nThe main result in this note is for $n=2$, settling the major part of Kaplansky\u2019s Conjecture in this case, proving the following result (see \u00a7\\[def1\\] for terminology):\n\n\\[main\\] If $p$ is a multilinear polynomial evaluated on the matrix ring $M_2(K)$ (where $K$ is an arbitrary field), then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is either $\\{0\\}$, or $K$ (the set of scalar matrices), or ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. If $K=\\mathbb{R}$ then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is either $\\{0\\}$, or $K$, or ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2$ or $M_2$.\n\nAlso a classification of the possible images of homogeneous polynomials evaluated on $2\\times 2$ matrices is provided:\n\n\\[homogen\\] Let $p(x_1,\\dots,x_m)$ be a semi-homogeneous polynomial evaluated on $2~\\times~2$ matrices with real entries. Then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is either $\\{0\\}$, or the set ${\\mathbb{R}}_{\\geq 0}$, i.e., the matrices $\\lambda I$ for $\\lambda\\geq 0$, or the set ${\\mathbb{R}}$ of scalar matrices, or the set ${\\mathbb{R}}_{\\leq 0}$, i.e., the matrices $\\lambda I$ for $\\lambda\\leq 0$, or the set ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\\geq0}({\\mathbb{R}})$ of trace zero matrices with non-negative discriminant, or the set ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\\leq 0}({\\mathbb{R}})$ of trace zero matrices with non-positive discriminant, or the set ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2({\\mathbb{R}})$, or is Zariski dense in $M_2({\\mathbb{R}})$.\n\nNote that in both Theorems \\[main\\] and \\[homogen\\] we can consider any real closed field instead of ${\\mathbb{R}}$.\n\nDefinitions and basic preliminaries {#def1}\n===================================\n\nBy $K\\langle x_1,\\dots,x_m\\rangle$ we denote the free $K$-algebra generated by noncommuting variables $x_1,\\dots,x_m$, and refer to the elements of $K\\langle\nx_1,\\dots,x_m\\rangle$ as [*polynomials*]{}. Consider any algebra $R$ over a field $K$. A polynomial $p\\in K\\langle\nx_1,\\dots,x_m\\rangle$ is called a [*polynomial identity*]{} (PI) of the algebra $R$ if $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)=0$ for all $a_1,\\dots,a_m\\in R$; $p\\in K\\langle x_1,\\dots,x_m\\rangle$ is a [*central polynomial*]{} of $R$, if for any $a_1,\\dots,a_m\\in R$ one has $\\mbox{$p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)\\in {{\\operatorname{Cent}}}(R)$}$ but $p$ is not a PI of $R$. A polynomial $p\\in K\\langle x_1,\\dots,x_m\\rangle$ is called [*multilinear*]{} of degree $m$ if it is linear with respect to each variable. Thus, a polynomial is multilinear if it is a polynomial of the form $$p(x_1,\\dots,x_m)=\\sum_{\\sigma\\in S_m}c_\\sigma\nx_{\\sigma(1)}\\cdots x_{\\sigma(m)},$$ where $S_m$ is the symmetric group in $m$ letters, and $c_\\sigma\\in K$.\n\nWe recall the following well-known lemmas (for arbitrary $n$) whose proofs can be found in [@BMR1]:\n\n\\[graph\\]Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial. If $a_i$ are matrix units, then $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)$ is either\u00a0$0$, or\u00a0$c\\cdot e_{ij}$ for some $i\\neq j$, or a diagonal matrix.\n\n\\[linear\\]Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial. The linear span of ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is either $\\{0\\}$, $K$, ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_n$, or $M_n(K)$. If ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is not $\\{0\\}$ or $K$, then for any $i\\neq j$ the matrix unit $e_{ij}$ belongs to ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$.\n\nWe need a slight modification of Amitsur\u2019s theorem, which also is well known:\n\n\\[Am1\\] The algebra of generic matrices is a domain $D$ which can be embedded in the division algebra UD of central fractions of Amitsur\u2019s algebra of generic matrices. Likewise, UD contains all characteristic coefficients of $D$.\n\nAny trace function can be expressed as the ratio of two central polynomials, in view of [@Row Theorem 1.4.12]; also see [@BR Theorem\u00a0J, p.\u00a027] which says for any characteristic coefficient $\\alpha_k $ of the characteristic polynomial $$\\lambda^t + \\sum_{k=1}^t (-1)^k \\alpha _k \\lambda ^{t-k}$$ that $$\\label{trace2pol0}\n\\alpha_k f(a_1, \\dots, a_t, r_1, \\dots, r_m) = \\sum _{k=1}^t\nf(T^{k_1}a_1, \\dots, T^{k_t} a_t,  r_1, \\dots, r_m) ,$$ summed over all vectors $(k_1, \\dots, k_t)$ where each $k_i \\in \\{\n0, 1 \\}$ and $\\sum k_i = t,$ where $f$ is any $t$-alternating polynomial (and $t = n^2$). In particular, $$\\label{trace2pol}\n{{\\operatorname{tr}}}(T)f(a_1, \\dots, a_t, r_1, \\dots, r_m) = \\sum _{k=1}^t f(a_1,\n\\dots, a_{k-1}, Ta_k, a_{k+1} , \\dots, a_t,  r_1, \\dots, r_m) ,$$ so any trace of a polynomial belongs to UD.\n\nWe also need the First Fundamental Theorem of Invariant Theory (see [@P Theorem $1.3$])\n\n\\[procesi\\] Any polynomial invariant of $n\\times n$ matrices $A_1,\\dots,A_m$ is a polynomial in the invariants ${{\\operatorname{tr}}}(A_{i_1}A_{i_2}\\cdots\nA_{i_k})$, taken over all possible (noncommutative) products of the $A_i$.\n\nWe also require one basic fact from the linear algebra:\n\n\\[dim2\\] Let $V_i$ (for $1\\leq i\\leq m$) and $V$ be linear spaces over arbitrary field $K$. Let $f(T_1,\\dots,T_m): \\prod\\limits_{i=1}^m V_i\\rightarrow V$ be a multilinear mapping (i.e. linear with respect to each $T_i$). Assume there exist two points in ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}f$ which are not proportional. Then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}f$ contains a $2$-dimensional plane. In particular, if $V$ is $2$-dimensional, then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}f=V$.\n\nLet us denote for $\\mu=(T_1\\dots,T_m)$ and $\\nu=(T_1',\\dots,T_m')\\in \\prod\\limits_{i=1}^m V_i$ $${{\\operatorname{Dist}\\,}}(\\mu,\\nu)=\\#\\{i: T_i\\neq T_i'\\}.$$ Consider $k=\\min\\{d:$ there exists $\\mu,\\nu\\in\\prod\\limits_{i=1}^m V_i$ such that $f(\\mu)$ is not proportional to $f(\\nu)$ and ${{\\operatorname{Dist}\\,}}(\\mu,\\nu)=d\\}.$ We know $k\\leq m$ by assumptions of lemma. Also $k\\geq 1$ since any element of $V$ is proportional to itself. Assume $k=1$. In this case there exist $i$ and $T_1,\\dots,T_m,T_i'$ such that $f(T_1,\\dots,T_m)$ is not proportional to $f(T_1,\\dots,T_{i-1},T_i',T_{i+1},\\dots,T_m).$ Therefore $$\\langle f(T_1,\\dots,T_m),f(T_1,\\dots,T_{i-1},T_i',T_{i+1},\\dots,T_m)\\rangle\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$$ is $2$-dimensional. Hence we can assume $k\\geq 2$. We can enumerate variables and consider $\\mu=(T_1,\\dots,T_m)$ and $\\nu=(T_1',\\dots,T_k',T_{k+1},\\dots,T_m)$, $v_1=f(\\mu)$ is not proportional to $v_2=f(\\nu)$. Take any $a,b\\in K$. Consider $v_{a,b}=f(aT_1+bT_1',T_2+T_2',\\dots,T_k+T_k', T_{k+1},\\dots,T_m).$ Let us open the brackets. We have $$v_{a,b}=av_1+bv_2+\\sum_{\\emptyset\\subsetneqq S\\subsetneqq\\{1,\\dots,k\\}} c_S f(\\theta_S),$$ where $c_S$ equals $a$ if $1\\in S$ and $b$ otherwise, and $\\theta_S=(\\tilde T_1,\\dots,\\tilde T_k,T_{k+1},\\dots,T_m)$ for $\\tilde T_i=T_i$ if $i\\in S$ or $T_i'$ otherwise. Note that any $\\theta_S$ in the sum satisfies ${{\\operatorname{Dist}\\,}}(\\theta_S,\\mu)<~k$ and ${{\\operatorname{Dist}\\,}}(\\theta_S,\\nu)<k$ therefore $f(\\theta_S)$ must be proportional to both $v_1$ and $v_2$ and thus $f(\\theta_S)=0$. Therefore $v_{a,b}=av_1+bv_2$ and hence ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}f$ contains a $2$-dimensional plane.\n\nAssume that $K$ is an arbitrary field and $F\\subseteq K$ is a subfield. The set $\\{\\xi_1,\\dots,\\xi_k\\}\\subseteq K$ is called [*generic*]{} (over $F$) if $f(\\xi_1,\\dots,\\xi_k)\\neq 0$ for any commutative polynomial $f\\in F[x_1,\\dots,x_k]$ that takes nonzero values.\n\n\\[many-gen\\] Assume that $K$ has infinite transcendence degree over $F$. Then for any $k\\in{\\mathbb{N}}$ there exists a set of generic elements $\\{\\xi_1,\\dots,\\xi_k\\}\\subseteq K$.\n\n$K$ has infinite transcendence degree over $F$. Therefore, there exists an element $\\xi_1\\in K\\setminus \\bar F$, where $\\bar F$ is an algebraic closure of $F$. Now we consider $F_1=F[\\xi_1]$. $K$ has infinite transcendence degree over $F$ and thus has infinite transcendence degree over $F_1$. Therefore there exists an element $\\xi_2\\in K\\setminus \\bar F_1$. And we consider the new base field $F_2=F_1[\\xi_2]$. We can continue up to any natural number $k$.\n\nWe will say that a set of $n\\times n$ matrices $\\{x_1,\\dots,x_m\\}\\in M_n(K)$ is [*generic*]{} over $F$ if the set of their entries $\\{(x_\\ell)_{i,j}|1\\leq\n\\ell\\leq m;\\ 1\\leq i,j\\leq n\\}$ is generic.\n\nNote that according to Lemma \\[many-gen\\] if $K$ has infinite transcendence degree over $F$ we can take as many generic elements as we need, in particular we can take as many generic matrices as we need.\n\n\\[gen-real\\] Assume $f:H\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}$ (where $H\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}}^k$ is an open set in $k$-dimensional Euclidean space) is a function that is continuous in a neighborhood of the point $(y_1,\\dots,y_k)\\in\n H$, with $f(y_1,\\dots,y_k)<q$. Let $c_i$ be real numbers (in particular the coefficients of some polynomial $p$). Then there exists a set of elements $\\{x_1,\\dots,x_k\\}\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}}$ generic over $F={\\mathbb{Q}}[c_1,\\dots,c_N]$ such that $(x_1,\\dots,x_k)\\in H$ and $f(x_1,\\dots,x_k)<q$.\n\nWe denote the $\\delta$-neighborhood $N_\\delta(x)$ of $x\\in{\\mathbb{R}}$ as the interval $(x-\\delta,x+\\delta)\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}}$. Fix some small $\\delta>0$ such that the product of $\\delta$-neighborhoods of $y_k$ lays in $H$. For this particular $\\delta$ we consider the $\\delta$-neighborhood $N_\\delta(y_1)$ of $y_1$: the interval $(y_1-\\delta,y_1+\\delta)$ is an uncountable set, and therefore there exists $x_1\\in N_\\delta(y_1)\\setminus \\bar F$. We consider $F_1=F[x_1]$ and analogically chose $x_2\\in N_\\delta (y_2)\\setminus \\bar F_1$ and take $F_2=F_1[x_2]$. In such a way we can take generic elements $x_k\\in N_\\delta(y_k)$. Note that if $\\delta$ is not sufficiently small $f(x_1,\\dots,x_k)$ can be larger than $q$, but $$\\mathop{f(x_1,\\dots,x_k)\\rightarrow f(y_1,\\dots,y_k)}_{\\delta\\rightarrow 0}.$$ Thus there exists sufficiently small $\\delta$ and generic elements $x_i\\in N_\\delta(y_i)$ such that $f(x_1,\\dots,x_k)<q$.\n\nIf $f(y_1,\\dots,y_k)>q$, then there exists a set of generic elements $x_i\\in{\\mathbb{R}}$ such that $f(x_1,\\dots,x_k)>q$.\n\nNote that $f$ can be a function defined on a set of matrices. In this case we consider it as a function defined on the matrix entries.\n\nImages of multilinear polynomials {#im-of-pol}\n=================================\n\nAssume that $p$ is a multilinear polynomial evaluated on $2\\times\n2$ matrices over any field $K$. Assume also that $p$ is neither PI nor central. Then, according to Lemmas\u00a0\\[graph\\] and \\[linear\\] there exist matrix units $a_1,\\dots,a_m$ such that $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)=e_{12}$. Let us consider the mapping $\\chi$ defined on matrix units that switches the indices\u00a0$1$ and $2$, i.e., $e_{11}\\leftrightarrow e_{22}$ and $e_{12}\\leftrightarrow\ne_{21}$. Now let us consider the mapping $f$ defined on $m$ pairs $T_i=(t_i,\\tau_i):$ $$f(T_1,\\dots,T_m)=p(t_1a_1+\\tau_1\\chi(a_1),t_2a_2+\\tau_2\\chi(a_2),\\dots,t_ma_m+\\tau_m\\chi(a_m)).$$ Now let us open the brackets. We showed in [@BMR1] (see the proof of Lemma\u00a08) that either all nonzero terms are diagonal, or all nonzero terms are off-diagonal ($ce_{12}$ or $ce_{21}$). We have the latter case, so the image of $f$ contains only matrices of the type $c_1e_{12}+c_2e_{21}$. Note that the matrices $e_{12}$ and $e_{21}$ both belong to the image of $f$ since $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)=e_{12}$ and $p(\\chi(a_1),\\dots,\\chi(a_m))=e_{21}$. According to Lemma \\[dim2\\] the image of $f$ is at least $2$-dimensional, and lies in the $2$-dimensional plane $\\langle e_{12}, e_{21}\n\\rangle.$ Therefore this plane is exactly the image of $f$. Now we are ready to prove the following:\n\n\\[genfield\\] If $p$ is a multilinear polynomial evaluated on the matrix ring $M_2(K)$ (for an arbitrary field $K$), then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is either $\\{0\\}$, or $K$, or ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\setminus K\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$.\n\nLet $A$ be any trace zero, non-scalar matrix. Take any vector $v_1$ that is not an eigenvector of $A$. Consider the vector $v_2=Av_1$. Note that $Av_2=A^2v_1=-\\det(A)v_1$, and therefore the matrix $A$ with respect to the base $\\{v_1,v_2\\}$ has the form $c_1e_{12}+c_2e_{21}$, for some $c_i$. Hence $A$ is similar to $c_1e_{12}+c_2e_{21} \\in{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p,$ implying $A\\in{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$.\n\n\\[chr-n2\\] Note that for ${{\\operatorname{Char}\\,}}(K)\\neq 2$ (in particular for $K=\\mathbb{R}$), $$({{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\setminus K) \\cup\\{0\\}=\n {{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p.$$\n\nThe real case\n=============\n\nThroughout this section we assume that $K=\\mathbb{R}$. By Lemma \\[genfield\\] we know that either $p$ is PI, or central, or ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. Assume that ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subsetneqq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. We will use the following lemma:\n\n\\[ineq\\] Let $p$ be any multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subsetneqq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. For any $q\\in\\mathbb{R}$ there exist generic matrices $x_1,\\dots, x_m,y_1,\\dots,y_m$ such that for $X=p(x_1,\\dots,x_m)$ and $Y=p(y_1,\\dots,y_m)$ we have the following: $$\\frac{\\det X}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 X}\\leq q\\leq \\frac{\\det Y}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 Y},$$ where ${{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M$ denotes the square of the trace of $M$.\n\nWe know that ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$, in particular for the matrices $\\Omega=e_{11}-e_{22}$ and $\\Upsilon=e_{12}-e_{21}$ there exist matrices $a_1,\\dots,a_m,b_1,\\dots,b_m$ such that $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)=\\Omega$ and $p(b_1,\\dots,b_m)=\\Upsilon$. Note $\\frac{\\det M}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M}=<q$ if $M$ is close to $\\Omega$ and $\\frac{\\det M}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M}>q$ if $M$ is close to $\\Upsilon$. Now we consider a very small $\\delta>0$ such that for any matrices $x_i\\in N_\\delta(a_i)$ and $y_i\\in N_\\delta(b_i)$ $$\\frac{\\det X}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 X}\\leq q\\leq \\frac{\\det Y}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 Y},$$ where $X=p(x_1,\\dots,x_m)$ and $Y=p(y_1,\\dots,y_m)$. Here by $N_\\delta(x)$ we denote a $\\delta$-neighborhood of $x$, under the max norm $\\Arrowvert A \\Arrowvert=\\max\\limits_{i,j} \\arrowvert a_{ij} \\arrowvert$. According to Lemma \\[gen-real\\] one can choose generic matrices with such property.\n\nNow we are ready to prove that the image of $g(x_1,\\dots,x_m)=\\frac{\\det p}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 p}$ is everything:\n\n\\[anyq\\] Let $p$ be any multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subsetneqq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. Then for any $q\\in\\mathbb{R}$ there exists a set of matrices $a_1,\\dots, a_m$ such that $$\\label{eq}\n\\frac{\\det p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)}= q.$$\n\nLet $q$ be any real number. According to Lemma \\[ineq\\] there exist generic matrices $x_1,\\dots, x_m,y_1,\\dots,y_m$ such that for $X=p(x_1,\\dots,x_m)$ and $Y=p(y_1,\\dots,y_m)$ we have the following: $$\\frac{\\det X}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 X}\\leq q\\leq \\frac{\\det Y}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 Y}.$$ Consider the following matrices: $A_0=p(\\tilde x_1,x_2, \\dots,x_m)$, where $\\tilde x_1$ is either $x_1$ or $-x_1$, such that ${{\\operatorname{tr}}}A_0>0$. $A_1=p(\\tilde y_1,x_2,\\dots,x_m)$, where $\\tilde y_1$ is either $y_1$ or $-y_1$ such that ${{\\operatorname{tr}}}A_1>0$. Assume that $A_i$, $\\tilde x_1$, $\\tilde y_1,\\dots,\\tilde y_i$ are defined. Let $$A_{i+1}=p(\\tilde y_1,\\dots,\\tilde y_i,\\tilde y_{i+1},x_{i+2},\\dots,x_m)$$ where $\\tilde y_{i+1}=\\pm y_{i+1}$ is such that ${{\\operatorname{tr}}}A_{i+1}>0$. In such a way we defined matrices $A_i$ for $0\\leq i\\leq m$. Note that for any $2\\times 2$ matrix\u00a0$M$, $$\\frac{\\det M}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M}=\\frac{\\det (-M)}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 (-M)}$$ Note that $A_0=\\pm p(x_1,\\dots,x_m)$ and $A_m=\\pm p(y_1,\\dots, y_m);$ hence $$\\frac{\\det A_0}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A_0}\\leq q\\leq \\frac{\\det A_m}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A_m}.$$ Therefore there exists $i$ such that $$\\frac{\\det A_i}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A_i}\\leq q\\leq \\frac{\\det A_{i+1}}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A_{i+1}}.$$ Since $A_{i}=p(\\tilde y_1,\\dots,\\tilde y_i,x_{i+1},x_{i+2},\\dots,x_m)$ and $A_{i+1}=p(\\tilde y_1,\\dots,\\tilde y_{i+1},x_{i+2},\\dots,x_m)$, we can consider the matrix function $$M(t)=(1-t)A_i+tA_{i+1}=p(\\tilde y_1,\\dots,\\tilde y_i,(1-t)x_{i+1}+t\\tilde y_{i+1},x_{i+2},\\dots,x_m),$$ Then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}M\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p,$ $M(0)=A_i$, $M(1)=A_{i+1}$ both $M(0)$ and $M(1)$ have positive trace, and $M$ is an affine function. Therefore for any $t\\in [0,1]$ $M(t)$ has positive trace. Therefore the function $\\psi(t)=\\frac{\\det M(t)}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 M(t)}$ is well defined on $[0,1]$ and continuous. Also we have $\\psi(0)\\leq q\\leq \\psi(1)$. Thus there exists $\\tau\\in [0,1]$ such that $\\psi(\\tau)=q$ and thus $M(\\tau)\\in{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ satisfies equation .\n\n\\[discr-not-zero\\] Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subsetneqq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. Then any matrix with distinct eigenvalues (i.e. matrix of nonzero discriminant) belongs to ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p.$\n\nLet $A$ be any matrix with nonzero discriminant. Let us show that $A\\in{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. Let $q=\\frac{\\det A}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A}$. According to Lemma \\[anyq\\] there exists a set of matrices $a_1,\\dots, a_m$ such that $\\frac{\\det \\tilde A}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 \\tilde A}= q,$ where $\\tilde A=p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)$. Take $c\\in{\\mathbb{R}}$ such that ${{\\operatorname{tr}}}(c\\tilde A)={{\\operatorname{tr}}}A$. Note $c\\tilde A=p(ca_1,a_2,\\dots,a_m)$ belongs to ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p.$ Thus $$\\frac{\\det (c\\tilde A)}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 (c\\tilde A)}=q=\\frac{\\det A}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 A},$$ and ${{\\operatorname{tr}}}A={{\\operatorname{tr}}}(c\\tilde A)$. Hence, $\\det(c\\tilde A)=\\det(A)$. Therefore the matrices $c\\tilde A$ and $A$ are similar since they are not from the discriminant surface. Therefore $A\\in{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$.\n\n\\[unip\\] Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subsetneqq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. Then any non-scalar matrix with zero discriminant belongs to ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p.$\n\nLet $A$ be any non-scalar matrix with zero discriminant. Let us show that $A\\in{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. The eigenvalues of $A$ are equal, and therefore they must be real. Thus $A$ is similar to the matrix $\\tilde A = \\left(\n \\begin{matrix}\n \\lambda & 1\n \\\\  0 & \\lambda\n \\end{matrix}\n \\right)\n .$ If $A$ is nilpotent then $\\lambda=0$ and $\\tilde A=e_{12}$, and it belongs to ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ by Lemmas \\[graph\\] and \\[linear\\]. If $A$ is not nilpotent then we need to prove that at least one non-nilpotent matrix of such type belongs to ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p,$ and all other are similar to it. We know that the matrices $e_{11}-e_{22}=p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)$ and $e_{12}-e_{21}=p(b_1,\\dots,b_m)$ for some $a_i$ and $b_i$. Note that $e_{11}-e_{22}$ has positive discriminant and $e_{12}-e_{21}$ has negative discriminant. Take generic matrices $x_1,x_2,\\dots,x_m, y_1,\\dots,y_m$ such that $x_i\\in N_\\delta(a_i)$ and $y_i\\in N_\\delta(b_i)$ where $\\delta>0$ is so small that $p(x_1,\\dots,x_m)$ has positive discriminant and $p(y_1,\\dots,y_m)$ has negative discriminant. Consider the following matrices: $$A_0=p(x_1,x_2, \\dots,x_m) ,\\qquad  A_i=p(y_1,\\dots,y_i,\\ x_{i+1},\\dots,x_m), 1 \\le i \\le m.$$\n\nWe know that ${{\\operatorname{Discr}}}A_0>0$ and ${{\\operatorname{Discr}}}A_m<0$, and therefore there exists $i$ such that ${{\\operatorname{Discr}}}A_i>0$ and ${{\\operatorname{Discr}}}A_{i+1}<0$. We can consider the continuous matrix function $$M(t)=(1-t)A_i+tA_{i+1}=p(y_1,\\dots,y_i,(1-t)x_{i+1}+ty_{i+1},x_{i+2},\\dots,x_m).$$ We know that $M(0)$ has positive discriminant and $M(1)$ has negative discriminant. Therefore for some $\\tau$, $M(\\tau)$ has discriminant zero. Assume there exists $t$ such that $M(t)$ is nilpotent. In this case either $t$ is unique or there exists $t'\\neq t$ such that $M(t')$ is also nilpotent. If $t$ is unique then it equals to some rational function with respect to other variables (entries of matrices $x_i$ and $y_i$). In this case $t$ can be considered as a function on matrices $x_i$ and $y_i$ and as soon as it is invariant, according to the Proposition \\[procesi\\] $t$ is an element of UD and thus $M(t)$ is the element of UD. Therefore $M(t)$ cannot be nilpotent since UD is a domain according to Proposition \\[Am1\\]. If there exists $t'\\neq t$ such that $M(t')$ is also nilpotent then for any $\\tilde t\\in {\\mathbb{R}}$ $M(\\tilde t)$ is the combination of two nilpotent (and thus trace vanishing) matrices $M(t)$ and $M(t')$. Hence $M(0)$ is trace vanishing and thus ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2$, a contradiction.\n\nRecall that we proved $M(\\tau)$ has discriminant zero that for some $\\tau$. Note that $M(\\tau)$ cannot be nilpotent. Assume that the matrix $M(\\tau)$ is scalar. Hence $(1-\\tau)A_i+\\tau A_{i+1}=\\lambda I$ where $\\lambda\\in{\\mathbb{R}}$ and $I$ is the identity matrix. Thus, $A_{i+1}=\\frac{1-\\tau}{\\tau}A_i+cI$. Note that for any matrix $M$ and any $c\\in{\\mathbb{R}}$ we have ${{\\operatorname{Discr}}}(M)={{\\operatorname{Discr}}}(M+cI)$. Therefore the discriminant of $A_{i+1}$ can be written as $${{\\operatorname{Discr}}}(A_{i+1})={{\\operatorname{Discr}}}\\left(\\frac{1-\\tau}{\\tau}A_i\\right)=\\left(\\frac{1-\\tau}{\\tau}\\right)^2{{\\operatorname{Discr}}}(A_i),$$ a contradiction, since ${{\\operatorname{Discr}}}A_i>0$ and ${{\\operatorname{Discr}}}(A_{i+1})<0$. Therefore the matrix $M(\\tau)$ is similar to $A$.\n\n\\[scalar\\] Let $p$ be a multilinear polynomial satisfying ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2\\subsetneqq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. Then every scalar matrix belongs to ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p.$\n\nNote that it is enough to show that at least one scalar matrix belong to the image of $p$. According to Lemmas \\[graph\\] and \\[linear\\] there are matrix units $a_1,\\dots,a_m$ such that $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)$ is diagonal with nonzero trace. Assume that it is not scalar, i.e., $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)=\\lambda_1e_{11}+\\lambda_2e_{22}.$ We define again the mapping $\\chi$ and $f(T_1,\\dots,T_m)$ as in the beginning of $\\S\\ref{im-of-pol}$ and return to the proof of Lemma\u00a08 in [@BMR1] where we proved that ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}f$ consists only of diagonal matrices or only of matrices with zeros on the diagonal. In our case the image of $f$ consists only of diagonal matrices, which is a $2$-dimensional variety. We know that both $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)=\\lambda_1e_{11}+\\lambda_2e_{22}$ and $p(\\chi(a_1),\\dots,\\chi(a_m))=\\lambda_1e_{22}+\\lambda_2e_{11}$ belong to the image of $f$, and therefore every diagonal matrix belong to the image of $f$, in particular every scalar matrix.\n\nNow we are ready to prove the main theorem.\\\n\n[\\[main\\]]{} The second part follows from Lemmas \\[genfield\\], \\[discr-not-zero\\], \\[unip\\] and \\[scalar\\]. In the first part we need to prove that if $p$ is neither PI nor central then ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2(K)\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. According to Lemma \\[genfield\\], ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2(K)\\setminus K\\subseteq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$, and therefore according to Remark \\[chr-n2\\] we need consider only the case ${{\\operatorname{Char}\\,}}(K)=2$. In this case we need to prove that the scalar matrices belong to the image of $p$. According to Lemmas \\[graph\\] and \\[linear\\] there are matrix units $a_1,\\dots,a_m$ such that $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)$ is diagonal. Assume that it is not scalar. Then we consider the mappings $\\chi$ and $f$ as described in the beginning of\u00a0$\\S\\ref{im-of-pol}$. According to Lemma \\[dim2\\] the image of $f$ will be the set of all diagonal matrices, and in particular the scalar matrices belong to it.\n\nAssume that $p$ is a multilinear polynomial evaluated on $2\\times 2$ matrices over an arbitrary infinite field $K$. Then, according to Theorem \\[main\\], ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is $\\{0\\}$, or $K$, or ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2(K)$ or ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2(K)\\subsetneqq{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$. In the last case it is clear that ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ must be Zariski dense in\u00a0$M_2(K)$, because otherwise $\\dim({{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p)=3$ and ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is reducible, a contradiction.\n\nNote that the proof of Theorem \\[main\\] does not work when $n>2$ since for this case we will need to take more than one function (two functions for $n=3$ and more for $n>3$). In our proof we used that we have only one function: we proved that it takes values close to $\\pm\\infty$ and after that used continuity. This does not work for $n\\geq 3$. However one can use this idea for the question of possible images of trace zero multilinear polynomials evaluated on $3\\times 3$ matrices. In this case one function will be enough, and one can take $g=\\frac{\\omega_3^2}{\\omega_2^3}$. (One can find the definitions of\u00a0$\\omega_i$ in the proof of Theorem 3 in [@BMR2].) Moreover according to Lemmas \\[graph\\] and \\[linear\\] there are matrix units $a_i$ such that $p(a_1,\\dots,a_m)$ is a diagonal, trace zero, nonzero real matrix, which cannot be $3$-scalar since it will have three real eigenvalues. Therefore $p$ cannot be $3$-central polynomial. However the question of possible images of $p$ remains being an open problem.\n\nImages of semi-homogeneous polynomials evaluated on $2\\times 2$ matrices with real entries.\n===========================================================================================\n\nHere we provide a classification of the possible images of semi-homogeneous polynomials evaluated on $2\\times 2$ matrices with real entries. Let us start with the definitions.\n\nA polynomial $p$ (written as a sum of monomials) is called [*semi-homogeneous of weighted degree $d\\neq 0$*]{} with (integer) [*weights*]{} $(w_1,\\dots,w_m)$ if for each monomial $h$ of $p$, taking $d_j$ to be the degree of $x_{j}$ in $p$, we have $$d_1w_1+\\dots+d_nw_n=d.$$ A semi-homogeneous polynomial with weights $(1,1,\\dots, 1)$ is called $\\it{homogeneous}$ of degree $d$.\n\nA polynomial $p$ is [*completely homogeneous*]{} of multidegree $(d_1,\\dots,d_m)$ if each variable $x_i$ appears the same number of times $d_i$ in all monomials.\n\nA [*cone*]{} of $M_n({\\mathbb{R}})$ is a subset closed under multiplication by nonzero constants. An [*invariant cone*]{} is a cone invariant under conjugation. An invariant cone is [*irreducible*]{} if it does not contain any nonempty invariant cone. A [*semi-cone*]{} of $M_n({\\mathbb{R}})$ is a subset closed under multiplication by positive constants. An [*invariant semi-cone*]{} is a semi-cone invariant under conjugation. An invariant semi-cone is [*irreducible*]{} if it does not contain any nonempty invariant semi-cone.\n\nNote that any cone is a semi-cone.\n\n\\[semcone\\] Let $p$ be any semi-homogeneous polynomial of weghted degree $d\\neq 0$ with weights $(w_1,\\dots,w_m)$. Thus if $A=p(x_1,\\dots,x_m)$ then for any $c\\in{\\mathbb{R}}$ we have $p(c^{w_1}x_1,\\dots,c^{w_m}x_m)=c^dA$ therefore if $d$ is odd then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is a cone, and if $d$ is even, ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is a semi-cone. Hence for any $d$ ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is a semi-cone.\n\n**Theorem \\[homogen\\].** *Let $p(x_1,\\dots,x_m)$ be a semi-homogeneous polynomial. Then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is either $\\{0\\}$, or the set ${\\mathbb{R}}_{\\geq 0}$, i.e., the matrices $\\lambda I$ for $\\lambda\\geq 0$, or the set ${\\mathbb{R}}_{\\leq 0}$, i.e., the matrices $\\lambda I$ for $\\lambda\\leq 0$, or the set ${\\mathbb{R}}$ of scalar matrices, or the set ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\\geq0}({\\mathbb{R}})$ of trace zero matrices with non-negative discriminant, or the set ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\\leq 0}({\\mathbb{R}})$ of trace zero matrices with non-positive discriminant, or the set ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2({\\mathbb{R}})$, or Zariski dense in\u00a0$M_2({\\mathbb{R}})$.*\n\nConsider the function $g(x_1,\\dots,x_m)=\\frac{\\det p}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 p}$. If this function is not constant, then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is Zariski dense. Assume that it is constant; i.e., $\\frac{\\det p}{{{\\operatorname{tr}}}^2 p}=c$. Then the ratio $\\frac{\\lambda_1}{\\lambda_2}=\\hat c$ of eigenvalues is also a constant. If $\\hat c\\neq -1$ then we can write $\\lambda_1$ explicitly as $$\\lambda_1=\\frac{\\lambda_1}{\\lambda_1+\\lambda_2}{{\\operatorname{tr}}}p=\\frac{1}{1+\\frac{\\lambda_2}{\\lambda_1}}{{\\operatorname{tr}}}p\n =\\frac{1}{1+\\frac{1}{\\hat c}}{{\\operatorname{tr}}}p,$$ Therefore $\\lambda_1$ is an element of UD, and $\\lambda_2={{\\operatorname{tr}}}p-\\lambda_1$ also. According to the Hamilton-Cayley equation, $(p-\\lambda_1)(p-\\lambda_2)=0$ and therefore, since, by Proposition\u00a0\\[Am1\\], UD is a domain, one of the terms $p-\\lambda_i$ is a PI. Therefore $p$ is central or PI. Therefore we see that any semi-homogeneous polynomial is either PI, or central, or trace zero (if the ratio of eigenvalues is $-1$ then the trace is identically zero), or ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is Zariski dense. If $p$ is PI then ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p=\\{0\\}$. If $p$ is central then, by Remark\u00a0\\[semcone\\], ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is a semi-cone, therefore ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is either ${\\mathbb{R}}_{\\geq 0}$, or ${\\mathbb{R}}_{\\leq 0}$, or ${\\mathbb{R}}$. If ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ has trace zero, then any trace zero matrix $A\\in{{\\operatorname{sl}}}_2({\\mathbb{R}})$ is similar to $-A$. Therefore ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p=-{{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ is symmetric. Together with Remark \\[semcone\\] we have that ${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ must be a cone. The determinant cannot be identically zero since otherwise the polynomial is nilpotent, contrary to Proposition \\[Am1\\]. Hence there exists some value with nonzero determinant. All the trace zero matrices of positive determinant are pairwise similar, and all the trace zero matrices of negative determinant are pairwise similar. Therefore in this case all possible images of $p$ are ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\\geq0}({\\mathbb{R}})$, ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_{2,\\leq0}({\\mathbb{R}})$ and ${{\\operatorname{sl}}}_{2}({\\mathbb{R}})$.\n\n${{\\operatorname{Im}\\,}}p$ can be the set of non-negative scalars. Take any central polynomial, say $p(x,y)=[x,y]^2$ and consider $p^2=[x,y]^4$. If one takes $-p^2=-[x,y]^4$, then its image is the set ${\\mathbb{R}}_{\\leq 0}$.\n\nThe question remains open of whether or not there exists an example of a trace zero polynomial with non-negative (or non-positive) discriminant.\n\nThere are many polynomials with Zariski dense image which are not dense with respect to the usual Euclidean topology. For example the image of the polynomial $p(x)=x^2$ is the set of matrices with two positive eigenvalues, or two complex conjugate eigenvalues; in particular any matrix $x^2$ has non-negative determinant. The image of the polynomial $p(x,y)=[x,y]^4+[x^4,y^4]$ is the set of matrices with non-negative trace. The question of classifying possible semi-homogeneous Zariski dense images is not simple, and also remains open.\n\n[DK2341]{}\n\nBelov, A.; Malev, S.; Rowen, L. [*The images of non-commutative polynomials evaluated on $2\\times 2$ matrices*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc [**140**]{} (2012), 465\u2013478.\n\nBelov, A.; Malev, S.; Rowen, L. [*The images of multilinear polynomials evaluated on $3\\times 3$ matrices*]{}, arXiv:1306.4389\n\nBelov, A.; Rowen, L.H. [*Computational Aspects of Polynomial Identities*]{}, A. K. Peters Ltd., Wellesley, MA. (2005).\n\nChuang, C.-L. [*On ranges of polynomials in finite matrix rings*]{}, Proceeding of the American Mathematical Society **110** (1990), no. 2, 293\u2013302.\n\nKulyamin, V.V. [*Images of graded polynomials in matrix rings over finite group algebras*]{} Russ. Math. Surv.**55** (2000), 345\u2013346.\n\nKulyamin, V.V. [*On images of polynomials in finite matrix rings, Thes. Cand. Phys.-Math. Sci., Moscow Lomonosov state University*]{} Moscow (2000).\n\nProcesi, C. [*The invariant theory of $n\\times n$ matrices*]{}, Advances in Math. **19** (1976), 306\u2013381.\n\nRowen, L. [*Polynomial identities in ring theory*]{}, Academic press, New York (1980).\n\n\u0160penko, S. [*On the image of a noncommutative polynomial*]{}, Journal of Algebra **377** (2013), 298\u2013311.\n\n[^1]: The author was supported by an Israeli Ministry of Immigrant Absorbtion scholarship.\n\n[^2]: This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 1207/12).\n"}
-{"text": "[**Recent progress on HQET lagrangian**]{}\\\n*A.\u00a0G.\u00a0Grozin*\\\n[Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia]{}\\\n[HQET lagrangian up to $1/m^3$ terms is discussed. Consequences of reparameterization invariance are considered. Results for the chromomagnetic interaction coefficient at two loops, and in all orders in the large\u2013$\\beta_1$ approximation, are presented.]{}\n\nHQET lagrangian\n===============\n\nQCD problems with a single heavy quark staying approximately at rest can be conveniently treated in the heavy quark effective field theory (HQET) (see\u00a0[@Neubert] for review and references). We shift the energy zero level: $E=m+\\omega$, and consider the region where residual energies $\\omega$ and momenta $\\vec{p}$ are not large: $\\omega\\sim|\\vec{p}|\\sim\\Lambda\\ll m$. The effective field theory is constructed to reproduce QCD on\u2013shell scattering amplitudes expanded to some order $(\\Lambda/m)^n$. This is achieved by writing down the most general effective Lagrangian consistent with the required symmetries, and tuning the coefficients to reproduce QCD on-shell amplitudes. Terms with $D_0 Q$ can be eliminated by field redefinitions.\n\nThe most general lagrangian up to $1/m^3$ is\u00a0[@EH1]\u2013[@Manohar] $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\hspace{-6mm}L = Q^+ i D_0 Q\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-6mm} + \\frac{C_k}{2m} Q^+ \\vec{D}^2 Q\n+ \\frac{C_m}{2m} Q^+ \\vec{B}\\cdot\\vec{\\sigma} Q\n+ \\frac{i C_s}{8m^2} Q^+ (\\vec{D}\\times\\vec{E}-\\vec{E}\\times\\vec{D})\n\\cdot\\vec{\\sigma} Q\n+ \\frac{C_d}{8m^2} Q^+ [\\vec{D}\\cdot\\vec{E}] Q\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-6mm} + \\frac{C_{k2}}{8m^3} Q^+ \\vec{D}^4 Q\n+ \\frac{C_{w1}}{8m^3} Q^+ \\{\\vec{D}^2,\\vec{B}\\cdot\\vec{\\sigma}\\} Q\n- \\frac{C_{w2}}{4m^3} Q^+ D^i \\vec{B}\\cdot\\vec{\\sigma} D^i Q\n\\label{l0}\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-1mm} + \\frac{C_{p'p}}{8m^3} Q^+ (\\vec{D} \\vec{B}\\cdot\\vec{D}\n  +\\vec{D}\\cdot\\vec{B} \\vec{D}) \\cdot\\vec{\\sigma} Q\n+ \\frac{i C_M}{8m^3} Q^+ (\\vec{D}\\cdot[\\vec{D}\\times\\vec{B}]\n  + [\\vec{D}\\times\\vec{B}]\\cdot\\vec{D}) Q\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-1mm} + \\frac{C_{a1}}{8m^3} Q^+ (\\vec{B}^2-\\vec{E}^2) Q\n- \\frac{C_{a2}}{16m^3} Q^+ \\vec{E}^2 Q\n+ \\frac{C_{a3}}{8m^3} Q^+ {\\mathop{\\mathrm{Tr}}\\nolimits}(\\vec{B}^2-\\vec{E}^2) Q\n- \\frac{C_{a4}}{16m^3} Q^+ {\\mathop{\\mathrm{Tr}}\\nolimits}\\vec{E}^2 Q\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-1mm} + \\frac{i C_{b1}}{8m^3} Q^+ (\\vec{B}\\times\\vec{B}\n  -\\vec{E}\\times\\vec{E}) \\cdot\\vec{\\sigma} Q\n- \\frac{i C_{b2}}{8m^3} Q^+ (\\vec{E}\\times\\vec{E}) \\cdot\\vec{\\sigma} Q\n+ \\cdots\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$ is 2\u2013component heavy\u2013quark field. Here heavy\u2013light contact interactions are omitted, as well as operators involving only light fields.\n\nHQET can be rewritten in relativistic notations. Momenta of all states are decomposed as $p=mv+k$ where residual momenta $k\\sim\\Lambda$. The heavy\u2013quark field is now Dirac spinor obeying ${v\\llap{/}}Q_v=Q_v$. The lagrangian is $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\hspace{-6mm}\nL_v = \\overline{Q}_v i v\\cdot D Q_v\n- \\frac{C_k}{2m} \\overline{Q}_v D_\\bot^2 Q_v\n- \\frac{C_m}{4m} \\overline{Q}_v G_{\\mu\\nu}\\sigma^{\\mu\\nu} Q_v\n\\label{l1}\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-6mm}\n+ \\frac{i C_s}{8m^2}\n\\overline{Q}_v \\{D_\\bot^\\mu,G^{\\lambda\\nu}\\}v_\\lambda \\sigma_{\\mu\\nu} Q_v\n- \\frac{C_d}{8m^2} \\overline{Q}_v v^\\mu [D_\\bot^\\nu G_{\\mu\\nu}] Q_v\n+ \\cdots\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $D_\\bot=D-v(vD)$. The velocity $v$ may be changed by an amount $\\delta v\\lesssim\\Lambda/m$ without spoiling the applicability of HQET and changing its predictions. This reparameterization invariance relates coefficients of varying degrees in $1/m$\u00a0[@LM]\u2013[@Lee3].\n\nAt the tree level, there are easier ways to find the coefficients $C_i$ than QCD/HQET matching: Foldy\u2013Wouthuysen transformation\u00a0[@KT; @BKP], or using equations of motion\u00a0[@Lee] (or integrating out lower components\u00a0[@MRR; @Lee2]) followed by a field redefinition. The result is $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&C_k=C_m=C_d=C_s=C_{k2}=C_{w1}=C_{a1}=C_{b1}=1\\,,\n\\label{tree}\\\\\n&&C_{w2}=C_{p'p}=C_M=C_{a2}=C_{a3}=C_{a4}=C_{b2}=0\\,.\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ However, these algebraic methods don\u2019t generalize to higher loops.\n\nAt $1/m$ level, the kinetic coefficient $C_k=1$ due to the reparameterization invariance\u00a0[@LM]. One\u2013loop matching for the chromomagnetic coefficient $C_m$ was done in\u00a0[@EH2]; two\u2013loop anomalous dimension of the chromomagnetic operator in HQET was obtained in\u00a0[@ABN; @CG], and two\u2013loop matching was done in\u00a0[@CG]; in\u00a0[@GN], all orders of perturbation theory for $C_m$ were summed at large $\\beta_1$.\n\nAt $1/m^2$ level, the spin\u2013orbit coefficient $C_s=2C_m-1$ due to the reparameterization invariance\u00a0[@CKO]\u2013[@BKPR]. The Darwin term reduces to a contact interaction. One\u2013loop matching for the heavy\u2013light contact interactions was done in\u00a0[@BKPR]. The one\u2013loop anomalous dimension matrix of dimension 6 terms in the HQET lagrangian was obtained in\u00a0[@BKP], [@BO]\u2013[@BM].\n\nAt $1/m^3$ level, one\u2013loop matching was done in\u00a0[@Manohar] for the terms involving the heavy\u2013quark fields twice and the gluon field once. The one\u2013loop renormalization of dimension 7 terms in the HQET lagrangian was recently considered\u00a0[@Balzereit2].\n\nMatching quark\u2013quark vertex\n===========================\n\nRenormalized QCD on\u2013shell quark\u2013quark proper vertex $$-\\overline{u}({p\\llap{/}}-m)u\n\\label{QCD2}$$ gets no correction in the on\u2013shell renormalization scheme. QCD spinors are related to HQET spinors by the Foldy\u2013Wouthuysen transformation $$u=\\left(1+\\frac{{k\\llap{/}}}{2m}+\\frac{k^2}{4m^2}+\\cdots\\right)u_v\\,,\\quad\n{v\\llap{/}}u_v=u_v\\,.\n\\label{FW}$$ Expressing QCD proper vertex via HQET spinors, we obtain $$\\overline{u}_v \\frac{\\vec{k}^2}{2m} u_v + \\cdots\n\\label{QCD2h}$$\n\nLet\u2019s denote the sum of bare 1\u2013particle\u2013irreducible self\u2013energy diagrams of the heavy quark in HQET at $1/m^0$ as $-i\\frac{1+{v\\llap{$\\scriptstyle/$}}}{2}\\Sigma(\\omega)$, $\\omega=kv$. At the $1/m$ level, self\u2013energy diagrams with a single chromomagnetic vertex vanish. Let the sum of bare diagrams with a single kinetic vertex be $-i\\frac{C_k}{2m}\\frac{1+{v\\llap{$\\scriptstyle/$}}}{2}\\Sigma_k(\\omega,k_\\bot^2)$. Consider variation of $\\Sigma$ at $v\\to v+\\delta v$ for an infinitesimal $\\delta v$ ($v\\,\\delta v=0$). All factors $\\frac{1+{v\\llap{$\\scriptstyle/$}}}{2}$ can be combined into a single one, and the variation $\\delta{v\\llap{/}}$ in it provides the variation of the $\\gamma$\u2013matrix structure in front of $\\Sigma$. There are two sources of the variation of $\\Sigma$. Terms from the expansion of denominators of the propagators produce insertions $ik\\delta v$. Terms from the vertices produce $igt^a\\delta v^\\mu$. Now consider variation of $\\Sigma_k$ at $k_\\bot\\to k_\\bot+\\delta k_\\bot$ for an infinitesimal $\\delta k_\\bot$. Quark\u2013quark kinetic vertices produce $i\\frac{C_k}{m}k\\delta k_\\bot$; quark\u2013quark\u2013gluon kinetic vertices produce $i\\frac{C_k}{m}gt^a\\delta k_\\bot^\\mu$; two\u2013gluon vertices produce nothing. Therefore, $$\\frac{\\partial\\Sigma_k}{\\partial k_\\bot^\\mu} =\n2 \\frac{\\partial\\Sigma}{\\partial v^\\mu}\\,.\n\\label{Ward1}$$ This is the Ward identity of the reparameterization invariance first derived in\u00a0[@Balzereit]. Taking into account $\\frac{\\partial\\Sigma_k}{\\partial k_\\bot^\\mu}=\n2\\frac{\\partial\\Sigma_k}{\\partial k_\\bot^2}k_\\bot^\\mu$ and $\\frac{\\partial\\Sigma}{\\partial v^\\mu}=\n\\frac{d\\Sigma}{d\\omega}k_\\bot^\\mu$, we obtain $$\\frac{\\partial\\Sigma_k}{\\partial k_\\bot^2} =\n\\frac{d\\Sigma}{d\\omega}\\,.\n\\label{Ward2}$$ The right\u2013hand side does not depend on $k_\\bot^2$, and hence $$\\Sigma_k(\\omega,k_\\bot^2) = \\frac{d\\Sigma(\\omega)}{d\\omega} k_\\bot^2\n+ \\Sigma_{k0}(\\omega)\\,.\n\\label{Ward3}$$ This result can also be understood in a more direct way. Only diagrams with a quark\u2013quark kinetic vertex contain $k_\\bot^2$; its coefficient is is $i\\frac{C_k}{2m}$. The sum of diagrams with a unit insertion is $-i\\frac{d\\Sigma}{d\\omega}$. Note that diagrams with a quark\u2013quark\u2013gluon kinetic vertex vanish because there is no preferred transverse direction.\n\nOn the mass shell ($\\omega=0$), the renormalized HQET quark\u2013quark proper vertex is $\\frac{C_k}{2m} Z_Q \\overline{u}_v \\allowbreak\n\\bigl[ -k_\\bot^2 + \\Sigma_k(0,k_\\bot^2)\n\\bigr] u_v = - \\frac{C_k}{2m} Z_Q \\left[ 1 - \\frac{d\\Sigma}{d\\omega}\n\\right]_{\\omega=0} k_\\bot^2 \\overline{u}_v u_v$. On the mass shell, only diagrams with finite\u2013mass particles in loops contribute (e.g., $c$\u2013quark loops in $b$\u2013quark HQET) (Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig:1\\]). Taking into account $Z_Q^{-1}=1-\\left.\\frac{d\\Sigma}{d\\omega}\\right|_{\\omega=0}$ and comparing with\u00a0(\\[QCD2h\\]), we finally obtain $$C_k(\\mu)=1\\,.\n\\label{Ck}$$ This argument works for an arbitrary $\\mu$; hence, the anomalous dimension of the kinetic\u2013energy operator in HQET vanishes exactly. In a similar way, it is not difficult to prove that $$C_{k2}=1\\,.\n\\label{Ck2}$$\n\n![HQET quark\u2013quark proper vertex on the mass shell[]{data-label=\"Fig:1\"}](F1.eps){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nMatching quark\u2013quark\u2013gluon vertex\n=================================\n\nQCD on\u2013shell proper vertex is characterized by 2 form factors: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\overline{u}(p') t^a \\left( {\\varepsilon}(q^2) \\frac{(p+p')^\\mu}{2m}\n+ \\mu(q^2) \\frac{[{q\\llap{/}},\\gamma^\\mu]}{4m} \\right) u(p)\\,,\n\\label{FF}\\\\\n&&{\\varepsilon}(q^2) = 1 + {\\varepsilon}'\\frac{q^2}{m^2} + \\cdots, \\quad\n\\mu(q^2) = \\mu + \\mu'\\frac{q^2}{m^2} + \\cdots\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe total colour charge of a quark ${\\varepsilon}(0)=1$ due to the gauge invariance. Ward identities in the background field formalism\u00a0[@Abbott] are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig:2\\], where the large dot means convolution with the gluon incoming momentum $q$ and colour polarization $e^a$, the second equalities are valid only for an infinitesimal $q$ (or in the case of an abelian external field), and $(t^a)^{bc}=if^{acb}$ in the adjoint representation. Therefore, the QCD proper vertex $\\Lambda_\\mu^a(p,q)=\\Lambda_\\mu t^a$ obeys $\\Lambda_\\mu^a q^\\mu e^a=-\\Sigma(p+qe^a t^a)+\\Sigma(p)$ for infinitesimal $q$, or $\\Lambda_\\mu(p,0)=-\\frac{\\partial\\Sigma(p)}{\\partial p^\\mu}$. The form factor is projected out by ${\\varepsilon}(0)=Z_Q\\bigl[1+\\frac{1}{4}{\\mathop{\\mathrm{Tr}}\\nolimits}\\Lambda_\\mu v^\\mu(1+{v\\llap{/}})\\bigr]$. On the mass shell, $\\frac{1}{4}{\\mathop{\\mathrm{Tr}}\\nolimits}\\frac{\\partial\\Sigma}{\\partial p^\\mu}=(1-Z_Q^{-1})v_\\mu$, and hence ${\\varepsilon}(0)=1$.\n\n(160,10) (0,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A0.eps \"fig:\")]{} (8,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (24,6)[(0,0)[$p+q$]{}]{} (32,2.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][${}=g\\,e^a t^a$]{}]{} (56,2.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl[\\Biggr.$]{}]{} (57,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A1.eps \"fig:\")]{} (65,6)[(0,0)[$p+q$]{}]{} (75,2.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (77,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A1.eps \"fig:\")]{} (85,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (93,2.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl.\\Biggr]=g\\Biggl[\\Biggr.$]{}]{} (104,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A1.eps \"fig:\")]{} (113,6)[(0,0)[$p+q e^a t^a$]{}]{} (122,2.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (124,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A1.eps \"fig:\")]{} (132,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (140,2.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl.\\Biggr]$]{}]{}\n\n(160,12) (0,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A2.eps \"fig:\")]{} (8,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (24,6)[(0,0)[$p+q$]{}]{} (1,1)[(0,0)\\[t\\][$n$]{}]{} (31,1)[(0,0)\\[t\\][$m$]{}]{} (32,2.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][${}=g\\,e^a (t^a)^{mn}$]{}]{} (56,2.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl[\\Biggr.$]{}]{} (57,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A3.eps \"fig:\")]{} (65,6)[(0,0)[$p+q$]{}]{} (75,2.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (77,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A3.eps \"fig:\")]{} (85,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (93,2.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl.\\Biggr]=g\\Biggl[\\Biggr.$]{}]{} (104,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A3.eps \"fig:\")]{} (113,6)[(0,0)[$p+q e^a t^a$]{}]{} (122,2.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (124,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A3.eps \"fig:\")]{} (132,6)[(0,0)[$p$]{}]{} (140,2.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl.\\Biggr]$]{}]{}\n\n(160,18) (0,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A4.eps \"fig:\")]{} (1,6)[(0,0)[$l$]{}]{} (15,6)[(0,0)[$n$]{}]{} (11,2)[(0,0)[$m$]{}]{} (16,8.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$=g\\,e^a\\Biggl[\\Biggl(\\Biggr.\\Biggr.$]{}]{} (32,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A5.eps \"fig:\")]{} (36,13)[(0,0)\\[b\\][$+q$]{}]{} (33,6)[(0,0)[$x$]{}]{} (50,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (52,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A6.eps \"fig:\")]{} (53,6)[(0,0)[$x$]{}]{} (69,8.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl.\\Biggr)(t^a)^{xl}$]{}]{}\n\n(160,18) (0,8.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][${}+\\Biggl(\\Biggr.$]{}]{} (7,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A8.eps \"fig:\")]{} (18.5,4)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$+q$]{}]{} (14,2)[(0,0)\\[r\\][$x$]{}]{} (25,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (27,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A6.eps \"fig:\")]{} (34,2)[(0,0)\\[r\\][$x$]{}]{} (44,8.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl.\\Biggr)(t^a)^{xm} + \\Biggl(\\Biggr.$]{}]{} (63,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A7.eps \"fig:\")]{} (75,13)[(0,0)\\[b\\][$+q$]{}]{} (78,6)[(0,0)[$x$]{}]{} (81,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (83,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A6.eps \"fig:\")]{} (98,6)[(0,0)[$x$]{}]{} (100,8.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl.\\Biggr)(t^a)^{xn}\\Biggl.\\Biggr]$]{}]{}\n\n(160,18) (0,8.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][${}=g\\Biggl[\\Biggr.$]{}]{} (10,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A5.eps \"fig:\")]{} (15,13)[(0,0)\\[b\\][$+qet$]{}]{} (28,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (30,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A6.eps \"fig:\")]{} (47,8.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$+$]{}]{} (50,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A8.eps \"fig:\")]{} (61.5,4)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$+qet$]{}]{} (68,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (70,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A6.eps \"fig:\")]{} (87,8.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$+$]{}]{} (90,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A7.eps \"fig:\")]{} (101,13)[(0,0)\\[b\\][$+qet$]{}]{} (108,8.5)[(0,0)[$-$]{}]{} (110,0)[![Ward identities in the background field formalism[]{data-label=\"Fig:2\"}](A6.eps \"fig:\")]{} (127,8.5)[(0,0)\\[l\\][$\\Biggl.\\Biggr]$]{}]{}\n\nLet\u2019s denote the sum of bare vertex diagrams in HQET at $1/m^0$ as $igt^a v^\\mu \\frac{1+{v\\llap{$\\scriptstyle/$}}}{2}[1+\\Lambda(\\omega,\\Delta)]$, where $\\Delta=qv=\\omega'-\\omega$. The Ward identity for the static quark propagator is the same as for the ordinary one (Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig:2\\]). Therefore, $\\Delta e^a t^a \\Lambda(\\omega,\\Delta)=\n-\\Sigma(\\omega+\\Delta e^a t^a)+\\Sigma(\\omega)$ for infinitesimal $\\Delta$, or $$\\Lambda(\\omega,0)=-\\frac{d\\Sigma(\\omega)}{d\\omega}\\,.\n\\label{Wh}$$ It is interesting, that for an abelian external field $\\Lambda(\\omega,\\Delta)=\n-\\frac{\\Sigma(\\omega+\\Delta)-\\Sigma(\\omega)}{\\Delta}$ exactly. The total colour charge of a static quark $Z_Q[1+\\Lambda(0,0)]=1$, as expected.\n\nThe $1/m$ HQET bare proper vertex has the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&i\\frac{C_k}{2m}gt^a\\frac{1+{v\\llap{/}}}{2}\\left[(1+\\Lambda_k)(p+p')_\\bot^\\mu\n+(\\Lambda_{k0}+\\Lambda_{k1}p_\\bot^2+\\Lambda'_{k1}p_\\bot^{\\prime2}\n+\\Lambda_{k2}q_\\bot^2)v^\\mu\\right]\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&{}+i\\frac{C_m}{4m}gt^a\\frac{1+{v\\llap{/}}}{2}[\\gamma^\\mu,{q\\llap{/}}]\n\\frac{1+{v\\llap{/}}}{2}(1+\\Lambda_m)\\,,\n\\label{V1}\\end{aligned}$$ where all $\\Lambda_i$ depend on $\\omega$, $\\Delta$; $\\Lambda'_{k1}(\\omega,\\Delta)=\\Lambda_{k1}(\\omega+\\Delta,-\\Delta)$; $\\Lambda_k(\\omega,\\Delta)=\\Lambda_k(\\omega+\\Delta,-\\Delta)$, and similarly for $\\Lambda_{k0}$, $\\Lambda_{k2}$. Similarly to the previous Section, we can see that variation of the leading vertex function at $v\\to v+\\delta v$ coincides with that of the kinetic\u2013energy vertex function at $p_\\bot\\to p_\\bot+\\delta p_\\bot$, if $\\delta v=\\frac{C_k}{m}\\delta p_\\bot$. This requires $$\\Lambda_k(\\omega,\\Delta)=\\Lambda(\\omega,\\Delta)\\,, \\quad\n\\Lambda'_{k1}(\\omega,\\Delta)=\n\\frac{\\partial\\Lambda(\\omega,\\Delta)}{\\partial\\Delta}\n\\label{RIV}$$ (and hence $\\Lambda_{k1}(\\omega,\\Delta)=\n\\left(\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\omega}-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial\\Delta}\\right)\n\\Lambda(\\omega,\\Delta)$). The Ward identities of Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig:2\\] result in $$\\Lambda_{k0}(\\omega,0)=-\\frac{d\\Sigma_{k0}(\\omega)}{d\\omega}\\,, \\quad\n\\Lambda_{k2}(\\omega,0)=0\n\\label{WV}$$ (in an abelian external field, $\\Lambda_{k0}(\\omega,\\Delta)=\n-\\frac{\\Sigma_{k0}(\\omega+\\Delta)-\\Sigma_{k0}(\\omega)}{\\Delta}$, $\\Lambda_{k2}(\\omega,\\Delta)=0$).\n\nReparameterization invariance relates the spin\u2013orbit vertex function to the chromomagnetic one, but we shall not discuss details here.\n\nThe on\u2013shell HQET vertex at the tree level is $$\\overline{u}_v(k') \\left( v^\\mu + C_k \\frac{(k+k')^\\mu}{2m}\n+ C_m \\frac{[{q\\llap{/}},\\gamma^\\mu]}{4m}\n+ C_d \\frac{q^2}{8m^2}v^\\mu\n+ C_s \\frac{[{k\\llap{/}},{q\\llap{/}}]}{8m^2}v^\\mu + \\cdots \\right) u_v(k)\\,.\n\\label{HQETv}$$ As we have demonstrated above, there are no corrections to the first two terms. Other terms have corrections starting from two loops, if there is a finite\u2013mass flavour (such as $c$ in $b$\u2013quark HQET). Expressing the on\u2013shell QCD vertex via HQET spinors, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\overline{u}_v(k') \\Biggl[ {\\varepsilon}(q^2) \\left( v^\\mu + \\frac{(k+k')^\\mu}{2m}\n- \\frac{q^2+[{k\\llap{/}},{q\\llap{/}}]}{8m^2}v^\\mu + \\cdots \\right)\n\\label{FF2}\\\\\n&&\\quad{}\n+ \\mu(q^2) \\left( \\frac{[{q\\llap{/}},\\gamma^\\mu]}{4m}\n+ \\frac{q^2+[{k\\llap{/}},{q\\llap{/}}]}{4m^2}v^\\mu + \\cdots \\right) \\Biggr] u_v(k)\n\\,.\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the coefficients in the HQET lagrangian are $$C_k=1\\,, \\quad C_m=\\mu\\,, \\quad C_d=8{\\varepsilon}'+2\\mu-1\\,, \\quad C_s=2\\mu-1\\,.\n\\label{M2}$$ The first one has no corrections\u00a0(\\[Ck\\]). The coefficients\u00a0(\\[M2\\]) are not independent: $$C_s=2C_m-1\\,.\n\\label{RI2}$$ Probably, reparameterization\u2013invariance Ward identities yield relations among corrections from finite\u2013mass loops in HQET which ensure the absence of corrections to\u00a0(\\[RI2\\]). However, we shall not trace details here.\n\nSimilarly, at the $1/m^3$ level, the coefficients in the HQET lagrangian are $$C_{w1}=4\\mu'+{{\\textstyle\\frac{1}{2}}}\\mu+{{\\textstyle\\frac{1}{2}}}\\,, \\quad\nC_{w2}=4\\mu'+{{\\textstyle\\frac{1}{2}}}\\mu-{{\\textstyle\\frac{1}{2}}}\\,, \\quad\nC_{p'p}=\\mu-1\\,, \\quad\nC_M=-4{\\varepsilon}'-{{\\textstyle\\frac{1}{2}}}\\mu+{{\\textstyle\\frac{1}{2}}}\\,.\n\\label{M3}$$ They are not independent: $$C_{w2}=C_{w1}-1\\,, \\quad\nC_{p'p}=C_m-1\\,, \\quad\nC_M={{\\textstyle\\frac{1}{2}}}\\left(C_m-C_d\\right)\\,.\n\\label{RI3}$$ Calculation of $C_a$, $C_b$ requires matching amplitudes with two gluons. Calculation of contact terms requires matching amplitudes with light quarks.\n\nChromomagnetic interaction at two loops\n=======================================\n\nAs we know, the kinetic coefficient $C_k(\\mu)=1$, and the only coefficient in the HQET lagrangian up to $1/m$ level which is not known exactly is the chromomagnetic coefficient $V_m(\\mu)$. It is natural to find it from QCD/HQET matching at $\\mu\\sim m$ where no large logarithms appear. Renormalization group can be used to obtain $C_m$ at $\\mu\\ll m$: $$C_m(\\mu) = C_m(m) \\exp\\left(-\\int\\limits_{\\alpha_s(m)}^{\\alpha_s(\\mu)}\n\\frac{\\gamma_m(\\alpha)}{2\\beta(\\alpha)} \\frac{d\\alpha}{\\alpha} \\right)\\,,\n\\label{RG}$$ where $C_m(m)=1+C_1\\frac{\\alpha_s(m)}{4\\pi}\n+C_2\\left(\\frac{\\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\\right)^2+\\cdots$, $\\gamma_m=\\frac{d\\log Z_m}{d\\log\\mu}=\\gamma_1\\frac{\\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\n+\\gamma_2\\left(\\frac{\\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\\right)^2+\\cdots$ is the anomalous dimension of the chromomagnetic operator in HQET, and the $\\beta$\u2013function is $\\beta=-\\frac{1}{2}\\frac{d\\log\\alpha_s}{d\\log\\mu}=\\beta_1\\frac{\\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\n+\\beta_2\\left(\\frac{\\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\\right)^2+\\cdots$ (where $\\beta_1=\\frac{11}{3}C_A-\\frac{4}{3}T_F n_f$). If $L=\\log m/\\mu$ is not very large, it is better to retain all two\u2013loop terms and neglect higher loops: $$C_m(\\mu) = 1 + \\left(C_1 - \\gamma_1 L \\right) \\frac{\\alpha_s(m)}{4\\pi}\n+ \\left[C_2 - \\left(C_1\\gamma_1+\\gamma_2\\right) L\n+ \\gamma_1\\left(\\gamma_1-\\beta_1\\right) L^2 \\right]\n\\left(\\frac{\\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\\right)^2\\,.\n\\label{RG1}$$ This approximation holds up to relatively large $L$ because $C_2$ is numerically large. If $L$ is parametrically large, then it is better to sum leading and subleading logarithms: $$C_m(\\mu) =\n\\left(\\frac{\\alpha_s(\\mu)}{\\alpha_s(m)}\\right)^{-\\frac{\\gamma_1}{2\\beta_1}}\n\\left[ 1 + C_1 \\frac{\\alpha_s(m)}{4\\pi}\n - \\frac{\\beta_1\\gamma_2-\\beta_2\\gamma_1}{2\\beta_1^2}\n\\frac{\\alpha_s(\\mu)-\\alpha_s(m)}{4\\pi} \\right]\\,.\n\\label{RG2}$$ In this case, we cannot utilize $C_2$ without knowing $\\gamma_3$. In general, the solution of\u00a0(\\[RG\\]) can be written as $$C_m(\\mu) = \\hat{C}_m K(\\mu)\\,,\\quad\n\\hat{C}_m = \\alpha_s(m)^{\\frac{\\gamma_1}{2\\beta_1}}(1+\\delta c)\\,,\\quad\n\\delta c = c_1 \\frac{\\alpha_s(m)}{4\\pi}\n+ c_2 \\left(\\frac{\\alpha_s(m)}{4\\pi}\\right)^2+\\cdots\n\\label{RG3}$$ where $\\hat{C}_m$ is scale\u2013 and scheme\u2013independent.\n\nAs a simple application, we consider $B$\u2013$B^*$ mass splitting\u00a0[@Mannel; @BSUV][^1] $$m_{B^*}-m_B = \\frac{2C_m(\\mu)}{3m}\\mu_m^2(\\mu) + \\frac{1}{3m^2}\n\\left[ C_m(\\mu) \\rho_{km}^3(\\mu) + C_m^2(\\mu) \\rho_{mm}^3(\\mu)\n- C_s(\\mu) \\rho_s^3(\\mu) \\right]\\,,\n\\label{spl}$$ where $\\mu_m^2(\\mu)$ and $\\rho_s^3(\\mu)$ are local matrix elements of chromomagnetic interaction and spin\u2013orbit one, while $\\rho_{km}^3(\\mu)$ and $\\rho_{mm}^3(\\mu)$ are kinetic\u2013chromomagnetic and chromomagnetic\u2013chromomagnetic bilocal matrix elements (in the later case, there are two $\\gamma$\u2013matrix structures, 1 and $\\sigma_{\\mu\\nu}$; the coefficient of the second one is implied here). Introducing renormalization group invariants $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\hat{\\mu}_m^2 = K(\\mu) \\mu_m^2(\\mu)\\,,\\quad\n\\hat{\\rho}_{km}^3 =\nK(\\mu) \\rho_{km}^3(\\mu) + \\left[1-K(\\mu)\\right] \\rho_s^3(\\mu) \\,,\\quad\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\hat{\\rho}_{mm}^3 = K^2(\\mu) \\rho_{mm}^3 \\,,\\quad\n\\hat{\\rho}_s^3 = \\rho_s^3(\\mu)\\,,\n\\label{spl2}\\end{aligned}$$ we can rewrite it as $$m_{B^*}-m_B = \\frac{2\\hat{C}_m}{3m} \\hat{\\mu}_m^2\n+ \\frac{1}{3m^2} \\left[\n\\hat{C}_m \\left(\\hat{\\rho}_{km}^3-2\\hat{\\rho}_s^3\\right)\n+ \\hat{C}_m^2 \\hat{\\rho}_{mm}^3 + \\hat{\\rho}_s^3 \\right]\\,.\n\\label{spl3}$$\n\n![Diagrams for the QCD proper vertex[]{data-label=\"Fig:3\"}](F3.eps){width=\"0.975\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn order to obtain $C_m$, we should calculate the heavy\u2013quark chromomagnetic moment $\\mu$ (Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig:3\\]). All on\u2013shell massive integrals can be reduced to 3 basis ones $$I_0^2 = \\raisebox{-1cm}{\\includegraphics{I0.eps}} ,\\quad\nI_1 = \\raisebox{-0.6cm}{\\includegraphics{I1.eps}} ,\\quad\nI_2 = \\raisebox{-0.6cm}{\\includegraphics{I2.eps}}\n\\label{I012}$$ using integration by parts\u00a0[@GBGS]\u2013[@Broadhurst]. $I_0^2$ and $I_1$ are expressed via $\\Gamma$\u2013functions of $d$; $I_2$ is expressed via $I_0^2$, $I_1$, and one difficult convergent integral\u00a0[@Broadhurst] $$I=\\pi^2\\log 2-\\frac{3}{2}\\zeta(3)+O({\\varepsilon})\\,.\n\\label{I2}$$ The result has the structure $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\mu = 1 + \\frac{g_0^2 m^{-2{\\varepsilon}}}{(4\\pi)^{d/2}} (C_F,C_A) \\times I_0\n\\label{mu}\\\\\n&&\\quad{} + \\frac{g_0^4 m^{-4{\\varepsilon}}}{(4\\pi)^d}\n(C_F^2,C_F C_A,C_A^2,C_F T_F n_l,C_A T_F n_l,C_F T_F,C_A T_F)\n\\times (I_0^2,I_1,I_2)\\,.\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Now we express it via $\\alpha_s(\\mu)$ and expand in ${\\varepsilon}$. The coefficient of $1/{\\varepsilon}$ gives the anomalous dimension $$\\gamma_m = 2 C_A \\frac{\\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\n+ \\frac{4}{9} C_A \\left(17C_A-13T_F n_f\\right)\n\\left(\\frac{\\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\\right)^2\n+ \\cdots\n\\label{gam}$$ The chromomagnetic interaction coefficient at $\\mu=m$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\hspace{-6mm}\nC_m(m) = 1 + 2(C_F+C_A) \\frac{\\alpha_s(m)}{4\\pi}\n\\nonumber\\\\&&\\hspace{-6mm}\n+ \\Biggl[ C_F^2 \\left(-8I+\\frac{20}{3}\\pi^2-31\\right)\n+ C_F C_A \\left(\\frac{4}{3}I+\\frac{4}{3}\\pi^2+\\frac{269}{9}\\right)\n+ C_A^2 \\left(\\frac{4}{3}I-\\frac{17}{9}\\pi^2+\\frac{805}{27}\\right)\n\\nonumber\\\\&&\\hspace{-1mm}\n+ C_F T_F n_l \\left(-\\frac{100}{9}\\right)\n+ C_A T_F n_l \\left(-\\frac{4}{9}\\pi^2-\\frac{299}{27}\\right)\n\\label{Cm}\\\\&&\\hspace{-1mm}\n+ C_F T_F \\left(-\\frac{16}{3}\\pi^2+\\frac{476}{9}\\right)\n+ C_A T_F \\left(\\pi^2-\\frac{298}{27}\\right)\n\\Biggr] \\left(\\frac{\\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\\right)^2\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-6mm} = 1 + \\frac{13}{6} \\frac{\\alpha_s(m)}{\\pi} +\n\\left( 21.79 - 1.91 n_l \\right) \\left(\\frac{\\alpha_s}{\\pi}\\right)^2\\,.\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ The coefficient of $(\\alpha_s/\\pi)^2$ is about 11 for $n_l=4$ light flavours. It is 40% less than the expectation based on naive nonabelianization\u00a0[@BG]. The contribution of the heavy quark loop to this coefficient is merely $-0.1$.\n\nChromomagnetic interaction at higher loops\n==========================================\n\nPerturbation series for $C_m$ can be rewritten via $\\beta_1$ instead of $n_f$: $$C_m(\\mu) = 1 + \\sum_{L=1}^{\\infty} \\sum_{n=0}^{L-1} a_{Ln} \\beta_1^n \\alpha_s^L\n= 1 + \\frac{1}{\\beta_1} f(\\beta_1 \\alpha_s) + O\\left(\\frac{1}{\\beta_1^2}\\right)\n\\,.\n\\label{pert}$$ There is no sensible limit of QCD in which $\\beta_1$ may be considered a large parameter (except, may be, $n_f\\to-\\infty$). However, retaining only the leading $\\beta_1$ terms often gives a good approximation to exact multi\u2013loop results\u00a0[@BG]. This limit is believed to provide information about summability of perturbation series\u00a0[@Mueller]. At the first order in $1/\\beta_1$, multiplicative renormalization amounts to subtraction of $1/{\\varepsilon}^n$ terms; $$\\frac{\\beta_1 g_0^2}{(4\\pi)^2} = \\bar{\\mu}^{2{\\varepsilon}} \\frac{\\beta}{1+\\beta/{\\varepsilon}}\\,,\n\\quad \\beta=\\frac{\\beta_1 \\alpha_s}{4\\pi}=\\frac{1}{2\\log\\mu/{\\Lambda_{\\overline{\\mathrm{MS}}}}}\\,.\n\\label{beta}$$ The perturbation series\u00a0(\\[pert\\]) can be rewritten as $$C_m(\\mu) = 1 + \\frac{1}{\\beta_1} \\sum_{L=1}^{\\infty}\n\\frac{F({\\varepsilon},L{\\varepsilon})}{L} \\left(\\frac{\\beta}{{\\varepsilon}+\\beta}\\right)^L\n- \\mathrm{(subtractions)} + O\\left(\\frac{1}{\\beta_1^2}\\right)\\,.\n\\label{pert2}$$\n\nKnowledge of the function $F({\\varepsilon},u)$ allows one to obtain the anomalous dimension $$\\gamma_m = \\frac{2\\beta}{\\beta_1} F(-\\beta,0)\n+ O\\left(\\frac{1}{\\beta_1^2}\\right)\n\\label{rgam}$$ and the finite term $$C_m(\\mu) = 1 + \\frac{1}{\\beta_1} \\int\\limits_{-\\beta}^{0} d{\\varepsilon}\\frac{F({\\varepsilon},0)-F(0,0)}{{\\varepsilon}}\n+ \\frac{1}{\\beta_1} \\int\\limits_{0}^{\\infty} du\\, e^{-u/\\beta}\n\\frac{F(0,u)-F(0,0)}{u} + O\\left(\\frac{1}{\\beta_1^2}\\right)\n\\label{rCm}$$ (this method was used in\u00a0[@BG]; see references in this paper). Renormalization group invariant\u00a0(\\[RG3\\]) is $$\\delta c = \\frac{1}{\\beta_1} \\int_0^\\infty du\\,\ne^{-\\frac{4\\pi}{\\beta_1\\alpha_s}u}S(u)\n+ O\\left(\\frac{1}{\\beta_1^2}\\right)\\,,\\quad\nS(u) = e^{-\\frac{5}{3}u} \\left. \\frac{F(0,u)-F(0,0)}{u} \\right|_{\\mu=m}\n\\label{rCm2}$$ (here $\\alpha_s$ is taken at $\\mu=m$ in the $V$\u2013scheme, $\\exp\\bigl(-\\frac{4\\pi}{\\beta_1\\alpha_s}u\\bigr)\n=\\bigl(\\frac{\\Lambda_V}{m}\\bigr)^{-2u}$).\n\n![$L$\u2013loop diagrams with the maximum number of quark loops.[]{data-label=\"Fig:4\"}](F4.eps){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe function $F({\\varepsilon},u)$ is determined by the coefficient of the highest degree of $n_f$ in the $L$\u2013loop term, which is given by the diagrams in Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig:4\\]. Calculating them, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\hspace{-6mm}\nF({\\varepsilon},u) = \\left(\\frac{\\mu}{m}\\right)^{2u}\ne^{\\gamma{\\varepsilon}} \\frac{\\Gamma(1+u)\\Gamma(1-2u)}{\\Gamma(3-u-{\\varepsilon})}\nD({\\varepsilon})^{u/{\\varepsilon}-1} N({\\varepsilon},u)\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-6mm}\nD({\\varepsilon}) = 6 e^{\\gamma{\\varepsilon}} \\Gamma(1+{\\varepsilon}) B(2-{\\varepsilon},2-{\\varepsilon}) =\n1 + {\\textstyle\\frac{5}{3}} {\\varepsilon}+ \\cdots\n\\label{Feu}\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-6mm}\nN({\\varepsilon},u) = C_F 4u(1+u-2{\\varepsilon}u)\n+ C_A \\frac{2-u-{\\varepsilon}}{2(1-{\\varepsilon})} (2+3u-5{\\varepsilon}-6{\\varepsilon}u+2{\\varepsilon}^2+4{\\varepsilon}^2 u)\\,.\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ This gives the anomalous dimension $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\hspace{-6mm}\n\\gamma_m = C_A \\frac{\\alpha_s}{2\\pi}\n\\frac{\\beta(1+2\\beta)\\Gamma(5+2\\beta)}\n{24(1+\\beta)\\Gamma^3(2+\\beta)\\Gamma(1-\\beta)}\n\\label{rgam2}\\\\\n&&\\hspace{-4mm}\\quad{}\n= C_A \\frac{\\alpha_s}{2\\pi} \\left[1\n+ \\frac{13}{6} \\frac{\\beta_1 \\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\n- \\frac{1}{2} \\left(\\frac{\\beta_1 \\alpha_s}{4\\pi}\\right)^2\n+ \\cdots \\right]\\,.\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ This perturbation series is convergent with the radius $\\beta_1|\\alpha_s|<4\\pi$. The Borel image of $\\delta c$ $$S(u) = \\frac{\\Gamma(u)\\Gamma(1-2u)}{\\Gamma(3-u)} \\left[ 4u(1+u)C_F\n+ {{\\textstyle\\frac{1}{2}}}(2-u)(2+3u)C_A \\right] - e^{-\\frac{5}{3}u}\\frac{C_A}{u}\n\\label{Su}$$ has infrared renormalon poles at $u=\\frac{n}{2}$. They produce ambiguities in the sum of the perturbation series for $\\delta c$, which are of order of the residues ${}\\sim(\\Lambda_V/m)^n$. The leading ambiguity ($u=\\frac{1}{2}$) is $$\\Delta \\hat{C}_m =\n\\left(1+\\frac{7}{8}\\frac{C_A}{C_F}\\right)\\frac{\\Delta m}{m}\\,,\n\\label{dCm}$$ where $\\Delta m$ is the ambiguity of the heavy\u2013quark pole mass\u00a0[@BB; @BSUV2].\n\nPhysical quantities, such as the mass splitting\u00a0(\\[spl\\]), are factorized into short\u2013distance coefficients and long\u2013distance hadronic matrix elements. In regularization schemes without a hard momentum cut\u2013off, such as $\\overline{\\mathrm{MS}}$, Wilson coefficients also contain large\u2013distance contributions which produce infrared renormalon ambiguities. Likewise, hadronic matrix elements contain small\u2013distance contributions which produce ultraviolet renormalon ambiguities. In other words, the separation into short\u2013 and long\u2013distance contributions is ambiguous; only when they are combined to form a physical quantity, an unambiguous result is obtained. Cancellations between infrared and ultraviolet renormalon ambiguities in HQET were traced in\u00a0[@NS].\n\n![Diagrams for $\\rho_i^3$; quark loops are inserted in all possible ways.[]{data-label=\"Fig:5\"}](diag.ps){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nUltraviolet renormalon ambiguities in matrix elements $\\rho_i^3$ don\u2019t depend on external states, and may be calculated at the level of quarks and gluons (Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig:5\\]). Note that there is an ultraviolet renormalon ambiguity in the wave function renormalization $\\Delta Z_Q=\\frac{3}{2}\\frac{\\Delta m}{m}$ (Fig.\u00a0\\[Fig:5\\]d). The result is $$\\Delta\\rho_{km}^3=-\\frac{2}{3}\\frac{C_A}{C_F}\\mu_m^2\\Delta m\\,,\\quad\n\\Delta\\rho_{mm}^3=-\\frac{19}{12}\\frac{C_A}{C_F}\\mu_m^2\\Delta m\\,,\\quad\n\\Delta\\rho_s^3=-\\frac{1}{2}\\frac{C_A}{C_F}\\mu_m^2\\Delta m\\,.$$ The sum of ultraviolet ambiguities of the $1/m^2$ contributions to\u00a0(\\[spl\\]) cancels the infrared ambiguity of the leading term.\n\nThe requirement of cancellation of renormalon ambiguities in the mass splitting\u00a0(\\[spl2\\]) for all $m$ allows us to establish the structure of the leading infrared renormalon singularity in $S(u)$ at $u=\\frac{1}{2}$ beyond the large $\\beta_1$ limit. The ultraviolet ambiguity of the square bracket in\u00a0(\\[spl2\\]) should be equal to $\\hat{\\mu}_m^2$ times $$\\Lambda_V=m\\,e^{-\\frac{2\\pi}{\\beta_1\\alpha_s}}\n\\alpha_s^{-\\frac{\\beta_2}{2\\beta_1^2}}[1+O(\\alpha_s)]\\,.\n\\label{Lam}$$ In order to reproduce the correct fractional powers of $\\alpha_s$, $S(u)$ in\u00a0(\\[rCm2\\]) should have the branch point at $u=\\frac{1}{2}$ instead of a pole: $$S(u)=\\frac{1}{\\left(\\frac{1}{2}-u\\right)^{1+\\beta_2/2\\beta_1^2}}\n\\left[ 2 C_F K_1 - \\frac{1}{3} C_A K_2\n+ \\frac{19}{12} \\frac{C_A K_3}{\\left(\\frac{1}{2}-u\\right)^{-\\gamma_1/2\\beta_1}}\n+ \\frac{1}{2} \\frac{C_A K_4}{\\left(\\frac{1}{2}-u\\right)^{\\gamma_1/2\\beta_1}}\n\\right]\\,,$$ where omitted terms are suppressed as $\\frac{1}{2}-u$ compared to the displayed ones. Normalization constants are known in the large $\\beta_1$ limit only: $K_i=1+O(1/\\beta_1)$. The large\u2013order behaviour of the perturbation series for $\\delta c$ is $$c_{n+1} = n!\\,(2\\beta_1)^n\\,n^{\\beta_2/2\\beta_1^2}\\,\n\\left[ 4 C_F K_1 - {{\\textstyle\\frac{2}{3}}} C_A K_2 \n+ {{\\textstyle\\frac{19}{6}}} C_A K_3 n^{-\\gamma_1/2\\beta_1}\n+ C_A K_4 n^{\\gamma_1/2\\beta_1} \\right]\\,,$$ where omitted terms are suppressed as $1/n$ compared to the displayed ones.\n\n**Acknowledgements**. I am grateful to A.\u00a0Czarnecki and M.\u00a0Neubert for collaboration in writing\u00a0[@CG; @GN]; to S.\u00a0Groote for ongoing collaboration; to C.\u00a0Balzereit for discussing\u00a0[@Balzereit; @Balzereit2]; to T.\u00a0Mannel for useful discussions; to J.\u00a0G.\u00a0K\u00f6rner for hospitality at Mainz during preparation of this talk; and to M.\u00a0Beyer for organization of the workshop.\n\n[99]{}\n\nM.\u00a0Neubert, [Phys.\u00a0Reports **245** (1994) 259]{}.\n\nE.\u00a0Eichten and B.\u00a0Hill, [Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0**B234** (1990) 511]{}.\n\nE.\u00a0Eichten and B.\u00a0Hill, [Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0**B243** (1990) 427]{}.\n\nA.\u00a0F.\u00a0Falk, B.\u00a0Grinstein, and M.\u00a0E.\u00a0Luke, [Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**B357** (1991) 185]{}\n\nC.\u00a0L.\u00a0Y.\u00a0Lee, Preprint CALT\u201368\u20131663 (1991); revised (1997).\n\nA.\u00a0V.\u00a0Manohar, [Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D56** (1997) 230]{}.\n\nM.\u00a0Luke and A.\u00a0V.\u00a0Manohar, [Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0**B286** (1992) 348]{}.\n\nY.\u2013Q.\u00a0Chen, [Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0**B317** (1993) 421]{}.\n\nW.\u00a0Kilian and T.\u00a0Ohl, [Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D50** (1994) 4649]{}.\n\nC.\u00a0Balzereit, Diploma thesis, Darmstadt (1994).\n\nM.\u00a0Finkemeier, H.\u00a0Georgi, and M.\u00a0McIrvin, [Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D55** (1997) 6933]{}.\n\nR.\u00a0Sundrum, Preprint BUHEP\u201397\u201314, hep-ph/9704256 (1997); Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D57**, in print.\n\nC.\u00a0L.\u00a0Y.\u00a0Lee, Preprint UCSD\u2013TH\u201397\u201324, hep-ph/9709238 (1997).\n\nJ.\u00a0G.\u00a0K\u00f6rner and G.\u00a0Thompson, [Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0**B264** (1991) 185]{}.\n\nS.\u00a0Balk, J.\u00a0G.\u00a0K\u00f6rner, and D.\u00a0Pirjol, [Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**B428** (1994) 499]{}.\n\nT.\u00a0Mannel, W.\u00a0Roberts, and Z.\u00a0Ryzak, [Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**B368** (19204) 92]{}.\n\nC.\u00a0L.\u00a0Y.\u00a0Lee, Preprint UCSD\u2013TH\u201397\u201323, hep-ph/9709237 (1997).\n\nG.\u00a0Amor\u00f3s, M.\u00a0Beneke, and M.\u00a0Neubert, [Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0**B401** (1997) 81]{}.\n\nA.\u00a0Czarnecki and A.\u00a0G.\u00a0Grozin, [Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0**B405** (1997) 142]{}.\n\nA.\u00a0G.\u00a0Grozin and M.\u00a0Neubert, Preprint CERN\u2013TH/97\u2013102, hep-ph/9707318 (1997); Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**B**, in print.\n\nY.\u2013Q.\u00a0Chen, Y.\u00a0P.\u00a0Kuang, and R.\u00a0Oakes, [Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D52** (1995) 264]{}.\n\nC.\u00a0Balzereit and T.\u00a0Ohl, [Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0**B386** (1996) 335]{}.\n\nM.\u00a0Finkemeier and M.\u00a0McIrvin, [Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D55** (1997) 377]{}.\n\nB.\u00a0Blok, J.\u00a0G.\u00a0K\u00f6rner, D.\u00a0Pirjol, and J.\u00a0C.\u00a0Rojas, [Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**B496** (1997) 358]{}.\n\nC.Bauer and A.\u00a0V.\u00a0Manohar, Preprint UCSD/PTH 97\u201319, UTP\u201397\u201317, hep-ph/9708306 (1997); Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D57**, in print.\n\nC.\u00a0Balzereit, These Proceedings.\n\nL.\u00a0F.\u00a0Abbott, Acta Phys.\u00a0Polonica **13** (1982) 33.\n\nT.\u00a0Mannel, [Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D50** (1994) 428]{}.\n\nI.\u00a0I.\u00a0Bigi, M.\u00a0A.\u00a0Shifman, N.\u00a0G.\u00a0Uraltsev, and A.\u00a0I.\u00a0Vainshtein, [Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D52** (1995) 196]{}.\n\nN.\u00a0Gray, D.\u00a0J.\u00a0Broadhurst, W.\u00a0Grafe, and K.\u00a0Schilcher, [Zeit.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**C48** (1990) 673]{}.\n\nD.\u00a0J.\u00a0Broadhurst, N.\u00a0Gray, and K.\u00a0Schilcher, [Zeit.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**C52** (1991) 111]{}.\n\nD.\u00a0J.\u00a0Broadhurst, [Zeit.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**C54** (1992) 599]{}.\n\nD.\u00a0J.\u00a0Broadhurst and A.\u00a0G.\u00a0Grozin, [Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D52** (1995) 4082]{}.\n\nA.\u00a0H.\u00a0Mueller, QCD 20 years later, ed.\u00a0P.\u00a0M.\u00a0Zerwas and H.\u00a0A.\u00a0Kastrup, World Scientific (1993), p.\u00a0162.\n\nM.\u00a0Beneke and V.\u00a0M.\u00a0Braun, [Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**B426** (1994) 301]{}.\n\nI.\u00a0I.\u00a0Bigi, M.\u00a0A.\u00a0Shifman, N.\u00a0G.\u00a0Uraltsev, and A.\u00a0I.\u00a0Vainshtein, [Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0**D50** (1994) 2234]{}.\n\nM.\u00a0Neubert and C.\u00a0T.\u00a0Sachrajda, [Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0**B438** (1995) 235]{}.\n\n[^1]: in\u00a0[@Mannel], $\\rho_{mm}^3$ is missing; in\u00a0[@BSUV], the leading logarithmic running of $C_m(\\mu)$ has a wrong sign.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Intensity mapping is a promising technique for surveying the large scale structure of our Universe from $z=0$ to $z \\sim 150$, using the brightness temperature field of spectral lines to directly observe previously unexplored portions of out cosmic timeline. Examples of targeted lines include the $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ hyperfine transition of neutral hydrogen, rotational lines of carbon monoxide, and fine structure lines of singly ionized carbon. Recent efforts have focused on detections of the power spectrum of spatial fluctuations, but have been hindered by systematics such as foreground contamination. This has motivated the decomposition of data into Fourier modes perpendicular and parallel to the line-of-sight, which has been shown to be a particularly powerful way to diagnose systematics. However, such a method is well-defined only in the limit of a narrow-field, flat-sky approximation. This limits the sensitivity of intensity mapping experiments, as it means that wide surveys must be separately analyzed as a patchwork of smaller fields. In this paper, we develop a framework for analyzing intensity mapping data in a spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, which incorporates curved sky effects without difficulty. We use our framework to generalize a number of techniques in intensity mapping data analysis from the flat sky to the curved sky. These include visibility-based estimators for the power spectrum, treatments of interloper lines, and the \u201cforeground wedge\" signature of spectrally smooth foregrounds.'\nauthor:\n- 'Adrian Liu$^{\\dagger}$, Yunfan Zhang, Aaron R. Parsons'\nbibliography:\n- 'biblio.bib'\ntitle: Spherical Harmonic Analyses of Intensity Mapping Power Spectra\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:Intro}\n============\n\n[[^1]]{} In recent years, intensity mapping has been hailed as a promising method for conducting cosmological surveys of unprecedented volume. In an intensity mapping survey, the brightness temperature of an optically thin spectral line is mapped over a three-dimensional volume, with radial distance information provided by the observed frequency (and thus redshift) of the line. By observing brightness temperature fluctuations on cosmologically relevant scales (without resolving individual sources responsible for the emission or absorption), intensity mapping provides a relatively cheap way to survey our Universe. In addition, with an appropriate choice of spectral line and a suitably designed instrument, the volume accessible to an intensity mapping survey is enormous. This allows measurements to be made over a large number of independent cosmological modes, providing highly precise constraints on both astrophysical and cosmological models. For example, intensity mapping experiments tracing the $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ hyperfine transition of hydrogen can easily access $\\sim 10^9$ independent modes, which is much greater than the $\\sim 10^6$ accessible to the Cosmic Microwave Background, in principle unlocking a far greater portion of the available information in our observable Universe [@loeb_and_zaldarriaga2004; @mao_et_al2008; @tegmark_and_zaldarriaga2009; @ma_and_scott2016; @scott_et_al2016].\n\nA large number of intensity mapping experiments are in operation, and more have been proposed. Post-reionization neutral hydrogen $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping is being conducted by the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment [@bandura_et_al2014], the Green Bank Telescope [@masui_et_al2013], Tianlai telescope [@chen_et_al2012], Baryon Acoustic Oscillations from Integrated Neutral Gas Observations project [@battye_et_al2013], Hydrogen Intensity and Real-time Analysis eXperiment [@newburgh_et_al2016], and BAORadio [@ansari_et_al2012]. These experiments use neutral hydrogen as a tracer of the large scale density field, with a primary scientific goal of constraining dark energy via measurements of the baryon acoustic oscillation feature from $0 < z < 4$ [@wyithe_et_al2008; @chang_et_al2008; @pober_et_al2013a]. At $z \\sim 2$ to $3.5$, data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey have been used for Ly $\\alpha$ intensity mapping [@croft_et_al2016]. Other experiments such as the CO Power Spectrum Survey [@keating_et_al2015; @keating_et_al2016] and the CO Mapping Array Pathfinder [@li_et_al2016] use CO as a tracer of molecular gas in the epoch of galaxy formation at roughly $z \\sim 2$ to $3$. Using \\[CII\\] instead is the Spectroscopic Terahertz Airborne Receiver for Far-InfraRed Exploration (operating at $0.5 < z < 1.5$; @uzgil_et_al2014), and the Tomographic Ionized carbon Mapping Experiment (operating at $5 < z < 9$; @crites_et_al2014). The highest redshift bins of the latter encroach upon the Epoch of Reionization (EoR), when the first galaxies systematically reionized the hydrogen content of the intergalactic medium. Extending into the EoR, intensity mapping efforts are mainly focused around the $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ line. The Donald C. Backer Precision Array for Probing the Epoch of Reionzation array (PAPER; @parsons_et_al2010), the Low Frequency Array [@van_haarlem_et_al2013], the Murchison Widefield Array [@bowman_et_al2012; @tingay_et_al2013], the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope [@paciga_et_al2013], the Long Wavelength Array (M. W. Eastwood et al., in prep.), 21 Centimeter Array [@huang_et_al2016; @zheng_et_al2016], and the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array [@deboer_et_al2016] are radio interferometers that aim to use the $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ line to probe the density, ionization state, and temperature of hydrogen in the range $6 < z < 13$ and beyond. The future Square Kilometre Array [@mellema_et_al2015] will provide yet more collecting area for $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping to complement the aforementioned experiments. With such a large suite of instruments covering an expansive range in redshift, tremendous opportunities exist for understanding the formation of the first stars and galaxies via direct measurements of the IGM during all the relevant epochs [@hogan_and_rees1979; @scott_and_rees1990; @madau_et_al1997; @tozzi_et_al2000], as well as fundamental cosmological parameters [@mcquinn_et_al2006; @mao_et_al2008; @visbal_et_al2009; @clesse_et_al2012; @liu_et_al2016] and exotic phenomena such as dark matter annihilations [@valdes_et_al2013; @evoli_et_al2014].\n\nDespite its promise, intensity mapping is challenging, and to date the only positive detections have been tentative detections of Ly $\\alpha$ at $z \\sim 2$ to $3.5$ [@croft_et_al2016] and CO from $z\\sim 2.3$ to $3.3$ [@keating_et_al2016], as well as detections of HI at $z\\sim 0.8$ via cross-correlation with optical galaxies [@chang_et_al2010; @masui_et_al2013]. To realize the full potential of intensity mapping, it is necessary to overcome a large number of systematics. A prime example would be radiation from foreground astrophysical sources, which are particularly troublesome for HI intensity mapping. Especially at high redshifts, foregrounds add contaminant emission to the measurement that are orders of magnitude brighter than the cosmological signal [@dimatteo_et_al2002; @santos_et_al2005; @wang_et_al2006; @deOliveiraCosta_et_al2008; @sims_et_al2016]. Low frequency measurements (for instance, those targeting the $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ EoR signal), are mainly contaminated by broadband foregrounds such as Galactic synchrotron emission or extragalactic point sources (whether they are bright and resolved or are part of a dim and unresolved continuum). These foregrounds are typically less dominant at the higher frequencies and are thus easier (though still challening) to handle for CO or \\[CII\\] intensity mapping experiments. However, such experiments must also contend with the problem of interloper lines, where two spectral lines of different rest wavelengths may redshift into the same observation band, leading to confusion as to which spectral line has been observed.\n\nIn addition to astrophysical foregrounds, instrumental systematics must be well-controlled for a successful measurement of the cosmological signal. Among others, these systematics include beam-forming errors [@neben_et_al2016b], radio frequency interference [@offringa_et_al2013; @offringa_et_al2015; @huang_et_al2016], polarization leakage [@geil_et_al2011; @moore_et_al2013; @shaw_et_al2014b; @sutinjo_et_al2015; @asad_et_al2015; @moore_et_al2015; @kohn_et_al2016], calibration errors [@newburgh_et_al2014; @trott_and_wayth2016; @barry_et_al2016; @patil_et_al2016], and instrumental reflections [@neben_et_al2016a; @ewall-wice_et_al2016a; @thyagarajan_et_al2016].\n\nIn this paper, we focus specifically on measurements of the power spectrum $P(k)$ of spatial fluctuations in brightness temperature, where roughly speaking, the temperature field is Fourier transformed and then squared. In diagnosing the aforementioned systematics as they pertain to spatial fluctuation experiments, it is helpful to decompose the fluctuations into modes that separate purely angular fluctuations from purely radial fluctuations from those that are a mixture of both. In recent years, for example, simulations and measured upper limits of the $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ power spectrum have often been expressed as cylindrically binned power spectra. To form cylindrically binned power spectra, one begins with unbinned power spectra $P(\\mathbf{k})$, where $\\mathbf{k}$ is the three-dimensional wavevector of spatial Fourier modes. If the field of view is narrow, there exists a particular direction that can be identified as the line-of-sight (or radial) direction. One of the three components of $\\mathbf{k}$ can then be chosen to lie along this direction and labeled $k_\\parallel$ as a reminder that it is *parallel* to the line-of-sight. The remaining two components\u2014which we arbitrarily designate $k_x$ and $k_y$ in this paper\u2014describe transverse (i.e., angular fluctuations), and have a magnitude $k_\\perp \\equiv \\sqrt{k_x^2 + k_y^2}$. Binning $P(\\mathbf{k})$ along contours of constant $k_\\perp$ gives $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$, the cylindrically binned power spectrum.\n\nExpressing the power spectrum as a function of $k_\\perp$ and $k_\\parallel$ is a powerful diagnostic exercise because intensity mapping surveys probe line-of-sight fluctuations in a fundamentally different way than the way they probe angular fluctuations. Systematics are therefore usually anisotropic and have distinct signatures on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane [@morales_and_hewitt2004]. For example, cable reflections and bandpass calibration errors tend to appear as features parallel to the $k_\\parallel$ axis [@dillon_et_al2015; @ewall-wice_et_al2016b; @jacobs_et_al2016]. Thus, the cylindrically binned power spectrum is a useful intermediate quantity to compute before one performs a final binning along constant $k \\equiv \\sqrt{k_\\perp^2 + k_\\parallel^2}$ to give an isotropic power spectrum $P(k)$.\n\nThe diagnostic capability of $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ is particularly apparent when considering foregrounds. Assuming that they are spectrally smooth, foregrounds preferentially contaminate low $k_\\parallel$ modes, since $k_\\parallel$ is the Fourier conjugate to line-of-sight distance, which is probed by the frequency spectrum in intensity mapping experiments. The situation is more complicated for the (large) subset of intensity mapping measurements that are performed on interferometers. Interferometers are inherently chromatic in nature, causing intrinsically smooth spectrum foregrounds to acquire spectral structure, which results in leakage to higher $k_\\parallel$ modes. Even this leakage, however, has been shown in recent years to have a predictable \u201cwedge\" signature on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane, limiting the contaminated region to a triangular-shaped region at high $k_\\perp$ and low $k_\\parallel$ [@Datta2010; @Vedantham2012; @Morales2012; @Parsons_et_al2012b; @Trott2012; @Thyagarajan2013; @pober_et_al2013b; @dillon_et_al2014; @Hazelton2013; @Thyagarajan_et_al2015a; @Thyagarajan_et_al2015b; @liu_et_al2014a; @liu_et_al2014b; @chapman_et_al2016; @pober_et_al2016; @seo_and_hirata2016; @jensen_et_al2016; @kohn_et_al2016]. In fact, the foreground wedge is considered sufficiently robust that some instruments have been designed around it [@pober_et_al2014; @deboer_et_al2016; @dillon_et_al2016; @neben_et_al2016a; @ewall-wice_et_al2016a; @thyagarajan_et_al2016], implicitly pursuing a strategy of foreground avoidance where the power spectrum can be measured in relatively uncontaminated Fourier modes outside the wedge. This mitigates the need for extremely detailed models of the foregrounds, providing a conservative path towards early detections of the power spectrum.\n\nDespite its utility, the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ power spectrum is limited in that it is ultimately a quantity that is only well-defined in the flat-sky, narrow field-of-view limit, where a single line-of-sight direction can be unambiguously defined. For surveys with wide fields of view, different portions of the survey have different lines of sight that point in different directions with respect to a cosmological reference frame. Note that this is a separate problem from that of wide-field imaging: even if one\u2019s imaging software does not make any flat-sky approximations (so that the resulting images of emission within the survey volume are undistorted by any wide-field effects), the act of forming a power spectrum on a $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ invokes a narrow-field approximation. If one insists on forming $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ as a diagnostic, the simplest way to do so is to split up the survey into multiple small patches that are individually small enough to warrant a narrow-field assumption. A separate power spectrum can then be formed from each patch by squaring the Fourier mode amplitudes, and the resulting collection of power spectra can then be averaged together. While correct, such a \u201csquare-then-average\" procedure results in lower signal-to-noise than a hypothetical \u201caverage-then-square\" procedure whereby a single power spectrum is formed out of the entire survey. The latter allows the spatial modes of a survey to be averaged together coherently, which allows instrumental noise to be averaged down very quickly. Roughly speaking, if $N$ patches of sky are averaged in a coherent fashion to constrain a particular spatial mode, the noise on the measured mode amplitude averages down as $1/\\sqrt{N}$. Squaring this amplitude to form a power spectrum then results in a quicker $1/N$ scaling of noise. In contrast, a \u201csquare-then-average\" method combines $N$ independent pieces of information after squaring, and thus the power spectrum noise scales more slowly[^2] as $1/\\sqrt{N}$. The result is a less sensitive statistic, whether for the diagnosis of systematics or for a cosmological measurement. To be fair, one could recover the lost sensitivity by also computing all cross-correlations between a series of small overlapping patches. However, the necessary geometric adjustments for such high precision mosaicking will likely be computationally wasteful, and it quickly becomes preferable to adopt an approach that incorporates the curved sky from the beginning.\n\nIn this paper, we rectify the shortcomings of the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane by introducing an alternative that is well-defined in the wide-field limit. Rather than expanding sky emission in a basis of rectilinear Fourier modes, we propose a spherical Fourier-Bessel basis. In this basis, the sky brightness temperature $T(\\mathbf{r})$ of a survey (where $\\mathbf{r}$ is the comoving position) is expressed in terms of $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$, defined as[^3] $$\\label{eq:TellmEverything}\n\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) \\equiv \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \\int \\! d\\Omega dr\\, r^2 j_\\ell (kr) Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) T(\\mathbf{r}),$$ where $k$ is the *total* wavenumber, $\\ell$ and $m$ are the spherical harmonic indices, $Y_{\\ell m}$ denotes the corresponding spherical harmonic, $r \\equiv | \\mathbf{r}|$ is the radial distance, $\\mathbf{\\hat{r}} \\equiv \\mathbf{r} / r$ is the angular direction unit vector[^4], and $j_\\ell$ is the $\\ell$th order spherical Bessel function of the first kind. The quantity $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ is replaced by the analogous quantity $S_\\ell (k)$, the spherical harmonic power spectrum, which roughly takes the form $$\\label{eq:Sellkrough}\nS_\\ell (k) \\propto \\frac{1}{2 \\ell + 1} \\sum_{m = -\\ell}^\\ell |\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)|^2,$$ where the sum over $m$ is analogous to the binning of $k_x$ and $k_y$ into $k_\\perp$, and a more rigorous definition (with constants of proportionality) will be defined in Section \\[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\\]. Instead of the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane, power spectrum measurements are now expressed on an $\\ell$-$k$ plane. Now, we will show in Section \\[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\\] that in the limit of a translationally invariant cosmological field, $S_\\ell (k)$ reduces to $P(k)$. Therefore, just as $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ can be averaged along contours of constant $k$ to form $P(k)$ once systematic effects are under control, the same can be done for $S_\\ell (k)$ to form $P(k)$ by averaging over all values of $\\ell$ for a particular $k$.\n\nSpherical Fourier-Bessel methods have been explored in the past within the galaxy survey literature [@binney_quinn1991; @lahav_et_al1994; @fisher_et_al1994; @fisher_et_al1995; @heavens_taylor1995; @zaroubi_et_al1995; @castro_et_al2005; @leistedt_et_al2012; @rassat_refregier2012; @shapiro_et_al2012; @pratten_munshi2013; @yoo_desjacques2013]. In this paper, we build upon these methods and present a framework for implementing them in an analysis of intensity mapping data. We emphasize the way in which intensity mapping surveys have unique geometric properties, and how these properties affect spherical Fourier-Bessel methods. For instance, we pay special attention to the fact that particularly for the highest redshift observations, intensity mapping experiments probe survey volumes that are radially compressed but angularly expansive (as illustrated in Figure \\[fig:surveyGeom\\]). In harmonic space, this expectation is reversed, and there is excellent spatial resolution along the line-of-sight (since high spectral resolution is relatively easy to achieve), but poor angular resolution. In addition to addressing these geometric peculiarities, we also show how interferometric data can be analyzed with spherical Fourier-Bessel methods. Importantly, we find that the foregrounds again appear as a wedge in interferometric measurements of $S_\\ell (k)$, which suggests that the $\\ell$-$k$ plane is at least as powerful a diagnostic tool as the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane, particularly given the signal-to-noise advantages discussed above.[^5]\n\nThe rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section \\[sec:Notation\\] we establish notational conventions for this paper. Section \\[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\\] introduces spherical Fourier-Bessel methods for power spectrum estimation, with the complication of finite surveys (in both the angular and spectral directions) the subject of Section \\[sec:FiniteVolume\\]. In Section \\[sec:Foregrounds\\] we compute the signature of smooth spectrum foregrounds on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane. Interloper lines are explored in Section \\[sec:Interlopers\\]. A framework for interferometric power spectrum estimation using spherical Fourier-Bessel methods (which includes a derivation of the foreground wedge) is presented in Section \\[sec:Interferometry\\]. To build intuition, we develop a parallel series of flat-sky, narrow field-of-view expressions in a series of Appendices. Our conclusions are summarized in Section \\[sec:Conclusions\\]. Because of the large number of mathematical quantities defined in this paper, we provide a glossary of important symbols for the reader\u2019s convenience in Table \\[tab:Definitions\\].\n\n  Quantity                                          Meaning/Definition                                                                                                  Context\n  ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------\n  $\\mathbf{r}$                                      Comoving position                                                                                                   Section \\[sec:Intro\\]\n  $\\mathbf{\\hat{r}}$                                Angular direction unit vector                                                                                       Section \\[sec:Intro\\]\n  $\\mathbf{r}_\\perp$                                Comoving transverse distance                                                                                        Eq.\n  $r(\\nu)$ or $r_\\nu$                               Comoving radial distance                                                                                            Eq.\n  $s(r)$                                            Incorrect radial distance assumed for true radial distance $r$ due to interloper lines                              Eq.\n  $\\nu(r)$ or $\\nu_r$                               Observed frequency of radio emission                                                                                Section \\[sec:Notation\\]\n  $\\alpha$                                          Linearized conversion factor between frequency and radial comoving distance                                         Eq.\n  $ \\boldsymbol \\theta$                             Sky image angle                                                                                                     Eq.\n  $\\mathbf{k}$                                      Wavevector of rectilinear spatial Fourier modes                                                                     Section \\[sec:Intro\\]\n  $k_\\perp$                                         Magnitude of wavevector components perpendicular to line of sight                                                   Section \\[sec:Intro\\]\n  $k_\\parallel$                                     Magnitude of wavevector components parallel to line of sight                                                        Section \\[sec:Intro\\]\n  $k$                                               Total wavenumber/wavevector magnitude of rectilinear spatial Fourier modes                                          Section \\[sec:Intro\\]\n  $\\phi(\\mathbf{r})$                                Survey volume selection function                                                                                    Section \\[sec:FiniteVolume\\]\n  $\\phi(r)$                                         Radial survey profile or survey volume selection function assuming full-sky covarage                                Section \\[sec:FiniteVolume\\]\n  $\\Phi(r)$                                         Radial survey profile centered on radial midpoint of survey                                                         Section \\[sec:MostlyRadialNoInterferometry\\]\n  $T(\\mathbf{r})$ or $T({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)$   Sky temperature in configuration space                                                                              Eq.\n  $ \\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$                      Sky temperature in spherical Fourier-Bessel space                                                                   Eq.\n  $ \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k)$        Estimated sky temperature in spherical Fourier-Bessel space for finite-volume surveys                               Eq.\n  $\\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k})$                      Sky temperature in rectilinear Fourier space                                                                        Eq.\n  $\\kappa (\\nu)$                                    Frequency spectrum of foreground contaminants                                                                       Eq.\n  $q_\\ell (k)$                                      Frequency spectrum of foreground contaminants in radial spherical Bessel basis                                      Eq.\n  $a_{\\ell m} (\\nu)$                                Sky temperature in frequency/spherical harmonic space                                                               Eq.\n  $Y_{\\ell m} $                                     Spherical harmonic function                                                                                         Section \\[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\\]\n  $\\psi_{\\ell m} (k; {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)$      Spherical Fourier-Bessel basis function in configuration space                                                      Eq.\n  $j_\\ell (kr) $                                    $\\ell$th order spherical Bessel function of the first kind                                                          Section \\[sec:SphericalPspecFormalism\\]\n  $C_\\ell$                                          Angular power spectrum                                                                                              Section \\[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\\]\n  $P(\\mathbf{k})$                                   Brightness temperature power spectrum                                                                               Section \\[sec:Intro\\]\n  $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$                         Brightness temperature power spectrum, assuming cylindrical symmetry                                                Section \\[sec:Intro\\]\n  $P(k)$                                            Brightness temperature power spectrum, assuming isotropy                                                            Eq.\n  $S_\\ell (k) $                                     Spherical harmonic power spectrum                                                                                   Eq.\n  $ \\mathbf{b}$                                     Interferometer baseline vector                                                                                      Section \\[sec:Interferometry\\]\n  $\\tau$                                            Interferometric time delay                                                                                          Eq.\n  $V(\\mathbf{b}, \\nu)$                              Interferometric visibility                                                                                          Eq.\n  $\\widetilde{V}(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)$                 Interferometric visibility in delay space                                                                           Eq.\n  $A({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)$                      Primary beam of receiving elements of interferometer                                                                Eq.\n  $B({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)$                      Rescaled primary beam                                                                                               Eq.\n  $\\overline{B^2}(\\theta) $                         Squared primary beam profile, averaged azimuthally about a baseline vector                                          Eq.\n  $\\gamma (\\nu)$                                    Delay transform tapering function                                                                                   Eq.\n  $f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu)$                    Response of baseline $\\mathbf{b}$ at frequency $\\nu$ to unit perturbation of spherical harmonic mode $Y_{\\ell m}$   Eq.\n  $g_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)$                   Response of baseline $\\mathbf{b}$ at delay $\\tau$ to unit perturbation of spherical harmonic mode $Y_{\\ell m}$      Eq.\n  $W_\\ell (k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau)$                    Spherical harmonic power spectrum window function for a single baseline delay-based                                 Eq.\n                                                    power spectrum estimate                                                                                             \n  $\\Theta(\\nu)$                                     Re-centered frequency profile of the foregrounds as seen in the data, with finite bandwidth                         Section \\[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\\]\n                                                    and tapering effects                                                                                                \n  $D(\\mathbf{r})$                                   Survey volume selection function including primary beam, bandwidth, and data analysis                               Appendix \\[sec:RectilinearInterferometerPspecNorm\\]\n                                                    tapering effects                                                                                                    \n\nNotational preliminaries {#sec:Notation}\n========================\n\nSuppose an intensity mapping survey has surveyed the brightness temperature field $T({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)$ of a particular spectral line as a function of angle (specified here in terms of unit vector ${\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}$) and frequency $\\nu$. Such a quantity represents a three-dimensional survey of our Universe, since different frequencies of a spectral line map to different redshifts, and thus different radial distances from the observer. Explicitly, the comoving radial distance $r$ is given by $$\\label{eq:ComovingDistDef}\nr (\\nu) = \\frac{c}{H_0} \\int_0^{z(\\nu)} \\frac{dz^\\prime}{E(z^\\prime)},$$ where $c$ is the speed of light, $H_0$ is the present day Hubble parameter, with $$1 + z \\equiv \\frac{\\nu_\\textrm{rest}}{\\nu}\\quad \\textrm{and} \\quad E(z) \\equiv \\sqrt{\\Omega_\\Lambda + \\Omega_m (1+z)^3},$$ where $\\nu_\\textrm{rest}$ is the rest frequency of the spectral line, $z$ is the redshift, $\\Omega_\\Lambda$ is the normalized dark energy density, and $\\Omega_m$ is the normalized matter density. There is thus a one-to-one mapping between frequency and comoving radial distance, and as shorthand throughout this paper, we will adopt the notation $r_\\nu \\equiv r(\\nu)$. Similarly, we will often use the symbol $\\nu_r$ to denote frequency, with the subscript reminding us that the observed frequency is a function of the radial distance. Given a radial distance, transverse distances may also be computed given ${\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}$ (or angle on the sky) using simple geometry.\n\nIf one\u2019s survey occurs over a narrow radial range, the distance-frequency relation is often replaced by a linearized approximation where $$\\label{eq:LinearDistanceApprox}\nr - r_\\textrm{ref} \\approx - \\alpha (\\nu - \\nu_\\textrm{ref} ),$$ with $r_\\textrm{ref}$ and $\\nu_\\textrm{ref}$ being a reference comoving radial distance and a reference frequency, respectively, with values constrained by Eq. , and $$\\label{eq:AlphaConversion}\n\\alpha \\equiv \\frac{1}{\\nu_\\textrm{rest}} \\frac{c}{H_0} \\frac{(1+z_\\textrm{ref})^2}{E(z_\\textrm{ref})},$$ where $1 + z_\\textrm{ref} = \\nu_\\textrm{rest} / \\nu_\\textrm{ref}$. In this paper, the symbols $\\nu_r$ and $r_\\nu$ will always refer to the exact nonlinear relations, and any invocations of the linearized approximations will be written out explicitly using Eq. . When using the linearized approximation for the radial distance, we will often (though not always) also make the small angle approximation for converting between the angle $\\boldsymbol \\theta$ and the transverse comoving position $\\mathbf{r}_\\perp$ from some reference direction, where $$\\label{eq:AngularConversion}\n\\mathbf{r}_\\perp = r \\boldsymbol \\theta.$$\n\nGiven the well-defined prescriptions for converting between instrument-centric parameters (such as frequency $\\nu$ and direction on the sky ${\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}$) and cosmology-centric ones (such as $r$ and $\\mathbf{r}_\\perp$), we will often use both sets of parameters to describe the same quantities. For example, we will sometimes write the brightness temperature field as $T({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)$, whereas other times we will write the same quantity as $T(\\mathbf{r})$, where $\\mathbf{r}$ is the comoving position. We will additionally find it useful to exhibit similar flexibility in our notation even for quantities that are not cosmological in nature, such as the primary beam of a radio telescope.\n\nSpherical Fourier-Bessel Formalism {#sec:SphericalPspecFormalism}\n==================================\n\nIn this section we introduce the mathematical framework for describing the sky in terms of the spherical harmonic power spectrum. Our treatment here is essentially identical to that of @yoo_desjacques2013, albeit with different Fourier-Bessel transform conventions. No claims of originality are made in this section (except perhaps for Section \\[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\\]), and the formalism is included only for completeness. We will, however, occasionally provide previews of how various parts of the framework are particularly helpful for intensity mapping and interferometry. In the spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, angular fluctuations are expressed by expanding the temperature field $T({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)$ in spherical harmonics, such that $$\\label{eq:SHTdef}\na_{\\ell m} (\\nu) \\equiv \\int d\\Omega Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) T({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu).$$ To capture modes along the line-of-sight, we perform a Fourier-Bessel transform along the frequency direction, yielding $$\\label{eq:FBdef}\n\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) \\equiv \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \\int_0^\\infty \\! dr\\, r^2 j_\\ell (kr) a_{\\ell m} (\\nu_r),$$ with these last two expressions of course combining to give Eq. . The temperature field of the sky may therefore be thought of as being a linear combination of a set of basis functions $\\psi_{\\ell m } (k; {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)$ that are indexed by $(k,\\ell,m)$, so that $$\\label{eq:InverseTrans}\nT({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) = \\sum_{\\ell m} \\int dk\\, \\psi_{\\ell m } (k; {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) \\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k),$$ where $$\\label{eq:BasisFcts}\n\\psi_{\\ell m } (k; {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) \\equiv k^2 \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} j_\\ell (kr_\\nu) Y_{\\ell m} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}).$$ Eqs. and are the forward transforms into the harmonic basis, while Eqs. and define the inverse transforms back into configuration space. This can be verified by substituting Eq. into Eq. , and using orthonormality of spherical harmonics, as well as the analogous identity for spherical Bessel functions, given by $$\\label{eq:BesselOrthog}\n\\int \\! dr \\,r^2 j_\\ell (k r) j_\\ell (k^\\prime r) = \\frac{\\pi}{2 k k^\\prime} \\delta^D (k - k^\\prime),$$ where $\\delta^D$ is the Dirac delta function. Note that our convention for the radial transform differs from that of most works in the literature. From Eqs. and , one sees that our convention is symmetric in the following sense. Whether one is switching from $r$-space to $k$-space or vice versa, the prescription is always to multiply by $\\sqrt{2 / \\pi} j_\\ell (kr)$ and the square of the coordinate (i.e., $r^2$ or $k^2$) of the original space before integrating over it. This makes our forward and backward transforms aesthetically and conveniently symmetric. Most previous works (e.g., @leistedt_et_al2012 [@rassat_refregier2012; @yoo_desjacques2013]), in contrast, opt for an asymmetric convention: an extra factor of $k$ is included in the forward transform from $r$ to $k$, and correspondingly there is one fewer factor of $k$ in the backwards transform.\n\nTranslationally invariant fields in the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism {#eq:TransInvarFields}\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn some sense, the decision to expand fluctuation modes along the line of sight in terms of spherical Bessel functions rather than some other set of basis functions is arbitrary. However, we will now show that spherical Bessel functions are a particularly good choice for describing temperature fields that are statistically translation invariant. Translation-invariant fields admit a representation in terms of their power spectrum $P(k)$, which we define implicitly via the equation[^6] $$\\label{eq:RectilinearPspecDef}\n\\langle \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}) \\widetilde{T}^* (\\mathbf{k^\\prime}) \\rangle = (2 \\pi)^3 \\delta^D (\\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{k}^\\prime) P(k),$$ where the angled brackets $\\langle \\cdots \\rangle$ signify an ensemble average over random realizations of the cosmological temperature field $T(\\mathbf{r})$, whose Fourier transform $\\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k})$ we define by the convention $$\\label{eq:forwardNormal}\n\\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}) = \\int \\! d^3 r \\,e^{-i \\mathbf{k} \\cdot \\mathbf{r}} T(\\mathbf{r})$$ with the inverse transform given by $$\\label{eq:inverseNormal}\nT(\\mathbf{r}) = \\int \\! \\frac{d^3 k}{(2 \\pi)^3} e^{i \\mathbf{k} \\cdot \\mathbf{r}} \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}).$$ Unless otherwise stated, this Fourier convention for the temperature field will be the one used for all Fourier transforms in this paper. Ideally, our spherical Fourier-Bessel description should be directly relatable to $P(k)$, for it would be pointless if an estimation of the power spectrum required first returning to position space. We will now show that this requirement is met by our $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ modes.\n\nTo relate $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ to $P(k)$, we combine Eqs. , , and to obtain $$\\label{eq:YetAnotherTellm}\n\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) = \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \\int \\! \\frac{d^3 k^\\prime}{(2 \\pi)^3} \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}^\\prime) \\int \\! d^3 r\\, j_\\ell (kr) Y_{\\ell m}^*({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) e^{i \\mathbf{k}^\\prime \\cdot \\mathbf{r}}.$$ To simplify this, we expand $e^{i \\mathbf{k}^\\prime \\cdot \\mathbf{r}}$ in spherical harmonics using the identity $$\\label{eq:PlaneWaveSphericalHarmonicExpansion}\ne^{i \\mathbf{k} \\cdot \\mathbf{r}} = 4\\pi \\sum_{\\ell m} i^\\ell j_\\ell (kr) Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}) Y_{\\ell m} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}),$$ which leads to $$\\label{eq:TlmTkConversion}\n\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) = \\frac{i^\\ell}{(2\\pi)^{\\frac{3}{2}}} \\int \\frac{d^3 k^\\prime}{k k^\\prime} Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}^\\prime) \\delta^D (k - k^\\prime) \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}^\\prime).$$ This provides a link between the temperature field as expressed in our $(k,\\ell, m)$ basis, and the same field in the rectilinear Fourier basis. Taking a cue from Eq. , where the power spectrum is closely related to the two-point correlation between different rectilinear Fourier modes, we may form a two-point correlator between different modes in our spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, giving $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:CurvedPspecDef}\n\\langle \\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) \\overline{T}_{\\ell^\\prime m^\\prime}^* (k^\\prime) \\rangle && = \\frac{i^\\ell (-i)^{\\ell^\\prime}}{(2\\pi)^3} \\!\\! \\int \\frac{d^3 k_1}{k k_1} \\frac{d^3 k_2}{k^\\prime k_2}  \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\qquad \\times Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}_1) Y_{\\ell^\\prime m^\\prime} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}_2) \\langle \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}_1) \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}_2)^* \\rangle\\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\qquad \\times \\delta^D (k - k_1) \\delta^D (k^\\prime - k_2)   \\nonumber \\\\\n&& = \\frac{\\delta^D(k - k^\\prime) }{k^2} \\delta_{\\ell \\ell^\\prime} \\delta_{m m^\\prime} P(k),\\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from Eq. and some algebraic simplifications. From this, we see that forming the power spectrum from $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ modes is remarkably similar to forming it from the rectilinear Fourier modes. Comparing Eqs. and , we see that if (roughly speaking) one can form $P(k)$ by squaring $\\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k})$ and normalizing appropriately, one can equally well form $P(k)$ by squaring $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ and normalizing (albeit with a different\u2014and $k$ dependent\u2014normalization that we will derive more explicitly in Section \\[sec:FiniteVolume\\]).\n\nTo understand why the squaring of $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ produces such a similar result to squaring $\\widetilde{T} (k)$ (with both giving a result proportional to the power spectrum), notice that Eq. can be simplified to give $$\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) = \\frac{i^\\ell}{(2\\pi)^{\\frac{3}{2}}} \\int d\\Omega_k Y^*_{\\ell m} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}})  \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k})\\bigg{|}_{|\\mathbf{k}| = k},$$ where $ \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k})$ is restricted to the shell where $|\\mathbf{k}| = k$. In this form, one sees that an alternate way to understand our spherical harmonic Bessel modes is to view them as a spherical harmonic decomposition of $ \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k})$ in Fourier space. In other words, going from the rectilinear Fourier modes to spherical harmonic Bessel modes is simply a change of basis\u2014to spherical harmonics\u2014in angular Fourier coordinates. Now, suppose one were to form an estimate of $P(k)$ in by squaring $ \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k})$ and then averaging over a shell of constant $|\\mathbf{k}| = k$. Parseval\u2019s theorem ensures that such a squaring and averaging operation is basis-independent. Thus, it does not matter whether the Fourier amplitudes on the shell of constant $|\\mathbf{k}| = k$ are expressed in a spherical harmonic basis. Squaring and averaging $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ must therefore also yield the power spectrum, up to some $k$-dependent conversion factors to account for the radius of shells in Fourier space. Note that Eq. also cements the interpretation (suggested by our notation) that the quantity $k$ of our Fourier-Bessel basis is the total magnitude of the wavevector $\\mathbf{k}$, rather than some wavenumber that only pertains to radial fluctuations.\n\nRotationally invariant fields in the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism {#sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly}\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWhile the cosmological temperature field is expected to possess translationally invariant statistics, contaminants in an intensity mapping survey (such as foreground emission) will in general not possess such symmetry. This difference in symmetry will result in different signatures on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane that can in principle be used to separate contaminants from the cosmological signal.\n\nTo elucidate the contrast in these signatures, suppose we discard the assumption (from previous derivations) of translationally invariant statistics. In general, the two-point correlator will cease to exhibit the diagonal form given by Eq. . As a concrete example of this, consider a random temperature field that is statistically isotropic but not homogeneous. In the radial direction, suppose this field has some fixed (non-random and angular position-independent) radial dependence. Such a field would be an appropriate description for a (hypothetical) population of unresolved point sources. Under these assumptions, Eq. reduces to $$\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) = a_{\\ell m} q_\\ell (k),$$ where $$\\label{eq:qellk}\nq_\\ell (k) \\equiv \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \\int_0^\\infty dr r^2 j_\\ell (kr) \\kappa (\\nu_r),$$ with $\\kappa (\\nu_r)$ specifying the spectral (and therefore radial) dependence of our hypothetical sky as it appears in our data. The two-point correlator then becomes $$\\langle \\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) \\overline{T}_{\\ell^\\prime m^\\prime}^* (k^\\prime) \\rangle  = C_\\ell q_\\ell(k) q_\\ell (k^\\prime) \\delta_{\\ell \\ell^\\prime} \\delta_{m m^\\prime},$$ where statistical rotation invariance of the field allows us to invoke relation $\\langle a_{\\ell m} a_{\\ell^\\prime m^\\prime}^* \\rangle \\equiv C_\\ell \\delta_{\\ell \\ell^\\prime} \\delta_{m m^\\prime}$, with $C_\\ell$ signifying the angular power spectrum.\n\nOur example illustrates the way in which the two-point correlator ceases to be diagonal in $k$ and $k^\\prime$ once translation invariance is broken. In general, if the sky exhibits rotational invariance (in the statistical sense), the correlator takes the form $$\\langle \\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) \\overline{T}_{\\ell^\\prime m^\\prime}^* (k^\\prime) \\rangle \\equiv M_\\ell (k, k^\\prime) \\delta_{\\ell \\ell^\\prime} \\delta_{m m^\\prime},$$ for some function $M_\\ell (k, k^\\prime)$. In the limit that the sky is statistically homogeneous in addition to isotropic, $M_\\ell (k, k^\\prime)$ becomes $\\ell$-independent and reduces to $P(k) \\delta^D (k - k ^\\prime) / k^2$, as demonstrated in Eq. . If one is simply squaring $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ measurements to estimate the power spectrum but there are non-statistically homogeneous contaminants in the data, one obtains $$\\langle | \\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)|^2 \\rangle \\equiv M_\\ell (k) \\delta_{\\ell \\ell^\\prime} \\delta_{m m^\\prime},$$ where $M_\\ell (k)$ is a function of both $\\ell$ and $k$ rather than just $k$ alone.\n\nWe thus see that the spherical Fourier-Bessel formulation fulfills the goals we laid out near the beginning of this section. In particular, the foreground contaminants appear differently on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane than the cosmological signal does, owing to the translation-invariant statistics of the latter. This generalizes the symmetry arguments for foreground mitigation laid out in @morales_and_hewitt2004 in a way that is well-defined for wide fields of view. We note, however, that as the formalism currently stands, $M_\\ell (k)$ and $P(k)$ are not directly comparable; indeed, they have different units. This arises because the two quantities scale differently with volume. For a random cosmological field described by $P(k)$, the magnitude of $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ scales as $\\sqrt{V}$, where $V$ is the volume of a survey. On the other hand, contaminants may not be describable as random fields. In the case of foregrounds, for example, the signal is smooth and coherent along the radial/frequency direction. As a result, $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ scales more quickly than $\\sqrt{V}$. Indeed, the difference between these scalings was proposed as a method for distinguishing between foreground contamination and cosmological signal in @cho_et_al2012. To derive a quantity for describing survey contaminants on the $\\ell$-$k$ that is directly comparable to $P(k)$ it is necessary to specify a survey volume. In the following sections, we will depart from the idealized treatment considered in this section, where we imagined having access to a perfectly sampled field over an infinite volume.\n\nEstimating the power spectrum from finite-volume surveys {#sec:FiniteVolume}\n========================================================\n\nIn this section, we consider the effects of the necessarily finite extent of any real survey. Finite selection effects were considered in @rassat_refregier2012 and @leistedt_et_al2012, and here we provide a complementary treatment that is not only tailored for intensity mapping, but also provides explicit expressions for the power spectrum on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane.\n\nSuppose the extent of our survey is given by a function $\\phi(\\mathbf{r})$, such that $\\phi(\\mathbf{r})$ is zero everywhere beyond the boundaries of the survey. A survey with uniform sensitivity can then be modeled by setting $\\phi(\\mathbf{r}) = 1$ inside the survey. In what follows, however, we do not make this assumption, and we allow for spatially varying sensitivity within the survey. This permits the treatment of angular masks as well as radial selection functions. In general, the temperature field that is analyzed is $\\phi(\\mathbf{r}) T(\\mathbf{r})$ rather than $T(\\mathbf{r})$. A result, the measured spherical Fourier-Bessel modes $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas}(k)$ are not described by Eq. , but instead are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:Tellm^meas}\n\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) = \\frac{i^\\ell}{(2\\pi)^{\\frac{3}{2}}} \\int \\frac{d^3 k^\\prime}{k k^\\prime} && \\frac{d^3 k^{\\prime \\prime}}{(2\\pi)^3} Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}^\\prime) \\delta^D (k - k^\\prime) \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\times \\widetilde{\\phi} (\\mathbf{k}^\\prime - \\mathbf{k}^{\\prime \\prime}) \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}^{\\prime\\prime}),\\end{aligned}$$ where we have invoked the convolution theorem to write our expression in terms of $\\widetilde{\\phi}$, the Fourier transform of $\\phi$.\n\nDespite this revised expression, one might still expect the power spectrum to be closely related to $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k)$. Squaring and taking the ensemble average gives $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle | \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \\rangle \n= \\frac{1}{(2\\pi)^3} \\int \\frac{d^3 k_a}{k k_a} \\frac{d^3 k_b}{k k_b} \\frac{d^3 k_c}{(2\\pi)^3} Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}_a) Y_{\\ell m} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}_b)  \\nonumber \\\\\n\\times P(k_c) \\widetilde{\\phi} (\\mathbf{k}_a - \\mathbf{k}_c) \\widetilde{\\phi}^* (\\mathbf{k}_b - \\mathbf{k}_c) \\delta^D (k - k_a) \\delta^D (k - k_b),\\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ where we have again used the definition of the power spectrum from Eq. to simplify the ensemble average of the two factors of $\\widetilde{T}$. Now, if the survey volume is reasonably large, $\\phi(\\mathbf{r})$ will tend to be a relatively broad function, and thus the two copies of $\\widetilde{\\phi}$ will be sharply peaked about $\\mathbf{k}_a \\approx \\mathbf{k}_b \\approx \\mathbf{k}_c$. These then work in conjunction with the two Dirac delta functions to require $k \\approx k_c$. With all these conditions, the only part of the integrand that contributes substantially to the integral is the part where $P(k_c) \\approx P(k)$, allowing the power spectrum to be factored out of the integral (assuming it is a reasonably smooth function). Doing so and subsequently re-expressing $\\widetilde{\\phi}$ in terms of $\\phi$, our expression simplifies to $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:TlmPkProportionality}\n\\langle | \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \\rangle && \\approx  \\frac{P(k)}{(2\\pi)^3} \\int d^3 r \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r}) \\nonumber \\\\\n&&  \\quad \\times \\Bigg{|} \\int \\frac{d^3 k_a}{k k_a}Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}_a) e^{-i \\mathbf{k}_a \\cdot \\mathbf{r}} \\delta^D (k - k_a) \\Bigg{|}^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n&& = P(k) \\frac{2}{\\pi} \\int d^3 r \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r}) j_\\ell^2 (kr) \\big{|} Y_{\\ell m} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) \\big{|}^2, \\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we performed the integral over $k_a$ by inserting Eq. and invoking the orthonormality of spherical harmonics. The final result is a direct proportionality between the ensemble average of hypothetical noiseless measurements $ | \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ and the power spectrum. Heuristically, this equation implies that the power spectrum can be estimated using any $(k,\\ell, m)$ mode simply by taking $| \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ and dividing out by everything on the right hand side[^7] after $P(k)$. A subsequent averaging of such estimates obtained from modes with the same $k$ but different $\\ell$ and $m$ increases the signal-to-noise.\n\nA similar proportionality exists within the framework of rectilinear Fourier modes for relating the squares of the measured Fourier amplitudes $\\widetilde{T}^\\textrm{meas} (\\mathbf{k})$ and $P(k)$ (which we derive in Appendix \\[sec:RectilinearFKP\\] to facilitate the comparative discussion that follows). With rectilinear modes, $\\langle |\\widetilde{T}^\\textrm{meas} (\\mathbf{k}) |^2 \\rangle$ is also proportional to $P(k)$, with the constant of proportionality also given by an integral that has units of volume. However, there exists a crucial difference between the volume integral seen here and the one for the rectilinear framework in Appendix \\[sec:RectilinearFKP\\]. With the rectilinear case, the volume factor is independent of the orientation of $\\mathbf{k}$ (i.e., ${\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}$), so that Fourier modes of all orientations are equally sensitive to the power spectrum. It follows that an optimal estimate of the power spectrum can be obtained by an average of $|\\widetilde{T}^\\textrm{meas} (\\mathbf{k}) |^2$ over spheres of constant $| \\mathbf{k}| = k$ with uniform weighting, as we show in Appendix \\[sec:RectilinearFKP\\].\n\nIn contrast, the volume integral in Eq. is a function of $\\ell$ and $m$. For a particular $(k, \\ell, m)$ mode, the value of $\\ell$ determines how much the total wavenumber $k$ is comprised of angular fluctuations (as opposed to radial fluctuations), while the value of $m$ determines the orientation of the angular fluctuations. Putting these facts together, it follows that with $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k)$ modes, the sensitivity to the power spectrum does depend strongly to a mode\u2019s orientation. As an example, suppose the survey\u2019s sensitivity $\\phi(\\mathbf{r})$ is localized in small region around some radius $r_0$ away from the observer (illustrated in Figure \\[fig:surveyGeom\\]), as is typical for many high-redshift intensity mapping surveys. Now consider (as an extreme case), modes where $\\ell \\gg k r_0$. For such modes, the Bessel function in Eq. can be approximated by a power series as $$j_\\ell (kr) \\approx \\frac{(kr)^\\ell}{(2 \\ell + 1)!!}.$$ The integral on the right hand side of Eq. thus becomes extremely suppressed by a $[(2 \\ell + 1)!!]^2$ dependence, giving a small proportionality constant between $| \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ and $P(k)$ for high $\\ell$. Thus, high $\\ell$ modes that satisfy $\\ell \\gg k r_0$ are not high signal-to-noise probes of the power spectrum. To understand this, consider instead the modes with $k \\sim \\ell / r_0$. Such modes are essentially constant in the radial direction, and describe fluctuations that are almost entirely in the angular direction. Temporarily invoking the language of the flat-sky approximation for the sake of intuition, we may say that in this regime, the total wavenumber $k$ is dominated by $k_\\perp$. Increasing $\\ell$ beyond this to get back to the case where $\\ell \\gg k r_0$, we have situation that approximately corresponds to having $k_\\perp > k$. Such a scenario would be a mathematical impossibility in the flat-sky approximation, and formally the amplitude of the signal would go to zero. In our curved-sky treatment, however, we see that the cut-off for high $\\ell$, while dramatic, is not precisely zero. This is due to projection effects, which cause any given $\\ell$ mode to sample a spread of $k$ modes, in principle allowing arbitrarily high $\\ell$ modes to have some (tiny) response to Fourier modes with very low $k$ values.\n\nWith such a strong dependence in power spectrum sensitivity to the values of $\\ell$ and $m$, different modes should be weighted differently when averaged together. In principle, this weighting should depend on both $\\ell$ and $m$. For simplicity, we will assume that different $m$ values are averaged together with uniform weights. This is a reasonable approximation for wide-field surveys, which is of course the regime that is being targeted in this paper. Indeed, for an all-sky survey, one can show that the integral in Eq. becomes independent of $m$, implying equal sensitivity to all $m$ modes and thus no reason to favor one specific mode over another. Performing the uniform average over Eq. and invoking Uns\u00f6ld\u2019s theorem then gives $$\\label{eq:TotallyUnsold}\n\\frac{\\sum_{m = -\\ell}^\\ell\\langle | \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \\rangle}{2\\ell + 1} \\approx \\frac{P(k)}{2 \\pi^2} \\int d^3 r \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r}) j_\\ell^2 (kr).$$ From this, it follows that given a set of modes with some particular $k$ and $\\ell$ values, an estimator of the power spectrum can be formed by computing $$\\label{eq:SlkDef}\nS_\\ell (k) \\equiv 2 \\pi^2 \\left[\\int d^3 r \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r}) j_\\ell^2 (kr)\\right]^{-1} \\frac{\\sum_{m} | \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2}{2 \\ell + 1},$$ which we dub the spherical harmonic power spectrum. This is the quantity that we were seeking in Section \\[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\\], a curved sky analog to the cylindrical power spectrum $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$. If $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k)$ consists of contaminants to one\u2019s measurement, $S_\\ell (k)$ would essentially be the \u201cpower spectrum of contaminants\", even though such a quantity is in principle not well-defined as the contaminants are typically not statistically translation-invariant. However, $S_\\ell (k)$ and $P(k)$ can be directly compared since the two quantities have the same units, and in the limit of translation invariance, the ensemble average of $S_\\ell(k)$ reduces to $P(k)$, by construction. We thus have a well-defined quantity that can be considered \u201cthe power spectrum of the signal on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane\", regardless of the relative ratios of cosmological signal and contaminants.[^8]\n\nOnce $S_\\ell (k)$ has been computed for all $\\ell$ values accessible to an experiment, different $\\ell$ modes can be averaged together form a final estimate $\\widehat{P} (k)$ of the power spectrum $P(k)$. Unlike with the average over $m$, uneven weights for the $\\ell$ average are crucial since different $\\ell$ modes can have very different sensitivities to the power spectrum, as our earlier example illustrated. The optimal weights $w_\\ell$ for different $\\ell$ values will in general depend on the details of one\u2019s survey instrument. As a simple toy example, suppose an instrument has equal noise in all $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}(k)$ modes (which is an impossibility in practice, since all instruments have finite angular resolution). An optimal signal-to-noise weighting of $| \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ then reduces to a weighting by the strength of the signal, since the noise is constant. This is given by the integral in Eq. , which quantifies the extent to which the power spectrum is amplified (or depressed) in each $| \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2$ mode. Forming a minimum variance estimator then requires a variance (i.e., squared) weighting by this factor, giving an estimator $\\widehat{P} (k)$ of the power spectrum that takes the form $$\\label{eq:WeightedPk}\n\\widehat{P} (k) \\equiv \\sum_\\ell w_\\ell S_\\ell (k),$$ where $$\\label{eq:MinVarEllWeights}\nw_\\ell \\equiv \\frac{ \\left[ \\int d^3 r \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r}) j_{\\ell}^2 (kr) \\right]^2}{\\sum_{\\ell^\\prime} \\left[ \\int d^3 r^\\prime \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r}^\\prime) j_{\\ell^\\prime}^2 (kr^\\prime) \\right]^2}.$$\n\nForeground signatures in the spherical harmonic power spectrum {#sec:Foregrounds}\n==============================================================\n\nHaving established $S_\\ell (k)$ as a potential tool for separating contaminants from cosmological signal in a power spectrum measurement, we now specialize and consider the particular case of astrophysical foreground contamination. Our goal is to derive the signature of foreground contamination in $S_\\ell (k)$, and to show that $S_\\ell (k)$ is indeed a useful diagnostic for separating foregrounds from the cosmological signal. We will find that $S_\\ell (k)$ performs this role for wide-field, curved-sky power spectrum analyses just as well as $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ did for narrow fields of view. By this, we mean that in both cases the foregrounds are localized to predictable regions in the $\\ell$-$k$ or $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane, enabling foregrounds to be mitigated by a few simple cuts to data.\n\n![Example spherical Bessel functions $j_\\ell (kr)$, arbitrarily normalized for ease of comparison. The grey band indicates the comoving radial extent of a $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping survey operating from $145\\,\\textrm{MHz}$ to $155\\,\\textrm{MHz}$ (corresponding to a central redshift of 8.5, or a central radial distance of $r_0 \\approx 6290h^{-1}$Mpc). The spherical Bessel functions enter in the radial transform from position space to the spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, and are integrated over the grey band with an $r^2$ weighting. Basis functions that describe fluctuations that are predominantly in the angular directions have $\\ell \\sim kr_0$ behave as power laws over the radial profile of the survey (red curve), and essentially average over the line-of-sight direction. Those whose fluctuations are oriented mainly in the radial direction have $\\ell \\lesssim kr_0$ behave like slowly modulated sinusoids (blue curve), and effectively take a Fourier transform along the line of sight. Modes with $\\ell > kr_0$ (black curve) have very little response.[]{data-label=\"fig:bessels\"}](bessels.pdf){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\nWhen performing an intensity mapping survey with a spectral line, the cosmological component of the signal is expected to fluctuate rapidly as a function of frequency, since different frequencies probe different portions of our Universe. Foregrounds, on the other hand, are expected to be spectrally smooth [@dimatteo_et_al2002; @oh_and_mack2003; @deOliveiraCosta_et_al2008; @jelic_et_al2008; @liu_and_tegmark2012]. In principle, this allows foregrounds to be separated from the cosmological signal, for instance by fitting out a smooth spectral component [@wang_et_al2006; @liu_et_al2009a; @bowman_et_al2009; @liu_et_al2009b]. To take an even simpler approach, one expects spectrally smooth foregrounds to appear only at low $k_\\parallel$, since $k_\\parallel$ is the Fourier dual to line-of-sight distance, which is probed by the frequency spectrum. This is illustrated in the top left panel of Figure \\[fig:fgSigs\\], where we compute the $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ signature of flat spectrum foregrounds for an intensity mapping survey with a radial profile given by $$\\label{eq:CosineRadial}\n\\phi(r) = \\cos \\left[ \\pi \\left( \\frac{r-r_0}{r_\\textrm{max} - r_\\textrm{min}} \\right) \\right],$$ within the comoving radial range of $r_\\textrm{min} \\approx 6230\\,h^{-1}\\textrm{Mpc}$ to $r_\\textrm{max} \\approx 6350\\,h^{-1}\\textrm{Mpc}$ and zero outside this range. This is representative of a $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping survey with a $10\\,\\textrm{MHz}$ bandwidth centered around a frequency of $150\\,\\textrm{MHz}$ (corresponding roughly to $z \\sim 8.5$). The precise form of the profile is arbitrary, and is only for illustrative purposes in this paper. In the angular direction we assume all-sky coverage. The foregrounds are assumed to have intrinsically flat (frequency-independent) spectra. One sees that their contribution to the power spectrum decreases in amplitude rapidly towards higher $k_\\parallel$, suggesting that foregrounds can be mostly avoided by simply looking away from the lowest $k_\\parallel$. Note that we have arbitrarily normalized the power to emphasize the morphology (rather than the absolute level) on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane.\n\n![image](fourPanelWedge.png){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\nWe now generalize the signature of foregrounds from the narrow-field to the curved sky using the spherical harmonic power spectrum. The foregrounds are again assumed to be independent of frequency, giving rise to a set of frequency-independent spherical harmonic coefficients $a^\\textrm{fg}_{\\ell m}$. The resulting $(k,\\ell, m)$ modes are then given by $$\\label{eq:fgTlm}\n\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{fg} (k) = a_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{fg} \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \\int_0^\\infty \\!dr\\, r^2 j_\\ell (kr) \\phi(r),$$ which is simply Eq. but with the limitation of a survey volume $\\phi$ and a flat spectrum assumption. Note that in this section, we will assume that the survey covers the entire angular extent of the sky (as depicted in Figure \\[fig:surveyGeom\\]), so that we have $\\phi(r) $ rather than $\\phi (\\mathbf{r})$. In an analysis of real data this assumption may be inappropriate, but here we invoke it for the purposes of mathematical clarity. Inserting this expression into Eq. gives the spherical harmonic power spectrum of flat-spectrum foregrounds $$\\label{eq:fgSlk}\nS_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k) = 4 \\pi C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} \\frac{\\left[\\int_0^\\infty \\!dr\\, r^2 j_\\ell (kr) \\phi(r) \\right]^2}{\\int_0^\\infty \\!dr\\, r^2 j_\\ell^2 (kr) \\phi^2(r)},$$ where $C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg}$ is the angular power spectrum of the foregrounds. For a given survey geometry and foreground model, one can evaluate this expression numerically to derive the signature of foregrounds as manifested in the spherical harmonic power spectrum. Before doing so, however, it is helpful to evaluate $S_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k)$ analytically in various limiting regimes on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane to gain intuition for how the spherical harmonic power spectrum behaves. To identify these regimes (which demonstrate qualitatively different behavior), consider Fig. \\[fig:bessels\\], which shows $j_\\ell (kr)$ for various choices of $\\ell$ and $k$. Not all parts of these curves are relevant to the integrals in Eq. , since the radial extent of the survey $\\phi(r)$ (indicated by the grey band) picks out only regions where $r \\approx r_0$ to integrate over. Roughly speaking, there are two limiting regimes of interest. The first is where $\\ell \\sim k r_0$. In this regime, the Bessel functions behave like power laws that rise to a peak. The other regime is where $\\ell \\lesssim k r_0$. There, the Bessel functions are highly oscillatory, and the radial transform of Eq. is closely related to a Fourier transform along the line of sight. In principle, there exist modes with $\\ell > kr_0$ exist, but as we argued in Section \\[sec:FiniteVolume\\], these modes have very low signal-to-noise, and we will not consider this regime further.\n\nMostly angular modes: $\\ell \\sim k r_0$ {#sec:MostlyAngular}\n---------------------------------------\n\nAs discussed previously, the condition that $\\ell \\sim k r_0$ is synonymous with the statement that fluctuations are almost entirely in the angular direction. In this regime, the spherical Fourier-Bessel functions are not highly oscillatory, and are instead reasonably smooth. They are thus relatively broad compared to $\\phi(r)$. To a good approximation, then, $r^2 j_\\ell (kr)$ and $r^2 j_\\ell^2 (kr)$ may be factored out of the integrals in Eq. , evaluating them at $r = r_0$. What remains is $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:FinalSlfgkHighEll}\nS_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k) \\Bigg{|}_{\\ell \\gtrsim k r_0} &\\approx&  4 \\pi C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} r_0^2 \\frac{\\left[\\int_0^\\infty \\!dr\\, \\phi(r) \\right]^2}{\\int_0^\\infty \\!dr\\, \\phi^2(r)} \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\sim& 4 \\pi C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} r_0^2 \\Delta r_\\textrm{survey},\\end{aligned}$$ where the final approximation is exact only for a survey that has a tophat profile in the radial direction, but still likely to be correct up to a factor of order unity otherwise. One sees that the $k$ dependence of $S_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k)$ drops out, and the measurement is essentially of the angular power spectrum of foregrounds because the radial Bessel transform effectively just averages all the radial fluctuations of the survey together.\n\nMostly radial modes: $\\ell \\ll k r_0$ {#sec:MostlyRadialNoInterferometry}\n-------------------------------------\n\nAt low $\\ell$ values, most of the spatial variations in one\u2019s basis functions are along the line-of-sight. We enter this low $\\ell$ regime when $\\ell \\ll kr_0$, in which case the Bessel functions may be approximated as $$j_\\ell (kr) \\approx \\frac{1}{kr} \\sin \\left(kr-\\frac{\\pi \\ell}{2} \\right).$$ In this limit, the integral in the numerator of Eq. becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&  \\int_0^\\infty \\!dr\\,  r^2 j_\\ell (kr) \\phi(r) =\\frac{1}{k}  \\int_0^\\infty \\! dr\\, r \\sin \\left(kr- \\frac{\\pi \\ell}{2} \\right)  \\phi(r)  \\nonumber \\\\\n && =- \\frac{1}{k^2} \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\alpha} \\left\\{ \\textrm{Re} \\left[ \\int_0^\\infty \\! dr \\,e^{-i\\alpha kr +i \\pi \\ell / 2} \\phi(r) \\right] \\right\\}_{\\alpha = 1},\\end{aligned}$$ where the \u201c$\\alpha = 1$\" label signifies that $\\alpha$ is to be set to unity after the partial derivative is taken. To proceed, we expand the definition of $\\phi(r)$ to include the (unphysical) region of $r < 0$, declaring $\\phi(r)$ to be zero when $r < 0$. This allows us to extend the integral to $-\\infty$, which enables us to interpret it as a Fourier transform. Further defining $\\Phi (r - r_0) \\equiv \\phi (r)$ to be a re-centered version of the radial profile of the survey for our convenience, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\int_0^\\infty \\!dr\\,  r^2 j_\\ell (kr) \\phi(r) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\frac{1}{k} \\left[ r_0 \\sin \\left( k r_0- \\frac{\\pi \\ell}{2} \\right) \\widetilde{\\Phi} (k) - \\cos\\left( k r_0- \\frac{\\pi \\ell}{2} \\right) \\widetilde{\\Phi}^\\prime (k) \\right], \\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ where the $\\widetilde{\\Phi}^\\prime \\equiv \\partial \\widetilde{\\Phi} / \\partial k$. Using similar manipulations, the denominator of Eq. can be shown to be $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:DenomMostlyRadialFG}\n&&\\int_0^\\infty \\!dr\\,  r^2 j_\\ell^2 (kr) \\phi^2(r) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\frac{1}{2 k^2} \\left[ \\int_{-\\infty}^\\infty \\!dr\\, \\Phi^2 (r) - \\cos\\left(2 k r_0- \\pi \\ell \\right) \\widetilde{\\Phi} \\star\\widetilde{\\Phi} (2 k)  \\right], \\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\star$ denotes a convolution. To simplify matters, we may ignore the second term in this expression because it is small compared to the first. To see this, note that the first term can be written as $\\widetilde{\\Phi^2} (0)$. The relative size of the two terms is therefore determined by the relative magnitudes of $\\widetilde{\\Phi^2} (0)$ and $ \\widetilde{\\Phi} \\star\\widetilde{\\Phi} (2 k) $. Now, $\\widetilde{\\Phi} (k)$ is a function that is reasonably sharply peaked about $k=0$, with a characteristic width given by $\\sim 1/ \\Delta r_\\textrm{survey}$. We expect $\\widetilde{\\Phi^2}$ to be slightly broader; a back-of-the-envelope estimate would suggest that $\\widetilde{\\Phi^2}$ is roughly a factor of $\\sqrt{2}$ broader than $\\widetilde{\\Phi}$. Continuing with our approximate line of reasoning, one would then expect $ \\widetilde{\\Phi} \\star\\widetilde{\\Phi} (2 k)$ to be approximately the same size as $ \\widetilde{\\Phi} (\\sqrt{2} k)$, which is likely to be small because typical $k$ values are of order $\\sim 1/ \\Delta r_\\textrm{survey}$ or larger, placing one beyond the characteristic width of $\\widetilde{\\Phi}$, where the amplitude is much suppressed compared to the $k=0$ point. We thus conclude that the second term of Eq. may be neglected.\n\nPutting everything together, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:OscOsc}\n S_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k) \\approx  \\frac{8 \\pi C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg}}{\\int_{-\\infty}^\\infty \\!dr\\, \\Phi^2 (r)}  \\bigg{[}&& r_0^2 \\sin^2 \\left( k r_0- \\frac{\\pi \\ell}{2} \\right) \\widetilde{\\Phi}^2 (k) \\nonumber \\\\\n&& -r_0 \\sin \\left( 2 k r_0- \\pi \\ell \\right) \\widetilde{\\Phi} (k) \\widetilde{\\Phi}^\\prime (k) \\nonumber \\\\\n&&+  \\cos^2\\left( k r_0- \\frac{\\pi \\ell}{2} \\right) \\widetilde{\\Phi}^{\\prime 2} (k) \\bigg{]}. \\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ This result can be further simplified by considering the length scales involved. Recall that that the key approximation of this subsection is that the spatial fluctuations are mostly along the radial direction. For a survey with radial resolution $\\Delta r_\\textrm{res}$ (determined by an instrument\u2019s spectral resolution), a natural choice for a bin size in $k$ would be $\\sim\\!2 \\pi / \\Delta r_\\textrm{res}$. Since the value of $k$ is multiplied by $r_0$ inside the oscillatory terms of Eq. , and $r_0 \\gg \\Delta r_\\textrm{res}$, it follows that one goes through many cycles of the sinusoids within each bin in $k$ in any practical measurement. The middle term of Eq. thus averages to zero, while the squared sinusoids average to $1/2$. We thus have $$S_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k) \\approx 4 \\pi \\frac{ C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg}}{\\int_{-\\infty}^\\infty \\!dr\\, \\Phi^2 (r)}  \\left[ r_0^2  \\widetilde{\\Phi}^2 (k) +\\widetilde{\\Phi}^{\\prime 2} (k)  \\right]$$ Now, the two terms seen here that comprise $S_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k)  $ are not of equal importance. Dimensional analysis suggests that the derivative of $\\Phi$ is of order $\\Phi^\\prime \\sim \\Phi / \\Delta r_\\textrm{survey}$, while the derivative of its Fourier transform $\\widetilde{\\Phi}$ is of order $\\widetilde{\\Phi}^\\prime \\sim \\widetilde{\\Phi} \\Delta r_\\textrm{survey}$, a fact that can be verified by testing various functional forms for $\\Phi$. The first term in our expression for $S_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k)$ is thus larger than the second term by a factor of $(r_0 / \\Delta r_\\textrm{survey})^2$, which greatly exceeds unity for high-redshift measurements. These simplifications yield the final expression $$\\label{eq:FinalSlfgkLowEll}\nS_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k) \\Bigg{|}_{\\ell \\lesssim k r_0} \\approx 4 \\pi  C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg}   \\frac{r_0^2  \\widetilde{\\Phi}^2 (k)}{\\int_{-\\infty}^\\infty \\!dr\\, \\Phi^2 (r)}.$$ This result is essentially identical to its flat-sky counterpart on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane. There, the foregrounds were seen to be confined mostly to low $k_\\parallel$ values, with the characteristic width of the fall-off towards higher $k_\\parallel$ of $\\sim 1 / \\Delta r_\\textrm{survey}$, as expected from the Fourier transform of data that spans a length of $\\Delta r_\\textrm{survey}$. Here, in the regime where our modes are dominated by radial fluctuations, we have $k$ taking the place of $k_\\parallel$. But the behavior is the same, since $\\widetilde{\\Phi} (k)$ falls off as $\\sim 1 / \\Delta r_\\textrm{survey}$.\n\nNumerical Results {#sec:Numerics}\n-----------------\n\nSummarizing the last two results, it is pleasing to note that the even though Eqs. and were derived as different limiting cases, the latter converges to the former when $k\\rightarrow 0$. This suggests a rather smooth transition between the two regimes and a simple signature of foregrounds as a function of $\\ell$ and $k$: at low $k$, the foregrounds are a strong contaminant, but their influence quickly falls off towards higher $k$.\n\nWe confirm this behavior in the top right panel of Figure \\[fig:fgSigs\\] by plotting a numerically computed $S_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k)$. The survey parameters are assumed to be the same as in Section \\[sec:Foregrounds\\]. There is a qualitative similarity between the flat-sky plot of $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ in the top left panel, and the curved-sky plot of $S_\\ell (k)$ in the top right. This suggests that the latter will be just as successful as the former in localizing foregrounds in their respective planes. Quantitatively, one sees a sharp drop-off towards higher $k$ (or $k_\\parallel$), with some ringing due to our cosine radial profile. Admittedly, the drop-off is not quite as steep as one might hope, given that the foregrounds can easily be six to nine orders of magnitude brighter than the cosmological in power spectrum units [@santos_et_al2005; @jelic_et_al2008; @bernardi_et_al2009; @bernardi_et_al2010]. However, a large number of tools can be employed to further suppress foregrounds at high $k$ (or $k_\\parallel$). For example, foregrounds can be filtered or directly subtracted, whether via the construction of foreground models or through blind methods [@wang_et_al2006; @gleser_et_al2008; @liu_et_al2009a; @bowman_et_al2009; @liu_et_al2009b; @harker_et_al2009; @petrovic_and_oh2011; @paciga_et_al2011; @Parsons_et_al2012b; @liu_and_tegmark2012; @chapman_et_al2012; @chapman_et_al2013; @wolz_et_al2014; @shaw_et_al2014a; @shaw_et_al2014b; @wolz_et_al2015]. Leakage of foregrounds from low $k$ to high $k$ can be mitigated by imposing tapering functions to apodize the radial profile $\\phi(r)$ [@Thyagarajan2013]. This would, for instance, reduce the Fourier space ringing from the cosine form of Eq. , which causes the horizontal stripes that are visually obvious in the top row of Figure \\[fig:fgSigs\\]. Finally, statistical methods can be employed to selectively downweight foreground contaminated modes, whether prior to the squaring of temperature data in power spectrum estimation [@liu_and_tegmark2011; @liu_et_al2014a; @trott_et_al2016] or after [@dillon_et_al2014; @liu_et_al2014b]. Our goal here was only to show that $S_\\ell (k)$ is just as viable a foreground diagnostic for the curved sky as $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ is for the flat sky, and Figure \\[fig:fgSigs\\] shows that this is indeed the case.\n\nInterloper lines in the spherical harmonic power spectrum {#sec:Interlopers}\n=========================================================\n\nAside from broadband foregrounds that are spectrally smooth, some intensity mapping surveys must also deal with the problem of interloper lines, where emission from two different spectral lines that are sourced at different radial distances may nonetheless redshift into the same observing band. More concretely, an interloper line with a rest frequency of $\\nu_\\textrm{rest}^\\prime$ emitted at redshift $z^\\prime$ will appear at the same observed frequency as another line (say, the one targeted by an intensity mapping survey) with rest frequency $\\nu_\\textrm{rest}$ at redshift $z$ if $(1+z^\\prime)  / \\nu_\\textrm{rest}^\\prime = (1+z)  / \\nu_\\textrm{rest}$. The interloper line thus acts as an additional foreground contaminant. For $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ intensity mapping this is typically not a problem, simply because there lack plausible spectral line candidates with appropriate rest frequencies. In contrast, \\[CII\\] and CO lines are both candidates for intensity mapping surveys, and can easily be confused with one another.\n\nSince interloper lines may themselves trace cosmic structure (albeit at different redshifts), they are not spectrally smooth foreground contaminants, and thus cannot be mitigated by the methods described in the rest of this paper. To deal with this, a variety of techniques have been proposed in the literature, including source masking [@silva_et_al2015; @yue_et_al2015; @breysse_et_al2015], cross-correlation with external datasets [@visbal_and_loeb2010; @gong_et_al2012; @gong_et_al2014], comparison to companion lines [@kogut_et_al2015], and the exploitation of angular fluctuations to reconstruct three-dimensional source distributions [@dePutter_et_al2014]. Recently, @cheng_et_al2016 and @lidz_and_taylor2016 proposed a method for separating interloper lines by invoking the statistical isotropy of the cosmological signal. The key observation is that the rest frequency of a line enters the frequency-radial distance mapping of Eq. in a different way than it does in the angle-transverse distance conversion of Eq. . If emission from an interloper line is mistaken as the targeted line in a survey, it will be mapped to incorrect cosmological coordinates. As a result, the emission will no longer be statistically isotropic, in contrast to emission from the targeted line, which will have been mapped correctly and thus will be statistically isotropic. In terms of the power spectrum, emission from the targeted line will appear in the cylindrical power spectrum $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ as a function of $k \\equiv (k_\\perp^2 + k_\\parallel^2)^{1/2}$ only, while interloper emission will have a non-trivial dependence on $k_\\perp$ and $k_\\parallel$. This difference in $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ signature provides a way to identify interloper emission.\n\nIn this section, we build on the work of @cheng_et_al2016 and @lidz_and_taylor2016, generalizing their flat-sky treatment to the curved sky using the spherical harmonic power spectrum. Our goal will be to show that just as $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ is no longer just a function of $k$ if the incorrect rest frequency $\\nu_\\textrm{inc}$ is assumed, $S_\\ell (k)$ will similarly develop a dependence on $\\ell$ under those circumstances. To begin, we note that Eq. is always exact, since it only relies on angular information, which does not require knowledge of the rest frequency of the spectral line. The assumption of an incorrect rest frequency enters only in Eq. , when one must map frequencies to radial distances. Suppose some emission originates from a comoving location $\\mathbf{r} = r {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}$. If the incorrect frequency-radial distance relation is used due to a mistaken assumption about the rest frequency of the emission, this emission will be mapped to a location $\\mathbf{r} \\equiv s(r) {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}$ instead, where $s$ is the incorrect radial distance, which is a function of the correct distance $r$. As a result, Eq. becomes $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{inc} (k)$, the incorrectly mapped version of $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$, and take the form $$\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{inc} (k) \\equiv \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \\int d^3 r j_\\ell (kr) Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) T[s(r) {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}] \\phi[s(r) {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}],$$ where we have included the finite volume of our survey via the function $\\phi$, just as we did in the previous section. Writing the $T\\phi$ term in terms of their Fourier transforms and repeating steps analogous to the ones used between Eqs. and , we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{inc} (k) = i^\\ell 4 \\sqrt{2 \\pi}  \\int \\frac{d^3 k^\\prime}{(2\\pi)^3} \\frac{d^3 k^{\\prime \\prime}}{(2\\pi)^3} Y_{\\ell m} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}^\\prime ) \\widetilde{\\phi} (\\mathbf{k}^\\prime - \\mathbf{k}^{\\prime \\prime}) \\nonumber \\\\\n\\times \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}^{\\prime \\prime}) \\int dr r^2 j_\\ell (kr) j_\\ell [ k^\\prime s(r)]. \\quad \\end{aligned}$$ To relate this to the power spectrum, we square this expression, take the ensemble average, and average over $m$ values. Performing manipulations similar to those that led to Eq. results in $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\frac{\\sum_{m = -\\ell}^\\ell\\langle | \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \\rangle}{2\\ell + 1} \\approx P(\\overline{k}) \\frac{2}{\\pi^4} \\int d^3 r \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r}) \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\times \\left( \\int dr^\\prime r^{\\prime 2} d k^\\prime k^{\\prime 2} j_\\ell (k^\\prime r)   j_\\ell(k r^\\prime) j_\\ell [ k^\\prime s (r^\\prime)] \\right)^2, \\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\overline{k}$ is some wavenumber that is not necessarily equal to $k$. In other words, with an incorrect mapping of radial distances, we should not necessarily expect $\\langle | \\overline{T}_{\\ell m}^\\textrm{meas} (k) |^2 \\rangle$ to probe a distribution of power that is sharply peaked around $k$. Any bias in the probed wavenumber, however, is irrelevant for our present purposes, which is simply to show that an $\\ell$ dependence is acquired in our (no longer isotropic) estimate of the power spectrum. Performing the $k^\\prime$ integral using Eq. (but with $r$ and $k$ swapping roles) and inserting the result into Eq. , one obtains $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_\\ell^\\textrm{inc} (k)=&&P(\\overline{k}) \\left[ \\int d^3 r \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r}) j_\\ell^2 (kr) \\right]^{-1} \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\times \\int d^3 r \\frac{\\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r})}{s^\\prime [s^{-1} (r)]} \\left(\\frac{s^{-1} (r)}{r}\\right)^2 j_\\ell^2 [ks^{-1} (r)] \\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ for the estimated spherical harmonic power spectrum under the assumption of a mistaken rest frequency. Here, $s^\\prime \\equiv \\partial s / \\partial r$ (i.e., the derivative of the incorrectly mapped radial distance with respect to the true radial distance) and $s^{-1}$ denotes an inverse mapping, not a reciprocal. Notice that if the rest frequency is correct (i.e., one is dealing with emission from the targeted line rather than the interloper line), then $s$ is the identity function, $s^\\prime$ is unity, and the two integrals cancel to leave a result that is $\\ell$-independent. In general, however, the result will be $\\ell$-dependent. We thus conclude that just as anisotropies in $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ can be used to detect interloper lines within the flat-sky approximation, $S_\\ell (k)$ can be used in the same way for a full curved-sky treatment.\n\nSpherical Harmonic Power Spectrum Measurements with Interferometers {#sec:Interferometry}\n===================================================================\n\nIn previous sections, we have focused on understanding the *intrinsic* spherical harmonic power spectrum $S_\\ell (k)$ without the inclusion of any instrumental effects other than a selection function to account for survey geometry. For some intensity mapping efforts, the exclusion of these effects will not result in major differences in $S_\\ell (k)$. For instance, at higher frequencies (say, those relevant to \\[CII\\] intensity mapping) it is common to perform intensity mapping with traditional single dish telescopes and spectrometers. With such systems, the equations derived so far in this paper are a reasonable approximation for what one might see in real data, perhaps with the addition of a high noise component at high $\\ell$ and $k$ to reflect finite angular and spectral resolution. In contrast, at low frequencies it is common to perform intensity mapping using radio interferometers. In this section, we will show that with data from interferometers, $S_\\ell (k)$ behaves qualitatively differently from what we have considered so far. Despite these differences, once the data (and any accompanying metrics for describing their statistical properties) are reduced to modes in the spherical Fourier-Bessel basis, it is irrelevant whether they were collecting using single dish telescopes or interferometers. The spherical Fourier-Bessel basis and the spherical harmonic power spectrum $S_\\ell (k)$ may thus be a useful meeting point for cross-correlations between the $21\\,\\textrm{cm}$ and CO/\\[CII\\] lines (e.g., as proposed in @lidz_et_al2011).\n\nInterferometers are frequently used for intensity mapping measurements because they are essentially Fourier-space instruments, with each baseline of an interferometer directly sampling a fringe pattern that approximates one of the spatial Fourier modes of interest. They are therefore a relatively inexpensive way to perform high-sensitivity measurements of the power spectrum. However, the picture of an interferometer as a Fourier-space instrument is precisely correct only in the limit that the sky is flat. This assumption is typically invoked in derivations of estimators for connecting interferometric measurements to power spectra [@hobson_et_al1995; @white_et_al1999; @padin_et_al2001; @halverson_et_al2002; @hobson_et_al2002; @myers_et_al2003; @parsons_et_al2012a; @parsons_et_al2014]. It is, however, explicitly violated by the wide-field nature of many instruments built for intensity mapping. In this section, we will address this shortcoming, using the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism to relate interferometric data to the cosmological power spectrum in a way that fully respects curved sky effects.\n\nFor the purposes of three-dimensional intensity mapping experiments, interferometers come with the added complication of being inherently chromatic instruments. Consider, for example, the visibility measured by a single baseline of an interferometric array:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nV(\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) &=& \\int d\\Omega \\phi(r_\\nu) A({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) I({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)e^{ - i 2\\pi \\nu  \\mathbf{b} \\cdot{\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}/ c} \\label{eq:VisDef}\\\\\n&\\equiv&\\int d \\Omega  \\phi(r_\\nu)  B({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) T({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) e^{ - i 2\\pi \\nu  \\mathbf{b} \\cdot{\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}/ c} \\label{eq:CurvedVisibility}\\\\\n&\\approx& \\int \\frac{d^2 r_\\perp}{r_\\nu^2} \\phi(r_\\nu) B({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) T({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)e^{ - i 2\\pi \\nu  \\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\mathbf{r}_\\perp / c r_\\nu}, \\label{eq:FlatVisibility}\\qquad\\quad \\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere in the last line we invoked the narrow-field, flat-sky approximation, allowing a \u201cline-of-sight\" direction to be unambiguously identified and a position vector $\\mathbf{r}_\\perp$ transverse to this direction to be defined. In the penultimate line we used the Rayleigh-Jeans Law to convert from intensity to brightness temperature, defining a modified primary beam $$\\label{eq:Bdef}\nB({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) \\equiv \\frac{2 k_B}{c^2} \\nu^2 A({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu).$$ One sees that in the flat-sky limit, the complex exponential takes the form of $\\exp \\left( - i \\mathbf{k}_\\perp \\cdot \\mathbf{r}_\\perp \\right)$, and thus the baseline probes a spatial mode perpendicular to the line of sight with wavevector $\\mathbf{k}_\\perp = 2 \\pi \\nu \\mathbf{b} / c r_\\nu$. The key feature to note here is that this spatial scale is dependent on $\\nu$. Interferometers are therefore inherently chromatic in the sense that the Fourier mode probed by a particular baseline depends on frequency, particularly if the baseline is long. This complicates the power spectrum measurement, for in order to access Fourier modes along the line of sight (characterized by wavenumber $k_\\parallel$), it is necessary to perform a Fourier transform along the frequency axis. At least for data from a single baseline, the chromaticity means that $\\mathbf{k}_\\perp$ is not held constant during the line of sight Fourier transform. This causes couplings between $k_\\parallel$ and $\\mathbf{k}_\\perp$ modes, and is responsible for the wedge feature that has been discussed extensively in the previous literature. The wedge arises when the chromaticity of an interferometer imprints this chromaticity on observed foregrounds. Being spectrally smooth, the foregrounds should in principle be localized to low $k_\\parallel$ modes (as we saw in the top panels of Figure \\[fig:fgSigs\\]), but in practice the imprinted chromaticity causes them to appear at higher $k_\\parallel$ modes in a wedge-like signature.\n\nThe wedge is both a problem and an opportunity. The wedge is a problem because it increases (compared to a theoretically ideal situation with no instrument chromaticity) the number of Fourier modes that are foreground-dominated and thus unavailable for a measurement of the cosmological signal. These unavailable modes are often the ones that are highest in signal-to-noise, resulting in a significant reduction in sensitivity [@pober_et_al2014; @chapman_et_al2016]. However, the wedge is also an opportunity because it can be shown (in a reasonably general manner) that it is limited in extent, i.e., the foreground contamination does not extend beyond the confines of the wedge shape. Observations can therefore be targeted at modes that are outside the wedge, and instruments may be designed conservatively to optimize such observations [@parsons_et_al2012a]. Indeed, this is the general principle behind the design of HERA [@deboer_et_al2016].\n\nThat smooth spectrum foregrounds have a well-defined signature in the form of the wedge is one of the reasons that recent works have espoused the $P(k_\\perp,k_\\parallel)$ power spectrum as a useful diagnostic for data analysis. In order for our proposed statistic $S_\\ell (k)$ to be useful in the same way, it is necessary to show that the chromatic influence of an interferometer also gives a well-defined and well-localized signature $\\ell$-$k$ space. We will do so in the following subsections once we have established the connection between curved sky power spectra and interferometeric data, finding that foregrounds are again localized to a wedge. We will focus on single-baselines analyses of the data, as this provides a conservative estimate for the extent of the foreground wedge in $S_\\ell (k)$. Multi-baseline information can be used to alleviate wedge effects, because one can essentially combine data from different frequencies and different baselines that have the same ratio $\\nu \\mathbf{b} /  r_\\nu$, alleviating the chromatic effects that caused the wedge in the first place. There thus exist methods for reducing the extent of the wedge, and our single-baseline treatment should be considered a worst-case scenario.\n\nDelay spectrum power spectrum estimation {#sec:DelayIntro}\n----------------------------------------\n\nTo estimate the power spectrum from a single baseline, one begins by forming the *delay spectrum* of the baseline\u2019s visibility. This is accomplished by Fourier transforming the visibility along the frequency axis to obtain $$\\label{eq:DelayDef}\n\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) \\equiv \\int \\!d\\nu\\, \\gamma(\\nu) e^{i 2\\pi \\nu \\tau} V(\\mathbf{b}, \\nu),$$ where $\\gamma (\\nu)$ is an optional tapering function chosen by the data analyst. Given that $V$ approximates the sky brightness Fourier transformed in the axes perpendicular to the line of sight, $\\widetilde{V}$ serves as an approximation for the $\\widetilde{T}(\\mathbf{k})$. The delay spectrum can then be squared and normalized to yield an estimator for the power spectrum $P(k)$.\n\nAs we discussed above, a single baseline probes different $\\mathbf{k}_\\perp$ scales at different frequencies. Power spectra estimated using delay spectra are therefore often considered mere approximations to \u201ctrue\" power spectra. However, an estimator formed from the delay spectrum represents a perfectly valid estimator, so long as error statistics are included in the final results. The quoted error statistics on a power spectrum estimate $\\widehat{P}(k_*)$ at some spatial scale $k_*$ should include not only the error bars on the value of $\\widehat{P}$ itself, but also window functions for describing the (sometimes broad) distribution of $k$ values that contribute to a power estimate that is centered on $k = k_*$. Because single-baseline estimators have a chromatic scale-dependence, their resulting window functions will be wider than what might be in principle achievable using a well-controlled multi-baseline approach. In general, however, the latter will still give windows of non-zero width (due to a combination of finite-volume and analysis pipeline effects), and in that sense a delay spectrum power spectrum with well-documented error statistics is not any more of an approximation than any other method.[^9]\n\nIn the following subsections we establish the framework for single-baseline analyses of the power spectrum in the curved sky. Section \\[sec:WindowFcts\\] computes the window functions associated with delay spectrum power spectrum estimation. Section \\[sec:SingleBlNorm\\] provides a rigorous derivation of power spectrum normalization, using our spherical harmonic formalism to incorporate curved sky treatments that have so far been neglected in the literature. Section \\[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\\] then demonstrates how the foreground wedge signature seen in $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ spectra is preserved in $S_\\ell (k)$.\n\nWindow functions of a delay-based power spectrum estimate {#sec:WindowFcts}\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\nAs mentioned above, one estimates the power spectrum from a single baseline by first forming the delay spectrum $\\widetilde{V}$, followed by a subsequent squaring of the result. Computing the window functions of such an estimate requires relating our measurements to a theoretical power spectrum. To do so, we take the definition of a single baseline\u2019s visibility from Eq. and expand the temperature field in spherical harmonics, giving $$V(\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) = \\sum_{\\ell m} \\phi (r_\\nu) a_{\\ell m} (\\nu) f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu),$$ where we have defined $$\\label{eq:flm}\nf_{\\ell m}(\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) \\equiv \\int d \\Omega  B({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)  Y_{\\ell m} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) e^{ - i 2\\pi \\nu  \\mathbf{b} \\cdot{\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}/ c}.$$ as the response of a baseline $\\mathbf{b}$ to an excitation of the spherical harmonic with indices $\\ell$ and $m$. The detailed properties of this response function have previously been explored in the literature [@shaw_et_al2014a; @zheng_et_al2014; @shaw_et_al2014b; @zhang_et_al2016a; @zhang_et_al2016b]. Here, we relate this response function to a delay spectrum approach. To proceed, we use Eq. (or rather, the inverse of the transformation it describes) to express $a_{\\ell m}$ in terms of its spherical Fourier-Bessel expansion, giving $$\\label{eq:VisTlmConnection}\nV(\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) = \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \\sum_{\\ell m} \\int \\!dk\\, k^2 j_\\ell (k r_\\nu)  \\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) \\phi(r_\\nu).$$ Forming the delay spectrum $\\widetilde{V}$ from this then yields $$\\label{eq:VtildeInToverline}\n\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) =  \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \\sum_{\\ell m} \\int \\!dk\\, k^2 g_{\\ell m} (k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau) \\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k),$$ where $$\\label{eq:glm}\ng_{\\ell m}(k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau) \\equiv \\int d\\nu e^{i 2\\pi \\nu \\tau} j_\\ell (k r_\\nu) f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) \\phi(r_\\nu) \\gamma (\\nu).$$\n\nNow suppose the measured sky consists only of the cosmological signal. The $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k)$ modes are then directly related to the power spectrum via Eq. , and the ensemble average of the square of the delay spectrum reduces to $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:delayWindow}\n\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle && = \\frac{2}{\\pi} \\sum_{\\ell m \\ell^\\prime m^\\prime} \\int dk dk^\\prime k^2 k^{\\prime 2} \\langle \\overline{T}_{\\ell m} (k) \\overline{T}_{\\ell^\\prime m^\\prime}^* (k^\\prime)\\rangle\\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\qquad \\times \\, g_{\\ell m} (k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau) g_{\\ell^\\prime m^\\prime}^* (k^\\prime; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau)  \\nonumber \\\\\n&& = \\sum_{\\ell} \\int dk W_\\ell^\\textrm{unnorm} (k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau) P(k), \\qquad \\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\label{eq:DelayWindowFcts}\nW_\\ell^\\textrm{unnorm} (k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau) \\equiv \\frac{2k^2}{\\pi} \\sum_m | g_{\\ell m} (k ; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau)|^2$$ are the (unnormalized) window functions. For given values of $\\mathbf{b}$ and $\\tau$, Eq. shows that the window function describes the linear combination of modes on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane that are probed by the quantity $\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle$. If $ |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)|^2$ is to be a good estimator of the power spectrum, the window function for each $(\\mathbf{b},\\tau)$ pair should satisfy two conditions. First, each window function should be reasonably sharply peaked around some location on the $\\ell$-$k$, giving a precise measurement of the power spectrum on some scale rather than a broad combination of scales. Second, the window functions for different values of $(\\mathbf{b},\\tau)$ should be centered on different locations on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane. In other words, the ideal collection of window functions should divide the $\\ell$-$k$ plane into a set of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive cells [@tegmark_et_al1998].\n\n![Example window functions on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane, given by Eq. . Each set of contours describes the linear combination of modes on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane sampled by a power spectrum estimator formed by a particular baseline-delay combination. From bottom to top, the three rows correspond to the windows for estimators with delay $\\tau = 273\\,\\textrm{ns}$, $703\\,\\textrm{ns}$, and $1133\\,\\textrm{ns}$. From left to right, each column corresponds to windows for estimators with baseline lengths from $10\\,\\textrm{m}$ to $190\\,\\textrm{m}$ in $10\\,\\textrm{m}$ increments. To allow everything to be easily visualized on a common color scale, each window function is normalized to peak at unity. The boundary $\\ell = k r_0$ is demarcated by the bold red line. Parts of the plane below this line are difficult to access, and all window functions are seen to taper off towards the line.[]{data-label=\"fig:windowFcts\"}](windowFcts.pdf){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\nIn Figure \\[fig:windowFcts\\] we show example $\\ell$-$k$ plane window functions for various choices of $(\\mathbf{b},\\tau)$, computed using the same survey parameters as in Section \\[sec:Numerics\\]. All the window functions tend to taper off towards the line $\\ell = kr_0$, consistent with our previous argument that regions below this line are difficult to probe with any substantial signal-to-noise. We find that to a good approximation, the peaks of the window functions are located at $$\\label{eq:PeakLocs}\nk \\approx 2 \\pi \\sqrt{\\left(\\frac{\\tau}{\\alpha_0}\\right)^2 + \\left(\\frac{b \\nu_0}{c r_0}\\right)^2}; \\quad \\ell \\approx \\frac{2 \\pi b \\nu_0}{c},$$ where $\\alpha_0$ is the radial distance-frequency conversion from Eq. evaluated with the reference frequency set to $\\nu_0$, the frequency at the middle of our observational band. These expressions are what one would write down assuming a flat-sky mapping between interferometer parameters $(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)$ and spatial fluctuation wavenumbers $\\ell$ and $k$. Given this, it is unsurprising that the accuracy of these approximations goes down at low $\\ell$, where curved sky effects are expected to be the most important. Nonetheless, the accuracy is reasonable throughout: we find that the $\\ell$ location of the peaks predicted by Eq. to be good to $\\sim 10\\%$ at $\\ell \\sim 30$, improving to $5\\%$ by $\\ell \\sim 50$ and with further improvements as $\\ell$ increases. Nowhere in the $\\ell$-$k$ range bracketed by the window functions shown in Figure \\[fig:windowFcts\\] do we find the errors to be larger than $10\\%$. Our prediction for the $k$ location of the peaks is better yet, with the errors never exceeding $\\sim 5\\%$, and more typically at the sub-percent level. In any case, our approximations are meant for illustration purposes only. In a practical estimation of power spectra, one should compute the exact window functions (as we have done here by numerical means), and these window functions should accompany any power spectrum results that are presented.\n\nFor $|\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)|^2$ to serve as a useful estimator of the power spectrum, its window functions must not only be centered on different parts of the $\\ell$-$k$ plane for different values of $\\mathbf{b}$ and $\\tau$ (as we have just shown). The windows must also be relatively compact, and we see in Figure \\[fig:windowFcts\\] that this is indeed the case. A key feature, however, is that the window functions become elongated in the $k$ direction as one moves to higher $\\ell$. This effect is exactly analogous to the $k_\\parallel$ elongation of window functions at high $k_\\perp$ in the flat-sky case examined in @liu_et_al2014a, and is due to the fact that the higher $\\ell$ (or $k_\\perp$) are probed by longer baselines, which (as we discussed in Section \\[sec:Interferometry\\]) exhibit a more chromatic response. The elongation seen here is our first hint of the foreground wedge, since an extended window function in $k$ (or $k_\\parallel$) will pick up more foreground contamination from the lower portions of the $\\ell$-$k$, where foregrounds intrinsically reside. This causes foregrounds to leak \u201cupwards\" on the plane, with the extent of the leakage tracking the increasingly exaggerated elongation towards higher $\\ell$ (or $k_\\perp$), thus resulting in a wedge-like feature. We will derive the $\\ell$-$k$ plane foreground wedge more rigorously in Section \\[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\\]. For now, it suffices to say that since the window functions seen in Figure \\[fig:windowFcts\\] are reasonably compact, we have successfully demonstrated that $|\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)|^2$ is just as potent an estimator of the power spectrum in our full curved-sky formalism as it is in the flat-sky.\n\nNormalizing a delay-based power spectrum estimate {#sec:SingleBlNorm}\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nIn the previous subsection, we showed that the $|\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)|^2$ is a suitable estimator for the cosmological power spectrum. However, it is not yet properly normalized. Here, we derive the normalization factor that $|\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)|^2$ must be divided by to obtain an unbiased estimate of the power spectrum.\n\nFrom Eq. , we see that $\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle$ measures a weighted sum/integral of the power spectrum. For our estimator to be properly normalized, the weighted sum/integral ought to be a weighted average instead. We can accomplish this by dividing $\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle$ by the sum/integral of $W_\\ell^\\textrm{unnorm} (k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau)$, which serves as a normalization factor. This normalization can be considerably simplified: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:DelayNormSimplification}\n \\sum_{\\ell m} \\!\\!\\!&&\\int dk W_\\ell^\\textrm{unnorm} (k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau) \\nonumber \\\\\n &=&  \\frac{2}{\\pi}  \\sum_{\\ell m} \\!\\int dk \\,k^2 |g_{\\ell m} (k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau)|^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\frac{2}{\\pi} \\int d\\nu d\\nu^\\prime e^{i 2\\pi (\\nu-\\nu^\\prime) \\tau} \\int dk k^2 j_\\ell (kr_\\nu) j_\\ell(k r_{\\nu^\\prime})  \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\qquad  \\phi(r_\\nu) \\phi(r_{\\nu^\\prime}) \\gamma (\\nu) \\gamma (\\nu^\\prime) \\sum_{\\ell m}   f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) f_{\\ell m}^* (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu^\\prime) \\qquad \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\int \\frac{d\\nu}{r_\\nu} \\frac{d\\nu^\\prime}{r_{\\nu^\\prime}} e^{i 2\\pi (\\nu-\\nu^\\prime) \\tau} \\delta^D (r_\\nu - r_{\\nu^\\prime}) \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\qquad  \\phi(r_\\nu) \\phi(r_{\\nu^\\prime}) \\gamma (\\nu) \\gamma (\\nu^\\prime) \\sum_{\\ell m}   f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) f_{\\ell m}^* (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu^\\prime), \\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ where in the last line we invoked the orthnormality of spherical bessel functions with different arguments. Continuing, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\int \\frac{d\\nu}{r_\\nu} \\frac{d\\nu^\\prime}{r_{\\nu^\\prime}} e^{i 2\\pi (\\nu-\\nu^\\prime) \\tau} \\frac{\\delta^D (\\nu - \\nu^\\prime)}{\\alpha_\\nu} \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\qquad  \\phi(r_\\nu) \\phi(r_{\\nu^\\prime}) \\gamma (\\nu) \\gamma (\\nu^\\prime) \\sum_{\\ell m}   f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) f_{\\ell m}^* (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu^\\prime)  \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\int \\frac{d\\nu}{r_\\nu^2 \\alpha_\\nu} \\phi^2(r_\\nu) \\gamma^2 (\\nu) \\sum_{\\ell m}  | f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu)|^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\int d\\Omega d\\nu \\frac{B^2 ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) \\phi^2(r_\\nu) \\gamma^2 (\\nu)}{r_\\nu^2 \\alpha_\\nu},\n \\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we used Eq. in conjunction with the fact that $\\sum_{\\ell m} Y_{\\ell m} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) Y_{\\ell m}^* ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}^\\prime) = \\delta^D({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}^\\prime)$.\n\nPutting everything together, a properly normalized estimator $\\widehat{P}(k)$ of the power spectrum is given by $$\\label{eq:curvedSkyNormFinalResult}\n\\widehat{P} (k) = \\left( \\frac{c^2}{2k_B} \\right)^2 \\frac{|\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2}{ \\int d\\Omega d\\nu \\nu^4 A^2 ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu) \\phi^2(r_\\nu) \\gamma^2 (\\nu) / r_\\nu^2 \\alpha_\\nu},$$ where it is understood that the copy of $k$ on the left hand side is tied to the values of $\\mathbf{b}$ and $\\tau$ on the right hand side via Eq. . Remarkably, this result is almost identical to the estimator previously derived in the literature with many more assumptions (chiefly the flat-sky approximation), reproduced in Appendix \\[sec:RectilinearInterferometerPspecNorm\\] for completeness. Comparing Eqs. and , one sees that the flat-sky approximation has only a minor effect on the result. The two expressions differ only in that with the curved sky case, $r_\\nu$ and $\\alpha_\\nu$ appear inside a radial integral and are evaluated using their full nonlinear expressions, whereas in the flat-sky case, they appear outside the integral and are evaluated at the middle of the radial profile of our survey. Numerically, we find that for the PAPER primary beam, the difference between the Eqs. and is $\\sim 0.1\\%$. This rigorously justifies the previous use of flat-sky normalization factors in delay-spectrum-based estimates of the power spectrum [@pober_et_al2013b; @parsons_et_al2014; @ali_et_al2015; @jacobs_et_al2015], regardless of whether an instrument\u2019s beam is narrow.\n\nThe foreground wedge in the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism {#sec:CurvedSkyWedge}\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn Section \\[sec:WindowFcts\\], we saw that our power spectrum window functions became elongated at high $\\ell$, providing our first hints of the foreground wedge. However, these hints were not derived in an entirely rigorous fashion, since Section \\[sec:WindowFcts\\] and Section \\[sec:SingleBlNorm\\] both assumed that the sky temperature is comprised entirely of the cosmological signal. For the purposes of deriving a power spectrum normalization, this is the correct assumption to make. On the other hand, this is insufficient for a derivation of the foreground wedge, since we saw from Section \\[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\\] that foregrounds have different statistical properties than the cosmological signal.\n\nWhen the sky consists of more than just the cosmological signal, Eq. becomes more complicated because the two-point correlator of $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}(k)$ is no longer proportional to the cosmological power spectrum. Instead, foregrounds form an additive contribution to $\\overline{T}_{\\ell m}(k)$, and\u2014since they are uncorrelated with the cosmological signal\u2014an additive contribution to the two-point correlator. As a simple example, consider the foreground model discussed in Section \\[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\\], where the foregrounds possess (statistical) rotation invariance but not translation invariance along the radial/frequency direction. With these foregrounds, Eq. becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle  = \\sum_{\\ell} \\int \\! dk \\,W_\\ell^\\textrm{unnorm} (k; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau) P(k) \\nonumber \\\\\n+  \\frac{2}{\\pi} \\sum_{\\ell m} C_\\ell \\Bigg{|} \\int \\! dk \\,k^2 q_\\ell (k) g_{\\ell m} (k ; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau) \\Bigg{|}^2,\\end{aligned}$$ where $q_\\ell (k)$ is the radial spherical Fourier-Bessel transform of the foreground spectrum, as defined by Eq. . Inserting explicit expressions for the $q_\\ell$ and $g_{\\ell m}$ results in considerable simplifications to the integral in the second term of our expression: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\int \\! dk \\, k^2 q_\\ell (k) g_{\\ell m} (k ; \\mathbf{b}, \\tau) \\nonumber \\\\\n&& = \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{\\pi}} \\int \\! d\\nu dr^\\prime e^{i 2\\pi \\nu \\tau}  r^{\\prime 2} f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) \\phi(r_\\nu) \\gamma (\\nu)  \\kappa(\\nu_{r^\\prime}) \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\quad \\times \\int dk \\,k^2  j_\\ell (k r^\\prime) j_\\ell (k r_\\nu) \\nonumber \\\\\n&& = \\sqrt{\\frac{\\pi}{2}} \\int \\! d\\nu\\, e^{i 2\\pi \\nu \\tau} f_{\\ell m} (\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) \\phi(r_\\nu) \\gamma (\\nu) \\kappa (\\nu),\\end{aligned}$$ where in the second equality we used the orthogonality of spherical Bessel functions from Eq. . Inserting $f_{\\ell m }$ from Eq. then gives $$\\sqrt{\\frac{\\pi}{2}} \\int d\\Omega B({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) Y_{\\ell m} ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) \\int \\! d\\nu\\, e^{i 2\\pi \\nu (\\tau - \\mathbf{b} \\cdot {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}/ c)}  \\phi(r_\\nu) \\gamma (\\nu) \\kappa (\\nu),$$ where in this section we are assuming that $B({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}})$ is approximately frequency independent in order to highlight the interferometric phenomenology of the foreground wedge. Now, define for notational convenience the quantity $\\Theta ( \\nu - \\nu_0) \\equiv \\phi(r_\\nu) \\gamma(\\nu_r) \\kappa(\\nu_r)$ as a re-centered frequency profile of the foregrounds as seen in the data (i.e., including the finite bandwidth $\\phi$ of the instrument and the tapering function $\\gamma$ imposed by the data analyst). The foreground contribution to $\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle$ then becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:VtildeSqFgCell}\n\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle \\Big{|}_\\textrm{fg} = \\sum_{\\ell m} C_\\ell && \\Bigg{|} \\int d\\Omega B({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) Y_{\\ell m} e^{i 2\\pi \\nu_0 (\\tau - \\mathbf{b} \\cdot {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}/ c)} \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\times \\widetilde{\\Theta} \\left[ 2 \\pi \\left( \\tau - \\frac{\\mathbf{b} \\cdot {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}}{c} \\right) \\right] \\Bigg{|}^2.\\end{aligned}$$ To prevent any obscuration of our understanding of the foreground wedge in the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism, we assume at this point that $C_\\ell$ is a constant. As an extreme example of why this is necessary, consider the case where $C_\\ell$ is zero everywhere except for one particular value of $\\ell$. Clearly, the signature of foregrounds on the $\\ell$-$k$ would then be dominated by the rather peculiar form for $C_\\ell$, rather than the chromatic interferometric effects we wish to examine here. Setting $C_\\ell$ to a constant, our expression reduces to $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:FinalWedgeEq}\n\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle \\Big{|}_\\textrm{fg} \\propto \\int d\\Omega B^2 ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}) \\Bigg{|} \\widetilde{\\Theta} \\left[ 2 \\pi \\left( \\tau - \\frac{\\mathbf{b} \\cdot {\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}}{c} \\right) \\right] \\Bigg{|}^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n= \\frac{c}{b} \\int_{2\\pi ( \\tau - b/c)}^{2\\pi ( \\tau + b/c)}   ds\\overline{B^2} \\left[ \\arcsin\\left( \\frac{c \\tau}{b} - \\frac{sc}{2\\pi b} \\right) \\right] | \\widetilde{\\Theta} (s) |^2, \\quad\\end{aligned}$$ where we performed the polar integral by aligning our polar axis along the direction of the baseline. We then defined $\\overline{B^2}$ to be the beam squared profile averaged azimuthally about the baseline axis. However, in the final form of the expression we assumed that the profile has a hemispherical reflection symmetry about the plane perpendicular to the baseline axis, and used this to express $\\overline{B^2}$ in a more conventional coordinate system where the polar axis is pointed at zenith.\n\nEq. contains all the details of the foreground wedge. To make this clear, consider the long baseline limit, which we know from Eq. maps to the high $\\ell$ portion of the power spectrum. In this regime, $\\overline{B^2}$ is a very broad function of $s$ compared to $\\widetilde{\\Theta}$, which is compactly localized around $s\\approx 0$ (since $\\Theta$ is a centered spectral profile) for spectrally smooth foregrounds that are surveyed by an instrument with broad frequency coverage. We may thus factor $\\overline{B^2}$ out of the integral, evaluating it at $s=0$ to give $$\\label{eq:approxFinalWedgeEq}\n\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle \\Big{|}_\\textrm{fg} {\\mathrel{\\vcenter{\n  \\offinterlineskip\\halign{\\hfil$##$\\cr\n    \\propto\\cr\\noalign{\\kern2pt}\\sim\\cr\\noalign{\\kern-2pt}}}}}\\frac{c}{b} \\overline{B^2} \\left[ \\arcsin\\left( \\frac{c \\tau}{b}  \\right) \\right] \\int_{2\\pi ( \\tau - b/c)}^{2\\pi ( \\tau + b/c)}   ds| \\widetilde{\\Theta} (s) |^2.$$ There are two key features to this equation. The first is that $\\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle$ is zero if $\\tau$ is not within $\\pm b / c$ of zero, because $\\widetilde{\\Theta}$ is peaked around zero. This means that there will be no foreground emission beyond $\\tau > b/c$. Inserting Eq. into this condition implies that foreground on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane will be restricted to $$k < \\ell \\left( \\frac{1}{\\alpha_0^2 \\nu_0^2}+\\frac{1}{r_0^2}\\right)^{\\frac{1}{2}},$$ or in terms cosmological quantities, $$\\label{eq:Finalkellwedge}\nk <  \\ell \\frac{H_0}{c} \\left[\\frac{E^2(z)}{(1+z)^2} + \\left( \\int_0^z \\frac{dz^\\prime}{E(z^\\prime)}\\right)^{-2}\\right]^{\\frac{1}{2}}.$$ We therefore have a wedge signature (beyond which there is minimal foreground contamination) similar to what is seen on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane. This is seen in the bottom right panel of Figure \\[fig:fgSigs\\], where we numerically evaluate Eq. for a flat intrinsic angular power spectrum for the foregrounds, with survey parameters kept the same as they were in previous sections.\n\nThe other key feature Eq. is the way in which foreground power drops off as one approaches the edge of the wedge. For regions of the $\\ell$-$k$ plane that satisfy Eq. (i.e., \u201cinside/below the wedge\"), the integral in Eq. evaluates to a constant factor, leaving a spherical harmonic power spectrum signature $\\widehat{S}_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k)$ of the form[^10] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:Sellfgk}\n\\widehat{S}_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} (k) &\\propto& \\langle |\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle \\Big{|}_\\textrm{fg}  \\nonumber \\\\\n&{\\mathrel{\\vcenter{\n  \\offinterlineskip\\halign{\\hfil$##$\\cr\n    \\propto\\cr\\noalign{\\kern2pt}\\sim\\cr\\noalign{\\kern-2pt}}}}}&\\frac{1}{\\ell} \\overline{B^2} \\left[ \\arcsin\\left( \\alpha_0 \\nu_0 \\sqrt{\\frac{k^2}{\\ell^2} - \\frac{1}{r_0^2}}  \\right) \\right].\\end{aligned}$$ Ignoring the $1/\\ell$ prefactor (which only weakly tilts the power profile), this expression shows that for regions within the wedge on the $k$-$\\ell$ plane, contours of constant power take the form of straight lines where $k \\propto \\ell$. As $k$ increases, these contours decrease in power with a profile determined by the square of the beam, averaged along the direction perpendicular to the baseline.\n\nEq. does not hold for short baselines (i.e., at low $\\ell$) because the approximations that led to Eq. no longer apply. In such a regime, the profile becomes proportional to $| \\widetilde{\\Theta} ( \\alpha_0 k )|^2$, leading to the horizontally oriented power patterns seen at low $\\ell$ in Figure \\[fig:fgSigs\\]. This contrast in behavior between low and high $\\ell$ regions is familiar from the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane: at low $\\ell$ or low $k_\\perp$, the leakage of flat-spectrum foregrounds towards the upper portions of the plane is driven by the radial extent of the survey, while at high $\\ell$ or high $k_\\perp$ the leakage is driven by the baseline chromaticity that causes the wedge. In intermediate regimes, Eq. is similar in form to a convolution. In fact, it would be precisely a convolution were it not for the $\\arcsin$ and the some constant factors needed for unit conversions. This convolution-like operation enacts a smooth transition in behavior between the low- and high-$\\ell$ regimes.\n\nFundamentally, the wedge signature arises because the chromaticity of an interferometer causes spectrally smooth foregrounds from low $k$ or $k_\\parallel$ (as seen in the top row of Figure \\[fig:fgSigs\\]) to leak to higher $k$ and $k_\\parallel$. In other words, power is smeared out along the $k$ or $k_\\parallel$ axes. Though its most dominant effect is to cause the foreground wedge, this smearing affects all modes on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ and $\\ell$-$k$ planes, particularly at high $k_\\perp$ and high $\\ell$ where chromatic effects are more prominent. This can be seen by examining Figure \\[fig:windowFcts\\], where the window functions for the cosmological signal are seen to vertically broaden at high $\\ell$, regardless of location along the $k$ axis. (In principle, Figure \\[fig:windowFcts\\] only applies to signals that possess translation-invariant statistics, but the effects are qualitatively the same). The broadening with increasing $\\ell$ can be seen by comparing the non-interferometric (top row) and interferometric (bottom row) results in Figure \\[fig:fgSigs\\]. As discussed in Section \\[sec:Numerics\\], the cosine radial profile given by Eq. causes ringing in Fourier space that gives horizontal stripes that are visually obvious in the non-interferometric case. For the interferometric case, the ringing is still present, but the peaks are smeared out, especially at high $\\ell$. This reinforces what was found in @liu_et_al2014a, where it was argued that chromatic interferometric effects do not only cause the wedge, but also reduce the independence of different Fourier modes.\n\nIn summary, we have seen in this section that the spherical power spectrum provides the same foreground diagnostic capabilities on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane as the rectlinear power spectrum did on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane. In the spherical Fourier-Bessel formalism, the foregrounds continue to be confined to a wedge. This is good news for analysts of wide-field intensity mapping data from interferometers, for it suggests that one\u2019s intuition for the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane can be easily transferred to the $\\ell$-$k$ plane.\n\nConclusions {#sec:Conclusions}\n===========\n\nIn this paper, we have established a framework for analyzing intensity mapping data using spherical Fourier-Bessel techniques. Such techniques easily incorporate the wide-field nature of many intensity mapping surveys, obviating the need to split up one\u2019s field into several approximately flat fields during analysis. This builds sensitivity for science measurements as well as diagnostic tests, and additionally provides access to the largest angular scales on the sky.\n\nAdapting spherical Fourier-Bessel techniques from galaxy surveys requires one to pay special attention to the unique properties of intensity mapping. For example, we saw in Figure \\[fig:surveyGeom\\] that intensity mapping surveys (particularly those that operate at high redshifts) tend to be compressed in the radial direction and have very fine radial resolution compared to angular resolution. Intensity mapping experiments must also contend with extremely bright foregrounds that overwhelm the cosmological signals of interest. A successful spherical Fourier-Bessel analysis framework must demonstrate that it is able to deal with such systematics at least as well as traditional rectilinear Fourier techniques can.\n\nThis paper demonstrates that spherical Fourier-Bessel modes are indeed a suitable basis for intensity mapping analyses. Focusing on power spectrum measurements, in Section \\[sec:FiniteVolume\\] we proposed that the cylindrically binned power spectrum $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ be replaced by the spherical harmonic power spectrum $S_\\ell (k)$. The quantity $S_\\ell (k)$ is conveniently defined so that a weighted average of it over different $\\ell$ values yields the spherically binned cosmological power spectrum $P(k)$. At the same time, by splitting up the measured power spectrum into a function of $\\ell$ and $k$, angular fluctuations are separated from arbitrarily oriented spatial fluctuations. This separation of fluctuations into angular and non-angular modes provides a powerful diagnostic for systematics. This has historically been the motivation for viewing the power spectrum as a function of $k_\\perp$ and $k_\\parallel$, and $S_\\ell (k)$ preserves this crucial property of $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$. Of course, this is not to say that the data should not also be examined in bases like $(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)$ that are more closely related to the actual instrument\u2019s measurement [@Vedantham2012; @Parsons_et_al2012b]. Doing so is particularly valuable prior to the squaring of the data to form power spectra, and both approaches can and should be used.\n\nChief amongst the systematics that may be discerningly diagnosed on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane are astrophysical foregrounds. Foregrounds are expected to have localized signatures in $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$, facilitating their removal. We have shown in this paper that the same is true for $S_\\ell (k)$. For non-interferometric intensity mapping surveys, we have shown that the spectrally smooth nature of foregrounds results in their being sequestered at low $k$, and that interloper lines can be detected using $S_\\ell (k)$ just as easily as they can be using $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$. For interferometric surveys, foregrounds tend to limited to a wedge-like feature on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane. Foregrounds are limited to a similar wedge on the $\\ell$-$k$ plane. This suggests that $S_\\ell(k)$ is just as capable a diagnostic quantity as $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ for intensity mapping surveys, while simultaneously discarding unwarranted flat-sky approximations seen in previous papers. Another attractive property of our spherical Fourier-Bessel formulation is that many of the relevant formulae derived in this paper (such as the equation delineating the boundary of the foreground wedge) are very similar to their flat-sky counterparts. Intuition for the behavior of $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ that has been built up in the prior literature is thus almost entirely transferrable to $S_\\ell (k)$.\n\nOur framework may be generalized in several ways in future work. For instance, we have thus far neglected to describe redshift space distortions, although the spherical formalism that we espouse here should be particularly well-suited for the purpose (C. J. Schmit et al., in prep.). A crucial area of investigation will be to determine whether cosmological redshift space distortions interfere with the signature of interloper lines. Another area of future development would be the incorporation of light-cone effects, since it has been shown that cosmological evolution cannot be neglected over the survey volume of a typical intensity mapping survey [@barkana_and_loeb2006; @datta_et_al2012; @datta_et_al2014; @laplante_et_al2014; @zawada_et_al2014; @ghara_et_al2015]. For now, however, this paper points to the promise of spherical Fourier-Bessel techniques for rigorous data analysis, providing yet another powerful diagnostic tool in the continuing progress of intensity mapping towards surveying an unprecedentedly large volume of our observable Universe.\n\nThe authors gratefully acknowledge delightful and helpful discussions with James Aguirre, Michael Eastwood, Aaron Ewall-Wice, Daniel Jacobs, Gregg Hallinan, Bryna Hazelton, Jacqueline Hewitt, Saul Kohn, Miguel Morales, Jonathan Pober, Jonathan Pritchard, Claude Schmit, Richard Shaw, and Nithya Thyagarajan. This research was completed as part of the University of California Cosmic Dawn Initiative. AL and ARP acknowledge support from the University of California Office of the President Multicampus Research Programs and Initiatives through award MR-15-328388, as well as from NSF CAREER award No. 1352519, NSF AST grant No.1129258, and NSF AST grant No. 1440343. AL acknowledges support for this work by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant \\#HST-HF2-51363.001-A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA, under contract NAS5-26555. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.\n\nEstimating the power spectrum from rectilinear Fourier modes {#sec:RectilinearFKP}\n============================================================\n\nIn this Appendix, we derive a relation between measured rectilinear Fourier amplitudes of the sky $\\widetilde{T}^\\textrm{meas} (k)$ and the power spectrum, analogous to Eq. for the spherical Fourier-Bessel modes. The derivation presented here is a standard one, and is only included to serve as an analogy to Eq. .\n\nFor a survey specified by the function $\\phi (\\mathbf{r})$\u2014so that the measured temperature field is $\\phi(r) T(\\mathbf{r})$ rather than just $T(\\mathbf{r})$\u2014the measured Fourier amplitudes $\\widetilde{T}^\\textrm{meas} (\\mathbf{k})$ are related to the true Fourier amplitudes $\\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k})$ by the convolution theorem, which gives $$\\widetilde{T}^\\textrm{meas} (\\mathbf{k}) = \\int \\frac{d^3 k^\\prime}{(2 \\pi)^3} \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}^\\prime) \\widetilde{\\phi} (\\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{k}^\\prime).$$ Squaring and ensemble averaging the result gives $$\\langle | \\widetilde{T}^\\textrm{meas} (\\mathbf{k}) |^2 \\rangle = \\int \\frac{d^3 k^\\prime}{(2 \\pi)^3} \\big{|} \\widetilde{\\phi} (\\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{k}^\\prime) \\big{|}^2 P(k^\\prime),$$ where we used Eq. to relate the ensemble average of the true Fourier amplitudes to the power spectrum. Assuming $|\\widetilde{\\phi}|^2$ is sharply peaked, $P(k^\\prime)$ can be approximately factored out of the integral and evaluated at $k$. Changing integration variables from $\\mathbf{k}^\\prime$ to $\\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{k}^\\prime$ for the remaining integral and invoking Parseval\u2019s theorem then yields $$\\langle | \\widetilde{T}^\\textrm{meas} (\\mathbf{k}) |^2 \\rangle = P(k) \\int d^3 r \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r}).$$ This suggests that a power spectrum estimator $\\widehat{P} (k)$ can be constructed by computing $$\\widehat{P} (k) = \\frac{\\sum_{|\\mathbf{k}| = k} | \\widetilde{T}^\\textrm{meas} (\\mathbf{k}) |^2}{N_k \\int d^3 r \\phi^2 (\\mathbf{r})},$$ where $N_k$ is the number of independent Fourier modes in the shell where $|\\mathbf{k}| = k$. The rest of the normalization factor that comprises the denominator (i.e., the integral) is independent of $k$ and is a sensitivity-weighted volume factor. For a survey with uniform sensitivity, for example, $\\phi(\\mathbf{r}) = 1$ everywhere inside the survey and the integral is exactly the volume of the survey. Because this integral is independent of $\\mathbf{k}$, it follows that the orientation of a Fourier mode (i.e., ${\\hat{\\mathbf{k}}}$) has no bearing on its sensitivity to the power spectrum, and all orientations are equally sensitive.\n\nDelay spectrum normalization in the narrow-field flat-sky limit {#sec:RectilinearInterferometerPspecNorm}\n===============================================================\n\nFor orientation, we now briefly review how visibility-based estimators of the power spectrum are usually derived. Again, the derivation that follows is not new to this paper, but we include it to provide a pedagogical comparison to Section \\[sec:SingleBlNorm\\], as well as to place a special emphasis on the approximations involved.\n\nOur first approximation will be the flat-sky, narrow-field approximation. This makes Eq. the appropriate expression to use for our interferometric visibility. Next, we assume that the interferometric fringe in this visibility is frequency-independent, so that the factor of $\\nu$ in the complex exponential term may be replaced by $\\nu_0$, the median frequency of one\u2019s observing volume. This is equivalent to the approximation that one has very short baselines (since the baseline vector $\\mathbf{b}$ is multiplied by $\\nu$), or alternatively, that most spectral structure comes from either the primary beam or the sky temperature. Correspondingly, we also replace all copies of $r_\\nu$ with $r_0$ to yield[^11] $$V(\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) = \\frac{1}{r_0^2}\\int d^2 r_\\perp  \\phi(r) B(\\mathbf{r_\\perp}, \\nu) T(\\mathbf{r_\\perp}, \\nu)e^{ - i 2\\pi \\nu_0  \\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\mathbf{r}_\\perp / c r_0}.$$ To access Fourier modes along the line-of-sight, we perform the delay transform defined by Eq. . Converting again to cosmological coordinates and defining $$\\label{eq:kperpConversions}\n\\mathbf{k}_\\perp \\equiv \\frac{2 \\pi \\nu_0}{r_0 c} \\mathbf{b}; \\qquad k_\\parallel \\equiv \\frac{2 \\pi \\tau}{\\alpha},$$ along with $\\mathbf{k} \\equiv (\\mathbf{k}_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$, one obtains $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widetilde{V}(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) & = &  \\frac{e^{i 2\\pi \\nu_0  \\tau - i k_\\parallel r_0}}{r_0^2 \\alpha_0 } \\int d^3r D(\\mathbf{r})T(\\mathbf{r}) \\exp \\left( - i \\mathbf{k} \\cdot \\mathbf{r} \\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n& = &  \\frac{e^{i 2\\pi \\nu_0  \\tau - i k_\\parallel r_0}}{r_0^2 \\alpha_0 }  \\int \\frac{d^3 k^\\prime}{(2 \\pi)^3} \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}^\\prime) \\widetilde{D} ( \\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{k}^\\prime),\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\gamma$ is the tapering functions used in Eq. , $\\alpha_0$ is the distance-frequency conversion from Eq. evaluated at the redshift corresponding to the central frequency of the survey, and we have defined $D(\\mathbf{r}) \\equiv B(\\mathbf{r}) \\phi(r) \\gamma(\\nu_{r_\\parallel}) $, with $\\widetilde{D}$ denoting its Fourier transform. While survey geometry and tapering factors such as $\\phi$ and $\\gamma$ have not typically been included in literature derivations such as those in @parsons_et_al2012a and @parsons_et_al2014, they are crucial in practical analyses of the data (e.g., in @ali_et_al2015), and thus we include them here.\n\nAs suggested in Section \\[sec:DelayIntro\\], we may relate the delay-transformed visibility to the power spectrum by squaring $\\widetilde{V}(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau)$ and taking an ensemble average over realizations of the random temperature field. This gives $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle | \\widetilde{V}(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle &= & \\left( \\frac{1}{r_0^2 \\alpha_0 } \\right)^2 \\int \\frac{d^3 k^\\prime}{(2 \\pi)^3} \\frac{d^3 k^{\\prime \\prime}}{(2 \\pi)^3} \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\widetilde{D} ( \\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{k}^\\prime) \\widetilde{D}^* ( \\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{k}^{\\prime \\prime}) \\langle \\widetilde{T} (\\mathbf{k}^\\prime) \\widetilde{T}^* (\\mathbf{k}^{\\prime \\prime}) \\rangle \\nonumber \\\\\n& = & \\left( \\frac{1}{r_0^2 \\alpha_0 } \\right)^2 \\int \\frac{d^3 k^\\prime}{(2 \\pi)^3} P(\\mathbf{k}^\\prime) |\\widetilde{D} ( \\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{k}^{\\prime})|^2, \\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality we invoked the definition of the power spectrum, i.e., Eq. . At this point, we may make the approximation that the power spectrum is a relatively broad function, while $|\\widetilde{D} ( \\mathbf{k} - \\mathbf{k}^{\\prime})|^2$ is fairly sharply peaked at $\\mathbf{k} = \\mathbf{k}^\\prime$. This allows $P (\\mathbf{k})$ to be factored out of the integral, and by invoking Parseval\u2019s theorem on what remains, we obtain $$\\langle | \\widetilde{V}(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle \\approx \\left( \\frac{1}{r_0^2 \\alpha_0 } \\right)^2 P (\\mathbf{k}) \\int d^3 r D^2 (\\mathbf{r}).$$ A sensible estimator $\\widehat{P} (\\mathbf{k})$ for the power spectrum would thus be $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widehat{P} (\\mathbf{k}) &=& r_0^4 \\alpha^2 \\left[ \\int d^3 r D^2 (\\mathbf{r}) \\right]^{-1} | \\widetilde{V}(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n& =&  \\frac{\\alpha  r_0^2 }{ \\int d^2\\theta d\\nu B^2 ({\\boldsymbol \\theta}, \\nu) \\gamma(\\nu) \\phi(r_\\nu)}  | \\widetilde{V}(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2. \\qquad\\quad\\end{aligned}$$ Now, even though this expression was derived using the flat-sky approximation, it has been applied to wide-field instruments in the past. The flat-sky approximation is crudely undone by promoting $d^2 \\theta$ back to $d \\Omega$, giving $$\\label{eq:flatSkyNormFinalResult}\n\\widehat{P} (\\mathbf{k}) = \\left( \\frac{ c^2}{2 k_B } \\right)^2 \\frac{r_0^2 \\alpha  | \\widetilde{V}(\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 }{\\int \\!d\\nu d\\Omega \\,\\nu^4 A^2 ({\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}, \\nu)\\gamma(\\nu) \\phi(r_\\nu) },$$ where we have reinserted Eq. . It is implicitly assumed that the value of $\\mathbf{k}$ on the left hand side of this equation is related to $\\mathbf{b}$ and $\\tau$ by Eq. .\n\nThe foreground wedge in the narrow-field limit\n==============================================\n\nIn this Appendix, we work in the narrow-field limit and derive an analytic form for the signature of foregrounds in a power spectrum expressed in terms of rectilinear $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ Fourier modes (i.e., the \u201cforeground wedge\" on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ plane). Our starting point will be Eq. , but written in terms of angles on the sky and assuming a frequency-independent modified primary beam $B(\\boldsymbol \\theta)$: $$V(\\mathbf{b}, \\nu) = \\int d^2 \\theta \\phi(r_\\nu) B(\\boldsymbol \\theta) T(\\boldsymbol \\theta, \\nu)e^{ - i 2\\pi \\nu  \\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta / c}.$$ The delay-transformed visibility then takes the form $$\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) = \\int d\\nu d^2 \\theta \\gamma(\\nu) \\phi(r_\\nu) B(\\boldsymbol \\theta) T(\\boldsymbol \\theta, \\nu) e^{i 2 \\pi \\nu ( \\tau - \\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta / c)}.$$\n\nIn principle, our sky temperature $T(\\boldsymbol \\theta, \\nu)$ should include contributions from both the cosmological signal and the foregrounds. However, if we assume that foregrounds and the cosmological signal are uncorrelated (as we did in Section \\[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\\]), we may derive the foreground wedge without including the cosmological signal. We thus assume in this Appendix that $T(\\boldsymbol \\theta, \\nu)$ consists solely of foregrounds, taking the form $$T(\\boldsymbol \\theta, \\nu) = T_\\perp^\\textrm{fg} (\\boldsymbol \\theta) \\kappa(\\nu),$$ and thus our delay-transformed visibility becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) & = & \\int d^2 \\theta B(\\boldsymbol \\theta) T_\\perp^\\textrm{fg} (\\boldsymbol \\theta) e^{i 2 \\pi \\nu_0 ( \\tau - \\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta / c)} \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\qquad \\times \\widetilde{\\Theta} \\left[ 2 \\pi \\left( \\tau - \\frac{\\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta}{c}\\right)\\right]  \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\int \\frac{d^2 \\ell}{(2\\pi)^2} \\widetilde{T}_\\perp^\\textrm{fg} (\\boldsymbol \\ell) \\int d^2 \\theta B(\\boldsymbol \\theta) e^{i \\boldsymbol \\ell \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta} e^{i 2 \\pi \\nu_0 ( \\tau - \\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta / c)} \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\qquad \\times \\widetilde{\\Theta} \\left[ 2 \\pi \\left( \\tau - \\frac{\\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta}{c}\\right)\\right],\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\widetilde{T}_\\perp^\\textrm{fg} (\\boldsymbol \\ell) \\equiv \\int d^2\\theta e^{i \\boldsymbol \\ell \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta} T_\\perp^\\textrm{fg} (\\boldsymbol \\theta)$ is the Fourier transform of $T_\\perp^\\textrm{fg}$, which we assume (as we did in Sections \\[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\\] and \\[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\\]) is a field with rotationally invariant statistics. This means that $$\\langle \\widetilde{T}_\\perp^\\textrm{fg} (\\boldsymbol \\ell) \\widetilde{T}_\\perp^\\textrm{fg} (\\boldsymbol \\ell)^* \\rangle = (2\\pi)^2 \\delta^D (\\boldsymbol \\ell - \\boldsymbol \\ell^\\prime) C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg},$$ where we have suggestively chosen the symbol $C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg}$ on the right hand side because in the flat-sky limit, $C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg}$ can be shown to converge to the angular power spectrum [@hu2000].\n\nFollowing Section \\[sec:CurvedSkyWedge\\], we form our estimator of the power spectrum by squaring the absolute magnitude of the delay-transformed visibility to obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle | \\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle = \\int \\frac{d^2 \\ell}{(2\\pi)^2} C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg} \\Bigg{|} \\int d^2 \\theta e^{i (\\boldsymbol \\ell - 2 \\pi \\nu_0 \\mathbf{b} / c) \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta} \\nonumber \\\\\n\\times B(\\boldsymbol \\theta) \\widetilde{\\Theta} \\left[ 2 \\pi \\left( \\tau - \\frac{\\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta}{c}\\right)\\right] \\Bigg{|}^2. \\qquad\\end{aligned}$$ Again, we may consider the special case where $C_\\ell^\\textrm{fg}$ is a constant in order to elucidate the effects of the foreground wedge. This yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle | \\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 \\rangle &\\propto& \\int d^2 \\theta B^2 (\\boldsymbol \\theta) \\Bigg{|} \\widetilde{\\Theta} \\left[ 2 \\pi \\left( \\tau - \\frac{\\mathbf{b} \\cdot \\boldsymbol \\theta}{c} \\right) \\right] \\Bigg{|}^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& 2 \\pi \\int d \\theta \\overline{B^2} (\\theta) \\widetilde{\\Theta} \\left[ 2 \\pi \\left( \\tau - \\frac{b \\theta}{c} \\right) \\right] \\Bigg{|}^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\frac{c}{b} \\int ds \\overline{B^2} \\left( \\frac{c \\tau}{b} - \\frac{sc}{2\\pi b} \\right) | \\widetilde{\\Theta} (s) |^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\approx & \\frac{c}{b} \\overline{B^2} \\left( \\frac{c \\tau}{b} \\right) \\int ds | \\widetilde{\\Theta} (s) |^2\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\overline{B^2} (\\theta) \\equiv (1/2\\pi) \\int d\\theta^\\prime B^2(\\theta, \\theta^\\prime) $, and in the last line we assumed we were in the long baseline (or the high $k_\\perp$) regime where the foreground wedge is relevant. This allowed $\\overline{B^2}$ to be factored out of the integral.\n\nRecalling that $\\langle | \\widetilde{V} (\\mathbf{b}, \\tau) |^2 $ serves as a good estimator for the power spectrum at Fourier coordinates given by Eq. , the foreground contamination $\\widehat{P}^\\textrm{fg}$ of our power spectrum estimate is thus given by $$\\widehat{P}^\\textrm{fg} (k_\\perp, k_\\parallel) \\propto \\frac{1}{k_\\perp}  \\overline{B^2} \\left( \\frac{\\alpha_0 \\nu_0 k_\\parallel}{r_0 k_\\perp}\\right).\n\\vspace{0.1cm}$$ Contours of constant foreground power are therefore along lines where $k_\\parallel \\propto k_\\perp$, and if $\\overline{B^2}$ is zero (or negligible) beyond some characteristic angle $\\theta_c$ away from its peak, foreground emission will be confined to $$\\label{eq:WedgeLineEquation}\nk_\\parallel < k_\\perp \\frac{H_0 r_0 E(z) \\theta_c}{c (1+z)} ,$$ where we have written $\\alpha_0$ in terms of cosmological parameters. Since $k = (k_\\perp^2 + k_\\parallel^2)^{1/2}$, we may also write this in terms of $k$ and $k_\\perp$. This gives $$k < k_\\perp r_0 \\frac{H_0}{c} \\left[\\frac{\\theta_c^2 E^2(z)}{(1+z)^2} + \\left( \\int_0^z \\frac{dz^\\prime}{E(z^\\prime)}\\right)^{-2}\\right]^{\\frac{1}{2}}.$$\\\nRecalling that $\\ell \\approx k_\\perp r_0$ in the flat-sky approximation, this is essentially the same as the full curved-sky expression, Eq. . The only slight difference is that in the flat-sky approximation, the angular coordinates are rectilinear and formally go from $-\\infty$ to $+\\infty$, necessitating some arbitrary cut-off angle $\\theta_c$ for the primary beam. In the curved sky treatment, a cutoff is naturally imposed by the horizon.\n\n[^1]: $^{\\dagger}$Hubble Fellow\n\n[^2]: In @parsons_et_al2016 it was shown that in specialized situations it is possible to pre-filter visibility data from an interferometer to recover some of the loss of sensitivity from a square-then-average approach. However, such an approach does not recover large scale angular modes from a wide field of view.\n\n[^3]: It is an unfortunate coincidence that the spherical harmonic indices are typically denoted by $\\ell$ and $m$ in the cosmological literature, while in radio astronomy they are reserved for the direction cosines from zenith in the east-west and north-south directions, respectively. In this paper, $\\ell$ and $m$ will always represent spherical harmonic indices, and never direction cosines.\n\n[^4]: In this paper, we use hats for two different purposes. When placed above a vector (e.g., with ${\\hat{\\mathbf{r}}}$), the hat indicates that the vector is a unit vector. When placed above a scalar (e.g., with $\\widehat{P}$), the hat indicates an estimator of the hatless quantity.\n\n[^5]: This does not, of course, preclude the examination of systematics in other spaces. For example, though cable reflections may have well-defined signatures on the $k_\\perp$-$k_\\parallel$ or $\\ell$-$k$ planes, they are an example of a systematic that can (and should) also be diagnosed in spaces appropriate for raw data coming off an instrument.\n\n[^6]: We implicitly assume throughout this paper that we are dealing only with temperature *fluctuations*. In other words, we assume that that the mean sky temperature has already been subtracted off (or simply does not enter the measurement itself, as is the case with most interferometric measurements).\n\n[^7]: Note that even though this was derived assuming that $P(k)$ is smooth (which does not necessarily hold when substantial foreground contaminants are involved; @liu_et_al2014b), the resulting normalization is still the correct one to use.\n\n[^8]: As expected from Section \\[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\\], the definition of $S_\\ell (k)$ depends on the survey geometry $\\phi(\\mathbf{r})$. This dependence cancels out for the cosmological signal, but not for contaminants. Thus, while two different surveys should give identical results for the cosmological power spectrum $P(k)$, the contaminant (e.g., foreground) contributions to the power are not directly comparable, and two surveys with identical contaminating influences but different sky coverage may measure different total power spectra. Note that this argument is due purely to the differences in scaling with survey volume discussed in Section \\[sec:RotationalInvarianceOnly\\]. It thus applies equally well to both $P(k_\\perp, k_\\parallel)$ and $S_\\ell (k)$, and is not simply a peculiarity of the latter.\n\n[^9]: The term \u201cwindow function\" is unfortunately rather overused. In various parts of the literature, it has been used to refer to what we have called the tapering function $\\gamma$ in this paper, and in other parts of the literature it has been used to describe what we have called the survey profile $\\phi$. In this paper, a window function will *always* refer to the function that describes the linear combination of true power spectrum probed by one\u2019s statistical estimator of the power spectrum. A mathematically precise definition for the window functions of our particular estimator will be provided in Eqs. and .\n\n[^10]: Note that while our results for the boundary of the wedge and its profile are qualitatively robust, minor differences can arise depending on the precise form of the power spectrum estimator that is employed. Consider, for example, the estimator used in @liu_et_al2014a where visibility data was convolved onto a Fourier-space grid using the primary beam as a gridding kernel. There, the profile of the wedge was shown to be primary beam convolved with itself, rather than the primary beam squared as we have it here for our estimator.\n\n[^11]: In principle, converting $\\nu_0$ to a radial distance does not yield $r_0$ because the distance-frequency relation is nonlinear. In practice, the radially compressed geometry of a typical intensity mapping survey (see Figure \\[fig:surveyGeom\\]) means that linearized distance-frequency relations such as Eq. are excellent approximations. We are thus justified in making the assumption that $\\nu_0$ and $r_0$ roughly refer to the same radial distance.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    We investigate lattice Weinberg - Salam model without fermions numerically for the realistic choice of coupling constants correspondent to the value of the Weinberg angle $\\theta_W \\sim 30^o$, and bare fine structure constant around $\\alpha \\sim \\frac{1}{150}$. We consider the values of the scalar self coupling corresponding to Higgs mass $M_H \\sim 100, 150, 270$ GeV. It has been found that nonperturbative effects become important while approaching continuum physics within the lattice model. When the ultraviolet cutoff $\\Lambda =\n    \\frac{\\pi}{a}$ (where $a$ is the lattice spacing) is increased and achieves the value around $1$ TeV one encounters the fluctuational region (on the phase diagram of the lattice model), where the fluctuations of the scalar field become strong. The classical Nambu monopole can be considered as an embryo of the unphysical symmetric phase within the physical phase. In the fluctuational region quantum Nambu monopoles are dense and, therefore, the use of the perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum in this region is limited. Further increase of the cutoff is accompanied by a transition to the region of the phase diagram, where the scalar field is not condensed (this happens at the value of $\\Lambda$ around $1.4$ TeV for the considered lattice sizes). Within this region further increase of the cutoff is possible although we do not observe this in details due to the strong fluctuations of the gauge boson correlator. Both mentioned above regions look unphysical. Therefore we come to the conclusion that the maximal value of the cutoff admitted within lattice Electroweak theory cannot exceed the value of the order of $1$ TeV.\nauthor:\n- 'M.A.Zubkov'\ntitle: 'How to approach continuum physics in lattice Weinberg - Salam model'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIt is well - known [@M_W_T], that the finite temperature perturbation expansion breaks down at the temperatures above the electroweak transition/crossover already for Higgs masses above about $60$ GeV. Therefore the present lower bound on the Higgs mass requires the use of nonperturbative techniques while investigating electroweak physics at high temperature.\n\nNambu monopoles are not described by means of a perturbation expansion around the trivial vacuum background. Therefore, nonperturbative methods should be used in order to investigate their physics. However, their mass is estimated at the Tev scale. That\u2019s why at zero temperature and at the energies much less than $1$ Tev their effect on physical observables is negligible. However, when energy of the processes approaches $1$ Tev we expect these objects influence the dynamics. Recently the indications in favor of this point of view were indeed found [@BVZ2007; @VZ2008; @Z2009].\n\nIn this paper we consider lattice realization of zero temperature Electroweak theory (without fermions). The phase diagram of the correspondent lattice model contains physical Higgs phase, where scalar field is condensed and gauge bosons $Z$ and $W$ acquire their masses. This physical phase is bounded by the phase transition surface. Crossing this surface one leaves the Higgs phase and enters the phase of the lattice theory, where the scalar field is not condensed.\n\nIn the lattice theory the ultraviolet cutoff is finite and is equal to the momentum ${\\Lambda} = \\frac{\\pi}{a}$ (see, for example, [@UV]), where $a$ is the lattice spacing. The physical scale can be fixed, for example, using the value of the $Z$-boson mass $M^{\\rm phys}_Z \\sim 90$ GeV. Therefore the lattice spacing is evaluated to be $a \\sim [90\\,{\\rm GeV}]^{-1} M_Z$, where $M_Z$ is the $Z$ boson mass in lattice units. Within the physical phase of the theory the lines of constant physics (LCP) are defined that correspond to constant renormalized physical couplings (the fine structure constant $\\alpha$, the Weinberg angle $\\theta_W$, and Higgs mass to Z-boson mass ratio $\\eta =\nM_H/M_Z$). The points on LCP are parametrized by the lattice spacing. Our observation is that the LCP corresponding to realistic values of $\\alpha$, $\\theta_W$, and $\\eta$ crosses the transition between the two \u201cphases\u201d at a certain value $a = a_c$ and for $a < a_c$ the scalar field is not condensed. We denote the corresponding value of the cutoff $\\Lambda_c = \\frac{\\pi}{a_c}$. Our estimate for the considered values of the Higgs mass $M_H \\sim 100, 160,\n270$ Gev is $\\Lambda_c = 1.4 \\pm 0.2$ Tev (for the considered lattice sizes). We do not observe the dependence of $\\Lambda_c$ on the lattice size. That\u2019s why the value $\\Lambda_c$ might appear as the maximal possible value of the cutoff allowed in the conventional Electroweak theory.\n\nIt is important to compare this result with the limitations on the Ultraviolet Cutoff, that come from the perturbation theory. From the point of view of perturbation theory the energy scale $1$ TeV appears in the Hierarchy problem [@TEV]. Namely, the mass parameter $\\mu^2$ for the scalar field receives a quadratically divergent contribution in one loop. Therefore, the initial mass parameter ($\\mu^2= - \\lambda_c v^2$, where $v$ is the vacuum average of the scalar field) should be set to infinity in such a way that the renormalized mass $\\mu^2_R$ remains negative and finite. This is the content of the so-called fine tuning. It is commonly believed that this fine tuning is not natural [@TEV] and, therefore, one should set up the finite ultraviolet cutoff $\\Lambda$. From the requirement that the one-loop contribution to $\\mu^2$ is less than $10 |\\mu_R^2|$ one derives that $\\Lambda \\sim 1$ TeV. However, strictly speaking, the possibility that the mentioned fine tuning takes place is not excluded.\n\nIn the perturbation theory there is also more solid limitation on the Ultraviolet cutoff. It appears as a consequence of the triviality problem, which is related to Landau pole in scalar field self coupling $\\lambda$ and in the fine structure constant $\\alpha$. The Landau pole in fine structure constant is related to the fermion loops and, therefore, has no direct connection with our lattice result (we neglect dynamical fermions in our consideration). Due to the Landau pole the renormalized $\\lambda$ is zero, and the only way to keep it equal to its measured value is to impose the limitation on the cutoff. That\u2019s why the Electroweak theory is usually thought of as a finite cutoff theory. For small Higgs masses (less than about $350$ GeV) the correspondent energy scale $\\Lambda_c^{0}$ calculated within the perturbation theory is much larger, than $1$ Tev. In particular, for $M_H \\sim 300$ GeV we have $\\Lambda_c^{0}\\sim 1000$ TeV. It is worth mentioning that for $\\lambda\n\\rightarrow \\infty$ the perturbation expansion in $\\lambda$ cannot be used. In this case Higgs mass approaches its absolute upper bound[^1], and both triviality and Hierarchy scales approach each other.\n\nFrom the previous research we know that the phase diagram in the $\\beta$ - $\\gamma$ plane of the lattice $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs for any fixed $\\lambda$ resembles the phase diagram for the lattice Weinberg - Salam model. The only difference is that in the $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs model the confinement-deconfinement phase transition corresponding to the $U(1)$ constituents of the model is absent. The direct measurement of the renormalized coupling $\\beta_R$ shows [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14] that the line of constant renormalized coupling constant (with the value close to the experimental one) intersects the phase transition line. Also we know from the direct measurements of $M_W$ in the $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs model that the ultraviolet cutoff is increased when one is moving along this line from the physical Higgs phase to the symmetric phase.\n\nOn the tree level the gauge boson mass in lattice units vanishes on the transition surface at small enough $\\lambda$. This means that the tree level estimate predicts the appearance of an infinite ultraviolet cutoff at the transition point for small $\\lambda$. At infinite $\\lambda$ the tree level estimate gives nonzero values of lattice masses at the transition point. Our numerical investigation of $SU(2)\\otimes U(1)$ model (at $\\lambda = 0.0025,\n0.009, 0.001$) and previous calculations in the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model (both at finite $\\lambda$ and at $\\lambda = \\infty$) showed that for the considered lattice sizes renormalized masses do not vanish and the transition is either of the first order or a crossover. (Actually, the situation, when the cutoff tends to infinity at the position of the transition point means that there is a second order phase transition.) The dependence on the lattice sizes for the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model was investigated, for example, in [@10]. Namely, for $\\beta = 8$, $\\lambda \\sim 0.00116$, where $M_H \\sim M_W$, the correlation lengths were evaluated at the transition points. For different lattice sizes (from $12^3\\times 28$ to $18^3 \\times 36$) no change in correlation length was observed [@10].\n\nIn table 1 of [@BVZ2007] the data on the ultraviolet cutoff achieved in selected lattice studies of the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model are presented. Everywhere $\\beta$ is around $\\beta \\sim 8$ and the renormalized fine structure constant is around $\\alpha \\sim\n1/110$. This table shows that the maximal value of the cutoff ${\\Lambda} = \\frac{\\pi}{a}$ ever achieved in these studies is around $1.4$ Tev.\n\nThus the predictions on the value of $\\Lambda_c$ given by our lattice study and on the value $\\Lambda_c^{0}$ given by the perturbation theory contradict with each other. A possible explanation of this contradiction we suggested in [@Z2009]. Namely, it was demonstrated that in the vicinity of the transition there exists the fluctuational region. Within this region the application of the perturbation theory is limited. This situation is similar to that of some phenomenological models that describe condensed matter systems[^2], where there exists the vicinity of the finite temperature phase transition that is also called fluctuational region. In this region the fluctuations of the order parameter become strong. The contribution of these fluctuations to certain physical observables becomes larger than the tree level estimate. Thus the perturbation theory in these models fails down within the fluctuational region.\n\nWe find that there exists the vicinity of the phase transition between the Higgs phase and the symmetric phase in the Weinberg - Salam model, where the fluctuations of the scalar field become strong and the perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum cannot be applied. According to the numerical results the continuum theory is to be approached within the vicinity of the phase transition, i.e. the cutoff is increased along the line of constant physics when one approaches the point of the transition. That\u2019s why the conventional prediction on the value of the cutoff admitted in the Standard Model based on the perturbation theory may be incorrect.\n\nIn the present paper we proceed the investigation [@Z2009] of the model at the value of the scalar self coupling $\\lambda = 0.009$ (corresponds to the Higgs boson mass around $270$ Gev in the vicinity of the phase transition), bare Weinberg angle $\\theta_W = 30^o$, and bare fine structure constant around $1/150$. The results presented now correspond to essentially larger lattices than that of used in [@Z2009]. Namely, in [@Z2009] main results correspond to lattices $8^3\\times 16$; some results were checked on the lattice $12^3\\times 16$; two points were checked on the lattice $16^4$. Now our main results are obtained on the lattice $16^4$ while the results at the transition point were checked on the lattice $20^3\\times 24$.\n\nIn addition we investigate the model at the value of the scalar self coupling $\\lambda = 0.0025$, bare Weinberg angle $\\theta_W = 30^o$, and bare fine structure constant around $\\alpha_0 \\sim 1/150$. These values of couplings correspond to the Higgs boson mass around $150$ Gev in the vicinity of the phase transition. The results are obtained using lattices $8^3\\times 16$, $12^3\\times 16$, and $16^4$. We also present results for $\\lambda = 0.001$, $\\theta_W = 30^o$, $\\alpha_0 \\sim 1/150$. These values of couplings correspond to the Higgs boson mass around $100$ Gev. The results are obtained using lattices $8^3\\times 16$, $12^3\\times 16$.\n\nIt is worth mentioning that far from the transition point the renormalized fine structure constant slowly approaches the tree level estimate. Contrary to the maximal value of the cutoff the renormalized fine structure constant depends on the lattice size. And for the larger lattice the value of $\\alpha_R$ is closer to the tree level estimate than for the smaller one. For example, for $\\beta = 12, \\gamma \\sim 1, \\lambda\n= 0.001$ (far from the transition point) on the lattice $8^3\\times 16$ the value of $\\alpha_R$ is around $1/130$ while on the lattice $12^3\\times 16$ it is around $1/140$. Within the fluctuational region the deviation from tree level estimate becomes essentially strong. For example, for $\\lambda = 0.009,\n\\gamma = 0.274$ (near the transition point) the renormalized value of $\\alpha_R$ calculated on the lattice $8^3\\times 16$ is around $1/99$ while on the lattice $20^3\\times 24$ its value is around $1/106$. As it is seen from our numerical results and as it will be explained in the Conclusions we guess the mentioned finite volume effects present in the value of renormalized $\\alpha$ do not affect the main observables we considered like the value of $\\Lambda_c$ and the Nambu monopole density.\n\nWe calculate the constraint effective potential $V(|\\Phi|)$ for the Higgs field $\\Phi$. In the physical Higgs phase this potential has a minimum at a certain nonzero value $\\phi_m$ of $|\\Phi|$. This shows that the spontaneous breakdown of the Electroweak symmetry takes place as it should. However, there exists the vicinity of the phase transition, where the fluctuations of the Higgs field are of the order of $\\phi_m$ while the hight of the \u201cpotential barrier\u201d[^3] $H = V(0) - V(\\phi_m)$ is of the order of $V(\\phi_m + \\delta \\phi)-V(\\phi_m)$, where $\\delta \\phi$ is the fluctuation of $|\\Phi|$. We expect that in this region the perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum $\\Phi = (\\phi_m,0)^T$ cannot be applied. This region of the phase diagram is called the fluctuational region (FR).\n\nThe nature of the fluctuational region is illustrated by the behavior of quantum Nambu monopoles [@Nambu; @Chernodub_Nambu]. We show that their lattice density increases when the phase transition point is approached. Within the FR these objects are so dense that it is not possible at all to speak of them as of single monopoles [^4]. Namely, within this region the average distance between the Nambu monopoles is of the order of their size. Such complicated configurations obviously have nothing to do with the conventional vacuum used in the continuum perturbation theory.\n\nThe lattice model under investigation\n=====================================\n\nThe lattice Weinberg - Salam Model without fermions contains gauge field ${\\cal U} = (U,\n\\theta)$ (where $ \\quad U\n \\in SU(2), \\quad e^{i\\theta} \\in U(1)$ are realized as link variables), and the scalar doublet $ \\Phi_{\\alpha}, \\;(\\alpha = 1,2)$ defined on sites.\n\nThe action is taken in the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n S & = & \\beta \\!\\! \\sum_{\\rm plaquettes}\\!\\!\n ((1-\\mbox{${\\small \\frac{1}{2}}$} \\, {\\rm Tr}\\, U_p )\n + \\frac{1}{{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W} (1-\\cos \\theta_p))+\\nonumber\\\\\n && - \\gamma \\sum_{xy} Re(\\Phi^+U_{xy} e^{i\\theta_{xy}}\\Phi) + \\sum_x (|\\Phi_x|^2 +\n \\lambda(|\\Phi_x|^2-1)^2), \\label{S}\\end{aligned}$$ where the plaquette variables are defined as $U_p = U_{xy} U_{yz} U_{wz}^* U_{xw}^*$, and $\\theta_p = \\theta_{xy} + \\theta_{yz} - \\theta_{wz} - \\theta_{xw}$ for the plaquette composed of the vertices $x,y,z,w$. Here $\\lambda$ is the scalar self coupling, and $\\gamma = 2\\kappa$, where $\\kappa$ corresponds to the constant used in the investigations of the $SU(2)$ gauge Higgs model. $\\theta_W$ is the Weinberg angle.\n\nBare fine structure constant $\\alpha$ is expressed through $\\beta$ and $\\theta_W$ as $\\alpha = \\frac{{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W}{\\pi \\beta(1+{\\rm tg}^2\n\\theta_W)}$. In order to demonstrate this we consider naive continuum limit of (\\[S\\]). We set $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\quad U_{x,\\mu} = e^{iA_{\\mu}(x)a}, \\quad e^{i\\theta_{x,\\mu}} = e^{iB_{\\mu}(x)a}\\end{aligned}$$ Here $a$ is the lattice spacing. The field $B_{\\mu}=\\frac{\\tilde{B_{\\mu}}}{2}$, where $\\tilde{B_{\\mu}}$ - is the conventional $U(1)$ field while $A_{\\mu}$ is the conventional $SU(2)$ field. In continuum limit (\\[S\\]) must become $$\\begin{aligned}\n S_g & = & \\int d^4x\n \\{\\frac{1}{2g_2^2}  {\\rm Tr}\\, [ 2 \\times  \\sum_{i>j}G^2_{ij}]\n + \\frac{1}{4g_1^2}  [ 2 \\times \\sum_{i>j}\\tilde{F}^2_{ij}]\n  \\},\\label{Act0c}\\end{aligned}$$ Here $\\tilde{F}_{ij} = \\partial_{i}\\tilde{B}_j - \\partial_{j}\\tilde{B}_i = 2\n(\\partial_{i}{B}_j - \\partial_{j}{B}_i) = 2 F_{ij}$, ${G}_{ij} =\n\\partial_{i}{A}_j -\n\\partial_{j}{A}_i - i[A_i,A_j]$. We also have the following correspondence between the plaquette variables and the field strengths: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   \\quad {\\rm Tr} U_{x,\\mu\\nu} &=& {\\rm Tr}[1-\\frac{1}{2}G^2_{\\mu\n\\nu}a^4],\n \\nonumber\\\\  \\quad {\\rm cos} \\, N {\\theta_{x,\\mu\\nu}} &=& [1-\\frac{N^2}{2}{F}^2_{\\mu \\nu}a^4]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNow in order to clarify the correspondence between constants $g_{1,2}$ and $\\beta$ we must substitute the expressions for the field strengths to (\\[S\\]) and compare it to (\\[Act0c\\]). We have: $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\frac{1}{g^2_1} = \\frac{1}{4{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W} \\times  \\beta , \\quad \\frac{1}{g^2_2} =\n \\beta/4\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThus $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\rm tg} \\theta_W &=& \\frac{g_1}{g_2} ,\\nonumber\\\\\n   \\quad \\alpha &=&\n \\frac{e^2}{4\\pi}= \\frac{[\\frac{1}{g^2_1}+\\frac{1}{g^2_2}]^{-1}}{4\\pi}= \\frac{{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W}{\\pi \\beta(1+{\\rm tg}^2\n\\theta_W)}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe consider the region of the phase diagram with $\\beta \\sim 12$ and $\\theta_W \\sim\n\\pi/6$. Therefore, bare couplings are ${\\rm sin}^2 \\theta_W \\sim 0.25$; $\\alpha \\sim\n\\frac{1}{150}$. These values are to be compared with the experimental ones ${\\rm sin}^2\n\\theta_W(100 {\\rm Gev}) \\sim 0.23$; $\\alpha(100 {\\rm Gev}) \\sim \\frac{1}{128}$.\n\nThe simulations were performed on lattices of sizes $8^3\\times 16$, $12^3\\times\n16$. For $\\lambda = 0.0025, 0.009$ we investigate the system on the lattice $16^4$. The transition point at $\\lambda = 0.009$ was checked using the larger lattice ($20^3\\times 24$). In order to simulate the system we used Metropolis algorithm. The acceptance rate is kept around $0.5$ via the automatical self - tuning of the suggested distribution of the fields. At each step of the suggestion the random value is added to the old value of the scalar field while the old value of Gauge field is multiplied by random $SU(2)\\otimes U(1)$ matrix. We use Gaussian distribution both for the random value added to the scalar field and the parameters of the random matrix multiplied by the lattice Gauge field. We use two independent parameters for these distributions: one for the Gauge fields and another for the scalar field. The program code has been tested for the case of frozen scalar field. And the results of the papers [@VZ2008] are reproduced. We also have tested our code for the $U(1)$ field frozen and repeat the results of [@Montvayold]. Far from the transition point the autocorrelation time for the gauge fields is estimated as about $N^g_{auto} \\sim 500$ Metropolis steps. In the vicinity of the transition point the autocorrelation time is several times larger and is about $N^g_{auto} \\sim 1500$ Metropolis steps. (The correlation between the values of the gauge field is less than $3 \\%$ for the configurations separated by $N^g_{auto}$ Metropolis steps. Each metropolis step consists of the renewing the fields over all the lattice.) The autocorrelation time for the scalar field is essentially smaller than for the gauge fields and is of the order of $N^{\\phi}_{auto} \\sim 20$. The estimated time for preparing the equilibrium starting from the cold start far from the phase transition within the Higgs phase is about $18000$ Metropolis steps for the considered values of couplings. At the same time near the phase transition and within the symmetric phase the estimated time for preparing the equilibrium is up to $3$ times larger.\n\nThe tree level estimates of lattice quantities\n==============================================\n\nAt finite $\\lambda$ the line of constant renormalized $\\alpha$ is not a line of constant physics, because the mass of the Higgs boson depends on the position on this line. Thus, in order to investigate the line of constant physics one should vary $\\lambda$ together with $\\gamma$ to keep the ratio of lattice masses $M_H/M_W$ constant.\n\nIn order to obtain the tree level estimates let us rewrite the lattice action in an appropriate way. Namely, we define the scalar field $\\tilde{\\Phi} =\n\\sqrt{\\frac{\\gamma}{2}} \\Phi$. We have:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n S & = & \\beta \\!\\! \\sum_{\\rm plaquettes}\\!\\!\n ((1-\\mbox{${\\small \\frac{1}{2}}$} \\, {\\rm Tr}\\, U_p )\n + \\frac{1}{{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W} (1-\\cos \\theta_p))+\\nonumber\\\\\n && + \\sum_{xy} |\\tilde{\\Phi}_x - U_{xy} e^{i\\theta_{xy}}\\tilde{\\Phi}_y|^2 + \\sum_x (\\mu^2 |\\tilde{\\Phi}_x|^2 +\n \\tilde{\\lambda} |\\tilde{\\Phi}_x|^4) + \\omega , \\label{S2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $\\mu^2 = - 2(4+(2\\lambda-1)/\\gamma)$, $\\tilde{\\lambda} =\n4\\frac{\\lambda}{\\gamma^2}$, and $\\omega = \\lambda V$. Here $V = L^4$ is the lattice volume, and $L$ is the lattice size.\n\nFor negative $\\mu^2$ we fix Unitary gauge $\\tilde{\\Phi}_2=0$, ${\\rm Im}\\, \\tilde{\\Phi}_1\n= 0$, and introduce the vacuum value of $\\tilde{\\Phi}$: $v =\n\\frac{|\\mu|}{\\sqrt{2\\tilde{\\lambda}}}$. We also introduce the scalar field $\\sigma$ instead of $\\tilde{\\Phi}$: $\\tilde{\\Phi}_1 = v + \\sigma$. We denote $V_{xy} =\n(U^{11}_{xy}e^{i\\theta_{xy}} - 1)$, and obtain: $$\\begin{aligned}\n S & = & \\beta \\!\\! \\sum_{\\rm plaquettes}\\!\\!\n ((1-\\mbox{${\\small \\frac{1}{2}}$} \\, {\\rm Tr}\\, U_p )\n + \\frac{1}{{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W} (1-\\cos \\theta_p))+\\nonumber\\\\\n && + \\sum_{xy} ((\\sigma_x - \\sigma_y)^2 + |V_{xy}|^2 v^2)  + \\sum_x 2|\\mu|^2 \\sigma_x^2 \\nonumber\\\\\n && + \\sum_{xy} ((\\sigma^2_y+2v \\sigma_y)|V_{xy}|^2 - 2(\\sigma_x - \\sigma_y){\\rm Re} V_{xy} (\\sigma_y +v) ) + \\nonumber\\\\\n && + \\sum_x  \\tilde{\\lambda} \\sigma_x^2 (\\sigma_x^2 + 4 v \\sigma_x) +  \\tilde{\\omega} , \\label{S2}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\tilde{\\omega} = \\omega - \\tilde{\\lambda} v^4 V$.\n\nNow we easily derive the tree level estimates: $$\\begin{aligned}\nM_H &=& \\sqrt{2}|\\mu| = 2\\sqrt{4+(2\\lambda-1)/\\gamma}; \\nonumber\\\\\nM_W &=& \\sqrt{2} \\frac{v}{\\sqrt{\\beta}} =  \\sqrt{\\frac{\\gamma(4\\gamma+2\\lambda-1)}{2\\lambda\\beta}}; \\nonumber\\\\\nM_W &=& {\\rm cos}\\theta_W M_Z\\nonumber\\\\\nM_H/M_W &=& \\sqrt{8\\lambda \\beta/\\gamma^2};\\nonumber\\\\\n\\Lambda &=&\\pi \\sqrt{\\frac{2\\lambda\\beta}{\\gamma(4\\gamma+2\\lambda-1)}} \\, [80\\, {\\rm\nGeV}];\\label{tree}\\end{aligned}$$ The fine structure constant is given by $\\alpha = \\frac{{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W}{\\pi\n\\beta(1+{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W)}$ and does not depend on $\\lambda$ and $\\gamma$. From (\\[tree\\]) we learn that at the tree level LCP on the phase diagram corresponds to fixed $\\beta = \\frac{{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W}{\\pi \\alpha(1+{\\rm tg}^2 \\theta_W)} \\sim 10 $ and $\\eta = M_H/M_W$, and is given by the equation $\\lambda(\\gamma) =\n\\frac{\\eta^2}{8\\beta} \\gamma^2$.\n\nThe important case is $\\lambda = \\infty$, where the tree level estimates give $$\\begin{aligned}\nM_H &=& \\infty; \\nonumber\\\\\nM_W &=& \\sqrt{\\frac{\\gamma}{\\beta}}; \\nonumber\\\\\nM_Z &=& \\sqrt{\\frac{\\gamma}{\\beta}}{\\rm cos}^{-1}\\theta_W; \\nonumber\\\\\n\\Lambda &=& \\pi \\sqrt{\\frac{\\beta}{\\gamma}} \\, [80\\, {\\rm GeV}];\\label{treei}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn the $SU(2)$ gauge Higgs model for the small values of $\\lambda << 0.1$ the tree level estimate for $M_H/M_W$ gives values that differ from the renormalized ratio by about 20%[@11]. The tree level estimate for the ultraviolet cutoff is about $1$ TeV at $\\lambda =\n\\infty,\\gamma = 1, \\beta = 15$ that is not far from the numerical result given in [@VZ2008]. In the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model at $\\lambda = \\infty$ the critical $\\gamma_c = 0.63$ for $\\beta = 8$ [@14]. At this point the tree level estimate gives $\\Lambda = 0.9$ Tev while the direct measurements give $\\Lambda \\in [0.8; 1.5]$ Tev for values of $\\gamma \\in [0.64; 0.95]$ [@14]. The investigations of the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model showed that a consideration of finite $\\lambda$ does not change much the estimate for the gauge boson mass. However, at finite $\\lambda$ and values of $\\gamma$ close to the phase-transition point the tree level formula does not work at all.\n\nThe tree level estimate for the critical $\\gamma$ is $\\gamma_c = (1-2\\lambda)/4$. At small $\\lambda$ this formula gives values that are close to the ones obtained by the numerical simulations [@12; @13; @14]. In particular, $\\gamma_c \\rightarrow 0.25$ ($\\kappa_c \\rightarrow 0.125$) at $\\lambda << 1$. However, this formula clearly does not work for $\\lambda > 1/2$. From [@Montvay; @12; @13; @14] we know that the critical coupling in the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model is about $2 - 4$ times smaller for $\\lambda =0$ than for $\\lambda = \\infty$.\n\nTree level estimate predicts that there is the second order phase transition. This means that according to the tree level estimate the value of the cutoff at the transition point is infinite. Our numerical simulations, however, show that the cutoff remains finite and the transition is, most likely, a crossover at the considered values of $\\theta_W$, $\\lambda$ and $\\beta$.\n\nNambu monopoles\n===============\n\nIn this section we remind the reader what is called Nambu monopole [@Nambu]. First let us define the continuum Electroweak fields as they appear in the Weinberg-Salam model. The continuum scalar doublet is denoted as $\\Phi$. The $Z$-boson field $Z^{\\mu}$ and electromagnetic field $A_{\\rm EM}^{\\mu}$ are defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\n Z^{\\mu} = - \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\Phi^+ \\Phi}} \\Phi^+ A^{\\mu} \\Phi -  B^{\\mu},\n\\nonumber\\\\\n A_{\\rm EM}^{\\mu} =  2 B^{\\mu}  + 2 \\,{\\rm sin}^2\\, \\theta_W\n Z^{\\mu},\\label{FSM}\\end{aligned}$$ where $A^{\\mu}$ and $B^{\\mu}$ are the corresponding $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ gauge fields of the Standard Model.\n\nAfter fixing the unitary gauge $\\Phi_2=const.$, $\\Phi_1 = 0$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n Z^{\\mu} =  \\frac{g_z}{2}[\\frac{\\tilde{A_3}^{\\mu}}{g_2}{\\rm cos}\\theta_W -  \\frac{\\tilde{B}^{\\mu}}{g_1}{\\rm sin}\\theta_W] = \\frac{1}{2}\\tilde{Z}^{\\mu},\n\\nonumber\\\\\n A_{\\rm EM}^{\\mu} =  e[\\frac{\\tilde{A_3}^{\\mu}}{g_2}{\\rm sin}\\theta_W +  \\frac{\\tilde{B}^{\\mu}}{g_1}{\\rm cos}\\theta_W] = \\tilde{A}^{\\mu},\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\frac{\\tilde{A}_3}{g_2} = \\frac{1}{g_2}{\\rm Tr}\\, A \\sigma^3$, $\\frac{\\tilde{B}}{g_1} = 2 B/g_1$, $\\frac{\\tilde{Z}}{g_z}$, $\\frac{\\tilde{A}}{e}$ - conventional Standard Model fields, and $g_z = \\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}$.\n\nNambu monopoles are defined as the endpoints of the $Z$-string [@Nambu]. The $Z$-string is the classical field configuration that represents the object, which is characterized by the magnetic flux extracted from the $Z$-boson field. Namely, for a small contour $\\cal C$ winding around the $Z$ - string one should have $$\\int_{\\cal C} Z^{\\mu} dx^{\\mu} \\sim 2\\pi;\\,\n \\int_{\\cal C} A_{\\rm EM}^{\\mu} dx^{\\mu} \\sim 0;\\,\n \\int_{\\cal C} B^{\\mu} dx^{\\mu} \\sim 2\\pi {\\rm sin}^2\\, \\theta_W .$$ The string terminates at the position of the Nambu monopole. The hypercharge flux is supposed to be conserved at that point. Therefore, a Nambu monopole carries electromagnetic flux $4\\pi {\\rm sin}^2\\, \\theta_W$. The size of Nambu monopoles was estimated [@Nambu] to be of the order of the inverse Higgs mass, while its mass should be of the order of a few TeV. According to [@Nambu] Nambu monopoles may appear only in the form of a bound state of a monopole-antimonopole pair.\n\nIn lattice theory the following variables are considered as creating the $Z$ boson: $$Z_{xy} = Z^{\\mu}_{x} \\;\n = - {\\rm sin} \\,[{\\rm Arg} (\\Phi_x^+U_{xy} e^{i\\theta_{xy}}\\Phi_y) ]. \\label{Z1}$$ and: $$Z^{\\prime}_{xy} = Z^{\\mu}_{x} \\;\n = - \\,[{\\rm Arg} (\\Phi_x^+U_{xy} e^{i\\theta_{xy}}\\Phi_y) ]. \\label{Z1_}$$\n\nThe classical solution corresponding to a $Z$-string should be formed around the $2$-dimensional topological defect which is represented by the integer-valued field defined on the dual lattice $ \\Sigma = \\frac{1}{2\\pi}^*([d\nZ^{\\prime}]_{{\\rm mod} 2\\pi} - d Z^{\\prime})$. (Here we used the notations of differential forms on the lattice. For a definition of those notations see, for example, \u00a0[@forms]. Lattice field $Z^\\prime$ is defined in Eg. (\\[Z1\\_\\]).) Therefore, $\\Sigma$ can be treated as the worldsheet of a [*quantum*]{} $Z$-string [@Chernodub_Nambu]. Then, the worldlines of quantum Nambu monopoles appear as the boundary of the $Z$-string worldsheet: $ j_Z =\n\\delta \\Sigma $.\n\nFor historical reasons in lattice simulations we fix unitary gauge $\\Phi_2 = 0$; $\\Phi_1\n\\in {\\cal R}$; $\\Phi_1 \\ge 0$ (instead of the usual $\\Phi_1 = 0$; $\\Phi_2 \\in {\\cal R}$), and the lattice Electroweak theory becomes a lattice $U(1)$ gauge theory with the $U(1)$ gauge field $$A_{xy}  =  A^{\\mu}_{x} \\;\n = \\,[Z^{\\prime}  + 2\\theta_{xy}]  \\,{\\rm mod}\n \\,2\\pi, \\label{A}$$ (The usual lattice Electromagnetic field is related to $A$ as $ A_{\\rm EM}  = A -\nZ^{\\prime} + 2 \\,{\\rm sin}^2\\, \\theta_W Z^{\\prime}$.) One may try to extract monopole trajectories directly from $A$. The monopole current is given by $$j_{A} = \\frac{1}{2\\pi} {}^*d([d A]{\\rm mod}2\\pi)\n\\label{Am}$$ Both $j_Z$, and $j_A$ carry magnetic charges. That\u2019s why it is important to find the correspondence between them.\n\nIn continuum notations we have $$A^{\\mu}  =  Z^{\\mu} + 2 B^{\\mu},$$ where $B$ is the hypercharge field. Its strength is divergenceless. As a result in continuum theory the net $Z$ flux emanating from the center of the monopole is equal to the net $A$ flux. (Both $A$ and $Z$ are undefined inside the monopole.) This means that in the continuum limit the position of the Nambu monopole must coincide with the position of the antimonopole extracted from the field $A$. Therefore, one can consider Eq.\u00a0(\\[Am\\]) as another definition of a quantum Nambu monopole [@VZ2008]. Actually, in our numerical simulations we use the definition of Eq. (\\[Am\\]).\n\nPhase diagram\n=============\n\nIn our lattice study we fix bare $\\theta_W = \\pi/6$. Then in the three - dimensional ($\\beta, \\gamma, \\lambda$) phase diagram the transition surfaces are two - dimensional. The lines of constant physics on the tree level are the lines ($\\frac{\\lambda}{\\gamma^2} = \\frac{1}{8 \\beta} \\frac{M^2_H}{M^2_W} = {\\rm\nconst}$; $\\beta = \\frac{1}{4\\pi \\alpha}={\\rm const}$). We suppose that in the vicinity of the transition the deviation of the lines of constant physics from the tree level estimate may be significant. However, qualitatively their behavior is the same. Namely, the cutoff is increased along the line of constant physics when $\\gamma$ is decreased and the maximal value of the cutoff is achieved at the transition point. Nambu monopole density in lattice units is also increased when the ultraviolet cutoff is increased.\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-120,-20)[$\\chi$]{} (80,-190)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nAt $\\beta = 12$ (corresponds to bare $\\alpha \\sim 1/150$) the phase diagram is represented on Fig. \\[fig.2\\]. This diagram is obtained, mainly, using the lattice $8^3\\times 16$. Some regions ($\\lambda = 0.009,0.0025, 0.001$), however, were checked using larger lattices. According to our data there is no dependence of the diagram on the lattice size. The physical Higgs phase is situated right to the transition line. The position of the transition $\\gamma_c(\\lambda)$ is localized here at the point where the susceptibility extracted from the Higgs field creation operator achieves its maximum. We use the susceptibility $$\\chi = \\langle H^2 \\rangle - \\langle H\\rangle^2 \\label{chiH}$$ extracted from $H = \\sum_{y}\nZ^2_{xy}$ (see, for example, Fig. \\[fig.6\\_\\_\\]). We observe no difference between the values of the susceptibility calculated using the lattices of different sizes. This indicates that the transition at $\\gamma_c$ is a crossover. Indeed we find that gauge boson masses do not vanish in a certain vicinity of $\\gamma_c$ even within the symmetric phase. In the next section we shall see that within the statistical errors $\\gamma_c$ coincides with the value of $\\gamma$, where the scalar field condensate disappears. Actually, there also exist two other crucial points: $\\gamma_{c0}(\\lambda) <\n\\gamma_c(\\lambda) < \\gamma_{c2}(\\lambda)$ (say, at $\\lambda = 0.001$ we have $\\gamma_{c0} = 0.252\\pm 0.001$, $\\gamma_{c} = 0.256\\pm 0.001$, $\\gamma_{c2} =\n0.258\\pm 0.001$, see the next sections for the details). $\\gamma_{c2}$ denotes the boundary of the fluctuational region. At $\\gamma_{c0}$ the extrapolation of the dependence of lattice $Z$ - boson mass $M_Z(\\gamma)$ on $\\gamma$ indicates that $M_Z(\\gamma_{c0})$ may vanish. In the symmetric phase the perturbation theory predicts vanishing of the gauge boson masses. Therefore, supposition that $M_Z$ vanishes at a certain point is very natural. The perturbation theory also predicts that the mass parameter present in the effective action for the scalar field vanishes at the point of the transition between Higgs phase and the symmetric phase. Our analysis shows that at the point, where the scalar field condensate disappears lattice $M_H$ does not vanish. However, it may vanish, in principle, at some other point. If both $M_Z$ and $M_H$ vanish simultaneously at $\\gamma_{c0}$, at this point the model becomes scale invariant and formal continuum limit of the lattice model can be achieved at $\\gamma_{c0}$. This point may then appear as the point of the second order phase transition. Near $\\gamma_{c0}$ the fluctuations of the gauge boson correlator are strong and at the present moment we do not make definite conclusions on the behavior of the system at $\\gamma_{c0}$. However, the calculated susceptibilities do not have peaks at this point that is an indirect indication that the real second order phase transition cannot appear at $\\gamma_{c0}$. It is worth mentioning that within the region $(\\gamma_{c0},\n\\gamma_c)$ the scalar field is not condensed. That\u2019s why we guess this region has nothing to do with real continuum physics.\n\nWe investigated carefully the region $\\gamma \\ge \\gamma_c$ for $\\lambda =\n0.001, 0.0025, 0.009$. We observe that for $\\gamma_c < \\gamma < \\gamma_{c2}$ Nambu monopoles dominate vacuum and the usual perturbation theory cannot be applied. For this reason, most likely, the interval $(\\gamma_c, \\gamma_{c2})$ also has no connection with the conventional continuum Electroweak theory. At the same time for $\\gamma\n>> \\gamma_{c2}$ the behavior of the system is close to what one would expect basing on the usual perturbative continuum Weinberg - Salam model. It is worth mentioning that the value of the renormalized Higgs boson mass does not deviate significantly from its bare value near the transition point $\\gamma_c$. For example, for $\\lambda$ around $0.009$ and $\\gamma = 0.274$ bare value of the Higgs mass is around $270$ Gev while the observed renormalized value is $300\n\\pm 70$ Gev.\n\nEffective constraint potential\n==============================\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-125,170)[$\\phi_m$]{} (80,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nWe have calculated the constraint effective potential for $|\\Phi|$ using the histogram method. The calculations have been performed on the lattice $8^3\\times 16$. The probability $h(\\phi)$ to find the value of $|\\Phi|$ within the interval $[\\phi-0.05;\\phi+0.05)$ has been calculated for $\\phi = 0.05 + N*0.1$, $N = 0,1,2, ...$ This probability is related to the effective potential as $ h(\\phi) = \\phi^3\ne^{-V(\\phi)}$. That\u2019s why we extract the potential from $h(\\phi)$ as $$V(\\phi) = - {\\rm log}\\, h(\\phi) + 3 \\, {\\rm log} \\, \\phi \\label{CEP}$$ (See Fig. \\[fig.1\\].) It is worth mentioning that $h(0.05)$ is calculated as the probability to find the value of $|\\Phi|$ within the interval $[0;0.1]$. Within this interval ${\\rm log}\\, \\phi$ is ill defined. That\u2019s why we exclude the point $\\phi = 0.05$ from our data. Instead we calculate $V(0)$ using the extrapolation of the data at $0.15 \\le \\phi \\le 2.0$. The extrapolation is performed using the polynomial fit with the powers of $\\phi$ up to the third (average deviation of the fit from the data is around $1$ per cent). Next, we introduce the useful quantity $H = V(0) - V(\\phi_m)$, which is called the potential barrier hight (here $\\phi_m$ is the point, where $V$ achieves its minimum).\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (90,195)[$H$]{} (90,110)[$H_{fluct}$]{} (100,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-125,170)[$|\\phi|$]{} (90,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nAs an example we represent on Fig. \\[fig.4\\_\\] the values of $\\phi_m$ for $\\lambda = 0.001$, $\\beta = 12$. On Fig. \\[fig.3\\_\\] we represent the values of $H$ for $\\lambda = 0.009$, $\\beta = 12$. One can see that the values of $\\phi_m$ and $H$ increase when $\\gamma$ is increased. The maximum of the susceptibility constructed of the Higgs field creation operator $H_x = \\sum_{y}\nZ^2_{xy}$ (see, for example, Fig. \\[fig.6\\_\\_\\]) coincides with the point, where $\\phi_m$ vanishes within the statistical errors. We localize the position of the transition points at the points where $\\phi_m$ vanishes: $\\gamma_c = 0.274\\pm 0.001$ at $\\lambda = 0.009$; $\\gamma_c = 0.26 \\pm 0.001$ at $\\lambda = 0.0025$; and $\\gamma_c = 0.256 \\pm 0.001$ at $\\lambda = 0.001$.\n\nThe maximum of the scalar field fluctuation (see, for example, Fig. \\[fig.6\\_2\\_3\\]) is shifted to larger values of $\\gamma$ than the transition point. Again we do not observe any difference in $\\delta \\phi$ for the considered lattice sizes. This also indicates that the transition at these values of $\\lambda$ is a crossover.\n\nIt is important to understand which value of barrier hight can be considered as small and which value can be considered as large. Our suggestion is to compare $H = V(0) - V(\\phi_m)$ with $H_{\\rm fluct} = V(\\phi_m + \\delta \\phi) -\nV(\\phi_m)$, where $\\delta \\phi$ is the fluctuation of $|\\Phi|$. From Fig. \\[fig.3\\_\\] it is clear that there exists the value of $\\gamma$ (we denote it $\\gamma_{c2}$) such that at $\\gamma_c < \\gamma < \\gamma_{c2}$ the barrier hight $H$ is of the order of $H_{\\rm fluct}$ while for $\\gamma_{c2} << \\gamma$ the barrier hight is essentially larger than $H_{\\rm fluct}$. The rough estimate for this pseudocritical value is $\\gamma_{c2} \\sim 0.278$ at $\\lambda=0.009$.\n\nThe fluctuations of $|\\Phi|$ are around $\\delta \\phi \\sim 0.6$ for all considered values of $\\gamma$ at $\\lambda = 0.009, 0.0025, 0.001$, $\\beta =\n12$. It follows from our data (see also Fig. \\[fig.2\\_\\] ) that $\\phi_m,\n\\langle |\\phi|\\rangle\n>> \\delta \\phi$ at $\\gamma_{c2} << \\gamma$ while $\\phi_m, \\langle |\\phi|\\rangle \\sim \\delta \\phi$ at $\\gamma_{c2} > \\gamma$. Basing on these observations we expect that in the region $\\gamma_{c2} << \\gamma$ the usual perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum of spontaneously broken theory can be applied to the lattice Weinberg - Salam model while in the FR $\\gamma_c < \\gamma < \\gamma_{c2}$ it cannot be applied. In the same way we define the pseudocritical value $\\gamma_{c2}$ at $\\lambda = 0.001, 0.0025$. Namely, $\\gamma_{c2} \\sim 0.278$ for $\\lambda =\n0.009$; $\\sim 0.262$ for $\\lambda = 0.0025$; $\\sim 0.258$ for $\\lambda =\n0.001$.\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-130,175)[$\\delta \\phi$]{} (90,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nThe renormalized coupling\n=========================\n\nIn order to calculate the renormalized fine structure constant $\\alpha_R = e^2/4\\pi$ (where $e$ is the electric charge) we use the potential for infinitely heavy external fermions.\n\nWe consider Wilson loops for the right-handed external leptons: $${\\cal W}^{\\rm R}_{\\rm lept}(l)  =\n \\langle {\\rm Re} \\,\\Pi_{(xy) \\in l} e^{2i\\theta_{xy}}\\rangle.\n\\label{WR}$$ Here $l$ denotes a closed contour on the lattice. We consider the following quantity constructed from the rectangular Wilson loop of size $r\\times t$: $${\\cal V}(r) = {\\rm log}\\, \\lim_{t \\rightarrow \\infty}\n \\frac{  {\\cal W}(r\\times t)}{{\\cal W}(r\\times (t+1))}.\\label{vinf}$$\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-130,165)[${\\cal V}(R)$]{} (85,10)[$\\Large 1/R$]{}\n\nDue to exchange by virtual photons at large enough distances we expect the appearance of the Coulomb interaction $${\\cal V}(r) = -\\frac{\\alpha_R}{r} + const. \\label{V1}$$ It should be mentioned here, that in order to extract the renormalized value of $\\alpha$ one may apply to $\\cal V$ the fit obtained using the Coulomb interaction in momentum space. The lattice Fourier transform then gives\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\cal V}(r) & = & -\\alpha_R \\, {\\cal U}(r)+ const,\\,\n\\nonumber\\\\\n{\\cal U}(r) & = & \\frac{ \\pi}{N^3}\\sum_{\\bar{p}\\ne 0} \\frac{e^{i p_3 r}}{{\\rm sin}^2\np_1/2 + {\\rm sin}^2 p_2/2 + {\\rm sin}^2\n p_3/2}\n \\label{V2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHere $N$ is the lattice size, $p_i = \\frac{2\\pi}{L} k_i, k_i = 0, ..., L-1$. On large enough lattices at $r << L$ both definitions approach each other. On the lattices we use the values of the renormalized $\\alpha_R$ extracted from (\\[V1\\]) and (\\[V2\\]) are essentially different from each other. Any of the two ways, (\\[V1\\]) or (\\[V2\\]), may be considered as the [*definition*]{} of the renormalized $\\alpha$ on the finite lattice. And there is no particular reason to prefer the potential defined using the lattice Fourier transform of the Coulomb law in momentum space. Actually, our study shows that the single $1/r$ fit approximates $\\cal V$ much better. Moreover, the values of renormalized $\\alpha$ calculated using this fit are essentially closer to the tree level estimate than that of calculated using the fit (\\[V2\\]).\n\nIn practise instead of (\\[vinf\\]) we use the potential that depends on additional parameter $T$: $${\\cal V}(r,T) = {\\rm log}\\,\n \\frac{  {\\cal W}(r\\times T)}{{\\cal W}(r\\times (T+1))}.$$ For example, on the lattice $16^4$ the values $T = 4,5,6,7,8$ are used; on the lattice $12^3\\times 16$ the values $T = 4,5,6$ are used; on the lattice $8^3\\times 16$ the value $T = 4$ is used. As a result $\\alpha_R = \\alpha_R(T)$ may depend both on the lattice size and on $T$. The dependence on $T$ was missed in [@Z2009] (where for lattices $12^3\\times 16, 16^4$ we used $T =5$, while for the lattice $8^3\\times 16$ we used $T=4$).\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-125,160)[$1/\\alpha$]{} (90,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nOn Fig. \\[fig.1\\_1\\_\\] we represent as an example the dependence of the potential for $T = 8$ on $1/R$. As it was already mentioned (\\[V1\\]) approximates the potential much better than (\\[V2\\]). Therefore we used the fit (\\[V1\\]) to extract $\\alpha_R$. This should be compared with the results of [@14], where for similar reasons the single $e^{-\\mu r}/r$ fit (instead of the lattice Yukawa fit) was used in order to determine the renormalized coupling constant in the $SU(2)$ Gauge Higgs model.\n\nDue to the dependence of $\\alpha_R(T)$ on $T$ there is the essential uncertainty in definition of $\\alpha_R$ related to finite volume effects. For example, at $\\gamma = 0.29$, $\\lambda =0.009$, and $\\beta = 12$ the value of $\\alpha_R$ calculated on the lattice $16^4$ varies between $\\alpha_R(4) \\sim\n1/(93\\pm 1)$ and $\\alpha_R(8) \\sim 1/(108\\pm 2)$ (at the same time on the lattice $8^3\\times 16$ the value is $\\alpha_R(4) = 1/(100\\pm 1)$). At $\\gamma =\n0.274$, $\\lambda =0.009$, and $\\beta = 12$ the value of $\\alpha_R$ calculated on the lattice $20^3\\times 24$ varies between $\\alpha_R(4) \\sim 1/(98\\pm 1)$ and $\\alpha_R(10) = 1/(106\\pm 1)$ (at the same time on the lattice $8^3\\times\n16$ the value is $\\alpha_R(4) = 1/(99\\pm 1)$). Below for the lattice $8^3\\times\n16$ we use $T = 4$, for the lattice $12^3\\times 16$ we use $T = 6$, for the lattice $16^4$ we use $T = 8$. Therefore, the dependence on $T$ is absorbed into the dependence on the lattice size. As an example, on Fig. \\[fig.1\\_\\] we represent the renormalized fine structure constant (calculated using the fit (\\[V1\\])) at $\\lambda = 0.0025$, $ \\beta = 12$. The calculated values are to be compared with bare constant $\\alpha_0 = 1/(4\\pi\n\\beta)\\sim 1/150$ at $\\beta = 12$. One can see, that for $\\gamma >>\n\\gamma_{c2}$ the tree level estimate is approached slowly while within the FR the renormalized $\\alpha$ differs essentially from the tree level estimate. This is in correspondence with our supposition that the perturbation theory cannot be valid within the FR while it works well far from the FR. The dependence of $\\alpha_R$ on the lattice size is clear: for the larger lattices $\\alpha_R$ approaches its tree level estimate faster than for the smaller ones. Unfortunately, due to the difficulties in simulation of the system at large $\\gamma$ we cannot observe this pattern in detail. At the present moment the value of $\\alpha_R$ most close to the tree level estimate is obtained on the lattice $12^3\\times 16$ and is about $1/140$ (at $\\lambda = 0.0025, 0.001; \\beta = 12; \\gamma \\sim 1$).\n\nMasses and the lattice spacing\n==============================\n\nAfter fixing the unitary gauge $\\Phi_1 \\in R$, $\\Phi_2 = 0$, $\\Phi_1 \\ge 0$ the following variables are considered as creating a $Z$ boson and a $W$ boson, respectively:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n  Z_{xy} & = & Z^{\\mu}_{x} \\;\n = - {\\rm sin} \\,[{\\rm Arg} (U^{11}_{xy} e^{i\\theta_{xy}}) ]\n\\nonumber\\\\\n W_{xy} & = & W^{\\mu}_{x} \\,= \\,U_{xy}^{12} e^{-i\\theta_{xy}}.\\label{Z1}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHere, $\\mu$ represents the direction $(xy)$. The electromagnetic $U(1)$ symmetry remains: $$\\begin{aligned}\n U_{xy} & \\rightarrow & g^\\dag_x U_{xy} g_y, \\nonumber\\\\\n \\theta_{xy} & \\rightarrow & \\theta_{xy} -  \\alpha_y/2 + \\alpha_x/2,\\end{aligned}$$ where $g_x = {\\rm diag} (e^{i\\alpha_x/2},e^{-i\\alpha_x/2})$. There exists a $U(1)$ lattice gauge field, which is defined as $$A_{xy}  =  A^{\\mu}_{x} \\;\n = \\,[-{\\rm Arg} U_{xy}^{11} + \\theta_{xy}]  \\,{\\rm mod} \\,2\\pi\n\\label{A}$$ that transforms as $A_{xy}  \\rightarrow  A_{xy} - \\alpha_y + \\alpha_x$. The field $W$ transforms as $W_{xy}  \\rightarrow  W_{xy}e^{-i\\alpha_x}$.\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-120,185)[$M_Z$]{} (85,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nThe $W$ boson field is charged with respect to the $U(1)$ symmetry. Therefore we fix the lattice Landau gauge in order to investigate the $W$ boson propagator. The lattice Landau gauge is fixed via minimizing (with respect to the $U(1)$ gauge transformations) the following functional: $$F  =  \\sum_{xy}(1 - \\cos(A_{xy})).$$ Then we extract the mass of the $W$ boson from the correlator $$\\frac{1}{N^6} \\sum_{\\bar{x},\\bar{y}} \\langle \\sum_{\\mu} W^{\\mu}_{x}\n(W^{\\mu}_{y})^{\\dagger} \\rangle   \\sim\n  e^{-M_{W}|x_0-y_0|}+ e^{-M_{W}(L - |x_0-y_0|)}\n\\label{corW}$$ Here the summation $\\sum_{\\bar{x},\\bar{y}}$ is over the three \u201cspace\" components of the four - vectors $x$ and $y$ while $x_0, y_0$ denote their \u201ctime\u201c components. $N$ is the lattice length in \u201dspace\u201c direction. $L$ is the lattice length in the \u201dtime\" direction.\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-120,190)[$M_Z$]{} (85,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nIn order to evaluate the masses of the $Z$-boson and the Higgs boson we use the correlators: $$\\frac{1}{N^6} \\sum_{\\bar{x},\\bar{y}} \\langle \\sum_{\\mu} Z^{\\mu}_{x} Z^{\\mu}_{y} \\rangle\n\\sim\n  e^{-M_{Z}|x_0-y_0|}+ e^{-M_{Z}(L - |x_0-y_0|)}\n\\label{corZ}$$ and $$\\frac{1}{N^6}\\sum_{\\bar{x},\\bar{y}}(\\langle H_{x} H_{y}\\rangle - \\langle H\\rangle^2)\n   \\sim\n  e^{-M_{H}|x_0-y_0|}+ e^{-M_{H}(L - |x_0-y_0|)},\n\\label{cor}$$\n\nIn lattice calculations we used two different operators that create Higgs bosons: $ H_x =\n|\\Phi|$ and $H_x = \\sum_{y} Z^2_{xy}$. In both cases $H_x$ is defined at the site $x$, the sum $\\sum_y$ is over its neighboring sites $y$.\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-125,170)[$M_Z$]{} (85,15)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nThe physical scale is given in our lattice theory by the value of the $Z$-boson mass $M^{phys}_Z \\sim 91$ GeV. Therefore the lattice spacing is evaluated to be $a \\sim [91\n{\\rm GeV}]^{-1} M_Z$, where $M_Z$ is the $Z$ boson mass in lattice units. The similar calculations have been performed in [@VZ2008] for $\\lambda = \\infty$. It has been found that the $W$ - boson mass contains an artificial dependence on the lattice size. We suppose, that this dependence is due to the photon cloud surrounding the $W$ - boson. The energy of this cloud is related to the renormalization of the fine structure constant. Therefore the $Z$ - boson mass was used in order to fix the scale.\n\nOur data show that $\\Lambda= \\frac{\\pi}{a} = (\\pi \\times 91~{\\rm GeV})/M_Z$ is increased slowly with the decrease of $\\gamma$ at any fixed $\\lambda$. We investigated carefully the vicinity of the transition point at fixed $\\lambda =\n0.001, 0.0025, 0.009$ and $\\beta = 12$. It has been found that at the transition point the value of $\\Lambda$ is equal to $1.4 \\pm 0.2$ TeV for $\\lambda = 0.009, 0.0025, 0.001$. Check of the dependence on the lattice size ($8^3\\times 16$, $12^3\\times 16$, $16^4$, $20^3\\times 24$ at $\\lambda =0.009$; $8^3\\times 16$, $12^3\\times 16$, $16^4$ at $\\lambda =0.0025$; $8^3\\times 16$, $12^3\\times 16$ at $\\lambda =0.001$) does not show an essential dependence of this value on the lattice size. This is illustrated by Fig. \\[fig.3\\], Fig.\\[fig.3\\_3\\_\\], and Fig. \\[fig.3\\_2\\]. From these figures it also follows that at the value of $\\gamma$ equal to $\\gamma_{c2} (\\sim 0.278$ for $\\lambda =\n0.009$; $\\sim 0.262$ for $\\lambda = 0.0025$; $\\sim 0.258$ for $\\lambda =\n0.001$) the calculated value of the cutoff is about $1$ TeV.\n\nIt is worth mentioning that the linear fit applied (in some vicinity of $\\gamma_c$) to the dependence of $M_Z$ on $\\gamma$ predicts vanishing of $M_Z(\\gamma)$ at $\\gamma$ equal to $\\gamma_{c0} < \\gamma_c$. Within the statistical errors $\\gamma_{c0} = 0.253\\pm 0.001$ for $\\lambda = 0.001$, $\\gamma_{c0} = 0.253\\pm 0.001$ for $\\lambda = 0.0025$, $\\gamma_{c0} = 0.254\\pm\n0.001$ for $\\lambda = 0.009$. We perform direct calculations within the region $(\\gamma_{c0}, \\gamma_c)$ at $\\lambda = 0.001, 0.0025$. These calculations show that the fluctuations of the correlator (\\[corZ\\]) are increased (compared with the values of the correlator) fast when $\\gamma$ is decreased. Already for $\\gamma = 0.255$ at $\\lambda = 0.0025$ ($\\gamma_c = 0.26$) and for $\\gamma =\n0.254$ at $\\lambda = 0.001$ ($\\gamma_c = 0.258$) the values of the correlator at $|x_0 - y_0| > 0$ are smaller than the statistical errors. Most likely, at $\\gamma \\le \\gamma_{c0}$ it is necessary to apply another gauge (like in pure $SU(2)\\times U(1)$ gauge model) in order to calculate gauge boson propagators. At the present moment we do not estimate the scalar particle mass at $\\gamma_{c0}$ because of the lack of statistics. The behavior of the other quantities is smooth at $\\gamma \\sim \\gamma_{c0}$, no maximum of $\\delta \\phi$ or other susceptibilities is observed there (see, for example, Fig. \\[fig.6\\_\\_\\]). Basing on our data it is natural to suppose that lattice gauge boson mass may vanish at $\\gamma \\sim \\gamma_{c0}$ although we do not observe the correspondent pattern in details because of the strong fluctuations of correlator (\\[corZ\\]) near $\\gamma_{c0}$. As it was mentioned above the transition for the considered values of couplings is, most likely, a crossover. There are $3$ exceptional points: $\\gamma_{c0}$, where lattice value of $M_Z$ may vanish, $\\gamma_c$, where scalar field condensate disappears, and $\\gamma_{c2}$ that denotes the boundary of the fluctuational region. This situation is typical for the crossovers: different quantities change their behavior at different points on the phase diagram. At the present moment we do not exclude that the second order phase transition may take place at $\\gamma_{c0}$. This would happen if both mass parameters (Z boson mass and scalar particle mass) vanish simultaneously at this point. The careful investigation of the vicinity of $\\gamma_{c0}$ is to be the subject of a further research.\n\nIn the Higgs channel the situation is more difficult. Due to the lack of statistics we cannot estimate the masses in this channel using the correlators (\\[cor\\]) at all considered values of coupling constants. Moreover, at several points, where we have estimated the renormalized Higgs boson mass the statistical errors are much larger than that of for the Z - boson mass. At the present moment we can represent the data at four points on the lattice $8^3\\times16$: ($\\gamma = 0.274$, $\\lambda =0.009$, $\\beta = 12$), ($\\gamma =\n0.290$, $\\lambda =0.009$, $\\beta = 12$), ($\\gamma = 0.261$, $\\lambda =0.0025$, $\\beta = 12$), and ($\\gamma = 0.257$, $\\lambda =0.001$, $\\beta = 12$).\n\nThe first point roughly corresponds to the position of the transition at $\\lambda =0.009$, $\\beta = 12$ while the second point is situated deep within the Higgs phase. These two points correspond to bare Higgs mass around $270$ Gev. At the point ($\\gamma = 0.274$, $\\lambda =0.009$, $\\beta = 12$) we have collected enough statistics to calculate correlator (\\[cor\\]) up to the \u201ctime\u201d separation $|x_0-y_0| = 4$. The value $\\gamma = 0.274$ corresponds roughly to the position of the phase transition. We estimate at this point $M_H\n= 300 \\pm 40$ Gev. At the point ($\\gamma = 0.29$, $\\lambda =0.009$, $\\beta =\n12$) we calculate the correlator with reasonable accuracy up to $|x_0-y_0| =\n3$. At this point $M_H = 265 \\pm 70$ Gev.\n\nFor $\\lambda = 0.001, 0.0025$ we calculate the Higgs boson mass close to the transition points. Similar to the case $\\lambda = 0.009$ we do not observe here essential deviation from the tree level estimates. Namely, for $\\lambda =\n0.001, \\gamma = 0.257$ we have $M_H = 90 \\pm 20$ GeV (tree level value is $M^0_H \\sim 100$ GeV). In this point we have collected enough statistics to calculate correlator (\\[cor\\]) up to the \u201ctime\u201d separation $|x_0-y_0| = 8$. For $\\lambda =\n0.0025, \\gamma = 0.261$ we have $M_H = 170 \\pm 30$ GeV (tree level value is $M^0_H \\sim 150$ GeV). In this point we have collected enough statistics to calculate correlator (\\[cor\\]) up to the \u201ctime\u201d separation $|x_0-y_0| = 4$. It is worth mentioning that in order to calculate $Z$ - boson mass we fit correlator (\\[corZ\\]) for $8 \\ge |x_0-y_0| \\ge 1$.\n\nNambu monopole density \n=======================\n\nThe worldlines of the quantum Nambu monopoles can be extracted from the field configurations according to Eq. (\\[Am\\]). The monopole density is defined as $ \\rho = \\left\\langle \\frac{\\sum_{\\rm links}|j_{\\rm\nlink}|}{4V^L}\n \\right\\rangle,$ where $V^L$ is the lattice volume.\n\nOn Fig \\[fig.5\\_\\], Fig. \\[fig.5\\_1\\], and Fig. \\[fig.5\\_1\\_\\] we represent Nambu monopole density as a function of $\\gamma$ at $\\lambda = 0.009, 0.0025,\n0.001$, $\\beta = 12$. The value of monopole density at $\\gamma_c$ is around $0.1$.\n\nAccording to the classical picture the Nambu monopole size is of the order of $M^{-1}_H$. Therefore, for example, for $a^{-1} \\sim 430$ Gev and $M_H \\sim 300, 150, 100$ Gev the expected size of the monopole is about a lattice spacing. The monopole density around $0.1$ means that among $10$ sites there exist $4$ sites that are occupied by the monopole. Average distance between the two monopoles is, therefore, less than $1$ lattice spacing and it is not possible at all to speak of the given configurations as of representing the physical Nambu monopole.\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-125,175)[$\\rho$]{} (85,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nAt $\\gamma = \\gamma_{c2}$ the Nambu monopole density is of the order of $0.01$. This means that among about $25$ sites there exists one site that is occupied by the monopole. Average distance between the two monopoles is, therefore, between one and two lattice spacings. We see that at this value of $\\gamma$ the average distance between Nambu monopoles is of the order of their size.\n\nWe summarize the above observations as follows. Within the fluctuational region the configurations under consideration do not represent single Nambu monopoles. Instead these configurations can be considered as the collection of monopole - like objects that is so dense that the average distance between the objects is of the order of their size. On the other hand, at $\\gamma\n>> \\gamma_{c2}$ the considered configurations do represent single Nambu monopoles and the average distance between them is much larger than their size. In other words out of the FR vacuum can be treated as a gas of Nambu monopoles while within the FR vacuum can be treated as a liquid composed of monopole - like objects.\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-125,175)[$\\rho$]{} (85,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nIt is worth mentioning that somewhere inside the $Z$ string connecting the classical Nambu monopoles the Higgs field is zero: $|\\Phi| = 0$. This means that the $Z$ string with the Nambu monopoles at its ends can be considered as an embryo of the symmetric phase within the Higgs phase. We observe that the density of these embryos is increased when the phase transition is approached. Within the fluctuational region the two phases are mixed, which is related to the large value of Nambu monopole density.\n\nThat\u2019s why we come to the conclusion that vacuum of lattice Weinberg - Salam model within the FR has nothing to do with the continuum perturbation theory. This means that the usual perturbation expansion around trivial vacuum (gauge field equal to zero, the scalar field equal to $(\\phi_m,0)^T$) cannot be valid within the FR. This might explain why we do not observe in our numerical simulations the large values of $\\Lambda$ predicted by the conventional perturbation theory.\n\n(0,0)(0,0) (-125,175)[$\\rho$]{} (85,10)[$\\Large \\gamma$]{}\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nIn the present paper we demonstrate that while approaching continuum physics in lattice Weinberg - Salam model one encounters the nonperturbative effects. Namely, the continuum physics is to be approached in the vicinity of the transition between the physical Higgs phase and the symmetric phase of the model (in the symmetric phase the scalar field is not condensed). The ultraviolet cutoff is increased when the transition point is approached along the line of constant physics. There exists the fluctuational region (FR) on the phase diagram of the lattice Weinberg - Salam model. This region is situated in the vicinity of the transition between the Higgs phase and the symmetric phase (where scalar field is not condensed). According to our data this transition is, most likely, a crossover. We localize its position at the point $\\gamma_c(\\lambda, \\beta, \\theta_W)$, where the scalar field condensate disappears. We calculate the effective constraint potential $V(\\phi)$ for the Higgs field. It has a minimum at the nonzero value $\\phi_m$ in the physical Higgs phase. At the considered values of $\\lambda,\n\\beta, \\theta_W$ for $\\gamma$ between $\\gamma_c$ and $\\gamma_{c2}$ ($\\gamma_{c2}$ is in the Higgs phase) the fluctuations of the scalar field become of the order of $\\phi_m$. Moreover, the \u201cbarrier hight\u201d $H = V(0) -\nV(\\phi_m)$ is of the order of $V(\\phi_m + \\delta \\phi)- V(\\phi_m)$, where $\\delta \\phi$ is the fluctuation of $|\\Phi|$. Therefore, we refer to this region as to FR.\n\nThe scalar field must be equal to zero somewhere within the classical Nambu monopole. That\u2019s why this object can be considered as an embryo of the unphysical symmetric phase within the physical Higgs phase of the model. We investigate properties of the quantum Nambu monopoles. Within the FR they are so dense that the average distance between them becomes of the order of their size. This means that the two phases are mixed within the FR. All these results show that the vacuum of lattice Weinberg - Salam model in the FR is essentially different from the trivial vacuum used in the conventional perturbation theory. As a result the use of the perturbation theory in this region is limited.\n\nOur numerical results show that at $M_H$ around $270, 150, 100$ GeV and the bare fine structure constant around $1/150$ the maximal value of the cutoff admitted out of the FR for the considered lattice sizes cannot exceed the value around $1$ Tev. Within the FR the larger values of the cutoff can be achieved in principle. The maximum for the value of the cutoff $\\Lambda_c$ within the Higgs \u201cphase\u201d of the lattice model is achieved at the point of the transition to the region of the phase diagram, where the scalar field is not condensed. Our estimate for this value is $\\Lambda_c = 1.4 \\pm 0.2$ Tev for the considered lattice sizes. Far from the fluctuational region the behavior of the lattice model in general is close to what we expect basing on the continuous perturbation theory. As it was already mentioned at the considered values of couplings the transition is, most likely, a crossover. This follows from the observation that various quantities (Z boson mass, the fluctuation of the scalar field etc) do not depend on the lattice size at the transition point. Within the symmetric \u201cphase\u201d of the lattice model (where the scalar field is not condensed) in some vicinity of the transition between this phase and the Higgs phase (where the scalar field is condensed) the lattice gauge boson masses do not vanish. The statistical error for $M_Z$ is increased fast when $\\gamma$ is decreased starting from the pseudocritical value $\\gamma_c$. At $\\gamma \\le \\gamma_{c0} < \\gamma_c$ (within the symmetric phase) the values of the $Z$ - boson correlator (\\[corZ\\]) are smaller than the statistical errors. Therefore, our procedure cannot give the values of gauge boson masses in this region. Most likely, here the other gauge is to be applied in order to calculate gauge boson propagators (we used in our simulations the Unitary gauge). It is worth mentioning that the perturbation theory predicts zero gauge boson masses within the symmetric phase. Most likely, this prediction is failed within the interval $(\\gamma_{c0}, \\gamma_c)$ due to nonperturbative effects.\n\nAn important question is how to treat finite volume effects that are present in all observables that contain long - ranged Electromagnetic Coulomb interactions. In particular, we see that these effects are strong in renormalized fine structure constant (about $10\\%$ when the lattice size varies from $8^3\\times 16$ to $16^4$) and in the mass of electrically charged $W$ - boson. On the other hand all observables related to $SU(2)$ constituent of the model do not possess essential dependence on the lattice size. In particular, $Z$ - boson mass $M_Z$ (and the cutoff $\\Lambda$), density $\\rho_{\\rm Nambu}$ of Nambu monopoles [^5], fluctuation of the scalar field $\\delta \\phi$ as well as the position of the transition between the \u201cphases\u201d of the lattice model practically do not depend on the lattice size. Our point of view is that the influence of long - ranged Electromagnetic interactions on these observables is negligible compared to their tree - level and nonperturbative constituents. Actually, Electromagnetic interactions can be taken into account perturbatively, with the renormalized $\\alpha \\sim 1/100$ as the parameter of the perturbation expansion. This was the reason why in the previous numerical studies of $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs model the $U(1)$ constituent of Weinberg - Salam model was completely disregarded [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11; @12; @13; @14]. To summarize, we suppose that in spite of the presence of finite volume effects in fine structure constant and $W$ boson mass, the calculated values of $M_Z$ , $\\Lambda$, $\\rho_{\\rm Nambu}$, $\\delta \\phi$ etc can be considered as free of these effects[^6] (up to the perturbations suppressed by the factor $\\alpha\n\\sim 1/100$).\n\nBasing on our data it is natural to suppose that lattice gauge boson mass may vanish at $\\gamma \\sim \\gamma_{c0}$ although we do not observe the correspondent pattern in details because of the strong fluctuations of correlator (\\[corZ\\]) near $\\gamma_{c0}$. If so, there exist $3$ pseudocritical points: $\\gamma_{c0}$, where lattice value of $M_Z$ vanishes (at this point the cutoff calculated as $\\Lambda= (\\pi \\times 91~{\\rm GeV})/M_Z$ tends to infinity), $\\gamma_c$, where scalar field condensate disappears, and $\\gamma_{c2}$ that denotes the boundary of the fluctuational region (at $\\gamma\n\\sim \\gamma_{c2}$ the average distance between Nambu monopoles becomes of the order of their size). This situation is typical for the crossovers: different quantities change their behavior at different points on the phase diagram. There still exists the possibility that the point $\\gamma_{c0}$ corresponds to the second order phase transition (this may happen if, in addition, the scalar particle mass vanishes at $\\gamma_{c0}$). However, the absence of a peak in the scalar field fluctuation and in susceptibility (\\[chiH\\]) at this point indicates that this is a crossover. Actually, this possibility is to be checked carefully but this is to be a subject of another work. There is an important question: what is the relation between the conventional Electroweak physics and the regions $(\\gamma_{c0}, \\gamma_c)$ and $(\\gamma_{c}, \\gamma_{c2})$. Our expectation is that both these regions have nothing to do with real continuum physics. For the first region this is more or less obvious: there the scalar field is not condensed that contradicts with the usual spontaneous breakdown pattern. As for the second region, the situation is not so obvious. However, there the nonperturbative effects are strong and the Nambu monopoles dominate vacuum that seems to us unphysical. With all mentioned above we come to the conclusion that our data indicate the appearance of the maximal value of the cutoff in Electroweak theory that cannot exceed the value of the order of $1$ TeV. This prediction is made basing on the numerical investigation of the lattice model on the finite lattices. However, as it was mentioned above, our main results do not depend on the lattice size.\n\nThis work was partly supported by RFBR grants 09-02-00338, 08-02-00661, by Grant for leading scientific schools 679.2008.2. The numerical simulations have been performed using the facilities of Moscow Joint Supercomputer Center.\n\n[99]{}\n\nPeter Arnold and Olivier Espinosa, Phys. Rev. D [**47**]{}, 3546 (1993)\\\nZ. Fodor and A. Hebecker, Nucl. Phys. B [**432**]{}, 127 (1994)\\\nW. Buchmuller, Z. Fodor, and A. Hebecker, Nucl. Phys. B [**447**]{}, 317 (1995)\n\nB.L.G. Bakker, A.I. Veselov, M.A. Zubkov. J.Phys.G[**36**]{}, 075008 (2009)\n\nM.A. Zubkov, A.I. Veselov. JHEP [**0812**]{}, 109 (2008)\n\nM.A. Zubkov. Phys.Lett.B [**684**]{}, 141 (2010)\n\nK.Holland, Plenary talk presented at Lattice2004, Fermilab, June 21-26, 2004, arXiv:hep-lat/0409112\n\nZoltan Fodor, Kieran Holland, Julius Kuti, Daniel Nogradi, Chris Schroeder, The XXV International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, July 30 - August 4 2007, Regensburg, Germany, PoS (LATTICE 2007), 056, arXiv:0710.3151\n\nJ.A.\u00a0Casas, J.R.\u00a0Espinosa, and I.\u00a0Hidalgo, Nucl.Phys.B [**777**]{}, 226 (2007)\n\nF. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Heitger Phys.Rev.Lett. [**82**]{}, 21 (1999), Phys.Rev. D[**58**]{}, 094504 (1998), Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**63**]{}, 569 (1998)\n\nF. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Heitger Phys.Lett. B [**441**]{}, 354 (1998)\n\nF. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Nucl.Phys. B [**474**]{}, 421 (1996)\n\nJoachim Hein (DESY), Jochen Heitger, Phys.Lett. B [**385**]{}, 242 (1996)\n\nF. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, J. Heitger, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**53**]{}, 612 (1997)\n\nZ. Fodor, J. Hein, K. Jansen, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Nucl.Phys. B [**439**]{} (1995)\n\nF. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, J. Heitger, Phys.Lett. B [**357**]{}, 156 (1995)\n\nF. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, K.Jansen, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**42**]{}, 569 (1995)\n\nF. Csikor, Z. Fodor, J. Hein, K.Jansen, A. Jaster, I. Montvay Phys.Lett. B [**334**]{}, 405 (1994)\n\nY. Aoki, F. Csikor, Z. Fodor, A. Ukawa Phys.Rev. D [**60**]{}, 013001 (1999), Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl. [**73**]{}, 656 (1999)\n\nY. Aoki Phys.Rev. D [**56**]{}, 3860 (1997)\n\nW.Langguth, I.Montvay, P.Weisz Nucl.Phys.B [**277**]{}, 11 (1986)\n\nW. Langguth, I. Montvay, Z.Phys.C [**36**]{}, 725 (1987)\n\nAnna Hasenfratz, Thomas Neuhaus, Nucl.Phys.B [**297**]{}, 205 (1988)\n\nY.\u00a0Nambu, Nucl.Phys. B [**130**]{}, 505 (1977);\\\nAna\u00a0Achucarro and Tanmay\u00a0Vachaspati, Phys. Rept. [**327**]{}, 347 (2000); Phys. Rept. [**327**]{}, 427 (2000)\n\nM.I.\u00a0Polikarpov, U.J.\u00a0Wiese, and M.A.\u00a0Zubkov, Phys. Lett. B [**309**]{}, 133 (1993)\n\nM.N.\u00a0Chernodub, JETP Lett. [**66**]{}, 605 (1997)\n\nBohdan Grzadkowski, Jose Wudka, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**32**]{}, 3769 (2001)\n\nB.L.G. Bakker, A.I. Veselov, M.A. Zubkov. Yad.Fiz.[**68**]{}, 1045 (2005), Phys.Atom.Nucl.[**68**]{}, 1007 (2005)\n\nB.L.G. Bakker, A.I. Veselov, M.A. Zubkov. Phys.Lett.B [**620**]{}, 156 (2005)\n\nB.L.G. Bakker, A.I. Veselov, M.A. Zubkov. Phys.Lett.B [**642**]{}, 147 (2006)\n\nA.I. Veselov, B.L.G. Bakker, M.A. Zubkov, The XXV International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, July 30 - August 4 2007, Regensburg, Germany, PoS (LATTICE 2007), 337 (2007), arXiv:0708.2864\n\nI.\u00a0Montvay, Nucl. Phys. B [**269**]{}, 170 (1986)\n\nW.Langguth, I.Montvay, P.Weisz, Nucl.Phys.B [**277**]{}, 11 (1986)\n\nR.\u00a0Shrock, Phys. Lett. B [**162**]{}, 165 (1985); Nucl. Phys. B [**267**]{}, 301 (1986)\n\nI. Montvay, DESY preprint 86-143 (1986), DESY preprint 87-019 (1987)\n\nBohdan Grzadkowski, Jacek Pliszka, Jose Wudka Phys.Rev. D [**69**]{}, 033001 (2004)\n\nM.N. Chernodub, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**95**]{}, 252002 (2005)\n\n[^1]: According to the previous investigations of the $SU(2)$ Gauge - Higgs model this upper bound cannot exceed $10 M_W$.\n\n[^2]: One of the examples of such models is the Ginzburg - Landau theory of superconductivity.\n\n[^3]: The meaning of the words \u201cpotential barrier\u201d here is different from that of the one - dimensional quantum mechanics as here different minima of the potential form the three - dimensional sphere while in usual $1D$ quantum mechanics with the similar potential there are two separated minima with the potential barrier between them. Nevertheless we feel it appropriate to use the chosen terminology as the value of the \u201cpotential barrier hight\u201d measures the difference between the potentials with and without spontaneous symmetry breaking.\n\n[^4]: It has been shown in [@VZ2008] that at the infinite value of the scalar self coupling $\\lambda =\n    \\infty$ moving along the line of constant physics we reach the point on the phase diagram where the monopole worldlines begin to percolate. This point was found to coincide roughly with the position of the transition between the physical Higgs phase and the unphysical symmetric phase of the lattice model. This transition is a crossover and the ultraviolet cutoff achieves its maximal value around $1.4$ Tev at the transition point.\n\n[^5]: Nambu monopoles in practise correspond to $SU(2)$ variables as the monopole configurations extracted from the Hypercharge U(1) field disappear at realistic values of coupling constants.\n\n[^6]: The inverse seem to us incorrect: influence of nonperturbative effects on $\\alpha_R$ is not suppressed by any small factor. We indeed observe that in the FR, where nonperturbative effects are large the renormalized $\\alpha$ differs from its bare value by about $50\\%$ while far from the FR the difference is within $10\\%$ (for the lattice size $12^3\\times16$).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The ability to simultaneously leverage multiple modes of sensor information is critical for perception of an automated vehicle\u2019s physical surroundings. Spatio-temporal alignment of registration of the incoming information is often a prerequisite to analyzing the fused data. The persistence and reliability of multi-modal registration is therefore the key to the stability of decision support systems ingesting the fused information. LiDAR-video systems like on those many driverless cars are a common example of where keeping the LiDAR and video channels registered to common physical features is important. We develop a deep learning method that takes multiple channels of heterogeneous data, to detect the misalignment of the LiDAR-video inputs. A number of variations were tested on the Ford LiDAR-video driving test data set and will be discussed. To the best of our knowledge the use of multi-modal deep convolutional neural networks for dynamic real-time LiDAR-video registration has not been presented.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Michael Giering, Vivek Venugopalan and Kishore Reddy\\\n    United Technologies Research Center\\\n    E. Hartford, CT 06018, USA\\\n    Email: {gierinmj, venugov, reddykk}@utrc.utc.com\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\ntitle: 'Multi-modal Sensor Registration for Vehicle Perception via Deep Neural Networks'\n---\n\nMotivation {#sec:motivation}\n==========\n\nNavigation and situational awareness of optionally manned vehicles requires the integration of multiple sensing modalities such as Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) and video, but could just as easily be extended to other modalities including Radio Detection And Ranging (RADAR), Short-Wavelength Infrared (SWIR) and Global Positioning System (GPS). Spatio-temporal registration of information from multi-modal sensors is technically challenging in its own right. For many tasks such as pedestrian and object detection tasks that make use of multiple sensors, decision support methods rest on the assumption of proper registration. Most approaches [@Bodensteiner2012Real-time-] in LiDAR-video for instance, build separate vision and LiDAR feature extraction methods and identify common anchor points in both. Alternatively, by generating a single feature set on LiDAR, Video and optical flow, it enables the system to to capture mutual information among modalities more efficiently. The ability to dynamically register information from the available data channels for perception related tasks can alleviate the need for anchor points *between* sensor modalities. We see auto-registration as a prerequisite need for operating on multi-modal information with confidence.\n\nDeep neural networks (DNN) lend themselves in a seamless manner for data fusion on time series data. For some challenges in which the modalities share significant mutual information, the features generated on the fused information can provide insight that neither input alone can [@Ngiam2011Multimodal]. In effect the ML version of, \u201cthe whole is greater than the sum of it\u2019s parts\u201d.\n\nAutonomous navigation places significant constraints on the speed of perception algorithms and their ability to drive decision making in real-time. Though computationally intensive to train, our implemented DCNN run easily within our real-time frame rates of 8 fps and could accommodate more standard rates of 30 fps. With most research in deep neural networks focused on algorithmic improvements and novel applications, a significant benefit to applied researchers is sometimes under appreciated. The automated feature generation of DNNs enables us to create mutli-modal systems with far less overhead. The need for domain experts and hand-crafted feature design are lessened, allowing more rapid prototyping and testing. The generalization of auto-registration across multiple assets is clearly a path to be explored.\n\nIn this paper, the main contributions are: (i) formulation of an image registration problem as a fusion of modalities from different sensors, namely LIDAR (L), video (Grayscale or R,G,B) and optical flow (U,V); (ii) performance evaluation of deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) with various input parameters, such as kernel filter size and different combinations of input channels (R,G,B,Gr,L,U,V); (iii) fusion of patch-level and image-level predictions to generate alignment at the frame-level. The experiments were conducted using a publicly available dataset from FORD and the University of Michigan [@Pandey2011Ford-Campu]. The DCNN implementation was executed on an NVIDIA Tesla K40 GPU with 2880 cores and compute power of 5 TFLOPS (single precision). The paper is organized into the following sections: Section \\[sec:motivation\\] describes the introduction and motivation for this work; Section \\[sec:previous\\_work\\] provides a survey of the related work; the problem formulation along with the dataset description and the preprocessing is explained in Section \\[sec:problem\\_statement\\]; Section \\[sec:model\\_description\\] gives the details of the DCNN setup for the different experiments; Section \\[sec:experiments\\] describes the experiments and the post-processing steps for visualizing the qualitative results; finally Section \\[sec:conclusions\\_and\\_future\\_work\\] summarizes the paper and concludes with future research thrusts.\n\nPrevious Work {#sec:previous_work}\n=============\n\nA great amount has been published on various multi-modal fusion methods [@Ross2003Informatio], [@Gregor2011Learning-R], [@Wu2004Optimal-Mu], [@Snoek2006The-Challe]. The most common approaches taken generate features of interest in each modality separately and create a decision support mechanism that aggregates features across modalities. If spatial alignment is required across modalities, as it is for LiDAR-video such filter methods [@Thrun2011Googles-dr] are required to ensure proper inter-modal registration. These filter methods for leveraging 3D LiDAR and 2D images are often geometric in nature and make use of projections between the different data spaces.\n\nAutomatic registration of 2D video and 3D LiDAR has been a widely researched topic for over a decade [@Wang2009A-Robust-A], \u00a0[@Kim2014Automatic-], \u00a0[@Mastin2009Automatic-], \u00a0[@Bodensteiner2012Real-time-]. Its application in real-time autonomous navigation makes it a challenging problem. Majority of the 2D-3D registration algorithms are based on feature matching. Geometric features like corners and edges are extracted from detected vanishing points \u00a0[@Liu2007-Vanishing-points],\u00a0[@Ding2008-Vanishing-point], line segments \u00a0[@Frueh2004-Linesegment], \u00a0[@Stamos2008-Linesegment], and shadows \u00a0[@Troccoli2004-ashadow]. Feature based approaches generally rely on dense 3D point cloud and additional knowledge of relative sun position and GPS/inertial navigation system (INS). Another approach used for video and LiDAR auto-registration is to reconstruct 3D point cloud from video sequences using structure from motion (SFM) and performing 3D-3D registration \u00a0[@Zhao2004-alignment-3Dcloud], \u00a0[@Liu2006-alignment-sfm]. 3D-3D registration is more difficult and computationally expensive compared to 2D-3D registration. The use of deep neural networks to analyze multi-modal sensor inputs has increased sharply in just the last few years, including audio-video [@Ngiam2011Multimodal], [@Kim2013Deep-Learn], image/text [@Srivastava2012Multimodal], image/depth [@Lenz2013Deep-Learn] and LiDAR-video To the best of our knowledge the use of multi-modal deep neural networks for dynamic LiDAR-video registration has not been presented.\n\nA common challenge for data fusion methods is deciding at what level features from the differing sensor streams should be brought together. The deep neural network (DNN) approach most similar to the more traditional data fusion methods is to train DNNs independently on sensor modalities and then use the high-level outputs of those networks as inputs to a subsequent aggregator, which could also be a DNN. This is analogous to the earlier example of learning 3D/2D features and the process of identifying common geometric features.\n\nIt is possible however to apply DNNs with a more agnostic view enabling a unified set of features to be learned across multi-modal data. In these cases the input channels aren\u2019t differentiated. Unsupervised methods including deep Boltzmann machines and deep auto-encoders for learning such joint representations have been successful.\n\nDeep convolutional neural networks (DCNN) enable a similar agnostic approach to input channels. A significant difference is that target data is required to train them as classifiers. This is the approach chosen by us for automating the registration of LiDAR-video and optical-flow, in which we are combining 1D/3D/2D data representations respectively to learn a unified model across as many as 6D.\n\nProblem Statement {#sec:problem_statement}\n=================\n\nBeing able to detect and correct the misalignment (registration, calibration) among sensors of the same or different kinds, is critical for decision support systems operating on their fused information streams. For our work DCNNs were implemented for the detection of small spatial misalignments in LiDAR and Video frames. The methodology is directly applicable to temporal registration as well. LiDAR-video data collected from a driverless car was chosen for the multi-modal fusion test case. LiDAR-video is a common combination for providing perception capabilities to many types of ground and airborne platforms including driverless cars [@Thrun2011Googles-dr].\n\nFord LiDAR-video Dataset and Experimental Setup {#sub:ford_lidar_video_dataset_and_experimental_setup}\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nThe FORD LiDAR-video dataset [@Pandey2011Ford-Campu] is collected by an autonomous Ford F-250 vehicle integrated with the following perception and navigation sensors as follows:\n\n-   Velodyne HDL-64E LiDAR with two blocks of lasers spinning at 10 Hz and a maximum range of 120m.\n\n-   Point Grey Ladybug3 omni-directional camera system with six 2-Mega-pixel cameras collecting video data at 8fps with $1600\\times1600$ resolution.\n\n-   Two Riegl LMS-Q120 LIDAR sensors installed in the front of the vehicle generating range and intensity data when the laser sweeps its $80\\degree$ field of view (FOV).\n\n-   Applanix POS-LV420 INS with Trimble GPS system providing the 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) estimates at 100 Hz.\n\n-   Xsens MTi-G sensor consisting of accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, integrated GPS receiver, static pressure sensor and temperature sensor. It measures the GPS co-ordinates of the vehicle and also provides the 3D velocity and 3D rate of turn.\n\n![Training (A to B) and testing (C to D) tracks in the downtown Dearborn Michigan.[]{data-label=\"fig:ford_train_test_track\"}](ford_train_test_track.jpg)\n\nThis dataset is generated by the vehicle while driving in and around the Ford research campus and downtown Michigan. The data includes feature rich downtown areas as well as featureless empty parking lots. As shown in Figure \\[fig:ford\\_train\\_test\\_track\\], we divided the data set into training and testing sections A to B and C to D respectively. They were chosen in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of contamination between training and testing. Because of this, the direction of the light source is never the same in the testing and training sets.\n\nOptical Flow {#sub:optical_flow}\n------------\n\n![Optical flow: Hue indicates orientation and saturation indicates magnitude[]{data-label=\"fig:Figures_OptFlow placeholder\"}](OpticalFlow_example_final.png)\n\nIn the area of navigation of mobile robots, optical flow has been widely used to estimate egomotion [@Prazdny1980-egomotion-OF], depth maps [@Shahraray1988-depthestimation-OF], reconstruct dynamic 3D scene depth [@Yang2012-reconstruction-OF], and segment moving objects [@Shao2002-seg-OF]. Optical flow provides information of the scene dynamics and is expressed as an estimate of velocity at each pixel from two consecutive frames, denoted by $\\vec{u}$ and $\\vec{v}$. The motion field from these two frames is measured by the motion of the pixel brightness pattern, where the changes in image brightness is due to the camera or object motion. [@Liu2009Beyond-Pix] describes an algorithm for computing optical flow from images, which is used during the preprocessing step. Figure \\[fig:Figures\\_OptFlow placeholder\\] shows an example of the optical flow computed using two consecutive frames from the Ford LiDAR-video dataset. By including optical flow as input channels, we imbue the DCNN with information on the dynamics observed across time steps.\n\nPreprocessing {#sub:preprocessing}\n-------------\n\nAt each video frame timestep, the inputs to our model consist of *C* channels of data with *C* ranging from 3-6 channels. Channels consist of grayscale *Gr* or *(R,G,B)* information from the video, horizontal and vertical components of optical flow *(U,V)* and depth information *L* from LiDAR The data from each modality is reshaped to a fixed size of $800\\times256$ values, which are partitioned into $p\\times p$ patches at a prescribed stride. Each patch $p\\times p$ is stacked across *C* channels, effectively generating a vector of *C* dimensions. The different preprocessing parameters are denoted by patch size *p*, stride *s* and the number of input channels *C*.\n\nPreprocessing is repeated *N* times, where *N* is the number of offset classes. For each offset class, the video (R,G,B) and optical flow (U,V) channels are kept static and the depth (L) channel from the LiDAR is moved by the offset simulating a misalignment between the video and the LiDAR sensors. In order to accurately detect the misalignment in the LiDAR and Video sensor data, a threshold is set to limit the information available in each channel. The LiDAR data has regions of sparsity and hence the LiDAR patches with a variance (${\\sigma}^2 < 15\\%$) are dropped from the final dataset. This leads to the elimination of the majority of foreground patches in the data set, reducing the size of the training and testing set by approximately $80\\%$. Figure \\[fig:Figures\\_Ellipse\\] shows a $N = 9$ class elliptically distributed set of offsets and Figure \\[fig:ImageChStride\\] shows a $p\\times p$ patch stacked across all the different *C* channels.\n\nModel Description {#sec:model_description}\n=================\n\n![image](lidar_dcnn_setup3.pdf)\n\nOur models for auto-registration are DCNNs trained to classify the current misalignment of the LiDAR-video data streams into one of a predefined set of offsets. DCNNs are probably the most successful deep learning model to date on fielded applications. The fact that the algorithm shares weights in the training phase, results in fewer model parameters and more efficient training. DCNNs are particularly useful for problems in which local structure is important, such as object recognition in images and temporal information for voice recognition. The alternating steps of convolution and pooling generates features at multiple scales which in turn imbues DCNN\u2019s with scale invariant characteristics.\n\nThe model shown in Figure \\[fig:Figures\\_lidar\\_dcnn\\_setup1\\] consists of 3 pairs of convolution-pooling layers, that estimates the offset between the LiDAR-video inputs at each time step. For each patch within a timestep, there are $N$ variants with the LiDAR-video-optical flow inputs offset by the predetermined amounts. The CNN outputs to a softmax layer, thereby providing an offset classification value for each patch of the frame. As described in Section \\[sub:preprocessing\\], $32\\times32$ patches were stacked across the different channels and provided as the input to the DCNN. All the $6$ channels *RGBLUV* were used for the majority of the experiments, whereas only $4$ channels were required for the *RGBL* and the *GrLUV* experiments. The first convolutional layer uses $32$ filters (or kernels) of size $5 \\times 5 \\times \\mathit{C} $ with a stride of $1$ pixel and padding of $2$ pixels on the edges. The following pooling layer generates the input data (of size $16 \\times 16 \\times 32$) for the second convolutional layer. This layer uses $32$ filters of size $5 \\times 5 \\times 32$ with a stride of $1$ pixel and padding of $2$ pixels on the edges. A second pooling layer, similar to the first one is used to generate input with size $8 \\times 8 \\times 32$ for the third convolutional layer that uses $64$ filters of size $5 \\times 5 \\times 32$ with the stride and padding same as previous convolutional layer. The third pooling layer with similar configuration as the two previous pooling layers connects to an output softmax layer with labels corresponding to the $N=9$ classes. The DCNN described above was trained using stochastic gradient descent with a mini-batch size of $100$ epochs. The DCNN is configured with Rectified Linear Units (ReLUs), as they train several times faster than their equivalents with $\\tanh$ connections [@Nair2010Rectified-]\n\nThe NVIDIA Kepler series K40 GPUs [@NVIDIA-Inc.2012NVIDIAs-Ne] are very FLOPS/Watt efficient and are being used to drive real-time image processing capabilities [@Venugopal2013Accelerati]. These GPUs consist of 2880 cores with 12 GB of on-board device memory (RAM). Deep Learning applications have been targeted on GPUs previously in [@Krizhevsky2012Imagenet-C] and these implementations are both compute and memory bound. Stacking of channels results in a vector of $32 \\times 32 \\times \\mathit{C}$, which is suitable for the Single Instruction Multiple Datapath (SIMD) architecture of the GPUs. At the same time, the training batch size caches in the GPU memory, so the utilization of the K40 GPU\u2019s memory is very high. This also results in our experiments to run successfully on a single GPU instead of partitioning the different layers over multiple GPUs.\n\nExperiments {#sec:experiments}\n===========\n\nDataset using elliptically distributed offsets {#sub:dataset_using_elliptically_distributed_offsets}\n----------------------------------------------\n\n![image](Voting_final.png)\n\nIn our experiments, elliptically distributed set of $N = 9$ offsets of the LiDAR-video data were considered. The LiDAR data is displaced along an ellipse with a major axis of $32$ pixels and a minor axis of $16$ pixels rotated clockwise from x-axis by $45\\degree$ as shown in Figure \\[fig:Figures\\_Ellipse\\]. Separate training and testing sets were generated from two different tracks as shown in Figure \\[fig:ford\\_train\\_test\\_track\\] for all the $N = 9$ offsets of LiDAR data. Training and testing tracks have never seen regions and also have different lighting conditions. Our preprocessing step described in Section\u00a0\\[sub:preprocessing\\] results in $223,371$ and $126,513$ patches for testing and training extracted from $469$ and $224$ images respectively.\n\nIn the testing phase, for each frame a simple voting scheme is used to aggregate the patch level offset predictions to a single frame level prediction. A sample histogram of the patch level predictions is show in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Figures\\_Voting\\]. We color each patch of the frame with a color corresponding to the predicted class as shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Figures\\_Voting\\].\n\nExperimental results {#sub:experimental_results}\n--------------------\n\nTable\u00a0\\[table:cnn\\_param\\] lists the inputs and CNN parameters explored ranked in the order of increasing accuracy. We averaged the values across the diagonal of the confusion matrix to determine the image level and patch level accuracy. Patch level accuracy is the individual performance of all the $32\\times32$ patches from the testing images. Classification of patches belonging to a single time-step are voted to predict the shift for image level accuracy. In Table\u00a0\\[table:cnn\\_param\\], the first 3 columns show the results for different number of filter combinations in the convolutional layers with fixed number of filters and input channels *RGBLUV*. We observed that the image and patch level accuracy decreased with the increase in the number of filters. For experiments shown in columns 4 and 5, the filter size was increased, with the number of filters constant at $(32,32,64)$. We observed that for the 6 channels *RGBLUV*, filter size of 9 gave the best image level accuracy of $63.03\\%$. Column 6 shows the results of our experiment after dropping the optical flow *UV* channels. The image and patch level accuracy decreased for this case, indicating that optical flow contributed significantly towards image registration. The remaining experiments utilized the Grayscale information *Gr* instead of *RGB* and produced the best results with $76.69\\%$ and $41.05\\%$ image and patch level accuracy respectively. Table\u00a0\\[table:temporal\\_performance\\] shows that by using information from consecutive frames the performance increases significantly.\n\n  **Channels**                                   RGBL                                                  \n  ----------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------- ------- ------- ------- -----------\n  **Filter size**                                 7            9                  9                    \n  **\\# of filters**              (32,32,32)   (32,32,64)   (64,64,64)                                  \n  **Image Level accuracy(%)**      61.75        61.06        60.09      61.79   63.03   60.66   68.03   **76.69**\n  **Patch Level accuracy(%)**      38.74        38.57        38.49      38.03   39.00   39.28   40.96   **41.05**\n\n\\[table:cnn\\_param\\]\n\n  **Number of consecutive time-steps used**   **1**   **2**   **3**   **4**   **5**   **6**   **7**   **8**\n  ------------------------------------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------\n  **Accuracy(%)**                             76.33   85.42   88.88   90.30   92.52   93.85   94.29   95.12\n\n\\[table:temporal\\_performance\\]\n\nConclusions and Future Work {#sec:conclusions_and_future_work}\n===========================\n\nIn this paper, we proposed a deep learning method to do LiDAR-Video registration. We demonstrated the effect of filter size, number of filters and different channels. We also showed the advantage of using temporal information, optical flow and grayscale. The next step in taking this work forward is to complete our development of a deep auto-registration method for ground and aerial platforms requiring no a priori calibration ground truth. Our aerospace applications in particular present noisier data with an increased number of degrees of freedom. The extension of these methods to simultaneously register information across multiple platforms and larger numbers of modalities will provide interesting challenges that we look forward to working on.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'A Spin filtering device through quantum spin interference is addressed, in two dimensions, in a GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas that has both Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit couplings and an applied external magnetic field. We propose an experimentally feasible electronic Mach Zehnder Interferometer and derive a map, in parameter space, that determines perfect spin filtering conditions. We find two broad spin filtering regimes, one where filtering is achieved in the original incoming quantization basis, that takes advantage of the purely non-Abelian nature of spin rotations, and the other, where one needs a tilted preferential axis to observe the polarized output spinor. Both solutions apply for arbitrary incoming electron polarization and energy, and are only limited in output amplitude by the randomness of the incoming spinor state. A full account of beam splitter and mirror effects on spin renders solutions only on the tilted basis, but encompasses a broad range of filtering conditions.'\naddress:\n- '$^1$Centro de F\u00edsica, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cient\u00edficas, Apartado 21874, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela'\n- '$^2$Departamento de F\u00edsica, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela'\n- '$^3$Statistical Physics Group, P2M, Institut Jean Lamour, Nancy Universit\u00e9, BP70239, F- 54506 Vand\u0153uvre les Nancy, France'\nauthor:\n- 'Alexander L\u00f3pez$^1$, Ernesto Medina$^{1,2,3}$, Nelson Bol\u00edvar$^2$ and Bertrand Berche$^3$'\ntitle: 'Perfect spin filtering device through a Mach Zehnder interferometer in GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe Rashba and Dresselhaus SO interactions arise in materials which lack either structural or bulk inversion symmetry, respectively[@Rashba; @Dresselhaus; @winkler]. These two kinds of interactions have recently been given a great deal of attention due to their potential role in the generation and manipulation of spin polarized currents, spin filters[@Nitta; @Ionicioiu; @Hatano; @SHChen], spin accumulation[@SarmaReview], and spin optics[@BalseiroUsaj].\n\nA reformulation of the spin-orbit coupling Hamiltonian in terms of non-Abelian gauge fields[@ryder] was explicitly given in ref. [@Rebei; @Jin; @Leurs; @Medina] where the SO interaction is presented as a $SU(2)\\times U(1)$ gauge theory. As the Yang-Mills gauge theory is well understood and is the underpinning of well established theory, enormous insight can be brought upon new problems. Such gauge point of view, in more general terms, has been known for some time[@Goldhaber; @Mineev; @Frohlich]. This formulation is very revealing, since the consistent gauge structure of the theory becomes obvious and the physics of spin currents, persistent currents and color diamagnetism[@Tokatly] can be understood in a manner analogous to the well known $U(1)$ gauge theories. A consistent $SU(2)\\times U(1)$ gauge approach was presented in reference [@Leurs; @Medina] where it was found that for the Pauli type Hamiltonians (including Rashba and 2 dimensional reductions of the Dresselhaus Hamiltonian), Gauge Symmetry Breaking (GSB) is necessarily built into the theory and leads to vanishing of the spin conductivity in constant electric fields[@Medina]. In addition, the Yang Mills interpretation of the Rashba and Dresselhaus SO interactions renders the associated gauge fields real, with topological consequences analogous to the Aharonov Casher effect[@Leurs; @Medina].\n\nRecent proposals were recently reported for the construction of perfect spin filters based on active Rashba spin orbit media[@Hatano], ballistic spin interferometers[@Koga] and the analysis of the persistent spin helix[@Bernevig2; @SHChen], where the Yang Mills gauge point of view is advantageous. Here we readdress the problem of spin filtering by interferometry in a quasi two dimensional system, and make connection to an experimentally feasible test of these ideas through an electronic Mach Zehnder interferometer (MZI) within Rashba and Dresselhaus media. Recent proposals contemplating this setup as an spin intereference device include quantum logic gates[@ZulickeAlone], bit controlled Stern-Gerlach devices[@Ionicioiu] and tunable entanglement[@SignalZulicke]. Our analysis, within this setup, enables us to obtain exact conditions for spin filtering which can be achieved by tuning appropriate experimental parameters. Such conditions for spin filtering greatly generalize previous special situations where the spin polarization is a conserved quantity[@Ting], and show new possibilities for spin filtering beyond previous approximate treatments.\n\nThe structure of the paper is as follows. First we consider the Hamiltonian with both Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions for a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) including a magnetic flux described by a $U(1)$ gauge field. Following the approach given in ref. [@SHChen], we rewrite the Rashba and Dresselhaus contributions in terms of a Yang Mills gauge field and review how this approach leads to the introduction of a GSB term analogous to the Proca term for the Maxwell field. Then, we propose an interference setup in the form of an electronic MZI where the electron\u2019s spin transport is modulated due to the presence of Rashba and Dresselhaus active media. We derive the conditions for perfect spin filtering that are applicable independently of the incoming spin state and the full energy range of the injected electrons. Finally, we give some concluding remarks.\n\nSpin-Orbit scattering for two dimensional electron gas\n======================================================\n\nWe consider a two dimensional system consisting of non interacting electrons subject to both Rashba and Dresselhaus spin orbit interactions. In addition, one can apply an external transverse magnetic flux $\\Phi_B$ described by a $U(1)$ gauge vector potential $\\bf A$. Two recent works have shown how to measure and control the Rashba and Dresselhaus parameters using gate voltages in two dimensional GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas[@MillerGoldhaberGordon; @Studer]. It is striking that one can achieve SO magnetic fields of 2-3 mT. The SO physics beautifully follows an extended weak localization theory that allows for a detailed access to the material parameters.\n\nOne can address the two dimensional GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas by a single particle Hamiltonian including the previously described couplings by $$\\label{Hamiltonian}\nH= \\frac{{\\bf \\Pi}^2}{2m^*} + V - \\alpha (\\Pi_x\\sigma^y-\\Pi_y \\sigma^x)- \\beta(\\Pi_y\\sigma^y-\\Pi_x\\sigma^x)+ \\frac{\\hbar \\omega_B}{2}\\sigma^z, \\label{H1}$$ where ${\\bf \\Pi}={\\mathbf p}+e{\\mathbf A}$, $-e$ and $m^*$ are the electron\u2019s charge and effective mass, $V$ a substrate lattice potential that can be assumed periodic, $\\boldsymbol \\sigma$ is a vector of Pauli matrices, and $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ are material-dependent parameters characterizing the Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions, respectively. The last term is the Zeeman energy. The term linear in $k$ describing the Dresselhaus interaction results from averaging a cubic in $k$ contribution (for the bulk) in the confining direction and neglecting other cubic terms in the strong lateral confinement situation[@Halperin]. In the rest of this work we ignore the effect of the Zeeman term in the limit of small magnetic fields (a few flux quanta through a ${\\rm 200}\\times {\\rm 200} \\mu {\\rm m}^2$ area) such that the spin orbit energy is much larger than the Zeeman energy[@Takayanagi]. According to measured parameters in ref. [@MillerGoldhaberGordon] the SO energy for an GaAs/AlGaAs electron gas is 5 orders of magnitude greater than the Zeeman energy for the proposed field strengths. This way the external magnetic field results in strong phase effects through the vector potential but no appreciable precession occurs due to the Zeeman term. Nevertheless, we will see that there are spin filtering scenarios for the device even for zero external magnetic field.\n\nFollowing [@Hatano; @SHChen], we introduce a spin dependent (non-Abelian) gauge field ${{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}$ whose components are given by $$\\frac{g}{m^*}{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a \n= (\\beta\\tau^x-\\alpha\\tau^y)\\hat {\\mathbf x}+(\\alpha\\tau^x-\\beta\\tau^y)\\hat {\\mathbf y},$$ with $\\tau^a=\\sigma^a/2$, and $g/\\hbar$ is the $SU(2)$ coupling constant. Using this gauge field we can rewrite equation (\\[H1\\]), having ignored the Zeeman contribution, in the form $$\\begin{aligned}\nH=\\frac{\\left ({\\mathbf p}+e{\\mathbf A}+g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a\\right)^2}{2m^*}+eA_0-\\frac{g^2{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\cdot{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a}{8 m^*}.\n\\label{Pauli2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n![Sketch of the electronic Mach Zenhder interferometer setup. The arms of the square are made of active SO Rashba and Dresselhaus media. The beam splitters are implemented through two Quantum Point Contacts (QPCs). There is a magnetic flux $\\Phi_B$ through the square.[]{data-label=\"fig1\"}](Figure1.eps){width=\"8\"}\n\nThe first term describes the total kinetic energy taking into account the contribution from the regular vector potential due to an external magnetic field and the non Abelian gauge field. The second term is the background lattice potential whereas the third term represents a gauge symmetry breaking contribution similar to the field originally discussed in references [@Leurs; @Medina; @Comment] responsible for rendering the spin currents physical.\n\nElectronic Mach Zehnder spin interferometer\n===========================================\n\nA device configuration that allows us to address the problem of spin filtering in a gauge independent[@Medina] manner is the Mach Zehnder Interferometer (MZI). The setup for an MZI is sketched in (figure \\[fig1\\]). Here we are interested in determining the resulting amplitude $\\Psi_{D_i}$ at detector $D_i$, with $i=1,2$ and to find the conditions for perfect spin filtering [@Hatano] at either detector. There is an interesting issue that must be discussed regarding spin $1/2$ filtering. If the state at the input is a pure state spinor of spin $1/2$, the electron is polarized on some indeterminate axis, in principle random, coming from the Fermi sea of the input conductor. If one could find this axis for every electron extracted then one would have a perfect spin filter for each electron. Nevertheless the resulting current is unpolarized. We thus define the spin filter as one acting on any entering (pure state) polarization and returning a polarized state along a definite axis. This approach will serve to build a polarized spin current.\n\nThe relevant processes within the interferometer are described as follows (see figure \\[fig1\\]): Single electrons are assumed to be extracted from the Fermi sea as pure states $\\Psi_0={\\psi^+_0\\choose\\psi^-_0}$. The electrons then pass through a beam splitter that can be implemented by a combination of Quantum Point Contacts[@OliverYamamoto] the first of which we label ${\\rm QPC_1}$ described by a $4\\times 4$ scattering matrix $S_1$ that mixes spin orientations on perpendicular reflection, while it is diagonal for direct (no change in direction) transmission[@Yamamoto]. Mixing of spin orientations occurs at all reflections (including mirrors) due to changes in direction of the electron ${\\bf k}$ vector within spin-orbit active media that changes the orientation of the implied wavevector-dependent magnetic field. Furthermore, as we consider both Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions, we need to derive general reflection conditions at the beam splitters and mirrors. In reference [@Yamamoto], this was done for Rashba assuming that small enough spin-orbit strength would yield only a small divergence of the reflected spin states in a ${\\bf k}$ dependent basis. Surprisingly, when only the Rashba interaction is involved, the reflection matrix depends only on the incident angle and the reflection coefficient. On the other hand, if both Dresselhaus and Rashba are included, this is no longer true, and except for special angles of incidence, the reflection matrix depends on both Rashba and Dresselhaus strengths. The general reflection matrices are derived in the appendix. In this paper we will take the limit of $\\pi/4$ reflections, that leads to simple, spin-orbit independent matrix elements.\n\nThe resulting beams follow path $I$ ($II$) that consists of a first horizontal ${\\cal L}_I$ (vertical ${\\cal L}_{II}$) arm made of Rashba-Dresselhaus medium whose length is $L_I$ ($L_{II}$). The electrons are then specularly reflected from an ideal mirror $M_1$ ($M_2$), that also mixes spin directions, followed by a vertical ${\\cal L'}_I$ (horizontal ${\\cal L'}_{II}$) arm of length $L_I$ ($L_{II}$) of the same material. The mirrors can be implemented as a simplified version of the beam splitters of reference [@OliverYamamoto]. Then the electrons pass through a second QPC (${\\rm QPC_2}$) described by the corresponding S-Matrix $S_2$. Finally, two electron beams are collected at detector $D_i$ ($i=1,2$), and we have $\\Psi_{D_i}= \\Psi_{I,i}+\\Psi_{II,i}$, where, $\\Psi_{I,i}$ ($\\Psi_{II,i}$) is the corresponding transferred spinor through the i[*th*]{}-arm. These amplitudes can be written in terms of the injected spinor $\\Psi_0$ as $\\Psi_{D_i}={\\cal U}_{D_i}\\Psi_0$, where the $2\\times 2$ matrices ${\\cal U}_{D_i}$ (generalized comparator operators [@Peskin]) are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{phase1}\n\\fl{\\cal U}_{D_1}=(t_2) \\exp{\\Big [\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\int_{{\\mathcal L'}_I}{d {\\bf l}\\cdot}({\\bf p}-e{\\bf A}-g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a)\\Big]} (r_l)\\exp{\\Big[\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\int_{{\\mathcal L}_I}{d {\\bf l}\\cdot}({\\bf p}-e{\\bf A}-g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a)\\Big ]}(t_1)+\\nonumber\\\\\n(r_{2l}) \\exp{\\Big [\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\int_{{\\mathcal L'}_{II}}{d {\\bf l}\\cdot}({\\bf p}-e{\\bf A}-g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a)\\Big]} (r_r)\\exp{\\Big[\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\int_{{\\mathcal L}_{II}}{d {\\bf l}\\cdot}({\\bf p}-e{\\bf A}-g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a)\\Big ]}(r_{1l}),\\nonumber\\\\\n\\fl{\\cal U}_{D_2}=(r_{2r}) \\exp{\\Big [\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\int_{{\\mathcal L'}_{I}}{d {\\bf l}\\cdot}({\\bf p}-e{\\bf A}-g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a)\\Big]} (r_l)\\exp{\\Big[\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\int_{{\\mathcal L}_I}{d {\\bf l}\\cdot}({\\bf p}-e{\\bf A}-g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a)\\Big ]}(t_1)+\\nonumber\\\\\n(t_2) \\exp{\\Big [\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\int_{{\\mathcal L'}_{II}}{d {\\bf l}\\cdot}({\\bf p}-e{\\bf A}-g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a)\\Big]} (r_r)\\exp{\\Big[\\frac{i}{\\hbar}\\int_{{\\mathcal L}_{II}}{d {\\bf l}\\cdot}({\\bf p}-e{\\bf A}-g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a)\\Big ]}(r_{1l}).\\nonumber\\\\\\end{aligned}$$ Such operators applied to the initial state do not change the energy expectation value. The transmission and reflection matrices regarding both Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions, for $\\pi/4$ incidence angle, are given by $$\\label{reflectionmatrix}\n(t_j)=\\left (\n \\begin{array}{cc}\n    t_j  & 0\\\\\n    0 & t_j\n\\end{array}\\right )~~;~~\n(r_{j[l,r]})=\\frac{\\sqrt{2}}{2}\\left (\n \\begin{array}{cc}\n    r_j  & \\pm ir_j\\\\\n    \\pm ir_j & r_j\n\\end{array}\\right ),$$ where the subscripts $j$ correspond to the beam splitter index (see figure \\[fig1\\]) and $r,l$ (corresponding to $+,-$ in the non diagonal matrix elements, respectively) encode whether the electron current is reflected counter-clockwise ($l$) or clockwise ($r$). $r_j$ and $t_j$ are the reflection and transmission coefficients for the $j-$th beam splitter, while for the mirrors, the reflection coefficients are equal to 1. Note that ${\\cal U}_{D_i}$ is not a unitary operator. The normalization condition $|\\Psi_{D_1}|^2+|\\Psi_{D_2}|^2=1$ for the total probability at the detectors require that ${\\cal U}^{\\dagger}_{D_1}{\\cal U}_{D_1}+{\\cal U}^{\\dagger}_{D_2}{\\cal U}_{D_2}=\\nbOne$, the unit matrix. This simply means that the amplitudes received at the detectors do not interfere. The arms of the interferometer can be built from gate defined quasi one dimensional paths implemented on a 2DEG, where all transport is kept within one of the available transverse modes. The scattering length is assumed to be long enough, so that phase relations can be accurately described by the path lengths and the spin-orbit strengths as in the Datta Das[@DattaDas] switch arrangement.\n\nResults: Spin diagonal mirrors and beam splitters\n=================================================\n\nIn this section we consider a simplified version of the filtering device where beam splitters and mirrors are considered diagonal matrices or scalars. Although this approximation does not contemplate the matrix nature of the reflections we will obtain a simple scenario for the filtering properties of the device. The full problem will be treated below where essentially the same qualitative results are obtained.\n\nIf the electric field ${\\bf E}$ is uniform and static, the operators ${\\bf p}-e{\\bf A}$ and $g{{\\cal W}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!{\\cal W}}^a\\tau^a$ commute. Thus, we can separate the [*orbital*]{} from the [*internal*]{} translation operators. For simplicity we will assume a square interferometer, thus $L_I=L_{II}=L$. Otherwise there are no restrictions or approximations related to the dimensions of the arms of the interferometer. As in Chen and Chang [@SHChen] we will make the discussion general by treating both the Rashba and Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling on equal footing.\n\nConcerning the [*orbital*]{} contribution, it is easy to see that this will consist of a global phase $\\exp[{{\\bf p} \\cdot ({\\bf L_1+L_2})}]$ which we can drop, and a relative $U(1)$ phase $\\varphi_B$ which arises from the noncommutation of ${\\bf p}$ and ${\\bf A}$. Using the definition for the magnetic flux $\\Phi_B=BL^2$ and that for the flux quantum $\\phi_0=h/e$, the nontrivial [*orbital*]{} phase is written as $2\\pi\\varphi_B=2\\pi\\Phi_B/\\phi_0$. On the other hand, the internal part gives rise to the $SU(2)$ spin-dependent phase contribution. In order to simplify the resulting expressions, we introduce the adimensional variable $$\\label{Lambda}\n\\Lambda=(m^*L/\\hbar)\\sqrt{\\alpha^2+\\beta^2},$$ that will be the crucial control parameter governing the SO interaction. Furthermore, we introduce the definitions $\\theta\\equiv\\tan^{-1}(\\beta/\\alpha)$ along with the matrices $\\tilde{\\sigma}^1\\equiv\\cos\\theta\\sigma^x-\\sin\\theta\\sigma^y$ and $\\tilde{\\sigma}^2\\equiv\\sin\\theta \\sigma^x-\\cos\\theta \\sigma^y$, such that $(\\tilde{\\sigma}^i)^2=\\nbOne$, with $\\nbOne$ the identity matrix in spin space. After the previous considerations we can rewrite equation \\[phase1\\] in the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\cal U}_{D_1}&=&(t_2)\\exp({-i\\Lambda\\tilde{\\sigma}^1})(r_l)\\exp({-i\\Lambda\\tilde{\\sigma}^2})(t_1)+\\nonumber\\\\ \n&& \\exp({2\\pi i\\varphi_B})(r_{2r})\\exp({-i\\Lambda\\tilde{\\sigma}^2})(r_r)\\exp({-i\\Lambda\\tilde{\\sigma}^1})(r_{1l}),\\\\\n {\\cal U}_{D_2}&=&(r_{2r}) \\exp({-i\\Lambda\\tilde{\\sigma}^1})(r_l)\\exp({-i\\Lambda\\tilde{\\sigma}^2})(t_1)+\\nonumber\\\\\n&& \\exp({2i\\pi\\varphi_B})(t_2)\\exp({-i\\Lambda\\tilde{\\sigma}^2})(r_r)\\exp({-i\\Lambda\\tilde{\\sigma}^1})(r_{1l}).\\end{aligned}$$ Due to the symmetry of these expressions (${\\cal U}_{D_2}$ is obtained from ${\\cal U}_{D_1}$ by the substitutions $r_2\\leftrightarrow t_2$) we can focus on the first process, and obtain the second by making the necessary substitutions. Using the identity $\\exp(\\pm i \\gamma \\sigma^n)=\\cos \\gamma\\nbOne \\pm i\\sigma^n\\sin\\gamma$, valid also for our redefined $\\tilde{\\sigma}$, the matrix ${\\cal U}_{D_1}$ takes the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal U}_{D_1}&=&t_1 t_2 [\\cos^2\\Lambda\\nbOne-i\\sin\\Lambda\\cos\\Lambda(\\tilde{\\sigma}^1+\\tilde{\\sigma}^2)-\\tilde{\\sigma}^1\\tilde{\\sigma}^2\\sin^2\\Lambda]+\\nonumber\\\\ \n&& r_1 r_2 e^{{2i\\pi\\varphi_B}}[\\cos^2\\Lambda\\nbOne-i\\sin\\Lambda\\cos\\Lambda(\\tilde{\\sigma}^1+\\tilde{\\sigma}^2)-\\tilde{\\sigma}^2\\tilde{\\sigma}^1\\sin^2\\Lambda].\\end{aligned}$$ Now, we can easily determine that $\\tilde{\\sigma}^1\\tilde{\\sigma}^2=\\sin 2\\theta\\nbOne-i{\\sigma}^z\\cos 2\\theta$ thus $\\tilde{\\sigma}^2\\tilde{\\sigma}^1=\\sin2\\theta\\nbOne+i{\\sigma}^z\\cos 2\\theta$ and $\\tilde{\\sigma}^1+\\tilde{\\sigma}^2=(\\cos\\theta+\\sin\\theta)(\\sigma^x-\\sigma^y)$. Substituting these results and rearranging the obtained expressions leads to $${\\cal U}_{D_1}={\\mathcal A}_{+}[\\cos^2\\Lambda-\\sin^2\\Lambda\\sin 2\\theta]\\nbOne+i\\sin\\Lambda \\nbM,$$ where we have introduced the traceless matrix $\\nbM={\\mathcal A}_{-}\\sin\\Lambda\\cos 2\\theta\\sigma^z-{\\mathcal A}_{+}\\cos\\Lambda(\\cos\\theta+\\sin\\theta)(\\sigma^x-\\sigma^y)$ and ${\\mathcal A}_{\\pm}=t_1t_2\\pm r_1r_2 e^{2i\\pi\\varphi_B}$. The traceless condition simplifies the diagonalization of $\\nbM$, and the eigenvalues for ${\\cal U}_{D_1}$ are easily found to be $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{evalue1}\n&&\\fl \\lambda^{D_1}_{\\pm}={\\mathcal A}_{+}[\\cos^2\\Lambda-\\sin^2\\Lambda\\sin 2\\theta]\\mp i\\sin\\Lambda\\sqrt{{\\mathcal A}^2_{-}\\sin^2\\Lambda\\cos^2 2\\theta+2{\\mathcal A}^2_{+}\\cos^2\\Lambda(1+\\sin 2\\theta)}.\n \\end{aligned}$$ If we now define ${\\mathcal B}_{\\pm}=t_1 r_2\\pm r_1 t_2 e^{2i\\pi\\varphi_B}$, the eigenvalues of the matrix ${\\cal U}_{D_2}$ are obtained from the previous result by making the substitution ${\\mathcal A}_{\\pm}\\rightarrow {\\mathcal B}_{\\pm}$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{evalue2}\n&&\\fl \\lambda^{D_2}_{\\pm}={\\mathcal B}_{+}[\\cos^2\\Lambda-\\sin^2\\Lambda\\sin 2\\theta]\\mp i\\sin\\Lambda\\sqrt{{\\mathcal B}^2_{-}\\sin^2\\Lambda\\cos^2 2\\theta+2{\\mathcal B}^2_{+}\\cos^2\\Lambda(1+\\sin 2\\theta)}.\n \\end{aligned}$$ In order to get more insight into the nature of the conditions for perfect spin filtering we will specialize the previous expression to symmetric beam splitters i.e. $r_1=r_2=r$, and $t_1=t_2=t$. Within this case, we have $\\mathcal{A}_{\\pm}=t^2 \\pm r^2e^{2i\\pi\\varphi_B}$. Since we are interested in filtering one spin component, say the up component, we now proceed to determine the vanishing conditions of the corresponding eigenvalue $\\lambda^{D_1}_{+}$.\n\nFrom expressions (\\[evalue1\\], \\[evalue2\\]), these vanishing conditions can be found by either having $\\cos\\Lambda=0$ or $\\cos\\Lambda\\ne0$ (see also equation \\[Lambda\\]). Although the former condition is mathematically only a particular case of the general solution, we distinguish it because the corresponding ${\\cal U}_{D_1}$ becomes diagonal with respect to the original quantization axis, so we can speak of filtering along a [*non-tilted*]{} axis. Such a solution is also the simplest from the detection point of view since it involves the choice of a single quantization axis for the whole setup. The second condition ($\\cos\\Lambda\\ne0$) corresponds to finding a new axis where the up spin is filtered and we call such axis the [*tilted*]{} quantization axis. Note that both these filtering conditions (non-tilted and tilted) are [*independent of the polarization axis and the energy of the incoming state*]{}. We will comment further on this below.\n\nNon-tilted filtering\n--------------------\n\nLet us first analyze the [*non-tilted*]{} situation. In this case the filtering condition requiring $\\lambda_+^{D_1}=0$ for all incoming energies (see equation \\[evalue1\\]), leads to the relation $$\\tan 2\\theta=-\\frac{i(t^2 - r^2 e^{2i\\pi\\varphi_B})}{(t^2 + r^2 e^{2i\\pi\\varphi_B})}.$$ Two $50-50$ beam splitters for which $r=i/\\sqrt 2$, $t=1/\\sqrt 2$, will then lead to the relation $\\sin{\\pi\\varphi_B}\\sin 2\\theta=\\cos{\\pi\\varphi_B}\\cos 2\\theta$, equivalent to the simple expression $\\cos({\\pi\\varphi_B+2\\theta})=0$, satisfied by the condition $$\\label{nontilted}\n\\pi\\varphi_B+2\\theta=(2n+1)\\frac{\\pi}{2},$$ where $n$ is an integer. Figure \\[fig2\\] depicts the relation between the spin-orbit parameters and the magnetic flux, for $n,l=0$, necessary for perfect filtering of the up component in the original quantization axis. The spin-orbit parameters are in a reasonable range, as depicted in the figure, since for a GaAs heterostructure $\\hbar\\alpha\\sim 3.9\\times 10^{-12}{\\rm eV~ m}$[@DattaDas], $\\hbar\\beta\\sim 2.4\\times 10^{-12} {\\rm eV~m}$ and $\\hbar^2/m^* L\\sim 1.7 \\times 10^{-12}{\\rm eV~ m}$, assuming the arm of the interferometer $\\sim 1 \\mu m$ and an effective mass of $m^*=0.046 m_0$. These parameters yield $|\\alpha|, |\\beta| < 6$ in units of $\\hbar/(m^* L)$. Note that our definition of $\\alpha,\\beta$ differs by a factor $\\hbar$ to the standard definition (see equation \\[H1\\]). In reference[@MillerGoldhaberGordon] it is shown that gate control can vary $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ parameters by a factor of 6 by applying gate voltages in the hundreds of mV.\n\nThe solutions are on a helix, as can be shown from the previous relations where $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{nontilted1}\n\\alpha&=&\\frac{\\hbar}{m^* L}\\sqrt{(2l+1)\\pi/2}\\cos[\\pi/4(2n+1-2\\varphi_B)],\\nonumber\\\\ \n\\beta&=&\\frac{\\hbar}{m^* L}\\sqrt{(2l+1)\\pi/2}\\sin[\\pi/4(2n+1-2\\varphi_B)].\\end{aligned}$$ The integer $n$ was defined in equation \\[nontilted\\] while the second integer $l$ is defined by the condition $\\cos{\\Lambda}=0$.\n\n![Perfect filtering for the non-tilted axis (original incoming basis). The plot shows the relation between $\\alpha$, $\\beta$ in units of $\\hbar/(m^* L)$, and $\\varphi_B$ that yields perfect polarization of the spin from an unpolarized input. The figure corresponds the values $n,l=0$ according to equation \\[nontilted1\\].[]{data-label=\"fig2\"}](Figure2.eps){width=\"7\"}\n\nThe previous conditions, depicted in figure \\[fig2\\], do not tell us about the intensity of the signal received in detector $D_1$ i.e. the efficiency of the filter given an incident intensity. For this, one has to look back at the eigenvalues. While $\\lambda^{D_1}_+=0$ the amplitude of the outgoing polarized spinor at detector $D_1$ is given by $$\\label{outputnontilted}\n\\Psi_{D_1}={0 \\choose \\lambda^{D_1}_-\\psi^-_0}={0 \\choose i e^{i\\pi\\varphi_B}\\cos({\\pi\\varphi_B-2\\theta})\\psi^-_0},$$ whose modulus squared is $\\cos^2(\\pi\\varphi_B-2\\theta)|\\psi^-_0|^2$. Figure \\[fig3\\] shows a polar plot for the amplitude of the filtered signal (radius vector) as a function of the parameter designating the field flux $\\varphi_B$ and the $\\alpha,\\beta$ combination given by equation \\[nontilted1\\] for $n=0,1$ and $l=0$. The figure shows that while filtering occurs for all the fluxes (given the appropriate values of $\\alpha,\\beta$) the amplitude can be zero, or very small, for some flux values i.e. in this case, the detector $D_2$ gets most of the total amplitude. On the other hand, for some values of the flux, filtering can be very strong since the probability for a polarized spin can approach unity.\n\n![Filtering probability for the non-tilted solution of detector $D_1$ for $n=0$, $l=0$ solid (blue) curve and n=1, l=0 dashed (red) line. The radius vector depicted shows the filtered probability for the output spinor for one whole period in the parameters $\\alpha,\\beta$ as given in the figure \\[fig2\\]. The position of the dashed vector corresponds to $\\varphi_B=0.25$. The grey points represent \u201cspin flipping\" or opposite filtering solutions for detector $D_2$.[]{data-label=\"fig3\"}](Figure3.eps){width=\"9\"}\n\nThe behavior of the second detector $D_2$, while the first detector sees a filtered signal, can be obtained through the eigenvalues of that detector having substituted the condition $\\lambda_+^{D_1}=0$, namely $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\lambda^{D_2}_{+}=-ie^{i\\pi\\varphi_B},\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\lambda^{D_2}_{-}=ie^{i\\pi\\varphi_B}\\sin({\\pi\\varphi_B-2\\theta}). \\end{aligned}$$ It is obvious that the second detector $D_2$ does not filter concomitantly with the $D_1$ in general. Furthermore, one can only find conditions for the second component to be zero (opposite filtering to detector $D_1$) since the first component has modulus one. This takes us to the non-tilting [*spin flipped*]{} or opposite filtering solution at detector $D_2$, only occurring while detector $D_1$ is filtering with maximal efficiency i.e. maximal polar radii in figure \\[fig3\\].\n\nThe filtering amplitude is proportional to the projection of the incoming spinor (which has arbitrary weights onto the chosen quantization axis) to the surviving component at the output (see equation \\[outputnontilted\\]). This means that for each arbitrary incident spinor from the Fermi sea one gets a filtering probability that depends on this projection. The resulting polarized current will thus have a random noise associated with this effect besides the contribution from shot noise.\n\nIt is important to note that this solution does not appear in Abelian approximation (only exact in the case $\\alpha^2=\\beta^2$ and in one dimension) to the translation operator, where the $SU(2)$ gauge vector operator has the same algebra as the $U(1)$ gauge vector. The previous approximation was implemented in reference [@SHChen] by neglecting the commutator between components of the $SU(2)$ gauge vector within a finite difference scheme. In this sense, the non-tilted case is an intrinsically non-Abelian scenario for spin filtering.\n\nTilted filtering axis {#idealtilted}\n---------------------\n\nThe tilted axis filtering scenario was discussed, within the tight-binding model, by Hatano, Shirasaki and Nakamura[@Hatano] when the Rashba coupling is present. In their approach, the interferometer involves an incoming lead and one outgoing lead, in contrast to our Mach-Zehnder configuration. The non-Abelian treatment is exact within their model, and requires a tilted outgoing axis to realize perfect spin filtering.\n\nFor the Mach-Zehnder configuration, addressed here, the [*tilted*]{} axis solution (i.e. $\\cos\\Lambda \\neq 0$), requires $\\lambda^{D_1}_+=0$, which implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&~~~\\fl {\\mathcal A}_{+}[\\cos^2\\Lambda-\\sin^2\\Lambda\\sin 2\\theta]= i\\sin\\Lambda\\nonumber\n\\sqrt{{\\mathcal A}^2_{-}\\sin^2\\Lambda\\cos^2 2\\theta+2{\\mathcal A}^2_{+}\\cos^2\\Lambda(1+\\sin 2\\theta)}. \\end{aligned}$$ Squaring both sides and after some algebra one finds $$\\label{casi1}\n{\\mathcal A}^2_{+}=\\sin^4\\Lambda\\cos^2 2\\theta({\\mathcal A}^2_{+}-{\\mathcal A}^2_{-}).$$ Using the definitions for ${\\mathcal A}_{\\pm}$, and taking the square root, we reduce equation \\[casi1\\] to $$t^2+r^2 e^{2i\\pi\\varphi_B}=2rte^{i\\pi\\varphi_B}\\sin^2\\Lambda\\cos 2\\theta.$$ Employing the $50-50$ mirror condition, we get after substitution $$\\label{nontilted5050}\n\\sin\\pi\\varphi_B=\\sin^2\\Lambda\\cos 2\\theta.$$\n\n![ a) Perfect filtering by interference for the tilted axis. The plot shows the relation between $\\alpha$, $\\beta$ in units of $\\hbar/(m^* L)$, and $\\sin\\pi\\varphi_B$ in a contourplot, the darker regions indicate larger values for the magnetic flux needed to yield perfect filtering, from an unpolarized input. Highlighted circles depict the zero flux solutions that yield perfect filtering. b) Perfect filtering probability for the tilted axis. The plot shows the relation between $\\alpha$, $\\beta$ in units of $\\hbar/(m^* L)$, and the filtered intensity in a contourplot. The lighter regions indicate larger values for the intensity of filtering for the relation between parameters depicted in figure \\[fig45\\]a. Note that the circles evident from figure \\[fig45\\]a correspond to zero output amplitude.[]{data-label=\"fig45\"}](Figure4.eps){width=\"15\"}\n\nThis is the relation between the spin-orbit parameters and the magnetic flux that leads to perfect filtering in the tilted axis. The solution is depicted in a contourplot in figure \\[fig45\\]a where the value of $\\sin\\pi\\varphi_B$ is represented in shades of gray as a function of $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$. Each contour corresponds to a constant magnetic flux value and runs over the perfect filtering values of $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$. The circular contour, depicted in the figure, corresponds to a $\\varphi_B=0$ solution to equation \\[nontilted5050\\] that leads to $(m^*L/\\hbar)\\sqrt{\\alpha^2+\\beta^2}=p\\pi$, for $p$ integer. The figure depicts the solution for $p=1,2$, i.e. circles in units of $\\hbar/(m^*L)$.\n\nIn order to see if the filter is actually working, we must address the filtered amplitudes by looking to the second eigenvalue at detector $D_1$. For the filtering condition $$\\lambda^{D_1}_{-}=-2ie^{i\\pi \\varphi_B}\\sin\\pi \\varphi_B\\left[ \\cos^2\\Lambda-\\sin^2\\Lambda\\sin 2\\theta\\right].$$ Substituting equation \\[nontilted5050\\] in this expression and computing the modulus squared of the eigenvalue, we determine the strength of the filtered output, as was done in equation \\[outputnontilted\\]. We have depicted the analytical solution for a range of values of $\\alpha,\\beta$ in the contour plot of figure \\[fig45\\]b. The darkest shade corresponds to zero amplitude, and as the shade lightens the probability is higher for the filtered output. We note that the filtering solutions for the circular contours in figure \\[fig45\\]a and the lines $\\alpha=\\pm\\beta$ have zero amplitude. Such zero amplitude solutions correspond to those of \u201clocalized solutions\u201d of Cheng and Chang[@SHChen] where there is no filtered output.\n\n![Detector $D_2$ output while $D_1$ filters out the up spin component (spin down polarization). The plus (minus) zones represent the regions where only the up spin (down) survives at the $D_2$ detector. Note that either one or the other is filtered. The white regions represent no output in the detector and correspond to the localized phase. On can have either up or down spin filtering in $D_2$ while up spin is filtered out in $D_1$.[]{data-label=\"fig6\"}](Figure5.eps){width=\"8\"}\n\nBehavior of detector $D_2$, while $D_1$ is filtering out the spin up component (spin down polarization), is shown in figure \\[fig6\\]. Regions with plus (minus) signs depict up (down) spin phases for detector $D_2$. Note that the two regions are mutually exclusive so that while pure spin down is being detected in $D_1$ one can have either spin up or spin down in $D_2$ depending on the range of $\\alpha,\\beta$. The white regions correspond to no output at $D_2$. Comparing with figure \\[fig45\\]b we see that no-output region are not identical for both detectors, these being larger for $D_1$, i.e. one can have zero output at $D_1$ while having non-zero output at $D_2$. As discussed before, the outputs depicted in figure \\[fig6\\] are also modulated by the magnitude of the corresponding component at the input, so the probability of the output exhibits noise coming from the random input spin orientation.\n\n![The zeroes of the first (dashed line or red online) and second (solid line, blue online) eigenvalues of ${\\cal U}_{D_2}$. When the first eigenvalue vanishes (and the second is non-zero), for specific combinations of $\\alpha,\\beta ~{\\rm and}~\\varphi_B$ the interferometer produces a perfectly polarized output in the $|- \\rangle$ state. Only a particular discrete set of solutions for $\\varphi_B$ is depicted.[]{data-label=\"fig7\"}](Figure6.eps){width=\"12cm\"}\n\nNon diagonal mirror and beam splitter reflections\n=================================================\n\nIncluding the non diagonal matrix character of reflections at mirrors and beam splitters shifts the operation parameters of the spin filter but yields essentially the same qualitative results. The conditions must now be derived numerically. We start from equation \\[phase1\\] with the transmission and reflection matrices in equation \\[reflectionmatrix\\]. For the particular choice of $\\pi/4$ incidence on the mirrors (see Appendix), the particularly simple non-tilting scenario described above is not possible. The extra parameter given by the angle of incidence on the mirrors/beam splitters lends itself to making this regime accessible, but we will not pursue it here. The more general scenario of a tilted axis yields a whole range of possible filtering solutions.\n\nDiagonalizing ${\\cal U}_{D_2}$ in equation \\[phase1\\] we find two eigenvalues. Setting the first eigenvalue to zero implies that in this rotated space the spinor is fully polarized (one of the entries of the output spinor is zero) as described in equation \\[outputnontilted\\]. Setting this eigenvalue to zero means setting its real and imaginary parts to zero. Such zeroes are depicted in figure \\[fig7\\] by the dashed lines (red online) for different values of the magnetic field and specific combinations $\\Lambda(\\alpha,\\beta)$, defined in equation \\[Lambda\\], and $\\theta=\\tan^{-1}(\\beta/\\alpha)$. In order for filtering to be performed such zeroes must be accompanied by non-zero values of the second eigenvalue in the same detector. The zeroes of the second eigenvalue are depicted in figure \\[fig7\\] by the solid lines (blue online) which are non-overlapping with the dashed lines for the first eigenvalue. Thus the figure shows alternative filtering conditions for either spin up or spin down in the tilted basis.\n\nThe circular empty region in the middle of the plot correspond to non-polarized output in the tilted axis. Such a region contains some pointlike solutions that are of less interest experimentally since they would be difficult to tune. We recall that the previous discussion in section \\[idealtilted\\] is equally valid in this case, all incoming electrons at the input are polarized at the output no matter their energy as long as particular parameters ranges in the $\\alpha,\\beta,\\Phi_B$ space are met.\n\n![The dashed curves represent zeroes of the first eigenvalue for $\\varphi_B=5 \\pi/100$ upon a contourplot for the modulus of the second eigenvalue. The lighter shades represent higher values of the output polarization. One can extract the SO strengths from the plot by solving a simple system of equations for each value read off on the dashed curves.[]{data-label=\"fig8\"}](Figure7.eps){width=\"15cm\"}\n\nIn order to see the magnitude of the spin polarization for a particular value of the external magnetic field we draw a contour map of the magnitude of the second eigenvalue while the first one is zero. The background value at the dashed curves in figure \\[fig8\\], show the intensity of the pure down spin polarization at detector $D_2$ when at $\\varphi_B=5\\pi/100$. The highest values of output achieved corresponds to the lighter shades on the contourmap.\n\nSummary\n=======\n\nWe have proposed a perfect spin filtering device based on a Mach-Zehnder type spin interferometer. The regimes of operation are subject to no limitations on the spin-orbit strengths and interferometer dimensions as in previous work. The treatment can be easily extended to unequal arm lengths and angles of incidence on the mirrors/beam splitters, that are likely to occur in the actual implementation of the interferometer. Such a generalization would provide additional parameters to manipulate filtering conditions. In the simpler analysis above involving scalar mirrors, we find both a non-tilted and tilted axis spin filtering solutions referred to the axis of quantization in which one writes the input states and for arbitrary incoming energies. The non-tilted case is not found in the scenario where the $SU(2)$ gauge field is approximated by a $U(1)$ like gauge, and is peculiar to the full non-Abelian treatment. This solution has the advantage of simplicity. On the other hand, the tilted axis solutions are shown to be well approximated by the Abelianized forms of reference [@SHChen] valid for certain reasonable conditions of SO strengths in relation to the interferometer arm lengths. When realistic mirrors/beam splitters are introduced, the mixing of the spinor components leads only to non-tilted solutions when $\\pi/4$ reflections are contemplated. In this situation we run out of adjustable parameters to tune a non-tilted solution, that should be recovered when other incidence angles are considered. The qualitative scenarios for the operation of the diagonal and non-diagonal mirrors are the same and only the parameter combinations for filtering change.\n\nPerfect filtering means that all spins in one of the detectors are polarized always in the same axis and orientation. This has the drawback that the current is not steady since the probability of producing a completely polarized electron varies with the initial projection, of the input spinor, onto the chosen quantization axis. This projection is random as electrons are injected from the Fermi sea[@Yamamoto]. A density matrix approach should be implemented so that one can also assess finite temperature effects on the filter operation. It should be also noted that the interference setup does not produce a pure spin current, since polarization is accompanied by a charge current.\n\nAn interesting insight, exploiting the analogy with the Aharonov-Bohm effect in the Abelian case, comes from observing the role of $\\Lambda$ in the non-Abelian case. $\\Lambda$ and the voltage $V$ essentially play the same role as the pair $2\\pi\\varphi_B$ and magnetic flux. Indeed, for a purely Pauli type SO interaction, as $\\Lambda=(mL/{\\hbar})\\alpha$ and $\\alpha=\\hbar eE/(m^2 c^2)$, then $\\Lambda$ can be rewritten as $2\\pi E L/(2\\pi m c^2/e)=2\\pi V_E/V_0$, where $V_E=EL$, the voltage along the arm of length $L$ in an electric field of strength $E$. $V_0$ is a quantum of voltage[@Medina]. Although $V_0$ is very large for this calculation, the material Rashba coefficient would lower it to the order of $1~ eV/e$.\n\nWe acknowledge fruitful discussions with C. Chatelain, J. C. Egues and R. Winkler. This work was supported by CNRS-Fonacit grant PI-2008000272.\n\nAppendix {#appendix .unnumbered}\n========\n\nHere we derive the general conditions for reflection at a beam splitter on a mirror in the presence of both Rashba and Dresselhaus interactions. Starting from Hamiltonian in equation \\[Hamiltonian\\] we can solve exactly for the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions. Ignoring the Zeeman term we have\n\n![Detector $D_2$ output while $D_1$ filters out the up spin component (spin down polarization). []{data-label=\"figappendix\"}](AppendixFig.eps){width=\"10cm\"}\n\n$$\\varepsilon_{\\pm}=\\frac{\\hbar^2k^2}{2m^*}\\pm\\sqrt{k^2(\\alpha^2+\\beta^2)+4 \\alpha\\beta k_x k_y},$$\n\nwith eigenfunctions given by $$\\fl | {\\bf k} ~\\pm \\rangle_{i}=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}\\left (\n \\begin{array}{cc}\n    1\\\\\n    \\mp F(k_x,k_y)\n\\end{array}\\right )~~,~~ F(k_x,k_y)=\\frac{k_x(\\beta-i\\alpha)+k_y(\\alpha-i\\beta)}{\\sqrt{k^2(\\alpha^2+\\beta^2)+4\\alpha\\beta k_x k_y}},$$ where ${\\bf k}=(k_x,k_y)$, $\\pm$ stand for the two eigenvalues and the subindex $i$ stands for incident wave. The convention we take, according to the figure, is that $k_x~\\rm{and} ~k_y$ are positive components for the incident electron. Referred to those components, one can obtain the reflected basis components by changing $k_x\\rightarrow - k_x$ and $k_y\\rightarrow k_y$ as the momentum in the $y$ direction is conserved. To obtain the projections in terms of the reflected basis we write $$| {\\bf k} ~\\pm \\rangle_{i}= a_{\\pm} | {\\bf k} ~+ \\rangle_{r}+b_{\\pm}  | {\\bf k} ~- \\rangle_{r},$$ where the subindex on the right indicates the reflected complete basis set. One can then compute the superposition coefficients $a_{\\pm}$ and $b_{\\pm}$ by performing the appropriate overlaps between incoming and outgoing wavefunctions $$\\begin{aligned}\n a_{\\pm} &=&  _r\\langle k + |k \\pm\\rangle_i=1/2\\left [1 \\pm F^*(-k_x,k_y)F(k_x, k_y)\\right ],\\cr\n b_{\\pm}&=&  _r\\langle k - |k \\pm\\rangle_i=1/2\\left [1 \\mp F^*(-k_x,k_y)F(k_x, k_y)\\right ].\n \\end{aligned}$$ Each of the outgoing amplitudes gets multiplied by the scalar reflection coefficient $r$ in the case of the beam splitter and $r=1$ for perfect mirrors. The previous coefficients govern the ${\\rm QPC_1}$, the upper reflection of ${\\rm QPC_2}$ and $M_1$ in figure \\[fig1\\], while exchanges of $k_x\\rightarrow -k_x$ would generate the corresponding matrix for the $M_2$ and the bottom reflection of ${\\rm QPC_2}$.\n\nThe wavector components can be expressed as ${\\bf k}=(k \\sin\\gamma,k \\cos\\gamma)$ for a generic incident angle as seen in the figure. For the case of $\\gamma=\\pi/4$, the reflection matrices are particularly simple and one obtains equation \\[reflectionmatrix\\], where the transmission matrix is trivially diagonal since the electron beam does not change direction.\n\nA coordinate independent way to state the general result is by identifying $F(k_x, k_y)=\\exp{i\\phi_i}$ and $F(-k_x, k_y)=\\exp{i\\phi_r}$ then one can write the full reflection/transmission matrix as $$\\fl \\left (\n \\begin{array}{cccc}\n    r\\cos[(\\phi_r-\\phi_i)/2]  & i r\\sin[(\\phi_r-\\phi_i)/2] & t & 0\\\\\n   i r\\sin[(\\phi_r-\\phi_i)/2]  & r\\cos[(\\phi_r-\\phi_i)/2]  & 0 & t\\\\\n    t & 0 & r\\cos[(\\phi_r-\\phi_i)/2] & -i r \\sin[(\\phi_r-\\phi_i)/2]\\\\\n    0 & t & -i r\\sin[(\\phi_r-\\phi_i)/2] & r\\cos[(\\phi_r-\\phi_i)/2]\n\\end{array}\\right )$$\n\nReferences {#references .unnumbered}\n==========\n\n[10]{} Rashba E I 1960 [*Sov. Phys. Solid State*]{} [**2**]{} 1109 Dresselhaus G 1955 [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**100**]{} 580 Winkler R 2003 [*Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems*]{} (Springer) Nitta J and Koga T 2003 [*J. Supercond.*]{} [**16**]{} 689 Ionicioiu R, D\u2019Amico I 2003 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**67**]{} 041307(R) Hatano N, Shirasaki R and Nakamura H 2007 [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**75**]{} 032107 Chen S -H and Chang C -R 2008 [*Phys. Rev. B.*]{} [**77**]{} 045324 Zutic I, Fabian J and Das Sarma S 2004 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**76**]{} 323 Usaj G and Balseiro C A 2005 [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**72**]{} 631 Ryder L H 1985 [*Quantum Field Theory*]{}, (Cambridge University Press) Rebei A and Heinonen O 2006 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**73**]{} 153306 Jin P Q, Li Y Q and Zhang F C 2006 [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**39**]{} 7115 Leurs B W A, Nazario Z, Santiago D I and Zaanen J 2008 [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**323**]{} 907 Medina E, L\u00f3pez A and Berche B 2008 [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{} 47005 Goldhaber A S 1989 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**62**]{} 482 Mineev V P, Volovik G E 1992 [*J. Low Temp. Phys.*]{} [**89**]{} 823 Fr$\\ddot{\\rm o}$hlich J and Studer U M 1993 [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**65**]{} 733 Tokatly I V 2008 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{} 106601 Koga T, Nitta J and van Veenhuizen M 2004 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**70**]{} 161302(R) Bernevig B A, Orenstein J and Zhang S C 2006 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{} 236601 Zulicke U 2004 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{} 2616 Signal A I, Zulicke U 2005 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{} 102102 Ting D Z -Y and Cartoixa X 2003 [*Phys. Rev. B.*]{} [**68**]{} 235320 Miller J B, Zumbuhl D M, Marcus C M, Lyanda-Geller Y B, Goldhaber-Gordon D, Campman K and Gossard A C 2003 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**90**]{} 076807 Studer M, Salis G, Ensslin K, Driscoll D C and Gossard A C 2009 [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**103**]{} 027201 Engel H A, Rashba E I and Halperin B I [*Preprint*]{} arXiv:cond-mat/0603306v3. Nitta J, Meijer F E and Takayanagi H 1999 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**75**]{} 695 L\u00f3pez A, Medina E, Bol\u00edvar N and B. Berche [*Preprint*]{} arXiv:cond-mat/0902.4635. Oliver W D, Kim J, Liu R C and Yamamoto Y 1999 [*Science*]{} [**284**]{} 299 Feve G, Oliver W D, Aranzana M, and Yamamoto Y 2002 [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**66**]{} 155328 Peskin M E and Schroeder D V 1995 [*Quantum Field Theory*]{} (Westview) Datta S and Das B 1990 [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**56**]{} 665\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present parallax and proper motion measurements, near-infrared spectra, and WISE photometry for the low surface gravity L5$\\gamma$ dwarf 2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7 (2M0355). We use these data to evaluate photometric, spectral, and kinematic signatures of youth as 2M0355 is the reddest isolated L dwarf yet classified. We confirm its low-gravity spectral morphology and find a strong resemblance to the sharp triangular shaped $H$-band spectrum of the $\\sim$10\u00a0Myr planetary-mass object 2M1207b. We find that 2M0355 is underluminous compared to a normal field L5 dwarf in the optical and MKO $J,H$, and $K$ bands and transitions to being overluminous from 3-12 $\\mu$m, indicating that enhanced photospheric dust shifts flux to longer wavelengths for young, low-gravity objects, creating a red spectral energy distribution. Investigating the near-infrared color magnitude diagram for brown dwarfs confirms that 2M0355 is redder and underluminous compared to the known brown dwarf population, similar to the peculiarities of directly imaged exoplanets 2M1207b and HR8799bcd. We calculate UVW space velocities and find that the motion of 2M0355 is consistent with young disk objects ($<$ 2-3 Gyr) and it shows a high likelihood of membership in the AB Doradus association.'\nauthor:\n- 'Jacqueline K.\u00a0Faherty, Emily L. Rice, Kelle L. Cruz, Eric E. Mamajek, Alejandro N\u00fa\u00f1ez'\nbibliography:\n- 'paper2.bib'\ntitle: '2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7: A Young, Dusty, Nearby, Isolated Brown Dwarf Resembling A Giant Exoplanet'\n---\n\n2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7\n\nINTRODUCTION\n============\n\nWith masses intermediate between stars and planets (i.e., below the hydrogen burning and above the deuterium burning mass limit), brown dwarfs provide a natural link between stellar astrophysics and the planetary science of gas-giants (@Saumon1996; @Chabrier1997). Studies of the population have informed our understanding of low-mass star formation as well as the physical and chemical composition of low-temperature photospheres (e.g. @Burrows01 [@Burrows97]; @Chabrier00). With an increasing number of brown dwarf discoveries, the diversity of the population in age, atmospheric properties, and chemical composition is becoming apparent.\n\nBrown dwarfs are classified using red optical or near-infrared spectra and show characteristics which distinguish them as L (T$_{eff}\\sim$2200 - 1300K) or T/Y (T$_{eff}<$1300) dwarfs (@Kirkpatrick99; @Burgasser02; @Cushing11). The majority of spectrally classified field brown dwarfs within the literature are nearby isolated L dwarfs. Among the $\\sim$1000 objects spanning this temperature regime, a significant portion exhibit near-infrared colors, spectral energy distributions (SEDs), and kinematics consistent with a field age population (e.g., @Kirkpatrick00; @Knapp04; @Cruz07; @Chiu06; @Faherty09; @Schmidt10). However there are subsets exhibiting strong deviations in observational properties from the general population including low-metallicity subdwarfs, low surface gravity objects, and potentially cloudy/cloudless L dwarfs (@Burgasser03 [@Burgasser04; @Burgasser07]; @Looper08; @Cruz09; @Cushing09; @Kirkpatrick10; @Rice10; @Radigan12).\n\nThe most relevant sub-population to giant exoplanet studies are young (i.e., low surface gravity) isolated L dwarfs. The archetypal low surface gravity L dwarf, 2MASSJ01415823$-$4633574 (2M0141), was discovered by @Kirkpatrick06. Its optical spectrum exhibits strong bands of VO but abnormally weak TiO, K, and Na absorption. In the near-infrared, its red $J-K_{s}$ color (2MASS $J-K_{s}$=1.73) and triangular $H$-band spectral morphology distinguish it from field L dwarfs (@Kirkpatrick10; @Patience12). It is suspected to be a member of the $\\beta$ Pictoris or Tucana-Horologium association, although the precise kinematics required to confirm association have not yet been determined (@Kirkpatrick10). After the discovery and characterization of 2M0141, additional isolated L dwarfs sharing similar photometric and spectral peculiarities attributed to a low surface gravity were reported (e.g. @Reid08; @Cruz09; @Kirkpatrick10). While the ages of these seemingly young L dwarfs remain largely unconstrained, there are kinematic and spatial indications that they represent the lowest mass members of nearby moving groups such as AB Doradus, $\\beta$ Pictoris, Tucana-Horalogium (@Cruz09; @Kirkpatrick10).\n\n@Cruz09 point out that the majority of objects defining the population of the lowest surface gravity L dwarfs show spectral deviations indicating that they are younger than the Pleiades. Therefore using an age range[^1] of $<$ 10-100 Myr and spectral classifications of early-mid type L dwarfs, these objects have masses close to\u2013or in some cases below\u2013 the deuterium burning limit, making them exoplanet analogs. Since young brown dwarfs are nearby and isolated, they are ideal laboratories for detailed studies of cool, low-gravity, dusty atmospheres that are similar to directly imaged exoplanets.\n\nIn this paper we examine the kinematic, photometric, and spectral features of the low surface gravity L5$\\gamma$ dwarf 2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7 (2M0355). In section 2 we review published observations of 2M0355. In section 3 we describe new near-infrared spectral and imaging data, and in section 4 we evaluate indications of youth, including potential membership in nearby young moving groups. In section 5 we discuss the spectral energy distribution (SED) for 2M0355 as well as the near-infrared color-magnitude diagram for the brown dwarf population, highlighting the location of 2M0355 compared to directly imaged exoplanets. Conclusions are presented in section 6.\n\nPublished Observations of 2M0355\n================================\n\n2M0355 was discovered by @Reid06 in a search of the 2MASS database for ultracool dwarfs, but its observational peculiarities were not discussed until @Reid08 and @Cruz09. 2M0355 is classified as an L5$\\gamma$ dwarf[^2], demonstrating strong Li absorption (EW 7.0$\\AA$) and other signatures of low surface gravity in the optical (@Reid08, @Cruz09). Notably this source is the reddest isolated L dwarf yet classified, with a 2MASS $J-K_{s}$ color of 2.52$\\pm$0.03.\n\n@Reid06 examined 2M0355 for a close companion with the Near-Infrared Camera and Mutli-Object Spectrometer NIC1 on the *Hubble Space Telescope* and found it unresolved. @Blake07 examined this source for radial velocity variations but found no appreciable change over time and excluded the possibility of a companion with $M$ $sin$ $i$ $>$ 2.0\u00a0M$_{J}$ at any separation. We note that @Blake07 assumed an L dwarf primary mass of 100 M$_{J}$ which is large for even a field aged object, therefore, given the RV constraints, the limit is likely below 2.0 M$_{Jup}$. @Bernat10 claimed the detection of a near-equal mass companion at 82.5 mas using aperture masking interferometry; however, this result falls at the low end of their confidence limits (90%) and such a companion should have been detected by the @Reid06 imaging campaign (although @Bernat10 note this object may be at the limit of @Reid06 detections).\n\nRadial velocities of 12.24$\\pm$0.18 and 11.92$\\pm$0.22\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ were measured by @Blake07 [@Blake10], respectively, using high-resolution $K$-band spectra from NIRSPEC on the Keck\u00a0II telescope and forward modeling techniques for high precision. Proper motion measurements have been reported in @Schmidt07, [@Casewell08], and [@Faherty09]. We present an updated proper motion as well as a parallax in Section \u00a0\\[kinematics\\].\n\nNew Observations of 2M0355\n==========================\n\nWe obtained near-infrared spectroscopy and imaging of 2M0355 and report new low and medium resolution spectroscopy of the source as well as a parallax and improved proper motion measurements.\n\nNear-Infrared Spectroscopy\n--------------------------\n\nWe obtained low- and medium resolution near-infrared spectroscopy using the SpeX spectrograph (@Rayner03) mounted on the 3m NASA Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF). On 2007 November 13, we used the spectrograph in cross-dispersed mode (SXD) with the 0$\\farcs$5 slit aligned to the parallactic angle to obtain $R~\\equiv~\\lambda$ / $\\Delta\\lambda~\\approx$\u00a01200 spectral data over the wavelength range of 0.7\u20132.5 $\\mu$m. The conditions of this run were clear and stable with seeing of 0$\\farcs$5 at $K$. We obtained 6 individual exposure times of 300 seconds in an ABBA dither pattern along the slit.\n\nOn 2011 December 7, we used the spectrograph in prism mode with the 0$\\farcs$5 slit aligned to the parallactic angle. This resulted in $R~\\equiv~\\lambda$ / $\\Delta\\lambda~\\approx$\u00a0120 spectral data over the wavelength range of 0.7\u20132.5 $\\mu$m. Conditions included light cirrus and the seeing was 0$\\farcs$8 at $K$. We obtained 10 individual exposure times of 90 seconds in an ABBA dither pattern along the slit. Table \u00a0\\[observing\\] contains details on all observations reported in this work.\n\nImmediately after the science observation we observed the A0V star HD\u00a025175 (Prism mode) or HD 25258 (SXD mode) at a similar airmass for telluric corrections and flux calibration. Internal flat-field and Ar arc lamp exposures were acquired for pixel response and wavelength calibration, respectively. All data were reduced using the SpeXtool package version 3.4 using standard settings (@Cushing04, @vacca03).\n\nNear-Infrared Imaging\n---------------------\n\nWe observed 2M0355 with the Infrared Side Port Imager (ISPI, @van-der-Bliek04) on the CTIO 4m Blanco telescope six times between 2008 October 11 and 2012 February 05. All observations used the $J$ band filter, under seeing conditions up to 2$\\arcsec$ full width half maximum (FWHM) with typical conditions between 0.8\u20131.1$\\arcsec$. ISPI has an $\\sim$ 8 arcminute field of view and plate scale of 0.303$\\arcsec$ per pixel. At each epoch and depending on the conditions, 5-10 images with 10-30\u00a0s and 2-4 co-adds were obtained while the target was $\\pm$30 minutes off the meridian (Table \u00a0\\[observing\\]). Dark frames and lights on/off dome flats were obtained at the start of each evening. We used the Carnegie Astrometric Planet Search software to extract all point sources from each epoch and solve for relative parallaxes and proper motions (@Boss09). The full image reduction procedures as well as the description of the parallax pipeline are described in @Faherty12.\n\nEvaluating Youth Indicators\\[youth\\]\n====================================\n\nYouth indicators for isolated L dwarfs are not yet fully quantified or calibrated, but a number of distinguishing characteristics have been extrapolated from low-mass members (primarily late-type M dwarfs) of nearby young moving groups, open clusters and star forming regions or companions to young stars and confirmed by low-gravity atmosphere models (e.g. @Lucas01; @Gorlova03; @Luhman04; @McGovern04; @Allers07; @Rice10 [@Rice11], @Patience12).\n\nAmong the strongest indicators is the shape of the near-infrared spectra of young brown dwarfs which are subtly different than those of their field counterparts. Known brown dwarf members of the Chamaelleon II, Ophiuchus, Orion Nebula Cluster, TW Hydrae, and $\\beta$ Pictoris groups demonstrate various degrees of sharply peaked $H$-band spectra compared to field aged objects. The shape of the near-infrared continuum induced by steam absorption is sensitive to an objects surface gravity; therefore at younger ages, hence lower gravities, the $H-$band spectrum is peaked (@Luhman04 and Figure 6 from @Rice11).\n\nAn equally important indicator for brown dwarf members of young groups is a strong deviation in near-infrared color (significantly redder J-K$_{s}$) from the mean of a given spectral subtype. The clearest example is 2MASS J12073346$-$3932539 (2M1207b), a late-L dwarf member of the TW Hydrae association with $J-K$=3.05, $\\sim$0.5 mag redder than any other known L dwarf (@Chauvin04; @Mohanty07). Similar to the spectral deviations of young brown dwarfs, the photometric peculiarities can be explained as a consequence of lower surface gravity. At lower values\u2013hence lower pressure at a given temperature in the photosphere\u2013, H$_{2}$ collision induced absorption (CIA) is reduced leading to a reduction of the strongest absorption feature at 2.5 $\\mu$m (less absorption at $K$ band relative to $J$ band) and a red $J-K$ color (@Kirkpatrick06). An evolutionary model comparison of a large collection of low-surface gravity or young companion brown dwarfs to tracks with differing cloud, metallicity and gravity properties demonstrates that the change in near-IR color is attributed to changes in CIA H$_{2}$ affected by lower-surface gravities (see @Faherty12 and references there-in).\n\nAdditionally, the kinematics of young brown dwarfs as a population can be used as an indicator of youth as they are distinctly different from the kinematics of the field brown dwarf population. As discussed in @Faherty09 [@Faherty12] low surface gravity brown dwarfs have significantly smaller tangential velocities and dispersions than the overall brown dwarf population. The young age (likely $<$ 1 Gyr) of these sources means they have spent less time in the disk so they have had minimal interactions with nearby stars and giant molecular clouds that will eventually increase their overall velocity dispersion (e.g. @Weinberg87; @Faherty10; @Dhital10). In the following subsections we compare the photometry, near-infrared spectral features, and kinematics of 2M0355 to known young brown dwarfs, directly-imaged exoplanets, and the field population in order to evaluate signatures of youth for this unusual object.\n\nPhotometry\\[Photometry\\]\n------------------------\n\n2M0355 is the reddest isolated L dwarf known. In Figure \u00a0\\[fig:jmk\\] we show the mean $J-K_{s}$ color and standard deviation for L dwarfs (binned by 0.5 subtype) calculated from a compilation of field objects[^3] with photometric uncertainties $<$ 0.1, excluding known young objects and subdwarfs. For comparison, other confirmed low-gravity L$\\gamma$ dwarfs are plotted as filled circles and 2M0355 as a filled five-point star. In Table\u00a0\\[meancolors\\] we list the average infrared photometric properties of field L dwarfs, and in Tables\u00a0\\[low-G\\] and\u00a0\\[colorslow-G\\] we list the infrared photometry and colors of low-gravity L dwarfs, respectively.\n\nWith a $J-K_{s}$ color of 2.52$\\pm$0.03, 2M0355 is 0.8 mag redder than the average for L5 dwarfs, or nearly 4$\\sigma$ from the mean color. A similar deviation from the mean of the subtype is seen among other low surface-gravity L$\\gamma$ dwarfs listed in Tables\u00a0\\[low-G\\]-\u00a0\\[colorslow-G\\], but 2M0355 is the most extreme example (although we note that the L4 dwarf 2MASSJ1615+4953 shows very similar deviations in both its J-K$_{s}$ and W1-W2 colors). As discussed above, low surface gravity effects leading to a reduction in H$_{2}$ collision induced absorption is the likely cause for the extreme deviation. However we note that not all unusually red L dwarfs demonstrate low surface gravity spectral features; therefore this peculiarity alone is not conclusive about age (e.g. @Looper08).\n\nIn the same manner as Figure\u00a0\\[fig:jmk\\] we compile WISE photometry of known field L dwarfs with photometric uncertainties $<$ 0.1, excluding subdwarfs and confirmed young objects, to calculate the mean $W1-W2$ color and corresponding standard deviation for spectral subtypes (again binned by 0.5 subtype) and highlight the photometry of 2M0355 (see also Table\u00a0\\[meancolors\\]). As demonstrated in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:w1mw2\\], with a $W1-W2$ color of 0.59, 2M0355 is 0.24 mag redder than the average of its spectral subtype or 3$\\sigma$ from the mean color. Comparing with the 25 similarly classified L$\\gamma$ dwarfs, we find that 2M0355 is the reddest known isolated L dwarf in near and mid-infrared colors.\n\nSpectral Features\\[spectra\\]\n----------------------------\n\n2M0355 is classified as an L5$\\gamma$ in the optical by @Cruz09 based on its similarity to field L5\u2019s but with very weak FeH absorption and weak Na\u00a0[I]{} and K\u00a0[I]{} lines, which are typically interpreted as signatures of low surface gravity. In Figure\u00a0\\[fig:SpeX2\\] we show the SpeX prism spectrum for 2M0355 and compare it to the field L5 (presumed age $>$ 1 Gyr) near-infrared standard 2MASSJ08350622+1953050 (2M0835) as well as the $\\sim$10 Myr L dwarf 2M1207b (@Chiu06; @Kirkpatrick10; @Patience12). We normalize the spectra separately in each bandpass and smooth 2M1207b by a factor of 3. The shape of 2M0355 in all three bands deviates significantly from the spectrum of the field standard. Compared to 2M1207b, the $H$ and $K$ bands are very similar, but the $J$ band is intriguingly different. 2M0355 has a steeper slope from 1.1-1.25 $\\mu$m and a wider peak at\u00a01.30$\\mu$m that is more similar to the field object. In a forthcoming paper, we will present a detailed $J$ band spectral analysis of 2M0355 and other young brown dwarfs compared to their field counterparts.\n\nSeveral near-infrared spectral features are sensitive to surface gravity, including the $H$-band where a sharp triangular peak is seen consistently for known young brown dwarfs at a range of ages (e.g. @Lucas01; @Luhman04; @Allers07; @Rice10 [@Rice11]). In Figure\u00a0\\[fig:SpeX\\], we present higher-resolution ($R\\sim$1200) $H$-band spectra of 2M0355 as well as the same comparative objects shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:SpeX2\\]. There is an excellent match between the sharp peak of 2M1207b and 2M0355, distinct from the plateau at $\\sim$1.55\u20131.70\u00a0$\\mu$m of the field object. Combined with the photometric peculiarities, this is a strong indicator that 2M0355 is significantly younger than the field object ($<<$ 1 Gyr).\n\nKinematics\\[kinematics\\]\n------------------------\n\nUsing multi-epoch ISPI data (see Figure \u00a0\\[fig:astrometry\\]), we report improved proper motion and parallax measurements for 2M0355. The proper motion was measured previously by @Schmidt07, [@Casewell08], and [@Faherty09]. Our updated value is consistent with previous values but with 50-60$\\%$ smaller error bars. The new parallax measurement of $\\pi_{abs}$=122$\\pm$13\u00a0mas[^4] for 2M0355 places the L5$\\gamma$ dwarf at a distance of 8.2$^{+1.0}_{-0.8}$\u00a0pc. We list all astrometric and photometric properties in Table \u00a0\\[properties\\].\n\nMoving Group Membership\n-----------------------\n\nAt a distance of 8.2\u00a0pc and with spectral and photometric differences from the field population resembling those of the $\\sim$10 Myr 2M1207b, we investigate whether 2M0355 could be kinematically associated with one of the nearby young moving groups. Using the proper motion and parallax measured in this work with the most recent radial velocity from @Blake10, we calculate ($U,V,W$) = ($-$5.9$\\pm$1.5, $-$23.6$\\pm$2.0, $-$14.6$\\pm$1.3) km s$^{-1}$ for 2M0355[^5]. These calculated space velocities are consistent with thin disk membership (age $<$ $\\sim$2-3 Gyr), and the tangential velocity of 21.5$\\pm$1.2 km s$^{-1}$ is consistent with the population of low gravity, kinematically young brown dwarfs (@Faherty09 [@Faherty12]; @Eggen89a [@Eggen89]). In Figure \u00a0\\[fig:space\\] we show the $UV$ velocities for a number of young stars or clusters within 200\u00a0pc of the Sun and find that 2M0355 is at the edge of a well populated region of velocity space. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:kinematics\\] shows Galactic space velocities compared to $\\beta$ Pictoris, and AB Doradus, the two closest moving groups to the Sun and the most likely groups of which 2M0355 might be a member. We find that 2M0355 overlaps within 1$\\sigma$ of the range in UVW values for probable members of AB Doradus.\n\nTo examine the likelihood of 2M0355\u2019s membership in nearby moving groups, we determine the $\\chi^{2}$ probability for several known stellar groups within 75pc. We include a field star model and nearby moving group parameters from @Malo12 and supplement with the parameters for the Ursa Major, Hyades, and Carina Near groups. For most groups, we adopt the centroid positions and dispersions calculated by @Malo12, however we use velocity estimates either calculated by us or from the recent literature, where we split the uncertainties in the centroid velocities from their 1D intrinsic velocity dispersions [^6].\n\nWe first determine a $\\chi^{2}$ probability that estimates the percentage of real members of a given group expected to have $\\chi^{2}$ values higher than that of 2M0355\u2013allowing for 2M0355\u2019s observational errors and the estimated intrinsic velocity spread and spatial distribution of group members. Then we calculate a \u201cfinal\" probability, normalizing by the sum of the individual (marginal) star-group probabilities. At this time, equal weights are assigned to the field star and individual group models (further refinement would be beyond the focus of this study).\n\nThe initial $\\chi^{2}$ probability for 6 degrees of freedom is calculated as:\n\n$$\\chi^{2} =A+B$$\n\n$$A=\\frac{(U_{o} - U_{g})^{2}}{\\sigma^{2}_{U}} + \\frac{(V_{o} - V_{g})^{2}}{\\sigma^{2}_{V}} + \\frac{(W_{o} - W_{g})^{2}}{\\sigma^{2}_{W}}$$\n\n$$\\sigma_{i}=\\sqrt{\\sigma_{i,o}^{2}+\\sigma_{i,g}^{2}+\\sigma_{i,d}^{2}}$$\n\nwhere $i$ is indexed as $U,V$ or $W$, $o$ is the component for 2M0355, $g$ is the component of the group, and $d$ is the intrinsic 1-D $i$-velocity dispersion of the group.\n\n$$B=\\frac{(X_{o} - X_{g})^2}{\\Delta_{X}^{2}} + \\frac{(Y_{o} - Y_{g})^{2}}{\\Delta_{Y}^{2}} + \\frac{(Z_{o} - Z_{g})^2}{\\Delta_{Z}^{2}}$$\n\n$$\\Delta_{j} = \\sqrt{\\Delta_{j,o}^{2} + \\Delta_{j,g}^{2}}$$\n\nwhere $j$ is indexed as $X,Y$, or $Z$, $\\Delta_{j}$ is defined as the 1$\\sigma$ dispersion in the Galactic cartesian coordinates; $o$ is the component for 2M0355, $g$ is the component for the group (we ignore the uncertainties in the group centroids which are negligible compared to the 1$\\sigma$ dispersions).\n\nUsing this method, we estimate that 73% of AB Doradus members would have velocities and positions more discrepant than that for 2M0355, while only 0.06% of $\\beta$ Pictoris members would have more discrepant values. Approximately 99.9% of field stars would have velocities and positions more discrepant than that of 2M0355, although this is likely skewed by the fact that the field star centroid (as well as our source) is so close to the Sun.\n\nThe $\\chi^{2}$ probabilities for the other groups investigated within 75 pc (Ursa Majoris, Carina Near, Tucana Horologium, Hyades, Argus, TWA), all yielded probabilities of $<$10$^{-17}$%. If one sums the individual marginal group and field star membership probabilities and assigns equal weights, then we estimate that 2M0355 has a 42% chance of being an AB Doradus member, a 58% chance of being a field star, and a $<$0.04% chance of being a $\\beta$ Pictoris group member. Further work calculating the relative densities of the young stellar groups could refine these probabilities, but at this point it appears most plausible that 2M0355 is either a member of the AB Doradus moving group or a field star. Given the photometric and spectroscopic evidence for youth shown here-in combined with the low density of very young field stars, we believe that the kinematic evidence points towards 2M0355 being a likely member of the AB Doradus group.\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nAmong the known population of low surface gravity L dwarfs, 2M0355+11 is the latest spectral type or one of the coolest isolated young brown dwarfs known. To extend the comparison of young brown dwarfs and planetary-mass objects, we investigate the colors and luminosities of 2M1207b and the directly imaged planets HR\u00a08799bcd.\n\nWe calculated the absolute magnitude of 2M0355 from the new parallax as well as Mauna Kea Observatory (MKO; @Tokunaga02) apparent magnitudes converted from 2MASS photometry using the @Stephens04 relations. Comparing M$_{JHK}$ for 2M0355 to the predicted values for an equivalent spectral type object based on the @Faherty12 polynomial, we find it to be \\[-0.9,-0.5,-0.1\\] magnitude underluminous at M$_{J}$,M$_{H}$, and M$_{K}$, respectively. As noted in @Faherty12, the population of low surface gravity L dwarfs is consistently red and underluminous\u2013by up to 1.0 mag in M$_{JHK}$\u2013 compared to equivalent spectral type objects. As demonstrated in Figure \u00a0\\[fig:spt\\], 2M0355 clearly follows this trend. As discussed in @Faherty12 evolutionary models trace low-surface gravity objects at temperatures several hundred degrees lower than expected for equivalent spectral type objects on near-IR color magnitude diagrams, providing a potential explanation for the deviation in absolute magnitudes of low-gravity L dwarfs. Extending this analysis to 2M0355 we conclude that one explanation for its peculiar near-IR absolute magnitudes is that this source is cooler than normal L5 field dwarfs.\n\nIn Figure\u00a0\\[fig:SED\\] we compare the full spectral energy distribution (SED) of 2M0355 to the field L5 dwarf 2MASSJ1507476-162738 (2M1507-@Reid00; @Dahn02). Combining the optical spectra, MKO $JHK$, and WISE $W1,W2,W3$ absolute photometry for each we confirm that the SED for 2M0355 is underluminous compared to the field object through $K$ band. However, redward of $\\sim$ 2.5$\\mu$m, 2M0355 switches to being overluminous through at least 12 $\\mu$m. Following the method described in @Cushing05, we combine the flux-calibrated optical and near-IR spectra as well as WISE photometry and calculate bolometric luminosities for both 2M0355 and 2M1507. We linearly interpolate between the centers of each WISE bandpass (W1: 3.4; W2: 4.6; W3: 11.6) and assume a Rayleigh-Jeans tail for $\\lambda>$11.6 $\\mu$m. We find that 2M0355 is slightly more luminous than 2M1507 by $\\Delta$ log$_{10}$ (L$_{2M0355}$/L$_{2M1507}$)=0.12$\\pm$0.1. The overall luminosity of our source is further evidence that it is young, and we surmise that enhanced photospheric dust which weakens molecular bands and shifts flux to longer wavelengths is the most likely cause of the red SED.\n\nIn Figure\u00a0\\[fig:TM0355\\] we show the near-infrared color-magnitude diagram for the field brown dwarf population (color-coded by spectral type), 2M1207b, the HR8799bcd planets, and 2M0355. The low luminosity and extremely red $J-K$ color of 2M0355 place it at the red edge of the brown dwarf population, in a similar region as 2M1207b. @Barman11 find the positions of the giant exoplanets on this color-magnitude diagram\u2013which are also redward and underluminous of the brown dwarf population\u2013can be reproduced by allowing low T$_{eff}$ models (typically assumed cloud-free) to have clouds extending across their photospheres (see also @Bowler10; @Currie11; @Hinz10; @Marley12; @Madhusudhan11; @Skemer12). 2M1207b and HR8799bcd are young ($\\sim$10 Myr and 30-160 Myr; respectively: @Chauvin04; @Marois08; @Marois10) so youth is thought to be correlated with enhanced photospheric dust among the low-luminosity, low-temperature brown dwarfs and giant exoplanets (see also @Burgasser10; @Faherty12).\n\nConsequently, the position of 2M0355 on Figure \u00a0\\[fig:TM0355\\] leads us to conclude that in agreement with indications from the SED in Figure \u00a0\\[fig:SED\\] this source is both young and dusty.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\n2M0355 is the reddest isolated L dwarfs yet characterized in the near- and mid-infrared. @Cruz09 classified 2M0355 as L5$\\gamma$, indicating low surface gravity spectral signatures. The similarity of the near-infrared spectrum to that of the $\\sim$10 Myr planetary-mass object 2M1207b supports the conclusion that the object is young. Furthermore, a comparison with the near and mid-infrared colors of the known population of low surface gravity or L$\\gamma$ dwarfs demonstrates that 2M0355 is the most extreme example of this class currently known.\n\nCombining optical spectra and absolute near to mid-IR photometry, we compared the full spectral energy distribution of 2M0355 with the field L5 dwarf 2M1507-16. We find that 2M0355 is underluminous in optical through $K$ band then switches to overluminous through at least 12$\\mu$m compared to 2M1507-16. Calculating the bolometric luminosity by integrating over the optical and near-IR spectra as well as WISE photometry, shows that the overall luminosity of 2M0355 is overluminous compared to the field object. We conclude that enhanced photospheric dust, thought to be correlated with young, low-temperature, low-luminosity brown dwarfs and giant exoplanets, shifts flux to longer wavelengths creating the red SED. The position of 2M0355 on the near-IR color magnitude diagram supports this conclusion as it appears redward and underluminous of the known population in a similar region as 2M1207b and HR8799bcd.\n\nCombining new proper motion and parallax measurements we calculate UVW velocities to evaluate membership in nearby young moving groups. We find the kinematics consistent with the young thin disk and the UV velocities for 2M0355 place it in a busy part of velocity space for young objects. A careful kinematic comparison with nearby young groups and the field population leads us to conclude that 2M0355 has a 42% chance of membership in AB Doradus. 2M0355 remains the brightest isolated low surface gravity L dwarf studied to date and will prove to be a useful comparative object in low-temperature atmosphere studies directly applicable to giant exoplanets.\n\nDespite the spectral similarity to 2M1207b in $H$ and $K$, 2M0355 is substantially different from the planetary-mass object in $J$band. This, combined with the older age estimate for 2M0355, cause the temperature and mass of 2M0355 to remain ambiguous. Nevertheless, we can use the object\u2019s absolute photometry and constrained age (assuming membership in AB\u00a0Doradus) to estimate these key properties. Using the evolutionary tracks for young, low mass objects of @Baraffe02, we estimate an effective temperature of $/sim$1500\u00a0K and a mass of $/sim$13 M$_{Jup}$ for an age of 50\u00a0Myr (the lower limit for the age of AB\u00a0Doradus). At the upper age limit for AB\u00a0Doradus, $/sim$150\u00a0Myr, the mass of 2M0355 would be closer to $/sim$30\u00a0M$_{Jup}$. As a field object, the absolute magnitudes of 2M0355 correspond to an object of $\\sim$70\u00a0M$_{Jup}$, slightly below hydrogen burning minimum mass.\n\n![image](Kinematics1.eps){width=\".55\\hsize\"}\n\n[lcccrrrrrrrrrrr]{} \\[tab:tab1\\] CTIO 4M & ISPI & 30x2 & 5 & 2008 October 11 & 1.3 & $J$\\\n& & 10x4 & 5 & 2008 December 12 & 1.3 & $J$\\\n& & 10x4 & 5 & 2009 November 30 & 1.3 & $J$\\\n& & 10x4 & 5 & 2010 January 28 & 1.5 & $J$\\\n& & 30x4 & 10 & 2011 November 11 & 1.3 & $J$\\\n& & 30x2 & 10 & 2012 January 03 & 1.3 & $J$\\\n& & 30x4 & 5 & 2012 February 05 & 1.4 & $J$\\\nIRTF & SpeX& 90x1 &10 &2011 December 7 & 1.2 & Prism\\\n& SpeX&300x1 &6 &2007 November 13 &1.0 & SXD\\\n\n[ccccccccccccccr]{} \\[tab:tab1\\] L0 & 143 & 102 & 11 & 1.30 & 0.15 & 0.27 & 0.06\\\nL1 & 125 & 95 & 2 & 1.35 & 0.16 & 0.26 & 0.06\\\nL2 & 58 & 60 & 3 & 1.48 & 0.17 & 0.28 & 0.07\\\nL3 & 69 & 51 & 3 & 1.64 & 0.18 & 0.31 & 0.06\\\nL4 & 37 & 33 & 5 & 1.69 & 0.24 & 0.34 & 0.08\\\nL5 & 43 & 28 & 2 & 1.72 & 0.22 & 0.35 & 0.08\\\nL6 & 25 & 13 & 0 & 1.84 & 0.25 & 0.42 & 0.11\\\nL7 & 13 & 9 & 0 & 1.75 & 0.26 & 0.46 & 0.09\\\nL8-9 & 19 & 10 & 0 & 1.85 & 0.17 & 0.54 & 0.08\\\n\n[lcccccccccccccr]{} \\[tab:tab2\\]\n\n2MASSJ003255.84-440505.8 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 14.78 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 13.86 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 13.27 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 12.82 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.49 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 11.73 $\\pm$ 0.19 & 9.29 $\\pm$ null & 1,2\\\n2MASSJ003743.06-584622.9 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 15.37 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 14.26 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 13.59 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 13.13 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.74 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.56 $\\pm$ 0.38 & 9.32 $\\pm$ null & 1,2\\\n2MASSJ012445.99-574537.9 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 16.31 $\\pm$ 0.10 & 15.06 $\\pm$ 0.09 & 14.32 $\\pm$ 0.09 & 13.77 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 13.34 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.45 $\\pm$ 0.31 & 8.91 $\\pm$ null & 1,2\\\n2MASSJ014158.23-463357.4 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 14.83 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 13.88 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 13.10 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.55 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 12.17 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 11.92 $\\pm$ 0.21 & 9.24 $\\pm$ null & 3,2\\\n2MASSJ022354.64-581506.7 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 15.07 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 14.00 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 13.42 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 12.82 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 12.43 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 11.64 $\\pm$ 0.15 & 9.47 $\\pm$ null & 1,2\\\n2MASSJ023400.93-644206.8 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 15.33 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 14.44 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 13.85 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 13.25 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.91 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.62 $\\pm$ 0.28 & 9.49 $\\pm$ null & 4\\\n2MASSJ024111.51-032658.7 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 15.80 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 14.81 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 14.04 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 13.64 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 13.26 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.77 $\\pm$ 0.42 & 9.00 $\\pm$ null & 2,5\\\n2MASSJ032310.02-463123.7 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 15.39 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 14.32 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 13.70 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 13.08 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 12.67 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 11.94 $\\pm$ 0.16 & 9.18 $\\pm$ null & 1,2\\\n2MASSJ040626.77-381210.2 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 16.77 $\\pm$ 0.13 & 15.71 $\\pm$ 0.10 & 15.11 $\\pm$ 0.12 & 14.45 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 14.10 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 12.52 $\\pm$ null & 9.10 $\\pm$ null & 4\\\n2MASSJ195647.00-754227.0 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 16.15 $\\pm$ 0.10 & 15.04 $\\pm$ 0.10 & 14.23 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 13.69 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 13.25 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.68 $\\pm$ null & 9.17 $\\pm$ null & 1,2\\\n2MASSJ221344.91-213607.9 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 15.38 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 14.40 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 13.76 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 13.23 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.83 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 11.55 $\\pm$ 0.20 & 9.07 $\\pm$ null & 2,5\\\n2MASSJ000402.88-641035.8 & L1.0$\\gamma$ & 15.79 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 14.83 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 14.01 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 13.37 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.94 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.18 $\\pm$ 0.24 & 9.16 $\\pm$ null & 4\\\n2MASSJ051846.16-275645.7 & L1.0$\\gamma$ & 15.26 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 14.30 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 13.62 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 13.05 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 12.66 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.58 $\\pm$ 0.35 & 9.22 $\\pm$ null & 5,6\\\n2MASSJ030320.42-731230.0 & L2.0$\\gamma$ & 16.14 $\\pm$ 0.11 & 15.10 $\\pm$ 0.09 & 14.32 $\\pm$ 0.08 & 13.78 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 13.35 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.29 $\\pm$ 0.17 & 9.34 $\\pm$ 0.34 & 4\\\n2MASSJ053619.98-192039.6 & L2.0$\\gamma$ & 15.77 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 14.69 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 13.85 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 13.26 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.79 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.55 $\\pm$ 0.40 & 9.24 $\\pm$ null & 5,6\\\n2MASSJ232252.99-615127.5 & L2.0$\\gamma$ & 15.55 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 14.54 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 13.86 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 13.24 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.84 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.68 $\\pm$ 0.39 & 9.38 $\\pm$ null & 1,2\\\n2MASSJ172600.07+153819.0 & L3.5$\\gamma$ & 15.67 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 14.47 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 13.66 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 13.07 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.69 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 11.56 $\\pm$ 0.16 & 9.31 $\\pm$ null & 2,7\\\n2MASSJ212650.40-814029.3 & L3.0$\\gamma$ & 15.54 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 14.41 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 13.55 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 12.91 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 12.47 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 11.89 $\\pm$ 0.16 & 9.36 $\\pm$ null & 1,2\\\n2MASSJ220813.63+292121.5 & L3.0$\\gamma$ & 15.80 $\\pm$ 0.08 & 14.79 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 14.15 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 13.35 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.89 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.58 $\\pm$ 0.39 & 9.30 $\\pm$ null & 2,7\\\n2MASSJ012621.09+142805.7 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 17.11 $\\pm$ 0.21 & 16.17 $\\pm$ 0.22 & 15.28 $\\pm$ 0.15 & 14.24 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 13.70 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 12.38 $\\pm$ null & 9.13 $\\pm$ null & 6,8\\\n2MASSJ050124.06-001045.2 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 14.98 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 13.71 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.96 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.05 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 11.52 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 10.95 $\\pm$ 0.11 & 9.17 $\\pm$ null & 1,2\\\n2MASSJ155152.37+094114.8 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 16.32 $\\pm$ 0.11 & 15.11 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 14.31 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 13.60 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 13.12 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 12.68 $\\pm$ 0.48 & 9.16 $\\pm$ null & 1,6\\\n2MASSJ161542.55+495321.1 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 16.79 $\\pm$ 0.14 & 15.33 $\\pm$ 0.10 & 14.31 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 13.20 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 12.62 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 12.13 $\\pm$ 0.13 & 9.31 $\\pm$ null & 5,6\\\n2MASSJ224953.45+004404.6 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 16.59 $\\pm$ 0.12 & 15.42 $\\pm$ 0.11 & 14.36 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 13.58 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 13.14 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 11.28 $\\pm$ null & 7.69 $\\pm$ null & 6,9,10,11\\\n2MASSJ035523.37+113343.7 & L5.0$\\gamma$ & 14.05 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 12.53 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 11.53 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 10.53 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 9.94 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 9.29 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 8.32 $\\pm$ null & 1 ,2\\\n2MASSJ042107.18-630602.2 & L5.0$\\gamma$ & 15.57 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 14.28 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 13.45 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 12.56 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 12.14 $\\pm$ 0.02 & 11.60 $\\pm$ 0.10 & 9.25 $\\pm$ null & 2,5\\\n\n[ccccccccccccccr]{} \\[tab:tab2\\] 2MASSJ0032-4405 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.51 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 0.33 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.21 & 0.06\\\n2MASSJ0037-5846 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.78 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 0.39 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.48 & 0.12\\\n2MASSJ0124-5745 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.99 $\\pm$ 0.13 & 0.43 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.69 & 0.16\\\n2MASSJ0141-4633 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.73 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 0.38 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 0.43 & 0.11\\\n2MASSJ0223-5815 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.65 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 0.39 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 0.35 & 0.12\\\n2MASSJ0234-6442 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.48 $\\pm$ 0.09 & 0.34 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.18 & 0.07\\\n2MASSJ0241-0326 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.76 $\\pm$ 0.08 & 0.38 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.46 & 0.11\\\n2MASSJ0323-4631 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.69 $\\pm$ 0.09 & 0.41 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 0.39 & 0.14\\\n2MASSJ0406-3812 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.66 $\\pm$ 0.18 & 0.35 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 0.36 & 0.08\\\n2MASSJ1956-7542 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.92 $\\pm$ 0.12 & 0.44 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.62 & 0.17\\\n2MASSJ2213-2136 & L0.0$\\gamma$ & 1.62 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 0.40 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.32 & 0.13\\\n2MASSJ0004-6410 & L1.0$\\gamma$ & 1.78 $\\pm$ 0.09 & 0.43 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.43 & 0.17\\\n2MASSJ0518-2756 & L1.0$\\gamma$ & 1.64 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 0.39 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.29 & 0.13\\\n2MASSJ0303-7312 & L2.0$\\gamma$ & 1.82 $\\pm$ 0.14 & 0.43 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.34 & 0.15\\\n2MASSJ0536-1920 & L2.0$\\gamma$ & 1.92 $\\pm$ 0.09 & 0.47 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.44 & 0.19\\\n2MASSJ2322-6151 & L2.0$\\gamma$ & 1.69 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 0.40 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.21 & 0.12\\\n2MASSJ1726+1538 & L3.5$\\gamma$ & 2.01 $\\pm$ 0.08 & 0.38 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.37 & 0.07\\\n2MASSJ2126-8140 & L3.0$\\gamma$ & 1.99 $\\pm$ 0.07 & 0.44 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 0.35 & 0.13\\\n2MASSJ2208+2921 & L3.0$\\gamma$ & 1.65 $\\pm$ 0.11 & 0.47 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.01 & 0.16\\\n2MASSJ0126+1428 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 1.83 $\\pm$ 0.26 & 0.54 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 0.14 & 0.20\\\n2MASSJ0501-0010 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 2.02 $\\pm$ 0.05 & 0.53 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 0.33 & 0.19\\\n2MASSJ1551+0941 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 2.01 $\\pm$ 0.12 & 0.48 $\\pm$ 0.04 & 0.32 & 0.14\\\n2MASSJ1615+4953 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 2.48 $\\pm$ 0.16 & 0.58 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 0.79 & 0.24\\\n2MASSJ2249+0044 & L4.0$\\gamma$ & 2.23 $\\pm$ 0.14 & 0.43 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 0.54 & 0.09\\\n2MASSJ0355+1133 & L5.0$\\gamma$ & 2.52 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 0.59 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 0.80 & 0.24\\\n2MASSJ0421-6306 & L5.0$\\gamma$ & 2.12 $\\pm$ 0.06 & 0.42 $\\pm$ 0.03 & 0.40 & 0.07\\\n\n[lll]{} \\[tab:tab5\\] Parameter & Value & Reference\\\nRA,Dec (J2000) & 03$^{h}$55$^{m}$23.37$^{s}$ +11$^{\\circ}$33$^{`}$43.7$^{\"}$ & 1\\\nOptical SpT & L5$\\gamma$&2\\\nJ (2MASS)&14.05$\\pm$0.02&1\\\nH (2MASS)&12.53$\\pm$0.03&1\\\nK$_{s}$ (2MASS)&11.53$\\pm$0.02&1\\\nJ (MKO)&13.90$\\pm$0.03 &4\\\nH (MKO)&12.60$\\pm$0.03&4\\\nK (MKO)&11.46$\\pm$0.02&4\\\nM$_{J}$ (MKO)&14.33$\\pm$0.24 &4\\\nM$_{H}$ (MKO)&13.03$\\pm$0.24 &4\\\nM$_{K}$ (MKO)&11.89$\\pm$0.23 &4\\\nW1&10.53$\\pm$0.02&3\\\nW2&9.94$\\pm$ 0.02&3\\\nW3&9.29$\\pm$ 0.04&3\\\nW4&8.32$\\pm$ null&3\\\n$\\mu_{\\alpha}$&218$\\pm$ 5 mas yr$^{-1}$&4\\\n$\\mu_{\\delta}$& -626$\\pm$ 5 mas yr$^{-1}$&4\\\n$\\pi_{abs}$&122$\\pm$ 13 mas &4\\\nRV&11.92$\\pm$0.22 km s$^{-1}$&5\\\nU&-5.9$\\pm$1.5 km s$^{-1}$&4\\\nV&-23.6$\\pm$2.0 km s$^{-1}$&4\\\nW&-14.6$\\pm$1.3 km s$^{-1}$&4\\\nX&-7.0$\\pm$0.7\u00a0pc&4\\\nY&0.2$\\pm$0.4\u00a0pc&4\\\nZ&-4.2$\\pm$0.4\u00a0pc&4\\\nAge & 50-150 Myr & 4\\\nMass &13 - 30 M$_{Jup}$ & 4\\\n\n[^1]: 10 Myr chosen as the low-end range based on the age of the youngest nearby moving group. 100 Myr chosen as the upper limit based on an extrapolation and comparison to Pleiades age objects.\n\n[^2]: As suggested by @Kirkpatrick05 [@Kirkpatrick06] and @Cruz09 very low-gravity spectra are designated with subtype $\\gamma$, intermediate gravity with $\\beta$, and normal field objects with $\\alpha$ (although $\\alpha$ is typically omitted/implied for field objects.\n\n[^3]: The compiled list of L dwarfs comes primarily from the DwarfArchives.org combined with the results of @Schmidt10.\n\n[^4]: We measure $\\pi_{rel}$=120$\\pm$ 12 \u00a0mas with a 2\u00a0mas correction from relative to absolute astrometry.\n\n[^5]: UVW values are calculated in a left-handed coordinate system with $U$ positive toward the Galactic center.\n\n[^6]: We adopt the following parameters throughout the analysis (centroid velocities and standard errors, followed by centroid positions and $1\\sigma$ dispersions): Ursa Major: $(U, V, W)$ = (15.0, 2.8, -8.1) $\\pm$ (0.4, 0.7, 1.0) km s$^{-1}$ and $(X, Y, Z)$ = (-4.4, 6.2, 18.2) $\\pm$ (16.7, 15.4, 17.0) pc (calculated using membership from @Madsen02). Carina Near: $(U, V, W)$ = (-24.8,-18.2, -2.3) $\\pm$ (0.7, 0.7, 0.4) km s$^{-1}$ and $(X, Y, Z)$ = (0.1, -31.7, -9.2) $\\pm$ (4.3, 5.6, 1.1) pc (calculated using membership from @Zuckerman06). Hyades: $(U, V, W)$ = (-42.3, -19.1, -1.5) $\\pm$ (0.1, 0.1, 0.2) km s$^{-1}$ and $(X, Y, Z)$ = (-43.0, 0.3, -17.3) $\\pm$ (3.8, 3.5, 3.1) pc. For the TWA group we adopt the recent centroid velocity from @Weinberger11 of $(U, V, W)$ = (-11.1, -18.6, -5.1) $\\pm$ (0.3, 0.2, 0.2) km s$^{-1}$. Based on unpublished calculations by @Mamajek10, in prep) we adopt intrinsic 1D velocity dispersions of 1.0 km s$^{-1}$ for AB Doradus, 1.1 km s$^{-1}$ for Tucana-Horologium, 1.3 km s$^{-1}$ for Carina Near, 1.5 km s$^{-1}$ for Ursa Majoris, and $\\beta$ Pictoris, 0.8 km s$^{-1}$ for TWA (Mamajek 2005), and 1 km s$^{-1}$ for the Hyades and Argus.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Using the path integral approach to equilibrium statistical physics the effect of dissipation on Landau diamagnetism is calculated. The calculation clarifies the essential role of the boundary of the container in which the electrons move. Further, the derived result for diamagnetization also matches with the expression obtained from a time-dependent quantum Langevin equation in the asymptotic limit, provided a certain order is maintained in taking limits. This identification then unifies equilibrium and nonequilibrium statistical physics for a phenomenon like diamagnetism, which is inherently quantum and strongly dependent on boundary effects.'\nauthor:\n- Malay Bandyopadhyay and Sushanta Dattagupta\ntitle: 'Dissipative Diamagnetism \u2014 A Case Study for Equilibrium and Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics of Mesoscopic Systems.'\n---\n\n-0.5cm\n\nAn unconventional approach to statistical physics, which may be referred to as the Einstein approach, involves the derivation of equilibrium results from the long-time limit of time-dependent equations [@kadanoff]. Specifically, a set of Langevin equations (or their equivalent in the phase space, called the Fokker-Planck equation), with built-in detailed balance conditions, can naturally yield asymptotic results that can be independently calculated from the Gibbs ensemble idea of statistical physics. The underlying concept is physically appealing because not only does it sidetrack the issue of ergodicity, which is assumed at the outset in the Gibbs prescription, it also connects directly to experimental measurements, which necessarily involve time-averages. In this centenary of Einstein\u2019s [*annus mirabilis*]{} it is momentously appropriate to assess the validity and usefulness of this approach to statistical physics, that relies on the central paradigm of Brownian motion [@brown].\\\nGiven this motivation we want to further explore the Einstein approach in this Letter by going beyond the classical into the quantum domain. The phenomenon of interest happens to be intrinsically and essentially quantum mechanical \u2014 it relates to the issue of diamagnetism exhibited by a collection of electrons subjected to an applied magnetic field. Diamagnetism is an enigmatic subject in that not only does it require a quantum treatment, as provided by the landmark work of Landau [@landau], but it also needs a careful analysis of the boundary of the container in which the electrons are constrained to move. As has been discussed lucidly by Van Vleck [@van; @vleck], the boundary electrons exactly cancel the contribution of the bulk electrons, in classical physics, leading to the celebrated Bohr-Van Leeuwen theorem [@bohr]. However this cancellation is incomplete in the quantum regime, because as Peierls points out [@peirls], it is the boundary electrons which have the \u201cskipping orbits\u201d that yield the edge currents, familiar also in quantum Hall effect [@datta], which make an essential contribution to diamagnetism. A few years ago, we have examined the question of Landau diamagnetism in a dissipative and confined system [@sdg].\\\nThe following issues were addressed in I: (a) the approach to equilibrium of a quantum dissipative system, the analysis of which brings out the subtle role of boundary electrons, (b) the effect of dissipation on Landau diamagnetism, an equilibrium property, (c) quantum - classical crossover as the system transits from the Landau to the Bohr-Van Leeuwen regime as a function of damping and (d) the combined effect of dissipation and confinement on Landau diamagnetism, the latter arising from coherent cyclotron motion of the electrons. The item (d) is particularly relevant in the context of intrinsic decoherence in mesoscopic structures in view of heat bath induced influence [@datta; @mohanty; @imry]. Dissipation was incorporated in I with the aid of a quantum Langevin equation, driven by a systematic Lorentz force, that can be derived from an underlying Hamiltonian in a system-plus-bath formulation in which the bath degrees of freedom are integrated out [@ford]. In the infinite past the bath is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium such that the fluctuations of its degrees of freedom are governed by quantum statistics. Thus, detailed balance conditions are automatically expressed through a \u2018fluctuation-dissipation\u2019 relation that relates the noise spectrum to the damping term in the quantum Langevin equation.\\\nThe starting point of I as indeed in this Letter is the Feynman-Vernon [@feynman] Hamiltonian for a charged particle $e$ in a magnetic field $\\vec{B}$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal{H}} & = & \\frac{1}{2m}\\omega_{0}^{2}{\\vec{x}}^{2}+ \\frac{1}{2m}\\Big(\\vec{p} - \\frac{e \\vec{A}}{c}{\\Big)}^{2} \\nonumber \\\\\n& & + \\sum_{j=1}^{N}{\\Big[}\\frac{1}{2m_{j}}\\vec{p_{j}}^{2} +\\frac{1}{2}m_{j}{\\omega_{j}}^{2}({\\vec{x}}_{j}-\\vec{x})^{2}{\\Big]},\\end{aligned}$$ where the first term is the Darwin [@darwin] term representing a confining potential, $\\vec{p}$ and $\\vec{x}$ are the momentum and position operators of the particle, ${\\vec{p}}_{j}$ and ${\\vec{x}}_{j}$ are the corresponding variables for the bath particles, and $\\vec{A}$ is the vector potential. The bilinear coupling between $\\vec{x}$ and $\\vec{x}_{j}$ as envisaged in Eq. (1) has been the hall mark of the Caldeira-Leggett approach to dissipative quantum mechanics [@legget1; @legget2]. Assuming the $\\vec{B}$ field to be along the $z$-axis, all the vectors in Eq. (1) can be taken to lie in the $xy$-plane. From the quantum Langevin equation , derived from Eq. (1) by following the steps mentioned above, the nonequilibrium or time-dependent magnetization along the $z$-axis, $M_{z}(t)$ is computed in I. It is important to note that the Landau answer for the magnetization, in equilibrium, ensues from $M_{z}(t)$ only by following the limiting procedures in a specific order, viz; by first taking t $\\rightarrow \\infty$ and then setting $\\omega_{0} \\rightarrow$ 0. If these two limits are interchanged one ends up with a piece of the Landau answer that misses out the boundary contribution.\\\nHaving laid down the background to the myriad perplexing issues concerning diamagnetism we pose and answer the following question in this Letter. Should we not be able to calculate the equilibrium magnetization directly from Eq. (1) by following the usual Gibbsian statistical mechanics in which all the terms in Eq. (1) are treated on the same footing and there is no separation between what is a system and what is a bath? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative and the resultant magnetization matches with the result derived in I in the \u2018equilibrium limit\u2019 that would indeed lend the Einstein approach yet another foundational basis.\\\nThe energy eigenvalues for the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) have been computed by Hong and Wheatley [@hong]. However our method of calculation is based on the functional integral approach to statistical mechanics which we find to be the most convenient tool for studying charged particle dynamics in a magnetic field [@feynman1; @feynman2; @kleinert; @weiss; @ingold]. The Euclidean action corresponding to the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) can be written as :\n\n$${\\cal{A}}_{e} = \\int_{0}^{\\hbar \\beta}d\\tau [{\\cal{L}}_{S}(\\tau) + {\\cal{L}}_{B}(\\tau) + {\\cal{L}}_{I}(\\tau)],$$\n\nwhere the subscripts S, B and I stand for \u2018system\u2019, \u2018bath\u2019 and \u2018interaction\u2019 respectively. The corresponding Lagrangians are enumerated as: $${\\cal{L}}_{S}(\\tau) = \\frac{M}{2}\\Big[\\dot {\\vec{x}}(\\tau)^{2} + \\omega_{0}^{2}\\vec{x}(\\tau)^{2} - \\omega_{c}(\\vec{x}(\\tau) \\times \\dot{\\vec{x}}(\\tau))_{z}\\Big],$$ where $\\omega_{c}= \\frac{eB}{Mc}$, is the cyclotron frequency, $${\\cal{L}}_{B}(\\tau) = \\sum_{j=1}^{N} \\frac{1}{2}m_{j}[\\dot {\\vec{x}_{j}}(\\tau)^{2} + \\omega_{j}^{2}\\vec{x}_{j}(\\tau)^{2}],$$ $${\\cal{L}}_{I}(\\tau) = \\sum_{j=1}^{N} \\frac{1}{2}m_{j}\\omega_{j}^{2}[\\vec{x}(\\tau)^{2} - 2\\vec{x}_{j}(\\tau)\\cdot\\vec{x}(\\tau)] .$$ We introduce now imaginary time Fourier series expansion of system variables and bath variables as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\vec{x}(\\tau) & = & \\sum_{n}\\vec{\\tilde{x}}(\\nu_{n})e^{-i\\nu_{n}\\tau}, \\\\\n\\vec{x}_{j}(\\tau) & = & \\sum_{n}{\\vec{\\tilde{x}}}_{j}(\\nu_{n})e^{-i\\nu_{n}\\tau},\\end{aligned}$$ where the Bosonic Matsubara frequencies $\\nu_{n}$ are given by $$\\nu_{n} = \\frac{2\\pi n}{\\hbar \\beta}, \\quad {n} = 0,\\pm 1,\\pm 2, .....,$$ The system-part of the action in terms of Fourier components is: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal{A}}_{e}^{S} & = & \\frac{M}{2}\\hbar \\beta \\sum_{n}\\Big[(\\nu_{n}^{2} + \\omega_{0}^{2})(\\vec{\\tilde{x}}(\\nu_{n})\\cdot \\vec{\\tilde{x^{*}}}(\\nu_{n})) \\nonumber \\\\\n&  & +\\omega_{c} \\nu_{n}(\\vec{\\tilde{x}}(\\nu_{n}) \\times \\vec{\\tilde{x^{*}}}(\\nu_{n}))\\Big]. \\end{aligned}$$ In deriving Eq. (9) we have used the identity: $$\\int_{0}^{\\hbar \\beta} d\\tau e^{-i\\tau(\\nu_{n}+\\nu_{n^{\\prime}})} = \\hbar \\beta \\delta (n +n^{\\prime}).$$ Following the detailed treatment given by Weiss [@weiss], the combined contributions of the bath and the interaction terms to the action can be written as: $${\\cal{A}}_{e}^{B-I} = \\frac{M}{2}\\hbar \\beta \\sum_{n}\\xi(\\nu_{n})(\\vec{\\tilde{x}}(\\nu_{n})\\cdot\\vec{\\tilde{x}^{*}}(\\nu_{n})) ,$$ where $$\\xi(\\nu_{n}) = \\frac{1}{M} \\sum_{j=1}^{N} m_{j}\\omega_{j}^{2}\\frac{\\nu_{n}^{2}}{(\\nu_{n}^{2}+\\omega_{j}^{2})}.$$ Introducing the spectral density for bath excitations as: $$J(\\omega) = \\frac{\\pi}{2}\\sum_{j=1}^{N}m_{j}\\omega_{j}^{3}\\delta(\\omega - \\omega_{j}),$$ we may rewrite $$\\xi(\\nu_{n}) = \\frac {2}{M\\pi}\\int_{0}^{\\infty}d\\omega \\frac{J(\\omega)}{\\omega} \\frac{\\nu_{n}^{2}}{(\\nu_{n}^{2} + \\omega^{2})}.$$ Now combining Eq. (11) with Eq. (9), the full action can be expressed as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal{A}}_{e} & = & \\frac{M}{2}\\hbar \\beta \\sum_{n}[(\\nu_{n}^{2} + \\omega_{0}^{2} + \\nu_{n}\\tilde{\\gamma}(\\nu_{n}))(\\vec{\\tilde{x}}(\\nu_{n})\\cdot \\vec{\\tilde{x^{*}}}(\\nu_{n}))  \\nonumber \\\\\n&  & +\\omega_{c} \\nu_{n}(\\vec{\\tilde{x}}(\\nu_{n}) \\times \\vec{\\tilde{x^{*}}}(\\nu_{n}))], \\end{aligned}$$ where the \u2018memory-friction\u2019 is given by $$\\tilde{\\gamma}(\\nu_{n}) =\\frac{2}{M\\pi}\\int_{0}^{\\infty}d\\omega \\frac{J(\\omega)}{\\omega} \\frac{\\nu_{n}}{(\\nu_{n}^{2} + \\omega^{2})}.$$ Note that $\\vec{\\tilde{x}}(\\nu_{n})$ is a two-dimensional vector ($\\tilde{x}(\\nu_{n}),\\tilde{y}(\\nu_{n})$). Introducing then normal modes: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\tilde{z}_{+}(\\nu_{n}) & = & \\frac{1}{\\sqrt2}(\\tilde{x}(\\nu_{n})+i\\tilde{y}(\\nu_{n})) \\nonumber \\\\\n\\tilde{z}_{-}(\\nu_{n}) & = & \\frac{1}{\\sqrt2}(\\tilde{x}(\\nu_{n})-i\\tilde{y}(\\nu_{n})), \\end{aligned}$$ Eq. (15) can be rewritten in a \u2018separable\u2019 form: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal{A}}_{e} & = &\\frac{M}{2}\\hbar \\beta \\sum_{n}\\Big[(\\nu_{n}^{2} + \\omega_{0}^{2} + \\nu_{n}\\tilde{\\gamma}(\\nu_{n})+i\\omega_{c}\\nu_{n}) \\nonumber \\\\\n& &(\\tilde{z}_{+}(\\nu_{n})\\tilde{z}^{*}_{+}(\\nu_{n})) \\nonumber \\\\\n& & + (\\nu_{n}^{2} + \\omega_{0}^{2} + \\nu_{n}\\tilde{\\gamma}(\\nu_{n})-i\\omega_{c}\\nu_{n}) \\nonumber \\\\\n& & (\\tilde{z}_{-}(\\nu_{n})\\tilde{z}^{*}_{-}(\\nu_{n}))\\Big]. \\end{aligned}$$ The partition function is then given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal{Z}} & = & {\\prod}_{n}\\int d\\tilde{z}_{+}(\\nu_{n})d\\tilde{z}^{*}_{+}(\\nu_{n})d\\tilde{z}_{-}(\\nu_{n})d\\tilde{z}^{*}_{-}(\\nu_{n}) \\nonumber \\\\\n& & \\exp\\Big[-\\frac{1}{2}M\\beta(\\nu_{n}^{2}+ \\omega_{0}^{2} + \\nu_{n}\\tilde{\\gamma}(\\nu_{n})+i\\omega_{c}\\nu_{n}) \\nonumber \\\\\n& & (\\tilde{z}_{+}(\\nu_{n})\\tilde{z}^{*}_{+}(\\nu_{n}))\\Big]\\nonumber \\\\\n& & \\exp\\Big[-\\frac{1}{2}M\\beta(\\nu_{n}^{2}+ \\omega_{0}^{2} + \\nu_{n}\\tilde{\\gamma}(\\nu_{n})-i\\omega_{c}\\nu_{n}) \\nonumber \\\\\n& & (\\tilde{z}_{-}(\\nu_{n})\\tilde{z}^{*}_{-}(\\nu_{n}))\\Big]\\nonumber \\\\\n& = & \\frac{2\\pi}{M\\beta}{\\prod}_{n}\\Big[(\\nu_{n}^{2}+ \\omega_{0}^{2} + \\nu_{n}\\tilde{\\gamma}(\\nu_{n}))^{2}+ \\omega_{c}^{2}\\nu_{n}^{2}\\Big]^{-1}. \\nonumber \\\\ \\end{aligned}$$ In view of Eqs. (8) and (16) the Helmholtz Free energy $\\cal{F}$ can be deduced from Eq. (19) as $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal{F}} & = & \\frac{1}{\\beta}\\ln\\Big(\\frac{M\\beta\\omega_{0}^{4}}{2\\pi}\\Big)  \\nonumber \\\\\n&  &  + \\frac{2}{\\beta}\\sum_{n=1}^{\\infty}\\ln\\Big[(\\nu_{n}^{2}+ \\omega_{0}^{2} + \\nu_{n}\\tilde{\\gamma}(\\nu_{n}))^{2} + \\omega_{c}^{2}\\nu_{n}^{2}\\Big], \\nonumber \\\\ \\end{aligned}$$ where the first term is independent of the magnetic field and owes its existence purely due to the Darwinian constraining potential. Equation (20) contains all the thermodynamic properties, the most important of which is the [*magnetization*]{} given by the negative derivative of ${\\cal{F}}$ with respect to $B$ : $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal{M}} & = & -\\sum_{n=1}^{\\infty}\\frac{\\frac{4}{\\beta B}\\omega_{c}^{2}\\nu_{n}^{2}}{[(\\nu_{n}^{2}+ \\omega_{0}^{2} + \\nu_{n}\\tilde{\\gamma}(\\nu_{n}))^{2} + \\omega_{c}^{2}\\nu_{n}^{2}]},\\end{aligned}$$ Equation (21) identically matches with the asymptotic ($t\\rightarrow \\infty $ ) limit of the expression obtained by Li [*etal*]{} [@li] from a quantum Langevin equation formulation. Further, in the so-called ohmic dissipation model for which [@legget2] $$J(\\omega) = M\\gamma \\omega,$$ the expression (21), upon using the identity: $$\\coth(z) = \\frac{1}{z} + \\sum_{n=1}^{\\infty}\\frac{2z}{(z^{2}+n^{2}\\pi^{2})},$$ also yields the asymptotic result of I, for $\\omega_{0}=0$ (cf. Eq. (19) of I). The ohmic case is relevant for electron-hole excitations in a Fermionic bath whereas the non-ohmic case applies to a phononic heatbath [@weiss].\\\nEquation (21) embodies several tantalizing results which deserve special comments: (1) The diamagnetization is one of the rare equilibrium properties which depends directly on the damping parameter $\\gamma$. Seldom is dissipation discussed in text books within the realm of what we call equilibrium statistical mechanics, based on the Gibbs ensemble. The fact that $\\gamma$ is a measure of dissipation has been amply demonstrated in I, wherein we had shown how by increasing $\\gamma$, ${\\cal{M}}$ changes from the Landau to the Bohr-Van Leeuwen expressions \u2014 an example of coherence-to-decoherence transition in an open quantum system [@sdg1]. (2) Diamagnetism as a material property is seen to be situated at the crossroads of thermodynamics and transport phenomena. The thermodynamic nature of the property is rooted on its being able to be calculated from the free energy, as shown here. On the other hand, diamagnetism, like the Drude conductivity [@ashcroft], is also based on transport mechanism in that it is related to the expectation value of the operator $(\\vec{r} \\times \\vec{v})$ (see I). Because the velocity $\\vec{v}$ appears explicitly, dissipative diamagnetism naturally connects to the fundamental frictional material property, viz. resistance, in view of the fact that $\\gamma ^{-1}$ is related to the Drude relaxation time [@sdg2]. Again we are not aware of any other phenomenon that lies at the juxtaposition of thermodynamics, which is derived from a partition function and transport, that is usually treated in kinetic theory. (3) Normally, in statistical mechanics, a thermodynamic limit is taken as a result of which surface contributions to bulk become irrelevant. However, for diamagnetism the surface enters crucially, as argued above; even though, there are fewer surface electrons than in the bulk, their contribution to the operator $\\vec{r}$ in $(\\vec{r} \\times \\vec{v})$ is substantial. A remarkable feature of diamagnetism is the need to first calculate the magnetization in the thermodynamic limit and then switch the boundary off i.e. by setting $\\omega_{0}=0$. One related issue is the environment induced dissipation which happens to be a ubiquitous attribute of a mesoscopic system. Additionally, because for a mesoscopic system surface effects are non-negligible, the present study has a bearing on our understanding of mesoscopic structures. While points (1), (2) and (3) connote to thermal equilibrium we want to now make a few remarks on the significance of our results for the approach-to-equilibrium, in the present context: (4) usually this question is discussed in a system-plus-bath approach, within a master equation for the density operator. The subject of quantum optics is replete with such approaches wherein the interaction between the system and the bath is assumed weak and is consequently treated in the socalled Born-Markov approximation [@agarwal]. The result is, although the approach to equilibrium does depend on relaxation parameters such as damping the equilibrium results themselves are independent of such parameters. Thus the density operator approaches a Boltzmann distribution characterized by the Hamiltonian for the system alone. In contrast, the presently derived dissipative diamagnetization, which can also be computed from the nonequilibrium method of I, does depend explicitly on damping, as has been also emphasized under point (1) above. The reason is, like in the much studied problem of quantum dissipation of a harmonic oscillator [@grabert], the system-bath coupling is so strong that it needs an exact treatment. Thus the degrees of freedom of the entire many body system are inexorably entangled with each other and therefore, it is no longer meaningful to separate what is a system from what is a bath. (5) Finally, a related point to (4) is in connection with the essential quantum nature of diamagnetism. As has been argued by Jayannavar and Kumar [@kumar], not only is there no classical diamagnetism \u2014 due to the Bohr-Van Leeuwen theorem \u2014 there is no dissipative classical diamagnetism either. Thus, the nonequilibrium, classical diamagnetization relaxes to [*zero*]{}, a damping-independent result. The same is true for the classical damped harmonic oscillator. In that case the time-dependent probability distribution for the underlying Ornstein-Uhlenbeck-process [@oz] relaxes to the equilibrium Boltzmann distribution, free of damping, even though the system-bath coupling is treated exactly through the classical Langevin equations [@zwanzig]. Therefore, we emphasize once again that the appearance of damping terms in equilibrium answers, as discussed under points (4) and (1), is an intrinsically non-classical aspect.\n\nAcknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nWe thank Sansaptak Dasgupta and Prosenjit Dutta for discussion, and B. M. Deb, B. Dutta Roy and J. Garcia-Palazios for their critical reading of the manuscript.\\\n\n[99]{} L. P. Kadanoff, [*Statistical Physics - Statics, Dynamics and Renormalization*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000) R. F$\\ddot{\\rm u}$rth, [*Investigation on the Brownian Motion*]{} (Methnen, London, 1926). L. Landau, Z. Phys. [*64*]{}, 629 (1930). J. H. Van Vleck, [*The Theory of Electric and Magnetic Susceptibilities*]{} (Oxford University Press, London, 1932). N. Bohr, Dissertation, Copenhegen, 1911; J. H. Van Leeuwen, J. Phys. (Paris) [*2*]{}, 361 (1921). R. Peierls, [*Surprises in Theoretical Physics*]{} (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979). S. Datta, [*Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1995). S. Dattagupta and J. Singh, Physical Review Letters [*79*]{}, 961 (1997); henceforth referred to as I. P. Mohanty, E. M. Q. Jariwala, and R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett. [*78*]{}, 3366(1997); P. Mohanty and R. A. Webb, Phys. Rev.B [*55*]{}, R13452 (1997). Y. Imry, [*Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics*]{} (Oxford University Press, 1977). G. W. Ford, M. Kac, and P. Mazur, J.Math.Phys. (N.Y.) [*6*]{}, 504 (1965); G. W. Ford, J. T. Lewis, and R. F. O\u2019Connell, Phys. Rev. A, [*37*]{}, 4419 (1988). R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) [*24*]{}, 118 (1963). C. G. Darwin, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [*27*]{}, 86 (1930). A. O. Caldeira, A. J. Leggett: Phys. Rev. Lett. [*46*]{}, 211 (1981). A. O. Caldeira, A. J. Leggett: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [*149*]{}, 374 (1983) T. M. Hong, J. M. Wheatley: Phys. Rev. B [*43*]{}, 5762(1991); [*42*]{}, 6492 (1990). R. P. Feynman: Rev. Mod. Phys. [*20*]{}, 367 (1948). R. P. Feynman, A. R. Hibbs; [*Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals*]{} (Mcgraw-Hill,1965). H. Kleinert: [*Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics , Polymer Physics and Financial Markets*]{} (World Scientific 2004). U. Weiss: [*Quantum Dissipative Systems*]{} (World Scientific 1999). T. Dittrich, P. H$\\ddot{\\rm a}$nggi, G. -L. Ingold, B. Kramer, G. Sch$\\ddot{\\rm o}$n, W. Zwerger [*Quantum Transport and Dissipation*]{}, (WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH,1998). X. L. Li, G. W. Ford and R. F. O\u2019Connell, Phys. Rev. E [*53*]{}, 3359 (1996). S. Dattagupta, S. Puri; [*Dissipative Effects in Condensed Matter Physics*]{} (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2004). See, for instance, N. Ashcroft, D. Mermin; [*Solid State Physics*]{} (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1976). S. Dattagupta, A. Jayannavar, N. Kumar; Current Science [*80*]{}, 861 (2001). See, for instance, G. S. Agarwal, in [*Quantum Optics, vol. 70 of Springer- Tracts in Modern Physics*]{}, edited by G. Hohler (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1974). H. Grabert, P. Schramm, G. Ingold; Phys. Rep. [*168*]{}, 115 (1988). A. M. Jayannavar, N. Kumar; J. Phys. A [*14*]{}, 1399 (1981). See, for instance, S. Dattagupta, [*Relaxation Phenomena in Condensed Matter Physics*]{} (Academic Press, Orlando, 1987). R. Zwanzig, J. Stat Phys. [*9*]{}, 215 (1973).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nbibliography:\n- 'bmn.bib'\nnocite: '\\nocite{}'\n---\n\n\\\n[Emilian Dudas$^{1,2,3}$ , \u00a0Chloe Papineau$^{3,2}$ and Stefan Pokorski $^4$ ]{}\\\n$^1$ CERN Theory Division, CH-1211, Geneva 23, Switzerland\\\n$^2$ CPhT, Ecole Polytechnique 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France\\\n$^3$ Laboratoire de Physique Th\u00e9orique, Universit\u00e9 Paris-Sud, F-91405 Orsay, France\\\n$^4$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Univ. of Warsaw, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland\\\n\nIntroduction and Conclusions\n============================\n\nChiral models of dynamical supersymmetry breaking with F-terms were constructed long time ago [@ads]. Explicit models with supersymmetry breaking ground state are generically relatively involved. More recently, Intriligator, Seiberg and Shih (ISS) proposed a simple, vector-like model with long-lived, metastable supersymmetry breaking vacua [@iss], whereas the ground state is supersymmetric[^1]. On the other hand, in the last couple of years convincing models of moduli stabilization in string theory were proposed, the propotype being the KKLT scenario [@kklt], based on the orientifolds of IIB string theory flux compactifications [@gkp]. One of the main problems of the KKLT scenario is the uplift of the vacuum energy to zero or positive values. The original proposal of using antibranes relies essentially on nonlinearly realized supersymmetry, whereas the latter attempts [@Dudas:2005vv],[@dterms] to uplift vacuum energy by D-terms, based on the suggestion in [@Burgess:2003ic], lead generically to very heavy (close to the Planck mass) gravitino mass[^2].\n\nAlternative uplifting using F-terms were already studied in [@silverstein; @scrucca; @lnr]. As already stressed in [@scrucca], [@lnr] and worked out in detail in [@lnr], a generic F-type supersymmetry breaking with a supersymmetry breaking scale $ TeV \\ll \\Lambda_{SUSY} \\ll M_P$ can naturally produce the appropriate , intermediate energy scale, for an uplift with a gravitino mass in the TeV range. Dynamical supersymmetry breaking is certainly the best candidate to fulfill this criterion. Metastable vacua have by definition a positive contribution to the vacuum energy which could clearly realize the uplifting required in the KKLT scenario. As we will see in this letter, dynamical supersymmetry breaking in metastable vacua of the ISS type does achieve the goal of uplifting the KKLT vacuum energy to zero, while keeping a TeV scale gravitino mass and therefore leading to low energy supersymmetry. We would like to emphasize, however, that the main ingredient in realizing the uplifting is not the metastable nature of the ISS model. Indeed, as we will briefly mention, other more traditional models [@it] of dynamical supersymmetry breaking realize the uplifting in a qualitatively similar way. We argue by explicit examples in both cases that there are generically supersymmetric AdS minima generated by the supergravity interactions, with however Planckian vev\u2019s for some fields and therefore not fully trustable in the effective supergravity description. Even by considering seriously these AdS minima, we argue that tunneling from the Minkowski metastable vacuum to the AdS supersymmetric one can be very suppressed.\n\nIt would very interesting to couple the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model to our present ISSKKLT setup, to work out the low-energy phenomenology of the model and to compare it to the existing works [@Choi:2004sx] based on the original KKLT uplifting prescription relying on antibranes and nonlinearly realized supersymmetry.\n\nThe dynamically generated F-term uplifting method can also be combined with the moduli stabilization in type IIA strings [@IIA]. Indeed, D-term uplifing is not available in type IIA strings with moduli stabilization, because of the strong constraints coming from gauge invariance [@ibanez]. There are no such constraints in our present setup, theferore there should be no fundamental obstacles in uplifting vacuum energy by nonsupersymmetric metastable vacua in type IIA strings with all moduli stabilized .\n\nThe structure of this note is as follows. In Section 2 we combine the KKLT model of moduli stabilization in type IIB strings with the ISS model of metastable supersymmetry breaking vacuum. We show that in this case the uplifting of the vacuum energy is naturally compatible with a TeV gravitino mass. We discuss supergravity corrections to the globally supersymmetric vacuum, the possibility of a new supersymmetric minimum induced by SUGRA interactions, the effects of gauging the color symmetry in the ISS model and the lifetime of the metastable vacuum. In Section 3 we show that qualitatively similar results are obtained by replacing the ISS model with a more traditional model [@it] of dynamical supersymmetry breaking. In Section 4 we provide some general comments about the tree-level soft masses and under which conditions they could vanish. We then apply the general formulae for the specific case of the model defined in Section 2 and work out some tree-level soft terms, showing that generically tree-level soft masses are of the order of the gravitino mass, whereas gaugino masses can be suppressed in particular cases.\n\nMetastable vacua and moduli stabilization\n=========================================\n\nThe model is defined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& W \\ = \\ W_1 (T) \\ + \\ W_2 (\\chi^i) \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& K \\ = \\ - 3 \\ \\ln (T + T^{\\dagger}) \\ + \\ |\\varphi|^2 \\ + \\ |{\\tilde \\varphi}|^2 \\ + \\  |\\Phi|^2 \\ .\n\\label{iss1}\\end{aligned}$$ In (\\[iss1\\]) $\\chi^i$ denotes collectively the fields $\\varphi_i^a$, ${\\tilde \\varphi}_a^{\\bar j}$, $\\Phi_{\\bar j}^i$ of the ISS model, where $i,{\\bar j} = 1 \\cdots N_f$ are flavor indices and $a,b = 1 \\cdots N$ are colour indices. Moreover, in (\\[iss1\\]) $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& W_1 (T) \\ = \\ W_0 \\ + \\ a \\ e^{-b T} \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& W_2 (\\chi^i) \\ = \\ h \\ Tr \\ {\\tilde \\varphi} \\ \\Phi \\ \\varphi \\ - \\ h \\ \\mu^2 \\ Tr \\Phi \\ . \\label{iss2}\\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the model is a staightforward combination of the ISS model of metastable supersymmetry breaking vacua with the KKLT model of moduli stabilization. As explained in [@iss], the sector $\\varphi_i^a$, ${\\tilde \\varphi}_a^{\\bar j}$ has a perturbative description in the free magnetic range $N_f > 3 N$. The apropriate microscopic theory is an orientifold $IIB / \\Omega'$ , with the orientifold operation $\\Omega' = \\Omega (-1)^{F_L} I_6$, where $(-1)^{F_L}$ is the left spacetime fermion number and $I_6$ is the parity in the six internal coordinates. The theory contains D3 (O3) branes (orientifold planes) asked by the orientifold operation, with the D3 branes placed at singular points of the compact space in order to reduce supersymmetry to ${\\cal N}=1$. Typically there are also D7 (O7) branes (orientifold planes) if other orbifold operations are present. The constant $W_0$ is generated by 3-form closed string fluxes, as in [@gkp], whereas the nonperturbative $T$-dependent superpotential could come from gaugino condensation on D7 branes [@kklt] or D3 brane instantons. The gauge sector responsible for the nonperturbative ISS dynamics has a natural embedding on a stack of $N$ D3 \u201ccolor\u201d branes, with a dynamical scale depending on the dilaton field $S$, which was already stabilized by three-form fluxes. The mesonic fields $\\Phi$ are naturally interpreted as positions of a stack of $N_f$ D7 \u201cflavor branes\u201d . This could also guarantees that their Kahler metric is independent at lowest order on the volume Kahler modulus $T$, as already assumed in (\\[iss1\\]). If the mesons would have entered into the no-scale structure of the T-modulus in (\\[iss2\\]), as explained in [@scrucca] the vacuum of the theory would have a marginally unstable direction. The quarks $\\varphi$, ${\\tilde \\varphi}$ should come from open string in the D3-D7 sector. We do not attempt here a complete string construction underlying our effective theory, for recent progress see [@iss2]. We point out nonetheless that global string constructions with finite internal space volume are needed in order to achieve this goal.\n\nAs transparent in (\\[iss1\\]), the KKLT and the ISS sectors are only coupled through gravitational interactions. In particular, as the ISS gauge group comes from D3 branes, the dynamical scale in the electric theory and therefore also the mass parameter $\\mu$ in the magnetic theory superpotential (\\[iss2\\]) depend on the dilaton $S$, which we assume is already stabilized by NS-NS and RR three-form fluxes. We believe this decoupling is instrumental in getting the uplift of the vacuum energy. Another reason for forbidding a coupling to the $T$ modulus of the dynamical supersymmetry breaking sector in the global supersymmetric limit is that it is unclear how to formulate the nonabelian Seiberg duality for field-dependent couplings.\n\nAt the global supersymmetry level and before gauging the color symmetry, the ISS model has a global symmetry $G = SU(N) \\times\nSU(N_f) \\times SU(N_f) \\times U(1)_B \\times U(1)' \\times U(1)_R$, broken explicitly to $ SU(N) \\times SU(N_f) \\times U(1)_B \\times\nU(1)_R$ by the mass parameter $\\mu$. In the supergravity embedding (\\[iss2\\]), the R-symmetry $U(1)_R$ is explicitly broken. To start with, we consider the ungauged theory, in which the $SU(N)$ is part of the global symmetry group. At the global supersymmetry level, the metastable ISS vacuum is $$\\Phi_0 \\ = \\ 0 \\quad , \\quad  \\varphi_0 \\ = \\ {\\tilde \\varphi}_0^T \\ =\n \\left(\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\mu I_N \\\\\n0\n\\end{array}\n\\right)\n \\ , \\label{iss3}$$ where $I_N$ is the $N \\times N$ identity matrix and $\\mu \\ll\n\\Lambda_m$, where $\\Lambda_m \\le M_P$ denotes the mass scale associated with the Landau pole for the gauge coupling in the magnetic theory. The first question to address is the vacuum structure of the model. In order to answer this question, we start from the supergravity scalar potential $$V \\ = \\ e^{K}  \\left[ (K^{-1})^{i {\\bar j}}  D_i W  D_{\\bar j}  {\\bar W}  \\ - \\  3  |W|^2   \\right]  \\ + \\\n{1 \\over 2} \\ (Re f_a) \\ D_a^2 \\ , \\label{vsugra}$$ where $Re f_a = 1/g_a^2$ define the gauge couplings . By using[^3] (\\[iss1\\])-(\\[iss2\\]), we find $$V \\ = \\ {e^{{\\bar \\chi}_{\\bar i} \\chi^i} \\over (T + {\\bar T})^3} \\\n\\{  {(T + {\\bar T})^2 \\over 3} |\\partial_T W - {3 \\over T + {\\bar T}} W |^2 +\n\\sum_i | \\partial_i W \\ + \\ {\\bar \\chi }_{\\bar i} W |^2 \\ - \\ 3 |W|^2  \\} \\ . \\label{iss4}$$\n\nSince $\\mu \\ll M_P, $ the vev\u2019s in the ISS model are well below the Planck scale. Then an illuminating way of rewriting the scalar potential (\\[iss4\\]) is to expand it in powers of the fields $\\chi^i/M_P$, in which case it reads[^4] $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& V \\ = \\ {1 \\over  (T + {\\bar T})^3} \\ V_{ISS} (\\chi^i, {\\bar \\chi}_{\\bar i}) \\ + \\ V_{KKLT} (T,{\\bar T}) \\ + \\\n{ {\\bar \\chi}_{\\bar i}  \\chi^i \\over M_P^2} \\ V_1  (T,{\\bar T}) \\ \\nonumber \\\\\n&& + \\ {1 \\over M_P^3} \\ \\left[ \\ W_2 (\\chi^i) \\ V_2 (T,{\\bar T}) + \\chi^i \\partial_i W_2 \\ V_3 (T,{\\bar T}) \\ +\n\\ h.c. \\right] \\ + \\ \\cdots \\ , \\label{iss5}\\end{aligned}$$ where by comparing (\\[iss5\\]) with (\\[iss4\\]) we can check that $V_1 \\sim m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$, $V_2, V_3 \\sim m_{3/2} M_P^3$, where as usual $m_{3/2}^2 = |W^2| \\exp (K)$. Notice that the contribution to the vacuum energy from the ISS sector, in the global limit, is $$\\langle V_{ISS} \\rangle \\ = \\ (N_f-N) \\ h^2  \\ \\mu^4 \\ . \\label{iss05}$$ Since we are interested in small (TeV scale) gravitino mass, it is clear that the first two terms in the rhs of (\\[iss5\\]), $V_{ISS}$ and $V_{KKLT}$ are the leading terms. Consequently, there should be a vacuum very close to a uplift KKLT vacuum $\\langle T \\rangle = T_0$ and the ISS vacuum $\\langle \\chi^i \\rangle = \\chi^i_0 $. The KKLT uplift vacuum at the zeroth order $T_0$ is defined as the minimum of the zeroth order potential $\\partial_{T_0} V_0 =0 $, obtained by inserting the ISS vacuum (\\[iss3\\]) into the supergravity scalar potential $$V_0 \\ = \\ {1 \\over (T + {\\bar T})^3} \\ \\left[ {(T+{\\bar T})^2 \\over 3} |D_T W_1|^2 - 3 |W_1|^2 + h^2  (N_f-N) \\mu^4 \\right] \\\n\\ . \\label{iss06}$$ In the limit $b T \\gg 1$ and for zero cosmological constant, a good approximation for $T_0$, considered to be real in what follows, is provided by $$W_0 \\ + \\ {a b (T_0+{\\bar T}_0) \\over 3} \\ e^{ - b T_0} \\ = \\ 0 . \\label{iss07}$$ Notice that in this case $T$ does contribute to supersymmetry breaking[^5] $$F^T \\ \\equiv \\  e^{K \\over 2} \\ K^{T {\\bar T}} \\ \\overline{D_T W} \\ \\simeq \\\n \\ {a \\over (T_0 + {\\bar T}_0)^{1 /2}} \\ e^{-b T_0} \\\n, \\label{iss08}$$ but by an amount supressed by a factor of $1/ b (T_0 + {\\bar T}_0)$ compared to the naive expectation.\n\nThe cosmological constant at the lowest order is given by $$\\Lambda \\ = \\ V_{KKLT} (T_0, {\\bar T}_0) \\ + \\ {(N_f-N) h^2 \\mu^4 \\over (T_0 + {\\bar T}_0)^3} \\ , \\label{iss7}$$ which shows that the ISS sector plays the role of un uplifting sector of the KKLT model. In the zeroth order approximation and in the large volume limit $b (T_0 + {\\bar T}_0) \\gg 1 $, we find that the condition of zero cosmological constant $\\Lambda = 0$ implies roughly $$3 \\ |W_0|^2 \\ \\sim \\ h^2 \\ (N_f-N) \\ \\mu^4 \\ . \\label{iss8}$$ If we want to have a gravitino mass $m_{3/2} = \\sim\nW_0 / (T_0 + {\\bar T}_0)^{3/2}$ in the TeV range, we need small values of $\\mu \\sim 10^{-6} - 10^{-7}$. Since $\\mu$ in the model of [@iss] has a dynamical origin, this is natural. Moreover, the metastable vacuum of [@iss] has a significantly large lifetime exactly in this limit, more precisely when $\\epsilon \\equiv (\\mu /\n\\Lambda_m) \\ll 1$. Therefore, a light (TeV range) gravitino mass is natural in our model and compatible with the uplift of the cosmological constant. We believe that this fact is an improvement over the D-term uplift models suggested in [@Burgess:2003ic] and worked out in [@dterms].\n\nNotice that supergravity corrections give tree-level masses to the pseudo-moduli fields of the ISS model. As explained in more general terms in [@iss], these corrections are subleading with respect to masses arising from the one-loop Coleman-Weinberg effective potential in the global supersymmetric limit. This can be explicitly checked starting from the supergravity scalar potential (\\[iss4\\]) and expanding in small fluctuations around the vacuum (\\[iss3\\]) to the quadratic order.\n\nThe metastable vacuum and supergravity corrections\n--------------------------------------------------\n\nBy coupling the T field to the ISS dynamical supersymmetry breaking system, we expect small deviations from the lowest order vacuum (\\[iss3\\]), (\\[iss07\\]). We expand $$\\chi^i \\ = \\ \\chi^i_0 +\\delta \\chi^i \\quad , \\quad T \\ = \\ T_0 \\ + \\ \\delta T \\ , \\label{iss6}$$ where $\\chi_0^i$ are provided by (\\[iss3\\]), with $\\delta \\varphi  \\ll  \\varphi_0$ ( $ \\delta {\\tilde \\varphi}  \\ll {\\tilde \\varphi}_0$) and $\\delta T \\ll T_0$. We now turn to the SUGRA corrections to the ISS metastable vacuum (\\[iss6\\]), by linearizing around the KKLT-ISS vacuum the field eqs, $$\\partial_{\\varphi} V \\ = \\ \\partial_{\\tilde \\varphi} V \\ = \\  \\partial_{\\Phi} V \\ =  \\ \\partial_T V \\ = \\ 0 \\ , \\label{corr1}$$ This can be done by starting from the expansion in the fields $\\chi$ in (\\[iss5\\]), where $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& V_1 \\ = \\ V_{KKLT} \\ + \\ { |W|^2 \\over (T + {\\bar T})^3} \\ , \\label{corr2}  \\\\\n&&  V_2 \\ = \\ - \n { 1 \\over (T + {\\bar T})^3} \\left[ (T + {\\bar T}) \\ \\overline{D_T \\ W} \\ - \\ 3 \\ \\overline{W_1} \\right] \\quad , \\quad\n  V_3 \\ = \\ { {\\overline{W_1} \\over (T + {\\bar T})^3}} \\ . \\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ Notice that in the zeroth order vacuum $V_1 \\sim m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$, $V_2,V_3 \\sim m_{3/2} M_P^3 $, as well as $\\partial_T V_1 \\sim m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$ and $\\partial_T V_2, \\partial_T V_3 \\sim m_{3/2} M_P^3 $. In order for the linearization to be well-defined, we need to include the Coleman-Weinberg one-loop quantum corrections to the scalar potential discussed in [@iss]. The reason is that at tree-level and in our zeroth order approximation, there are zero mass particles which, in addition to the Goldstone bosons of the broken symmetries, contain also pseudo-moduli which get their masses at one-loop. After including these corrections, we find at the leading order in the variations $\\delta \\chi^i, \\delta T$ and for zero cosmological constant, that $$\\delta \\chi^i \\ \\leq \\ O(m_{3/2}) \\qquad , \\qquad \\delta T \\ \\leq O({m_{3/2} \\over M_P}) \\ . \\label{corr3}$$ Since in our framework $m_{3/2} \\ll \\mu$, the condition $\\delta \\varphi \\ll \\varphi_0 $ is largely satisfied, showing that the expansion (\\[iss6\\]) is an excellent approximation. The precise values of the supergravity corrections (\\[corr3\\]) are not important for what follows. Notice that the small values for $\\delta \\varphi$, $\\delta \\Phi$ in (\\[corr3\\]) are in agreement with the arguments given in [@iss] stating that high energy microscopic effects in the magnetic theory should not affect significantly the metastable vacuum.\n\nThe SUGRA induced magnetic supersymmetric minimum\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nIn the ISS model and in the case of ungauged $SU(N)$ symmetry, the ISS vacuum (\\[iss3\\]) is actually the true ground state. What happens in the supergravity embedding we are proposing here ? We will show that there is a new, AdS supersymmetric ground state generated by the SUGRA interactions. To find it, we search solutions of the type $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&  \\varphi \\ \\ = \\  \\ \\left(\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\varphi_1 \\\\\n0\n\\end{array}\n\\right) \\quad , \\quad\n {\\tilde \\varphi}^T \\  \\ = \\ \\ \\left(\n\\begin{array}{c}\n{\\tilde \\varphi}_1 \\\\\n0\n\\end{array}\n\\right) \\ ,\n  \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\Phi \\ = \\\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\Phi_1  & 0\n\\\\\n0 & \\Phi_2\n\\end{array}\n\\right) \\ , \\label{susy1}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nof the SUSY preserving equations $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& D_{\\varphi} W \\ = \\ 0 \\quad \\rightarrow \\quad h \\ {\\tilde \\varphi}_1 \\Phi_1 + \\overline{\\varphi}_1 \\ W \\ = \\ 0 \\ ,\n\\label{susy2} \\\\\n&& D_{\\tilde \\varphi} W \\ = \\ 0 \\quad \\rightarrow \\quad\nh \\ \\Phi_1 {\\varphi}_1 + \\overline{\\tilde \\varphi}_1 \\ W \\ = \\ 0 \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& D_{\\Phi} W \\ = \\ 0 \\quad \\rightarrow \\quad  h \\left(  {\\tilde \\varphi}_1^i  \\varphi_{1,j} - \\mu^2 \\delta_j^i \\right) \\ +\n\\ ({\\bar \\Phi}_1)_j^i \\ W \\ = \\\n0 \\ , \\ i,j \\ = \\ 1 \\cdots N \\nonumber \\\\\n&& D_{\\Phi} W \\ = \\ 0 \\quad \\rightarrow \\quad  - h \\ \\mu^2 \\delta_m^n \\ + \\ ({\\bar \\Phi}_2)_m^n \\ W \\ = \\ 0 \\ , \\ m,n \\ =\n\\ N+1 \\cdots N_f \\ ,  \\nonumber \\\\\n&& D_T \\ W \\ = \\ 0  \\quad \\rightarrow \\quad  a \\ b \\ e^{-b T_m} \\  + \\ {3 \\over T_m + {\\bar T}_m} \\ W \\ = \\ 0 . \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ The eqs. (\\[susy2\\]) have the following solution : $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\varphi_1 \\ = \\ \\mu_1 \\ I_N \\quad , \\quad  {\\tilde \\varphi}_1 \\ = \\ \\mu_2 \\ I_N \\quad ,\n\\quad {\\rm with} \\ \\ |\\mu_1| \\ = \\ |\\mu_2| \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\Phi_1 \\ = \\  (\\mu_1 \\mu_2 - \\mu^2)^{1 \\over 2} \\ I_N \\quad , \\quad \\Phi_2 \\ = \\ - \\ {\\mu^2 \\over (\\mu_1 \\mu_2 - \\mu^2)^{1 \\over 2}} \\\nI_{N_f-N} \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& a \\ b \\ e^{- b T_m} \\ - \\ {3 h \\over T_m + {\\bar T}_m} \\  (\\mu_1 \\mu_2 - \\mu^2)^{1 \\over 2} \\ = \\ 0 \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& h^2 \\ (\\mu_1 \\mu_2 \\ - \\ \\mu^2) \\ - \\ |W|^2 \\ = \\ 0 \\ . \\label{susy3}\\end{aligned}$$ Since cosmological constant cancellation asks for $m_{3/2} \\sim\n\\langle W \\rangle \\sim h \\mu^2$, where $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass in the ISS-KKLT vacuum, for $\\mu_i \\sim \\mu$ eq. (\\[susy3\\]) implies in particular $\\Phi_2 \\sim M_P$, the supersymmetric minimum (\\[susy3\\]) depends on the UV properties of the model and is not fully reliable in our effective field theory analysis. For $\\mu_1 \\mu_2 \\gg \\mu^2$, all vev\u2019s are well below $M_P$, $\\langle W \\rangle \\gg m_{3/2} M_P^2$ and the supersymmetric vacuum (\\[susy3\\]) would be within the validity of the effective supergravity. The second possibility is however incompatible with the condition (\\[iss8\\]) and for a TeV gravitino mass. Therefore we recover the conclusion that $\\Phi_2 \\sim M_P$.\n\nNotice that the supersymmetric vacuum (\\[susy3\\]) survives the gauging of the $SU(N)$ symmetry. Indeed, the $SU(N)$ D-flatness conditions are satisfied, since $|\\varphi_1|^2 = |\\varphi_2|^2 $ and $ [\\Phi , \\Phi] = 0 $ in (\\[susy3\\]).\n\nGauging the model : infrared description\n----------------------------------------\n\nIn the ISS model, the $SU(N)$ symmetry is gauged and corresponds to the gauge group of the magnetic theory. In the electric description, the ISS model is the supersymmetric QCD with $N_c$ colors and $  N_c < N_f  <  3N_c /2$ quark flavors $Q. {\\tilde Q}$, such that in the magnetic description with the gauge group $SU(N_f-N_c)$, the number of flavors is large $N_f > 3 N$, where the magnetic theory is in the infrared-free phase. In this case the perturbative magnetic description, around the origin in field space, is reliable. The electric theory has a dynamical scale $\\Lambda$ and a mass term for the quarks $W = m_i^{\\bar j} Q^i  {\\tilde Q}_{\\bar j}$. There are $N_c$ vacua described by $$M_{\\bar j}^i  \\ = \\  ({1 \\over m})_{\\bar j}^i  \\ (det m)^{1 \\over N_c} \\ \\Lambda^{3N_c-N_f \\over N_c} \\ . \\label{gauge01}$$ The perturbative treatment in the magnetic description translates into the constraint $m_a \\ll  \\Lambda $, where $a$ denotes here the number of light mass eigenvalues, which has to be equal or larger to $N_f+1$ in order for the metastable vacua to exist. One of the open questions for the ISS model is a dynamical explanation for the constraint $m_a \\ll \\Lambda $. We believe that a simple possibility is the following. At high energy there is an additional abelian \u201c anomalous \u201d symmetry $U(1)_X$, with mixed anomalies $U(1)_X SU(N_c)^2$ cancelled by the Green-Schwarz mechanism involving an axionic field $a_X$. This will render the gauge vector $V_X$ massive and stabilize the complex modulus field containing the axion $a_x$ . There will be an induced Fayet-Iliopoulos term, which in explicit string models is always cancelled by the vev of a scalar field $\\langle N \\rangle \\ll M_P$. Mixed anomalies mean that the sum of charges quark charges $X_Q + X_{\\bar Q}$ is not zero and therefore the mass operator $m_i^{\\bar j} Q^i  {\\tilde Q}_{\\bar j}$ is not gauge invariant. In generic models, the charge $X_N$ is oppposite compared to $X_Q + X_{\\bar Q}$. We normalize $X_N=-1$ in what follows. Then the superpotential term $y_i^{\\bar j} (N/M_P)^{X_Q + X_{\\bar Q}} Q^i  {\\tilde Q}_{\\bar j}$ is perturbatively allowed. Supersymmetry could be broken in the process [@bd], but it can also stay unbroken. In this last case, at energy scales well below the mass of the gauge boson $A_X$, the net effect of all this is to generate an effective mass term for the quarks of the electric theory $m \\sim  (\\langle N  \\rangle / M_P)^{X_Q + X_{\\bar Q}} $. For large enough quark charges and/or small enough vev $\\langle N \\rangle$, the induced mass $m$ can be very small. Another generical way of getting small masses was proposed recently in [@dfs].\n\nDenoting by $\\Lambda_m$ the Landau pole of the magnetic theory, according to ISS for arbitrary vev\u2019s of $\\Phi$ the quark flavors become massive and can be integrated out. By doing this and by coupling the resulting low-energy system to the KKLT model, we arrive at a lagrangian described by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& W \\ = \\ W_0 \\ + \\ a \\ e^{-b T} \\ + \\ N \\ \\left( {h^{N_f} {det \\Phi} \\over \\Lambda_m^{N_f - 3 N}} \\right)^{1/N}\n\\ - \\ h \\ \\mu^2 \\ Tr \\Phi \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& K \\ = \\ - 3 \\ \\ln (  T + {\\bar T}) \\ + \\ {\\bar \\Phi} \\Phi \\ . \\label{gauge1}\\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the global supersymmetry analysis of ISS [@iss], this action has $N_f-N$ supersymmetric vacua, which in the global limit are given by $$\\langle h \\Phi \\rangle \\ = \\ \\Lambda_m \\epsilon^{2 N / (N_f-N)} \\ I_{N_f} =\n\\ \\mu \\ {1 \\over \\epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}} \\ I_{N_f} \\ , \\label{gauge2}$$ where $\\epsilon \\equiv \\mu / \\Lambda_m$. The vacuum in the T-direction is simpler to describe by replacing the vev\u2019s (\\[gauge2\\]) in the superpotential (\\[gauge1\\]). By doing this, we get an effective superpotential $$W_{\\rm eff} \\ = \\ W_0 \\ - \\ {(N_f-N) \\mu^3 \\over \\epsilon^{(N_f-3N)/(N_f-N)}} \\ + \\ a \\ e^{-b T} \\ .\n\\label{gauge3}$$ Since $W_0 < 0$ in the KKLT model, the effect of the supersymmetric $\\Phi$ vev\u2019s is to increase the absolute value of the (negative) constant in the superpotential. The approximate values of the minimum for $T$ and the corresponding negative cosmological constant are given approximately by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& a \\ b \\ e^{-b T_s} \\ + \\ {3 \\over T_s + {\\bar T}_s} \\left( W_0 \\ -{(N_f-N) \\mu^3 \\over \\epsilon^{(N_f-3N)/(N_f-N)}}\n\\ \\right) \\ \\simeq \\ 0 \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& V_0 \\ \\simeq \\ - { 3 \\over (T_s + {\\bar T}_s)^3}   | W_0 \\ -{(N_f-N) \\mu^3 \\over \\epsilon^{(N_f-3N)/(N_f-N)}} |^2\n\\ . \\label{gauge4}\\end{aligned}$$ The supersymmetric ISS vacuum is therefore AdS . Notice that for $W_0 \\gg \\mu^3 / \\epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}$, we get $T_s \\sim\nT_0$, with $T_0$ defined in (\\[iss07\\]), since in this case $W \\simeq W_0$. If $W_0 \\ll \\mu^3 / \\epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}$, then $T_s  < T_0$.\n\nLifetime of the metastable vacuum\n---------------------------------\n\nThe model we discussed in this paper has one metastable vacuum and two type of AdS supersymmetric minima. The metastable vacuum will tunnel to the supersymmetric AdS minimum (\\[gauge2\\])-(\\[gauge4\\]). The purpose of this section is to provide a qualitative estimate of the lifetime of the metastable minimum, following [@coleman],[@duncan]. The bounce action is expected to come from the path in field space of minimum potential barrier between the metastable supersymmetry breaking vacuum and the supersymmetric vacua. Along this path, the bounce action cannot be computed analytically. For a triangular idealized approximation [@duncan], the bounce action $S_b$ is qualitatively $$S_b \\ \\sim \\ {(\\Delta \\chi)^4 \\over \\Delta V} \\ , \\label{tunneling1}$$ where $\\Delta V$ is the (minimum) barrier along the bounce and $\\Delta \\chi$ is the variation of the relevant field. For the tunneling between the metastable ISS vacuum (\\[iss3\\]) and the supersymmetric one (\\[gauge2\\]) after gauging $SU(N)$, there are two cases. If $\\mu \\ll \\epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)} M_P$, we get $$h \\ \\Delta \\Phi \\ \\simeq \\ \\mu \\ {1 \\over \\epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}} \\quad , \\quad \\Delta V \\ \\sim \\\n  { 3 \\over (T_s + {\\bar T}_s)^3} \\ |W_0|^2 \\ . \\label{tunneling2}$$ Then, by using the condition (\\[iss8\\]) of the vanishing of the vacuum energy in the metastable vacuum , we get $$S_b \\ \\sim \\ {  (T_s + {\\bar T}_s)^3 \\over \\epsilon^{4 (N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}} \\ \\gg 1 \\ , \\label{tunneling3}$$ which increases the lifetime of the metastable vacuum compared to the similar ISS analysis. The reason is that the energy difference between the metastable and the AdS supersymmetric minimum is decreased by the factor $1 / (T_s\n+ {\\bar T}_s)^3 $, resulting in an increase in the bounce action $S_b$. In the case where $\\mu \\gg \\epsilon^{(N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)} M_P$, the vacuum energy of the supersymmetric vacuum (\\[gauge4\\]) and consequently $\\Delta V$ change. The bounce action in this case is $$S_b \\ \\sim \\  {M_P^2 \\over \\mu^2}  {  (T_s + {\\bar T}_s)^3 \\over \\epsilon^{2 (N_f-3 N)/(N_f-N)}} \\ \\gg 1 \\ . \\label{tunneling4}$$ The metastable minimum could also tunnel to the supersymmetric minimum (\\[susy3\\]). Even by taking seriously the effective theory analysis in this case, we notice that the AdS supersymmetric minimum (\\[susy3\\]) is far away in the $\\Phi$ field space from the ISS-KKLT metastable vacuum (\\[iss3\\]), (\\[iss07\\]). The tunneling probability to go to the AdS vacuum (\\[susy3\\]) is highly suppressed and irrelevant for all practical purposes.\n\nUplifting with supersymmetry breaking on the quantum moduli space\n=================================================================\n\nAs mentioned in the introduction, the important ingredient from the F-term dynamical supersymmetry breaking sector is the intermediate scale for the resulting (positive) contribution to the vacuum energy and not the metastable nature of the vacuum. We discuss now a more conventional non-perturbative hidden sector which, in the global supersymmetry limit, has a non-supersymmetric ground state [@it]. Since most of the analysis parallels that already done for the ISS model, our discussion will be very brief. We consider a SQCD model with $N_c=N_f=2$ colors and flavors. The effective action which puts together the KKLT moduli stabilization sector and the supersymmetry breaking sector is $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& W \\ = \\ W_0 \\ + \\ a \\ e^{-b T}  \\ + \\  \\lambda S^{ij} M_{ij}  \\ + \\ X \\ (Pf M - \\Lambda_2^4)  \\  ,  \\nonumber \\\\\n&& K \\ = \\ - 3  \\ \\ln (T + {\\bar T})  \\ + \\  Tr ( {1 \\over \\Lambda_2^2} \\ |M|^2 \\ + \\ |S|^2)    \\ , \\label{it1}\\end{aligned}$$ where $Pf M \\ = \\ \\epsilon^{ijkl} M_{ij} M_{kl}$, $\\Lambda_2$ is the dynamical scale of the theory, $M_{ij} = Q_i^a Q_j^a$ are the mesons builded up from the quarks $Q_i^a$ with color indices $a=1,2$ and flavor indices $i,j=1,2,3,4$, whereas $S^{ij}$ are gauge singlets. Both fields are antisymmetric in the flavor indices. In (\\[it1\\]), $X$ is a lagrange multiplier which enforces the eq. describing the quantum deformed moduli space $Pf M = \\Lambda_2^4$, whereas the factor of $(1 /  \\Lambda_2^2)$ in the Kahler potential of the mesons is present since mesons have mass dimension two and have a dynamical origin. The supergravity scalar potential resulting from (\\[it1\\]) is $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& V \\ = \\ { e^{  Tr ( (|M|^2 / \\Lambda_2^2)  + \\ |S|^2)   } \\over (T + {\\bar T})^3} \\\n\\{  {(T + {\\bar T})^2 \\over 3} |\\partial_T W - {3 \\over T + {\\bar T}} W |^2 \\ + \\ \\sum_{ij}  |\\lambda M_{ij} + {\\bar S}_{ij} W|^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \n+ \\ \\sum_{ij}  |  \\lambda S^{ij} + 2 X \\epsilon^{ijkl} M_{kl} + {{\\bar M}^{ij} \\over \\Lambda_2^2}   W |^2 \\ + \n\\ |Pf M - \\Lambda_2^4|^2 \\ - \\    \\ 3 |W|^2  \\} \\ . \\label{it2}\\end{aligned}$$ In the global limit, the strongly coupled sector break supersymmetry, since there is no solution to the supersymmetry eqs. $F^X = F^S=0$. As explained in [@it], the strongly coupled sector produces a contribution to the vacuum energy of the order $$V_0 \\ \\sim \\ \\lambda^2 \\Lambda_2^4 \\ . \\ \\label{it3}$$ Even if at the global supersymmetric level, the ground state breaks supersymmetry, similarly to the ISS model discussed in section 2.2, at the supergravity level we do find a supersymmetric AdS minimum. Indeed, by inserting the maximally, $SO(5)$ symmetric ansatz $$\\langle M  \\rangle \\ = \\\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{cc}\ni \\sigma_2  & 0\n\\\\\n0 & i \\sigma_2 \n\\end{array}\n\\right) \\  \\Lambda_2^2 ,  \\qquad , \\qquad \n\\langle S  \\rangle \\ = \\ c \\ \n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{cc}\ni \\sigma_2  & 0\n\\\\\n0 & i \\sigma_2\n\\end{array}\n\\right) \\  \\Lambda_2^2 \\ ,  \n\\label{it4}$$ into the supersymmetry conditions $D_S W = D_M W = D_X W = D_T W =0$, we find $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\lambda \\ + \\ c \\ W \\ = \\ 0 \\qquad , \\qquad \\lambda \\ c \\ + \\ 2 \\ X \\ + \\ {W \\over \\Lambda_2^2} \\ = \\ 0 \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& a \\ b \\ e^{-b T_0}  \\ + \\ {3 \\over  T_0 + {\\bar T}_0} \\  \\left( W_0 \\ + \\ a \\ e^{-b T_0} \\ + \\ 4  \\ \\lambda \\ c \\ \\Lambda_2^4    \\right) \\ = 0 \\ . \\label{it5}  \\end{aligned}$$ If these conditions have a solution, the original supersymmetry breaking ground state becomes metastable. The condition for the uplifting of the vacuum energy in the metastable vacuum requires then $W_0 \\sim \\lambda \\Lambda_2^2$. The last eq. in (\\[it5\\]) leads then, for $b T_0 \\gg 1$, to $W \\sim W_0$ in a first approximation, whereas $T_0$ is given again by (\\[iss07\\]). TeV values for the gravitino mass asks therefore for $\\Lambda_2^2 \\sim\nm_{3/2} M_P \\sim (10^{11} \\ GeV)^2$. Combining the first two eqs. in (\\[it5\\]), we then find $c \\sim - \\lambda / W_0$ and therefore $\\langle S \\rangle  \\sim M_P$. We find therefore, analogously to section 2.2, Planckian values for the supersymmetric AdS vacuum, which signifies that the supersymmetry preserving vacuum is actually beyond the regime of validity of the effective lagrangian description. In contrast to section 2.2, however, the AdS vacuum energy itself is Planckian here $V_{AdS} \\sim \\lambda^2 M_P^4$.\n\nBy taking seriously this supersymmetric solution, the tunneling from the non-supersymmetric metastable vacuum proceed in the S-field direction in the field space. Since $\\Delta S \\sim M_P $, whereas $\\Delta V = |V_{AdS}| \\sim \\lambda^2 M_P^4$, we find for the bounce action $S_b \\sim (1 /  \\lambda^2 )$. The tunneling probability $\\exp(-S_b) $ is therefore suppressed only in the $\\lambda \\ll 1$ limit. This condition is the analog of the condition $m \\ll \\Lambda$ in the electric version of the ISS model , i.e. the quarks must have masses much smaller than the dynamical scale of the electric theory.\n\nSoft terms and mass scales \n===========================\n\nGeneral tree-level formulae \n----------------------------\n\nThe relevant couplings for our present discussion are the following terms in the Kahler potential and the superpotential arising in the perturbative expansion in the matter fields $M^I$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& K \\ \\rightarrow \\ K \\ + \\  \\left[ (T + {\\bar T})^{n_I} \\ Z_{I {\\bar J}} + \\cdots \\right] \\ \\ M^I  {\\bar M}^{\\bar J} \\ + \\\n\\cdots \\   \\equiv  K  +   K_{I  {\\bar J}}  M^I {\\bar M}^{\\bar J}  \\  , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& W  \\  \\rightarrow \\ W \\ + \\ {1 \\over 6} \\ W_{IJK} \\ M^I \\ M^J \\ M^K\n \\ , \\label{general01}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\cdots$ denote couplings to other (hidden-sector, messengers in gauge mediation models, etc) fields. In a manifestly supersymmetric approach, with both F and D-term contributions, the condition of zero cosmological constant is $$K_{\\alpha \\bar \\beta}  F^{\\alpha}   F^{\\bar \\beta}  \\ +  \\sum_a (g_a^2 / 2) D_a^2 \\ =  \\ 3 m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2 \\ , \\label{soft8}$$ where $\\alpha, {\\bar \\beta}$ refers to fields contributing to supersymmetry breaking and $a$ is an index for anomalous $U(1)$ gauge factors. Then the most general formulae for soft terms of matter fields[^6] $M^I$ ($F^I=0$), are given by [@Dudas:2005vv] (see also [@kawamura] for the heterotic strings case) $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& m^2_{I {\\bar J}} \\  = \\ m_{3/2}^2 \\ K_{I {\\bar J}} \\ - \\ F^{\\alpha}\n\\\nF^{\\bar \\beta} R_{{\\alpha} {\\bar \\beta} I {\\bar J}} \\  - \\  \\sum_a g_a^2 D_a ( {1 \\over 2} K_{I {\\bar J}}\n- \\partial_I  {\\partial_{\\bar J}} ) D_a   \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& A_{IJK}  =  m_{3/2}^2 \n\\left( 3 \\nabla_I \\nabla_J G_K  +  G^{\\alpha} \\nabla_I \\nabla_J\n  \\nabla_K G_{\\alpha} \\right)  \n -  g_a^2 D_a ( {D_a \\over 2} \\nabla_i \\nabla_j G_k  -   \\nabla_i\n\\nabla_j \\nabla_k D_a) \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& M_{1/2}^a \\ = \\ {1 \\over 2} (Re f_a)^{-1} \\ m_{3/2} \\ G^{\\alpha} \\\n\\partial_{\\alpha} f_a \\ , \\label{soft9}\\end{aligned}$$ where $G = K + \\ln |W|^2$, $G_{\\alpha} = \\partial_{\\alpha} G$, $\\nabla_I G_J \\  = \\ G_{IJ} - \\Gamma_{IJ}^K G_K$, etc., where $R_{{\\alpha} {\\bar \\beta} I {\\bar J}} \\ =\n\\ \\partial_{\\alpha} \\partial_{\\bar \\beta} \\ K_{I {\\bar J}} \\ - \\\n\\Gamma_{\\alpha I}^M \\ K_{M {\\bar N}} \\Gamma_{{\\bar \\beta} {\\bar\nJ}}^{\\bar N}$ is the Riemann tensor of the Kahler manifold and $\\Gamma_{\\alpha I}^M \\ = \\ K^{M {\\bar N}} \\partial_{\\alpha} K_{{\\bar\nN} I}$ are the Christoffel symbols. Moreover, $$D_a \\ = \\ X_I^a M^I \\partial_I K  \\ - \\  {\\eta_a^{\\alpha}  \\over 2} \\partial_{\\alpha} K \\ . \\label{soft10}$$ In (\\[soft10\\]), $X_I^a$ denote $U(1)_a$ charges of charged fields $M^I$ and $\\eta_a^{\\alpha}$ are defined by the nonlinear gauge transformations of the moduli fields under (super)gauge fields transformations $$V_a \\ \\rightarrow V_a \\ + \\  \\Lambda_a \\ + \\ {\\bar \\Lambda}_a \\quad , \\quad \n T_{\\alpha}  \\ \\rightarrow  \\  T_{\\alpha} \\ + \\    \\eta_a^{\\alpha}   \\Lambda_a  \\ . \\label{soft11}$$ By using (\\[soft10\\]), we can also write the scalar masses in (\\[soft9\\]) as $$m^2_{I {\\bar J}}  \\  = \\ m_{3/2}^2 \\ K_{I {\\bar J}}  -  F^{\\alpha} \\\nF^{\\bar \\beta} \\ R_{{\\alpha} {\\bar \\beta} I {\\bar J}}  \\  - \\ \\sum_a g_a^2 D_a ( {1 \\over 2} D_a \n-  X_I^a -  v_{l} X_{ l}^a \\partial_{ l}  \\ +  \\  {\\eta_a^{\\alpha} \\over 2} \\partial_{\\alpha} ) \n \\ K_{I {\\bar J}} \\ , \\label{soft12}$$ where $v_{ l}$ are vev\u2019s of charged scalar fields $z^l$ of charge $X_l^a$. An interesting question is : In which simple cases the tree-level contributions of order $m_{3/2}$ in (\\[soft12\\]) do cancel each other ? This question is particularly relevant in order to identify (classes of) models in which loop contributions and in particular the anomaly-mediated contributions [@anomaly] are important.\n\nFrom a 4d point of view, we are aware of three simple cases :\n\ni\\) the well-known case of no-scale models [@noscale] , with $K_{T {\\bar T}} |F^T|^2 = 3 m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$, $D_a=0$, with matter fields having modular weights $n_I = - 1$ in (\\[general01\\]), when $|F^T|^2 R_{T {\\bar T} I {\\bar J}} =\nm_{3/2}^2 K_{I {\\bar J}}$ . This generalizes easily to the case of several Kahler moduli $T_{\\alpha}$. Starting from the effective lagrangian $$K \\ = \\ - \\sum_{\\alpha} p_{\\alpha} \\ln (T_{\\alpha} + {\\bar T}_{\\alpha}) \\ + \\ \\prod_{\\alpha}  (T_{\\alpha} + {\\bar T}_{\\alpha})^{n_I^{\\alpha}} |M^I|^2\n\\ + \\cdots \\ , \\label{general1}$$ the no-scale structure is defined by the condition that the superpotential $W $ is [*independent* ]{} of $ T_{\\alpha}$ and the (semi)positivity of the scalar potential. Zero cosmological constant then implies $$K^{\\alpha} K_{\\alpha} \\equiv K_{\\alpha \\bar \\beta} K^{\\alpha} K^{\\bar \\beta} \\ = \\ 3 \\quad \\rightarrow \\quad \\sum_{\\alpha} p_{\\alpha} \\ = \\ 3 \\ . \\label{general2}$$ The condition of having tree-level zero soft scalar masses and A-terms for matter fields $M^I$ is then $$\\sum_{\\alpha}  n_I^{\\alpha} \\ = \\ -1  \\ . \\label{general3}$$\n\nii\\) When the following conditions are simultaneously satisfied :\\\n- D-term contributions are much larger[^7] than the F-terms and cancel the cosmological constant $\\sum_a (g_a^2/2) D_a^2 \\simeq \n3 m_{3/2}^2$.\\\n- there are no (large) vev\u2019s of charged scalar fields $v_{l} = 0$.\\\n- the matter fields are neutral under the $U(1)$\u2019s symmetries and come from the D3 brane sector (or, more generally $n_I = - 1$) .\n\nIndeed, in this case by using the Kahler potential $$K \\ = \\ - 3 \\ \\ln (T + {\\bar T}) \\ + \\    (T + {\\bar T})^{-1} \\ |M^I|^2 \\ + \\  \\cdots \\ , \\label{general4}$$ then it can be easily checked that the D-term contributions precisely cancel the other terms in the soft terms in (\\[soft9\\]). The generalization of this D-dominated supersymmetry breaking case to the case of several moduli $T_{\\alpha}$ is more involved and will not be discussed here.\n\niii\\) A simple way to obtain tree-level zero soft masses is by geometric sequestering [@anomaly], i.e separating in the internal space the source of supersymmetry breaking from the matter fields. From a 4d viewpoint, the vanishing of the tree-level soft terms appear as non-trivial cancellations in the general formula (\\[soft9\\]). However this cancellation is protected from quantum corrections by the geometric separation of the source of supersymmetry breaking. A typical example, obtained by assuming that moduli fields (in particular the modulus $T$) were stabilized in a supersymmetric way, is that of a matter field $M$ and a hidden sector field $\\phi_h$, which is the only source of supersymmetry breaking and of cancellation of the cosmological constant $G_h G^h =3$. The 4d supergravity action is $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& K \\ = \\ - 3 \\ln \\ ( 1 \\ - \\ {|M|^2 \\over 3} \\ - \\ {|\\phi_h|^2 \\over 3}  ) \\ , \\ \\nonumber \\\\\n&& W \\ = \\ W_v (M) \\ + \\ W_h (\\phi_h) \\ . \\label{general6} \\end{aligned}$$\n\nIt is also possible that a matter-like field $C$ with couplings to the observable matter saturates the vacuum energy $ K_{C {\\bar C}} |F^C|^2 = 3 m_{3/2}^2 M_P^2$ and by fine-tuning provides the cancellation of the tree-level soft scalar mass, see e.g. [@lnr]. When neither of these cases occur, other manifestly supersymmetric uplifting mechanism are expected to lead to soft scalar masses of the order of the gravitino mass $m_{I {\\bar J}}^2 \\sim m_{3/2}^2$.\n\nSoft terms with dynamical F-term uplifting\n------------------------------------------\n\nA particularly important question is the magnitude of the soft terms in the visible sector in the present setup. In order to answer this question, we first estimate the contribution to supersymmetry breaking from the various fields. By using the results of section 2, we find in the leading order $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\overline{F^{\\varphi}} \\ \\equiv \\ e^{K / 2} \\ K^{\\varphi {\\bar\n\\varphi}} D_{\\varphi} \\ W \\ \\simeq \\ e^{K / 2} \\ K^{\\varphi {\\bar\n\\varphi}} \\ ( {\\bar \\varphi}_0 W \\ + \\ \\delta \\Phi \\\n\\partial_{\\Phi}\n\\partial_{\\varphi} W_2 ) \\ \\simeq \\ 0 \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\overline{F^{\\tilde \\varphi}} \\ \\simeq \\ 0 \\quad , \\quad\n\\overline{F^{\\Phi}} \\ = \\ e^{K / 2} \\\n\\left(\n\\begin{array}{cc}\n0  & 0\n\\\\\n0 &   \\  - h\n\\mu^2 I_{N_f-N}  \n\\end{array}\n\\right)   \\ , \\nonumber \\\\\n&& F^T \\ \\simeq \\  \\  {a \\over (T_0 + {\\bar T}_0)^{1 /2}} \\ e^{-b T_0} \\\n\\simeq \\  \\  - \\ {3 \\over b} \\ m_{3/2} \\ . \\label{soft1}\\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the main contribution to supersymmetry breaking comes from the magnetic mesonic fields $\\Phi$, which are the main responsible for the uplift of the vacuum energy $$Tr (|F^{\\Phi}|^2) \\ \\simeq \\ 3 \\ m_{3/2}^2 \\ . \\label{soft2}$$ The transmission of supersymmetry breaking in the observable sector depends on the couplings of the observable fields $M^I$ to the SUSY breaking fields $\\Phi$, $T$. The relevant couplings for our present discussion are the following terms in the Kahler metric of the matter fields $M^I$ $$K_{I  {\\bar J}} \\ =  \\ \\ (T + {\\bar T})^{n_I} \\ Z_{I {\\bar\nJ}} +  Tr (|\\Phi|^2) \\ Z'_{I {\\bar J}} \\ \\ , \\label{soft3}$$ where the form of the $\\Phi$ coupling in the Kahler metric in (\\[soft3\\]) is dictated by the diagonal $SU(N_f)$ flavor symmetry left unbroken by the mass parameter $\\mu$ in the ISS lagrangian. The Yukawa couplings $W_{IJK} $ could also depend on $T$ and $\\Phi$.\n\nThen from (\\[soft9\\]) with no D-term contributions $D_a=0$, we find that the $F^T$ contribution is subleading by a factor $1 / b^2 (T + {\\bar T})^2$ with respect to the other contributions. This has the nice feature that the flavor-dependent $F^T$ contribution to scalar soft masses are subleading. The result for the (canonically normalized scalars) soft masses, at the leading order, is then given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& m^2_{I {\\bar J}} \\ = \\ m_{3/2}^2 \\ \\delta_{I {\\bar J}} \\ + \\ { h^2  (N_f-N) \\\n\\mu^4 \\over  (T + {\\bar T})^3} \\  (K^{-1} Z')_{I {\\bar J}}  \\ \\\n\\nonumber \\\\\n&& \\simeq \\ m_{3/2}^2 \\left( \\ \\delta_{I {\\bar J}} \\ + \\  3 \n\\  (K^{-1} Z')_{I {\\bar J}} \\ \\right) \\ .  \\label{soft5}\\end{aligned}$$ If the coupling to the mesonic fields $\\Phi$ is small, i.e the coefficients $Z'_{I {\\bar J}}$ are suppressed, soft scalar masses in the observable (MSSM) sector are universal and are similar with the ones obtained in the \u201c dilaton-dominated\u201d scenario in the past. It would be very interesting to find physical reasons of why $Z'_{I {\\bar J}}$ are small. The geometrical sequestering cannot be invoked in this case since the matter fields $M$ and the mesons $\\Phi$ do not fit into the structure (\\[general6\\]). If the coeff. $Z'_{I {\\bar J}}$ are of order one, the two terms in (\\[soft5\\]) are of the same order and the flavor problem of gravity mediation is back.\n\nA similar conclusion holds for the other possible source of flavor violation, the A-terms. If the couplings of the mesons to the matter fields are small, we get in the leading order, for the canonically normalized scalars $$A_{IJL} \\ \\simeq \\ 3 \\ m_{3/2} \\ w_{IJL} \\ , \\label{soft06}$$ where $w_{IJL}$ are the low-energy Yukawa couplings for the matter fields, related to the corresponding SUGRA couplings $W_{IJL} = \\nabla_I \\nabla_J \\nabla_L \\ W$ by $$w_{IJL} = e^{K/2} \\ (K^{-1/2})_I^{I'}   (K^{-1/2})_J^{J'}   (K^{-1/2})_L^{L'} \\ W_{I'J'L'} \\ . \\label{soft010}$$ Since A-terms are proportional to the Yukawa couplings, there are no flavor violations in this case.\n\nGaugino masses in the observable sector are determined by the gauge kinetic functions which in our case have generically the form $$f_a \\ = \\ f_a^{(0)} \\ + \\ \\alpha_a T \\ + \\ \\beta_a \\ (Tr \\Phi) \\ ,\n\\label{soft6}$$ where $f_a^{(0)}$ are provided by other moduli fields, stabilized in a supersymmetric manner. The form of coupling to the mesons in (\\[soft6\\]) is fixed by the diagonal $SU(N_f)$ flavor symmetry left unbroken by the mass parameter $\\mu$, whereas $\\alpha_a$ are numbers of order one[^8]. The gaugino masses $$M_a \\ =  \\alpha_a F^T \\ + \\ \\beta_a \\ (Tr F^\\Phi) \\  \\label{soft7}$$ are of the order of the gravitino mass if $\\beta_a$ are of order one, whereas they are supressed by the factor $1/ b (T + {\\bar T})$ if $\\beta_a$ are small. In this second case, the anomaly-mediated contributions [@anomaly; @rattazzi] are comparable to the tree-level ones. To conclude, we do not find a suppression of all of the soft terms in the observable sector with respect to the gravitino mass. This is in agreement with the results of ref. [@lnr]. Therefore our results point towards a gravity-mediation type of supersymmetry breaking in the hidden sector, which in the case of small couplings of matter to hiden sector mesons are very similar to the dilaton-domination scenario and are therefore flavor blind at tree-level [^9]\n\nWe would like to briefly compare these results to the ones obtained in [@Choi:2004sx] by using the original KKLT uplifting mechanism with D${\\bar 3}$ antibranes[^10]. By using a nonlinear supergravity approach, [@Choi:2004sx] found a (moderate) hierarchy $m_{3/2} \\sim 4 \\pi^2 m_{soft}$. Let us try to understand better the difference with our results. As we discussed in the previous section, there are three ways of supressing the tree-level soft masses for matter fields. The first is no-scale type models. The KKLT-type models are not of this type, since $F^T$ contribution is small. The second case is the dominant D-term breaking. This is probably the manifestly supersymmetric case which should correspond in the low energy limit to the analysis done in [@Choi:2004sx]. Knowing that pure D-term supersymmetry breaking does not exist, it could be difficult to realize a model along these lines. It is however very interesting to investigate this possibility in more detail.\n\nWe believe that a more detailed phenomenological analysis of the possible manifestly supersymmetric uplifting mechanisms deserves further investigation.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\n[ We would like to thank Z. Chacko, Z. Lalak, Y. Mambrini, A. Romagnoni, C. Scrucca and R. Sundrum for useful discussions. E.D thanks KITP of Santa Barbara and S.P. thanks the CERN theory group , respectively, for hospitality during the completion of this work. Work partially supported by the CNRS PICS \\#\u00a02530 and 3059, RTN contracts MRTN-CT-2004-005104 and MRTN-CT-2004-503369, the European Union Excellence Grant, MEXT-CT-2003-509661, by the Polish grant MEiN 1 P03B 099 29, the EC contract MTKD-CT-2005-029466 and by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949. ]{}\n\n[99]{}\n\nI.\u00a0Affleck, M.\u00a0Dine and N.\u00a0Seiberg, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0 [**52**]{} (1984) 1677 and Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**241**]{} (1984) 493. K.\u00a0Intriligator, N.\u00a0Seiberg and D.\u00a0Shih, JHEP [**0604**]{} (2006) 021 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0602239\\]. S.\u00a0Franco and A.\u00a0M.\u00a0Uranga, JHEP [**0606**]{} (2006) 031 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0604136\\]; H.\u00a0Ooguri and Y.\u00a0Ookouchi, arXiv:hep-th/0606061 and arXiv:hep-th/0607183 ; V.\u00a0Braun, E.\u00a0I.\u00a0Buchbinder and B.\u00a0A.\u00a0Ovrut, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**639**]{} (2006) 566 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0606166\\] and arXiv:hep-th/0606241; S.\u00a0Ray, arXiv:hep-th/0607172; S.\u00a0Franco, I.\u00a0Garcia-Etxebarria and A.\u00a0M.\u00a0Uranga, arXiv:hep-th/0607218; S.\u00a0Forste, arXiv:hep-th/0608036; A.\u00a0Amariti, L.\u00a0Girardello and A.\u00a0Mariotti, arXiv:hep-th/0608063; I.\u00a0Bena, E.\u00a0Gorbatov, S.\u00a0Hellerman, N.\u00a0Seiberg and D.\u00a0Shih, arXiv:hep-th/0608157; C.\u00a0Ahn, arXiv:hep-th/0608160 and arXiv:hep-th/0610025; M.\u00a0Eto, K.\u00a0Hashimoto and S.\u00a0Terashima, arXiv:hep-th/0610042; R.\u00a0Argurio, M.\u00a0Bertolini, S.\u00a0Franco and S.\u00a0Kachru, arXiv:hep-th/0610212; M.\u00a0Aganagic, C.\u00a0Beem, J.\u00a0Seo and C.\u00a0Vafa, arXiv:hep-th/0610249. S.\u00a0Dimopoulos, G.\u00a0R.\u00a0Dvali, R.\u00a0Rattazzi and G.\u00a0F.\u00a0Giudice, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**510**]{} (1998) 12 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/9705307\\]. S.\u00a0Kachru, R.\u00a0Kallosh, A.\u00a0Linde and S.\u00a0P.\u00a0Trivedi, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**68**]{} (2003) 046005 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0301240\\]. S.\u00a0B.\u00a0Giddings, S.\u00a0Kachru and J.\u00a0Polchinski, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**66**]{} (2002) 106006 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0105097\\].\n\nE.\u00a0Dudas and S.\u00a0K.\u00a0Vempati, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**727**]{} (2005) 139 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0506172\\].\n\nH.\u00a0Jockers and J.\u00a0Louis, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**718**]{} (2005) 203 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0502059\\]; G.\u00a0Villadoro and F.\u00a0Zwirner, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0 [**95**]{} (2005) 231602 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0508167\\]; A.\u00a0Achucarro, B.\u00a0de Carlos, J.\u00a0A.\u00a0Casas and L.\u00a0Doplicher, arXiv:hep-th/0601190; K.\u00a0Choi and K.\u00a0S.\u00a0Jeong, arXiv:hep-th/0605108; E.\u00a0Dudas and Y.\u00a0Mambrini, arXiv:hep-th/0607077; M.\u00a0Haack, D.\u00a0Krefl, D.\u00a0Lust, A.\u00a0Van Proeyen and M.\u00a0Zagermann, arXiv:hep-th/0609211.\n\nC.\u00a0P.\u00a0Burgess, R.\u00a0Kallosh and F.\u00a0Quevedo, JHEP [**0310**]{} (2003) 056 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0309187\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Saltman and E.\u00a0Silverstein, JHEP [**0411**]{} (2004) 066 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0402135\\].\n\nM.\u00a0Gomez-Reino and C.\u00a0A.\u00a0Scrucca, JHEP [**0605**]{} (2006) 015 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0602246\\] and arXiv:hep-th/0606273. O.\u00a0Lebedev, H.\u00a0P.\u00a0Nilles and M.\u00a0Ratz, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**636**]{} (2006) 126 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0603047\\].\n\nK.\u00a0A.\u00a0Intriligator and S.\u00a0D.\u00a0Thomas, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**473**]{} (1996) 121 \\[arXiv:hep-th/9603158\\]; K.\u00a0I.\u00a0Izawa and T.\u00a0Yanagida, Prog.\u00a0Theor.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**95**]{} (1996) 829 \\[arXiv:hep-th/9602180\\].\n\nK.\u00a0Choi, A.\u00a0Falkowski, H.\u00a0P.\u00a0Nilles, M.\u00a0Olechowski and S.\u00a0Pokorski, JHEP [**0411**]{} (2004) 076 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0411066\\]; K.\u00a0Choi, A.\u00a0Falkowski, H.\u00a0P.\u00a0Nilles and M.\u00a0Olechowski, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**718**]{} (2005) 113 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0503216\\]; M.\u00a0Endo, M.\u00a0Yamaguchi and K.\u00a0Yoshioka, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**72**]{} (2005) 015004 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0504036\\]; A.\u00a0Falkowski, O.\u00a0Lebedev and Y.\u00a0Mambrini, JHEP [**0511**]{} (2005) 034 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0507110\\]; K.\u00a0Choi, K.\u00a0S.\u00a0Jeong, T.\u00a0Kobayashi and K.\u00a0i.\u00a0Okumura, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**633**]{} (2006) 355 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/0508029\\].\n\nJ.\u00a0P.\u00a0Derendinger, C.\u00a0Kounnas, P.\u00a0M.\u00a0Petropoulos and F.\u00a0Zwirner, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**715**]{} (2005) 211 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0411276\\]; O.\u00a0DeWolfe, A.\u00a0Giryavets, S.\u00a0Kachru and W.\u00a0Taylor, JHEP [**0507**]{} (2005) 066 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0505160\\].\n\nP.\u00a0G.\u00a0Camara, A.\u00a0Font and L.\u00a0E.\u00a0Ibanez, JHEP [**0509**]{} (2005) 013 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0506066\\]; G.\u00a0Villadoro and F.\u00a0Zwirner, JHEP [**0603**]{} (2006) 087 \\[arXiv:hep-th/0602120\\]. S.\u00a0R.\u00a0Coleman, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**15**]{} (1977) 2929 \\[Erratum-ibid.\u00a0D [**16**]{} (1977) 1248\\]; S.\u00a0R.\u00a0Coleman and F.\u00a0De Luccia, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**21**]{} (1980) 3305. M.\u00a0J.\u00a0Duncan and L.\u00a0G.\u00a0Jensen, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**291**]{} (1992) 109. S.\u00a0K.\u00a0Soni and H.\u00a0A.\u00a0Weldon, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**126**]{} (1983) 215; V.\u00a0S.\u00a0Kaplunovsky and J.\u00a0Louis, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**306**]{} (1993) 269 \\[arXiv:hep-th/9303040\\]; A.\u00a0Brignole, L.\u00a0E.\u00a0Ibanez and C.\u00a0Munoz, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**422**]{} (1994) 125 \\[Erratum-ibid.\u00a0B [**436**]{} (1995) 747\\] \\[arXiv:hep-ph/9308271\\]. P.\u00a0Binetruy and E.\u00a0Dudas, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**389**]{} (1996) 503 \\[arXiv:hep-th/9607172\\]; N.\u00a0Arkani-Hamed, M.\u00a0Dine and S.\u00a0P.\u00a0Martin, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**431**]{} (1998) 329 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/9803432\\]. M.\u00a0Dine, J.\u00a0L.\u00a0Feng and E.\u00a0Silverstein, arXiv:hep-th/0608159. Y.\u00a0Kawamura, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**446**]{} (1999) 228 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/9811312\\]. E.\u00a0Cremmer, S.\u00a0Ferrara, C.\u00a0Kounnas and D.\u00a0V.\u00a0Nanopoulos, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**133**]{} (1983) 61; J.\u00a0R.\u00a0Ellis, C.\u00a0Kounnas and D.\u00a0V.\u00a0Nanopoulos, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**247**]{} (1984) 373. L.\u00a0Randall and R.\u00a0Sundrum, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**557**]{} (1999) 79 \\[arXiv:hep-th/9810155\\].\n\nG.\u00a0F.\u00a0Giudice, M.\u00a0A.\u00a0Luty, H.\u00a0Murayama and R.\u00a0Rattazzi, JHEP [**9812**]{} (1998) 027 \\[arXiv:hep-ph/9810442\\]. M.\u00a0A.\u00a0Luty and R.\u00a0Sundrum, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**62**]{} (2000) 035008 \\[arXiv:hep-th/9910202\\]. J.\u00a0P.\u00a0Conlon, S.\u00a0S.\u00a0Abdussalam, F.\u00a0Quevedo and K.\u00a0Suruliz, arXiv:hep-th/0610129.\n\n[^1]: See [@iss2] for various extensions and string embedding of the ISS proposal and [@ddgr] for an earlier proposal.\n\n[^2]: It would be very interesting to find explicit counter-examples to this claim.\n\n[^3]: The gauge D-term contributions do not exist in the un-gauged case we are discussing in this section and will play essentially no role in the following sections.\n\n[^4]: In most of the formulae of this letter, $M_P=1$. In some formulae, however, we keep explicitly $M_P$.\n\n[^5]: Notice that the leading order expression for $W_0$ in (\\[iss07\\]) is not enough for computing $F^T$, since the subleading terms neglected in (\\[iss07\\]) are needed as well. $F^T$ can be computed directly, however, by keeping the leading terms in the eq. $\\partial_T V =0$.\n\n[^6]: We don\u2019t write the analytic bilinear soft terms, since their discussion depends on the origin of the corresponding ($\\mu$-like) term in the superpotential.\n\n[^7]: We should keep in mind, however, that in supergravity with $\\langle W \\rangle \\not=0$, there is no pure D-breaking. This case assumes therefore $D_a \\gg F^{\\alpha}$, but F-terms have to exist.\n\n[^8]: In a type IIB orientifold embedding, this happens if the observable sector lives on D7 branes.\n\n[^9]: For other ways of getting flavor universality in compactifications with stabilized moduli, see e.g. [@quevedo].\n\n[^10]: See also [@luty] for a model with a phenomenology similar to the one in [@Choi:2004sx].\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Let $G = (G,+)$ be a compact connected abelian group, and let $\\mu_G$ denote its probability Haar measure. A theorem of Kneser (generalising previous results of Macbeath, Raikov, and Shields) establishes the bound $$\\mu_G(A + B) \\geq \\min( \\mu_G(A)+\\mu_G(B), 1 )$$ whenever $A,B$ are compact subsets of $G$, and $A+B \\coloneqq \\{ a+b: a \\in A, b \\in B \\}$ denotes the sumset of $A$ and $B$. Clearly one has equality when $\\mu_G(A)+\\mu_G(B) \\geq 1$. Another way in which equality can be obtained is when $A = \\phi^{-1}(I), B = \\phi^{-1}(J)$ for some continuous surjective homomorphism $\\phi: G \\to {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ and compact arcs $I,J \\subset {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$. We establish an inverse theorem that asserts, roughly speaking, that when equality in the above bound is almost attained, then $A,B$ are close to one of the above examples. We also give a more \u201crobust\u201d form of this theorem in which the sumset $A+B$ is replaced by the partial sumset $A +_{\\varepsilon}B \\coloneqq \\{ 1_A * 1_B \\geq {\\varepsilon}\\}$ for some small ${\\varepsilon}>0$. In a subsequent paper with Joni Ter\u00e4v\u00e4inen, we will apply this latter inverse theorem to establish that certain patterns in multiplicative functions occur with positive density.'\naddress: |\n    Department of Mathematics, UCLA\\\n    405 Hilgard Ave\\\n    Los Angeles CA 90095\\\n    USA\nauthor:\n- Terence Tao\ntitle: An inverse theorem for an inequality of Kneser\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThroughout this paper, we use $\\mu_G$ to denote the Haar probability measure on any compact abelian group $G = (G,+)$; thus for instance $\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}$ is Lebesgue measure on the unit circle ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$. In [@kneser], Kneser established[^1] the inequality $$\\label{kemp}\n \\mu_G(A + B) \\geq \\min( \\mu_G(A)+\\mu_G(B), 1 )$$ whenever $A,B$ are non-empty compact subsets of a compact connected abelian group $G$, and $A+B \\coloneqq \\{ a+b: a \\in A, b \\in B \\}$ denotes the sumset of $A$ and $B$. A subsequent result of Kemperman [@kemperman] extended this inequality to compact connected nonabelian groups also, but we restrict attention here to the abelian case. Prior to Macbeath\u2019s result, the case of a circle $G = {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ was obtained by Raikov [@raikov] (and can also be derived by a limiting argument from the Cauchy-Davenport inequality), the case of a torus $G = ({\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}})^d$ was obtained by Macbeath [@macbeath], and the case of second countable connected compact groups by Shields [@shields]. The fact that $G$ is connected is crucial, since otherwise $G$ could contain open subgroups of measure strictly between $0$ and $1$, which would of course yield a counterexample to .\n\nIn a blog post [@blog] of the author, it was observed that one could use an argument of Ruzsa [@ruzsa] to obtain the following stronger bound (cf. Pollard\u2019s bound [@pollard] for cyclic groups):\n\n\\[ruzsa-thm\\] Let $A,B$ be measurable subsets of a compact connected abelian group $G$. Then $$\\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_B, t )\\ d\\mu_G \\geq t \\min( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) -t, 1 )$$ for any $0 \\leq t \\leq \\min(\\mu_G(A), \\mu_G(B))$, where $$1_A * 1_B(x) \\coloneqq \\int_G 1_A(y) 1_B(x-y)\\ d\\mu_G(y)$$ is the convolution of $1_A$ and $1_B$, and $1_A$ denotes the indicator function of $A$.\n\nFor the convenience of the reader, we give the proof of this theorem in Section \\[ruz\\]. To see why this result implies , we observe the following corollary of Theorem \\[ruzsa-thm\\]. Given two measurable subsets $A,B$ of $G$ and a parameter ${\\varepsilon}>0$, we define the partial sumset $A +_{\\varepsilon}B$ by the formula $$A +_{\\varepsilon}B := \\{ x \\in G: 1_A * 1_B(x) \\geq {\\varepsilon}\\}.$$ This is a compact subset of $A+B$.\n\n\\[kemp-cor\\] Let $G, A, B$ be as in Theorem \\[ruzsa-thm\\]. Then for any $0 < {\\varepsilon}< \\min(\\mu_G(A),\\mu_G(B))^2$, we have $$\\mu_G(A +_{\\varepsilon}B) \\geq \\min( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B), 1 ) - 2 \\sqrt{{\\varepsilon}}$$\n\nOne can improve the error term $2\\sqrt{{\\varepsilon}}$ slightly, but we will not need to do so here.\n\nFrom the pointwise bound $$\\min( 1_A * 1_B, \\sqrt{{\\varepsilon}} ) \\leq {\\varepsilon}+ \\sqrt{{\\varepsilon}} 1_{A +_{\\varepsilon}B}$$ one has $$\\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_B, \\sqrt{{\\varepsilon}} )\\ d\\mu_G \\leq {\\varepsilon}+ \\sqrt{{\\varepsilon}}  \\mu_G( A +_{\\varepsilon}B)$$ and hence by Theorem \\[ruzsa-thm\\], we have $$\\mu_G(A +_{\\varepsilon}B)  \\geq \\min( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) - \\sqrt{{\\varepsilon}}, 1 )  - \\sqrt{{\\varepsilon}},$$ giving the claim.\n\nSince the set $A +_{\\varepsilon}B$ is contained in $A+B$, the claim follows from this corollary (in the case $\\mu_G(A), \\mu_G(B) > 0$) by sending ${\\varepsilon}$ to $0$, noting that is trivial when $\\mu_G(A)=0$ or $\\mu_G(B)=0$.\n\nThere are several cases in which the estimate is sharp. Firstly, one has the trivial cases in which $A$ or $B$ is a point; there are some further examples of this type where (say) $A$ is a coset of a measure zero subgroup of $G$, and $B$ is a union of cosets of that group. Secondly, if one has $\\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) \\geq 1$, then the compact sets $A$ and $x-B$ cannot be disjoint (as this would disconnect $G$, since the complement of $A \\cup (x-B)$ would be an open null set and hence empty); hence $A+B=G$ and holds with equality. Define a *Bohr set* to be a subset of $G$ of the form $\\phi^{-1}(I)$, where $\\phi: G \\to {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ is a continuous surjective homomorphism and $I$ is a compact arc in ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ (i.e., a set of the form $I = [a,b] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ for some $a < b$, where $x \\mapsto x \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ is the projection from ${\\mathbb{R}}$ to ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$), and say that two Bohr sets $\\phi^{-1}(I), \\psi^{-1}(J)$ are *parallel* if $\\phi=\\psi$. If $A = \\phi^{-1}(I)$ and $B = \\phi^{-1}(J)$ are two parallel Bohr sets, then $A+B = \\phi^{-1}(I+J)$ is also a Bohr set, and (by the uniqueness of Haar measure) the Haar measure of $A,B,A+B$ is equal to the measures of $I,J,I+J$ respectively on the unit circle. One can then easily verify that holds with equality in these cases.\n\nThe main result of this paper is an inverse theorem that asserts, roughly speaking, that the above examples are essentially the only situations in which equality can occur. More precisely, we have\n\n\\[inv-1\\] Let ${\\varepsilon}>0$, and suppose that $\\delta>0$ is sufficiently small depending on ${\\varepsilon}$. Then, for any compact subsets $A,B$ of a compact connected abelian group $G = (G,+)$ with $$\\mu_G(A), \\mu_G(B), 1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(B) \\geq {\\varepsilon}$$ and $$\\mu_G(A+B) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) + \\delta,$$ there exist parallel Bohr sets $\\phi^{-1}(I), \\phi^{-1}(J)$ such that $$\\mu_G( A \\Delta \\phi^{-1}(I) ), \\mu_G( B \\Delta \\phi^{-1}(J) ) \\leq {\\varepsilon},$$ where $A \\Delta B$ denotes the symmetric difference of $A$ and $B$.\n\nIn the case $G = {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$, this result was recently obtained in [@candela Theorem 1.5] (with a quite sharp dependence between ${\\varepsilon}$ and $\\delta$), by a different method; see also the earlier work [@mfy], [@fjm]. In the case of a torus $G = ({\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}})^d$, when the measures of $A$ and $B$ are small and comparable to each other, this theorem was obtained (again with a sharp dependence between ${\\varepsilon}$ and $\\delta$) in [@bilu Theorem 1.4].\n\nAs a consequence of the above theorem, we can reprove a theorem of Kneser [@kneser Satz 2] classifying when equality holds in :\n\n\\[cor\\] Let let $A,B$ be non-empty compact subsets of a compact connected abelian group $G$ such that equality holds in . Then at least one of the following statements hold:\n\n-   $\\mu_G(A)=0$ or $\\mu_G(B) = 0$.\n\n-   $A,B$ are parallel Bohr sets.\n\n-   $\\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) \\geq 1$.\n\nWe prove this corollary in Section \\[cor-sec\\].\n\nMuch as can be deduced from Corollary \\[kemp-cor\\], Theorem \\[inv-1\\] will be deduced from the following variant:\n\n\\[inv-2\\] Let ${\\varepsilon}>0$, and suppose that $\\delta>0$ is sufficiently small depending on ${\\varepsilon}$. Then, for any measurable subsets $A,B$ of a compact connected abelian group $G$ with $$\\mu_G(A), \\mu_G(B), 1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(B) \\geq {\\varepsilon}$$ and $$\\mu_G(A +_\\delta B) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) + \\delta,$$ there exist parallel Bohr sets $\\phi^{-1}(I), \\phi^{-1}(J)$ such that $$\\mu_G( A \\Delta \\phi^{-1}(I) ), \\mu_G( B \\Delta \\phi^{-1}(J) ) \\leq {\\varepsilon}.$$\n\nSince $A +_\\delta B$ is clearly contained in $A+B$, it is immediate that Theorem \\[inv-2\\] implies Theorem \\[inv-1\\].\n\nThe proof of Theorem \\[inv-2\\] can be outlined as follows. To simplify this outline, let us ignore all the ${\\varepsilon}$ and $\\delta$ errors, in particular pretending that the partial sumset $A +_\\delta B$ is the same as the full sumset $A+B$. Let us informally call a pair $(A,B)$ a \u201ccritical pair\u201d if the conditions of Theorem \\[inv-2\\] are obeyed. By using \u201csubmodularity inequalities\u201d such as $$\\mu_G( (A_1 \\cup A_2) + B) + \\mu_G( (A_1 \\cap A_2) + B) \\leq \\mu_G(A_1+B) + \\mu_G(A_2+B),$$ valid for any compact $A_1,A_2,B \\subset G$, (which follow from the identity $(A_1 \\cup A_2)+B = (A_1+B) \\cup (A_2+B)$ and the inclusion $(A_1 \\cap A_2)+B \\subset (A_1+B) \\cap (A_2+B)$ respectively), one can obtain a number of closure properties regarding critical pairs, for instance establishing that if $(A_1,B)$ and $(A_2,B)$ are critical pairs then $(A_1 \\cup A_2,B)$ and $(A_1 \\cap A_2,B)$ are also, provided that $A_1 \\cap A_2$ is non-empty and $A_1 \\cup A_2$ is not too large. Similarly, using the associativity $(A+B)+C = A+(B+C)$ of the sum set operation, one can show that if $(A,B)$ and $(A+B,C)$ are critical pairs, then so are $(B,C)$ and $(A,B+C)$. Using such closure properties repeatedly in combination with the translation invariance of the critical pair concept, we can start with a critical pair $(A,B)$ and generate a small (but non-trivial) auxiliary set $C$ such that $(A,C)$ and $(C,C)$ are critical pairs; furthermore, we can also arrange matters so that $(C,kC)$ is a critical pair for all bounded $k$ (e.g. all $1 \\leq k \\leq 10^4$), where $kC = C + \\dots + C$ is the $k$-fold iterated sumset of $C$. This implies in particular that $C$ has linear growth in the sense that $\\mu_G(kC) \\approx k\\mu_G(C)$ for all bounded $k$, which by existing tools in inverse sumset theory (in particular using arguments of Schoen [@schoen] and Green-Ruzsa [@rect], [@green]) can be used to show that $C$ is very close to a Bohr set. As $(A,C)$ is a critical pair, some elementary analysis can then be deployed to show that $A$ is very close to a Bohr set parallel to $C$, and then as $(A,B)$ is also critical, $B$ is also very close to a Bohr set parallel to $A$, giving the claim.\n\nIn order to make notions such as \u201ccritical pair\u201d rigorous, it will be convenient to use the language of \u201ccheap nonstandard analysis\u201d [@cheap], working with a sequence $(A,B) = (A_n,B_n)$ of pairs in a sequence $G = G_n$ of groups, rather than with a single pair in a single group, so that asymptotic notation such as $o(1)$ can be usefully deployed. It should however be possible to reformulate the arguments below without this language, at the cost of having to pay significantly more attention to various ${\\varepsilon}$ and $\\delta$ type parameters.\n\nIn a subsequent paper with Joni Ter\u00e4v\u00e4inen, we will combine this theorem with the structural theory of correlations of bounded multiplicative functions (as developed recently in [@jt]) to obtain new results about the distribution of sign patterns $(f_1(n+1), f_2(n+2),\\dots, f_k(n+k))$ of various bounded multiplicative functions $f_1,\\dots,f_k$ such as the Liouville function $\\lambda(n)$, as well as generalisations such as $e^{2\\pi i \\Omega(n)/m}$ for a fixed natural number $m$, where $\\Omega(n)$ denotes the number of prime factors of $n$ (counting multiplicity).\n\nResults analogous to Theorem \\[inv-1\\] are known when the connected group $G$ is replaced by the discrete group ${\\mathbb{Z}}/p{\\mathbb{Z}}$: see [@freiman], [@rodseth], [@serra], [@rect], [@blr], [@g], as well as some further discussion in [@hgz]. In the recent paper [@candela], these results (particularly those in [@g]) are used to establish the $G={\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ case of Theorem \\[inv-1\\]. On the integers ${\\mathbb{Z}}$, a version of Theorem \\[inv-2\\] when $A, B \\subset {\\mathbb{Z}}$ have the same cardinality was obtained very recently in [@shao Corollary 5.2].\n\nAcknowledgments\n---------------\n\nThe author was supported by a Simons Investigator grant, the James and Carol Collins Chair, the Mathematical Analysis & Application Research Fund Endowment, and by NSF grant DMS-1266164. The author is indebted to Joni Ter\u00e4v\u00e4inen for key discussions that led to the author pursuing this question, and for helpful comments and corrections, and to Ben Green for some references. The author also thanks John Griesmer and the anonymous referees for further corrections and suggestions.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[ruzsa-thm\\] {#ruz}\n==============================\n\nWe now prove Theorem \\[ruzsa-thm\\]. By inner regularity of Haar measure and a limiting argument we may assume $A,B$ are compact. In the case $$\\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) - t \\geq 1,$$ we see that the set $A \\cap (x-B) = \\{ y \\in A: x-y \\in B \\}$ has measure at least $\\mu_G(A)+\\mu_G(B)-1 \\geq t$ for every $x \\in G$, and hence $1_A * 1_B(x) \\geq t$ for all $x \\in G$, giving the claim in this case. Thus we may assume that $\\mu_G(A)+\\mu_G(B)-t < 1$. We may also assume that $G$ is non-trivial, which (by the connectedness of $G$) implies that there exist measurable subsets of $G$ of arbitrary measure between $0$ and $1$.\n\nFix $G$, let $B$ be a compact subset of $G$, and let $0 \\leq t \\leq \\mu_G(B)$ be a real number. For any compact $A \\subset G$, define the quantity $$c(A) \\coloneqq \\int_G \\min(1_A * 1_B, t)\\ d\\mu_G - t (\\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) -t),$$ and then for every $a \\in [0,1]$, let $f(a)$ denote the infimum of $c(A)$ over all $A$ with $\\mu_G(A)=a$. Our task is to show that $f$ is non-negative on the interval $[t, 1-\\mu_G(B)+t]$.\n\nIf $\\mu_G(A) = 1-\\mu_G(B)+t$, then by the previous discussion we have $1_A * 1_B(x) \\geq t$ for all $x \\in G$, and hence $c(A)=0$; hence $f(1-\\mu_G(B)+t)=0$. At the other extreme, if $\\mu_G(A) = t$, then $1_A * 1_B(x) \\leq t$ for all $x \\in G$, and hence from Fubini\u2019s theorem we again have $c(A) = 0$.\n\nObserve that if one modifies $A$ by a set of measure at most $\\delta$, then $c(A)$ varies by $O(\\delta)$. From this we conclude that $f$ is Lipschitz continuous. Thus, if we assume for contradiction that $f$ is not always non-negative; then there must exist a point $a$ in the interior of $[t, 1-\\mu_G(B)+t]$ where $f$ attains a global negative minimum and is not locally constant in a neighbourhood of $a$. In particular, there exist arbitrarily small ${\\varepsilon}$ such that $$\\label{fae}\n f(a) < \\frac{f(a-{\\varepsilon}) + f(a+{\\varepsilon})}{2}.$$\n\nOn the other hand, we observe the crucial submodularity property $$\\label{submod}\n c(A_1) + c(A_2) \\geq c(A_1 \\cap A_2)+ c(A_1 \\cup A_2)$$ for all measurable sets $A_1,A_2 \\subset G$. To see this, we begin with the inclusion-exclusion identity $$1_{A_1} + 1_{A_2} = 1_{A_1 \\cap A_2} + 1_{A_1 \\cup A_2}$$ which implies that $$1_{A_1} * 1_B + 1_{A_2} * 1_B = 1_{A_1 \\cap A_2} * 1_B + 1_{A_1 \\cup A_2} * 1_B.$$ Observe that for each $x \\in G$, we have the pointwise inequalities $$1_{A_1 \\cap A_2} * 1_B(x) \\leq 1_{A_1} * 1_B(x), 1_{A_2} * 1_B(x) \\leq 1_{A_1 \\cup A_2} * 1_B(x);$$ by the concavity of the map $x \\mapsto \\min(x,t)$ we therefore have the pointwise bound $$\\label{a12b}\n \\min( 1_{A_1} * 1_B , t ) + \\min( 1_{A_2} * 1_B, t) \\geq \\min( 1_{A_1 \\cap A_2} * 1_B, t) + \\min( 1_{A_1 \\cup A_2} * 1_B, t).$$ Integrating over $G$ and using the inclusion-exclusion formula $\\mu_G(A_1) + \\mu_G(A_2) = \\mu_G(A_1 \\cap A_2) + \\mu_G(A_1 \\cup A_2)$, we obtain as desired.\n\nLet $A$ be such that $\\mu_G(A)=a$, and let ${\\varepsilon}>0$ be a small quantity such that holds. Now we observe the following application of connectedness:\n\n\\[cont\\] Let $A$ be a measurable subset of $G$, and let $t$ be any real number with $\\mu_G(A)^2 \\leq t \\leq \\mu_G(A)$. Then there exists $x \\in G$ such that $\\mu_G(A \\cap (x+A)) = t$.\n\nThe function $x \\mapsto 1_A * 1_{-A}(x) = \\mu_G( A \\cap (x+A))$, being a convolution of $L^2$ functions, is a continuous function of $x$ that equals $\\mu_G(A)$ when $x=0$, and has a mean value of $\\mu_G(A)^2$ on $G$ by Fubini\u2019s theorem. The claim then follows from the intermediate value theorem and the connectedness of $G$.\n\nBy Lemma \\[cont\\], there exists $x \\in G$ such that $\\mu_G( A \\cap (x+A) ) = a - {\\varepsilon}$, and hence by inclusion-exclusion $\\mu_G(A \\cup (x+A) ) = a+{\\varepsilon}$. From with $A_1,A_2$ replaced by $A, x+A$ we have $$c( A) + c(x+A) \\geq c(A \\cap (x+A)) + c(A \\cup (x+A)) \\geq f(a-{\\varepsilon}) + f(a+{\\varepsilon}).$$ By translation invariance we have $c(x+A) = c(A)$, hence $$2c(A) \\geq f(a-{\\varepsilon}) + f(a+{\\varepsilon}).$$ Taking infima over all $A$ with $\\mu_G(A) = a$, we contradict , and the claim follows.\n\nWith some minor notational modifications, this argument also works for nonabelian compact connected groups; see [@blog].\n\nProof of Corollary \\[cor\\] {#cor-sec}\n==========================\n\nWe now prove Corollary \\[cor\\]. Suppose that $A,B$ are compact subsets of a compact connected abelian group $G$ are such that equality holds in . We may assume that $\\mu_G(A), \\mu_G(B), 1 - \\mu_G(A)-\\mu_G(B) > 0$, since we are done otherwise. Applying Theorem \\[inv-1\\], we conclude that there exist sequences $\\phi_n^{-1}(I_n), \\phi_n^{-1}(J_n)$ of parallel Bohr sets such that $$\\mu_G( A \\Delta \\phi^{-1}_n(I_n) ), \\mu_G( B \\Delta \\phi^{-1}_n(J_n) )  = o(1),$$ where in this section we use $o(1)$ to denote a quantity that goes to zero as $n \\to \\infty$. In particular, the arcs $I_n,J_n$ in the circle ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ have measure $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(I_n) = \\mu_G(A) + o(1), \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(J_n) = \\mu_G(B) + o(1).$$ Taking Fourier coefficients, we see that $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\left| \\int_G 1_A(x) e^{2\\pi i \\phi_n(x)}\\ d\\mu_G(x) \\right| &= \\left|\\int_{I_n} e^{2\\pi i \\alpha}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(\\alpha)\\right| + o(1) \\\\\n&= \\frac{1}{\\pi} \\sin(\\pi \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(I_n)) + o(1) \\\\\n&= \\frac{1}{\\pi} \\sin(\\pi \\mu_G(A)) + o(1).\\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, from Plancherel\u2019s theorem we have $$\\sum_{\\phi \\in \\hat G}  \\left| \\int_G 1_A(x) e^{2\\pi i \\phi(x)}\\ d\\mu_G(x) \\right|^2 = \\mu_G(A)$$ where the Pontryagin dual group $\\hat G$ consists of all continuous homomorphisms $\\phi$ from $G$ to ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$. Thus, for $n$ large enough, there are only boundedly many possible choices for $\\phi_n$, and by passing to a subsequence if necessary we may assume that $\\phi_n = \\phi$ does not depend on $n$. For $n,n' \\to \\infty$, we now have $$\\mu_G( A \\Delta \\phi^{-1}(I_n) ), \\mu_G( A \\Delta \\phi^{-1}(I_{n'}) ) \\to 0,$$ and hence by the triangle inequality $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( I_n \\Delta I_{n'} ) = \\mu_G( \\phi^{-1}(I_n) \\Delta \\phi^{-1}(I_{n'}) ) \\to 0$$ as $n,n' \\to \\infty$. By the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, we may thus find a compact arc $I$ independent of $n$ such that $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( I_n \\Delta I) \\to 0$$ as $n \\to \\infty$, which implies that $$\\mu_G( \\phi^{-1}(I_n) \\Delta \\phi^{-1}(I) ) \\to 0$$ as $n \\to \\infty$. Hence by the triangle inequality, $A$ and $\\phi^{-1}(I)$ must agree $\\mu_G$-almost everywhere; as $A$ is compact, it cannot omit any interior point of $\\phi^{-1}(I)$ (as this would also exclude a set of positive $\\mu_G$ measure from $A$, and hence $A$ must therefore consist of the union of $\\phi^{-1}(I)$ and a $\\mu_G$-null set $E$. Similarly, there is a compact arc $J$ such that $B$ consists of the union of $\\phi^{-1}(J)$ and a $\\mu_G$-null set $F$. Thus $A+B$ contains $\\phi^{-1}(I+J)$, which has measure $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(I+J) = \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(I)+\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(J) = \\mu_G(\\phi^{-1}(I)) + \\mu_G(\\phi^{-1}(J)) = \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B);$$ since holds, we conclude that $A+B$ is in fact equal to the union of $\\phi^{-1}(I+J)$ and a $\\mu_G$-null set. Thus for every $a \\in A$, the set $a + \\phi^{-1}(J)$ lies in the union of $\\phi^{-1}(I+J)$ and a $\\mu_G$-null set, which forces $a$ to lie in $\\phi^{-1}(I)$; thus $A = \\phi^{-1}(I)$, and similarly $B = \\phi^{-1}(J)$, giving the claim.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[inv-2\\] {#cheap}\n==========================\n\nWe now prove Theorem \\[inv-2\\]. It will be convenient to reformulate the result in terms of a \u201ccheap\u201d form of nonstandard analysis (as used in [@cheap]), involving sequences of potential counterexamples. The full machinery of nonstandard analysis, such as ultraproducts and the construction of Loeb measure, will not be needed for this reformulation; one could certainly insert such machinery into the arguments below, but they do not appear to dramatically simplify the proofs.\n\nWe will need a natural number parameter $n$. In the sequel, all mathematical objects will be permitted to depend on this parameter (and can thus be viewed as a sequence of objects), unless explicitly declared to be \u201cfixed\u201d. Usually we will suppress the dependence on $n$. For instance, a sequence $G_n$ of compact abelian groups will be abbreviated as $G = G_n$. A real number $x = x_n$ depending on $n$ is said to be *infinitesimal* if one has $\\lim_{n \\to \\infty} x_n = 0$, in which case we write $x = o(1)$. If $x = x_n$, $y = y_n$ are real numbers such that $|x_n| \\leq Cy_n$ for all sufficiently large $n$ and some fixed $C>0$, we write $x \\ll y$, $y \\gg x$, or $x = O(y)$. Two measurable subsets $A = A_n$, $B = B_n$ of a compact abelian group $G = G_n$ are said to be *asymptotically equivalent* if one has $\\mu_G( A \\Delta B ) = o(1)$. This is clearly an equivalence relation.\n\nTheorem \\[inv-2\\] can now be deduced from the following variant:\n\n\\[inv-3\\] Let $A = A_n, B = B_n$ be measurable subsets of a sequence $G = G_n$ of compact connected abelian groups with $$\\label{muab}\n \\mu_G(A), \\mu_G(B), 1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(B) \\gg 1$$ and $$\\label{muab-2}\n \\mu_G(A +_\\delta B) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) + o(1)$$ for some infinitesimal $\\delta > 0$. Then there exist parallel Bohr sets $\\phi^{-1}(I) = \\phi_n^{-1}(I_n)$ and $\\phi^{-1}(J) = \\phi_n^{-1}(J_n)$ in $G = G_n$ such that $A$ and $B$ are asymptotically equivalent to $\\phi^{-1}(I), \\phi^{-1}(J)$ respectively.\n\nLet us assume Theorem \\[inv-3\\] for now and see how it implies Theorem \\[inv-2\\] (and hence also Theorem \\[inv-1\\]). Suppose for contradiction that Theorem \\[inv-2\\] fails. Carefully negating the quantifiers, and applying the axiom of choice, we conclude that there exists an ${\\varepsilon}>0$, such that for every natural number $n$ there are measurable subsets $A = A_n, B = B_n$ of a compact connected abelian group $G = G_n$ such that for every $n$ one has $$\\mu_G(A), \\mu_G(B), 1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(B) \\geq {\\varepsilon}$$ and $$\\mu_G(A +_{1/n} B) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) + \\frac{1}{n},$$ but such that for each $n$, there do *not* exist parallel Bohr sets $\\phi_n^{-1}(I_n), \\phi_n^{-1}(J_n)$ such that $$\\mu_G( A_n \\Delta \\phi_n^{-1}(I_n) ), \\mu_G( B_n \\Delta \\phi^{-1}(J_n) ) \\leq {\\varepsilon}.$$ By applying Theorem \\[inv-3\\] with the infinitesimal $\\delta = \\delta_n \\coloneqq \\frac{1}{n}$, we know that $A,B$ are asymptotically equivalent respectively to parallel Bohr sets $\\phi^{-1}(I), \\phi^{-1}(J)$. But by taking $n$ large enough, this contradicts the previous statement.\n\nIt remains to prove Theorem \\[inv-3\\]. One of the main reasons of passing to this formulation is that it allows for[^2] the following convenient definition. In the sequel $G = G_n$ is understood to be a sequence of compact connected abelian groups with probability Haar measure $\\mu = \\mu_n$. A pair $(A,B)$ of measurable subsets of $G$ is said to be a *critical pair*[^3] if one has the properties , for some infinitesimal $\\delta>0$. Our goal is thus to prove that every critical pair is equivalent to a pair of parallel Bohr sets.\n\nIt turns out that the space of critical pairs is closed under a number of operations. Clearly it is symmetric: $(A,B)$ is a critical pair if and only if $(B,A)$ is. It is also obvious that if $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, then so is $(A+x,B+y)$ for any $x,y \\in G$, where $A+x \\coloneqq \\{ a +x: a \\in A \\}$ denotes the translate of $A$ by $x$. Next, we observe that it is insensitive to asymptotic equivalence:\n\n\\[crit-equiv\\] Suppose that $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, and that $A'$ is asymptotically equivalent to $A$. Then $(A',B)$ is also a critical pair.\n\nOf course by symmetry, the same statement holds if we replace $B$ by an asymptotically equivalent $B'$. Thus one only needs to know $A,B$ up to asymptotic equivalence to determine if $(A,B)$ form a critical pair.\n\nBy hypothesis, there exists an infinitesimal ${\\varepsilon}>0$ such that $$\\mu_G(A' \\Delta A) \\leq {\\varepsilon},$$ which implies the pointwise bound $$| 1_{A'} * 1_B - 1_A * 1_B | \\leq {\\varepsilon}$$ and hence we have the inclusion $$A' +_{\\delta+{\\varepsilon}} B \\subset A +_\\delta B$$ for any $\\delta>0$. On the other hand, as $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, there exists an infinitesimal $\\delta>0$ such that $$\\mu_G(A +_\\delta B) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) + o(1),$$ and hence $$\\mu_G(A' +_{\\delta+{\\varepsilon}} B) \\leq \\mu_G(A') + \\mu_G(B) + o(1).$$ From this we easily verify that $(A',B)$ is a critical pair as claimed.\n\nWe can now simplify the problem by observing that if one element $(A,B)$ of a critical pair is already asymptotically equivalent to a Bohr set, then so is the other:\n\n\\[p1\\] Let $(A,B)$ be a critical pair, and suppose that $B$ is asymptotically equivalent to a Bohr set $\\phi^{-1}(J)$. Then $A$ is asymptotically equivalent to a parallel Bohr set $\\phi^{-1}(I)$.\n\nBy Lemma \\[crit-equiv\\], we may assume without loss of generality that $B = \\phi^{-1}(J)$; also, by translation invariance we may assume that $J = [0,t] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ for some $t$ with $$\\label{muat}\n\\mu_G(A), t, 1 - \\mu_G(A) - t \\gg 1.$$ As $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, there exists an infinitesimal $\\delta>0$ such that the set $C \\coloneqq A +_\\delta B$ has measure $$\\mu_G(C) = \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) + o(1) = \\mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$\n\nThe set $B$ is invariant with respect to translations in the kernel of $\\phi$, so $C$ is similarly invariant, thus $C = \\phi^{-1}(E)$ for some measurable subset $E$ of ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ with $$\\label{met}\n\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(E) = \\mu_G(C) = \\mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$\n\nThe pullback map $\\phi^*: g \\mapsto g \\circ \\phi$ is an isometry from $L^2({\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}, \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ to $L^2(G, \\mu_G)$. Taking adjoints, we obtain a pushforward map $\\phi_*: L^2( G, \\mu_G ) \\mapsto L^2({\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}, \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ such that $$\\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\phi_*(f)(\\alpha) g(\\alpha)\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(\\alpha) = \\int_G f(x) g(\\phi(x))\\ d\\mu_G(x)$$ for all $f \\in L^2(G,\\mu_G)$ and $g \\in L^2({\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}, \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}})$. It is easy to see that the map $\\phi_*$ is monotone with $\\phi_*(1)=1$ (up to almost everywhere equivalence). If we write $f_A \\coloneqq \\phi_* 1_A$ for the pushforward of $1_A$, then $f_A$ takes values in $[0,1]$ (after modifying on a set of measure zero if necessary), and we have $$\\label{rza}\n \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} f_A\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = \\int_G 1_A\\ d\\mu_G = \\mu_G(A).$$ Also, since $1_A * 1_B = 1_A * 1_{\\phi^{-1}(J)}$ is bounded by $o(1)$ outside of $C = \\phi^{-1}(E)$, we see that $f_A * 1_J$ is bounded almost everywhere by $o(1)$ outside of $E$, thus $$\\label{rze}\n \\int_{({\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}) \\backslash E} f_A * 1_{[0,t] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Let $\\lambda > 0$ be any fixed parameter, and let $F_\\lambda \\subset {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ denote the set $F_\\lambda \\coloneqq \\{ f_A \\geq \\lambda \\}$, then we have $$\\int_{({\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}) \\backslash E} 1_{F_\\lambda} * 1_{[0,t] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ From Markov\u2019s inequality, we conclude that for any fixed ${\\varepsilon}>0$, all but $o(1)$ in measure of the set $F_\\lambda +_{\\varepsilon}J$ is contained in $E$, thus $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( F_\\lambda +_{\\varepsilon}J ) \\leq \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(E) + o(1) = \\mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from Corollary \\[kemp-cor\\] we have $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( F_\\lambda +_{\\varepsilon}J ) \\geq \\min( \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(F_\\lambda) + t, 1 ) - 2 \\sqrt{{\\varepsilon}};$$ combining the two bounds and sending ${\\varepsilon}$ to zero, we conclude using that $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(F_\\lambda) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + o(1).$$ for any fixed $\\lambda>0$. Sending $\\lambda$ sufficiently slowly to zero as $n \\to \\infty$, we conclude on diagonalising that $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( F_\\kappa ) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + o(1)$$ for some infinitesimal $\\kappa>0$. Combining this with and the pointwise bound $f_A \\leq 1_{F_\\kappa} + o(1)$, we conclude that $$\\mu_G(A) = \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} f_A\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\leq \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} 1_{F_\\kappa}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} + o(1) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + o(1)$$ which implies in particular that $$\\label{mfk}\n\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(F_\\kappa) = \\mu_G(A) + o(1)$$ and $$\\label{rzf}\n \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} |1_{F_\\kappa} - f_A|\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Pulling back to $G$, this implies that $$\\int_{G} |1_{\\phi^{-1}(F_\\kappa)} - 1_A|\\ d\\mu_G = o(1),$$ thus $A$ is asymptotically equivalent to $\\phi^{-1}(F_\\kappa)$. Thus to establish the proposition, it suffices to show that $F_\\kappa$ is asymptotically equivalent to an arc.\n\nFrom , we have $$\\label{rzg}\n \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}\\backslash E} 1_{F_\\kappa} * 1_{[0,t]\\text{ mod }{\\mathbb{Z}}}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ This bound can be used to show that partial sumsets of $F_\\kappa$ and $[0,t] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ are mostly contained in $E$. However, it does not control the full sumset of these two sets. To get around this difficulty, we \u201csmooth\u201d $F_\\kappa$ somewhat by replacing it with a modified set $H_\\sigma$. More precisely, let $0 < \\sigma < t$ be a small fixed quantity, and let $H_\\sigma \\subset {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ be the set $H_\\sigma \\coloneqq F_\\kappa +_{\\sigma^2} ([0,\\sigma] \\text{ mod }{\\mathbb{Z}})$. Observe that if $x \\in H_\\sigma$, then one has the pointwise lower bound $1_{F_\\kappa} * 1_{[0,t]\\text{ mod }{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\geq \\sigma^2$ on the arc $x + ([0, t-\\sigma] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})$; thus $$1_{F_\\kappa} * 1_{[0,t]\\text{ mod }{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\geq \\sigma^2 1_{H_\\sigma + [0, t-\\sigma] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}}.$$ From this, and Markov\u2019s inequality we conclude that all but $o(1)$ in measure of $H_\\sigma + ([0, t-\\sigma] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})$ lies in $E$. By , we conclude that $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( H_\\sigma + ([0, t-\\sigma] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from Corollary \\[kemp-cor\\] and , one has $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(H_\\sigma) \\geq \\min( \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(F_\\kappa) + t - \\sigma, 1 ) - 2 \\sigma \\geq \\mu_G(A) - 3 \\sigma + o(1).$$ The situation here is reminiscent of that for which the inverse theorem for the Brunn-Minkowski inequality (see [@figalli], [@christ], [@christ2]), can be applied, but we are on the circle ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ instead of the line ${\\mathbb{R}}$. However, as one of the sets involved is an arc, we can use the following elementary argument. As $H_\\sigma$ is measurable, it is asymptotically equivalent to some finite union $K$ of arcs. For each $0 \\leq s \\leq t-\\sigma$, the set $K_s \\coloneqq K + ([0,s] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})$ is also a finite union of arcs, with $$\\mu_G(A) - 3\\sigma + o(1) \\leq \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(K_0) \\leq \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(K_{t-\\sigma}) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + t + o(1).$$ It is easy to see that the function $s \\mapsto \\mu_G(K_s)$ is continuous and piecewise linear, with all slopes being positive integers. From the fundamental theorem of calculus, we thus see that the slope must in fact equal $1$ for all $s$ in $[0,t-\\sigma]$ outside of a set of measure at most $4\\sigma+o(1)$. The slope can only equal one when $K_s$ is an arc, thus $K_s$ must be an arc for some $s \\leq 4\\sigma+o(1)$. From the fundamental theorem of calculus again, we have $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(K_s) \\leq \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(K_{t-\\sigma}) - (t-\\sigma-s) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + 5\\sigma+o(1)$$ and thus $K = K_0$ differs by at most $O(\\sigma)+o(1)$ in measure from an arc of length $\\mu_G(A) + O(\\sigma) + o(1)$, where we adopt the convention that implied constants in asymptotic notation are independent of $\\sigma$. This implies that $H_\\sigma$ differs by $O(\\sigma)+o(1)$ in measure from an arc $I$ of length $\\mu_G(A) + O(\\sigma) + o(1)$. Since $1_{F_\\kappa} * 1_{[0,\\sigma] \\text{ mod }{\\mathbb{Z}}}$ is bounded pointwise by $\\sigma$, and by $\\sigma^2$ outside of $H_\\sigma$, we conclude that $$\\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}\\backslash I} 1_{F_\\kappa} * 1_{[0,\\sigma] \\text{ mod }{\\mathbb{Z}}}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\ll \\sigma^2 + o(1)$$ which by Fubini\u2019s theorem implies that $F_\\kappa$ has at most $O(\\sigma) + o(1)$ in measure outside of the arc $I - [0,\\sigma]$, which has measure $\\mu_G(A) + O(\\sigma) + o(1)$. From we conclude that $F_\\kappa$ differs from an arc of measure $\\mu_G(A)$ by at most $O(\\sigma)+o(1)$ in measure. Sending $\\sigma$ to zero sufficiently slowly as $n \\to \\infty$, we obtain the claim.\n\nIf $(A,B)$ is a critical pair, define an *almost sumset* $A +_{o(1)} B$ of the pair to be any set of the form $A +_\\delta B$, where $\\delta>0$ is an infinitesimal obeying . Clearly at least one almost sumset exists. The almost sumset is not unique; however, if $\\delta >\\delta' > 0$ are two infinitesimals obeying , then we certainly have $$A +_\\delta B \\supset A +_{\\delta'} B$$ and hence from Corollary \\[kemp-cor\\] $$\\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) + o(1) \\geq \\mu_G( A +_\\delta B ) \\geq \\mu_G( A +_{\\delta'} B ) \\geq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) - o(1)$$ and hence $A +_\\delta B$ and $A +_{\\delta'} B$ are asymptotically equivalent. Thus, the almost sumset $A +_{o(1)} B$ is well defined up to asymptotic equivalence. As a first approximation, the reader may think of $A +_{o(1)} B$ as being the full sumset $A+B$; however, we do not use the latter set for technical reasons (it is not stable with respect to asymptotic equivalence).\n\nWe now observe the following submodularity property, related to :\n\n\\[submod-lemma\\] Suppose that $(A,B_1), (A,B_2)$ are critical pairs with $$\\mu_G(B_1 \\cap B_2), 1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(B_1 \\cup B_2) \\gg 1.$$ Then $(A, B_1 \\cap B_2)$ and $(A, B_1 \\cup B_2)$ are also critical pairs.\n\nThe reader may wish to check that the lemma is true in the case when $A,B_1,B_2$ are parallel Bohr sets. Of course, once Theorem \\[inv-3\\] is proven we know that this is essentially the only case in which the hypotheses of the lemma apply, but we cannot use this fact directly as this would be circular.\n\nThe properties for $(A, B_1 \\cap B_2)$ and $(A, B_1 \\cup B_2)$ are clear from construction, so it suffices to show that also holds for these pairs.\n\nBy hypothesis, we can find an infinitesimal $\\delta>0$ such that $$\\mu_G( A +_\\delta B_1 ) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1) + o(1)$$ and $$\\mu_G( A +_\\delta B_2 ) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_2) + o(1)$$ (note that we can use the same $\\delta$ for both critical pairs $(A,B_1), (A,B_2)$ by increasing one of the $\\delta$\u2019s as necessary). In particular, from the pointwise bound $$\\min( 1_A * 1_{B_1}, \\sqrt{\\delta} ) \\leq \\sqrt{\\delta} 1_{A +_\\delta B_1} + \\delta$$ one has $$\\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_{B_1}, \\sqrt{\\delta} )\\ d\\mu_G \\leq \\sqrt{\\delta}( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1) + o(1) ) + \\delta = \\sqrt{\\delta}( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1) + o(1) )$$ and similarly $$\\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_{B_2}, \\sqrt{\\delta} )\\ d\\mu_G \\leq \\sqrt{\\delta}( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_2) + o(1) ).$$ Summing and applying (with the obvious relabeling) together with the inclusion-exclusion identity $\\mu_G(B_1)+\\mu_G(B_2) = \\mu_G(B_1 \\cap B_2) + \\mu_G(B_1 \\cup B_2)$, we conclude that $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \\cap B_2}, \\sqrt{\\delta} )\\ d\\mu_G + \\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \\cup B_2}, \\sqrt{\\delta} )\\ d\\mu_G \\\\\n&\\quad \\leq \\sqrt{\\delta}( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1 \\cap B_2) + \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1 \\cup B_2) + o(1) ).\\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, from Theorem \\[ruzsa-thm\\] we have $$\\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \\cap B_2}, \\sqrt{\\delta} )\\ d\\mu_G \\geq \\sqrt{\\delta}( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1 \\cap B_2) - o(1))$$ and similarly $$\\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \\cup B_2}, \\sqrt{\\delta} )\\ d\\mu_G \\geq \\sqrt{\\delta}( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1 \\cup B_2) - o(1))$$ Thus we in fact have $$\\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \\cap B_2}, \\sqrt{\\delta} )\\ d\\mu_G = \\sqrt{\\delta}( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1 \\cap B_2) + o(1))$$ and $$\\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_{B_1 \\cup B_2}, \\sqrt{\\delta} )\\ d\\mu_G = \\sqrt{\\delta}( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1 \\cup B_2) + o(1))$$ In particular, we have $$\\mu_G(A +_{\\sqrt{\\delta}} (B_1 \\cap B_2)) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1 \\cap B_2) + o(1)$$ and $$\\mu_G(A +_{\\sqrt{\\delta}} (B_1 \\cup B_2)) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1 \\cup B_2) + o(1)$$ We thus obtain for $(A,B_1 \\cap B_2)$ and $(A,B_1 \\cup B_2)$ as desired (with $\\delta$ replaced by $\\sqrt{\\delta}$).\n\nWe can iterate this lemma to obtain\n\n\\[iter\\] Let $(A,B)$ be a critical pair, and let $\\delta>0$ be fixed. Then there exists a measurable set $C$ with $\\mu_G(C) \\leq \\delta$ such that $(A,C)$ is a critical pair.\n\nBy hypothesis, there exists a fixed $c>0$ such that $$\\mu_G(A), \\mu_G(B), 1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(B) \\geq c$$ for $n$ large enough. For the given $A,B$ and any fixed $\\delta>0$, let $P(\\delta)$ denote the assertion that there exists $C$ with $\\mu_G(C) \\leq \\min(\\mu_G(B),\\delta)$ such that $(A,C)$ is a critical pair. Clearly $P(\\delta)$ holds for any $\\delta \\geq 1-c$, as one can simply take $C = B$. Now suppose that $P(\\delta)$ holds for some $\\delta \\leq 1-c$, thus there exists $C$ with $\\mu_G(C) \\leq \\delta$ and $(A,C)$ a critical pair. By Lemma \\[cont\\], one can find $x \\in G$ such that $\\mu_G( C \\cap (x+C) ) = \\max( \\mu_G(C)^2, \\mu_G(C) - c/2 )$. Observe that $$1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(C \\cup (x+C)) \\geq 1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(C) - c/2 \\geq 1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(B) - c/2 \\geq c/2.$$ As $(A,C)$ and $(A,x+C)$ are both critical pairs, we conclude from Lemma \\[submod-lemma\\] that $(A, C \\cap (x+C))$ is also a critical pair. Thus $P(\\delta')$ holds for all $\\delta' \\geq \\max(\\delta^2, \\delta-c/2)$. Iterating this, we conclude that $P(\\delta)$ holds for all fixed $\\delta>0$, giving the claim.\n\nAs a consequence of this corollary and Proposition \\[p1\\], we may now reduce Theorem \\[inv-3\\] to the following variant:\n\n\\[inv-4\\] Let $K$ be a sufficiently large absolute constant. Suppose that $(A,C)$ is a critical pair such that $$\\label{mu}\n \\mu_G(A) + K \\mu_G(C) < 1$$ and $$\\label{mu2}\n \\mu_G(A) \\geq K \\mu_G(C).$$ Then $C$ is asymptotically equivalent to a Bohr set.\n\nOne can in fact take $K=10^4$ in our arguments, but the exact value of $K$ will not be of importance to us.\n\nWe now claim that Theorem \\[inv-3\\] follows from Theorem \\[inv-4\\]. Indeed, if $(A,B)$ is a critical pair and $K$ is as as in Theorem \\[inv-4\\], then by applying Corollary \\[iter\\] with a sufficiently small $\\delta$ we may find a critical pair $(A,C)$ obeying , . By Theorem \\[inv-4\\], $C$ is asymptotically equivalent to a Bohr set, which by Proposition \\[p1\\] implies that $A$ is asymptotically equivalent to a parallel Bohr set. But by a second application of Proposition \\[p1\\], we conclude that $B$ is also asymptotically equivalent to a parallel Bohr set, and Theorem \\[inv-3\\] follows.\n\nIt remains to establish Theorem \\[inv-4\\]. To do this, we first iterate Lemma \\[submod-lemma\\] in a different fashion to obtain\n\n\\[muto\\] Suppose that $(A,B_1), (A,B_2)$ are critical pairs with $$\\label{mut}\n\\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(B_1), 1 - \\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(B_1) - \\mu_G(B_2) \\gg 1.$$ Then $(B_1,B_2)$, $(A +_{o(1)} B_1, B_2)$, and $(A, B_1 +_{o(1)} B_2)$ are critical pairs.\n\nRecall that $A +_{o(1)} B_1$ and $B_1 +_{o(1)} B_2$ are only defined up to asymptotic equivalence (with the latter only existing because $(B_1,B_2)$ is a critical pair), but this is of no concern here thanks to Lemma \\[crit-equiv\\]. As before, the reader may verify that this claim is easily checked in the case that $A,B_1,B_2$ are parallel Bohr sets.\n\nBy definition, we can write $A +_{o(1)} B_1$ as $A +_\\delta B_1$ for some infinitesimal $\\delta>0$ with $$\\label{mad}\n \\mu_G( A +_\\delta B_1 ) = \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1) + o(1).$$ Now let $m$ be a fixed large natural number, thus $\\delta = \\delta_n \\leq 1/m$ for $n$ large enough. From Corollary \\[kemp-cor\\] one has $$\\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1) + o(1) \\geq \\mu_G( A +_\\delta B_1 ) \\geq \\mu_G( A +_{1/m} B_1 ) \\geq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1) - O(1/\\sqrt{m}),$$ where we adopt the convention in this proof that implied constants in the $O()$ and $\\ll$ asymptotic notation are independent of $m$. Hence we have $$\\label{aim-o}\n \\mu_G( (A +_\\delta B_1) \\backslash (A +_{1/m} B_1) ) \\ll 1/\\sqrt{m}$$ for $n$ large enough.\n\nNext, we claim there exists a finite set $X_m \\subset B_1$ of cardinality at most $m^2$, such that $$\\label{aim}\n \\mu_G( (A + X_m) \\Delta (A +_\\delta B_1) ) \\ll 1/\\sqrt{m}$$ for all sufficiently large $n$. To establish this claim we use the probabilistic method. Let $x_1,\\dots,x_{m^2}$ be chosen independently and uniformly from $B_1$ (using the probability measure $\\frac{1}{\\mu_G(B_1)} \\mu\\downharpoonright_{B_1}$ formed by restricting $\\frac{1}{\\mu_G(B_1)} \\mu$ to $B_1$). Form the random set $X_m \\coloneqq \\{x_1,\\dots,x_{m^2}\\}$. For any $x \\in G$, we see that $x \\in A+X_m$ precisely when at least one of $x_1,\\dots,x_{m^2}$ lie in $x-A$. By construction, this occurs with probability $$1 - (1-\\mu_G( (x-A) \\cap B_1 ) / \\mu_G(B_1))^{m^2} = 1 - (1-1_A * 1_{B_1}(x) / \\mu_G(B_1))^{m^2}.$$ In particular, if $x \\in A +_{1/m} B_1$, then $x \\in A+X_m$ with probability at least $1 - (1-1/m)^{m^2} = 1 - O( \\exp(-m) )$, while if $x \\not \\in A +_{\\delta} B_1$, then $x \\in A+X_m$ with probability $o(1)$. By linearity of expectation (or Fubini\u2019s theorem), we conclude that the expected measure of $(A +_{1/m} B_1) \\backslash (A+X)$ is $O(\\exp(-m))$, while the expected measure of $(A+X_m) \\backslash (A +_{\\delta} B_1)$ is $o(1)$. By Markov\u2019s inequality, we conclude that there exists a deterministic choice of $X_m$ such that $$\\mu_G((A +_{1/m} B_1) \\backslash (A+X_m)) \\ll \\exp(-m)$$ and $$\\mu_G((A+X_m) \\backslash (A +_{\\delta} B_1)) \\ll o(1)$$ and the claim follows from .\n\nFrom , we see in particular that $$\\mu_G( A + X_m ) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1) + O(1/\\sqrt{m})$$ for $n$ large enough, and hence by we have $$2\\mu_G(A) - \\mu_G(A + X_m) \\gg 1$$ for $n$ large enough. In particular, we see that for any $x,x' \\in X_m$, we have $$\\mu_G( (A+x) \\cap (A+x') ) \\gg 1.$$ A similar argument also gives $$1 - \\mu_G(A+X_m) - \\mu_G(B_2) \\gg 1.$$\n\nBy translation invariance, $(A+x, B_2)$ is a critical pair for each $x \\in X_m$. Applying Lemma \\[submod-lemma\\] at most $m^2$ times and using the above estimates to verify the hypotheses of that lemma, we conclude that $(A+X_m, B_2)$ is also a critical pair.\n\nThe set $A+X_m$ is not quite asymptotically equivalent to $A +_\\delta B_1$; but by and a diagonalisation argument we see that $A + X_{m_n}$ is asymptotically equivalent to $A +_\\delta B_1$ if $m_n$ goes to infinity sufficiently slowly as $n \\to \\infty$. As each $(A + X_m, B_2)$ is a critical pair, $(A + X_{m_n}, B_2)$ will also be a critical pair for $m_n$ going to infinity sufficiently slowly. Applying Lemma \\[crit-equiv\\], we conclude that $(A +_\\delta B_1, B_2)$ is a critical pair, giving the second of the three claims of the proposition.\n\nWrite $C \\coloneqq A +_\\delta B_1$, thus (as $(A,B_1)$ is a critical pair) $$\\label{cb1}\n\\mu_G(C) = \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1) + o(1).$$ As $(C,B_2)$ is a critical pair, there exists an infinitesimal $\\delta'>0$ such that $$\\label{cb2}\n \\mu_G( C +_{\\delta'} B_2 ) \\leq \\mu_G(C) + \\mu_G(B_2) + o(1).$$ Set $$\\sigma \\coloneqq (\\delta + \\delta')^{1/3},$$ thus $\\sigma>0$ is infinitesimal, and write $D \\coloneqq B_1 +_\\sigma B_2$. We now consider the expression $$\\label{1bd}\n \\int_{G \\backslash (C +_{\\delta'} B_2)} 1_A * 1_D\\ d\\mu_G.$$ By definition of $D$, we have the pointwise estimate $$1_D \\leq \\frac{1}{\\sigma} 1_{B_1} * 1_{B_2}$$ and hence we can bound by $$\\frac{1}{\\sigma} \\int_{G \\backslash (C +_{\\delta'} B_2)} 1_A * 1_{B_1} * 1_{B_2}\\ d\\mu_G$$ (here we implicitly use the fact that convolution is associative). On the other hand, by definition of $C$ we have the pointwise estimate $$1_A * 1_{B_1} \\leq \\delta + 1_C$$ and hence we can bound by $$\\frac{\\delta}{\\sigma} + \\frac{1}{\\sigma} \\int_{G \\backslash (C +_{\\delta'} B_2)} 1_C * 1_{B_2}\\ d\\mu_G.$$ Since $1_C * 1_{B_2}$ is bounded by $\\delta'$ outside of $C +_{\\delta'} B_2$, we conclude that $$\\int_{G \\backslash (C +_{\\delta'} B_2)} 1_A * 1_D\\ d\\mu_G \\leq \\frac{\\delta + \\delta'}{\\sigma} = \\sigma^2.$$ By Markov\u2019s inequality, we conclude that $$\\mu_G( (A +_\\sigma D) \\backslash (C +_{\\delta'} B_2) ) \\leq \\sigma = o(1)$$ and hence by , one has $$\\mu_G( A +_\\sigma D ) \\leq \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B_1) + \\mu_G(B_2) + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from two applications of Corollary \\[kemp-cor\\] (and ) one has $$\\mu_G(D) \\geq \\mu_G(B_1) + \\mu_G(B_2) - o(1)$$ and $$\\mu_G(A +_\\sigma D ) \\geq \\min( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(D), 1 ) - o(1).$$ By , these bounds can only be consistent if $$\\mu_G(D) = \\mu_G(B_1) + \\mu_G(B_2) + o(1)$$ and $$\\mu_G(A +_\\sigma D) = \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(D) + o(1)$$ so that $(B_1,B_2)$ and $(A,D)$ are both critical pairs, giving the final two claims of the proposition.\n\nIt is important in the above argument that we work with the almost sumset $A +_{o(1)} B_1$ rather than $A + B_1$, as we do not know how to approximate the latter set by sumsets $A+X$ of $A$ with a finite set $X$. As a consequence, even if one is only interested in Theorem \\[inv-1\\], the proof methods of this paper only seem to work if one first proves the stronger claim in Theorem \\[inv-2\\].\n\nNow we can finish the proof of Theorem \\[inv-4\\]. Let $K$ and $(A,C)$ be as in the statement of that theorem. From , , Proposition \\[muto\\], we see that $(C,C)$ is a critical pair, and there exists a set $C_2 = C +_{o(1)} C$ of measure $\\mu_G(C_2) = 2\\mu_G(C)+o(1)$ such that $(A,C_2)$ is a critical pair. By further iteration of Proposition \\[muto\\] using , , we in fact can find a set $C_k$ of measure $$\\label{muck}\n\\mu_G(C_k) = k \\mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ for each even number $k=2,4,\\dots,K-2$ such that $(A,C_k)$ is a critical pair, and for each even $k=2,\\dots,K-4$, $(C_2,C_k)$ is a critical pair with $$\\label{ck2}\n C_{k+2} = C_2 +_{o(1)} C_{k}.$$\n\nWe now use the linear growth to approximate $C$ by a Bohr set, using an argument of Schoen [@schoen] (later employed by Green and Ruzsa [@rect], [@green]) to locate the relevant character $\\phi$. The character $\\chi$ that this argument produces may not necessarily be the one used to construct the Bohr set, but it turns out that it is closely related to that character (one may have to divide the initial character by a bounded natural number).\n\nFrom we see that $1_{C_2} * 1_{C_k}$ is bounded pointwise by $1_{C_{k+2}} + o(1)$ for every even $k=2,\\dots,K-4$. By induction we then see that for every $k=1,\\dots,\\frac{K}{2}-2$, the $k$-fold convolution $$1_{C_2}^{*k} = 1_{C_2} * \\dots * 1_{C_2}$$ is bounded pointwise by $1_{C_{2k}} + o(1)$. In particular, by Fubini\u2019s theorem we have $$\\int_{C_{2k}} 1_{C_2}^{*k}\\ d\\mu_G \\geq \\mu_G(C_2)^k - o(1);$$ from and Cauchy-Schwarz, we conclude that $$\\int_G (1_{C_2}^{*k})^2\\ d\\mu_G \\geq \\frac{1}{2k} \\mu_G(C_2)^{2k-1} - o(1).$$ On the other hand, by Plancherel\u2019s theorem we may write $$\\int_G (1_{C_2}^{*k})^2\\ d\\mu_G = \\sum_{\\phi \\in \\hat G} |\\hat 1_{C_2}(\\phi)|^{2k}$$ where (as in Section \\[cor-sec\\]) the Pontryagin dual $\\hat G$ is the collection of all continuous homomorphisms (characters) $\\phi: G \\to {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$, and $\\hat 1_{C_2}(\\phi)$ are the Fourier coefficients $$\\hat 1_{C_2}(\\phi) \\coloneqq \\int_G 1_{C_2}(x) e^{-2\\pi i \\phi(x)}\\ d\\mu_G(x).$$ The contribution of the trivial homomorphism $0$ to the above sum is $\\mu_G(C_2)^{2k}$, which will be smaller than half the main term if $k \\leq K/8$, thanks to . We conclude that $$\\sum_{\\phi \\in \\hat G: \\phi \\neq 0} |\\hat 1_{C_2}(\\phi)|^{2k} \\geq \\frac{1}{4k} \\mu_G(C_2)^{2k-1} - o(1)$$ for $k \\leq K/8$ and $n$ large enough. On the other hand, from Plancherel\u2019s theorem we have $$\\sum_{\\phi \\in \\hat G} |\\hat 1_{C_2}(\\phi)|^{2} = \\mu_G(C_2).$$ We conclude that there exists a non-zero continuous homomorphism $\\phi: G \\to {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$|\\hat 1_{C_2}(\\phi)| \\geq \\frac{1}{(4k)^{\\frac{1}{2k-2}}} \\mu_G(C_2) - o(1).$$ Applying this with $k=\\left \\lfloor \\frac{K}{8} \\right \\rfloor$, we conclude in particular that $$\\label{hac}\n |\\hat 1_{C_2}(\\phi)| \\geq \\left(1 - O\\left(\\frac{\\log K}{K}\\right)\\right) \\mu_G(C_2) - o(1),$$ where we adopt the convention that implied constants in the $O()$ notation are independent of $K$. The image $\\phi(G)$ of $G$ is a non-trivial connected subgroup of ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$, and thus must be all of ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$; thus $\\phi$ is surjective.\n\n\\[remo\\] A good example to keep in mind here is if $G = {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$, $\\phi:{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}\\to {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ is a character $\\phi(x) \\coloneqq mx$ for some natural number $m \\ll 1$, $C = [0,c] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$, and $C_k = [0, kc] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ for $k=1,\\dots,K$ and some small $c\\gg 1$ (in particular $c < \\frac{1}{10Km}$, say). In this case we of course have $\\mu_G(C) = c$. Note that while $C$ is a Bohr set, the relevant character here is not $\\phi$, but rather the quotient $\\frac{1}{m} \\phi: x \\mapsto x$ of $\\phi$ by $m$. As such, we will need to perform such a quotienting step later in the argument.\n\nSince $C_2 = C +_{o(1)} C$, we have $$\\int_{G \\backslash C_2} 1_C * 1_C\\ d\\mu_G = o(1).$$ By Fubini\u2019s theorem, the left-hand side may be rewritten as $$\\int_C \\mu_G( (x+C) \\backslash C_2)\\ d\\mu_G(x)$$ and hence by Markov\u2019s inequality, there exists a subset $C'$ of $C$ asymptotically equivalent to $C$ such that $$\\label{mucc}\n \\mu_G( (x+C) \\backslash C_2) = o(1)$$ for all $x \\in C'$.\n\nFrom , there exists $\\theta \\in {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\\mathrm{Re} e^{2\\pi i\\theta} \\hat 1_{C_2}(\\phi) \\geq \\left(1 - O\\left(\\frac{\\log K}{K}\\right)\\right) \\mu_G(C_2) - o(1)$$ which we rearrange as $$\\int_{C_2} \\left(1 - \\cos(2\\pi (\\theta - \\phi(y)))\\right)\\ d\\mu_G(y) \\ll \\frac{\\log K}{K} \\mu_G(C_2) + o(1).$$ From and , we conclude in particular that for every $x \\in C'$, one has $$\\int_{x+C} \\left(1 - \\cos(2\\pi (\\theta - \\phi(y)))\\right)\\ d\\mu_G(y) \\ll \\frac{\\log K}{K} \\mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ and hence by change of variables $$\\int_{C} \\left(1 - \\cos(2\\pi (\\theta - \\phi(x) - \\phi(y)))\\right)\\ d\\mu_G(y) \\ll \\frac{\\log K}{K} \\mu_G(C) + o(1),$$ which by Cauchy-Schwarz implies that $$\\int_{C} \\left(1 - \\cos(2\\pi (\\theta - \\phi(x) - \\phi(y)))\\right)^{1/2}\\ d\\mu_G(y) \\leq \\left(\\frac{\\log K}{K}\\right)^{1/2} \\mu_G(C) + o(1);$$ noting the trigonometric identity $$|1 - e^{i \\alpha}| = \\sqrt{2(1-\\cos(\\alpha))}$$ we conclude that $$\\int_{C} \\left|1 - e^{2\\pi i(\\theta - \\phi(x) - \\phi(y))}\\right|\\ d\\mu_G(y) \\ll \\left(\\frac{\\log K}{K}\\right)^{1/2}  \\mu_G(C) + o(1).$$ From the triangle inequality, we conclude that for any $x,x' \\in C$, one has $$\\int_{C} \\left|e^{2\\pi i(\\theta - \\phi(x') - \\phi(y))} - e^{2\\pi i(\\theta - \\phi(x) - \\phi(y))}\\right|\\ d\\mu_G(y) \\ll \\left(\\frac{\\log K}{K}\\right)^{1/2} \\mu_G(C) + o(1).$$ But the left-hand side simplifies to $2\\mu_G(C) |\\sin(\\pi(\\phi(x) - \\phi(x')))|$, thus $$|\\sin(\\pi(\\phi(x) - \\phi(x')))| \\ll \\left(\\frac{\\log K}{K}\\right)^{1/2} + o(1)$$ for all $x,x' \\in C'$. Thus, if $\\| \\alpha \\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}$ denotes the distance of $\\alpha$ to the nearest integer, with the associated metric $d_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(\\alpha,\\beta) \\coloneqq \\| \\alpha - \\beta \\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}$ on ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$, then $\\phi(C')$ has diameter $O( (\\log K/K)^{1/2} )$ with respect to this metric. For $K$ large enough (in fact one can check that $K = 10^4$ would suffice), we conclude that there exists $\\alpha_0 \\in {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $$\\| \\phi(x) - \\alpha_0 \\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} < \\frac{1}{10}$$ for all $x \\in C'$.\n\nNote that we have the freedom to translate $C$ (and $C'$) by an arbitrary shift $x$ in $G$ (shifting $C_{2k}$ by $2kx$ accordingly) without affecting any of the above properties. From this and the surjectivity of $\\phi$, we may assume without loss of generality that $\\alpha_0=0$, thus $$\\label{st}\n \\| \\phi(x) \\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} < \\frac{1}{10}$$ for all $x \\in C'$.\n\nRecall the pushforward map $\\phi_*: L^2( G ) \\mapsto L^2({\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}})$ from the proof of Proposition \\[p1\\]. If we write $$f_{C'} \\coloneqq \\phi_*( 1_{C'} )$$ and $$f_{C_2} \\coloneqq \\phi_*( 1_{C_2} )$$ then $f_{C'}, f_{C_2}$ are (up to almost everywhere equivalence) functions on ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ taking values in $[0,1]$, with $$\\label{rz}\n \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C'}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = \\mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ and similarly $$\\label{rz2}\n \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C_2}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = \\mu_G(C_2) = 2 \\mu_G(C) + o(1).$$ From one has that $f_{C'}$ is supported in the arc $[-\\frac{1}{10},\\frac{1}{10}] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$. Let $\\tau \\coloneqq \\|f_{C'}\\|_\\infty$ denote the essential supremum of $f_{C'}$; since $\\mu_G(C) \\gg 1$, we have $1 \\ll \\tau \\leq 1$.\n\nContinuing the example in Remark \\[remo\\], taking $C' = C$, we would have $f_{C'} = \\frac{1}{m} 1_{[0,mc] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $f_{2C} = \\frac{1}{m} 1_{[0,2mc] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}}$.\n\nIf $x \\in C'$, then by $1_{x+C}$, and hence $1_{x+C'}$, is bounded by $1_{C_2}$ plus a function of $L^1(G,\\mu_G)$ norm $o(1)$. Applying $\\phi_*$, we conclude that the translate $f_{C'}(\\cdot-\\phi(x))$ is bounded by $f_{2C} \\coloneqq \\phi_*(1_{2C})$ plus a function of $L^1({\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}},\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ norm $o(1)$. Applying Markov\u2019s inequality, we conclude that for any $t \\gg 1$, the set $\\phi(x) + \\{ f_{C'} \\geq t \\}$ is contained in the union of $\\{ f_{2C} \\geq t-o(1) \\}$ and a set of measure $o(1)$. Thus $$\\int_{f_{2C} \\leq t - o(1)} 1_{\\{ f_{C'} \\geq t \\}}( \\alpha - \\phi(x) )\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(\\alpha) = o(1)$$ for all $x \\in C'$. Integrating over $x$, we conclude that $$\\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\int_{f_{2C} \\leq t - o(1)} 1_{\\{ f_{C'} \\geq t \\}}( \\alpha - \\beta )\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(\\alpha) f_{C'}(\\beta)\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(\\beta) = o(1)$$ or equivalently that $$\\int_{f_{2C} \\leq t - o(1)} 1_{\\{ f_{C'} \\geq t \\}} * f_{C'}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ In particular, for any fixed $s>0$, one has $$\\label{op}\n \\int_{f_{2C} \\leq t - o(1)} 1_{\\{ f_{C'} \\geq t \\}} * 1_{\\{ f_{C'} \\geq s \\}}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Comparing this with Corollary \\[kemp-cor\\], and recalling that $\\{ f_{C'} \\geq s \\}$ and $\\{ f_{C'} \\geq t \\}$ are both contained in $[-\\frac{1}{10},\\frac{1}{10}] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ and thus have measure at most $1/5$, we conclude that $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( \\{ f_{2C} \\geq t-o(1) \\} ) \\geq \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( \\{ f_{C'} \\geq t \\} ) + \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( \\{f_{C'} \\geq s \\} ) - o(1)$$ whenever $t,s < \\tau$ (so that the sets on the right-hand side are non-empty[^4]). Integrating over $t$, we conclude that $$\\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} f_{2C}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\geq \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C'}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} + \\tau \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( \\{f_{C'} \\geq s \\} ) - o(1)$$ for any $1 \\ll s < \\tau$, and hence by , we conclude that $$\\tau \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( \\{f_{C'} \\geq s \\} ) \\leq \\mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ for every fixed $0 < s \\ll \\tau$. Diagonalising, we conclude that there exists an infinitesimal ${\\varepsilon}>0$ such that $$\\tau \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( \\{f_{C'} \\geq {\\varepsilon}\\} ) \\leq \\mu_G(C) + o(1).$$ Write $$\\label{sfc-0}\nS \\coloneqq \\{ f_{C'} \\geq {\\varepsilon}\\}.$$ Then from we have $$\\mu_G(C) + o(1) = \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C'}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\leq \\int_S f_{C'}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} + o(1) \\leq \\tau \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(S) + o(1) \\leq \\mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ and thus $$\\int_S f_{C'}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = \\tau \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(S) + o(1) = \\mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ so in particular $$\\label{Smes}\n\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(S)  = \\tau^{-1} \\mu_G(C) + o(1)$$ and $$\\label{sfc}\n \\int_S (\\tau-f_{C'})\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Hence by Markov\u2019s inequality, one has $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( \\{ f_{C'} \\geq t \\} ) = \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(S) + o(1)$$ whenever $t, \\tau-t \\gg 1$. Using , we conclude that $$\\int_{f_{2C} \\leq t} 1_S * 1_S\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1)$$ whenever $t, \\tau-t \\gg 1$, and hence by diagonalising there exists an infinitesimal ${\\varepsilon}' > 0$ such that $$\\int_{f_{2C} \\leq \\tau-{\\varepsilon}'} 1_S * 1_S\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ Let $S_2 \\coloneqq \\{ f_{2C} > \\tau-{\\varepsilon}'\\} \\cap ([-\\frac{1}{5},\\frac{1}{5}] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})$, then since $1_S * 1_S$ is supported in $[-\\frac{1}{5},\\frac{1}{5}] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$, one has $$\\label{rss}\n \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}\\backslash S_2} 1_S * 1_S\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}= o(1),$$ while from , , and Markov\u2019s inequality one has $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(S_2) \\leq \\tau^{-1} \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C_2}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} + o(1) \\leq 2 \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(S) + o(1).$$ Our strategy is to first work on the structure of $f_{C'}$ and $f_{C_2}$ (in particular, to show that these functions are basically indicator functions of arcs multiplied by $\\tau$), and then return to the structural classification of $C'$ once this is done.\n\n\\[remo-2\\] Again continuing Remark \\[remo\\], we would essentially have $\\tau = m^{-1}$, $S = [0,mc] \\text{ mod } 1$, and $S_2 = [0,2mc] \\text{ mod } 1$.\n\nIf we let $\\tilde S \\subset [-\\frac{1}{10},\\frac{1}{10}]$ and $\\tilde S_2 \\subset [-\\frac{1}{5},\\frac{1}{5}]$ be the lifts of $S, S_2$ respectively from ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ to ${\\mathbb{R}}$, then we have $$\\label{roll}\n \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}\\backslash \\tilde S_2} 1_{\\tilde S} * 1_{\\tilde S}\\ dm = o(1)$$ and $$\\label{mt2}\n m(\\tilde S_2) \\leq 2 m(\\tilde S) + o(1),$$ where $m$ denotes Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb{R}}$. Also $m(\\tilde S) = \\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(S) = \\tau^{-1} \\mu_G(C) + o(1) \\gg 1$. This type of situation (a near-saturation of the Riesz-Sobolev inequality) was studied by Christ [@christ], [@christ2]. We were not able to directly apply the results from those papers, as this is an endpoint case (the parameter $\\eta$ in those papers would be set to $o(1)$ here). However, we can use the following variant of the arguments in those papers. The left-hand side of can be rearranged as $$\\int_{\\tilde S} m( (x + \\tilde S) \\backslash \\tilde S_2 )\\ dm(x)$$ so by Markov\u2019s inequality, one can find a subset $\\tilde S'$ of $\\tilde S$ with $m(\\tilde S') = m(\\tilde S) - o(1)$ such that $$\\label{aod}\n m( (x + \\tilde S) \\backslash \\tilde S_2 ) = o(1)$$ for all $x \\in \\tilde S'$. By inner regularity we may also take $\\tilde S'$ to be compact.\n\nLet $0 < \\sigma \\leq 1/4$ be a small fixed parameter. As the primitive $x \\mapsto \\int_{-\\infty}^x 1_{\\tilde S'}\\ dm$ is continuous and non-decreasing, and constant outside of $\\tilde S'$, we can find real numbers $-\\frac{1}{10} \\leq a < b \\leq \\frac{1}{10}$ in $\\tilde S'$ such that $$m( (-\\infty,a) \\cap \\tilde S' ) = m( (b, +\\infty) \\cap \\tilde S' ) = \\sigma m(\\tilde S).$$ Thus, if one defines $\\tilde S_* := [a,b] \\cap \\tilde S$, then $$m(\\tilde S_*) = (1-2\\sigma) m(\\tilde S) + o(1)$$ which in particular forces $b-a \\gg 1$, where we adopt the convention that implied constants in the asymptotic notation are independent of $\\sigma$. From we have $$m( (a + \\tilde S_*) \\backslash \\tilde S_2 ), m( (b + \\tilde S_*) \\backslash \\tilde S_2 ) = o(1)$$ and hence all but $o(1)$ in measure of the set $\\{a,b\\} + \\tilde S_*$ is contained in $\\tilde S_2$. But the sets $a + \\tilde S_*$ and $b + \\tilde S_*$ are essentially disjoint, thus $\\{a,b\\} + \\tilde S_*$ has measure $(2-4\\sigma) m(\\tilde S) + o(1)$. From we conclude that all but $4 \\sigma m(\\tilde S) + o(1)$ in measure of $\\tilde S_2$ is contained in $\\{a,b\\} + \\tilde S_*$. Since $1_{\\tilde S} * 1_{\\tilde S}$ is bounded pointwise by $m(\\tilde S)$, we conclude from that $$\\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}\\backslash (\\{a,b\\} + \\tilde S_*)} 1_{\\tilde S} * 1_{\\tilde S} \\leq 4 \\sigma m(\\tilde S)^2 + o(1)$$ and in particular $$\\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}\\backslash (\\{a,b\\} + \\tilde S_*)} 1_{\\tilde S_*} * 1_{\\tilde S_*} \\ll \\sigma m(\\tilde S_*)^2 + o(1).$$ We now project ${\\mathbb{R}}$ to the circle $T \\coloneqq {\\mathbb{R}}/ (b-a) {\\mathbb{Z}}$, and let $S_*$ be the projection of $\\tilde S_* \\subset [a,b]$ to that circle. Then $\\mu_{T}(S_*) = \\frac{1}{b-a} m(\\tilde S_*)$, while $1_{\\tilde S_*} * 1_{\\tilde S_*}$ is supported on $[2a,2b] = \\{a,b\\} + [a,b]$. As $[a,b]$ is essentially a fundamental domain for $T$, we conclude that $$\\int_{T \\backslash S_*} 1_{S_*} * 1_{S_*}\\ d\\mu_{T} \\ll \\sigma \\mu_{T}(S_*)^2 + o(1)$$ (note that the normalising factors of $\\frac{1}{b-a}$ on both sides cancel each other out). Since $$\\int_{S_*} \\min( 1_{S_*} * 1_{S_*}, \\sqrt{\\sigma} \\mu_{T}(S_*) ) \\ d\\mu_{T} \\leq \\sqrt{\\sigma} \\mu_{T}(S_*)^2,$$ we conclude that $$\\int_{T} \\min( 1_{S_*} * 1_{S_*}, \\sqrt{\\sigma} \\mu_{T}(S_*) ) \\ d\\mu_{T} \\leq (\\sqrt{\\sigma} + O(\\sigma) ) \\mu_{T}(S_*)^2 + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from Theorem \\[ruzsa-thm\\] one has $$\\int_{T} \\min( 1_{S_*} * 1_{S_*}, \\sqrt{\\sigma} \\mu_{T}(S_*) ) \\ d\\mu_{T} \\geq \n\\sqrt{\\sigma} \\mu_{T}(S_*) \\min( 2 \\mu_{T}(S_*) - \\sqrt{\\sigma}, 1 )$$ and hence $$\\min( 2 \\mu_{T}(S_*) - \\sqrt{\\sigma}, 1 )  \\leq \\mu_{T}(S_*) + O(\\sqrt{\\sigma} ) + o(1).$$ Since $\\mu_{T}(S_*) \\gg 1$, we conclude on taking $\\sigma$ small enough that $$\\mu_{T}(S_*) \\geq 1 - O(\\sqrt{\\sigma}) - o(1)$$ and thus $\\tilde S_*$ occupies all but $O(\\sqrt{\\sigma}) + o(1)$ of the interval $[a,b]$ in measure. Since $\\tilde S_*$ occupies all but $O(\\sigma) + o(1)$ in measure of $\\tilde S$, we conclude that $$m( \\tilde S \\Delta [a,b] ) \\ll \\sqrt{\\sigma} + o(1)$$ and hence $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}( S \\Delta ([a,b] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}) ) \\ll \\sqrt{\\sigma} + o(1).$$ By sending $\\sigma$ sufficiently slowly to zero, rather than being fixed, we have thus located a compact arc $I = [a,b] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ with $-\\frac{1}{10} \\leq a < b \\leq \\frac{1}{10}$ such that $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(S \\Delta I ) = o(1).$$ From , one has $$\\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} |f_{C'} - \\tau 1_S|\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1)$$ and hence by the triangle inequality $$\\label{fci}\n \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} |f_{C'} - \\tau 1_{I}|\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ From we now have $$\\label{mugc-new}\n \\mu_G(C) = \\tau (b-a) + o(1)$$ so in particular $b-a \\gg 1$. Also, from we now see that $$\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(S_2 \\Delta I ) = o(1),$$ where $2I \\coloneqq [2a, 2b] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$, and hence by and the definition of $S_2$ we have $$\\label{fci-2}\n \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} |f_{C_2} - \\tau 1_{2I}|\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1).$$ To summarise so far, we have obtained a satisfactory description of the functions $f_{C'}, f_{C_2}$, namely that they are equal to $\\tau 1_I$ and $\\tau 1_{2I}$ respectively up to negligible errors. If $\\tau=1$ we would now be quickly done, as we could then show that $C'$ is asymptotically equivalent to the Bohr set $\\phi^{-1}(I)$, which would then imply the same statement for $C$, as required for Theorem \\[inv-4\\]. Unfortunately, as Remark \\[remo-2\\] shows, $\\tau$ can be less than $1$, and we will need to \u201cquotient\u201d the character $\\phi$ by a natural number $m$ (which will turn out to be very close to $\\tau^{-1}$) to deal with this issue.\n\nWe turn to the details. Let $C'' \\coloneqq C' \\cap \\phi^{-1}(I)$. From we have $$\\mu_G(C' \\backslash C'') = \\int_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}\\backslash I} f_{C'}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = o(1)$$ and so $C''$ is asymptotically equivalent to $C'$ and hence to $C$. As $C''$ is contained in $\\phi^{-1}(I)$, the difference set $C''-C''$ is contained in $\\phi^{-1}(I-I) = \\{ x \\in G: \\| \\phi(x) \\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\leq b-a\\}$. Crucially, we have the following lower bound:\n\n\\[lodo\\] For every $x \\in C'' - C''$, we have $$1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(x) \\geq \\tau (b-a-\\|\\phi(x)\\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}) - o(1).$$\n\nAs discussed above, $x$ lies in $\\phi^{-1}(I-I)$, so $\\phi(x)$ lies in the interval $[a-b, b-a] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$. As $1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}$ is an even function, we may assume without loss of generality that $\\phi(x) = h \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ for some $0 \\leq h \\leq b-a$. By construction, we have $x = y-z$ for some $y,z \\in C''$, then $\\phi(z) = s \\hbox{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\\phi(y) = s+h \\hbox{ mod } z$ for some $a \\leq s \\leq b-h$. Since $y,z \\in C'' \\subset C'$, we see from that $$\\mu_G( (y+C'') \\backslash C_2 ), \\mu_G( (z+C'') \\backslash C_2 ) = o(1).$$ In particular, the sets $$y+(C'' \\cap \\phi^{-1}([a,b-h]\\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})), z + (C'' \\cap \\phi^{-1}([a+h,b] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}))$$ are both contained in the set $C_2 \\cap \\phi^{-1}([a+h+s,b+s]\\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})$, outside of a set of measure $o(1)$. But by , the set $y+(C'' \\cap \\phi^{-1}([a,b-h]\\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}))$ has measure $$\\int_{[a,b-h]\\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}} f_{C'}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = \\tau(b-a-h) + o(1)$$ and similarly $z + (C'' \\cap \\phi^{-1}([a+h,b] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}))$ also has measure $b-a-h+o(1)$. By , the set $C_2 \\cap \\phi^{-1}([a+h+s,b+s]\\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})$ has measure $$\\int_{[a+h+s, b+s]} f_{C_2}\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} = \\tau(b-a-h) + o(1).$$ By the inclusion-exclusion principle, we conclude that $$\\mu_G( y+(C'' \\cap \\phi^{-1}([a,b-h]\\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})), z + (C'' \\cap \\phi^{-1}([a+h,b] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})) ) \\geq \\tau(b-a-h) - o(1).$$ Since the left-hand side is at least $1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(y-z) = 1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(x)$, the claim follows.\n\nAs a consequence, we can now obtain a local additive closure property for $C''-C''$:\n\n\\[raz\\] There is a positive quantity $\\kappa = o(1)$ with the property that whenever $x,y \\in C'' - C''$ with $$\\| \\phi(x) \\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} + \\| \\phi(y) \\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\leq b-a-\\kappa$$ then $x+y \\in C''-C''$.\n\nLet $\\kappa = o(1)$ be an infinitesimal to be chosen later. From the preceding lemma we have $$\\mu_G(C'' \\cap (x+C'')) = 1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(x) \\geq \\tau (b-a-\\|\\phi(x)\\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}) - o(1)$$ and $$\\mu_G((x+C'') \\cap (x+y+C'')) = 1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}(y) \\geq \\tau (b-a-\\|\\phi(y)\\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}) - o(1)$$ while from we have $$\\mu_G(C'') = \\tau(b-a) + o(1).$$ From the triangle inequality, we conclude that $$\\mu_G(C'' \\cap (x+y+C'')) = \\tau (b-a-\\|\\phi(x)\\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} - \\| \\phi(y) \\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}) - o(1).$$ For $\\kappa$ going to zero sufficiently slowly, the right-hand side is positive, and hence $x+y \\in C'' - C''$ as desired.\n\nThe kernel $\\phi^{-1}(0)$ of $\\phi$ is a compact subgroup of $G$. Set $H \\coloneqq (C''-C'') \\cap \\phi^{-1}(0)$, then $H$ is compact and symmetric around the origin. By the above corollary, it is also closed under addition; thus $H$ is a compact subgroup of $\\phi^{-1}(0)$. By a further application of the above corollary, we see that whenever $x \\in C''-C''$ is such that $\\|\\phi(x)\\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}} \\leq b-a-\\kappa$, then $$(C''-C'') \\cap (x+\\phi^{-1}(0)) = x + H.$$ By yet another application of this corollary, we see that the set $E \\coloneqq \\phi(C''-C'') \\cap ([a-b+\\kappa,b-a-\\kappa] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}})$ is locally closed under addition in the sense that $$(E + E) \\cap ([a-b+\\kappa,b-a-\\kappa] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}) \\subset E.$$ By we see that $E$ occupies all but $o(1)$ of the arc $[a-b+\\kappa,b-a-\\kappa] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$; from the above inclusion and the pigeonhole principle we conclude that $E$ contains the interval $J \\coloneqq [a-b+\\kappa',b-a-\\kappa'] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$ for some infinitesimal $\\kappa' > \\kappa$. We thus see that we have a representation of the form $$(C''-C'') \\cap \\phi^{-1}(J) = \\bigcup_{s \\in J} \\psi(s)$$ where for each $s \\in J$, $\\psi(s) \\in G/H$ is a coset of $H$ that lies in the coset $\\phi^{-1}(s)$ of $\\phi^{-1}(0)$.\n\nSince $(C''-C'') \\cap \\phi^{-1}(J)$ is a compact set of positive measure in $G$, $\\psi(J)$ is a compact set of positive measure in the quotient group $G/H$, which is a compact connected group. The character $\\phi: G \\to {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ descends to a character $\\tilde \\phi: G/H \\to {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$. The translates $\\psi(J) + h$ for $h \\in \\tilde \\phi^{-1}(0)$ are all disjoint, and hence the kernel $\\tilde \\phi^{-1}(0)$ must be finite since $G/H$ has finite measure. If $m$ is the cardinality of this kernel, then $\\tilde \\phi$ is an $m$-fold cover of ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ by a compact connected group, and this cover is isomorphic to the cover of ${\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ by itself using the multiplication map $x \\mapsto mx$. In other words, we have $\\tilde \\phi = m \\tilde \\phi'$ for some bijective character $\\tilde \\phi': G/H \\to {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$, which can be lifted back to $\\phi = m \\phi'$ where $\\phi'$ is the lift of $\\tilde \\phi'$.\n\nConsider the function $g: J \\to {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}$ defined by $g(s) \\coloneqq (\\tilde \\phi')^{-1}( \\psi(s) )$. Since $\\psi(J)$ is compact, $g$ is continuous; since $\\psi(s)$ lies in $\\phi^{-1}(s)$, we have $m g(s) = s$ for all $s \\in J$. Also, $g(0)=0$. By monodromy, this implies that $$g(s \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}) = \\frac{s}{m} \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$$ for all $s \\in [a-b+\\kappa', b-a+\\kappa']$. Since $$(C''-C'') \\cap \\phi^{-1}(J) = \\bigcup_{s \\in J} (\\phi')^{-1}(g(s))$$ we conclude that $(C''-C'') \\cap \\phi^{-1}(J)$ is the Bohr set $$\\label{ccp}\n (C''-C'') \\cap \\phi^{-1}(J) = (\\phi')^{-1} (m^{-1} J)$$ where $m^{-1} J \\coloneqq [m^{-1}(a-b+\\kappa'),m^{-1}(b-a-\\kappa')] \\text{ mod } {\\mathbb{Z}}$.\n\nHaving controlled $C''-C''$, we now return to $C''$. We first need to relate $m$ with $\\tau$. On the one hand, for any $x \\in C''$, we have $$(C'' \\cap \\phi^{-1}( J + \\phi(x) )) - x \\subset (C''-C'') \\cap \\phi^{-1}(J \\cap ([a,b] + \\phi(x))).$$ From , the left-hand side has measure $\\tau(b-a) + o(1)$ (we now allow the $o(1)$ terms to depend on $\\kappa'$). From , the right-hand side has measure $m^{-1}(b-a)+o(1)$. We conclude that $$\\tau \\leq m^{-1} + o(1).$$ On the other hand, from Lemma \\[lodo\\] and we see that $$\\int_G 1_{C''} * 1_{-C''}\\ d\\mu_G \\geq \\int_{(\\phi')^{-1} (m^{-1} J)}\\tau (b-a-\\|\\phi(x)\\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}})\\  d\\mu_G(x) - o(1).$$ By , the left-hand side is $$\\mu_G(C'')^2 = \\tau^2 (b-a)^2 + o(1).$$ By change of variables, the right-hand side is equal to $$\\int_{m^{-1} J} \\tau(b-a-\\|ms\\|_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}})\\ d\\mu_{{\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}}(s) - o(1) = \\tau m^{-1} (b-a)^2 - o(1)$$ and we conclude that $$\\tau \\geq m^{-1} + o(1).$$ Thus we have $\\tau = m^{-1} + o(1)$; from we conclude that $$\\label{muhaha}\n \\mu_G(C'') = m^{-1}(b-a) + o(1).$$ From , there exists $x \\in C''$ such that $\\phi(x) = a+o(1)$. Since $C''-x$ is contained in $(C''-C'') \\cap [a-\\phi(x),b-\\phi(x)]$, it lies in $(C''-C'') \\cap \\phi^{-1}(J)$ outside of a set of measure $o(1)$. Applying and translating, we conclude that outside of a set of measure $o(1)$, $C''$ lies in $(\\phi')^{-1}( m^{-1} J ) + x$; it also lies in $\\phi^{-1}(I)$. Thus, outside of a set of measure $o(1)$, $C''$ lies in $(\\phi')^{-1}(J')$, where $$J' := \\{ s \\in {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}: s \\in m^{-1} J  + \\phi'(x); ms \\in I \\}.$$ The set $\\{ s \\in {\\mathbb{R}}/{\\mathbb{Z}}: ms \\in I \\}$ is the union of $m$ equally spaced arcs of length $\\frac{b-a}{m}$ each, while $m^{-1} J + \\phi'(x)$ is an arc of length $2\\frac{b-a}{m}$. Since $b-a \\leq \\frac{1}{5}$, we conclude that $J'$ is an arc of length at most $\\frac{b-a}{m}$; in particular, $$\\mu_G( (\\phi')^{-1}(J') ) = m^{-1} (b-a).$$ Comparing this with we conclude that $C''$ is asymptotically equivalent to the Bohr set $(\\phi')^{-1}(J')$, and hence $C$ is also, giving Theorem \\[inv-4\\] (and thus Theorems \\[inv-3\\], \\[inv-2\\], and \\[inv-1\\]).\n\nFurther remarks\n===============\n\nIt is natural to ask whether Theorem \\[inv-1\\] or Theorem \\[inv-2\\] may be extended to more general groups. John Griesmer (personal communication) has proposed the following strong conjecture:\n\n\\[jg\\] Let $G$ be a compact group (not necessarily abelian) with probability Haar measure $\\mu_G$, let ${\\varepsilon}> 0$, and let $\\delta>0$ be sufficiently small depending on ${\\varepsilon}$. Then for any compact subsets $A,B \\subset G$ with $\\mu_G(AB) \\leq \\mu_G(A)+\\mu_G(B)+\\delta$ and $\\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) \\leq 1-{\\varepsilon}$, there exists compact subsets $A',B'$ of $G$ with $\\mu_G(A \\Delta A'), \\mu_G(B \\Delta B') \\leq {\\varepsilon}$ such that $\\mu_G(A'B') \\leq \\mu_G(A') + \\mu_G(B')$.\n\nOne could strengthen this conjecture even further by requiring that $\\delta$ be independent of $G$. One can also consider non-compact groups $G$ (in which one would remove the hypothesis $\\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) \\leq 1-{\\varepsilon}$), though for non-unimodular groups there may be additional technical difficulties arising from the distinction between left-invariant and right-invariant Haar measures. The case $A=B$ would be of particular interest, as it basically is concerned with classification of sets of doubling constant slightly larger than $2$.\n\nNote that Theorem \\[inv-1\\] verifies Conjecture \\[jg\\] (with $\\delta$ independent of $G$) under the additional hypotheses that $G$ is connected and abelian. The case $G = {\\mathbb{Z}}/p{\\mathbb{Z}}$ of a cyclic group of prime order also follows from [@g Theorem 21.8]. This conjecture would combine well with the extensive literature [@kemp2], [@kneser], [@g], [@gri], [@dev], [@bjork], [@bjork2], [@bjork3] on classifying pairs of sets $A',B'$ obeying the relation $\\mu_G(A'B') \\leq \\mu_G(A') + \\mu_G(B')$ for various types of groups $G$.\n\nIt may also be possible to obtain an inverse theorem for Theorem \\[ruzsa-thm\\], that is to say to obtain some approximate structural description of sets $A,B$ for which $$\\int_G \\min( 1_A * 1_B, t )\\ d\\mu_G \\leq t \\min( \\mu_G(A) + \\mu_G(B) -t, 1 ) + {\\varepsilon}$$ for some $t>0$ and some small ${\\varepsilon}>0$, assuming appropriate non-degeneracy conditions on $\\mu_G(A), \\mu_G(B), t$. We do not pursue this question here.\n\n[99]{}\n\nY. Bilu, *The $(\\alpha+2\\beta)$-inequality on a torus*, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) **57** (1998), no. 3, 513\u2013528.\n\nY. Bilu, V. F. Lev, I. Z. Ruzsa, *Rectification principles in additive number theory*, Discrete Comput. Geom. 19 (1998), 343\u2013353.\n\nM. Bj\u00f6rklund, *Small product sets in compact groups*, Fundamenta Mathematicae **238** (2017), 1\u201327.\n\nM. Bj\u00f6rklund, A. Fish, *Product set phenomena for countable groups*, Adv. Math. **275** (2015), 47\u2013113.\n\nM. Bj\u00f6rklund, A. Fish, Alexander, *Ergodic Kneser-type Theorems for amenable groups*, preprint. [arXiv:1607.02575]{}\n\nP. Candela, A. de Roton, *On sets with small sumset in the circle*, preprint. [arXiv:1709.04501]{}\n\nM. Christ, *An approximate inverse Riesz-Sobolev inequality*, preprint. [arXiv:1112.3715]{}\n\nM. Christ, *Near equality in the Riesz-Sobolev inequality*, preprint. [arXiv:1309.5856]{}\n\nM. DeVos, *The Structure of Critical Product Sets*, preprint. [arXiv:1301.0096]{}\n\nA. Figalli, D. Jerison, *Quantitative stability for the Brunn-Minkowski inequality*, Adv. Math. **314** (2017), 1\u201347.\n\nG. A. Fre\u012dman, *The addition of finite sets. I*, Izv. Vys\u0161. U\u010debn. Zaved. Matematika **6** (1959), 202\u2013213.\n\nG. A. Fre\u012dman, A. A. Judin, D. A. Moskvin, *Inverse problems of additive number theory and local limit theorems for lattice random variables*, Number-theoretic studies in the Markov spectrum and in the structural theory of set addition (Russian), Kalinin. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 1973, 148\u2013162.\n\nB. Green, I. Z. Ruzsa, *Sets with small sumset and rectification*, Bull. London Math. Soc. **38** (2006), no. 1, 43\u201352.\n\nB. Green, I. Z. Ruzsa, *Freiman\u2019s theorem in an arbitrary abelian group*, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) **75** (2007), no. 1, 163\u2013175.\n\nJ. T. Griesmer, *An inverse theorem: when the measure of the sumset is the sum of the measures in a locally compact abelian group*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **366** (2014), no. 4, 1797\u20131827.\n\nD. Grynkiewicz, *Quasi-periodic decompositions and the Kemperman structure theorem*, European J. Combin. **26** (2005), no. 5, 559\u2013575.\n\nD. Grynkiewicz, *A step beyond Kemperman\u2019s structure theorem*, Mathematika **55** (2009), no. 1\u20132, 67\u2013114.\n\nD. J. Grynkiewicz, Structural additive theory, Developments in Mathematics 30, Springer, Cham, 2013.\n\nY. O. Hamidoune, O. Serra, G. Z\u00e9mor, *On the critical pair theory in ${\\mathbb{Z}}/p{\\mathbb{Z}}$*, Acta Arithmetica **121** (2006), no. 2, 99\u2013115.\n\nJ. H. B. Kemperman, *On small sumsets in an abelian group*, Acta Math. **103** (1960), 63\u201388.\n\nJ. H. B. Kemperman, *On products of sets in a locally compact group*, Fund. Math. **56** (1964), 51\u201368.\n\nM. Kneser, *Summenmengen in lokalkompakten abelschen Gruppen*, Math. Z. **66** (1956), 88\u2013110.\n\nA. M. Macbeath, *On measure of sum sets. II. The sum-theorem for the torus*, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. **49** (1953), 40\u201343.\n\nD. A. Moskvin, G. A. Freiman and A. A. Yudin, *Inverse problems of additive number theory and local limit theorems for lattice random variables*, Number-theoretic studies in the Marko\u008av spectrum and in the structural theory of set addition (Kalinin. Gos. Univ., Moscow, 1973) 148,\u2013162.\n\nJ. M. Pollard, *A generalisation of the theorem of Cauchy and Davenport*, J. London Math. Soc. (2) **8** (1974), 460\u2013462.\n\nD. Raikov, *On the addition of point-sets in the sense of Schnirelmann*, Rec. Math. \\[Mat. Sbornik\\] N.S. **5**(47) (1939), 425\u2013440.\n\n. J. R[\u00f8]{}dseth, *On Freiman\u2019s $2.4$-Theorem*, Skr. K. Nor. Vidensk. Selsk. **4** (2006), 11\u201318.\n\nI. Ruzsa, *A concavity property for the measure of product sets in groups*, Fund. Math. **140** (1992), no. 3, 247\u2013254.\n\nT. Schoen, *Multiple set addition in $\\mathbb{Z}_p$*, Integers **3** (2003), A17, 6 pp.\n\nO. Serra, G. Z\u00e9mor, *Large sets with small doubling modulo $p$ are well covered by an arithmetic progression*, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) **59** (2009), no. 5, 2043\u20132060.\n\nX. Shao, W. Xu, *A robust version of Freiman\u2019s $3k-4$ Theorem and applications*, preprint. [arXiv:1711.11060]{}\n\nA. Shields, *Sur la mesure d\u2019une somme vectorielle*, Fund. Math. **42** (1955), 57\u201360.\n\nT. Tao, *A variant of Kemperman\u2019s theorem*, available at [terrytao.wordpress.com/2011/12/26]{}\n\nT. Tao, *A cheap version of nonstandard analysis*, available at [terrytao.wordpress.com/2012/04/02]{}\n\nT. Tao, J. Ter\u00e4v\u00e4inen, *The structure of logarithmically averaged correlations of multiplicative functions, with applications to the Chowla and Elliott conjectures*, preprint. [arXiv:1708.02610]{}\n\n[^1]: In a previous version of this manuscript, this inequality was incorrectly attributed to Kemperman. We thank John Griesmer for pointing out this error.\n\n[^2]: The price one pays for this is that it is difficult to directly extract from this argument an explicit dependence of $\\delta$ on ${\\varepsilon}$ in Theorem \\[inv-2\\]. However, this can be done (in principle, at least) by refraining from passing to the \u201ccheap nonstandard\u201d framework and instead working with a more quantitative, but significantly messier, notion of critical pair, in which one replaces all $o(1)$ errors by more explicit decay rates that may vary from line to line. We leave this task to the interested reader.\n\n[^3]: A more accurate terminology would be \u201casymptotically critical pair\u201d, but we use \u201ccritical pair\u201d instead for brevity.\n\n[^4]: A previous version of this paper neglected to address this rather important issue that Corollary \\[kemp-cor\\] breaks down when one of the sets involved is empty. We regret this oversight.ix\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We study an asymptotic Dirichlet problem for Weyl structures on asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds. By the bulk-boundary correspondence, or more precisely by the Fefferman\u2013Graham theorem on Poincar\u00e9 metrics, this leads to a natural extension of the notion of Branson\u2019s $Q$-curvature to Weyl structures on even-dimensional conformal manifolds.'\naddress:\n- 'Graduate School of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Tokyo, 3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo 153-8914, Japan'\n- 'Department of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics, Birkbeck, University of London, Malet Place, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom'\n- 'Department of Mathematics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan'\nauthor:\n- Kengo Hirachi\n- Christian L\u00fcbbe\n- Yoshihiko Matsumoto\nbibliography:\n- 'myrefs.bib'\ntitle: '$Q$-curvature of Weyl structures and Poincar\u00e9 metrics'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#introduction .unnumbered}\n============\n\nLet $\\overline{X}=X\\sqcup{\\partial}X$ be a smooth compact manifold-with-boundary of dimension $n+1$, and $g$ a smooth conformally compact metric on $X$, i.e., a Riemannian metric for which $r^2g$ extends to a smooth metric $\\overline{g}$ on $\\overline{X}$, where $r\\in C^\\infty(\\overline{X})$ is any boundary defining function. The metric $g$ is called *asymptotically hyperbolic* (abbreviated as AH) if it moreover satisfies ${\\lvertdr\\rvert}_{\\overline{g}}=1$ on ${\\partial}X$. Such a pair $(X,g)$ is a generalization of the ball model of the hyperbolic space $\\mathbb{H}^{n+1}$. The *conformal infinity* of $(X,g)$ is the boundary $M={\\partial}X$ equipped with the conformal class $\\mathcal{C}$ determined by $\\overline{g}|_{TM}$, which is independent of $r$.\n\nIn this article, we introduce the notion of the $Q$-curvature of Weyl structures on $(M,\\mathcal{C})$ through studying a Dirichlet-type problem for Weyl structures on $(\\overline{X},\\overline{\\mathcal{C}})$, where $\\overline{\\mathcal{C}}$ is the conformal class of $\\overline{g}$. Our work is a generalization of Fefferman\u2013Graham\u2019s characterization\u00a0[@Fefferman_Graham_02] of Branson\u2019s $Q$-curvature\u00a0[@Branson_95].\n\nBy definition, a *Weyl structure* (or a *Weyl connection*) $\\nabla$ on $(M,\\mathcal{C})$ is a torsion-free linear connection on $M$ that preserves the class $\\mathcal{C}$. If we pick any representative metric $h\\in\\mathcal{C}$ as a \u201creference metric\u201d and let $\\nabla^h$ be the associated Levi-Civita connection, then a torsion-free linear connection $\\nabla$ is a Weyl structure if and only if it satisfies $\\nabla=\\nabla^h+\\beta$ for some (unique) 1-form $\\beta\\in\\Omega^1(M)$, meaning $\\nabla h=-2\\beta\\otimes h$, or equivalently $$\\nabla_\\xi\\eta=\\nabla^h_\\xi\\eta+\\beta(\\xi)\\eta+\\beta(\\eta)\\xi-h(\\xi,\\eta)\\beta^\\sharp,$$ where $\\beta^\\sharp$ is the metric dual of $\\beta$. If $h'=e^{2\\Upsilon}h\\in\\mathcal{C}$ is another representative, where $\\Upsilon\\in C^\\infty(M)$, then the 1-form $\\beta'$ satisfying $\\nabla=\\nabla^{h'}+\\beta'$ is given by $\\beta'=\\beta-d\\Upsilon$. Therefore, a Weyl structure $\\nabla=\\nabla^h+\\beta$ is a Levi-Civita connection if and only if $\\beta$ is exact, and is locally a Levi-Civita connection if and only if $\\beta$ is closed. In the latter case, we also say that $\\nabla$ itself is *closed*.\n\nSuppose $(X,g)$ is given, and let $\\overline{\\nabla}$ be a Weyl structure on $(\\overline{X},\\overline{\\mathcal{C}})$. As $\\overline{\\nabla}$ may not be a Levi-Civita connection, its curvature tensor does not necessarily satisfy the usual Riemannian symmetry properties. In particular, the Ricci tensor is not symmetric in general. We call the skew-symmetric part of $\\operatorname{Ric}_{\\overline{\\nabla}}$ the *Faraday tensor* $F_{\\overline{\\nabla}}$. It is known that, if $\\overline{g}\\in\\overline{\\mathcal{C}}$ is any representative and $\\overline{\\nabla}=\\nabla^{\\overline{g}}+\\overline{b}$, then $F_{\\overline{\\nabla}}$ equals a constant times $d\\overline{b}$ (the constant being dependent on convention). Consequently, the Faraday tensor $F_{\\overline{\\nabla}}$ determines $\\overline{\\nabla}$ up to addition of a closed 1-form.\n\nWe consider the following curvature constraint, which is the Euler\u2013Lagrange equation for the Lagrangian density ${\\lvertF_{\\overline{\\nabla}}\\rvert}_g^2$: $$\\label{eq:divergence_free_Faraday}\n    d_g^*F_{\\overline{\\nabla}}=0.$$ We have a canonical reference metric for $\\overline{\\nabla}$ on $X$, which is the metric $g$. By putting $\\overline{\\nabla}=\\nabla^g+b$, we can reformulate into an equation for a 1-form $b\\in\\Omega^1(X)$, which is known as the (massless) Proca equation: $$\\label{eq:Proca}\n    d_g^*db=0.$$ Since $F_{\\overline{\\nabla}}$ is invariant under the change $\\overline{\\nabla}\\rightsquigarrow\\overline{\\nabla}+\\gamma$ for any closed 1-form $\\gamma\\in\\Omega^1(\\overline{X})$, so is equation . To break this gauge invariance as much as possible, we introduce the Feynman gauge condition: $$\\label{eq:Feynman}\n    d_g^*b=0.$$ Then clearly, the solutions of the system of equations and have only the freedom of adding harmonic 1-forms.\n\nThe natural Dirichlet data for Weyl structures $\\overline{\\nabla}$ on $(\\overline{X},\\overline{\\mathcal{C}})$ are given by those on $(M,\\mathcal{C})$; note that the notion of the induced Weyl structure on $M$ by $\\overline{\\nabla}$ makes sense because $\\overline{\\mathcal{C}}$ determines the orthogonal decomposition $(T\\overline{X})|_M=TM\\oplus T^\\perp M$. The Dirichlet problem for our system of equations can be solved as follows.\n\n\\[thm:existence\\_extension\\] Let $n$ be even and $n\\ge 4$. Suppose that $g$ is an AH smooth conformally compact metric on $X$, and let $\\nabla$ be a smooth Weyl structure on the conformal infinity $(M,\\mathcal{C})$, where $M={\\partial}X$. Then there exists a $C^{n-3}$ Weyl structure $\\overline{\\nabla}$ on $\\overline{X}$ with induced Weyl structure $\\nabla$ on $M$ satisfying and . It is unique up to addition of an $L^2$-harmonic 1-form on $X$.\n\nIt is known that any $L^2$-harmonic 1-form $\\gamma\\in\\Omega^1(X)$ is smoothly extended to $\\overline{X}$, which is a consequence of the fact that $\\gamma$ admits a \u201cpolyhomogeneous expansion\u201d and its logarithmic term coefficients all vanish since $\\gamma|_{TM}=0$ (see\u00a0Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_1-forms\\] and [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]\\*[Section 3.1.1]{}). Therefore, adding $L^2$-harmonic 1-forms does not break the $C^{n-3}$ boundary regularity of $\\overline{\\nabla}$.\n\nWe made an assumption on $n$ in the theorem above because this is the case of our main interest. However, the following theorem for $n\\ge 3$ odd can be proved almost by the same argument. Again, $L^2$-harmonic 1-forms are smooth up to the boundary.\n\nLet $n$ be odd and $n\\ge 3$, and $(X,g)$, $\\nabla$ as in Theorem \\[thm:existence\\_extension\\]. Then there exists a smooth Weyl structure $\\overline{\\nabla}$ on $\\overline{X}$ with induced Weyl structure $\\nabla$ on $M$ satisfying and . It is unique up to addition of an $L^2$-harmonic 1-form on $X$.\n\nWe do not have similar results for $n=1$, $2$ because Mazzeo\u2019s work\u00a0[@Mazzeo_88], which gives the analytic basis to our argument, does not apply in these dimensions.\n\nNow let $n$ be even and $n\\ge 4$. We next focus on the obstruction to the smoothness of $\\overline{\\nabla}$ to get a quantity that is conformally invariantly assigned to $\\nabla$, as Graham and Zworski\u00a0[@Graham_Zworski_03] did for functions to characterize the GJMS operators\u00a0[@Graham_Jenne_Mason_Sparling_92]. For our purpose, $g$ should be canonically determined to a sufficient order only by the conformal class $\\mathcal{C}$. Hence we take the *Poincar\u00e9 metric* of Fefferman\u2013Graham\u00a0[@Fefferman_Graham_85; @Fefferman_Graham_12], which satisfies $$\\operatorname{Ric}_g=-ng+O(r^n)\\qquad\\text{and}\\qquad \\operatorname{tr}_g(\\operatorname{Ric}_g+ng)=O(r^{n+2})\\qquad\\text{at ${\\partial}X$}.$$ (The first condition means that ${\\lvert\\operatorname{Ric}(g)+ng\\rvert}_g=O(r^n)$.) If $\\mathcal{C}$ is given, then such a $g$ exists, and is unique up to an $O(r^n)$ error with $O(r^{n+2})$ trace and the action of diffeomorphisms of $\\overline{X}$ that restricts to the identity on ${\\partial}X$. Then the aforementioned obstruction is determined only by the pair $(\\mathcal{C},\\nabla)$. Furthermore, it turns out that it is naturally interpreted as a tractor on $M$. Let us set up the notation: $\\mathcal{E}[w]$ is the density bundle of conformal weight $w$ over $M$, $\\mathcal{S}$ is the standard conformal tractor bundle, $\\mathcal{S}[w]=\\mathcal{S}\\otimes\\mathcal{E}[w]$, and $\\mathcal{S}^*[w]=\\mathcal{S}^*\\otimes\\mathcal{E}[w]$. For the definition of these bundles, we refer to Bailey\u2013Eastwood\u2013Gover\u00a0[@Bailey_Eastwood_Gover_94] or Eastwood\u2019s expository article\u00a0[@Eastwood_96]. By abuse of notation, the spaces of smooth sections of these bundles are denoted by the same symbols. Then we have the following.\n\n\\[thm:smoothness\\_extension\\] Let $g$ be the Poincar\u00e9 metric on $X$, and $\\nabla$ a smooth Weyl structure on $(M,\\mathcal{C})$. Then there exists a density-weighted standard cotractor $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla\\in\\mathcal{S}^*[n+1]$ on $M$, which is locally determined by $(\\mathcal{C},\\nabla)$, such that any $C^{n-3}$ extension $\\overline{\\nabla}$ in Theorem \\[thm:existence\\_extension\\] is smooth if and only if $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla$ vanishes.\n\nLet $h\\in\\mathcal{C}$ and $\\beta\\in\\Omega^1(M)$ be such that $\\nabla=\\nabla^h+\\beta$. The choice of $h$ determines a direct sum decomposition $\\mathcal{S}^*\\cong\\mathcal{E}[-1]\\oplus\\Omega^1[1]\\oplus\\mathcal{E}[1]$, where $\\Omega^1[1]=\\Omega^1(M)\\otimes\\mathcal{E}[1]$. Via this decomposition and the trivialization of the density bundles by $h$, the tractor $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla$ is given by $$\\label{eq:Q-tractor}\n    \\bm{Q}_\\nabla\\overset{h}{=}\n    (-1)^{n/2-1}2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n        Q_01+G_1\\beta & L_1\\beta & 0\n    \\end{pmatrix}.$$ Here we used the Branson\u2013Gover operators\u00a0[@Branson_Gover_05] $L_1\\colon\\Omega^1(M)\\to\\Omega^1(M)$, $G_1\\colon\\Omega^1(M)\\to C^\\infty(M)$ and $Q_0\\colon C^\\infty(M)\\to C^\\infty(M)$ (adopting the normalization of Aubry\u2013Guillarmou\u00a0[@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]). In particular, $$Q_01=\\frac{(-1)^{n/2-1}}{2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2}Q_h,$$ where $Q_h$ is Branson\u2019s $Q$-curvature of $h$. Since it is known that $L_1$ and $G_1$ annihilate closed forms (see [@Branson_Gover_05]), $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla$ is essentially Branson\u2019s $Q$-curvature when $\\nabla$ is a Levi-Civita connection. The authors propose to call $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla$ the *$Q$-curvature tractor* of the Weyl structure $\\nabla$.\n\nFor given $\\nabla$, we consider the natural pairing of $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla$ and another canonical tractor $\\bm{W}_\\nabla\\in\\mathcal{S}[-1]$ associated to $\\nabla$. By using any metric $h\\in\\mathcal{C}$ and $\\beta\\in\\Omega^1(M)$ for which $\\nabla=\\nabla^h+\\beta$, we define $$\\bm{W}_\\nabla\\overset{h}{=}\\begin{pmatrix}\n        1 \\\\ -\\beta^\\sharp \\\\ \\frac{1}{2}{\\lvert\\beta\\rvert}^2\n    \\end{pmatrix}.$$ Then the pairing $Q_\\nabla=\\braket{\\bm{Q}_\\nabla,\\bm{W}_\\nabla}\\in\\mathcal{E}[n]$ can be integrated. Since $$Q_\\nabla/dV_h=Q_h+(-1)^{n/2-1}2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2(G_1\\beta-\\braket{L_1\\beta,\\beta}),$$ we may use the fact that $G_1\\beta$ is the divergence of some 1-form to conclude that, for $M$ compact, $Q_\\nabla$ integrates to the following global invariant of $(M,\\mathcal{C},\\nabla)$: $$\\label{eq:integral}\n    \\int_M Q_hdV_h+(-1)^{n/2}2^{n-2}(n/2-1)!^2\\int_M \\braket{L_1\\beta,\\beta}dV_h.$$ This can be seen as a functional in the space of Weyl structures on $(M,\\mathcal{C})$. As the first term, the total $Q$-curvature, is an invariant of $\\mathcal{C}$, the formula above makes us curious about the spectrum of $L_1$. There are explicit formulae for $n=4$ and $6$\u00a0[@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]\\*[Section 8]{}: $$L_1=\\frac{1}{2}d^*d\\quad\\text{($n=4$)},\\qquad\n    L_1=-\\frac{1}{16}d^*\\left(\\Delta_h-\\operatorname{Ric}+\\frac{2}{5}\\operatorname{Scal}\\right)d\\quad\\text{($n=6$)}.$$ Here $\\operatorname{Ric}$ acts as an endomorphism. In four dimensions, this implies that the second term in is nonnegative and vanishes if and only if $\\beta$, or equivalently $\\nabla$, is closed. Hence the integral of $Q_\\nabla$ minimizes at closed Weyl structures. The same is true in six dimensions under some assumption on the Ricci tensor. In general dimensions, a formula of $L_1$ can be obtained for an Einstein metric $h$ by using the idea in third author\u2019s article\u00a0[@Matsumoto_13]. If $\\operatorname{Ric}_h=2\\lambda(n-1)h$ so that the Schouten tensor is $P_h=\\lambda h$, $$\\label{eq:explicit_formula_for_conformally_Einstein}\n    L_1=\\frac{(-1)^{n/2}}{2^{n-3}(n/2-1)!(n/2-2)!}d^*\\left(\\prod_{m=1}^{n/2-2}(\\Delta_h-2m(m-n+3)\\lambda)\\right)d.$$ One may conclude by this that, if $\\mathcal{C}$ contains an Einstein metric with positive scalar curvature, then the integral of $Q_\\nabla$ minimizes exactly at Levi-Civita connections (note that Bochner\u2019s Theorem assures the vanishing of $H^1(M)$).\n\nOur theorems are applications of the previous results on the Dirichlet problems for functions and differential forms on AH manifolds. The analytic aspect is due to Mazzeo\u2013Melrose\u00a0[@Mazzeo_Melrose_87] and Mazzeo\u00a0[@Mazzeo_88], while the asymptotic expansions were investigated thoroughly by Graham\u2013Zworski\u00a0[@Graham_Zworski_03] and Aubry\u2013Guillarmou\u00a0[@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]. A direct connection to Branson\u2019s $Q$-curvature was found by Fefferman\u2013Graham\u00a0[@Fefferman_Graham_02]. In Section\u00a0\\[sec:functions\\_and\\_1-forms\\], we recall their results that are necessary here. We prove our main theorems in Section\u00a0\\[sec:Weyl\\_connection\\], and the proof of is given in Section \\[sec:conformally\\_Einstein\\]. (For our analysis of $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla$, formal asymptotic expansions suffice our needs and the deep results of\u00a0[@Mazzeo_Melrose_87; @Mazzeo_88] are not really necessary. However we choose to use them for a clearer exposition.) We shall concentrate on the case where $n$ is even and leave the proof of Theorem 0.1$'$ to the interested reader.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n---------------\n\nThis work started during CL\u2019s visit to the University of Tokyo in 2014 and the preparation of the manuscript was finished during YM\u2019s visit to the \u00c9cole normale sup\u00e9rieure in Paris in 2014\u201315. They would like to acknowledge the kind hospitality of the both institutions. KH is partially supported by JSPS KAKENHI grant 60218790. CL is partially supported by JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship for North American and European Researchers (Short-term) PE 13079. YM is partially supported by JSPS Postdoctoral Fellowship and KAKENHI grant 26-11754.\n\nPreliminaries: Dirichlet problem for functions and 1-forms {#sec:functions_and_1-forms}\n==========================================================\n\nWe always assume that $n$ is even and $n\\ge 4$ in the sequel. Let $g$ be an AH smooth conformally compact metric on $X$. It is well known\u00a0[@Graham_Lee_91]\\*[Section 5]{} that a sufficiently small open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U}$ of $M\\subset\\overline{X}$ can be identified with the product $M\\times[0,\\varepsilon)$ so that $$\\label{eq:normalization}\n    g=\\frac{dx^2+h_x}{x^2},$$ where $x$ is the coordinate on the second factor of $M\\times[0,\\varepsilon)$ and $h_x$ is a smooth 1-parameter family of Riemannian metrics on $M$. The metric $h=h_0$ is a representative of the conformal class $\\mathcal{C}$. In fact, for any prescribed $h\\in\\mathcal{C}$, there is such an identification; moreover, $h$ determines the identification near ${\\partial}X$. We call the expression the *normalization* of $g$, and $x$ the *normalizing boundary defining function* of $\\overline{X}$, with respect to $h$.\n\nWe shall summarize fundamental results on the Dirichlet problems for functions and 1-forms. In the original papers, some of them are stated under (weak or genuine) Einstein conditions, but they are actually valid in the following general setting. Asymptotic expansions in the propositions below are given with respect to the identification $\\mathcal{U}\\cong M\\times[0,\\varepsilon)$ associated to some fixed $h$.\n\n\\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_functions\\] For any function $\\varphi\\in C^\\infty(M)$, there exists a unique harmonic function $\\overline{f}\\in C^{n-1}(\\overline{X})$ with boundary value $\\varphi$. It has the following expansion at the boundary: $$\\overline{f}=\\varphi+\\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}x^k\\varphi_k+x^n\\log x\\cdot L_0\\varphi+O(x^n),\n        \\qquad\\varphi_k\\in C^\\infty(M).$$ Here $L_0$ is a linear differential operator locally determined by $g$ and $h$, and $\\overline{f}$ is smooth if $L_0\\varphi$ vanishes. If $g$ is the Poincar\u00e9 metric, $L_0$ is the GJMS operator of critical order up to normalization.\n\nThe solvability of the Dirichlet problem and the appearance of the first logarithmic term at the power $x^n$ are consequences of the fact that the characteristic exponents of the Laplacian on functions are $0$ and $n$: $\\Delta_g$ on functions is expressed as $$\\label{eq:Laplacian_on_functions}\n    \\Delta_g=-(x\\partial_x)^2+nx\\partial_x+xR,$$ in which $R$ is a polynomial of vector fields that are tangent to ${\\partial}X$.\n\nA similar technique was used to obtain the following \u201cdirect\u201d characterization of Branson\u2019s $Q$-curvature in terms of the Poincar\u00e9 metric.\n\n\\[prop:harmonic\\_defining\\_function\\] For any representative metric $h\\in\\mathcal{C}$ and the associated normalizing boundary defining function $x$, there exists a unique function $\\rho$ such that $u=\\log\\rho-\\log x\\in C^{n-1}(\\overline{X})$, $\\log\\rho$ is harmonic, and $u|_{{\\partial}X}=0$. It has the following expansion: $$\\log\\rho=\\log x+\\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}x^kr_k+x^n\\log x\\cdot s+O(x^n),\n        \\qquad r_k,\\ s\\in C^\\infty(M).$$ The function $u$ is smooth if $s$ vanishes. If $g$ is the Poincar\u00e9 metric, then $$s=\\frac{(-1)^{n/2-1}}{2^{n-1}(n/2)!(n/2-1)!}Q_h,$$ where $Q_h$ is Branson\u2019s $Q$-curvature of $h$.\n\nThe corresponding problem for differential forms is studied in\u00a0[@Mazzeo_88; @Aubry_Guillarmou_11]. Though differential forms of general degrees are considered in these works, we only use the 1-form case. For a later need, we state the result for general inhomogeneous equations, which also follows from their approach.\n\n\\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_1-forms\\] Let $\\overline{a}\\in\\Omega^1(\\overline{X})$ be a smooth 1-form on $\\overline{X}$ such that $\\overline{a}|_{TM}=0$. Then for any 1-form $\\beta\\in\\Omega^1(M)$, there exists a solution $\\overline{b}\\in C^{n-3}(\\overline{X},T^*\\overline{X})$ to the equation $\\Delta_g\\overline{b}=\\overline{a}$ satisfying $\\overline{b}|_{TM}=\\beta$, which is unique modulo $L^2$-harmonic 1-forms. It allows the expansion $$\\overline{b}=\\beta+\\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}x^k\\beta_k+x^{n-2}\\log x\\cdot \\beta^{(1)}\n        +\\left(\\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}x^k\\varphi_k+x^{n-1}\\log x\\cdot\\varphi^{(1)}\\right)dx+O^+(x^{n-2}),$$ where $\\beta_k$, $\\beta^{(1)}\\in\\Omega^1(M)$, $\\varphi_k$, $\\varphi^{(1)}\\in C^\\infty(M)$ and the remainder $O^+(x^{n-2})$ is an $O(x^{n-2})$ term that becomes $O(x^{n-1})$ when contracted with $\\partial_x$. The solution $\\overline{b}$ is smooth if $\\beta^{(1)}$ and $\\varphi^{(1)}$ both vanish.\n\nIf $\\overline{a}=0$, then there are linear differential operators $L_1$ and $G_1$ locally determined by $g$ and $h$ for which $\\beta^{(1)}=L_1\\beta$, $\\varphi^{(1)}=G_1\\beta$. Moreover, if $g$ is the Poincar\u00e9 metric, then $L_1$ and $G_1$ are the Branson\u2013Gover operators up to normalization.\n\nProof of main theorems {#sec:Weyl_connection}\n======================\n\nLet $\\nabla$ be a Weyl structure on $(M,\\mathcal{C})$. As explained in Introduction, the construction of the extension $\\overline{\\nabla}$ in Theorem \\[thm:existence\\_extension\\] boils down to a Dirichlet problem on 1-forms. However, in order to apply Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_1-forms\\] for this purpose, $g$ is not appropriate as a reference metric for $\\overline{\\nabla}$. Indeed, since $g$ diverges at ${\\partial}X$, so does the 1-form $b$ satisfying $\\overline{\\nabla}=\\nabla^g+b$.\n\nA good choice of reference metric is $\\overline{g}=\\rho^2g$, where $\\rho$ is the function given in Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_defining\\_function\\] for some $h\\in\\mathcal{C}$. Since $\\rho$ is a (possibly non-smooth) defining function, $\\overline{g}$ is a metric on $\\overline{X}$ that represents $\\overline{\\mathcal{C}}$. If we take the 1-form $\\overline{b}$ for which $\\overline{\\nabla}=\\nabla^{\\overline{g}}+\\overline{b}$, then since $\\overline{b}=b-d\\log\\rho$ and $\\Delta_g\\log\\rho=0$, and are equivalent to $d_g^*d\\overline{b}=0$ and $d_g^*\\overline{b}=0$. Obviously, for this system to be satisfied, it is necessary that $$\\Delta_g\\overline{b}=0.$$ The converse holds actually. In fact, if $\\Delta_g\\overline{b}=0$ then $\\Delta_g(d_g^*\\overline{b})=0$ follows. By the conformal change law of the divergence (see Besse\u00a0[@Besse_87]\\*[1.159 Theorem]{}), $d_g^*\\overline{b}=\\rho^2d_{\\overline{g}}^*\\overline{b}+(n-1)\\rho\\braket{d\\rho,\\overline{b}}_{\\overline{g}}$ is continuous up to the boundary and vanishes on ${\\partial}X$, so the maximum principle implies that $d_g^*\\overline{b}=0$. Hence we also have $d_g^*d\\overline{b}=0$.\n\nTake an arbitrary pair $(h,\\beta)$ so that $\\nabla=\\nabla^h+\\beta$. We define $\\overline{g}=\\rho^2g$, where $\\rho$ is the function in Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_defining\\_function\\] associated to $h$. Then by Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_1-forms\\], there is a 1-form $\\overline{b}\\in C^{n-3}(\\overline{X};T^*\\overline{X})$ such that $\\Delta_g\\overline{b}=0$ and $\\overline{b}|_{TM}=\\beta$. We set $$\\overline{\\nabla}=\\nabla^{\\overline{g}}+\\overline{b}.$$ Then and follow because $\\Delta_g\\overline{b}=0$ holds. Moreover, for any vector fields $\\xi$, $\\eta\\in\\mathfrak{X}(\\overline{X})$ that are tangent to ${\\partial}X$, the tangential component of $\\overline{\\nabla}_\\xi\\eta$ is $\\nabla^h_\\xi\\eta+\\beta(\\eta)\\xi+\\beta(\\xi)\\eta-h(\\xi,\\eta)\\beta^\\sharp$, which is $\\nabla_\\xi\\eta$. In this construction, there is an ambiguity in $\\overline{b}$ that lies in the $L^2$-kernel of $\\Delta_g$ on 1-forms. Since $\\overline{b}|_{TM}=\\beta$ is necessary in order that $\\overline{\\nabla}$ induces $\\nabla$, there is no other ambiguities.\n\nIt is interesting to see directly that another choice $(h',\\beta')$ would lead to the same Weyl structure $\\overline{\\nabla}$ (modulo, of course, $L^2$-harmonic 1-forms). If $\\nabla=\\nabla^h+\\beta=\\nabla^{h'}+\\beta'$, then we can write $h'=e^{2\\Upsilon}h$ and $\\beta'=\\beta-d\\Upsilon$ by some $\\Upsilon\\in C^\\infty(M)$. Let $\\overline{\\Upsilon}$ be the harmonic extension of $\\Upsilon$, which uniquely exists by Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_functions\\]. Then the function $\\rho'$ in Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_defining\\_function\\] associated to $h'$ is $\\rho'=e^{\\overline{\\Upsilon}}\\rho$, and hence $\\smash{\\overline{g}}'=\\smash{\\rho'}^2g=e^{2\\overline{\\Upsilon}}\\overline{g}$. On the other hand, a solution to $\\Delta_g\\smash{\\overline{b}}'=0$ and $\\smash{\\overline{b}}'|_{TM}=\\beta'$ is given by $\\smash{\\overline{b}}'=\\overline{b}-d\\overline{\\Upsilon}$. Therefore, $\\nabla^{\\smash{\\overline{g}}'}+\\smash{\\overline{b}}'$ and $\\nabla^{\\overline{g}}+\\overline{b}$ are the same.\n\nNext we discuss the smoothness issue.\n\n\\[lem:smoothness\\] Let $h\\in\\mathcal{C}$ and $\\beta\\in\\Omega^1(M)$ be such that $\\nabla=\\nabla^h+\\beta$. Then, the Weyl structure $\\overline{\\nabla}$ in Theorem \\[thm:existence\\_extension\\] is smooth if and only if $$\\label{eq:vanishing_first_log_terms}\n        L_1\\beta=0\\qquad\\text{and}\\qquad ns+G_1\\beta=0,$$ where $s\\in C^\\infty(M)$ is given in Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_defining\\_function\\] and $L_1$, $G_1$ are as in Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_1-forms\\].\n\nWe take the normalization of the metric $g$ with respect to $h$, and take the 1-form $\\tilde{b}$ so that $\\overline{\\nabla}=\\nabla^{x^2g}+\\tilde{b}$. Then, since $x^2g$ is smooth up to ${\\partial}X$, $\\overline{\\nabla}$ is smooth if and only if $\\tilde{b}$ is smooth. Using $\\rho$ and $\\overline{b}$ constructed in the proof of Theorem \\[thm:existence\\_extension\\], $\\tilde{b}$ is computed as follows: $$\\begin{split}\n            \\tilde{b}&=(d\\log\\rho+\\overline{b})-d\\log x\\\\\n            &=d\\left(\\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}x^kr_k+x^n\\log x\\cdot s\\right)\\\\\n            &\\phantom{\\;=\\;}\n            +\\beta+\\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}x^k\\beta_k+x^{n-2}\\log x\\cdot L_1\\beta\n            +\\left(\\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}x^k\\varphi_k+x^{n-1}\\log x\\cdot G_1\\beta\\right)dx+O^+(x^{n-2})\\\\\n            &=\\beta+\\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}x^k(\\beta_k+dr_k)+x^{n-2}\\log x\\cdot L_1\\beta\\\\\n            &\\phantom{\\;=\\;}\n            +\\left(\\sum_{k=0}^{n-2}x^k(\\varphi_k+(k+1)r_{k+1})+x^{n-1}\\log x\\cdot(ns+G_1\\beta)\\right)dx\n            +O^+(x^{n-2}).\n        \\end{split}$$ Therefore, is equivalent to that the first logarithmic terms of $\\tilde{b}$ being zero; thus is necessary for the smoothness. Furthermore, since $\\Delta_g\\tilde{b}=-\\Delta_gd\\log x=-d\\Delta_g\\log x$ and $\\Delta_g\\log x\\in xC^\\infty(\\overline{X})$ by an explicit computation, it follows that $(\\Delta_g\\tilde{b})|_{TM}=0$. Hence by Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_1-forms\\], is also sufficient.\n\nLet us specialize to the case where $g$ is the Poincar\u00e9 metric. Then, since $ns=Q_01$, is equivalent to $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla=0$ if $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla$ is defined by . What remains is to check the well-definedness of $\\bm{Q}_\\nabla$. It is by definition equivalent to that the conformal transformation law of $Q_01+G_1\\beta$ is as follows: if $\\Hat{h}=e^{2\\Upsilon}h$, then $$\\label{eq:transform_of_bottom_component}\n    \\Hat{Q}_01+\\Hat{G}_1\\Hat{\\beta}=e^{-n\\Upsilon}(Q_01+G_1\\beta-\\braket{L_1\\beta,d\\Upsilon}).$$ To show this, we recall from [@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]\\*[Corollary 4.14]{} that the transformation laws of $Q_01$ and $G_1$ are $\\Hat{Q}_01=e^{-n\\Upsilon}(Q_01+nL_0\\Upsilon)$ and $\\Hat{G}_1=e^{-n\\Upsilon}(G_1-\\iota_{\\operatorname{grad}\\Upsilon}L_1)$ (the first one is of course the well-known transformation law of the $Q$-curvature). We also note that $L_1$ vanishes on closed forms and $L_0=(1/n)G_1d$ (see\u00a0[@Aubry_Guillarmou_11 Proposition 4.12]). So we obtain $$\\begin{split}\n        \\Hat{G}_1\\Hat{\\beta}\n        &=e^{-n\\Upsilon}(G_1(\\beta-d\\Upsilon)-\\braket{L_1(\\beta-d\\Upsilon),d\\Upsilon})\\\\\n        &=e^{-n\\Upsilon}(G_1\\beta-G_1d\\Upsilon-\\braket{L_1\\beta,d\\Upsilon})\n        =e^{-n\\Upsilon}(G_1\\beta-nL_0\\Upsilon-\\braket{L_1\\beta,d\\Upsilon}).\n    \\end{split}$$ Hence follows, and the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:smoothness\\_extension\\] is completed.\n\nExplicit computation on conformally Einstein manifolds {#sec:conformally_Einstein}\n======================================================\n\nIn this section, we prove the explicit formula of the operator $L_1$ on a conformally Einstein manifold $(M,\\mathcal{C})$. The proof here follows the symmetric 2-tensor case carried out in\u00a0[@Matsumoto_13]. While the argument in\u00a0[@Matsumoto_13] was given in terms of the Fefferman\u2013Graham ambient metric, the same idea can also be implemented by the Poincar\u00e9 metric, which we adopt in this exposition.\n\nSuppose first that $\\mathcal{C}$ does not necessarily carry Einstein representatives. Without losing generality, we may assume that $M$ is the boundary of an $(n+1)$-dimensional smooth compact manifold-with-boundary $\\overline{X}$. Identify an open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U}$ of $M\\subset\\overline{X}$ with $M\\times[0,\\varepsilon)$. We fix a representative $h\\in\\mathcal{C}$ once and for all, and let $$g=\\frac{dx^2+h_x}{x^2}$$ be a Poincar\u00e9 metric for which $h_0=h$ and $h_x$ has an expansion in even powers of $x$ (see\u00a0[@Fefferman_Graham_02]).\n\nRecall that, in Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_1-forms\\], we called a 1-form $\\eta\\in\\Omega^1(X)$ is $O^+(x^m)$ when $\\eta$ is $O(x^m)$ and $\\eta(\\partial_x)=O(x^{m+1})$. We now introduce some subspaces of such 1-forms. For each even integer $w\\ge -n+2$, let $\\mathcal{A}[w]\\subset\\Omega^1(X)$ be the space of 1-forms that are expressed, near ${\\partial}X$, as $$\\eta=x^{-w}\\beta_x+x^{-w+2}\\varphi_x\\frac{dx}{x},$$ where $\\beta_x$ and $\\varphi_x$ are smooth families of 1-forms and functions on $M$ in $x\\in[0,\\varepsilon)$ with expansions in even powers of $x$. Moreover, we say that $\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}[w]$ is in $\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w]$ when $d_g^*\\eta=O(x^n)$. Note that $\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[-n+2]=\\mathcal{A}[-n+2]$ (use below). For all $w\\le -n$, we set $\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w]$ ($=\\mathcal{A}[w]$) to be $$\\Set{\\eta=x^{n-2}\\beta_x+x^n\\varphi_x\\frac{dx}{x}|\n        \\text{$\\beta_x$ and $\\varphi_x$ are families as mentioned above such that $\\beta_0=0$}}.$$ We need this somewhat irregular definition for technical reasons which can be seen in the proof of Lemma \\[lem:EFH\\]. If $\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}[w]$, we call $\\beta=\\beta_0=(x^w\\eta)|_{TM}\\in\\Omega^1(M)$ the *restriction* of $\\eta$, and $\\eta$ an *extension* of $\\beta$. It is clear that the restriction of any element in $\\mathcal{A}[w]$, $w\\le -n$, is zero.\n\nConsider the following three operators between these spaces: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{2}\n    E&\\colon \\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w]\\longrightarrow\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w+2],&\\qquad\n    \\eta&\\longmapsto -\\tfrac{1}{4}\\eta,\\\\\n    F&\\colon \\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w]\\longrightarrow\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w-2],&\\qquad\n    \\eta&\\longmapsto (\\Delta_g+w(w+n-2))\\eta,\\\\\n    H&\\colon \\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w]\\longrightarrow\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w],&\\qquad\n    \\eta&\\longmapsto (w+n/2)\\eta.\\end{aligned}$$ We make the following observations on these operators.\n\n\\[lem:EFH\\] (1) The operators $E$, $F$, and $H$ above are well-defined and form an $\\mathfrak{sl}_2$-triple.\n\n\\(2) Any $\\beta\\in\\Omega^1(M)$ can be extended to some $\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[0]$.\n\nThe most nontrivial point about (1) is that $F$ maps $\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w]$ into $\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w-2]$. This can be checked using formulae of Aubry\u2013Guillarmou\u00a0[@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]\\*[Equations (2.2), (2.3)]{}. Namely, if we decompose $\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}[w]$ into the tangential and normal parts as $\\eta=\\eta^{(t)}+\\eta^{(n)}(dx/x)$, then $$\\label{eq:divergence_in_components}\n        d_g^*\\eta=\n        \\begin{pmatrix}\n            x^2 d_{h_x}^* & -x\\partial_x+n \\\\\n            0 & 0\n        \\end{pmatrix}\n        \\begin{pmatrix}\n            \\eta^{(t)} \\\\ \\eta^{(n)}\n        \\end{pmatrix}+O(x^{-w+4}),$$ where the term indicated by $O(x^{-w+4})$ is expanded in even powers of $x$, and $$\\label{eq:Laplacian_in_components}\n        \\Delta_g\\eta=\n        \\begin{pmatrix}\n            -(x\\partial_x)^2+(n-2)x\\partial_x & 0 \\\\\n            2x^2d_{h_x}^* & -(x\\partial_x)^2+nx\\partial_x\n        \\end{pmatrix}\n        \\begin{pmatrix}\n            \\eta^{(t)} \\\\ \\eta^{(n)}\n        \\end{pmatrix}+\\mathcal{A}[w-2].$$ Here $\\mathcal{A}[w-2]$ of course denotes some 1-form that belongs to this space. Let $\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w]$. Then it is immediate from that $F\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w-2]$ for $w\\le -n+2$. For $w\\ge -n+4$, observe first that the tangential part of $F\\eta$ is $O(x^{-w+2})$. Since $d_g^*\\eta=O(x^n)$, implies that $x^2d_{h_x}^*\\eta^{(t)}+(w-2+n)\\eta^{(n)}=O(x^{-w+4})$. Then a little computation shows that the normal part of $F\\eta$ is $O(x^{-w+4})$. Hence $F\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}[w-2]$ also for $w\\ge -n+4$. The fact that $d_g^*F\\eta=O(x^n)$ is clear from and $d_g^*F\\eta=(\\Delta_g+w(w+n-2))d_g^*\\eta$.\n\nThe assertion (2) follows easily from . Details are left to the reader.\n\nFor our purpose, it is also important to note that an extension of $\\beta$ in (2) can be constructed from the harmonic extension $\\overline{b}$ given in Proposition \\[prop:harmonic\\_extension\\_of\\_1-forms\\]. Using the notation there, we take $$\\eta=\\beta+\\sum_{k=1}^{n-3}x^k\\beta_k+\\left(\\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}x^k\\varphi_{k-1}\\right)\\frac{dx}{x}.$$ Then one can check that $\\beta_k=0$ and $\\varphi_{k-1}=0$ for $k$ odd, i.e., $\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}[0]$ actually. Moreover, $$\\label{eq:cutoff_term_of_approximate_harmonic_extension}\n    \\eta-\\overline{b}=-x^{n-2}\\log x\\cdot L_1\\beta\n    -x^n\\log x\\cdot (G_1\\beta)\\frac{dx}{x}+O^+(x^{n-2})$$ and $\\overline{b}$ admits a polyhomogeneous expansion (see\u00a0[@Aubry_Guillarmou_11]). Since $\\overline{b}$ satisfies $d_g^*\\overline{b}=0$ and it is known that $L_1\\beta\\in\\operatorname{im}d_h^*$, we obtain from and that $\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[0]$. We will also need the fact that $$\\label{eq:error_of_approximate_harmonic_extension}\n    \\Delta_g\\eta=(n-2)x^{n-2}L_1\\beta+nx^n(G_1\\beta)\\frac{dx}{x}+O^+(x^n),$$ which follows from , , and the fact that $G_1\\beta\\in\\operatorname{im}d_h^*$.\n\nThe three operators are also understood by the ambient metric. Recall from\u00a0[@Fefferman_Graham_02]\\*[Chapter 4]{} that the ambient metric is given as $\\tilde{g}=s^2g-ds^2$ in the $(x,\\xi,s)$-coordinates, which are related with the standard $(\\rho,\\xi,t)$-coordinates[^1] on the ambient space $\\tilde{\\mathcal{G}}\\cong\\mathbb{R}\\times M\\times(0,\\infty)$ by $$x=\\sqrt{-2\\rho},\\qquad s=\\sqrt{-2\\rho}\\,t$$ in the subdomain $\\set{\\rho<0}$. The Poincar\u00e9 manifold $(X,g)$ can be seen as the hypersurface $\\set{s=1}$ of $\\tilde{\\mathcal{G}}$. Let $\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w]$, and for simplicity, assume that $w\\ge -n+2$ and $d_g^*\\eta=0$. Assign to it the 1-form $\\tilde{\\eta}=s^w\\eta$ on $\\set{\\rho<0}\\subset\\tilde{\\mathcal{G}}$. Then actually $\\tilde{\\eta}$ can be extended smoothly across $\\rho=0$, and the restriction of $\\eta$ to $M$ corresponds to the pullback of $\\tilde{\\eta}$ to $\\set{\\rho=0, t=1}$. Now let $T=s\\partial_s$. Then $E$, $F$, and $H$ correspond to $$\\tilde{\\eta}\\longmapsto -\\tfrac{1}{4}s^2\\tilde{\\eta},\\qquad\n        \\tilde{\\eta}\\longmapsto \\tilde{\\Delta}\\tilde{\\eta},\\quad\\text{and}\\quad\n        \\tilde{\\eta}\\longmapsto (\\tilde{\\nabla}_T+\\tfrac{n}{2}+1)\\tilde{\\eta}.$$ For example, noting that $\\tilde{\\eta}(T)=0$, $\\iota_T(d\\tilde{\\eta})=\\mathcal{L}_T\\tilde{\\eta}=w\\tilde{\\eta}$, and the fact that $\\tilde{g}=e^{2v}(g-dv^2)$ if we put $s=e^v$, by the conformal change law of the Hodge Laplacian we conclude that $$\\Delta_{\\tilde{g}}\\tilde{\\eta}\n        =e^{-2v}(\\Delta_{g-dv^{2}}\\tilde{\\eta}+(n-2)\\iota_T(d\\tilde{\\eta}))\n        =s^{w-2}(\\Delta_g+w(w+n-2))\\eta.$$ For general $\\eta\\in\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[w]$, we need to introduce more careful assignment of ambient 1-forms. We omit it here. The case of $w\\le -n$ is not important.\n\nWe shall detect $L_1\\beta$ in using the commutation relations of $E$, $F$, and $H$ as in Graham\u2013Jenne\u2013Mason\u2013Sparling\u00a0[@Graham_Jenne_Mason_Sparling_92]. Note first that implies $F\\eta=E^{n/2-2}\\xi$ with some $\\xi\\in\\mathcal{A}[-n+2]=\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[-n+2]$ that restricts to $(-4)^{n/2-2}(n-2)L_1\\beta$. Then we can deduce that $$\\begin{split}\n        F^{n/2-1}\\eta=F^{n/2-2}E^{n/2-2}\\xi\n        &=(-1)^{n/2}(n/2-2)!H(H+1)\\cdots(H+n/2-3)\\xi+E\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[-n]\\\\\n        &=(n/2-2)!^2\\xi+E\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[-n].\n    \\end{split}$$ Let $\\eta'\\in\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[0]$ be another extension of $\\beta$. Then since $\\eta-\\eta'\\in E\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[-2]$, it follows that $F^{n/2-1}(\\eta-\\eta')\\in E\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[-n]$. In particular, we can conclude that $$\\label{eq:GJMS_construction}\n    \\begin{split}\n        (\\text{the restriction of $F^{n/2-1}\\eta'$})\n        &=(-4)^{n/2-2}(n-2)(n/2-2)!^2L_1\\beta\\\\\n        &=(-1)^{n/2}2^{n-3}(n/2-1)!(n/2-2)!L_1\\beta\n    \\end{split}$$ for *any* extension $\\eta'\\in\\mathcal{A}_\\mathrm{df}[0]$ of $\\beta$.\n\nNow suppose there is an Einstein representative $h$ satisfying $\\operatorname{Ric}(h)=2(n-1)\\lambda h$ in the conformal class $\\mathcal{C}$. In this case, one can take $g=x^{-2}(dx^2+h_x)$, $h_x=(1-\\frac{1}{2}\\lambda x^2)^2h$ as the Poincar\u00e9 metric. Since $L_1$ annihilates the closed forms, by the de Rham\u2013Hodge\u2013Kodaira decomposition, we may assume that $d_h^*\\beta=0$ ($\\beta\\in\\operatorname{im}d_h^*$ can even be assumed, but we do not need it here). Because $h_x$ is conformal to $h$, we also have $d_{h_x}^*\\beta=0$. This implies that the pullback of $\\beta$ by the projection $M\\times[0,\\varepsilon)\\longrightarrow M$ is a divergence-free extension of $\\beta$.\n\nWe compute the Laplacian on 1-forms of the form $\\psi(x)\\alpha$, where $\\alpha\\in\\Omega^1(M)$ is divergence-free. By , $\\Delta_g(\\psi(x)\\alpha)$ is again in this form and $$\\Delta_g(\\psi(x)\\alpha)\n    =\\left(-(x\\partial_x)^2+(n-2)\\frac{1-\\frac{1}{2}\\lambda x^2}{1+\\frac{1}{2}\\lambda x^2}x\\partial_x\\right)\\psi(x)\n    \\alpha\n    +\\frac{x^2}{(1-\\frac{1}{2}\\lambda x^2)^2}\\psi(x)\\Delta_h\\alpha.$$ If we put $y=x(1-\\frac{1}{2}\\lambda x^2)^{-1}$, then $$\\Delta_g(\\psi(x)\\alpha)\n    =\\left(-(y\\partial_y)^2+(n-2)y\\partial_y\n    -2\\lambda y^2(y\\partial_y)^2+2(n-3)\\lambda y^2\\cdot y\\partial_y\\right)\\psi\\alpha\n    +y^2\\psi\\Delta_h\\alpha.$$ Hence, if we take $\\psi(x)=y^w$, then $F(y^w\\alpha)=y^{-w+2}(\\Delta_h-2\\lambda w(w-n+3))\\alpha$. By applying this repeatedly, we obtain $$F^{n/2-1}\\beta=y^{n-2}\\left(\\prod_{w=0}^{n/2-2}(\\Delta_h-2\\lambda w(w-n+3))\\right)\\beta,$$ which combined with gives the formula of $L_1\\beta$ for divergence-free 1-forms $\\beta$. Reformulating it for general 1-forms, we get .\n\n[^1]: It is even more standard to use $x$ for the coordinates on $M$, but we use $\\xi$ instead as $x$ is already reserved.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Let $F$ be a field. We show that certain subrings contained between the polynomial ring $F[X] = F[X_1, \\cdots, X_n]$ and the power series ring $F[X][[Y]] = F[X_1, \\cdots, X_n][[ Y]]$ have Weierstrass Factorization, which allows us to deduce both unique factorization and the Noetherian property. These intermediate subrings are obtained from elements of $F[X][[ Y]]$ by bounding their total $X$-degree above by a positive real-valued monotonic up function $\\lambda$ on their $Y$-degree. These rings arise naturally in studying $p$-adic analytic variation of zeta functions over finite fields. Future research into this area may study more complicated subrings in which $Y = (Y_1, \\cdots, Y_m)$ has more than one variable, and for which there are multiple degree functions, $\\lambda_1, \\cdots, \\lambda_m$. Another direction of study would be to generalize these results to $k$-affinoid algebras.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Damek Davis and Daqing Wan\\\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    University of California\\\n    Irvine, CA 92697-3875\\\n    davisds@uci.edu\\\n    dwan@math.uci.edu\ntitle: Factorial and Noetherian Subrings of Power Series Rings\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLet $R$ be a commutative ring with unity, and let $S_k$ be the set of polynomials in $R[X, Y] = R[X_1, \\cdots, X_n][ Y_1, \\cdots, Y_m]$ that are homogeneous in $Y$ of degree $k$. Every element of $R[X][[Y]]$ can be written uniquely in the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n f &=& \\sum_{k=0}^\\infty f_{k}(X, Y),\\end{aligned}$$ where $f_k(X, Y)$ is an element of $S_k$. In this expansion, there is no restriction on $\\deg_X f_k(X, Y)$. Motivated by several applications to the $p$-adic theory of zeta functions over finite fields, we want to consider subrings of $R[X][ Y]]$ in which $\\deg_X (f_k)$ is bounded above by some function $\\lambda$. In particular, let $\\lambda : {\\mathbf{R}}_{\\geq 0} \\rightarrow {\\mathbf{R}}_{\\geq 0}$ be a monotonic up function. We call $\\lambda$ a growth function. Following Wan [@Wan1], we define a subring of $R[X][[Y]]$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n R[X; Y, \\lambda] &=& \\{f = \\sum_{k=0}^\\infty f_{k}(X, Y) :\n f_k  \\in S_k, \\deg_X(f_k) \\leq C_f\\lambda(k), \\text{ for } k \\gg 0 \\},\\end{aligned}$$ where $C_f$ is a constant depending only on $f$. Since $\\lambda$ is monotonic up, it satisfies the trivial inequality, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\lambda(x) + \\lambda(y) &\\leq& 2\\lambda(x+y)\\end{aligned}$$ for all $x$ and $y$ in ${\\mathbf{R}}_{\\geq 0}$. From this inequality, it is clear that $R[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is an $R[X]$-algebra, which contains $R[X]$.\n\nIf $\\lambda$ is invertible, we have the following equivalent definition: $$\\begin{aligned}\n R[X; Y, \\lambda] &=& \\{g = \\sum_{d=0}^\\infty g_{d}(X, Y) : g_d  \\in A_d, {\\text{ord}}_Y(g_d) \\geq \\lambda^{-1}(C_gd), \\text{ for } d \\gg 0\\},\\end{aligned}$$ where $A_d$ is the subset of elements of $R[[Y]][X]$, which are homogeneous of degree $d$ in $X$, and ${\\text{ord}}_Y (g_d)$ is the largest integer $k$ for which $g_d$ is an element of $Y^kR[X][[Y]]$.\n\nIt is clear that for any positive constant $c >  0$, $R[X; Y, c\\lambda] = R[X; Y, \\lambda]$. If $\\lambda(x)$ is a positive constant, then $R[X; Y, \\lambda] = R[[Y]][X]$. If $\\lambda(x) = x$ for all $x$ in ${\\mathbf{R}}_{\\geq 0}$, then $R[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is called the over-convergent subring of $R[X][[Y]]$, which is the starting point of Dwork\u2019s $p$-adic theory for zeta functions. In both of these cases, if $R$ is noetherian, it is known that $R[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is noetherian: when $\\lambda$ is constant, the result follows from Hilbert\u2019s Basis Theorem; the case in which $\\lambda(x) = x$ is proved in Fulton [@Fulton]. More generally, if $R$ is noetherian and $\\lambda$ satisfies the following inequality, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\lambda(x) + \\lambda(y) \\leq \\lambda(x+y) \\leq \\lambda(x)\\mu(y)\\end{aligned}$$ for all sufficiently large $x$ and $y$, where $\\mu$ is another positive valued function such that $\\mu(x) \\geq 1$ for all $x$ in ${\\mathbf{R}}_{\\geq0}$, then $R[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is also noetherian as shown in Wan [@Wan1]. For example, any exponential function $\\lambda(x)$ satisfies the above inequalities. In this case the ring is particularly interesting because it arises naturally from the study of unit root F-crystals from geometry, see Dwork-Sperber [@DS] and Wan [@Wan2] for further discussions.\n\nThe first condition, $\\lambda(x) + \\lambda(y) \\leq \\lambda(x+y)$, is a natural assumption because it ensures that elements of the form $(1-XY)$ are invertible, a vital condition to this paper. If $\\lambda$ does not grow at least as fast as linear, then $(1-XY)^{-1} = 1 + \\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty} X^kY^k$ is not an element of $R[X; Y, \\lambda]$. It is not clear, however, if the second condition, $\\lambda(x+y) \\leq \\lambda(x)\\mu(y)$, can be dropped. In fact, we have the following open question from Wan [@Wan1].\n\nLet $R$ be a noetherian ring. Let $\\lambda(x)$ be a growth function satisfying $\\lambda(x) + \\lambda(y) \\leq \\lambda(x+y)$. Is the intermediate ring $R[X; Y, \\lambda]$ always noetherian?\n\nThis question is solved affirmatively in this paper if $R$ is a field and there is only one $Y$ variable.\n\nThroughout this paper we assume that $R=F$ is a field, and that $\\lambda$ grows at least as fast as linear, i.e. $\\lambda(x) + \\lambda(y) \\leq \\lambda(x+y)$ for all $x, y \\geq 0$. Further, we assume that $\\lambda(0) = 0$ and $ \\lambda(\\infty) = \\infty$, because normalizing $\\lambda$ this way does not change $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$. Without loss of generality we also assume that $\\lambda$ is strictly increasing. Finally, we assume that $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ has only one $Y$ variable. We call an element $$\\begin{aligned}\n g = \\sum_{d=0}^\\infty g_d(X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}, Y)X_n^d\\end{aligned}$$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ if $g_s$ is a unit in $F[X_1,\\cdots, X_{n-1};Y,\\lambda]$, and ${\\text{ord}}_Y(g_d) \\geq 1$ for all $d> s$. The main result of this paper is the following\n\nUnder the above assumptions, we have\n\n1.  (Euclidean Algorithm) *Suppose that $g$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, and that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$. Then there exist unique elements, $q$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, and $r$ in the polynomial ring $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]$ with ${\\rm deg}_{X_n}(r) <s$, such that $f = qg + r$.*\n\n2.  (Weierstrass Factorization) *Let $g$ be $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$. Then there exists a unique monic polynomial $\\omega$ in $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]$ of degree $s$ in $X_n$ and a unique unit $e$ in $F[X ; Y, \\lambda]$ such that $g = e\\cdot \\omega$. Further, $\\omega$ is distinguished of degree $s$.*\n\n3.  (Automorphism Theorem) *Let $g(X,Y) = \\sum_{\\mu}g_\\mu(Y)X^\\mu$ be an element of $F[X; Y,\\lambda]$ where $\\mu = (\\mu_1, \\cdots, \\mu_n)$ and $X^\\mu = X_1^{\\mu_1}\\cdots X_n^{\\mu_n}$. If $g_\\mu(Y)$ is not divisible by $Y$ for some $\\mu$, where $\\mu_n > 0$, then there exists an automorphism $\\sigma$ of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ such that $\\sigma(g)$ is $X_n$-distinguished.*\n\n4.  *$F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is noetherian and factorial.*\n\nThe Euclidean algorithm is the key part of this theorem. Our proof of this algorithm follows Manin\u2019s proof of the analogous result for power series rings as written in Lang [@Lang], except that we have to keep careful track of more delicate estimates that arise from the general growth function $\\lambda(x)$. The other results are classical consequences of this algorithm, which are proved in this paper, but the techniques are essentially unchanged from techniques utilized in proofs of analogous results for power series rings as given in Bosch, etc. [@Bosch].\n\nThis topic is also motivated by a considerable body of work concerning \u201c$k$-affinoid\u201d algebras from non-Archimedean analysis. Let $k$ be a complete non-Archimedean valued field, with a non-trivial valuation, and define $T_n = k{\\langle}X_1, \\cdots, X_n {\\rangle}$, Tate\u2019s algebra, to be the algebra of strictly convergent power series over $k$: $T_n = \\{ \\sum_{\\mu} a_\\mu X^\\mu : |a_\\mu| \\stackrel{|\\mu| \\rightarrow \\infty}{\\rightarrow}  0 \\}$. The algebra, $T_n$, is a noetherian and factorial ring with many useful properties, and it is the basis for studying $k$-affinoid algebras, see Bosch etc [@Bosch]. A $k$-algebra, $A$, is called $k$-affinoid if there exists a continuous epimorphism, $T_n \\rightarrow A$, for some $n \\geq 0$. Given $\\rho = (\\rho_1, \\cdots, \\rho_n)$ in ${\\mathbf{R}}^n$, where $\\rho_i > 0$ for each $i$, one can define $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_{n}(\\rho) &=& \\{ \\sum_{\\mu} a_\\mu X^{\\mu} \\in k[[X_1, \\cdots, X_n]] : |a_\\mu|\\rho_1^{\\mu_1}\\cdots \\rho_n^{\\mu_n} \\stackrel{|\\mu| \\rightarrow \\infty} {\\rightarrow} 0\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Note that $T_n(1,\\cdots, 1) = T_n$. Furthermore, $T_n(\\rho)$ is $k$-affinoid if, and only if, $\\rho_i$ is an element of $|k_a^\\ast|$ for all $i$, where $k_a$ is the algebraic closure of $k$, from which one can immediately verify that it is noetherian. It is shown by van der Put in [@Put] that this ring is noetherian for any $\\rho$ in ${\\mathbf{R}}^n$, where $\\rho_i > 0$ for each $i$. Define the Washnitzer algebra $W_n$ to be $$\\begin{aligned}\n W_n &=& \\bigcup_{\\rho\\in {\\mathbf{R}}^n, \\rho_i > 1} T_n(\\rho).\\end{aligned}$$ It is shown in G\u00fcntzer [@G] that $W_n$ is noetherian and factorial. A motivating study of $W_n$ is given by Grosse-K\u00f6nne [@Gr]. This overconvergent ring $W_n$ is also the basis (or starting point) of the Monsky-Washnitzer formal cohomology and the rigid cohomology.\n\nMore generally, for a growth function $\\lambda(x)$, we can also define $$\\begin{aligned}\n T_n(\\rho, \\lambda) &=& \\{ \\sum_{\\mu} a_\\mu X^\\mu \\in k[[X_1, \\cdots, X_n]] : |a_\\mu|\\rho_1^{\\lambda^{-1}(\\mu_1)}\\cdots \\rho_n^{\\lambda^{-1}(\\mu_n)} \\stackrel{|\\mu| \\rightarrow \\infty}{\\rightarrow} 0 \\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, define $$\\begin{aligned}\n W_n(\\lambda) &=& \\bigcup_{\\rho\\in {\\mathbf{R}}^n, \\rho_i > 1} T_n(\\rho,\n \\lambda).\\end{aligned}$$ If $\\lambda$ is invertible, $W_n(\\lambda)$ most closely resembles the ring $k[X; Y, \\lambda] = k[X_1, \\cdots, X_n; Y, \\lambda]$ studied in this paper. If $\\lambda(x) = cx$ for some $c > 0$ and all $x$ in ${\\mathbf{R}}_{\\geq 0}$, then $W_n(\\lambda) = W_n$ is the Washnitzer algebra. Similarly, $T_n((1, \\cdots, 1), \\lambda) = T_n$ for all $\\lambda$, and $T_n(\\rho, \\text{id}) = T_n(\\rho)$.\n\nThe results of this paper suggest that there may be a $p$-adic cohomology theory for more general growth functions $\\lambda(x)$ (other than linear functions), which would help to explain the principal zeroes of Dwork\u2019s unit root zeta function [@Dw], [@Wan2] in the case when $\\lambda$ is the exponential function. This is one of the main motivations for the present paper.\n\n[**Acknowledgments**]{}. We would like to thank Christopher Davis for informing us of several relevant references.\n\nResults and Proofs\n==================\n\nFor the rest of the paper, we assume that $F$ is a field and that $p$ is a fixed positive real number greater than one.\n\nDefine $| \\; |_\\lambda$ on $F[[Y]]$ by $| f(Y) |_\\lambda = \\frac{1}{p^{\\lambda({\\text{ord}}_Y(f))}}$ for all $f$ in $F[[Y]]$.\n\nThis is basically the $Y$-adic absolute value on $F[[Y]]$, re-scaled by the growth function $\\lambda(x)$.\n\n$(F[[Y]], | \\; |_\\lambda$) is a complete normed ring.\n\nWe defined $\\lambda(0) = 0$ and $\\lambda(\\infty) = \\infty$, so $|a|_\\lambda = 0$ if, and only if, $a = 0$ (because $\\lambda$ is strictly increasing), and $|c_0| = 1$ for all $c_0$ in $F^\\times$. Suppose that $f$ and $g$ are elements of $F[[Y]]$, then ${\\text{ord}}_Y(fg) = {\\text{ord}}_Y(f) + {\\text{ord}}_Y(g)$, and $\\lambda({\\text{ord}}_Y(f) + {\\text{ord}}_Y(g)) \\geq \\lambda({\\text{ord}}_Y(f)) + \\lambda({\\text{ord}}_Y(g))$. Thus, $$\\begin{aligned}\n |fg|_\\lambda &=& \\frac{1}{p^{\\lambda({\\text{ord}}_Y(f) + {\\text{ord}}_Y(g))}} \\\\\n&\\leq& \\frac{1}{p^{\\lambda({\\text{ord}}_Y(f))+\\lambda({\\text{ord}}_Y(g))}} \\\\\n&=& |f|_\\lambda |g|_\\lambda.\\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, since ${\\text{ord}}_Y(f+g) \\geq \\min\\{{\\text{ord}}_Y(f), {\\text{ord}}_Y(g)\\}$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n |f+g|_\\lambda &=& \\frac{1}{p^{\\lambda({\\text{ord}}_Y(f+g))}} \\\\\n&\\leq& \\frac{1}{p^{\\lambda(\\min\\{{\\text{ord}}_Y(f), {\\text{ord}}_Y(g)\\})}} \\\\\n&=& \\max\\{|f|_\\lambda, |g|_\\lambda\\}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTo show completeness, if $\\left(f^{(i)}\\right)_{i=1}^\\infty$ is a Cauchy sequence with respect to the standard $Y$-adic norm $|\\;|$ on $F[[Y]]$, then $f^{(i)}$ converges to an element $f$ in $F[[Y]]$. Thus, $|f - f^{(i)}| = \\frac{1}{p^{{\\text{ord}}_Y(f-f^{(i)})}}$ converges to $0$ as $i$ approaches $\\infty$, and so ${\\text{ord}}_Y(f - f^{(i)})$ must approach $\\infty$. This can happen if, and only if, the corresponding sequence, $\\lambda({\\text{ord}}_Y(f - f^{(i)}))$, approaches $\\infty$, as desired.\n\nA norm which only satisfies $|ab| \\leq |a||b|$, instead of strict equality is sometimes called a pseudo-norm; we disregard the distinction in this paper.\n\nWe can write any element $f$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ in the following form: $$\\begin{aligned}\n f(X,Y) &=& \\sum_{\\mu} f_\\mu(Y)X^\\mu\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mu = (\\mu_1, \\cdots, \\mu_n)$ is a tuple of positive integers, and $X^\\mu = X_1^{\\mu_1}\\cdots X_n^{\\mu_n}$. This form and the above norms allow us to formulate two equivalent definitions for $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n F[X; Y, \\lambda] &=& \\{f = \\sum_{\\mu}^\\infty f_{\\mu}( Y)X^\\mu : f_\\mu  \\in F[[Y]], |f_\\mu| p^{\\lambda^{-1}(C_f|\\mu|)} \\stackrel{|\\mu| \\rightarrow \\infty}{\\rightarrow} 0\\} \\\\\n&=& \\{f = \\sum_{\\mu}^\\infty f_{\\mu}( Y)X^\\mu : f_\\mu  \\in F[[Y]], |f_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{C_f|\\mu|} \\stackrel{|\\mu| \\rightarrow \\infty}{\\rightarrow} 0\\}\\end{aligned}$$ where $|\\mu| = \\mu_1 + \\cdots + \\mu_n$.\n\nFor all $c$ in ${\\mathbf{R}}^{n}, c_i > 0$, define $$\\begin{aligned}\n F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c &=& \\{\\sum_{\\nu} f_\\mu X^\\mu : \\left| f_\\mu \\right|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu} \\stackrel{|\\mu| \\rightarrow \\infty}{\\rightarrow} 0\\}\\end{aligned}$$ where $c \\cdot \\mu = c_1\\mu_1 + \\cdots + c_n\\mu_n$.\n\nDefine $\\| \\; \\|_{\\lambda, c}$ on $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|f\\|_{\\lambda, c} &=&  \\max |f_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIt\u2019s easy to see that $F[[Y]] \\subset F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c \\subseteq F[X; Y, \\lambda]_{c'}$ if $c_i' \\leq c_i$ for $i = 1, \\cdots, n$.\n\nThe function $\\| \\; \\|_{\\lambda, c}$ is a non-Archimedean norm on $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$.\n\nOn $F[[Y]]$, $\\|\\;\\|_{\\lambda, c}$ reduces to $| \\; |_\\lambda$. Suppose that $f$ and $g$ are elements of $F[X; Y,\\lambda]_c$. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\|f + g\\|_{\\lambda, c} &=& \\max_{\\mu}\\{ |f_\\mu+g_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu}\\}\\\\\n&\\leq& \\max_{\\mu}\\{\\max\\{|f_\\mu|_\\lambda, |g_\\mu|_\\lambda\\}p^{c\\cdot \\mu}\\} \\\\\n&\\leq& \\max\\{ \\|f\\|_{\\lambda, c}, \\|g\\|_{\\lambda, c}\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ Next, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\|fg\\|_{\\lambda, c} &=& \\max_{\\sigma}\\{ \\left|\\left(\\sum_{\\mu + \\nu = \\sigma} f_\\mu g_\\nu\\right) \\right|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\sigma} \\} \\\\\n&\\leq& \\max_{\\sigma}\\{ \\max_{\\mu + \\nu = \\sigma}\\{ |f_\\mu g_\\nu|_\\lambda\\} p^{c\\cdot \\sigma} \\} \\\\\n&\\leq& \\max_{\\mu, \\nu}\\{ |f_\\mu|_\\lambda |g_\\nu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot ( \\mu + \\nu)} \\} \\\\\n&=& \\|f\\|_{\\lambda, c}\\|g\\|_{\\lambda, c}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$\\displaystyle F[X; Y, \\lambda] = \\bigcup_{c \\in {\\mathbf{R}}^n, c_i> 0} F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$\n\nSuppose that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, then $|f_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{(C_f, \\cdots, C_f)\\cdot \\mu}$ converges to $0$ as $|\\mu|$ approaches $\\infty$. Conversely, if $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$, let $C_f = \\min_{i} c_i$.\n\nSuppose $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y,\\lambda]$. Then $f(X,Y)$ is invertible if, and only if, $f \\equiv c_0 \\mod (Y)$ where $c_0$ is a unit in $F$. If an element $f$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$ is invertible in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, then $f^{-1}$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$. Further, if $\\|f\\|_{\\lambda, c} \\leq 1$, then $\\| f^{-1}\\|_{\\lambda, c} \\leq 1$.\n\nIf $f(X,Y)$ is invertible, then it is an invertible polynomial modulo $(Y)$. Therefore, $f$ is a non-zero unit modulo $(Y)$.\n\nIf $f \\equiv c_0 \\mod (Y)$ for $c_0$ in $F^\\times$, we can write $f = c_0(1 - g(X,Y))$ as an element of $F[X;Y,\\lambda]_c$ for some $c>0$. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n f^{-1} &=&  c_0^{-1}\\left(1 + \\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty}g(X,Y)^k\\right) \\\\\n&=& c_0^{-1}\\left(1 + \\sum_{k=1}^\\infty\\sum_{j=1}^\\infty\n\\sum_{\\substack{\\mu^{(1)} + \\cdots + \\mu^{(k)} = \\sigma \\\\\n|\\sigma| = j} }\\prod_{i=1}^k g_{\\mu^{(i)}}(Y) X^\\sigma\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ Observe that, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\left(\\left|\\prod_{i=1}^k g_{\\mu^{(i)}}(Y) X^\\sigma\\right|_\\lambda\\right) p^{c\\cdot \\sigma} &=& \\prod_{i=1}^k \\left(\\left|g_{\\mu^{(i)}}(Y) X^\\sigma\\right|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot\\mu^{(i)}}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ converges to $0$ as $|\\sigma|$ approaches $\\infty$ because $g_\\mu = -c_0f_\\mu$. Suppose $\\|f\\|_{\\lambda, c} \\leq 1$, then this product is also less than or equal to one, because each term satisfies this property, so $\\|f^{-1}\\|_{\\lambda, c} = |c_0^{-1}|_\\lambda = 1$.\n\nThe ring, $(F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c, \\| \\; \\|_{\\lambda, c})$, is an $F[[Y]]$-Banach algebra.\n\nSuppose that $f = \\sum_{\\mu} f_\\mu(Y)X^\\mu$ and $g = \\sum_{\\nu} g_\\nu(Y)X^\\nu$, are elements of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$, then $|f_\\mu \\pm g_\\mu|_\\lambda \\leq \\max\\{|f_\\mu|_\\lambda, |g_\\mu|_\\lambda\\}$, and the quantity $\\max\\{|f_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu}, |g_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu}\\}$ converges to 0 as $|\\mu|$ approaches $\\infty$. Thus, $f+g$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$.\n\nSimilarly, we see that $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\left|\\sum_{\\mu + \\nu = \\sigma}f_\\mu g_\\nu\\right|_\\lambda \\leq \\max_{\\mu + \\nu = \\sigma}\\{|f_\\mu|_\\lambda\\cdot |g_\\nu|_\\lambda\\}\\end{aligned}$$ and $\\lim_{|\\sigma| \\rightarrow \\infty} \\max_{\\mu + \\nu = \\sigma}\\{|f_\\mu|\\cdot |g_\\nu|p^{c\\cdot \\sigma}\\} = 0$ as desired. Thus, $fg$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$.\n\nNow to prove that that this norm is complete, we let $\\left(f^{(i)}\\right)_{i=1}^\\infty = \\left(\\sum_{\\mu}^\\infty f_\\mu^{(i)} X^\\mu\\right)_{i=1}^\\infty$ be a Cauchy sequence in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$. Then we can choose a suitable subsequence of $\\left(f^{(i)}\\right)_{i=1}^\\infty$ (because a Cauchy sequence is convergent if, and only if, it has a convergent subsequence) and assume that $$\\begin{aligned}\n | f_\\mu^{(j)} - f_\\mu^{(i)} |_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu} \\leq \\|f^{(j)} - f^{(i)}\\|_{\\lambda, c} < 1/i \\quad \\text{ for all } j > i > 0\\text{ and all } |\\mu|\\geq 0.\\end{aligned}$$ For all $j$ and $\\mu$, $f_\\mu^{(j)}$ is an element of $F[[Y]]$ which is complete, so there is an element $f_\\mu$ in $F[[Y]]$ such that $f_\\mu^{(j)}$ converges to $f_\\mu$ as $j$ approaches $\\infty$. Define $f =\\sum_{\\mu} f_\\mu X^\\mu$. We claim that $|f_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot\\mu}$ converges to $0$ as $|\\mu|$ approaches $\\infty$.\n\nNote that $| \\; |_\\lambda$ is continuous, so $|f_\\mu - f_\\mu^{(i)}|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu} \\leq 1/i$, for all $|\\mu| \\geq 0$ and all $i > 0$. We choose $\\mu$, such that $|\\mu|$ is sufficiently large, so that $|f_\\mu^{(i)}|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu} < 1/i$. Since the norm is non-Archimedean, this shows that $|f_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu} \\leq 1/i$. Thus, $|f_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu}$ converges to $0$ as $|\\mu|$ approaches $\\infty$. Hence, $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$ and $\\|f- f^{(i)}\\|_{\\lambda,c} = \\max |f_\\mu - f^{(i)}_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu} \\leq  1/i$, therefore, $\\lim_i f^{(i)} = f$.\n\nA power series $f(X,Y) = \\sum_{k=0}^\\infty f_k(X,Y)X_n^k$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is called $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ if\n\n1.  $f_s(X,Y)$ is a unit in $F[X_1,\\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda]$ and\n\n2.  $|f_k(X, Y)| < 1$ for all $k > s$.\n\nEquivalently, $f \\mod (Y)$ is a unitary polynomial in $X_n$ of degree $s$.\n\nA power series $f(X, Y) = \\sum_{k=0}^\\infty f_k(X,Y)X_n^k$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$ is called $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$ if\n\n1.  $f_s(X,Y)$ is a unit in $F[X_1,\\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda]_c$ and $\\|f_s(X,Y)\\|_{\\lambda, (c_1, \\cdots, c_{n-1})} = 1$,\n\n2.  $\\|f\\|_{\\lambda, c} = \\|f_s(X,Y)X_n^{s}\\|_{\\lambda, c} =\n    p^{c_ns} > \\|f_k(X,Y)X_n^k\\|_{\\lambda, c}$ for all $k \\neq s$.\n\nIf an element $f$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, then it is $X_n$-distinguished in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$ for some $c$ in ${\\mathbf{R}}^n.$ Indeed, suppose that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y,\\lambda]_c$. Since $f_s(X,Y)$ is a unit, we can write $f_s(X,Y) = u + h$, where $u$ is a unit in $F[[Y]]$, and $h$ is an element of $(Y)$. By choosing $c_1, \\cdots, c_{n-1}$ small enough, we can make $\\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c} < 1$, and so $\\|f_s(X,Y)\\|_{\\lambda,  (c_1, \\cdots, c_{n-1})} = 1$. We can reduce $c_1, \\cdots, c_{n-1}$ even further to ensure that $\\|f_k(X,Y)X_n^{k}\\|_{\\lambda, c} < \\|f_s(X,Y)X_n^s\\|_{\\lambda, c} = p^{c_ns}$, because $f_k$ is an element of $(Y)$ for all $k > s$. Now, to ensure that $\\|f_k(X,Y)X_n^{k}\\|_{\\lambda, c} < \\|f_s(X,Y)X_n^s\\|_{\\lambda, c} = p^{c_ns}$, for $k < s$, we can shrink $c_1, \\cdots, c_{n-1}$ once again so that $\\|f_k(X,Y)\\|_{\\lambda, c} < p^{c_n}$. In this way we find that for all $k < s$, $\\|f_k(X,Y)X_n^k\\|_{\\lambda, c} < p^{c_n} p^{c_n(s-1)} =  p^{c_ns} = \\|f_s(X,Y)X_n^{s}\\|_{\\lambda, c}$ as desired.\n\nWe can use the notion of $X_n$-distinguished elements to derive a Euclidean algorithm for $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$. This Euclidean algorithm will then produce Weierstrass factorization for $X_n$-distinguished elements, which will allow us to deduce that $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is noetherian and factorial.\n\nLet $$\\begin{aligned}\n g &=& \\sum_{k=0}^\\infty g_k(X,Y)X_n^k\\end{aligned}$$ be $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$. Then every $f$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$ can be written uniquely in the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n f = qg + r\\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ is and element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$ and $r$ is a polynomial in $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda]_c[X_n]$, with $\\deg_{X_n}(r) < s$. Further, if $f$ and $g$ are polynomials in $X_n$, then so are $q$ and $r$.\n\nLet $\\alpha$, $\\tau$ be projections given by, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\alpha : \\sum_{k=0}^\\infty g_k(X, Y)X_n^k &\\mapsto& \\sum_{k=0}^{s-1} g_k(X,Y)X_n^k\\\\\n\\tau : \\sum_{k=0}^\\infty g_k(X,Y)X_n^k &\\mapsto& \\sum_{k=s}^\\infty g_k(X,Y)X_n^{k-s} \\\\\\end{aligned}$$ We see that $\\tau(w)$ and $\\alpha(w)$ are elements of $F[X;Y,\\lambda]_c$, and that $\\tau(wX_n^{s}) = w$. It is also clear that $\\tau(w) = 0$ if, and only if, $\\deg_{X_n}( w) < s$, for all $w$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$.\n\nSuch $q$ and $r$ exist if, and only if, $\\tau(f) = \\tau(qg)$. Thus, we must solve, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\tau(f) = \\tau(q\\alpha(g)) + \\tau(q\\tau(g)X_n^{s}) = \\tau(q\\alpha(g)) + q\\tau(g).\\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\\tau(g)$ is invertible, trivially, because it is congruent to a unit modulo $(Y)$. Let $M = q\\tau(g)$. Thus, we can write $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\tau(f) = \\tau\\left(M\\frac{\\alpha(g)}{\\tau(g)}\\right) + M = \\left(I + \\tau\\circ \\frac{\\alpha(g)}{\\tau(g)}\\right)M.\\end{aligned}$$ We want to show that the map $\\left(I + \\tau\\circ \\frac{\\alpha(g)}{\\tau(g)}\\right)^{-1}$ exists.\n\nSuppose $z$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c.$ We first claim that $\\|\\tau(z)\\|_{\\lambda, c} \\leq \\frac{\\|z\\|_{\\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}}$. Indeed, there exists $\\mu$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\|z\\|_{\\lambda, c} &=& |z_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu} \\\\\n&\\geq& |z_\\nu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot\\nu} \\quad \\text{ for all } \\nu\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\frac{\\|z\\|_{\\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}} &=& |z_\\mu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\mu - c_ns} \\\\\n&\\geq& |z_\\nu|_\\lambda p^{c\\cdot \\nu - c_ns} \\quad \\text{ for all } \\nu.\\end{aligned}$$ The maximum over all $\\nu$ with $\\nu_n \\geq s$ is equal to $\\|\\tau(z)\\|_{\\lambda, c}$, as asserted. Thus $\\|\\tau(g)\\|_{\\lambda, c} \\leq \\frac{p^{c_ns}}{p^{c_ns}} = 1$, so by the lemma 2.8 $\\|\\tau(g)^{-1}\\| \\leq 1$. Let $h = \\frac{\\alpha(g)}{\\tau(g)}$. Then, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c} \\leq \\|\\alpha(g)\\|_{\\lambda, c}\\|\\tau(g)^{-1}\\|_{\\lambda, c} < p^{c_ns}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNext we claim that $\\|(\\tau\\circ h)^m (z)\\|_{\\lambda, c} < \\frac{\\|z\\|_{\\lambda, c}\\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c}^{m}}{p^{mc_ns}}$, for all $m$ in ${\\mathbf{N}}$. Indeed, $\\|\\tau(zh)\\|_{\\lambda, c} \\leq \\frac{\\|zh\\|_{\\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}} \\leq \\frac{\\|z\\|_{\\lambda, c}\\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}}$ by what we just proved. Now, assume that this is true for $m$, then $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\|\\tau\\left((\\tau\\circ h)^{m}(z) h \\right)\\|_{\\lambda, c} &\\leq& \\frac{\\|(\\tau\\circ h)^m(z)\\|_{\\lambda, c}\\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}} \\\\\n&\\leq& \\frac{\\|z\\|_{\\lambda, c}\\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c}^{m}}{p^{mc_ns}}\\frac{\\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c}}{p^{c_ns}} \\\\\n&=& \\frac{\\|z\\|_{\\lambda, c}\\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c}^{m+1}}{p^{(m+1)c_ns}}\\end{aligned}$$ Now, we know that, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left(I + \\tau\\circ h\\right)^{-1}(z) &=& z + \\sum_{m=1}^\\infty (-1)^{m} (\\tau\\circ h)^m(z).\\end{aligned}$$ Let $w^{(i)}(z) = z + \\sum_{m=1}^i (-1)^{m} (\\tau\\circ h)^m(z)$. We claim that the sequence $\\left(w^{(i)}(z)\\right)_{i=1}^\\infty$ is Cauchy for every $z$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$. Indeed, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\|w^{(i+1)}(z) - w^{(i)}(z)\\|_{\\lambda, c} &=& \\|(\\tau\\circ h)^{i+1}(z)\\|_{\\lambda, c} \\\\\n&\\leq& \\frac{\\|z\\|_{\\lambda, c}\\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c}^{i+1}}{p^{(i+1)c_ns}}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\|h\\|_{\\lambda, c} < p^{c_ns}$, we see that this difference approaches $0$ as $i$ approaches $\\infty$. Since this norm is non-Archimedean, this is all we need to show. Therefore, since $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$ is complete, we see that $w(z) = \\lim_i w^{(i)}(z)$ exists for every $z$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$. Uniqueness is immediate from the invertibility of the map.\n\nTo prove the last statement, note that we could already carry out division uniquely in the ring $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y,\n\\lambda]_c[X_n]$, by the polynomial Euclidean algorithm. Therefore, the division is unique in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$.\n\nSuppose that $g$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, and that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$. Then there exist unique elements, $q$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, and $r$ in the polynomial ring $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]$ with ${\\rm deg}_{X_n}(r) <s$, such that $f = qg + r$.\n\nChoose $c$ for which $f$ and $g$ are elements of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_c$. Then, choose $c_i' \\leq c_i$ such that $g$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]_{c'}$. Carry out the division in this ring.\n\nTo show uniqueness we observe that $|f| = \\max\\{|q|, |r|\\}$. Indeed, without loss of generality we can assume that $\\max\\{|q|, |r|\\} = 1$. Thus, $|f| \\leq 1$. Suppose that $|f| < 1$. Then, $0 \\equiv qg + r \\mod (Y)$. Since $\\deg_{X_n} (r) < s = \\deg_{X_n} (g \\mod (Y))$, we must have that $q = r \\equiv 0 \\mod (Y)$, contradicting $\\max\\{|q|, |r|\\} = 1$. Thus, if $q'g + r' = qg + r$, then $(q-q')g + (r-r') = 0$, thus, $|q-q'| = |r-r'| = 0$.\n\nLet $f$ be $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$. Then, there exists a unique monic polynomial $\\omega$ in $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]$ of degree $s$ in $X_n$ and a unique unit $e$ in $F[X ; Y, \\lambda]$ such that $f = e\\cdot \\omega $. Further, $\\omega$ is distinguished of degree $s$.\n\nBy the previous theorem there exists an element $q$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ and a polynomial $r$ in $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]$ such that $\\deg_{X_n}( r) < s$ and $X_n^s = qf + r$. We let $\\omega = X_n^s - r$. $\\omega = qf$ is clearly $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$. Since the $X_n$-degree of $\\omega \\mod (Y)$ is the same the $X_n$-degree of $f \\mod (Y)$, we see that $q$ is a unit. Set $e = q^{-1}$, yielding $f = e\\cdot \\omega$. Uniqueness is immediate from the uniqueness of the division algorithm.\n\nA Weierstrass polynomial is a monic $X_n$-distinguished polynomial in $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]$.\n\nLet $\\sigma$ be the map such that $\\sigma(X_i) = (X_i + X_j^d)$ with $d\\geq 1$, and $\\sigma(X_j) = X_j$ for all $j \\neq i$. Then $\\sigma$ is a well-defined automorphism of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$.\n\nWithout loss of generality, we can assume that $i = n$ and $j = 1$. Let $f(X,Y) = \\sum_{\\mu} f_\\mu(Y)X^\\mu = \\sum_{\\mu} f_\\mu(Y)X_1^{\\mu_1}\\cdots X_n^{\\mu_n}$. Observe that, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\sigma(f) &=& \\sum_\\mu f_\\mu(Y)X_1^{\\mu_1}\\cdots X_{n-1}^{\\mu_{n-1}}(X_n + X_1^d)^{\\mu_n} \\\\\n&=& \\sum_\\mu f_\\mu(Y)X_1^{\\mu_1}\\cdots X_{n-1}^{\\mu_{n-1}}\\sum_{j=0}^{\\mu_n} \\binom{\\mu_{n}}{j}X_1^{dj}X_n^{\\mu_n-j}.\\end{aligned}$$ The quantity $dj + \\mu_n - j= (d-1)j +\\mu_n$ is maximal when $j = \\mu_n$. Therefore, the above converges if $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\sum_\\mu f_\\mu(Y)X_1^{\\mu_1 + d\\mu_n}\\cdots X_{n-1}^{\\mu_{n-1}}X_n^{\\mu_n}\\end{aligned}$$ converges. Choose $c$ so that $|f_\\mu(Y)|p^{c\\cdot \\mu}$ converges to $0$ as $|\\mu|$ approaches $\\infty$. Let $c_n' = \\frac{c_n}{2(d+1)}$. Then, $c_1\\mu_1 + \\cdots + c_n\\mu_n > c_1\\mu_1 + \\cdots + c_n'\\mu_{n}(d+1)$, so $|f_\\mu(Y)|p^{c_1\\mu_1 + \\cdots + c_n'\\mu_{n}(d+1)}$ converges to $0$ as $|\\mu|$ approaches $\\infty$. Therefore, this map is well defined with inverse, $\\sigma^{-1}(X_n) = X_n - X_1^d$ and $\\sigma^{-1}(X_j) = X_j$, if $j \\neq n$.\n\nSuppose $f(X,Y) = \\sum_{\\mu}f_\\mu(Y) X^\\mu$ is an element of $F[X; Y,\\lambda]$. If $|f_\\mu(Y)| = 1$, for some $\\mu$, where $\\mu_n > 0$, then there exists an automorphism $\\sigma$ of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ such that $\\sigma(f)$ is $X_n$-distinguished.\n\nLet $f(X,Y) = \\sum_{\\mu} f_\\mu(Y) X^\\mu = \\sum_{\\mu} f_\\mu(Y)X_1^{\\mu_1}\\cdots X_n^{\\mu_n}$. Let $\\nu = (\\nu_1, \\cdots, \\nu_n)$ be the maximal $n$-tuple, with respect to lexicographical ordering, such that $f_\\nu(Y)$ is not an element of $(Y)$. Let $t \\geq \\max_{1\\leq i\\leq n} \\mu_i$ for all indices $\\mu$ such that $f_\\mu(Y)$ is not an element of $(Y)$, e.g., let $t$ be the total $X$-degree of $f(X,Y) \\mod (Y)$. Now, define an automorphism $\\sigma(X_i) = X_i + X_n^{d_i}$ for $i = 1, \\cdots, n-1$, and $\\sigma(X_n) = X_n$, where $d_n = 1$, and $d_{n-j} = 1 + t\\sum_{k=0}^{j-1} d_{n-k}$, for $j = 1, \\cdots, n-1$. We see that this map is just a finite composition of automorphisms of the same type as given above. Hence, it is an automorphism.\n\nWe will prove that $\\sigma(f)$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s = \\sum_{i=1}^nd_i\\nu_i$. First, for all $\\mu$ such that $f_\\mu(Y)$ is a unit, and $\\mu \\neq \\nu$, we have $\\sum_{i=1}^n d_i\\mu_i < s$: There exists an index $q$ such that $1 \\leq q \\leq n$, such that $\\mu_1 = \\nu_1, \\cdots, \\mu_{q-1} = \\nu_{q-1}$ and $\\mu_q < \\nu_q$. Therefore $\\mu_q \\leq \\nu_q - 1$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\sum_{i=1}^nd_i\\mu_i \\leq \\sum_{i=1}^{q-1}d_i\\nu_i + d_q(\\nu_q-1) + t\\sum_{i=q+1}^nd_i =\n \\sum_{i=1}^qd_i\\nu_i - 1 < \\sum_{i=1}^nd_i\\nu_i = s.\\end{aligned}$$ Now, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\sigma(f) &=& \\sum_\\mu f_\\mu(Y)(X_1 + X_n^{d_1})^{\\mu_1}\\cdots(X_{n-1} + X_n^{d_{n-1}})^{\\mu_{n-1}}X_n^{\\mu_n} \\\\\n&\\equiv& \\sum_{\\substack{\\mu\\\\  f_{\\mu}(Y) \\notin (Y)}}f_{\\mu}(Y)\\sum_{\\substack{\\lambda_1, \\cdots, \\lambda_{n-1} \\\\ 0\\leq \\lambda_i \\leq \\mu_i}}\\binom{\\mu_1}{\\lambda_1}\\cdots\\binom{\\mu_{n-1}}{\\lambda_{n-1}}X_1^{\\mu_1 - \\lambda_1}\\cdots X_{n-1}^{\\mu_{n-1} - \\lambda_{n-1}}X_n^{d_1\\lambda_1 + \\cdots + d_{n-1}\\lambda_{n-1} + \\mu_n} \\\\\n&\\equiv& \\sum g_iX^i_n \\mod(Y)\\end{aligned}$$ where the $g_i$ are elements of $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}]$. Therefore, $\\sigma(f) \\mod (Y)$ is a polynomial in $X_n$ of degree less than or equal to $s$, and $X_n^{d_1\\lambda_1 + \\cdots + d_{n-1}\\lambda_{n-1} + \\mu_n} = X_n^s$ if, and only if, $\\mu_n = \\nu_n$ and $\\lambda_i = \\mu_i = \\nu_i$ for $i = 1, \\cdots, n-1$. Thus, we have $g_s = f_\\nu(Y) \\mod(Y)$, but $f_\\nu(Y)$ is not an element of $(Y)$, and so $\\sigma(f)$ is a unitary polynomial modulo $(Y)$. Therefore, $\\sigma(f)$ is $X_n$-distinguished of degree $s$.\n\nLet $\\omega$ be a Weierstrass polynomial of degree $s$ in $X_n$. Then for all $d \\geq 0$\n\n1.  $Y^dF[X; Y, \\lambda]/Y^d\\omega F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is a finite free $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda]$-module, and\n\n2.  $Y^dF[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]/Y^d\\omega F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]$ is isomorphic to\\\n    $Y^dF[X; Y, \\lambda]/Y^d\\omega F[X; Y, \\lambda]$.\n\nSuppose that $g$ is an element of $Y^dF[X; Y, \\lambda]$, then $g = Y^dh$ for some element $h$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$. Since $\\omega$ is $X_n$-distinguished, there exists a unique element $q$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, and a unique polynomial $r$ in $F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]$ with $\\deg_{X_n} (r) < s$, such that $h = q\\omega + r$, so $g = qY^d\\omega + Y^dr$. Therefore, $g \\equiv Y^dr \\mod Y^d\\omega F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, so the set $\\{Y^d, Y^dX_n, \\cdots, Y^dX_n^{s-1}\\}$ forms a generating set of $Y^dF[X; Y, \\lambda]/Y^d\\omega F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ over the ring $F[X_1,\\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda]$. The natural map $$Y^dF[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n] \\rightarrow Y^dF[X; Y, \\lambda]/Y^d\\omega F[X; Y, \\lambda]$$ is thus surjective. The kernel of this map is $Y^d \\omega F[X_1, \\cdots, X_{n-1}; Y, \\lambda][X_n]$, trivially.\n\n$F[X; Y, \\lambda] = F[X_1, \\cdots, X_n; Y, \\lambda]$ is factorial, for all $n \\geq 1$.\n\nFirst assume that $n=1$. Suppose that $f$ is an element of $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$. Write $f = e\\cdot Y^d  \\omega $, where $\\omega$ is a unitary polynomial in $X$ of degree $s$ in $F[[Y]][X]$, and $e$ is a unit in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$. We can factor $\\omega = uq_1\\cdots q_m$ into irreducible factors and a unit in $F[[Y]][X]$ because this ring is factorial. We want to show that these factors are still irreducible in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$. Suppose that $q_i$ is not irreducible modulo $\\omega F[[Y]][X]$, then $q_i \\equiv ab \\mod \\omega$, so there exists $g \\neq 0$ such that $q_i = ab + g\\omega$. However, by the uniqueness of the division algorithm $g = 0$, thus, $a$ or $b$ is a unit modulo $\\omega$. Therefore, $q_i$ is irreducible in $F[[Y]][X]/\\omega F[[Y]][X] \\simeq F[X; Y, \\lambda]/\\omega F[X; Y, \\lambda]$.\n\nIf $q_i$ is not irreducible in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, then there exists elements $a$ and $b$ in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, such that $q_i = ab$. Without loss of generality, $b$ must be a unit modulo $\\omega$, so $b = c_0 + g\\omega$. Write $q_i = a(c_0 + g\\omega) = ac_0 + ag\\omega$. However, by the uniqueness of the division algorithm, the same representation of the division algorithm which holds in $F[[Y]][X]$, holds in $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$, and since $\\deg_X (ac_0) < s$, we must have $ag = 0$. This is a contradiction. Therefore, the $q_i$ are irreducible in both rings. Write $f = eu\\cdot Y^dq_1\\cdots q_m$ uniquely as a product of irreducible factors and a unit. Continue by induction.\n\n$F[X_1, \\cdots, X_n; Y, \\lambda]$ is noetherian.\n\nAssume first that $n =1$. Let $I \\subseteq F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ be an ideal. Suppose that $d$ is the largest positive integer such that $I \\subseteq Y^d F[X; Y,\\lambda]$. Then every $f$ in $I$ is divisible by $Y^d$. Choose an element $f$ in $I$ such that ${\\text{ord}}_Y f = d$. We can then write $f = e\\cdot Y^d \\omega $ for some unit $e$, and Weierstrass polynomial $\\omega$. Consider the image of $I$ in $Y^dF[X; Y, \\lambda]/Y^d\\omega F[X; Y, \\lambda] \\simeq Y^dF[[Y]][X]/Y^d\\omega F[[Y]][X]$; this is Noetherian. Therefore, we can pull back the finite list of generators for the image of $I$ and add $Y^d \\omega$ to get a finite generating system for $I$. Continue by induction.\n\nFurther Questions\n=================\n\nThis paper resolves the open problem left in Wan [@Wan1], stated at the beginning of the paper, only when $F$ is a field and when $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ has only one $Y$ variable. It would be interesting to settle the general case (either positively or negatively) when $Y$ has more than one variable and $R$ is a general noetherian ring.\n\nAnother open question is whether $F[X; Y, \\lambda]$ is factorial if there is more than one $Y$ variable. The answer to this question cannot be obtained from the same methods used in this paper because elements exist that cannot be transformed into an $X_n$ distinguished element through an automorphism. For example: $$\\begin{aligned}\n f(X,Y) = Y_1 + XY_2 + X^2Y_1^2 + X^3Y_2^3 + \\cdots .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAnother direction of research could involve studying the algebras $T_n(\\rho, \\lambda)$ and $W_n(\\lambda)$. One could try to generalize results only known about the overconvergent case $(\\lambda(x) = id)$, such as those proven in Gross-Kl\u00f6nne [@Gr]. One could also try to develop the $k$-affinoid theory of $T_n(\\rho, \\lambda)$ and $W_n(\\lambda)$.\n\n[00]{}\n\nS. Bosch, U. G\u00fcntzer and R. Remmert, Non-Archimedean Analysis, Grundl. Math. Wiss. 261 (1984), Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. pp. 191-235\n\nB. Dwork, Normalized period matrices II, Ann. Math., 98(1973), 1-57.\n\nB. Dwork and S. Sperber, Logarithmic decay and overconvergence of the unit root and associated zeta functions, Ann. Sci. \u00c9cole Norm. Sup. (4) 24 (1991), no. 5, 575\u2013604.\n\nW. Fulton, A note on weakly complete algebras, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 75 (1969), 591-593.\n\nU. G\u00fcntzer, Modellringe in der nichtarchimedischen Funktionentheorie, Indag. Math. 29 (1967), 334-342.\n\nE. Grosse-Kl\u00f6nne, Rigid analytic spaces with overconvergent structure sheaf. J. Reine Angew. Math. 519 (2000), 73-95.\n\nS. Lang, Algebra, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1971, pp. 205-210.\n\nM. van der Put, Non-archimedean function algebras, Indag. Math. 33 (1971), 60-77.\n\nD. Wan, Noetherian subrings of power series rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 123, No. 6 (1995), pp. 1681-1686.\n\nD. Wan, Dwork\u2019s conjecture on unit root zeta functions, Ann. Math., 150(1999), 867-927.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We study the phase-ordering kinetics following a quench to a final temperature $T_f$ of the one-dimensional $p$-state clock model. We show the existence of a critical value $p_c=4$, where the properties of the dynamics change. At $T_f=0$, for $p\\le p_c$ the dynamics is analogous to that of the kinetic Ising model, characterized by Brownian motion and annihilation of interfaces. Dynamical scaling is obeyed with the same dynamical exponents and scaling functions of the Ising model. For $p>p_c$, instead, the dynamics is dominated by a texture mechanism analogous to the one-dimensional XY model, and dynamical scaling is violated. During the phase-ordering process at $T_f>0$, before equilibration occurs, a cross-over between an early XY-like regime and a late Ising-like dynamics is observed for $p>p_c$.'\nauthor:\n- 'Natascia Andrenacci$^\\S$, Federico Corberi$^\\dag$, and Eugenio Lippiello$^\\ddag$'\ntitle: 'Crossover between Ising and XY-like behavior in the off-equilibrium kinetics of the one-dimensional clock model'\n---\n\n\u00a7andrenacci@sa.infn.it\n\ncorberi@na.infn.it lippiello@sa.infn.it\n\nPACS: 05.70.Ln, 75.40.Gb, 05.40.-a\n\nIntroduction {#intro}\n============\n\nAfter quenching a ferromagnetic system to a low temperature phase, relaxation towards the new equilibrium state is realized by a progressive phase-ordering\u00a0[@Bray94]. The specific mechanisms involved in the coarsening phenomenon depend on the presence and on the nature of topological defects seeded by the disordered initial configuration which, in turn, are determined by the space dimensionality $d$ and the number of components $N$ of the order parameter. For $N<d$ defects are spatially extended; in this case coarsening is driven by reducing the typical curvature of the defect core, removal of sharp features and shrinking of domain bubbles or vortex loops. Systems with $N=d$ are characterized by the presence of stable localized topological defects and the ordering process occurs by mutual defect-antidefect annihilation. This is the case of the Ising chain quenched to a final temperature $T_f=0$, where up and down domains are separated by point-like interfaces performing Brownian walks. When $N=d+1$, such as in the one dimensional XY model, the kinetics is characterized by textures, spatially extended defects without a core, along which the order parameter rotates by $2\\pi$. Growth of the typical size of textures is a relevant mechanism at work in these systems. Finally, for $N>d+1$ topological defects are unstable and the dynamics is solely driven by the reduction of the excess energy related to the smooth rotations of the order parameter.\n\nIn any case, the development of order is associated to the growth of one or more characteristic lengths, with laws that, besides the specific mechanisms discussed above, depend on the conservation laws of the dynamics.\n\nGenerally, the late stage is characterized by dynamical scaling. This implies that a single characteristic length $L(t)$ can be associated to the development of order in such a way that configurations of the system are statistically independent of time when lengths are measured in units of $L(t)$. The characteristic length usually has a power law growth $L(t)\\propto t^{1/z}$. In systems with a non-conserved order parameter one generally finds $z=2$. In particular, this value is provided by the exact solution of the kinetic Ising chain\u00a0[@Glauber63] quenched to zero temperature.\n\nHowever, there are cases where dynamical scaling is violated, notably the XY model in $d=1,2$. In $d=1$ this is related\u00a0[@Rutenberg95] to the presence of two lengths $L_w(t)$ and $L_c(t)$, associated to the texture length and to the texture-antitexture distance, growing with different exponents $z=4$ and $z=2$ respectively.\n\nIn this Article, we investigate the interplay between two coarsening mechanisms, point-like defect annihilation and texture growth, in the phase-ordering kinetics of the one dimensional $p$-state clock model. This spin system reduces to the Ising model for $p=2$ and to the XY model for $p=\\infty $. We study how the model with generic $p$ interpolates between these limiting cases which, as discussed above, behave in a radically different way. In doing that, we uncover the existence of a critical value $p_c=4$, where the properties of the dynamics change abruptly. For $p\\le p_c$ the dynamics at $T_f=0$ is characterized by Brownian motion and annihilation of interfaces between domains, as in the Ising model. One has dynamical scaling with the same dynamical exponents and, interestingly, the same scaling functions of the Ising model. For $p>p_c$, instead, the dynamics is dominated by a texture mechanism analogous to the case with $p=\\infty $, and dynamical scaling is violated.\n\nIn $d=1$ there is no possibility of ergodicity breaking except at $T=0$. At any finite temperature the equilibrium state is disordered with a vanishing magnetization and a coherence length $\\xi (T)$ that diverges in the $T\\to 0$ limit. If the system is quenched to a sufficiently low temperature one has a coarsening phenomenon in a pre-asymptotic transient until the growing length associated to the development of order becomes comparable with $\\xi (T_f)$. Since $\\xi (T_f)$ diverges as $T_f\\to 0$ the phase-ordering stage can be rather long. In this regime we show that activated processes restore, after a characteristic time $\\tau _p^{cross}(T_f)$, the Ising behavior also in the cases with $p>p_c$.\n\nThis paper is organized as follows: In Sec.\u00a0\\[model\\] we introduce the model and define the observable quantities that will be considered. In Sec.\u00a0\\[num\\] we present the outcome of numerical simulations of the model with different $p$. In particular, quenches to $T_f=0$ or to $T_f>0$ will be discussed in Secs.\u00a0\\[Tzer\\] and \\[Tnzer\\], respectively. Here we enlighten the crossover between the Ising and the XY universality class and provide an argument explaining its microscopic origin. A summary and the conclusions are contained in Sec.\u00a0\\[concl\\].\n\nModel and observables {#model}\n=====================\n\nThe $p$-state clock model in one dimension is defined by the Hamiltonian H\\[\\]=-J\\_[i=1]{}\\^[N]{}\\_i \\_[i+1]{}= -J\\_[i=1]{}\\^[N]{}cos(\\_i-\\_[i+1]{}), \\[hamiltonian\\] where $\\vec \\sigma _i$ is a two-components unit vector spin pointing along one of the directions \\_i= n\\_i, \\[theta\\] with $n_i \\in \\{1,2,...,p\\}$, $i=1,...,{\\cal N}$ are the sites of the lattice and we assume periodic boundary conditions $\\theta _{{\\cal N}+1}=\\theta _1$. This spin system is equivalent to the Ising model for $p=2$ and to the XY model for $p\\to \\infty $. In $d=1$ the system is ergodic except at $T=0$. At any finite temperature the equilibrium state is disordered with a vanishing magnetization and a coherence length $\\xi (T)$ that diverges in the $T\\to 0$ limit.\n\nWe consider a system initially prepared in an high temperature uncorrelated state and then quenched, at time $t=0$, to a lower final temperature $T_f$. The dynamics is characterized by the ordering of the system over a characteristic length growing in time until, at time $\\tau _p^{eq}(T_f)$ it becomes comparable to $\\xi (T_f)$. At this point the final equilibrium state at $T_f$ is entered. Quenching to $T_f=0$, since $\\xi (0)=\\infty $, one has $\\tau _p^{eq}(T_f)=\\infty$; therefore an infinite system never reaches equilibrium and the phase-ordering kinetics continues indefinitely. If the system is quenched to a sufficiently low temperature, since $\\xi (T_f)$ is very large, the same behavior, as for $T_f=0$, can be observed over the time window $t<\\tau _p^{eq}(T_f)$.\n\nThe power law growth of the characteristic size of ordered regions depends on the specific mechanisms at work in the kinetic process. In the 1d Ising model with non conserved order parameter, i.e. single spin flip dynamics, ordering is determined by the Brownian motion of the interfaces between up and down domains, which annihilate upon meeting. This leads to L(t)\\~t\\^, \\[ldit\\] with $z=2$. The same value is also expected\u00a0[@Leyvraz86] for $p\\le 4$.\n\nThe situation is different in the XY model in $d=1$. Here the order parameter is a vector which can gradually rotate with a low energy cost. A smooth $2\\pi $ rotation of the phase $\\theta $ is called a texture when the rotation is clockwise, or antitexture when it is counterclockwise. The length over which this phase winding occurs will be denoted by $L_w(t)$. After a quench from a disordered state textures and antitextures are formed with equal probability. Then, there are points where the rotation of $\\theta $ changes direction and the phase decohere. We denote with $L_c(t)$ the characteristic length over which the phase remains coherent. It was shown\u00a0[@Rutenberg95] that $L_w(t)$ and $L_c(t)$ grow with a power law\u00a0(\\[ldit\\]) but with different exponents. Specifically one has $z=4$ for $L_w(t)$ and $z=2$ for $L_c(t)$. The existence of these two lengths is at the heart of the scaling violations of the XY model.\n\nCharacteristic lengths can be estimated from the knowledge of the two-points equal time correlation function G(r,t)=\\_i(t) \\_[i+r]{}(t) , \\[gdir\\] where $\\langle \\dots \\rangle$ means an ensemble average, namely taken over different initial conditions and thermal histories. Due to space homogeneity, $G(r,t)$ does not depend on $i$. If there is a single characteristic length in the system, one has dynamical scaling\u00a0[@Bray94], which implies G(r,t)=g(x), \\[scalgferro\\] where $x=r/L(t)$. In the Ising model one finds\u00a0[@Glauber63] g(x)=erfc {x}. \\[struttising\\] with $L(t)=\\sqrt {2t}$. For small $x$ one has the Porod linear behavior $1-g(x)\\sim x$, which is expected for systems with sharp interfaces\u00a0[@Bray94]. From Eq.\u00a0(\\[scalgferro\\]) one can extract a quantity $L_G(t)$ proportional to $L(t)$ from the condition G(L\\_G(t),t)=, \\[halfheight\\] namely as the half-height width of $G(r,t)$. In the XY model, $G(r,t)$ still obeys Eq.\u00a0(\\[scalgferro\\]), with $x=r/L_w(t)$, $L_w(t)=2^{3/4}(\\pi t)^{1/4}$, and\u00a0[@Bray94] g(x)={-}. \\[xystrutt\\] Here $\\xi _i$ is the correlation length of the initial condition which, for a quench from a disordered state, is of the order of the lattice spacing. The Porod law is not obeyed, since instead of sharp interfaces one has smooth textures. Note that $G(r,t)$ has a scaling form, although dynamical scaling is violated. Scaling violations can be evidenced by considering different quantities as, for instance, the autocorrelation function C(t,s)=\\_i (t)\\_i (s) . \\[autocorr\\] In the Ising model this quantity can be cast in scaling form\u00a0[@Glauber63] C(t,s)=h(y), \\[ccs\\] where $y=t/s$ and h(y)=. \\[ccsc\\] In the XY model, instead, one finds\u00a0[@Rutenberg95] the stretched exponential behavior C(t,s)={-s\\^ }, \\[cxy\\] This expression cannot be cast in a scaling form, as for the Ising model, revealing the absence of dynamical scaling.\n\nNumerical results {#num}\n=================\n\nIn the following we will present the numerical results. Setting $J=1$, for each case considered we simulated a string of $10^4$ spins with periodic boundary conditions and different values of $p$ ranging from $p=2$, corresponding to the Ising model, to $p=\\infty$, corresponding to the XY model. We consider a single spin flip dynamics regulated by transition rates w{\\[\\]}=w\\_p()= . \\[metropolis\\] Here $[\\sigma]$ and $[\\sigma']$ are the spin configurations before and after the move, differing at most by the value of the spin on a randomly chosen site, $\\Delta E=H[\\sigma']-H[\\sigma]$, and we have set the Boltzmann constant to unity. The transition rates\u00a0(\\[metropolis\\]) are a generalization of Glauber transition rates to the $p$-state spins of the clock model. They reduce to the usual Glauber transition rates $w\\{[\\sigma]\\to [\\sigma']\\}=(1/2)[1+\\tanh (-\\Delta E/2T)]$ for $p=2$. The factor $2/p$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[metropolis\\]) ensures that all spin values have the same probability $1/p$ when $\\Delta E=0$.\n\nAn average over $10^4$ realizations is made for each simulation. The statistical errors in the data reported in the figures are always smaller than the dimension of the symbols or the thickness of the lines.\n\nQuenches to $T_f=0$. {#Tzer}\n--------------------\n\nLet us start with quenches to $T_f=0$, by illustrating the behavior of the characteristic length $L_G(t)$ defined in Eq.\u00a0(\\[halfheight\\]). In Fig.\u00a0\\[figlengthT0\\] this quantity is plotted against $t^{1/2}$ (left panel) or against $t^{1/4}$ (right panel), for several values of $p$ ranging from $p=2$ to $p=\\infty $.\n\nThis figure shows that $L_G(t)$ has an asymptotic power law growth, as in Eq.\u00a0(\\[ldit\\]), for every value of $p$. However, the dynamic exponent $z$ radically changes going from $p\\le p_c$, where one has values very well consistent with $z=2$ (best fits yield $1/z=0.49\\pm 0.01$ for $p=2,3,4$), to $p>p_c$ where $z=4$ is found with good accuracy (we find $1/z=0.27\\pm 0.01, 0.27\\pm 0.01, 0.25\\pm 0.01$ for $p=5,6,10$). We recall that these are the values found in the Ising model and in the XY model. The behavior of $L_G(t)$, then, indicates a crossover from Ising to XY behavior upon crossing $p_c=4$. We will see in the following that this is confirmed by the analysis of other dynamical quantities. Before doing that, however, let us discuss which is the microscopic mechanism at the basis of this crossover.\n\nFor finite values of $2<p<\\infty $ we generalize the definition of a texture as a region of the lattice of length $L_w(t)$ where $p$ subsequent domains are found, each of average length $L_d(t)\\sim L_w(t)/p$, such that moving along the lattice the value of $n$ follows the sequence $n=p,p-1,...,1$. This is schematically shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[figture\\].\n\nTo developed order two mechanisms are possible: A texture can grow by increasing the number of spins $L_d(t)$ on every step. We anticipate that this process is found to be relevant for $p>p_c$ and leads to the power law behavior\u00a0(\\[ldit\\]) of $L_w(t)$ with $z=4$, as in the XY model. This behavior competes with the tendency to build the largest possible domains, instead of textures. This amounts to replace a texture with a number $N_D \\ll p$ of domains each characterized by a single value of $n$. However, for $p>p_c$ at $T=0$, once textures are present, this process is not allowed. In fact, let us consider the situation of Fig.\u00a0\\[figture\\] and the possibility to form, in this region, a unique domain with, say, $n=p$ (the dotted line in Fig.\u00a0\\[figture\\]). There are several ways to do this. Suppose one starts by rotating the spins with $n=1$ to $n=2$, as shown by the thin arrow in Fig.\u00a0\\[figture\\]. After the move the energy would change by an amount E\\_p= J\\[2(2/p) - (4/p)-1\\]. \\[activation\\] This function is plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[figenergy\\].\n\nInterestingly one has $\\Delta E_p\\le 0$ or $\\Delta E_p>0$ for $p\\le p_c$ or $p>p_c$, respectively. At $T_f=0$ moves with $\\Delta E_p>0$ are forbidden. Therefore, for $p>p_c$ there is no possibility to destroy the textures and form domains. Other possible moves, as, for instance, a rotation from $n=1$ to $n=3$, correspond to a larger activation energy and are forbidden as well. Therefore, for $p> p_c$ textures and antitextures are stable against domain formation and the only ordering mechanism left is their growth and annihilation, much in the same way as in the XY model, leading to $z=4$. Conversely, for $p\\le p_c$ textures are removed and domains are created whose competition leads to the Ising like behavior $z=2$. As already discussed, in the XY model the exponent $z=4$ is associated to the growth of the size of single textures. In order to check if the same mechanism is at work also in the clock model, in the numerical simulation we have identified the textures present in the system at each time and we have computed their average size $L_w(t)$. The results are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[figlengthture\\] for different values of $p>p_c$, showing that, actually, the size of textures grows as a power law $L_w\\sim t^{1/z}$ with $z$ quite compatible with $z=4$ (best fits yield $1/z=0.29\\pm 0.02, 0.29\\pm 0.02, \n0.28\\pm 0.02, 0.23\\pm 0.02$ for $p=5,6,10,25$, respectively). This confirms that the exponent $z=4$ of the algebraic growth of $L_G(t)$ is determined by the texture mechanism, as in the XY model.\n\nThe previous results for $L_G(t)$ indicate the presence of a crossover at $p=p_c$ from the Ising to the XY non-equilibrium universality class. In order to substantiate this conjecture we have computed other dynamical quantities. The equal-time correlation function is plotted in Figs.\u00a0\\[figg1\\],\\[figg2\\],\\[figg3\\] against $x=r/L_G(t)$. In Fig.\u00a0\\[figg1\\] the cases with $p=2,3,4$ are considered. According to Eq.\u00a0(\\[scalgferro\\]) for $p=2$ one should find collapse of the curves with different $s$ on a single mastercurve $g(x)$ given by Eq.\u00a0(\\[struttising\\]). This is indeed observed in Fig.\u00a0\\[figg1\\]. According to our hypothesis the same behavior should be observed also for $p=3,4$, as can be verified in the figure. Moreover, one also finds that the mastercurves $g(x)$ are numerically indistinguishable for different $p$, and they all coincide with that of Eq.\u00a0(\\[struttising\\]). This result is trivial for $p=4$, since in this case the clock model can be mapped exactly on two non-interacting Ising models. The same property could be expected also for $p=3$. In fact, by considering $G(r,t)$, it easy (see Appendix) to check that G(r,t)=G\\_P(r,t)-, \\[maj1\\] where $G_P(r,t)$ is the [*single phase* ]{} equal time correlation function of the 3-state Potts model. This quantity was computed in\u00a0[@Sire], where it was found G\\_P(r,t)=G\\_I(r,t)+, \\[maj2\\] where $G_I(r,t)$ is the equal time correlation function of the Ising model. Plugging Eq.\u00a0(\\[maj2\\]) into Eq.\u00a0(\\[maj1\\]) one finds $G(r,t)=G_I(r,t)$. The same argument shows also the identity between the two time correlation functions of the clock model with $p=3$ and the Ising model, strongly suggesting the complete equivalence between these models.\n\nLet us emphasize that this result indicates a stronger similarity among the cases $p=2,3,4$ than a unique non-equilibrium universality class would imply, since not only the exponents are equal but the whole functional form of the scaling function. This results are in contrast with those of ref.\u00a0[@Liu93] where an approximate theory was used to show the dependence of $g(x)$ on $p$. However, the approximation used in\u00a0[@Liu93] is expected to improve increasing the dimensionality $d$.\n\nThe cases with $p>p_c$ are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[figg2\\],\\[figg3\\]. As discussed in Section\u00a0\\[model\\], $G(r,t)$ obeys the scaling form\u00a0(\\[scalgferro\\]) also in the XY model, although dynamical scaling is violated. According to our conjecture, for $p>p_c$ we expect the same behavior. In Fig.\u00a0\\[figg2\\] it is shown that, indeed, the curves at different times collapse when plotted against $x=r/L_G(t)$. However, differently from the cases $p\\le p_c$, the masterfunction $g(x)$ depends on $p$ and converges to the form\u00a0(\\[xystrutt\\]) of the XY model for $p\\to \\infty $, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[figg3\\].\n\nLet us turn to consider the autocorrelation function, that is plotted in Figs.\u00a0\\[figauto1\\]-\\[figauto2\\] against $y=t/s$. In Fig.\u00a0\\[figauto1\\] the cases with $p=2,3,4$ are considered. Here the situation is analogous to that of $G(r,t)$. For $p=2$ one should find collapse of the curves with different $s$ on a mastercurve $h(y)$, Eq.\u00a0(\\[ccs\\]). This is indeed observed in Fig.\u00a0\\[figauto1\\]. The same behavior is observed also for $p=3,4$. Again, as for $G(r,t)$, we find that the mastercurves $h(y)$ are numerically indistinguishable for different $p$, and they all coincide with that of Eq.\u00a0(\\[ccsc\\]).\n\nIn order to check if this property is completely general, namely if every observable is characterized by the same exponents and scaling functions for $p=2,3,4$, besides the correlation functions we have also computed the integrated autoresponse function (t,s)=\\_s \\^t dt\u2019 R(t,t\u2019). \\[integrated\\] Here R(t,t\u2019)=\\_ . \\_[h\\_i=0]{}, $\\alpha =1,2$ being the generic vector components, is the linear autoresponse function associated to the perturbation caused by an impulsive magnetic field $\\vec h _i$ switched on at time $t'<t$. In the Ising model\u00a0[@Lippiello00], in the $T\\to 0$ limit one finds (t,s)=f(t/s), \\[ccschichi\\] with f(y)= (1-). \\[ccschi\\] Here we measure the response function using the efficient method derived in\u00a0[@Lippiello05] without applying the perturbation.\n\nThe behavior of $\\chi (t,s)$ is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[figchi1\\] for the cases $p=2,3,4$. One finds collapse of the curves with different $s$ on a mastercurve $f(y)$, as in Eq.\u00a0(\\[ccschichi\\]) for $p=2$. Also in this case mastercurves $f(y)$ for different $p$ are numerically indistinguishable. In conclusion, then, our data for $G(r,t)$, $C(t,s)$ and $\\chi (t,s)$ confirm that the cases with $p=2,3,4$ share the same exponents and scaling functions. Notice that having the same scaling function both for $C(t,s)$ and $\\chi (t,s)$, the cases with $p\\le p_c$ have also the same parametric plot of $\\chi (t,s)$ versus $C(t,s)$\u00a0[@Lippiello00].\n\nThe situation is radically different for $p>p_c$. We expect here to see a texture-dominated XY-like dynamics, with violations of dynamical scaling that can be detected from $C(t,s)$. In fact, this is what one observes in Fig.\u00a0\\[figauto2\\], where the autocorrelation function is plotted against $y$. For each value of $p$, curves with different values of $s$ do not collapse. The whole behavior is qualitatively similar to that of the XY model described by Eq.\u00a0(\\[cxy\\]), which predicts the lowering of the curves for fixed $y$ as $s$ increases. Quantitatively, as already observed regarding $G(r,t)$, the analytic form of the curves depends on $p$ and is different from that of the XY model, namely Eq.\u00a0(\\[cxy\\]). As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[figauto3\\], Eq.\u00a0(\\[cxy\\]) is gradually approached increasing $p$.\n\nQuenches to $T_f>0$. {#Tnzer}\n--------------------\n\nWhen quenches to finite temperatures are considered, as already discussed in Sec.\u00a0\\[model\\], one has a finite equilibration time $\\tau _p^{eq}(T_f)$. In the following we will always discuss the ordering kinetics preceding the equilibration time, namely for $t\\ll \\tau _p^{eq}(T_f)$.\n\nAccording to our hypothesis, the XY-like behavior observed for $p>p_c$ is due to the impossibility to eliminate textures and form domains, because this would require activated processes with $\\Delta E_p>0$ given by Eq.\u00a0(\\[activation\\]). Quenching to a finite temperature those processes are no longer forbidden and we expect textures to start being removed after a characteristic time $\\tau _p ^{cross}(T_f)$. In order to estimate the crossover time let us consider again the situation of Fig.\u00a0\\[figenergy\\]. The activated process described by the thin arrow, where the spins with $n=1$ are rotated to $n=2$, is a first action towards the removal of the texture, but the texture is not disappeared yet. The second action is the rotation of spins from $n=2$ to $n=3$, indicated by a bold arrow in the figure\u00a0[@nota1]. This requires an energy E\\_p\\^[(2)]{}= J\\[(2/p) +(4/p) - (6/p)-1\\]. \\[activation2\\] Then a third action is required, where spins with $n=3$ are rotated to $n=4$, and so on, until, after $p-1$ steps all the spins in the region considered have $n=p$. It is easy to generalize Eqs.\u00a0(\\[activation\\],\\[activation2\\]) to the generic $m$-th action: E\\_p\\^[(m)]{}= J\\[(2/p) +(2m/p) - (2(m+1)/p)-1\\]. \\[activationm\\] Let us consider $\\Delta E_p^{(2)}$. This quantity is positive for $p>6$. For $p=5,6$, therefore, the second action is not an activated process, while it is activated for $p>6$. In general, from Eq.\u00a0(\\[activationm\\]) one has $\\Delta E_p^{(m)}>0$ for $p>2+2m$. The accomplishment of an action requires a time\u00a0[@nota2] t \\_p \\^[(m)]{}(T\\_f)\\^[-1]{}= {1+}, \\[ttcross\\] $w_p$ being the transition rates defined in Eq.\u00a0(\\[metropolis\\]). The crossover time, namely the characteristic time after which textures are removed, is given by the sum of the times required for all the $p-1$ actions. It can be evaluated as \\_p \\^[cross]{}(T\\_f)=\\_[m=1]{}\\^[p-1]{}t \\_p\\^[(m)]{}(T\\_f). \\[tcross\\] In the limit $T_f\\to 0$ the sum is dominated by the process with the largest activation energy \\_p \\^[cross]{}(T\\_f0)=Sup \\_[{m=1,p-1}]{}t \\_p\\^[(m)]{}(T\\_f). The $Sup $ in this equation is obtained for $m=m^*$ given by m\\^\\* = {\n\n[ll]{} 1 $for$ p &lt; 10\\\n$for$ p10\n\n. where $[ x ]$ is the integer part of $x$. Then, in the low-$T$ limit one has \\_p \\^[cross]{}(T\\_f0)=t \\_p\\^[m\\^\\*]{}(T\\_f). In conclusion, for $p\\le p_c$ no activated processes are required and the system immediately enters the Ising-like phase ordering behavior. For $p>p_c$, instead, the dynamics is initially of the XY type until, at $t\\sim \\tau _p^{cross}(T_f)$ there is a crossover to the Ising-like non-equilibrium behavior.\n\nThe crossover can be appreciated in Figs.\u00a0\\[figlengthT2\\],\\[figlengthT1\\]. The former shows the behavior of $L_G(t)$ for $p=6$ and different values of $T_f$. Here one observes initially the same behavior as for $T_f=0$, namely $L_G(t)\\propto t^{1/4}$, i.e. a straight line in the plot of $L_G(t)$ against $t^{1/4}$ (right panel). For larger times there is a crossover to the Ising behavior $L_G(t)\\simeq t^{1/2}$, namely a straight line in the plot of $L_G(t)$ versus $t^{1/2}$ (left panel). Although the crossover is a quite smooth phenomenon, as can be seen in Fig.\u00a0\\[figlengthT2\\], $\\tau _p^{cross}(T_f)$ given by Eq.\u00a0(\\[tcross\\]), represented by thick segments across the lines, turns out to be of the correct order of magnitude for all the temperatures considered.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[figlengthT1\\] we plot $L_G(t)$ for $T_f=0.1$ and different values of $p$. One observes the same pattern of behavior of Fig.\u00a0\\[figlengthT2\\] with a crossover from a power law growth with $z=4$ to one with $z=2$. The crossover time\u00a0(\\[tcross\\]) grows with $p$, as expected.\n\nConclusions {#concl}\n===========\n\nIn this paper we have studied the phase-ordering kinetics of the one dimensional $p$-state clock model. We have shown the existence of a critical value $p_c=4$ separating two radically different dynamical behaviors. For $p\\le p_c$ the dynamics is in all respects analogous to that of the Ising model with $p=2$. Phase-ordering proceeds by means of formation and subsequent growth of domains through interface diffusion and annihilation. This similarity goes beyond the qualitative level: we find the same exponent and scaling functions for every $p\\le p_c$ and for all the one-time or two-time quantities considered. This reflects a deeper similarity than what a unique universality class, involving only the value of the exponents, would imply. For $p>p_c$ the dynamics changes dramatically, due to the relevant role played by textures. While for $p\\le p_c$ textures are quickly removed by means of non-activated processes, for $p>p_c$ their removal can only be realized through activated processes. For quenches to $T_f=0$, activated process are forbidden, and, therefore, textures remain in the system up to the longest times. Their peculiar growth mechanisms characterize the dynamics, similarly to what happens in the one-dimensional XY model, with the notable feature of violation of dynamical scaling and the anomalous growth with $z=4$ of the winding length $L_w(t)$. For quenches to finite $T_f$, textures survives up to a characteristic time $\\tau _p^{cross}(T_f)$ which can be rather long for small temperatures or large $p$. A crossover phenomenon is then observed from an initial dynamics of the XY type, to a later Ising-like behavior.\n\nOur results are at odd with what is found in Ref.\u00a0[@Liu93] where an approximate analytical solution of the clock model in arbitrary dimension is obtained, finding an analogous scaling behavior for all $p< \\infty $ but with $p$-dependent scaling functions. In the present one-dimensional case, instead, the situation is the opposite. There is not an analogous scaling behavior for all values of $p$, but a qualitative difference occurs crossing $p_c$. In addition, when scaling holds, namely for $p\\le p_c$, the scaling functions do not depend on $p$. We believe, however, the behavior of the system considered in this paper, to be peculiar. Actually, the different dynamics observed crossing $p_c$ is determined by the simultaneous presence of interfaces and textures. On the basis of the discussion of Sec.\u00a0\\[intro\\] we expect a similar situation to be only realized in $N$-component vectorial models with discrete states and $N=d+1$, where extended defects without a core may exist. For instance, it would be very interesting to study if a similar pattern is observed in $d=2$ for a generalization of the clock model where a three component order parameter is only allowed to point on a finite number $p$ of directions. In addition, we expect the remarkable feature of unique scaling functions for different values of $p$ to be peculiar to the one-dimensional case. Considering the function $G(r,t)$, for instance, the scaling function describes the spatial distribution of domains and it is quite evident that in $d>1$ this depends on $p$. Taking the case $d=2$, for simplicity, one has the usual bicontinuous domain structure of domains and interfaces for $p=2$, while for $p>2$ there is a different pattern with interfaces and vortices\u00a0[@Kaski83]. However, in the one dimensional case interfaces are point-like objects for all values of $p$ and one does not expect relevant differences in their spatial distribution when $p$ is changed.\n\nFinally, it would be very interesting to study if a similar pattern is observed in the one-dimensional clock model with a conserved order parameter. Concerning the value of the growth exponent $z$, which in the non-conserved case considered here effectively discriminate the Ising dynamics with $z=2$ from the XY behavior with $z=4$, in the conserved case one should observe a crossover from $z=3$ to $z=6$\u00a0[@Bray94; @Rutenberg95].\n\n[**Acknowledgment**]{}\n\nWe acknowledge the referee for valuable suggestions.\n\nThis work has been partially supported from INFM through PAIS and from MURST through PRIN-2004.\n\n\\[appendix1\\]\n\nFor the 3-states clock model the correlation between two spins at a certain time $t$ can be written as G(r,t)=\\_i \\_j= \\_[n,n\u2019=1,3]{}P\\_i(n,t)P\\_[i,j]{}(n,tn\u2019,t), where $r$ is the distance between $i$ and $j$. $n$, $\\theta _i$ (and their relation) are defined in Eq.\u00a0(\\[theta\\]), $P_i(n,t)$ is the probability to find the spin on site $i$ in the state $n$ at time $t$, and $P_{i,j}(n,t\\mid n',t)$ is the conditional probability to find the state $n'$ on site $j$ provided that the state $n$ is found in $i$. Isolating the diagonal terms one has G(r,t) = \\_[n=1,3]{}P\\_i(n,t)P\\_[i,j]{}(n,tn,t)- \\_[n=1,3]{}P\\_i(n,t)\\_[n\u2019n]{}P\\_[i,j]{}(n,t n\u2019,t), where we have used the value $\\cos (\\theta _i-\\theta _j)=-1/2$ when $\\theta _i\\ne \\theta _j$. Since $\\sum _{n'\\ne n}P_{i,j}(n,t\\mid n',t)=1-P_{i,j}(n,t\\mid n,t)$ one has G(r,t)= -\\_[n=1,3]{}P\\_i(n,t)+ \\_[n=1,3]{}P\\_i(n,t)P\\_[i,j]{}(n,tn,t) =-+ \\_[n=1,3]{}P\\_i(n,t)P\\_[i,j]{}(n,tn,t) \\[appe3\\]\n\nLet us turn now to the Potts model where a generic spin on site $i$ can be found in the states labeled with $m_i=1,2,3$. Following Ref.\u00a0[@Sire], we define an auxiliary field $\\phi _i (n)$ such that $\\phi _i (n)=1$ if $m_i=n$, where $n$ is a reference state, and $\\phi _i (n)=0$ otherwise. The correlation of the auxiliary field is the [*single phase*]{} correlation function of the Potts model and can be written as G\\_n(r,t)=\\_i (n)\\_j (n)= P\\_i(n,t)P\\_[i,j]{}(n,tn,t), \\[appe4\\] where the probabilities are defined analogously to the those of the clock model introduced above. Recognizing $G_n(r,t)$ in the last term of the right hand side of Eq.\u00a0(\\[appe3\\]) one arrives at G(r,t)= -+ \\_[n=1,3]{}G\\_n(r,t). \\[resul\\] Because of the rotational symmetry one has $G_P(r,t)=G_n(r,t)$ for all values of $n$ and then one recovers Eq.\u00a0(\\[maj1\\]).\n\n[99]{}\n\nA.J.\u00a0Bray, Adv.Phys. [**43**]{}, 357 (1994).\n\nR.J.\u00a0Glauber, J.Math.Phys. [**4**]{}, 294 (1963).\n\nA.D.\u00a0Rutenberg and A.J.\u00a0Bray, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**74**]{}, 3836 (1995).\n\nF.\u00a0Leyvraz and N.\u00a0Jan, J.Phys.A: Math.Gen. [**19**]{}, 603 (1986).\n\nC.\u00a0Sire and S.N.\u00a0Majumdar, Phys.Rev.Lett. [**74**]{}, 4321 (1995); Phys.Rev.E [**52**]{}, 244 (1995).\n\nF.\u00a0Liu and G.F.\u00a0Mazenko, Phys.Rev.B [**47**]{}, 2866 (1993).\n\nE.\u00a0Lippiello and M.\u00a0Zannetti, Phys.Rev. E [**61**]{}, 3369 (2000).\n\nE.\u00a0Lippiello, F.\u00a0Corberi, and M.\u00a0Zannetti, Phys.Rev.E [**71**]{}, 036104 (2005). Here the algorithm for the computation of the response function was obtained making explicit reference for simplicity to the case $p=2$, but the same derivation applies as well to generic $p$.\n\nAs for the first action, other possible moves require a larger activation energy and are, therefore, suppressed at low temperatures.\n\nIn a texture there may be several adjacent spins with the same value of $n$ on a step, as in Fig.\u00a0\\[figture\\]. Since the accomplishment of an action requires all these spins to be rotated, a number of elementary moves with $\\Delta E=0$ may occur besides the (possibly) activated processes with energy variation $\\Delta E_p ^{(m)}$. These moves correspond to the Brownian displacement of the boundaries between, say, spins with $n=2$ and $n=3$ in Fig.\u00a0\\[figture\\]. They can be disregarded in the computation of $t_p^m(T_f)$ at low temperatures since they require a microscopic time to occur.\n\nK.\u00a0Kaski and J.D.\u00a0Gunton, Phys.Rev.B [**28**]{}, 5371 (1983); K.\u00a0Kaski M.\u00a0Grant and J.D.\u00a0Gunton, Phys.Rev.B [**31**]{}, 3040 (1985).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this work we study the encoding of smooth, differentiable multivariate functions distributions in quantum registers, using quantum computers or tensor-network representations. We show that a large family of distributions can be encoded as low-entanglement states of the quantum register. These states can be efficiently created in a quantum computer, but they are also efficiently stored, manipulated and probed using Matrix-Product States techniques. Inspired by this idea, we present eight quantum-inspired numerical analysis algorithms, that include Fourier sampling, interpolation, differentiation and integration of partial derivative equations. These algorithms combine classical ideas\u2014finite-differences, spectral methods\u2014with the efficient encoding of quantum registers, and well known algorithms, such as the Quantum Fourier Transform. *When these heuristic methods work*, they provide an exponential speed-up over other classical algorithms, such as Monte Carlo integration, finite-difference and fast Fourier transforms (FFT). But even when they don\u2019t, some of these algorithms can be translated back to a quantum computer to implement a similar task.'\nauthor:\n- Juan Jos\u00e9 Garc\u00eda Ripoll\ntitle: 'Quantum-inspired algorithms for multivariate analysis: from interpolation to partial differential equations'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:introduction}\n============\n\nQuantum computers use the exponential capacity of a Hilbert space to process information. A quantum computer with $m$ qubits can store $2^m$ complex numbers as the components in of the quantum register wavefunction, $\\ket{\\psi} =\\sum_{s=0}^{2^m-1}\\psi_s\\ket{s}.$ A quantum algorithm creates, manipulates and probes these amplitudes to solve a concrete problem. In this work we discuss algorithms where the amplitudes $\\psi(s)$ encode a smooth function defined over some a volume in $\\mathbb{R}^N.$ A common example is storing probability distributions in the quantum register\u00a0[@grover2002] and developing algorithms to extract expected values\u00a0[@montanaro2015] or conditional probabilities\u00a0[@woerner2019]. With this, it becomes possible to perform valuations of complex financial assets\u00a0[@rebentrost2018; @stamatopoulos2019], VaR estimates\u00a0[@egger2019], and other sophisticated interrogations. Using a similar encoding, one may also address radically different problems, such as solving partial differential equations with finite differences\u00a0[@cao2013; @fillion2018; @costa2019].\n\nIn this work we discuss how efficient it is to encode discretized functions in a quantum register. We find that for certain distributions\u2014smooth differentiable functions with bounded derivatives or bounded spectrum\u2014, the accuracy of the discretization increases exponentially with the number of qubits, while the bipartite entanglement grows slowly or even remains bounded with the problem size. This implies such distributions may be constructed with quasi-local operations and polynomial resources on quantum computers. But it also opens an exciting possibility: a family of quantum-inspired matrix-product state (MPS) techniques that, under approximations of low entanglement, represent the quantum register efficiently and provide new classical (and quantum) algorithms for interpolating, differentiating, Fourier transforming or solving differential equations of such distributions. These techniques work efficiently because of an implicit renormalization where different qubits work with different length scales, in a way that lends itself to efficient interpolation and compression. This idea, with strong parallelisms to the 2D quantum image processing world\u00a0[@latorre2005], gives rise to a performance improvement over earlier techniques based on tensor trains\u00a0[@grasedyck2013; @bachmayr2016] or MPS encodings of mode expansions\u00a0[@iblisdir2007].\n\nThis paper is structured in three parts. The bulk of the work is preceded by a summary (Section\u00a0\\[sec:summary\\]) of the main results and heuristic algorithms that are developed in this work. The first section addresses the representation of discretized functions in quantum registers. It presents state-of-the-art techniques (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:gr-construct\\]) and new discretizations (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:other-discretizations\\]) on an equal footing. We argue that these samplings produce to weakly entangled multi-qubit states (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:bounds\\]). This prediction is confirmed numerically for common distributions in 1, 2 and 3 dimensions, using exact simulations of up to 28 qubits and MPS simulations of up to 36 qubits. The second part of this work introduces the idea of MPS quantum registers, whereby we encode multivariate functions in arrangements of qubits that are represented, manipulated and interrogated using the MPS representation. Section\u00a0\\[sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms\\] further develops this idea, recalling well known algorithms from the literature and how they specialize for our purposes. With these tools at hand, Section\u00a0\\[sec:analysis\\] develops new quantum-inspired algorithms for the numerical analysis of multivariate functions. These include the mapping of functions to MPS format (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:exponential\\]), Fourier analysis (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:qft\\]), interpolation methods (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:interpolation\\]), and techniques for approximating derivatives of discretized functions (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:derivatives\\]), both through finite-difference (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:finite-differences\\]) and the Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT, Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:QFT-derivative\\]). Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:time-evolution\\] combines these techniques into higher level algorithms for solving partial derivative equations, demonstrating their performance in the Fokker-Planck model. This work is closed with a discussion of the results, including connections to recent advances in tensor-based numerical analysis, and an outlook of applications.\n\nSummary {#sec:summary}\n=======\n\n  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n  Problem                                                                        Algorithm                             Type   Cost                                                  \n  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- ------ ----------------------------------------------------- --\n  Expected value                                                                 Monte Carlo                           C      $\\mathcal{O}(1/\\varepsilon^2)$                        \n\n  \u201c & Amplitude estimation & Q & $\\mathcal{O}(1/\\varepsilon)$\\                   MPS                                   QI     $\\mathcal{O}(-N\\chi^3\\log(\\varepsilon))$              \n  \u201d                                                                                                                                                                                 \n\n  Fourier transform                                                              QFT                                   Q      $\\mathcal{O}(N^2m^2)$                                 \n\n  \u201c & FFT & C & $\\mathcal{O}(Nm2^{Nm})$\\                                         MPS QFT                               QI     $\\mathcal{O}(Nm \\times \\text{Simp}_{Nm})$             \n  \u201d                                                                                                                                                                                 \n\n  Interpolation                                                                  Linear $(k=1)$                        C      $\\mathcal{O}(2^{Nm})$                                 \n\n  \u201c & MPS Linear $(k=1)$ & QI & $\\sim\\text{Simp}_{Nm}$\\                          FFT                                   C      $\\mathcal{O}(N(m+k)2^{N(m+k)})$                       \n  \u201d                                                                                                                                                                                 \n\n  \u201c & MPS QFT & QI & $\\sim 3\\times \\text{QFT}_{N(m+k)}$\\                         MPS differences                       QI     $\\mathcal{O}(T_\\text{cgs}\\times\\text{Simp}_{Nm})$     \n  PDE Evolution & Finite differences & C & $\\mathcal{O}(T_\\text{cgs}2^{2Nm})$\\                                                                                                      \n  \u201d                                                                                                                                                                                 \n\n  \u201c & FFT method & C & $\\mathcal{O}((Nm+1)2^{Nm})$\\                              MPS QFT                               QI     $\\sim 2\\times \\text{QFT}_{N(m+k)}$                    \n  \u201d                                                                                                                                                                                 \n\n  State construct                                                                GR-like (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:bounds\\])        Q      $\\mathcal{O}(Nm\\chi^2)$                               \n\n  \u201c & Explicit wavefunction & C & $\\mathcal{O}(2^{Nm})$\\                         MPS                                   QI     $\\mathcal{O}(T_\\text{steps}\\times\\text{Simp}_{Nm})$   \n  \u201d                                                                                                                                                                                 \n\n  MPS algorithms                                                                 Simplification $(\\text{Simp}_{Nm})$   C      $\\mathcal{O}(T_\\text{sweeps} Nm 4d^3\\chi^3)$          \n\n  \u201c & Expected values & C & $\\mathcal{O}(Nm\\times 2d\\chi^3)$\\                    $\\hat{O}_f\\ket{p}$, MPO-MPS product   C      $\\mathcal{O}(Nm(d\\chi\\chi_f)^2)$                      \n  \u201d                                                                                                                                                                                 \n  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  : Algorithms and their costs. We compare the costs of different tasks when working with multivariate functions, from the construction of the state, to the simulation of their evolution. We use the following heuristic values: $\\varepsilon,$ desired error bound; $N,$ number of variables; $m\\sim \\mathcal{O}(\\log_2(\\varepsilon)),$ number of qubits per variable for $2^m$ points in discretization; $d=2,$ physical dimension of qubits; $\\chi, \\chi_f,$ effective MPS and MPO bond dimensions; $T_\\text{sweeps}$ number of iterations in the simplification algorithm (cf. Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:mps-approximation\\]); $T_\\text{cgs},$ number of iterations in conjugate gradient method (cf. Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:pde-finite-differences\\]). We distinguish classical methods (C), from algorithms for a quantum computer (Q), or classical MPS techniques that rely on a quantum register approach (QI).[]{data-label=\"tab:algorithms\"}\n\nQuantum computing has introduced the clever idea of encoding probability distributions in quantum registers. In this encoding, a small number of qubits can store an exponentially large number of function samples. To fix ideas and notation, let us take a function $p(x_1,\\ldots,x_N)$ of $N$ variables in a bounded interval. Let us use $m$ qubits to uniformly discretize the domain $$\\begin{aligned}\n  x_s^{i} &= a_i + \\frac{b_i-a_i}{2^m}s_i = a_i + \\delta^{i}_m \\sum_{k=1}^m\\frac{s_i^k}{2^k},\\;i=1,2\\ldots N.\\label{eq:coordinates}\\end{aligned}$$ The non-negative integer $s_i$ takes all possible values obtained by grouping $m$ bits $s_i^1s_i^2\\cdots s_i^m,$ ordered in decreasing significance. The $N$ integers or $Nm$ bits can be associated to different states of a quantum register, enabling two representations of the function $p.$ The first one assumes a non-negative function, $$\\ket{p} \\propto \\sum_{s_1,\\ldots,s_N} \\sqrt{p(s_1,\\ldots,s_N)}\\ket{s_1}\\otimes\\cdots\\ket{s_N},\\;s_i\\in\\{0,1,\\ldots 2^{m}-1\\},\\label{eq:representation-1}$$ and associates $p(s)$ to the probability of the state $\\ket{s}.$ The second encoding does not make this assumption and maps the distribution directly to the wavefunction $$\\ket{p} \\propto \\sum_{s_1,\\ldots,s_N} p(s_1,\\ldots,s_N)\\ket{s_1}\\otimes\\cdots\\ket{s_N}.\n  \\label{eq:representation-2}$$ Both representations can be extended to situations where the functions are not normalized, just by keeping track of global prefactors.\n\nIn this work we argue that both representations are exponentially efficient in many ways. First, the quantum register demands only a logarithmically growing number of qubits $Nm$ to store an exponential amount of weights $2^{Nm}$ in a discretized function. Second, we also need an exponentially small number of qubits $m\\sim-\\log(\\varepsilon)$ to reduce the discretization error below a given tolerance $\\varepsilon.$ Third and finally, we find that for smooth, differentiable functions with bounded derivatives, these states have a small amount of entanglement. Indeed, for many distributions of interest we obtain the scaling $\\mathcal{O}(N)$ with the dimension of the problem. We conjecture that this behavior is due to an implicit renormalization that happens in the quantum register, where some bits $s_1^1,s_2^1\\ldots$ carry information over long wavelengths and large features, and the least significant bits $s_1^m,s_2^m\\ldots$ are efficiently approximated with low-entanglement interpolation methods over those qubits (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:interpolation\\]).\n\nThese findings suggest that many useful functions and problems can be constructed in a quantum register with polynomial resources, due to the bounded entanglement (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:bounds\\]). However, the same results open the field of *quantum-inspired numerical analysis,* which combines the quantum computing encoding of functions with tensor-network representations and algorithms to manipulate them (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms\\]). This approach suggests new algorithms for integrating probability distributions and computing expected values (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:expected\\]), for implementing discrete differentiation (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:derivatives\\]), Fourier transform (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:qft\\]), interpolation (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:interpolation\\]) and for the solution of partial differential equations (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:time-evolution\\]).\n\nTable\u00a0\\[tab:algorithms\\] summarizes the algorithms discussed in this work, paired with alternatives that already exist for quantum computers or in the field of numerical analysis. The table summarizes the costs of those algorithms, expressed in terms of well known quantities\u2014discretization error, number of qubits, estimated entanglement and bond dimension size, etc\u2014. In the case of quantum-inspired numerical analysis, we must emphasize that the performance metrics are heuristic. However, if entanglement remains bounded throughout the simulations, the quantum register method demands a small bond dimension $\\chi,$ and the algorithms provide an exponential speedup over other classical techniques\u2014from finite differences to the highly performant FFT techniques.\n\nStoring multivariate functions in quantum registers {#eq:quantum-register}\n===================================================\n\nGR discretization {#sec:gr-construct}\n-----------------\n\nOne of the earliest works suggesting the encoding of functions in quantum registers is the unpublished manuscript by Grover and Rudolph\u00a0[@grover2002]. This designed a unitary operator $U_p$ that encodes a probability distribution $p(x)$ in an empty quantum register with $m$ qubits $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\ket{p_\\text{GR}^{(m)}} &:= U_p\\ket{0,0,\\ldots,0} = \\sum_{i=0}^{2^m-1} \\sqrt{p_\\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)}\\ket{s},\\;\\mbox{with}\\;\n  &p_\\text{GR}^{(m)}(s) =\\int_{x_s}^{x_{s+1}}p(u)\\mathrm{d}u.\\end{aligned}$$ The original construct assumes a random variable $x$ in a bounded interval $[a,b]$ subdivided into $2^m$ smaller intervals, labeled by the quantum register states $\\ket{s}=\\ket{s^1s^2\\cdots s^m}.$\n\nA practical application of this encoded state would be the computation of expected values for any observable or function $f(x).$ This requires engineering an observable $\\hat{O}^{(m)}_f$ such that $$\\bar{f} = \\int\\! f(x) p(x) \\mathrm{d}x \\simeq \\braket{p_\\text{GR}^{(m)}|\\hat{O}^{(m)}_f|p_\\text{GR}^{(m)}} + \\varepsilon_\\text{int}.\n  \\label{eq:expected}$$ Typically, we approximate $\\hat{O}^{(m)}_f =\\sum_s f(x_s){\\ensuremath{\\ket{s}\\!\\bra{s}}},$ and apply a uniform discretization\u00a0, to have an integration error that decays exponentially with register size, $\\varepsilon_\\text{int} \\sim \\mathcal{O}(\\delta_m).$\n\nAs found by A. Montanaro\u00a0[@montanaro2015], using amplitude estimation with $U_p$ and the operator $\\hat{O}_f,$ one may estimate $\\bar{f}$ with a precision that scales better than Monte Carlo algorithms. If the cost of implementing $U_p$ is $T_\\text{GR},$ and we aim for a sampling precision $\\varepsilon_\\text{sample},$ the asymptotic time cost of the ideal amplitude estimation algorithm is roughly $$T_{QCMC}  = \\mathcal{O}\\left( T_{GR}/\\varepsilon_\\text{sample}\\right).$$ This represents a favorable scaling when compared with traditional Monte Carlo, where the sampling uncertainty goes as $\\mathcal{O}(\\varepsilon_\\text{sample}^{-2}),$ but only if the cost of encoding the probability state $T_\\text{GR}$ remains small or weakly dependent on the integration error $\\varepsilon_\\text{int}.$\n\n![(a) A probability state $\\ket{p^{(m)}}$ with discretization size $2^{m+1}$ can be constructed from a coarser state $\\ket{p^{(m)}}$ by appending one auxiliary qubit through a unitary operation $U^{(m)}.$ (b) When a state of $m$ qubits is upgraded to $m+k,$ we can study the entanglement between the old and new qubits through a Schmidt decomposition\u00a0. (c) If the state has a small Schmidt number for all 1D bipartitions, it is weakly entangled and admits an efficient MPS representation\u00a0.[]{data-label=\"fig:states\"}](fig-states.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe unitary by Grover and Rudolph\u2019s $U_p$ is a recursive construct that adds one more qubit of precision in each step. As sketched in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:states\\]a, the procedure reads $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:GR-unitary}\n   \\ket{p_\\text{GR}^{(m+1)}}&=u^{(m+1)}\\ket{p_\\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)}\\ket{0}\n                            = \\sum_{s=0}^{2^m-1} \\sqrt{p_\\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)}\\ket{s}(\\cos(\\theta_s)\\ket{0}+\\sin(\\theta_s)\\ket{1})\\\\\n                              &= \\sum_{s'=0}^{2^{m+1}-1}\\sqrt{p_\\text{GR}^{(m+1)}(s')}\\ket{s'},\n  \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where we identify $\\ket{s}\\!\\ket{0}=:\\ket{2s}$ and $\\ket{s}\\!\\ket{1}=:\\ket{2s+1}.$ The rotation angle $0\\leq\\theta_i\\leq\\pi/2$ is obtained from two identities $$\\cos(\\theta_s)^2 = \\frac{p_\\text{GR}^{(m+1)}(2s)}{p_\\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)},\\; \\sin(\\theta_s)^2= \\frac{p_\\text{GR}^{(m+1)}(2s)}{p_\\text{GR}^{(m)}(s)}.$$ Unfortunately, this algorithm *requires an exponentially large number of angles* and involves a highly non-local unitary with a potentially bad decomposition. The GR algorithm must be therefore considered more a proof of existence, than a practical recipe that can be used when bounding the resources of Monte Carlo analysis.\n\nWe will study the GR construct and other discretizations, demonstrating that there are efficient alternatives to equation\u00a0. Our analysis centers on the complexity of the sampled states. Using the bipartite entanglement as quantifier, we will show that the cost of adding one more qubit of resolution decays exponentially. This will help us understand that there one quasi-local unitary procedure that builds the GR state with a cost that is polynomial in the number of qubits, $T_\\text{GR}\\sim \\mathcal{O}(-m\\log(\\varepsilon)).$ We will confirm numerically this result using various well-known probability distributions.\n\nOther discretizations {#sec:other-discretizations}\n---------------------\n\nThe integral representation by Grover and Rudolph reproduces exactly the probability that is contained inside each interval, but it requires computing $2^m$ integrals. In practice, this is unnecessary because the estimation of expected values already introduces a discretization error\u00a0 $\\varepsilon_\\text{sample}\\sim \\mathcal{O}(\\delta_m)$ in the operator definition. It is not difficult to find simpler representations that have the same or better scaling. The obvious one is the uniform sampling of the probability distribution $$\\label{eq:riemann}\n  \\ket{p_R^{(m)}} = \\sqrt{\\frac{\\delta_m}{N_m}}\\sum_s \\sqrt{p(x_s)}\\ket{s},\\;\\mbox{with}\\; N_m = \\sum_s \\delta_mp(x_s).$$ The standard error bound for this Riemann-type state is $\\varepsilon_\\text{sample} \\leq \\max\\left|\\frac{d}{dx}(fp)\\right| \\delta_m,$ which depends on the derivatives of both the sampled observables and probability.\n\nThe first order scaling is good enough for the simulations that we will show below, because the interval size decreases exponentially with the number of qubits $m.$ We will therefore stick to the GR states or to Eq.\u00a0, unless otherwise noted. However, if we need to save some qubits, we can try variations, such as a probability state that implements the trapezoidal or the Simpson rule $$\\label{eq:Simpson}\n\\ket{p_S^{(m)}} = \\frac{1}{S_m^{1/2}}\\sum_s \\sqrt{\\theta_sp(x_s)}\\ket{s},\\;\\theta_s=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}1,&s=0,2^{m}-1\\\\ 4-(s\\,\\mathrm{mod}\\,2),&\\mathrm{else}. \\end{array}\\right.$$ The discretization error of the Simpson state decreases faster with the interval size, $\\varepsilon_\\text{sample}\\sim \\mathcal{O}(\\delta_m^2).$ This scaling means that the qubits required to achieve a given precision $m\\sim \\log_2(\\varepsilon_\\text{sample})$ can be half those required by the uniform ansatz. These savings may be interesting in resource-starved architectures, such as NISQ computers, and also in the algorithms to be considered later in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms\\].\n\nExistence of efficient constructs {#sec:bounds}\n---------------------------------\n\nWe can show that adding $k$ new qubits to a GR probability state with $m$ qubits demands a vanishingly small amount of entanglement, that decreases exponentially with $2^m.$ This small amount of entanglement suggests that the GR unitary $U^{(m)}_p$ can be replaced with simpler decomposition in terms of quasi-local gates. The reasoning proceeds as follows. In App.\u00a0\\[app:reduced-dty\\] we study the reduced density matrix $\\rho^{(m,k)}$ of the $k$ new qubits in a GR state with $m+k$ bits of resolution. Assuming that the probability distribution is smooth, differentiable and has an upper bound on its derivative, $$D_p = \\max_x |p'(x)|,\n  \\label{eq:max-derivative}$$ we obtain upper bounds for the entropy of the extra qubit. For one added qubit, $k=1$ our bound reads $$S[\\rho^{(m,1)}] \\leq \\sqrt{2(1-P)} \\leq 2\\sqrt{D_p}|b-a|2^{-m/2}.\n  \\label{eq:one-qubit-bound}$$ If $k$ is larger, we have roughly $$S[\\rho^{(m,k)}] \\leq \\mathcal{O}\\left( 2\\sqrt{D_p}|b-a|2^{-(m-k)/2} \\right).\n  \\label{eq:k-qubit-bound}$$ Note that this argument easily extends to the Riemann-type\u00a0 or Simpson sampling\u00a0, because the differences between them decays exponentially with the number of qubits.\n\nThe fact that adding every new bit requires a small amount of entanglement implies that the probability state $\\ket{p^{(m)}}$ has an efficient matrix-product state (MPS) representation. A matrix product state is a decomposition of a wavefunction as a contraction of matrices that are labeled by the physical indices of a composite quantum system $$\\ket{p^{(m)}} = \\sum_s \\sqrt{p^{(m)}(s)}\\ket{s} \\simeq \\sum A_{\\alpha_1}^{s_1}A_{\\alpha_1,\\alpha_2}^{s_2}\\cdots\n  A^{s_m}_{\\alpha_{m}}\\ket{s_1,s_2,\\ldots,s_m}.\n  \\label{eq:MPS}$$ Each of the tensors is in general different, and has three indices $A_{\\alpha_i,\\alpha_{i+1}}^{s_i}\\in \\mathbb{C}^{2\\times \\chi_i\\times \\chi_{i+1}}.$ There is one physical index $s$ of dimension 2, and two *bond dimensions* of sizes $\\chi_i$ and $\\chi_{i+1}.$ In our particular case, the fact that $S[\\rho^{(i,m-i)}]$ decays exponentially with $i$ means that the bond dimensions also decrease extremely fast, making the representation\u00a0 efficient.\n\nIt is known that MPS\u2019s admit an efficient, sequential construct\u00a0[@schoen2005; @schoen2007]. This algorithm consists of $m$ steps. On each step, an ancilla with $\\log_2\\chi_i$ qubits is correlated with a fresh new qubit using a unitary operation of dimension $(d\\max\\{\\chi_i,\\chi_{i+1}\\})^2.$ This unitary operation is potentially smaller and more efficient than the GR unitary, because the whole process has bounded time-cost $T_\\text{GR}\\sim \\mathcal{O}(m\\chi^2).$\n\nNumerical study of 1D distributions {#sec:numerics-1d}\n-----------------------------------\n\n![(a) Entropy of entanglement between the $m$ first qubits and an additional qubit that is added to a GR state. We use $(\\sigma,\\mu)=(1,0),(1,1),(1,0),(1,0)$ for the Gaussian, Lognormal, Lorentzian and non-convex distributions, choosing the intervals $[a,b]=[\\mu-6\\sigma,\\mu+6\\sigma],[10^{-16},\\mu+50\\sigma],\\; [\\mu-10\\sigma,mu+10\\sigma]$ and $[0,7\\sigma].$ (c-d) Similar as (a), but we plot the entanglement of a bipartition with $(k,M-k)$ qubits, for $M=14.$[]{data-label=\"fig:entropies\"}](fig-entropies.pdf){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nLet us put these ideas to the test using three paradigmatic distributions $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{eq:Gaussian}\n  \\mbox{Gaussian:}\n  & \\quad p_G(x;\\sigma,\\mu) = \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2\\pi}\\sigma}e^{-(x-\\mu)^2/\\sigma^2}, \\\\\n  \\label{eq:log-normal}\n  \\mbox{Log-normal:}\n  & \\quad p_{ln}(x;\\sigma,\\mu) = \\frac{1}{x}p_G(\\log(x)),\\\\\n  \\label{eq:Lorentzian}\n  \\mbox{Lorentzian:}\n  & \\quad p_{L}(x;\\sigma,\\mu) = \\frac{\\sigma}{2\\pi}\\frac{1}{(x-\\mu)^2+\\sigma^2}.\\end{aligned}$$ We will also consider an unconventional function that also has a finite bandwidth, but which is not log-convex $\\sigma$ $$\\label{eq:non-convex}\n  p_{nc}(x;\\sigma) \\propto e^{-x}\\sin(2\\sigma x)^2\\cos(3\\sigma x)^2.$$ We have chosen all these distributions because we can compute the functions $p^{(m)}(x)$ exactly for all sampling sizes, constructing the GR states for up to $m=14$ qubits[^1], analyzing their structure and complexity.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies\\]a we plot the entanglement required to enlarge the quantum register by one bit, from $m$ to $m+1.$ This is the entropy $S[\\rho^{(m,1)}]$ in the notation above. As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies\\]b, the bipartition never exceeds one *e-bit* of entanglement, and exhibits an exponential decay at large sizes that goes as $2^{-\\gamma m}$ with $\\gamma$ between 1.73 and 1.84, depending on the simulation and probability distribution. The behavior is therefore more favorable than the bound from Eq.\u00a0, which overestimates the entanglement.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies\\]c shows that just like the entropy increase of adding one more qubit is small, the cumulative entropy obtained by studying all bipartitions of $m+k$ qubits also remains small, and with a similar tendency. Moreover, for a detailed enough sampling with $m=14,$ there is no difference between the GR states and the simpler discretizations from Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:other-discretizations\\], shown here with dash-dot lines.\n\nTo test whether these favorable dependencies are artifacts of our choice of distributions, we have varied the parameters of the distributions and also tested situations where one of them\u00a0 acquires more features. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:states\\]d shows the maximum entanglement entropy over all bipartitions as we change the parameter $\\sigma.$ The first three probability distributions have a bounded entanglement below an e-bit. The non-log-convex distribution $p_{nc}(x)$ behaves slightly different: increasing $\\sigma$ leads to the appearance of more peaks, that are more difficult to describe. This causes a steady increase in entropy, but this is slow enough that still facilitates an efficient construct.\n\nExtensions to more variables {#sec:numerics-2d}\n----------------------------\n\nChallenging applications to fields such as Physics, fluid dynamics or finance\u00a0[@orus2019] require the study of states with many more, $p(x_1,x_2\\ldots).$ To better understand the scaling of entanglement and the complexity of the state, we have studied the discretization\u00a0 of two- and three-dimensional Gaussian distributions $$\\label{eq:Gaussian-nd}\n  p(\\vec{x}) = \\frac{1}{(2\\pi)^{N/2}\\mathrm{det}(\\Sigma)}\\exp\\left(-\\frac{1}{2}\\vec{x}^T\\Sigma^{-2}\\vec{x}\\right),\\;\\vec{x}\\in\\mathbb{R}^N,$$ with covariance matrix $\\Sigma$ and zero mean, using the same number of qubits in all dimensions.\n\nAs in the 1D problem, we will treat the quantum register as a one-dimensional arrangement of qubits, studying the entanglement over all 1D bipartitions. Naturally, the complexity of this discretization will depend on how we arrange the qubits. The simple straightforward order (A) distributes the qubits sequentially, first by coordinate, then by significance. In this order, Gaussian states with a diagonal covariance matrix $\\Sigma=\\mathrm{diag}\\{\\sigma_1,\\sigma_2,\\ldots\\}$ become products states of one-dimensional distributions, such as those studied in Sects.\u00a0\\[sec:bounds\\] and \\[sec:numerics-1d\\]. We also introduce the order (B), where qubits are first sorted by significance and only then by coordinate. This order is inspired by the renormalization group, and deeply similar to the multi-scale representation of 2D quantum image encodings\u00a0[@latorre2005]. For a distribution with two random variables, $x_1$ and $x_2,$ using three qubits per variable, the two orders read $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\mbox{Order (A):}& \\ket{s_1s_2} \\to \\ket{s_1^1}\\ket{s_1^2}\\ket{s_1^3}\\ket{s_2^1}\\ket{s_2^2}\\ket{s_2^3},\n  \\;\\mbox{and}\\label{eq:orders}\\\\\n  \\mbox{Order (B):}& \\ket{s_1s_2}\\to \\ket{s_1^1}\\ket{s_2^1}\\ket{s_1^2}\\ket{s_2^2}\\ket{s_1^3}\\ket{s_2^3}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\n\n![(a) Two-mode Gaussian probability distribution with variances $(\\sigma_{min},\\sigma_{max}),$ rotated an angle $\\theta.$ We work with a discretization interval $[-7\\sigma_{max},7\\sigma_{max}]^{\\otimes 2},$ compressing $\\sigma_{min}$ down to 0.1, which is a 20dB squeezing of the variance. (b) Maximum entanglement of all bipartitions, for different variances, orientations and orders. In solid lines, we plot the trivial sampling\u00a0 with $N\\times m=28$ qubits in total. We compare those plots with the same simulation using an MPS at a higher sampling (circles). We probe two angles $\\theta=0$ and $\\pi/4$ in Eq.\u00a0, and two orders\u00a0. (c) Entanglement entropies for all bipartitions of $Nn=24$ qubits into $(k,Nm-k),$ for the highly squeezed state $\\sigma_{min}=0.1\\sigma_{max}$ with $\\theta=\\pi/4.$ (d) Similar plot but for the MPS algorithm using a $Nm=36$ qubits.[]{data-label=\"fig:entropies2d\"}](fig-entropies2d.pdf){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nLet us begin the discussion using a general two-dimensional covariance matrix $$\\Sigma = O(\\theta)\\left(\n    \\begin{array}{cc}\n      \\sigma_{max} & 0 \\\\ 0 & \\sigma_{min}\n    \\end{array}\n    \\right)O^T,\\;\n  \\mbox{with}\\; O =\\left(\n    \\begin{array}{cc}\n      \\cos(\\theta) & \\sin(\\theta) \\\\ -\\sin(\\theta) & \\cos(\\theta)\n    \\end{array}\n    \\right).\\label{eq:covariance2d}$$ One quadrature is squeezed by a factor $\\sigma_{min}/\\sigma_{max},$ while rotating the frame of reference an angle $\\theta$, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies2d\\]a. We sample this probability, reconstructing the exact wavefunction\u00a0 with $Nm=28$ qubits. As shown in Table\u00a0\\[tab:state-sizes\\], this size approaches the limits of a decent computer, using 2 gigabytes of data in real double precision form. In contrast, the same distributions using MPS, the techniques from Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:exponential\\] and up to $Nm=36$ qubits consume less than 1 megabyte.\n\n         Discretization         Nm    $\\sigma_{min}/\\sigma_{max}$   $\\theta$          exact size          order       MPS size      \n  ---------------------------- ----- ----------------------------- ---------- -------------------------- ------- ------------------ --\n           $16,384^2$           28                 1                   0       $268\\times 10^6$ (2 Gb)     (A)      1,040 (8 kb)    \n   \u201c & 28 & 0.1 & $\\pi/4$ & \u201d   (A)         126,628 (1 Mb)                                                                          \n   \u201c & 28 & 0.1 & $\\pi/4$ & \u201d   (B)          9,388 (71 kb)                                                                          \n          $262,144^2$           36                0.1               $\\pi/4$    $69\\times 10^9$ (524 Tb)    (A)     183,220 (1 Mb)   \n   \u201c & 36 & 0.1 & $\\pi/4$ & \u201d   (B)         10,626 (80 kb)                                                                          \n            $2048^3$            33                0.1               $\\pi/4$    $8.6\\times 10^9$ (64 Gb)    (A)    825,922 (6.6 Mb)  \n   \u201c & 33 & 0.1 & $\\pi/4$ & \u201d   (B)        156,720 (1.22 Mb)                                                                        \n\n  : Summary of resources to describe numerically the Gaussian probability distributions with covariance matrices given by\u00a0 and\u00a0, using $m$ qubits per dimension, either in an exact form\u2014storing all values $p^{(m)}(x_s)$\u2014or in the compact MPS representation\u00a0.[]{data-label=\"tab:state-sizes\"}\n\nThe output of these simulations is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies\\]. When $\\theta=0,$ the wavefunction $\\ket{p^{(m)}_{2d}}$ is a product state $\\ket{p^{(m)}(\\sigma_{max})}\\otimes\\ket{p^{(m)}(\\sigma_{min})}$ of two one-dimensional distributions. As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies\\]b (blue solid), the maximum entanglement over all one-dimensional bipartitions is less than one e-bit, consistent with Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:numerics-1d\\]. To grow the entanglement we must combine squeezing and rotation, recreating a two-mode squeezed state. From the theory of Gaussian states, the entanglement should be maximal for $\\theta=\\pi/4$ and it should diverge with the squeezing. Our simulations confirm this prediction for the (A) order. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies2d\\]b (orange, solid) shows that the maximum bipartite entanglement between our qubit variables grows as $(\\sigma_\\text{max}/\\sigma_\\text{min}){1/4}.$ This entanglement is also spread all along the chain of qubits, as seen in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies2d\\]c. We can even improve on these results. As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies2d\\]b, if we adopt the renormalization order (B), all states can be described with $N=2$ e-bits of entanglement. Moreover, the entanglement distribution concentrates around the most significant qubits \\[cf. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies2d\\]c (dashed, green)\\], producing significantly smaller tensors.\n\nDespite the growth of entanglement, the quantum states that we create always admit a compact MPS representation that beats the classical approach of storing the full wavefunction. As shown in Table\u00a0\\[tab:state-sizes\\], a highly-correlated discretization in the (A) order with 14 and 18 bits per coordinate, requires 1Mb of floating point real numbers in MPS form. The same states stored using the (B) order, take, in the worst scenario $\\sigma_{min}=0.1\\sigma_{max}$ with $\\theta=\\pi/4,$ just about 80 kilobytes of information. All this is to be compared to the 2 Gb and 524 Tb of data required to write down the wavefunctions of $28$ and $36$ qubits.\n\n![(a) Maximum entanglement over all bipartitions for a three-dimensional Gaussian state\u00a0, computed with exact wavefunctions ($m=7$ bits per mode, lines) or MPS ($m=9$ bits per mode, circles), using different squeezing rates, angles and orders. (b) Illustration of the three-dimensional Gaussian probability distribution for $\\sigma_{min}=0.5\\sigma_{max}.$[]{data-label=\"fig:entropies3d\"}](fig-entropies3d.pdf){width=\"0.75\\linewidth\"}\n\nWe have performed the same study using three-dimensional Gaussian states. For concreteness, we have focused on a three-mode squeezed state that starts with a diagonal matrix $\\mathrm{diag}(\\sigma_{min},\\sigma_{max},\\sigma_{min})$ and performs two identical rotations around the X and Z axes, with angles $\\theta_x=\\theta_y=\\theta$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n  &\\Sigma = O_x(\\theta_x)O_z(\\theta_y)\n    \\left(\n    \\begin{array}{cc}\n      \\sigma_{max} & 0 \\\\\n      0 & \\sigma_{min}\n    \\end{array}\n          \\right)\n          O_z(\\theta_z)^TO_x(\\theta_x),\\;\n          \\mbox{with}\\label{eq:covariance3d}\\\\\n  &O_x =\\left(\n    \\begin{array}{ccc}\n      1 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n      0 &  \\cos(\\theta) & \\sin(\\theta) \\\\ 0 & -\\sin(\\theta) & \\cos(\\theta)\n    \\end{array}\n    \\right),\\,O_z =\\left(\n    \\begin{array}{ccc}\n      \\cos(\\theta) & \\sin(\\theta) & 0 \\\\ -\\sin(\\theta) & \\cos(\\theta) & 0 \\\\\n      0 & 0 & 1\n    \\end{array}\n              \\right)\n              .\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ We show results for a large, exact simulation with $Nm=21$ qubits, which amounts to $256^3$ points and 128 Mb of data, together with an MPS that is directly built with $33$ qubits, a sampling of $2048^3$ points. As in the two-dimensional case, the combination of squeezing and rotation deforms the state, which as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies3d\\]b becomes a titled rugby ball. Once more, the unrotated state remains weakly entangled. It is a product of three one-dimensional probabilities, and the entanglement never exceeds one 1 e-bit \\[cf. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies3d\\]a (blue, solid)\\]. The squeezing and rotation leads to a divergence of the maximum entanglement, but this divergence is once more cured by the (B) order. This importance-based structure brings down the entanglement to about 3 e-bits and a reduction of 54,000 in the information required. We conjecture that for these Gaussian states\u2014and other smooth functions\u2014the (B) order consumes at most $N$ e-bits, giving a scaling of resources $\\mathcal{O}(2^{2N}\\times N)$ in both the time and memory costs of reproducing the probability distribution.\n\nMPS quantum registers {#sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms}\n=====================\n\nIn the previous section we have seen that it is possible to encode single and multimode probability distributions in quantum registers, that these states are typically weakly entangled and admit an efficient MPS representation. We now review the representation of wavefunctions and operators, and the basic ingredients in the MPS toolbox\u2014tensor contraction and reordering, tensor renormalization, time evolution, etc\u2014that will be used in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:analysis\\] to implement actual algorithms. More precisely, Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:bilinear\\] introduces two representations of multivariate functions: one following the precepts from Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:other-discretizations\\], and another one that improves the computation of expected values (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:expected\\]) and equation solving. We will also discuss the algorithm of MPS simplification (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:mps-approximation\\]), which is an essential tool to implement all numerical analysis approximation schemes.\n\nQuadratic and linear representation {#sec:bilinear}\n-----------------------------------\n\n![Quadratic MPS representation, where functions are mapped to the amplitude of a wavefunction (as MPS) and observables are mapped to operators (as MPO). Expected values $\\bar{f}=\\braket{p|\\hat{O}_f|p}$ are obtained by contracting three layers of tensors with physical dimensions $d$ and bond dimensions $\\sim \\chi.$ This has a cost $\\mathcal{O}(3d^2\\chi^4)$ and causes each tensor to appear twice\u2014in other words, $\\bar{f}$ is a quadratic function w.r.t. each tensor.[]{data-label=\"fig:mps-quadratic\"}](fig-mps-quadratic.pdf){width=\"0.8\\linewidth\"}\n\nOur overarching goal for the rest of this work is to encode multivariate functions using a virtual quantum register, and to store this register efficiently as an MPS. If the function we want to encode is non-negative\u2014such as a probability distribution\u2014, we can follow Sect.\u00a0\\[eq:quantum-register\\], identify $\\sqrt{p}$ with a quantum register wavefunction\u00a0 and use the MPS representation\u00a0 to compress it. In this representation, observables $f(x)$ become Matrix-Product operators (MPO\u2019s) $$\\hat{O}_f^{(m)}= \\sum_{\\alpha,s} B^{s_1,r_1}_{\\beta_1}B^{s_2,r_2}_{\\beta_2,\\beta_3}\\cdots B^{s_m,r_m}_{\\beta_m}{\\ensuremath{\\ket{s_1,s_2\\ldots s_m}\\!\\bra{r_1,r_2\\ldots r_m}}}.\n  \\label{eq:mpo}$$ We call this the *quadratic MPS representation* because the mean value of an observable $\\bar{f}\\sim \\braket{p|\\hat{O}_f|p}$ is a quadratic function of any of the tensors in the MPS state \\[cf. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mps-quadratic\\]\\].\n\nIn the alternative encoding from equation\u00a0, both observables $f(x)$ and probability distributions $p(x)$ become unnormalized vectors in a Hilbert space $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\ket{f^{(m)}} &= \\sum_{s}f^{(m)}(s)\\ket{s} = \\sum_{\\alpha,s} F^{s_1}_{\\beta_1}F^{s_2}_{\\beta_2,\\beta_3}\\cdots F^{s_m}_{\\beta_m}\\ket{s_1,s_2\\ldots s_m},\n  \\\\\n  \\ket{p^{(m)}}&= \\sum_{s}p^{(m)}(s)\\bra{s} = \\sum_{\\alpha,s} A_{\\alpha_1}^{s_1}A_{\\alpha_1,\\alpha_2}^{s_2}\\cdots\n  A^{s_m}_{\\alpha_{m}}\\ket{s_1,s_2,\\ldots,s_m}.\\label{eq:mps-representation-2}\\end{aligned}$$ In this representation, each probability state is a linear form that maps observables to expected values, or vice versa $$\\bar{f} = \\sum_s f(s)p(s) = \\braket{p|f}\\simeq \\int\\!f(x)p(x)\\mathrm{d}x.\n  \\label{eq:integration-mps}$$ We will call this strategy the *linear MPS representation* because $\\bar{f}$ is a linear function with respect to any of the tensors in $\\ket{p}$ or $\\ket{f}.$\n\nMemory cost {#sec:memory}\n-----------\n\nLet us denote $\\chi_f,$ $\\chi_p$ or simply $\\chi$ the largest bond dimensions to encode those functions as MPS. Assuming an $N$-dimensional volume, discretized with $m$ qubits per dimension, the space required by an MPS and an MPO scales as $\\mathcal{O}(Nm\\chi^2).$ Since $\\chi$ dominates this scaling, we need to understand how this dimension behaves in typical problems.\n\nThe answer to this question is connected to the bipartite entanglement that is stored in the MPS representations. Since MPS\u2019s are obtained through a recursive Schmidt decomposition\u00a0[@vidal2003], the entanglement entropy over any sequential bipartition of the state is bounded by $S\\leq \\log_2(\\chi).$ Conversely, if the maximum entanglement is $S,$ we will expect that the bond dimension scales as $\\chi\\sim 2^S.$ Thus, for the smooth distributions from Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:numerics-1d\\], where $S\\sim N,$ we expect a scaling of resources of the form $$\\mbox{memory} \\sim \\mathcal{O}(mN 2^{2S+1}) \\sim \\mathcal{O}(mN 2^{2N+1})\\sim \\mathcal{O}\\left(-N 2^{2N+1}\\log_2\\varepsilon_\\text{int}\\right)$$ This represents an exponential saving over the space $\\mathcal{O}(2^{Nm})\\sim \\mathcal{O}(\\varepsilon_{int}^{-1})$ required to store the full wavefunction in general classical algorithms.\n\nThis exponential improvement is similar in origin to the one in quantum computers, as it also exploits the rapid growth of the Hilbert space with the number of qubits. However, in the MPS quantum register the gain is heuristic: it only appears for distributions with nice sampling properties. There are infinitely many problems where this improvement vanishes, due to the growth of $S$ and the exponential blowup of the bond dimensions $\\xi.$ However, it seems that there are still many problems of interest where the MPS quantum register approach is useful, as we see below.\n\nIntegrals and expected values {#sec:expected}\n-----------------------------\n\n![Linear MPS representation. (a) Both observables $\\ket{f}$ and a probability distributions $\\ket{p}$ have MPS representations with bond dimensions of order $\\xi,$ and they combine to give a mean value $\\bar{f}=\\braket{p|f}$. (b) When there are m qubits, the optimal contraction is sequence of $m\\times 2$ steps, with the structure shown here, taking $\\mathcal{O}(2d\\chi^3)$ operations.[]{data-label=\"fig:mps-linear\"}](fig-mps-linear.pdf){width=\"0.8\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn the linear MPS representation, the scalar product $\\braket{f|p}$ is an approximation to the integral between both functions $\\int\\!f(x)p(x)\\mathrm{d}x.$ As sketched in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mps-linear\\]a, there is an optimal contraction scheme that starts from one boundary\u2014the left-most site in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mps-linear\\]a\u2014, and sequentially contracts with one tensor from $\\ket{p}$ and one from $\\ket{f}.$ The optimal sequence of contractions in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mps-linear\\]b demands $\\mathcal{O}(d\\chi^3)$ operations in $2Nm$ steps, with an estimated cost $\\mathcal{O}(2dNm\\chi^3).$ We can perform a similar analysis for the quadratic MPS representation, where mean values $\\bar{f}=\\braket{p|\\hat{O}_f|p}$ involve contracting the state $\\ket{p}$ twice with the MPO $\\hat{O}_f$ that represents the observable. In this case the optimal procedure is slightly more involved, with a higher asymptotic cost $\\mathcal{O}(Nm\\times4\\chi^4).$\n\nIn order to compare these algorithms with other classical methods, we have to introduce the accuracy of the estimate. In the MPS representation the only error we make is the discretization error of discretizing $N$ variables with $m$ qubits, which scales as $\\varepsilon_\\text{int} \\sim N2^{-m}.$ Thus, the MPS approximation to the integral demands a time $T_{constr}+\\mathcal{O}(-N\\log_2(\\varepsilon_\\text{int}/N)\\times 2\\chi^3),$ where $T_{constr}$ is the time to build the MPS and the rest is a logarithmically growing cost associated to the contraction. We can compare this with Monte Carlo sampling, a good and general method for integration. The errors in this technique arise from the statistical uncertainty $\\varepsilon_\\text{sample} \\sim 1/\\sqrt{M}.$ This error decays slowly with the number of iterations $M,$ giving a time cost $\\mathcal{O}(1/\\varepsilon^2).$ The MPS therefore has the potential of providing an exponential speedup, given that (i) the bond dimension $\\chi$ remains small and (ii) the cost of constructing the MPS states is also bounded.\n\nApproximating states {#sec:mps-approximation}\n--------------------\n\nIn working with the quantum register, we will frequently need to apply operators that distort the MPS representation, increasing the size of the tensors. This is corrected by a process known as MPS simplification, which seeks the closest matrix-product state with the smallest bond dimensions, within a prescribed time and error tolerance. The simplification is an optimization typically defined with respect to the norm-2 distance between states $$\\text{argmin}_{\\phi\\mbox{ in }\\mathrm{MPS}} \\Vert \\phi - p\\Vert^2 = \\text{argmin}_\\phi d(\\phi,p).$$ Here $p$ is the state we wish to approximate and $\\phi$ is the new MPS. The distance $d(\\phi,p)=\\braket{p|p} + \\braket{\\phi|\\phi} - 2\\mathrm{Re}\\braket{\\phi|p}$ is a quadratic form with respect to the tensors in $\\phi,$ which is optimized iteratively, sweeping across the MPS\u00a0[@verstraete2008; @garcia-ripoll2006] in a two-site DMRG-like process.\n\nThe cost of this optimization has two parts. The estimation of the linear form $\\braket{\\phi|p}$ involves a contractions like the ones shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mps-linear\\]b, involving $\\mathcal{O}(d\\chi^3)$ operations per site. On top of this, we apply a two-site simplification algorithm that optimizes pairs of tensors simultaneously, dynamically adapting the bond dimension. This has an extra cost $\\mathcal{O}(4(d\\chi)^3)$ due to the singular value decomposition. Thus, assuming that we need $T_\\text{sweeps}$ for convergence, the simplification time cost grows as $\\mathcal{O}(T_\\text{sweeps} 4d^3\\chi^3).$ In practical examples we find that $T_\\text{sweeps}$ is very small: one or two sweeps reach the numerical precision of the computer, giving efficient results.\n\nFinally, note that we can use the algorithm to construct a new state $\\phi$ that approximates a linear combination of MPS $$\\text{argmin}_{\\phi\\mbox{ in }\\mathrm{MPS}} \\Vert \\phi - \\sum_{i=1}^k \\alpha_ip_i\\Vert^2.$$ This has a linear increase in the cost, $\\mathcal{O}(kT_\\text{sweeps}4d^3\\chi^3),$ that has been exploited in other algorithms such as time evolution\u00a0[@garcia-ripoll2006].\n\nFunction multiplication {#sec:multiplication}\n-----------------------\n\nIn many algorithms below we will need to construct a state $\\ket{fp}$ that approximates the product of two sampled functions $f(x)p(x).$\n\nThis operation can be implemented efficiently in at least four cases. Given is an arbitrary complex constant $c$ and a discretization of $N$ variables with $m$ qubits per dimension, there exist MPO\u2019s for $f(x)=c x,\\, c x^2$ and $\\exp(c x)$ using bond dimensions $2, Nm$ and $1,$ respectively. As illustration, let us discuss the implementation of $c x.$ This operator is an MPO\u00a0 with a bond dimension of size $\\xi=2$ that keeps track of whether any operator has been applied. The $n-th$ tensor reads $$B^{s_n's_n}_{a,b}=\\delta_{s_n',s_n}\n  \\left\\{\n    \\begin{array}{ll}\n      c L 2^{-n}s_n, & a=0,b=1\\\\\n      1, & a=b=1,\\;n>1\\\\\n      1, &a=b=0,\\\\\n      0, &\\mbox{else}.\n    \\end{array}\n  \\right.$$\n\nMore generally, we can write the exponential of any QUBO formula as a product of MPO\u2019s with bond dimension 2 $$\\exp(\\sum_{i,j=1}^KQ_{ij}s_is_j)\n  = \\prod_{k=1}^K\\exp\\left( s_i\\sum_jQ_{ij}s_j \\right).$$ The MPO\u2019s inside the product are constructed with simple tensors. In particular, for the $k-$th step, the tensors read $$B^{s_n's_n}_{a,b}=\\delta_{s_n's_n}\n  \\left\\{\n    \\begin{array}{ll}\n      \\delta_{a0}\\delta_{b0},&n<k,\\\\\n      \\delta_{bs_1}\\delta_{a0}\\exp(Q_{11}s_n), & n=k,\\\\\n      \\delta_{ab}\\exp(2aQ_{an}s_n), & k<n.\n    \\end{array}\n  \\right.\\label{eq:QUBO-exponential-tensor}$$ Using this idea, we can decompose any exponential or Gaussian, such as $\\exp(cx^2+dx)$ or $\\exp(\\sum_{nm}c_{nm}x_nx_m),$ using $Nm$ layers of MPO\u2019s. This technique is discussed in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:exponential\\] when we construct MPS.\n\nFor other formulas, we find other alternative approaches. One is to find an MPO representation of the operator $\\hat{O}_f.$ This is expected to be a simple tensor contraction for smooth functions, but the cost of computing it in general may be significant, unless we combine it with strategies such as interpolation (cf. Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:Fourier-interpolation\\]). Another alternative is to approximate $f(x)$ in Taylor series and use multiplications by constants and by $x,$ combined with simplification stages, to approximate the product. A final approach is to use algorithms from quantum computing to implement the equivalent transformations\u00a0[@bhaskar2016; @wiebe2016]. The interesting thing in this approach is that, since we are working with artificial registers, we can forego many of the ancillas, imposing success in all operations.\n\nMultivariate analysis on the MPS quantum register {#sec:analysis}\n=================================================\n\nAfter this brief review of MPS quantum register, we will now introduce specific, higher level algorithms for interpolation, Fourier analysis, differentiation, solving PDEs and creating MPS for a sampled function. Unless otherwise stated, all algorithms are implemented using the linear MPS encoding from equations\u00a0 and . Whenever possible we provide also a comparison with state-of-the-art classical algorithms, with regard to efficiency, accuracy and numerical stability.\n\nFourier transforms and frequency analysis {#sec:qft}\n-----------------------------------------\n\n![(a) Discretized Gaussian probability distribution with $\\sigma=1,\\mu=0,$ over 15 qubits, and (b) quantum Fourier transform. (b) Entanglement entropy with respect to all bipartitions of a probability distribution $\\psi$ (blue, circles), its quantum Fourier transform $\\mathcal{F}\\psi$ (orange), and the two\u2019s complement of this (green, squares). (c) Maximum entanglement entropy for all bipartitions for the original state (circle), different stages of the QFT (orange) and the QFT after a two\u2019s complement transformation.[]{data-label=\"fig:QFT-entropy\"}](fig-QFT-entropy){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nAssume a function $p(x_s)$ uniformly sampled over $2^m$ points in an interval $x_s\\in[a,b]$ of size $L=|b-a|.$ We can define $2^m$ distinct Fourier modes $\\tilde\\psi_r(x_s)\\propto \\exp(i q_r x_s)$ for $q_r=2\\pi r/L$ and $r=0,1,\\ldots 2^m.$ We can also define a Fourier transform $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\tilde{p}(q_r) = [\\mathcal{F}p](q_r)\n  &= \\frac{1}{2^{m/2}} \\sum_{s=0}^{2^m-1}\\exp\\left( -i q_r (x_s-a) \\right)  p(x_s) \\label{eq:Fourier}\\\\\n  &= \\frac{1}{2^{m/2}} \\sum_{s=0}^{2^m-1}\\exp\\left( -i 2\\pi r s/2^m \\right)  p(x_s),\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ which returns the expansion of the original function in the Fourier basis.\n\nThe Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) is the extension of the classical operator $\\mathcal{F}$ to the quantum realm. The QFT operator $\\hat{\\mathcal{F}}$ takes a quantum state with wavefunction $p(s)$ and converts it into its Fourier transform $$\\label{eq:QFT}\n  \\hat{\\mathcal{F}}\\ket{p} = \\sum_s p(s) \\hat{\\mathcal{F}}\\ket{s} = \\sum_r \\tilde{p}(r)\\ket{r}.$$ The QFT is defined by the action on the quantum register states $$\\hat{\\mathcal{F}}\\ket{s} = \\frac{1}{2^{m/2}}\\sum_s e^{i2\\pi s s'/2^m} \\ket{s'}.$$ This operation can be implemented using $m+1$ layers of quantum gates, as $\\mathcal{F}=\\mathcal{U}_\\text{flip}\\mathcal{F}_{m}\\cdots \\mathcal{F}_{1}.$ The last operation, $U_\\text{flip}$ just reverses the order of the qubits in the quantum register. The $i$-th layer $\\mathcal{F}_i$ contains a Hadamard gate $H_i$ on the $i$-th qubit, followed by $m-i$ controlled rotations with respect to the following $m-i$ qubits $$\\mathcal{F}_i = \\prod_{j=i+1}^{m} \\exp\\left( i\\frac{2\\pi}{2^{j-i}} \\sigma^z_i\\otimes \\sigma^z_j\\right) \\exp\\left( i\\frac{\\pi}{2}\\sigma^y_i \\right).$$ Each of the $\\mathcal{F}_i$ is an MPO with bond dimension $\\chi=2$ and tensors $$\\begin{aligned}\n  B^{s_n',s_n}_{0,0} &= \\delta_{s_n',s_n}, & n< i,\\\\\n  B^{s_i's_i}_{0,s_i'}&=H_{s_i',s_i}, & i\\mbox{-th qubit},\\notag\\\\\n  B^{s_j',s_j}_{s_i,s_i} & = \\exp\\left( i\\frac{2\\pi}{2^{j-i}}s_js_i \\right)\\delta_{s_j's_j},& j>i.\\notag\\end{aligned}$$\n\nApplying the QFT on an MPS requires contracting the $Nm$ operators $\\mathcal{F}_i$ and simplifying the resulting states. As in other algorithms \\[cf. Table\u00a0\\[tab:algorithms\\]\\], the simplification dominates the asymptotic cost and the performance is strongly dependent on the amount of entanglement in the transformed states. For smooth functions we expect that the entanglement will be bounded, both because of the estimates above, and because smooth functions will also tend to be concentrated in Fourier space. In that case we expect an overall scaling of time as $\\mathcal{O}(m^2N^22^{3N}),$ which is exponentially faster than the classical FFT. It is interesting to note that other authors have considered using the QFT in a classical context\u00a0[@niwa2002; @steijl2018], but they never observed a real speed-up\u2014more like a 20-fold slow down\u2014because of working with the complete wavefunction and not with the MPS quantum register.\n\nAs example, take the Gaussian probability distribution from Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:QFT-entropy\\]a. Its QFT is a highly concentrated state, another Gaussian in momentum space shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:QFT-entropy\\]b. We know that the entanglement entropy of the transformed state is upper-bounded by 1 e-bit (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:numerics-1d\\]). This is what we see not only for the final state\u2014orange line in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:QFT-entropy\\]c\u2014, but also when we analyze all stages of the transform $\\mathcal{F}_1\\psi,$ $\\mathcal{F}_2\\mathcal{F}_1\\psi,$ etc \\[cf. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:QFT-entropy\\]d.\\]\n\nLet us inspect more carefully the Fourier transformed wavefunction Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:QFT-entropy\\]b. Note how the wavefunction concentrates on both sides of the interval, $s\\simeq 0$ and $s\\sim 2^m-1.$ This is caused by the mapping from the non-negative quantum register states $s,$ to the actual momenta, and which has the representation $$\\hat{k} = \\sum_s k_{\\bar{s}}{\\ensuremath{\\ket{s}\\!\\bra{s}}},\\;\\mbox{with}~\n  k_s = \\frac{2\\pi}{L} \\bar{s} \\in \\left[ \\frac{\\pi}{L},\\frac{\\pi}{L} \\right].\n  \\label{eq:momentum}$$ Here $\\bar{s}$ is the two\u2019s complement of the binary number $s=s_1s_2\\ldots s_m$ $$\\bar{s} = (1-s_1)\\sum_{n=2}^m 2^{m-n}s_n - s_1\\left[ 1+ \\sum_{n=2}^m 2^{m-n}s_n\\right].$$ It is useful to implement a two\u2019s complement operation that flips all qubits conditioned on the state of the sign qubit, $U_\\text{2c}=\\ket{s_1,s_2,\\ldots,s_m}\\to\\ket{s_1,s_1\\oplus s_2,\\ldots,s_1\\oplus s_m}.$ When we apply this operator to the Fourier transformed state, $U_\\text{2c}\\mathcal{F}\\psi,$ we find that the amount of entanglement surprisingly drops down, almost close to zero for all bipartitions\u2014see Figs.\u00a0\\[fig:QFT-entropy\\]c-d. This hints at the fact that the signed quantum register is a much better variable for describing this (and probably other) symmetric probability distributions.\n\nInterpolation {#sec:interpolation}\n-------------\n\nInterpolating means approximating values of a discretized function on points that were not initially considered. We discuss two techniques for interpolating from a quantum register with $m$ qubits to a new register and discretization with $m+k$ qubits. The first method uses finite differences to extrapolate new points as linear combinations of previous values. The second method is a spectral technique based on Fourier transformations that, as we will show, can be exponentially more accurate for finite bandwidth functions.\n\n### Taylor expansions {#sec:taylor-interpolation}\n\nLet us consider a scenario in which we have discretized the interval $[a,b]$ uniformly with $2^m$ points, and we want to add $2^m$ extra points, moving to $m+1$ qubits. Let us call $x_s$ the original variables and $x_{r}'$ the new sampling, which satisfies $$x_{2s}'=x_{2s},\\; x_{2s+1}'=x_{s}+\\delta_m/2.$$ We assume that the values at $x_s$ determine those at $x_{2s}'$ $$p^{(m+1)}(x_{2s}') = p^{(m)}(x_s),\\;s=0,1,\\ldots 2^{m}-1,\\label{eq:linear-interp-1}$$ and we only need to extrapolate the values at the odd sites $x_{2s+1}'.$ In order to do so, we can assume that our function is analytic and admits a Taylor expansion to some finite order, which gives the following approximation $$p(x_s+\\delta_{m+1}) = \\frac{1}{2}\\left[ p(x_s)+p(x_{s+1}) \\right] + \\mathcal{O}(\\delta_{m+1}^2).\\label{eq:linear-interp-2}$$\n\nWe can translate equations\u00a0 and into an algorithm that extends a sampling with $m$ qubits into another one with $m+1.$ In a way that resembles very much the Grover and Rudolph protocol, but which is definitely not unitary, we add one least significant qubit at the end $$\\ket{p^{m+1}} = \\ket{p^{m}}\\ket{0} + \\frac{1}{2}(\\hat{S}^-+1)\\ket{p^{m}}\\ket{1}.\n  \\label{eq:linear-interpolation}$$ The ladder operators $\\hat{S}^\\pm$ increase or decrease the quantum register by one, displacing the function we encoded $$\\hat{S}^+ \\ket{s} = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{ll} \\ket{s+1},&s<2^m\\\\ 0, & \\mbox{else} \\end{array} \\right.\\quad \\hat{S}^-=(\\hat{S}^+)^\\dagger.\n  \\label{eq:ladder}$$ Instead of using reversible operations (Toffoli, CNOT), we implement the MPO as a smaller, irreversible and classical circuit with one carry bit that propagates through the bond-dimension. This requires a single tensor $C$ $$\\hat{S}^+ = \\sum C^{s_1',s_1}_{0,a_1} C^{s_2',s_2}_{a_1,a_2}\\cdots C^{s_m',s_m}_{a_m,1}\\ket{s_1',s_2'\\ldots s_m'}\\!\\bra{s_1,s_2\\ldots s_m}.$$ The tensor $C^{s',s}_{a,b}$ is nonzero only for $s'=s\\oplus b,$ and $a=s \\land b.$ The MPO $\\hat{S}^-$ is obtained by simply exchanging the indices as $$\\hat{S}^- = \\sum C^{s_1',s_1}_{0,a_1} C^{s_2',s_2}_{a_1,a_2}\\cdots C^{s_m',s_m}_{a_m,1}{\\ensuremath{\\ket{s_1,s_2\\ldots s_m}\\!\\bra{s_1',s_2'\\ldots s_m'}}},$$ and the linear combination algorithm\u00a0 can be implemented using the simplification techniques from Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:mps-approximation\\].\n\n### Fourier interpolation {#sec:Fourier-interpolation}\n\n![(a) Gaussian probability distribution sampled with $m=5$ qubits and $32$ points. (b) Fourier interpolation and exact sampling with $m=10$ qubits and $1024$ points. Both samplings are indistinguishable. (c) Fourier spectrum of the original distribution. Note how higher frequency components are negligible. (d) Fourier transform of the interpolated function. We have added zero values over $2^5$ sites at higher momental, outside the axes.[]{data-label=\"fig:QFT-interpolation\"}](fig-QFT-interpolation){width=\"0.8\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe problem with linear interpolation is that the accuracy of the approximation is constrained by the initial sampling, $\\mathcal{O}(\\delta_m^2).$ This seems to contradict the Nyquist-Shannon theorem, according to which a function with a bounded spectrum only needs to be sampled with a frequency of $2\\times\\nu_\\text{max}$ for a perfect interpolation.\n\nTake for instance a Gaussian probability distribution\u00a0 with width $\\sigma,$ which has been sampled in the interval $[-8\\sigma,8\\sigma].$ Its Fourier transform is a normal distribution with center $\\nu=0$ and width $1/\\sigma.$ We can say that the information beyond $\\nu=4/\\sigma,$ is exponentially suppressed. According to Nyquist\u2019s theorem, we can exactly reconstruct a Gaussian function by sampling it with period $\\sigma/8.$ For the conditions above, that means $8/\\sigma\\times 16\\sigma\\sim 128$ points stored in $7$ qubits. However, if we attempt linear interpolation, we typically will make a bounded error that is fixed by the initial sampling, $\\mathcal{O}(\\delta{x}\\sim 1/16).$\n\nA well known solution is to do the interpolation in frequency space. When we perform a discrete Fourier transform, we are decomposing the sampled function $p(x_s)$ as a sum of discrete Fourier modes $\\psi(k_{\\bar{s}'})\\propto \\exp(ik_{\\bar{s}'}x_s).$ We can use this to reconstruct a *continuous approximation* to the original function $p(x)$ in what is known as *Fourier interpolation* $$p(x) \\simeq \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{|b-a|}}\\sum_{s=0}^{2^{m}-1} \\exp(ik_{\\bar{s}}x)\\left[ \\mathcal{F}p^{(m)} \\right](k_{\\bar{s}}),\\;x\\in[a,b].\n  \\label{eq:Fourier-interpolation}$$ This continuous approximation can then be resampled with as fine a grid as needed.\n\nWe can implement the approximation and re-sampling very efficiently. If we wish to enlarge the number of qubits from $m$ to $m+k,$ we compute $$\\ket{p^{(m+k)}}=\\hat{\\mathcal{F}}^{(m+k)}U_{2c}^{m+k}\\left[ \\left( U_\\text{2c}\\hat{\\mathcal{F}}^{(m)}\\ket{p^{(m)}} \\right)\\otimes \\ket{0_2,0_3,\\ldots,0_{k+1}} \\right].$$ We start with a Fourier transform and two\u2019s complement over $m$ qubits. We then insert $k$ qubits in positions $2$ to $k+1.$ These are bits that encode very high frequencies and which are populated with zeros, as we do not need any finer details in the sampled function. We finally take the enlarged register and invert both the two\u2019s complement and the Fourier transform. As illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:QFT-interpolation\\] this is a powerful technique that can reconstruct a Gaussian using $2^{10}=1024$ points out of a discretized Gaussian with $2^{5}=128$ points, with negligible error.\n\nDifferentiation {#sec:derivatives}\n---------------\n\nIn numerical analysis, there are two main ways to estimate the derivative of a discretized function. The first method is called finite differences, because it relies on linear combinations of the function $p(x_s)$ and its displacements $p(x_s\\pm n \\delta{x}).$ The second type of methods is called a spectral method, because it works with the Fourier expansion from\u00a0. Both methods have simple translations to the language of MPO\u2019s and MPS\u2019s.\n\n### Finite differences {#sec:finite-differences}\n\nWe will work out this technique by example. Our starting point are two standard finite-difference approximations to the spatial derivatives, with different degrees of approximation $$\\begin{aligned}\n  &\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial x} p(x)\n    \\simeq \\frac{p(x+\\delta{x})-p(x-\\delta{x})}{2\\delta{x}}+\\mathcal{O}(\\delta{x}^2), \\\\\n  &\\frac{\\partial^2}{\\partial x^2} p(x)\n  \\simeq \\frac{p(x+\\delta{x})p(x-\\delta{x})-2p(x)}{\\delta{x}^2}+\\mathcal{O}(\\delta{x}).\\end{aligned}$$ The step $\\delta{x}$ will be the discretization $(b-a)/2^m$ of the uniform sampling\u00a0. Small changes $x_s\\pm\\delta{x}$ map to increments and decrements of the variable $s$ and using the ladder operators\u00a0. Our finite-difference formulas become $$\\partial_x\\ket{p}  \\simeq\\frac{\\hat{S}^+ - \\hat{S}^-}{2\\delta{x}}\\ket{p},\\;\n  \\partial_{xx}^2\\ket{p} \\simeq\\frac{\\hat{S}^+ + \\hat{S}^- - 1}{\\delta{x}^2}\\ket{p}.\n  \\label{eq:finite-differences-example}$$ These formulas can be implemented as MPO\u2019s of bond dimension 3, which can be efficiently contracted and simplified using the algorithm from Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:mps-approximation\\]. Note that hhigher order approximations are also possible using the same operator or powers of it. Roughly, the bond dimension of the MPO that implements a finite difference formula grows linearly with the order of the approximation, just like the number of non-diagonals in its matrix representation. This is a moderate cost that makes differentiation an approachable routine in higher level algorithms.\n\n### Fourier approximations to derivatives {#sec:QFT-derivative}\n\nSince Fourier interpolation works so well, we can use it to approximate the action derivatives at arbitrarily high orders. The action of a general differential operator $G(\\partial_x)$ on the interpolated state\u00a0 is very simple $$G(\\partial_x)p(x) \\simeq \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{|b-a|}}\\sum_{s=0}^{2^{m}-1} G(ik_{\\bar{s}})\\exp(ik_{\\bar{s}}x)\\left[ \\mathcal{F}p^{(m)} \\right](k_{\\bar{s}}),\\;x\\in[a,b] .$$ If we resample this function with $m$ bits, we obtain a representation of the differential operator in terms of the momentum operator\u00a0 $$G(\\partial_x)\\ket{p^{(m)}} = \\hat{\\mathcal{F}}^{-1} G(i\\hat{k}) \\hat{\\mathcal{F}}\\ket{p^{(m)}}.$$\n\nSolving partial differential equations {#sec:time-evolution}\n--------------------------------------\n\nOne of the main applications of all these techniques is the study of how multivariate functions evolve in time, when subject to one of many partial differential equations. We focus our discussion on the Fokker-Planck equation in one dimension $$\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial t}p(x,t) = -\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial x}[\\mu(x,t)p(x,t)] + \\frac{\\partial^2}{\\partial x^2}[D(x,t)p(x,t)],\n  \\label{eq:FP}$$ using uniform drift and diffusion, $\\mu(x,t)=\\mu$ and $D(x,t)=D.$ This equation governs the evolution of probability distributions for random variables undergoing a Wiener process in the \u00ceto representation\u2014a recurrent problem in quantum optics and finance, for instance. Moreover, this is already a challenging toy model from numerical analysis that is subject to numerical instabilities and demands state-of-the-art integration techniques. We will provide two techniques to solve this equation using the MPS quantum register approach, matching the two methods to work with differential operators from Sects.\u00a0\\[sec:finite-differences\\] and\u00a0\\[sec:QFT-derivative\\].\n\n### Finite differences {#sec:pde-finite-differences}\n\n![Solution of the Fokker-Planck equation using MPS and finite differences. (a) Density plot of the probability distribution evolved with the Fokker-Planck equation\u00a0 and algorithm\u00a0. In dashed lines we plot the expected value $\\bar{x}(t)$ and the curves $\\bar{x}(t)\\pm\\sigma(t).$ (b) Center $\\bar{x}(t)$ and variance $\\sigma^2(t)$ of the a probability distribution. We use $D=0.1,\\mu=0.2$ and a 10-qubit discretization (1024 points), with a time step $\\delta{t}=0.01.$ In circles we show the theoretical predictions. []{data-label=\"fig:FP\"}](fig-FP.pdf){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nLet us assume that we have the MPS representation of the initial value $p(x,0)$ and we need to estimate the evolution of this probabilty distribution at later times, $p(x,t).$ Following Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:finite-differences\\], we write a finite-difference approximation to the Fokker-Planck model, replacing derivative operators with ladder operators. This transforms the Fokker-Planck equation into a first order differential equation $$\\label{eq:FP-linear}\n  \\partial_t \\ket{p(t)} = \\hat{G} \\ket{p(t)},$$ generated by the linear operator $\\hat{G},$ whose action we approximate with an MPO.\n\nFor concreteness, we will use the combined first-second order approximation from\u00a0 $$\\hat{G} = -\\mu\\frac{\\hat{S}^+-\\hat{S}^-}{2\\delta{x}}+D\\frac{\\hat{S}^++\\hat{S}^--1}{\\delta{x}^2}.$$ We also need to build an implicit integration method that works around the fact that equation\u00a0 is not unitary and has the potential to develop exponentially growing numerical instabilities. We have chosen a second order implicit method, $$\\partial_t \\ket{p(x,t)} \\simeq \\frac{1}{\\delta t}\\left[ \\ket{p(x,t+\\delta)} - \\ket{p(x,t)}\\right] \\simeq \\frac{1}{2}\\hat{G}\\left[ \\ket{p(x,t+\\delta)} - \\ket{p(x,t)}\\right].$$ which translates into our integration recipe $$\\ket{p(t+\\delta t)} \\simeq \\left( 1 - \\frac{1}{2}\\delta t \\hat{G} \\right)^{-1}\\left( 1 + \\frac{1}{2}\\delta t \\hat{G} \\right)\\ket{p(x,t)}.\\label{eq:implicit-step}$$ Since $\\hat{G}$ has a simple representation in terms of MPO\u2019s, we build our algorithm around the repetition of two elementary steps. First, compute the MPS for the product $\\ket{\\phi_1(t)}=(1+\\frac{1}{2}\\delta t \\hat{G})\\ket{p(x,t)},$ using standard simplification techniques to get the simplest and best approximation. Second, estimate the MPS $\\ket{\\phi_2(t)}$ that best approximates the equation $$\\left( 1-\\frac{1}{2}\\delta{t}\\hat{G} \\right)\\ket{\\phi_2(t)} = \\ket{\\phi_1(t)}.$$ In practice, we implement this step using a conjugate gradient method, but one could also write quadratic optimization techniques that minimize the distance between both states, as in DMRG\u2019s *correction vector techniques*\u00a0[@ramasesha1997; @kuhner1999; @schollwock2005].\n\nAs illustration, Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:FP\\]a shows the solution of the Fokker-Planck equation for a state that is initially Gaussian with variance $\\sigma(0)=1$ and center $\\bar{x}(0)=0,$ living in an interval $[-10,10]$ discretized with $m=10$ bits. The finite difference methods have some intrinsic limitations. The operator $\\Vert{\\delta{t}\\hat{G}}\\Vert \\propto 2^{2m}$ diverges as we add more and more qubits. Our simulation is therefore very limited both in time and in the spatial discretization. This intrinsic instability is only partially cured with the implicit methods, but not always and also not for very long simulations. If we wish to have higher precision and numerical stability, we need to develop slightly better techniques, described in the following section.\n\n### Spectral split-step method {#sec:time-evolution-qft}\n\n![Solution of the Fokker-Planck equation using the Quantum Fourier Transform, for $D=0.1,\\mu=0.5$ and a 14-qubit discretization (16384 points in space). (a) Density plot of the probability distribution. In dashed lines we plot the expected value $\\bar{x}(t)$ and the curves $\\bar{x}\\pm\\sigma.$ Note how the QFT implements periodic boundary conditions and the wavefunction wraps around the borders. (b) Error bounds for a time-step $\\delta{t}=0.3$ (solid) and $\\delta{t}=3.$ Note how the estimate decreases, indicating that our error bounds are pessimistic and that we can implement evolution for arbitrary long times without truncation errors.[]{data-label=\"fig:FP-QFT\"}](fig-FP-QFT.pdf){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\nThe spectral methods, and in particular the Fourier transform and the split-step method techniques\u00a0[@weideman1986], have been traditionally used in many nonlinear Optics and quantum mechanical problems, due to their efficiency, stability and accuracy. The method is optimally designed to solve equations of the form $$\\partial_t p(x,t) = G(\\partial_x)p(x,t),\\label{eq:general-pde}$$ where $G(\\partial_x)$ is a function of the differential operator $\\partial_x$ and the coordinates are defined over a regular interval. It works by moving to Fourier space, where the generator of the evolution is a function of the momentum $k$ $$\\partial_t \\tilde{p}(x,t) = G(ik)\\tilde{p}(x,t)\\; \\Rightarrow \\; \\tilde{p}(x,t) = e^{G(ik)t}\\tilde{p}(x,0).\n  \\label{eq:Fourier-continuous-solution}$$ Here $\\tilde{p}$ is the Fourier transform of the original function, $\\tilde{p} = \\hat{\\mathcal{F}}p,$ over the real line.\n\nIn our discrete scenario with uniformly sampled, regular intervals, the spectral method can be implemented using the Quantum Fourier Transform\u00a0 and the interpolation techniques from Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:QFT-derivative\\]. The approximate solution to\u00a0 is expressed as $$\\ket{p^{(m)}(t)} = \\hat{\\mathcal{F}}^{-1} \\exp\\left[ G(i\\hat{k})t \\right] \\hat{\\mathcal{F}}\\ket{p^{(m)}(0)},\n  \\label{eq:QFT-solution}$$ The function $G(i\\hat{k})$ quasimomentum operator\u00a0 is approximated by small MPO\u2019s, as explained in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:mps-approximation\\]. Unlike the finite difference method, if the generator $G(\\partial_x)$ does not depend on $x,$ the solution\u00a0 is exact: it works for all times in a single step.\n\nWe have implemented the recipe\u00a0 using MPS and MPO\u2019s. We represent $\\hat{\\mathcal{F}},$ $\\hat{\\mathcal{F}}^{-1}$ and $\\exp(-\\mu \\hat{k} + D\\hat{k}^2)$ using $3(m+1)$ MPO\u2019s of bond dimension 2. Provided that states remain weakly entangled, we can exactly solve the time evolution, without any numerical instabilities or truncation error, for any time and coefficients. As illustration, Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:FP-QFT\\] reproduces once more the solution of the Fokker-Planck equation for a state that is initially Gaussian with variance $\\sigma(0)=1$ and center $\\bar{x}(0)=0,$ living in an interval $[-10\\sigma,10\\sigma]$ discretized with $m=14$ bits (16384 points in spacee). We can afford larger number of qubits and longer times than in the finite difference method, because the algorithm is orders of magnitude more efficient and very stable numerically. Notice also how the algorithm implements periodic boundaries by default; this is a feature that is very useful to avoid boundary reflections and simulate in small intervals the dynamics of propagating fields.\n\nThis recipe can be extended to problems that include dependencies on both the spatial derivatives and the spatial coordinates. We explicitely refer to equations of the form $$\\partial_t p(x,t) = \\left[ G(\\partial_x)  + V(x)  \\right] p(x,t),$$ or higher-dimensional equivalents. The solution to this problem is no longer exact, but relies on a Trotter-Suzuki expansion of the generator $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\ket{p^{(m)}(t+\\delta{t})} &= e^{\\left[ G(\\partial_x)+V(x) \\right]\\delta{t}}\\ket{p^{(m)}(t)}\\notag\\\\\n  &\\simeq e^{V(x)\\delta{t}/2}\n  \\hat{\\mathcal{F}}^{-1}e^{G(i\\hat{k})\\delta{t}}\\hat{\\mathcal{F}}\n  e^{V(x)\\delta{t}/2}\\ket{p^{(m)}(t)}+\\mathcal{O}(\\delta{t}^2),\\label{eq:split-step}\\end{aligned}$$ This technique is known as a split-step method because it combines evolution steps in real space, with stages that are implemented in Fourier space\u00a0[@weideman1986]. All ingredients in this formula\u00a0 are well known from earlier pages.\n\nConstruction of the MPS {#sec:exponential}\n-----------------------\n\nThe algorithms from previous sections assume that we already have an MPS wavefunction to begin with. We will now discuss different ways in which to obtain such initial conditions.\n\n#### Exact discretization\n\nThe trivial way to construct an MPS representation is to begin with the discretized function $p^{(m)}(s_1,s_2\\ldots s_m)$ and perform a sequential Schmidt decomposition. This has an exponential cost $\\mathcal{O}(2^{3m/2})$ and fails when the number of qubits goes above 30-something, due to memory and time constraints, as we have seen in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:numerics-2d\\].\n\n#### Explicit formulas\n\nSome probability distributions admit analytical expressions. We can see those functions $p(x)$ as a product $p(x)e(x)$ with the uniform distribution $e(x),$ an operation that can be approximated using the techniques from Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:multiplication\\].\n\nAn important example is the Gaussian probability distribution. When we express the coordinates in terms of qubits, the Gaussian\u00a0 becomes the partition function of an Ising model $H$ $$p(x_{s_1},x_{s_2}\\ldots x_{s_N}) = \\frac{1}{Z(\\beta)}e^{-\\beta H(s_1^1,s_2^1,\\ldots, s_N^m)}\\ket{s_1}.\\label{eq:partition-function}$$ As discussed in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:multiplication\\], we could write the whole MPS using the exponential of a QUBO formula. In practice, this only works well when the state $\\Sigma$ is not very squeezed[^2]. More generally, we need to reconstruct the whole probability state a progressive refinement of the uniform distribution $$p(x) = \\left[ \\frac{1}{Z(\\beta/K)} e^{-\\beta H/K} \\right]^K e(x),$$ with each step implemented by an MPO $$\\ket{p} = \\hat{Z}_\\text{MPO}(\\beta/K) \\cdot \\hat{Z}_\\text{MPO}(\\beta/K)\n  \\cdots \\hat{Z}_\\text{MPO}(\\beta/K) \\ket{e},\n  \\label{eq:product}$$ that is a better behaved Gaussian function. We have used this technique to reconstruct the MPS representations of the 2D\u00a0 and 3D\u00a0 Gaussian states. Figs.\u00a0\\[fig:entropies2d\\]b and \\[fig:entropies3d\\]a show the maximum entanglement entropy over all bipartitions of the resulting MPS state, while Table\u00a0\\[tab:state-sizes\\] discusses the amount of memory and the size of the tensors.\n\n#### Imaginary time evolution\n\nEquation\u00a0 is nothing but a discrete approximation to the imaginary time evolution of the unnormalized state $\\ket{p_u}$ $$\\partial_\\beta\\ket{p_u} = - \\hat{H}\\ket{p_u},$$ with uniform initial condition $\\ket{p_u(\\beta=0)}=\\ket{e}.$ This equation can be solved for any partition function distribution\u00a0 generated by an operator $\\hat{H}$ with an efficient MPO representation. This approach is reminiscent of how thermal state density matrix have been simulated using the MPS formalism\u00a0[@verstraete2004], but it is much simpler, since we do not introduce any auxiliary *purification* degrees of freedom.\n\n#### Machine learning\n\nThe challenge of writing an MPS representation of a function $p(x)$ is comparable to the challenge of constructing that function in a quantum computer: there are efficient protocols, but we do not know them a priori. The quantum computing field has developed different strategies to address this problem. A promising one is to approximate the state $\\ket{p}$ using a parameterized quantum circuit that is trained using the techniques of machine learning, such as generative adversarial networks\u00a0[@zoufal2019]. These techniques can be extended to our domain. Instead of using a quantum-classical approach with a circuit that generates the probabilities and a neural network that discriminates, we can use the MPS as generator and apply similar training techniques.\n\nPorting back to the quantum computers {#sec:qc-algorithms}\n-------------------------------------\n\nThis work has introduced various classical MPS algorithms that use the tools of quantum computing\u2014quantum registers, function encodings, quantum gates and algorithms\u2014to solve efficiently various numerical analysis tasks. These techniques, and the whole line of research, can feed back to the world of quantum computing. For instance, the Fourier interpolation algorithm from Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:Fourier-interpolation\\] has an immediate translation to a real quantum computer.\n\nOther algorithms require some fine tuning. In linear interpolation and finite differences, the the $\\hat{S}^\\pm$ operator was designed to use irreversible arithmetic. However, we know that a similar operator can be implemented or approximated using ancillas and reversible arithmetic\u2014half and full adders\u2014, or other ideas from quantum simulation\u00a0[@cao2013].\n\nSomething similar happens in the case of PDE solvers. Our discussion has focused on the non-unitary evolution induced by Fokker-Planck techniques, studying the implementation of the non-unitary operator $\\exp[G(\\hat{k})].$ Algorithms\u00a0 and can be trivially generalized to solve Schr\u00f6dinger equations such as $$\\partial_t \\psi(x,t) = \\left[-i\\frac{\\hbar}{2m}\\nabla^2  -i V(x)/\\hbar \\right]\\psi(x,t).$$ The generator of this equation is anti-Hermitian and both $\\exp[\\delta{t}\\,G(i\\hat{k})]$ and $\\exp[-iV(x)\\delta{t}/\\hbar]$ can be implemented as a unitary gate in the quantum register. As in the MPS case, the scaling of the algorithm is problem dependent. The exponential $\\exp[i\\alpha\\hat{k}^2]$ can be implemented with $\\mathcal{O}(N^2m^2)$ steps, but the exponential of $V(x)$ may have a more complicated scaling, strongly dependent on function arithmetic. However, we expect that the smoothness of usual potentials will also lead to simple approximations with quasi-local gates.\n\nDiscussion and outlook {#sec:outlook}\n======================\n\nThis work has presented many numerical algorithms for constructing, manipulating and interrogating multivariate functions in MPS-encoded quantum registers. We have shown that, heuristically, the renormalization provided by the quantum register representation is key to the creation of states with low entanglement, capable of encoding smooth, differentiable functions.\n\nThe use of tensor network states is a modern development in numerical analysis\u00a0[@grasedyck2013; @bachmayr2016]. In the field of *low-rank tensor approximations*, a multivariate function $\\psi(x_1,x_2\\ldots x_N)$ is approximated by a contraction of tensors, labeled either by the continuous variables $x_i,$ or discretized versions of them $x_{s_i}.$ In other works, the spatial degrees of freedom are replaced by labels in some local mode expansion\u00a0[@iblisdir2007]. Nevertheless, all these approaches preserve a notion of local degrees of freedom that translates into the tensor structure. In this work we are instead using a quantum register discretization, where each local coordinate is exploded into $m$ qubits of information, each of them probing the function at a different length scale. As we have seen in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:numerics-2d\\], these qubits need not be kept together, and there may be more efficient renormalization schemes when we group common length scales that are more strongly correlated. This implicit renormalization scheme is a discovery of the quantum computing community that has not been sufficiently exploited so far and which may empower many recent developments in the field, specially in the field of quantum finance and probability distribution analysis\u00a0[@rebentrost2018; @orus2019; @woerner2019].\n\nThe algorithms in this paper bend themselves to a broad family of problems which have been considered in the quantum computing world. We have illustrated the solution of time-dependent partial differential equations, but the same techniques can be extended to stationary problems. This way, the MPS quantum register becomes a natural tool to solve the Poisson equation\u00a0[@cao2013], the wave equation\u00a0[@arrazola2018], the fluid equations\u00a0[@steijl2018], or even the Schr\u00f6dinger equation itself. This implies not just abstract, fundamental studies in Physics, but practical applications in fields such as aerodynamics or finance. We expect new applications of quantum-inspired finance that reach beyond the state-of-the-art\u00a0[@orus2019], providing new schemes for evaluating financial products\u00a0[@rebentrost2018], performing risk analysis\u00a0[@woerner2019] and even more sophisticated time-dependent simulations and tracking.\n\nLet us also remark that the algorithms developed in this work are of a heuristic nature. All methods and techniques in Sections\u00a0\\[sec:quantum-inspired-algorithms\\] and \\[sec:analysis\\] assume states with low entanglement. This approximation is bound to break at some point, either because of functions with broad spectra and complex structure, or because of increased dimensionality. Quantum computers become a valuable tool that still has an exponential advantage over classical algorithms, and which may profit from the ideas and developments associated to MPS quantum register techniques, as discussed before \\[cf. Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:qc-algorithms\\]\\].\n\nFinally, all simulations in this paper have all been implemented with the SeeMPS Python library\u00a0[@garcia-ripoll2019]. This library is a simple, straightforward set of notebooks that summarize the main MPS tools\u2014state representation, computing expected values, simplifying MPS, implementing various MPO\u2019s and contracting them with the states, etc\u2014, in a literate, self-explanatory manner. While Python is a slow language, the algorithms are high-level and benefit from the efficient tensor operations that are available in Numpy and Scipy. This makes the code performant enough for practical applications. However, it is undeniable that recent frameworks based on TensorFlow\u00a0[@mislted2019] and highly parallelized architectures for tensor contractions\u00a0[@huang2019] would be a better platform to real-world deployment.\n\nJ.J.G.-R. thanks Andrea Cadarso for discussions around the motivation of the method and its applications. This material is based upon work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under award number FA2386-18-1-4019. This work has been supported by funding from project PGC2018-094792-B-I00 (MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE) and and CAM/FEDER Project No. S2018/TCS-4342 (QUITEMAD-CM).\n\n[34]{} \\[1\\][\\#1]{} \\[1\\][`#1`]{} urlstyle \\[1\\][doi: \\#1]{}\n\nJuan\u00a0Miguel [Arrazola]{}, Timjan [Kalajdzievski]{}, Christian [Weedbrook]{}, and Seth [Lloyd]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1809.02622, Sep 2018.\n\nKoenraad M\u00a0R Audenaert. A sharp continuity estimate for the von neumann entropy. *Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical*, 400 (28):0 8127\u20138136, jun 2007. [doi: ]{}[10.1088/1751-8113/40/28/s18]{}.\n\nMarkus Bachmayr, Reinhold Schneider, and Andr[\u00e9]{} Uschmajew. Tensor networks and hierarchical tensors for the solution of high-dimensional partial differential equations. *Foundations of Computational Mathematics*, 160 (6):0 1423\u20131472, Dec 2016. ISSN 1615-3383. [doi: ]{}[10.1007/s10208-016-9317-9]{}.\n\nMihir\u00a0K Bhaskar, Stuart Hadfield, Anargyros Papageorgiou, and Iasonas Petras. Quantum algorithms and circuits for scientific computing. *Quantum Information & Computation*, 160 (3-4):0 197\u2013236, 2016.\n\nYudong [Cao]{}, Anargyros [Papageorgiou]{}, Iasonas [Petras]{}, Joseph [Traub]{}, and Sabre [Kais]{}. . *New Journal of Physics*, 150 (1):0 013021, Jan 2013. [doi: ]{}[10.1088/1367-2630/15/1/013021]{}.\n\nPedro C.\u00a0S. Costa, Stephen Jordan, and Aaron Ostrander. Quantum algorithm for simulating the wave equation. *Phys. Rev. A*, 99:0 012323, Jan 2019. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevA.99.012323]{}.\n\nDaniel\u00a0J. [Egger]{}, Ricardo [Gac[\u00ed]{}a Guti[\u00e9]{}rrez]{}, Jordi [Cahu[\u00e9]{} Mestre]{}, and Stefan [Woerner]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1907.03044, Jul 2019.\n\nF\u00a0Fillion-Gourdeau and Emmanuel Lorin. Simple digital quantum algorithm for symmetric first-order linear hyperbolic systems. *Numerical Algorithms*, pages 1\u201337, 2018. [doi: ]{}[10.1007/s11075-018-0639-3]{}.\n\nJuan\u00a0Jos\u00e9 Garc\u00eda-Ripoll and Bur\u00e7in Danac[i]{}. Seemps - self explanatory matrix-product states library. [DOI:10.5281/zenodo.3401566](https://github.com/juanjosegarciaripoll/seemps), 2019.\n\nJuan\u00a0Jos[\u00e9]{} Garc[\u00ed]{}a-Ripoll. Time evolution of matrix product states. *New Journal of Physics*, 80 (12):0 305\u2013305, dec 2006. [doi: ]{}[10.1088/1367-2630/8/12/305]{}.\n\nLars Grasedyck, Daniel Kressner, and Christine Tobler. A literature survey of low-rank tensor approximation techniques. *GAMM-Mitteilungen*, 360 (1):0 53\u201378. [doi: ]{}[10.1002/gamm.201310004]{}.\n\nLov [Grover]{} and Terry [Rudolph]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. quant-ph/0208112, Aug 2002.\n\nCupjin [Huang]{}, Mario [Szegedy]{}, Fang [Zhang]{}, Xun [Gao]{}, Jianxin [Chen]{}, and Yaoyun [Shi]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1909.02559, Sep 2019.\n\nS.\u00a0Iblisdir, R.\u00a0Or\u00fas, and J.\u00a0I. Latorre. Matrix product states algorithms and continuous systems. *Phys. Rev. B*, 75:0 104305, Mar 2007. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevB.75.104305]{}.\n\nTill\u00a0D. K\u00fchner and Steven\u00a0R. White. Dynamical correlation functions using the density matrix renormalization group. *Phys. Rev. B*, 60:0 335\u2013343, Jul 1999. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevB.60.335]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.60.335>.\n\nJose\u00a0I. [Latorre]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. quant-ph/0510031, Oct 2005.\n\nAshley [Milsted]{}, Martin [Ganahl]{}, Stefan [Leichenauer]{}, Jack [Hidary]{}, and Guifre [Vidal]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1905.01331, May 2019.\n\nAshley Montanaro. Quantum speedup of monte carlo methods. *Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences*, 4710 (2181):0 20150301, 2015. [doi: ]{}[10.1098/rspa.2015.0301]{}.\n\nJumpei Niwa, Keiji Matsumoto, and Hiroshi Imai. General-purpose parallel simulator for quantum computing. *Phys. Rev. A*, 66:0 062317, Dec 2002. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevA.66.062317]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.66.062317>.\n\nRom\u00e1n Or\u00fas, Samuel Mugel, and Enrique Lizaso. Quantum computing for finance: Overview and prospects. *Reviews in Physics*, 4:0 100028, 2019. ISSN 2405-4283. [doi: ]{}[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revip.2019.100028]{}.\n\nS.\u00a0Ramasesha, Swapan\u00a0K. Pati, H.R. Krishnamurthy, Z.\u00a0Shuai, and J.L. Br\u00e9das. Low-lying electronic excitations and nonlinear optic properties of polymers via symmetrized density matrix renormalization group method. *Synthetic Metals*, 850 (1):0 1019 \u2013 1022, 1997. ISSN 0379-6779. [doi: ]{}[https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-6779(97)80136-1]{}.\n\nPatrick Rebentrost, Brajesh Gupt, and Thomas\u00a0R. Bromley. Quantum computational finance: Monte carlo pricing of financial derivatives. *Phys. Rev. A*, 98:0 022321, Aug 2018. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022321]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.022321>.\n\nU.\u00a0Schollw\u00f6ck. The density-matrix renormalization group. *Rev. Mod. Phys.*, 77:0 259\u2013315, Apr 2005. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/RevModPhys.77.259]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.77.259>.\n\nC.\u00a0Sch\u00f6n, E.\u00a0Solano, F.\u00a0Verstraete, J.\u00a0I. Cirac, and M.\u00a0M. Wolf. Sequential generation of entangled multiqubit states. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 95:0 110503, Sep 2005. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.110503]{}.\n\nC.\u00a0Sch\u00f6n, K.\u00a0Hammerer, M.\u00a0M. Wolf, J.\u00a0I. Cirac, and E.\u00a0Solano. Sequential generation of matrix-product states in cavity qed. *Phys. Rev. A*, 75:0 032311, Mar 2007. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevA.75.032311]{}.\n\nNikitas [Stamatopoulos]{}, Daniel\u00a0J. [Egger]{}, Yue [Sun]{}, Christa [Zoufal]{}, Raban [Iten]{}, Ning [Shen]{}, and Stefan [Woerner]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1905.02666, May 2019.\n\nRen\u00e9 Steijl and George\u00a0N. Barakos. Parallel evaluation of quantum algorithms for computational fluid dynamics. *Computers & Fluids*, 173:0 22 \u2013 28, 2018. ISSN 0045-7930. [doi: ]{}[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2018.03.080]{}.\n\nF.\u00a0Verstraete, J.\u00a0J. Garc\u00eda-Ripoll, and J.\u00a0I. Cirac. Matrix product density operators: Simulation of finite-temperature and dissipative systems. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 93:0 207204, Nov 2004. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.207204]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.207204>.\n\nF.\u00a0Verstraete, V.\u00a0Murg, and J.I. Cirac. Matrix product states, projected entangled pair states, and variational renormalization group methods for quantum spin systems. *Advances in Physics*, 570 (2):0 143\u2013224, 2008. [doi: ]{}[10.1080/14789940801912366]{}.\n\nGuifr\u00e9 Vidal. Efficient classical simulation of slightly entangled quantum computations. *Phys. Rev. Lett.*, 91:0 147902, Oct 2003. [doi: ]{}[10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.147902]{}. URL <https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.147902>.\n\nJ.\u00a0Weideman and B.\u00a0Herbst. Split-step methods for the solution of the nonlinear schr\u00f6dinger equation. *SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis*, 230 (3):0 485\u2013507, 1986. [doi: ]{}[10.1137/0723033]{}.\n\nNathan Wiebe and Martin Roetteler. Quantum arithmetic and numerical analysis using repeat-until-success circuits. *Quantum Info. Comput.*, 160 (1-2):0 134\u2013178, January 2016. ISSN 1533-7146.\n\nStefan Woerner and Daniel\u00a0J Egger. Quantum risk analysis. *npj Quantum Information*, 50 (1):0 15, 2019. [doi: ]{}[10.1038/s41534-019-0130-6]{}.\n\nChrista [Zoufal]{}, Aur[\u00e9]{}lien [Lucchi]{}, and Stefan [Woerner]{}. . *arXiv e-prints*, art. arXiv:1904.00043, Mar 2019.\n\nTechnical annexes\n=================\n\nReduced density matrix {#app:reduced-dty}\n----------------------\n\nFor this analysis, assume that we have produced a GR state up with $m$ bits and we wish to extend it for additional $k$ bits. Our intermediate goal is to show that there exists an Schmidt decomposition of the new state into two sets of $m$ and $k$ qubits $$\\label{eq:Schmidt}\n  \\ket{p^{(m+k)}} = \\sum_\\alpha \\lambda_\\alpha^{1/2}\\ket{\\xi_\\alpha^{(m)}}\\otimes\\ket{\\xi_\\alpha^{(m,k)}},$$ with a small amount of entanglement between its components $$S[\\rho^{(m,k)}] = -\\sum_\\alpha\\lambda_\\alpha\\log(\\lambda_\\alpha).$$\n\nOur first goal is to derive an expression for $\\rho^{(m,k)}.$ In our extended state, the coordinates $x$ are a function two numbers of $m$ and $k$ bits, which we label $s$ and $u.$ These numbers combine to form a larger previous index $s$ with $m+k$ bits. More precisely $$x \\in a+ \\delta^{(m)}s+\\delta^{(m+k)}u=: r_s + \\epsilon_u,\\;\\left\\{\n    \\begin{array}{l}\n      s=0,1,\\ldots,2^{m}-1, \\\\\n      u=0,1,\\ldots,2^{k}-1.\n    \\end{array}\\right.$$ For convenience, we will us split $x_z = r_s + \\epsilon_u,$ separating a large and small length scale. We can write $$\\rho^{(m,k)} = \\sum_{s,u,v} \\sqrt{p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\\epsilon_u)p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\\epsilon_{v})}{\\ensuremath{\\ket{u}\\!\\bra{v}}}.\n  \\label{eq:reduced-dty}$$ Starting with Eq.\u00a0, we split the density matrix into $$\\rho^{(m,k)} = {\\ensuremath{\\ket{e}\\!\\bra{e}}} + \\sigma,$$ with the unit vector $$\\ket{e} = \\frac{1}{2^{k/2}}\\sum_{u=0}^{2^k-1}\\ket{u},$$ and the perturbation $$\\braket{u|\\sigma|v} = \\sum_s\\left[ \\sqrt{p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\\epsilon_u)p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\\epsilon_v)}-\\frac{1}{2^k}p^{(m)}(r_u) \\right].$$ Thanks to the mean-value theorem, we know that $p(x)$ achieves its mean value $$\\bar{p}^{(m)} = \\frac{1}{\\delta^{(m)}} p^{(m)}(r_s) = p(\\bar{r}_s)$$ at some point $\\bar{r}_s$ in the interval $[r_s,r_s+\\delta^{(m)}].$ We can therefore bound $$p^{(m+k)}(r_s+\\epsilon_u) = \\int_{r_s+\\epsilon_u}^{r_s+\\epsilon_u+\\delta^{(m+k)}}p(w)\\mathrm{d}w\n  \\leq \\delta^{(m+k)}\\times \\left[ p(\\bar{r}_s) + D_p \\delta^{(m)} \\right],$$ where $D_p=\\max_{a\\leq x\\leq b}p'(x).$ Using $\\delta^{(m+k)}=\\delta^{(m)}/2^k,$ we bound $$|\\sigma_{uv}| \\leq \\sum_s \\frac{1}{2^k} D_p (\\delta^{(m)})^2 = D_p(b-a)^2 \\frac{1}{2^{m+k}}$$\n\nWe can now use this bound in various ways. We can for instance study the purity of the state, using ${\\mathrm{tr}}(\\sigma^2)\\geq 0$ to obtain $$P[\\rho] = {\\mathrm{tr}}{\\rho^2}  = 1 + {\\mathrm{tr}}(\\sigma^2) - 2{\\mathrm{tr}}\\braket{e|\\sigma|e} \\geq 1 - 2D_p(b-a)^2 \\frac{1}{2^{m}},$$ a value that vanishes exponentially with the number of qubits. In the particular case in which $k=1,$ the two eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix are $$\\lambda_\\pm = \\frac{1}{2}\\left( 1\\pm\\sqrt{2P-1} \\right).$$ Using the bound $$H_2(x) = -x\\log_2(x)-(1-x)\\log_2(1-x)\\leq 2\\sqrt{x(1-x)},$$ we find that the von Neumann entropy is upper bounded by Eq.\u00a0.\n\nWe can also bound the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix for a larger number of extra qubits. Introducing the trace norm of $\\sigma$ $$T[\\sigma] = \\frac{1}{2}\\Vert\\sigma\\Vert_1 = \\sum_{uv}|\\sigma_{uv}| \\leq D_p(b-a)^2 \\frac{1}{2^{m-k+1}}.$$ Manipulating the Fannes-Audenaert bound\u00a0[@audenaert2007] $$|S(\\rho) - S({\\ensuremath{\\ket{e}\\!\\bra{e}}})| \\leq T\\log_2(2^k-1) +H_2(T) \\leq T (k-e^{-k+1}) + 2\\sqrt{T},$$ we have that the entropy can be made arbitrarily close to zero as we make $T$ smaller and smaller, by increasing $2^{mc-k+1}.$ For sufficiently small $T,$ we can neglect the first term and write\u00a0.\n\n[^1]: While $m=14$ qubits do not challenge the computational capabilities of classical computers, in one dimension this precision leads to discretization error $6\\times 10^{-6}$ so small that the plots do not change by enlarging the register.\n\n[^2]: When there is a lot of squeezing, or when the interval size $|b-a|$ is orders of magnitude larger than the exponential width, the computer cannot represent the extreme values that appear in the MPO tensors\u00a0.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'Juste Raimbault [^1], Arnaud Banos [^2], and Ren\u00e9 Doursat [^3]\\'\ntitle: |\n    **A Hybrid Network/Grid Model of\\\n    Urban Morphogenesis and Optimization**\n---\n\n[[**Abstract.**]{} We describe a hybrid agent-based model and simulation of urban morphogenesis. It consists of a cellular automata grid coupled to a dynamic network topology. The inherently *heterogeneous* properties of urban structure and function are taken into account in the dynamics of the system. We propose various layout and performance measures to categorize and explore the generated configurations. An *economic evaluation* metric was also designed using the sensitivity of segregation models to spatial configuration. Our model is applied to a real-world case, offering a means to optimize the distribution of activities in a zoning context.\\\n[**Keywords.**]{} agent-based modeling, cellular automata, bi-objective pareto optimization, evidence-based urbanism, urban morphogenesis.]{}\n\nIntroduction {#sec_intro}\n============\n\nRecent progress in many disciplines related to urban planning can be interpreted as the rise of a \u201cnew urban science\u201d according to Batty\u00a0[@batty2013new]. From agent-based models in quantitative geography\u00a0[@heppenstall2012agent], in particular the successful Simpop series by Pumain et al.\u00a0[@pumain2012multi], to other approaches termed \u201ccomplexity theories of cities\u201d by Portugali\u00a0[@portugali2012book], involving physicists of information theory such as Haken\u00a0[@haken2003face] or architects of \u201cspace syntax theory\u201d such as Hillier\u00a0[@hillier1976space], the field is very broad and diverse. Yet, all these works share the view that urban systems are quintessentially *complex systems*, i.e.\u00a0large sets of elements interacting locally with one another and the environment, and collectively creating a emergent structure and behavior. Taking into account the intrinsic *heterogeneity* of geographical and urban systems, this view lends itself naturally to an agent-based modeling and simulation (ABMS) approach.\n\nAmong the most popular ABMS methods are cellular automata (CA), in which agents are cells that have fixed locations on a grid and evolve according to the state of their neighbors. CA models of urban planning, in particular the reproduction of existing urban forms and land-use patterns, have been widely studied, notably by White and Engelen\u00a0[@white1993cellular], then analyzed\u00a0[@batty1997cellular; @batty1997possible] and synthesized\u00a0[@Bat07] by Batty. A recent review by Iltanen\u00a0[@iltanen2012cellular] of CA in urban spatial modeling shows a great variety of possible system types and applications. They include, for example, \u201cmicroeconomic\u201d CA for the simulation of urban sprawl\u00a0[@DBM11], \u201clinguistic\u201d CA (including real-time rule update via feedback from the population) for the measure of sustainable development in a fast growing region of China\u00a0[@Wu96alinguistic], and one-dimensional CA\u00a0[@peeters2009space] showing discontinuities and strong path-dependence in settlement patterns.\n\nIn this context, we propose a *hybrid* model of urban growth that combines a CA approach with a graph topology containing long-range edges. It is inspired by Moreno et al.\u2019s work\u00a0[@MBB09; @moreno2007conception], which integrates a network dynamics in a CA model of urban morphology. Its goal was to test the effects of physical proximity on urban development by introducing urban mobility in a network whose evolution was coupled with the evolution of urban shape. We generalize this type of model to take into account *heterogeneous urban activities* and the *functional properties* that they create in the urban environment. This idea was introduced by White\u00a0[@white2006modeling] and explored by van Vliet et al.\u00a0[@van2012activity] but, to our knowledge, never considered from the perspective of *physical accessibility* and its impact on sprawl patterns.\n\nThe rest of the paper is organized as follows. The model and indicator functions used to quantify the generated patterns are explained in Section\u00a0\\[sec\\_model\\]. Next, Section\u00a0\\[sec\\_results\\] presents the results of internal and external validations of the model by sensitivity analysis and reproduction of typical urban patterns. It is followed by an application to a concrete case, proposing a bi-objective optimization heuristic of functional configuration based on the relevant objective functions from the validation study. We end with a discussion and conclusion in Sections\u00a0\\[sec\\_discussion\\] and\u00a0\\[sec\\_conclusion\\].\n\nModel description {#sec_model}\n=================\n\nAgents and rules\n----------------\n\nThe world is represented by a square lattice $(L_{i,j})_{1\\leq i,j\\leq N}$ composed of cells that are empty or occupied (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_lattice\\]). This is denoted by a function $\\delta(i,j,t)\\in\\{0,1\\}$, where time $t$ follows an iterative sequence $t\\in\\mathbb{T} = \\tau\\mathbb{N} = \\{0, \\tau, 2\\tau, ...\\}$\u00a0[@golden2012modeling] with a regular time step $\\tau$. Another evolving structure is laid out on top of the lattice: a Euclidean network $G(t)=(V(t),E(t))$ whose vertices $V$ are a finite subset of the world and edges $E$ (its agents) represent *roads*. In the beginning, the lattice is empty: $\\delta(i,j,0)=0$, and the network is either initialized randomly (e.g.\u00a0uniformly) or set to a user-specified configuration $G(0)=(V_0,E_0)$. In order to translate functional mechanisms into the growth of a city, we assume that the initial vertices include a subset formed by *city centers*, $C_0\\subset V_0$, which have integer *activities*, denoted by $a:C_0\\rightarrow\\{1,\\ldots,a_{\\max}\\}$.\n\nTo characterize the urban structures emerging in this world, we define in general a set of $k$ functions of the lattice, $(d_k(i,j,t))_{1\\leq k\\leq K}$, called *explicative variables*. These variables are here: $d_1$, the *density*, i.e.\u00a0the average $\\delta$ around a cell $(i,j)$ in a circular neighborhood of radius $\\rho$; $d_2$, the Euclidean *distance* of a cell to the nearest road; $d_3$ the *network-distance* of a cell to the nearest city center, i.e.\u00a0the sum of $d_2$ and edge lengths; and $d_4$, the *accessibility* of activities (or rather difficulty thereof), written $$d_4(i,j,t)=\\left(\\frac{1}{a_{\\max}}\\sum_{a=1}^{a_{\\max}}d_3(i,j,t;a)^{p_4}\\right)^{1/p_4}$$ where $d_3(i,j,t;a)$ is the network-distance of the cell to the nearest center with an activity $a$, and $p_4\\geq1$ (typically\u00a03) defines a $p$-norm.\n\nA set of weights $(\\alpha_k)_{1\\leq k\\leq K}\\in[0,1]^K$ is assigned to these variables to tune their respective influence on what we define as the net *land value* of a cell, as follows: $$v(i,j,t)=\\frac{1}{\\sum_k \\alpha_k}\\sum_{k=1}^K \\alpha_k\\;\\frac{d_{k,\\max}(t)-d_k(i,j,t)}{d_{k,\\max}(t)-d_{k,\\min}(t)}.$$\n\nHouses are preferentially built where $v$ is high, i.e.\u00a0$d_k$\u2019s are low. Thus the evolution of the system proceeds in three phases at each time step: (a)\u00a0all values $v(i,j)$ are updated, (b)\u00a0among the cells that have the best values, $n$ new cells are randomly chosen and \u201cbuilt\u201d (set to $\\delta=1$); (c)\u00a0for each built cell, if $d_2$ is greater than a threshold $\\theta_2$ (maximum isolation distance), then that cell is directly connected to the network by creating a new road branching out orthogonally from the nearest edge.\n\nNetwork initialization is random (see details in\u00a0\\[sec\\_extval\\]), and the selection of new cells is also random among identical values of\u00a0$v$. A sensitivity analysis and model exploration is conducted in the next section to determine the relative effect of parameters with respect to these sources of randomness. In any case, growth is halted after a constant amount of time $T$, evaluated from experiments, so that the final structure is neither \u201cunfinished\u201d nor filling out the world (see\u00a0\\[sec\\_extval\\]). Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_flowchart\\] displays the core ABMS flowchart with feedback interactions between agents.\n\n![The hybrid network/grid model. *Blue arrows*: feedback interactions. *Red arrows*: output evaluation functions.[]{data-label=\"fig_flowchart\"}](lattice){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![The hybrid network/grid model. *Blue arrows*: feedback interactions. *Red arrows*: output evaluation functions.[]{data-label=\"fig_flowchart\"}](flowchart){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nEvaluation functions\n--------------------\n\nOnce a structure is generated, its properties need to be quantified so that it can be categorized or compared to other structures for optimization purposes. To this goal, we define various *evaluation functions*, both objective quantification measures and structural fitness values. The measures described in this section take into account all the explicative variables, whose distributions over the grid are emergent properties that cannot be known in advance and are therefore essential to monitor.\n\n#### Morphology\n\nTo assess the morphological structure of an urban configuration, we map it onto a 2D metric space defined by a pair of global indicators $(D,I)$ called the *integrated density* and the *Moran index* (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_morpho\\]). The density $D\\in[0,1]$ is calculated by taking the $p$-norm (with exponent $p_D\\geq 1$, typically 3) of the local densities $d_1$: $$D(t)=\\left(\\frac{1}{\\sum_{i,j} \\delta(i,j,t)}\\!\\!\\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j=1\\atop\\scriptstyle\\delta(i,j,t)\\neq0}^N\\!\\!d_1(i,j,t)^{p_D}\\right)^{1/p_D}$$ Moran\u2019s $I$, an index of spatial autocorrelation, is widely used in quantitative geography\u00a0[@tsai2005quantifying; @lenechet:hal-00696445] to evaluate the \u201cpolycentric\u201d character of a distribution of populated cells. It is defined by $$I(t)=\\frac{M^2}{\\sum_{\\mu\\neq\\nu} 1/d_{\\mu\\nu}}\\frac{\\sum_{\\mu\\neq\\nu} (P_\\mu-\\overline{P})(P_\\nu-\\overline{P})/d_{\\mu\\nu}}{\\sum_{\\mu=1}^{M^2}(P_\\mu-\\overline{P})^2}$$ where the lattice is partitioned into $M\\times M$ square areas, at an intermediate scale between cell size and world size ($1\\ll\\!M\\ll\\!N$), $d_{\\mu\\nu}$ is the distance between the centroids of areas $\\mu$ and $\\nu$, $(P_\\mu)_{1\\leq\\mu\\leq M^2}$ denotes the number of occupied cells in each area, and $\\overline{P}$ is their global average. We can recognize in this formula the normalized ratio of a modified covariance (pairwise correlations divided by distances) and the variance of the distribution. Moran\u2019s $I$ belongs by construction to the interval $[-1,1]$, where values near 1 correspond to a strong monocentric distribution, values around 0 to a random distribution, and values near $-1$ to a checkered pattern (every other cell occupied). Usually, polycentric distributions have relatively small positive $I$ values, depending on the size and distance between centers.\n\n#### Network performance\n\nDue to the branching nature of the growth algorithm, the network of roads $G$ cannot contain any other loops than the ones initially present in $G_0$. Therefore, notions of \u201cclustering coefficient\u201d or \u201crobustness\u201d (with respect to node removal) are not relevant here. On the other hand, since $G$ is intended to simulate a *mobility* network, we can evaluate its performance by defining a *relative speed*\u00a0[@banos2012towards] $S$, representing the \u201cdetours\u201d imposed by $G$ with respect to direct, straight travels: $$S(t)=\\left(\\frac{1}{\\sum_{i,j}\\delta(i,j,t)}\\!\\!\\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j=1\\atop\\scriptstyle\\delta(i,j,t)\\neq0}^N\\!\\!\\left(\\frac{d_3(i,j,t)}{e_3(i,j,t)}\\right)^{p_S}\\right)^{1/p_S}$$ where $p_S\\geq 1$ (also 3), and $e_3(i,j,t)$ is the direct Euclidean distance between cell $(i,j)$ and the nearest city center over the network, i.e.\u00a0the one that realizes the value of $d_3(i,j,t)$. Note that $S\\ge1$ and is actually higher for more convoluted networks (thus it is a measure of \u201cslowness\u201d, but we still employ \u201cspeed\u201d).\n\n#### Functional accessibility\n\nThe global functional accessibility $A$ to city centers is another $p$-norm (also 3), based on the relative local accessibility from each cell, which is $d_4$ over its maximum: $$A(t)=\\left(\\frac{1}{\\sum_{i,j}\\delta(i,j,t)}\\!\\!\\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j=1\\atop\\scriptstyle\\delta(i,j,t)\\neq0}^N\\!\\!\\left(\\frac{d_4(i,j,t)}{d_{4,\\max}(t)}\\right)^{p_A}\\right)^{1/p_A}$$\n\nThis normalization puts $A$ in $[0,1]$ and allows comparing configurations of different sizes. Like $S$, \u201cbetter\u201d urban configurations are characterized by a lower $A$.\n\n#### Economic performance\n\nIt was shown by Banos\u00a0[@banos2012network] that the Schelling segregation model, a standard ABM of socio-economic dynamics\u00a0[@schelling1969models], was highly sensitive to the spatial structures in which it could be embedded, since segregation rules depended on proximity. This justifies the use of this model as an evaluation of *economic performance* of our urban configurations, measuring how much structure influences segregation. To this aim, we implemented a model of residential dynamics based on the work of Benenson et al.\u00a0[@benenson1998multi]. The output function is a segregation index $H(t)$ calculated on the residential patterns that emerge inside a distribution of built patches. For urban structures produced in a practical case (Section\u00a0\\[sec\\_practapp\\]), we obtained densities of mobile agents between 0.1 and 0.2. Following Gauvin et al.\u00a0[@gauvin2009phase], the phase diagram of the Schelling model indicates that in such a density range, tolerance thresholds of 0.4 to 0.8 lead to clustered frozen states, where the calculation of a spatial segregation index is indeed relevant. The detailed description of this economic model is out of the scope of this paper.\n\nResults {#sec_results}\n=======\n\nOur hybrid network/grid model was implemented in NetLogo\u00a0[@NetLogo]. Plots and charts were created in R\u00a0[@R] from exported data. Processing of GIS Data (for vectorization by hand of simple raster data) was done in QGIS\u00a0[@QGIS_software]. Exploration of the 4D space of explicative variables\u2019 weights $\\alpha_k$ was conducted inside the $[0,1]^4$ hypercube with a linear increment of 0.2. This created $6^4-1=1295$ points, from $(0,0,0,0)$ excluded to $(1,1,1,1)$ included, via $(0.2,0,0,0)$, etc. Unless otherwise noted, the output values of the evaluation functions were averaged over 5 simulations for each combination of the $\\alpha_k$\u2019s.\n\nGeneration of urban patterns: validation of the model {#sec_extval}\n-----------------------------------------------------\n\n#### Typical patterns\n\nWe ran the model on different initial configurations, in which a few city centers $C_0$ (typically 4) were randomly positioned on a $56\\times 56$ lattice, and their activity values drawn in $[1,a_{\\max}]$ (both uniformly). The initial network $G_0$ was built progressively and quasi deterministically over increasing distances, by creating isolated clusters and linking them until they percolated into one component. The initial grid was empty ($\\delta=0$ everywhere). Simulations were cut off at 30 iterations ($T=30\\tau$), before the sprawl of urban settlements reached the square boundaries of the world and started \u201creverberating\u201d. Since this artifact occurred the fastest in a density-driven model, $\\alpha_k=(1,0,0,0)$, we empirically assessed $T$ in that case and applied it everywhere.\n\nDifferent parameter settings generated very diverse structures. In particular, we observed striking similarities between the patterns obtained for binary values of $\\alpha_k$\u2019s in some \u201ccorners\u201d of the hypercube (one or two measures $d_k$ with weight 1, the others 0), and the fundamental urban configurations that Le Corbusier had identified in his 1945 analysis of human settlements\u00a0[@mangin2004ville] (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_corbu\\]).\n\n![Typical patterns obtained from our model, reproducing Le Corbusier\u2019s analysis of \u201chuman settlements\u201d. In his 1945 attempt to theorize urban planning, Le Corbusier analyzed the form of cities by hand and outlined three types of settlements: radial-concentric cities, linear cities along communication roads, and rural communities. We were able to reproduce this typology by setting the weights of the explicative variables of our model to corner values: *Top-right*: $(\\alpha_k)=(1,0,0,0)$, i.e.\u00a0density-based only. *Middle*: $(0,1,0,0)$, i.e.\u00a0distance-to-road only. *Bottom*: $(0.2,0,1,0)$, i.e.\u00a0network-distance combined with a little density. *Left*: source\u00a0[@mangin2004ville].[]{data-label=\"fig_corbu\"}](corbu){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![Influence of each explicative variable $d_k$ on urban morphogenesis. Color darkness corresponds to the relative value of weight $\\alpha_k$ used during the growth of mapped structures. Whereas Figs.\u00a0\\[fig\\_morpho\\]-\\[fig\\_influences\\] showed distinct classes at expected locations, this plot displays a rather uniform and chaotic distribution of high weights for $d_2$, $d_3$, and $d_4$, revealing a pervasive role of roads, city centers, and accessibility. Only density $d_1$ correlates better with its own evaluation function $D$ (a high influence of density results in low-density patterns), except for the cluster on the right.[]{data-label=\"fig_influences\"}](morpho){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![Influence of each explicative variable $d_k$ on urban morphogenesis. Color darkness corresponds to the relative value of weight $\\alpha_k$ used during the growth of mapped structures. Whereas Figs.\u00a0\\[fig\\_morpho\\]-\\[fig\\_influences\\] showed distinct classes at expected locations, this plot displays a rather uniform and chaotic distribution of high weights for $d_2$, $d_3$, and $d_4$, revealing a pervasive role of roads, city centers, and accessibility. Only density $d_1$ correlates better with its own evaluation function $D$ (a high influence of density results in low-density patterns), except for the cluster on the right.[]{data-label=\"fig_influences\"}](paramInfluences){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n#### Classification of structures\n\nUsing the pair of morphological indicators $(D,I)$ defined above, and by varying the $\\alpha_k$\u2019s, we constructed a 2D map of the dynamical regimes of our system (Figs.\u00a0\\[fig\\_morpho\\]-\\[fig\\_influences\\]), in which qualitatively different morphological \u201cclasses\u201d could be distinguished. The projected locations of urban configurations in this plane allowed a better understanding and comparison of their features and growth process. Again, for certain corner parameter values (all of them 0 except one or two at 1), the results ended up in distinct locations on the map, which could be relatively well explained. Intermediate combinations of parameters, however, seemed to project the structures quite literally \u201call over the map\u201d, which might be interpreted as the emergence of chaos in the system.\n\n![Statistical distribution of the output evaluations. For each of the 15 corner points of the 4D hypercube of $\\alpha_k$\u2019s (excluding the origin), we ran 500 simulations from random initializations of 4 city centers $C_0$. Three resulting distributions out of these 15 are displayed, each in the form of a histogram of evaluation function values, $D$, $S$, $I$, and $A$, fitted with a Gaussian curve. *Green*: $(\\alpha_k)=(1,0,0,0)$, i.e.\u00a0a simulation taking into account only the density $d_1$. *Yellow*: $(0,1,0,0)$, i.e.\u00a0Euclidean distance $d_2$ only. *Red*: $(0,0,0,1)$, i.e.\u00a0accessibility $d_4$ only. These three histograms were chosen for their minimum overlap and clarity of display; the other 17 are similar. The narrow peaks (except one), spread about the mean by $\\pm10\\%$, attest to the low sensitivity of the model with respect to the spatial initialization, and validates its internal consistency. This also allowed us to rely on a smaller number of runs in our experiments.[]{data-label=\"fig_hists\"}](goodHists2){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![Assessing the influence of the update scheme on the morphologies. In the $(D,I)$ classification plane, each point corresponds to 3 runs of a given combination of $\\alpha_k$ parameters, repeated under a sequential ($n=1$) and under a parallel ($n=20$) update scheme. For each run, the symmetric difference $\\Delta$ between the two patterns is computed and its average over the 3 runs is projected on the map. The color of a point highlights its \u201csignificance\u201d, defined as the product of its local density (clustered points represent more frequent configurations) and its pattern size, $|\\Delta|$ (large patterns are more significant). The scattered points indicate that the model is sensitive to the update scheme for certain parameters. On the other hand, the concentration of significant points near the origin and $D=0.5$ means that corner cases, such as $(1,0,0,0)$, are more robust.[]{data-label=\"fig_imprint\"}](imprintColorordered){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nSensitivity analysis and parameter space exploration: internal validation\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n#### Sensitivity to initial conditions\n\nTo ensure the validity of the results, we investigated the sensitivity of the model to the spatial conditions, the initial set of nodes $C_0$, estimating in particular the number of repetitions necessary to obtain statistically meaningful values for the evaluation functions. If conclusions drawn from one case were highly susceptible to small changes in the initial layout, then the model would obviously have less significance than if there was some invariance with respect to abstract topological features (in particular the distribution of centers\u2019 activities). The optimization heuristics would have to be designed very differently in these two cases.\n\nToward this assessment, we ran a large number of simulations under the same parameter values but starting from different initial $C_0$ configurations, and collected statistics on the output. For each of the 15 binary combinations of $\\alpha_k$\u2019s (excluding all zero), standard deviations were calculated over 500 runs. We obtained narrow peak distributions in most cases, with Gaussian widths typically at 10% of the mean function value (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_hists\\]). In order to ensure that these were the typical widths on all the parameter space and not only on extreme binary points, we also explored the grid $\\{0;0.5;1\\}^{4}$ with 100 runs per point, assessing in a more representative subspace the relative spread of distributions. This confirmed that the evaluation functions were significantly less sensitive to the exact spatial locations than the parameters and overall topology, and justified our use of a smaller number of trials in subsequent experiments. Typically, assuming a normal distribution of width $\\sigma = 0.1$, we needed $n=(2\\sigma\\!\\cdot\\!1.96/0.05)^2\\simeq60$ trials to reach a 95% confidence interval of length 0.05, and 5 trials for a length 0.17. For practical reasons of computing speed, we chose the latter.\n\n#### Sensitivity to update scheme\n\nOn the other hand, the emergent urban patterns depended on the number $n$ of cells filled at every iteration, before land values were recalculated at the next iteration, i.e.\u00a0whether the update scheme was a sequential ($n=1$) or parallel ($n>1$). Building several houses \u201csimultaneously\u201d between two market reevaluations is consistent with the view that real-world functions have a response delay, here of the order of $\\tau$. There must be a limit, however, and an intermediate $n$ must be found to obtain reasonable simulations.\n\nTo this aim, we explored the 4D parameter space of the $\\alpha_k$\u2019s as in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig\\_morpho\\]-\\[fig\\_influences\\] and ran one sequential update scheme and one parallel update scheme with $n=20$ in each case. At the end of the simulation, $t=T$, the two corresponding output patterns $\\delta_\\mathrm{seq}$ and $\\delta_\\mathrm{par}$ were compared by calculating their symmetric difference, i.e.\u00a0the subset of lattice cells that were built either in one or the other but not in both: $\\Delta = \\{(i,j);\\;\\delta_\\mathrm{seq}(i,j,T) \\neq \\delta_\\mathrm{par}(i,j,T)\\}$. Then, these difference patterns $\\Delta$ were projected on the same classification map $(D,I)$ used previously (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_imprint\\]). The results showed that for many combinations of parameters, the model\u2019s behavior could be noticeably influenced by the update scheme, as many difference patterns exhibited a nontrivial structure with high density or high Moran\u2019s index or both. On the other hand, it exhibited a stronger invariance for the corner quadruplets of $\\alpha_k$\u2019s: in these cases the $\\Delta$\u2019s clustered near the origin and $D=0.5$. Based on this study, we decided to adopt a parallel update scheme with $n=15$ built cells per time step in the remainder of the experiments.\n\n#### Exploration of parameter space\n\nThe above two preliminary studies validated the robustness of the model with respect to the initialization and update scheme, and helped us choose a reasonable number of runs (about 5) for each parameter combination, and a adequate degree of parallelism in the simulations ($n=15$). Next, we revisited the $\\alpha_k$ hypercube (same 1295 points in the partition of step 0.2), this time calculating the complete charts of all evaluation functions. Other parameters with a direct correspondence to the real-world, depending on the scale adopted, were set to fixed values. For example, the neighborhood radius $\\rho$ or the road-triggering distance $\\theta_2$ were both equal to 5 cells: this number could represent 50m, characteristic of a block at the scale of a district, or 500m for a district in a city, or 5km between cities in a region.\n\nExamples of evaluation surfaces in 2D projection spaces are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_plots3d\\]. Each function, $D$, $I$, $S$, and $A$, was plotted against two parameters out of four, chosen for their higher \u201cinfluence\u201d (variations in amplitude) on the function. The economic index $H$ was not calculated here (see\u00a0\\[sec\\_practapp\\]). This exhaustive exploration of parameter space was necessary to gain deeper insight into the behavior of the model. It also represents a crucial step toward making computational simulations more rigorous\u00a0[@banos2013HDR].\n\nAltogether, we observed that outputs varied for the most part smoothly, except Moran\u2019s index which appeared more chaotic. Variations were greater in cases where one parameter was dominant. For example, the measures of density $D$, speed $S$ and (global) accessibility $A$ all exhibited a significant jump when including the effect of (local) accessibility $d_4$ in the simulations, i.e.\u00a0when transitioning from $\\alpha_4=0$ to $\\alpha_4>0$. In particular, the more activities were influent, the denser the city became\u2014a nonintuitive emergent effect, compared to top-down planning alternatives that would try to optimize accessibility while keeping density low. Speed, or rather \u201csluggishness\u201d, exploded when density was the only influence on urban sprawl: this confirmed that pure density-driven dynamics creates anarchic growth, without concern for network performance.\n\nAs for global accessibility, or rather the difficulty thereof, it was minimal for $\\alpha_4=0$ : an interesting paradoxical effect suggesting that when individual agents took into account local accessibility ($\\alpha_4>0$), a few of them might have occupied the \u201cbest spots\u201d too quickly, significantly diminishing the others\u2019 prospects. Therefore, at the collective level, it would be better for everyone to ignore that dimension\u2014an example where competition at the individual level does not produce the most efficient system for all. Finally, no meaningful conclusion could be formulated about the chaotic variations of Moran\u2019s index, except for its extreme sensitivity to spatial structure.\n\n![Sample surface plots of the evaluation functions. For each 4D field of evaluation values in the hypercube, we select two out of four parameters and display the 2D slice corresponding to the other two parameters set to $(0,0)$. Horizontal axes are reoriented in each case to minimize visual clutter. This exhaustive exploration has an intrinsic explanatory value (see text), and allows us to predict with some level of confidence how the model responds to certain input parameters.[]{data-label=\"fig_plots3d\"}](3DWithArrowsLast){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![image](RasterAtlantisLast){height=\"45.00000%\"}![image](ExampleActivitiesRealSituation){height=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nPractical example {#sec_practapp}\n-----------------\n\nIn this section, we apply our model to the optimization of activities on top of a real-world urban structure obtained from a geographic file, as opposed to an randomly generated, artificial configuration. This type of scenario occurs in a planning problem where one must decide about the possible land use of predefined zones.\n\nThe practical example under study here concerns the planning of a new district. It is based on a real-world neighborhood, Massy Atlantis (Paris metropolitan area), built in 2012 (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_atlantis\\]). We would like to investigate whether a more efficient planning could have been achieved. The goal of this exercise is to find an optimal assignment of two types of activities, \u201cresidential\u201d (apartments) or \u201ctertiary\u201d (offices), to the centers of 9 areas located on a map. The transportation infrastructure is already in place and the train station is also considered a center with a fixed, third type of activity. A network of avenues is laid out and passes through the 9 centers. The district is initially empty (unbuilt). The particular spatial configuration was automatically imported from a GIS shapefile, so the computation could be readily applied to other cases.\n\nParameters of the model were set as follows: high influence of activities, $\\alpha_4=1$, reflecting the fact that accessibility to home, workplace, and train station are of special importance to the agents of this district; medium influence of density, $\\alpha_1=0.7$, because, not far from Paris, housing must reasonably fill the available areas; no influence of road proximity, $\\alpha_2=0$, since the initial network is already built and the scale is relatively small; and no influence of network-distance, $\\alpha_3=0$, because centers in this problem are abstract entities representing areas.\n\nFor every possible distribution of binary activities over the 9 areas, excluding the two uniform cases (all residential or all tertiary), the model was simulated 5 times, producing a total of $(2^9-2)\\times 5=2550$ runs. The resulting configurations were examined here via a morphological projection in the $(H,A)$ plane, instead of $(D,I)$ used in the previous sections, as we judged it to be a more meaningful measure of fitness in this application. The calculation of the economic segregation index $H$ involved a secondary agent-based simulation on top of the main urban development model (details not provided here).\n\nResults are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_pareto\\]. We obtained a Pareto front of \u201coptimal solutions\u201d trying to minimize both $H$ and $A$, while observing that the actual configuration is not far from being optimal itself, and appears to be a compromise between accessibility and economic performance. After closer examination of the Pareto front and its vicinity, we found that the distribution of activities was highly mixed in these points. More precisely, we defined a spatial heterogeneity index of center activities by $$\\lambda=a_\\mathrm{max}\\frac{\\sum_{\\scriptstyle c\\neq c'\\atop\\scriptstyle a(c)\\neq a(c')}d(c,c')^{-1}}{\\sum_{c\\neq c'}d(c,c')^{-1}}$$ where $c=(i,j)$ and $c'=(i',j')$ are two centers, $d(c, c')$ their Euclidean distance, and $a(c)$, $a(c')$ their activities. Points in the scatterplot were colored according to their level of $\\lambda$. Highly heterogeneous configurations appeared in regions of the plot distinct from homogeneous configurations, which were for the most part located in the central cluster. Optimal solutions and their neighbors all corresponded to high heterogeneity. This interesting result is a step toward evidence-based justification of mixed land use in planning\u2014a principle often invoked by urbanists but never quantitatively demonstrated.\n\nIn conclusion, this case study is encouraging as it proposes a concrete methodology of optimal planning with respect to criteria that are relevant to a particular situation. It could be used by generically planners in similar situations, while remaining cautious on the conditions of its applicability. We discuss this point next.\n\n![Scatterplot of all configurations in the $(H,A)$ morphological plane. A Pareto front (red circles) is apparent in the bottom left part of the plot: it corresponds to \u201coptimal\u201d configurations trying to minimize both $H$ and $A$ objectives. The real situation (blue circle in $H=0.067, A=0.76$) corresponds to Fig.\u00a0\\[fig\\_atlantis\\] and is not far from this front. Points are colored according to their level of heterogeneity $\\lambda$, from low (black) to high (yellow). More homogeneous configurations are concentrated in the central cluster, whereas Pareto points and their neighbors have higher heterogeneity levels. This lends support to the principle of \u201cfunctional diversity\u201d, which is often adopted by planners and urbanists today but has never been backed up by computational simulations.[]{data-label=\"fig_pareto\"}](ParetoLastGoodRealPoint){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nDiscussion {#sec_discussion}\n==========\n\nThe reproduction of typical urban morphologies and the possible application to a real-world problem shown in the previous sections indicate that a model like ours can be useful for evidence-based decision-making in urban planning. Several questions remain open, however, and would need further investigation.\n\n#### Scale of the model\n\nOne ambiguity of the model is that it can be applied at different scales, therefore there is no unique correspondence between its agents and the real world. As the above results illustrate, the simulated urban configurations may represent a system of cities at the macroscopic scale, the neighborhoods of one city at the mesoscopic scale, or the buildings of one district at the microscopic scale. Without engaging in an ontological debate over levels of abstraction, this could still be pointed out as a potential issue.\n\nWe wish to argue, however, that the multiscale applicability of our model is legitimate as a great number of urban systems and associated dynamics have been shown to be \u201cscale-free\u201d, in particular by Pumain\u00a0[@pumain2004scaling], and even to possess fractal properties, by Batty\u00a0[@FractalCities]. It means that scaling laws may also operate in our model, therefore qualitative results should remained unchanged while the quantitative evolution of variables and relations should only depend on the underlying power law\u2019s exponent.\n\nBarth\u00e9lemy\u00a0[@2013arXiv1309.3961L] warns that most multi-agent urban models fail because they do not focus on the \u201cdominating\u201d physical process but, instead, integrate too many aspects that bear no relevance to the emergent properties of the system. Following up on this advice, we believe that we have successfully identified \u201cgood\u201d proxies for the dominating processes of urban morphogenesis, namely: urban density, accessibility to road network, and accessibility to main functionalities.\n\n#### Local scope\n\nWhen the model is considered at a mesoscopic or microscopic scale, another objection could be that it seems to limit itself to an artificially \u201cclosed\u201d urban system, neglecting important contextual phenomena such as economic exchanges. Yet, although input and output flows are greatly simplified here, they are still present in implicit form. Our simulated world is not truly closed, since newly built houses are associated with a net influx of resources. Moreover, despite the absence of a direct economic force in the growth dynamics (the $H$ index is only a post-hoc metric), the attractivity of centers constitutes a proxy for underlying activity, and a form of interdependence among urban processes. Finally, other models that have taken into account the global complex network of cities\u00a0[@andersson2003urban] have reproduced well-known patterns of urban systems much like ours.\n\nTherefore, here too, local or global approaches appear to be equivalent and the modeling decisions and compromises made in each case must be compared. This question also ties in with the fundamental issue, contained in the previous point, of the existence of a \u201cminimal dimension\u201d for a generalized representation of urban systems. The challenge is to understand how universal the dependence between a system and its dimension may be, and if a generalized minimalist formulation can be constructed. Speculations toward that ambitious goal have been formulated by Haken\u00a0[@haken2003face] through a notion of \u201csemantic information\u201d linked to properties of attractors in dynamical systems. This theory, however, has not been quantified, i.e.\u00a0neither confirmed nor falsified.\n\n#### Quantitative calibration\n\nThe question of the validity of the model is also linked to the need for a finer quantitative calibration based on real patterns, which creates a dilemma: on the one hand, calibration on the errors of output function proxies does not influence the formation of spatial patterns; on the other hand, calibration on the spatial patterns themselves is too constraining and may preclude the emergence of other, similar patterns. Previous works addressing the issue of calibration\u00a0[@maria2003stochastic] have not been conclusive so far.\n\nTo revisit this question, we would need to apply our model at a finer grain of spatial resolution, i.e.\u00a0a very large world in terms of data size. In this scenario, it would be particularly important to keep processing time under control by reducing computational complexity, for example through a cache of the network\u2019s shortest paths. The potential increase in size can also create methodological hurdles, not just computational, as a huge amount of details in the resulting patterns might contribute to more noise than signal and significantly bias the indicators. One solution would be to create a new operator extracting the morphological envelope of the generated pattern, along the lines of an original method proposed by Frankhauser et al.\u00a0[@frankhauser2005multi; @tannier:halshs-00461657]. Other ways to deal with noise may involve Gaussian smoothing.\n\n#### Complex coupling with economic model\n\nOur method of economic evaluation consists of \u201csimple coupling\u201d, i.e. running a secondary agent-based model (the basis of $H$\u2019s calculation, not described here) after the primary urban growth simulation has finished. Another important direction of research would implement a \u201ccomplex coupling\u201d between the two models in the sense proposed by Varenne\u00a0[@varenne2013modeliser]: the study of urban sprawl on other time scales would require the *simultaneous* and mutually interacting evolutions of the population, the building rents, and the terrain values. Obviously, this would lead to a more sophisticated model oriented toward a whole new set questions, such as the evaluation of long-term rent policies to foster social diversity.\n\nConclusion {#sec_conclusion}\n==========\n\nWe have proposed a hybrid network/grid model of urban growth structures, and studied their morphological and functional properties by simulation. Results showed that it could reproduce the characteristic urban facts of a classical typology of \u201chuman settlements\u201d, and was also applicable to a concrete scenario by calculating \u201coptimal\u201d solutions (in the Pareto sense) to a planning challenge in an existing zoning context. Our work provide evidence in favor of the \u201cmixed-use city\u201d, a topic on which literature is still scarce and future work is needed. This paradigm is now commonly advocated by urbanists, such as Mangin\u00a0[@mangin2004ville] through his concept of *\u201cville passante\u201d* (a pun on \u201cevolving/flowing/pedestrian city\u201d), and would require more validation through quantitative results.\n\nFinally, beyond its technical achievements and potential usefulness as a decision-making tool, our work also fuels a contemporary debate on the state-of-the-art in \u201cquantitative urbanism\u201d. Siding with Portugali\u00a0[@portugali2012complexity], we certainly agree that the conception and application of computational models is a delicate matter, which can lead to more confusion than explanation if not properly handled and validated. Depending on the scale, a careless choice of parameter values can produce dubious results. Yet, we support the idea that *quantitative* insights are paramount for a better understanding of urban and social systems. With the recent explosion in data size and computing power, evidence-based analysis and solutions are becoming a real alternative to older attitudes, such as Lefebvre\u2019s\u00a0[@henri1968droit], which doubted that scientific approaches could ever translate or predict the mechanisms of a city.\n\n[10]{}\n\nC.\u00a0Andersson, A.\u00a0Hellervik, K.\u00a0Lindgren, A.\u00a0Hagson, and J.\u00a0Tornberg. Urban economy as a scale-free network. , 68(3):036124, 2003.\n\nA.\u00a0Banos. Network effects in schelling\u2019s model of segregation: new evidences from agent-based simulation. , 39(2):393\u2013405, 2012.\n\nA.\u00a0Banos. . PhD thesis, UMR CNRS G[\u00e9]{}ographie-Cit[\u00e9]{}s, ISCPIF, D[\u00e9]{}cembre 2013.\n\nA.\u00a0Banos and C.\u00a0Genre-Grandpierre. Towards new metrics for urban road networks: Some preliminary evidence from agent-based simulations. In [*Agent-based models of geographical systems*]{}, pages 627\u2013641. Springer, 2012.\n\nM.\u00a0Batty. Cellular automata and urban form: a primer. , 63(2):266\u2013274, 1997.\n\nM.\u00a0Batty. . MIT Press, 2007.\n\nM.\u00a0Batty. . MIT Press, 2013.\n\nM.\u00a0Batty and P.\u00a0Longley. . Academic Press, London, 1994.\n\nM.\u00a0Batty and Y.\u00a0Xie. Possible urban automata. , 24:175\u2013192, 1997.\n\nI.\u00a0Benenson. Multi-agent simulations of residential dynamics in the city. , 22(1):25\u201342, 1998.\n\nG.\u00a0Caruso, G.\u00a0Vuidel, J.\u00a0Cavailhes, P.\u00a0Frankhauser, D.\u00a0Peeters, and I.\u00a0Thomas. Morphological similarities between dbm and a microeconomic model of sprawl. , 13:31\u201348, 2011.\n\nP.\u00a0Frankhauser and C.\u00a0Tannier. A multi-scale morphological approach for delimiting urban areas. In [*9th Computers in Urban Planning and Urban Management conference (CUPUM\u201905), University College London*]{}, 2005.\n\nL.\u00a0Gauvin, J.\u00a0Vannimenus, and J.-P. Nadal. Phase diagram of a schelling segregation model. , 70(2):293\u2013304, 2009.\n\nB.\u00a0Golden, M.\u00a0Aiguier, and D.\u00a0Krob. Modeling of complex systems ii: A minimalist and unified semantics for heterogeneous integrated systems. , 218(16):8039\u20138055, 2012.\n\nH.\u00a0Haken and J.\u00a0Portugali. The face of the city is its information. , 23(4):385\u2013408, 2003.\n\nL.\u00a0Henri. Le droit [\u00e0]{} la ville. , 1968.\n\nA.\u00a0J. Heppenstall, A.\u00a0T. Crooks, and L.\u00a0M. See. . Springer, 2012.\n\nB.\u00a0Hillier, A.\u00a0Leaman, P.\u00a0Stansall, and M.\u00a0Bedford. Space syntax. , 3(2):147\u2013185, 1976.\n\nS.\u00a0Iltanen. Cellular automata in urban spatial modelling. In [*Agent-based models of geographical systems*]{}, pages 69\u201384. Springer, 2012.\n\nF.\u00a0Le\u00a0N[\u00e9]{}chet and A.\u00a0Aguilera. D[\u00e9]{}terminants spatiaux et sociaux de la mobilit[\u00e9]{} domicile-travail dans 13 aires urbains fran[\u00e7]{}aises : une approche par la forme urbaine, [\u00e0]{} deux [\u00e9]{}chelles g[\u00e9]{}ographiques. In [*[ASRDLF 2011]{}*]{}, SCHOELCHER, Martinique, July 2011. http://asrdlf2011.com/.\n\nR.\u00a0[Louf]{} and M.\u00a0[Barthelemy]{}. . , Sept. 2013.\n\nD.\u00a0Mangin. . ditions de la Villette Paris, 2004.\n\nC.\u00a0Maria\u00a0de Almeida, M.\u00a0Batty, A.\u00a0M. Vieira\u00a0Monteiro, G.\u00a0C[\u00e2]{}mara, B.\u00a0S. Soares-Filho, G.\u00a0C. Cerqueira, and C.\u00a0L. Pennachin. Stochastic cellular automata modeling of urban land use dynamics: empirical development and estimation. , 27(5):481\u2013509, 2003.\n\nD.\u00a0Moreno, D.\u00a0Badariotti, and A.\u00a0Banos. Un automate cellulaire pour exp[\u00e9]{}rimenter les effets de la proximit[\u00e9]{} dans le processus d\u2019[\u00e9]{}talement urbain : le mod[\u00e8]{}le raumulus. , 2009.\n\nD.\u00a0Moreno, A.\u00a0Banos, and D.\u00a0Badariotti. Conception d\u2019un automate cellulaire non stationnaire [\u00e0]{} base de graphe pour mod[\u00e9]{}liser la structure spatiale urbaine: le mod[\u00e8]{}le remus. , 2007.\n\nD.\u00a0Peeters and M.\u00a0Rounsevell. Space time patterns of urban sprawl, a 1d cellular automata and microeconomic approach. , 36:968\u2013988, 2009.\n\nJ.\u00a0Portugali. Complexity theories of cities: Achievements, criticism and potentials. In [*Complexity Theories of Cities Have Come of Age*]{}, pages 47\u201362. Springer, 2012.\n\nJ.\u00a0Portugali, H.\u00a0Meyer, E.\u00a0Stolk, and E.\u00a0Tan. . Springer, 2012.\n\nD.\u00a0Pumain. Scaling laws and urban systems. , 2:26, 2004.\n\nD.\u00a0Pumain. Multi-agent system modelling for urban systems: The series of simpop models. In [*Agent-based models of geographical systems*]{}, pages 721\u2013738. Springer, 2012.\n\n. . Open Source Geospatial Foundation, 2009.\n\n. . R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2013.\n\nT.\u00a0C. Schelling. Models of segregation. , 59(2):488\u2013493, 1969.\n\nC.\u00a0Tannier, G.\u00a0Vuidel, and P.\u00a0Frankhauser. . In J.-C. Folt[\u00ea]{}te, editor, [*[Actes des huiti[\u00e8]{}mes Rencontres de Th[\u00e9]{}o Quant]{}*]{}, page\u00a014, Besan[\u00e7]{}on, France, 2008. http://thema.univ-fcomte.fr/theoq/.\n\nY.-H. Tsai. Quantifying urban form: compactness versus\u2019 sprawl\u2019. , 42(1):141\u2013161, 2005.\n\nJ.\u00a0van Vliet, J.\u00a0Hurkens, R.\u00a0White, and H.\u00a0van Delden. An activity-based cellular automaton model to simulate land-use dynamics. , 39(2):198, 2012.\n\nF.\u00a0Varenne, M.\u00a0Silberstein, et\u00a0al. . 2013.\n\nR.\u00a0White. Modeling multi-scale processes in a cellular automata framework. In [*Complex artificial environments*]{}, pages 165\u2013177. Springer, 2006.\n\nR.\u00a0White and G.\u00a0Engelen. Cellular automata and fractal urban form: a cellular modelling approach to the evolution of urban land-use patterns. , 25(8):1175\u20131199, 1993.\n\nU.\u00a0Wilensky. Netlogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL., 1999.\n\nF.\u00a0Wu. A linguistic cellular automata simulation approach for sustainable land development in a fast growing region. , 20:367\u201387, 1996.\n\n[^1]: Graduate School, \u00c9cole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France; and LVMT, Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chauss\u00e9es, Paris, France. :\n\n[^2]: G\u00e9ographie-cit\u00e9s, CNRS UMR8504, Paris, France. :\n\n[^3]: Complex Systems Institute, Paris \u00cele-de-France (ISC-PIF), CNRS UPS3611. :\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We introduce a kind of partial observability to the projective simulation (PS) learning method via Dirac notation. It is done by adding a projection operator and an observability parameter to the original formulation of the efficiency in PS model. Our examples are from invasion toy problem regarding a multi-agent setting.'\nauthor:\n- 'R. Kheiri'\ndate: 'Received: date / Accepted: date'\ntitle: 'A Projective Simulation Scheme for a Partially-Observable Multi-Agent Game '\n---\n\n[example.eps]{} gsave newpath 20 20 moveto 20 220 lineto 220 220 lineto 220 20 lineto closepath 2 setlinewidth gsave .4 setgray fill grestore stroke grestore\n\nIntroduction {#intro}\n============\n\nProjective simulation, to put it briefly, is an embodied learning method which tries to represent a reductionist approach of a brain-like learning (thinking) scheme utilizing random walks between some network of clips via their interface edges as episodic and compositional memories. In the article titled \u201cprojective simulation for artificial intelligence\u201d [@Briegel1], the authors formulate PS model using a toy problem as \u201cinvasion game\u201d and checked the speed of learning, maximum blocking efficiency, etc. from which we expand our examples on it for the early step of introducing the partially observable PS method.\n\nAs the primary feature, the PS thinking process is considered to be decoupled from immediate motor action since the random walks happen between virtual (fictitious) percept and action clips in the memory (networks of clips) itself which can be modified (updated) both in the number of its clips and/or in the transition probabilities between the clips via reflections or some compositional properties before the real action $a$ takes place. Due to the ability of the creation of new clips in the network of clips,[^1]one may think of every percept clip or every action clip just as a network clip in the system. Therefore one can formulate PS model just on the network\u2019 clips irrespective of the kind of them. Therefore the transitional probabilities between every two clips $c_i$ and $c_j$ in the time step $t$ can be written as a normalized conditional probability function build of the wight transitions ${\\omega}^{(t)} (c_i ,c_j )$. $$P^{(t)} ( c_j |c_i ) = \\frac{{\\omega}^{(t)} (c_i, c_j )}{\\sum_k {\\omega}^{(t)} (c_i, c_k)},\n\\label{eqprob}$$ where ${\\omega}^{(t)} (c_i ,c_j ) = f (h^{(t)} (c_i ,c_j ) )$ is modified as an adaptation rule of $$h^{(t+1)} (c_i, c_j ) = h^{(t)} (c_i, c_j ) - \\gamma ( h^{(t)} (c_i, c_j ) -1 ) + \\sum_l \\delta (c_i , c_{k_l} ) \\delta (c_j, c_{m_l}) {\\lambda}^{(t+1)}\n\\label{eqtrans}$$ when the edges $(c_{k_l}, c_{m_l})$ were traversed during the last random walk, where $0\\leq \\gamma \\leq 1$ is a forgetting factor (damping parameter), and $\\lambda$ is a non-negative reward that will increment the related *h*-value function. It follows that the forgetting factor $ \\gamma $ in Eq.\u00a0\\[eqtrans\\] can show a positive effect in speed-up learning and an adverse effect on the amount of efficiency.[^2] The simplest function for $\\omega$ is for $f(h)=h$ as will be used in the current study and have used in the previous studies[^3]. In addition, the weight matrix $\\omega = h^{(t)} (c_i, c_j)$ is initially unit ($h^{(1)} (c_i, c_j )=1$) for all edges.\n\nSubsequently, learning happens by changing transition probabilities of Eq.\u00a0\\[eqprob\\] on a given pair of $(c_i, c_j )$ by updating the rule of Eq.\u00a0\\[eqtrans\\]. One can evaluate the efficiency of learning, $r^{(t)}$, by adding together the amounts of desirable joint probabilities $P^{(n)} (a_s^{*} , s)$ at time $t$, where $ a_s^{*} $ is a pleasing action on a given percept $ s $. Assuming that $$r^{(t)} = \\sum_s P^{(t)} (s)\\, P^{(t)} (a_s^{*} |s) , \\quad P^{(n)} (s) = \\frac{1}{\\textit{number of different percepts}},$$ then we have $$r^{(t)} = \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N P^{t} (a_{s_i}^{*} | s_i ).\n\\label{eqoriggin}$$\n\nThere are other important properties in the PS scheme such as edge-glow mechanism $ g(c_i, c_j ) \\in [0, 1] $ [@Briegel2; @Alexey1] which refers to a delayed reward $ g^{(t+1)} (c_i, c_j ) \\, \\lambda^{(t+1)} $ for a non-traversed edge in the right hand of Eq.\u00a0\\[eqtrans\\]. In the current study, however, our examples contain only the invasion game for which the agent performs optimally in case we do not have such temporal correlations that are $ g=0 $ [@Briegel3]. Accordingly, the adaptation rule of Eq.\u00a0\\[eqtrans\\] is enough for our purpose here.\n\nProjective simulation as a new model for classical and quantum artificial intelligence needs to be expanded in all AI directions as a lot of works have been done so far. Particularly, some classical studies are [@Briegel1; @Briegel2; @Briegel3; @Alexey1] and some quantum works are [@Dunjko1; @Tiersch11; @JensClausen.; @Alexey2; @Dunjko2]. In the current study, we use Dirac notation, which is a useful theoretical method in both classical AI and quantum context, to speak of the influence of a partially observable environment on the efficiency of a given agent, though my results are presented classically here.\n\nPartially observability and multi-agent approaches have been considered widely in AI [@KaelblingLittman; @book:Russel; @book:Sigaud] and reinforcement learning [@Fujita; @Doshi]. In this paper, we introduce the notion of a partially observable environment to the PS learning method using a set of belief states in the formulation of efficiency. As our examples, we use a multi-agent invasion setting where another agent as an interpreter can teach the percepts to the defender. Afterwards, every agent can be considered as a simultaneous learner-teacher where there could be some game theoretical aspects therein.\n\nA one way partially observable projective simulation (POPS)\n===========================================================\n\nIn a partially observable environment, the agent may be unable to observe the current state. In this approach, a fully observable environment is just a special case of the partial observability when the belief state ($b$) is equal to the current percept ($s$) for every real percept $s$ at all times. It is believed that partially observable AI can add more realistic examples to the entirely observable AI scenarios.\n\nWe track a multi-agent partially observable example in this article, though our following formulation is independent of any multi-agent hypothesis and I think it will be beneficial as an interior network structure too. For a multi-agent setting, there are two main streams in literature as interactive partially observable [@Gmytrasiewicz1; @Gmytrasiewicz2; @Panella] and also decentralized partially observable [@Bernstein1; @bookchapter:Oliehoek; @Amato1].\n\nIn the PS context, remembering efficiency of Eq.\\[eqoriggin\\] and using a vector notation for $N$ different percept-actions, then $$r^{(t)} = \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\, \\langle a_{s_i}^{*} | s_i \\rangle.\n\\label{eqfullyy}$$\n\nWhere we omitted the superscript $ t $ for the probabilities. The environments, so far, have been stochastic, fully observable (since the agent observes real percepts) and containing one learning agent. However, people may think of expanding a vector space on a different basis to make some belief states from the world states $ | s_i \\rangle $. As a tangible example, considering one another intelligent agent as an interpreter (an **intelligent projector**) as illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[interpreter:1\\]. We can span our real states (world states) $ | s_i \\rangle  $ on the belief states $ | b_i \\rangle  $ which are what is learned by an interpreter (I) concerning $ s_i $. One can write a projection operator [@book:Sakurai] $ B_j $ as $$B_j =  |  b_j \\rangle \\langle b_j |.$$ Then $$| s_i \\rangle = \\sum_j \\, |  b_j \\rangle \\langle b_j | s_i \\rangle \\quad , \\quad  \\sum_j \\, \\langle b_j | s_i \\rangle = 1.$$ $$r^{(t)}= \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\sum_{j=1}^{N'} \\, \\langle a_{s_i}^{*} | \\, B_j \\, | s_i \\rangle = \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\sum_{j=1}^{N'} \\, \\langle a_{s_i}^{*}  | b_j \\rangle \\, \\langle b_j | s_i \\rangle\n\\label{blockeff}$$ where $ \\langle \\alpha | \\beta  \\rangle = P^{t} ( \\alpha | \\beta) $ and $ {N'} $ stands for the number of possible belief states which in immediate examples equal to the number of world states $ N $. One can also write the belief states\u2019 vectors with respect to the world states using an inverse matrix for probabilities $\\langle b_i | s_i \\rangle $. Notice that in the probability matrix of $\\langle b_k | s_k  \\rangle $, the summation of elements on a row is equal to one $ \\sum_j \\, \\langle b_j | s_i \\rangle = 1 $ but it is not the case for the summation on a column $ \\sum_j \\, \\langle b_i | s_j \\rangle $. We can also, assume that $${\\delta}_{ij} = \\langle s_i | s_j \\rangle \\, = \\langle a_i | a_j \\rangle \\ = \\langle b_i | b_j \\rangle$$ where needed.\n\nAs a more general case, one can consider a combinational operator $ (S+B)_j $ which regards an **observability parameter** $ \\alpha $ for a given environment that is some portion $ \\alpha $ of all percepts to be fully observable and the rest of them be partially observable. In other words, a given world percept is visible with the probability of $ \\alpha $ and is invisible with the probability of $1 - \\alpha $.\n\n$$\\alpha \\, S_j + ( 1 - \\alpha ) \\, B_j =  \\alpha \\, | s_j \\rangle \\langle s_j | \\, + \\, ( 1 - \\alpha ) \\,   |  b_j \\rangle \\langle b_j | ,$$\n\n$$r^{(t)} = \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\sum_{j=1}^{N'} \\, \\langle a_{s_i}^{*} | \\, \\alpha \\, S_j + ( 1 - \\alpha ) \\, B_j \\, | s_i \\rangle ,$$\n\n$$r^{(t)}= \\frac{\\alpha }{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\, \\langle a_{s_i}^{*} | {s_i} \\rangle \\, + \\, \\frac{1 - \\alpha }{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\sum_{j=1}^{N'} \\, \\langle a_{s_i}^{*} | b_j \\rangle \\, \\langle b_j | s_i \\rangle .\n\\label{kabli}$$\n\nFurther, we could include the imaginary space to define our generic belief state $ | (S+B)_{j} \\rangle $ as $$| (S+B)_{j} \\rangle = \\sqrt{\\alpha} \\, | s_{j} \\rangle  + i \\, \\sqrt{1 - \\alpha } \\, | b_j \\rangle ,\n\\label{eqktswmtt}$$ $$(S+B)_j = \\, | (S+B)_{j} \\rangle \\,\\, \\langle (S+B)_{j} | .\n\\label{thefifi}$$ Then, one can define the efficiency of Eq.\\[kabli\\] as the real part of $ r^{(t)} $ that is $$r^{(t)}= \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\sum_{j=1}^{N'} \\, \\langle a_{s_i}^{*} | (S+B)_j | s_i \\rangle$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nefficiency \\equiv Real \\, [ r^{(t)} ] = \\frac{\\alpha }{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\, \\langle a_{s_i}^{*} | {s_i} \\rangle \\, + \\, \\frac{1 - \\alpha }{N} \\sum_{i=1}^N \\sum_{j=1}^{N'} \\, \\langle a_{s_i}^{*} | b_j \\rangle \\, \\langle b_j | s_i \\rangle .\n\\label{jankan}\\end{aligned}$$ Equation\u00a0\\[eqktswmtt\\] is well-defined. Because the operators as $ | b_j \\rangle \\langle s_j | $ and $ | s_j \\rangle \\langle b_j | $ for $ b_j \\neq s_j  $ cause seemingly nonsensical probabilities in the current study. The former would bring probabilities from which when a direct world state $ s_j $ was seen, the action takes place for an indirect $ b_j $, and the effect is just vice versa for the latter.\n\nSuppose that we have asymptotic probabilities as a function of forgetting factor, $${\\langle a_k | s_l \\rangle}_{max} = {\\langle a_k | b_l \\rangle}_{max} = \n\\begin{cases}\np ( \\gamma_{pa} ) , \\quad k = l \\\\\nq ( \\gamma_{pa} ) , \\quad k \\neq l \n\\end{cases} \\\\\n,{\\langle b_k | s_l \\rangle}_{max} = \n\\begin{cases}\np ( \\gamma_{I} ) , \\quad k = l \\\\\nq ( \\gamma_{I} ) , \\quad k\\neq l \n\\end{cases}$$ where $ \\gamma_{pa} $ and $ \\gamma_{I} $ stand for the protagonist agent\u2019s forgetting factor and interpreter\u2019s forgetting factor respectively. Hence, for a simple fully observable problem with $ a_{s_i}^{*} = a_i $ we have $ r_{max} = p ( \\gamma_{pa} ) $ according to Eq.\u00a0\\[eqoriggin\\] or Eq.\u00a0\\[eqfullyy\\]. Yet, considering our partially observable two-agent model with $ N'=N $ ($ |S| = |A| = |B|= N $) one can use Eq.\u00a0\\[jankan\\], regarding $ r_{PO} $ for the asymptotic efficiency in a partially observable environment (versus $ r_{FO} $ preserved for a fully observable one) and write\n\n$$\\begin{gathered}\nr_{PO} \\equiv r_{max}^{pa} (\\alpha , \\gamma_{pa}, \\gamma_{I} ) =  \\alpha \\, p ( \\gamma_{pa} ) + (1- \\alpha ) \\left[ p ( \\gamma_{pa} ) . p ( \\gamma_{I} )  + q ( \\gamma_{pa} ) . q ( \\gamma_{I} ) \\right].\n\\label{eqrmaxxx}\\end{gathered}$$\n\n\\\n$$r_{PO} = p ( \\gamma_{pa} ) \\left\\lbrace 1 - (1 - \\alpha ) \\left[ 1 - p ( \\gamma_{I} ) - \\frac{q ( \\gamma_{I} )}{p ( \\gamma_{pa} ) } . q ( \\gamma_{I} ) \\right] \\right\\rbrace .\n\\label{lalbkusab}$$ Remembering the efficiency of a given agent in a fully observable environment, $ r_{FO} = p ( \\gamma_{pa} ) $, then $$r_{PO} = \\beta \\,\\, r_{FO} , \\qquad 0 \\leq \\beta \\leq 1 \\quad \\Longrightarrow \\quad  r_{PO} \\leq r_{FO}.$$ We may recall $ \\beta $ as a transparency coefficient or $ \\mu = 1 - \\beta $ as the reduction of transparency. Besides, one can have $ q $ with respect to $ p $ according to the specific form of $ h $-matrix within a given problem, see Eq.\u00a0\\[diwwonehhha\\] for instance, for which $$If \\quad p + q \\, ( N-1 ) = 1,$$ $$\\mu = (1 - \\alpha ) \\, q ( \\gamma_{I} ) \\left[ (N - 1) - \\frac{q ( \\gamma_{pa} )}{p ( \\gamma_{pa} ) } \\right]  , \\quad N \\geq 2.$$\\\nOur formulation can go beyond to include multi-agent games where an interpreter could be a sort of protagonist agent by itself and a protagonist agent, on the other hand, would be an intelligent interpreter too so that every agent become a simultaneous player-interpreter (see Sec.\u00a0\\[sectionmmultii\\]). Then, some world percepts would be invisible for each agent while another agent can detect them and help its partner to have more efficiency. Assuming a different forgetting factor for every task to be done for a given agent $ i $ in a multi-agent setting containing $ n $ tasks, we could have $$\\gamma_{i} = \\sum_{k=1}^n \\gamma_{ki} , \\quad  0 \\leq \\gamma_{i} \\leq 1.\n\\label{gamasamam}$$ In such a scenario, the parameter of observability $ \\alpha $ can also differ for two given agents $ i $ and $ j $, that is $ \\alpha_{i} \\neq  \\alpha_{j}$.\n\nSpecific examples of a multi-agent invasion toy problem\n=======================================================\n\nThe original formulation of PS has been introduced using a toy problem called invasion game as elaborated in [@Briegel1; @Briegel2]. To add partial observability employing another agent to the original projective simulation, we can assume an interpreter added to the standard invasion problem. In the basic form of the invasion game, an attacker (A) send some precepts $s \\in \\{ \\Leftarrow , \\Rightarrow \\}$ (in case $ N=2 $) where a defender (D) perceives and learns them by taking action $a\\in \\{ - , + \\}$ on a percept and getting a reward ($\\lambda$). $$\\{ s_1 , s_2 \\} = \\{ \\Leftarrow , \\Rightarrow \\}, \\qquad\n\\{ - , + \\} = \\{ a_1 , a_2 \\} ,$$ where we can consider $ | s_i \\rangle = \\{ | \\Leftarrow  \\rangle , | \\Rightarrow \\rangle \\} $ and $ | a_i \\rangle = \\{ | -  \\rangle , | + \\rangle \\} $ for $ N=2 $ in an invasion game.\n\nWhile the theoretical asymptotic efficiency for a small amount of $ \\gamma $ has been derived for a fully observable one defender invasion game [@Briegel1; @Briegel2], that derivation cannot be used for an arbitrary choice of $ \\gamma $ even in the simple form of one agent toy problem. The asymptotic efficiency relating to a given agent \u201d$ D $\u201d that is $r_{max}^D = r_{max}^D ( \\alpha , \\gamma_{D}, \\gamma_{I}) $ occurs with respect to $ \\lim_{t \\to \\infty} h^{(t)} (s,a) $ regarding the adaptation rule of Eq.\u00a0\\[eqtrans\\]. This adaptation is changed stochastically, however, in a big enough time, $ t \\to \\infty $, the averaged efficiencies on a large number of agents ($ m $) reaches a certain asymptote for every forgetting factor $ \\gamma $ (see Appendix.\u00a0\\[averagefequa\\]). Then one can assume that there is an effective reward function, $ \\lambda_{eff} $, for every $ \\gamma $ so that it becomes the averaged rewards obtained on a large number of agents $ m $. $${\\left\\langle \\sum_l \\delta (c_i , c_{k_l} ) \\delta (c_j , c_{m_l}) {\\lambda}^{(t+1)} \\right\\rangle }_{ m \\to \\infty} \\longrightarrow \\quad \\lambda_{eff}^{(t+1)} (c_i , c_j , \\gamma ) ,$$ thus $$h^{(t+1)} (c_i , c_j ) = h^{(t)} (c_i , c_j ) - \\gamma ( h^{(t)} (c_i , c_j ) -1 ) + \\lambda_{eff}^{(t+1)} (c_i , c_j , \\gamma ) .\n\\label{effectivee}$$\\\nA constant reward for every time in Eq.\\[eqtrans\\], $${\\lambda}^{(t+1)} (c_i , c_j ) = \\lambda (c_i , c_j ),\n\\label{conditionddq}$$ leads to $$h_{max} = \\lim_{t \\to \\infty} h^{(t)} (c_i , c_j ) \\, = \\, \\frac{\\lambda_{eff} (c_i , c_j , \\gamma ) }{\\gamma} + 1.$$ Then $$h_{max} =\n\\begin{cases}\n\\frac{\\lambda_{eff}^{reward}}{\\gamma} + 1 & \\textit{for a rewarded pair of $ (c_i , c_j) $} \\\\\n1 & \\textit{for a non-rewarded pair of $ (c_i , c_j) $}\n\\end{cases}$$ Due to the fact that $ \\lambda_{eff}^{non-reward} = 0 $, we rename $ \\lambda_{eff}^{reward} = \\lambda ( \\gamma ) $ from so on. Given $ N $ different percept-action but just one desirable action $ a_{s_i}^{*} $ for each percept $ s_i $, we have $$p + q \\, ( N-1 ) = 1,\n\\label{diwwonehhha}$$ and $$p_{N} ( \\gamma ) = \\frac{\\lambda_{N} (\\gamma) + \\gamma}{\\lambda_{N} (\\gamma) + N \\gamma} \\quad , \\quad q_{N} ( \\gamma ) = \\frac{ \\gamma}{\\lambda_{N} (\\gamma) + N \\gamma} , \\qquad p(0) = 1, \\qquad q(0) = 0. \n\\label{incsioo}$$\n\nEquations\u00a0\\[incsioo\\] are the evaluations of the asymptotic probabilities in our partially observable multi-agent model of problems for which Eq.\u00a0\\[conditionddq\\] is satisfied. Otherwise, we may use the specific properties of a given scenario to have $ p $ and $ q $.\n\nIn the following, we consider an invasion with $ N=2 $. Figure\u00a0\\[effrewardx\\] shows the effective reward of the rewarded pairs of $(c_i, c_j )$ for a fully observable one agent invasion with $ \\lambda^{t+1} (s, a_{s}^{*} ) =1 $. For instance, $$p_2 (\\gamma \\rightarrow 1) \\longrightarrow \\frac{1.2}{2.2}, \\quad q_2 (\\gamma \\rightarrow 1) \\longrightarrow \\frac{1}{2.2}.$$\n\n![image](effective_reward.eps){width=\"75.00000%\"}\n\n**An example of an absolute partially observable environment; Regarding Equation \\[blockeff\\]**\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nFully observable environments have been considered widely with respect to Eq.\u00a0\\[eqfullyy\\]. Here, we start from Eq.\u00a0\\[blockeff\\] which describe an environment in which all of the percepts are invisible to the protagonist agent. Here, in my invasion example, the belief percepts are produced by an interpreter (I), such as what is depicted in Fig.\u00a0\\[interpreter:1\\] and coming indirectly to the defender (D). To be nontrivial, the interpreter is not a kind of a simple mirror or a polarizer. Instead it is another intelligent agent that learns the percepts $ s_i $ by itself and sends what it is learning to the defender as a new state $ b_i $, where the defender percieves them and take actions $ a_i $ on them. As it is assumed in the original paper [@Briegel1], the defender always reaches sooner to the next door than the attacker (here, with or without a stamp from the interpreter).\n\n![image](interpreter1){width=\"75.00000%\"}\n\nFigures \\[n\\_027000\\] and \\[n\\_227000\\] show a reduction in the speed of learning (or learning time) in a partially observable environment (red solid curves) in comparison with a fully observable one (dashed curves) when the interpreter\u2019s forgetting factor is zero. Whereas, we have a reduction in the efficiency of the defender as illustrated in \\[n\\_127000\\] and \\[n\\_1027000\\] when the interpreter\u2019s forgetting factor is not zero. While the reduction in the learning time is caused by that the defender learning must wait for the interpreter learning, the non-vanishing decrease in the efficiency is due to the portion of permanent partially observability arising from the interpreter\u2019s forgetting factor.[^4]\n\nFigure \\[gasbu\\] illustrates the same property in Fig.\u00a0\\[n\\_1027000\\] for extreme dissipation factor of $ \\gamma = 1 $.\n\n![image](oct_0_7){width=\"5.6cm\" height=\"4.7cm\"}\n\nIt is worth noting that, the multiplied probabilities of Eq.\\[blockeff\\] reduce the maximum blocking efficiency of a partially observable environment in comparison with a fully observable one for every $ \\gamma > 0 $ even in the case of the minimum efficiency of $ \\gamma = 1 $. This is because the term including $ \\gamma $ in the adaptation rule of Eq.\u00a0\\[eqtrans\\] refers to forgetting what the agent learned in the previous states, but not the current state. Therefore, this adaptation rule leaves something (even small) more than nothing ($ r_{max}  > 0.5 $) for $ \\gamma = 1 $ that can be reduced in a partially observable environment.\n\n**An example of a general fully-partially observable environment; Regarding Equation \\[jankan\\]** {#secsecdfga}\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn a more general scenario, there are both partially and fully observable percepts in the environment where an agent is expected to act. A physics correspondence for such a situation might be where two kinds of ray lights are coming to a given (learning!) polarizer in the condition that the $ \\alpha $ portion of rays is already polarized in the same direction of the polarizer. In our invasion example, one can add some portion ($ \\alpha $) of fully observability to the problem. It means that the defender can see an $ \\alpha $ portion of its percepts directly coming from the attacker and $ 1 - \\alpha $ portion come indirectly from the interpreter. As a tangible example of the situation, one can suppose that the attacker\u2019s signs are being sent in two different colors from which one of these colors are invisible for a given defender.\n\n![image](alphainter){width=\"75.00000%\"}\n\nIt follows that, Figs.\u00a0\\[gasbulbdata\\] and \\[gasbu\\] are specific examples of the current scenario with the observability parameter of $ \\alpha =0 $. A comparison between the effect of the defender\u2019s forgetting factor ($ \\gamma_{D}$) and the interpreter\u2019s forgetting factor ($ \\gamma_{D}$) is illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[pilot1\\], that is, the former (Gamma D) is dominated the later (Gamma I) in the amount of efficiency. Moreover, the effect of the reduction of observability $ \\alpha $ in the amount of efficiency is depicted in Fig.\u00a0\\[kesh2\\]. What apparently seems from these two, Fig.\u00a0\\[pilot1\\] and Fig.\u00a0\\[kesh2\\], is that the contribution of the defender itself in its efficiency is more important than the contribution of the interpreter. To be more clear, in the following, we focus on the maximum blocking efficiency (asymptotic efficiency) containing both Gamma factors ($ \\gamma_{D}$ and $\\gamma_{I} $).\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[3d\\_alpha\\_1\\_0\\_5\\] shows that, while the blocking efficiency in the plane of $ \\gamma_{D} = constant $ alters drastically with changing $\\alpha$, the plane of $ \\gamma_{I} = constant $ has a few changes, respecting $ \\alpha $ alterations, in its amounts. It is because the reduction of the observability $ \\alpha $ means an increase in the contribution of the interpreter and thus its dissipation factor $ \\gamma_{I} $ becomes more important. Thereby and as it might be expected, we can see that while in $ \\alpha =1 $ (Fig.\u00a0\\[3d\\_alpha\\_1\\]) the interpreter\u2019s forgetting factor has no rule in the amount of maximum efficiency due to the fact that the environment is fully observable in this case, it will be as influential as the defender\u2019s gamma factor in $ \\alpha =0 $ (the absolute partially observable environment). Therefore and because of the relevant game-theoretical considerations, in the next two asymptotic figures, I will focus just on the plane of $ \\gamma_{D} = constant $ to show more details about it.\n\nEventually, Fig.\u00a0\\[alpanim\\] is comparing the maximum blocking efficiencies of the defender in some planes of $ \\gamma_{D} = const $ in a certain amount of $\\alpha = 0.5$. Obviously, there is no intersection between the lines in Fig.\u00a0\\[alpanim\\] which refers to the domination of a smaller $ \\gamma_{D} $ for a given $\\alpha$.[^5] Alternatively, when we also introduce some different $ \\alpha $ factor in the planes of $ \\gamma_{D} = const $, it causes a bunch of plots (or a scattering) for every $ \\gamma_{D} = const $ and we can see some intersection between the lines of the asymptotic efficiencies thereafter. As a result, in a certain observability ($ \\alpha = const $) the line of maximum blocking efficiency dominates for a smaller $ \\gamma_{D} = const $; however, the ultimate domination of a smaller $ \\gamma_{D} $ can be annihilated by changes in the amount of observability of the environment.\n\n![image](oct_2_1.eps){width=\"75.00000%\"}\n\n![image](oct_2_2_4.eps){width=\"75.00000%\"}\n\nIn the next section, we use this consequence to have some discussion about a related 2-defender-interpreter game.\n\n**Multi-agent invasion game** {#sectionmmultii}\n-----------------------------\n\nIn this section, we consider an invasion including two agents $ i $ and $ j $ such as illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\] and then, for every agent, $ i $, there is a forgetting factor $ \\gamma_{i} $. Due to the fact that every agent has two different tasks of blocking and teaching, we consider $ \\gamma_{i} = \\gamma_{1i}  + \\gamma_{2i} $ according to Eq.\u00a0\\[gamasamam\\], where the first Gamma $ \\gamma_{1i} $ stands for a forgetting factor in a blocking task belonging to the agent $ i $ and the second Gamma $ \\gamma_{2i} $ stands for its forgetting factor in a teaching (helping) task. Furthermore, it assumed that every agent can select to be absolutely selfish ($ \\gamma_{1i} =0 , \\gamma_{2i} = \\gamma_{i}  $) as a defender, sacrifice its blocking task ($ \\gamma_{1i} = \\gamma_{i} , \\gamma_{2i} = 0  $) to be more helpful in teaching, or having every other selection among these two border options, namely, $ \\gamma_{i} = ( \\gamma_{1i} , \\gamma_{2i} ) $, $ \\gamma_{1i} + \\gamma_{2i} = \\gamma_{i} $.\n\n![image](two_defender){width=\"75.00000%\"}\n\nThen we can have $$\\begin{gathered}\nr_{max}^i (\\alpha_{i} , \\gamma_{1i}, \\gamma_{2j} ) =  \\alpha_{i} \\, p ( \\gamma_{1i} ) + (1- \\alpha_{i}) \\left[ p ( \\gamma_{1i} ) . p ( \\gamma_{2j} )  + q ( \\gamma_{1i} ) . q ( \\gamma_{2j} ) \\right] ,\n\\label{eqrmaxx}\\end{gathered}$$\\\naccording to Eq.\u00a0\\[eqrmaxxx\\]. For example, if $$\\begin{cases}\n\\alpha_{i} = \\alpha_{j} = \\alpha , \\\\\n\\forall k \\quad \\gamma_{ki} =  \\gamma_{kj} = \\gamma_{k} , \n\\end{cases}\n\\Longrightarrow \\quad r_{max}^i (\\alpha , \\gamma_{k}) = r_{max}^j (\\alpha , \\gamma_{k}),$$\\\nwhich refers to the symmetry of the problem between two agents. Otherwise, the efficiency of one agent would differ from that of its partner as a function of its own forgetting factor, its partner\u2019s forgetting factor and also the parameter of observability of the environment for one agent. With the same variables of $ \\gamma_{1i}, \\gamma_{2j} $ as regarded for Eq.\u00a0\\[eqrmaxx\\], one would have $$\\begin{gathered}\nr_{max}^j (\\alpha_{j} , \\gamma_{1i}, \\gamma_{2j} ) =  \\alpha_{j} \\, p ( \\gamma_{j} - \\gamma_{2j} ) + (1- \\alpha_{j}) [ p ( \\gamma_{j} - \\gamma_{2j} ) . p ( \\gamma_{i} - \\gamma_{1i} ) \\\\ + q ( \\gamma_{j} - \\gamma_{2j} ) . q ( \\gamma_{i} - \\gamma_{1i} ) ]. \\end{gathered}$$\n\n### classes of coalitions {#superadditiven .unnumbered}\n\nConsidering the collective efficiency of two gaents as $ r_{col} = r_{max}^i + r_{max}^j $, one may ask about the classes of coalitions (see [@book:MultiagentShoham] p. 386 for the definitions) in this game comparing two cases: $ r_{col-FO} (\\gamma_{i}, \\gamma_{j} ) $ in a fully observale environment versus $ r_{col-PO} (\\alpha_{i},\\alpha_{j} , \\gamma_{1i}, \\gamma_{2j}) $ in a partially observable environment. The former is straightforward as $$r_{col-FO} (\\gamma_{i}, \\gamma_{j} )  = p ( \\gamma_i ) + p ( \\gamma_j)$$ on one hand. However, regarding the latter, one the other hand, we deal with a four variable function. At first, we can see that every *selfish-selfish* coalition $ \\gamma_i = (0 , \\gamma_i ) \\,\\, \\& \\,\\, \\gamma_j = ( 0 , \\gamma_j ) $ will be superadditive, $$\\begin{aligned}\nr_{max}^i = \\alpha_{i} + ( 1 - \\alpha_i ) p ( \\gamma_j ) = p ( \\gamma_j ) +  \\alpha_{i} q ( \\gamma_j ) , \\notag \\\\\nr_{max}^j = \\alpha_{j} + ( 1 - \\alpha_j ) p ( \\gamma_i ) = p ( \\gamma_i ) +  \\alpha_{j} q ( \\gamma_i ) . \\notag \\end{aligned}$$ Then $$r_{col-PO} (\\alpha_i , \\alpha_j , \\gamma_{1i} = 0 , \\gamma_{2j} = \\gamma_{j} ) \\geq r_{col-FO} (\\gamma_{i}, \\gamma_{j} ) .\n\\label{supsupadlll}$$\\\nEquation\u00a0\\[supsupadlll\\] will be satisfied for every $ 0 \\leq \\gamma_{i}, \\gamma_{j} \\leq 1 $. Specifically, the underlying reason for being a superaddition in the *selfish-selfish* coalition of $ \\gamma_{i}= \\gamma_{j}= 1 $ is that it will increase the collective efficiency only due to the use of random information that two players share with each other.\n\nSecondly, in the case of a *sacrifice-sacrifice* coalition, $ \\gamma_i = (\\gamma_i , 0 ) \\,\\, \\& \\,\\, \\gamma_j = (\\gamma_j , 0 ) $, we can obtain $ r_{max}^i  = p ( \\gamma_i ) $, $ r_{max}^j  = p ( \\gamma_j ) $ according to Eq.\u00a0\\[eqrmaxx\\] that is independent of $ \\alpha_{i} \\,\\, \\& \\,\\, \\alpha_{j} $. Therefore, $$r_{col-PO} ( \\alpha_{i}, \\alpha_{j}, \\gamma_{1i} = \\gamma_i , \\gamma_{2j}= 0 ) = r_{col-FO} (\\gamma_{i}, \\gamma_{j} ).\n\\label{adlkntkacx}$$ Hence, every *sacrifice-sacrifice* coalition will be an additive game.\n\nOn the contrary, while there are a plenty of selections which for them the coalition is superadditive, especially in the big $ \\alpha $ factors (see Fig.\u00a0\\[colcoclckeh1\\] for $\\alpha_{i} = \\alpha_{j} =1$), there are a variety of other selections for which, $ r_{col-PO} < r_{col-FO} $, according to the example of Fig.\u00a0\\[colclckeh0\\], especially for small observability parameters.\n\n### Some other game theoretical aspects {#some-other-game-theoretical-aspects .unnumbered}\n\nAfter all, we can consider the maximum blocking efficiencies of $ i $ and $ j $ as a simple symmetric game. Furthermore, with $\\gamma_{i} = \\gamma_{j} =1$, we can analyze the game using the results in Sec.\u00a0\\[secsecdfga\\] considering a small adjustment in the variables therein so that $$\\gamma_D \\rightarrow \\gamma_{1i}, \\qquad \\gamma_I \\rightarrow \\gamma_{2j}, \\qquad \\alpha \\rightarrow \\alpha_i .\n\\label{moakasdi}$$ regarding the agent $ i $.\n\nBeside this, if we assume two agents as two players, then every selection of every agent for its forgetting factor can be considered as a different pure strategy. For the condition of $ \\gamma_{1i} + \\gamma_{2i} = \\gamma_{1j} + \\gamma_{2j} = 1 $, a given pure strategy $ A $ would be a selection as $ A \\equiv \\gamma = [\\gamma_{A}, 1-\\gamma_{A}] $. Therefore we can have two players regarding 2 different pure strategies $ A, B $ and build our game such that playing $ A [\\gamma_{A}, 1-\\gamma_{A}] $ for two agents means that two agents have similar selections for their blocking and teaching forgetting factors. In addition, a payoff obtained by every agent could be considered as its maximum efficiency $ r_{max} (\\alpha ) $ as a function of observability for every pure strategy. Having in mind that $ \\alpha_{i} \\neq \\alpha_{j}$, then in a general situation there would be a variety of different payoffs for every agent.\n\nNevertheless, regarding the modification of Eq.\\[moakasdi\\], considering some other restrictions might be helpful. One can see that if every agent can choose between $ A ( \\alpha_A ) $ and $ B ( \\alpha_B ) $, then we can have a game as the following $$\\begin{aligned}\n player2\\,(j) \\quad \\: \\quad \\nonumber \\\\ [0.2 cm]\nplayer1 (i) \\; \\; \\;\n\\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}\n\\hline  & $A ( \\alpha_A )$ & $B ( \\alpha_B )$ \\\\\n\\hline  $A ( \\alpha_A ) $ & $a,a$ & $c,d$ \\\\\n\\hline  $ B ( \\alpha_B )$ & $d,c$ & $b,b$ \\\\ \n\\hline\n\\end{tabular}\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\\\nwhere the lowercase Latin letters refer to the playoffs of each player for a given pure strategy. $$\\begin{cases}\na = r_{max} ( \\alpha_{A}, \\gamma_{A}, 1 - \\gamma_{A} ) \\\\\nb = r_{max} ( \\alpha_{B}, \\gamma_{B}, 1- \\gamma_{B} ) \n\\end{cases} \\\\\n,\\qquad\n\\begin{cases}\nc = r_{max} ( \\alpha_{A}, \\gamma_{A}, 1 - \\gamma_{B} ) \\\\\nd = r_{max} ( \\alpha_{B}, \\gamma_{B}, 1- \\gamma_{A} ) .\n\\end{cases}$$ Suppose that we always have $ \\gamma_{A} <  \\gamma_{B} $. Then, regarding the modification of Eq.\\[moakasdi\\], Fig.\u00a0\\[alpanim\\] as an example of $ \\alpha = constant $ and tracking other plots in Fig.\u00a0\\[alpamore\\] for other examples of $ \\alpha = constant $ show that, in a certain amount of $ \\alpha $, we have $ a +c >  b + d $. Therefore, the strictly dominant strategy for every player is being absolutely selfish (selecting the lowest amount of the blocking forgetting factor) and since we have symmetry between two agents, then (absolute) selfishness is also the only Nash equilibrium. It is a pure strategy, strictly dominant for each player as well as Pareto optimal in the case of $ \\alpha_A = \\alpha_B $; it can also be considered as the fair share (the simplest Shapley value) between the agents in a superadditive coalition game.\n\nIn contrast, Fig.\u00a0\\[alpamore\\] shows that regarding different amounts of observability parameter, $ \\alpha_{A} \\neq \\alpha_{B} $, one could have more complicated games. For example, the (absolute) selfishness as the Nash equilibrium can be dominated by another Pareto optimal solution which gives a higher payoff to two agents. In particular, tracking the scattering between the maximum and the minimum curves of $ r_{max} $ for $ \\gamma_{1i} = 0 $ ($ \\alpha_i = 0.99$ and $\\alpha_i = 0 $ respectively) in Fig.\u00a0\\[alpamore\\] shows that there would be a variety of other selections of $ \\gamma_{1i} \\neq 0 $ for which the related $ r_{max} $ have some intersections with that of (absolute) selfishness of $ \\gamma_{1i} = 0 $ with $ \\alpha_i =0 $. In other words, regarding different amounts of observability ($ \\alpha_{A} \\neq \\alpha_{B} $), one can build other games such as a dilemma to be played as $ A( \\alpha_A ) $ or $ B( \\alpha_B ) $. For instance, one can count for the payoffs if $ \\gamma_A = 0 $, $ \\gamma_B = 0.9 $ and $ \\alpha_A = 0 $ and $ \\alpha_B = 1$ which leads to\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}\n\\hline  $p(1), p(1)$ & $p(0.1), p(0.9)$ \\\\\n\\hline  $p(0.9), p(0.1)$ & $p(0.9), p(0.9)$ \\\\ \n\\hline\n\\end{tabular}\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\\nWe can see that while $ p(1)$ is the Nash equilibrium, $ p(0.9) > p(1) $ is the Pareto optimal strategy; however, $ p(0.9) $ is not a Nash equilibrium itself.\n\nDiscussion {#discussion .unnumbered}\n==========\n\n-   In our invasion example, one can distinguish between belief states and world states by adding another property such as color to them for simplicity. That is, for example, $ | s\\rangle \\in \\{ | \\Leftarrow \\rangle , | \\Rightarrow \\rangle \\} $, $ | a \\rangle \\in \\{ | -  \\rangle , | + \\rangle \\} $ and $ | b\\rangle \\in \\{ | { \\color{mygreen} \\Leftarrow} \\rangle , | {\\color{mygreen} \\Rightarrow} \\rangle \\} $ for $ N=2 $ in a partially observable invasion toy problem. More importantly, we have used a multi-agent framework for our work. However, It is important noting that the additional properties such as different colors and also multi-agent setting have not any significant rule in the theory of the partially observable of Eq.\u00a0\\[jankan\\]. It means that additional features such as different colors and multi-agent setting are not inherent properties and do not have vital importance in the formulation of partially observable PS.\n\n-   As a programmer point of view, one may think that we could add temporal correlations (glow mechanism [@Briegel2]) between actions down by the interpreter and actions down by the defender to recognize the world percepts little by little via delayed rewards. However, it has no sense in case the belief states are producing by another intelligent agent. Because we have two agents with two disconnected brains as their clip networks. That is, the former action clip (interpreter\u2019s action) happens on a separate network where the latter action clip (defender\u2019s action) occurs in the defender\u2019s brain. Therefore we must prevent any connection between the two detached network of clips related to two agents in a multi-agent setting.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nIn this paper, we add two new concepts of the *projection operator* and the *observability parameter* to the original scheme of Projective simulation (PS) for the performance of an agent in a partially observable environment. A given projector makes some belief states from the world states to the extent of the observability parameter of a given environment. We used our method in a multi-agent invasion example where the projector is a second agent called an interpreter. In this example, the fully observable percepts are coming directly from the attacker while the partially observable percepts are conveying indirectly through the interpreter. Then, we continued our case example to include the game theoretical aspects of a 2-agent toy problem.\n\nIt is worth noting that, the projective simulation model is applying in quantum artificial intelligence likewise in the classical AI. Our partially observable PS formulation, on the other hand, founded on Dirac notation as it is utilized both in the theoretical quantum mechanic as well as in the artificial intelligence. Thereby, we hope that our partially observable method can be used uncomplicatedly in the quantum AI problems such as quantum machine learning, quantum multi-agent systems and game theory, quantum random walk and quantum neural networks.\n\nNevertheless, In my opinion, PS model and its partially observable method can be considered widely in psychology or behavioural economics too. Owing to the existence of the difference between the fictitious memory clips of $\\textcircled{\\textit{s}}$, $\\textcircled{\\textit{a}}$ with their actual counterparts ($s, \\, a$), on the other hand, PS is a compelling context for understanding the various decision-making processes among artificial people in a certain condition via different perceptions on a specific situation. For example, merging some memory clips in some compositional memory may be applied to build an abstract clip network which can form a creative thinking or an illusion that is related to one type of personality as \u201copenness to new experiences\u201d in the five-factor model which we want to consider as another study.\n\nFurther, the partially observable PS might be utilized in psychology by itself. Because a projector may not be just an exterior interpreter, but it can also be considered as an interior brain structure of a given agent. For instance, a brain can have some projections from the childhood, and as a result, it affects on the perception of a given situation and thereby it affects on the performance or the decision-making. Consequently, an internal projection as a part of the whole other technical methods might make some subconscious notion in the individuals or even different cultures in the societies via some more general interior-exterior projectors.\n\nFinally, as we saw, the transparency was dependent on three parameters, the environment parameter $ \\alpha $, the agent parameter $ \\gamma_{pa} $ and the belief states raised by another agent for example $ \\gamma_{I} $. In a general perspective, on the other hand, the transparency or a given perception can be dependent on the environment, the agent itself and its society.\n\nI thank Alexey Melnikov for long-term discussions. I think the final version could not have been completed without any discussion.\n\nAppendix 1: Actions versus the probability of actions {#averagefequa .unnumbered}\n=====================================================\n\nWhile in the original papers of PS, averaged performing rewarded actions are depicted for the efficiency, we used the probability of doing rewarded actions $ r^{(t)} $ for the same purpose.\n\nIt is due to the fact that the probability of doing an action in a large time step $ t $, as in Fig.\u00a0\\[figappendix11\\], is a better approximation for $ r^{t \\to \\infty} $ than the real actions in $ t $.\n\nBriegel, H.\u00a0J., & Cuevas, G.\u00a0D. (2012). Projective simulation for artificial intelligence. *Scientific Reports*, 2, 400. Mautner, J., Makmal, A., Manzano, D., Tiersch, M., & Briegel, H.\u00a0J. (2015). Projective simulation for classical learning agents: A comprehensive investigation. *New Generat. Comput.*, 33(1), 69-114. Makmal, A., Melnikov, A.\u00a0A., Dunjko, V., & Briegel, H.\u00a0J. (2016). Meta-learning within Projective Simulation. *IEEE Access*, 4, 2110-2122. Melnikov , A.\u00a0A., Makmal , A., Dunjko, V., & Briegel , H.\u00a0J. (2017). Projective simulation with generalization.*Scientific Reports*, 7, 14430. Watkins, C.\u00a0J.\u00a0C.\u00a0H., & Dayan, P. (1992). Q-learning. *Machine Learning*, 8, 279-292. Verbeeck, K., Now\u00e9, A., Parent, J., & Tuyls, K. (2007). Exploring selfish reinforcement learning in repeated games with stochastic rewards. *Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems*, 14, 239-269. This figure is produced by *Anna Antinori* whom we have gotten permission to be re-used in our paper. The figure is depicted in the following website. https://theconversation.com/people-with-creative-personalities-really-do-see-the-world-differently-77083. Russel, S.\u00a0J., & Norvig, P. (2010). *Artifical intelligence - A modern approach*. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kaelbling, L.\u00a0P., Littman, M.\u00a0L., & Cassandra, A.\u00a0R. (1998). Planning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. *Artificial intelligence*, 101(1-2), 99-134. Ceren, R., Doshi, P., & Banerjee, B. (2016). Reinforcement Learning in Partially Observable Multiagent Settings: Monte Carlo Exploring Policies with PAC Bounds. In *Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2016)*, 530-538. Ishii, S., Fujita, H., Mitsutake, M., Yamazaki, T., Matsuda, J., & Matsuno, Y. (2005). A Reinforcement Learning Scheme for a Partially-Observable Multi-Agent Game. *Machine Learning*, 59, 31-54. Sigaud, O., & Buffet, O. (2010). *Markov Decision Processes in Artificial Intelligence*. New York: Wiley. Panella, A., & Gmytrasiewicz, P. (2017). Interactive POMDPs with finite-state models of other agents. *Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems*, 31(4), 861\u2013904. Gmytrasiewicz, P., & Doshi, P. (2005). A Framework for Sequential Planning in Multi-Agent Settings. *Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research*, 24, 49-79. Doshi, P., Gmytrasiewicz, P. (2006). On the Difficulty of Achieving Equilibrium in Interactive POMDPs. In *Proceedings of the 21st national conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 2, AAAI\u201906*, (pp. 1131-1136). AAAI Press. Bernstein, D.\u00a0S., Givan, R., Immerman, N., & Zilberstein, S. (2002). The complexity of decentralized control of Markov decision processes. *Mathematics of Operations Research*, 27(4) , 819-840. Oliehoek, F.\u00a0A. (2012). Decentralized POMDPs. In *Reinforcement Learning: State of the Art, Adaptation, Learning, and Optimization* (pp. 471-503). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Amato, C., Chowdhary, G., Geramifard, A., Ure, N.\u00a0K., & Kochenderfer, M.\u00a0J. (2013). Decentralized control of partially observable Markov decision processes. In *Proc. of the 52nd IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control*. Sakurai, J.\u00a0J. (1994). *Modern Quantum Mechanics, Revised edn*. Reading: Addison Wesley. Shoham, Y., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2009). *Multiagent systems: algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations* (p. xiii). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paparo, G.\u00a0D., Dunjko, V., Makmal, A., Martin-Delgado, M.\u00a0A., & Briegel, H.\u00a0J. (2014). Quantum Speedup for Active Learning Agents. *Physical Review X*, 4, 031002. Clausen, J., & Briegel, H.\u00a0J. (2018). Quantum machine learning with glow for episodic tasks and decision games. *Physical Review A*, 97, 022303. Tiersch, M., Ganahl, E.,\u00a0J., & Briegel, H.\u00a0J. (2015). Adaptive quantum computation in changing environments using projective simulation. *Sci. Rep.*, 5, 12874. Melnikov, A., Nautrup, H.\u00a0P., Krenn, M., Dunjko, V., Tiersch, M., Zeilinger, A., & Briegel, H.\u00a0J. (2018). Active learning machine learns to create new quantum experiments. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 201714936. Dunjko, V., & Briegel, H.\u00a0J. (2018). Machine learning & artificial intelligence in the quantum domain: a review of recent progress. *Reports on Progress in Physics*.\n\n[^1]: I may think of also annihilation of old useless clips or decaying some portion of the network (clips or edges) as a result of a sort of neurological disorder.\n\n[^2]: The probabilities in projective simulation change fractionally as in fictitious play models and the role of forgetting (dissipation) factor in the projective simulation can be indirectly compared with the task of the discounted reward or learning factor in Q-learning [@WatkinsDayan], or the step size parameter in the linear update scheme of reinforcement learning [@Verbeeck].\n\n[^3]: Though there could be other alternative functions like an exponential function as mentioned in [@Alexey1] similar to that of original reinforcement learning.\n\n[^4]: In the original works, the authors have plotted their figures for action blocking, whereas mine have been planned in respect to the probability of action blocking using the fact that the action blocking averaged on an infinite number of actions would ultimately be equal to the probability of doing an action, for more details see Appendix \\[averagefequa\\].\n\n[^5]: Although Fig.\u00a0\\[alpanim\\] is depicted just for $ \\alpha = 0.5 $, this consequence is true for every $ \\alpha = constant $ that can be tracked in Fig.\u00a0\\[alpamore\\].\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present first-principles calculations of phase coherent electron transport in a carbon nanotube (CNT) with realistic contacts. We focus on the zero-bias response of open metallic CNT\u2019s considering two archetypal contact geometries (end and side) and three commonly used metals as electrodes (Al, Au, and Ti). Our [*ab-initio*]{} electrical transport calculations make, for the first time, quantitative predictions on the contact transparency and the transport properties of finite metallic CNT\u2019s. Al and Au turn out to make poor contacts while Ti is the best option of the three. Additional information on the CNT band mixing at the contacts is also obtained.'\nauthor:\n- 'J.\u00a0J.\u00a0Palacios'\n- 'A. J. P\u00e9rez-Jim\u00e9nez'\n- 'E. Louis'\n- 'E. SanFabi\u00e1n'\n- 'J. A. Verg\u00e9s.'\nbibliography:\n- 'moletronics.bib'\ntitle: 'First-principles phase-coherent transport in metallic nanotubes with realistic contacts'\n---\n\nControversy on the observed electrical transport properties of carbon nanotubes (CNT\u2019s) has been mostly due to our lack of control and understanding of their contact to the metallic electrodes. It has finally become clear that the contact influences critically the overall performance of the CNT and that it is crucial to lower the inherent contact resistance to achieve the definite understanding of the intrinsic electrical properties of CNT\u2019s[@Frank:science:98; @Bachtold:prl:00; @Nygard:nature:00]. In order to determine the relevant factors behind the contact resistance so that this can be pushed down to its alleged quantum limit $R_0=h/2e^2$ per CNT channel a big experimental effort has been made both in CNT growth and lithographic techniques[@Soh:apl:99; @Zhou:prl:00; @Appenzeller:apl:01; @Kong:prl:01; @Kanda:apl:01; @Liang:prl:02; @Derycke:apl:02]. While considerable progress in this direction has already been achieved, theoretical progress, on the other hand, lags behind in this important issue.\n\nThe actual atomic structure of the electrode (and probably that of the CNT) at the contact are unknown and, most likely, change from sample to sample when fabricated under the same conditions. Atomic-scale modeling, however, can still be of guidance to the interpretation of the experiments and to the future design of operational devices with CNT\u2019s. In this work we focus on the two key ingredients in this puzzle: The effect the atomic-scale geometry and the chemical nature of the electrode have on the transparency of the contact. We have studied open single-walled metallic (5,5) CNT\u2019s contacted in two representative forms (see Fig.\u00a0\\[geom\\]) to Al, Au, and Ti electrodes which are among the most commonly used metals in the experiments . From our [*ab-initio*]{} transport study we find that in CNT\u2019s contacted to Al and Au electrodes for end-contact geometry \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[geom\\](a)\\] the two CNT bands couple weakly to the electrodes. This allows us to resolve quasi-bound CNT states in the conductance and to estimate the magnitude of the degeneracy removal due to Coulomb blockade effects in a direct manner. Moreover, we find that the two bands couple very differently to the electrodes (one of them is almost shut down for transport) and do not mix. For the side-contact geometry \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[geom\\](b)\\] the coupling is the same for both bands, but similar in strength to the end-contact geometry. Finally, our study presents the first direct numerical evidence of what has been hinted at on the basis of indirect first-principles calculations[@Andriotis:apl:00; @Yang:prb:02] and what has recently been observed in experiments[@Kong:prl:01]: Early 3-$d$ elements as Ti are probably the best choice for making high-transparency contacts to CNT\u2019s compared to more traditional metals such as Al and Au. Although perfect transparency at the contact is nerver achieved, our calculations indicate that properly engineered Ti contacts are a good bet for future perfect contacts to CNT\u2019s.\n\n![ The two contact geometries considered in this work: An open (5,5) carbon nanotube end-contacted to (111) surfaces (a) and the same nanotube side-contacted (b). \\[geom\\] ](Al19-C150-Al19.111-m-111.end.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"2.0in\"} ![ The two contact geometries considered in this work: An open (5,5) carbon nanotube end-contacted to (111) surfaces (a) and the same nanotube side-contacted (b). \\[geom\\] ](Al19-C200-Al19.111-m-111.side.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"2.0in\"}\n\nFrom a theory point of view, the \u201ccontact\u201d problem has been previously addressed[@Choi:prb:99; @Anantram:apl:01; @Derycke:apl:02], but only partially. The reason is that a full analysis of this problem requires the use of sophisticated state-of-the-art numerical techniques to calculate electrical transport from first-principles[@Lang:prb:95; @Yaliraki:jcp:98; @Damle:prb:01], where even the electrodes need to be described down to the atomic level[@Taylor:prb:01:a; @Taylor:prb:01:b; @Palacios:prb:01; @Palacios:prb:02; @Brandbyge:prb:02]. These techniques are currently under development. First of all, charge transfer at the contact, which aligns the chemical potentials of the electrodes and the CNT, needs to be evaluated self-consistently[@Xue:prl:99; @Rubio:prl:99]. Secondly, one needs to combine the [*ab-initio*]{} calculation with Landauer\u2019s formalism[@Datta:book:95]. Recently, we have presented a very promising approach, termed Gaussian Embedded Cluster Method[@Palacios:prb:01; @Palacios:prb:02], that allows us to address this problem in its full complexity. Our method is based on standard quantum chemistry calculations performed with the Gaussian98 code[@Gaussian:98]. A density functional (DF) calculation of a cluster comprising the CNT and a significant part of the electrodes is performed (see Fig. \\[geom\\]). Next, the retarded(advanced) Green\u2019s functions associated with the self-consistent hamiltonian or Fock operator $\\hat{F}$ of the cluster is modified to include the rest of the semi-infinite electrodes: $$\\left [(E\\pm i\\delta)-\\hat F - \\hat\\Sigma^{(\\pm)}\n\\right ] \\hat G^{(\\pm)}= \\hat I.\n\\label{green}$$ In this expression $\\hat\\Sigma^{(\\pm)}=\\hat\\Sigma_{\\rm R}^{(\\pm)} +\n\\hat\\Sigma_{\\rm L}^{(\\pm)}$, where $\\hat\\Sigma_{\\rm R}$($\\hat\\Sigma_{\\rm L}$) denotes a self-energy operator that accounts for the part of the right(left) semi-infinite electrode that has not been included in the initial DF calculation[^1], and $\\hat I$ is the unity matrix. In a non-orthogonal basis, like those commonly used in Gaussian98, the embedded cluster density matrix takes the form $$P=-\\frac{1}{\\pi}\\int_{-\\infty}^{E_{\\rm F}}{\\rm Im}\n\\left[S^{-1} G^{(-)}(E) S^{-1} \\right ]\\; {\\rm d}E,\n\\label{eqn:nab}$$ where $S$ is the overlap matrix, $G^{(-)}$ is the retarded Green\u2019s function expressed in the non-orthogonal basis, and $E_{\\rm F}$ is the Fermi energy which is set by imposing overall charge neutrality in the cluster. The density matrix is returned to Gaussian98 and the process is repeated until the procedure converges. The conductance can finally be calculated through the standard expression[@Datta:book:95]: $${\\mathcal G}=\\frac{2e^2}{h}{\\rm Tr}[T] = \\frac{2e^2}{h}{\\rm Tr}\n[\\Gamma_L G^{(-)}\\Gamma_R G^{(+)}],\n\\label{g}$$ where Tr denotes the trace over all the orbitals in the cluster and where the matrices $\\Gamma_R$ and $\\Gamma_L$ are $i(\\Sigma^{(-)}_R-\\Sigma^{(+)}_R)$ and $i(\\hat\\Sigma^{(-)}_L-\\hat\\Sigma^{(+)}_L)$, respectively. In order to single out the contribution of individual channels to the current one can diagonalize the transmission matrix $T$.\n\n![ (a) Conductance as a function of energy for an $N=10$ (5,5) open metallic nanotube end-contacted to a Al(111) surface \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[geom\\](a)\\]. The nanotube-surface distance has been optimized to a value of 1.8 \u00c5and the Fermi energy is set to zero. Inset: Schematic band structure of the metallic nanotube showing the four states responsible for the resonances. (b) Transmission as a function of energy for the highest conducting channels. The symmetry of the two main channels is also shown.\\[end100\\] ](Al19-C100-Al19.111-m-111.end.3s3p.eps){width=\"3.0in\"}\n\nFigure \\[end100\\](a) shows $\\mathcal{G}$ around the Fermi energy for a (5,5) metallic CNT composed of $N=10$ carbon layers that has been end-contacted \\[Fig.\u00a0\\[geom\\](a)\\] to Al(111) surfaces (the end-carbon-layer\u2013surface distance has been optimized to a value of 1.8\u00c5)[^2]. Four resonances appear around the Fermi energy (set to zero). These resonances can be easily traced back to four extended states of the isolated finite CNT[@Rubio:prl:99]. Two of them ($k_1,k_2$) originate in the bonding ($\\pi$) band of the CNT and the other two ($k_1^*,k_2^*$) in the antibonding ($\\pi^*$) band (see inset in Fig. \\[end100\\]). The resonances have different widths for different bands indicating that they couple very differently to the electrodes. Moreover, the two bands do not mix with each other. This is more clearly seen in Fig.\u00a0\\[end100\\](b) where we show the highest transmission eigenvalues of the transmission matrix. Two independent channels exhibit resonances in the energy window ($\\approx 3.5 eV$) around $E_{\\rm F}$ where only the $\\pi$ and $\\pi^*$ bands can contribute to transport. This result is consistent with the fact that $\\pi^*$ states, of large angular momentum, do not couple to the low-angular momentum states of the electrode, while $\\pi$ states, of low angular momentum, couple more easily[@Choi:prb:99; @Anantram:apl:01]. Notice that there is a charge transfer from the metal to the CNT, but this mainly localizes at the end carbon layer ($\\approx 0.2$ per carbon atom) and it does not affect the overall band positioning in the center of the CNT.\n\n![Conductance as a function of energy for an $N=8$(a), $N=9$(b), $N=10$(c), $N=11$(d), $N=12$(e), and $N=13$(f) (5,5) open metallic nanotube end-contacted to a Al(111) surface \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[geom\\](a)\\]. The Fermi energy has been set to zero.\\[endX\\] ](Al19-CX-Al19.111-m-111.end.3s3p.eps){width=\"3.0in\"}\n\nThe specific band assignment of the resonances is nicely confirmed by their evolution on the length of the CNT presented in Fig.\u00a0\\[endX\\]. We have calculated the conductance for $N=8,9,10,11,12$, and 13 carbon-layer CNT\u2019s. The opposite signs of the group velocity for the $\\pi$ and $\\pi^*$ bands make the quasi-bound states belonging to the $\\pi^*$ band shift down in energies while those belonging to the $\\pi$ band shift up as $N$ increases. As expected from a simple particle-in-a-box argument applied to finite CNT\u2019s[@Rubio:prl:99], for $N=3l$, where $l$ is an integer, we should expect two states with the same wave vector $k_n$ but in different bands to coincide at the Fermi energy. Naively one should thus expect $\\mathcal{G}=4e^2/h$[@Orlikowski:prb:01]. Our results for the contacted $N=9$ and $N=12$ CNT\u2019s show otherwise: Two resonances never coincide at the Fermi level. The reason is that Coloumb blockade prevents two (band and/or spin) degenerate quasibound states to be filled up at the same time and degeneracies are removed[^3]. From Figs.\u00a0\\[endX\\](b) and (e) we estimate the charging energy to be $\\approx 0.3$ eV in these CNT\u2019s which is smaller than the single-particle level spacing as confirmed by experiments[@Liang:prl:02].\n\n![ (a) Conductance as a function of energy for an $N=15$ (5,5) open metallic nanotube side-contacted to a Al(111) surface \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[geom\\](b)\\]. The nanotube-surface distance has been optimized to a value of 2.2 \u00c5. (b) Transmission as a function of energy for the three highest conducting channels.\\[end150\\] ](Al19-C150-Al19.111-m-111.side.3s3p.eps){width=\"3.0in\"}\n\nIf the interpretation of the different coupling strengths of the CNT bound states with the Al electrodes is correct and angular momentum considerations are relevant, similar couplings should be expected for both bands if no axial symmetry is present. This is the case for the other contact geometry considered in this work \\[see Fig.\\[geom\\](b)\\]. Figure \\[end150\\] shows results for an $N=15$ CNT side-contacted to Al(111) surfaces (the CNT\u2013surface distance has been optimized to 2.3\u00c5). Conductance resonances come in pairs in the relevant energy window which is what is expected for an $N=15$ CNT. More importantly, all of them present similar widths, confirming our expectations. Contrary to the previous geometry, localized end states[@Rubio:prl:99] influence the coupling around 1eV for this contact geometry where mixing with the CNT extended states takes place. Our results for the coupling strength with Al contacts are consistent with previous studies where jellium models were considered as contacts[@Anantram:apl:01], and with those in Ref.\u00a0, but we do not subscribe previous [*ab-initio*]{} results presented in Ref.\u00a0 based on what it seems to be more realistic contact models similar to ours.\n\n![ (a) Conductance as a function of energy for an $N=10$ (5,5) open metallic nanotube end-contacted to a Au(111) surface \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[geom\\](a)\\]. The nanotube-surface distance has been optimized to a value of 2.2 \u00c5. (b) Transmission as a function of energy for the highest conducting channels.\\[end100Au\\] ](Au19-C100-Au19.111-m-111.end.5d6s6p.eps){width=\"3.0in\"}\n\n![(a) Conductance as a function of energy for an $N=10$ (5,5) open metallic nanotube end-contacted to a Ti(111) surface \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[geom\\](a)\\]. The nanotube-surface distance has been optimized to a value of 1.8 \u00c5. (b) Transmission as a function of energy for the highest conducting channels.\\[end100Ti\\] ](Ti19-C100-Ti19.111-m-111.end.3d4s.eps){width=\"3.0in\"}\n\nWe now complete our study for end-contacted $N=10$ CNT\u2019s considering Au and Ti electrodes (see Figs.\u00a0\\[end100Au\\] and \\[end100Ti\\]). Several resonances are clearly visible close to the Fermi energy for the case of Au, but, in contrast to Al electrodes, it is difficult to identify specific extended states as we did above. This is in part due to the mixing of the $\\pi$ and $\\pi^*$ bands with the end states which, in addition, induce extra channels in the conductance, although these channels are only relevant for transport in very short CNT\u2019s[^4]. Apart from this, the coupling strength of the two bands is similar to that found for Al electrodes despite of the fact that the Mulliken population analysis reflects a minor charge transfer from the electrode to the CNT. In Fig.\u00a0\\[end100Au\\](b) we appreciate that the $\\pi$ band coupling is also stronger than that of the $\\pi^*$ band. In contrast to Al and Au electrodes, where $\\mathcal{G}$ exhibits resonances, $\\mathcal{G}$ presents an oscillatory behavior for Ti around $E_{\\rm F}$. This is accompanied, as the anticrossings in the transmission eigenvalues reveal in Fig.\u00a0\\[end100Ti\\](b), by band mixing. This result reflects, as suggested in Ref. , that Ti couples differently to the CNT (due to the presence of $d$-states at the Fermi energy) and forms a better contact (the charge transfer is $\\approx$ 0.4 electrons per C atom at the end layer). At this point, however, we can only speculate on the possibility of perfect transparency for other Ti electrode geometries.\n\nWe acknowledge support by the Spanish CICYT under Grant No. 1FD97-1358 and by the Generalitat Valenciana under Grants No. GV00-151-01 and GV00-095-2. J.J.P. thanks S. Y. Wu for encouraging this work in its initial stages.\n\n[^1]: We choose to describe the bulk electrode with a Bethe lattice tight-binding model with the coordination and parameters appropriate for the electrodes[@Palacios:prb:01; @Palacios:prb:02]. Details on the Bethe lattice parameters, the density functional, and the basis set used in our calculations can be found in Ref.\u00a0.\n\n[^2]: A word of caution is due here. Within DF theory only $\\mathcal{G}(E_{\\rm F})$ has a strict meaning. In order to obtain the zero-bias conductance at different energies which would correspond to the conductance for different values of an external gate potential which can charge or discharge the system, one must perform the self-consistent calculation for a varying Fermi energy. We have analyzed the extent of this problem and found that our conclusions are not modified significantly as the charge in the system varies. This partially justifies plotting $\\mathcal{G}(E)$ for neutral systems. However this problem might deserves a further consideration when bound or quasibound states are present in the CNT (see text below).\n\n[^3]: We have analyzed the Coulomb blockade process in detail for the $N=9$ CNT. For a partially discharged CNT the two resonances labeled $k_1$ and $k_1^*$ coincide in energy above the Fermi energy and the conductance reaches there 4$e^2/h$. For the neutral \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[endX\\](b)\\] or slightly charged system this degeneracy is partially removed and the conductance drops. The spin degeneracy removal due to Coulomb blockade requires technically challenging open shell calculations and is currently under study.\n\n[^4]: A detailed analysis of why the end states do not play a significant role for Al in end-contact geometries is deferred for future work.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    We present *Hubble Space Telescope* ultraviolet spectroscopy of the white dwarfs PG0843+516, PG1015+161, SDSS1228+1040, and GALEX1931+0117, which accrete circumstellar planetary debris formed from the destruction of asteroids. Combined with optical data, a minimum of five and a maximum of eleven different metals are detected in their photospheres. With metal sinking time scales of only a few days, these stars are in accretion/diffusion equilibrium, and the photospheric abundances closely reflect those of the circumstellar material. We find C/Si ratios that are consistent with that of the bulk Earth, corroborating the rocky nature of the debris. Their C/O values are also very similar to those of bulk Earth, implying that the planetary debris is dominated by Mg and Fe silicates. The abundances found for the debris at the four white dwarfs show substantial diversity, comparable at least to that seen across different meteorite classes in the solar system. PG0843+516 exhibits significant over-abundances of Fe and Ni, as well as of S and Cr, which suggests the accretion of material that has undergone melting, and possibly differentiation. PG1015+161 stands out by having the lowest Si abundance relative to all other detected elements. The Al/Ca ratio determined for the planetary debris around different white dwarfs is remarkably similar. This is analogous to the nearly constant abundance ratio of these two refractory lithophile elements found among most bodies in the solar system.\n\n    Based on the detection of all major elements of the circumstellar debris, we calculate accretion rates of $\\simeq1.7\\times10^8\\,\\mathrm{g\\,s^{-1}}$ to $\\simeq1.5\\times10^9\\,\\mathrm{g\\,s^{-1}}$. Finally, we detect additional circumstellar absorption in the [[Si]{}1394,1403\u00c5]{} doublet in PG0843+516 and SDSS1228+1040, reminiscent to similar high-ionisation lines seen in the *HST* spectra of white dwarfs in cataclysmic variables. We suspect that these lines originate in hot gas close to the white dwarf, well within the sublimation radius.\nauthor:\n- |\n    B.T. G\u00e4nsicke$^1$, D. Koester$^2$, J. Farihi$^3$, J. Girven$^1$, S.G. Parsons$^1$, E. Breedt$^1$\\\n    $^{1}$ Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK\\\n    $^{2}$ Institut f\u00fcr Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik, University of Kiel, 24098 Kiel, Germany\\\n    $^{3}$ Department of Physics Astronomy, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK\ndate: 'Accepted 2005. Received 2005; in original form 2005'\ntitle: 'The chemical diversity of exo-terrestrial planetary debris around white dwarfs'\n---\n\n\\[firstpage\\]\n\nStars: individual: PG0843+516, PG1015+161, SDSSJ122859.93+104032.9, GALEXJ193156.8+011745 \u2013 white dwarfs \u2013 circumstellar matter \u2013 planetary systems\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nMost of our current insight into the interior structure of exo-planets is derived from the bulk density of transiting planets [e.g. @valenciaetal10-1], and transit spectroscopy provides some information on the chemical composition of their atmospheres [e.g. @grillmairetal08-1]. More detailed investigations of the chemistry of exo-planetary systems around main-sequence host stars are beyond the reach of present observational instrumentation. However, @zuckermanetal07-1 demonstrated in a pioneering paper that the photospheric abundances of polluted white dwarfs can be used to infer the bulk abundances of the planetary debris material detected around the white dwarf GD362, and showed that the composition of this material is broadly comparable to that of the Earth-Moon system.\n\nThe strong surface gravity of white dwarfs implies that metals will sink out of the photosphere on time scales that are orders of magnitude shorter than their cooling ages, and therefore white dwarfs are expected to have either pure hydrogen or helium atmospheres [@fontaine+michaud79-1]. Exceptions to this rule are only hot (${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}\\ga25\\,000$K) white dwarfs where radiative levitation can support some heavy elements in the photosphere [e.g. @chayeretal95-1], and cool (${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}\\la10\\,000$K) white dwarfs where convection may dredge up core material [@koesteretal82-2; @fontaineetal84-1]. Yet white dwarfs with metal-contaminated atmospheres have been known for nearly a century [@vanmaanen17-1], and accretion from the interstellar medium [e.g. @koester76-1; @wesemael79-1; @dupuisetal93-2] has been the most widely accepted scenario, despite a number of fundamental problems [e.g. @aannestadetal93-1; @friedrichetal04-1; @farihietal10-2]. However, the rapidly growing number of white dwarfs that are accreting from circumstellar discs [e.g. @becklinetal05-1; @kilicetal05-1; @gaensickeetal06-3; @vonhippeletal07-1; @farihietal08-1; @vennesetal10-1; @dufouretal12-1] unambiguously demonstrates that debris from the tidal disruption of main-belt analogue asteroids or minor planets [@grahametal90-1; @jura03-1], or Kuiper-belt like objects [@bonsoretal11-1], likely perturbed by unseen planets [@debesetal02-1; @debesetal12-1], is the most likely origin of photospheric metals in many, if not most polluted white dwarfs.\n\nBecause of the need for high-resolution, high-quality spectroscopy, detailed abundance studies have so far been limited to a handful of white dwarfs [@kleinetal10-1; @kleinetal11-1; @vennesetal11-1; @melisetal11-1; @zuckermanetal11-1; @dufouretal12-1; @juraetal12-1]. For a given abundance and white dwarf temperature, metal lines are stronger in a helium-dominated (DB) atmosphere than in a hydrogen-dominated (DA) atmosphere, as the opacity of helium is much lower than that of hydrogen. Therefore, the small sample of well-studied metal polluted white dwarfs is heavily biased towards DB white dwarfs, which have diffusion time scales of $\\sim10^5-10^6$yr. These long diffusion time scales introduce a significant caveat in the interpretation, as the abundances of the circumstellar debris may substantially differ from those in the white dwarf photosphere if the accretion rate varies on shorter time scales [@koester09-1]. While the life times of the debris discs are subject to large uncertainties, there are theoretical [@rafikov11-2; @metzgeretal12-1] and observational (@girvenetal12-1, Farihi et al. 2012 in press) arguments that suggest that the accretion rates onto the white dwarfs may vary significantly over periods that are short compared to the diffusion time scales. In fact, some of the most heavily polluted white dwarfs have no infrared excess [@farihietal09-1; @kleinetal11-1], and may have accreted all the circumstellar debris a few diffusion time scales ago [@farihietal09-1; @girvenetal12-1].\n\nWe are currently carrying out an ultraviolet spectroscopic survey of young DA white dwarfs that have cooling ages of 20 to 200Myr, metal sinking time scales of a few days, and are hence guaranteed to be in accretion-diffusion equilibrium. The aim of this survey is to determine the fraction of white dwarfs that are presently accreting planetary debris, and to determine accurate abundances for a subset. Here we present the analysis of four heavily polluted white dwarfs that are known to also host planetary debris discs.\n\n![image](4daz_f1.ps){width=\"2\\columnwidth\"}\n\nObservations\n============\n\nThe targets for our ongoing far-ultraviolet spectroscopic survey of young and correspondingly warm ($17\\,000\\,\\mathrm{K}<{\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}<25\\,000$K) DA white dwarfs were drawn from the compilations of @liebertetal05-1 and @koesteretal09-2, supplemented with a few recent discoveries [e.g. @gaensickeetal06-3; @vennesetal10-1]. Our sample also includes a small number of post-common envelope binaries (PCEBs) in which the white dwarf accretes from the wind of the M-dwarf companion. These systems were selected from @schreiber+gaensicke03-1 and @farihietal10-3 with the same cut on white dwarf temperature and cooling age. Under the assumption that the M-dwarfs have a solar-like composition, the white dwarfs in PCEBs serve as \u201cabundance standards\u201d for our abundances analyses and diffusion calculations.\n\n*HST*/COS spectroscopy {#s-hstobs}\n----------------------\n\nPG0843+516, PG1015+161, and GALEXJ193156.8+011745 (henceforth GALEX1931+0117) were observed as part of our snapshot survey, with exposure times of 1420s, 1424s, and 800s, respectively. We used the G130M grating with a central wavelength of 1291\u00c5, which covers the wavelength range $1130-1435$\u00c5, with a gap at $1278-1288$\u00c5\u00a0due to the space between the two detector segments. To mitigate the fixed pattern noise that is affecting the COS far-ultraviolet detector, we split the exposure time equally between two FP-POS positions (1&4, the limited duration of the snapshot visits did not allow to use the full set of four different FP-POS positions).\n\nWe also report COS observations of three PCEBs observed within this snapshot survey, that will be used as \u201cabundances standards\u201d: GD448 (HRCam, @maxtedetal98-1), GD245 (MSPeg, @schmidtetal95-3), and PG2257+162 (KUV22573+1613, @wachteretal03-1), with exposure times of 900s, 600s, and 1070s, respectively.\n\nSDSSJ122859.93+104032.9 (henceforth SDSS1228+1040) was observed in Cycle17 as part of a regular Guest Observer programme. We obtained two sets of spectroscopy with the G130M grating with central wavelengths of 1291\u00c5\u00a0and 1327\u00c5, and both observations were again split among two FP-POS positions (1&4). In addition, we obtained G160M spectroscopy with central wavelengths of 1577\u00c5\u00a0and 1623\u00c5. The total exposure time of the G130M and G160M observations were 2821s and 4899s, respectively, seamlessly covering the wavelength range $1130-1795$\u00c5.\n\nThe data retrieved from the *HST* archive were processed and calibrated with CALCOS 2.15.6. The COS spectra of the four white dwarfs shown in Fig.\\[f-cos\\] reveal the broad \u00a0profile typical of DA white dwarfs, plus a multitude of narrow absorption lines from a range of metals. The peak signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of the COS spectra is reached in a line-free region near $1320$\u00c5, and ranges from $\\simeq25$ for PG0843+516 and PG1015+161 to $\\simeq40$ for SDSS1228+1040 and GALEX1931+0117. However, these values only include photon count statistics, and do not account for the residual fixed-pattern noise related to the use of only two FP-POS positions. The resolving power of the COS spectra, as measured from on-orbit data ranges from $\\sim15\\,000$ at 1150\u00c5\u00a0to $\\sim20\\,000$ at 1430\u00c5.\n\nOptical observations {#s-optobs}\n--------------------\n\nThe wavelength spanned by our COS observations does not cover any strong line of either Ca (traditionally the most important tracer of metal pollution in white dwarfs, and an important refractory element) or Mg (one of the major constituents of rocky material in the solar system, including the Earth). Ground-based abundance studies using the [Ca]{}\u00a0H/K doublet and the [[Mg]{}\u00a04482\u00c5]{} line are already published for GALEX1931+0117 [@vennesetal10-1; @vennesetal11-1; @melisetal11-1]. Two short (10min) VLT/UVES spectra of PG1015+161 were obtained as part of the SPY project [@napiwotzkietal01-1], which @koesteretal05-2 analysed to determine the Ca abundance of PG1015+161 (Sect.\\[s-pg1015\\]). Here we use the same spectra to determine in addition the abundance of Mg.\n\nWe observed PG0843+516 for a total of 2h on the WHT using ISIS with the R600B grating and a $1\\arcsec$ slit, covering the Ca and Mg lines at a resolving power of $\\simeq2500$ and a S/N of $\\approx90$. The data were reduced and calibrated as described in @pyrzasetal12-1.\n\nWe also obtained a total of 9h VLT/UVES spectroscopy of SDSS1228+1040 between 2007 and 2009 using the Blue390 and Blue437 setup with a $0.9\\arcsec$ slit, covering both the Ca and Mg features with a resolving power of $\\simeq40\\,000$. The data were reduced in Gasgano using the UVES pipeline. The individual spectra were of relatively low S/N, and we analysed only the error-weighted average spectrum, binned to 0.05\u00c5, with $\\mathrm{S/N}\\simeq35$.\n\nThe optical spectra around the [Ca]{}K and [[Mg]{}\u00a04482\u00c5]{} lines are shown in Fig.\\[f-camg\\]. We note that while most previous studies of metal-polluted white dwarfs have focused on the [Ca]{}\u00a0H/K lines, their strength for a given abundance decreases strongly with increasing temperature, as [Ca]{} is ionised to [Ca]{}. For temperatures ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}\\simeq20\\,000-25\\,000$K, [[Mg]{}\u00a04482\u00c5]{} becomes a more sensitive probe of metal pollution (e.g. @gaensickeetal07-1 [@farihietal12-1]).\n\n[lrr]{} Object & \u00a0\\[K\\] & $\\log g$ \\[cgs units\\]\\\n\\\noptical, [@liebertetal05-1]& $23\\,870 \\pm 392$& $7.90 \\pm 0.05$\\\nHST, this paper & $23\\,095 \\pm 230$& $8.17 \\pm 0.06$\\\n\\\noptical, [@liebertetal05-1]&$19\\,540 \\pm 305$ & $8.04 \\pm 0.05$\\\noptical, [@koesteretal09-2]&$19\\,948 \\pm  33$ & $7.925\\pm0.006$\\\nHST, this paper &$19\\,200 \\pm 180$& $8.22 \\pm 0.06$\\\n\\\noptical, [@eisensteinetal06-1] &$22\\,125 \\pm 136$& $8.22 \\pm 0.02$\\\noptical, [@gaensickeetal07-1] &$22\\,292 \\pm 296$& $8.29 \\pm 0.05$\\\noptical, our fit to SDSS spectrum &$22\\,410 \\pm 175$& $8.12 \\pm 0.02$\\\nHST, this paper &$20\\,565 \\pm 82$ & $8.19 \\pm 0.03$\\\nadopted, this paper (Sect.\u00a0\\[s-teff\\_logg\\]) &$20900 \\pm 900$& $8.15 \\pm 0.04$\\\n\\\noptical, [@vennesetal10-1] & $20\\,890 \\pm 120$& $7.90 \\pm 0.03$\\\noptical, [@melisetal11-1] & $23\\,470 \\pm 300$& $7.99 \\pm 0.05$\\\nHST, this paper & $21\\,200 \\pm 50$ & $7.91 \\pm 0.02$\\\n\n![image](PG0843+516_cosfit.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"} ![image](PG1015+161_cosfit.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![image](SDSS1228+1040_cosfit.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"} ![image](GALEX1931+0117_cosfit.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nAtmosphere models\n=================\n\n\\[s-teff\\_logg\\]Effective temperature and surface gravity\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\nAll observed *HST*/COS and optical spectra were analysed with theoretical model atmospheres using input physics as described in @koester10-1, and including the Lyman and Balmer line profiles of @tremblay+bergeron09-1. We used a fine grid of models spanning the range of temperatures and surface gravities found for the four targets by previous studies (Table\u00a0\\[t-parameters\\]) and determined the best-fit parameter by minimising $\\chi^2$, using the very good relative flux calibration as an additional constraint. The errors reported in Sect.\\[s-notes\\] are statistical only and do not include systematic effects of observation, reduction, or models. More realistic errors can be estimated from a comparison with the other measurements in the literature, which used similar models, but optical spectra. Table\u00a0\\[t-parameters\\] suggests a systematic trend for somewhat lower temperatures derived from the ultraviolet data when compared to the values based on optical spectroscopy. A similar trend is seen for DA white dwarfs with ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}\\sim20\\,000$K in @lajoie+bergeron07-1, who compared the effective temperatures derived from optical and (*International Ultraviolet Explorer\u00a0*) ultraviolet spectroscopy. We carried out a range of test calculations to explore the effect of these systematic uncertainties in ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}$ and $\\log g$ on the derived metal abundances (Sect.\u00a0\\[s-abundances\\]). The abundances and mass fluxes do not change by more than $\\simeq0.1$dex, which is less than the typical uncertainty of our fits, and the abundance ratios vary by much less. Hence, the discussion in Sect.\u00a0\\[s-debrisnature\\] and \\[s-mdot\\] is not affected by the systematic uncertainties in ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}$ and $\\log g$.\n\nFinally, to assess the possible effect that the presence of metals has on the effective temperature and surface gravity, we computed a small grid of models for the two most metal-polluted stars (PG0843+516, GALEX1931+0117), including metals at the abundances determined in Sect.\\[s-abundances\\], and re-fitted the *HST*/COS spectra. For both stars, the best-fit ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}$ and $\\log g$ did not change significantly, and we therefore adopted the atmospheric parameters from the pure-hydrogen fits for all four targets.\n\n  Ion              Vacuum wavelengths \\[\u00c5\\]\n  ---------------- --------------------------------------------------------\n  [C]{}            1334.530,1335.660,1335.708\n  [C]{}            1174.930,1175.260,1175.590,1175.710,1175.987,1176.370\n  [N]{}            1199.550,1200.220,1200.710\n  [O]{}            1152.150,1302.170,1304.860,1306.030\n  [Mg]{}           1239.925,1240.395,1367.257,1367.708,1369.423,\n                   4482.383,4482.407,4482.583\n  [Al]{}           1670.787,1719.442,1724.922,1724.982,1760.106,1761.977,\n                   1763.869,1763.952,1765.816\n  [Al]{}           1379.670,1384.132,1605.766,1611.873\n  [Si]{}           1190.416,1193.292,1194.500,1197.394,1246.740,1248.426,\n                   1250.091,1250.436,1251.164,1260.422,1264.738,1265.002,\n                   1304.370,1305.592,1309.276,1309.453,1311.256,1346.884,\n                   1348.543,1350.072,1350.516,1350.656,1352.635,1353.721,\n                   1526.707,1533.431,3854.758,3857.112,3863.690,4129.219,\n                   4132.059,5042.430,5057.394,6348.864,6373.132\n  [Si]{}           1140.546,1141.579,1142.285,1144.309,1144.959,1154.998,\n                   1155.959,1156.782,1158.101,1160.252,1161.579,1206.500,\n                   1206.555,1294.545,1296.726,1298.892,1301.149,1303.323,\n                   1312.591,1341.458,1342.389,1365.253,1417.237\n  [Si]{}           1393.775,1402.770\n  [P]{}            1149.958,1152.818,1153.995,1155.014,1156.970,1159.086,\n                   1249.830,1452.900,1532.533,1535.923,1536.416,1542.304,\n                   1543.133,1543.631\n  [P]{}            1334.813,1344.326\n  [S]{}            1250.584,1253.811,1259.519\n  [S]{}            1194.041,1194.433\n  [Ca]{}           1169.029, 1169.198,1341.890,3737.965,3934.777\n  [Sc]{}           1418.773,1418.793\n  [Ti]{}           1298.633,1298.697,1298.996,1327.603\n  [V]{}            1148.465,1149.945,1149.945\n  [Cr]{}           1136.669,1146.342,1247.846,1252.616,1259.018,1261.865,\n                   1263.611\n  [Mn]{}           1162.015,1188.505,1192.316,1192.330,1197.184,1199.391,\n                   1201.118,1233.956,1254.410\n  [Mn]{}           1174.809,1177.478,1179.851,1183.308,1183.863,1183.880\n  [Fe[/iii]{}]{}   many weak lines, individually recognisable 1140-1152\n  [Ni]{}           1317.217,1335.201,1370.123,1381.286,1393.324,1411.065\n\n  : \\[t-idlines\\] List of major line features used for the abundance determinations and upper limits. Because of the different wavelength ranges of the available spectra not all lines could be used for all four stars.\n\n\\[s-abundances\\] Metal abundances\n---------------------------------\n\nThe COS spectra of the four white dwarfs contain a multitude of absorption lines from a range of elements. GALEX1931+0117 has the richest absorption spectrum, in which we securely identified transitions of nine elements (C, O, Al, Si, P, S, Cr, Fe, Ni), and we included those metals in the abundance analysis of all four targets. We also include in the analysis N, Na, Ti, V, Mn, which have moderately strong transitions in the wavelength range covered by the COS observations, but that were not detected. All metals were fully included in the calculation of the equation of state.\n\nSynthetic spectra were calculated adopting the atmospheric parameters determined in Sect.\\[s-teff\\_logg\\], and including approximately 2500 metal lines. The basic source of atomic line data (wavelengths, excitation energies, transition probabilities $\\log$gf, Stark broadening constant $\\Gamma_4$) was VALD (Vienna Atomic Line Database), which is described in [@piskunovetal95-1], [@ryabchikovaetal97-1], and [@kupkaetal99-1; @kupkaetal00-1]. The ion [Si]{} has a large number of lines in the ultraviolet, and we noted a significant scatter in the abundances derived from different lines. Replacing the $\\log$\u00a0gf values from VALD values with those from the NIST (National Institute of Standards) database, which differ for some lines by up to 0.3dex, leads to more consistent results. Nevertheless, the situation for this ion is not satisfactory (Sect.\\[s-silicon\\]), and we have consulted a number of original sources in the literature [@lanz+artru85-1; @nahar98-1; @bautistaetal09-1] during the compilation of the most reliable atomic data.\n\nThe abundances were varied until a satisfactory fit, as judged by visual inspection, was achieved for each element. We then changed the abundances in several steps of 0.1\u00a0-\u00a00.2 dex, until the fit was clearly worse. The resulting difference was used as a conservative estimate for the abundance error, or for an upper limit if no line was identified. Table\u00a0\\[t-idlines\\] lists the lines used in this procedure, although not all lines could be used for all four stars. The best-fit models to the COS observations are illustrated in Figs.\\[f-fit1\\]\u00a0and\u00a0\\[f-fit2\\], and the metal abundances of the four white dwarfs are given in Table\\[t-abundances\\] (along with the previous abundance studies were carried out for GALEX1931+0117, @vennesetal11-1 [@melisetal11-1]). Notably, upper limits for N were always larger than solar relative to C. For Na, Ti, V, Mn (and additionally Ca in PG0843+516 as well as Ca, Al, P, S, Ni in PG1015+161) the upper limits were larger than solar relative to Si. We have used these (solar) values in the models, but it did not change the atmosphere structure and the results for the detected elements.\n\n### Interstellar line absorption and airglow\n\nIn all objects interstellar absorption is visible in the resonance lines of [C]{}, [N]{}, [O]{}, [Si]{}, and [S]{}. In SDSS1228+1040, PG1015+161, and GALEX1931+0117 the interstellar absorption lines are shifted blue-wards with respect to the photospheric lines by velocities of $v = 57$, $36$, and $61$\u00a0, respectively. In PG0843+516, $|v| < 7$ , and the interstellar lines are not fully separated from the photospheric features. However, the presence of some interstellar absorption is obvious from the line ratio of [[C]{}\u00a01334.5\u00c5]{}/[[C]{}\u00a01335.7\u00c5]{} (Fig.\u00a0\\[f-fit1\\] & \\[f-fit2\\]). Because the latter line originates from a level only 0.008\u00a0eV above the real ground state, it is equally populated in a stellar photosphere, but not in the interstellar medium, where the blue component is much stronger in spite of a lower transition probability. Nevertheless, the abundances of C, O, Si, and S are robust, as a sufficient number of excited transitions are present in the photospheric spectrum (Table\\[t-idlines\\]).\n\nThe COS pipeline does not correct for airglow emission. Therefore, the reduced COS spectra can contain geocoronal lines of [[O]{}1302, 1305, 1306\u00c5]{} whose intensity, and, to a lesser extent, profile shape, vary as a function of *HST*\u2019s orbital day/night, and weakly with the Earth-limb angle. Airglow is clearly seen in the spectrum of GALEX1931+0117 (Fig.\\[f-fit2\\], right panel), which affects the fit to the photospheric [O]{} and [Si]{} lines in this region. For Si, this is a minor problem as there are many additional lines of [Si[-iv]{}]{}. For O, another strong line in the COS spectra is [[O]{}\u00a01152\u00c5]{}.\n\n### Silicon {#s-silicon}\n\nWe notice relatively large differences of the silicon abundance determined from optical versus ultraviolet spectra in SDSS1228+1040\u00a0and GALEX1931+0117, for the latter also the oxygen abundances show this difference. There are at least three possible explanations:\n\n*Uncertain atomic data.* This is a perennial problem, as there are many, and large differences in various compilations of atomic data. The [O]{} resonance lines in GALEX1931+0117 are perturbed by airglow, interstellar absorption and overlapping [Si]{} lines (see above), and the ultraviolet abundance determination rests largely on one excited line at 1152.1\u00a0\u00c5. Similarly, the optical O abundance is measured only from the [[O]{}7777\u00c5]{} triplet [@vennesetal10-1; @melisetal11-1]. However, our abundance measurements for Si use many lines in the ultraviolet. In the recent compilation by [@bautistaetal09-1] the authors combined several different computational methods, previous theoretical calculations by other authors, and experimental data into a \u201crecommended\u201d value for $\\log$\u00a0gf. These values agree fairly well with the ultraviolet data from NIST that we have used. However, for the five optical lines they consider, the values are $0.25-0.30$dex smaller, though with errors as large as 0.3dex. Using these values would [*increase*]{} the abundance determined from optical spectra, contrary to what would be needed for a more consistent solution. In addition, in a recent analysis of ultraviolet spectra for the DBZ star GD40, @juraetal12-1 find a discrepancy between optical and ultraviolet abundances for Si of the same size, but in opposite direction - the abundances are smaller for the optical determinations. Since that study used the same models and atomic data as the one presented here, there is no indication that the atomic data are behind this discrepancy.\n\n  ------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------\n  Element            PG0843+516       PG1015+161    SDSS1228+1040                                    \n                                   Vennes et al.     Melis et al.                                    \n  C              $-7.30\\pm0.30$         $<-8.00$   $-7.50\\pm0.20$   $-6.80\\pm0.30$          $<-4.15$         $<-4.85$\n  O              $-5.00\\pm0.30$   $-5.50\\pm0.20$   $-4.55\\pm0.20$   $-4.10\\pm0.30$    $-3.62\\pm0.05$   $-3.68\\pm0.10$\n  Mg             $-4.90\\pm0.20$   $-5.30\\pm0.20$   $-5.10\\pm0.20$                     $-4.42\\pm0.06$   $-4.10\\pm0.10$\n  Mg\u00a0(strat)     $-5.00\\pm0.20$   $-5.30\\pm0.20$   $-5.20\\pm0.20$                                    \n  Al             $-6.50\\pm0.20$                    $-5.75\\pm0.20$   $-6.20\\pm0.20$                   \n  Si             $-5.20\\pm0.20$   $-6.40\\pm0.20$   $-5.20\\pm0.20$   $-4.75\\pm0.20$                   \n  Si\u00a0(opt)                                         $-4.70\\pm0.20$                     $-4.24\\pm0.07$   $-4.35\\pm0.11$\n  P              $-6.60\\pm0.20$                          $<-7.30$   $-7.00\\pm0.30$                   \n  S              $-5.50\\pm0.30$                          $<-6.20$   $-6.60\\pm0.20$                   \n  Ca                              $-6.30\\pm0.20$   $-5.70\\pm0.20$                     $-6.11\\pm0.04$   $-5.83\\pm0.10$\n  Ca\u00a0(strat)                      $-6.45\\pm0.20$   $-5.94\\pm0.20$                                    \n  Cr             $-5.80\\pm0.30$         $<-5.80$         $<-6.00$   $-6.10\\pm0.30$                     $-5.92\\pm0.14$\n  Mn                                                                                                   $-6.26\\pm0.15$\n  Fe             $-4.60\\pm0.20$   $-5.50\\pm0.30$   $-5.20\\pm0.30$   $-4.50\\pm0.30$   $ -4.43\\pm0.09$   $-4.10\\pm0.10$\n  Ni             $-6.30\\pm0.30$                          $<-6.50$   $-6.70\\pm0.30$                           $<-5.60$\n  ------------ ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------- ----------------\n\n*Abundance stratification.* Contrary to DB stars like GD40 at similar temperatures, there are no convection zones in the atmospheres and envelopes of our four objects, which would act as a homogeneously mixed reservoir in the accretion/diffusion scenario. Assuming a steady state between the two processes, we thus expect a stratified abundance configuration. Whether this can explain the observations will be studied in Sect.\\[s-diffusion\\].\n\n*Genuine variation of the accretion rates.* As will also be discussed in the next section, the time scales for diffusion in these atmospheres are of the order of days. If the accretion rate is not constant the observed abundances may change on the same short time scales. Given that the COS and ground-based observations that we analysed were taken months to years apart, such variations can not be excluded. Noticeable variations of the [Ca]{} equivalent widths in the debris disc white dwarf G29-38 were reported by @vonhippeletal07-2. However, a similar study on the same star by @debes+lopez-morales08-1 did not find any variations in the line strengths. Thus, the current evidence for accretion rate variations on time scales of months to years is ambiguous, and a second-epoch COS observations of the stars studied here would be desirable.\n\nWe also noticed an unidentified absorption feature between 1400 and 1410\u00a0\u00c5, with a strength roughly correlated with the Si abundances. Such a feature has been discussed in the literature and related to an autoionisation line of [Si]{} or to a resonance feature in the photoionisation cross section [@artru+lanz87-1; @lanzetal96-1]. We have tested such a hypothetical line with their data for the oscillator strength and line width data. However, the width ($\\approx\n80$\u00c5) is much too broad to lead to visible features in the spectrum. We have also included the [Si]{} photoionisation cross sections from the Opacity Project [@seatonetal94-1], which indeed show a resonance maximum in this spectral region. But again, the Si abundance is too small to let this feature show up in the spectrum.\n\nOur model uses the six [Si]{} lines at 1403.8, 1404.2, 1404.5, 1409.1, 1409.9, and 1410.2\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0in this range (Table\\[t-idlines\\]). The first two have the source \u201cguess\u201d in VALD, the first three have no entry in NIST, and the $\\log$\u00a0gf values of the strongest line (1410.2\u00c5) differ by $\\approx 0.8$dex between the two databases. The upper levels of the transitions have a parent configuration belonging to the second ionisation limit of [Si]{}. They are still $\\approx0.7$eV below the first ionisation limit and thus not strictly auto-ionising. However, the broadening may well be underestimated by our simple approximation formulae. In summary, the atomic data of the lines in the region are very uncertain and may be the explanation for the broad feature. However, with the present data we cannot prove that hypothesis.\n\nFinally, we note that the [[Si]{}1394,1403\u00c5]{} doublet in PG0843+516 is very poorly fit by our atmosphere model (Fig.\\[f-fit1\\]). A weaker additional [[Si]{}1394,1403\u00c5]{} absorption is also seen in the spectrum of SDSS1228+1040 (Fig.\\[f-fit2\\]). We interpret this as evidence for absorption by hot gas close to the white dwarf, see the discussion in Sect.\\[s-hotgas\\].\n\n  Element                                                                     \n  ---------- -------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------\n  C            $1.66\\times10^{5}$    $4.65\\times10^{4}$    $1.25\\times10^{5}$   $4.57\\times10^{5}$\n  O            $9.27\\times10^{7}$    $3.78\\times10^{7}$    $2.70\\times10^{8}$   $5.61\\times10^{8}$\n  Mg           $4.47\\times10^{7}$    $2.66\\times10^{7}$    $3.21\\times10^{7}$   $1.47\\times10^{8}$\n  Al           $2.09\\times10^{6}$                          $1.18\\times10^{7}$   $3.08\\times10^{6}$\n  Si           $4.77\\times10^{7}$    $3.64\\times10^{6}$    $4.80\\times10^{7}$   $9.93\\times10^{7}$\n  P            $2.44\\times10^{6}$                         $<5.24\\times10^{5}$   $7.57\\times10^{5}$\n  S            $3.92\\times10^{7}$                         $<9.46\\times10^{6}$   $2.64\\times10^{6}$\n  Ca                                 $4.84\\times10^{6}$    $1.57\\times10^{7}$   $8.10\\times10^{6}$\n  Cr           $3.81\\times10^{7}$   $<3.85\\times10^{7}$   $<2.29\\times10^{7}$   $1.37\\times10^{7}$\n  Mn                                                                            $1.06\\times10^{7}$\n  Fe           $7.11\\times10^{8}$    $9.50\\times10^{7}$    $1.72\\times10^{8}$   $6.45\\times10^{8}$\n  Ni           $1.66\\times10^{7}$                         $<9.98\\times10^{6}$   $4.71\\times10^{6}$\n  $\\Sigma$     $1.02\\times10^{9}$    $1.68\\times10^{8}$    $5.61\\times10^{8}$   $1.50\\times10^{9}$\n\n### Diffusion and stratified atmosphere models {#s-diffusion}\n\nIn the absence of a convection zone there is no deep homogenous reservoir in our DAZ sample, and therefore there is no straightforward definition of diffusion time scales. Adopting the usual definition, i.e. dividing the mass of some element above a layer in the envelope or atmosphere of the star by the diffusion flux, results in diffusion time scales that strongly depend on the chosen layer. [@koester+wilken06-1] and [@koester09-1] defined the Rosseland optical depth $\\tau=5$ as the \u201cstandard\u201d layer, assuming that no trace of any heavy element below this would be seen in a spectrum.\n\nHowever, a more consistent way to determine the abundances in the accreted material, which is the quantity ultimately desired, is the assumption of a steady state between accretion and diffusion throughout the whole atmosphere. At Rosseland optical depth $\\tau =\n2/3$, and typical conditions for the observed ultraviolet spectra, the diffusion times in the four white dwarfs analysed here are $\\simeq0.4$ to four days. Assuming that the accretion rate does not vary over such time scales, we can use the condition of constant flow of an element with mass fraction $X(\\tau)$ $$\\rho X v = \\mbox{const}$$ with $\\rho$ and $v$ the mass density and the diffusion velocity of this element. $\\rho$ and $v$ are known from the atmosphere model and diffusion calculations, and $X(\\tau=2/3)$ is derived from the spectral analysis. This determines the diffusion flux at $\\tau = 2/3$. In steady state, as it is the case for the DAZ analysed here, the diffusion flux is constant throughout the atmosphere, and is equal to the accretion rate polluting the atmosphere. The constant diffusion flux then in turn allows the determination of the abundance stratification $X(\\tau)$ [see also @vennesetal11-1 for a thorough discussion].\n\nWe calculated new stratified models and synthetic spectra for all objects, using the steady state condition and the abundances (at $\\tau\n= 2/3$) from Table\u00a0\\[t-abundances\\]. The resulting spectra are almost indistinguishable from those of the homogeneous atmospheres; the only exception are small increases of the optical [Mg]{} and [Ca]{} line strengths. The small change can easily be explained by the structure of the stratified atmosphere. In these models $\\rho\n\\,v$ increases with depth, and consequently the abundance decreases. On the other hand a monochromatic optical depth of $\\approx\n2/3$ is reached in the ultraviolet near Rosseland optical depth of $\\tau_\\mathrm{Ross}\\simeq2/3$, while it is reached at $\\tau_\\mathrm{Ross} \\approx 0.15$ for $\\lambda = 4480$\u00a0\u00c5, i.e. higher in the atmosphere, where the abundance is correspondingly higher.\n\nFor PG0843+516, PG1015+161, and SDSS1228+1040, the Ca and Mg abundances were obtained from the optical data (Sect.\\[s-optobs\\]) and our models. We have iterated them by fitting to stratified models (denoted with \u201cstrat\u201d in Table\u00a0\\[t-abundances\\]). For GALEX1931+0117, we adopted the photospheric Mg an Ca abundances of @vennesetal11-1 and the Mn abundance of @melisetal11-1 to calculate the corresponding diffusion fluxes.\n\nAs a result we have to conclude that diffusion and a stratified abundance structure lead only to minor adjustments of the abundances that cannot explain the large discrepancy between optical and ultraviolet determinations for silicon. There is, however, an important caveat to this conclusion. Our diffusion calculations use only the surface gravity (and as a minor effect the temperature gradient for thermal diffusion) as driving force. [@chayer+dupuis10-1] have recently demonstrated that for silicon, radiative levitation can lead to a negative effective gravity and support the atoms in the outer layers of the atmosphere against diffusion. They only published detailed data for a DAZ model with 20000K and $\\log g=8.00$, and in their model only abundances smaller than $\\log\\mathrm{[Si/H]}=-8.0$ are really supported, because the lines saturate at higher abundances, effectively reducing the radiative support. However, it is quite feasible that even if the atoms are not totally supported, the diffusion velocity would be smaller, changing the abundance gradient. The answer to this puzzle will have to await similar, detailed models for a variety of stellar parameters and heavy elements that can be tested against the large range of Si abundances found in our snapshot survey (G\u00e4nsicke et al. in prep).\n\nOther points worth mentioning are that the determination of an effective ion charge with the simple pressure ionisation description of @paquetteetal86-1 is not appropriate in the absence of deep convection. We have used the usual Saha equation (with a small lowering of the ionisation potential from non-ideal interactions) to determine the abundances of different ions from an element. The diffusion velocity is then calculated as a weighted average of the ionisation stages. This procedure was already used in @koester+wilken06-1 and @koester09-1 for the models without or with only a shallow convection zone, although not explicitly stated in those papers. New in our present calculation is the consideration of neutral particles, following the discussion and methods outlined in @vennesetal11-2.\n\nThe main results of our calculations are the diffusion fluxes, $X \\rho\nv$, for each element, which are assumed (in steady state) to be the abundances of the accreted matter. These are summarised for the four objects in Table\u00a0\\[t-fluxes\\]. The total diffusion fluxes (=accretion rates) are obtained by multiplying these fluxes with $4 \\pi R_\\mathrm{wd}^2$, where we used the cooling tracks of [@wood95-1] to obtain the white dwarf radii from ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}$ and $\\log g$. The mass fluxes (=accretion rates) of the individual elements, as well as their sum, are shown in Fig.\\[f-mdot\\] and discussed in Sect.\u00a0\\[s-mdot\\]. The number abundances of the circumstellar debris are then calculated from the diffusion fluxes via $$\\mathrm{\\frac{N(X)}{N(Si)}=\\frac{\\dot M(X)}{\\dot M(Si)}\\frac{A(Si)}{A(X)}}$$ where A is the atomic mass. The implications that these abundances have on the nature and origin of the circumstellar debris are discussed in detail in Sect.\\[s-debrisnature\\].\n\n![\\[f-mdot\\] Accretion rates of the elements detected in our four targets. Their sum is given in the right-most column.](mdot.ps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nNotes on individual white dwarfs {#s-notes}\n================================\n\nIn the following sections, we give a brief overview of previous work on the four white dwarfs that we have analysed, as well as a summary of the key results of our observations.\n\nPG0843+516\n----------\n\nPG0843+516 was identified as a DA white dwarf in the Palomar-Green Survey [@greenetal86-1], and @liebertetal05-1 obtained ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=23\\,870\\pm392$K, $\\log g=7.90\\pm0.05$ from the analysis of a high-quality optical spectrum. The best fit to our *HST* data was ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=23\\,095 \\pm 230$K, $\\log g=8.17\\pm0.06$. Our COS spectrum reveals PG0843+516 to be an extremely polluted DAZ white dwarf (Fig.\\[f-cos\\] & \\[f-fit1\\]), with an accretion rate of $\\simeq10^9\\,\\mathrm{g\\,s^{-1}}$, placing it head-to-head with GALEX1931+0117 (Sect.\\[s-mdot\\]). We identified in the COS spectrum photospheric absorption lines of C, O, Al, Si, P, S, Fe, Cr, and Ni, plus Mg in the optical WHT spectrum, the second largest set of elements detected in a DAZ white dwarf. The fact that the metal pollution of PG0843+516 went unnoticed in the published high-quality intermediate resolution spectroscopy underlines the strength of our ultraviolet survey for young and relatively warm white dwarfs accreting planetary debris. We note that @xu+jura12-1 recently detected infrared flux excess at PG0843+516 in an analysis of archival *Spitzer* data, making this the second white dwarf (after G29-38, @zuckerman+becklin87-1 [@koesteretal97-1]) where circumstellar dust was found without prior knowledge of photospheric metal pollution.\n\nPG1015+161 {#s-pg1015}\n----------\n\nPG1015+161 is another DA white dwarf discovered in the Palomar-Green Survey [@greenetal86-1]. @liebertetal05-1 determined ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=19\\,540\\pm305$K, $\\log g = 8.04\\pm0.05$ from optical spectroscopy. High-resolution spectroscopy of PG1015+161 was obtained as part of the SPY project [@napiwotzkietal01-1], from which @koesteretal09-2 measured ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=19\\,948\\pm33$K and $\\log\ng=7.925\\pm0.006$. Our fit to the HST spectrum gives in ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=19\\,200 \\pm\n180$K, $\\log g = 8.22 \\pm 0.06$. @koesteretal05-2 detected of a photospheric [Ca]{}K absorption line in the SPY data, with a number abundance $\\log\\mathrm{[Ca/H]}=-6.3$, which triggered follow-up observations with *Spitzer* that revealed the presence of circumstellar dust [@juraetal07-1]. The COS spectrum contains absorption lines of O, Si, and Fe. In addition to [Ca]{}K, we detected [[Mg]{}\u00a04482\u00c5]{} in the SPY spectrum. PG1015+161 has the lowest accretion rate among the four stars discussed in this paper.\n\nSDSS1228+1040\n-------------\n\n@eisensteinetal06-1 identified this DA white dwarf in Data Release\u00a04 of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and found ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=22\\,125\\pm136$K, $\\log g=8.22\\pm0.02$ from a fit to the SDSS spectrum. @gaensickeetal06-3 discovered double-peaked emission lines of [[Ca]{}8498,8542,8662\u00c5]{} as well as weak [Fe]{} emission lines and [[Mg]{}\u00a04482\u00c5]{} absorption, and concluded that SDSS1228+1040 accretes from a volatile-depleted gaseous circumstellar disc. The [Ca]{} lines form in a region extending in radius from a few tenths \u00a0to $\\simeq1.2$, no emission is detected from closer in to the white dwarf (but see Sect.\u00a0\\[s-hotgas\\]). *Spitzer* observations showed that SDSS1228+1040 also exhibits an infrared excess [@brinkworthetal09-1], and that there is a large radial overlap between the gaseous and dusty components of the disc. Yet, the strong [Ca]{} emission lines require a gas temperature of $T\\sim4000-6000$K (e.g. @hartmannetal11-1), substantially exceeding the sublimation temperature of the dust. This implies the thermal decoupling of the gas and dust, most likely in the form of a complex vertical temperature structure, with hotter, optically thin gas on top cooler, probably optically thick dust [@kinnear11; @melisetal10-1]. Irradiation from the white dwarf is sufficient to explain this temperature inversion [@kinnear11; @melisetal10-1], but the origin of the gas found at radii larger than the sublimation radius is unclear, and may be related to relatively fresh disruption events [@gaensickeetal08-1; @melisetal10-1] or the intrinsic evolution of the debris disc [@bochkarev+rafikov01-1; @metzgeretal12-1]. Among the four white dwarfs studied here, SDSS1228+1040 is the only one that exhibits emission lines from a gaseous disc.\n\nThe COS spectrum of SDSS1228+1040 contains absorption lines of C, O, Al, Si, Cr, and Ni. SDSS1228+1040 was observed outside the snapshot program described in Sect.\\[s-hstobs\\], and our COS spectroscopy extends up to 1790\u00c5, i.e. 360\u00c5\u00a0further than that obtained for the other three white dwarfs. This extended wavelength range includes additional strong lines of [Si]{}, [Al]{}, and [Al]{}, but no further elements. Our high-quality average UVES spectrum is used to determine the abundances of Mg and Ca, bringing the total number of detected elements in SDSS1228+1040 to eight.\n\nWe fitted the SDSS spectrum, finding ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=22\\,410\\pm175$K, $\\log g=\n8.12 \\pm 0.03$, whereas a fit to the ultraviolet spectrum gives ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=20\\,565 \\pm 82$K, $\\log g=8.19 \\pm 0.03$. This discrepancy underlines that, for high-quality data, the uncertainties are dominated by systematic rather than statistical errors. As a compromise we take the weighted mean of the latter two results with increased errors, ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=20\\,900 \\pm 900$K, $\\log g = 8.15 \\pm 0.04$.\n\nGALEX1931+0117\n--------------\n\nAs part of a spectroscopic identification program of ultraviolet-excess objects @vennesetal10-1 recently identified GALEX1931+0117 as a nearby ($\\simeq55$pc) DAZ white dwarf. @vennesetal10-1 and @melisetal11-1 analysed optical spectroscopy, and obtained ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}= 20\\,890\\pm120$K, $\\log\ng=7.90{+0.03\\atop-0.06}$ and ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}= 23\\,470\\pm300$K, $\\log\ng=7.99\\pm0.05$, respectively. Our best-fit parameters from the *HST*/COS spectrum are ${\\mbox{$T_{\\mathrm{eff}}$}}=21\\,200\\pm50$K, $\\log\ng=7.91\\pm0.02$, consistent with that of @vennesetal10-1 but somewhat lower than that of @melisetal11-1[^1]. The VLT/UVES spectroscopy obtained by @vennesetal10-1 [@vennesetal11-1] revealed strong metal lines of O, Mg, Si, Ca, and Fe, indicating ongoing accretion. @vennesetal10-1 also showed that the 2MASS $H$- and $K$-band fluxes exceeded those expected from the white dwarf, and suggested a close brown dwarf or a dusty debris disc as origin of the accreting material. @debesetal11-1 ruled out the presence of a sub-stellar companion based on the infrared fluxes detected by *WISE*, and argued that the white dwarf accretes from a dusty disc. This was independently confirmed by VLT/ISAAC near-IR observations obtained by @melisetal11-1, who also measured abundances for Cr and Mn.\n\nOur *HST*/COS spectroscopy provides independent measurements for O, Si, Cr, and Fe, as well as the first detection of C, Al, P, S, and Ni, bringing the total number of elements observed in the photosphere of GALEX1931+0117 to 11 (Table\\[t-abundances\\]). As discussed in Sect.\\[s-abundances\\], the O, Si, Cr, and Fe abundances that we derive from the COS spectroscopy are lower than those determined by @vennesetal11-1 and @melisetal11-1. However, the discussion of the nature of the planetary material is usually based on relative metal-to-metal abundance ratios [@nittleretal04-1], which are more robust than absolute abundances measurements. Figure\\[f-mm\\] compares the metal abundances determined for GALEX1931+0117 normalised with respect to Si, and relative to the corresponding ratios for the chemical composition of the bulk Earth. It is evident that our metal-to-Si ratios are consistent with those of @melisetal11-1, whereas the Mg/Si, Fe/Si, and Ca/Si ratios of @vennesetal11-1 are systematically lower.\n\n![image](mm_wd1929.ps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"} ![image](mm_4daz.ps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe nature and origin of the circumstellar material {#s-debrisnature}\n===================================================\n\nThe four white dwarfs studied here have diffusion time scales of a few days (Sect.\\[s-diffusion\\]), and we can therefore safely assume that we observe them in accretion-diffusion equilibrium. In other words, the abundances of the circumstellar debris can be determined from the photospheric analysis without any additional assumptions regarding the history of the accretion rate that are necessary for stars with very long diffusion time scales [e.g. @kleinetal11-1]. In what follows, we discuss the abundances of the circumstellar debris normalised to Si, the main rock-forming element, as is common use for solar-system objects [e.g. @lodders+fegley11-1].\n\nFigure\\[f-mm\\] (right panel) illustrates the metal-to-Si ratios of the planetary debris around the four white dwarfs relative to the same abundances of the bulk Earth model by @mcdonough00-1. The first striking observation is that the C/Si ratios of all four stars (including one upper limit) are much lower than that of CI chondrites, and in fact agree within their errors with the C/Si value of the bulk Earth model. While the C abundance of the bulk Earth is subject to some model-dependent assumptions (see the left panel of Fig.\\[f-mm\\] for an alternative chemical model of the Earth by @allegreetal01-1), these uncertainties are comparable to the errors in our abundance determinations.\n\nFor comparison, we include in Fig.\\[f-mm\\] the abundance ratios of three white dwarfs that accrete from the wind of a close M-dwarf companion, that were also observed as part of our COS snapshot programme[^2]. The only elements detected in the COS spectra of these three stars are C, O, Si and S, and they exhibit high abundances in C and S, as expected for the accretion of solar-like material. The extremely low abundances of the volatile C found for the debris around the four white dwarfs strongly underlines its rocky nature. This corroborates the previous studies of @jura06-1 and @juraetal12-1, who found strong evidence for substantial depletion of C around three DB white dwarfs.\n\nHowever, Fig.\\[f-mm\\] also shows that there is a significant scatter among the individual abundances for a given element. Among the four targets, the abundances of the debris in SDSS1228+1040 most closely resembles those of the bulk Earth. PG1015+161 stands out by having all detected elements over-abundant with respect to Si, when compared to the bulk Earth. An interesting trend is seen in PG0843+516, where Fe, Ni, and S are significantly over-abundant, and, in fact, broadly consistent with the abundance ratios of the core Earth model. In particular, the volatile S is extremely overabundant with respect to C, compared to the bulk silicate Earth. In melts, S will form FeS, and hence be depleted from remaining minerals. The affinity of S to Fe is thought to be the reason for the depletion of S in the silicate mantle of the Earth, as it will have settled into the Earth\u2019s core in the form of iron sulfide [@ahrens79-1; @dreibus+palme96-1]. Similarly, also Cr is significantly over-abundant in PG0843+516 with respect to the bulk Earth. While Cr is a moderately volatile element, the depletion of Cr in the silicate Earth is thought to be due to partitioning into the Earth\u2019s core [@moynieretal11-2]. Finally, the refractory lithophile Al is under-abundant compared to the silicate Earth. Thus, the abundance pattern seen in PG0843+516 suggests that the planetary debris is rich in material that has undergone at least partial melting, and possibly differentiation. A possible test of this hypothesis would be a measurement of the abundance of Zn, a lithophile element with a similar volatility as S that is not depleted into iron melt [@lodders03-1], and it will be important to test whether the refractory lithophile Ca is depleted at a similar level as Al. The most promising feature to measure the Zn abundances is the [[Zn]{}2026,2062\u00c5]{} resonance doublet, and [Ca]{}K should be easily detectable in high-resolution optical spectroscopy.\n\nTo further explore the chemical diversity of the planetary debris around the four white dwarfs studied here, we compare pairwise a range of metal-to-Si abundance ratios with those of the bulk Earth and bulk silicate Earth [@mcdonough00-1], as well as with those of a variety of meteorites (taken from @nittleretal04-1). We inspect first the relative abundances of Al and Ca, which are two of the three most abundant refractory lithophile elements (the third one being Ti), i.e. elements that sublimate only at very high temperatures, and that do not enter the core in the case of differentiation. Therefore, the Al/Ca ratio is nearly constant across most classes of meteorites, and hence, the Al/Si values determined from many solar-system bodies follows a linear correlation with Ca/Si (Fig.\\[f-mm\\_mm\\], top right). Finding that the abundances for the debris discs, where Al, Ca, and Si are available, generally follow that trend is reassuring, as large variations in the relative Al and Ca abundances would cast doubts on the overall methodology using white dwarf photospheres as proxies for the abundances of the circumstellar material.\n\nThe relative abundances of O, Si, Mg, and Fe, which are the major constituents of the terrestrial planets in the solar system, show substantial variations between different meteorite groups (Fig.\\[f-mm\\_mm\\], top left and bottom right panels), and at least as much scatter between the individual white dwarfs. The difficulty with these elements is that they form a range of different minerals (metal oxides), depending on the prevailing pressure and temperature. Iron in particular may occur as pure metal, alloy, or mineral, and is subject to differentiation into planetary cores. Oxygen, on the other hand, can be be locked in a wide range of oxides (see the discussion by @kleinetal10-1), or potentially water [@kleinetal10-1; @jura+xu10-1; @farihietal11-1; @jura+xu12-1]. Therefore, the relative abundances of O, Si, Mg, and Fe will vary according to the processing that material underwent (e.g. condensation, melting, and differentiation), and it is maybe not too surprising to find that the debris around white dwarfs exhibits at substantial degree of diversity, as it represents different planetary systems formed around different stars. We note that the debris at PG0843+516 falls close to the abundance ratios of Pallasites, a class of stony-iron meteorites. This further supports our hypothesis that PG0843+516 is accreting material in which iron has undergone (partial) melting.\n\n![image](mm_mm.ps){width=\"1.5\\columnwidth\"}\n\nAnother interesting pair of elements is C and O (Fig.\\[f-mm\\_mm\\], lower left panel). The possible range of the C/O ratio among exo-planets has been subject to intense discussion. It is thought that for $\\mathrm{C/O}>0.8$ in the proto-planetary discs, the ambient chemistry will favour solid \u201ccarbon planets\u201d, that are dominated by carbides rather than oxides [@kuchner+seager05-1]. The possible existence of carbon planets has gained some support by the recent report of a C/O value exceeding unity in the atmosphere of the transiting hot Jupiter WASP-12b [@madhusudhanetal11-1], and by abundance studies that found a significant fraction of exo-planet host stars having $\\mathrm{C/O}>0.8$ (@petigura+marcy11-1 [@delgademenaetal10-1]), but see @fortney12-1 for a critical discussion.\n\nPlanetary debris at white dwarfs provides a unique opportunity to probe the C/O ratio of exo-terrestrial material. However, measuring C abundances in white dwarfs is challenging, as the optical detection of carbon in cool white dwarfs is usually related to dredge-up from the core rather than external pollution [e.g. @dufouretal05-1; @koester+knist06-1; @desharnaisetal08-1]. At higher temperatures, where convective dredge-up can be excluded, suitable lines of C are only found at ultraviolet wavelengths. As mentioned above, the four stars studied here have very similar (low) C/Si ratios, but do show a range of O/Si ratios. Nevertheless, the debris around all four stars studies here, as well as GD40 [@juraetal12-1], have $-3\\la\\log(\\mathrm{C/O})\\la-2.3$, very similar to the bulk silicate Earth, $\\log(\\mathrm{C/O})\\simeq-2.5$, and are hence representative of solar system minerals.\n\nAccretion rates {#s-mdot}\n===============\n\nEstimating accretion rates for metal-polluted white dwarfs is notoriously difficult, as it is based on scaling from the elements detected in the photosphere to an assumed bulk composition of the accreted material. In addition, in the case of white dwarfs with significant convective envelope masses, only the average accretion rate over the diffusion time scale can be obtained.\n\n@koester+wilken06-1 calculated accretion rates for 38 DAZ white dwarfs based on the abundance of Ca, and adopting solar abundances for the accreting material. For PG1015+161, these assumptions implied $\\dot M\\simeq2\\times10^{11}\\,\\mathrm{g\\,s^{-1}}$. Since then, it has become increasingly clear that many, if not most, metal-polluted (single) white dwarfs accrete volatile-depleted material from circumstellar planetary debris. @farihietal09-1 estimated accretion rates for 53 metal-polluted white dwarfs following the prescription of @koester+wilken06-1, but scaling the results by the typical gas-to-dust ratio in the interstellar medium to account for the absence of H and He in the accreted debris, resulting in $\\dot\nM\\simeq2\\times10^{9}\\,\\mathrm{g\\,s^{-1}}$ for PG1015+161.\n\nThe uncertainty in the estimated accretion rates can be greatly reduced if photospheric abundances for the major constituents of the debris material can be measured. While we do not detect all elements that are likely present in the circumstellar debris at the four white dwarfs studied here, we have determined the accretion rates of all the major elements, in particular O, Si, Mg, and Fe (Sect.\\[s-diffusion\\]). The accretion rates of all detected elements, as well as their sum are given in Table\u00a0\\[t-fluxes\\], and are illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[f-mdot\\]. For PG1015+161, we find $\\dot M\\simeq1.7\\times10^8\\,\\mathrm{g\\,s^{-1}}$, which is strictly speaking a lower limit, however, the undetected elements (e.g. Al, S, Ti, Mn, Cr) are unlikely to contribute more than 10% of the total accretion rate. Similarly, we find the accretion rates of PG0843+516, SDSS1228+1040, and GALEX1931+0117 to be $\\dot\nM\\simeq1.0\\times10^9\\,\\mathrm{g\\,s^{-1}}$, $5.6\\times10^8\\,\\mathrm{g\\,s^{-1}}$, and $1.5\\times10^9\\,\\mathrm{g\\,s^{-1}}$, respectively.\n\nHot circumstellar gas {#s-hotgas}\n=====================\n\nThe discs around white dwarfs are passive, i.e. their emission is solely due to the thermal reprocessing of intercepted stellar flux. The inner disc radius where typical dust grains will rapidly sublimate is determined by the luminosity of the white dwarf [@vonhippeletal07-1]. The gaseous material will viscously spread, both flowing inwards onto the white dwarf, and outwards over the dusty disc, potentially accelerating the inwards migration of the dust via aerodynamic drag [@rafikov11-2]. While gaseous material orbiting at radii coincident with circumstellar dust is observed in a number of systems in the form of double-peaked emission lines [@gaensickeetal06-3; @gaensickeetal07-1; @gaensickeetal08-1; @brinkworthetal09-1; @brinkworthetal-12; @melisetal11-1; @melisetal12-1; @farihietal12-1; @dufouretal12-1], there has yet been no detection of gaseous material well inside the sublimation radius.\n\nInspection of Fig.\u00a0\\[f-fit1\\] reveals that the strength of the [[Si]{}1394,1403\u00c5]{} doublet in PG0843+516 is extremely under-predicted by the photospheric model. These [Si]{} lines correspond to the highest ionisation energy of all transitions detected in the COS spectrum. For the temperature and the Si abundance of PG0843+516, the observed strength of the [Si]{} lines is absolutely incompatible with a purely photospheric origin. The most plausible explanation is that there is additional absorption along the line of sight, associated with hot gas close to the white dwarf that is optically thin except for the strong resonance lines of high-ionisation species, such as [Si]{}. In fact, extremely similar features were found in the far-ultraviolet observations of cataclysmic variables, i.e. white dwarfs that accrete from a (hydrogen-rich) accretion disc that is in turn fed by Roche-lobe overflow of a close M-dwarf companion. *HST*/GHRS and *FUSE* spectroscopy of the white dwarf in UGem contains very strong absorption of [[N]{}1239,1243\u00c5]{} and [[O]{}1032,1038\u00c5]{} that can not form in the $\\simeq30\\,000$K photosphere, as well as excess absorption in [[Si]{}1394,1403\u00c5]{} [@sionetal98-1; @long+gilliland99-1; @longetal06-1]. All three high-ionisation doublets are red-shifted with respect to the systemic velocity of the white dwarf, but somewhat less so than the lower-ionisation photospheric lines, which are subject to the gravitational redshift at the photospheric radius. These observations were interpreted as evidence for a hot ($\\sim80\\,000$K) layer of gas sufficiently close to the white dwarf to still experience a noticeable gravitational redshift. Measuring the central wavelengths of the strong [[Si]{}1394, 1403\u00c5]{} lines in PG0843+516, we find that they are blue-shifted with respect to the photospheric features by $\\simeq25$, which implies a height of $\\simeq1.5$ white dwarf radii above the white dwarf surface. This assumes that there is no significant flow velocity, which seems reasonably well justified given the symmetric shape of the [Si]{} profiles.\n\nA discrepancy between the best-fit white dwarf model and the region around the [Si]{} doublet is also seen in the COS spectrum of SDSS1228+1040 (Fig.\u00a0\\[f-fit2\\], bottom left panel), however, in this star, the additional absorption is rather weak. These additional absorption features are clearly blue-shifted with respect to the photospheric lines, however, the relatively low signal-to-noise ratio of the spectrum prevents an accurate determination of this offset.\n\nFor PG1015+161 and GALEX1931+0117, the photospheric fits match the observed [Si]{} lines well, i.e. there is no evidence for any additional absorption component. Given that these two stars have, respectively, the lowest and highest accretion rate of our small sample (Sect.\\[s-mdot\\]), there seems to be no clear correlation between the detection of absorption from highly ionised gas to the mass flow rate onto the white dwarf. A key difference between the two stars where circumstellar [Si]{} absorption is detected is that SDSS1228+1040 also shows strong *emission* lines from circumstellar gas, which indicate a relatively high inclination of the accretion disc. In contrast, no gaseous emission is found in PG0843+516 (G\u00e4nsicke et al. in prep). Identifying additional absorption features from these hot layers of gas would provide substantial constraints on the physical parameters in the corresponding regions. The strongest line seen in cataclysmic variables, [N]{}, is naturally absent in the white dwarfs accreting rocky debris[^3], but the [[O]{}1032,1038\u00c5]{} doublet detected in UGem [@longetal06-1] is a promising candidate.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nRecent years have seen a surge of interest in the evolution of extra-solar planetary systems through the late phases in the lifes of their host stars [e.g. @burleighetal02-1; @debesetal02-1; @villaver+livio07-1; @villaver+livo09-1; @nordhausetal10-1; @distefanoetal10-1]. While no planet has yet been discovered orbiting a white dwarf [@hoganetal09-1; @faedietal11-1], significant progress has been made in the discovery and understanding of planetary debris discs around white dwarfs.\n\nOur COS study substantially increases the number of polluted white dwarfs for which a wide range of chemical elements have been detected. We find that the C/Si ratio is consistent with that of the bulk Earth, which confirms the rocky nature of the debris at these white dwarfs, and their C/O values are typical of minerals dominated by Fe and Mg silicates. There is so far no detection of planetary debris at white dwarfs that has a large C/O ratio which would be indicative of silicon carbide-based minerals. The abundances of planetary material found around white dwarfs show a large diversity, comparable to, or exceeding that seen among different meteorite classes in the solar system. We find that the Al/Ca ratio follows a similar trend as observed among solar system objects, which suggests that processing of proto- and post-planetary material follows similar underlying principles. A particularly interesting pattern is found in PG0843+516, where over-abundances of S, Cr, Fe, and Ni are suggestive of the accretion of material that underwent melting and possibly differentiation. Extending the abundance studies of metal-polluted white dwarfs both in detail and number will provide further insight into the diversity of exo-terrestrial material, and guide the understanding of terrestrial exo-planet formation [@bondetal10-1; @carter-bondetal12-1].\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nWe gratefully acknowledge Larry Nittler for sharing his meteorite abundance data with us, and William Januszewski, Charles Proffitt, and Elena Mason for their tireless efforts in the implementation of the *HST* program. D.K. wants to thank P.-E. Tremblay and P. Bergeron for sharing their new calculations of the hydrogen Lyman and Balmer line Stark profiles. Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with program \\#11561, \\#12169 and \\#12474. Also based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory under programme ID 79.C-0085, 81.C-0466, 82.C-0495, 383.C-0695. We thank the anonymous referee for a constructive report.\n\n[119]{} natexlab\\#1[\\#1]{}\n\n, P.\u00a0A., [Kenyon]{}, S.\u00a0J., [Hammond]{}, G.\u00a0L., [Sion]{}, E.\u00a0M., 1993, AJ, 105, 1033\n\n, T.\u00a0J., 1979, Journal of Geophysical Research, 84, 985\n\n, C., [Manh[\u00e8]{}s]{}, G., [Lewin]{}, E., 2001, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 185, 49\n\n, C.\u00a0J., [Poirier]{}, J., [Humler]{}, E., [Hofmann]{}, A.\u00a0W., 1995, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 134, 515\n\n, M.-C., [Lanz]{}, T., 1987, A&A, 182, 273\n\n, N.\u00a0P., [Barstow]{}, M.\u00a0A., [Holberg]{}, J.\u00a0B., [Bruhweiler]{}, F.\u00a0C., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 477\n\n, M.\u00a0A., [Quinet]{}, P., [Palmeri]{}, P., [Badnell]{}, N.\u00a0R., [Dunn]{}, J., [Arav]{}, N., 2009, A&A, 508, 1527\n\n, E.\u00a0E., [Farihi]{}, J., [Jura]{}, M., [Song]{}, I., [Weinberger]{}, A.\u00a0J., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2005, ApJ Lett., 632, L119\n\n, K.\u00a0V., [Rafikov]{}, R.\u00a0R., 2011, ApJ, 741, 36\n\n, J.\u00a0C., [O\u2019Brien]{}, D.\u00a0P., [Lauretta]{}, D.\u00a0S., 2010, ApJ, 715, 1050\n\n, A., [Mustill]{}, A.\u00a0J., [Wyatt]{}, M.\u00a0C., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 930\n\n, C.\u00a0S., [G[\u00e4]{}nsicke]{}, B.\u00a0T., [Marsh]{}, T.\u00a0R., [Hoard]{}, D.\u00a0W., [Tappert]{}, C., 2009, ApJ, 696, 1402\n\n, C.\u00a0S., [G[\u00e4]{}nsicke]{}, B.\u00a0T., [Girven]{}, J.\u00a0M., [Hoard]{}, D.\u00a0W., [Marsh]{}, T.\u00a0R., [Parsons]{}, S.\u00a0G., [Koester]{}, D., 2012, ApJ, 750, 86\n\n, M.\u00a0R., [Clarke]{}, F.\u00a0J., [Hodgkin]{}, S.\u00a0T., 2002, MNRAS, 331, L41\n\n, J.\u00a0C., [O\u2019Brien]{}, D.\u00a0P., [Delgado Mena]{}, E., [Israelian]{}, G., [Santos]{}, N.\u00a0C., [Gonz[\u00e1]{}lez Hern[\u00e1]{}ndez]{}, J.\u00a0I., 2012, ApJ Lett., 747, L2\n\n, P., [Dupuis]{}, J., 2010, in [Werner]{}, K., [Rauch]{}, T., eds., 17$^\\mathrm{th}$ European White Dwarf Workshop, no. 1273 in AIP Conf. Ser., AIP, p. 394\n\n, P., [Fontaine]{}, G., [Wesemael]{}, F., 1995, ApJS, 99, 189\n\n, J.\u00a0H., [L[\u00f3]{}pez-Morales]{}, M., 2008, ApJ Lett., 677, L43\n\n, J.\u00a0H., [Sigurdsson]{}, S., 2002, ApJ, 572, 556\n\n, J.\u00a0H., [Hoard]{}, D.\u00a0W., [Kilic]{}, M., [Wachter]{}, S., [Leisawitz]{}, D.\u00a0T., [Cohen]{}, M., [Kirkpatrick]{}, J.\u00a0D., [Griffith]{}, R.\u00a0L., 2011, ApJ, 729, 4\n\n, J.\u00a0H., [Walsh]{}, K.\u00a0J., [Stark]{}, C., 2012, ApJ, 747, 148\n\n, E., [Israelian]{}, G., [Gonz[\u00e1]{}lez Hern[\u00e1]{}ndez]{}, J.\u00a0I., [Bond]{}, J.\u00a0C., [Santos]{}, N.\u00a0C., [Udry]{}, S., [Mayor]{}, M., 2010, ApJ, 725, 2349\n\n, S., [Wesemael]{}, F., [Chayer]{}, P., [Kruk]{}, J.\u00a0W., [Saffer]{}, R.\u00a0A., 2008, ApJ, 672, 540\n\n, R., [Howell]{}, S.\u00a0B., [Kawaler]{}, S.\u00a0D., 2010, ApJ, 712, 142\n\n, N.\u00a0J., [Barstow]{}, M.\u00a0A., [Welsh]{}, B.\u00a0Y., [Burleigh]{}, M., [Farihi]{}, J., [Redfield]{}, S., [Unglaub]{}, K., 2012, MNRAS, in press, arXiv:1203.5226\n\n, G., [Palme]{}, H., 1996, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 60, 1125\n\n, P., [Bergeron]{}, P., [Fontaine]{}, G., 2005, ApJ, 627, 404\n\n, P., [Kilic]{}, M., [Fontaine]{}, G., [Bergeron]{}, P., [Melis]{}, C., [Bochanski]{}, J., 2012, ApJ, 749, 6\n\n, J., [Fontaine]{}, G., [Wesemael]{}, F., 1993, ApJS, 87, 345\n\n, D.\u00a0J., et\u00a0al., 2006, ApJS, 167, 40\n\n, F., [West]{}, R.\u00a0G., [Burleigh]{}, M.\u00a0R., [Goad]{}, M.\u00a0R., [Hebb]{}, L., 2011, MNRAS, 410, 899\n\n, J., [Zuckerman]{}, B., [Becklin]{}, E.\u00a0E., 2008, ApJ, 674, 431\n\n, J., [Jura]{}, M., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2009, ApJ, 694, 805\n\n, J., [Barstow]{}, M.\u00a0A., [Redfield]{}, S., [Dufour]{}, P., [Hambly]{}, N.\u00a0C., 2010, MNRAS, 404, 2123\n\n, J., [Hoard]{}, D.\u00a0W., [Wachter]{}, S., 2010, ApJS, 190, 275\n\n, J., [Brinkworth]{}, C.\u00a0S., [G[\u00e4]{}nsicke]{}, B.\u00a0T., [Marsh]{}, T.\u00a0R., [Girven]{}, J., [Hoard]{}, D.\u00a0W., [Klein]{}, B., [Koester]{}, D., 2011, ApJ Lett., 728, L8\n\n, J., [G[\u00e4]{}nsicke]{}, B.\u00a0T., [Steele]{}, P.\u00a0R., [Girven]{}, J., [Burleigh]{}, M.\u00a0R., [Breedt]{}, E., [Koester]{}, D., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1635\n\n, G., [Michaud]{}, G., 1979, ApJ, 231, 826\n\n, G., [Villeneuve]{}, B., [Wesemael]{}, F., [Wegner]{}, G., 1984, ApJ Lett., 277, L61\n\n, J.\u00a0J., 2012, ApJ Lett., 747, L27\n\n, S., [Jordan]{}, S., [Koester]{}, D., 2004, A&A, 424, 665\n\n, B.\u00a0T., [Marsh]{}, T.\u00a0R., [Southworth]{}, J., [Rebassa-Mansergas]{}, A., 2006, Science, 314, 1908\n\n, B.\u00a0T., [Marsh]{}, T.\u00a0R., [Southworth]{}, J., 2007, MNRAS, 380, L35\n\n, B.\u00a0T., [Koester]{}, D., [Marsh]{}, T.\u00a0R., [Rebassa-Mansergas]{}, A., [Southworth]{}, J., 2008, MNRAS, 391, L103\n\n, J., [Brinkworth]{}, C.\u00a0S., [Farihi]{}, J., [G[\u00e4]{}nsicke]{}, B.\u00a0T., [Hoard]{}, D.\u00a0W., [Marsh]{}, T.\u00a0R., [Koester]{}, D., 2012, ApJ, 749, 154\n\n, J.\u00a0R., [Matthews]{}, K., [Neugebauer]{}, G., [Soifer]{}, B.\u00a0T., 1990, ApJ, 357, 216\n\n, R.\u00a0F., [Schmidt]{}, M., [Liebert]{}, J., 1986, ApJS, 61, 305\n\n, C.\u00a0J., et\u00a0al., 2008, Nat, 456, 767\n\n, S., [Nagel]{}, T., [Rauch]{}, T., [Werner]{}, K., 2011, A&A, 530, A7\n\n, E., [Burleigh]{}, M.\u00a0R., [Clarke]{}, F.\u00a0J., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 2074\n\n, M., 2003, ApJ Lett., 584, L91\n\n, M., 2006, ApJ, 653, 613\n\n, M., [Xu]{}, S., 2010, AJ, 140, 1129\n\n, M., [Xu]{}, S., 2012, AJ, 143, 6\n\n, M., [Farihi]{}, J., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2007, ApJ, 663, 1285\n\n, M., [Xu]{}, S., [Klein]{}, B., [Koester]{}, D., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2012, ApJ, 750, 69\n\n, M., [von Hippel]{}, T., [Leggett]{}, S.\u00a0K., [Winget]{}, D.\u00a0E., 2005, ApJ Lett., 632, L115\n\n, T., 2011, Irradiated Gaseous Discs Around White Dwarfs, Master\u2019s thesis, University of Warwick\n\n, B., [Jura]{}, M., [Koester]{}, D., [Zuckerman]{}, B., [Melis]{}, C., 2010, ApJ, 709, 950\n\n, B., [Jura]{}, M., [Koester]{}, D., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2011, ApJ, 741, 64\n\n, D., 1976, A&A, 52, 415\n\n, D., 2009, A&A, 498, 517\n\n, D., 2010, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana,, 81, 921\n\n, D., [Knist]{}, S., 2006, A&A, 454, 951\n\n, D., [Wilken]{}, D., 2006, A&A, 453, 1051\n\n, D., [Weidemann]{}, V., [Zeidler]{}, E.-M., 1982, A&A, 116, 147\n\n, D., [Provencal]{}, J., [Shipman]{}, H.\u00a0L., 1997, A&A, 320, L57\n\n, D., [Rollenhagen]{}, K., [Napiwotzki]{}, R., [Voss]{}, B., [Christlieb]{}, N., [Homeier]{}, D., [Reimers]{}, D., 2005, A&A, 432, 1025\n\n, D., [Voss]{}, B., [Napiwotzki]{}, R., [Christlieb]{}, N., [Homeier]{}, D., [Lisker]{}, T., [Reimers]{}, D., [Heber]{}, U., 2009, A&A, 505, 441\n\n, M.\u00a0J., [Seager]{}, S., 2005, ApJ, in press, arXiv:1201.6252\n\n, F., [Piskunov]{}, N., [Ryabchikova]{}, T.\u00a0A., [Stempels]{}, H.\u00a0C., [Weiss]{}, W.\u00a0W., 1999, A&AS, 138, 119\n\n, F.\u00a0G., [Ryabchikova]{}, T.\u00a0A., [Piskunov]{}, N.\u00a0E., [Stempels]{}, H.\u00a0C., [Weiss]{}, W.\u00a0W., 2000, Baltic Astronomy, 9, 590\n\n, C., [Bergeron]{}, P., 2007, ApJ, 667, 1126\n\n, T., [Artru]{}, M.-C., 1985, Physica Scripta, 32, 115\n\n, T., [Barstow]{}, M.\u00a0A., [Hubeny]{}, I., [Holberg]{}, J.\u00a0B., 1996, ApJ, 473, 1089\n\n, J., [Bergeron]{}, P., [Holberg]{}, J.\u00a0B., 2005, ApJS, 156, 47\n\n, K., 2003, ApJ, 591, 1220\n\n, K., [Fegley]{}, B., 2011, Chemistry of the Solar System, RSC Publishing, Cambrige\n\n, K.\u00a0S., [Gilliland]{}, R.\u00a0L., 1999, ApJ, 511, 916\n\n, K.\u00a0S., [Brammer]{}, G., [Froning]{}, C.\u00a0S., 2006, ApJ, 648, 541\n\n, N., et\u00a0al., 2011, Nat, 469, 64\n\n, P. F.\u00a0L., [Marsh]{}, T.\u00a0R., [Moran]{}, C., [Dhillon]{}, V.\u00a0S., [Hilditch]{}, R.\u00a0W., 1998, MNRAS, 300, 1225\n\n, W., 2000, in Teisseyre, R., Majewski, E., eds., Earthquake Thermodynamics and Phase Transformation in the Earth\u2019s Interior, Elsevier Science Academic Press, p.\u00a05\n\n, C., [Jura]{}, M., [Albert]{}, L., [Klein]{}, B., [Zuckerman]{}, B., 2010, ApJ, 722, 1078\n\n, C., [Farihi]{}, J., [Dufour]{}, P., [Zuckerman]{}, B., [Burgasser]{}, A.\u00a0J., [Bergeron]{}, P., [Bochanski]{}, J., [Simcoe]{}, R., 2011, ApJ, 732, 90\n\n, C., et\u00a0al., 2012, ApJ Lett., in press, arXiv:1204.1132\n\n, B.\u00a0D., [Rafikov]{}, R.\u00a0R., [Bochkarev]{}, K.\u00a0V., 2012, ApJ, in press, arXiv:1202.0557\n\n, F., [Yin]{}, Q.-Z., [Schauble]{}, E., 2011, Science, 331, 1417\n\n, S.\u00a0N., 1998, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 68, 183\n\n, R., et\u00a0al., 2001, Astronomische Nachrichten, 322, 411\n\n, L.\u00a0R., [McCoy]{}, T.\u00a0J., [Clark]{}, P.\u00a0E., [Murphy]{}, M.\u00a0E., [Trombka]{}, J.\u00a0I., [Jarosewich]{}, E., 2004, Antarctic Meteorite Research, 17, 231\n\n, J., [Spiegel]{}, D.\u00a0S., [Ibgui]{}, L., [Goodman]{}, J., [Burrows]{}, A., 2010, MNRAS, 408, 631\n\n, C., [Pelletier]{}, C., [Fontaine]{}, G., [Michaud]{}, G., 1986, ApJS, 61, 177\n\n, E.\u00a0A., [Marcy]{}, G.\u00a0W., 2011, ApJ, 735, 41\n\n, N.\u00a0E., [Kupka]{}, F., [Ryabchikova]{}, T.\u00a0A., [Weiss]{}, W.\u00a0W., [Jeffery]{}, C.\u00a0S., 1995, A&AS, 112, 525\n\n, S., et\u00a0al., 2012, MNRAS, 419, 817\n\n, R.\u00a0R., 2011, MNRAS, 416, L55\n\n, T.\u00a0A., [Piskunov]{}, N.\u00a0E., [Kupka]{}, F., [Weiss]{}, W.\u00a0W., 1997, Baltic Astronomy, 6, 244\n\n, G.\u00a0D., [Smith]{}, P.\u00a0S., [Harvey]{}, D.\u00a0A., [Grauer]{}, A.\u00a0D., 1995, AJ, 110, 398\n\n, M.\u00a0R., [G[\u00e4]{}nsicke]{}, B.\u00a0T., 2003, A&A, 406, 305\n\n, M.\u00a0J., [Yan]{}, Y., [Mihalas]{}, D., [Pradhan]{}, A.\u00a0K., 1994, MNRAS, 266, 805\n\n, E.\u00a0M., [Cheng]{}, F.\u00a0H., [Szkody]{}, P., [Sparks]{}, W., [G[\u00e4]{}nsicke]{}, B., [Huang]{}, M., [Mattei]{}, J., 1998, ApJ, 496, 449\n\n, P.-E., [Bergeron]{}, P., 2009, ApJ, 696, 1755\n\n, D., [Ikoma]{}, M., [Guillot]{}, T., [Nettelmann]{}, N., 2010, A&A, 516, A20\n\n, A., 1917, PASP, 29, 258\n\n, S., [Kawka]{}, A., [N[\u00e9]{}meth]{}, P., 2010, MNRAS, 404, L40\n\n, S., [Kawka]{}, A., [N[\u00e9]{}meth]{}, P., 2011, in [Schuh]{}, S., [Drechsel]{}, H., [Heber]{}, U., eds., Planetary systems beyond the main sequence, no. 1331 in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, p. 246\n\n, S., [Kawka]{}, A., [N[\u00e9]{}meth]{}, P., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2545\n\n, E., [Livio]{}, M., 2007, ApJ, 661, 1192\n\n, E., [Livio]{}, M., 2009, ApJ Lett., 705, L81\n\n, T., [Thompson]{}, S.\u00a0E., 2007, ApJ, 661, 477\n\n, T., [Kuchner]{}, M.\u00a0J., [Kilic]{}, M., [Mullally]{}, F., [Reach]{}, W.\u00a0T., 2007, ApJ, 662, 544\n\n, S., [Hoard]{}, D.\u00a0W., [Hansen]{}, K.\u00a0H., [Wilcox]{}, R.\u00a0E., [Taylor]{}, H.\u00a0M., [Finkelstein]{}, S.\u00a0L., 2003, ApJ, 586, 1356\n\n, F., 1979, A&A, 72, 104\n\n, M.\u00a0A., 1995, in [Koester]{}, D., [Werner]{}, K., eds., White Dwarfs, no. 443 in LNP, Springer, Heidelberg, p.\u00a041\n\n, S., [Jura]{}, M., 2012, ApJ, 745, 88\n\n, B., [Becklin]{}, E.\u00a0E., 1987, Nat, 330, 138\n\n, B., [Koester]{}, D., [Melis]{}, C., [Hansen]{}, B.\u00a0M., [Jura]{}, M., 2007, ApJ, 671, 872\n\n, B., [Koester]{}, D., [Dufour]{}, P., [Melis]{}, C., [Klein]{}, B., [Jura]{}, M., 2011, ApJ, 739, 101\n\n\\[lastpage\\]\n\n[^1]: @melisetal11-1 discuss the discrepancy between their model and the *GALEX* fluxes. From their Table1, it appears that they did not correct for the non-linearity of the *GALEX* detectors for bright targets. The corrected *GALEX* magnitudes given by @vennesetal10-1 are in good agreement with our best-fit model.\n\n[^2]: A more detailed discussion of these binaries will be published elsewhere. Here, they merely serve as \u201cabundance standard white dwarfs\u201d which accrete material with abundance ratios that are expected to be close to solar, i.e. rich in volatiles.\n\n[^3]: For completeness, we note that circumstellar high-ionisation absorption lines have also been found around a number of hot white dwarfs [@bannisteretal03-1; @dickinsonetal12-1]. However, the origin of the circumstellar material is not clear, and the detection of strong C lines suggests a different nature compared to the rocky debris found around the stars studied here.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'Viktor G.\u00a0Czinner'\n- and Hideo Iguchi\ntitle: 'Thermodynamics, stability and Hawking\u2013Page transition of Kerr black holes from R\u00e9nyi statistics'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nGravitational phase transitions, in particular the ones connected to black hole thermodynamics, are essential constituents of many open problems in modern theoretical physics. The Hawking\u2013Page phase transition [@Hawking:1982dh] of black holes in anti-de Sitter space is one of the most important ones due to its role in the AdS/CFT correspondence [@Maldacena:1997re; @Witten:1998qj] and also in related phenomena of confinement/deconfinement transitions at finite temperature in various gauge theories [@MMT1; @MMT2]. Because of the different background geometry, asymptotically flat black holes have different stability properties than AdS ones, and in the standard black hole thermodynamic picture [@Bekenstein:1973ur; @Bardeen:1973gs; @Hawking:1974sw; @Hawking:1976de], they mostly tend to be unstable for any large masses when surrounded by an infinite bath of thermal radiation. A Hawking\u2013Page transition does not occur under these conditions, and a cosmic black hole nucleation is not present in asymptotically flat spacetimes. Apart from the gravity interest, the above phenomenon is interesting from a thermodynamic viewpoint as well, and for a clear understanding of the physics behind, the underlying theory of black hole thermodynamics is also necessary to be well understood. In the past 40 years, after the foundations of the standard thermodynamic theory of black holes [@Bekenstein:1973ur; @Bardeen:1973gs; @Hawking:1974sw; @Hawking:1976de], numerous achievements have been made in the field. In spite of the active research and successes however, there still are some unsettled and important issues which could not be resolved satisfactorily so far. From a classical thermodynamic perspective, one of the most interesting ones is the nonextensive nature of black holes and the corresponding problem of thermodynamic stability.\n\nA basic group of physical quantities in classical thermodynamics is the group called extensive variables $X$ (like energy, entropy, etc.), where it is assumed that these quantities are *additive* for composition, i.e.\u00a0$X_{12}=X_1+X_2$ when thermodynamic systems are joined together [@PhysRevE.83.061147]. On the other hand, it is also customary to assume that these quantities characterize the system down to the smallest scales [@Mackey], i.e.\u00a0when working with finite densities: $$\\varrho_X = \\lim_{n\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{1}{n}\\sum_{i=1}^n X_i < \\infty,$$ where the system is divided into $n$ different parts. This property is called *extensivity*. The two properties: additivity and extensivity are not equivalent. An additive quantity is extensive, but extensive quantities can be nonadditive too [@T2; @B1]. Black holes are very peculiar creatures in this respect because they cannot be described as the union of some constituent subsystems which are endowed with their own thermodynamics, and therefore black holes are nonextensive objects.\n\nLooking from a different perspective, phenomenological thermodynamics of macroscopic objects has a well understood theory from statistical physics where the macroscopic properties of a given body (described by the thermodynamic parameters e.g.\u00a0total energy, entropy, temperature, etc.)\u00a0can be uniquely obtained from the microscopic description of the system. Standard statistical descriptions, on the other hand, usually assume that long-range type interactions are negligible, i.e.\u00a0that the (linear) size of the system in question is much lager than the range of the relevant interaction between the elements of the system. Under these conditions the standard local notions of mass, energy and other extensive quantities are well defined, and by applying the additive (and therefore extensive) Boltzamann\u2013Gibbs formula: $S_{BG}=-\\sum p_i\\ln p_i$, for defining the system\u2019s entropy function, the classical thermodynamic description is recovered in the macroscopic limit.\n\nIn the presence of strong gravitational fields however, and in particular when black holes are considered, the assumption of negligible long-range type interactions can not be hold, and consequently the usual definition of mass and other extensive quantities is not possible locally. Nonlocality is indeed a fundamental feature of general relativity, and corresponding nonextesive thermodynamic phenomena have been known in cosmology and gravitation theory for a long time (see e.g.\u00a0[@Landsberg1984; @cg1; @cg2; @cg3; @cg4; @cg5; @cg6; @cg7; @cg8; @cg9] and references therein). In fact, even as early as 1902, Gibbs already pointed out in his statistical mechanics book [@Gibbs], that systems with divergent partition function lie outside the validity of Boltzamann\u2013Gibbs theory. He explicitly mentions gravitation as an example (see e.g.\u00a0[@Tsallis:2012js] for more details). Therefore, the standard Boltzamann\u2013Gibbs statistics may not be the best possible choice for defining the entropy function in strongly gravitating systems, and other statistical approaches, which could also take into account the long-range type property of the relevant interaction (i.e.\u00a0gravitation) and the nonextensive nature of the problem, are also relevant and important to study.\n\nThe nonextensive nature of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of black hole event horizons has been noticed [@Davies:1978mf] very early on after the thermodynamic theory of black holes had been formulated [@Bekenstein:1973ur; @Bardeen:1973gs; @Hawking:1974sw; @Hawking:1976de], and the corresponding thermodynamic and stability problem has been investigated several times with various approaches (see e.g.\u00a0[@landsberg1980entropies; @bishop1987thermodynamics; @Landsberg1984; @pavon1986some; @1993Natur.365..103M; @Gour:2003pd; @Oppenheim:2002kx; @Pesci:2006sb; @Aranha:2008ni; @Tsallis:2012js] and references therein). The general theory of nonadditive thermodynamics has also advanced significantly in the past few decades (see e.g.\u00a0[@T2; @Landsberg] and references therein), and it has been shown, that by relaxing the additivity requirement in the axiomatic approach to the entropy definition (given by Shannon [@Shannon] and Khinchin [@Khinchin]) to the weaker *composability* requirement, new possible functional forms of the entropy may arise [@Tempesta]. As a consequence, there exist certain parametric extensions of the Boltzamann\u2013Gibbs statistical entropy formula, which seem to be more appropriate to describe systems with long-range type interactions. One such statistical entropy definition has been proposed by Tsallis [@Tsallis:1987eu] as: $$\\label{TsS}\n S_T=\\frac{1}{1-q}\\sum_i(p^q_i-p_i),$$ where $p_i$ are the probabilities of the microscopic states of the system, and $q\\in\\mathbb{R}$ is the so-called nonextensivity parameter. In the limit of $q\\rightarrow 1$, $S_T$ reproduces the standard Boltzamann\u2013Gibbs result, however, in the case when $q\\neq 0$, the Tsallis entropy is not additive, and the parameter can be attributed to measure the effects of non-localities in the system. The $q$-parameter is usually constant in different physical situations, and its explicit value is part of the problem to be solved.\n\nThe Tsallis statistics to the black hole problem has been investigated with various approaches (see e.g.\u00a0[@Tsallis:2012js] and references therein), however it has been a long-standing problem in nonextensive thermodynamics that nonadditive entropy composition rules (in general) can not be compatible with the most natural requirement of thermal equilibrium in the system [@PhysRevE.83.061147]. They usually don\u2019t satisfy the zeroth law of thermodynamics, which requires the existence of a well defined, unique, empirical temperature in thermal equilibrium which is constant all over the system. For resolving these issues, Bir\u00f3 and V\u00e1n developed a method [@PhysRevE.83.061147], called the \u201c*formal logarithm approach*\u201d, which maps the original, nonadditive entropy composition rule of a given system to an additive one by a simple transformation. This procedure results a new, but also well defined entropy function for the system, which in turn, also satisfies both the equilibrium and the zeroth law compatibility requirements of thermodynamics. In case of the nonextensive Tsallis statistics, this new entropy turns out to be the well known R\u00e9nyi formula [@renyi1959dimension; @renyi1970probability], defined as $$\\label{Srenyi}\nS_R=\\frac{1}{1-q}\\ln\\sum_ip^q_i,$$ which had been proposed earlier by the Hungarian mathematician Alfr\u00e9d R\u00e9nyi in 1959 [@renyi1959dimension].\n\nRecently, motivated by the nonextensive and nonlocal nature of black hole thermodynamics, we proposed and studied an alternative approach to the black hole entropy problem [@Biro:2013cra]. In this model, in order to satisfy both the equilibrium the zeroth law compatibility, instead of the Tsallis description, we considered its formal logarithm, the R\u00e9nyi statistics (\\[TsS\\]) to describe the thermodynamic entropy of black hole event horizons. The explicit details of this approach is presented in the next section, and by applying the R\u00e9nyi model to Schwarzschild black holes [@Biro:2013cra], we found that the temperature-horizon radius relation of the black hole has the same form as the one obtained from a black hole in anti-de Sitter space by using the original Boltzamann-Gibbs statistics. In both cases the temperature has a minimum. By using a semi-classical estimate on the horizon radius at this minimum, we obtained a Bekenstein bound [@Bekenstein:1980jp] for the $q$-parameter value in the R\u00e9nyi entropy of micro black holes ($q \\geq 1 + 2/\\pi^2$), which was surprisingly close to other $q$-parameter fits from very distant and unrelated physical phenomena, e.g.\u00a0cosmic ray spectra [@Bek1; @Bek2], and power-law distribution of quarks coalescing to hadrons in high energy accelerator experiments [@BU].\n\nBesides the statistical approach, another fundamental problem of applying standard thermodynamic methods to black holes arising from the question of stability. In ordinary thermodynamics of extensive systems, the local thermodynamic stability (defined as the Hessian of the entropy has no positive eigenvalues) is linked to the dynamical stability of the system. This stability criteria, however, strongly relies on the additivity of the entropy function, which is a property that clearly does not hold for black holes. The simplest example of this discrepancy is the Schwarzschild black hole which is known to be perturbatively stable but has a negative specific heat (positive Hessian). Black hole phase transitions are also strongly related to the stability properties of the system (in particular the Hawking\u2013Page transition), and since the standard methods are not reliable in nonextensive thermodynamics, one has to be very careful when considering stability and phase transitions in strongly gravitating systems.\n\nAvoiding the complications arising from the Hessian approach to the stability problem of black holes, an alternative technique was proposed in a series of paper by Kaburaki et al.\u00a0[@Kaburaki:1993ah; @Katz:1993up; @kaburaki1996critical]. In these works the so-called \u201cPoincar\u00e9 turning point method of stability\u201d [@poincare1885equilibre] has been applied to the problem, which is a topological approach and does not depend on the additivity of the entropy function. More recently this method has also been used to study critical phenomena of higher dimensional black holes and black rings [@Arcioni:2004ww] and to determine the conditions of stability for equilibrium configurations of charged black holes surrounded by quintessence [@AzregAinou:2012hy]. In section \\[stab\\] we present an overview of this method.\n\nBy considering the R\u00e9nyi model in the black hole problem, we also investigated the thermodynamic stability question of Schwarzschild black holes [@Czinner:2015eyk]. First we considered the question of pure, isolated black holes in the microcanonical approach, and showed that these configurations are stable against spherically symmetric perturbations, just like in the Boltzmann picture. However, in considering the case when the black holes are surrounded by a heat bath in the canonical treatment, we found that \u2013 in contrast to the Boltzmann approach \u2013 Schwarzschild black holes can be in stable equilibrium with thermal radiation at a fixed temperature. This results a stability change at a certain value of the mass-energy parameter of the black hole which belongs to the minimum temperature solution. Black holes with smaller masses are unstable in this model, however larger black holes become stable. These findings are essentially identical to the ones obtained by Hawking and Page in AdS space within the standard Boltzmann entropy description [@Hawking:1982dh]. According to this similarity, we also analyzed the question of a possible phase transition in the canonical picture and found that a Hawking\u2013Page black hole phase transition occurs in a very similar fashion as in AdS space in the Boltzamann statistics. We showed that the corresponding critical temperature depends only on the $q$-parameter of the R\u00e9nyi formula, just like it depends only on the curvature parameter in AdS space. For the stability analysis we considered both the Poincar\u00e9 and the Hessian methods. The latter one could also be applied since the R\u00e9nyi entropy is additive for composition (see the next section), and therefore the standard stability analysis is also reliable in this case. Both approaches confirmed the same stability results.\n\nThese findings might have some relevant consequences in black hole physics. In particular, if an effective physical model could be constructed on how to compute the $q$-parameter value for the R\u00e9nyi entropy of black holes (or other strongly gravitating systems) in order to parametrize the non-local effects of the gravitational field, the R\u00e9nyi statistics can provide a well behaving and additive entropy description of the system which is also compatible with the requirements of equilibrium and the zeroth law of thermodynamics. Similar considerations have been applied recently to describe the relative information entropy measure inside compact domains of an inhomogeneous universe [@CzM], where an explicit geometric model has been proposed to compute the $q$-parameter of the R\u00e9nyi entropy in order to measure the effects of the gravitational entanglement problem.\n\nIn the case of black hole thermodynamics, we showed that large, asymptotically flat, Schwarzschild black holes can be in stable equilibrium with a thermal heath bath in the R\u00e9nyi picture, and a Hawking\u2013Page phase transition can occur in the system. This result offers a possible explanation for the problem of cosmic black hole nucleation in the early universe, and this mechanism might be the origin of large or super massive black holes that can be found in most galaxy centers. Many other interesting consequences can be deduced from the R\u00e9nyi approach, but in this work we aim to achieve a more modest goal. In the present paper, by extending our previous investigations in the problem, we study the thermodynamic, stability and phase transition properties of Kerr black holes within the R\u00e9nyi model and analyze whether similar results can be obtained to what we have found in the Schwarzschild case. In this analysis the turning point method is applied to the stability problem in both the microcanonical and canonical ensembles, and we will show that stability changes appear in the latter case, which suggests that a Hawking\u2013Page transition and a first order small black hole/large black hole phase transition occur in the system, similar to the one observed for charged and rotating black holes in AdS space [@Chamblin:1999tk; @Chamblin:1999hg; @Caldarelli:1999xj; @Tsai:2011gv; @Altamirano:2014tva]. This result provides a correspondence between the Kerr\u2013R\u00e9nyi and the Kerr-AdS\u2013Boltzmann pictures, analogous to the one we reported in the Schwarzschild problem [@Biro:2013cra; @Czinner:2015eyk].\n\nThe plan of the paper is as follows. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Renyi\\] we discuss the foundations and motivation of the R\u00e9nyi approach arising from nonextensive thermodynamics to the black hole problem. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Kerr\\] we introduce the Kerr solution and calculate its thermodynamic quantities within the R\u00e9nyi statistics. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Stability\\] we investigate the thermodynamic stability problem of Kerr black holes in the R\u00e9nyi model by the Poincar\u00e9 turning point method both in the microcanonical and canonical treatments. We also discuss the question of possible phase transitions in this section. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Kerr-AdS\\] the thermodynamic stability problem of Kerr-AdS black holes in the standard Boltzmann case is also presented by the turning point method, and the correspondence between the Kerr\u2013R\u00e9nyi and the Kerr-AdS\u2013Boltzmann approaches is discussed. In Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:summary\\] we summarize our results and draw our conclusions. Throughout this paper we use units such as $c=G=\\hbar=k_B=1$.\n\nR\u00e9nyi approach from nonadditive thermodynamics {#sec:Renyi}\n==============================================\n\nBy replacing the additivity axiom to the weaker composability in the Shannon\u2013Khinchin axiomatic definition of the entropy function, new type of entropy expressions arise. The composability axiom asserts, roughly speaking, that the entropy $S_{12}$ of a compound system consisting of two independent systems should be computable only in terms of the individual entropies $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$. This means that there is a function $f(x,y)$ such that $$S_{12} = f (S_1, S_2),$$ for any independent systems. This property is of fundamental importance, since it implies that an entropic function is properly defined on macroscopic states of a given system, and it can be computed without having any information on the underlying microscopic dynamics. Composability is a key feature to ensure that the entropy function is physically meaningful. In a recent paper [@abe2001general], based on the concept of composability alone, Abe derived the most general functional form of those nonadditive entropy composition rules that are compatible with homogeneous equilibrium. Assuming that $f(S_1, S_2)$ is a $C^2$ class symmetric function, Abe showed that the most general, equilibrium compatible composition rule takes the form $$\\label{eq:Abe}\nH_{\\lambda}(S_{12})=H_{\\lambda}(S_1)+H_{\\lambda}(S_2)+\\lambda H_{\\lambda}(S_1)H_{\\lambda}(S_2),$$ where $H_{\\lambda}$ is a differentiable function of $S$ and $\\lambda\\in\\mathbb{R}$ is a constant parameter. Later on, this result has been extended to non-homogeneous systems as well [@PhysRevE.83.061147], where not only the entropy, but the energy function is also considered to be nonadditive.\n\nThe simplest and perhaps the most well-known nonadditive entropy composition rule can be obtained from (\\[eq:Abe\\]) by setting $H_{\\lambda}(S)$ to be the identity function, i.e.\u00a0$H_{\\lambda}(S)=S$. In this case Abe\u2019s equation becomes $$\\label{eq:tsallis_composition}\nS_{12}=S_1+S_2+\\lambda S_1 S_2,$$ which results the familiar Tsallis composition rule with $\\lambda=1-q$ [@Tsallis:1987eu], and the corresponding entropy definition is given in (\\[TsS\\]). The nonextensive Tsallis statistics is widely investigated in many research fields from natural to social sciences, an updated bibliography on the topic can be found in [@Tsallis-bib]. This approach has also been studied in the problem of black hole thermodynamics (see e.g.\u00a0[@Tsallis:2012js] and references therein), and our starting point in considering a more general entropy definition for black holes than the one based on the Boltzamann-Gibbs statistics is also the Tsallis formula.\n\nGeneralized, nonadditive entropy definitions has been investigated in various problems from high energy physics [@B1] to DNA analysis [@DNA], and it has been a longstanding problem that the zeroth law of thermodynamics (i.e.\u00a0the existence of a well defined temperature function in thermal equilibrium) cannot be compatible with nonadditive entropy composition rules. A possible resolution to this problem has been proposed recently by Bir\u00f3 and V\u00e1n in [@PhysRevE.83.061147], where they developed a formulation to determine the most general functional form of those nonadditive entropy composition rules that are compatible with the zeroth law of thermodynamics. They found that the general form is additive for the *formal logarithms* of the original quantities, which in turn, also satisfy the familiar relations of standard thermodynamics. In particular, for homogeneous systems, they showed that the most general, zeroth law compatible entropy function takes the form $$\\label{eq:formallog}\nL(S)=\\frac{1}{\\lambda}\\ln[1+\\lambda H_{\\lambda}(S)],$$ which is additive for composition, i.e., $$L(S_{12})=L(S_{1})+L(S_{2}),$$ and the corresponding zeroth law compatible temperature function can be obtained as $$\\frac{1}{T}=\\frac{\\partial L(S(E))}{\\partial E},$$ where $E$ is the energy of the system.\n\nIn the case of the Tsallis statistics, it is easy to show that by taking the formal logarithm (\\[eq:formallog\\]) of the Tsallis entropy (\\[TsS\\]), i.e. $$L(S_T)=\\frac{1}{1-q}\\ln\\left[1+(1-q)S_T\\right] \\equiv S_R,$$ the R\u00e9nyi expression (\\[Srenyi\\]) is reproduced, which, unlike the Tsallis formula, is additive for composition. In the limit of $q\\rightarrow 1$ ($\\lambda \\rightarrow 0$), both the Tsallis- and the R\u00e9nyi entropies recovers the standard Boltzmann-Gibbs description.\n\nAccording to these results, in the present paper, in order to describe the non-Boltzamannian nature of Kerr black holes, we consider the Tsallis statistics as the simplest, nonadditive, parametric but equilibrium compatible extension of the Boltzamann-Gibbs theory which also satisfies Abe\u2019s formula. On the other hand, in order to satisfy the zeroth law of thermodynamics, we follow the formal logarithm method of Bir\u00f3 and V\u00e1n, and rather the Tsallis description, we consider the R\u00e9nyi entropy for the thermodynamics of the problem. Since the R\u00e9nyi definition is additive, it satisfies all laws of thermodynamics, and compared to the Boltzmann picture, it has the advantage of having a free parameter which can be accounted to describe the effects of nonlocality in our approach. The thermodynamics of Schwarzschild black holes in this model has been studied in [@Biro:2013cra], and the corresponding stability problem has been investigated in [@Czinner:2015eyk].\n\nKerr black holes {#sec:Kerr}\n================\n\nThe spacetime metric that describes the geometry of a rotating black hole is given by the Kerr solution $$\\begin{aligned}\n ds^2 & = & -dt^2 + \\frac{2 M r}{\\Sigma} \\left( dt -a \\sin^2 \\theta d \\phi \\right)^2 \n + \\frac{\\Sigma}{\\Delta} dr^2 + \\Sigma d \\theta^2  \\nonumber \\\\\n & &+ (r^2 +a^2) \\sin \\theta d \\phi^2\\ ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\Sigma = r^2 + a^2 \\cos^2 \\theta , ~~~ \\Delta = r^2 + a^2 - 2Mr .$$ Here, $M$ is the mass-energy parameter of the black hole and $a$ is its rotation parameter. The thermodynamic quantities of a Kerr black hole can be expressed in terms of its horizon radius $r_{+} = M + \\sqrt{M^2 - a^2}$, which is defined by taking $\\Delta = 0$. The Hawking temperature of the black hole horizon is $$T_H = \\frac{1}{2\\pi}\\left[ \\frac{r_{+}}{r_{+}^2 + a^2} - \\frac{1}{2 r_{+}} \\right],$$ the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy is $$S_{BH} = \\pi (r_{+}^2 + a^2),$$ the angular momentum of the black hole is $$J = \\frac{a}{2 r_{+}}(r_{+}^2 + a^2),$$ the angular velocity of the horizon is $$\\Omega = \\frac{a}{r_{+}^2 + a^2},$$ and the mass-energy parameter can also be written as $$M = \\frac{r_{+}^2 + a^2}{2 r_{+}}.$$ The heat capacity at constant angular velocity is given by $$C_{\\Omega} = T_H \\left( \\frac{\\partial S_{BH}}{\\partial T_H} \\right)_\\Omega \n = \\frac{2 \\pi r_{+}^2(a^2 - r_{+}^2)}{r_{+}^2 +a^2},$$ and the heat capacity at constant angular momentum is $$C_J = T_H \\left( \\frac{\\partial S_{BH}}{\\partial T_H} \\right)_J \n = \\frac{2 \\pi (r_{+}^2 -a^2)(r_{+}^2 + a^2)^2}{3 a^4 + 6 r_{+}^2 a^2 - r_{+}^4}\\ .$$ $C_\\Omega$ and $C_J$ can be written in simpler forms if we normalize them by $r_{+}^2$, i.e. $$\\frac{C_{\\Omega}}{r_{+}^2} = - \\frac{2 \\pi (1 - h^2)}{h^2 + 1 }$$ and $$\\frac{C_{J}}{r_{+}^2} =  \\frac{2 \\pi (1 - h^2 )(h^2 + 1)^2}{3 h^4 + 6 h^2 - 1},$$ were we also introduced the normalized rotation parameter $h$ [[@okamoto1990thermodynamical]]{} as $$h \\equiv \\frac{|a|}{r_{+}} .$$ The $r_{+}$ horizon radius exists only for $|a| \\le M$, which corresponds to $0 \\le h \\le 1$. The $h=0$ value describes a Schwarzschild black hole, while the limiting value $h=1$ belongs to the extreme Kerr black hole case. The heat capacities as functions of $h$ are plotted on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:heat\\_capacity\\_Kerr\\]. It can be seen that $C_\\Omega$ is negative for $ 0\\le h<1$ and $C_J$ diverges at $h_c = \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{3}\\sqrt{3} - 1}$, where a pole occurs. $C_J$ is negative for $h<h_c$ and positive for $h>h_c$ values. The heat capacities coincide at the limit values $h=0$ and 1.\n\n![Plots of the heat capacities $C_J$ (red solid line) and $C_\\Omega$ (blue dotted line) against $h$. $C_J$ diverges at $h_c$ where a pole occurs.[]{data-label=\"fig:heat_capacity_Kerr\"}](figure1.eps)\n\nThe R\u00e9nyi entropy function of black holes can be obtained by taking the formal logarithm of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, which in our non-Boltzmannian approach follows the nonadditive Tsallis statistics. The physical meaning of the $\\lambda$ parameter is connected to the nonextensive and nonlocal nature of the problem, and the R\u00e9nyi entropy of a general black hole in this picture is given by $$S_R = \\frac{1}{\\lambda} \\ln (1 + \\lambda S_{BH}).$$ The zeroth law compatible R\u00e9nyi temperature is then defined as $$T_R = \\frac{1}{\\partial S_R / \\partial M} = T_H ( 1 + \\lambda S_{BH} ).$$\n\nFor the case of a Kerr black hole, the R\u00e9nyi entropy and the corresponding temperature take the forms $$\\label{eq:Renyi_entropy}\n S_R = \\frac{1}{\\lambda} \\ln ( 1 + \\pi \\lambda (r_{+}^2 + a^2) )$$ and $$\\label{eq:Renyi_temperature}\n T_R = \\frac{(1 + \\pi \\lambda (r_{+}^2 + a^2))(r_{+}^2 - a^2)}{4 \\pi r_{+} (r_{+}^2 + a^2)}.$$ The heat capacities can be obtained as $$C_{R} = T_R \\left( \\frac{\\partial S_R}{\\partial T_R} \\right) \n = \\frac{C_{BH}}{1 + \\lambda(S_{BH} + C_{BH})},$$ where $C_{BH} = T_H \\left( \\frac{\\partial S_{BH}}{\\partial T_H} \\right)$. The heat capacity at constant angular velocity is then $$C_{\\Omega R} = \\frac{2 \\pi r_{+}^2(a^2 - r_{+}^2)}{r_{+}^2 + a^2 \n + \\pi \\lambda (a^4 - r_{+}^4 + 4 a^2 r_{+}^2)},$$ while the heat capacity at constant angular momentum takes the form $$C_{JR} = \\frac{2 \\pi (r_{+}^2 - a^2)(a^2 + r_{+}^2)^2}{3 a^4 +6 a^2 r_{+}^2 - r_{+}^4 \n + \\pi \\lambda (a^2 + r_{+}^2)(a^4 +6 r_{+}^2 a^2 +r_{+}^4)}.$$ $C_{\\Omega R}$ and $C_{JR}$ can also be written in the simpler, normalized forms as before, i.e. $$\\frac{C_{\\Omega R}}{r_{+}^2} = \\frac{2 \\pi (h^2 -1)}{h^2 + 1 + \\pi k (h^4+ 4 h^2 -1)},$$ and $$\\frac{C_{JR}}{r_{+}^2} = - \\frac{2 \\pi (h^2 - 1)(h^2 + 1)^2}{3 h^4 + 6 h^2 - 1 \n + \\pi k (h^2 + 1)(h^4 + 6 h^2 + 1)},$$ where we also introduced the parameter $$k = \\lambda r_{+}^2.$$ The heat capacities change their sign depending on the parameter values as plotted on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:heat\\_capacity\\].\n\n![Phase diagram of Kerr black holes with R\u00e9nyi entropy. On the dashed curve $C_{JR}$ diverges while on the dotted curve $C_{\\Omega R}$ diverges. In region I, $C_{\\Omega R}<0$ and $C_{JR} <0$, in region II, $C_{\\Omega R}<0$ and $C_{JR} >0$, while in region III, $C_{\\Omega R}>0$ and $C_{JR} >0$.[]{data-label=\"fig:heat_capacity\"}](figure2.eps)\n\nFor fixed angular momentum, both the R\u00e9nyi and the Boltzmann entropies of a Kerr black hole are monotonically increasing functions of the mass parameter (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:MS\\_Kerr\\]). An important difference however, is that while the [standard Boltzmann entropy is asymptotically convex]{} (being proportional to $M^2$ as approaching the static Schwarzschild solution in the large $M$ limit), [[the R\u00e9nyi entropy is asymptotically concave, since it increases only logarithmically.]{}]{}\n\n![Plots of the R\u00e9nyi entropy as a function of the mass-energy parameter at fixed $J = J_0$ for the parameter values $\\lambda J_0 = 0.05$, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02 and 0.01 starting from the bottom curve respectively. The top, bold curve belongs to the standard Boltzmann entropy of the Kerr black hole.[]{data-label=\"fig:MS_Kerr\"}](figure3.eps)\n\nOn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:MT\\_Kerr\\], we also plotted the temperature-energy relations for fixed angular momentum $J = J_0$. As it is well known, there is a maximum temperature in the case of the standard Boltzmann approach. In the smaller mass (low entropy) region of the $T_H(M)$ curve, the heat capacity $C_J$ is positive, while at larger masses (high entropy) region it is negative. The two regions correspond to the phases of $h>h_c$ and $h<h_c$ on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:heat\\_capacity\\_Kerr\\]. In the R\u00e9nyi approach, the $T_R(M)$ curve has different behavior depending on the actual parameter values of the angular momentum and $\\lambda$. It has a local maximum and a local minimum when $\\lambda J_0$ is smaller than some critical value. In this case three black holes with different masses can coexist at a given temperature. The $C_{JR}$ heat capacity is negative in the phase between the two local extrema and positive otherwise (see also Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:hc\\_J0\\] in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Stability\\]). Above the critical value of $\\lambda J_0$, the local extrema disappear and the R\u00e9nyi temperature becomes a monotonically increasing function of the energy. From these properties one can expect a stability change and a thermodynamic phase transition of Kerr black holes in the canonical ensemble. We will investigate this question in the next section.\n\n![Plots of the R\u00e9nyi temperature against the mass-energy parameter of Kerr black holes at fixed $J = J_0$ with $\\lambda J_0 = 0.05$, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02 and 0.01 parameter values starting from the top respectively. The bottom, bold curve belongs to the standard Hawking temperature of the black hole in the Boltzmann model.[]{data-label=\"fig:MT_Kerr\"}](figure4.eps)\n\nStability analysis {#stab}\n==================\n\nKaburaki [*et al.*]{}\u00a0[@Kaburaki:1993ah] have shown that isolated Kerr black holes are stable against axisymmetric perturbations in the standard picture of black hole thermodynamics. They also investigated the effects of thermal radiation around Kerr black holes from the standpoint of a canonical ensemble. They concluded that slowly rotating black holes (just like Schwarzschild black holes) are unstable in a heat bath, but rapidly rotating holes are less unstable and may even be stable.\n\n\\[sec:Stability\\] As we pointed out, the standard thermodynamic stability criteria based on the Hessian analysis fails when it is applied to black holes because of the nonadditivity of the entropy function, and also of the impossibility to define extensive thermodynamic quantities (see e.g.\u00a0[@Arcioni:2004ww]). These problems can be mainly avoided by the Poincar\u00e9 turning point method [@poincare1885equilibre], which can divide a linear series of equilibrium into subspaces of unstable and less unstable states of equilibria solely from the properties of the equilibrium sequence without solving any eigenvalue equation. The method has been widely applied to problems in astrophysical and gravitating systems, in particular for the study of the thermodynamic stability of black holes in four and also in higher dimensions [@Kaburaki:1993ah; @Katz:1993up; @kaburaki1996critical; @Arcioni:2004ww; @AzregAinou:2012hy]. A well-organized review on the method has been given by Arcioni and Lozano-Tellechea in [@Arcioni:2004ww], which we will mainly follow in the next brief description. Formal proofs of the results can be found in the previous works of Katz [@1978MNRAS.183..765K; @1979MNRAS.189..817K] and Sorkin [@Sorkin:1981jc], and a more intuitive interpretation has also been given in [@1994PhLA..185...21K].\n\nSuppose $\\mathcal{M}$ is the space of possible configurations of a system in which a given configuration is specified by a point $X$. The set of independent thermodynamic variables ${\\mu^i}$ specifies a given ensemble. Let $Z$ be the corresponding Massieu function. Both ${\\mu^i}$ and $Z$ are functions on $\\mathcal{M}$. Equilibrium states occur at points in $\\mathcal{M}$ which are extrema of $Z$ under displacements $dX$ for which $d \\mu^i = 0$. At equilibrium the Massieu function depends only on the values of the thermodynamic variables $\\mu^i$. We can define conjugate variables $\\beta_i$ such that $$dS = \\beta_i d \\mu^i\n \\label{eq:dS}$$ for all displacements $dX$. The set of equilibria is a submanifold $\\mathcal{M}_{eq}$ of the configuration space. Points in $\\mathcal{M}_{eq}$ can be labeled by the corresponding values of $\\mu_i$ which are called control parameters. Usually all that we know is the explicit expression of the equilibrium Massieu function $$Z_{eq} = Z (\\mu^i),$$ which is the integral of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:dS\\]). The explicit expressions for the conjugate variables at equilibrium are calculated as $$\\beta_i (\\mu^i) = \\frac{\\partial Z_{eq}}{\\partial \\mu^i}.$$ The entropy maximum postulate is a statement about the behaviour of the entropy function along off-equilibrium curves in $\\mathcal{M}$, not along equilibrium sequences $\\mathcal{M}_{eq}$. Therefore we need an expression for an extended Massieu function $\\hat{Z} = \\hat{Z}(X^\\rho, \\mu^i)$ where $X^\\rho$ denote a set of off-equilibrium variables. The equillibrium configurations occur at the values $X^\\rho_{eq} = X^\\rho_{eq}(\\mu^i)$ which are solutions of $$\\frac{\\partial \\hat{Z}}{\\partial X^\\rho} = 0.$$ A stable equilibrium takes place at the point $X^\\rho_{eq}$ if and only if it is a local maximum of $\\hat{Z}$ at fixed $\\mu^i$. Therefore stable solutions have a matrix $$\\left. \\frac{\\partial^2 \\hat{Z}(X^\\tau, \\mu^i)}{\\partial X^\\rho \\partial X^\\sigma}\\right|_{X^\\tau = X^\\tau_{eq}(\\mu^i)}\n \\label{eq:matrix}$$ with a negative spectrum of eigenvalues. A change of stability takes place when one of these eigenvalues become zero and changes sign. It has been shown that we can obtain information about the sign of an eigenvalue near a point where it vanishes without computing the spectrum of the matrix (\\[eq:matrix\\]). What we have to do is to plot a conjugate variable $\\beta_a (\\mu^a) = \\frac{\\partial Z_{eq}}{\\partial \\mu^a}$ against a control parameter $\\mu^a$ along an equilibrium sequence for some fixed $a$. When a change of stability occurs, called a turning point, the plot of the stability curve $\\beta_a (\\mu^a)$ has a vertical tangent. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:turning\\] shows an example of stability curves with a turning point $A$. The branch with negative slope near this point is always unstable, since one can prove that at least one eigenvalue of the matrix (\\[eq:matrix\\]) is positive. The branch with positive slope near $A$ is more stable. If the spectrum of zero modes is nondegenerate, only one of the eigenvalues changes its sign at the turning point. Therefore the positive slope branch has one unstable mode less than the negative slope branch. Note that what we can see with this method is the existence of instabilities because there can be positive eigenvalues which do not change sign at the turning point. If there is a point in the equilibrium sequence which is fully stable, all equilibria in the sequence are fully stable until the first turning point is reached.\n\n![Example of stability curves. A conjugate variable $\\beta_a$ against a control parameter $\\mu_a$ is plotted. The point $A$ is a turning point, where a stability change can occur. At point $B$ a stability change doesn\u2019t occur even if the slope changes its sign there.[]{data-label=\"fig:turning\"}](figure5.eps)\n\nPure black holes\n----------------\n\nThe case of a black hole isolated from its surroundings can be described in the microcanonical emsemble. The Massieu function is the R\u00e9nyi entropy (\\[eq:Renyi\\_entropy\\]) and the control parameters are $M$ and $J$. The conjugate variables are $\\beta$ and $-\\alpha$, where $\\beta$ is the inverse of the R\u00e9nyi temperature (\\[eq:Renyi\\_temperature\\]) and $\\alpha = \\frac{\\Omega}{T_R}$. To study the stability of the black hole we need to plot the stability curves $\\beta(M)$ at constant $J$ and $-\\alpha(J)$ at constant $M$.\n\nWhen $J=J_0$ is a constant, the variables $\\beta/\\sqrt{J_0}$ and $M/\\sqrt{J_0}$ can be written as functions of the normalized parameter $h$ with constant $\\lambda J_0$. On Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:micro\\_bM\\] we plotted the stability curves $\\beta(M)$ for different values of $\\lambda J_0$. For comparison, the stability curve of the standard Kerr black hole ($\\lambda = 0$) is also plotted on the figure. It can be seen that no curves of the Kerr-R\u00e9nyi case have a vertical tangent (similar to the standard Kerr result analyzed by Kaburaki, Okamoto and Katz in [@Kaburaki:1993ah]), and therefore there is no stability change for any $M$. Like in the $\\lambda = 0$ case, the $\\lambda>0$ curves also diverge asymptotically as we consider the extreme black hole limit $h\\rightarrow 1$. In the large $M$ limit the black holes approach the static Schwarzschild solution ($h=0$). It can also be seen that the $\\lambda > 0$ stability curves are similar to the Schwarzschild-R\u00e9nyi case in the large $M$ region (see Fig.\u00a03 of [@Czinner:2015eyk]).\n\nFor the standard case, it has been shown that isolated Kerr holes are thermodynamically stable with respect to axisymmetric perturbations. Also, the isolated Schwarzschild black holes have been found to be stable against spherically symmetric perturbations in the R\u00e9nyi approach. Based on these results, since no turning point occurs on the stability curves in between these two extrema, we can conclude that isolated Kerr black holes are thermodynamically stable against axisymmetric perturbations in the R\u00e9nyi approach as well.\n\n![Curves of the conjugate variable $\\beta(M)$ at fixed $J$ in the microcanonical treatment. The $\\lambda = 0$ (black) curve represents the stability curve of the black hole in the standard thermodynamic approach, while the $\\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green), $\\lambda J_0 = 0.02$ (red) and $\\lambda J_0 =0.1$ (blue) curves are the stability curves within the R\u00e9nyi approach. No vertical tangent occurs in either case. By rotating the figure clockwise with $\\frac{\\pi}{2}$, the stability curves of the canonical treatment can be obtained, i.e.\u00a0$-M(\\beta)$ at fixed $J$. In this case, the $\\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green) curve has two vertical tangents denoting the loss and the recovery of stability. In this scenario, up to three black holes with different mass-energy parameters can coexist at a given temperature.[]{data-label=\"fig:micro_bM\"}](figure6.eps)\n\nBy looking at Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:micro\\_bM\\], we can also see that there are two points where the tangent of the stability curves with smaller $\\lambda$ (or small angular momentum $J_0$) becomes horizontal. These correspond to the points where the heat capacity at constant $J$ changes its sign through an infinite discontinuity, similar to the Davies point [[@Davies:1978mf]]{} of the standard Kerr black hole case. On Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:hc\\_J0\\] we plotted the lines of constant $J$ in the normalized parameter space of $(h,k)$. Here the $\\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ line crosses the line where $C_{JR}$ diverges. Along this line the heat capacity $C_{JR}$ changes its sign two times on the way from the $(h=0)$ Schwarzschild limit to $(h = 1)$ extremality.\n\n![Plots of $J = \\mbox{const.}$ curves for $\\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green), $\\lambda J_0 = 0.02$ (red) and $\\lambda J_0 =0.1$ (blue) parameter values on the $(h,k)$ space.[]{data-label=\"fig:hc_J0\"}](figure7.eps)\n\nWhen $M=M_0$ is a constant, $\\alpha$ and $J/M_0^2$ become functions of $h$ with a constant $\\lambda M_0^2$. On Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:micro\\_maJ\\], we plotted the $-\\alpha(J)$ stability curves for different values of $\\lambda M_0^2$. There is no vertical tangent and hence no stability change occurs at any point for any $\\lambda$. The $M=const.$ lines in the parameter space of $(h,k)$ are plotted on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:hc\\_M0\\].\n\n![Curves of the conjugate variable $-\\alpha(J)$ at fixed $M$. The $\\lambda = 0$ (black) curve represents the stability curve of a Kerr black hole in the standard approach within the microcanonical treatment. The $\\lambda M_0^2 = 0.01$ (green), $\\lambda M_0^2 = 0.08$ (red) and $\\lambda M_0^2 =0.3$ (blue) curves are the stability curves of the R\u00e9nyi approach. No vertical tangents occurs.[]{data-label=\"fig:micro_maJ\"}](figure8.eps)\n\n![Plots of $M = \\mbox{const.}$ curves for $\\lambda M_0^2 = 0.01$ (green), $\\lambda M_0^2 = 0.08$ (red) and $\\lambda M_0^2 =0.3$ (blue) parameter values on the $(h,k)$ space.[]{data-label=\"fig:hc_M0\"}](figure9.eps)\n\nBlack holes in a heat bath {#sec:heat_bath}\n--------------------------\n\nLet us now consider the black hole in the canonical approach. The canonical ensemble describes the system of a black hole in equilibrium with an infinite reservoir of thermal radiation at constant temperature. The Massieu function in this case is $$\\Psi(\\beta,J) = S_R - \\beta M = -\\beta F,$$ where $F = M - T_R S_R$ is the Helmholtz free energy. The conjugate variables of the control parameters are $-M$ and $-\\alpha$. To study the stability of the black hole we need to plot the stability curves $-M(\\beta)$ at constant $J$ and $-\\alpha(J)$ at constant $\\beta$.\n\nThe stability curves of $-M(\\beta)$ at constant $J$ are simply the $\\frac{\\pi}{2}$ clockwise rotated versions of Fig. \\[fig:micro\\_bM\\]. We can see that there is a vertical tangent along the stability curve in the standard Boltzmann treatment ($\\lambda = 0$). The heat capacity $C_J$ diverges at this turning point where $h=h_c$. The $0<h<h_c$ branch of this curve is less stable than the $h>h_c$ branch. As Kaburaki, Okamato and Katz have shown [@Kaburaki:1993ah], one can conclude from this result that [since Schwarzschild black holes ($h=0$) are unstable in an infinite bath, so are the slowly rotating holes until the $h_c$ turning point is reached. Rapidly rotating Kerr black holes, on the other hand, can become stable if the slowly rotating (unstable) holes have only one negative eigenmode, which changes sign at $h_c$.]{}\n\nFor the parametrized R\u00e9nyi case, the behavior of the stability curves changes depending on the value of $\\lambda J_0$. We can see that there are two turning points on the $\\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ stability curve when we rotate the plots of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:micro\\_bM\\] with $\\pi/2$ clockwise. These turning points disappear when the value of $\\lambda J_0$ is larger than a critical value. As a consequence, stability change occurs only when the parameter $\\lambda$ and/or $J_0$ is sufficiently small. In this case, there are three phases of black holes; small, intermediate unstable and large black holes. The stability property of a rapidly rotating, small black hole is the same as of a slowly rotating, large black hole, which is expected to be stable from continuity requirements to the static solution in the R\u00e9nyi approach [[@Czinner:2015eyk]]{}.\n\nThe stability curves of $-\\alpha(J)$ at constant $\\beta$ are plotted on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:cano\\_maJ\\], while the lines of constant $\\beta$ in the parameter space of $(h,k)$ are plotted on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:hc\\_beta0\\]. One can see again that the stability curves have no vertical tangent when the $\\lambda$ parameter is sufficiently large, similar to the case of $\\beta(M)$ with constant $J$. Vertical tangents to the stability curves appear however when $\\lambda$ and/or $\\beta_0$ are smaller than some critical value. When a curve has two vertical tangents, there are two turning points where the heat capacity $C_{JR}$ diverges and changes its sign. The black hole changes its stability there in the order from [a less unstable state to unstable state and back to a less unstable state again, where the less unstable states may even be stable but not guaranteed.]{}\n\n[When $\\lambda \\beta_0^2$ is less than some critical value, there are two branches of the stability curves $-\\alpha(J)$ at constant $\\beta_0$. This result is consistent with the fact that in the Schwarzschild-R\u00e9nyi case there are two black holes with the same $\\beta$, as it can be seen on Fig.\u00a01 in [@Czinner:2015eyk]. The lower branch of the $\\lambda \\beta_0^2=9$ curve terminates at the $h = 0$ small, static black hole limit. The behavior of this branch is similar to the curve of the $\\lambda = 0$ Kerr-Boltzmann case. According to these results, we can conclude that small, static or slowly rotating black holes in the R\u00e9nyi approach are unstable in a heat bath, but fast rotation can stabilize them in a similar way as it is done in the Kerr-Boltzmann case, which has been shown by Kaburaki, Okamoto and Katz [@Kaburaki:1993ah]. The upper branch of the $\\lambda \\beta_0^2=9$ stability curve belongs to larger mass black holes and terminates at the large, static black hole limit when $h \\rightarrow 0$. There is no vertical tangent in this branch so the corresponding rotating black holes have the same stability property as the large, static black holes in a heat bath, i.e.\u00a0they are stable.]{}\n\n![Curves of the conjugate variable $-\\alpha(J)$ at fixed $\\beta$ in the canonical approach. The $\\lambda = 0$ (black) curve describes the standard thermodynamic approach. The $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 9$ (brown), $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 12.7$ (green), $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 13.4$ (red) and $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 20$ (blue) curves are the stability curves of the R\u00e9nyi model. The $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 12.7$ (green) curve has two turning points, while the stability curve of $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 9$ (brown) exhibits two branches with a single turning point in the lower branch.[]{data-label=\"fig:cano_maJ\"}](figure10.eps)\n\n![Plots of $\\beta = \\mbox{const.}$ curves on the $(h,k)$ space for $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 9$ (brown), $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 12.7$ (green), $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 13.4$ (red) and $\\lambda \\beta_0^2 = 20$ (blue).[]{data-label=\"fig:hc_beta0\"}](figure11.eps)\n\nPhase Transitions {#sec:phase}\n-----------------\n\nWe have shown in our earlier paper [@Czinner:2015eyk] that a Hawking\u2013Page phase transition can be observed for static black holes in the R\u00e9nyi approach. Previously, it had also been shown [@Caldarelli:1999xj; @Tsai:2011gv; @Altamirano:2014tva] that Kerr-AdS black holes exhibit a first order small black hole/large black hole (SBH/LBH) phase transition in the canonical ensemble. In this subsection we will study the question of possible phase transitions of Kerr black holes in the R\u00e9nyi model.\n\nThe behavior of the free energy function $F = M - T_R S_R$ for $\\lambda J_0 =$ 0.01, 0.02 and 0.1 at constant $J$ is displayed on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:FT\\_Jconst\\]. We can see that all curves cross the horizontal axis. Small black holes with lower temperature possess positive free energy, while larger black holes with higher temperature possess negative free energy. One can, therefore, expect a Hawking\u2013Page transition between the thermal gas phase with angular momentum, and the large black hole state, which would be locally stable according to our analysis in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:heat\\_bath\\]. It is generally assumed that $F\\approx 0$ for a thermal gas, so the phase transition occurs around the temperature where the free energy of the black hole becomes zero.\n\n![Free energy of a Kerr black hole in the R\u00e9nyi model against the temperature for various angular momenta $J_0$, $\\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green), $\\lambda J_0 = 0.02$ (red) and $\\lambda J_0 = 0.1$ (blue). Characterristic swallowtail behaviour is observed for $\\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ (green), which corresponds to a SBH/LBH phase transition.[]{data-label=\"fig:FT_Jconst\"}](figure12.eps)\n\nAn SBH/LBH phase transition can also be observed for Kerr black holes in the R\u00e9nyi model when we enlarge the $\\lambda J_0 =$ 0.01 curve of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:FT\\_Jconst\\] on Fig\u00a0\\[fig:FT\\_swallow\\]. The swallowtail behavior of the free energy function is a typical sign of a first order transition between the SBH and LBH phases. There are three branches on the picture: small, lower temperature holes; large, higher temperature holes; and also intermediate, unstable black holes. There is a coexistence point of small and large black holes where the SBH/LBH transition occurs. The mass and entropy functions are discontinuous at this point which indicates that the phase transition is a first order kind. By increasing $\\lambda$, the swallowtail behavior disappears, as it can be seen on the $\\lambda J_0 =$ 0.02 curve on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:FT\\_Jconst\\]. This suggests the existence of a critical point where the phase transition becomes second order.\n\n![Close up figure of the free energy of a Kerr black hole in the R\u00e9nyi model for $\\lambda J_0 = 0.01$ on Fig \\[fig:FT\\_Jconst\\]. The intermediate, unstable branch is displayed with a dashed line.[]{data-label=\"fig:FT_swallow\"}](figure13.eps)\n\nKerr-AdS black holes {#sec:Kerr-AdS}\n====================\n\nIn order to compare the obtained stability results of the Kerr-R\u00e9nyi model to the Kerr-AdS-Boltzamann case in the Poincar\u00e9 approach (analogous to the Schwarzschild problem), in this section we present the Poincar\u00e9 stability analysis of the Kerr-AdS-Boltzamann case as well. The Kerr-AdS black hole metric is described by $$\\begin{aligned}\n ds^2 & = & - \\frac{\\Delta_r}{\\rho^2} \\left( dt - \\frac{a \\sin^2 \\theta}{\\Xi} d \\phi \\right)^2 \n + \\frac{\\rho^2}{\\Delta_r} dr^2 + \\frac{\\rho^2}{\\Delta_\\theta} d \\theta^2 \\nonumber \\\\\n & & + \\frac{\\Delta_\\theta \\sin^2 \\theta}{\\rho^2} \\left( a dt - \\frac{r^2 + a^2}{\\Xi} d\\phi \\right)^2,\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\Delta_r = (r^2 + a^2) \\left( 1 + \\frac{r^2}{l^2} \\right) - 2 m r, ~~~ \\Delta_\\theta\n= 1 - \\frac{a^2 \\cos^2 \\theta}{l^2}, ~~~$$ $$\\rho^2 = r^2 + a^2 \\cos^2 \\theta, ~~~ \\Xi = 1 - \\frac{a^2}{l^2}.$$ The thermodynamic quantities are written in terms of $a$, $l$ and the horizon radius $r_{+}$, which is obtained by solving $\\Delta = 0$. The Hawking temperature of the horizon is given by $$T = \\frac{1}{2 \\pi r_{+}} \\left( \\frac{(a^2 +3 r_{+}^2)(r_{+}^2/l^2+1)}{2(a^2 + r_{+}^2)} -1\\right),$$ while the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole is $$S =\\pi \\frac{a^2 + r_{+}^2}{1 -a^2/l^2}.$$ The angular momentum of a Kerr-AdS black hole is $$J = \\frac{(r_{+}^2 + a^2)(1 + r_{+}^2/l^2)}{2 r_{+}} \\frac{a}{(1 - a^2/l^2)^2},$$ the angular velocity of the horizon is $$\\Omega = \\frac{a}{l^2} \\frac{r_{+}^2 + l^2}{r_{+}^2 + a^2},$$ and the mass-energy parameter of the black hole can be re-expressed as $$M = \\frac{(r_{+}^2 + a^2)(1 + r_{+}^2/l^2)}{2 r_{+}} \\frac{1}{(1 - a^2/l^2)^2}.$$ The heat capacity at constant angular velocity can be computed as $$C_\\Omega = \\frac{2 \\pi l^2 r_{+}^2( 3 r_{+}^4 +( a^2 + l^2) r_{+}^2 \n - a^2 l^2)}{(l^2 - a^2)(3 r_{+}^4 -(a^2 + l^2) r_{+}^2 - a^2 l^2)},$$ and the heat capacity at constant angular momentum takes the form $$C_J = \\frac{2 \\pi l^4  \\left(a^2+r_{+}^2\\right)^2 \\left(-a^2 l^2+\\left(a^2+l^2\\right) r_{+}^2\n +3 r_{+}^4\\right)}{(l^2 -a^2) X},$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n X & = -l^4 r_{+}^4+3 l^2 r_{+}^6+a^6 \\left(l^2+r_{+}^2\\right) +a^4 \\left(3 l^4+13 l^2 r_{+}^2+6 r_{+}^4\\right) \\\\\n   & \\quad +a^2 \\left(6 l^4 r_{+}^2+23 l^2 r_{+}^4+9 r_{+}^6\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ Here we introduced the normalized parameters $$p \\equiv \\frac{|a|}{r_{+}}, ~\\mbox{and}~~ s \\equiv \\frac{l}{r_{+}}.$$ The heat capacities $C_\\Omega$ and $C_J$ change their signs depending on the values of $p$ and $s$. The parameter space of $(p,s)$ can be divided into 4 regions depending on the signs of $C_\\Omega$ and $C_J$ as shown on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:heat\\_capacity\\_AdS\\].\n\n![Phase diagram of Kerr-AdS black holes in the standard model. On the dashed curve $C_J$, while on the dotted curve $C_\\Omega$ diverges. In region I, $C_{\\Omega}<0$ and $C_{J} <0$, in region II, $C_{\\Omega}<0$ and $C_{J} >0$, and in region III, $C_{\\Omega}>0$ and $C_{J} >0$. In region IV, there is no physical solution because $|a| > l$.[]{data-label=\"fig:heat_capacity_AdS\"}](figure14.eps)\n\nSimilarly to the Kerr-R\u00e9nyi case in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Stability\\], the thermodynamic stability problem of Kerr-AdS black holes can also be analyzed by the Poincar\u00e9 turning point method. The stability curves of the two systems are qualitatively similar. For the study of the Kerr-AdS black hole problem we will use the following normalized variables, $$\\tilde{\\beta} = \\frac{\\beta}{l},~~ \n \\tilde{J} = \\frac{J}{l^2}, ~~\n \\tilde{M} = \\frac{M}{l}.$$\n\nFirst we consider the microcanonical ensemble. The stability curves $\\beta(M)$ at constant $J$ are plotted on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:micro\\_bM\\_ads\\], while the curves of constant $J$ in the parameter space of $(p,s)$ are plotted on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:hc\\_J\\_ads\\]. Just like in the Kerr-R\u00e9nyi case, we can see that there is no turning point of stability. The stability curves $-\\alpha(J)$ at constant $M$ and the curves of constant $M$ in the $(p,s)$ space are depicted on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:micro\\_maJ\\_ads\\] and Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:hc\\_M0\\_ads\\] respectively. The behavior of the stability curves is almost identical to the one of the Kerr-R\u00e9nyi case.\n\n![Stability curves of $\\beta(M)$ at fixed $J$ for Kerr-AdS black holes in the microcanonical treatment. The curves of $\\tilde{J} = 0.01$ (green), $\\tilde{J} = 0.025$ (red), and $\\tilde{J} =0.05$ (blue) are plotted. No vertical tangent occurs in either case. The figure rotated by $\\frac{\\pi}{2}$ clockwise represents the stability curves of $-M(\\beta)$ at fixed $J$ for the canonical ensemble, in which case the $\\tilde{J} = 0.01$ (green) curve has two vertical tangents.[]{data-label=\"fig:micro_bM_ads\"}](figure15.eps)\n\n![Plots of $J = \\mbox{const.}$ curves for $\\tilde{J} = 0.01$ (green), $\\tilde{J} = 0.025$ (red) and $\\tilde{J} =0.05$ (blue) on the $(p,s)$ space.[]{data-label=\"fig:hc_J_ads\"}](figure16.eps)\n\n![Curves of the conjugate variable $-\\alpha(J)$ at fixed $\\beta$ for Kerr-AdS black holes in the canonical treatment. The stability curves of $\\tilde{M} = 0.3$ (green), $\\tilde{M} = 0.4$ (red) and $\\tilde{M} = 0.6$ (blue) are plotted. There are no turning points on the diagram.[]{data-label=\"fig:micro_maJ_ads\"}](figure17.eps)\n\n![Plots of $M = \\mbox{const.}$ curves for $\\tilde{M} = 0.3$ (green), $\\tilde{M} = 0.4$ (red) and $\\tilde{M} = 0.6$ (blue) on the $(p,s)$ plane.[]{data-label=\"fig:hc_M0_ads\"}](figure18.eps)\n\nFor the canonical system, the stability curves of $-M(\\beta)$ at constant $J$ can be seen on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:micro\\_bM\\_ads\\] if we rotate it by $\\frac{\\pi}{2}$ clockwise. The figure shows the existence of a critical temperature, above which the Kerr-AdS black holes allow a first order SBH/LBH phase transition in the canonical ensemble. On Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:cano\\_maJ\\_ads\\] we plotted the stability curves of $-\\alpha(J)$ at constant $\\beta$. The curves of constant $\\beta$ on the $(p,s)$ space are plotted on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:hc\\_beta0\\_ads\\]. There are no turning points on the lower temperature (larger $\\beta$) curves, but higher temperature curves exhibit turning points. Therefore, a stability change of Kerr-AdS black holes occurs only when the temperature is higher than a certain critical value. Black holes with slightly higher temperature than the critical one have an unstable branch between two, more stable branches. There is another critical temperature above which a cusp appears on the stability curve at $(\\tilde{J},-\\alpha) = (0,0)$, where the Kerr-AdS black hole reduces to the Schwarzschild-AdS case. A vertical tangent occurs in the small black hole branch only, and no vertical tangent exists in the large black hole branch. From this result we can conclude that small and slowly rotating Kerr-AdS black holes are unstable in the canonical ensemble.\n\n![Curves of the conjugate variable $-\\alpha(J)$ at fixed $\\beta$ for Kerr-AdS black holes in the canonical ensemble. The curves of $\\tilde{\\beta} = 3$ (brown), $\\tilde{\\beta} = 3.63$ (green), $\\tilde{\\beta} = 3.7$ (red) and $\\tilde{\\beta} = 4$ (blue) are plotted. The $\\tilde{\\beta} = 3.63$ (green) curve has two turning points, while the $\\tilde{\\beta} = 3$ (brown) curve has two branches and the lower branch has a turning point.[]{data-label=\"fig:cano_maJ_ads\"}](figure19.eps)\n\n![Plots of $\\beta = \\mbox{const.}$ curves on the $(p,s)$ space for $\\tilde{\\beta} = 3$ (brown), $\\tilde{\\beta} = 3.63$ (green), $\\tilde{\\beta} = 3.7$ (red) and $\\tilde{\\beta} = 4$ (blue).[]{data-label=\"fig:hc_beta0_ads\"}](figure20.eps)\n\nAs it can be clearly seen from the analysis above, the thermodynamic properties of the Kerr-R\u00e9nyi and the Kerr-AdS-Boltzmann models are very similar. In the static case, we have obtained a simple relation between the entropy parameter $\\lambda$ and the AdS curvature parameter $l$ for black holes with identical horizon temperatures [@Biro:2013cra]. By assuming the same condition for stationary black holes augmented with the assumption of identical horizon angular velocity, we can derive analogous relations between the $(h,k)$ and $(p,s)$ parameters for rotating black holes by solving the following equations $$\\hat{T}_R (h,k) = \\hat{T}_{AdS} (p,s), ~~~ \\hat{\\Omega}_R (h,k) = \\hat{\\Omega}_{AdS} (p,s),$$ where we normalized the quantities by the horizon radius $r_{+}$ as $$\\hat{T} = T r_{+}, ~~~ \\hat{\\Omega} = \\Omega r_{+}.$$ As a result, a quantitative analogy between the Kerr-R\u00e9nyi and Kerr-AdS-Boltzmann pictures of black hole thermodynamics can be given by the parameter equations $$\\begin{aligned}\n p & = & \\frac{3+h^2+k \\pi -h^4 k \\pi -Y}{2 h}, \\\\\n s & = &  \\sqrt{\\frac{3(1+h^2)}{3-h^2+2 k \\pi -2 h^4 k \\pi \n -Y}},\\end{aligned}$$ where $$Y = \\sqrt{\\left(3-h^2\\right)^2+2 \\left(3+h^2-3 h^4-h^6\\right) k \\pi \n +\\left(1-h^4\\right)^2 k^2 \\pi ^2}.$$ These equations provide a very interesting correspondence between the two approaches.\n\nSummary and Conclusions {#sec:summary}\n=======================\n\nIn this paper we investigated the thermodynamic and stability properties of Kerr black holes described by the parametric, equilibrium- and zeroth law compatible R\u00e9nyi entropy function. The corresponding problem of static Schwarzschild black holes has been analyzed in [@Biro:2013cra; @Czinner:2015eyk], where interesting similarities have been found to the picture of standard black hole thermodynamics in asymptotically AdS space. In particular, a stability change and a Hawking\u2013Page transition have been identified, which motivated us to extend our investigations to the present (3+1)-dimensional, rotating problem as well.\n\nThe novel results of this work are the following. We derived the temperature and heat capacities of a Kerr black hole in the R\u00e9nyi approach, and found that the global maximum of the temperature-energy curve at a fixed angular momentum in the standard description becomes only a local maximum in the R\u00e9nyi model. In the thermodynamic stability analysis we investigated both the microcanonical and the canonical ensembles. We have plotted the stability curves of the Boltzmann-Gibbs and R\u00e9nyi entropy models, and showed that no stability change occurs for isolated black holes in either case. From this result, we concluded that, similarly to the standard Boltzmann case, isolated Kerr black holes are thermodynamically stable with respect to axisymmetric perturbations in the R\u00e9nyi approach.\n\nIn case when the black holes are surrounded by a bath of thermal radiation in the canonical picture, we found that, in contrast to the standard Boltzmann case, slowly rotating Kerr black holes can be in stable equilibrium with thermal radiation at a fixed temperature if the number of negative eigenmodes of the stability matrix is one. We showed that fast rotating black holes have similar stability properties to slowly rotating ones, and there may also exist intermediate size, unstable black holes. We also analyzed the question of possible phase transitions in the canonical picture, and found that, in addition to a Hawking\u2013Page transition, a first order small black hole/large black hole phase transition occurs in a very similar fashion as in AdS space. These findings indicate that there is a similarity between the Kerr-R\u00e9nyi and Kerr-AdS-Boltzamann models, analogous to the one that we found in the static case. Based on this result we also investigated the Poincar\u00e9 stability curves of Kerr-AdS black holes in the standard Boltzmann picture, and confirmed this similarity by obtaining simple algebraic relations between the parameters of the two approaches with identical surface temperature and angular velocity.\n\nThe above results may be relevant in many aspects of black hole physics. Our main motivation in the first place was to consider a statistical model to the nonextensive and nonlocal nature of black hole thermodynamics, where we do not assume *a priori* that the classical, additive Boltzamann statistics can describe this strongly gravitating system. The R\u00e9nyi form of the black hole entropy includes a parameter $\\lambda$, which seems to be a good candidate to incorporate the effects of the long-range type behavior of the gravitational field, while also being additive and satisfying both the equilibrium compatibility and the zeroth law\u2019s requirements. A specific model on how to compute the $\\lambda$ parameter value for the black hole problem is yet to be developed, but a similar approach has been considered in [@CzM] to describe the mutual information between spatially separated, compact domains of an inhomogeneous universe that are entangled via the gravitational field equations. In that work, as an effective model, the $\\lambda$ parameter of the Tsallis/R\u00e9nyi relative entropy has been defined in a geometric way in order to describe the causal connection between the domain and its surroundings during the cosmic evolution. Since black holes are essentially the final states of cosmic structure formation, one can expect that the two directions might be connected somehow in the nonlinear regime of matter collapse.\n\nAs a different direction, it is also interesting to mention that by considering the Boltzamann picture in the standard description, the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy has a nontrivial nonadditive property which also satisfies Abe\u2019s formula. In the case of Schwarzschild black holes this nonadditivity reads as $H_{\\lambda}(S)=\\sqrt{S}$ and for Kerr black holes $H_{\\lambda}(S)=\\frac{S}{\\sqrt{S-a^2\\pi}}$ with $\\lambda = 0$. The corresponding thermodynamic and stability problems (by also applying the formal logarithm method) has been studied in [@czinner2015black] and [@CzIg], respectively.\n\nIn the present parametric approach however, the most important result is the confirmation of a stability change and the Hawking\u2013Page transition of Kerr black holes in the R\u00e9nyi model. As we discussed in the introduction, this phenomena has many interesting connections with other open problems in theoretical physics, e.g.\u00a0the cosmic nucleation of matter into black holes in the early universe, or due to the similarity to the AdS-Boltzmann problem, it may also be connected to the AdS/CFT correspondence and related phenomena. A further motivation arises from a different possible interpretation of the parametric R\u00e9nyi picture originating from finite size reservoir effects in the canonical ensemble. In a recent paper [@Biro:2012bka], Bir\u00f3 showed that from the requirement of zero mutual information between a finite subsystem and a finite reservoir in thermodynamic equilibrium, the Tsallis- and R\u00e9nyi entropy formulas arise very naturally. Although we haven\u2019t worked out the details of this approach yet, it provides a nice possible interpretation of our findings as placing a black hole into a finite heat bath in the canonical approach instead of an infinite reservoir (which is an idealistic model), and require zero mutual information between the black hole and the reservoir in thermal equilibrium. In this situation the system is dominated by the bath, and Bir\u00f3 showed that the entropy parameter in this case is proportional to the heat capacity of the bath as $\\lambda=1/C_0$, where instead of the classical infinite approximation, the heat capacity of the bath is a large but finite constant $C_0$. This approach has been investigated e.g.\u00a0for the case when a quark-gluon plasma system is connected to a finite heat bath in [@Biro:2013qea].\n\nIn conclusion, several interesting consequences can be deduced from the R\u00e9nyi approach to black hole thermodynamics which is motivated by various physical considerations. Parametric corrections to the black hole entropy problem also arise from quantum considerations, e.g.\u00a0from string theory, loop quantum gravity or other semi-classical theories (see e.g.\u00a0[@Carlip:2014pma] and references therein), and we expect that other parametric situations are also possible which might be connected to the parametric R\u00e9nyi description.\n\nThe research leading to this result was supported by JSPS via an Invitation Fellowship for Research in Japan (Long-term) (No.\u00a0L14710) and a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No.\u00a023540319). V.G.Cz thanks to Funda\u00e7\u00e3o para a Ci\u00eancia e Tecnologia (FCT) Portugal, for financial support through Grant\u00a0No.\u00a0UID/FIS/00099/2013.\n\n[99]{}\n\nS.W.\u00a0Hawking and D.\u00a0Page, *Thermodynamics of Black Holes in anti-De Sitter Space*, *Commun.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**87**]{} (1983) 577. J.M.\u00a0Maldacena, *The Large N limit of superconformal field theories and supergravity*, *Int.\u00a0J.\u00a0Theor.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**38**]{} (1999) 1113. E.\u00a0Witten, *Anti-de Sitter space and holography*, *Adv.\u00a0Theor.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**2**]{} (1998) 253. D.\u00a0Mateos, R.C.\u00a0Myers and R.M.\u00a0Thomson, *Holographic Phase Transitions with Fundamental Matter*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.*\u00a0[**97**]{} (2006) 091601. D.\u00a0Mateos, R.C.\u00a0Myers and R.M.\u00a0Thomson, *Thermodynamics of the brane*, *JHEP* [**05**]{} (2007) 067. J.D.\u00a0Bekenstein, *Black holes and entropy*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D]{}* [**7**]{} (1973) 2333. J.M.\u00a0Bardeen et al., *The Four laws of black hole mechanics*, *Commun.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**31**]{} (1973) 161. S.W.\u00a0Hawking, *Particle Creation by Black Holes*, *Commun.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**43**]{} (1975) 199; S.W.\u00a0Hawking, *Black Holes and Thermodynamics*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D]{}* [**13**]{} (1976) 191. T.S.\u00a0Bir\u00f3 and P.\u00a0V\u00e1n, *Zeroth law compatibility of nonadditive thermodynamics*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0E]{}* [**83**]{} (2011) 061147. M.C.\u00a0Mackey, *Time\u2019s Arrow: The Origins of Thermodynamic Behaviour*, Springer, New York, (1992). C.\u00a0Tsallis, *Introduction to Non-Extensive Statistical Mechanics: Approaching a Complex World*, Springer (2009). T.S.\u00a0Bir\u00f3, *Abstract composition rule for relativistic kinetic energy in the thermodynamical limit*, *Europhys.\u00a0Lett.*\u00a0[**84**]{} (2008) 56003. P.T.\u00a0Landsberg, *Is equilibrium always an entropy maximum?*, *J.\u00a0Stat.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**35**]{} (1984) 159. A.M.\u00a0Salzberg, *Exact Statistical Thermodynamics of Gravitational Interactions in One and Two Dimensions*, *J.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**6**]{} (1965) 158. M.E.\u00a0Fisher and D.\u00a0Ruelle, *The Stability of Many\u2010Particle Systems*, *J.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**7**]{} (1966) 260; L.G.\u00a0Taff, *Celestia Mechanics*, Wiley, New York, (1985) p.\u00a0437. W.C.\u00a0Saslaw, *Gravitational Physics of Stellar and Galactic Systems*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1985) p.\u00a0217. D.\u00a0Pavon,*Thermodynamics of superstrings*, *Gen.\u00a0Rel.\u00a0Grav.*\u00a0[**19**]{} (1987) 375. J.\u00a0Binney and S.\u00a0Tremaine, *Galactic Dynamics*, Princeton University Press, Princeton, (1987) p.\u00a0267. H.E.\u00a0Kandrup, *Mixing and \u201cviolent relaxation\u201d for the one-dimensional gravitational Coulomb gas*, *Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0A* [**40**]{} (1989) 7265. H.S.\u00a0Robertson, *Statistical Thermophysics*, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, (1993) p.\u00a096. H. Bacry, *The existence of dark matter in question*, *Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B* [**317**]{} (1993) 523. J.W. Gibbs, *Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics\u2013Developed with Especial Reference to the Rational Foundation of Thermodynamics*, C. Scribner\u2019s Sons, New York, (1902) (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1948; OX Bow Press, Woodbridge, Connecticut, 1981), p. 35. C.\u00a0Tsallis and L.J.L.\u00a0Cirto, *Black hole thermodynamical entropy*, *Eur.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0J.\u00a0C* [**73**]{} (2013) 2487. P.C.W.\u00a0Davies, *Proc.\u00a0R.\u00a0Soc.\u00a0Lond.\u00a0A*, *Thermodynamics of Black Holes* [**353**]{} (1977) 499. P.T.\u00a0Landsberg and D.\u00a0Tranah, *Entropies need not to be concave*, *Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0A* [**78**]{} (1980) 219. N.T.\u00a0Bishop and P.T.\u00a0Landsberg, *The thermodynamics of a system containing two black holes and black-body radiation*, *Gen.\u00a0Rel.\u00a0Grav.* [**19**]{} (1987) 1083. D.\u00a0Pav\u00f3n and J.M.\u00a0Rub\u00ed, *On some properties of the entropy of a system containing a black hole*, *Gen.\u00a0Rel.\u00a0Grav.* [**18**]{} (1986) 1245. J.\u00a0 Maddox, *When entropy does not seem extensive*, *Nature*, [**365**]{} (1993) 103. G.\u00a0Gour, *Entropy bounds for charged and rotating systems*, *Class.\u00a0Quant.\u00a0Grav.*\u00a0[**20**]{} (2003) 3403. J.\u00a0Oppenheim, *Thermodynamics with long-range interactions: From Ising models to black holes*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0E]{}* [**68**]{} (2003) 016108. A.\u00a0Pesci, *Entropy of gravitating systems: Scaling laws versus radial profiles*, *Class.\u00a0Quant.\u00a0Grav.*\u00a0[**24**]{} (2007) 2283. R.F.\u00a0Aranha et al., *The Efficiency of Gravitational Bremsstrahlung Production in the Collision of Two Schwarzschild Black Holes*, *Int.\u00a0J.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0D* [**17**]{} (2008) 2049. P.T.\u00a0Landsberg, *Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics*, Dover, New York (1990). C.E.\u00a0Shannon, *A mathematical theory of communication*, *Bell. Syst.\u00a0Tech.\u00a0J.*\u00a0[**27**]{} (1948) 379; ibid.\u00a0623. A.I.\u00a0Khinchin, *Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory*, Dover, New York (1957). P.\u00a0Tempesta, *Beyond the Shannon-Khinchin Formulation: The Composability Axiom and the Universal Group Entropy*, *Ann.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**365**]{} (2016) 180. C.\u00a0Tsallis, *Possible Generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs Statistics*, *J.\u00a0Stat.\u00a0Phys.*\u00a0[**52**]{} (1988) 479. T.S.\u00a0Bir\u00f3 and V.G.\u00a0Czinner, *A $q$-parameter bound for particle spectra based on black hole thermodynamics with R\u00e9nyi entropy*, *Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B* [**726**]{} (2013) 861. A.\u00a0R\u00e9nyi, *On the dimension and entropy of probability distributions*, *Acta.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Acad.\u00a0Sci.\u00a0Hung.*\u00a0[**10**]{} (1959) 193. A.\u00a0Renyi, *Probability Theory*, North Holland, Amsterdam (1970). J.D.\u00a0Bekenstein, *A Universal Upper Bound on the Entropy to Energy Ratio for Bounded Systems*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D]{}* [**23**]{} (1981) 287. C.\u00a0Beck, *Generalized statistical mechanics of cosmic rays*, *Physica A* [**331**]{} (2004) 173. C.\u00a0Beck, *Superstatistics in high-energy physics. Application to cosmic ray energy spectra and $e^+e^-$ annihilation*, *Eur.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0J.\u00a0A*[**40**]{} (2009) 267. T.S.\u00a0Bir\u00f3 and K.\u00a0\u00dcrm\u00f6ssy, *Non-extensive equilibration in relativistic matter*, *J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0G* [**36**]{} (2009) 064044. O.\u00a0Kaburaki, I.\u00a0Okamoto and J.\u00a0Katz, *Thermodynamic stability of Kerr black holes*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D]{}* [**47**]{} (1993) 2234. J.\u00a0Katz, I.\u00a0Okamoto, and O.\u00a0Kaburaki, *Thermodynamic stability of pure black holes*, *Class.\u00a0Quant.\u00a0Grav.* [**10**]{} (1993) 1323. O.\u00a0Kaburaki, *Critical behavior of extremal Kerr-Newman black holes*, *Gen.\u00a0Rel.\u00a0Grav.* [**28**]{} (1996) 843. H.\u00a0Poincar\u00e9, *Sur l\u2019[\u00e9]{}quilibre d\u2019une masse fluide anim[\u00e9]{}e d\u2019un mouvement de rotation*, *Acta.\u00a0Math.* [**7**]{} (1885) 259. G.\u00a0Arcioni and E.\u00a0Lozano-Tellechea, *Stability and critical phenomena of black holes and black rings*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D]{}* [**72**]{} (2005) 104021. M.\u00a0Azreg-A\u00efnou and M.\u00a0E.\u00a0Rodrigues, *Thermodynamical, geometrical and Poincar\u00e9 methods for charged black holes in presence of quintessence*, *JHEP* [**09**]{} (2013) 146. V.G.\u00a0Czinner and H.\u00a0Iguchi, *R\u00e9nyi entropy and the thermodynamic stability of black holes*, *Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B* [**752**]{} (2016) 306. V.G.\u00a0Czinner and F.C.\u00a0Mena, *Relative information entropy in cosmology: The problem of information entanglement*, *Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B* [**758**]{} (2016) 9. A.\u00a0Chamblin et al., *Charged AdS black holes and catastrophic holography*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D]{}* [**60**]{} (1999) 064018. A.\u00a0Chamblin et al., *Holography, thermodynamics and fluctuations of charged AdS black holes*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D]{}* [**60**]{} (1999) 104026. M.M.\u00a0Caldarelli, G.\u00a0Cognola and D.\u00a0Klemm, *Thermodynamics of Kerr-Newman-AdS black holes and conformal field theories*, *Class.\u00a0Quant.\u00a0Grav.* [**17**]{} (2000) 399. Y-D.\u00a0Tsai, X.N.\u00a0Wu and Y.\u00a0Yang, *Phase Structure of Kerr-AdS Black Hole*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D]{}* [**85**]{} (2012) 044005. N.\u00a0Altamirano et al., *Thermodynamics of rotating black holes and black rings: phase transitions and thermodynamic volume*, *Galaxies* [**2(1)**]{} (2014) 89. S.\u00a0Abe, *General pseudoadditivity of composable entropy prescribed by the existence of equilibrium*, *[Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0E]{}* [**63**]{} (2001) 061105. http://tsallis.cat.cbpf.br/TEMUCO.pdf. C.A.M.\u00a0Vald\u00e9s et al., *Nonextensivity and Tsallis entropy in DNA fragmentation patterns by ionizing radiation*, *Journal of Modern Physics* [**3**]{} (2012) 431. I.\u00a0Okamoto and O.\u00a0Kaburaki, *The third law of thermodynamics for Kerr black holes*, *Mon.\u00a0Not.\u00a0Roy.\u00a0Astron.\u00a0Soc.* [**250**]{} (1991) 300. J.\u00a0Katz, *On the number of unstable modes of an equilibrium*, *Mon.\u00a0Not.\u00a0Roy.\u00a0Astron.\u00a0Soc.* [**183**]{} (1978) 765. J.\u00a0Katz, *On the Number of Unstable Modes of an Equilibrium - Part Two*, *Mon.\u00a0Not.\u00a0Roy.\u00a0Astron.\u00a0Soc.* [**189**]{} (1979) 817. R.\u00a0Sorkin, *A Criterion for the onset of instability at a turning point*, *Astrophys.\u00a0J.*\u00a0[**249**]{} (1981) 254. O.\u00a0Kaburaki, *Should entropy be concave?*, *Physics Letters A* [**185**]{} (1994) 21. V.G.\u00a0Czinner, *Black hole entropy and the zeroth law of thermodynamics*, *Int.\u00a0J.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0D* [**24**]{} (2015) 1542015. V.G.\u00a0Czinner and Hideo Iguchi, *A zeroth law compatible model to Kerr black hole thermodynamics*, *Universe* [**3**]{} (2017) 14. T.S.\u00a0Bir\u00f3, *Ideal gas provides q-entropy*, *Physica A* [**392**]{} (2013) 3132. T.S.\u00a0Bir\u00f3 et al., *Quark-gluon plasma connected to finite heat bath*, *Eur.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0J.\u00a0A* [**49**]{} (2013) 110. S.\u00a0Carlip, *Black Hole Thermodynamics*, *Int.\u00a0J.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0D* [**23**]{} (2014) 1430023.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We continue our study (Grechnev [*et al.*]{} (2013), doi:10.1007/s11207-013-0316-6; Paper I) on the 18 November 2003 geoffective event. To understand possible impact on geospace of coronal transients observed on that day, we investigated their properties from solar near-surface manifestations in extreme ultraviolet, LASCO white-light images, and dynamic radio spectra. We reconcile near-surface activity with the expansion of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and determine their orientation relative to the earthward direction. The kinematic measurements, dynamic radio spectra, and microwave and X-ray light curves all contribute to the overall picture of the complex event and confirm an additional eruption at 08:07\u201308:20\u00a0UT close to the solar disk center presumed in Paper\u00a0I. Unusual characteristics of the ejection appear to match those expected for a source of the 20 November superstorm but make its detection in LASCO images hopeless. On the other hand, none of the CMEs observed by LASCO seem to be a promising candidate for a source of the superstorm being able to produce, at most, a glancing blow on the Earth\u2019s magnetosphere. Our analysis confirms free propagation of shock waves revealed in the event and reconciles their kinematics with \u201cEUV waves\u201d and dynamic radio spectra up to decameters.'\nauthor:\n- 'V.V.\u00a0$^{1}$, A.M.\u00a0$^{1}$, I.M.\u00a0$^{2}$, V.A.\u00a0$^{3}$, B.P.\u00a0$^{2}$, Ya.I.\u00a0$^{1}$, V.G.\u00a0$^{1}$, A.N.\u00a0$^{1}$, N.P.\u00a0$^{4}$, M.\u00a0$^{5}$'\ndate: 'Received ; accepted '\ntitle: 'A Challenging Solar Eruptive Event of 18 November 2003 and the Causes of the 20 November Geomagnetic Superstorm. II. CMEs, Shock Waves, and Drifting Radio Bursts'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe geomagnetic storm on 20 November 2003 with Dst $= -422$\u00a0nT was the strongest one after the destructive superstorm on 13\u201314 March 1989 (Dst $= -589$\u00a0nT) and has not been surpassed since. The causes of the extreme nature of the 20 November 2003 superstorm and its solar source remain unclear in spite of several attempts to understand them (*e.g.*, ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , and others). The challenge of this superstorm urged us to investigate into various aspects of the 18 November solar eruptive event in active region (AR) 10501 that is considered to be its only possible source. Eruptions from AR\u00a010501 have been addressed in Paper\u00a0I [@Grechnev2013_I]. Its conclusions are: (i)\u00a0eruption at 07:29 (all times are referred to UT) produced a missed M1.2 flare probably associated with onset of the first southeast coronal mass ejection, CME1; (ii)\u00a0eruptions before 07:55 are unlikely to be responsible for the superstorm; (iii)\u00a0the eruptive filament collided with a topological discontinuity, bifurcated, and transformed into a Y-shaped cloud, which had not left the Sun; thus, the filament should not be directly related to the magnetic cloud hitting the Earth; (iv)\u00a0one more eruptive episode possibly occurred between 08:07 and 08:17 that could be related to the disintegration of the filament and led to other consequences open to question.\n\nAll of the listed studies assumed that the source of the superstorm was either the southeast CME1 observed by the *Large Angle and Spectroscopic Coronagraph* (LASCO; ) starting from 08:06 or, more probably, the second southwest halo CME (CME2), which appeared at 08:49. According to the model of the cone CME geometry (*e.g.*, ; ), the halo shape indicates the earthward (or the opposite) propagation of a CME. Therefore, CME2 has been considered as the major candidate for the source of the superstorm. On the other hand, it is possible that the outer halo of CME2 was a trace of a shock front. If so, then CME2 was not necessarily Earth-directed. Thus, it is necessary to find out the nature of the structural components of CME2 and its actual orientation.\n\nOne more challenge of this event is the mismatch between the right-handed helical magnetic cloud (MC) and the pre-eruption region of left-handed helicity established by . To resolve the problem, the authors proposed a right-handed helical ejection from a minor area of AR\u00a010501. Based on this idea, related CME1 to a partial eruption at 07:41 from this area and proposed a merger of the magnetic structures of CME1 (presumably right-handed) and CME2. The authors supported the interaction between the CMEs by a drifting radio burst observed by *Wind*/WAVES around 09:00. Another attempt to understand the encounter of the MC with the Earth based on the conjecture of was made by who considered that the MC evolved from a single right-handed CME. Neither of these studies presented a quantitative confirmation of their conjectures, whilst attributing the superstorm to a partial eruption from a minor region seems to be questionable.\n\nPaper\u00a0I concluded that CME1 was probably initiated in the east, excessively left-handed, part of AR\u00a010501 at 07:29 (consistent with an estimate of ) in association with an unreported M1.2 flare thus contradicting the interpretations of , , and . This is why the source region of CME1 is important.\n\nThe present paper (Paper\u00a0II) is focused on CME1 and CME2 and the probable nature of their components. In order to understand their possible geoeffective implications, we in particular address the following questions: when and where was CME1 initiated, how was CME2 directed with respect to the Earth, and what erupted between 08:07 and 08:17 close to the solar disk center. We specify measurements of and confirm the results by comparing them to signatures of shock waves in dynamic radio spectra at metric and decametric wavelengths as well as their possible near-surface traces. White studying this particular event, we pursue a better understanding of CMEs and related phenomena.\n\nSection\u00a0\\[S-kinematics\\] describes our measurement techniques. Section\u00a0\\[S-overview\\] outlines the pre-event situation and its overall evolution. Section\u00a0\\[S-observations\\] analyzes the observations. The results are discussed in Section\u00a0\\[S-discussion\\] and summarized in Section\u00a0\\[S-conclusion\\].\n\nMeasurement Techniques {#S-kinematics}\n======================\n\nTwo kinds of transients appear in LASCO images: magnetoplasma CME components (henceforth \u2018mass ejections\u2019 or \u2018CMEs\u2019) and traces of waves (; ; @Grechnev2011_I, [-@Grechnev2011_I; -@Grechnev2011_III]). The kinematics of the two kinds of transient are different. This section describes kinematics of non-wave and wavelike transients and methods of measurement.\n\nWe consider two kinds of wave signatures in LASCO images: faint non-structured (or structured by coronal rays) halo-like outermost envelopes of CMEs and deflections of coronal streamers. The brightness of the halos can be very low. Mass ejections are significantly brighter, with well pronounced loops or threads in their structure. It is difficult to reliably identify both wave signatures and CME structures in a single set of images. We therefore use two separate sets processed in different ways to measure wave traces and mass ejections. For CMEs we use ratios of current LASCO images $C(j)$ to a fixed pre-event image $C(0)$ and limit the values in the ratios from both above and below with thresholds $A_0 \\lsim 1$ and $A_1 \\gsim 1$, $A_0 < I_\\mathrm{CME}(j)\n= C(j)/C(0) < A_1$. For wave signatures we use ratios of running differences $C(j)-C(j-1)$ to preceding images $C(j-1)$ also with optimized contrast by adjusting the corresponding thresholds $B_0\n\\lsim 0$ and $B_1 \\gsim 0$, $B_0 < I_\\mathrm{wave}(j) =\n[C(j)-C(j-1)]/C(j-1) < B_1$.\n\nMass Ejections {#S-cme_expansion}\n--------------\n\nThe kinematics of coronal transients have been measured in several different ways. Height-time plots are obtained by measuring a characteristic CME feature. Then the measurements are differentiated (*e.g.*, ; @Temmer2008, [-@Temmer2008; -@Temmer2010]). Alternatively, the measurements are fit with an analytic function such as polynomial [@Yashiro2004; @Gopal2009], Gaussian [@WangZhangShen2009], or more sophisticated models [@KrallChenSantoro2000].\n\nBoth approaches should converge to similar results, but each method has its shortcomings. Differentiation of measurements is critical to temporal sampling, errors, and provides large uncertainties. The adequacy of an analytic fit might be questionable. For example, the polynomial fit used in the SOHO LASCO CME Catalog (; , <http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME_list/>) is probably the best way for approximately evaluating the kinematics of CMEs, but the underlying assumption of a constant (or zero) acceleration (*i.e.*, the constancy of the driving/retarding force) does not seem to be realistic. Employment of theoretical models like the flux rope model of @Chen1989 ([-@Chen1989; -@Chen1996]; *e.g.*, ) is complex, whereas its veracity has not been established.\n\nOur way is based on self-similarity of CME expansion (see, *e.g.*, ; ). The theory of self-similar expansion of solar CMEs was developed by . A description of a self-similar expansion convenient for analysis of observations was proposed by . A self-similar expansion of an individual plasma packet under the frozen-field conditions and negligible drag of the medium is described by an equation $$\\rho \\frac{d{\\bf v}}{dt}=\\frac 1{4\\pi }{\\bf {rotB\\times B}}-{\\bf\n{grad}}{p}- \\rho \\frac{GM_{\\odot}}{r^2}{\\bf {e}_{\\bf {r}}} = \\\\\n{\\bf {F}}_B+{\\bf {F}}_p+{\\bf {F}}_g,\n \\label{E-momentum}$$ where $p$ and $\\rho$ are the gas pressure and density; ${\\bf B}$ the magnetic field vector, ${\\bf v}$ the velocity, $M_{\\odot}$ the mass of the Sun, and $G$ the gravitational constant. ${\\bf F}_B$, ${\\bf\nF}_p$, and ${\\bf F}_g$ are the total magnetic, plasma pressure, and gravitational forces affecting the unit volume. Let $R=R(t)$ be some spatial scale characterizing the size of the expanding region at the instant $t$. The forces in Equation (\\[E-momentum\\]) depend on the distance $R$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n|{\\bf F}_B| \\propto \\left( \\frac{R_0}{R}\\right)^4 \\frac{1}{R}, \\quad\n|{\\bf F}_p| \\propto \\left( \\frac{R_0}{R}\\right)^{3\\gamma}\n\\frac{1}{R}, \\quad |{\\bf F}_g| \\propto \\left( \\frac{R_0}{R}\\right)^3\n\\frac{1}{R^2},\n \\label{E-f_dependence}\\end{aligned}$$ where $R_0$ is the initial size of the self-similar expansion. Force ${\\bf F}_B$ combines all magnetic forces affecting the expanding packet including propelling magnetic pressure and retarding magnetic tension. Force ${\\bf F}_p$ due to plasma pressure is directed outward. The gravitational force ${\\bf F}_g$ retards expansion. With a polytropic index $\\gamma =4/3$, all the terms in Equation (\\[E-f\\_dependence\\]) which appear in the right-hand-side of Equation (\\[E-momentum\\]) decrease synchronously with distance and time by the same scaling factor preserving orientation. This fact determines the self-similar expansion of the ejecta. From the expressions of , the instant velocity $v$ can be related to the distance from the expansion center $R$ [@Grechnev2008]: $$\\begin{aligned}\nv^2 = v_0^2+\\left(v_\\infty^2 - v_0^2\\right)\\left({1-R_0/R}\\right),\n \\label{E-expansion_vel}\\end{aligned}$$ where $v = dR/dt$ and $v_0$ and $v_\\infty$ are the initial and asymptotic velocities of the self-similar expansion stage. Analysis of this expression shows the following [@Grechnev2011_I].\n\n1.  Acceleration of the ejecta in self-similar expansion can only decrease by the absolute value or be exactly zero. Therefore, *the self-similar approach does not apply to initial stages, when the acceleration increases.*\n\n2.  Acceleration $a$, if nonzero, goes at large distances ($R \\approx r \\gg\n    R_\\odot$) as $|a| \\propto r^{-2} \\to 0$. Thus, *self-similar expansion cannot be fit with any polynomial.*\n\n3.  Three expansion regimes are possible:\n\n    (a)\u00a0accelerating ejecta, $v_0 < v_\\infty$;\n\n    (b)\u00a0decelerating ejecta, $v_0 > v_\\infty$ (\u2018explosive\u2019 eruption);\n\n    (c)\u00a0inertial expansion, $v_0 = v_\\infty$.\n\nThe accelerating regime (a) probably applies to all non-flare-related CMEs and many flare-related ones. In cases (b) and (c), a strong initial impulsive acceleration occurs before the onset of the self-similar stage.\n\nIntegrating Equation (\\[E-expansion\\_vel\\]), despite its simplicity, cannot provide an explicit distance *vs.* time dependence. The following expression allows one to calculate a self-similar expansion implicitly, as time $t$ *vs.* the heliocentric distance $r$, given the distance of the eruption center $r_\\mathrm{c}$ and the CME velocity $v_1$ measured at time $t_1$ at a distance $r_1$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n t(r) = t_1 + 1/v_\\infty^3 \\times\n \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\nonumber\\\\\n \\left\\{\n    S v_\\infty \\sqrt{r-r_\\mathrm{c}} - v_\\infty v_1 r_1\n                   + (v_\\infty^2-v_1^2) r_1 \\ln \\left[ \\frac{ v_\\infty \\sqrt{r-r_\\mathrm{c}} + S } {(v_\\infty +\n                    v_1) \\sqrt{r_1}}\\right]\n                    \\right\\}\n                    \\label{E-self_sim_exp} \\\\\n \\mathrm{with} \\quad S = \\sqrt{v_\\infty^2 (r-r_\\mathrm{c}-r_1)+v_1^2 r_1}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ The initial estimates of $v_1$ and $v_\\infty$ can be taken from the CME catalog and improved iteratively. The onset time $t_0$ of a self-similar expansion is: $$\\begin{aligned}\nt_0 = \\left\\{\n \\begin{array}{cc}\n t(r_\\mathrm{c}) \\;\\; & \\mathrm{for} \\quad v_1 > v_\\infty, \\\\\n t\\left( \\left[ {r_\\mathrm{c} + r_1 \\left( 1-\n\\frac{v_1^2}{v_\\infty^2} \\right) }\n \\right]\n \\right)  \\;\\; & \\mathrm{for} \\quad v_1 < v_\\infty.\n \\end{array}\n \\right.\n  \\label{E-onset_time}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nMonotonically decreasing or zero acceleration is consistent with observations (see, *e.g.*, ; ; @Temmer2008, [-@Temmer2008; -@Temmer2010]). Although the self-similar approximation does not apply to the initial impulsive acceleration stage, it promises a better fit to the observed CME expansion and higher accuracy of the estimated onset time than the polynomial fit does.\n\nIn specifying the CME onset times we also employ the temporal closeness of the major CME acceleration with hard X-ray (HXR) or microwave bursts revealed in the mentioned series of the papers as well as the Neupert effect [@Neupert1968]. These circumstances indicate that the CME velocity profile is roughly reflected in the rising phase of the corresponding soft X-ray light curve recorded with GOES.\n\nWaves {#S-wave_expansion}\n-----\n\nCME-associated waves are most likely excited by abrupt eruptions of magnetic ropes inside developing CMEs during rising hard X-ray and microwave bursts [@Grechnev2011_I]. The waves rapidly steepen into shocks, pass through the forming CME frontal structures, and freely propagate afterwards for some time like decelerating blast waves (*cf.* ). The corresponding quantitative description allows one to reconcile manifestations of shocks in different emissions including Moreton waves, \u2018EUV waves\u2019, metric type II bursts, and leading edges of CMEs. A narrowband harmonic type II burst appears if the shock front compresses the current sheet of a coronal streamer, producing a running flare-like process [@Uralova1994].\n\nA simple model (@Grechnev2008 [-@Grechnev2008; -@Grechnev2011_I; -@Grechnev2011_III]) describes propagation of such a blast-like shock wave in plasma with a radial power-law density falloff $\\delta$ from an eruption center, $n =\nn_0(x/h_0)^{-\\delta}$. Here $x$ is the distance and $n_0$ is the density at a distance of $h_0 \\approx 100$ Mm, which is close to the scale height. The propagation of a shock wave in the self-similar approximation is determined by plasma density distribution, being almost insensitive to the magnetic fields. Such a wave decelerates if $\\delta < 3$, due to a growing mass of swept-up plasma. Propagation of such a shock *vs.* time $t$ is described by an expression $x(t) \\propto t^{2/(5-\\delta)}$, which is more convenient for use in a form $$\\begin{aligned}\nx(t) = x_1[(t-t_0)/(t-t_1)]^{2/(5-\\delta)},\n \\label{E-pl_fit}\\end{aligned}$$ where $t$ and $x$ are the current time and distance, $t_0$ is the wave onset time, and $t_1$ and $x_1$ correspond to one of the measured fronts.\n\nTo fit the drift of a type II burst, we take an initial estimate of $\\delta$ (typically $2 \\leq \\delta \\leq 2.8$) and choose a reference point on a band with a harmonic number $N_\\mathrm{ref}$ (1 or 2) at a frequency $f_\\mathrm{ref}$ and time $t_1$. The corresponding plasma density is $n_1 = [f_\\mathrm{ref}(t_1) N_\\mathrm{ref}^{-1}/(9\n\\times 10^3 )]^{2}$, and the height is $x_1 =\nh_0\\,(n_0/n_1)^{1/\\delta}$. Then the height\u2013time plot of the shock tracer is calculated from Equation (\\[E-pl\\_fit\\]); the corresponding density variation is $ n(t) =\nn_0\\,[x(t)/h_0]^{-\\delta}$. The trajectory of the fundamental-emission type II band is $f_\\mathrm{fund}(t) = 9 \\times\n10^3 [n(t)]^{1/2}$, and the trajectory of the harmonic-emission band is $f_\\mathrm{harm}(t) = 2 f_\\mathrm{fund}(t)$. By adjusting $\\delta$ and $t_0$ in sequential attempts, we approach a best trajectory of the bands [@Grechnev2011_I]. The spectrum can be reconciled with measured heights by adjusting $n_0$, as usually done.\n\nPresumed traces of shocks in coronagraph images are fitted similarly. Input parameters are starting estimates of $\\delta$ and $t_0$, the heliocentric distances of the wave origin $r_0$ and the wave front $r_1$ measured at a time $t_1$. The initial approximation of the height\u2013time plot is $r(t)=(r_1-r_0)\\left[(t-t_0)/(t_1-t_0)\\right]^{2/(5-\\delta)} +\nr_0$. Then a best fit is achieved in sequential attempts (@Grechnev2011_I [-@Grechnev2011_I; -@Grechnev2011_III]).\n\nResizing Representation {#S-resize}\n-----------------------\n\nCMEs are usually analyzed by using images in which the spatial resolution is fixed so that the Sun has the same size, while a CME expands. Self-similarity of CME expansion can be used to improve the accuracy of measurements. We adjust the spatial scale to fix the CME size. This way reveals properties of CME expansion that are difficult to notice in the usual representation.\n\nWe resize images according to a corresponding fit described in the preceding sections to compensate expansion of a transient and keep its visible size unchanged. In each of the resized images we outline the whole transient with an oval by changing its parameters according to an analytic fit and endeavor to catch the outer contour. Fitting the whole transient rather than single feature considerably improves the accuracy, and resizing all of the images by a single fit allows us to neglect minor irregular deviations between sequential images. Small systematic trends can be detected and compensated for in looking at a movie composed from resized images. Measurement accuracy can be farther improved in this way.\n\nThe resizing representation also (i)\u00a0facilitates detection of deviations in expansion of CME components from a self-similar one providing indications of their nature and revealing internal motions in a CME, (ii)\u00a0allows measurements from CME flanks when its leading edge departs from the field of view; (iii)\u00a0simplifies identification of CME components visible in white light with structures observed in different emissions at earlier stages of an eruption.\n\nFrom the kinematics of CMEs and shock waves it follows that a CME asymptotically approaches a fixed velocity, while a related shock wave continuously decelerates. The relative distance between a fast CME and the shock front decreases so that eventually it enters the bow-shock regime. This probably occurs beyond the field of view of LASCO-C3, while the approach of a CME to the leading wave front is sometimes visible in resized images. If a CME is not fast enough, then the shock decays to a weak fast-mode disturbance.\n\nOverview of the Event {#S-overview}\n=====================\n\nPre-event Situation\n-------------------\n\nThe pre-event situation is presented in Figure\u00a0\\[F-pre-event\\]. The H$\\alpha$ image in Figure\u00a0\\[F-pre-event\\]a (Kanzelh[\u00f6]{}he Solar Observatory, KSO) shows a large U-shaped filament F1 rooted in AR\u00a010501 and pointed southwest. The pre-eruption filament was inclined to the solar surface by $\\approx 60^{\\circ}$ ($\\approx\n23^{\\circ}$ to the line of sight, see Paper\u00a0I). The green contours show the neutral line of the line-of-sight magnetic component ($B_l$) at the photospheric level. The green contours are rather coarse tracers mainly corresponding to dark filaments F1, F2, and F3 in the H$\\alpha$ image, but deviating considerably from a high-latitude southeast filament.\n\n![Pre-event situation in a KSO H$\\alpha$ image (a) and EIT images at 171\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0(b), 195\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0(c), and 284\u00a0\u00c5(d). The green contours present the magnetic neutral line. F1 is the pre-eruption main filament, F2 an F3 are remote filaments. The light-blue oval marks region Rb where the eruptive filament bifurcated. The axes show the coordinates in arcsec from the solar disk center.[]{data-label=\"F-pre-event\"}](pre_event.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nSouthwest neighbors of AR\u00a010501 were AR\u00a010503 and region \u2018Rb\u2019 (small light-blue oval) where eruptive filament F1 bifurcated. Long loops labeled in Figure\u00a0\\[F-pre-event\\]c south from region Rb connected a western plage region with the south edge of AR\u00a010501. Figures\u00a0\\[F-pre-event\\]b and \\[F-pre-event\\]c show that filaments F2 and F3 visible in Figure\u00a0\\[F-pre-event\\]a were arranged along an extended channel still farther southwest. The propagation of shock waves excited by eruptions could be affected by density inhomogeneities indicated by brighter regions by the sides of the filaments as well as a large coronal hole northeast of AR\u00a010501 in Figure\u00a0\\[F-pre-event\\]d (EIT 284\u00a0\u00c5; ).\n\nTime Profiles and Episodes of the Whole Event\n---------------------------------------------\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[F-timeprof\\] presents time profiles of soft (a,b) and hard (c) X-ray emissions as well as microwaves (d) for the whole event. The GOES soft X-ray (SXR) light curves are supplied with comments on their importance, positions of the flares, and onset times of the CMEs estimated by and specified below. A detailed description is given in Paper\u00a0I.\n\n![Flare emissions throughout the whole event. (a)\u00a0GOES SXR flux; (b)\u00a0its extended part in the interval marked with dash-dotted lines in panel (a); (c)\u00a0hard X-ray flux; (d)\u00a0microwaves at 5 GHz (black) and 2.7 GHz (gray, magnified by a factor of 10).[]{data-label=\"F-timeprof\"}](timeprofs2.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nTable\u00a0\\[T-table1\\] lists associations of the flare peaks E1\u2013E4 with eruptive episodes according to Paper\u00a0I. Episode E1 with strong impulsive HXR and microwave bursts increased the SXR flux up to $\\approx\\,$M1.2 level but was not reported as a separate event. After E1, H$\\alpha$ flare ribbons, a flare arcade, and EUV dimmings have appeared. This episode is a candidate for the onset of CME1, but a related eruption was not observed (TRACE had a gap in observations). This caused confusion about the onset time of CME1 in some preceding studies.\n\n  ----- ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------\n  E1        07:29     Eruption in the east part of AR\u00a010501. Unreported M1.2 flare\n  E2        07:41     Impulsive jet-like ejection. Main filament F1 departs\n  E3        07:56     Main filament F1 accelerates\n  E4A       08:09     Eruptive filament F1 collides with region of bifurcation\n  E4B       08:12     Eruptive filament F1 bifurcates\n  E4C       08:16     Region of bifurcation dims and disconnects from AR\u00a010501\n  E4D       08:24     Last flare episode (not considered in Paper I)\n  \u2013      08:23\u201309:55  Remnants of filament F1 move toward the limb as Y-like cloud\n  ----- ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  : Episodes of eruption in AR\u00a010501 revealed in Paper\u00a0I.[]{data-label=\"T-table1\"}\n\nAn impulsive jetlike ejection erupted at 07:41 (E2) along the southeast leg of filament F1 and then moved along the loops denoted in Figure\u00a0\\[F-pre-event\\]c. Paper\u00a0I concluded that development of a CME in episode E2 was unlikely, but the sharp ejection could have produced a shock. The latter conjecture is supported by a type II burst, which was reported by several observatories starting from 07:47.\n\nFilament F1 slowly departed after episode E2 and additionally accelerated to 110\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ during a weak episode E3. At about 08:07 the eruptive filament collided with region Rb and bifurcated. The collision and subsequent phenomena were manifested in a four-component flare observed in the H$\\alpha$ line in KSO, in EUV with TRACE, and in HXR with RHESSI (@Miklenic2007 [-@Miklenic2007; -@Miklenic2009]; ). The HXR peaks E4A and E4B (Figure\u00a0\\[F-timeprof\\]c) had a response in the bifurcation region Rb, indicating its connection with the flare site in AR\u00a010501 that later disappeared. Dimming developed in region Rb at that time.\n\nThen the bifurcated filament inverted and transformed into a large dark Y-shaped cloud visible in the CORONAS-F/SPIRIT 304\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0images to move during 08:23\u201309:55 southwest toward the limb. The fastest part of the Y-darkening had a speed of $\\approx\n210$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$, and its main body which had an initial speed of 110\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ decelerated, suggesting an almost constant real speed nearly along the solar surface.\n\nThe transformation of the eruptive filament and disconnection of the bifurcation region Rb from AR\u00a010501 suggest one more significant eruption during episodes E4A\u2013E4C. Paper\u00a0III (Uralov *et al.*, in preparation) will consider what occurred in this region at that time. A later eruption associated with an M4.5 SXR peak at 10:11 (Figure\u00a0\\[F-timeprof\\]a) occurred at the east limb in a rising region 10508 (return of AR\u00a010486). Most likely, this event was related to the third, large CME, whose extrapolated onset time was about 09:40 [@Gopal2005].\n\nCMEs\n----\n\nFigures\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]a and \\[F-3cmes\\]c show LASCO ratio images of three significant CMEs observed on that day (; ; ). The EIT 195\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0ratio images in the central insets are magnified by factors 1.45 (a) and 2.68 (b,c) to better show related surface activity. The EIT 195\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0ratio image in Figure\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]d presents changes throughout the whole event in AR\u00a010501. CME1 and CME2 were related to this event.\n\n![Three major CMEs of 18 November (a\u2013c) and summary of surface activity in the post-event/pre-event EIT 195\u00a0\u00c5ratio image (d). EIT ratio images inserted into the LASCO ratio images are magnified by factors 1.45 (a) and 2.68 (b,c) for better viewing. The solid circles denote the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs. The broken circles denote the solar limb in EIT images. The axes show distances from the solar disk center in solar radii (a\u2013c) and in arcsec (d).[]{data-label=\"F-3cmes\"}](3cmes_eit.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThe southeast CME1 (Figure\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]a) appeared at 08:06. Its linear-fit speed was 1223 km\u00a0s$^{-1}$. The onset time estimated by was about 07:22. The volume of CME1 appears to be filled with enhanced-density diffuse material and loop-like structures. The CME structure approximately corresponds on the Sun to an elongated south dimming, a deeper central dimming adjacent to a bright arcade, and the arcade itself. The dimming and flare arcade started to develop before 07:35 according to EUV and H$\\alpha$ data (Figure\u00a04 of Paper\u00a0I) suggesting that the onset time of CME1 was still earlier, most likely, corresponding to the flare episode E1 at 07:29. In addition to the relatively narrow south CME1, its faint partial-halo extension is detectable in the whole eastern half of the image suggesting an expanding wave disturbance.\n\nThe brighter, wider and faster southwest CME2 (Figure\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]b) appeared at 08:49. Its east flank intruded into CME1 (the intrusion region IR in the figure). The linear-fit speed of the fastest feature of CME2 was 1660 km\u00a0s$^{-1}$. detected the inner and outer components of CME2 and estimated their onset times of about 08:08 and 08:20, respectively. The structure of CME2 looks different from a three-part one: neither a bright core nor dark cavity separating it from the frontal structure were pronounced. The inner component consisted of radial threadlike features, suggesting that it was an expanding arcade. The faint outer halo component had a diffuse non-structured body and a pronounced leading edge. This halo edge crossed a distorted streamer\u00a01 in Figure\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]b well ahead of the inner structure, suggesting an expanding shock wave [@Sheeley2000; @Vourlidas2003; @Grechnev2011_I]. A large central dimming in regions Rb and AR\u00a010503 in Figure\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]b suggests location of a CME source region there.\n\nA large southeast CME3 observed starting from 09:50 (Figure\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]c) was not related to AR\u00a010501 (; ; ). Most likely, CME3 was due to an eruption at the east limb from a rising AR\u00a010508 (former 10486), as an EIT image in the inset shows, and corresponded to an M4.5 SXR flare, which peaked at 10:11 (Figure\u00a0\\[F-timeprof\\]a). The three-part structure of CME3 was preceded by a fast faint halo (the average speed of 1824 km\u00a0s$^{-1}$), which deflected the streamers suggesting one more shock wave. Magnetic structures of CME3 are not expected to have reached the Earth, as preceding studies concluded. The only possible implication of CME3 could be a lateral pressure from the associated shock front to constrain expansion of the magnetic cloud responsible for the 20 November superstorm.\n\nThe EIT 195\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0ratio image in Figure\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]d shows a bright arcade in AR10501 (which looks saturated, because we show a narrow range of the brightness) and dimmed regions. Dimming D1 developed in association with CME1. Dimming D2 discussed in Paper\u00a0I developed around region Rb, where the U-shaped filament bifurcated. A star-like dimming D3 also appeared in region 10503 thus indicating its involvement.\n\nCoronal Transients Observed During the Event {#S-observations}\n============================================\n\nCME1 (08:05) and Wave 1\n-----------------------\n\nA wide, faint halo-like extension of CME1 suggestive of an expanding wave front is called hereafter wave\u00a01. We fit the observed expansion of the halo by using Equation (\\[E-pl\\_fit\\]) from Section\u00a0\\[S-wave\\_expansion\\] and expansion of the CME1 main structure by using Equations (\\[E-self\\_sim\\_exp\\]) and (\\[E-onset\\_time\\]) from Section\u00a0\\[S-cme\\_expansion\\]. The measurement accuracy cannot be high because of the absence of observations of a related eruption, and therefore we limit our attempts by acceptable correspondence with available data. We use a simpler accelerating kinematics, because it is not possible to recognize whether CME1 accelerated or decelerated at large distances. We also employ the mentioned expectation of similarity between the rising parts of the SXR flux and the CME speed. The kinematical plots are shown in Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme1\\_plot\\]. The plots for both CME1 and wave\u00a01 converge to event E1 ($\\approx \\,$M1.2) at about 07:29. A sharper rise of the SXR emission after 07:34 (the dotted part of the GOES light curve) is due to the next episode E2. The height-time plot of CME1 is close to the measurements in the CME catalog denoted by symbols.\n\n![Kinematical plots of CME1 (solid) and associated wave\u00a01 (dashed) visible in LASCO images in Figures \\[F-lasco\\_wave1\\] and \\[F-lasco\\_cme1\\]. The symbols in panel (a) present the measurements from the CME catalog. The dotted line in panel (b) presents the GOES SXR flux at 1\u20138\u00a0\u00c5.[]{data-label=\"F-cme1_plot\"}](cme1_plot.eps){width=\"60.00000%\"}\n\nFigures\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_wave1\\] and \\[F-lasco\\_cme1\\] allow one to evaluate the quality of the measurements presented in Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme1\\_plot\\]. Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_wave1\\] shows the propagation of the faint wave\u00a01 in LASCO images with a highly enhanced contrast. All the images are progressively resized following the measured kinematics to keep the visible size of the dashed wave front constant. Propagation of wave\u00a01 is solely revealed by deflections of coronal rays (most likely, located not far from the plane of the sky crossing the center of the Sun). The wave front is most pronounced at position angles $\\psi \\approx\n100^{\\circ}-150^{\\circ}$ being fainter at $\\psi < 90^{\\circ}$ (*i.e.*, above the coronal hole\u2014see Figure\u00a0\\[F-pre-event\\]d), and is additionally manifested in the deflection of streamer\u00a01. These properties correspond to an MHD shock wave: the higher fast-mode speed above a coronal hole reduces the Mach number, and therefore the shock front is not expected to be pronounced there (*cf*. ). The wave speed in Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme1\\_plot\\]b also supports its shock regime, but dynamic radio spectra do not show a type II burst. It seems that CME1 moves ahead of the associated wave front. Probably, this visual effect is due to their different parallaxes, *i.e.*, because CME1 was considerably closer to SOHO than the wave manifestations near the Sun\u2019s center plane.\n\n![The wave associated with CME1 in LASCO-C2 and C3 running-difference ratio images resized to compensate for the expansion of the wave front. The dashed oval outlines the outermost traces of wave\u00a01. The circles denote the solar limb and the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs. The cross denotes the initial wave center. The axes show hereafter distances from the solar disk center in solar radii.[]{data-label=\"F-lasco_wave1\"}](lasco_wave1.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_cme1\\] shows LASCO-C2 and C3 images of the main CME1 body (solid outline) resized according to the height-time plot in Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme1\\_plot\\]a. The dashed oval outlines wave\u00a01 (same as in Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_wave1\\]). The structure of CME1 is not identical in C2 and C3 images partly due to internal motions in the CME and partly due to its changing visibility in the course of expansion. The shape of the outlining oval is not obvious. Different eccentricities of the ovals do not significantly change the orientation of CME1 estimated in Section\u00a0\\[S-ice-cream\\]; the shape shown here is acceptable. Irrespective of the shape of the oval, the heading structure of expanding CME1 remained south from the ecliptic plane. Thus, its encounter with the Earth was unlikely (the solar disk center corresponds to the Sun\u2013Earth line). CME1 was able to produce, at most, a glancing blow on the Earth\u2019s magnetosphere.\n\n![CME1 in LASCO-C2 and C3 fixed-base ratio images resized to compensate for the expansion of the CME. The solid white open oval outlines the outer boundary of CME1. The dashed oval outlines the traces of wave\u00a01 (same as in Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_wave1\\]). The circles denote the solar limb and the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs.[]{data-label=\"F-lasco_cme1\"}](lasco_cme1.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThis analysis confirms the conclusion of Paper\u00a0I that the CME1 onset was associated with the missed M1.2 flare at 07:29 in the east part of AR\u00a010501 and contrary to the idea of about its association with episode E2 at 07:41. Thus, eruption E2 was a confined one. Nevertheless, this sharp impulsive eruption produced a shock wave.\n\nShock 1 Produced by Confined Eruption at 07:41\n----------------------------------------------\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[F-shock2\\_images\\] presents traces of a shock wave propagating near the solar surface in wide-band GOES/SXI images and SOHO/EIT 195\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0images produced with a lower imaging rate. The SXI\\_spectrum.mpg movie in the electronic version of the paper shows the shock traces in GOES/SXI images (upper right corner) along with the dynamic radio spectrum. The outline of the shock front in the figure and the movie was calculated by using Equation (\\[E-pl\\_fit\\]) for propagation of a shock front along the spherical solar surface with homogeneous distribution of plasma parameters (the ellipses are intersections of the spheroidal wave front with the spherical solar surface). We used $t_0 = $\u00a007:41:00 and $\\delta = 2.55$. The wave epicenter (slanted cross) is fixed at slightly ahead of the visible edge of the ejection at $t_0$ (see Paper\u00a0I). Traces of the expanding wave front are distinct in later EIT images in the southeast to southwest directions. Most likely, a fixed south brightening denoted \u2018SB\u2019 in Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock2\\_images\\]e was due to eruption of CME1.\n\n![Near-surface traces of shock\u00a01 in GOES/SXI and SOHO/EIT 195\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0running difference-ratio images. The solid ellipses calculated with $\\delta = 2.55$, $t_0 = $\u00a007:41:00 outline the expanding shock front. The dashed ellipse in panel (e) corresponds to 08:07. The yellow contours outline filaments F2 and F3. The large dashed circles denote the solar limb.[]{data-label=\"F-shock2_images\"}](shock2_img.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThe near-surface portion of the shock front was distorted at a large-scale inhomogeneity above the long filament channel traced by filaments F2 and F3 (yellow in Figures\u00a0\\[F-shock2\\_images\\]d\u2013\\[F-shock2\\_images\\]f). The shock front entered this enhanced-density region above filament F2 at about 08:07. The filament started to \u2018wink\u2019 sequentially appearing and disappearing in the red and blue wings of the H$\\alpha$ line. Figure\u00a0\\[F-winking\\_filament\\] shows variations of the average brightness of the whole filament F2 relative to its close environment (photometry was made by an automated method).\n\n![Oscillations of filament F2 observed in the H$\\alpha$ line center (black) and the red and blue wings (KSO). The symbols present the measurements. The curves show them smoothed over three neighbors. The shading marks the intervals of cloudy weather. The arrows indicate the changes of brightness corresponding to the sunward direction of the filament motion. The vertical broken line marks a probable onset time (08:07) of the anti-phase oscillations.[]{data-label=\"F-winking_filament\"}](fil_osc_timeprof.eps){width=\"70.00000%\"}\n\nDistinct anti-phase oscillations in the blue and red wings started at about 08:07 (dash-dotted line) from the downward motion of the filament pushed by the tilted shock front. The oscillations with a period of 16 min probably reflect a self oscillation mode of the whole filament but might be affected by a wave trail and arrival of the second shock (discussed later) at about 08:15. A separate analysis of the east, middle, and west portions of filament F2 showed that all the three parts oscillated in-phase with each other.\n\nThe fastest motion of the filament occurred at 08:23 in an upwards direction, when it was darker in the blue wing than in the line center. This indicates that its Doppler shift was larger than the mid point between the blue wing and line center ($\\approx\n10$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$). On the other hand, the absence of an overturn in the blue-wing light curve in phase with the red wing near the valley at 08:23 suggests that the Doppler shift did not exceed the blue mid-wing wavelength ($\\approx 20$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$). Thus, the highest line-of-sight velocity of the filament was $V_\\mathrm{LOS} \\approx\n15$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ (*cf.* ).\n\nThe dynamic spectrum in Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock2\\_spectrum\\]c composed from the Culgoora (until 08:00), Learmonth, and San Vito data shows a harmonic band-split type II burst. Its parameters are typical of type II bursts associated with shock waves propagating upward in the corona. The estimated shock speed was from 405 to 478 km\u00a0s$^{-1}$.\n\n![Kinematics of shock\u00a01 (a,b) in comparison with the microwave burst E2 (green, b) and shock manifestations in the dynamic spectrum of the first type II burst (c). The vertical dashed line marks the shock onset time $t_0 = $\u00a007:41:00. The two pairs of white curves outline the split bands with the same $t_0$ and $\\delta\n= 2.60$. The black curves after 08:07 outline the N-like shift of the bands. The steep black dashed curves outline possible signatures of a quasi-parallel shock.[]{data-label=\"F-shock2_spectrum\"}](shock2_spectrum.eps){width=\"80.00000%\"}\n\nThe outline for both pairs of the split bands was calculated as described in Section\u00a0\\[S-wave\\_expansion\\] with $\\delta = 2.60$ and the onset time $t_0 = $\u00a007:41:00 (dashed vertical line), the same as for the near-surface shock traces. The plots for the velocities and distances *vs.* time are shown in Figures\u00a0\\[F-shock2\\_spectrum\\]b and \\[F-shock2\\_spectrum\\]c. Due to the model dependence of estimates from radio spectra, the plots for the type II tracer (red) are uncertain by a factor of $3.3\n\\times 10^8/n_0$, where $n_0$ is the actual plasma density at a characteristic distance $h_0 \\approx 100$\u00a0Mm. Near-surface shock propagation and kinematics of the source of the type II burst closely correspond to each other.\n\nComparison with near-surface shock traces in Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock2\\_images\\] shows that the type II burst started when the shock front was located somewhere above regions 10501, 10503, and the bifurcation region. While the outline matches the overall evolution of the drift rate, both actual bands deviate from the outline like an inclined \u2018S\u2019 by 07:54. The band splitting disappears by 08:00. These properties disagree with a usual interpretation of band spitting due to emissions from the downstream and the upstream regions, implying instead emissions of split bands from two extended coronal structures located close to each other [@Grechnev2011_I]. The S-like deviation of the split bands and their merger afterwards suggests that the shock front encountered a high closed structure deflected by the shock.\n\nAt 08:07 the type II\u2019s bands underwent an N-like shift to higher frequencies (black solid outline), suggesting that the shock front entered an enhanced-density region. Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock2\\_images\\]e and \u2018winking\u2019 filament F2 confirm that this really occurred at that time. These facts along with the properties of the band splitting indicate that the type II emission was most likely generated in a nearly radial structure stressed by a quasi-perpendicular shock (shock normal relative to the magnetic field). On the other hand, fast-drifting features at about 07:42\u201307:45, which were possibly harmonically related, hint at a possible much faster quasi-parallel shock passage. The black dashed curves outline possible harmonics.\n\nA sketch in Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock\\_cartoon\\] outlines our model of a coronal wave excited in an active region (AR). The positions of the wave front in the corona at three consecutive times $t_1$, $t_2$, and $t_3$ are denoted by the dotted curves, and their corresponding near-surface traces are shown with the solid ellipses. The arrow $\\mathbf{grad}\\, V_\\mathrm{fast}$ represents the conditions in the low corona above the active region favoring the wave amplification and formation of a discontinuity at $t_1$. The blast-like wave is expelled from the AR core into regions of weaker magnetic fields. The shock front crossing the current sheet inside a coronal streamer excites a type II burst.\n\n![Fast MHD shock wave excited by an impulsive eruption in an active region (AR) and the appearance of type II emissions excited by the quasi-perpendicular shock in a remote streamer and by the quasi-parallel shock in the streamer above AR. The slanted crosses denote the rising wave center at three consecutive times $t_1$, $t_2$, and $t_3$.[]{data-label=\"F-shock_cartoon\"}](wave_cartoon2.eps){width=\"60.00000%\"}\n\nA wide-band type IV burst, which appeared after 08:11 at 180 MHz and relatively rapidly drifted to lower frequencies, will be discussed in Section\u00a0\\[S-mosaic\\_spectrum\\].\n\nCME2 at 08:49 and Shock 2\n-------------------------\n\nTo find a possible relationship between the expansion of CME2 and radio signatures of the associated shock wave, the shock onset time should be estimated. The highest accuracy of the estimation can be achieved from the analysis of the radio spectrum in Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock3\\_spectrum\\]c, which was composed from the Learmonth and San Vito data (its low-frequency part below 35 MHz is suppressed due to interference).\n\n![Kinematics of shock\u00a02 (a,b) and its manifestations in the dynamic spectrum of the second type II burst (c). The red curve in panel (b) is the RHESSI HXR flux. The inset (d) shows screen dump of the type II onset in raw Learmonth file displayed by a standard viewer. The almost vertical thin dotted line outlines the type III burst. The nearly horizontal lines trace extensions of the first type II burst. The remaining paired curves outline different harmonic components of the second type II burst with $t_0 =\n$\u00a008:14:12 (vertical dashed line).[]{data-label=\"F-shock3_spectrum\"}](shock3_spectrum.eps){width=\"80.00000%\"}\n\nThe drift rate of the type II burst was atypically high and started, in fact, from infinity. Its sharp C-like onset at about 08:15:35, also visible in the inset (d), suggests a flatwise encounter of the shock front with a nearly radial structure (see ). Just after this encounter, the contact region between the shock front and the streamer-like structure bifurcated, and one emission source moved up, while another one moved down thus producing the C-like feature.\n\nThen both type II bands broadened considerably and underwent an N-like shift to higher frequencies, while the initial bands possibly continued. This behavior can be due to a portion of the shock front entering into a denser region similar to the corresponding feature of the first type II burst. The body of the second type II was crossed by the bands of the first type II burst, whose drift rate was much slower. They are outlined in Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock3\\_spectrum\\]c with a pair of dashed lines and a white line (its corresponding fundamental band was below 25 MHz at that time).\n\nA probable onset time of the shock wave estimated from the drift of the second type II burst falls within a valley between peaks E4B and E4C in Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock3\\_spectrum\\]b. The valley is due to overlap of the decay of peak E4B and rise of peak E4C in the total HXR emission. A probable onset time of peak E4C is marked by a type III burst at 08:14:35 (crossed by the first type II). Type III bursts are considered as prompt indicators of non-thermal processes. By referring to this type III burst and extrapolating its drift to its probable highest frequency of 2 GHz, we estimate the shock\u00a02 onset time $t_0 = $\u00a008:14:12, which reconciles all its considered manifestations. The drift of the type II burst can be fit with an uncertainty of $t_0$ as large as $\\pm 30$\u00a0s, while a considerably wider uncertainty is allowable to fit expansion of the outer halo component of CME2.\n\nTo outline the complex features of the type II burst, we adopt the hypothesis of the shock front entering into a denser region. The initial bands outlined with the black-on-white curves correspond to $\\delta = 2.65$. The black dotted curves outlining the high-frequency boundaries of the broadened bands were calculated with a considerably flatter density falloff $\\delta = 2.1$. The outline of the N-like feature was calculated by assuming a wide Gaussian-shaped density enhancement in the way of the shock wave. The complex structure of the type II burst and insufficient quality of the dynamic spectrum does not allow us to understand the behavior of the bands after 08:20.\n\nThe outer non-structured halo of CME2 outlined with the white oval in Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_cme\\_wave2\\] resembles traces of wave\u00a01 in Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_wave1\\]. The shock-wave regime of the halo is supported by the type II burst and features discussed later. We therefore call the outer component \u2018shock\u00a02\u2019 and the inner one \u2018CME2\u2019. Most likely, the eruption site of CME2 and source of shock\u00a02 were within a region limited by AR 10501, 10503, dimming D2, and bifurcation region Rb (Figure\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]d) rather close to the solar disk center, which we adopt for simplicity as the origin of the plots.\n\n![Traces of shock\u00a02 in resized LASCO-C2 and C3 running-ratio images. The circles denote the solar limb and the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs. The large white oval outlines the outermost halo envelope of CME2. The dashed oval outlines the outermost envelope of the arcade-like inner CME2 component (same as in Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_cme2\\]).[]{data-label=\"F-lasco_cme_wave2\"}](lasco_cme_wave2.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThe green kinematical plot in Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]a calculated by using Equation (\\[E-pl\\_fit\\]) with the onset time of $t_0\n=$\u00a008:14:12 found from the dynamic spectrum agrees with the measurements in the CME catalog of the fastest feature related to CME2 (symbols). The white ovals outlining the halo envelope of CME2 in Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_cme\\_wave2\\] (see also the CME2.mpg movie) correspond to this curve. Deviations of streamer\u00a01 ahead of shock\u00a02 (which make shock\u00a02 visible) are due to preceding wave\u00a01. The structure poleward from streamer\u00a01 makes visible the streamer belt deflected by shock\u00a02. Concavity of the halo above the north pole region is expected for a shock wave (Section\u00a0\\[S-cmes\\_waves\\]). These facts, as well as the high speed (green in Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]b), strongly support the shock-wave nature of the halo ahead of the main CME2 body (the dashed oval).\n\n![Measurements of CME expansion for both the wave (green) and arcade-like components (blue accelerating, black decelerating). (a)\u00a0Height-time plot. The green curve fits the shock wave. The symbols represent the measurements from the CME catalog. (b)\u00a0Velocity-time plots in comparison with the GOES 1\u20138\u00a0\u00c5\u00a0light curve (red). (c)\u00a0Acceleration of the CME along with the HXR time profile (red) and the ratio of distances CME2 to shock\u00a02 (green).[]{data-label=\"F-cme2_plot\"}](cme2_plot.eps){width=\"80.00000%\"}\n\nTo coordinate expansion of the halo with the second type II burst, we adjust the density model to bring the distances ($2.2R_\\odot$) and speeds (2000 km\u00a0s$^{-1}$) of the halo and the type II source into coincidence at 08:25 (the ending time of Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock3\\_spectrum\\]). In fact, this assumption means a spherical shock front propagating in an isotropic medium. Even with this idealization, the difference between the speeds over the plotted parts in Figures \\[F-shock3\\_spectrum\\]a and \\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]b does not exceed 20%. The corresponding reference density $n_0 = 6.4\\times 10^8$\u00a0cm$^{-3}$ is close to the Saito model (see ). Figures\u00a0\\[F-shock3\\_spectrum\\]a and \\[F-shock3\\_spectrum\\]b show the initial parts of the kinematical plots for the shock\u00a02 front calculated with this density model. Comparison of the dynamic spectrum with the distance\u2013time plot in Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock3\\_spectrum\\]b and images in Figure\u00a0\\[F-shock2\\_images\\] shows that the type II burst started at a distance of $\\approx 0.4R_\\odot$ (08:15:35) from the source region roughly corresponding to the position of filament F2, and the N-like deviation started at $\\approx 0.7R_\\odot$ (08:16:50) roughly corresponding to filament F3. The somewhat larger distance and the gradual shape of the N-like deviation of type II-2 suggest a larger height of its source relative to type II-1. This assumption is consistent with the absence of the initial parts of the bands in type II-2, which were split in type II-1; shock\u00a02 probably developed above the structure, from which these bands of type II-1 were emitted.\n\nThe inner arcade-like component of CME2 had a pronounced spine outlined in Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_cme2\\] with the solid white oval. The dashed oval outlines the outermost envelope of the inner component including the intrusion region. Both ovals match the expanding CME2. The height-time plot used in compensating its expansion and plotting the ovals is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]a.\n\n![CME2 in LASCO-C2 and C3 fixed-base ratio images resized to compensate expansion of the CME. The white oval outlines the spine of the main arcade-like structure. The dashed oval outlines the outermost envelope of the arcade-like structure. The circles denote the solar limb and the inner boundaries of the fields of view of the coronagraphs.[]{data-label=\"F-lasco_cme2\"}](lasco_cme2.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nExpansion of CME2 was nearly self-similar with minor deviations. To keep the arcade spine within the white ovals, we slightly change their parameters with time. Figures\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_cme2\\]a\u2013\\[F-lasco\\_cme2\\]f reveal a progressive displacement of the white oval southwest from the solar disk center, *i.e.*, from the Sun\u2013Earth line. The main leading part of CME2 is not expected to encounter the Earth. On the other hand, the wide outermost part outlined with the dashed oval increasingly covered the solar disk. These properties of CME2 indicate that its arcade-like part was directed southwest from the Earth and, most likely, could only produce a glancing blow on the Earth\u2019s magnetosphere. The intrusion region remained south of the Earth.\n\nestimated the onset time for the inner CME2 component as $\\approx$\u00a008:20 and its small acceleration. However, our measurements outlining the whole CME2 show that its expansion speed in the LASCO field of view was constant. LASCO images do not allow us to understand whether CME2 accelerated or decelerated. We compared plots for both kinematical types with X-ray light curves. The latest possible onset time achievable for accelerating kinematics corresponds to the blue curves in Figures\u00a0\\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]a and \\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]b; later onset times produce infinite results in Equations (\\[E-self\\_sim\\_exp\\]) and (\\[E-onset\\_time\\]). The velocity starts to rise too early with respect to the red SXR GOES plot. In this case it is difficult to reconcile the velocity plots for the CME, shock, and the type II burst.\n\nBy contrast, the decelerating type of kinematics (black curves) provides acceptable results. The CME velocity in Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]b starts to rise simultaneously with the SXR emission. The decelerating self-similar part of the velocity plot shows reasonable correspondence with the green shock wave plot. A difficulty here is due to the fact that self-similar kinematics does not describe the initial stage of rising acceleration. We have described the impulsive acceleration stage with a Gaussian profile (as we did in Paper\u00a0I; see also ), combined the increasing velocity with the decreasing self-similar one, and computed the distance and acceleration from the combined velocity. The resultant impulsive acceleration up to $\\approx 12$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-2}$ almost coincides with the HXR peak E4C, the deceleration peak of about $-1.5$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-2}$ marks the onset of the self-similar stage, and then acceleration decreases by the absolute value. Kinematical plots with similar shapes and parameters have been previously presented by @Temmer2008 ([-@Temmer2008; -@Temmer2010]) and @Grechnev2008 ([-@Grechnev2008; -@Grechnev2011_I]).\n\nThe green curve in Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]c presents the ratio of distances CME2 to shock\u00a02 from the eruption site (right $y$-axis). The relative distance monotonically decreased for two reasons. Firstly, CME2 moved nearly earthward, while the halo corresponded to the lateral shock front, whose expansion was not facilitated by a trailing piston. Thus, the lateral and especially rear shock was closer to a freely propagating blast wave. Secondly, even the shock front ahead of the CME2 tip decelerated and eventually must transform to a pure bow shock.\n\nOverall Dynamic Radio Spectrum and an Extra Ejection {#S-mosaic_spectrum}\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[F-mosaic\\_spectrum\\] presents an overall picture of the whole event including microwave and hard X-ray bursts E1\u2013E4 (same as in Figures\u00a0\\[F-timeprof\\]c and \\[F-timeprof\\]d) and a dynamic radio spectrum composed as a mosaic from pieces provided by several observatories in different frequency ranges and time intervals. The combined spectrum uses data from the Culgoora Solar Observatory (18\u20131800 MHz) until 08:00 (b and c), Learmonth and San Vito stations at 25\u2013180 MHz (c), three parts form Bleien Observatory (180\u20132000 MHz) at 08:00\u201308:43 (b), a set of fixed-frequency records from San Vito to fill the gaps in panel (b), and the *Wind*/WAVES spectrum from the RAD2 receiver at 1\u201314 MHz.\n\n![Microwave (black and green) and HXR (red) time profiles (a) and an overall dynamic spectrum composed as a mosaic from observations of several instruments at decimeter, meter (b, c), and decameter (d, *Wind*/WAVES) wavelengths. The solid black, white, and dashed black-white curves outline the type II bursts (same as in Figures \\[F-shock2\\_spectrum\\] and \\[F-shock3\\_spectrum\\]). The blue curves outline the fast-drifting type IV burst. The leading blue low-frequency envelope of the type IV burst was calculated from the acceleration presented with the blue curve in panel (a). The dashed part of the acceleration plot shows the absolute value of deceleration. The left $y$-axis in panel (a) quantifies the microwave and HXR fluxes (see Figures\u00a0\\[F-timeprof\\]c and d). The right $y$-axis quantifies the acceleration.[]{data-label=\"F-mosaic_spectrum\"}](comb_spectrum.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThe black and white curves of different line styles outline signatures of the two shock waves discussed in the preceding sections. The fast-drifting feature suggesting a quasi-parallel shock\u00a01 has a pronounced continuation at decameters after 07:48 (the first pair of black lines) visible initially as a wide green band and later traced by disturbed type III bursts during 08:13\u201308:22 (see, *e.g.*, ). The second type II burst also continues at decameters as a wide green band between 1.5 and 3.5 MHz during 08:40\u201308:58 with earlier indication of drifting features between the pair of the white curves. Relating this drifting burst to interaction between two CMEs proposed by is not justified: this was a normal shock-associated type II burst. The type II emission at decameters is presumably produced by the shock front crossing a wide portion of the streamer belt with a relatively wide range of densities that determines its wide frequency band.\n\nThe gap between the *Wind*/WAVES spectrum and ground-based observations hinders identification of the harmonic number for the type II emissions at decameters. They are outlined assuming the dominant fundamental emission, although a stronger harmonic emission might be expected due to its weaker absorption. The alternative outline is possible but requires a density falloff of $\\delta\n\\approx 2.9$, which seems to be too steep at moderate latitudes. Such an outline coordinated with the metric type II burst produces a slightly higher drift rate at decameters than the observed one. showed that the fundamental emission at decameters sometimes dominates, which possibly justifies our outline. Thus, we reproduce the drift rate of the decametric type IIs, while identification of their harmonic structure remains an open question.\n\nGroups of type III bursts (especially clearly visible at decameters) provide further support to our identification of the eruptions. A dense type III group between 07:27 and 07:40 indicates the ongoing escape of non-thermal electrons into open magnetic structures probably associated with the CME1 liftoff, which started at E1. The situation is drastically different after confined eruption E2, when type IIIs rapidly terminate. Even the weak episode E3 produced a clear type III response. A series of type IIIs marks the fourfold event E4 suggesting a complex eruption, which has been partly studied in Paper\u00a0I.\n\nOne more slowly drifting burst was reported as a type II by observers in Bleien to occur at 08:04\u201308:33. However, its evolution is opposite to the type IIs associated with shocks 1 and 2, and the bandwidth became quite broad. This burst is outlined with the blue curves in Figure\u00a0\\[F-mosaic\\_spectrum\\]. The solid curves outline the suggested fundamental band, and the dashed curve outlines a possible high-frequency envelope of the harmonic emission. The trailing edge of this burst is difficult to recognize and interpret.\n\nThe drift rate of this burst started from a near-zero value, which excludes its relation to a wave. The large bandwidth suggests that this was a type IV burst. It had an atypically high drift rate up to very low frequency (but not exceptional\u2014see, *e.g.*, ). Relation of this burst to the body of CME2 is unlikely due to the gradual acceleration up to the maximum speed during 08:04\u201308:14 implied by the drift rate, whereas CME2 sharply accelerated during E4C at about 08:16. Relating its drift rate to the Saito or Newkirk density model has not resulted in anything matching the observed CMEs.\n\nThere is a different option. The lowest frequency of a radio burst is determined by the plasma frequency $f_\\mathrm{P} = 9 \\times 10^3\nn^{1/2}$ in an emitting volume. Assuming the frequency drift to be due to the density decrease in an expanding spherical volume with radius $r$, $n \\propto r^{-3}$, we have adjusted acceleration (blue in Figure\u00a0\\[F-mosaic\\_spectrum\\]a) to match the low-frequency envelope of the type IV burst. The initial density of $1.8 \\times\n10^{9}$\u00a0cm$^{-3}$ corresponds to 380 MHz. The spatial scale is uncertain. With $r_0 = 30$\u00a0Mm corresponding to the bifurcation region Rb, the initial part of the type IV burst\u2019s envelope corresponds to the expanding motion visible in GOES/SXI images in Figure\u00a0\\[F-sxi\\_exp\\] (see also the SXI\\_spectrum movie). Manifestations of the expansion are not expected to be observed later on, because the expanding feature moved away from the Sun. The velocity of the latter motion cannot be estimated from the radio spectrum.\n\n![Expansion visible in GOES/SXI running difference ratios probably corresponding to the type IV burst. The radius of the circle was calculated from acceleration in Figure\u00a0\\[F-mosaic\\_spectrum\\]a and exactly corresponds to the blue outline of the leading low-frequency envelope of the type IV burst in Figures\u00a0\\[F-mosaic\\_spectrum\\]b\u2013\\[F-mosaic\\_spectrum\\]d.[]{data-label=\"F-sxi_exp\"}](sxi_exp.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThe radial expansion of the ejection responsible for the type IV burst accelerated up to $\\approx 480$\u00a0m\u00a0s$^{-2}$ at about 08:14:22 (the radial speed at that time was $V_r \\approx 180$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$), reached a maximum speed $V_{r\\, \\max} \\approx 300$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$, and then decelerated to $V_{r\\, \\mathrm{final} }\\approx\n100$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$. According to Paper\u00a0IV (Grechnev *et al.*, in preparation), the average Sun\u2013Earth transit speed of the ICME responsible for the geomagnetic superstorm was $\\overline{V}\n\\approx 865$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ (with an initial speed $V_0 \\gsim\n930$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$). Thus, this ejection probably expanded within a narrow cone with an angle of $2V_{r\\, \\mathrm{final}}/\\overline{V} <\n14^{\\circ}$. Moving earthward almost exactly from the solar disk center and expanding within such a narrow cone, this ejection should appear in the LASCO-C2 field of view ($\\ge 2R_{\\odot}$) at a distance $> 16R_{\\odot}$ so that the Thomson-scattered light would be meager. According to the estimates in Paper\u00a0I, the mass of this ejection should be $\\ll 5 \\times 10^{15}$\u00a0g. The weak expansion and low mass have made this CME invisible for LASCO.\n\nDiscussion {#S-discussion}\n==========\n\nShock Waves {#S-cmes_waves}\n-----------\n\nAnalysis of the observations in the preceding section has revealed a complex chain of CMEs and waves. Table\u00a0\\[T-table2\\] summarizes the results. The most noticeable fact is that the confined eruption E2 undoubtedly produced a shock wave. Its presence is confirmed by the type\u00a0II-1 burst, a detailed correspondence between its drift and structure with the observed near-surface propagation of the \u2018EUV wave\u2019, the \u2018winking\u2019 filament F2, and a possible decametric type II burst due to the quasi-parallel shock. All of these manifestations are quantitatively coordinated with each other by the power-law description (\\[E-pl\\_fit\\]) of an impulsively excited shock wave quasi-freely propagating like a decelerating blast wave.\n\n  ------------- --------- --------------- ---------\n      07:29        E1       CME1 onset    Wave 1\n      07:41        E2           No        Shock 1\n   08:14\u201308:16     E4C      CME2 onset    Shock 2\n   08:07\u201308:30   E4A\u2013E4D   Invisible CME  \n  ------------- --------- --------------- ---------\n\n  : CMEs and waves revealed in the event.[]{data-label=\"T-table2\"}\n\nPaper\u00a0I has revealed that a portion of filament F1 was impulsively heated between 07:39:59 and 07:41:27. The apparent speed of this portion sharply reached $\\approx 300$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ in the plane of the sky, suggesting that its real speed along the filament leg was $\\approx 770$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ (at an angle of $\\approx 23^{\\circ}$), which most likely produced considerable pressure pulse. This was followed by an impulsive jet-like ejection with acceleration up to 2\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-2}$ and a maximum speed of 450\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ (both in the plane of the sky). Each of these two impulsive phenomena could have played a role of an impulsive piston; contributions from both are possible. When the shock wave started, the related M3.2 flare only began to gradually rise being unable to produce a significant pressure pulse to excite the shock (*cf.* ). Eruption E2 had not produced any CME which excludes the usually assumed bow-shock excitation by the outer CME surface. This event presents a convincing pure case of shock wave excitation by an impulsive eruption.\n\nSimilarly, shock\u00a02 was excited during the early rise phase of the E4C HXR burst in association with the onset of CME2. The velocity and acceleration plots of CME2 (black in Figures\u00a0\\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]b and \\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]c) demonstrate its impulsive-piston behavior, while the propagation of shock\u00a02 had the same decelerating pattern as shock\u00a01 (green in Figures\u00a0\\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]a and \\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]b) described by Equation\u00a0(\\[E-pl\\_fit\\]). The shock-wave nature of this disturbance is confirmed by the fast-drifting type II-2 burst traced up to decameters with its drift rate and uncommon structural features described by the same Equation\u00a0(\\[E-pl\\_fit\\]), its super-Alfv[' e]{}nic speed, and the non-structured faint spheroidal halo in LASCO images (Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_cme\\_wave2\\]) both ahead of the arcade-like CME2 and well behind its rear part. There are additional features expected for propagation of a shock wave.\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[F-streamer\\] compares the halo envelope of CME2 observed by LASCO-C3 with an expected distortion of the shock front in the presence of the heliospheric current sheet (HCS) calculated by . The red arrow in Figure\u00a0\\[F-streamer\\]a points at a coronal ray, which is a portion of the coronal streamer belt aligned along the line of sight. This orientation makes it distinctly visible. The streamer belt is the origin of the HCS.\n\n![Propagation of the shock front (green) along the streamer belt: (a)\u00a0the outer halo envelope of CME2 observed by LASCO; (b)\u00a0the calculated picture adopted from Uralova and Uralov (1994). The arrow points at the streamer.[]{data-label=\"F-streamer\"}](cme2_streamer.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\naddressed the propagation of a fast-mode MHD shock wave along the HCS in the WKB approximation. Figure\u00a0\\[F-streamer\\]b presents Figure\u00a05 of rotated to correspond to the orientation in Figure\u00a0\\[F-streamer\\]a. The red arrow indicates the HCS inside a radially diverging slow wind flow of enhanced density bounded by the two long radial lines within $\\pm 10^{\\circ}$. A solar source of the shock wave was considered apart from the HCS base on the solar surface (not shown), which was located at the vertex of the ray trajectories. The thick polygonal chain is the calculated shock front far enough from the Sun (the polygonal shape was due to a limited number of rays in the calculations). Its outermost portions coincide with the green wave front calculated without the presence of the HCS. A portion of the front in the close vicinity of the HCS shown with the dashed arrow-like line represents the strongest shock. It is due to the effect of regular energy accumulation in the vicinity of the HCS. first suggested that a small velocity component towards the HCS was able to initiate a magnetic reconnection process accompanying a shock wave.\n\nComparison of Figures \\[F-streamer\\]a and \\[F-streamer\\]b shows an overall qualitative similarity of distortions of the wave front in the vicinity of the HCS that cause its concave shape. Unlike the calculated picture, the real HCS in Figure\u00a0\\[F-streamer\\]a is not plane parallel to the line of sight. Its portion between the streamer under the arrow and the dip nearly above the north pole has been brought into view by the shock and corresponds to different distances and position angles.\n\nShock\u00a02 developed 33 min after the slower shock\u00a01 at nearly the same place in the plane of the sky and underwent the N-like shift of the bands about 10 min after shock\u00a01. This approach indicates that the trailing shock\u00a02 reached the leading shock\u00a01 before its appearance from behind the occulting disk of LASCO-C2. The two shocks should combine into a single stronger one [@Grechnev2011_I]. Parameters of shock\u00a02 have unlikely changed significantly, because shock\u00a01 was much weaker. Due to probable coupling of the two shocks, manifestations of shock\u00a01 in LASCO images are not expected.\n\nOur knowledge of wave\u00a01 and related CME1 is poorer relative to shocks 1 and 2. Its near-surface traces have not been detected, neither was there a type II burst. On the other hand, traces of wave\u00a01 in LASCO images resembling a partial halo, the decelerating kinematics also described by Equation (\\[E-pl\\_fit\\]), and its rather high speed of $> 850$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ up to at least $10R_{\\odot}$ indicate its shock-wave nature like shocks 1 and 2. The absence of a type II burst and an \u2018EUV wave\u2019 might be due to different propagation conditions with its relatively low speed.\n\nThe widely presumed scenario of bow-shock excitation by the outer surface of a CME is not confirmed. Ignition of a shock by a flare pressure pulse is also unlikely [@Grechnev2011_I]. This historically oldest scenario was based on an idea that the increase of the plasma beta in flare loops up to $\\beta \\approx 1$ could produce a significant disturbance. However, showed that the high-beta condition is a normal situation in a flare. The plasma pressure in flare loops increased due to chromospheric evaporation must be balanced by the dynamic pressure of reconnection outflow coming from above. Even with $\\beta > 1$, the net effect is an increase of all sizes of a flare loop as low as $\\sqrt[4]{1+\\beta}$, so that the expected disturbance should be too small to produce a shock.\n\nThe major conclusion of this section related to the 20 November superstorm is that the outer halo component of CME2 was most likely a trace of a quasi-freely propagating shock wave and did not indicate the earthwards direction of CME2.\n\nConsequences for a Problem of \u201cEIT Waves\u201d\n-----------------------------------------\n\nOur analysis in Section\u00a0\\[S-observations\\] touched the long-standing challenging wave-like disturbances observed in EUV, usually called \u201cEIT waves\u201d or \u201cEUV waves\u201d. Debates over the nature of these transients have lasted 15 years and do not appear to have terminated so far (see, *e.g.*, @Warmuth2010 ([-@Warmuth2010; -@Warmuth2011]) for a review). Their different nature from the Moreton waves was prompted by their different observed velocities and other properties seemingly inconsistent with those of fast-mode MHD shock waves. A basic solution was initially proposed by and then developed by these authors in several studies (*e.g.*, @Warmuth2004a [-@Warmuth2004a; -@Warmuth2004b; -@Warmuth2005], and others). The idea is that both kinds of phenomena are due to propagation of decelerating fast-mode MHD shock waves. The Moreton waves are usually observed at shorter distances, where the wave speed is higher; EUV transients are observed at longer distances, where the speeds of decelerating waves are lower. @Grechnev2011_I ([-@Grechnev2011_I; -@Grechnev2011_III]) demonstrated that at least two kinds of EUV transients visible as \u2018EUV waves\u2019 did exist and could be observed simultaneously. One kind of EUV transient is due to plasma compression on top of a developing CME and by its sides \\[basically consistent with the approach of @Chen2002 ([-@Chen2002; -@Chen2005])\\]. Near-surface manifestations of such transients are of non-wave nature and remain not far from an eruption site. The second kind of EUV transient propagating over long distances is consistent with the initial interpretation of the Moreton waves as lower skirts of coronal waves proposed by . (Note in this respect the term \u2018coronal counterpart of a Moreton wave\u2019 used by some authors is confusing.) The apparent discrepancies between properties of propagating EUV transients and other shock signatures such as the Moreton waves, type II bursts, and outer CME halos thus have a simple explanation.\n\nshowed that the most probable source of an MHD shock wave is an impulsive eruption of a developing magnetic flux rope. This is also consistent with the event in question. The ends of an eruptive flux rope are fixed, while the velocity of the eruption is highest in the direction of its expansion (often non-radial, but mostly at a large angle with the solar surface). Thus, an MHD disturbance excited by an impulsive eruption is anisotropic, and the speed of its near-surface propagation is considerably less than the upward one. For this reason, the near-surface propagation velocity of an EUV transient is typically much less than that of a type II source.\n\nThe fact that the Moreton waves are typically considerably faster than EUV transients suggests that the Moreton waves are manifested at stronger shocks than \u2018EUV waves\u2019. This circumstance is also clear: to produce a Moreton wave, a shock wave has to penetrate to relatively denser layers of the solar atmosphere that significantly weakens the shock. By contrast, EUV signatures of a shock are observed in higher coronal levels of lower density, so that deceleration and damping of a shock does not prevent its observation at much larger distances.\n\nThese circumstances show that reports on \u2018winking filaments\u2019 driven by \u2018EIT waves\u2019, which were slower than type II burst sources, do not contradict their excitation by shocks, as conjectured. A similar phenomenon considered in Section\u00a0\\[S-observations\\] present a confirmation. It should also be noted here that the oscillating filament on 4 November 1997 reported by , which was sometimes considered as an argument against the shock-wave nature of \u2018EIT waves\u2019, dealt with an EUV transient poorly observed by EIT. By using the difference ratios $-0.01 < I_\\mathrm{wave} < 0.01$ (see Section\u00a0\\[S-kinematics\\]) of EIT images observed during this event, one can detect faint but clear signatures of a propagating disturbance at 06:13:54 at a much longer distance from the eruption site than the authors found \u2014 almost near a coronal hole at the north pole.\n\nOrientations of the CMEs {#S-ice-cream}\n------------------------\n\nTo confirm and elaborate our preliminary conclusions about the orientations of CME1 and CME2, now we try to employ a model which allows one to estimate three-dimensional (3-D) geometric and kinematical parameters of a CME observed by LASCO coronagraphs in the plane of the sky. The so-called ice-cream cone model initially proposed by considers a CME as a cone with a vertex in the Sun\u2019s center. This model underwent several elaborations. We use the model described by . The model allows one to estimate the radial velocity $|V|$ of a CME along its axis, the orientation of the axis with respect to the Earth, and the angular width $\\alpha$ of the CME cone. For our purposes it is convenient to express the results provided by the model in an ecliptic longitude ($\\lambda\n>0$ west of the earthward direction) and latitude ($\\phi >0$ north of the earthward direction).\n\nTo use the model of , an experimental dependence is evaluated of the plane-of-sky velocity $V_\\mathrm{m}(\\psi)$ of the CME envelope in LASCO images on the azimuthal position angle $\\psi$. Then a set of parameters determining the orientation and axial speed of the CME is optimized by using the least-squares fit of the measured set $V_\\mathrm{m}(\\psi)$ to a calculated dependence $V_\\mathrm{c}(\\psi)$ (by minimizing the standard deviation $\\sigma$). To expedite adjustment of parameters in the optimization process, we employed a genetic algorithm [@Mitchell1999]. Constraints on the fitting parameters should be applied for implementation of this algorithm. We used the following constraints: $1000 \\leq |V| \\leq 2000$ km\u00a0s$^{-1}$, $10^{\\circ} \\leq \\alpha \\leq 70^{\\circ}$, and $\\lambda$ and $\\phi$ within $\\pm 40^{\\circ}$ relative to the axis passing from the Sun\u2019s center through the CME source region.\n\n3-D parameters of CME1 and CME2 were estimated from eight sets of images observed with LASCO-C2 and C3. The contours of both main and wide envelopes of CME2 in Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_cme2\\] are well defined with small uncertainties. This is not the case for CME1; estimations of its 3-D parameters were additionally complicated by a narrower range of position angles (see Figure\u00a0\\[F-lasco\\_cme1\\]) which CME1 occupied, being far from the halo geometry. Therefore, extra attempts were required to obtain better results for CME1. In these attempts, we had to adjust velocity constraints for each iteration by monitoring $\\sigma$. Overall, the estimated parameters were reasonably stable while input measurements were varied within the limited ranges. The final results are listed in Table\u00a0\\[T-table3\\]. The corresponding sketch of the ice-cream cones of CME1 and CME2 is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[F-ice-cream\\] with different viewing directions.\n\n  -------- ------------- ------------------------ --------------------- ----------------------- ----------------- --------------------------\n               Time          Longitude$^{*}$         Latitude$^{*}$           Span$^{*}$         Speed $|V|^{*}$          Deviation\n             interval     $\\lambda \\ [^{\\circ}]$   $\\phi \\ [^{\\circ}]$   $\\alpha \\ [^{\\circ}]$   \\[km s$^{-1}]$    $\\sigma$ \\[km s$^{-1}$\\]\n  1         08:05\u201311:41        $-8 \\pm 0.7$          $-26 \\pm 1.8 $          $28 \\pm 2.0 $        $1950 \\pm 24$            8.1\u201313.5\n  2 Main    08:49\u201312:17       $17 \\pm 1.4 $          $-16 \\pm 1.2 $          $50 \\pm 2.4 $        $1778 \\pm 9$             1.0\u20131.8\n  2 Wide    08:49\u201312:17       $13 \\pm 1.4 $          $-18 \\pm 1.7 $          $66 \\pm 2.5 $        $1718 \\pm 55$            3.2\u20134.9\n  -------- ------------- ------------------------ --------------------- ----------------------- ----------------- --------------------------\n\n  : Spatial parameters of CMEs estimated from the ice-cream cone model.[]{data-label=\"T-table3\"}\n\n$^{*}$Average and range of estimates from different images in the interval specified in column 2.\n\n![Orientations of CME1 and CME2 estimated by means of the ice-cream cone model. The top and bottom panels represent different viewing directions.[]{data-label=\"F-ice-cream\"}](ice_cream_model.eps){width=\"85.00000%\"}\n\nTable\u00a0\\[T-table3\\] and Figure\u00a0\\[F-ice-cream\\] confirm our preliminary conclusion that both CME1 and CME2 were not directed exactly earthwards. Each of the CMEs propagated mainly southward from the ecliptic plane, being only able to produce a glancing blow on the Earth\u2019s magnetosphere. Ongoing expansion of an ICME suggests that the magnetic fields at its flanks were significantly weaker than at its nose. Due to magnetic flux conservation, the magnetic field strength at a fixed position of a self-similarly expanding ICME is inversely proportional to its instantaneous size squared (and the speed decreases linearly). For example, if an ICME flank hits the Earth at a distance of $1/\\sqrt{2}$ of the heliocentric distance of the ICME nose, then the magnetic field at the flank should be reduced by a factor of 2 with respect to the central encounter. To our knowledge, the total magnetic field strength $|\\mathbf{B}| \\approx 56$\u00a0nT in the 20 November 2003 magnetic cloud was close to a record one. Still stronger fields were only observed in November 2001: on 6th, $|\\mathbf{B}| \\approx 66$\u00a0nT, and on 24th, $|\\mathbf{B}| \\approx 57$\u00a0nT (A.\u00a0Belov, 2012, private communication). If the encounter of the 20 November 2003 MC with the Earth were a non-central encounter, one would have observed significantly stronger magnetic field; which is unlikely.\n\nThus, direct responsibility for the superstorm of magnetic structures of CME1 or CME2 appears to be doubtful. On the other hand, the mutual lateral pressure of CME1 and CME2 should considerably affect their expansion as well as any structures between them including the hypothetical invisible CME. This circumstance hints at possible causes of its weak expansion.\n\nEruption near the Solar Disk Center\n-----------------------------------\n\nNow we have sufficient information to assume what could have occurred near the solar disk center between 08:07 and 08:17. Paper\u00a0I has established that the eruptive filament F1, which lifted off at an angle of $\\approx 60^{\\circ}$ to the solar surface, at about 08:07 collided with a topological discontinuity and bifurcated. The major mass of the filament moved nearly along the solar surface afterwards and had not left the Sun. At the same time and place, a nearly spherical structure developed and erupted with an initial speed of motion away from the Sun of $\\gsim 930$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$. Its very slow expansion almost exactly from the solar disk center (the established radial expansion speed of $\\approx 100$\u00a0km\u00a0s$^{-1}$) and the earthward orientation have made it invisible for the LASCO coronagraphs. The only reasonable cause of its development was the anomalous collision of the eruptive filament F1 with a magnetic obstacle.\n\nMost likely, one more product of this collision was the development of the coreless arcade-like CME2. Magnetic fields in a pre-eruption arcade are nearly potential (rot$\\mathbf{B} \\approx 0$), and therefore the arcade was unlikely to erupt by itself. Thus, CME2 was probably forced to erupt being hit from below. Its onset time of about 08:15 indicates that its probable cause was also the eruptive filament F1, whose active role was established in Paper\u00a0I. This assumption is supported by decelerating kinematics of CME2 (see Figure\u00a0\\[F-cme2\\_plot\\]b). The observations lead therefore to the following picture. The *magnetic flux rope* developed *from filament F1* and moved southwest with an initial angle of $\\approx 60^{\\circ}$ to the solar surface ($\\approx 23^{\\circ}$ to the line of sight). When passing through the topological discontinuity near the solar disk center at a height of $\\approx\n100$\u00a0Mm, the eruptive filament (flux rope) caused an expansion of the arcade above it (in a normal case, the arcade would be a CME frontal structure), but failed to become its core. Instead, the filament disintegrated into two parts, one of which remained on the Sun, and the other one erupted as a \u2018core\u2019 (invisible CME), but apart from CME2. The initial velocity of the invisible CME $\\gsim\n930$ km\u00a0s$^{-1}$ is comparable with the initial speed of CME2 ($\\approx 1700$ km\u00a0s$^{-1}$), confirming their association and the assumption that the eruption of CME2 was forced by the eruptive filament F1. Development of shock\u00a02 at 08:14:12 was most likely related to this violent episode.\n\nSeparation of CME2 into the \u2018coreless CME\u2019 and \u2018CMEless core\u2019 (without the frontal structure) hints at a more complex relation between the CME parts than traditionally assumed. The core might be an active CME component responsible for its initiation and initial propagation, and the frontal structure might be a passive envelope arcade whose expansion is driven from inside. Note that the appearance of CME3 in Figure\u00a0\\[F-3cmes\\]c supports this assumption: its core was pronouncedly twisted suggesting active motions followed by a kink instability, while the outer structures of CME3 consisted of steadily expanding closed long loops rooted on the Sun. After relaxation of the core, the whole CME expanded self-similarly. The difference between the loops in the structures of CME2 and CME3 was due to their orientations. Unlike CME2, in which the planes of the arcade loops were close to the line of sight, the planes of the frontal loops of CME3 were close to the plane of the sky.\n\nThe joint analysis of the dynamic radio spectrum and GOES/SXI images has shown that HXR peak E4D (the last one whose association was not revealed) corresponds to deceleration of the invisible CME. As discussed in Paper\u00a0I, considerations and results of several researchers converge to the conclusion that HXR and microwave bursts presented a flare manifestation of magnetic reconnection responsible for acceleration of a developing flux rope, when the propelling toroidal force developed. Similarly, the deceleration reflected by the HXR peak E4D might be a response to another reconnection process. This process possibly destroyed magnetic structures providing the toroidal force so that only retarding magnetic tension responsible for deceleration persisted, and then the eruption probably disconnected completely, thus entering a free expansion stage. This speculation implies that HXR and microwave bursts indicate both acceleration and deceleration of CMEs, and that the self-similar expansion began, when the flare bursts ceased.\n\nConclusions {#S-conclusion}\n===========\n\nOur detailed analysis of the complex solar eruptive event carried out in this paper and Paper\u00a0I has led to a number of results, which are not only important in pursuing causes of the 20 November 2003 geomagnetic superstorm, but also are promising for better general understanding of solar eruptions, CMEs, related shock waves, and their various manifestations. In particular, identification of an outer halo CME component with a shock trace promises better estimates of orientation and velocity of CMEs and higher accuracy in predicting the arrival time of a corresponding ICME.\n\nThe shock waves revealed in this event provide further support for the concept of early impulsive-piston shock excitation by an eruptive structure proposed by . A shock wave excited by a confined eruption at 07:41 presents a notable example confirming this scenario. On the other hand, the widely presumed bow-shock excitation scenario at the outer surface of a CME is not confirmed. Ignition of a shock by a flare pressure pulse is also unlikely.\n\nMagnetic structures of neither CME1 nor CME2 appear to be appropriate candidates for the sources of the superstorm for the following reasons.\n\n-   CME1 erupted, most likely, at about 07:29 from the east part of AR\u00a010501, where the helicity was excessively negative. CME1 was not earth-directed.\n\n-   The outer halo of CME2 was probably due to a spheroidal shock front and did not indicate the earthward direction of magnetic structures of CME2.\n\n-   Expansion of CME1 and CME2 close to each other probably caused their mutual compression, but there were no signs of reconnection between their magnetic structures.\n\n-   CME1 and CME2 were directed southward from the ecliptic plane, oblique with respect to the Sun\u2013Earth line, being only able to produce a glancing blow on the Earth\u2019s magnetosphere with a reduced geomagnetic effect.\n\nThese circumstances disfavor the idea of about a positive-helicity eruption from AR\u00a010501. The suggestions of and related to the causes of the 20 November 2003 superstorm lose their basis. On the other hand, GOES/SXI and radio observations provide further support to the presumed additional CME which erupted close to the solar disk center. Its estimated characteristics confirm the assumption made in Paper\u00a0I that its weak expansion within a narrow cone of $< 14^{\\circ}$ could make it invisible for LASCO and preserve its very strong magnetic field due to magnetic flux conservation.\n\nOur study demonstrates that even a case study of a single event can supply rich information about solar eruptions, associated phenomena, and their consequences. The major condition of success was a combined analysis of multi-spectral data. It has been recognized that significant suggestions and milestones are provided by bursts generated by accelerated electrons. They are observed as flare bursts in hard and soft X-rays and microwaves as well as drifting radio bursts at longer radio waves. Our results emphasize particularly the following.\n\n-   Type III bursts are well-known signatures of non-thermal electrons. Their appearance can be indicative of acceleration processes occurring during eruptive episodes. In particular, our event demonstrated dense trains of type III bursts accompanying the CME lift-off.\n\n-   The concept of predominant excitation of type II bursts by decelerating quasi-perpendicular shocks in remote streamers allowed us to reconcile their various features with other signatures of propagating shock waves. In particular, this concept accounts for the delay of the type II onset time relative to HXR and microwave flare bursts and the relatively low starting frequencies of type II bursts. The latter becomes clear if one considers the tilted shock front excited at a height of $\\approx 100$\u00a0Mm to encounter a remote streamer at some distance from the eruption site.\n\n-   The type IV burst discussed here was possibly a moving type IV, but we cannot confirm this possibility due to the absence of meter-wave imaging observations. The approach used here promises diagnostics of developing CMEs from type IV bursts with relatively fast drift.\n\nIn summary, the combined analysis of the multi-spectral observations carried out in Paper\u00a0I and this paper makes it possible to construct a consistent picture of several observational facts and suggestions, some of which seemed to have been questionable. The outlined scenario accounts for most of these circumstances. Unanswered questions still remain, however. It is unclear what occurred in the magnetic structures of the eruptive filament in the bifurcation region, how the \u2018CMEless core\u2019 was formed, and how to reconcile the right-handed magnetic cloud with the left-handed pre-eruption structure. These issues will be addressed in Paper\u00a0III. One more question is specifically what kind of structure reached the Earth on November 20 and produced the superstorm. This will be a subject of Paper\u00a0IV.\n\nWe thank Viktoria Kurt for the CORONAS-F/SONG data, L.\u00a0Kashapova and S.\u00a0Kalashnikov for the assistance in data processing, and I.\u00a0Kuzmenko for useful discussions. We are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for useful remarks. We thank the instrumental teams of the Kanzelh[\u00f6]{}he Solar Observatory; MDI, EIT, and LASCO on SOHO (ESA & NASA project); the USAF RSTN Radio Solar Telescope Network; RHESSI; and the GOES satellites for the data used here. We thank the team maintaining the CME Catalog at the CDAW Data Center by NASA and the Catholic University of America in cooperation with the Naval Research Laboratory. This study was supported by the Russian Foundation of Basic Research under grants 11-02-00757, 11-02-01079, 12-02-00008, 12-02-92692, and 12-02-00037, The Ministry of education and science of Russian Federation, projects 8407 and 14.518.11.7047. The research was also partly supported by the European Commission\u2019s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under the grant agreement eHeroes (project No. 284461), [www.eheroes.eu](www.eheroes.eu).\n\nBrueckner, G.E., Howard, R.A., Koomen, M.J., Korendyke, C.M., Michels, D.J., Moses, J.D., *et al.*: 1995, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}**162**, 357.\n\nCane, H.V., Erickson, W.C.: 2005, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**623**]{}, 1180.\n\nCerrato, Y., Saiz, E., Cid, C., Gonzalez, W. D., Palacios, J.: 2012, [ [*J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**80**]{}, 111.\n\nChandra R., Pariat, E., Schmieder, B., Mandrini, C.H., Uddin, W.: 2010, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0**261**, 127.\n\nChen, J.: 1989, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**338**]{}, 453.\n\nChen, J.: 1996, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**1012**]{}, 27499.\n\nChen, P. F., Wu, S. T., Shibata, K., Fang, C.: 2002, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{}**572**, L99.\n\nChen, P. F., Fang, C., Shibata, K.: 2005, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0**622**, 1202.\n\nChertok, I. M., Grechnev, V. V.: 2005, *Astron. Reports* **49**, 155.\n\nCremades, H., Bothmer, V.: 2004, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**422**]{}, 307.\n\nDelaboudini\u00e8re, J.-P., Artzner, G. E., Brunaud, J., Gabriel, A. H., Hochedez, J. F., Millier, F., *et al.*: 1995, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}**162**, 291.\n\nEto, S., Isobe, H., Narukage, N., Asai, A., Morimoto, T., Thompson, B., *et al.*: 2002, [ [*Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan*]{}]{}\u00a0[**54**]{}, 481.\n\nFisher, R.R., Munro, R.H.: 1984, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0 **280**, 428.\n\nGopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., Xie, H., Lepping, R. P., Howard, R. A.: 2005, [ [*Geophys. Res. Lett.*]{}]{}\u00a0**32**, L12S09.\n\nGopalswamy, N., Yashiro, S., Michalek, G., Stenborg, G., Vourlidas, A., Freeland, S., Howard, R.: 2009, [*Earth, Moon, Planets*]{} [**104**]{}, 295.\n\nGrechnev, V.V., Chertok, I.M., Slemzin, V.A., Kuzin, S.V., Ignat\u2019ev, A.P., Pertsov, A.A., Zhitnik, I.A., Delaboudini\u00e8re, J.-P., Auch\u00e8re, F.: 2005, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}\u00a0**110**, A09S07.\n\nGrechnev, V.V., Uralov, A.M., Zandanov, V.G., Rudenko, G.V., Borovik, V.N., Grigorieva, I.Y., *et al.*: 2006, [ [*Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan*]{}]{}\u00a0[**58**]{}, 55.\n\nGrechnev, V.V., Uralov, A.M., Slemzin, V.A., Chertok, I.M., Kuzmenko, I.V., Shibasaki, K.: 2008, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0**253**, 263.\n\nGrechnev, V.V., Uralov, A.M., Chertok, I.M., Kuzmenko, I.V., Afanasyev, A.N., Meshalkina, N.S., Kalashnikov, S.S., Kubo, Y.: 2011a, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**273**]{}, 433.\n\nGrechnev, V.V., Afanasyev, A.N., Uralov, A.M., Chertok, I.M., Eselevich, M.V., Eselevich, V.G., Rudenko, G.V., Kubo, Y.: 2011b, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**273**]{}, 461.\n\nGrechnev, V.V., Uralov, A.M., Slemzin, V.A., Chertok, I.M., Filippov, B.P., Rudenko, G.V., Temmer, M.: 2013, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0in press. doi: 10.1007/s11207-013-0316-6.\n\nHoward, R.A., Michels, D.J., Sheeley, N.R., Jr., Koomen, M.J.: 1982, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**263**]{}, L101.\n\nIlling, R.M.E.: 1984, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**280**]{}, 399.\n\nIvanov, K.G., Romashets, E.P., Kharshiladze, A.F.: 2006, [*Geomagn. Aeron.*]{} [**46**]{}, 275.\n\nKrall, J., Chen, J., Santoro, R.: 2000, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**539**]{}, 964.\n\nKumar, P., Manoharan, P.K., Uddin, W.: 2011, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**271**]{}, 149.\n\nLeblanc, Y., Dulk, G.A., Vourlidas, A., Bougeret, J.-L.: 2000, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**105**]{}, 18225.\n\nLow, B. C.: 1982, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0**254**, 796.\n\nMari[\u010d]{}i[\u0107]{}, D., Vr[\u0161]{}nak, B., Stanger, A.L., Veronig, A.: 2004, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**225**]{}, 337.\n\nMarubashi, K., Cho, K.-S., Kim, Y.-H., Park, Y.-D., Park, S.-H.: 2012, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**117**]{}, A01101.\n\nMiklenic, C.H., Veronig, A.M., Vr[\u0161]{}nak, B., Hanslmeier, A.: 2007, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{}\u00a0**461**, 697.\n\nMiklenic, C.H., Veronig, A.M., Vr[\u0161]{}nak, B.: 2009, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{}**499**, 893.\n\nMitchell, M.: 1999. *An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms* The MIT Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 158.\n\nM[\" o]{}stl, C., Miklenic, C., Farrugia, C. J., Temmer, M., Veronig, A., Galvin, A. B., Vr[\u0161]{}nak, B., Biernat, H. K.: 2008, [ [*Ann. Geophys.*]{}]{}**26**, 3139.\n\nPomoell, J., Vainio, R., Kissmann, R.: 2008, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}**253**, 249.\n\nPohjolainen, S., Hori, K., Sakurai, T.: 2008, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}**253**, 291.\n\nNeupert, W. M.: 1968, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{}\u00a0**153**, L59.\n\nSheeley, N.R., Jr., Hakala, W.N., Wang, Y.-M.: 2000, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}**105**, A3, 5081.\n\nTemmer, M., Veronig, A. M., Vr[\u0161]{}nak, Ryb[' a]{}k, J., G[\" o]{}m[\" o]{}ry, J., Stoiser, S., Mari[\u010d]{}i[' c]{}, D.: 2008, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{}**673**, L95.\n\nTemmer M., Veronig A.\u00a0M., Kontar E.\u00a0P., Krucker S., Vr[\u0161]{}nak B., 2010, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0**712**, 1410.\n\nTripathi, D., Isobe, H., Jain, R.: 2009, [ [*Space Sci. Rev.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**149**]{}, 283.\n\nUchida, Y.: 1968, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0**4**, 30.\n\nUralova, S. V., Uralov, A. M.: 1994, [[*Solar Phys.*]{}]{}\u00a0**152**, 457.\n\nUralov, A. M., Grechnev, V. V., Hudson, H. S.: 2005, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}**110**, A05104.\n\nVourlidas, A., Wu, S.T., Wang, A.H., Subramanian, P., Howard, R.A.: 2003, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0**598**, 1392.\n\nWang, Y., Zhang, J., Shen, C.: 2009, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**114**]{}, 10104.\n\nWarmuth, A.: 2010, [ [*Adv. Space Res.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**45**]{}, 527.\n\nWarmuth, A.: 2011, [*Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion*]{} [**53**]{}, 124023.\n\nWarmuth, A., Vr[\u0161]{}nak, B., Aurass, H., Hanslmeier, A.: 2001, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{}\u00a0**560**, L105.\n\nWarmuth, A., Vr[\u0161]{}nak, B., Magdaleni[' c]{}, J., Hanslmeier, A., Otruba, W.: 2004a, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{}\u00a0**418**, 1101.\n\nWarmuth, A., Vr[\u0161]{}nak, B., Magdaleni[' c]{}, J., Hanslmeier, A., Otruba, W.: 2004b, [ [*Astron. Astrophys.*]{}]{}\u00a0**418**, 1117.\n\nWarmuth, A., Mann, G., Aurass, H.: 2005, [ [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{}]{}\u00a0**626**, L121.\n\nXue, X.H., Wang, C.B., Dou, X.K.: 2005, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}\u00a0**110**, A08103.\n\nYashiro, S., Gopalswamy, N., Michalek, G., St. Cyr, O. C., Plunkett, S. P., Rich, N. B., Howard, R. A.: 2004, [ [*J. Geophys. Res.*]{}]{}\u00a0109, A07105. Yermolaev Yu. I., Zelenyi, L. M., Zastenker, G. N., Petrukovich, A. A., Yermolaev, M. Yu., Nikolaeva, N. S., [*et al.*]{}: 2005, *Geomagn. Aeron.* **45**, 681.\n\nYurchyshyn, V., Hu, Q., Abramenko, V.: 2005, *Space Weather* **3**, S08C02. Zhang, J., Dere, K. P.: 2006, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0**649**, 1100.\n\nZhang, J., Dere, K.P., Howard, R.A., Kundu, M.R., White, S.M.: 2001, [ [*Astrophys. J.*]{}]{}\u00a0[**559**]{}, 452.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    In the last decades there have been an increasing interest in improving the accuracy of spacecraft navigation and trajectory data. In the course of this plan some anomalies have been found that cannot, in principle, be explained in the context of the most accurate orbital models including all known effects from classical dynamics and general relativity. Of particular interest for its puzzling nature, and the lack of any accepted explanation for the moment, is the flyby anomaly discovered in some spacecraft flybys of the Earth over the course of twenty years. This anomaly manifest itself as the impossibility of matching the pre and post-encounter Doppler tracking and ranging data within a single orbit but, on the contrary, a difference of a few mm$/$s in the asymptotic velocities is required to perform the fitting.\n\n    Nevertheless, no dedicated missions have been carried out to elucidate the origin of this phenomenon with the objective either of revising our understanding of gravity or to improve the accuracy of spacecraft Doppler tracking by revealing a conventional origin.\n\n    With the occasion of the Juno mission arrival at Jupiter and the close flybys of this planet, that are currently been performed, we have developed an orbital model suited to the time window close to the perijove. This model shows that an anomalous acceleration of a few mm$/$s$^2$ is also present in this case. The chance for overlooked conventional or possible unconventional explanations is discussed.\nauthor:\n- |\n    L. Acedo[^1], P. Piqueras and J. A. Mora\u00f1o\\\n    Instituto Universitario de Matem\u00e1tica Multidisciplinar,\\\n    Building 8G, $2^{\\mathrm{o}}$ Floor, Camino de Vera,\\\n    Universitat Polit$\\grave{\\mbox{e}}$cnica de Val$\\grave{\\mbox{e}}$ncia,\\\n    Valencia, Spain\\\nbibliography:\n- 'acedobiblio.bib'\ntitle: A possible flyby anomaly for Juno at Jupiter\n---\n\n[**Keywords:**]{} Juno mission, Tidal perturbations, Jupiter\u2019s gravity model, Flyby anomaly\n\nIntroduction {#intro}\n============\n\nA key step towards interplanetary space exploration was achieved by the theoretical work of Minovitch [@Minovitch1; @Minovitch2] and Flandro [@Flandro]. In the early sixties of the past century these authors proposed the use of the gravitational assist manoeuvre to increase the energy of spacecraft in the Solar System barycenter, allowing for fast reconnaissance missions to the outer planets from Jupiter to Neptune [@Butrica]. Since then, many gravity assist, flyby or slingshot manoeuvers (as this manoeuver can be equally be named) have been programmed in the course of missions to the inner planets (Mariner, Messenger), outer planets (Pioneer, Voyager, Galileo, Cassini, New Horizons, Juno) or asteroids (NEAR). The objective of many of these flybys is to obtain data from the planets as they flyby them and to take advantage of the energy transfer obtained during the flyby [@Transfer].\n\nApart from the obvious contribution to planetary science, these missions have provided an excellent framework to perform tests of General Relativity and to improve the accuracy of trajectory determination systems. As soon as 1976, the Viking mission allowed for the verification of Shapiro\u2019s echo delay prediction of an increase in a time taken for a round-trip\u2019s light signal to travel between the Earth and Mars as a consequence of the curvature of space-time by the Sun [@VikingExp]. More recently, Everitt et al. [@Everitt] have tested the geodetic and frame-dragging effects. Also, the analysis of the data from the Messenger mission to Mercury is now used for improving the accuracy of ephemeris as they also put a stringent test on the parameters in the post-newtonian formalism [@Messenger1; @Messenger2]. With such an ongoing interest in fundamental aspects of spacecraft dynamics and gravity it is, perhaps, not surprising that some anomalies have showed up in the years passed since the beginning of the space age. Among them, the so-called Pioneer anomaly stands out as a particularly interesting case. As it has become common lore within the space physics community, the Pioneer anomaly consist on a trend detected on the Doppler data for the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft as they travel beyond Jupiter. This trend was consistent with an, almost constant, acceleration of $a_P=(8.74\\pm 1.33) \\times 10^{-8} $ cm$/$s$^2$ directed, approximately, towards the Sun [@LPDSolarSystem; @Anderson2002]. Despite the many suggestions for new physics [@TuryshevReview], the problem was finally settled, after the careful retrieval of the whole telemetry dataset, as originating from the anisotropic emission of heat from the radioactive sources on the thermoelectric generators [@Rievers2011; @PioneerPRL; @Bertolami2010].\n\nEven more intriguing is the flyby anomaly, i. e., the unexplained difference among the post-encounter and the pre-encounter Doppler residuals of a spacecraft in a gravity assist manoeuver around the Earth [@Anderson2008]. The first detection of the effect occurred during the first Galileo flyby of the Earth on December, 8th, 1990. In this case the discrepancy was interpreted as an anomalous increase of $3.92$ mm$/$s in the post-encounter asymptotic velocity. It is important to emphasize that this anomaly is also observed in the ranging data and cannot be attributed to a conventional or unconventional issue related entirely to the Doppler tracking. A primary evaluation of the possible conventional physical effects with could be contributing to the anomaly was carried out by L\u00e4mmerzahl et al. [@LPDSolarSystem]. Ocean tides and a coupling of the spacecraft to the tesseral harmonic terms in the geopotential model have also recently been studied [@AcedoMNRAS]. Atmospheric friction can also be dismissed except for flybys at altitudes of $300$ km or lower [@Acedo2017one]. The same can be said of the corrections corresponding to General Relativity [@IorioSRE2009; @Hackmann], thermal effects [@Rievers2011] or other [@Atchison].\n\nThe absence of any convincing explanation have motivated many researchers to undertake the task of looking for models beyond standard physics. An early work by Adler [@Adler2010; @Adler2011] presented a model in which a halo of dark matter coalesces around the Earth and its interactions would explain away the flyby anomaly. Anaway, these interactions would verify very stringent conditions. We have also many models which refer to extensions of General Relativity or modifications of standard newtonian gravity: extensions of Whitehead\u2019s theory of gravity [@Acedo2015; @Acedo2017three], topological torsion [@Pinheiro2014; @Pinheiro2016], retardation effects [@Hafele], motion in conformal gravity [@Varieschi2014] or some [*ad hoc*]{} modifications of the Newtonian potential [@Nyambuya2008; @Wilhelm2015; @Bertolami2016]. In the work of Bertolami et al. [@Bertolami2016] several ungravity inspired modifications of the Newtonian potential through couplings of the stress-energy tensor or the baryonic current with a rank-$2$ tensor are considered. However, the authors conclude that no modifications of the classical Newtonian potential of this kind can account for the anomalous energy changes detected during the flybys. Consequently, dissipative or velocity-dependent effects accounting for an energy transfer from the spacecraft to the planet should be considered in future studies if the anomalies persist after rigorous analysis. One of the objectives of the present paper is to develop a method from which, in principle, we can infer the form of the perturbation from the trajectory. This way we can test if the perturbation is compatible with a conservative force of takes another form as proposed by Bertolami et al. [@Bertolami2016] and other authors [@Acedo2015].\n\nAnother non-standard model has been developed by McCulloch who considers a modified inertia as a consequence of a Hubble Casimir effect (MiHsC model). This model predicts a qualitative agreement with the anomalous velocity change found in some missions [@McCulloch] and it has also been applied to the problem of the rotation of galaxies to predict the velocity curve profile in the absence of any dark matter [@McCulloch2017].\n\nThis top-down approach from new theoretical models to fit the data for the anomaly is unlikely to be successful at the present state of research in this area. Although the observations of the anomaly are clear in some cases, it is still on the threshold of detectability (or it is simply absent) from other flyby manoeuvers (such as the Juno flyby of the Earth on October, 2013 [@Jouannic; @Thompson]). It seems more reasonable to improve the analysis of the flyby trajectories performed around the Earth and to carry out more analysis of other flyby manoeuvers in the future. This would help to clarify the existence of such an anomaly, its relation to standard gravity and its manifestation in missions to other planets. The very nature of this anomaly, with its variations in sign and magnitude from flyby to flyby, has made very difficult to find a consistent pattern among them [@Anderson2008] in order to settle its characteristics and phenomenology.\n\nThis could have been done by a dedicated science mission such as the, now cancelled, Space-Time Explorer and Quantum Equivalence Principle Space Test (STE-QUEST) spacecraft [@STEQUEST]. But, as gravity assist manoeuvers are almost routine in every interplanetary mission, we can expect that the necessary data to establish the undeniable existence of the phenomenon and its anomalous nature, i.e., the lack of explanation within the current paradigm of physics. To achieve this objective, it would be highly useful to find that similar anomalies are found in the flybys of other planets. If these anomalies are revealed in this situation, and as L\u00e4mmerzahl et al. have already claimed [@LPDSolarSystem], we will have an important science case. Nowadays, the Juno spacecraft is orbiting around Jupiter in a highly elliptical orbit with perido $53.5$ days after the successful orbit insertion on past July, 4th, 2016. After a failed period reduction manoeuver in its second perijove, the spacecraft is now planned to complete a total of $12$ orbits of which six have now been completed. The interesting fact, in connection with out problem, is that Juno is achieving its periapsis at only $4200$ km over the planet top clouds [@JunoMissionI; @JunoMissionII; @JunoMissionIII] and it provides a new opportunity to test the accuracy of orbit determination and the presence of unexpected discrepancies.\n\nOne of the problems with the analysis of the flyby anomaly is the scarcity of the data and the absence of dedicated missions to study this phenomenological issue. On the other hand, this does not prevent us from defining a clear-cut research objective in experimental gravity and space research: Are highly elliptical and hyperbolic orbits with periapsis close to the main body well described by our current theories of gravity and spacecraft navigation models ?. Starting with Anderson et al. [@Anderson2008] there are many researchers who think that we face a problem in this case and that further research is necessary to obtain as accurate predictions as our current technology allows.\n\nThe objective of this paper is to develop an orbital model specially suited for the perijove time-frame. This model should take into account, at least, the tidal effects of Jupiter\u2019s Galilean satellites and the known zonal harmonics of the planet. By comparing with the telemetry data we disclose a small, but significant, anomalous acceleration whose components in spherical coordinates are of the order of magnitude of a few mm$/$s$^2$ and decay below the measurement error bars after a period of $30$ minutes before or after the perijove. As we will see this is compatible with the expected order of magnitude from Anderson\u2019s phenomenological formula [@Anderson2008] and some modified models of gravity [@Acedo2015; @Acedo2017three].\n\nOrbital model {#sec:2}\n=============\n\nIn this section we discuss the development of an orbital model optimized for the region around the perijove. Our problem is summarized in the set of Newtonian equations of motion: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eqmotionr}\n\\displaystyle\\frac{d {\\bf r}}{d t}&=&{\\bf v} \\; ,\\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\label{eqmotionv}\n\\displaystyle\\frac{d {\\bf v}}{d t}&=&-\\mu_J \\displaystyle\\frac{{\\bf r}}{r^3}+\\bm{\\mathcal{F}}_{\\mbox{tidal}}+\\bm{\\mathcal{F}}_{\\mbox{zonal}} \\; ,\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\bf r}$ and ${\\bf v}$ are the position and velocity vectors of the spacecraft, respectively, $\\mu_J$ is Jupiter\u2019s mass constant, ${\\bm{\\mathcal{F}}}_{\\mbox{tidal}}$ is the perturbing tidal force exerted by the Sun and Jupiter\u2019s satellites, and $\\bm{\\mathcal{F}}_{\\mbox{zonal}}$ are the corrections arising from the known zonal harmonics of the planet. Concerning the mass constants of Jupiter, the Sun and the Galilean satellites we have the following values [@DE431; @Satellites]: $$\\begin{array}{rcl}\n\\mu_J&=&126712764.800000 \\; \\mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\\; , \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\mu_{\\mbox{Sun}}&=&132712440041.939400\\; \\mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\\; , \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\mu_{\\mbox{Io}}&=&5959.916\\; \\mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\\; , \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\mu_{\\mbox{Europa}}&=&3202.739\\; \\mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\\; , \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\mu_{\\mbox{Callisto}}&=&7179.289\\; \\mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\\; , \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\mu_{\\mbox{Ganymede}}&=&9887.834\\; \\mbox{km$^3/$s$^2$}\\; . \n\\end{array}$$ The tidal force on the reference frame of Jupiter exerted by the Sun or any of Jupiter\u2019s satellites is given by: $$\\label{Ftid}\n\\bm{\\mathcal{F}}_{\\mbox{tidal}}=\\mu \\left(-\\displaystyle\\frac{{\\bf R}}{R^3}+\\displaystyle\\frac{{\\bf R}-{\\bf r}}{\\left(r^2+R^2-2 {\\bf r} \n\\cdot {\\bf R} \\right)^{3/2}}\\right)\\; .$$ Here ${\\bf R}$ is the position vector of the third body and ${\\bf r}$ is the position vector of the spacecraft with respect to the mass center of Jupiter. The contribution to the gravitational potential of the quadrupole, octupole and higher order terms is given by: $$\\label{Upot}\nU(r,\\theta)=-\\displaystyle\\frac{\\mu_J}{r} \\, \\displaystyle\\sum_{n=2}^N \\, J_n \\, \\left( \\displaystyle\\frac{R_J}{r} \\right)^n P_{n}(\\cos \\theta) \\; ,$$ where $J_n$ are the zonal harmonics coefficients [@Vallado], $P_n(x)$ are the Legendre polynomials and $\\theta$ is the colatitude of the spacecraft (the angle formed by the spacecraft\u2019s position vector and the axis of the planet). The reference radius is $R_J=71492$ km and the known zonal harmonics [@Transfer] are given by: $$\\label{Jcoeff}\n\\begin{array}{rcl}\nJ_2&=&0.01469645 \\; , \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\nJ_4&=&-0.00058722\\; , \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\nJ_6&=&0.00003508\\; ,\n\\end{array}$$ so, we take $N=6$ in Eq. (\\[Upot\\]) and we consider also only the coefficients of even order. In spherical coordinates, the components of the perturbing force corresponding to the potential in Eq. (\\[Upot\\]) are: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Fgeor}\n{\\mathcal F}_r &=&-\\displaystyle\\frac{\\mu_J}{r^2} \\, \\displaystyle\\sum_{n=2}^N \\,\nJ_n (n+1)\\left( \\displaystyle\\frac{R_J}{r} \\right)^n \\, P_n(\\cos \\theta) \\; ,\\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\label{Fgeot}\n{\\mathcal F}_\\theta &=&-\\displaystyle\\frac{\\mu_J}{r^2}\\, \\displaystyle\\sum_{n=2}^N  \\, J_n \\left(\\displaystyle\\frac{R_J}{r} \\right)^n\\, P^{'}_n(\\cos \\theta) \\, \\sin\\theta\\, \\; .\\end{aligned}$$ So the perturbing force arising from the zonal harmonics terms is $\\bm{\\mathcal{F}}_{\\mbox{geo}}=\n\\mathcal{F}_r \\, \\hat{\\bm{r}}+\\mathcal{F}_\\theta \\, \\hat{\\bm{\\theta}}$, with $\\hat{\\bm{r}}$ and $\\hat{\\bm{\\theta}}$ as the unit radial and polar vectors. In order to calculate this force we must know the orientation of the axis of Jupiter in the ecliptic frame of reference. The right ascension, $\\alpha_J$, and declination, $\\delta_J$, of the unit vector pointing in the direction of this axis vary with time as a consequence of precession and nutation and it is given by [@Jupiterfacts]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{EqaxisJ}\n\\alpha_J &=& 268.057 - 0.006\\, T\\; ,\\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\delta_J &=& 64.495 + 0.002\\, T\\; ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ is the time in Julian years from the J2000 reference date (Julian day $2451545.0$). For the first flyby of Jupiter on August 27th, 2016 we have $T=0.0166516$ Julian years and this allows for a determination of the axis orientation in the Earth\u2019s equatorial frame of reference with an accuracy of $0.001$ sexagesimal degrees. The obliquity of the ecliptic is also known with high accuracy at a given Julian date in terms of the following polynomial in $T$ [@Almanac]: $$\\label{oblq}\n\\begin{array}{rcl}\n\\chi&=& 23^\\circ 26^{'} 21.406^{''}-46.836769^{''} T \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n&-&0.0001831^{''} T^2+0.00200340^{''} T^3 \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n&-&5.76^{''}\\times 10^{-7} T^4-4.34^{''} \\times  10^{-8} T^5\\; .\n\\end{array}$$ From Eqs. (\\[EqaxisJ\\]) and (\\[oblq\\]) we have calculated the components of Jupiter\u2019s axis in the ecliptic reference frame: $$\\label{kaxis}\n\\begin{array}{rcl}\n\\hat{k}_x&=&-0.01460\\; ,\\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\hat{k}_y&=&-0.03582\\; ,\\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n\\hat{k}_z&=&0.99925\\; .\n\\end{array}$$ Finally, from the vector in Eq. (\\[kaxis\\]) and the spacecraft\u2019s position vector we can determine the colatitude angle in Eqs. (\\[Fgeor\\]) and (\\[Fgeot\\]) in order to compute the force arising from the zonal harmonics.\n\nWe will also point out that we have used an iterative procedure to solve the equations of motion in Eq. (\\[eqmotionr\\])-(\\[eqmotionv\\]) because its simplicity and stability in comparison with the alternative approach in which the unknown functions, ${\\bf r}(t)$ and ${\\bf v}(t)$, appear also in the perturbation terms. The algorithm proceeds as follows:\n\n-   We select a given timestep (in minutes in the ephemeris for Juno [@Horizons]) as close to the perijove as possible. This would be our initial condition. The fact that it does not coincide with the perijove is not relevant for our purpose.\n\n    The main reason for this backwards and forward integration procedure is to reduce the propagation of errors in the numerical method. Alternatively, we can start from an instant $180$ minutes before the perijove and integrate throughout the perijove to another instant $180$ minutes after the perijove but we have found that numerical errors are larger in this second method.\n\n-   The equations of motion are integrated backwards and forward in time for a period of, at least, $180$ minutes. In this first integration we ignore the perturbation forces.\n\n-   The tidal forces and the zonal contribution to the perturbation are evaluated at the positions given by the zeroth-order keplerian approximation (the ideal hyperbolic orbit).\n\n-   A new integration of the equations of motion is carried out with the perturbing forces evaluated in the previous step. This would be our first order approximation.\n\n-   Subsequently, we evaluate the perturbation forces with the positions obtained in the $n$th-order approximation to obtain the position and velocities of the spacecraft in the $(n+1)$th-order approximation.\n\n-   The algorithm stops when the differences among the $n$th-order and the $n+1$th-order approximation is below a given threshold.\n\nWe must also emphasize that computation was carried out with double precision to keep the accuracy of the model data throughout the evaluation of the predictions of the model. In the next section we will discuss the results obtained with the methods summarized here.\n\nEvaluation of the residual acceleration at the perijove {#sec:3}\n=======================================================\n\nIn this section we will discuss the analysis of the first, third and fourth orbits of Juno around Jupiter. Using the method described in the previous section we will focus on the region around the perijove in order to unveil any possible anomalies in the trajectory as they have already been found in close flybys of the Earth [@Anderson2008]. We have not considered the second flyby in which a period reduction manoeuver was planned but, later on, cancelled because the helium check valves were not operating properly [@Junovalve]. Consequently, the spacecraft was set into safe mode during that particular flyby.\n\nWe considered the telemetry data for the first flyby starting from August, 26th at $00\\mbox{:}00.000$ Barycentric dynamical time (TDB). From such reference the minimum distance to the center of Jupiter was attained at minute $t_P=2212$. The spatial coordinates and velocity at that instant were taken as the initial conditions for our integration procedure.\n\n![Comparison among the distance to the center of Jupiter of the Juno spacecraft during the first flyby (open circles) and the ideal hyperbolic approximation (solid line). Coordinate $r$ is measured in km and time in minutes since the initial condition close to the perijove.[]{data-label=\"fig1\"}](Figure1.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nIf we ignore the perturbation terms in Eqs. (\\[eqmotionr\\])-(\\[eqmotionv\\]) we obtain the ideal hyperbolic keplerian solution as a crude approximation to the real trajectory. As shown in Fig. \\[fig1\\] the difference seems small, in the distance scale of Jupiter\u2019s radius, but it is critical in our analysis of the trajectories.\n\nTidal forces\n------------\n\nIt is convenient to consider separately the effect of tidal forces to compare its impact on the trajectory perturbations with that of the zonal harmonics. We will see that in the vicinity of the perijove the tidal contribution is small in relation to the effect of the multipole terms in the gravitational model of Jupiter. To visualize the magnitude of the different tidal forces we have plotted in Fig. \\[fig2\\] the magnitude of the tidal forces exerted by any of the Galilean satellites and, also, by the Sun.\n\n![Tidal acceleration exerted upon the Juno spacecraft by (from top to bottom): Io, Ganymede, Europa, Callisto and the Sun. The tidal force per unit mass is measured in km$/$s$^2$ and time is given in seconds from the perijove. []{data-label=\"fig2\"}](Figure2.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nNotice that the distance to the planet and the spacecraft during the flyby seems the most important factor on the determination of the magnitude of these forces. At an average distance of $5.2$ Astronomical Units from the Sun, the tidal effect is less important than in the case of Earth flybys [@Anderson2008]. As Io is the closest satellite it also gives the larger tides, despite it is not as massive as Ganymede or Callisto.\n\n![The difference among the distance of the Juno spacecraft to the center of Jupiter in the ideal hyperbolic approximation and the prediction of the orbital model (including only the effect of the tidal forces). This difference is measured in km and time in minutes since the perijove.[]{data-label=\"fig3\"}](Figure3.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nIn Fig. \\[fig3\\] we have plotted the results for the orbital model incorporating only the effect of the tides from Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto and the Sun. We show that there is a reduction, in the correct direction according to Fig. \\[fig1\\], for the prediction of the radial coordinate of the spacecraft. However, this is not sufficient to provide a good fit of the discrepancies.\n\nResults for the complete orbital model\n--------------------------------------\n\nOur interest is now to implement the whole orbital model as defined in Sec. \\[sec:2\\]. In the first place, we have plotted the difference among the radial coordinate in the zeroth-order keplerian approximation and the data compared with the same difference for the prediction of the orbital model. This is shown in Fig. \\[fig4\\]. We see that the agreement is very good but the model systematically underestimates the altitude of the spacecraft as if some outwards anomalous radial acceleration were acting upon Juno during its approximation to the perijove.\n\n![Difference among the radial coordinate (in the ideal keplerian approximation) and the data (solid line) compared with the same substraction evaluated for the orbital model (dashed line). Notice that the agreement among the data and the model is good except for small, but noticeable discrepancies, that build up before or after the perijove.[]{data-label=\"fig4\"}](Figure4.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThis result requires further investigation so we have shown in Fig. \\[fig5\\] the difference of the model predictions directly with the data for the first and second iteration of the algorithm described in Sec. \\[sec:2\\]. As we will see later, the third and subsequent iterations yield only very small corrections to this picture.\n\n![Difference among the data for the radial coordinate and the orbital model: first approximation (dashed line) and second approximation (solid line). Distances are measured in km and time in minutes from the perijove.[]{data-label=\"fig5\"}](Figure5.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe discrepancy is around several tens of kms and, consequently, it can be considered a very clear signal in the telemetry data that deserves further analysis. The difference among the model and the data is sufficiently accurate to allow for a determination of the components of the acceleration field responsible for this deviation of the spacecraft from the predicted trajectory. This is achieved by using a fourth-order central finite difference method [@Fornberg]: $$\\label{deltaa}\n\\begin{array}{rcl}\n\\delta{\\bf a}&=&\\displaystyle\\frac{1}{h^2} \\,\\left\\{ -\\displaystyle\\frac{1}{12}\\left( \\delta {\\bf r}(t - 2 h)+\n\\delta {\\bf r}(t+2 h)\\right)\\right. \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n &+&\\displaystyle\\frac{4}{3}\\left( \\delta {\\bf r}(t-h)+\\delta {\\bf r}(t+h) \\right)-\n\\left. \\displaystyle\\frac{5}{2} \\delta {\\bf r}(t)\\right\\} \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n&-&\\displaystyle\\frac{1}{90} \\displaystyle\\frac{d^6 \\delta {\\bf r}}{d t^6} \\, h^4+ {\\mathcal O}\\left(h^5\\right) \\; ,\n\\end{array}$$ where $h$ is the timestep and the error term can be estimated by using the corresponding approximation for the sixth-order derivative. As the data provided for the spacecraft tracking is separated by one minute intervals [@Horizons] we should also choose $h=1$ min to allow for the evaluation of Eq. (\\[deltaa\\]) with the same accuracy.\n\n![Radial component of the anomalous acceleration acting upon the Juno spacecraft during the perijove manoeuvre. The solid line corresponds to the first flyby and the open circles to the third one.[]{data-label=\"fig6\"}](Figure6.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![The same as Fig. \\[fig6\\] but for the polar component.[]{data-label=\"fig7\"}](Figure7.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![The same as Figs. \\[fig6\\] and Fig. \\[fig7\\] but for the azimuthal component.[]{data-label=\"fig8\"}](Figure8.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nBy computing the extra acceleration in Eq. (\\[deltaa\\]) to match the two trajectories (the one in our orbital model and the one delivered by the Juno\u2019s mission team to JPL fitted to the telemetry data) we find the discrepancies shown in Figs. \\[fig6\\]-\\[fig8\\] for the radial, polar and azimuthal components. In these figures we show the results for the first and third flyby of the Juno spacecraft which, essentially, followed the same trajectory in the two approximations to Jupiter. Notice that the results are similar for both flybys. In the case of the radial component, we find two sharp peaks of different amplitude as a manifestation of an oscillatory behaviour as a function of time. On the other hand, the analysis yields different behaviour for the polar and azimuthal components as shown in Fig. \\[fig7\\] and Fig. \\[fig8\\] but these are two or three orders of magnitude smaller than the radial component and we can think that this is not statistically significant as other sources of error may also be distorting these components.\n\nSources of error and interpretation of the results\n--------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this section we will discuss some possible sources of error that could explain the discrepancy among the trajectory fitted by the Juno\u2019s team and the orbital model proposed in this paper. And, in particular, the perturbing acceleration whose components in spherical coordinates are plotted in Figs. \\[fig6\\]-\\[fig8\\].\n\n![The difference (in meters) between the radial coordinate for the second and the third iteration of the Picard\u2019s method discussed in the text. Time is measured in minutes from the closes approach to Jupiter in the first Juno\u2019s flyby.[]{data-label=\"fig9\"}](Figure9.eps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nIn Fig. \\[fig9\\] we have shown the difference among the second and the third iteration of the Picard\u2019s method applied to the solution of the equations of motion Eq. (\\[eqmotionr\\])-(\\[eqmotionv\\]) that, for a period of fifty minutes around the perigee, is of the order of $10$ meters and, consequently, three orders of magnitude below the differences of the second iteration and the JPL\u2019s fitting as shown in Fig. \\[fig5\\]. So, we can be confident that the convergence of the method is very fast for our problem and the results are reliable.\n\nAnother question is the accuracy of the ephemeris of the moons of Jupiter. Since the beginning of radar astronomy the precision of these measurements has improved very fast. As early as 1965 the features of Venus were tracked with a maximum uncertainty of $3$ km [@Tausworthe] by Deep-Space radars. Subsequent missions to Jupiter has allowed also a high-accuracy determination of the orbits of the moons of this planet. Starting from Eq. (\\[Ftid\\]) we get an estimation of the perturbation of the tidal forces as a function of the uncertainty in the position $\\delta {\\bf R}$:\n\n$$\\begin{array}{rcl}\n\\delta \\bm{\\mathcal{F}}_{\\mbox{tidal}}&=&\\mu \\left(-\\displaystyle\\frac{\\delta {\\bf R}}{R^3}+3 \\displaystyle\\frac{{\\bf R}}{R^5}{\\bf R} \\cdot \\delta {\\bf R}\\right.\\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n&+&\\displaystyle\\frac{\\delta {\\bf R}}{\\left(r^2+R^2-2 {\\bf r}\n\\cdot {\\bf R} \\right)^{3/2}} \\\\\n\\noalign{\\smallskip}\n&-&\\left. 3 \\displaystyle\\frac{\\left({\\bf R}-{\\bf r}\\right) \\cdot \\delta {\\bf R}}{\\left(r^2+R^2-2 {\\bf r}\n\\cdot {\\bf R} \\right)^{5/2}} \\left( {\\bf R}-{\\bf r}\\right)   \\right)\\; .\n\\end{array}$$\n\nAssuming an error of $3$ km in a random direction for the position of Io we get an uncertainty in the tidal acceleration exerted upon Juno of $10^{-13}$ km$/$s$^2$, which it is certainly very small and can be dismissed as the origin of the possible anomaly discussed in this paper.\n\nMismodelling of the zonal coefficients is also a source of error. For example, a variation of $J_2$ by $10^{-8}$ would imply, according to Eqs. (\\[Fgeor\\]) and (\\[Fgeot\\]), a perturbing force of magnitude $\\vert \\delta {\\bf F} \\vert\n\\simeq 2.92 \\times 10^{-4}$ mm$/$s$^2$, which it is very small in comparison perturbing accelerations we have found in the previous section. However, a disregarded zonal coefficient with order $J_n \\simeq 10^{-4}$ could explain the anomalies in the integration of our model. So, further research into the structure of Jupiter is necessary and this can be achieved in future analysis of the data provided by the Juno mission. Anyway, it seems unlikely that zonal coefficients of order eight and higher could be so large. As it happens in the case of the Earth, we expect that these coefficients would diminish with the order and from Eq. (\\[Jcoeff\\]) an upper bound $J_8 < 10^{-5}$ seems reasonable for the first ignored coefficient in our calculation. The Eqs. (\\[Fgeor\\]) and (\\[Fgeot\\]) then gives us an estimation of $1$ mm/s$^2$ for the magnitude of the component of the acceleration at perijove but this is only $10^{-3}$ mm/s$^2$ an hour before or after the perijove. So, a better modelling of the gravitational model of Jupiter is necessary for studying the orbit of Juno near the perigee but we cannot discard the anomaly because it persists even an hour after crossing the perigee as shown in Fig. \\[fig6\\] with a magnitude too large to be explained only in terms of mismodelled or ignored zonal coefficients.\n\nAnother source of mismodelling can arise from the estimation of Jupiter\u2019s axis orientation in space. If we consider that the axis at J2000 instead of the correction for the date of Juno\u2019s flybys, by taking $T=0$ in Eq. (\\[EqaxisJ\\]), a perturbation in the force term of the potential model of magnitude $\\vert \\delta {\\bf F} \\vert \\simeq 5.63 \\times 10^{-5}$ mm$/$s$^2$ is found.\n\nOne should also consider that the spacecraft is an extended object which rotates at three revolutions per minute. This would generate a small magnetic moment for Juno which could contribute to the equations of motion through interaction with the magnetic field of Jupiter but this has been estimated as negligible in other cases [@LPDSolarSystem]. It has also been shown that helicity of radio waves can exhibit a coupling with the rotation of the spacecraft and the rotation of the planet [@Helicity] but this only influences the two-way Doppler data and it can not explain the arising of the anomaly also in the ranging data [@LPDSolarSystem].\n\nA remaining possibility is the connection among the discrepancies found and the flyby anomaly, which have been detected earlier in spacecraft flybys of the Earth. Some models have suggested that the Earth\u2019s gravitational field is distorted by an unknown extra term, not taken into account in General Relativity, and that this can be interpreted as a force field with a range of a few hundred kms [@Acedo2017two]. In the model by Acedo and Bel [@Acedo2015; @Acedo2017three] an anomalous azimuthal component of the gravity acceleration is proposed. The magnitude of this extra acceleration is given by: $$\\label{Bel}\n\\delta a=\\displaystyle\\frac{\\mu}{r^2} \\, \\displaystyle\\frac{\\Omega R}{c} \\; ,$$ where $\\mu$, $R$ are the mass constant and radius of the planet, $\\Omega$ is the angular velocity with respect to the fixed stars and $r$ the distance of the spacecraft to the center. It was shown that this model yields a qualitative agreement with the measured anomalies in several flybys of the Earth [@Acedo2015]. If we apply this expression to the case of Jupiter, by taking into account that $r \\simeq R = 71492$ km at the perijove and that the Jupiter\u2019s angular velocity is $\\Omega=2 \\pi/T$, $T=9.9259$ hours [@Jupiterfacts], we get $\\delta a=1.0396$ mm$/$s$^2$. This agrees with the order of magnitude of the peaks in the radial component of the extra acceleration shown in Fig. \\[fig6\\]. If this is merely a numerical coincidence or we require a fundamental modification in our understanding of highly elliptical orbital dynamics could only be disclosed by further analysis of these trajectories in future missions.\n\nFinally, some possible classical effects and the magnitude of the acceleration imparted upon the spacecraft are listed in Table \\[tab1\\] in order to compare with the anomaly. Some of these values are taken from L\u00e4mmerzahl et al. study for the Earth\u2019s flyby anomaly [@LPDSolarSystem], but they can be extrapolated to the case of Juno at Jupiter.\n\n  ------------------------------------ --------------------------------\n  \\[tab1\\] [*Non-modelled effect*]{}    [*Acceleration\u2019s magnitude*]{}\n  Solar wind                                 $10^{-7}$ mm$/$s$^2$\n  Albedo\u2019s pressure                          $10^{-6}$ mm$/$s$^2$\n  Magnetic moment                           $10^{-12}$ mm$/$s$^2$\n  Spacecraft\u2019s charge                        $10^{-5}$ mm$/$s$^2$\n  Atmospheric\u2019s friction                     $10^{-5}$ mm$/$s$^2$\n  Tides                                      $10^{-2}$ mm$/$s$^2$\n  Ephemeris\u2019 uncertainty                     $10^{-7}$ mm$/$s$^2$\n  Ignored zonal harmonics                       $1$ mm$/$s$^2$\n  Gravitomagnetism                             $0.1$ mm$/$s$^2$\n  ------------------------------------ --------------------------------\n\n  : Non-modelled classical effects in our orbital model and the magnitude of the corresponding accelerations.\n\nAt this table we see that most effects contribute only a very small fraction to the putative anomalous acceleration disclosed in this work. Solar wind indeed is only around a factor $1/25$ of the contribution at Earth because it decreases with the square of the distance to the Sun. Additional zonal harmonics to those considered in our model are certainly an important issue to elucidate in future research about Jupiter\u2019s interior as well as the gravitomagnetic effect [@Hackmann; @IorioSRE2009; @IorioJunoLT] but their contribution to the orbital model cannot explain the trajectory as modelled in this paper.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nJuno mission to Jupiter is becoming one of the most successful space missions of the XXIst century. It is also the first time in which a spacecraft performs close flybys of a giant planet to analyze its atmosphere, magnetic field and gravitational structure [@JunoMissionI; @JunoMissionII; @JunoMissionIII]. The Juno spacecraft is currently in a highly eccentric elliptical orbit around Jupiter. This orbit is perpendicular to Jupiter\u2019s equatorial plane and crosses over the poles of the planet with a periapsis near to the equator. The altitude of the perijove over Jupiter\u2019s top clouds is around $4200$ km for the first flyby and it is programmed to raise slowly throughout the planned $36$ orbits. A period reduction manoeuver from the $53.5$ days period orbit to an, approximately, $14$ days period orbit was also scheduled but finally cancelled because a failure in the opening of the helium check valves [@Junovalve].\n\nThe orbit is also being carefully monitored by the retrieval of telemetry data and the evaluation of the ephemeris from the mission team, these are then incorporated into the Horizons\u2019 web system [@Horizons] which make them available to the whole scientific community. The resulting ephemeris are fits to radiometric tracking data which take into account all the modelling details taken into account by the navigation team of the particular mission including atmospheric friction, solar pressure and perturbations by the planets and satellites. Our objective in this paper has been to develop an independent orbital model for Juno\u2019s trajectory in the vicinity of the perijove in order to compare with the orbit fitted by the Juno mission team to the telemetry data. In doing so, we should be able to disclose any possible discrepancies and to test the validity of orbital determination programs.\n\nIn our model we have taken into account the tidal forces exerted by the Sun and by Jupiter\u2019s larger satellites, i. e., the Galilean satellites: Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto and also the contributions of the known zonal harmonics [@Transfer]. We have found that the multipolar field contributions due to Jupiter\u2019s oblateness are far more important near the perijove than the tidal forces and that they provide a very good fit of the trajectory. Nevertheless the agreement is not perfect within the error bars for the models and small discrepancies persist after considering the aforementioned perturbations. We have interpreted this discrepancy as an anomalous extra acceleration whose component is mainly radial. This acceleration is in the range of a few mm$/$s$^2$ and exhibit two, almost symmetric, peaks around fifteen minutes before and after the perijove. In a period of $3$ hours after the crossing of the perigee it has decayed near to zero. At this moment, the spacecraft is located at a distance of $\\simeq 4.75$ Jupiter\u2019s radii. All this made the resulting anomaly consistent with an interaction which decays very fast with the distance to the planet as it have been suggested in connection with the flyby anomaly [@Acedo2017two]. On the other hand, there are other possible sources which require further investigation such as the mismodelling of zonal coefficients for the planet or the effect of its strong magnetic field. Anyway, in the case of the magnetic forces they should be directed mainly perpendicular to Juno\u2019s trajectory as it flybys the planet in a polar orbit and, on the contrary, the anomaly is found mainly as a radial component of the acceleration.\n\nSummarizing, we can say that in this paper: (i) We have found evidence that an anomaly could be operating also during the Juno flybys of Jupiter (ii) We have developed a theoretical model to compare with the orbital model fitted to telemetry data in order to disclose the form of the possible anomalous acceleration field acting upon the spacecraft. A significant radial component was found and this decays with the distance to the center of Jupiter as expected from an unknown physical interaction. (iii) The anomaly shows an asymmetry among the incoming and outgoing branches of the trajectory and this could be suggestive of a non-conservative interaction. The confirmation of these conclusions would require further independent analysis and we hope that our work will stimulate future research in this and other planetary flybys.\n\nIn the context of this discussion we should also mention that similar anomalous accelerations are also found in several spacecraft flybys of the Earth [@AcedoEarth]. In this case, they are only a $1.5$ % of those found in the case of the Juno\u2019s flybys of Jupiter. This contributes to the interest of the problem of high-accuracy orbital dynamics in the particular case of close flybys of the planets. Only the interplay among physics, spacecraft navigation and engineering could finally solve this issue.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nNASA\u2019s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Juno mission team are ackowledged for providing all the ephemerides of this work through the on-line Horizon system.\n\n[^1]: E-mail: luiacrod@imm.upv.es\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    In this paper we continue the investigations initiated in [@LopLopstar] on ratio asymptotics of multiple orthogonal polynomials and functions of the second kind associated with Nikishin systems on star-like sets. We describe in detail the limiting functions found in [@LopLopstar], expressing them in terms of certain conformal mappings defined on a compact Riemann surface of genus zero. We also express the limiting values of the recurrence coefficients, which are shown to be strictly positive, in terms of certain values of the conformal mappings. As a consequence, the limits depend exclusively on the location of the intervals determined by the supports of the measures that generate the Nikishin system.\n\n    **Keywords:** Multiple orthogonal polynomial, Nikishin system, ratio asymptotics, conformal mapping.\n\n    **MSC 2010:** Primary $42C05$, $30E10$; Secondary $47B39$.\nauthor:\n- 'Abey L\u00f3pez-Garc\u00edaGuillermo L\u00f3pez Lagomasino'\ntitle: 'Nikishin systems on star-like sets: Ratio asymptotics of the associated multiple orthogonal polynomials, II'\n---\n\nIntroduction and statement of main results\n==========================================\n\nMultiple orthogonal polynomials (MOP) and their asymptotic properties have received considerable attention in the last three decades, partly due to their applicability in different fields. The so called Nikishin systems of measures introduced in [@Nik] play a central role in many of these studies. Some of the basic questions involve uniqueness of the MOP [@FidLop], convergence of the corresponding Hermite-Pad\u00e9 approximants [@BusLop], $n$-th root [@GonRakSor], ratio [@AptLopRocha] (see also [@LopLopratio]), and strong [@Apt; @LopVan] asymptotics of sequences of MOP. We have limited to a short list of significant contributions, see also reference lists in [@LopLopstar; @LopMin].\n\nThis paper is devoted to the study of the ratio asymptotic behavior of MOP associated with Nikishin systems of measures on star-like sets and of the limit behavior of the coefficients in the recurrence relation they satisfy. It is a continuation of the investigations in [@LopLopstar; @LopMin]. We improve the results in [@LopLopstar] by giving a detailed expression of the limiting functions that describe the ratio asymptotics and the limiting values of the recurrence coefficients. See also [@Lop] for an account of corresponding results in the case $p=2$.\n\nThe interest in the study of MOP on star-like sets has its origin in the study of Faber polynomials associated with hypocycloidal domains [@EierVarga; @HeSaff] and the asymptotic and spectral properties of polynomials generated by high order three-term recurrence relations [@AptKalSaff; @AptKalIse; @DelLop]. Recently, MOP on star-like sets associated with Angelesco systems or classical type weights have been studied in [@LeuVan1; @LeuVan2; @LouVan].\n\nLet $p\\geq 2$ be an integer, and let $$S_{\\pm}:=\\{z\\in\\mathbb{C}: z^{p+1}\\in\\mathbb{R}_{\\pm}\\},\\qquad \\mathbb{R}_{+}=[0,+\\infty),\\quad \\mathbb{R}_{-}=(-\\infty,0].$$ We construct $p$ finite stars contained in $S_{\\pm}$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Gamma_{j} & :=\\{z\\in\\mathbb{C}: z^{p+1}\\in[a_{j},b_{j}]\\},\\qquad \\quad 0\\leq\nj\\leq p-1,\\end{aligned}$$ where $$0\\leq a_{j}<b_{j}<\\infty,\\quad j\\equiv 0\\mod 2,$$ $$-\\infty< a_{j}<b_{j}\\leq 0, \\quad j\\equiv 1\\mod 2,$$ thus $\\Gamma_{j}\\subset S_{+}$ if $j$ is even, and $\\Gamma_{j}\\subset S_{-}$ if $j$ is odd. We assume throughout that $\\Gamma_{j}\\cap\n\\Gamma_{j+1}=\\emptyset$ for all $0\\leq j\\leq p-2$.\n\nWe define now a Nikishin system on $(\\Gamma_{0},\\ldots,\\Gamma_{p-1})$. For each $0\\leq j\\leq p-1$, let $\\sigma_{j}$ denote a positive, rotationally invariant measure on $\\Gamma_{j}$, with infinitely many points in its support. These will be the measures generating the Nikishin system. Let $$\\widehat{\\sigma}_j(z):=\\int\\frac{d\\sigma_j(t)}{z-t}$$ denote the Cauchy transform of $\\sigma_j$. We define the measure $\\langle \\sigma_{0},\\ldots,\\sigma_{N}\\rangle$ by the following recursive procedure. For $N=0$, $\\langle \\sigma_{0}\\rangle:= \\sigma_{0}$, for $N=1$, $$d\\langle \\sigma_{0},\\sigma_{1}\\rangle (z):= \\widehat{\\sigma}_{1}(z)\\,d\\sigma_{0}(z),$$ and for $N>1$, $$\\langle \\sigma_{0},\\ldots,\\sigma_{N}\\rangle := \\langle \\sigma_{0},\\langle\n\\sigma_{1},\\ldots,\\sigma_{N}\\rangle\\rangle.$$\n\nWe define the Nikishin system $(s_{0},\\ldots,s_{p-1})=\\mathcal{N}(\\sigma_0,\\ldots,\\sigma_{p-1})$ generated by the vector of $p$ measures $(\\sigma_0,\\ldots,\\sigma_{p-1})$ by setting $$\\label{def:sj}\ns_{j}:=\\langle \\sigma_{0},\\ldots, \\sigma_{j}\\rangle, \\qquad 0\\leq j\\leq p-1.$$ Notice that the measures $s_{j}$ are all supported on the first star $\\Gamma_{0}$.\n\n\\[def:MOP\\] Let $(Q_{n})_{n=0}^\\infty$ be the sequence of monic polynomials of lowest degree that satisfy the following non-hermitian orthogonality conditions: $$\\label{orthog:Qn}\n\\int_{\\Gamma_{0}} Q_{n}(z)\\,z^{l}\\,d s_{j}(z)=0,\\qquad l=0,\\ldots,\\left\\lfloor\n\\frac{n-j-1}{p}\\right\\rfloor,\\qquad 0\\leq j\\leq p-1,$$ where the measures $s_{j}$ are those in , and $\\lfloor\\cdot\\rfloor$ denotes the floor function.\n\nIn more detail, asserts that the polynomial $Q_{n}$, where $n= mp+r$, $0\\leq r \\leq p-1$, satisfies the orthogonality conditions $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_{\\Gamma_{0}} Q_{mp+r}(z)\\,z^{l}\\,ds_{j}(z) & =0,\\qquad l=0,\\ldots,m-1,\\quad\n0\\leq j\\leq p-1,\\\\\n\\int_{\\Gamma_{0}} Q_{mp+r}(z)\\,z^{m}\\,ds_{j}(z) & =0,\\qquad 0\\leq j\\leq\nr-1.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSome algebraic properties of these polynomials were proved in [@LopMin Propositions 2.16, 3.1, Theorem 3.5, Corollary 3.6]. For our purpose, the most significant are:\n\n-   For each $n\\geq 0$, the polynomial $Q_{n}$ has maximal degree $n$.\n\n-   If $n\\equiv \\ell \\mod (p+1)$, $0\\leq \\ell\\leq p$, then there exists a monic polynomial $\\mathcal{Q}_{d}$ of degree $d=\\frac{n-\\ell}{p+1}$ such that $$\\label{eq:decompQn}\n    Q_{n}(z)=z^{\\ell} \\mathcal{Q}_{d}(z^{p+1}),$$ where the zeros of $\\mathcal{Q}_{d}$ are all simple and located in $(a_{0},b_{0})$. In particular, the zeros of $Q_{n}$ are located in the star-like set $S_{+}$.\n\n-   The polynomials $Q_{n}$ satisfy the following three-term recurrence relation of order $p+1$: $$\\label{threetermrec}\n    z\\,Q_{n}(z)=Q_{n+1}(z)+a_{n}\\,Q_{n-p}(z),\\qquad n\\geq p,\\qquad\n    a_{n}>0,$$ where $$Q_{\\ell}(z)=z^{\\ell},\\qquad \\ell=0,\\ldots,p.$$ (Here, there is an abuse of notation since above we denoted by $a_0,\\ldots,a_{p-1}$ the left end points of some intervals on the real line. From the context, we are sure this will cause no confusion in the text.)\n\n-   For every $n\\geq p+1$, the non-zero roots of the polynomials $Q_{n}$ and $Q_{n+1}$ interlace on $\\Gamma_{0}$.\n\nRecurrences of the form , with $a_n>0$ for all $n$, were studied in [@AptKalIse; @AptKalSaff; @Ben; @DelLop]. In [@AptKalIse; @AptKalSaff; @DelLop], Favard type theorems were obtained showing that the generated polynomials satisfy multiple orthogonality relations with respect to measures with common support on a star-like set.\n\n\\[definitionPsi\\] The functions of the second kind are defined as follows. Set $\\Psi_{n,0}:=Q_{n}$, and let $$\\Psi_{n,k}(z):=\\int_{\\Gamma_{k-1}}\\frac{\\Psi_{n,k-1}(t)}{z-t}\\,d\\sigma_{k-1}(t),\n\\qquad k=1,\\ldots,p.$$\n\nThese functions satisfy the same three-term recurrence relation and, therefore, they also play a central role in the asymptotic analysis.\n\nIn [@LopMin Theorem 5.3, Corollary 5.4], under appropriate assumptions on the generating measures, the asymptotic zero distribution and n-th root asymptotics of the sequences $(Q_n)_{n=0}^\\infty$ and $(\\Psi_{n,k})_{n=0}^{\\infty}$, $k=1,\\ldots,p$, were given in terms of the solution of a vector equilibrium problem for the logarithmic potential.\n\nIn [@LopLopstar], the goal was to obtain an extension of Rakhmanov\u2019s theorem on ratio asymptotics of orthogonal polynomials [@Rak1; @Rak2] (for simplifications and alternative proofs of this classical result, see also [@MNT1; @MNT2; @Nev1; @Nev2; @Rak3]) similar to the one given in [@AptLopRocha] for Nikishin systems on the real line. Indeed, it was shown, see [@LopLopstar Corollary 3.3], that $\\sigma_j' > 0$ a.e. on $\\Gamma_j$, $j=0,\\ldots,p-1,$ implies that for each $\\rho$, $0\\leq \\rho \\leq p(p+1) - 1,$ there exists $$\\lim_{\\lambda\\to \\infty} \\frac{Q_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho +1}}{Q_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho}}$$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\\mathbb{C} \\setminus (\\Gamma_0 \\cup \\{0\\})$. Somewhat surprisingly, the limits exist over a period $p(p+1)$. In [@AptLopRocha], for Nikishin systems on the real line generated by $p$ measures, it was shown that ratio asymptotics holds with period $p$ and the limiting functions were described in terms of certain algebraic functions defined on a Riemann surface of genus zero with $p+1$ sheets; as shown in [@AKLR Corollary 1.3], this implies the $p$ periodic limits of the coefficients in the $(p+2)$-term recurrence relation satisfied by the Nikishin multiple orthogonal polynomials (see also [@DelLopLop Theorem 1.1], where algebraic relations between these limits are described). An analogous question in the star setting remained unanswered in [@LopLopstar]. In [@LopLopstar Corollary 3.3] it was also proved the existence of $$\\label{eq:limarho}\n\\lim_{\\lambda\\to \\infty} a_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho}=a^{(\\rho)}.$$ Here, we show that these limits are non-zero, we give different expressions for them, and describe some linear relations that they satisfy.\n\nThe asymptotic formulae that we obtain in this work can all be expressed in terms of certain conformal mappings defined on a compact Riemann surface of genus zero. These formulae show that under the general assumptions on the generating measures of the Nikishin system considered in our previous work [@LopLopstar], the ratio asymptotic quantities obtained only depend, as expected, on the underlying Riemann surface whose structure is determined by the supports of the generating measures.\n\nBefore we state our main results, we define the Riemann surface and conformal mappings we will work with.\n\nThroughout the rest of the paper, we will occasionally write $\\Delta_{k}:=[a_{k},b_{k}]$, $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$. Let $\\mathcal{R}$ denote the compact Riemann surface $$\\mathcal{R}=\\overline{\\bigcup_{k=0}^{p}\\mathcal{R}_{k}}$$ formed by the $p+1$ consecutively \u201cglued\u201d sheets $$\\mathcal{R}_{0}:=\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\Delta_{0},\\qquad \\mathcal{R}_{k}:=\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus(\\Delta_{k-1}\\cup\\Delta_{k}),\\quad k=1,\\ldots,p-1,\\qquad \\mathcal{R}_{p}:=\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\Delta_{p-1},$$ where the upper and lower banks of the slits of two neighboring sheets are identified. This surface is of genus zero. For this and other notions of Riemann surfaces as well as meromorphic functions defined on them we recommend [@Mir].\n\nLet $\\pi: \\mathcal{R} \\longrightarrow \\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ be the canonical projection from $\\mathcal{R}$ to $\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ and denote by $z^{(k)}$ the point on $\\mathcal{R}_k$ satisfying $\\pi(z^{(k)}) = z$, $z \\in \\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$. For a fixed $l\\in\\{1,\\ldots,p\\}$, let $\\varphi^{(l)}:\\mathcal{R}\\longrightarrow\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ denote a conformal mapping whose divisor consists of one simple zero at the point $\\infty^{(0)}\\in\\mathcal{R}_{0}$ and one simple pole at the point $\\infty^{(l)}\\in\\mathcal{R}_{l}$. This mapping exists and is uniquely determined up to a multiplicative constant. Denote the branches of $\\varphi^{(l)}$ by $$\\varphi_k^{(l)}(z) := \\varphi^{(l)}(z^{(k)}), \\qquad k= 0,\\ldots,p, \\qquad z^{(k)} \\in \\mathcal{R}_{k}.$$ From the properties of $\\varphi^{(l)}$, we have $$\\label{divisorcond}\n\\varphi_0^{(l)}(z)=C_{1,l}/z+O(1/z^{2}),\\,\\,\\,z\\rightarrow\\infty,\\qquad \\varphi_l^{(l)}(z)=C_{2,l}\\,z+O(1),\\,\\,\\,z\\rightarrow\\infty,$$ where $C_{1,l}$, $C_{2,l}$ are non-zero constants.\n\nIt is well known and easy to verify that the function $\\prod_{k=0}^{p}\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}$ admits an analytic continuation to the whole extended plane $\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ without singularities; therefore, it is constant. Multiplying $\\varphi^{(l)}$ if necessary by a suitable non-zero constant, we may assume that $\\varphi^{(l)}$ satisfies the conditions $$\\prod_{k=0}^{p}\\varphi_{k}^{(l)} = C, \\qquad |C| = 1, \\qquad C_{1,l} > 0.$$ Let us show that with this normalization, $C$ is either $+1$ or $-1$.\n\nIndeed, for a point $z^{(k)} \\in \\mathcal{R}_k$ on the Riemann surface we define its conjugate $\\overline{z^{(k)}} := \\overline{z}^{(k)}$. Now, let $\\overline{\\varphi}^{(l)}: \\mathcal{R} \\longrightarrow \\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ be the function defined by $\\overline{\\varphi}^{(l)}(\\zeta):= \\overline{\\varphi^{(l)}(\\overline{\\zeta})}$. It is easy to verify that $\\overline{\\varphi}^{(l)}$ is a conformal mapping of $\\mathcal{R}$ onto $\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ with the same divisor as $\\varphi^{(l)}$. Therefore, there exists a constant $c$ such that $\\overline{\\varphi}^{(l)} = c \\varphi^{(l)}$. The corresponding branches satisfy the relations $$\\overline{\\varphi}_k^{(l)}(z) = \\overline{\\varphi_k^{(l)}(\\overline{z})} = c {\\varphi}_k^{(l)}(z), \\qquad k=0,\\ldots,p.$$ Comparing the Laurent expansions at $\\infty$ of $\\overline{\\varphi_0^{(l)}(\\overline{z})}$ and $c {\\varphi}_0^{(l)}(z)$, using the fact that $C_{1,l} >0$, it follows that $c = 1$. Then $${\\varphi}_k^{(l)}(z) = \\overline{\\varphi_k^{(l)}(\\overline{z})}, \\qquad k=0,\\ldots,p.$$ This in turn implies that for each $k=0,\\ldots, p,$ all the coefficients, in particular the leading one, of the Laurent expansion at infinity of $ {\\varphi}_k^{(l)}$ are real numbers. Obviously, $C$ is the product of these leading coefficients. Therefore, $C$ is real, and $|C|=1$ implies that $C$ equals $1$ or $-1$ as claimed. So, we can assume in the following that $$\\label{normconfmap}\n\\prod_{k=0}^{p}\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}\\equiv \\pm 1,\\qquad C_{1,l}>0.$$ It is easy to see that conditions and determine $\\varphi^{(l)}$ uniquely. In this paper, we will use the notation $$\\label{def:omegal}\n\\omega_{l}:=C_{1,l}=\\lim_{z\\rightarrow\\infty} z \\varphi_{0}^{(l)}(z)$$ for the constant $C_{1,l}$ in .\n\nWe can now state the main results of this paper.\n\n\\[theo:main:1\\] Assume that for each $k=0,\\ldots,p-1$, the measure $\\sigma_{k}$ has positive Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to linear Lebesgue measure a.e. on $\\Gamma_k$. The following formulas hold, uniformly on compact subsets of the indicated regions:\n\n-   For each fixed $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$, $$\\label{eq:ratioasympQ}\n    \\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{Q_{\\lambda p (p+1)+\\rho+1}(z)}{Q_{\\lambda p (p+1)+\\rho}(z)}=\\frac{z}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{0}^{(l)}(z^{p+1})},\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus(\\Gamma_{0}\\cup\\{0\\}),$$ where $l=l(\\rho)$ is the integer satisfying the conditions $1\\leq l\\leq p$ and $(l-1)\\equiv \\rho \\mod p$, and $\\omega_{l}$ is defined in . Convergence takes place in $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Gamma_{0}$ if $\\rho\\not\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$.\n\n-   For each fixed $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$ and $1\\leq k\\leq p$, $$\\label{eq:ratioasympPsink}\n    \\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{\\Psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho+1,k}(z)}{\\Psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho,k}(z)}=\\frac{z}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z^{p+1})},\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus(\\Gamma_{k-1}\\cup\\Gamma_{k}\\cup\\{0\\}),$$ with $\\omega_{l}$ and $l=l(\\rho)$ as in 1), and $\\Gamma_{p}=\\emptyset$.\n\nThe following result concerns properties of the limiting values $a^{(\\rho)}$ in . In the statement of the result and throughout the rest of the paper, we understand that the values $(a^{(\\rho)})_{\\rho=0}^{p(p+1)-1}$ are continued periodically in $\\mathbb{Z}$ with period $p(p+1)$, so that $a^{(\\rho)}=a^{(\\rho+p(p+1))}$ for all $\\rho\\in\\mathbb{Z}$.\n\n\\[theo:main:2\\] Assume that for each $k=0,\\ldots,p-1$, the measure $\\sigma_{k}$ has positive Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to linear Lebesgue measure a.e. on $\\Gamma_k$. The following properties stated in 1)\u20134) below hold for each $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$:\n\n-   The limit in is non-zero, i.e., $a^{(\\rho)}>0$.\n\n-   The set of $p$ values $\\{a^{(\\rho+m(p+1))}\\}_{m=0}^{p-1}$ is formed by distinct quantities.\n\n-   The following relation holds: $$\\sum_{i=\\rho}^{\\rho+p-1} a^{(i)}=\\sum_{i=\\rho+p+1}^{\\rho+2p} a^{(i)}.$$\n\n-   We have $$\\label{eq:descrip:arho}\n    a^{(\\rho)}=-\\frac{\\omega_{l}}{\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0)}$$ where $(k,l)=(k(\\rho),l(\\rho))$ is the unique pair of integers satisfying the conditions $0\\leq k\\leq p$, $\\rho\\equiv (k-1) \\mod (p+1)$, and $1\\leq l\\leq p$, $\\rho\\equiv (l-1) \\mod p$, and $\\omega_{l}$ is the positive constant defined in .\n\n-   Assume that $0\\in\\Delta_{k}$ for some $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$. Then, for any $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$ such that $\\rho\\equiv (k-1) \\mod (p+1)$, we have $a^{(\\rho-p)}=a^{(\\rho)}$. If $0\\notin\\Delta_{k}$ for all $0\\leq k\\leq p-1,$ then for any $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$, the set of $p+1$ values $\\{a^{(\\rho+mp)}\\}_{m=0}^{p}$ is formed by distinct quantities.\n\nObserve that the function $\\eta^{(\\rho)}:\\mathcal{R}\\longrightarrow \\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ defined by $$\\label{def:etarhoconf}\n\\eta^{(\\rho)} :=\\frac{1}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l(\\rho)}^{-1}\\,\\varphi^{(l(\\rho))} }$$ is conformal, as it is the composition of $\\varphi^{(l(\\rho))}$ with the fractional linear transformation $w\\mapsto (1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l(\\rho)}^{-1}\\,w)^{-1}$. As a consequence of and the definition of $\\varphi^{(l(\\rho))}$, the function $\\eta^{(\\rho)}:\\mathcal{R}\\longrightarrow\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ is characterized as the unique conformal mapping with a simple zero at $\\infty^{(l(\\rho))}$, a simple pole at $0^{(k(\\rho))}$, and satisfying $\\eta^{(\\rho)}(\\infty^{(0)})=1$. Then, and take the simpler form $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{Q_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho+1}(z)}{Q_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho}(z)} & =z \\eta_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z^{p+1}),\\\\\n\\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{\\Psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho+1,k}(z)}{\\Psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho,k}(z)} & =z \\eta_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z^{p+1}),\\quad 1\\leq k\\leq p,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\eta^{(\\rho)}_{k}(z):=\\eta^{(\\rho)}(z^{(k)})$.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce some notions and auxiliary results needed for the solution of the problem. In Section 3 we prove some of the statements of Theorem \\[theo:main:2\\] and establish the connection between the limiting functions $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ in , used in [@LopLopstar] to express the ratio asymptotics of the MOP, and certain algebraic functions defined on $\\mathcal{R}$. Section 4 is devoted to the proof of Theorem \\[theo:main:1\\], what remains of Theorem \\[theo:main:2\\], and the description of the functions $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}$.\n\nAuxiliary results\n=================\n\nWe briefly recall some results from [@LopLopstar] that will be needed. As in [@LopMin; @LopLopstar], in this paper we will frequently use the notation $$[n:n']=\\{s\\in\\mathbb{Z}: n\\leq s\\leq n'\\},$$ for any two integers $n\\leq n'$. If $n'<n$, then $[n:n']$ indicates the empty set.\n\nReduction to the real line\n--------------------------\n\nFor the study of multiple orthogonal polynomials on star-like sets, it is convenient to translate the problem to the real line.\n\nLet $(s_0,\\ldots,s_{p-1}) = \\mathcal{N}(\\sigma_0,\\ldots,\\sigma_{p-1})$ be a Nikishin system on the star-like sets defined above. Along with the measures $s_j$ we also use the measures $$\\label{def:skj}\n s_{k,j}=\\langle \\sigma_k,\\ldots,\\sigma_j\\rangle,\\quad 0\\leq k\\leq j\\leq p-1.$$ Notice that $(s_{k,k},\\ldots,s_{k,j}) = \\mathcal{N}(\\sigma_k,\\ldots,\\sigma_j)$.\n\nFor every $0\\leq j\\leq p-1$, we shall denote by $\\sigma^*_j$ the push-forward of $\\sigma_j$ under the map $z\\mapsto z^{p+1}$; that is, $\\sigma^*_j$ is the measure on $[a_j,b_j]$ such that for every Borel set $E\\subset [a_j,b_j]$, $$\\label{def:sigma:star}\n\\sigma^*_j(E):=\\sigma_j\\left(\\{z:z^{p+1}\\in E\\}\\right).$$ With the assumptions of Theorems \\[theo:main:1\\]-\\[theo:main:2\\], it follows that $\\sigma^*_j$ has positive Radon-Nikodym derivative a.e. with respect to Lebesgue measure on $\\Delta_j$. Set $$\\mu_{k,k}:=\\sigma^*_k, \\quad 0\\leq k\\leq p-1,$$ $$d\n\\mu_{k,j}(\\tau):=\\left(\\tau\\int_{a_{k+1}}^{b_{k+1}}\\frac{d\\mu_{k+1,j}(s)}{\\tau-s}\n\\right)d\\sigma^*_{k}(\\tau),\\quad \\tau \\in [a_k,b_k],\\quad 0\\leq k < j\\leq p-1.$$\n\nThe measures $s_{k,j}$ and $\\mu_{k,j}$ are related through the formulas [@LopMin Prop. 2.2] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_{\\Gamma_{k}}\\frac{ds_{k,j}(t)}{z-t}={}&\nz^{p+k-j}\\int_{a_{k}}^{b_{k}}\\frac{d\\mu_{k,j}(\\tau)}{z^{p+1}-\\tau}, \\qquad 0\\leq k\\leq j\\leq p-1.\\end{aligned}$$ That is, $$\\widehat{s}_{k,j}(z)=z^{p+k-j}\\widehat{\\mu}_{k,j}(z^{p+1}).$$\n\nFunctions of the second kind\n----------------------------\n\nFor the asymptotic analysis of the multiple orthogonal polynomials, the functions of the second kind play a crucial role.\n\nObserve that $\\Psi_{n,k}$ is analytic in $\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\Gamma_{k-1}$. It is not hard to deduce that for each fixed $k = 0,\\ldots,p-1$, the function $\\Psi_{n,k}$ satisfies orthogonality conditions with respect to the measures $s_{k,j}$, $j=k,\\ldots,p-1$, defined in . This and other interesting properties of the functions $\\Psi_{n,k}$ may be found in [@LopMin Propositions 2.5\u20132.7]. The functions $\\Psi_{n,k}$ are linked with other functions of the second kind $\\psi_{n,k}$ that can be defined in terms of the push-forward measures introduced before on the real line.\n\n\\[definitionpsi\\] Set $\\psi_{n,0}:=\\mathcal{Q}_d$, where $\\mathcal{Q}_{d}$ is the polynomial that appears in the relation , and for $1\\leq k\\leq p$, let $\\psi_{n,k}$ be the function analytic in $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\n[a_{k-1},b_{k-1}]$ defined as $$\\psi_{n,k}(z):=\\begin{cases}\nz\\int_{\\Gamma_{k-1}}\\frac{\\Psi_{n,k-1}(t)\\,t^{k-1-\\ell}}{z-t^{p+1}}\\,d\\sigma_{\nk-1}(t), & \\ell< k,\\\\[1em]\n\\int_{\\Gamma_{k-1}}\\frac{\\Psi_{n,k-1}(t)\\,t^{p+k-\\ell}}{z-t^{p+1}}\\,d\\sigma_{k-1\n}(t), & k\\leq \\ell,\n\\end{cases}$$ where $n\\equiv \\ell \\mod (p+1)$, $0\\leq \\ell\\leq p$.\n\nLet $n\n\\equiv \\ell \\mod (p+1)$ with $0\\leq \\ell\\leq p$, and define $$\\label{varymeas:sigma}\nd\\sigma_{n,k}(\\tau):=\\begin{cases}\nd\\sigma_{k}^{*}(\\tau), & \\ell\\leq k,\\\\\n\\tau\\,d\\sigma_{k}^{*}(\\tau), & k<\\ell.\n\\end{cases}$$Then, $$z^{k-\\ell}\\,\\Psi_{n,k}(z)=\\psi_{n,k}(z^{p+1}), \\quad 0\\leq k\\leq p,$$ and for all $1\\leq k\\leq p$, $$\\psi_{n,k}(z)=\\begin{cases}\nz\\int_{a_{k-1}}^{b_{k-1}}\\frac{\\psi_{n,k-1}(\\tau)}{z-\\tau}\\,d\\sigma_{n,k-1}\n(\\tau), & \\ell< k,\\\\[1em]\n\\int_{a_{k-1}}^{b_{k-1}}\\frac{\\psi_{n,k-1}(\\tau)}{z-\\tau}\\,d\\sigma_{n,k-1}(\\tau), & k\\leq \\ell.\n\\end{cases}$$\n\nThe functions of the second kind satisfy the following recurrence relations. For every $n\\geq p$, $0\\leq k\\leq p$, we have [@LopMin Proposition 3.2] $$z\\Psi_{n,k}(z)=\\Psi_{n+1,k}(z)+a_n\\Psi_{n-p,k}(z),$$ and if $n\\equiv\\ell\\mod(p+1)$, $0\\leq \\ell \\leq p-1$, then $$\\label{threetermrecsecondkindpequena1}\n\\psi_{n,k}(z)=\\psi_{n+1,k}(z)+a_n\\psi_{n-p,k}(z),$$ while if $n\\equiv p\\mod(p+1)$, then $$\\label{threetermrecsecondkindpequena2}\nz\\psi_{n,k}(z)=\\psi_{n+1,k}(z)+a_n\\psi_{n-p,k}(z).$$\n\nFor each $k=0,\\ldots,p-1$, the function $\\psi_{n,k}$ satisfies orthogonality conditions with respect to the measures $\\mu_{k,j}, j=k\\ldots,p-1$. We have [@LopMin Proposition 2.10]:\n\nLet $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$ and assume that $n\\equiv \\ell \\mod (p+1)$ with $0\\leq\n\\ell\\leq p$. Then the function $\\psi_{n,k}$ satisfies the orthogonality conditions $$\\label{orthogredPsink}\n\\int_{a_{k}}^{b_{k}}\\psi_{n,k}(\\tau)\\,\\tau^{s}\\,d\\mu_{k,j}(\\tau)=0,\\quad\n\\left\\lceil\\frac{\\ell-j}{p+1}\\right\\rceil\\leq s\\leq \\left\\lfloor\n\\frac{n+p\\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}\\right\\rfloor,\\quad k\\leq j\\leq p-1.$$\n\nCounting the number of orthogonality conditions {#counting}\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nFor the asymptotic analysis of the multiple orthogonal polynomials and the functions of the second kind, it is crucial to have a control on the total number of orthogonality conditions in . We define this quantity next in the same way it was done in [@LopMin].\n\nLet $n$ be a nonnegative integer and let $\\ell=\\ell(n)$ be the integer satisfying $n\\equiv \\ell\\mod (p+1)$, $0\\leq\\ell\\leq p$. For each $0\\leq j\\leq p-1$, let $M_j=M_j(n)$ be the number of integers $s$ satisfying the inequalities $$\\label{countingcond}\n\\left\\lceil\\frac{\\ell-j}{p+1}\\right\\rceil\\leq s\\leq \\left\\lfloor\n\\frac{n+p\\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}\\right\\rfloor.$$ For each $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, we define $$\\label{def:Znk}\n Z(n,k):=\\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}M_j.$$ Also, by convention $Z(n,p):=0$.\n\nThe importance of the quantities $Z(n,k)$ resides in the following results [@LopMin Proposition 2.19], [@LopLopstar Theorem 3.1]:\n\nFor each $n\\geq 0$ and $k=0,\\ldots,p-1$, the function $\\psi_{n,k}$ has exactly $Z(n,k)$ zeros in $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus([a_{k-1},b_{k-1}]\\cup\\{0\\})$; they are all simple and lie in the open interval $(a_{k},b_{k})$. The function $\\psi_{n,p}$ has no zeros in $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus([a_{p-1},b_{p-1}]\\cup\\{0\\})$. The zeros of $\\psi_{n+1,k}$ and $\\psi_{n,k}$ on $(a_k,b_k)$ interlace.\n\nIn the study of ratio asymptotics in [@LopLopstar], the quantities $Z(n+1,k)-Z(n,k)$ played a key role. In [@LopLopstar Lemma 4.1] it was proved that for each fixed $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, the expression $Z(n+1,k)-Z(n,k)$ is periodic in $n$ with period $p(p+1)$, and $Z(n+1,k)-Z(n,k)\\in\\{-1,0,1\\}$ for all $n$.\n\nThe polynomials $P_{n,k}$\n-------------------------\n\nFor any integers $n\\geq 0$ and $k$ with $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, let $P_{n,k}$ denote the monic polynomial whose roots are the zeros of $\\psi_{n,k}$ in $(a_{k},b_{k})$. For convenience we also define the polynomials $P_{n,-1}\\equiv\n1$, $P_{n,p}\\equiv 1$.\n\nAccording to what was said in the previous subsection about the zeros of $\\psi_{n,k}$, we know that $P_{n,k}$ has degree $Z(n,k)$, all its zeros are simple, and interlace those of $P_{n+1,k}$. Recall that by Definition\u00a0\\[definitionpsi\\], $P_{n,0}=\\psi_{n,0}$ is the polynomial $\\mathcal{Q}_{d}$ that appears in and, therefore, $$\\label{eq:formZn0}\nZ(n,0)=\\deg(P_{n,0})=\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n}{p+1}\\right\\rfloor.$$\n\nTaking into account , the ratio asymptotics of the polynomials $Q_n$ reduces to that of the polynomials $P_{n,0}$. What is curious is that in order to solve this problem we need to study simultaneously the ratio asymptotics of all the sequences of polynomials $(P_{n,k}), n \\geq 0,$ for $k=0.\\ldots,p-1$.\n\nThe starting point of the present paper is the following result proved in [@LopLopstar]. Note that the condition stated in Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:ratioP\\] for the measures $\\sigma_{k}^{*}$ is equivalent to the condition required for the measures $\\sigma_{k}$ on Theorems\u00a0\\[theo:main:1\\]-\\[theo:main:2\\], but we prefer to state Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:ratioP\\] as it is presented in [@LopLopstar].\n\n\\[prop:ratioP\\] Assume that for each $k=0,\\ldots,p-1$, the measure $\\sigma_{k}^{*}$ defined in has positive Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to Lebesgue measure a.e. on $[a_{k},b_{k}]$. Let $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$ be fixed. The following asymptotic properties hold:\n\n-   For each $k=0,\\ldots,p-1,$ $$\\label{limitP}\n    \\lim_{\\lambda \\to \\infty}\\frac{P_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho+1,k}(z)}{P_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho,k}(z)}=\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z),\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus[a_{k},b_{k}],$$ where $\\widetilde{F}_k^{(\\rho)}$ is holomorphic in $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus[a_{k},b_{k}]$.\n\n-   If $\\rho\\not\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$, then $$\\label{eq:ratioQn:1}\n    \\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{Q_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho+1}(z)}{Q_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho}(z)}=z\\,\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z^{p+1}),\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Gamma_{0},$$ and if $\\rho\\equiv p\\mod (p+1)$, then $$\\label{eq:ratioQn:2}\n    \\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{Q_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho+1}(z)}{Q_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho}(z)}=\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z^{p+1})}{z^{p}},\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus(\\Gamma_{0}\\cup\\{0\\}).$$\n\n-   The sequence $(a_{n})$ of recurrence coefficients in satisfies $$\\label{eq:limreccoeff}\n    \\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}a_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho}=a^{(\\rho)},$$ where the limiting values $a^{(\\rho)}$ appear in the Laurent expansion at infinity of $\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}$ as follows: $$\\label{eq:LaurentFexp}\n    \\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\begin{cases}\n    1-a^{(\\rho)} z^{-1}+O\\left(z^{-2}\\right), & \\ \\mbox{if} \\ \\rho\\not\\equiv p \\mod (p+1),\\\\\n    z-a^{(\\rho)}+O\\left(z^{-1}\\right), & \\ \\mbox{if} \\ \\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1).\n    \\end{cases}$$\n\nIn [@LopLopstar Section\u00a06.3] it was proved that for each $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$, the function $\\widetilde{F}_k^{(\\rho)}$ is either a Szeg\u0151 function in $\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus [a_{k},b_{k}]$, or it is the product or division of such a function by a conformal map of $\\overline{\\mathbb{C}} \\setminus[a_{k},b_{k}]$ onto the exterior of the unit disk (for more details, see the second paragraph in the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[lem:descfkrho\\] below). From this it was shown that the limit $$\\label{absolute}\n|\\widetilde{F}_k^{(\\rho)}(x)| :=\\lim_{z\\rightarrow x}|\\widetilde{F}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)|, \\qquad x \\in [a_{k},b_{k}] \\setminus \\{0\\},$$ exists for all the points $x$ specified, as $z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus[a_{k},b_{k}]$ approaches $x$. If $0\\in[a_{k},b_{k}]$, then also holds for $x=0$ provided that the weight associated with the Szeg\u0151 function is positive and continuous at that point.\n\nIn [@LopLopstar Lemma 6.4] it was shown that a normalization of the functions $(\\widetilde{F}_k^{(\\rho)})_{k=0}^{p-1}$ constitute the solution of a system of boundary value equations which we restate here for convenience of the reader.\n\n\\[prop:boundary\\] Let $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be fixed, and let $\\ell\\in[0:p]$ be the remainder in the division of $\\rho$ by $p+1$. Let ${\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}}$, $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, be the limiting functions in . Then there exist positive constants $c_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ so that the collection of functions $F_{k}^{(\\rho)}=c_{k}^{(\\rho)} {\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}}, 0\\leq k \\leq p-1,$ or more precisely their absolute values (taking account of ), satisfies the following systems of boundary value equations:\n\n-   When $\\ell \\in [0:p-1]$ (here, $[0:-1], [p:p-1]$ and $[p+1:p-1]$ denote the empty set for the corresponding values of $\\ell$) $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\frac{|{F_{k}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)|^{2}}{|{F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)||{F_{k+1}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)|}= & 1, \\quad \\tau\\in[a_{k},b_{k}], \\quad k \\in [0:\\ell -1] \\cup [\\ell +2:p-1], \\label{eq:bv:lnp:1}\\\\\n    \\frac{|{F_{k}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)|^{2}\\,|\\tau|}{|{F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)||{F_{k+1}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)|}= & 1, \\quad \\tau\\in[a_{k},b_{k}] \\setminus \\{0\\}, \\quad k = \\ell, \\label{eq:bv:lnp:2}\\\\\n    \\frac{|{F_{k}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)|^{2}}{|\\tau||{F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)||{F_{k+1}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)|}= & 1, \\quad \\tau\\in[a_{k},b_{k}] \\setminus \\{0\\}, \\quad k = \\ell +1. \\label{eq:bv:lnp:3}\\end{aligned}$$ (The last equation is dropped if $\\ell = p-1$.)\n\n-   For $\\ell=p$, the system is $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\frac{|F_{0}^{(\\rho)}(\\tau)|^{2}}{|\\tau||F_{1}^{(\\rho)}(\\tau)|} = & 1, \\quad \\tau\\in [a_{0},b_{0}] \\setminus \\{0\\},\\label{eq:bv:lp:1}\\\\\n    \\frac{|{F_{k}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)|^{2}}{|{F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)||{F_{k+1}^{(\\rho)}}(\\tau)|} = & 1, \\quad \\tau\\in[a_{k},b_{k}],\\quad k\\in [1:p-1].\\label{eq:bv:lp:2}\\end{aligned}$$ In the above equations \u2013, we use the convention $F_{-1}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv F_{p}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv 1$.\n\nMoreover, for each $\\rho$ fixed, the functions $F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z), 0\\leq k \\leq p-1$ satisfy:\n\n-   $(F_k^{(\\rho)})^{\\pm 1} \\in \\mathcal{H}(\\mathbb{C}\\setminus [a_k,b_k])$ (holomorphic in the specified domain).\n\n-   The leading coefficient (corresponding to the highest power of $z$) of the Laurent expansion of $F_k^{(\\rho)}$ at $\\infty$ is positive.\n\n-   $F_k^{(\\rho)}$ either has a simple pole, a simple zero, or takes a finite positive value at $\\infty$. For a given $\\rho \\in [0:p(p+1)-1]$ and $k \\in [0:p-1]$, only one of these situations occurs.\n\nIn this paper, we express the functions $(\\widetilde{F}_k^{(\\rho)})_{k=0}^{p-1}$ in terms of the conformal mappings on the Riemann surface $\\mathcal{R}$ defined in the introduction, see Theorem\u00a0\\[theo:descFkrconf\\].\n\nThroughout the rest of the paper, we extend the $p$ sequences $\\{\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\}_{\\rho=0}^{p(p+1)-1}$, $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, and their normalizations, periodically with period $p(p+1)$, to allow the super-index $\\rho$ to take arbitrary integer values. So by definition we set $$\\widetilde{F}^{(\\rho+p(p+1))}_{k}\\equiv \\widetilde{F}^{(\\rho)}_{k},\\qquad \\rho\\in\\mathbb{Z},\\quad k\\in[0:p-1].$$ Recall that we also extend the sequence $\\{a^{(\\rho)}\\}_{\\rho=0}^{p(p+1)-1}$ of limiting values in , periodically with period $p(p+1)$, so that $$a^{(\\rho+p(p+1))}=a^{(\\rho)},\\qquad \\rho\\in\\mathbb{Z}.$$\n\nThe boundary value problem and algebraic functions\n==================================================\n\nSome additional notation\n------------------------\n\nLet us define $\\omega_{l,j}$ as the leading coefficient in the Laurent series expansion of $\\varphi_{j}^{(l)}$ at $\\infty$, i.e., $$\\label{def:omegalj}\n\\omega_{l,j}:=\\begin{cases}\n\\omega_{l} & j=0,\\\\[0.2em]\n(\\varphi_{l}^{(l)})'(\\infty) & j=l,\\\\[0.2em]\n\\varphi_{j}^{(l)}(\\infty) & 1\\leq j\\leq p,\\,\\,j\\neq l.\n\\end{cases}$$ As was proved in the Introduction, the condition $\\omega_{l}>0$ implies that $$\\label{symmRS}\n\\varphi_k^{(l)}(z)=\\overline{\\varphi_k^{(l)}(\\overline{z})}, \\qquad k=0,\\ldots,p.$$\n\nThroughout the rest of the paper, we use the following notation, already employed for the functions $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}$. Given an arbitrary function $F(z)$ which has in a neighborhood of infinity a Laurent expansion of the form $F(z)= C z^{k}+O(z^{k-1})$, $C\\neq 0$, $k\\in\\mathbb{Z}$, we denote $\\widetilde{F}(z):=F(z)/C$. If $C$ is real, $\\mathrm{sg}(F(\\infty))$ will represent the sign of $C$.\n\nThe symmetry property implies that for each $k=0,\\ldots,p,$ the function $\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}$ is real-valued on $\\mathbb{R}\\setminus(\\Delta_{k-1}\\cup\\Delta_{k})$, where $\\Delta_{-1}=\\Delta_{p}=\\emptyset$. This, and the fact that $\\varphi^{(l)}:\\mathcal{R}\\longrightarrow\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ is a bijection, easily imply the following statements, which are left to the reader to check: If $l\\in\\{1,\\ldots,p\\}$ is odd, then $$\\label{eq:signphikl:1}\n\\mathrm{sg}(\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\\infty))=\\begin{cases}\n+1 & \\mbox{for}\\quad 0\\leq k\\leq l,\\\\\n-1 & \\mbox{for}\\,\\,l<k\\leq p,\n\\end{cases}$$ and if $l\\in\\{1,\\ldots,p\\}$ is even, then $$\\label{eq:signphikl:2}\n\\mathrm{sg}(\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\\infty))=\\begin{cases}\n+1 & \\mbox{for}\\,\\,0\\leq k< l,\\\\\n-1 & \\mbox{for}\\,\\,l\\leq k\\leq p.\n\\end{cases}$$\n\nProof of $1)$ in Theorem \\[theo:main:2\\]\n----------------------------------------\n\nWe aim to prove that for each $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$, the limiting value on the right-hand side of satisfies $a^{(\\rho)}>0$.\n\nThe following relations were proved in [@LopLopstar], and are easily obtained applying and \u2013 in the case $k=0$. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\na^{(\\rho)} & =(z-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)) \\prod_{i=\\rho-p}^{\\rho-1}\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z),\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus[a_{0},b_{0}],\\quad \\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1),\\label{eq:relarhoF:1}\\\\\na^{(\\rho)} & =(1-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)) \\prod_{i=\\rho-p}^{\\rho-1}\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z),\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus[a_{0},b_{0}],\\quad \\rho\\not\\equiv p \\mod (p+1).\\label{eq:relarhoF:2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAssume that $a^{(\\rho)}=0$ for some $\\rho$ satisfying $\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$. Since none of the functions $\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}$ vanish on $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus[a_{0}, b_{0}]$ (cf. Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:boundary\\]\u00a0i)), we deduce from that $\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)\\equiv z$ on that domain. If $0\\notin[a_{0},b_{0}]$, then $\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)$ has a zero at the origin, which contradicts Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:boundary\\]\u00a0i). Suppose that $a_{0}=0$. Then, $F_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)=c_{0}^{(\\rho)}\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)=c_{0}^{(\\rho)} z$ and imply that $F_{1}^{(\\rho)}(z)=(c_{0}^{(\\rho)})^2\\,z$, which contradicts the fact that $F_{1}^{(\\rho)}(z)$ does not vanish in the exterior of $[a_{1},b_{1}]$, which is disjoint from $[a_{0},b_{0}]=[0,b_{0}]$.\n\nNow assume that $a^{(\\rho)}=0$ for some $\\rho\\not\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$. Then, from we deduce that $\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)\\equiv 1$ on $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus[a_{0},b_{0}]$.\n\nSuppose first that $\\ell=0$ (see the statement of Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:boundary\\] for the definition of $\\ell$). Applying for $k=0$ we get $F_{1}^{(\\rho)}(z)=(c_{0}^{(\\rho)})^{2}\\, z$. If $0\\not\\in[a_{1},b_{1}]$, then $F_{1}^{(\\rho)}$ has a zero outside $[a_{1},b_{1}]$, which is contradictory with the non-vanishing property. Now assume $0\\in[a_{1}, b_{1}]$, i.e., $b_{1}=0$. If $p\\geq 3$, then applying for $k=1$ we obtain that the function $F_{2}^{(\\rho)}$ must have a zero at the origin, contradiction. If $p=2$, then $F_{2}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv 1$ by definition, and reduces to $c |\\tau|=1$, $\\tau\\in[a_{1},0)$, $c$ a constant, which is impossible.\n\nNow suppose that $1\\leq \\ell\\leq p-2$. Applying repeatedly for $k=0,\\ldots,\\ell-1,$ we obtain that the functions $F_{k}^{(\\rho)}$, $0\\leq k\\leq \\ell$, are all constant in their domains. Then from equation we deduce that $F_{\\ell+1}^{(\\rho)}(z)=c\\,z$ for some constant $c$. If $0\\not\\in[a_{\\ell+1},b_{\\ell+1}]$, contradiction. So assume that $0\\in[a_{\\ell+1},b_{\\ell+1}]$. From we now obtain that $F_{\\ell+2}^{(\\rho)}$ must have a zero at $0\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus[a_{\\ell+2},b_{\\ell+2}]$, which is a contradiction.\n\nFinally, assume that $\\ell=p-1$ (we also assume that $p\\geq 2$). Recall that by assumption $\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv 1$. Applying repeatedly for $k=0,\\ldots,\\ell-1,$ we obtain that the functions $F_{k}^{(\\rho)}$, $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, are all constant in their domains. This contradicts , since $F_{p}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv 1$.\n\nA fundamental relation\n----------------------\n\nWe wish to express the functions that solve the system of boundary value equations in Proposition \\[prop:boundary\\] in terms of algebraic functions defined on the Riemann surface. A direct relation is hard to establish, but if one multiplies $p+1$ consecutive $F_k^{(\\rho)}$ as it is done in , then such a product has a very nice representation (see below). In order to arrive to that formula we need to analyze the order of such products at infinity. For this purpose we introduce the following quantities.\n\nFor integers $n\\geq 0$ and $k\\in[0: p]$, let $$\\label{def:Lambdank}\n\\Lambda(n,k):=Z(n+p+1,k)-Z(n,k).$$ Note also that $$\\label{eq:altformL}\n\\Lambda(n,k)=\\sum_{j=0}^{p}\\left(Z(n+j+1,k)-Z(n+j,k)\\right),$$ which will be used later.\n\nFor any integers $n\\geq 0$ and $k\\in[0: p]$, $$\\label{eq:descLambda}\n\\Lambda(n,k)=\\begin{cases}\n0, & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,n\\equiv s\\mod p,\\,\\,\\,\\, s\\in[0:k-1],\\\\\n1, & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,n\\equiv s\\mod p,\\,\\,\\,\\, s\\in[k:p-1].\n\\end{cases}$$ In particular, for each $k\\in[0: p]$, $\\Lambda(n,k)$ is periodic as a function of $n$ with period $p$.\n\nFor an integer $n\\geq 0$, let $\\ell = \\ell(n)$ be the integer satisfying $n\\equiv \\ell\\mod (p+1)$, $0\\leq \\ell\\leq p$. According to and , $$Z(n,k)=\\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}M_{j}(n),$$ where $$M_{j}(n)=\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n+p\\,\\ell(n)-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}\\right\\rfloor-\\left\\lceil\\frac{\\ell(n)-j}{p+1}\\right\\rceil+1.$$ Since $\\ell(n)=\\ell(n+p+1)=\\ell$, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Lambda(n,k) & =\\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}\\left(M_{j}(n+p+1)-M_{j}(n)\\right)\\\\\n& =\\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}\\left(\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n+p+1+p\\,\\ell-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}\\right\\rfloor-\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n+p\\,\\ell-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}\\right\\rfloor\\right)\\\\\n& =\\sum_{j=k}^{p-1}\\left(\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n+p\\,\\ell-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}+\\frac{1}{p}\\right\\rfloor-\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n+p\\,\\ell-1-j (p+1)}{p(p+1)}\\right\\rfloor\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ We can write $$n=\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho,\\qquad \\lambda\\geq 0,\\quad 0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1,$$ and decompose $\\rho$ as $$\\rho=\\eta (p+1)+\\ell,\\qquad 0\\leq \\eta\\leq p-1.$$ Then $$\\frac{n+p\\, \\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}=\\lambda+\\frac{\\eta+\\ell-j}{p}-\\frac{1}{p(p+1)}.$$ Let $s\\in[0:p-1]$ be the residue of $n$ modulo $p$. Note that $n\\equiv (\\eta+\\ell) \\mod p$, so if we write $\\eta+\\ell=s+mp$ for some integer $m$, we get $$\\label{eq:decomp:1}\n\\frac{n+p\\, \\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}=\\lambda+m+\\frac{s-j}{p}-\\frac{1}{p(p+1)}.$$\n\nAssume first that $s\\in[0:k-1]$. Then, from we obtain that for every $j\\in[k:p-1]$, $$\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n+p\\, \\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}\\right\\rfloor=\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n+p \\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}+\\frac{1}{p}\\right\\rfloor=\\lambda+m-1,$$ which implies that $\\Lambda(n,k)=0$. If $s\\in[k:p-1]$, then $$\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n+p\\, \\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}\\right\\rfloor=\\begin{cases}\n\\lambda+m & \\mbox{if}\\quad k\\leq j\\leq s-1,\\\\\n\\lambda+m-1 & \\mbox{if}\\quad s\\leq j\\leq p-1,\n\\end{cases}$$ and $$\\left\\lfloor\\frac{n+p\\, \\ell-1-j(p+1)}{p(p+1)}+\\frac{1}{p}\\right\\rfloor=\\begin{cases}\n\\lambda+m & \\mbox{if}\\quad k\\leq j\\leq s,\\\\\n\\lambda+m-1 & \\mbox{if}\\quad s+1\\leq j\\leq p-1,\n\\end{cases}$$ which implies that in this case $\\Lambda(n,k)=1$.\n\nFor each $k\\in[0:p-1]$ and $\\rho\\in\\mathbb{Z}$, we define $$\\label{def:fkrho}\nf_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z):=\\prod_{j=0}^{p} F_{k}^{(\\rho+j)}(z), \\qquad z \\in \\mathbb{C} \\setminus [a_k,b_k].$$ We also set $f_{-1}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv f_{p}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv 1$.\n\n\\[lem:descfkrho\\] The functions defined in satisfy the following properties for each $k\\in[0:p-1]$ and $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$:\n\n-   $(f_{k}^{(\\rho)})^{\\pm 1}\\in\\mathcal{H}(\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Delta_{k})$, and as $z\\rightarrow\\infty$, $$\\label{eq:estfkrhoinf}\n    f_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)=c_{k,\\rho}\\,z^{\\Lambda(\\rho,k)}(1+O(z^{-1})),$$ where $c_{k,\\rho}$ is a positive constant, and $\\Lambda(\\rho,k)$ is described in .\n\n-   The function $|f_{k}^{(\\rho)}|$ has continuous and strictly positive boundary values on all $\\Delta_{k}$ and we have $$\\label{eq:boundvalfkr}\n    \\frac{|f_{k}^{(\\rho)}(\\tau)|^{2}}{|f_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(\\tau)||f_{k+1}^{(\\rho)}(\\tau)|}=1,\\qquad \\tau\\in\\Delta_{k}.$$\n\n-   Let $l=l(\\rho)$ be the integer determined by the conditions $l-1\\equiv \\rho \\mod p$ and $1\\leq l\\leq p$. Then $$\\label{eq:expfkrho}\n    f_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\mathrm{sg}\\left(\\prod_{\\nu=k+1}^{p}\\varphi_{\\nu}^{(l)}(\\infty)\\right)\\prod_{\\nu=k+1}^{p}\\varphi_{\\nu}^{(l)}(z),\\qquad z\\in\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\Delta_{k},$$ where $$\\label{eq:signfkrho}\n    \\mathrm{sg}\\left(\\prod_{\\nu=k+1}^{p}\\varphi_{\\nu}^{(l)}(\\infty)\\right)=\\begin{cases}\n    (-1)^{p+1} & \\mbox{if}\\quad 0\\leq k\\leq l-1,\\\\[0.5em]\n    (-1)^{p+k} & \\mbox{if}\\quad l\\leq k\\leq p-1.\n    \\end{cases}$$\n\nRecall that the polynomial $P_{n,k}$ has degree $Z(n,k)$. Therefore, from and the fact that $Z(n+1,k)-Z(n,k)$ is periodic with respect to $n$ with period $p(p+1)$, it follows that $$\\label{eq:estFkrhoinf}\n\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho+j)}(z)=z^{Z(\\rho+j+1,k)-Z(\\rho+j,k)}(1+O(z^{-1})),\\qquad z\\rightarrow\\infty,\\quad 0\\leq j\\leq p.$$ Since $F_{k}^{(\\rho+j)}=\\widetilde{c}_{k,j} \\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho+j)}(z)$, where $\\widetilde{c}_{k,j}$ is a positive constant (cf. Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:boundary\\]), multiplying the $p+1$ estimates in and applying and , we obtain . We have $(f_{k}^{(\\rho)})^{\\pm 1}\\in\\mathcal{H}(\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Delta_{k})$ since none of the functions $F_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ vanish on $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Delta_{k}$.\n\nIn [@LopLopstar Section\u00a06.3] it was shown the following. Up to a multiplicative constant, each function $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho+j)}$, $0\\leq j\\leq p$, can be expressed either as a Szeg\u0151 function, or as a Szeg\u0151 function multiplied or divided by the conformal mapping $\\phi_{k}$ from the exterior of $\\Delta_{k}$ onto the exterior of the unit circle that satisfies $\\phi_{k}(\\infty)=\\infty$ and $\\phi_{k}'(\\infty)>0$. The Szeg\u0151 function in the expression of $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho+j)}$ is associated with a weight that takes one of the following three forms: $$\\label{eq:Szegoweights}\n\\frac{1}{|\\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho+j)} (\\tau)||\\widetilde{F}_{k+1}^{(\\rho+j)} (\\tau)|}, \\qquad \\frac{|\\tau|}{|\\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho+j)} (\\tau)||\\widetilde{F}_{k+1}^{(\\rho+j)} (\\tau)|},\\qquad \\frac{1}{|\\tau||\\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho+j)} (\\tau)||\\widetilde{F}_{k+1}^{(\\rho+j)}(\\tau)|}.$$ A careful analysis of the different cases described in [@LopLopstar Section\u00a06.3], shows that as $j$ varies in the range $[0:p]$, exactly one $j$ corresponds to a weight of the second type (the $j$ satisfying $\\rho+j \\equiv k \\mod (p+1)$), exactly one $j$ corresponds to a weight of the third type (the $j$ satisfying $\\rho+j \\equiv (k-1) \\mod (p+1)$), and all other $j$ correspond to a weight of the first type. By the multiplicative property of Szeg\u0151 functions, the possible singularities that $|\\tau|$ and $1/|\\tau|$ in may cause at the origin will not be present in the product $f_{k}^{(\\rho)}$. Hence, $|f_{k}^{(\\rho)}|$ will have continuous and non-vanishing boundary values on all $\\Delta_{k}$. Multiplying the different boundary value equations in Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:boundary\\] for the different indices $\\rho+j$, $0\\leq j\\leq p$, we obtain (the reader can also observe the cancellation between $|\\tau|$ and $1/|\\tau|$ after multiplying these equations).\n\nLet $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be fixed, and let $l$ be the integer satisfying $l-1\\equiv \\rho \\mod p$, $1\\leq l\\leq p$. Then we have shown that the system of functions $\\{f_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\}_{k=0}^{p-1}$ satisfies the following conditions:\n\n-   $f_{k}^{(\\rho)}, 1/f_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\in\\mathcal{H}(\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Delta_{k})$, $k=0,\\ldots,p-1$.\n\n-   In virtue of and , as $z\\rightarrow\\infty$ we have $$f_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\begin{cases}\n    c_{k,\\rho} z+O(1),\\quad 0\\leq k\\leq l-1,\\\\\n    c_{k,\\rho}+O(z^{-1}),\\quad l\\leq k\\leq p-1,\n    \\end{cases}$$ where $c_{k,\\rho}>0$ for all $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$.\n\n-   The boundary value relation holds for each $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$.\n\nIn [@AptLopRocha Lemma 4.2] it was proved that the boundary value problem a)-b)-c) has a unique solution and it is precisely given by $$f_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\mathrm{sg}\\left(\\prod_{\\nu=k+1}^{p}\\varphi_{\\nu}^{(l)}(\\infty)\\right)\\prod_{\\nu=k+1}^{p}\\varphi_{\\nu}^{(l)}(z),\\qquad z\\in\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}\\setminus\\Delta_{k}.$$ Formula follows immediately from and .\n\nThe following properties hold:\n\n-   For each $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ and $k\\in[0:p-1]$, $$\\label{eq:perfkrho}\n    f_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv f_{k}^{(\\rho+p)}.$$\n\n-   For each $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ and $k\\in[0:p-1]$, $$\\label{eq:idprodFkrho}\n    \\prod_{i=\\rho}^{\\rho+p-1} F_{k}^{(i)}\\equiv \\prod_{i=\\rho+p+1}^{\\rho+2p} F_{k}^{(i)},\\qquad \\prod_{i=\\rho}^{\\rho+p-1} \\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(i)}\\equiv \\prod_{i=\\rho+p+1}^{\\rho+2p} \\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(i)}.$$\n\n-   For each $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$, $$\\label{eq:idsumakrho}\n    \\sum_{i=\\rho}^{\\rho+p-1}a^{(i)}=\\sum_{i=\\rho+p+1}^{\\rho+2p} a^{(i)}.$$\n\n-   For each $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ and $z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Delta_{0}$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\frac{a^{(\\rho+p+1)}}{a^{(\\rho)}} & =\\frac{z-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+p+1)}(z)}{z-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)}\\qquad\\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1),\\label{eq:idquotFkrho:1}\\\\\n    \\frac{a^{(\\rho+p+1)}}{a^{(\\rho)}} & =\\frac{1-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+p+1)}(z)}{1-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)}\\qquad\\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\rho\\not\\equiv p \\mod (p+1).\\label{eq:idquotFkrho:2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe relation follows immediately from since $l(\\rho)=l(\\rho+p)$, and is obtained dividing both sides of by $F_{k}^{(\\rho+p)}$.\n\nTaking $k=0$ in we get $$\\label{eq:relnormFkrho}\n\\prod_{i=\\rho}^{\\rho+p-1}\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}\\equiv \\prod_{i=\\rho+p+1}^{\\rho+2p} \\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}.$$ In virtue of , as $z\\rightarrow\\infty$ we have $$\\label{eq:relexpFkrho}\n\\prod_{i=\\rho}^{\\rho+p-1} \\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z)=\n\\begin{cases}\n1-\\left(\\sum_{i=\\rho}^{\\rho+p-1}a^{(i)}\\right) z^{-1}+O(z^{-2}),\\quad \\rho\\equiv 0 \\mod (p+1),\\\\[1em]\nz-\\sum_{i=\\rho}^{\\rho+p-1}a^{(i)}+O(z^{-1}),\\quad \\rho\\not\\equiv 0 \\mod (p+1),\n\\end{cases}$$ hence is a consequence of and . Notice that is the statement $3)$ of Theorem \\[theo:main:2\\].\n\nAssume that $\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$. According to , we have $$\\begin{aligned}\na^{(\\rho)} & =(z-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)) \\prod_{i=\\rho-p}^{\\rho-1} \\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z),\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Delta_{0},\\\\\na^{(\\rho+p+1)} & =(z-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+p+1)}(z)) \\prod_{i=\\rho+1}^{\\rho+p} \\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z),\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Delta_{0}.\\end{aligned}$$ Dividing the second identity by the first identity, and applying Theorem\u00a0\\[theo:main:2\\].1 and , we obtain . Similarly one proves , using .\n\nProof of $2)$ in Theorem \\[theo:main:2\\]\n----------------------------------------\n\nFirst note that if $l_{1}, l_{2}\\in[1:p]$ with $l_{1}\\neq l_{2}$, then $\\varphi^{(l_{1})}/\\varphi^{(l_2)}:\\mathcal{R}\\longrightarrow\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ is conformal. Indeed, from the definition of $\\varphi^{(l)}$ we deduce that $\\varphi^{(l_{1})}/\\varphi^{(l_{2})}$ is a meromorphic function on $\\mathcal{R}$ with only one simple pole (the point $\\infty^{(l_{1})}$) and only one simple zero (the point $\\infty^{(l_{2})}$).\n\nLet $m_1$, $m_2$ be indices such that $0\\leq m_1<m_2\\leq p-1$. In virtue of \u2013 we have $$\\frac{a^{(\\rho+m_2(p+1))}}{a^{(\\rho+m_1(p+1))}}=\\begin{cases}\n\\frac{z-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+m_2(p+1))}(z)}{z-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+m_1(p+1))}(z)}\\quad\\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1),\\\\[1em]\n\\frac{1-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+m_2(p+1))}(z)}{1-\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+m_1(p+1))}(z)}\\quad\\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\rho\\not\\equiv p \\mod (p+1).\n\\end{cases}$$ Let us assume that $a^{(\\rho+m_1(p+1))}=a^{(\\rho+m_2(p+1))}$. Then, from the above relation we deduce that $\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+m_1(p+1))}\\equiv \\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+m_2(p+1))}$.\n\nIn virtue of , we have $$\\frac{\\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\\rho+1)}}{\\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\\rho)}}=\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+p+1)}}{\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}},\\quad \\mbox{for any}\\,\\,\\rho\\in\\mathbb{Z},$$ so a repeated application of this identity yields $$\\label{eq:auxquotF}\n\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+m_2(p+1))}}{\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+m_1(p+1))}}=\\prod_{m=m_1}^{m_2-1}\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+(m+1)(p+1))}}{\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho+m(p+1))}}=\\prod_{m=m_1}^{m_2-1}\\frac{\\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\\rho+m(p+1)+1)}}{\\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\\rho+m(p+1))}}.$$ On the other hand, by we have $$\\label{eq:auxf}\n\\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\\rho)}=\\prod_{\\nu=1}^{p}\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{\\nu}^{(l(\\rho))}=\\frac{1}{\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\\rho))}},\\quad\\mbox{for any}\\,\\,\\rho\\in\\mathbb{Z}.$$ We conclude from and that $$\\label{eq:auxfinal}\n\\prod_{m=m_1}^{m_2-1}\\frac{\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\\rho+m(p+1)))}}{\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\\rho+m(p+1)+1))}}\\equiv 1.$$ The reader can easily check that for any $m$, $$l(\\rho+m(p+1)+1)=l(\\rho+(m+1)(p+1)),$$ hence reduces to $$\\frac{\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{0}^{(l_1)}}{\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{0}^{(l_2)}}\\equiv 1,\\qquad l_1=l(\\rho+m_1(p+1)),\\quad l_2=l(\\rho+(m_2-1)(p+1)+1).$$ It is easily seen that the values $l_{1}$ and $l_{2}$ above are different, which contradicts the property described at the beginning of the proof.\n\nFormulae for $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ and $a^{(\\rho)}$\n==========================================================\n\nThe limits $a^{(\\rho)}$ and the normalizing constants $c_{k}^{(\\rho)}$\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLet $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$. If $\\rho \\equiv k \\mod p$, $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, then $$\\label{eq:relarhockr}\na^{(\\rho)}=\\prod_{j=1}^{p}\\frac{c_{k+1}^{(\\rho+j)}}{c_{0}^{(\\rho+j)}\\,c_{k}^{(\\rho+j)}},\\qquad c_{p}^{(\\rho)}=1,$$ where the constants $\\{c_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\}_{k=0}^{p-1}$ are the positive constants that appear in the relation $F_{k}^{(\\rho)}=c_{k}^{(\\rho)} \\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ (see Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:boundary\\]), and they are obtained solving the system of equations (6.30) in [@LopLopstar].\n\nLet $H_{n,k}=\\frac{P_{n,k-1} \\psi_{n,k}}{P_{n,k}}$, and let $\\sigma_{n,k}$ be the measure defined in . Set $$K_{n,k}^{-2} := \\int_{\\Delta_{k}}P_{n,k}^2 \\frac{|H_{n,k}|}{|P_{n,k-1} P_{n,k+1}|}\\,d |\\sigma_{n,k}|.$$ In [@LopMin Theorem 3.5] it was proved that for $n\\equiv k \\mod p$, $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, $n\\geq p$, the recurrence coefficient $a_{n}$ satisfies $$a_{n}=\\frac{K_{n-p,k}^{2}}{K_{n,k}^{2}}.$$ As in [@LopLopstar], we define the constants $$\\label{def:kappajrho}\n\\kappa_{j}^{(\\rho)}:=\\frac{c_{j}^{(\\rho)}}{(c_{j-1}^{(\\rho)} c_{j+1}^{(\\rho)})^{1/2}},\\qquad 0\\leq j\\leq p-1,$$ where by definition $c_{-1}^{(\\rho)}=c_{p}^{(\\rho)}=1$. Fix $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ with $\\rho\\equiv k\\mod p$. Using formulas (3.8) and (3.10) from [@LopLopstar], we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\na^{(\\rho)} & =\\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty} a_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho}=\\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\prod_{j=0}^{p-1} \\frac{K_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho-p+j,k}^2}{K_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho-p+j+1,k}^2} \\\\\n& = \\prod_{j=0}^{p-1}\\frac{1}{(\\kappa_{0}^{(\\rho-p+j)}\\cdots \\kappa_{k}^{(\\rho-p+j)})^2}=\\prod_{j=0}^{p-1}\\frac{c_{k+1}^{(\\rho-p+j)}}{c_{0}^{(\\rho-p+j)} c_{k}^{(\\rho-p+j)}}.\\end{aligned}$$ (For each $k$, the values of $\\kappa_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ and $c_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ are defined periodically with period $p(p+1)$ in the parameter $\\rho$.) From we deduce that $$\\prod_{j=0}^{p-1}\\frac{c_{k+1}^{(\\rho-p+j)}}{c_{0}^{(\\rho-p+j)} c_{k}^{(\\rho-p+j)}}=\\prod_{j=1}^{p}\\frac{c_{k+1}^{(\\rho+j)}}{c_{0}^{(\\rho+j)}\\,c_{k}^{(\\rho+j)}}$$ which concludes the proof of .\n\nThe quotients $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}/\\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}$\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\\[lem:quotFkr\\] For each $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$ and $1\\leq k\\leq p$, we have for $z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus(\\Delta_{k-1}\\cup\\Delta_{k})$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)} & =\\frac{\\xi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)\\,c_0^{(\\rho)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)}}\\frac{1}{1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\, \\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)}\\label{eq:ratioFalg}\\\\\n\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{\\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)} & =\\frac{\\xi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)}}\\frac{c_{0}^{(\\rho)}c_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}}{c_{k}^{(\\rho)}}\\frac{1}{1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\, \\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)}\\label{eq:ratioFalg:2}\\end{aligned}$$ where $l=l(\\rho)$ is the integer satisfying the conditions $l-1\\equiv \\rho\\mod p$ and $1\\leq l\\leq p$, $\\omega_l$ is defined in , $$\\xi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\begin{cases}\nz & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\rho\\equiv (k-1) \\mod (p+1),\\\\\n1 & \\mbox{otherwise},\n\\end{cases}$$ the constants $c_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ are those that appear in the relation $F_{k}^{(\\rho)}=c_{k}^{(\\rho)} \\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ (see Proposition\u00a0\\[prop:boundary\\]), and $\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ is the constant (taking only the values $1$ or $-1$) given in (see the Appendix).\n\nLet $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be fixed. As indicated, $c_k^{(\\rho)}$, $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$ are the positive constants for which $F_k^{(\\rho)}= c_k^{(\\rho)}\\widetilde{F}_k^{(\\rho)}$. We also define $c_{-1}^{(\\rho)}=c_{p}^{(\\rho)}=1$. Let $\\kappa_{j}^{(\\rho)}$ be the constant defined in . Note that $$\\label{eq:prodkappa}\n(\\kappa_0^{(\\rho)}\\cdots\\kappa_{k-1}^{(\\rho)})^2 = \\frac{c_0^{(\\rho)}c_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}}{c_k^{(\\rho)}}, \\qquad k=1,\\ldots,p.$$\n\nCombining and (3.11) in [@LopLopstar], for $k=1,\\ldots,p$ and $z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus(\\Delta_{k-1}\\cup\\Delta_{k}\\cup\\{0\\})$ we obtain $$\\label{eq:ratiopsifunc}\n\\lim_{\\lambda \\to \\infty} \\frac{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho +1,k}(z)}{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho,k}(z)} = \\frac{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)}h_k^{(\\rho)}(z)}{(\\kappa_0^{(\\rho)}\\cdots\\kappa_{k-1}^{(\\rho)})^2}\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)}{\\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)} = \\frac{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)}h_k^{(\\rho)}(z)}{c_0^{(\\rho)}}\\frac{ {F}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)}{{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)}$$ $(\\widetilde{F}_{p}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv 1)$ where $$\\label{eq:exphkrho}\nh_k^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\begin{cases}\nz & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\rho \\equiv p \\mod (p+1), \\\\\nz^{-1} & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\rho \\equiv (k-1) \\mod (p+1), \\\\\n1 & \\mbox{otherwise}.\n\\end{cases}$$\n\nAssume that $\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$. Taking $n=\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho$ in and using , we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:chain:1}\n\\frac{c_0^{(\\rho)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)}h_k^{(\\rho)}(z)}\\frac{z {F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)} & = \\lim_{\\lambda \\to \\infty} \\frac{z \\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+ \\rho,k}(z)}{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho +1,k}(z)}\\notag\\\\\n& =1 + \\lim_{\\lambda \\to \\infty}a_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho} \\frac{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho-p,k}(z)}{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho+1,k}(z)}\\notag\\\\\n& =1 + a^{(\\rho)} \\lim_{\\lambda \\to \\infty}  \\prod_{j=0}^p \\frac{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho-p+j,k}(z)}{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1) + \\rho-p + j +1,k}(z)}\\notag\\\\\n& =1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\prod_{j=0}^p\\frac{c_0^{(\\rho-p+j)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho-p+j)}h_k^{(\\rho-p+j)}(z)}\n \\frac{ {F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho-p+j)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\\rho-p+j)}(z)}\\notag\\\\\n& =1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\frac{ {f}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{ {f}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)}\\prod_{j=0}^p\\frac{c_0^{(\\rho-p+j)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho-p+j)}h_k^{(\\rho-p+j)}(z)}.\\end{aligned}$$ In the last equality we use the identity $f_{k}^{(\\rho-p)}=f_{k}^{(\\rho)}$. Taking account of in the case $\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$, from we obtain the relation $$\\label{eq:caso1}\n\\frac{c_0^{(\\rho)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)} }\\frac{ {F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)} =  1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\frac{ {f}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{ {f}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)}\\prod_{j=0}^p\\frac{c_0^{(\\rho-p+j)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho-p+j)}}.$$\n\nIf $\\rho\\not\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$, proceeding in the same fashion but using instead of we obtain the formulas $$\\label{eq:casos}\n1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\frac{ {f}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{ {f}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)}\\prod_{j=0}^p\n\\frac{c_0^{(\\rho-p+j)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho-p+j)}} =\\begin{cases}\n\\frac{c_0^{(\\rho)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)}}\\frac{z {F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)}& \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\rho\\equiv (k-1) \\mod (p+1), \\\\[1em]\n\\frac{c_0^{(\\rho)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)} }\\frac{ {F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{ {F}_k^{(\\rho)}(z)} & \\mbox{otherwise}.\n\\end{cases}$$ In the second part of one can include . In virtue of , we have $f_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}/f_{k}^{(\\rho)}=\\mathrm{sg}(\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\\infty))\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}$. So is equivalent to the identity $$\\label{eq:summary}\n\\frac{F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)}=\\frac{\\xi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)\\,c_0^{(\\rho)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)}}\\left(1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\frac{ {\\varphi}_{k}^{(l)}(z)}{\\mathrm{sg}({\\varphi}_{k}^{(l)}(\\infty))}\\prod_{j=0}^p\n\\frac{c_0^{(\\rho-p+j)} }{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho-p+j)}}\\right)^{-1}$$ which we shall simplify now.\n\nFirst, we have the relation $$\\label{eq:simpli1}\n\\omega_{l}^{-1}=\\prod_{j=0}^{p}c_{0}^{(\\rho-p+j)}$$ where $\\omega_{l}$ is defined in . Indeed, in virtue of and , we have $$f_{0}^{(\\rho-p)}=f_{0}^{(\\rho)}=\\mathrm{sg}\\left(\\prod_{\\nu=1}^{p}\\varphi_{\\nu}^{(l)}(\\infty)\\right)\\prod_{\\nu=1}^{p}\\varphi_{\\nu}^{(l)}=\\frac{1}{\\mathrm{sg}(\\varphi_{0}^{(l)}(\\infty))}\\frac{1}{\\varphi_{0}^{(l)}}=\\frac{1}{\\varphi_{0}^{(l)}}$$ and identifying the leading coefficients in the Laurent expansion at infinity of the extreme functions in this identity, we obtain . We also have the identity $$\\label{eq:simpli2}\n\\mathrm{sg}(\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\\infty)) \\prod_{j=0}^{p}\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho-p+j)}=1,$$ which is proved in the Appendix (see Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:propepsilon\\]).\n\nNow, and follow from , and , and the relation $F_{k}^{(\\rho)}=c_{k}^{(\\rho)} \\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}$.\n\nDescription of the functions $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}$\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\n\\[theo:descFkrconf\\] Let $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$ be fixed, and let $(k(\\rho),l(\\rho))$ be the unique pair of integers satisfying the conditions $0\\leq k(\\rho)\\leq p$, $\\rho\\equiv (k(\\rho)-1) \\mod (p+1)$, and $1\\leq l(\\rho)\\leq p$, $\\rho\\equiv (l(\\rho)-1) \\mod p$. For each $k=0,\\ldots,p-1,$ $$\\label{eq:formFkrho}\n\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\begin{cases}\nC_{k}^{(\\rho)} \\prod_{j=0}^{k} (1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l(\\rho)}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{j}^{(l(\\rho))}(z))^{-1} & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,0\\leq k<k(\\rho),\\\\[1em]\nz\\,C_{k}^{(\\rho)} \\prod_{j=0}^{k}(1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l(\\rho)}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{j}^{(l(\\rho))}(z))^{-1} & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,k(\\rho)\\leq k\\leq p-1,\n\\end{cases}$$ where $$\\label{eq:normconstant}\nC_{k}^{(\\rho)}=\\begin{cases}\n1, & k=0,\\\\[0.5em]\n\\prod_{j=1}^{k}\\left(1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\frac{\\omega_{l(\\rho),j}}{\\omega_{l(\\rho)}}\\right), & 1\\leq k\\leq l(\\rho)-1,\\\\[0.5em]\na^{(\\rho)}\\,\\frac{\\omega_{l(\\rho),l(\\rho)}}{\\omega_{l(\\rho)}}\\,\\prod_{j=1, j\\neq l(\\rho)}^{k}\\left(1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\frac{\\omega_{l(\\rho),j}}{\\omega_{l(\\rho)}}\\right), & l(\\rho)\\leq k\\leq p-1,\n\\end{cases}$$ see . The constant $C_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ has the following alternative expression: $$\\label{eq:alt:Ckr}\nC_{k}^{(\\rho)}=\\begin{cases}\n1 & k=0,\\\\[0.2em]\n(c_{k}^{(\\rho)})^{-1} (c_{0}^{(\\rho)})^{k+1} & 1\\leq k\\leq p-1,\\,\\,k\\,\\,\\mbox{odd},\\\\[0.2em]\n\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\,(c_{k}^{(\\rho)})^{-1} (c_{0}^{(\\rho)})^{k+1} & 1\\leq k\\leq p-1,\\,\\,k\\,\\,\\mbox{even},\n\\end{cases}$$ where $\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ is defined in .\n\nIn particular, we have $$\\label{eq:descFzerorho}\n\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\begin{cases}\n(1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\\rho))}(z))^{-1} &  \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\rho\\not\\equiv p \\mod (p+1),\\\\[1em]\nz\\,(1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{0}^{(l(\\rho))}(z))^{-1} & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1).\n\\end{cases}$$\n\nSince $\\widetilde{F}_{-1}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv 1$, formula can be viewed as a particular case of for $k=0$. Formula is quite straightforward so let us prove it first. Assume $\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$. Applying we obtain $$\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)=z-\\frac{a^{(\\rho)}}{\\prod_{i=\\rho-p}^{\\rho-1}\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z)}=z-\\frac{a^{(\\rho)} \\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{\\prod_{i=\\rho-p}^{\\rho}\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z)}.$$ From and we deduce that $\\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\\rho-p)}(z)=\\prod_{i=\\rho-p}^{\\rho}\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(i)}(z)$, and therefore $$\\widetilde{F}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\frac{z}{1+\\frac{a^{(\\rho)}}{\\widetilde{f}_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)}}=\\frac{z}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{0}^{(l)}(z)}=\\frac{z}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{0}^{(l)}(z)},\\qquad l=l(\\rho),$$ where we have applied and in the second equality (note that $\\prod_{\\nu=0}^{p}\\widetilde{\\varphi}_{\\nu}^{(l)}\\equiv 1$.) The other identity in is obtained in the same manner, starting from the relation .\n\nFormula for $k=0$ follows from and the first equality in . For the rest of the values of $k$, it suffices to observe that taking telescopic products from it follows that $\\widetilde{F}_k^{(\\rho)}$ is a constant multiple of the function $$\\chi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z):=\\prod_{j=0}^{k}(1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l(\\rho)}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{j}^{(l(\\rho))}(z))^{-1}$$ when $0 \\leq k<k(\\rho)$, or a constant multiple of $z\\chi_k^{(\\rho)}(z)$ for $k(\\rho) \\leq k \\leq p-1$, i.e., $$\\label{eq:relFkrchikr}\n\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\begin{cases}\nC_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\chi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z), & 0\\leq k<k(\\rho),\\\\[0.5em]\nz\\,C_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\chi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z), & k(\\rho)\\leq k\\leq p-1,\n\\end{cases}$$ for some constant $C_{k}^{(\\rho)}$. This constant must be such that the leading coefficient of the Laurent expansion of $C_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\chi_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ at $\\infty$ is $1$.\n\nLet us determine the constant $C_{k}^{(\\rho)}$. Consider the conformal function $\\eta^{(\\rho)}:\\mathcal{R}\\longrightarrow\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ defined in . Recall that the unique pole of this function is located at $0^{(k(\\rho))}$. Consequently, $$C_{k}^{(\\rho)}=\\begin{cases}\n1, & k=0\\\\\n\\prod_{j=1}^{k}\\left(1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l(\\rho)}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{j}^{(l(\\rho))}(\\infty)\\right), & 1\\leq k\\leq l(\\rho)-1,\\\\\na^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l(\\rho)}^{-1}\\,\\left(\\varphi_{l(\\rho)}^{(l(\\rho))}\\right)'(\\infty) \\prod_{j=1, j\\neq l(\\rho)}^{k}(1+a^{(\\rho)} \\omega_{l(\\rho)}^{-1} \\varphi_{j}^{(l(\\rho))}(\\infty)), & l(\\rho)\\leq k\\leq p-1,\n\\end{cases}$$ which is . From and we obtain that for $1\\leq k\\leq p-1$, $$C_{k}^{(\\rho)}=\\prod_{j=1}^{k}\\frac{\\varepsilon_{j}^{(\\rho)} c_{0}^{(\\rho)} c_{j-1}^{(\\rho)}}{c_{j}^{(\\rho)}}=\\frac{(c_{0}^{(\\rho)})^{k+1}}{c_{k}^{(\\rho)}}\\,\\prod_{j=1}^{k}\\varepsilon_{j}^{(\\rho)}$$ and applying we get .\n\nIn terms of the function $\\eta^{(\\rho)}$ defined in , formula admits the form $$\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\begin{cases}\n\\prod_{j=0}^{k}\\widetilde{\\eta}_{j}^{(\\rho)}(z), & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,0\\leq k<k(\\rho),\\\\[1em]\nz\\prod_{j=0}^{k}\\widetilde{\\eta}_{j}^{(\\rho)}(z), & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,k(\\rho)\\leq k\\leq p-1,\n\\end{cases}$$ for $z \\in \\mathbb{C} \\setminus \\Delta_k$.\n\nProof of $4)$ in Theorem \\[theo:main:2\\]\n----------------------------------------\n\nLet $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$, and let $(k,l)$ be the pair of parameters indicated in the statement of the result we are proving. With these values, formula establishes that $$\\label{relation}\n\\frac{F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)} =\\frac{z\\,c_0^{(\\rho)}}{\\varepsilon_k^{(\\rho)}}\\frac{1}{1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\, \\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)}, \\qquad z \\in \\mathbb{C} \\setminus (\\Delta_{k-1} \\cup \\Delta_k).$$ Recall that $F_{-1}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv 1$, so if $k=0$, then is understood to be $$F_{0}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\frac{c_{0}^{(\\rho)}z}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{0}^{(l)}(z)},\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus\\Delta_{0},$$ see the second relation in .\n\nAssume first that $0 \\not\\in \\Delta_{k-1} \\cup \\Delta_k$. Then follows immediately because the left side of must be different from zero when $z=0$ so the denominator in the right side of must vanish at the origin.\n\nNow assume that $0\\in\\Delta_{k-1} \\cup \\Delta_k$. In this case, by definition of the intervals $\\Delta_j$, $0$ must be an extreme point of either $\\Delta_{k-1}$ or $\\Delta_k$. In , take the square of the absolute value and make $z$ tend to $x \\in \\Delta_{k-1} \\cup \\Delta_k$. By continuity, we obtain $$\\label{rel2}\n\\left|\\frac{F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(x_\\pm)}{F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(x_\\pm)} \\right|^2 =  \\frac{|x\\,c_0^{(\\rho)}|^2}{|1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\, \\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(x_{\\pm})|^2}, \\qquad x \\in \\Delta_{k-1} \\cup \\Delta_k,$$ where $x_\\pm$ is either the limiting point on $\\Delta_{k-1} \\cup \\Delta_k$ from above or below. It does not matter which limit you take so we will simply write $x$.\n\nAssume that $0 \\in \\Delta_k$. Then $0 \\not\\in \\Delta_{k-1} \\cup \\Delta_{k+1}$ and, therefore, $F_{k+1}^{(\\rho)}(0) \\neq 0,  F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(0) \\neq \\infty$. When $k=0$ then $\\Delta_{-1} = \\emptyset$ and $F_{-1}^{(\\rho)}\\equiv 1$. Taking account of or (the latter in the case when $\\rho\\equiv -1 \\mod (p+1)$, or what is the same $\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$) combined with it follows that $$\\label{rel3} \\frac{|F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(x)|^2}{|x F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(x)|}  = |F_{k+1}^{(\\rho)}(x)| =  \\frac{|xF_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(x)|\\,(c_0^{(\\rho)})^2}{|1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\, \\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(x)|^2}, \\qquad x \\in \\Delta_k\\setminus\\{0\\}.$$ Now, making $x\\to 0$ in we conclude that $1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\, \\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0) = 0$, which implies . If $k=0$ we have concluded.\n\nFinally, suppose that $0 \\in \\Delta_{k-1}, k =1,\\ldots, p$. Then $0 \\not\\in \\Delta_{k-2} \\cup \\Delta_{k}$. Using with $k$ replaced with $k-1$ it follows that $$\\frac{|x||F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(x)|^2}{|F_{k-2}^{(\\rho)}(x)F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(x)|} = 1, \\qquad x \\in \\Delta_{k-1} \\setminus \\{0\\}.$$ where $F_{-1}^{(\\rho)} \\equiv 1$ when $k=1$. This relation combined with gives $$\\frac{|x||F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(x)|}{|F_{k-2}^{(\\rho)}(x)|} = \\frac{|F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(x)|^2}{|F_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(x)|^2} =  \\frac{|x\\,c_0^{(\\rho)}|^2}{|1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\, \\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(x)|^2}, \\qquad x \\in \\Delta_{k-1} \\setminus \\{0\\}.$$ Cancelling out the common factor $|x|$ and letting $x\\to 0$ it follows that $1 + a^{(\\rho)}\\, \\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0) =0$ because $F_{k}^{(\\rho)}(0)/F_{k-2}^{(\\rho)}(0)\\neq 0$. With this we conclude the proof.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[theo:main:1\\]\n--------------------------------\n\nFormula is a consequence of \u2013 and .\n\nAccording to (3.13) in [@LopLopstar], we have $$\\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{\\Psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho+1,k}(z)}{\\Psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho,k}(z)}=\\frac{\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\,g_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{(\\kappa_{0}^{(\\rho)}\\cdots \\kappa_{k-1}^{(\\rho)})^2}\\,\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z^{p+1})}{\\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z^{p+1})},\\qquad z\\in\\mathbb{C}\\setminus(\\Gamma_{k-1}\\cup\\Gamma_{k}\\cup\\{0\\}),$$ where $$g_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)=\\begin{cases}\nz^{-p} & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\rho\\equiv (k-1) \\mod (p+1),\\\\\nz & \\mbox{otherwise}.\n\\end{cases}$$ Applying now and , we have $$\\frac{\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\,g_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{(\\kappa_{0}^{(\\rho)}\\cdots \\kappa_{k-1}^{(\\rho)})^2}\\,\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z^{p+1})}{\\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z^{p+1})}=\\frac{\\xi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z^{p+1})\\,g_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z^{p+1})}=\\frac{z}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z^{p+1})},$$ so is justified.\n\nWe also obtain a result similar to Theorem\u00a0\\[theo:main:1\\] for the functions $\\psi_{n,k}$.\n\nUnder the same assumptions as in Theorem\u00a0\\[theo:main:1\\], for each $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$ and $1\\leq k\\leq p$ we have $$\\label{eq:ratiolittlepsink}\n\\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho+1,k}(z)}{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho,k}(z)}=\\begin{cases}\n\\frac{z}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)} & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1),\\\\[1em]\n\\frac{1}{1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z)} & \\mbox{otherwise},\n\\end{cases}$$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus(\\Delta_{k-1}\\cup\\Delta_{k}\\cup\\{0\\})$, where $l=l(\\rho)$ is the integer satisfying the conditions $1\\leq l\\leq p$ and $l-1\\equiv \\rho\\mod p$, and $\\omega_{l}$ is the constant defined in .\n\nFormula (3.11) in [@LopLopstar] asserts that $$\\lim_{\\lambda\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho+1,k}(z)}{\\psi_{\\lambda p(p+1)+\\rho,k}(z)}=\\frac{\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}\\,h_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{(\\kappa_{0}^{(\\rho)}\\cdots \\kappa_{k-1}^{(\\rho)})^2}\\,\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)}{\\widetilde{F}_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}(z)},$$ uniformly on compact subsets of $\\mathbb{C}\\setminus(\\Delta_{k}\\cup\\Delta_{k-1}\\cup\\{0\\})$, where $h_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)$ is indicated in . Applying now and , we obtain that the limiting function is $\\xi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)\\,h_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)\\,(1+a^{(\\rho)}\\,\\omega_{l}^{-1}\\,\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(z))^{-1}$. The expression $\\xi_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)\\,h_{k}^{(\\rho)}(z)$ equals $z$ if $\\rho\\equiv p \\mod (p+1)$ and it equals $1$ otherwise.\n\nProof of $5)$ in Theorem \\[theo:main:2\\]\n----------------------------------------\n\nWe include statement $5)$ of Theorem \\[theo:main:2\\] as part of the following more general result:\n\nAssume that $0\\in\\Delta_{\\overline{k}}$ for some $0\\leq \\overline{k}\\leq p-1$. Then, for any $0\\leq \\overline{\\rho}\\leq p(p+1)-1$ such that $\\overline{\\rho}\\equiv (\\overline{k}-1) \\mod (p+1)$, we have $$\\label{eq:relararmp}\na^{(\\overline{\\rho}-p)}=a^{(\\overline{\\rho})}.$$ Moreover, for any $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, $$\\label{eq:relFkrFkrmps}\n\\frac{\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho})}(z)}{\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho}-p)}(z)}\\equiv\\begin{cases}\n1 & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,k\\neq \\overline{k},\\\\\nz & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,k=\\overline{k}.\n\\end{cases}$$ If $0\\notin\\Delta_{k}$ for all $0\\leq k\\leq p-1,$ then for any $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$, the set of $p+1$ values $\\{a^{(\\rho+mp)}\\}_{m=0}^{p}$ is formed by distinct quantities.\n\nFor any $0\\leq \\rho\\leq p(p+1)-1$, let $(k(\\rho),l(\\rho))$ be the unique pair of integers satisfying the conditions stated in Theorem\u00a0\\[theo:main:2\\].4.\n\nAssume that $0\\in\\Delta_{\\overline{k}}$ for some $0\\leq \\overline{k}\\leq p-1$, and let $\\overline{\\rho}\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be such that $\\overline{\\rho}\\equiv (\\overline{k}-1) \\mod (p+1)$. Since the sheets $\\mathcal{R}_{\\overline{k}}$ and $\\mathcal{R}_{\\overline{k}+1}$ of the Riemann surface are glued along the interval $\\Delta_{\\overline{k}}$, we have $$\\label{eq:eqphis}\n\\varphi_{\\overline{k}}^{(l)}(0)=\\varphi_{\\overline{k}+1}^{(l)}(0),\\qquad \\mbox{for all}\\,\\,1\\leq l\\leq p.$$ We also have $\\overline{k}=k(\\overline{\\rho})$, $k(\\overline{\\rho}-p)=k(\\overline{\\rho})+1=\\overline{k}+1$, and $l(\\overline{\\rho}-p)=l(\\overline{\\rho})=:l$. Therefore, applying and , we obtain $$a^{(\\overline{\\rho}-p)}=-\\frac{\\omega_{l(\\overline{\\rho}-p)}}{\\varphi_{k(\\overline{\\rho}-p)}^{(l(\\overline{\\rho}-p))}(0)}=-\\frac{\\omega_{l}}{\\varphi_{\\overline{k}}^{(l)}(0)}=a^{(\\overline{\\rho})}.$$ This settles .\n\nNow we prove . First, observe that and easily imply that $C_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho})}=C_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho}-p)}$ for any $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, because $l(\\overline{\\rho})=l(\\overline{\\rho}-p)$. Therefore, comparing the expressions of $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho})}$ and $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho}-p)}$ that gives, and taking into account that $k(\\overline{\\rho}-p)=\\overline{k}+1=k(\\overline{\\rho})+1$, we see that $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho})}\\equiv \\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho}-p)}$ for all $k\\neq \\overline{k}$, $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, and $\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho})}\\equiv z\\widetilde{F}_{k}^{(\\overline{\\rho}-p)}$ if $k=\\overline{k}$. This settles .\n\nAssume that $0\\notin\\Delta_{k}$ for all $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, and let $\\rho\\in[0:p(p+1)-1]$ be fixed. Let $l$ be the corresponding integer satisfying $1\\leq l\\leq p$ and $\\rho\\equiv (l-1)\\mod p$. Applying , we find that $$\\{a^{(\\rho+mp)}: 0\\leq m\\leq p\\}=\\{-\\omega_{l}/\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0): 0\\leq k\\leq p\\}$$ Now, $\\varphi^{(l)}:\\mathcal{R}\\longrightarrow\\overline{\\mathbb{C}}$ is a bijection, and the assumption on the intervals $\\Delta_{k}$ ensures that the points at the origin in the different sheets $\\mathcal{R}_{k}$, $0\\leq k\\leq p,$ represent different points on $\\mathcal{R}$. Therefore the values $-\\omega_{l}/\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(0)$, $0\\leq k\\leq p,$ are distinct.\n\nAppendix\n========\n\nThe constants $\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}$, $1\\leq k\\leq p$, taking the values $1$ or $-1$, arised first in our previous work [@LopLopstar]. They are defined in Remark 6.5 of [@LopLopstar], but here we shall use the identity $$\\label{eq:identityekr}\n\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}=(-1)^{Z(\\rho+1,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)-Z(\\rho,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)+\\theta(\\rho,k-1)}, \\qquad 1\\leq k\\leq p,\\,\\,\\rho\\in\\mathbb{Z}_{\\geq 0},$$ where $\\lceil x\\rceil=\\min\\{m\\in\\mathbb{Z}: m\\geq x\\}$, and for integers $n\\geq 0$ and $0\\leq k\\leq p-1$, $$\\label{def:thetank}\n\\theta(n,k):=\\begin{cases}\n1 & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\ell(n)\\in[0:k-1],\\\\\n0 & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\ell(n)\\in[k+1:p-1],\\\\\n1 & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\ell(n)=k,\\,\\,k\\,\\,\\mbox{odd},\\\\\n0 & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\ell(n)=k,\\,\\,k\\,\\,\\mbox{even},\\\\\n1 & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\ell(n)=p,\n\\end{cases}$$ and $\\ell(n)$ is the integer defined by the conditions $n\\equiv \\ell(n) \\mod (p+1)$, $0\\leq \\ell(n)\\leq p$. The identity is immediately obtained from formula (6.35) and Lemma 4.3 in [@LopLopstar].\n\n\\[lem:propepsilon\\] With $\\rho, k, l$ as in Theorem\u00a0\\[lem:quotFkr\\], we have $$\\label{eq:simpli2bis}\n\\mathrm{sg}(\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\\infty)) \\prod_{j=0}^{p}\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho-p+j)}=1.$$ We also have $$\\label{eq:simpli3bis}\n\\prod_{j=1}^{k} \\varepsilon_{j}^{(\\rho)}=\\begin{cases}\n1 & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,k\\,\\,\\mbox{is odd},\\\\\n\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)} & \\mbox{if}\\,\\,k\\,\\,\\mbox{is even}.\n\\end{cases}$$\n\nApplying , we have $$\\label{eq:firstfirst}\n\\prod_{j=0}^{p}\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho-p+j)}=(-1)^{\\sum_{j=0}^{p}\\left(Z(\\rho-p+j+1,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)-Z(\\rho-p+j,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)+\\theta(\\rho-p+j,k-1)\\right)}.$$ It follows from and the fact that $\\Lambda(n,k)$ is periodic with period $p$ with respect to $n$, that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Lambda(\\rho,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil) & =\\Lambda(\\rho-p,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)\\notag\\\\\n& =\\sum_{j=0}^{p}\\left(Z(\\rho-p+j+1,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)-Z(\\rho-p+j,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)\\right).\\label{eq:relLambda}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNow we analyze the expression $(-1)^{\\sum_{j=0}^{p}\\theta(\\rho-p+j,k-1)}$. For each fixed $k$, the function $\\theta(n,k)$ is periodic with period $p+1$ with respect to $n$, i.e., $\\theta(n,k)=\\theta(n+p+1,k)$. Since $p+1$ is also the number of terms in the summation $\\sum_{j=0}^{p}\\theta(\\rho-p+j,k-1)$ and the values $\\rho-p+j$, $j=0,\\ldots,p,$ are consecutive, we deduce that $$\\sum_{j=0}^{p}\\theta(\\rho-p+j,k-1)=\\sum_{n=0}^{p}\\theta(n,k-1),\\quad\\mbox{for any}\\,\\,\\rho.$$ In view of , we easily find that $\\sum_{n=0}^{p}\\theta(n,k-1)$ is always an odd integer (it equals $k$ if $k$ is odd and it equals $k+1$ if $k$ is even). Hence, $$\\label{eq:summinus}\n(-1)^{\\sum_{j=0}^{p}\\theta(\\rho-p+j,k-1)}=-1.$$ We conclude from , and that $$\\prod_{j=0}^{p}\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho-p+j)}=(-1)^{\\Lambda(\\rho,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)+1}.$$\n\nTo finish the proof of , we show now that $$\\label{eq:prodepsilon:1}\n\\mathrm{sg}(\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\\infty)) (-1)^{\\Lambda(\\rho,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)+1}=1,$$ where $l$ and $\\rho$ are related as in Theorem\u00a0\\[lem:quotFkr\\]. Assume first that $\\rho\\equiv s \\mod p$, $0\\leq s\\leq 2\\lceil(k-1)/2\\rceil-1$. According to , in this case $\\Lambda(\\rho,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)=0$. By definition of $l$, we have $l-1\\equiv s \\mod p$, hence $l-1=s$ and $l\\leq 2\\lceil(k-1)/2\\rceil$. This inequality and \u2013 imply that $\\mathrm{sg}(\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\\infty))=-1$, which proves in this case. Assume now that $\\rho\\equiv s \\mod p$ and $2\\lceil(k-1)/2\\rceil\\leq s\\leq p-1$. Then gives $\\Lambda(\\rho,2\\lceil (k-1)/2\\rceil)=1$, and in this case $l\\geq 2\\lceil(k-1)/2\\rceil+1$, so by \u2013 we get $\\mathrm{sg}(\\varphi_{k}^{(l)}(\\infty))=1$. This proves .\n\nTo prove , it suffices to show that $\\varepsilon_{1}^{(\\rho)}=1$ and that for $3\\leq k\\leq p$ odd, we have $\\varepsilon_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}=1$. Indeed, applying , and , we obtain $$\\varepsilon_{1}^{(\\rho)}=(-1)^{Z(\\rho+1,0)-Z(\\rho,0)+\\theta(\\rho,0)}=1.$$ Let $3\\leq k\\leq p$ be odd. From we obtain that $\\varepsilon_{k-1}^{(\\rho)}\\,\\varepsilon_{k}^{(\\rho)}$ equals $-1$ raised to the expression $$\\label{eq:power}\n2 Z(\\rho+1,2\\lceil(k-2)/2\\rceil)-2 Z(\\rho,2\\lceil(k-2)/2\\rceil)+\\theta(\\rho,k-2)+\\theta(\\rho,k-1)$$ where we used that $\\lceil(k-2)/2\\rceil=\\lceil(k-1)/2\\rceil=(k-1)/2$. The reader can easily check that because $k$ is odd, we also have $\\theta(\\rho,k-2)=\\theta(\\rho,k-1)$. Hence, is even.\n\n**Acknowledgements:** We thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments.\n\n[99]{}\n\nA. I. Aptekarev. Strong asymptotics of multiply orthogonal polynomials for Nikishin systems. Sb. Math. 190 (1999), 631\u2013669.\n\nA. I. Aptekarev, V. Kalyagin, G. L\u00f3pez Lagomasino, and I. A. Rocha. On the limit behavior of recurrence coefficients for multiple orthogonal polynomials. J. Approx. Theory 139 (2006), 346-370.\n\nA. I. Aptekarev, V. A. Kalyagin, and E. B. Saff. Higher order three-term recurrences and asymptotics of multiple orthogonal polynomials. Constr. Approx. 30 (2009), 175\u2013223.\n\nA. I. Aptekarev, V. A. Kaliaguine, and J. Van Iseghem. The genetic sum\u2019s representation for the moments of a system of Stieltjes functions and its application. Constr. Approx. 16 (2000), 487-524.\n\nA. I. Aptekarev, G. L\u00f3pez Lagomasino, and I.A. Rocha. Ratio asymptotics of Hermite-Pad\u00e9 polynomials for Nikishin systems. Sb. Math. 196 (2005), 1089\u20131107.\n\nN. Ben Romdhane. On the zeros of $d$-symmetric $d$-orthogonal polynomials. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 344 (2008), 888\u2013897.\n\nJ. Bustamante and G. L\u00f3pez Lagomasino. Hermite-Pad\u00e9 approximation for Nikishin systems of analytic functions. Sb. Math. 77 (1994), 367\u2013384.\n\nS. Delvaux and A. L\u00f3pez-Garc\u00eda. High order three-term recursions, Riemann-Hilbert minors and Nikishin systems on star-like sets. Constr. Approx. 37 (2013), 383\u2013453.\n\nS. Delvaux, A L\u00f3pez, and G. L\u00f3pez Lagomasino. A family of Nikishin systems with periodic recurrence coefficients. Sb. Math. 204 (2013), 43\u201374.\n\nM. Eiermann and R. S. Varga. Zeros and local extreme points of Faber polynomials associated with hypocycloidal domains. ETNA 1 (1993), 49\u201371.\n\nU. Fidalgo Prieto and G. L\u00f3pez Lagomasino. Nikishin systems are perfect. Constr. Approx. 34 (2011), 297\u2013356.\n\nA. A. Gonchar, E. A. Rakhmanov, and V. N. Sorokin. Hermite-Pad\u00e9 approximants for systems of Markov-type functions. Sb. Math. 188 (1997), 33\u201358.\n\nM. X. He and E. B. Saff. The zeros of Faber polynomials for an m-cusped hypocycloid. J. Approx. Theory 78 (1994), 410\u2013432.\n\nM. Leurs and W. Van Assche. Jacobi-Angelesco multiple orthogonal polynomials on an $r$-star, arXiv:1804.07512.\n\nM. Leurs and W. Van Assche. Laguerre-Angelesco multiple orthogonal polynomials on an $r$-star, arXiv:1902.09540.\n\nA. L\u00f3pez-Garc\u00eda. Asymptotics of multiple orthogonal polynomials for a system of two measures supported on a star-like set. J. Approx. Theory 163 (2011), 1146\u20131184.\n\nA. L\u00f3pez-Garc\u00eda and G. L\u00f3pez Lagomasino. Ratio asymptotic of Hermite-Pad\u00e9 orthogonal polynomials for Nikishin systems. II. Adv. Math. 218 (2008), 1081\u20131106.\n\nA. L\u00f3pez-Garc\u00eda and G. L\u00f3pez Lagomasino. Nikishin systems on star-like sets: Ratio asymptotics of the associated multiple orthogonal polynomials. J. Approx. Theory 225 (2018), 1\u201340.\n\nA. L\u00f3pez-Garc\u00eda and E. Mi\u00f1a-D\u00edaz. Nikishin systems on star-like sets: algebraic properties and weak asymptotics of the associated multiple orthogonal polynomials. Sb. Math. 209 (2018), 1051\u20131088.\n\nG. L\u00f3pez Lagomasino and W. Van Assche. Riemann-Hilbert analysis for a Nikishin system. Sb. Math. 209 (2018), 1019\u20131050.\n\nA. F. Loureiro and W. Van Assche. Threefold symmetric Hahn-classical multiple orthogonal polynomials, arXiv:1901.01121.\n\nA. M\u00e1t\u00e9, P. Nevai, and V. Totik. Asymptotics for the ratio of leading coefficients of orthonormal polynomials on the unit circle. Constr. Approx. 1 (1985), 63\u201369.\n\nA. M\u00e1t\u00e9, P. Nevai, and V. Totik. Strong and weak convergence of orthogonal polynomials. Amer. J. Math. 109 (1987), 239\u2013281.\n\nR. Miranda. Algebraic Curves and Riemann Surfaces. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 5. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R. I., 1995.\n\nP. Nevai. Characterization of measures associated with orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle. Rocky Mountain J. Math 19 (1989), 293\u2013302.\n\nP. Nevai. Weakly convergent sequences of functions and orthogonal polynomials. J. Approx. Theory 65 (1991), 322\u2013340.\n\nE. M. Nikishin. On simultaneous Pad\u00e9 approximants. Math. USSR Sb. 41 (1982), 409\u2013425.\n\nE. A. Rakhmanov. On the asymptotics of the ratio of orthogonal polynomials. Math. USSR Sb. 32 (1977), 199\u2013213.\n\nE. A. Rakhmanov. On the asymptotics of the ratio of orthogonal polynomials, II. Math. USSR Sb. 46 (1983), 105\u2013117.\n\nE. A. Rakhmanov. On asymptotic properties of polynomials orthogonal on the circle with weights not satisfying Szeg\u0151\u2019s condition. Math. USSR Sb. 58 (1987), 149\u2013167.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Let $\\mathcal{A}_k$ be the set of permutations in the symmetric group $\\SS_k$ with prefix 12. This paper concerns the enumeration of involutions which avoid the set of patterns $\\mathcal{A}_k$. We present a bijection between symmetric Schr\u00f6der paths of length $2n$ and involutions of length $n+1$ avoiding $\\mathcal{A}_4$. Statistics such as the number of right-to-left maxima and fixed points of the involution correspond to the number of steps in the symmetric Schr\u00f6der path of a particular type. For each $k\\geq 3$ we determine the generating function for the number of involutions avoiding the subsequences in $\\mathcal{A}_k$, according to length, first entry and number of fixed points.'\naddress:\n- 'Department of Applied Mathematics, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, P.R. China.'\n- 'Science Institute, University of Iceland, Reykjav\u00edk, Iceland.'\n- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel.'\n- 'Department of Mathematics, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, P.R. China.'\nauthor:\n- 'Eva Y. P. Deng, Mark Dukes, Toufik Mansour and Susan Y. J. Wu'\ntitle:  Symmetric Schr\u00f6der paths and restricted involutions \n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLet $\\SS_n$ denote the set of permutations of $[n]=\\{1,\\ldots,n\\}$, written in one-line notation. For two permutations $\\pi\\in\\SS_n$ and $\\tau\\in\\SS_k$, an [*occurrence*]{} of $\\tau$ in $\\pi$ is a subsequence $1\\ls i_1<i_2<\\dots<i_k\\ls n$ such that $(\\pi_{i_1},\n\\dots,\\pi_{i_k})$ is order-isomorphic to $\\tau$; in such a context $\\tau$ is usually called a [*pattern*]{}. We say that $\\pi$ [*avoids*]{} $\\tau$, or is $\\tau$-[*avoiding*]{}, if there is no occurrence of $\\tau$ in $\\pi$. A natural generalization of single pattern avoidance is [*subset avoidance*]{}, that is, we say that $\\pi\\in\\SS_n$ avoids a subset $T\\subseteq\\SS_k$ if $\\pi$ avoids all $\\tau\\in T$. The set of all $\\tau$-avoiding (resp. $T$-avoiding) permutations of length $n$ is denoted $\\SS_n(\\tau)$ (resp. $\\SS_n(T)$).\n\nSeveral authors have considered the case of general $k$ in which $T$ enjoys various algebraic properties. Barcucci et al.\u00a0[@BDPP] treat the case of permutations avoiding the collection of permutations in $\\SS_k$ that have suffix $(k-1)k$. Adin and Roichman\u00a0[@AR] look at the case where $T$ is a Kazhdan\u2013Lusztig cell of $\\SS_k$, or, equivalently, a Knuth equivalence class (see [@St Vol.\u00a02, Ch.\u00a0A1]). Mansour and Vainshtein\u00a0[@MV] consider the situation where $T$ is a maximal parabolic subgroup of $\\SS_k$.\n\nIn the current paper an analogous result is established for pattern-avoiding involutions. We say $\\pi$ is an [*involution*]{} whenever $\\pi_{\\pi_i} = i$ for all $i\\in[n]$. Let $\\mathcal{I}_n$ denote the set of involutions of $[n]$. The set of all $\\tau$-avoiding (resp. $T$-avoiding) involutions of length $n$ is denoted $\\mathcal{I}_n(\\tau)$ (resp. $\\mathcal{I}_n(T)$).\n\nSimion and Schmidt\u00a0[@SS] considered the first cases of pattern-avoiding involutions, which was continued in Gouyou-Beauchamps\u00a0[@G-B] and Gessel\u00a0[@Ge] for increasing patterns, and subsequently in Guibert\u2019s Ph.D. thesis\u00a0[@Gu]. This paper concerns the enumeration of involutions which avoid the class of permutations in $\\SS_k$ with prefix 12, that is, $$\\mathcal{A}_k=\\{\\pi_1\\pi_2\\ldots\\pi_k\\in \\SS_k\\mid\\pi_1=1,\\pi_2=2\\}.$$\n\nWe denote by $I_n$ the cardinality of the set $\\mathcal{I}_n$. We say that $i$ is a fixed point of a permutation $\\pi$ if $\\pi_i=i$. Define $J_n(p)$ to be the polynomial $\\sum_{j=0}^n I_{n;j}p^j$, where $I_{n;j}$ is the number of involutions in $\\mathcal{I}_n$ with $j$ fixed points. For example $J_3(p)=3p+p^3$. It is not hard to see that the polynomials $J_n(p)$ satisfy the recurrence relation $J_n(p)=pJ_{n-1}(p)+(n-1)J_{n-2}(p)$, $n\\geq2$, with the initial conditions $J_0(p)=1$ and $J_1(p)=p$. The exponential generating function for the sequence $\\{J_n(p)\\}_{n\\geq 0}$ is given by $e^{px+x^2/2}$.\n\nThe main result of this paper can be formulated as follows.\n\n\\[thmain\\] Let $k\\geq2$. The generating function for the number of $\\mathcal{A}_k$-avoiding involutions of length $n$ is given by\\\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lefteqn{\\displaystyle\\sum\\limits_{n\\geq0}\\sum\\limits_{\\pi\\in{\\mathcal{I}}_n (\\mathcal{A}_k)}x^np^{\\#\\mbox{\\scriptsize{fixed points}}(\\pi)} \\;=\\;}\\\\[8pt]\n&&\\displaystyle\\sum_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)x^j-\\dfrac{x^{k-3}}{2}\\biggl(p+(p(k-3)x^2-2x-p)u_0(x)\\biggr) J_{k-2}(p)\\\\[8pt]\n&&-\\;\\dfrac{x^{k-4}}{2}\\biggl(x+p-(x^3(k-3)-px^2(k-1)+x+p)u_0(x)\\biggr)J_{k-3}(p),\\\\\\end{aligned}$$ where $u_0(x)=1/{\\sqrt{1-2(k-1)x^2+(k-3)^2x^4}}$.\n\nThe proof is given in Section\u00a03. Theorem\u00a0\\[thmain\\] with $k=3$ and $p=1$ shows the generating function for the number $123$-avoiding involutions of length $n$ to be $\\frac{2x}{2x-1+\\sqrt{1-4x^2}}=\\sum_{n\\geq0}\\binom{n}{\\lfloor n/2\\rfloor}x^n$ (see\u00a0[@SS]). Also, Theorem\u00a0\\[thmain\\] with $k=3$ and $p=0$ gives the number of $123$-avoiding involutions of length $2n$ without fixed points to be $\\frac{1}{2}\\binom{n}{\\lfloor n/2\\rfloor}$. Moreover, Theorem\u00a0\\[thmain\\] with $k=4$ and $p=1$ gives the generating function for the number $\\{1234,1243\\}$-avoiding involutions of length $n$ to be $\\frac{1-x}{2}+\\frac{1+x}{2}\\sqrt{\\frac{1+2x-x^2}{1-2x-x^2}}$. In Section\u00a02 we present a bijection between symmetric Schr\u00f6der paths of length $n-1$ and $\\{1234,1243\\}$-avoiding involutions of length $n$, thereby providing a combinatorial proof of the above result with $k=4$.\n\nSymmetric Schr\u00f6der paths and $\\{1234,1243\\}$-avoiding involutions\n=================================================================\n\nA [*[Schr\u00f6der path]{}*]{} of length $2n$ is a lattice path from (0,0) to $(2n,0)$ consisting of double horizontal steps ${\\mathsf{h}}=(2,0)$, up steps ${\\mathsf{u}}=(1,1)$ and down steps ${\\mathsf{d}}=(1,-1)$ that never goes below the $x$-axis. The set of all Schr\u00f6der paths of length $2n$ is enumerated by the $n$-th Schr\u00f6der number. Kremer\u00a0[@Kr Corollary 9] showed that $\\SS_n(1243, 2143)$ is also enumerated by the $n$-th Schr\u00f6der number.\n\nA Schr\u00f6der path of length $2n$ is called [*[symmetric]{}*]{} if it is symmetric about the line $x=n$. Let ${\\mathsf{Sh}}_n$ be the collection of all such paths. In this section we give a bijection between [*[symmetric Schr\u00f6der paths]{}*]{} of length $2n$ and the class of involutions in ${\\mathfrak{S}}_{n+1}$ that avoid the patterns $\\{1234,1243\\}$.\n\nWe will now describe a map $\\phi: {\\mathsf{Sh}}_n \\to {\\mathcal{I}}_{n+1}(1234,1243)$. Alongside this description will be an example of the map acting on the path $p={\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{h}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{h}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{h}}{\\mathsf{d}}\\in {\\mathsf{Sh}}_9$. Several points may at first appear extraneous, however these will be required in the proof of the Theorem which follows.\n\nGiven $p\\in{\\mathsf{Sh}}_n$, let $p'$ be the word of length $n+1$ obtained from $p$ by first appending a horizontal step ${\\mathsf{h}}$ to the end, then replacing all occurrences of ${\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}$ in $p$ by ${\\mathsf{r}}$, and finally deleting all remaining ${\\mathsf{d}}$\u2019s. This is equivalent to projecting the steps of the path onto the diagonal, and replacing any ${\\mathsf{u}}$\u2019s that are followed by a ${\\mathsf{d}}$ by ${\\mathsf{r}}$.\n\nFrom the diagram the example path is $p'\\,=\\, {\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{h}}{\\mathsf{r}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{r}}{\\mathsf{h}}{\\mathsf{r}}{\\mathsf{r}}{\\mathsf{h}}{\\mathsf{h}}$. In general, $p'=p_1\\ldots p_{n+1} \\in \\{{\\mathsf{u}},{\\mathsf{r}},{\\mathsf{h}}\\}^{n+1}$. Now form the three sets $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}},A_{{\\mathsf{r}}},A_{{\\mathsf{u}}}$ according to the rule $i \\in A_{x}$ if $p_i = x$.\n\nIn the example, $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}\\,=\\, \\{2,6,9,10\\}$, $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}\\,=\\, \\{3,5,7,8\\}$ and $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}} \\, = \\, \\{1,4\\}$.\n\nStarting with the largest entry in $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}$, replace all ${\\mathsf{h}}$\u2019s in $p'$ (from left to right) with the entries from $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}$ so that this sequence is decreasing. This is equivalent to forming a sequence of transpositions (or a fixed point), the first of which will have as first entry the index of the first ${\\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$ and whose second entry is the index of the last ${\\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$. The second transposition (or fixed point) will have as first entry the index of the second ${\\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$ and whose second entry is the index of the second last ${\\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$, and so forth.\n\nSince $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}\\,=\\, \\{2,6,9,10\\}$ in the example, we have the transpositions $(2,10)$ and $(6,9)$.\n\nDo likewise for the sets $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}$ and $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}}$. The [*[label]{}*]{} of a particular ${\\mathsf{h}}$, ${\\mathsf{r}}$ or ${\\mathsf{u}}$ in $p'$ is the value that replaces it. Call the resulting permutation $\\pi = \\phi(p)$, i.e. the labels of $p'$ read from left to right.\n\nThe label of the first ${\\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$ above is 10 and the label of the third ${\\mathsf{h}}$ in $p'$ above is 6. In the example, since $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}\\,=\\, \\{2,6,9,10\\}$, $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}\\,=\\, \\{3,5,7,8\\}$ and $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}} \\, = \\, \\{1,4\\}$, $\\pi=\\phi(p)$ is the permutation (involution) with cycles $(2,10), (6,9), (3,8), (5,7)$ and $(1,4)$. Thus we have $\\phi(p) \\,=\\, (4,10,8,1,7,9,5,3,6,2).$\n\nAnother way to see this construction is in terms of layers of right-to-left maxima. An element $\\pi_i$ of a permutation $\\pi$ is called a [*right-to-left maximum*]{} if it is greater than all elements that follow it, i.e. $\\pi_i>\\pi_j$ for all $j>i$. We define successively the $r$-right-to-left maxima for a permutation $\\pi\\in\\SS_n$. Let $\\pi^{(1)}$ be the word consisting of all elements of $\\pi$. For $r\\ge 1$, the right-to-left maxima of $\\pi^{(r)}$ are called [*$r$-right-to-left maxima*]{} of $\\pi$. Let $\\pi^{(r+1)}$ be the subword obtained from $\\pi^{(r)}$ by removing all $r$-right-to-left maxima. For example, the permutation $\\pi=  674583912\\in \\SS_{9}$ has the 1-right-to-left maxima 9 and 2; the 2-right-to-left maxima 8, 3 and 1; the 3-right-to-left maxima 7 and 5; and the 4-right-to-left maxima 6 and 4. Note that the $r$-right-to-left maxima of $\\pi$ form a decreasing subsequence for each $r$.\n\nLet $\\pi$ be the unique permutation (in fact, it will be an involution) in $\\SS_{n+1}$ with 1 right-to-left maxima $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}$, 2 right-to-left maxima $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}$ and 3 right-to-left maxima $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}}$. If $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}=\\{x_1,\\ldots , x_{\\alpha}\\}$, $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}=\\{y_1,\\ldots , y_{\\beta}\\}$ and $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}}=\\{z_1,\\ldots , z_{\\gamma}\\}$ then the cycles of $\\pi$ are $$(x_1\\, x_{\\alpha})\\, (x_2 \\, x_{\\alpha -1})\\, \\cdots\\, (y_1 \\, y_{\\beta}) \\, (y_2 \\, y_{\\beta -1})\\, \\cdots \\,(z_1 \\, z_{\\gamma}) \\, (z_2\\, z_{\\gamma -1}) \\, \\cdots.$$ We point out that if $\\gamma = 2m+1$ then $(x_{m+1})$ will be a fixed point. Consequently there will be at most three fixed points in the resulting involution.\n\nThe inverse map $\\phi^{-1}$ is described by means of an example. Consider $$\\pi\\, =\\,(10,5,8,7,2,6,4,3,9,1)\\in{\\mathcal{I}}_{10}(1234,1243).$$ The sets of 1, 2 and 3 right-to-left maxima are $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}=\\{1,9,10\\}$, $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}=\\{3,4,6,7,8\\}$ and $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}}=\\{2,5\\}$, respectively. This gives $p'= {\\mathsf{h}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{r}}{\\mathsf{r}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{r}}{\\mathsf{r}}{\\mathsf{r}}{\\mathsf{h}}{\\mathsf{h}}$. After removing the final ${\\mathsf{h}}$, we have\n\nBeginning with the last step (at position 9), we push this down so that it is symmetric with the first entry. We then move the second step of $p'$ down to meet the path. It is ${\\mathsf{u}}$ so there must be a ${\\mathsf{d}}$ inserted at the opposite end so the path is symmetric.\n\nNext we move the ${\\mathsf{r}}$ at position 3 down to touch the evolving path, and move the ${\\mathsf{r}}$ at position 8 down to meet the path above the ${\\mathsf{d}}$ step.\n\nThe ${\\mathsf{u}}$ at position 4 is moved next but we must insert a ${\\mathsf{d}}$ step between positions 6 and 7 to ensure the path is symmetric.\n\nFinally, move the remaining pieces down, inserting ${\\mathsf{d}}$\u2019s where appropriate.\n\nThus we have $p\\;=\\;\\phi^{-1}(\\pi)\\;=\\;{\\mathsf{h}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{d}}{\\mathsf{h}}.$\n\nThe map $\\phi: {\\mathsf{Sh}}_n \\to {\\mathcal{I}}_{n+1}(1234,1243)$ is a bijection.\n\nWe first show that for any $p \\in {\\mathsf{Sh}}_n$, the corresponding $\\pi=\\phi(p) \\in\n{\\mathcal{I}}_{n+1}(1234,1243)$.\n\nLet $p \\in {\\mathsf{Sh}}_n$ and $p'=p_1\\cdots p_k$ be the corresponding word on the alphabet $\\{{\\mathsf{u}},{\\mathsf{r}},{\\mathsf{h}}\\}$. Suppose that $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}} = \\{i_1,\\ldots , i_\\ell\\}$. Then it is clear that $\\pi_{i_j} = i_{\\ell+1-j}$ for all $1\\leq j \\leq \\ell$. The same is true for the sets $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}$ and $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}}$ so $\\pi$ is an involution.\n\nFrom the labelling scheme above, the resulting permutation $\\pi$ has, at most, three levels of right-to-left maxima. It is therefore 1234 avoiding. To show that $\\pi$ is 1243-avoiding, suppose $\\pi$ contains a 1243 pattern $\\pi_i \\pi_j \\pi_k \\pi_{\\ell}$, where $\\pi_i < \\pi_j < \\pi_{\\ell} < \\pi_k$ and $i<j<k<\\ell$. The 4 and 3 of the pattern ($\\pi_k$ and $\\pi_{\\ell}$) must be in the 1 right-to-left maxima $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}$. Similarly, the 2 (resp. 1) of the pattern must be in the 2 (resp. 3) right-to-left maxima $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}$ (resp. $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}})$. Then $\\pi_j\\pi_k\\pi_{\\ell}$ is a 132-pattern with $\\pi_j \\in A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}$ and $\\pi_{k},\\pi_{\\ell} \\in A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}$. This is not possible for the following reason: Given ${\\mathsf{r}}$ in $p'$ with label $r_1$, let $h_1,h_2,\\ldots $ be the sequence of labels of ${\\mathsf{h}}$\u2019s to the right of ${\\mathsf{r}}$. Then $h_1>r_1>h_2,h_3,\\ldots$. This statement is easily seen by removing all ${\\mathsf{u}}$\u2019s and the suffix ${\\mathsf{h}}$ from $p'$ and relabelling. (This relabelling always gives a monotone decreasing sequence.) The fact that the label of the first ${\\mathsf{h}}$ after ${\\mathsf{r}}$ is greater than the label of the ${\\mathsf{r}}$ is due to the appended ${\\mathsf{h}}$.\n\nWe now show how to construct the unique path $p$ corresponding to $\\pi \\in\n{\\mathcal{I}}_{n+1}(1234,1243)$. For such a permutation, let $A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}$, $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}$ and $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}}$ be the 1, 2 and 3 right-to-left maxima of $\\pi$, respectively. Insert ${\\mathsf{h}}$ at position $i$ of $p'$ if $i \\in A_{{\\mathsf{h}}}$ and do likewise for the sets $A_{{\\mathsf{r}}}$ and $A_{{\\mathsf{u}}}$. Remove the suffix ${\\mathsf{h}}$ from $p'$ (it is a suffix since $(n+1)$ is one of the 1 right-to-left maxima). From right to left in $p'$, insert a ${\\mathsf{d}}$ where there is a corresponding ${\\mathsf{u}}$ and finish by replacing all occurrences of ${\\mathsf{r}}$ with ${\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}$. (As was done in the example that preceded the Theorem.) We note that for each $p'$ there will be several Schr\u00f6der paths to which it may correspond, however only one of these is symmetric.\n\nFrom the construction, we also have the following statistics of $\\{1234, 1243\\}$-avoiding involutions:\n\nLet $p \\in {\\mathsf{Sh}}_n$ with $h$ steps ${\\mathsf{h}}$, $r$ steps ${\\mathsf{u}}{\\mathsf{d}}$, and $u$ steps ${\\mathsf{u}}$ that are not directly followed by a ${\\mathsf{d}}$ step. Let $\\pi=\\phi(p) \\in \\mathcal{I}_n(1234, 1243)$.\n\n1.  The number of right-to-left maxima of $\\pi$ is $h+1$.\n\n2.  The number of 2 right-to-left maxima of $\\pi$ is $r$.\n\n3.  The number of 3 right-to-left maxima of $\\pi$ is $u$.\n\n4.  The number of fixed points of $\\pi$ is $((1+h) \\mbox{ mod } 2) \\; +\\;( r\\mbox{ mod }2) \\; + \\; (u \\mbox{ mod } 2)$.\n\nWhat statistic on $\\pi=\\phi(p)$ corresponds to the height of the path $p$?\n\nProof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thmain\\]\n===========================\n\nTo present the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thmain\\], we must first consider the enumeration problem for the number $\\mathcal{F}_k$-avoiding involutions according to length and number of fixed points, where $\\mathcal{F}_k$ is the set of all permutations $\\sigma\\in\\SS_k$ with $\\sigma_1=1$.\n\nInvolutions avoiding $\\mathcal{F}_k$\n------------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection we present an explicit formula for the number of involutions that avoid all the patterns in $\\mathcal{F}_k$. To do so we require some new notation. Define $f_k(n)$ to be the number of involutions $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{F}_k)$. Given $t\\in[n]$, we also define $$f_{k;m}(n;t)=\\#\\{\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{F}_k)\\mid\n \\pi_1=t\\mbox{ and }\\pi\\mbox{ contains }m\\mbox{ fixed points}\\}.$$ Let $f_k(n;t)=f_k(n,p;t)$ and $f_k(n)=f_k(n,p)$ be the polynomials $\\sum_{m=0}^nf_{k;m}(n;t)p^m$ and $\\sum_{t=1}^nf_{k}(n;t)$, respectively. We denote by $F_k(x,p)$ the generating function for the sequence $f_k(n,p)$, that is $F_k(x,p)=\\sum_{n\\geq0} f_k(n,p)x^n$.\n\n\\[thmm1\\] We have $$F_k(x,p)\\;=\\;\\sum_{j=0}^{k-2}J_j(p)x^j+\\frac{x^{k-1}}{1-(k-1)x^2}((k-1)J_{k-2}(p)x+J_{k-1}(p)).$$ Moreover, the number of involutions of length $k+2n$ (resp. $k+2n-1$) that avoid all the patterns in $\\mathcal{F}_k$ is given by $(k-1)^{n+1}I_{k-2}$ (resp. $(k-1)^{n}I_{k-1}$), for all $n\\geq0$.\n\nLet $\\pi\\in\\SS_n$ be a permutation that avoids all patterns in $\\mathcal{F}_k$. We have $\\pi_1\\geq n+2-k$. Thus $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{F}_k)$ with $\\pi_1=t\\geq n+2-k$ if and only if $\\pi_2\\ldots\\pi_{t-1}\\pi_{t+1}\\ldots\\pi_n$ is an involution on the numbers $2,\\ldots,t-1,t+1,\\ldots,n$ that avoids all the patterns in $\\mathcal{F}_k$. Hence, $f_k(n;j)=f_k(n-2)$ for all $j=n+2-k,n+3-k,\\ldots,n$, and $f_k(n,j)=0$ for all $j=1,2,\\ldots,n+1-k$, where $n\\geq k$. Thus, for $n\\geq k$, $$f_k(n)\\;=\\;(k-1)f_k(n-2).$$ Using the initial conditions $f_k(j)=J_{j}(p)$, $j=1,2,\\ldots,k-1$, we find that $f_k(k+2j)=(k-1)^{j+1}J_{k-1}(p)$ and $f_k(k+2j-1)=(k-1)^jJ_{k-2}(p)$ for all $j\\geq0$. Rewriting these formulas in terms of generating functions we obtain $$F_k(x,p)=\\sum_{j=0}^{k-2}J_j(p)x^j+\\frac{x^{k-1}}{1-(k-1)x^2}((k-1)J_{k-2}(p)x+J_{k-1}(p)),$$ as claimed.\n\nInvolutions avoiding $\\mathcal{A}_k$\n------------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection we prove Theorem\u00a0\\[thmain\\]. In order to do this, define $g_k(n)$ to be the number of involutions $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{A}_k)$ and given $t_1,t_2,\\ldots,t_m\\in\\mathbb{N}$, we also define $$g_k(n;t_1,t_2,\\ldots,t_m) \\;=\\; \\#\\{\\pi_1\\ldots\\pi_n\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{A}_k)\\mid \\pi_1\\ldots\\pi_m\n =t_1\\ldots t_m\\}.$$\n\n\\[lem1\\] Let $k\\geq3$. For all $3\\leq t\\leq n+1-k$, $$g_k(n;t)\\;=\\;(k-2)g_k(n-2;t-1)+\\sum_{j=1}^{t-2}g_k(n-2;j),$$ with the initial conditions $g_k(n;1)=f_{k-1}(n-1)$, $g_k(n;2)=f_{k-1}(n-2)$, and $g_k(n;t)=g_k(n-2)$ for all $t=n+2-k,n+3-k,\\ldots,n$.\n\nLet $\\pi$ be any involution of length $n$ that avoids all patterns in $\\mathcal{A}_k$ with $\\pi_1=t$. Now let us consider all possible values of $t$. If $t=1$ then $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{A}_k)$ if and only if $(\\pi_2-1)(\\pi_3-1)\\ldots(\\pi_n-1)\\in\\mathcal{I}_{n-1}(\\mathcal{F}_{k-1})$. If $t=2$ then $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{A}_k)$ if and only if $(\\pi_3-2)(\\pi_4-2)\\ldots(\\pi_n-2)\\in\\mathcal{I}_{n-2}(\\mathcal{F}_{k-1})$. Now assume that $3\\leq t\\leq n+1-k$, then from the above definitions $$\\begin{array}{l}\ng_k(n;t) \\;=\\; g_k(n;t,1)+\\ldots+g_k(n;t,t-1)+g_k(n;t,t+1)+\\cdots+g_k(n;t,n).\n\\end{array}$$ But any involution $\\pi$ satisfying $\\pi_1<\\pi_2\\leq n+2-k$ contains a pattern from the set $\\mathcal{A}_k$ (see the subsequence of the letters $\\pi_1,\\pi_2,\nn+3-k,n+4-k,\\ldots,n$ in $\\pi$). Thus $g_k(n;t,r)=0$ for all $t<r\\leq n+2-k$ and so $$\\begin{array}{l}\ng_k(n;t) \\;=\\; g_k(n;t,1)+\\ldots+g_k(n;t,t-1)+g_k(n;t,n+3-k)+\\cdots+g_k(n;t,n).\n\\end{array}$$ Also, if $\\pi$ is an involution in $\\mathcal{I}_n$ with $\\pi_1=t$ and $\\pi_2=r\\geq\nn+3-k$, then the entry $r$ does not appear in any occurrence of $\\tau\\in\\mathcal{A}_k$ in $\\pi$. Thus, there exists a bijection between the set of involutions $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\\pi_1=t$ and $\\pi_2=r\\geq n+3-k$ and the set of involutions $\\pi'\\in\\mathcal{I}_{n-2}(\\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\\pi'=t-1$. Therefore $g_k(n;t,r)=g_k(n-2;t-1)$ which gives $$\\begin{array}{l}\ng_k(n;t) \\;=\\; g_k(n;t,1)+\\ldots+g_k(n;t,t-1)+(k-2)g_k(n-2;t-1).\n\\end{array}$$ Also, if $\\pi$ is an involution in $\\mathcal{I}_n$ with $\\pi_1=t$, $\\pi_2=r<t$ and if $ta_2\\ldots a_k$ is an occurrence of a pattern from the set $\\mathcal{A}_k$ in $\\pi$, then $ra_2\\ldots a_k$ is an occurrence of a pattern from the set $\\mathcal{A}_k$ in $\\pi$. Thus, there exists a bijection between the set of involutions $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\\pi_1=t$ and $\\pi_2=r<t$ and the set of involutions $\\pi'\\in\\mathcal{I}_{n-2}(\\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\\pi'_1=r-1$. Therefore $g_k(n;t,r)=g_k(n-2;r-1)$ which gives $$\\begin{array}{l}\ng_k(n;t)\\;=\\;(k-2)g_k(n-2;t-1)+\\displaystyle\\sum_{j=1}^{t-2} g_k(n-2;j),\n\\end{array}$$ as required. Finally, if $\\pi$ is an involution in $\\mathcal{I}_n$ with $\\pi_1=t\\geq\nn+2-k$, then the entry $t$ does not appear in any occurrence of $\\tau\\in\\mathcal{A}_k$ in $\\pi$. Thus, there exists a bijection between the set of involutions $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{A}_k)$ with $\\pi_1=t\\geq n+2-k$ and the set of involutions $\\pi'\\in\\mathcal{I}_{n-2}(\\mathcal{A}_k)$. Therefore $g_k(n;t)=g_k(n-2)$, as claimed.\n\nLet $G_k(n;v)$ be the polynomial $\\sum_{t=1}^ng_k(n;t)v^{t-1}$. Rewriting the above lemma in terms of the polynomials $G_k(n;v)$ we have the following recurrence relation.\n\n\\[lem2\\] Let $k\\geq3$. For all $n\\geq k$, $$\\begin{array}{lcl}\n\\lefteqn{G_k(n;v)}\\\\\n&=&f_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)-v(k-2)f_{k-1}(n-3)+\\left(\\frac{v^2}{1-v}+(k-2)v\\right)G_k(n-2;v)\\\\\n&&-\\frac{v^n}{1-v}G_k(n-2;1)+\\frac{v^{n-1}}{1-v}\\left(k-2+\\frac{v-v^{3-k}}{1-v}\\right)G_k(n-4;1),\n\\end{array}$$ where $G_k(n;v)=I_{n-1}+\\frac{v-v^n}{1-v}I_{n-2}$ for all $n=0,1,\\ldots,k-1$.\n\nLemma\u00a0\\[lem1\\] gives $$\\begin{array}{cl}\n\\lefteqn{G_k(n;v)}\\\\\n=&f_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)+\\displaystyle\\sum_{t=2}^{n-k}v^t\\left((k-2)G_k(n-2;t)+\\displaystyle\\sum_{j=1}^{t-1}G_k(n-2;j)\\right)\\\\\n&+ G_k(n-2;1) \\displaystyle\\sum_{t=n+1-k}^{n-1}v^t\\\\\n=& f_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)+\\frac{v^2}{1-v}\\left(G_k(n-2;v)-G_k(n-4;1)\\displaystyle\\sum_{j=n-1-k}^{n-3}v^j\\right)\\\\\n&-\\frac{v^{n+1-k}}{1-v}(G_k(n-2;1)-(k-1)G_k(n-4;1))+\\frac{v^{n+1-k}-v^n}{1-v}G_k(n-2;1)\\\\\n&+(k-2)v\\left(G_k(n-2;v)-f_{k-1}(n-3)-G_k(n-4;1)\\displaystyle\\sum_{j=n-k}^{n-3}v^j\\right),\n\\end{array}$$ which is equivalent to $$\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\lefteqn{G_k(n;v)}\\\\\n=&f_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)-v(k-2)f_{k-1}(n-3)+\\left(\\frac{v^2}{1-v}+(k-2)v\\right)G_k(n-2;v)\\\\\n&-\\frac{v^n}{1-v}G_k(n-2;1)+\\frac{v^{n-1}}{1-v}\\left(k-2+\\frac{v-v^{3-k}}{1-v}\\right)G_k(n-4;1).\n\\end{array}$$ To find the value of $G_k(n;v)$ for $n\\leq k-1$, let $\\pi$ be any involution with $\\pi_1=t$. If $t=1$ then there are $I_{n-1}$ involutions, whereas if $t>1$ there are $I_{n-2}$ involutions, hence $G_k(n;v)=v^0I_{n-1}+\\sum_{t=2}^nv^{t-1}I_{n-2}=I_{n-1}+\\frac{v-v^n}{1-v}I_{n-2}$, as required.\n\nLemma\u00a0\\[lem2\\] can be generalised as follows; let $g_{k;m}(n;t)$ be the number of involutions $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_n(\\mathcal{A}_k)$ such that $\\pi_1=t$ and $\\pi$ contains exactly $m$ fixed points. Define $G_k(n;t;p)=\\sum_{m=0}^ng_{k;m}(n;t)p^m$ and $G_k(n;v,p)=\\sum_{t=1}^nG_k(n;t;p)v^{t-1}$. Using the same arguments as those in the proofs of Lemma\u00a0\\[lem1\\] and Lemma\u00a0\\[lem2\\], while carefully considering the number of fixed points, we have the following result.\n\n\\[lem3\\] Let $k\\geq3$. For all $n\\geq k$, $$\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\lefteqn{G_k(n;v,p)}\\\\\n=&pf_{k-1}(n-1)+vf_{k-1}(n-2)-pv(k-2)f_{k-1}(n-3)+\\left(\\frac{v^2}{1-v}+(k-2)v\\right)G_k(n-2;v,p)\\\\\n&-\\frac{v^n}{1-v}G_k(n-2;1,p)+\\frac{v^{n-1}}{1-v}\\left(k-2+\\frac{v-v^{3-k}}{1-v}\\right)G_k(n-4;1,p),\n\\end{array}$$ where $G_k(n;v,p)=pJ_{n-1}(p)+\\frac{v-v^n}{1-v}J_{n-2}(p)$ for all $n=0,1,\\ldots,k-1$.\n\nLet $G_k(x,v,p)=\\sum_{n\\geq0}G_k(n;v,p)x^n$ be the generating function for the sequence $G_k(n;v,p)$. Define $J_i(v,p)$ to be the polynomial $\\sum d_{tr}v^tp^r$ where $d_{tr}$ is the number of involutions $\\pi\\in\\mathcal{I}_i$ such that $\\pi_1=t+1$ and $\\pi$ contains exactly $r$ fixed points. Rewriting the recurrence relation in the statement of Lemma\u00a0\\[lem3\\] in terms of generating functions we obtain $$\\begin{array}{l}\n\\lefteqn{G_k(x,v,p)\\;=\\;}\\\\\n\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-1}J_j(v,p)x^j+px\\left(F_{k-1}(x,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-2}J_j(p)x^j\\right)+vx^2\\left(F_{k-1}(x,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)x^j\\right)\\\\\n-(k-2)pvx^3\\left(F_{k-1}(x,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-4}J_j(p)x^j\\right)-\\frac{v^2x^2}{1-v}\\left(G_k(xv,1,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)(xv)^j\\right)\\\\\n+vx^2\\left(\\frac{v}{1-v}+k-2\\right)\\left(G_k(x,v,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(v,p)x^j\\right)\\\\\n+\\frac{(k-2)v^3x^4}{1-v}\\left(G_k(xv,1,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-5}J_j(p)(xv)^j\\right)\n-\\frac{x^4(1-v^{k-2})}{v^{k-6}(1-v)^2}\\left(G_k(xv,1,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-5}J_j(p)(xv)^j\\right),\n\\end{array}$$ which is equivalent to $$\\begin{array}{l}\n\\left(1-\\frac{x^2}{1-v}-(k-2)\\frac{x^2}{v}\\right)G_k(x/v,v,p) \\; = \\; \\\\\n-\\frac{x^2}{1-v}\\left(1-(k-2)\\frac{x^2}{v}+\\frac{x^2(1-v^{k-2})}{v^{k-2}(1-v)}\\right)G_k(x,1,p)\\\\\n+\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-1}J_j(v,p)\\frac{x^j}{v^j}+\\frac{px}{v}\\left(F_{k-1}(x/v,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-2}J_j(p)\\frac{x^j}{v^j}\\right)+\\frac{x^2}{v}\\left(F_{k-1}(x/v,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)\\frac{x^j}{v^j}\\right)\\\\\n-(k-2)p\\frac{x^3}{v^2}\\left(F_{k-1}(x/v,p)-\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-4}J_j(p)\\frac{x^j}{v^j}\\right)+\\frac{x^2}{1-v}\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(p)x^j\\\\\n-\\frac{x^2}{v}\\left(\\frac{v}{1-v}+k-2\\right)\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-3}J_j(v,p)\\frac{x^j}{v^j}\n-\\frac{(k-2)x^4}{v(1-v)}\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-5}J_j(p)x^j+\\frac{x^4(1-v^{k-2})}{v^{k-2}(1-v)^2}\\sum\\limits_{j=0}^{k-5}J_j(p)x^j.\n\\end{array}$$ To solve this functional equation, we substitute $$v:=v_0=\\frac{1}{2}\\left(1+(k-3)x^2+\\sqrt{1-2(k-1)x^2+(k-3)^2x^4}\\right),$$ where $v_0$ is the root of the coefficient of $G_k(x/v,v,p)$ above, into the above functional equation, that is, $1-\\frac{x^2}{1-v_0}-(k-2)\\frac{x^2}{v_0}=0$. Since $J_j(v,p)=pJ_{j-1}(p)+\\frac{v-v^j}{1-v}J_{j-2}(p)$ for all $j=1,2,\\ldots,k-1$ and $J_0(v,p)=1$, it is routine to show (via some rather tedious algebraic manipulation) that we obtain Theorem\u00a0\\[thmain\\].\n\n[99]{} R.\u00a0Adin and Yu.\u00a0Roichman, Shape avoiding permutations, [*[J. Combin. Theory Ser. A]{}*]{} [**[97]{}**]{}(1) (2002), 162\u2013176.\n\nE.\u00a0Barcucci, A.\u00a0Del Lungo, E.\u00a0Pergola and R.\u00a0Pinzani, Permutations avoiding an increasing number of length-increasing forbidden subsequences, [*Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci.*]{} [**4**]{} (2000), 31\u201344.\n\nMireille Bousquet-M\u00e9lou and Einar Steingr\u00edmsson, Decreasing subsequences in permutations and Wilf equivalence for involutions, [*[J. Algeb. Comb.]{}*]{} [**[22]{}**]{} (2005), 383\u2013409.\n\nEric S. Egge and Toufik Mansour, Permutations which Avoid 1243 and 2143, Continued Fractions, and Chebyshev Polynomials, [*Elec. J. Combin.*]{} [**[9]{}**]{}(2) (2003), \\#R7.\n\nD.\u00a0Gouyou\u2013Beauchamps, Standard Young tableaux of height $4$ and $5$, [*European J. Combin.*]{} [**10**]{} (1989), 69\u201382.\n\nI.M.\u00a0Gessel, Symmetric functions and P-recursiveness, [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**53**]{} (1990), 257\u2013285.\n\nO.\u00a0Guibert, Combinatoire des permutations \u00e0 motifs exclus en liaison avec mots, cartes planaires et tableaux de Young, [*PHD-thesis, University Bordeaux\u00a01, France*]{} (1995).\n\nD. Kremer, Permutations with forbidden subsequences and a generalized Schr\u00f6der number, [*Discrete Math.*]{} [**218**]{} (2000), 121\u2013130.\n\nT. Mansour, Avoiding and containing certain patterns, [*Proceeding\u2019s 12th Conference on Formal Power Series and Algebraic Combinatorics*]{}, Moscow (2000), 706\u2013708.\n\nT. Mansour and A. Vainshtein, Avoiding maximal parabolic subgroups of $S_k$, [*Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci.*]{} [**4**]{} (2000), 67\u201377.\n\nR.\u00a0Simion and F.W.\u00a0Schmidt, Restricted Permutations, [*European J. Combin.*]{} [**6**]{} (1985), 383\u2013406.\n\nR.\u00a0Stanley, Enumerative Combinatorics, Volume 1-2, 1997, 1999, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\n---\n\n[0.490]{}\n\n[0.490]{}\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nBitcoin surprised scholars in distributed systems, as well as in security\u00a0[@bonneau2015SoKResearch]. Authors have called the new composition of known concepts a \u201csweet spot\u201d\u00a0[@tschorsch2016BitcoinTechnical] in the design space for protocols, and praised the complex way the components are put together as a \u201ctrue leap of insight\u201d\u00a0[@narayanan2017BitcoinAcademic] of Nakamoto\u00a0[@nakamoto2008BitcoinPeertopeer]. Likely the most intriguing part is the way Bitcoin uses proof-of-work puzzles to secure a distributed log. The role of proof-of-work in Nakamoto consensus can be contemplated in several ways. First and most intuitively, the computational puzzles can be interpreted as a rate limit on new identities, which discourage Sybil attacks\u00a0[@douceur2002SybilAttack] in a lottery for blocks and new coins. Second, proof-of-work can be conceived as a game-proof variant of a probabilistic back-off mechanism, as used in media access control in computer networks. It reduces the risk of collisions when many nodes concurrently seek write access to a shared medium, the ledger. Proof-of-work has been formalized in cryptographic security models of Nakamoto consensus\u00a0[@garay2015BitcoinBackbone; @pass2017AnalysisBlockchain]. However, we are not aware of work pointing out the fundamental conflict between inclusiveness and security inherent to the way proof-of-work is used in the known distributed log protocols. This conflict precludes reliable and fast commits. Arguably, it is the reason why practical protocols trade finality for eventual consistency. But the lack of finality limits the applicability for high-value transactions\u00a0[@bonneau2016WhyBuy; @gervais2016SecurityPerformance], a potential show-stopper discussed even beyond the technical community [@budish2018EconomicLimits; @auer2019DoomsdayEconomics].\n\nWe tackle this conflict directly, leading to a theory of proof-of-work quorums, which enables new ways of using proof-of-work in permissionless distributed log protocols. We propose one such protocol, , demonstrating that finality with reliable and short time to commit is possible. Specifically, we do not rely on sidechains, a tool used in the literature to stack Byzantine on top of Nakamoto consensus\u00a0[@kogias2016EnhancingBitcoin; @pass2017HybridConsensus; @pass2018ThunderellaBlockchains]. Sidechains can add finality and increase throughput at the price of increased complexity, overhead, and tricky issues in the synchronization between layers\u00a0[@kogias2016EnhancingBitcoin; @eyal2016BitcoinNGScalable].\n\nThe proposed protocol is inspired by two recent breakthroughs: Bobtail\u00a0[@bissias2020BobtailImproved] and HotStuff\u00a0[@yin2019HotStuffBFT]. The former optimizes stochastic properties of the block delay in Nakamoto consensus. The latter adapts principles of Byzantine fault tolerance to blockchains in a clever way. It has received attention after Facebook\u2019s announcement to use it in LibraBFT\u00a0[@calibra2019librabft].\n\nWe make the following contributions:\n\n1.  We draw attention to a fundamental conflict between inclusiveness and security in and propose a principled resolution (Section\u00a0\\[sec:intuition\\]).\n\n2.  We develop a theory of proof-of-work quorums where quorums are formed over votes generated by stochastic processes. We show that sufficiently large quorums are practically unique (Section\u00a0\\[sec:pow\\_quorum\\]).\n\n3.  We propose , a protocol that finds consensus over a distributed log without requiring pre-defined identities. scales at least as well as practical blockchain protocols and much better than Byzantine fault tolerance protocols. It relies on proof-of-work, but, unlike deployed systems using the longest chain rule, our construction supports a three-phase commit logic. State updates (transactions) are final after a predictable amount of time, and the probability of inconsistency is bounded according to our theory (Section\u00a0\\[sec:protocol\\]).\n\n4.  We simulate executions of as well as of variants with adversarial modifications. The results show that the protocol can tolerate network latency, churn, and targeted attacks on consistency and liveness at small overhead compared to the best deployed systems (Section\u00a0\\[sec:evaluation\\]).\n\nSection\u00a0\\[sec:discussion\\] compares to related works and discusses its limitations. Section\u00a0\\[sec:conclusion\\] concludes. For replicability and future research, we make the protocol implementation and the simulation code available online.\n\nIntuition {#sec:intuition}\n=========\n\nThe key conflict between inclusiveness and security faced by cryptocurrencies is as follows: *minorities should be encouraged to participate (inclusiveness), but they should not be able to make decisions alone (security).* achieves inclusiveness by sacrificing security for an uncertain period of time (eventual consistency). This becomes problematic when irreversible real-world actions are taken based on unsettled transactions in the distributed log (double spending). A short and reliable time to commit would mitigate this risk.\n\nRecall that prioritizes inclusiveness by using a puzzle as gatekeeper to participation. The protocol specifies a repeated race for the first puzzle solution. Each winner proposes a state update and receives some reward. Most cryptocurrencies use puzzles\u2014moderately hard functions\u2014for which iterative trial and error is the best known solving algorithm. Such puzzles imply exponentially distributed solving time. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:min\\_maj\\_exp\\] shows the probability distributions for the solving times of a $2/3$ majority of solving power compared to a $1/3$ minority. The expected time of the end of the race is marked with $\\hat{t}_1$ (in Bitcoin $\\hat{t}_1 \\approx 10$ minutes). Consequently, the area under each curve represents the odds of winning the race. Observe that the minority has a fair chance. This makes the protocol inclusive, but also implies that minorities have a significant chance of directly writing state updates. For improved security, we would prefer a distribution such that the minority\u2019s area under the curve is small (ideally negligible), as displayed in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:min\\_maj\\_gamma\\].\n\nSince the puzzle of behaves like in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:min\\_maj\\_exp\\], a single state update is not reliable. As a result, users are recommended to wait for multiple consecutive blocks before acting upon a payment. The time needed for sequentially solving $k$ exponential puzzles is gamma distributed with shape parameter\u00a0$k$. In fact, Figure\u00a0\\[fig:min\\_maj\\_gamma\\] shows the gamma distribution for $k = 6$. Note the significant gap between minority and majority: it is unlikely that a minority can generate a sequence of $6$\u00a0state updates before the majority does so. In this sense, multiple puzzle solutions qualify a majority, while a single one does not.\n\nIn , security comes at the price of waiting for multiple solutions. Bitcoin\u2019s convention of $k=6$ implies an expected waiting time of $\\hat{t}_2 \\approx 60$ minutes, which is arguably too slow for many applications. Besides, does not give a rationale on how to choose $k$.\n\nA key idea for resolving this conflict is to break the one-to-one relationship between puzzle solutions and blocks. Instead of requiring a single $10$ minute puzzle per block, asks for $k$ easier puzzles each expected to take $10/k$ minutes. In other words, achieves security by appending puzzle solutions *in parallel* rather than sequentially, as illustrated in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:seq\\_vs\\_par\\]. Since the puzzles are independent, we end up with the same block rate but $k$ times the number of solutions. The expected computational effort stays the same, but we accumulate a qualifying number of solutions for *every* block. This means we get the shape of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:min\\_maj\\_gamma\\] much faster: $\\hat{t}_2 \\approx\n\\hat{t}_1$.\n\nFor a principled construction of , we reduce the payload \u201cauthenticated\u201d\u00a0[@back2014EnablingBlockchain] by proof-of-work to a minimum:\n\n1.  a reference to a recent point in time ( a hash link to the last seen block)\n\n2.  a reference to an identity (public key or commitment)\n\nA triple of a puzzle solution and these two references forms a verifiable ephemeral identity. The puzzle solution binds resources in order to prevent Sybil attacks, the reference in time ensures freshness, and the identifier enables authorized actions, such as claiming a reward.\n\nThe main difference between proof-of-work systems and the well-studied class of Byzantine fault tolerant (BFT) systems\u00a0[@lamport1982ByzantineGenerals; @dwork1988ConsensusPresence; @castro2002PracticalByzantine] is that the former do not rely on external identification of the participating nodes. Inspired by the early work of @aspnes2005Exposingcomputationallychallenged, uses proof-of-work to bootstrap ephemeral identities and plugs them into HotStuff\u00a0[@yin2019HotStuffBFT], a state of the art blockchain-based BFT system. In HotStuff, each block carries a certificate about a qualified majority of nodes (quorum) confirming the last seen block. HotStuff\u2019s proof of finality is based on the qualifying properties of each quorum. This motivates us to explore whether and to what extent a set of proof-of-work solutions can qualify a majority. In Section\u00a0\\[sec:pow\\_quorum\\], we will show that qualifying majorities are possible within a single block. This allows us to transfer HotStuff\u2019s finality to the permissionless setting.\n\nThe recurse to HotStuff enables us to fix the number of blocks to wait before accepting a state update as final at the necessary number of phases to commit, thereby resolving a drawback of . As illustrated in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:pipeline\\], HotStuff uses a three-phase commit, which can be pipelined for subsequent state updates on a blockchain. In a nutshell, the first phase locks a single proposal, the second phase confirms majority uptake of this lock, and the third phase ensures that the knowledge of this knowledge is propagated. We refer to\u00a0[@yin2019HotStuffBFT] for the rationales and failure modes. In this sense, parallelizes not only puzzle solutions but also the phases of the commit logic.\n\n(0,0) node \\[draw\\] (a1) ; (1,0) node \\[draw\\] (a2) ; (2,0) node \\[draw\\] (a3) ;\n\n(1,-1) node \\[draw\\] (b1) ; (2,-1) node \\[draw\\] (b2) ; (3,-1) node \\[draw\\] (b3) ;\n\n(2,-2) node \\[draw\\] (c1) ; (3,-2) node \\[draw\\] (c2) ; (4,-2) node \\[draw\\] (c3) ;\n\nin [a,b,c]{} [ (2.west)\u2013(1.east); (3.west)\u2013(2.east); (1.west)\u2013++(-4mm,0); ]{}\n\n(-2, 0) node [Phase 1]{}; (-2,-1) node [Phase 2]{}; (-2,-2) node [Phase 3]{};\n\n(2,.38) \u2013 (2,-2.2); (2,.35) \u2013 (2,-2.15); at (1.975,-0.7) [commit]{};\n\nAnother advantage of the gamma distribution per block is a reduction in the variance of block delays compared to the exponential distribution implied by the puzzle. While the commit pipeline gives us finality after three blocks, the reduced variance translates this into a reliable time to commit. The theory in the following section shows formally how all this is related to the quorum size, \u2019s new security parameter.\n\nProof-of-Work Quorums {#sec:pow_quorum}\n=====================\n\nQuorums are central to the design and analysis of BFT protocols. The typical Byzantine setting assumes a set of $n =\n3f + 1$ identified nodes, of which at most $f$ deviate from the protocol. A set of $2f + 1$ votes for the same value is called a quorum. If correct nodes vote at most once, quorums imply a majority decision and thus are unique. The uniqueness may be violated in two situations.\n\n1.  More than $n$ nodes vote. \\[bft-network\\]\n\n2.  More than $f$ nodes vote more than once. \\[bft-adversary\\]\n\nPractical systems avoid\u00a0\\[bft-network\\] using preset identities for all nodes and rule out\u00a0\\[bft-adversary\\] by assumption.\n\nProof-of-work enables systems where agents can join and leave at any time without obtaining permission from an identity provider or gatekeeper\u00a0[@nakamoto2008BitcoinPeertopeer]. This difference is often implied in the terms \u201cpermissioned\u201d and \u201cpermissionless\u201d. In the permissionless case one must distinguish between *agents* and *nodes*. Agents are entities participating in a distributed system. An agent can operate any number of nodes. Colluding parties are interpreted as a single agent. We introduce the notion *proof-of-work quorum* for a set of votes where each vote requires a solution to a proof-of-work puzzle. Since the puzzle solving time is probabilistic, the uniqueness of quorums cannot be absolute. In contrast to the Byzantine setting, we have to consider three failure modes:\n\n1.  The total compute power of the network is higher than assumed. \\[pow-network\\]\n\n2.  The adversary controls more than the assumed fraction of compute power. \\[pow-adversary\\]\n\n3.  A random bad realization happens. \\[pow-probability\\]\n\nThe failure modes \\[pow-network\\] and \\[pow-adversary\\] correspond to the Byzantine failure modes \\[bft-network\\] and \\[bft-adversary\\]. Our goal is to understand the new failure mode \\[pow-probability\\] and how it affects the potential ambiguity (violation of uniqueness) of quorums.\n\n\\[def:process\\] A proof-of-work process is a stochastic count process where each event assigns one *ability to vote* (ATV) to one agent. Each ATV can be used by the agent it is assigned to, to vote once for one value.\n\nWe adopt the notion of a quorum from the BFT literature\u00a0[@malkhi1998ByzantineQuorum; @yin2019HotStuffBFT] except that we will apply it to votes from ATVs rather than identified nodes.\n\n\\[def:quorum\\] A set of $\\qsize$ votes for the same value\u00a0$x$ is called a $\\qsize$-quorum for\u00a0$x$.\n\nObserving a $\\qsize$-quorum implies that at least $\\qsize$\u00a0ATVs have been used, hence the proof-of-work process must have assigned at least\u00a0$\\qsize$ ATVs. This connects to time.\n\n\\[def:oqt\\] The time at which the proof-of-work process assigns the $\\qsize$-th ATV is called optimistic $\\qsize$-quorum time. For a proof-of-work process $P$ and quorum size $\\qsize$ it is formally defined by the random variable $$T_{P,\\qsize} := \\inf\\{t \\in \\realsgez \\mid P(t) \\geq \\qsize\\} \\,.$$\n\n$T_{P,\\qsize}$ is the earliest point in time at which a $\\qsize$-quorum is feasible. A $\\qsize$-quorum is only possible at exactly $T_{P,\\qsize}$, if all assigned ATVs are used to vote for the same value.\n\nA quorum for $x$ is ambiguous if there is another quorum for $y \\neq x$. Since each ATV can be used for at most one value, ambiguous $\\qsize$-quorums are only possible when the proof-of-work process has assigned at least $2\\qsize$ ATVs.\n\n\\[def:poa\\] For a proof-of-work process $P$ and quorum size\u00a0 we define the *probability of ambiguity* (POA) as $${\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{poa}}}_{P, \\qsize}(t) := \\prob{P(t) \\geq 2 \\qsize} \\,.$$\n\nFor puzzles where the best known solving algorithm is independent trial and error, the stochastic process is instantiated by the Poisson process $P_\\lambda$. This is because if each puzzle solution generates one ATV, the time between consecutive ATVs is exponentially distributed with rate $\\lambda$.\n\n\\[lem:poa\\_poisson\\] The POA for the Poisson process $P_\\lambda$ is given by $${\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\\lambda, \\qsize}(t) =\n    1 - e^{-\\lambda t} \\sum_{i=0}^{2\\qsize -1}{\\frac{(\\lambda t)^i}{i!}} \\,.$$\n\nSee Appendix\u00a0\\[apx:proofs\\].\n\n\\[lem:qt\\_possion\\] The optimistic -quorum time for the Poisson process is Erlang distributed with shape parameter\u00a0 and rate parameter\u00a0$\\lambda$, in short $$T_{P_\\lambda,\\qsize} \\drawn \\distErlang(\\qsize, \\lambda) \\,.$$\n\nSee Appendix\u00a0\\[apx:proofs\\].\n\n\\[cor:tEv\\] The expected optimistic $\\qsize$-quorum time for the Poisson process is $${\\ensuremath{\\bar{t}_{\\lambda, \\qsize}}}:= \\ev{T_{P_\\lambda,\\qsize}} = \\qsize / \\lambda\\,.$$\n\nThe statement follows from Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:qt\\_possion\\] and the definition of the Erlang distribution\u00a0[@stewart2009ProbabilityMarkov p.\u00a0146].\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:opt\\_qtime\\] illustrates the distribution of the optimistic $\\qsize$-quorum time for $\\qsize \\in \\{1,2,16\\}$ based on the Poisson process. In order to compare quorum sizes greater than one to an ideal Bitcoin ($\\qsize=1$, ${\\ensuremath{\\bar{t}_{\\lambda, \\qsize}}}{}=10$ minutes), we choose $\\lambda = \\qsize / 10$.\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:poa\\_over\\_time\\] shows the POA for different quorum sizes as a function of time. Again, we adjust the rate such that the expected optimistic -quorum time is 10 minutes. Observe that the POA increases over time as the number of ATVs grows. More importantly, the POA at the expected optimistic quorum time decreases in the quorum size\u00a0.\n\nIn order to isolate the effect of , we evaluate the POA at fixed time [$\\bar{t}_{\\lambda, \\qsize}$]{}, which lends itself to a closed form.\n\n\\[cor:poa\\_at\\_ev\\] For the Poisson process, the POA at expected optimistic -quorum time is given by $${\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\\lambda, \\qsize}({\\ensuremath{\\bar{t}_{\\lambda, \\qsize}}}) =\n    1 - e^{-\\qsize} \\sum_{i=0}^{2\\qsize -1}{\\frac{\\qsize^i}{i!}} \\,.$$\n\nBy inserting Corollary\u00a0\\[cor:tEv\\] into Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:poa\\_poisson\\].\n\nObserve that the POA at expected optimistic quorum time is independent of $\\lambda$. This is useful as $\\lambda$ may measure the total compute capacity in proof-of-work networks, which is not necessarily known to each agent.\n\nSince ambiguity causes failure, and the probability of ambiguity vanishes as $\\qsize$ grows, $\\qsize$ becomes a security parameter. In order to relate it to other security parameters, such as the key size, we adopt the common definition of negligibility from cryptography ( asymptotic decline faster than any polynomial) and state the following theorem.\n\n\\[thm:negligible\\] For the Poisson process, the probability of ambiguity at the expected quorum time is negligible in the quorum size\u00a0$\\qsize$.\n\nSee Appendix\u00a0\\[apx:proofs\\].\n\nFor Bitcoin parameters ($\\qsize=1, \\lambda=0.1$), the POA at [$\\bar{t}_{\\lambda, \\qsize}$]{} is $p\n= 0.2642$. This part of the theory can be validated on historical data. We estimate the expected block delay by averaging the differences between consecutive block time stamps over 2017\u20132018.[^1] The estimated average block delay is $\\hat{t}=9.52$ minutes. The ratio of cases with more than two blocks arriving within $\\hat{t}$ is $\\hat{p} = 0.2606$. This estimate should be slightly below $p$ because our historic data does not contain orphaned blocks. Since $p \\approx \\hat{p}$, we conclude that the theory applies to Bitcoin.\n\nThe implication of this theory for protocol design is that larger quorums reduce the probability of ambiguity. The (close to) exponential decay makes it conceivable to choose parameters such that quorums are practically unique. This allows us to use a notion of quorum uniqueness with ephemeral identities generated by proof-of-work.\n\n {#sec:protocol}\n\nNow we specify , a distributed log protocol secured by a proof-of-work process (Def.\u00a0\\[def:process\\]) and $\\qsize$-quorums (Def.\u00a0\\[def:quorum\\]).\n\nWe present using pseudocode and a mixture of event-driven and imperative programming. A less ambiguous implementation in OCaml is provided online.\n\nPrerequisites {#ssec:proto_prerequisites}\n-------------\n\nWe assume interfaces to the network and application layers (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:appstack\\]), and the availability of cryptographic primitives.\n\n### Broadcast Network {#sssec:method_net}\n\nThe proposed protocol requires a (potentially unreliable) network broadcast. We abstract from the exact implementation and assume that scheduling an event results in the message $m$ being sent to (most of) the other nodes. On the receiving side, the implementation delivers message $m'$ by scheduling .\n\n### Application {#sssec:method_app}\n\nimplements a distributed log which may serve as a base for different applications\u00a0[@lamport1978TimeClocks; @schneider1990ImplementingFaulttolerant; @abraham2017BlockchainConsensus]. For example, a simple cryptocurrency could append lists of transactions which jointly form a ledger. More advanced applications could add scalability layers that only record key decisions in the distributed log while handling other state updates separately [@eyal2016BitcoinNGScalable; @kogias2016EnhancingBitcoin; @pass2018ThunderellaBlockchains].\n\nWe abstract from the application logic using three procedures can call. takes an application state and a state update as arguments and returns true if the state update is valid. takes an application state and a state update and returns an updated state. takes an application state and returns a valid state update. We are agnostic about direct access of the application to the broadcast network. For example, cryptocurrencies share transactions provisionally before they are logged in blocks.\n\n### Cryptography {#ssec:method_dsa}\n\n\\[ssec:method\\_hash\\] uses cryptographic hash functions for the hash-linked list and the proof-of-work process. We separate these two concerns and use two different hash functions, [$\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{list}}$]{} and [$\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{pow}}$]{}. While it is sufficient that [$\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{list}}$]{} is cryptographically secure, requires the same stronger assumptions for [$\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{pow}}$]{} as Bitcoin\u00a0[@abraham2017BlockchainConsensus]. Since this difference is not central, the reader can safely assume ${\\ensuremath{\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{list}}}}{} = {\\ensuremath{\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{pow}}}}{} = \\operatorname{SHA3}$.\n\nalso requires a digital signature scheme\u00a0[@katz2014IntroductionModern Def.\u00a012.1, p.\u00a0442]. We assume a secure implementation is given by the three procedures , , and . Every node holds an asymmetric key pair (me, secret).\n\nProtocol\n--------\n\n### Local Block Store {#sssec:proto_global}\n\nnodes maintain a local tree of hash-linked blocks and a reference to the preferred chain (head). They store blocks together with the associated application state, the block height, and a set of corresponding votes (see Listing\u00a0\\[lst:store\\]). The block storage is indexed by [$\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{list}}$]{}.\n\nh $\\gets {\\ensuremath{\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{list}}}}(\\text{B})$ parent $\\gets$ blocks\\[B.parent\\] blocks\\[h\\].parent $\\gets$ parent blocks\\[h\\].state $\\gets$ blocks\\[h\\].height $\\gets$ parent.height + 1 blocks\\[h\\].votes $\\gets \\emptyset$ blocks\\[h\\].block $\\gets$ B\n\n### Votes {#sssec:proto_vote}\n\nAs mentioned in Section\u00a0\\[sec:intuition\\], a vote in is a triple [$({\\ensuremath{{\\ensuremath{r}},{\\ensuremath{p}},{\\ensuremath{s}}}})$]{}, where [$r$]{} is a reference to a previous block, [$p$]{} is the public key of the voter, and [$s$]{} is a puzzle solution. A vote [$({\\ensuremath{{\\ensuremath{r}},{\\ensuremath{p}},{\\ensuremath{s}}}})$]{} is valid if ${\\ensuremath{\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{pow}}}}{\\ensuremath{({\\ensuremath{{\\ensuremath{r}},{\\ensuremath{p}},{\\ensuremath{s}}}})}}\\leq \\vthres$, where denotes the proof-of-work threshold and represents \u2019s difficulty parameter. nodes maintain a set of valid votes for each block. The procedure (Listing\u00a0\\[lst:collect\\]) adds a valid vote [$({\\ensuremath{{\\ensuremath{r}},{\\ensuremath{p}},{\\ensuremath{s}}}})$]{} to the block referenced by [$r$]{} and, if necessary, updates the preferred chain (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sssec:proto\\_preference\\] below).\n\nblocks\\[[$r$]{}\\].votes $\\gets$ blocks\\[[$r$]{}\\].votes $\\cup \\{\\text{({\\ensuremath{p}}{}, {\\ensuremath{s}}{})}\\}$\n\n### Quorums {#sssec:proto_quorum}\n\nAs defined in Section\u00a0\\[sec:pow\\_quorum\\], a -quorum is a set of\u00a0 votes for the same reference. We represent such quorums as lists. Since the reference is the same for all votes, we omit it from the list. A list $L = \\{({\\ensuremath{p}}_i, {\\ensuremath{s}}_i)\\}$ represents a valid -quorum for ${\\ensuremath{r}}$, if the following conditions hold:\n\n1.  \\[qcond\\_size\\]$|L| = \\qsize$\n\n2.  \\[qcond\\_threshold\\] $\\forall\\, 1 \\leq i \\leq \\qsize \\colon {{\\ensuremath{\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{pow}}}}({\\ensuremath{r}}, {\\ensuremath{p}}_i, {\\ensuremath{s}}_i)} \\leq \\vthres$\n\n3.  \\[qcond\\_order\\] $\\forall\\, 1 \\leq i < \\qsize \\colon {\\ensuremath{\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{pow}}}}({\\ensuremath{r}}, {\\ensuremath{p}}_i, {\\ensuremath{s}}_i) \\leq {\\ensuremath{\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{pow}}}}({\\ensuremath{r}}, {\\ensuremath{p}}_{i+1}, {\\ensuremath{s}}_{i+1})$\n\nThe first condition enforces the quorum size. The second condition ensures that all votes are valid. The third condition imposes a canonical order which we use for leader election. We intentionally allow single nodes providing multiple votes. Sibyl attacks are mitigated by the scarcity of votes.\n\n### Leader Election {#sssec:proto_leader}\n\nA quorum can only be formed at optimistic quorum time (Def.\u00a0\\[def:oqt\\]) if all nodes vote for the same block. We facilitate coordination by electing a leader who is responsible for proposing a new block. This election is based on the proof-of-work quorum: the leader is identified by the smallest vote. According to Section\u00a0\\[sssec:proto\\_quorum\\] Condition\u00a0\\[qcond\\_order\\], this vote is also the first element of the quorum. Leaders authenticate their proposals for the next block using and their private key. Everyone verifies proposals with the first public key in the quorum.\n\n### Blockchain {#sssec:proto_block}\n\nThe global data structure of the protocol is a hash-linked list of blocks. Each block consists of a hash reference to its predecessor (parent), a proof-of-work quorum for this predecessor, a payload, and a proof of leadership (signature). The references to parent blocks are established by the collision-resistant hash function [$\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{list}}$]{}. The payload is a state update to the application implemented on top of the distributed log (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sssec:method\\_app\\]).\n\nWith quorums, leader election, and state updates defined, we are in the position to present \u2019s block validity rule in Listing\u00a0\\[lst:valid\\_block\\]. The loop iterates over the quorum, counts the votes, verifies them, and checks their canonical order. The boolean conjunction in line\u00a0\\[l:threecond\\] verifies the remaining condition of the quorum, leadership, and the validity of the proposed state update.\n\n$(c,h)  \\gets (0,0)$ $h' \\gets {\\ensuremath{\\mathcal{H}_{\\text{pow}}}}(\\text{B.parent}, {\\ensuremath{p}}, {\\ensuremath{s}})$ \\[l:predecessor\\] false false $(c,h)  \\gets (c + 1, h')$ \\[l:threecond\\] $c = \\qsize$ $\\wedge$ $\\wedge$\n\nA key difference to is that the proof-of-work solutions in the quorum are bound to the previous block and not to the state update of the proposed block (see line\u00a0\\[l:predecessor\\]). This implements the separation of puzzle solutions from block proposals and enables parallel puzzle solving (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:intuition\\]).\n\n### Proposing {#sssec:proto_propose}\n\nNodes assume leadership whenever possible. If so, the procedure (Listing\u00a0\\[lst:propose\\]) obtains a state update from the application, integrates it into a new valid block, and shares it with the other nodes.\n\nB.parent $\\gets r$ B.quorum $\\gets Q$ B.payload $\\gets$ B.signature $\\gets$ \\[l:sendblock\\] true \u00a0false\n\n### Commit {#sssec:proto_commit}\n\nProposals become final after the three-phase commit. Each subsequent block carries a quorum that completes one phase, like in HotStuff (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:intuition\\]). Consequently, the most recent application state can be retrieved from the local block store as shown in Listing\u00a0\\[lst:read\\_state\\].\n\nblocks\\[head\\].parent.parent.parent.state\n\n### Conflict Resolution {#sssec:proto_progress}\n\nThe commit becomes effective after three blocks, but we have to consider conflicting block proposals at the uncommitted frontier. For example, when more than $\\qsize$\u00a0votes exist, the leader election is not unique. Moreover, a malicious leader can send different proposals without solving additional proof-of-work puzzles. Nodes resolve such conflicts based on the progress towards the *next* quorum.\n\n### Block Preference {#sssec:proto_preference}\n\nWhen learning of a new block or vote, nodes update their preferred chain according to a modified version of Nakamoto\u2019s longest chain rule. adapts it to include information on quorum progress (Sect.\u00a0\\[sssec:proto\\_progress\\]) and reject changes to already committed state (Sect.\u00a0\\[sssec:proto\\_commit\\]). Procedure (Listing\u00a0\\[lst:update\\_head\\]) takes a candidate block reference and updates the preferred chain if necessary.\n\nH $\\gets$ blocks\\[head\\] R $\\gets$ blocks\\[[$r$]{}\\] $d \\gets \\text{R.height} - \\text{H.height}$ $($R, $d) \\gets ($R.parent, $d - 1)$ head $\\gets {\\ensuremath{r}}$ \\[l:detectfork\\]\n\n### Main Program\n\nListing\u00a0\\[lst:hotpow\\] shows the set of event handlers that tie everything together and define a node. The execution is initiated by scheduling the event. The listing shows how nodes assume leadership upon completing a suitable quorum with an ATV of their own (line\u00a0\\[l:leadershipa\\]), or votes received from others, either directly (line\u00a0\\[l:leadershipb\\]) or as part of a block proposal (line\u00a0\\[l:leadershipc\\]). In the last case, if more than $\\qsize$ votes exist, it can happen that a node replaces the leader. It proposes a block of its own by reusing votes contained in the received proposal. This is possible because votes in reference the previous block and not the current proposal. The possibility of reusing votes reduces wasted work compared to orphans in , a problem that has been studied separately\u00a0[@sompolinsky2015SecureHighRate]. It also provides robustness against leader failure (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sssec:leader-failure\\]).\n\nLine\u00a0\\[l:onatv\\] handles ATVs. If the node cannot lead a quorum, it broadcasts the vote. The last missing part is how ATVs can be scheduled, which we discuss next.\n\nme, secret $\\gets$ head $\\gets$ genesis blocks\\[genesis\\].state $\\gets$ [$S_0$]{} blocks\\[genesis\\].height $\\gets$ 0\n\n\\[l:onatv\\] \\[l:leadershipa\\] \\[l:sendvote\\]\n\n\\[l:leadershipb\\]\n\n\\[l:leadershipc\\]\n\n### Work {#sssec:proto_work}\n\nAgents can participate in the quorum finding process by computing ATVs on their nodes. For completeness, Listing\u00a0\\[lst:work\\] shows the trial-and-error algorithm which schedules solutions suitable for votes ($\\leq\\vthres$). Alternatively, agents can search ATVs with the help of other machines, possibly in parallel and using specialized hardware. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:appstack\\] reflects this by splitting the lower layer in network and work.\n\ndraw random number $n$\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:timeline\\] in the appendix visualizes an execution of by correct nodes and compares it to .\n\nIncentives {#ssec:incentives}\n----------\n\nIt is possible to motivate participation in by rewarding puzzle solutions. This requires some kind of virtual asset that (at least partly) fulfills the functions of money\u00a0[@hicks1967CriticalEssays p.\u00a01] and can be transferred to a vote\u2019s public key. Claiming the reward for $({\\ensuremath{r}},\n{\\ensuremath{p}}, {\\ensuremath{s}})$ depends on the corresponding secret key. could adopt Bobtails\u2019s constant reward per vote [@bissias2020BobtailImproved]. Rewarding votes instead of blocks would ensure inclusiveness without compromising security (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:intuition\\]). Votes occur $\\qsize$ times more frequently than blocks. \u2019s mining income would thus be less volatile than in . This reduces the pressure to form mining pools. However, it is not trivial to establish if constant rewards are incentive compatible because the utility of the reward *outside* the system may affect the willingness to participate *in* the system and thereby make $\\lambda$ endogenous\u00a0[@dimitri2017BitcoinMining; @prat2018EquilibriumModel]. This implies that rewards must be treated jointly with the assumptions preventing the failure modes \\[pow-network\\] and \\[pow-adversary\\]. We are unaware of protocol analyses that solve this problem convincingly.\n\nOn a more general note, designing protocols like economic mechanisms by incentivizing desired behavior sounds attractive because there is some hope that the assumption of honest nodes can be replaced by a somewhat weaker assumption of rational agents\u00a0[@garay2013RationalProtocol; @groce2012ByzantineAgreement]. In this spirit, @badertscher2018WhyDoes present positive results for Bitcoin in a discrete round execution model and under assumption of a constant exchange rate. However, many roadblocks remain. Agents\u2019 actions are not fully observable ( information withholding) and preference orders are not fully knowable, hence rationality is not precisely defined. Side-payments (bribes), which cannot be ruled out, pose an insurmountable challenge for mechanism design\u00a0[@bonneau2016WhyBuy; @judmayer2017MergedMining; @budish2018EconomicLimits]. For distributed logs, which work inherently sequential, this approach may even be thwarted by negative results on the existence of unique equilibria in repeated games\u00a0[@friedman1971NoncooperativeEquilibrium]. For these reasons, we skip the mechanism design aspects and limit our contribution to transferring Byzantine consensus to proof-of-work scenarios. In other words, supports incentives for inclusiveness, but its security intentionally does not rely on incentives.\n\nEvaluation {#sec:evaluation}\n==========\n\nWe implement in OCaml and evaluate it in a network of\u00a0 nodes using a discrete event simulation. We average over\u00a0 independent executions of the first\u00a0 blocks. All results are reproducible with the code provided online.\n\nThe simulation maintains state for all simulated nodes separately. Events are stored in a priority queue, with keys representing points in time. Events are scheduled by inserting them into the queue. There are three types of simulation events: , and . The simulation\u2019s main loop takes the first event from the queue and handles it by interacting with the nodes in the following way (also see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:simulator\\]).\n\n#### Proof-of-Work\n\nWhen taking an event from the queue, the simulation randomly and independently assigns an ATV to a node. The simulation executes the assignment by invoking the event handler on the receiving node. Then, it schedules the next ATV with a random, exponentially distributed time delta. This simulates a proof-of-work process according to Def.\u00a0\\[def:process\\]. The simulation does not perform actual work by setting the vote threshold to the maximum; meaning puzzles are trivial to solve.\n\n#### Broadcast\n\nNodes invoke the broadcast logic by scheduling local events. The simulation translates them to global events. For each broadcast event, the simulation schedules events for each node except the sender. During this step, the simulation injects latency and simulates churn and leader failure. Delivery events are handled by invoking the handler on the receiving node.\n\nRobustness {#ssec:robustness}\n----------\n\nWe evaluate the robustness in terms of latency, churn, and leader failure. In all simulation runs we check for inconsistent committed state, which did not occur.\n\n### Latency {#sssec:latency}\n\nWe model the effect of latency by injecting a random time delay between broadcast send and message delivery. We draw delays from an exponential distribution with fixed expectation, independently for each node and delivery. Latency causes temporal state inconsistencies. In these periods, nodes spend their ATVs on extending superseded blocks, or even produce temporal forks. We observe that largely independent of the quorum size $\\qsize$, expected latencies below 1% of the expected block time (Bitcoin: 6 seconds) have marginal impact, while latencies in the order of 10% of the expected block time (Bitcoin: 60 seconds) delay the commit by about 20%. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:latency\\] visualizes these results.\n\nEmpirical measurements\u00a0[@decker2013InformationPropagation; @croman2016ScalingDecentralized; @gervais2016SecurityPerformance] suggest that the propagation time of Bitcoin blocks ($\\approx 500$ KB) is about 9 seconds on the Internet. If we take this as an upper bound, we can argue that tolerates practical latencies. Moreover, most of \u2019s messages are votes. They are multiple orders of magnitude smaller ($72$ B; see Sect.\u00a0\\[ssec:overhead\\]), fit into a single packet, and are much easier to verify than Bitcoin blocks. Results of a simulation with different latencies for blocks ($10$s) and votes ($100$ms) suggest that can run at Internet scale with lower expected block time than 10 minutes.\n\n### Churn\n\nWe simulate churn by muting a fraction (churn ratio) of random nodes for 10 times the expected block time. Muted nodes can receive ATVs but do not send or receive messages. Accordingly, the ATVs assigned to muted nodes represent lost work. We expect that the time to commit is inversely proportional to the churn ratio: if 50% of the nodes are muted, the time to commit is twice as long, independent of the quorum size. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:churn\\] supports this claim.\n\n### Leader Failure {#sssec:leader-failure}\n\nLeaders may fail to propose blocks. We model such failures by dropping block proposals randomly with constant probability (leader failure rate).\n\nIn , lost proposals imply a full block worth of wasted work. can reuse votes for different proposals. Honest nodes reveal at most one new vote with their proposal. Accordingly, a lost proposal wastes at most the work of one vote. Therefore, with increasing quorum size the robustness to leader failure should improve. The results in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:failure\\_real\\] (with realistic 10s/100ms latency) and Figure\u00a0\\[fig:failure\\] (without latency to isolate effects) support this claim. For perspective, the right end of the graph simulates a situation where an attacker can monitor all nodes\u2019 network traffic and disconnect nodes at discretion with 50% success probability. Still, for large quorum sizes the time to commit is not longer than under the extreme latencies discussed in Section\u00a0\\[sssec:latency\\].\n\nThe robustness against churn and leader failure emerges from \u2019s novel approach to form short-lived committees from ephemeral identities. This maintains liveness even under the threat of powerful network-level attacks. We move on to the discussion of attacks on the protocol layer.\n\nSecurity {#ssec:security}\n--------\n\nThe security evaluation draws on the framework by\u00a0@zhang2019LayCommon. It distinguishes the security aspects proof-of-work blockchains should fulfill: chain quality, incentive compatibility, subversion gain, and censorship susceptibility.\n\nThe authors suggest Markov Decision Processes (MDP) as method and apply it to several variants of . However, state explosion prevented them from modeling Bobtail,[^2] because it ranks proof-of-work solutions by magnitude. Since adopts this ranking for the leader election (Sect.\u00a0\\[sssec:proto\\_leader\\]), it does not seem readily amenable to MDPs, either. We thus resort to informal reasoning and simulation. Following the convention in the literature, we assume two agents. Let $\\lambda$ be the total compute power. The attacker has $\\alpha\\cdot\\lambda$ compute power, the honest agent controls the rest. The honest agent operates correct nodes, while the attacker operates a single node that may deviate from the protocol specification.\n\n### Subversion Gain\n\nThe canonical example for subversion gain in cryptocurrencies is double spending: the attacker wants at least one of the honest nodes (the merchant) to act on inconsistent state. supports commits, hence we neither need to consider the possibility of history rewriting nor the double spending of *un*committed transactions.[^3] suffers from these problems\u00a0[@karame2012DoublespendingFast; @heilman2015EclipseAttacks; @gervais2016SecurityPerformance; @budish2018EconomicLimits; @apostolaki2017HijackingBitcoin]. The only remaining strategy is splitting the network so that the recipients of at least two different double-spend transactions commit to different states. This loss of consistency would materialize in permanent forks that require out-of-band resolutions (triggered by an else-branch after code line\u00a0\\[l:detectfork\\]).\n\nIn order to understand how ensures consistency, it is instructive to recall the block preference rule in Sect.\u00a0\\[sssec:proto\\_preference\\]. Assume counterfactually that nodes never update their value according to received votes. Then, an attacker who becomes the leader could send different proposals to each node. This would fragment the honest nodes\u2019 compute power and give the attacker time to form six quorums, three per conflicting state. The probability of the attacker becoming leader is at least $\\alpha$ in each round. This would be a catastrophic attack.\n\nThe actual block preference rule selects the value with the highest progress among all known proposals. Therefore, as soon as the first vote is received from an honest node, all honest nodes converge to a single value. As a result, the attacker would have to form six complete quorums in the time the honest nodes get assigned a single ATV and broadcast the corresponding vote. Since $\\frac{6 \\qsize}{\\alpha} \\gg \\frac1{1-\\alpha}$, such an attack becomes infeasible for large quorum sizes and $\\alpha<1/2$.\n\n### Censoring {#sssec:censoring}\n\nIn the censoring scenario, the attacker wants to control the values on which consensus is achieved for some time. This means he has to be elected as leader in multiple ($m$) consecutive blocks.\n\nWe start with the probability of an attacker becoming the leader in a single round. Without deviating from the protocol, he leads with probability\u00a0$\\alpha$. This means he could successfully censor for $m$ consecutive blocks with probability\u00a0$\\alpha^m$.\n\nHowever, naively following the protocol is not the best censoring strategy. Taking inspiration from the work on selfish mining\u00a0[@eyal2014MajorityNot; @sapirshtein2016OptimalSelfish; @kiayias2016BlockchainMining], we argue that an attacker can do better by withholding information. A selfish miner in withholds complete blocks, such that other miners work on an irrelevant part of the chain. has a more granular type of information: an attacker might withhold his votes. A censoring attacker would release his votes only when the release implies leadership. In practice, this means that a censoring attacker does not share votes, he only proposes blocks. Using this strategy, the attacker can delay the next quorum until the honest nodes can form one without the attacker\u2019s votes. This time window increases the attacker\u2019s odds of becoming the leader.\n\nWe implement this *censor* strategy and instantiate it in a special attacker node of the simulation environment (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:simulator\\]). We bias the assignment of ATVs towards this node such that it posesses computational power\u00a0$\\alpha$. We routinely check for forks, but do not find any. We count how many of the committed blocks are proposed by the attacker in order to estimate the probability of leadership per round. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:leadership\\] shows this estimate as a function of the quorum size for different attacker strengths $\\alpha$. Using the described withholding strategy, an $\\alpha=1/3$ attacker contributes roughly 42% ($\\alpha=1/2$: 64%) of the blocks. For comparison, the upper bound for block withholding strategies for the same attacker on is 50% ($\\alpha=1/2$: 100%)\u00a0[@sapirshtein2016OptimalSelfish].\n\nWe additionally validate the results on the censor strategy using an independent Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. (See Appendix\u00a0\\[apx:mcmc\\] for details.) As depicted in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:leadership\\], the MC analysis confirms the network simulation.\n\n### Chain Quality and Incentive Compatibility\n\nThe prevalent strategy for increasing the own share of blocks and rewards is selfish mining\u00a0[@eyal2014MajorityNot; @sapirshtein2016OptimalSelfish; @negy2020SelfishMining]. This attack is inherently connected with incentives. Its basic idea is to withhold and strategically release blocks in order to create an information asymmetry that allows to reap a disproportional amount of rewards for the invested share of work. This idea is not directly transferrable from to for three reasons. First, the finality after three blocks substantially limits the horizon of the selfish miner. Second, block proposals are less valuable. They are not significant sources of reward. Third, block proposals are less critical. In fact, block withholding reduces to the situation of leader failure. Since votes can be reused, honest nodes can replace missing proposals very fast (see Section\u00a0\\[sssec:leader-failure\\]). This makes proposals less rare events than in , limiting the strategic advantage of withholding them.\n\nHowever, as we have argued in Section\u00a0\\[sssec:censoring\\], it is a valid strategy to *withhold votes*. Therefore, we analyze the effect of vote withholding on the distribution of rewards, assuming a constant reward per committed vote, like in Bobtail\u00a0[@bissias2020BobtailImproved]. The naive strategy yields a share of\u00a0$\\alpha$ of the votes. The attacker\u2019s goal is to maximize the number of votes he contributes to each quorum. Since only the leader can decide which votes are included in a proposed quorum, the first step of optimal vote withholding is to increase the odds of becoming the leader. This, in turn, can be achieved by withholding votes! The circularity indicates that the attack can be approximated with the censoring strategy discussed in Section\u00a0\\[sssec:censoring\\]. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:votes\\] shows simulation results on how the strategy, $\\alpha$, and the quorum size affect the share of attacker votes committed to the chain. Interestingly, the censor receives fewer rewards than honest nodes and naive attackers, indicating a dilemma between paying for becoming the leader and capitalizing the power of leadership. The tradeoff is visible by comparing Figures\u00a0\\[fig:leadership\\] and \\[fig:votes\\]. A similar tradeoff appears for the so-called \u201cproof withholding\u201d strategy in Bobtail\u00a0[@bissias2020BobtailImproved], which resembles the censoring strategy in .\n\nAgain, we compare the protocol implementation in the network simulation with the idealized MC model described in Appendix\u00a0\\[apx:mcmc\\].\n\nOverhead {#ssec:overhead}\n--------\n\nrequires one message broadcast per block, namely the block itself, independent of the number of participating nodes. adds\u00a0$\\qsize$ message broadcasts per block\u2014one for each vote. Votes are much smaller than blocks. Under the conservative assumptions of 256 bits for block reference and public key, and 64 bits for the puzzle solution, a vote is 72B.[^4] The number of messages is constant in the number of nodes, like in Bitcoin. However, block headers grow. must store the complete quorum with $\\qsize$ puzzle solutions. This overhead matters because the header is replicated in all nodes that want to verify the blockchain in the future.\n\nAssuming the same vote size and the most robust case analyzed ($\\qsize=256$), the storage overhead is about 10kB per block. This is less than 1% of Bitcoin\u2019s average block size in 2019. With this choice of\u00a0$\\qsize$, falsely accepting a quorum as unique is much less likely than guessing a 128-bit key in one attempt. Table\u00a0\\[tab:overhead\\] (in the appendix) shows the storage overhead per block and the associated probability of ambiguity at expected optimistic quorum time (Corollary\u00a0\\[cor:poa\\_at\\_ev\\]) for different choices of\u00a0$\\qsize$. We argue that the benefits of the protocol outweigh its storage costs and leave the exploration of compression techniques to future work.\n\nDiscussion {#sec:discussion}\n==========\n\nRelation to Other Distributed Logs {#ssec:related}\n----------------------------------\n\n[max width=]{}\n\n[lcccccccc]{} & & & & & & & &\\\n$\\#$ nodes & 10 & $10^2$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$ & $10^3$\\\ncommittee & & & & [()]{}& [()]{}& & &\\\npermissioned\\\n- network & &\\\n- committee & & &\\\n\\\n- BTP & & & & & & &\\\n- BTI & & & & & & & &\\\nsidechain & & & & & & & &\\\nfinality & & & & & & & &\\\n\\\n\nNew distributed log protocols are proposed almost every month. We do not claim to know all of them and we do not attempt to provide a complete map of the design space, since other researchers have specialized on this task\u00a0[@bano2019SoKConsensus; @cachin2017BlockchainConsensus]. Instead, we compare to some of its closest relatives along selected dimensions (see\u00a0Table\u00a0\\[tab:design-space\\]).\n\n### Number of Nodes {#sssec:table_size}\n\nEarly BFT protocols were designed for a small number of nodes. PBFT\u00a0[@castro2002PracticalByzantine], for example, is proven secure under the Byzantine assumptions \\[bft-network\\] and \\[bft-adversary\\]. It requires multiple rounds of voting to reach consensus on a single value. The communication complexity of $O(n^2)$ renders it impractical for more than a dozen nodes $n$.\n\nHotStuff\u00a0[@yin2019HotStuffBFT] ensures safety under the same assumptions, but increases the rate of confirmed values to one per round of voting. Its key idea is to pipeline the commit phases of iterative consensus (recall Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:pipeline\\]). Moreover, it reduces communication complexity to $O(n)$ by routing all communication through a leader. These two changes make HotStuff practical for larger networks. However, all correct nodes actively participate (send messages) for each block.\n\n### Committee {#sssec:table_committee}\n\nProtocols designed for even larger scale reduce communication complexity further by electing committees. Only committee members participate actively. All other nodes wait until they become part of a committee.\n\nIn , write-access to the ledger is controlled by a proof-of-work puzzle. In each round, one node \u2013 the finder of the block \u2013 broadcasts a message. Consequently, successful miners can be interpreted as single-node committees. In Bobtail\u00a0[@bissias2020BobtailImproved] and , multiple proof-of-work puzzles are solved per block. Consequently the committee size is greater than one. The committee approach is also followed by proof-of-stake protocols. Here, committee membership is tied to the possession of transferable digital assets (stake).\n\n### Permissioned {#sssec:table_permissioned}\n\nAs stated earlier (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:pow\\_quorum\\]), assumption\u00a0\\[bft-network\\] can only be satisfied by restricting access to the network based on identities assigned by an external identity provider or gatekeeper. Consequently, protocols relying on this assumption are permissioned on the network layer. Proof-of-stake internalizes the gatekeeping functionality by restricting access to the committee based on the distribution of stake. While participating as a node is possible without permission, access to the committee is still permissioned.\n\nIn proof-of-work systems any agent can join and leave the network and has a (fair) chance of becoming committee member without obtaining permission from a gatekeeper.[^5]\n\n### Resource Binding {#sssec:table_binding}\n\nProof-of-work can be seen as a commitment of resources to a value. Typically, these values are chosen locally on each node. Freshness is guaranteed by including a reference to recent puzzle solutions in the value. We distinguish between resources bound to a proposal (BTP) for an upcoming state update and resources bound to an identifier (BTI) used for entering the committee.\n\nBound to proposal (BTP)\\\n\n(0,0) \u2013 (5.6,0); (5.6,0) \u2013 (8.4,0); (8.4,0) \u2013 (11,0) node \\[below left\\] [time]{}; [ (7, -3pt) node \\[below, align=center\\] [resource binding]{}; ]{} [ (10, 3pt) node \\[above, align=center\\] [publish]{} \u2013 (10, -3pt); ]{} [ (5.5, 3pt) node \\[above, align=center\\] [define\\\nproposal]{} \u2013 (5.5, -3pt); ]{} [ (8.5, 3pt) node \\[above, align=center\\] [find\\\nsolution]{} \u2013 (8.5, -3pt); ]{}\n\nBound to identifier (BTI)\\\n\n(0,0) \u2013 (1.1,0); (1.1,0) \u2013 (3.9,0); (3.9,0) \u2013 (11,0) node \\[below left\\] [time]{}; [ (2.5, -3pt) node \\[below, align=center\\] [resource binding]{}; ]{} [ (10, 3pt) node \\[above, align=center\\] [publish]{} \u2013 (10, -3pt); ]{} [ (1, 3pt) node \\[above, align=center\\] [define\\\nidentifier]{} \u2013 (1, -3pt); ]{} [ (4, 3pt) node \\[above, align=center\\] [find\\\nsolution]{} \u2013 (4, -3pt); ]{} [ (5.5, 3pt) node \\[above, align=center\\] [define\\\nproposal]{} \u2013 (5.5, -3pt); ]{}\n\n(0,0) \u2013 (1.5,0) node \\[right\\] [competition]{};\n\nuses BTP. Nodes form a proposal for the next block locally and then start to solve a proof-of-work for this proposal. If they are successful in finding a puzzle solution, they share their proposal. This process is depicted in the upper half of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:btp\\_vs\\_bti\\].\n\nBitcoin-NG\u00a0[@eyal2016BitcoinNGScalable] innovated by translating the concept of leader election from the BFT literature ( [@dwork1988ConsensusPresence; @garciamolina1982ElectionsDistributed; @ongaro2014SearchUnderstandable]) to . The miner of a block (elected leader) becomes responsible for appending multiple consecutive (micro) blocks until the next leader emerges with the next mined block. In our framework, Bitcoin-NG adds throughput by switching from BTP to BTI in . A more elaborate BTI protocol is Byzcoin\u00a0[@kogias2016EnhancingBitcoin]. It forms a committee over the last $\\qsize$ successful miners. This rolling committee is then responsible for appending micro blocks. Byzcoin uses PBFT to reach final consensus within each committee, thereby shifting control over the micro blocks from a single node (Bitcoin-NG) to multiple nodes.\n\nis a BTI protocol: nodes bind resources to identifiers by mining votes. If they happen to lead when the quorum is complete, they sign a block proposal with their secret key. The lower half of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:btp\\_vs\\_bti\\] shows this order of events. Bobtail extends by binding a preliminary transaction list into the proof-of-work solution of each vote.[^6] This BTP aspect of Bobtail adds significant complexity to the voting logic in order to prevent the reuse of votes for different competing proposals. As described in Section\u00a0\\[sec:evaluation\\], makes the reuse of votes a key feature.\n\n### Sidechain {#sssec:table_sidechain}\n\nThe sequences of micro blocks in Bitcoin-NG, Byzcoin, and also Thunderella\u00a0[@pass2018ThunderellaBlockchains] are often referred to as sidechains. Sidechains can serve several purposes, such as increasing throughput (Bitcoin-NG) or adding finality (Byzcoin). However, since different mechanisms are used to advance different chains, synchronization is a major problem. Bitcoin-NG tackles it with incentives, Thunderella focuses on an optimistic case, and Byzcoin leaves open which chain has priority. Sidechains often involve high protocol complexity because different consensus mechanisms are stacked onto each other: the protocols require a distributed log in order to provide a distributed log (with different properties). By contrast, provides an improved distributed log directly from a broadcast network and proof-of-work.\n\n### Finality {#sssec:table_finality}\n\nThe lack of finality in exposes it to many attacks [@bonneau2016WhyBuy; @gervais2016SecurityPerformance; @budish2018EconomicLimits; @auer2019DoomsdayEconomics]. So far, according to conventional wisdom, eventual consistency has been accepted as the price of a truly permissionless system. Byzcoin challenged this view with a stacked solution involving sidechains. achieves the same at lower protocol complexity using proof-of-work quorums. Their stochastic uniqueness allows us to transfer the commit process from the permissioned world to the permissionless.\n\nOther Related Protocols\n-----------------------\n\nNot included in Table\u00a0\\[tab:design-space\\] are protocol proposals that replace the linear data structure of the distributed log with more general directed acyclic graphs (DAGs)\u00a0[@sompolinsky2015SecureHighRate; @sompolinsky2016SPECTREFast]. This promises higher scalability and faster first confirmation in latent networks at the cost of additional complexity on the application layer, which cannot rely on the total order and uniqueness of state updates anymore. Also Fruitchain\u00a0[@pass2017FruitChainsFair] can be interpreted as a DAG: it recognizes solutions to hard and easy puzzles but hides the DAG\u2019s complexity from the application layer by not allowing \u2018fruits\u2019 to carry state updates.\n\nAn even more radical approach is to drop the distributed log completely and implement a digital asset directly on a secure (source-ordered) broadcast without consensus\u00a0[@guerraoui2019ConsensusNumber]. However, this approach restricts the versatility of the application layer. For example, arbitrary smart contract logic is not supported.\n\nLimitations and Future Work {#ssec:limits}\n---------------------------\n\nWe have presented a protocol that achieves finality in a permissionless setting under axiomatic exclusion of the failure modes \\[pow-network\\] and \\[pow-adversary\\], and the acceptance of a negligible failure probability. The assumption on \\[pow-network\\] and \\[pow-adversary\\] are also made for security proofs of \u00a0[@garay2015BitcoinBackbone; @pass2017AnalysisBlockchain]. Nevertheless, it is worth discussing their suitability.\n\nExcluding \\[pow-network\\] corresponds to assuming a fixed, network-wide compute power\u00a0$\\lambda$. But agents can add and remove nodes at their willing. Even if the number of nodes is fixed, the computational power of each node is not. We observe in practice that a control loop, known as difficulty adjustment (DA), can compensate changes of\u00a0$\\lambda$ up to a certain degree. But ample literature shows that the deployed DA algorithms are not optimal\u00a0[@kraft2016DifficultyControl; @meshkov2017ShortPaper; @fullmer2018AnalysisDifficulty; @hovland2017NonlinearFeedback], especially in case of sudden changes of\u00a0$\\lambda$. We argue that proof-of-work quorums can support more precise difficulty adjustment algorithms. A higher quorum size implies more votes and hence more data points to inform the algorithm about changes of\u00a0$\\lambda$.\n\nThe same effect can be exploited for detecting network-level attacks, such as eclipse and splits, more accurately. (Appendix\u00a0\\[apx:detect\\] provides additional details.) This is relevant in the context of the CAP theorem\u00a0[@gilbert2002BrewerConjecture], which tells us that every distributed system has to sacrifice one out of consistency, availability and partition tolerance. , as presented, favors availability over consistency. It does not implement a mechanism for detecting network splits, even though it is possible at high confidence for big quorum sizes. The trade-off could be changed in favor of consistency. If a split is detected, the protocol withholds commits (and may notify the application layer in order to trigger out-of-band resolutions).\n\nThe second failure mode,\u00a0\\[pow-adversary\\], can be catastrophic and is hard to rule out. We are not aware of any argument that bounds $\\alpha$ to a constant below 50% for any proof-of-work system. In fact, &gt;50% attacks have been mounted against smaller instances of in practice\u00a0[@cryptoslate2019percent51attacks].\n\nOur network simulation in Section\u00a0\\[sec:evaluation\\] models exponentially distributed message propagation times. This distribution puts the system under pressure, but it is not very realistic. Future work might put the simulation on a more structured network topology. However, since the literature reports a significant discrepancy between observed topologies and what cryptocurrencies are designed for\u00a0[@delgadosegura2019TxProbeDiscovering; @mariem2020Allthat], it is not obvious what an appropriate topology would look like.\n\nSimilarly, we leave unexplored how to disseminate \u2019s smaller vote messages efficiently. Votes easily fit into single Internet packets and their verification requires only one hash evaluation. It might be possible to improve vote propagation times using UDP-based structured broadcast\u00a0[@rohrer2019KadcastStructured] instead of the gossip broadcast used in many cryptocurrencies.\n\nFinally, we refrain from designing an incentive mechanism for for the reasons stated in Section\u00a0\\[ssec:incentives\\]. A principled approach would be to explore reward-optimizing strategies (combined withholding of votes and blocks) automatically using Markov Decision Processes\u00a0[@sapirshtein2016OptimalSelfish; @zhang2019LayCommon] or even more sophisticated Reinforcement Learning techniques\u00a0[@hou2019SquirRLAutomating].\n\nConclusion {#sec:conclusion}\n==========\n\nWe understand as a positive example to support our claim that it is possible to build permissionless distributed logs *with* finality *directly* from proof-of-work. The claim is tentatively supported (with analysis and simulations) until is broken. We invite the community to prove our claim wrong, and provide running code online to facilitate this task. It is not safe to use this code in systems dealing with real values.\n\nRegardless of whether our claim is true or false, the identified conflict between inclusiveness and security is instructive, and the associated theory of quorums on stochastic processes may find applications elsewhere. Since it comprises as a special case, it also contributes to a better understanding of the role of proof-of-work in known systems that \u201cwork in practice, but \\[so far\\] not in theory\u201d\u00a0[@bonneau2015SoKResearch].\n\nIf our claim holds, we have found a way to build permissionless distributed logs from proof-of-work that can serve many applications better than existing systems. However, proof-of-work is a very wasteful way of establishing consensus. It should be avoided whenever possible. Only if there is no alternative to proof-of-work, should be considered as a replacement for .\n\nProofs, Figures, and Visualizations\n===================================\n\n![image](figures/timeline.pdf){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\n![image](figures/timeline.pdf){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\n\n![image](figures/timeline.pdf)\n\n\\[apx:proofs\\]\n\n#### Lemma \\[lem:poa\\_poisson\\]\n\nThe POA for the Poisson process $P_\\lambda$ is given by $${\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\\lambda, \\qsize}(t) =\n  1 - e^{-\\lambda t} \\sum_{i=0}^{2\\qsize -1}{\\frac{(\\lambda t)^i}{i!}} \\,.$$\n\n$P_\\lambda$ has the following properties\u00a0[@stewart2009ProbabilityMarkov p.\u00a0389]:\n\n1.  $\\prob{P_\\lambda(0) = 0 } = 1$,\n\n2.  $P_\\lambda(t) - P_\\lambda(s) \\drawn \\distPoisson(\\lambda\n          \\cdot(t-s))$ for all $s < t$, and\n\n3.  for $n \\in \\nats$ and $0 < t_1 < \\dots < t_n$, the family of random variables $$\\{P_\\lambda(t_i) - P_\\lambda(t_{i-1})\\mid 2 \\leq i \\leq\n          n\\}$$ is stochastically independent.\n\nAccording to Definition\u00a0\\[def:poa\\], $$\\begin{aligned}\n    {\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\\lambda, \\qsize}(t)\n    = & \\prob{P_\\lambda(t) \\geq 2 \\qsize} \\\\\n    = & 1 - \\prob{P_\\lambda(t) \\leq 2 \\qsize - 1} \\,.\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy setting $s=0$ in property 2 of the Poisson process and using property 1, we conclude that $P_\\lambda(t) \\drawn \\distPoisson(\\lambda t)$. By evaluating the cumulative distribution function of the Poisson distribution $$\\begin{aligned}\n    F_{\\distPoisson}(n; \\lambda') =\n    e^{-\\lambda'} \\sum_{i=0}^{\\lfloor n \\rfloor}{\\frac{\\lambda'^i}{i!}}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ for $n = 2\\qsize - 1$ and $\\lambda' = \\lambda t$, we obtain the stated result.\n\n#### Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:qt\\_possion\\]\n\nThe optimistic $\\qsize$-quorum time for the Poisson process is Erlang distributed with shape parameter\u00a0$\\qsize$ and rate parameter\u00a0$\\lambda$, in short $$T_{P_\\lambda,\\qsize} \\drawn \\distErlang(\\qsize, \\lambda) \\,.$$\n\nThe time between two consecutive count events of $P_\\lambda$ is exponentially distributed with rate parameter $\\lambda$. The times between any two consecutive count events are stochastically independent. The sum of $\\qsize$ independent and identically distributed exponential random variables is Erlang distributed\u00a0[@stewart2009ProbabilityMarkov p.\u00a0146] with shape parameter\u00a0$\\qsize$ and rate parameter\u00a0$\\lambda$.\n\n#### Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:negligible\\]\n\nFor the Poisson process, the probability of ambiguity at the expected quorum time is negligible in the quorum size\u00a0$\\qsize$.\n\nLet $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f(k) :=\n    {\\ensuremath{\\operatorname{poa}}}_{P_\\lambda, \\qsize}({\\ensuremath{\\bar{t}_{\\lambda, \\qsize}}}) =\n    1 - e^{-\\qsize} \\sum_{i=0}^{2\\qsize -1}{\\frac{\\qsize^i}{i!}} \\,.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Our first observation is that $f(k)$ can be expressed in terms of the regularized incomplete Gamma function $P(\\alpha, k)$. According to , $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f(k) = P(2k,k) \\,.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Following the definition of the regularized incomplete Gamma function (see ), we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f(k) = \\frac{\\gamma(2k,k)}{(2k-1)!} \\,, \\label{eq:gamma_frac}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ with the incomplete Gamma function (see ) $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\gamma(\\alpha,k) = \\int_{0}^{k}{t^{\\alpha -1}e^{-t} dt}\\,.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ We will prove the theorem by providing an (asymptotic) upper bound for $f(k)$ that decreases exponentially in $k$. Stirling\u2019s Approximation\u00a0[@robbins1955RemarkStirling] provides a useful lower bound for the factorial in the denominator of Equation\u00a0\\[eq:gamma\\_frac\\]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    n! \\geq \\sqrt{2\\pi}\\,n^{n+\\frac{1}{2}}\\,e^{-n} \\label{eq:stirling_lower}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ We proceed with an upper bound for the enumerator as follows. Let $g(t) =\n  t^{2k-1}e^{-t}$ be the function to integrate for $\\alpha = 2k$. Like for integrals in general, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\gamma(2k,k) = \\int_{0}^{k}{g(t)\\,dt} \\leq k \\cdot \\max_{t \\in [0,k]}{g(t)} \\,.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ The derivative of $g$ is $g'(t)=e^{-t}(2k-t-1) t^{2k-2}$. For $t \\in [0,k]$ the derivative $g'$ is greater than zero. Hence the function $g$ is monotonically increasing, the maximum is reached at the end of the interval, and $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\gamma(2k,k) \\leq k^{2k}e^{-k} \\,. \\label{eq:enum}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Applying Approximations\u00a0\\[eq:stirling\\_lower\\] and\u00a0\\[eq:enum\\] to Equation\u00a0\\[eq:gamma\\_frac\\], yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f(k) &\\leq \\frac{k^{2k}e^{-k}}{\\sqrt{2\\pi}\\,(2k-1)^{2k-\\frac{1}{2}}\\,e^{-2k+1}} \\\\\n         &= {\\left(\\frac{k\\sqrt{e}}{2k-1}\\right)}^{2k} \\sqrt{\\frac{2k-1}{2\\pi e^2}}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\limsup_{k\\to\\infty} \\frac{\\left(\\frac{k\\sqrt{e}}{2k-1}\\right)^{2k}}{\\left(\\frac{\\sqrt{e}}{2}\\right)^{2k}}\n    = \\limsup_{k\\to\\infty} \\left(\\frac{2k}{2k-1}\\right)^{2k} = e < \\infty\\,.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f(k) = O\\left(\\frac{e^k}{4^k}\\sqrt{k}\\right).\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\sqrt{k} < 1.25^k$ for $k>1$, we can conclude $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f(k) &= O\\left(\\frac{e^k}{4^k} 1.25^k\\right) \\\\\n         &= O\\left(0.85^k\\right)\\,.\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\n  ------------- -------------------------- --------------\n   quorum size   probability of ambiguity   block header\n                 at expected quorum time      (bytes)\n        1                $0.2642$                72\n        2                $0.1429$               112\n       16                $0.0003$               672\n       64          $1.2\\times 10^{-12}$         2.6k\n       256          $4\\times 10^{-45}$          10k\n  ------------- -------------------------- --------------\n\n  : Storage overhead of consensus.[]{data-label=\"tab:overhead\"}\n\nMonte Carlo Simulation {#apx:mcmc}\n======================\n\n=\\[\\] =\\[-&gt;, draw, rounded corners=1em\\] =\\[anchor=south, font=, xshift=-0.5em\\] =\\[anchor=north, font=, xshift=-0.5em\\] (top) at (0,1) [$a,d,\\top$]{}; (ta) at (1,0) [$a+1,d,\\top$]{}; (tb) at (1,1) [$a,d+1,\\bot$]{}; (tc) at (1,2) [$a,d+1,\\top$]{}; (top) |- (ta); (top) \u2013 (tb); (top) |- (tc); at (0.5, 0) [$\\alpha$]{}; at (0.5, 1) [$(1 - \\alpha)/(a + d + 1)$]{}; at (0.5, 2) [$(1 - \\alpha)\\cdot(a+d)/(a + d + 1)$]{}; at (0.5, 0) [attacker extends lead]{}; at (0.5, 1) [defender obtains lead]{}; at (0.5, 2) [following defender catches up]{};\n\n=\\[\\] =\\[-&gt;, draw, rounded corners=1em\\] =\\[anchor=south, font=, xshift=-0.5em\\] =\\[anchor=north, font=, xshift=-0.5em\\] (top) at (0,1) [$a,d,\\bot$]{}; (ta) at (1,0) [$a,d+1,\\bot$]{}; (tb) at (1,1) [$a+1,d,\\top$]{}; (tc) at (1,2) [$a+1,d,\\bot$]{}; (top) |- (ta); (top) \u2013 (tb); (top) |- (tc); at (0.5, 0) [$1 - \\alpha$]{}; at (0.5, 1) [$\\alpha/(a + d + 1)$]{}; at (0.5, 2) [$\\alpha\\cdot(a+d)/(a + d + 1)$]{}; at (0.5, 0) [defender extends lead]{}; at (0.5, 1) [attacker obtains lead]{}; at (0.5, 2) [following attacker catches up]{};\n\nWe cross-check the implementation of the censor strategy and its behavior in the network simulation (see Sect.\u00a0\\[sssec:censoring\\]) using an independent Monte Carlo simulation. We model the formation of individual quorums using an (Absorbing) Markov Chain, but omit higher-level concepts such as blocks and their chaining. The censor strategy is to generally withhold votes until either the attacker can form a quorum as leader, or the defender forms a quorum without any of the attacker\u2019s (withheld) votes. In a protocol execution, the first case ([<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">success</span>]{}) applies when the attacker proposes a block which the honest nodes accept. The second case ([<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">fail</span>]{}) applies when the honest nodes propose a block.\n\n#### State representation and initialization\n\nWe model the current state as a triple $(a, d, l)$, where $a \\in \\nats$ denotes the number of (withheld) attacker votes, $d \\in \\nats$ (for defender) denotes the number of votes of the honest nodes, and $l \\in \\bools$ is true if the attacker holds the currently smallest vote. The initial state is $(1, 0, \\top)$ with probability $\\alpha$ and $(0, 1, \\bot)$ otherwise.\n\n#### State transition\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:mcmc\\] shows an annotated state transition diagram. If $l = \\top$, the next state is $$\\begin{aligned}\n  &(a + 1, d, l) &&  {\\text{ with probability }}\\alpha ,\\\\\n  &(a, d + 1, \\bot) && {\\text{ with probability }}\\frac{1 - \\alpha}{a + d + 1} \\text{, and}\\\\\n  &(a, d + 1, l) && \\text{ otherwise.}\\end{aligned}$$ If $l = \\bot$, the next state is $$\\begin{aligned}\n  &(a, d + 1, l) && {\\text{ with probability }}1 - \\alpha ,\\\\\n  &(a + 1, d, \\top) && {\\text{ with probability }}\\frac{\\alpha}{a + d + 1} \\text{, and}\\\\\n  &(a + 1, d, l) && \\text{ otherwise.}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n#### Termination\n\nIf $l \\wedge a + d \\geq \\qsize$, the simulation terminates in [<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">success</span>]{}. If $\\neg l \\wedge d \\geq \\qsize$, it terminates in [<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">fail</span>]{}. The simulation continues until one of these conditions is true.\n\n#### Simulation\n\nWe run the model 1000000 times for each combinations of $\\alpha \\in \\left\\{\\frac{1}{50}, \\frac{1}{10}, \\frac{1}{5}, \\frac{1}{3},\n\\frac{1}{2}\\right\\}$ and $\\qsize \\in \\left\\{1,2,4,\\dots,256\\right\\}$. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:leadership\\] shows the fraction of cases where the simulation terminates in [<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">success</span>]{}. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:votes\\] shows the average number of attacker votes for the runs that end in [<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">success</span>]{}.\n\nDetecting Attacks {#apx:detect}\n=================\n\nEach vote is linked to one ATV. By assumption (Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:pow\\_quorum\\]), the time between two consecutive ATVs is exponentially distributed with rate\u00a0$\\lambda$. In an honest network, a node regularly receives votes (and own ATVs). A node can test the hypothesis of being eclipsed based on the arrival of votes. Table\u00a0\\[tab:detect\\] shows after how much time (relative to the block time) of not receiving a single vote a node can rule out a natural course of events with confidence $p = 0.001$.\n\nObserve that larger quorums sizes increase the detectability of eclipse attacks. For quorum sizes greater than 8, eclipse attacks can be detected with confidence within a single expected block time. For plain ($\\qsize=1$), an equally powerful test requires an observation window of almost 7 times the expected block time.\n\n[^1]: We choose this time range because the block time stamps were less accurate in the more distant past as the data field was used for other purposes.\n\n[^2]: @zhang2019LayCommon were aware of Bobtail and chose not to model it. This is confirmed in private communication with the authors of Bobtail\u00a0[@bissias2020BobtailImproved].\n\n[^3]: Sound applications on a system with finality wait until the commit. can be parametrized to acceptable commit times for economic exchanges between humans. (High-frequency trading needs other architectures.)\n\n[^4]: Bitcoin shortens public keys to 160 bits and uses solutions of 32 bits. Its blocks are in the order of 1MB.\n\n[^5]: We ignore the role of the supply chain for puzzle solving equipment.\n\n[^6]: Since Bobtail inspired , a better frame is to see as simplification of Bobtail rather than Bobtail as an extension to .\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present a multi-wavelength analysis of the history of star formation in the W3 complex. Using deep, near-infrared ground-based images, combined with images obtained with Spitzer and Chandra observatories, we identified and classified young embedded sources. We identified the principal clusters in the complex, and determined their structure and extension. We constructed extinction-limited samples for five principal clusters, and constructed K-band luminosity functions (KLF) that we compare with those of artificial clusters with varying ages. This analysis provided mean ages and possible age spreads for the clusters. We found that IC 1795, the centermost cluster of the complex, still hosts a large fraction of young sources with circumstellar disks. This indicates that star formation was active in IC 1795 as recently as 2 Myr ago, simultaneous to the star forming activity in the flanking embedded clusters, W3-Main and W3(OH). A comparison with carbon monoxide emission maps indicates strong velocity gradients in the gas clumps hosting W3-Main and W3(OH) and show small receding clumps of gas at IC 1795, suggestive of rapid gas removal (faster than the T Tauri timescale) in the cluster forming regions. We discuss one possible scenario for the progression of cluster formation in the W3 complex. We propose that early processes of gas collapse in the main structure of the complex could have defined the progression of cluster formation across the complex with relatively small age differences from one group to another. However, triggering effects could act as catalysts for enhanced efficiency of formation at a local level, in agreement with previous studies.'\nauthor:\n- 'Carlos G. Rom\u00e1n-Z\u00fa\u00f1iga, Jason E. Ybarra, Guillermo D. Megias, Mauricio Tapia, Elizabeth A. Lada and Jo\u00e3o F. Alves'\ntitle: Star Formation Across the W3 Complex\n---\n\nIntroduction \\[s:intro\\]\n========================\n\nIn the current picture of star formation, Giant Molecular Clouds (GMC) are highly inefficient factories, in which only a small fraction of the available gas is converted into stars. Moreover, star forming regions in GMC complexes are highly heterogeneous. There is a considerable diversity among the stellar aggregations they produce. Differences are evident even at the level of their basic properties, e.g. sizes, numbers and density structures.\n\nAggregations of young stars in molecular clouds are classified as Embedded Star Clusters. These clusters are born as bound systems of gas and stars. Once gas is removed, embedded clusters may or may not stay bound. They either survive (e.g. open clusters), or dissolve to become part of the field population. For a majority of clusters in the galaxy, the latter is the common outcome . However, recent discussions consider that cluster morphology is more heterogeneous [@Bressert:2010fk; @de-Grijs:2011rt]. Numerical studies suggest that small groups of stars may be abundant [@Adams:2001aa] and they may either merge to form clusters or disrupt rapidly into the field. According to studies like that of @Kruijssen:2012ve, star clusters may assemble from sub-clusters that merge into larger entities after the gas from which they formed is both disrupted by stellar feedback and torn apart by tidal shocks from the surrounding cloud (the so called \u201ccruel cradle\" effect).\n\nUnfortunately, the dynamical picture of cluster evolution provided by numerical studies is difficult to directly compare with observations. On one hand, the initial conditions of cluster formation, a key requirement for realistic simulations, are still under debate. On the other hand, young cluster evolution from observations, would require of additional information on the kinematics of stars (e.g. radial velocities), and spectroscopic age estimations of individual sources to infer the progression of formation. Such studies are only beginning to arise from surveys like APOGEE[^1] [e.g. @cottaar:2014aa], and are limited to nearby ($d<1$ kpc) regions. Meanwhile, it is possible to partially reconstruct the history of star formation in a region from photometric information, which can provide evolutive classification and the spatial distribution of young sources, and from molecular gas emission maps, which can provide gas distribution and kinematics.\n\nSurveys of GMCs show that embedded star clusters are rarely (if ever) born in isolation. Most embedded clusters form as part of \u201cfamilies\" related to a particular complex, defining together a history of star formation from various levels of interaction. For instance, massive stars of one cluster may have influence on the efficiency of star formation of a neighboring cluster in the same cloud. Considering all this, it should be clear that star formation is highly dynamic; the embedded populations we observe are snapshots of a rather convoluted process of evolution and interaction, that changes significantly along the star forming history of a complex.\n\n![image](./f1im.eps){width=\"6.0in\"}\n\nIn order to investigate the progression of cluster formation under the influence of the local environment, we considered W3, a prominent cluster forming region in the \u201cHeart and Soul\" molecular complex. W3 is considered a clear example of sequential formation, where cluster formation was induced by the expansion of the giant HII region W4 [@Lada:1978aa; @Thronson:1985aa]. One of our goals is to trace the formation of distinct embedded clusters in this region and to attempt to reconstruct the star forming history of the cloud. The W3 Complex is located at a distance of 2.04$\\pm$0.107 kpc [^2], and has hosted at least three major episodes of recent cluster formation. According to spectroscopic studies, IC 1795 formed first, about 3-5 Myr [@Oey:2005ly] ago, followed by the W3 \u201cmain\" cluster located to its West edge, and the W3(OH) cluster group to the East, both with ages of 2-3 Myr [@Bik:2012aa; @Navarete:2011ys]. It has been suggested that IC 1795 triggered the other two episodes in a hierarchical progression [@Oey:2005ly]. The Chandra study by [@Feigelson:2008vn] suggested that the clusters in W3 extend widely and are highly structured, with sources located at relatively large distances from the dynamical centers, including a relatively isolated O star that might have escaped from the main cluster.\n\nIn two recent studies, @Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq [@Rivera-Ingraham:2013fj] made use of mid-infrared photometry and far-IR emission mapping from the Spitzer and Herschel[^3] space observatories, that comprise the entire W3 region. They were able to catalog hundreds of young stellar sources (YSOs) across the complex and determine their spatial distribution. They compiled important evidence that projected distances among YSOs are consistent with cluster forming clump scales, favoring the cluster forming mode. They also concluded that small aggregations and distributed populations, account for a significant fraction of the recent stellar production in the region. They suggest relative large age spreads from central to external regions in W3 and proposed a \u201cconvergent constructive feedback\" scenario, where the gas flows from massive star formation clumps and collects into new dense regions, favoring a progression of formation and the age spread.\n\nIn this study we emphasize the relative importance of different young stellar groupings in and around IC 1795, W3-Main and W3(OH), augmenting the level of detail achieved in previous studies. We present a new set of deep, high resolution near-IR photometry that we combine with other available datasets, allowing us to increase the number of young star candidates in the complex. We use a K-band luminosity function analysis to investigate the presence of an age spread, and to help reconstruct the history of star formation in the cloud. Finally, we investigate gas kinematics near the clusters, providing additional information on the gas-star interaction during the early evolution of the complex.\n\nObservations and Data Reduction \\[s:observations\\]\n==================================================\n\nNear-infrared imaging \\[s:observations:ss:nir\\]\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nWe obtained near-infrared images of four fields in W3, covering a large area ($0.58\\deg\\times$$0.46\\deg$). Images were obtained with the Omega 2000 camera at the 3.5m telescope in the Calar Alto Observatory of the Centro Astron\u00f3mico Hispano Alem\u00e1n (CAHA) in Almer\u00eda, Spain. Omega 2000 provides a $15^\\prime \\times 15^\\prime$ field of view (FOV). Observations were made in $J$, $H$ and $K$ (1.1, 1.6 and 2.2 $\\mu$m, respectively). A list of all fields observed is listed Table \\[tab:obs\\], which gives the field identification, the center of field positions, observation date, filter, seeing (estimated from sigma-clipped average full width half-maximum (FWHM) of the stars in each field), and the peak values for the brightness distribution, which is a good estimate of the sensitivity limits achieved. The brightness distribution peaks are in all cases at or above $J=20.5$ mag, $H=19.75$ mag and $K=19.25$ mag.\n\n### Image reduction \\[s:observations:ss:nir:sss:reduction\\]\n\nThe Omega 2000 images were reduced with modified versions of the FLAMINGOS near-infrared reduction and photometry/astrometry pipelines, which are built in the standard `IRAF` Command Language environment. One pipeline [see @Roman-Zuniga:2006aa] processes all raw frames by subtracting darks and dividing by flat fields, improving signal to noise ratios by means of a two pass sky subtraction method, and combining reduced frames with an optimized centroid offset calculation. We used dark frames and dome flats obtained within 48 hours of each observation. The final combined product images were then analyzed with a second pipeline, [see @Levine:2006ab], which identifies all possible sources from a given field using the `SExtractor` algorithm [@Bertin:1996aa]. We improved the `SExtractor` detection efficiency in the near-IR images by using a Gaussian convolution filter and maximum deblending [see @Bertin:1996aa]. The pipeline then performs `Daophot` PSF photometry [@Stetson:1987aa], calibrates observed magnitudes to a zero point and finds accurate astrometric solutions.\n\nAfter astrometric solutions were found, individual field images were combined into mosaics using `Montage` [^4]. In Figure \\[fig:JHKmosaic\\] we show a RGB panorama constructed from a combination of the $J,\\ H\\mathrm{\\ and\\ }K$ mosaics. The image represents a complete spatial coverage of the IC 1795, W3-Main and W3-OH clusters. In the near-infrared the region is transparent to most of the prominent regions of nebulosity and obscuration observable in optical images [e.g. @Ogura:1976aa]. The near-IR images at W3(OH) are particularly interesting because they reveal, with unprecedented detail, several small, embedded stellar groups that lie in a small \u201cchain\" structure north and east of the W3(OH) cluster [these groups have been previously identified; e.g. @Feigelson:2008vn; @Navarete:2011ys]. In Figure \\[fig:W3OH\\] we show a close-up image of this region, where we now combine H and K images with the Spitzer IRAC 3.6 $\\mu$m image to enhance illuminated nebulosity features and highlight the most reddened sources. We have labeled the W3(OH) cluster with the letter \u2018A\u2019. The two other most conspicuous groups in the \u2019chain\u2019, both associated with B-type stars [@Navarete:2011ys] have been labeled with letters \u2018B\u2019 and \u2018C\u2019. The former group is not as prominent as an over-density but as it can be seen in the mosaic, it is associated with thick nebulosity, so it is possibly more deeply embedded. There is one more bright source sitting at the center of a cavity in between groups B and C, which we suspect could be an additional sub-group.\n\n![image](./f2im.eps){width=\"6.0in\"}\n\n### Catalog preparation \\[s:observations:ss:nir:sss:catalogs\\]\n\nThe OMEGA 2000 photometry was calibrated relative to the Two-Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), using catalogs retrieved from the All Sky Release Point Source databases. Final photometry catalogs were prepared with aid of `TOPCAT-STIL` [@Taylor:2005uq]. We combined individual photometry catalogs from each frame and filter and merged catalogs from all four fields into a master photometry list. In the overlapping areas, we selected the duplicates with the smaller total photometric error across the three bands in either field. Finally, we added 2MASS entries to replace failed measurements from saturated sources. Our final near-IR catalog contains a total of 72168 sources.\n\nMid-infrared Spitzer imaging \\[s:observations:ss:mir\\]\n------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe performed a new reduction and photometric extraction of the W3 mosaics from project 1-127 available in the Spitzer Heritage Archive. Mosaics were constructed by processing both the short and long exposure (0.4 and 10.4 sec) Basic Calibrated Sets (BCD) from IRAC (all four bands) and the BCD set from MIPS (24 $\\mu$m only) observations using the MOPEX package[^5]. We used the IRAC short exposure datasets to improve extraction of sources down the centers of W3-Main and W3(OH) regions, which present large areas of saturation (increasing with wavelength) due to bright nebulosities in the long exposure sets. However, even at the short exposure images, the bright nebulosity made it very difficult to obtain uniform quality from aperture photometry in the IRAC images, so we performed PSF photometry with `Daophot` on detection lists obtained with `SExtractor`. In this case, we improved the detection efficiency by using a \u201cMexican hat\" convolution filter and reduced deblending [see @Bertin:1996aa] (compare to the near-IR, in section \\[s:observations:ss:nir:sss:reduction\\], above). Then, our pipeline selects a group of moderately bright and relatively isolated sources in order to make a PSF model for each `Daophot` run. In all cases we were able to fit the PSF model to a large majority of the detected sources. Final source detection lists were slightly cleaned with the aid of `PhotVis` [@Gutermuth:2004fr] to remove spurious detections.\n\nThe resultant photometry lists showed a net reduction of up to 12% in the photometric scatter to the aperture photometry obtained with the APEX software. For the MIPS 24 $\\mu$m mosaic we used the APEX aperture photometry pipeline, which was good enough for non-saturated regions of the field. In heavily saturated regions, particularly near the centers of W3-Main and W3(OH), missing pixels impeded the ability to make good measurements, and we could not improve these measurements with PSF photometry. Zero points for our Spitzer photometry catalogs were checked by direct comparison of our photometry lists with values from the GLIMPSE 360 Legacy Project catalog[^6] and from the photometry tables of YSO candidates in [@Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq]. The agreement between both GLIMPSE and [@Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq] is excellent and zero point corrections were not required. The final photometry catalogs from the IRAC and MIPS 24 $\\mu$m mosaics were then combined into a mid-IR catalog with 37267 sources, which we later merged with the near-IR catalog from our CAHA dataset to form a master source catalog.\n\nOther datasets \\[s:observations:ss:other\\]\n------------------------------------------\n\nIn this study we also make use of other datasets available in literature and public, web-based archives:\n\n1.  From the Chandra Source Catalog [CSC; @Evans:2010aa] the positions and X-ray photometry of a total of 611 sources in a box of 30$^\\prime$ around the center of IC 1795[^7].\n\n2.  The $^{12}$CO(2-1) and $^{13}$CO(2-1) maps of the W3 region from the study of [@Bieging:2011kq].\n\n3.  The 2.5-level (science grade) SPIRE and PACS mosaics of the W3 region from the Herschel Space Telescope data archive.\n\n4.  The Bolocam 1.1 mm mosaic of W3 from the the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey [GPS; @Aguirre:2011aa].\n\nData Analysis and Results \\[s:analysis\\]\n========================================\n\nIdentification of Young Stellar Sources \\[s:analysis:ss:ysoid\\]\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nUsing our master infrared photometry catalog we identified Young Stellar Objects (YSOs) in the W3 complex. First, we identified Class I/0 and Class II sources from IRAC colors using the criteria applied by [@Ybarra:2013kh], which are in turn based in the IRAC color criteria of @Gutermuth:2008uc. Then, using the Chandra CSC catalogs we identified Class III sources as X-ray sources with infrared counterparts and no excess associated to circumstellar material. Finally, we identified additional Class I and Class II sources as X-ray CSC sources with infrared excess, by applying criteria that combine near-infrared and IRAC colors [see appendix of\u00a0 @Gutermuth:2008uc].\n\nFigure \\[fig:hardness\\] shows a $H-K$ vs. $K-[4.5]$ color-color diagram for all infrared sources that coincide in position with X-ray CSC sources. The colors of the symbols are indicative of the Hardness ratio, calculated from the hard and soft X-ray fluxes, $H$ and $S$, estimated from aperture photometry measurements, as $(H-S)/(H+S)$. It is clear that most of the sources have large hardness ratios, which indicates that in most cases X-ray sources are obscured by large amounts of dust which reduces the soft X-ray emission.\n\n![$H-K$ vs. $K-[4.5]$ color-color diagram for CSC X-ray sources coinciding with an source in our infrared master catalog. Open diamond symbols are sources without an infrared excess indicative of a disk. Open square symbols indicate sources classified as Class I. Open triangle symbols indicate sources classified as Class II. The colors of the symbols are coded to the hardness-to-soft X-ray ratio, as indicated in the color bar. \\[fig:hardness\\]](./f3.eps){width=\"5.5in\"}\n\nWe identified a total of 1008 YSOs in W3, distributed as follows: 60 Class I/0 candidate sources, 780 Class II candidate sources and 167 Class III candidate sources. Our list contains a significantly larger number of YSO candidates compared to the list of [@Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq]. We suspect that the differences are mostly due to the addition of X-ray and near-infrared criteria which increased the number of candidates in each class. @Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq only list candidates with detections in all IRAC bands, which complicates a direct assessment of completeness.\n\nIn Figure \\[fig:ysobd\\] we show the K and \\[3.6\\] band brightness distributions of the three identified YSO classes in our sample. In the case of the \\[3.6\\] band, the three distributions show a sharp drop at a similar limit of about 15.5 mag. In contrast, for the $K$ band, the distribution for Class III sources drops at about 15.0 mag, while the distributions for Class I and Class II sources drop near 18.0 mag. These histograms show that, due to the high and non-uniform extinction, the brightness distributions for young sources are likely incomplete above the sensitivity limits. However, our near-IR observations are deep enough to detect young sources across the entire region. For this reason, analysis of the luminosity functions discussed in Section \\[s:analysis:ss:klf\\] were performed using extinction-limited samples.\n\n![Above: K band brightness distribution for young stellar source candidates identified in the W3 region. Below: \\[3.6\\] brightness distribution. \\[fig:ysobd\\]](./f4a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"5.5in\"}\\\n![Above: K band brightness distribution for young stellar source candidates identified in the W3 region. Below: \\[3.6\\] brightness distribution. \\[fig:ysobd\\]](./f4b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"5.5in\"}\n\nSpatial Distribution of Young Stellar Sources \\[s:analysis:ss:ysodist\\]\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn Figure \\[fig:ysopos\\] we illustrate the spatial distribution of YSO candidates in the W3 region, overlaid on an dust extinction map constructed with the optimized near-infrared excess method NICEST method of @Lombardi:2009aa. The YSO sources appear to be very well constrained to the three well known areas of the complex (namely IC 1795, W3-Main and W3(OH)).\n\nClass I sources are mostly confined to the areas of high extinction: following the prescription of @Lada:2013aa, we found that over 80 percent of the Class I sources are located in high extinction regions ($A_V>7.0$ mag), and the surface density of Class I sources is linearly correlated with $A_V$ within $3<A_V<12$ mag. This is in very good agreement with other cluster forming regions like Orion A [@Lada:2013aa] and the Rosette Molecular Cloud [@Ybarra:2013kh].\n\nClass II sources clearly permeate the entire complex, while Class III sources appear to have a slightly more centrally condensed distribution in the IC 1795 region but are also present in the western edge of W3-Main and surrounding the areas of low extinction to the East of W3(OH).\n\n![image](./f5im.eps){width=\"6.0in\"}\n\nTwo aspects are important to notice. First, cluster regions are not separated clearly in the layout of the complex, which suggest at least some partial overlap along the line of sight perpendicular to the field. Second, the spatial distribution of young sources suggest that clusters are not single, centrally condensed systems. Instead, they appear to have sub-structure.\n\nIn the following we a) make a consistent separation of the individual cluster populations and b) provide evidence of the presence of sub-structure in the cluster population by using a surface density analysis. We make the following two definitions:\n\n1.  We define a *Principal Cluster* as a surface density structure that can be associated to a single Gaussian peak with a FWHM of at least 1.0 pc (see $\\S$\\[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:GMM\\], below).\n\n2.  We define a *sub-structure* as a significant surface density peak, smaller than a principal cluster. We identified as significant, all those peaks with a surface density above 1.0 stars per sq. arcmin (see $\\S$\\[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:gather\\], below).\n\n### Identification of Principal Clusters \\[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:GMM\\]\n\nIn order to delimit individual clusters, we employed a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) analysis via the `mclust` package on the `R` code [@Banfield:1993xy; @Fraley:2002qf; @Raftery:2012nr]. The package provides a model-based clustering analysis of any population, based on covariance parametrization and an Expectation-Minimization (EM) algorithm. It can also divide a population in an optimized number of clusters by means of the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The BIC is the value of the maximized log-likelihood with a penalty on the number of model parameters, and allows comparison of models with different parameter sets as well as solutions with different numbers of clusters.\n\n![Identification of principal clusters in the W3 region using a Gaussian Model Mixture (GMM). This five cluster model, applied to projected distribution of the population of Class II YSO candidates in the region provides the optimal mixture based on a Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The circles are placed at the cluster centers determined by the GMM analysis and have radii equal to the Gaussian $\\sigma$. \\[fig:GMM\\]](./f6.eps){width=\"6.2in\"}\n\nWe chose the Class II sample as it is the most complete and it is distributed more or less uniformly across the complex. RA,DEC positions were fed into the code as a sample of bivariate observations. We chose to use circular Gaussians to minimize the number of parameters required for the estimation. Given the complicated layout of the clusters in W3, we opted to run the GMM analysis including noise modeling and rejection of outliers[^8]. For our dataset, a model of five clusters provided the best fit for the sample. This is shown in Figure \\[fig:GMM\\]. While this finite mixture model shows less detail than \u2013for instance\u2013 the nearest neighbor analysis, we see that it succeeds at identifying the three well known clusters in the region (W3-Main, W3(OH), IC 1795). It also adds two more principal clusters, one coinciding with NGC 896, the compact HII region located at the Western edge of the complex, and one more located at the Eastern edge. We labelled this group IC 1795-N. In Table \\[tab:principal\\_clusters\\] we list the result of the GMM analysis, with the centers and radii of the five principal clusters identified (columns 1 to 4).\n\nWe emphasize that the purpose of this exercise is to define the principal clusters as consistent samples to study the history of star formation in the complex. The GMM analysis provides such consistent identification, which may differ with respect to other identification methods [e.g.\u00a0 @Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq].\n\n### Cluster Substructure in W3. Nearest Neighbors. \\[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:gather\\]\n\nEstimating the surface density of young stellar sources is often done by applying a variant of the nearest neighbor method [formalized for star cluster detection by\u00a0 @Casertano:1985uq]. This method has been applied successfully in different studies [e.g.\u00a0 @Gutermuth:2010aa; @Roman-Zuniga:2008aa]. However, two very important issues regarding this method must be pointed out. First, when calculating distances to the $n$th neighbor in a distribution of points on a plane, there is a minimum value $n=6$ to avoid biasing the detection toward small structures formed purely by chance in a 2-dimensional distribution of points. Second, when mapping the surface density defined by such distances, the choice of an optimal smoothing kernel that would not dilute genuine substructures neither generate spurious ones, is not straightforward. These two issues were taken into consideration by [@Gladwin:1999id], who developed two nearest neighbor mapping methods, *gather* and *scatter*, both optimized to correctly detect small groups (in our case, possible cluster substructures) in source position maps. The *gather* algorithm is more adequate for determining hierarchical structure, while the *scatter* method is more adequate for defining the size of the smallest group in a distribution of points on a map.\n\n![image](./f7im.eps){width=\"6.0in\"}\n\nThe *gather* algorithm was better suited for the task of detecting and separating sub-structures. We applied *gather* to the distribution of all Class II YSO candidates in the W3 region, which is the most complete of our samples. Densities were calculated with a square kernel of 36$\\arcsec$ over a Nyquist sampled RA-DEC grid. In Figure \\[fig:gather\\] we show the resultant map, in the form of surface density contours overlaid on an infrared emission image that combines data from the Spitzer MIPS 24$\\mu$m, 70$\\mu$m from Herschel PACS and 250 $\\mu$m from Herschel SPIRE. If we compare the density map to the spatial distribution of sources in Figure \\[fig:ysopos\\] we see how *gather* highlights the three main regions (IC 1795, W3-Main and W3(OH)) as the principal clusters, but also shows a number of peaks that clearly define significant sub-structure in the spatial distribution of young sources.\n\nThe positions and equivalent sizes of sub-structure peaks in the *gather* map are listed in Table \\[tab:substructures\\]. Some of the sub-structure peaks in the map coincide in position with one or several Class I sources. Those peaks are likely related to the most recent episodes of formation in the complex. Notice how none of the peaks near the center, corresponding to IC 1795, are associated with Class I sources, possibly indicating an absence of current formation. We also show the positions of O and B type stars listed by @Ogura:1976aa, @Navarete:2011ys and @Bik:2012aa.\n\nThe largest concentration of massive stars (6 O-type stars, 7 B-type stars) is located at W3-Main, along with a noticeable concentration of protostars, associated with at least four YSO surface density sub-structures. In IC 1795 there are two O-type stars and one B-type star identified. The central O star in IC 1795 (No. 89 in the @Ogura:1976aa list) is associated with the highest surface density peak. In the W3(OH) region, two sub-structures define the positions of groups B and C in W3(OH), and both are associated with B type stars. It is interesting that the main cluster (group A) in W3(OH) is not associated with any identified massive source.\n\n[lcccc]{}\n\n1 & 02:27:33.29 & 61:56:24.2 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n2 & 02:27:21.43 & 61:54:57.4 & $\\dots$ & W3(OH)-C\\\n3 & 02:27:16.37 & 61:54:16.0 & $\\dots$ & W3(OH)-B\\\n4 & 02:27:12.43 & 61:53:08.8 & 1 & $\\dots$\\\n5 & 02:27:03.46 & 61:52:33.3 & 3 & W3(OH)-A\\\n6 & 02:27:18.20 & 62:00:04.1& 1 & R106\\\n7 & 02:27:08.58 & 61:56:30.6 & 1 & $\\dots$\\\n8 & 02:26:58.74 & 61:54:53.8 & 4 & $\\dots$\\\n9 & 02:26:49.52 & 61:57:46.0 & 1 & $\\dots$\\\n10 & 02:26:48.17 & 62:03:28.3 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n11 & 02:26:40.22 & 62:00:18.4 & $\\dots$ & IC 1795 center\\\n12 & 02:26:41.14 & 62:04:33.6 & $\\dots$ & R107\\\n13 & 02:26:38.87 & 62:02:01.3 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n14 & 02:26:38.87 & 62:00:42.2 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n15 & 02:26:35.50 & 61:59:15.1 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n16 & 02:26:33.25 & 61:56:25.0 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n17 & 02:26:20.01 & 62:05:01.3 & 1 & $\\dots$\\\n18 & 02:26:16.96 & 61:59:48.7 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n19 & 02:26:19.22 & 61:56:42.8 & $\\dots$ & R101\\\n20 & 02:26:03.36 & 62:07:13.7 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n21 & 02:25:59.28 & 61:58:37.3 & $\\dots$ &$\\dots$\\\n22 & 02:25:57.97 & 62:08:50.6 & 1 & $\\dots$\\\n23 & 02:25:52.42 & 62:04:21.4 & 2 & R100\\\n24 & 02:25:51.10 & 62:00:20.0 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n25 & 02:25:47.76 & 62:10:35.2 & $\\dots$ & R104\\\n26 & 02:25:42.74 & 62:08:10.7 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n27 & 02:25:43.36 & 62:06:18.0 & $\\dots$ & W3-Main center\\\n28 & 02:25:32.91 & 62:06:49.4 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n29 & 02:25:32.98 & 62:04:32.9 & 2 & $\\dots$\\\n30 & 02:25:30.88 & 62:00:05.7 & 2 & NGC 896 center\\\n31 & 02:25:30.41 & 61:57:11.6 & 3 & R103\\\n32 & 02:25:21.90 & 62:07:06.8 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n33 & 02:25:10.23 & 62:03:11.0 & $\\dots$ & R105\\\n34 & 02:25:13.21 & 61:59:21.6 & $\\dots$ & $\\dots$\\\n35 & 02:25:00.93 & 62:09:08.7 & 3 & R102\\\n36 & 02:25:03.58 & 62:06:52.4 & 1 & $\\dots$\\\n37 & 02:25:00.26 & 62:05:37.0 & 3 & $\\dots$\\\n\nIn Figure \\[fig:gather\\] we also placed labels (\u201cRI\") next to regions coinciding with \u201csub-clusters\" identified by @Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq. It is worth noticing how the *gather* map highlights the groups $A,\\ B,\\ C$ that were identified by eye in Figure \\[fig:W3OH\\].\n\n### YSO Ratio Maps \\[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:ratiomaps\\]\n\nIt is possible to trace the evolution of a star-forming region through the construction of maps of YSO number ratios. Figure \\[fig:ratiomaps\\] shows maps for the Class II to Class III number ratio, $R_{\\mathrm{II:III}}$, and the Class I/0 to Class II number ratio, $R_{\\mathrm{I:II}}$, both constructed using the method described in @Ybarra:2013kh.\n\nFor the $R_{\\mathrm{II:III}}$ map we limited the source candidates to a de-reddened brightness $H$=13.5 mag. This brightness cut avoids biasing the number counts from incompleteness due to patchy extinction. We used the Bayesian estimator described in @Ybarra:2013kh to calculate the ratios within circular projected regions with radius 3$^\\prime$. The map only shows ratios for regions with sufficient number counts such that $N_{1}+N_{2}+1 <  0.25(N_{1}+1)(N_{2}-1)$, where $N_{1}$ is the number count of the numerator, and $N_{2}$ is the number count of the denominator.\n\nWe found that the whole complex has $R_{\\mathrm{II:III}} \\ge 1.0$ which suggests star formation was ubiquitous throughout the complex $\\sim$ 2-3 Myr ago. We can also trace the most recent star formation by using the $R_{\\mathrm{I:II}}$ ratio (Fig. \\[fig:ratiomaps\\], right). Regions with significant $R_{\\mathrm{I:II}}$ are expected to have been actively forming stars within the last Myr. We found that the regions of high $R_{\\mathrm{I:II}}$ appear to form an oblong ring around IC 1795. This mirrors the distribution of Class I/0 sources which also appear to surround IC 1795 (see Fig. \\[fig:gather\\]). Interestingly, the high $R_{\\mathrm{II:III}}$ in IC 1795 suggests that stars were forming there up to 1 Myr ago. Therefore the absence of Class I/0 sources in IC 1795 suggests that star formation was recently and possibly abruptly terminated in that region.\n\nIt is important to notice that values for the $R_{\\mathrm{II:III}}$ ratio in the map can be high (typically larger than 5), particularly because the Class III sources are more spatially scattered. However, the $R_{\\mathrm{II:III}}$ is not the same as the circumstellar disk fraction in the cluster, because we are only measuring against weak disk sources and not the whole population (see also section \\[s:analysis:ss:klf\\], below).\n\n![image](f8a.eps){width=\"4.2in\"}\\\n![image](f8b.eps){width=\"4.2in\"}\n\nK band Luminosity Function of Clusters in the W3 Complex \\[s:analysis:ss:klf\\]\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe obtained the K band luminosity function (KLF) for each of the five principal clusters identified with our GMM analysis using the following procedure:\n\nEach cluster sample is composed by all K-band sources detected within a \u201c3-sigma\" radius defined as $R_{3\\sigma}=(3.0/\\sqrt{8\\ln 2})r_{cl}$, where $r_{cl}$ is defined from the GMM analysis as the half-width at half-maximum of the best fit 2-D Gaussian. Defining samples within $R_{3\\sigma}$ minimizes effects of cluster overlapping, which could mislead in the estimation of age and age spreads in cluster forming regions [e.g. NGC 1980, @Alves:2012aa].\n\nWe obtained an extinction limited sample, defined as follows: 1) we projected a $A_V=$20 mag extinction vector from a 1 Myr isochrone [@DAntona:1997aa] until it reached the sensitivity limit of the observations. The $A_V$-limited sample is defined by all sources enclosed within the area defined by the extinction vector, the zero-age main sequence and the reddened isochrone (see Figure \\[fig:avlimitedsample\\], left). 2) we separated the possible foreground population from sources with colors coinciding with the locus of the dwarf and giant sequences in the $J-H$ vs $H-K$ color-color diagram.This defines a foreground contribution. In Figure \\[fig:avlimitedsample\\] (right panel) we show a color-magnitude diagram for W3-Main showing the $A_V$-limited sample selection.\n\nWe estimated the fraction of sources with circumstellar disks within $R_{3\\sigma}$, for each principal cluster, as the total number of Class I plus Class II sources in the extinction limited sample, down to a de-reddened brightness $H$=13.5 mag. (see also section \\[s:analysis:ss:ysodist:sss:ratiomaps\\] above). The highest fractions of circumstellar disks, close to 30 percent, are in W3-Main, IC 1795 and W3(OH). Clusters NGC 896 and IC1795-N have smaller fractions, closer to 15 percent.\n\nThe total contribution from the field was estimated from a nearby control field with minimum extinction, observed in the same conditions and to the same depth as the cloud fields (see Appendix \\[app:obs\\]). We made a K-band histogram from the control field catalog and scaled it to the same area of the cluster sample. Then we subtracted the foreground contribution from the control field KLF, and applied artificial reddening to the remaining distribution down to the same level as the cloud sample. Artificial reddening is applied by constructing a normalized $A_V$ extinction distribution from the background stars in each cluster region using the NICER algorithm, and used it as a frequency distribution to convolve the control field K-band histogram, producing a final control field K band brightness distribution. The NICER algorithm provides estimates of extinction with average errors $\\sigma_{A_V}<$0.1 mag below $A_V=$30 mag. These errors are way below the size of the K-band brightness bins used to construct the KLF. The final KLF of the cluster sample is obtained by subtracting the final $A_V$-convolved (reddened) control field distribution from the one constructed from the K-band limited sample.\n\nThe advantages of using a K-band limited sample to construct the KLF are: a) that all samples are cut at common maximum extinction; b) that the contribution of background extra-galactic sources is reduced to a minimum; c) that patchy extinction is less prone to bias the brightness distribution, specially at the most embedded regions \u2013e.g. centers of W3-Main and W3(OH). Also, by convolving the raw control field KLF by the \u201con\" field extinction distribution, we are able to obtain a fair estimation of the contribution from field stars on different lines of sight [@Muench:2003aa].\n\n### Age Inference from Cluster Model Fits \\[s:analysis:ss:klf:sss:ages\\]\n\nThe KLF for each principal cluster sample was then compared to *artificial* K-band brightness distributions of embedded cluster populations of varying ages, constructed with the model interpolation code of @Muench:2000aa. The method is relatively easy to apply: using a set of pre-main sequence models, the code uses a Monte Carlo generator to draw an artificial population from an assumed initial Mass Function (IMF) with a total number of members input by the user, between a minimum and a maximum age, defined by model isochrones, properly shifted by the distance modulus of the complex[^9]. For this study, we chose the isochrone set of [@DAntona:1997aa], with a deuterium fraction $[D/H]=2\\times 10^{-5}$. The user has the option to choose the form of the IMF and also has the option to fix or to sample values for a set of parameters that includes an extinction distribution, a binary fraction, and the infrared excess fraction as a function of color ($H-K$). The peak and the slopes of the KLF are particularly sensitive to age and age spread, which are the two parameters that were left to vary. We decided to leave the binary fraction as a fixed, value of 20%, based on estimations by [@Padgett:1997aa] suggesting that the binary fraction in the Orion B clusters may be about 15% in separations up to 1000 AU \u2013the separations we are able to resolve in our near-IR images. Also, @Muench:2002aa in a similar experiment showed that, particularly, the mean age and spread estimates were not significantly different when changing the binary fraction within 40 percent. A smaller fraction is probably too optimistic, but a fraction that is significantly large (30-40%) tends to add dispersion in the histogram and \u201cdilutes\" the location of the KLF peak. For the IMF, we decided to use the the parameters of the 3-part broken power law obtained for the IC 348 cluster by @Muench:2003aa[^10]. Each of the fixed parameters will add its own error to the estimate of the best value for the running parameters, and there are also errors associated with the use of one or other isochrone model set. A full discussion of the method is out of the scope of this paper, however, the feasibility of this method has been properly discussed by @Muench:2002aa (chapter 5).\n\n![ *Left*: Extinction ($A_V$) limited selected sample for W3-Main using $K$ vs $H-K$ color-magnitude diagram. The solid thick line is the zero-age main sequence. The two thick, dotted lines are a 3 Myr isochrone from the models of [@DAntona:1997aa], before and after adding an extinction of $A_V=20$ mag. This is also indicated by the extinction vector that runs from the lowest mass point (0.3 M$_\\odot$). The dot-dashed line indicates the sensitivity limit of our Calar Alto data set. Solid symbols indicate sources selected out as possible foreground sources. The open circle symbols indicate sources selected as cluster members in the final sample. *Right*: An illustration of KLF fitting, for IC 1795. The solid, black histogram is the observed KLF, after subtraction of the field component; the red, green and blue lines are artificial KLFs modeled after the properties of the cluster, using the code of @Muench:2000aa, with reduced $\\chi ^2$ probabilities of 0.95, 0.68 and 0.22, respectively.\\[fig:avlimitedsample\\]](./f9a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"3.25in\"} ![ *Left*: Extinction ($A_V$) limited selected sample for W3-Main using $K$ vs $H-K$ color-magnitude diagram. The solid thick line is the zero-age main sequence. The two thick, dotted lines are a 3 Myr isochrone from the models of [@DAntona:1997aa], before and after adding an extinction of $A_V=20$ mag. This is also indicated by the extinction vector that runs from the lowest mass point (0.3 M$_\\odot$). The dot-dashed line indicates the sensitivity limit of our Calar Alto data set. Solid symbols indicate sources selected out as possible foreground sources. The open circle symbols indicate sources selected as cluster members in the final sample. *Right*: An illustration of KLF fitting, for IC 1795. The solid, black histogram is the observed KLF, after subtraction of the field component; the red, green and blue lines are artificial KLFs modeled after the properties of the cluster, using the code of @Muench:2000aa, with reduced $\\chi ^2$ probabilities of 0.95, 0.68 and 0.22, respectively.\\[fig:avlimitedsample\\]](./f9b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"3.25in\"}\n\n![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\\[fig:agespread\\]](./f10a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"2.5in\"} ![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\\[fig:agespread\\]](./f10b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"2.5in\"}\\\n![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\\[fig:agespread\\]](./f10c.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"2.5in\"} ![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\\[fig:agespread\\]](./f10d.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"2.5in\"}\\\n![ Age estimates for all principal clusters, illustrated with a contour map of the normalized $\\chi^2$ values. We plot the mean age input for the artificial KLF models vs. the age spread used in each simulation set. Areas at and below purple color levels indicate the most likely values. The white contour lines trace the 68 and 95 percent confidence limits. The light line surrounding the contour areas indicates the limits of the model grid.\\[fig:agespread\\]](./f10e.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"2.5in\"}\n\nWe made a grid of cluster models that varied the minimum age of the population between 0.5 and 10 Myr, in steps of 0.5 Myr, and having star formation age spreads of 1.0 to 5.0 Myr. For each minimum age and age spread value, we simulated 500 artificial KLFs and compared each of them with our observed KLF using a simple reduced $\\chi^2$ scheme. Averaging over the simulations, we are able to determine which age or group of ages fits the observed KLF better (see Figure \\[fig:avlimitedsample\\]). Our estimate of the age and age spread is defined by those models for which the confidence limit is above 68% (2-sigma). In Figure \\[fig:agespread\\] we show two examples of the age estimation scheme: we plot the mean age used in the simulation versus the width of the age spread. The reduced $\\chi ^2$ value contours indicate the grid values for which the age models fit better (25 percentile). In these examples, the W3-Main cluster shows a very clear fit for a population with an age spread of less than 2.5 Myr, and a mean age of around 2.0 Myr. The IC 1795, instead, is less well constrained: we see two local $\\chi ^2$ minima in the contour map. The first one agrees with a mean cluster age of less than 2.5 Myr old and an age spread of less than 3 Myr. The second minimum suggests a mean age between 2.5 and 3.5 Myr and an age spread between 3 and 5 Myr. The second option agrees much better with spectroscopic studies of IC 1795, particularly the one by @Oey:2005ly. To be conservative, we consider a mean age between 2.0 and 4.0 Myr, and an age spread in the whole range of 1.0 to 5.0 Myr. The main reason for the discrepancy in IC 1795 is the large number of very young (Class II) sources still present in the IC 1795 region, which is indicative of a mixed age population. The analysis suggests a very similar age and spread for W3(OH), which is surprising given that it hosts more embedded populations. The analysis for clusters IC 1795-N and NGC 896 yield mean ages from 2.5 to 4.5 and from 3.5 to 5.0 Myr with possible spreads from 2.0 to 5.0 and from 1.0 to 5.0 Myr, respectively. Unfortunately, the upper limits in the age spread are not well constrained for most clusters, however, age spreads much larger than 5 Myr sound little plausible for embedded star cluster populations. In table \\[tab:principal\\_clusters\\] we list the main results of the artificial KLF modeling analysis for the five principal clusters. The age and age spread for each of the principal cluster is listed as the center and width of the top contour in the age spread vs age $\\chi ^2$ maps.\n\n[llccccc]{}\n\nW3-Main & 36.368671 & 62.097485 & 1.313 & 27$\\pm$4 & 2.0 \\[1.5,2.5\\] & 1.5 \\[1.0,2.5\\]\\\nIC 1795 & 36.652903 & 61.990908 & 1.244 & 29$\\pm$5 & 3.0 \\[2.0,4.0\\] & 4.0 \\[1.0,5.0\\]\\\nW3(OH) & 36.798850 & 61.895349 & 1.644 & 27$\\pm$3 & 3.0 \\[2.5,3.5\\] & 3.5 \\[3.0,5.0\\]\\\nNGC 896 & 36.388061 & 61.996607 & 1.428 & 14$\\pm$3 & 3.5 \\[2.5,4.5\\] & 4.0 \\[2.0,5.0\\]\\\nIC 1795-N & 36.569302 & 62.103874 & 1.618 & 12$\\pm$2 & 4.0 \\[3.5,5.0\\] & 2.0 \\[1.0,5.0\\]\\\n\nThe Context of the W3 Molecular Cloud \\[s:analysis:ss:gas\\]\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe 1.1 mm Bolocam maps and the CO isotope radio emission maps of @Bieging:2011kq show that the IC 1795 is almost free of molecular gas emission, while most of the remaining cloud is concentrated on two large clump systems at W3-Main and W3(OH). The latter has a total mass of approximately $1.9\\times 10^3\\mathrm{\\ M}_\\odot$, while the former has a total mass of approximately $2.5\\times 10^3\\mathrm{\\ M}_\\odot$, divided in two main clumps named W3-East and W3-West [@Rivera-Ingraham:2013fj]. In such layout, IC 1795 is seen surrounded by an almost symmetric shell of star forming molecular material.\n\nIn Figures \\[fig:gas-stars-w3main\\] and \\[fig:gas-stars-w3oh\\] we show the locations of Class I and Class II source candidates in the context of the $^{13}$CO(1-0) first moment (average radial velocity) map of the cloud, as well as a map of 1.1 mm emission over infrared images at both the Eastern (W3(OH)) and Western (W3-Main) sides of the Cloud.\n\n![image](./f11im.eps){width=\"7.0in\"}\n\nThe W3-Main map shows a very notorious blue-shifted peak at the center of the principal cluster, that coincides in velocity with a filamentary structure that extends south toward NGC 896 and north toward IC 1795-N. The blue-purple colored peak corresponds to a velocity range centered around -42.5 km/s, and it has been suggested to indicate central massive outflow activity at the center of the cluster [@Bieging:2011kq]. The main $^{13}$CO(2-1) emission structure associated with W3-Main with velocity range centered around -40 km/s (green colored in the image), shows a clumpy structure suggestive of other local velocity gradients. A few small receding clumps associated with velocities in excess of -36 km/s (red colored in the image) possibly represents gas still being expelled from the central cluster, and confirms that gas removal in IC 1795 was very recent.\n\n![image](./f12im.eps){width=\"7.0in\"}\n\nThe W3(OH) map shows that the cluster formation activity at this side of the complex is associated with molecular emission with significant radial velocity gradients. This eastern side of the cloud has a filamentary morphology, with almost uniform radial velocity. There is a \u00a02 km/s difference between the east and the west edges of the filament, suggestive of a \u201crolling\" movement of gas in the north-south direction, but on the eastern side the peak velocity alternates several times from \u00a046 to \u00a048 km/s, indicating local gradients possibly linked to gas compression and expulsion at the W3(OH) groups. This is particularly evident at group W3(OH) A.\n\nIn Figure \\[fig:velpos\\] we show two position-velocity (p-v) plots corresponding to two cuts along the main structures of W3(OH) (cut $L1$) and W3-Main (cut $L2$) in the 1.1 mm map. We constructed these p-v plots from the $^{13}$CO(3-2) emission map of [@Bieging:2011kq].\n\nThe L1 plot shows a well defined bipolar structure at the location of cluster A with a peak to peak velocity difference of 15-20 km/s within less than 0.5 pc. The $^{13}$CO(3-2) map does not resolve the structure well enough to claim the presence of individual outflows, but the plot shows that the W3(OH) elongated clump may be associated with a structure coherent within (roughly) -50 and -45 km/s. The plot shows an opening flow of material associated with cluster A (offset$\\approx 170\\arcsec$), and a tighter blue-shifted flow associated with cluster B (offset$\\approx 200\\arcsec$). A third component may be present near offset$\\approx 300\\arcsec$, possibly associated with cluster C.\n\nThe L2 plot shows a very strong outflow feature associated with the main molecular gas clump in W3-Main, with a peak to peak velocity difference of 25-30 km/s within less than 0.7 pc. The red-shifted component is associated with the left lobe of the main molecular clump and vice versa. The two peaks of the red-shifted structure suggest a parabolic opening indicative of a widening outflow. The physical scales and velocity differences of these structures are very similar to those observed in other massive star forming regions like DR-21 [@schneider:2010aa], G240.31+0.07 [@qiu:2009aa] or W49A [@peng:2010aa].\n\nWe estimated the integrated intensity of $^{13}$CO(3-2) in two square areas of $120\\arcsec \\times 120\\arcsec$ at the center of the double peaked clump in W3-Main, which correspond to the blue and red peaks of the outflow feature. We defined these square areas from a first moment (mean velocity) map. Using the prescription of @ginsburg:2011aa, we estimated the column density, $N(H_2)$ and the total mass of outflow gas, $M_{out}$ enclosed in each the two areas (17.6 and 40.7 M$_\\odot$ for the red and the blue peak, respectively). Then, following @qiu:2009aa we estimated the dynamical age, $t_{dyn}$ of each component (6.5 and 9$\\times 10^4$ yr, for the red and blue peaks, respectively) and the mass loss rate, $\\dot{M}_{out}=M_{out}/t_{dyn}$. We estimated that the total mass loss rate is close to $7.2\\times10^{-4} \\mathrm{M}_\\odot \\mathrm{\\ yr}^{-1}$. This is close to estimates in other massive star forming regions, which have mass loss rates of $\\sim 10^{-3} \\mathrm{M}_\\odot \\mathrm{\\ yr}^{-1}$. A mass loss rate like this, if constant, could remove $10^3\\mathrm{\\ M}_\\odot$ of gas in about 1.5 Myr.\n\n![Top: Bolocam 1.1 mm emission map (grayscale, overlaid with same set of contours as in Fig. \\[fig:gas-stars-w3main\\]). Arrows indicate length and direction of two cuts used to create position-velocity maps. Middle and Bottom: Position-velocity plots, from the CO(3-2) emission maps of [@Bieging:2011kq]. The color table indicates line temperature in K. \\[fig:velpos\\]](./f13a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"3.3in\"}\\\n![Top: Bolocam 1.1 mm emission map (grayscale, overlaid with same set of contours as in Fig. \\[fig:gas-stars-w3main\\]). Arrows indicate length and direction of two cuts used to create position-velocity maps. Middle and Bottom: Position-velocity plots, from the CO(3-2) emission maps of [@Bieging:2011kq]. The color table indicates line temperature in K. \\[fig:velpos\\]](./f13b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"3.5in\"}\\\n![Top: Bolocam 1.1 mm emission map (grayscale, overlaid with same set of contours as in Fig. \\[fig:gas-stars-w3main\\]). Arrows indicate length and direction of two cuts used to create position-velocity maps. Middle and Bottom: Position-velocity plots, from the CO(3-2) emission maps of [@Bieging:2011kq]. The color table indicates line temperature in K. \\[fig:velpos\\]](./f13c.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"3.5in\"}\n\nDiscussion \\[s:discussion\\]\n===========================\n\nOur KLF analysis suggests that episodes of cluster formation in W3 may have started over 4 Myr ago, without any well defined pause. Actually, our data also suggests that star formation has been ubiquitous across the whole complex within the last 1.0-2.0 Myr:\n\n1.  All of the principal clusters exhibit a significant fraction of sources with detectable circumstellar emission. This is evidence in favor of recent formation across the whole complex. Class I sources are distributed preferentially in high extinction regions, indicating the most recent episodes of formation. However, Class III sources are present also near these highly embedded regions: this could be indicative of age spreads comparable to the T Tauri timescale (and possibly longer, if we consider young sources that escape classification via our color and X-ray emission scheme) across the whole complex. However, this could also be the result of rapid dissipation of disks, particularly for intermediate to high mass sources.\n\n2.  The age spread of IC 1795 cluster may be at least 4 Myr. This cluster also has a slightly larger density of Class III sources (e.g. 7 vs 5 percent of all YSO candidates down to a de-reddened brightness of H=13.5 mag, estimated within $R_{3\\sigma}$ in IC 1795 and W3-Main, respectively). This is in agreement with previous studies that suggest this is the more evolved population in the complex. Also, the lack of nebulosity or strong CO emission is indicative of gas dispersal, which agrees with a more evolved cluster. However, the mean age that we estimate for this cluster is not very different from that of the youngest clusters in the complex, W3-Main and W3(OH). Also, the $R_{II:III}$ ratio in IC 1795 is comparable to W3-Main and W3(OH) and so is the total fraction of circumstellar disk sources in this cluster (about 30 percent within $r_{3\\sigma}$\\[IC1795\\]). Still, no Class I sources are longer present in IC 1795. These results are not contradictory. They all suggest that the forming gas dispersal timescale in IC1795 was rapid, comparable or faster than the T Tauri timescale.\n\n3.  The KLF analysis suggest that W3(OH) has an age and age spread not very different from IC 1795. Again, this is indicative of more than one episode of formation. The main groups A, B and C in W3(OH) are still embedded in bright nebulosity and the principal cluster has a large circumstellar disk fraction, comparable to IC 1795 and W3-Main. There is also a significant number of Class I sources in W3(OH). However, there may be slightly older groups toward the eastern edge of the complex, judging from the presence of Class II and Class III sources to the edge of the molecular clump and no nebulosity. The $R_{II:III}$ maps show an abrupt termination at the eastern side of the W3(OH) principal cluster which reinforces this idea. The structure in W3(OH) (specially if there is an older component) weakens the argument of a Gaussian cluster used for the GMM analysys. We need deeper photometric data in order to reconcile this problem.\n\n4.  The KLF modeling analysis shows that IC 1795-N and NGC 896 may host the oldest clusters in the complex with a mean age between 3.5 and 4 Myr. These two aggregations could have been formed in an external layer of the original molecular cloud, flanking IC 1795 from north and south.\n\n5.  Our analysis suggests that W3-Main hosts the most recent cluster formation episode, starting just over 2.0 Myr ago and having the shortest spread, with less than 2.5 Myr.\n\nIn Figure \\[fig:cartoon\\] we present a cartoon illustrating one possible scenario of the progression of cluster formation in W3 based on our KLF analysis. We suppose that the original molecular cloud might have been an area somewhat larger than the current span of the cluster complex, over 4 Myr ago. As shown by @Thronson:1985aa, the W3 complex formed in a ridge of swept up molecular gas in the western age of the giant HII region W4. The expansion of W4 may have triggered the collapse of the W3 molecular ridge. By then, the formation of IC 1795-N and NGC 896 might have started, while IC 1795 and an area of unknown extension near the eastern edge of W3(OH) (we indicate this region symbolically in the cartoon) started to collapse and form stars. Just over 3 Myr ago, the process of cluster formation continued with IC 1795 and the first episode in W3-Main and W3(OH), while clumps corresponding to the present W3(OH) cluster group would be collapsing. About 2-3 Myr ago, gas dispersal could have started in IC 1795, IC 1795-N, NGC 896 and the eastern edge of W3(OH). The most recent episodes in W3-Main and W3(OH) would have started. By then, gas would be dispersed away from the center of the complex and start concentrating at the W3(OH) and W3-Main regions. This would resemble the current layout of the complex, with most of the remnant molecular gas being at W3(OH) and W3-Main. In this scenario, cluster formation progressed first from north and south towards the center of the complex and then from the center towards east and west.It is important to notice that this scenario is based on our estimates of the mean ages of the clusters, but could only be supported by a better constrain of the age spreads of the clusters.\n\nOne important point to discuss here is whether or not induced formation plays a dominant role on the formation of clusters in the W3 complex, as suggested by previous studies. For instance, [@Ruch:2007fk] support the picture in which IC 1795 triggered the formation of W3 Main and W3(OH) episodes. The study by [@Rivera-Ingraham:2011yq] suggest that triggering processes were important in the formation of the clusters flanking IC 1795, but also that triggering processes work at local (sub-parsec) scales, with high mass stars acting to confine and compress material, enhancing the efficiency for the formation of new high mass stars by making convergent flows. This, in turn, would help to the progression of formation from the outer toward in the inner regions of the complex. The study by [@Feigelson:2008vn], pointed to significant gradient of ages between the central OB sources of the cluster and a widely distributed population of PMS stars.\n\nWhat does our study tell about the global star forming history of the complex? On one hand, if gas removal in the central cluster IC 1795 contributed to collect gas in a shell like structure, it may have enhanced the efficiency of formation in W3-Main and W3(OH). This would be in agreement with the flow convergence scenario discussed by @Rivera-Ingraham:2013fj. According to that picture, IC 1795 could have been the major source of induction for star formation in the molecular shell.\n\n![image](./f14im.eps){width=\"6.0in\"}\n\nOur KLF model analysis indicates large age spreads across the complex, with a progression that lead to cluster formation across the entire complex in a period of about 3 million years. This is in good agreement with our analysis of the YSO class surface density ratio across the complex. In that case, the progression is possibly related to primordial density structure of the cloud. This is in agreement with the scenario proposed for other complexes like the Rosette Molecular Cloud [@Roman-Zuniga:2008aa; @Wang:2009aa; @Ybarra:2013kh], where it has been shown that progression of cluster formation could rather follow the density structure of the cloud than a process of induction in a sequence from the older to the younger episodes.\n\nOur YSO surface density analysis provides evidence of sub-structure in the principal cluster populations. Small aggregations of stars around the main cluster events (very evident in W3(OH), and groups like R102 and R103), revealed as significant peaks in the surface density of YSOs, in many cases coincident with the locations of Class 0/I candidates. This is suggestive of a complex scenario, in which stellar collections of different sizes may form with small age differences by the compression of gas in various locations within large clumps. Strong evidence of sub-clustering in W3-Main was also provided by the very deep near-IR KLF by [@Bik:2014aa]: they pointed out that an age gradient was evident from edge to center in W3-Main, judging from a higher fraction of circumstellar disks near the center. The large number of disk bearing sources in IC 1795 could be indicative of a similar process, where cluster formation occurs in sub-structures. If these sub-structures do not form simultaneously, they certainly may lead to a large age spread, as observed.\n\nThe projected separations between surface density peaks in the `gather` map range is 1.4$\\pm$0.4 pc. These separations are comparable to the estimated radii of the principal clusters identified with our GMM model. This scale is shorter than the Jeans length (2.0 pc) for a mean density of $10^2 \\mathrm{cm}^{\u22123}$ and $T_K = 10$ K, typical of the diffuse gas traced by $^{12}$CO and may be tracing the primordial fragmentation of the cloud. One possibility is that density peaks in the `gather` map are sub-clusters that eventually merge into larger groups, but that will depend on the dynamical stability of the aggregations and the gravitational potential of the corresponding principal cluster. Numerical simulations [@Bonnell:2011kx; @Allison:2010ca] suggest, that clusters are initially highly structured, but rapidly evolve by merging into large entities. On the other hand, small groups of stars may disperse rapidly or even remain stable depending crucially on the number of members and the star forming efficiency [@Lada:2003aa; @Adams:2001aa]. It is also expected that most small, embedded aggregations end up being disrupted early, as proposed by the \u201cinfant mortality\" and \u201ccruel cradle\" models.\n\nThe formation of small groups that disperse rapidly and merge into a larger central structure could provide a simple explanation for the presence of larger age spreads in a lower surface density population in regions like IC 1795-N or NGC 896, and would be in agreement with age spreads and sub-structure in the younger principal clusters.\n\nThe strong outflows in the molecular gas shell at W3-Main and W3(OH) confirm a very rapid removal of gas in the complex. This removal may occur in a period comparable to the T Tauri timescale, as evidenced by Class II source candidates in IC 1795, where gas is mostly dispersed. However, it is important to stress that the mass loss rate cannot be constant, and will probably decline within a few $10^5$ Myr, if it has not already done so. The estimate we provided, however, may not be far from the average mass loss rate during the main gas dissipation period.\n\nConclusions \\[s:conclusions\\]\n=============================\n\nWe obtained deep, high resolution ground-based near-IR images of the Eastern edge of the W3 region in the Perseus Arm. These data were combined with archive imaging data from the Spitzer and Chandra space telescopes to obtain a new catalog of young sources for the W3 Complex. We used our resultant catalog to:\n\n1.  Identify and classify young (Class I, II, III) embedded sources in the region.\n\n2.  Determine the locations and extension of the principal clusters in the complex.\n\n3.  Determine the spatial distribution of young sources across the complex. This distribution shows significant substructure.\n\n4.  Construct extinction limited samples that allowed us to obtain clean K-band luminosity functions of the principal clusters. We compared the resultant functions with those from artificial clusters of ages created from pre-main sequence models. This analysis permitted to estimate mean ages and possible age spreads for the principal clusters of the W3 Complex.\n\nWe found that IC 1795, the central cluster of the complex, still has a large fraction of Class II sources, despite not being embedded anymore, like clusters W3-Main and W3(OH). The $R_{II:III}$ ratio is large across IC 1795, just as it is in the flanking embedded clusters. The $^{13}$CO map shows some receding molecular gas clumps coincident with the center of IC 1795. This, along with the absence of Class I sources suggest that parental gas was removed quickly from IC 1795, in a period shorter than the T Tauri timescale. The high mass loss rate estimate at the center of W3-Main supports this strongly.\n\nOur Gaussian Mixture Model analysis clearly identified the well known clusters IC 1795, W3-Main and W3(OH). In addition, two principal clusters could be identified, one associated with the compact HII region NGC 896 and one more located north of IC 1795.\n\nWe estimated the ages and age spreads of the principal clusters by comparing their K-band luminosity functions with those of artificial young clusters. The differences between the ages of the clusters are not significantly large. We also were able to constrain the age spread of the W3 cluster, but we could not constrain well the age spread of the other four clusters, so there might be overlaps in the formation periods of all clusters in the complex. This, is confirmed by a large number of Class II and Class III sources across the whole complex. This suggest a progression of cluster formation scenario in which formation proceeded as a result of primordial density structure of the cloud.\n\nUsing our list of Class II candidates, we constructed a surface density map that shows a significant amount of substructure in the principal clusters of the complex. The large age spread in the clusters may indicate that formation proceeds in episodes. If sub-structures observed do not form simultaneously, they certainly may lead to a large age spread, like we observe.\n\nWe propose a scenario in which star cluster formation progressed over 4 Myr ago from north and south (clusters NGC 896 and IC 1795-N) toward IC 1795. Later (about 2 to 3 Myr ago), the progression moved from center (IC 1795) towards East and West (W3(OH) and W3-Main). We also suggest that an undefined region East of W3(OH) could form groups of stars before the formation of the embedded multiple embedded groups we see today.\n\nThe formation of W3(OH) and W3 Main is still in progress at the edge of the giant molecular shell of the complex. Using molecular emission maps, we showed that the two main gas clumps associated with these clusters (which together contain more than 4.5$\\times 10^3\\mathrm{\\ M}_\\odot$) show strong velocity gradients and gas outflow activity, spatially coincident with clusters and sub-structures. This is in good agreement with the convergent flow scenario [@Rivera-Ingraham:2013fj] that contributes to a large massive star formation efficiency in W3. Our analysis suggest that both the progression of formation following the primordial structure of the original Giant Molecular Cloud, and the triggered formation caused by the compression and dispersal of gas (that is, within the cloud) are both important in W3.\n\nThe W3 Complex, presents a rather complicated layout. The principal clusters overlap partially along the line of sight and they may still interact with each other. Moreover, the clusters present a significant sub-structure. If the sub-structures are bonafide sub-clusters, they pose an interesting problem for future higher quality data. Particularly, space based mid-infrared imaging with high resolution and deeper photometric limits (e.g. the James Webb Space Telescope) will provide more complete samples of the sub-cluster population. Also, spectroscopic data for individual young candidate members, may refine age and age spread estimates.\n\n**Acknowledgements:** We thank an anonymous referee for comprehensive and useful comments that greatly improved the content of our manuscript. CRZ acknowledges support from CONACYT project CB2010-152160, Mexico and program UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT IN103014. JY and MT acknowledge support from program UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT IN101813. GMV acknowledges support from an introduction to research scholarship from the Programa de Introducci\u00f3n a la Investigaci\u00f3n de la Junta de Ampliaci\u00f3n de Estudios (JAE INTRO) CSIC/Instituto de Astrof\u00edsica de Andaluc\u00eda. EAL acknowledges support from the National Science Foundation through NSF Grant AST-1109679 to the University of Florida.\n\nThis study is based on observations collected at the Centro Astron\u00f3mico Hispano Alem\u00e1n (CAHA) at Calar Alto, operated jointly by the Max-Planck Institut f\u00fcr Astronomie and the Instituto de Astrof\u00edsica de Andaluc\u00eda (CSIC). We acknowledge the staff at Calar Alto for top of the line queued observations at the 3.5m with OMEGA 2000. We acknowledge use of data products from the 2MASS, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Centre/California Institute of Technology (funded by the USA National Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Science Foundation). This work is partly based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. The scientific results reported in this article are based to a significant degree on data obtained from the Chandra Data Archive; particularly, we made use of data obtained from the Chandra Source Catalog, provided by the Chandra X-ray Center (CXC) as part of the Chandra Data Archive. In this paper we discuss observations from the Bolocam Galactic Plane Survey (BGPS; PI John Bally); the BGPS project is supported by the National Science Foundation through NSF grant AST-0708403. In the present paper we discussed observations performed with the ESA Herschel Space Observatory [@Pilbratt:2010en], in particular employing Herschel\u2019s large telescope and powerful science payload to do photometry using the PACS [@Poglitsch:2010bm] and SPIRE [@Griffin:2010hz] instruments. Herschel is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA. This research made use of Montage, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration\u2019s Earth Science Technology Office, Computation Technologies Project, under Cooperative Agreement Number NCC5-626 between NASA and the California Institute of Technology. Montage is maintained by the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive. We made use of the `pvextractor` tool by Adam Ginsburg, that is part of the Radio Astro Tools repository (http://github.com/radio-astro-tools).\n\n[*Facilities:*]{} , , , , ,\n\n, F.\u00a0C. & [Myers]{}, P.\u00a0C. 2001, , 553, 744\n\nAguirre, J.\u00a0E., Ginsburg, A.\u00a0G., Dunham, M.\u00a0K., et al.\u00a02011, , 192, 4\n\nAllison, R.\u00a0J., Goodwin, S.\u00a0P., Parker, R.\u00a0J., Portegies\u00a0Zwart, S.\u00a0F., & De\u00a0Grijs, R. 2010, , 407, 1098\n\nAlves, J., & Bouy, H.\u00a02012, , 547, AA97\n\nBanfield, J.\u00a0D. & Raftery, A.\u00a0E. 1993, Biometrics, 49, 803\n\n, E. & [Arnouts]{}, S. 1996, , 117, 393\n\nBieging, J.\u00a0H. & Peters, W.\u00a0L. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 196, 18\n\nBik, A., Henning, T., Stolte, A., et al.\u00a02012, , 744, 87\n\nBik, A., Stolte, A., Gennaro, M., et al.\u00a02014, , 561, A12\n\n, I.\u00a0A., [Smith]{}, R.\u00a0J., [Clark]{}, P.\u00a0C., & [Bate]{}, M.\u00a0R. 2011, , 410, 2339\n\nBressert, E., Bastian, N., Gutermuth, R., et al.\u00a02010, , 409, L54\n\n, S. & [Hut]{}, P. 1985, , 298, 80\n\nCottaar, M., Covey, K.\u00a0R., Meyer, M.\u00a0R., et al.\u00a02014, , 794, 125\n\n, F. & [Mazzitelli]{}, I. 1997, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 68\n\n, R. 2011, in Stellar Clusters & Associations: A RIA Workshop on Gaia, Ed. E. Alfaro, p. 331\n\nEvans, I.\u00a0N., Primini, F.\u00a0A., Glotfelty, K.\u00a0J., et al.\u00a02010, , 189, 37\n\n, E.\u00a0D. & [Townsley]{}, L.\u00a0K. 2008, , 673, 354\n\nFraley, C. & Raftery, A.\u00a0E. 2002, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 97, 611\n\nGinsburg, A., Bally, J., & Williams, J.\u00a0P.\u00a02011, , 418, 2121\n\nGladwin, P.\u00a0P., Kitsionas, S., Boffin, H. M.\u00a0J., & Whitworth, A.\u00a0P. 1999, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 302, 305\n\nGriffin, M.\u00a0J., Abergel, A., Abreu, et al.\u00a02010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 518, L3\n\nGutermuth, R.\u00a0A., Megeath, S.\u00a0T., Muzerolle, J. et al.\u00a02004, , 154, 374\n\nGutermuth, R.\u00a0A., Myers, P.\u00a0C., Megeath, S.\u00a0T. et al.\u00a02008, , 674, 336\n\nGutermuth, R.\u00a0A., Megeath, S.\u00a0T., Myers, P.\u00a0C., et al.\u00a02010, , 189, 352\n\nHachisuka, K., Brunthaler, A., Menten, K.\u00a0M. et al.\u00a02006,, 645, 337\n\nKruijssen, J. M.\u00a0D., Maschberger, T., Moeckel, N. et al.\u00a02012, , 419, 841\n\nKuhn, M.\u00a0A., Feigelson, E.\u00a0D., Getman, K.\u00a0V. et al. \u00a02014, , 787, 107\n\nLada, C.\u00a0J., Elmegreen, B.\u00a0G., Cong, H.-I., & Thaddeus, P.\u00a01978, , 226, L39\n\n, C.\u00a0J. & [Lada]{}, E.\u00a0A. 2003, , 41, 57\n\nLada, C.\u00a0J., Lombardi, M., Rom[\u00e1]{}n-Z[\u00fa]{}[\u00f1]{}iga, C., Forbrich, J., & Alves, J.\u00a0F.\u00a02013, , 778, 133\n\n, J. 2006, PhD thesis, University of Florida\n\n, M. & [Alves]{}, J. 2001, , 377, 1023\n\nLombardi, M.\u00a02009, , 493, 735\n\n, G.\u00a0R., [Heckman]{}, T.\u00a0M., [Leitherer]{}, C. et al.\u00a01995, , 110, 2665\n\n, A.\u00a0A., [Lada]{}, E.\u00a0A., & [Lada]{}, C.\u00a0J. 2000, , 533, 358\n\nMuench, A., 2002, Ph. D thesis, University of Florida\n\n, A.\u00a0A., [Lada]{}, E.\u00a0A., [Lada]{}, C.\u00a0J. et al.\u00a02003, , 125, 2029\n\n, F., [Figueredo]{}, E., [Damineli]{}, A. et al.\u00a02011, , 142, 67\n\n, M.\u00a0S., [Watson]{}, A.\u00a0M., [Kern]{}, K., & [Walth]{}, G.\u00a0L. 2005, , 129, 393 Ogura, K., & Ishida, K.\u00a01976, , 28, 651\n\nPadgett, D.\u00a0L., Strom, S.\u00a0E., & Ghez, A.\u00a01997, , 477, 705\n\nPeng, T.-C., Wyrowski, F., van der Tak, F.\u00a0F.\u00a0S., Menten, K.\u00a0M., & Walmsley, C.\u00a0M.\u00a02010, , 520, AA84\n\nPilbratt, G.\u00a0L., Riedinger, J.\u00a0R., Passvogel, T., et al.\u00a02010, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 518, L1\n\nPoglitsch, A., Waelkens, C., Geis, N. et al.\u00a02010,\u00e5, 518, L2\n\nQiu, K., Zhang, Q., Wu, J., & Chen, H.-R.\u00a02009, , 696, 66\n\nRaftery, A.\u00a0E., Fraley, C., Murphy, T.\u00a0B., & Scrucca, L. 2012, Tech. rep. No. 56, Department of Statistics, University of Washington\n\nRivera-Ingraham, A., Martin, P.\u00a0G., Polychroni, D., & Moore, T. J.\u00a0T. 2011, , 743, 39\n\nRivera-Ingraham, A., Martin, P.\u00a0G., Polychroni, D. et al.\u00a02013, , 766, 85\n\n, C.\u00a0G. 2006, PhD thesis, University of Florida\n\nRom[\u00e1]{}n-Z[\u00fa]{}[\u00f1]{}iga, C.\u00a0G., Elston, R., Ferreira, B., & Lada, E.\u00a0A.\u00a02008, , 672, 861\n\n, G.\u00a0T., [Jones]{}, T.\u00a0J., [Woodward]{}, C.\u00a0E., [Polomski]{}, E.\u00a0F., [Gehrz]{}, R.\u00a0D., & [Megeath]{}, S.\u00a0T. 2007, , 654, 338\n\nSchneider, N., Csengeri, T., Bontemps, S., et al.\u00a02010, , 520, AA49\n\n, P.\u00a0B. 1987, , 99, 191\n\n, M.\u00a0B. 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, Vol. 347, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XIV, ed. [P.\u00a0Shopbell, M.\u00a0Britton, & R.\u00a0Ebert]{}, 29\n\nThronson, H.\u00a0A., Jr., Lada, C.\u00a0J., & Hewagama, T.\u00a01985, , 297, 662\n\nWang, J., Feigelson, E.\u00a0D., Townsley, L.\u00a0K., et al.\u00a02009, , 696, 47\n\nYbarra, J.\u00a0E., Lada, E.\u00a0A., Roman-Z[\u00fa]{}[\u00f1]{}iga, C.\u00a0G. et al.\u00a02013, , 769, 140\n\nNear-IR Observations \\[app:obs\\]\n================================\n\nIn Table \\[tab:obs\\] we list information corresponding to our near-IR Calar Alto 3.5m OMEGA 2000 observations.\n\n[llcccccl]{}\n\n\\\n\\\nCAHA-W301 & 2008-11-08 & 36.580583 & 62.135000 & $J$ & 1.00 & 21.00\\\nCAHA-W301 & 2008-11-08 & 36.580625 & 62.135000 & $H$ & 1.05 & 20.00\\\nCAHA-W301 & 2008-11-07 & 36.580625 & 62.135000 & $K$ & 1.07 & 19.50\\\nCAHA-W302 & 2008-11-09 & 37.100042 & 62.108056 & $J$ & 1.09 & 20.50\\\nCAHA-W302 & 2008-11-08 & 37.100042 & 62.108056 & $H$ & 0.98 & 20.25\\\nCAHA-W302 & 2008-11-09 & 37.100042 & 62.108056 & $K$ & 1.00 & 19.25\\\nCAHA-W303 & 2008-11-09 & 36.659000 & 61.985833 & $J$ & 1.08 & 20.75\\\nCAHA-W303 & 2008-11-09 & 36.659000 & 61.985833 & $H$ & 1.07 & 19.75\\\nCAHA-W303 & 2008-11-09 & 36.658958 & 61.985833 & $K$ & 1.16 & 19.25\\\nCAHA-W304 & 2008-11-09 & 37.056875 & 61.904167 & $J$ & 1.04 & 20.75\\\nCAHA-W304 & 2008-11-09 & 36.580583 & 62.135000 & $H$ & 0.96 & 20.50\\\nCAHA-W304 & 2008-11-09 & 37.056875 & 61.904167 & $K$ & 0.91 & 19.50\\\nCAHA-W3CF & 2008-11-09 & 33.924208 & 60.545000 & $J$ & 1.07 & 21.00\\\nCAHA-W3CF & 2008-11-09 & 33.924208 & 60.545000 & $H$ & 1.14 & 19.75\\\nCAHA-W3CF & 2008-11-09 & 33.924250 & 60.545000 & $K$ & 1.06 & 19.50\\\n\n[^1]: Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Apache Point Galactic Evolution Experiment\n\n[^2]: based on Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) parallaxes to H$_2$O masers in W3(OH) by @Hachisuka:2006dz\n\n[^3]: Herschel is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA.\n\n[^4]: http://montage.ipac.caltech.edu\n\n[^5]: http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/data/SPITZER/docs/\\\n    dataanalysistools/tools/mopex/\n\n[^6]: only IRAC \\[3.6\\] and \\[4.5\\] bands are available as this is a warm mission extension of the original Galactic Legacy Infrared Midplane Survey Extraordinaire (GLIMPSE) project\n\n[^7]: Observation ID numbers for W3 ACIS-I data are 446, 611, 7356, 5889, 5890, 5891, 6335 and 6348\n\n[^8]: In our case, we chose to use a first order estimation of noise in the spatial distribution of the sources on the plane based on nearest-neighbors. This way the `mclust` package applies the hierarchical clustering algorithm to a denoised dataset, and finally,rejects from the final solution, those sources that do not belong any cluster in the final solution [@Raftery:2012nr].\n\n[^9]: The 0.107 kpc distance error quoted by Hachisuka (2006) for their maser parallax distances, translates into an error of about 0.2 mag in the brightness estimates. This is smaller than the size of our KLF bins (0.5 mag.) In terms of mass, this translates into an uncertainty of about 0.05 in a log-mass scale.\n\n[^10]: Notice that we cannot sample the whole mass spectrum at the distance of W3, specially given the high extinction. However, our $A_V$-limited samples are complete down to K=16.25 mag which at the distance of W3 (2.05 kpc) and given the estimated ages of the clusters, could range between 0.05 and 0.3 M$_\\odot$, with an average around or below 0.1 M$_\\odot$. This is below the expected peak of the IMF at 0.2 M$_\\odot$ and that is why we consider necessary to use the three parts of the broken power-law parametrization. The interpolation code of @Muench:2000aa takes into consideration the minimum and maximum brightness of the cluster observations and samples the IMF within the proper ranges.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'Hitoshi\u00a0<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Seo</span>$^{1,2}$[^1], Shoji\u00a0<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Ishibashi</span>$^{3}$, Yuichi\u00a0<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Otsuka</span>$^{4}$, Hidetoshi\u00a0<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Fukuyama</span>$^{5,6}$, and\u00a0Kiyoyuki\u00a0<span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Terakura</span>$^{3,7}$'\ntitle: ' Electronic States of Single-Component Molecular Conductors \\[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\\] '\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec1}\n============\n\nMolecular crystals composed of one molecular species showing electrical conduction, i.e., single-component molecular conductors (SCMC)\u00a0[@Tanaka_2001Science; @Kobayashi_2004CR], have been revealed to bear novel electronic states. In particular, their multiorbital nature has been recognized, which is different from the situation in conventional charge transfer salts (CTS), where, in most cases, only one molecular orbital (MO) contributes to their electronic properties\u00a0[@Seo_2004CR; @Review_2006JPSJ]. In fact, the involvement of different MO is a consequence of the molecular design\u00a0[@Kobayashi_2001JMC] for realizing SCMC: to make the energy difference between the frontier MO small enough, so that their energy bands can overlap when inter-molecular transfer integrals become sufficiently large. Metal complex molecules of the form $M$($L$)$_2$ ($M$ = metal, $L$ = ligand) are suitable for this purpose. Their frontier MO are approximately bonding and antibonding combinations of the $p\\pi$ wave functions from the two ligands. Large ligands lead to an effectively small transfer integral between them and result in a small energy difference. Such a situation indicates a two-MO system, which is also realized in some CTS as notably discussed in $M$(dmit)$_2$-based compounds.\u00a0[@Canadell_1989JP; @RKato_2004CR] The first SCMC in which metallic conductivity was reported\u00a0[@Tanaka_2001Science] is \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\] (tmdt = trimethylene-tetrathiafulvalene-dithiolate),\u00a0[@noteSqBr] whose resistivity decreases by cooling down to lowest temperatures ($T$). Direct evidence of its metallic feature was given by the observation of three-dimensional Fermi surfaces by de Haas-van Alphen oscillations\u00a0[@Tanaka_2004JACS], whose results are consistent with first-principles band calculations\u00a0[@Tanaka_2004JACS; @Rovira_2002PRB]. Near the Fermi energy $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$, there exist two overlapping bands from different $p\\pi$-type MO and $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$ crosses the overlapping area. Electron and hole pockets appear, owing to the existence of an even number of electrons in the unit cell consisting of one Ni(tmdt)$_2$ molecule. This is the success of the molecular design mentioned above. It shows Pauli paramagnetic susceptibility,\u00a0[@Tanaka_2001Science] while isotropic magnetoresistance suggesting the spin effect is observed\u00a0[@Yasuzuka_2008JPSJ] whose origin remains unclear.\n\nSince the discovery of \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\], many related compounds have been synthesized. Among them, an isostructural analog but with an odd number of electrons per unit cell, \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]\u00a0[@Suzuki_2003JACS], has been attracting interest. It shows an antiferromagnetic (AF) phase transition with a transition temperature \u00a0$=110$\u00a0K\u00a0[@Zhou_2006JACS; @Hara_2008JPSJ], which is exceptionally high among molecular conductors. An intriguing point is that in the resistivity, showing a metallic $T$-dependence down to low $T$ as well, no anomaly at around \u00a0is found\u00a0[@Tanaka_2007CL]. Furthermore, the analysis of an NMR measurement\u00a0[@Hara_2008JPSJ] suggests the magnetic moment in this AF state to be rather large, i.e., on the order of 1\u00a0$\\mu_{\\rm B}$. These features are distinct from the formation of a spin-density-wave state due to the nesting of Fermi surface, as frequently observed in CTS, where anomalies in transport properties appear and typical values of the magnetic moment are one order of magnitude smaller, or even less\u00a0[@Review_2006JPSJ]. Such a magnetic solution attributed to the $p\\pi$ bands is actually stabilized in first-principles calculations\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ] as well as in a mean-field (MF) study of an effective Hubbard model\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ], which faces difficulties in explaining these experimental facts.\n\nRecently, another isostructural member \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\], having an odd number of electrons per unit cell, has been successfully synthesized\u00a0[@Zhou_2010IC]. It shows a semiconductive behavior in contrast to the two compounds above, and exhibits an AF phase transition at \u00a0$=13$\u00a0K, much lower than in \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]\u00a0[@Zhou_2010IC; @Takagi_2012PRB]. The $T$ dependence of magnetic susceptibility above \u00a0is ascribed to the behavior of the one-dimensional (1D) spin-$1/2$ Heisenberg model with AF exchange coupling of about 150\u00a0meV\u00a0[@Zhou_2010IC], which is consistent with the $^1$H-NMR nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate ($T_1^{-1}$) indicating 1D spin dynamics\u00a0[@Takagi_2012PRB]. In this compound, in contrast with the discussions above, a $pd\\sigma$-type MO centered at the metal site is suggested to lie close to the two ligands $p\\pi$ orbitals, and mix substantially. The charge transfer from the $p\\pi$-MO results in a nearly half-filled $pd\\sigma$-band\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. Then, the magnetic properties of \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] are attributed to localized spins appearing on the $pd\\sigma$-MO\u00a0[@Zhou_2010IC; @Takagi_2012PRB].\n\nIn fact, the possibility that more than the two $p\\pi$-MO are involved in the electronic states of SCMC was first proposed for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] on the basis of first-principles band calculations\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ]: The $pd\\sigma$- and $p\\pi$-MO mix slightly when forming the electronic band structure, whereas the latter plays the major role near $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$. However, more recently, it has been inferred from experiments that the orbital energy difference between these MO is modified upon cooling by an unusual structural variation, enhancing the mixing\u00a0[@Zhou_2009IC].\n\nSuch multi-MO characters in SCMC can be captured by the effective model approach based on tight-binding approximation, which has been successful in describing the electronic properties of CTS and is now widely used\u00a0[@Seo_2004CR; @Review_2006JPSJ; @Seo_2006JPSJ]. The observed de Haas-van Alphen oscillations in \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\] are consistent with the tight-binding picture\u00a0[@Tanaka_2004JACS]. In ref.\u00a0, we proposed that the basis sets for the effective models of \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\] and \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] can be taken as virtual orbitals whose wave functions are parts of the relevant MO near $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$, rather than the MO themselves. In this paper, we extend our theoretical approach to the newly synthesized \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] and seek for a systematic view of the electronic states among the isostructural family of \\[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\\] ($M$ = Ni, Au, and Cu).\n\nIn \u00a7\u00a0\\[sec2\\], we set up our effective multiorbital Hubbard model and derive tight-binding parameters by fitting the results of first-principles band calculations. By considering a common set of basis functions for the three materials, a systematic view of the electronic states is achieved. Essentially, the transfer integrals providing the structures of each band are similar among the members, and orbital mixing is mostly governed by the energy difference between the $p\\pi$- and $pd\\sigma$-type orbitals.\n\nThen, in \u00a7\u00a0\\[sec3\\], by treating the on-site Coulomb interactions within MF approximation, we investigate the ground-state properties of models for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] and \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\]. We will see that orbital mixing brings about phase diagrams showing different magnetic states when Coulomb interactions on the two types of orbitals are independently varied. In particular, a slight enhancement of mixing in \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] suggested by experiments\u00a0[@Zhou_2009IC] results in marked changes from our previous results\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ]: The involvement of the $pd\\sigma$ orbital is suggested.\n\nSection\u00a0\\[sec4\\] is devoted to discussions, especially on the magnetic transitions observed in the two compounds. Our results are consistent with the picture that, in \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\], the $pd\\sigma$-MO carries 1D $S$\u00a0= 1/2 localized spins, interpreted as a multiband Mott insulator. We discuss possible situations realized in \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\], from the viewpoint of doped Mott insulating systems due to orbital mixing. A summary is given in \u00a7\u00a0\\[sec5\\].\n\nEffective Model {#sec2}\n===============\n\nThe wave functions that we chose as basis sets for the effective model of SCMC in our previous work\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ] are localized on some portions of the molecules. They can be considered as fragments of the MO, and then called the fragment MO (fMO) in refs.\u00a0, which we follow in this paper as well.\n\nThe original motivation to consider such decomposition of MO was the results of first-principles calculations\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ]. The spin-dependent calculation for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] indicates a stable AF pattern where spins align oppositely within each molecule. To understand this unusual situation, it was speculated that a ligand $p\\pi$-$p\\pi$ transfer integral is larger between adjacent molecules than that within a molecule, which is supported by the results of an analysis based on the fMO approach\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ]. These features are consistent with the molecular design\u00a0[@Kobayashi_2001JMC] mentioned in \u00a7\u00a0\\[sec1\\] and imply that the fMO approach gives an insightful picture of the electronic states of SCMC. Such discussions have recently been elaborated within quantum chemistry calculations\u00a0[@Bonnet_2010JCP; @Tsuchiizu_2011JPSJ; @Tsuchiizu_2012JCP], for (TTM-TTP)I$_3$ and \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]. It is shown that the two approaches, the use of the MO and fMO pictures, can be transformed from one to the other. We note that the fMO approach here and the so-called fragment molecular orbital method applied to huge molecules\u00a0[@Kitaura_1999CPL; @Tsuneyuki_2009CPL] share common concepts.\n\nIn the following, all first-principles calculations, including those for MO of isolated molecules, are performed using the computational code QMAS (Quantum MAterials Simulator)\u00a0[@QMAS] based on the projector augmented-wave method\u00a0[@PAW] with the generalized gradient approximation\u00a0[@GGA]. See refs.\u00a0 and for details.\n\n![(Color online) Molecular orbitals for $M$(tmdt)$_2$ ($M$ = Ni, Au, and Cu) molecules, from which the energy bands in their crystals near the Fermi energy are formed\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. Nonmagnetic wave functions and energy eigenvalues together with the electron occupation for isolated molecules are shown. The rough spatial extensions of the M$\\sigma$, L, and M$\\pi$ orbitals explained in the text are indicated. []{data-label=\"fig1\"}](fig1.eps){width=\"8.4truecm\"}\n\nMolecular orbitals and fragment model {#subsec2-1}\n-------------------------------------\n\nThe band structures of isostructural SCMC near $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$ are composed of several MO with similar characters upon chemical modifications\u00a0[@Kobayashi_2004CR; @Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ]; this applies to the family of \\[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\\] including the new member $M$\u00a0=\u00a0Cu\u00a0[@Zhou_2010IC; @Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. Four MO which mostly contribute to the electronic bands near $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$ are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\].\n\nThey can be approximately reconstructed using three kinds of fMO, which we call here M$\\sigma$, L, and M$\\pi$. The M$\\sigma$ and M$\\pi$ orbitals are the $p$-$d$ mixed wave functions, roughly being an anti-bonding combination of the metal site $d_{xy}$ and $d_{xz}$ orbitals, and the surrounding S $2p$ orbitals, respectively\u00a0[@noteMnotation]. The relevant atomic $d$ orbitals are 3$d$ for $M$ = Ni and Cu, and 5$d$ for $M$ = Au. The L orbital is the $p\\pi$ orbital which is similar to the HOMO of the TTF molecule embedded in the ligands (see ref.\u00a0). There are two of them in one molecule, i.e., L1 and L2, one for each ligand; they are equivalent due to the inversion center at the metal site.\n\nIn isolated molecules, the M$\\sigma$ orbital does not mix with other orbitals from their symmetry; thus, it is a MO itself, i.e., the $pd\\sigma$-MO mentioned in \u00a7\u00a0\\[sec1\\]. As can be seen in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\], the other three MO can roughly be described as linear combinations of L and M$\\pi$ orbitals\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ] as $\\phi_{\\rm L1}-\\phi_{\\rm L2}+c_1\\phi_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}$, $\\phi_{\\rm L1}+\\phi_{\\rm L2}$, and $\\phi_{\\rm L1}-\\phi_{\\rm L2}-c_2\\phi_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}$, where $c_1$ and $c_2$ are some coefficients\u00a0[@Bonnet_2010JCP] (we omit renormalization factors).\n\nIn the fMO scheme, we consider these three kinds of orbitals as a basis set composing the band structures, and then for the low-energy effective model. The two-MO case mentioned in \u00a7\u00a01 corresponds to the situation where only the L orbitals are considered. In ref.\u00a0, we chose {L, M$\\pi$} for \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\] and {M$\\sigma$, L} for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] to reproduce the first-principles band structures near $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$. Here, all {M$\\sigma$, L, M$\\pi$} are taken into account as a common set, in order to provide a systematic view of the compounds. Our model Hamiltonian including local Coulomb interactions reads:$$\\begin{aligned}\n&{\\cal H} = {\\cal H}_0 + {\\cal H}_{\\rm int},\\label{eq:H}\\\\\n&{\\cal H}_0 =\\sum_{\\langle l,m \\rangle} \\sum_s t_{lm} \\left( c^\\dagger_{ls} c_{ms}^{} + \\mathrm{h.c.} \\right) \\nonumber\\\\\n &\\hspace{3em} \n+ \\sum_{i} \\left( \\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} \\ n_i^{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} \n + \\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\pi} \\ n_i^{\\textrm{M}\\pi} \\right),\\label{eq:H0}\\\\\n&{\\cal H}_{\\rm int} = \\sum_{i} \\left\\{ U_{\\textrm{L}} \n    \\left( n_{i\\uparrow}^\\textrm{L1} n_{i\\downarrow}^\\textrm{L1} +n_{i\\uparrow}^\\textrm{L2} n_{i\\downarrow}^\\textrm{L2} \\right) \\right.   + U_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} \\ n_{i\\uparrow}^{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} n_{i\\downarrow}^{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} \\nonumber\\\\\n &\\hspace{3em} \n+  U_{\\textrm{M}\\pi} \\ n_{i\\uparrow}^{\\textrm{M}\\pi} n_{i\\downarrow}^{\\textrm{M}\\pi}   + \\left. U'_\\textrm{M} \\ n_i^{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} n_i^{\\textrm{M}\\pi} \\right\\},\\label{eq:Hint}\n$$ where ${\\cal H}_0$ and ${\\cal H}_{\\rm int}$ represent the one-particle part, determining the band structure, and the on-site interaction, respectively. In the first term of eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:H0\\]), $t_{lm}$ denotes the transfer integrals between fMO, where the sum is taken for inter-fMO pairs $\\langle l,m \\rangle$ including intra- and inter-molecular ones, and $c_{ls}$ ($c^\\dagger_{ls}$) denotes the annihilation (creation) operator for all kinds of orbitals with fMO site index $l$ and spin $s=\\uparrow$ or $\\downarrow$. In the second term of eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:H0\\]), $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}$ and $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}$ are the orbital energies of the M$\\sigma$ and M$\\pi$ orbitals, with respect to the L level. The sum here, as well as in eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:Hint\\]), is taken for the molecule index $i$, where the number operators are $n_{is}^\\textrm{o}={c^{\\textrm{o}}_{is}}^\\dagger c^{\\textrm{o}}_{is}$ and $n_{i}^\\textrm{o}= n_{i\\uparrow}^\\textrm{o}+n_{i\\downarrow}^\\textrm{o}$ with an orbital index $\\textrm{o}=$ M$\\sigma$, L1, L2, or M$\\pi$. The intraorbital on-site Coulomb interactions for the three kinds of fMO are denoted as $U_{\\textrm{L}}$, $U_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}$, and $U_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}$. As for the interorbital on-site interaction, we only include $U'_\\textrm{M}$ between M$\\sigma$ and M$\\pi$ for simplicity, considering that these two orbitals share the spatial extent while they are separated from the L orbitals\u00a0[@noteHund].\n\n![image](fig2a.eps){width=\"7.5cm\"} ![image](fig2b.eps){width=\"7.5cm\"}\\\n![image](fig2c.eps){width=\"7.5cm\"} ![image](fig2d.eps){width=\"7.5cm\"}\n\n\\[fig2\\]\n\n               bond                        site pair            \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\]   \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]   \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] (9\u00a0K)   \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\]\n  ------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------------ ------------------\n            intra-mol.                       L1-L2                  -61 meV            -24 meV               -27 meV               -35 meV\n                 A                        L1-L1, L2-L2            [**-86**]{}        [**-99**]{}           [**-98**]{}           [**-90**]{}\n                 B                           L1-L2                [**221**]{}        [**207**]{}           [**222**]{}           [**250**]{}\n                 Q                           L1-L2                [**131**]{}        [**109**]{}           [**129**]{}           [**134**]{}\n                 P                           L1-L2                     33                 41                    46                    37\n                 A                 L1-M$\\sigma$, M$\\sigma$-L2          37                 33                    41                    14\n                 B                 L1-M$\\sigma$, M$\\sigma$-L2          27                 27                    33                    29\n                 C                 L1-M$\\sigma$, M$\\sigma$-L2         -50                -25                   -29                   -24\n                 R                 L1-M$\\sigma$, M$\\sigma$-L2          21                 22                    27                    14\n            intra-mol.                L1-M$\\pi$, M$\\pi$-L2        [**-200**]{}       [**-138**]{}          [**-127**]{}          [**-188**]{}\n                 B                    L1-M$\\pi$, M$\\pi$-L2             0                  30                    35                    20\n                 C                    L1-M$\\pi$, M$\\pi$-L2            -22                 -5                   -22                    -7\n                 Q                    L1-M$\\pi$, M$\\pi$-L2             5                  15                    14                    11\n                 A                    M$\\sigma$-M$\\sigma$          [**82**]{}         [**95**]{}            [**98**]{}            [**96**]{}\n                 A                       M$\\pi$-M$\\pi$                -13                -23                   -30                   -19\n                 B                       M$\\pi$-M$\\pi$                 24                 37                    44                    50\n                 A                      M$\\pi$-M$\\sigma$               53                -34                   -14                    -1\n                 \u00a0                                                                                                            \n         orbital energies                                                                                                     \n   $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$                                    879 meV            522 meV               476 meV               181 meV\n    $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}^0$                                        -193               -612                  -636                  -377\n                 \u00a0                                                                                                            \n        orbital occupancies                                                                                                   \n   $\\bar{n}_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}$                                       0.02               0.03                  0.09                  0.86\n      $\\bar{n}_{\\textrm{L}}$                                          1.16               1.50                  1.47                  1.15\n     $\\bar{n}_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}$                                        1.66               1.97                  1.97                  1.85\n\n\\[table1\\]\n\nFitting to first-principles band calculations {#subsec2-2}\n---------------------------------------------\n\nThe tight-binding parameters are obtained by a numerical fitting to first-principles band structures for the nonmagnetic state. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig2\\], we show the bands near $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$, together with the fitted tight-binding dispersions. The four bands originate from the four MO, or equivalently, the four fMO; The unit cell consists of one molecule. As for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\], calculations were performed for both room-$T$ and low-$T$ (9\u00a0K) structures determined experimentally, due to the indication of a structural variation upon cooling\u00a0[@Zhou_2009IC], as noted above. In the calculations for \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\] and \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\], the room-$T$ structure parameters are used.\n\nOne can see that the top band in \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\] and the bottom band in \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] are separated from the others. This is the reason we previously used three-band fits (two kinds of fMO)\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ]. On the other hand, in \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\], all four bands are overlapping, requiring a four-band fit for a reasonable agreement with the first-principles band structure. Note that the total band widths of the four bands are about 1.7\u00a0eV ($M=$\u00a0Ni) $>$ 1.6\u00a0eV (Au) $>$ 1.3\u00a0eV (Cu).\n\nThe fitted tight-binding parameters together with the orbital occupancies per site calculated from ${\\cal H}_0$, i.e., $\\langle n_i^{\\textrm{o}} \\rangle \\equiv\n \\bar{n}_{\\textrm{o}}$ ($\\textrm{o}=$ M$\\sigma$, L, M$\\pi$), are listed in Table\u00a0\\[table1\\]. The listed orbital energies, $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$, and $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}^0$, are obtained by fitting the energy dispersions of ${\\cal H}_0$. By noting that the first-principles band structures are obtained self-consistently including the Hartree contributions within the interactions, we can make a correspondence between the fitted values and the orbital energies in eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:H\\]) as\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ; @Tsuchiizu_2012JCP; @Misawa_2011JPSJ] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0 &=\n \\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} \n +U_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} \\bar{n}_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}/2 \n +U'_{\\textrm{M}} \\bar{n}_{\\textrm{M}\\pi} \n -U_{\\textrm{L}} \\bar{n}_{\\textrm{L}}/2,\\label{eq:orbene1}\\\\ \n\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}^0 &=\n \\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\pi} \n +U_{\\textrm{M}\\pi} \\bar{n}_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}/2 \n +U'_{\\textrm{M}} \\bar{n}_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} \n -U_{\\textrm{L}} \\bar{n}_{\\textrm{L}}/2.\\label{eq:orbene2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe transfer integrals $t_{lm}$ show more or less similar values for all three members\u00a0[@noteTransvalue], which is due to the fact that they are isostructural, as noted in our previous work\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ]. The M$\\sigma$ orbitals have a large $t_{lm}$ only for the A bonds along the \\[100\\] direction: they show a 1D structure. The L orbitals, on the other hand, possess a two-dimensional network, where the [*inter*]{}-molecular dimers are formed by B bonds. Their network is schematically shown in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig3\\](b) and (c); in the unit cell, the two L sites from different molecules form L1-L2 dimers. The degree of dimerization, represented by the intradimer transfer integral, namely, that along the L1-L2 B bond, is largest in \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\]. This dimerized structure resembles the situation commonly seen in typical CTS, e.g., in TM$_2X$ and polytypes of ET$_2X$ such as the $\\kappa$ and $\\beta$-types\u00a0[@Review_2006JPSJ; @Seo_2004CR]. M$\\pi$ orbitals, in contrast, do not have large $t_{lm}$ between them, but bridge L layers mainly along the intramolecular bonds. They are appreciable (0.1\u00a0-\u00a00.2\u00a0eV) and then these two orbitals mix with each other. The main differences between the three compounds are in orbital energy, which we will discuss in the next subsection.\n\n![(Color online) \\[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\\] viewed along the molecular long axis (a) and schematic views of fMO model with lattice sites represented as circles \\[(b) and (c)\\]. The unit cell containing one molecule with four orbitals is shown as gray lines, and notations for intermolecular bonds are indicated whose correspondences are A \\[100\\], B \\[111\\], C \\[101\\], P \\[211\\], Q \\[001\\], and R \\[011\\]. The two-dimensional network of L sites is shown in (b), perpendicular to the plane, and in (c); the sites connected by the largest transfer integral along the B bonds form dimers. See also Fig.\u00a01 of ref.\u00a0.[]{data-label=\"fig3\"}](fig3.eps){width=\"6cm\"}\n\nSystematic view of electronic structures {#subsec2-3}\n----------------------------------------\n\nThe orbital energies $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ and $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}^0$ together with the transfer integrals determining the band structures, and the electron numbers, 4 ($M$\u00a0=\u00a0Ni) or 5 ($M$\u00a0=\u00a0Au, Cu) in the four orbitals, lead us to a systematic view of this family, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig4\\].\n\nThe M$\\pi$ level is low in energy but mixes with the L bands particularly in \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\] and \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\]; $\\bar{n}_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}$ deviates from 2, as seen in Table\u00a0\\[table1\\]. However, as far as the main characteristics of the electronic states near $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$ are concerned, the M$\\pi$ orbital does not play an important role. Then, $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ is the essential difference among the three members, controlling the orbital mixing between the M$\\sigma$ and L orbitals. It becomes monotonically small as $M$ = Ni $\\rightarrow$ Au\u00a0(room-$T$) $\\rightarrow$ Au\u00a0(low-$T$) $\\rightarrow$ Cu. This gives rise to a crucial difference in the magnetic states of the Au and Cu systems, as will be shown in \u00a7\u00a03.\n\nThe M$\\sigma$ level in \\[Ni(tmdt)$_2$\\] is high, and approximately 2 electrons enters the L level. The existence of two L sites in the unit cell, which show dimerization as discussed in the previous subsection, results in band splitting, but not large enough to generate a direct band gap. Then electron and hole pockets appear and compose the Fermi surface. This is how the first SCMC with a metallic character was realized.\n\nComparing the room-$T$ and low-$T$ structure parameters for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\], the low-$T$ data show slightly larger transfer integrals than the room-$T$ data especially in L-L pairs; this is naturally expected from the thermal contraction. $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ is reduced by lowering $T$ by about 0.05\u00a0eV, which is consistent with the previous MO calculation\u00a0[@Zhou_2009IC]. As a result, a fraction of electrons in the L sites, nearly 3/4-filled in the room-$T$ parameters, are transfered to the M$\\sigma$ orbital in the low-$T$ parameters: {$\\bar{n}_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}$, $\\bar{n}_{\\textrm{L}}$} = {0.03, 1.5} (room-$T$) $\\rightarrow$ {0.09, 1.47} (low-$T$).\n\nAs for \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\], M$\\sigma$ mixes more with L due to the further reduction in $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$, by about 0.30 eV smaller than the low-$T$ parameter for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]. In particular, near $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$, the contribution of M$\\sigma$ is appreciable\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2012Crystals], even though the orbital level scheme shows a positive $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$. This is because L orbitals have larger $t_{lm}$ with a two-dimensional character, while the M$\\sigma$ band is 1D; therefore, the former show wider bands. The orbital occupancies are {$\\bar{n}_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}$, $\\bar{n}_{\\textrm{L}}$} = {0.86, 1.15}, which are substantially varied from the cases above. These features are close to the situation in the MO scheme in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig1\\]: In Cu(tmdt)$_2$, the M$\\sigma$ ($pd\\sigma$) orbital is occupied with nearly one electron.\n\n![image](fig4_rev2.eps){width=\"14cm\"}\n\n\\[fig4\\]\n\nLet us comment on the relation between our level scheme and the nominal charges given as Ni$^{2+}$\\[(tmdt)$^-$\\]$_2$, Au$^{3+}$\\[(tmdt)$^{1.5-}$\\]$_2$, and Cu$^{2+}$\\[(tmdt)$^-$\\]$_2$. Their corresponding occupations of metal $d$ levels are Ni:(3$d$)$^8$, Au:(5$d$)$^8$, and Cu:(3$d$)$^9$, respectively. When one hypothesizes that the M$\\sigma$ and M$\\pi$ levels are \u2018$d$\u2019 levels of the metal atoms and the L orbitals for the full charge of the ligands (namely, omit $p$-$d$ mixing, which is actually large), these nominal charges correspond to, (M$\\pi$)$^2$\\[(L)$^1$\\]$_2$, (M$\\pi$)$^2$\\[(L)$^{1.5}$\\]$_2$, and (M$\\pi$)$^2$(M$\\sigma$)$^1$\\[(L)$^1$\\]$_2$, respectively, namely, a full-filled M$\\pi$ in all compounds, and, (i) in $M$\u00a0=\u00a0Ni, a 1/2-filled L band, (ii) in $M$\u00a0=\u00a0Au, a 3/4-filled L band, and (iii) in $M$\u00a0=\u00a0Cu, a 1/2-filled M$\\sigma$ band and a 1/2-filled L band. These are close to the situations in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig4\\].\n\nMean-Field Calculation {#sec3}\n======================\n\nAs mentioned in \u00a7\u00a0\\[sec1\\], \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] and \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] show phase transitions to magnetically ordered states. Here, we study their ground-state ($T$ = 0) magnetic states where the interaction terms in ${\\cal H}_{\\rm int}$ \\[eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:Hint\\])\\] are treated by MF approximation as $n_{is}^\\textrm{o} n_{is'}^\\textrm{o'} \\rightarrow \n \\langle n_{is}^\\textrm{o} \\rangle n_{is'}^\\textrm{o'} \n + n_{is}^\\textrm{o} \\langle n_{is'}^\\textrm{o'} \\rangle\n - \\langle n_{is}^\\textrm{o} \\rangle \\langle n_{is'}^\\textrm{o'}\\rangle$. Such a MF treatment is suitable in seeking for possible different states, as in our model here with multiple degrees of freedom. In the calculations, we consider a supercell of $2a \\times 2b \\times 2c$, which includes {M$\\sigma$, L (L1 and L2), M$\\pi$} $\\times$\u00a08 orbitals \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig5\\](a)\\].\n\n![(Color) Schematic views of (a) unit cell containing four orbitals with the red bar indicating the inter-molecular B bond in Fig. 3, and (b) and (c) representative antiferromagnetic (AF) solutions projected on the $ab$ plane \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\](c)\\]. (b) L-AF: spin moments appear only on L sites \\[dimer-AF pattern with spin ordering vector $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{L}]=(\\pi,0,0)$\\] seen for parameters of \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Seo_2008JPSJ]. (c) L&M$\\sigma$-AF: spins align in staggered AF manner among L and M$\\sigma$ sites for \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] with common ordering vector $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{L}]=q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{M}\\sigma]=(\\pi,\\pi,0)$. In (d), schematic representations of electron occupancies realized in parameters for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] and \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] are shown, respectively. \u2018[*b*]{}.\u2019 and \u2018[*a*]{}. [*b*]{}.\u2019 represent the bonding and antibonding orbitals for an L dimer, respectively. ](fig5.eps){width=\"7.2cm\"}\n\n\\[fig5\\]\n\nWe set the values of $t_{lm}$ to the fitted results in Table\u00a0\\[table1\\], while $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}$ and $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}$ are adjusted by the conditions in eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:orbene1\\]) and (\\[eq:orbene2\\]) when the interaction parameters are varied. Then the band dispersions are unchanged within the paramagnetic metallic (PM) solution. Namely, the orbital occupations in the PM state, $\\langle n_{i\\uparrow}^\\textrm{o} \\rangle = \\langle n_{i\\downarrow}^\\textrm{o} \\rangle =\n \\langle n_i^\\textrm{o} \\rangle/2$, are fixed at the values listed in Table\u00a0\\[table1\\] as $ \\langle n_i^\\textrm{o} \\rangle= \\bar{n}_{\\textrm{o}}$. As for the magnetic solutions, we relax the condition of fixed occupation and searched for self-consistent solutions of the lowest energy in an unrestricted manner within the periodicity of the supercell.\n\nIn the following, we set $U_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} = U_{\\textrm{M}\\pi} = U'_{\\textrm{M}} \\equiv U_{\\textrm{M}}$ for simplicity\u00a0[@noteUparam] and vary $U_{\\textrm{M}}$ and $U_{\\textrm{L}}$ independently. In the whole parameter range we sought, the M$\\pi$ orbital has a negligible spin moment, i.e., it is magnetically inactive. Then the parameters $U_{\\textrm{M}}$ and $U_{\\textrm{L}}$ control the correlation effect on the M$\\sigma$ and L orbitals, respectively. One speculation we can make is the relation $U_{\\textrm{M}} \\gsim U_{\\textrm{L}}$, considering the $d$ contribution to the M$\\sigma$ orbital as well as its smaller spatial extent than the L orbital.\n\nBefore presenting the results, we remark about two typical AF solutions. The first is stabilized in the case of \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] when $U_{\\textrm{L}}$ is increased, whose nature was discussed in refs.\u00a0 and . As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig5\\](b), spin moments appear only on L sites; therefore, this state is represented as L-AF. The spins are parallel within L1-L2 dimers connected by B bonds \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\](c)\\] and antiparallel between dimers along interdimer bonds denoted as A, P, and Q in Fig.\u00a03(a). Their ordering vector is $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{L}]=(\\pi,0,0)$. This pattern corresponds to the dimer-AF spin order frequently appearing in 1/4-filled CTS under dimerization\u00a0[@Seo_2004CR]. When the on-site Coulomb repulsion is sufficiently large, their staggered pattern can open a gap at $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$ when the system is 1/4-filled in terms of either electrons or holes, with each dimer carrying an effective $S=$\u00a01/2. Such a case is considered as the dimer-Mott insulating state. In the case of the room-$T$ parameters for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\], L bands are 3/4-filled, without pronounced mixing with other orbitals. Dimers are formed by intermolecular fMO sites, and spins on two L sites in a molecule become antiparallel\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ]. The results of the first-principles calculation\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ] correspond to the case of relatively small $U_\\textrm{L}$ , and the system remains metallic even in the L-AF state.\n\nOn the other hand, in the case of \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\], a stable AF pattern shows spin moments on both L and M$\\sigma$ sites when both $U_{\\textrm{M}}$ and $U_{\\textrm{L}}$ are large enough; it is then denoted as L&M$\\sigma$-AF. As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig5\\](c), spins on L sites show a staggered AF state, in which those connected with A, B, and Q (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]) bonds are antiparallel; the $t_{lm}$ values are large along these L-L bonds, as shown in Table\u00a0\\[table1\\]. Spins on M$\\sigma$ sites are also staggered, with the common spin ordering vector $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{L}]=q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{M}\\sigma]=(\\pi,\\pi,0)$. This can open an insulating gap when both L and M$\\sigma$ bands becomes nearly 1/2-filled; both orbitals provide effective $S=$\u00a01/2, and the AF pattern corresponds to the N[' e]{}el state configuration. Now, this can be considered as a multiband Mott insulator, due to the quasi-degeneracy of the two orbitals.\n\nThe two contrasting situations for large interactions are summarized in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig5\\](d), where schematic representations of electron occupancies in the two cases are shown. In the case of \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\], localized spins appear on the antibonding orbital of dimerized L sites. In contrast, in the case of \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] spins appear on each of the L sites as well as of the M$\\sigma$ sites as a result of orbital mixing.\n\n![(Color) Mean field ground-state phase diagrams for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]. The parameters used are fitted results for (a) room-temperature ($T$) structure, (b) low-$T$ structure, and (c) room-$T$ structure but with reduced $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0 \\rightarrow \\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0 - 0.1$\u00a0eV. Dashed lines are guides for the eyes. The legend symbols are shown in (d); colors are appointed for distinctions between orbitals showing spin moments as red (L), green (M$\\sigma$), and blue (both L and M$\\sigma$), while filled symbols represent insulating states. []{data-label=\"fig6\"}](fig6a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"5.8cm\"}\\\n![(Color) Mean field ground-state phase diagrams for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]. The parameters used are fitted results for (a) room-temperature ($T$) structure, (b) low-$T$ structure, and (c) room-$T$ structure but with reduced $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0 \\rightarrow \\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0 - 0.1$\u00a0eV. Dashed lines are guides for the eyes. The legend symbols are shown in (d); colors are appointed for distinctions between orbitals showing spin moments as red (L), green (M$\\sigma$), and blue (both L and M$\\sigma$), while filled symbols represent insulating states. []{data-label=\"fig6\"}](fig6b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"5cm\"}\n\n![(Color) Parameter dependences of expectation values of electron density, $\\langle n_i \\rangle$, and spin density, $|\\langle n_{i\\uparrow} \\rangle - \\langle n_{i\\downarrow} \\rangle|$, for each orbital site in lowest-energy MF solutions for Au(tmdt)$_2$. (a)-(c) correspond to the cases in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](a)-6(c), respectively. The left (right) panels in (b) and (c) are for a fixed ratio of $U_{\\textrm{M}}=U_{\\textrm{L}}$ ($U_{\\textrm{M}}=2U_{\\textrm{L}}$). $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{M}\\sigma]$ denotes the magnetic ordering vector for M$\\sigma$ sites that changes at the parameters indicated by the broken lines. ($q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{L}]$ is always $(\\pi,0,0)$, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](d).) ](fig7.eps){width=\"8.4cm\"}\n\n\\[fig7\\]\n\n\\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] {#subsec31}\n----------------\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig6\\], we show ground-state phase diagrams for three different parameter sets corresponding to \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]. Figures\u00a0\\[fig6\\](a) and \\[fig6\\](b) are those with fitted results for the room-$T$ and low-$T$ structures, respectively, in Table\u00a0\\[table1\\]. Besides them, to see the effect of the reduction in $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ more explicitly, we artificially decrease it from its room-$T$ value as $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0 \\rightarrow \\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0-0.1$\u00a0eV, while leaving the other room-$T$ parameters unchanged: This is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](c). The distinct states are indicated in the phase diagrams by different symbols summarized in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](d), together with their magnetic ordering vectors. As can be seen there, the AF order on the L sites always has the pattern shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig5\\](b) with $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{L}]=(\\pi,0,0)$. By the reduction in $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$, we indeed find a crucial difference: The dimer-type AF insulating (AFI) state within the L orbital discussed above \\[filled symbol in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](a)\\] stabilized in the wide range of parameters in the room-$T$ case is not seen, and different AF metallic (AFM) states appear in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](b) and \\[fig6\\](c), owing to the mixing between the L and M$\\sigma$ orbitals.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig7\\], we show the $U_{\\textrm{L}}$ dependence of site occupation number for the three kinds of orbitals together with the spin moments on the L and M$\\sigma$ orbitals. Figures\u00a0\\[fig7\\](a)-7(c) correspond to the cases in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](a)-6(c), respectively. The right and left panels in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig7\\](b) and 7(c) are data along different traces in the ($U_{\\textrm{M}}$, $U_{\\textrm{L}}$) plane, i.e., for $U_{\\textrm{M}}=U_{\\textrm{L}}$ and $U_{\\textrm{M}}=2U_{\\textrm{L}}$, respectively.\n\n### Room-temperature structure {#subsubsec311}\n\nThe phase diagram in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](a) shows no dependence on $U_{\\textrm{M}}$; this is because the M$\\sigma$ orbital is always nearly unoccupied, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig7\\](a). As $U_{\\textrm{L}}$ is increased, the system varies as PM $\\rightarrow$ AFM $\\rightarrow$ AFI states. Since only L sites possess magnetic moments, the magnetic phases are represented as L-AFM and L-AFI in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig7\\](a).\n\nThese results are almost identical to the results in ref.\u00a0, where the MF calculations were carried out for the three-band model based on {M$\\sigma$, L} and assuming $U_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}=U_{\\textrm{L}}$. This is consistent with the fact that the present results show an almost fully occupied M$\\pi$ orbital playing no role and having no dependence on $U_{\\textrm{M}}$. As discussed there, the properties are governed by L orbitals. Their occupation number of 1.5 together with the rather strong dimerization are consistent with the fact that our results are analogous to the MF calculations on two-dimensional 1/4-filled Hubbard models with dimerization, e.g., as firstly performed on the model of $\\kappa$-ET$_2X$[@Kino_1995JPSJ]. The existence of the AFM phase in between the AFI and PM phases is due to the imperfect nesting property of the Fermi surface, where small magnetic moments cannot produce a band splitting large enough to open up a gap on the whole Fermi surface. As long as the system is in the AFM phase, the spin moment on each site is less than 0.2\u00a0$\\mu_\\textrm{B}$; this is also the same as that in the three-band model.\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ].\n\n### Low-temperature structure and reduced $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ {#subsubsec312}\n\nThe phase diagrams in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](b) for the fitted results for the low-$T$ structure and in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](c) for the room-$T$ values but with reduced $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ share common features in their overall structure, but are very different from that in the room-$T$ case. Spin moments appear on M$\\sigma$ orbitals when $U_\\textrm{M}$ is enlarged, however insulating states are not stabilized, at least, for $(U_\\textrm{L},U_\\textrm{M}) \\leq 0.8$\u00a0eV; the whole phase diagrams show metallic states. The phase diagrams are devided into four regions: PM, L-AFM, magnetic metallic states with moments on M$\\sigma$ sites \\[either antiferromagnetic (M$\\sigma$-AFM) or ferromagnetic (M$\\sigma$-FM)\\], and those with moments on both orbitals \\[L&M$\\sigma$-AFM or L&M$\\sigma$-FM\\]. These are common for Figs.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](b) and 6(c); therefore, the main variation from the room-$T$ structure to the low-$T$ structure can be captured by the reduction in $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$. We note that the reduction in $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ when the room-$T$ and low-$T$ values are compared is about 0.05 eV, while other parameters only slightly change; the phase diagram shows a marked change.\n\nThe L-AFM phase stabilized in the large-$U_\\textrm{L}$, small-$U_\\textrm{M}$ region is the remnant of the L-AFI phase in the room-$T$ parameters. Its ordering vector is the same and the amplitude of magnetic moment is similar to that in the AFI phase in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](a). For example, in the left panel of Figs.\u00a0\\[fig7\\](b), it reaches 0.37$\\mu_\\textrm{B}$ per site at $U_\\textrm{M}=U_\\textrm{L}=0.8$\u00a0eV. Nevertheless, the system does not turn into an insulating phase, which is due to orbital mixing: The occupation numbers are $\\langle n_{i}^{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} \\rangle \\simeq 0.1$ and $\\langle n_{i}^\\textrm{L} \\rangle \\simeq 1.45$ for the low-$T$ parameters, and $\\langle n_{i}^{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} \\rangle \\simeq 0.2$ and $\\langle n_{i}^\\textrm{L} \\rangle \\simeq 1.4$ for the reduced-$\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ case, which are noticeably shifted from the case of the room-$T$ parameters. Then this L-AFM state in the large-$U_\\textrm{L}$ region can be considered as a \u2018doped dimer-Mott insulator\u2019 due to the mixing with the M$\\sigma$ orbital.\n\nOn the other hand, in the small-$U_\\textrm{L}$, large-$U_\\textrm{M}$ region, the M$\\sigma$-AFM or M$\\sigma$-FM state is stabilized. L sites remain paramagnetic and the system is naturally metallic. The magnitude of the moment appearing on M$\\sigma$ sites is limited by its occupation number, as shown in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig7\\](b) and 7(c), i.e., about 0.1-0.2$\\mu_\\textrm{B}$. It is difficult to discuss the origin of each spin ordering vector for M$\\sigma$ sites, $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{M}\\sigma]$, within our limited supercell size, since its small filling factor would typically favor a longer periodicity. In fact, it takes different values delicately depending on the parameters. However, we consider that the region where spin moments appear is reasonable. Comparing the phase diagrams in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](b) and (c), the latter has larger region of phases with moments on the M$\\sigma$ orbital, owing to the smaller $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ and therefore the larger occupation number in M$\\sigma$.\n\nEven when we enter the region when both $U_\\textrm{M}$ and $U_\\textrm{L}$ are large where spin ordering on M$\\sigma$ and L sites coexist, the system still remains metallic. Here, the spin moment on L sites can be large similarly to that in the case of the L-AFM phase. For example, in the left panel of Figs.\u00a0\\[fig7\\](c), it reaches 0.35-0.4$\\mu_\\textrm{B}$ per site at $U_\\textrm{M}=U_\\textrm{L}=0.8$\u00a0eV. In this sense, this is also the remnant of the L-AFI phase in the room-$T$ parameters, stabilized at similar interaction parameters. As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig7\\](c), when the spin moment on L sites increases, that on the M$\\sigma$ orbital decreases, owing to the mismatch of their ordering vectors. This is in contrast with the case of Cu(tmdt)$_2$, as we will see in the next subsection. We note that, in the case of the low-$T$ parameters, there is a wide region where the ordering vector is $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{M}\\sigma]=(0,0,0)$, namely, the ferromagnetic (M$\\sigma$-FM) or ferrimagnetic state when L sites also show spin moments (L&M$\\sigma$-FM) is stabilized. This can be ascribed to the large density of state at $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$, due to the lower edge of the 1D band from the M$\\sigma$ orbital\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ]. In the room-$T$ structure, this edge situates just above $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$, which becomes near it for the low-$T$ parameters. The states with $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{M}\\sigma]=(0,0,0)$ also appears in the reduced-$\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ case \\[see Figs.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](c) and \\[fig7\\](c)\\].\n\n\\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] {#subsec32}\n----------------\n\nThe MF ground-state phase diagram for \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig8\\], while the parameter dependences of orbital occupations and magnetic moments are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig9\\]. Although the M$\\pi$ orbital is off from the full occupation compared with those in the other cases (see Table\u00a0\\[table1\\]), we find no contribution of it to the magnetic properties; therefore, we can set them aside again. The occupation numbers of the other two orbitals are now rather close to 1, i.e., 1/2-filling. Then, as discussed above, an AF insulating state with both M$\\sigma$ and L showing magnetic ordering (L&M$\\sigma$-AFI) is seen to be stabilized in the region where both $U_\\textrm{L}$ and $U_\\textrm{M}$ are large. Its spin pattern is the staggered one as is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig5\\](c). As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig9\\](c), the spin moments on the L and M$\\sigma$ orbitals develop cooperatively as the interaction is enhanced.\n\n![(Color) (a) Mean field ground-state phase diagram for \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\]. The parameters used are the fitted results in Table\u00a0\\[table1\\]. Dotted lines are guides for the eyes. The legend symbols are shown in (b); colors are appointed for distinguishing between orbitals showing spin moments as red (L), green (M$\\sigma$), and blue (both L and M$\\sigma$), while filled symbols represent insulating states. ](fig8.eps){width=\"6cm\"}\n\n\\[fig8\\]\n\n![(Color) Parameter dependences of expectation values of electron density, $\\langle n_i \\rangle$, and spin density, $|\\langle n_{i\\uparrow} \\rangle - \\langle n_{i\\downarrow} \\rangle|$, for each orbital site in the MF solutions for \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\]. The left (right) panel is for fixed ratio of $U_{\\textrm{M}}=U_{\\textrm{L}}$ ($U_{\\textrm{M}}=2U_{\\textrm{L}}$). ](fig9.eps){width=\"8.6cm\"}\n\n\\[fig9\\]\n\nIn the large-$U_\\textrm{L}$, small-$U_\\textrm{M}$ region, on the other hand, the L-AFM state is stabilized, and vise versa, i.e., the M$\\sigma$-AFM state is realized for the small-$U_\\textrm{L}$, large-$U_\\textrm{M}$ region In these states, the spin ordering vector is the same as that in the L&M$\\sigma$-AFI phase \\[$q_\\textrm{mag}=(\\pi,\\pi,0)$\\]; these states are continuously connected. However, they cannot open an insulating gap since, although the AF ordering provides a band splitting at $\\epsilon_{\\rm F}$ in the magnetic orbital sector, the remaining orbital is paramagnetic with a Fermi surface. In other words, the spin ordering and band gap opening are orbital-selective. The critical value for the magnetic states is smaller for the M$\\sigma$-AFM, consistent with the fact that M$\\sigma$ sites have smaller transfer integrals with a 1D structure than the L sites. As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig9\\], the magnetic moment on each site can be large, owing to the large filling factor near 1. In fact, the calculations show a jump in the charge density on each site across the PM $\\leftrightarrow$ AFM boundary (first order phase transition), which results in the occupation number for M$\\sigma$ and L to be closer to 1 in the magnetic phases, that is, 0.99 for M$\\sigma$ and 1.08 for L, than in the PM phase.\n\nOne point to note is that, although the phase diagram is mostly dominated by the $q_\\textrm{mag}=(\\pi,\\pi,0)$ state, we find many self-consistent solutions with very close MF energies in the region where M$\\sigma$ orbitals are magnetic. In these quasi-degenerate states, spin ordering vectors are of the form $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{M}\\sigma]=(\\pi,*,*)$ with $*=0$ or $\\pi$, namely, only the 2$a$ periodicity is robust. This suggests that the spin exchange coupling between moments on M$\\sigma$ sites is essentially 1D, which is consistent with the fitted results in Table\u00a0\\[table1\\] where the A bond along \\[100\\] has the largest M$\\sigma$-M$\\sigma$ transfer integral. This is also consistent with the first-principles calculations that compare different magnetic orderings\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. On the other hand, the L orbital always orders with $q_\\textrm{mag}[\\textrm{L}]=(\\pi,\\pi,0)$: the two-dimensional AF is stable at the MF level.\n\nDiscussion {#sec4}\n==========\n\nIn this section, we compare our MF results with experiments on magnetic ordering in this family, keeping in mind that, in the calculations, quantum fluctuations are neglected; additional effects of such fluctuations as well as the possible strong correlation effect can be speculated on top of the MF results. Discussions on \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] is followed by that on \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\], since in the former we can have a consistent explanation of the experiments. As for the latter, we present several possible scenarios for the magnetic phase transition in this compound, in light of considerations of its Cu analog.\n\n\\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] {#cutmdt_2}\n----------------\n\nLet us give an explanation of the experimental results in \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] based on our calculations, in association with the discussions in the literature\u00a0[@Zhou_2010IC; @Takagi_2012PRB; @Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. The experiments show an insulating behavior in the resistivity, and the magnetic properties of a 1D Heisenberg spin $S=1/2$ system likely due to $pd\\sigma$-MO, namely, the M$\\sigma$ orbital.\n\nThe insulating state in our MF calculations is realized for the L&M$\\sigma$-AFI phase (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig8\\]) when both $U_\\textrm{L}$ and $U_\\textrm{M}$ are large. We can consider this state as a multiband Mott insulator where both L and M$\\sigma$ orbitals possess localized spins of effective $S=1/2$ each. In the MF calculation, this state is accompanied by a three-dimensional AF ordering. We can deduce the additional quantum effect as a spin singlet formation in the L network: the rather strong dimerization on B bonds can bring about a nonmagnetic ground state in the L subunit, as long as the other $t_{lm}$ values are small enough. Then the active spin degree of freedom arises only in the M$\\sigma$ sector. It has a 1D character as discussed above, and therefore consistent with the Mott insulating behavior with 1D $S=1/2$ chains. This situation is schematically shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig10\\](a).\n\nAnother scenario is that the system corresponds to the M$\\sigma$-AFM phase in our MF phase diagram in the small-$U_\\textrm{L}$ and large-$U_\\textrm{M}$ region (considering the relation $U_{\\textrm{M}} \\gsim U_{\\textrm{L}}$), while other effects beyond our calculation bring about the insulating behavior. In this MF solution, roughly speaking, the magnetic ordering brings about a gap at $\\epsilon_\\textrm{F}$ for the M$\\sigma$ band, but the L bands remains metallic. This corresponds to the state found in the first-principles band calculation\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2012Crystals]. One possibility is that, since, in this state, $\\epsilon_\\textrm{F}$ locates in the middle of L bands, where the band overlap is small, a small perturbation might bring about a band gap. This is now a band insulator due to the dimerization in the L sector. Then the spin degree of freedom is only from the M$\\sigma$ orbital, again considered as a Mott insulator, showing the same magnetic behavior as above. The largest degree of dimerization in L sites among the cases listed in Table\u00a0\\[table1\\] is consistent with both pictures.\n\n![(Color online) Schematic density of states (DOS) for possible situations for (a) \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] and (b) \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\]. The M$\\pi$ orbital is omitted. The band splittings compared with the situations in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig4\\] are due to the formation of Mott gaps, driven by $U_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}$ for M$\\sigma$ orbitals, while for L orbitals driven by (a) $U_\\textrm{L}$ and (b) the effective on-dimer Coulomb repulsion indicated by $U_\\textrm{L}^\\textrm{eff}$. Coherent peaks expected in such doped Mott insulating systems are omitted as well. ](fig10.eps){width=\"8.4cm\"}\n\n\\[fig10\\]\n\n\\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] {#autmdt_2}\n----------------\n\nThere have been puzzling experimental data for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\], as mentioned in \u00a7\u00a0\\[sec1\\]. Our MF results for the room-$T$ structure in \u00a7\u00a0\\[subsubsec311\\], which suggest that only L orbitals are magnetically active, lead to the same conclusion that we discussed previously\u00a0[@Ishibashi_2005JPSJ; @Ishibashi_2008JPSJ; @Seo_2008JPSJ], facing difficulties in explaining the experimental results. The main problems were as follows: (1) The AFM (spin-density-wave) state in the calculations shows a small magnetic moment, whereas when $U_{\\textrm{L}}$ is increased to achieve a large moment state the system enters the AFI phase, i.e., the dimer-Mott insulator. The experimentally observed metallic ground state with a large magnetic moment could not be reconciled. (2) Discussions only involving the L sector are incompatible with the absence of a sign of phase transition in the resistivity at $T_\\textrm{AF}$. Spin-density-wave states due to the nesting of the Fermi surface should result in a change in transport properties.\n\nIn clear contrast, on the other hand, the results of MF calculations in \u00a7\u00a0\\[subsubsec312\\], using the low-$T$ parameters \\[Figs.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](b) and\u00a0\\[fig7\\](b)\\] as well as the reduced $\\Delta_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma}^0$ values \\[Figs.\u00a0\\[fig6\\](c) and\u00a0\\[fig7\\](c)\\], show possible AFM states with larger magnetic moments. In these states, owing to the orbital mixing between L and M$\\sigma$, AF ordering cannot open a gap at $\\epsilon_\\textrm{F}$; therefore, the system remains metallic. Such an involvement of multiorbitals also leads to possible explanations for the absence of anomaly at $T_\\textrm{AF}$ in the resistivity, suggesting that the magnetic and transport properties are carried by different degrees of freedom. Below, let us propose two possibilities on the basis of our results, considering the strong correlation effect in addition. We ascribe the regions where magnetic moments arise in our calculations as doped Mott insulating states, as discussed in \u00a7\u00a0\\[subsubsec312\\].\n\n\\(i) {L: doped Mott insulator, M$\\sigma$: PM}. This corresponds to the L-AFM state in our calculations. The L orbital forms a dimer-Mott insulating state but doped with holes, which are provided from the M$\\sigma$ orbital remaining in a PM state. The Mott gap is due to the effective on-dimer Coulomb interaction, as indicated by $U_\\textrm{L}^\\textrm{eff}$ in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig10\\](b) \\[case (i)\\].\n\n\\(ii) {L: PM, M$\\sigma$: doped Mott insulator}. In the MF calculation, in the large-$U_\\textrm{M}$, small $U_\\textrm{L}$ region, M$\\sigma$-AFM/FM states are stabilized. If a similar picture of the Mott insulating nature in scenario (i) is applied, this results in a situation shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig10\\](b) \\[case (ii)\\]. The Mott gap formation in the M$\\sigma$ sector is adopted from the discussions on \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\]. In both cases, the doped Mott insulating character will generate magnetism, while there exist carriers unchanged upon magnetic ordering. In the MF phases corresponding to case (i), large spin moments appear on L sites, whereas its ordering is expected to affect the transport properties since L bands are mainly responsible for the conduction. On the other hand, case (ii) is favorable in the sense that L bands are paramagnetic and carries the charge transport, and then M$\\sigma$ sites are responsible for magnetism; such a picture has been proposed on the basis of experimental considerations\u00a0[@Takagi_private]. The weaker dimerization in L sites than in the Cu analog obtained in our estimated transfer integrals may be a factor for stabilizing such a metallic L system. However, in our calculation the magnetic moment on M$\\sigma$ is small, limited by its occupation, i.e., the small electron-doping level. This is not in agreement with the argument. With enhanced mixing between the two levels, approaching the situation in \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\] is expected to bring about a possible reconciliation with the experimental results, although within our estimation of parameters such a prominent mixing is not achieved. Future works including that on the strong correlation effect are needed for further investigating this possibility.\n\nFinally, the observed peculiarly high $T_\\textrm{AF}$ is difficult to discuss from our calculation only for the ground state, and the evaluation of transition temperature at the MF level is usually not reliable for comparison with experiments, especially when the strong correlation is involved. The low dimensionality in both L and M$\\sigma$ orbitals when considering intraorbital transfer integrals is apparently incompatible with such a high $T_\\textrm{AF}$, considering the fact that the energy scale is similar to those of other molecular conductors showing lower transition temperatures for magnetic ordering in general. One possibility is that doped carriers in mixed orbitals effectively make the spin-spin interaction large, especially even in the $c$-direction where the original parameters $t_{lm}$ among the L and M$\\sigma$ orbitals are small, making the system three-dimensionally coupled. Then the low-dimensionality embedded in each orbital can be released to increase the critical temperature.\n\nSummary {#sec5}\n=======\n\nWe have constructed effective models of single-component molecular conductors \\[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\\] ($M$ = Ni, Au, and Cu) showing a multiorbital nature. Tight-binding parameters are obtained by a fitting to first-principles band structures. The fragment molecular orbital picture leads us to a systematic view of this family: the interplay between a characteristic anisotropic electronic network and the orbital energy difference can tune electronic states using a different choice of $M$, particularly that between the $pd\\sigma$-type and $p\\pi$-type orbitals. By taking into account the Coulomb interaction, we discussed, for \\[Au(tmdt)$_2$\\] and \\[Cu(tmdt)$_2$\\], the mean-field phase diagrams and magnetic solutions of our effective model. In the former compound, we suggest that the mixing between the two orbitals can play a key role in resolving their puzzling experimental results. On the other hand, in the latter, the existence of a multiorbital Mott insulator is suggested, which is consistent with the experimental results. Both of these cases are distinctive examples of molecular systems.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nWe thank K. Kanoda, A. Kobayashi, H. Kobayashi, R. Takagi, and M. Tsuchiizu for discussions and suggestions. This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Nos. 20110003, 20110004, and 24108511) from MEXT.\n\n[99]{} H. Tanaka, Y. Okano, H. Kobayashi, W. Suzuki, and A. Kobayashi: Science **291** (2001) 285. A. Kobayashi, E. Fujiwara, and H. Kobayashi: . H. Seo, C. Hotta, and H. Fukuyama: . , . A. Kobayashi, H. Tanaka, and H. Kobayashi: . E. Canadell, I. E. I. Rachidi, S. Ravy, J. P. Pouget, L. Brossard, and J. P. Legros: . R. Kato: . In this paper, \\[$M$(tmdt)$_2$\\] and $M$(tmdt)$_2$ are used to express the crystals and molecules, respectively. H. Tanaka, M. Tokumoto, S. Ishibashi, D. Graf, E. S. Choi, J. S. Brooks, S. Yasuzuka, Y. Okano, H. Kobayashi, and A. Kobayashi: . C. Rovira, J. J. Novoa, J.-L. Mozos, P. Ordej[\u00f3]{}n, and E. Canadell: . S. Yasuzuka, H. Tanaka, M. Tokumoto, D. Graf, E. S. Choi, J. S. Brooks, H. Kobayashi, and A. Kobayashi: . W. Suzuki, E. Fujiwara, A. Kobayashi, Y. Fujishiro, E. Nishibori, M. Takata, M. Sakata, H. Fujiwara, and H. Kobayashi: . B. Zhou, M. Shimamura, E. Fujiwara, A. Kobayashi, T. Higashi, E. Nishibori, M. Sakata, H. B. Cui, K. Takahashi, and H. Kobayashi: . Y. Hara, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, M. Shimamura, B. Zhou, A. Kobayashi, and H. Kobayashi: . H. Tanaka, S. Hara, M. Tokumoto, A. Kobayashi, and H. Kobayashi: . S. Ishibashi, H. Tanaka, M. Kohyama, M. Tokumoto, A. Kobayashi, H. Kobayashi, and K. Terakura: . S. Ishibashi, K. Terakura, and A. Kobayashi: . H. Seo, S. Ishibashi, Y. Okano, H. Kobayashi, A. Kobayashi, H. Fukuyama, and K. Terakura: . B. Zhou, H. Yajima, A. Kobayashi, Y. Okano, H. Tanaka, T. Kumashiro, E. Nishibori, H. Sawa, and H. Kobayashi: . R. Takagi, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, B. Zhou, A. Kobayashi, and H. Kobayashi: . S. Ishibashi and K. Terakura: Crystals [**2**]{} (2012), 1210. B. Zhou, A. Kobayashi, Y. Okano, H. B. Cui, D. Graf, J. S. Brooks, T. Nakashima, S. Aoyagi, E. Nishibori, M. Sakata, and H. Kobayashi: . H. Seo, J. Merino, H. Yoshioka, and M. Ogata: . M.-L. Bonnet, V. Robert, M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Omori, and Y. Suzumura: . M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Omori, Y. Suzumura, M.-L. Bonnet, V. Robert, S. Ishibashi, and H. Seo: . M. Tsuchiizu, Y. Omori, Y. Suzumura, M.-L. Bonnet, and V. Robert, . K. Kitaura, E. Ikeo, T. Asada, T. Nakano, and M. Uebayasi: . S. Tsuneyuki, T. Kobori, K. Akagi, K. Sodeyama, K. Terakura, and H. Fukuyama: . http://www.qmas.jp. P. E. Bl$\\ddot{\\rm o}$chl: Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{} (1994) 17953. J. P. Predew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof: Phys. Rev. Lett [**77**]{} (1996) 3865. In ref.\u00a0, we called the M$\\sigma$ and M$\\pi$ orbitals the M orbitals; when needed, they were distinguished as M($pd\\sigma$) and M($pd\\pi$), respectively. We have considered the effect of Hund coupling in the MF calculations, but did not find any qualitative difference in the parameter range we investigated ($\\le 0.2 U'_{\\rm M}$), and therefore omitted it in this paper. T. Misawa, K. Nakamura, and M. Imada: . The results for the Ni and Au compounds are consistent with the three-band fits\u00a0[@Seo_2008JPSJ]; however, some differences are seen in their values, partly because of the inclusion of one more orbital for each compound, and also because of our reduction of the number of finite $t_{lm}$ in the fitting, to obtain numerically reliable results. For example, the intramolecular L1-L2 transfer integral for Au(tmdt)$_2$ in this work is noticeably smaller than that in ref.\u00a0; this can be understood as the value in ref.\u00a0 effectively including the L1-M$\\pi$-L2 process; we independently treat these parameters here. However, the small values can vary depending on the details of the fitting process. An analysis using Wannier functions is now under way. We have investigated different parameter sets such as $U_{\\textrm{M}\\sigma} = U_{\\textrm{M}\\pi}=1.25 U'_{\\textrm{M}}$, but we did not find any qualitative difference. The M$\\pi$ orbital is always nearly occupied, and the $U'_{\\textrm{M}}$-term does not play a role in stabilizing different states. H. Kino and H. Fukuyama: . R. Takagi and K. Kanoda: private communications.\n\n[^1]: E-mail address: seo@riken.jp\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- |\n    $^{,a}$, Josefa Becerra Gonz\u00e1lez$^{b,c}$, Vandad Fallah Ramazani$^{d}$, Elina Lindfors$^{d}$, Giovanna Pedaletti$^{e}$, Fabrizio Tavecchio$^{f}$, Monica Vazquez Acosta$^{b,c}$, Stefan Larsson$^{g}$ for the MAGIC and Fermi-LAT Collaborations, Kiran Baliyan$^{h}$, Navpreet Kaur$^{h,i}$, Sameer$^{h,j}$, Svetlana Jorstad$^{k,l}$, Claudia Raiteri$^{m}$\\\n    a) University of \u0141\u00f3d\u017a, PL-90236 Lodz, Poland (E-mail: )\\\n    b) Inst. de Astrof\u00edsica de Canarias, E-38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain\\\n    c) Universidad de La Laguna, Dpto. Astrof\u00edsica, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain\\\n    d) Tuorla Observatory, University of Turku and Astronomy Division, University of Oulu, Finland\\\n    e) Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany\\\n    f) INAF National Institute for Astrophysics, I-00136 Rome, Italy\\\n    g) KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Physics and Oskar Klein Centre for Cosmoparticle Physics, AlbaNova, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden\\\n    h) Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad 380009, Gujrat, India\\\n    i) Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar 382355, Gujrat, India\\\n    j) Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, The Pennsylvania State University, 532-D, Davey Laboratory, University Park, PA 16802, USA\\\n    k) IAR, Boston University, 725 Commonwealth Ave, Boston, 02215, USA;\\\n    l) St.Petersburg State University, Universitetsky prospekt, 28, St. Petersburg, 198504, Russia\\\n    m) INAF, Osservatorio Astrofisico di Torino, via Osservatorio 20, I-10025 Pino Torinese, Italy\ntitle: 'MAGIC observations of variable very-high-energy gamma-ray emission from PKS1510-089 during May 2015 outburst'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\n\u00a0is a bright flat spectrum radio quasar (FSRQ) located at a redshift of $z=0.36$ [@ta96]. The source is one of only six blazars firmly classified as a FSRQ from which gamma-ray emission has been detected in the very-high-energy (VHE, $>100$GeV) range [@ab13]. The GeV gamma-ray emission of \u00a0is strongly variable with the doubling time of flares as short as 1h [@sa13]. Until 2015, the source was detected only twice in the VHE gamma ray band, both during long periods of enhanced optical and GeV gamma-ray activity [@ab13; @al14]. Interestingly, no variability could be claimed from those detections.\n\nSince 2013, the Major Atmospheric Gamma Imaging Cherenkov (MAGIC) telescopes are performing regular monitoring of . In May 2015, a strong flare of \u00a0was observed in GeV gamma rays by the Large Area Telescope (LAT) on board the *Fermi* satellite, accompanied by high activity in the optical and IR bands. The high state triggered further MAGIC observations, which led to the detection of an enhanced VHE gamma-ray activity from the source. We report on the observations of \u00a0during the May 2015 flare, discussed in more detail in [@ah16a].\n\nInstruments and data analysis\n=============================\n\nDuring the May 2015 outburst \u00a0was observed by multiple instruments in a broad range of frequencies from radio up to VHE gamma rays.\n\nVHE gamma-ray data were collected using the MAGIC telescopes. MAGIC is a system of two 17m diameter, imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes located on La Palma, Canary Islands [@al16a]. The MAGIC telescopes observed \u00a0for 5.4 hours between MJD 57160\u201357166. The data were analyzed using MARS, the standard analysis package of MAGIC [@za13; @al16b] using an additional LIDAR-based correction for the atmospheric transmission [@fg15]. The source has been observed in GeV range by \u00a0during its all-sky monitoring program [@Atwood09]. Details of the data analysis are described in [@ah16a].\n\nX-ray observations were performed with X-ray Telescope (*XRT*) [@2004SPIE.5165..201B] on board the *Swift* satellite. During the period from MJD 57153 to 57167 the source was observed 16 times for total time of 26.6ks. Details of the X-ray data analysis are described in [@ah16a]. The state of the source in optical-UV range was monitored by the Ultraviolet/Optical Telescope (UVOT, [@po08]), also on board the *Swift* satellite. Those data were analyzed following the method described in [@ra10].\n\nThe source was also monitored in the optical R range by a 35cm Celestron telescope attached to the KVA (Kunglinga Vetenskapsakademi) telescope located at La Palma. The analysis of those data was performed as described in [@ni17]. The optical polarization observations were performed with a number of instruments: Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT), Steward Observatory, Perkins Telescopes, RINGO3, AZT-8, and LX-200 (see [@ah16a] for details). We also use infrared observations obtained with SMARTS, TCS and MIRO (see [@ah16a] for details).\n\n\u00a0is also monitored at 37 GHz frequency with Mets\u00e4hovi Radio Telescope (see [@te98]). High resolution radio images of the \u00a0jet were obtained at the frequency of 43\u00a0GHz with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA). The VLBA data were reduced following [@jo05].\n\nResults\n=======\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:mwllc\\] we show the multiwavelength light curve of \u00a0during the period of MJD 57151\u201357174.\n\n![image](pks1510_may2015_mwl_lc.eps){width=\"55.00000%\"}\n\nThe VHE gamma-ray flux measured by MAGIC shows clear variability, with a chance probability of constant flux of just $7.7\\times10^{-8}$. During MJD 57160\u201357161 the VHE gamma-ray flux was $\\sim$ 5 times higher than detected during 2012 [@al14]. Afterwards (MJD 57164\u201357166) the source returned to the flux level compatible with the 2012 detection. Following those two states of the source we define two periods: A and B respectively, in which multiwavelength SED is investigated. Despite the difference in the flux level, the spectral shape measured by MAGIC in both periods is consistent with each other and with previous measurements, however statistical uncertainties are rather large (see [@ah16a] for details).\n\nThe GeV gamma-ray flux of \u00a0measured by \u00a0is highly variable in the whole investigated period (MJD 57150-57175). A few individual flares are visible, with time scales of a few days. A major GeV flare from \u00a0also occured $\\sim$60 days after Period A (see [@ah16a]). We reconstructed GeV spectrum in periods A and B. Similarly to the VHE gamma-ray case, while the flux level is different, no significant change of shape is observed.\n\nThe X-ray flux, measured by *Swift*-XRT, shows a gradual decrease during the period MJD 57156\u201357165. The X-ray emission also became significantly softer between Period A and B.\n\nThe optical emission of \u00a0during the period MJD 57150\u201357175 shows variability, which however does not strictly follow the gamma-ray one. Similar behaviour is also seen in IR range.\n\nThroughout the investigated period, a smooth rotation of optical EVPA by $\\sim 100^\\circ$ occurred. The rotations of optical polarization angle has also been observed in the 2009 and 2012 gamma-ray flaring states [@ma10; @al14]. Nevertheless, the rotations of the EVPA are a common phenomenon in , therefore, further data are needed to firmly associate them with the emission of VHE gamma rays. The low percentage of polarization, observed also during Period A, is typical for this source [@je16]. The percentage of the polarization is three times higher both during Period B, and also a few days before Period A. The polarization rotation during the 2015 flaring period agrees with what is expected from a knot following a spiral path through a mainly toroidal magnetic field [@ma10]. Alternatively, it can be also explained by the light travel time effects within an axisymmetric emission region pervaded by a predominately helical magnetic field [@zh15].\n\nThe radio flux of \u00a0shows moderate variability in the Mets\u00e4hovi observations performed at 37GHz. It does not show any clear correlation with other bands, however, the sampling is rather sparse.\n\nVLBA observations of \u00a0performed a few months after the flaring period revealed an occurrence of a new knot, K15, emerging from the core (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1510t\\]).\n\n![ Total intensity images of the PKS1510-089 core region at 43 GHz, with a global peak intensity of $I_{peak}=3.566$Jy/beam and 0.15\u00a0mas FWHM circular Gaussian restoring beam (top right circle). The solid and dashed lines follow the positions of the VLBI core and $K15$, respectively, across the epochs. Figure reproduced from [@ah16a]. []{data-label=\"fig:1510t\"}](1510t_vlba15_v2.eps){width=\"98.00000%\"}\n\nThe new knot is bright and relatively slow, with an apparent speed $\\beta_{app}$=(5.3$\\pm$1.4)\u00a0c. Extrapolation shows that its separation from the core happened on MJD $T_0=57230\\pm52$. A similar behavior has also been observed during a high gamma-ray state in Feb-Apr 2012, when the emergence of a new radio knot, K12, from the core was associated with a VHE outburst [@al14]. K15 core separation epoch is marginally consistent with the time during which MAGIC has observed VHE gamma-ray emission from . It should be noted however that due to large uncertainty of $T_0$ it could be also associated with one of a few GeV flares in this period (see [@ah16a]).\n\nSED modeling\n============\n\nThe gamma-ray emission of FSRQs is typically explained in terms of the inverse Compton scattering of electrons on a radiation field external to the jet (see, e.g. [@sbr94; @gh10]), the so-called external Compton (EC) scenario. The type of the radiation field is determined by the location of the emission region. The observation of VHE gamma rays escaping from the emission region suggests that the emission region is located outside the Broad Line Region (BLR) (see also [@ab13; @al14]).\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:sed\\] we present the SED of \u00a0constructed from the data covering Periods A and B, corresponding to high and low gamma-ray flux, respectively.\n\n![image](1510_2015A.eps){width=\"55.00000%\"}\n\nMost of the flux variation (by $\\approx$ a factor of 2\u20133) is visible in GeV and sub-TeV bands. The low-energy flux (optical, X-rays) is almost constant between the two periods. It is interesting to note that the high-energy peak during the period B is at a very similar level to the 2012 high state [@al14], despite the IR\u2013UV emission being a factor of $\\sim3$ higher.\n\nWe model these SEDs of \u00a0in the framework of a one-zone EC scenario, like the one used for the explanation of 2012 data [@al14]. In order to allow escape of VHE emission (observed by MAGIC) we assume that the emission region is located beyond the BLR radius. Therefore, the external photon field seen by relativistic electrons is dominated by the thermal IR radiation of the dust torus (DT).\n\nTo estimate the size and the radiation field of the BLR and DT we assume the scaling laws and the prescriptions given in [@gt09]. Assuming the disk luminosity of $L_{\\rm disk}=6.7\\times 10^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$ [@al14] we obtain BLR and DT radii of $R_{\\rm BLR}=2.6\\times 10^{17}$ cm and $R_{\\rm IR}=6.5\\times 10^{18}$ cm respectively. In calculations we assume that fractions $f_{\\rm BLR}=0.1$ and $f_{\\rm IR}=0.6$) of the disk radiation are intercepted and reprocessed by the BLR and by DT respectively. The DT is heated to 1000K.\n\nWe fix the distance of the emission region from the base of the jet to $r=6\\times 10^{17}$ cm. If the emission region is filling the whole cross section of the jet, for an assumed jet semi-aperture angle $\\theta_{\\rm j}=0.047$rad we obtain the radius of the emission region $R=2.8\\times 10^{16}$ cm. Such a size of the emission region is consistent, even for moderate values of the Doppler factor, with the variability observed by MAGIC with the time scale of a few days. We apply in the modeling the same values of the jet bulk Lorentz factor $\\Gamma=20$ and Doppler factor $\\delta=25$ as used in [@al14]. The remaining free parameters of the model are the intensity of the magnetic field $B$ and the electron energy distribution. Hence, we model the observed variability as the effect of the changes in the conditions of the plasma flowing through the shock region. To reproduce the SEDs we assume that the electron energy distribution can be described by a double broken power law. The first break, $\\gamma_c$, is caused by the cooling, and a second break, $\\gamma_b$, can be an effect of the acceleration process (see [@ah16a] for details). The used model can describe the data relatively well. The difference in the broadband emission of Period A and B can be explained with a relatively small change in the fit parameters, namely a slightly stronger magnetic field and lower maximum and break energies of the electrons during Period B.\n\nDiscussion and conclusions\n==========================\n\nThe observations performed by the MAGIC telescopes revealed enhanced VHE gamma-ray emission from the direction of \u00a0during the high optical and GeV state of the source in May 2015, showing for the first time VHE gamma-ray variability in this source. During May 2015 the IR, optical and UV data showed a gradual increase in flux, while the flux in the X-ray range was slowly decreasing.\n\nThe May 2015 multiwavelength data are another example of the enhanced VHE gamma-ray emission occurring during the rotation of the optical polarization angle. Also, similarly to other gamma-ray flares, an ejection of a new radio component was observed, however with a large uncertainty on the zero separation epoch, which makes it difficult to associate it to a particular peak in the GeV LC. Hence, May 2015 data suggests that the association of VHE gamma-ray emission with the rotation of EVPA and ejection of a new radio component might be a common feature of .\n\nThe source was modeled with the external Compton scenario. The evolution of the state of the source from the VHE gamma-ray flare to a weaker emission at the level of the 2012 detection can be explained by relatively small changes in the conditions of the plasma flowing through the emission region.\n\nOther scenarios might be also able to explain the observed emission. In particular, if we assume that the VHE flaring is indeed connected to the ejection of the new component (in the case of 2015 flare, $K15$) from the VLBA core and the rotation of the optical polarization angle, it would be natural to assume a single emission region located far outside the dusty torus. The seed photons for EC process could then originate from the slower sheath of the jet. Such a scenario has been shown to provide a feasible description of the previous flaring epochs of \u00a0(see [@al14; @md15]).\n\nThe VHE gamma-ray variability with time scale $\\tau$ seen during the 2015 outburst puts constraints on the size, and therefore also on the location of the emission region. Assuming that the spine of the jet fills a significant fraction of the jet (as in [@al14]), the location of the emission region cannot be farther than $d=\\tau \\delta c / \\left( (1+z)\\theta_{\\rm j}\\right) = 2.7 (\\tau/3\\,\\mathrm{days})(\\delta/25)(\\theta_{\\rm j}/ 1^\\circ)^{-1}$pc. Therefore, a high Doppler factor and a narrow jet would allow us to place the emission region at the radio core. Such low values of the jet extension, $(0.2\\pm0.2)^\\circ$ [@jo05] and $0.9^\\circ$ [@pu09] at the radio core are reported by the radio observations. Intranight variability observed during the 2016 flare [@za17] will put even stronger constraints on the size and thus also location of the emission region.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nWe would like to thank the IAC for the excellent working conditions at the ORM in La Palma. We acknowledge the financial support of the German BMBF, DFG and MPG, the Italian INFN and INAF, the Swiss National Fund SNF, the European ERDF, the Spanish MINECO, the Japanese JSPS and MEXT, the Croatian CSF, and the Polish Narodowe Centrum Nauki. The *Fermi*-LAT Collaboration acknowledges support for LAT development, operation and data analysis from NASA and DOE (United States), CEA/Irfu and IN2P3/CNRS (France), ASI and INFN (Italy), MEXT, KEK, and JAXA (Japan), and the K.A.\u00a0Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and the National Space Board (Sweden). Science analysis support in the operations phase from INAF (Italy) and CNES (France) is also gratefully acknowledged. This work performed in part under DOE Contract DE-AC02-76SF00515.\n\n[99]{} Tanner, A.\u00a0M., Bechtold, J., Walker, C.\u00a0E., Black, J.\u00a0H., & Cutri, R.\u00a0M.\u00a01996, , 112, 62 H.E.S.S.\u00a0Collaboration, Abramowski, A., Acero, F., et al.\u00a02013, , 554, A107 Saito, S., Stawarz, [\u0141]{}., Tanaka, Y.\u00a0T., et al.\u00a02013, , 766, L11 Aleksi[\u0107]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L.\u00a0A., et al.\u00a02014, , 569, A46 MAGIC Collaboration, Ahnen, M.\u00a0L., Ansoldi, S., et al.\u00a02016, Accepted for publication in A&A, arXiv:1610.09416 Aleksi[\u0107]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L.\u00a0A., et al.\u00a02016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 61 Zanin, R., Carmona, E., Sitarek, J., et al., 2013, Proc of 33rd ICRC, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Id. 773 Aleksi[\u0107]{}, J., Ansoldi, S., Antonelli, L.\u00a0A., et al.\u00a02016, Astroparticle Physics, 72, 76 Fruck, C., & Gaug, M.\u00a02015, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 89, 02003 Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071 Burrows, D.\u00a0N., Hill, J.\u00a0E., Nousek, J.\u00a0A., et al.\u00a02004, , 5165, 201 Poole, T.\u00a0S., Breeveld, A.\u00a0A., Page, M.\u00a0J., et al.\u00a02008, , 383, 627 Raiteri, C.\u00a0M., Villata, M., Bruschini, L., et al.\u00a02010, , 524, A43 Nilsson et al., submitted Tera\u00ebsranta, H., Tornikoski, M., Mujunen, A., et al.\u00a01998, , 132, 305 Jorstad, S.\u00a0G., Marscher, A.\u00a0P., Lister, M.\u00a0L., et al.\u00a02005, , 130, 1418 Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M. et al. 2015, ApJS, 218, 23 Marscher, A.\u00a0P., Jorstad, S.\u00a0G., Larionov, V.\u00a0M., et al.\u00a02010, , 710, L126 Jermak, H., Steele, I.\u00a0A., Lindfors, E., et al.\u00a02016, , 462, 4267 Zhang, H., Chen, X., B[\u00f6]{}ttcher, M., Guo, F., & Li, H.\u00a02015, , 804, 58 Sikora, M., Begelman, M.\u00a0C., & Rees, M.\u00a0J.\u00a01994, , 421, 153 Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Foschini, L., et al.\u00a02010, , 402, 497 Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F.\u00a02009, , 397, 985 MacDonald, N.\u00a0R., Marscher, A.\u00a0P., Jorstad, S.\u00a0G., & Joshi, M.\u00a02015, , 804, 111 Pushkarev, A.\u00a0B., Kovalev, Y.\u00a0Y., Lister, M.\u00a0L., & Savolainen, T.\u00a02009, , 507, L33 Zacharias, M. et al., in this conference\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'This paper explores the use of language models to predict 20 human traits from users\u2019 Facebook status updates. The data was collected by the myPersonality project, and includes user statuses along with their personality, gender, political identification, religion, race, satisfaction with life, IQ, self-disclosure, fair-mindedness, and belief in astrology. A single interpretable model meets state of the art results for well-studied tasks such as predicting gender and personality; and sets the standard on other traits such as IQ, sensational interests, political identity, and satisfaction with life. Additionally, highly weighted words are published for each trait. These lists are valuable for creating hypotheses about human behavior, as well as for understanding what information a model is extracting. Using performance and extracted features we analyze models built on social media. The real world problems we explore include gendered classification bias and Cambridge Analytica\u2019s use of psychographic models.'\nauthor:\n- Andrew Cutler\n- Brian Kulis\nbibliography:\n- 'big5.bib'\ntitle: Inferring Human Traits From Facebook Statuses\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nFacebook\u2019s 2 billion users spend an average of 50 minutes a day on Facebook, Messenger, or Instagram [@stewart2016facebook]. Industry seeks to obtain, model and actualize this mountain of data in a variety of ways. For example, social media can be used to establish creditworthiness [@suncorp; @khandani2010consumer], persuade voters [@cogburn2011networked; @gonzalez2017hacking], or seek cognitive behavioral therapy from a chatbot [@fitzpatrick2017delivering]. Many of these tasks depend on knowing something about the personal life of the user. When determining the risk of default, a creditor may be interested in a debtor\u2019s impulsiveness or strength of support network. A user\u2019s home town could disambiguate a search term. Or\u2014reflecting society\u2019s values\u2014a social media company may be less willing to flag inflammatory language when the speaker is criticizing their own [@AllanHateSpeach].\n\nSocial media\u2019s endlessly logged interactions have also been a boon to understanding human behavior. Researchers have used various social networks to model bullying [@cheng2015antisocial], urban mobility [@noulas2012tale], and the interplay of friendship and shared interests [@yang2011like]. Such studies do not have the benefit of a controlled setting where a single variable can be isolated. However, orders of magnitude more observations in participants\u2019 natural habitat offer more fidelity to lived experience [@kosinski2015facebook]. Additionally subjects can be sampled from countries not so singularly Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic\u2014or WEIRD, in the parlance of Henrick et al [@henrich_heine_norenzayan_2010].\n\nIn this paper we show how readily different personality and demographic information can be extracted from Facebook statuses. Our reported performance is useful to learn how traits are related to online behavior. For example, sensational interests as measured by the Sensational Interest Questionnaire (SIQ) have been studied for internal reliability [@egan1999sensational], relationship to physical aggression [@egan2009sensational], and role in intrasexual competition [@weiss2004sensational]. Yet work connecting SIQ with social media use relies on individually labeling sensational interests in statuses and is only predictive among males [@hagger2011social]. Our model performs well for both males and females without hand-labeling statuses. Similarly, other research found no relationship between satisfaction with life (SWL) and status updates [@wang2014can]; we show modest test set performance. Finally, although Facebook Likes have been shown to be highly predictive of many personal traits [@kosinski2013private], language models with good performance on this dataset have been limited to predicting personality, age, and gender [@schwartz2013personality; @farnadi2016computational; @sap2014developing].\n\nThe benchmark also helps assess the efficacy of services that explicitly or implicitly rely on inferring these traits. This is valuable to those developing new services as well as to users concerned about privacy. Of particular interest is the role of psychographic models in Cambridge Analytica\u2019s (CA) marketing strategy. From leaked internal communications, in 2014 CA amassed a dataset of Facebook profiles and traits almost identical to those in the myPersonality dataset [@nyt]. The week after CA\u2019s project became public, Facebook\u2019s stock plummeted \\$75 billion [@marketwatch]. One factor in that drop was the belief that Facebook had allowed a third party to create a powerful marketing tool that could manipulate elections [@guardianBannon; @nyt]. There are dozens of publications on the myPersonality dataset. However, this is the first to predict SIQ, fair-mindedness, and self-disclosure, which CA discussed in relation to building user models [@nyt]. Besides performance benchmarks, the other major contribution of this paper are the most highly weighted words to predict each trait. The weights also say something about human behavior. The interpretation here is more complex: regression on tens of thousands of features is fraught with over-fitting and colinearity. Despite those problems, in Section \\[interpret\\] we argue that the weights can still be treated as a data exploration tool similar to clustering. We provide examples of previously studied relationships that are borne out in the word lists, and believe the lists are a useful tool to develop yet unstudied hypotheses.\n\nHighly weighted features are also an important way to analyze models. We argue in section \\[CA\\] that a militarism predictor CA may have built is accurate, but extracts obvious features. Additionally, by inspecting the features in an Atheist vs. Agnostic classifier we find many gendered words. We demonstrate the bias empirically, then fix the classifier to be more fair. This approach is instructive for interrogating more critical models built on social media data.\n\nThis paper includes many contributions that could stand alone. We show that the text of Facebook statuses can predict user SWL and SIQ. We expand the prediction of political identity from a single spectrum (liberal/conservative) to twelve distinct ideologies with varying levels of overlap and popularity. On that task, we establish state of the art performance with a model that also provides informative features for every pairwise political comparison. We recreate models CA may have built, and report their performance and the type of information they extracted. We bring character level deep learning to gender prediction. To our knowledge, we also set the standard for predicting IQ, fair-mindedness, self-disclosure, race, and religion from Facebook statuses. Finally, we propose a novel method to make classification less biased.\n\nGiven the broad scope of this paper, some contributions are given less space than they would typically merit. Even so, we believe it is important to report results on many traits in a single paper. This demonstrates the power of a simple model and allows task difficulty and extracted features to be compared across traits without concerns about changing experimental setup.\n\nBackground\n==========\n\nmyPersonality Dataset\n---------------------\n\nFrom 2008 to 2012, over 7 million Facebook users took the myPersonality quiz produced by the psychologist David Stillwell [@kosinski2015facebook]. After answering at least 20 questions, users were scored on the Big Five personality axes: openness, creativity, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Over 3 million of those users agreed to give researchers access to their extant Facebook profile and their personality scores. A much smaller subset of users answered additional questionnaires about their interests, Friends\u2019 personality, belief in astrology, and other personal information. The research community has added to the dataset by providing race labels for several hundred thousand users; representing the text of statuses in terms of their Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) statistics [@pennebaker2001linguistic]; and much more. Labels used in this study are listed in Tables \\[acc\\_cat\\] and \\[acc\\_cont\\], along with descriptive statistics. To see all available labels, visit myPersonality.org.\n\nmyPersonality.org lists 43 publications that use this data. Most work explores the relationship between personality and easily extractable features such as number of Friends or Likes, geographic location, or user-Like pairs. For example, user-Like pairs are shown to be better predictors of a personality than one\u2019s spouse [@youyou2015computer]. In 2013, Schwartz et al introduced the open vocabulary approach (or bag of words) to personality, gender, and age prediction [@schwartz2013personality]. This significantly outperforms closed-vocabulary approaches such as LIWC that rely on domain knowledge to assign each word to one or more of 69 categories. For an excellent overview of related work, we direct readers to that paper\u2019s introduction [@schwartz2013personality].\n\nLanguage Models\n---------------\n\n### Bag of Words\n\nThe majority of our experiments use bag of words (BoW) term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf) preprocessing followed by $\\ell_2$ regularized regression. First, the vocabulary is limited to the $k$ most common words in a given training set. Then a matrix of word counts, $N$, is constructed, where $N_{ij}$ refers to how often word $j$ is used by subject $i$. Each row is normalized to sum to one, moved to a log scale, and divided by $d$, the ratio of documents in which each word appears. In more formal notation, each element of the tf-idf matrix is defined by\n\n$$W_{ij} = \\frac{1 + \\log\\Big(\\frac{N_{ij}}{\\sum_{i=1}^{k}N_{ij}}\\Big)}{d_j}.$$\n\n$W$ is then normalized so each row lies on the unit sphere. $W$ can now be used for linear classification or regression with $\\ell_2$ regularization on the parameters. This is commonly called Ridge Regression. For binary classification problems, labels are assigned values of $\\{-1,1\\}$ and a threshold determines predicted label. For categorical data with more than two labels, we train a classifier on each pair of labels. Predicted label is decided by majority vote of the $\\frac{c(c-1)}{2}$ classifiers, where $c$ is the number of classes.\n\n### Character-Level Convolutional Neural Network {#CNN}\n\nFor gender prediction, we also train a 49 layer character level convolutional neural network (char-CNN) described in [@conneau2017very]. Much like successful computer vision architectures [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], each character is embedded in continuous space and combined with neighbors by many layers of convolutional filters. Unlike BoW models, CNNs preserve the temporal dimension, allowing the use of syntactic information. While a great advantage, and theoretically more similar to human cognition, this requires different preprocessing. During training, all inputs must be the same length along the temporal axis despite the wide variation in total length of users\u2019 statuses. We chose to split users\u2019 concatenated statuses into chunks of no more than 4000 characters, and no less than 1000, as this is enough text for humans to perform gender classification [@nguyen2014gender]. Each chunk contains roughly 800 words. Chunks from the same user are assigned entirely to either the training or test set. Unfortunately, preprocessing differences do not allow for a direct comparison between methods. However, enforcing the same preprocessing for both models would necessarily limit one.\n\nLabels\n------\n\nTables \\[acc\\_cont\\] and \\[acc\\_cat\\] provide statistics of the continuous and categorical data respectively. What follows is a brief description of each label and how it was collected.\n\n### Gender\n\nis the binary label users supplied when setting up their Facebook account. Offering this information was common before 2008, and mandatory from 2008-2014. In 2014, (after the collection of this dataset) Facebook added 56 more gender options but still uses a binary representation to monetize users [@bivens2017gender].\n\n### Race\n\nlabels provided in the dataset are inferred from profile pictures using the Faceplusplus.com algorithm which can identify races termed White, Black, and Asian. A noisy measure of visual phenotype is not the gold standard for the study of race, however, our results indicate it is related to social media use.\n\n### Political identity\n\nis limited to the twelve most common responses: IPA, anarchist, centrist, conservative, democrat, doesn\u2019t care, hates politics, independent, liberal, libertarian, republican, and very liberal. These are heterogenous categories from an open-ended question. No work was done to limit labels to political parties (eg. remove \u201cdoesn\u2019t care\u201d), disambiguate misspelled or similar responses (eg. combine \u201canarchy\u201d and \u201canarchist\u201d or \u201cliberal\u201d and \u201cvery liberal\u201d), or limit responses to one country. To produce the word list for Liberals and Conservatives in Table \\[words\\_rel\\_pol\\], we combine \u201cliberal\u201d, \u201cvery liberal\u201d, and \u201cdemocrat\u2019\u2019 as well as \u201cconservative\u201d, \u201cvery conservative\u201d, and \u201crepublican\u201d. The most likely meaning of IPA is the Independence Party of America, which was in its nascence during this survey. The party is most popular among young people disaffected by the two party system, a sentiment reflected by the users who report IPA.\n\n### Religion\n\ncategories were limited to the nine most common responses, and similar labels were combined. Three variants of Catholic\u2014\u201ccatholic\u201d,\u201cchristian-catholic\u201d, and \u201cromancatholic\u201d\u2014were merged to form Catholic. Likewise, Christian refers to \u201cchristian\u201d, \u201cchristian-baptist\u201d and \u201cchristian-evangelical\u201d. The entire list includes: Atheist, Agnostic, Catholic, Christian, Hindu, and None.\n\n### Belief in star sign\n\nis the user\u2019s response to \u201cHoroscopes provide useful information to help guide my decisions?\u201d Options include: Strongly Agree, Slightly Agree, No Opinion, Slightly Disagree, and Strongly Disagree.\n\n### Personality\n\nis determined on five axes\u2014Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neurotocism\u2014by a survey. Users answer 20-300 questions which are used to score each personality component on a scale of 1-5. There is a large body of research showing that five factor analysis is explanatory for behavior [@digman1990personality], and its measurement is reproducible [@mccrae1987validation]. That work is now adapting to larger datasets collected online [@kosinski2015facebook].\n\n### Sensational Interests\n\ninclude Militarism, Violent-Occult, Intellectual Recreation, Occult Credulousness, and Wholesome activities. Users can indicate \u201cGreat Dislike\u201d, \u201cSlight Dislike\u201d, \u201cNo Opinion\u201d, \u201cSlight Interest\u201d, and \u201cGreat Interest\u201d for 28 different items including: \u201cDrugs\u201d, \u201cPaganism\u201d, \u201cPhilosophy\u201d, \u201cSurvivalism\u201d, and \u201cVampires and Wolves\u201d. Interest levels are calculated by summing responses from relevant items. The full calculation can be found in [@egan1999sensational].\n\n### IQ\n\nis determined by 20 questions that conform to Raven\u2019s Standard Progressive Matrices. The development and validation of these questions is explained in [@IQkosinski] and [@kosinski2014measurement]. Because performance on IQ tests has been rising at roughly 0.3 points a year over the past century and IQ is defined as mean 100, the scoring of a test is properly defined over an age cohort [@flynn1987massive]. These scores do not take age into account and the mean is 114.\n\n### Satisfaction with life, self-disclosure, and fair-mindedness\n\nare assessed by separate questionnaires. SWL is a measure of global well being somewhat robust to short term mood fluctuations [@diener1985satisfaction].\n\nThe Interpretation of Feature Weights {#interpret}\n=====================================\n\nA common approach to understand traits in social science is to solve\n\n$$X = UT + \\epsilon,$$ where $X$ is observations of subjects, $T$ is the traits of subjects, $U$ is a transition matrix, and $\\epsilon$ is model error [@khandani2010consumer; @egan1999sensational; @cooke2004demographic; @pecina2013personality; @quilty2009personality; @tett1991personality; @park2015automatic; @cesare2017detection; @kleinberg2016inherent]. Traits are preferred to be orthogonal to promote compactness without sacrificing modeling power. The Big 5 personality model is both criticized and defended on grounds of trait independence, explanatory power, and measureability, which conforms to the linear model above [@john1999big]. Because the traits are defined by language they will not be completely orthogonal. Additionally, observations are not independent. As such, values in $U$ will have dependencies across both rows and columns. Some traits like personality are used to predict other traits or life events [@egan1999sensational; @tett1991personality]. Learning those relationships can be interpreted as informing our beliefs about column dependencies for $U$ when both traits are part of $T$.\n\nIn this paper, $X$ is the tf-idf word matrix, $T$ is defined by our labels, and the model weights are some estimate of $U$ we define as $\\hat{U}$. Row dependencies in $\\hat{U}$ are based on how words function. For example, \u2018camp\u2019 and \u2018camping\u2019 perform similar roles in a status. Likewise, the relationship between IQ and agreeableness will be embedded in the columns of $\\hat{U}$. However, many of the tasks have little training data and the solution is ill-posed. Regularization encourages generalization, but does not provide any guarantees. Further, sometimes $\\epsilon$ dominates the model when observations are not very explanatory or the relationship to a trait is not linear. Given these challenges, what confidence can be placed in the estimate $\\hat{U}$?\n\nThese problems mirror those faced when clustering data. Clustering does not come with guarantees it will yield sensible answers in diverse scenarios [@kleinberg2003impossibility]. However, it is broadly useful when exploring large sets of data [@jain1999data; @shamir20021; @dixon2003classification]. Similarly, $\\hat{U}$ can be viewed as a way of ranking features for exploration. A highly ranked observation is not proof it is important. But several highly ranked observations with functional coherence may suggest a hypothesis; particularly when coupled with domain knowledge of row and column dependencies in $U$.\n\nThe 55 most highly weighted features for each label are reported in the Appendix. Though the word lists are shown in order of importance, this ranking is not strict. Different regularization, preprocessing, or train/test splits can alter the ordering, especially when there are few examples. Additionally, more common words with lower weights may be used more often in a model\u2019s prediction, but may not appear at the top of a list. One may use $\\ell_1$ regularization to obtain an arbitrary small number of non-zero weights [@meinshausen2009lasso]. This encourages weighting common words and provides more stable rankings. We demonstrate that approach with our IQ model in Section \\[IQ\\].\n\nThere are many well-studied phenomena embedded in the $\\hat{U}$ produced by our work. For example, Sarah Palin is the only politician indicated in the liberal word list in Table \\[words\\_rel\\_pol\\]. Likewise, Nancy Pelosi ranks just below Ronald Reagan among conservative words. This accords with literature on the memorability of negative ads [@lau2007effects], importance of outgroup prejudice for social identity [@huddy2003group; @branscombe1994collective], and biases women face in politics [@schneider2014measuring; @dolan2010impact]. We hope the many word lists in the appendix will be useful to researchers in the development of new hypotheses.\n\n$\\hat{U}$ is also useful to understand models built on social media data. Until recently, the models themselves were not very important. However, machine learning can now be used to estimate sensitive traits such criminal recidivism [@kleinberg2016inherent]. Given the literalness with which estimates are often interpreted, it is essential to note that model weights are causal for the predicted label. In Section \\[gender\\_bias\\] we use our understanding of the input features to characterize information the model extracts to predict religion. This dataset also includes demographic labels, which show predicted religion labels are more gendered than the ground truth.\n\nWe hope the included word lists (a) highlight unstudied relationships about these traits (b) illustrate what kind of information is extracted from social media by machine learning systems.\n\nResults and Discussion\n======================\n\nExperimental Setup\n------------------\n\nAll BoW experiments employ the same preprocessing. Users must have over 500 words in the sum of all their statuses. 80% of the data is randomly assigned to the training set; the remaining samples constitute the test set. The vocabulary is limited to the 40,000 most common words in each training set. Words must be used by at least 10 users but no more than 60% of users in the training set. The regularization parameter is tuned via efficient leave one out cross validation [@vehtari2015efficient] when $n<10,000$, and $3$-fold cross validation for larger datasets. All BoW models are implemented using the sklearn library [@scikit-learn]. Table \\[acc\\_cont\\] reports the number of samples and explained variance (EV) of the predictions on continuous data. Table \\[acc\\_cat\\] reports the number of classes, ratio of samples in the dominant class, homogeneity, and performance on tasks with categorical data.\n\n  **Label**                   **N**   **EV**\n  --------------------------- ------- --------\n  **Personality**                     \n  \u00a0Openness                   84451   0.171\n  \u00a0Conscientiousness          84451   0.120\n  \u00a0Extroversion               84451   0.141\n  \u00a0Agreeableness              84451   0.090\n  \u00a0Neuroticism                84451   0.100\n  **Sensational Interests**           \n  \u00a0Militarism                 4074    0.165\n  \u00a0Violent-Occult             4074    0.192\n  \u00a0Intellectual Recreation    4074    0.033\n  \u00a0Occult Credulousness       4074    0.144\n  \u00a0Wholesome Activities       4074    0.108\n  Satisfaction With Life      2502    0.034\n  Self Disclosure             2006    0.092\n  Fair-Mindedness             2006    0.064\n  IQ                          1807    0.128\n\n  : Prediction Accuracy on Continuous Data[]{data-label=\"acc_cont\"}\n\nExplained Variance (EV) is 1-$\\frac{\\mathrm{Var}(y-\\hat{y})}{\\mathrm{Var}(y)}$, where $\\hat{y}$ is the predicted label.\n\n  **Label**             **N**    **Classes**   **Mode**   **Homogeneity**   **F1-score**   **Acc**\n  --------------------- -------- ------------- ---------- ----------------- -------------- ---------\n  Gender                109104   2             0.598      0.519             0.92           0.903\n  Race                  22059    3             0.682      0.52              0.74           0.766\n  Political identity    19769    12            0.213      0.133             0.33           0.337\n  Religious identity    8388     5             0.488      0.318             0.54           0.541\n  Belief in Star Sign   7115     5             0.331      0.245             0.32           0.334\n\n  : Prediction Accuracy on Categorical Data[]{data-label=\"acc_cat\"}\n\nMode is the ratio of the dominant class. Homogeneity is the probability two random samples will be of the same class. The F1-Score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall. For non-binary labels, the precision and recall for each class is weighted by its support.\n\n  **Model**             **Accuracy**\n  --------------------- --------------\n  Human Majority Vote   0.840\n  LIWC                  0.784\n  Tri-grams             0.914\n  Tri-grams + LIWC      0.916\n  BoW (40k Vocab)       0.903\n  BoW (500k Vocab)      0.928\n  49 layer char-CNN     0.901\n\n  : Gender Prediction[]{data-label=\"acc_gender\"}\n\nHuman baseline is the majority vote (n=210) in gender prediction on Twitter data [@nguyen2014gender]. LIWC and Tri-grams are reported in [@schwartz2013personality].\n\nPerformance {#accuracies}\n-----------\n\n### Gender\n\nTable \\[acc\\_gender\\] compares our gender predictor to several other methods. The BoW model with a vocabulary of 500,000 yields accuracy of 92.8%, 1.4% more accurate than the tri-gram model reported by Schwartz et al [@schwartz2013personality]. Even though the same dataset is used, the comparison is not direct. The tri-gram model seeks to remove the age information from words, has a larger vocabulary, preserves some temporal relationships in the tri-grams, and draws a different train/test split. Moreover, the preprocessing is more restrictive and only includes users with at least 1000 words. Notwithstanding these discrepancies, which may boost or dampen performance, the results are very similar. When the LIWC representation is added to the tri-grams, there is a slight improvement to 91.6% accuracy. Preprocessing is even less similar for the char-CNN described in the Section \\[CNN\\]. The human baseline of 84.0% consists of volunteer judgments based on 20-40 user tweets as reported by Nguyen et al [@nguyen2014gender]. This is less text than is available to the other models, and from a different social media platform. But, with 210 volunteer guesses per user, it provides a relevant human baseline.\n\n### Personality\n\nAfter gender, personality is the most studied trait in this paper. Likewise, Schwartz et al achieve the best results to date [@schwartz2013personality]. They report the square root of EV to two significant digits: 0.42, 0.35, 0.38, 0.31, 0.31. In that format, we are just 0.01 beneath the state of the art for openness and agreeableness, 0.01 better for neuroticism, and equivalent for the remaining traits. As with gender, we achieve this with a simpler model.\n\n### Political Identity\n\nPrediction accuracy of 33.7% is a gain of 11.7% over the baseline strategy of always predicting the mode, \u2018doesn\u2019t care\u2019. As noted in the experiments section, training samples are weighted inversely to their class representation; therefore, ignoring any class will result in an equal loss. This does not provide the highest classification accuracy. However, we believe when some classes are sparsely populated an MSE optimal classifier that is highly biased toward the mode should not be the standard. For reference, equal sample weights and the same training scheme yield classification accuracy of 36.3% and a weighted f1 score of 31.6%. Five classes\u2014IPA, hates politics, independent, libertarian, and very liberal\u2014have no representation in the test set predictions. The weighted classifier predicts each class at least once.\n\nAccording to Preotiuc-Pietro et al., all previous research on predicting political ideology from social media text has used binary labels such as liberal vs conservative or Democrat vs Republican. They broaden the classification task to include seven gradations on the liberal to conservative spectrum [@preoctiuc2017beyond]. When predicting ideological tilt from tweets, they achieve a 2.6% boost over baseline (19.6%) with BoW follow by logistic regression. Word2Vec feature embeddings [@mikolov2013distributed] and multi-target learning with some hand-crafted labels yield an 8.0% boost. From classification along grades of a single spectrum, we significantly expand the task to twelve diverse identities with varying levels of representation and ideological overlap while maintaining classification accuracy.\n\nIn Table \\[pol\\_mat\\] we report the matrix of highest weighted words for separating users in each pairwise class comparison. As with race, belief in star sign, and religion, we plan on making expanded pairwise lists available online. In Table \\[cm\\_pol\\] we report the confusion matrix. Note that many errors are between similar labels, such as liberal and democrat. Ease of training, strong performance, and representation of minority classes make a majority vote system of shallow pairwise classifiers a good approach for this task.\n\nFor binary comparison, by pooling {\u2018very liberal\u2019,\u2018liberal\u2019,\u2018democrat\u2019} and {\u2018very conservative\u2019,\u2018conservative\u2019,\u2018republican\u2019} we achieve 76.4% accuracy; 12.1% above baseline. Table \\[words\\_rel\\_pol\\] shows the top 55 liberal and conservative words.\n\n### Religion\n\nReligion seems to be more difficult to glean from statuses than political identity. At 54.1%, accuracy is a modest 5.3% above guessing the mode. The most highly weighted pairwise words are on Table \\[mat\\_rel\\], and Table \\[cm\\_rel\\] shows the confusion matrix. The most highly weighted word to distinguish someone who is agnostic from an atheist is \u2018boyfriend\u2019. This led us to look deeper at that pairwise classifier in Section \\[gender\\_bias\\]. Binary labels were constructed by pooling {\u2018catholic\u2019, \u2018christian-catholic\u2019, \u2018romancatholic\u2019, \u2018christian\u2019, \u2018christian-baptist\u2019} and {\u2018atheist\u2019, \u2018agnostic\u2019,\u2018none\u2019 }. We achieve 78.0% accuracy, 5.2% above baseline. Those words are on table \\[words\\_rel\\_pol\\]. To our knowledge, there is no other multi class religion predictor to which our results can be compared.\n\n### IQ {#IQ}\n\nIn a genome wide association meta study of 78,308 individuals, 336 single nucleotide polymorphisms were found to explain 2.1-4.8% of the IQ variance among the test population [@sniekers2017genome]. We achieve 12.8% EV with a model trained on less than 2000 users and their statuses. Using $\\ell_1$ regularization to limit the vocabulary to the ten most informative words\u2014final, physics; ayaw, family, friend, heart, lmao, nite, strong, ur\u2014still yields 5.6% percent EV. The relative accuracy of such a trivial model that leverages intuitive features is a helpful comparison for any project predicting this important trait. To our knowledge, this is the only work to date that infers IQ from social media.\n\nThe selected features are also informative. Words suggesting intelligence\u2014\u2018final\u2019 and \u2018physics\u2019\u2014are parsimonious and singularly academic. Whereas the university experience is sufficient to find users with high IQ, features inversely related to IQ are more focused on disposition. From table \\[words\\_big5\\], agreeableness is implied by \u2018family\u2019 and \u2018heart\u2019; conscientiousness is implied by \u2018family\u2019 and \u2018lmao\u2019; and low openness is implied by \u2018ur\u2019. Overall, the list can be characterized as prosocial, or at least concerned with social relationships. Predicting low IQ with prosocial features seems to challenge some previous research.\n\nGottlieb et al observed that learning disabled children were more likely to engage in solitary play [@gottlieb1986sociometric]. Play has also been observed to be more aggressive [@bryan1976come]. More directly related to our task, McConaughy and Ritter showed a positive correlation between the IQ of learning disabled boys and social competence scores; and a negative correlation between IQ and behavior problem scores [@mcconaughy1986social]. For further review of the subject see [@bellanti2000disentangling].\n\nAn MSE optimal classifier seeks to generalize information about samples near the average. This can cause bias when classifying minorities, but is instructive when interpreting features. Features should say something about the majority of our sample, those with IQ near the mean. This explains why antisocial behavior among those with extremely low IQ does not preclude prosocial behavior indicating moderately lower IQ. Reflecting the limitations of this type of study, words like \u2018family\u2019, \u2018friend\u2019, and \u2018heart\u2019 could also be caused by differing norms for social media use or many other factors. Prosocial words predicting lower IQ does however suggest interesting future work.\n\n### Sensational Interests\n\nIn this study, SIQ is the easiest continuous variable to predict, even with an order of magnitude less training data than personality. The SIQ asks lists 28 discrete interests like \u2018black magic\u2019 and \u2018the armed forces\u2019. Very similar terms can be recovered from statuses: \u2018zombie\u2019, \u2018blood\u2019, \u2018vampire\u2019; \u2018military\u2019, \u2018marines\u2019, \u2018training\u2019. Personality tests, on the other hand, ask more abstract questions like \u2018I shirk my duties\u2019 for conscientiousness. Many of these duties seem to be extracted in Table \\[words\\_big5\\]: \u2018studying\u2019, \u2018busy\u2019,\u2018obstacles\u2019. But many more training examples are required for similar performance.\n\nThis is the first work to demonstrate an automatic system for predicting SIQ. Previous research relied on manually counting the number of sensational interests in statuses. The count was only correlated with militarism among men; the relationship was negative for women [@hagger2011social].\n\n### Satisfaction With Life\n\nPrevious research cast doubt on the relationship between status updates and SWL [@wang2014can]. The number of positive words used on Facebook nationwide in a given day, week, or month, is inversely correlated with the SWL of that time period\u2019s myPersonality participants. The interpretation of that result is that it \u201cchallenges the assumption that linguistic analysis of internet messages is related to underlying psychological states.\u201d Here we show that a BoW model accounts for 3.4% of the variance in SWL scores. Moreover, the most important words the model finds are intuitive. Lower SWL is implied by \u201cfucking\u201d, \u201chate\u201d, \u201cbored\u201d, \u201cinterview\u201d, \u201csick\u201d, \u201chospital\u201d, \u201cinsomnia\u201d, \u201cfarmville\u201d, and \u201cvideo\u201d. The deleterious effects of joblessness, anger, chronic illness, and isolation are well documented. Words positively associated with SWL\u2014\u201ccamping\u201d, \u201cimagination\u201d, \u201cepic\u201d, \u201ccleaned\u201d, \u201csuccess\u201d\u2014make similar sense.\n\nConversational AI on Facebook Messenger is an efficacious and scalable way to administer cognitive behavioral therapy [@fitzpatrick2017delivering]. Our results show linguistic analysis can shed light on underlying psychological states. This is important to find users that could benefit from such treatment.\n\n### Belief in Star Sign\n\nCompared to political identity, BSS has seven fewer classes and a far more homogeneous distribution. Even so, the BSS classifier performs slightly worse than the politics classifier and roughly on par to the baseline of predicting the mode. Unlike our race, gender, politics and sensational interests, we don\u2019t wear belief in astrology on our sleeve.\n\nModel Selection\n---------------\n\nBoW models are somewhat unintuitive. Humans use syntactic information when decoding language, which the model discards. Yet, for many tasks they achieve state of the art performance. We compare our BoW to a character-level CNN on gender prediction, our most data rich problem. A character-level CNN is well suited to large amounts of messy, user generated data. Pooling layers in a CNN allow generalization of words like \u201cgooooooooo\u201d and \u201cgooooooo\u201d, while BoW must learn distinct weights. Surprisingly, the CNN does not outperform the simple BoW as shown in Table \\[acc\\_gender\\].\n\nWe found the choice of prediction model is not as important as preprocessing. In initial experiments, Support Vector Machines [@suykens1999least] and logistic regression, and $\\ell_2$ regularized regression yielded similar performance, depending on choice of $n$-grams and whether Singular Value Decomposition was used [@golub1970singular]. We implement ridge regression and classification for simplicity.\n\nInferring human traits from social media is now being done using deep models [@iyyer2014political; @preoctiuc2017beyond]. That may be useful in some cases, but for this project the deep model offered no performance boost or intuition to underlying human behavior. Perhaps a continuous bag of words [@mikolov2013distributed] and recurrent neural network [@felbo2017using] would have done better, but researchers should not consider deep learning essential for this field. Moreover, any performance gains should be weighed against loss of interpretability.\n\nCambridge Analytica {#CA}\n-------------------\n\nWith current technology, Facebook statuses are a better predictor of someone\u2019s IQ than the totality of their genetic material [@sniekers2017genome]. When a marketing firm adds such a tool to their arsenal it is natural to be suspicious. Indeed, The Guardian article that broke the CA story was headlined \u201c\u2018I made Steve Bannon\u2019s psychological warfare tool\u2019: meet the data war whistleblower\u201d [@guardianBannon]. (Steve Bannon is the former chief executive of the Trump presidential campaign.) However, closer inspection of psychographic models casts doubt on their ability to add value to an advertising campaign, even when the predictions are accurate. In this paper we show that militarism is one of the most easily inferred traits. At 16.5% explained variance, it is more predictable than any of the big 5 personality traits except openness, even with just 5% of the training data. SIQ is also a much stronger predictor of aggressive behavior than the Big 5 [@egan2009sensational]. If this trait was actionable for the Trump campaign, it is interesting that the two most highly weighted features are \u2018xbox\u2019 and \u2018man\u2019. Gaming interest and gender are already available via Facebook\u2019s advertising platform; reaching that demographic does not require an independent model. Additionally, Steve Bannon\u2019s belief in the political power of gamers predates CA\u2019s psychographic model by a decade [@wiredBannon].\n\nReaders are encouraged to view the word lists in the Appendix through the lens of task accuracy on Tables \\[acc\\_cont\\] and \\[acc\\_cat\\]. They may come to the same conclusion as the Trump campaign who, according to CBS News, \u201cnever used the psychographic data at the heart of a whistleblower who once worked to help acquire the data\u2019s reporting \u2013 principally because it was relatively new and of suspect quality and value.\u201d [@CBSbig5]. Performance results and extracted features allow for more informed discussion; particularly for SIQ, fair-mindedness and self-disclosure on which we report the first accurate prediction model.\n\nThere are limitations to this analysis. Our models only use statuses; Likes and network statistics could increase accuracy. Further, other psychographic traits beyond militarism may be politically useful but have no obvious demographic stand-in. Finally, we don\u2019t have access to CA\u2019s exact dataset and instead built our models on the myPersonality dataset.\n\n  -- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------\n                                                 \n                    **Agnostic**   **Atheist**   **Total**\n     **Agnostic**   36             33            69\n     **Atheist**    28             58            86\n     **Total**      64             91            \n  -- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------\n\n  : Agnostic vs Atheist Confusion Matrix[]{data-label=\"cm_biased\"}\n\n  -- ------ -------------- ------------- -----------\n                                         \n            **Agnostic**   **Atheist**   **Total**\n     ****   86             21            107\n     ****   34             16            50\n     ****   120            37            \n  -- ------ -------------- ------------- -----------\n\n  : Agnostic vs Atheist Confusion Matrix[]{data-label=\"cm_biased\"}\n\n  -- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------\n                                                 \n                    **Agnostic**   **Atheist**   **Total**\n     **Agnostic**   40             29            69\n     **Atheist**    31             55            86\n     **Total**      71             84            \n  -- -------------- -------------- ------------- -----------\n\n  : Fair Agnostic vs Atheist Confusion Matrix[]{data-label=\"cm_fair\"}\n\n  -- ------ -------------- ------------- -----------\n                                         \n            **Agnostic**   **Atheist**   **Total**\n     ****   85             22            107\n     ****   31             19            50\n     ****   116            41            \n  -- ------ -------------- ------------- -----------\n\n  : Fair Agnostic vs Atheist Confusion Matrix[]{data-label=\"cm_fair\"}\n\nGender Bias in Atheist vs Agnostic Classifier {#gender_bias}\n---------------------------------------------\n\nHighly weighted atheist words include \u201cfucking\u201d, \u201cbloody\u201d, \u201cmaths\u201d, \u201cdegrees\u201d, \u201cdisease\u201d, \u201cwifey\u201d, and \u201creligion\u201d. Meanwhile, \u201cbeautiful\u201d, \u201csanta\u201d, \u201cfriggin\u201d, \u201cthank\u201d, \u201chubby\u201d, \u201cmiles\u201d, and \u201cpaperwork\u201d imply the user is agnostic. This paints a picture of academic, male, disagreeable and British atheists. Agnostic words are more positive, female, and related to mundane preparation. A more complete list is shown in Table \\[words\\_rel\\_pol\\]. What follows is an empirical analysis of our estimator\u2018s gender bias, a discussion of fairness, and results debiasing the model.\n\nIn this dataset, atheists and agnostics are 33.5% and 50.3% female respectively. This is a stronger female preference for agnosticism than random surveys across the United States which report 32% and 38%, respectively [@pew]. Table \\[cm\\_biased\\] shows the confusion matrices for men and women. The ratio of predicted to true agnostics is 0.945 for men and 1.35 for women. Similarly, the ratio of false atheist to false agnostic predictions is 90.8% larger for men than women. The classification of women, the minority in this dataset, is highly distorted.\n\nModels built to generalize information often amplify biases in training data. Cooking videos elicit female pronouns in machine-generated captions 68% more than male pronouns, even though the training shows only 33% more women cooking [@zhao2017men]. Word embeddings used in machine translation [@zou2013bilingual], information retrieval [@clinchant2013aggregating], and student grade prediction [@luo2015predicting] produce analogies such as \u201cman is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker\u201d[@bolukbasi2016man].\n\nThere are many notions of fairness defined over an individual [@dwork2012fairness; @joseph2016rawlsian; @kusner2017counterfactual], population [@zafar2017fairness; @hardt2016equality], or information available to the model [@grgic2016case]. Building a fair estimator often requires domain knowledge to define a similarity metric [@dwork2012fairness], make corpus-level constraints [@zhao2017men], or construct a causal model that separates protected information from other latent variables [@kusner2017counterfactual]. In this paper, we will use the notion of Disparate Mistreatment to measure fairness [@zafar2017fairness]. That is, if protected classes experience disparate rates of false positive, false negative or overall misclassification, the estimator is unfair.\n\nTo mitigate Disparate Mistreatment we explicitly encode gender\u2014{$-1$,0,$1$} for {male, unknown, female}\u2014in the feature vector during train time. At test time the gender of all samples is encoded as unknown. The intuition is that latent variables are amplified when they are easy to extract and correlated with the target. As demonstrated by the accuracy of our race and gender predictors, that is often the case for protected information. There often exist more informative, if more subtle, traits than the protected features. For example, atheists and agnostics report a yawning gap in those that don\u2019t believe in God, at 92% and 41% [@pew]. Additionally, religiosity is shown to be correlated with both Agreeableness and Conscientiousness [@saroglou2010religiousness]. But gender is much easier to extract then belief in God or personality. By explicitly giving the model gender information, we hope that the model will do more to extract those other features.\n\nThis approach produces much less Disparate Mistreatment of men and women. The ratio of predicted to true agnostics moves closer to parity at 1.02 for men and 1.22 for women. Additionally, the ratio of false atheist to false agnostic predictions is now only 31.8% larger for men, compared to 90.8% without intervention. The most highly weighted agnostic words for the new fair classifier are also less gendered; \u201chair\u201d, \u201cwifey\u201d, and \u201cboyfriend\u201d are no longer in the top 55, as reported in Table \\[words\\_rel\\_pol\\]. We also saw no decay in classification rate.\n\nThe gender bias of the atheism classifier is clear by simply inspecting its most heavily weighted features. More opaque models should be subjected to more rigorous inspection for bias.\n\nConclusion and Future Work\n==========================\n\nWe match or set the state of the art for the 20 traits in this paper. Additionally, we provide the top words for many pairwise classification problems, and top 55 words for regression or binary classification problems. We hope researchers from many fields find the benchmarks and word lists useful. Our analysis of psychographic models in marketing as well as gender bias in a religion classifier are examples of how these performance measures and extracted features can be used together.\n\nIn future work we hope to explore what types of unfairness can be solved by our approach in Section \\[gender\\_bias\\]. Further, models built on traits with few examples are well suited to be augmented by transfer learning. This is especially pressing for detecting states like low satisfaction with life, which can be somewhat ameliorated at low cost.\n\n[angle=270]{}\n\n  -- --------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ -------------\n     **IPA**   **anarchist**   **centrist**   **conserv.**   **dem.**    **doesn\u2019t care**   **hates pol.**   **indep.**   **lib.**   **liber.**   **repub.**   **v. lib.**\n               fuck            wishes         wishes         smh         yay                rain             congrats     wishes     money        church       damn\n     excited                   wishes         driving        excited     lol                dont             driving      excited    ready        ready        excited\n     xd        fuck                           lord           today       tattoo             shit             surgery      shit       government   school       damn\n     xd        fuck            damn                          fb          anymore            shit             damn         damn       art          school       damn\n     xd        fuck            wishes         tonight                    stupid             fuck             died         wishes     government   church       wishes\n     packers   fuck            wishes         lord           smh                            shit             definitely   wishes     government   church       damn\n     class     music           dey            loves          fb          tht                                 movie        wishes     email        camp         damn\n     xd        fuck            wishes         lord           valentine   sitting            fuck                          wishes     beer         parents      damn\n     xd        fuck            final          lord           im          xd                 im               gonna                   government   church       damn\n     xd        fuck            headache       lord           walk        xd                 dont             till         packing                 girls        vacation\n     xd        fuck            wishes         wishes         smh         mum                fuck             minute       wishes     fucking                   damn\n     xd        xd              boy            lord           im          xd                 xd               school       missing    im           im           \n  -- --------- --------------- -------------- -------------- ----------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ -------------\n\n  : Pairwise Politics Words[]{data-label=\"pol_mat\"}\n\n[angle=270]{}\n\n  -- --------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ---------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------- -----------\n                                                                                                                                                                        \n     **IPA**   **anar.**   **centrist**   **conserv.**   **dem.**   **doesn\u2019t care**   **hates pol.**   **indep.**   **lib.**   **liber.**   **repub.**   **v. lib.**   **Total**\n     **0**     2           3              3              11         18                 2                1            3          1            16           1             61\n     0         **24**      4              3              5          21                 1                3            15         5            4            3             88\n     2         9           **74**         40             52         66                 3                6            95         7            43           4             401\n     2         5           29             **113**        26         31                 0                7            53         5            62           0             333\n     5         17          53             36             **321**    101                4                18           80         9            89           3             736\n     3         39          51             29             122        **373**            12               12           105        12           102          9             869\n     0         4           6              1              6          30                 **5**            3            6          0            2            0             63\n     0         8           16             13             35         22                 1                **8**        29         4            25           1             162\n     1         18          51             27             74         51                 6                6            **223**    15           24           13            509\n     0         12          17             9              17         28                 0                6            32         **11**       12           4             148\n     1         8           19             57             67         64                 1                8            29         3            **179**      3             439\n     0         4           25             2              11         22                 2                2            67         1            6            **3**         145\n     14        150         348            333            747        827                37               80           737        73           564          44            3954\n  -- --------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ---------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------- -----------\n\n  : Politics Confusion Matrix[]{data-label=\"cm_pol\"}\n\n  -- ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ----------\n     **athiest**   **agnostic**   **catholic**   **christian**   **none**\n                   boyfriend      thank          church          lol\n     fucking                      prayers        church          lol\n     fucking       fucking                       lol             lol\n     fucking       fucking        mass                           xmas\n     fucking       apartment      god            church          \n  -- ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ----------\n\n  : Pairwise Religion Words[]{data-label=\"mat_rel\"}\n\nThe most highly weighted word from each pairwise classifier. Word implies top label.\n\n  -- ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ---------- -----------\n                                                                            \n     **Atheist**   **Agnostic**   **Catholic**   **Christian**   **None**   **Total**\n     **68**        29             17             16              21         151\n     54            **69**         27             55              11         216\n     27            37             **172**        130             9          375\n     35            48             126            **560**         26         795\n     22            11             19             50              **39**     141\n     206           194            361            811             106        1678\n  -- ------------- -------------- -------------- --------------- ---------- -----------\n\n  : Religion Confusion Matrix[]{data-label=\"cm_rel\"}\n\nIn the remaining tables the top 55 words are listed in order for each trait.\n\n\\[words\\_big5\\]\n\n  -------------- ------------ ----------------- --------------- ------------ ------------\n                                                                             \n  **-**          **+**        **-**             **+**           **-**        **+**\n  bored          art          lost              gym             internet     party\n  boring         poetry       fucking           ready           quiet        guys\n  husband        beautiful    xd                weekend         bored        amazing\n  attitude       universe     phone             excited         listening    audition\n  shopping       peace        im                success         apparently   baby\n  dinner         poem         bored             finished        computer     haha\n  tv             writing      fuck              studying        stupid       dance\n  game           books        gonna             busy            pc           girls\n  proud          theatre      sick              vacation        hmm          fabulous\n  ur             dream        procrastination   arm             anime        blast\n  dentist        mind         internet          officially      tt           ready\n  daughter       book         computer          family          dark         im\n  dont           woman        probably          relax           probably     wine\n  haha           guitar       cousins           tennis          sims         success\n  stupid         damn         hates             wonderful       didn         lets\n  ni             awesome      sims              special         watching     excited\n  ipod           tea          anybody           win             slow         super\n  bed            apartment    charger           glad            depressing   text\n  justin         insomnia     sister            piano           calculus     chill\n  gift           xd           playing           scholarship     kind         phone\n  2nd            adventure    grounded          received        anymore      dear\n  hurt           cali         poker             lmao            repost       parties\n  ohh            far          tt                degrees         maybe        support\n  baseball       philosophy   status            state           draw         loves\n  mum            sigh         momma             tons            yay          pics\n  pray           nature       ftw               motor           trying       hey\n  school         maybe        press             obstacles       books        big\n  repost         music        dead              research        shadow       hit\n  booked         blues        failed            extremely       bother       met\n  lord           chill        forgot            circumstances   damned       pirate\n  ops            fam          depression        workout         suppose      ben\n  nice           epic         lazy              paid            reading      rocked\n  tmr            places       youtube           100             cat          gang\n  dam            rights       420               hit             poor         sex\n  idol           dragons      school            surgery         depression   sing\n  snowing        woot         http              law             sigh         btw\n  pissed         vampire      awsome            university      games        gorgeous\n  shut           soul         pokemon           anatomy         drawing      musical\n  maths          eclipse      woke              blessings       odd          cali\n  msn            drawing      dammit            hmmmm           10th         girlfriend\n  aldean         strange      hair              husband         pokemon      stoked\n  vodka          planet       wished            counting        nice         folks\n  comes          yay          cleaning          calc            essay        ponder\n  eid            dreams       fine              louis           pointless    wanna\n  alot           blood        dunno             delhi           managed      hahahaha\n  waste          sushi        enemy             final           looks        pool\n  worst          smoking      social            drive           grr          tanning\n  kiero          contact      yo                lets            darkness     hello\n  soo            lines        procrastinator    iphone          saw          pumped\n  mas            deep         black             lunch           crying       chillin\n  staff          genius       magic             yankees         lonely       theatre\n  12             novel        wasn              running         laptop       kiss\n  piss           smh          fans              weather         shouldn      office\n  transformers   worried      kinda             zone            paranoid     cock\n  car            folks        trying            smart           walking      lauren\n  -------------- ------------ ----------------- --------------- ------------ ------------\n\n  : Personality Words\n\n\\[words\\_big5\\_cont\\]\n\n  ----------- --------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -----------\n                                                                       \n  **-**       **+**           **-**          **+**        **-**        **+**\n  fucking     wonderful       loving         sick         bored        family\n  stupid      amazing         girlfriend     nervous      fuck         loving\n  kill        awesome         wife           stressed     fucking      hope\n  shopping    haha            awesome        depression   hates        thankful\n  shit        smile           parties        depressed    bday         india\n  burn        happiness       party          anymore      apparently   wonderful\n  bitch       phone           weekend        lonely       damn         busy\n  pissed      urself          haha           stress       internet     friend\n  punch       family          doing          fucking      zero         heart\n  hates       blessed         game           tired        chem         man\n  death       status          sunday         trying       wat          yum\n  hell        music           kansas         depressing   supposed     fb\n  suck        woop            guy            sims         ma           glad\n  freak       hands           delicious      anxiety      hating       beautiful\n  piss        heart           beach          worst        spend        lauren\n  dead        spirit          definitely     hair         la           lord\n  xmas        smiles          swag           fed          dumb         wine\n  karma       guy             started        scream       young        swim\n  fight       moment          ready          fine         british      energy\n  blood       beautiful       hunting        nightmare    killed       lunch\n  awful       movie           power          rip          hmm          locked\n  deal        theres          funniest       tears        france       woot\n  misery      car             melody         horrible     chances      sons\n  fuck        dancing         hawaii         flu          simply       special\n  enemies     lord            action         worse        exams        trust\n  fake        guitar          hit            issues       mum          wish\n  pathetic    sore            chillin        scared       main         weeks\n  irony       sara            workout        stressful    hate         day\n  dumb        help            flow           fml          edge         father\n  cunt        walk            portland       care         dnt          tried\n  care        excited         seat           shes         party        journey\n  devil       prayers         smart          stressing    kept         hospital\n  black       knowing         snowboarding   ugh          dat          email\n  ich         valentines      knowing        sad          didn         business\n  russian     borrow          sore           gary         months       santa\n  idiots      laura           greatest       hates        du           walked\n  cunts       notifications   success        die          rain         lights\n  wtf         beard           basketball     actually     pass         kingdom\n  crap        reli            update         scary        bus          work\n  truck       snowboarding    gf             boyfriend    okay         lol\n  deleted     sorry           women          pills        australia    mommy\n  anger       chillin         gotta          crying       shooting     turkey\n  die         hill            followed       kitty        england      nap\n  tu          whats           jumping        awful        africa       revenge\n  nightmare   hearts          fool           hurt         rachel       truly\n  annoyed     kindness        dancing        bored        fml          son\n  rip         study           greatness      fair         metal        final\n  bloody      worry           blast          screaming    uk           reached\n  drama       clients         woke           dreading     school       survived\n  bitches     smells          ass            friggin      wtf          dont\n  stupidity   troops          hitting        suicide      matt         0\n  hair        sing            cock           miserable    freakin      god\n  wifi        goood           wise           quiet        15           kitchen\n  fat         holy            kiss           xd           200          normal\n  rage        faster          toes           sadness      free         blessing\n  ----------- --------------- -------------- ------------ ------------ -----------\n\n  : Personality Words Continued\n\n\\[words\\_siq\\]\n\n  ------------ ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------\n                                                                \n  **-**        **+**      **-**       **+**       **-**         **+**\n  sleeping     man        lord        hell        im            life\n  ugh          xbox       pray        zombie      course        jon\n  sad          gets       cousins     damn        boring        beautiful\n  excited      gotta      church      fuck        painful       dancing\n  lovely       good       michael     bitch       decision      yoga\n  oh           training   allah       ass         hurts         thankful\n  hair         headed     jesus       drink       bus           peace\n  shopping     truck      game        blood       game          kinda\n  husband      guitar     0           lmao        stupid        truly\n  sick         guys       summer      xd          bak           la\n  cares        bro        gosh        woot        hero          ich\n  mum          gun        praise      halloween   problem       miss\n  boyfriend    boom       sunday      play        yeah          likes\n  lady         epic       dad         guys        christ        comfort\n  concert      work       loving      drunk       gona          lol\n  today        weight     mum         thanx       id            wtf\n  gaga         gym        team        animal      sittin        insomnia\n  okay         bike       hospital    sanity      die           chicken\n  pic          dang       10          fucking     horse         children\n  adorable     game       tv          dragons     yell          tired\n  sunday       blast      christ      burn        chuck         lovely\n  ordered      lol        heal        vampires    2day          ap\n  birth        war        usa         blah        tommorrow     funny\n  lots         black      personal    man         ow            things\n  poor         fish       best        loved       bored         man\n  ben          military   ray         pissed      fukin         simple\n  fine         woot       nervous     lil         inbox         thank\n  settings     12         thing       bday        race          period\n  birthday     till       look        send        basketball    countdown\n  cousins      ppl        week        body        word          baby\n  shoes        brave      2morrow     metal       rhys          beach\n  art          17         quite       head        tell          hey\n  omg          fight      poor        piss        step          depression\n  stop         success    brazil      blast       wats          jobs\n  wear         marines    cup         theyre      coke          cure\n  prince       hrs        zumba       cause       football      manage\n  round        sword      account     gun         penguins      sugar\n  come         make       website     death       won           aware\n  neighbours   ko         tryna       vampire     facebookers   singing\n  basement     friend     study       bleh        letters       egg\n  music        hit        haha        tattoo      awsome        taste\n  speak        play       soccer      ppl         dont          rains\n  thoughts     pics       feeling     dead        blah          log\n  story        hahaha     christmas   woman       till          taught\n  weird        troops     round       purple      playing       coolest\n  awful        army       youth       peaceful    dead          yellow\n  quite        running    story       message     fact          cheers\n  rachel       mag        bible       shit        learned       small\n  hear         strong     woah        angel       visit         society\n  alice        knw        grace       kinda       address       fly\n  tea          beer       prayers     tongue      14            social\n  promised     hehehe     plan        sushi       chilling      boo\n  jesus        comwatch   feat        wolf        win           beauty\n  actually     xoxo       anybody     poke        pokemon       world\n  counting     run        stressed    kick        sees          sunshine\n  ------------ ---------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------\n\n  : Sensational Interest Words\n\n\\[words\\_siq\\_cont\\]\n\n  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------\n                                                                 \n  **-**         **+**       **-**       **+**       **No**       **Yes**\n  church        zombie      coke        woot        minutes      omg\n  praise        ass         michigan    camping     didn         im\n  jesus         bitch       stupid      fish        church       ready\n  lord          halloween   pathetic    life        praise       friend\n  bible         animal      ops         yesterday   jesus        mind\n  christ        sign        husband     beautiful   probably     ass\n  team          omg         didn        rain        physics      butt\n  quite         xd          hurts       man         jess         stay\n  loving        job         kurwa       mexico      white        tom\n  pray          woot        evil        wish        religion     tomarrow\n  paper         wish        afternoon   river       iv           october\n  game          cure        problem     love        officially   promise\n  blessed       street      taylor      path        imagine      lol\n  salvation     vampire     idea        moon        christ       searching\n  ops           guys        jess        haha        germany      bitch\n  summer        send        glee        snow        giants       bleh\n  michael       lol         mum         bike        saw          eye\n  spent         thanx       mental      hahaha      wants        cute\n  youth         luck        meg         ghost       north        family\n  cousins       wtf         mad         baking      decided      halloween\n  word          nature      360         grandma     discovered   hanging\n  god           cancer      pissed      live        11th         haunted\n  homework      woohoo      club        goin        ouch         japanese\n  alarm         miss        uni         sky         skin         mother\n  0             barely      lyrics      cat         doesn        dinner\n  haha          moment      head        animal      bacon        card\n  player        bar         recently    netflix     train        help\n  sunday        safe        internet    birds       hahaha       bored\n  college       proud       min         smile       lasts        luv\n  wedding       woman       lesson      happiness   america      luck\n  prayer        mom         bus         mom         haven        neighbors\n  glory         away        rly         yum         burning      yum\n  forgiveness   dare        debate      fishing     pray         fireworks\n  ann           inches      kevin       truly       thursday     lmao\n  mm            boyfriend   inbox       fell        jessica      tt\n  political     il          jeez        make        prince       tired\n  fact          nd          official    clean       knew         person\n  greatest      pls         nite        portland    umm          nd\n  confused      aware       ms          smells      quiero       watch\n  appreciated   xmas        lack        lake        deserves     ya\n  algebra       hell        saw         create      heres        prom\n  brazil        solstice    troy        making      finds        crazy\n  travel        date        sims        2010        kim          upload\n  daughter      vampires    school      josh        heard        elf\n  bacon         copy        thinks      children    punch        hehe\n  laura         purple      thanking    laughing    groups       crack\n  personal      haunted     die         sa          car          bell\n  week          theyre      hates       law         amazing      human\n  greater       lmao        stuff       jobs        sick         finish\n  statement     later       band        earth       tape         lnk\n  messed        interview   thieves     gets        drink        june\n  tv            peeps       feels       hehehe      morn         change\n  em            peaceful    elm         swimming    dallas       costume\n  poor          drunk       germany     wa          cops         shit\n  trust         dunno       sat         monkeys     waters       decorating\n  ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------\n\n  : Sensational Interest Words Continued\n\n\\[words\\_psych\\]\n\n  ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------- -----------\n                                                                  \n  **-**        **+**       **-**       **+**        **-**         **+**\n  bored        family      bored       excited      nite          exam\n  fuck         loving      wat         business     ur            hours\n  fucking      hope        soon        says         lmao          sigh\n  hates        thankful    dad         apartment    alot          camping\n  bday         india       xd          great        family        finish\n  apparently   wonderful   stage       delicious    omg           paper\n  damn         busy        pass        sure         2011          wtf\n  internet     friend      moon        needed       city          il\n  zero         heart       haha        seattle      lol           finds\n  chem         man         kitty       uni          help          important\n  wat          yum         tired       airport      wew           read\n  supposed     fb          mum         thankful     boy           physics\n  ma           glad        farmville   dallas       heart         google\n  hating       beautiful   face        learn        com           ra\n  spend        lauren      drank       weekend      angie         xd\n  la           lord        fuk         definitely   www           wifi\n  dumb         wine        fuck        dinner       ha            text\n  young        swim        ma          card         333           weeks\n  british      energy      sun         amazing      tom           studying\n  killed       lunch       crap        tonight      goodnight     training\n  hmm          locked      bday        exciting     history       course\n  france       woot        shit        degrees      xxx           student\n  chances      sons        hopefully   classes      xdd           magic\n  simply       special     feel        support      friend        kinda\n  exams        trust       fails       priceless    morning       everytime\n  mum          wish        va          oh           mum           raining\n  main         weeks       big         certainly    christmas     yea\n  hate         day         nd          government   eid           maths\n  edge         father      smoke       ticket       kay           semester\n  dnt          tried       yay         food         gives         maybe\n  party        journey     watchin     january      din           exciting\n  kept         hospital    sick        couple       beautiful     point\n  dat          email       wedding     php          folks         kno\n  didn         business    regret      journey      luv           excited\n  months       santa       seconds     universe     0             imma\n  du           walked      im          21           hacked        months\n  rain         lights      ignore      grateful     secrets       flying\n  pass         kingdom     tt          pay          iam           final\n  bus          work        lose        size         forgiveness   nah\n  okay         lol         marriage    class        strong        library\n  australia    mommy       lolz        situation    busy          used\n  shooting     turkey      fukin       duke         jo            chem\n  england      nap         picture     honesty      hate          brain\n  africa       revenge     blessing    austin       ti            everybody\n  rachel       truly       slow        tires        nightmare     awesome\n  fml          son         anxiety     29           ayaw          groups\n  metal        final       cy3         sisters      prayer        progress\n  uk           reached     library     mother       fought        champion\n  school       survived    tmr         heading      ow            calculus\n  wtf          dont        fucking     bc           sana          behave\n  matt         0           epic        piece        tired         den\n  freakin      god         il          summer       afraid        badly\n  15           kitchen     marie       breakfast    para          times\n  200          normal      bunch       answer       sum           mobil\n  free         blessing    loaded      surgery      movie         fun\n  ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ ------------- -----------\n\n  : Psychographic Words\n\n\\[words\\_rel\\_pol\\]\n\n  --------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ --------------\n  extra           physics     miles       fucking      church      fucking     church       damn\n  miles           fucking     working     physics      pray        fuck        truck        happy\n  turn            snowing     extra       wat          prayers     xmas        government   fb\n  **hair**        shit        awhile      fuck         god         damn        america      smh\n  packing         wat         packing     bloody       easter      shit        pray         marriage\n  awhile          write       turn        shit         lord        bloody      haha         xmas\n  insane          bloody      super       write        blessed     hell        prayers      chicago\n  working         enter       **hubby**   maths        christmas   ass         deer         sex\n  **hubby**       fuck        chill       xx           ugh         india       christmas    hell\n  points          sigh        free        snowing      praying     zombie      country      fam\n  friggin         thinks      sleepy      enter        hw          fuckin      tonight      lovely\n  santa           talk        santa       thinks       ppl         halloween   17           halloween\n  heck            weeks       heck        talk         prayer      car         lord         health\n  wishes          town        ready       science      game        yay         awesome      saw\n  child           science     friggin     sigh         believe     social      god          yoga\n  free            maths       vacation    hai          family      xx          military     celebrate\n  **boyfriend**   degrees     work        cancer       ready       quite       texas        gay\n  lady            lolz        thursday    person       fb          religion    freedom      apartment\n  learn           record      late        coursework   bless       drink       savior       wtf\n  super           xmas        points      town         im          oh          dad          thoughts\n  houston         tom         pack        xd           calling     using       bible        shit\n  service         hai         houston     weeks        dang        shitty      jesus        glee\n  pack            person      insane      tom          paper       internet    supper       gaga\n  late            dat         ya          film         jesus       fucked      girls        da\n  wanting         tyler       relax       dat          school      damned      huge         palin\n  hasn            cod         join        kill         camp        omfg        praying      2010\n  mai             afraid      busy        lolz         gosh        meh         camp         help\n  sleepy          untill      learn       msn          heart       indian      soldiers     mexico\n  worked          present     child       english      success     post        byu          mother\n  fly             **wifey**   headed      xmas         mary        head        christ       indian\n  chill           movie       favorite    chemistry    strength    cricket     disney       lady\n  join            xx          beautiful   afraid       butt        any1        risen        studies\n  kyle            cancer      season      na           fishing     dragon      beach        social\n  dun             boring      san         pierced      brother     lovely      tournament   art\n  thursday        rape        fly         dick         military    body        troops       holiday\n  taken           month       worked      anatomy      sad         new         schools      shitty\n  childhood       kill        service     bbc          uncle       boyfriend   leave        ve\n  mother          welcome     spring      tell         senior      teeth       ill          free\n  thank           clinton     wanting     untill       fair        nice        blonde       earthquake\n  headed          nicht       halloween   memory       mom         fml         armed        street\n  ya              ay          lady        bothered     tan         warped      xbox         phone\n  london          brother     thank       horse        watching    woke        reagan       lakers\n  beautiful       tell        childhood   record       em          bleh        utah         ur\n  jail            hadn        mai         cod          president   wednesday   served       fine\n  hates           pierced     hair        ki           smh         gods        tide         relationship\n  paperwork       wild        paperwork   nicht        love        afford      gators       asshole\n  wanna           use         4th         sheep        haha        japanese    pelosi       worried\n  clear           perfect     hopefully   chem         future      tongue      husband      purple\n  san             return      missed      brother      best        robert      stinks       putting\n  til             needed      peace       fancy        emails      sophie      trial        omg\n  halloween       paid        hasn        degrees      goin        holy        picked       nature\n  bring           half        trip        disease      football    eye         beep         prop\n  kindle          horse       mother      realised     latest      tattoo      gun          black\n  vida            disease     sunshine    room         thank       decent      trailer      live\n  powers          chuck       kyle        religion     matthew     odd         ready        eid\n  --------------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ------------ --------------\n\n  : Religion and Politics Words\n\n\\[words\\_race\\]\n\n  -------------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ----------- -------------\n  tonight        smh        tonight       asian         smh         korea\n  dad            fb         blonde        tt            fb          sa\n  stupid         lord       town          tmr           lord        na\n  exited         fam        fuckin        korea         wit         asian\n  thinks         nigeria    ass           chinese       aint        gay\n  ends           yall       college       ng            da          chinese\n  journey        black      gas           na            yall        internet\n  meet           fathers    dope          korean        lol         korean\n  hahahahahaha   mj         worse         china         say         monday\n  fun            yuh        night         ang           fam         xd\n  awesome        gon        men           aq            jackson     tmr\n  ability        birthday   sons          asians        cos         shooting\n  night          mad        adult         chen          michael     philippines\n  mas            lol        pretty        guys          finals      3d\n  wouldnt        finish     theres        thailand      ass         babe\n  chargers       dey        idea          taiwan        yuh         heaven\n  bein           asap       hope          karaoke       black       important\n  aftr           tryna      ability       sa            ny          tan\n  pretty         jackson    melissa       chan          sooooo      thailand\n  eh             came       state         dream         mad         yummy\n  tom            degrassi   unique        company       mind        completely\n  exhausted      wat        weekend       craving       season      woot\n  tough          iz         screaming     zzz           wat         smell\n  great          hw         mamaya        holiday       birthday    bought\n  running        pple       tune          wanna         degrassi    fly\n  exciting       jus        figure        ms            hell        tt\n  yankees        braids     inside        nguyen        chelsea     worry\n  politics       haters     exited        singapore     woman       ruin\n  mirror         females    wine          yang          figure      passed\n  pepsi          misfits    5th           hu            african     skating\n  roll           god        superman      fat           nigeria     english\n  animal         man        emotionally   ftw           episode     belong\n  grr            omg        sell          gg            iz          shot\n  gay            african    sitting       rice          smart       mas\n  tattoo         desires    february      tttt          saying      grandpa\n  2nite          chelsea    easter        damnit        asap        lazy\n  spend          female     months        555           attention   sacrifice\n  monday         cousin     saying        wong          knowing     grr\n  sorrow         holla      expecting     achieve       ki          broken\n  ed             smart      rollin        pa            meeting     yang\n  healthy        laker      wheres        mode          hw          beer\n  enjoyable      favour     eminem        lmao          sings       chatting\n  actually       dis        apparently    pride         india       meet\n  charity        money      does          bbq           gas         shoulder\n  delete         happy      status        super         self        ang\n  iron           mii        legit         1st           ready       funn\n  blonde         aye        30            long          college     shoes\n  comforted      hard       wen           skating       mj          wood\n  standards      wuz        eric          mean          search      dad\n  shot           ready      yelled        heart         years       apart\n  chose          nigga      mis           dx            misfits     aj\n  chatting       jamaica    breaking      faith         blessed     line\n  damage         bus        homework      expectation   advice      jack\n  innocent       facebook   actually      research      boys        totally\n  thnx           cos        wishes        hard          fathers     tomorrow\n  -------------- ---------- ------------- ------------- ----------- -------------\n\n  : Race Words\n"}
-{"text": "[**SYMMETRY CONSTRAINTS AND THE ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES OF A QUANTUM DOT WITH THIRTEEN ELECTRONS**]{}\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 G.M. Huang, Y.M. Liu, and C.G. Bao\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The State Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Materials and Technologies, and\n\nDepartment of Physics, Zhongshan University, \u00a0Guangzhou, 510275, P.R. China\n\nABSTRACT: The symmetry constraints imposing on the quantum states of a dot with 13 electrons has been investigated. Based on this study, the favorable structures (FSs) of each state has been identified. Numerical calculations have been performed to inspect the role played by the FSs. It was found that, if a first-state has a remarkably competitive FS, this FS would be pursued and the state would be crystal-like and have a specific core-ring structure associated with the FS. The magic numbers are found to be closely related to the FSs.\n\nPACS(numbers): 73.61.-r\n\n1, INTRODUCTION\n\nModern experimental techniques, e.g., by using electrostatic gates and by etching, allow a certain number of electrons to be confined in semiconductor heterostructures.$^{1-6}$\u00a0\u00a0Such many-electron systems have much in common with atoms, yet they are man-made structures and are usually called \u201d quantum dot \u201d. \u00a0The number of electrons contained in a dot ranges from a few to a few thousands, they are confined in a domain one hundred or more times larger than the atoms. Thus, in addition to atoms, nuclei,$\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot $ that exist in nature, quantum dots as a new kind of system will definitely contain new and rich physics, and therefore they attract certainly the interest of academic research.\n\n\u00a0\u00a0On the other hand, the properties of the dots can be changed \u00a0in a controlled way, e.g., by changing the gate voltage or by applying an adjustable magnetic field, etc. Therefore, these systems \u00a0have a great potential in application. Due to this fact, the investigation of quantum dots is a hot topic in recent years$^{1-6}$. \u00a0In the experimental aspect, progress has been made to reveal different kinds of physical property. A crucial point is to clarify the electronic structures. An important step along this line is the first observation of the Coulomb blockade spectra via the measurement \u00a0of conductance as a function of gate voltage$^{7}$, where very clear level structure has been demonstrated. Afterwards, a substantial amount of information is drawn from conductance measurement. \u00a0The measurement of the difference in chemical potential exhibits also clear shell structures$^{8}$. \u00a0The excitation of electron can be probed by far-infrared and capacitance spectroscopy.$^{9,10}$ \u00a0With further progress in experimental techniques, the dots will definitely be understood better and better, and they will serve as a rich source of information on many-body physics in the coming years.\n\nIn the theoretical aspects, detailed information on electronic structures has been obtained for the systems with a smaller N (say, N$<$10)$%\n^{2,4,6}$. \u00a0When N is small, the effect of symmetry was found to be very important, e.g., the magic angular momenta of few-electron dots originate from the constraint of symmetry$^{11-13}$. When N is larger (say, N $\\geq $10), the effect of symmetry is scarcely studied. The systems with a larger N are themselves very attractive, because they might possess both the features of few-body and many-body systems. Thus the understanding of these systems might serve as a bridge to connect few-body and many-body physics. In a previous paper, the electronic structures of a dot with nine electrons have been studied$^{13}$. The present paper is a continuation of the previous one, and is dedicated to the study of the dot with N=13 and with the spins polarized. The choice of thirteen is rather arbitrary, just because it is explicitly larger than the systems with N$<$10 which have already been extensively studied, and because it is not very large so that accurate numerical calculations (in the qualitative sense) and detailed analysis can still be performed. From a previous study by a number of authors$^{13-18}$ , it is believed that a general picture of dots would consist of a core surrounding by a ring. It would be interesting to see, \u00a0when N is larger, how the details of the core-ring structure would be and how these structures are affected by symmetry . Such a study would exhibit further insight of many-body physics.\n\nIn what follows, the 13-body Schr\u00f6dinger equation is solved \u00a0via an exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian, the accuracy has been evaluated. The underlying dynamical and symmetry background has been studied. \u00a0Favorable structures for each state have been suggested based on symmetry consideration. The eigenwavefunctions have been analyzed in detail to exhibit how the electronic structures are affected by symmetry. The appearance of magic numbers is discussed.\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 2, HAMILTONIAN AND THE APPROACH\n\nLet the electrons be fully polarized (therefore the spin-part can be neglected and the spatial wave functions are totally antisymmetric) , and confined in a 2-dimensional plane by a parabolic confinement. The Hamiltonian reads\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0$H=T+U\\qquad \\qquad (1.1)$\n\n$\\qquad T=-\\sum\\limits_{j=1}^{N}\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}}{2m^{\\ast }}\\nabla\n_{j}^{2}\\qquad \\qquad \\qquad (1.2)$\n\n$\\qquad U=\\sum\\limits_{j=1}^{N}\\frac{1}{2}m^{\\ast }\\omega _{o}^{2}r_{j}^{2}+%\n\\frac{e^{2}}{4\\pi \\varepsilon _{r}\\varepsilon _{0}}\\sum\\limits_{j<k}^{N}%\n\\frac{1}{r_{jk}}$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(1.3)\n\nwhere m\\* is the effective electron mass, $\\varepsilon _{r}$ is the dielectric constant, and $\\hbar \\omega _{o}$measures the strength of the parabolic confinement\u00a0(\u00a0$\\omega _{o}$\u00a0arises mainly from a magnetic field $B$. This field leads also to a term linearly proportional to $B$ . This term has been neglected because it does not at all affect the eigenwavefunctions, and therefore not affect the electronic structures).\n\n\u00a0In order to diagonalize the Hamiltonian, a set of orthonormalized single-particle harmonic oscillation (h.o.)states $\\phi _{mk}$ \u00a0are introduced. \u00a0Here, \u00a0$\\phi _{mk}$ \u00a0is an eigenstate of a pure h.o. Hamiltonian\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0$h=-\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}}{2m^{\\ast }}\\nabla ^{2}+\\frac{1}{2}%\nm^{\\ast }\\Omega _{0}^{2}r^{2}$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(2)\n\nwhere $\\Omega _{0}$ is an adjustable parameter in general not equal to $%\n\\omega _{o}$, This eigenstate has eigenenergy $(m+k+1)\\hbar \\Omega _{0}$ \u00a0and angular momentum $(m-k)\\hbar $ \u00a0\u00a0. From them the many-body basis functions (BFs)\n\n\u00a0$\\ \\psi _{\\alpha }(1,2,\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot ,N)=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{N!}}%\n\\left|\n\\begin{array}{cccc}\n\\phi _{m_{1}k_{1}}(\\vec{r}_{1}) & \\phi _{m_{1}k_{1}}(\\vec{r}_{2}) & \\cdot\n\\cdot \\cdot & \\phi _{m_{1}k_{1}}(\\vec{r}_{N}) \\\\\n\\phi _{m_{2}k_{2}}(\\vec{r}_{1}) & \\phi _{m_{2}k_{2}}(\\vec{r}_{2}) & \\cdot\n\\cdot \\cdot & \\phi _{m_{2}k_{2}}(\\vec{r}_{N}) \\\\\n\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot & \\cdot \\cdot \\cdot & \\cdot \\cdot \\cdot & \\cdot \\cdot \\cdot\n\\\\\n\\phi _{m_{N}k_{N}}(\\vec{r}_{1}) & \\phi _{m_{2}k_{2}}(\\vec{r}_{2}) & \\cdot\n\\cdot \\cdot & \\phi _{m_{N}k_{N}}(\\vec{r}_{N})\n\\end{array}\n\\right| $\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(3)\n\nwith a given total orbital angular momentum $L=\\sum_{i}(m_{i}-k_{i})$ are composed.\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0From the BFs, the eigenstates of the dot are expanded as\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0$\\Psi =\\sum C_{\\alpha\n}\\psi _{\\alpha }$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(4)\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0where \u00a0the coefficients $C_{\\alpha }$ can be obtained via a procedure of diagonalization. \u00a0The $\\ \\psi _{\\alpha }$ are arranged in such a sequence that $<\\psi _{\\alpha }|H|\\psi _{\\alpha }>$\u00a0$\\leq $ $<\\psi\n_{\\alpha +1}|H|$\u00a0$\\psi _{\\alpha +1}>$\u00a0. Evidently, in such a sequence, the $\\ \\psi _{\\alpha }$ with a smaller $\\alpha $ is more important to the low-lying states, while those with a very large $\\alpha $ can be neglected. \u00a0The $H$ will be diagonalized step by step. In the first step, $H$ is diagonalized in a smaller space with N$_{a}$ BFs ( $\\psi _{1}$ to $\\psi\n_{N_{a}}$) . Then, $H$ is diagonalized\u00a0again in a larger space with N$_{b}$ BFs ( from $\\psi _{1}$ to $\\psi _{N_{b}}$ , and N$_{b}$ is considerably larger than N$_{a}$) . This process repeats again and again until a satisfactory convergency of the lower eigenenergies is achieved. \u00a0In the first step, all the $\\ \\psi _{\\alpha }$ for the diagonalization is limited to the lowest Landau levels (LLL), \u00a0i.e., all the $\\phi _{m_{i}k_{i}}$ contained in $\\ \\psi _{\\alpha }$\u00a0have $k_{i}=0$. However, step by step, BFs of higher Landau levels will mixed in. In order to speed up the convergency, the $\\Omega _{0}$\u00a0in eq.(2) is considered as a variational parameter to optimize the lower eigenenergies emerged from the diagonalization.\n\n\\[w\\] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In the following calculation, we have m\\*=0.067$m_{e}$, $\\hbar \\omega _{0}$=3meV, $\\varepsilon _{r}$=12.4 (for a GaAs dot). \u00a0To show the convergency, as an example, the lowest eigenenergies with $L$=82 are obtained as $436.895,$ $436.806$ and $436.760$meV when the number of BFs are 6000, 9000, and 12000, respectively. One can see that the convergency is not very good. However, the densities calculated below by using 6000, 9000 and 12000 BFs are indistinguishable (e.g. in Fig.1). Since we are mainly interested in the qualitative aspect, the accuracy that we have achieved is sufficient.\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0After the diagonalization the eigenstates are obtained. The series of states \u00a0having the same $L$ is labeled as ($L$)$%\n_{i} $. The $i=1$ state (the lowest of the $L$-series) is called a first-state.\n\nThe eigenwavefunctions of a 13-electron system are complicated. In order to extract informations from them the following physical quantities are defined and calculated. They are the one-body density\n\n$\\rho _{1}(r_{1})=\\int \\left| \\Psi _{L}\\right| ^{2}d{\\bf r}_{2}d{\\bf r}%\n_{3}\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot d{\\bf r}_{13}$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(5a)\n\nthe two-body density\n\n$\\rho _{2}({\\bf r}_{1}{\\bf ,r}_{2})=\\int \\left| \\Psi _{L}\\right| ^{2}d{\\bf r}%\n_{3}d{\\bf r}_{4}\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot d{\\bf r}_{13}$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(5b)\n\nand the three-body density\n\n$\\rho _{3}({\\bf r}_{1}{\\bf ,r}_{2}{\\bf ,r}_{3})=\\int \\left| \\Psi _{L}\\right|\n^{2}d{\\bf r}_{4}d{\\bf r}_{5}\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot d{\\bf r}_{13}$ \u00a0,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(5c)\n\nIt was found that in many cases the $\\rho _{1}(r)$ has an outer peak and an inner peak with a minimum lying in between (at $r=a)$. In this case we can define an outer region ($r$ $\\geq a$) and an inner region ($r$ $<$ $a$) . \u00a0Accordingly, we can define the average number of particles $N_{out}$ and $N_{in}$ contained in the outer and inner regions, respectively, \u00a0as\n\n$N_{out}=N\\int_{a}^{\\infty }\\rho _{1}(r_{1})d{\\bf r}_{1}$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(6a)\u00a0\u00a0 $\\qquad N_{in}=N\\int_{0}^{a}\\rho _{1}(r_{1})d{\\bf r}_{1}$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(6b)\n\nFor example, \u00a0the (88)$_{1}$ state has $a$ =367.8$\\stackrel{o}{A}$, $%\nN_{out}=$ 9.97 and $N_{in}=$3.03.\n\nOnce the border $a$ is defined, we can define the angular momenta $%\nl_{out}$ and the moments of inertia $I_{out}$\u00a0contributed by the outer region, respectively ,\u00a0as\n\n$l_{out}=N\\int_{a}^{\\infty }d{\\bf r}_{1}\\int \\Psi _{L}^{\\ast }%\n\\widehat{l_{1}}\\Psi _{L}d{\\bf r}_{2}\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot d{\\bf r}_{13}$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(7)\u00a0\u00a0 and\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0$\\ \\ I_{out}$ $=M\\int_{a}^{\\infty }\\rho _{1}(r_{1})r_{1}^{2}d{\\bf r}%\n_{1}$\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(8) \u00a0where $M=Nm^{\\ast }$\u00a0is the total mass. Similarly, the $l_{in}$ and $%\nI_{in}$ contributed from the inner region can also be defined. \u00a0Although these quantities are not good quantum numbers, they can help us to understand better the physics as shown later.\n\n3, DYNAMICAL AND\u00a0SYMMETRY BACKGROUND\n\nQuantum mechanic systems are affected by both dynamical reasons and symmetry consideration . The following points are noticeable:\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0(i) [**Core-ring structures**]{}.\n\nThe spatial wave functions of low-lying states are mainly distributed in an area where the total potential energy $U$ (eq.(1.3)) is lower. \u00a0In particular, they would like to be distributed surrounding the (local)minima of $U$. In order to find out the (local)minima, let \u00a0N$_{in}$ electrons be contained inside to form a core, and N$_{out}$ electrons be contained outside to form a ring, N$_{in}$+N$_{out}=$N. When the relative locations of the electrons are appropriately adjusted (e.g., they form two homocentric regular polygons with or without an electron at the center) $U$ will be optimized and arrives at its (local) minimum $U_{opt}$, \u00a0the associated configuration is called an N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$ core-ring configuration. In this configuration, let the \u00a0ratio of the radii of the outer\u00a0polygon and the inner polygon be denoted as G$_{opt}$. $U_{opt}$ and \u00a0G$_{opt}$ are given in Table 1.\n\n\u00a0\u00a0Table 1, \u00a0The optimal values $U_{opt}$ and the associated G$_{opt}$ of the (local)minima of $U$ , each is associated with a N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$ core-ring configuration.\n\n   N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$    1-12     2-11    \u00a03-10     4-9      5-8      6-7      7-6      8-5\n  -------------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------\n    $U_{opt}$ (meV)     281.41   278.35   274.83   274.22   274.93   276.31   275.73   278.76\n       G$_{opt}$                  3.73     2.83     2.41     2.16     2.02     1.77     1.70\n\n\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Evidently, a too small or too large N$_{out}$ (say, N$_{out}\\leq\n7$ or N$_{out}\\geq 11)$\u00a0is not advantageous to binding. Furthermore, the outer polygon should be neither too close to nor too far away from the core.\n\nIn what follows, when the wave function of a state is distributed surrounding a N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$ core-ring configuration, then the state is said to have a N$_{in}-$N$_{out}$ structure. If the configuration has an electron at the center, then the structure is further denoted as (N$%\n_{in})_{c}-$N$_{out}$ , \u00a0otherwise as\u00a0(N$_{in})_{h}-$N$_{out}$ . The subscript $h$ implies a hollow structure.\n\nIt is shown in the table that the $U_{opt}$ of a number of configurations are quite close to each other. At a first glance, one might expect that a strong mixing of geometric configurations would occur and would spoil the crystal-like picture. However, this is not true mainly due to the quantum constraints as we shall see later.\n\n\\(ii) [**Uniform rotation**]{} .\n\n\u00a0Let us consider first a classical model system of two rotating homocentric rings. the outer ring has ($b\\leq r\\leq a$), while the inner ring has ($d\\leq r\\leq c$ , and $\\ $c$\\leq b$). \u00a0Let the angular momentum, the moment of inertia and the angular velocity of the outer (inner) ring be $%\nl_{out}$, $I_{out}$ and $\\omega _{out}$ ( $l_{in}$, $I_{in}$\u00a0and \u00a0$\\omega\n_{in}$), respectively. The total angular momentum $L=l_{out}+l_{in}=I_{out}%\n\\omega _{out}+I_{in}\\omega _{in}$ , and the total rotation energy $T=\\frac{1%\n}{2}(I_{out}\\omega _{out}^{2}+I_{in}\\omega _{in}^{2})$ . Now, let us ask how the $\\omega _{out}$ and $\\omega _{in}$ would be chosen so that $T$ is minimized under the condition that $L$ is conserved? The answer is simply $%\n\\omega _{out}=\\omega _{in}=L/(I_{out}+I_{in})=L/I$. This fact implies that if the two rings are rotating with the same angular velocity, the rotation energy can be reduced. Although this point is viewed from classical mechanics, however the first-states of a quantum mechanic system would do its best to lower the energy, thus they would pursue a uniform rotation, i.e., $\\omega _{out}\\approx \\omega _{in}$ .\n\nFrom the point of view of quantum mechanics, the low-lying states are mainly dominated by the BFs belonging to the LLL. In these BFs, all the single-particle state $\\phi _{mk}$ have \u00a0$k=0$ and angular momentum $%\nl=m-k=m $. For each $\\phi _{mk}$ , the angular velocity can be defined as $%\n\\omega =<l>/(m^{\\ast }<r^{2}>)$, which is proportional to $\\frac{l}{l+1}$ if $k=0$. \u00a0Evidently, $\\omega $ is close to a constant unless $l$ is very small. Thus , for the BFs of the LLL, all the electrons rotate with similar angular velocities, and we have the uniform rotation $\\omega _{out}\\approx\n\\omega _{in}$\u00a0.\n\n\\(iii) [**Symmetry constraints and the \u00a0favorable structures**]{}.\n\nIt has been found that[*\u00a0inherent nodal surfaces are imposed in wave functions by symmetry, thereby the structures of quantum states are seriously affected*]{}.$^{12,19-21}$ In the case of 2-dimensional polarized quantum dots , it was found that a wave function would be zero when the electrons locate at the vertexes of a regular\u00a0N-side polygon if $L\\neq $N$%\n(j+\\frac{1+(-1)^{N}}{4})$ , where $j$ is an integer$^{6,11,22}$. This constraint can be generalized to the core-ring structures. Let the ring has an angular momentum $l_{out}$ , while the core has $l_{in}$ . When the outer particles locate at the vertexes of a N$_{out}$-side polygon, and the inner particles locate at the vertexes of a N$_{o}$-side polygon (N$_{o}$=N$_{in}$ or N$_{in}-1$, in the latter case an electron would stay at the center) , then it is straight forward to prove that the wave function would be zero if\n\n$l_{out}\\neq $N$_{out}(j_{2}+(1+(-1)^{{N}_{out}})/4)$ $\\qquad (9a)$\n\nor\n\n$l_{in}\\neq $N$_{o}(j_{1}+(1+(-1)^{{N}_{o}}/4)$ $\\qquad (9b)$\n\nwhere $j_{1}$ and $j_{2}$ are integers. In other words, the above configuration would be prohibited if $l_{out}($ $l_{in})$ does not relate to N$_{out}$ (N$_{o}$) in the above way. \u00a0[*Thus, a (N*]{}$_{in})-$[*N*]{}$%\n_{out}$[*\u00a0structure would be pursued by a first-state only if the* ]{}$L$[*\u00a0can be divided as a sum of\u00a0*]{}$l_{in}$[*\u00a0and* ]{}$l_{out}$[*\u00a0so that \u00a0the requirements (9a) and (9b) are fulfilled.* ]{}\u00a0If this happens, the (N$_{in})-$N$_{out}$ structure is called a candidate of favorable structure[*\u00a0(CFS)*]{} of the state. \u00a0Incidentally, for an eigenstate, both the $%\nl_{out}$ and $l_{in}$ are not good quantum numbers, they appear as the angular momenta of the main component of eigenwavefunctions.\n\n\u00a0Usually each state may have a number of CFS, some of them are not competitive due to having a too small or too large N$_{out}$, they can be neglected. In what follows, among the CFS of a state, if some of them have N$_{out}\\geq 8$, then those with N$_{out}\\leq 7$ are neglected; if all the CFS has N$_{out}\\leq 7,$ then all of them would be neglected except the one with the largest N$_{out}$; all the CFS with N$_{out}=12$ are neglected without exception. After the neglect, the remaining CFS \u00a0are call the favorable structures (FSs), they are listed in Table 2. E.g., the $L=86$ state has four CFS , \u00a0namely the (5)$_{c}$-8, (9)$_{c}$-4, (11)$_{c}$-2, and (12)$_{c}$-1 . \u00a0Among them only the (5)$_{c}$-8 as a FS is listed in Table 2. \u00a0\u00a0When a state has more than three FS, only the most competitive three are listed.\n\n\\(iv) [**\u00a0Excitation of the core**]{}\n\nThis paper concerns only the low-lying states with $L\\geq N(N-1)$ $/2$ ( or the filling factor $\\nu \\leq 1$ ), they contain mainly the BFs belonging to the LLL. In these BFs, the angular momenta of any pair of electrons can not be the same due to the Pauli Principle. Therefore, they can be denoted as $%\n\\psi _{\\alpha }=\\{l_{1}l_{2}\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot l_{N}\\}$ with \u00a0$l_{i}<l_{i+1}$.\n\n\u00a0Since we have\n\n$<\\phi _{l0}|r^{2}|\\phi _{l0}>=(l+1)\\frac{\\hbar }{m^{\\ast\n}\\Omega _{o}},\\qquad \\qquad (10)$\n\nthe spatial distribution of the wave function $\\phi _{l0}$ depends on $l$. The smaller the $l$, the smaller the size. \u00a0Thus, for the $\\psi _{\\alpha }$ belonging to the LLL, $l_{in}$\u00a0is \u00a0just equal to $l_{1}+l_{2}+\\cdot \\cdot\n\\cdot +l_{{N}_{in}}$ . \u00a0If $l_{1}=0$, \u00a0there must be an electron staying at the center, because the $\\phi _{00}$ wave function is distributed closely surrounding the center. \u00a0Thus, a (N$_{in})_{c}$-N$_{out} $ structure must be contributed by the $\\psi _{\\alpha }$ with $l_{1}=0$\u00a0, \u00a0while a (N$%\n_{in})_{h}$-N$_{out}$ structure is contributed by those with $l_{1}>0$\u00a0. When all the $l_{i}$ of the inner electrons satisfies \u00a0$l_{i}+1=l_{i+1}$\u00a0, the inner electrons are said to be compactly aligned. Meanwhile, $l_{in}$ would arrive at its lower bound $(l_{in})_{b}=$N$_{in}($N$_{in}-1)$ $/2$ , if $l_{1}=0$. In this case, we say that the core is inert (not excited). Otherwise, we have $l_{in}>$ $(l_{in})_{b}$, and we say that the core is excited. Evidently, all the hollow states must have $l_{1}>0$, thus they have an excited core.\n\nWhen $L$ $\\leq 90$, core excitation is not possible (unless the electrons jump to higher LLL), therefore the first-states would have a (N$%\n_{in})_{c}-$N$_{out}$ structure with the core inert. However, when $L>90$, core excitation might occur. It implies two cases: (a) The inner electrons have their $l_{i}$ remaining to be compactly aligned but with $l_{1}=k$ , and therefore have a (N$_{in})_{h}$-N$_{out}$ hollow structure . \u00a0(b) The $%\nl_{i}$ \u00a0of the core are no longer aligned compactly, e.g., $l_{1}=0$ while $%\nl_{2}=2$, etc. .\n\nIt was found that, when $L$ is not large (say, $L\\leq 101$ ), the first-states have either an inert core or an excited compact core with $%\nl_{1}=1$ , as shown in Table 2 . However, when $L$ is large, higher core excitation with $l_{1}>1$ will emerge as shown later.\n\nIncidentally, \u00a0due to eq.(10), the compact alignment of the angular momenta also implies a compact alignment of radial positions. Thus, in the core-ring structures, the groups of inner and outer electrons may each compactly aligned. The associated \u00a0BF can be simply denoted as $%\n\\{l_{1}-l_{N_{in}},l_{N_{in}+1}-l_{N}\\}$ (e.g., {1,2,3, 6,7,$\\cdot \\cdot\n\\cdot $,15} $\\equiv ${1-3,6-15}.). This is called a two-bunched BF by Ruan$^{23}$ (The one-bunched BF {$l_{1}-l_{N}$} is a special case of two-bunched BF with $l_{N_{in}}=l_{N_{in}+1}-1$ ). It is straight forward to prove that, for a CFS of a $\\nu \\leq 1$\u00a0state, \u00a0among the BFs of the CFS, one and only one of them is a two-bunched BF belonging to the LLL. \u00a0Thus, a simple way to find out the CFS is to look for the two-bunched BFs of a state.\n\n\\(v) [**Particle separation**]{}\n\nIt is noted that the $U$ in eq.(1.3) can be exactly rewritten as\n\n$U=\\frac{1}{2}M\\omega _{o}^{2}R_{c}^{2}+\\sum\\limits_{j<k}\nu_{eff}(r_{jk})\\qquad \\qquad \\qquad (11.1)$\n\nWhere $R_{c}$ is the radial distance of the c.m., and $u_{eff}(r_{jk})$ is the effective pairwise interaction\n\n$u_{eff}(r_{jk})=\\frac{(m\\ast \\omega _{o})^{2}}{2M}r_{jk}^{2}+\\frac{%\ne^{2}}{4\\pi \\varepsilon _{r}\\varepsilon _{0}}\\cdot \\frac{1}{r_{jk}}\\qquad\n\\qquad \\qquad (11.2)$\n\nThere is a minimum in $u_{eff}$ located at $r_{jk}=r_{u}=(\\frac{e^{2}M}{4\\pi\n\\varepsilon _{r}\\varepsilon _{0}(m\\ast \\omega _{o})^{2}})^{1/3}$\u00a0. Evidently, if each electron separates from all its adjacent electrons by this distance, the potential energy can be minimized. \u00a0Therefore, in low-lying states, \u00a0adjacent electrons would roughly keep the separation $%\nr_{u}$ . \u00a0With the above parameters, $r_{u}=576.3\\stackrel{\\circ }{A}$\u00a0.The $r_{u}$ is a basic measure and is useful for the understanding of electronic correlation and the size of the system. \u00a0Obviously, for a (N$%\n_{in})-$N$_{out}$ structure, the distance between the ring and the core depends closely on $r_{u}$ .\n\n\\(vi) [**Core-ring separation**]{}\n\nIt is recalled that, in order to minimize the potential energy, the ring should separate from the core by an appropriate distance. In this subsection, we shall evaluate the core-ring separation by using the approximation of uniform rotation.\n\n\u00a0For a given CFS with the given N$_{out}$ and $l_{out}$ , let us define a quantity\n\n$\\stackrel{\\_}{g}=\\sqrt{\\frac{l_{out}/l_{in}}{N_{out}/N_{in}}}\\qquad\n\\qquad (12)$\n\nOn the other hand, we have\n\n$I_{out}=m^{\\ast }N_{out}<r^{2}>_{ring}\\qquad \\qquad (13)$\n\n(this equation is the same as eq.(8)), and a similar equation for $I_{in}$. Thus we have\n\n$\\stackrel{\\_}{g}=\\sqrt{\\frac{l_{out}/l_{in}}{I_{out}/I_{in}}\\cdot\n(<r^{2}>_{ring}/<r^{2}>_{core})}=\\sqrt{\\frac{\\omega _{out}}{\\omega _{in}}%\n\\cdot (<r^{2}>_{ring}/<r^{2}>_{core})}\\qquad \\qquad (14)$\n\nIt is believed that the uniform rotation is a good approximation for the first-states, because they should do their best to lower the energy (this is a point remain to be checked). Under this approximation\n\n$\\stackrel{\\_}{g}\\approx (<r^{2}>_{ring}/<r^{2}>_{core})^{1/2}\\qquad\n\\qquad (15)$\n\nThe optimal value of the right hand side of eq.(15) has been denoted as G$%\n_{opt}$ given in Table 1. Thus, if a FS has its $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}$ (evaluated from the definition eq.(12)) close to G$_{opt}$ , then the core-ring separation is appropriate and the FS is advantageous to binding and therefore competitive. Otherwise, it is not.\n\n\u00a0The $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ of the FS are also listed in Table 2, many of them are found to be very close to one. E.g., the FS of the (86)$%\n_{1} $ is a (5)$_{c}-$8 structure with $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}$ =2.18, \u00a0the associated G$_{opt}$ is 2.16 (cf. Table 1) , thus they are close to each other .\n\nThe above points are important to the following discussion. \u00a0[*When a first-state has a FS which is superior than the other FSs (or the state has only one FS), the FS is expected to be dominant. In this case the state would have a clear geometric feature arising from the N*]{}$%\n_{in}-$[*N*]{}$_{out}$[*\u00a0structure of the FS, and appear to be crystal-like.*]{} However, when a first-state has a few nearly equally competitive FSs, its structure can not be uniquely predicted. Nevertheless, the Table 2 is a key to understand the electronic structures.\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Table 2, \u00a0Characters of the first-state from symmetry consideration and from our calculations.\n\n  ----- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------------- -------------------------- ------- ---------- ---------- -----------\n                                                                                                                      \n                                                                                                                      \n  L     FS             $l_{1}$   $l_{in}$   $\\overline{g}$   $\\overline{g}/$G$_{opt}$   $a$     $N_{in}$   $l_{in}$   $\\gamma $\n  81    (10)$_{c}$-3   0         45         1.6330                                                                    \n  82    (9)$_{c}$-4    0         36         1.6956                                                                    \n  83    (8)$_{c}$-5    0         28         1.7728           1.04                                                     \n  84    (7)$_{c}$-6    0         21         1.8708           1.05                       2.700   6.55       21.30      0.89\n  85    (6)$_{c}$-7    0         15         2.0000           0.99                       2.550   5.76       16.45      0.91\n  86    (5)$_{c}$-8    0         10         2.1794           1.01                       2.288   4.65       10.52      0.93\n  87    (4)$_{c}$-9    0         6          2.4495           1.02                       2.100   3.85       7.21       0.95\n  88    (3)$_{c}$-10   0         3          2.9155           1.03                       1.889   3.03       4.44       0.96\n  89    (2)$_{c}$-11   0         1          4.0000           1.07                       1.555   2.00       1.90       0.98\n  90    (1)$_{c}$-12   0         0                                                      1.120   0.97       0.42       1.094\n  92    (6)$_{c}$-7    0         15         2.0976           1.04                       2.700   6.26       19.70      0.94\n  93    (8)$_{c}$-5    0         28         1.9272           1.13                       2.414   4.99       12.43      0.964\n  94    (5)$_{c}$-8    0         10         2.2913           1.06                       2.377   5.01       12.51      0.967\n  95    (9)$_{h}$-4    0         45         1.5811                                      2.205   4.06       8.30       0.967\n  96    (4)$_{c}$-9    0         6          2.5820           1.07                       2.181   3.89       7.38       0.998\n  97    (7)$_{h}$-6    1         28         1.6956           0.96                       1.942   3.04       4.80       0.967\n  98    (3)$_{c}$-10   0         3          3.0822           1.08                       1.926   2.91       4.19       1.012\n  99    (5)$_{h}$-8    1         15         1.8708           0.86                       1.519   1.74       1.86       0.904\n  100   (2)$_{c}$-11   0         1          4.2426           1.14                       1.611   1.90       1.98       0.981\n  100   (4)$_{h}$-9    1         10         2.0000           0.83                                                     \n  101   (3)$_{h}$-10   1         6          2.1794           0.77                       1.936   2.82       6.54       0.813\n  ----- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------------- -------------------------- ------- ---------- ---------- -----------\n\n4, EIGENENERGIES\n\nAfter performing the diagonalization, eigenenergies and eigenstates are obtained. Let $E((L)_{i})$ be the energy of the $(L)_{i}$ state. It is noted that , for a first-state, if the Coulomb repulsion among the electrons are removed, all the electrons would fall in the LLL with the energy $(L+N)\\hbar \\omega _{o}$ . \u00a0For this reason, let us define $%\n\\varepsilon (L)\\equiv E((L)_{1})-(L+N)\\hbar \\omega _{o}.$This quantity is a measure of the Coulomb repulsion in the first-states, which is plotted in Fig.2 in accord with $L$. When $L$ increases, the size of the system will increase a little , \u00a0the Coulomb repulsion will thereby decrease. Thus, $%\n\\varepsilon (L)$ decreases monotonously with $L$ as shown in the figure. However, there are four platforms. We shall return to this point later.\n\n5, ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES $\\left( 78\\leq L\\leq 90\\right) $\n\nIn what follows mainly the results of the first-states are given. We use $a_{M}\\equiv \\sqrt{\\frac{\\hbar }{m^{\\ast }\\omega _{o}}}=$ 194.71$%\n\\stackrel{\\circ }{A}$ \u00a0as the unit of length. The optimal separation $%\nr_{u}= $ 2.96$a_{M}$ .\n\nLet us begin from the state with the filling factor $\\nu =1$ , namely the (78)$_{1}$ state. This state has only one BF {0,1,2,$\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot $12} (for short, {0-12}) belonging to the LLL, this BF has a weight85.5%. In this BF, the electrons are roughly uniformly distributed inside a circle as shown in Fig.3a. \u00a0It is noted that a clear geometric structure arises from the coherent mixing of BFs. Due to the lack of mixing, the (78)$%\n_{1}$ can not have a clear geometric structure, therefore it is liquid-like as shown in Fig.4a.\n\n\u00a0On the other hand, for the number N together with two arbitrary integers $n$ ($\\leq $N), and $j^{\\prime }$, there is an identity\n\n$\\frac{N(N-1)}{2}+j^{\\prime }N=\\frac{n(n+2j^{\\prime }-1)}{%\n2}+\\frac{(N-n)(N+n+2j^{\\prime }-1)}{2}\\qquad \\qquad \\qquad (16)$\n\nLet the left hand side be equal to $L$, and the two terms at the right be equal to $l_{in}$ \u00a0and $l_{out}$. Then this identity is associated with a division of $L$. When $j^{\\prime }=0$ , the left hand side of (16) is equal to 78 . It is easy to see that the pair N$_{o}=n-1$ and $l_{in}$ meet the requirement of eq.(9b), while the pair N$_{out}$=$N-n$ and $l_{out}$ meet the requirement of eq.(9a). \u00a0Thus, eq.(16) implies that all the (N$%\n_{o}+1)_{c}$-N$_{out}$ structures with N$_{o}=0$ to 12 are the CFS of the $%\nL=78$ states. Therefore the wave function of the (78)$_{1}$can get access to all the \u00a0symmetric configurations$^{12,13}$, and thus is nodeless (except a pair of electrons overlap with each other). Accordingly, the energy of this state is lower.\n\nFor the (79)$_{1}$ state, there is also only one BF {0-11,13} belonging to the LLL. Thus this state is also liquid-like as shown in Fig.4b. \u00a0However, on the contrary with the (78)$_{1}$ , all the (N$_{in})$-N$_{out}$ structures are not the CFS of the (79)$_{1}$, except the (12)$_{c}$-1 which is very poor in binding. Thus the energy of this state is much higher. Owing to the (78)$_{1}$ \u00a0is lower while the (79)$_{1}$ is higher, the difference leads to a platform appearing in Fig.2 between $L=78$ and 79.\n\nRanging from \u00a0(79)$_{1}$ to (90)$_{1}$, all these states have only one FS, thus their structures can be well predicted. \u00a0The N$_{out}$ of their FS (cf. Table 2) increases from 1 to 12, this leads to a regular variation of their electronic structure. When N$_{out}$ is small (say, N$%\n_{out}\\leq 5$ ), the outward electrons are found to be very close to the core. As a result, their ring-core-structures are ambiguous as shown in Fig.3b and 4b, where the patterns are representative for the (79)$_{1}$ to (83)$_{1}$ states.\u00a0\u00a0In these states the FS itself is not competitive. This fact would lead to a stronger mixing of structures, and therefore they are liquid-like.\n\n\u00a0Even in the liquid-like states, electronic correlation can still be viewed via the three-body densities as shown in Fig.5a and 5b, they are representative. Fig.5a for the (81)$_{1}$ exhibits that the three outward electrons (two are labelled by white spots and one by a double-peak, which implies an oscillation around an equilibrium position) are very close \u00a0to the core. This fact supports the presumption that the FS, namely the (10)$%\n_{c}$-3 structure (cf. Table 2), is pursued by the state . Although the $U$ of the (10)$_{c}$-3 is higher, however no other better symmetric configurations are allowed by symmetry. Consequently, the component of the (10)$_{c}$-3 is still relatively important . \u00a0Since the outward electrons are so close, the core is strongly deformed. \u00a0There are three peaks at the outer ridge of the core, it implies that three inward electrons form a regular triangle close to the border. \u00a0Fig.5b for the (82)$_{1}$ exhibits that the four outward electrons are also very close \u00a0to the core. This fact supports again that the FS is pursued. \u00a0The core is also strongly deformed with four inward electrons forming a square close to the border. \u00a0The pursuit of the FS can also be viewed by observing the composition of the wave functions. For the (81)$_{1}$ , the BF with the largest weight (35.4%) is the {0-9,11-13}, in which the electrons are divided into two compact bunchs, and therefore supports directly the (10)$%\n_{c}$-3 structure . For the (82)$_{1}$\u00a0, the BF with the largest weight (33.4%) is the {0-8,10-13}. When $L\\geq 84$, the N$_{out}$ of the FS is $\\geq 6$. Since the outward electrons would separate (roughly by $r_{u}$) from each other, a larger N$_{out}$ definitely leads to a \u00a0larger ring. Consequently, the outward electrons are no more close to the core, and the ring-core structure becomes explicit. This is shown in Fig.3c to 3f for the (84)$_{1}$ to (90)$%\n_{1}$ states, where the outward peak becomes larger and larger. \u00a0The point $%\n\\ a$ separating the inner and outer regions can be well defined. Accordingly, \u00a0the quantities related to eq.(6) to (8) can be calculated as listed \u00a0in Table 2. In particular, a quantity related to the uniformity of rotation\n\n$\\gamma =\\frac{l_{out}}{I_{out}}/\\frac{l_{in}}{I_{in}}=\\omega\n_{out}/\\omega _{in}\\qquad \\qquad (17)$\n\nis defined and is also listed.\n\nIt is exhibited in Table 2 that, in the range \u00a084$\\leq\nL\\leq 90$, $a$ and $N_{in}$ are decreasing . This coincides with the reduction of the core of the FS. In particular, the N$_{in}$ of the FS are one-to-one close to the $N_{in}$ from calculation. This fact confirms that the FSs are pursued by the first-states. In general the $N_{in}$ and $l_{in}$ deviate more or less from those of the FS, this is due to the mixing of the FS together with other minor structures ( the inner electrons may occasionally go out ,or the core may get slightly excited). \u00a0E.g., the wave function of the (87)$_{1}$\u00a0has $N_{in}=3.85$ and $l_{in}=7.21$ , while its FS has N$_{in}$=4 and $l_{in}$=$(l_{in})_{b}=$6 (incidentally, a core-excitation may cause a big increase of $l_{in}$ ). \u00a0Furthermore, the $%\n\\gamma $ are close to the unity, it implies that the rotation is roughly uniform. However, the slight deviation of $\\gamma $ implies that the system is not entirely rigid.\n\nIt is recalled that the $\\rho _{2}$ of the $L\\leq 83$ first-states appear as liquid-like. However, when N$_{out}$ is neither very small nor very large (say, 6 $\\leq $N$_{out}\\leq 10$ ), the $U$ of the core-ring structure is lower, and thereby the associated FS becomes more dominant. This would lead to a clear crystal-like picture as shown in Fig.4c to 4g, where the outward electrons form a regular polygon. The number of vertexes (from 6 to 10) is just equal to the N$_{out}$ of the FS. This fact once again demonstrates the pursuit of the FSs. In general, the crystal-like structure \u00a0can be seen more clearly if $\\rho _{3}$ is observed as shown in Fig.5c.\n\nWhen N$_{out}$ is larger than 10, due to the rapid increase of $U$, the associated (N$_{in})-$N$_{out}$ structure is no more dominant, and therefore the crystal-like picture becomes ambiguous again due to the mixing of structures. This is shown in Fig.4h and 4i.\n\n6, ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES $\\left( 91\\leq L\\leq 101\\right) $\n\nInserting $j^{\\prime }=1$ into eq.(16) and using the same argument as before , it is straight forward to prove that the CFS of the $L=\\frac{N(N-1)%\n}{2}+N=91$ states include all the hollow (N$_{in})_{h}-$N$_{out}$ structures ranging from N$_{in}=0$ to 12 . Therefore the (91)$_{1}$ would be nodeless if the core is hollow. On the other hand, if the core is inert, all the (N$%\n_{in}$)$_{c}$-N$_{out}$ are not the CFS (except the (12)$_{c}$-1). Thus, the (91)$_{1}$ is expected to be hollow . This suggestion is confirmed by Fig.3g. Similar to the (78)$_{1}$, the (91)$_{1}$ is also mainly contributed by a single BF {1-13} with the weight 82.0% . Due to the lack of coherent mixing, the (91)$_{1}$ is liquid-like as shown in Fig.4j.\n\nFor the first-states with 92$\\leq L\\leq 101$ , we have\n\n\\(i) The core-ring structure is explicit as representatively shown by the $\\rho _{1}$ plotted in Fig.3h to 3j. However, the core may be excited and the probability of an electron staying at the center is smaller (3i and 3j).\n\n\\(ii) \u00a0It is noted that a state with a large $L$ would pursue a larger moment of inertia to reduce the rotation energy. Since the structures with N$_{out}$$<$ 7 have a smaller moment of inertia, these structures are never found in the first-states with $L$ $\\geq 93$ . \u00a0Specifically, the (92)$_{1}$ is found to have N$_{out}$=7 as shown in Fig.4k.\n\n\\(iii) Each of the (92)$_{1}$ , (94)$_{1}$ , (96)$_{1}$ , and (98)$%\n_{1} $ states has only one FS, this FS has an appropriate N$_{out}$ , and has \u00a0$\\stackrel{\\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ \u00a0\u00a0$\\approx 1$. \u00a0Therefore these FSs are competitive and are expected to be dominant. This point is confirmed by the associated $\\rho _{2}$ (cf. Fig.4), where a crystal-like picture with the N$_{out}-$side polygons is seen. Furthermore, the N$_{in}$ of the FS of the above four states are 6, 5, 4, and 3 (cf. Table 2), while the $N_{in}$ are 6.26, 5.01, 3.89, and 2.91, respectively . These values are one-to-one close to each other. Thus, the pursuit of the FSs is further confirmed. Besides, the FS of the above four states have $l_{in}=$ $(l_{in})_{b}$, namely 15, 10, 6, and 3 (cf. Table 2), respectively. The corresponding $%\nl_{in}$ calculated from $\\rho _{1}$ are 19.70, 12.51, 7.38, and 4.19, respectively. The latter set are always one-to-one bigger than the former set due to having a slight core-excitation.\n\n\\(iv) When $L\\geq 100$ , the excited core (i.e., $l_{in}>(l_{in})_{b} $ ) begin to compete seriously with \u00a0the inert core. For the $L=100$ states, the competing FSs are the (4)$_{h}$-9 and (2)$_{c}$-11 as shown in Table 2. The $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ of the former (latter) is considerably smaller (larger) than one. It is noted that, when $L$ is large, the outer ring would shift a little outward to increase the moment of inertia to reduce the rotation energy. Thus,\u00a0a small increase of $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}$is of advantageous, while a decrease of $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}$ is not. In fact, it is the (2)$_{c}$-11 wins in the competition and is pursued by the first-state, while the (4)$_{h}$-9 is pursued by the second-state. This is shown in Fig.3h and 3i, and in Fig.4o and 4p. For the $(101$)$_{1}$, the (3)$%\n_{h}$-10 is the only FS, and is expected to be dominant as shown in Fig.3j and 5d.\n\n\\(v) For the (93)$_{1}$ , (95)$_{1}$ , and (97)$_{1}$ , the N$_{out}$ of their FS are smaller than 7 and therefore is not competitive. Although the (99)$_{1}$ has N$_{out}$=8, however its $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ is quite small. Thus these four states do not have a competitive FS, and therefore do not have a clear-cut geometric structure to pursue. They are liquid-like. Nonetheless, their $\\rho _{1}$ are more or less similar to Fig.3h, thus they still have clear core-ring structures.\n\n\\(vi) All the first-states with 92$\\leq L\\leq 101$ rotate uniformly, they have $\\gamma \\approx 1$ except the (99)$_{1}$ and (101)$_{1}$, The FSs of these two states have a considerably smaller $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ (cf. Table 2). Thus, due to eq.(14), if they rotate uniformly the ring would be too close to the core . To avoid being too close, $\\omega _{out}$ would decrease a little. In this way, although the rotation energy may increase a little, the potential energy may thereby considerably decrease. This suggestion is confirmed by the fact that their $\\gamma $ is really smaller. Incidentally, since the angular momentum $l_{out}$ is strongly constrained by symmetry via eq.(9a), and therefore can not be adjusted freely , the decrease of $\\omega _{out}$ would cause an increase of $I_{out}$ via the relation $l_{out}=I_{out}\\omega _{out}$.\n\n7, ELECTRONIC STRUCTURES ($L\\approx 200)$\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0The main finding of the above study is the pursuit of the FSs . Does this experience work when $L$ is much larger? \u00a0To clarify this point we shall no more go to the states one-by-one, instead we choose arbitrary a range 196$\\leq L\\leq 201$ for the studying. Let us first evaluate the accuracy of the calculation in this range. \u00a0E.g., the energies of the (199)$_{1}$ state calculated with 6000, 9000, and 12000 BFs, respectively, together with the $\\alpha ,$ $N_{in},$ $l_{in}$ and $\\gamma $ are listed in Table 3. \u00a0One can see that, although the convergency is not very good, it is qualitatively acceptable.\n\nTable 3 \u00a0The energies and the quantities extracted from the $\\rho _{1}$ of the (199)$_{1}$ in accord with the increase of the number of BFs.\n\n   Number of BFs   $\\alpha $   $N_{in}$   $l_{in}$   $\\gamma $   $E((199)_{1})$\n  --------------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------------\n       6000          3.121       3.96      10.56       1.268         739.97\n       9000          3.123       3.97      10.75       1.238         739.86\n       12000         3.125       3.98      10.86       1.227         739.81\n\nThe FSs are shown in Table 4. \u00a0The FSs\u00a0with the core inert ($%\nl_{1}=0 $) are found to have a too large $\\overline{g}/$G$_{opt}$ , and therefore \u00a0are not listed. \u00a0Whereas an excited core is pursued. \u00a0On the other hand, a highly excited core ($l_{1}\\geq 6$) would lead to a too small $%\n\\overline{g}/$G$_{opt}$\u00a0as shown in the table. Thus, too weak and too strong core-excitation are both not appropriate.\n\nTable 4 \u00a0A continuation of Table 2 for the first- states with $(196\\leq L\\leq $ 201).\n\n  ----- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------------- -------------------------- ------ ---------- ---------- -----------\n                                                                                                                     \n                                                                                                                     \n  L     FS             $l_{1}$   $l_{in}$   $\\overline{g}$   $\\overline{g}/$G$_{opt}$   $a$    $N_{in}$   $l_{in}$   $\\gamma $\n  196   (5)$_{h}$-8    6         40         1.5612           0.72                                                    \n  196   (3)$_{h}$-10   6         21         1.5811           0.59                       3.16   3.75       13.88      1.11\n  196   (2)$_{h}$-11   4         9          1.9437           0.52                                                    \n  197   (5)$_{h}$-8    3         25         2.0736           0.96                       3.48   4.80       24.61      1.05\n  197   (4)$_{h}$-9    5         26         1.7097           0.71                                                    \n  197   (3)$_{h}$-10   3         12         2.1506           0.76                                                    \n  198   (4)$_{h}$-9    3         18         2.1082           0.85                       3.25   3.90       18.65      1.10\n  198   (2)$_{h}$-11   5         11         1.7581           0.47                                                    \n  199   (4)$_{h}$-9    1         10         2.8983           1.20                       3.13   3.98       10.86      1.23\n  199   (5)$_{h}$-8    5         35         1.7113           0.80                                                    \n  200   (5)$_{h}$-8    2         20         2.3717           1.01                       3.47   4.93       20.88      1.10\n  200   (3)$_{h}$-10   4         15         1.9235           0.70                                                    \n  200   (2)$_{h}$-11   6         13         1.6172           0.43                                                    \n  201   (3)$_{h}$-10   1         6          3.1225           1.10                       3.00   3.06       7.27       1.24\n  201   (2)$_{h}$-11   1         3          3.4641           0.93                                                    \n  201   (4)$_{h}$-9    6         30         1.5916           0.66                                                    \n  ----- -------------- --------- ---------- ---------------- -------------------------- ------ ---------- ---------- -----------\n\n\u00a0For the (196)$_{1}$ none of the FSs are superior (their $\\stackrel{\\_%\n}{g}/$G$_{opt}$ are too small), \u00a0therefore this state would have a strong mixing of structures and would be liquid-like. Among the three FSs of the (197)$_{1},$ the (5)$_{h}-8$ has its $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}$ \u00a0closer to G$_{opt}$ , thus this FS is predicted to be dominant. \u00a0Similarly, based on Table 4 , the \u00a0(4)$_{h}-$9 \u00a0is predicted to be dominant in (198)$_{1}$ and (199)$%\n_{1} $ ,the \u00a0(5)$_{h}-$8 \u00a0is predicted to be dominant in (200)$_{1}$, and the \u00a0(3)$_{h}-$10 \u00a0is predicted to be dominant in (201)$_{1}$. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0It turns out that, for the case with a dominant FS, the predictions are nicely confirmed by the calculation. E.g., the N$_{in}$ of the above FSs of the (197)$_{1}$ to (201)$_{1}$ are 5, 4, 4, \u00a05, and 3, while the corresponding $%\nN_{in}$ extracted from $\\rho _{1}$\u00a0are 4.80, 3.90, 3.98, 4.93, and 3.06 . The $l_{in}$ of the above FSs are 25, 18, 10, \u00a020, and 6, while the corresponding $l_{in}$ extracted from $\\rho _{1}$\u00a0are 24.61, 18.65, 10.86, 20.88, and 7.27 . These values are amazingly one-to-one close to each other, and thus the analysis based on the FSs is convincing. Furthermore, the associated $\\rho _{2}$\u00a0and $\\rho _{3}$\u00a0confirm also the predictions. Representative examples are given in Fig. 4q, 4r, 5e, and 5f.\n\n\u00a0It is noted that the (199)$_{1}$ and (201)$_{1}$ have a considerably larger $\\gamma $. \u00a0On the other hand, their most competitive FSs have a larger $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$. Thus, if these states rotate uniformly, the ring would be too far away from the core (cf. eq.(15)). To avoid being too far away, the ring rotates a little faster to reduce the moment of inertia without altering $l_{out}$. This is the reason why they have a considerably larger $\\gamma $.\n\nIn general, when $L$ is large, the size of the system would increase, the core-ring structures become more clear-cut. Besides, the core would have a higher excitation. As a result, all these states are hollow as shown in Fig. 3k, 3$l$, 5e and 5f.\n\n8, MAGIC NUMBERS\n\nThe above discussions demonstrate that, based on the FSs, the structures of the first-states can be more or less predicted. In this section we shall see that the energies are also strongly related to the FSs. Let us go back to Fig.2 \u00a0where platforms and shoulders are shown. A platform starting at $L_{a}$ and ending at $L_{b}=L_{a}+1$ implies $%\nE((L_{b})_{1})=$ $E((L_{a})_{1})+\\hbar \\omega _{o}$, i.e., the $(L_{b})_{1}$ is an c.m. excited state of the $(L_{a})_{1}$. This fact implies that the internal energy ( the energy without the c.m. motion) of the $(L_{b})_{i}$ states are relatively higher. This is also the case if a shoulder appears. In this case, $L_{a}$ is a candidate of a magic number (CMN). Evidently, if the $(L_{a})_{1}$ has a competitive FS and the $(L_{b})_{1}$ does not have, a CMN arises. For example, the (78)$_{1}$ is inherently nodeless and is able to get access to all symmetric configurations , while the (79)$_{1}$ has only one CFS (12)$_{c}$-1 which is unfavorable to binding. Thus the 78 appears as a CMN. Similarly, the (91)$_{1}$ is inherently nodeless (if the core is excited), while the (92)$_{1}$ has only the (6)$_{c}$-7 ( which is not competitive due to N$_{out}=7$), thus 91 is a CMN. The (111)$_{1}$ \u00a0has a competitive FS (3)$_{h}$-10 . Although the (112)$_{1}$ has two FSs, namely the (6)$_{h}-$7 and (5)$_{h}$-8 , however the former has a small N$_{out}$ while the latter has a too small $\\stackrel{\\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}=0.78$ . They are both not competitive, thus 111 is a CMN. Finally, The (118)$_{1}$ \u00a0has a number of competitive FSs, namely the (3)$_{c}$-10 , (5)$_{c}$-8 , and (4)$%\n_{h}$-9 , while the (119)$_{1}$ has only one FS (6)$_{h}$-7 , which is not competitive due to having N$_{out}=7$. Thus 118 is a CMN. These examples exhibit that the CMN\u00a0can be more or less predicted.\n\n9, SUMMARY\n\nThe electronic structures of the first-states have been studied. By an analysis of symmetry constraint and by performing numerical calculation, we have obtained a clear picture of the core-ring structures. When $L$ is small (78$\\leq L\\leq 83$), the core and ring are connected. \u00a0When $L$ is larger than 83, the core-ring structure becomes more and more explicit. When $L\\leq 100$, the core remains inert (the (91)$_{1}$ is an exception). When $L$ \u00a0is larger, core excitation begins to compete. When $L$ \u00a0is much larger (say, $L\\approx 200$), core excitation becomes dominant and the states are hollow.\n\nThis leads to Table 2 and 4, where the favorable structures (FSs) of each state are listed.\n\nThe identification of the FSs is the main result of this paper. Based on the FSs, the structures of the first-states can be predicted to a great extent, the formation of crystal-like structure and the appearance of magic numbers can be explained. In particular,[*\u00a0if a first-state has a remarkably competitive FS (both the* ]{}N$_{out}$[*\u00a0and* ]{}$\\stackrel{\\_}{g}/$G$_{opt}$[*\u00a0are appropriate), the FS would be pursued, and the state would be crystal-like and possess the associated (*]{}N$_{in})-$N$_{out}$[*structure. If the* ]{}$L=L_{a}$ states[*\u00a0contain one or more than one competitive FSs while the* ]{}$L=L_{a}+1$ states[*\u00a0do not contain, then* ]{}$%\nL_{a}$[*\u00a0is a CMN.*]{}\n\nThe FSs \u00a0can provide us an objective base for the further classification of states. \u00a0The states having the same FSs can be grouped into a kind, e.g., all the $L=87$ , 96, 105, $\\cdot \\cdot \\cdot $ contain a single FS (4)$_{c}-$9, thus they belong to the same kind and their first-states would have the same (4)$_{c}-$9 structure.\n\n\u00a0Although only a N=13 system is concerned in this paper, the idea, the way of analysis, the qualitative results are quite common to the 2-dimensional systems with an attractive center. In fact, both this paper and the previous ref.8\u00a0provide qualitatively similar message. Thus, it is not doubted that the physical picture provided by these two papers can be generalized to the systems with an even larger N. \u00a0Where, the identification of the FSs is again a key to understand the electronic structures .\n\nAcknowledgment: This paper is supported by the NSFC\u00a0of China under the grant No.90103028, No.10174098, and by a fund from the Ministry of Education of China.\n\nREFERENCES\n\n1, L. Jacak , P. Hawrylak, A. W\u00f3js, [*Quantum Dots* ]{}(Springer, Berlin, 1998)\n\n2, T. Chakraborty, [*\u00a0Quantum Dots*]{} (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1999)[*\u00a0*]{}\n\n3, M.S. Kushwaha, \u00a0Surface Science Reports, [**41**]{}, 1 (2001)\n\n4, S.M Reimann and M. Manninen, \u00a0[*Rev. Mod. Phys*]{}. [**74**]{}, 1283 (2002)\n\n5, G.W. Bryant , [*\u00a0Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**59**]{}, 1140, ([*1987*]{})\n\n6, P.A. Maksym, H. Imamura, G.P. Mallon, and H. Aoki, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{}[**\u00a012**]{}, R299 (2000)\n\n7, \u00a0U. Meirav, M.A. Kastner, and S.J. Wind, \u00a0[*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}.[**\u00a065**]{}, 771 (1990)\n\n8, \u00a0S. Tarucha, D.G. Austing, T. Honda, R.J. van der Haage, and L. Kouwenhoven, [*\u00a0Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0[**77**]{}, 3613 (1996)\n\n9, H. Drexler, D. Leonard, W. Hansen, J.P. Kotthaus, and P.M. Petroff,[**]{}[*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**73**]{}, 2252 (1994)\n\n10, M. Fricke, A. Lorke, J.P. Kotthaus, G. Medeiros-Ribeiro, and P.M. Petroff, [*Europhys. Lett*]{}. [**36**]{}, \u00a0\u00a0197 (1996).\n\n11, W.Y. Ruan, Y.Y. Liu, C.G. Bao and Z.Q. Zhang, 1995 [*Phys. Rev*]{}. [**B51**]{} 7942\u00a0(2000).\n\n12, C.G. Bao, [*\u00a0Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**79**]{}, 3475 ([*\u00a01997*]{}).\n\n13, C.G. Bao, J. Phys. :Condens. Matter \u00a0[**14**]{}, 8549 (2002)\n\n14, C. de C. Chamon, and X.G. Wen, [*Phys. Rev*]{}. [**B49**]{}, 8227, (1994)\n\n15, H.M. Muller and S.E. Koonin, [*Phys. Rev*]{}. [**\u00a0B54**]{}, 14532, (1996)\n\n16, E. Goldmann and S.R. Renn, [*\u00a0Phys. Rev.*]{} [**B60**]{}, 16611, ([*1999* ]{})\n\n17, S.M. Reimann, M. Koskinen, M. Manninen and B.R. Mottelson, [*Phys. Rev. Lett*]{}. [**83**]{}, 3270, (1999 )\n\n18, C. Yannouleas and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 115315 (2002)\n\n19, C.G. Bao, \u00a0Few-Body Systems, [**13**]{}, 41 (1992).\n\n20, C.G. Bao and Y.X. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**\u00a082**]{}, 61 (1999)\n\n21, C.G. Bao, W.F. Xie, and W.Y. Ruan, \u00a0Few-Body Systems, [**22**]{}, 135 (1997)\n\n22, T. Seki, Y. Kuramoto, and T. Nishino, J. Phys. Soc. Japan, [**65**]{}, 3945 (1996)\n\n23, Ruan W\u00a0Y, Chan K S, Ho H\u00a0P\u00a0and Pun E\u00a0Y\u00a0B, 2000 \u00a0[*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**12**]{}, 3911\n\nCaption\n\nFig.1 $\\rho _{1}(r{\\bf )}$ of the first-state (82)$_{1}$with 6000 (a), 9000 (b), and 12000 (c) basis functions. The unit of length in this paper is $%\n\\sqrt{\\hbar /m^{\\ast }\\omega _{0}}=194.71\\stackrel{\\circ }{A}.$\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Fig.2 \u00a0$\\varepsilon (L)$ as a function of $L$. $\\hbar \\omega _{0}$=3meV is assumed.\n\nFig.3 \u00a0$\\rho _{1}(r{\\bf )}$ of the first-states (Fig.3i is for a second-state).\n\nFig.4 \u00a0The contour plot of the two-body densities \u00a0$\\rho _{2}({\\bf r,r}_{2}%\n{\\bf )}$ as a function of ${\\bf r}$. The given ${\\bf r}_{2}$ is marked by a white spot. The lighter region has a larger \u00a0$\\rho _{2}$ .\n\n\u00a0\u00a0 Fig.5 The contour plot of the three-body densities $\\rho _{3}(%\n{\\bf r,r}_{2},{\\bf r}_{3})$ as a function of ${\\bf r}$. The given ${\\bf r}%\n_{2}$ and ${\\bf r}_{3}$ are marked by two white spots. Refer to Fig.4.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Federated learning enables a large amount of edge computing devices to jointly learn a model without data sharing. As a leading algorithm in this setting, Federated Averaging (`FedAvg`) runs Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD) in parallel on a small subset of the total devices and averages the sequences only once in a while. Despite its simplicity, it lacks theoretical guarantees under realistic settings. In this paper, we analyze the convergence of `FedAvg` on non-iid data and establish a convergence rate of $\\mathcal{O}(\\frac{1}{T})$ for strongly convex and smooth problems, where $T$ is the number of SGDs. Importantly, our bound demonstrates a trade-off between communication-efficiency and convergence rate. As user devices may be disconnected from the server, we relax the assumption of full device participation to partial device participation and study different averaging schemes; low device participation rate can be achieved without severely slowing down the learning. Our results indicates that heterogeneity of data slows down the convergence, which matches empirical observations. Furthermore, we provide a necessary condition for `FedAvg` on non-iid data: the learning rate $\\eta$ must decay, even if full-gradient is used; otherwise, the solution will be $\\Omega (\\eta)$ away from the optimal.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Xiang Li[^1]\\\n    School of Mathematical Sciences\\\n    Peking University\\\n    Beijing, 100871, China\\\n    `smslixiang@pku.edu.cn`\\\n    Kaixuan Huang[$^*$]{}\\\n    School of Mathematical Sciences\\\n    Peking University\\\n    Beijing, 100871, China\\\n    `hackyhuang@pku.edu.cn`\\\n    Wenhao Yang[$^*$]{}\\\n    Center for Data Science\\\n    Peking University\\\n    Beijing, 100871, China\\\n    `yangwenhaosms@pku.edu.cn`\\\n    Shusen Wang\\\n    Department of Computer Science\\\n    Stevens Institute of Technology\\\n    Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA\\\n    `shusen.wang@stevens.edu`\\\n    Zhihua Zhang\\\n    School of Mathematical Sciences\\\n    Peking University\\\n    Beijing, 100871, China\\\n    `zhzhang@math.pku.edu.cn`\nbibliography:\n- 'refer.bib'\ntitle: 'On the Convergence of FedAvg on Non-IID Data'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nFederated Learning (FL), also known as federated optimization, allows multiple parties to collaboratively train a model without data sharing [@konevcny2015federated; @shokri2015privacy; @mcmahan2016communication; @konevcny2017stochastic; @sahu2018convergence; @zhuo2019federated]. Similar to the centralized parallel optimization [@jakovetic2013distributed; @li2014scaling; @li2014communication; @shamir2014communication; @zhang2015disco; @meng2016mllib; @reddi2016aide; @richtarik2016distributed; @smith2016cocoa; @zheng2016general; @wang2018giant], FL let the user devices (aka worker nodes) perform most of the computation and a central parameter server update the model parameters using the descending directions returned by the user devices. Nevertheless, FL has three unique characters that distinguish it from the standard parallel optimization\u00a0[@li2019federated].\n\nFirst, the training data are [massively distributed]{} over an incredibly large number of devices, and the connection between the central server and a device is slow. A direct consequence is the slow communication, which motivated communication-efficient FL algorithms [@mcmahan2016communication; @smith2017federated; @sahu2018convergence; @sattler2019robust]. Federated averaging (`FedAvg`) is the first and perhaps the most widely used FL algorithm. It runs $E$ steps of SGD in parallel on a small sampled subset of devices and then averages the resulting model updates via a central server once in a while.[^2] In comparison with SGD and its variants, `FedAvg` performs more local computation and less communication.\n\nSecond, unlike the traditional distributed learning systems, the FL system does not have control over users\u2019 devices. For example, when a mobile phone is turned off or WiFi access is unavailable, the central server will lose connection to this device. When this happens during training, such a non-responding/inactive device, which is called a straggler, appears tremendously slower than the other devices. Unfortunately, since it has no control over the devices, the system can do nothing but waiting or ignoring the stragglers. Waiting for all the devices\u2019 response is obviously infeasible; it is thus impractical to require all the devices be active.\n\nThird, the training data are non-iid[^3], that is, a device\u2019s local data cannot be regarded as samples drawn from the overall distribution. The data available locally fail to represent the overall distribution. This does not only bring challenges to algorithm design but also make theoretical analysis much harder. While `FedAvg` actually works when the data are non-iid [@mcmahan2016communication], `FedAvg` on non-iid data lacks theoretical guarantee even in convex optimization setting.\n\nThere have been much efforts developing convergence guarantees for FL algorithm based on the assumptions that (1) the data are iid and (2) all the devices are active. @khaled2019first [@yu2018parallel; @wang2019adaptive] made the latter assumption, while @zhou2017convergence [@stich2018local; @wang2018cooperative; @woodworth2018graph] made both assumptions. The two assumptions violates the second and third characters of FL. Previous algorithm `Fedprox`\u00a0[@sahu2018convergence] doesn\u2019t require the two mentioned assumptions and incorporates `FedAvg` as a special case when the added proximal term vanishes. However, their theory fails to cover `FedAvg`.\n\n#### Notation.\n\nLet $N$ be the total number of user devices and $K$ ($\\leq N$) be the maximal number of devices that participate in every round\u2019s communication. Let $T$ be the total number of every device\u2019s SGDs, $E$ be the number of local iterations performed in a device between two communications, and thus $\\frac{T}{E}$ is the number of communications.\n\n#### Contributions.\n\nFor strongly convex and smooth problems, we establish a convergence guarantee for `FedAvg` without making the two impractical assumptions: (1) the data are iid, and (2) all the devices are active. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first to show the convergence rate of `FedAvg` without making the two assumptions.\n\nWe show in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:full\\], \\[thm:w\\_replace\\], and \\[thm:wo\\_replace\\] that `FedAvg` has $\\OM (\\frac{1}{T})$ convergence rate. In particular, Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:wo\\_replace\\] shows that to attain a fixed precision $\\epsilon$, the number of communications is $$\\frac{T}{E}\n\\: = \\:\n\\OM \\left[ \\frac{1}{\\epsilon} \\Bigg( \\left(1+\\frac{1}{K}\\right) EG^2 + \\frac{\\myave ^2\\sigma_k^2 + \\Gamma + G^2}{E} + G^2 \\Bigg)\\right].$$ Here, $G$, $\\Gamma$, $p_k$, and $\\sigma_k$ are problem-related constants defined in Section\u00a0\\[sec:convergence:notation\\]. The most interesting insight is that $E$ is a knob controlling the convergence rate: neither setting $E$ over-small ($E=1$ makes `FedAvg` equivalent to SGD) nor setting $E$ over-large is good for the convergence.\n\nThis work also makes algorithmic contributions. We summarize the existing sampling[^4] and averaging schemes for `FedAvg` (which do not have convergence bounds before this work) and propose a new scheme (see Table\u00a0\\[tab:conv\\]). We point out that a suitable sampling and averaging scheme is crucial for the convergence of `FedAvg`. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to theoretically demonstrate that `FedAvg` with certain schemes (see Table\u00a0\\[tab:conv\\]) can achieve $\\OM(\\frac{1}{T})$ convergence rate in non-iid federated setting. We show that heterogeneity of training data and partial device participation slow down the convergence. We empirically verify our results through numerical experiments.\n\nOur theoretical analysis requires the decay of learning rate (which is known to hinder the convergence rate.) Unfortunately, we show in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:failure\\] that the decay of learning rate is necessary for `FedAvg` with $E>1$, even if full gradient descent is used.[^5] If the learning rate is fixed to $\\eta$ throughout, `FedAvg` would converge to a solution at least $\\Omega (\\eta (E-1))$ away from the optimal. To establish Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:failure\\], we construct a specific $\\ell_2$-norm regularized linear regression model which satisfies our strong convexity and smoothness assumptions.\n\n             Paper                             Sampling                                               Averaging                                Convergence rate\n  --------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------\n   @mcmahan2016communication        $\\SM_t \\sim \\mathcal{U}(N,K) $        $ \\sum_{k\\notin \\SM_t} p_k \\w_t + \\sum_{k \\in \\SM_t} p_k \\w_t^k $           -\n     @sahu2018convergence      $\\SM_t \\sim \\mathcal{W}(N,K,\\mathbf{p})$                 $\\frac{1}{K}\\sum_{k\\in \\SM_t} \\w_t^k$                 $\\OM(\\frac{1}{T})$\n             Ours                   $\\SM_t \\sim \\mathcal{U}(N,K) $                   $\\sum_{k \\in \\SM_t} p_k \\frac{N}{K} \\w_t^k$              $\\OM(\\frac{1}{T})$\n\n  : Sampling and averaging schemes for `FedAvg`. $\\SM_t \\sim \\mathcal{U}(N,K)$ means $\\SM_t$ is a size-$K$ subset uniformly sampled **without replacement** from $[N]$. $\\SM_t \\sim \\mathcal{W}(N,K,\\mathbf{p})$ means $\\SM_t$ contains $K$ elements that are iid sampled **with replacement** from $[N]$ with probabilities $\\{p_k\\}$. In the latter scheme, $\\SM_t$ is not a set. []{data-label=\"tab:conv\"}\n\n#### Paper organization.\n\nIn Section\u00a0\\[sec:alg\\], we elaborate on `FedAvg`. In Section\u00a0\\[sec:convergence\\], we present our main convergence bounds for `FedAvg`. In Section\u00a0\\[sec:example\\], we construct a special example to show the necessity of learning rate decay. In Section\u00a0\\[sec:related\\], we discuss and compare with prior work. In Section\u00a0\\[sec:experiment\\], we conduct empirical study to verify our theories. All the proofs are left to the appendix.\n\nFederated Averaging (`FedAvg`) {#sec:alg}\n==============================\n\n#### Problem formulation.\n\nIn this work, we consider the following distributed optimization model: $$\\label{eq:loss}\n\\min_{\\w} \\;\n\\Big\\{ F (\\w )  \\, \\triangleq \\,\n\\sum_{k=1}^N \\, p_k F_k(\\w) \\Big\\},$$ where $N$ is the number of devices, and $p_k$ is the weight of the $k$-th device such that $p_k  \\ge  0$ and $\\sum_{k=1}^N p_k = 1$. Suppose the $k$-th device holds the $n_k$ training data: $x_{k, 1}, x_{k, 2}, \\cdots , x_{k, n_k}$. The local objective $F_k (\\cdot)$ is defined by $$\\label{eq:local-f}\nF_k (\\w) \\triangleq \\frac{1}{n_k} \\sum_{j=1}^{n_k}\\ell(\\w; x_{k, j}),$$ where $\\ell (\\cdot ; \\cdot)$ is a user-specified loss function.\n\n#### Algorithm description.\n\nHere, we describe one around (say the $t$-th) of the *standard* `FedAvg` algorithm. First, the central server **broadcasts** the latest model, $\\w_t$, to all the devices. Second, every device (say the $k$-th) lets $\\w_t^k = \\w_t$ and then performs $E$ ($\\geq 1$) **local updates**: $$\\w_{t+i+1}^k \\: \\longleftarrow \\: \\w_{t+i}^k - \\eta_{t+i} \\nabla F_k(\\w_{t+i}^k, \\xi_{t+i}^k) , i=0,1,\\cdots,E-1$$ where $\\eta_{t+i}$ is the learning rate (a.k.a. step size) and $\\xi_{t+i}^k$ is a sample uniformly chosen from the local data. Last, the server **aggregates** the local models, $\\w_{t+E}^1 , \\cdots, \\w_{t+E}^N$, to produce the new global model, $\\w_{t+E}$. Because of the non-iid and partial device participation issues, the aggregation step can vary.\n\n#### IID versus non-iid.\n\nSuppose the data in the $k$-th device are i.i.d.\u00a0sampled from the distribution $\\DM_k$. Then the overall distribution is a mixture of all local data distributions: $\\DM = \\sum_{k=1}^N p_k \\DM_k$. The prior work [@zhang2015deep; @zhou2017convergence; @stich2018local; @wang2018cooperative; @woodworth2018graph] assumes the data are iid generated by or partitioned among the $N$ devices, that is, $\\DM_k = \\DM$ for all $k \\in [N]$. However, real-world applications do not typically satisfy the iid assumption. One of our theoretical contributions is avoiding making the iid assumption.\n\n#### Full device participation.\n\nThe prior work [@coppola2015iterative; @zhou2017convergence; @stich2018local; @yu2018parallel; @wang2018cooperative; @wang2019adaptive] requires the [full device participation]{} in the aggregation step of `FedAvg`. In this case, the aggregation step performs $$\\w_{t+E} \\: \\longleftarrow \\: \\sum_{k=1}^N p_k \\, \\w_{t+E}^k .$$ Unfortunately, the full device participation requirement suffers from serious \u201cstraggler\u2019s effect\u201d (which means everyone waits for the slowest) in real-world applications. For example, if there are thousands of users\u2019 devices in the FL system, there are always a small portion of devices offline. Full device participation means the central server must wait for these \u201cstragglers\u201d, which is obviously unrealistic.\n\n#### Partial device participation.\n\nThis strategy is much more realistic because it does not require all the devices\u2019 output. We can set a threshold $K$ ($1\\leq K < N$) and let the central server collect the outputs of the first $K$ responded devices. After collecting $K$ outputs, the server stops waiting for the rest; the $K+1$-th to $N$-th devices are regarded stragglers in this iteration. Let $\\SM_t$ ($| \\SM_t | = K$) be the set of the indices of the first $K$ responded devices in the $t$-th iteration. The aggregation step performs $$\\w_{t+E} \\: \\longleftarrow \\: \\frac{N}{K} \\sum_{k\\in \\SM_t } p_k  \\, \\w_{t+E}^k .$$ It can be proved that $\\frac{N}{K}  \\sum_{k\\in \\SM_t } p_k $ equals one in expectation.\n\n#### Communication cost.\n\nThe `FedAvg` requires two rounds communications\u2014 one broadcast and one aggregation\u2014 per $E$ iterations. If $T$ iterations are performed totally, then the number of communications is $\\lfloor \\frac{2T}{E} \\rfloor$. During the broadcast, the central server sends $\\w_t$ to all the devices. During the aggregation, all or part of the $N$ devices sends its output, say $\\w_{t+E}^k$, to the server.\n\nConvergence Analysis of `FedAvg` in Non-iid Setting {#sec:convergence}\n===================================================\n\nIn this section, we show that `FedAvg` converges to the global optimum at a rate of $\\OM(1/T)$ for strongly convex and smooth functions and non-iid data. The main observation is that when the learning rate is sufficiently small, the effect of $E$ steps of local updates is similar to one step update with a larger learning rate. This coupled with appropriate sampling and averaging schemes would make each global update behave like an SGD update. Partial device participation ($K < N$) only makes the averaged sequence $\\{\\w_t\\}$ have a larger variance, which, however, can be controlled by learning rates. These imply the convergence property of `FedAvg` should not differ too much from SGD. Next, we will first give the convergence result with full device participation (i.e., $K=N$) and then extend this result to partial device participation (i.e., $K<N$).\n\nNotation and Assumptions {#sec:convergence:notation}\n------------------------\n\nWe make the following assumptions on the functions $F_1, \\cdots , F_N$. Assumption\u00a0\\[asm:smooth\\] and \\[asm:strong\\_cvx\\] are standard; typical examples are the $\\ell_2$-norm regularized linear regression, logistic regression, and softmax classifier.\n\n\\[asm:smooth\\] $F_1, \\cdots, F_N$ are all $L$-smooth: for all $\\v$ and $\\w$, $F_k(\\v)  \\leq F_k(\\w) + (\\v - \\w)^T \\nabla F_k(\\w) + \\frac{L}{2} \\| \\v - \\w\\|_2^2$.\n\n\\[asm:strong\\_cvx\\] $F_1, \\cdots, F_N$ are all $\\mu$-strongly convex: for all $\\v$ and $\\w$, $F_k(\\v)  \\geq F_k(\\w) + (\\v - \\w)^T \\nabla F_k(\\w) + \\frac{\\mu }{2} \\| \\v - \\w\\|_2^2$.\n\nAssumptions\u00a0\\[asm:sgd\\_var\\] and \\[asm:sgd\\_norm\\] have been made by the works [@zhang2013communication; @stich2018local; @stich2018sparsified; @yu2018parallel].\n\n\\[asm:sgd\\_var\\] Let $\\xi_t^k$ be sampled from the $k$-th device\u2019s local data uniformly at random. The variance of stochastic gradients in each device is bounded: $\\EB \\left\\| \\nabla F_k(\\w_t^k,\\xi_t^k) - \\nabla F_k(\\w_t^k) \\right\\|^2 \\le \\sigma_k^2$ for $k=1,\\cdots,N$.\n\n\\[asm:sgd\\_norm\\] The expected squared norm of stochastic gradients is uniformly bounded, i.e., $\\EB \\left\\| \\nabla F_k(\\w_t^k,\\xi_t^k) \\right\\|^2  \\le G^2$ for all $k=1,\\cdots,N$ and $t=1,\\cdots, T-1$\n\n#### Quantifying the degree of non-iid (heterogeneity).\n\nLet $F^*$ and $F_k^*$ be the minimum values of $F$ and $F_k$, respectively. We use the term $\\Gamma = F^* - \\myave F_k^*$ for quantifying the degree of non-iid. If the data are iid, then $\\Gamma$ obviously goes to zero as the number of samples grows. If the data are non-iid, then $\\Gamma$ is nonzero, and its magnitude reflects the heterogeneity of the data distribution.\n\nConvergence Result: Full Device Participation {#subsec:convres_full}\n---------------------------------------------\n\nHere we analyze the case that all the devices participate in the aggregation step; see Section\u00a0\\[sec:alg\\] for the algorithm description. Let the `FedAvg` algorithm terminate after $T$ iterations and return $\\w_T$ as the solution. We always require $T$ is evenly divisible by $E$ so that `FedAvg` can output $\\w_T$ as expected.\n\n\\[thm:full\\] Let Assumptions\u00a0\\[asm:smooth\\] to \\[asm:sgd\\_norm\\] hold and $L, \\mu, \\sigma_k, G$ be defined therein. Choose $\\kappa = \\frac{L}{\\mu}$, $\\gamma = \\max\\{8\\kappa, E\\}$ and the learning rate $\\eta_t = \\frac{2}{\\mu (\\gamma+t)}$. Then $\\texttt{FedAvg}$ with [full device participation]{} satisfies $$\\label{eq:bound_K=N}\n    \\EB \\left[ F(\\w_T)\\right] - F^* \n    \\: \\leq \\: \n    \\frac{\\kappa}{\\gamma +T-1} \\left( \\frac{2B}{\\mu} + \\frac{\\mu \\gamma}{2} \\EB \\|\\w_1 - \\w^*\\|^2 \\right),$$ where $$\\label{eq:bound_B}\n    B = \\sum_{k=1}^N p_k^2 \\sigma_k^2 + 6L \\Gamma + 8  (E-1)^2G^2.$$\n\nConvergence Result: Partial Device Participation {#subsec:conv_partial}\n------------------------------------------------\n\nAs discussed in Section\u00a0\\[sec:alg\\], partial device participation has more practical interest than full device participation. Let the set $\\SM_t$ ($\\subset [N]$) index the active devices in the $t$-th iteration. To establish the convergence bound, we need to make assumptions on $\\SM_t$.\n\nAssumption\u00a0\\[asm:w\\_replace\\] assumes the $K$ indices are selected from the distribution $p_k$ independently and with replacement. The aggregation step is simply averaging. This is first proposed in [@sahu2018convergence], but they did not provide theoretical analysis.\n\n\\[Scheme I\\] \\[asm:w\\_replace\\] Assume $\\SM_t$ contains a subset of $K$ indices randomly selected [with replacement]{} according to the sampling probabilities $p_1, \\cdots , p_N$. The aggregation step of `FedAvg` performs $\\w_{t} \\longleftarrow \\frac{1}{K} \\sum_{k\\in \\SM_t } \\w_{t}^k $.\n\n\\[thm:w\\_replace\\] Let Assumptions\u00a0\\[asm:smooth\\] to \\[asm:sgd\\_norm\\] hold and $L, \\mu, \\sigma_k, G$ be defined therein. Let $\\kappa, \\gamma$, $\\eta_t$, and $B$ be defined in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:full\\]. Let Assumption\u00a0\\[asm:w\\_replace\\] hold and define $C =  \\frac{4}{K} E^2G^2$. Then $$\\label{eq:bound_K<N}\n    \\EB \\left[ F(\\w_T)\\right] - F^* \n    \\: \\leq \\: \n    \\frac{\\kappa}{\\gamma +T - 1} \\left( \\frac{2(B+C)}{\\mu} + \\frac{\\mu \\gamma}{2} \\EB \\|\\w_1 - \\w^*\\|^2 \\right),$$\n\nAlternatively, we can select $K$ indices from $[N]$ uniformly at random without replacement. As a consequence, we need a different aggregation strategy. Assumption\u00a0\\[asm:wo\\_replace\\] assumes the $K$ indices are selected uniformly without replacement and the aggregation step is the same as in Section\u00a0\\[sec:alg\\]. However, to guarantee convergence, we require an additional assumption of balanced data.\n\n\\[asm:wo\\_replace\\] Assume $\\SM_t$ contains a subset of $K$ indices uniformly sampled from $[N]$ [without replacement]{}. Assume the data is balanced in the sense that $p_1 = \\cdots = p_N = \\frac{1}{N}$. The aggregation step of `FedAvg` performs $\\w_{t} \\longleftarrow \\frac{N}{K} \\sum_{k\\in \\SM_t } p_k \\, \\w_{t}^k $.\n\n\\[thm:wo\\_replace\\] Replace Assumption\u00a0\\[asm:w\\_replace\\] by Assumption\u00a0\\[asm:wo\\_replace\\] and $C$ by $C = \\frac{N-K}{N-1} \\frac{4}{K} E^2G^2$. Then the same bound in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:w\\_replace\\] holds.\n\nScheme II requires $p_1 = \\cdots = p_N = \\frac{1}{N}$ which obviously violates the unbalance nature of FL. Fortunately, this can be addressed by the following transformation. Let $\\widetilde{F}_k(\\w)= p_kNF_k(\\w)$ be a scaled local objective $F_k$. Then the global objective becomes a simple average of all scaled local objectives: $$F(\\w) \n\\: = \\: \\sum_{k=1}^N p_k {F}_k(\\w)\n\\: = \\: \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{k=1}^N \\widetilde{F}_k(\\w) .$$ Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:wo\\_replace\\] still holds if $L, \\mu, \\sigma_k, G$ are replaced by $\\widetilde{L} \\triangleq \\nu L$, $\\widetilde{\\mu} \\triangleq \\varsigma \\mu$, $\\widetilde{\\sigma}_k = \\sqrt{\\nu} \\sigma$, and $\\widetilde{G} = \\sqrt{\\nu} G$, respectively. Here, $\\nu =  N \\cdot \\max_{k}p_k$ and $ \\varsigma = N \\cdot \\min_{k} p_k $.\n\nDiscussions\n-----------\n\n#### Choice of $E$.\n\nSince $\\| \\w_0 - \\w^* \\|^2 \\le \\frac{4}{\\mu^2} G^2$ for $\\mu$-strongly convex $F$, the dominating term in is $$\\label{eq:bound_dom}\n\\mathcal{O}\\left(\\frac{\\sum _{k=1}^N p_k^2 \\sigma_k^2 + L \\Gamma + \\left(1+\\frac{1}{K}\\right)E^2G^2 + \\gamma G^2}{\\mu T}\\right).$$ Let $T_\\epsilon$ denote the number of required steps for `FedAvg` to achieve an $\\epsilon$ accuracy. It follows from that the number of required communication rounds is roughly[^6] $$\\label{eq:communication_round}\n\\frac{T_\\epsilon}{E} \n\\: \\propto \\:   \\left(1+\\frac{1}{K}\\right)EG^2 + \\frac{\\myave ^2\\sigma_k^2 + L \\Gamma + \\kappa G^2}{E} + G^2 .$$ Thus, $\\frac{T_\\epsilon}{E}$ is a function of $E$ that first decreases and then increases, which implies that over-small or over-large $E$ may lead to high communication cost and that the optimal $E$ exists.\n\n@stich2018local showed that if the data are iid, then $E$ can be set to $\\OM (\\sqrt{T} )$. However, this setting does not work if the data are non-iid. Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:full\\] implies that $E$ must not exceed $\\Omega (\\sqrt{T})$; otherwise, convergence is not guaranteed. Here we give an intuitive explanation. If $E$ is set big, then $\\w_t^k$ can converge to the minimizer of $F_k$, and thus `FedAvg` becomes the one-shot average [@zhang2013communication] of the local solutions. If the data are non-iid, the one-shot averaging does not work because weighted average of the minimizers of $F_1, \\cdots , F_N$ can be very different from the minimizer of $F$.\n\n#### Choice of $K$.\n\n@stich2018local showed that if the data are iid, the convergence rate improves substantially as $K$ increases. However, under the non-iid setting, the convergence rate has a weak dependence on $K$, as we show in Theorems\u00a0\\[thm:w\\_replace\\] and \\[thm:wo\\_replace\\]. This implies `FedAvg` is unable to achieve linear speedup. We have empirically observed this phenomenon (see Section\u00a0\\[sec:experiment\\]). Thus, in practice, the participation ratio $\\frac{K}{N}$ can be set small to alleviate the straggler\u2019s effect without affecting the convergence rate.\n\n#### Choice of sampling schemes.\n\nWe considered two sampling and averaging schemes in Theorems\u00a0\\[thm:w\\_replace\\] and \\[thm:wo\\_replace\\]. Scheme I selects $K$ devices according to the probabilities $p_1, \\cdots, p_N$ with replacement. The non-uniform sampling results in faster convergence than uniform sampling, especially when $p_1, \\cdots, p_N$ are highly non-uniform. If the system can choose to activate any of the $N$ devices at any time, then Scheme I should be used.\n\nHowever, oftentimes the system has no control over the sampling; instead, the server simply uses the first $K$ returned results for the update. In this case, we can assume the $K$ devices are uniformly sampled from all the $N$ devices and use Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:wo\\_replace\\] to guarantee the convergence. If $p_1, \\cdots, p_N$ are highly non-uniform, then $\\nu =  N \\cdot \\max_{k}p_k$ is big and $ \\varsigma = N \\cdot \\min_{k} p_k $ is small, which makes the convergence of `FedAvg` slow. This point of view is empirically verified in our experiments.\n\nNecessity of Learning Rate Decay {#sec:example}\n================================\n\nIn this section, we point out that diminishing learning rates are crucial for the convergence of `FedAvg` in the non-iid setting. Specifically, we establish the following theorem by constructing a ridge regression model (which is strongly convex and smooth).\n\n\\[thm:failure\\] We artificially construct a strongly convex and smooth distributed optimization problem. With full batch size, $E>1$, and any [*fixed*]{} step size, `FedAvg` will converge to sub-optimal points. Specifically, let $\\tilde{\\w}^*$ be the solution produced by `FedAvg` with a small enough and constant $\\eta$, and $\\w^*$ the optimal solution. Then we have $$\\|\\tilde{\\w}^* - \\w^* \\|_2 = \\Omega (  (E-1)\\eta ) \\cdot \\| \\w^* \\|_2.$$ where we hide some problem dependent constants.\n\nTheorem\u00a0\\[thm:failure\\] and its proof provide several implications. First, the decay of learning rate is necessary of `FedAvg`. On the one hand, Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:full\\] shows with $E>1$ and a decaying learning rate, `FedAvg` converges to the optimum. On the other hand, Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:failure\\] shows that with $E>1$ and any fixed learning rate, `FedAvg` does not converges to the optimum.\n\nSecond, `FedAvg` behaves very differently from gradient descent. Note that `FedAvg` with $E=1$ and full batch size is exactly the `Full Gradient Descent`; with a proper and fixed learning rate, its global convergence to the optimum is guaranteed\u00a0[@nesterov2013introductory]. However, Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:failure\\] shows that `FedAvg` with $E>1$ and full batch size cannot possibly converge to the optimum. This conclusion doesn\u2019t contradict with Theorem 1 in\u00a0[@khaled2019first], which, when translated into our case, asserts that $\\tilde{\\w}^*$ will locate in the neighborhood of $\\w^*$ with a constant learning rate.\n\nThird, Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:failure\\] shows the requirement of learning rate decay is not an artifact of our analysis; instead, it is inherently required by `FedAvg`. An explanation is that constant learning rates, combined with $E$ steps of possibly-biased local updates, form a sub-optimal update scheme, but a diminishing learning rate can gradually eliminate such bias.\n\nThe efficiency of `FedAvg` principally results from the fact that it performs several update steps on a local model before communicating with other workers, which saves communication. Diminishing step sizes often hinders fast convergence, which may counteract the benefit of performing multiple local updates. Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:failure\\] motivates more efficient alternatives to `FedAvg`.\n\nRelated Work {#sec:related}\n============\n\nFederated learning (FL) was first proposed by [@mcmahan2016communication] for collaboratively learning a model without collecting users\u2019 data. The research work on FL is focused on the communication-efficiency [@konevcny2016federated; @mcmahan2016communication; @sahu2018convergence; @smith2017federated] and data privacy [@bagdasaryan2018backdoor; @bonawitz2017practical; @geyer2017differentially; @hitaj2017deep; @melisexploiting]. This work is focused on the communication-efficiency issue.\n\n`FedAvg`, a synchronous distributed optimization algorithm, was proposed by [@mcmahan2016communication] as an effective heuristic. @sattler2019robust [@zhao2018federated] studied the non-iid setting, however, they do not have convergence rate. A contemporaneous and independent work [@xie2019asynchronous] analyzed asynchronous `FedAvg`; while they did not require iid data, their bound do not guarantee convergence to saddle point or local minimum. @sahu2018convergence proposed a federated optimization framework called `FedProx` to deal with statistical heterogeneity and provided the convergence guarantees in non-iid setting. `FedProx` adds a proximal term to each local objective. When these proximal terms vanish, `FedProx` is reduced to `FedAvg`. However, their convergence theory requires the proximal terms always exist and hence fails to cover `FedAvg`.\n\nWhen data are iid distributed and all devices are active, `FedAvg` is referred to as `LocalSGD`. Due to the two assumptions, theoretical analysis of `LocalSGD` is easier than `FedAvg`. @stich2018local demonstrated `LocalSGD` provably achieves the same linear speedup with strictly less communication for strongly-convex stochastic optimization. @coppola2015iterative [@zhou2017convergence; @wang2018cooperative] studied `LocalSGD` in the non-convex setting and established convergence results. @yu2018parallel [@wang2019adaptive] recently analyzed `LocalSGD` for non-convex functions in heterogeneous settings. In particular, @yu2018parallel demonstrated `LocalSGD` also achieves $\\mathcal{O}(1/\\sqrt{NT})$ convergence (i.e., linear speedup) for non-convex optimization. @lin2018don empirically shows variants of `LocalSGD` increase training efficiency and improve the generalization performance of large batch sizes while reducing communication. For `LocalGD` on non-iid data (as opposed to `LocalSGD`), the best result is by the contemporaneous work (but slightly later than our first version)\u00a0[@khaled2019first]. @khaled2019first used fixed learning rate $\\eta$ and showed $\\OM (\\frac{1}{T})$ convergence to a point $\\OM (\\eta^2 E^2)$ away from the optimal. In fact, the suboptimality is due to their fixed learning rate. As we show in Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:failure\\], using a fixed learning rate $\\eta$ throughout, the solution by `LocalGD` is at least $\\Omega ((E-1) \\eta)$ away from the optimal.\n\nIf the data are iid, distributed optimization can be efficiently solved by the second-order algorithms [@mahajan2018efficient; @reddi2016aide; @shamir2014communication; @wang2018giant; @zhang2015disco] and the one-shot methods [@lee2017communication; @lin2017distributed; @wang2019sharper; @zhang2013communication; @zhang2015divide]. The primal-dual algorithms [@hong2018gradient; @smith2016cocoa; @smith2017federated] are more generally applicable and more relevant to FL.\n\nNumerical Experiments {#sec:experiment}\n=====================\n\n#### Models and datasets\n\nWe examine our theoretical results on a logistic regression with weight decay $\\lambda=1e-4$. This is a stochastic convex optimization problem. We distribute MNIST dataset\u00a0[@lecun1998gradient] among $N=100$ workers in a non-iid fashion such that each device contains samples of only two digits. We further obtain two datasets: `mnist balanced` and `mnist unbalanced`. The former is balanced such that the number of samples in each device is the same, while the latter is highly unbalanced with the number of samples among devices following a power law. To manipulate heterogeneity more precisly, we synthesize unbalanced datasets following the setup in\u00a0@sahu2018convergence and denote it as `synthetic(\\alpha, \\beta)` where $\\alpha$ controls how much local models differ from each other and $\\beta$ controls how much the local data at each device differs from that of other devices. We obtain two datasets: `synthetic(0,0)` and `synthetic(1,1)`. Details can be found in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:appen:exp\\].\n\n\\\n\n#### Experiment settings\n\nFor all experiments, we initialize all runnings with $\\w_0 = 0$. In each round, all selected devices run $E$ steps of SGD in parallel. We decay the learning rate at the end of each round by the following scheme $\\eta_t = \\frac{\\eta_0}{1+t}$, where $\\eta_0$ is chosen from the set $\\{1, 0.1, 0.01\\}$. We evaluate the averaged model after each global synchronization on the corresponding global objective. For fair comparison, we control all randomness in experiments so that the set of activated devices is the same across all different algorithms on one configuration.\n\n#### Impact of $E$\n\nWe expect that $T_\\epsilon/E$, the required communication round to achieve curtain accuracy, is a hyperbolic finction of $E$ as equ\u00a0(\\[eq:communication\\_round\\]) indicates. Intuitively, a small $E$ means a heavy communication burden, while a large $E$ means a low convergence rate. One needs to trade off between communication efficiency and fast convergence. We empirically observe this phenomenon on unbalanced datasets in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:test\\_figure\\_a\\]. The reason why the phenomenon does not appear in `mnist balanced` dataset requires future investigations.\n\n#### Impact of $K$\n\nOur theory suggests that a larger $K$ may slightly accelerate convergence since $T_\\epsilon/E $ contains a term $\\mathcal{O}\\left( \\frac{EG^2}{K}\\right)$. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:test\\_figure\\_b\\] shows that $K$ has limited influence on the convergence of `FedAvg` in `synthetic(0,0)` dataset. It reveals that the curve of a large enough $K$ is slightly better. We observe similar phenomenon among the other three datasets and attach additional results in Appendix\u00a0\\[sec:appen:exp\\]. This justifies that when the variance resulting sampling is not too large (i.e., $B \\gg C$), one can use a small number of devices without severely harming the training process, which also removes the need to sample as many devices as possible in convex federated optimization.\n\n#### Effect of sampling and averaging schemes.\n\nWe compare four schemes among four federated datasets. Since the original scheme involves a history term and may be conservative, we carefully set the initial learning rate for it. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:test\\_figure\\_c\\] indicates that when data are balanced, Schemes I and II achieve nearly the same performance, both better than the original scheme. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:test\\_figure\\_d\\] shows that when the data are unbalanced, i.e., $p_k$\u2019s are uneven, Scheme I performs the best. Scheme II suffers from some instability in this case. This is not contradictory with our theory since we don\u2019t guarantee the convergence of Scheme II when data is unbalanced. As expected, transformed Scheme II performs stably at the price of a lower convergence rate. Compared to Scheme I, the original scheme converges at a slower speed even if its learning rate is fine tuned. All the results show the crucial position of appropriate sampling and averaging schemes for `FedAvg`.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nFederated learning becomes increasingly popular in machine learning and optimization communities. In this paper we have studied the convergence of `FedAvg`, a heuristic algorithm suitable for federated setting. We have investigated the influence of sampling and averaging schemes. We have provided theoretical guarantees for two schemes and empirically demonstrated their performances. Our work sheds light on theoretical understanding of `FedAvg` and provides insights for algorithm design in realistic applications. Though our analyses are constrained in convex problems, we hope our insights and proof techniques can inspire future work.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nLi, Yang and Zhang have been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11771002 and 61572017), Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Z190001), the Key Project of MOST of China (No. 2018AAA0101000), and Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (BAAI).\n\n[^1]: Equal contribution.\n\n[^2]: In original paper\u00a0[@mcmahan2016communication], $E$ epochs of SGD are performed in parallel. For theoretical analyses, we denote by $E$ the times of updates rather than epochs.\n\n[^3]: Throughout this paper, \u201cnon-iid\u201d means data are not identically distributed. More precisely, the data distributions in the $k$-th and $l$-th devices, denote $D_k$ and $D_l$, can be different.\n\n[^4]: Throughout this paper, \u201csampling\u201d refers to how the server chooses $K$ user devices and use their outputs for updating the model parameters. \u201cSampling\u201d does not mean how a device randomly selects training samples.\n\n[^5]: It is well know that the full gradient descent (which is equivalent to `FedAvg` with $E=1$ and full batch) do not require the decay of learning rate.\n\n[^6]: Here we use $\\gamma = \\OM(\\kappa + E)$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The unprecedented range of second-generation gravitational-wave (GW) observatories calls for refining the predictions of potential sources and detection rates. The coalescence of double compact objects (DCOs)\u2014i.e., neutron star-neutron star (NS-NS), black hole-neutron star (BH-NS), and black hole-black hole (BH-BH) binary systems\u2014is the most promising source of GWs for these detectors. We compute detection rates of coalescing DCOs in second-generation GW detectors using the latest models for their cosmological evolution, and implementing inspiral-merger-ringdown (IMR) gravitational waveform models in our signal-to-noise ratio calculations. We find that: (1) the inclusion of the merger/ringdown portion of the signal does not significantly affect rates for NS-NS and BH-NS systems, but it boosts rates by a factor $\\sim 1.5$ for BH-BH systems; (2) in almost all of our models BH-BH systems yield by far the largest rates, followed by NS-NS and BH-NS systems, respectively, and (3) a majority of the detectable BH-BH systems were formed in the early Universe in low-metallicity environments. We make predictions for the distributions of detected binaries and discuss what the first GW detections will teach us about the astrophysics underlying binary formation and evolution.'\nauthor:\n- 'Michal Dominik, Emanuele Berti, Richard O\u2019Shaughnessy, Ilya Mandel, Krzysztof Belczynski, Christopher Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, Tomasz Bulik, Francesco Pannarale'\nbibliography:\n- 'b1.bib'\ntitle: 'Double compact objects III: Gravitational-wave detection rates'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nNearly a century has passed since Albert Einstein wrote down the field equations of general relativity. A crucial prediction of his theory is the existence of GWs. Observations of the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar [@Taylor:1989] and the double pulsar J0737-3039 [@Lyne:2004] leave little doubt of the existence of GWs, with further evidence provided by the recent claim of a detection of a GW-induced B-mode polarization of the cosmic microwave background\u00a0[@2014arXiv1403.3985B]. However, GWs still elude direct observation. The situation should change in the next few years, when a network of second-generation GW observatories \u2013 including Advanced LIGO (Harry, [-@AdvLIGO], henceforth aLIGO), Advanced Virgo [@AdvVirgo henceforth AdV], and KAGRA [@KAGRA] \u2013 will start taking data. The unprecedented sensitivity of these observatories will allow them to observe the inspiral and merger of DCOs out to cosmological distances: for example, aLIGO should observe binary neutron stars out to a luminosity distance of $\\simeq 450 {\\, {\\rm Mpc}}$ ($z \\sim 0.1$), while DCOs containing BHs will be observable to much larger distances [e.g., @2010CQGra..27q3001A]. Given the cosmological reach of second-generation GW interferometers, a theoretical investigation of the observable DCO populations which incorporates cosmological evolution and accurate models of the gravitational waveforms is particularly timely. This is the goal of this paper, the third in a series [cf. @dominik; @dominik2]. Our work builds on the results presented in the second paper [@dominik2 henceforth Paper 2], where we presented the cosmological distribution of DCOs for a set of four evolutionary models. These models investigated a range of Hertzsprung gap (HG) common envelope (CE) donors, supernova (SN) explosion engines, and BH natal kicks, showing distinct differences in the properties of the resulting DCO populations. Population models were placed in a cosmological context by adopting the star formation history reported in [@strolger] and the galaxy mass distribution of [@fontana], both of which are redshift-dependent. We performed all calculations assuming two scenarios for metallicity evolution, meant to bracket the uncertainties associated with the chemical composition of the Universe. Binary evolution was performed using the [StarTrack]{} population synthesis code [@startrack]. In this work we complete and extend the analysis of Paper 2. We study the detection rates and the expected physical properties of coalescing DCOs at cosmological distances for second-generation GW observatories. The rates are calculated for different sets of gravitational waveform models and different detector sensitivities, representative of aLIGO, AdV, and KAGRA. Several different groups have presented similar estimates and studies in the past decade [e.g., @lipunov1997; @bethe; @dedonder; @bloom; @grishchuk:2001; @nele2001; @voss; @dewi; @nutzman; @pfahl; @danny; @PostnovYungelson:2006; @seba; @mennekens]. However, none have combined cosmological DCO populations with accurate GW models to obtain thorough, detector-specific results. Our astrophysical models for DCO formation are reviewed in Section \\[binevol\\]. Gravitational waveform models and signal-to-noise ratio estimates are discussed in Section \\[wmodels\\]. Our procedure to compute event rates is presented in Section \\[sec:fullrates\\]. Event rates and bulk properties of the detected populations are presented in Section \\[sec:results\\]. In Section \\[sec:nobhbh\\] we present and discuss the study by [@mennekens], the primary result of which is the lack of detectable BH-BH systems. In Section \\[sec:conclusions\\] we discuss the possible astrophysical payoff of the first GW detections and important directions for future work.\n\nAstrophysical models {#binevol}\n====================\n\nBinary evolution\n----------------\n\nWe begin with a summary of the four [StarTrack]{} evolutionary models that form the backbone of this work; a more detailed discussion can be found in [@dominik; @dominik2].\n\n*1) Standard model*. This is our reference model, representing the state of the art in the formation and evolution of binary systems. We consider only field populations here. Rate estimates performed for dense populations in which dynamical interactions between stars are important (i.e., globular clusters and galactic nuclear clusters) have been presented elsewhere [@gultekin; @oleary; @grin2006; @sadowski; @ivan; @downing; @MillerLauburg:2008]. Our Standard model uses the \u201cNanjing\u201d [@chlambda] $\\lambda$ coefficient in the CE energy balance prescription of [@webbink], where the precise value of $\\lambda$ depends on the evolutionary stage of the donor, its Zero Age Main Sequence (ZAMS) mass, the mass of its envelope, and its radius. In turn, these quantities depend on metallicity, which in our simulations varies within the broad range $10^{-4}\\leq Z \\leq 0.03$ (recall that solar metallicity corresponds to $\\zsun=0.02$). The values of $\\lambda$ for high-mass stars ($M_{ZAMS}>20\\msun$) were obtained through private communication with the authors and are not present in [@chlambda].\n\nThe impact of the CE outcome on binary populations depends strongly on the evolutionary stage of the donor, as first discussed in [@rarity]. The Standard model does not allow for CE events with HG donors. These stars are not expected to possess a clear core-envelope structure [@ivanovataam], thus making it difficult for them to eject their outer layers during the CE phase. In our Standard model all CE events with HG donors lead to a prompt merger before a DCO binary is formed, regardless of the aforementioned energy balance.\n\nThe model employs a Maxwellian distribution of natal kicks for NSs with 1-D root mean square velocity $\\sigma=265$ km/s, consistent with NS observations [@hobbs]. The same distribution is extended to BHs, where we allow for the possibility that the kicks may be reduced due to fallback of material during the SN that leads to BH formation. The reduction in BH kicks is described via $$\\label{vkick}\nV_{\\rm k}=V_{\\rm max}(1-f_{\\rm fb}),$$ where $V_{\\rm k}$ is the final magnitude of the natal kick, $V_{\\rm max}$ is the velocity drawn from a Maxwellian kick distribution, and $f_{\\rm fb}$ is a \u201cfallback factor\u201d that depends on the amount of fallback material, calculated according to the prescription given in [@chrisija]. Our Standard model uses the \u201cRapid\u201d convection-driven, neutrino-enhanced SN engine [@chrisija]. The SN explosion is sourced from the Rayleigh-Taylor instability and occurs within the first $0.1\\,$\u2013$\\,0.2\\,\\mbox{s}$ after the bounce. When used in the context of binary evolution models, this SN engine successfully reproduces the mass gap [@massgap] observed in Galactic X-ray binaries [@mg1; @mg2], but see also [@2012ApJ...757...36K].\n\n*2) Optimistic Common Envelope*. In this model we allow HG stars to be CE donors. When the donor initiates the CE phase, the CE outcome is determined via energy balance. The remaining physics is identical to the Standard model.\n\n*3) Delayed SN*. This model utilizes the \u201cDelayed\u201d SN engine instead of the Rapid one. The former is also a convection driven, neutrino enhanced engine, but is sourced from the standing accretion shock instability (SASI), and can produce an explosion as late as $1\\,\\mbox{s}$ after bounce. The Delayed engine produces a continuous mass spectrum of compact objects, ranging from NSs through light BHs to massive BHs [@massgap].\n\n*4) High BH kicks*. In this model the BHs receive full natal kicks, i.e. we set $f_{\\rm fb}=0$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[vkick\\]). Otherwise this model is identical to the Standard model.\n\nMetallicity evolution {#sec:metallicity}\n---------------------\n\nIn this paper we employ two distinct metallicity evolution scenarios: \u201chigh-end\u201d and \u201clow-end\u201d. These are identical to those in our previous study (Paper 2), and a detailed description can be found therein. Employing such calibrations allows us to explore and bracket uncertainties in the chemical evolution of the Universe. In both cases the average metallicity decreases with increasing redshift.\n\nThe high-end metallicity profile is calibrated to yield a median value of metallicity equal to $1.5\\,\\zsun$ (or $8.9$ in the \u201c12+log(O/H)\u201d formalism) at redshift $z=0$. This calibration was designed to match the upper $1 \\sigma$ scatter of metallicities according to [@yuan] (see their Fig.\u00a02, top-right panel).\n\nThe low-end metallicity profile is based on SDSS observations [@panter], from which we infer that one half of the star forming mass of galaxies at $z\\sim0$ has $20\\%$ solar metallicity, while the other half has $150\\%$ solar metallicity.\n\nWaveform models {#wmodels}\n===============\n\nOrder-of-magnitude estimates {#sec:simplerates}\n----------------------------\n\nFor any given GW detector the \u201chorizon distance\u201d, $D_h$, is defined as the luminosity distance at which an optimally oriented (face-on, overhead) canonical $(1.4+1.4)~M_\\odot$ NS-NS binary would be detected at a fiducial threshold signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), taken to be $8$ in this paper. The expectation value of the SNR, $\\rho$, of a signal with GW amplitude $h(t)$ is given by \\[SNR\\] \\^2 = 4\\_0\\^ df, where $\\tilde h(f)$ is the Fourier transform of the signal and $S_n(f)$ is the noise power spectral density of the detector [see e.g. @cutlerflanagan; @poissonwill]. The square root of the noise power spectral density is plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:noise\\] for several advanced interferometers of interest. For example, the aLIGO horizon distance is $D_{h} \\simeq 450 {\\, {\\rm Mpc}}$.\n\nAlthough the sensitivity of a GW detector network depends on the details of the search pipeline and the detector data quality, we follow [@2010CQGra..27q3001A] in considering a single detector with an SNR threshold $\\rho \\ge 8$ as a proxy for detectability by the network. With this criterion, a simple and common expression to transform the local merger rate to a predicted detection rate $R_D$, given the horizon distance $D_h$ and the merger rate density, ${\\cal R}(z)$, evaluated locally (at $z=0$), is: $$\\label{eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula}\nR_D \\simeq  \\frac{4\\pi}{3} D_{h}^3 \\langle w^3\\rangle \\left<(\\mc/1.2 M_\\odot)^{15/6}\\right>{\\cal R}(0) \n$$ In this expression $\\langle w^3\\rangle^{-1/3}\\simeq 2.264$ is a purely geometrical and SNR-threshold-independent factor commonly used to relate sky location- and orientation-averaged distances to optimal detection distances (see Appendix for details) and $\\mc=\\eta^{3/5}M$ (where $M=m_1+m_2$ is the total mass of the binary and $\\eta\\equiv m_1m_2/M^2$) is the \u201cchirp mass\u201d [see, e.g., @cutlerflanagan]. This estimate assumes that (1) cosmological effects are negligible (i.e., space is Euclidean to a good approximation), and (2) most of the SNR is accumulated during an inspiral phase which lasts through the entire sensitive band of the detector, where the GW amplitude in the frequency domain is well approximated by the quadrupole formula, i.e., $\\tilde h(f)\\sim \\mc^{5/6} f^{-7/6}/D$. Here $D$ is the luminosity distance to the source. The estimate of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\\]) follows from this simple scaling together with the definition of the SNR, Eq.\u00a0(\\[SNR\\]).\n\n![\\[fig:noise\\] **Noise models**: we use an analytical approximation to the aLIGO zero-detuning high power (ZDHP) noise power spectral density given in Eq.\u00a0(4.7) of [@ajithspin] (we verified that this approximation gives results in excellent agreement with the \u201cofficial\u201d tabulated aLIGO ZDHP noise PSD given in [@PSD:AL]. For AdV we use the fit in Eq.\u00a0(3.4) of [@ajithbose] to [@AdvVirgo], and for KAGRA we use the PSD fit from the Appendix of [@pannarale] to [@KAGRA].](noise){width=\"1.0\\columnwidth\"}\n\nEq.\u00a0(\\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\\]) involves only the *local* merger rate ${\\cal R}(0)$ and $\\langle \\mc^{15/6}\\rangle$ is averaged over detected binaries. Both quantities can easily be extracted from [StarTrack]{} simulations; they are listed in Table \\[tab:simplerates\\], along with the values of $R_D$ predicted by Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\\]). We expect this rough estimate to be accurate for NS-NS binaries, for which the overwhelming majority of the SNR is accumulated during the inspiral phase. More accurate calculations are required for DCOs comprised of BHs, because they are visible out to larger distances (making cosmological corrections important) and because, as we discuss below, a large fraction of the SNR for these binaries comes from the merger/ringdown portion of the signal.\n\nIncluding merger and ringdown {#sec:IMR}\n-----------------------------\n\nIn order to refine our rate estimates for high-mass systems containing BHs, it is important to consider the full waveform, including inspiral, merger, and ringdown (IMR). The calculation of gravitational waveforms from merging BH-BH and BH-NS binaries requires expensive numerical relativity simulations, but several semi-analytical models have been tuned to reproduce the amplitude and phasing of BH-BH and BH-NS merger simulations. To estimate systematic uncertainties and the impact of spin, we performed rate calculations using three models: (1) the IMRPhenomB model described in [@PhenomB], one of the earliest phenomenological models tuned to both nonspinning and spinning BH-BH simulations with aligned spins, henceforth abbreviated as PhB; (2) the IMRPhenomC (henceforth abbreviated PhC) model by [@santamaria], a more accurate alternative to PhB also tuned to nonprecessing simulations of BH-BH mergers; and (3) a nonspinning effective-one-body (EOB) model [@eob]. A detailed comparison of the three models can be found in [@Damour:2010zb]. Recent work by [@pannarale] shows that finite-size effects introduce negligible errors ($\\lesssim 1\\%$) in SNR calculations for BH-NS binaries, therefore the above models are adequate for [*both*]{} BH-BH and BH-NS binaries. In order to facilitate comparison with previous work, we also evaluated rates using the simplest possible approximation: a restricted post-Newtonian (PN) waveform where the amplitude is truncated at Newtonian order, i.e. $\\tilde h(f)\\sim \\mc^{5/6}\nf^{-7/6}/D$, terminated at a fiducial \u201cinnermost stable circular orbit\u201d frequency $f_{\\rm ISCO}=(G M\\pi/c^3)^{-1}6^{-3/2}$. At low mass, the upper limit can be neglected and this approximation corresponds to $\\rho \\propto \\mc^{5/6}$, as stated above: see also Eq.\u00a0(7) in [@roskb].\n\n![\\[fig:Ingredients:SNRVersusMass:CompareModels\\]**SNR for different signal models**: To illustrate the relatively small differences between the signal models we have adopted, we show the SNR, $\\rho(M)$, as a function of total binary mass, $M$, for an equal-mass nonspinning binary at $100 {\\, {\\rm Mpc}}$, where the SNR is evaluated using a single fiducial aLIGO detector. The colored solid curves show (a) the trivial expression $\\rho =\\rho_0(M/2.8\n  M_\\odot)^{5/6}$ with $\\rho_0=34.3$ (red), (b) an EOB model (black), PhB model (blue), and PhC model (green), all evaluated for zero spin. The green dotted line shows the PhC model evaluated with near-extremal spin on both objects ($\\chi_1=\\chi_2=0.998$), while the green dashed line shows PhC with near-extremal spin on one object ($\\chi_1=0.998,\\chi_2=0$). The choice $\\chi_i=0.998$ corresponds to the [@Thorne:1974ve] bound. This value of the spin is outside the regime in which phenomenological models have been calibrated, and it has been chosen to provide rough upper limits on the rates.](fig-mma-paper-SNRVersusMass){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nFigure \\[fig:Ingredients:SNRVersusMass:CompareModels\\] shows that these models all make similar predictions for the SNR of optimally oriented equal-mass binaries as a function of their total mass for a single aLIGO detector. Even small differences can be important: for any given binary, a $30\\%$ difference in amplitude corresponds to a factor $(1.3)^3\\simeq 2.2$ in rate calculations. In practice, however, all nonspinning IMR models agree in SNR to within tens of percent over the total binary mass range of interest (up to $127\\msun$, see Section\u00a0\\[dcos\\]). The effect of spin will be discussed in more detail in Section\u00a0\\[subsec:WF\\] below.\n\n![image](AdLIGOZDHP_20Hz_SNR100Mpc_ins.ps){width=\"1.0\\columnwidth\"} ![image](AdLIGOZDHP_20Hz_SNR100Mpc_IMR.ps){width=\"1.0\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![image](AdLIGOZDHP_20Hz_DLhor_ins.ps){width=\"1.0\\columnwidth\"} ![image](AdLIGOZDHP_20Hz_DLhor_IMR.ps){width=\"1.0\\columnwidth\"}\\\n\nFigure \\[fig:Ingredients:SNRContours\\] shows contour plots of the SNR, $\\rho$, in the $(M_z, q)$ plane, where $M_z \\equiv M(1+z)$ is the redshifted total mass, $z$ is the redshift, and $q=m_2/m_1 \\leq 1$ is the mass ratio of the components, for nonspinning binaries at luminosity distance $D_L=100$\u00a0Mpc. We discuss the justification for considering the SNR as a function of $M_z$ below, but since the chosen distance corresponds to a negligible redshift $z\\simeq 0.023$ using the cosmological parameters $\\Omega_M=0.3$, $\\Omega_\\Lambda=0.7$, $\\Omega_{\\rm k}=0$, and $h=0.7$ (chosen for consistency with [@dominik; @dominik2]), $M\\simeq M_z$ at this distance. The left panel refers to a calculation using an inspiral-only waveform with Newtonian amplitude to compute the horizon distance. The right panel includes inspiral, merger, and ringdown, modelled using the PhC waveform. This plot shows two important features: (1) including the full IMR increases the maximum SNR at this luminosity distance by factors of a few with respect to an inspiral-only calculation, from $\\approx 300$ to $\\approx 10^3$; (2) high-mass binaries ($M_z \\gtrsim\n10^{2.5}M_\\odot \\approx 300 M_\\odot$) involving BHs that would not be detectable using inspiral waveforms, become detectable using IMR waveforms. The latter point is not important for the field binaries considered in this paper, but it is crucial for intermediate-mass BH mergers [e.g., @walczak; @Fregeau:2006; @Amaro:2006imbh].\n\nIn an expanding Universe, GW emission is redshifted by the same factor of $(1+z)$ as electromagnetic radiation. In the units ($G=c=1$) adopted by relativists to describe gravitational waves, the only quantity with dimensions in the GW signal is the total mass $M$. Since the total mass sets the time scale, a binary source of mass $M$ in the local universe has an identical waveform (but with different amplitude) to a binary at redshift $z$ with mass $M/(1+z)$; see, e.g., [@1998PhRvD..57.4535F]. Eq.\u00a0(\\[SNR\\]), together with the fact that gravitational amplitudes scale inversely with the luminosity distance $D_L(z)$, implies that the horizon redshift $z_{\\rm h}$ (i.e., the redshift at which an optimally located and oriented binary would have SNR $\\rho_{\\rm thr}=8$) can be found via the simple scaling \\[DLhor\\] D\\_h (z\\_[h]{}) = D\\_L(z) , where $\\rho$ is the SNR at any redshift $z$, or luminosity distance $D_L(z)$. Note that the right-hand side depends only on $z$, $M_z$ and $q$. Therefore one can easily turn an SNR calculation at fixed $z$ (cf. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:Ingredients:SNRContours\\]) into a plot of the horizon luminosity distance $D_h$ (or equivalently of the horizon redshift $z_h$) such as Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:Ingredients:Dhorizon\\].\n\n[StarTrack]{} produces large catalogs of DCOs with intrinsic parameters $(M,q)$, with each of these binaries merging at a different redshift. Any of these representative DCOs is potentially detectable (depending on precise sky location and binary orientation) when $z<z_{\\rm h}$. Determining detectability therefore amounts to a simple interpolation of two-dimensional grids similar to those plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:Ingredients:Dhorizon\\]. These grids can be computed once and for all, given a waveform model and a detector\u2019s power spectral density (PSD). Evaluating such a grid typically involves $100\\times\n100=10^4$ SNR evaluations, and it is much faster than the (impractical) evaluation of millions of SNR integrals such as Eq.\u00a0(\\[SNR\\]), one for each representative binary produced by [ StarTrack]{}. The conversion between detectability at optimal location and optimal orientation and detectability at generic orientations involves a simple geometrical factor $p_{\\rm det}$, as discussed below.\n\nRate calculation {#sec:fullrates}\n================\n\nThe detection rate is \\[Rdet\\] R\\_[det]{} = \\_0\\^ (z\\_m) p\\_[det]{} dz\\_m dm\\_1 dm\\_2, where ${\\cal R} (z_m) \\equiv \\frac{dN}{dm_1 dm_2 dV_c dt_m}$ is the binary merger rate per unit component mass per unit comoving volume $V_c$ per unit time $t_m$ as measured in the source frame at merger redshift $z_m$, the term $\\frac{dt_m}{dt_{\\rm det}} = \\frac{1}{1+z_m}$ accounts for the difference in clock rates at the merger and at the detector, and $p_{\\rm det}=p_{\\rm det} (z_m; m_1, m_2)$ is the probability (over isotropic sky locations and orientations) that a source with given masses at a given redshift will be detectable. The quantity =, with $E(z)=\\sqrt{\\Omega_{\\rm M}(1+z)^3+\\Omega_{\\rm k}(1+z)^2+\\Omega_{\\Lambda}}$, is the comoving volume per unit redshift, and D\\_c(z)=\\_0\\^z is the comoving distance, related to the luminosity distance $D_L(z)$ by $D_c(z)=D_L(z)/(1+z)$: see [@hogg] for our notation and conventions.\n\nThe merger rate ${\\cal R} (z_m)$ is a convolution of the star formation rate and the number density of binaries per unit star forming mass $M_f$ per unit time delay between formation and merger $\\tau$: \\[Rzm\\] [R]{} (z\\_m) &=& \\_0\\^[t\\_m]{} \\_0\\^[t\\_[det]{}]{} (z\\_f) (t\\_f; m\\_1, m\\_2, )\\\n&& (t\\_m-t\\_f-) ddt\\_f, where ${\\rm SFR} = \\frac{dM_f}{dV_c dt_f} (z_f)$ is the star formation rate per unit comoving volume per unit time $t_f$ at formation redshift $z_f$.\n\nThe distribution of binaries in mass and time delay space, $\\frac{dN} {dM_f dm_1\n  dm_2 d\\tau} (t_f; m_1, m_2, \\tau)$, is obtained with the [StarTrack]{} population synthesis code, taking into account the metallicity distribution at the formation redshift as described in Section\u00a0\\[binevol\\]. Since [StarTrack]{} simulations produce a set of merging binaries with specific component masses and time delays sampling the desired distribution, the integrals above are easily computed via Monte Carlo over the simulated systems. For computational efficiency the outer integral over the time of formation in Eq.\u00a0(\\[Rzm\\]) is binned over $\\Delta t_f = 100$ Myr segments, while the integral over the merger redshift $z_m$ in Eq.\u00a0(\\[Rdet\\]) is transformed into an integral over merger time via $dz_m\n= \\frac{dz_m}{dt_m} dt_m = H_0 (1+z)E(z) dt_m$ [@hogg]. Thus the detection rate integral can be represented as a Monte Carlo sum over all simulated binaries: \\[eq:rate\\] R\\_[det]{}= p\\_[det]{} t , where $\\Delta M_f$ is the total star-forming mass that was simulated in the Monte Carlo to represent the time bin $\\Delta t$, all terms but the first are computed at the merger redshift of the simulated source.\n\nThe detection probability for a given source at its merger redshift $p_{\\rm det} (z, m_1, m_2)$ is simply the fraction of sources of a given mass located at the given redshift that exceed the detectability threshold in SNR, assuming that sources are uniformly distributed in sky location and orbital orientation. If a single detector with an SNR threshold (e.g., $\\rho_{\\rm thr}=8$) is used as a proxy for detectability, the detection probability can be expressed as a cumulative distribution function on the projection parameter $w$. In the Appendix, $w$ is defined such that $w=0$ when the detector has no response to the gravitational wave, and $w=1$ for an optimally located and oriented (face-on and directly overhead) binary. The detection probability is p\\_[det]{} = P(\\_[thr]{}/\\_[opt]{}), where $P(w)$ is the cumulative distribution function on $w$ over different source locations and orientations, and $\\rho_{\\rm opt}$ is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for an optimally located and oriented binary at redshift $z$.\n\n[l|ll|ll]{}\\[thb\\] Model & $\\left<\\mc^{15/6}\\right>$& ${\\cal R}(0)$ & $R_D$ (aLIGO $\\rho \\ge 8$) & $R_D$ (3-det network $\\rho\n\\ge 10$)\\\n& $M_\\odot^{15/6}$ & ${\\, {\\rm Gpc}}^{-3} {\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$\\\n\\\nStandard & 1.1 (1.1) & 61 (52) & 1.3 (1.1) & 3.2 (2.7)\\\nOptimistic CE & 1.2 (1.2) & 162 (137) & 3.9 (3.3) & 9.2 (7.7)\\\nDelayed SN & 1.4 (1.4) & 67 (60) & 1.9 (1.7) & 4.5 (4.0)\\\nHigh BH Kicks & 1.1 (1.1) & 57 (52) & 1.2 (1.1) & 3.0 (2.7)\\\n\\\nStandard & 18 (19) & 2.8 (3.0) & 1.0 (1.2) & 2.4 (2.7)\\\nOptimistic CE & 17 (16) & 17 (20) & 5.7 (6.5) & 13.8 (15.4)\\\nDelayed SN & 24 (20) & 1.0 (2.4) & 0.5 (0.9) & 1.1 (2.3)\\\nHigh BH Kicks & 19 (13) & 0.04 (0.3) & 0.01 (0.08) & 0.04 (0.2)\\\n\\\nStandard & 402 (595) & 28 (36) & 227 (427) & 540 (1017)\\\nOptimistic CE & 311 (359) & 109 (221) & 676 (1585) & 1610 (3773)\\\nDelayed SN & 829 (814) & 14 (24) & 232 (394) & 552 (938)\\\nHigh Kick & 2159 (3413) & 0.5 (0.5) & 22 (34) & 51 (81) \\[tab:simplerates\\]\n\n[l|ll|ll|lll|ll]{}\\[thb\\] & & & &\\\n& & & &\\\nModel &Insp &PhC (EOB) &Insp &PhC (EOB) &Insp &PhC (EOB) & PhC (spin) & Insp & PhC\\\n& ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$\\\n\\\nStandard & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.8 & 0.7 & 1.2 & 1.1 &- & 2.5 (1.5) & 2.4 (1.4)\\\nOptimistic CE & 0.9 & 0.9 & 2.1 & 1.9 & 3.3 & 3.1 &- & 6.9 (4.0) & 6.5 (3.8)\\\nDelayed SN & 0.4 & 0.4 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 1.6 & 1.5 &- & 3.3 (1.9) & 3.1 (1.8)\\\nHigh BH Kicks & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.7 & 1.1 & 1.1 &- & 2.3 (1.4) & 2.2 (1.3)\\\n\\\nStandard & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.5 & 0.4 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 0.8 & 1.5 (0.9) & 1.2 (0.7)\\\nOptimistic CE & 1.1 & 1.0 & 2.9 & 2.2 & 4.4 & 3.6 & 4.4 & 9.2 (5.4) & 7.4 (4.3)\\\nDelayed SN & 0.09 & 0.07 & 0.2 & 0.2 & 0.4 & 0.3 & 0.5 & 0.8 (0.5) & 0.6 (0.3)\\\nHigh BH Kicks & 0.01 & 0.007 & 0.02 & 0.02 & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.1 & 0.09 (0.05) & 0.07 (0.04)\\\n\\\nStandard & 35 & 41 (38) & 70 & 93 (86) & 117 & 148 (142) & 348 & 236 (144) & 306 (177)\\\nOptimistic CE & 126 & 144 (133) & 281 & 366 (333) & 491 & 618 (585) & 1554 & 1042 (588) & 1338 (713)\\\nDelayed SN & 27 & 34 (32) & 50 & 81 (75) & 90 & 129 (124) & 320 & 182 (110) & 270 (155)\\\nHigh Kick & 0.6 & 1.0 (0.9) & 0.9 & 2.5 (2.3) & 2.1 & 3.8 (3.8) & 12 & 4.2 (2.7) & 8.2 (4.7) \\[rates2genH\\]\n\n[l|ll|ll|lll|ll]{}\\[thb\\] & & & &\\\n& & & &\\\nModel &Insp &PhC (EOB) &Insp &PhC (EOB) &Insp &PhC (EOB) & PhC (spin) & Insp & PhC\\\n& ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$ & ${\\, {\\rm yr}}^{-1}$\\\n\\\nStandard & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 1.1 & 1.0 &- & 2.3 (1.3) & 2.2 (1.3)\\\nOptimistic CE & 0.8 & 0.7 & 1.8 & 1.7 & 2.9 & 2.7 &- & 6.0 (3.5) & 5.6 (3.3)\\\nDelayed SN & 0.4 & 0.4 & 1.0 & 0.9 & 1.5 & 1.4 &- & 3.2 (1.8) & 2.9 (1.7)\\\nHigh BH Kicks & 0.3 & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.6 & 1.0 & 1.0 &- & 2.1 (1.3) & 2.0 (1.2)\\\n\\\nStandard & 0.3 & 0.2 & 0.7 & 0.5 & 1.1 & 0.8 & 1.2 & 2.3 (1.3) & 1.8 (1.0)\\\nOptimistic CE & 1.4 & 1.2 & 3.6 & 2.8 & 5.5 & 4.4 & 5.7 & 12 (6.7) & 9.4 (5.4)\\\nDelayed SN & 0.2 & 0.1 & 0.5 & 0.4 & 0.8 & 0.6 & 0.9 & 1.7 (0.9) & 1.3 (0.7)\\\nHigh BH Kicks & 0.04 & 0.03 & 0.09 & 0.07 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.3 & 0.6 (0.2) & 0.5 (0.2)\\\n\\\nStandard & 56 & 66 (61) & 106 & 153 (140) & 183 & 246 (235) & 610 & 369 (226) & 514 (292)\\\nOptimistic CE & 287 & 324 (297) & 629 & 828 (745) & 1124 & 1421 (1339) & 3560 & 2384 (1336) & 3087 (1633)\\\nDelayed SN & 53 & 64 (59) & 97 & 152 (139) & 171 & 241 (231) & 596 & 345 (213) & 501 (291)\\\nHigh Kick & 0.9 & 1.5 (1.4) & 1.4 & 3.8 (3.6) & 3.2 & 5.9 (5.8) & 19 & 6.6 (4.0) & 13 (7.2) \\[rates2genL\\]\n\nResults {#sec:results}\n=======\n\nIn Section\u00a0\\[sec:simplerates\\] we obtained a rough estimate of event rates by extrapolating the local rate density via the scaling of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\\]). This extrapolation is expected to provide a good approximation for low-mass systems (and in particular, NS-NS binaries), because in this case the early inspiral makes up most of the signal observable by advanced GW detectors, the signal extends through the detector band, and the detector range is sufficiently low that cosmological corrections to detectability and the dependence of merger rates on redshift can largely be ignored. The approximation will become increasingly inaccurate for high-mass binaries, such as those comprising one or two BHs. In Sections\u00a0\\[sec:IMR\\] and\u00a0\\[sec:fullrates\\] we went beyond this approximation by implementing three \u201ccomplete\u201d IMR waveform models (EOB, PhC, PhB), and we described how to combine these models with simulations from the [StarTrack]{} code in order to obtain more accurate estimates of the event rates (see Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rate\\])).\n\nThe analytical estimates of Section\u00a0\\[sec:simplerates\\] with local merger rates based on the [StarTrack]{} code are presented in Table\u00a0\\[tab:simplerates\\]. The more careful event rate calculations of Section\u00a0\\[sec:fullrates\\] are listed in Table \\[rates2genH\\] (for the high-end metallicity scenario) and Table \\[rates2genL\\] (for the low-end metallicity scenario).\n\nIn these tables, the \u201csingle-detector\u201d columns represent estimated detection rates for a single detector with a $\\rho \\ge 8$ threshold for detectability. This is often used as a proxy for rates in multi-detector networks [@2010CQGra..27q3001A]. In the \u201cthree-detector\u201d columns we consider two alternate detectability thresholds: minimum [*network*]{} SNRs of either 10 or 12 for a three-detector network composed of three instruments located at the LIGO Hanford, LIGO Livingston, and Virgo sites, all with aLIGO sensitivity. The network SNR threshold of 10 would have yielded false alarm rates of roughly once per decade in 2009-2010 initial LIGO and Virgo data [see Fig.\u00a03 in @scenarios]. This threshold is optimistic for making confident detections if data quality in advanced detectors is similar to that in the initial detectors and the same searches are used. With this in mind, @scenarios assumed a network SNR threshold of $12$ with an additional threshold constraint on the SNR in the second-loudest instrument; we consider a simple SNR threshold of $12$. Detection rates using a network SNR threshold were calculated using the same framework as above, but implementing a network-geometry-dependent $P(w)$ described (and fitted) in the Appendix. In the order-of-magnitude estimates described by Eq. (\\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\\]) and provided in Table \\[tab:simplerates\\] we employ $\\left<w^{3}\\right> \\simeq 0.404$ for the three-detector network ($\\rho \\ge 10$), a factor of $\\sim\n4.6$ larger than the value $\\left<w^{3}\\right> \\simeq (1/2.26)^3\n\\approx 0.0866$ used for a one-detector network.\n\nWe now discuss these rate predictions, their dependence on gravitational waveform models, and the astrophysical properties of DCO populations observable by advanced GW detectors.\n\nBroad features of rate estimates\n--------------------------------\n\nThe main conclusion of this work is that BH-BH mergers should yield the highest detection rates in all advanced detectors (aLIGO, AdV, and KAGRA), followed by NS-NS mergers, with BH-NS mergers being the rarest. This finding is independent of our evolutionary models and of the details of the gravitational waveforms (however, see Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:conclusions\\] for discussion). The only exception is the \u201cOptimistic CE\u201d model, where detection rates for BH-NS mergers dominate over NS-NS mergers (with BH-BH mergers still dominating the detection rates). This model makes the assumption that CE events with HG donors do not always end in a premature merger, allowing more binaries to survive the CE and form merging DCOs, and therefore increasing detection rates. As a result the Optimistic CE model yields very large BH-BH rates, comparable to, though a factor of a few below, existing upper limits on the BH-BH binary mergers from initial LIGO/Virgo observations [see, e.g., @comparison; @2012PhRvD..85h2002A; @2013PhRvD..87b2002A].\n\nOur quantitative predictions for compact binary merger rates are consistent with our previous papers in this series [@dominik; @dominik2]. In particular, we agree with the main conclusion of those papers: detectable BH-BH binaries can be formed over a broad range of metallicities, with a significant proportion forming in highly subsolar environments (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\\]). On a model-by-model basis our results are in good agreement with prior work, with factor-of-two or smaller differences due to our inclusion of cosmological effects. As expected, the simple approximation of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\\]) gives a good order-of-magnitude estimate of the NS-NS detection rates listed in Tables \\[rates2genH\\] and \\[rates2genL\\]. However, the approximation fails for BH-BH systems. By comparing the detection rates from Table \\[tab:simplerates\\] with inspiral rates from Tables \\[rates2genH\\] and \\[rates2genL\\], we see that the local Universe approximation of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\\]) overestimates more careful calculations of detection rates by a factor $\\sim 2$ for BH-BH systems. The limited signal bandwidth of high-mass systems, the redshift dependence of binary merger rates, and cosmological corrections make simple scaling relations inaccurate over the large volume in which detectors are sensitive to BH-BH systems. On the other hand, as the merger\u2013ringdown phase of these binaries falls within the sensitive band of second-generation interferometers, it provides a significant contribution to the SNR. Indeed, as can be seen in Tables \\[rates2genH\\] and \\[rates2genL\\], the full IMR calculations increase the detection rates considerably. However, BH-BH detection rates computed with appropriate cosmological corrections are still lower than local merger rates converted into detection rates via the basic scaling of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:LocalUniverseMergerRateFormula\\]).\n\n![ \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\]**Compact NS-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Properties of NS-NS binaries with $\\rho \\ge 8$ in a single aLIGO instrument in the high-end metallicity scenario, scaled in proportion to their detection probability. Different color and line styles indicate results for different binary evolution models: Standard model (solid black), Optimistic CE (dotted black), delayed SN (dashed black), and high BH kicks (blue). The top, second, and third panels show the distribution of birth time $t_{\\rm f}$, birth metallicity $Z_{\\rm b}$ (with a vertical bar marking solar metallicity, $\\zsun=0.02$), and chirp mass $\\mc$, respectively. The bottom panel shows the cumulative distribution in chirp mass, to highlight significant changes on a linear scale. The time domain ranges from $0$ Gyr (Big Bang) to $13.47$ Gyr (today). Though our simulations use a discrete array of metallicity bins, to guide the eye their relative contributions have been joined by solid lines in the second panel; this histogram makes no correction for the density of metallicity bins. ](fig-mma-dPdtb-NSNShigh \"fig:\"){width=\"0.86\\columnwidth\"} ![ \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\]**Compact NS-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Properties of NS-NS binaries with $\\rho \\ge 8$ in a single aLIGO instrument in the high-end metallicity scenario, scaled in proportion to their detection probability. Different color and line styles indicate results for different binary evolution models: Standard model (solid black), Optimistic CE (dotted black), delayed SN (dashed black), and high BH kicks (blue). The top, second, and third panels show the distribution of birth time $t_{\\rm f}$, birth metallicity $Z_{\\rm b}$ (with a vertical bar marking solar metallicity, $\\zsun=0.02$), and chirp mass $\\mc$, respectively. The bottom panel shows the cumulative distribution in chirp mass, to highlight significant changes on a linear scale. The time domain ranges from $0$ Gyr (Big Bang) to $13.47$ Gyr (today). Though our simulations use a discrete array of metallicity bins, to guide the eye their relative contributions have been joined by solid lines in the second panel; this histogram makes no correction for the density of metallicity bins. ](fig-mma-logZ-NSNShigh \"fig:\"){width=\"0.86\\columnwidth\"} ![ \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\]**Compact NS-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Properties of NS-NS binaries with $\\rho \\ge 8$ in a single aLIGO instrument in the high-end metallicity scenario, scaled in proportion to their detection probability. Different color and line styles indicate results for different binary evolution models: Standard model (solid black), Optimistic CE (dotted black), delayed SN (dashed black), and high BH kicks (blue). The top, second, and third panels show the distribution of birth time $t_{\\rm f}$, birth metallicity $Z_{\\rm b}$ (with a vertical bar marking solar metallicity, $\\zsun=0.02$), and chirp mass $\\mc$, respectively. The bottom panel shows the cumulative distribution in chirp mass, to highlight significant changes on a linear scale. The time domain ranges from $0$ Gyr (Big Bang) to $13.47$ Gyr (today). Though our simulations use a discrete array of metallicity bins, to guide the eye their relative contributions have been joined by solid lines in the second panel; this histogram makes no correction for the density of metallicity bins. ](fig-mma-logdPdMc-NSNShigh \"fig:\"){width=\"0.86\\columnwidth\"} ![ \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\]**Compact NS-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Properties of NS-NS binaries with $\\rho \\ge 8$ in a single aLIGO instrument in the high-end metallicity scenario, scaled in proportion to their detection probability. Different color and line styles indicate results for different binary evolution models: Standard model (solid black), Optimistic CE (dotted black), delayed SN (dashed black), and high BH kicks (blue). The top, second, and third panels show the distribution of birth time $t_{\\rm f}$, birth metallicity $Z_{\\rm b}$ (with a vertical bar marking solar metallicity, $\\zsun=0.02$), and chirp mass $\\mc$, respectively. The bottom panel shows the cumulative distribution in chirp mass, to highlight significant changes on a linear scale. The time domain ranges from $0$ Gyr (Big Bang) to $13.47$ Gyr (today). Though our simulations use a discrete array of metallicity bins, to guide the eye their relative contributions have been joined by solid lines in the second panel; this histogram makes no correction for the density of metallicity bins. ](fig-mma-PMc-NSNShigh \"fig:\"){width=\"0.86\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\\] **Compact BH-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\], but for BH-NS binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \\[dcos\\].](fig-mma-dPdtb-BHNShigh \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"} ![\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\\] **Compact BH-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\], but for BH-NS binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \\[dcos\\].](fig-mma-logZ-BHNShigh \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"} ![\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\\] **Compact BH-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\], but for BH-NS binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \\[dcos\\].](fig-mma-logdPdMc-BHNShigh \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"} ![\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\\] **Compact BH-NS binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\], but for BH-NS binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \\[dcos\\].](fig-mma-PMc-BHNShigh \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\\] **BH-BH binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\], but for BH-BH binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \\[dcos\\].](fig-mma-dPdtb-BHBHhigh \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"} ![\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\\] **BH-BH binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\], but for BH-BH binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \\[dcos\\].](fig-mma-logZ-BHBHhigh \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"} ![\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\\] **BH-BH binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\], but for BH-BH binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \\[dcos\\].](fig-mma-logdPdMc-BHBHhigh \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"} ![\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\\] **BH-BH binaries detectable by aLIGO**: Same as Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\], but for BH-BH binaries in the high-end metallicity scenario. Some of the sharp features in the chirp mass distribution are an artifact of the crude binning in metallicity undertaken for computational reasons; see the discussion in section \\[dcos\\].](fig-mma-PMc-BHBHhigh \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nImpact of waveform models on predicted rates {#subsec:WF}\n--------------------------------------------\n\nOur results show that the merger-ringdown contribution is not important for estimating detection rates of DCOs containing NSs. In fact, when compared with the restricted PN model, the IMR waveforms slightly [*decrease*]{} event rates for NS-NS and BH-NS systems. The reason for this reduction is that IMR waveforms (such as PhC and EOB) provide a more accurate representation of the early inspiral, incorporating PN amplitude corrections that [*reduce*]{} the signal amplitude[^1]\u2014and hence the event rates\u2014for signals dominated by the early inspiral.\n\nBH-NS systems may be subject to an additional event rate reduction mechanism. There is the possibility of the NS being distorted and disrupted by the BH tidal field. When these violent phenomena occur, a suppression of the GW amplitude takes place before the ISCO frequency, and the SNR decreases with respect to that of a BH-BH system with the same properties. The GW shut\u2013off due to NS tidal disruption depends on the parameters of the system: large values of the mass ratio, the BH spin, the NS radius and the low tilt angles of NS orbital angular momentum relative to BH spin all favor NS disruption (e.g., [@kabelspin]). By using point-particle IMR waveforms to describe the GW emission of BH-NS systems we are neglecting this event rate reduction mechanism. While it would be possible to take these effects into account for nonspinning systems by using the GW amplitude model of [@pannarale], accurate models for systems with spinning BHs do not exist yet. For consistency we therefore use BH-BH waveform models in both cases. Additionally, [@pannarale] found that in the nonspinning case, the SNR difference between the mergers of disrupted BH-NS systems and the undisrupted systems modeled with PhC is less than $1\\%$.\n\nIncluding the merger portion of the signal is important for BH-BH systems. For illustration, let us focus on the Standard Model: if we use PhC waveforms rather than the restricted PN approximation, we find a $\\sim25\\%$ increase in the detection rates of BH-BH systems, from 117 (183) to 148 (246) in the *high-end* (*low-end*) metallicity scenario.\n\nThe rates predicted by EOB and PhC models agree quite well[^2]. This can be understood by looking again at Figure \\[fig:Ingredients:SNRVersusMass:CompareModels\\], which shows that different approximations of the strong-field merger waveform agree rather well (at least in the equal-mass limit) on the SNR $\\rho$ and hence on the predicted event rates, which scale with the cube of the SNR. Waveform differences produce systematic rate uncertainties significantly less than a factor of 2, much smaller than astrophysical differences between our preferred models.\n\nOur detailed calculation shows that typically PhC models overestimate the rates by about $10\\%$ when compared to EOB models. This agreement is nontrivial, because the two families of models are very different in spirit and construction: the PhC family is a frequency-domain model that can be easily implemented in rate calculations, while the time-domain EOB model is more accurate in its domain of validity and more computationally demanding. It is important to note that in order to use the two families of models in rate calculations we must compute waveforms and SNRs in regions of the parameter space where the models were not tuned to numerical relativity simulations. In particular, both models become less accurate for small mass-ratio binaries.\n\nBesides systematic errors in waveform modeling, the detection rates reported in this work (and the resulting distribution of detectable DCO parameters) depend on our detection criteria. We ignore a variety of complications of the detection pipelines, such as the difficulty of searching for precessing sources, noise artifacts (non-stationary, non-Gaussian \u201cglitches\u201d in the instruments) which can make searches for shorter, high-mass signals less sensitive, and the limited uptime of detectors. Instead, we have assumed several simplistic detection thresholds on single-detector or network SNR that are constant across all masses and mass ratios.\n\nMoreover, achieving good detector sensitivity at low frequencies may prove particularly difficult. We have only included bandwidth above specified low-frequency cutoffs ($f_{\\rm cut}=20$\u00a0Hz in most cases) for detection-rate calculations. However, the specific choice of low frequency cutoff has minimal impact on our results. For example, using a lower cutoff $f_{\\rm cut}=10$\u00a0Hz rather than $f_{\\rm cut}=20$\u00a0Hz in the single-detector, high-end metallicity aLIGO rate calculation would increase the Standard Model BH-BH rates from 117 to 128 in the inspiral case, and from 148 to 161 in the IMR case. The effect is even smaller for BH-NS and NS-NS rates.\n\nThe impact of spins on the predicted detection rates can be important. We only consider BH spins, since NSs in compact binaries are not expected to be rapidly spinning [e.g., @MandelOShaughnessy:2010] and the dynamical impact of NS spin will be small. In Tables \\[rates2genH\\] and \\[rates2genL\\] we use the PhC model to estimate the possible impact of BH spin on BH-NS and BH-BH detection rates by assuming that all BHs are nearly maximally spinning (i.e., with dimensionless spin parameter $\\chi_1=\\chi_2=0.998$) and aligned with the orbital angular momentum. Aligned BH spins cause an orbital hang-up effect that increases the overall power radiated in the merger, produces a rapidly spinning merger remnant, and therefore increases the range to which high-mass binaries can be detected.\n\nWe find that spin effects may increase BH-BH detection rates by as much as a factor of $3$. These increased rates are a direct result of the increased horizon distance to spinning binaries. For example, a (30+30) $M_\\odot$ binary can be observed to roughly $1.3$ times farther and be detected $\\simeq (1.3)^3 \\simeq 2$ more often with near-maximal spins than with zero spin. Additionally, spin dynamics can provide a direct diagnostic of the dominant physical effects in DCO formation [@gerosa]. Spin effects only marginally increase BH-NS rates, but (as discussed at the beginning of this section) tidal disruption, which we neglected, may have the opposite effect.\n\nAstrophysical properties of observable DCOs {#dcos}\n-------------------------------------------\n\nWe now turn to a more detailed analysis of the observable properties of DCOs. For concreteness we will focus on aLIGO results for the \u201cStandard model\u201d and nonspinning PhC waveforms, unless stated otherwise.\n\n**NS-NS**. By comparing Tables \\[rates2genH\\] and \\[rates2genL\\] we see that the detection rates of NS-NS systems are not sensitive to our differing metallicity evolution scenarios. For simplicity, we therefore only discuss our results for the *high-end* metallicity evolution scenario.\n\nAs shown in our previous work [@dominik], NS-NS systems are efficiently created in metal-rich environments. The observable population shares this trait, and half of the observable systems originate from solar metallicities and higher. As the average metallicity content of the Universe correlates with time and as most DCOs preferentially merge shortly after formation (i.e., the time delay distribution is $\\propto t_{\\rm merger}^{-1}$; see [@dominik]), the birth rate of detectable NS-NS systems peaks at $13$ Gyrs after the Big Bang (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\]). The most distant detectable system has a merger redshift $z\\sim 0.13$ (or luminosity distance $L_{\\rm D}=610$ Mpc).\n\nThe range of possible chirp masses in the third panel from the top of Figure \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\] is limited at the low end ($>0.87 M_\\odot$) by the $1M_\\odot$ minimum birth mass for NS and is limited at the high end by the (assumed) maximum mass for a NS ($m_{NS} <2.5 M_\\odot; \\mc < 2.1 M_\\odot$). The birth mass, in turn, is set by supernova physics, which we have implemented as the Rapid or Delayed SN engine [@chrisija]. For this reason the NS mass difference between the SN engines is intrinsic to the entire merging population of NS-NS systems. Therefore, this observable feature should be available to any of the detectors considered in this study.\n\nThe chirp mass distributions for Standard and Optimistic CE models span the range from $0.9\\msun$ to $1.6\\msun$. The Delayed SN model results in a notably different NS mass distribution, favoring heavier masses. As the SN explosion in the Delayed engine lasts longer, more matter is accreted onto the proto\u2013NS (which is more massive than in the Rapid engine scenario), allowing the formation of more massive remnants (cf.\u00a0Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\]). The maximum allowed NS mass in this model is $2.5\\msun$, and in extreme (but very rare) cases this mass is approached; the maximum chirp mass for a detectable system in our Monte Carlo simulation was $2.1\\msun$, corresponding to both components close to the maximum allowed limit. For comparison, chirp masses of NS-NS systems in the models utilizing the Rapid SN engine (Standard, Optimistic CE and High BH kick) never exceed $1.7\\msun$. Such extremely high masses are rare for all engines, however, and the majority of chirp masses are much lower, as seen in Figure \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\]. The presence of more massive systems in the Delayed SN models extends the horizon of NS-NS detectability to $z\\sim 0.16$ ($L_{\\rm D}=765$ Mpc).\n\nLastly, we note that Standard and High BH kick models are identical for NS-NS systems. The difference between the black curve (Standard) and blue curve (High BH Kick) in Figure \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\] corresponds to the systematic errors associated with Monte Carlo errors of binary simulations, galaxy sampling, metallicity binning, etc.\n\n**BH-NS**. In our previous study [@dominik2] we showed that BH-NS systems are efficiently created at moderate metallicities (${\\rm Z}\n\\sim 0.1\\,\\zsun$, or $\\log({\\rm Z})\\sim -2.7$). Indeed, Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\\] shows that about half of all detectable BH-NS systems will originate from metallicities ${\\rm Z}<0.5\\,\\zsun$ ($\\log({\\rm Z})< -2$). These systems have higher chirp masses than NS-NS systems, on average $3.3\\msun$ vs. $1.2\\msun$, and therefore the detectors can sample BH-NS systems from a larger volume. However, BH-NS systems are the rarest of all DCOs per unit (comoving) volume. As a consequence, BH-NS binaries typically yield the lowest detection rates. One exception is the Optimistic CE model, in which the merger rate per unit volume is large enough (while still being lower than for NS-NS systems at all redshifts) that BH-NS detection rates are larger than NS-NS rates because they are observed farther (cf. Table\u00a0\\[tab:simplerates\\] and Figure\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\\]).\n\nIn our standard model BH-NS systems are detectable up to redshift $z\\approx 0.28$ ($L_{\\rm D}=1.4$ Mpc). However, in the Delayed SN model this value reaches $z\\approx 0.31$ ($L_{\\rm D}=1.6$ Mpc). As discussed earlier, this is due to the more massive NSs (up to $2.4\\msun$) produced by the Delayed engine.\n\n**BH-BH**. As discussed in our previous papers in this series [@nasza; @dominik; @dominik2], BH-BH systems are formed most efficiently in low-metallicity environments. The detectable population reflects this property: about half of all detectable BH-BH systems were created in environments with metallicities ${\\rm Z}<0.1\\,\\zsun$ ($\\log({\\rm Z})<\n-2.7$). As in prior studies [@nasza; @dominik; @dominik2; @vosstauris], our calculations imply that BH-BH systems yield the highest detection rates for ground-based interferometers. This is true even in the \u201cHigh BH kick\u201d model, where the vast majority of binaries containing a BH are disrupted.\n\nAdjusting the metallicity evolution in the Universe from *high-end* to *low-end* we see a factor of $\\sim 2$ increase in detection rates. In the *low-end* scenario the average metallicity in the Universe is lower at all times. Low metallicity environments are much more effective at producing merging BH-BH systems than higher ones, hence the increase in the detection rates.\n\nHalf of the detectable objects have chirp masses above $14\\msun$. The most massive of these systems originate from environments with very low metallicity content (${\\rm Z}\\sim 0.01\\,\\zsun$). The birth times of detectable BH-BH systems peak at $\\sim1$\u00a0Gyr after the Big Bang. Additionally, half of these systems were created within $\\sim 2$ Gyrs of the Big Bang (see top panel of Figure \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\\]), when the average abundance of heavy elements was much smaller than today.\n\nAs seen in Tables\u00a0\\[rates2genH\\] and\u00a0\\[rates2genL\\], the detection rates of BH-BH systems vary as we change our assumptions between the four models and two metallicity evolution scenarios. By comparing detection rates, for example, found by aLIGO with PhC waveforms, for the *high-end* metallicity model (works for all model choices), we can distinguish two extreme configurations: (1) The High BH kick model yields the lowest rates of merging BH-BH systems ($3.8$ yr$^{-1}$). This is a direct consequence of assuming the presence of the maximum natal kick velocities allowed within our framework, which efficiently disrupt BH progenitor binaries. (2) The highest detection rate is achieved with the Optimistic CE model ($618$ yr$^{-1}$). Here, it is assumed that binaries are allowed to progress through the CE with a HG donor, which adds a significant amount of BH-BH systems to the detectable population. The detection rates of the other two models: Standard and Delayed SN are similar to each other ($148$ yr$^{-1}$ and $129$ yr$^{-1}$, respectively).\n\nThe farthest objects are detectable out to $z\\sim2$ ($L_{\\rm D}15$ Gpc). These systems consist of the most massive BH pairs ($m_1=61\\msun$ and $m_2=66\\msun$ in the detectable population, with a chirp mass equal to $55\\msun$), born $1.8$ Gyr after the Big Bang, and originating from regions with our lowest considered metallicity content (${\\rm Z}=0.005\\,\\zsun$). Note that the maximum mass of BH-BH systems is limited by the maximum ZAMS mass of stars, which was set to $150\\msun$ in the current simulations. The effect of IMF extending to much higher masses on detection of BH-BH inspirals have been recently presented by [@walczak].\n\nThe detectable BH-BH chirp mass distribution for the Standard model has three major peaks. These are present at $\\sim 7\\msun$, $14\\msun$, and $21\\msun$ (see the black curve in the 3rd and 4th panels of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\\]). Their presence is associated with the physics governing the Rapid SN engine and the formation of the most massive BH-BH systems. Within this framework we can distinguish three scenarios for BH formation, each depending on the pre-SN carbon\u2013oxygen (CO) mass (see Eq.\u00a016 in [@chrisija]). The \u201c*A*\u201d scenario occurs for $6\\msun < M_{\\rm CO} \\leq 7\\msun$ and results in full fallback on the BH and, therefore, no natal kicks (see Eq.\u00a0\\[vkick\\]). The \u201c*B*\u201d scenario occurs for $7\\msun < M_{\\rm CO} \\leq 11\\msun$, where the fallback is partial and some natal kicks are present. For this scenario we expect a decreased number of BH-BH systems because of natal kicks disrupting binary systems during SNe. The \u201c*C*\u201d scenario develops for $M_{\\rm CO} \\geq 11\\msun$ and again results in full fallback, and no natal kicks.\n\nBH progenitors originating from $\\zsun$ environments never form through the *C* scenario, since they lose mass in winds at rates that do not allow them to form CO cores larger than $11\\msun$. Since BH-BH progenitors in the *B* scenario are subject to disruption due to the presence of natal kicks, most BH-BH systems in $\\zsun$ environments form through the *A* scenario, with chirp masses clustered around $7\\msun$.\n\nHowever, reducing the metallicity by a factor of $2$ lowers the wind mass loss rates sufficiently to allow BHs to form through the *C* scenario. At this metallicity ($\\sim 0.5\\,\\zsun$) only the most massive progenitors ($M_{\\rm ZAMS}>100\\msun$) may form BHs through this scenario. Additionally, the mass of the BHs formed from these high mass components ($M_{\\rm ZAMS}>100\\msun$) only depends weakly on their initial mass. This stems from the fact that these stars evolve quickly ($\\sim\\,\\mbox{Myrs}$) and lose large fractions of their hydrogen envelope. Binary evolution does not alter this result significantly, as the interactions between components, such as mass transfer during CE episodes, also lead to the removal of their hydrogen envelopes. The result for metallicity $\\sim 0.5\\,\\zsun$ is a clustering of BH-BH systems formed from the most massive binaries at masses around $16\\msun$ for each component. This produces the peak in the chirp mass distribution at $\\sim 14\\msun$.\n\nReducing the metallicity content by another factor of $2$ (to $\\sim 0.25\\,\\zsun$) allows the same mechanism to form BH-BH systems with masses clustering at around $24\\msun$ for each component. These systems form the peak in the chirp mass distribution at $\\sim 21\\msun$.\n\nThe grouping effect disappears when reducing the metallicity abundance in BH progenitors even further. For example, at $0.1\\,\\zsun$ the low wind mass loss rate does not increase the separation between components as significantly as for higher metallicities. Consequently, the most massive progenitor binaries engage in a CE phase early in their evolution. This usually happens when the donor is on the HG and the Standard model does not allow for successful outcomes of such CEs. However, this scenario is allowed to form BH-BH systems in the Optimistic CE model, yielding the peak present in the chirp mass distribution at $\\sim 29\\msun$.\n\nAs discussed above, the chirp mass distribution in scenario *C* depends sensitively on the mass loss rate of stars, which depends strongly on metallicity. Binary evolution for $0.5\\,\\zsun$ and $0.25\\,\\zsun$ creates sharp peaks in the chirp mass distribution of BH-BH systems. In the discrete metallicity grid simulated in this study, there are no metallicity points between $0.5\\,\\zsun$ and $0.25\\,\\zsun$. Targeted follow-up investigations indicate that metallicity choices between $0.5\\zsun$ and $0.25\\zsun$ lead to additional sharp peaks in the chirp mass distribution between $14\\msun$ \u2013 $21\\msun$. We expect that an integral over a fine grid with appropriately small step sizes in metallicity would lead to all of these narrow peaks merging together to form a single broad distribution without sharp features. However, we cannot confidently describe the shape of this distribution without a more detailed investigation with a fine grid of metallicities, which is not computationally tractable at present.\n\nFinally, the peak in the chirp mass distribution at $\\sim 7\\msun$ in the Standard model is formed from systems born in $0.5$\u2013$1\\,\\zsun$ environments. These are low-mass BHs (usually $8$\u2013$9\\msun$ per component) formed in the *A* scenario. This formation is particularly interesting as it does not appear in the Delayed SN model, with the difference stemming from the different fallback scenarios in the Rapid and Delayed engines. With the Rapid engine, we can distinguish the three fallback regions. However, the Delayed engine predicts one region of partial fallback for $3.5\\msun < M_{\\rm CO} \\leq 11\\msun$ and one region of full fallback $M_{\\rm CO} \\geq 11\\msun$ (identical to the *C* scenario in the Rapid engine). Since partial fallback implies the presence of natal kicks and, therefore, increased probability of binary disruption, there are no \u201cpreferred\u201d masses for the lightest BHs in the Delayed SN engine (see dashed line on the 3rd panel, Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\\]) as in the Rapid engine.\n\nThe Standard and Delayed SN models also yield different lower mass limits for BH remnants (see Section \\[binevol\\]). For the \u201cRapid engine\u201d scenario the lowest-mass BH is $\\sim 5\\msun$, while for the \u201cDelayed engine\u201d scenario the lowest-mass BH is $\\sim 2.5\\msun$ (this is also the highest NS mass adopted in our [StarTrack]{} calculations). As a result, the detectable systems with the lowest total mass have $\\mc=4.8\\msun$ and $\\mc=2.4\\msun$ in the Rapid and Delayed engine scenarios, respectively.\n\nAdditionally, regardless of our evolutionary models the majority BH-BH systems are formed with nearly equal mass components. Therefore, systems with mass rations $\\sim 1$ dominate the detected population, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:qdis\\]. For the Delayed SN model the detectable BH-BH systems with the lowest mass ratio have $q\\approx 0.05$. For the remaining models this value is $q\\approx 0.12$.\n\n![\\[fig:qdis\\] **Mass ratio ($q$) detection probability distribution for BH-BH systems.** It is clear that one should expect that the vast majority of detectable BH-BH systems will be formed of nearly equal mass components. The lowest values of $q$ among the detected systems are $0.05$ for the Delayed SN model and $0.12$ for the remaining models. For each model the probability is normalized to the total number of detections for this model.](q.ps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nFor future reference we also present the initial\u2013final mass relation for close BH-BH systems in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:bmr\\]. The relation is divided into the primary (more massive at ZAMS) and secondary (less massive) component for two metallicity values ($\\zsun$ and $0.1\\zsun$), for the Standard model. It is clearly visible that binary evolution distorts the initial-final mass relation for single stars in both mass dimensions. In the initial mass dimension, the absence of BHs forming from stars with ZAMS mass above $\\sim 70\\msun$ is a direct consequence of the assumption of the negative (merger) CE outcome for HG donors in our Standard model. In our framework more massive stars have larger radii and, therefore, are more likely to engage in CE while the donor is on the HG rather than on later evolutionary stages. If this assumption was relaxed (Optimistic CE model) the maximum BH mass reached in close BH-BH systems is found to be $150\\msun$ for both metallicities. In the final mass dimension, binary evolution prevents remnant components from reaching masses as high as those formed from single progenitors. Whereas single stars shed mass only through winds, binaries may also remove mass through interactions like the non-conservative mass transfer and/or CE events, which consequently lowers the mass of the remnants.\n\n![\\[fig:bmr\\] **Initial-final mass relation for binary systems.** Presented for close BH-BH systems, Standard model. We define primary and secondary components as the initially (at ZAMS) more and less massive, respectively. The shaded scale (right side of each panel) shows the fractional contribution of a given ZAMS mass bin to the total mass of merging black holes formed from primaries (left panels) and secondaries (right panels). Note that binary evolution produces a very different initial-final mass relation than the single stellar evolution (thin line). The top panels and bottom panels show results for $\\zsun$ and $0.1\\zsun$, respectively. ](binary_mass_rel.eps){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThe initial-final mass relation (in this case for the binary population of close BH-BH systems) is a result of a number of various initial and evolutionary assumptions used in population synthesis calculations. Change of any of these assumptions (whether in initial conditions or evolutionary calculations) may potentially influence the initial-final mass relation and in turn the generated BH-BH population. The largest impact is expected from the treatment of RLOF stability (i.e., criteria for CE development), SN explosion physics, wind mass loss and internal mixing within massive stars induced by convection and/or rotation that sets the radial evolution of massive stars. It seems that the change in the assumptions underlying the initial-final mass relation may yield no BH-BHs [@mennekens] or numerous BH-BH systems [@voss; @nasza; @dominik; @dominik2]. However, these results apply only to isolated binary evolution. New studies of globular clusters suggest that, such environments may be the birthplaces of a significant number of BH-BH systems [@gcbhbh].\n\nNote, that the above relations apply only to BH-BH systems. However, our models do not inhibit the creation of NS from progenitors much more massive than $20 \\msun$. In fact, the study by [@betaam2008] shows that, due to binary evolution, NS may form from progenitors as massive as $100 \\msun$.\n\nQuestioning the no BH-BH theorem {#sec:nobhbh}\n================================\n\nDuring more than a decade of research into the evolution of binary stars and the formation of DCOs, several authors proposed the absence of stellar-mass BH-BH systems merging within the Hubble time (e.g. [@nele2001; @mennekens]). In the latter study the authors have claimed that the main reason for this are the high wind mass loss rates experienced by BH progenitors. For example, in their version of the Brussels population/galactic code (originally [@ddv04]) they fix the wind mass loss rates of the Luminous Blue Variable (LBV) phase at $10^{-3}\\msun$ yr$^{-1}$. Following such heavy mass loss, the orbital separation of the components increases so that they do not engage in CE. As the CE is a major mechanism for reducing orbital separation in isolated binary evolution, allowing for the formation of close BH-BH systems, the result is an absence of BH-BH systems detectable through gravitational waves. These results stand in contrast with the works of [@voss] and our previous studies [@nasza; @dominik; @dominik2].\n\nThere are mitigating factors to the finding of [@mennekens]. For example, their code does not allow for tidal interactions between close binary components. As we demonstrate in the following text, tidal interactions may (even for very high LBV winds) allow for the formation of close BH-BH binaries (for more on the importance of tidal interactions see e.g., [@serena]). Let us consider the following example of binary evolution generated with the StarTrack code. We start with an evolved binary: a $8\\msun$ BH accompanied by a $43\\msun$ companion at the beginning of the HG phase, with an orbital separation of $4600\\rsun$ at $5.5$ Myr after the creation of the systems (ZAMS). This is a typical phase of a BH-BH progenitor in our Standard model. In this example we also set the LBV wind mass loss rate to $10^{-3}\\msun$ yr$^{-1}$ and disable tidal interactions between the components, both as in [@mennekens]. We find that intense wind mass loss widens the orbital separation between the components to such extent that they never interact. Therefore, when the BH companion forms a second BH, the resulting BH-BH systems is too wide to merge within a Hubble time. This example is presented in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:notides\\].\n\n![\\[fig:notides\\] **Orbital evolution with tidal interactions disabled**. This figure presents a part of the evolution of a $8\\msun$ BH and $43\\msun$ HG system, with Luminous Blue Variable wind mass loss rate set at $10^{-3}\\msun$ yr$^{-1}$. The top panel shows the evolution of the radius and Roche lobe of the HG star in addition to the orbital separation in the binary. The bottom panel shows the evolution of the HG star\u2019s spin frequency relative to the orbital frequency. The HG star\u2019s activity as a Luminous Blue Variable is marked by the \u2019LBV\u2019 label. The vertical line separating the \u2019HG\u2019 and \u2019CHeB\u2019 labels marks the transition of the HG star to the Core Helium Burning phase. Note that without tidal interactions the binary\u2019s orbit expands (due to stellar wind mass loss) and no component interaction (e.g., CE) is expected. In the end a wide BH-BH binary is formed. ](notides.ps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nWe can repeat our exercise can be repeated with tidal interactions between the components enabled. Investigating the same system we find a drastically different outcome of the evolution (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:tides\\]). As in the example above, the BH companion starts its significant evolutionary expansion across Hertzsprung gap. Due to the conservation of angular momentum, the expansion of the star slows its rotation down almost to a standstill.\n\nOnce the companion star fills a sizable fraction of its Roche lobe ($\\sim 50\\%$), the tidal torques imposed on the star by an orbiting BH transfer the orbital angular momentum into the star, spinning it up. At first this effect is negligible. However, after approximately $5000$ years, when the radius of the star becomes sufficient ($\\sim 1100\\rsun$), the spin up of the HG star stalls and overpowers the increase of orbital separation. From this point on, the orbital separation starts to decrease for another $3000$ years. Finally, when the radius of the star is $\\sim 2000\\rsun$, it fills its Roche lobe and initiates a CE.\n\n![\\[fig:tides\\] **Orbital evolution with tidal interactions enabled**. Same as Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:notides\\] but with tidal interactions enabled. The \u2018Rad.\u00a0Env.\u2019 and \u2018Conv.\u00a0Env.\u2019 labels along with corresponding arrows highlight areas where the HG star has a radiative and convective envelope, respectively. The vertical line linking the arrows marks the transition point in the structure of the envelope. Tidal interactions allow the transfer of orbital angular momentum into the expanding HG star. The associated orbital decay leads to RLOF and the development of a CE, which allows for the formation of a close BH-BH binary. The timescale on the horizontal axis is zoomed in relative to Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:notides\\]. ](tides.ps){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nOur exercise clearly shows that different assumptions may lead to qualitatively different outcomes in terms of the close BH-BH formation. In particular, assumptions used in this study on LBV winds, tidal interactions and radial expansion result in a large number of BH-BH mergers. In contrast, assumptions used by [@mennekens] result in no BH-BH mergers formed out of the isolated binary evolution.\n\nThere are several caveats in this framework. First, it is not theoretically well established if stellar radii can grow to $\\sim 2000\\rsun$. For example, intensive mixing (either invoked by rapid rotation or extended convection in the stellar interior) may reduce the size of the H-rich envelope which is responsible for expansion in massive stars. On the other hand the intense wind mass loss may additionally reduce the envelope (e.g., [@yusof2013], but see MESA models for very massive stars [@walczak]). However, the radii of AH Sco, KW Sgr and UY Scuti estimated with the PHOENIX stellar atmosphere model [@wittkowski] extend well beyond $1000\\rsun$, with UY Scuti, reaching $1708\\rsun$ [@yuscuti]. The mass of UY Scuti is estimated to be within $25\\msun$\u2013$40\\msun$, i.e., within the mass range for BH progenitors in our framework. Second, the efficiency of tidal interactions depends on the structure of the envelope of the participating components. Stars with convective envelopes tend to respond more strongly to tidal dissipation than stars with radiative envelopes. In [StarTrack]{} (see Section 3.3 of [@startrack]) we calibrate this phenomenon against the cutoff period for circularization of a population of MS binaries in M67 and the orbital decay accompanying tidal synchronization in the LMC X-4 high mass X-ray binary.\n\nThis treatment of tidal dissipation applies directly to the given example as the envelope of the companion star turns from radiative to convective about $3000$ years after the companion enters the HG (when HG star radius increases to over $\\sim 1000 \\rsun$). However, our simulations show that switching tidal dissipation to the weaker radiative damping does not prevent binaries from initiating the CE. In our framework tides are applied to the entire star and we assume that stars rotate non-differentially. It cannot be excluded that tides operate only on the outer layers of stellar atmosphere that holds only a small fraction of a star\u2019s mass. Additionally, if there is no (or very weak) transport of angular momentum within a star, only a small fraction of orbital energy is used to synchronize the stellar atmosphere as compared to our prescription. Finally, the moment of inertia of very massive stars depends strongly on the radial profile, and the [StarTrack]{} assumptions may yield a moment of inertia that is too large, therefore providing a more significant reservoir for depositing orbital angular momentum into the star than is available in practice. If in fact only very little orbital angular momentum is used for binary component synchronization [*and*]{} if the winds are in fact as intense as indicated by [@mennekens], then this would bar the formation of many close BH-BH binaries found within the framework of our evolutionary model.\n\nEven if tidal interactions turn out to be ineffective in massive close binaries, this does not necessarily rule out the formation of close BH-BH binaries. In field populations about 10\u201330% of binaries are, in fact, triples (or higher multiples; e.g., [@kiminki1; @kiminki2; @duchene]) and Kozai-Lidov effects or dynamical instabilities [@PeretsKratter:2012] may lead to the merger of wide BH-BH binaries. Additionally, many [@kroupa2014] massive stars are formed in clusters and may be subject to dynamical interactions that can potentially decrease orbital separations. Finally, over the last few years it has been claimed that dense globular clusters may produce significant number of close BH-BH binaries. In contrast with earlier findings with no efficient formation of close BH-BH binaries (e.g., [@kulkarni; @sigurdsson; @zwart2000; @banerjee]) the new paradigm emerged based on recent and updated Monte Carlo simulations of dense cluster evolution (e.g., [@mackey; @morscher; @sippel; @heggie2014]). BH-BH binaries may also form via dynamical interactions in galactic nuclear clusters with or without a massive black hole [@OLeary:2008; @MillerLauburg:2008] (but cf.\u00a0[@Tsang:2013]).\n\nConclusions {#sec:conclusions}\n===========\n\nWe have calculated cosmological detection rates of merging DCOs for second-generation GW observatories. We used redshift distributions of merging DCOs from the [Startrack]{} population synthesis code, and have incorporated the cosmic star formation rate as well as galaxy and metallicity evolution. Using state-of-the-art gravitational waveforms and detector sensitivity curves, we have translated the cosmological merger rates into detection rates for four distinct models of binary evolution.\n\nOur study has several robust implications for imminent GW searches. First and foremost, our four models agree on the detection rates of merging NS-NS systems ($\\sim 1$ detection per year), with the exception of the Optimistic CE model which predicts rates a factor of $2$\u2013$3$ times higher than other models. The mass distributions of detectable NS-NS systems are also similar across the models, with the exception of the Delayed SN model, which allows for the formation of NSs with higher masses due to prolonged accretion during the SN explosion. We predict that NS-NS binaries will be detectable up to redshift $z\\approx 0.13$, i.e., only in the local Universe.\n\nSecond, BH-NS systems are expected to be the rarest detectable DCOs (less than $1$ detection per year), with the exception of the Optimistic CE model, in which BH-NS detection rates slightly exceed those of NS-NS systems of the same model. We predict BH-NS systems to be detectable up to redshift $z\\approx 0.3$.\n\nIn contrast, BH-BH systems will provide the largest number of detections ($\\sim 100$\u2013$1000$ per year), making them the primary target for first detection and the most promising source for future statistical studies of source populations. BH-BH systems dominate event rates even in the pessimistic \u201cHigh BH kick\u201d model (several events per year), wherein most of the systems containing BHs are disrupted during the SN. Additionally, the BH-BH mass distribution could have rich, observationally-accessible structure (various lower limits and shapes) that encodes fine details about stellar and binary evolution [see, e.g., @PSconstraints3-MassDistributionMethods-NearbyUniverse; @massgap; @2012ApJ...757...36K; @chrisija]. We note, however, that the crude binning in metallicity that we had to undertake in order to limit computational costs may create artificial sharp, narrow features in the mass distribution, which would merge together into broader trends with a finer metallicity grid.\n\n[@mennekens] point out that the detection rate of BH-BH systems may be reduced to zero due to the effects of intense stellar wind during the Red Supergiant and Luminous Blue Variable phases of BH progenitors. However, we have demonstrated that the [@mennekens] result is a direct consequence of their assumption of no tidal interaction in close binaries. If tides can efficiently transfer angular momentum from the orbit into the companion spin, then it is expected that isolated binaries will form close BH-BH systems.\n\nThe criteria for the development of the CE phase may influence the merger and detection rates of all DCOs. [@woods] and [@ivanova2014] state that the criterion for the stability of mass transfer sourced from the polytropic approximation is much too strict. Therefore, the frequency of the CE may be overestimated. The CE is a major mechanism for creating close binaries that coalesce within a Hubble time. The lack of CE events would, therefore, decrease the number of DCO mergers. This would provide a reasonable pessimistic scenario for the lack of detections of gravitational wave signals. A study of CE development criteria and its effect on the formation of close BH-BH binaries is underway (Belczynski et al., in prep.). However, an assumed rarity of CE systems would be difficult to reconcile with observational evidence pointing to systems (for example V1309 Sco, V4332 Sgr, OGLE 2002-BLG-360 or CK Vul) which seem to have developed a CE (e.g., [@tylenda; @martini99; @tylenda2013]). Additionally, massive X-ray binaries such as NGC300 X-1 or IC10 X-1 are on close orbits with orbital periods $\\sim 30$ hr, which have likely developed through a CE event.\n\nOur study shows that detectable NS-NS systems are formed significantly later in the history of the Universe than BH-BH and BH-NS systems. As shown in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:NSNS\\], \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHNS\\], and \\[fig:FiducialResultDistributions:BHBH\\], the birth times of NS-NS systems cluster around $13$ Gyr after the Big Bang, while for the other systems this is $1$ Gyr. This behavior might be counter-intuitive, as the intrinsic distribution of time delays between formation and merger for all types of DCOs falls off as $t_{\\rm merger}^{-1}$, barring exceptional circumstances [e.g., near-solar metallicity BH-BH binaries, @dominik]. Therefore, one might expect the majority of detectable DCOs to be formed within the past $\\sim$ Gyr as is the case for NS-NS systems. However, BH-BH systems are created most efficiently in the lowest metallicity environments, and therefore their formation rate is highest in the early Universe. The long time-delay tail of these early systems dominates the subsequent detection rate. The metallicity evolution is therefore a crucial factor in predicting the detectable rate of DCOs.\n\nWe also find that including the merger and ringdown components of the GW signal does not have a significant impact on the detection rates of NS-NS systems. The full IMR calculations become important for higher mass systems, and especially for BH-BH binaries. The detection rates for BH-BH systems increases by at least $20\\%$, and typically by $\\sim\n50\\%$, when using full IMR waveforms when compared to the PN inspiral alone.\n\nThe detection rate of BH-BH systems is also sensitive to spin effects. Extreme aligned spins increase the rates by a factor of $\\sim\n3$ when compared with the non-spinning case.\n\nWe used simplified criteria for detectability, considering an SNR threshold of $8$ in a single detector as a proxy for the network [cf.\u00a0 @2010CQGra..27q3001A]. For reference, we also considered a network SNR threshold of $10$, which is likely to be very optimistic, and $12$, which is more realistic [cf.\u00a0 @scenarios], on a network of three detectors with aLIGO sensitivity. The network SNR threshold of $12$ yields rates which are roughly comparable with rates computed using an SNR threshold of $8$ in a single aLIGO detector as proxy for the network. The actual detection thresholds are a complicated function of network configuration, the level and frequency of non-Gaussian, non-stationary excursions in the noise, and search pipeline sensitivity to different source types. Therefore, our simple thresholds are only meant to yield rough estimates of detection rates, and the focus should be on relative rates for different source types and model assumptions rather than absolute numbers. Finally, we note that the sensitivity of advanced detectors will gradually improve during commissioning, and several years will pass before they reach the sensitivity we have assumed above [for an approximate time line, see @scenarios].\n\nThe detection rates computed by assuming an SNR threshold of $8$ in a single aLIGO detector as proxy for the network allow for a direct comparison with the rate ranges compiled in [@2010CQGra..27q3001A], which used the same detectability criterion. @2010CQGra..27q3001A incorporated a number of population synthesis studies and Galactic binary pulsar observations, but did not include some of the factors considered in the present study, such as cosmology and variations in metallicity distributions and star formation rates with redshift. We find that our predicted detection rates for NS-NS and BH-BH binaries fall within the ranges given in [@2010CQGra..27q3001A] for all models and both metallicity distribution choices considered in the present work. For BH-NS binaries, the same holds for all models and metallicity choices except for the high BH kick model, which yields BH-NS detection rates below the range quoted in [@2010CQGra..27q3001A].\n\nWe note that uncertainties in waveform systematics and detection criteria pale in comparison to uncertainties in stellar and binary evolution. We consider the most important uncertainties to be the progress and outcome of the CE phase, the SN explosion mechanism and the magnitude of BH natal kicks. The four binary evolution models discussed in this study explore these uncertainties, resulting in a wide range of mass distributions and event rates. Changing other parameters such as the initial binary mass distribution or varying the mass escaping the systems during mass transfer episodes would also influence the resulting distributions and rates [@2005ApJ...620..385O; @2008ApJ...675..566O; @roskb].\n\nThe properties of the DCO populations produced in our various models are sufficiently differentiated that it may be possible to constrain or rule out some of the input physics based on observed populations. For example, a lack of significant number of detections will disfavor the Optimistic CE model, in which we allow for CE events with HG donors and thus find very high detection rates. This will indicate how (if at all) CE develops for HG stars. If BH-BH systems are not detected far more frequently than other DCO types, a likely explanation is that BHs receive significant natal kicks disrupting their binaries. A detailed comparison of detection rates with current LIGO upper limits can be found in\u00a0@comparison. As detections accumulate, a well measured chirp mass distribution could allow us to distinguish between the Rapid and Delayed SN engine models, which generate continuous and gapped chirp mass distribution of DCOs, respectively. The number of detections needed to distinguish between the Rapid and Delayed SN engines will be discussed in future work (Dominik et al. 2014, in preparation).\n\nWe thank a number of LIGO and Virgo collaboration colleagues, particularly Thomas Dent, David Shoemaker, Stephen Fairhurst and Peter Saulson, for advice on the manuscript. We thank the N. Copernicus Astronomical Centre in Warsaw, Poland, and the University of Texas at Brownsville, for providing computational resources. The authors acknowledge the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas at Austin for providing computational resources. KB acknowledges support from a Polish Science Foundation \u201cMaster2013\u201d Subsidy, Polish NCN grant SONATA BIS 2, NASA Grant Number NNX09AV06A and NSF Grant Number HRD 1242090 awarded to the Center for Gravitational Wave Astronomy at U.T. Brownsville. MD acknowledges support from the National Science Center grant DEC-2011/01/N/ST9/00383. EB acknowledges support from National Science Foundation CAREER Grant PHY-1055103. ROS was supported by NSF award PHY-0970074 and the UWM Research Growth Initiative. DEH acknowledges support from National Science Foundation CAREER grant PHY-1151836. He was also supported in part by the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago through NSF grant PHY-1125897 and an endowment from the Kavli Foundation and its founder Fred Kavli. TB was supported by the DPN/N176/VIRGO/2009 grant and the DEC-2013/01/ASPERA/ST9/00001 from the National Science Center, Poland. FP was supported by STFC Grant No.\u00a0ST/L000342/1. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHYS-1066293 and the hospitality of the Aspen Center for Physics (KB). The study was also sponsored by the National Science Center grant Sonata Bis 2 (DEC-2012/07/E/ST9/01360).\n\nSingle and multidetector response\n=================================\n\nThe \u201cexpected detection rate for GW detectors\u201d is a theorist\u2019s idealization. First and foremost, the event rate depends sensitively on the (time-dependent) performance of instruments in development. Furthermore, real GW searches employ complicated detection thresholds, accounting for noise non-gaussianity and non-stationarity; for multiple instruments with unequal power spectra; and for some search-dependent consistency requirement across multiple detectors. Rather than attempt realism, our idealizations provide a concrete, reproducible filter to identify the number and (critically) distribution of \u201cdetectable\u201d binaries.\n\nCumulative amplitude distribution for a single detector\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn a simple idealization, the detection threshold depends only on a single detector\u2019s SNR. Several authors have characterized the response of a single GW detector to the angular distribution of power for a GW source dominated by $(l,|m|)=(2,2)$ multipole radiation [@finnchernoff; @finn96; @roskb]. This response depends on the 2-dimensional sky location $\\Omega$, inclination $\\iota$, and polarization $\\psi$, and can be conveniently summarized by a projection parameter $w$ which is maximum ($w=1$) for a face-on, overhead source, and minimum ($w=0$) for sky locations and orientations where the detector has no response to the source. The SNR, $\\rho(\\Omega,\\psi,\\iota)$, is equal to the maximum SNR of a face-on, overhead source at the same distance scaled by $w$, i.e., $\\rho = w \\rho_{\\rm opt}$. The cumulative distribution function for $w$ is $P(w)$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:P}\nP(w)&=& \\int_{V}\n          \\frac{d\\Omega}{4\\pi}\n          \\frac{d\\psi}{\\pi}\n          \\frac{d\\cos \\iota }{2}         \\end{aligned}$$ where we integrate over the 4-dimensional angular integration volume, $V$, which is the set of all $\\Omega,\\iota,\\psi$ such that the response exceeds $w$. Our expression is identical to the cumulative distribution function $P(\\Theta)$ defined by [@finnchernoff] and discussed also by [@finn96], but we use the variable $w=\\Theta/4$ such that $0<w<1$: [see e.g. @roskb; @walczak]. Note that $\\langle w^2\\rangle =\n(2/5)^2$, therefore the optimal SNR at a given distance and the square root of the angle-averaged signal power for a source at that distance ($\\rho_{\\rm ave}^2\n\\equiv \\left<\\rho^2\\right>$) are related by $\\rho_{\\rm opt}=(5/2) \\rho_{\\rm ave}$. Meanwhile, $\\langle\nw^3\\rangle^{-1/3}\\simeq 2.264$ is the factor commonly used to relate volume-averaged distances to optimal detection distances, where $\\left< w^3 \\right>$ is the fraction of detectable sources within a sphere whose radius equals the at-threshold detection distance for an optimally located and oriented source; see, e.g., Eq.\u00a0(6) of [@roskb].\n\nEasily-interpolated tabulated results for $P(w)$ are available online[^3]. The analytic approximation to this distribution function given by [@finn96] is inadequate for our purposes; our tabulated results follow from sampling the distribution numerically via a Monte Carlo over $10^9$ binaries. We found that a good three-parameter fit to the data is \\[eq:Pfit\\] P(w)= a\\^[(n)]{}\\_[2]{} \\[(1-w/\\^[(n)]{})\\^[2]{}\\] + a\\^[(n)]{}\\_[4]{} \\[(1-w/\\^[(n)]{})\\^[4]{}\\] + a\\^[(n)]{}\\_[8]{} \\[(1-w/\\^[(n)]{})\\^[8]{}\\] + (1-a\\^[(n)]{}\\_[2]{}-a\\^[(n)]{}\\_[4]{}-a\\^[(n)]{}\\_[8]{})\\[(1-w/\\^[(n)]{})\\^[10]{}\\], where $(n)$ refers to the number of detectors in the network, $\\alpha^{(n)}$ is the maximum value that $w$ can attain, so that $\\alpha^{(1)}=1$ as $w$ is bounded between $0$ and $1$, and the coefficients are $a^{(1)}_2 = 0.374222$, $a^{(1)}_4 = 2.04216$, and $a^{(1)}_8 =\n-2.63948$. Notice that Eq.(\\[eq:Pfit\\]) ensures that $P(\\alpha^{(1)})=0$ and $P(0)=1$.\n\nCumulative amplitude distribution for multiple detectors {#ap:Details}\n--------------------------------------------------------\n\nFor a multidetector network $A$, a network SNR $\\rho_A$ can always be defined. Following an identical procedure as above, we can define a cumulative distribution $P_A$ that generalizes Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:P\\]). As before, $w=\\rho/\\rho_{\\rm opt}$, but for multi-detector networks composed of instruments with equal sensitivity, $\\rho$ is the network SNR while $\\rho_{\\rm\n  opt}$ is the single-detector SNR from an optimally-oriented binary directly overhead that detector. For three identical instruments at the LIGO Hanford, Livingston, and Virgo sites, tabulated results for $P_A$ are available online at the URL listed in the previous footnote; a good fit to the data has the form given in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:Pfit\\]), but now $0<w<1.4$, so that $\\alpha^{(3)}=1.4$. The coefficients we obtain are $a^{(3)}_2 = 1.19549$, $a^{(3)}_4 = 1.61758$, and $a^{(3)}_8 =\n-4.87024$.\n\n@2011CQGra..28l5023S described a simple idealized model for the sensitivity of multi-instrument networks. This model is almost equivalent to our own. The two models differ in that @2011CQGra..28l5023S, in his Eqs.(14)\u2013(15), replaces $w^2$ by an (unphysical) average of $w^2$ over polarization, then treats the rms value of $w$ \\[i.e., $\\left<w^2\\right>^{1/2}$\\] as a substitute for $w$ whenever $w$ appears. Our results adopt no such simplifying approximation.\n\nHigher harmonics\n----------------\n\nReal GW sources produce multimodal radiation, with each mode providing a distinct angular pattern. For low-mass sources these higher harmonics contribute little to the detector\u2019s response. For high-mass binaries with asymmetric mass ratios, higher harmonics can contribute significantly to the observationally accessible signal [@Capano:2013raa]. For nonspinning binaries of total mass $M<60 M_\\odot$, and with the smaller mass $>1.2M_\\odot$, we expect higher harmonics to increase the SNR $\\rho$ by less than a few percent, consistent with extrapolations derived using PN waveforms. This expectation is supported by investigations carried out with a multimodal EOB IMR waveform [@2011PhRvD..84l4052P]. To a good approximation, the SNR $\\rho$ and angular distribution $P(w)$ can be approximated by the corresponding expressions derived assuming purely quadrupolar, $(2,2)$-mode emission. Higher harmonics can play a significant role if the mass distribution extends to very high *redshifted* mass. At high mass, higher harmonics contribute a greater fraction of the SNR, each in a distinctive angular pattern; see [@2010PhRvD..82j4006O] for illustrative results. For aLIGO, systematic astrophysical uncertainties such as the BH spin and mass have a significantly greater impact than the harmonic content. These higher harmonics will be important for third-generation interferometers, like the Einstein Telescope. This will be investigated in future work.\n\n[^1]: Note that in Eq.\u00a0(3.14) of [@santamaria] the coefficient of the dominant correction, ${\\cal A}_2$, listed in their Eq.\u00a0(A5) is negative.\n\n[^2]: We also carried out calculations using PhB models, which overestimate rates by about $10\\%$ with respect to PhC models. We decided not to report these results in the Tables, because the PhB model is less accurate than PhC, although it is easier to implement and less computationally expensive.\n\n[^3]: Data files can be found online at the following URL: <http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/~berti/research.html>.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Many natural processes rely on optimizing the success ratio of a search process. We use an experimental setup consisting of a simple online game in which players have to find a target hidden on a board, to investigate the how the rounds are influenced by the detection of cues. We focus on the search duration and the statistics of the trajectories traced on the board. The experimental data are explained by a family of random-walk-based models and probabilistic analytical approximations. If no initial information is given to the players, the search is optimized for cues that cover an intermediate spatial scale. In addition, initial information about the extension of the cues results, in general, in faster searches. Finally, strategies used by informed players turn into non-stationary processes in which the length of each displacement evolves to show a well-defined characteristic scale that is not found in non-informed searches.'\nauthor:\n- 'Ricardo Mart\u00ednez-Garc\u00eda'\n- 'Justin M. Calabrese'\n- Crist\u00f3bal L\u00f3pez\ntitle: 'Online games: a novel approach to explore how partial information influences human random searches'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#introduction .unnumbered}\n============\n\nThe problem of searching for targets whose location is unknown arises in many fields and at different scales [@MendezChap6; @Benichou2011; @kagan2015search]. Numerous examples appear in the natural sciences including in ecology [@Viswanathan2011; @Viswanathan1999; @MendezChap9; @bartumeus2005animal; @edwards2007revisiting], biochemistry [@gorman2008; @Kantslere02403; @bonnet2008sliding] and chemistry [@Haangi1990]. In addition, many human activities involve situations where a target has to be found. Some instances are the location of a lost object, rescue operations, or fugitive prosecutions [@frost2001review]. More recently, the development of eye-tracking technology has allowed the study of visual searches on screens [@najemnik2005optimal; @credidio2012statistical; @amor2016persistence]. In order to understand the social, biological and physical mechanisms behind these processes, it is essential to have empirical evidence of the performance of different strategies and how they are affected by environmental cues, regardless of whether they are employed by humans, animals or bacteria [@levin1992problem]. Such data are also required to verify the mathematical models that have been proposed [@bartumeus2002optimizing; @hein; @Benichou2005; @Chupeau2015; @Vergassola2007; @campos2015optimal; @abe2015levy; @Robertse12572], and to develop improved protocols.\n\nSituations in which a target has to be located appear in a large variety of scenarios, which allows the design of multiple strategies to find a successful solution. Such strategies can be classified in many different ways, according to one or more of their properties [@MendezChap6]. For instance, stochastic or systematic processes are distinguished depending on the type of search rule [@Benichou2011] and the amount of directional information available determines the existence of bias towards preferred regions [@patlak1953random; @codling2008random]. Finally, differences may also be attributable to the movement pattern, such as cruising versus ambush [@o1990search] and to the frequency of the reorientation events, such as intensive (frequent) versus extensive (infrequent) [@JonsenEtAl2005.Robust.modeling; @McClintockEtAl2012.Movement.framework]. The effectiveness of a particular choice within each category is determined by the properties and the state of the searcher, the target, and the environment where the task has to be accomplished. For instance, searchers with memory that navigate relatively predictable environments do not employ purely random strategies but combine a stochastic component with knowledge acquired through previous experience. There is therefore a learning process that plays an important role in the emergence of new rules [@merkle2014memory; @fagan2013spatial]. In other scenarios, individuals who live in groups may incorporate information gathered by conspecifics with their own in order to improve foraging efficiency. It has been recently showed that intermediate combinations between both types of cues result in more efficient searches regardless of the nature of the mobility pattern [@Martinez-Garcia2014a] and the spatial distribution of the targets [@bhattacharya2014collective; @Martinez-Garcia2013b]. However, the precise optimal balance between social and individual information is determined by each specific setup.\n\nIn all of these scenarios, interactions with the environment provide the searcher with information that may alter the effectiveness of a given strategy over the course of the search. Therefore, in the most general case, search strategies must be interpreted as dynamical processes consisting of several components rather than fixed procedures. For instance, many predators respond to the detection of cues indicating the proximity of prey by increasing their turning angles and reducing their speed in order to scan the local environment more carefully [@hassell1978dynamics; @curio2012ethology], which leads to concentration of the search activity in areas of high prey density [@kareiva1987swarms]. This behavior has been reported in several species of insects [@kareiva1986patchiness], seabirds [@weimerskirch2007does; @fauchald2003using] and also in human searchers looking for hidden resources in open environments [@hills2013adaptive]. Other phenomena that trigger sudden changes in individual movement behavior are changes between habitats [@Ovaskainen2004.Diffusion.model] and changes in the amount and quality of information gathered by the searcher [@bartumeus2005animal].\n\nIn this work we propose the use of computer games as a new experimental approach with which it is possible to address these and related questions in humans. This is particularly intriguing since, due to their cognitive abilities, individuals might show a large diversity of complex responses to the same stimulus. Despite substantial efforts aimed at understanding the theoretical concepts behind many search processes, a reliable and unifying empirical framework in which these ideas may be tested is still lacking. The family of games presented here is a good candidate to fill this gap, as they can be accessed online by a large number of players. This results in the generation of large and clean datasets. In addition, the rules and setup of the game can be experimentally manipulated so that different mechanisms or strategies can be rigorously tested. Firsy, we address several questions related to search efficiency and investigate how the strategies change due to the amount and the quality of information acquired by the player at different stages of the game. In a second step, the main features of these patterns are extracted from the data and used to develop a family of random walk models that can be applied to predict human search behavior in other configurations of the game. The variety of experiments shown in this work reinforces the flexibility of our approach and aims to open a new route for the study of search problems.\n\nIn the following section, after presenting the characteristics of the game, we show the empirical results obtained from two different setups. In the first case, players have no information about the configuration of the board, whereas in the second study they are provided with partial information about it. Then, we formulate a family of models that capture the main mechanisms behind the experimental results and derive analytical approximations to show the robustness of the results. Finally, all the previous steps are combined to develop a comprehensive framework in which it is possible to predict the optimal configuration of the landscape that yields faster searches. The paper finishes with a discussion of the results and opportunities for new lines of research.\n\nResults {#results .unnumbered}\n=======\n\nExperimental setup {#experimental-setup .unnumbered}\n------------------\n\nWe consider a simple game in which a single target has to be found. It slightly resembles the classic [*minesweeper*]{}, although the objective is to find a unique target ([*mine*]{}) instead of avoiding a collection of them. The interface consists of $N\\times N$ squares that can be explored by the player through successive clicks with the mouse. There are three classes of cells depending on their color after being clicked (unclicked cells are always blue): (i) black cells are typically far from the target, (ii) yellow cells indicate that the target may be one of the neighboring cells and (iii) the single red cell is the target. The target is randomly located within a patch of yellow cells. Therefore, it provides partial information about the configuration of the board. Two different geometries for this set of yellow cells are explored here. First, in the next two sections they form a $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}\\times N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ [*neighborhood*]{} square region (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:setup\\]a). Second, in the last section of the Results they will outline a random patch whose size will be measured in terms of the number of yellow cells. Further details about the implementation of these random neighborhoods will be provided in that section. The discovery of a yellow cell indicates that the player is in the neighborhood of the target and thus reduces the area that needs to be scanned. For simplicity we fixed $N=20$ in all the experiments and then manipulated $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$.\n\nTo generate the dataset players access anonymously the game online and are asked to find the target using as few clicks (jumps on the board) as possible. Since players are not identified separately, we cannot identify the number of rounds played by each user. The rounds are all independent (different configurations of the board) and each one is represented by the trajectory traced by the player on the board. Finally, the experimental setup also includes a timer. In order to study the limit in which searches are more stochastic, players are requested to find the target as quickly as possible. This constraint also mimics many real situations both for humans and non-humans in which time is a limitation for the search. Some instances are human rescue operations or animal foraging while avoiding predators.\n\nIn the following sections we investigate i) how the duration of the search, represented by the number of mouse clicks, changes with the size of the target\u2019s neighborhood (also called yellow region); and ii) the statistical properties of the searching patterns as defined by the distance between clicks $d_i$ (jump length) and the turn angles $\\theta_i$. By definition, we consider turns to the left to be between $0^{\\circ}$ and $180^{\\circ}$ and turns to the right to be between $180^{\\circ}$ and $360^{\\circ}$ (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:setup\\]b for a definition of both quantities). We consider two classes of experiments: a) blind searches, where the player is given no *a priori* knowledge of the size of the neighborhood, and b) searches with initial information, where the value of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ is given to the player at the beginning of the round. The objective of performing both classes of experiments is twofold: on the one hand to investigate whether players adapt their searching strategies when they have better information about the landscape and, on the other hand, to examine how search efficiency changes when the reliability of the information provided by the yellow cells increases.\n\nExperiments with blind searchers and square neighborhoods  {#experiments-with-blind-searchers-and-square-neighborhoods .unnumbered}\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\nFor this first series of experiments neither the exact size, the position of the yellow region, nor a range of possible dimensions was given to the searchers. Before starting the round, each player only knew that a target (red square) was hidden in the board and it might be randomly placed inside a square vicinity of yellow cells of unknown size. The uncertainty in the size of the neighborhood reduces the reliability of the information acquired by the player when a yellow cell is clicked and favors the efficiency of random strategies [@MendezChap6]. Our dataset consists of $500$ rounds with $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ ranging from $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=1$, which means that the target does not have a neighborhood, to $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=13$. A distribution of the number of rounds for each value of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ is shown in the Supplementary Table I. We first measure the mean number of clicks needed to find the target as a function of the lateral length of its yellow neighborhood (black squares in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindjumps\\]a).\n\nDue to the design of the experiments, there is a tradeoff between finding the yellow region and finding the target inside it. Larger neighborhoods are easier to locate but make the final detection of the target inside them harder. Smaller neighborhoods, however, need on average more steps to be found but make the target within them easier to locate (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindjumps\\]b). According to our results, this tradeoff is balanced at intermediate sizes of the neighborhood, $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}^{\\mbox{\\tiny{opt}}}=5$. This resembles the foraging dynamics of animals that exchange information about food location with their conspecifics, so that both spreading information over distances that are either too large or too short may slow down the search [@Martinez-Garcia2013b]. Following this analogy, we refer to the the size of the yellow area that minimizes the number of clicks needed to find the target as the [*optimal interaction range*]{}. The standard deviation of the number of jumps is also minimal at the optimal range, which means a narrowing in the distribution of clicks used to detect the target and therefore a reduction in the stochasticity of the search. In the limit of zero information (i.e. no yellow cells or $Ny=1$, or the whole board is yellow, $Ny=N$), the probability of finding the target on the first click is given by the inverse of the number of available cells, $1/N^{2}$. In any subsequent movement, $m$, this probability is given by\n\n$$\\label{eq:limitnoinfo}\n P_m = \\frac{N^{2}-(m-1)}{N^{2}}\\times\\frac{1}{N^{2}-(m-1)},$$\n\nwhere the first term yields the probability of not having found the target in the previous $m-1$ clicks and the second term yields the probability of hitting the target once $m-1$ squares have been visited. Equation (\\[eq:limitnoinfo\\]) reduces to $1/N^{2}$ regardless of the value of $m$. Therefore, the probability of detection in the limit $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=1$ (and $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=N$) follows a uniform distribution of mean $N^{2}/2$ and standard deviation $N^{2}/\\sqrt{12}$, which is in good agreement with data (black squares in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindjumps\\]).\n\nNext, we analyze all the trajectories traced by the players in every round. To facilitate this, the experimental setup saves the sequence of clicks in each round, from which we calculate the length of each displacement and the angle of each turn. We identify extensive and intensive searching modes that depend on whether the player has detected a yellow cell or not respectively (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\]a). In both situations the jump lengths can be fitted using exponential distributions, with the intensive phase showing a lower mean value $1/\\lambda_{\\mbox{\\tiny{int}}}=2.04$ and $1/\\lambda_{\\mbox{\\tiny{ext}}}=3.70$ ($1/\\lambda_{\\mbox{\\tiny{int}}}$, $1/\\lambda_{\\mbox{\\tiny{ext}}}$ are the mean length of the displacements in the intensive and the extensive phase respectively). Therefore, the typical size of the jumps is reduced once the player finds the yellow area as the detection of the cue (represented by a yellow cell) triggers an area-restricted search [@hassell1978dynamics; @curio2012ethology]. Although the player does not know how big the neighborhood is and therefore how reliable the information is, the trajectories recorded after the discovery of the yellow region still show shorter distances between turns, suggesting that players switch to an intensive search mode once they find the yellow region [@MendezChap6]. It is important to remark that, although alternation between extensive (motion phase) an intensive modes (scanning phase) is also characteristic of intermittent searches, the player is not performing an intermittent search as it has been defined in the literature before [@Benichou2011]. The differences lie in two points. First, in our study the switch between reorientation modes is triggered by the external cue instead of taking place at random. Second, the detection of the target may take place in both phases instead of being limited to the extensive one. Regarding to the type of motion, we study, however, a spatially intermittent search since the player performs a saltatory trajectory in which the target can be found only if the searcher lands on it. This differs from the case of a cruise forager who looks for targets while moving and that would constitute a completely different study.\n\nRegarding the turn angles, both the extensive (before the first encounter with a yellow cell) and the intensive phases (after detecting the first yellow cell) show correlations between subsequent turn angles (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\]b,c, respectively). This could indicate that the strategies are not completely random but contain some systematic features. In fact, a frequent strategy consists of tracing a series of short jumps in the same direction. To reduce searching times players show a tendency to scan a direction doing several consecutive clicks. This behavior is also seen in the distributions of jump lengths, since they show a large deviation from the exponential for one-cell length jumps, which are overrepresented in the dataset (Figure\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\]a). The higher frequency of turning angles closer to zero is linked to the higher presence of jumps of length one. The explanation for this persistence in the direction of movement shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\]b,c is probably a combination between the attempt of some players to design purely systematic strategies and the intrinsic tendency of humans to keep visually scanning in the same direction [@amor2016persistence].\n\nAs an exception, movements done immediately after a yellow-to-black transition show a strong tendency to reverse the direction, as this sequence in the colors of the cells indicates that the player is moving away from the target (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\]d).\n\nExperiments with initial information and square neighborhoods. The case of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$ as compared to the blind case {#sub:know .unnumbered}\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this second series of experiments the players know the size of the yellow region, which is fixed at the optimal interaction range $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$. This increases the quality of the information obtained when one of the yellow cells is found as the player can limit the search area. The position of this area, as well as the location of the target inside it, is random, changes from round to round and is unknown to the player.\n\nData from $230$ rounds were collected. As a general result, *a priori* information accelerates the search and reduces its stochasticity. Blind searchers need on average $31.30$ clicks to find the target when $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$ (subset of $65$ rounds from the $500$ trajectories analyzed for blind experiments, see Supplementary Table I ), while informed players use $25.5$ clicks. The two-tailed P value on the difference of these mean values obtained using an unpaired t-test, $3\\times10^{-4}$, is highly statistically significant. The standard deviation also decreases, indicating a narrowing in the distribution of the number of displacements and therefore in the randomness of the process: $\\sigma_{\\mbox{\\tiny{b}}}=14.10$ for blind searchers and $\\sigma_{\\mbox{\\tiny{i}}}=10.50$ for the informed ones. To find out what stage of the search is more strongly affected by the initial information, we analyze the number of clicks done in each phase of the search. We repeat this factorization for the blind and the informed cases and compare both of them (Fig.\u00a0\\[split\\]). From Fig.\u00a0\\[split\\]b and \\[split\\]c, we observe that all of the reduction in the number of jumps accumulates in the intensive phase, while the extensive stage remains unaltered by the initial information. More interestingly, if the number of displacements that take place between two yellow cells is subtracted from the total number of jumps of the intensive phase (Fig.\u00a0\\[split\\]d), we observe that this quantity remains almost unchanged. There is, however, an important reduction in the number of displacements that correspond to the rest of the combinations of cells (black to yellow, yellow to black and black to black jumps; Fig.\u00a0\\[split\\]e). In fact, the percentage of yellow-to-yellow movements that take place during the intensive phase increases from $54\\%$ to a $75\\%$ in the informed searches. This result indicates that having information about the size of the yellow zone allows a faster detection of its limits and therefore reduces the number of movements spent to find the target.\n\nRegarding to the statistical analysis of the trajectories, initial information about $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ also yields some differences in the distributions of the lengths of the jumps and the turning angles. Informed players adapt their displacements during the extensive phase, concentrating the length of their movements around the size of the yellow neighborhood, $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$ (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a). If we analyze the whole set of informed rounds, we observe a strong dominance of movements of length $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$ (green squares in Figure\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a). This is due to the presence of approximately $50$ rounds in the dataset where players performed optimally designed systematic strategies that consist of moving in jumps of fixed length $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ during the extensive phase. We will come back to this in the description of a random walk based model for this process. For the purposes of this section we will remove these systematic rounds and focus on the subset of stochastic strategies formed by the other $180$ rounds. The distribution of the length of the displacements is still dominated by jumps that cover a distance of the order of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ (red circles in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a). For the subset of blind searchers with $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}} = 5$, however, this distribution does not show a well defined typical scale and instead, players explore several scales as they look for the yellow region (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]b). For the intensive phase, informed searches also show a higher abundance of one-cell displacements than the distribution of the blind searches (inset of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a and \\[fig3\\]b respectively). This result is independent of whether or not the systematic deterministic strategies are included within the analyzed dataset and is due to the fact that knowing the neighborhood size reduces exploration during this phase. Finally, giving the size of the yellow neighborhood to the players in advance also has an effect on the distribution of turns made by the searcher immediately after a yellow-to-black displacement. This distribution is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]c for informed strategies and in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]d for blind searches. Although in both cases the movement shows a strong bias backwards, informed searches result in distributions with a stronger peak around $\\theta = 180^{\\circ}$. This is due to the fact that players do not have to find out the size of the neighborhood of the target and consistent with the factorization of the number of clicks shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[split\\]\n\nWe conclude this section with an analysis of the trajectories during the extensive phase, in order to find the mechanism by which a characteristic length scale appears in the jump length distribution. We find the existence a feedback between the searcher and the environment that makes the extensive phase non-stationary (the mean value of the distribution changes with time). This feedback allows a progressive narrowing of the jump length distribution around $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ as the extensive phase evolves and the searcher gathers and accumulates information from the landscape. Since the player has perfect memory about his trajectory (visited cells remain open), trajectories that start with large displacements tend to create landscapes that are fragmented in patches of length $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ in which long movements are inefficient. To show the existence of this feedback we split the data of the extensive phase in four subdivisions: (i) from jump 1 to 5, (ii) 6 to 10, (iii) 11 to 15, and (iv) 16 to the end. The distributions for each of these pieces are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[nonst\\]a, \\[nonst\\]b, \\[nonst\\]c and \\[nonst\\]d respectively, and they can be fitted by a family of gamma distributions (dashed lines in each panel) of decreasing mean, mode and variance (See Table \\[tabla-partidas\\] for numerical values of these parameters and details of the distributions). Then the total distribution of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a can be approximated by a gamma function defined in terms of the parameters of the distributions of the pieces (dashed line in Fig. \\[fig3\\]a). This approach shows an excellent agreement with a direct fitting of the whole extensive phase (full line in Fig. \\[fig3\\]a).\n\nAt this point, we have shown the existence of an optimal size for the neighborhood of the target, as well as an improvement in the search efficiency when the value of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ is revealed at the beginning of the round. In addition, these informed strategies evolve through information gathering during the extensive phase towards a dominant jumping distance equal to the lateral length of the neighborhood of the target, $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$. In the following sections we develop a theoretical framework and a family of models based on random walks to study the basic principles behind these results and how they can be transfered to more general scenarios, with irregular shapes for the information region.\n\nModel for blind searchers: numerical simulations and analytical approximation {#model-for-blind-searchers-numerical-simulations-and-analytical-approximation .unnumbered}\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe develop a minimalistic searching model based on random walks to explain previous experimental results on the basis of simple dynamical rules. The model has the three main ingredients obtained from the data analysis: (i) two modes of movement defined by the mean length of the displacements: $1/\\lambda_{\\mbox{\\tiny{int}}}$ and $1/\\lambda_{\\mbox{\\tiny{ext}}}$; (ii) in the absence of any information (no yellow cell clicked) the direction is completely random (uniform distribution in the turning angles); and (iii) when cues are obtained (a yellow cell has been detected), the searcher has a bias towards unvisited cells surrounding a yellow one. The choice of a uniform distribution for the turning angles is a consequence of using a purely exponential distribution for the length of the displacements (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\]a). The high persistence shown by the experimental turning angle distribution, which can be approximated by a uniform distribution except for that peak at $\\theta = 0$ (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\]b,c), comes from the high presence of jumps of length one. Disregarding the high frequency of unity-length movements also implies disregarding the higher abundance of turning angles close to zero and therefore using a uniform distribution for $\\theta$. The third assumption aims to capture the influence of the information provided to the searcher when a yellow cell is found, as well as the strong tendency to go back to yellow cells exhibited by the distribution of turning angles in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\]d. The results of the simulations (green curve in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindjumps\\]) show an excellent agreement with the experimental data (black curve) both in the mean average number of jumps and in its standard deviation. Simulations reproduce at least the two first moments of the number of clicks distribution.\n\nExcept in the limits $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=1$ (no yellow cells) and $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=N$ (yellow cells occupy the whole board), it is hard to obtain exact analytical expressions for the average total number of jumps needed to find the target. However, it is possible to obtain the distribution for the length of the extensive phase\n\n$$\\label{eq:extensive}\n P_i(N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}) = p_i(N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}})\\prod_{j=1}^{i-1}\\left(1-p_j(N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}})\\right),$$\n\nwhere $P_i(N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}})$ is the probability of having an extensive phase of $i$ jumps when the neighborhood of the target has a lateral length $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ and $p_i(N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}})=\\frac{N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}}{N-i+1}$ is the probability of finding a yellow cell in the $i-th$ mouse click. In words, the probability of having an extensive phase with $i$ jumps is given by the probability of not finding a yellow cell in all the previous movements multiplied by the probability of finding one in the $i-th$ movement. Given Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:extensive\\]), the mean length of the extensive phase is\n\n$$\\label{eq:limits-anal}\nM_{\\mbox{\\tiny{ext}}}=\\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{N^{2}-N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}^{2}+1}iP_i(N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}).$$\n\nFor the length of the intensive phase however we can only give and upper and a lower limit, assuming that after the detection of the first yellow cell all the movements are to neighboring cells. Therefore, the target is found on average after $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}^{2}/2$ jumps in the intensive phase when the neighborhood of the target is large and after $(N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}+2)^{2}/2$ movements when the neighborhood is small. These two limits account for the decreasing probability of visiting cells outside the neighborhood when increasing its size. For small values of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ it is very likely to reach the border of the neighborhood before detecting the target and thus to return to the black region. Combining these two results for the intensive phase with the length of the extensive phase obtained in Eq.\u00a0\\[eq:limits-anal\\], we obtain two theoretical approximations to the total number of clicks\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n M^{\\mbox{\\tiny{up}}} &=& \\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{N^{2}-N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}^{2}+1}iP_i + \\frac{(N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}+2)^{2}}{2}, \\\\\n M^{\\mbox{\\tiny{low}}} &=& \\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{N^{2}-N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}^{2}+1}iP_i + \\frac{N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}^{2}}{2}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe combination of these two expressions gives an approximated range for the length of the search (magenta region in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindjumps\\]) that shows an excellent agreement with empirical data and numerical simulations of the model.\n\nModel for searches with initial information. The design of optimal strategies. {#model-for-searches-with-initial-information.-the-design-of-optimal-strategies. .unnumbered}\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nKnowing the size of the yellow region at the beginning of the game changes the nature of the search as the information gathered by the player with each movement may be used to design the next displacement. This reinforces the non-Markovian nature of the informed search process as the player uses all the previous steps to discard cells that have not been visited yet and results in self-adaptive strategies that evolve towards displacements of length $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$. Also, as the value of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ is known, the number of exits from the neighborhood of the target diminishes (Fig.\u00a0\\[split\\]). In a first approach to model this effect, we modify the model used for blind searches using the new experimental distribution of the length of the displacements in both the extensive and the intensive modes (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a). Therefore, instead of using the exponential distributions of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\] we sample the histograms of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a (red circles) and its inset, that are obtained from experimental searches with initial information. This approach overestimates both the length of the extensive and the intensive phases, which results in a clearly higher average number of movements; $33.50$ jumps, $\\sigma=19.00$ for the model and $25.50$ jumps, $\\sigma=10.50$ in the data (MB green bars and DI gray bars in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig-comp\\] respectively). This is due to the fact that the model does not integrate the information about the size of the target to a priori discard some of the cells during the intensive and the extensive phase. In a first approach to remove this discrepancy, we hypothesize that the most important differences arise in the modeling of the intensive phase. During this stage, given a certain number of yellow cells and some of their neighboring black squares, our experimental results suggest that human players are able to discriminate the real border of the neighborhood of the target and thus reduce the number of erroneous displacements. The model that we developed for blind searches lacks this ingredient, which increases the duration of the intensive phase since more black cells are open. To correct this, we modify the model and include the effect that previous movements, together with knowing the size of the neighborhood of the target, have on the intensive phase (See Methods for a detailed description). In this new approach, once the first yellow cell has been detected and based on all the previous movements, only those cells that can possibly be part of a $5\\times 5$ yellow square have a non-zero probability of being visited by the searcher. This mechanism reduces the number of times that black cells are visited once a yellow cell has been found as the model is able to discriminate all the possible borders of the neighborhood of the target. With this new ingredient the efficiency of the model increases (MI blue bar in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig-comp\\]a) and the number of jumps in the intensive phase shows excellent agreement with the experimental data (DI gray and MI blue bars in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig-comp\\]c). However, despite this substantial improvement as compared to the blind model, significant differences still remain between empirical data and numerical results. The source of this disagreement arises from the extensive phase (DI gray and MI blue bars in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig-comp\\]b). To correct this, we next modify the extensive phase of the model.\n\nDuring the extensive phase, players are able to discriminate regions where the target cannot be placed as a $5\\times5$ square would not fit. To incorporate this in the model, we first compute the probability of jumping to each of the non-visited cells of the board according to the histogram in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a. Then, for each cell we obtain all the possible squares of lateral length $5$ to which it could belong and set the probability of jumping to that cell to zero if all these squares contain at least one open black cell (See Methods for more details). With this mechanism the extensive phase becomes more efficient and the agreement of the model with the experimental data is excellent. More importantly, this comes from a precise fitting of both the intensive and the extensive phase individually (DI gray and MII black bars in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig-comp\\]a,b,c).\n\n[*Optimal strategy.-*]{} However, both actual player strategies and random walk models are much less efficient than entirely systematic protocols. Knowing a typical size of the target in advance allows the design of optimized strategies that minimize the number of incorrect steps. Particularly important is to shorten the extensive phase, as within the neighborhood of the target all the cells are equivalent and it is equally likely to find the target in any position. In fact, during the experimental rounds with initial information, one of the players developed one of these searching methods by repeatedly playing with the same size of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$.\n\nThis strategy optimizes the extensive phase and only allows for two yellow-to-black transitions during the intensive phase (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig4\\]a). Given a value for $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$, the search rule is given the following steps:\n\n1.  Divide the board in theoretical squares of size $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}\\times N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ (see Fig. \\[fig4\\]a)\n\n2.  Click in the upper right corner of each subdivision. Start with those squares whose upper right cell has more neighbors and continue with those in the borders. This reduces the length of the extensive phase on average as corners that are farther from the border are more likely to contain a yellow cell.\n\n3.  Once a yellow cell is found, visit consecutive squares in a given direction (horizontal in Fig. \\[fig4\\]a for $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$) until finding a black position. Then, if the number of yellow cells in the row is lower than $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$, complete it.\n\n4.  Repeat the same operation in the other direction starting from one already known yellow cell.\n\n5.  Once the neighborhood of the target has been delimited, move inside it until finding the target.\n\nIn the particular case of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$, the average number of movements before target detection following this strategy is $19.03$ ($10^4$ realizations) and it is always lower than $42$. In addition the extensive phase has a duration of $5.90$ clicks on average, which is about $50\\%$ lower than the experimental result. This improvement is much higher than the one observed for the intensive phase, which can be optimized by players once they are provided with initial informaition about the landscape (see gray and red bars in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig-comp\\]b, c for a comparison). In real human scenarios, this result suggests that efforts put into optimizing the extensive phase may pay off more than equivalent efforts to optimize the intensive phase.\n\nApplying this optimal strategy to many sizes of the yellow region (Fig. \\[fig4\\]b) we observe that the tradeoff between finding the neighborhood of the target (yellow diamonds in Fig. \\[fig4\\]b) and finding the target inside it (blue circles in Fig. \\[fig4\\]b) balances at intermediate values of $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$. Following theoretical results for blind experiments, analytical expressions can be obtained for the mean number of movements during both phases and therefore for the optimal interaction range. The mean number of clicks during the intensive phase is $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}^{2}/2$ as the target can be in any cell with the same probability (green dashed line in Fig. \\[fig4\\]b) (we only consider the lower bound obtained for blind experiments since this optimal protocol minimizes the number of erroneous movements). To obtain the mean number of movements in the extensive stage, we assume that the upper right corner of each subdivision of the board (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig4\\]a) is equally likely to have a yellow cell. Therefore, the number of steps is given by $N^{2}/2N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}^{2}$. This is not completely true, as cells close to the border have a lower probability of being yellow, but it is a good approximation (black dashed line in Fig. \\[fig4\\]b fitting yellow diamonds). At the optimal interaction range both functions intersect, which gives $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}^{\\mbox{\\tiny{opt}}}=\\sqrt{N}=4.47$ for our experimental setup with $N=20$. This result is in excellent agreement with the value obtained from the experiments (Fig. \\[fig4\\]c) and suggests, together with the theoretical approximation, that the optimal interaction range is independent of the searching strategy. This result suggests the possibility of using this theoretical framework to predict the optimal size of the neighborhood of the target in more general scenarios.\n\nAnticipating the optimal range of interaction for random neighborhoods. {#anticipating-the-optimal-range-of-interaction-for-random-neighborhoods. .unnumbered}\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this section we allow the target to adopt different sizes and random shapes across rounds. In order to facilitate the formulation of theoretical predictions, the neighborhood is built starting from a triangle of varying base $b_y$ (see Methods for a detailed description and Fig.\u00a0\\[random-neigh\\]) where the target is embedded. Then, the region is randomized by turning $30\\%$ of the cells black. In this way, we implement random neighborhoods that vary in form and size from round to round but with an underlying fixed pattern. Before starting the game, players know that the neighborhood has now a varying form and size (Fig.\u00a0\\[random-neigh\\]), but they are given no information about the way it is constructed.\n\nThe optimal [*interaction range*]{} can be evaluated from an independent estimation of the number of movements needed in the extensive and the intensive phases. The length of the extensive phase is obtained following the same steps used for square neighborhoods; the probability of finding a yellow cell in the $i-th$ movement is given by Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:extensive\\]) from where the mean length of the extensive phase is obtained using Eq.\\[eq:limits-anal\\]. This quantity is shown by the magenta circles in Fig.\u00a0\\[opt-line\\]b. To approximate the number of movements used in the intensive phase, which will give us the optimal interaction range we used the underlying triangle shape of the neighborhood of the target. This calculation provides lower and upper bounds for the average duration of the intensive phase. The lower bound is obtained assuming that all the cells from the original target have the same probability of being visited but all the cells that do not belong to it will never be clicked. The total number of cells that form this original triangle is $(b_y/2+0.5)^2$ and since all the cells can be visited with the same probability, the lower limit for the length of the intensive phase is given by $\\frac{(b_y/2+0.5)^2}{2}$. The upper limit is obtained assuming that the first cells that do not belong to the triangle in each direction also have a non-zero probability of being visited. This results in an upper bound for the length of the intensive phase given by $\\frac{[(b_y+4)/2+0.5]^2}{2}$. Both limits are shown by the magenta circles in Fig.\u00a0\\[opt-line\\]c. Finally, the total number of movements, i.e., the sum of the extensive and the intensive phase, is shown by the magenta circles in Fig.\u00a0\\[opt-line\\]a, with an estimated optimal neighborhood size in between $18$ and $25$ yellow cells. It is important to note the difference between the optimal interaction range for random and square neighborhoods, which shows the non triviality of predicting optimal interaction ranges for different geometries.\n\nWe tested these a priori predictions with a series of experiments using an experimental setup with neighborhoods that consist of $5$, $16$, $33$, $55$ and $69$ cells (plus the target red cell, see Supplementary Table II for a distribution of the number of rounds with each size). $301$ rounds were analyzed and the observed mean number of clicks is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[opt-line\\]a. We also split each round into the extensive and intensive phases and the results are shown in panels b and c of Fig.\u00a0\\[opt-line\\]. The good agreement between the predicted values and the results obtained with the experiments shows the robustness of the theoretical approach developed in simpler scenarios.\n\nDiscussion {#discussion .unnumbered}\n==========\n\nWe have developed a novel approach to study human search problems by building a simple game that can be accessed online. This approach facilitates the collection of large and clean experimental datasets. By combining data analysis with probabilistic calculations and numerical simulations of existing and new models, it is possible to obtain a deeper understanding of how humans approach simple search tasks and how their strategies differ from optimal patterns.\n\nA comprehensive analysis of the trajectories on the board of the game (length of the displacements and turning angles) shows that players follow strategies consisting of two modes. The detection of cues about the location of the target triggers an area-restricted search mainly characterized by shorter movements on average [@hassell1978dynamics; @curio2012ethology]. In the context of existing studies, these processes are usually modeled by composite random walks that consist of an extensive phase and an intensive one. In the particular instance of animal foraging, the latter is triggered by encountering a food item and is characterized by shorter steps and larger turning angles (relative to the extensive mode) [@MEE3:MEE312412; @MendezChap6; @benhamou1992efficiency; @MoralesEtAl2004.Extracting.more]. Our findings show that the duration of the search is minimal when the cues extend over intermediate spatial scales as compared to the system size. The tradeoff between locating a cue and finding the target among the cues is balanced, which results in faster searches. Although this result seems to be robust against changes in the total system size, considering larger landscapes could offer a richer phenomenology in the analysis of the trajectories on the board as well as in the features of both phases.\n\nIn the simplest scenario studied here, in which no information is given about the size of the neighborhood of the target, developing a systematic searching rule as opposed to following a stochastic trajectory does not provide a significant advantage. A systematic scan of the environment usually provides higher efficiencies by minimizing the probability of revisiting a certain region. In this setup, however, cells remain open once they are visited, providing players with a perfect memory about the history of their movements. As a consequence, neither random nor systematic players click more than once on a cell, regions are not revisited, and both protocols offer equivalent results. This scenario however changes when some information about the nature of the target is provided to the players. In that case an optimal systematic strategy can be constructed based on this information. Interestingly, our data show that one of these optimal strategies was developed by a particular player who repeatedly played several rounds in the same landscape. This result opens the door to explore a broad range of questions at the interface between landscape variability, the searcher\u2019s memory, and learning abilities, which has recently become an important topic in movement ecology [@fagan2013spatial]. Most animals do not follow completely random strategies, but combine this stochastic component with spatial memory and learning [@merkle2014memory; @boyer2014random; @polansky2015elucidating]. To investigate the importance of cognitive skills such as learning or memory in the development of optimal strategies, our approach could easily be extended to allow landscapes where the position of the target exhibits a certain degree of persistence across rounds of the game. In addition, in order to compare how more complex decision-making processes come into play, it would be particularly interesting to compare the results presented here with the outcome of a new round of experiments in which players are not requested to find the target in the shortest possible time.\n\nIn fact, we have shown that, when they have some knowledge about the landscape (size of the neighborhood of the target), players use the additional information obtained in each movement step to increase search efficiency. In this scenario, the effect of the information gathered during the whole process has to be included in theoretical models to reproduce experimental results. Introducing a more realistic finite memory by allowing clicked cells to revert back to the unclicked state after some time arises as a future line of research.\n\nMore importantly, however, the excellent agreement between our experimental data and simple theoretical models suggest that this online-game based methodology could be applicable to address more complex scenarios. Energy budget related questions can be addressed by introducing a [*metabolic*]{} cost that penalizes longer movements and [*evolutionary*]{} aspects of search problems may be addressed by allowing pairs of players to compete and selecting those using more efficient strategies. This would mimic environments where different individuals compete for limited resources and could shed some light on the driving forces behind the evolution of optimal searching. The effect of cooperative interactions among players on search efficiency could also be addressed. Many species forage in groups as opposed to individually. The methodology that has been presented here would facilitate, given a certain landscape, exploration of the level of confidence that players place on movements performed by previous participants. Before every movement of the new player, the choice of previous searchers at that same moment can be shown to the new player to investigate whether and how much the current player trusts on previous participants. In addition, if the neighborhood of the target is changed, or multiple targets are included, it would be possible to explore the relationships between use of social information versus personal experience for tasks of increasing difficulty. Finally, in this study we have focused on the case of saltatory searches, in which the target can be detected only if the searcher lands on it. A next step should consider the more general scenario of cruising searches, in which the target can be detected at any point of the displacements [@MendezChap6]. Such setup would provide a higher flexibility in constructing more complex landscapes with different gradients of information that could allow the study of taxis-driven searches.\n\nIn summary, and in view of the large and exciting range of possibilities for future exploration, we expect that this general framework will complement purely theoretical efforts to unveil the fundamental mechanisms that drive a wide variety of search scenarios.\n\nMethods {#methods .unnumbered}\n=======\n\n**Ethics statement.** The anonymity of all the participants was maintained during the whole experimental protocol. Participants accessed the game remotely through internet and non of their personal data was stored. No ethical concerns are involved other than preserving the anonymity of participants. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects. The procedure was checked and approved by the Committee of Ethics in Research of the University of the Balearic Islands, since the game was hosted in the web domain of one of its research institutes, the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Physics and Complex Systems (IFISC) The experiments were subsequently carried out in accordance with the approved guidelines.\n\nFitting of the partial distributions of displacement lengths to gamma distributions in informed searches {#fitting-of-the-partial-distributions-of-displacement-lengths-to-gamma-distributions-in-informed-searches .unnumbered}\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe showed that, for informed searches, the length of the displacements when players are given a priori information about the landscape follow a series of gamma distributions whose probability density function is given by\n\n$$f(x;\\alpha,\\beta) = \\frac{\\beta^{-\\alpha}{\\rm e}^{-x/\\beta}x^{-1+\\alpha}}{\\Gamma(\\alpha)},$$\n\nwhere $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ are real positive parameters. For known values of $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$, the mean value of the distribution can be obtained as $\\alpha\\beta$, the variance as $\\alpha\\beta^{2}$ and the mode (the value that appears most often in the distribution) as $\\beta(\\alpha-1)$. All the parameters shown in Table \\[tabla-partidas\\] were obtained using the maximum likelihood estimation. Results shown in the last row of Table \\[tabla-partidas\\] correspond to a distribution that is a mixture of all four component distributions. Given the mean value and variance of these distributions, we can assume that they all have the same weight in the composition since all the subsets of the trajectory have the same length. The mixed distribution can be obtained as:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n \\mu_{\\mbox{\\tiny{mix}}} &=& \\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{i=1}^{4}\\mu_i \\\\\n \\sigma^{2}_{\\mbox{\\tiny{mix}}} &=&  \\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{i=1}^{4} \\left(\\mu_{i}^{2}+\\sigma_{i}\\right)-\\mu_{\\mbox{\\tiny{mix}}}^{2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nImplementation of the random walk model for blind searches {#model:markov .unnumbered}\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe have developed a minimalistic model based on composite random walks to understand the basic features of the search strategies used by the players. We initialize the model from a random configuration of the board in which the target is placed in a random position inside a smaller square of lateral length $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$. To mimic the experimental setup, we fix the size of the board so it has $20$ cells on each side and explore $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$ varying between $1$ and $20$. The searcher is placed in a random position of the board and the dynamics starts. The algorithm consists of the following steps:\n\n1.  Obtain the probability of jumping from the current position, $i$ to the rest of the cells in the board $j$. This is given by the experimental jump length distributions, so $P_{ij}=\\exp(-\\lambda_\\gamma r_{ij})/\\lambda_{\\gamma}$, where $\\gamma\\equiv\\lbrace \\mbox{in, ext} \\rbrace$ and $r_{ij}$ is the distance between two cells. The two values of $\\lambda$ are obtained from the experimental data and define the extensive and the intensive phase: $1/\\lambda_{\\mbox{\\tiny{int}}}=2.05$ and $1/\\lambda_{\\mbox{\\tiny{ext}}}=3.70$.\n\n2.  As in the game the player has perfect memory of previous moves, so the probability of jumping to already visited cells is set to zero.\n\n3.  If any of the visited cells belongs to the neighborhood of the target (yellow cell), then we multiply the probability of jumping to each of its unvisited neighbors by a bias factor $\\eta=10^{3}$ whose effect is to keep the searcher around the cues and avoid unrealistic escapes from them. The existence of such a bias is suggested by the distribution of turn angles shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:blindexp\\]d that shows a high probability of returning to the yellow region when it is left. Our results are, however, independent of the numerical value of this bias provided that it is strong enough to trap the searcher close to the yellow cells.\n\n4.  Renormalize all the jumping probabilities so $\\sum\\limits_{j=1}^{N^2}P_{ij}=1$.\n\n5.  Sort a uniform random number $u$ between $0$ and $1$ and move to a cell $k$ when $\\sum\\limits_{j=1}^{k}P_{ij}\\geq u$.\n\nThese steps are repeated until the target is found, then the number of movements is saved and the system restarted for a new realization.\n\nImplementation of the random walk model for searches with initial information {#model:nonmarkov .unnumbered}\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nTo introduce the effect of having initial information about the configuration of the landscape (size of the yellow region) we modify the random-walk model presented for blind searches. Simulations are set as in the first model, starting from a $20\\times 20$ cells board where the target is randomly placed inside a square region of lateral length $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$. The position of this region is also random in the board and changes across realizations. The searcher is placed at an initial random position and the dynamics starts. The algorithm has two well differentiated parts for the intensive and the extensive phase:\n\n-   Extensive phase:\n\n    1.  Obtain the distance from the current position of the searcher, $i$, to every other cell in the board, $j$, and assign a jumping probability, $P_{ij}$, by taking a random sample from the histogram in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a.\n\n    2.  As in the game the player has perfect memory of previous moves, so the probability of jumping to already visited cells is set to zero.\n\n    3.  For every cell $j$ in the board obtain all the possible $5\\times 5$ squares to which it can belong. If all of them have any open black cell, then set the probability of jumping to $j$ to zero. This step is skipped in the intermediate model where only the intensive phase is improved.\n\n    4.  Renormalize all the jumping probabilities so they sum one.\n\n    5.  Sort a uniform random number $u$ between $0$ and $1$ and move to a cell $k$ when $\\sum\\limits_{j=1}^{k}P_{ij}\\geq u$.\n\n-   Intensive phase, after the first yellow cell is hit:\n\n    1.  Obtain all the possible neighborhoods of the target to which the first detected yellow cell can belong.\n\n    2.  Count the number of open cells of both classes (black and yellow) in each of those possible neighborhoods of the target.\n\n    3.  Pick those $5\\times5$ squares that include all the open yellow cells and none of the black ones.\n\n    4.  Set the probability of jumping to all other of the rest of the cells of the board to zero.\n\n    5.  From the histogram in the inset of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]a, obtain the probability $P_{ij}$ of jumping to the cells that belong to the chosen $5\\times5$ squares.\n\n    6.  Renormalize all the jumping probabilities so they sum one.\n\n    7.  Sort a uniform random number $u$ between $0$ and $1$ and move to a cell $k$ when $\\sum\\limits_{j=1}^{k}P_{ij}\\geq u$.\n\n[10]{} url \\#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\\[2\\][\\#2]{} \\[2\\]\\[\\][[\\#2](#2)]{}\n\n, & . In **, Springer Series in Synergetics, (, ).\n\n, , & . ** ****, ().\n\n& ** (, ).\n\n, , & ** (, ), edn.\n\n*et\u00a0al.* ** ****, ().\n\n, & . In **, Springer Series in Synergetics, (, ).\n\n, , & . ** ****, ().\n\n*et\u00a0al.* . ** ****, ().\n\n& . ** ****, ().\n\n, , & . ** **** ().\n\n*et\u00a0al.* . ** ****, ().\n\n, & . ** ****, ().\n\n& . , ().\n\n& . ** ****, ().\n\n, , , & . ** **** ().\n\n, , , & . ** **** ().\n\n. ** ****, ().\n\n, , , & . ** ****, ().\n\n& ** ****, ().\n\n, , , & . ** ****, ().\n\n, & . ** **** ().\n\n, & ** ****, ().\n\n, , , & . ** ****, ().\n\n& . ** ****, ().\n\n*et\u00a0al.* . ** ().\n\n. ** ****, ().\n\n, & . ** ****, ().\n\n, & . ** ****, ().\n\n, & . ** ****, ().\n\n*et\u00a0al.* . ** ****, ().\n\n, & . ** ****, ().\n\n*et\u00a0al.* . ** ****, ().\n\n, & . ** ****, ().\n\n& . ** ****, ().\n\n, , , & . ** ****, ().\n\n** (, ).\n\n**, vol.\u00a0 (, ).\n\n& . ** ().\n\n. ** ().\n\n, , & . ** ****, ().\n\n& . ** ****, ().\n\n, & . ** ****, ().\n\n. ** ****, ().\n\n, , , & . ** ****, ().\n\n. ** ****, ().\n\n, , , & . ** ****, ().\n\n& . ** ****, ().\n\n, & . ** ****, ().\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nWe acknowledge Ant\u00f2nia Tugores, Rub\u00e9n Tolosa and Iharob al Asimi Espina for advice in the development of the experimental setup. We are also grateful to George W. Constable for useful discussions and to Frederic Bartumeus for useful discussions and a critical reading of the manuscript. This work is funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through Grant GBMF2550.06 to RMG, Universitat de les Illes Balears through a 2015 Young Visiting Scholar grant to RMG, the US National Science Foundation through grant ABI 1458748 to JMC and Ministerio de Econom\u00eda y Competitividad and Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional through project CTM2015-66407-P (MINECO/FEDER) to CL.\n\nAuthor contributions statement {#author-contributions-statement .unnumbered}\n==============================\n\nR.M-G conceived the study, implemented the experimental setup, and did the numerical simulations. All the authors designed the experiments, analyzed and discussed the results and contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript.\n\nAdditional information {#additional-information .unnumbered}\n======================\n\nThe authors declare no competing financial interests.\n\n![\\[fig:setup\\] Experimental setup. a) Single realization as shown in the game interface. Blue cells have not been visited, black and yellow cells represent the two types of cues and the red square is the target. Yellow crosses mark those squares that belong to the neighborhood of the target and have not been visited yet. They are used here to indicate the layout of the board but they are not shown to the player. b) Reconstruction of the round in A from the saved data. Small circles correspond to black cells, bigger circles to the yellow ones and the biggest circle is the target. Circles are labeled with blue numbers, $d_i$ is the distance jumped starting from node $i$ and $\\theta_i$ is the turn angle relative to the direction at node $i$.](Fig1.eps){width=\"70.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[fig:blindjumps\\] Number of movements for the blind searches as a function of the lateral length of the yellow neighborhood $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}$. a) Data-model-theory comparison of the total search length. $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=1$ means that there are no yellow cells around the target. Black squares are averages taken from experimental data, light green squares are obtained from numerical simulations (averages over $10^4$ independent realizations) and the magenta region is the theoretical approximation. Dashed lines are interpolations and the error bars represent the standard deviation of the data. b) Decomposition of the total number of clicks between the intensive and the extensive phase. Dashed lines are interpolations and the error bars represent the standard error. When the bar is not shown the error is lower than the size of the point.](Fig2.eps){width=\"78.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[fig:blindexp\\] Statistical analysis of the trajectories on the board. a) (Linear-log plot) Jump length distribution during the extensive (blue squares) and intensive (green circles) phase. Magenta lines are exponential fits with mean value given by $1/\\lambda$. b, c) Turn angle distributions during the extensive and the intensive phase respectively. d) Turn angle distribution for movements performed immediately after a yellow-to-black transition. ](Fig3.eps){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[split\\] Factorization of the number of clicks comparing blind and informed searches with $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$. a) Total number of clicks, b) extensive phase, c) intensive phase, d) yellow-to-yellow jumps of the intensive phase, e) black-to-yellow and yellow-to-black transitions and black-to-black movements during the intensive phase.](Fig4.eps){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[fig3\\] Comparison of the jump length and turning angle distributions for informed and blind searchers with $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$ . a) Jump length distribution for the extensive phase. Green squares correspond to the whole set of rounds and red circles to the subset of random strategies. The dashed and full lines show two analytical approximations. Inset: distribution for the intensive phase. b) Equivalent to a) but for the subset of $65$ blind rounds with $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$. c) Turning angle distribution for movements in the intensive phase made immediately after a yellow-to-black jump. d) Same as c) but for the subset of blind searches with $N_{\\mbox{\\tiny{y}}}=5$.](Fig5.eps){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[nonst\\] Non-stationary jump length distributions for the extensive phase of the informed searches . The extensive phase is divided in four parts and the distribution of each subset is shown: steps 1-5 (a), 6-10 (b), 11-15 (c) and 16-end (d). Red circles show experimental data and black dashed lines the theoretical fitting. Parameter estimates for each fit are shown in Table \\[tabla-partidas\\].](Fig6.eps){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[fig-comp\\] Comparison between informed searches experimental data and the models. a) Number of clicks before target detection (extensive + intensive). b) Number of clicks during the extensive phase. c) Number of clicks during the intensive phase. The magenta dashed line shows the value obtained from the data for informed searchers. Labels of the x-axis: DI data informed, MB model blind, MI model informed, MII model informed 2 and OS optimal strategy.](Fig7.eps){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[fig4\\] Analysis of the optimal systematic strategy. a) Typical realization. The color of the squares indicates the temporal sequence of the jumps and its size the location outside (smaller squares) or inside the neighborhood (intermediate squares). The biggest square represents the target. b) Typical length of search as a function of the size of the neighborhood (red squares). This quantity is divided between the extensive (yellow diamonds) and the intensive (blue circles) phases. Analytical approximations are shown by dashed lines. c) Comparison between the mean number of jumps needed using an optimized systematic search rule (red squares) and the blind experimental data (black squares). Error bars represent the standard deviation, lines are interpolations.](Fig8.eps){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[random-neigh\\] Construction of random information neighborhoods starting from triangles of different size. Black cells highlighted in green belonged to the original triangle and have been removed in the randomization process. They are used here to indicate the original layout of the board but they are not shown to the player.](Fig9.eps){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[opt-line\\] Prediction of the optimal size of random neighborhoods . a) Total number of movements, b) extensive phase, c) intensive stage. Black squares correspond to experimental data and magenta circles to theoretical predictions. Dashed lines are interpolations and the error bars represent the standard error, when not shown they are smaller than the size of the square.](Fig10.eps){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\n  --------------- --------- ------------- --------- ------------------- -------------------\n     \u00a0\u00a0Part \u00a0\u00a0     \u00a0Mean \u00a0   \u00a0Variance \u00a0   \u00a0Mode \u00a0   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0$\\alpha$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 $\\beta$ \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n   \\[0.5ex\\] 1-5    8.48        22.56       5.83           3.19                2.66\n       6-10         6.66        12.86       4.72           3.45                1.93\n       11-15        6.09        9.36        4.56           3.97                1.54\n       16 \u2013         5.20        7.88        3.69           3.44                1.51\n       Total        7.07        16.10       4.80           3.11                2.28\n        Mix         6.61        16.02       4.19           2.73                2.42\n  --------------- --------- ------------- --------- ------------------- -------------------\n\n  :  Parameters obtained fitting the jump length distributions to gamma distributions. The extensive phase of the informed searches is divided in four pieces and the partial distributions fitted to gamma distributions. Changes in the mean value show the non-stationarity of the process .[]{data-label=\"tabla-partidas\"}\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We report the fabrication and photoluminescence properties of laterally-coupled GaAs/AlGaAs quantum dots. The coupling in the quantum dot molecules is tuned by an external electric field. An intricate behavior, consisting of spectral line crossings and avoided crossings is observed for different molecules. Anticrossing patterns in the photoluminescence spectra provide direct evidence of the lateral coupling between two nearby quantum dots. A simple calculation suggests that the coupling is mediated by electron tunneling, through which the states of direct and indirect exciton are brought into resonance.'\nauthor:\n- 'L. Wang'\n- 'A. Rastelli'\n- 'S. Kiravittaya'\n- 'M. Benyoucef'\n- 'O. G. Schmidt'\ntitle: Experimental Observation of Electronic Coupling in GaAs Lateral Quantum Dot Molecules\n---\n\nCoupled semiconductor quantum dots (QDs) are attracting growing interest due to their potential application as solid-state quantum gates\u00a0[@loss98; @burkard99]. Substantial progress towards the experimental implementation of such quantum dot molecules (QDMs) has been achieved in the last few years both for electrically defined QDs (see Ref.\u00a0[@Koppens2006] and Refs. therein) and for self-assembled, vertically-stacked QDs\u00a0[@Krenner2005; @Ortner05; @Stinaff2006; @Krenner2006]. In the latter case, the coupling between two structurally different QDs is controlled by applying a vertical electric field. A signature of coupling and entanglement\u00a0[@Bester05] is represented by anticrossing patterns in two-dimensional maps obtained from photoluminescence (PL) spectra for different values of the external field. To explore the possibility of coupling a larger number of self-assembled QDs, investigations on lateral coupling are needed\u00a0[@Bracker2006]. The fabrication of laterally-close QDs with well-defined properties requires special growth protocols\u00a0[@Schmidt2002; @Songmuang2003c; @Lippen04; @Suraprapapich05; @Hanke06; @Yamagiwa06; @Lee06; @Beirne2006] and, while indications of lateral coupling have been reported\u00a0[@Unold05; @Beirne2006], anticrossing patterns for lateral QDMs have not been observed so far.\n\nIn this Letter we employ a lateral electric field to tune the coupling between two laterally-close GaAs/AlGaAs QDs and present the observation of an anticrossing pattern in the PL spectra of a single GaAs QDM.\n\nThe QDM samples are grown by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) combined with a method based on AsBr$_{3}$ selective etching of buried InAs QDs and subsequent overgrowth. With a proper choice of etching and overgrowth parameters, either single AlGaAs holes\u00a0[@Rastelli04] or biholes aligned in the \\[110\\] direction can be created, which are used as templates for the fabrication of either single QDs or QDMs. To create QDMs, low density ($\\lesssim 10^8$\u00a0cm$^{-2}$) InAs QDs are first deposited at a substrate temperature of 500$^\\circ$C on a GaAs buffer, followed by a 30\u00a0s growth interruption. The substrate temperature is lowered to 470$^\\circ$C and 10\u00a0nm GaAs are deposited while ramping the temperature back to 500$^\\circ$C. An [*in situ*]{} etching step with a nominal depth of 7.5\u00a0nm is then applied to remove the buried QDs and obtain bow-tie shaped nanoholes\u00a0[@Kiravittaya2003a; @Songmuang2003c], which are overgrown with 10\u00a0nm Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As. During Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As growth, single holes are found to split into two closely-spaced holes aligned in the \\[110\\] direction. The biholes are subsequently filled by depositing 1\u00a0nm GaAs followed by a 1\u00a0min growth interruption. 100\u00a0nm Al$_{0.35}$Ga$_{0.65}$As, 20\u00a0nm Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As, and 10\u00a0nm GaAs complete the structure. The GaAs-filled biholes embedded in AlGaAs represent QDMs below a thin quantum well. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) in tapping mode is employed for the morphological investigation of the bihole structure. For this purpose, the sample is cooled to room temperature immediately after the growth of the 10\u00a0nm Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As layer. Because of fluctuations inherent in the self-assembled growth, the two QDs are generally not identical and their mutual coupling can be controlled by an electric field parallel to the \\[110\\] direction. To this end, interdigital gate electrodes with 100/20\u00a0nm thick Au/Ti stripes and 30\u00a0$\\mu$m spacing are processed on the sample surface. Micro-PL ($\\mu$-PL) spectroscopy of single QDMs is performed by using a laser excitation energy of 2.33\u00a0eV. The PL is analyzed by a 750\u00a0mm focal-length spectrometer equipped with a Si charge-coupled device.\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:1\\](a) shows an AFM image of biholes on the surface of the 10\u00a0nm Al$_{0.45}$Ga$_{0.55}$As layer. The two holes are normally slightly different in size and shape, but are invariably aligned in the \\[110\\] direction. A typical linescan of a bihole along the \\[110\\] direction is displayed in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\](b). The two holes have an average center-to-center distance of 35$\\pm$4\u00a0nm and are separated by a thin barrier \\[see also the inset in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\](a)\\]. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:1\\](c) shows a statistical analysis of the hole depth and barrier height for the biholes. Gaussian fits to the histograms show that the average depth and barrier height of the biholes are 2.9\u00a0nm and 0.52\u00a0nm, respectively. When the biholes are filled with GaAs and annealed for 1\u00a0min, the deposited GaAs diffuses into the biholes, thus forming inverted lateral GaAs QDMs aligned in the \\[110\\] direction.\n\nTypical PL spectra of three independent QDMs at relatively low excitation power are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\](a). Different QDMs exhibit several common spectral features, which indicate that the created QDMs have similar properties. The high-energy peaks, labeled as X$^{0}$, are attributed to the recombination of an electron and a hole confined in the larger QD composing a QDM (direct neutral exciton). Another intense peaks X$^{*}$, well separated ($>$3\u00a0meV) from the X$^{0}$ line, is present in all spectra. Since the background doping in our samples is p-type, we tentatively assign X$^{*}$ to a positive trion. Other features, generally labelled as multi-excitons (mX) are also observed.\n\nWe now concentrate on the QDM\u00a0A \\[topmost spectrum in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\](a)\\]. To confirm our identification of the spectral lines, a polarization-dependent PL measurement is performed by inserting a rotatable lambda-half waveplate and a fixed Glan-Thompson polarizer in front of the spectrometer. The oscillating peak energy as a function of polarization angle in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\](b) indicates that the line X$^{0}$ originates from a neutral exciton transition\u00a0[@Bayer02]. The two components of the line X$^{0}_{A}$, corresponding to light polarized in the \\[110\\] and \\[1$\\bar{1}$0\\] directions, are plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\](c). The fine structure splitting deduced from the spectra is 34\u00a0$\\mu$eV, which is comparable to the values typically observed for \u201cnatural\u201d GaAs QDs\u00a0[@Gammon1996]. Moreover, all other main lines do not show any polarization dependence, which suggests that they originate from charged excitons of direct or indirect nature\u00a0[@Bayer02].\n\nDue to the slightly different size and shape of the two QDs in a QDM, we expect that the X$^{0}_{A}$ emission originates from the recombination of excitons in the larger dot. The recombination of electron (hole) in the large dot with hole (electron) in the small dot is suppressed, leading to a very weak signal in the PL spectra \\[see the weak features at 1.721-1.722 eV in the QDM\u00a0A spectrum in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\](a)\\]. However, when the QDM is subject to an electric field, the emission of the QDM can be tuned through the quantum confined Stark effect (QCSE), and therefore the interdot coupling can also be tuned. The geometry of the Schottky interdigital electrodes processed on the sample surface is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:3\\](a). A voltage $\\pm V_{a}$ applied to nearby electrodes produces the desired electric field along the \\[110\\] crystal direction.\n\nIn order to locate QDM\u00a0A with respect to the electrodes, we record PL spectra while scanning the laser spot on the sample surface. (In the experiment the sample is moved in a raster scan while the excitation/collection optics remain fixed.) The signal is then integrated over the spectral range of the QDM emission and a corresponding PL intensity-map is displayed in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:3\\](b). From this map, we clearly see that the bright spot in the center of the image, associated with the emission of QDM\u00a0A, is located about 2 $\\mu$m away from one of the Ti/Au electrodes. Another spot (on the right hand side of QDM\u00a0A) from another QDM is also visible.\n\nWhile the contact structure employed here is easy to implement and has previously been used to apply a lateral field on QD structures\u00a0[@Heller98; @Beirne2006; @Gerardot07], the relation between applied voltage $V_{a}$ and electric field is not trivial. To clarify this point, the sample structure is simplified as a two-dimensional geometry shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:3\\](c). The GaAs material parameters with a p-type doping of 10$^{15}$ cm$^{-3}$ (typical background doping level in our MBE chamber) are assumed throughout the structure and the Schottky contacts are modeled as heavily n-type doping regions (10$^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$). The Poisson equation and the carriers\u2019 (electron and hole) diffusion equations are simultaneously solved\u00a0[@fieldcal]. At $V_{a}$=0, the built-in field along the $x$-direction $F_X$ in the depletion regions can be clearly seen, as color-encoded in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:3\\](c). When the voltage is applied, the depletion region around the left electrode extends laterally and the maximum field strength increases. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:3\\](d) shows the behavior of $F_{X}$ at a point P near the positively biased electrode (1.5\u00a0$\\mu$m from the electrode and 150\u00a0nm below the surface). The result suggests that $F_{X}$ increases slowly until, at a certain threshold value of the voltage ($V_{a,th}$), the depletion region reaches P. At that point the field increases abruptly. Therefore we expect that a pronounced QCSE will be observed only when $V_a>V_{a,th}$, with $V_{a,th}$ depending on the distance between QDM and the contact. This finding is in qualitative agreement with the experimental observation that only QDMs close to one of the contacts display a variation of the emission for $V_{a}$ less than about 100\u00a0V.\n\nThe first effect produced by moderate fields is a slight blue-shift (of the order of 100\u00a0$\\mu$eV) of most of the QDM lines. This behavior, which we observed for all the investigated QDMs and also for single GaAs/AlGaAs QDs, has not been reported for other self-assembled QDs and is at present not understood. Most importantly, for larger fields, the PL spectra of some of the studied QDMs show pronounced red and blue-shifts leading to intricate patterns consisting of crossings and avoided crossings with increasing field. This is illustrated for QDM\u00a0A in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:4\\](a), which displays a PL intensity map obtained from a series of spectra collected at 6\u00a0K as a function of applied voltage (defined as 2$\\times V_{a}$).\n\nSince at present we are not able to identify unambiguously the origin of the other spectral lines, we concentrate on the behavior of the high energy side of the spectrum and in particular on the X and Y lines. At low bias, X corresponds to the direct neutral exciton X$^0$ transition. After the initial blue-shift, the onset of a strong red-shift is observed at an applied voltage of about 44.5\u00a0V. The intensity of the X line then drops below the detection limit. At low fields the spectral line Y is weak and can be assigned to an indirect exciton recombination. When the voltage is increased it gains in intensity and also red-shifts, but at a much larger rate compared to X. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:4\\](d) shows the X and Y peak position obtained by fitting the lines with Lorentzian functions. At the beginning (for applied voltages below 46.8\u00a0V), the splitting between these lines decreases. At a voltage of $\\sim$46.8\u00a0V, the two lines reach a minimum energy splitting of 1.5\u00a0meV and then gradually separate. This anticrossing behavior, previously reported only for vertically-stacked QDs\u00a0[@Krenner2005; @Ortner05; @Stinaff2006], demonstrates that the two GaAs QDs composing our lateral QDMs are quantum coupled. We can therefore interpret the energy splitting of 1.5\u00a0meV as the coupling energy. We also note that the pattern deviates slightly from a perfect anticrossing. In particular, the X line displays an anomalous shift at a voltage of about 48\u00a0V. This anomaly is probably due to interaction of the energy levels responsible for the X-Y transitions with other energetically close states \\[see, in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:4\\](a), the line Z, which approaches X and avoids crossing it\\].\n\nTo obtain further insight into the anticrossing behavior, we perform a quantized energy calculation of the electron and heavy hole wavefunctions in a QD using a single band effective mass approximation. In this calculation, a truncated pyramidal shape is assumed for each GaAs QD in a QDM. First, the QD diameter is tuned to fit with the $s$-shell and $p$-shell separation. Then, the height of each QD in the QDM is adjusted to the ground state of the direct and indirect transition of the QDM\u00a0A. The fitting of the anticrossing energy is obtained by tuning the lateral distance between the apex of each QD and varying the applied electric field strength $F_{X}$. A splitting energy of 1.5\u00a0meV is obtained when the separation distance is 31\u00a0nm, consistent with the value observed by AFM (35$\\pm$4 nm). Because of the large separation between the two QDs, we expect the indirect exciton to have a large polarizability and therefore display a pronounced QCSE at low fields. In the calculation the anticrossing is in fact observed at a field amplitude of only 0.45 kV/cm. The calculation also suggests that the coupling is mediated by electron tunneling since hole tunneling would yield smaller splitting energies. Schematic band diagrams of the involved transitions at different field amplitudes for lines X and Y are shown in Fig\u00a0\\[fig:4\\](b) and (c), respectively. By assuming a linear relation between the electric field and the voltage \\[$F_{X}=k\\times(V_{a}-22.9~V)$, $k$=1000 cm$^{-1}$\\], we plot the calculated energies as continuous lines in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:4\\](d). Since the model does not include all the states involved in the transitions observed experimentally, it can not reproduce the anomalous shifts. Moreover, the discrepancy between fit and experiment at high fields is due to the nonlinear relation between the field and the applied voltage \\[see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:3\\](d)\\], a technical issue which may be solved by improving the contact structure as proposed in Ref.\u00a0[@Stavarache06].\n\nIn conclusion, we have reported the fabrication of lateral GaAs QDMs and we have provided evidence of lateral coupling between the two nearby QDs. The quantum coupling is controllably tuned by applying an in-plane electric field and manifests itself as an anticrossing pattern in the PL spectra. The coupling is likely to be mediated by electron tunneling, through which the states of direct and indirect exciton are brought into resonance by the electric field. While the present demonstration is based on a fully self-assembled structure, we envision the possibility of using lithographically positioned nanoholes\u00a0[@Schmidt2002; @Kiravittaya06] as a template for the fabrication of QDMs with well-defined position. The application of an extra gate electrode above the barrier separating the two QDs may allow the coupling strength to be tuned\u00a0[@Songmuang2003c].\n\nThe authors thank M. Riek and T. Reindl for help in the sample processing and K. v. Klitzing for continuous support and interest. The work was financially supported by the SFB/TR21, the BMBF (03N8711) and by the DFG research group \u201cPositioning of single nanostructures - Single quantum devices\u201d.\n\n[27]{} natexlab\\#1[\\#1]{}bibnamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}bibfnamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}citenamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}url \\#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\\[2\\][\\#2]{} \\[2\\]\\[\\][[\\#2](#2)]{}\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We formulate a new problem as Object Importance Estimation (OIE) in on-road driving videos, where the road users are considered as important objects if they have influence on the control decision of the ego-vehicle\u2019s driver. The importance of a road user depends on both its visual dynamics, *e.g*., appearance, motion and location, in the driving scene and the driving goal, *e.g*., the planned path, of the ego vehicle. We propose a novel framework that incorporates both visual model and goal representation to conduct OIE. To evaluate our framework, we collect an on-road driving dataset at traffic intersections in the real world and conduct human-labeled annotation of the important objects. Experimental results show that our goal-oriented method outperforms baselines and has much more improvement on the left-turn and right-turn scenarios. Furthermore, we explore the possibility of using object importance for driving control prediction and demonstrate that binary brake prediction can be improved with the information of object importance.'\nauthor:\n- 'Mingfei Gao$^{1*}$, Ashish Tawari$^{2}$ and Sujitha Martin$^{2}$[^1] [^2][^3]'\nbibliography:\n- 'egbib.bib'\ntitle: '**Goal-oriented Object Importance Estimation in On-road Driving Videos** '\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec: intro}\n============\n\nHuman\u2019s vision system plays a key role for perceiving and interacting with traffic participants under the complicated driving context. When looking into the dynamic scene, a driver can rapidly select the objects that are relevant for the driving task and make a control decision for effective and efficient driving. Inspired by this visual selection mechanism, driver\u2019s attention has been studied in recent years in order to understand the human driving behavior and ultimately help the driving control system of autonomous vehicles. Existing works focus on pixel-level driver\u2019s attention prediction by mimicking human gaze behavior\u00a0[@dreyeve2018; @tawari2017computational; @xia2017training]. However, there are at least two drawbacks of using human gaze: 1) human gaze is sometimes not directly related to the driving task. For example, drivers may look at the billboards for their own interests; 2) human gaze is sequential which makes it impossible to capture all the important information at the same time. Moreover, existing works only take the perceived driving video as input and do not consider the effect of the driver\u2019s goal, while driver\u2019s goal is an essential factor to select relevant objects. For example, objects relevant for making control decisions should be very different when the ego vehicle is turning right versus turning left.\n\n![The scenario of our work. Bounding boxes with arrows indicate the moving road users, dotted line shows the planned path of the ego vehicle and the dotted circle includes the important object. Given the dynamic status of the road users, a driver\u2019s driving-related attention usually lands on the road users that have influence on the control decision of the driver. Moreover, the attention highly depends on the driving goal of the vehicle.[]{data-label=\"fig: idea\"}](figs/idea.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nTo handle those limitations, we formulate the problem as Object Importance Estimation (OIE) in on-road driving videos. The important objects are defined as the road users, *i.e.*, vehicles and persons, that are relevant for the ego vehicle\u2019s driver to make the vehicle control decision. Our definition ensures that the important objects are directly related to the driving task and that multiple important objects can be captured at the same time. Static semantic driving context, *e.g.*, traffic lights, line marks and drivable areas, can also influence the driving behavior. However, we only focus on the interactions with the road users and leave the static semantic driving context for future work. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: idea\\] shows an example of the scenario that our work focuses on. Visual dynamics of road users are important for our model to understand the driving scene. Also, the driver\u2019s goal (where the vehicle is going) is essential for object importance estimation. For example, in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: idea\\], if the ego vehicle is turning left instead, all the pedestrians on the cross walk at the right side will not be as important to the ego vehicle.\n\nTo solve the proposed OIE problem, we present a novel framework where both the features of the dynamic road users (*visual model*) and the driving goal (*goal model*) are incorporated. In order to evaluate our framework, we collect an on-road driving dataset in the real world and annotate the important objects given the context. To provide more complex interactions between the road users and the ego vehicle, our dataset focuses on traffic intersections. Experiments show that our method largely outperforms the baselines, especially for the scenarios that the ego vehicle is turning left/right which demonstrates that modeling the driving goal is very important for our task. To explore the possibility of using important objects to improve driving control prediction, we conduct an experiment on binary brake prediction. Results show that the binary brake prediction can be improved with the information of the object importance.\n\n![The proposed approach has two branches, *e.g.*, visual model and goal model. Object tracking is done for all the road users through the input clip. Visual features of objects are extracted at each time step. Goal model describes the driving goal at each time step using sampled points on the planned path in the real world. A common goal-oriented feature is concatenated with features of each object at the corresponding time to form the final feature representation. A shared LSTM model is used to predict the importance score for every object given the final features. Objects and their features are differentiated using different colors.[]{data-label=\"fig: pipeline\"}](figs/pipeline.pdf){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nRelated Works\n=============\n\nDriver\u2019s Attention Prediction\n-----------------------------\n\n**Human Gaze based Approach**. Existing works focus on driver\u2019s attention prediction supervised by human gaze information\u00a0[@tawari2017computational; @dreyeve2018; @xia2017training]. Tawari and Kang propose a Bayesian framework for driver\u2019s attention prediction where a fully convolutional network is utilized with only images as input in\u00a0[@tawari2017computational]. Palazzi *et al*. proposed a multi-branch model that incorporates RGB, optical flow and semantic segmentation clips in\u00a0[@dreyeve2018] and C3D\u00a0[@tran2015learning] is used to extract features from multiple branches. In\u00a0[@xia2017training], Xia *et al*. propose a driver\u2019s attention framework where a human weighted sampling strategy is used during training to handle critical situations. Kim *et al*. explore the idea of using driver\u2019s attention to interpret the driving control prediction in\u00a0[@kim2017interpretable].\n\n**Driver\u2019s Attention Prediction Dataset**. There are several datasets\u00a0[@simon2009alerting; @underwood2011decisions; @fridman2016driver; @pugeault2015much; @alletto2016dr] can be used for driver\u2019s attention prediction, but most of them are either restricted to limited settings or not publicly available. To the best of our knowledge, *Dr(eye)ve*\u00a0[@alletto2016dr] is the only public on-road driving dataset for the driver\u2019s attention prediction task. It consists of 555,000 frames divided into 74 video sequences. Human gaze is captured by eye tracking glasses and projected to the corresponding on-road driving video frame. However, it is not suitable for our task, since 1) it has only per pixel saliency annotations based on human gaze which cannot be easily converted for important object labels; 2) it contains mostly scenarios of driving on the straight road (mostly the vehicle is trying to keep itself between lines or following another vehicle) which makes it not complicated enough for our task. Driving at the traffic intersections is a more appropriate scene for us, since it provides more opportunities for the ego vehicle to interact with other road users.\n\nRegion based Object Detector\n----------------------------\n\nCNN detectors have achieved great success\u00a0[@girshick14CVPR; @girshick2015fast; @ren2015faster; @he2017mask; @gao2018dynamic; @singh2018analysis; @gao2018c; @zhou2018learning]. Region based CNN (R-CNN) is one of the most popular frameworks. Girshick\u00a0*et al*. initially proposed the two-stage R-CNN framework in\u00a0[@girshick14CVPR] where object proposals are obtained first and then classified to different categories. Later, Fast R-CNN is proposed in [@girshick2015fast] to speed up R-CNN\u00a0[@girshick14CVPR] via end-to-end training/testing. However, it relies on external object proposal algorithms. Ren\u00a0*et al*. present Faster R-CNN\u00a0[@ren2015faster] which jointly trains the proposal generation and the detection branches in a single framework. Further more, He\u00a0*et al*. extend Faster R-CNN in\u00a0[@he2017mask] and create an unified architecture for joint detection and instance segmentation. Our problem is related to R-CNN in a sense that we also assign some scores to the proposed object candidates. However, we estimate object importance under the driving context rather than differentiating object categories, *e.g.*, dog and cat.\n\nProblem Formulation\n===================\n\nThe problem is formulated as goal-oriented object importance estimation where the inputs are on-road driving video clip and the goal of the ego vehicle. The outputs are the detected objects with importance scores at the last frame of the video clip. The planned path information which can be obtained from autonomous driving (AD) path planning module when the vehicle is driving online, is used to represent the goal of the vehicle.\n\nInspired by the R-CNN frameworks, we propose a two-stage framework which firstly generates object tracklinks from videos as object proposals and then classify the proposals to the binary classes, *e.g.*, *important object* and *background*. Different from R-CNN detectors which generate proposals from static images, we track every object from the input video clip and treat the entire track link of an object as a proposal, since unlike the general object detection scenario where object categories, *e.g.*, dog and cat, can be determined just from a static image, the object importance depends on the dynamics of objects through the video.\n\nModel Description\n=================\n\nAs we mentioned in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec: intro\\], object importance depends on both the dynamic of the object itself and the driving goal of the ego vehicle. Thus, our method fuses the information from both parts. Due to the good performance of recurrent networks\u00a0[@xu2018temporal; @yao2018egocentric; @gao2019startnet] on online action detection tasks, our framework is based on LSTM\u00a0[@hochreiter1997long].\n\nOur framework is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: pipeline\\]. The first branch describes our visual model. Multiple object tracking is performed on the input video clip. Thus, for each object candidate, $i$, its bounding-box location, $B^t_i$, is obtained at each time step $t$. Note that each time step corresponds to each image frame in the input video clip. For each object candidate at every time step, high dimensional features $\\textbf{f}^t_i$ are extracted to represent the appearance, motion and location of the object. We use a feature matrix $\\textbf{F}^t_i = [\\textbf{f}^{t-n+1}_i, \\textbf{f}^{t-n+2}_i,...,\\textbf{f}^t_i]$ to represent each object $i$, in the video where $n$ is the length of the input clip. Without goal information, LSTM can be used directly with the $\\textbf{F}^t_i$ as the input and the output is score $s^t_i$ of being an important object at time $t$. We will use it as a baseline in our experiment section.\n\nThe second branch shows our goal model. We extract the goal-oriented feature $\\textbf{g}^t$ at time $t$ from the AD path planning module. The extracted feature is concatenated with the features of each object in the image to form the final feature representation $\\textbf{gof}^t_i=[\\textbf{f}^t_i, \\textbf{g}^t]$, for the object. The representation for the object within the whole clip is $\\textbf{GoF}^t_i=[\\textbf{gof}^{t-n+1}_i,\\textbf{gof}^{t-n+2}_i,...,\\textbf{gof}^t_i]$. A one-layer LSTM model followed by a fully connected (FC) layer performs over $\\textbf{GoF}^t_i$ to output the importance score for each object $i$ as shown in Eq.\u00a0\\[eq: lstm\\], where $\\textbf{W}$ and $\\textbf{b}$ indicate parameters of the FC layer. Softmax layer is used then to output the corresponding important probability.\n\n$$\\label{eq: lstm}\n    \\textbf{s}_i^t = \\textbf{W}(LSTM(\\textbf{GoF}_i^t))+\\textbf{b}.$$\n\n**Visual Feature**. Appearance, motion and location features are combined to represent the dynamic changes of an object. Appearance feature is extracted from the *fc7* layer of Faster R-CNN\u00a0[@ren2015faster] pretrained on the Pascal VOC2007\u00a0[@pascal-voc-2007] and VOC2012\u00a0[@pascal-voc-2012] *trainval* sets with Resnet101\u00a0[@He2015] as the backbone. The appearance feature describes both the appearance of the object and the local context around the object\u00a0[@ren2015faster]. Histogram of flow\u00a0[@dalal2006human] with BIN=12 of each object bounding box is extracted as the motion feature. Location feature is represented by $(\\frac{x^t_i}{W^t}, \\frac{y^t_i}{H^t}, \\frac{w^t_i}{W^t}, \\frac{h^t_i}{H^t})$ where $x^t_i$, $y^t_i$, $ w^t_i$ and $h^t_i$ indicate the left-top corner of $B^t_i$, its width and height. $W^t$ and $H^t$ indicate the width and height of image $t$. The visual feature, $\\textbf{f}^t_i$, is the concatenation of these three features.\n\n**Goal-oriented Feature**. At each time step, the planned path (with regard to distance in the vehicle-centric coordinates) can be obtained from the AD path planning module for an online driving task. As shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: goal\\], at each time step, discrete points are uniformly sampled with respect to distance to represent the planned path. Each sampled point is represented by $(x, y)$ which indicates the location of the point in the vehicle-centric coordinate in the real world. Radius of curvature, $R$, is directly related to the turning behavior, so it can be used to represent each point on the path which can be calculated as in Eq.\u00a0\\[eq: R\\_gps\\] given the location $(x,y)$. For the straight road, the value of $R$ approaches infinity which is not appropriate for learning. So, we use $IR=\\frac{1}{R}$ instead to describe a certain point in the planned path. At time $t$, $\\textbf{IR}^t = [IR(1), IR(2),...,IR(L)]$ is used to represent the whole planned path where $IR(l)$ indicate the value of $IR$ at the next $l$ distance units and $L$ indicates the maximum future distance our method considers. One FC layer is applied on $\\textbf{IR}^t$ to extract the goal-oriented feature, $\\textbf{g}^t$. $$\\label{eq: R_gps}\n    R = sign\\times(\\frac{(1+y^{'2})^{\\frac{3}{2}}}{y^{''}}),\\\\$$ where $y^{'}=\\frac{dy}{dx}$ and $y^{''}=\\frac{d^2y}{d^2x}$. $sign=1$ when turning right and $sign=-1$ when turning left.\n\n![Illustration of the planned path description. Points are sampled (per distance unit) on the planned path obtained from the AD path planning module. Radius of curvature can be used to describe each point. Thus, a path can be represented by a discrete set of point descriptions.[]{data-label=\"fig: goal\"}](figs/goal.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nExperiments {#sec: Exp}\n===========\n\nObject Importance Estimation Dataset\n------------------------------------\n\n**Dataset Description**. We collect 743 on-road driving videos at traffic intersections in the real world. Data collection was conducted from two different locations- Mountain View and Sunnyvale, CA, USA, totalling 6.3 hours. Each location contains 3 sessions of data. We believe that intersections contain more complicated driving scenarios and are more challenging for our task, so from each of the raw videos, a short video is trimmed. Each short video contains one pass of an intersection (25 meters before and after the intersection). After trimming, 2.7 hours of useful data are obtained. All the annotations and our experiments are conducted on the trimmed videos.\n\n**Annotations**. When preparing the important object annotations, an annotator was asked to watch the on-road driving video and imagine he/she was driving the ego vehicle. All the objects that are relevant for the ego vehicle\u2019s control decision are tightly located using bounding boxes. Note that the annotator was given the driving goal during the process of annotating each video sequence. For each video, important objects are labeled at every 30 frames. The frame sampling rate is 30 fps, thus labels were acquired at every second.\n\nFurther more, in order to understand our performance on different driving goals, *i.e.*, *turn left*, *straight pass* and *turn right*, per-frame goal are annotated. The goal of an image frame is annotated as \u2018turn left\u2019 if the vehicle is expected to turn left at the next frame and so on.\n\n**Dataset Preprocessing**. Important object labeling may be influenced by traffic signals. For example, when the red light is on, no objects are considered as important since none of them will influence the driver\u2019s control decision. However, since we only consider the interactions with road users, we remove all the image frames where no important objects are labeled because of the traffic signals.\n\n**Dataset Statistics**. After preprocessing, $8,166$ image frames are annotated, where $4,268$ important objects are obtained. Among all the labeled frames, $56.6\\%$ images contain no important objects, $38.3\\%$ contain one important object and $5.1\\%$ frames include multiple important objects.\n\nThe annotated frame numbers of *turn left*, *straight pass* and *turn right* are $1004$, $6591$ and $1016$. The corresponding object numbers are $375$, $3573$ and $320$. Although we focus on traffic intersections, there are still more straight-pass frames than left/right-turn ones, which motivates us to evaluate the models based on different goals in order to avoid the results being dominated by the straight-pass scenario.\n\n**Train/test sets and statistics**. The dataset with 6 sessions is grouped into three parts\u00a0[^4], *i.e.*, P1, P2 and P3. For cross validation, all models are evaluated at every part while trained on the other two parts. We ensure that data of each part was collected from different sessions, locations and times, and has similar amount of videos and category distributions of road users\u00a0[^5]. Tab.\u00a0\\[tab: dataset\\] and Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: anno\\_splits\\] show characteristics of each part. As shown, different parts have very similar statistics.\n\n![Statistics of the split parts. The 1st and 2nd rows show the annotated frame and important object numbers based on different per-frame goals. The 3rd row shows the number percentages of vehicles and persons.[]{data-label=\"fig: anno_splits\"}](figs/anno_splits.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nPlanned Path Approximation {#sec: pathEstimate}\n--------------------------\n\nSince the experiments are done in an off-line manner, data from the AD path planning module is not available. To evaluate our method, we recover (approximate) the planned path of our vehicle at a given time step as $\\textbf{IR}^t\\approx\\hat{\\textbf{IR}}^t=[\\hat{IR}(1),\\hat{IR}(2),...,\\hat{IR}(L)]$ where $\\hat{IR}(l)$ is calculated as in Eq.\u00a0\\[eq: R\\]. We believe that it is easy to replace $\\hat{\\textbf{IR}}$ with $\\textbf{IR}$ when AD path planning module is available. $$\\label{eq: R}\n    \\hat{IR}(l) = \\frac{\\omega(l)}{v(l)}\n          = \\frac{\\alpha \\times yr(l)}{v(l)},$$ where $\\omega(l)$, $v(l)$ and $yr(l)$ indicates angular velocity, velocity (kilometers per hour) and yaw rate (angle per second) at the next $l$ distance unit. One distance unite is $\\frac{1}{3.6}$ meters. $\\alpha$ is a scale number.\n\nBoth yaw rate and velocity can be obtained from the CAN bus sensors. Yaw rate values are negative when turning left while positive when turning right.\n\nExamples of $\\hat{IR}(l)$ for left turn, straight and right turn are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: r\\]. As we can see, there are obviously discriminative patterns among the three driving goals, *e.g.*, left turns have negative troughs, right turns have positive crests and straights are around zero .\n\n![Examples of the $\\hat{\\textbf{IR}}$ given different driving goals.[]{data-label=\"fig: r\"}](figs/ir.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\n  ---------- ----- ----- ----- ------- ----- ---- -----\n                                Total             \n   Session    S1    S2    S3     S4     S5    S6   NA\n   Location   MV    SV    MV     SV     MV    SV   NA\n   Video \\#   134   100   183    87     188   51   743\n                                8,611             \n                                4,268             \n  ---------- ----- ----- ----- ------- ----- ---- -----\n\n  : Overall statistics of the split parts (P1, P2 and P3).\n\n\\[tab: dataset\\]\n\n  ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- -- -- --\n                                                                                                                                                                                                                   \n         Test Set             Lt         St         Rt        All         Lt         St         Rt        All         Lt         St         Rt        All         Lt         St         Rt        All              \n    Visual Model-Image       23.5       42.9       16.1       35.5       22.9       42.7       26.7       42.1       19.1       33.9       25.3       32.6       21.8       39.8       22.7       36.7             \n       Visual Model          35.8       71.2       34.7       68.1       56.0       70.6       54.2       68.1       36.4       72.4       57.4       70.9       42.7       71.4       48.8       69.0             \n    Goal-Geometry Model      41.1       32.9       22.8       32.1       32.5       42.6       19.7       40.6       25.6       45.8       30.2       41.8       33.1       40.4       24.2       38.2             \n   **Goal-Visual Model**   **48.9**   **72.2**   **42.8**   **70.2**   **61.1**   **71.7**   **70.3**   **70.3**   **45.2**   **75.8**   **61.7**   **72.0**   **51.7**   **73.2**   **58.3**   **70.8**           \n       Random Chance         4.3        5.2        2.7        4.8        5.3        5.9        14.0       8.4        5.7        6.7        4.7        6.1        5.1        5.9        7.1        6.4              \n        UpperBound           90.9       81.6       72.7       81.7       90.9       81.7       90.8       90.8       90.4       89.2       90.9       89.4       90.7       84.1       84.8       87.3             \n  ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -- -- -- --\n\n\\[tab: quantitative\\]\n\nBaselines\n---------\n\n**Upperbound**. We estimate importance scores for all the object proposals (tracklinks), so the final results depend on the quality of the detection and tracking algorithm. We assign the correct importance label for each proposal link in this baseline. Thus, it is the upper bound of our method and all the mistakes are due to the bad detection and tracking.\n\n**Random Chance**. We randomly assign a value ($\\in [0,1]$) to each proposed tracklink as its important probability in this baseline. So, it is the lower bound of our method.\n\n**Visual model**. It contains only the first branch of our framework which has only the visual features as input to the LSTM model. We want to see how the goal information can improve the prediction results quantitatively.\n\n**Visual model-Image**. This model does not utilize the temporal information and predicts object importance scores by just observing the target image frame. In order to do that, we replace the LSTM model with one FC layer. This baseline is to compare with the standard object detection framework and evaluate how much the temporal information can help.\n\n**Goal-Geometry Model**. This baseline has the same two-branch structure as our method except that appearance feature is removed and only motion and location features are used. Comparing it with our method will show if the method performs good if semantic local context is not given.\n\nImplementation Details {#sec: implementation}\n----------------------\n\nTracking-by-detection\u00a0[@andriluka2008people] framework is used to conduct object tracking, where Faster R-CNN\u00a0[@ren2015faster] with Resnet101 is used for detection and SORT\u00a0[@bewley2016simple] is used for tracking. Some of the objects may not start at the first frame or last till the end. We only keep the objects that still exist at the last frame and pad $0$s in the front if they do not start at the first frame.\n\nThe length of video clip, $n$, is set to $30$. We set $L$=40 which is roughly 10 meters in the real world. $\\alpha$ in Eq.\u00a0\\[eq: R\\] is set to 1. For the visual model, we set length of the LSTM hidden layer to be $256$ and the FC layer in goal model is set to be $16$. For image based visual model, the FC layer has $1,024$ units. Weighted-cross-entropy loss is used to optimize our model and all the baselines. The weights for positive and negative samples are inversely proportional to their sample numbers in one training batch.\n\nExperimental Results {#sec: quantitative}\n--------------------\n\nComparisons between our method, *i.e.*, *Goal-Visual Model*, and the baselines using *average precision (AP)* are shown in Tab.\u00a0\\[tab: quantitative\\]. Our method largely outperforms *Random Chance* (\u201cby-chance\" approach). Comparing *Visual Model* with *Visual Model-Image*, we see that the temporal information is essential for our task. Without temporal modelling, the overall *AP* drops by $32.3\\%$. With the goal information, our *Goal-Visual Model* outperforms the *Visual Model* by about $2\\%$ in terms of *AP*.\n\n  ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------\n                                                                                                                                                   \n                              Pn         Ve        mAP         Pn         Ve        mAP         Pn         Ve        mAP         Pn         Ve        mAP\n    Visual Model-Image       17.7       42.6      30.15       29.6       46.9      38.25       21.2       39.8       30.5       22.8       43.1       33.0\n    Goal-Geometry Model      34.8       35.3       35.1       36.9       44.4       40.7       45.2       43.6       44.4       40.0       41.1       40.6\n       Visual Model          56.0       75.4       65.7       56.1       76.4       66.3       49.7     **78.6**     64.2       53.9       76.8       65.4\n   **Goal-Visual Model**   **60.0**   **76.2**   **68.1**   **61.2**   **78.1**   **69.7**   **57.6**     77.3     **67.5**   **59.6**   **77.2**   **68.4**\n  ----------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------\n\n\\[tab: cate\\]\n\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of local visual scene context, our method is compared with *Goal-Geometry Model*. The *Goal-Geometry Model* only captures the motion and location information of a road user and combines it with the goal of the ego vehicle, without knowing the scene semantic. As it is shown, our method largely outperforms this baseline which demonstrates the usefulness of the scene context.\n\nTo evaluate our performance on different driving goals, we validate our method and the baselines on *turn left*, *straight pass* and *turn right* frames separately. Intuitively, our goal model should help more on the *turn left* and *turn right* cases compared to the *straight pass*. From the results in Tab.\u00a0\\[tab: quantitative\\], our method largely improves the *Visual Model* by $9\\%$ *AP* for *turn left* and by $9.5\\%$ for *turn right*.\n\n![image](figs/qualitative_comp_lr.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nWe are also interested in our performance on different object categories, *i.e.*, person and vehicle. Since, we do not have ground truth of the object categories, we generate the class label using the detection results. We match each labeled important object to a detected object if they have the largest Intersection over Union (IoU) and the $IoU>0.5$. It is not guaranteed that every important object will find a match, since the detector is not perfect. However, experiment shows that around $95\\%$ of important objects are matched, so we ignore the small amount of unmatched ones. Comparisons between our method and the baselines are shown in Tab.\u00a0\\[tab: cate\\], which demonstrates that our model outperforms all the baselines in terms of *mAP*. Specifically, we observe that performance on the \u2018person\u2019 category is largely improved with goal information. *Goal-Visual Model* improves by around $6\\%$ on \u2018person\u2019 compared to *Visual Model*. It may due to the fact that most important persons are those who are walking cross the road. It is essential for the model to know where the ego vehicle is going in order to infer if a pedestrian on a certain side is important.\n\nQualitative results on *turn left* and *turn right* are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: qualitative\\]. As it is shown, knowing the driving goal can help capture important objects on (or coming to) our future path, *e.g.*, *turn left(a)(c)(d)* and *turn right(d)*. It can also filter out objects that are impossible to block our way based on their motion and location, *e.g.*, *turn left(b)* and *turn right(a)(b)(c)*.\n\nThree major failure cases are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig: failure\\]. The first one is because of the bad detection/tracking results. When the detection of the important object fails, there is no way for our framework to correct it. That is why our upper bound is not $100\\%$ *AP*. The second case is a result of missing global scene context. The comparison shows that for the two parked car, one is thought as important, but the other one is not. Based on our observation, the annotator tends to annotate the parked car if the road is narrow. The third case is due to the lack of communication among road users. For example, if we remove the labeled car in the last image, all the pedestrians should be important. They are not labeled as important because there is a closer car stopping the ego vehicle hitting them. Since our method does not model the interactions among road users, it is hard for an object to know the status of other objects. Future works are needed to solve these three failure cases.\n\n![Major failure cases of our method. The examples of the $1st$ column are due to miss detection, those of the $2nd$ column is due to the lack of global scene context and the $3rd$-column ones are because of the lack of the interaction among road users. Red circle and blue box indicate ground truth and our result, respectively.[]{data-label=\"fig: failure\"}](figs/failure.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nAre Road Users Equally Important?\n---------------------------------\n\nFor a proof-of-concept, we propose a binary brake prediction (BBP) framework with object importance as a input.\n\nBBP is a simplified version of brake prediction task which has binary labels, $y_{brake}$, instead of continuous brake values (can be obtained from CAN bus data), $v_{brake}$ ($y_{brake}=1$ if $v_{brake} > 0$ and $y_{brake}=0$ otherwise). The input of BBP is a video clip and output is the brake probability of the ego vehicle in the last frame.\n\nWe assume that brakes depend only on the interaction between the road users and the ego vehicle, since we have removed the traffic-light related frames from our dataset. The visual model in Fig\u00a0\\[fig: pipeline\\] is used to predict brake score, $\\textit{s}^t_i$, at time $t$ of the ego vehicle given road user,$i$, in the input video clip. The final brake score, $\\textit{s}^t_{fuse} = \\underset{i}{\\sum}{(w^t_i* \\textit{s}^t_i)}$, is obtained by fusing predicted scores based on all the road users in a weighted sum manner. Our model use the predicted important probability to be the weight of each object. Our intuition is that more important objects will have bigger impacts on the brake decision. The baseline uses the same weight ($0.5$) for all the objects to indicate that all objects in the scene equally contributed to the brake.\n\nExperimental results suggest that our method improves the baseline by $4.3\\%$, $1.7\\%$ and $1.3\\%$ AP in the P1, P2 and P3, respectively, which demonstrates the potential usefulness of the object importance.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe propose a new problem as Object Importance Estimation (OIE) in on-road driving videos to understand the human visual selection mechanism under the driving context. We present a novel framework to handle the problem where both the visual dynamics of road users and the goal of the ego vehicle are taken into consideration. To evaluate the problem, we collect an on-road driving dataset and annotate the important objects given the video clip. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our idea. Moreover, we explore the potential usage of the OIE by incorporating it into a binary brake prediction framework. Experiments show that important objects can help to improve the prediction.\n\n[^1]: $^{*}$Work done during an internship at the Honda Research Institute, USA.\n\n[^2]: $^{1}$The author is with the University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20740. [mgao@umiacs.umd.edu]{}\n\n[^3]: $^{2}$The authors are with the Honda Research Institute, Mountain View, CA, 94043. [{atawari, smartin}@honda-ri.com]{}\n\n[^4]: We use 3-fold cross validation instead of 10-fold due to not enough data.\n\n[^5]: Since we do not have the object-category annotations. We use the result of object detection (with confidence threshold of $0.5$) to estimate the numbers of vehicles and persons at the annotated frames.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We study the $\\overline{\\partial}$-Neumann problem using the Sobolev space inner product. We show that the problem can be solved on any smoothly bounded, pseudoconvex domain. We further formulate estimates and the basic results of a Sobolev Hodge theory.'\naddress:\n- |\n    -Luigi Fontana, Dipartimento di Matematica, Via Saldini 50, Universit\u00e0 di Milano\\\n    20133 Milano (Italy)\n- '-Steven G. Krantz, Mathematical Sciences Research Institute [and]{} Department of Mathematics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130 (U.S.A.)'\n- '-Marco M. Peloso, Dipartimento di Matematica, Politecnico di Torino, 10129 Torino (Italy)'\nauthor:\n- Luigi Fontana\n- 'Steven G. Krantz'\n- 'Marco M. Peloso'\ntitle: 'The $\\dbar$-Neumann problem in the Sobolev topology'\n---\n\n=8.35pt =18.88pt =18.88pt =14.21pt\n\n\\[section\\] \\[thm\\][Proposition]{} \\[thm\\][Corollary]{} \\[thm\\][Lemma]{} \\[thm\\][Definition]{} \\[thm\\][Remark]{}\n\n\\#1\\#2 \\#1\\#2[\\^[\\#1]{}\\_[\\#2]{}]{}\n\n\u00df\n\n\\#1\\#2\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLet $\\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded domain in ${{\\Bbb C}^n}$. We write the coordinates $z_j =x_j +ix_{j+n}$, $j=1,\\dots,n$, and the standard basis of vector fields $D_k := {\\partial}/{\\partial}x_k$, for $k=1,\\dots,2n$. For $s$ a non-negative integer we define the Sobolev inner product $\\la \\cdot,\\cdot\\ra_s$ to be $$\\label{Sobolev}\n\\la f,g\\ra_s := \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP \\int_\\Omega D^\\alpha f \n\\overline{D^\\alpha g} .$$ Here, and throughout the paper, we use $D^\\alpha$ to denote the $\\alpha$-order derivative, where $\\alpha$ is a multi-index and we are using standard multi-index notation. Moreover, $\\CP:=|\\alpha|!/\\alpha!$ denotes the polynomial coefficient. \\[The naturality of this choice of the Sobolev inner product will be pointed out and discussed below.\\]\n\nWe define the Sobolev space $W^s (\\Omega)$ to be the closure of $C^\\infty (\\bar \\Omega)\n$ with respect to the above inner product. We denote by ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$ the space of $(0,q)$ forms whose coefficients are in ${W^s(\\Omega)}$. If $\\phi=\\sum_{|J|=q}\\phi_J d\\bar z^J$ and $\\psi=\\sum_{|J|=q}\\psi_Jd\\bar z^J$, then the inner product in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$ is defined by $$\\la \\phi,\\psi\\ra_s := \\sum_{|J|=q}\\sum_\n{|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP\n\\int_\\Omega D^\\alpha \\phi_J \\overline{D^\\alpha \\psi_J} ,$$ where we use the standard notation $J$ to denote a $q$-vector with increasing entries, and $\\alpha$ to denote a multi-index. \\[Note that the inner product of forms of different degrees is defined to be 0.\\]\n\nFor a $(0,q)$ form $\\phi=\\sum_{|J|=q}\\phi_J d\\bar z^J$ with $C^\\infty$ coefficients, the operator $\\dbar$ is defined by $$\\label{d-bar}\n\\dbar\\phi :=\\sum_{|K|=q+1} \\sum_{kJ}\\e{K}{kJ} \\pd{\\phi_J}{\\bar z_k}  \nd\\bar z^K ,$$ where $\\e{K}{kJ}$ equals the sign of the permutation $kJ\\mapsto K$ if $\\{ k\\}\\cup J=K$ as sets, and is $0$ otherwise. We continue to use $\\overline{\\partial}$ to denote its closure in the $W^s$ topology. In this way, for each integer $q=0,1,\\dots,n$, we obtain an unbounded, densely defined, closed operator $$\\dbar:{W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}\\rightarrow W^s_{(0,q+1)}(\\Omega) .$$ Thus, in particular, $\\ker \\dbar$ is a closed subspace in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$. Sometimes we shall use the notation $\\dbar_{(0,q)}$ to stress the fact that the operator $\\dbar$ is acting on $(0,q)$ forms.\n\nConsider now the ${W^s(\\Omega)}$-Hilbert space adjoint $\\dbar^*$ of $\\dbar$. We want to study the boundary value problem $$\\label{dbar-neumann}\n\\begin{cases}\n(\\dbar\\dbar^* +\\dbar^* \\dbar)u=f &\\text{ on }\\Omega\\\\\nu,\\, \\dbar u\\in \\dom \\dbar^* \\, , &   \n\\end{cases}$$ where $f$ is a given $(0,q)$ form. When appropriate, we shall refer to this problem as [**(3,s)**]{} in order to emphasize that the topology is coming from the $W^s$ inner product. The condition that $u$ and $\\overline{\\partial} u$ lie in the domain of $\\overline{\\partial}^*$ leads to the [*$\\overline{\\partial}$-Neumann $s$-order boundary conditions*]{}. We shall refer below to the $(\\dbar,s)$-Neumann conditions, and the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem. Notice that if the Hilbert space under consideration is $L^2\n(\\Omega)$ (that is, $s=0$) with respect to the Lebesgue measure, then the problem [**(3,s)**]{} reduces to the classical $\\dbar$-Neumann problem.\n\nJ.\u00a0J.\u00a0Kohn solved the $\\dbar\n$-Neumann ($= (\\dbar,0)$-Neumann) problem in a series of papers in 1963-4 (see [@Folland-Kohn] and references therein). This work has proved important in the theory of partial differential equations, in geometry, and in function theory. Recent work of Christ [@Christ] has shown that the [*canonical solution*]{}\u2014the solution that is minimal in $L^2$ norm\u2014that arises from Kohn\u2019s work in the $L^2$ topology is not as well behaved as one might have hoped. The program presented in this paper endeavors to seek other canonical solutions that may serve when Kohn\u2019s solution will not. This work is also interesting from the point of view of partial differential equations\u2014particularly boundary value problems\u2014and in the study of the energy integral in geometry. We mention that H.\u00a0 Boas [@Boas1] and [@Boas2] studied properties and regularity of the Hilbert space orthogonal projection of ${W^s(\\Omega)}$ onto the subspace consisting of the holomorphic functions.\n\nThe present paper is the first of a series of papers that we devote to the study of the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem. We begin by showing that problem [**(3,s)**]{} can always be solved on any smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain $\\Omega$. This result does not depend on the particular choice of Sobolev inner product. Then we investigate the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem more closely by determining a description of the Hilbert space adjoint $\\dbar^*$ of $\\dbar$, and the boundary conditions arising from requiring that $u$ and $\\dbar u$ belong to $\\dom\\dbar^*$. While doing this we use the particular choice of the inner product (\\[Sobolev\\]) to obtain reasonably clean equations and formulas. We then conclude with some remarks about what lies ahead. In a forthcoming paper we give estimates for the above problem in the special case of a strongly pseudoconvex domain, and with $s=1$. The foundations for the present work, studied in the real variable context of the de Rham complex, were laid in the papers [@FKP1], [@FKP2].\n\nWe thank H. Boas for making several useful remarks and comments on an earlier version of this paper. We also thank the referee for making helpful suggestions. Work of the second author at MSRI was supported by NSF Grant DMS-9022140.\n\nSolvability of the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem\n===========================================\n\nThe aim of the present section is to prove the following theorem.\n\n\\[solvability\\] *Let $\\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain in ${{\\Bbb C}^n}$. Let $s,q$ be positive integers, $0<q\\le n$. Let $f\\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$. Then there exists a unique $u\\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$ that solves the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem $$\\begin{cases}\n(\\dbar\\dbar^* +\\dbar^* \\dbar)u=f & \\text{ on }\\Omega\\\\\nu,\\, \\dbar u\\in\\dom \\dbar^* \\, . &\n\\end{cases}$$ Moreover, there exists a constant $c>0$, independent of $f$, such that $$\\|u\\|_s \\le c\\|f\\|_s.$$*\n\nThe proof is in two steps. In the first, we rely heavily on Kohn\u2019s estimates [@Kohn], to construct and estimate the [*canonical solutions*]{} in $W^s$ to the equations $\\dbar u=f$ and $\\dbar^* v=g$. In the second step we prove the solvabilty of the $(\\dbar,s)$-Neumann problem. In the course of the proof, by [*orthogonal*]{} we shall always mean orthogonality in the $W^s$ inner product.\n\nBy (3.21) in [@Kohn], since the $\\dbar$-cohomology is trivial on a pseudoconvex domain $\\Omega\\ss {\\Bbb C}^n$, we have that $\\rg \\dbar_{(0,q-1)} = \\ker \\dbar_{(0,q)}$. This equality implies that $\\rg\\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$ is closed in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$. Now Lemma 4.1.1 in [@HO], applied with $F=\\rg\\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, gives that $$\\| f\\|_s \\le c \\|\\dbar^*_{(0,q)} f\\|_s$$ for all $f\\in \\rg\\dbar_{(0,q-1)}\\cap\\dom\\dbar^*_{(0,q)}$. This in turn, by Lemma 4.1.2 in [@HO], implies that for all $v$ in the orthogonal complement of $\\ker\\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, i.e. in the closure of $\\rg\\dbar^*_{(0,q)}$, there exists $f\\in\\dom\\dbar^*_{(0,q)}$ such that $\\dbar^*_{(0,q)} f=v$. Hence, $\\rg\\dbar_{(0,q)}^*$ is closed as well, and therefore we have the estimate $\\| f\\|_s \\le C\\|\\dbar f\\|_s$ for all $f\\in\\rg\\dbar^*_{(0,q)}\\cap\\dom\\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$. Moreover, we have the strong orthogonal decomposition $${W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}=\\rg\\dbar_{(0,q+1)}^* \\oplus\\rg\\dbar_{(\n0,q-1)} .$$ Now, given any $g\\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$, with $\\dbar_{(0,q)} g=0$, i.e. $g\\in\\rg\\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, we can find $v\\in\\dom\\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, orthogonal to $\\ker\\dbar_{(0,q-1)}$, such that $\\dbar v=g$, and we have the estimate $$\\| v\\|_s \\le c_s \\|g\\|_s .$$ We can apply the same argument to the $\\dbar^*$-equation, i.e. given any $f$ with $\\dbar^*_{(0,q)}f=0$, we can find $u$ orthogonal to $\\ker\\dbar^*_{(0,q+1)}$ such that $\\dbar^*_{(0,q+1)} u=f$, with the estimate $$\\| u\\|_s \\le c_s \\|f\\|_s .$$ We shall call such solutions $u$ and $v$ the $s$-[*canonical*]{} solution to the $\\dbar$ and $\\dbar^*$ equation, respectively.\n\nWe now establish the solvability of the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem. We shall suppress the subscripts on the operators $\\dbar$ and $\\dbar^*$ (used to denote the space of forms that is being acted upon), since this will be clear from context. Let $f\\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$. Then $f$ can be uniquely written as $f=f_1+f_2$ with $f_1 \\in \\rg\\dbar$ and $f_2\\in\\rg \\dbar^*$. Let $g_1,g_2$ be the canonical solution of $\\dbar g_1=f_1$, and $\\dbar^* g_2=f_2$, respectively. Since $g_1\\perp \\ker \\dbar$ we have that $g_1\\in\\rg\\dbar^*$, and therefore $\\dbar^* g_1=0$. Analogously, $g_2\\in\\rg\\dbar$ and $\\dbar g_2=0$.\n\nThus we can canonically select $u_1,u_2$ such that $\\dbar^* u_1=g_1$ and $\\dbar u_2 =g_2$. Setting $u=u_1+u_2$ we obtain that $$(\\dbar\\dbar^* +\\dbar^* \\dbar)u=f,$$ and the desired estimate follows from the corresponding ones for $\\dbar$ and $\\dbar^*$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\nu\\|_s^2 \n& = \\|u_1\\|_s^2 +\\|u_2\\|_s^2 \\\\\n& \\le c( \\|g_1\\|_s^2 +\\|g_2\\|_s^2 )\\\\\n& \\le c(\\|f_1\\|_s^2 +\\|f_2\\|_s^2)\\\\\n& =c\\|f\\|_s^2 . \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qed\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe let $N_s$ be the operator on ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$ defined by $$\\label{box}\n(\\dbar\\dbar^* +\\dbar^*\\dbar)N_s f=f$$ for all $f\\in{W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$. \\[Notice that the harmonic space for the operator on the left side of (\\[box\\]) is just the zero space\u2014by the preceding arguments. Therefore this last condition uniquely defines $N_s$.\\] We call $N_s$ the [*Neumann operator*]{} for the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem. Thus we have proved that $N_s$ is a bounded operator from ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$ into itself, for $0<q\\le n$.\n\n[ *We want to stress the fact that the results of the present section are [*independent*]{} of the particular choice of the Sobolev inner product. In fact, the same arguments work for any $s\\ge0$, not necessarily integral, and any choice of an equivalent norm in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$. The form of the inner product (\\[Sobolev\\]) will only become relevant in the next section since we seek explicit formulas for $\\dbar^*$ and its domain.* ]{}\n\nThe Hilbert space adjoint $\\dbar^*$ of $\\dbar$\n==============================================\n\nIn this section we wish to make the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem more explicit by calculating the domain of $\\dbar^*$, and the operator $\\dbar^*$ itself by showing how it actually operates on the $(0,q)$-forms in its domain. As a result, we shall formulate problem (\\[dbar-neumann\\]) as a boundary value problem in which the equation on the domain is of the form $\\Box+G_s$ where $\\Box$ is the complex Laplacian and $G_s$ is a so-called [*singular Green\u2019s operator*]{} (see [@Grubb]). This result demonstrates a striking difference with the classical case of the $(\\dbar,0)$-Neumann problem, where the adjoint is taken with respect to the $L^2$-inner product, and no operator $G_s$ appears. The particular expression of the Hilbert space adjoint $\\dbar$, and of the singular Green\u2019s operator $G_s$ arising in the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem depend on the choice of the inner product in ${W^s_{(0,q)}(\\Omega)}$. We note that with our definition (\\[Sobolev\\]) we have $$\\label{iteration}\n\\la f,g\\ra_s = \\la f,g\\ra_0 \n    + \\sum_{j=1}^{2n} \\la D_j f,D_j g\\ra_{s-1} .$$\n\nRecall that for a $(0,q)$ form $\\phi=\\sum_{|J|=q}\\phi_J d\\bar z^J$ with $C^\\infty$ coefficients, the operator $\\dbar$ is defined as $$\\dbar\\phi =\\sum_{|K|=q+1} \\sum_{kJ}\\e{K}{kJ} \\pd{\\phi_J}{\\bar z_k} \nd\\bar z^K .$$ Then, the [*formal adjoint*]{} $\\vartheta$ of $\\dbar$ is easily calculated to be $$\\vartheta \\phi\n= -\\sum_{|I|=q-1} \\e{J}{iI} \\pd{\\phi_J}{z_i} d\\bar z^I.$$\n\nWe want to compute the Hilbert space adjoint $\\dbar^*$, together with its domain. In carrying out this program, a central role is played by a particular extension of the normal vector field on $b\\Omega$ to a suitable tubular neighborhood of $b\\Omega$. The differential condition arising in the description of $\\dom\\dbar^*$ is most easily expressed if we make the following choices.\n\nLet $\\varrho$ be the signed Euclidean distance from $b\\Omega$ (negative inside, positive outside). In a suitable tubular neighborhood $U$ of $b\\Omega$, this function $\\varrho$ is well defined and in $C^\\infty(\\overline{U})$. We define the vector field $N$ on $U$ by setting $N=\\text{grad\\,}\\varrho$. Then $N$ is the outward unit vector field, and if we set $N=\\sum_{j=1}^{2n}\\nu_j D_j$, then $N\\nu_j =0$ on $U$. \\[This last one is in fact the property that at several stages makes our computations easier, and the formulas appearing simplier.\\]\n\n\\[domain\\] *Let $\\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded domain in ${{\\Bbb C}^n}$. Let $\\dbar^*$ be the ${W^s(\\Omega)}$-Hilbert space adjoint of $\\dbar$. Then $$\\dom\\dbar^* \\cap C_{(0,q+1)}^\\infty(\\bar\\Omega)\n=\\{ \\psi: N^s \\bigl(\\psi \\llcorner\\dbar\\varrho\\bigr)_I \n=0 \\text{ on }b\\Omega, \\text{ for all }I, \n|I|=q \\} .$$*\n\nNotice that $N^s$ denotes the $s$-fold composition of $N$ with itself.\n\nHere the contraction of a $(0,q+1)$ form $\\psi$ with a $(0,1)$ form $\\omega=\\sum_{k}\\omega_k d\\bar z_k$ is defined by the formula $$\\psi\\llcorner\\omega:= \\sum_I \\sum_{kK}\\e{K}{kI}\\psi_K \\bar\\omega_k\nd\\bar z^I .$$\n\n[ *Suppose that $r$ is a generic defining function for $\\Omega$, $C^\\infty$ in a neighborhood of $\\overline{\\Omega}$, and we wish to express $\\dom\\dbar^*$ in terms of $r$ and ${\\partial}/{\\partial}r$. Then we obtain the following description. There exists a differential operator $L_s$ of order $s$, with $C^\\infty (\\overline{U})$ coefficients, whose leading term is $({\\partial}/{\\partial}r)^s$, and such that $$\\dom\\dbar^* \\cap C_{(0,q+1)}^\\infty(\\bar\\Omega)\n= \\biggl \\{ \\psi: L_s \\bigl(\\psi \\llcorner\\dbar r\\bigr)_I \n=0 \\text{ on }b\\Omega, \\text{ for all }I, |I|=q \\biggr \\} .$$ Indeed, on $U$, $$\\pd{}{r} = |\\text{grad\\,} r|N+ gX,$$ where $g\\in C^\\infty(\\overline{U})$, $g=0$ on $b\\Omega$, and $X$ is a vector field on $U$.* ]{}\n\nWe set $\\dbar^* =\\vartheta+\\K$, and we want to determine $\\K$. Our result is the following.\n\n\\[K\\] *Let $\\Omega$ be a smoothly bounded domain in ${{\\Bbb C}^n}$, and let $s$ be a positive integer. Let $\\dbar^*$ be the ${W^s(\\Omega)}$-Hilbert adjoint of $\\dbar$, and $\\vartheta$ be the formal adjoint of $\\dbar$, respectively. Set $\\dbar^*=\\vartheta + {\\cal K}$. Then, for a $(0,q+1)$ form $\\psi$, $\\K\\psi:=\\sum_{|I|=q}\\omega_I d\\bar z^I$ is the $(0,q)$ form whose components are solutions of the following : $$\\label{BV}\n\\begin{cases}\n\\sum_{j=0}^{s}(-\\Delta)^j \\omega_I =0 & \\text{ on }\\Omega\\\\\n\\sum_{j=0}^{s+k-1}T_j N^{s+k-1-j}\\omega_I =P_{s+k}^{(I)}\\psi  \n    & \\text{ on }b\\Omega ,\\, k=1,\\dots,s \\, .\n\\end{cases}$$ Here $T_k$ denotes a tangential differential operator of order $\\le k$, with $C^\\infty$ coefficients, $T_0 =(-1)^{k-1} \\cdot \\hbox{id}$ on $b\\Omega$, and $P_{s+k}^{(I)}$ is a differential operator of order $s+k$ with $C^\\infty$ coefficients and acting on the components of $\\psi$.*\n\nAs a consequence, from the theory of elliptic boundary value problems [@LiMa], we shall obtain the next result.\n\n\\[K-order-1\\] Let $s$ a be positive integer. Then, $\\K$ is a well defined operator of order $1$. More precisely, for all $t>s+1/2$. there exists a positive constant $C_t >0$ such that we have the estimate $$\\|\\K \\psi\\|_{t-1} \\le C_t \\|\\psi\\|_t$$ for all $\\psi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q+1)}(\\overline{\\Omega})$. Furthermore, when restricted to purely tangential forms, $\\K$ is of order $0$, i.e. for all $t>s+1/2$ there exists $C_t >0$ such that if $\\psi\\llcorner\\dbar\\varrho=0$ in a neighborhood of $b\\Omega$, then $$\\|\\K\\psi\\|_{t-1} \\le C_t \\|\\psi\\|_{t-1} .$$\n\nAs a consequence of these facts, we obtain the following representation for the $\\dbars$-Neumann problem. We set $G_s :=\\dbar\\K+\\K\\dbar$. With the notation above, the $\\dbars$- Neumann problem is equivalent to the boundary value problem $$\\begin{cases}\n(\\Box+G_s)u=f &\\quad\\text{on }\\Omega\\\\\nN^s (u\\llcorner\\dbar\\varrho)=0 &\\quad\\text{on }b\\Omega\\\\\nN^s (\\dbar u\\llcorner\\dbar\\varrho)=0 &\\quad\\text{on }b\\Omega \\, . \n\\end{cases}$$\n\nHere $\\Box\n:=\\dbar\\vt+\\vt\\dbar$ is the complex Laplacian, and it equals $-4\\Delta$ on $\\Omega\\ss{\\Bbb C}^n$. Notice that $G_s$ is the singular Green\u2019s operator we mentioned earlier. The operator $G_s$ is of order $2$, so of the same order as the complex Laplacian $\\Box$. Moreover notice that $G_s u$ only depends on the boundary values of $u$ and $\\dbar u$ and their derivatives up to order $2s$, and that in general $G_s$ is not diagonal. An analysis of the analogue of the operator $G_s$ in the case of the de Rham complex, appears in [@FKP1].\n\n[Proof of Theorem 3.1]{} Let $\\phi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q)} (\\overline{\\Omega})$ and $\\psi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q+1)} (\\overline{\\Omega})$. Using Green\u2019s formula we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{>>>}\n\\la \\dbar\\phi,\\psi\\ra_s\n= & \\la \\phi,\\dbar^* \\psi\\ra_s = \\la \\phi,\\vartheta \\psi\\ra_s\n    +\\la\\phi,\\K\\psi\\ra_s \\notag \\\\\n= & \\la \\phi,\\vartheta \\psi\\ra_s + \\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP\n    \\sum_{KkI} \\e{K}{kI}\n\\int_{b\\Omega}D^\\alpha \\phi_I \\overline{D^\\alpha \\psi_K}\n\\pd{\\varrho}{\\bar z_k} .\\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the $(0,q+1)$ form $\\psi$ belongs to $\\dom \\dbar^*$ if and only if there exists a constant $C_\\psi >0$ such that $|\\la \\dbar \\phi,\\psi\\ra_s|\\le C_\\psi \\|\\phi\\|_s$ for all $\\phi\\in\\dom\\dbar$. Hence $\\psi\\in\\dom\\dbar^*$ if and only if the boundary terms in the calculation (\\[&gt;&gt;&gt;\\]) above can be bounded by $C_\\psi \\|\\phi\\|_s$. By the Sobolev trace theorem we can bound the terms of the form $$\\int_{b\\Omega} D^\\alpha \\phi_I \\overline{D^\\alpha \\psi\n_K}\n\\pd{\\varrho}{\\bar z_k}$$ when $|\\alpha|\\le s-1$. Thus it suffices to consider the sum $$\\sum_{|\\alpha|= s}\n\\sum_{KkI}\n\\int_{b\\Omega}D^\\alpha \\phi_I \\overline{D^\\alpha \\psi_K}\n\\pd{\\varrho}{\\bar z_k} .$$ By integrating by parts we can move tangential derivatives from $\\phi$ to $\\psi$, so only the $s$ normal derivatives on $\\phi$ may cause trouble.\n\nWe decompose the standard derivatives in the coordinate directions into their normal and tangential components: $$D_j = Y_j +\\nu_j N,$$ where $N$ is the normal derivative, and $Y_j$ are tangential vector fields. Then $$D^\\alpha=(Y_{\\alpha_{p_1}}+\\nu_{\\alpha_{p_1}}N)\\cdots\n(Y_{\\alpha_{p_s}}+\\nu_{\\alpha_{p_s}}N).$$ Notice that, since $\\sum_j \\nu_j^2 \\equiv 1$ and $N=\\sum_j \\nu_j D_j$, we have that $\\sum_j \\nu_j Y_j =0$. Therefore, when considering $s$ normal derivatives on $\\phi_I$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lefteqn{\\sum_{|\\alpha|=s}\\CP \\sum_{KkI} } \\\\\n& \\biggl [ \\e{K}{kI} \\int_{b\\Omega} \n(\\nu_{\\alpha_{p_1}}N)\\cdots\n(\\nu\n_{\\alpha_{p_s}}N)\\phi_I\n\\overline{(Y_{\\alpha_{p_1}}+\\nu_{\\alpha_{p_1}}N)\\cdots \n(Y_{\\alpha_{p_s}}+\\nu_{\\alpha_{p_s}}N) \\psi_K} \n\\pd{\\varrho}{\\bar z_k} \\biggr ] \\\\\n& = \\sum_{|\\alpha|=s} \\CP \\sum_{KkI} \\e{K}{kI} \\int_{b\\Omega} \n(\\nu_{\\alpha_{p_1}})^2 \\cdots (\\nu_{\\alpha_{p_s}})^2 \n\\bigl( N^s \\phi_I\\bigr) \\overline{\\bigl(N^s \\psi_K)}\n    \\pd{\\varrho}{\\bar z_k} \\\\\n& = \\bigl( \\sum_{|\\alpha|=s}\\CP (\\nu_{\\alpha_{p_1}})^2 \\cdots \n(\\nu_{\\alpha_{p_s}})^2 \\bigr)\\sum_I \\int_{b\\Omega} \n(N^s \\phi_I) \\overline{\\bigl\n( \\sum_{Kk} \\e{K}{kI} N^s (\\psi_K\n\\pd{\\varrho}{z_k} )\\bigr) } . \\end{aligned}$$ Now, if $\\psi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q+1)} (\\overline{\\Omega})$ and $$0=\\sum_{Kk} \\e{K}{kI} N^s (\\psi_K\n\\pd{\\varrho}{z_k}) = N^s (\\psi\\llcorner \\dbar\\varrho)_I$$ on $b\\Omega$ for all $I$, then clearly $\\psi\\in\\dom\\dbar^*$.\n\nOn the other hand, suppose that $N^s (\\psi\\llcorner\\dbar\\varrho)_I \\neq 0$ on $b\\Omega$ for a certain $I$. We may assume that $$\\text{Re} \\bigl( N^s (\\psi\\llcorner\\dbar\\varrho)_I\\bigr)  \\ge 1  \n\\quad\\text{on } B(p,\\delta)\\cap\\overline{\\Omega},$$ where $B(p,\\delta)$ is a small ball center at $p\\in\\Omega$. For $\\varepsilon>0$, consider the collection of $(0,q)$ forms $\\phi^{(\\varepsilon)}$, $$\\phi^{(\\varepsilon)}:=(-\\varrho)^{s-1}\n    (-\\varrho+\\varepsilon)^{3/4} \\chi d\\bar z^I ,$$ where $\\chi$ is a non-negative $C^\\infty$ cut-off function, $\\text{supp}\\chi\\ss B(p,\\delta)$, and $\\chi=1$ on $B(p,\\delta/2)$. Now, an easy calculation shows that $$\\| \\phi^{(\\varepsilon)} \\|_s \\le C_1$$ independently of $\\varepsilon$, while $$\\left |\\int_{b\\Omega} N^s \\phi_I^{(\\varepsilon)} \n    \\cdot\\overline{N^s (\\psi\\llcorner\\dbar\\varrho)_I} \\right | \n\\ge C_2 \\varepsilon^{-1/4} ,$$ which is unbounded, as $\\varepsilon\\rightarrow0$. This finishes the proof of the proposition.\n\n*We observe that $\\dom\\dbar^* \\cap C_{(0,q+1)}^\\infty(\\bar\\Omega)$ is dense in $W^s_{(0,q+1)}(\\Omega)$. Therefore it suffices to show that for any $\\varepsilon>0$ and $\\phi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q+1)}(\\overline{\\Omega})$ there exists $\\psi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q+1)}(\\overline{\\Omega})$ with $\\|\\psi\\|_s <\\varepsilon$ and $\\phi-\\psi\\in\\dom\\dbar^*$.*\n\nHaving fixed $\\phi$ and $\\varepsilon$, let $\\chi\\in C^\\infty_0 (-1,1)$ and $\\chi=1$ in a neighborhood of the origin. Then the form $\\psi$ $$\\psi:= (\n1/s!)(-\\varrho)^s \\chi(-\\varrho/\\varepsilon) \\bigl( N^s\n(\\phi\\llcorner \\dbar\\varrho)\\bigr) \\wedge\\dbar\\varrho$$ satisfies the required conditions.\n\n[Proof of Proposition 3.3]{} We have set $\\dbar^* =\\vartheta+\\K$, so that for $\\psi\\in\\dom\\dbar^*$ we have $$\\label{dag}\n\\la \\phi,\\dbar^* \\psi\\ra_s = \\la\\phi,\\vartheta\\psi\\ra_s\n+\\la\\phi,\\K\\psi\\ra_s .$$ On the other hand by (\\[&gt;&gt;&gt;\\]) we see that, for $\\psi\\in\\dom\\dbar^*$ and $\\phi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q)\n}\n(\\overline{\\Omega})$ we have the equality $$\\la\\dbar\\phi,\\psi\\ra_s = \\la\\phi,\\vartheta\\psi\\ra_s \n+\\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP\n\\sum_{KkJ}\\e{K}{kJ}\\int_{b\\Omega} D^\\alpha\n\\phi_J \\overline{D^\\alpha \\psi_K}\\pd{\\varrho}{\\bar z_k} \\, ;$$ so it follows that $$\\label{bnry-eq-K}\n\\la \\phi,\\K\\psi\\ra_s = \\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP\n\\sum_{KkJ}\\e{K}{kJ}\\int_{b\\Omega} D^\\alpha \n\\phi_J \\overline{D^\\alpha \\psi_K}\\pd{\\varrho}{\\bar z_k} .$$ By choosing $\\phi$ with compact support in $\\Omega$ we find that $\\K\\psi$ satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n0 = & \\la\\phi,\\K\\psi\\ra_s \\\\\n= & \\sum_{|J|=q}\\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP\n\\int_\\Omega D^\\alpha \\phi_J \\overline{D^\\alpha (\\K\\psi)_J} \\\\\n= & \\sum_{|J|=q}\\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} (-1)^{|\\alpha|} \\CP\n    \\int_\\Omega \\phi_J \\overline{D^{2\\alpha} (\\K\\psi)_J} .\\end{aligned}$$ Since this holds for all $\\phi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q)} (\\Omega)$ with compact support in $\\Omega$, we see that $(\\K\\psi)_J$ must satisfy the equation $$0=\\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s}(-1)^{|\\alpha|}\\CP D^{2\\alpha}(\\K\\psi)_J \n=\\sum_{j=0}^{s} (-\\Delta)^j (\\K\\psi)_J \\quad\\text{on }\\Omega$$ for all $J$, which is the equation on the interior of $\\Omega$ that appears in (\\[BV\\]).\n\nNow we move on to consider the boundary conditions that $\\K\\psi$ must satisfy. For $\\phi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q)}(\\overline{\\Omega})$, by repeatedly applying Green\u2019s theorem to the left hand side of equation (\\[bnry-eq-K\\]), and recalling equation (\\[iteration\\]), we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\la \\phi,\\K\\psi\\ra_s \n& = \\sum_{|J|=q} \\biggl ( \\la \\phi_J, (\\K\\psi)_J \\ra_0\n+\\sum_{j=1}^{2n}\\la D_j \\phi_J ,D_j (\\K\\psi)_J \\ra_{s-1} \\biggr) \\\\\n& = \\sum_{|J|=q}\\biggl ( \\int_\\Omega \\phi_J \\overline{(\\K\\psi)_J} \n+\\sum_{i=1}^{2n} \\int_\\Omega D_i \\phi_J \\overline{D_i (\\K\\psi)_J} \\\\ \n& \\qquad\\qquad + \\sum_{1\\le|\\beta|\\le s-1} \\CPb \\sum_{i=1}^{2n} \n\\int_\\Omega D_i D^\\beta \\phi_J \\overline{D_i \nD^\\beta (\\K\\psi)_J} \\biggr )  \\\\ \n& = \\sum_{|J|=q} \\biggl(\\int_{b\\Omega} \\phi_J\n\\overline{N(\\K\\psi)_J} + \\sum_{1\\l\ne|\\beta|\\le s-1} \\CPb\n\\int_{b\\Omega}  D^\\beta \\phi_J \\overline{ND^\\beta(\\K\\psi)_J} \\\\\n& \\qquad\\qquad \n-  \\la \\phi_J , \\Delta(\\K\\psi)_J \\ra_{s-1} + \\dots \\biggr ) , \\end{aligned}$$ where the dots stand for terms that do not contribute to any boundary expression.\n\nWe iterate this calculation on the last term on the right in the above chain of equalities to obtain that $$\\la\\phi,\\K\\psi\\ra_s  = \\sum_{|J|=q} \n\\sum_{i=0}^{s-1} \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\le i}\\CP \\int_{b\\Omega}\n(D^\\alpha\\phi_J)\\overline{ND^\\alpha(\n-\\Delta)^{s-1-i}(\\K\\psi)_J} +\n\\dots ,$$ where the dots have the same meaning as before. &gt;From this equation and (\\[bnry-eq-K\\]) it follows that, for all $J$, $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\label{*}\n\\sum_{i=0}^{s-1} \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\le i} \\CP\n\\int_{b\\Omega}(D^\\alpha\\phi_J) \n\\overline{ND^\\alpha(-\\Delta)^{s-1-i}(\\K\\psi)_J} \\\\\n= \\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP \\sum_{kK} \\e{K}{kJ} \\int_{b\\Omega}\nD^\\alpha \\phi_J \\overline{D^\\alpha \\psi_K} \\pd{\\varrho}{\\bar z_k} . \\end{gathered}$$ This equation must hold true for all $\\phi\\in C^\\infty_{(0,q)}\n(\\overline{\\Omega})$. Thus we need to isolate the terms containing $N^\\ell \\phi_J$ for $\\ell=0,1,\\dots,s-1$, and for all $J$.\n\nNow observe that, if $f$ and $g$ are smooth functions on the boundary, then $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{j=1}^{2n} \\int_{b\\Omega} D_j f \\overline{D\n_j g}\n= & \\sum_j \\int_{b\\Omega}(Y_j +\\nu_j N)f\n            \\overline{(Y_j +\\nu_j N)g}\\\\\n= & \\sum_j \\int_{b\\Omega} Y_j f \\overline{Y_j g}\n        +\\int_{b\\Omega} Nf \\overline{N g}, \\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the fact that $\\sum_j \\nu_j Y_j =0$. Now $$D^\\alpha = T_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|} +T_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-1}N+\\cdots\n+\\nu^\\alpha N^{|\\alpha|},$$ where $T_{\\alpha,k}$ is a tangential operator of order $\\le k$, and $\\nu:=$ $(\\nu_1,\\dots,\\nu_{2n})$. Therefore the left hand side of (\\[\\*\\]) equals $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lefteqn{\n\\sum_{i=0}^{s-1} \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\le i} \\CP \\int_{b\\Omega} \\bigl( \nT_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|}+T_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-1}N+\\cdots+\\nu^\\alpha\nN^{|\\alpha|} \\bigr)\\phi_J} \\\\\n& \\qquad \\qquad \\cdot\\overline{N D^\\alpha (-\\Delta)^{s-1-i}\n(\\K\\psi)_J }\\notag \\\\\n& = \\sum_{\\ell=0}^{s-1} \\biggl( \\int_{b\\Omega} \nN^\\ell \\phi_J \\cdot \\overline{ \\bigl[ \\sum_{i=\\ell}^{s-1} \n\\sum_{\\ell\\le|\\alpha|\\le i} \\CP T_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-\\ell}^* \nND^\\alpha (-\\Delta)^{s-1-i} (\\K\\psi)_J \\bigr]} \\biggr) \\notag\\\\\n& = \\sum_{\\ell=0}^{s-1} \\biggl( \\int_{b\\Omega} \nN^\\ell \\phi_J \\cdot \\overline{ \\sum_{\\ell\\le|\\alpha|\\le s-1} \n\\bigl[ \\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\\alpha|} \\CP T_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-\\ell}^* \nND^\\alpha (-\\Delta)^{j} (\\K\\psi)_J \\bigr]} \\biggr) .\n\\label\n{DAG} \\end{aligned}$$ Notice that in the above calculations we have obtained the identity $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\label{K-identity}\n\\la\\phi,\\K\\psi\\ra_s = \\sum_J \\biggl( \\la\\phi_J, \n\\sum_{j=0}^{s}  (-\\Delta)^j (\\K\\psi)_J \\ra_0 \\\\\n+ \\sum_{\\ell=0}^{s-1}  \\int_{b\\Omega} \nN^\\ell \\phi_J \\cdot \\overline{ \\sum_{\\ell\\le|\\alpha|\\le s-1} \n\\bigl[ \\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\\alpha|} \\CP T_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-\\ell}^* \nND^\\alpha (-\\Delta)^{j} (\\K\\psi)_J \\bigr]} \\biggr) .\\end{gathered}$$ In particular, for $\\nu:=$ $(\\nu_1,\\dots,\\nu_{2n})$, we have that $T_{\\alpha,0}=\\nu^\\alpha=T_{\\alpha,0}^*$ and for $\\ell$ a positive integer we have $$\\label{***}\n\\sum_{|\\alpha|=\\ell-1}\\CP \\nu^\\alpha D^\\alpha=\n\\sum_{|\\beta|=\\ell-2}\\CPb \\nu^\\beta \\bigl(\\sum_{i=1}^{2n}\\nu_i\nD_i\\bigr)D^\\beta=\\dots= N^{\\ell-1}.$$ Thus the last summand on the right hand side of (\\[DAG\\]) (corresponding to $\\ell=s-1$) becomes $$\\int_{b\\Omega} N^{s-1} \\phi_J\\cdot \\overline{\\biggl(\n\\sum_{|\\alpha|=s-1} \\CP\nT_{\\alpha,0}^* \\bigl[ ND^\\alpha (\\K \\psi)_J \\bigr] \\biggr)} \n= \\int_{b\\Omega} N^{s-1} \\phi_J\\cdot \\overline{N^s (\\K\\psi)_J} .$$ The right hand side of (\\[\\*\\]) can be treated in the same way: $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP \\int_{b\\Omega} \\biggl( \n\\sum_{\\ell=0}^{|\\alpha|}\nT_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-\\ell} N^\\ell \\phi_J\\biggr)\\overline{\\biggl(\n\\sum_{kK} \\e{K}{kJ} D^\\alpha \\psi_K \\pd{\\varrho}{z_k} \\biggr)}\\\\  \n= \\sum_{\\ell=0}^{s} \\int_{b\\Omega} N^\\ell \\phi_J \\cdot \n\\overline{ \\sum_{\\ell\n\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP\nT_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-\\ell}^* \\biggl(\n\\sum\n_{kK} \\e{K}{kJ} D^\\alpha \\psi_K \\pd{\\varrho}{z_k} \\biggr)} .\n\\label{DDAG}\\end{gathered}$$ Notice that the top order term vanishes since $N^s \\phi_J$ is paired with $$\\sum_{|\\alpha|=s} \\CP \nT_{\\alpha,0}^* \\biggl( \\sum_{kK} \\e{K}{kJ} D^\\alpha\n\\psi_K \\pd{\\varrho}{z_k} \\biggr) = \\sum_{kK}\\e{K}{kJ} N^s \\psi_K \n\\pd{\\varrho}{z_k} ,$$ which equals $0$ on $b\\Omega$, because $\\psi\\in\\dom\\dbar^*$. &gt;From these calculations, and by equating the right hand sides of (\\[DAG\\]) and (\\[DDAG\\]), we obtain the $s$ boundary equations. Set $$\\sum_{kK}\\e{K}{kJ}D^\\alpha\\psi_K \\pd\n{\\varrho}{z_k} \n= (L_\\alpha \\psi)_J .$$ Then, on $b\\Omega$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nN^s (\\K\\psi)_J \n& = \\sum_{s-1\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP T_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-s+1}^*\n    (L_\\alpha \\psi)_J \\\\\n\\lefteqn{\\sum_{s-2\\le|\\alpha|\\le s-1} \\CP \nT_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-s+2}^* ND^\\alpha\n\\biggl( \n\\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\\alpha|}(-\\Delta)^{j} (\\K\\psi)_J \\biggr)\n}  \n  \\hbox{\\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad} \\\\ \n& \\qquad = \\sum_{s-2\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP\nT_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-s+2}^* (L_\\alpha \\psi)_J\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\cdots \\qquad \\qquad  \\qquad \\qquad\n\\cdots \\\\$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lefteqn{\\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s-1} \\CP T_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|}^*\nND^\\alpha \n\\biggl( \n\\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\\alpha|}(-\\Delta)^{j} (\\K\\psi)_J \\biggr)} \n\\hbox{\\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad} \\\\\n& = \\sum_{0\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP \nT_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|}^* (L_\\alpha\n \\psi)_J .\\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $s$ boundary equations in $(\\K\\psi)_J$. Notice that the $k^{\\rm th}$ equation has order $s+k-1$ in the normal direction, for $k=1,\\dots,s$. Since $T_{\\alpha,0}^* =\\nu^\\alpha$ and $-\\Delta=-N^2 +T_1 N+T_2$, using formula (\\[\\*\\*\\*\\]), the operator on the left hand side in the $k^{\\rm th}$ equation becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lefteqn{\n\\sum_{s-k\\le|\\alpha|\\le s-1} \\CP \nT_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-s+k}^* ND^\\alpha\n\\biggl( \\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-|\\alpha|}(-\\Delta)^{j}  \\biggr)}\\\\ \n& = N^{s-k+1} \\sum_{j=0}^{k-1}(-\\Delta)^{j} + \\cdots +\n\\sum_{|\\alpha|=s-1} \\CP T_{\\alpha,k-1}ND^\\alpha \\\\\n& = (-1)^{(k-1)}N^{s+k-1} +T_1 N^{s+k-2}+\\cdots+ T_{s+k-2}N \\end{aligned}$$ as in the statement of the proposition, while the right hand side in the same equation is an operator of order $s+k$ (one order larger than the left hand side), that we denote by $P^{(J)}_{s+k}$. Then we have $$\\label{P-s+k}\nP^{(J)}_{s+k} (\\psi) = \n\\sum_{s-k\\le|\\alpha|\\le s} \\CP \nT_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-s+k}^* (L_\\alpha\n \\psi)_J .$$ This finishes the proof.\n\nBefore proving Corollary \\[K-order-1\\] we need one more result. Consider the \u00a0(\\[BV\\]) that defines the components of $\\K$: $$\\label{BVP2}\n\\begin{cases}\n\\sum_{j=0}^{s}(-\\Delta)^j u =0 & \\text{ on }\\Omega\\\\\n\\sum_{j=0}^{s+\\ell}T_j N^{s+\\ell-j}u = g_\\ell\n    & \\text{ on }b\\Omega ,\\, \\ell=0,\\dots,s-1 \\, .\n\\end{cases}$$ for given $g_\\ell \\in C^\\infty (b\\Omega)$, $\\ell=0,\\dots,s-1$. Notice that the operator $\\K$ applied to a form $\\psi$ gives rise to the composition of a (non-diagonal) differential operator acting on the components of $\\psi$, the restriction to the boundary $b\\Omega$, and the solution operator $S$ of the (scalar) \u00a0(\\[BVP2\\]). Then we have the following.\n\n\\[ellipticity\\] The \u00a0(\\[BVP2\\]) is an elliptic \u00a0with trivial kernel, that is if $g_\\ell =0$ for $\\ell=0,\\dots,s-1$, then $S(g_0,\\dots,g_{s-1})=0$.\n\nIn order to prove that the \u00a0(\\[BVP2\\]) is elliptic, we use the standard definition, see (10.1.1) in [@HO2]. Given any point $p\\in b\\Omega$ we need to consider a $C^\\infty$ change of coordinates that takes $p$ into the origin, flattens the boundary, and such that the transformed vector fields at the origin coincide with the new basis vector fields. We write the new coordinates as $(x_0,x)\\in [0,+\\infty)\\times{\\Bbb R}^{2n-1}$. Then, the normal vector field is $\\po$, and ${\\partial}_1,\\dots,{\\partial}_{2n-1}$ are the tangential vector fileds. After taking the Fourier transform in the tangential directions, writing $\\xi\\in {\\Bbb R}^{2n-1}$ for the variable dual to $x$, we need to show that the ordinary differential equation $$\\label{ODE}\n\\begin{cases}\n(-\\po^2 +|\\xi|^2)^s v & =0 \\quad \\text{on } [0,+\\infty) \\\\\nB_{s,\\ell}\\, v (0) & =0 \\quad \\ell=0,1,\\dots,s-1\n\\end{cases}$$ admits the trivial solution as the only bounded solution on $[0,+\\infty)$. Here $B_{s,\\ell}$ denote the top order terms of the boundary operators in (\\[BVP2\\]) in our special chart, after freezing the coefficients and taking the Fourier transform.\n\nWe begin by describing the differential operators that give the initial conditions in (\\[ODE\\]). We then prove that the only bounded solution of (\\[ODE\\]) is in fact the trivial solution.\n\nThe boundary equations in (\\[BVP2\\]) arise from the identity (\\[K-identity\\]). By considering forms of the type $\\phi_J\nd\\bar z^J$ we may reduce to the case of functions. We set $u=(\\K\\psi)_J$. Consider the top order terms in (\\[K-identity\\]), change coordinates, and freeze the coefficients. Write $\\alpha=(k,\\alpha')$ and notice that $\\CP=\\binom{s-1}{k}\\CPp$. Then ${\\partial}^\\alpha =\\po^k {\\partial}^{\\alpha'}$. Notice that the top order term in $T_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-\\ell}$ equals ${\\partial}^{\\alpha'}$, and that $T^*_{\\alpha,|\\alpha|-\\ell}=(-1)^{|\\alpha'|}{\\partial}^{\\alpha'}$. Then we have that $$\\begin{aligned}\nB_{s,\\ell}\n& = \\sum_{|\\alpha'|=0}^{s-1-\\ell} \\bn{|\\alpha'|+\\ell}{\\ell} \\CPp \n(-1)^{|\\alpha'|} {\\partial}^{2\\alpha'} \\po^{\\ell+1} \n(-\\Delta)^{s-1-\\ell-|\\alpha'|} \\\\\n& = \\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-\\ell} \\bn{j+\\ell}{\\ell}(-\\Delta')^j\n(-\\Delta)^{s-1-\\ell-j} \\po^{\\ell+1} ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Delta'$ is the tangential Laplacian. Now write $\\Delta=\\po^2 +\\Delta'$. We claim that the following identity holds true $$\\label{combinatorics}\n\\sum_{j=0}^{s-1-k-\\ell} \\bn{\\ell+j}{j}\\bn{s-j-\\ell-1}{k}\n= \\bn{s}{\\ell+k+1}.$$ Assume the claim for now. Then, it turns out that $$B_{s,\\ell} = \\sum_{k=0}^{s-1-k} (-1)^k \\bn{s}{\\ell+k+1}\n|\\xi|^{2(s-1-\\ell-k)}\\po^{\\ell+2k+1} .$$\n\nNext, let $v=v_\\xi$ be a bounded solution of (\\[ODE\\]) for $\\xi\\neq0$. Notice that $v=\\bigl(\\sum_{\\ell=0}^{s-1}c_\\ell x_0^\\ell\\bigr)e^{-|\\xi|x_0}$. Let $f\\in C^\\infty_0 (\\overline{{\\Bbb R}^{2n-1}_+})$. Then for any $\\xi\\neq0$, by assumption and by integrating by parts we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n0 & = -\\sum_{\\ell=0}^{s-1} \\po^\\ell f (0,\\xi) \\overline{B_{s,\\ell} \nv_\\xi (0)} +\\int_0^\\infty f(x_0,\\xi) \n\\overline{(-\\po^2 +|\\xi|^2)^s v_\\xi} dx_0 \\\\\n& = -\\sum_{\\ell=0}^{s-1} \\po^\\ell f (0,\\xi) \\overline{B_{s,\\ell}\nv_\\xi (0)} +\\sum_{j=0}^{s} (-1)^j \\bn{s}{j} |\\xi|^{2(s-j)}\n\\int_0^\\infty f(x_0,\\xi) \\overline{\\po^{2j} v_\\xi } dx_0 \\\\\n& = -\n\\sum_{\\ell=0}^{s-1} \\po^\\ell f (0,\\xi) \\overline{B_{s,\\ell}\nv_\\xi (0)} + |\\xi|^{2s} \\int_0^\\infty f(x_0,\\xi) \n    \\overline{v_\\xi} dx_0 \\\\ \n& \\qquad -\\sum_{j=1}^{s} (-1)^j \\bn{s}{j} |\\xi|^{2(s-j)} \\bigl(\n|\\xi|^{2(s-j)} f(0,\\xi)\\po^{2j-1} v_x (0) \n+ \\int_0^\\infty \\po f(x_0,\\xi) \\overline{\\po^{2j-1} v_\\xi } dx_0 \n\\bigr) \\\\\n& =  -\\sum_{\\ell=1}^{s-1} \\po^\\ell f (0,\\xi) \\overline{B_{s,\\ell} \nv_\\xi (0)} \n+ |\\xi|^{2s} \\int_0^\\infty f(x_0,\\xi) \\overline{v_\\xi} dx_0 \\\\\n& \\qquad +\\sum_{k=0}^{s-1} (-1)^k \\bn{s}{k+\n1} |\\xi|^{2(s-k-1)}\n\\int_0^\\infty \\po f(x_0,\\xi) \\overline{\\po^{2k+1} v_\\xi } dx_0 .\\end{aligned}$$ By applying integration by parts $(s-1)$ more times to the last term in the right hand side above, we obtain that $$\\label{v-xi}\n0= \\sum_{j=0}^{s} \\bn{s}{j} |\\xi|^{2(s-j)}\\int_0^\\infty \\po^j\nf(x_0,\\xi) \\overline{\\po^j v_\\xi} dx_0$$ for all $\\xi\\neq0$.\n\nNow, for each $\\xi\\neq0$ we can pick $f$ so that $f(\\cdot,\\xi) =v_\\xi$. Substituting in (\\[v-xi\\]) we obtain that $$\\sum_{j\n=0}^{s} \\bn{s}{j} |\\xi|^{2(s-j)} \\int_0^\\infty |\\po^j v_\\xi\n(x_0)|^2 dx_0 =0,$$ that is, $v_\\xi=0$.\n\nThus, we only need to prove the claim. If, for $p\\ge m$ we set $F_k (p,m):=\\sum_{j=0}^{m} \\binom{k+j}{j}\\binom{p-j}{m-j}$, we wish to show that $$\\label{claim}\nF_k (p,m) =\\bn{p+k+1}{m} .$$ Observe that (\\[claim\\]) holds true for $m=0,1$ and $p\\ge1$, and for $p=m$, by direct computation and well known properties of binomial coefficients. Assume the statement true for $p-1$ and all $m\\le p-1$. Since $$F_k (p,m)=F_k (p-1,m)+F_k (p-1,m-1),$$ equality (\\[claim\\]) follows by induction and the equality in the case $m=p$. This finishes the proof of the ellipticity of (\\[ellipticity\\]).\n\nFinally, if all the boundary data $g_{\\ell}$ in problem (\\[ellipticity\\]) are identically $0$, then the only solution of the boundary value problem is the trivial one. In fact, if $u$ is such a solution, the identity (\\[K-identity\\]) with $u$ in place of $\\K \\psi $ implies that $u$ is orthogonal in the $W^s$ sense to all $\\phi \\in C^{\\infty} (\\Omega)$, hence $u=0$.\n\nFinally, we have:\n\n[Proof of Corollary 3.4]{} Clearly, $\\K$ is well defined as composition of differential operators, restriction to the boundary, and the operator $S$ solution of the \u00a0in the previous Lemma.\n\nNext, we use standard estimates for elliptic s, as in [@LiMa] Theorem 5.1, and Lemma \\[ellipticity\\]. Recall that $P^{(I)}_{s,k}$ is a differential operator of order $s+k$, containing $s$ at most derivatives in the normal direction. Then we see that for all $t>s+1/2$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\| \\K \\psi\\|_{t-1} \n& \\le C_t \\sum_I \\| (\\K \\psi)_I\\|_{t-1}  \\\\\n& \\le C_t \\sum_{I}\\sum_{k=1}^{s}\n     \\| P^{(I)}_{s,k} \\psi\\|_{W^{t-1-\n(s+k-1)-1/2}(b\\Omega)}\\\\\n& \\le C_t  \\sum_{I}\\sum_{k=1}^{s}\n\\| N^k \\psi\\|_{W^{t-k-1/2}(b\\Omega)}\\\\\n& \\le C_t \\sum_{I}\\sum_{k=1}^{s} \\|N^k \\psi\\|_{t-k}\\\\\n& \\le C_t \\|\\psi\\|_t ,\\end{aligned}$$ where we use the assumption $t>s+1/2$ in order to able be to apply the trace theorem.\n\nFinally notice that $\\psi\\llcorner\\dbar\\varrho=0$ in a neighborhood of $b\\Omega$, $P^{(I)}_{s,k}$ becomes an operator of one degree lower, i.e., of order $s+k-1$. Repeating the argument above, we obtain that, for $t>s+1/2$ $$\\|\\K\\psi\\|_{t-1} \\le C_t \\|\\psi\\|_{t-1} \n.$$ This concludes the proof of the corollary.\n\n[**Final Remarks.**]{} The results of Section 3 are obtained under a specific formulation of the Sobolev inner product. If we modify the formulation by choosing other positive coefficients $\\gamma_\\alpha$ in the definition of the inner product (\\[Sobolev\\]), results analogous to those presented here should still hold. It is also the case that the formulas that arise in these formulations of the norm are probably much less tractable.\n\nThe situation seems quite different if we take a generic equivalent norm. Consider, for instance, the weighted theory of the $\\dbar$-Neumann problem, as developed by Kohn in [@Kohn]. Kohn showed that the regularity properties enjoyed by the canonical solution in the weighted case are in general much stronger than the ones enjoyed by the classical canonical solution (see also the aforementioned work of Christ \\[Ch\\]). Therefore, it is clear that much has still to be understood in the general case. We shall provide no details about the treatment of equivalent Sobolev topologies.\n\nIn the present paper we have worked with $(0,q)$ forms on a domain $\\Omega$ in ${{\\Bbb C}^n}$. These results hold true in the case of $(p,q)$ forms, with no change in the proofs. Routine modifications (see [@Folland-Kohn]) should allow one to work out the case of a smoothly bounded pseudoconvex domain $M'$ in a complex, or even an almost complex, manifold $M$.\n\nOf course it is also of interest to work out sharp estimates for the $\\dbars$ problem, and to calculate the full Hodge and spectral theories; we save that work for a future series of papers.\n\n[BellBo]{}\n\nD.\u00a0Barrett, Behavior of the Bergman projection on the Diederich-Forn\u00e6ss worm, [*Acta Math.*]{} [**168**]{} (1992), 1-10.\u00a0\n\nH.\u00a0P.\u00a0Boas, Holomorphic reproducing kernels in Reinhardt domains, [*Pac.\u00a0J.\u00a0Math.*]{} [**112**]{} (1984), 273-292.\n\n, Sobolev space projections in strictly pseudoconvex domains, [*Trans.\u00a0Amer.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.*]{} [**288**]{} (1985), 227-240.\n\nD.\u00a0W.\u00a0Catlin, Global regularity of the $\\dbar$-Neumann problem, [*Proc.\u00a0Symp. Pure Math.*]{} [**41**]{} (1984), 39-49.\n\nM.\u00a0Christ, Global $C^\\infty$ irregularity of the $\\dbar$-Neumann problem for worms domains, [*Journal of the Amer. Math. Soc.*]{}, to appear.\n\nG.\u00a0B.\u00a0Folland and J.\u00a0J.\u00a0Kohn, [*The Neumann Problem for the Cauchy-Riemann Complex*]{}, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1972.\n\nL.\u00a0Fontana, M.\u00a0M. \u00a0Peloso, and S.\u00a0G.\u00a0Krantz, Hodge theory for the de Rham complex in Sobolev topology, [*Memoirs Amer.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.*]{}, to appear.\n\n, Hodge theory in the Sobolev topology for the de Rham complex on a smoothly bounded domain in Euclidean space, [*Electronic Research Announcements*]{} of the American Mathematical Society [**1**]{} (1995), 103-107.\n\nG.\u00a0Grubb, [*Boundary Value Problems for Pseudo-Differential Operators*]{}, Birkh\u00e4user, Basel 1992 .\n\nL.\u00a0H\u00f6rmander, [*An Introduction to Complex Analysis in Several Complex Variables*]{}, North Holland, Amsterdam 1973.\n\n, [*Linear Partial Differential Operators*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1964.\n\nJ.\u00a0J.\u00a0Kohn, Global regularity for $\\dbar$ on weakly pseudo-convex manifolds, [*Trans.\u00a0Amer.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Soc.*]{} [**181**]{} (1973), 273-292.\n\nJ.\u00a0L.\u00a0Lions, E.\u00a0Magenes, [ *Probl\u00e8mes Aux Limites Non Homog\u00e8nes*]{}, vol. 1, Dunon, Paris 1968.\n\n[^1]: Krantz\u2019s research was supported in part by Grant DMS-9531967 from the National Science Foundation. Research at MSRI is supported by NSF Grant DMS-9022140.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'K. Sellgren'\n- 'T. Y. Brooke'\n- 'R. G. Smith'\n- 'T. R. Geballe'\ntitle: 'A New 3.25 Micron Absorption Feature toward Mon R2/IRS-3'\n---\n\nApJ Letters, in press\n\n**Abstract**\n\nA new 3.2\u20133.5\u00a0$\\mu$m spectrum of the protostar Mon\u00a0R2/IRS-3 confirms our previous tentative detection of a new absorption feature near 3.25 $\\mu$m. The feature in our new spectrum has a central wavelength of 3.256 $\\mu$m (3071 cm$^{-1}$) and has a full-width at half maximum of 0.079 $\\mu$m (75 cm$^{-1}$). We explore a possible identification with aromatic hydrocarbons at low temperatures, which absorb at a similar wavelength. If the feature is due to aromatics, the derived column density of C\u2013H bonds is $\\sim$1.8 $\\times$ $10^{18}$ cm$^{-2}$. If the absorbing aromatic molecules are of roughly the same size as those responsible for aromatic emission features in the interstellar medium, then we estimate that $\\sim$9% of the cosmic abundance of carbon along this line of sight would be in aromatic hydrocarbons, in agreement with abundance estimates from emission features.\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe C\u2013H stretch absorptions of many of the organic molecules expected to be formed or condensed on molecular cloud dust lie in the 3.2\u20133.6 $\\mu$m region, on the long wavelength side of the 3.1 $\\mu$m H$_2$O ice band which dominates the spectrum of embedded sources. Sellgren, Smith, & Brooke (1994) recently reported a tentative detection of a new absorption feature at 3.25 $\\mu$m (3078 cm$^{-1}$) toward Mon R2/IRS-3, a protostar in the Mon\u00a0R2 star formation region (Beckwith et al. 1976). Their spectrum had a resolution $\\lambda/\\Delta\\lambda \\approx 720$ at 3.25 $\\mu$m. Here, we present a new spectra of Mon\u00a0R2/IRS-3 with a resolution of 1000 which confirms the presence of a 3.25 $\\mu$m feature. Some possible identifications are discussed.\n\nObservations\n============\n\nThe latest observations of Mon R2/IRS-3 were made on 1994 October 8 at the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) on Mauna Kea. The CGS4 long-slit spectrometer (Mountain et al. 1990) was used with the 75 lines mm$^{-1}$ grating in first order and the 300-mm focal length camera. This provided a wavelength resolution of 0.0033\u00a0$\\mu$m ($\\lambda/\\Delta\\lambda$ = 1000 at 3.25\u00a0$\\mu$m). The spectrometer is designed to have only one resolution element per pixel, so improved sampling of the spectrum was obtained by moving the detector by one-third of a resolution element between individual spectra and repeating this until two resolution elements were observed by each pixel. The observations consist of two overlapping grating positions, at 3.16\u20133.37 $\\mu$m and 3.34\u20133.55 $\\mu$m. The pixel size was 1.55$''$. The spectrometer slit was 90$''$ $\\times$ 1.55$''$ with the long direction oriented east-west. The sources were nodded $\\sim$12$''$ along the slit for background subtraction. An argon spectrum in second order was used for wavelength calibration. We compared our spectrum of Mon R2/IRS-3 with the star HR 1948 (O9Iab:) for atmospheric cancellation. The airmass difference between Mon R2/IRS-3 and HR 1948 was always less than 0.03.\n\nIn the final spectra, several points at 3.313 \u2013 3.321 $\\mu$m affected by strong telluric CH$_4$ have been removed. We have also removed points near 3.297\u00a0$\\mu$m which may have been affected by any photospheric Pfund $\\delta$ feature in the O9Iab: atmospheric comparison star.\n\nResults\n=======\n\nThe new spectrum of Mon R2/IRS-3 is shown in Figure 1. The observations fall in the region of the 3.1 $\\mu$m H$_2$O ice band and the broad absorption wing which peaks near 3.3\u20133.4\u00a0$\\mu$m (Smith, Sellgren, & Tokunaga 1989). The intrinsic spectral shape of this absorption is uncertain. Thus the best continuum to use for deriving the optical depth of narrow absorption features in this region is a local continuum which passes smoothly through those parts of the spectrum not containing narrow absorption features. We have fit a second-order polynomial to the spectrum of Mon R2/IRS-3, excluding data at 3.2\u20133.3\u00a0$\\mu$m and longward of 3.4 $\\mu$m from the fit. The choice of excluded regions is the same as that used by Sellgren et al. (1994). Our adopted continuum is shown as a solid line in Figure 1.\n\nThe derived optical depth is also shown in Figure 1. We fit two Gaussians to the optical depth curve. The central wavelength, full width at half-maximum (FWHM), and optical depth of each Gaussian were varied to produce the best fit to our observations. We derive central wavelengths of 3.256 $\\pm$ 0.003 $\\mu$m and 3.484 $\\pm$ 0.003 $\\mu$m (3071 $\\pm$ 3 cm$^{-1}$ and 2870 $\\pm$ 2 cm$^{-1}$) for the 3.25 $\\mu$m and 3.48 $\\mu$m features, respectively. We also find FWHM values of 0.079 $\\pm$ 0.007 $\\mu$m and 0.117 $\\pm$ 0.007 $\\mu$m (75 $\\pm$ 6\u00a0cm$^{-1}$ and 97 $\\pm$ 6\u00a0cm$^{-1}$) for the 3.25 $\\mu$m and 3.48 $\\mu$m features, respectively. Our new measurements of the central wavelengths and widths agree well with those of Sellgren et al. (1994). The 3.25 $\\mu$m optical depth we measure, 0.045, also agrees well with Sellgren et al. (1994). The 3.48 $\\mu$m optical depth we derive, 0.058, does not agree with the value of 0.036 measured by Sellgren et al. (1994). However, the optical depth is sensitive to the choice of continuum, so the Sellgren et al. (1994) spectrum provides the most reliable value for the 3.48 $\\mu$m optical depth because the current spectrum (Fig. 1) does not extend to long enough wavelengths to provide continuum on the long wavelength side of the 3.48 $\\mu$m feature.\n\nDiscussion\n==========\n\nThe 3.48 $\\mu$m feature was first identified by Allamandola et al. (1992) toward four protostars. They attributed the feature to C\u2013H bonds in hydrocarbons with \u201cdiamond-like\u201d bonding. This feature in Mon R2/IRS-3 and other sources is discussed in more detail by Brooke, Sellgren, & Smith (1995).\n\nStandard references on room temperature infrared spectra suggest that the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature might be due to a C\u2013H stretch of the =CH$_2$ group in an alkene, which occurs at 3.23\u20133.25 $\\mu$m (e.g. Williams & Fleming 1987). An alkene identification, however, is unlikely because alkenes have a second, comparably strong, feature at 3.29\u20133.32 $\\mu$m which is not observed toward Mon R2/IRS-3. We have searched the low temperature laboratory spectra of pure ices and ice mixtures with compositions thought to be appropriate to molecular clouds (d\u2019Hendecourt & Allamandola 1986; Grim et al. 1989; Hudgins et al. 1993). These spectra reveal no obvious absorption features near 3.25 $\\mu$m.\n\nWe suggested earlier (Sellgren et al. 1994) that the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature may be due to absorption by aromatic hydrocarbons at low temperature, based on a similarity in wavelength to the C\u2013H stretch of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) isolated in neon matrices at a temperature of 4.2 K (Joblin et al. 1994). The aromatic C\u2013H stretch wavelength is a function of temperature, increasing with increasing temperature (Colangeli, Mennella, & Bussoletti 1992; Joblin et al. 1994, 1995). Aromatic hydrocarbons are a promising candidate for the 3.25 $\\mu$m absorption feature, since aromatic emission features at 3.3, 6.2, 7.7, 8.6, and 11.3 $\\mu$m have been observed throughout the interstellar medium of our own and other galaxies. Corresponding [*absorption*]{} features have been searched for, but until now have not been definitely detected in molecular clouds. The infrared emission features have been attributed to a variety of aromatic substances, including hydrogenated amorphous carbon (HAC) grains (Blanco, Bussoletti, & Colangeli 1988; Ogmen & Duley 1988), PAHs (L\u00e9ger & Puget 1984; Allamandola, Tielens, & Barker 1985), quenched carbonaceous composite (QCC) grains (Sakata et al. 1987), and other aromatic materials (see Sellgren 1994 for a review of proposed identifications).\n\nWe compare in Table 1 the observed wavelength of the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature toward Mon R2/IRS-3 with the wavelengths of several aromatic substances. We list in Table 1 the measured wavelengths of solid QCC (Sakata et al. 1990), the 3.3 $\\mu$m interstellar aromatic emission feature (Tokunaga et al. 1991), the PAH molecule coronene in the condensed phase and the gas-phase (Flickinger, Wdowiak, & G\u00f3mez 1991), solid HAC (Biener et al. 1994), and the PAH molecules coronene and pyrene isolated in a neon matrix (Joblin et al. 1994).\n\nJoblin et al. (1995) have examined the temperature dependence of the C\u2013H stretch wavelength of gas-phase aromatic molecules in detail. They state that the wavelength increases with increasing temperature due to anharmonic coupling of the C\u2013H stretch mode with excited longer wavelength modes. In Table 1 we also present the predicted wavelengths for each aromatic material, when shifted from the temperature at which the measurement was made to a temperature of 80 K, appropriate for the icy grains toward Mon R2/IRS-3 (Smith et al. 1989), using Eq. 5 of Joblin et al. (1995) and the assumption that the neon matrix does not introduce a wavelength shift from the gas phase. The temperature dependence of the aromatic C\u2013H stretch wavelength (Joblin et al. 1995) was derived for gas-phase aromatic molecules, and we caution that solid-phase aromatics, such as HAC or QCC, may not follow the same relation.\n\nIn Figure 1, we compare the optical depth profile of the 3.25 $\\mu$m absorption feature and the profile of the 3.3 $\\mu$m aromatic interstellar emission feature in IRAS 21282+5050 (Nagata et al. 1988), after continuum subtraction (Tokunaga et al. 1991), and after shifting the center of the emission feature to the predicted wavelength at 80 K (see Table 1). The two feature profiles show reasonable agreement, although since the width of each feature is probably dominated by different processes, such agreement may be fortuitous.\n\nThe average of the observed feature wavelengths from this paper and Sellgren et al. (1994) is 3.253 $\\pm$ 0.004 $\\mu$m, which is shorter than the aromatic hydrocarbon wavelengths in Table 1 by 0.004\u20130.032 $\\mu$m. The fact that the 3.25 $\\mu$m absorption feature just barely overlaps the short wavelength side of the range of cold aromatic hydrocarbon wavelengths presents a problem, since moving the aromatic C\u2013H vibration to shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) means strengthening the C\u2013H bond, something that seems difficult to achieve if the aromatic hydrocarbons are immersed in an ice matrix of some sort.\n\nAny identification of the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature at this time rests only on one absorption feature, and the wavelength match with aromatic hydrocarbons is not exact. A search for the longer wavelength features associated with aromatic hydrocarbons would provide one test of this identification.\n\nIf we assume that the 3.25 $\\mu$m absorption feature is due to aromatic hydrocarbons, the column density of aromatic C\u2013H bonds along the line of sight to Mon R2/IRS-3 can be estimated. Measurements of aromatic hydrocarbons in absorption are important because estimates of the abundance of aromatic hydrocarbons from the observed emission features (Allamandola et al. 1989; Puget & L\u00e9ger 1989; Joblin, L\u00e9ger, & Martin 1992) are much less straightforward.\n\nTo estimate the column density of aromatic C\u2013H bonds, we use the relation, $N$ $\\simeq$ $\\tau\n\\Delta \\nu$/$A$, where $\\tau$ is the maximum optical depth of the 3.25 $\\mu$m absorption feature, $\\Delta\n\\nu$ is the feature FWHM in cm$^{-1}$, $A$ is the integrated absorbance, and $N$ is the derived column density of molecular bonds (Allamandola et al. 1992). An average of the results of this paper and Sellgren et al. (1994) gives $\\tau$(3.25 $\\mu$m) = 0.047 and $\\Delta \\nu$ = 66 cm$^{-1}$ for the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature. For the three aromatic molecules, pyrene, coronene, and ovalene, studied by Joblin et al. (1994), the value of $A$ per aromatic C\u2013H bond for the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature was 0.7\u20131.4 $\\times$ 10$^{-18}$ cm bond$^{-1}$ in the solid phase and 2.1\u20134.1 $\\times$ 10$^{-18}$ cm bond$^{-1}$ in the gas phase. We average over all three molecules in both phases, to estimate an average value of $A$ = 1.7 $\\times$ 10$^{-18}$ cm bond$^{-1}$. We thus derive a column density of aromatic C\u2013H bonds of $N$(C\u2013H) $\\sim$ 1.8 $\\times$ 10$^{18}$ bonds cm$^{-2}$ along the line-of-sight.\n\nThe abundance by number of aromatic C\u2013H bonds, $X$(C\u2013H), is the ratio of the column density of aromatic C\u2013H bonds divided by the total hydrogen column density, $N_H$. We estimate $N_H$ in two ways. The silicate optical depth, $\\tau$(9.7 $\\mu$m) = 4.3, observed toward Mon R2/IRS-3 (Willner et al. 1982) implies $A_V$ = 80 mag assuming A$_V$/$\\tau$(9.7 $\\mu$m) = 18.5 (Mathis 1990). However, A$_V$/$\\tau$(9.7 $\\mu$m) is observed to vary by a factor of two (Mathis 1990). An independent estimate of $A_V$ comes from the 4.6 $\\mu$m $^{13}$CO gas absorption observed toward Mon R2/IRS-3 (Mitchell 1995), which gives $N(^{13}$CO$)$ = 1.6 $\\times$ 10$^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$. If we assume $A_V$/$N$($^ {13}$CO) = 4 $\\times$ 10$^ {-16}$ cm$^2$ mag (Dickman 1978), then the $^{13}$CO gas column density implies $A_V$ = 64 for Mon R2/IRS-3, in good agreement with the value derived from the silicate feature. We then convert our average value of $A_V$ = 72 to $N_H$ by assuming $N_H$/A$_V$ = 1.9\u00a0$\\times$\u00a010$^{21}$\u00a0cm$^{-2}$\u00a0mag$^{-1}$ (Mathis 1990). This implies $N_H$ = 1.4 $\\times$ 10$^{23}$ cm$^{-2}$ for Mon R2/IRS-3. Again there is some uncertainty in this because the value of $N_H$/A$_V$ measured in the diffuse interstellar medium may not hold in molecular clouds. Our derived value of $N_H$ implies that $X$(C\u2013H) = 1.3 $\\times$ 10$^{-5}$ toward Mon R2/IRS-3. For a solar abundance of carbon, $X$(C)/$X$(H) = 3.6 $\\times$ 10$^{-4}$ by number (Anders & Grevesse 1989), our estimate of $X$(C\u2013H) implies that $\\sim4$% of the total carbon along the line of sight toward Mon R2/IRS-3 is locked in aromatic C\u2013H bonds.\n\nThe total number of carbon atoms in aromatic hydrocarbons will be larger. If the absorbing aromatic hydrocarbons have the same size distribution as the emitting aromatic hydrocarbons, then we can use model results for the interstellar emission features to estimate the fraction, $f$, of the number of carbon atoms in aromatic C\u2013H bonds, compared to the total number of aromatic carbon atoms. The value of $f$ depends on the aromatic hydrocarbon size, with a smaller value for larger aromatic hydrocarbons. D\u00e9sert, Boulanger, & Puget (1990) present a model of interstellar dust, including size distributions for different grain components and an analytic approximation for $f$ as a function of radius $a$ for PAH molecules. We have used their model, with $a$ = 4\u201312 \u00c5\u00a0for PAHs, to calculate a size-averaged value for $f$ of 0.40. The value of $f$ for the absorbing aromatic hydrocarbons also depends on the degree of dehydrogenation in the interstellar medium, but aromatic hydrocarbons are predicted to be fully hydrogenated in molecular clouds shielded from ultraviolet radiation (Allamandola, Tielens, & Barker 1989). Thus the total amount of carbon in aromatic hydrocarbons is roughly a factor of $\\sim$2.5 times higher than the amount of carbon participating in aromatic C\u2013H bonds. If the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature is due to absorbing aromatic hydrocarbons with a size distribution similar to that adopted by D\u00e9sert et al. (1990) for the emitting aromatic hydrocarbons in the interstellar medium, this would make the fraction of carbon in aromatic hydrocarbons $\\sim$9%. If the absorbing aromatic C\u2013H bonds are instead attached to larger structures, for instance if the aromatic absorption is due to hydrogen on the surfaces of large amorphous carbon grains while the aromatic emission is due to small PAH molecules, then the fraction of carbon in such structures would be much larger than we estimate from the D\u00e9sert et al. (1990) model.\n\nOur estimate of the carbon abundance in aromatic hydrocarbons of $\\sim$9% falls within the range of previous estimates for the aromatic hydrocarbon abundance, which vary from 0.8% to 18% of the total carbon abundance (Lepp et al. 1988; Allamandola et al. 1989; Puget & L\u00e9ger 1989; Joblin, L\u00e9ger, & Martin 1992). Thus if the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature is due to aromatic hydrocarbons, we estimate that a significant fraction of carbon remains in aromatic hydrocarbons in molecular cloud dust.\n\nIf the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature is due to, or contains contributions from, non-aromatic species, then the abundances of aromatic hydrocarbons along the line-of-sight derived above become upper limits. If it can be shown that [*none*]{} of the feature is due to aromatic hydrocarbons, then the abundance of carbon trapped in aromatic hydrocarbon molecules may be much lower in molecular clouds than in photodissociation regions or the diffuse interstellar medium. Aggregation of aromatic hydrocarbon molecules into larger graphitic-like structures is one possible explanation.\n\nThe most pressing need is to detect the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature in other sources, both protostars and field stars behind molecular clouds. Brooke et al. (1995) have recently detected the 3.25 $\\mu$m feature toward the protostars NGC\u00a07538/IRS-1 and S\u00a0140/IRS-1, but observations are needed over a wider range of physical conditions. This will determine whether the feature arises in circumstellar environments or in the surrounding molecular cloud, and constrain the volatility of the absorber.\n\nWe would like to thank Dolores Walther for assistance with these observations, which were obtained during UKIRT Service Observing. We also appreciate useful conversations with Lou Allamandola, Christine Joblin, Scott Sandford, and Alan Tokunaga.\n\n[llrll]{}\\\n&Measured&Measured&Predicted $\\lambda$\\\nSource&$\\lambda$ ($\\mu$m)&$T$ (K)&at 80 K ($\\mu$m)&Ref.\\\n\\\nMon R2/IRS-3&3.249 $\\pm$ 0.004&80&3.249 $\\pm$ 0.004&1\\\nMon R2/IRS-3&3.256 $\\pm$ 0.003&80&3.256 $\\pm$ 0.003&2\\\nmatrix-isolated coronene&3.257&4&3.257&3\\\ngas-phase coronene&3.276&698&3.258&4\\\ninterstellar emission feature&3.289&1000&3.260&5\\\nhydrogenated amorphous carbon&3.271&300&3.266&6\\\ncondensed coronene&3.290&788&3.268&4\\\nmatrix-isolated pyrene&3.268&4&3.269&3\\\nquenched carbonaceous composite&3.289&300&3.285&7\\\n\\\n\nReferences\u2014 (1) Sellgren et al. (1994); (2) this paper; (3) Joblin et al. (1994); (4) Flickinger et al. (1991); (5) Tokunaga et al. (1991); (6) Biener et al. (1994); (7) Sakata et al. (1990).\n\nNote: The wavelength of these aromatic substances at a temperature of 80 K, appropriate for Mon R2/IRS-3 (Smith et al. 1989), was predicted from the measured wavelength and the temperature at which the wavelength was measured, using the temperature-dependent wavelength shifts measured by Joblin et al. (1995) for pyrene (for pyrene) or coronene (for all other substances). For the interstellar aromatic emission feature, we assumed a particle temperature of $\\sim$1000K (Sellgren, Werner, & Dinerstein 1983).\n\nAllamandola, L. J., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Barker, J. R. 1985, ApJ, 290, L25\n\nAllamandola, L. J., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Barker, J. R. 1989, , 71, 733\n\nAllamandola, L. J., Sandford, S. A., Tielens, A. G. G. M., & Herbst, T. M. 1992, ApJ, 399, 134\n\nAnders, E. & Grevesse, N. 1989, Geochim Cosmochim Acta, 53, 197\n\nBeckwith, S., Evans, N. J., Becklin, E. E., & Neugebauer, G. 1976, ApJ, 208, 390\n\nBiener, J., Schenk, A., Winter, B., Schubert, U. A., Lutterloh, C. & K\u00fcppers, J. 1994, Phys Rev B, 49, 17307\n\nBlanco, A., Bussoletti, E., & Colangeli, L. 1988, , 334, 875\n\nBrooke, T. Y., Sellgren, K. & Smith, R. G. 1995, ApJ, submitted\n\nColangeli, L., Mennella, V., & Bussoletti, E. 1992, ApJ, 385, 577\n\nD\u00e9sert, F. X., Boulanger, F., & Puget, J. L. 1990, A&A, 237, 215\n\nd\u2019Hendecourt, L. B., & Allamandola, L. J. 1986, A&AS, 64, 453\n\nDickman, R. L. 1978, ApJS, 37, 407\n\nFlickinger, G. C., Wdowiak, T. J., & G\u00f3mez, P. L. 1991, ApJL, 380, L43\n\nGrim, R. J. A., Greenberg, J. M., de Groot, M. S., Baas, F., Schutte, W. A., & Schmitt, B. 1989, A&AS, 78, 161\n\nHudgins, D. M., Sandford, S. A., Allamandola, L. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1993, ApJS, 86, 713\n\nJoblin, C., L\u00e9ger, A., & Martin, P. 1992, ApJL, 393, L79\n\nJoblin, C., d\u2019Hendecourt, L., L\u00e9ger, A., & D\u00e9fourneau, D. 1994, A&A, 281, 923\n\nJoblin, C., Boissel, P., L\u00e9ger, A., d\u2019Hendecourt, L., & D\u00e9fourneau, D. 1995, A&A, in press\n\nL$\\acute{{\\rm e}}$ger, A., & Puget, J. L. 1984, A&A, 137, L5\n\nLepp, S., Dalgarno, A., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H. 1988, ApJ, 329, 418\n\nMathis, J. S. 1990, ARAA, 28, 37\n\nMitchell, G. 1995, private communication\n\nMountain, C. M., Robertson, D. J, Lee, T. J., & Wade, R. 1990, in [*Instrumentation in Astronomy*]{}, ed. D. L. Crawford, SPIE, 1235, 25\n\nNagata, T., Tokunaga, A. T., Sellgren, K., Smith, R. G., Onaka, T., Nakada, Y., & Sakata, A. 1988, ApJ, 326, 157\n\nOgmen, M. & Duley, W. W. 1988, , 334, L117\n\nPuget, J. L. & L\u00e9ger, A. 1989, , 27, 161\n\nSakata, A., Wada, S., Onaka, T., and Tokunaga, A. T. 1990, ApJ, 353, 543\n\nSakata, A., Wada, S., Onaka, T., and Tokunaga, A. T. 1987, ApJ, 320, L63\n\nSellgren, K. 1994, in [*The Infrared Cirrus and Diffuse Interstellar Clouds*]{}, eds. R. M. Cutri and W. B. Latter (San Francisco: ASP), p. 243\n\nSellgren, K., Werner, M. W., & Dinerstein, H. L. 1983, ApJ, 271, L13\n\nSellgren, K., Smith, R. G., & Brooke, T. Y. 1994, ApJ, 433, 179\n\nSmith, R. G., Sellgren, K., & Tokunaga, A. T. 1989, ApJ, 344, 413\n\nTokunaga, A. T., Sellgren, K., Smith, R. G., Nagata, T., Sakata, A., & Nakada, Y. 1991, ApJ, 380, 452\n\nWilliams, D. H., & Fleming, I. 1987, [*Spectroscopic Methods in Organic Chemistry*]{}, 4th ed. (McGraw-Hill: London), p. 41\n\nWillner, S. P., et al. 1982, ApJ, 253, 174\n\n**Figure Captions**\n\n[**Figure 1\u2014**]{} New observations of the protostar Mon R2/IRS-3. Gaps in the data near 3.30 $\\mu$m and 3.32 $\\mu$m are due to Pfund $\\delta$ in the standard star and strong telluric methane absorption, respectively. [*Top*]{}: the 3.16\u20133.55\u00a0$\\mu$m spectrum ([*histogram*]{}) with a resolution of 0.0033 $\\mu$m ($\\lambda$/$\\Delta \\lambda$\u00a0=\u00a01000 at 3.25 $\\mu$m). The units are flux density ($F _ \\lambda$) in W cm$^{-2}$ $\\mu$m$^{-1}$ vs. wavelength in microns. A third-order polynomial ([*solid curve*]{}) was fit to the observations, excluding 3.2\u20133.3\u00a0$\\mu$m and 3.4\u20133.6\u00a0$\\mu$m from the fit, to determine the continuum. [*Middle*]{}: the 3.16\u20133.55\u00a0$\\mu$m optical depth ([*histogram*]{}), compared to the sum of two Gaussians ([*solid curve*]{}), centered at 3.256\u00a0$\\mu$m and 3.484\u00a0$\\mu$m. The central wavelengths, widths, and optical depths of these two Gaussians were varied to produce the best fit to the data. [*Bottom*]{}: the 3.16\u20133.55\u00a0$\\mu$m optical depth ([*histogram*]{}), compared to the profile of the aromatic interstellar emission feature ([*solid curve*]{}) in IRAS 21282+5050 (Nagata et al. 1988), after continuum subtraction (Tokunaga et al. 1991). The emission feature profile was first shifted to bluer wavelengths by 0.0294 $\\mu$m to correct for temperature (see text and Table 1), and then scaled by the ratio of the average 3.17\u20133.28 $\\mu$m optical depth of Mon R2/IRS-3 to the average 3.17\u20133.28 $\\mu$m feature profile of IRAS 21282+5050.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The fluctuation properties of nuclear giant resonance spectra are studied in the presence of continuum decay. The subspace of quasi-bound states is specified by one-particle one-hole and two-particle two-hole excitations and the continuum coupling is generated by a scattering ensemble. It is found that, with increasing number of open channels, the real parts of the complex eigenvalues quickly decorrelate. This appears to be related to the transition from power-law to exponential time behavior of the survival probability of an initially non-stationary state.'\naddress:\n- |\n     Institute of Nuclear Physics, PL - 31-342 Krak\u00f3w, Poland\\\n    Institut f\u00fcr Kernphysik, Forschugszentrum J\u00fclich, D-51425 J\u00fclich, Germany\n- 'Department of Physics, University of Illinois at Urbana, Illinois 61801'\nauthor:\n- 'S. Dro\u017cd\u017c'\n- 'A. Trellakis[@byline2] and J. Wambach[@byline2]'\ntitle: Spectral Decorrelation of Nuclear Levels in the Presence of Continuum Decay\n---\n\nLevel fluctuations, measured in terms of the nearest-neighbor-spacing-distribution (NNSD) and the $\\Delta_3$-statistics, provide a commonly accepted tool for studying the quantum interplay between regular and chaotic dynamics. The standard treatment is restricted to bound states while, in many cases, the excited states are resonances embedded in the continuum. Already a generalization of the standard two-level repulsion theorem [@NW] to resonances [@Bre] shows that this may significantly modify the correlations between the states. Generically, chaotic dynamics leads to level repulsion but the presence of the continuum (open system), is expected [@MZ] to wash out the repulsion between the resonance energies. On the other hand, the lack of correlations between levels is normally interpreted as a manifestation of regular dynamics. It thus seems necessary to explore, on a fully quantitative level, what is the nature of the weakening of the repulsion due to openness and how it modifies the fluctuation characteristics.\n\nThe most practical way for describing an irreversible decay into the continuum is based on a scattering ensemble of non-hermitian random matrices [@SZ]. Such a treatment follows naturally from the projection-operator technique [@Fes] in which the subspace of asymptotically decaying states is formally eliminated. The resulting non-hermitian Hamiltonian $${\\cal H}=H - {i\\over 2} W\n\\label{eq:hnonh}$$ acts in the space of quasi-bound states and the coupling to the continuum is accounted for by the anti-hermitian operator $W$. Unitarity of the scattering matrix imposes on $W$ the following factorization condition: $$W={\\bf A}{\\bf A}^T.\n\\label{eq:W}$$ For an open quantum system with $N$ quasi-bound states, ${| {i} \\rangle}$, ($i=1,...,N$) which decay into $k$ open channels $a$ ($a=1,...,k$), the $N \\times k$ matrix ${\\bf A}\\equiv\\{A^a_i\\}$ denotes the amplitudes for connecting the states $|i\\rangle$ to the reaction channels $a$. The diagonalization of $\\cal H$ in the basis ${| {i} \\rangle}$ yields $N$ quasi-stationary states with complex eigenvalues ${\\cal E}_j = E_j - i \\Gamma_j/2$, whose imaginary parts correspond to the \u2019escape width\u2019. The factorization of $W$ guarantees that $\\Gamma_j \\ge 0$. An interesting effect [@SZ; @Rot] \u2013 due to the separable form of $W$ \u2013 is that, in the strong-coupling limit ($W\\gg H$), one observes a segregation of the states: $k$ states accumulate most the total width, $\\Gamma = \\sum_j \\Gamma_j$, while the remaining $N-k$ states have nearly vanishing widths (they become \u2019enslaved\u2019 [@Rot]).\n\nFor systems, such as the atomic nucleus, whose dynamics is expected to be classically chaotic, it is natural to consider the hermitian- and the anti-hermitian parts of $\\cal H$ to be statistically independent [@SZ]. Furthermore, the real and symmetric $N \\times N$ matrix $H$ can be modeled [@SZ] as a member of the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) of random matrices [@BFF; @Boh]. For large $N$ the matrix elements of $H$ obey the following pair contraction formula: $$\\langle H_{ii'}H_{jj'} \\rangle ={a^2 \\over 4N}\n(\\delta_{ij}\\delta_{i'j'} + \\delta_{ij'}\\delta_{i'j})\n\\label{eq:pair}$$ in the sense of GOE averaging. The constant $a$ is related to the mean level spacing, $D=2a/N$.\n\nFor a general Gaussian ensemble of complex random matrices $\\cal H$ [@Gin] an analogous contraction formula for $\\langle {\\cal H}_{ij} {\\cal H}_{i'j'} \\rangle$ is obtained which implies that the real and imaginary parts of $\\cal H$ commute on average. Consequently, the two hypersurfaces, representing the real and imaginary parts of the energy lie in orthogonal subspaces [@MH]. This, for sufficiently large $N$, may produce decorrelated spectra as seen from either the real or imaginary axes, in spite of a cubic repulsion on the complex plane.\n\nHowever, this general Gaussian ensemble of complex random matrices is not applicable in the present case because of $S$-matrix unitarity. Instead, the anti-hermitian part of $\\cal H$ is determined by the amplitudes $A^a_i$ via Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:W\\]). Based on the GOE character of internal dynamics and orthogonal invariance arguments [@SZ] the amplitudes $A^a_i$ can be assumed to be Gaussian distributed. The corresponding correlator reads: $$\\langle A^a_i A^b_j \\rangle = {1\\over N} \\gamma^a \\delta^{ab}\n\\delta_{ij},~~~~~~~~~~ \\langle A^a_i \\rangle = 0\n\\label{eq:Acor}$$ implying that the average trace is $\\langle Tr W \\rangle =\n\\Sigma_a \\gamma^a$. The diagonal elements $W_{ii}=\\Sigma_{a=1}^k\n(A^a_i)^2$ are then positive, statistically independent and obey a $\\chi_k$-square distribution.\n\nUnlike the amplitudes $A^a_i$ the matrix elements of $W$ are not statistically independent, however. The number of independent random parameters, $Nk - {1\\over 2} k(k-1)$ for $k \\le N$, is reduced by the second term as a consequence of the rotational invariance of $W_{ij}=\\Sigma_{a=1}^k A^a_i A^a_j$ (the scalar product between $N$ $k$-dimensional vectors ${\\bf A}_i$ in the channel space). Only for $k=N$ the correlations in $W$ are specified by ${1\\over 2} N(N-1)$ parameters, as for the GOE. Thus a decorrelation of the projected spectra may result. In most realistic cases, however, the number of open channels $k$ is smaller than $N$. To assess the dependence on the number of open channels we perform a systematic numerical study of the spectral correlations as a function of $k$.\n\nSince the nuclear interaction is predominantly two body in nature, the matrix representation of the nuclear Hamiltonian should be related to the so-called \u2019embedded\u2019 Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (EGOE) [@BFF] rather than the GOE. Therefore, to make our study realistic from the nuclear physics point of view, we generate the hermitian part of $\\cal H$ from the model in ref.\u00a0[@DNSW] instead of using a GOE random ensemble. The Hamiltonian includes a mean-field part and a zero-range and density-dependent two-body interaction. The matrix representation of $H$ is expressed in the basis of one-particle one-hole (1p1h) and two-particle two-hole (2p2h) excitations generated by the mean-field part and by discretizing the continuum [@DNSW]. The spectral fluctuations of the corresponding real eigenvalues, measured in terms of the NNSD and $\\Delta_3$, coincide with those of the GOE [@DNSW], even though significant deviations from the Gaussian distribution of the matrix elements are found [@TDW; @Fla].\n\nBecause of time-reversal invariance the anti-hermitian part of $\\cal H$ is generated by a Gaussian ensemble of real amplitudes $A^a_i$ with correlator (\\[eq:Acor\\]), where $\\gamma^a=1$, [*i.e.*]{} we assume that all channels are equivalent and the strength of the external coupling is comparable to the internal one. In the specific calculations presented below, we select quadrupole excitations ($J^{\\pi}=2^+$) in $^{40}$Ca. To ensure acceptable statistics, in the quasi-bound-state space all 1p1h and 2p2h states up to an excitation energy of 40 MeV are included. This yields a $1661\\times 1661$ Hamiltonian matrix. Fig.\u00a01 shows the resulting eigenvalue distribution on the complex energy plane for an increasing number $k$ of open channels. For $k=10$ the majority of the energies lie very close to the real axis and only a few states acquire a significant width which is a trace of the \u2019collective synchronization\u2019 discussed in ref.\u00a0[@SZ; @Rot]. Increasing $k$, the distribution becomes more uniform and the width $\\Delta_g$ of the empty strip between the cloud of eigenvalues and the real axis widens. This is understandable as $\\Delta_g$ is equal to the \u2019correlation width\u2019 which describes the asymptotic behavior of the decay process [@LSSS].\n\nThe NNSD on the plane can be determined by calculating the normalized distances $s_i=d_i \\rho_n({\\cal E}_i)^{1/2}$, where $d_i$ stands for the Euclidean distance between the eigenvalue ${\\cal E}_i$ and its nearest neighbor, and $\\rho_n({\\cal E}_i)$ for the local density of eigenvalues determined from $n$ nearest neighbors of ${\\cal E}_i$. Similarly as in ref.\u00a0[@HIL], the choice $n=10$ turns out satisfactory and guarantees stability. The numerical results are compared to the Poisson distribution $P(s)=(\\pi/2) s \\exp(-\\pi s^2/4)$ (dashed lines in the [*rh*]{} column of Fig.\u00a01), which shows linear repulsion on the plane, and to the $P(s)= (81\\pi^2/128) s^3 \\exp(-9\\pi s^2/16)$ with cubic repulsion (solid lines). The latter gives a good description for the NNSD of symmetric Gaussian random matrices [@TDW][@JMSS] and, for a large number of open channels, also fit our numerical results nicely. For a few open channels (upper right part of Fig\u00a01.) we see a weaker then cubic repulsion, however .\n\nNow we come to the central point namely the fluctuation properties of the real parts $E_i$ of the energy eigenvalues. The corresponding NNSD and $\\Delta_3$-statistics are shown in Fig.\u00a02. It is well known that, without coupling the continuum, the spectra show GOE characteristics for both measures [@DNSW]. However, for many open channels a decorrelation takes place. In fact, for large $k$ the results are well reproduced by a Poissonian shape of the NNSD (lower left part of Fig.\u00a02). Quite surprisingly, this even holds for $k/N$ of a few percent (middle left part of Fig.\u00a02). Already for ten open channels $(k/N=6*10^{-1})$, there is a visible deviation from the Wigner distribution (upper left part of Fig.\u00a02). These numerical observations lead to the conclusion that the appropriate way of describing these deviations is to consider superpositions of Wigner and Poisson distributions rather than Wigner and Gaussian [@MZ].\n\nThe longer-range correlations (spectral rigidity) expressed by the $\\Delta_3$-statistics show a similar tendency, although the transition is somewhat slower. In addition, as is seen in Fig.\u00a02, the transition region $L_{max}$ from GOE to Poissonian characteristics is restricted to about 10 normalized distance units. This appears to be consistent with the findings in [@DS] for hermitian separable problems, where $L_{max}$ increases with increasing length of the string of eigenvalues. In the present case the string is comparatively short. On a more formal level [@Berry], the $\\Delta_3$-statistics is known to be non-universal above a certain $L_{max}$. For systems with a known classical limit, $L_{max}$ is determined by the inverse of the period of the shortest periodic orbits. We wish to mention, without showing the results explicitly, that an analogous analysis for the imaginary parts of ${\\cal E}_i$ show Poissonian fluctuations for any number of the open channels. This asymmetry in the statistical properties of $E_j$ and $\\Gamma_j$ is related to the different properties of the real and imaginary parts of $\\cal H$, especially for smaller values of $k$.\n\nAnother way of understanding the decorrelation of the resonance energies due to the presence of continuum decay comes from the relation between the wave-packet dynamics and the stationary states [@Heller]. The latter can be obtained via the Fourier transform of the time evolution of a generic wave packet. For a bound-state problem such a wave packet resides in the interaction region forever and thus, the structure of the corresponding phase space can be resolved with arbitrary accuracy. Consequently, for a chaotic system, the whole complexity (delocalization, random nodal pattern, scars, etc.) of stationary states can be reproduced. Coupling to the continuum, sets a limit for this process, however. As time progresses, the wave packet will leak out of the interaction region and makes it impossible to resolve all details of the dynamics. As a result the wave functions, projected onto the interaction region, look more regular than their counterparts in a closed system. The leakage is expected to occur faster with increasing $k$. A quantititive measure of the speed is the survival probability $P(t)$ of a randomly chosen wave packet ${| {F} \\rangle}$, initially localized in the interaction region. As a convenient and experimentally motivated choice we consider a state excited by the isovector quadrupole operator $(|F\\rangle={\\hat F} |0\\rangle$). When expanded ${| {F} \\rangle}$ involves all the eigenstates $|\\chi_i\\rangle$ of $\\cal H$ and $$P(t)=|\\langle F(0)|F(t)\\rangle|^2= |\\sum_{j=1}^N \\langle 0|\\hat F|\\chi_j\\rangle\n\\langle \\chi_j|\\hat F|0\\rangle e^{i {\\cal E}_j t/\\hbar}|^2\n\\label{eq:P}$$ (for a complex symmetric matrix the left and right eigenvectors are the same). In the absence of continuum coupling, $P(t)$ remains constant (on average) after a rapid initial dephasing due to the non-stationarity of $|F\\rangle$ [@DNWS]. For an open system, on the other hand, a decay of $P(t)$ is to be expected. The most interesting feature is the dependence of the decay law on the number of open channels: For a small $k$ the decay is very slow and well represented by a power-law $(P(t) \\sim t^{-z})$. For $k=1$ we find $z\\approx -1/2$, in reasonable agreement with the estimates of ref.\u00a0[@DHM]. As $k$ increases $z$ grows very fast and, for $k>100$, $P(t)$ drops exponentially on long time scales, [*i.e.*]{} $P(t) \\sim \\exp(-\\eta t)$, with the decay constant $\\eta$ growing rapidly with $k$ (Fig.\u00a03). These observations go in parallel with the classical picture of open phase space phenomena such as a chaotic scattering [@DOS]: For a small number of the open channels the decay is governed by a power-law. This is associated with larger fractal dimensions of the set of singularities generating chaotic behavior than for many open channel cases which lead to an exponential decay.\n\nIn summary, the numerical analysis presented in this work shows that GOE correlated spectra of quasi-bound states become fully decorrelated in the presence of continuum coupling and when the number of open channels is large. This transition is accompanied by a change of the decay properties of the average survival probability of a non-stationary wave packet, turning from power-law to exponential. This appears to be consistent with the semiclassical relation [@BS] between the time-dependence of $P(t)$ and the structure of the resonances. An exponential behavior of $P(t)$ corresponds to the region of strongly overlapping resonances (Ericson fluctuations [@Eri]), while the power-law decay, with small power indices $z$ [@LFO], corresponds to isolated resonances, and it is this isolation which preserves the original fluctuations.\n\nThis work was supported in part by the Polish KBN Grant No. 2 P302 157 04 and by a grant from the National Science Foundation, NSF-PHY-94-21309.\n\n=.0cm\n\nalso at: Institut f\u00fcr Kernphysik, Forschungszentrum J\u00fclich, D-52425 J\u00fclich, Germany.\n\nJ. von Neumann and E. Wigner, Z. Phys. [**30**]{}, 467(1929) P. von Brentano, Phys. Lett. [**238B**]{}, 1(1990); [*ibid*]{} [**265B**]{}, 14(1991) S. Mizutori and V.G. Zelevinsky, Z. Phys. [**A346**]{}, 1(1993) V.V. Sokolov and V.G. Zelevinsky, Phys. Lett. [**202B**]{}, 10(1988); Nucl. Phys. [**A504**]{}, 562(1989) H. Feshbach, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**5**]{}, 357(1958) P. Kleinw\u00e4chter and I. Rotter, Phys. Rev. [**C32**]{}, 1742(1985); W. Iskra, M. M\u00fcller and I. Rotter, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. [**19**]{}, 2045(1993); [*ibid*]{} [**20**]{}, 775(1994) T.A. Brody, J. Flores, J.B. French, P.A. Mello, A. Pandey and S.S.M. Wong, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**53**]{}, 385(1981) R.V.\u00a0Haq, A.\u00a0Pandey and O.\u00a0Bohigas, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**48**]{}, 1086(1982);O. Bohigas, M.J. Giannoni and C. Schmit, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**52**]{}, 1(1984) J. Ginibre, J. Math. Phys. [**6**]{}, 3(1965) A. Mondrag\u00f3n and E. Hern\u00e1ndez, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**26**]{}, 5595(1993) S. Dro\u017cd\u017c, S. Nishizaki, J. Speth and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. [**C49**]{}, 867(1994) A. Trellakis, S. Dro\u017cd\u017c and J. Wambach, to be published V.V. Flambaum, A.A. Gribakina, G.F. Gribakin and M.G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. [**A50**]{}, 267(1994) N. Lehmann, D. Saher, V.V. Sokolov and H.-J. Sommers, Nucl. Phys. [**A582**]{}, 223(1995) F. Haake, F. Izrailev, N. Lehmann, D. Saher and H.-J. Sommers, Z. Phys. [**B88**]{}, 359(1992) W.John, B.Milek and H.Schanz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 1949(1991) F. Haake, Quantum Signatures of Chaos (Springer, 1991) S. Dro\u017cd\u017c and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 529(1991) M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London [**A400**]{}, 229(1985) E.J. Heller, in Chaos and Quantum Physics, Les Houches 1989, eds. M.-J. Giannoni, A. Voros and J. Zinn-Justin, (Elsevier, 1991), p. 548 S. Dro\u017cd\u017c, S. Nishizaki, J. Wambach and J. Speth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1075(1995) F.-M. Dittes, H.L. Harney and A. M\u00fcller, Phys. Rev. [**A45**]{}, 710(1992) S. Dro\u017cd\u017c, J. Okolowicz and T. Srokowski, Phys. Rev. [**E48**]{}, 4851(1993) R. Bl\u00fcmel and U. Smilansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 477(1988) T. Ericson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**5**]{}, 430(1960) Y.-T. Lau, J.M. Finn and E. Ott, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 978(1991)\n\n[***Figure Captions***]{}\n\n-   Left column: The eigenvalue distribution of the non-hermitian Hamiltonian $\\cal H$ defined in Eq.\u00a0(1) for different number $k$ of open channels. The hermitian part $H$ is chosen as the Hamiltonian of \\[12\\] while the anti-hermitian part $W$ is given by Eq.\u00a0(2) taking the amplitudes $A$ as members of the Gaussian ensemble \\[4\\]. Right column: the corresponding NNSD on the complex plane.\n\n-   The NNSD ([*lhs*]{}) and the $\\Delta_3$ statistics ([*rhs*]{}) of the real parts $E_i$ for energy eigenvalues of ${\\cal H}$ and different number k of open channels.\n\n-   The time dependence of the survival probability $P(t)$ of a wave packet, initialized by the isovector quadrupole operator, for various numbers of open channels.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- |\n    Mario\u00a0Amrehn, Stefan\u00a0Steidl, Reinier\u00a0Kortekaas, Maddalena\u00a0Strumia,\\\n    Markus\u00a0Weingarten, Markus\u00a0Kowarschik, Andreas\u00a0Maier\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\ntitle: 'A Semi-Automated Usability Evaluation Framework for Interactive Image Segmentation Systems'\n---\n\n[Amrehn : Usability Evaluation of Interactive Image Segmentation Systems]{}\n\nat (current page.north east)\n\n(fmogh) at (0pt, 0pt) [ **[ [Fork me on GitHub](https://github.com/mamrehn/interactive_image_segmentation_evaluation) ]{}** ]{}; (-25em,1.2em) rectangle (25em,-1.2em);\n\n;\n\nthe best of our knowledge, there is not one publication in which user based scribbles are combined with standardized questionnaires in order to assess an interactive image segmentation system\u2019s quality. This type of synergetic usability measure is a contribution of this work. In order to provide a guideline for an objective comparison of interactive image segmentation approaches, a prototype providing a pictorial user input, introduced in **Sec.**\\[sec:semi-manual\\_prototype\\], is compared to a prototype with a guiding menu-driven [UI]{}, described in **Sec.**\\[sec:guided\\_prototype\\]. Both evaluation results are analyzed with respect to a joint prototype, defined in **Sec.**\\[sec:joint\\_prototype\\], incorporating aspects of both interface techniques. All three prototypes are built utilizing modern web technologies. An evaluation of the interactive prototypes is performed utilizing pragmatic usability aspects described in **Sec.**\\[sec:results\\_pragmatic\\], as well as hedonic usability aspects analyzed in **Sec.**\\[sec:results\\_hedonic\\].\n\nImage Segmentation Systems\n--------------------------\n\nImage segmentation can be defined as the partitioning of an image into a finite number of semantically non-overlapping regions. A semantic label can be assigned to each region. In medical imaging, each individual region of a patients\u2019 abdominal tissue might be regarded as healthy or cancerous. Segmentation systems can be grouped into three principal categories, each differing in the degree of involvement of an operating person (user): manual, automatic, and interactive. (1) During manual tumor segmentation, a user provides all elements $i$ in the image grid which have neighboring elements $N(i)$ of different labels than $i$. The system then utilizes this closed curve contour line information to infer the labels for remaining image elements via simple region growing. This minimal assistance by the system causes the overall segmentation process of one lesion to take up to several minutes of user interaction time. However, reaching an appropriate or even perfect segmentation result (despite noteworthy difference\u00a0[@becker2017increased]) is feasible\u00a0[@kim2016interobserver; @hong2014interobserver]. In practice, few manual segmentations are performed by domain experts, in order to utilize the results as a reference standard in radiotherapy planning\u00a0[@moltz2011analysis]. (2) A fully automated approach does not involve a user\u2019s interference with the system. The introduced deficiency in domain knowledge for accurately labeling regions may be restored partially by automated segmentation approaches. The maximum accuracy of the segmentation result is therefore highly dependent on the individual set of rules or amount of training data available. If the segmentation task is sufficiently complex, a perfect result may not be reachable. (3) Interactive approaches aim at a fast and exact segmentation by combining substantial assistance by the system with knowledge about a very good estimate of the true tumor extent provided by trained physicians during the segmentation process\u00a0[@olabarriaga1997setting]. In contrast to fully automated solutions, prior knowledge is (also) provided during the segmentation process. Although, interactive approaches are also costly in terms of manual labor to some extent, they can supersede fully automated techniques in terms of accuracy. Due to their exact segmentation capabilities, interactive segmentation techniques are frequently chosen to outline pathologies during imaging assisted medical procedures, like hepatocellular carcinomata during trans-catheter arterial chemoembolization (see **Sec.**\\[sec:tace\\]).\n\nEvaluation of Image Segmentation Systems\n----------------------------------------\n\nPerformance evaluation is one of the most important aspects during the continuous improvement of systems and methodologies. With non-interactive computer vision and machine learning systems for image segmentation, an objective comparison of systems can be achieved by evaluating data sets for training and testing. Similarity measures between segmentation outcome and ground truth images are utilized to quantify the quality of the segmentation result.\n\nWith (), a complete ground truth data set would also consist of the adaptive user interactions which advance the segmentation process. Therefore, when comparing , the user needs to be involved in the evaluation process. User interaction data however is highly dependent on (1) the users\u2019 domain knowledge and the unique learning effect of the human throughout a period of exposure to the problem domain, (2) the system\u2019s underlying segmentation method and the users\u2019 preferences toward this technique, as well as (3) the design and usability (the user experience\u00a0[@hassenzahl2006user; @law2009understanding]) of the interface which is presented to the user during the interactive segmentation procedure\u00a0[@caro1979inter; @hong2014interobserver]. This includes users\u2019 differing preferences towards diverse interaction systems and tolerances for unexpected system behavior. Considering , an analytically expressed objective function for an interactive system is hard to define. Intuitively, the user wants to achieve a satisfying result in a short amount of time with ease\u00a0[@kohli2012user]. A direct assessment of a system\u2019s usability is enabled via standardized questionnaires, as described in **Sec.**\\[sec:questionnaires\\]. Individual usage of can be evaluated via the segmentation result\u2019s similarity to the ground truth labeling according to the S[\u00f8]{}rensen-Dice coefficient ()\u00a0[@dice1945measures] after each interaction. The interaction data utilized for these segmentations has to be representative in order to generalize the evaluation results.\n\nTypes of User Interaction\n-------------------------\n\nAs described by Olabarriaga et al.\u00a0[@olabarriaga2001interaction] as well as Zhao and Xie\u00a0[@zhao2012interactive], user interactions can be categorized with regards to the type of interface an provides. The following categories are emphasized. (1) A pictorial mask image is the most intuitive form of user input. Humans use this technique when transferring knowledge via a visual medium\u00a0[@puranik2011scribbles]. The mask overlayed on the visualization of the image to segment consists of structures called scribbles, where $w$ is the width and $h$ is the height of the image $\\mathbf{I}$ in pixels. Scribbles are seed points, lines, and complex shapes, each represented as a set of individual seed points. One seed point is a tuple , where describes the position of the seed in image space. The class label of a scribble in a binary segmentation system is represented by . Scribbles need to be defined by the user in order to act as a representative subset $\\mathbf{S}$ of the ground truth segmentation .\n\n\\(2) A menu-driven user input scheme as in\u00a0[@rupprecht2015image; @udupa1997multiple] limits the user\u2019s scope of action. Users trade distinct control over the segmentation outcome for more guidance provided by the system. The locations or the shapes of newly created scribbles are fixed before presentation to the user. It is challenging to achieve an exact segmentation result using a method from this category. Rupprecht et al.\u00a0[@rupprecht2015image] describe significant deficits in finding small objects and outline a tendency of the system to automatically choose seed point locations near the object border, which cannot be labeled by most users\u2019 visual inspection and would therefore not have been selected by the users themselves. Advantages of user input are the high level of abstraction of the process, enabling efficient guidance for inexperienced users in their decision which action to perform for an optimal segmentation outcome (regarding accuracy over time or number of interactions)\u00a0[@olabarriaga1999human; @olabarriaga2001interaction].\n\nGeneration of Representative User Input\n---------------------------------------\n\nNickisch et al.\u00a0[@nickisch2010learning] describe crowd sourcing and user studies as two methods to generate plausible user input data. The cost efficient crowd sourcing method often lacks control and knowledge of the users\u2019 motivation. Missing context information for crucial aspects of the data acquisition procedure creates a challenging task objectifying the evaluation results. Specialized fraud detection methods are commonly used in an attempt to pre-filter the recorded corpus and extract a usable subset of data. McGuinness and O\u2019Connor\u00a0[@mcguinness2010comparative] proposed an evaluation of via extensive user experiments. In these experiments, users are shown images with descriptions of the objects they are required to extract. Then, users mark foreground and background pixels utilizing a platform designed for this purpose. These acquisitions are more time-consuming and cost intensive than , since they require a constant involvement of users. However, the study\u2019s creators are able to control many aspects of the data recording process, which enables detailed observations of user reactions. The data samples recorded are a representative subset of the focus group of the finalized system. A user study aims at maximizing repeatability of its results. In order to increase the objectivity of the evaluation in this work, a user study is chosen to be conducted. The study is described in **Sec.**\\[sec:usability\\_test\\_setup\\].\n\nState-of-the-art Evaluation of Interactive Segmentation Systems\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\n### Segmentation Challenges\n\nIn segmentation challenges like \u00a0[@van20073d] (mainly) fully automated approaches are competing for the highest score regarding a predefined image quality metric. Semi-automatic methods are allowed for submission if the manual interaction with the test data is strictly limited to pre-processing and (single seed point) initialization of an otherwise fully automated process. may be included into the contests\u2019 final ranking, but are regarded as non-competing, since the structure of the challenges is solely designed for automated approaches. The challenge\u00a0[@litjens2014evaluation] had a separate category for proposed interactive approaches, where the user (in this case, the person also describing the algorithm) may add an unlimited number of hints during segmentation, without observing the experts\u2019 ground truth for the test set. No group of experts was provided to operate the interactive method for comparative results. The submitted interactive methods\u2019 scores in the challenge\u2019s ranking are therefore highly dependent on the domain knowledge of single operating users and can not be regarded as an objective measure.\n\n### Comparisons for Novel Segmentation Approaches\n\nIn principle, with every new proposal of an interactive segmentation algorithm or interface, the authors have to demonstrate the new method\u2019s capabilities in an objective comparison with already established techniques. The effort spent for these comparisons by the original authors varies substantially. According to\u00a0[@kohli2012user], many evaluation methods only consider a fixed input. This approach is especially unsuited for evaluation, without simultaneously defining an appropriate interface, which actually validates that a real person utilizing this [UI]{} is capable of generating similar input patterns to the ones provided. Although, there are some overview publications, which compare several approaches\u00a0[@zhao2013overview; @olabarriaga2001interaction; @mcguinness2010comparative; @mcguinness2011toward; @amrehn2016comparative], the number of publications outlining new methods is disproportionately greater, leaving comparisons insufficiently covered. In **Tab.**\\[tab:interactiveSegmentationEvaluationComparison\\], a clustering of popular publications describing novel interactive segmentation techniques is depicted. The evaluation methods can be compared by the type of data utilized as user input. Note that there is a trend towards more elaborate evaluations in more recent publications.\n\nClinical Application for Interactive Segmentation {#sec:tace}\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nHepatocellular carcinoma () is among the most prevalent malignant tumors worldwide\u00a0[@chung2006transcatheter; @mcglynn2011global]. Only of cases are curable via surgery. Both, a patient\u2019s and hepatic cirrhosis in advanced stages may lead on to the necessity of alternative treatment methods. For these inoperable cases, trans-catheter arterial chemoembolization ()\u00a0[@lewandowski2011transcatheter] is a promising and widely used minimally invasive intervention technique\u00a0[@bruix2005management; @bruix2011management]. During , collateral vessels are occluded, which previously supplied the [HCC]{} with oxygenated blood. To locate these vessels, it is crucial to find the exact shape as well as the position of the tumor inside the liver. Interventional radiology is utilized to generate a volumetric cone-beam C-arm computed tomography ()\u00a0[@strobel20093d] image of the patient\u2019s abdomen, which is processed to precisely outline and label the lesion. The toxicity of decreases, the less healthy tissue is labeled as pathologic. The efficacy of the therapy increases, the less cancerous tissue is falsely labeled as healthy\u00a0[@lo2002randomized]. However, precisely outlining the tumor is challenging, especially due to its variations in size and shape, as well as a high diversity in X-ray attenuation coefficient values representing the lesion as illustrated in **Fig.**\\[fig:hepatic\\_tumor\\_segmentation\\_outcome\\]. While fully automated systems may yield insufficiently accurate segmentation results, tend to be well suited for an application during .\n\nMethods {#sec:methods}\n=======\n\nSegmentation Method {#sec:segmentation_method}\n-------------------\n\n\u00a0[@vezhnevets2005growcut] is a seeded image segmentation algorithm based on cellular automaton theory. The automaton is a tuple , where $\\mathbf{G}_\\mathbf{I}$ is the $\\mathbf{I}$, where the pixels/voxels act as nodes $\\mathbf{v}_e$. The nodes are connected by edges on a grid defined by the Moore neighborhood system. $$\\mbox{$\\mathbf{Q}\\ni\\mathbf{Q}_e^t=\\left((\\mathbf{p}_e, \\,\\mathbf{\\ell}_e^t), \\,\\mathbf{\\Theta}_e^t, \\,\\mathbf{c}_e, \\,\\mathbf{h}_e^t\\right)$}\n\\label{eq:growcutgraph}$$ of node $e$ at iteration $t$. the node\u2019s characteristics. Here, we additionally define $\\mathbf{h}_e^t \\in \\mathbb{N}^{0}$ as a counter for accumulated label changes of $e$ during the iteration, as described in\u00a0[@amrehn2018ideal], with . is initialized with $1$ for scribbles, i.e.\u00a0, and $0$ otherwise.\n\nIterations are performed utilizing local state transition rule $\\delta$: starting from initial seeds, labels are propagated based on local intensity features $\\mathbf{c}$. At each discrete time step $t$, each node $f$ attempts to conquer its direct neighbors. A node $e$ is conquered if $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\mathbf{\\Theta}_f^t\\cdot\\operatorname{g}(\\mathbf{c}_e,\\mathbf{c}_f)&>\\mathbf{\\Theta}_e^t\\,,\\ \\text{where}\\label{eq:growcutisconquered}\\\\\n    \\operatorname{g}(\\mathbf{c}_e,\\mathbf{c}_f) &= 1 - \\frac{\\Vert\\mathbf{c}_e-\\mathbf{c}_f\\Vert_2}{\\max_{j,k}\\Vert\\mathbf{c}_j-\\mathbf{c}_k\\Vert_2}\\end{aligned}$$ If node $e$ is conquered, the automaton\u2019s state set is updated $$\\mbox{$\\mathbf{Q}_e^{t+1}=((\\mathbf{p}_e,\\mathbf{\\ell}_f^t),\\mathbf{\\Theta}_f^t\\cdot\\operatorname{g}(c_e,c_f),\\mathbf{c}_e,\\mathbf{h}_e^t+1)$},\n\\label{eq:growcutupdatestate}$$ The process is guaranteed to converge with positive and bounded node strengths monotonously decreasing\n\nInteractive Segmentation Prototypes {#sec:sgmentation_prototypes}\n-----------------------------------\n\nThree interactive segmentation prototypes with different were implemented for usability testing. The segmentation technique applied in all prototypes is based on the approach as described in **Sec.**\\[sec:segmentation\\_method\\]. allows for efficient and parallelizable computation of image segmentations while providing an acceptable accuracy from only few initial seed points. It is therefore well suited for an integration into a highly interactive system.\n\nAll three user interfaces provided include an *undo* button to reverse the effects of the user\u2019s latest action. A *finish* button is used to define the stopping criterion for the interactive image partitioning. The transparency of both, the contour line and seed mask displayed, is adjustable to one of five fixed values via the *opacity* toggle button. The image contrast and brightness (windowing) can be adapted with standard control sliders for the window width and the window center operating on the image intensity value range\u00a0[@jin2001contrast]. All protoypes incorporate a *help* button used to provide additional guidance for the prototype\u2019s usage during the segmentation task. The segmentation process starts with a set of pre-defined background-labels $\\mathbf{S}^0$ along the edges of the image, since an object is assumed to be located in its entirety inside the displayed region of the image.\n\n###  Segmentation Prototype {#sec:semi-manual_prototype}\n\nThe of the prototype, depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:semi-manual\\_prototype\\], provides several interaction elements. A user can add seed points as an overlay mask displayed on top of the image. These seed points have a pre-defined label of either for the object or used for all other image elements. The label of the next brush strokes (scribbles) can be altered via the buttons named and . After each interaction , a new iteration of the seeded segmentation is started given the image $\\mathbf{I}$ as well as the updated set of seeds as input.\n\n![ segmentation prototype user interface. The current segmentation\u2019s contour line (light blue) is [adjusted towards the user\u2019s estimate of the ground truth segmentation]{} by manually adding foreground (blue) or background (red) seed points.[]{data-label=\"fig:semi-manual_prototype\"}](images/semi-manual_segmentation_prototype_contrast.png){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"0.61296534017\\columnwidth\"}\n\n### Guided Segmentation Prototype {#sec:guided_prototype}\n\nThe system selects two seed point locations , each with the lowest label certainty values assigned by the previous segmentation process. The seed point locations are shown to the user in each iteration $n$, as depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:guided\\_prototype\\]. There are four possible labeling schemes for those points in the underlying classification problem, since each seed point has a label . The interface providing advanced user guidance displays the four alternative segmentation contour lines, which are a result of the four possible next steps during the iterative interactive segmentation with respect to the labeling of the new seed points $\\mathbf{s}^n_1$ and $\\mathbf{s}^n_2$. The user selects the only correct labeling, where all displayed object and background seeds are inside the object of interest and the image background, respectively. The alternative views on the right act as four buttons to define a selection. To further assist the user in their decision making, the region of interest, defined by $\\mathbf{p}^n_1$ and $\\mathbf{p}^n_2$, is zoomed in for the option view on the right and displayed as a cyan rectangle in the overview image on the left of the . The differences regarding the previous iteration\u2019s contour line and one of the four new options each are highlighted by dotted areas in the four overlay mask images. After the user selects one of the labelings, the two new seed points are added to the current set of scribbles $\\mathbf{S}^n$. The scribbles are utilized as input for the next iteration, on which basis two new locations are computed.\n\nThe system-defined locations of the additional seed points can be determined by , the location(s) with maximum number of label changes during segmentation. Frequent changes define specific image elements and areas in which the algorithm indicates uncertainty in finding the correct labels. Two locations in $\\mathbf{h}^{t=\\infty,{n-1}}$ are then selected as $\\mathbf{p}^n_1$ and $\\mathbf{p}^n_2$, which stated the most changes in labeling during the previous segmentation with input image $\\mathbf{I}$ and seeds $\\mathbf{S}^{n - 1}$.\n\n![Guided segmentation prototype user interface. The current segmentation displayed on the upper left can be improved by choosing one of the four segmentation alternatives displayed on the right. The user is expected to choose the upper-right option in this configuration, [due to the two new seeds\u2019 matching background and foreground labels]{}.[]{data-label=\"fig:guided_prototype\"}](images/guided_segmentation_prototype_contrast.png){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"0.61296534017\\columnwidth\"}\n\n### Joint Segmentation Prototype {#sec:joint_prototype}\n\nThe joint prototype depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:joint\\_prototype\\] is a combination of a pictorial interaction scheme and a menu-driven approach. (1) A set of pre-selected new seeds is displayed in each iteration. The seeds\u2019 initial labels are set automatically, based on whether their position is inside (foreground) or outside (background) the current segmentation mask. The user may toggle the label of each of the new seeds, which also provides an intuitive functionality. The automated suggestion process for new seed point locations is depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:joint\\_prototype\\_prob\\_map\\]. The seed points are suggested deterministically based on the indices of the maximum values in an element-wise sum of three approximated influence maps. These maps are the gradient magnitude image of $\\mathbf{I}$, the previous label changes per element in $\\mathbf{G}_\\mathbf{I}$ weighted by an empirically determined factor of $17/12$, and an influence map based on the distance of each element in $\\mathbf{I}$ to the current contour line. Note that for the guided prototype (see **Sec.**\\[sec:guided\\_prototype\\]), only $\\mathbf{h}$ was used for the selection of suggested seed point locations. This scheme was extended for the joint prototype, since extracting instead of only the top two points solely from $\\mathbf{h}$ potentially introduces suggested point locations forming impractical local clusters instead of spreading out with higher variance in the image domain. This process approximates the true influence or entropy (information gain) of each possible location for a new seed.\n\nWhen all seed points presented to the user are toggled to their correct label, the user may click on the *new points* button to initiate the next iteration with an updated set of seed points . Another set of seed points is generated and displayed.\n\n\\(2) In addition to pre-selected seeds, a single new seed point $\\mathbf{s}^n_0$ can be added manually via a user\u2019s long-press on any location in the image. A desired change in the current labeling of this region is interpreted given this user action. Therefore, the new seed point\u2019s initial label is set by inverting the current label of the given location. A new segmentation is initiated by this interaction based on . Note that the labels of are still subject to change via toggle interactions until the button is pressed.\n\n![Joint segmentation prototype user interface. The user toggles the labels of pre-positioned seed points[, which positions are displayed to them as colored circles,]{} to properly indicate their inclusion into the set of object or background representatives. New seeds can be added at the position of [current]{} interaction via a long-press on the overlay image. The segmentation result as well as [the]{} displayed contour line adapt accordingly after each interaction.[]{data-label=\"fig:joint_prototype\"}](images/joint_segmentation_prototype_contrast.png){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"0.61296534017\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![The approximated influence map for new seed point locations [for the joint segmentation prototype]{}. The map is generated by a weighted sum of gradient magnitude image, number of cell changes [$h_e^{t=\\infty}$ per cell $e$]{} obtained from [the]{} previous segmentation, [as well as the]{} distance to the contour line of the current segmentation. []{data-label=\"fig:joint_prototype_prob_map\"}](images/prob_map_1.png){height=\"0.61296534017\\columnwidth\"}\n\nQuestionnaires {#sec:questionnaires}\n--------------\n\n### System Usability Scale () {#sec:questionnaires_sus}\n\nThe \u00a0[@brooke1996sus; @lewis2009factor] is a widely used, reliable, and low-cost survey to assess the overall usability of a prototype, product, or service\u00a0[@kortum2013usability]. Its focus is on pragmatic quality evaluation\u00a0[@ISO92411998; @ISO92412018]. The survey is technology agnostic, which enables a utilization of the usability of many types of user interfaces and \u00a0[@bangor2009determining]. The questionnaire consists of ten statements and an unipolar five-point Likert scale\u00a0[@likert1932technique]. This allows for an assessment in a time span of about three minutes per participant. The statements are as follows:\n\n1.  I think that I would like to use this system frequently.\n\n2.  I found the system unnecessarily complex.\n\n3.  I thought the system was easy to use.\n\n4.  I think that I would need the support of a technical person to be able to use this system.\n\n5.  I found the various functions in this system were well integrated.\n\n6.  I thought there was too much inconsistency in this system.\n\n7.  I would imagine that most people would learn to use this system very quickly.\n\n8.  I found the system very cumbersome to use.\n\n9.  I felt very confident using the system.\n\n10. I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with this system.\n\nThe Likert scale provides a fixed choice response format to these expressions. The choice in an Likert scale always is the neutral element. Using the scale, subjects are asked to define their degree of consent to each given statement. The fixed choices for the five-point scale are named *strongly disagree*, *disagree*, *undecided*, *agree*, and *strongly agree*. During the evaluation of the survey, these names are assigned values [$\\mathbf{x}_i$ from zero to four]{} in the order presented, for statements with index . scores enable simple interpretation schemes, understandable also in multi-disciplinary project teams. The result of the survey is a single scalar value, in the range of zero to $100$ as a composite measure of the overall usability. The score is computed according to , given $S$ participants, where is the response to $i$ by subject $s$. $$\\operatorname{sus}(\\mathbf{x}) = \\frac{2.5}{S} \\sum_{s}\\left[\\, \\sum_{\\text{odd } i} \\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}_{s,i} + \\sum_{\\text{even } i} (4 - \\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}_{s,i})\\, \\right]\n    \\label{eq:sus_score}$$ Although the score allows for straightforward comparison of the usability throughout different systems, there is no simple intuition associated with the resulting scalar value. In practice, a of less than $80$ is often interpreted as an indicator of a substantial usability problem with the system. Bangor et al.\u00a0[@bangor2008empirical; @bangor2009determining] proposed an interpretation of the score in a seven-point scale. : *worst imaginable*, *awful*, *poor*, *OK*, *good*, *excellent*, and *best imaginable*. This mapping also enables an absolute interpretation of a single score.\n\n![Mapping from a score to an adjective rating scheme proposed by Bangor et al.\u00a0[@bangor2009determining][. Given a rating, the relative height of the Gaussian distributions approximate the probabilities for each adjective. Distributions\u2019 $\\mu$ and $\\sigma$ were extracted evaluating]{} $959$ surveys [with added adjective rating as an 11th question]{}. []{data-label=\"fig:sus_adjective\"}](images/sus/sus_adjective_rating \"fig:\"){width=\"\\linewidth\"}\\\n\nSystem usability scale () rating\n\n### Semantic Differential  {#sec:questionnaires_attrakdiff}\n\nA semantic differential is a technique for the measurement of meaning as defined by Osgood et al.\u00a0[@osgood1952nature; @osgood1957measurement]. Semantic differentials are based on the theory, that the implicit anticipatory response of a person to a stimulus object is regarded as the object\u2019s meaning. Since these implicit responses themselves cannot be recorded directly, more apparent responses like verbal expressions have to be considered\u00a0[@mehrabian1974approach; @fishbein1975belief]. These verbal responses have to be sensitive to and maximally dependent on meaningful states while independent from each other\u00a0[@osgood1957measurement]. Hassenzahl et al.\u00a0[@hassenzahl2003attrakdiff; @hassenzahl2000hedonic] defined a set of $28$ pairs of verbal expressions suitable to represent a subject\u2019s opinion on the hedonic as well as pragmatic quality (both aspects of perception) and attractiveness (an aspect of assessment) of a given interactive system separately\u00a0[@hassenzahl2001effect]. During evaluation, the pairs of complementary adjectives are clustered into four groups, each associated with a different aspect of quality. Pragmatic quality () is defined as the perceived usability of the interactive system, which is the ability to assist users to reach their goals by providing utile and usable functions\u00a0[@hassenzahl2008user]. The attractiveness () quantizes the overall appeal of the system\u00a0. The hedonic quality ()\u00a0[@diefenbach2008give] is separable into hedonic identity () and hedonic stimulus (). focuses on a user\u2019s identification with the system and describes the ability of a product to communicate with other persons benefiting the user\u2019s self-esteem\u00a0[@hassenzahl2007hedonic]. describes the perceived novelty of the system. is associated with the desire to advance ones knowledge and proficiencies. The clustering into these four groups for the $28$ word pairs are defined as depicted in **Tab.**\\[tab:attrakdiff\\_statements\\].\n\nFor each participant, the order of word pairs and order of the two elements of each pair are randomized prior to the survey\u2019s execution. A bipolar\u00a0[@mccroskey1989bipolar] seven-point Likert scale is presented to the subjects to express their relative tendencies toward one of the two opposing statements () of each expression pair, where index three denotes the neutral element. For the questionnaire\u2019s evaluation for subject , each of the seven adjective pairs per group is assigned a score by each participant, reflecting their tendency towards the positive of the two adjectives. The overall ratings per group are the mean scores computed over all subjects $s$ and statements $i$, . Here, $S$ is the number of participants in the survey. $$\\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\\mathbf{x}, \\,g) = \\frac{1}{7 \\cdot S} \\sum_{s} \\sum_{i} \\mathbf{x}^g_{s,i}\n    \\label{eq:attrakdiff_score}$$ Therefore, a neutral participant would produce an score of four. The final averaged score of each group $g$ ranges from one (worst) to seven (best rating).\n\nAn overall evaluation of the results can be conducted in the form of a portfolio representation\u00a0[@hassenzahl2008user]. is the mean of a system\u2019s and scores. [PQ]{} and [HQ]{} scores of a specific system and user are visualized as a point in a two-dimensional graph. The $95$% confidence interval is an estimate of plausible values for rating scores from additional study participants, and determines the extension of the rectangle around the described data point in each dimension. A small rectangle area represents a more homogeneous rating among the participants than a larger area. If a rectangle completely lies inside one of the seven fields with associated adjectives defined in\u00a0[@hassenzahl2008user], this adjective is regarded as the dominant descriptor of the system. Otherwise, systems can be particularized by overlapping fields\u2019 adjectives. If the confidence rectangles of two systems overlap in their one-dimensional projection on either or , their difference in scores in regards to this dimension is not significant.\n\nQualitative Measures {#sec:qualitative_measures}\n--------------------\n\nIn order to collect, normalize, and analyze visual and verbal feedback given by the participants, a summative qualitative content analysis is conducted via abstraction\u00a0[@hsieh2005three; @elo2008qualitative]. The abstraction method reduces the overall transcript material while preserving its substantial contents by summarization. The corpus retains a valid mapping of the recording. An essential part of abstraction is the formulation of macro operators like elimination, generalization, construction, integration, selection and bundling. The abstraction of statements is increased iteratively by the use of macro operators, which map statements of the current level of abstraction to the next, while clustering items based on their similarity\u00a0[@mayring2014qualitative].\n\nHCI Evaluation {#sec:hci_evaluation}\n--------------\n\nA user study is the most precise method for the evaluation of the quality of different interactive segmentation approaches\u00a0[@nickisch2010learning]. Analytical measures as well as subjective measures can be derived from standardized user tests\u00a0[@gao2013mental]. From interaction data recorded during the study, the reproducibility of segmentation results as well as the achievable accuracy with a given system per time can be estimated. The complexity and novelty of the system can be expressed via the observed convergence to the ground truth over time spent by the participants segmenting multiple images each. The user\u2019s satisfaction with the interactive approaches is expressed by the analysis of questionnaires, which the study participant fills out immediately after their tests are conducted and before any discussion or debriefing has started. The respondent is asked to fill in the questionnaire as spontaneously as possible. Intuitive answers are desired as user feedback instead of well-thought-out responses for each item in the questionnaire\u00a0[@brooke1996sus].\n\nFor the randomized A/B study, individuals are selected to approximate a representative sample of the intended users of the final system\u00a0[@siroker2013b]. During the study, subjects are given multiple interactive segmentation tasks to fulfill each in a limit time frame. The user segments all $m$ images provided with two different methods (A and B). All subjects are given $2 \\cdot m$ tasks in a randomized order to prevent a learning effect bias, which would allow for higher quality outcomes for the later tasks. Video and audio data of the subjects are recorded. Every user interaction recognized by the system and its time of occurrence are logged.\n\nExperiments {#sec:experiments}\n===========\n\nData Set for the Segmentation Tasks {#sec:study_data_sets}\n-----------------------------------\n\nIn **Fig.**\\[fig:study\\_data\\_sets\\] the data set used for the usability test is depicted. For this evaluation, the colored images are converted to grayscale in order to increase similarity to the segmentation process of medical images acquired from . The conversion is performed in accordance with the [](https://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BT.709/en) recommendation\u00a0[@recommendation1990basic] for the extraction of true luminance defined by the International Commission on Illumination () from contemporary cathode ray tube () phosphors via are the linear red, green, and blue color channels respectively. $$\\mathbf{I} = 0.2126 \\cdot \\mathbf{I}'_R + 0.7152 \\cdot \\mathbf{I}'_G + 0.0722 \\cdot \\mathbf{I}'_B     \\label{eq:rgbtograyscale}$$ (b) is initially presented to the in order to familiarize themselves with the upcoming segmentation process. The segmentation tasks associated with images (a,c,d) are then displayed sequentially to the subjects in randomized order. The images are chosen to fulfill two goals of the study. (1) Ambiguity of the ground truth has to be minimized in order to suppress noise in the quantitative data. Each test person should have the same understanding and consent about the correct outline of the object to segment. Therefore, clinical images can only be utilized with groups of specialized domain experts. (2) The degree of complexity should vary between the images displayed to the users. Image (b), depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:study\\_data\\_sets\\], of moderate complexity with regards to its disagreement coefficient\u00a0[@hanneke2007bound], is displayed first to learn the process of segmentation with the given prototype. The complexity increases from (a) to (d), . The varying complexity enables a more objective and extended differentiation of subjects\u2019 performances with given prototypes.\n\nUsability Test Setup {#sec:usability_test_setup}\n--------------------\n\nTwo separate user studies are conducted to test all prototypes described in **Sec.**\\[sec:sgmentation\\_prototypes\\], in order to keep the time for each test short (less than ), thus retaining the focus of the participants, while minimizing the occurrence of learning effect artifacts in the acquired data. (1) The first user test is a randomized A/B test of the prototype (**Sec.**\\[sec:semi-manual\\_prototype\\]) and the guided prototype (**Sec.**\\[sec:guided\\_prototype\\]). Ten individuals are selected as test subjects due to their advanced domain knowledge in the fields of medical image processing and mobile input devices. The subjects are given the task to segment different images with varying complexity, which are described in **Sec.**\\[sec:study\\_data\\_sets\\], in random order. A fourth input image of medium complexity is provided for the users to familiarize themselves with the before the tests. As an interaction device, a mobile tablet computer is utilized, since the final segmentation method is intended for usage via such a medium. The small $10.1$ inch display and fingers utilized as a multi-touch pointing device further exacerbate the challenge to fabricate an exact segmentation for the participants\u00a0[@norman2010gestural]. The user study environment is depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:study\\_setup\\]. Audio and video recordings are evaluated via a qualitative content analysis, described in **Sec.**\\[sec:qualitative\\_measures\\], in order to detect possible improvements for the tested prototypes and their interfaces. After segmentation, each participant fills out the (**Sec.**\\[sec:questionnaires\\_sus\\]) and (**Sec.**\\[sec:questionnaires\\_attrakdiff\\]) questionnaires.\n\n\\(2) The second user test is conducted for the joint segmentation prototype (**Sec.**\\[sec:joint\\_prototype\\]). The data set and test setup are the same as in the first user study and all test persons of study (1) also participated in study (2). One additional subject participated only in study (2). Two months passed between the conduction of the two studies, in which the former participants were not exposed to any of the prototypes. Therefore, the learning effect bias for the second test is neglectable.\n\n![User testing setup for the usability evaluation of the prototypes. In this environment, a user performs an interactive segmentation on a mobile tablet computer while sitting. cameras record the hand motions on the input device and facial expressions of the participant. [In addition, each recognized input is recorded on the tablet device (the interaction log).]{} []{data-label=\"fig:study_setup\"}](images/usability_test_setup_new_.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nPrediction of Questionnaire Results {#sec:prediction_of_questionnaire_results}\n-----------------------------------\n\nThe questionnaires\u2019 , , , , , and results are predicted, based on features extracted from the interaction log data. For the prediction, a regression analysis is performed. Stochastic Gradient Boosting Regression Forests () are an additive model for regression analysis\u00a0[@friedman2001greedy; @friedman2002stochastic; @hastie2009boosting]. In several stages, shallow regression trees are generated. Such a tree is a weak base learner each resulting in a prediction error , with high bias $b$ and low variance $v$. These regression trees are utilized to minimize an arbitrarily differentiable loss function each on the negative gradient of the previous stage\u2019s outcome, thus reducing the overall bias via boosting\u00a0[@breiman1999using]. The Huber loss function\u00a0[@huber1964robust] is utilized for this evaluation due to its increased robustness to outliers in the data with respect to the squared error loss. The collected data set of user logs is split randomly in a ratio of for training and testing. An exhaustive grid search over $20,480$ parameter combinations is performed for each of the six estimators (one for each questionnaire result) with scorings based on an eight-fold cross-validation on the training set.\n\n### Feature Definition {#sec:feature_definition}\n\nThe collected data contains $31$ samples with $216$ possible features each. The $31$ questionnaire results (, , , , , ), are predicted based on features extracted from the interaction log data of the four images segmented with the system. Four features are the relative median seed positions per user and their standard deviation in two dimensions. $22$ additional features, like the number of undo operations () and number of interactions (), the overall computation time (), overall interaction time (), elapsed real time (), , and are reduced to one scalar value each by the mean and median, over the four segmentations per prototype and user, to obtain $48$ base features. Since these features each only correlate weakly with the questionnaire results, composite features are added in order to assist the model\u2019s learning process for feature relations. Added features are composed of one base feature value divided by (the mean or median of) computation time, interaction time, or elapsed real time. The relations between those time values themselves are also added. In total, $216$ features directly related to the interaction log data are used. In addition, a principal component analysis () is performed in order to add $10$% ($22$) features with maximized variance to the directly assessed ones to further assist the feature selection step via .\n\n### Feature Selection for Prediction {#sec:sus_prediction}\n\nFor the approximation of results, a feature selection step is added to decrease the prediction error by an additional three percent points: here, after the described initial grid search, $1$% (205) of the estimators, with the lowest mean deviance from the ground truth, are selected to approximate the most important features. From those estimators, the most important features for the are extracted via a *$1/\\text{loss}$*-weighted feature importance voting. This feature importance voting by $205$ estimators ensures a more robust selection than deciding the feature ranking from only a single trained . After the voting, a second grid search over the same $20,480$ parameter combinations, but with a reduction from $238$ to only $25$ of the most important features is performed.\n\nResults {#sec:results}\n=======\n\nOverall Usability {#sec:results_overall_usability}\n-----------------\n\nThe result of the score is depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:result\\_sus\\]. According to the mapping (**Fig.**\\[fig:sus\\_adjective\\]) introduced in **Sec.**\\[sec:questionnaires\\_sus\\], the adjective rating of the and joint prototypes are *excellent* ($88$ respective $82$), the adjective associated with the guided prototype is *good* ($67$).\n\nA graph representation of the similarity of individual usability aspects, based on the acquired questionnaire data, is depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:result\\_questionnaire\\_results\\_correlation\\]. Based on the Pearson correlation coefficients utilized as a metric for similarity, the score has the most similarity to the pragmatic () and attractiveness () usability aspects provided by the questionnaire.\n\nPragmatic Quality {#sec:results_pragmatic}\n-----------------\n\nThe results of the questionnaire are illustrated in **Fig.**\\[fig:result\\_attrakdiff\\]. The scores for , guided, and joint prototypes are $88$%, $50$%, and $74$% of the maximum score, respectively. Since each of the $95$% confidence intervals are non-overlapping, the prototypes\u2019 ranking regarding are significant.\n\nThe quantitative evaluation of recorded interaction data is depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:result\\_logs\\]. Dice scores before the first interaction are zero, except for the guided prototype ($0.82\\pm0.02$), where few fixed seed points had to be provided to initialize the system. Utilizing the prototype and starting from zero, a similar Dice measure to the guided prototype\u2019s initialization is reached after about seven interactions, which takes $13.06\\pm2.05$ seconds on average. The median values of final Dice scores per prototype are $0.95$ (), $0.94$ (guided), and $0.82$ (joint). The mean overall elapsed wall time in seconds spent for interactive segmentations per prototype are $73\\pm11$ (), $279\\pm36$ (), and $214\\pm24$ (). Since segmenting with the guided version takes the longest time and does not yield the highest final Dice scores, the initial advantage from pre-existing seed points does not bias the top ranking of a prototype in this evaluation.\n\nHedonic Quality {#sec:results_hedonic}\n---------------\n\n### Identity and Stimulus\n\nThe questionnaire provides a measure for the of identity and stimulus introduced in **Sec.**\\[sec:questionnaires\\_attrakdiff\\]. The scores for , guided, and joint prototypes are $72$%, $70$%, and $77$% of the maximum score, respectively. Since the $95$% confidence intervals are overlapping for all three prototypes, no system ranks significantly higher than the others. An overall evaluation of the results is conducted in the form of a portfolio representation depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:result\\_attrakdiff\\_portfolio\\].\n\nat (axis cs:2,2) [super-fluous]{}; at (axis cs:2,6) [too self-oriented]{}; at (axis cs:4,4) [neutral]{}; at (axis cs:4,6) [self-oriented]{}; at (axis cs:6,2) [too task-oriented]{}; at (axis cs:6,4) [task-oriented]{}; at (axis cs:6,6) [desired]{}; (axis cs:5.64106645752803,4.798427683218617) rectangle (axis cs:6.158933542471971,5.301572316781383); coordinates [(5.9,5.05)]{}; (axis cs:3.143832023165031,4.6750586928307385) rectangle (axis cs:3.856167976834969,5.167798450026405); coordinates [(3.5,4.921428571428572)]{}; (axis cs:4.696608735705655,4.953083574359387) rectangle (axis cs:5.446248407151487,5.389773568497756); coordinates [(5.071428571428571,5.171428571428572)]{}; coordinates [(6.4285714285714288, 3.8571428571428572)(6.1428571428571432, 6.0)(5.5714285714285712, 4.6428571428571432)(6.4285714285714288, 6.2142857142857144)(5.7142857142857144, 5.2857142857142856)(6.8571428571428568, 5.2857142857142856)(5.1428571428571432, 4.4285714285714288)(6.4285714285714288, 5.1428571428571432)(5.0, 4.6428571428571432)(5.2857142857142856, 5.0)]{}; coordinates [(2.0, 4.2857142857142856)(3.2857142857142856, 5.9285714285714288)(3.8571428571428572, 5.1428571428571432)(4.2857142857142856, 5.5)(2.7142857142857144, 4.7142857142857144)(5.5714285714285712, 5.1428571428571432)(4.7142857142857144, 4.0)(3.2857142857142856, 5.2142857142857144)(3.4285714285714284, 4.9285714285714288)(1.8571428571428572, 4.3571428571428568)]{}; coordinates [(5.1428571428571432, 4.7142857142857144)(4.8571428571428568, 5.0714285714285712)(5.8571428571428568, 5.5714285714285712)(4.4285714285714288, 4.3571428571428568)(6.0, 6.0)(5.2857142857142856, 4.7857142857142856)(5.7142857142857144, 6.3571428571428568)(2.1428571428571428, 4.8571428571428568)(6.4285714285714288, 5.0)(4.8571428571428568, 5.0)]{};\n\n=5.25pt\n\n  ---------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- -------\n  Relative Error       ATT     HQ    HQ-I   HQ-S      PQ     SUS\n  \\[1pt\\] Mean       11.5%   7.4%   10.5%   8.0%   15.7%   10.4%\n  Median              8.9%   6.3%    9.4%   6.2%   13.7%    8.8%\n  Std                 8.0%   5.5%    6.7%   6.9%   12.0%    7.1%\n  ---------------- ------- ------ ------- ------ ------- -------\n\n  : Relative absolute prediction errors for and test set samples. Predictions are computed by six separately trained [Stochastic Gradient Boosting Regression Forests ()]{}, one for each figure of merit. Note that each training process only utilizes the interaction log data. Results displayed are the median values of $10^4$ randomly initialized training processes.[]{data-label=\"tab:prediction_results_gbrf\"}\n\n### Qualitative Content Analysis\n\nA summative qualitative content analysis as described in **Sec.**\\[sec:qualitative\\_measures\\] is conducted on the audio and video data recorded during the study. After generalization and reduction of given statements, the following user feedback is extracted with respect to three problem statements: positive usability aspects, negative usability aspects, and user suggestions concerning existing functions or new functions.\n\n**Feedback for multiple prototypes**\n\n1.  Responsiveness: the most common statement concerning the and joint version is that the user expected the zoom function to be more responsive and thus more time efficient.\n\n2.  Visibility: $20$% of the participants had difficulties distinguishing between the segmentation contour line and either the background image or the foreground scribbles in the overlay mask, due to the proximity of their assigned color values.\n\n3.  Feature suggestion: deletion of individual seed points instead of all seeds from last interaction using *undo*.\n\n**segmentation prototype**\n\n1.  Mental model: $30$% of test persons suggested clearly visible indication whether the label for the scribble drawn next will be foreground or background.\n\n2.  Visibility: hide previously drawn seed points, in order to prevent confusion with the current contour line and occultation of the underlying image.\n\n**Guided segmentation prototype**\n\n1.  Responsiveness: $50$% of test persons suggested an indicator for ongoing computations during their time of waiting.\n\n2.  Control: users would like to influence the location of new seed points, support for manual image zoom, and fine grained control for the *undo* function.\n\n**Joint prototype**\n\n1.  Visibility: $64$% of users intuitively found the toggle functionality for seed labels without prior explanation.\n\n2.  Visibility: $64$% of participants suggested visible instructions for manual seed generation.\n\nPrediction of Questionnaire Results from Log Data {#sec:prediction_of_questionnaire_results_from_log_data}\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nThe questionnaires\u2019 results are predicted via a regression analysis, based on features extracted from the interaction log data. A visualization of the feature importances for the regression analysis with respect to the is depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:gbrf\\_feature\\_importance\\]. An evaluation with the test set is conducted as depicted in **Tab.**\\[tab:prediction\\_results\\_gbrf\\]. The mean prediction errors for the questionnaires\u2019 results are $15.7$% for and $7.4$% for . In both cases, the error of these (first) estimates is larger but close to the average $95$% confidence intervals of $5.5$% () and $4.0$% () for the overall questionnaire results in the portfolio representation.\n\nThe similarity graph for the acquired usability aspects introduced in **Fig.**\\[fig:result\\_questionnaire\\_results\\_correlation\\] can be extended to outline the direct relationship between questionnaire results and recorded features. Such a graph is depicted in **Fig.**\\[fig:feature\\_correlations\\_and\\_feature\\_importance\\]. Notably, there is no individual feature, which strongly correlates with one of the questionnaire results. However, as the results of the regression analysis in **Tab.**\\[tab:prediction\\_results\\_gbrf\\] depict, there is a noteworthy dependence of the usability aspects measured by the and questionnaires and combinations of the recorded features. The most important features for the approximation of the questionnaire results are depicted in **Tab.**\\[tab:most\\_frequently\\_used\\_features\\].\n\nDiscussion {#sec:discussion}\n==========\n\nUsability Aspects\n-----------------\n\nAltough the underlying segmentation algorithm is the interactive method for all three prototypes tested, the measured user experiences varied significantly. In terms of user stimulus a more innovative interaction system like the joint prototype is preferred to a traditional one. Pragmatic quality aspects, evaluated by as well as \u2019s , clearly outline that the approach has an advantage over the other two techniques. This conclusion also manifests in the [Dice]{} coefficient values\u2019 fast convergence rate towards its maximum for this prototype. The normalized median spent for the overall segmentation of each image are $100$% (), $550$% (guided), and $380$% (joint). As a result, users prefer the simple, pragmatic interface as well as a substantial degree of freedom to control each iterative step of the segmentation. The less cognitively challenging approach is preferred\u00a0[@ramkumar2016user]. The other methods provide more guidance for aspects which the user aims to control themselves. In order to improve the productivity of an , less guidance should be imposed in these cases, while providing more guidance on aspects of the process not apparent to the users\u2019 focus of attention\u00a0[@heron1957perception].\n\nUsability Aspects Approximation\n-------------------------------\n\nFor and , the most discriminative features selected by are the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve () of the final interactive segmentations over the elapsed real time which passed during segmentation (). The Jaccard index\u00a0[@jaccard1912distribution] as well as the relative absolute area/volume difference () each divided by the computation time are most relevant for , respective . The pragmatic quality\u2019s dominant features are composed of final Dice scores and time measurements per segmentation. The results, quantifying the overall usability of a prototype, is mainly predicted based on the features with the highest level of abstraction used. In the top $10$% ($22$) selected features, $45$% of top features are values, as indicated in **Tab.**\\[tab:most\\_frequently\\_used\\_features\\] and **Fig.**\\[fig:gbrf\\_feature\\_importance\\](top). In comparison: $41$%, $36$%, $18$%, $14$%, and $9$%.\n\nConclusion {#sec:conclusion}\n==========\n\nFor sufficiently complex tasks like the accurate segmentation of lesions during , fully automated systems are, by their lack of domain knowledge, inherently limited in the achievable quality of their segmentation results. may supersede fully automated systems in certain niches by cooperating with the human user in order to reach the common goal of an exact segmentation result in a short amount of time. The evaluation of interactive approaches is more demanding and less automated than the evaluation with other approaches, due to complex human behavior.\n\nHowever, there are methods like extensive user studies to assess the quality of a given system. It was shown, that even a suitable approximation of a study\u2019s results regarding pragmatic as well as hedonic usability aspects is achievable from a sole analysis of the users\u2019 interaction recordings. Those records are straightforward to acquire during normal (digital) prototype usage and can lead to a good first estimate of the system\u2019s usability aspects, without the need to significantly increase the temporal demands on each participant by a mandatory completion of questionnaires after each system usage.\n\nThis mapping of quantitative low-level features, which are exclusively based on measurable interactions with the system (like the final Dice score, computation times, or relative seed positions), may allow for a fully automated assessment of an interactive system\u2019s quality.\n\n[Outlook]{} {#sec:outlook}\n===========\n\nFor proposed automation, a rule-based user model (robot user) like\u00a0[@amrehn2017uinet; @amrehn2019interactive] or a learning-based user model could interact with the prototype system instead of a human user. This evaluation scheme may significantly reduce the amount of resources necessary to investigate each variation of a prototype\u2019s features and segmentation methodologies.\n\nDisclaimer {#disclaimer .unnumbered}\n==========\n\nThe concept and software presented in this paper are based on research and are not commercially available. Due to regulatory reasons its future availability cannot be guaranteed.\n\nConflicts of Interest {#conflicts-of-interest .unnumbered}\n=====================\n\nThe authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.\n\nAcknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}\n==============\n\nThanks to Christian Kisker and Carina Lehle for their hard work with the data collection.\n\nExample for Evaluation (**Eq.**\u00a0\\[eq:sus\\_score\\]) {#example-for-evaluation-eq.eqsus_score .unnumbered}\n==================================================\n\nThe result of the survey is a single scalar value, in the range of zero to $100$ as a composite measure of the overall usability. The score is computed according to **Eq.**\\[eq:sus\\_score\\], as outlined in\u00a0[@brooke1996sus], given $S$ participants, where $\\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}_{s,i}$ is the response to the statement $i$ by subject $s$. $$\\operatorname{sus}(\\mathbf{x}) = \\frac{2.5}{S} \\sum_{s}\\left[\\, \\sum_{\\text{odd } i} \\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}_{s,i} + \\sum_{\\text{even } i} (4 - \\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}_{s,i})\\, \\right]$$\n\nLet $S=3$ participants answer the $10$ questions (listed in of the SUS questionnaire as follows: $$\\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS} = \\left| \\begin{array}{c}\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}_0 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}_1 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}_2 \\end{array} \\right| = \\left| \\begin{array}{cccccccccc}\n 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 \\\\\n 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 0 \\\\\n 2 & 3 & 4 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 0 & 1 \\end{array} \\right|,$$\n\nwhere $\\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}_s$ are rows in matrix $\\mathbf{x}^\\text{SUS}$. Then: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\operatorname{sus}(\\mathbf{x}) = \\frac{2.5}{3} \\cdot (&(0 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 0) + \\\\\n & (1 + 2 + 3 + 0 + 0 + 3 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 4) + \\\\\n & (2 + 1 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 0 + 0 + 3))\\end{aligned}$$\n\nExample for Evaluation (**Eq.**\u00a0\\[eq:attrakdiff\\_score\\]) {#example-for-evaluation-eq.eqattrakdiff_score .unnumbered}\n=========================================================\n\nFor the questionnaire\u2019s evaluation for subject , each of the seven adjective pairs per group is assigned a score by each participant, reflecting their tendency towards the positive of the two adjectives. The overall ratings per group are defined in [@hassenzahl2003attrakdiff] as the mean scores computed over all subjects $s$ and statements $i$, as depicted in **Eq.**\\[eq:attrakdiff\\_score\\]. Here, $S$ is the number of participants in the survey. $$\\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\\mathbf{x}, \\,g) = \\frac{1}{7 \\cdot S} \\sum_{s} \\sum_{i} \\mathbf{x}^g_{s,i}$$ Let $S=3$ participants fill in the $28$ choices (listed in of the questionnaire as follows, where $\\mathbf{x}^g_s$ are rows in matrix $\\mathbf{x^g}$:\n\nGroup PQ: $$\\mathbf{x}^\\text{PQ} = \\left| \\begin{array}{c}\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{PQ}_0 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{PQ}_1 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{PQ}_2 \\end{array} \\right| = \\left| \\begin{array}{ccccccc}\n1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 \\\\\n2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 \\\\\n3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\end{array} \\right|$$\n\nGroup ATT: $$\\mathbf{x}^\\text{ATT} = \\left| \\begin{array}{c}\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{ATT}_0 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{ATT}_1 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{ATT}_2 \\end{array} \\right| = \\left| \\begin{array}{ccccccc}\n2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 \\\\\n3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\\\\n4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\end{array} \\right|$$\n\nGroup HQ-I: $$\\mathbf{x}^\\text{HQ-I} = \\left| \\begin{array}{c}\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{HQ-I}_0 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{HQ-I}_1 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{HQ-I}_2 \\end{array} \\right| = \\left| \\begin{array}{ccccccc}\n3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\\\\n4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\\\\n5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\end{array} \\right|$$\n\nGroup HQ-S: $$\\mathbf{x}^\\text{HQ-S} = \\left| \\begin{array}{c}\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{HQ-S}_0 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{HQ-S}_1 \\\\\n\\mathbf{x}^\\text{HQ-S}_2 \\end{array} \\right| = \\left| \\begin{array}{ccccccc}\n4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\\\\n5 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\\\\n6 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\end{array} \\right|$$\n\nAfter evaluation via **Eq.**\\[eq:attrakdiff\\_score\\]: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\\mathbf{x}, \\text{\\makebox[2.6em][r]{PQ}}) = (&(1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7) + \\\\\n& (2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 2 \\cdot 7) + \\\\\n& (3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 3 \\cdot 7)) \\,/\\, 21 \\\\\n\\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\\mathbf{x}, \\text{\\makebox[2.6em][r]{ATT}}) = (&(2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 2 \\cdot 7) + \\\\\n& (3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 3 \\cdot 7) + \\\\\n& (4 + 5 + 6 + 4 \\cdot 7)) \\,/\\, 21 \\\\\n\\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\\mathbf{x}, \\text{\\makebox[2.6em][r]{HQ-I}}) = (&(3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 3 \\cdot 7) + \\\\\n& (4 + 5 + 6 + 4 \\cdot 7) + \\\\\n& (5 + 6 + 5 \\cdot 7)) \\,/\\, 21 \\\\\n\\operatorname{attrakdiff}(\\mathbf{x}, \\text{\\makebox[2.6em][r]{HQ-S}}) = (&(4 + 5 + 6 + 4 \\cdot 7) + \\\\\n& (5 + 6 + 5 \\cdot 7) + \\\\\n& (6 + 6 \\cdot 7)) \\,/\\, 21 \\\\\\end{aligned}$$ In this case, , , , and . The confidence intervals $\\operatorname{conf}(.)$ can then be extracted via the percent point function $\\operatorname{ppf}(.)$ (also called quantile function or inverse cumulative distribution function) for the selected $95$% confidence interval. $$\\begin{aligned}\n z &= \\operatorname{ppf}(0.95 \\cdot 0.5) = 1.95996 \\\\\n\\operatorname{conf}(\\mathbf{x}, \\,g) &= \\operatorname{mean}(\\mathbf{x}^g) \\pm z \\cdot \\frac{\\operatorname{std}(\\mathbf{x}^g)}{\\sqrt{7 \\cdot S}} \\\\\\end{aligned}$$\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We compute the length of geodesics on a Riemannian manifold by regular polynomial interpolation of the global solution of the eikonal equation related to the line element $ds^2=g_{ij}dx^idx^j$ of the manifold. Our algorithm approximates the length functional in arbitrarily strong Sobolev norms. Error estimates are obtained where the geometric information is used. It is pointed out how the algorithm can be used to get accurate approximation of solutions of parabolic partial differential equations leading obvious applications to finance and physics.'\nauthor:\n- 'J\u00f6rg Kampen $^{1}$'\ntitle: How to compute the length of a geodesic on a Riemannian manifold with small error in arbitrary Sobolev norms\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLet $(M,g)$ is a Riemannian manifold, i.e. a differentiable $n$-dimensional manifold with a function $g$, which defines for all $p\\in M$ a positive definite symmetric bilinear form $$g_p:T_pM\\times T_pM\\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}$$ such that for any given vector fields $X,Y\\in X(M)$ the map $$g(X,Y): M\\rightarrow {\\mathbb R},~p\\rightarrow g(X,Y)(p):=g_p(X_p,Y_p)$$ is differentiable. The Riemannian metric $g$ allows to define a metric $d_M$ on $M$ via the length of curves $$d_M(x,y):=\\inf_{\\mbox{$\\gamma$ diff.}}\\left\\lbrace L(\\gamma)|\\gamma :[0,1]\\rightarrow M, \\gamma(0)=x, \\gamma(1)=y\\right\\rbrace,$$ with $$L(\\gamma)=\\int_0^1 \\sqrt{g_{\\gamma(t)}(\\dot \\gamma(t),\\dot \\gamma(t))} \\,\\mathrm dt.$$ With this definition any connected Riemannian manifold becomes a metric space, and it is well known that for any compact Riemannian manifold any two points $x,y\\in M$ can be connected by a geodesic whose length is $d_M(x,y)$. If $\\nabla$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection, then a geodesic $\\gamma$ is characterized by the equation $$\\nabla_{\\dot\\gamma}\\dot\\gamma=0,$$ which becomes (in terms of the coordinates of the values of the curve $\\gamma$) $$\\label{geo1}\n    \\frac{d^2x^\\lambda }{dt^2} + \\Gamma^{\\lambda}_{~\\mu \\nu }\\frac{dx^\\mu }{dt}\\frac{dx^\\nu }{dt} = 0\\ ,$$ where the well-known Christoffel symbols are $$\\label{geo2}\n    \\Gamma^\\kappa_{\\; \\mu \\nu}=\\frac{1}{2}g^{\\kappa \\rho} \\left( \\partial_\\mu g_{\\nu \\rho}+\\partial_\\nu g_{\\mu \\rho}-\\partial_\\rho g_{\\mu \\nu} \\right).$$ This is an $n$-dimensional nonlinear ordinary differential equation with values in ${\\mathbb R}^n$ which is difficult to compute numerically in general (note the quadratic terms). For computing the length of a geodesic it is easier to compute the solution of a eikonal equation of the form $$\\label{eik}\nd^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_j}$$ (boundary conditions considered later), where $x\\rightarrow a_{ij}(x)$ are functions such that at each $x\\in{\\mathbb R}^n$ the matrix $(a_{ij}(x))$ is the inverse of the positive matrix $(g_{ij}(x))$ at each point $x$. Here $f_{x_i}:=\\frac{\\partial f}{\\partial x_i}$ denotes the derivative of $f$ with respect to the variable $x_i$. In general we shall write $\\partial^{\\alpha}f$, $\\partial^{\\alpha}_xf$ or $\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial x^{\\alpha}}f$ for the multivariate derivative with multiindex $\\alpha=(\\alpha_1,\\cdots ,\\alpha_n)$. The connection between the length of a geodesic which is given in local coordinates as in , and the length function $d^2$ defined by equation is considered in section 2. This way the problem of finding the length of a geodesic is reduced to solving a nonlinear first-order partial differential equation in some domain of Euclidean space.\n\nThe computation of $d^2$ is still far from trivial, however. Even if the data $g_{ij}$ are analytic functions, power series expansion typically lead to power series solutions for $d^2$ with small radius of convergence. Hence, the question is how we can approximate the function $d^2$ globally. Moreover, for some applications such as the accurate computation of diffusions we need the approximation of $d^2$ in strong norms (Sobolev norms of form $H^{s,p}$ for possibly any positive real $s$. For that matter recall that $H^{0,p}\\left( {\\mathbb R}^n\\right) =L^p\\left( {\\mathbb R}^n\\right)$ and that for any $s\\in {\\mathbb R}$ we may define $H^{s,p}$ to be the set of all tempered distributions $\\phi\\in {\\cal S}'$ such that $I_{-s}\\phi$ is a function in $L^p\\left( {\\mathbb R}^n\\right)$, where $I_s$ is the pseudo-differential operator with symbol $\\sigma_s(\\xi)=\\left(1+|\\xi|^2\\right)^{-\\frac{s}{2}}$, i.e. $$I_s\\phi ={\\cal F}^{-1}\\sigma_s{\\cal F} \\phi,~~\\phi\\in {\\cal S}',$$ ${\\cal F}$ denoting the Fourier transform. The goal of the present paper can then be formulated as follows: find for each $\\epsilon >0$ and each real $s,p$ $(p\\geq 1)$ an approximative solution $q^2_{s,p}$ to such that $$\\|d^2-q_{s,p}^2\\|_{s,p}\\leq \\epsilon .$$ We shall call $q_{s,p}^2$ an $H^{s,p}$ approximation to $d^ 2$ for reasons which will become apparent later. Let us motivate this ambitious task by looking at a specific application. There are a lot of applications for computations of the length of a geodesic, where applications to computations in general relativity are only one domain. Another important example is the leading term of the expansion of the fundamental solution of linear parabolic solutions (with variable coefficients). Varadhan showed that the fundamental solution of the diffusion equation $$\\label{PPDE} \n\\begin{array}{l}\n\\frac{\\partial u}{\\partial t}=\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}\\frac{\\partial^2 u}{\\partial x_i\\partial x_j}+\n\\sum_i b_i\\frac{\\partial u}{\\partial x_i},\n\\end{array}$$ (where the diffusion coefficients $a_{ij}$ and the first order coefficients $b_i$ in depend on the spatial variable $x$ only) is connected to the length $d$ of the geodesic with respect to the line element $ds^2=\\sum_{ij}a^{ij}dx_idx_j$ ($a^{ij}$ being the inverse of $a_{ij}$) via the relation $$d^2(x,y)=\\lim_{t\\downarrow 0}t\\ln p(t,x,y).$$\n\nSolving equation we can assume that the matrix-valued function $x\\rightarrow (a_{ij}(x))$ is symmetric, i.e. $a_{ij}(x)=a_{ji}(x)$ for all $1\\leq i,j\\leq n$. This is because $$\\begin{array}{ll}\nd^ 2(x,y)=&\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j}=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}\\frac{1}{2}\\left( a_{ij}+a_{ji}\\right) d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j}\\\\\n\\\\\n&+\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}\\frac{1}{2}\\left( a_{ij}-a_{ji}\\right) d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j}=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}\\frac{1}{2}\\left( a_{ij}+a_{ji}\\right) d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j},\n\\end{array}$$ so we can always substitute the matrix $a_{ij}$ by its symmetrization $\\frac{1}{2}\\left( a_{ij}+a_{ji}\\right)$ without affecting the solution $d^ 2$.\n\nIn [@Ka] we have seen that for $C^{\\infty}$ coefficient functions $x\\rightarrow a_{ij}(x)$ and $x\\rightarrow b_i(x)$ and if some boundedness conditions of the derivatives are satisfied the fundamental solution has the pointwise valid form $$\\label{WKBrep}\np(t,x,y)=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2\\pi t}^n}\\exp\\left(-\\frac{d^2(x,y)}{2 t}+\\sum_{k= 0}^{\\infty}c_k(x,y)t^k\\right),$$ where the functions $x\\rightarrow c_k(x,y),~k\\geq 0$ are solutions of recursively defined linear first order equations for each $y$. These equations can be solved by methods of characteristics or approximated by regular polynomial interpolation methods outlined in [@Ka2]. In the computation of the WKB-coefficients $d^2$ and $c_k,~k\\geq 0$ the recursive relations for $c_{k+1}$ involve second order derivatives of $c_k$, and therefore implicitly derivatives of order $2k$ of the squared metric $d^2$. Hence it is of great interest to compute not only $d^2$ but also its derivatives up to a given order with high accuracy. The present work shows how his can be accomplished. In Section 2 we recapture some facts about the connection of the geodesic equation , and equation , and prove global existence, regularity and uniqueness of the latter (family) of equation(s) leading us to theorem 2.3. Then in Section 3 we provide further analysis of the family of eikonal equations which lead us to local representations of the solution. In Section 4 we construct first a weak approximation of the solution (in $L^p$ sense), and then extend this to a recursive construction of an $H^{s,p}$-approximation. In Section 5 we provide error estimates by using geometric information. Section 6 points out how the method may be applied for accurate approximation of diffusions, and we finish with a conclusion in Section 7.\n\nGlobal existence and regularity of the squared Riemannian distance $d^2$\n========================================================================\n\nWe shall only sketch the connection between geodesics and the eikonal equation . It is almost standard, and details can be found in [@Ka] and [@Jo]. Our interest here is that the eikonal equation together with careful chosen boundary conditions has a global and unique solution. We shall have two different arguments for uniqueness: one is via uniqueness of an associated diffusion and WKB-representations (or, alternatively, Varadhan\u2019s result, cf. [@V]), but we will have the same insight from an other point of view when we look at local representations of the solution in the next Section. We consider Riemannian manifolds where any two points can be connected by a minimal geodesic. For our purposes it is sufficient to consider manifolds which are geodesically complete. Recall that a Riemannian manifold $M$ is geodesically complete if for all $p\\in M$ the exponential map $\\exp_p: T_pM\\rightarrow M$ is defined globally on $T_pM$. Here, $T_pM$ denotes the tangential space of the manifold $M$ at $p\\in M$. The Hopf-Rinow theorem provides conditions for Riemannian manifolds to be geodesically complete. Especially we have\n\nFor a Riemannian manifold $M$ the following statements are equivalent:\n\n-   $M$ is complete as a metric space.\n\n-   The closed and bounded sets of $M$ are compact.\n\n-   $M$ is geodesically complete.\n\nEach of these equivalent statements implies that geodesics are curves of shortest length. Moreover, if $M$ is geodesically complete, then any two points of $M$ can be joined by a minimal geodesic.\n\nThe connection between the arclength and equation can be established as follows. First equations for minimal geodesics are obtained from variation of the length functional. Second Hamilton-Jacobi calculus shows that the length functional satisfies the eikonal equation . Since this is known we only sketch the main steps for convenience of the reader. Setting the variation of the length functional to zero we get $$L\\frac{d}{dr}\\left(\\frac{1}{L}2g_{ij}\\dot x^i \\right)+g_{ij,k} \\dot x^i \\dot x^j=0$$ with $L\\equiv \\sqrt{g_{ij}(x(r))\\dot x^i\\dot x^j}$ and where we use Einstein summation. Parameterizing by arclength, i.e. setting $L\\equiv 1$ (or $r=s$) we get $$2g_{ij}\\ddot x^i +2g_{ij,l}\\dot x^l\\dot x^i +g_{ij,k} \\dot x^i \\dot x^j=0$$ which, upon multiplcation by $g^{mj}$ (entries of inverse of $(g_{mj})$) and rearranging becomes the geodesic equation ,. In order to show on the other hand that the squared length functional satisfies we may consider the length functional $$l(r,x,s,y)=\\int_r^s L\\left( x(u),\\dot x(u)\\right) du$$ and invoke Hamilton-Jacobi calculus. This is done by introducing the variables $p_i=L_{\\dot x^i}$, and the associated Hamiltonian defined by $$H(x,p)=\\dot x^ip_i-L(x,\\dot x).$$ (here and henceforth we use Einstein summation if convenient). Then we may write $$x(t)\\equiv x(t;r,x,s,y) \\mbox{ and } p(t)\\equiv p(t;r,x,s,y),$$ where $x(r;r,x,s,y)=x$ and $x(s;r,x,s,y)=y$. and compute $$\\label{1ls}\nl_s=-H(x(s),p(s)).$$ Then we may connect $p$ to $l_{y^k}$ by computing $$\\label{ly}\n\\begin{array}{ll}\nl_{y^k}=\\int_r^s \\left( \\frac{\\partial \\dot x^i}{\\partial y^k}p_i+\\dot x^i\\frac{\\partial p_i}{\\partial y^k}\n-H_{x^i}\\frac{\\partial x^i}{\\partial y^k}-H_{p_i}\\frac{\\partial p_i}{\\partial y^k}\\right) dt\\\\\n\\\\\n\\int_r^s \\stackrel{{\\bf \\cdot}}{\\left( \\frac{\\partial x_i}{\\partial y^k}p_i\\right)}dt=\\frac{\\partial x_i}{\\partial y^k}p_i \\Big|^s_r=p_k(s;r,x,s,y).\n\\end{array}$$ by invoking the canonical system of equations. This leads to $$\\frac{\\partial l}{\\partial s}+\\sum_{ij}g^{ij}\\frac{\\partial l}{\\partial y_i}\\frac{\\partial l}{\\partial y_j}=0,$$ and a similar equation with respect to the variables $x$. Then we get the equations for $l^2$ and $d^2$, i. e. the equations and below.\n\nRecall that a minimal geodesic is a global distance minimizing geodesic. This minimal geodesic which connects $x$ and $y$ characterizes the Riemannian distance $d(x,y)$ in an obvious way. Moreover smoothness of $(x,y)\\rightarrow d(x,y)$ for smooth diffusion and drift coefficients $a_{ij},b_i$ follows from the following fact about ordinary differential equations.\n\nLet $F:{\\mathbb R}^n\\times {\\mathbb R}^n\\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}$ be a smooth map. Consider the differential system $$\\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=F\\left( x,\\frac{dx}{dt}\\right),$$ where $x$ is a map $I\\subset {\\mathbb R}\\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}^n$. Then for each point $(x_0,y_0)$ there exists a neighborhood $U\\times V$ of this point and $\\epsilon >0$ such that for $(x,v)\\in U\\times V$ equation (2.69) has a unique solution $x_v:]-\\epsilon,\\epsilon[\\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}^n$ with initial conditions $x_v(0)=x$ and $x_v'(0)=v$. Moreover, the map $X:U\\times V\\times ]-\\epsilon,\\epsilon[\\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}^n$ defined by $(t,x,v)\\rightarrow X(t,x,v):=x_v(t)$ is smooth.\n\nFinally we get\n\nLet $\\Omega \\subseteq {\\mathbb R}^n$ be some domain. The function $d^2:\\Omega\\times \\Omega \\subseteq {\\mathbb R}^n\\times {\\mathbb R}^n\\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}_+$ (the leading order term of the WKB-expansion of a parabolic equation with diffusion coefficients $a_{ij}$) is the unique function which satisfies the equations $$\\label{lf}\nd^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}d_{x_i}^2a_{ij}d_{x_j}^2,$$ $$\\label{lg}\nd^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}d_{y_i}^2a_{ij}d_{y_j}^2$$ for all $x,y\\in {\\mathbb R}^n$ and with the boundary condition $$\\label{lh}\nd(x,y)=0 \\mbox{ iff  $x=y$ for all $x,y\\in {\\mathbb R}^n$.}$$ Moreover, the squareroot $d$ is the Riemannian distance induced by $$\\begin{array}{ll}\nd(x,y):=\\inf{\\Bigg\\{}\\int_a^b&\\sqrt{a^{ij}(\\gamma)\\stackrel{.}{\\gamma}^i\\stackrel{.}{\\gamma}^j}dt|\\gamma:[a,b]\\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}^n \\mbox{ is piecewise } \\\\\n&\\mbox{ smooth with $\\gamma(a)=x$ and $\\gamma(b)=y$}{\\Bigg \\}}.\n\\end{array}$$ The function $d^2$ is a $C^{\\infty}$-function with respect to both variables.\n\nThe variation of the length functional leads to the geodesic equation. On the other hand, Hamilton-Jacobi calculus leads us to the fact that the squared length functional $d^2$ satisfies the equation . It is clear that the squared length functional satisfies both equations and below. Moreover, it is clear that the squared length functional satisfies the initial condition . Uniqueness is a bit more subtle. In [@V] Varadhan showed that $$\\label{V}\nd^2(x,y)=\\lim_{t\\downarrow 0}2t\\ln p(t,x,y),$$ where $p$ is the fundamental solution of a scalar parabolic equation with diffusion coefficient function $x\\rightarrow a_{ij}(x)$. Since $p$ is unique for a strictly parabolic equation $d^2$ is uniquely determined by the equation . On the other hand one knows that for small $t>0$ $\\ln p$ has for $C^{\\infty}$ coefficients a representation of type is valid (cf. [@Gi; @Ka]). Plugging this into the correspondend parabolic equation leads to the eikonal equation which is, hence, satisfied by $d^2$. Moreover we know by $V$ and the fact that the squareroot of $d^2$ is a metric. Hence $d(x,y)=0$ if and only if $x=y$, and the same holds for $d^2$. Hence, we conclude that the global solution $d^2$ of the system of equations , and is unique. Moreover, from the preceding theorem we can conclude that the function $(x,y)\\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ is also smooth with respect to both variables.\n\nFurther analysis of the equation for the squared metric $d^2$\n=============================================================\n\nNext we observe that the local representation of the solution of the equations , with the boundary condition has a local representation which starts with the quadratic terms. This will be used in the construction of a global approximation. The analysis presented here gives us two other insights. First, a powere series ansatz leads atmost to local and not to global solutions. Even if there is a local power series representation of the solution at each point of the domain, we do not know how a global solution can be constructed from this information, because we do not know the location of the geodesic the length of which we want to compute. If we knew, then computing the length would be a rather trivial task. Even the derivatives of the length functional would be better computed from the explicit geodesic. However, as we mentioned the nonlinear ordinary differential equation describing the geodesic is harder to solve in general than the eikonal equation. Second, we shall see from an different point of view why the boundary condition leads to uniqueness of solutions $(x,y)\\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ of the system , , and . We have\n\nThe local representation $d^2$ satisfying the equations , , together with the boundary condition is of the form $$\\label{loc}\n\\begin{array}{ll}\nd^2(x,y)&=\\sum_{ij}a^{ij}(y)\\Delta x^i\\Delta x^j + \\sum_{|\\alpha < M }\\frac{d^2_{\\alpha}(y)}{\\alpha!}\\Delta x^{\\alpha}\\\\\n\\\\\n&+\\sum_{|\\gamma|=M}\\int_0^1(1-\\theta)^{M-1}\\frac{\\Delta x^{\\gamma}}{\\gamma !}\\partial^{\\gamma}d^2(y+\\theta \\Delta x,y)d\\theta.\n\\end{array}$$ The coefficients $d_{\\alpha}(y)$ are uniquely determined by a recursion obtained from the equations , . In coordinates with second order normal form, i.e. where $d^2$ is $\\sum_{ij}\\lambda_i(y)\\Delta x^i\\Delta x^j$ with $\\lambda_i(y) , 1\\leq i \\leq n$ is the spectrum of $(a^{ij}(y))$, the multiindex recursion is $$\\label{rec}\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n d^2_{\\beta}(y)=&\\frac{1}{\\left(1-\\sum_i\\beta_i\\right)}{\\Bigg (} \\sum_i  \\left(  \\lambda^i_0\\right)^2\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\beta\\dot -2_i}}{(\\beta\\dot -2_i)!}1_{\\left\\lbrace \\beta_i\\geq 2\\right\\rbrace }\\\\\n\\\\\n&+\\sum_i \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\geq 1,|\\gamma | \\geq 3, \\alpha+\\gamma =\\beta}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}  \\lambda^i_0 d^2_{\\gamma}(y)\\gamma_i\\\\\n\\\\\n&+ \\sum_i  \\sum_{\\alpha\\geq 0,|\\delta|\\geq 3,|\\gamma| \\geq 3,\\alpha+\\gamma+\\delta\\dot-2_i=\\beta}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}  \\delta_i \\gamma_i d^2_{\\delta}(y)d^2_{\\gamma}(y){\\Bigg )}.\n\\end{array}$$ This confirms uniqueness. (Note that there is no loss of generality if we choose the normal coordinates for the second order terms). In general the solution is not globally analytic in the sense that $d^2$ is not representable by a globally converging power series.\n\nA smooth solution $d^2$ of the eikonal equation has the representation $$\\begin{array}{ll}\nd^2(x,y)&=d(y,y) + \\nabla d(y,y)\\cdot (x-y)\\\\\n\\\\\n&+\\sum_{|\\gamma|=2}\\int_0^1(1-\\theta)^{1}\\frac{\\Delta x^{\\gamma}}{\\gamma !}\\partial^{\\gamma}d^2(x+\\theta \\Delta x,y)d\\theta.\n\\end{array}$$ We abbreviate $R(x,y)=\\sum_{|\\gamma|=2}\\int_0^1(1-\\theta)^{1}\\frac{\\Delta x^{\\gamma}}{\\gamma !}\\partial^{\\gamma}d^2(x+\\theta \\Delta x,y)d\\theta.$ Since $d(y,y)=0$ we have $$\\begin{array}{ll}\nd^2(x,y)=\\nabla d^2(y,y)\\cdot (x-y)+R(x,y)\n\\end{array}$$ The \u2019only if\u2019-condition of the boundary condition leads to $\\nabla d^2(y,y)=0$. To see this assume that $\\nabla d^2(y,y)\\neq 0$. Since $R(x,y)\\leq C\\|\\Delta x\\|^2$ there is a small $\\Delta x$ such that $\\nabla d^2(y,y)\\cdot \\mu\\Delta x >C\\|\\Delta x\\|^2$ and $\\nabla d^2(y,y)\\cdot (-\\mu)\\Delta x <-C\\|\\Delta x\\|^2$ for some $\\mu\\in (0,1]$. Hence there exists some $\\rho$ such that with $x':=y+(\\rho\\mu)\\Delta x$ $$d^2(x',y)=\\nabla d^2(y,y)\\cdot (\\rho\\mu)\\Delta x + R(x',y)=0,$$ contradicting one part of the boundary condition $d^2(x,y)=0~\\mbox{ iff }~x=y$. Next one computes that $\\sum_{ij}a^{ij}(y)\\Delta x^i\\Delta x^j$ satisfies the equation $$d^2(x,y)=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(y)d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_j},$$ and the uniqueness of theorem 2.3. (which we established by arguing with uniqueness of related diffusions and Varadhan\u2019s result, in the Atiyah-Singer spirit of short-range analytic expansions) identifies the coefficients $a^{ij}(y)$ as the second order terms of local representations around $y$. Having obtained this the representation is just a multivariate version of Taylor\u2019s theorem. Note, however, that we do not need to invoke the uniqueness of theorem 2.3. but just consider a recursion obtained from a power series ansatz starting with second order terms. However, this would complicate the matter a bit so we take advantage that we know the second order terms of a local representation by the preceding argument. Finally we have to establish the recursion in . The recursion shows directly that the higher order coefficients $d^2_{\\beta}(y)$ for $|\\beta|\\geq 3$ are uniquely determined. Moreover, it is clear from that in general the convergence radius of the full power series is small (if not zero). Hence in general there is no globally analytic solution the function $d^ 2:\\Omega\\times \\Omega \\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}$ globally analytic if for each $y\\in \\mathbb{R}^n$ the Taylor expansion of $d^2$ at $y\\in \\mathbb{R}^n$ and $x\\in \\mathbb{R}^n$ equals $d^2$ globally, i.e. $$\\label{geolgth}\nd^ 2(x,y)=\\sum_{\\alpha}\\frac{\\partial_{\\alpha}d^2(y)}{\\alpha !}(x-y)^ {\\alpha}~~\\mbox{forall}~x,y\\in \\mathbb{R}^n.$$ Invoking the implicit function theorem equation is equivalent to $$\\label{eik2}\nd^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{i}\\lambda_{i}(x)d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_i},$$ where $\\lambda_i(x), 1\\leq i\\leq n$ is the spectrum of the positive $(a_{ij}(x))$. Since $d^2_{x_i}=2d d_{x_i}$ this is equivalent to $$\\label{eik3}\n1=\\sum_{i}\\lambda_{i}(x)d_{x_i}d_{x_i}$$ The latter equation is easier but there is no Taylor expansion around $y$ as can be seen in the case of constant coefficients (and hence constant eigenvalues $\\lambda$), where the solution is $$d(x,y)=\\sqrt{\\sum_{i=1}^n \\frac{\\Delta x_i^2}{\\lambda_i}}$$\n\nWe use equation mainly for the theoretical purposes of this corollary. In general it cannot be in general used for numerical purposes since this would imply that we have an efficient procedure to compute the eigenvalue functions of a space dependent matrix. Since we are looking for high precision in this paper, this is not possible in general. An exception is the case of dimension $n=2$ where we have $$\\lambda_{1,2}(x)=\\frac{\\mbox{tr}(A)(x)}{2}\\pm\\sqrt{\\left( \\frac{\\mbox{tr}(A)(x)}{2}\\right) ^2-\\mbox{det}(A)(x)}$$ where $A(x)=(a_{ij}(x))$.\n\nNext we plug in the power series expansion $$d^2(x,y)=\\sum_{i=1}^n\\lambda^i_0\\Delta x_i^2 +\\sum_{|\\beta |\\geq 3 } d^2_{\\beta}(y) \\Delta x^{\\beta}$$ We have $$d^2_{x_i}=2\\lambda_0^i(y)\\Delta x_i +\\sum_{|\\beta |\\geq 3 } d^2_{\\beta}(y) \\beta_i \\Delta x^{\\beta \\dot -1_i},$$ where for any multiindex $\\beta$ we define $$\\beta\\dot-1_i=(\\beta_1,\\cdots,\\beta_i,\\cdots \\beta_n)\\dot-1_i:=\\left\\lbrace \\begin{array}{ll} (\\beta_1,\\cdots,\\beta_i-1,\\cdots \\beta_n) \\mbox{ if } \\beta_i\\geq 1\\\\ (\\beta_1,\\cdots,0,\\cdots \\beta_n)~~\\mbox{ else }  \\end{array}\\right.$$ The term $\\beta -2_i$ is defined analogously. Plugging in the power series ansatz and using the relation $\\lambda^0_i\\left(  \\lambda^i_0\\right)^2=\\lambda^0_i$, this leads to\n\n$$\\begin{array}{ll}\n&\\left( \\sum_{|\\beta |\\geq 3} d^2_{\\beta}(y)\\Delta x^{\\beta}\\right) \\left(1-\\sum_i\\beta_i \\lambda_0^i\\lambda^0_i\\right) \\\\\n\\\\\n=&\\left( \\sum_{|\\beta |\\geq 3} d^2_{\\beta}(y)\\Delta x^{\\beta}\\right) \\left(1-\\sum_i\\beta_i\\right)\\\\ \n\\\\\n=&\\left( \\sum_i  \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\geq 1}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}\\Delta x^{\\alpha}\\right)\\left(  \\lambda^i_0\\right)^2\\Delta x_i^2+\\\\\n\\\\\n&+\\left(\\sum_i \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\geq 1}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}\\Delta x^{\\alpha} \\right)\\left( \\lambda^i_0\\sum_{|\\beta| \\geq 3}d^2_{\\beta}(y)\\beta_i\\Delta x^{\\beta}\\right) \\\\\n\\\\\n&+\\left( \\sum_i  \\sum_{\\alpha}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}\\Delta x^{\\alpha}\\right)\\times\\\\\n\\\\\n&\\left(  \\sum_{|\\beta|\\geq 3,|\\gamma|\\geq 3}\\beta_i \\gamma_i d^2_{\\beta}(y)d^2_{\\gamma}(y)\\Delta x^ {\\beta\\dot-1}\\Delta x^ {\\gamma\\dot-1}\\right).\n\\end{array}$$\n\nThis leads to $$\\begin{array}{ll}\n&\\sum_{|\\beta |\\geq 3} d^2_{\\beta}(y)\\Delta x^{\\beta}\\\\ \n\\\\\n=&\\frac{1}{\\left(1-\\sum_i\\beta_i\\right)}{\\Bigg (}\\left( \\sum_i  \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\geq 1}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}\\Delta x^{\\alpha}\\right)\\left(  \\lambda^i_0\\right)^2\\Delta x_i^2+\\\\\n\\\\\n&+\\left(\\sum_i \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\geq 1}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}\\Delta x^{\\alpha} \\right)\\left( \\lambda^i_0\\sum_{|\\beta| \\geq 3}d^2_{\\beta}(y)\\beta_i\\Delta x^{\\beta}\\right) \\\\\n\\\\\n&+\\left( \\sum_i  \\sum_{\\alpha}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}\\Delta x^{\\alpha}\\right)\\times\\\\\n\\\\\n&\\left(  \\sum_{|\\beta|\\geq 3,|\\gamma|\\geq 3}\\beta_i \\gamma_i d^2_{\\beta}(y)d^2_{\\gamma}(y)\\Delta x^ {\\beta\\dot-1}\\Delta x^ {\\gamma\\dot-1}\\right){\\Bigg )}.\n\\end{array}$$ Simplifying and renaming multiindices in order to collect for multiindices of order $\\beta$ we get $$\\begin{array}{ll}\n&\\sum_{|\\beta |\\geq 3} d^2_{\\beta}(y)\\Delta x^{\\beta} \\\\ \n\\\\\n=&\\frac{1}{\\left(1-\\sum_i\\beta_i\\right)}{\\Bigg (} \\sum_i  \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\geq 1}\\left(  \\lambda^i_0\\right)^2\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}\\Delta x^{\\alpha+2_i}+\\\\\n\\\\\n&+\\sum_i \\sum_{|\\alpha|\\geq 1}\\sum_{|\\gamma| \\geq 3}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}  \\lambda^i_0 d^2_{\\gamma}(y)\\gamma_i\\Delta x^{\\alpha +\\gamma} \\\\\n\\\\\n&+ \\sum_i  \\sum_{\\alpha}\\sum_{|\\delta|\\geq 3,|\\gamma|\\geq 3}\\frac{\\lambda_i^{\\alpha}}{\\alpha!}  \\delta_i \\gamma_i d^2_{\\delta}(y)d^2_{\\gamma}(y)\\Delta x^ {\\alpha+\\gamma+\\delta\\dot-2_i}{\\Bigg )}.\n\\end{array}$$ The latter equation leads directly to .\n\nLet us draw some consequences out of our theoretical considerations. There is neither an explicit solution nor leads a power series ansatz to a global solution in general. Neither does it help to have local solutions in terms of power series. Such representations are not sufficient for our purposes, since we are interested in a global solution for $x\\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ and do not know the intermediate points on the corresponding geodesic in order to compute the global $d^2$ by means of local power series representations. This motivates our later construction of regular polynomial interpolation of $d^2$ as seemingly unavoidable.\n\nRegular polynomial interpolation algorithm for the Riemannian metric and its derivatives\n========================================================================================\n\nFor the moment let us denote again an interpolation polynomial which approximates the squared Riemannian distance $d^2$ in the $L^p$-sense on some bounded domain $\\Omega$ by $q_{0,p}^2$ and one that approximates the squared Riemannian distance $d^2$ in the $H^{s,p}$-sense (again on $\\Omega$) by $q_{s,p}^2$. How can we check that a given polynomial is an approximation in either sense? The equation gives us itself a hint how an approximation $q_{s,p}^2$ of $d^2$ performs. In order to obtain the $L^p$ error of an $L^p$ approximation $q^2_{0,p}$ of $d^2$ we may plug in the approximation $q_{s,p}^2$ into the right side of equation and subtract the left side, i.e. we compute $$\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\\frac{\\partial q^2_{0,p}}{\\partial x_i}\\frac{\\partial q^2_{0,p}}{\\partial x_j}-q^2_{0,p}=r_{0,p}(x),$$ We shall see that $r_{0,p}\\in O(h^3)$ locally (with $h$ the mesh size of the interpolation points) implies that $$\\|d(x,y)-q_{0,p}\\|_{L^p(\\Omega)}$$ converges to zero as the number of interpolation points $N$ goes to infinity in such a way that the mesh size of the set of interpolation points $h$ goes to zero. Note that $q_{0,p}$ denotes the squareroot of $q_{0,p}^2$. We call an approximation $q^2_{s,p}$ an $H^{s,p}$-approximation if it approximates not only $d^2$ in the $L^p$ sense but can be plugged in into all the derivatives of of order $m$ (i.e. multivariate derivatives $\\alpha$ for $|\\alpha|\\leq  m$ of the eikonal equation) such that in $$\\frac{\\partial^{\\alpha}}{\\partial x^{\\alpha}}\\left(\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\\frac{\\partial q^2_{0,p}}{\\partial x_i}\\frac{\\partial q^2_{0,p}}{\\partial x_j} \\right)-\\frac{\\partial^{\\alpha}}{\\partial x^{\\alpha}}d^2(x,y)=:r_{\\alpha ,p}$$ the right side staisfies $r_{0,p}\\in O(h^{3+m})$ locally implies that $$\\|d(x,y)-q_{0,p}\\|_{H^{s,p}(\\Omega)}$$ converges to zero as the number of interpolation points $N$ goes to infinity in such a way that the mesh size of the set of interpolation points $h$ goes to zero. Accordingly, we call such $q_{0,p}^2$ ($q_{s,p}^2$) an $L^p$- ($H^{s,p}$) approximation of the boundary value problem . In the next subsection we construct a $L^p$-approximation and refine the construction in the following subsection in order to construct $H^{s,p}$-approximations.\n\nPolynomial interpolation of eikonal equation in $L^ p$ sense\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe may write the eikonal equation $$\\label{eik0}\nd^2(x,y)=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}d^ 2_{x_i}d^ 2_{x_j}=\\frac{1}{4}\\left\\langle \\nabla d^2, A\\nabla d^2\\right\\rangle.$$ Assume that $A=(a_{ij})$ is constant. The solution with the boundary condition $d^2(x,y)=0$ iff $x=y$ is $$d^2(x,y)=\\left\\langle \\Delta x, A^ {-1}\\Delta x\\right\\rangle,$$ where $\\Delta x=(x-y)$, and $A^ {-1}=:(a^ {ij})$ denotes the inverse of the matrix $A$. This is easily verified by observing that $$\\nabla d^ 2= 2 A^ {-1}x.$$ Define $$d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x^j)}(x,y)=\\sum_{ml} a^ {lm}(x_j)(x^ l-y^l)(x^ m-y^m),~~j=0,\\cdots,N$$ we get the first recursively defined approximation algorithm for the Riemannian distance based on $N+1$ interpolation points $x^0=y, x^1, x^2, \\cdots ,x^N$. Note that the squared distance is a function $$d^ 2:\\Omega \\times \\Omega \\subseteq {\\mathbb R}^n\\times {\\mathbb R}^n \\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}_+,$$ where we define ${\\mathbb R}_+:=\\left\\lbrace x| x\\geq 0\\right\\rbrace $. There are several ways to approximate the function $d^2$. In order to approximate this function we approximate first the function $x\\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$, then the function $x\\rightarrow d^ 2(x, x^1)$ and so on up to $x\\rightarrow d^ 2(x, x^N)$.\n\nWe start with the approximation of $x\\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$. First define $$d_{00}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)$$ Next define $$d_{10}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)+c_{10}\\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-y_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x_1)}(x,y),$$ and determine a real number $c_{10}$ such that $$d_1^2(x_1,y)=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij} a_{ij}(x_1) d^ 2_{1,x_i}(x_1,y)d^ 2_{1,x_j}(x_1,y),$$ i.e. the eikonal equation with respect to $x$ and fixed parameter $y$ is satisfied at $x_1$. Proceeding we get a series $d^2_{10}, d^2_{20}, \\cdots, d^2_{k0},\\cdots $ of approximations of the form $$d_{k0}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)+\\sum_{j=1}^kc_{j0}\\Pi_{r=0}^j\\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-x^r_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x^j)}(x,y).$$ Having determined the real numbers $c_{10},\\cdots c_{(k-1)0}$ we obtain the real number $c_{k0}$ by solving $$\\label{eikatk}\nd_{k0}^2(x_k,y)=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij} a_{ij}(x_k) d^ 2_{k0,x_i}(x_k,y)d^ 2_{k0,x_j}(x_k,y).$$ for $c_{k0}$. Continuing this procedure for $N$ interpolation points we get a polynomial of the form $$\\label{dN1}\nd_{N0}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)+\\sum_{j=1}^Nc_{j0}\\Pi_{r=0}^j\\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-x^r_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x^j)}(x,y).$$ with $N$ real numbers $c_{j0}$ obtained recursively by plugging in $d^2_{j0}$ with one degree of freedom $c_{j0}$ into .\n\nAnalogous constructions are done to approximate $x\\rightarrow d^2(x,x^j)$ for $k=1,\\cdots ,N$ with $$\\label{dNk}\nd_{Nk}^2(x,x^k)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,x^k)+\\sum_{j=1}^Nc_{jk}\\Pi_{r=0}^j\\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-x^r_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x^j)}(x,x^k),$$ with $c_{jk}$ computed analogously. The construction of the functions $d^2_{N0},\\cdots , d^2_{NN}$ suffices to approximate $d^2$ (we do not need to synthesize these functions into one function, for example by a Lagrangian polynomial interpolation). Note that for $j=0,\\cdots N$ the function $d^2_{Nk}$ satisfies the equation $$\\label{bdpk}\n\\begin{array}{ll}\nd^2(x,x^k)=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)d^2_{x_i}(x,x^k)d^2_{x_j}(x,x^k)\\\\\n\\\\\n\\mbox{ with boundary condition }\\\\\n\\\\\nd^2(x,x^k)=0~\\mbox{ iff }~x=x^k.  \n\\end{array}$$ at all interpolation points $x^0,\\cdots x^N$ by construction.\n\nNote that in the preceding construction no restrictions on the choice of the interpolation points are made. This does not mean that one may search for an optimal choice of interpolation points and improve efficiency and convergence. We are free to choose a certain set of interpolation points (for example Chebyshev nodes). But these are purely computational aspects which will be exploited elsewhere.\n\nNote that we have constructed an approximation of the squared metric $d^2$. The metric $d$ is then approximated naturally by the squareroot of the approximation of the squared metric, i.e. we consider the function $$x\\rightarrow d_{Nk}(x,x^k):=\\sqrt{d^2_{Nk}(x,x^k)}$$ to be the approximation of the metric function $x\\rightarrow d(x,x^k)$.\n\nConstruction of $H^{s,p}$-approximations\n----------------------------------------\n\nWe refine the construction of the preceding section by construction of an approximation which solves not only , (or the set of equations , with boundary conditions ), but also all multivariate derivatives of up to a given order $m$ at the interpolation points. It turns out then that these polynomials are $H^{s,p}$-approximations for $s\\leq m$. The approximation is constructed recursively again. For a multiindex $\\beta$ of order $|\\beta|=m\\geq 3$ we denote the approximations of order $ d^2_{M(\\beta_m)^{n,N}}$ or just $d^2_{M(\\beta_m)}$ if we do not want to refer to the number of interpolation points $N$ and the dimension of the problem $n$ explicitly. The choice of the mesh is free again (in principle). We just assume that a set $\\left\\lbrace x_1,\\cdots ,x_N \\right\\rbrace$ of interpolation points is given. Again we may construct functions $x\\rightarrow d^2_{M(\\beta)0}(x,y)$, $x\\rightarrow d^2_{M(\\beta)0}(x,x^1)$,..., and $x\\rightarrow d^2_{M(\\beta)0}(x,x^N)$. We shall construct the first function $x\\rightarrow d^2_{M(\\beta)0}(x,y)$ for arbitrary multiindex $\\beta$. The other functions can be constructed completely analogously. We start with the $L^p$-approximation. $$d_{N0}^2(x,y)=d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(y)}(x,y)+\\sum_{j=1}^Nc_{j0}\\Pi_{r=1}^j\\Pi_{l=1}^n(x_l-x^r_l)^2d^ 2_{A^ {-1}(x_j)}(x,y),$$ where the numbers $c_{j1}$ have been determined according to section 4.1.. Next we define $d^2_{M(\\beta)0}(x,x^N)$ for multiindices of order $|\\beta|=3$. Let $\\beta^0,\\cdots, \\beta^k,\\cdots ,\\beta^{R}$ a list of multiindices of order $3$. The length $R$ of this list is dependent of the dimension $n$ of course. Start with $\\beta^0=(\\beta^0_1,\\cdots,\\beta^0_n)$ and let $\\gamma^0$ be an multiindex with $|\\gamma|=2$ such that $\\beta^0-\\gamma =1_i$ for some index $i$. Define (recall that $x^0=y$) $$d^2_{\\beta^0 0}(x,y)=d^2_{N0}(x,y)+\\frac{1}{\\beta^0!}c_{\\beta^0}^0(x-y)^{\\beta^0}.$$ Then plug $d^2_{\\beta^0 0}(x,y)$ into the equation $$\\label{beta0}\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\partial^{(\\beta^0-\\gamma^0)}_xd^2(x,y)=\\partial^{(\\beta^0-\\gamma^0)}_x\\left(\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_i}\\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_j} \\right),\n\\end{array}$$ evaluate at $x=x^0=y$ and solve for the real number $c_{\\beta^0}^0$. Then proceed recursively: having defined the function $x\\rightarrow d^2_{\\beta^0 (k-1)}(x,y)$ define $$d^2_{\\beta^0 k}(x,y)=d^2_{\\beta^0 (k-1)}(x,y)+c_{\\beta^0}^k\\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\\beta^0+{\\bf 1}}\\frac{1}{\\beta^0!}(x-x^k)^{\\beta^0},$$ where ${\\bf 1}=(1,1,\\cdots,1)$. Then plug $d^2_{\\beta^0 k}(x,y)$ into the equation , evaluate at $y$, and solve for $c_{\\beta^0}^k$. When $k=N$ we have got the approximation $$d^2_{\\beta^0 N}(x,y)=d^2_{N0}(x,y)+\\sum_{k=0}^Nc_{\\beta^0}^k\\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\\beta^0+{\\bf 1}}\\frac{1}{\\beta^0!}(x-x^k)^{\\beta^0}.$$ with $N+1$ real numbers $c_{\\beta^0}^k$ for $0\\leq k\\leq N$ determined recursively. Note that the function $x\\rightarrow d^2_{\\beta^0 k}(x,y)$ satisfies the equations and at all interpolation points $x^0,\\cdots,x^N$. Then we take the next multiindex $\\beta^1$ from the list of multiindices of order $3$ (i.e. $|\\beta^1|=3$) where we may assume that $\\beta^1-\\gamma^1=1_k$ for some multiindex $\\gamma^1$ with $|\\gamma^1|=2$ and some index $k$. An analogous construction as in the case of $\\beta^0$ can be done. The only difference is that we start with $d^2_{\\beta^0 N}(x,y)$ instead of $d^2_{N0}(x,y)$. We get an approximation of the form $$d^2_{\\beta^1 N}(x,y)=d^2_{\\beta^0 k}(x,y)+\\sum_{k=0}^Nc_{\\beta^1}^k\\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\\beta^1+1}\\frac{1}{\\beta^1!}(x-x^k)^{\\beta^1}.$$ where the real numbers are computed recursively by plugging the current approximation into the equation $$\\label{beta0}\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\partial^{(\\beta^1-\\gamma^1)}_xd^2=\\partial^{(\\beta^1-\\gamma^1)}_x\\left(\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_i}\\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_j} \\right),\n\\end{array}$$ evaluating at the current interpolation point and solving for the currently undetermined real number $c_{\\beta^1}^k$. Doing this for all the multiindices of order $3$ in the list above we get the approximation $$d^2_{M(\\beta_3)}(x,y):=d^2_{\\beta^N N}(x,y).$$ Note that by construction the function $x\\rightarrow d^2_{M(\\beta_3)}(x,y)$ satisfies the equation and all its first order derivative equations $$\\partial^{i}_xd^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\partial^{i}_x\\left( \\sum_{lm}a_{lm}(x)d^2_{x_l}d^2_{x_m}\\right) ,~~1\\leq i\\leq n,$$ at all interpolation points $x^0=y,x^1,\\cdots, x^N$. This completes the stage of construction for multiindices of order $3$. Next assume that the construction for the approximation $$x\\rightarrow d^2_{M(\\beta_m)}(x,y)$$ of order $m$ has been completed. Then we may list the multiindices of order $m+1$, i.e. consider a list of multiindices $\\delta^0,\\delta^1,\\cdots, \\delta^{R_{m+1}}$ such that $|\\delta|=m+1$. The procedure is then quite similar as in the stage for multiindices of order $3$. Therefore we give a very short description. Starting with the multiindex $\\delta^0$ there is a multiindex $\\beta^k$ of order $m$ (i.e. $|\\beta^k|=m$) such that $\\delta^0-\\beta^k=1_i$ for some index $i$. Then we get successive approximations $$d^2_{\\delta^0 k}(x,y)=d^2_{M(\\beta_m)}(x,y)+\\sum_{r=0}^{k}c_{\\delta^0}^r\\Pi_{l=0}^{r-1}(x-x^l)^{\\delta^0+{\\bf 1}}\\frac{1}{\\delta^0!}(x-x^r)^{\\delta^0},$$ where the real numbers $c_{\\delta^0}^k$ are succesively determined by plugging in the function $x\\rightarrow d^2_{\\delta^0 k}(x,y)$ into the equation $$\\partial^ {\\beta^k}d^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\partial^ {\\beta^k}\\left( \\sum_{lm}a_{lm}(x)d^2_{x_l}d^2_{x_m}\\right) ,$$ evaluated at the interpolation point $x^k$ (Note that $\\partial^{\\beta^k}=\\partial^ {\\delta^0-1_i}$). After $N+1$ steps we get the approximation function $x\\rightarrow d^2_{\\delta^0 N}(x,y)$. Having defined $x\\rightarrow d^2_{\\delta^l N}(x,y)$ for $l=0,\\cdots p-1$ the next multiindex $\\delta^r$ may be such that there is an multiindex $\\beta^h$ of order $m$ such that $\\delta^{r}-\\beta^h=1_i$ for some index $i$. We may then define $x\\rightarrow d^2_{\\delta^p k}(x,y)$ $$d^2_{\\delta^p k}(x,y)=d^2_{M(\\beta_m)}(x,y)+\\sum_{r=0}^{k}c_{\\delta^p}^r\\Pi_{l=0}^{r-1}(x-x^l)^{\\delta^p+{\\bf 1}}\\frac{1}{\\delta^p!}(x-x^r)^{\\delta^p},$$ and determine the constants $c_{\\delta^p}^r$ by plugging in the function $x\\rightarrow d^2_{\\delta^r k}(x,y)$ into the equation $$\\partial^ {\\beta^h}d^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\partial^ {\\beta^h}\\left( \\sum_{lm}a_{lm}(x)d^2_{x_l}d^2_{x_m}\\right) ,$$ and evaluate at $x^k$. Finally, we get the approximation of order $m+1$, namely $$\\label{betam}\nd^2_{M(\\beta_{m+1})}=d^2_{\\delta^{R_{m+1}} N}(x,y).$$ Note that this approximation satisfies the eikonal equation and all its derivatives up to order $m+1$, i.e. all equations $$\\partial^{\\alpha}_x d^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\partial^{\\alpha}_x \\left( \\sum_{lm}a_{lm}(x)d^2_{x_l}d^2_{x_m}\\right)$$ with $|\\alpha|\\leq m+1$ at all interpolation points $x^1,\\cdots x^N$.\n\nNote that at some stage of the construction we may have a multiindex $\\gamma$ such that $\\gamma-\\alpha=1_{i_0}$ for some $\\alpha$ and some index $i_0$. Then the terms in the $\\alpha$th derivative of the eikonal equation evaluated at $x^k$ that do not annihilate a term of form $c_{\\gamma}^k\\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\\gamma+{\\bf 1}}(x-x^k)^{\\gamma}$ are quite easily computed. For this reason the constants of the form $c_{\\gamma}^k$ are quite easily computed. You can see very easily this by writing the $\\alpha$th derivative of the eikonal equation invoking symmetry $a_{ij}=a_{ji}$. We have $$\\label{alpha}\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\partial^{\\alpha}d^2(x,y)=\\partial^{\\alpha}\\left(\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_i}\\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_j} \\right)\\\\\n\\\\\n=\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\\left( \\partial^{\\alpha}\\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_i}\\right) \\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_j} +\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}\\left(\\frac{\\partial^{\\alpha}}{\\partial x^{\\alpha}} a_{ij}(x)\\right) \\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_i} \\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_j}\\\\\n\\\\\n +\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}\\sum_{\\beta <\\alpha}\\sum_{\\gamma \\leq\\beta}\\binom{\\alpha}{\\beta}\\binom{\\beta}{\\gamma}\n\\left( \\partial^{\\beta}a_{ij}(x)\\right) \n \\left( \\partial^{\\alpha -\\beta-\\gamma}\\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_i}\\right)  \\partial^{\\gamma} \\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_j} \n\\end{array}$$ If the indicated approximation is plugged into and evaluated at $x^k$ only the terms $\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{j}a_{i_0j}(x)\\left( \\partial^{\\alpha}\\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_{i_0}}\\right) \\frac{\\partial d^2}{\\partial x_j}$ (evaluated for approximations $d^2_{\\gamma k}$ at interpolation point $x^k$) do not annihilate terms of form $c_{\\gamma}^k\\Pi_{l=0}^{k-1}(x-x^l)^{\\gamma+{\\bf 1}}(x-x^k)^{\\gamma}$.\n\nError estimates for the regular polynomial interpolation algorithm\n==================================================================\n\nWe first consider error estimates for $L^p$-approximations, and then extend our estimates to $H^{s,p}$-approximations. In the whole Section we consider a bounded domain $\\Omega \\subseteq {\\mathbb R}^n$ and assume that the coefficient functions $a_{ij}$ are $C^{\\infty}$.\n\nError estimates for $L^p$ approximation\n---------------------------------------\n\nWe have\n\nThe approximations $d^2_{Nk}$ defined in are $L^p$- approximations of the boundary value problems of form , i.e. $L^p$- approximations for functions of form $x\\rightarrow d^2(x,x^k)$ for $p>1$.\n\nLet $x$ and $y$ be two points connected by a geodesic curve $\\gamma$ given in local coordinates with values in ${\\mathbb R}^n$. Let us assume also that $x$ and $y$ are interpolation points. We have no solution for the curve $\\gamma$ in general, but there are lets say $k$ points $z^0=x,z^1 \\cdots z^k=y$ in the image of the curve $\\gamma$ with Euclidean distance less than a certain mesh size $h$. Clearly, $$d(x,y)=\\sum_{i=0}^N d(z^i,z^{i+1})$$ Next define an approximative distance along the geodesic of form $$d_g(x,y)=\\sum_{i=0}^n d_g(z^i,z^{i+1}),$$ where $d_g$ is the squareroot of $d_g^2(z^{i},z^{i+1}):=\\sum_{lm}a^{lm} (z^i_m-z^{i+1}_m)(z^i_l-z^{i+1}_l)$. Since $y$ is fixed $d$ is approximated by $d_{N0}$ and we estimate $$\\label{metest}\nd(x,y)-d_{N0}(x,y)=d(x,y)-d_g(x,y)+d_g(x,y)-d_{N0}(x,y)$$ Our analysis showed that the local approximation of $d^2$ by $d_g^2$ is of order $O(h^3)$ hence the approximation of $d$ by $d_g$ is of order $O\\left( h^{\\frac{3}{2}}\\right)$, hence with generic constant $C$ we have for the first summand on the right hand side of $$|d(x,y)-d_g(x,y)|=\\sum_{i=0}^N |\\left( d(z^i,z^{i+1})-d_g(z^i,z^{i+1})\\right)|\\leq C\\sqrt{h}$$ The modulus of the first summand on the right hand side can be estimated by $$|d(x,y)-d^g(x,y)|\\leq C\\sqrt{h}$$ Since $\\Omega$ is a compact bounded domain, the $C^{\\infty}$ coefficient functions $a^{ij}$ are Lipschitz Only locally Lipschitz is needed). Assuming a suitable choice of the points on the geodesic for the second summand we get by an elementary argument that $$\\|d_g(x,y)-d_{N0}(x,y)\\|_{L^p}\\leq \\sum_{i=0}^N \\|d(z^i,z^{i+1})-d_{g}(z^i,z^{i+1})\\|_{L^p}\n\\leq Ch^{p-1}.$$\n\nError estimates for $H^{s,p}$ approximation\n-------------------------------------------\n\nThe approximations $d^2_{M(\\beta_m)}$ defined in are $H^{s,p}$- approximations of the boundary value problems of form for $s\\leq m$, i.e. $H^{s,p}$- approximations for functions of form $x\\rightarrow d^2(x,x^k)$ for $p>1$.\n\nFor fixed $y$ the function $x\\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ and the function $x\\rightarrow d^2_{M(\\beta_m)}(x,y)$ both satisfy the eikonal equation and its derivatives at any interpolation point by construction. That means that for all interpolation points $x_j,~1\\leq j\\leq N$ and all derivatives $\\gamma\\leq m$ we have $$\\partial^{\\gamma}_xd^2(x_j,y)=\\partial^{\\gamma}_x d^2_{M(\\beta_m)}(x_j,y).$$ Next recall a multivariate version of Taylor\u2019s theorem\n\nIf $f\\in C^{\\infty}$, then for all positive integers $M$ we have $$\\begin{array}{ll}\nf(x+y)=\\sum_{|\\alpha|<M}\\frac{(\\partial{\\alpha}f)(x)}{\\alpha!}y^{\\alpha}\\\\\n\\\\\n+M\\sum_{|\\gamma| =M}\\frac{y^{\\gamma}}{\\gamma !}\\int_0^1(1-\\theta)^{M-1}(\\partial^{\\gamma}f)(x+\\theta y)d\\theta\n\\end{array}$$\n\nApplying this formula, we see from our construction of $x\\rightarrow d^2_{M(\\beta_m)}(x,y)$ that the local order of approximation of $x\\rightarrow d^2(x,y)$ is $O(h^{3+m})$. A similar reasoning as in the preceding Section leads to the result. Note here that the same reasoning holds when $y$ is replaced by another interpolation point $x^j$.\n\n(Sharper error estimates) A little analysis shows that the local order of approximation is $$d^2(x,y)-d^2_{M(\\beta_m)}(x,y)\\leq C\nP\\frac{h^{m}}{m !},$$ where $P$ is the number of multiindices of order $m$ and $$C:=2\\max\\left\\lbrace \\sum_{|\\gamma| =M}\\sup_{x\\in \\Omega}\\partial^{\\gamma}d^2(x,y),\\sum_{|\\gamma| =M}\\sup_{x\\in \\Omega}\\partial^{\\gamma}d^2_{M(\\beta)}(x,y)\\right\\rbrace$$ Similarly for $|\\beta | \\leq m $ we get $$\\partial^{\\beta}d^2(x,y)-\\partial^{\\beta}d^2_{M(\\beta_m}(x,y)\\leq C\n\\frac{h^{m -|\\beta|}}{(m -|\\beta |) !},$$ Since we are working on a bounded domain and $d^2$ is $C^{\\infty}$ there is some bound $C$, but not a priori known. However bounds for $C$ may be obtained from a priori estimates by inspection of the eikonal equation. It is clear that $$d^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_j}.$$ is equivalent to $$d^2=\\frac{1}{4}\\sum_{i}\\lambda_{i}d^2_{x_i}d^2_{x_i},$$ and, hence $$|d^2_{x_i}|\\leq \\frac{4d^2}{\\lambda_{\\min}},$$ where $\\lambda_{\\min}=\\min_i \\inf_{x\\in \\Omega}\\lambda(x)$. Further a priori estimates for the derivatives may be obtained from derivatives of the eikonal equation.\n\nAnalytic approximations of the fundamental solution of parabolic equations\n==========================================================================\n\nConsider the parabolic equation $$\\frac{\\partial p}{\\partial t}-\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\\frac{\\partial^2 p}{\\partial x_i\\partial x_j}-\\sum_i b_i(x)\\frac{\\partial p}{\\partial x_i}=0$$ on some domain $(0,T)\\times \\Omega \\subseteq (0,T)\\times {\\mathbb R}^n$, and where $x\\rightarrow (a_{ij}(x))$ is a matrix-valued $C^{\\infty}$-function with symmetric positive matrix $(a_{ij}(x))$ for all $x\\in \\Omega$, and $x\\rightarrow b(x)$ is also a $C^{\\infty}$-function. Plugging in the Ansatz $$\\label{WKBrep}\np(t,x,y)=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2\\pi t}^n}\\exp\\left(-\\frac{d^2(x,y)}{2 t}+\\sum_{k= 0}^{\\infty}c_k(x,y)t^k\\right),$$ leads to the recursive equation for $d^2$. Given $d^2$ the first order recursive equation $$\\label{c01e}\n-\\frac{n}{2}+\\frac{1}{2}Ld^2+\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{i} \\left( \\sum_j\\left( a_{ij}(x)+a_{ji}(x)\\right) \\frac{d^2_{x_j}}{2}\\right) \\frac{\\partial c_{0}}{\\partial x_i}(x,y)=0,$$ together with the boundary condition $$\\label{c01b}\nc_0(y,y)=-\\frac{1}{2}\\ln \\sqrt{\\mbox{det}\\left(a^{ij}(y) \\right) }$$ determines $c_0$ uniquely for each $y\\in {\\mathbb R}^n$. Furthermore, having computed all WKB-coefficient functions $c_l$ up to order $k$, for $k+1\\geq 1$ the coefficient function $c_{k+1}$ can be computed via the first order equation $$\\label{1gaa}\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n(k+1)c_{k+1}(x,y)+\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{ij} a_{ij}(x)\\Big(\n\\frac{d^2_{x_i}}{2}\\frac{\\partial c_{k+1}}{\\partial x_j}\n+\\frac{d^2_{x_j}}{2} \\frac{\\partial c_{k+1}}{\\partial x_i}\\Big)\\\\\n\\\\\n=\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\\sum_{l=0}^{k}\\frac{\\partial c_l}{\\partial x_i} \\frac{\\partial c_{k-l}}{\\partial x_j}\n+\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}(x)\\frac{\\partial^2 c_k}{\\partial x_i\\partial x_j}  \n+\\sum_i b_i(x)\\frac{\\partial c_{k}}{\\partial x_i},\n\\end{array}$$ with the boundary conditions $$\\label{Rk}\nc_{k+1}(x,y)=R_k(y,y) \\mbox{ if }~~x=y,$$ $R_k$ being the right side of . We will show in a subsequent paper that equations , and , can be solved or approximated to higher order if is solved or approximated to higher order. We have\n\nIn order to compute the WKB-approximation up to order $k$ a $H^{s,p}$ approximation of $d^2$ for $s\\geq 2k$ is sufficient.\n\nIn each recursion step an operator of order $2$ is applied to the previously computed WKB-coefficients.\n\nConclusion and final remarks on computational issues\n====================================================\n\nWe have established a stable algorithm for efficient computation of the length of geodesics as a function of two arbitrary points on $C^k$- Riemannian manifold with minimal geodesic as well as of partial derivatives of the length functional (of principally any order) accurately. We established error estimates in arbitrary Sobolev norms. We showed how the algorithm can be applied in order to compute fundamental solutions of irreducible linear parabolic equations. There are many obvious applications to mathematical physics and finance as well as to statistics, e.g. to the maximum log-likelihood method, to option pricing, computing transition amplitudes etc.. Finally, we remark that the interpolation polynomials should not be evaluated in the way they are constructed. Here careful implementation of Horner schemes is needed. But this computational issues will be considered in a subsequent paper.\n\n[19]{}\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'A classical particle in a constant magnetic field undergoes cyclotron motion on a circular orbit. At the quantum level, the fact that all classical orbits are closed gives rise to degeneracies in the spectrum. It is well-known that the spectrum of a charged particle in a constant magnetic field consists of infinitely degenerate Landau levels. Just as for the $1/r$ and $r^2$ potentials, one thus expects some hidden accidental symmetry, in this case with infinite-dimensional representations. Indeed, the position of the center of the cyclotron circle plays the role of a Runge-Lenz vector. After identifying the corresponding accidental symmetry algebra, we re-analyze the system in a finite periodic volume. Interestingly, similar to the quantum mechanical breaking of CP invariance due to the $\\theta$-vacuum angle in non-Abelian gauge theories, quantum effects due to two self-adjoint extension parameters $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ explicitly break the continuous translation invariance of the classical theory. This reduces the symmetry to a discrete magnetic translation group and leads to finite degeneracy. Similar to a particle moving on a cone, a particle in a constant magnetic field shows a very peculiar realization of accidental symmetry in quantum mechanics.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    M.\u00a0H.\u00a0Al-Hashimi and U.-J.\u00a0Wiese\\\n    \\\n    Institute for Theoretical Physics, Bern University\\\n    Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland\\\n    \\\ntitle: Discrete Accidental Symmetry for a Particle in a Constant Magnetic Field on a Torus\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe fact that for some physical systems all bound classical orbits are closed leads to accidental degeneracies in the discrete energy spectrum of the corresponding quantum systems. Accidental symmetries are familiar from a particle moving in a $1/r$ or $r^2$ potential. In $d$ spatial dimensions the system then has an $SO(d)$ rotational symmetry. In case of the $1/r$ potential, this symmetry is dynamically enhanced to an accidental $SO(d+1)$ symmetry, and for the $r^2$ harmonic oscillator potential it is enhanced to $SU(d)$. The accidental symmetries give rise to additional degeneracies in the discrete energy spectrum of the corresponding quantum systems, beyond the degeneracies one would expect based on rotation invariance alone [@Foc35; @Bar36]. The components of the Runge-Lenz vector [@Len24] are the generators of the accidental symmetry algebras. The subject of accidental symmetry has been reviewed, for example, by McIntosh [@McI71]. Recently, we have further investigated the phenomenon of accidental symmetries, by studying a particle confined to the surface of a cone and bound to its tip by a $1/r$ or $r^2$ potential [@Has07]. When the deficit angle of the cone is a rational fraction of $2 \\pi$, again all bound classical orbits are closed and there are accidental degeneracies in the energy spectrum of the quantum system. In this case the Runge-Lenz vector does not act as a self-adjoint operator in the domain of the Hamiltonian. Remarkably, as a consequence of this unusual property, the accidental $SU(2)$ symmetry has unusual multiplets with fractional (i.e.\u00a0neither integer nor half-integer) spin.\n\nAn interesting example of an accidental symmetry involving a vector potential is cyclotron motion [@Lan30; @Joh49]. Also in this case, there is a deep connection between the fact that all bound classical orbits are closed and additional degeneracies in the discrete energy spectrum of the corresponding quantum system. As was already noted in [@Joh49], the center of the circular cyclotron orbit is a conserved quantity analogous to the Runge-Lenz vector in the Kepler problem. Also the radius of the cyclotron orbit is a conserved quantity directly related to the energy. Interestingly, while the two coordinates of the center are not simultaneously measurable, the radius of the circle has a sharp value in an energy eigenstate. In the cyclotron problem, translation invariance disguises itself as an \u201caccidental\u201d symmetry. As a consequence, the symmetry multiplets \u2014 i.e.\u00a0the Landau levels \u2014 are infinitely degenerate. In order to further investigate the nature of the accidental symmetry, in [@Dul66] the charged particle in the magnetic field was coupled to the origin by an $r^2$ harmonic oscillator potential. This explicitly breaks translation invariance and thus reduces the degeneracy to a finite amount, while rotation invariance remains intact. In this paper, we do the opposite, i.e.\u00a0we explicitly break rotation invariance, while leaving translation invariance (and hence the accidental symmetry) intact by putting the system on a torus. Interestingly, the Polyakov loops, which are a consequence of the non-trivial holonomies of the torus, give rise to non-trivial Aharonov-Bohm phases which are observable at the quantum but not at the classical level. Analogous to the quantum mechanical breaking of CP invariance due to the $\\theta$-vacuum angle in non-Abelian gauge theories, here two self-adjoint extension parameters $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ explicitly break the continuous translation invariance of the classical problem down to a discrete magnetic translation group [@Zak64]. This reduces the degeneracy to a finite amount, and allows us to further investigate the nature of the accidental symmetry. In particular, just like for motion on a cone [@Has07], symmetry manifests itself in a rather unusual way in this quantum system. In particular, due to its relevance to the quantum Hall effect, the Landau level problem has been studied very extensively (for a recent review see [@Ste08]). For example, the problem has already been investigated on a torus in [@Che95; @Zai89], however, without emphasizing the accidental symmetry aspects. In this paper, we concentrate entirely on those aspects, thus addressing an old and rather well-studied problem from an unconventional point of view.\n\nThe rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section 2 the cyclotron problem is reviewed in the infinite volume, with special emphasis on its oscillator algebras and accidental symmetry generators. In section 3 the system is put on a torus and the unusual manifestation of the accidental symmetry is worked out. Section 4 contains our conclusions.\n\nParticle in the Infinite Volume\n===============================\n\nIn this section we review the standard knowledge about a non-relativistic particle moving in a constant magnetic field in the infinite volume. We proceed from a classical to a semi-classical, and finally to a fully quantum mechanical treatment. In particular, we emphasize the symmetry aspects of the problem with a focus on accidental symmetries. This section is a preparation for the case of a finite periodic volume to be discussed in the next section. In the following, we will use natural units in which $\\hbar = c = 1$.\n\nClassical Treatment\n-------------------\n\nIgnoring its spin, we consider a non-relativistic electron of mass $M$ and electric charge $-e$ moving in a constant magnetic field $\\vec B = B \\vec e_z$, which we realize through the vector potential $$A_x(\\vec x) = 0, \\ A_y(\\vec x) = B x, \\ A_z(\\vec x) = 0.$$ Since the motion along the direction of the magnetic field is trivial, we restrict ourselves to 2-dimensional motion in the $x$-$y$-plane. Obviously, this is just standard cyclotron motion. To get started, in this subsection we treat the problem classically. The particle then experiences the Lorentz force $$\\vec F(t) = - e \\vec v(t) \\times B \\vec e_z,$$ which forces the particle on a circular orbit of some radius $r$. It moves along the circle with an angular velocity $\\omega$, which implies the linear velocity $v = \\omega r$ and the acceleration $a = \\omega^2 r$. Hence, Newton\u2019s equation takes the form $$m \\omega^2 r = e \\omega r B \\ \\Rightarrow \\ \\omega = \\frac{e B}{M},$$ with the cyclotron frequency $\\omega$ being independent of the radius $r$. Obviously, for this system all classical orbits are closed. The same is true for a particle moving in a $1/r$ or $r^2$ potential. In those cases, the fact that all bound classical orbits are closed is related to the conservation of the Runge-Lenz vector which generates a hidden accidental dynamical symmetry.\n\nLet us now investigate the question of accidental symmetry for the particle in the constant magnetic field. The Lagrange function then takes the form $$L = \\frac{M}{2} \\vec v^2 - e \\vec A(\\vec x) \\cdot \\vec v  =\n\\frac{M}{2} \\left(\\dot x^2 + \\dot y^2\\right) - e B x \\dot y,$$ and the corresponding conjugate momenta are $$p_x = \\frac{{\\partial}L}{{\\partial}\\dot x} = M \\dot x = M v_x, \\\np_y = \\frac{{\\partial}L}{{\\partial}\\dot y} = M \\dot y - e B x = M v_x - e B x.$$ First of all, in the gauge that we picked, $y$ is a cyclic coordinate and hence the canonically conjugate momentum $p_y$ is conserved as a consequence of translation invariance in the $y$-direction. Despite the fact that the system is translation invariant also in the $x$-direction, $x$ itself is not a cyclic coordinate and hence $p_x$ is not conserved. Still, using Noether\u2019s theorem one can identify the corresponding conserved quantity as $P_x = p_x + e B y$. Interestingly, the Lagrange function is not invariant under a shift in the $x$-direction but changes by a total derivative (which leaves the classical equations of motion unchanged).\n\nThe classical Hamilton function takes the form $$\\label{Hamiltonian}\nH = \\vec p \\cdot \\vec v - L = \n\\frac{1}{2 M}\\left[\\vec p + e \\vec A(\\vec x)\\right]^2 =\n\\frac{1}{2 M}\\left[p_x^2 + \\left(p_y + e B x\\right)^2\\right].$$ It is straightforward to convince oneself that $H$ has vanishing Poisson brackets, $\\{H,P_x\\} = \\{H,P_y\\} = \\{H,L\\} = 0$, with the three symmetry generators $$P_x = p_x + e B y, \\ P_y = p_y, \\\nL = x \\left(p_y + \\frac{e B}{2} x\\right) - \ny \\left(p_x + \\frac{e B}{2} y\\right).$$ One can identify $P_x$, $P_y$, and $L$ as the gauge-covariant generators of translations and rotations. In particular, one obtains $$\\{L,P_x\\} = P_y, \\ \\{L,P_y\\} = - P_x,$$ as one would expect for the rotation properties of the vector $(P_x,P_y)$. As is well-known, however, in a magnetic field the two translations $P_x$ and $P_y$ do not commute, i.e. $$\\{P_x,P_y\\} = e B.$$ How can these standard symmetry considerations be related to an accidental symmetry due to a Runge-Lenz vector? The Runge-Lenz vector is familiar from the Kepler problem. It points from the center of force to the perihelion position, and is conserved because all bound classical orbits are closed. Similarly, the orbit of a charged particle in a constant magnetic field is a closed circle with a fixed center. Indeed, in this case the position of this center plays the role of the conserved Runge-Lenz vector and is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{RP}\n&&R_x = x - \\frac{v_y}{v} r = x - \\frac{v_y}{\\omega} = \nx - \\frac{1}{M \\omega}\\left(p_y + e B x\\right) = \n- \\frac{p_y}{M \\omega} = - \\frac{P_y}{e B}, \\nonumber \\\\\n&&R_y = y + \\frac{v_x}{v} r = y + \\frac{v_x}{\\omega} = \ny + \\frac{p_x}{M \\omega} = \\frac{P_x}{e B}.\\end{aligned}$$ Interestingly, the position $(R_x,R_y)$ of the center of the cyclotron circle is, at the same time, proportional to $(- P_y,P_x)$, i.e.\u00a0it is orthogonal to the generators of spatial translations. Consequently, we can write $$\\label{poisson1}\n\\{R_x,P_x\\} = - \\frac{1}{e B} \\{P_y,P_x\\} = 1, \\\n\\{R_y,P_y\\} = \\frac{1}{e B} \\{P_x,P_y\\} = 1, $$ as well as $$\\label{poisson2}\n\\{R_x,P_y\\} = - \\frac{1}{e B} \\{P_y,P_y\\} = 0, \\\n\\{R_y,P_x\\} = \\frac{1}{e B} \\{P_x,P_x\\} = 0.$$ While eqs.(\\[poisson1\\]) and (\\[poisson2\\]) look like the usual Poisson brackets of position and momentum, one should not forget that $R_x$ and $R_y$ are just multiples of $P_y$ and $P_x$, and should hence not be mistaken as independent variables. In particular, one also obtains the relation $$\\{R_x,R_y\\} = \\frac{1}{e B}.$$ Hence, just like the two generators of translations, the $x$- and $y$-components of the Runge-Lenz vector do not have a vanishing Poisson bracket. At the quantum level, this will imply that the $x$- and $y$-components of the center of a cyclotron circle are not simultaneously measurable with absolute precision.\n\nAnother conserved quantity is the radius $r$ of the circular cyclotron orbit which can be expressed as $$r^2 = (x - R_x)^2 + (y - R_y)^2 = \\frac{1}{M^2 \\omega^2} \n\\left(p_y + e B x\\right)^2 + \\frac{p_x^2}{M^2 \\omega^2} = \n\\frac{2 H}{M \\omega^2}.$$ Since $r^2$ is proportional to the energy, it obviously is indeed conserved.\n\nSemi-classical Treatment\n------------------------\n\nNext, we consider the same problem semi-classically, i.e.\u00a0by using Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization, which, in this case, is equivalent to the quantization of angular momentum, i.e.\u00a0$L = n$. For a cyclotron orbit of radius $r$, it is easy to convince oneself that $$L = \\frac{e B}{2} r^2 = n \\ \\Rightarrow \\ r = \\sqrt{\\frac{2 n}{e B}}.$$ Consequently, in the semi-classical treatment the allowed radii of cyclotron orbits are now quantized. Using eq.(\\[Hamiltonian\\]) one finds for the energy $$E = H = \\frac{1}{2} M \\omega^2 r^2 = n \\omega.$$ As is well-known, up to a constant $\\frac{\\omega}{2}$, the semi-classically quantized energy values are those of a harmonic oscillator with the cyclotron frequency $\\omega$.\n\nQuantum Mechanical Treatment\n----------------------------\n\nFinally, we consider the problem fully quantum mechanically. The Schr\u00f6dinger equation then takes the form $$- \\frac{1}{2 M} \\left[\\partial_x^2 + \n\\left(\\partial_y + i e B x\\right)^2\\right] \\Psi(\\vec x) =\nE \\Psi(\\vec x).$$ We now make the factorization ansatz $$\\label{factorization}\n\\Psi(\\vec x) = \\psi(x) \\exp(i p_y y),$$ and we obtain $$\\left[- \\frac{{\\partial}_x^2}{2 M} +\n\\frac{1}{2} M \\omega^2 \\left(x + \\frac{p_y}{M \\omega}\\right)^2\\right] \n\\psi(x) = E \\psi(x).$$ Indeed, this is the Schr\u00f6dinger equation of a shifted harmonic oscillator. Hence, the quantum mechanical energy spectrum takes the form $$E = \\omega \\left(n + \\frac{1}{2}\\right).$$ Interestingly, the energy of the charged particle is completely independent of the transverse momentum $p_y$. As a result, the quantized Landau levels have a continuous infinite degeneracy. The energy eigenstates are shifted one-dimensional harmonic oscillator wave functions $\\psi_n(x)$, i.e. $$\\label{eigenstates}\n\\langle \\vec x|n p_y \\rangle = \\psi_n\\left(x + \\frac{p_y}{M \\omega} \\right)\n\\exp(i p_y y).$$ Similarly, one can construct eigenstates of the generator $P_x = - i {\\partial}_x + e B y$ of infinitesimal translations (up to a gauge transformation) in the $x$-direction $$\\label{eigenx}\n\\langle \\vec x|n p_x \\rangle = \\psi_n\\left(y - \\frac{p_x}{M \\omega} \\right)\n\\exp(i p_x x) \\exp(- i e B x y).$$ It is straightforward to show that the two sets of eigenstates $\\langle \\vec x|n p_y\\rangle$ and $\\langle \\vec x|n p_x\\rangle$ span the same subspace of localized states in the Hilbert space.\n\nSince all classical orbits are closed and the center of the cyclotron orbit plays the role of a Runge-Lenz vector, it is natural to ask whether the degeneracy is caused by an accidental symmetry. Of course, since the Runge-Lenz vector plays a dual role and is also generating translations (up to gauge transformations), in this case the \u201caccidental\u201d symmetry would just be translation invariance. Indeed, in complete analogy to the classical case, it is easy to convince oneself that $[H,R_x] = [H,R_y] = [H,L] = 0$, with the Runge-Lenz vector and the angular momentum operator given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&R_x = - \\frac{P_y}{e B} = \\frac{i {\\partial}_y}{e B}, \\ \nR_y = \\frac{P_x}{e B} = y - \\frac{i {\\partial}_x}{e B}, \n\\nonumber \\\\\n&&L = x \\left(- i {\\partial}_y + \\frac{e B x}{2}\\right) - \ny \\left(- i {\\partial}_x + \\frac{e B y}{2}\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ As in the classical case, the radius of the cyclotron orbit squared is given by $$r^2 = (x - R_x)^2 + (y - R_y)^2 = \\left(x - \\frac{i {\\partial}_y}{e B}\\right)^2\n- \\frac{ {\\partial}_x^2}{e^2 B^2} = \\frac{2 H}{M \\omega^2},$$ and is thus again a conserved quantity. In particular, we can express the Hamiltonian as $$H = \\frac{1}{2} M \\omega^2 r^2.$$ Remarkably, although the two coordinates $R_x$ and $R_y$ of the center of the cyclotron circle are not simultaneously measurable, its radius $r$ has a definite value in an energy eigenstate.\n\nAs it should, under spatial rotations the Runge-Lenz vector $(R_x,R_y)$ indeed transforms as a vector, i.e. $$[L,R_x] = i R_y, \\ [L,R_y] = - i R_x.$$ These relations suggest to introduce $$R_\\pm = R_x \\pm i R_y,$$ which implies $$[L,R_\\pm] = \\pm R_\\pm.$$ Hence, $R_+$ and $R_-$ act as raising and lowering operators of angular momentum. Still, it is important to note that $R_x$, $R_y$, and $L$ do not form an $SU(2)$ algebra. This follows because, in analogy to the classical case $$[R_x,R_y] = \\frac{i}{e B},$$ i.e.\u00a0$R_x$ and $R_y$ are generators of a Heisenberg algebra. As a consequence one obtains $$[R_+,R_-] = \\frac{2}{e B}.$$\n\nCreation and Annihilation Operators\n-----------------------------------\n\nSince the particle in the magnetic field leads to the spectrum of a 1-dimensional harmonic oscillator (however, with infinite degeneracy), it is natural to ask how one can construct corresponding creation and annihilation operators such that $$H = \\omega \\left(a^\\dagger a + \\frac{1}{2}\\right), \\ [a,a^\\dagger] = 1.$$ Remarkably, the creation and annihilation operators are closely related to the Runge-Lenz vector, i.e.\u00a0the vector that points to the center of the classical cyclotron orbit. Since we have seen that $$H = \\frac{1}{2} M \\omega^2 r^2 = \n\\frac{1}{2} M \\omega^2 \\left[(x - R_x)^2 + (y - R_y)^2\\right],$$ one is led to identify $$a = \\sqrt{\\frac{M \\omega}{2}} \\left[x - R_x - i (y - R_y)\\right], \\\na^\\dagger = \\sqrt{\\frac{M \\omega}{2}} \\left[x - R_x + i (y - R_y)\\right],$$ which indeed have the desired properties. One also finds that $$[L,a] = - a, \\ [L,a^\\dagger] = a^\\dagger,$$ which implies that $a^\\dagger$ and $a$ also raise and lower the angular momentum. Interestingly, we have seen before that $$[L,R_\\pm] = \\pm R_\\pm, \\ [R_+,R_-] = \\frac{2}{e B} = \\frac{2}{M \\omega}.$$ Hence, $R_+$ and $R_-$ also act as raising and lowering operators of the angular momentum. Indeed, we can identify another set of creation and annihilation operators $$b = \\sqrt{\\frac{M \\omega}{2}} R_+, \\ b^\\dagger = \\sqrt{\\frac{M \\omega}{2}} R_-,$$ which obey $$[L,b] = b, \\ [L,b^\\dagger] = - b^\\dagger.$$ As a result, $b$ raises and $b^\\dagger$ lowers the angular momentum by one unit. It is straightforward to derive the commutation relations $$[a,b] = [a^\\dagger,b] = [a,b^\\dagger] = [a^\\dagger,b^\\dagger] = 0, \\ \n[b,b^\\dagger] = 1.$$ Interestingly, just like a 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator, the particle in a magnetic field is described by two sets of commuting creation and annihilation operators. However, in contrast to the 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator, the Hamiltonian of the particle in a magnetic field contains only $a^\\dagger a$, but not $b^\\dagger b$.\n\nAlternative Representation of the Hamiltonian\n---------------------------------------------\n\nInterestingly, the Hamiltonian can also be expressed as $$H = \\frac{1}{2} M \\omega^2 \\left(R_x^2 + R_y^2\\right) + \\omega L =\n\\omega \\left(b^\\dagger b + \\frac{1}{2} + L\\right) = H_0 + \\omega L.$$ Here we have introduced the Hamiltonian of an ordinary 1-dimensional harmonic oscillator $$H_0 = \\omega \\left(b^\\dagger b + \\frac{1}{2}\\right),$$ and the angular momentum operator has been identified as $$L = a^\\dagger a - b^\\dagger b.$$ Interestingly, the creation and annihilation operators $b^\\dagger$ and $b$ commute with the total energy $H$ because they raise (lower) $H_0$ by $\\omega$, while they lower (raise) $L$ by 1, such that indeed $$[H,b] = [H_0,b] + \\omega [L,b] = 0, \\\n[H,b^\\dagger] = [H_0,b^\\dagger] + \\omega [L,b^\\dagger] = 0.$$\n\nEnergy Spectrum and Energy Eigenstates\n--------------------------------------\n\nSince the algebraic structure of the problem (but not the exact form of the Hamiltonian) is the same as for the 2-dimensional harmonic oscillator, we can construct the physical states accordingly. First of all, we construct a state $|0 0\\rangle$ that is annihilated by both $a$ and $b$, i.e. $$a|0 0\\rangle = b|0 0\\rangle = 0.$$ Then we define states $$|n n'\\rangle = \\frac{\\left(a^\\dagger\\right)^{n}}{\\sqrt{n!}} \n\\frac{\\left(b^\\dagger\\right)^{n'}}{\\sqrt{n'!}} |0 0\\rangle,$$ which are eigenstates of the total energy $$H |n n'\\rangle = \\omega \\left(n + \\frac{1}{2}\\right) |n n'\\rangle,$$ as well as of the angular momentum $$L |n n'\\rangle = (n - n') |n n'\\rangle = m |n n'\\rangle.$$ It should be noted that the quantum number $n \\in \\{0,1,2,...\\}$ (which determines the energy) is non-negative, while the quantum number $m = n - n' \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}$ (which determines the angular momentum) is an arbitrary integer. The infinite degeneracy of the Landau levels is now obvious because states with the same $n$ but different values of $n'$ have the same energy.\n\nOne may wonder why in subsection 2.3 we found an infinite degeneracy labeled by the continuous momentum $p_y$ and now we only find a countable variety of degenerate states (labeled by the integer $m$). This apparent discrepancy is due to the implicit consideration of two different Hilbert spaces. While the states in the discrete variety labeled by $m$ are normalizable in the usual sense, the continuous variety of plane wave states labeled by $p_y$ is normalized to $\\delta$-functions and thus belongs to an extended Hilbert space.\n\nIt is remarkable that a quantum mechanical system containing just a single particle has an even infinitely degenerate ground state. The existence of infinitely degenerate ground states is usually associated with the spontaneous breakdown of a continuous global symmetry in systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom. Does the infinite degeneracy of the single-particle Landau levels have anything to do with the spontaneous breakdown of translation invariance? The usual breaking of a continuous global symmetry is associated with the occurrence of massless Goldstone bosons. For example, when translation invariance is spontaneously broken by the formation of a crystal lattice, phonons arise as massless excitations. In the quantum mechanical system studied here, there is no room for phonons because it has only a finite number of degrees of freedom. Indeed, the infinitely degenerate ground states are separated from the rest of the spectrum by a gap $\\omega$. Still, just like a system with spontaneous symmetry breaking, the charged particle in a magnetic field may chose spontaneously from a continuous variety of degenerate ground states.\n\nCoherent States\n---------------\n\nCoherent states are well-known from the harmonic oscillator, and have also been constructed for the Landau level problem [@Fel70]. As usual, the coherent states are constructed as eigenstates of the annihilation operators, i.e. $$a |\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle = \\lambda |\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle, \\\nb |\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle = \\lambda' |\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle, \\ \n\\lambda, \\lambda' \\in {{\\mathbb{C}}}.$$ In coordinate space, the coherent states can be expressed as $$\\langle \\vec x|\\lambda \\lambda' \\rangle = A\n\\exp\\left[- \\frac{M \\omega}{4} (x^2 + 2 i x y + y^2) + \n\\sqrt{\\frac{M \\omega}{2}}\n\\left(x (\\lambda + \\lambda') + i y (\\lambda - \\lambda')\\right)\\right].$$ Some expectation values in the coherent state $|\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle$ are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\langle R_x \\rangle = \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{M \\omega}} \\ \\mbox{Re}\\lambda', \\\n\\Delta R_x = \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2 M \\omega}}, \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\langle R_y \\rangle = \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{M \\omega}} \\ \\mbox{Im}\\lambda', \\\n\\Delta R_y = \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2 M \\omega}}, \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\langle x - R_x \\rangle = \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{M \\omega}} \\ \\mbox{Re}\\lambda, \\\n\\Delta (x - R_x) = \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2 M \\omega}}, \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\langle y - R_y \\rangle = - \\sqrt{\\frac{2}{M \\omega}} \\ \\mbox{Im}\\lambda, \\\n\\Delta (y - R_y) = \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2 M \\omega}}, \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\langle M v_x \\rangle =\n\\left\\langle p_x + e A_x \\right\\rangle = \n\\sqrt{2 M \\omega} \\ \\mbox{Im}\\lambda, \\ \n\\Delta(M v_x) = \\sqrt{\\frac{M \\omega}{2}}, \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\langle M v_y \\rangle =\n\\left\\langle p_y + e A_y \\right\\rangle = \n\\sqrt{2 M \\omega} \\ \\mbox{Re}\\lambda, \\ \n\\Delta(M v_y) = \\sqrt{\\frac{M \\omega}{2}}, \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\langle H \\rangle = \\omega \\left(|\\lambda|^2 + \\frac{1}{2}\\right), \\\n\\Delta H = \\omega |\\lambda|.\\end{aligned}$$ Here $\\Delta O = \\sqrt{\\langle O^2 \\rangle - \\langle O \\rangle^2}$ describes the quantum uncertainty. In all cases $\\Delta O/\\langle O \\rangle$ is proportional to $1/|\\lambda|$ or $1/|\\lambda'|$, which implies that the relative uncertainty goes to zero in the classical limit.\n\nJust as in the ordinary harmonic oscillator, the time-dependent Schr\u00f6dinger equation $i {\\partial}_t |\\Psi(t)\\rangle = H |\\Psi(t)\\rangle$ with an initial coherent state $|\\Psi(0)\\rangle = |\\lambda(0) \\lambda' \\rangle$ is (up to an irrelevant phase) solved by $|\\lambda(t) \\lambda'\\rangle$ with $$\\lambda(t) = \\lambda(0) \\exp(- i \\omega t).$$ As expected, the state remains coherent during its time-evolution. In particular, this implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\langle x - R_x \\rangle(t) = \n\\frac{|\\lambda|}{\\sqrt{2 M \\omega}} \\cos(\\omega t), \\\n\\langle M v_x \\rangle(t) = - \\sqrt{2 M \\omega} \\ |\\lambda| \\sin(\\omega t), \n\\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\langle y - R_y \\rangle(t) = \n\\frac{|\\lambda|}{\\sqrt{2 M \\omega}} \\sin(\\omega t), \\\n\\langle M v_y \\rangle(t) = \\sqrt{2 M \\omega} \\ |\\lambda| \\cos(\\omega t).\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the coherent state represents a Gaussian wave packet moving around a circular cyclotron orbit just like a classical particle. This is obvious from the coordinate representation of the probability density $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&|\\langle \\vec x|\\Psi(t)\\rangle|^2 = A \\exp\\left(- \\frac{M \\omega}{2}\n\\left[(x - \\langle x \\rangle(t))^2 + \n(y - \\langle y \\rangle(t))^2\\right]\\right), \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\langle x \\rangle(t) = \\langle R_x \\rangle + \n\\sqrt{\\frac{2}{M \\omega}} |\\lambda| \\cos(\\omega t), \\\n\\langle y \\rangle(t) = \\langle R_y \\rangle + \n\\sqrt{\\frac{2}{M \\omega}} |\\lambda| \\sin(\\omega t).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIt is interesting to note that the coherent states $|0 \\lambda'\\rangle$ with $\\lambda = 0$ (but with arbitrary $\\lambda' = \\sqrt{M \\omega/2} (\\langle R_x \\rangle + i \\langle R_y \\rangle)$ form an overcomplete set of degenerate ground states with the energy $\\omega/2$. These states represent Gaussian wave packets centered at the points $(\\langle R_x \\rangle,\\langle R_y \\rangle)$ determined by $\\lambda'$. Unlike for a free particle, these Gaussian wave packets do not spread. Semi-classically speaking, the charged particle is in a \u201ccircular orbit\u201d of quantized sharp radius $\\sqrt{2/M \\omega} |\\lambda| = 0$ with an uncertain position $(\\langle R_x \\rangle,\\langle R_y \\rangle)$ of the center. Since the ground state is infinite degenerate, the charged particle can spontaneously select any average position $(\\langle R_x \\rangle,\\langle R_y \\rangle)$ at which it can stay with average velocity zero in a state of minimal uncertainty. Again, this is reminiscent of the spontaneous breakdown of translation invariance.\n\nParticle on a Torus\n===================\n\nIn this section we put the problem in a finite periodic volume. This explicitly breaks rotation invariance, but leaves translation invariance intact (at least at the classical level), and leads to an energy spectrum with finite degeneracy. In order to clarify some subtle symmetry properties, we also discuss issues of Hermiticity versus self-adjointness of various operators.\n\nConstant Magnetic Field on a Torus\n----------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection we impose a torus boundary condition over a rectangular region of size $L_x \\times L_y$. This will lead to a quantization condition for the magnetic flux. Since the magnetic field is constant, it obviously is periodic. On the other hand, the vector potential of the infinite volume theory $A_x(x,y) = 0$, $A_y(x,y) = B x$ obeys the conditions $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&A_x(x + L_x,y) = A_x(x,y), \\nonumber \\\\\n&&A_y(x + L_x,y) = A_y(x,y) + B L_x = A_y(x,y) + {\\partial}_y (B L_x y), \\nonumber \\\\\n&&A_x(x,y + L_y) = A_x(x,y), \\nonumber \\\\\n&&A_y(x,y + L_y) = A_y(x,y).\\end{aligned}$$ As a gauge-dependent quantity, the vector potential is periodic only up to gauge transformations, i.e. $$A_i(x + L_x,y) = A_i(x,y) - {\\partial}_i \\varphi_x(y), \\\nA_i(x,y + L_y) = A_i(x,y) - {\\partial}_i \\varphi_y(x).$$ The gauge transformations $\\varphi_x(y)$ and $\\varphi_y(x)$ are transition functions in a fiber bundle which specify the boundary condition. In our case the transition functions are given by $$\\varphi_x(y) = \\frac{\\theta_x}{e} - B L_x y, \\ \n\\varphi_y(x) = \\frac{\\theta_y}{e}.$$\n\nBesides the field strength, gauge theories on a periodic volume possess additional gauge invariant quantities \u2014 the so-called Polyakov loops \u2014 which arise due to the non-trivial holonomies of the torus. For an Abelian gauge theory the Polyakov loops are defined as $$\\Phi_x(y) = \\int_0^{L_x} dx \\ A_x(x,y) - \\varphi_x(y), \\\n\\Phi_y(x) = \\int_0^{L_y} dy \\ A_y(x,y) - \\varphi_y(x).$$ In our case, they are given by $$\\Phi_x(y) = B L_x y - \\frac{\\theta_x}{e}, \\\n\\Phi_y(x) = B L_y x - \\frac{\\theta_y}{e}.$$\n\nIn order to respect gauge invariance of the theory on the torus, under shifts the wave function must also be gauge transformed accordingly $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{boundary}\n&&\\Psi(x + L_x,y) = \\exp\\left(i e \\varphi_x(y)\\right) \\Psi(x,y) =\n\\exp\\left(i \\theta_x - i e B L_x y\\right) \\Psi(x,y), \n\\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\Psi(x,y + L_y) = \\exp\\left(i e \\varphi_y(x)\\right) \\Psi(x,y) =\n\\exp\\left(i \\theta_y\\right) \\Psi(x,y).\\end{aligned}$$ The angles $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ parametrize a family of self-adjoint extensions of the Hamiltonian on the torus. Applying the boundary conditions from above in two different orders one obtains $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Psi(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=& \n\\exp\\left(i \\theta_x - i e B L_x (y + L_y)\\right) \n\\Psi(x,y + L_y) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\\exp\\left(i \\theta_x + i \\theta_y - \ni e B L_x (y + L_y)\\right) \\Psi(x,y), \\nonumber \\\\\n\\Psi(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&\\exp\\left(i \\theta_y\\right) \\Psi(x + L_x,y)\n\\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\\exp\\left(i \\theta_x + i \\theta_y - i e B L_x y \\right) \\Psi(x,y).\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, consistency of the boundary condition requires $$\\exp\\left(- i e B L_x L_y \\right) = 1 \\ \\Rightarrow \\\nB = \\frac{2 \\pi  n_\\Phi}{e L_x L_y}, \\ n_\\Phi \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}.$$ The total magnetic flux through the torus $$\\Phi = B L_x L_y = \\frac{2 \\pi n_\\Phi}{e},$$ is hence quantized in integer units of the elementary magnetic flux quantum $2 \\pi/e$. Interestingly, the spectrum of a charged particle in a constant magnetic field is discrete (but infinitely degenerate) already in the infinite volume. As we will see, in the finite periodic volume it has only a finite $|n_\\Phi|$-fold degeneracy determined by the number of flux quanta.\n\nA quantum mechanical charged particle is sensitive to the complex phases defined by the Polyakov loops $$\\exp(i e \\Phi_x(y)) = \\exp(i e B L_x y - i \\theta_x), \\\n\\exp(i e \\Phi_y(x)) = \\exp(i e B L_y x - i \\theta_y),$$ which are measurable in Aharonov-Bohm-type experiments. Remarkably, the Polyakov loops explicitly break the translation invariance of the torus at the quantum level. This is reminiscent of the quantum mechanical breaking of CP invariance due to the $\\theta$-vacuum angle in non-Abelian gauge theories. The complex phases from above are invariant under shifts by integer multiples of $$a_x = \\frac{2 \\pi}{e B L_y} = \\frac{L_x}{n_\\Phi}, \\\na_y = \\frac{2 \\pi}{e B L_x} = \\frac{L_y}{n_\\Phi},$$ in the $x$- and $y$-directions, respectively. Hence, at the quantum level the continuous translation group of the torus is reduced to a discrete subgroup which plays the role of the accidental symmetry group.\n\nIn this paper, we treat the gauge field as a classical background field, while only the charged particle is treated quantum mechanically. It is interesting to note that, once the gauge field is also quantized, the transition functions $\\varphi_x(y)$ and $\\varphi_y(x)$ become fluctuating physical degrees of freedom of the gauge field. Still, as a consequence of $$\\begin{aligned}\nA_i(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&A_i(x,y + L_y) - {\\partial}_i \\varphi_x(y + L_y) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=&A_i(x,y) - {\\partial}_i \\varphi_x(y + L_y) - {\\partial}_i \\varphi_y(x), \\nonumber \\\\\nA_i(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&A_i(x + L_x,y) - {\\partial}_i \\varphi_y(x + L_x) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=&A_i(x,y) - {\\partial}_i \\varphi_y(x + L_x) - {\\partial}_i \\varphi_x(y).\\end{aligned}$$ and of $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Psi(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&\\exp(i e \\varphi_x(y + L_y)) \\Psi(x,y + L_y) \n\\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\\exp(i e \\varphi_x(y + L_y) + i e \\varphi_y(x)) \\Psi(x,y), \\nonumber \\\\\n\\Psi(x + L_x,y + L_y)&=&\\exp(i e \\varphi_y(x + L_x)) \\Psi(x + L_y,y) \n\\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\\exp(i e \\varphi_y(x + L_x) + i e \\varphi_x(y)) \\Psi(x,y),\\end{aligned}$$ the transition functions must obey the cocycle consistency condition $$\\varphi_y(x + L_x) + \\varphi_x(y) - \\varphi_x(y + L_y) - \\varphi_y(x) = \n\\frac{2 \\pi n_\\Phi}{e}.$$ In this case, the magnetic flux $n_\\Phi$ specifies a super-selection sector of the theory. Analogous to the ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(N)^d$ center symmetry of non-Abelian $SU(N)$ gauge theories on a $d$-dimensional torus [@tHo79; @tHo81], Abelian gauge theories coupled to charged matter have a global ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}^d$ center symmetry. The self-adjoint extension parameters $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ then turn into conserved quantities (analogous to Bloch momenta) of the global ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}^2$ symmetry on the 2-dimensional torus. In this sense, $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ are analogous to the $\\theta$-vacuum angle of non-Abelian gauge theories, which also distinguishes different super-selection sectors of the theory. The $\\theta$-vacuum angle is a quantum mechanical source of explicit CP violation. At the classical level, on the other hand, CP invariance remains intact because $\\theta$ does not affect the classical equations of motion. Similarly, for a charged particle on the torus the angles $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ characterize the explicit breaking of continuous translation invariance down to a discrete subgroup. Just like CP invariance for a non-Abelian gauge theory, for a charged particle on the torus the full continuous translation symmetry remains intact at the classical level, because $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ do not appear in the classical equations of motion.\n\nIn this paper, we treat the charged particle as a test charge which does not surround itself with its own Coulomb field. This would change, once one would derive the charged particle from its own quantum field. For example, if one considers full-fledged QED, a single electron cannot even exist on the torus because the Coulomb field that surrounds it is incompatible with periodic boundary conditions. Indeed, as a consequence of the Gauss law, the total charge on a torus always vanishes. To cure this problem, one could compensate the charge of the electron by a classical background charge homogeneously spread out over the torus. In our present calculation this is not necessary, because the charged particle is treated as a test charge without its own surrounding Coulomb field.\n\nDiscrete Magnetic Translation Group\n-----------------------------------\n\nAs we have seen, in order to respect gauge invariance, on the torus the wave function must obey eq.(\\[boundary\\]), which can be re-expressed as $$\\label{condition}\n\\Psi(x + L_x,y) = \\exp\\left(i \\theta_x - \\frac{2 \\pi i n_\\Phi y}{L_y}\\right) \n\\Psi(x,y), \\ \\Psi(x,y + L_y) = \\exp(i \\theta_y) \\Psi(x,y).$$ It is interesting to note that a factorization ansatz for the wave function as in eq.(\\[factorization\\]) is inconsistent with the boundary condition. Let us consider the unitary shift operator generating translations by a distance $a_y$ in the $y$-direction as well as a $\\theta_y$-dependent phase-shift $$T_y = \\exp\\left(i P_y a_y - \\frac{i \\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) =\n\\exp\\left(i \\frac{P_y L_y - \\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right),$$ which acts as $$T_y \\Psi(x,y) = \\exp\\left(- \\frac{i \\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \\Psi(x,y + a_y).$$ Obviously, $T_y$ commutes with the Hamiltonian because $P_y$ does. Indeed, the shifted wave function does obey the boundary condition eq.(\\[condition\\]), i.e. $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_y \\Psi(x + L_x,y)&=&\n\\exp\\left(- \\frac{i \\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \\Psi(x + L_x,y + a_y) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\\exp\\left(- \\frac{i \\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \n\\exp\\left(i \\theta_x - \\frac{2 \\pi i n_\\Phi (y + a_y)}{L_y}\\right) \n\\Psi(x,y + a_y) \n\\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\\exp\\left(i \\theta_x - \\frac{2 \\pi i n_\\Phi y}{L_y}\\right) T_y \\Psi(x,y),\\end{aligned}$$ which is the case only because $$a_y = \\frac{L_y}{n_\\Phi} \\ \\Rightarrow \\\n\\exp\\left(- \\frac{2 \\pi i n_\\Phi a_y}{L_y}\\right) = 1.$$ Furthermore, we also have $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_y \\Psi(x,y + L_y)&=&\n\\exp\\left(- \\frac{i \\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \\Psi(x,y + a_y + L_y) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\\exp\\left(i \\theta_y - \\frac{i \\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \\Psi(x,y + a_y) =\n\\exp(i \\theta_y) T_y \\Psi(x,y).\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, as we argued before, the translations in the $y$-direction are reduced to the discrete group ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$. In particular, all translations $T_y^{n_y}$ compatible with the boundary conditions can be expressed as the $n_y$-th power of the elementary translation $T_y$. According to eq.(\\[RP\\]), $P_y = - e B R_x$, such that $$T_y = \\exp\\left(i \\frac{L_y P_y - \\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) = \n\\exp\\left(- i \\frac{e B L_y R_x + \\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) =\n\\exp\\left(- i \\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i R_x}{L_x} + \n\\frac{\\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right)\\right).$$ Similarly, up to gauge transformations the operator $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_x&=&\\exp\\left(i P_x a_x - \\frac{i \\theta_x}{n_\\Phi}\\right) = \n\\exp\\left(i e B R_y a_x - \\frac{i \\theta_x}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i n_\\Phi R_y a_x}{L_x L_y} -\n\\frac{i \\theta_x}{n_\\Phi}\\right) = \n\\exp\\left(i \\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i R_y}{L_y} -\n\\frac{\\theta_x}{n_\\Phi}\\right)\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ generates translations in the $x$-direction. Since on the torus the Runge-Lenz vector component $R_y$, which determines the $y$-coordinate of the center of the cyclotron orbit, is defined only modulo $L_y$, it is indeed natural to consider the translation operator $T_x$. In fact, although it formally commutes with the Hamiltonian, the operator $R_y$ itself is no longer self-adjoint in the Hilbert space of wave functions on the torus. The operator $T_x$, on the other hand, does act as a unitary operator in the Hilbert space. It is worth noting that, at least in the gauge we have picked, the operator $R_x$ is still self-adjoint. However, this would not be the case, for example, in the symmetric gauge, and it is hence most natural to work with $T_x$ and $T_y$ instead of $R_x$ and $R_y$ or equivalently $P_x$ and $P_y$.\n\nThe boundary condition of eq.(\\[condition\\]) can now be expressed as $$\\label{conditionT}\nT_x^{n_\\Phi} \\Psi(x,y) = \\Psi(x,y), \\ T_y^{n_\\Phi} \\Psi(x,y) = \\Psi(x,y).$$ As a consequence of the commutation relation $[R_x,R_y] = i/e B$, one obtains $$\\label{Tcom}\nT_y T_x = \\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i}{n_\\Phi}\\right) T_x T_y.$$ This implies that $$T_x \\Psi(x,y) = \\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i y}{L_y} - \\frac{i \\theta_x}{n_\\Phi}\n\\right) \\Psi(x + \\frac{L_x}{n_\\Phi},y),$$ i.e., up to a periodic gauge transformation $\\exp(2 \\pi i y/L_y - i \\theta_x/n_\\Phi)$, $T_x$ translates the wave function by a distance $L_x/n_\\Phi$.\n\nRemarkably, although at the classical level the torus has two continuous translation symmetries, the corresponding infinitesimal generators $P_x$ and $P_y$ are not self-adjoint in the Hilbert space of wave functions on the torus. Only the finite translations $T_x$ and $T_y$ are represented by unitary operators, which, however, do not commute with each other. The two operators $T_x$ and $T_y$ generate a discrete translation group ${\\cal G}$ consisting of the elements $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&g(n_x,n_y,m) = \\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i m}{n_\\Phi}\\right) T_y^{n_y} T_x^{n_x},\n\\nonumber \\\\\n&&n_x, n_y, m \\in \\{0,1,2,...,n_\\Phi - 1\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ The group multiplication rule takes the form $$g(n_x,n_y,m) g(n_x',n_y',m') = \ng(n_x + n_x',n_y + n_y',m + m' - n_x n_y'),$$ with all summations being understood modulo $n_\\Phi$. Obviously, the unit element is represented by $${{\\mathbbm{1}}}= g(0,0,0),$$ while the elements $$z_m = g(0,0,m) = \\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i m}{n_\\Phi}\\right),$$ form the cyclic Abelian subgroup ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi) \\subset {\\cal G}$. The inverse of a general group element $g(n_x,n_y,m)$ is given by $$g(n_x,n_y,m)^{-1} = g(- n_x,- n_y,- m - n_x n_y),$$ because $$g(n_x,n_y,m) g(- n_x,- n_y,- m - n_x n_y) = g(0,0,- n_x n_y + n_x n_y) = \ng(0,0,0) = {{\\mathbbm{1}}}.$$ It is interesting to consider the conjugacy class of a group element $g(n_x,n_y,m)$ which consists of the elements $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!g(n_x',n_y',m') g(n_x,n_y,m) g(n_x',n_y',m')^{-1} = \n\\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!g(n_x' + n_x,n_y' + n_y,m' + m - n_x' n_y) \ng(- n_x',- n_y',- m' - n_x' n_y') = \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!g(n_x,n_y,m - n_x'(n_y + n_y') + (n_x' + n_x) n_y') =\ng(n_x,n_y,m + n_x n_y' - n_x' n_y).\\end{aligned}$$ In particular, as one would expect, the elements $g(0,0,m) = z_m \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$ are conjugate only to themselves and thus form $n_\\Phi$ single-element conjugacy classes. Obviously, multiplication by a phase $z_m$ is just a global gauge transformation and thus leaves the physical state invariant. Hence, the conjugacy classes correspond to gauge equivalence classes.\n\nThe elements $g(0,0,m) = z_m$ commute with all other elements and thus form the center ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$ of the group ${\\cal G}$. Since the individual elements of the center form separate conjugacy classes, the center is a normal subgroup and can hence be factored out. The center itself represents global phase transformations of the wave function, and hence factoring it out corresponds to identifying gauge equivalence classes. Physically speaking, the quotient space ${\\cal G}/{{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi) = {{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi) \\times {{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$ corresponds to discrete translations up to gauge transformations. It should be pointed out that ${\\cal G}$ is not simply given by the direct product ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi) \\times {{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi) \\times {{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$. In fact, the quotient space ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi) \\times {{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$ is not a subgroup of ${\\cal G}$, and hence ${\\cal G}$ is also not the semi-direct product of ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi) \\times {{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$ and ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$. All we can say (besides defining the group ${\\cal G}$ as done before) is that it is a particular central extension of ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi) \\times {{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$ by the center subgroup ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$.\n\nSpectrum and Degeneracy on the Torus\n------------------------------------\n\nLet us first discuss the classical problem on the torus. In that case, the magnetic flux need not be quantized. Also the values of the Polyakov loop are not detectable at the classical level because they have no effect on the motion of a test charge, which is entirely determined by the Lorentz force. The classical orbits of a charged particle in a constant magnetic field on the torus still are closed circles. However, as illustrated in figure 1, the circle may close only after wrapping around the periodic boundary.\n\nSince all classical orbits are still closed, one expects that on the torus the accidental symmetry is still present.\n\nIt should be pointed out that on the torus the Hamiltonian is identically the same as in the infinite volume. It now just acts on the restricted set of wave functions obeying the boundary condition eq.(\\[condition\\]). In particular, the finite volume wave functions are appropriate linear combinations of the infinitely many degenerate states of a given Landau level. As a result, the energy spectrum remains unchanged, but the degeneracy is substantially reduced.\n\nLet us use the fact that $T_y$ commutes with the Hamiltonian to construct simultaneous eigenstates of both $H$ and $T_y$. Since for states on the torus $T_y^{n_\\Phi} = {{\\mathbbm{1}}}$, the eigenvalues of $T_y$ are given by $\\exp(2 \\pi i l_y/n_\\phi)$ with $l_y \\in \\{0,1,...,n_\\Phi - 1\\}$, while the eigenvalues of $H$ are still given by $E_n = \\omega(n + \\frac{1}{2})$. Hence, we can construct simultaneous eigenstates $|n l_y\\rangle$ such that $$H |n l_y\\rangle = \\omega \\left(n + \\frac{1}{2}\\right) |n l_y\\rangle, \\\nT_y |n l_y\\rangle = \\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i l_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \n|n l_y\\rangle.$$ The states $|n l_y\\rangle$ are the finite-volume analog of the states $|n p_y \\rangle$ of eq.(\\[eigenstates\\]) with $p_y = (2 \\pi l_y + \\theta_y)/L_y$. In coordinate representation these states are given by the wave functions $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle \\vec x|n l_y\\rangle&=&A \\sum_{n_x \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}} \n\\psi_n\\left(x + \\left(n_\\Phi n_x + l_y + \\frac{\\theta_y}{2 \\pi}\\right) \n\\frac{L_x}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\times&\n\\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i y}{L_y}\\left(n_\\Phi n_x + l_y + \\frac{\\theta_y}{2 \\pi}\n\\right) - i \\theta_x n_x\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ As a special case, let us consider the ground state for $n_\\Phi = 1$, which is non-degenerate $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle \\vec x|n = 0,l_y = 0\\rangle&=&A \\sum_{n_x \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}} \n\\psi_0\\left(x + \\left(n_x + \\frac{\\theta_y}{2 \\pi}\\right) L_x\\right) \n\\nonumber \\\\\n&\\times&\\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i y}{L_y}\\left(n_x + \\frac{\\theta_y}{2 \\pi}\n\\right) - i \\theta_x n_x\\right).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn this state the probability density, which is illustrated in figure 2, has its maximum at $(- L_x \\theta_y/2 \\pi,L_y \\theta_x/2 \\pi)$. This shows once again that the self-adjoint extension parameters $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ indeed explicitly break translation invariance.\n\nAs a consequence of eq.(\\[Tcom\\]) one obtains $$T_y T_x |n l_y\\rangle = \\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i}{n_\\phi}\\right) T_x T_y\n|n l_y\\rangle = \\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i (l_y + 1)}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \nT_x |n l_y\\rangle,$$ from which we conclude that $$T_x |n l_y\\rangle = |n (l_y + 1)\\rangle.$$ Since $[T_x,H] = 0$, the $n_\\Phi$ states $|n l_y\\rangle$ with $l_y \\in 0,1,...,n_\\Phi - 1$ thus form an irreducible representation of the magnetic translation group. Using $n_\\Phi = 4$ as a concrete example, a matrix representation of the two generators of ${\\cal G}$ is given by $$T_x = \\left(\\begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\\\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\end{array}\\right), \\\nT_y = \\left(\\begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\\\ \n0 & i & 0 & 0 \\\\ 0 & 0 & - 1 & 0 \\\\ 0 & 0 & 0 & - i \\end{array} \\right).$$\n\nSimilarly, one can construct simultaneous eigenstates $|n l_x\\rangle$ of $H$ and $T_x$ $$H |n l_x\\rangle = \\omega \\left(n + \\frac{1}{2}\\right) |n l_x\\rangle, \\\nT_x |n l_x\\rangle = \\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i l_x}{n_\\phi}\\right) \n|n l_x\\rangle.$$ The states $|n l_x\\rangle$ are the finite-volume analog of the states $|n p_x \\rangle$ of eq.(\\[eigenx\\]) with $p_x = (2 \\pi l_x + \\theta_x)/L_x$. In coordinate representation these states are given by the wave functions $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle \\vec x|n l_x\\rangle&=&A \\sum_{n_y \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}} \n\\psi_n\\left(y - \\left(n_\\Phi n_y + l_x + \\frac{\\theta_x}{2 \\pi}\\right) \n\\frac{L_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\times&\n\\exp\\left(\\frac{2 \\pi i x}{L_x}\\left(n_\\Phi n_y + l_x + \\frac{\\theta_x}{2 \\pi} -\n\\frac{n_\\Phi y}{L_y}\\right) + i \\theta_y n_y\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ It is worth noting that $$T_y |n l_x\\rangle = |n (l_x - 1)\\rangle.$$ Similar to the infinite volume case, it is straightforward to show that the two sets of eigenstates $\\langle \\vec x|n l_y\\rangle$ and $\\langle \\vec x|n l_x\\rangle$ span the same subspace of the Hilbert space. In particular, for $n_\\Phi = 1$ the ground state is non-degenerate and one can show that $$|n = 0, l_x = 0\\rangle = |n = 0, l_y = 0\\rangle.$$\n\nAs we have seen, on the torus continuous translation invariance is explicitly broken down to the discrete magnetic translation group ${\\cal G}$ by the self-adjoint extension parameters $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$. Still, all states (including the ground state) remain degenerate. However, unlike in the infinite volume, the degeneracy is reduced to a finite amount $n_\\Phi$. Only when one varies $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ one recovers the infinite degeneracy of the infinite system. As in the infinite volume, one may ask if the degenerate ground state indicates that the discrete magnetic translation group ${\\cal G}$ is spontaneously broken. While there are striking similarities with spontaneous symmetry breaking, there are also important differences. First of all, when a system with a broken symmetry is put in a finite volume, the symmetry is usually restored dynamically. For example, this is the case for the spontaneously broken $SU(2)_L \\otimes SU(2)_R$ chiral symmetry in QCD as well as for the spontaneously broken $SU(2)_s$ spin symmetry in antiferromagnets. An important exception are ferromagnets for which the ground state remains exactly degenerate even in a finite volume. This is a consequence of the fact that the magnetization order parameter of a ferromagnet is a conserved quantity, while the staggered magnetization order parameter of an antiferromagnet is not conserved. In this sense, the charged particle in a magnetic field behaves like a ferromagnet. The \u201corder parameter\u201d that signals the \u201cspontaneous breakdown\u201d of translation invariance is the Runge-Lenz vector $(R_x,R_y)$ pointing to the center of the cyclotron circle, which is indeed a conserved quantity.\n\nCoherent States on the Torus\n----------------------------\n\nIt is interesting to construct coherent states $|\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle_T$ for the particle on the torus. This is achieved by superposition of shifted copies of the coherent state $|\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle$ of the system in the infinite volume $$|\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle_T = A \\sum_{n_x, n_y \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}} \nT_x^{n_\\Phi n_x} T_y^{n_\\Phi n_y} |\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle.$$ By construction, this state obeys the boundary condition eq.(\\[conditionT\\]). The factor $A$ is determined from the normalization condition $$\\begin{aligned}\n_T\\langle\\lambda \\lambda'|\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle_T&=&\n|A|^2 \\sum_{m_x,m_y \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}} (-1)^{n_\\Phi m_x m_y} \n\\exp\\left(- \\frac{\\pi^2}{M \\omega} \\left(\\frac{n_\\Phi^2 m_x^2}{L_y^2}\n+ \\frac{n_\\Phi^2 m_y^2}{L_x^2} \\right)\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\times&\n\\exp\\left(i \\left(\\frac{2 \\pi \\langle R_y \\rangle}{L_y} - \n\\frac{\\theta_x}{n_\\Phi}\\right) n_\\Phi m_x\\right)\n\\exp\\left(- i \\left(\\frac{2 \\pi \\langle R_x \\rangle}{L_y} +\n\\frac{\\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) n_\\Phi m_y \\right) \\nonumber \\\\ \n&=& 1.\\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that a finite-volume coherent state remains coherent during the time-evolution. Just as in the infinite volume, $\\lambda(t) =\n\\lambda(0) \\exp(- i \\omega t)$, while $\\lambda'$ is time-independent. In the infinite volume $\\lambda' = \\sqrt{M \\omega/2} (\\langle R_x \\rangle + i \n\\langle R_y \\rangle)$ determines the position of the center of the cyclotron circle. On the torus, this center is well-defined only up to shifts by multiples of $L_x$ or $L_y$. Indeed one finds $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{expectT}\n&&_T\\langle\\lambda \\lambda'|T_x^{l_x}|\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle_T = B_{l_x}\n\\exp\\left(i \\left(\\frac{2 \\pi \\langle R_y \\rangle}{L_y} -\n\\frac{\\theta_x}{n_\\Phi}\\right) l_x\\right), \\nonumber \\\\\n&&_T\\langle\\lambda \\lambda'|T_y^{l_y}|\\lambda \\lambda'\\rangle_T = B_{l_y}\n\\exp\\left(- i \\left(2 \\pi \\frac{\\langle R_x \\rangle}{L_x} +\n\\frac{\\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) l_y\\right),\\end{aligned}$$ which shows that (together with $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$) the expectation values $\\langle R_x \\rangle$ and $\\langle R_y \\rangle$ of the infinite volume coherent state determine the position of the center of the cyclotron circle (the Runge-Lenz vector) modulo the periodicity lengths $L_x$ and $L_y$ of the torus. The prefactors in eq.(\\[expectT\\]) take the form $$\\begin{aligned}\nB_{l_x}&=&|A|^2 \\sum_{m_x,m_y \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}} (-1)^{(n_\\Phi m_x + l_x) m_y} \n\\exp\\left(- \\frac{\\pi^2}{M \\omega} \\left(\\frac{(n_\\Phi m_x + l_x)^2}{L_y^2}\n+ \\frac{n_\\Phi^2 m_y^2}{L_x^2} \\right)\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\times&\\exp\\left(i \\left(\\frac{2 \\pi \\langle R_y \\rangle}{L_y} -\n\\frac{\\theta_x}{n_\\Phi}\\right) n_\\Phi m_x \\right)\n\\exp\\left(- i \\left(\\frac{2 \\pi \\langle R_x \\rangle}{L_y} +\n\\frac{\\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) n_\\Phi m_y \\right), \\nonumber \\\\\nB_{l_y}&=&|A|^2 \\sum_{m_x,m_y \\in {{\\mathbb{Z}}}} (-1)^{(n_\\Phi m_y + l_y) m_x} \n\\exp\\left(- \\frac{\\pi^2}{M \\omega} \\left(\\frac{n_\\Phi^2 m_x^2}{L_y^2}\n+ \\frac{(n_\\Phi m_y + l_y)^2}{L_x^2} \\right)\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\times&\\exp\\left(i \\left(\\frac{2 \\pi \\langle R_y \\rangle}{L_y} -\n\\frac{\\theta_x}{n_\\Phi}\\right) n_\\Phi m_x \\right)\n\\exp\\left(- i \\left(\\frac{2 \\pi \\langle R_x \\rangle}{L_y} +\n\\frac{\\theta_y}{n_\\Phi}\\right) n_\\Phi m_y \\right). \\nonumber \\\\ \\,\\end{aligned}$$ Finally, let us consider the coherent states with $\\lambda = 0$ but arbitrary $\\lambda'$. Just as in the infinite volume, these states are ground states with minimal energy $\\omega/2$. Indeed, for $n_\\Phi = 1$ (i.e.\u00a0when there is no degeneracy) one can show that $$|\\lambda = 0,\\lambda'\\rangle = |n = 0,l_x = 0\\rangle = |n = 0,l_y = 0\\rangle,$$ (provided that the arbitrary complex phase of $|\\lambda = 0,\\lambda'\\rangle$ is chosen appropriately).\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nWe have re-investigated an old and rather well-studied problem in quantum mechanics \u2014 a charged particle in a constant magnetic field \u2014 from an unconventional accidental symmetry perspective. The fact that all classical cyclotron orbits are closed circles identifies the center of the circle as a conserved quantity analogous to the Runge-Lenz vector of the Kepler problem. Remarkably, (up to gauge transformations) the corresponding \u201caccidental\u201d symmetry is just translation invariance. In particular, the coordinates $(R_x,R_y) = (- P_y,P_x)/eB$ of the center of the cyclotron circle simultaneously generate infinitesimal translations $- P_y$ and $P_x$ (up to gauge transformations) in the $y$- and $x$-directions, respectively. As is well-known, in a constant magnetic field translations in the $x$- and $y$-directions do not commute, i.e.\u00a0$[P_x,P_y] = i e B$, and thus the two coordinates $R_x$ and $R_y$ of the center of the cyclotron circle are also not simultaneously measurable at the quantum level. In contrast, the radius of the cyclotron circle has a sharp value in an energy eigenstate. The accidental symmetry leads to the infinite degeneracy of the Landau levels.\n\nIn order to further investigate the nature of the accidental symmetry, we have put the system in a finite rectangular periodic volume. Obviously, this breaks rotation invariance, but leaves translation invariance (and thus the accidental symmetry) intact \u2014 at least at the classical level. Interestingly, at the quantum level continuous translation invariance is explicitly broken down to a discrete magnetic translation group, due to the existence of two angles $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ which parametrize a family of self-adjoint extensions of the Hamiltonian on the torus. In a field theoretical context, in which the gauge field is dynamical (and not just treated as a classical background field), the parameters $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ characterize super-selection sectors. In this sense, they are analogous to the vacuum angle $\\theta$ of non-Abelian gauge theories. Just as the $\\theta$-vacuum angle explicitly breaks CP invariance at the quantum level but is classically invisible, the angles $\\theta_x$ and $\\theta_y$ lead to a quantum mechanical explicit breaking of continuous translation invariance down to the discrete magnetic translation group. The magnetic translation group ${\\cal G}$ itself, which plays the role of the accidental symmetry in the periodic volume, is a particular central extension of ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi) \\otimes {{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$ by the center subgroup ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}(n_\\Phi)$, where $n_\\Phi$ is the number of magnetic flux quanta trapped in the torus. We find it remarkable that the simple fact that all classical cyclotron orbits are closed circles has such intricate effects at the quantum level.\n\nWe have also discussed the relation of ground state degeneracy with the possible spontaneous breakdown of translation invariance. Indeed the Runge-Lenz vector (which points to the center of the cyclotron orbit) acts as a corresponding \u201corder parameter\u201d. Just like the magnetization in a ferromagnet (but unlike the staggered magnetization in an antiferromagnet), the Runge-Lenz vector is a conserved quantity. Consequently, the ground state remains degenerate even in a finite volume. Furthermore, just as the three components of the magnetization vector do not commute with each other, the two components of the Runge-Lenz vector are also not simultaneously measurable. Still, unlike a ferromagnet, a single charged particle in a magnetic field has just a finite number of degrees of freedom and can thus not display all features usually associated with spontaneous symmetry breaking. In particular, in the system discussed in this paper there is no room for massless Goldstone excitations.\n\nWhile many aspects of the Landau level problem are well-known, we hope that we have painted a picture of cyclotron motion that reveals new aspects of this fascinating system, which behaves in a unique and sometimes counter-intuitive manner.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nWe like to thank Nathan Habegger for an illuminating discussion about the theory of discrete groups. This work is supported in parts by the Schweizerischer Nationalfonds.\n\n[10]{}\n\nV.\u00a0Fock, Z.\u00a0Physik 98 (1935) 145.\n\nV.\u00a0Bargmann, Z.\u00a0Physik 99 (1936) 576.\n\nW.\u00a0Lenz, Z.\u00a0Physik 24 (1924) 197.\n\nH.\u00a0V.\u00a0McIntosh, in Group Theory and its Applications, Vol.\u00a02 (1971) 75, Academic Press, Inc. New York and London.\n\nM.\u00a0H.\u00a0Al-Hashimi and U.-J.\u00a0Wiese, Ann.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0323 (2008) 82.\n\nL.\u00a0D.\u00a0Landau, Z.\u00a0Physik 64 (1930) 629.\n\nM.\u00a0H.\u00a0Johnson and B.\u00a0A.\u00a0Lippmann, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a076 (1949) 828.\n\nV.\u00a0A.\u00a0Dulock and H.\u00a0V.\u00a0McIntosh, J.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.\u00a07 (1966) 1401.\n\nJ.\u00a0Zak, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0134 (1964) A1602.\n\nA.\u00a0Stern, Ann.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0323 (2008) 204.\n\nG.-H.\u00a0Chen, L.-M.\u00a0Kuang, and M.-L.\u00a0Ge, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0B53 (1996) 9540.\n\nH.\u00a0Zainuddin, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D40 (1989) 636.\n\nA.\u00a0Feldman and A.\u00a0H.\u00a0Kahn, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0B12 (1970) 4584.\n\nG.\u00a0\u2019t Hooft, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B153 (1979) 141.\n\nG.\u00a0\u2019t Hooft, Commun.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys 81 (1981) 267.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'As is typical in other fields of application of high throughput systems, radiology is faced with the challenge of interpreting increasingly sophisticated predictive models such as those derived from radiomics analyses. Interpretation may be guided by the learning output from machine learning models, which may however vary greatly with each technique. Whatever this output model, it will raise some essential questions. How do we interpret the prognostic model for clinical implementation? How can we identify potential information structures within sets of radiomic features, in order to create clinically interpretable models? And how can we recombine or exploit potential relationships between features towards improved interpretability? A number of statistical techniques are explored to assess (possibly nonlinear) relationships between radiological features from different angles.'\nauthor:\n- 'Eric Wolsztynski[^1] [^2]'\nbibliography:\n- 'bib\\_pet.bib'\ntitle: Statistical Exploration of Relationships Between Routine and Agnostic Features Towards Interpretable Risk Characterization \n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nBuilding and interpretation of radiomics-based predictive models is discussed in many reports [@Aerts14; @Soussan14; @Buvat15; @Desseroit16; @Gillies16; @Hatt17a; @Hatt17b], which all highlight the difficulty of converting the model-based risk assessment into practical decision-making pathways for routine implementation\u2013a necessary condition to the clinical implementation of machine learning and artificial intelligence solutions in radiology. Several types of methodologies are considered in the literature to better understand potential for feature recombination towards this goal.\n\nConventional models such as the lasso, random forests or neural networks [@Tibshirani97; @Gevrey03; @ESL2009; @Hatt19] are usually used to build predictive models. Combined with preliminary feature elimination, these techniques provide feature set reduction methodologies geared towards a particular endpoint of interest, whether for prognosis (e.g. overall or two-year patient survival) or tumor characterization (e.g. tumor grading, subtyping, etc.) [@Gillies16; @Asselin12; @Rahim14; @Alic14; @Ypsilantis15; @Lian16; @Wolsztynski18; @Wolsztynski19]. Interpretation of the model is directly derived from its structure (which describes the interaction between its covariates), and is determined in the context of the endpoint of interest. For example, a linear model for 2-year survival may indicate that an increase of 1 standard unit in both SUVmax and GLCM entropy may contribute to a 3-fold increase in the risk of death within the next two years. In this illustration, the linear interaction between SUVmax and GLCM entropy is directly associated with worse prognosis at the 2-year horizon, but this finding provides only limited insight in terms of the role of GLCM entropy in a prognostic context or in terms of tumor characteristics.\n\nMicroarray data analysis encompasses another family of techniques for the discovery of features with high predictive potential. In this framework, multiple statistical testing of association with endpoint is performed to select features of interest [@Aerts14; @Gillies16; @Parmar15]. Interpretation of the selected group of predictors is thus also directly linked to the endpoint of interest and may include assessment of joint association between a number of features in this context.\n\nNonparametric (i.e. model-free) multidimensional methods such as Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and clustering are also employed to identify relevant sets of prognostic features. These techniques are common to other high-throughput fields including genomics and proteomics [@Aerts14; @Parmar15; @Mathe16], and consist in detecting relationships between potential predictors before their grouped association with a particular endpoint is established (this is done as a second step). They therefore provide ways to identify associations between features that are not endpoint-dependent. Their scope is however limited by their construction; for example PCA may be used to identify linear associations but not nonlinear ones [@Falissard99].\n\nUltimately, an output set of predictive features is considered for use in (future) clinical settings [@Zhao19]. For further interpretation, association of a small number of radiological features with phenotype or other clinical assessment, through e.g. logistic regression [@Soussan14], can be performed. Texture and other radiomic features are sometimes clustered on the basis of correlation heat maps [@Gillies16]. The clinical relevance of cluster consensus maps can be assessed [@Parmar15], and used to measure predictive ability of radiomic features for specific clinical, biological and functional pathways [@Grossmann17]. Patients may also be clustered on the basis of texture features heat maps, and availability of gene-analysis data allows for association of radiomic signature features and gene expression using gene-set enrichment analysis, by scoring radiomic signatures [@Aerts14]. In many studies, composite radiomic variables are defined for each patient via a linear combination of selected features and used as additional variables alongside routine clinical or other variables [@Zhao19]; these can also be interpreted based e.g. on their mathematical construction.\n\nA large number of statistical techniques are thus at hand to build predictive models and find relevant associations within feature sets. Biological interpretation of the output multivariate associations of radiologic features however remains challenging, due to the complex and diverse nature of most of these variables, and of cancer itself. Opacity of machine learning frameworks, often used as black boxes, also adds to this difficulty. They can however be used to gather insight and simplify radiomic summaries in view to facilitate further interpretation. Finding direct, statistically strong associations among features, as illustrated hereafter, can provide a mechanism to simplify such models and facilitate explainability.\n\nMethods\n=======\n\nThe dataset\n-----------\n\nWe consider radiological summaries derived for a set of FDG-PET sarcoma studies in a previous analysis, as reported in [@Wolsztynski18]. This dataset of primary sarcoma tumors was acquired at the University of Washington in Seattle, United States, between August 1993 and January 2003, after patients were diagnosed by biopsy. The final cohort comprised of 197 studies, including 88 deaths before loss to follow up. The tumors consisted of 130 soft tissue, 51 bone, and 16 cartilage sarcomas, in patients aged between 17 and 86 years of age (median 45), of which 86 females and 111 males, with 99 high-grade, 66 intermediate, and 32 low-grade tumors. In this report we present the results of analyses carried out on the cohort of 130 soft tissue sarcomas (STS) from this dataset; all other subtypes have been excluded from analysis.\n\nQuantitations were obtained for a fixed-threshold segmentation, with a threshold value set for each study based on the subsample of the lower 15% of uptake values (so as to include background and healthy tissue activity only). For a given study, the segmentation threshold was thus defined as the mean subsample value plus three standard deviations of this subsample. Given the near-homogeneous voxel dimensions of the output images (voxel size of 4.30 mm $\\times$ 4.30 mm in the transverse plane and slice thicknesses of 4.25 mm), no interpolation was performed prior to VoI resegmentation for texture analysis. Uptake values were requantized into 32 grey levels by fixed bin number transformation.\n\nA total of 43 variables were considered and may be identified in three frames: (i) routine clinical variables (tumor grade, clinical volume, patient age, patient sex, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), mean uptake value (SUVmean) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were collected for this cohort); (ii) structural features including heterogeneity $\\mathcal{H}_0$ and $\\mathcal{H}_1$ as defined in [@Wolsztynski18], and associated spatial uptake gradients; and (iii) a set of image summaries including morphologic and texture features, all computed as per definitions provided by the Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative (Version 1.5) [@IBSI; @IBSI5]. More specifically, this third set of features included volume asphericity, morphological descriptors for ellipsoidal characteristics, intensity- and histogram-based first-order statistics, GLCM features, as well as two GLSZM features evaluating the numbers and sizes of contiguous homogeneous regions of equal (discretized) grey level.\n\nOverall scope\n-------------\n\nThe objective here is not to propose predictive models of patient risk or tumour characterization, but rather to look for and identify patterns among features typically used in radiomic analyses. To this end a number of multivariate data exploration and modelling techniques are used as follows:\n\n1.  Correlation and partial correlation analysis, to inspect correlation structures present in the image analysis data;\n\n2.  Multivariate decomposition and clustering, to identify natural groupings of features;\n\n3.  Regularized multilinear modeling of features, to identify small (2 or 3) subsets of features that can \u201cexplain\u201d (i.e. predict) a given feature of interest.\n\nWe can use any of the above exploratory analyses to recombine features into composite predictive variables (based e.g. on partitional clustering techniques as in other works cited earlier), which allows for increased statistical power and data-based evaluation of model interpretability. An illustration of this step is also provided in the next section, demonstrating statistical prognostic potential of composite variables derived from these analyses on the sarcoma cohort and discussing their interpretation.\n\nCorrelation and partial correlation analyses\n--------------------------------------------\n\nCorrelation may be induced by one of several causes. It may result from the mathematical construction of the features; for example it would be reasonable to think that $$\\mbox{mean}_{\\mbox{\\tiny{HIST}}} = \\sum_{i=1}^{N_g} i p_i$$ and $$\\mbox{energy}_{\\mbox{\\tiny{HIST}}} = \\sum_{i=1}^{N_g} p_i^2$$ are closely related since uptake histograms tend to be right-skewed, with $p_i$ decreasing as $i$ increases. The same principle applies to second-order quantitations; for example the GLCM matrix yielding joint probabilities $p_{ij}$ for voxel grey levels $i, j=1,\\dots,Q$ typically exhibits a bell-shaped structure with monotonic variations in $p_{ij}$ across the probability surface. Figure \\[fig:distributions\\] illustrates such structural variations in the first- and second-order distributions. Another example, considering the rough approximation $log(p_i)\\approx p_i-1$ for small values of $p_i$, exposes the numerical proximity between entropy$_{HIST}$ and energy$_{HIST}$ as follows: $$\\mbox{entropy}_{\\mbox{\\tiny{HIST}}} = -\\sum_{i=1}^{N_g} p_i \\log(p_i)  \\approx -\\sum_{i=1}^{N_g} p_i (p_i-1)  \\approx 1 - \\mbox{energy}_{\\mbox{\\tiny{HIST}}}$$ Figure \\[fig:associations\\] illustrates the relationships observed in the sarcoma dataset for these two examples.\n\nIn other instances, correlation may be caused e.g. by tomography-related aspects (for example relating to noise or dose levels, or the reconstruction filtering process), in which case correlation characteristics would change with scanner, or by underlying biological characteristics. Correlation analysis would not provide information on cause, but it constitutes a valuable tool in identifying associations and, therefore, potential pathways for feature set simplification.\n\n![Illustration of grey level distributions from a requantized FDG-PET sarcoma image. Inset, top: mid-volume transverse slice of the requantized FDG-PET data. Top: the histogram exhibits a clear relationship between voxel grey level $i$ and likelihood. Bottom: level curve representation of the GLCM matrix depicts the ellipsoidal footprint that is typical of joint uptake distribution structures. []{data-label=\"fig:distributions\"}](ex_intensity_distributions_vertical.pdf){width=\".7\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![Examples of (nonlinear) associations between texture features in the sarcoma feature set, which result from their mathematical construction.[]{data-label=\"fig:associations\"}](ex_related_features_vertical.pdf){width=\".8\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe correlation matrix (e.g. using Pearson correlation, as done here) is often considered for exploratory purposes, but also for preliminary feature elimination. In the latter case, groups of highly correlated features are identified and a single feature is kept as unique representative for each group. How the other variables are eliminated may be guided by clinical or practical considerations but may also be, and often is, arbitrary.\n\nThe overlap in information with other variables within the dataset, due e.g. to confounding or mathematical construction, contributes to the value of the correlation coefficient calculated between two variables. Gaussian graphical models (GGMs) [@Falissard99; @Yuan07; @Giraud09] provide a way of analysing partial correlation between variables instead. GGMs can be used to highlight direct relationships (the edges in the graph, as illustrated in Figure \\[fig:GGM\\]) between features that are conditionally dependent given all other variables. Dependence is evaluated here as a non-negligible partial correlation between the two features.\n\nMultivariate exploration\n------------------------\n\nHere we considered Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for multidimensional exploration of the feature set. It also consists in analyzing the correlation structure of the feature set, but provides a more elaborate tool for assessment of multivariate associations. Note that PCA applies to quantitative features (we therefore excluded categorical features from the analysis), but variations on this approach may be used for mixed quantitative and descriptive feature sets, allowing for inclusion of categorical agnostic variables.\n\nPartition-based clustering was applied as in [@Wolsztynski18] to the PCA projection matrix (i.e. the matrix of eigenvectors obtained from spectral decomposition of the feature set correlation matrix) in order to identify groupings of variables in the feature set. The features projected via PCA can be used directly as composite predictor variables, as detailed for example in [@Wolsztynski18]. These linear recombinations can however be difficult to interpret. Subsequent clustering analysis of feature groupings in the information space can be exploited to recreate alternative composite variables with meaningful clinical interpretation.\n\nMultilinear analysis of features\n--------------------------------\n\nThe above methodologies are mechanisms used to isolate groupings of variables based on the correlation (or partial correlation) structure of the feature set. Direct association of features can also be identified and exploited via multivariate modelling, using one feature as the dependent variable explained by subset of other features. Here we considered multilinear modelling and used lasso models to identify a group of 2 or 3 features in order to describe (i.e. predict) each feature in the dataset.\n\n$N_{test}$=30 observations were randomly taken out of the original STS dataset for use as an independent test set. Repeated 5-fold cross-validation (CV), using two repetitions, was applied to the remaining $N_{CV}$=100 observations, which was performed using each one of the continuous variables in the STS feature successively as the dependent variable, and all other variables as predictors in a lasso model. (No preliminary feature elimination was performed.) In total P=41 lasso models of the form (for some i.i.d. zero-mean Gaussian noise $\\varepsilon$) $$\\label{eq:lasso}\nX_j = \\beta_0+\\beta_1X^{(-j)}_1 + \\dots + +\\beta_{P-1}X^{(-j)}_{P-1} +\\varepsilon$$ were therefore fitted to each feature of interest $X_j$ via CV using the remaining P-1 features $\\{X^{(-j)}_{1},\\dots,X^{(-j)}_{P-1}\\}$ as predictors, from the CV sample of $N_{CV}$ observations, i.e. $X_j=\\{X_{j,1}, \\dots, X_{j,N_{CV}}\\}$. In other words each of the 41 continuous features available (that is, all features except for tumor grade and patient sex) was thus modelled by fitting a lasso model to the remainder of the feature set.\n\nFeature selections and model fits from the CV training sets were then analysed. The feature selection scheme provided by lasso was used to eliminate weaker contributions. The remaining predictors were inspected and those with an estimated effect $\\hat{\\beta}$ of a magnitude of at least 20% of the overall sum of estimated effects $\\sum_{j=1}^{P-1} \\hat{\\beta}_j$ from (\\[eq:lasso\\]) were retained as final predictors of that dependent variable. The choice of a 20% cutoff was arbitrary but aimed to reduce the model to a few (possibly strong) predictors. In any case (i.e. even when all estimated coefficients were under this cutoff point of 20% of the cumulative effect in magnitude) the two covariates with highest estimated effect $\\hat{\\beta}$ were retained as a final model.\n\nA final lasso model was fitted to the whole CV sample (using all $N_{CV}=100$ observations) using only these (typically two or three) most popular features as determined by CV. This final prediction model was then applied independently to the test set (using the $N_{test}=30$ remaining observations) for final prediction performance assessment for each of the features available.\n\nResults\n=======\n\nCorrelation and partial correlation analyses\n--------------------------------------------\n\nFigure \\[fig:GGM\\] illustrates the output of a GGM, which provides guidance for the understanding of direct relationships between some of the features based on their partial correlations. It highlights several characteristics of this feature space. For instance, it indicates no direct correlation between age and any of the features and exhibits the expected relationships between SUVmax and SUVmean, and between SUVmean, TLG and volume. It also exhibits a cluster of uptake gradients (lower left) which was also expected due to their construction\u2013these quantities are successive quantiles of the sample of normalized uptake gradients [@Wolsztynski18]. Moreover this graph provides information on direct associations between some of the conventional radiomic features. Skewness, kurtosis and other summaries of the histogram of requantized intensities, unsurprisingly, tend to cluster together (top right), with significant partial correlation found among this group of features. The graph also highlights direct correlation among a group of GLCM features comprising of entropy, dissimilarity, contrast, homogeneity and a few other metrics.\n\nThese direct associations may be at least partially explained by their mathematical construction; however they may also be partially driven by other factors that may be pertaining to biological or physiological aspects of the disease. Many of these relationships can be directly exploited in further multivariate modelling of the features to assess prediction potential for this set of features, as considered further below.\n\n![Gaussian graphical model obtained for the sarcoma feature set, showing direct associations between features as defined by partial correlation.[]{data-label=\"fig:GGM\"}](GGM.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nPrinciple Component Analysis\n----------------------------\n\nThe principle components (PC\u2019s) derived from PCA of the STS feature set consist of linear recombinations of the input features. The first 12 PC\u2019s (on the arbitrary basis that the first 12 PCs captured over 95% of the variance in the feature set) were used as composite risk predictors in a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model. This analysis demonstrated the prognostic potential of this multilinear recombination of the original STS feature set, with 3 of the 12 PC\u2019s found statistically significant prognostic variables at the 5% significance level (Figure \\[tab:PCA\\_Cox\\]). Figure \\[fig:PCA\\_KM\\] further illustrates this potential in terms of Kaplan-Meier risk stratification for overall survival, comparing this model to a baseline clinical model comprising of tumor grade, patient age and SUVmax. Note that here the low- and high-risk survival curves are separated so as to optimize the log-rank test statistic.\n\n![P-values for the multivariate Cox proportional hazard model for overall survival copmrising of the frst 12 principal components, with associated concordance index $\\mathcal{C}$=0.75.[]{data-label=\"tab:PCA_Cox\"}](PCA_Cox_table.pdf){width=\".7\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![Kaplan-Meier analysis showing risk stratifications obtained from baseline clinical assessment based on grade, age and SUVmax (red, dashed lines) and by using the first 12 principal components together for multivarate risk prediction (blue, solid lines).[]{data-label=\"fig:PCA_KM\"}](PCA_KM.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThis PCA output was subsequently analysed by k-means clustering using 12 clusters (thus arbitrarily matching our use of the first 12 PCs for risk prediction). This determined the clusters of features in the PCA projection space illustrated by Figure \\[fig:PCA\\]. Makeup of the clusters is detailed in Figure \\[tab:PCA\\_clusters\\]. The right-most column in this table provides tentative fields of interpretability for each cluster. This is included here solely as an illustration of the potential for explainable PCA-derived models that is facilitated by clustering analysis of the PCA output. Thorough, rigorous investigations would be required in order to establish suitable clinical interpretation guidelines from such feature clusters.\n\n![Biplot of the features in the PCA projection space, along the first two eigenvectors ($e_1$ and $e_2$). Colour-code and grey dots respectively indicate clusters and cluster centroids obtained from k-means clustering of the projected features (i.e. analysing the eigenvector coordinates).[]{data-label=\"fig:PCA\"}](PCA_clusters.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![Clusters of features obtained from combined PCA and k-means analysis of the STS feature set. A tentative indication for interpretability is provided here only for the purpose of illustrating the potential for explainable PCA-derived models facilitated by the clustering analysis.[]{data-label=\"tab:PCA_clusters\"}](cluster_table.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nMultilinear modelling\n---------------------\n\nLasso modelling of the features determined that in many cases, a radiomic feature could be predicted with high accuracy. Figures \\[fig:associations1\\] and \\[fig:associations2\\] show eight examples of such predictions on the 30 test datapoints. GLCM autocorrelation, for example, was predicted extremely well using only mean$_{HIST}$ and variance$_{HIST}$, which suggests this second-order feature may be replaced with, or interpreted by more easily explainable first-order features.\n\nIn some cases clinical variables were found useful in predicting agnostic features; for example Figure \\[fig:associations1\\] depicts reasonable prediction of GLCM max.probability using GLCM uniformity and SUVmax.\n\nWe also note that age and $\\mathcal{H}_1$ were selected to predict GLCM correlation however with poor performance (Figure \\[fig:associations2\\]). This aligns with previous findings (from the above correlation analysis and also from [@Wolsztynski18]) of reasonable separation between model-derived features ($\\mathcal{H}_0$, $\\mathcal{H}_1$ and related uptake gradients) and conventional radiomic features. Overall, however, many of the 41 features considered were predicted with high accuracy from a small number of other features.\n\nFor many of these features, it was observed that the predictors selected via cross-validated lasso modelling were connected to the dependent feature in the GGM representation; in other words lasso often selected predictors with strong partial correlation with the dependent variable (which could be expected from this multilinear modelling technique).\n\n![Prediction performance based on lasso modelling for homogeneity, contrast, autocorrelation and maximum probability (all GLCM features) successively (clockwise from top-left), with associated MSE between predicted and observed values, for the STS test set ($N_{test}$=30). The two or three features used as predictors in each case are indicated in inset.[]{data-label=\"fig:associations1\"}](relationships_1.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\n![Prediction performance as in Figure \\[fig:associations1\\], but here for entropy, uniformity correlation and dissimilarity GLCM features respectively.[]{data-label=\"fig:associations2\"}](relationships_2.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nIdentifying and understanding associations between radiomic features and routine variables, such as grade or other clinically interpretable forms of assessment, is a key step towards integration of models obtained from machine learning analyses. Some works do establish links between specific texture features and tumor biologic heterogeneity for example; but the generalization of this understanding to all such agnostic features will enable integration of full AI systems within the field of radiology. Here we promote discussion on some possible statistical analysis pathways towards this goal.\n\nMost reports of radiomics studies focus on the clustering of agnostic features and assess their potential alignment with routine variables *a posteriori*, to analyze the clustering output. Potential interactions between agnostic and routine variable can also be explored more directly by allowing any such feature to describe any other, as is done in this work via lasso modelling.\n\nThis pilot analysis highlighted numerous substantial feature associations. Many of 41 clinical and radiomic features considered here were predicted with high accuracy using a small number of other features, via lasso modelling, focusing on linear interactions. The majority of these associations were noticed to coincide with groupings of features obtained on the basis of a high partial correlation, as exposed in a Gaussian graphical model representation.\n\nThis didactic presentation aimed at demonstrating methodologies of interest for exploration of strong direct associations within a radiological feature set. More extensive analyses of such associations are currently underway and will be presented in follow-on reports for sarcoma, NSCLC and other cancer types. This work will explore opportunities for simplification of prognostic models on the basis of relationships found within the combined clinical and agnostic feature set.\n\n[^1]: This work was presented at the 2019 IEEE Medical Imaging Conference, 2 November, Manchester, UK. This work was supported in part by Science Foundation Ireland under Grants No. 12/RC/2289-P2 and SFI-PI 11/1047.\n\n[^2]: E. Wolsztynski is with the School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Cork, T12 XY86, and the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, Ireland (e-mail: eric.w@ucc.ie).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'J.\u00a0M.\u00a0Brader$^1$, M.\u00a0E.\u00a0Cates$^2$ and M.\u00a0Fuchs$^1$'\ntitle: |\n    A First-Principles Constitutive Equation for Suspension Rheology:\\\n    Supplementary Material\n---\n\nIn this supplementary material we first provide additional details of our integration through transients approach to the constitutive equation and distorted microstructure, clarifying the approximations required to obtain Eqs.(11) and (12). We then present an exact result for the friction kernel and details of the approximations leading to Eqs.(13)-(15). Finally, we provide additional comments regarding two continuum mechanics principles from the standpoint of the present work.\n\nIntegration Through Transients\n==============================\n\nCentral to our integration through transients approach is Eq.(10) which enables averages of functions of the particle coordinates to be calculated \\[7\\]. Applying (10) to a general function $f$ of the phase space coordinates yields the time-dependent average $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle f \\rangle(t) \n= \\langle f \\rangle + \\int_{-\\infty}^{t}\\!\\!dt' \n\\langle{\\rm Tr}\\{{\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}}(t')\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\sigma}}\\}\ne_-^{\\int_{t'}^t ds\\,\\Omega^{\\dagger}(s)}\nf \\rangle.\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$ The time-ordered exponential function $e_{-}$ generalizes the exponential function for (differential) operators [@vankampen]. Choosing $f=\\hat\\sigma_{\\alpha\\beta}/V$, where $V$ is the system volume, yields directly an exact generalized Green-Kubo relation for the stress tensor $${\\boldsymbol \\sigma}(t) = \\frac{1}{V} \\int_{-\\infty}^{t}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\! dt'\\,\n\\langle  \n{\\rm Tr}\\{{\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}}(t')\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\sigma}}\\} \ne_-^{\\int_{t'}^t ds\\,\\Omega^{\\dagger}(s)} \\hat{\\boldsymbol \\sigma}\\rangle.\n\\notag\n\\label{exact_stress}$$ This equation is nonlinear in ${\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}}(t)$ due to the appearance of $\\Omega^{\\dagger}(t)$ in the exponent. The stress autocorrelation function $\\langle\\,\\cdot\\,\\rangle$ appearing in the above expression is the overlap between a stress fluctuation at time $t'$ and a second fluctuation at later time $t$ which has evolved under a combination of shear-driven and internal motion. This correlation function is approximated by calculating overlaps of the stress fluctuations with density fluctuations describing slow structural relaxation of the dense system. The lowest order non-zero projection of the dynamics is onto pairs of density fluctuations and is achieved using the pair projector $$\\begin{aligned}\nP_{2}=\\sum_{{\\bf k}>{\\bf p}}\\rho^{}_{{\\bf k}}\\rho^{}_{{\\bf p}}\\rangle \n\\frac{1}{N^2 S_{k}S_{p}}\n\\langle\\,\\rho^{*}_{{\\bf k}}\\rho^{*}_{{\\bf p}}.\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$ Insertion of this projector either side of the time-ordered exponential function followed by factorization of a fourth moment in density fluctuations into the product of second moments (viz. the correlators) leads to an approximate expression for the stress tensor. The time evolution of stress fluctuations is thus represented by the transient density correlator $\\Phi_{\\bf k}(t,t')$. Within our approach the static structure factor $S_k$ serves to represent the direct potential interactions. For glassy states ageing leads to a residual time dependence of $S_k$ which cannot be resolved within our approach. We therefore employ an extrapolation of the equilibrium $S_k$ when working above the glass transition.\n\nIn order to calculate the distorted structure factor we use our general result (10) to calculate the average of $\\Delta\\rho^*_{\\bf k}\\rho^{}_{\\bf k}=\\rho^*_{\\bf k}\\rho^{}_{\\bf k} \n- \\langle\\rho^*_{\\bf k}\\rho^{}_{\\bf k}\\rangle$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{\\bf k}(t;{\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}})\n\\!=\\! \\langle \\rho^*_{\\bf k}\\rho^{}_{\\bf k} \\rangle \\!+\\! \\int_{-\\infty}^{t}\\!\\!dt' \n\\langle{\\rm Tr}\\{{\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}}(t')\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\sigma}}\\}\ne_-^{\\int_{t'}^t ds\\,\\Omega^{\\dagger}(s)}\n\\Delta\\rho^*_{\\bf k}\\rho^{}_{\\bf k} \\rangle.\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$ As for the stress we can apply the projection operator $P_2$ to approximate the average in the integrand, leading to the expression (11) for the distorted structure factor. We note that in calculating $S_{\\bf k}(t;{\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}})$ we require Baxter\u2019s result $\n\\langle \\rho^{*}_{\\bf k}\\rho^{}_{\\bf k}\\rho^{}_{\\bf 0} \\rangle = \nNS_0 \\left( S_k + n\\frac{\\partial S_k}{\\partial n} \\right)\n$ to treat the three point function which arises as a result of the projection operator steps [@baxter].\n\nEquation of Motion\n==================\n\nIn order to close our constitutive theory we require an equation of motion for the transient density correlator. The advected wavevector appearing in the definition of $\\Phi_{\\bf k}(t,t')$ may be reformulated as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Phi_{\\bf k}(t,t')&=&\n\\frac{1}{N S_{k}}\n\\langle\\,\\rho^*_{\\bf k}\ne_{-}^{\\int_{t'}^t ds\\,\\Omega^{\\dagger}(s)}\n\\rho_{\\bar{{{\\bf k}}}(t,t')} \\rangle \\notag\\\\\n&=&\n\\frac{1}{N S_{k}}\n\\langle\\,\\rho^*_{\\bf k}\ne_{-}^{\\int_{t'}^t ds\\,\\Omega^{\\dagger}(s)}\ne_{-}^{-\\int_{t'}^t ds\\,\\delta\\Omega^{\\dagger}(s)}\n\\rho_{{{{\\bf k}}}} \\rangle\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce $\\delta\\Omega^{\\dagger}(t) = \\sum_i{{\\bf r}}_i\\cdot{\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}}^T(t)\\cdot{\\boldsymbol{\\partial}}_i$. Exact operator identities generalizing \\[7\\] lead directly to the first equation of motion $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial t}\\Phi_{\\bf q}(t,t_0) &+& \n\\Gamma_{\\bf q}(t,t_0)\\Phi_{\\bf q}(t,t_0) \\notag\\\\\n&&\\hspace*{-0.3cm}+ \\int_{t_0}^{t}dt' \\,M_{\\bf q}(t,t',t_0)\\Phi_{\\bf q}(t',t_0) \n=\\Delta_{\\bf q}(t,t_0).\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$ The initial decay rate is given explicitly by $\\Gamma_{\\bf q}(t,t_0)=\\bar{q}^2(t,t_0)/S_{\\bar{q}(t,t_0)}$. Exact formal expressions are obtained for both the generalized diffusion kernel $M_{\\bf q}(t,t',t_0)$ and correction function $\\Delta_{\\bf q}(t,t_0)$. Regarding the first equation of motion as a Volterra integral equation of the second kind enables the final exact form for the equation of motion to be formulated $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\hspace*{0.cm}\n\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial t}\\Phi_{\\bf q}(t,t_0)\n&+& \\Gamma_{\\bf q}(t,t_0)\\bigg(\n\\Phi_{{{\\bf q}}}(t,t_0)\n\\notag\\\\\n&&\\hspace*{-1cm}+\n\\int_{t_0}^t dt' \\,m_{{{\\bf q}}}(t,t',t_0) \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial t'} \\Phi_{{{\\bf q}}}(t',t_0)\n\\bigg) = \\tilde\\Delta_{\\bf q}(t,t_0).\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe generalized friction kernel and modified correction function are given formally by $$\\begin{aligned}\nm_{\\bf q}(t,t',t_0)&=& \n\\frac{\n\\langle\n\\rho^*_{\\bf q} \\Omega_a^{\\dagger}(t',t_0) U_i(t,t',t_0)\n\\Omega^{\\dagger}_r(t,t_0)\\rho_{\\bf q}\n\\rangle}\n{\nNS_{\\bar{q}(t',t_0)} \\Gamma_{\\bf q}(t',t_0) \\Gamma_{\\bf q}(t,t_0)\n},\\notag\\\\\n\\tilde\\Delta_{\\bf q}(t,t')&=&\n\\frac{\\langle \\rho^{*}_{\\bf q} U_i(t,t',0)\\,\\Omega^{\\dagger}_r(t)\\rho^{}_{\\bf q} \\rangle}{NS_q},\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the operators $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Omega_a^{\\dagger}(t',t_0)&=&\ne_-^{\\int_{t_0}^{t'} ds \\,\\overline{\\delta\\Omega}^{\\dagger}(s)}\n\\Omega_e^{\\dagger}\\,\ne_+^{-\\int_{t_0}^{t'} ds \\,\\delta\\Omega^{\\dagger}(s)},\n\\notag\\\\\n\\Omega^{\\dagger}_r(t,t_0)&=&\ne_-^{\\int_{t_0}^{t} ds \\,\\delta\\Omega^{\\dagger}(s)}\nQ(t,t_0)\\Omega^{\\dagger}_e\\,\ne_-^{-\\int_{t_0}^{t} ds \\,\\delta\\Omega^{\\dagger}(s)},\\notag\\\\\n\\Omega_i^{\\dagger}(t,t_0) &=& \\Omega^{\\dagger}_r(t,t_0)\n\\left( 1 \n- \\frac{\\rho^{}_{\\bf q}\\rangle\\langle\\,\\rho^{*}_{\\bf q}\\Omega_a^{\\dagger}(t,t_0)} \n{\\langle \\,\\rho^{*}_{\\bf q}\\,\\Omega_{a}^{\\dagger}(t,t_0)\\,\\rho^{}_{\\bf q} \\rangle}\\right),\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$ which depend upon $\\overline{\\delta\\Omega}^{\\dagger}(t)=\n\\sum_i{{\\bf r}}_i\\cdot{\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}}^T(t)\\cdot({\\boldsymbol{\\partial}}_i + {\\bf F}_i)$ and $Q(t,t_0) \\!=\\! 1 \\!-\\! \\sum_{\\bf q}\n\\rho^{}_{\\bar{\\bf q}(t,t_0)}\\,\\rangle\n\\frac{1}{NS_{\\bar{q}(t,t_0)}}\n\\langle\\,\\rho^{*}_{\\bar{\\bf q}(t,t_0)}$. The irreducible part of the dynamics is contained in $$\\begin{aligned}\nU_i(t,t',t_0)=\ne_-^{\\int_{t'}^{t} ds \\,\\Omega_i^{\\dagger}(s,t_0)}.\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAll results are at this stage formally exact. Approximation of the friction kernel proceeds via two steps and is based on the assumption that $U_{i}(t,t',t_0)$ contains slow dynamics only because of coupling to higher density modes describing structural relaxation. Firstly, we project the average in the numerator onto density pairs using the time dependent projection operator $$\\begin{aligned}\nP_{2}(t,t_0)=\\sum_{{\\bf k}>{\\bf p}}\\frac{\\rho^{}_{\\bf \\bar{k}(t,t_0)}\\rho^{}_{\\bf \\bar{p}(t,t_0)}\\rangle \n\\langle\\,\\rho^{*}_{{\\bf \\bar{k}}(t,t_0)}\\rho^{*}_{{\\bf \\bar{p}(t,t_0)}}}\n{N^2 S_{\\bar{k}(t,t_0)}S^{}_{\\bar{p}(t,t_0)}}.\n\\notag\\end{aligned}$$ This reduces the problem to the calculation of a four point correlation function. The second step is to approximate this correlator, in the spirit of quiescent mode coupling theory, by a product of pair correlators. The modified correction function makes a negligable contribution for small accumulated strains which suggests the approximation $\\tilde\\Delta(t,t_0)\\!=\\!0$ [@future]. We thus arrive at Eqs.(14) and (15) given in the main text.\\\n\nContinuum Mechanics Principles\n==============================\n\nThe principle of material objectivity states that the relationship between the stress and strain tensors should be independent of the rotational state of either the sample or the observer \\[11,16,17\\]. This is satisfied by the Smoluchowski equation which neglects inertial effects. That this invariance is preserved in our approximate equations can be explicitly confirmed by considering the imposition of a time dependent rotation onto an arbitrary flow. The shear gradient, deformation gradient, left and right Cauchy-Green tensors in the rotating frame are thus given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}}}(t) &=& {\\boldsymbol{R}}(t){\\boldsymbol{\\kappa}}(t){\\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t)+\\dot{{\\boldsymbol{R}}}(t){\\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t)\\notag\\\\\n\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{F}}}(t,t')&=& {\\boldsymbol{R}}(t){\\boldsymbol{F}}(t,t'){\\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t')\\notag\\\\\n\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{B}}}(t,t')&=& {\\boldsymbol{R}}(t){\\boldsymbol{B}}(t,t'){\\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t)\\notag\\\\\n\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{C}}}^{-1}(t,t')&=& {\\boldsymbol{R}}(t'){\\boldsymbol{C}}^{-1}(t,t'){\\boldsymbol{R}}^T(t'),\\notag\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\boldsymbol{R}}(t)$ is a time-dependent rotation matrix. It is a straightforward but laborious exercise to substitute the transformed tensors into expressions (8),(9),(11-14) in order to obtain the required invariance result for the stress tensor $\\hat{{\\boldsymbol{\\sigma}}}(t)={\\boldsymbol{R}}(t)\\,{\\boldsymbol{\\sigma}}(t){\\boldsymbol{R}}^{T}(t).$\n\nAn invariance requirement often implicitly employed in continuum modeling is Oldroyd\u2019s [*principle of local action*]{} \\[11\\] which states that only neighbouring particles are involved in determining the stress at any given point. The ${\\bf k}$ integrals in (11) and (12) are insensitive to the low-$k$ behavior of the integrands. In this sense local action is substantiated by the present microscopic theory.\n\nN.G.\u00a0van Kampen, Chapter XV Section 3, in [*Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry*]{} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford 1981).\n\nR.J.\u00a0Baxter, J.Chem.Phys. [**41**]{} 553 (1964).\n\nM.\u00a0Fuchs and M.E.\u00a0Cates, (in preparation).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    Given a random quantum state of multiple (distinguishable or indistinguishable) particles, we provide an algorithm, rooted in symplectic geometry, to compute the joint probability distribution of the eigenvalues of its one-body reduced density matrices, and hence some associated physical invariants of the state.\n\n    As a corollary, by taking the support of this probability distribution, which is a convex polytope, we recover a complete solution to the one-body quantum marginal problem, i.e., the problem of characterizing the one-body reduced density matrices that arise from some multi-particle quantum state. In the fermionic instance of the problem, which is known as the one-body $N$-representability problem, the famous Pauli principle amounts to one linear inequality in the description of the convex polytope.\n\n    We obtain the probability distribution by reducing to computing the corresponding distribution of diagonal entries (i.e., to the quantitative version of a classical marginal problem), which is then determined algorithmically. This reduction applies more generally to symplectic geometry, relating invariant measures for a compact Lie group action to that for the maximal torus action; we state and prove our results in this more general symplectic setting. Our approach is in striking contrast to the existing solution to the computation of the supporting polytope by Klyachko and by Berenstein and Sjamaar, which made crucial use of non-Abelian features.\n\n    In algebraic geometry, Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures correspond to the asymptotic distribution of multiplicities of irreducible representations in the associated coordinate ring. In the case of the one-body quantum marginal problem, these multiplicities include bounded height Kronecker and plethysm coefficients. A quantized version of the Abelianization procedure provides an efficient algorithm for their computation.\naddress:\n- 'Matthias Christandl, Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Z\u00fcrich, Wolfgang\u2013Pauli\u2013Strasse 27, CH-8093 Z\u00fcrich, Switzerland'\n- 'Brent Doran, Department of Mathematics, ETH Z\u00fcrich, R\u00e4mistrasse 101, CH-8092 Z\u00fcrich, Switzerland'\n- 'Stavros Kousidis, Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Z\u00fcrich, Wolfgang\u2013Pauli\u2013Strasse 27, CH-8093 Z\u00fcrich, SwitzerlandInstitute of Physics, University of Freiburg, Rheinstrasse 10, 79104 Freiburg, Germany'\n- 'Michael Walter, Institute for Theoretical Physics, ETH Z\u00fcrich, Wolfgang\u2013Pauli\u2013Strasse 27, CH-8093 Z\u00fcrich, Switzerland'\nauthor:\n- Matthias Christandl\n- Brent Doran\n- Stavros Kousidis\n- Michael Walter\nbibliography:\n- 'dhmeasure.bib'\ntitle: Eigenvalue Distributions of Reduced Density Matrices\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe pure state of a quantum system is described by a vector in a complex Hilbert space, or more precisely by a point in the corresponding projective space. Herein we consider the finite dimensional case, for instance a spin system. Since the Hilbert space for multiple particles is given by the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces of the individual particles, its dimension grows exponentially with the number of particles. This exponential behavior is therefore the key obstruction to classical modeling of quantum systems. The observation is as old as quantum theory itself, and physicists ever since have tried to find ways around it. In that spirit, our paper presents an effective method to extract those physical features that \u201conly depend on the one-body eigenvalues\u201d associated to randomly-chosen quantum states of any fixed number of particles. Our methods are rooted in geometry, and so further a nascent dialog between algebraic and symplectic geometry on the one hand, and the theory of quantum computation and quantum information on the other, with new results for each subject. We therefore begin with some context, and make an effort in the body of the paper to build a correspondence in terminologies.\n\nTypically, to address the aforementioned exponential complexity, physicists make use of a very simple yet powerful observation: Important properties such as energy and entropy often do not depend on the whole wavefunction but rather on only a small part, namely the *reduced density matrix*, or quantum marginal, of a few particles. For instance, the binding energy of a molecule is given as a minimization over two-electron reduced density matrices arising from $N$-electron wavefunctions. Mathematically, the reduced density matrix is given as the contraction of (or trace over) the indices of the projection operator onto the wavefunction over the remaining particles (see for the precise definition). The problem of characterizing the set of possible reduced density matrices, known as the *quantum marginal problem* in quantum information theory and as the $N$-representability problem in quantum chemistry [@ruskai69; @colemanyukalov00], has therefore been considered one of the most fundamental problems in quantum theory [@stillinger95]. The general problem is computationally intractable, even on a quantum computer; more precisely it is QMA-complete and NP-hard [@liu06; @liuchristandlverstraete07]. However, the characterization of the one-body reduced density matrices of a pure global quantum state [@klyachko04; @daftuarhayden04; @klyachko06] admits a very elegant mathematical interpretation: it amounts to a description of the possible eigenvalues of the reduced density matrices; and this, just as for Horn\u2019s problem, requires the computation of moment polytopes for coadjoint orbits of unitary groups, as first observed in [@christandlmitchison06; @daftuarhayden04; @klyachko04]. An interesting consequence is that defining linear inequalities for the polytope can have physical interpretation: for instance, the Pauli principle is simply one linear inequality bounding the polytope of a fermionic system (see [@coleman63; @borlanddennis72; @ruskai07; @klyachkoaltunbulak08; @klyachko09] and [@higuchi03; @higuchisudberyszulc03; @bravyi04] for further examples).\n\nRandom states play a fundamental role in physics. In classical *statistical mechanics*, the canonical state (or, \u201ccanonical ensemble\u201d) is the marginal probability distribution (Gibbs measure, or Boltzmann distribution) of states of the system arising from a uniformly random configuration of system and bath, subject to an energy constraint and fixed particle numbers for both system and bath [@huang90]. In quantum statistical mechanics, the canonical state of the system is the reduced density matrix of the uniform state on a subspace (encoding the energy constraint) of system and bath. In fact it can be shown that the canonical state almost always approximates the reduced density matrix of a random pure state in this subspace, as for large systems a concentration of measure occurs\u00a0[@popescushortwinter06; @lloyd06; @goldsteinlebowitztumulkaetal06]. Earlier, and also out of thermodynamic considerations, Lloyd and Pagels in a seminal work computed the distribution of eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix of the system when system and bath are in a random pure state\u00a0[@lloydpagels88], i.e., in the simplest case of two large \u201cparticles\u201d, one representing the system and one the bath. In this paper we are concerned with computing exact eigenvalue distributions for any number of particles, rather than with asymptotic results or with simple model systems of two particles. More precisely, we are concerned with the following question:\n\n> *What is the probability distribution of the eigenvalues of the one-body reduced density matrices of a pure many-particle quantum state drawn at random from the unitarily invariant distribution?*\n\nIn this article, we answer this question completely by describing an explicit algorithm to compute the joint eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices for an arbitrary number of particles of any statistics (distinguishable, Bose, Fermi). As a special case we easily recover the Lloyd\u2013Pagels result for two distinguishable particles. As a corollary, our work naturally leads to a solution of the one-body quantum marginal problem in terms of a finite union of polyhedral chambers, thereby providing a complementary perspective on the work of Klyachko and of Berenstein\u2013Sjamaar, and more recently of Ressayre, who each instead provided procedures based on geometric invariant theory (in particular the Hilbert\u2013Mumford criterion) to list characterizing linear inequalities [@berensteinsjamaar00; @klyachko04; @ressayre10] for the moment polytope.\n\nWe emphasize that the computed eigenvalue distributions can be directly used to infer distributions of R\u00e9nyi and von Neumann entropies, both of which play a fundamental role in statistical physics and quantum information theory and are functions of the eigenvalues only. In particular, one can recover the average entropy of a subsystem [@lubkin78; @page93], which featured in an analysis of the black hole entropy paradox\u00a0[@page94; @HaydenPreskill]. For applications to the study of quantum entanglement, see .\n\nFrom a mathematical perspective, the eigenvalue distributions that we compute are *Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures*, which are defined using the push-forward of the Liouville measure on a symplectic manifold along the moment map (see for the precise definition which we use in this article) [@heckman82; @guilleminsternberg82b; @guilleminsternberg84; @guilleminlermansternberg88; @guilleminlermansternberg96; @guilleminprato90]. The support of such a measure is a moment polytope, which in our physical context is the solution to the one-body quantum marginal problem. We will work and establish our results in this more general symplectic setting, in similar spirit to the existing solution to the one-body quantum marginal problem [@berensteinsjamaar00; @klyachko04]. We remark that, in particular, the one-body quantum marginal problem subsumes the well-known Horn\u2019s problem, which asks for the possible eigenvalues of the sum $A + B$ of two Hermitian matrices $A$, $B$ with fixed eigenvalues [@helmkerosenthal95; @klyachko98; @knutsontao99; @fulton00; @knutsontao01; @knutsontaowoodward03]. The corresponding eigenvalue distribution for randomly-chosen matrices $A$ and $B$ has also been studied in the literature, and our methods allow us to recover the main results of [@dooleyrepkawildberger93] (); see also [@frumkingoldberger06] for a more concrete approach.\n\nHowever, one striking difference between existing approaches to the one-body quantum marginal problem and the corollary to our approach is that the subtleties associated with the non-Abelian nature of their solutions can be completely bypassed. For instance, their reliance upon cohomology of Schubert cycles, and the interplay of different Weyl groups and sub-tori that feature because of repeated use of the Hilbert\u2013Mumford criterion, may be seen as incidental. The problem, even in the full generality of the symplectic setting, is at heart an Abelian one whose essential combinatorics is encoded in the maximal torus action together with taking finitely many explicit derivatives. Remarkably, this is more than philosophy, as it has real import for computation.\n\nThe first mathematical contribution of this paper is an effective technique for providing explicit Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures under rather weaker assumptions than appear in the literature (). The fact that this subsumes our main question above, and in particular the one-body quantum marginal problem, while the existing literature does not, is the crucial second point of this work (). A third feature is our statement of the Abelianization procedure via the derivative principle for invariant measures (); though we have not seen this principle so formulated in the literature, there certainly are predecessors and the result should be equivalent to one of Harish-Chandra [@harishchandra57]. That a \u201cquantized\u201d version of our algorithm can be used to compute (efficiently, unlike existing algorithms, see ) multiplicities for the branching problem of representation theory may be seen as the fourth mathematical consequence of our approach.\n\nThe basic strategy we follow to address our main question above is a sequence of reductions. Firstly, our general quantum problem is replaced by an equivalent but more tractable one by \u201cpurification\u201d of the quantum state (). This reduced problem is seen to satisfy a weak non-degeneracy assumption, so that the image of the moment map does not lie entirely on a wall in the relevant Weyl chamber. Under this assumption we can reduce via a *derivative principle* to the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the maximal torus action (), which we evaluate by a \u201csingle-summand\u201d algorithm along the lines of Boysal\u2013Vergne [@boysalvergne09] ().\n\nThis derivative principle holds for more general $K$-invariant measures on the dual of the Lie algebra, $\\mathfrak k^*$: Every invariant measure can be reconstructed from its projection onto the dual of the Lie algebra of the maximal torus by taking partial derivatives in the direction of negative roots (). Again, we remark that such a reduction is not possible on the level of the supports of the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures, i.e., on the moment polytopes. We also remark that in the case of the one-body quantum marginal problem, the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the maximal torus action is the joint distribution of the diagonal entries of the one-body reduced density matrices (as opposed to their eigenvalues). Amusingly, this distribution can be viewed as the solution to the quantitative version of a classical marginal problem ().\n\nThe single-summand algorithm alluded to above is an effective method for computing Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures for torus actions on projective spaces (). Its name stems from the fact that it amounts to evaluating a single summand of the kind that occurs in the well-known Heckman formula of Guillemin\u2013Lerman\u2013Sternberg [@guilleminlermansternberg88], which expresses the measure as an alternating sum of iterated convolutions of Heaviside measures. We also describe an algorithm based on this latter formula () that can in particular be applied to projections of coadjoint orbits (), and hence to the setting of Berenstein\u2013Sjamaar [@berensteinsjamaar00].\n\nWhenever a Hamiltonian group action can be quantized in a certain technical sense, Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures have an interpretation as the asymptotic limit of associated representation-theoretic quantities [@heckman82; @guilleminsternberg82b; @sjamaar95; @meinrenken96; @meinrenkensjamaar99; @vergne98]. In the second part of this article ( and ), we thus study the representation theory connected to the one-body quantum marginal problem; here, the relevant multiplicities include the Kronecker coefficients, which play a major role in the representation theory of the unitary and symmetric groups [@fulton97], as well as in Mulmuley and Sohoni\u2019s geometric complexity theory approach to the P vs.\u00a0NP problem in computer science [@mulmuleysohoni01; @mulmuleysohoni08; @mulmuley07; @burgisserlandsbergmaniveletal11]. It has been observed that the existence of a pure tripartite quantum state with given marginal eigenvalue spectra is equivalent to the asymptotic non-vanishing of an associated sequence of Kronecker coefficients [@christandlmitchison06; @klyachko04; @christandlharrowmitchison07], see also [@daftuarhayden04; @knutson09; @burgisserchristandlikenmeyer11; @burgisserchristandlikenmeyer11b]. For a similar connection in the context of Horn\u2019s problem and Littlewood\u2013Richardson coefficients, see [@lidskii82; @knutson00; @christandl08].\n\nOur main results in this context are quantized versions of our earlier theorems: Kronecker coefficients can be computed by applying finite difference operators to weight multiplicities which are related to the classical marginal problem: Instead of measuring the volume of a polytope, one has to count the number of lattice points in the polytope. This can be computed efficiently using Barvinok\u2019s algorithm [@barvinok94], and so leads to an efficient algorithm for computing Kronecker coefficients for Young diagrams with bounded height. Again, we shall establish the results in greater generality and recover the version for Kronecker coefficients as a special case.\n\nNotation and Conventions {#notation}\n------------------------\n\nThroughout this article, $K$ will denote a compact, connected Lie group with maximal torus $T \\subseteq K$, rank $r = \\dim T$, Weyl group $W$, respective Lie algebras $\\mathfrak k$ and $\\mathfrak t$, and integral lattice $\\Lambda = \\ker {\\left.\\exp\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t}}$ [@cartersegalmacdonald95; @kirillov08]. We write $\\pi_{K,T} \\colon \\mathfrak k^* \\rightarrow \\mathfrak t^*$ for the projection dual to the inclusion $\\mathfrak t \\subseteq \\mathfrak k$. We will think of weights as elements of the dual lattice, $\\Lambda^* = \\operatorname{Hom}_{{\\mathbb Z}}(\\Lambda, {\\mathbb Z}) \\subseteq \\mathfrak t^*$, and identify a character $\\chi \\colon T \\rightarrow \\operatorname{U}(1)$ with the weight $d\\chi/{2 \\pi i} \\in \\mathfrak t^*$. We denote by $d\\lambda$ the Lebesgue measure on $\\mathfrak t^*$ that is normalized in such a way that any fundamental domain of the weight lattice $\\Lambda^*$ has unit measure. Let us also choose a positive Weyl chamber $\\mathfrak t^*_+ \\subseteq \\mathfrak t^*$; this determines a set of positive roots $\\{ \\alpha > 0 \\} = \\{ \\alpha_1, \\ldots, \\alpha_R \\} \\subseteq \\mathfrak t^*$. The set of negative roots is by definition $\\{ -\\alpha : \\alpha > 0 \\}$. We write $\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ for the interior of the positive Weyl chamber, which contains the strictly dominant weights. We will often identify $\\mathfrak k$ and its dual $\\mathfrak k^*$, as well as $\\mathfrak t$ and $\\mathfrak t^*$, via some fixed $K$-invariant inner product $\\braket{-,-}$ on $\\mathfrak k$.\n\nFor the special unitary group $\\operatorname{SU}(d)$, which we always take to be the group of unitary $d\\times{}d$-matrices with unit determinant, we use the maximal torus consisting of diagonal matrices, on which the Weyl group $S_d$ acts by permuting diagonal entries. The Lie algebra ${\\mathfrak{su}}(d)$ consists of anti-Hermitian matrices with trace zero, and our choice of invariant inner product is $\\braket{X, Y} = -{\\mathrm{tr}\\left(X Y\\right)}$. Using it to identify $\\mathfrak t$ and $\\mathfrak t^*$, a positive Weyl chamber $\\mathfrak t^*_+$ is given by the set of diagonal matrices $\\lambda = \\operatorname{diag}(\\lambda_1, \\ldots, \\lambda_d)$ with purely imaginary entries, summing to zero and arranged in such a way that $i \\lambda_1 \\geq \\ldots \\geq i \\lambda_d$. This corresponds to choosing the positive roots $\\alpha_{j,k}(\\lambda) = i(\\lambda_j - \\lambda_k)$ with $j < k$. The points in the interior $\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ are those $\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak t^*_+$ with all distinct eigenvalues, i.e., $i \\lambda_1 > \\ldots > i \\lambda_d$.\n\nLet $M$ be a compact, connected Hamiltonian $K$-manifold of dimension $2n$, with symplectic form $\\omega_M$ and a choice of moment map $\\Phi_K \\colon M \\rightarrow \\mathfrak k^*$ [@cannasdasilva08; @guilleminsternberg84]. The intersection $\\Delta_K(M) = \\Phi_K(M) \\cap \\mathfrak t^*_+$ of its image with the positive Weyl chamber is a compact convex polytope, called the *moment polytope* or *Kirwan polytope* [@guilleminsternberg82; @kirwan84b; @guilleminsjamaar05]. If $M$ is a coadjoint $K$-orbit $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ through some $\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak t^*_+$, it will always be equipped with the Kirillov\u2013Kostant\u2013Souriau symplectic form and the moment map induced by the inclusion $\\mathcal O_\\lambda \\subseteq \\mathfrak k^*$. Evidently, $\\Delta_K(\\mathcal O_\\lambda) = \\{\\lambda\\}$.\n\nThroughout this article, we will always impose the following non-degeneracy condition:\n\n\\[main assumption\\] The moment polytope $\\Delta_K(M)$ has non-empty intersection with the interior of the positive Weyl chamber, $\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$.\n\nIn view of [@lermanmeinrenkentolmanetal98 Lemma 3.9] and well-known facts about compact Lie group actions, this assumption in fact implies the following: The set $\\Phi_K^{-1}(K \\cdot \\mathfrak t^*_{>0})$ is an open, dense subset of $M$ whose complement has Liouville measure zero. We show in that does *not* restrict the applicability of our techniques to the problem of computing eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices.\n\nThe *Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure* $\\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ is then defined as follows [@duistermaatheckman82]: Push forward the Liouville measure $\\mu_M = \\omega_M^n / ((2 \\pi)^n n!)$ on $M$ along the moment map $\\Phi_K$, compose with the push-forward along the quotient map $\\tau_K \\colon \\mathfrak k^* \\rightarrow \\mathfrak t^*_+$ which sends all points in a coadjoint orbit $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ to $\\lambda$ in the positive Weyl chamber; then divide the resulting measure by the polynomial $p_K(\\lambda) = \\prod_{\\alpha > 0} {\\langle \\lambda, \\alpha \\rangle} / {\\langle \\rho, \\alpha \\rangle}$, where $\\rho$ is half the sum of positive roots. That is, $$\\label{definition duistermaat-heckman measure}\n  \\operatorname{DH}^K_M = \\frac 1 {p_K} (\\tau_K)_* (\\Phi_K)_* (\\mu_M).$$ ensures that $\\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ is a locally finite measure on the interior of the positive Weyl chamber. Its support is equal to the moment polytope. Note that $p_K(\\lambda)$ is equal to the Liouville volume of a maximal-dimensional coadjoint orbit $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ [@berlinegetzlervergne03 Proposition 7.26]. Therefore, the above is a natural definition to use in our context: It is normalized so that the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure associated with the action of $K$ on a generic coadjoint orbit $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ is a probability distribution concentrated at the point $\\lambda$.\n\nIf $H$ is another compact, connected Lie group, with Lie algebra $\\mathfrak h$, acting on $M$ via a group homomorphism ${\\varphi}\\colon H \\rightarrow K$, then this action is also Hamiltonian, with a moment map given by the composition $$\\label{restriction to subgroups}\n  \\Phi_H = (d{\\varphi})^* \\circ \\Phi_K \\colon M \\rightarrow \\mathfrak k^* \\rightarrow \\mathfrak h^*.$$ This in turn determines a Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure $\\operatorname{DH}^H_M$. In particular, we can associate moment maps and Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures with all closed subgroups of $K$. In the case of the maximal torus $T \\subseteq K$, we shall call $\\Phi_T$ the *Abelian moment map* and $\\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ the *Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure*, in order to distinguish them from the *non-Abelian moment map* $\\Phi_K$ and the *non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure* $\\operatorname{DH}^K_M$, respectively. Explicitly, $$\\label{definition duistermaat-heckman measure abelian}\n  \\operatorname{DH}^T_M = (\\Phi_T)_* (\\mu_M) = (\\pi_{K,T})_* (\\Phi_K)_* (\\mu_M).$$\n\nThroughout this paper we shall assume for simplicity that the Abelian moment polytope $\\Delta_T(M)$ is of maximal dimension. This can always be arranged for by replacing $T$ by the quotient $T / \\bigcap_{m \\in M} T_m$, where $T_m$ denotes the $T$-stabilizer of a point $m \\in M$. If $T$ is the maximal torus of a semisimple Lie group, it follows already from that $\\Delta_T(M)$ is of maximal dimension. As a consequence, $T$ acts locally freely on a dense, open subset whose complement has Liouville measure zero [@duistermaatheckman82 Lemma 3.1]. In particular, generic points in $M$ are regular for the Abelian moment map. Therefore the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure on $\\mathfrak t^*$. By the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman Theorem, $\\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ in fact has a polynomial density function of degree at most $n-r$ on each connected component of the set of regular values [@duistermaatheckman82 Corollary 3.3]. We shall call these components the *regular chambers*, and one can show that, except for the unbounded one, every such chamber is an open convex polytope. If the closures of two regular chambers have a common boundary of maximal dimension (i.e., of codimension one) then we shall say that the two chambers are *adjacent* and call the common boundary a *singular wall*.\n\nAll Hilbert spaces which we consider in this article are complex and finite-dimensional. We write $P_\\psi$ for the orthogonal projection onto a one-dimensional subspace ${\\mathbb C}\\psi$, and ${\\lVertX\\rVert}_2 = \\sqrt{{\\mathrm{tr}\\left(X^*X\\right)}} = \\sum_j s_j^2$ for the Hilbert\u2013Schmidt norm of an operator $X$ with singular values $(s_j)$. We use $\\braket{-,-}$ to denote inner products as well as the pairing between measures (or more general distributions) and test functions. We write $\\delta_p$ for the *Dirac measure* at $p$, i.e., the probability measure concentrated at the point $p$, and $H_\\omega$ for the *Heaviside measure* which is defined by $\\langle H_\\omega, f \\rangle = \\int_0^\\infty f(t \\omega) dt$. We sometimes use the letter ${\\mathbf P}$ for probability distributions.\n\nThroughout the paper when we speak of the quantum marginal problem we always refer to its one-body version as described in .\n\nFinally, we offer a word of caution for people acquainted with the theory of geometric quantization [@guilleminsternberg77; @woodhouse92]: Our quantum states do not arise via some quantization procedure from a classical symplectic phase space. In contrast, herein, as detailed in below, the spaces of quantum states themselves are Hamiltonian manifolds. Probability distributions can be realized as quantum states of a special form, and the passage from quantum to classical is related to passing from a non-Abelian group to its maximal torus (see for precise statements). The \u201csemiclassical limit\u201d well-known in geometric quantization does not have an analogous physical meaning in our setting; its significance is solely to connect the symplectic geometry with representation theory (see ).\n\nDensity Matrices and Purification {#math phys dictionary}\n=================================\n\nThe applicability of symplectic geometry to the quantum marginal problem relies on the close relation between the Lie algebra of $\\operatorname{SU}(d)$ and the density matrices of quantum mechanics, and on the fact that restricting to certain subgroups has the physical meaning of passing to reduced density matrices, which describe the quantum state of subsystems. In this section we will describe this relationship in some detail (, ), and show how one can reduce the general problem of computing joint eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices to the case of globally pure quantum states, that is, to the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for a projective space (). We briefly discuss how probability distributions and the classical marginal problem are embedded in our setup () and describe some immediate physical applications ().\n\nDensity Matrices {#density matrices}\n----------------\n\nA *density matrix* is a positive-semidefinite Hermitian operator $\\rho$ of trace one acting on a finite-dimensional Hilbert space $\\mathcal H$. We will often choose coordinates and think of $\\rho$ as a matrix. If $\\rho$ is the orthogonal projection onto a one-dimensional subspace then we say that $\\rho$ is a *pure state*; otherwise, it is a *mixed state*. An *observable* is an arbitrary Hermitian operator acting on $\\mathcal H$.\n\nDensity matrices on $\\mathcal H$ describe the state of a quantum system modeled by the Hilbert space $\\mathcal H$: According to the postulates of quantum mechanics, the expectation value of an observable $O$ is given by the pairing ${\\mathrm{tr}\\left(O \\rho\\right)} \\in {\\mathbb R}$. Of course, $\\rho$ is characterized by these expectation values, even if we use anti-Hermitian observables instead and restrict to trace zero (since the trace of $\\rho$ is fixed). That is, we have an injection $$\\label{density matrices to functionals}\n  \\rho \\mapsto \\left( X \\mapsto i {\\mathrm{tr}\\left(X \\rho\\right)} \\right) \\in {\\mathfrak{su}}(\\mathcal H)^*$$ which extends to an isomorphism between the affine space of trace-one Hermitian operators on $\\mathcal H$ and ${\\mathfrak{su}}(\\mathcal H)^*$. This isomorphism is $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$-equivariant; its inverse sends a coadjoint orbit $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ to the set of Hermitian operators with eigenvalues $$\\label{spectra to positive weyl chamber}\n  \\hat\\lambda_j = \\frac 1 {\\dim \\mathcal H} + i \\lambda_j\n  \\quad\n  (j=1,\\ldots,\\dim \\mathcal H),$$ where the $\\lambda_j$ are the eigenvalues of $\\lambda$ (eigenvalues are repeated according to their multiplicity). Let us choose coordinates $\\mathcal H \\cong {\\mathbb C}^d$ and identify $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H) \\cong \\operatorname{SU}(d)$ accordingly. Then the eigenvalues $\\lambda_i$ are just the diagonal entries of the matrix $\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak t^*_+$ labeling the coadjoint orbit (see for our conventions). It follows that defines a bijection between the positive Weyl chamber $\\mathfrak t^*_+$ and the set of eigenvalue spectra of trace-one Hermitian operators, which we think of as elements of the set $\\{ \\hat\\lambda \\in \\mathbf R^d : \\hat\\lambda_1 \\geq \\ldots \\geq \\hat\\lambda_d, \\sum_j \\hat\\lambda_j = 1 \\}$.\n\nNote that the set of pure states is identified with the coadjoint orbit through the highest weight of the defining representation of $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$, that is, with projective space ${\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H)$: The density matrix corresponding to a point $[\\psi] \\in {\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H)$ is simply the orthogonal projection $P_\\psi$ onto ${\\mathbb C}\\psi$.\n\nMoreover, the Liouville measure on a coadjoint orbit $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ is identified via with the unique $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$-invariant measure on the set of Hermitian matrices with spectrum $\\hat\\lambda$, normalized to total volume $$\\label{volume coadjoint su orbit}\n  p_{\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)}(\\lambda) =\n  \\prod_{j < k} \\frac{i (\\lambda_j - \\lambda_k)}{k - j} =\n  \\prod_{j < k} \\frac{(\\hat\\lambda_j - \\hat\\lambda_k)}{k - j}.$$ The non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure of $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ corresponds to the Dirac measure at $\\hat\\lambda$, while the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure corresponds to the distribution of the diagonal entries of a density matrix with spectrum $\\hat\\lambda$ chosen according to the invariant measure.\n\n\\[bloch ball\\] The Lie algebra ${\\mathfrak{su}}(2)$ is three-dimensional, generated by $-\\frac i 2$ times the Pauli matrices $\\sigma_x, \\sigma_y, \\sigma_z$. Functionals in its dual ${\\mathfrak{su}}(2)^*$ can be identified with points in ${\\mathbb R}^3$ by evaluating them at these generators. In this picture, the inverse of associates to a vector $\\vec r = (x,y,z)$ the Hermitian matrix $\\rho(\\vec r) = \\frac 1 2 ( {\\mathbf 1}+ \\vec r \\cdot \\vec\\sigma )$, where $\\vec\\sigma$ is the Pauli vector $(\\sigma_x, \\sigma_y, \\sigma_z)$. The $z$-axis is identified with the Lie algebra of the maximal torus, ${\\mathbb R}\\sigma_z$, its positive half-axis with our choice of positive Weyl chamber $\\mathfrak t^*_+$, and $(0,0,2)$ with the corresponding positive root $\\alpha > 0$. The coadjoint action of elements in $\\operatorname{SU}(2)$ amounts to rotating the *Bloch vector* $\\vec r$ via the two-fold covering map $\\operatorname{SU}(2) \\rightarrow \\operatorname{SO}(3)$. Therefore, coadjoint orbits are spheres, commonly called *Bloch spheres* in quantum mechanics. They can be labeled by their radius $r$, that is, by their intersection with the positive half of the $z$-axis. Points on such a sphere correspond to Hermitian matrices with eigenvalue spectrum $(\\frac {1+r} 2, \\frac {1-r} 2)$. Note that $\\rho(\\vec r)$ is positive-semidefinite (i.e., a density matrix) if and only if $\\vec r$ is contained in the unit ball of ${\\mathbb R}^3$.\n\nThe non-Abelian moment map is just the inclusion map of a Bloch sphere into ${\\mathbb R}^3$. Hence its composition with the quotient map $\\tau_{\\operatorname{SU}(2)}$ sends all points in a Bloch sphere of radius $r > 0$ to $r$, while the Abelian moment map projects all points onto the $z$-axis. The Liouville measure is equal to the usual round measure, normalized to total volume $r$. Therefore, the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure of a Bloch sphere with radius $r$ is equal to the Dirac measure $\\delta_r$, while the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is obtained by pushing forward the Liouville measure onto the $z$-axis (see ). As already observed by Archimedes, any two zones of the same height on a sphere have the same area. Hence this latter measure is proportional to Lebesgue measure on the interval $[-r,r]$. An analogous statement holds for arbitrary projective spaces ().\n\n![A Bloch sphere, its height function and the induced measure: a generic coadjoint $\\operatorname{SU}(2)$-orbit, its Abelian moment map and the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure.[]{data-label=\"bloch ball figure\"}](blochsphere.png){width=\"6cm\"}\n\nObserve that the components $\\braket{X, \\Phi_{\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)}} \\colon \\mathcal O_\\lambda \\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}$ of the moment map send a quantum state to the expectation value of the corresponding observable $-i X$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $X$ generates a one-dimensional torus and that $X$ has one-dimensional eigenspaces. Then $\\braket{X, \\Phi_{\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)}}$ is just the moment map for the action of the torus generated by $X$ and its distribution can be computed immediately by using the Abelian Heckman formula (). This gives a short and conceptual proof of the formula derived recently in [@venutizanardi12].\n\nReduced Density Matrices {#reduced density matrices}\n------------------------\n\nComposite quantum systems are modeled by the tensor product of the Hilbert spaces describing their constituents. It is useful to think of these subsystems as individual particles, although they can be of more general nature; for instance, the subsystems can describe different degrees of freedom such as position and spin. Depending on whether the particles are in principle distinguishable or indistinguishable, we distinguish two basic classes of composite systems, which are of fundamentally different nature.\n\nIf the quantum system is composed of $N$ *distinguishable particles*, its global quantum state is described by a density matrix on the tensor product $\\mathcal H = \\mathcal H_1 \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes \\mathcal H_N$, where the $\\mathcal H_j$ are the Hilbert spaces describing the individual particles. Quantum mechanics also tells us that observables $O_j$ acting on a single subsystem $\\mathcal H_j$ correspond to tensor product observables ${\\mathbf 1}_{\\mathcal H_1 \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes \\mathcal H_{j-1}} \\otimes O_j \\otimes {\\mathbf 1}_{\\mathcal H_{j+1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes \\mathcal H_N}$, which act by the identity on all other subsystems. By non-degeneracy of the inner product, there exists a unique density matrix $\\rho_j$ on $\\mathcal H_j$ such that $$\\label{definition reduced density matrix}\n  {\\mathrm{tr}\\left(({\\mathbf 1}_{\\mathcal H_1 \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes \\mathcal H_{j-1}} \\otimes O_j \\otimes {\\mathbf 1}_{\\mathcal H_{j+1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes \\mathcal H_N}) \\rho\\right)} = {\\mathrm{tr}\\left(O_j \\rho_j\\right)}$$ for all observables $O_j$. It describes the quantum state of the $j$-th subsystem.\n\nThe density matrix $\\rho_j$ is called the *(one-body) reduced density matrix* or *quantum marginal* for the $j$-th particle of the quantum system.\n\nNote that we can embed $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H_j)$ into $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$ by $U_j \\mapsto {\\mathbf 1}_{\\mathcal H_1 \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes \\mathcal H_{j-1}} \\otimes U_j \\otimes {\\mathbf 1}_{\\mathcal H_{j+1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes \\mathcal H_N}$. This induces an embedding on the level of Lie algebras. The dual projection ${\\mathfrak{su}}(\\mathcal H)^* \\rightarrow {\\mathfrak{su}}(\\mathcal H_j)^*$, given by restricting functionals to the subalgebra, is identified by with the map $\\rho \\mapsto \\rho_j$. Similarly, the group homomorphism from the Cartesian product $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H_1) \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes \\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H_N)$ to $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$ given by $(U_1,\\ldots,U_N) \\mapsto U_1 \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes U_N$ induces the map $\\rho \\mapsto (\\rho_1,\\ldots,\\rho_N)$ sending a density matrix to the tuple of all its one-body reduced density matrices.\n\nThe *(one-body) quantum marginal problem for distinguishable particles* asks for the possible tuples of one-body reduced density matrices $(\\rho_1, \\ldots, \\rho_N)$ of an arbitrary density matrix $\\rho$ with fixed spectrum, or, equivalently, for the possible tuples of their eigenvalues. By the above discussion, this is precisely equivalent to determining the moment polytope $\\Delta_K(M)$ associated with the Hamiltonian action of the subgroup $K = \\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H_1) \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes \\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H_N)$ on a coadjoint orbit $M = \\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}$ for $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$, with moment map as defined in . The quantum marginal problem for globally pure states is the special case where $M = {\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H)$. Moreover, the *joint eigenvalue distribution of reduced density matrices* we set out to compute in this article corresponds to the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure $\\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ as defined in : Up to the identification $\\hat\\lambda \\mapsto \\lambda$ between spectra of trace-one Hermitian operators and the positive Weyl chamber as defined in , it is given by $$\\label{eigenvalue distribution dist}\n  (\\tau_K)_* (\\Phi_K)_*\\left(\\frac {\\mu_M} {\\operatorname{vol}M}\\right) =\n  \\frac 1 {\\operatorname{vol}M} p_K \\operatorname{DH}^K_M.$$ Note that we divide by the Liouville volume of $M$, which is just $p_{\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)}(\\tilde\\lambda)$, to obtain a probability measure.\n\nSimilarly, the joint distribution of the diagonal entries of the reduced density matrices corresponds to the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure $\\operatorname{DH}^T_M$.\n\nIf the quantum system is composed of *indistinguishable particles*, each particle is of course modeled by the same Hilbert space $\\mathcal H_1$. The global state of the system is described by a density matrix supported on an irreducible sub-representation $\\mathcal H \\subseteq \\mathcal H_1^{\\otimes N}$, namely $\\mathcal H = \\operatorname{Sym}^N(\\mathcal H_1)$ for *bosons* and ${\\Lambda}^N(\\mathcal H_1)$ for *fermions* (but we can in principle also consider other irreducible sub-representations which correspond to more exotic statistics). Note that since every such density matrix commutes with permutations, all the one-body reduced density matrices are equal.\n\nNote that we can let single-particle observables $O$ act more intrinsically by the symmetric expression $\\frac 1 N (O \\otimes {\\mathbf 1}_{\\mathcal H_1^{\\otimes (N-1)}} + \\ldots + {\\mathbf 1}_{\\mathcal H_1^{\\otimes (N-1)}} \\otimes O)$, without changing their expectation values. Up to a factor $N$, this corresponds to the embedding of Lie algebras induced by the diagonal map $U \\mapsto U \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes U$, which is of course precisely the action of $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H_1)$ on the representation $\\mathcal H$. This embedding therefore induces the map $\\rho \\mapsto \\sum_j \\rho_j = N \\rho_1$ in the same way as described above. It follows that the *(one-body) quantum marginal problem for indistinguishable particles* amounts to determining $\\frac 1 N \\Delta_K(M)$ for the induced action of $K = \\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H_1)$ on a coadjoint orbit $M = \\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}$ of $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$, and that, up to the identification $\\hat\\lambda \\mapsto \\lambda$, the *eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrix* is given by $$\\label{eigenvalue distribution indist}\n  \\kappa_* (\\tau_K)_* (\\Phi_K)_*\\left(\\frac {\\mu_M} {\\operatorname{vol}M}\\right) =\n  \\frac 1 {\\operatorname{vol}M} p_K \\kappa_*(\\operatorname{DH}^K_M),$$ where the linear map $\\kappa(\\lambda) = \\frac \\lambda N$ counteracts the factor $N$ in the moment map.\n\n                          Setting                   Hilbert space $\\mathcal H$                                                 Group $K$\n  ------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n    $N$ distinguishable particles  ${\\mathbb C}^{d_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_N}$   $\\operatorname{SU}(d_1) \\times \\ldots \\times \\operatorname{SU}(d_N)$\n                       $N$ bosons             $\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^d)$                                      $\\operatorname{SU}(d)$\n                     $N$ fermions                  ${\\Lambda}^N({\\mathbb C}^d)$                                          $\\operatorname{SU}(d)$\n\n  : The quantum marginal problem is modeled by the action of the group $K$ on a coadjoint $\\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$-orbit $M = \\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}$.[]{data-label=\"QMP summary table\"}\n\nIn we have summarized the groups and spaces relevant for the quantum marginal problems of main physical interest, and we will focus on these in the remainder of this article. One can also combine both cases, e.g., to describe a quantum system composed of two different sorts of indistinguishable particles (as happens for the purified double of a bosonic or fermionic quantum marginal problem as defined in below), or a number of indistinguishable particles each of which have multiple internal degrees of freedom. In the latter case, arbitrary irreducible representations of the special unitary group can appear if one restricts to the reduced density matrices corresponding to only some of the degrees of freedom (see, e.g., [@klyachkoaltunbulak08]).\n\nPurification\n------------\n\nLet $\\mathcal H$ be an arbitrary finite-dimensional Hilbert space. It is well-known that every density matrix $\\rho$ on $\\mathcal H$ is the reduced density matrix of a pure state in $[\\psi] \\in {\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)$, called a *purification* of the quantum state $\\rho$. Indeed, if $\\rho = \\sum_i p_i P_{v_i}$ is the spectral decomposition of $\\rho$ then we can simply choose $\\psi = \\sum \\sqrt{p_i} v_i \\otimes v_i$. In this sense, the global state of a quantum system can always be described by a pure state; reduced density matrices occur only in the description of the states of its subsystems. This motivates the following definition:\n\nFor any unitary $K$-representation $\\mathcal H$, we define the *purified double* to be the Hamiltonian $K \\times \\tilde K$-manifold ${\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)$, where $\\tilde K = \\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$, equipped with the moment map constructed in the usual way by embedding into $\\mathfrak u(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)^*$ and \u201crestricting\u201d the functionals to elements in $\\mathfrak k \\oplus \\mathfrak {\\tilde k}$.\n\nObserve that if $\\mathcal H$ is one of the representations of modeling a setup of the quantum marginal problem, then the purified double corresponds to the pure-state quantum marginal problem where one has adjoined a single distinguishable particle modeled by $\\mathcal H$.\n\nThe purification $[\\psi] \\in {\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)$ of a quantum state $\\rho$ on $\\mathcal H$ is unique up to a unitary acting on the second copy of $\\mathcal H$. Evidently, such operations do not change the reduced density matrix $\\rho = (P_\\psi)_1$ and they leave the eigenvalue spectrum of $(P_\\psi)_2$ invariant. In particular, the eigenvalue spectra of the reduced density matrices $(P_\\psi)_1$ and $(P_\\psi)_2$ are always equal. This implies that we can reduce the quantum marginal problem to the case of globally pure states, both for distinguishable and indistinguishable particles:\n\n\\[purification polytope\\] Let $\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}$ be a coadjoint orbit of $\\tilde K = \\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$, with $\\tilde\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak {\\tilde t}^*_+$ corresponding to the eigenvalue spectrum of a density operator. Then $\\lambda \\in \\Delta_K(\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda})$ if and only if $(\\lambda,\\tilde\\lambda) \\in \\Delta_{K \\times \\tilde K}({\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H))$.\n\nIn other words, $$\\Delta_{K \\times \\tilde K}({\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)) = \\bigcup_{\\tilde\\lambda \\in \\tilde\\Delta} \\Delta_K(\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}) \\times \\{\\tilde\\lambda\\},$$ where $\\tilde\\Delta = \\{ \\tilde\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak {\\tilde t}^*_+ : \\widehat{\\tilde\\lambda}_j \\geq 0 \\}$ is the convex subset of the positive Weyl chamber corresponding to the eigenvalue spectra of density operators. We can similarly reduce the problem of determining the joint eigenvalue distribution to the case of globally pure states: For this, let us define probability measures $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{measures to be purified}\n  {\\mathbf P}&= (\\tau_{K \\times \\tilde K})_* (\\Phi_{K \\times \\tilde K})_* \\left( \\frac {\\mu_{{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)}} {\\operatorname{vol}{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)} \\right),\\\\\n  {\\mathbf P}_{\\tilde\\lambda} &= (\\tau_K)_* (\\Phi_K)_* \\left( \\frac {\\mu_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}}} {\\operatorname{vol}O_{\\tilde\\lambda}} \\right),\n\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\operatorname{vol}$ denotes the Liouville volume.\n\n\\[purification measure\\] The measures in are related by $$\\langle {\\mathbf P}, f \\rangle\n  = \\frac 1 Z \\int_{\\tilde\\Delta} d\\tilde\\lambda ~\n    p^2_{\\tilde K}(\\tilde\\lambda) ~\n    \\langle {\\mathbf P}_{\\tilde\\lambda}, f(-,\\tilde\\lambda) \\rangle,$$ for all test functions $f \\in C_b(\\mathfrak t^*_+ \\oplus \\mathfrak {\\tilde t^*}_+)$, where $d\\tilde\\lambda$ is Lebesgue measure on $\\mathfrak {\\tilde t}^*_+$ and $Z$ a suitable normalization constant.\n\nEach of the one-body reduced density matrices of a Liouville-distributed bipartite pure state in ${\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)$ is distributed according to the Hilbert\u2013Schmidt measure restricted to the set of density matrices. In particular, its eigenvalues are distributed according to the well-known formula of [@lloydpagels88; @zyczkowskisommers01], so that $$(\\tau_{\\tilde K})_* (\\Phi_{\\tilde K})_* \\left( \\frac {\\mu_{{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)}} {\\operatorname{vol}{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)} \\right)\n    = \\frac 1 Z \\, p^2_{\\tilde K}(\\tilde\\lambda) \\, {\\mathbf 1}_{\\tilde\\Delta}(\\tilde\\lambda) \\, d\\tilde\\lambda,$$ with ${\\mathbf 1}_{\\tilde\\Delta}$ the indicator function of $\\tilde\\Delta$ and $Z$ a suitable normalization constant. We have just seen that both reduced density matrices necessarily have equal eigenvalue spectrum. This implies that $$\\langle (\\Phi_{\\tilde K \\times \\tilde K})_* \\left( \\frac {\\mu_{{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)}} {\\operatorname{vol}{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)} \\right), g \\rangle\n    = \\frac 1 Z \\int_{\\tilde\\Delta} d\\tilde\\lambda \\int_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda} \\times \\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}} g.$$ See for an independent derivation using the techniques of this paper. It follows that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\langle {\\mathbf P}, f \\rangle\n    &= \\langle (\\tau_{K \\times \\tilde K})_* (\\Phi_{K \\times \\tilde K})_* \\left( \\frac {\\mu_{{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)}} {\\operatorname{vol}{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)} \\right), f \\rangle \\\\\n    &= \\langle (\\tau_{K} \\Phi_{K} \\times \\tau_{\\tilde K})_* (\\Phi_{\\tilde K \\times \\tilde K})_* \\left( \\frac {\\mu_{{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)}} {\\operatorname{vol}{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)} \\right), f \\rangle\\\\\n    &= \\frac 1 Z \\int_{\\tilde\\Delta} d\\tilde\\lambda \\int_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda} \\times \\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}} (\\tau_{K} \\Phi_{K} \\times \\tau_{\\tilde K})^* \\big( f \\big)\\\\\n    &= \\frac 1 Z \\int_{\\tilde\\Delta} d\\tilde\\lambda ~ p_{\\tilde K}(\\tilde\\lambda) ~ \\int_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}} (\\tau_{K} \\Phi_{K})^* \\left( f(-,\\tilde\\lambda) \\right)\\\\\n    &= \\frac 1 Z \\int_{\\tilde\\Delta} d\\tilde\\lambda ~ p^2_{\\tilde K}(\\tilde\\lambda) ~ \\langle {\\mathbf P}_{\\tilde\\lambda}, f(-,\\tilde\\lambda) \\rangle.\n    \\qedhere\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nNote that ${\\mathbf P}_{\\tilde\\lambda}$, and in particular the eigenvalue distributions and , vary continuously with the global spectrum $\\tilde\\lambda$. therefore implies that we can reconstruct them from the eigenvalue distribution for the purified double by taking limits. If the latter distribution has a continuous Lebesgue density, as will often be the case, then we can simply restrict this density function to the global spectrum $\\tilde\\lambda$ of interest.\n\nWe will now show that is always satisfied when working with the purified double. In quantum-mechanical terms, we have to show that there exists a global pure state $[\\psi] \\in {\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H \\otimes \\mathcal H)$ such that the eigenvalue spectra of all the reduced density matrices are non-degenerate (with respect to the quantum marginal problem where we have added a single distinguishable particle with Hilbert space $\\mathcal H$).\n\nFor distinguishable particles, where $\\mathcal H \\cong {\\mathbb C}^{d_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_N}$, this follows from the following general criterion, since the purified double is constructed by adding an additional Hilbert space of dimension $d_{N+1} = \\dim \\mathcal H = d_1 \\cdots d_N$:\n\n\\[main assumption qmp\\] Let $N \\geq 1$ and $d_1 \\leq \\ldots \\leq d_N \\leq d_{N+1}$. Then there exists a global pure state in ${\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^{d_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_N} \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_{N+1}})$ whose one-body reduced density matrices have non-degenerate eigenvalue spectra if and only if $$d_{N+1} \\leq \\left( \\prod_{i=1}^N d_i \\right) + 1.$$\n\nThe condition is clearly necessary, since it follows from the singular value decomposition that at most $\\prod_{i=1}^N d_i$ eigenvalues of $\\rho_{N+1}$ can be non-zero.\n\nFor sufficiency, let us construct a state with the desired property: For this, we consider the standard tensor product basis vectors $e_{i_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes e_{i_N}$ of ${\\mathbb C}^{d_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_N}$, labelled by integers $i_j \\in \\{1,\\ldots,d_j\\}$, $j=1,\\ldots,N$. We choose a subset of $d_{N+1}-1$ many such basis vectors $e_{i_1(k)} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes e_{i_N(k)}$ in such a way that, for each subsystem $j=1,\\ldots,N$, at least $d_j - 1$ of the $d_j$ integers occur. This clearly is possible by our assumptions. Finally, we set $$\\psi = \\sum_{k=1}^{d_{N+1}-1} 2^{-k} e_{i_1(k)} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes e_{i_N(k)} \\otimes e_k.$$ Then $[\\psi]$ is a pure state such that all of its one-body reduced density matrices have non-degenerate eigenvalue spectrum.\n\nFor bosons and fermions, we will use the following lemma to show that is satisfied:\n\n\\[boson fermion lemma\\] The convex hull of the weights of $\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^d)$ has maximal dimension. The same is true for ${\\Lambda}^N({\\mathbb C}^d)$ if $N<d$.\n\nIn the following we write $\\omega_j$ for the weight corresponding to the character $\\operatorname{diag}(t_1, \\ldots, t_d) \\mapsto t_j$, with $j=1, \\ldots, d$.\n\n\\(1) $\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^d)$: The vectors $e_j \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes e_j$ are weight vectors of weight $N \\omega_j$, with $j=1,\\ldots,d$. Clearly, the convex hull of these weights already has maximal dimension.\n\n\\(2) ${\\Lambda}^N({\\mathbb C}^d)$, where $1 \\leq N < d$: It is well-known that the weights are given by $\\sum_{j \\in J} \\omega_j$ for all $N$-element subsets $J \\subseteq \\{1,\\ldots,d\\}$. (The corresponding weight vectors are the well-known occupation number basis vectors for fermions.) Fix any such weight, say, the one corresponding to $J = \\{1,\\ldots,N\\}$. The difference vectors between this weight and the weights obtained by replacing a single element of $J$ are proportional to the positive roots $\\alpha_{j,k}(\\lambda) = i(\\lambda_j - \\lambda_k)$ with $j \\in J$ and $k \\in \\{1,\\ldots,d\\} \\setminus J$. There are at least $d-1$ such roots, and they form a basis of $\\mathfrak t^*$.\n\nimplies that is also satisfied for the purified double of the bosonic and fermionic quantum marginal problems: Indeed, it clearly suffices to show that in each case there exists a density operator $\\rho$ on $\\mathcal H$ such that both $\\rho$ and its one-body reduced density matrix $\\rho_1$ have non-degenerate eigenvalue spectrum (then any purification of $\\rho$ has the desired properties). By , there exists a convex combination of weights $\\sum_k p_k \\omega_k \\in \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$. By perturbing slightly, we can arrange for the weights $(p_k)$ to be mutually disjoint. Choose corresponding (orthogonal) weight vectors $v_k \\in \\mathcal H$ and consider the density matrix $\\rho = \\sum_k p_k P_{v_k}$. Clearly, both $\\rho$ and its one-body reduced density matrix $\\rho_1$have non-degenerate eigenvalue spectrum.\n\nTo summarize, we have shown that the problem of computing the joint eigenvalue distribution of reduced density matrices is equivalent to the computation of Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures associated with certain Hamiltonian group actions (cf.\u00a0). Moreover, by passing to the purified double, we can always reduce to the case where $M = {\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H)$ is a projective space satisfying .\n\nProbability Distributions {#classical}\n-------------------------\n\nUnder the identification , elements of the dual of the Lie algebra of the maximal torus correspond to diagonal density matrices. These are precisely the diagonal matrices with non-negative entries summing to one, and can therefore be interpreted as *probability distributions* of a random variable $Z$ with values in the orthonormal basis $(e_i)$ we have chosen. This interpretation is in agreement with quantum mechanics: If we perform an actual measurement of a density matrix $\\rho$ with respect to this orthonormal basis then the probability of getting outcome $e_i$ is given precisely by the diagonal element ${\\mathrm{tr}\\left(P_{e_i} \\rho\\right)} = \\braket{e_i, \\rho \\, e_i} = \\rho_{i,i}$.\n\nNote that the moment map for the action of the maximal torus $\\tilde T \\subseteq \\operatorname{SU}(\\mathcal H)$ on the projective space ${\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H)$ corresponds to sending a pure state $[\\psi]$ onto its diagonal. As we vary $[\\psi]$ over all pure states in ${\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H)$, the diagonal entries attain all possible probability distributions. In other words, the Abelian moment polytope $\\Delta_{\\tilde T}({\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H))$ is just the simplex $\\tilde\\Delta$ defined in . The corresponding Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is equal to a suitably normalized Lebesgue measure on $\\tilde\\Delta$ (this is a special case of below).\n\nNow consider as in the case of $N$ distinguishable particles. Choose orthonormal bases to identify $\\mathcal H_k \\cong {\\mathbb C}^{d_k}$, and therefore $\\mathcal H \\cong {\\mathbb C}^{d_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_N}$ using the tensor product basis. Note that we can interprete diagonal density matrices $\\rho$ on $\\mathcal H$ as the joint probability distribution of a tuple of random variables $(Z_1,\\ldots,Z_N)$, where each $Z_k$ takes values in the standard basis of the corresponding ${\\mathbb C}^{d_k}$, by setting $${\\mathbf P}(Z_1 = e_{i_1}, \\ldots, Z_N = e_{i_N}) =\n  {\\mathrm{tr}\\left(P_{e_{i_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes e_{i_N}} \\rho\\right)}.$$ The marginal distributions of the random variables $Z_k$ in the sense of probability theory are then given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n  {\\mathbf P}(Z_k = e_{i_k})\n  &= \\sum_{i_1, \\ldots, \\check{i_k}, \\ldots, i_N} {\\mathrm{tr}\\left(P_{e_{i_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes e_{i_N}} \\rho\\right)}\\\\\n  &= {\\mathrm{tr}\\left( \\left( {\\mathbf 1}_{{\\mathbb C}^{d_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_{k-1}}} \\otimes P_{e_{i_k}} \\otimes {\\mathbf 1}_{{\\mathbb C}^{d_{k+1}} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_N}} \\right) \\rho\\right)}\n   = {\\mathrm{tr}\\left(P_{e_{i_k}} \\rho_k\\right)},\\end{aligned}$$ where for the second identity we have used that $\\rho$ is a diagonal matrix. That is, the marginal distributions of the $Z_k$ are precisely described by the reduced density matrices $\\rho_k$ (i.e., by the quantum marginals), which are also diagonal if $\\rho$ is diagonal.\n\nAccordingly, the moment polytope $\\Delta_T({\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H))$ for the action of the maximal torus $T \\subseteq \\operatorname{SU}(d_1) \\times \\ldots \\operatorname{SU}(d_N)$ on the set of pure states describes the tuples of marginal probability distributions that arise from joint distributions of the $(Z_1,\\ldots,Z_N)$. This *(univariate) classical marginal problem* is of course trivial, since there are no constraints on the joint distribution. However, its quantitative version, which corresponds to computing the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure $\\operatorname{DH}^T_{{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H)}$, is interesting and not at all trivial to solve. In fact, the problem of computing joint eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices, which we set out to solve in this article, can be reduced to the computation of $\\operatorname{DH}^T_{{\\mathbb P}(\\mathcal H)}$. This reduction, or rather the generalization which we describe in below, is at the core of the algorithms presented in .\n\nPhysical Applications {#physical applications}\n---------------------\n\nAs indicated in the introduction, the eigenvalue distributions and have direct applications to quantum physics. In quantum statistical mechanics, among others, one typically studies bipartite setups $\\mathcal H = \\mathcal H_S \\otimes \\mathcal H_E$ composed of a system $S$ and an environment (or bath) $E$. Randomly-chosen pure states give rise to a distribution of reduced density matrices $\\rho_S$, whose properties vary with the size of the environment. Physical motivations have lead to the computation of the corresponding eigenvalue distribution [@lloydpagels88], which we can easily re-derive using the techniques of this paper (). Note that many basic physical quantities are functions of the eigenvalues, such as the *von Neumann entropy* $$H(S) = H(\\rho_S) = -{\\mathrm{tr}\\left(\\rho_S \\log \\rho_S\\right)} = \\sum_j -\\hat\\lambda_j \\log \\hat\\lambda_j,$$ where $(\\hat\\lambda_j)$ are the eigenvalues of $\\rho_S$, or more general R\u00e9nyi entropies and purities (cf.\u00a0). The average von Neumann entropy of a subsystem [@lubkin78; @page93] in particular has featured in the analysis of the black hole entropy paradox [@HaydenPreskill].\n\nWe can also consider other coadjoint orbits such as Grassmannians: Here, the density matrix corresponding to a $d$-dimensional subspace $\\mathcal H' \\subseteq \\mathcal H_A \\otimes \\mathcal H_E$ is the normalized projection operator $\\rho = {\\mathbf 1}_{\\mathcal H'}/d$, and the reduced density matrix $\\rho_A$ is interpreted as a *canonical state* in the sense of statistical mechanics [@popescushortwinter06; @lloyd06; @goldsteinlebowitztumulkaetal06]. The probability distributions we compute can therefore be used to analyze the typical behavior of canonical states.\n\nThe tripartite case, in itself already interesting from the perspective of the quantum marginal problem, is also highly relevant to applications: It corresponds to the situation where $S$ itself is composed of two particles $A$ and $B$, so that $\\mathcal H = \\mathcal H_A \\otimes \\mathcal H_B \\otimes \\mathcal H_E$. In the study of quantum entanglement, remarkable recent progress has been made by analyzing the entanglement properties of the two-body reduced density matrix $\\rho_{AB}$ of a randomly-chosen pure state in large dimensions, where the concentration of measure phenomenon occurs [@HaydenRandomizing; @haydenleungwinter06; @aubrunszarekye11b; @aubrunszarekye11; @collinsnechitaye11]. In particular, a negative resolution of the additivity conjecture of quantum information theory\u00a0[@shor-additivity] has recently been obtained by related methods\u00a0[@hastings-additivity; @aubrun-hastings]. The joint eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices in particular determines *quantum conditional entropies* and *quantum mutual informations*, that is, the quantities $$\\begin{aligned}\n  H(A|B) &= H(AB) - H(B) = H(E) - H(B),\\\\\n  I(A:B) &= H(A) + H(B) - H(AB) = H(A) + H(B) - H(E),\\end{aligned}$$ since the eigenvalue spectra of $\\rho_{AB}$ and $\\rho_E$ are equal (cf.\u00a0). They have immediate applications to entanglement theory; for example, the quantum mutual information provides an upper bound on the amount of entanglement that can be distilled from a quantum state [@christandlwinter04].\n\nIn all these applications, most known results are for large Hilbert spaces, since the techniques employed rely on asymptotic features such as measure concentration. Our algorithms require no such assumption. In particular, they are well-suited for low-dimensional systems, which previously remained inaccessible.\n\nDerivative Principle for Invariant Measures {#derivative principle}\n===========================================\n\nIn this section we will describe a fundamental property of $K$-invariant measures on $\\mathfrak k^*$ that are concentrated on the union of the maximal-dimensional coadjoint orbits (that is, on $K \\cdot \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$). Every such invariant measure can be reconstructed from its projection onto $\\mathfrak t^*$ by taking partial derivatives in the direction of negative roots (). In particular, this implies that the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure $\\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ can be recovered from the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure $\\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ ().\n\nFor the invariant probability measure supported on a single coadjoint orbit of maximal dimension, this follows from a well-known formula of Harish-Chandra, as was already observed by Heckman:\n\n\\[ableitungsformel coadjoint orbit\\] Let $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ be a coadjoint orbit through $\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$. Then, $${\\left.\\left( \\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_{-\\alpha} \\right) \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda}\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}} = \\delta_\\lambda,$$ where the partial derivatives and the restriction are in the sense of distributions.\n\nHarish-Chandra\u2019s formula for the Fourier transform of a coadjoint orbit states that $$\\langle \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda}, e^{i \\langle -, X \\rangle} \\rangle =\n    \\sum_{w \\in W} (-1)^{l(w)} e^{i \\langle w\\lambda, X \\rangle} \\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\frac 1 {i \\langle \\alpha, X \\rangle}$$ for every $X \\in \\mathfrak t$ which is not orthogonal to a root (see [@berlinegetzlervergne03 Corollary 7.25] for a recent account). Here, $l(w)$ is the length of the Weyl group element $w$. This implies that the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is given by the following alternating sum of convolutions $$\\label{harish chandra}\n    \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda} = \\sum_{w \\in W} (-1)^{l(w)} \\delta_{w \\lambda} \\star H_{-\\alpha_1} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{-\\alpha_R}.$$ Recall that $H_\\omega$ is the Heaviside measure defined in by $\\langle H_\\omega, f \\rangle = \\int_0^\\infty f(t \\omega) dt$. By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have $\\partial_\\omega H_\\omega = \\delta_0$. Therefore, $$\\label{harish chandra derivative}\n    \\left( \\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_{-\\alpha} \\right) \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda} = \\sum (-1)^{l(w)} \\delta_{w \\lambda},$$ and the assertion follows if we restrict to the interior of the positive Weyl chamber.\n\nEvery Bloch sphere of radius $r > 0$ is a coadjoint orbit of maximal dimension (cf.\u00a0). We have seen that $\\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_r}$ is equal to $\\frac 1 2 {\\mathbf 1}_{[-r,r]}(z) dz$, where $dz$ is Lebesgue measure on the $z$-axis. In agreement with , we observe that $${\\left.\\partial_\\alpha \\operatorname{DH}^T_{O_r}\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}} =\n    {\\left.\\partial_z {\\mathbf 1}_{[-r,r]}(z) dz\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{{\\mathbb R}_{> 0}}} =\n    \\delta_r.$$\n\n\\[main theorem measures\\] Let $\\nu$ be a $K$-invariant Radon measure on $\\mathfrak k^*$ satisfying $\\nu(\\mathfrak k^* \\setminus K \\cdot \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}) = 0$. Then, $${\\left.\\left(\\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_{-\\alpha} \\right) (\\pi_{K,T})_*(\\nu)\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}} =\n    {\\left.\\frac 1 {p_K} (\\tau_K)_*(\\nu)\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}},$$ where the partial derivatives and the restriction are in the sense of distributions.\n\nLet $f \\in C_c^\\infty(\\mathfrak t^*_{>0})$ be a test function, which we extend by zero to all of $\\mathfrak t^*$, and set $g := (\\pi_{K,T})^*\\left(\\left(\\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_\\alpha \\right) f\\right)$. By definition and assumption, respectively, $$\\langle {\\left. \\left(\\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_{-\\alpha} \\right) (\\pi_{K,T})_*(\\nu)\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}}, f \\rangle =\n    \\langle \\nu, g \\rangle =\n    \\langle {\\nu}\\big|_{K \\cdot \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}, g \\rangle.$$ Since $\\nu$ is a $K$-invariant measure, we can use Fubini\u2019s theorem to replace $g$ by its $K$-average. On each maximal-dimensional coadjoint orbit $\\mathcal O_\\lambda \\subseteq K \\cdot \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$, this average is given by $$\\frac 1 {\\operatorname{vol}\\mathcal O_\\lambda} \\langle \\mu_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda}, g \\rangle =\n    \\frac 1 {p_K(\\lambda)} \\langle \\mu_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda}, (\\pi_{K,T})^*\\left(\\left(\\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_\\alpha \\right) f\\right) \\rangle =\n    \\frac 1 {p_K(\\lambda)} \\langle \\left(\\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_{-\\alpha} \\right) \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda}, f \\rangle,$$ which by is precisely equal to ${f(\\lambda)}/{p_K(\\lambda)}$. In other words, the averaged function is on $K \\cdot \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ equal to the pullback $(\\tau_K)^* \\left( f/{p_K} \\right)$. We conclude that $$    \\langle {\\nu}\\big|_{K \\cdot \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}, g \\rangle =\n    \\langle {\\nu}\\big|_{K \\cdot \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}, (\\tau_K)^* \\left( \\frac f {p_K} \\right) \\rangle =\n        \\langle {\\left.\\frac 1 {p_K} (\\tau_K)_* (\\nu)\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}}, f \\rangle.\n    \\qedhere$$\n\n\\[main theorem\\] The Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures as defined in are related by $${\\left.\\left(\\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_{-\\alpha} \\right) \\operatorname{DH}^T_M\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}} =\n    {\\operatorname{DH}^K_M}\\bigg|_{\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}}.$$\n\nguarantees that we can apply to the push-forward of the Liouville measure along the non-Abelian moment map $\\Phi_K$.\n\nThis is the *derivative principle* alluded to in the title of this section. As we shall see in the following, it is a powerful tool for lifting results about the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for torus actions to general compact Lie group actions.\n\nAccording to [@woodward05 \u00a73.5], was already known to Paradan and also follows from a different result of Harish-Chandra. In we will describe another way to establish it by using the connection between Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures in algebraic geometry and multiplicities in group representations.\n\nNote that completely determines the measure $\\nu$ from its projection onto $\\mathfrak t^*$, since $\\nu$ is by assumption concentrated on the union of the coadjoint orbits of maximal dimension. Similarly, the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure $\\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ can be fully reconstructed from $\\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ by using .\n\nWe stress that it is oftentimes not necessary to explicitely compute the non-Abelian Duistermaat-Heckman measure. Indeed, is of course by definition equivalent to $$\\langle \\operatorname{DH}^K_M, f \\rangle = \\langle \\operatorname{DH}^T_M, \\left(\\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_\\alpha \\right) f \\rangle$$ for all $f \\in C_c^\\infty(\\mathfrak t^*_{>0})$, so that we can reduce the computation of averages over $\\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ directly to integrations with respect to the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure (cf.\u00a0proof of ).\n\n\\[finite union of regular chambers\\] It follows from and the discussion in that, on each (open) regular chamber, the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure also has a polynomial density, namely the partial derivative in the directions of the negative roots of the density of the Abelian measure. However, there could still be non-zero measure on the singular walls separating the regular chambers. If we would like to exclude this then we need to understand the smoothness properties of the Abelian density function in the vicinity of singular walls, or, equivalently, the nature of the term by which the polynomial density changes when crossing a singular wall. If this jump term vanishes to order at least $R$ on the wall, then the Abelian density function is at least $R$-times weakly differentiable in the vicinity of the wall, and therefore the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman density is also absolutely continuous there. This vanishing condition can be checked explicitly for each singular wall using the jump formula described in .\n\nIn case the vanishing condition is satisfied, the non-Abelian moment polytope $\\Delta_K(M)$ is equal to the closure of a finite union of regular chambers for the Abelian moment map: Indeed, on each regular chamber the density polynomial is either equal to zero, or it is non-zero on an open, dense subset.\n\nWe cannot resist giving an easy application of to the generalized Horn\u2019s problem: Here, the goal is to describe the sum of two coadjoint orbits $\\mathcal O_\\lambda + \\mathcal O_\\mu$ (Horn\u2019s original problem referred to coadjoint orbits of the special unitary group). In other words, one considers the diagonal action of $K$ on $\\mathcal O_\\lambda \\times \\mathcal O_\\mu$, which is Hamiltonian with moment map $(X,Y) \\mapsto X+Y$, and one would like to describe the associated moment polytope or Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure.\n\n\\[main theorem horn\\] Let $\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ and $\\mu \\in \\mathfrak t^*_+$. Then, $$\\operatorname{DH}^K_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda \\times \\mathcal O_\\mu} =\n    \\sum_{w \\in W} (-1)^{l(w)} \\delta_{w \\lambda} \\star \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\mu},$$ where $l(w)$ is the length of the Weyl group element $w$.\n\nClearly, since $T$ is Abelian, $$\\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda \\times \\mathcal O_\\mu} =\n    \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda} \\star \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\mu}.$$ Since $\\lambda + \\mu \\in \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$, is satisfied. Therefore, is applicable, and the assertion follows together with , $$\\operatorname{DH}^K_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda \\times \\mathcal O_\\mu} =\n    \\left( \\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\partial_{-\\alpha} \\right) \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\lambda} \\star \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\mu} =\n    \\sum_{w \\in W} (-1)^{l(w)} \\delta_{w \\lambda} \\star \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\mu}.\n    \\qedhere$$\n\nThe general case where both $\\lambda$ and $\\mu$ are contained in the boundary of the positive Weyl chamber can be treated as in [@dooleyrepkawildberger93] by taking limits. Of course we can also expand $\\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_\\mu}$ as an alternating sum of convolutions by using or its version for lower-dimensional coadjoint orbits [@berlinegetzlervergne03 Theorem 7.24].\n\nAlgorithms for Duistermaat\u2013Heckman Measures {#algorithms}\n===========================================\n\nIn this section we present two algorithms for computing Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures. Both algorithms are based on the derivative principle from , in that they first compute the Abelian measure and then take partial derivatives according to .\n\nThe first algorithm, the *Heckman algorithm*, is based on the Heckman formula by Guillemin, Lerman and Sternberg, which expresses the Abelian measure as an alternating sum of iterated convolutions of Heaviside measures. The density function of each such convolution is piecewise polynomial and can be evaluated inductively using recent work of Boysal and Vergne. While very useful for computing low-dimensional examples, the resulting algorithm is rather inefficient due to the large number of summands.\n\nOur second algorithm, the *single-summand algorithm*, is based on another formula for the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure in the case where $M$ is the projective space of an arbitrary finite-dimensional representation. It turns out that this formula is equivalent to evaluating a single iterated convolution of the above form (hence the name of the algorithm). It can therefore be computed in a similar way, but much more efficiently. Since by passing to the purified double the quantum marginal problem can always be reduced to the case where $M$ is a projective space (), this solves the problem of computing eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices in complete generality.\n\nHeckman Algorithm {#heckman}\n-----------------\n\nBefore stating the Heckman formula by Guillemin, Lerman and Sternberg, let us recall the following renormalization process as described in [@guilleminlermansternberg88]:\n\nSuppose that there are only finitely many fixed points of the action of the maximal torus $T$ on $M$. For each such fixed point $p \\in M^T$, consider the induced representation of $T$ on the tangent space $T_p M$. The weights of this representation are called isotropy weights and we can always choose a vector $\\gamma \\in \\mathfrak t^*$ which is non-orthogonal to all isotropy weights (for all tangent spaces). The process of multiplying by $-1$ those isotropy weights that have negative inner product with $\\gamma$ is then called *renormalization*, and the resulting weights are called renormalized weights. See for a discussion of the case where $M$ is a projective space and for examples.\n\n\\[abelian heckman\\] Suppose that there are only finitely many torus fixed points $p \\in M^T$. Denote by $n_p$ the number of isotropy weights in $T_p M$ that are multiplied by $-1$ during renormalization and by $\\hat\\omega_{p,1}, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_{p,n}$ the resulting renormalized weights. Then, $$\\operatorname{DH}^T_M = \\sum_{p \\in M^T} (-1)^{n_p} \\delta_{\\Phi_T(p)} \\star H_{\\hat\\omega_{p,1}} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{\\hat\\omega_{p,n}},$$ with $H_{\\hat\\omega}$ the Heaviside measure defined by $\\langle H_{\\hat\\omega}, f \\rangle = \\int_0^\\infty dt f(\\hat\\omega t)$.\n\nIn other words, the stationary phase approximation for the Fourier transform of an Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is exact. This generalizes the Harish-Chandra formula for coadjoint orbits , which we used to establish .\n\nObserve that each summand of the Heckman formula can be written as the push-forward of the standard Lebesgue measure $dt$ on ${\\mathbb R}^n_{\\geq 0}$ along a linear map of the form $\\hat P \\colon (t_k) \\mapsto \\sum_{k=1}^n t_k \\hat\\omega_k$, translated by $\\Phi_T(p)$, since $$\\label{convolution translation}\n  H_{\\hat\\omega_1} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{\\hat\\omega_n} =\n  {\\hat P}_*(H_{e_1} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{e_n}) =\n  {\\hat P}_*({\\left.dt\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{{\\mathbb R}^n_{\\geq 0}}}).$$ In a recent paper [@boysalvergne09], Boysal and Vergne have analyzed general push-forward measures of this form under the assumption that the vectors $\\hat\\omega_k$ span a proper convex cone (i.e., a convex cone of maximal dimension that does not contain any straight line). This ensures that the measure is locally finite and absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure on $\\mathfrak t^*$. This assumption is certainly satisfied for the renormalized isotropy weights occurring in the Heckman formula (by the very definition of renormalization and our assumption that the Abelian moment polytope has maximal dimension).\n\nLet us briefly review their results: It is well-known that the push-forward measure has a piecewise homogeneous polynomial density function of degree $n-r$. Here, the *chambers* are the connected components of the complement of the cones spanned by at most $r-1$ of the weights $(\\hat\\omega_k)$. Except for the unbounded chamber, they are open convex cones. *Walls* are by definition the convex cones spanned by $r-1$ linearly independent weights.[^1] Similarly to , if the common boundary of the closure of two chambers is of maximal dimension then this common boundary is a wall; moreover, every wall arises in this way. Note that the union of the walls is precisely the complement of the union of the chambers.[^2]\n\nLet $\\hat\\Delta_\\pm$ be two adjacent chambers which are separated by a wall $\\hat W$, and choose a normal vector $\\hat\\xi \\in \\mathfrak t^*$ pointing from $\\hat\\Delta_-$ to $\\hat\\Delta_+$. Order the weights such that precisely $\\hat\\omega_1, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_m$ lie on the linear hyperplane spanned by $\\hat W$. In the following, we shall freely identify differential forms and the measures induced by them. Denote by $d\\hat w$ the Lebesgue measure on the hyperplanes parallel to $\\hat W$, normalized in such a way that $$\\label{wall quotient measure cone}\n  d\\lambda = d\\hat w \\wedge d\\hat\\xi,$$ where $d\\hat\\xi$ is the pullback of the standard volume form of ${\\mathbb R}$ along the coordinate function $\\langle -, \\hat\\xi\\rangle$. Denote by $\\hat f_\\pm$ the homogeneous polynomials describing the density function $\\hat f$ on $\\hat\\Delta_\\pm$. Finally, consider the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^m_{\\geq 0}$ along the linear map $\\hat P_{\\hat W} \\colon (u_k) \\mapsto \\sum_{k=1}^m u_k \\hat\\omega_k$. Its density with respect to $d\\hat w$ is given by a single homogeneous polynomial on the wall $\\hat W$, since $\\hat W$ is always contained in the closure of a chamber for $\\hat P_{\\hat W}$. Denote by $\\hat f_{\\hat W}$ any polynomial function extending it to all of $\\mathfrak t^*$. Then the result of Boysal and Vergne is the following [@boysalvergne09 Theorem 1.1]: The jump of the density function across the wall is given by $$\\label{boysal vergne}\n    \\hat f_+(\\hat\\lambda) - \\hat f_-(\\hat\\lambda)\n  = {\\left.\\operatorname{Res}\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{z=0}} \\left(\n      \\hat f_{\\hat W}(\\partial_{\\hat x})\n      \\frac\n        {e^{\\langle \\hat\\lambda, {\\hat x} + z\\hat\\xi \\rangle}}\n        {\\prod_{k=m}^n \\langle \\hat\\omega_k, {\\hat x} + z \\hat\\xi \\rangle}\n    \\right)_{{\\hat x}=0},$$ where ${\\left.\\operatorname{Res}\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{z=0}} g = a_{-1}$ is the residue of a formal Laurent series $g = \\sum_k a_k z^k$. (The residue appears as part of an inversion formula for the Laplace transform.)\n\nIn the case where only a minimal number of weights lie on the linear hyperplane spanned by $\\hat W$ ($m=r-1$), the wall polynomial $\\hat f_{\\hat W}$ can be chosen as a constant, since the corresponding push-forward map is merely a change of coordinates:\n\n\\[minimal wall jump cones\\] Suppose that precisely $r-1$ weights $\\hat\\omega_1, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_{r-1}$ lie on $\\operatorname{span}{\\hat W}$. Then, $$\\hat f_{\\hat W}^{-1} \\equiv |d\\lambda\\left(\\hat\\omega_1, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_{r-1}, \\frac {\\hat\\xi} {{\\lVert\\hat\\xi\\rVert}^2}\\right)|.$$\n\nSince the map $\\hat P_{\\hat W} \\colon {\\mathbb R}^{r-1} \\rightarrow \\operatorname{span}\\hat W, (u_k) \\mapsto \\sum_{k=1}^{r-1} u_k \\hat\\omega_k$ along which we push forward is a linear isomorphism, the polynomial $\\hat f_{\\hat W}$ can be chosen as the constant of proportionality between the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^{r-1}$ and the measure $dw$. We can compute its value by comparing the volume of the parallelotope spanned by the $(\\hat\\omega_k)$ with respect to the two measure. For the former measure, this is of course one, while for the latter it follows from that $$d\\lambda(\\hat\\omega_1, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_{r-1}, \\hat\\xi) =\n    dw(\\hat\\omega_1, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_{r-1}) \\,{\\lVert\\hat\\xi\\rVert}^2.\n    \\qedhere$$\n\nThis immediately gives rise to the following inductive algorithm:\n\n\\[boysal vergne algorithm\\] The following algorithm computes the piecewise polynomial density of the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^n_{\\geq 0}$ along $(t_k) \\mapsto \\sum_{k=1}^n t_k \\hat\\omega_k$:\n\n1.  Start with the unbounded chamber, where $\\hat f \\equiv 0$.\n\n2.  Iteratively jump over walls $\\hat W$ separating the current chamber with an adjacent chamber:\n\n    1.  Denote by $\\hat\\omega_1, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_m$ the weights which lie on the hyperplane through $\\hat W$.\n\n    2.  If the wall is minimal ($m=r-1$), compute $\\hat f_{\\hat W}$ via .\n\n    3.  Otherwise, recursively apply to compute the piecewise polynomial density of the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^m_{\\geq 0}$ along $(u_k) \\mapsto \\sum_{k=1}^m u_k \\hat\\omega_k$.[^3] On $\\hat W$ itself, it is given by a single homogeneous polynomial. Choose any polynomial extension $\\hat f_{\\hat W}$ to all of $\\mathfrak t^*$.\n\n    4.  Compute the density on the adjacent chamber using .\n\nBy combining with the Heckman formula, we arrive at the following algorithm for computing Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures. We shall call it the *(Abelian) Heckman algorithm*.\n\n\\[abelian heckman algorithm\\] Under the assumptions and using the notation of , the following algorithm computes the piecewise polynomial density function of the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure:\n\n1.  Compute the density of each of the $|M^T|$ iterated convolutions $\\delta_{\\Phi_K(p)} \\star H_{\\hat\\omega_{p,1}} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{\\hat\\omega_{p,n}}$ using .\n\n2.  Form their alternating sum according to .\n\nThe non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure can then be computed via . By passing to its support, we can also determine the non-Abelian moment polytope (cf.\u00a0).\n\nThe algorithm as we have stated it assumes that the fixed-point data is part of the input. Let us describe it in the situations we are interested in:\n\n\\[fixed-point data projective space\\] Consider the projective space $M = {\\mathbb P}(V)$ associated with an arbitrary finite-dimensional, unitary $K$-representation $V$. Torus fixed points in $M$ correspond to weight vectors in $V$. Therefore, $M^T$ is finite if and only if all the weight spaces of $V$ are one-dimensional. If this is the case, let $V = \\bigoplus_{k=0}^n {\\mathbb C}v_k$ be the weight-space decomposition, with $v_k$ weight vectors of pairwise distinct weight $\\omega_k$, so that the torus fixed points are precisely the points $[v_0], \\ldots, [v_n] \\in M$. Then, *before renormalization*, the isotropy weights in $T_{[v_k]} M$ are given by the vectors $\\omega_l - \\omega_k$ for $l \\neq k$.\n\nNote that the representations associated with the pure-state quantum marginal problems displayed in indeed have one-dimensional weight spaces, so that is directly applicable: This is obvious for ${\\mathbb C}^{d_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_N}$ and can also be verified for $\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^d)$ and ${\\Lambda}^N({\\mathbb C}^d)$ (e.g., by observing that any single-row or single-column semistandard tableaux is already determined by its weight vector). However, other irreducible representations of $\\operatorname{SU}(d)$, which correspond to indistinguishable particles of more exotic statistics, typically have weight spaces of dimension larger than one [@fulton97].\n\n\\[heckman for coadjoint orbit reductions\\] Consider more generally the action of $T$ on a coadjoint $\\tilde K$-orbit $M = \\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}$ induced by a group homomorphism $\\varphi \\colon T \\rightarrow \\tilde T \\subseteq \\tilde K$. Even though this action might have infinitely many fixed points, there is an obvious way to write down an alternating sum formula for $\\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}}$: Note that it follows directly from that $$\\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}} =\n    \\pi_* \\operatorname{DH}^{\\tilde T}_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}},$$ where $\\pi = (d\\varphi)^*$ is the dual map $\\mathfrak {\\tilde t}^* \\rightarrow \\mathfrak t^*$. Therefore, we can simply take the Abelian Heckman formula for the $\\tilde T$-action (which is always applicable since the fixed point set of $\\tilde T$ is the Weyl orbit of $\\tilde\\lambda$, hence finite), and push forward each summand along $\\pi$. In the case of a maximal-dimensional coadjoint orbit and for a suitable choice of renormalization direction, the result is just the push-forward of the Harish-Chandra formula , $$\\label{heckman for maximal dimensional coadjoint orbit reductions}\n    \\operatorname{DH}^T_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}} = \\sum_{\\tilde w \\in \\tilde W} (-1)^{l(\\tilde w)} \\delta_{\\pi(\\tilde w \\tilde\\lambda)} \\star H_{-\\pi(\\tilde \\alpha_1)} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{-\\pi(\\tilde \\alpha_{\\tilde R})},$$ with $\\tilde\\alpha_1, \\ldots, \\tilde\\alpha_{\\tilde R}$ the positive roots of $\\tilde K$. The formula for lower-dimensional coadjoint orbits can be obtained by using [@berlinegetzlervergne03 Theorem 7.24] instead of .\n\nIn particular, this approach allows the computation of the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for arbitrary setups of the quantum marginal problem by an obvious variant of .\n\nWhile and the variant described in are useful for computing low-dimensional examples, any approach relying on the Heckman formula has the major problem that the number of summands in the Heckman formula is typically very large (e.g., it is exponential in the number of distinguishable particles or fermions). Moreover, even though the Boysal\u2013Vergne algorithm computes the density of a single summand chamber-by-chamber, this is less straightforward for the alternating sum, where all summands have to be evaluated in parallel. In below we will therefore derive an algorithm which does not suffer from these problems.\n\nThere is also a non-Abelian Heckman formula due to Guillemin and Prato [@guilleminprato90] (which suffers from the same problems). It can be deduced directly from the Abelian one by applying the derivative principle:\n\n\\[non-abelian heckman\\] Suppose that there are only finitely many torus fixed points $p \\in M^T$ and that in each tangent space $T_p M$ each positive root $\\alpha > 0$ or its negative occurs as an isotropy weight. Denote by $n_p$ the number of isotropy weights in $T_p M$ that are multiplied by $-1$ during renormalization. For each positive root $\\alpha > 0$ and in each $T_p M$, remove either $\\alpha$ or $-\\alpha$ from the list of renormalized isotropy weights. Denote the remaining weights by $\\hat\\omega_{p,1}, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_{p,n-R}$, and let $k_p$ be the number of negative roots that have been removed. Then, $$\\operatorname{DH}^K_M = \\sum_{p \\in M^T} (-1)^{n_p+k_p} \\delta_{\\Phi_K(p)} \\star H_{\\hat\\omega_{p,1}} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{\\hat\\omega_{p,n-R}} \\Big|_{\\mathfrak t^*_+}.$$ In particular, the second assumption is satisfied when the moment map $\\Phi_K$ sends each torus fixed points to the interior of a Weyl chamber.\n\nSince $\\partial_{\\hat\\omega} H_{\\pm{\\hat\\omega}} = \\pm\\delta_0$ (cf.\u00a0the proof of ), the asserted formula follows at once by combining with .\n\nOnly the final remark needs elaboration: As observed by Guillemin and Prato, the assumption that $\\Phi_K(p) \\in W \\cdot \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ implies that the $K$-stabilizer at each fixed point $p$ is precisely $T$, so that the infinitesimal action of $K$ generates a copy of $\\mathfrak k / \\mathfrak t$ inside the tangent space $T_p M$. Therefore, at any fixed point $p$, each positive root $\\alpha > 0$ or its negative occurs as an isotropy weight.\n\nThis gives rise to an obvious non-Abelian variant of :\n\n\\[non-abelian heckman algorithm\\] Under the assumptions and using the notation of , the following algorithm computes the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure:\n\n1.  Compute the $|M^T|$ iterated convolutions $\\delta_{\\Phi_K(p)} \\star H_{\\hat\\omega_{p,1}} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{\\hat\\omega_{p,n-R}}$ using (see ).\n\n2.  Form their alternating sum according to .\n\nBy passing to its support, we can also determine the non-Abelian moment polytope (cf.\u00a0).\n\n\\[subtle remark\\] There is a slight subtlety involved with the formulation of step (1) of : In case the renormalized isotropy weights $\\hat\\omega_{p,1}, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_{p,n-R}$ in some $T_p M$ do not span all of $\\mathfrak t^*$, the corresponding iterated convolution is of course not absolutely continuous with respect to $d\\lambda$, and cannot be applied directly (see, e.g., the first proof of ). Instead, we need to replace $\\mathfrak t^*$ by the span of the $\\hat\\omega_{p,k}$ and apply accordingly.\n\nIn we will use both the Abelian and the non-Abelian version of the Heckman algorithm to compute the eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a random pure state of two qubits () and of $N$ bosonic qubits (), as well as of random mixed states of two qubits ().\n\nSingle-Summand Algorithm for Projective Space {#projective space}\n---------------------------------------------\n\nWe will now derive explicit formulas for the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure associated with a projective space, $M = {\\mathbb P}(V)$, where $V$ is a $(n+1)$-dimensional unitary representation of $K$, and where $M$ is equipped with the Fubini\u2013Study symplectic form $\\omega_\\text{FS}$, normalized in such a way that its Liouville measure is equal to $\\frac 1 {n!}$. The $K$-action is Hamiltonian, and a canonical moment map is given by [@kirwan84] $$\\label{projective space non-abelian moment map}\n  \\Phi_K \\colon\n  {\\mathbb P}(V) \\rightarrow \\mathfrak k^*, \\quad\n  [v] \\mapsto \\left( X \\mapsto \\frac 1 i  \\frac {\\langle v, X v \\rangle} {\\langle v, v \\rangle} \\right).$$\n\nWe start by decomposing the representation $V$ into one-dimensional weight spaces, $V = \\bigoplus_{k=0}^n {\\mathbb C}v_k$, where $v_k$ is a weight vector of weight $\\omega_k$ (repetitions allowed). In the corresponding homogeneous coordinates, the Abelian moment map has the following simple form, $$\\label{projective space abelian moment map}\n  \\Phi_T \\colon {\\mathbb P}(V) \\rightarrow \\mathfrak t^*, \\quad\n  [z_0 : \\ldots : z_n] \\mapsto \\frac {\\sum_{k=0}^n |z_k|^2 \\omega_k} {\\sum_{k=0}^n |z_k|^2},$$ and it is straightforward to see that the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure can be written as the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on the standard simplex along a linear map:\n\n\\[projective space abelian via standard simplex\\] We have $$\\operatorname{DH}^T_{{\\mathbb P}(V)} = P_*({\\left.dp\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\Delta_n}}).$$ Here, $P$ is the linear map ${\\mathbb R}^{n+1} \\rightarrow \\mathfrak t^*, (t_k) \\mapsto \\sum_k t_k \\omega_k$, and $dp$ is Lebesgue measure on the affine hyperplane ${\\mathbf H}:= \\{ (t_k) : \\sum_k t_k = 1 \\} \\subseteq {\\mathbb R}^{n+1}$, normalized in such a way that the standard simplex $\\Delta_n :=   \\{ (p_k) : p_k \\geq 0, \\sum_{k=0}^n p_k = 1 \\}$ has measure $\\frac 1 {n!}$.\n\nThe Fubini-Study measure is the push-forward of the usual round measure on the unit sphere $S^{2n+1} \\cong \\{ (z_0,\\ldots,z_n) : {\\lvertz_0\\rvert}^2 + \\ldots + {\\lvertz_n\\rvert}^2 = 1 \\} \\subseteq V$ along the quotient map $(z_0,\\ldots,z_n) \\mapsto [z_0:\\ldots:z_n]$, normalized to total volume $\\frac 1 {n!}$. On the other hand, the round measure on the unit sphere also induces Lebesgue measure on the standard simplex by pushing forward along the map $(z_0,\\ldots,z_n) \\mapsto (|z_0|^2,\\ldots,|z_n|^2)$, since $dx dy = d(r^2) d\\theta$ in polar coordinates. The claim follows from comparing with $P \\colon (t_k) \\mapsto \\sum_{k=0}^n t_k \\omega_k$.\n\ncan also be established by applying the Heckman formula as described in .\n\nDenote by $dp/d\\lambda$ a differential form corresponding to Lebesgue measure on the affine subspaces $P^{-1}(\\lambda) \\cap {\\mathbf H}$, normalized in such a way that $$\\label{quotient form polytope}\n  dp = dp/d\\lambda \\wedge P^*(d\\lambda)$$ when restricted to the affine hyperplane ${\\mathbf H}$.\n\n\\[density in polytope picture\\] The density function $f \\colon \\mathfrak t^* \\rightarrow [0,\\infty)$ of the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is given by $$f(\\lambda) = \\operatorname{vol}\\, \\{ p_k \\geq 0 : \\sum_{k=0}^n p_k \\omega_k = \\lambda, \\sum_{k=0}^n p_k = 1 \\},$$ where the volume is measured with respect to the measure induced by $dp/d\\lambda$ on $P^{-1}(\\lambda) \\cap {\\mathbf H}$.\n\nFor all test functions $g \\in C_b(\\mathfrak t^*)$, we have $$\\langle \\operatorname{DH}^T_{{\\mathbb P}(V)}, g \\rangle =\n    \\int_{\\Delta_n} dp \\, g(P(p)) =\n    \\int_{\\mathfrak t^*} d\\lambda \\left( \\int_{P^{-1}(\\lambda) \\cap \\Delta_n} dp/d\\lambda \\right) g(\\lambda),$$ by using and Fubini\u2019s theorem for the fibration ${\\left.P\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{{\\mathbf H}}}$ [@guilleminsternberg77 pp.\u00a0307].\n\nThat is, the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman density measures the volume of a family of convex polytopes parametrized by $\\mathfrak t^*$. This is also true for the density of the iterated convolutions studied in (see below). There are exact numerical schemes that can be used to compute the polynomial density functions on each regular chamber which have already been implemented in software packages, e.g., the parametric extension of Barvinok\u2019s algorithm [@barvinok93] described in [@verdoolaegeseghirbeylsetal07; @verdoolaegebruynooghe08]. We will not pursue this route any further. However, in we will show that its \u201cquantized\u201d counterpart gives rise to an efficient way of computing the corresponding representation-theoretic quantities (in particular, the Kronecker coefficients).\n\nIn the following, we will instead describe a combinatorial algorithm based on the same principles as our Heckman algorithm. Before doing so, let us determine explicitly the regular chambers for the Abelian moment map, i.e., the connected components of the set of regular values of $\\Phi_T$, each on which the measure is given by a polynomial. For this, we define the *support* of a point $p = [v] \\in {\\mathbb P}(V)$ as the set of weights which contribute to the weight-space decomposition of $v$, $$\\operatorname{supp}p := \\{ \\omega_k : z_k \\neq 0, p = [z_0 : \\ldots : z_n] \\}.$$ The significance of this definition is that the support of a point already fully determines whether it is regular or singular:\n\n\\[regular points\\] Let $p \\in P(V)$. Then $p$ is a regular point of the Abelian moment map if and only if $$\\operatorname{span}\\{ \\omega - \\omega' : \\omega, \\omega' \\in \\operatorname{supp}p \\} = \\mathfrak t^*.$$\n\nIt follows readily from the definition of the moment map that a point $p$ is regular if and only if $\\mathfrak t_p$, the Lie algebra of its stabilizer, is trivial [@guilleminsternberg82 Lemma 2.1]. But $\\mathfrak t_p$ is already determined by the support of $p$: $$\\mathfrak t_p = \\{ X \\in \\mathfrak t: \\omega(X) = \\omega'(X) \\quad \\forall \\omega, \\omega' \\in \\operatorname{supp}p \\}$$ This is the annihilator of the linear span in the statement of the lemma.\n\nWe arrive at the following characterization of the set of singular values of the Abelian moment map:\n\n\\[singular values\\] The set of singular values of $\\Phi_T$ is the union of all convex hulls of subsets containing (at most) $r$ weights, $$\\bigcup_{\\#I = r} \\operatorname{conv}\\{ \\omega_k : k \\in I \\} =\n    \\bigcup_{\\#I \\leq r} \\operatorname{conv}\\{ \\omega_k : k \\in I \\}.$$\n\nIt is clear from and that the convex hull of any subset of weights of cardinality at most $r$ consists of singular values. The converse follows from Carath\u00e9odory\u2019s theorem.\n\nIn particular, the singular walls are convex hulls of $r$ weights in general position. From this description we can easily determine the regular chambers. Observe again that there is a single unbounded regular chamber.\n\nWe will now use the result of Boysal and Vergne described in to derive intrinsic formulas for the jumps of the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman density when crossing a singular wall. Recall that the measures they consider are push-forwards of Lebesgue measure on the convex cone ${\\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\\geq 0}$ rather than of Lebesgue measure on the standard simplex $\\Delta_n$, which is of course the intersection of ${\\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\\geq 0}$ with the affine hyperplane ${\\mathbf H}= \\{ (t_k) : \\sum_{k=0}^n t_k = 1 \\}$. It is however straightforward to translate between both pictures: In order to avoid confusion, we shall use the same convention as in that hatted quantities correspond to the Boysal\u2013Vergne picture. Let us consider the \u201cextended\u201d weights $\\hat\\omega_k := (\\omega_k,1) \\in \\mathfrak t^* \\oplus {\\mathbb R}$ ($k=0,\\ldots,n$) together with the corresponding linear map $$\\hat P \\colon {\\mathbb R}^{n+1} \\rightarrow \\mathfrak t^* \\oplus {\\mathbb R}, \\quad (t_k) \\mapsto \\sum_{k=0}^n t_k \\hat\\omega_k = (P(t_0, \\ldots, t_n), \\sum_{k=0}^n t_k).$$ Denote by $dt$ standard Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^{n+1}$ and equip $\\mathfrak t^* \\oplus {\\mathbb R}$ with the measure $d\\hat\\lambda = d\\lambda ds$, where $ds$ is standard Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}$. Choose a differential form $dt/d\\hat\\lambda$ inducing Lebesgue measure on the fibers of $\\hat P$, normalized in such a way that $$\\label{quotient form cone}\n  dt = dt/d\\hat\\lambda \\wedge {\\hat P}^*(d\\hat\\lambda) = dt/d\\hat\\lambda \\wedge P^*(d\\lambda) \\wedge (dt_0 + \\ldots + dt_N).$$ Then one can establish just as in the proof of the following formula for the density function of the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\\geq 0}$ along $\\hat P$ with respect to $d\\hat\\lambda = d\\lambda ds$, $$\\label{single summand density}\n  \\hat f(\\lambda, s) = \\operatorname{vol}\\, \\{ t_k \\geq 0 : \\sum_{k=0}^n t_k \\omega_k = \\lambda, \\sum_{k=0}^n t_k = s \\},$$ where the volume is measured with respect to $dt/d\\hat\\lambda$. But comparing and and noting that $dt = dp \\wedge (dt_0 + \\ldots + dt_N)$ on ${\\mathbf H}$, we see that in fact $dt/d\\hat\\lambda$ and $dp/d\\lambda$ induce the same measure on the fibers $P^{-1}(\\lambda) = \\hat P^{-1}(\\lambda, 1)$, so that $$\\label{density transfer eqn}\n  \\operatorname{DH}^T_{{\\mathbb P}(V)} =\n  f(\\lambda) \\, d\\lambda =\n  \\hat f(\\lambda, 1) \\, d\\lambda.$$ This shows that we can work equivalently in the convex cone picture of Boysal and Vergne.[^4]\n\nWe shall now describe the jump formula. Let $W$ be a singular wall separating regular chambers $\\Delta_\\pm \\subseteq \\mathfrak t^*$, and choose a normal vector $\\xi \\in \\mathfrak t^*$ pointing from $\\Delta_-$ to $\\Delta_+$. Order the weights such that precisely $\\omega_0, \\ldots, \\omega_{m-1}$ lie on $W$. Denote by $dw$ Lebesgue measure on the hyperplanes parallel to $W$, normalized in such a way that $$\\label{wall quotient measure polytope}\n  d\\lambda = dw \\wedge d\\xi,$$ where $d\\xi$ is the pullback of the standard volume form of ${\\mathbb R}$ along the coordinate function $\\langle -, \\xi\\rangle$. Denote by $f_\\pm$ the polynomials describing the density function $f$ on the regular chambers $\\Delta_\\pm$. Finally, consider the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the action of $T$ on the projective space over $V_W = \\bigoplus_{k=0}^{m-1} {\\mathbb C}v_k$, the direct sum of the weight spaces corresponding to the weights which lie on the hyperplane through $W$. Its density with respect to $dw$ is given by a single polynomial on the singular wall $W$, since $W$ is always contained in the closure of a regular chamber for ${\\mathbb P}(V_W)$. Choose any polynomial function $f_W$ extending it to all of $\\mathfrak t^*$.\n\n\\[wall jump abelian\\] The jump of the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman density across the singular wall is given by $$f_+(\\lambda) -f_-(\\lambda)\n  = {\\left.\\operatorname{Res}\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{z=0}} \\left(\n      \\hat f_{\\hat W}(\\partial_x, \\partial_y)\n      \\frac\n        {e^{z \\langle \\lambda - \\omega_0, \\xi \\rangle + \\langle \\lambda, x \\rangle + y}}\n        {\\prod_{k=m}^n z \\langle \\omega_k - \\omega_0, \\xi \\rangle + \\langle \\omega_k, x \\rangle + y}\n    \\right)_{x=0, y=0}.$$ Here, $\\hat f_{\\hat W}(\\lambda,s) = s^{m-r} f_W(\\frac \\lambda s)$ is the homogeneous \u201cextension\u201d of $f_W$ to $\\mathfrak t^* \\oplus {\\mathbb R}$.\n\nThe convex cones $\\hat\\Delta_\\pm$ through $\\Delta_\\pm \\times \\{1\\}$ are chambers in the sense of Boysal and Vergne. They are separated by a wall $\\hat W$, namely the convex cone through $W \\times \\{1\\}$. Note that $\\hat\\xi = (\\xi,-\\braket{\\omega_0,\\xi})$ is a normal vector to $\\hat W$. Denote by $\\hat f_\\pm$ the homogeneous polynomials describing the density function of the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\\geq 0}$ along $\\hat P$. It is clear that $d\\hat w = ds \\wedge dw$ induces Lebesgue measure on $\\hat W$ and that it is normalized in such a way that $d\\hat\\lambda = d\\hat w \\wedge d\\hat\\xi$. By and the jump formula of Boysal and Vergne, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f_+(\\lambda) - f_-(\\lambda)\n  = \\hat f_+(\\lambda, 1) - \\hat f_-(\\lambda, 1)\n  = {\\left.\\operatorname{Res}\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{z=0}} \\left(\n      \\hat f_{\\hat W}(\\partial_{\\hat x})\n      \\frac\n        {e^{z \\langle (\\lambda, 1), \\hat x + z \\hat \\xi \\rangle}}\n        {\\prod_{k=m}^n \\langle \\hat\\omega_k, \\hat x + z \\hat\\xi \\rangle}\n    \\right)_{\\hat x=0}.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ The polynomial $\\hat f_{\\hat W}$ as defined above agrees with its original definition in , since it is a homogeneous polynomial and can thus be reconstructed from $f_W$, which by is its restriction to the slice $\\mathfrak t^* \\times \\{1\\}$, by the formula given above. Writing $\\hat x = (x,y) \\in \\mathfrak t^* \\oplus {\\mathbb R}$ and expanding the hatted quantities, we arrive at the assertion.\n\nAs in , the case where only a minimal number of weights lie on the affine hyperplane through $W$ is particularly simple to evaluate:\n\n\\[minimal wall jump constant polytope\\] Suppose that precisely $r$ weights $\\omega_0, \\ldots, \\omega_{r-1}$ lie on the affine hyperplane through $W$. Then, $$\\hat f_{\\hat W}^{-1} \\equiv f_W^{-1} \\equiv |d\\lambda\\left(\\omega_1-\\omega_0, \\ldots, \\omega_{r-1}-\\omega_0, \\frac{\\xi}{{\\lVert\\xi\\rVert}^2}\\right)|.$$\n\nWe argue as in the proof of : In view of and the minimality assumption, the map $(q_k) \\mapsto \\sum_{k=0}^{r-1} q_k \\omega_k$ along which we push forward is an isomorphism, and $f_W$ is equal to the constant of proportionality between the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbf H}$ (normalized in such a way that the standard simplex has measure $\\tfrac 1 {d!}$) and the measure $dw$. We can compute this constant by comparing the volume of the parallelotope spanned by the $(\\omega_k)$: For the former measure this constant is one (by its very normalization), while for the latter it follows from that $$d\\lambda(\\omega_1-\\omega_0, \\ldots, \\omega_{r-1}-\\omega_0, \\xi) = d\\omega(\\omega_1-\\omega_0, \\ldots, \\omega_{r-1}-\\omega_0) \\,{\\lVert\\xi\\rVert}^2. \\qedhere$$\n\nThese results give rise to the following inductive algorithm for computing the Abelian and non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure of a projective space. We will call it the *single-summand algorithm*, since in view of it amounts to computing a push-forward measure that is equivalent to a single summand of the Abelian Heckman formula (cf.\u00a0).\n\n\\[projective space algorithm\\] The following algorithm computes the piecewise polynomial density function of the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure of the projective space ${\\mathbb P}(V)$:\n\n1.  Start with the unbounded regular chamber, where $f \\equiv 0$.\n\n2.  Iteratively jump over singular walls $W$ separating the current regular chamber with an adjacent regular chamber:\n\n    1.  Denote by $\\omega_0, \\ldots, \\omega_{m-1}$ the weights which lie on the hyperplane through $W$.\n\n    2.  If the wall is minimal ($m=r$), compute $f_W$ via .\n\n    3.  Otherwise, recursively apply to compute the piecewise polynomial density of the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure of ${\\mathbb P}(V_W)$, where $V_W = \\bigoplus_{k=0}^{m-1} {\\mathbb C}v_k$ is the direct sum of the weight spaces for the weights in (a).[^5] On $W$ itself, it is given by a single polynomial. Choose any polynomial extension $f_W$ to all of $\\mathfrak t^*$.\n\n    4.  Compute the density on the adjacent chamber using .\n\nThe non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure can then be computed via . By passing to its support, we can also determine the non-Abelian moment polytope (cf.\u00a0).\n\n\\[complete solution\\] In view of and and by passing to the purified double (), solves the problem of computing the eigenvalue distribution of reduced density matrices in complete generality.\n\nWe conclude this section by explicitly stating the Abelian and non-Abelian jump formula for the case where only a minimal number of weights lie on the affine hyperplane through the wall. They will be used later for computing examples.\n\n\\[minimal wall jump abelian\\] Suppose that precisely $r$ weights $\\omega_0, \\ldots, \\omega_{r-1}$ lie on the affine hyperplane through the singular wall $W$. Then the jump of the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman density across the wall is given by $$f_+(\\lambda) - f_-(\\lambda) =\n    f_W\n    \\left( \\prod_{k=r}^n \\langle \\omega_k - \\omega_0, \\xi \\rangle \\right)^{-1}\n    \\frac{\\langle \\lambda - \\omega_0, \\xi \\rangle^{n-r}}{(n-r)!},$$ where $f_W$ is the constant from .\n\nThis follows immediately from by pulling out the constant $f_W$, setting $x = y = 0$ and evaluating the residue at $z=0$.\n\nThe non-Abelian formula follows directly by applying :\n\n\\[minimal wall jump non-abelian\\] Suppose that precisely $r$ weights $\\omega_0, \\ldots, \\omega_{r-1}$ lie on the affine hyperplane through the singular wall $W$, and that $n-r \\geq R$, so that the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure of ${\\mathbb P}(V)$ is absolutely continuous in the vicinity of $W$. Denote by $f^K_\\pm$ the polynomials describing its density on the regular chambers. Then the jump across the wall is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f^K_+(\\lambda) - f^K_-(\\lambda)\n    = f_W\n    \\left( \\prod_{k=r}^n \\langle \\omega_k - \\omega_0, \\xi \\rangle \\right)^{-1}\n    \\left( \\prod_{\\alpha > 0}  - \\langle \\alpha, \\xi \\rangle \\right)\n    \\frac{\\langle \\lambda - \\omega_0, \\xi \\rangle^{n-r-R}}{(n-r-R)!},\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where $f_W$ is the constant from .\n\nhas already been established in [@guilleminlermansternberg88], where the authors also envisaged an algorithm similar to our Heckman algorithm. They did however not have a general jump formula such as at their avail. Instead, they had to resort to an inexact formula which in general only holds in highest order (in the distance to the wall).\n\nExamples\n========\n\nIn this section we illustrate our algorithms by computing some eigenvalue distributions of reduced density matrices. The global quantum states will always be chosen according to one of the invariant probability measures described in . Many of our examples will involve *qubits*, i.e., quantum systems modeled by two-dimensional Hilbert spaces, so that the algorithms can be nicely visualized. But of course our algorithms can be used to determine the eigenvalue distributions for arbitrary instances of the quantum marginal problem (see ).\n\nPure States of Multiple Qubits {#pure states qubits}\n------------------------------\n\nWe start by considering pure states of $N$ qubits, where $K = \\operatorname{SU}(2)^N$ acts on $M = {\\mathbb P}(({\\mathbb C}^2)^{\\otimes N})$ by tensor products (cf.\u00a0). It will be convenient to identify $\\mathfrak t^* \\cong {\\mathbb R}^N$ in such a way that the positive Weyl chamber corresponds to the cone ${\\mathbb R}^N_{\\geq 0}$ and the fundamental weights to the standard basis vectors $e_j = (\\delta_{j,k})$ ($k=1,\\ldots,N$). That is, if $\\lambda = (\\lambda^{(j)}) \\in \\mathfrak t^*$ then we will by slight abuse of notation identify $\\lambda^{(j)}$ with the scalar $i(\\lambda^{(j)}_1 - \\lambda^{(j)}_2) =$ $2 i \\lambda^{(j)}_1$. It follows that $d\\lambda$ is simply the usual Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^N$, that the symplectic volume polynomial is given by $p_K(\\lambda) = \\lambda^{(1)} \\cdots \\lambda^{(N)}$, and that the positive roots are $2 e_1, \\ldots, 2 e_N$ (cf.\u00a0 and ). Moreover, amounts to assigning to a point $(\\lambda^{(j)}) \\in {\\mathbb R}^N$ the tuple $(\\rho_1,\\ldots,\\rho_N)$ of diagonal density matrices acting on ${\\mathbb C}^2$, where $\\rho_j$ has maximal eigenvalue $\\hat\\lambda^{(j)}_{\\max} = \\frac 1 2 + i \\lambda^{(j)}_1 = \\tfrac {1+\\lambda^{(j)}} 2$.\n\nWe first discuss in detail the toy example of $N=2$ qubits, demonstrating both the non-Abelian Heckman algorithm and the single-summand algorithm.\n\n$$\\begin{tikzpicture}\n      \\draw[help lines] (-1.3,-1.3) grid (1.3,1.3);\n      \\draw[->] (-1.6,0) -- (1.6,0) node[right] {\\tiny $\\lambda^{(1)}$};\n      \\draw[->] (0,-1.6) -- (0,1.6) node[left] {\\tiny $\\lambda^{(2)}$};\n      \\draw[fill=gray,opacity=0.3] (1,1) -- (-1,1) -- (-1,-1) -- (1,-1) -- (1,1);\n      \\draw[very thick] (1,1) -- (-1,1);\n      \\draw[very thick] (1,-1) -- (-1,-1);\n      \\draw[very thick] (1,-1) -- (1,1);\n      \\draw[very thick] (-1,-1) -- (-1,1);\n      \\draw[very thick] (1,1) -- (-1,-1);\n      \\draw[very thick] (-1,1) -- (1,-1);\n      \\draw(1,1) node[below right] {\\tiny $(1,1)$};\n      \\draw(1,-1) node[below right] {\\tiny $(1,-1)$};\n      \\draw(-1,1) node[below left] {\\tiny $(-1,1)$};\n      \\draw(-1,-1) node[below left] {\\tiny $(-1,-1)$};\n    \\end{tikzpicture}$$\n\n\\[two qubits non-abelian\\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the action of $\\operatorname{SU}(2) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(2)$ on ${\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^2 \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^2)$ is given by $$\\langle \\operatorname{DH}^{\\operatorname{SU}(2) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(2)}_{{\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^2 \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^2)}, f \\rangle =\n    \\frac 1 2 \\int_0^1 f(t,t) dt,$$ i.e., by a one-dimensional Lebesgue measure supported on the diagonal between the origin and $(1,1)$.\n\nThe four fixed points of the action correspond to the standard basis vectors $e_j \\otimes e_k$ ($j,k=1,2$), which are weight vectors of weight $(\\pm 1, \\pm 1)$ using the conventions fixed above (the vertices of the grey rectangle in ). Let us choose the direction $\\gamma = (-2,-1)$ for renormalization. After removal of the positive and negative roots, $(\\pm 2,0)$ and $(0,\\pm 2)$, only a single renormalized isotropy weight remains at each fixed point (cf.\u00a0). Therefore, shows that the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is given by the restriction to the positive Weyl chamber of $$\\delta_{(1,1)} \\star H_{(-2,-2)}\n    - \\delta_{(1,-1)} \\star H_{(-2,2)}\n    + \\delta_{(-1,1)} \\star H_{(-2,2)}\n    - \\delta_{(-1,-1)} \\star H_{(-2,-2)}.$$ Only the first summand contributes to the positive Weyl chamber, and its restriction is given precisely by the formula displayed above (cf.\u00a0).\n\nNote that the non-Abelian wall jump formula () is not directly applicable, since $n-r \\not\\geq R$. Indeed, as we have seen above, the non-Abelian measure does not have a Lebesgue density, since it is concentrated on the diagonal.\n\nTherefore, we will follow , which uses the Abelian wall jump formula, and afterwards takes partial derivatives in direction of the negative roots according to : The decomposition of $\\mathfrak t^*$ into regular chambers is indicated in . We start in the unbounded chamber, where the density is equal to the zero polynomial and cross the horizontal singular wall at the top. Evaluating the Abelian jump formula (; say, with $\\omega_0 = (1,1)$ and $\\xi = (0,-1)$), we find that the density polynomial on the upper regular chamber is equal to $\\frac 1 8 (1 - \\lambda^{(2)})$. Next, we cross the diagonal singular wall separating the upper and the right-hand side regular chamber. Using the Abelian jump formula once again, we see that the density polynomial changes by $\\frac 1 8 (\\lambda^{(2)} - \\lambda^{(1)})$. Therefore, the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure has the following piecewise polynomial density on the positive Weyl chamber: $$\\frac 1 8 \\left( 1 - \\max(\\lambda^{(1)}, \\lambda^{(2)}) \\right)$$ Taking partial derivatives in the direction of the negative roots, $(-2,0)$ and $(0,-2)$, we arrive at the measure asserted above.\n\n\\[two qubits marginals\\] The joint distribution ${\\mathbf P}_{\\operatorname{eig}}$ of the maximal eigenvalues of the reduced density matrices of a randomly-chosen pure quantum state of two qubits is given by $$\\langle {\\mathbf P}_{\\operatorname{eig}}, f \\rangle = 24 \\int_{\\frac 1 2}^1 f(s, s) \\left( s - \\frac 1 2 \\right)^2 ds,$$ for all test functions $f(\\hat\\lambda^{(1)}_{\\max}, \\hat\\lambda^{(2)}_{\\max})$.\n\nAccording to , multiply the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure by the symplectic volume polynomial $p_{\\operatorname{SU}(2) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(2)}(\\lambda) = \\lambda^{(1)} \\lambda^{(2)}$, divide by $\\frac 1 {3!}$, the volume of ${\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^2 \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^2)$. Finally, push forward along $(\\lambda^{(j)}) \\mapsto (\\hat\\lambda^{(j)}_{\\max} = \\tfrac {1+\\lambda^{(j)}} 2)$.\n\nThis eigenvalue distribution is in fact known more generally for bipartite pure states chosen at random [@lloydpagels88; @zyczkowskisommers01]. We will later show how to compute its generalization using the techniques of this paper ().\n\nFor higher tensor powers, evaluating the Heckman formula quickly becomes unwieldy. However, it can still be used to compute the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure locally:\n\n\\[n qubits local\\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the action of $\\operatorname{SU}(2)^N$ on ${\\mathbb P}(({\\mathbb C}^2)^{\\otimes N})$ is on the closures of the regular chambers that contain the vertex $(1,\\ldots,1)$ given by the convolution product $$\\delta_{(1,\\ldots,1)} \\star H_{\\omega_1} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{\\omega_{2^N-N-1}},$$ where $\\{ \\omega_k \\}$ is the set of weights of the form $(-2,\\ldots,-2,0,\\ldots,0)$ (at least two non-zero entries) as well as their $S_N$-permutations.\n\nIf we renormalize with respect to the direction $\\gamma \\approx (-1,\\ldots,-1)$ then just as in the first proof of only a single summand in the non-Abelian Heckman formula contributes in the vicinity of the vertex $(1,\\ldots,1)$ and, moreover, this summand is of the above form: Indeed, the weights $\\{ \\omega_k \\}$ are precisely the isotropy weights with the negative roots removed (cf.\u00a0). Since the density function of $\\operatorname{DH}^K_M$ is polynomial on each regular chamber adjacent to the vertex, we can extend the local formula to their closures.\n\nIt is in fact easy to see that the domain of validity of this formula is the intersection of the half-space $$\\left\\{ \\lambda : \\sum_{j=1}^N \\lambda^{(j)} \\geq N-2 \\right\\}$$ with the positive Weyl chamber (the regular chambers not adjacent to $(1,\\ldots,1)$ lie in the complement of this half-space).\n\ngives a local description of the non-Abelian moment polytope, namely by the cone based at $(1,\\ldots,1)$ and spanned by the rays with direction vectors $\\{\\omega_k\\}$. By convexity, its intersection with the positive Weyl chamber is an outer approximation to the moment polytope.\n\nLet us specialize to the case $N=3$: Here, precisely the rays with the direction vectors $(-2,-2,0)$, $(-2,0,-2)$ and $(0,-2,-2)$ are extremal. Their intersection with the positive Weyl chamber has to be contained in the non-Abelian moment polytope: Otherwise, there would be additional vertices in the interior of the positive Weyl chamber \u2014 but only $(1,1,1)$ is the image of a torus fixed point. Since also the origin is contained in the moment polytope (the Greenberger\u2013Horne\u2013Zeilinger state, $[\\psi] = [e_1 \\otimes e_1 \\otimes e_1 + e_2 \\otimes e_2 \\otimes e_2]$, is a preimage of the origin [@greenbergerhornezeilinger89]), we conclude that the convex hull $$\\operatorname{conv}\\{ (0,0,0), (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1), (1,1,1) \\}$$ is an inner approximation to the moment polytope. Both approximations are in fact equal and therefore describe the moment polytope precisely (). Inequalities characterizing the moment polytope for $N$ qubits have been determined in [@higuchisudberyszulc03].\n\n\\(O) at (0,0,0); (W) at (0.3333,0.3333,0.3333); (W1) at (1,0,0); (W2) at (0,1,0); (W3) at (0,0,1); (SEP) at (1,1,1);\n\n(-0.3,0,0) \u2013 (1.3,0,0); (0,-0.3,0) \u2013 (0,1.3,0); (0,0,-0.3) \u2013 (0,0,1.3); (1,-0.15,0) \u2013 (1,1.15,0); (-0.15,1,0) \u2013 (1.15,1,0); (1,1,-0.15) \u2013 (1,1,1.15);\n\n(-0.15,1,1) \u2013 (1.15,1,1); (0,-0.15,1) \u2013 (0,1.15,1); (0,1,-0.15) \u2013 (0,1,1.15);\n\n\\(W) \u2013 (W1); (W) \u2013 (W2); (W) \u2013 (W3); (W) \u2013 (O); (W) \u2013 (W1); (W) \u2013 (W2); (W) \u2013 (W3); (W) \u2013 (SEP); (O) \u2013 (W1) \u2013 (W2) \u2013 cycle; (SEP) \u2013 (W1) \u2013 (W2) \u2013 cycle; (SEP) \u2013 (W2) \u2013 (W3) \u2013 cycle; (O) \u2013 (W3) \u2013 (W1) \u2013 cycle; (SEP) \u2013 (W3) \u2013 (W1) \u2013 cycle;\n\n(W1) node\\[below\\][$(1,0,0)$]{}; (W2) node\\[left\\][$(0,1,0)$]{}; (W3) node\\[left\\][$(0,0,1)$]{}; (SEP) node\\[anchor=west\\][$(1,1,1)$]{}; (O) node\\[below left\\][$0$]{};\n\n\\[three qubits non-abelian density\\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the action of $\\operatorname{SU}(2)^3$ on ${\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^2 \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^2 \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^2)$ has the piecewise linear Lebesgue density $$\\begin{cases}\n      \\frac{1}{16} \\min \\lambda^{(j)} & \\text{in the lower pyramid},\\\\\n      \\frac{1}{32} \\left( 1 - \\sum_{j=1}^3 \\lambda^{(j)} + 2 \\min \\lambda^{(j)} \\right) & \\text{in the upper pyramid},\\\\\n      0 & \\text{otherwise}\n    \\end{cases}$$ (compare ).\n\nBy , the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is on the closures of the regular chambers containing $(1,1,1)$ given by the convolution $$\\delta_{(1,1,1)} \\star H_{(-2,-2,-2)} \\star H_{(-2,-2,0)} \\star H_{(-2,0,-2)} \\star H_{(0,-2,-2)}.$$ Using we can readily compute its density: $$\\begin{aligned}\n     &\\int_0^\\infty dt_1 \\cdots \\int_0^\\infty dt_4 \\, \\delta\\big({\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}1\\\\1\\\\1\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)} + t_1 {\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}-2\\\\-2\\\\-2\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)} + t_2 {\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}-2\\\\-2\\\\0\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)} + t_3 {\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}-2\\\\0\\\\-2\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)} + t_4 {\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}0\\\\-2\\\\-2\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)} - \\lambda\\big)\\\\\n     = &\\frac{1}{32} \\int_0^\\infty ds_1 \\int_{-\\infty}^\\infty ds_2 \\cdots \\int_{-\\infty}^\\infty ds_4 \\, {\\mathbf 1}_C(s_2,s_3,s_4) \\, \\delta\\big((1-s_1) {\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}1\\\\1\\\\1\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)} - {\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}s_2\\\\s_3\\\\s_4\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)} - \\lambda\\big)\\\\\n     = &\\frac{1}{32} \\int_0^\\infty ds_1 \\, {\\mathbf 1}_C\\big((1-s_1) {\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}1\\\\1\\\\1\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)} - \\lambda\\big)\\\\\n          = &\\frac{1}{32} \\max \\{ 0, 1 - \\sum_{j=1}^3 \\lambda^{(j)} + 2 \\min(\\lambda^{(j)}) \\},\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\mathbf 1}_C$ is the indicator function of the cone spanned by ${\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}1\\\\1\\\\0\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)}$, ${\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}1\\\\0\\\\1\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)}$, and ${\\left(\\begin{smallmatrix}0\\\\1\\\\1\\end{smallmatrix}\\right)}$, i.e., $${\\mathbf 1}_C(a,b,c) =\n    \\begin{cases}\n      1 &\\text{ if } a+b \\geq c \\text{ and } a+c \\geq b \\text{ and } b+c \\geq a,\\\\\n      0 &\\text{ otherwise}.\n    \\end{cases}$$ We have therefore established the claimed density on the complement of the lower pyramid.\n\nAccording to , the jump across the hyperplane separating the upper and the lower pyramid is given by $$\\frac 1 4 \\left(- \\frac 1 {64}\\right) 8 \\left(1 - \\sum_{j=1}^3 \\lambda^{(j)} \\right) = \\frac 1 {32} \\left(\\sum_{j=1}^3 \\lambda^{(j)} - 1 \\right)\n                                                                                    $$ (the left-hand side terms are ordered just like in the jump formula). This is precisely the difference between the densities on the upper and lower pyramid as asserted in the statement of the proposition.\n\nIt is straightforward to deduce from this the eigenvalue distribution (cf.\u00a0the proof of ):\n\n\\[three qubits marginals\\] The joint distribution of the maximal eigenvalues of the reduced density matrices of a randomly-chosen pure quantum state of three qubits has Lebesgue density $$8! \\left( \\prod_{j=1}^3 \\hat\\lambda^{(j)}_{\\max} - \\frac 1 2 \\right)\n    \\begin{cases}\n      \\min \\hat\\lambda^{(j)}_{\\max} - \\frac 1 2 & \\text{if } \\sum_{j=1}^3 \\hat\\lambda^{(j)}_{\\max} \\leq 2,\\\\\n      \\max \\left\\{ 0, \\frac 1 2 \\left( 1 - \\sum_{j=1}^3 \\hat\\lambda^{(j)}_{\\max} \\right) + \\min \\hat\\lambda^{(j)}_{\\max} \\right\\} & \\text{if } \\sum_{j=1}^3 \\hat\\lambda^{(j)}_{\\max} \\geq 2,\n    \\end{cases}$$ on the space of maximal eigenvalues $(\\hat\\lambda^{(j)}_{\\max}) \\in [\\frac 1 2,1]^3$.\n\nOur use of the local convolution formula () and of the non-Abelian wall jump formula () were merely convenient shortcuts: It is clear that we could have completely algorithmically computed the measure by following .\n\nMixed States of Two Qubits {#bravyi example}\n--------------------------\n\nWe will now use the non-Abelian Heckman algorithm to treat the case of random two-qubit states with fixed, non-degenerate global eigenvalue spectrum. That is, we consider the action of $K = \\operatorname{SU}(2) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(2)$ on a coadjoint $\\operatorname{SU}(4)$-orbit through a point $\\tilde\\lambda$ contained in the interior of the positive Weyl chamber. Recall that the Weyl group of $\\operatorname{SU}(4)$ is the symmetric group $S_4$, with $(-1)^{l(\\tilde w)}$ equal to the signum of a permutation $\\tilde w \\in S_4$. By , $$\\label{bravyi abelian}\n  \\operatorname{DH}^{T}_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}} = \\sum_{\\tilde w \\in S_4} \\operatorname{sign}(\\tilde w) \\, \\delta_{\\pi(\\tilde w \\tilde\\lambda)} \\star H_{-\\pi(\\tilde\\alpha_1)} \\star \\ldots \\star H_{-\\pi(\\tilde\\alpha_6)},$$ where $\\tilde\\alpha_1, \\ldots, \\tilde\\alpha_6$ are the positive roots of $\\operatorname{SU}(4)$ (see for our conventions), and where $\\pi$ is the restriction map $\\mathfrak {\\tilde t}^* \\rightarrow \\mathfrak t^*$, with $\\mathfrak {\\tilde t}^*$ the dual of the Lie algebra of the maximal torus of $\\operatorname{SU}(4)$. With respect to our identification $\\mathfrak t^* \\cong {\\mathbb R}^2$ fixed in , the map $\\pi$ is given by $$\\label{bravyi projection}\n  \\pi \\colon\n  \\mathfrak {\\tilde t}^* \\rightarrow {\\mathbb R}^2, \\quad\n  (\\tilde\\lambda_1,\\ldots,\\tilde\\lambda_4) \\mapsto\n    2i(\\tilde\\lambda_1+\\tilde\\lambda_2, \\tilde\\lambda_1+\\tilde\\lambda_3).$$ One computes readily that the $-\\pi(\\tilde\\alpha_k)$ are precisely the weights $(-2,2)$, $(-2,0)$ (twice), $(-2,-2)$ and $(0,-2)$ (twice). In particular, the two negative roots of $\\operatorname{SU}(2) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(2)$ are contained in this list (each of them is in fact contained twice). By applying we arrive at the following formula:\n\n\\[bravyi non-abelian\\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the action of $\\operatorname{SU}(2) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(2)$ on a coadjoint $\\operatorname{SU}(4)$-orbit $\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}$ with $\\tilde\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak {\\tilde t}^*_{>0}$ is given by $$\\operatorname{DH}^{\\operatorname{SU}(2) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(2)}_{\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}} =\n    {\\left.\n    \\left( \\sum_{\\tilde w \\in S_4} \\operatorname{sign}(\\tilde w) \\, \\delta_{\\pi(\\tilde w \\tilde\\lambda)} \\right) \\star H_{(-2,2)} \\star H_{(-2,0)} \\star H_{(-2,-2)} \\star H_{(0,-2)}\n    \\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t^*_+}}.$$\n\nFollowing , we evaluate the right-hand side iterated convolution using . The result is the following:\n\n\\[bravyi convolution\\] The measure $H_{(-2,2)} \\star H_{(-2,0)} \\star H_{(-2,-2)} \\star H_{(0,-2)}$ has Lebesgue density $$f(\\lambda^{(1)}, \\lambda^{(2)}) =\n    \\begin{cases}\n      0 & \\text{in chamber 0},\\\\\n      \\frac 1 {64} \\left( \\lambda^{(1)} + \\lambda^{(2)} \\right)^2 & \\text{in chamber 1},\\\\\n      \\frac 1 {64} \\left( \\left( \\lambda^{(1)} \\right)^2 + 2 \\lambda^{(1)} \\lambda^{(2)} - \\left( \\lambda^{(2)} \\right)^2 \\right) & \\text{in chamber 2},\\\\\n      \\frac 1 {32} \\left( \\lambda^{(1)} \\right)^2 & \\text{in chamber 3}.\n    \\end{cases}$$ See for the labelling of the chambers and an illustration of the density.\n\n(-2.3,-2.3) grid (1.3,2.3); (-2.6,0) \u2013 (1.6,0) node\\[right\\] [$\\lambda^{(1)}$]{}; (0,-2.6) \u2013 (0,2.6) node\\[above\\] [$\\lambda^{(2)}$]{}; (0,0) node\\[below right\\] [$0$]{}; (1,0) node\\[below\\] [$1$]{}; (0,1) node\\[left\\] [$1$]{}; (0,0) \u2013 (-2.3,2.3); (0,0) \u2013 (-2.3,0); (0,0) \u2013 (-2.3,-2.3); (0,0) \u2013 (0,-2.3); (0,0) \u2013 (-2.3,2.3) \u2013 (-2.3,-2.3) \u2013 (0,-2.3) \u2013 (0,0); (-0.5,1.5) circle (0.15) node [$0$]{}; (-1.5,0.5) circle (0.15) node [$1$]{}; (-1.5,-0.5) circle (0.15) node [$2$]{}; (-0.5,-1.5) circle (0.15) node [$3$]{}; (0,-3) node [\u00a0]{};\n\nThe density of the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is thus given by the restriction to the positive Weyl chamber of an alternating sum of $24$ copies of the density described in , one copy attached to each of the points $\\pi(\\tilde w \\tilde\\lambda)$. In view of the geometry of the support of the latter density, it is clear that in fact only summands for points in the right halfplane $\\{\\lambda^{(1)} > 0\\}$ contribute (i.e., at most half of the points). Using , one finds that the points $\\pi(\\tilde w \\tilde\\lambda)$ are the six points whose coordinates are equal to any two out of the three values $c_1 = |2i(\\tilde\\lambda_1+\\tilde\\lambda_4)|$, $c_2 = 2i(\\tilde\\lambda_1+\\tilde\\lambda_3)$, or $c_3 = 2i(\\tilde\\lambda_1+\\tilde\\lambda_2)$ (without repetitions), as well as their Weyl conjugates. See for illustration.\n\n(-0.3,-0.3) grid (5.3,5.3); (-0.6,0) \u2013 (5.6,0) node\\[right\\] [$\\lambda^{(1)}$]{}; (0,-0.6) \u2013 (0,5.6) node\\[above\\] [$\\lambda^{(2)}$]{}; (0,0) node\\[below left\\] [$0$]{}; (5,0) node\\[below\\] [$1$]{}; (0,5) node\\[left\\] [$1$]{}; (1,0) node\\[below\\] [$c_1$]{}; (2,0) node\\[below\\] [$c_2$]{}; (4,0) node\\[below\\] [$c_3$]{}; (0,1) node\\[left\\] [$c_1$]{}; (0,2) node\\[left\\] [$c_2$]{}; (0,4) node\\[left\\] [$c_3$]{}; (4,1) \u2013 (3,0) \u2013 (0,0) \u2013 (0,3) \u2013 (1,4) \u2013 (2,4) \u2013 (4,2) \u2013 (4,1); (4,1) \u2013 (3,0) \u2013 (0,0) \u2013 (0,3) \u2013 (1,4) \u2013 (2,4) \u2013 (4,2) \u2013 (4,1);\n\n(4,2) circle (0.15) node [$+$]{}; (4,1) circle (0.15) node [$-$]{}; (2,1) circle (0.15) node [$+$]{}; (2,4) circle (0.15) node [$-$]{}; (1,4) circle (0.15) node [$+$]{}; (1,2) circle (0.15) node [$-$]{};\n\nMoreover, we can deduce that the non-Abelian moment polytope has the form described in the figure. To do so, we simply need to check in each regular chamber whether the density polynomial vanishes. By doing so and describing the resulting polytope in terms of inequalities, we recover a well-known result by Bravyi [@bravyi04]:\n\nThe non-Abelian moment polytope for the action of $\\operatorname{SU}(2) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(2)$ on a generic coadjoint $\\operatorname{SU}(4)$-orbit is given by $$\\Delta_{\\operatorname{SU}(2) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(2)}(\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}) =\n    \\{\n      (\\lambda^{(1)},\\lambda^{(2)}) :\n      0 \\leq \\lambda^{(1)}, \\lambda^{(2)} \\leq c_3,\n      \\lambda^{(1)} + \\lambda^{(2)} \\leq c_2 + c_3,\n      {\\lvert\\lambda^{(1)} - \\lambda^{(2)}\\rvert} \\leq c_3 - c_1\n    \\}.$$\n\nIn the limit where the global state becomes pure, the moment polytope converges to the diagonal between the origin and $(1,1)$. This is in agreement with . One can similarly recover the eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a random pure state of two qubits by taking a corresponding limit.\n\nIn view of , the distributions computed in can be assembled to give the joint eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a randomly-chosen pure state in ${\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^2 \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^2 \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^4)$.\n\nPure States of Bosonic Qubits {#pure states bosonic qubits}\n-----------------------------\n\nWe now turn to random pure states of $N$ bosonic qubits, where $K = \\operatorname{SU}(2)$ and $M = {\\mathbb P}(\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^2))$. We will use the Abelian Heckman algorithm:\n\n\\[sym N qubits abelian\\] The Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for ${\\mathbb P}(\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^2))$ has Lebesgue density $$\\frac 1 {2^N (N-1)! N!} \\sum_{k=-N,-N+2,\\ldots,N} (-1)^{\\frac{N+k}{2}} {\\binom{N}{\\frac{N+k}{2}}} (\\lambda - k)_+^{N-1}.$$ Here, we set $(\\lambda-k)^{N-1}_+ = (\\lambda-k)^{N-1}$ for $\\lambda \\geq k$ and $0$ otherwise.\n\nEquivalently, $N!$ times the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is equal to the probability distribution of the sum of $N$ independent random variables that are uniformly distributed on the interval $[-1,1]$ [@feller71 \u00a7I.9, Theorem 1a].\n\nThe weights of $\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^2)$ are $\\{ -N, -N+2, \\ldots, N \\}$; let us write $v_k$ for a weight vector of weight $k$. The associated projective space has precisely $N+1$ torus fixed points. At any such fixed point $[v_k]$, the isotropy weights are given by $$\\{ (l-k) : l = -N, -N+2, \\ldots, \\check{k}, \\ldots, N \\},$$ and we will denote them by $\\hat\\omega_{k,1,}, \\ldots, \\hat\\omega_{k,N}$ (cf.\u00a0). Observe that precisely $n_k = \\frac{N+k}{2}$ of them are negative with respect to the renormalization direction $\\gamma = +1$. By , the corresponding summand of the Heckman formula is equal to the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^N_{\\geq 0}$ along $$P \\colon {\\mathbb R}^N_{\\geq 0} \\rightarrow \\mathfrak u_1^*, \\quad\n    (s_1, \\ldots, s_N) \\mapsto \\sum_{i=1}^N s_i {\\lvert\\hat\\omega_{k,i}\\rvert} + k.$$ We first compute its cumulative distribution function: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    P_*(ds)\\left((-\\infty,(k+\\lambda)]\\right)\n    &= ds(\\{ s_1, \\ldots, s_N \\geq 0 : \\sum_{i=1}^N s_i {\\lvert\\hat\\omega_{k,i}\\rvert} \\leq \\lambda \\})\\\\\n    &= ds(\\{ s_1, \\ldots, s_N \\geq 0 : \\sum_{i=1}^N s_i \\leq 1 \\}) \\, \\frac 1 {\\prod_i {\\lvert\\hat\\omega_{k,i}\\rvert}} \\, \\lambda_+^N\\\\\n        &= \\frac 1 {N!} \\frac 1 {2^N (\\frac{N+k}{2})! (\\frac{N-k}{2})!} \\lambda_+^N\\\\\n    &= \\frac 1 {2^N N! N!} {\\binom{N}{\\frac{N+k}{2}}} \\lambda_+^N.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ The density is then given by the derivative, $$f_k(\\lambda) = \\frac 1 {2^N (N-1)! N!} {\\binom{N}{\\frac{N+k}{2}}} (\\lambda-k)_+^{N-1},$$ and by forming the alternating sum of these terms we arrive at the formula displayed above.\n\nIn we give an alternative proof of using representation theory and combinatorics. It follows directly from the derivative principle that the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is given by the following formula:\n\n\\[sym N qubits non-abelian\\] The non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the action of $\\operatorname{SU}(2)$ on ${\\mathbb P}(\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^2))$ with $N \\geq 2$ has Lebesgue density $$\\frac 1 {2^{N-1} (N-2)! N!} \\sum_{k=-N,-N+2,\\ldots,N} (-1)^{\\frac{N+k}{2}+1} {\\binom{N}{\\frac{N+k}{2}}} (\\lambda-k)_+^{N-2}$$ on $[0,\\infty)$.\n\nAgain, it is clear how to translate the above into the eigenvalue distribution of the one-body reduced density matrix by using . See for an illustration in the case of $N=2$ bosonic qubits.\n\n\\[sym two qubits figure\\] $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\begin{tikzpicture}\n      \\draw[help lines] (-2.3,-0.3) grid (2.3,1.3);\n      \\draw[->] (-2.6,0) -- (2.6,0) node[right] {\\tiny $\\lambda$};\n      \\draw[->] (0,-0.6) -- (0,1.6);\n      \\draw(0,0) node[below left] {\\tiny $0$};\n      \\draw(1,0) node[below left] {\\tiny $1$};\n      \\draw(2,0) node[below left] {\\tiny $2$};\n      \\draw(-1.6,0.2) node[above] {\\tiny $\\frac {2+\\lambda} 8$};\n      \\draw(1.6,0.2) node[above] {\\tiny $\\frac {2-\\lambda} 8$};\n      \\draw[very thick,dashed] (-2,0) -- (0,1);\n      \\draw[very thick] (2,0) -- (0,1);\n    \\end{tikzpicture}\n    & \\quad \\quad\n    \\begin{tikzpicture}\n      \\draw[help lines] (-0.3,-0.3) grid (2.3,1.3);\n      \\draw[->] (-0.6,0) -- (2.6,0) node[right] {\\tiny $\\lambda$};\n      \\draw[->] (0,-0.6) -- (0,1.6);\n      \\draw(0,0) node[below left] {\\tiny $0$};\n      \\draw(1,0) node[below left] {\\tiny $1$};\n      \\draw(2,0) node[below left] {\\tiny $2$};\n      \\draw(2,1) node[right] {\\tiny $\\frac 1 4$};\n      \\draw[very thick] (0,1) -- (2,1);\n    \\end{tikzpicture}\n    & \\quad \\quad\n    \\begin{tikzpicture}\n      \\draw[help lines] (-0.3,-0.3) grid (1.3,1.3);\n      \\draw[->] (-0.6,0) -- (1.6,0) node[right] {\\tiny $\\hat\\lambda_{\\max}$};\n      \\draw[->] (0,-0.6) -- (0,1.6);\n      \\draw(0,0) node[below left] {\\tiny $0$};\n      \\draw(1,0) node[below left] {\\tiny $1$};\n      \\draw[very thick] (0,0) -- (0.5,0) -- (1,1);\n      \\draw(1,0.7) node[right] {\\tiny $8 (\\hat\\lambda_{\\max} - \\tfrac 1 2)$};\n    \\end{tikzpicture}\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nAs an application, let us compute the average value of the reduced purity of a randomly-chosen pure state of bosonic qubits. The reduced purity is by definition equal to $$\\label{definition reduced purity}\n  {\\lVert\\rho_1\\rVert}_2^2 = \\left( \\hat\\lambda_{\\max}^2 + (1-\\hat\\lambda_{\\max})^2 \\right),$$ where $\\rho_1$ denotes the one-body reduced density matrix and $\\hat\\lambda_{\\max}$ its maximal eigenvalue.\n\n\\[purity example\\] The average reduced purity of a randomly-chosen pure state of $N$ bosonic qubits is given by $$\\frac 1 2 + \\frac 1 {2 N}.$$\n\nWe will not use directly, but instead work with the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure: Denote by ${\\mathbf P}$ the probability distribution of the maximal eigenvalue of the one-body reduced density matrix. By using and $\\hat\\lambda_{\\max} = \\frac 1 2 + \\frac \\lambda {2 N}$, we find that the average reduced purity is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n           &\\int \\left( \\hat\\lambda_{\\max}^2 + \\left( 1-\\hat\\lambda_{\\max} \\right)^2 \\right) \\; d{\\mathbf P}(\\hat\\lambda_{\\max})\\\\\n    = &\\frac 1 {4 N^2} \\int \\lambda \\left( \\left( N + \\lambda \\right)^2 + \\left( N - \\lambda \\right)^2 \\right) \\, N! \\, d\\operatorname{DH}^{\\operatorname{SU}(2)}_M(\\lambda)\\\\\n    = &\\frac 1 {2 N^2} \\int \\left( N^2 \\lambda + \\lambda^3 \\right) \\, N! \\, d\\operatorname{DH}^{\\operatorname{SU}(2)}_M(\\lambda).\n  \\end{aligned}$$ By the derivative principle, , this is equal to $$\\begin{aligned}\n    &\\frac 1 {N^2} \\int_0^{\\infty} \\left( N^2 + 3 \\lambda^2 \\right) \\, N! \\, d\\operatorname{DH}^{\\operatorname{U}(1)}_M(\\lambda)\\\\\n    = &\\frac 1 {2 N^2} \\int \\left( N^2 + 3 \\lambda^2 \\right) \\, N! \\, d\\operatorname{DH}^{\\operatorname{U}(1)}_M(\\lambda).\n  \\end{aligned}$$ In we have seen that $N! \\, \\operatorname{DH}^{\\operatorname{U}(1)}_{M}$ is the probability distribution of the sum of $N$ independent random variables that are uniformly distributed on the interval $[-1,1]$. Since the variance of any such random variable is $\\frac 1 3$ and since variances of independent random variables are additive, the above is equal to $$\\frac 1 {2N^2} \\left( N^2 + 3 \\frac N 3 \\right)\n    = \\frac 1 2 + \\frac 1 {2N}.\n    \\qedhere$$\n\nIn accordance with the concentration of measure phenomenon, $\\rho_1 \\rightarrow {\\mathbf 1}/2$ in distribution as $N \\rightarrow \\infty$. We remark that our result matches [@mullerdahlstenvedral11 Theorem 34] if one works out the quantities left uncalculated therein. Note that our proof illustrates the power of the derivative principle: Instead of explicitly computing the eigenvalue distribution, we can reduce to the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure by differentiating the quantity we are interested in.\n\nPure States of Bipartite Systems\n--------------------------------\n\nWe conclude this series of examples by re-deriving the eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a randomly-chosen pure state in the case of a general bipartite quantum system, corresponding to the action of $\\operatorname{SU}(a) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(b)$ on $M = {\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^{a} \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{b})$. Instead of following one of the algorithms it will be most convenient to directly work with the formula given in .\n\nSuppose that $b \\geq a$. If $b > a+1$ then is not satisfied (): Indeed, it always follows from the singular value decomposition that $$\\label{bipartite spectra}\n  \\operatorname{eig}\\rho_B = (\\operatorname{eig}\\rho_A, 0, \\ldots, 0),$$ so that in this case the non-Abelian moment polytope is contained in the boundary of the positive Weyl chamber. However, of course implies that for any choice of $b \\geq a$ the joint eigenvalue distribution is already determined by the eigenvalue distribution of $\\rho_A$. That is, it suffices to compute the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the action of $K = \\operatorname{SU}(a)$. Denote by $T$ the standard maximal torus of $\\operatorname{SU}(a)$. As in , we identify points $\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak t \\cong \\mathfrak t^*$ with diagonal density matrices $\\hat\\lambda = \\frac 1 a + i \\lambda$.\n\nClearly, the Abelian moment polytope consists of those $\\lambda$ with $\\hat\\lambda \\in \\Delta_{a-1}$, and the non-Abelian moment polytope is its intersection with the positive Weyl chamber (cf.\u00a0).\n\n\\[lloyd pagels abelian\\] On the Abelian moment polytope, the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the action of the maximal torus of $\\operatorname{SU}(a)$ is proportional to $$\\prod_{j=1}^a \\hat\\lambda_j^{b-1} ~ d\\lambda =\n    \\prod_{j=1}^a \\left(\\frac 1 a + i \\lambda_j\\right)^{b-1} ~ d\\lambda.$$\n\nChoose the weight-space decomposition of ${\\mathbb C}^a \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^b$ given by the standard basis vectors $e_j \\otimes e_k$ ($j=1,\\ldots,a$ and $k=1,\\ldots,b$). According to , the density of the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is given by $$f(\\lambda) = \\operatorname{vol}\\, \\{ p_{1,1}, \\ldots, p_{a,b} \\geq 0 : \\sum_{k=1}^b p_{j,k} = \\hat\\lambda_j = \\frac 1 a + i \\lambda_j \\quad (j=1,\\ldots,a) \\}$$ with respect to the volume measure $dp/d\\lambda$ defined therein. Note that the right-hand side set is the Cartesian product of $a$ rescaled standard simplices. The measure factorizes accordingly, and it is easy to see that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f(\\lambda)\n    = \\prod_{j=1}^a \\operatorname{vol}\\, \\{ p_1, \\ldots, p_b \\geq 0 : \\sum_{k=1}^b p_k = \\hat\\lambda_j \\}\n    = \\frac 1 Z \\prod_{j=1}^a \\hat\\lambda_j^{b-1}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ for $\\hat\\lambda \\in \\Delta_{a-1}$, and zero otherwise, with $Z$ a suitable normalization constant.\n\n\\[lloyd pagels\\] On the non-Abelian moment polytope, the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure for the $\\operatorname{SU}(a)$-action on ${\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^a \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^b)$ is proportional to $$\\prod_{j=1}^a \\hat\\lambda_j^{b-a}\n    \\prod_{j < k \\leq a} (\\hat\\lambda_j - \\hat\\lambda_k) ~\n    d\\lambda.$$\n\nAccording to the derivative principle, we have to apply $\\prod_{j < k} i(\\partial_{\\lambda_k} - \\partial_{\\lambda_j}) = \\prod_{j < k} ( \\partial_{\\hat\\lambda_k} - \\partial_{\\hat\\lambda_j} )$ to the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman density as computed in .\n\nThis is a partial differential operator of order $\\binom a 2$, therefore the resulting non-Abelian density polynomial has total degree at most $d_{\\max} = a(b-1) - a(a-1)/2$. Since we differentiate each variable at most $a-1$ times, it is a multiple of the symmetric polynomial $\\prod_{j=1}^a \\hat\\lambda_j^{b-a}$. On the other hand, the result is evidently antisymmetric, and therefore a multiple of the Vandermonde determinant $\\prod_{j < k} (\\hat\\lambda_j - \\hat\\lambda_k)$. Since the total degrees add up to $d_{\\max}$, this implies the assertion.\n\nIn view of , this result implies the following well-known formula [@lloydpagels88; @zyczkowskisommers01]:\n\nThe distribution of the eigenvalue spectrum $\\hat\\lambda = \\operatorname{eig}\\rho_1$ of a randomly-chosen bipartite pure state $\\rho$ on ${\\mathbb C}^a \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^b)$ has Lebesgue density proportional to $$\\prod_{j=1}^a \\hat\\lambda_j^{b-a}\n    \\prod_{j < k \\leq a} (\\hat\\lambda_j - \\hat\\lambda_k)^2$$ on the space of eigenvalue spectra $\\{ \\hat\\lambda \\in \\Delta_{a-1} : \\hat\\lambda_1 \\geq \\ldots \\geq \\hat\\lambda_a \\}$.\n\nIt is also easy to deduce the corresponding formula for the action of $\\operatorname{SU}(a) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(b)$:\n\n\\[lloyd pagels diagonal\\] Denote by $\\Delta = \\{ \\lambda \\in \\mathfrak t^*_+ : \\hat\\lambda \\in \\Delta_{a-1} \\}$ the non-Abelian moment polytope for the $\\operatorname{SU}(a)$-action. Then the push-forward of Liouville measure along the moment map for the $\\operatorname{SU}(a) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(b)$-action is given by $$\\left\\langle (\\Phi_{\\operatorname{SU}(a) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(b)})_*(\\mu_{{\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^a \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^b)}), g \\right\\rangle\n    = \\frac 1 Z \\int_{\\Delta} d\\lambda \\int_{\\mathcal O^{\\operatorname{SU}(a)}_\\lambda \\times \\mathcal O^{\\operatorname{SU}(b)}_{((\\hat\\lambda,0,\\ldots,0) - \\frac {{\\mathbf 1}} b)/i}} g,$$ where $Z$ is a suitable normalization constant.\n\nBy , each coadjoint orbit $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ for $\\operatorname{SU}(a)$ is paired with the coadjoint $\\operatorname{SU}(b)$-orbit through $((\\hat\\lambda,0,\\ldots,0) - \\frac{{\\mathbf 1}}{b})/i$. By its $\\operatorname{SU}(a) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(b)$-invariance, on each such pair of coadjoint orbits the push-forward measure is just a multiple of the usual Liouville measure. The assertion follows by observing that the density in is at any point $\\lambda$ proportional to the symplectic volume of the corresponding coadjoint $\\operatorname{SU}(b)$-orbit.\n\nMultiplicities of Representations {#multiplicities section}\n=================================\n\nAll results discussed so far can be considered as asymptotic limits of corresponding statements in representation theory, at least if the Hamiltonian $K$-manifold $M$ can be linearized (\u201cquantized\u201d) in a certain technical sense. This is in the spirit of Kirillov\u2019s orbit method and the theory of geometric quantization [@guilleminsternberg77; @guilleminsternberg84; @woodhouse92; @guilleminlermansternberg96; @kirillov99].\n\nIn particular, this is the case when $M$ is a $K$-invariant smooth irreducible complex projective subvariety of ${\\mathbb P}(V)$ for a finite-dimensional unitary $K$-representation $V$. In this situation, the Fubini\u2013Study form of ${\\mathbb P}(V)$ restricts to a non-degenerate symplectic form on $M$, and the $K$-action is Hamiltonian with moment map the restriction of . We still assume that is satisfied.\n\nCoadjoint orbits $\\mathcal O_\\lambda$ through dominant integral weights $\\lambda \\in \\Lambda^*$ (and only these) can be realized in this setup [@kirillov99]: They are in a natural way projective subvarieties of ${\\mathbb P}(V_\\lambda)$, where $V_\\lambda$ is the unitary $K$-representation with highest weight $\\lambda$.\n\nIn particular, the quantum marginal problem can be analyzed in this framework: Coadjoint $\\operatorname{SU}(d)$-orbits through integral highest weights correspond to Hermitian matrices with integral eigenvalue spectra, and it suffices to consider these, since we can always rescale and take limits, or simply pass to the purified double ().\n\nIn we will recall the limit alluded to above. We then proceed to describe the representation-theoretic analogue of the derivative principle: Multiplicities of irreducible $K$-representations can be computed from weight multiplicities by taking finite differences (). In the case of the projective space associated with a unitary $K$-representation, the relevant weight multiplicities are those for the symmetric powers of the representation. In , we give a concrete formula describing these weight multiplicities as the number of integer points in certain rational convex polytopes; we indicate that this is again amenable to algorithmic implementation. Finally, we show that in the limit we recover the corresponding statements of .\n\nThe Semi-Classical Limit {#semiclassicallimit subsection}\n------------------------\n\nSince the $K$-action on $M \\subseteq P(V)$ originates from a linear action on $V$, each graded part of the homogeneous coordinate ring ${\\mathbb C}[M]$ is naturally a finite-dimensional $K$-representation and can thus be decomposed into irreducible sub-representations, $${\\mathbb C}[M]\n    \\cong \\bigoplus_{k=0}^\\infty \\bigoplus_{\\lambda \\in \\Lambda^* \\cap \\mathfrak t^*_+} V_\\lambda \\otimes \\operatorname{Hom}_K(V_\\lambda, {\\mathbb C}[M]_k).$$ We shall encode their multiplicities, suitably re-scaled, in the following sequence of discrete measures, $$\\label{discrete irrep measure}\n  \\mu^K_{M,k} := \\frac 1 {k^{n - R}} \\sum_{\\lambda \\in \\Lambda^* \\cap \\mathfrak t^*_+} \\dim \\operatorname{Hom}_K(V^*_\\lambda, {\\mathbb C}[M]_k) \\, \\delta_{\\lambda/k}.$$ The factor $k^R$ accommodates for the growth of the dimension of a generic irreducible representation in the coordinate ring, which has highest weight in $\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ (we still assume that is in place).\n\nIt is well-known that in the *semi-classical limit* $k \\rightarrow \\infty$ this sequence of measures converges in distribution to the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure [@heckman82; @guilleminsternberg82b; @sjamaar95; @meinrenken96; @meinrenkensjamaar99; @vergne98], $$\\label{semiclassicallimit}\n  \\mu^K_{M,k} \\rightarrow \\operatorname{DH}^K_M.$$ In fact, one can show using the Hirzebruch\u2013Riemann\u2013Roch theorem that the piecewise polynomial density function of the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is at any regular point $\\lambda \\in \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$ for $\\Phi_K$ (equivalently, for $\\Phi_T$) given by $$\\label{semiclassicallimit pointwise}\n  \\lim_{k \\rightarrow \\infty}\n  \\frac 1 D\n  \\frac 1 {k^{n-R-r}}\n  \\dim \\operatorname{Hom}_K(V_{k \\lambda^*}, {\\mathbb C}[M]_k).$$ Here, $D$ is the number of elements in the generic stabilizer of points in $M$,[^6] and the right-hand side is understood as the limit over the subsequence with $k \\lambda$ integral. The additional factor $k^r$ comes from the fact that we now consider the density with respect to the $r$-dimensional Lebesgue measure $d\\lambda$.\n\nIt is well-known that the right-hand side multiplicity in is a *quasi-polynomial* in $k$, i.e., a polynomial whose coefficients are periodic functions of $k$. Observe that the existence of the limit implies that (a) the degree of this quasi-polynomial is at most $n-R-r$, and (b) if it is of maximal degree then its leading order coefficient is in fact a constant independent of $k$ (namely, the limit). We shall therefore call the limit the *maximal-order growth coefficient* of the quasi-polynomial.\n\nThe rational points of the moment polytope $\\Delta_K(M)$ are precisely those of the form $\\lambda / k$ with $V^*_\\lambda \\subseteq {\\mathbb C}[M]_k$ [@brion87]. In other words, $\\operatorname{supp}\\operatorname{DH}^K_M \\cap \\mathfrak t^*_{{\\mathbb Q}} = \\bigcup_k \\operatorname{supp}\\mu^K_{M,k}$.\n\nRestricting the action to the maximal torus $T \\subseteq K$, we observe that the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure $\\operatorname{DH}^T_M$ captures the asymptotic distribution of weights in the homogeneous coordinate ring of $M$, i.e., the asymptotics of the character of ${\\mathbb C}[M]_k$ as $k \\rightarrow \\infty$.\n\nFor strictly dominant and integral $\\lambda \\in \\Lambda^* \\cap \\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$, the Borel\u2013Weil theorem shows that the homogeneous coordinate ring of the coadjoint orbit $\\mathcal O_\\lambda \\subseteq P(V_\\lambda)$ is equal to $${\\mathbb C}[\\mathcal O_\\lambda] = \\bigoplus_{k=0}^\\infty V^*_{k \\lambda}.$$ Therefore, all the multiplicity measures $\\mu_{\\mathcal O_{\\lambda},k}^K$ (and hence their limit) are equal to the Dirac measure at $\\lambda$.\n\nMultiplicities of Irreducible Representations via Finite Differences {#multiplicities of irreducibles}\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMultiplicities of weights and highest weights in finite-dimensional $K$-representations are related by iteratively taking (negative) finite differences in the directions of the positive roots. This can be seen as the \u201cquantized\u201d version of the derivative principle (). Its proof is in essence a rephrasing of the Weyl character formula, an idea which goes back at least to Steinberg [@steinberg61].\n\n\\[steinberg lemma\\] Denote by $m_K$ and $m_T$ the highest weight and weight multiplicity function, respectively, of a finite-dimensional $K$-representation $V$. Then on the positive Weyl chamber we have $$m_K = {\\left.\\left(\\prod_{\\alpha > 0} - D_\\alpha \\right) m_T\\vphantom{\\big|}\\right|_{\\mathfrak t^*_+}},$$ where $(D_\\alpha m)(\\lambda) = m(\\lambda + \\alpha) - m(\\lambda)$ is the finite-difference operator in direction $\\alpha$. Note that any two of the operators $D_\\alpha$ commute, so that their product is independent of the order of multiplication.\n\nBy linearity of the finite-difference operators it suffices to establish the lemma for a single irreducible representation $V_\\lambda$ of highest weight $\\lambda$. It will be convenient to work with the formal character $\\mathrm{ch}(V_\\lambda) = \\sum_\\mu m_T(\\mu) \\, e^\\mu$ [@cartersegalmacdonald95; @knapp02]. By the Weyl character formula, $$\\prod_{\\alpha > 0} \\left( 1 - e^{-\\alpha} \\right) \\mathrm{ch}(V_\\lambda) =\n    e^{-\\rho} \\sum_{w \\in W} (-1)^{l(w)} e^{w(\\lambda + \\rho)}$$ where $W$ is the Weyl group, $l(w)$ the length of a Weyl group element $w$, and $\\rho$ half the sum of the positive roots.\n\nNow observe that the left-hand side is the generating function of $\\left( \\prod_{\\alpha > 0} - D_\\alpha \\right) m_T$, since taking finite differences corresponds to multiplying the generating function by $1 - e^{-\\alpha}$. Up to terms corresponding to non-dominant weights, the right-hand side is equal to $e^\\lambda$, which is the generating function of $m_K = \\delta_{\\lambda,-}$. The assertion follows from this.\n\nNote that the Weyl character formula can be seen as the representation-theoretic analogue of the Harish-Chandra formula that was used to establish . In the semi-classical limit , the finite differences become infinitesimal and we recover an alternative proof of in the algebro-geometric setting. This argument can also be turned around to establish for general compact Lie groups $K$ from its Abelian version [@guilleminsternberg84 (34.8)] and .[^7]\n\nMultiplicities for Projective Spaces {#multiplicities for projective space}\n------------------------------------\n\nAs in , let $M = {\\mathbb P}(V)$ be the complex projective space for a unitary $K$-representation $V$. Its homogeneous coordinate ring is equal to the symmetric algebra, $${\\mathbb C}[{\\mathbb P}(V)] = \\operatorname{Sym}(V) = \\bigoplus_{k=0}^\\infty \\operatorname{Sym}^k(V).$$\n\nChoose a weight-space decomposition $V = \\bigoplus_{k=0}^n {\\mathbb C}v_k$, and identify $V \\cong {\\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ and $\\operatorname{U}(V) \\cong \\operatorname{U}(n+1)$ accordingly. Observe that the maximal torus $T \\subseteq K$ acts via the standard maximal torus of $\\operatorname{U}(n+1)$, that is, the set of unitary diagonal matrices, which we denote by $\\tilde T$.\n\nEach symmetric tensor power $\\operatorname{Sym}^k({\\mathbb C}^{n+1})$ is an irreducible representation of $\\operatorname{U}(n+1)$. Its weight spaces are all one-dimensional, and the weights that occur are precisely the $\\lambda = \\operatorname{diag}(\\lambda_0, \\ldots, \\lambda_n)$ with $i \\lambda_j \\in {\\mathbb Z}$, $\\lambda_j \\geq 0$, and $\\sum_j \\lambda_j = k$ [@fulton97]. Clearly, we can identify this set of weights with the integral points in $k \\Delta_n$, where $\\Delta_n$ is the $n$-dimensional standard simplex in ${\\mathbb R}^{n+1}$. In the language of Young diagrams, these are the weight vectors corresponding to semistandard Young tableaux of shape $(k)$ with entries in $\\{0,\\ldots,n\\}$.\n\nTo determine the weight multiplicities with respect to $T \\subseteq K$, we have to \u201crestrict\u201d each weight to $\\mathfrak t$. This corresponds precisely to applying the map $P \\colon {\\mathbb R}^{n+1} \\rightarrow \\mathfrak t^*, (t_k) \\mapsto \\sum_k t_k \\omega_k$ introduced in . Therefore, the multiplicity in $\\operatorname{Sym}^k(V)$ of a weight $\\lambda \\in \\Lambda^*$ is given by counting integral points in a rational convex polytope parametrized by $k$ and $\\lambda$: $$\\label{weight multiplicities for projective space}\n  m_{T,k}(\\lambda) = \\#\\left(\\Delta(\\lambda, k) \\cap {\\mathbb Z}^{n+1}\\right),$$ where $$\\Delta(\\lambda, k) = \\Big\\{ (t_j) \\in {\\mathbb R}^{n+1} : t_j \\geq 0, \\sum_{j=0}^n t_j \\omega_j = \\lambda, \\sum_{j=0}^n t_j = k \\Big\\}.$$\n\n\\[future remark\\] Such *vector partition functions* can be evaluated efficiently using Barvinok\u2019s algorithm if the group $K$ and the ambient dimension $\\dim V = n + 1$ is fixed [@barvinok93; @barvinok94; @barvinokpommersheim99], namely in time $O(\\mathrm{poly}(\\log k))$. In fact, $m_{T,k}$ is a piecewise quasi-polynomial function in both $\\lambda$ and $k$, and there are parametric generalizations of Barvinok\u2019s algorithm for computing these quasi-polynomials [@verdoolaegeseghirbeylsetal07; @verdoolaegebruynooghe08]. Since we can compute multiplicities of irreducible $K$-representations by taking finite differences of weight multiplicities in the direction of positive roots (), this can also be done efficiently if $K$ is fixed. We will report on a generalization of this technique to the general branching problem for compact connected Lie groups in a forthcoming article [@christandldoranwalter12].\n\nThere is also a jump formula by Boysal and Vergne [@boysalvergne09], which as in can be used to inductively compute the quasi-polynomials chamber by chamber.\n\nWe now turn to the semi-classical limit. As $k \\rightarrow \\infty$, it is clear that $$\\mu^{\\tilde T}_{{\\mathbb P}(V), k} = \\frac 1 {k^n} \\sum_{\\lambda \\in \\Delta_n \\cap \\frac 1 k {\\mathbb Z}^{n+1}} \\delta_\\lambda$$ converges to Lebesgue measure on the standard simplex $\\Delta_n$, normalized to total volume $$\\lim_{k \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac 1 {k^n} \\dim \\operatorname{Sym}^k(V) = \\lim_{k \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac 1 {k^n} {\\binom{n+k}{n}} = \\frac 1 {n!}.$$ Therefore, $\\mu^T_{{\\mathbb P}(V),k}$ converges to the push-forward of Lebesgue measure on $\\Delta_n$ along the map $P$. By the semi-classical limit , this is of course equivalent to the assertion of . Moreover, note that the quantity $$m_{T,k}(k \\lambda) =\n  \\#\\left(\\Delta(k \\lambda, k) \\cap {\\mathbb Z}^{n+1}\\right) =\n  \\#\\left(\\Delta(\\lambda, 1) \\cap \\tfrac 1 k {\\mathbb Z}^{n+1}\\right)$$ is the Ehrhart quasi-polynomial associated to rational polytope $\\Delta(\\lambda, 1)$ [@beckrobins09]. It is intuitively clear that its growth in $k$ should be related to the volume of this polytope. Indeed, $$m_{T,k}(k \\lambda) = k^{n-r} \\operatorname{vol}\\Delta(\\lambda, 1) + O(k^{n-r-1}),$$ where $\\operatorname{vol}$ is the $(n-r)$-dimensional volume with respect to the measure $dt/d\\hat\\lambda$ defined in [@beckrobins09 Exercise 3.29]. Observe that this agrees with and : The maximal-order growth coefficient is a constant equal to the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman density at point $\\lambda$.\n\nKronecker and Plethysm Coefficients {#kronecker section}\n===================================\n\nIn this section, we describe the representation theory of the quantum marginal problem in more detail. For distinguishable particles, the relevant multiplicities can be expressed in terms of decomposing tensor products of irreducible representations of the symmetric group (). In particular, the joint eigenvalue distribution of the reduced density matrices of a tripartite pure state is determined by the asymptotics of the Kronecker coefficients (see ). We emphasize that by specializing the method described in we get a novel algorithm for computing Kronecker coefficients which is efficient for Young diagrams of bounded height. Indistinguishable particles correspond to certain plethysm coefficients and we conclude by illustrating this connection ().\n\nKronecker Coefficients {#kronecker coefficients}\n----------------------\n\nRecall that for $N$ distinguishable particles we have to consider the action of $K = \\operatorname{SU}(d_1) \\times \\ldots \\times \\operatorname{SU}(d_N)$ on a coadjoint $\\operatorname{SU}(d_1 \\cdots d_N)$-orbit $M = \\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda}$, where we now assume that $\\tilde\\lambda$ is an integral weight in $\\mathfrak t^*_{>0}$. The multiplicity measures $\\mu^K_{M,k}$ are determined by the decomposition of the homogeneous coordinate ring $${\\mathbb C}[M] = \\bigoplus_{k=0}^\\infty V^{d_1 \\cdots d_N}_{k \\tilde\\lambda}$$ into $K$-isotypical components (the superscript labels the corresponding $\\operatorname{SU}$).\n\nWe can express this equivalently using the representation theory of the symmetric group $S_m$. Recall that by Schur\u2013Weyl duality the diagonal action of $\\operatorname{SU}(d)$ and the permutation action of $S_m$ on $({\\mathbb C}^d)^{\\otimes m}$ generate each other\u2019s commutant, so that $$\\label{schur weyl decomposition}\n  ({\\mathbb C}^d)^{\\otimes m} \\cong \\bigoplus_{\\mu} V^d_\\mu \\otimes [\\mu].$$ Here, the sum runs over all Young diagrams $\\mu=(\\mu_1,\\ldots,\\mu_d)$ with ${\\lvert\\mu\\rvert} := \\sum_j \\mu_j = m$ boxes and at most $d$ rows, $V^d_\\mu$ is the irreducible representation of $\\operatorname{SU}(d)$ with highest weight $X \\mapsto i \\sum_j X_j \\mu_j$, and $[\\mu]$ is the corresponding irreducible representation of $S_m$ (see [@fulton97] for details). We shall freely identify Young diagrams and the corresponding highest weights.\n\nIn particular, we can realize the irreducible representation $V^{d_1 \\cdots d_N}_{k \\tilde\\lambda}$ in $({\\mathbb C}^{d_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_N})^{\\otimes {\\lvertk \\tilde\\lambda\\rvert}}$. Comparing the Schur\u2013Weyl decomposition for the full Hilbert space with the tensor product of the decompositions for the individual subsystems, we find that $$V^{d_1 \\cdots d_N}_{k \\tilde\\lambda}\n  \\cong\n  \\bigoplus_{\\lambda_1,\\ldots,\\lambda_N}\n  V^{d_1}_{\\lambda_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes V^{d_N}_{\\lambda_N} \\otimes\n  \\operatorname{Hom}_{S_{{\\lvertk\\tilde\\lambda\\rvert}}}([k \\tilde\\lambda], [\\lambda_1] \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes [\\lambda_N]),$$ where the sum runs over the Young diagrams $\\lambda_i$ with ${\\lvertk\\tilde\\lambda\\rvert}$ boxes and at most $d_i$ rows. Therefore, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{generalized kroneckers}\n  \\mu^K_{M,k}\n  = &\\frac 1 {k^{n-R}}\n  \\sum_{\\lambda_1,\\ldots,\\lambda_N} \\dim \\operatorname{Hom}_{S_{{\\lvertk\\tilde\\lambda\\rvert}}}([k \\tilde\\lambda], [\\lambda_1]^* \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes [\\lambda_N]^*) ~ \\delta_{(\\lambda_1/k,\\ldots,\\lambda_N/k)}\\\\\n  = &\\frac 1 {k^{n-R}}\n  \\sum_{\\lambda_1,\\ldots,\\lambda_N} \\dim \\operatorname{Hom}_{S_{{\\lvertk\\tilde\\lambda\\rvert}}}([k \\tilde\\lambda], [\\lambda_1] \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes [\\lambda_N]) ~ \\delta_{(\\lambda_1/k,\\ldots,\\lambda_N/k)},\n\\end{aligned}$$ where the latter identity holds due to the self-duality of the representations of the symmetric group. In particular, the rational points of the non-Abelian moment polytope $\\Delta_K(\\mathcal O_{\\tilde\\lambda})$ are precisely $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\label{rational points QMP moment polytope}\n    \\bigcup_k \\left\\{ (\\lambda_1/k,\\ldots,\\lambda_N/k) : \\begin{array}{l}\n    [k\\tilde\\lambda] \\subseteq [\\lambda_1] \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes [\\lambda_N], \\text{ where the}\\\\\n    \\text{$\\lambda_i$ have ${\\lvertk\\tilde\\lambda\\rvert}$ boxes and at most $d_i$ rows}\n  \\end{array} \\right\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ See for an illustration of the multiplicity measures corresponding to the mixed-state quantum marginal problem for two qubits discussed in .\n\n![(a) and (b) Illustration of the multiplicity measures $\\mu^K_{M,k}$ for the mixed-state quantum marginal problem of two qubits with global spectrum $(4/7,2/7,1/7,0)$ and $k=28, 56$, which have been computed by the algorithm described in . (c) Their semi-classical limit, i.e., the corresponding Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure as computed in .[]{data-label=\"hedgehog figure\"}](irrep_mults_4210_4.png \"fig:\"){width=\"4cm\"} ![(a) and (b) Illustration of the multiplicity measures $\\mu^K_{M,k}$ for the mixed-state quantum marginal problem of two qubits with global spectrum $(4/7,2/7,1/7,0)$ and $k=28, 56$, which have been computed by the algorithm described in . (c) Their semi-classical limit, i.e., the corresponding Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure as computed in .[]{data-label=\"hedgehog figure\"}](irrep_mults_4210_8.png \"fig:\"){width=\"4cm\"} ![(a) and (b) Illustration of the multiplicity measures $\\mu^K_{M,k}$ for the mixed-state quantum marginal problem of two qubits with global spectrum $(4/7,2/7,1/7,0)$ and $k=28, 56$, which have been computed by the algorithm described in . (c) Their semi-classical limit, i.e., the corresponding Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure as computed in .[]{data-label=\"hedgehog figure\"}](bravyi_polytope_4210.png \"fig:\"){width=\"4.8cm\"}\n\nWe can write the multiplicities in in the following symmetric form: $$\\dim \\operatorname{Hom}_{S_{{\\lvertk\\tilde\\lambda\\rvert}}}([k \\tilde\\lambda], [\\lambda_1]^* \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes [\\lambda_N]^*) =\n  \\dim \\left(\n    [\\lambda_1]^* \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes [\\lambda_N]^* \\otimes [k \\tilde\\lambda]^*\n  \\right)^{S_{{\\lvertk\\tilde\\lambda\\rvert}}}.$$ Observe that the right-hand side is a multiplicity for the pure-state quantum marginal problem for ${\\mathbb C}^{d_1} \\otimes \\ldots \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_N} \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^{d_1 \\cdots d_N}$. Indeed, the homogeneous coordinate ring of a projective space is just the symmetric algebra (), whose graded parts correspond to the trivial representations of the symmetric groups. This is the representation-theoretic perspective on purification (cf.\u00a0, in particular ).\n\nFor the tripartite pure-state quantum marginal problem (equivalently, the mixed-state bipartite quantum marginal problem), the relevant multiplicities are the well-known *Kronecker coefficients* of the symmetric group, $$g_{\\lambda,\\mu,\\nu} = \\dim \\left( [\\lambda] \\otimes [\\mu] \\otimes [\\nu] \\right)^{S_k}.$$ They are the symmetric group analogue of the Littlewood\u2013Richardson coefficients of the unitary group (in fact, the latter can be considered as a special case) but much harder to compute in general, since there is no combinatorial description like the Littlewood\u2013Richardson rule.\n\nThe corresponding characterization of the non-Abelian moment polytope has already been observed in [@christandlmitchison06; @klyachko04; @christandlharrowmitchison07], as well as in [@daftuarhayden04] for the projection onto two of the subsystems. The semi-classical limit refines this characterization: Not only can one read off the existence of quantum states with given marginal eigenvalue spectra from the asymptotic non-vanishing of the corresponding Kronecker coefficients $g_{k\\lambda,k\\mu,k\\nu}$, but their growth also encodes the probability of finding these eigenvalue spectra when the global state is chosen according to the invariant probability measure. Explicitly, states that $$\\label{kroneckerlimit}\n  \\frac 1 {k^p} \\sum_{\\lambda,\\mu,\\nu} g_{\\lambda,\\mu,\\nu} \\, \\delta_{\\lambda/k, \\mu/k, \\nu/k}\n  \\rightarrow \\operatorname{DH}^{{\\mathbb P}({\\mathbb C}^a \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^b \\otimes {\\mathbb C}^c)}_{\\operatorname{SU}(a) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(b) \\times \\operatorname{SU}(c)},$$ where $p = n - R = {abc - 1 - a(a-1)/2 + b(b-1)/2 + c(c-1)/2}$, and where the sum runs over all Young diagrams $\\lambda, \\mu, \\nu$ with $k$ boxes and at most $a$, $b$ and $c$ rows, respectively.\n\nThe method described in in particular provides a novel algorithm for computing the Kronecker coefficients which is efficient for Young diagrams of bounded height: Using the finite-difference formula of , we can reduce to the computation of a bounded number of weight multiplicities , which using Barvinok\u2019s algorithm can be evaluated in polynomial time in the input size, i.e., in time $O(\\mathrm{poly}(\\log k))$, where $k$ is the number of boxes of the Young diagrams. As mentioned in , we will elaborate on this algorithm in a forthcoming article [@christandldoranwalter12].\n\nPlethysm Coefficients {#plethysms}\n---------------------\n\nWhile the quantum marginal problem for distinguishable particles is connected to (generalized) Kronecker coefficients, it is for indistinguishable particles related to certain plethysm coefficients. Indeed, if $M = {\\mathbb P}(V_\\lambda)$ for an irreducible $\\operatorname{SU}(d)$-representation $V_\\lambda$ then its coordinate ring consists of the *plethysms* $${\\mathbb C}[M] = \\bigoplus_{k=0}^\\infty \\operatorname{Sym}^k(V_\\lambda).$$ See e.g.\u00a0[@macdonald95] for more information on plethysms, which are in general defined as the composition of Schur functors. In particular, the bosonic and fermionic pure-state marginal problem are related to the asymptotics of $\\operatorname{Sym}^k(\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^d))$ and $\\operatorname{Sym}^k({\\Lambda}^N({\\mathbb C}^d))$, respectively, as $k \\rightarrow \\infty$.\n\nLet us illustrate this by giving an alternative derivation of the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measures for $N$ bosonic qubits (cf.\u00a0). We will explicitly compute the asymptotic weight multiplicity distribution of the plethysm $\\operatorname{Sym}^k(\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^2))$ as $k \\rightarrow \\infty$, and then apply the derivative principle. The main combinatorial tool we shall employ are the $q$-binomial coefficients $${\\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{n}{k}}_q = \\frac{[n]_q !}{[k]_q ! [n-k]_q !}\n  .$$ Recall that these are defined in terms of the $q$-integers $[n]_q = \\frac{1-q^n}{1-q}$ and $q$-factorials $[n]_q ! = [n]_q [n-1]_q\\ldots [1]_q$. We start with the following description of the character of $\\operatorname{Sym}^k(\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^2))$ in terms of $q$-binomial coefficients:\n\n\\[springer character qbinomial\\] Let $k,N \\in {\\mathbb N}$ and $q=e^{\\omega_1}$. Then, $$\\mathrm{ch} \\left( \\operatorname{Sym}^k \\left( \\operatorname{Sym}^N \\left( {\\mathbb C}^2 \\right) \\right) \\right) = {\\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_{q^2} q^{-kN}.$$\n\n\\[asy eq q-stuff\\] As functions on the open unit disk $\\{ q \\in {\\mathbb C}: |q|<1 \\}$ one has for fixed $N \\in {\\mathbb N}$ and $k \\rightarrow \\infty$ the following asymptotic equivalence $$[N]_q ! {\\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_q \\sim [k]_q^N\n    .$$\n\nFollowing [@kaccheung02 (9.1)], for any fixed $c \\in {\\mathbb N}$ and $|q|<1$ one has $$\\lim_{k \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{1-q^{k+c}}{1-q} = \\frac{1}{1-q}.$$ By applying this identity both to the numerator and the denominator, $$\\lim_{k \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{[k+c]_q}{[k]_q} = 1\n    .$$ Hence $$\\lim_{k \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{ [N]_q !{\\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_q}{[k]_q^N} =\n    \\lim_{k \\rightarrow \\infty} \\frac{[k + N]_q [k+N-1]_q \\ldots [k+1]_q}{[k]_q^N} =\n    1\n    .\n    \\qedhere$$\n\nThe following corollary is an easy application of Osgood\u2019s theorem [@osgood01] to (see e.g.\u00a0[@beardonminda03]).\n\n\\[osgood\\] Fix $N$, and define $f_k(q) = [N]_q ! {\\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_q$ and $g_k(q) = [k]_q^N$. Then, the sequences $f_k$ and $g_k$ converge, as $k \\rightarrow \\infty$, pointwise to the same holomorphic function on some open dense subset in the open unit disk $\\{ q \\in {\\mathbb C}: |q|<1 \\}$. In particular, the limits are equal as power series.\n\nWe can use this result to extract asymptotic multiplicity information.\n\n\\[asymptotic uniformness\\] The discrete measures $\\mu_{(N),k}^{\\operatorname{U}(1)} := \\mu_{\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^2),k}^{\\operatorname{U}(1)}$ as defined in tend in the limit $k \\rightarrow \\infty$ to $\\frac 1 {N!}$ times the probability distribution of the sum of $N$ independent random variables uniformly distributed on $[-1,1]$.\n\nBy , $\\mu_{(N),k}^{\\operatorname{U}(1)}$ is a finite measure with generating function $$\\int q^x \\, d\\mu_{(N),k}^{\\operatorname{U}(1)}(x \\, \\omega_1) =  \\frac 1 {k^N} {\\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{k+N}{N}}_{q^{2/k}} q^{-N}.$$ Let $\\nu_k$, $\\omega_k$ be finite measures with generating functions $[N]_{q^{2/k}}!$ and $$\\frac 1 {k^N} [k]^N_{q^{2/k}} q^{-N} = \\left( \\frac{q^{-1} + q^{-1+2/k} + \\ldots + q^{1-2/k}}{k} \\right)^N,$$ respectively. Obviously, $\\omega_k$ is asymptotically distributed like the sum of $N$ independent random variables uniformly distributed on the interval $[-1,1]$, and by so is $\\mu^{\\operatorname{U}(1)}_{(N),k} \\star \\nu_k$. Since $\\nu_k \\rightarrow N! \\, \\delta_0$ as $k \\rightarrow \\infty$, this implies our assertion.\n\nBy using the semi-classical limit , we conclude once again that the Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is given by the formula that was established in . The non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure is obtained as in by applying the derivative principle.\n\nFor the plethysms $\\operatorname{Sym}^k(\\operatorname{Sym}^2({\\mathbb C}^2))$ we can also illustrate the semi-classical limit for the $\\operatorname{SU}(2)$-action, since the decomposition into irreducible $\\operatorname{SU}(2)$-representations is well-known [@macdonald95 \u00a71.5, Example 6 (a)]: $$\\operatorname{Sym}^k(\\operatorname{Sym}^2 ({\\mathbb C}^2)) \\cong\n    \\operatorname{Sym}^{2k}({\\mathbb C}^2) \\oplus\n    \\operatorname{Sym}^{2k-4}({\\mathbb C}^2) \\oplus\n    \\ldots \\oplus\n    \\operatorname{Sym}^{2 / 0}({\\mathbb C}^2)$$ The last summand is $\\operatorname{Sym}^2 ({\\mathbb C}^2)$ for odd $k$, and $\\operatorname{Sym}^0 ({\\mathbb C}^2)$ for even $k$. Therefore, the discrete measures as defined in are given by $$        \\mu^{\\operatorname{SU}(2)}_{{\\mathbb P}(\\operatorname{Sym}^2({\\mathbb C}^2)),k} = \\sum_{l=2k, 2k-4, \\ldots, 2 \\vert 0} \\frac 1 {k^{2-1}} \\delta_{\\frac l k}.$$ In the limit $k \\rightarrow \\infty$, they converge to the non-Abelian Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure as computed in , $$\\operatorname{DH}^{\\operatorname{SU}(2)}_{{\\mathbb P}(\\operatorname{Sym}^2({\\mathbb C}^2))} = - \\tfrac 1 4 \\left( (x+2)^0_+ - 2 x^0_+ + (x-2)^0_+ \\right) dx =\n    \\tfrac 1 4 {\\mathbf 1}_{[0,2)}(x) dx.$$ See for an illustration.\n\nThe description of the character of $\\operatorname{Sym}^k(\\operatorname{Sym}^N({\\mathbb C}^2))$ via $q$-binomial coefficients has the additional advantage that one is able to compute all higher cumulants and moments of the associated distribution for any fixed $k$ and $N$ (see [@MR2019639]). This is due to a method by Panny [@MR845446].\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nWe would like to thank Alonso Botero, Emmanuel Briand, Peter B\u00fcrgisser, Beno\u00eet Collins, David Gross, Christian Ikenmeyer, Markus P.\u00a0M\u00fcller, Mercedes Rosas, and Volkher Scholz for helpful discussions. We thank Graeme Mitchison for joint initial discussions on the topic of asymptotics of Kronecker coefficients. The second author would like to express his particular gratitude to Frances Kirwan for many fruitful discussions regarding moment maps and invariant theory and their many uses.\n\nThis work is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grants PP00P2\u2013128455 and 200021\\_138071), the German Science Foundation (SFB/TR12, and grants CH 843/1\u20131 and CH 843/2\u20131), the National Center of Competence in Research \u2018Quantum Science and Technology\u2019, and the Excellence Initiative of the German Federal and State Governments through the Junior Research Group Program within the Institutional Strategy ZUK 43.\n\n[^1]: \\[non-compact footnote\\]In fact, the $p$-th summand of is precisely the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure corresponding to the isotropy representation of $T$ on the symplectic vector space $T_p M$, which is of course a non-compact symplectic manifold and, strictly speaking, does not fit into our setup. The decomposition of $\\mathfrak t^*$ into regular chambers for the moment map of $M$ is refined by the common refinement of the chamber decompositions for the $T_p M$ (cf.\u00a0).\n\n[^2]: This is our reason for choosing a different definition for walls than the one used in [@boysalvergne09]. There, walls were defined as linear hyperplanes spanned by $r-1$ linearly independent vectors.\n\n[^3]: This density of course only depends on the hyperplane through $\\hat W$, and can therefore re-used for all other walls that span the same hyperplane.\n\n[^4]: The push-forward of Lebesgue measure on ${\\mathbb R}^{n+1}_{\\geq 0}$ along $\\hat P$ can also be understood as the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure associated with the Hamiltonian $T \\times \\operatorname{U}(1)$-action on the complex vector space $V$, where $\\operatorname{U}(1)$ acts by scalar multiplication (cf.\u00a0).\n\n[^5]: This density of course only depends on the hyperplane through $W$, and can therefore be re-used for all other singular walls that lie on the same hyperplane.\n\n[^6]: Quotienting out a discrete subgroup leaves the Duistermaat\u2013Heckman measure invariant, but changes the weight lattice, and therefore the normalization of the Lebesgue measure $d\\lambda$.\n\n[^7]: We thank Allen Knutson for pointing this out, as well as for sketching a self-contained proof of .\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'It is widely acknowledged that the forthcoming 5G architecture will be highly heterogeneous and deployed with high degree of density. These changes over the current 4G bring many challenges on how to achieve an efficient operation from the network management perspective. In this article, we introduce a revolutionary vision of the future 5G wireless networks, in which the network is no longer limited by hardware or even software. Specifically, by the idea of virtualizing the wireless networks, which has recently gained increasing attention, we introduce the Everything-as-a-Service (XaaS) taxonomy to light the way towards designing the service-oriented wireless networks. The concepts, challenges along with the research opportunities for realizing XaaS in wireless networks are overviewed and discussed.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Zheng\u00a0Chang,\u00a0 Zhenyu\u00a0Zhou,\u00a0 Sheng\u00a0Zhou,\u00a0 Tapani Ristaniemi,\u00a0\\\n    and Zhisheng Niu, \u00a0[^1]\ntitle: 'Towards Service-oriented 5G: Virtualizing the Networks for Everything-as-a-Service'\n---\n\neverything-as-a-service; wireless network virtualization; 5G\n\nIntroduction {#sec:Sec1}\n============\n\nThe future 5G will be the platform that enables the tremendous growth of many industries, ranging from traditional wireless networks, to the car, entertainment, manufacturing, healthcare, and agriculture industries. It is envisioned 5G will provide a common core to support multiple radio access technologies (RATs), machine type communications (MTC) and many different coexisting network and service operators. Therefore, 5G must support convergence over traditionally separated network domains and offer greater granularity and flexibility in control signalling and in data transmission. Correspondingly, the architecture is expected to be much more complex than before, in the sense that different network entities, such as relays, small cell base stations (SBSs), massive machines and data centers/cloud, etc, will be widely deployed with ultra densificantion and taken as close as possible to the end-users. Along with the rapid development of hardware computing units, the BS in wireless networks is expected to be deployed with powerful computing units or data centers to enable the software defined networking (SDN) and accommodated to the diverse service requirements. These changes, however, not only can enable the boost of data rates, but also bring many nontrivial challenges on how to achieve a super-efficient operation from network management point-of-view [@Liang].\n\nIn this light, network function virtualization (NFV) is envisioned as one powerful tool to address these aforementioned problems in wireless networks. In the resulted wireless network virtualization (WNV), network infrastructures and functionalities are decoupled from the services that they provide to maximize their utilization, where the differentiated services can co-exist on the same infrastructure [@Liang] [@Rost2]. What\u2019s more, due to the fact that the network is expected to be highly heterogeneous and extremely dense, it is natural to consider whether the network infrastructure can be virtualized and provided to whoever wants them and whenever they are acquired, so that the network operator is no longer hardware-limited, nor even software-limited, in the light of both of the hardware and software are owned by different and dedicated network infrastructure operators. By such, every component which used to be essential in the traditional network management can be viewed as a service, and then can be supplied to any (virtual) network operators/service providers (SPs) or even directed to the end-users. Correspondingly, we refer to the resulted system architecture as a service-oriented wireless network with Everything-as-a-service (XaaS) which traditionally is recognized as the service provisioning models in the cloud computing [@Duan]. The new XaaS in WNV will be indeed service-oriented, containing many new elements, such as Data-and-Knowledge-as-a-service (DKaaS), Computing-as-a-service (ComaaS), Radio-Access-Network-as-a-service (RANaaS), Cache-as-a-service (CaaS) and Energy-as-a-service (EaaS), which could be delivered over the advanced 5G infrastructure.\n\nDespite the potential vision of XaaS in WNV, there are several remaining research challenges to be addressed before its widespread deployment, including control signalling, virtual resource allocation, network management, and some non-technical issues such as business model, etc. Due to the inherent random and broadcast natures of wireless networks, these challenges need to be tackled carefully and broadly by comprehensive research efforts and call for a complete re-design of capabilities, architectures, interfaces, functions, access and non-access protocols of network services.\n\nIn this article, WNV is first briefly reviewed. Then by summarizing some existed work, we discuss the XaaS taxonomy, briefly present some definitions in XaaS and also introduce some key enabling technologies towards the mature XaaS framework. Challenges and research opportunities in these areas are also discussed. This article, we hope, can attract interests from the research and industrial communities on this emerging interdisciplinary field, which is able to boost up the development of the future 5G network infrastructure.\n\nWireless Network Virtualization in 5G\n=====================================\n\n![An example of wireless network virtualization[]{data-label=\"fig:example1\"}](wnv2.jpg){height=\"8cm\" width=\"10cm\"}\n\nVirtualization have recently moved from traditional server virtualization to wireless network virtualization. In stead of virtualizing the computing resources in server virtualization, in WNV, physical resources need to be abstracted to isolated virtual resources from the infrastructure service providers (InSPs). Then, the virtual resources can be offered to different network service providers (NSPs). In Fig. \\[fig:example1\\], a simple illustration of WNV is presented. In order to offer services to the users, the NSPs in Fig. \\[fig:example1\\] will ask the InSPs about the resources. Then, the physical BSs from different InSPs can be virtualized to virtual BSs (vBSs) and provided to different NSPs. Hereinafter, we consider the InSPs as the ones who own the resources, including infrastructures (hardware and software), spectrum and many others, and refer to the NSPs as the ones who do not have own substrate networks and need to acquire the resources from the InSPs and provide services to end-users or other parties. It is also worth mentioning that when the NSP acts as a reseller or broker with respect to the resources, then naturally becomes a InSP for the ones who buy the resources from them. Consequently, a service-oriented wireless architecture which allows flexible and programmable operation can be built upon the proper decoupling of the hardware, software and radio resources. Nevertheless, the inherit properties of the wireless communications make the problem more complicated. Particularly, virtualizing the wireless networks is to realize the process of radio resource virtualization, hardware sharing, virtualization of multiple RATs [@Liang]. Moreover, as the powerful computing units are becoming indiscerptible in communications systems, virtualization of the computing resources is an emerging option to efficiently utilize computing units in the wireless networks [@Wen].\n\nEverything-as-a-Service via Virtualization\n==========================================\n\n![Concept of XaaS[]{data-label=\"fig:xaas\"}](xaasfigure2.pdf){height=\"10cm\" width=\"18cm\"}\n\nAn example of XaaS is presented in Fig. \\[fig:xaas\\], where different types of cells, such as picocell, microcell, femtocell, and many other types of access points will be deployed and other advances, such as cloud-RAN and energy harvesting units, will be merged and utilized in the 5G physical substrate wireless networks. The densitification of heterogeneous wireless networks, together with WNV, can breakthrough the traditional obstacles on the infrastructure and radio resources towards an efficient network management and operation. By such, naturally, our vision is that the network architecture will be purely service-oriented: every component, not only BSs and spectrum, but also data, knowledge, computing units, energy, and security, can be viewed as a type of service that can be provided to whoever needs them and whenever they are needed. For several years now, in the cloud computing, researchers have been proposing and discussing many models for defining anything \u201cas-a-service (aaS)\u201d [@Duan]. Extracted from such a concept, we then present an XaaS taxonomy, discuss the enabling technologies and challenges.\n\nRadio-Access-Network-as-a-Service (RANaaS)\n------------------------------------------\n\nFirst and foremost, no matter how the network will evaluate, it is still a radio-based network, where the wireless infrastructure and resources are the basis for all kinds of network operations. Therefore, the fundamental of a service-oriented wireless system should be able to offer Radio Access-Network-as-a-Service (RANaaS) [@Sabella2]. It can be noticed that the current proposals usually consider RANaaS is one of the products of cloud-based networks, i.e., cloud-RAN, where all the RAN functionalities are centrally operated. In this part, we revisit the concept of RANaaS and further decouple the RANaaS to different categories, i.e., Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), Radio-Resources-as-a-Service (RaaS) and Radio-Access-as-a-service (RAaaS), where the hardware, software and resource can be treated separately and properly towards a flexible and programmable 5G.\n\n### Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)\n\nUnlike the current BS-dominated 4G system or behind, it is expected that the 5G infrastructure concept will be significantly enriched, due to the massive deployment of different types of BSs and their ultra-density [@Chang1], data caching entities, computing centers, machines, sensors and energy harvesting units. The explosive growth of these network elements can also consequently increase the demands for supporting hardware, such as backhaul, backbone and radio resource control units. In the framework of the IaaS, each or the combination of some of these advanced 5G features can be viewed as one kind of services offered by the InSPs, and then can be virtualized to the NSPs or anyone who needs them [@Trakas].\n\n### Radio-Access-as-a-Service (RAaaS)\n\nWhen the whole RAN is decoupled, the infrastructure and radio access can be treated separately, which motivates the novel concept of RAaaS, where some RAN functionalities belonging to the protocol stack of the radio interface can be viewed as a service. In light of RAaaS, all the software related components, such as signalling, access and admission control, radio network controller, gateway, and many other protocols in the RAN or core networks, are virtualized. All of these RAN functionalities, or part of them, may then be offered as a service by the RANaaS platform to the NSPs, which adapts, configures, and extends their operation to current traffic demands and keeps up with the backhaul and access network structure requirements.\n\n### Radio-resources-as-a-Service (RaaS)\n\nIn the virtualized networks, after abstracting, isolating and slicing, scalable radio resources can be better controlled and optimized, and may be pooled independently of the location, and transparently to the NSPs or directly to the end-users. In the platform of RaaS, the radio resources can be abstracted, isolated, assigned and sliced properly according to the demands and requirements, and then are offered as a service. By such, the available radio resources can be utilized more efficiently by permitting different parties to share the same spectrum.\n\nData-and-Knowledge-as-a-service (DKaaS)\n---------------------------------------\n\nThe expansive wireless network is also emerging as a critical data contributor over the air-interface, which makes us entering the big data era [@Bi]. Big data virtualization can be viewed as one of the most valuable means through which to make sense of big data, and thus make it more approachable to the end-users and NSPs. Through virtualization, the big data can be abstracted, characterized and virtualized to more valuable knowledge, which can offer a shorter route to help decision making.\n\nIn this context, virtualization becomes a critical tool to convey information in all data analysis, which also induces the the proposal of Data-and-Knowledge-as-a-service (DKaaS). Meanwhile, due to the fact that the delivery of large amount of data over wireless networks truly occupies considerable amount of radio resources, such as spectrum, power, storage, or even backhaul, the data may prefer to be processed locally and only the necessary information can be centrally collected, which open the door for the third parties to join the business. Any local organizations or even person who has the ability to collect data or process the data can become the InSPs in this area and offer the needed information to the NSPs. For example, the data analytic company, spectrum broker, and smart wearable device companies can be the DKaaS provider in this context. As such, when DKaaS can be realized, the responsibility of carrying big data transmission and analytic of the NSPs can be leased to dedicated entities, and the radio resources can be better utilized in order to obtain Quility of Service (QoS) improvement to the end-users.\n\nCache-as-a-Service (CaaS)\n-------------------------\n\nTo improve the QoS of real-time data services and alleviate the substantial real-time traffic on the backhaul or fronthaul, enabling the storage and cache capabilities of BS is emerging as one of the effective solutions [@Zhou]. All these features, as we can predict, can support to realize the concept of Cache-as-a-Service (CaaS), where cache, no matter it is either personal or belonging to the company-own InSP, can be offered to the NSPs. However, what prevents to realize the CaaS is its distributed and wide deployment nature. To address such a problem, virtualization can provide flexible and programmable virtual caching capability to the InSPs and NSPs, in order to serve end-users with QoS guaranteed service [@Li]. By such, the content can be flexibly chunked, distributed, and stored based on the its popularity, traffic diversity and the user demands.\n\nIt is also worth noticing that besides the caching for content delivery, cache can be applied to complement the big data analytic. Consequently, CaaS can be merged with DKaaS, to address the questions of matching between cache and data in the wireless networks, i.e., problems of where, what data and when to cache [@Bi]. Furthermore, due to the development of smart phone industry, today\u2019s terminals also have large storage capacities, which are rapidly growing but typically under-utilized. The highly developed computing units of these devices are also capable of processing much more complicated tasks [@Chang2]. To enable the distributed cache provisioning of these devices, accurate knowledge of the end-user demands is crucial.\n\nComputing-as-a-Service (ComaaS)\n-------------------------------\n\nIn the traditional networks, the dedicated computing resources are implemented at BS level, which resulted in a networks with an over-provisioning of computing resources [@Rost2]. Such distributed nature may prevent the full utilization of computing resources and lead to an energy and cost inefficient networks. Therefore, more advanced implementations should be investigated to permit a dynamic and flexible utilization of computing resources to network infrastructure. Utilizing similar concept as Cloud-RAN, ComaaS emerges as am promising solution to provide immediate and on-demand access to computing resources for the NSPs as well as the end-users with low cost. Through the virtualization of computing resources, ComaaS can also obtain the cost efficiency for the InSPs, by solely utilizing the needed capacity to satisfy NSP or user\u2019s requirement. When computing resources can be viewed as a service, the distributed computing resources, most of which are typically under-utilized, can be exploited as well. The end-users are also able to contribute its computing with proper stimulation.\n\nMeanwhile, ComaaS is also one enabler for private cloud or cloudlet, which offers hosted services to a limited number of end-users. This is due to the fact that the use of private cloud can be boosted by the increasing number of InSPs and NSPs. What\u2019s more, additional private cloud expenses, including virtualization, cloud software and cloud management tools, can also be addressed by the ComaaS and other XaaS platforms.\n\nEnergy-as-a-Service (EaaS)\n--------------------------\n\nEnergy-as-a-service (EaaS) provides a promising approach to reduce energy costs and improve energy efficiency for both mobile users and telecommunication operators. From the perspective of mobile users, heavy energy consuming tasks can be offloaded to cloud servers with unlimited computing and energy resources to fill the gap between battery capacity limitations and high performance expectation. Furthermore, the emerging simultaneous wireless information and power transfer (SWIPT) technology enables mobile terminals to \u201crecycle\u201d the transmit power to prolong the battery lifetime while receiving data [@Chang2].\n\nOn the other hand, with the advancing technologies of distributed energy generation (DER) and distributed energy storage (DES) [@Zhou], smart BSs with energy harvesting (EH) capabilities enables operators to save excess energy in batteries and sell it back to utility companies during peak periods, or to exploit environmental friendly renewable energies to further reduce electricity prices through smart energy management systems. In addition, BSs with self-generation capabilities can compose a small-scale microgrid and operated in islanded mode during a blackout to ensure safe and reliable service provision. Thus, together with the emerging energy Internet, EaaS is able to motivate the study on fundamental relation between energy and information, and represents a novel marketing paradigm shift from conventional passive energy consumers to active energy prosumers.\n\n![An example of virtualizing wireless network for XaaS[]{data-label=\"fig:example\"}](virtu.jpg){height=\"8cm\" width=\"10cm\"}\n\nChallenges for enabling XaaS\n============================\n\nAn example of virtualizing the wireless network for XaaS is shown in Fig. \\[fig:example\\]. In this example, end-users connect to the virtual network from which they require the services, and they also connect to the cellular network physically to obtain the actual services. In the WNV, a physical network controller and a virtualized network controller need to be deployed between the virtualized wireless networks and physical wireless networks to realize the virtualization process [@Liang]. We can see that enabling WNV for XaaS confronts many challenges from the interaction of two networks, virtual resource allocation, network infrastructure management and involved signalling issues. In the following, we elaborate these challenges and their impact on XaaS development.\n\nSignalling\n----------\n\nDue to the inherent broadcast nature of wireless communications and randomness character of wireless channel, WNV is more challenging to be realized and provided [@Liang]. In the process of virtualizing the wireless network, connectivity need to be firstly created between the NSPs and InSPs. By such, the communications and negotiation between the NSPs and InSPs can be established and the requirements of the NSPs for resources can be expressed to the InSPs. In addition, in the XaaS framwork, virtualization can happen among the InSPs as well. To facilitate the interaction among the InSPs, a standard protocol to express information-sharing and negotiation-handling are also necessary. Thus, proper control signalling considering delays and reliability needs to be explored in a careful manner to enable the connectivity among different parties involved in wireless virtualization. Moreover, NSPs or end-users may have different QoS demands. Therefore, when designing the control signalling and other overhead involved, the diversity of requirements from different parties should be carefully treated.\n\nVirtual Resource Allocation\n---------------------------\n\nIn order to realize the XaaS in the WNV, InSPs or NSPs should discover the available resources in the physical substrate wireless networks. InSPs need to decide what physical resources can be used for virtualization and NSPs can decide what resource to choose based on the end-users\u2019 demands. Since resources will be shared among multiple parties, an efficient resource coordination scheme and interaction model should be investigated. Moreover, the slicing, isolation, customization and allocation schemes are necessary in this case, as different resources needs to be sliced and scheduled based on the provided services to achieve a better service differentiation against different NSPs [@Nikaein].\n\nIn this context, the main focus of virtual resource allocation is to realize the connection between the virtual networks and physical networks. It includes the selection of nodes, radio links, antenna, power, spectrum and other resources, as well as the optimization and combination of them. Unlike wired networks, radio resource allocation becomes much more complicated in the WNV due to the changeability of transmission coverage, frequency channels, user mobility, service demand, interference, transmit power and so on [@Moubayed]. What\u2019s more, all the parties involved want to maximize their own revenue, so the game theoretic approach should be investigated to maximize the benefits in the XaaS framework.\n\nNetwork Management and Deployment\n---------------------------------\n\nManagement and deployment of the WNV are important to guarantee the proper and efficient operation of the virtualized wireless networks and the XaaS supported by the WNV. As the XaaS will be based on different physical substrate networks, network management and deployment confront many new challenges. In particularly, the physical substrate network is usually formed by various heterogeneous networks, each of which may have unique and specific properties, thus, careful design for obtain the solutions for efficient network operation and maintenance is required.\n\nMore specifically, in the XaaS framework, end-users should be able to smoothly switch to the NSP from which they acquire services. In a perfect case, the end-users should be able to access any NSP offering the best service quality in that location. Thus, the WNV should facilitates this mobility management through infrastructure/resource sharing and protocols development between the InSPs and NSPs to ensure that end-users can successfully connect with the most appropriate NSP. Moreover, in the system operation perspective, the WNV can require all the InSPs to share their physical resources, which potentially allows certain InSPs to shut down their equipment or put them into sleep when the traffic is low. If several InSPs have overlapped coverage, or the demand is low, it may be possible to save operation cost by carefully choosing one of them and shut down the rest. Such system operations are able to save the cost of NSPs as well as InSPs and should be reconciled with virtual resource resource allocation, isolation, and slicing, etc. The deployment of the network should be revised as well and will be optimized based on the requirement of the WNV and the features of the XaaS platform. For example, in a certain area, the InSPs may need to consider how to optimally deploy their infrastructures offer reliable services to the NSPs. When the InSPs of certain type of XaaS are sufficient for this area, it is not wise for them to deploy extra experiment or for other InSPs to entering this business. Thus, the corresponding analysis on the network management and deployment calls for proposals from algorithmic and implementation.\n\nData/Kowledge Acquisition and Abstraction\n-----------------------------------------\n\nDue to the development of data mining and processing techniques, mobile big data is no longer viewed as a pure burden for the wireless networks. Rather, the big data science can help the mobile network operators to efficiently and effectively manage the future networks with a complex architecture and provide services to massive devices with heterogeneous demands. Meanwhile, both the wireless and fiber-optic link have their own throughput limits, which is considered as a inevitable bottleneck. It can be expected that the adoption of distributed data compression and exploration into 5G may dramatically alleviate the data transmission burden of backhaul/fronthaul link and facilitate big data analysis in the ultra-dense networks. Thus, how to properly acquire, process and abstract the features of data to useful information and knowledge are the breakthroughs on integrating the DKaaS with wireless networks.\n\nMoreover, the SP who directly serves the end-user might be the one who has the most convinces to access the data. However, it is quite common that the SP may not have the data processing capability nor the data is meaningful to them. For example, the data obtained from wireless sensor networks or wearable devices may contain extra information that help the NSP to provide personalized and flexible services to the end-users. Thus, how to provide these data, compress these data or extract useful information and knowledge from them, can attract interests from different third parties from technique, business or social perspective are the most challenging parts. Beside, the data/knowledge acquisition and abstraction are also absorbing from network operation point-of-view, as the local data processing or introducing professionals of data mining may ease the data transmission over wirless/wired link and abstracted knowledge can help the network operator to run the network in a easier and cost-efficient way. Therefore, addressing these challenges can significantly help to realize the DKaaS concept and also open the arms of wireless networks to embrace the upcoming big data era.\n\nNon-technical Challenges\n------------------------\n\nIn the technological domain, although facing aforementioned challenges, enabling the XaaS via WNV has the great potential gains from then network point-of-view, and then is able to provide better services to the end-users. Besides, non-technical challenges are brought when designing the models, such as large volume of contextual data, massive connections, new virtual operators, interactions between the InSPs and NSPs etc. As presented in Fig. \\[fig:business\\], the interaction and profit models of three layers in the WNV [@Liang], i.e., service provider (SP), mobile virtual network operator (MVNO) and INP, can be simplified to the interaction of InSP and network service operator (NSP). However, as the services can be decoupled and the role of NSP can be easily changed to InSP, different involved parties, such as service descriptions provider and service broker, should be carefully designed and it certainly requires dedicated and long-term research work.\n\n![Challenges from business model[]{data-label=\"fig:business\"}](business.jpg){height=\"8cm\" width=\"10cm\"}\n\nFuture Research Direction\n=========================\n\nWhile we listed some confronted research challenges, in the following, the future research directions are presented in a bigger picture.\n\n![Convergence of network and cloud[]{data-label=\"fig:cloudconvergence\"}](cloudconvergence.jpg){height=\"8cm\" width=\"10cm\"}\n\nNetwork and Cloud Convergence\n-----------------------------\n\nThe proposed XaaS paradigm relies on the convergence of traditional cellular networks and cloud computing platform. From RAN perspective, the role that cloud computing plays in networks calls for a holistic vision that allows control, optimization and management of both network and computing resources in a cloud-based environment. Virtualization can be viewed as a profound enabler for the convergence of networks and cloud. As shown in Fig. \\[fig:cloudconvergence\\], radio resource and computing resources can be effectively, flexibly and efficiently virtualized into services. Then, both resulted XaaS in communication and computing domains should be properly combined for service provisioning to the end-users.\n\nIndeed, the previous research on the RAN optimization usually focus on the radio resource allocation, such as spectrum or power, based on the channel state information, without considering the computing resource and other contextual information, while most of the research of cloud computing concentrate on the computing resources allocation [@Duan1]. The limitation of previous work will motivate the research on a joint consideration of radio and computing resources. The challenges, in this respect, may come from the design of a metric to measure the radio and computing platform and to propose corresponding optimization methods. Moreover, the protocols design between the computing resource providers and radio resource providers in the XaaS framework also call for research efforts. In addition, mobility issues also course challenges in a converged network and cloud environment. Two dimensional mobility in both physical and virtualized wireless networks, should be taken into consideration for service provisioning. The problem can become more serious when the mobile devices are the resources to offer the services, which may make the service discovery and provisioning more complex.\n\nBig Data Analytic\n-----------------\n\nBoth proposed XaaS and WNV heavily rely on effective development of big data processing technologies. At the moment, the traditional cellular networks and recent cloud-RAN are not designed for the incoming big data era and needs sufficient revision to enhance the capabilities for big data analytic. To realized the XaaS, various features of networks should be either improved or total renovated. Exploring advanced big data analytical tools, such as stochastic modelling to capture the dynamic features of big data, development of data mining and machine learning algorithms, distributed optimization and dimension reduction. In addition, some features should be developed and brought into the current cellular networks to future explore their capabilities for handling vast volume of data, such distributed caching, computing, quantization and compression, investigation of the utilization of cloudlet and mobile cloud processing, etc, which can help to reduce traffic amount on the fronthaul or backhaul, also release the abundant on central data processing units.\n\nService Composition\n-------------------\n\nIn order to run a network or provide QoS-guaranteed services directly to the end-users, a NSP needs to acquire from different InSPs in the XaaS framework. Such a inherit nature of XaaS essentially requires to enable the service composition. For example, when a end-user needs to watch a stream, different InSPs may be asked from the NSPs to provide caching capability, radio resource, infrastructure, and network functionality. Accordingly, the proposal and investigation for energy and cost efficient service composition will play a central role in supporting and coordinating the XaaS framework.\n\nSpecifically, as loose-coupling among services is one of the critical concepts in the XaaS and there are a large number of services involved in the XaaS, scalability emerges as one topic with research significance for service composition design. Accordingly, how to take into consideration of different needs to compose multiple services and maintain QoS requirements of different parties are of research importance. Besides, heterogeneity is another challenging issue to service composition. The services that are provided to the end-users in the XaaS platform, commonly comprise of heterogeneous services offered by different InSPs. For example, the combination of computing and radio resources, heterogeneous infrastructures (different types of BSs or other network elements), each of which has its own characteristics that may result in different technical approaches and solutions. In addition, the on-demand, programmable and flexible features of the XaaS framework also require dynamic and adaptive service composition. By predicting and overseeing the service performance and the user\u2019s satisfaction level along the time, adaptation to QoS requirements will be beneficial for supporting elasticity of XaaS provisioning [@Duan1]. Thus, balance between system scalability, QoS awareness, user satisfaction, and service composition is a significant research issue.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nAs one of the main concept enables infrastructure sharing and radio resources abstraction, wireless network virtualization emerges as a solution to reduce operation and management expenses of wireless networks. In this article, we introduced a revolutionary vision of the future 5G wireless networks, in which the network is no longer limited by hardware, radio resources or even software. Specifically, based on the idea of virtualizing wireless networks, the Everything-as-a-Service (XaaS) concept was presented and elaborated to light the way towards designing a service-oriented wireless architecture. Some important research challenges as well as future research directions in designing the XaaS framework were discussed and presented.\n\n[1]{}\n\nC. Liang and F. R. Yu, \u201cWireless virtualization for next generation mobile cellular networks,\u201d *IEEE Wireless Communications*, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 61-69, Feb. 2015.\n\nP. Rost, I. Berberana, A. Dekorsy, G. Fettweis, A. Maeder, H.Paul, V. Suryaprakash, M. Valenti, and D. W\u00fcbben, \u201cBenefits and challenges of virtualization in 5G radio access networks,\u201d *IEEE Communications Magazine*, vol. 53, no. 12, pp.75-82, December 2015.\n\nY. Duan, G. Fu, N. Zhou, X. Sun, N. C. Narendra, and B. Hu, \u201cEverything as a service(XaaS) on the cloud: origins, current and future trends\u201d, *in proc. of IEEE 8th International Conference on Cloud Computing*, New York, USA, June 2015.\n\nH. Wen, P. K. Tiwary, and T. Le-Ngoc, \u201cWireless Virtualization,\u201d Springer International Publishing, 2013.\n\nD. Sabella, A. De Domenico, E. Katranaras, M. A. Imran, M. Di Girolamo, U. Salim, M. Lalam, K. Samdanis, and A. Maeder, \u201cEnergy efficiency benefits of RAN-as-a-Service concept for a cloud-based 5G mobile network infrastructure,\u201d *IEEE Access*, vol.2, pp.1586-1597, 2014.\n\nZ. Chang, K. Zhu, Z. Zhou, and T. Ristaniemi, \u201cService provisioning with multiple service providers in 5G ultra-dense small cell networks, \u201d *in proc. of IEEE PIMRC\u201915*, Hong Kong, China, Sep. 2015.\n\nP. Trakas, F. Adelantado, and C. Verikoukis, \u201cA novel learning mechanism for traffic offloading with small cell as a service,\u201d*in proc. of 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications*, pp.6893-6898, London, U. K., June 2015.\n\nS. Bi, R. Zhang, Z. Ding and S. Cui, \u201cWireless Communications in the era of big data,\u201d *IEEE Communications Magazine*, vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 190-199, Oct. 2015.\n\nJ. Wu, D. Liu, X. Huang, C. Luo, H. Cui, and F. Wu, \u201cDaC-RAN: A data-assisted cloud radio access network for visual communications,\u201d *IEEE Wireless Communications*, vol. 22, no. 3, pp.130-136, June 2015.\n\nS. Zhou, J. Gong, Z. Zhou, W. Chen and Z. Niu, \u201cGreenDelivery: proactive content caching and push with energy-harvesting-based small cells,\u201d *IEEE Communications Magazine*, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 142-149, April 2015.\n\nX. Li, X. Wang, C. Zhu, W. Cai, and V. M. Leung, \u201cCaching-as-a-service: Virtual caching framework in the cloud-based mobile networks,\u201d *in Proc. of IEEE Infocom\u201915 workshop*, Hong Kong, China, April 2015.\n\nZ. Chang, J. Gong, T. Ristaniemi and Z. Niu, \u201cEnergy efficient resource allocation for collaborative mobile clouds with Hybrid receivers,\u201d *IEEE Transactions on Vehcular Technology*, in press, 2016.\n\nN. Nikaein, E. Schiller, R. Favraud, K. Katsalis, D. Stavropoulos, I. Alyafawi, Z. Zhao, T. Braun, and T. Korakis, \u201cNetwork store: exploring slicing in future 5G networks,\u201d *in Proc. of Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture (MobiArch\u201915)*, Paris, France, 2015.\n\nA. Moubayed, A. Shami, H. Lutfiyya, \u201cWireless resource virtualization with device-to-device communication underlaying LTE network,\u201d *IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting*, vol.61, no.4, pp.734-740, Dec. 2015.\n\nQ. Duan, Y. Yan, and A. V. Vasilakos, \u201cA Survey on service-oriented network virtualization toward convergence of networking and cloud computing,\u201d *IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management*, vol.9, no.4, pp.373-392, December 2012.\n\n[^1]: Z. Chang and T. Ristaniemi are with University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Mathematical Information Technology, P.O.Box 35, FI-40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland. Z. Zhou is with State Key Laboratory of Alternate Electrical Power System with Renewable Energy Sources, School of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, North China Electric Power University, Beijing 102206, China. S. Zhou and Z. Niu are with Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University, 100084 Beijing, China. email: {zheng.chang, tapani.ristaniemi}@jyu.fi, zhenyu\\_zhou@fuji.waseda.jp, {sheng.zhou, niuzhs}@tsinghua.edu.cn\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'Matteo Dalla Riva [^1] \u00a0and Paolo Musolino[^2]'\ndate: \u00a0\ntitle: A mixed problem for the Laplace operator in a domain with moderately close holes\n---\n\n[**Abstract:**]{} We investigate the behavior of the solution of a mixed problem in a domain with two moderately close holes. We introduce a positive parameter $\\epsilon$ and we define a perforated domain $\\Omega_{\\epsilon}$ obtained by making two small perforations in an open set. Both the size and the distance of the cavities tend to $0$ as $\\epsilon \\to 0$. For $\\epsilon$ small, we denote by $u_{\\epsilon}$ the solution of a mixed problem for the Laplace equation in $\\Omega_{\\epsilon}$. We describe what happens to $u_{\\epsilon}$ as $\\epsilon \\to 0$ in terms of real analytic maps and we compute an asymptotic expansion.\n\n[**Keywords:**]{} mixed problem; singularly perturbed perforated domain; moderately close holes; Laplace operator; real analytic continuation in Banach space; asymptotic expansion\n\n[[**2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{}]{} 35J25; 31B10; 45A05; 35B25; 35C20\n\nIntroduction {#introd}\n============\n\nThe analysis of singular domain perturbation problems for linear equations and system of partial differential equations has caught the attention of several authors. In particular, a wide literature has been dedicated to the study of boundary value problems defined in domains with small holes or inclusions shrinking to points. This type of problems is of interest not only for the mathematical aspects but also in view of concrete applications to the investigation of physical models in fluid dynamics, in elasticity, and in thermodynamics. For example, problems on domains with small holes or inclusions can arise in the modeling of dilute composites or of perforated elastic bodies. In this paper, we will focus on a mixed problem for the Laplace operator in a bounded domain with two moderately close small holes. In other words, we will consider a domain with two cavities such that both their size and the distance between them tend to zero. However, we will assume that the perforations are \u2018moderately close\u2019, *i.e.*, the distance tends to zero \u2018not faster\u2019 than the size.\n\nIn order to introduce the problem, we first define the geometric setting. We fix once for all a natural number $$n\\in {\\mathbb{N}}\\setminus\\{0,1 \\}\\, .$$ Then we consider $\\alpha\\in]0,1[$ and three subsets $\\Omega^i_1$, $\\Omega^i_2$, $\\Omega^o$ of ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ satisfying the following assumption: $$\\label{dom}\n\\begin{split}\n&\\text{$\\Omega^i_1$, $\\Omega^i_2$,  $\\Omega^o$ are bounded open connected subsets of ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$}\\\\\n&\\text{of class $C^{1,\\alpha}$ such that ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}\\setminus{\\mathrm{cl}}\\Omega^i_1$, ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}\\setminus{\\mathrm{cl}}\\Omega^i_2$ and ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}\\setminus{\\mathrm{cl}}\\Omega^o$ are}\\\\\n&\\text{connected  and  that $0\\in \\Omega^i_1\\cap\\Omega^i_2 \\cap \\Omega^o$}.\n\\end{split}$$ The letter \u2018$i$\u2019 stands for \u2018inner\u2019 and the letter \u2018$o$\u2019 stands for \u2018outer\u2019. The symbol \u2018${\\mathrm{cl}}$\u2019 denotes the closure. The set $\\Omega^o$ will play the role of the \u2018unperturbed\u2019 domain, where we make two perforations of the shape of $\\Omega^i_1$ and of $\\Omega^i_2$, respectively. We also fix two points $$\\label{p}\np^1, p^2 \\in \\Omega^o\\, ,\\qquad p^1 \\neq p^2\\, .$$ Then we take $\\epsilon_0>0$ and a function $\\eta$ from $]0,\\epsilon_0[$ to $]0,+\\infty[$ such that $$\\label{eta}\n\\lim_{\\epsilon\\to 0^+}\\eta(\\epsilon)=0 \\qquad \\text{and} \\qquad \\lim_{\\epsilon \\to 0^+} \\frac{\\epsilon}{\\eta(\\epsilon)}=r_\\ast \\in [0,+\\infty[\\, .$$ The function $\\eta$ will control the distance between the holes, while the parameter $\\epsilon$ will determine their size. We assume that $$\\label{assrast}\n\\left(p^1+r_\\ast\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_1\\right)\\cap\\left(p^2+r_\\ast\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_2\\right)= \\emptyset\\, .$$ Possibly shrinking $\\epsilon_0$, we may also assume that $$\\label{e0}\n\\begin{split}\n&\\left(p^1+\\frac{\\epsilon}{\\eta(\\epsilon)}\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_1\\right)\\cap\\left(p^2+\\frac{\\epsilon}{\\eta(\\epsilon)}\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_2\\right)= \\emptyset  \\qquad \\forall \\epsilon \\in ]0,\\epsilon_0[\\, ,\\\\\n&\\bigg (\\eta(\\epsilon)p^1+\\epsilon\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_1\\bigg)\\cup\\bigg(\\eta(\\epsilon)p^2+\\epsilon\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_2\\bigg) \\subseteq \\Omega^o \\qquad \\forall \\epsilon \\in ]0,\\epsilon_0[\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ Then we introduce the perforated domain $$\\Omega_{\\epsilon}\\equiv \\Omega^o \\setminus  \\bigcup_{j=1}^2 \\bigg (\\eta(\\epsilon)p^j+\\epsilon\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_j\\bigg) \\qquad \\forall \\epsilon\\in ]0,\\epsilon_{0}[\\, .$$ In other words, the set $\\Omega_{\\epsilon}$ is obtained by removing from $\\Omega^o$ the two sets $\\eta(\\epsilon)p^1+\\epsilon\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_1$ and $\\eta(\\epsilon)p^2+\\epsilon\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_2$. As $\\epsilon \\to 0^+$, both the size of the perforations and their distance tend to $0$. Next, for each $\\epsilon$ positive and small enough, we want to introduce a mixed problem for the Laplace operator in $\\Omega_\\epsilon$. Namely, we consider a Dirichlet condition on $\\partial \\Omega^o$ and Neumann conditions on the boundary of the holes. Thus, we take a function $f_1 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$, a function $f_2  \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$, a function $g$ in $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$, and for each $\\epsilon \\in ]0,\\epsilon_0[$ we consider the following mixed problem: $$\\label{bvpe}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta u(x)=0 & \\forall x \\in \\Omega_{\\epsilon}\\,,\\\\\n\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial \\nu_{\\eta(\\epsilon)p^j+\\epsilon\\Omega^i_j}}u(x)=f_j\\Big(\\big(x-\\eta(\\epsilon)p^j\\big)/\\epsilon\\Big) & \\forall x \\in  \\eta(\\epsilon)p^j+\\epsilon\\partial\\Omega^i_j\\, ,  \\forall j\\in \\{1,2\\}\\, ,\\\\\nu(x)=g(x) & \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $\\nu_{\\eta(\\epsilon)p^j+\\epsilon\\Omega^i_j}$ denotes the outward unit normal to $ \\eta(\\epsilon)p^j+\\epsilon\\partial\\Omega^i_j$ for $j\\in \\{1,2\\}$.\n\nThen, if $\\epsilon \\in ]0,\\epsilon_0[$, problem has a unique solution in $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{\\epsilon})$ and we denote such a solution by $u_{\\epsilon}$. We are interested in studying the behavior of $u_\\epsilon$ as $\\epsilon \\to 0$ and thus we pose the following questions.\n\n1.  Let $x$ be a fixed point in $\\Omega^o\\setminus\\{0\\}$. What can be said of the map $\\epsilon\\mapsto u_{\\epsilon}(x)$ when $\\epsilon$ is close to $0$ and positive?\n\n2.  Let $t$ be a fixed point in ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}\\setminus \n    \\cup_{j=1}^2(p^j +r_\\ast \\Omega^i_j)$. What can be said of the map $\\epsilon\\mapsto u_{\\epsilon}(\\eta(\\epsilon) t)$ when $\\epsilon$ is close to $0$ and positive?\n\n3.  Let $j \\in \\{1,2\\}$. Let $t$ be a fixed point of $\\mathbb{R}^n\\setminus\\Omega^i_j$ such that $p^j +r_\\ast t \\not \\in (p^l+r_\\ast \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_l)$ if $l \\neq j$. What can be said of the map $\\epsilon\\mapsto u_{\\epsilon}(\\eta(\\epsilon)p^j+\\epsilon t)$ when $\\epsilon$ is close to $0$ and positive?\n\nIn a sense, question (i) concerns the \u2018macroscopic\u2019 behavior of $u_{\\epsilon}$ far from the holes $\\eta(\\epsilon)p^1+\\epsilon \\Omega^i_1$ and $\\eta(\\epsilon)p^2+\\epsilon \\Omega^i_2$, whereas question (ii) concerns the \u2018microscopic\u2019 behavior of $u_{\\epsilon}$ in proximity of centers of the perforations, and question (iii) concerns the \u2018microscopic\u2019 behavior of $u_{\\epsilon}$ in proximity of the boundary of one of the perforations.\n\nBoundary value problems in domains with small holes are typical in the frame of asymptotic analysis and are usually investigated by means of asymptotic expansion methods. As an example, we mention the method of matching outer and inner asymptotic expansions proposed by Il\u2019in (see [@Il78], [@Il92], and [@Il99]) and the compound asymptotic expansion method of Maz\u2019ya, Nazarov, and Plamenevskij, which allows the treatment of general Douglis\u2013Nirenberg elliptic boundary value problems in domains with perforations and corners (cf.\u00a0[@MaNaPl00]). Moreover, in Kozlov, Maz\u2019ya, and Movchan [@KoMaMo99] one can find the study of boundary value problems in domains depending on a small parameter $\\epsilon$ in such a way that the limit regions as $\\epsilon$ tends to $0$ consist of subsets of different space dimensions. More recently, Maz\u2019ya, Movchan, and Nieves provided the asymptotic analysis of Green\u2019s kernels in domains with small cavities by applying the method of mesoscale asymptotic approximations (cf.\u00a0[@MaMoNi13]). We also mention Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl, Lacave, and Masmoudi [@BoLaMa], Chesnel and Claeys [@ChCl14], and Dauge, Tordeux, and Vial [@DaToVi10].\n\nProblems in perforated domains find several applications in the frame of shape and topological optimization. For a detailed analysis, we refer to Novotny and Soko\u0142owsky [@NoSo13], where the authors analyze the topological derivative to study problems in elasticity and heat diffusion. The topological derivative is indeed defined as the first term of the asymptotic expansion of a given shape functional with respect to a parameter which measures the singular domain perturbation (as, *e.g.*, the diameter of a hole). Moreover, for several applications to inverse problems we refer, *e.g.*, to the monograph Ammari and Kang [@AmKa07].\n\nIn particular, boundary value problems in domains with moderately close holes have been deeply studied in Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl, Dambrine, Tordeux, and Vial [@BoDaToVi07; @BoDaToVi09], Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl and Dambrine [@BoDa13], and Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl, Dambrine, and Lacave [@BoDaLa], where the authors exploit the method of multiscale asymptotic expansions. More precisely, in [@BoDaToVi09] they carefully analyze the case when $\\eta(\\epsilon)=\\epsilon^\\beta$ for $\\beta \\in ]0,1[$ and they provide asymptotic expansions.\n\nHere, instead, we answer the questions in (i), (ii), (iii) by representing the maps of (i), (ii), (iii) in terms of real analytic maps and in terms of known functions of $\\epsilon$ (such as $\\eta(\\epsilon)$, $\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)$, $\\log \\eta(\\epsilon)$, [*etc*]{}.). We observe that our approach does have its advantages. Indeed, if for example we know that the function in (i) equals for $\\epsilon>0$ a real analytic function defined in a whole neighborhood of $\\epsilon=0$, then we know that such a map can be expanded in power series for $\\epsilon$ small. Moreover, we emphasize that we do not make any assumption on the form of the function $\\eta(\\epsilon)$ and that, by setting $\\varrho_1=\\eta(\\epsilon)$ and $\\varrho_2=\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)$, we can treat $\\varrho_1$ and $\\varrho_2$ as two independents variables and prove real analyticity results for the solution upon the pair $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$. In particular, one can deduce asymptotic expansions in the new variable $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ around $(0,r_\\ast)$.\n\nSuch an approach has been carried out for problems for the Laplace operator in a domain with a small hole (cf., *e.g.*, [@DaMu12; @DaMu15], Lanza de Cristoforis [@La07; @La10]), and has later been extended to problems related to the system of equations of the linearized elasticity (cf., *e.g.*, the first-named author and Lanza de Cristoforis [@DaLa10a]) and to the Stokes system (cf., *e.g.*, [@Da13]). Moreover, analyticity results have been obtained in the frame of perturbation problems in spectral theory (cf., *e.g.*, Buoso and Provenzano [@BuPr] and Lamberti and Lanza de Cristoforis [@LaLa04]).\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. In Section \\[nota\\], we introduce some notation and in Section \\[for\\] we introduce a more general formulation of our problem. In Section \\[prel\\], we introduce some preliminary results. In Section \\[finteq\\], we formulate our problem in terms of integral equations. In Section \\[fure\\], we prove our main result, which answers our questions (i), (ii), (iii) above, and in Section \\[asy\\] we compute an asymptotic expansion of the solution for $n=2$ and $r_\\ast=0$.\n\nNotation {#nota}\n========\n\nWe denote the norm on a normed space ${\\mathcal X}$ by $\\|\\cdot\\|_{{\\mathcal X}}$. Let ${\\mathcal X}$ and ${\\mathcal Y}$ be normed spaces. We endow the space ${\\mathcal X}\\times {\\mathcal Y}$ with the norm defined by $\\|(x,y)\\|_{{\\mathcal X}\\times {\\mathcal Y}}\\equiv \\|x\\|_{{\\mathcal X}}+\n\\|y\\|_{{\\mathcal Y}}$ for all $(x,y)\\in  {\\mathcal X}\\times {\\mathcal \nY}$, while we use the Euclidean norm for ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. The symbol ${\\mathbb{N}}$ denotes the set of natural numbers including $0$. If $(i,j) \\in \\mathbb{N}^2$, we denote by $\\delta_{i,j}$ the Kronecker symbol, defined by setting $\\delta_{i,j}=1$ if $i=j$ and $\\delta_{i,j}=0$ if $i \\neq j$. Let ${\\mathbb{D}}\\subseteq {\\mathbb {R}}^{n}$. Then $\\mathrm{cl}{\\mathbb{D}}$ denotes the closure of ${\\mathbb{D}}$, $\\partial{\\mathbb{D}}$ denotes the boundary of ${\\mathbb{D}}$, and $\\nu_{\\mathbb{D}}$ denotes the outer unit normal to $\\partial \\mathbb{D}$, where it is defined. We also set ${\\mathbb{D}}^{-}\\equiv {\\mathbb {R}}^{n}\\setminus{\\mathrm{cl}}{\\mathbb{D}}$. For all $R>0$, $ x\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, $x_{j}$ denotes the $j$-th coordinate of $x$, $| x|$ denotes the Euclidean modulus of $ x$ in ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, and ${\\mathbb{B}}_{n}( x,R)$ denotes the ball $\\{\ny\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^{n}:\\, | x- y|<R\\}$. Let $\\Omega$ be an open subset of ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. The space of $m$ times continuously differentiable real-valued functions on $\\Omega$ is denoted by $C^{m}(\\Omega,{\\mathbb{R}})$, or more simply by $C^{m}(\\Omega)$. Let $r\\in {\\mathbb{N}}\\setminus\\{0\\}$. Let $f\\in \\left(C^{m}(\\Omega)\\right)^{r}$. The $s$-th component of $f$ is denoted $f_{s}$, and $Df$ denotes the jacobian matrix $\\left(\\frac{\\partial f_s}{\\partial\nx_l}\\right)_{  (s,l)\\in \\{1,\\dots ,r\\}\\times \\{1,\\dots ,n\\}       }$. For a multi-index $\\eta\\equiv\n(\\eta_{1},\\dots ,\\eta_{n})\\in{\\mathbb{N}}^{n}$ we also set $|\\eta |\\equiv\n\\eta_{1}+\\dots +\\eta_{n}  $. Then $D^{\\eta} f$ denotes $\\frac{\\partial^{|\\eta|}f}{\\partial\nx_{1}^{\\eta_{1}}\\dots\\partial x_{n}^{\\eta_{n}}}$. The subspace of $C^{m}(\\Omega )$ of those functions $f$ whose derivatives $D^{\\eta }f$ of order $|\\eta |\\leq m$ can be extended with continuity to $\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega$ is denoted $C^{m}(\n\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega )$. The subspace of $C^{m}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega ) $ whose functions have $m$-th order derivatives that are uniformly H\u00f6lder continuous with exponent $\\alpha\\in\n]0,1]$ is denoted $C^{m,\\alpha} (\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega )$ (cf., *e.g.*,\u00a0Gilbarg and Trudinger\u00a0[@GiTr83]). The subspace of $C^{m}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega ) $ of those functions $f$ such that $f_{|{\\mathrm{cl}}(\\Omega\\cap{\\mathbb{B}}_{n}(0,R))}\\in\nC^{m,\\alpha}({\\mathrm{cl}}(\\Omega\\cap{\\mathbb{B}}_{n}(0,R)))$ for all $R\\in]0,+\\infty[$ is denoted $C^{m,\\alpha}_{{\\mathrm{loc}}}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega ) $.\n\nNow let $\\Omega $ be a bounded open subset of ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. Then $C^{m}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega )$ and $C^{m,\\alpha }({\\mathrm{cl}}\n\\Omega )$ are endowed with their usual norm and are well-known to be Banach spaces. We say that a bounded open subset $\\Omega$ of ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ is of class $C^{m}$ or of class $C^{m,\\alpha}$, if ${\\mathrm{cl}}\n\\Omega$ is a manifold with boundary imbedded in ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ of class $C^{m}$ or $C^{m,\\alpha}$, respectively (cf., *e.g.*, Gilbarg and Trudinger\u00a0[@GiTr83 \u00a76.2]). We denote by $\n\\nu_{\\Omega}\n$ the outward unit normal to $\\partial\\Omega$. For standard properties of functions in Schauder spaces, we refer the reader to Gilbarg and Trudinger\u00a0[@GiTr83].\n\nIf $M$ is a manifold imbedded in ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ of class $C^{m,\\alpha}$, with $m\\geq 1$, $\\alpha\\in ]0,1[$, one can define the Schauder spaces also on $M$ by exploiting the local parametrizations. In particular, one can consider the spaces $C^{k,\\alpha}(\\partial\\Omega)$ on $\\partial\\Omega$ for $0\\leq k\\leq m$ with $\\Omega$ a bounded open set of class $C^{m,\\alpha}$, and the trace operator from $C^{k,\\alpha}({\\mathrm{cl}}\\Omega)$ to $C^{k,\\alpha}(\\partial\\Omega)$ is linear and continuous. We denote by $d\\sigma$ the area element of a manifold imbedded in ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. Also, we find convenient to set $$C^{k,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega)_{0}\\equiv\n\\left\\{\nf\\in C^{k,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega):\\,\\int_{\\partial\\Omega}f\\,d\\sigma=0 \n\\right\\}\\,.$$ For the definition and properties of real analytic maps, we refer to Deimling [@De85 p.\u00a0150]. In particular, we mention that the pointwise product in Schauder spaces is bilinear and continuous, and thus real analytic (cf., *e.g.*, Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 pp.\u00a0141, 142]).\n\nLet $S_{n}$ be the function from ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}\\setminus\\{0\\}$ to ${\\mathbb{R}}$ defined by $$S_{n}(x)\\equiv\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{lll}\n\\frac{1}{s_{n}}\\log |x| \\qquad &   \\forall x\\in \n{\\mathbb{R}}^{n}\\setminus\\{0\\},\\quad & {\\mathrm{if}}\\ n=2\\,,\n\\\\\n\\frac{1}{(2-n)s_{n}}|x|^{2-n}\\qquad &   \\forall x\\in \n{\\mathbb{R}}^{n}\\setminus\\{0\\},\\quad & {\\mathrm{if}}\\ n>2\\,,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $s_{n}$ denotes the $(n-1)$-dimensional measure of $\\partial{\\mathbb{B}}_{n}(0,1)$. $S_{n}$ is well-known to be a fundamental solution of the Laplace operator.\n\nWe now introduce the simple layer potential. Let $\\alpha\\in]0,1[$. Let $\\Omega$ be a bounded open subset of ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ of class $C^{1,\\alpha}$. If $\\mu\\in C^{0}(\\partial\\Omega)$, we set $$v[\\partial\\Omega,\\mu](x)\\equiv\n\\int_{\\partial\\Omega}S_{n}(x-y)\\mu(y)\\,d\\sigma_{y}\n\\qquad\\forall x\\in {\\mathbb{R}}^{n}\\,.$$ As is well-known, if $\\mu\\in C^{0}(\\partial{\\Omega})$, then $v[\\partial\\Omega,\\mu]$ is continuous in ${\\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. Moreover, if $\\mu\\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial\\Omega)$, then the function $v^{+}[\\partial\\Omega,\\mu]\\equiv v[\\partial\\Omega,\\mu]_{|{\\mathrm{cl}}\\Omega}$ belongs to $C^{1,\\alpha}({\\mathrm{cl}}\\Omega)$, and the function $v^{-}[\\partial\\Omega,\\mu]\\equiv v[\\partial\\Omega,\\mu]_{|\\mathbb{R}^n \\setminus \\Omega}$ belongs to $C^{1,\\alpha}_{\\mathrm{loc}}\n(\\mathbb{R}^n \\setminus \\Omega)$.\n\nA more general formulation {#for}\n==========================\n\nIn this section, we formulate a more general version of the problem we are interested in. Then, by the analysis of such a new problem, we are able to deduce our results concerning the behavior of the solution $u_\\epsilon$ for $\\epsilon$ close to $0$. In a sense, what we are going to do it is to replace $\\eta(\\epsilon)$ by $\\varrho_1$ and $\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)$ by $\\varrho_2$, and to analyze the dependence of the solution of the problem upon $\\varrho_1$ and $\\varrho_2$, which we think as two independent variables.\n\nLet $\\alpha\\in]0,1[$. Let $\\Omega^i_1$, $\\Omega^i_2$, $\\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\\ast \\in [0,+\\infty[$ be such that assumption holds. Then we fix an open neighborhood $\\tilde{\\mathcal{U}}$ of $(0,r_\\ast)$ in $\\mathbb{R}^2$, such that $$\\label{tildeU}\n\\begin{split}\n&\\left(p^1+\\varrho_2\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_1\\right)\\cap\\left(p^2+\\varrho_2\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_2\\right)= \\emptyset  \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}}\\, ,\\\\\n&\\bigg (\\varrho_1 p^1+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_1\\bigg)\\cup\\bigg(\\varrho_1 p^2+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_2\\bigg) \\subseteq \\Omega^o \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\in \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}}\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ Then we introduce the perforated domain $$\\Omega(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\equiv \\Omega^o \\setminus  \\bigcup_{j=1}^2 \\bigg (\\varrho_1p^j+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_j\\bigg) \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}}\\, .$$ Next we take a function $f_1 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$, a function $f_2  \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$, a function $g$ in $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$, and for each pair $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$ we consider the following mixed problem $$\\label{bvprho}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta u(x)=0 & \\forall x \\in \\Omega(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\,,\\\\\n\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial \\nu_{\\varrho_1p^j+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\Omega^i_j}}u(x)=f_j\\Big(\\big(x-\\varrho_1p^j\\big)/(\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)\\Big) & \\forall x \\in   \\varrho_1p^j+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\partial\\Omega^i_j,  \\forall j\\in \\{1,2\\} ,\\\\\nu(x)=g(x) & \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $\\nu_{\\varrho_1p^j+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\Omega^i_j}$ denotes the outward unit normal to $\\varrho_1p^j+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\partial\\Omega^i_j$ for $j\\in \\{1,2\\}$. If $(\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2) \\in \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$, problem has a unique solution in $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2))$ and we denote such a solution by $u[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]$. Clearly, if $\\eta$, $r_\\ast$ are as in and if $\\epsilon_{0}$ is such that $(\\eta(\\epsilon), \\epsilon/ \\eta(\\epsilon)) \\in \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$ for all $\\epsilon \\in ]0,\\epsilon_0[$, then $$\\Omega_{\\epsilon}=\\Omega(\\eta(\\epsilon), \\epsilon/ \\eta(\\epsilon)) \\qquad \\text{and} \\qquad u_{\\epsilon}=u[\\eta(\\epsilon), \\epsilon/ \\eta(\\epsilon)] \\, ,$$ for all $\\epsilon \\in ]0,\\epsilon_0[$.\n\nPreliminaries {#prel}\n=============\n\nIn this section we collect some preliminary results concerning mixed problems for the Laplace operator.\n\nFirst of all, by the Divergence Theorem, we deduce the following uniqueness result.\n\n\\[prop:uniq\\] Let $\\alpha \\in ]0,1[$. Let $\\mathcal{O}^i$, $\\mathcal{O}^o$ be bounded open subsets of $\\mathbb{R}^n$ of class $C^{1,\\alpha}$ such that $\\mathcal{O}^o$, $\\mathbb{R}^n \\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i$, and $\\mathbb{R}^n \\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o$ are connected and that $\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i \\subseteq \\mathcal{O}^o$. Let $v \\in C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i)$ be such that $$\\label{eq:uniq}\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta v(x)=0 & \\forall x \\in \\mathcal{O}^o\\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i\\,,\\\\\n\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial \\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}}v(x)=0 & \\forall x \\in  \\partial  \\mathcal{O}^i\\, ,\\\\\nv(x)=0 & \\forall x \\in \\partial \\mathcal{O}^o\\, .\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Then $v=0$ in $\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i$.\n\nIn the following lemma, we collect some well-known results of classical potential theory (cf.\u00a0Folland [@Fo95 Ch.\u00a03], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm.\u00a03.1], Miranda [@Mi65 Thm\u00a05.I]).\n\n\\[lem:smp\\] Let $\\alpha \\in ]0,1[$. Let $\\Omega$ be a bounded open subset of $\\mathbb{R}^n$ of class $C^{1,\\alpha}$. Then the following statements hold.\n\n1.  The map from $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega)$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega)$ which takes $\\mu$ to $v^+[\\partial \\Omega, \\mu]$ is linear and continuous. Similarly, if $\\tilde{\\Omega}$ is a bounded open subset of $\\mathbb{R}^n\\setminus\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega$, then the map from $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega)$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\tilde\\Omega)$ which takes $\\mu$ to $v^-[\\partial \\Omega, \\mu]_{|\\mathrm{cl}\\tilde\\Omega}$ is linear and continuous.\n\n2.  Let $\\Omega$ be connected. The map from $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial\\Omega)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial\\Omega)$ which takes $(\\mu,\\xi)$ to $v[\\partial \\Omega, \\mu]_{|\\partial\\Omega}+\\xi$ is a linear homeomorphism.\n\n3.  Let $\\mathbb{R}^n \\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega$ be connected. Then the map from $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega)$ to $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega)$ which takes $\\mu$ to the function $$\\frac{1}{2}\\mu(x)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega}DS_n(x-y)\\nu_{\\Omega}(x)\\mu(y)\\, d\\sigma_y$$ of the variable $x \\in \\partial \\Omega$, is a linear homeomorphism.\n\nWe now introduce and study an integral operator which we use in order to solve a mixed problem by means of simple layer potentials.\n\n\\[prop:J\\] Let $\\alpha \\in ]0,1[$. Let $\\mathcal{O}^i$, $\\mathcal{O}^o$ be bounded open subsets of $\\mathbb{R}^n$ of class $C^{1,\\alpha}$ such that $\\mathcal{O}^o$, $\\mathbb{R}^n \\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i$, and $\\mathbb{R}^n \\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o$ are connected and that $\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i \\subseteq \\mathcal{O}^o$. Let $J\\equiv(J_1,J_2)$ be the operator from $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ to $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)$ defined by $$\\begin{split}\nJ_1[\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi](x)\\equiv& \\frac{1}{2}\\mu_1(x)+\\int_{\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i}DS_n(x-y)\\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}(x)\\mu_1(y)\\, d\\sigma_y\\\\ &+\\int_{\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o}DS_n(x-y)\\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}(x)\\mu_2(y)\\, d\\sigma_y \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\mathcal{O}^i\\, ,\\\\\nJ_2[\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi](x)\\equiv &\\int_{\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i}S_n(x-y)\\mu_1(y)\\, d\\sigma_y+\\int_{\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o}S_n(x-y)\\mu_2(y)\\, d\\sigma_y\\\\\n&+\\xi \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\mathcal{O}^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi)\\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$. Then $J$ is a linear homeomorphism.\n\nWe first prove that $J$ is a Fredholm operator of index $0$. Let $\\hat{J}\\equiv(\\hat{J}_1,\\hat{J}_2)$ be the operator from $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ to $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)$ defined by $$\\begin{split}\n\\hat{J}_1[\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi](x)\\equiv& \\frac{1}{2}\\mu_1(x)+\\int_{\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i}DS_n(x-y)\\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}(x)\\mu_1(y)\\, d\\sigma_y \\quad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\mathcal{O}^i\\, ,\\\\\n\\hat{J}_2[\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi](x)\\equiv &\\int_{\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o}S_n(x-y)\\mu_2(y)\\, d\\sigma_y+\\xi \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\mathcal{O}^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi)\\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$. By Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (ii), (iii) one can show that $\\hat{J}$ is a linear homeomorphism. Then let $\\tilde{J}\\equiv(\\tilde{J}_1,\\tilde{J}_2)$ be the operator from $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ to $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)$ defined by $$\\begin{split}\n\\tilde{J}_1[\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi](x)\\equiv& \\int_{\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o}DS_n(x-y)\\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}(x)\\mu_2(y)\\, d\\sigma_y \\quad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\mathcal{O}^i\\, ,\\\\\n\\tilde{J}_2[\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi](x)\\equiv &\\int_{\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i}S_n(x-y)\\mu_1(y)\\, d\\sigma_y \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\mathcal{O}^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi)\\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$. By classical potential theory and standard calculus in Schauder spaces, one can show that $\\tilde{J}$ is a compact operator. Since $J=\\hat{J}+\\tilde{J}$, we deduce that $J$ is a Fredholm operator of index $0$. As a consequence, in order to prove that $J$ is a linear homeormorphism, it suffices to show that it is injective. So let $(\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi)\\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ be such that $J[\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi]=(0,0)$. Then by classical potential theory, the function $v\\equiv v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i,\\mu_1]_{|\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i}+v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]_{|\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i}+ \\xi$ is a solution in $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i)$ of problem . Accordingly, $v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i,\\mu_1]_{|\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i}+v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]_{|\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i}+ \\xi=0$ in $\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i$, and so $$\\label{v-=-v+-xi}\nv^-[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i,\\mu_1]=-v^+[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]- \\xi\\qquad\\textrm{in $\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i$}\\, .$$ Also, $v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i,\\mu_1]=-v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]- \\xi$ on $\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i$ and by uniqueness of the solution of the Dirichlet problem for the Laplace operator, we deduce $$\\label{v+=-v+-xi}\nv^+[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i,\\mu_1]=-v^+[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]- \\xi\\qquad\\textrm{in $\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i$}\\, .$$ As a consequence, $v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i,\\mu_1]=-v^+[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]- \\xi$ on the whole of $\\mathrm{cl} \\mathcal{O}^o$. Since $v^+[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]$ is in $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl} \\mathcal{O}^o)$ (cf.\u00a0Lemma \\[lem:smp\\]), we have $$\\label{-dv++dv+=0}\n-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}}v^+[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]_{|\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i}+\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}}v^+[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]_{|\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i}=0\\qquad\\textrm{on $\\partial\\mathcal{O}^i$}\\,.$$ By equalities and , and by standard jump properties of the single layer potential, the expression on the left hand side of equals $$\\label{dv--dv+=mu}\n\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}}v^-[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i,\\mu_1]-\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial \\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}}v^+[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i,\\mu_1]=\\mu_1\\qquad\\textrm{on $\\partial\\mathcal{O}^i$}\\, .$$ Hence, by and it follows that $\\mu_1=0$. Thus $v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2]+ \\xi=0$ on $\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o$ (cf.\u00a0). Accordingly, Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (ii) implies that $(\\mu_2,\\xi)=(0,0)$, and so the proof is complete.\n\nBy Propositions \\[prop:uniq\\] and \\[prop:J\\] and by the jump properties of the single layer potential, we deduce the validity of the following theorem on the solution of a mixed problem.\n\n\\[thm:ex\\] Let $\\alpha \\in ]0,1[$. Let $\\mathcal{O}^i$, $\\mathcal{O}^o$ be bounded open subsets of $\\mathbb{R}^n$ of class $C^{1,\\alpha}$ such that $\\mathcal{O}^o$, $\\mathbb{R}^n \\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i$, and $\\mathbb{R}^n \\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o$ are connected and that $\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i \\subseteq \\mathcal{O}^o$. Let $J$ be as in Proposition \\[prop:J\\]. Let $(\\phi,\\gamma) \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)$. Then problem $$\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta u(x)=0 & \\forall x \\in \\mathcal{O}^o\\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^i\\,,\\\\\n\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial \\nu_{\\mathcal{O}^i}}u(x)=\\phi(x) & \\forall x \\in  \\partial  \\mathcal{O}^i\\, ,\\\\\nu(x)=\\gamma(x) & \\forall x \\in \\partial \\mathcal{O}^o\\, ,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ has a unique solution $u$ in $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i)$. The solution $u$ is delivered by $$u(x)\\equiv v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i,\\mu_1](x)+v[\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o,\\mu_2](x)+\\xi \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\mathcal{O}^o \\setminus \\mathcal{O}^i\\, ,$$ where $(\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi)$ is the unique triple in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ such that $$J[\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi]=(\\phi,\\gamma)\\, .$$\n\nFormulation of problem in terms of integral equations {#finteq}\n=====================================================\n\nIn this section, we formulate problem in terms of integral equations on $\\partial \\Omega^i_1$, $\\partial\\Omega^i_2$, and $\\partial \\Omega^o$, by exploiting Theorem \\[thm:ex\\] and the rule of change of variables in integrals. Indeed, if $(\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2) \\in \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$, by Theorem \\[thm:ex\\], one can convert problem into a system of integral equations which include an equation defined on $\\partial \\Omega^o$ and two equations defined on the $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$-dependent domains $\\partial(\\varrho_1p^1+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2  \\Omega^i_1)$ and $\\partial(\\varrho_1 p^2+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2  \\Omega^i_2)$. Then, by exploiting an appropriate change of variable, one can obtain an equivalent system of integral equations defined on the fixed domains $\\partial \\Omega^i_1$, $\\partial \\Omega^i_2$, and $\\partial \\Omega^o$.\n\nWe find convenient to introduce the following notation. Let $\\alpha\\in]0,1[$. Let $\\Omega^i_1$, $\\Omega^i_2$, $\\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\\ast \\in [0,+\\infty[$. Let hold. Let $f_1 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$, $g \\in C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Then we introduce the map $\\Lambda=(\\Lambda_1,\\Lambda_2,\\Lambda_3)$ from $\\tilde{\\mathcal{U}}\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ to $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)\\times C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$ defined by $$\\begin{split}\n\\Lambda_1[\\varrho_1,&\\varrho_2,\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi](t)\\equiv\\frac{1}{2}\\theta^{i}_1(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_n(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\theta^{i}_1(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n& \\quad +\\varrho_2^{n-1}\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_n\\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\\varrho_2(t-s)\\bigg)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\theta^{i}_2(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n& \\quad +\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_n\\big(\\varrho_1p^1+\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 t-y\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\theta^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y -f_1(t)\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_1\\, , \\\\\n\\Lambda_2[\\varrho_1,&\\varrho_2,\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi](t)\\equiv\\frac{1}{2}\\theta^{i}_2(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_n(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\theta^{i}_2(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n& \\quad +\\varrho_2^{n-1}\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_n\\bigg((p^2-p^1)+\\varrho_2(t-s)\\bigg)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\theta^{i}_1(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n& \\quad +\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_n\\big(\\varrho_1p^2+\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 t-y\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\theta^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y -f_2(t)\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_2\\, ,\\\\\n\\Lambda_3[\\varrho_1,&\\varrho_2,\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi](x)\\equiv(\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)^{n-1}\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_n(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\theta^{i}_j(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\&+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\\theta^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\xi-g(x) \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2,\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi) \\in \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}}\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$.\n\nIn the following proposition, we describe the link between the map $\\Lambda$ and problem .\n\n\\[prop:finteq\\] Let $\\alpha\\in]0,1[$. Let $\\Omega^i_1$, $\\Omega^i_2$, $\\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\\ast \\in [0,+\\infty[$. Let hold. Let $f_1 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$, $g \\in C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Let $(\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2) \\in \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$. Then the unique solution $u[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]$ in $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2))$ of problem is delivered by $$\\label{eq:finteq1}\n\\begin{split}\nu[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x)\\equiv &(\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)^{n-1}\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_n(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 s)\\theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s \\\\& +\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\\theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\qquad \\forall x \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\,,\n\\end{split}$$ where $(\\theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2])$ is the unique quadruple $(\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi)$ in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2) \\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\\label{inteq2a}\n\\Lambda [\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2,\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi]=0\\, .$$\n\nLet $J$ be as in Proposition \\[prop:J\\] with $$\\mathcal{O}^i\\equiv \\bigg (\\varrho_1p^1+\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 \\Omega^i_1\\bigg)\\cup\\bigg(\\varrho_1p^2+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\Omega^i_2\\bigg) \\, , \\qquad \\mathcal{O}^o\\equiv \\Omega^o\\, .$$ Then by the definition of $\\Lambda$ and the rule of change of variables in integrals one verifies that the quadruple $(\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi)$ in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2) \\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ is a solution of equation if and only if the triple $(\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi)$ in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^i)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\mathcal{O}^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ with $\\mu_1$ and $\\mu_2$ defined by $$\\mu_1(x)\\equiv\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\theta^i_1\\big((x-\\varrho_1p^1)/(\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)\\big) & \\forall x \\in \\varrho_1p^1+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\partial \\Omega_1\\, ,   \n\\\\\n\\theta^i_2\\big((x-\\varrho_1p^2)/(\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)\\big) & \\forall x \\in \\varrho_1p^2+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\partial \\Omega_2\\, , \\end{array}\n\\right.$$ $$\\mu_2(x)\\equiv \\theta^o(x)\\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,$$ is a solution of $$J[\\mu_1,\\mu_2,\\xi]=(\\phi,\\gamma)\\, ,$$ with $\\phi$ and $\\gamma$ defined by $$\\phi(x)\\equiv\n\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\nf_1\\big((x-\\varrho_1 p^1)/(\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)\\big) & \\forall x \\in \\varrho_1 p^1+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\partial \\Omega_1\\, ,   \n\\\\\nf_2\\big((x-\\varrho_1 p^2)/(\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)\\big) & \\forall x \\in \\varrho_1 p^2+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\partial \\Omega_2\\, , \\end{array}\n\\right.$$ $$\\gamma(x)\\equiv g(x)\\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, .$$ Then the conclusion follows by Theorem \\[thm:ex\\].\n\nBy Proposition \\[prop:finteq\\], we are reduced to analyze equation around the case $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,r_\\ast)$. As a first step, in the following lemma we analyze the system which we obtain by taking $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,r_\\ast)$ in equation .\n\n\\[lem:lim\\] Let $\\alpha\\in]0,1[$. Let $\\Omega^i_1$, $\\Omega^i_2$, $\\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\\ast \\in [0,+\\infty[$ be such that holds. Let $f_1 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$, $g \\in C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Then the system of equations $$\\label{inteqlim0}\n\\begin{split}\n&\\frac{1}{2}\\theta^{i}_1(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_n(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\theta^{i}_1(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n& \\quad +r_\\ast^{n-1}\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_n\\big((p^1-p^2)+r_\\ast (t-s)\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\theta^{i}_2(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n& \\quad -\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_n(y)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\theta^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y -f_1(t)=0\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_1\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ $$\\label{inteqlim1}\n\\begin{split}\n&\\frac{1}{2}\\theta^{i}_2(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_n(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\theta^{i}_2(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n& \\quad +r_\\ast^{n-1}\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_n\\big((p^2-p^1)+r_\\ast(t-s)\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\theta^{i}_1(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n& \\quad -\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_n(y)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\theta^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y -f_2(t)=0\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_2\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ $$\\label{inteqlim2}\n\\begin{split}\n\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\\theta^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\xi-g(x)=0 \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ has a unique solution $(\\theta^{i}_1, \\theta^{i}_2, \\theta^{o}, \\xi)$ in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$, which we denote by $(\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1, \\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2, \\tilde{\\theta}^{o}, \\tilde{\\xi})$.\n\nBy Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (ii), equation has a unique solution $(\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}, \\tilde{\\xi})$ in the space $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$. Then we consider equations , and we introduce the operator $M_{r_\\ast}\\equiv(M_{r_\\ast,1},M_{r_\\ast,2})$ from $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$ to itself by setting $$\\begin{split}\nM_{r_\\ast,1}&[\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2](t)\\equiv \\frac{1}{2}\\theta^{i}_1(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_n(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\theta^{i}_1(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n&  +r_\\ast^{n-1}\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_n\\big((p^1-p^2)+r_\\ast (t-s)\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\theta^{i}_2(s)\\, d\\sigma_s \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_1\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ $$\\begin{split}\nM_{r_\\ast,2}&[\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2](t)\\equiv \\frac{1}{2}\\theta^{i}_2(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_n(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\theta^{i}_2(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n&  +r_\\ast^{n-1}\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_n\\big((p^2-p^1)+r_\\ast(t-s)\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\theta^{i}_1(s)\\, d\\sigma_s \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_2\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\theta^i_1,\\theta^i_2) \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$. We need to show that there exists a unique pair $(\\theta^i_1,\\theta^i_2)$ such that $$\\begin{split}\nM_{r_\\ast,1}&[\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2](t) =\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_n(y)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y +f_1(t)\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_1\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ $$\\begin{split}\nM_{r_\\ast,2}&[\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2](t) =\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_n(y)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y +f_2(t)\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_2\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ In order to do so, it clearly suffices to show that the operator $M_{r_\\ast}$ is invertible. If $r_\\ast=0$, the invertibility follows immediately by Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (iii). If $r_\\ast > 0$, we note that $$\\begin{split}\nM_{r_\\ast,1}&[\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2]\\big((x-p^1)/r_{\\ast}\\big)= \\frac{1}{2}\\theta^{i}_1\\big((x-p^1)/r_{\\ast}\\big)\\\\\\ +&\\int_{\\partial (p^1+r_\\ast \\Omega^i_1)}DS_n(x-y)\\nu_{p^1+r_\\ast \\Omega^i_1}(x)\\theta^{i}_1\\big((y-p^1)/r_{\\ast}\\big)\\, d\\sigma_y\\\\ \n +&\\int_{\\partial (p^2+r_\\ast\\Omega^i_2)}DS_n(x-y)\\nu_{p^1+r_\\ast \\Omega^i_1}(x)\\theta^{i}_2\\big((y-p^2)/r_{\\ast}\\big)\\, d\\sigma_y \\\\ \n & \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad  \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial (p^1+r_\\ast \\Omega^i_1)\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ $$\\begin{split}\nM_{r_\\ast,2}&[\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2]\\big((x-p^2)/r_{\\ast}\\big)= \\frac{1}{2}\\theta^{i}_2\\big((x-p^2)/r_{\\ast}\\big)\\\\\\ +&\\int_{\\partial (p^2+r_\\ast \\Omega^i_2)}DS_n(x-y)\\nu_{p^2+r_\\ast \\Omega^i_2}(x)\\theta^{i}_2\\big((y-p^2)/r_{\\ast}\\big)\\, d\\sigma_y\\\\ \n +&\\int_{\\partial (p^1+r_\\ast\\Omega^i_1)}DS_n(x-y)\\nu_{p^2+r_\\ast \\Omega^i_2}(x)\\theta^{i}_1\\big((y-p^1)/r_{\\ast}\\big)\\, d\\sigma_y \\\\ \n & \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad  \\qquad \\qquad \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial (p^2+r_\\ast \\Omega^i_2)\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ As a consequence, the invertibility of $M_{r_\\ast}$ follows by Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (iii) with $\\Omega\\equiv(p^1+r_{\\ast}\\Omega_1)\\cup (p^2+r_{\\ast}\\Omega_2)$.\n\n\\[rem:lim\\] Let the assumptions of Lemma \\[lem:lim\\] hold. Let $\\tilde{u}$ be the unique solution in $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^o)$ of $$\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta u(x)=0 & \\forall x \\in \\Omega^o\\,,\\\\\nu(x)=g(x) & \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, .\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Then $\\tilde{u}= v^+[\\partial \\Omega^o,\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}]+\\tilde{\\xi}$.\n\nWe are now ready to analyze equation around the degenerate pair $(\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2)=(0, r_\\ast)$.\n\n\\[prop:ansol\\] Let $\\alpha\\in]0,1[$. Let $\\Omega^i_1$, $\\Omega^i_2$, $\\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\\ast \\in [0,+\\infty[$. Let hold. Let $\\tilde{\\mathcal{U}}$ be as in . Let $f_1 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$, $g \\in C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Let $(\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2, \\tilde{\\theta}^{o}, \\tilde{\\xi})$ be as in Lemma \\[lem:lim\\]. Then there exist an open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U}$ of $(0,r_{\\ast})$ in $\\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $(\\Theta^{i}_1,\\Theta^{i}_2, \\Theta^{o}, \\Xi)$ from $\\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\\mathcal{U} \\subseteq \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}}\\, ,$$ and that $$\\begin{split}\n(\\theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2])=(\\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2&[ \\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[ \\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[ \\varrho_1,\\varrho_2])\\\\ &  \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ and that $$(\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2, \\tilde{\\theta}^{o}, \\tilde{\\xi})=(\\Theta^{i}_1[0,r_\\ast], \\Theta^{i}_2[0,r_\\ast], \\Theta^{o}[0,r_\\ast], \\Xi[0,r_\\ast])\\, .$$\n\nBy standard properties of integral operators with real analytic kernels and with no singularity, and by classical mapping properties of layer potentials (cf.\u00a0Miranda\u00a0[@Mi65], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm.\u00a03.1], Lanza de Cristoforis and the second-named author [@LaMu13 \u00a74]), we conclude that $\\Lambda$ is real analytic. Now we plan to apply the Implicit Function Theorem to equation $\\Lambda[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2,\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi]=0$ around the point $(0, r_\\ast,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\tilde{\\theta}^{o},\\tilde{\\xi})$. By definition of $(\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\tilde{\\theta}^{o},\\tilde{\\xi})$, we have $\\Lambda[0, r_\\ast, \\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\tilde{\\theta}^{o},\\tilde{\\xi}]=0$. By standard calculus in Banach spaces, the differential of $\\Lambda$ at $(0, r_\\ast, \\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\tilde{\\theta}^{o},\\tilde{\\xi})$ with respect to the variables $(\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi)$ is delivered by the formulas $$\\begin{split}\n\\partial_{(\\theta^{i}_1, \\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi)}\\Lambda_1[0,r_\\ast,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\tilde{\\theta}^{o},&\\tilde{\\xi}](\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\bar{\\theta}^{o},\\bar{\\xi})(t)\\\\\n&\\equiv\\frac{1}{2}\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_1(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_n(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_1(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n&  +r_\\ast^{n-1}\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_n\\big((p^1-p^2)+r_\\ast (t-s)\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_2(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&  -\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_n(y)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\bar{\\theta}^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_1\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ $$\\begin{split}\n\\partial_{(\\theta^{i}_1, \\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi)}\\Lambda_2[0,r_\\ast,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\tilde{\\theta}^{o},&\\tilde{\\xi}](\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\bar{\\theta}^{o},\\bar{\\xi})(t)\\\\&\\equiv\\frac{1}{2}\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_2(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_n(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_2(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n&  +r_\\ast^{n-1}\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_n\\big((p^2-p^1)+r_\\ast(t-s)\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_1(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&  -\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_n(y)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\bar{\\theta}^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_2\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ $$\\begin{split}\n\\partial_{(\\theta^{i}_1, \\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi)}\\Lambda_3[0,r_\\ast,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\tilde{\\theta}^{o},\\tilde{\\xi}](\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\bar{\\theta}^{o},\\bar{\\xi})(x)\\equiv\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\\bar{\\theta}^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y &+\\bar{\\xi}\\\\ &\\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\bar{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\bar{\\theta}^{o},\\bar{\\xi}) \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$. Then, by arguing as in the proof of Lemma \\[lem:lim\\], by classical potential theory, and by standard calculus in Banach spaces, one can show that $\\partial_{(\\theta^{i}_1,\\theta^{i}_2,\\theta^{o},\\xi)}\\Lambda[0,r_\\ast,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2,\\tilde{\\theta}^{o},\\tilde{\\xi}]$ is a linear homeomorphism from $ C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ onto $ C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)\\times C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Then by the Implicit Function Theorem for real analytic maps in Banach spaces (cf., *e.g.*, Deimling [@De85 Theorem 15.3]), there exist an open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U} \\subseteq \\tilde{\\mathcal{U}}$ of $(0,r_{\\ast})$ in $\\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $(\\Theta^{i}_1,\\Theta^{i}_2, \\Theta^{o}, \\Xi)$ from $\\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)\\times C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\\label{eq:ansol}\n\\Lambda\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr]=0 \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in  \\mathcal{U}\\, .$$ In particular, by Proposition \\[prop:finteq\\] and Lemma \\[lem:lim\\], we have $$\\begin{split}\n(\\theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2])=(\\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[ &\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[ \\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[ \\varrho_1,\\varrho_2])\\\\ &  \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ and $$(\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_1,\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_2, \\tilde{\\theta}^{o}, \\tilde{\\xi})=(\\Theta^{i}_1[0,r_\\ast], \\Theta^{i}_2[0,r_\\ast], \\Theta^{o}[0,r_\\ast], \\Xi[0,r_\\ast])\\, ,$$ and thus the proof is complete.\n\nA functional analytic representation theorem for the solution of problem  {#fure}\n=========================================================================\n\nIn the following theorem, we exploit the analyticity result for the solutions of equation in order to prove representation formulas for $u[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]$ in terms of real analytic maps. Then, by the analysis of the behavior of $u[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]$ for $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ close to the degenerate value $(0,r_\\ast)$, we will be able to answer questions (i), (ii), (iii) asked in the introduction and concerning the behavior of the solution $u_\\epsilon$ of problem .\n\n\\[thm:rep\\] Let $\\alpha\\in]0,1[$. Let $\\Omega^i_1$, $\\Omega^i_2$, $\\Omega^o$ be as in . Let $p^1$, $p^2$ be as in . Let $r_\\ast \\in [0,+\\infty[$. Let hold. Let $f_1 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$, $f_2 \\in C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$, $g \\in C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Let $\\tilde{u}$ be as in Remark \\[rem:lim\\]. Let $\\mathcal{U}$ be as in Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\]. Then the following statements hold.\n\n1.  Let $\\Omega_M$ be an open subset of $\\Omega^o$ such that $0 \\not \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_M$. Then there exist an open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M}$ of $(0,r_\\ast)$ in $\\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $U_{M,\\Omega_M}$ from $\\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M}$ to the space $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl} \\Omega_M)$ such that $$\\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M} \\subseteq \\mathcal{U}\\, ,  \\qquad \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_M\\subseteq \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\in \\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M} \\, ,$$ and such that $$\\begin{split}\n    u[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x)&= U_{M,\\Omega_M}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x)\\qquad\\forall x\\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_M\\,,\n    \\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\in\\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$. Moreover, $$\\begin{split}\n    \\label{eq:rep1}\n    U_{M,\\Omega_M}[0,r_\\ast](x)=\\tilde{u}(x)\\qquad\\forall x\\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_M\\, .\n    \\end{split}$$\n\n2.  Let $\\Omega_m$ be a bounded open subset of $\\mathbb{R}^{n}\\setminus\\cup_{j=1}^2(p^j+r_\\ast{\\mathrm{cl}}\\Omega^i_j)$. Then there exist an open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m}$ of $(0,r_\\ast)$ in $\\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $U_{m,\\Omega_m}$ from $\\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m}$ to the space $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl} \\Omega_m)$ such that $$\\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m} \\subseteq \\mathcal{U}\\, , \\qquad \\varrho_1\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m\\subseteq \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\in \\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m} \\,,$$ and such that $$\\begin{split}\n    u[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](\\varrho_1 t)&= U_{m,\\Omega_m}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](t)+\\delta_{2,n}\\frac{\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\log \\varrho_1}{2\\pi}\\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j \\, d\\sigma\\ \\forall t\\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m\\,,\n    \\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\in\\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$. Moreover, $$\\begin{split}\n    \\label{eq:rep2}\n    U_{m,\\Omega_m}[0,r_\\ast](t)=\\tilde{u}(0)\\qquad\\forall t\\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m\\, .\n    \\end{split}$$\n\n3.  Let $j \\in \\{1,2\\}$. Let $l \\in (\\{1,2\\}\\setminus \\{j\\})$. Let $\\Omega_{m^\\ast}$ be a bounded open subset of $\\mathbb{R}^{n}\\setminus \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_j$ such that $(p^j +r_\\ast \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}) \\cap (p^l +r_\\ast \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_l)= \\emptyset$. Then there exist an open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$ of $(0,r_\\ast)$ in $\\mathbb{R}^2$ and a real analytic map $U_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$ from $\\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$ to the space $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl} \\Omega_{m^\\ast})$ such that $$\\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}} \\subseteq \\mathcal{U}\\, , \\qquad \\varrho_1p^j+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\subseteq \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\in \\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}} \\,,$$ and such that $$\\begin{split}\n    u[\\varrho_1,&\\varrho_2](\\varrho_1 p^j +\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 t)= U_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](t)\\\\&+ \\delta_{2,n}\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\Bigg(\\frac{\\log (\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)}{2 \\pi} \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j \\, d\\sigma+ \\frac{\\ \\log \\varrho_1 }{2 \\pi} \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_l}f_l \\, d\\sigma \\Bigg)\\quad \\forall t \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\,,\n    \\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\in\\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$. Moreover, $$\\begin{split}\n    \\label{eq:rep3}\n    U_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}[0,r_\\ast](t)=\\tilde{u}(0)\\qquad\\forall t\\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\, .\n    \\end{split}$$\n\n(Here the symbol \u2018$M$\u2019 stands for \u2018macroscopic\u2019 and the symbols \u2018$m$\u2019 and \u2018$m^\\ast$\u2019 stand for \u2018microscopic\u2019.)\n\nWe first prove statement (i). By possibly taking a bigger $\\Omega_M$, we can assume that $\\Omega_M$ is of class $C^1$. Clearly, there exists an open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M}$ of $(0,r_\\ast)$ in $\\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $\\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M} \\subseteq \\mathcal{U}$ and that $$\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_M \\cap (\\cup_{j=1}^2 (\\varrho_1 p^j +\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_j))= \\emptyset \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M}\\, .$$ Then we introduce the map $U_{M,\\Omega_M}$ from $\\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M}$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_M)$ by setting $$\\begin{split}\nU_{M,\\Omega_M}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x)&\\equiv (\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)^{n-1}\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_n(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\&+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2] \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\mathrm{cl} \\Omega_M\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M}$. By standard properties of integral operators with real analytic kernels and with no singularity, by standard properties of functions in Schauder spaces, by classical mapping properties of layer potentials (cf.\u00a0Lanza de Cristoforis and the second-named author [@LaMu13], Miranda\u00a0[@Mi65], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm.\u00a03.1]), and by Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\], we conclude that $U_{M,\\Omega_M}$ is real analytic. Moreover, Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] implies that $\\Theta^{o}[0,r_\\ast]=\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}$ and that $\\Xi^{o}[0,r_\\ast]=\\tilde{\\xi}$, and thus $$\\begin{split}\nU_{M,\\Omega_M}[0,r_\\ast](x)= \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y+\\tilde{\\xi}=\\tilde{u}(x) \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_M\\, ,\n \\end{split}$$ and the validity of equality follows.\n\nWe now consider statement (ii). By possibly taking a bigger $\\Omega_m$, we can assume that $\\Omega_m$ is of class $C^1$. Clearly, there exists an open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m}$ of $(0,r_\\ast)$ in $\\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $\\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m} \\subseteq \\mathcal{U}$ and that $$\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m \\cap (\\cup_{j=1}^2 ( p^j +\\varrho_2 \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_j))= \\emptyset \\, , \\qquad \\varrho_1 \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m \\subseteq \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^o \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M}\\, .$$ Then we introduce the map $U_{m,\\Omega_m}$ from $\\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m}$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m)$ by setting $$\\begin{split}\nU_{m,\\Omega_m}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](t)&\\equiv \\varrho_1 \\varrho_2^{n-1}\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_n(t-p^j- \\varrho_2 s)\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\&+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(\\varrho_1t-y)\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2] \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\mathrm{cl} \\Omega_m\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m}$. By equality we have $$\\begin{split}\n\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\Lambda_j\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1, &\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2]\\bigr]\\, d\\sigma=0  \\\\& \\forall (\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}\\, , \\ \\forall j\\in \\{1,2\\}\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ Thus, by classical potential theory, we have $$\\label{intf}\n\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\Theta^i_j[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2] \\, d\\sigma= \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j \\, d\\sigma \\qquad \\forall  (\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}\\, , \\ \\forall j \\in \\{1,2\\}\\, .$$ Then by a simple computation, one verifies that $$\\begin{split}\nu[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](\\varrho_1 t)=U_{m,\\Omega_m}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](t)+ \\delta_{2,n}\\frac{\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\log \\varrho_1}{2 \\pi}\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j \\, d\\sigma \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m\\,,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$. By standard properties of integral operators with real analytic kernels and with no singularity, by standard properties of functions in Schauder spaces, by classical mapping properties of layer potentials (cf.\u00a0Miranda\u00a0[@Mi65], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm.\u00a03.1], Lanza de Cristoforis and the second-named author [@LaMu13]), and by Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\], we conclude that $U_{m,\\Omega_m}$ is real analytic. Moreover, Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] implies that $\\Theta^{o}[0,r_\\ast]=\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}$ and that $\\Xi^{o}[0,r_\\ast]=\\tilde{\\xi}$, and thus $$\\begin{split}\nU_{m,\\Omega_m}[0,r_\\ast](t)= \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(0-y)\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y+\\tilde{\\xi}=\\tilde{u}(0) \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m\\, ,\n \\end{split}$$ and the validity of equality follows. Thus the proof of statement (ii) is complete.\n\nWe now turn to prove statement (iii). By possibly taking a bigger $\\Omega_{m^\\ast}$, we can assume that $\\Omega_{m^\\ast}$ is of class $C^1$. Clearly, there exists an open neighborhood $\\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$ of $(0,r_\\ast)$ in $\\mathbb{R}^2$ such that $\\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}} \\subseteq \\mathcal{U}$ and that $$\\begin{split}\n&\\left(p^j+\\varrho_2\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\right)\\cap\\left(p^l+\\varrho_2\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^i_l\\right)= \\emptyset  \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}\\, ,\\\\\n&\\bigg (\\varrho_1 p^j+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\bigg) \\subseteq \\Omega^o \\qquad \\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\in \\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ Then we introduce the map $U_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$ from $\\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast})$ by setting $$\\begin{split}\nU_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}[&\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](t)\\equiv \\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_n(t- s)\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\&+\\varrho_1\\varrho_2^{n-1}\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_l}S_n(p^j+\\varrho_2 t-p^l -\\varrho_2 s)\\Theta^{i}_l[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\&+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(\\varrho_1p^j+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 t-y)\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2] \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\mathrm{cl} \\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$. By classical potential theory, by equality , and by a simple computation, one verifies that $$\\begin{split}\nu[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](&\\varrho_1p^j +\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 t)=U_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](t)\\\\\n&+ \\delta_{2,n}\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\Bigg(\\frac{\\log (\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2)}{2 \\pi} \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j \\, d\\sigma+ \\frac{\\ \\log \\varrho_1 }{2 \\pi} \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_l}f_l \\, d\\sigma \\Bigg)\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\,,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}} \\cap ]0,+\\infty[^2$. By standard properties of integral operators with real analytic kernels and with no singularity, by standard properties of functions in Schauder spaces, by classical mapping properties of layer potentials (cf.\u00a0Lanza de Cristoforis and the second-named author [@LaMu13], Miranda\u00a0[@Mi65], Lanza de Cristoforis and Rossi [@LaRo04 Thm.\u00a03.1]), and by Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\], we conclude that $U_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$ is real analytic. Moreover, Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] implies that $\\Theta^{o}[0,r_\\ast]=\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}$ and that $\\Xi^{o}[0,r_\\ast]=\\tilde{\\xi}$, and thus $$\\begin{split}\nU_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}[0,r_\\ast](t)= \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(0-y)\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y+\\tilde{\\xi}=\\tilde{u}(0) \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\, ,\n \\end{split}$$ and the validity of equality follows.\n\nThen by Theorem \\[thm:rep\\], we immediately deduce the validity of the following.\n\n\\[cor:repeps\\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:rep\\] hold. Let $\\eta$, $r_\\ast$ be as in . Let $\\epsilon_{0}$ be as in . Then the following statements hold.\n\n1.  Let $\\Omega_M$, $\\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M}$, $U_{M,\\Omega_M}$ be as in Theorem \\[thm:rep\\] (i). Then there exists $\\epsilon_{M,\\Omega_M}\\in]0,\\epsilon_0[$ such that $$(\\eta(\\epsilon),\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{M,\\Omega_M}\\, , \\qquad \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_M\\subseteq \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_\\epsilon \\qquad \\forall \\epsilon\\in ]0,\\epsilon_{M,\\Omega_M}[ \\,,$$ and such that $$\\begin{split}\n    u_\\epsilon(x)&= U_{M,\\Omega_M}[\\eta(\\epsilon),\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)](x)\\qquad\\forall x\\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_M\\,,\n    \\end{split}$$ for all $\\epsilon\\in]0,\\epsilon_{M,\\Omega_M}[$.\n\n2.  Let $\\Omega_m$, $\\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m}$, $U_{m,\\Omega_m}$ be as in Theorem \\[thm:rep\\] (ii). Then there exists $\\epsilon_{m,\\Omega_m}\\in]0,\\epsilon_0[$ such that $$(\\eta(\\epsilon),\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{m,\\Omega_m}\\, , \\qquad \\eta(\\epsilon)\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m\\subseteq \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_\\epsilon \\qquad \\forall \\epsilon\\in ]0,\\epsilon_{m,\\Omega_m}[ \\,,$$ and such that $$\\begin{split}\n    u_\\epsilon(\\eta(\\epsilon)t)&= U_{m,\\Omega_m}[\\eta(\\epsilon),\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)](t)+\\delta_{2,n}\\frac{\\epsilon \\log \\eta(\\epsilon)}{2\\pi}\\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j \\, d\\sigma\\quad\\forall t\\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_m\\,,\n    \\end{split}$$ for all $\\epsilon\\in]0,\\epsilon_{m,\\Omega_m}[$.\n\n3.  Let $j$, $l$, $\\Omega_{m^\\ast}$, $\\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$, $U_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}$ be as in Theorem \\[thm:rep\\] (iii). Then there exists $\\epsilon_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}\\in]0,\\epsilon_0[$ such that $$(\\eta(\\epsilon),\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)) \\in \\mathcal{U}_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}\\, , \\qquad \\eta(\\epsilon)p^j+\\epsilon\\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\subseteq \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_\\epsilon \\qquad \\forall \\epsilon\\in ]0,\\epsilon_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}[ \\,,$$ and such that $$\\begin{split}\n    u_\\epsilon(&\\eta(\\epsilon) p^j +\\epsilon t)= U_{j,m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}[\\eta(\\epsilon),\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)](t)\\\\&+ \\delta_{2,n}\\epsilon \\Bigg(\\frac{\\log \\epsilon}{2 \\pi} \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j \\, d\\sigma+ \\frac{\\ \\log \\eta(\\epsilon) }{2 \\pi} \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_l}f_l \\, d\\sigma \\Bigg)\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega_{m^\\ast}\\,,\n    \\end{split}$$ for all $\\epsilon\\in ]0,\\epsilon_{m^\\ast,\\Omega_{m^\\ast}}[$.\n\nUnder the assumptions of Corollary \\[cor:repeps\\], we note that if $x \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^o \\setminus \\{0\\}$ is fixed, then we can deduce the existence of a sequence $\\{c_{(j_1,j_2)}\\}_{(j_1,j_2)\\in \\mathbb{N}^2\\setminus \\{(0,0)\\}}$ such that $$u_\\epsilon(x)=\\tilde{u}(x)+\\sum_{(j_1,j_2)\\in \\mathbb{N}^2\\setminus \\{(0,0)\\}}c_{(j_1,j_2)} \\Big(\\eta(\\epsilon)\\Big)^{j_1}\\bigg(\\frac{\\epsilon}{\\eta(\\epsilon)}-r_\\ast\\bigg)^{j_2} \\, ,$$ for $\\epsilon$ in a neighborhood of $0$. Moreover, if we know that $\\eta(\\epsilon)$ equals the restriction to positive values of $\\epsilon$ of a real analytic function defined in a neighborhood of $0$, then by the function $\\epsilon/\\eta(\\epsilon)$ has a real analytic continuation in a neighborhood of $\\epsilon=0$ and thus we can deduce the existence of a sequence $\\{c_j\\}_{j \\in \\mathbb{N}\\setminus \\{0\\}}$ such that $$u_\\epsilon(x)=\\tilde{u}(x)+\\sum_{j \\in \\mathbb{N}\\setminus \\{0\\}}c_j \\epsilon^j \\, ,$$ for $\\epsilon$ small and positive, where the series converges absolutely in a neighborhood of $0$.\n\nAsymptotic expansion of the solution of the mixed problem {#asy}\n=========================================================\n\nThe aim of this section is to provide an asymptotic expansion of the solution $u[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]$ of the mixed problem as $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ tends to the degenerate value $(0,r_\\ast)$. We shall assume that $r_\\ast =0$ and we will focus on the two-dimensional case. As already done in [@DaMuRo] for the Dirichlet problem for the Laplace equation, since the solution is represented by means of layer potentials, we first need to obtain expansions of the densities of the layer potentials. Therefore, here we first compute an expansion in the variable $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ of $(\\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[ \\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[ \\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[ \\varrho_1,\\varrho_2])$ for $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ close to the degenerate value $(0,r_\\ast)=(0,0)$. On the other hand, by the real analyticity of $(\\Theta^{i}_1,\\Theta^{i}_2, \\Theta^{o}, \\Xi)$ (cf.\u00a0Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\]), we know that there exist families $\\{\\theta^{i}_{1,(j,k)}\\}_{(j,k) \\in \\mathbb{N}^2} \\subseteq C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$, $\\{\\theta^{i}_{2,(j,k)}\\}_{(j,k)\\in \\mathbb{N}^2} \\subseteq C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$, $\\{\\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}\\}_{(j,k) \\in \\mathbb{N}^2} \\subseteq C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0$, $\\{\\xi_{(j,k)}\\}_{(j,k) \\in \\mathbb{N}^2} \\subseteq \\mathbb{R}$, such that for $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ in a neighborhood of $(0,0)$ we have $$\\begin{split}\n& \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]=\\sum_{(j,k)\\in \\mathbb{N}^2} \\frac{\\theta^{i}_{1,(j,k)}}{j!k!}\\varrho_1^j \\varrho_2^k\\, , \\qquad \\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]=\\sum_{(j,k)\\in \\mathbb{N}^2} \\frac{\\theta^{i}_{2,(j,k)}}{j!k!}\\varrho_1^j \\varrho_2^k\\, , \\\\\n& \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]=\\sum_{(j,k)\\in \\mathbb{N}^2} \\frac{\\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}}{j!k!}\\varrho_1^j \\varrho_2^k\\, , \\qquad \\  \\ \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]=\\sum_{(j,k)\\in \\mathbb{N}^2} \\frac{\\xi_{(j,k)}}{j!k!}\\varrho_1^j \\varrho_2^k\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ where the series converge absolutely in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$, in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$, in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0$, and in $\\mathbb{R}$, respectively, uniformly for $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ in a compact neighborhood of $(0,0)$. In particular, $$\\begin{split}\n&\\theta^{i}_{1,(j,k)}=\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k \\Theta^{i}_1[0,0]\\, , \\qquad  \\theta^{i}_{2,(j,k)}=\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k \\Theta^{i}_2[0,0]\\, ,\\\\\n& \\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}=\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k \\Theta^{o}[0,0]\\, , \\qquad \\ \\ \\xi_{(j,k)}=\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k \\Xi[0,0]\\,, \n\\end{split}$$ for all $(j,k) \\in \\mathbb{N}^2 \\setminus \\{(0,0)\\}$, and $$\\begin{split}\n&\\theta^{i}_{1,(0,0)}=\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_{1}\\, , \\qquad  \\theta^{i}_{2,(0,0)}=\\tilde{\\theta}^{i}_{2}\\, ,\\\\\n& \\theta^{o}_{(0,0)}=\\tilde{\\theta}^{o}\\, , \\qquad \\ \\ \\xi_{(0,0)}=\\tilde{\\xi}\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ We now plan to identify some suitable coefficients $\\theta^{i}_{1,(j,k)}$, $\\theta^{i}_{2,(j,k)}$, $\\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}$, $\\xi_{(j,k)}$ as the solutions of certain integral equations, in order to study the asymptotic expansion of $u[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2]$. To do so, we shall exploit the fact that by equality we have $$\\label{eq:ansol:der}\n\\begin{split}\n\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k\\Lambda\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,&\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr]=0 \\\\ &\\forall (\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in  \\mathcal{U}\\, , \\forall (j,k) \\in \\mathbb{N}^2\\, .\n\\end{split}$$\n\nIn the following lemma we consider the first coefficients $\\theta^o_{(j,k)}$, $\\xi_{(j,k)}$. In particular, we show that if $n=2$, then $\\theta^o_{(j,0)}$, $\\theta^o_{(0,k)}$, $\\xi_{(j,0)}$, and $\\xi_{(0,k)}$ are all equal to $0$ for all $(j,k) \\in  \\mathbb{N}^2\\setminus \\{(0,0)\\}$.\n\n\\[lem:1\\] Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. Then $$\\begin{split}\n\\theta^o_{(j,k)}=0\\, , \\ \\xi_{(j,k)}=0\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(j,k) \\in \\Big(\\{0,1,\\dots,n-2\\}\\times \\big(\\mathbb{N} \\setminus \\{0\\}\\big) \\Big)\\cup  \\Big(  \\big(\\mathbb{N} \\setminus \\{0\\}\\big) \\times \\{0,1,\\dots,n-2\\}\\Big)$. In particular, if $n=2$, then $$\\theta^o_{(j,0)}=0\\, ,\\ \\theta^o_{(0,k)}=0\\, , \\ \\xi_{(j,0)}=0\\, , \\ \\xi_{(0,k)}=0\\, , \\qquad \\forall (j,k) \\in  \\mathbb{N}^2\\setminus \\{(0,0)\\}\\, .$$\n\nLet $(j,k) \\in \\{0,1,\\dots,n-2\\}\\times (\\mathbb{N} \\setminus \\{0\\})$. A simple computation shows that $$\\label{eq:1:4}\n \\begin{split}\n \\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j &\\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k \\Lambda_3\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr](x)\\\\\n &=\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\\\&+\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\bigg(\\varrho_1^{n-1}\\tilde{R}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x)\\bigg) \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n \\end{split}$$ for $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in  \\mathcal{U}$, where $\\tilde{R}_1$ is a real analytic function from $\\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Accordingly, by and , we have $$\\begin{split}\n0=\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]+\\varrho_1^{n-1-j}&\\tilde{R}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x) \\\\& \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in  \\mathcal{U}$, where $\\tilde{R}_2$ is a real analytic function from $\\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Then, by taking $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,0)$ we obtain $$0=\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_n(x-y)\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k\\Theta^{o}[0,0](y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k\\Xi[0,0] \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,$$ which implies $$\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k\\Theta^{o}[0,0]=0\\, ,\\qquad \\partial_{\\varrho_1}^j \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^k\\Xi[0,0]=0\\, ,$$ *i.e.*, $$\\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}=0\\, ,\\qquad \\xi_{(j,k)}=0\\, .$$ Similarly, one shows that if $(j,k) \\in (\\mathbb{N}\\setminus \\{0\\}) \\times \\{0,1,\\dots,n-2\\}$, then $$\\theta^{o}_{(j,k)}=0\\, ,\\qquad \\xi_{(j,k)}=0\\,$$ (cf. Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (ii)).\n\nWe now confine ourselves to the case $n=2$. In Lemmas \\[lem:2\\] and \\[lem:3\\] below, we provide the integral equations which identify the functions $\\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}$, $\\theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}$, $\\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}$, and $\\theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}$.\n\n\\[lem:2\\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. Then $\\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$ such that $$\\label{eq:2:5}\n \\begin{split}\n &\\frac{1}{2} \\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_2(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t) \\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n&  +\\sum_{h,k=1}^2(p^1)_h(\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t))_k\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}\\big(\\partial_h\\partial_kS_2\\big)(y)\\theta^{o}_{(0,0)}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y=0\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_1\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ and $\\theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$ such that\n\n$$\\begin{split}\n &\\frac{1}{2} \\theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}(t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_2(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t) \\theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n&  +\\sum_{h,k=1}^2(p^2)_h(\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t))_k\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}\\big(\\partial_h\\partial_kS_2\\big)(y)\\theta^{o}_{(0,0)}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y=0\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_2\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ Moreover, $$\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}\\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}\\, d\\sigma=0\\, , \\qquad \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}\\theta^{i}_{2,(1,0)}\\, d\\sigma=0\\, .$$\n\nIf $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\\Lambda_1\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr]$$ for $n=2$, we deduce that $$\\label{eq:2:1}\n\\begin{split}\n \\partial_{\\varrho_1} &\\Lambda_1\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr](t)\\\\\n &=\\frac{1}{2} \\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_2(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t) \\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n&  +\\varrho_2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_2\\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\\varrho_2(t-s)\\bigg)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t) \\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&  +\\sum_{h,k=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h\\partial_kS_2\\Big)\\big(\\varrho_1p^1+\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 t-y\\big)\\bigg](p^1+\\varrho_2 t)_h(\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t))_k\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y\\\\\n&  +\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_2\\big(\\varrho_1p^1+\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 t-y\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_1\\, . \n\\end{split}$$ Then by equality , by formula , by taking $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, by Lemma \\[lem:1\\], and by classical potential theory (see also Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (iii)), we deduce that $\\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$ such that equation holds. By integrating equality , we also deduce that $\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}\\theta^{i}_{1,(1,0)}\\, d\\sigma=0$. Similarly, one argues for $\\theta^i_{2,(1,0)}$.\n\n\\[lem:3\\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. Then $\\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$ such that $$\\begin{split}\n\\frac{1}{2} \\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}(t)+&\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_2(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)  \\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n& =DS_2\\big(p^2-p^1\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2} f_2\\, d\\sigma \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_1\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ and $\\theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_2)$ such that $$\\label{eq:3:5}\n\\begin{split}\n\\frac{1}{2} \\theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}(t)+&\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_2(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)  \\theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}(s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n& =DS_2\\big(p^1-p^2\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_2}(t)\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1} f_1\\, d\\sigma  \\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_2\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ In particular, $$\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}\\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}\\, d\\sigma=0\\, , \\qquad \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}\\theta^{i}_{2,(0,1)}\\, d\\sigma=0\\, .$$\n\nIf $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\\Lambda_1\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr]$$ for $n=2$, we deduce that $$\\label{eq:3:1}\n\\begin{split}\n &\\partial_{\\varrho_2} \\Lambda_1\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr](t)\\\\\n &=\\frac{1}{2} \\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](t)+\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}DS_2(t-s)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t) \\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n&  +\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_2\\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\\varrho_2(t-s)\\bigg)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t) \\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&  +\\varrho_2\\sum_{h,k=1}^2(\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t))_h\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h\\partial_k S_2\\Big)\\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\\varrho_2(t-s)\\bigg)\\bigg] (t-s)_k\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&  +\\varrho_2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_2}DS_2\\bigg((p^1-p^2)+\\varrho_2(t-s)\\bigg)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t) \\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&+\\varrho_1 \\sum_{h,k=1}^{2}t_h(\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t))_k\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h\\partial_kS_2\\Big)\\big(\\varrho_1p^1+\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 t-y\\big)\\bigg]\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y\\\\\n&  +\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}DS_2\\big(\\varrho_1p^1+\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 t-y\\big)\\nu_{\\Omega^i_1}(t)\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y\\qquad \\forall t \\in \\partial \\Omega^i_1\\, . \n\\end{split}$$ Then by equality , by formula , by taking $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, by Lemma \\[lem:1\\], and by classical potential theory (see also Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (iii)), we deduce that $\\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}$ is the unique function in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^i_1)$ such that equation holds. By integrating equality , we also deduce that $\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_1}\\theta^{i}_{1,(0,1)}\\, d\\sigma=0$. Analogously, one proceeds for $\\theta^i_{2,(0,1)}$.\n\n\\[rem:2\\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. By arguing as in the proof of Lemma \\[lem:3\\], one shows that $$\\begin{split}\n \\partial_{\\varrho_2} &\\Lambda_3\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr](x)\\\\\n&= \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_2(x-y) \\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y + \\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\\\\n &+\\varrho_1 \\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&-\\varrho_1^2 \\varrho_2\\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_hS_2\\Big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\Big]s_h\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s  \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ for all $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)\\in \\mathcal{U}$.\n\nIn the following lemma, instead, we consider $\\theta^{o}_{(1,1)}$ and $\\xi_{(1,1)}$.\n\n\\[lem:4\\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. Then $(\\theta^{o}_{(1,1)},\\xi_{(1,1)})$ is the unique pair in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\\label{eq:4:6}\n\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_2(x-y)\\theta^o_{(1,1)}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\xi_{(1,1)}=-S_2(x)\\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j\\,d\\sigma \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, .$$\n\nIf $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Lambda_3\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr]$$ for $n=2$ (cf.\u00a0Remark \\[rem:2\\]), we deduce that $$\\label{eq:4:3}\n\\begin{split} \n\\partial_{\\varrho_1}& \\partial_{\\varrho_2} \\Lambda_3\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr](x)\\\\\n&= \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_2(x-y)  \\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y + \\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\\\\n&+ \\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&-\\varrho_1\\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\Big[\\big(\\partial_h S_2\\big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\Big](p^j+\\varrho_2 s)_h\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\ \n&+\\varrho_1 \\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&-2\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h S_2\\Big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\bigg]s_h\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&+\\varrho_1^2 \\varrho_2\\sum_{h,j,k=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h\\partial_kS_2\\Big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\bigg]s_h(p^j+\\varrho_2 s)_k\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&-\\varrho_1^2 \\varrho_2\\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h S_2\\Big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\bigg]s_h\\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&+ \\varrho_2\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h S_2\\Big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\bigg](p^j+\\varrho_2s)_h \\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s  \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, .\n\\end{split}$$ Then by equality , by formula , by equality , by taking $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, and by classical potential theory (see also Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (ii)), we deduce that $(\\theta^{o}_{(1,1)},\\xi_{(1,1)})$ is the unique pair in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0 \\times \\mathbb{R}$ such that equation holds.\n\nIn Lemmas \\[lem:7\\] and \\[lem:8\\], we turn to consider $(\\theta^{o}_{(1,2)},\\xi_{(1,2)})$ and $(\\theta^{o}_{(2,1)},\\xi_{(2,1)})$.\n\n\\[lem:7\\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. Then $\\theta^o_{(1,2)}=0$ and $\\xi_{(1,2)}=0$.\n\nIf $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\partial_{\\varrho_2} \\Lambda_3\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr]$$ for $n=2$ (cf.\u00a0equality ), we deduce that $$\\label{eq:7:1}\n\\begin{split} \n\\partial_{\\varrho_1} \\partial_{\\varrho_2}^2 &\\Lambda_3\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr](x)\\\\\n&= \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_2(x-y)  \\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\partial_{\\varrho_2}^2\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y + \\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\partial_{\\varrho_2}^2\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\\\\n&+2 \\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&+\\varrho_1 R_{1}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x)+\\varrho_2 R_{2}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x) \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ where $R_1$, $R_2$ are real analytic maps from $\\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Then by equality , by formula , by taking $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, and by Lemma \\[lem:3\\], we deduce that $(\\theta^{o}_{(1,2)},\\xi_{(1,2)})$ is such that $$\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_2(x-y)\\theta^o_{(1,2)}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\xi_{(1,2)}=0 \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, .$$ Then by Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (ii) we deduce that $(\\theta^{o}_{(1,2)},\\xi_{(1,2)})=(0,0)$.\n\n\\[lem:8\\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. Then $(\\theta^{o}_{(2,1)},\\xi_{(2,1)})$ is the unique pair in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\\label{eq:8:4}\n\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_2(x-y)\\theta^o_{(2,1)}(y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\xi_{(2,1)}=2 \\sum_{h,j=1}^2 (p^j)_h\\partial_h S_2(x)\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j\\,d\\sigma \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, .$$\n\nIf $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2) \\in \\mathcal{U}$, then by differentiating $$\\partial_{\\varrho_1} \\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Lambda_3\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr]$$ for $n=2$ (cf.\u00a0equality ), we deduce that $$\\label{eq:8:1}\n\\begin{split}\n\\partial_{\\varrho_1}^2 &\\partial_{\\varrho_2} \\Lambda_3\\bigl[\\varrho_1, \\varrho_2, \\Theta^{i}_1[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2],\\Theta^{i}_2[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2], \\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\bigr](x)\\\\\n&= \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_2(x-y)  \\partial_{\\varrho_1}^2\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^{o}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y + \\partial_{\\varrho_1}^2\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]\\\\\n&- \\sum_{h,j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h S_2\\Big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\bigg](p^j+\\varrho_2 s)_h\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&+ \\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&- \\sum_{h,j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h S_2\\Big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\bigg](p^j+\\varrho_2 s)_h\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&+ \\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\Theta^{i}_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\&+\\varrho_1 R_{3}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x)+\\varrho_2 R_{4}[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x) \\qquad \\forall x \\in \\partial \\Omega^o\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ where $R_3, R_{4}$ are real analytic maps from $\\mathcal{U}$ to $C^{1,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)$. Then by equality , by formula , by taking $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,0)$, by Lemma \\[lem:2\\], and by classical potential theory (see also Lemma \\[lem:smp\\] (ii)), we deduce that $(\\theta^{o}_{(2,1)},\\xi_{(2,1)})$ is the unique pair in $C^{0,\\alpha}(\\partial \\Omega^o)_0\\times \\mathbb{R}$ such that equation holds.\n\nWe now exploit the previous results to compute an expansion of the sum of the last two terms in the representation formula . Indeed, by standard calculus, we deduce the validity of the following.\n\n\\[lem:10\\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. If $x \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^o$ is fixed, then $$\\begin{split}\n\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^o}S_2(x-y)&\\Theta^o[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](y)\\, d\\sigma_y +\\Xi[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2]=\nu_{(0,0)}(x)+\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 u_{(1,1)}(x)\\\\\n&+\\frac{1}{2}\\varrho_1^2\\varrho_2u_{(2,1)}(x)+O(|\\varrho_1^3\\varrho_2|+|\\varrho_1^2\\varrho_2^2|+|\\varrho_1\\varrho_2^3|)\\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ as $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ tends to $(0,0)$, where $$u_{(j,k)} \\equiv v^+[\\partial \\Omega^o,\\theta^o_{(j,k)}] +\\xi_{(j,k)} \\qquad  \\forall (j,k) \\in \\{(0,0), (1,1), (2,1)\\}\\, .$$\n\nInstead, in the following lemma, we consider the remaining part of formula .\n\n\\[lem:11\\] Let $n=2$. Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. Let $x \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^o \\setminus \\{0\\}$ be fixed. Then we have $$\\label{eq:lem11:0}\n\\begin{split}\n&\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1 p^j -\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s) \\Theta^i_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n&=S_2(x)\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j\\, d\\sigma -\\varrho_1\\sum_{h,j=1}^2 (\\partial_h S_2)(x)(p^j)_h \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j\\, d\\sigma+O(|\\varrho_1^2|+|\\varrho_1\\varrho_2|+|\\varrho_2^2|) \\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ as $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ tends to $(0,0)$.\n\nBy arguing as in the proof of Theorem \\[thm:rep\\], one verifies that the left hand side of equality defines a real analytic function in the variable $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ in a sufficiently small neighborhood of $(0,0)$. We have $$\\label{eq:lem11:1}\n \\begin{split}\n \\partial_{\\varrho_1}&\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1 p^j -\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s) \\Theta^i_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s \\\\\n &=-\\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h S_2\\Big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\bigg](p^j+\\varrho_2 s)_h \\Theta^i_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n &+\\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 s)\\partial_{\\varrho_1}\\Theta^i_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\, .\n \\end{split}$$ Then for $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,0)$ the right hand side of equality becomes $$-\\sum_{h,j=1}^2 (\\partial_h S_2)(x)(p^j)_h \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j\\, d\\sigma$$ (cf.\u00a0equality and Lemma \\[lem:2\\]). Similarly, $$\\label{eq:lem11:2}\n \\begin{split}\n \\partial_{\\varrho_2}&\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1 p^j -\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s) \\Theta^i_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s \\\\\n &=-\\varrho_1\\sum_{h,j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}\\bigg[\\Big(\\partial_h S_2\\Big)(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 s)\\bigg]s_h \\Theta^i_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\\\\n &+\\sum_{j=1}^2\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}S_2(x-\\varrho_1p^j-\\varrho_1\\varrho_2 s)\\partial_{\\varrho_2}\\Theta^i_j[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](s)\\, d\\sigma_s\\, ,\n \\end{split}$$ and the right hand side of equals $0$ for $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)=(0,0)$ (cf.\u00a0Lemma \\[lem:3\\]). As a consequence, by standard calculus, we deduce the validity of the lemma.\n\nFinally, by combining Lemmas \\[lem:10\\] and \\[lem:11\\], we deduce the validity of the main result of this section.\n\nLet $n=2$. Let $r_\\ast=0$. Let the assumptions of Proposition \\[prop:ansol\\] hold. Let $u_{(j,k)}$ be as in Lemma \\[lem:10\\] for all $(j,k) \\in \\{(0,0), (1,1), (2,1)\\}$. Let $x \\in \\mathrm{cl}\\Omega^o \\setminus \\{0\\}$ be fixed. Then we have $$\\begin{split}\n u[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x)&=u_{(0,0)}(x)+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2 \\Big(u_{(1,1)}(x)+S_2(x)\\sum_{j=1}^2 \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f^j\\, d\\sigma\\Big)\\\\\n &+\\varrho_1^2\\varrho_2\\Big(\\frac{1}{2}u_{(2,1)}(x)-\\sum_{h,j=1}^2\\partial_h S_2(x)(p^j)_h \\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f^j\\, d\\sigma\\Big)\\\\\n &+O(|\\varrho_1^3 \\varrho_2|+|\\varrho_1^2 \\varrho_2^2|+|\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2^3|)\\, ,\n \\end{split}$$ as $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ tends to $(0,0)$.\n\nIf we further assume that $\\int_{\\partial \\Omega^i_j}f_j \\, d\\sigma=0$ for all $j \\in \\{1,2\\}$ then we can deduce the existence of functions $\\tilde{u}_{(3,1)}$, $\\tilde{u}_{(2,2)}$, and $\\tilde{u}_{(1,3)}$ such that $$\\begin{split}\n  u[\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2](x)&=u_{(0,0)}(x)+O(|\\varrho_1^3 \\varrho_2|+|\\varrho_1^2 \\varrho_2^2|+|\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2^3|)\\\\\n&=u_{(0,0)}(x)+\\varrho_1^3 \\varrho_2 \\tilde{u}_{(3,1)}(x)+\\varrho_1^2 \\varrho_2^2 \\tilde{u}_{(2,2)}(x)\\\\\n&+\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2^3 \\tilde{u}_{(1,3)}(x)+ O(|\\varrho_1^4 \\varrho_2|+|\\varrho_1^3 \\varrho_2^2|+|\\varrho_1^2 \\varrho_2^3|+|\\varrho_1 \\varrho_2^4|)  \\, ,\n\\end{split}$$ as $(\\varrho_1,\\varrho_2)$ tends to $(0,0)$.\n\nAcknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}\n==============\n\nThe authors wish to thank V.\u00a0Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl, M.\u00a0Dambrine, and C.\u00a0Lacave for several useful discussions. The work of M.\u00a0Dalla Riva and P.\u00a0Musolino is supported by \u201cProgetto di Ateneo: Singular perturbation problems for differential operators \u2013 CPDA120171/12\" of the University of Padova. The research of M.\u00a0Dalla Riva was supported by Portuguese funds through the CIDMA - Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications, and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (\u201cFCT\u2013Funda[\u00e7]{}[\u00e3]{}o para a Ci\u00eancia e a Tecnologia\u201d), within project UID/MAT/04106/2013. M.\u00a0Dalla Riva acknowledges also the support from HORIZON 2020 MSC EF project FAANon (grant agreement MSCA-IF-2014-EF - 654795) at the University of Aberystwyth, UK. P.\u00a0Musolino is member of the Gruppo Nazionale per l\u2019Analisi Matematica, la Probabilit\u00e0 e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA) of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM) and acknowledges the support of \u201cINdAM GNAMPA Project 2015 - Un approccio funzionale analitico per problemi di perturbazione singolare e di omogeneizzazione\".\n\n[11]{}\n\nH.\u00a0Ammari and H.\u00a0Kang, [*Polarization and moment tensors*]{}, volume 162 of [*Applied Mathematical Sciences*]{}, Springer, New York, 2007.\n\nV.\u00a0Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl and M.\u00a0Dambrine, [*Interactions between moderately close circular inclusions: the Dirichlet-Laplace equation in the plane*]{}, Asymptot. Anal., [**84**]{} (2013), 197\u2013227.\n\nV.\u00a0Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl, M.\u00a0Dambrine, and C.\u00a0Lacave, [*Interactions Between Moderately Close Inclusions for the Two-Dimensional Dirichlet\u2013Laplacian*]{}, Appl. Math. Res. Express. AMRX, to appear. DOI: 10.1093/amrx/abv008\n\nV.\u00a0Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl, M.\u00a0Dambrine, S.\u00a0Tordeux, and G.\u00a0Vial, [*On moderately close inclusions for the Laplace equation.*]{}, C.\u00a0R.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Acad.\u00a0Sci.\u00a0Paris, **19** (2007), 609\u2013614.\n\nV.\u00a0Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl, M.\u00a0Dambrine, S.\u00a0Tordeux, and G.\u00a0Vial, [*Interactions between moderately close inclusions for the Laplace equation*]{}, Math.\u00a0Models Methods Appl.\u00a0Sci., **19** (2009), 1853\u20131882.\n\nV.\u00a0Bonnaillie-No\u00ebl, C.\u00a0Lacave, and N.\u00a0Masmoudi, [*Permeability through a perforated domain for the incompressible 2D Euler equations*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\u00e9 Anal. Non Lin\u00e9aire, **32** (2015), 159\u2013182.\n\nD.\u00a0Buoso and L.\u00a0Provenzano, [*A few shape optimization results for a biharmonic Steklov problem*]{}, J.\u00a0Differential Equations, **259** (2015), 1778\u20131818.\n\nL.\u00a0Chesnel and X.\u00a0Claeys [*A numerical approach for the Poisson equation in a planar domain with a small inclusion*]{}, submitted. arXiv:1410.3508\n\nM.\u00a0Dalla\u00a0Riva, [*Stokes flow in a singularly perturbed exterior domain*]{}, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., [**58**]{} (2013), 231\u2013257.\n\nM.\u00a0Dalla\u00a0Riva and M.\u00a0Lanza\u00a0de\u00a0Cristoforis, [*Microscopically weakly singularly perturbed loads for a nonlinear traction boundary value problem. A functional analytic approach*]{}, Complex Var.\u00a0Elliptic Equ., [**55**]{} (2010), 771\u2013794.\n\nM.\u00a0Dalla\u00a0Riva and P.\u00a0Musolino, [*Real analytic families of harmonic functions in a domain with a small hole*]{}, J.\u00a0Differential Equations, [**252**]{} (2012), 6337\u20136355.\n\nM.\u00a0Dalla\u00a0Riva and P.\u00a0Musolino, [*Real analytic families of harmonic functions in a planar domain with a small hole*]{}, J.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Anal\u00a0 Appl., [**422**]{} (2015), 37\u201355.\n\nM.\u00a0Dalla\u00a0Riva, P.\u00a0Musolino, and S.V.\u00a0Rogosin, [*Series expansions for the solution of the Dirichlet problem in a planar domain with a small hole*]{}, Asymptot. Anal., [**92**]{} (2015), 339\u2013361.\n\nM.\u00a0Dauge, S.\u00a0Tordeux, and G.\u00a0Vial, [*Selfsimilar perturbation near a corner: matching versus multiscale expansions for a model problem*]{}. In [ *Around the research of Vladimir Maz\u2019ya. II*]{}, 95\u2013134, Int. Math. Ser. (N. Y.), 12, Springer, New York, 2010.\n\nK.\u00a0Deimling, [*Nonlinear functional analysis*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985.\n\nG.B.\u00a0Folland, [*Introduction to partial differential equations*]{}, Second edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J., 1995.\n\nD.\u00a0Gilbarg and N.S.\u00a0Trudinger, [*Elliptic partial differential equations of second order*]{}, Springer Verlag, Berlin, *etc.*, 1983.\n\nA.M.\u00a0Il\u2019in, [*A boundary value problem for a second-order elliptic equation in a domain with a narrow slit. I. The two-dimensional case*]{}, Math.\u00a0USSR Sb., **28** (1978), pp.\u00a0459\u2013480.\n\nA.M.\u00a0Il\u2019in, [*Matching of asymptotic expansions of solutions of boundary value problems*]{}, Translations of Mathematical Monographs 102, American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1992.\n\nA.M.\u00a0Il\u2019in, [*The boundary layer*]{}, in: Fedoryuk MV (ed.) [*Partial Differential Equations. V. Asymptotic Methods for Partial Differential Equations*]{}, [Encylopaedia of Mathematical Sciences]{} **34**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999, pp.\u00a0173\u2013210.\n\nV.\u00a0Kozlov, V.\u00a0Maz\u2019ya, and A.\u00a0Movchan, *Asymptotic analysis of fields in multi-structures*, Oxford Mathematical Monographs, the Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.\n\nP.D.\u00a0Lamberti and M.\u00a0Lanza de Cristoforis, [*A real analyticity result for symmetric functions of the eigenvalues of a domain dependent Dirichlet problem for the Laplace operator*]{}, J. Nonlinear Convex Anal., [**5**]{} (2004), 19\u201342.\n\nM.\u00a0Lanza\u00a0de\u00a0Cristoforis, [*Asymptotic behavior of the solutions of a nonlinear Robin problem for the Laplace operator in a domain with a small hole: a functional analytic approach*]{}, Complex Var.\u00a0Elliptic Equ., [**52**]{} (2007), 945\u2013977.\n\nM.\u00a0Lanza\u00a0de Cristoforis, [*Asymptotic behavior of the solutions of a non-linear transmission problem for the [L]{}aplace operator in a domain with a small hole. [A]{} functional analytic approach*]{}, Complex Var. Elliptic Equ., [**55**]{} (2010), 269\u2013303.\n\nM.\u00a0Lanza\u00a0de\u00a0Cristoforis and P.\u00a0Musolino, [ *A real analyticity result for a nonlinear integral operator*]{}, J. Integral Equations Appl., [**25**]{} (2013), 21\u201346.\n\nM.\u00a0Lanza\u00a0de\u00a0Cristoforis and L.\u00a0Rossi, [ *Real analytic dependence of simple and double layer potentials upon perturbation of the support and of the density*]{}, J. Integral Equations Appl., [**16**]{} (2004), 137\u2013174.\n\nV.\u00a0Maz\u2019ya, A.\u00a0Movchan, and M.\u00a0Nieves, [*Green\u2019s kernels and meso-scale approximations in perforated domains*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**2077**]{}, Springer, Berlin, 2013.\n\nV.\u00a0Maz\u2019ya, S.\u00a0Nazarov, and B.\u00a0Plamenevskij, [*Asymptotic theory of elliptic boundary value problems in singularly perturbed domains. [V]{}ols. [I]{}, II*]{}, volumes 111, 112 of [*Operator Theory: Advances and Applications*]{}, Birkh[\u00e4]{}user Verlag, Basel, 2000.\n\nC.\u00a0Miranda, [*Sulle propriet\u00e0 di regolarit\u00e0 di certe trasformazioni integrali*]{}, Atti Accad.\u00a0Naz.\u00a0Lincei Mem.\u00a0Cl.\u00a0Sci.\u00a0Fis.\u00a0Mat.\u00a0Natur.\u00a0Sez. I, [**7**]{} (1965), 303\u2013336.\n\nA.A.\u00a0Novotny and J.\u00a0Soko\u0142owski, [*Topological derivatives in shape optimization*]{}, Interaction of Mechanics and Mathematics, Springer, Heidelberg, 2013.\n\n[^1]: Department of Mathematics, The University of Tulsa, USA & Department of Mathematics, Aberystwyth University, Ceredigion SY23 3BZ, Wales, UK.\n\n[^2]: Dipartimento di Matematica, Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Padova, Italy.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We report on a [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{}\u00a0Concentrator Spectrometer observation of the super-soft source (SSS) . The X-ray emission in SSS is believed to arise from nuclear burning of accreted material on the surface of a white dwarf (WD). An absorbed blackbody spectral model gives a [$\\chi_{{\\rm \\nu}} ^{2}$]{}\u00a0of 1.18 and a temperature of $42 \\pm ^{13} _{11}$\u00a0eV. However, the derived luminosity and radius are greater than the Eddington limit and radius of a WD. Including an O\u00a0[viii]{} edge at 0.871\u00a0keV gives a significantly better fit (at $>$95% confidence) and results in more realistic values of the source luminosity and radius. We also fit WD atmosphere models to the \u00a0spectrum. These also give reasonable bolometric luminosities and radii in the ranges 2.7\u20134.8$ \\times 10^{36}$\u00a0\u00a0and 8\u201320$\\times 10^{7}$\u00a0cm, respectively. These results support the view that the X-ray emission from \u00a0results from nuclear burning in the atmosphere of a WD.'\nauthor:\n- 'A.N. Parmar'\n- 'P. Kahabka'\n- 'H.W. Hartmann'\n- 'J. Heise'\n- 'D.D.E. Martin'\n- 'M. Bavdaz'\n- 'T. Mineo'\ndate: 'Received ; accepted'\ntitle: 'A [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{}\u00a0observation of the super-soft source '\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:introduction}\n============\n\nThe [[*Einstein*]{}]{}\u00a0observatory performed a survey of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) in which two sources with unusually soft spectra, CAL83 and \u00a0were detected (Long et al. 1981). These sources emit little or no radiation at energies $\\approxgt$1\u00a0keV and became known as \u201csuper-soft\u201d sources (SSS). Subsequent [[ROSAT]{}]{}\u00a0observations have revealed approximately 30 similar sources located in the Galaxy, the Magellanic Clouds, a globular cluster and M31 (see Kahabka 1995; Kahabka & Tr\u00fcmper 1996 for recent reviews). SSS are hard to detect in the galactic plane due to the effects of interstellar absorption. Absorbed black-body spectral models give typical temperatures of $\\sim$40\u00a0eV and bolometric luminosities of $\\sim$$10^{38}$\u00a0.\n\nSSS were originally interpreted as due to scattering from an accretion disk corona (e.g., Smale et al. 1988), or accreting neutron stars radiating near or above the Eddington limit (Greiner et al. 1991; Kylafis & Xilouris 1993). Van den Heuvel et al. (1992) proposed that these are systems undergoing steady nuclear burning of hydrogen accreted onto the surface of a white dwarf (WD) with masses in the range 0.7\u20131.2[[ M$_{\\odot}$]{}]{}. The mass transfer from a main-sequence or sub-giant companions is unstable on a thermal time scale and for a narrow range of accretion rates, steady nuclear burning can take place. Evolutionary scenarios for such systems are discussed in Rappaport et al. (1994). It is unlikely that SSS compose a homogeneous class and one way of probing the nature of individual sources is by searching for the characteristic spectral signatures of nuclear burning on a WD. This burning takes place deep within the WD atmosphere at a large energy dependent optical depth. Photoelectric absorption by highly ionized metals in the atmosphere can produce edges in the X-ray spectrum. These effects have been modeled assuming Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium (LTE) by Heise et al. (1994) and more recently extended to the non-LTE (NLTE) case by Hartmann & Heise (1997).\n\n\u00a0exhibits both X-ray and optical eclipses with a period of 10.6\u00a0hrs (Callanan et al. 1989; Cowley et al. 1990; Schmidkte et al. 1993; Kahabka et al. 1994), indicating an orbital inclination of $>$$70\\degmark$. The optical lightcurve shows a deep asymmetric primary minimum with a shallow, variable, secondary minimum while the X-ray eclipse is narrower and shallow. The optical modulation may be due to obscuration by a structured accretion disk (Schandl et al. 1997). Fitting an absorbed blackbody model to a 37 ksec exposure [[ROSAT]{}]{}\u00a0Position Sensitive Proportional Counter (PSPC; 0.1\u20132.5\u00a0keV; Tr\u00fcmper 1983) \u00a0spectrum gives a best-fit temperature, T, of 35\u00a0eV and an equivalent hydrogen column density, , of $1 \\times 10^{22}$\u00a0\u00a0(Hartmann & Heise 1997). \u00a0has been a persistent X-ray source since its discovery in 1980.\n\nObservations {#sec:observations}\n============\n\nThe scientific payload of the [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{}\u00a0X-ray Astronomy Satellite (Boella et al. 1997a) comprises four coaligned Narrow Field Instruments, or NFI, including the Low Energy and Medium Energy Concentrator Spectrometers (LECS and MECS). The LECS is an imaging gas scintillation proportional counter sensitive in the energy range 0.1\u201310.0\u00a0keV with a circular field of view of 37$'$ diameter (Parmar et al. 1997). The background counting rate is $9.7 \\times 10^{-5}$\u00a0arcmin$^{-2}$\u00a0s$^{-1}$ in the energy range 0.1\u201310.0\u00a0keV. The LECS energy resolution is a factor $\\sim$2.4 better than that of the [[ROSAT]{}]{}\u00a0PSPC, while the effective area is between a factor $\\sim$6 and 2 lower at 0.28 and 1.5\u00a0keV, respectively. \u00a0was observed by the LECS as part of the Science Verification Phase between 1996 October 27 02:14 to October 28 23:42\u00a0UTC. Due to the failure of a ground segment link and an instrument anomaly, data between October 28 04:54 and 10:55\u00a0UTC were lost. Good data were selected from intervals when the minimum elevation angle above the Earth\u2019s limb was $>$4$\\degmark$ and when the instrument\u2019s settings were nominal using the SAXLEDAS 1.4.0 data analysis package. Since the LECS was only operated during satellite night-time, this gave a total on-source exposure of 39\u00a0ksec. The MECS is sensitive in the energy range 1.5\u201310\u00a0keV, with energy and angular resolutions similar to the LECS (Boella et al. 1997b). The MECS observed \u00a0for a total exposure of 120\u00a0ksec, but did not detect the source.\n\nExamination of the LECS image shows a source at a position consistent with (32$''$ distant) that of . A spectrum was extracted centered on the source centroid using a radius of 8$'$. This radius was chosen to include 95% of the 0.28\u00a0keV photons. The spectrum was rebinned to have $>$20 counts in each bin to allow the use of the $\\chi^2$ statistic. The XSPEC 9.01 package (Arnaud 1996) was used for spectral analysis together with the response matrix from the 1996 December 31 release. Background subtraction was performed using a standard blank field with a 46\u00a0ksec exposure. The \u00a0count rate above background was $0.0076 \\pm 0.0011$\u00a0s$^{-1}$. Examination of the extracted spectrum shows that the source was only detected in a narrow energy range (see Figs.\u00a0\\[fig:bb\\_fits\\] and \u00a0\\[fig:model\\_fits\\]) and only the 17 rebinned channels corresponding to energies between 0.2 and 1.5\u00a0keV were used for spectral fitting.\n\nSpectral fits {#subsec:spectrum}\n-------------\n\nIn order to compare the LECS spectrum with those obtained from previous observations, we first fit an absorbed blackbody spectral model to the data (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:bb\\_fits\\]). The photoelectric absorption coefficients of Morisson & McCammon (1983) together with the solar abundances of Anders & Grevesse (1989) were used. An acceptable fit is obtained with [$\\chi_{{\\rm \\nu}} ^{2}$]{}\u00a0of 1.18 for 14 degrees of freedom (dof). The best-fit parameters are given in Table\u00a0\\[tab:bb\\_fits\\]. A distance of 50\u00a0kpc is assumed in order to derive the WD radius, R, and luminosity, L, and all uncertainties are quoted at 68% confidence. The spectrum shows evidence for an abrupt cutoff $\\approxgt$0.8\u00a0keV and so an O\u00a0[viii]{} edge with absorption depth $\\tau$ at a fixed energy of 0.871\u00a0keV, was added to the model. This edge is the dominant spectral feature at energies $\\approxgt$0.8\u00a0keV in many WD model atmosphere calculations ([[e.g.]{}]{}\u00a0Heise et al. 1994; White et al. 1995). Including the edge gives a higher best-fit temperature and improves the fit quality, resulting in a [$\\chi_{{\\rm \\nu}} ^{2}$]{}\u00a0of 0.93 (Table\u00a0\\[tab:bb\\_fits\\]). The value of the F statistic of 4.76 indicates that the addition of the edge is significant at $>$95% confidence. If the edge energy is allowed to vary, then the best-fit value of $0.84 \\pm {0.04}$\u00a0keV is consistent with an O\u00a0[viii]{} edge.\n\nHeise et al. (1994) show that optically thick plasmas in the temperature range $10^5 - 10^6$\u00a0k are more efficient soft X-ray (0.1\u20131 keV) emitters than blackbodies, assuming plane parallel hydrostatic model atmospheres in which LTE determines the degree of ionization. This conclusion has been extended to the NLTE case by Hartmann & Heise (1997) for both solar and LMC abundances. These models include free-bound opacity sources for all relevant ions, but are still only first order approximations since line blanketing has not been taken into account. In addition, close to the Eddington limit the assumptions of hydrostatic equilibrium and plane parallel atmospheres are no longer valid.\n\nThe above LTE and NLTE models were fit to the LECS \u00a0spectrum. For the LTE case, we assume an LMC abundance of 0.25 times the solar value and a local gravity of $\\log(g) = 9$, appropriate to WDs with mass $\\geq 0.6 \\msun$. The fit results are however insensitive to abundance and adopting solar abundance gives almost identical results. Models with $\\log(g) \\leq 8.5$ cannot be made hot enough in hydrostatic equilibrium (due to the Eddington limit) to fit the spectrum. We note that models with $\\log(g) >> 9$ cannot be excluded since they can fit the spectrum at higher effective temperatures and lower source radii.\n\nAssuming a power-law spectrum with a photon index of 2.09 (i.e. similar to that of the Crab Nebula) and a distance of 50\u00a0kpc, the 99% confidence upper-limit to any 2.0\u201310.0\u00a0keV emission from \u00a0obtained using MECS data is $1.3 \\times 10^{34}$\u00a0.\n\n[lll]{} & Blackbody & Blackbody with\\\n& & 0.871\u00a0keV Edge\\\nT (eV) & $42\\pm ^{13} _{11}$ & $59\\pm ^{27} _{17}$\\\n\u00a0($10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) & $1.00 \\pm ^{0.05} _{0.11}$ & $0.53 \\pm ^{0.58} _{0.02}$\\\n$\\tau $ & \u2026& $>$13\\\nR (cm) & $2 \\times 10^{9}$ - $7 \\times 10^{12}$ & $ 7 \\times 10^7$ - $6 \\times 10^{10}$\\\nL (10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$)& 400 - $6 \\times 10^{8}$ & 4 - $1.5 \\times 10^{5}$\\\n[$\\chi_{{\\rm \\nu}} ^{2}$]{}\u00a0 & 1.18 & 0.93\\\ndof & 14 & 13\\\n& LTE & NLTE\\\nT (eV) & $74.4\\pm 1.7$ & $57.3 \\pm ^{1.9} _{2.4}$\\\n\u00a0($10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) & $0.18 \\pm ^{0.12} _{0.06}$ & $0.19 \\pm ^{0.17} _{0.07}$\\\nR (cm) & $(9.1 \\pm 1.2) \\times 10^7$ & $(1.67 \\pm ^{0.35} _{0.25}) \\times 10^8$\\\nL (10$^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$) & $3.30 \\pm 0.54$ & $3.89 \\pm ^{0.89} _{0.69}$\\\n[$\\chi_{{\\rm \\nu}} ^{2}$]{}\u00a0 & 0.76 & 0.76\\\ndof & 14 & 14\\\n\n\\[tab:bb\\_fits\\]\n\nDiscussion {#subsec:discussion}\n==========\n\nThe LECS spectrum of \u00a0can be represented by all four types of trial models and it is clear that a LECS spectrum with significantly greater exposure is required to meaningfully discriminate between these models based on fit quality alone. There are differences in the best-fit values of T determined using the different models (see Table\u00a0\\[tab:bb\\_fits\\]), with the blackbody fit giving the lowest T (and hence the largest source radius and luminosity) and the LTE fit the highest. The relatively large uncertainties in the best-fit parameters means that the luminosity and size of the X-ray emitting region are poorly constrained. The values of [$\\chi_{{\\rm \\nu}} ^{2}$]{}\u00a0favor the interpretation of the spectrum in terms of a model atmosphere fit with the LTE and NLTE fits both giving [$\\chi_{{\\rm \\nu}} ^{2}$]{}\u00a0values of 0.76. This should be compared with the blackbody fit which gives a [$\\chi_{{\\rm \\nu}} ^{2}$]{}\u00a0of 1.18. Both WD model atmosphere fits imply similar values of , while the temperature derived from the NLTE fit is significantly cooler ($57.3 \\pm _{2.4} ^{1.9}$\u00a0eV) than that derived assuming LTE ($74.4 \\pm 1.7$\u00a0eV). The best-fit blackbody T derived here of $42 \\pm ^{13} _{11}$\u00a0eV is slightly higher, but consistent with, those derived using the [[ROSAT]{}]{}PSPC of $31 \\pm ^{11}_{10}$\u00a0eV and $34 \\pm ^{8}_{10}$\u00a0eV (Kahabka et al. 1994).\n\nThe bolometric luminosity implied by the blackbody interpretation of $>$$4 \\times 10^{38}$\u00a0\u00a0 is higher than the Eddington luminosity for a $1\\msun$ object of $1.3 \\times 10^{38}$\u00a0. In addition, the required blackbody radius of $>$$2 \\times 10^{9}$\u00a0cm is significantly larger than the expected WD radius ($8.7 \\times 10^8$\u00a0cm for a $0.6\\msun$ WD; Nauenberg 1972). In contrast, the fits using WD atmosphere models imply a lower luminosity, radius and temperature of 2.7\u20134.8$ \\times 10^{36}$\u00a0, 8\u201320$ \\times 10^{7}$\u00a0cm and 55\u201376\u00a0eV, respectively. The WD mass can be constrained assuming that \u00a0is on the stability line (see Iben 1992, Fig.\u00a02). The above temperature range corresponds to a WD of mass $\\sim$1.2$\\msun$ which has a luminosity of 4\u20138$ \\times 10^{37}$\u00a0\u00a0while undergoing steady nuclear burning (see also Iben & Tutukov 1996). This is at least a factor 8 greater than the luminosity derived above. Since \u00a0has an orbital inclination of $>$$70\\degmark$, it is possible that part of the emitting region is obscured, perhaps by the accretion disk. The LECS spectrum of \u00a0is therefore consistent with the assumption of a hot WD atmosphere heated by nuclear burning, but formally does not prove such an assumption.\n\nWe thank the [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{}\u00a0Mission Director R.C. Butler and P. Giommi and F. Fiore for help with these observations. The referee, S. Rappaport, is thanked for helpful comments. PK is a Human Capital and Mobility Fellow. The [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{}\u00a0satellite is a joint Italian and Dutch programme. IFCAI are supported by the Italian Space Agency (ASI) in the framework on the [[*BeppoSAX*]{}]{}\u00a0mission.\n\nAnders E., Grevesse N., 1989, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53, 197 Arnaud K.A., 1996, In: Jacoby G., Barnes J. (eds.) Astronomical Data Analysis Software Systems V. ASP Conf. Series, 101, p17 Boella G., Butler R.C., Perola G.C., et al., 1997a, A&AS 122, 299 Boella G., Chiappetti L., Conti G., et al, 1997b, A&AS 122, 327 Callanan P.J., Machin G., Naylor T., et al., 1989, MNRAS 241, 37p Cowley A., Schmidtke P.C., Crampton D.A., et al., 1990, ApJ 350, 288 Greiner J., Hasinger G., Kahabka P., 1991, A&A 246, L17 Hartmann H.W., Heise J., 1997, A&A, in press Heise J., van Teesling A., Kahabka P., 1994, A&A 288, L45 Hellier C., Mason K.O., 1989, MNRAS 239, 715 Iben I., 1982, ApJ 259, 244 Iben I., Tutukov A.V., 1996, ApJS 105, 145 Kahabka P., 1995, Supersoft X-ray sources in the LMC and SMC. In: Bianchini A., et al., (eds.) Cataclysmic Variables. Proc. of the Abano Terme Conf., Kluwar, p. 435 Kahabka P., Tr\u00fcmper J., 1996, Supersoft ROSAT Sources in the Galaxies. In: van Paradijs J., van den Heuvel E.P.J. Kuulkers E. (eds.) IAU Symp. 165, Compact Stars in Binaries. p. 425 Kahabka P., Pietsch W., Hasinger G., 1994, A&A 288, 538 Kylafis N.D., Xilouris E.M., 1993, A&A 278, L43 Long K.S., Helfand D.J., Grabelsky D.A., 1981, ApJ 248, 925 Morisson D., McCammon D., 1983, ApJ 270, 119 Nauenberg M., 1972, ApJ 175, 417 Parmar A.N., Martin D.D.E., Bavdaz M., et al., 1997, A&AS 122, 309 Rappaport S.A., di Stefano R., Smith J.D., 1994, ApJ 426, 692 Schandl S., Meyer-Hofmeister E., Meyer F., 1997, A&A 318, 73 472, p. 53 Schmidtke P.C., McGrath T.K., Cowley A.P., Frattare L.M., 1993, PASP 105, 863 Smale A.P., Corbet R.H.D., Charles P.A., et al., 1988, MNRAS 233, 51 Tr\u00fcmper J., 1983, Adv. Space Res. 2, 241 van den Heuvel E.P.J., Bhattacharya D., Nomoto K., Rappaport S.A., 1992, A&A 262, 97 White N.E., Giommi P., Heise J., Angelini L., Fantasia S., 1995, ApJ 445, L125\n"}
-{"text": "---\naddress: Steklov Mathematical Institute RAN\nauthor:\n- Dmitri Orlov\ntitle: 'Derived categories of coherent sheaves and motives.'\n---\n\nThe bounded derived category of coherent sheaves $\\db{X}$ is a natural triangulated category which can be associated with an algebraic variety $X.$ It happens sometimes that two different varieties have equivalent derived categories of coherent sheaves $\\db{X}\\simeq\\db{Y}.$ There arises a natural question: can one say anything about motives of $X$ and $Y$ in that case? The first such example (see [@Mu]) \u2013 abelian variety $A$ and its dual $\\wh{A}$ \u2013 shows us that the motives of such varieties are not necessary isomorphic. However, it seems that the motives with rational coefficients are isomorphic in all known cases.\n\nRecall a definition of the category of effective Chow motives $\\CH$ over a field $\\kk.$ The category $\\CH$ can be obtained as the pseudo-abelian envelope (i.e. as formal adding of cokernels of all projectors) of a category, whose objects are smooth projective schemes over $\\kk,$ and the group of morphisms from $X$ to $Y$ is the sum $\\oplus_{X_i}A^m(X_i\\times Y)$ (over all connected components $X_i$) of the groups of cycles of codimension $m=\\dim Y$ on $X_i\\times Y$ modulo rational equivalence (see [@Ma; @Bl]). In [@Vo] Voevodsky introduced a triangulated category of geometric motives $\\DM.$ He started with an additive category $\\SmCor,$ objects of which are smooth schemes of finite type over $\\kk,$ and the group of morphisms from $X$ to $Y$ is the free abelian group generated by integral closed subschemes $Z\\subset X\\times Y$ such that the projection on $X$ is finite and surjective onto a connected component of $X.$ There is a natural embedding $[-]:\\Sm\\to \\SmCor$ of the category $\\Sm$ of smooth schemes of finete type over $\\kk.$ The category $\\SmCor$ is additive and one has $[X\\coprod Y]=[X]\\oplus[Y].$ Further, he considered the quotient of the homotopy category $\\H^b(\\SmCor)$ of bounded complexes by minimal thick triangulated subcategory $T,$ which contains all objects of the form $[X\\times\\AA^1]\\to\n[X]$ and $[U\\cap V]\\to[U]\\oplus[V]\\to [X]$ for any open covering $U\\cup V=X.$ Triangulated category $\\DM$ is defined as the pseudo-abelian envelope of the quotient category $\\H^b(\\SmCor)/T$(see\u00a0[@Vo; @Bl]).\n\nThere exists a canonical functor $\\CH\\to\\DM,$ which is a full embedding if $\\kk$ admits resolution of singularities ([@Vo 4.2.6]). Thus, it doesn\u2019t matter in which category (in $\\CH$ or in $\\DM$) motives of smooth projective varieties are considered. Denote the motive of a variety $X$ by $\\Mg(X),$ and its motive in the category of motives with rational coefficients $\\DM\\otimes\\QQ$(and in $\\CH\\otimes\\QQ$) by $\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}.$\n\n\\[G1\\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective varieties, and let $\\db{X}{\\simeq}\\db{Y}.$ Then the motives $\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}$ and $\\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ}$ are isomorphic in $\\CH\\otimes\\QQ$ (and in $\\DM\\otimes\\QQ$)\n\nLet $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective varieties and let $F: \\db{X}\\stackrel{}{\\to}\\db{Y}$ be a fully faithful functor. Then the motive $\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}$ is a direct summand of the motive $\\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ}.$\n\nThe category $\\DM$ has a tensor structure, and $\\Mg(X)\\otimes\\Mg(Y)=\\Mg(X\\times Y).$ One defines the Tate object $\\ZZ(1)$ to be the image of the complex $[\\PP^1]\\to[\\Spec(\\kk)]$ placed in degree 2 and 3 and put $M(p)=M\\otimes\\ZZ(1)^{\\otimes p}$ for any motive $M\\in\\DM$ and $p\\in\\NN.$ The triangulated category of geometric motives $\\Dm$ is defined by formally inverting the functor $-\\otimes\\ZZ(1)$ on $\\DM.$ The important and nontrivial fact here is the statement that the canonical functor $\\DM\\to\\Dm$ is a full embedding [@Vo 4.3.1]. Therefore, we can work in the category $\\Dm.$ Moreover (see [@Vo]), for any smooth projective varieties $X, Y$ and for any integer $i$ there is an isomorphism $$\\Hom_{\\Dm}(\\Mg(X), \\Mg(Y)(i)[2i])\\cong A^{m+i}(X\\times\nY),\\quad\\text{where}\\quad m=\\dim Y.$$\n\nSuppose, one has a fully faithful functor $F:\\db{X}\\to\\db{Y}$ between derived categories of coherent sheaves of two smooth projective varieties $X$ and $Y$ of dimension $n$ and $m$ respectively. Any such functor has a right adjoint $F^*$ by [@BV], and by Theorem 2.2 from [@Or1] (see also [@Or2 3.2.1]) the functor $F$ can be represented by an object on the product $X\\times Y,$ i.e. $F\\cong\\Phi_{\\A},$ where $\\Phi_{\\A}=\\bR p_{2*}(p^*_1(-)\\stackrel{\\bL}{\\otimes}\\A)$ for some $\\A\\in\\db{X\\times Y}.$ With any functor of the form $\\Phi_{\\A}:{\\db{X}}\\to{\\db{Y}}$ one can associate an element $a\\in\nA^*(X\\times Y, \\QQ)$ by the following rule $$\\label{epsi}\na= p^*_1\\sqrt{ \\td_X}\\cdot \\ch(\\A)\\cdot p^*_2\\sqrt{\\td_Y},$$ where $\\td_X$ and $\\td_Y$ are Todd classes of the varieties $X$ and $Y.$ The cycle $a$ has a mixed type. Let us consider its decomposition on the components $a=a_0+\\cdots+a_{n+m},$ where index is the codimension of a cycle on $X\\times Y.$ Each component $a_q$ induces a map of motives $$\\alpha_q : \\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}\\to \\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ}(q-m)[2(q-m)].$$ Thus the total cycle $a$ gives a map $ \\alpha:\n\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}\\stackrel{}{\\to}\\bigoplus_{i=-m}^{n}\n\\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ}(i)[2i].$ Now consider the object $\\B\\in \\db{X\\times\nY},$ which represents the adjoint functor $F^*,$ i.e. $F^*\\cong \\Psi_{\\B},$ where $\\Psi_{\\B}=\\bR\np_{1*}(p^*_2(-)\\stackrel{\\bL}{\\otimes}\\B).$ One attaches to the object $\\B$ a cycle $b=b_0+\\cdots + b_{n+m}$ defined by the same formula (\\[epsi\\]). The cycle $b$ induces a map $\\beta:\n\\bigoplus_{i=-m}^{n} \\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ}(i)[2i] \\stackrel{}{\\to}\n\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}.$ Since the functor $\\Phi_{\\A}$ is fully faithful, the composition $\\Psi_{\\B}\\circ\\Phi_{\\A}$ is isomorphic to the identity functor. Applying the Riemann-Roch-Grothendieck theorem, we obtain that the composition $$\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}\\stackrel{\\alpha}{\\to}\\bigoplus_{i=-m}^{n}\n\\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ}(i)[2i] \\stackrel{\\beta}{\\to} \\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}$$ is the identity map, i.e. $\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}$ is a direct summand of $\\bigoplus_{i=-m}^{n} \\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ}(i)[2i].$\n\nAssume now that $\\dim X=\\dim Y=n$ and, moreover, suppose that the support of the object $A$ also has the dimension $n.$ Therefore, $a_q=0$ when $q=0,\\dots,\nn-1,$ i.e. $a=a_n+\\cdots +a_{2n}.$ It is easily to see that in this case $b=b_{n}+\\cdots+b_{2n}$ as well. This implies that the composition $\\beta\\cdot\\alpha: \\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}\\to \\Mg(X)_{\\QQ},$ which is the identity, coincides with $\\beta_n\\cdot\\alpha_n$. Hence, $\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}$ is a direct summand of $\\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ}.$ Furthermore, since the cycles $a_n$ and $b_n$ are integral in this case we get the same result for integral motives, i.e. the integral motive $\\Mg(X)$ is a direct summand of the motive $\\Mg(Y)$ as well. Thus, we obtain\n\nLet $X$ and $Y$ be smooth projective varieties of dimension $n,$ and let $F: \\db{X}\\stackrel{}{\\to}\\db{Y}$ be a fully faithful functor such that the dimension of the support of an object $\\A$ on $X\\times Y,$ which represents $F,$ is equal to $n.$ Then the motive $\\Mg(X)$ is a direct summand of the motive $\\Mg(Y).$ If, in addition, the functor $F$ is an equivalence, then the motives $\\Mg(X)$ and $\\Mg(Y)$ are isomorphic.\n\nExamples of such functors are known, they come from birational geometry (see e.g. [@Or2]). In these examples one of the connected components of $\\supp(\\A)$ gives a birational map $X\\dasharrow Y.$ Blow ups and antiflips induce fully faithful functors, and flops induce equivalences. Note that an isomorphism of motives implies an isomomorphism of any realization (singular cohomologies, l-adic cohomologies, Hodge structures and so on).\n\nFor arbitrary equivalence $\\Phi_{\\A}: \\db{X}\\to\\db{Y}$ the map of motives $\\alpha_n:\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}\\to \\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ},$ induced by the cycle $a_n\\in A^n(X\\times Y, \\QQ),$ is not necessary an isomorphism (e.g. Poincare line bundle $\\mathcal{P}$ on the product of abelian variety $A$ and its dual $\\wh{A}$). However, the following conjecture, which specifies Conjecture \\[G1\\], may be true.\n\nLet $\\A$ be an object of $\\db{X\\times Y},$ for which $\\Phi_{\\A}:\\db{X}\\to\\db{Y}$ is an equivalence. Then there exist line bundles $L$ and $M$ on $X$ and on $Y$ respectively such that the component $a'_{n}$ of the object $\\A':= p_1^* L\\otimes \\A\\otimes p_2^*\nM$ gives an isomorphism between motives $\\Mg(X)_{\\QQ}$ and $\\Mg(Y)_{\\QQ}.$\n\nI am grateful to Yu. I. Manin for very useful discussions.\n\n[1]{}\n\nLectures on mixed motives. 329\u2013359, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 62, Part 1, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997.\n\nGenerators and representability of functors in commutative and noncommutative geometry. , 1 (2003), 1\u201336.\n\n. , 119 (1968), 475\u2013507.\n\n. (1981), 153\u2013175.\n\n. , 5 (1997), 1361\u20131381.\n\n. , 3(351) (2003), 89\u2013172.\n\nTriangulated categories of motives over a field. In [*Cycles, transfers, and motivic homology theories*]{}, vol.\u00a0143 of [*Ann. of Math.Stud*]{}, pp.\u00a0188\u2013238.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'When two solid surfaces are brought in contact, water vapor present in the ambient air may condense in the region of the contact to form a liquid bridge connecting the two surfaces : this is the so-called capillary condensation. This phenomenon has drastic consequences on the contact between solids, modifying the macroscopic adhesion and friction properties. In this paper, we present a survey of the work we have performed both experimentally and theoretically to understand the microscopic foundations of the kinetics of capillary condensation. From the theoretical point of view, we have computed the free energy barrier associated with the condensation of the liquid from the gas in a confined system. These calculations allow to understand the existence of very large hysteresis, which is often associated with capillary condensation. This results are compatible with experimental results obtained with a surface forces apparatus in a vapor atmosphere, showing a large hysteris of the surface energy of two parallel planes as a function of their distance. In the second part, we present some experiments on the influence of humidity on the avalanche angle of granular media. We show that the ageing in time of this avalanche angle can be explained by the slow kinetics of capillary condensation in a random confined geometry.'\naddress:\n- 'D\u00e9partement de physique des mat\u00e9riaux, 6 rue Amp\u00e8re, 69622 Villeurbanne cedex (France)'\n- 'Laboratoire de Physique, ENS Lyon, 46 all\u00e9e d\u2019Italie, 69364 Lyon cedex 07 (France)'\nauthor:\n- 'F. Restagno'\n- 'L. Bocquet'\n- 'J. Crassous'\n- 'E. Charlaix'\ntitle: 'Slow Kinetics of Capillary Condensation in Confined Geometry: Experiment and Theory'\n---\n\nCapillary condensation ,Granular ,Surface forces apparatus\n\n61.43.Gt; 68.45.D\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nMolecules confined in narrow pores, with pore widths of a few molecular diameters, can exhibit a wide range of physical behavior. The introduction of wall forces, and the competition between fluid-wall and fluid-fluid forces, can lead to interesting surface driven phase changes, since for a small confinement the surface effects can be more important than the bulk effects [@Gelb99]. Such effects can be observed in porous materials which have a large specific area. Porous materials are involved in many physical, chemical or biological processes. Their adsorption properties are known to present a variety of behavior related to the texture of the porous matrix, which provides an experimental way to analyze the pore size distribution. Interpretation of adsorption isotherms in these materials commonly involves a well known phenomenon, capillary condensation [@Gelb99; @Israel; @Evans86], which corresponds to the condensation of liquid bridges in the pores. More fundamentally, capillary condensation is a gas-liquid phase transition shifted by confinement. A basic model of confinement is provided by the slab geometry, for which the fluid is confined between two parallel planar solid walls. The classical theory of capillarity [@Evans86] predicts that in this geometry the liquid phase condenses when the substrate-liquid surface tension $\\gamma_{SL}$ is smaller than the substrate-vapor surface tension $\\gamma_{SV}$, and when the distance between the surfaces is lower than $H_c$ satisfying the Kelvin equation: $$\\Delta\\rho~\\Delta\\mu \\simeq\n{{2(\\gamma_{SV}-\\gamma_{SL})}/H_c}$$ Here, $\\Delta\\rho=\\rho_L-\\rho_V$ is the difference between the bulk densities of the liquid and the gas phase, $\\Delta\\mu=\\mu_{sat}-\\mu$ is the (positive) undersaturation and $\\mu_{sat}$ is the chemical potential at bulk coexistence. If the vapor can be considered as an ideal gas, we have: $\\Delta\\mu=k_BT\\ln(p_{sat}/p_{vap})$, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann\u2019s constant, $T$ is the absolute temperature and $p_{sat}/p_{vap}$ the saturated vapor pressure divided by the partial pressure of the vapor. Although the equilibrium properties of this transition have motivated many experimental [@Fisher79; @Fisher81a; @Christenson88; @Crassous94] and theoretical studies [@Evans85; @Evans86; @Derjaguin92], capillary condensation presents remarkable dynamical features which are still to be explained. The most striking feature is the huge metastability of the coexisting phases, which contrasts with the bulk liquid-vapor transition.\n\nSince capillary condensation is a first order phase transition, one should be able to identify a critical nucleus and a corresponding free energy barrier away from the spinodal. For sufficiently small $H$, it can be shown that the liquid films coating the solid surfaces become unstable due to fluid-fluid interactions and grow to fill the slab. This has been carefully studied by several authors [@Crassous94; @Christenson94; @Forcada93a]). In this article we show that, as in the homogeneous nucleation case, the shape of the critical nucleus results from the balance between surface and volume contributions. The height of the activation barrier is so large that it can induce a large metastability of the vapor phase. This first theoretical result is compared to experiments on capillary condensation in a surface forces apparatus. In the second part of this article, we will discuss the influence of this slow kinetics of capillary condensation on the mechanical properties of a granular material in a humid atmosphere.\n\nHomogeneous nucleation of a liquid phase between ideal surfaces\n===============================================================\n\nMethod\n------\n\nSince capillary condensation occurs only in a confined geometry, the problem which arises in computing an energy barrier for the vapor/liquid transition is the validity of the macroscopic concepts of the classical theory of capillarity.\n\nTo address this problem we use the following approach:\\\ni\u2013 We use a Density Functional Theory (DFT) model for the fluid phase, taking into account the long range interactions with the solid surfaces, and study the time evolution of a metastable confined vapor with a Langevin equation. We perform this study in a two dimensional geometry and determine the energy barrier associated with the vapor/liquid transition as a function of the distance between the walls.\\\nii\u2013 We compare these results with the prediction of the classical theory of capillarity in two dimensions. The classical theory gives the correct qualitative behavior and dependency of the energy barrier as a function of the confinement up to a numerical prefactor.\\\niii\u2013 We then use the classical theory to calculate the energy barrier to condensation between two parallel plates in the three dimensional case, and discuss the order of magnitude obtained.\n\nTheoretical calculation of the activation energy in a 2D geometry\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe first use a mesoscopic Landau-Ginzburg model for the grand potential of the 2D system confined between two walls. In terms of the local density $\\rho({r})$, we write the \u201cexcess\u201d part of the grand potential $\\Omega^{ex}=\\Omega+p_{sat}V$, where $p_{sat}$ is the pressure of the system at coexistence, as: $$\\Omega^{ex}= \\int d{r}\\left\\{ {m\\over 2}  \\vert\\nabla \\rho\n \\vert^2 + W(\\rho) +  \\left(\\Delta\\mu +v_{ext}(z)\\right) \\rho \\right\\}\n \\label{eq5}$$ In this equation, $m$ is a phenomenological parameter allowing a simple treatment of inhomogeneous fluids; $v_{ext}(z)$ is the confining external potential, which we took for each wall as $v_{ext}(z)=-\\epsilon (\\sigma/(\\Delta\n z+\\sigma))^3$, with $\\Delta z$ the distance to the corresponding wall; $\\epsilon$ and $\\sigma$ have the dimensions of an energy and a distance, $W(\\rho)$ can be interpreted as the negative of the \u201cexcess\u201d pressure $\\mu_{sat}\\rho-f(\\rho)-p_{sat}$, with $f(\\rho)$ the bulk free-energy density [@Rowlinsom]. To allow a phase transition in this system, we assume a phenomenological double well form for $W(\\rho)$ : $W(\\rho)=a(\\rho-\\rho_V)^2(\\rho-\\rho_L)^2$, where $a$ is a phenomenological parameter [@Safran]. The system is then driven by a non-conserved Langevin equation for $\\rho$: $${\\partial\\rho \\over{\\partial t}}= -\\Gamma {\\delta \\Omega^{ex} \\over {\\delta\\rho}} + \\eta({r},t)\n \\label{langevin}$$ where $\\Gamma$ is a phenomenological friction coefficient and $\\eta$ is a Gaussian noise field related to $\\Gamma$ through the fluctuation-dissipation relationship [@Chaikin]. This time dependent Landau-Ginzburg model provides a good phenomenological description of the dynamics of the density field $\\rho(\\vec{r},t)$ as soon as the dynamics of the nucleation is not limited by the crossing of the activation barrier. This model has been previously successfully applied to homogeneous nucleation [@Valls90].\n\n![Snapshots of the density $\\rho(\\vec{r})$ of the fluid for different times $t=2,6,12,18,20,28$. If a point appears in white it means that the local density at this point is higher than $0.8$. To obtain $\\bar{\\rho}(t)$, we make an average on the mean density in the pore on different realizations of the noise. []{data-label=\"fig10\"}](fig10restagno){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nThe units of energy, length are such that $\\sigma=\\epsilon =1$. Time is in units of $t_0=(\\Gamma \\epsilon\\sigma^2)^{-1}$ with $\\Gamma={1\\over 3}$. In these units, we took $m=1.66$, $a=3.33$, $\\rho_L=1$, $\\rho_V=0.1$. Typical values of the chemical potential and temperature are $\\Delta\\mu\\sim 0.016$, $T\\sim 0.06$ (which is roughly half the critical temperature in this model). Periodic boundary conditions with periodicity $L_x$ were applied in the lateral direction. The simulated system is initially a gas state filling the whole pore, and its evolution is described by equation (\\[langevin\\]). A typical evolution (see figure \\[fig10\\]) of the mean density in the slit shows that: i) As expected [@Evans85], due to the long range nature of the external potential a thick liquid film of thickness $\\ell$ rapidly forms on both walls on a short time scale $\\tau_1$ ($\\ell\\simeq 3.8 \\sigma$ and $\\tau_1\\approx 5 t_0$ in our case) ii) Fluctuations of the interfaces around their mean value $\\ell$ induce after a while a sudden coalescence of the films. This second process has a characteristic time $\\tau$.\n\n![Logarithm of condensation time as a function of the \u201ceffective\u201d width of the slab $H-3\\ell$ for fixed $\\Delta\\mu=0.016$. The dashed line is the theoretical prediction $\\ln(\\tau)=\\ln(\\tau_0)+\\alpha (H-3\\ell)^{3/2}$. The two parameters $\\ln(\\tau_0)$ and $\\alpha$ have been obtained from a least-square fit of the data in a $\\ln(\\tau)$ versus $(H-3\\ell)^{3/2}$ plot.[]{data-label=\"fig11\"}](fig11restagno){width=\"6cm\"}\n\nStudying the influence of the temperature on $\\tau$, we have shown [@Restagno2000] that this time $\\tau$ obeys an Arrhenius law $\\tau=\\tau_0\\exp(\\Delta\n \\Omega^{\\dag}/k_BT)$, where $\\Delta \\Omega^{\\dag}$ is identified as the energy barrier for nucleation. In the 2D case, we have calculated [@Restagno2000] the energy barrier expected from the classical theory of capillarity: $$\\label{barr2D}\n\\Delta\n\\Omega^{\\dag}=\\frac{4}{3}\\left(\\Delta\\mu\\Delta\\rho\\gamma_{LV}\\right)^{1/2}H^{3/2}$$ The $H$ dependence ($\\Delta\\mu$ being fixed) on the activation time is plotted in fig. \\[fig11\\]. As seen in fig. \\[fig11\\], the DFT model provides a good agreement with this classical prediction as far as the distances between the walls $H$ is replaced by an effective distance $H-3\\ell$ to take into account the presence of the wetting films. The prefactor $\\alpha$ can be estimated from the data plotted in fig. \\[fig11\\], yielding $\\alpha=0.68$, while the classical prediction gives $\\alpha=1.03$ (here the liquid-vapor surface tension -at finite temperature $T=0.06$- has been computed from independent Monte-Carlo simulations of the model, yielding $\\gamma_{LV}=0.8$). The macroscopic theory thus gives a correct qualitative picture and a semi-quantitative agreement of the activation energy for capillary condensation.\n\nNucleation between parallel plates in three dimensions\n------------------------------------------------------\n\n![Picture of the critical nucleus for capillary condensation in three dimensions. $R^*$ represent the lateral extension of the critical nucleus (see text for details). The total curvature $\\kappa$ of the meniscus is equal to $\\kappa=1/R_c=2/H_c$. Note that in 3D, $\\kappa$ is the sum of the in-plane and \u201caxisymmetric\u201d curvature.[]{data-label=\"fig1\"}](fig1restagno){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nWe use then the classical theory of capillary to estimate the activation energy for nucleating a liquid phase between two parallel plates. In the grand-canonical ensemble the critical nucleus corresponds to a saddle-point of the grand potential. We will consider the perfect wetting situation $\\gamma_{SV}=\\gamma_{SL}+\\gamma_{LV}$, although a generalization to the partial wetting case is straightforward. The grand potential of a pore partially filled with liquid may be written [@Evans85] $$\\Omega=-p_V V_V-p_L V_L+\\gamma_{SV} A_{SV}+ \\gamma_{SL}\nA_{SL}+\\gamma_{LV}\n A_{LV}$$ where $V_V$ (resp. $V_L$) is the volume of the gas (resp. liquid) phase and $A_{SL}$, $A_{SV}$ and $A_{LV}$ respectively denote the total solid-liquid, solid-vapor and liquid-vapor surface area. The following expression is obtained for the \u201cexcess\u201d grand potential, $\\Delta\\Omega_{tot}=\n \\Omega-\\Omega_V$, with $\\Omega_V$ the grand-potential of the system filled with the gas phase only : $$\\Delta\\Omega_{tot}= \\gamma_{LV} A_{LV} + \\gamma_{LV} A_{SL}\n+\\Delta\\mu\\Delta\\rho V_L\n \\label{omega2}$$ where we have used $p_V-p_L\\simeq \\Delta\\rho\\Delta\\mu$. Within classical capillarity, long range fluid-fluid interactions are not taken into account, therefore the critical nucleus has to be a liquid bridge connecting the plates. One also expects this critical nucleus to exhibit rotational invariance, so that $\\Delta\\Omega_{tot}$ in eq. (\\[omega2\\]) is best parameterized in cylindrical coordinates (see fig. \\[fig1\\]). In terms of $\\rho(z)$, the position of the LV interface, one obtains $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\label{Seq1}\n \\Delta\\Omega_{tot}=  \\Delta\\rho\\Delta\\mu 2\\pi \\int_0^{H\\over2}\n dz \\rho^2(z)\n+ 2\\gamma_{LV} \\pi \\rho^2({H\\over2})\n \\\\+ 2\\pi \\gamma_{LV} \\int_0^{H\\over2} dz~\\rho(z)\\sqrt{1+{\\rho_z}^2}\n \\end{gathered}$$ where the index $z$ denotes differentiation. Extremalization of the grand potential (\\[Seq1\\]) leads to the usual condition of [*mechanical equilibrium*]{}, the Laplace equation, which relates the local curvature $\\kappa$ to the pressure drop according to the Laplace law of capillarity: ${\\gamma_{LV} \\kappa}=\\Delta p\\simeq \\Delta \\mu\\Delta \\rho$. This condition remains valid although the nucleus corresponds to a saddle point and not a minimum of the grand-potential.\n\nThe main difference with bulk homogeneous nucleation comes from the pressure drop at the interface: here, the liquid pressure inside the meniscus is lower than the gas pressure since $\\mu<\\mu_{sat}$, so that the critical nucleus takes the form of a liquid bridge between the solid substrates instead of the spherical shape encountered in bulk homogeneous nucleation. The previous Laplace equation is non-linear and cannot be solved analytically. From dimensional arguments however, one expects $\\Delta\\Omega_{tot}=\\gamma_{LV} H_c^2 f(H/H_c)$, with $f(x)$ a dimensionless function. The latter can be obtained from the numerical resolution of the Laplace equation, yielding the shape of the meniscus [@numerical]. Numerical integration of eq. (\\[Seq1\\]) then gives the corresponding free energy barrier. The result for the energy barrier $\\Delta\\Omega^{\\dag}$ is plotted in figure \\[fig\\_omega3d\\]. As can be seen from the figure, a divergence of $\\Delta\\Omega^{\\dag}$ is obtained as the pore width $H$ reaches $H_c$. When the axisymetric extension of the bridge $R^*=\\rho({H\\over2})$ is large compared to $H$, the negative (axisymmetric) contribution to the curvature is negligible and the L-V profile can be approximated by a semi-circular shape. This allows to obtain explicit expressions for the different contributions to $\\Delta\\Omega_{tot}$ in eq. (\\[omega2\\]) as a function of the extension $R^*$ of the bridge, namely $V_L=\\pi R^{*2}H-{\\pi^2\\over\n4} R^* H^2 +{\\pi\\over 6}H^3$, $A_{SL}= 2\\pi R^{*2}$ and $A_{LV}=\\pi^2 R^*H-\\pi {H^2}$. Maximization of $\\Delta\\Omega_{tot}$ as a function of $R^*$ yields the following expression for the free energy barrier $$\\Delta \\Omega^\\dag = \\gamma _{LV} H^2 \\biggl[ {\\pi^3\\over 8}\n{\\left(1- {H\\over{2H_c}}\\right)^2 \\over {1-{H\\over{H_c}} }\n}-\\left(-{\\pi\\over3} {H\\over{H_c}} +\\pi \\right)  \\biggr]\n \\label{NRJbarrier3D}$$ which does exhibit a divergence at $H\\sim\nH_c=2\\gamma_{LV}/\\Delta\\rho\\Delta\\mu$. As shown in figure \\[fig\\_omega3d\\], this approximate expression is in very good agreement with the numerical calculation, even at small confinement $H$. Physically, an important consequence of the diverging energy barrier at $H_c$ is that the gas phase becomes extremely metastable: for water at $25^{\\textrm o}$C, at a relative humidity of $p_{vap}/p_{sat}=40\\%$, we obtain $H_c\\simeq2$\u00a0nm and $\\gamma_{LV}H_c^2\\simeq70 k_BT$. This numerical estimate shows that the energy barrier is always larger than the thermal energy of the system, except when $H/H_c\\ll 1$.\n\n![Free energy barrier (in 3D) as a function of the normalized width of the pore, $H/H_c$. The solid line is computed by numerical integration of the Laplace equation. The points are obtained from the analytical expression, eq. (\\[NRJbarrier3D\\]).[]{data-label=\"fig_omega3d\"}](fig2restagno){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nExperimental evidence of the metastability\n------------------------------------------\n\nMetastability effects in capillary condensation are very often observed in porous media, where they are responsible for hysteresis loops in adsorption/desorption isotherms. In such hysteresis loops however it is not possible to tell which branch is the stable one. We have studied the capillary condensation of alkane vapors between smooth metal surfaces with a Surface Forces Apparatus [@Crassous94]. In this type of experiments, the pressure of vapor is kept constant, and the distance between the surfaces (a sphere and a plane) is varied. The condensation of a liquid phase is revealed by a very strong adhesion force due to the capillary depression in the liquid phase. On the contrary, almost no interaction is measured when the surfaces are separated by the vapor. In these experiments, one observes the hysteresis loop of the force as a function of the distance between the surfaces associated with the metastability effects in the liquid/vapor transition. The particularity of SFA experiments is that it is possible to know which branch of the curve correspond to the lower energy state and therefore which phase is stable for a given confinement. This is due to the so-called Derjaguin approximation, which relates the force $F$ measured between a sphere of large radius of curvature $R$, and a plane, to the interaction energy per unit area $U$ of two parallel plates separated by the same distance $H$[@Israel]: $$F(H)/R=4\\pi U(H)$$\n\n![Force between a sphere of pyrex of radius $R=3.29$\u00a0mm covered by a platinum layer and a plane of pyrex in the presence of a vapor of $n$-heptane. The arrows indicate the direction of the surfaces. $H_c$ is the critical distance at which there never is a meniscus and $H_s$ the distance at which a liquid bridge appears when the surfaces are brought into contact.[]{data-label=\"fig7\"}](fig7restagno){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nThe force curve shows then clearly that for a large range of values of the confinement $H<H_c$ the vapor phase is metastable. In the hysteresis range, the vapor never condenses over the time of the experiments\u2013typically some hours\u2013showing that the energy barrier to overcome in order to form a liquid bridge between the surfaces is actually quite large.\n\nSlow kinetics of capillary condensation: the aging of the friction coefficient\n==============================================================================\n\nHumidity induced aging of the avalanche angle of a granular medium\n------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nSince the condensation of liquid in a confined geometry can be hindered by high activation energy, one expects that capillary condensation processes may display slow kinetics. We discuss here in more detail the influence of humidity an the slow evolution in time of a macroscopic property: the avalanche angle of granular media.\n\n![Experimental setup. The granular material is placed in a cylindrical drum with an inner diameter and a length of 10\u00a0cm. The lateral faces of the cylinder are made of glass with an opening at the center to allow an exchange with the outer atmosphere. The drum is half filled with glass beads, whose diameter ranges between 125 and 160 microns. The relative humidity $H=p_{vap}/p_{sat}$ is kept at a constant value by the method of the saturated aqueous solutions of inorganic salts [@cretinon].[]{data-label=\"fig4\"}](fig4restagno){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nSolid friction properties of a large number of solid materials are well described by the Coulombs\u2019law, which states that the minimum tangential force $T$ that must be applied to a contact between solids in order to bring them into relative motion obeys the relation $T=\\mu_s N$, where $N$ is the normal load applied to the contact and $\\mu_s$ the static friction coefficient. Systematic studies on various material (for a review see Baumberger [@Baumberger97]) show that $\\mu_s$ increases slowly with the time during which the solid have been into contact at rest. This aging behavior of the static friction coefficient is often found to be logarithmic in time [@Rabinowicz]:$\\mu_s=b+\\alpha\\log(t_w)$\n\nMore recently, the influence of humidity on this aging behavior has been brought into evidence. Dieterich [@Dieterich84] first showed in rock onto rock friction , that aging occurs only in humid atmosphere. In our group, we have studied more specifically the influence of humidity on aging of friction properties in granular media. For that purpose, we have measured the avalanche angle of a granular media consisting of micrometric glass beads in a controlled environment (see fig. \\[fig4\\]). Using a rotating drum, the time $t_w$ during which the granular heap remains at rest can easily be varied.\n\nThe evolutions of the maximum angle of stability as a function of the resting time $t_w$, at different humidities are shown in figure \\[fig5\\]. The data clearly show an aging behavior, since the angle of first avalanche systematically increases with the resting time.\n\nA first important point in this aging behavior is that it cannot be explained by an increase of the friction coefficient alone. Indeed, avalanche angle larger than $90^{\\textrm o}$ can be obtained for high humidities and large waiting time; in those cases the granular heap has enough internal cohesion to remain stuck to the upper part of internal wall of the drum . The effect of such a cohesive force can be included in Coulomb\u2019s analysis by adding an additional force $F_c$ to the normal component of the weight of a layer of glass beads at the surface of the heap [@Halsey]. This yields the following condition for an avalanche to occur: $$\\label{coulomb2}\n\\tan\\theta=\\mu_s\\left(1+\\frac{F_c}{mg\\cos\\theta}\\right)$$ where $mg$ is the weight of the layer of glass beads undergoing the avalanche. Since the data show a linear dependence of the tangent of the avalanche angle with $\\log(t_w)/\\cos\\theta$, we can conclude that there is a cohesion force in the granular media which increases as $F_c\\propto \\log t_w$. This dependency is observed over more than 4 decades of time (resting times range from 5 to 200 000 s). We do not observe any saturation of the angle at times as long as 200 000 s. The amplitude of this aging in characterized by the slope of the lines obtained is this representation.\n\n![The tangent of the maximum stability angle as a function of where $t_w$ is the resting time of the pile of glass beads. The lines are least-square fits of the experimental data, whose slope is identified with $\\alpha$. Different humidity are plotted on the same figure : $H = 3\\%$, $H = 22\\%$ and $H = 43\\%$.[]{data-label=\"fig5\"}](fig5restagno){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nA very important parameter for this aging behavior is the humidity of the surrounding atmosphere. We do not observe any aging in dry atmosphere. Figure \\[fig6\\] shows that this aging increases with the relative humidity: this increase is reversible.\n\n![Variation of the slope $\\alpha(H)$ characterizing the aging behavior of the first avalanche angle with the relative humidity pvap/psat.[]{data-label=\"fig6\"}](fig6restagno){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nA simple model of thermally activated process for aging\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nAlthough a lot can be learned from the perfectly flat slab geometry, the latter is certainly too idealized to account for the kinetics of adsorption in \u201creal\u201d experimental systems such as the previous ones. 9\n\n![Schematic representation of a contact between rough surfaces. The fact that we consider a rough surface on a flat surface does not restrict the generality of this approach.[]{data-label=\"fig8\"}](fig8restagno){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nWe show here that these logarithmic time dependence of the cohesion force between the surfaces may be understood by taking into account the influence of surface roughness on the dynamics of capillary condensation. Let us consider a simple model consisting of two surfaces facing each other and rough at the nanometric scale, as depicted on fig. \\[fig8\\]. As emphasized in the introduction capillary condensation typically occurs in pores of nanometric size. We thus have to consider the roughness of the surfaces at the [*nanometer level*]{}. Here again we shall stay at a macroscopic description, and focus on a qualitative picture of the influence of roughness on the transition mechanism. Without loss of generality, one may consider that one of the walls is perfectly flat. When roughness is present, there is a broad range of gaps between the surfaces. In particular, there are regions where the two surfaces are in close contact. In such regions, condensation should take place on a very short time-scale. Thus at \u201cearly times\u201d, one has to consider a set of wetted islands, which we shall consider as independent one of the other. Once these islands have formed, they should grow up to a point where the distance between the surfaces is equal to $H_c$, so that a meniscus of radius $R_c=H_c/2\\cos\\theta$ forms at the liquid-vapor interface, allowing for mechanical equilibrium.\n\nIn doing so however, the wetted area has to overcome unfavorable regions where the distance between the two surfaces is larger then $H_c$. Let us consider a specific jump over such a \u201cdefect\u201d, as idealized in fig. \\[fig9\\]. We denote by $h_d$ the \u201caveraged\u201d gap inside the defect ($h_d>H_c$), and by $a_d$ its area. The free energy cost for the liquid bridge to overcome this defect is approximatively given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\Delta \\Omega^{\\dag} &\\simeq a_d \\left(\\Delta\\mu\\Delta\\rho~e_d-2(\\gamma_{SV}-\\gamma_{SL})\\right)\\nonumber\\\\\n& & \\equiv v_d \\Delta\\mu\\Delta\\rho \\label{CCR1}\\end{aligned}$$ where $v_d$ is the excess volume of the defect, $v_d=a_d~(e_d-H_c)$. We can thus estimate the time to overcome the defect as $$\\tau=\\tau_0 \\exp \\left\\{ {\\Delta \\Omega^{\\dag} \\over\n{k_BT}}\\right\\} \\label{CCR2}$$\n\nOne may expect the defects to have a broad distribution of excess volume $v_d$, so that the activation times $\\tau$ are very widely distributed. After a time $t_w$, only the defects with an activation time $\\tau$ smaller than $t$ have been filled by the\n\n![Schematic representation of a defect. $v_d$ is the volume of the region where the height $h_d>H_c$.[]{data-label=\"fig9\"}](fig9restagno){width=\"7cm\"}\n\nliquid phase. Using eq. \\[CCR1\\] and \\[CCR2\\] these have an excess volume $v_d$ which verifies $v_d<v_{dmax}(t_w)=k_BT(\\Delta\\mu\\Delta\\rho)^{-1}\\ln(t_w/\\tau_0)$. The number of filled defects at a time $t$ is then typically $N(t)=v_{dmax}(t_w)/v_0$ where $v_0$ is the typical width of the distribution of excess volume of the defects. Now, once a liquid bridge has bypassed a defect, the area wetted by the liquid increases by some typical (roughness dependent) $a_d$. The time wetted area grows in time as: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&A(t_w) &\\simeq N(t_w)a_d  \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\frac{a_d}{\\Delta\\mu/(k_BT)\\Delta\\rho\nv_0}\\ln\\left(\\frac{t_w}{\\tau_0}\\right) \\label{equ10}\\end{aligned}$$ Assuming a typical radius of curvature $\\lambda$ of the asperities, we find if $\\lambda\\gg r_K$, that $a_d\\sim\\lambda\nr_K$. If we now assume that the vapor is an ideal gas, then $\\Delta\\mu=k_BT\\ln(p_{sat}/p_{vap})$. This give a cohesion force between two beads: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&F_c(t_w)&=\\frac{\\gamma_{LV}}{r_K}A(t_w)\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\frac{\\gamma_{LV}\\lambda}{\\Delta\\rho v_0\n\\ln(1/H)}\\ln\\left(t_w/\\tau_0\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ This model gives the good dependency of the cohesion force with the resting time $t_w$ in qualitative agreement with the experiments. It is not possible to test directly this prediction since $v_0$ and $\\lambda$ are not easily measured but we can check the dependency of $\\alpha$ with the relative humidity. However we can check the internal coherence of this mechanism by estimating the order of magnitude of the cohesion force needed to induce aging of the avalanche angle. Using equation \\[coulomb2\\], the increase of the cohesion force during the time $t_w$ must be: $$\\Delta F_c=\\frac{mg\\cos\\theta}{\\mu_s}\\Delta\\tan\\theta(t_w)$$ The numerical value of $Delta F_c$ is thus of the order of the weight of a bead. On the other hand, the maximum value of the capillary force between two beads in contact is obtained when the beads are ideal sphere (no roughness): $F_c=2\\pi\\gamma_{LV}R=3.4\\times10^{-5}$\u00a0N for beads of radius $R=75~\\mu$m in water vapor humidity. This is four order of magnitude larger than the weight of a bead:$4.4\\times10^{-9}$N.\n\nTherefore one see that a slow kinetics of capillary condensation between rough surfaces, leads to a logarithmic growth in time of the capillary force and can actually be responsible for the aging of the avalanche angle of granular media, as well as more generally for the humidity induce aging of the friction properties of surfaces.\n\n[10]{} url \\#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\n\nL.\u00a0D. Gelb, K.\u00a0Gubbins, R.\u00a0Radhakrishnan, M.\u00a0Sliwinka-Bartowiak, Rep. Prog. Phys. 62 (1999) 1573\u20131659.\n\nJ.\u00a0Israelachvili, Intermolecular & Surface Forces, 2nd Edition, Academic Press, London, 1992.\n\nR.\u00a0Evans, U.\u00a0M.\u00a0B. Marconi, P.\u00a0Tarazona, J. Chem. Phys. 84\u00a0(4) (1986) 2376\u201399.\n\nL.\u00a0Fisher, J.\u00a0Israelachvili, Nature 277\u00a0(5697) (1979) 548\u2013549.\n\nL.\u00a0Fisher, J.\u00a0Israleachvili, Colloids and Surfaces 3\u00a0(4) (1981) 303\u201319.\n\nH.\u00a0K. Christenson, J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 121\u00a0(1) (1988) 170\u2013178.\n\nJ.\u00a0Crassous, E.\u00a0Charlaix, J.-L. Loubet, Europhys. Let. 28\u00a0(1) (1994) 37\u201342.\n\nR.\u00a0Evans, U.\u00a0M.\u00a0B. Marconi, Chem. Phys. Lett. 114\u00a0(4) (1985) 415\u2013422.\n\nB.\u00a0V. Derjaguin, Prog. Surf. Sci. 40 (1992) 46\u201361.\n\nL.\u00a0Bocquet, E.\u00a0Charlaix, S.\u00a0Ciliberto, J.\u00a0Crassous, Nature 396\u00a0(6713) (1998) 735\u2013737.\n\nH.\u00a0Christenson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73\u00a0(13) (1994) 1821\u201325.\n\nM.\u00a0Forcada, J. Chem. Phys. 98\u00a0(1) (1993) 638\u201343.\n\nJ.\u00a0Rowlinsom, B.\u00a0Widom, Molecular Theory of Capillarity, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982.\n\nS.\u00a0A. Safran, Statistical Thermodynamics of Surfaces Interfaces and Membranes, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachussetts, 1996.\n\nO.\u00a0T. Valls, G.\u00a0F. Mazenko, Phys. Rev. B 42\u00a0(10) (1990) 6614\u201322.\n\nP.\u00a0M. Chaikin, T.\u00a0Lubensky, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.\n\nF.\u00a0Restagno, L.\u00a0Bocquet, T.\u00a0Biben, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84\u00a0(11) (2000) 2433\u201336.\n\nW.\u00a0H. Press, S.\u00a0A. Teukolsky, W.\u00a0T. Vetterling, B.\u00a0P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.\n\nT.\u00a0Baumberger, Solid State Comm. 102\u00a0(2-3) (1997) 175\u201385.\n\nE.\u00a0Rabinowicz, The Friction and Lubricationf of Solids, John Wiley and Sons, New-York, 1965.\n\nJ.\u00a0Dieterich, G.\u00a0Conrad, J. Geoph. res. 89\u00a0(B6) (1984) 4196\u20134202.\n\nB.\u00a0Cr[\u00e9]{}tinon, Technique de l\u2019Ing\u00e9nieur R3 045 1\u201317.\n\nT.C.\u00a0Halsey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80\u00a0(14) (1998) 3141\u20134\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The Lindblad generators of the master equation define which kind of decoherence happens in an open quantum system. We are working with a two qubit system and choose the generators to be projection operators on the eigenstates of the system and unitary bilocal rotations of them. The resulting decoherence modes are studied in detail. Besides the general solutions we investigate the special case of maximally entangled states \u2013 the Bell singlet states. The results are depicted in the so-called spin geometry picture which allows to illustrate the evolution of the (nonlocal) correlations stored in a certain state. The question for which conditions the path traced out in the geometric picture depends only on the relative angle between the bilocal rotations is addressed.'\nauthor:\n- Katharina Durstberger\nbibliography:\n- '/Users/kadu/Library/texmf/tex/latex/bibliography/bibliography-kadu.bib'\ntitle: Spin geometry of entangled qubits under bilocal decoherence modes\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe theory of open quantum systems plays a major role in many applications of quantum physics since perfect isolation of a quantum system is never possible. Because the environmental degrees of freedom are not accessible the dynamics of open quantum systems are described by effective dynamics: the quantum master equation [@BreuerPetruccione]. The notion of decoherence is introduced which describes the loss of quantum coherences in a system coupled to an external environment. This concept allows to understand the transition from a quantum to a classical world [@GiuliniJoosKieferKupschStamatescuZeh].\n\nGeometric pictures of the quantum mechanical state space of a system are attracting and illustrative and provide deeper insight into unsolved problems. Therefore it is tempting to find geometric pictures for the whole state space of density matrices which is nearly impossible because even for the simplest case of a qubit the whole state space has $4$ real dimensions.\n\nBy restricting to several properties one can find appealing pictures and visualizations of the state space (see for instance [@BengtssonZyczkowskiBook]). E.g., for pure two qubit states a Hopf map can be found which provides an entanglement sensitive stratification of the state space [@MosseriDandoloff]. The so-called spin geometric picture allows for another visualization of the two qubit system and was introduced and discussed by the Horodeckis [@Horodecki3_1997; @Horodecki2_1996], Vollbrecht and Werner [@VollbrechtWerner] and Bertlmann, Narnhofer and Thirring [@BertlmannNarnhoferThirring].\n\nThe paper is organized in the following way. The next subsections give a brief introduction to the theory of decoherence with special emphasis on the theoretical formulation used later on in this paper and an introduction to the spin geometry picture where also the role of the singular value decomposition is emphasized. In Sect. \\[sect.deco.modes\\] we introduce the decoherence modes under consideration which arise by local unitary rotations of the projection operators on the eigenstates of the system. We present the general solution of the time evolution of the local parameters $\\vec m$ and $\\vec n$ and the correlation matrix $c$ for three different types of decoherence, which we call decoherence modes. These general solutions are illuminated by considering special initial conditions: the Bell singlet state (Sect. \\[sect:bell-state\\]). The evolution of the states under the investigated decoherence modes is visualized graphically within the spin geometry picture. In the last section \\[sect:equiv\\] we show which restrictions on the initial correlation matrix $c$ of a state with local parameters equal to zero have to be satisfied such that the geometric pictures of mode B and C are equal.\n\nDecoherence\n-----------\n\nA quantum system $S$ is coupled to the environment $E$ and the closed total system $S+E$ is governed by unitary evolution given by the Hamilton operator $H_{S+E}(t)=H\\otimes\\mathbbm1+\\mathbbm1\\otimes H_E+H_I$, where $H$ and $H_E$ are the free Hamiltonians of the system and the environment, respectively, and $H_I$ denotes the interaction Hamiltonian. Under several assumptions (see, e.g., [@BreuerPetruccione]) the reduced non-unitary dynamics of the open system $S$ are given by the master equation $$\\frac{\\partial}{\\partial t}\\rho(t)=-i[H,\\rho(t)]-\\mathcal D(\\rho(t))\\;,$$ with the dissipator [@Lindblad; @GoriniKossakowskiSudarshan] $$\\label{eq:dissipator,gen}\n    \\mathcal D(\\rho)=\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_k \\bigl(A_k^{\\dag}A_k \\rho +\n    \\rho A_k^{\\dag}A_k-2A_k\\rho A_k^{\\dag}\\bigr)\\;.$$ The general structure of the dissipator can be simplified by assuming the a priori arbitrary Lindblad generators $A_k$ to be projection operators $A_k=\\sqrt{\\lambda_k}P_k$, with $P_k^2=P_k$ (see Ref. [@BertlmannGrimus2002]), which gives a simplified structure of the dissipator $$\\mathcal D(\\rho)=\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_k \\lambda_k\\bigl(P_k \\rho +\n    \\rho P_k-2P_k\\rho P_k\\bigr)\\;.$$ The real and positive parameters $\\lambda_k$ are called decoherence parameters and determine the strength of the interaction.\n\nIn the following treatments we work with a two qubit system where the Hilbert space is given by $\\mathcal H={\\mathbb{C}}^2 \\otimes {\\mathbb{C}}^2$. We require the Lindblad generators $P_k$ to project onto one-dimensional subspaces and satisfy $\\sum_{k=1}^4 P_k=\\mathbbm{1}$. Furthermore we constrain to one dissipation parameter $\\lambda$ which parameterizes the strength of the interaction and therefore of the decoherence [@BertlmannDurstbergerHasegawa2005]. Then the dissipator can be written in a very compact way $$\\label{dissipator}\n    \\mathcal D(\\rho)=\\lambda\\bigl(\\rho- \\sum_{k=1}^{4} P_k\\rho P_k\\bigr)\\;,$$ which is easier to deal with than the original one.\n\nSpin geometry\n-------------\n\nThe state space for a system consisting of two qubits has in general four complex or eight real dimensions. A general density matrix of such a system can be expressed in the following way [@Horodecki3_1997; @Horodecki2_1996] $$\\label{state-decomposition}\n    \\rho=\\frac{1}{4}(\\mathbbm{1}\\otimes\\mathbbm1 +\\vec m\\; \\vec\\sigma\\otimes\\mathbbm1 +\\vec\n    n\\; \\mathbbm1\\otimes\\vec\\sigma+c_{ij}\\; \\sigma_i\\otimes\\sigma_j)\\;,$$ where $\\{\\mathbbm1\\otimes\\mathbbm1,\\sigma_i\\otimes\\mathbbm1,\\mathbbm1\\otimes\\sigma_j,\n\\sigma_i\\otimes\\sigma_j\\}$ forms a basis in terms of product Pauli operators of $\\mathcal\nB(\\mathcal H)=\\mathcal B({\\mathbb{C}}^2\\otimes{\\mathbb{C}}^2)$, the algebra of bounded operators on the Hilbert space $\\mathcal H$.\n\nThe local parameters $\\vec m,\\vec n\\in\\mathbb{R}^3$ of the density matrix , given by $\\vec m={{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}(\\vec\\sigma\\otimes\\mathbbm{1}\\;\\rho)$ and $\\vec\nn={{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}(\\mathbbm{1}\\otimes\\vec\\sigma\\;\\rho)$, determine the reduced density matrices, e.g., $\\rho_{1}={{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}_{2}\\rho=\\frac{1}{2}(\\mathbbm1 + \\vec m\\cdot\\vec\\sigma)$, whereas the real $3\\times3$ matrix $c=(c_{ij})$, where $c_{ij}={{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}(\\sigma_i\\otimes\\sigma_j\\;\\rho)$, determines the nonlocal correlations. The expectation value for a joint spin measurement in directions $\\vec \\alpha$ and $\\vec\\beta$, given by $E(\\vec\\alpha,\\vec\\beta)={{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}(\\rho\\;\n\\vec\\alpha\\cdot\\vec\\sigma\\otimes\\vec\\beta\\cdot\\vec\\sigma)\n    =(\\vec\\alpha,c\\; \\vec\\beta)$, is fully determined by the correlation matrix $c$.\n\nA state is called separable if it can be written as a sum over product states, that means $c_{ij}=n_i\\cdot m_j$. Nonseparable states are called entangled (see, e.g., [@BrussLeuchsBook]). The amount of entanglement is invariant under unitary transformations of the form $U_1\\otimes\nU_2$. This provides us with an equivalence relation for states with equal properties concerning separability and entanglement and we only have to choose a proper representative to reduce the number of parameters needed to describe the states.\n\nThe parameters $\\vec m$, $\\vec n$ and $c$ of $\\rho$ transform under the action of the unitary transformation $U_1\\otimes U_2$ as $\\vec m'=O_1\\vec m$, $\\vec n'=O_2\\vec n$ and $c'=O_1 c O_2^T$. The transformation $O_1$ ($O_2$) is related to $U_1$ ($U_2$) via the homomorphism connecting the groups $SU(2)$ and $SO(3)$: for every unitary transformation $U\\in SU(2)$ there exists a unique rotation $O\\in SO(3)$ such that $U \\vec n\\cdot\\vec\\sigma U^\\dag=(O\\vec n)\\cdot\\vec\\sigma$.\n\nIt turns out that the orthogonal transformations can be chosen such that the matrix $c'$ is diagonal. Thus it is sufficient to consider states as representatives where the $c$-matrix is diagonal (singular value decomposition). The singular values, which are different from the eigenvalues, are always real [^1]. They can be arranged to form a 3 dimensional vector $\\vec c=(c_1,c_2,c_3)^T$ which we call correlation vector. The spin geometry picture consists of all possible correlation vectors $\\vec c$.\\\n**Example.**\\\nThe correlation vectors for the $4$ maximally entangled Bell states, $\\lvert\\Psi^{\\pm}\\rangle=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}(\\lvert01\\rangle\\pm\\lvert10\\rangle)$ with $\\vec\nc=(\\pm1,\\pm1,-1)^T$ and $\\lvert\\Phi^{\\pm}\\rangle=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}(\\lvert00\\rangle\\pm\\lvert11\\rangle)$ with $\\vec\nc=(\\pm1,\\mp1,+1)^T$, form the corners of a tetrahedron which characterizes the convex set of all possible states. The partial transposition condition [@BrussLeuchsBook] leads to a reflection of the tetrahedron and the set of separable state is given by the intersection of both tetrahedrons which results in an octahedron (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig.octahedron\\] and Ref.\u00a0[@Horodecki2_1996]).\n\n![The tetrahedron of possible states, the inverted tetrahedron and the octahedron of separable states.[]{data-label=\"fig.octahedron\"}](tetra1_neu.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"4.5cm\"} ![The tetrahedron of possible states, the inverted tetrahedron and the octahedron of separable states.[]{data-label=\"fig.octahedron\"}](tetra2a_neu.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"4.5cm\"} ![The tetrahedron of possible states, the inverted tetrahedron and the octahedron of separable states.[]{data-label=\"fig.octahedron\"}](tetra4a_neu.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"4.5cm\"}\n\nState with the same purity, measured by $\\delta={{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}(\\rho^2)$, correspond to a sphere of a radius proportional to $\\delta$ centered at the origin of the tetrahedron. There are 4 pure states with $\\delta=1$ in the picture, the Bell states. States with equal entanglement, measured by the concurrence $C$ [@BrussLeuchsBook], are found on planes with normal vector equal to $(-1,-1,-1)$ for instance. The only maximally entangled states in this picture are the Bell states. The separable states ($C=0$) lie at the border of the octahedron and inside. For a detailed analysis of these facts see Ref.\u00a0[@ZimannBuzek2005-2].\n\nSingular value decomposition\n----------------------------\n\nThe singular value decomposition (SVD) is a generalization of the eigenvalue decomposition which can be used to diagonalize rectangular matrices (the eigen decomposition is defined only for square matrices). In analogy with the eigen decomposition, which decomposes a matrix into two simple matrices, the main idea of the SVD is to decompose a rectangular matrix $A$ into three simple matrices: two orthogonal matrices $P$ and $Q$ and one diagonal matrix $D$, given by $$\\label{svd-trafo}\n    A=P\\;D\\;Q^T\\;,$$ where $P^T P=\\mathbbm1$ and $Q^T Q=\\mathbbm1$. The diagonal entries of $D$ are called singular values.\n\nFrom the relations $A\\,A^T=P\\;D^2\\;P^T$ and $A^TA=Q\\;D^2\\;Q^T$ it is obvious that that the eigenvalues of the matrices $A\\,A^T$ and $A^TA$ correspond to the squares of the singular values of $A$ and the eigenstates of $A\\,A^T$ and $A^TA$ form the columns of the matrices $P$ and $Q$. The columns of $P$ ($Q$) are called left (right) singular vectors of $A$.\n\nDecoherence modes {#sect.deco.modes}\n=================\n\nThe following investigations are concerned with decoherence effects. The aim is to get information on the time evolution of the parameters $\\vec m$, $\\vec n$ and $c=(c_{ij})$, introduced in Eq. , and to construct the spin geometry picture. Because the correlation vectors consists of the singular values of the correlation matrix where the dynamical evolution has no impact on we can base our investigations on the master equation $$\\label{master}\n    \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial t}\\rho(t)=-\\mathcal D(\\rho(t))=\\lambda\\bigl(\\rho- \\sum_{k=1}^{4} P_k\\rho P_k\\bigr)\\;,$$ which describes only effects arising due to pure decoherence and includes no dynamical effects.\n\nFor a two qubit system $\\{\\lvert e_k\\rangle\\}_{k=1,\\ldots, 4}$ denotes an eigenbasis of the Hamiltonian of the undisturbed system, $H\\lvert e_k\\rangle=E_k\\lvert e_k\\rangle$. In the following we chose several kinds of projection operators as Lindblad generators for the dissipator, Eq. .\n\nA one-dimensional (bilocal) projection operator $P_k$ on the eigenspace of the Hamiltonian $H$ can be written in terms of projections on the individual subspaces, e.g., $$\\label{proj.modeA}\nP_k^A=\\lvert e_k\\rangle\\langle e_k\\rvert=P_k^{(1)}\\otimes P_k^{(2)}\\;,$$ where $P_k^{(1)}=\n\\begin{cases}\n\\frac{1}{2}(\\mathbbm1+\\sigma_z)\\quad \\mbox{for}\\; k=1,2\\\\\n\\frac{1}{2}(\\mathbbm1-\\sigma_z)\\quad \\mbox{for}\\; k=3,4\n\\end{cases}$ and $P_k^{(2)}=\n\\begin{cases}\n\\frac{1}{2}(\\mathbbm1+\\sigma_z)\\quad \\mbox{for}\\; k=1,3\\\\\n\\frac{1}{2}(\\mathbbm1-\\sigma_z)\\quad \\mbox{for}\\; k=2,4\n\\end{cases}$.\n\nDecoherence modes where the Lindblad generators are projections of the form are denoted as mode A. We consider also (bi-)unitary rotations of the projection operators of the form $$\\label{proj.modeB}\n    P_k^B=(U_1\\otimes \\mathbbm1)P_k^A (U_1\\otimes \\mathbbm1)^\\dag=\n    U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag\\otimes P_k^{(2)}\\;,$$ which are called mode B, and more generally $$\\label{proj.modeC}\n    P_k^C=(U_1\\otimes U_2)P_k^A (U_1\\otimes U_2)^\\dag=\n    U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag\\otimes U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\\dag\\;,$$ which denote mode C. It is clear that mode A and B are just special cases of mode C.\n\nA unitary rotation $U\\in \\rm{SU}(2)$ can be written in the following way $$U=e^{-i\\frac{\\alpha}{2}\\vec\n    a\\cdot\\vec\\sigma}=\\cos\\frac{\\alpha}{2}\\mathbbm1-i\\sin\\frac{\\alpha}{2}\\vec a\\cdot\\vec\\sigma=\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n        \\cos\\frac{\\alpha}{2}-i a_z\\sin\\frac{\\alpha}{2}\\; & \\;-(ia_x+a_y)\\sin\\frac{\\alpha}{2}\n        \\\\[5pt]\n        -(ia_x-a_y)\\sin\\frac{\\alpha}{2}\\; & \\;\\cos\\frac{\\alpha}{2}+i a_z\\sin\\frac{\\alpha}{2}  \\\\\n    \\end{pmatrix}\\;,$$ where $\\alpha$ denotes the rotation angle and the unit vector $\\vec a$ indicates the axis of rotation. For convenience we chose $\\vec a=(0,1,0)^T$. Thus the rotation matrix has the simple form $$U(\\alpha)=\\begin{pmatrix}\n        \\cos\\frac{\\alpha}{2} & -\\sin\\frac{\\alpha}{2} \\\\\n        \\sin\\frac{\\alpha}{2} & \\cos\\frac{\\alpha}{2} \\\\\n      \\end{pmatrix}\\;,$$ and we set $U_1=U(\\alpha)$ and $U_2=U(\\beta)$ in Eqs. and .\n\nMode A\n------\n\nThe first mode describes the simplest possible case. We choose the Lindblad generators according to Eq. . We have to calculate the expression $P_k^A \\rho P_k^A$ which gives the following, based on Eq. , $$P_k^A \\rho P_k^A=\\frac{1}{4}\\biggl(P_k^A +\n    \\vec m\\; (P_k^{(1)}\\vec\\sigma P_k^{(1)})\\otimes P_k^{(2)} +\n    \\vec n\\; P_k^{(1)} \\otimes (P_k^{(2)}\\vec\\sigma P_k^{(2)})+\n    c_{ij}\\; (P_k^{(1)}\\sigma_i P_k^{(1)})\\otimes (P_k^{(2)}\\sigma_j P_k^{(2)})\\biggr)\\,.$$ After a short calculation we find that $$\\begin{split}\n    P_k^{(1)}\\sigma_i P_k^{(1)}=(\\pm)^{k=1,2}_{k=3,4}\\; \\delta_{iz} P_k^{(1)}\\;,\\qquad\n    P_k^{(2)}\\sigma_i P_k^{(2)}=(\\pm)^{k=1,3}_{k=2,4}\\; \\delta_{iz} P_k^{(2)}\\;,\\\\\n\\end{split}$$ where the signs are chosen accordingly and $\\delta_{ij}$ denotes the Kronecker-delta, i.e., $\\delta_{ij}=1$ for $i=j$ otherwise it is $0$. The sum over all k gives $$\\label{sumA}\n\\begin{split}\n    \\sum_k P_k^A \\rho P_k^A&=\\frac{1}{4}\\biggl(\\mathbbm 1 +\n    m_z\\; (P_1^A+P_2^A-P_3^A-P_4^A) +\n    n_z\\; (P_1^A-P_2^A+P_3^A-P_4^A)+\n    c_{zz}\\; (P_1^A-P_2^A-P_3^A+P_4^A)\\biggr)\\\\\n    &=\\frac{1}{4}\\biggl(\\mathbbm 1 +\n    m_z\\; \\sigma_z\\otimes\\mathbbm1 +\n    n_z\\; \\mathbbm1\\otimes\\sigma_z+\n    c_{zz}\\; \\sigma_z\\otimes\\sigma_z\\biggr)\\;,\n\\end{split}$$ where we have used the identities $$\\begin{split}\n    P_1^A+P_2^A-P_3^A-P_4^A=\\sigma_z\\otimes\\mathbbm1\\;,\\\\\n    P_1^A-P_2^A+P_3^A-P_4^A=\\mathbbm1\\otimes\\sigma_z\\;,\\\\\n    P_1^A-P_2^A-P_3^A+P_4^A=\\sigma_z\\otimes\\sigma_z\\;.\n\\end{split}$$ With Eqs. and we are ready to evaluate the master equation . A comparison of coefficients leads to the following differential equations $$\\begin{split}\n    \\begin{pmatrix} \\dot m_x \\\\ \\dot m_y \\\\ \\dot m_z \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\n    = -\\lambda\\begin{pmatrix} m_x \\\\ m_y \\\\ 0 \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\\;,\\quad\n    \\begin{pmatrix} \\dot n_x \\\\ \\dot n_y \\\\ \\dot n_z \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\n    = -\\lambda\\begin{pmatrix} n_x \\\\ n_y \\\\ 0 \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\\;,\\quad\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      \\dot c_{xx} & \\dot c_{xy} & \\dot c_{xz} \\\\\n      \\dot c_{yx} & \\dot c_{yy} & \\dot c_{yz} \\\\\n      \\dot c_{zx} & \\dot c_{zy} & \\dot c_{zz} \\\\\n    \\end{pmatrix}=-\\lambda\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      c_{xx} & c_{xy} & c_{xz} \\\\\n      c_{yx} & c_{yy} & c_{yz} \\\\\n      c_{zx} & c_{zy} & 0 \\\\\n    \\end{pmatrix}\\;,\n\\end{split}$$ with the solutions $$\\label{solutions.modeA}\n\\begin{split}\n    m_z(t)=m_z(0),\\quad n_z(t)=n_z(0),\\quad c_{zz}(t)=c_{zz}(0)\\\\\n    m_i(t)=e^{-\\lambda t}m_i(0),\\quad n_i(t)=e^{-\\lambda t} n_i(0)\\quad\\mbox{for}\\,i\\neq z\\\\\n    c_{ij}(t)=e^{-\\lambda t} c_{ij}(0)\\quad\\mbox{for}\\,i=j\\neq z\\;.\n\\end{split}$$ This means that all elements are damped by $e^{-\\lambda t}$ except the $z$-components of the local parameters and the $zz$-component of the correlation matrix which are unaltered.\n\nMode B {#sect.modeB}\n------\n\nThe next stage is to consider rotations in one subspace, e.g., projection operators of the form . Now the expression $P_k^B \\rho P_k^B$ looks like $$\\label{proj.sandwich.modeB}\n\\begin{split}\n    P_k^B \\rho P_k^B=\\frac{1}{4}\\biggl(P_k^B +\n    &\\vec m\\;\\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag \\vec\\sigma U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag)\\otimes P_k^{(2)}+\n    \\vec n\\;\\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag)  \\otimes (P_k^{(2)}\\vec\\sigma P_k^{(2)})\\\\+\n    &c_{ij}\\;\\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag \\sigma_i U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag )\\otimes (P_k^{(2)}\\sigma_j\n    P_k^{(2)})\\biggr)\\;.\n\\end{split}$$ With the expression $$\\label{eq.u1}\n\\begin{split}\n    U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag \\sigma_i U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag =(\\pm)^{k=1,2}_{k=3,4}\\;\n    (\\delta_{ix} \\sin\\alpha +\\delta_{iz}\\cos\\alpha) U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag\\;,\n\\end{split}$$ we get for the sum $$\\begin{split}\n    \\sum_k P_k^B \\rho P_k^B=\\frac{1}{4}\\biggl(\\mathbbm 1 &+\n        (m_x \\sin\\alpha+m_z\\cos\\alpha)\\; (\\sin\\alpha\\, \\sigma_x\\otimes\\mathbbm1+\\cos\\alpha\\, \\sigma_z\\otimes\\mathbbm1) +\n        n_z\\; \\mathbbm1\\otimes\\sigma_z\\\\\n        &+(c_{xz}\\sin\\alpha + c_{zz}\\cos\\alpha)\\;\n        (\\sin\\alpha \\,\\sigma_x\\otimes\\sigma_z+\\cos\\alpha\\, \\sigma_z\\otimes\\sigma_z)\\biggr)\\;.\n\\end{split}$$ The differential equations for the parameters of the density matrix are given by $$\\begin{split}\n    \\begin{pmatrix} \\dot m_x \\\\ \\dot m_y \\\\ \\dot m_z \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\n    = -\\lambda\\begin{pmatrix} m_x-m_x \\sin^2\\alpha-m_z\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha \\\\ m_y \\\\\n    m_z-m_x \\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha-m_z\\cos^2\\alpha \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\\;,\\quad\n    \\begin{pmatrix} \\dot n_x \\\\ \\dot n_y \\\\ \\dot n_z \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\n    = -\\lambda\\begin{pmatrix} n_x \\\\ n_y \\\\ 0 \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\\,,\\\\\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      \\dot c_{xx} & \\dot c_{xy} & \\dot c_{xz} \\\\\n      \\dot c_{yx} & \\dot c_{yy} & \\dot c_{yz} \\\\\n      \\dot c_{zx} & \\dot c_{zy} & \\dot c_{zz} \\\\\n    \\end{pmatrix}=-\\lambda\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      c_{xx}\\; & c_{xy}\\; & c_{xz}-c_{xz}\\sin^2\\alpha-c_{zz}\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha \\\\[5pt]\n      c_{yx}\\; & c_{yy}\\; & c_{yz} \\\\[5pt]\n      c_{zx}\\; & c_{zy}\\; & c_{zz}-c_{xz}\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha-c_{zz}\\cos^2\\alpha \\\\[5pt]\n    \\end{pmatrix}\\;.\n\\end{split}$$ Apart from the solutions already given in Eq. we get the following solutions for the remaining components $$\\label{sol.modeB-m}\n\\begin{split}\n    m_{x}(t)=(\\sin^2\\alpha+e^{-\\lambda t}\\cos^2\\alpha)m_{x}(0) +(1-e^{-\\lambda t})\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\, m_{z}(0)   \\;,\\\\\n    m_{z}(t)=(1-e^{-\\lambda t})\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\,m_{x}(0) + (e^{-\\lambda t}\\sin^2\\alpha+\\cos^2\\alpha)m_{z}(0) \\;,\n\\end{split}$$ $$\\label{sol.modeB-c}\n\\begin{split}\n    c_{xz}(t)= (\\sin^2\\alpha+e^{-\\lambda t}\\cos^2\\alpha)c_{xz}(0) +(1-e^{-\\lambda t})\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\, c_{zz}(0)\\;,\\\\\n    c_{zz}(t)= (1-e^{-\\lambda t})\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\,c_{xz}(0) + (e^{-\\lambda t}\\sin^2\\alpha+\\cos^2\\alpha)c_{zz}(0)\\;.\n\\end{split}$$\n\nThis means the rotation of the projection operators results in a coupling of different components, in this case between $m_x$ and $m_z$ and $c_{xz}$ and $c_{zz}$.\n\nThis mode has been discussed in detail in Ref.[@BertlmannDurstbergerHasegawa2005].\n\nMode C\n------\n\nIndependent rotations in both subspaces, where the projection operators are given by Eq. , results in an expression like $$\\begin{split}\n    P_k^C \\rho P_k^C=\\frac{1}{4}\\biggl(P_k^C +\n    &\\,\\vec m\\;\\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag \\vec\\sigma U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag)\\otimes (U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\\dag)+\n    \\vec n\\;\\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag)  \\otimes (U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\\dag \\vec\\sigma U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\\dag)\\\\+\n    &\\,c_{ij}\\;\\; (U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag \\sigma_i U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag )\\otimes\n                (U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\\dag \\sigma_j U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\\dag)\\biggr)\\;,\n\\end{split}$$ where $U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag \\sigma_i U_1 P_k^{(1)}U_1^\\dag$ is given in Eq. and $$\\begin{split}\n    U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\\dag \\sigma_i U_2 P_k^{(2)}U_2^\\dag =(\\pm)^{k=1,3}_{k=2,4}\\;\n    (\\delta_{ix} \\sin\\beta +\\delta_{iz}\\cos\\beta) U_2 P_k^{(1)}U_2^\\dag\\;.\n\\end{split}$$ Calculating the sum over all 4 terms gives $$\\begin{split}\n    \\sum_k P_k^C \\rho P_k^C=\\frac{1}{4}\\biggl(\\mathbbm 1 &+\n        \\bar m\\; (\\sin\\alpha\\, \\sigma_x\\otimes\\mathbbm1+\\cos\\alpha\\, \\sigma_z\\otimes\\mathbbm1) +\n        \\bar n\\; (\\sin\\beta\\, \\mathbbm1\\otimes\\sigma_x+\\cos\\beta\\, \\mathbbm1\\otimes\\sigma_z)\\\\\n        &+\\bar c\\;\n        (\\sin\\alpha\\sin\\beta \\,\\sigma_x\\otimes\\sigma_x+\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\beta\n        \\,\\sigma_x\\otimes\\sigma_z\n        +\\cos\\alpha\\sin\\beta\\, \\sigma_z\\otimes\\sigma_x+\\cos\\alpha\\cos\\beta\\,\n        \\sigma_z\\otimes\\sigma_z)\\biggr)\\;,\n\\end{split}$$ where $$\\begin{split}\n    \\bar m&=m_x \\sin\\alpha+m_z\\cos\\alpha\\;,\\hspace{1cm}\n    \\bar n=n_x \\sin\\beta+n_z\\cos\\beta\\;,\\\\\n    \\bar c&=c_{xx}\\sin\\alpha\\sin\\beta +c_{xz}\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\beta +\n        c_{zx}\\cos\\alpha\\sin\\beta+ c_{zz}\\cos\\alpha\\cos\\beta\\;.\n\\end{split}$$ The differential equations for the parameters of the density matrix are given by $$\\begin{split}\n    \\begin{pmatrix} \\dot m_x \\\\ \\dot m_y \\\\ \\dot m_z \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\n    = -\\lambda&\\begin{pmatrix} m_x-m_x \\sin^2\\alpha-m_z\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha \\\\ m_y \\\\\n    m_z-m_x \\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha-m_z\\cos^2\\alpha \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\\,,\\quad\n    \\begin{pmatrix} \\dot n_x \\\\ \\dot n_y \\\\ \\dot n_z \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\n    = -\\lambda\\begin{pmatrix} n_x-n_x \\sin^2\\beta-n_z\\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta \\\\ n_y \\\\\n    n_z-n_x \\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta-n_z\\cos^2\\beta \\\\ \\end{pmatrix}\\,,\\\\\n    &\\begin{pmatrix}\n      \\dot c_{xx} & \\dot c_{xy} & \\dot c_{xz} \\\\\n      \\dot c_{yx} & \\dot c_{yy} & \\dot c_{yz} \\\\\n      \\dot c_{zx} & \\dot c_{zy} & \\dot c_{zz} \\\\\n    \\end{pmatrix}=-\\lambda\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      c_{xx}-\\bar c\\, \\sin\\alpha\\sin\\beta \\; & c_{xy}\\; & c_{xz}-\\bar c\\,\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\beta  \\\\[5pt]\n      c_{yx}\\; & c_{yy}\\; & c_{yz} \\\\[5pt]\n      c_{zx}-\\bar c\\,\\cos\\alpha\\sin\\beta \\; & c_{zy}\\; & c_{zz}-\\bar c\\,\\cos\\alpha\\cos\\beta \\\\[5pt]\n    \\end{pmatrix}\\;.\n\\end{split}$$\n\nThe solutions for $\\vec m(t)$ and $\\vec n(t)$ have the same structure, given by Eq. . The solutions for the modified components of the $c$-matrix are the following $$\\label{eq:sol.modeC}\n\\begin{split}\n    c_{xx}(t)=e^{-\\lambda t}c_{xx}(0)+ (1-e^{-\\lambda t})\n    \\biggl(&\\sin^2\\alpha\\sin^2\\beta\\; c_{xx}(0)+\\sin^2\\alpha\\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta\\; c_{xz}(0)\\\\\n    &+\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\sin^2\\beta\\; c_{zx}(0)+\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta \\;c_{zz}(0)\\biggr)\\,,\\\\\n    c_{xz}(t)=e^{-\\lambda t}c_{xz}(0)+ (1-e^{-\\lambda t})\n    \\biggl(&\\sin^2\\alpha\\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta\\; c_{xx}(0)+\\sin^2\\alpha\\cos^2\\beta\\; c_{xz}(0)\\\\\n    &+\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta \\;c_{zx}(0)+\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\cos^2\\beta\\; c_{zz}(0)\\biggr)\\;,\\\\\n    c_{zx}(t)=e^{-\\lambda t}c_{zx}(0)+ (1-e^{-\\lambda t})\n    \\biggl(&\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\sin^2\\beta\\; c_{xx}(0)+\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta\\; c_{xz}(0)\\\\\n    &+\\cos^2\\alpha\\sin^2\\beta\\; c_{zx}(0)+\\cos^2\\alpha\\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta\\; c_{zz}(0)\\biggr)\\;,\\\\\n    c_{zz}(t)=e^{-\\lambda t}c_{zz}(0)+ (1-e^{-\\lambda t})\n    \\biggl(&\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta\\; c_{xx}(0)+\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha\\cos^2\\beta \\;c_{xz}(0)\\\\\n    &+\\cos^2\\alpha\\sin\\beta\\cos\\beta\\; c_{zx}(0)+\\cos^2\\alpha\\cos^2\\beta\\; c_{zz}(0)\\biggr)\\;.\\\\\n\\end{split}$$\n\nNow the coupling in the $c$-matrix is extended to include $c_{xx}$, $c_{xz}$, $c_{zx}$ and $c_{zz}$ components. Therefore the solutions for this mode are more demanding.\n\nComments\n--------\n\nWe see from the structure of the solutions for mode C, Eq. , that the rotation axis of the unitary rotation has an influence on the resulting local parameters and the correlation matrix. The different modes correspond to the coupling of the system with different environments. The coupling strength parameterized by $\\lambda$ is always the same but the effects on the state of the system are different.\n\nTo calculate the correlation vector for all these modes is in general not very easy because one gets quite big terms. Therefore we postpone this investigation to the next section where we calculate the vectors for the special case of the Bell singlet state.\n\nAn interesting point is what happens with the correlation matrix for $t\\rightarrow\\infty$. As can be easily checked the asymptotic correlation matrix is given by $$\\label{eq.limit-states}\n    c^C_\\infty=w\\begin{pmatrix}\n         \\sin\\alpha \\sin\\beta & 0 &\\sin\\alpha \\cos\\beta  \\\\\n         0 & 0 & 0 \\\\\n        \\cos\\alpha \\sin\\beta & 0 & \\cos\\alpha \\cos\\beta\n    \\end{pmatrix}\\;,$$ where $w=\\sin\\alpha \\bigl(c_{xz}(0) \\cos\\beta+c_{xx}(0) \\sin\\beta\\bigr)+\\cos\\alpha\\bigl(c_{zz}(0) \\cos\\beta+c_{zx}(0) \\sin\\beta\\bigr)$. The correlation vector for the asymptotic matrix has the simple structure of $\\vec c_\\infty=(0, 0 , w)^T$. This shows that all states independent of their initial correlations end up on a line connecting the origin of the spin geometry picture (the maximally mixed state) with a point representing an equal mixture of two Bell states given by the corners of the octahedron (see Fig. \\[fig.limit\\]). Note that the ordering of the singular values does not matter due to the high symmetry of the picture.\n\nExample: Bell state {#sect:bell-state}\n===================\n\nTo get a better feeling for the decoherence modes we consider the example of the maximally entangled Bell singlet state $\\lvert\\Psi^-\\rangle=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}(\\lvert e_2\\rangle-\\lvert e_3\\rangle)=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2}}(0,1,-1,0)^T$ where the initial density matrix is given by $\\rho(0)=\\lvert\\Psi^-\\rangle\\langle\\Psi^-\\rvert$. The local parameters vanish $\\vec m=\\vec n=0$ and the correlation matrix is diagonal $c_{BS}(0)={\\rm\ndiag}(-1,-1,-1)$. In the following we consider the behavior of the correlation matrix because the local parameters do not change for this state.\n\nMode A\n------\n\nFor decoherence mode A the correlation matrix remains diagonal but is affected by the decoherence like $c^A_{BS}={\\rm diag}(-e^{-\\lambda t},-e^{-\\lambda t},-1)$. Consequently the correlation vector for mode A is given by $\\vec c^A_{BS}=(-e^{-\\lambda t},  -e^{-\\lambda t} , -1 )^T$.\n\nThe correlation vector $\\vec c^A_{BS}$ for fixed $\\lambda$ is plotted in Fig.\\[fig.modeA\\] with respect to varying $t$. We start in the corner indicated by $\\lvert\\Psi^-\\rangle$ and for $t\\rightarrow\\infty$ approach the point bisecting the line which connects the projectors of the states $\\lvert\\Psi^-\\rangle$ and $\\lvert\\Psi^+\\rangle$. This asymptotic state is mixed but not maximally mixed and lies at the border of separability which is given by the blue octahedron.\n\nMode B {#example1,modeB}\n------\n\nMode B, where the projector in one subspace is rotated unitarily, leads to a correlation matrix given by $$c^B_{BS}=\\\\\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      -e^{-\\lambda t} & 0 & -(1-e^{-\\lambda t})\\sin\\alpha\\cos\\alpha \\\\\n      0 & -e^{-\\lambda t} & 0 \\\\\n      0 & 0 & -e^{-\\lambda t}-(1-e^{-\\lambda t})\\cos^2\\alpha\\\\\n    \\end{pmatrix}\\;.$$ The emergence of the $xz$-component is due to the particular coupling of the differential equations, Eq. . The singular values [^2] of this matrix are computed to be $$\\label{sing.values-modeB}\n\\begin{split}\n    c^B_1&=e^{-\\lambda t}\\;,\\\\\n    c^B_{2,3}&=\\frac{e^{-\\lambda t}}{2}\\sqrt{3+2e^{2\\lambda t}\\cos^2\\alpha-\\cos(2\\alpha)\\mp\n        \\sqrt{2}(e^{\\lambda t}-1)\\cos\\alpha\\sqrt{5-3\\cos(2\\alpha)\n        +2e^{\\lambda t}(2+e^{\\lambda t})\\cos^2\\alpha}}\\;.\n\\end{split}$$ which gives for the correlation vector $\\vec c^B_{BS}=(-c^B_1,-c^B_2,-c^B_3)^T$.\n\nThe expansions of the last two singular values up to second order in $\\alpha$, $$\\begin{split}\n    c^B_2=e^{-\\lambda t}+\\frac{e^{-\\lambda t}}{2}\\frac{1-e^{\\lambda t}}{1+e^{\\lambda\n    t}}\\;\\alpha^2\\;,\\qquad\n    c^B_3=1+\\frac{e^{-\\lambda t}}{2}\\frac{1-e^{\\lambda t}}{1+e^{\\lambda t}}\\,(2+e^{\\lambda t})\\;\\alpha^2\\;,\n\\end{split}$$ show that to first order in $\\alpha$ the singular value $c_2$ is well approximated by $e^{-\\lambda\nt}$ and $c_3$ is constant. The second order contributions affect $c_3$ much more than $c_2$. In fact the deviations of $c_2$ from the exponential function are very small (a few percent) and the largest deviation arises for $\\alpha=\\frac{3\\pi}{8}$.\n\nThe decoherence paths for mode B form a plane which has a little bulge due to the slight deviation of $c^B_2$ from the exponential function. This deviation from the plane formed by equal $c^B_1$ and $c^B_2$ coefficients can be understood by the fact that the SVD is an asymmetric transformation and although applied to square matrices the matrices $P$ and $Q$, Eq., are different. A comparison with the eigenvalues of $c^B_{BS}$, given by $\\lambda^B_1=\\lambda^B_2=-e^{-\\lambda t}$ and $\\lambda^B_3=-\\cos^2\\alpha-e^{-\\lambda t}\\sin^2\\alpha$, reveals that only the $z$-component depends on the angle $\\alpha$.\n\nWe can distinguish two special cases. The correlation vector for $\\alpha=0$ is given by $\\vec c=( -e^{-\\lambda t}, -e^{-\\lambda t}, -1)^T$ which corresponds exactly to mode A (see Fig. \\[fig.modeA\\]). For $\\alpha=\\frac{\\pi}{2}$ the correlation vector, given by $\\vec c=( -e^{-\\lambda t}, -e^{-\\lambda t}, -e^{-\\lambda t})^T$, is shown in Fig. \\[fig.modeB-1\\]. The state approaches the totally mixed state sitting at the origin of the coordinate system. Thereby it reaches the border of separability at $\\lambda t=\\ln3$ (cf. with Ref. [@BertlmannDurstbergerHasegawa2005]). We recover the phenomenon of \u201centanglement sudden death\u201d introduced by Yu and Eberly [@YuEberly2006]. Note that the Werner state [@Werner1989], which interpolates between a maximally entangled state and the maximally mixed state, shows the same behaviour in the spin geometry picture.\n\nIn Fig. \\[fig.modeB-2\\] the correlation vectors are shown with respect to fixed parameter $\\lambda$ and evolving time $t$ for different values of $\\alpha$. The time the border of separability is reached varies with respect to $\\alpha$ and the extremal cases are $\\alpha=\\frac{\\pi}{2}$ where the border is reached after the shortest time and $\\alpha=0$ where it is reached asymptotically at infinity.\n\nMode C\n------\n\nThe most general case, mode C, which is characterized by two bilocal unitary rotations of the Lindblad generators, exhibits a time evolved correlation matrix for the Bell singlet state given by $$c^C_{BS}=\n    \\begin{pmatrix}\n      -e^{-\\lambda t}- (1-e^{-\\lambda t}) \\cos (\\alpha -\\beta ) \\sin\\alpha\\sin\\beta & 0 \n      & - \\left(1-e^{-\\lambda t}\\right) \\cos (\\alpha -\\beta ) \\sin\\alpha\\cos\\beta\\\\\n      0 & -e^{-\\lambda t} & 0 \\\\\n      -\\left(1-e^{-\\lambda t}\\right) \\cos (\\alpha -\\beta )\\cos\\alpha\\sin\\beta\n   & 0 & -e^{-\\lambda t} -(1-e^{-\\lambda t}) \\cos (\\alpha -\\beta ) \\cos\\alpha\\cos\\beta\\\\\n    \\end{pmatrix}\\;,$$ We calculate the singular values, $$\\begin{split}\n    c^C_1&=e^{-\\lambda t}\\;,\\\\\n    c^C_{2,3}&=\\frac{1}{2}e^{-\\lambda t}\n    \\sqrt{3+2e^{2\\lambda t}\\cos^2\\Delta-\\cos(2\\Delta)\\mp\n        \\sqrt{2}(e^{\\lambda t}-1)\\cos\\Delta\\sqrt{5-3\\cos(2\\Delta)\n        +2e^{\\lambda t}(2+e^{\\lambda t})\\cos^2\\Delta}}\\;,\n\\end{split}$$ where $\\Delta=\\alpha-\\beta$ and realize that they have the same structure as Eq. with a symmetry in $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$. They depend only on the relative angle difference $\\lvert\\Delta\\rvert$ and consequently the problem reduces to mode B, already discussed in section \\[example1,modeB\\].\n\nJust for completeness, the eigenvalues of the correlation matrix for mode C are given by $\\lambda^C_{1}=\\lambda^C_{2}=-e^{-\\lambda t}$ and $\\lambda^C_3=-\\cos^2\\Delta-e^{-\\lambda t}\\sin^2\\Delta$.\n\nEquivalence of mode B and mode C in the geometric picture {#sect:equiv}\n=========================================================\n\nThe results of the last section suggest to investigate the point which initial states result in an equivalence of mode B and C in the spin geometry picture. This means that for some initial conditions the singular values (and also the eigenvalues) of the correlations matrix for mode C depend only on the angle difference $\\Delta=\\alpha-\\beta$ and have the same structure as those for mode B. We state a proposition which is a necessary condition for the initial correlation matrix that mode C depends only on the angle difference and is equivalent to mode B. We do not know if the condition is also sufficient.\\\n**Proposition.**\\\nFor a density matrix with initial local parameters $\\vec m(0)$ and $\\vec n(0)$ equal to zero and an initial correlation matrix given by $$\\label{eq:initial-cond}\n    c(0)= \\begin{pmatrix}k_1 & 0 & k_2 \\\\0 & k_3 & 0 \\\\-k_2 & 0 & k_1\\end{pmatrix}\\;,$$ the geometric picture of decoherence mode B and mode C coincide and the singular values depend only on the angle difference $\\Delta$. The correlation vector of matrix is given by $\\vec c(0)=\\begin{pmatrix}\\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2}\\;,& \\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2}\\;, & k_3\\end{pmatrix}^T$ where the values $k_1$, $k_2$ and $k_3$ have to satisfy $2\\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2}+k_3\\leq 1$ in order to belong to the tetrahedron of possible states (see Fig. \\[fig.equiv\\]).\\\n**Proof.**\\\nWe consider states where the initial local parameters are set to zero because of their irrelevance for the spin geometry picture.\n\nTwo matrices $A$ and $B$ have the same eigenvalues $\\lambda_i$ if they are similar $A=S B S^{-1}$ for an invertible matrix $S$. That means two conditions have to be satisfied:\n\n-   ${{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}A ={{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}B=\\sum_i \\lambda_i$,\n\n-   $\\det A =\\det B=\\prod_i \\lambda_i$.\n\nIn our case we have to deal with the matrices $A^TA$ and $B^T B$ and find out when their eigenvalues are equal. In general the equality of the singular values of two matrices does not imply the equality of the eigenvalues of these matrices, e.g., in general $$A^T A=(S B S^{-1})^T (S B S^{-1})\\neq S (B^T B) S^{-1}\\;.$$ The relation $A^T A= S (B^T B) S^{-1}$ is only valid for orthogonal transformation matrices $S$ where $S^{-1}=S^T$. Let us assume that this condition is valid, then it is sufficient to consider only the conditions stated above[^3]. In the following we set $A:=c^B$ and $B:=c^C$.\n\nThere is only one point left which is important. The functions of $A$ depend only on the angle $\\alpha$ which we have to substitute with the difference $\\alpha-\\beta$ in order to compare it with the functions of $B$. Then we calculate the difference of both solutions and determine the conditions for it to be zero and independent of the rotation angles.\n\nWe get for the trace condition $$\\begin{split}\n    {{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}B-{{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}A=&\n    \\left(1-e^{- \\lambda t}\\right)\\sin\\beta \\cos (\\alpha -\\beta ) \n    \\Bigl((c_{xz}+c_{zx}) \\cos\\alpha    +(c_{xx}-c_{zz}) \\sin\\alpha\\Bigr) \\;.\n\\end{split}$$\n\nThis product is zero and independent of the single rotation angles only for $$\\label{eq:condition1}\n    c_{xx}=c_{zz}=k_1 \\qquad\\mbox{and}\\qquad c_{xz}=-c_{zx}=k_2\\;.$$ All other entries of the correlation matrix are not fixed by this condition and can be chosen arbitrarily.\n\nThe condition of the determinant is given by $$\\begin{split}\n    \\det B-\\det A=&\n    e^{-2 t \\lambda } \\left(1-e^{-\\lambda t }\\right) \\sin\\beta  \\Bigl(k_1 \\cos (\\alpha -\\beta )+k_3 \\sin (\\alpha -\\beta )\\Bigr) \\\\\n    &\\cdot\\Bigl((c_{xy} c_{yz}+c_{yx} c_{zy}) \\cos\\alpha +(c_{xy} c_{yx}-c_{yz} c_{zy}) \\sin\\alpha\\Bigr)\\;,\n\\end{split}$$ where we already used the condition stated in . This is equal to zero and independent of the rotation angles for $$\\label{eq:condition2}\n    c_{xy}=c_{yx}=c_{yz}=c_{zy}=0\\;.$$ Thus we have only one entry, namely $k_3$, in the initial correlation matrix left which is not determined by both conditions. $\\Box$\n\nNote that the invariants introduced in Refs.[@Makhlin; @UshaDeviUmaPrabhuSudha] are connected with the problem considered here.\n\nThe states given by Eq. form planes (with proper restrictions of the coordinates) which contain the lines connecting the Bell states and the line of the Werner state (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig.modeB-1\\]) in the spin geometry picture.\n\nSummary and conclusion {#sect:summary}\n======================\n\nWe considered the master equation with a special type of dissipator which describes decoherence in a two qubit system. The generators of decoherence are chosen to be on the one hand projectors onto the eigenstates of the undisturbed Hamiltonian of the system (mode A) and on the other hand they are (bi-)local unitary rotations of these projectors (mode B and C).\n\nThe general solutions of the master equation are presented with respect to the decomposition of a two qubit system in terms of joint Pauli matrices. We are interested in the time behavior of the correlation matrix which is studied for the case of the Bell singlet state. The information about entanglement and purity is encoded in the correlation vector which can be illustrated in the spin geometry picture. We show graphically the paths of the different decoherence modes and discuss their behavior for the Bell singlet state (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig.modeB\\]).\n\nFor the special case of the Bell singlet state we find that mode B and C are equal and depend only on the difference of the rotation angles of the projection operators. This arises the question for which general initial states this is the case. We conclude that this happens for all states which are contained in the plane formed by the line connecting the Bell states and the line of the Werner states (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig.equiv\\]).\n\nThe asymptotic states of decoherence mode C (and therefore also for mode A and B) are found to give a line connecting the maximally mixed state at the origin of the picture with the equal mixture of two Bell states (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig.limit\\]).\n\nThe decoherence modes investigated in this paper exhibit very strong symmetry properties which is due to the fact that we choose projection operators as generators of the decoherence. For more general Lindblad operators the calculations start to get more involved but the conjecture is that for them the whole geometric state space of the tetrahedron can be occupied.\n\nAn open question related with the spin geometric picture is the influence of the local parameters on the geometric state space? We have some preliminary results for maximally entangled mixed states [@IshizakaHiroshima; @MunroJamesWhiteKwiat] where the local parameters are not zero any more and the calculation of the singular values is more involved.\n\nThe author wants to thank Reinhold A. Bertlmann, Heide Narnhofer, Franz Embacher and Stefan Filipp for helpful discussions.\n\nThis work has been supported financially by the Theodor-K\u00f6rner-Fond (F\u00f6rderungspreis f\u00fcr Wissenschaft 2006), the University of Vienna (Forschungsstipendium) and the FWF project P 18943-N20 of the Austrian Science Foundation.\n\n[^1]: Note that pure unitary dynamics do not affect the degree of entanglement and thus do not appear in the singular value decomposition nor in the spin geometry picture. For this reason it is legitimate to consider only the pure decoherence part of the equation, see Eq. .\n\n[^2]: Note, that the SVD does not specify a certain sign, which can be determined, e.g., from the eigenvalue decomposition, nor a certain attribution to the coordinate axes, but note the high symmetry of the tetrahedron.\n\n[^3]: We have checked that ${{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}(A^T A)$ and $\\det (A^T A)$, in contrast to ${{\\rm{Tr}\\,}}A$ and $\\det A$, does not reveal new constraints on the coefficients.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- |\n    A Lanza$^{\\rm a}$, S. Morigi$^{\\rm a}$, M. Pragliola$^{\\rm a}$ and F. Sgallari$^{\\rm a}$\\\n    $^{a}$[*[Department of Mathematics, University of Bologna, Piazza di Porta San Donato 5, Bologna, IT]{}*]{}\ntitle:\n- Overcomplete\n- 'Space-variant TV regularization for image restoration'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nDuring the image acquisition and transmission processes, degradation effects such as those due to blur and noise always occur. The goal of *image restoration* is to eliminate these unwanted effects and to recover *clean* images from the acquired blurred and noisy ones. We consider grayscale images with rectangular $\\,d_1 \\!{\\times}\\, d_2$ domain, such that is the total number of pixels in the images. The general discrete model of the image degradation process under blur and noise corruptions can be written as $$g \\:\\;{=}\\;\\: \\mathcal{N}\\left( K u \\right) \\: ,\n\\label{eq:GDM}$$ where $u, g \\in \\mathbb{R}^{n}$ represent vectorized forms of the unknown clean image and of the observed corrupted image, respectively, $K \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^{n \\times n}$ is a known linear blurring operator and $\\mathcal{N}(\\,\\cdot\\,)$ denotes the noise corruption operator, which in most cases is of random nature. Given $K$ and $g$, the goal of image restoration is to solve the ill-conditioned - or even singular, depending on $K$ - inverse problem of recovering an as accurate as possible estimate $u^*$ of the unknown clean image $u$.\n\nIn this paper, we are interested in two important types of noise, namely the additive (zero-mean) white Gaussian noise (AWGN) which typically appears, e.g., in Magnetic Resonance Tomography, and the impulsive salt and pepper noise (SPN) usually due to transmission errors or malfunctioning pixel elements in camera sensors. Denoting by $\\Omega := \\{1,\\ldots,n\\}$ the set of all pixel positions in the images, for these two kinds of noise the general degradation model in (\\[eq:GDM\\]) reads as $$\\begin{array}{ccc}\n\\mathrm{AWGN:} & \\quad\\;\\; & \\mathrm{SPN:} \\vspace{0.1cm} \\\\\ng_i \\:\\;{=}\\;\\: (K u)_i \\;{+}\\; n_i \\;\\;\\: \\forall \\, i \\in \\Omega \\, , & &\ng_{i} \\:\\;{=}\\;\\: \\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n(K u)_i \\;\\; & \\mathrm{for} \\;\\;\\: i \\in \\Omega_0 \\subseteq \\Omega\\\\\nn_i \\in \\{0,1\\}          & \\mathrm{for} \\;\\;\\: i \\in {\\Omega_1} :=\\Omega \\setminus \\Omega_0\n\\end{array} \\right. \\, .\n\\end{array}\n\\label{eq:SDM}$$ For what concerns AWGN, the additive corruptions $n_i \\in {\\mathbb{R}}$, $i \\in \\Omega$, represent independent realizations from the same univariate Gaussian distribution with zero mean and standard deviation $\\sigma$. In the case of SPN, only a subset $\\Omega_1$ of the pixels is corrupted by noise, whereas the complementary subset $\\Omega_0$ is noise-free. In particular, the corrupted pixels can take only the two possible extreme values $\\{0,1\\}$ (we assume that images have range $[0,1]$), with the same probability. The subset $\\Omega_1$ is known in some applications [@Serena17] or it could be estimated [@mila]. Just like AWGN is fully characterized from a probabilistic point of view by the unique scalar parameter $\\,\\sigma$, SPN is characterized by the parameter $\\gamma \\in [0,1]$ which represents the probability for a pixel to be noise-corrupted. The class of *variational* methods for image restoration relies on determining restored images $u^*\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^n$ as the minimizers of suitable cost functionals $J: {\\mathbb{R}}^n \\to {\\mathbb{R}}$ such that, typically, restoration is casted as an optimization problem of the form $$u^* \\:\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;\\: \\arg \\min_{u \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^n}\n\\left\\{ \\,\nJ(u) \\;{:=}\\; R(u) \\;{+}\\; \\mu \\, F(u;g)\n\\, \\right\\}\n\\, ,\n\\label{eq:GVM}$$ where the functionals $R(u)$ and $F(u;g)$, commonly referred to as the *regularization* and the *fidelity* term, encode prior information on the clean image $u$ and on the observation model (\\[eq:GDM\\]), respectively, with the so-called regularization parameter $\\mu > 0$ controlling the trade-off between the two terms. In particular, the functional form of the fidelity term is strictly connected to the characteristics of the noise corruption.\n\nIt is well known that AWGN and SPN are suitably dealt with the so-called L$_2$ and L$_1$ fidelity terms, which are related to the $\\ell_2$ and $\\ell_1$ norm of the residue image $Ku-g$, respectively; in formulas: $$F(u;g) \\,\\;{=}\\;\\, \\mathrm{L}_q(u;g) \\,\\;{:=}\\;\\, \\frac{1}{q} \\, \\| K u - g \\|_q^q ,\n\\quad q \\in \\{1,2\\} \\, .\n\\label{eq:Lq}$$ For what regards the regularization term in (\\[eq:GVM\\]), a very popular choice is represented by the Total Variation semi-norm, that is $$R(u) \\:\\;{=}\\;\\: \\mathrm{TV}(u) \\,\\;{:=}\\; \\sum_{i=1}^{n}  \\| (\\nabla u)_{i} \\|_2 \\, ,\n\\label{eq:TV}$$ where $(\\nabla u)_i = \\big( (D_h u)_i , (D_v u)_i \\big)^T \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^2$ denotes the discrete gradient of image $u$ at pixel $i$, with $D_h,D_v \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^{n \\times n}$ linear operators representing finite difference discretizations of the first-order horizontal and vertical partial derivatives, respectively. Popularity of TV regularizer for image restoration is mainly due to two facts, namely (a) it is convex and (b) it allows for restored images with sharp, neat edges. By substituting the TV regularizer (\\[eq:TV\\]) and the L$_2$ or L$_1$ fidelity terms (\\[eq:Lq\\]) for $R$ and $F$ in (\\[eq:GVM\\]), respectively, one obtains the so-called TV-L$_2$ [@ROF] - or ROF - and TV-L$_1$ [@tvl1] restoration models; in formulas: $$u^* \\:\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;\\: \\arg \\min_{u \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^n}\n\\left\\{ \\,\n\\mathrm{TV}(u) \\,\\;{+}\\;\\, \\mu \\, \\mathrm{L}_q(u;g)\n\\, \\right\\} ,\n\\quad q \\in \\{1,2\\} \\, .\n\\label{eq:TVLq}$$ The TV-L$_2$ and TV-L$_1$ models in (\\[eq:TVLq\\]) are non-smooth convex and allows to obtain good quality restorations of images corrupted by AWGN and SPN, respectively, such that they are regarded as sort of baseline models. The goal of this paper is to devise two new variational models which are able to outperform the TV-L$_2$ and models, in particular by designing a new, better performing regularizer, and also to propose an efficient minimization algorithm for the solution of these models based on the Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) strategy [@BOYD_ADMM].\n\nThe two proposed models are as follows: $$u^* \\:\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;\\: \\arg \\min_{u \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^n}\n\\left\\{ \\,\n\\mathrm{TV}_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}(u) \\,\\;{+}\\;\\, \\mu \\, \\mathrm{L}_q(u;g)\n\\, \\right\\} ,\n\\quad q \\in \\{1,2\\} \\, ,\n\\label{eq:PMa}$$ where the new TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$ regularizer is defined with a space-variant $p$-value by $$\\mathrm{TV}_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}(u) \\,\\;{:=}\\; \\sum_{i=1}^{n}  \\| (\\nabla u)_{i} \\|_2^{p_i} ,\n\\quad p_i \\:{\\in}\\; ]0,2] \\;\\; \\forall \\, i \\in \\Omega \\, .\n\\label{eq:PMb}$$ A different value $p_i$ for each pixel $i\\,$ is thus allowed by the proposed regularizer (\\[eq:PMb\\]), such that local, space-variant properties of the clean image $u$ can be potentially addressed. The usefulness of this great flexibility is however conditioned to the existence of effective procedures for the automatic estimation of the $p_i$ values. As it will be discussed in the paper, the algorithm used in\u00a0[@tvpl2] for estimating a unique, global $p$ value is not sufficiently robust to be used for inferring our local $p_i$ values. Hence, in the paper we also propose a new suitable estimation procedure of the $p_i$ values based on the statistical inference technique described in\u00a0[@shape2]. The regularization term in (\\[eq:PMb\\]) is a space-variant version of the TV$_p$ regularizer proposed in \u00a0[@tvpl2] where the estimation of a global fixed $p$-value relied on the gradient magnitudes of the image and such a distribution is in general too *rigid* for effectively modeling the actual gradient magnitudes distribution of real images. In the proposed model (\\[eq:PMa\\])\u2013(\\[eq:PMb\\]) with $q = 2$, we also set automatically the regularization parameter $\\mu$ based on the well-known discrepancy principle [@WC12].\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \\[sec:pi\\] we briefly outline the procedure proposed for the automatic estimation of the $p_i$ parameters. The ADDM-based minimization algorithm is illustrated in Sect. \\[sec:admm\\] and numerical results are reported in Sect. \\[sec:nr\\].\n\nEstimation of the space-variant parameters {#sec:pi}\n==========================================\n\nThe method proposed in [@tvpl2] for estimating a global, image-based $p$ value requires a very large number of samples in order to provide statistically reliable estimates, therefore it could not be generalized to our proposal since we use small size patches for the estimation of local $p$ values. In the following we briefly outline our proposal based on the statistical inference procedure illustrated in [@shape2].\n\nLet $u \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^n$ be the vectorized form of an image for which we want to estimate the associated vector of space-variant parameters $p_i$, $i \\in \\Omega$. First, we compute the vector $m \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^n$ containing the magnitudes of the gradients of the image $u$; in formulas: $$m_i \\;{:=}\\; \\left\\| (\\nabla u)_{i} \\right\\|_2, \\quad\\; i \\in \\Omega \\, .\n\\label{eq:m}$$ Then, we estimate each parameter $p_i$ by applying the statistical inference technique in [@shape2] to the local data set consisting of the computed gradient magnitudes in a neighborhood of the pixel $i$. In particular, we use square neighborhoods $N_{\\,i}^{\\,s}$ of size $s \\in \\{3,5,\\ldots\\}$ centered at pixel $i \\in \\Omega$. Following [@shape2], the values $p_i$, $i \\in \\Omega$, parameters of the Generalized Gaussian Distributions, are estimated as follows: $$p_i \\,\\;{=}\\;\\, h^{-1}(\\rho_i), \\quad\\;\n\\rho_i \\,\\;{=}\\;\\;\n\\mathrm{card}\\big(N_{\\,i}^{\\,s}\\big) \\,\n\\bigg( \\sum_{j \\in N_{\\,i}^{\\,s}} \\! m_j^2 \\bigg)\n\\, / \\,\n\\bigg( \\sum_{j \\in N_{\\,i}^{\\,s}} \\! | m_j | \\bigg)^{\\!\\!2} ,\n\\quad i \\in \\Omega \\, ,\n\\label{eq:pi_est}$$ where $\\mathrm{card}(A)$ denotes the cardinality of set $A$ and where the function $h: {\\mathbb{R}}_+^* \\to {\\mathbb{R}}_+^*$, referred to as the *generalized Gaussian ratio function* in [@shape2], is defined by $$h(z) \\,\\;{=}\\;\\, \\big( \\Gamma(1/z) \\,\\, \\Gamma(3/z) \\big) \\, / \\, \\big( \\Gamma^2(2/z) \\big) \\, , \\label{eq:h}$$ with $\\Gamma(\\,\\cdot\\,)$ indicating the Gamma function [@Gamma]. The function $h$ in (\\[eq:h\\]) is continuous, monotonically decreasing and surjective, hence invertible. Moreover, since $h$ is not data-dependent, its inverse $h^{-1}$, representing the values $p_{i}$, can be pre-computed off-line and stored as a lookup-table, restricted to $(0,2]$, such that at run-time the final step of the estimation in (\\[eq:pi\\_est\\]) can be carried out very efficiently. In the maps of local $p$ values, obtained with neighborhoods of size $s=3$ (b) and $s=11$ (c) starting from the original test image `geometric` (a) are shown. Both maps are scaled in the same range for visual comparison. As the size $s$ increases, we acquire different kind of details, but in any case the method associates very low $p$ values with flat regions and higher values with edges. It is worth remarking that in Sect. \\[sec:nr\\] numerical experiments have been carried out by computing the $p$-map starting from the corrupted images.\n\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   ![Original test image `geometric` (a), $p$-map for $s=3$ (b) and $s=11$ (c).[]{data-label=\"fig:map\"}](output/geom_true.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}   ![Original test image `geometric` (a), $p$-map for $s=3$ (b) and $s=11$ (c).[]{data-label=\"fig:map\"}](output/geotruenew_map1.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}   ![Original test image `geometric` (a), $p$-map for $s=3$ (b) and $s=11$ (c).[]{data-label=\"fig:map\"}](output/geotrue_map5.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}\n                                                                          (a)                                                                                                                                                    (b)                                                                                                                                                     (c)\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nApplying ADMM to the proposed model {#sec:admm}\n===================================\n\nIn this section, we illustrate the ADMM-based iterative algorithm used to numerically solve the proposed model (\\[eq:PMa\\])\u2013(\\[eq:PMb\\]) for both cases $q = 2$ and $q = 1$. To this purpose, first we resort to the variable splitting technique [@VAR_SPL1] and introduce two auxiliary variables $r \\in V$ and $t \\in Q$, with $V :={\\mathbb{R}}^n$, $Q := {\\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$, such that model (\\[eq:PMa\\])\u2013(\\[eq:PMb\\]) is rewritten in the following equivalent constrained form: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\{ \\, u^*,r^*,t^* \\}\n\\:\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;\\:\n\\mathrm{arg}\n\\min_{u,r,t}\n&\\:&\\bigg\\{ \\:\n\\sum_{i = 1}^{n} \\| t_i \\|_2^{p_i}\n\\;{+}\\;\n(\\mu / q) \\, \\| r \\|_q^q\n\\: \\bigg\\} ,\n\\quad  q \\in \\{1,2\\} \\, ,\n\\label{eq:PM_ADMM_a} \\vspace {0.2cm} \\\\\n\\mathrm{subject}\\:\\mathrm{to:}\n&& \\; r \\;{=}\\; K u - g \\, , \\;\\: t \\;{=}\\; D u \\, ,\n\\label{eq:PM_ADMM_b}\\end{aligned}$$ where $D := (D_h^T,D_v^T)^T \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^{2n \\times n}$ and $t_i \\:{:=}\\: \\big( (D_h u)_i \\,,\\, (D_v u)_i \\big)^T \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^2$ represents the discrete gradient of image $u$ at pixel $i$. To solve problem (\\[eq:PM\\_ADMM\\_a\\])\u2013(\\[eq:PM\\_ADMM\\_b\\]) by ADMM [@BOYD_ADMM], we define the augmented Lagrangian functional $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathcal{L}(u,r,t;\\lambda_r,\\lambda_t)\n&\\;\\;{=}\\;\\;&\n\\displaystyle{\n    \\sum_{i = 1}^{n} \\| t_i \\|_2^{p_i}\n    \\;{+}\\;\n    (\\mu / q) \\, \\| r \\|_q^q\n    \\,{-}\\; \\langle \\, \\lambda_t , t - D u \\, \\rangle\n    \\;{+}\\;\n    (\\beta_t / 2) \\: \\| t - D u \\|_2^2\n} \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\displaystyle{\n    {-}\\; \\langle \\, \\lambda_r , r - (Ku-g) \\, \\rangle\n    \\,\\;\\;{+}\\;\n        (\\beta_r / 2) \\, \\| \\, r - (Ku-g) \\|_2^2 \\, ,\n}\n\\label{eq:PM_AL}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\beta_r, \\beta_t > 0$ are scalar penalty parameters and $\\lambda_r \\in V$, $\\lambda_t \\in Q$ are the vectors of Lagrange multipliers associated with the linear constraints $r = Ku-g$ and $t = Du$ in (\\[eq:PM\\_ADMM\\_b\\]), respectively. Given the previously computed (or initialized for $k = 0$) vectors $u^{(k)}$, $\\lambda_r^{(k)}$ and $\\lambda_t^{(k)}$, the $k$-th iteration of the proposed ADMM-based iterative scheme applied to the solution of the saddle-point problem associated with the augmented Lagrangian in (\\[eq:PM\\_AL\\]) - minimization for the primal variables $u,r,t$, maximization for the dual variables $\\lambda_r,\\lambda_t$ - reads as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\nr^{(k+1)} &\n\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;\\;\\,\\,\n\\mathrm{arg} \\: \\min_{r \\in V} \\;\n\\mathcal{L}(u^{(k)},r,t^{(k)};\\lambda_r^{(k)},\\lambda_t^{(k)}) \\, ,\n\\label{eq:PM_ADMM_r} \\\\\n&\nt^{(k+1)} &\n\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;\\;\\,\\,\n\\mathrm{arg} \\: \\min_{t \\in Q} \\;\n\\mathcal{L}(u^{(k)},r^{(k+1)},t;\\lambda_r^{(k)},\\lambda_t^{(k)}) \\, ,\n\\label{eq:PM_ADMM_t} \\\\\n&\nu^{(k+1)} &\n\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;\\;\\,\\,\n\\mathrm{arg} \\: \\min_{u \\in V} \\;\n\\mathcal{L}(u,r^{(k+1)},t^{(k+1)};\\lambda_r^{(k)},\\lambda_t^{(k)}) \\, ,\n\\label{eq:PM_ADMM_u} \\\\\n&\n\\lambda_r^{(k+1)} &\n\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;\\;\\,\\,\n\\lambda_r^{(k)} \\;{-}\\; \\beta_r \\, \\big( \\, r^{(k+1)} \\;{-}\\; (K u^{(k+1)}-g) \\, \\big) \\, ,\n\\label{eq:PM_ADMM_lz} \\\\\n&\n\\lambda_t^{(k+1)} &\n\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;\\;\\,\\,\n\\lambda_t^{(k)} \\;{-}\\; \\beta_t \\, \\big( \\, t^{(k+1)} \\;{-}\\; D u^{(k+1)} \\, \\big) \\, .\n\\label{eq:PM_ADMM_lt}\\end{aligned}$$ In the following we describe how to solve the minimization sub-problem (\\[eq:PM\\_ADMM\\_r\\]) - in both cases $q \\in \\{1,2\\}$ - for the primal variable $r$ only. In fact, thanks to the preliminary ADMM variable splitting procedure, sub-problems (\\[eq:PM\\_ADMM\\_t\\])\u2013(\\[eq:PM\\_ADMM\\_u\\]) for the variables $t$ and $u$ are identical in the two cases $q \\in \\{1,2\\}$ and, more importantly, their solution can be obtained based on formulas given in\u00a0[@tvpl2] for the same sub-problems.\n\n#### Solving the sub-problem for $\\mathbf{r}$\n\nRecalling definition (\\[eq:PM\\_AL\\]) and carrying out some simple algebraic manipulations, the minimization sub-problem (\\[eq:PM\\_ADMM\\_r\\]) reads as $$\\begin{aligned}\nr^{(k+1)}\n&\\;{\\leftarrow}\\;&\n\\mathrm{arg} \\min_{r \\in V}\\:\n\\left\\{ \\,\n(\\mu / q) \\, \\| r \\|_q^q\n\\;{+}\\;\n(\\beta_r/2) \\,\n\\| r - v^{(k)} \\|_2^2\n\\: \\right\\} \\, , \n\\quad  q \\in \\{1,2\\} \\, ,\n\\label{eq:sub_r_q12}\\end{aligned}$$ with the constant (w.r.t. the optimization variable $r$) vector $v^{(k)} \\in V$ given by $$v^{(k)} \\;{=}\\;\\: Ku^{(k)} - g + \\, \\lambda_r^{(k)} / \\beta_r \\; .\n\\label{eq:v_def}$$ Since $\\mu \\geq 0$, $\\beta_r>0$, in both cases $q \\in \\{1,2\\}$ the cost function in (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q12\\]) is strictly convex and its (unique) global minimizer - that is, the solution $r^{(k+1)}$ of (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q12\\]) - can be computed, depending on $q$, by means of the following closed-form formulas: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathrm{case}\\;\\;q \\;{=}\\; 1 \\, : \\qquad\\!\nr^{(k+1)}\n&\\;{=}\\;&\n\\mathrm{sign}\\big( v^{(k)} \\big) \\, \\odot \\,\\,\n\\max\\big\\{ \\, |v^{(k)}| - \\mu / \\beta_r \\, , \\, 0 \\, \\big\\} \\: ,\n\\label{eq:sub_r_q1_sol} \\\\\n\\mathrm{case}\\;\\;q \\;{=}\\; 2 \\, : \\qquad\\!\nr^{(k+1)}\n&\\;{=}\\;&\n\\big(\\beta_r / (\\beta_r+\\mu)\\big) \\, v^{(k)} \\: ,\n\\label{eq:sub_r_q2_sol}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mathrm{sign}(\\,\\cdot\\,)$ and $| \\, \\cdot \\, |$ in (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q1\\_sol\\]) denote the component-wise signum and absolute value functions and $\\,\\odot$ indicates the component-wise vectors product. We remark that formula (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q1\\_sol\\]) represents a well-known component-wise soft-thresholding operator - see e.g. [@tvl1] - whereas (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q2\\_sol\\]) comes easily from first-order optimality conditions of (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q12\\]).\n\nIn case that the regularization parameter $\\mu$ is regarded as a constant - that is, it is fixed a priori - then formulas (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q1\\_sol\\])\u2013(\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q2\\_sol\\]) allow to determine very efficiently the solution $r^{(k+1)}$ of this sub-problem. However, as previously stated, in the case $q = 2$ we aim also at automatically adjusting $\\mu$ along iterations - that is, $\\mu$ becomes $\\mu^{(k)}$ - such that the final solution $u^*$ of our model (\\[eq:PMa\\])\u2013(\\[eq:PMb\\]) satisfies the discrepancy principle [@WC12]. To this aim, in the following we propose a procedure which builds upon those presented in [@APE; @JMIV16] but, due to a different ADMM initial variable splitting, needs to be adapted and is worth to be outlined in detail. We consider the discrepancy associated with the solution $r^{(k+1)}$ in (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q2\\_sol\\]) as a function $\\delta^{(k+1)}: {\\mathbb{R}}_+ \\rightarrow {\\mathbb{R}}_+$ of the regularization parameter $\\mu$: $$\\delta^{(k+1)}(\\mu)\n\\,\\;{:=}\\;\\,\n\\| r^{(k+1)} \\|_2\n\\;{=}\\;\\:\n\\big(\\beta_r / (\\beta_r+\\mu)\\big) \\, \\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2 \\; ,\n\\label{eq:d_und}$$ where the second equality comes from (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q2\\_sol\\]). The discrepancy function in (\\[eq:d\\_und\\]) is continuous, non-negative and monotonically decreasing over its entire domain and at the extremes we have $\\delta^{(k+1)}(\\mu=0) = \\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2$, $\\delta^{(k+1)}(\\mu \\to +\\infty) = 0$. In order to set a value $\\mu^{(k+1)}$ such that the discrepancy principle is satisfied here for the auxiliary variable $r$ (recall that $r=Ku-g$ represents the residue of the restoration), we consider two complementary cases based on the norm of the vector $v^{(k)}$ in (\\[eq:v\\_def\\]).\n\nIn case that $\\,\\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2 \\leq \\bar{\\delta}$, with $\\bar{\\delta}$ denoting the noise level, then from (\\[eq:d\\_und\\]) and from the fact that $\\,0 < \\beta_r / (\\beta_r + \\mu) \\leq 1$, it follows that $\\,\\delta^{(k+1)}(\\mu) \\;{\\leq}\\; \\bar{\\delta} \\;\\: \\forall \\, \\mu \\in {\\mathbb{R}}_+$, that is the discrepancy principle is satisfied for any $\\mu \\geq 0$. We set $\\mu^{(k+1)} = 0$, such that, according to (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q2\\_sol\\]), the sub-problem solution is $r^{(k+1)} = v^{(k)}$. In case that $\\,\\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2 > \\bar{\\delta}$, the properties of the discrepancy function $\\delta^{(k+1)}$ in (\\[eq:d\\_und\\]) guarantee that there exists a unique value $\\mu^{(k+1)}$ of $\\,\\mu$ such that $\\delta^{(k+1)}(\\mu^{(k+1)}) = \\bar{\\delta}$. Recalling (\\[eq:d\\_und\\]), we have $\\big(\\beta_r / (\\beta_r+\\mu^{(k+1)})\\big) \\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2 \\;{=}\\; \\bar{\\delta}\n\\:\\;\\;\\;{\\Longleftrightarrow}\\;\\;\\;\n\\mu^{(k+1)} = \\beta_r \\big(\\, \\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2 / \\bar{\\delta} \\:\\;{-}\\; 1 \\,\\big)$. Replacing this expression for $\\mu$ in (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q2\\_sol\\]), the sub-problem solution is $\\,r^{(k+1)} \\;{=}\\;\\: \\bar{\\delta} \\, v^{(k)} / \\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2$. To summarize, the solution of this sub-problem at any iteration $k$ is computed by (\\[eq:sub\\_r\\_q1\\_sol\\]) for the case $q = 1$ whereas for the case $q = 2$ it is determined as follows: $$\\begin{array}{llll}\n\\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2 \\;{\\leq}\\; \\bar{\\delta} &\n\\;\\Longrightarrow\\; &\n\\mu^{(k+1)} \\;{=}\\; 0 , & \n\\;\\; r^{(k+1)} \\;{=}\\; v^{(k)} \\vspace{0.2cm} \\\\\n\\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2 \\;{>}\\; \\bar{\\delta} &\n\\;\\Longrightarrow\\; &\n\\mu^{(k+1)} \\;{=}\\; \\beta_r \\big( \\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2 / \\bar{\\delta} - 1 \\big) , &\n\\;\\; r^{(k+1)} \\;{=}\\; \\bar{\\delta} \\,\\, v^{(k)} / \\| \\, v^{(k)} \\|_2\n\\end{array}\n\\label{eq:sub_r_q2_q2_sol}$$\n\nNumerical results {#sec:nr}\n=================\n\nIn this section, we evaluate experimentally the performance of the two proposed models TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_q$, $q = 1,2$, defined in (\\[eq:PMa\\])\u2013(\\[eq:PMb\\]), when applied to the restoration of gray-scale images synthetically corrupted by blur and by AWGN - in the case of TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ model - or SPN - in the case of TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ model. In particular, the proposed models are compared with:\n\n-   TV-L$_q$, $q = 1,2$, defined in (\\[eq:TVLq\\]) with $p=1$ fixed,\n\n-   TV$_p$-L$_q$, $q = 1,2$, with $p \\in (0,2]$ fixed.\n\nWe remark that the TV$_p$-L$_2$ model has been introduced in [@tvpl2], whereas the TV$_p$-L$_1$ model has not been proposed before and can be regarded as a further contribution of this paper, together with the automatic selection procedure for the space-variant $p$ parameters. For what concerns the TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ model in order to have a robust evaluation of the $p$-map, the image is preliminarily processed by an adaptive filter. We assume that the position of the pixels corrupted by the SPN is known a priori, otherwise it can be easily detected as suggested in [@mila]. We replace the corrupted pixels with the mean of non-corrupted pixels of its neighborhood. The size of the neighborhood is variable and depends on the percentage of non-corrupted pixels in it. The image obtained is then used to compute the $p$-map. The described strategy has been introduced instead of the simple median filter, whose smoothing effects is quite high. The quality of the observed corrupted images $g$ and of the restored images $u^*$ is measured - in dB - by means of the Blurred Signal-to-Noise Ratio $$\\;\\mathrm{BSNR}(g,u) = 10\\log_{10}\\|Ku - E\\,[Ku]\\|_2^2 / \\|g-Ku\\|_2^2$$ and the Improved Signal-to-Noise Ratio $$\\mathrm{ISNR}(g,u,u^*) = 10\\log_{10}\\|g-u\\|_2^2 / \\|u^*-u\\|_2^2,$$ respectively, with $u$ denoting the original uncorrupted image and $E\\,[Ku]$ the average intensity of image $Ku$. In general, the larger the ISNR value, the higher the quality of restoration. For all the ADMM-based minimization algorithms and for all the tests, the parameters $\\beta_t$ and $\\beta_r$ are suitably set. Usually good choices are $(\\beta_t, \\beta_r)=(1,1),(10,5)$. The iterations of the algorithms are stopped as soon as two successive iterates satisfy $\\;\\| u^{(k)} - u^{(k-1)} \\|_{2} / \\| u^{(k-1)}\\|_{2} \\,\\;{<}\\;\\,10^{-4}$. For the models with the L$_2$ fidelity term, the regularization parameter $\\mu$ has been automatically set based on the discrepancy principle. For the models with the L$_1$ fidelity term, $\\mu$ has been hand-tuned independently in each test so as to provide the highest possible ISNR value for that test. In the following, we report numerical results concerning the restoration of images corrupted by AWGN (Example 1) and SPN (Example 2).\n\n#### Example 1: restoration of images corrupted by AWGN\n\nIn this subsection we are testing the performance of TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ on piecewise constant (`geometric` ($256 \\times 256$) Fig. \\[fig:geomand\\](a)) and textured images (`mandrill` ($512 \\times 512$) Fig. \\[fig:geomand\\](c)) with different noise levels. In Table 1 the results are compared in terms of ISNR with the ones obtained by TV-L$_2$ and TV$_{p}$-L$_2$. Both `geometric` and `mandrill` images have been corrupted by a Gaussian blur of `band=5` and standard deviation `sigma=1.0`, and by an AWGN, with BSNR=20,30,40. The $p$-maps have been computed by setting the size of the neighborhoods $s=3$. The good quality of the reconstructed images can be appreciated by a visual inspection of Fig. \\[fig:geomand\\](b),(d) and by comparing the ISNR values reported in Table 1.\n\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   ![Example 1: Corrupted `geometric` (a) and `mandrill` (c) images and reconstructions ((b),(d)) by TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ for BSNR=20.[]{data-label=\"fig:geomand\"}](output/bsnr20_blur.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}   ![Example 1: Corrupted `geometric` (a) and `mandrill` (c) images and reconstructions ((b),(d)) by TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ for BSNR=20.[]{data-label=\"fig:geomand\"}](output/bsnr20_tvpl2loc.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}   ![Example 1: Corrupted `geometric` (a) and `mandrill` (c) images and reconstructions ((b),(d)) by TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ for BSNR=20.[]{data-label=\"fig:geomand\"}](output/bsnr20_mand.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}   ![Example 1: Corrupted `geometric` (a) and `mandrill` (c) images and reconstructions ((b),(d)) by TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ for BSNR=20.[]{data-label=\"fig:geomand\"}](output/bsnr20_tvpl2locmand \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}\n                                                                                                           (a)                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (b)                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (c)                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (d)\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --\n        **[geometric]{} & & & **[mandrill]{}\\                                                                                              \n        BSNR & TV-L$_2$ & TV$_{p}$-L$_2$ & TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$ & TV-L$_2$ & TV$_{p}$-L$_2$ & TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_2$\\            \n        20 & 7.77 & 7.92 & 8.36 & 1.38 & 1.64 &1.78\\                                                                                       \n        30 & 9.01 & 9.87 & 10.30 & 2.90 & 3.04 &3.31\\                                                                                      \n        40 & 11.58 & 12.98 & 13.47 & 5.32 & 5.56 &6.09\\                                                                                    \n        ****                                                                                                                               \n  -- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- --\n\n  : Example 1: ISNR values for different models with different noise level (BSNR) on test images.[]{data-label=\"tab:1\"}\n\n#### Example 2: restoration of images corrupted by SPN\n\nIn this subsection we report the performance of TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ on a $200 \\times 200$ medical image representing a particular of a CT scan of an abdomen - see Fig. \\[fig:med2\\](a). It has been corrupted by a SPN of level $\\gamma = 0.35$ and by a Gaussian blur of `band=9` and `sigma=2.5` (Fig. \\[fig:med2\\] (b)). The $p$-map in Fig.\\[fig:med2\\](c), computed by setting the size of the neighborhood `s=25`, presents higher values in the textured regions. A comparison of the methods TV-L$_1$, TV$_p$-L$_1$, TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ leads to ISNR=$11.81,12.97,13.60$, respectively. The quality of the reconstructed images can be visually appreciated in Fig. \\[fig:med2\\](d),(e),(f).\n\n  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label=\"fig:med2\"}](output/NLDIF_original.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}   ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label=\"fig:med2\"}](output/nldif_corr.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}    ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label=\"fig:med2\"}](output/med_mapnew.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}\n                                                                                                                        (a)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (b)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (c)\n      ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label=\"fig:med2\"}](output/TVL1_rec.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}      ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label=\"fig:med2\"}](output/TVpL1_rec1.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}   ![Example 2: Original image (a), corrupted image (b), $p$-map (c), reconstruction by TV-L$_1$ (d), TV$_p$-L$_1$ ($p=1.4$) (e), and TV$_p^{\\mathrm{sv}}$-L$_1$ (f).[]{data-label=\"fig:med2\"}](output/TVpL1loc_rec.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"1.2in\"}\n                                                                                                                        (d)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (e)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (f)\n  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nWe have proposed two new variational models which are able to outperform the popular TV model for image restoration with L$_2$ and L$_1$ fidelity terms. In particular, we introduced the TV$_p^{SV}$ regularizer, a space-variant generalization of the popular TV prior, where the shape parameter $p$ is automatically and locally estimated by an effective procedure based on the statistical inference technique in [@shape2]. The restored image is efficiently computed by using an ADMM-based algorithm. Numerical examples show that the proposed approach is particularly effective and well suited for images corrupted by Gaussian blur and two important types of noise, the AWGN and SPN. As future work, we plan to extensively test our models on a new immunofluorescence portable diagnostic systems where low-cost complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensors are used. In this system different noise sources affect a noise-free image acquired by the CMOS-based imaging system:the Photo-Response Non-Uniformity is usually modeled as an AWGN while the signal dependent Photon Shot Noise is more properly modeled as a Poisson noise and the Analog-to-Digital Converter noise as an SPN with known positions.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We use direct method oxygen abundances in combination with strong optical emission lines, stellar masses (${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$), and star formation rates (SFRs) to recalibrate the N2, O3N2, and N2O2 oxygen abundance diagnostics. We stack spectra of $\\sim$200,000 star-forming galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey in bins of ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR offset from the star forming main sequence (${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$) to measure the weak emission lines needed to apply the direct method. All three new calibrations are reliable to within $\\pm 0.10$ dex from $\\log({\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}/{M_{\\odot}}) \\sim 7.5 - 10.5$ and up to at least $200~{M_{\\odot}}$ yr$^{-1}$ in SFR. The N2O2 diagnostic is the least subject to systematic biases. We apply the diagnostics to galaxies in the local universe and investigate the $M_{\\star}$\u2013$Z$\u2013${\\rm SFR}$ relation. The N2 and O3N2 diagnostics suggest the SFR dependence of the $M_{\\star}$\u2013$Z$\u2013${\\rm SFR}$ relation varies with both ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, whereas the N2O2 diagnostic suggests a nearly constant dependence on SFR. We apply our calibrations to a sample of high redshift galaxies from the literature, and find them to be metal poor relative to local galaxies with similar ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR. The calibrations do reproduce direct method abundances of the local analogs. We conclude that the $M_{\\star}$\u2013$Z$\u2013${\\rm SFR}$ relation evolves with redshift.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Jonathan S. Brown,$^{1}$[^1] Paul Martini,$^{1,2}$ and Brett H. Andrews$^{3}$\\\n    $^{1}$Department of Astronomy, The Ohio State University, 140 West 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA\\\n    $^{2}$Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, The Ohio State University, 191 West Woodruff Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA\\\n    $^{3}$PITT PACC, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, 3941 O\u2019Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA\nbibliography:\n- 'calib.bib'\ndate: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'\ntitle: A Recalibration of Strong Line Oxygen Abundance Diagnostics via the Direct Method and Implications for the High Redshift Universe\n---\n\n\\[firstpage\\]\n\ngalaxies: active \u2013 galaxies: abundances \u2013 galaxies: evolution \u2013 galaxies: ISM \u2013 ISM: abundances\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nGalaxies are continually undergoing chemical enrichment. Gas is condensed into stars, processed into heavier elements, and returned to the interstellar medium. This gas, enriched by the products of stellar nucleosynthesis and/or supernova ejecta, is reincorporated into new generations of stars, where it is enriched once again. A galaxy may also accrete low metallicity gas from the intergalactic medium, which both dilutes the ISM and provides fuel for a new generation of stars to form. This interplay between star formation, chemical enrichment, and accretion of new material is a central component of galaxy evolution.\n\nAn episode of star formation increases a galaxy\u2019s stellar mass and enriches the ISM. A substantial body of work has shown that there are correlations between stellar mass (${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$), star formation rate (SFR), and gas phase oxygen abundance. The correlation between ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and gas phase oxygen abundance is called the Mass-Metallicity Relation [MZR; @Lequeux79; @Tremonti04]. The MZR extends from low mass, extremely metal deficient galaxies like Leo P [@Skillman13] up to massive galaxies with 2-3 times the solar oxygen abundance [@Tremonti04; @Moustakas11].\n\nThe MZR often serves as a benchmark for models of galaxy evolution because the details of the MZR are direct probes of the underlying physics. For instance, @Tremonti04 describe how the shape of the MZR requires galactic winds to efficiently remove metals from low mass galaxies. Subsequent cosmological models [e.g. @Dave06b; @Oppenheimer06; @Finlator08; @Dave11a; @Dave11b] incorporated winds into their cosmological models in order to better understand the origin of the MZR. In the context of their momentum driven wind models, the mass loading parameter $\\eta \\equiv \\dot{M}_{\\rm outflow}/\\dot{M}_{\\star}$ is proportional to the inverse of the velocity dispersion of the halo, which scales with the halo mass to the one third power, $\\eta \\propto 1/\\sigma_h \\propto M_h^{-1/3}$ [@Murray05; @Oppenheimer06]. Once the star formation has reached an equilibrium with the inflowing and outflowing gas, the metallicity is $Z = y/(1+\\eta)$ where $y$ is the effective yield. In the limit that $\\eta \\gg 1$, the slope of the MZR is ultimately related to how ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ scales with $M_h$, since $\\log(Z) \\propto -\\log(\\eta) \\propto \\frac{1}{3} \\log(M_h)$.\n\nThere is good observational evidence for a second parameter that affects the relationship between ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and $Z$ such that galaxies with higher star formation rates have lower metallicities at fixed stellar mass [the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation; @Ellison08Apj; @Mannucci10; @LaraLopez10]. This relation is also apparent in high signal-to-noise ratio stacked spectra of SDSS galaxies [@Andrews13]. However, it has intriguingly not been seen in the CALIFA sample of 150 nearby galaxies studied with integral field spectroscopy by @Sanchez13.\n\nThe exact form of the SFR dependence is less clear, but if the fuel for star formation is lower metallicity gas accreted from the IGM, this would produce an anticorrelation between gas phase metallicity and SFR. The form of the secondary dependence of the MZR on SFR offers insights into several open questions, such as how star formation is regulated, and how the processes that govern galactic inflows and outflows operate in detail @Dave11a [@Dave11b; @Lilly13].\n\nIn addition to the local MZR and its dependence on SFR, the same correlations can be studied in high redshift galaxies in order to probe galaxy formation and evolution in the early universe [@Shapley05; @Erb06; @Maiolino08; @Steidel14; @Zahid14b; @Sanders15]. Furthermore, the correlation between ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, Z, and SFR in the early universe, and how that relates to the correlations observed in the local universe, constrains how the population of galaxies has evolved over cosmic time [@Zahid14; @Maier14; @Izotov15].\n\nAccurate and precise metallicity measurements are vital to gain physical insights from both local correlations and evolution over cosmic time. The most reliable oxygen abundances are determined with the \u201cdirect method\u201d, or \u201c$T_e$ method\u201d [@Dinerstein90]. Under the right conditions, the electron temperature of ionized gas can be directly measured from the temperature sensitive intensity ratios of collisionally excited forbidden lines (e.g. \\[\\]\u00a0$\\lambda$4363/\\[\\]\u00a0$\\lambda$5007). As oxygen is one of the primary coolants in the ISM, the temperature is anticorrelated with abundance. The density of the gas can be measured from density sensitive lines (e.g. ${\\hbox{[\\ion{S}{ii}]~$\\lambda$6717/$\\lambda$6731}}$). For a given temperature and density the emissivity of a given ionic species can be computed, which can then be used to determine relative abundances.\n\nThe direct method is subject to some biases. Temperature fluctuations and gradients in regions produce a bias towards lower metallicities [@Peimbert67; @Kobulnicky99] . This bias also applies to integrated (as well as stacked) spectra of galaxies. Hotter regions have brighter auroral lines, which can bias the direct method toward higher electron temperatures and correspondingly lower metallicities. Additionally, the assumption of a Maxwell-Boltzmann electron energy distribution has recently come into question [@Nicholls12; @Dopita13]. If electron energies are instead well described by a $\\kappa$-distribution, this may contribute to the well known temperature discrepancy problem [@Garcia-Rojas06; @Garcia-Rojas07; @Nicholls12; @Blanc15], although this is less of a concern for relative comparisons of direct method abundances. Even with the potential for these systematic effects, the direct method is widely regarded as the standard for nebular abundances.\n\nIn practice, dectecting the auroral lines (e.g. ${\\hbox{[\\ion{O}{iii}]~$\\lambda$4363}}$) requires a significant investment of observational resources for even the brightest, most metal poor galaxies and regions. At present, most spectroscopy comes from low to moderate SNR, and direct method abundances are typically not practical.\n\nIn order to estimate the metallicities of galaxies without the use of the auroral lines, so-called \u2019strong-line\u2019 diagnostics were developed based on the more easily measured nebular emission lines [@Pagel79; @Alloin79]. There have been many efforts to calibrate these diagnostics via theoretical [e.g., @McGaugh91; @Zaritsky94; @Dopita00; @Charlot01; @Kewley02; @Kobulnicky04; @Tremonti04; @Stasinska06] and empirical means [e.g., @Pilyugin03; @Pettini04; @Pilyugin05; @Pilyugin10; @Pilyugin12; @Marino13; @Bianco15].\n\nPerhaps the most common of these diagnostics is ${\\hbox{$R_{23}$}}~\\equiv~(\\text{[\\ion{O}{ii}]}~\\lambda 3727 + \\text{[\\ion{O}{iii}]}~\\lambda\\lambda 4959, 5007) / {\\hbox{H$\\beta$}}$ [@Edmunds84; @McCall85; @Dopita86; @Zaritsky94]. ${\\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ encodes some information about the overall oxygen abundance, but the ratio is ultimately determined by the excitation of the \\[\\] and \\[\\] lines. This leads to the double valued nature of ${\\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$, which complicates its use as an abundance diagnostic.\n\nFortunately there are other nebular lines that encode information about the gas phase oxygen abundance, and nitrogen is the most accessible of these. Nitrogen has both primary origin, where the amount of nitrogen produced in stars and returned to the ISM is independent of metallicity, and secondary origin, where the amount of nitrogen produced is proportional to metallicity [@Alloin79; @Vila-Costa93; @Considere00]. In the high metallicity regime, nitrogen is secondary and the nitrogen abundance increases faster than the oxygen abundance. Furthermore, some strong line ratios are temperature sensitive since, for instance, the \\[\\]\u00a0$\\lambda$ 3727 \u00c5\u00a0line requires a significantly higher energy to excite than the \\[\\]\u00a0$\\lambda$6583 \u00c5\u00a0line [@Pilyugin10]. As a result, nitrogen based diagnostics can serve as indicators of the oxygen abundance.\n\nMany strong-line calibrations are often inconsistent with one another. @Kewley08 show the extent to which the various strong line calibrations disagree and provide a framework for mapping one strong line metallicity onto another. Many of the strong-line calibrations differ simply because they use different calibration samples, but the situation is more complicated than sample selection. Some calibrations utilize grids from photoionization simulations [@McGaugh91; @Zaritsky94; @Kewley02], while others use unique samples of regions [e.g., @Marino13] which themselves are often heterogeneous compilations of samples from the literature [e.g., @Pettini04; @Pilyugin10].\n\nEmpirical abundance diagnostics have the benefit of being calibrated on direct method measurements, but due to selection effects the calibration samples are often biased toward low metallicity regions [@Jones15]. The application of these calibrations to integrated spectra of moderately star forming galaxies requires significant extrapolation from the regions that compose most calibration samples. Furthermore, most empirical calibrations will result in erroneous metallicities if, for instance, the ionization conditions of the galaxies in question differ significantly from the calibration sample [@Dopita00; @Kewley02; @Steidel14].\n\nRecently, several studies have shown that stacking the spectra of a sufficiently large number of galaxies can boost the S/N of the auroral lines to a detectable level [@Liang07; @Andrews13]. We use the stacking technique presented in @Andrews13 to obtain direct method oxygen abundances for galaxies spanning a wide range in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR. Our stacking method mitigates the potential for bias by binning galaxies we expect to have similar metallicities based on the small intrinsic scatter of the MZR and ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation. We then recalibrate the popular strong line abundance diagnostics with the direct method oxygen abundances, and apply the new calibrations to data taken from the literature.\n\nWe adopt the following notation for the principal diagnostic emission line ratios:\n\n& = \u00a06583 / &\\\n& = \u00a05007 / / \u00a06583 / &\\\n& = \u00a06583 / \u00a03727 &\\\n&R\\_2= \u00a03727 / &\\\n&R\\_3= \u00a04959,5007 / &\\\n&R\\_[23]{} = R\\_2+R\\_3 &\\\n&P = R\\_3/R\\_[23]{} &\\\n\nSection \\[sec:data\\] describes our selection and stacking process. Section \\[sec:analysis\\] describes our empirical calibrations of . In Section \\[sec:results\\] we present our newly derived calibrations. In Section\u00a0\\[sec:discussion\\] we apply our calibrations to various samples of galaxies and discuss the implications for the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation. Finally, we briefly summarize our results in Section \\[sec:conc\\].\n\nData {#sec:data}\n====\n\nSample Selection {#sec:sample}\n----------------\n\nOur sample of galaxies is derived from the SDSS Data Release 7 (DR7; @Abazajian09). We begin with the ${\\hbox{MPA/JHU}}$ catalog of galaxies with stellar masses [@Kauffmann03b], SFRs [@Brinchmann04; @Salim07], and oxygen abundances [@Tremonti04 hereafter T04]. We discard AGN dominated galaxies with the standard Baldwin-Philips-Terlevich (BPT) diagram [@Baldwin81] and the criterion for star forming galaxies from @Kauffmann03a:\n\n$$\\begin{gathered}\n\\log([\\text{\\ion{O}{iii}}]~\\lambda5007 / {\\hbox{H$\\beta$}}) < \\\\\n   0.61[\\log([\\text{\\ion{N}{ii}}]~\\lambda6583/{\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}) - 0.05]^{-1} + 1.3.\n\\label{eq:sf}\\end{gathered}$$\n\nOur S/N requirements are the same as those presented in @Andrews13. We restrict our sample to galaxies with , , and ${\\hbox{[\\ion{N}{ii}]~$\\lambda$6583}}$ detected at $>5\\sigma$. For galaxies with ${\\hbox{[\\ion{O}{iii}]~$\\lambda$5007}}$ detected at $>3\\sigma$, we apply the selection criteria shown in Equation\u00a0\\[eq:sf\\]. In order to include galaxies with high metallicity (and inherently weak ${\\hbox{[\\ion{O}{iii}]~$\\lambda$5007}}$) we include galaxies with ${\\hbox{[\\ion{O}{iii}]~$\\lambda$5007}}$ detected at $<3 \\sigma$ but $\\log({\\hbox{[\\ion{N}{ii}]~$\\lambda$6583}}/{\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}) < 0.4$.\n\nWe also take significant care to inspect low mass galaxies ($\\log[M_*] < 8.6$) and remove galaxies with poor photometric deblending (flagged with `DEBLEND_NOPEAK` or `DEBLENDED_AT_EDGE`) or otherwise spurious stellar mass determinations. These selection cuts leave a total of 208,529 galaxies in our sample.\n\nWe emphasize that a limitation of this analysis is that the data were obtained with single fibers centered on resolved galaxies, and therefore not all of the light is included in the 3\u00a0diameter fiber aperture. For reference, 3\u00a0corresponds to 2.2 kpc at the median redshift ($z = 0.078$) of our sample. The missing fraction due to this aperture bias will depend on redshift for galaxies of similar sizes, and will depend on mass and star formation rate due to the flux-limited nature of the sample. This aperture bias is important because galaxies exhibit radial abundance gradients [e.g. @Searle71; @Kennicutt03; @Bresolin09a; @Bresolin09b; @Berg13; @Sanchez14] that will cause abundances measured in the central region of a galaxy to overestimate the total abundance. @Tremonti04 investigated this aperture bias for SDSS observations and found metallicity variations of 0.05 to 0.11 dex with redshift for galaxies of similar absolute $z-$band magnitudes. @Kewley05 studied aperture effects with the Nearby Field Galaxy Survey and recommended that fiber spectroscopy include at least $>20$% of the galaxy light (typically $z > 0.04$ for SDSS observations) to minimize systematic and random errors, and this corresponds to most of our sample. Based on these studies, we estimate that aperture biases are comparable to the scatter in the inferred O/H for galaxies of similar stellar mass and star formation rate.\n\nAnother limitation of single-fiber observations is they simply present an incomplete picture of the properties of galaxies. One example is that while @Sanchez13 found a very tight relationship between integrated stellar mass and metallicity with integral field data from CALIFA [@Sanchez12], they did not find any dependence of metallicity on star formation rate at fixed stellar mass. Another example is the analysis by @Belfiore15 of nebular data for 14 galaxies with P-MaNGA, the prototype instrument for the ongoing MaNGA survey [@Bundy15]. Those authors found a substantial spread in O/H values at fixed N/O for regions within individual galaxies, which is in contrast to the stronger correlation exhibited by the central regions from single-fiber observations.\n\nStacking Procedure {#sec:stack}\n------------------\n\nThe auroral lines of \\[\\], \\[\\], and \\[\\] are generally weak and typically undetectable in most SDSS galaxy spectra. However, previous studies [e.g. @Liang07; @Andrews13] have demonstrated that stacking spectra to reduce the contribution of random fluctuations in the measured flux is a viable way to obtain sufficient S/N to measure the auroral lines.\n\nThe stacking method relies on the fact that the random noise in a composite spectrum of $N$ galaxies scales roughly as $1/\\sqrt{N}$; it is advantageous for our bins to contain a large number of galaxies in order to reduce the noise in the spectrum as much as possible. However, we also want each bin to span a very small range in *actual* (O/H) so that we are stacking qualitatively similar galaxies. The chosen bin widths are a compromise between these two goals.\n\nBefore stacking the spectra, we follow the same reduction process described in @Andrews13. Starting with the spectra that have been processed with the SDSS pipeline [@Stoughton02], we correct for Galactic reddening using the extinction values from @Schlegel98. We then shift each spectrum to the rest frame using redshifts from the ${\\hbox{MPA/JHU}}$ catalog. We interpolate each spectrum onto a wavelength grid spanning 3700\u00c5\u20137360\u00c5\u00a0with spacing $\\Delta \\lambda = 1$\u00c5. In order to compare galaxies at various distances we normalize each spectrum to the stellar continuum with the mean continuum flux from 4400\u00c5\u20134450\u00c5. Thus when we measure the line flux we effectively measure the equivalent width of the line. At fixed , normalizing to the stellar continuum is acceptable since the luminosities of the galaxies are essentially the same. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:ref\\_spec\\_OII\\] demonstrates the benefit of stacking. In the raw SDSS spectrum of a single galaxy (gray line), the weak auroral lines are undetectable. They become fairly evident after stacking (blue line). After removing nearby stellar continuum features (red line), the previously undetectable auroral lines are prominent features in the final spectrum (black line).\n\nChoice of Stacking Parameters {#sec:justify_stack}\n-----------------------------\n\nOur goal is to derive improved strong line calibrations, so one of the parameters we use to assign galaxies to a stack is similar strong line ratios. However, the strong line ratios show considerable dependence on more parameters than just metallicity, such as incident spectral shape, ionization parameter, and gas density [@Dopita00; @Kewley02; @Dopita13]. For example, Steidel et al. (2014) demonstrated that variations in line ratios due to a factor of five change in metallicity could be reproduced with only a factor of two change in ionization parameter. Figure 2 clearly demonstrates that there is a substantial range in stellar mass and star formation rate at a constant value of the N2, O3N2, N2O2, or R23 strong line diagnostics.\n\nAs in @Andrews13, we assume that galaxies with similar stellar masses and star formation rates have similar physical conditions, and therefore similar values of the other parameters that impact the connection between strong line ratio and metallicity. We consequently only stack galaxies with similar stellar masses and star formation rates to minimize the dispersion in galaxy properties in each stack. Good support for this approach comes from an investigation of stacking by @Andrews13. They compared electron temperatures and abundances for galaxies with individual auroral line detections to stacks of the same sample of galaxies and found good agreement within the measurement uncertainties.\n\nWe have performed a bootstrap analysis as an additional validation of this approach. For this analysis we chose four bins of different star formation rates at the same stellar mass. We resampled each bin 100 times and processed them with our analysis pipeline to derive the metallicity. We found the median of the bootstrap metallicity distribution agreed well with the stack value for each bin. The spread in the metallicity distribution ($\\sim 0.15$ dex) was somewhat larger than the formal metallicity uncertainties, but smaller than the variations in the strong line ratios at fixed stellar mass and star formation rate ($\\sim 0.2$ dex).\n\nWe have chosen to use both stellar mass and star formation rate because there is good evidence that metallicity depends on star formation rate at fixed mass (Ellison et al. 2008; Mannucci et al. 2010; Lara-Lopez et al. 2010). In addition, we expect galaxies with different star formation rates at fixed mass may differ in other parameters (incident spectral shape, etc.). While the integral field study by @Sanchez13 did not find that metallicity depends on star formation rate at fixed mass, we emphasize that our decision to stack in both quantities is also motivated by how other physical parameters vary with star formation rate.\n\nIt is also well known that stellar mass and star formation rate are well correlated, a correlation known as the star forming main sequence [@Brinchmann04; @Salim07; @Noeske07; @Whitaker12; @Zahid12b; @Kashino13]. In order to characterize this dependence, @Salim14 showed that the parameter ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$\n\n$${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}= \\log({\\rm SSFR}) - \\left\\langle \\log({\\rm SSFR}) \\right\\rangle_{\\small{M_{\\star}}}\n\\label{eq:dssfr}$$\n\nis more effective than both SFR and SSFR at identifying low and high oxygen abundance outliers across a wide range in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$. The quantity $\\left\\langle \\log({\\rm SSFR}) \\right\\rangle_{\\small{M_{\\star}}}$ is the median $\\log$(SSFR) of galaxies at ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$. Thus ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is defined relative to the star forming main sequence rather than an arbitrary value (e.g. 1 ${\\hbox{$M_\\odot$ yr$^{-1}$}}$).\n\nBinning in ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ rather than SFR is also beneficial for calibrating the relationship between the strong line ratios and ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dssfr\\] shows that at a fixed strong line ratio, there is significant scatter in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$. Since ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR are correlated, absolute SFR does not necessarily correspond to a lower oxygen abundance at a fixed strong line value. Furthermore, since ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is a reflection of the SFR density, galaxies with similar ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ ought to have similar ionization conditions. The same does not hold true for galaxies with similar SFR but different stellar masses, since a relatively low mass, compact star forming galaxy will have more intense ionization conditions than a more massive galaxy with relatively diffuse star formation.\n\nOur choice of bin widths was largely *ad hoc*. It is clear from Figure 11 of @Andrews13 that there is some scatter in ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. Our primary motives were to (1) resolve the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relationship, (2) include enough galaxies in metal rich stacks to measure ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$, and (3) limit the total number of stacks to keep the stacking procedure, stellar continuum subtraction, and abundance determination computationally feasible. We ran various trials and found our results to be insensitive to bin widths.\n\nThe left panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:BPT\\] shows where ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$\u2013${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks fall on the BPT diagram relative to the galaxies in our sample (gray contours) and individual regions from @Pilyugin12 (black points). The stacks with high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ are undergoing relatively intense star formation, and their line ratios closely resemble those of individual regions. The passively star forming stacks track the overall distribution of galaxies, which is not traced by the individual regions.\n\nNaively we expect that galaxies undergoing more intense star formation have many more ionizing photons per atom. While the excitation parameter $P$ is marginally dependant on abundance, the right panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:BPT\\] suggests our naive expectation is correct; stacks with high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ show systematically higher values of $P$. Incorporating ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ accounts for some of the strong line ratios\u2019 sensitivity to ionization conditions.\n\nLastly, it is easily shown that many strong line ratios (e.g. N2) are biased by SFR since they include ${\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}$ flux. By grouping galaxies with similar ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, which is equivalent to SFR at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, our chosen stacking methodology minimizes this bias.\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\nStellar Continuum Subtraction\n-----------------------------\n\nMany emission lines used in this study (particularly ) fall in wavelength regimes where stellar absorption features are present. Therefore it is necessary to fit and remove the underlying stellar population contribution to the stacked spectra. Following @Andrews13, we use the STARLIGHT spectral synthesis code [@CidFernandes05; @CidFernandes11] and a library of 300 empirical `MILES` spectral templates [@SanchezBlazquez06; @Cenarro07; @Vazdekis10; @FalconBarroso11] to generate a synthetic spectrum representative of the underlying stellar population for each of our stacks. We adopt the @Cardelli89 extinction law and mask the locations of all bright emission lines.\n\nFor strong lines redward of 4000\u00c5\u00a0(, \\[\\]\u00a0$\\lambda \\lambda$4959, 5007\u00c5, , \\[\\]\u00a0$\\lambda \\lambda$6548, 6583\u00c5, and \\[\\]\u00a0$\\lambda \\lambda$6716, 6731\u00c5) we model the stellar continuum using template fits to the entire spectral range (3700\u00c5\u20137360\u00c5). We fit the continuum near weaker emission lines, auroral lines, and strong lines blueward of 4000\u00c5\u00a0using template fits to the continuum within a few 100\u00c5\u00a0of each line since this provides a significant reduction in the rms of the continuum around the line [@Andrews13]. See Table\u00a0\\[tab:wave\\] for details regarding each emission line\u2019s fit region.\n\nLine Flux Measurement {#sec:line_flux}\n---------------------\n\nFollowing @Andrews13, we fit the emission lines of the stacked spectra using the *specfit* routine [@Kriss94] in the `IRAF/STSDAS` package. We use the simplex $\\chi^2$ minimization algorithm to simultaneously fit a flat continuum and Gaussian profile to each emission line. @Andrews13 found this to be a robust method consistent with other flux measurement techniques. Uncertainties are derived from the $\\chi^2$ of the fit returned by *specfit*. We deredden the spectra using the extinction law from @Cardelli89 and the assumption of case B recombination (/= 2.86 for $T_e = 10^4$ K). @Andrews13 estimate the systematic error introduced by adopting a fixed /\u00a0ratio to be $\\lesssim 0.07$ dex. Finally, with the exception of \\[\\]\u00a0$\\lambda 3727$ \u00c5, our diagnostic emission lines are anchored to nearby Balmer lines, and are thus insensitive to reddening.\n\nAnalysis {#sec:analysis}\n========\n\nAbundances {#sec:abund}\n----------\n\nWe compute the chemical abundances of the stacks using the same procedure as @Andrews13; here we present a brief overview and direct the reader to that paper for further details.\n\nWe assume a simple two-zone model composed of a high ionization region (traced by \\[\\]) and a low ionization region (traced by \\[\\], \\[\\], and \\[\\]). Previous works have assumed simple relationships between the temperatures of the high and low ionization regions [the ${\\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation @Campbell86; @Garnett92; @Pagel92; @Izotov06; @Pilyugin09]. We assume a linear ${\\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation normalized such that we get the best agreement in stacks for which we are able to measure the temperature of both ionization zones (see below). We use a Monte Carlo technique to derive uncertainties in our measurements.\n\nWe measure the electron temperature and density using the `IRAF/STSDAS` *nebular.temden* routine [@Shaw95], which is based on the 5 level atom from @DeRobertis87. We use the ${\\hbox{[\\ion{S}{ii}]~$\\lambda$6717/$\\lambda$6731}}$ ratio to measure the electron density. We use the auroral oxygen ratios (${\\hbox{[\\ion{O}{ii}]~$\\lambda$7320+7330$/\\lambda\\lambda(3726+3729)$}}$ and ${\\hbox{[\\ion{O}{iii}]~$\\lambda$4363/$\\lambda\\lambda(4959+5007)$}}$) to measure $T_2$ and $T_3$ respectively. @Andrews13 discuss at length the differences between the canonical ${\\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation and that observed for their stacks and find that in general their stacks fall below the @Campbell86 relation (in the sense of low $T_2$ at fixed $T_3$). This offset from the predicted relation has been previously seen [@Pilyugin10]. The fact that this offset disappears for galaxies with relatively high SFRs (which are likely to have contributions from relatively young stellar populations) indicates that the offset is likely due to the differences between the single stellar spectra used by @Stasinska82 and the composite region spectrum that ionizes the gas in a galaxy.\n\nThe ionic abundances of O$^+$ and O$^{++}$ are calculated using the electron temperature, electron density, the flux ratios of the strong lines relative to ${\\hbox{H$\\beta$}}$, and the `IRAF/STSDAS` *nebular.ionic* routine [@DeRobertis87; @Shaw95]. Atomic data plays a critical role in direct method temperature determinations [@Kennicutt03]. For example, @Berg15 noted a substantial difference in temperatures when using updated collision strengths. The temperatures are largely unaffected by the updated atomic data, so we utilize the *nebular.temden* routine without modification. The uncertainties in the abundances of individual ionic species are determined with the same Monte Carlo simulations used to determine the uncertainties in electron temperatures. The ionic abundance uncertainties are used to analytically calculate the uncertainty in the total abundances.\n\nWe assume the total oxygen abundance is given by $$\\frac{\\rm O}{\\rm H} = \\frac{\\rm O^+}{\\rm H^+} + \\frac{\\rm O^{++}}{\\rm H^+}.$$ Historically, the temperature of the high ionization region, $T_3$, is measured using the direct method and $T_2$ is then inferred using the ${\\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation. At high masses, we are unable to measure $T_3$ but often have a measurement of $T_2$. We use the stacks where both $T_2$ and $T_3$ are measured to infer a ${\\hbox{$T_2-T_3$}}$ relation that results in the best agreement between measured and inferred $T_3$. As in @Andrews13, this is done using a systematic shift ($\\sim$0.1 dex) in the $\\log$(O/H) of the stacks for which $T_2$ was measured and used to infer $T_3$.\n\nEmpirical Calibrations\n----------------------\n\nThere are many abundance diagnostic ratios. Our choice of ratios to consider is motivated by three factors: (1) our calibration(s) should be empirical, (2) the distribution of line ratios for individual galaxies in a stack ought to be reasonably peaked around the mean value, and (3) the calibration ought to be valid for the majority of our stacks.\n\nThe most commonly used oxygen abundance diagnostics are N2 and O3N2 [@Denicolo02; @Pettini04; @Marino13], N2O2 [@Dopita00; @Kewley02], and R23 [@Pagel79; @McGaugh91; @Pilyugin03; @Kobulnicky04] . Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dssfr\\] shows the distribution of individual galaxies in the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$\u2013diagnostic planes for these diagnostics. In panel \u201c(a)\u201d of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dssfr\\], the distribution of galaxies is such that galaxies with similar ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ follow a relatively tight sequence in the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$\u2013N2 plane. Similar behavior is seen in panel \u201c(b)\u201d (O3N2) and, to a somewhat lesser extent, panel \u201c(c)\u201d (N2O2). In panel \u201c(d)\u201d at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, the values of ${\\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ follow a relatively broad distribution; the scatter in ${\\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ can be comparable to the entire range spanned by the diagnostic. In this instance, the degree to which the average strong line value of a given stack is representative of the galaxies within that stack is less meaningful than with other diagnostics. This is a primary concern when stacking galaxies (see Footnote 14 of @Salim14 for an example of how binning can lead to the wrong impression).\n\nAn additional concern with strong line abundance diagnostics is the effect of ionization parameter variations on the diagnostic ratios [@Kewley02; @Steidel14]. The ionization parameter $\\Gamma$ is given by $$\\Gamma \\equiv \\frac{\\Phi}{n_H} \\approx \\frac{\\Phi}{n_e}$$ where $n_H$ is the number density of hydrogen atoms and $\\Phi$ is the density of hydrogen ionizing photons. Changes in the ionization parameter can be due to either variations in the temperature of the ionizing continuum (i.e. a galaxy composed of systematically hotter stars than average) and/or variations in the physical conditions of star forming regions (i.e. higher stellar densities and/or lower gas densities than average). In order to eliminate these biases, it would be advantageous to use a diagnostic that is insensitive to ionization parameter variations [e.g. N2O2, @Kewley02], though our choice of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ as a second parameter should at least somewhat account for differences in ionization parameter (see the right panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:BPT\\]).\n\nThe N2 diagnostic is subject to biases caused by the ionization parameter as well as the hardness of the ionization spectrum [@Kewley02], but has been shown to be a useful abundance diagnostic in high excitation regions [@TSB94; @Binette96; @Pettini04; @Marino13]. Furthermore, \\[\\] $\\lambda$ 6583 and ${\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}$ are closely spaced, making their ratio insensitive to variations in reddening corrections. The O3N2 diagnostic is also sensitive to ionization parameter [@Kewley02], but is less sensitive to variations in the hardness of the ionizing spectrum than N2 [@Kewley13a; @Brown14; @Steidel14]. N2O2 is insensitive to ionization parameter, but is dependent on the secondary nature of nitrogen [@Kewley02]. We will use N2O2 to estimate the effect of ionization parameter variations on the other diagnostics.\n\nWith the above considerations in mind, we focus the remainder of our analysis on the N2, O3N2, and N2O2 strong line diagnostics. As discussed above, the distribution of ${\\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is not strongly peaked. Furthermore, the double valued nature of ${\\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ requires that an additional diagnostic sensitive to ionization parameter be used in conjunction with an iterative method to solve for an oxygen abundance. This precludes the empirical nature of our calibrations. Most importantly, a large fraction of our galaxies fall within the \u201ctransition zone\u201d of the ${\\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$ diagnostic, where the diagnostic is insensitive to oxygen abundance [@Dopita13]. As a result, we refrain from further consideration of ${\\hbox{$R_{23}$}}$.\n\nResults {#sec:results}\n=======\n\nIn Section\u00a0\\[sec:justify\\_stack\\] we demonstrated with Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dssfr\\] that each ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$-${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ stack has characteristic diagnostic line ratios which are representative of the individual galaxies in that stack. Following previous works [e.g., @Alloin79; @Pettini04; @Marino13] we combine these diagnostic ratios with direct method oxygen abundances to derive a relationship between the two. @Salim14 showed that at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ we expect galaxies with low (high) ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ to be offset from the star forming main sequence in the sense of high (low) oxygen abundance. Given the strong correlation between our diagnostic ratios and ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, we assume the following form for our empirical calibrations: $$12+\\log({\\rm O/H}) = f_1(X) + f_2({\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}})$$ where $X$ is a particular diagnostic value (e.g. N2) and $f_1$ and $f_2$ are functions of the respective variables. For simplicity, we assume $f_1$ and $f_2$ are each linear functions in their respective parameter, except for the case of N2 where we allow $f_1$ to take the form of a second degree polynomial. We use `MPFIT` [@Markwardt09], an IDL implementation of the robust non-linear least square fitting routine `MINPACK-1`, to fit the relationship between $\\log$(O/H), $X$, and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$.\n\nFrom Equation\u00a0\\[eq:dssfr\\], it is clear that for a galaxy with a known ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR, ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ then only depends on the average SSFR at that ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$. In practice, we compute the median SSFR in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ bins 0.1 dex wide. However, a good approximation for $\\langle \\log$(SSFR)$\\rangle_{\\small{{\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}}}$ as a function of ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ is:\n\n$$\\begin{gathered}\n\\langle \\log({\\rm SSFR})\\rangle_{\\small{M_{\\star}}} = 283.728 - 116.265 \\times \\log{\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}+ \\\\ 17.4403 \\times \\log{\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}^2 - 1.17146 \\times \\log{\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}^3 + 0.0296526 \\times \\log{\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}^4.\n\\label{eq:sfms}\\end{gathered}$$\n\nWe provide this form rather than the expression from @Salim07 because the two begin to diverge below $\\log({\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}/{M_{\\odot}}) \\sim 9$.\n\nN2 Method {#sec:N2}\n---------\n\nOur new calibration of ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ based on N2 and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is\n\n$$\\begin{gathered}\n12 + \\log({\\rm O/H})_{\\rm N2} = 9.12 + 0.58 \\times \\log({\\rm N2}) \\\\\n   - 0.19 \\times {{\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}}.\\end{gathered}$$\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\] shows that the slope of the relationship between ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ and N2 at fixed ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is comparable to the slope of @Pettini04 (red line) and @Marino13 (magenta line), and agree well for the galaxies with high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. This agrees with previous studies [e.g. @Brown14] which have shown that those empirical relations accurately predict ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ for high excitation galaxies. This is not particularly surprising because galaxies with very compact, high star formation rates for a given \u00a0are similar to individual regions in terms of excitation conditions.\n\nAs one moves from high excitation galaxies toward the star forming main sequence, the population of galaxies tends toward lower excitation conditions than the regions used in @Pettini04. The observational consequence is that SDSS galaxies have higher than predicted by previous calibrations at a given value of N2.\n\nFor galaxies above $\\sim Z_{\\odot}$, N2 saturates as it becomes the dominant coolant of the ISM [@Baldwin81; @Pettini04]. This explains the pile up of stacks around $\\log$(N2)$\\approx -0.5$ in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\] for the low ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks. As a result this calibration becomes unreliable when the line ratio reaches this value. The top panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\] shows the residuals of the fit. It is clear that the quality of the calibration worsens at high metallicities. We include the RMS of the residuals in Table\u00a0\\[tab:fits\\].\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\nO3N2 Method {#sec:O3N2}\n-----------\n\nOur new calibration of ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ based on O3N2 and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is\n\n$$\\begin{gathered}\n12 + \\log({\\rm O/H})_{\\rm O3N2} = 8.98 - 0.32 \\times \\log({\\rm O3N2}) \\\\\n   - 0.18 \\times {{\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}}.\\end{gathered}$$\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:O3N2\\] shows that the slope of the relationship between ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ and O3N2 at fixed ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is comparable to the slope of @Pettini04 (thick red line) and @Marino13 (thick magenta line), and agrees well for the galaxies with high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. Again this is in agreement with @Brown14, who showed that high excitation galaxies with significant populations of young stars are essentially indistinguishable from individual regions from the perspective of a diagnostic ratios. We do find a marginally steeper slope than @Marino13. This could be due to a selection effect because at high (low) metallicities we lack high (low) ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ bins, which could artificially steepen our calibration. In addition, the steepness of the @Pettini04 calibration may be due to the photoionization models used at high metallicities. The @Marino13 calibration suffers no such bias, since their measurements are based entirely on individual Hii regions. More data are needed to explore this possibility further.\n\nCloser to the star forming galaxy main sequence, the calibration presented here begins to diverge from the previous calibrations based on regions. Again, this is because the galaxies on the star forming main sequence display lower excitation conditions than the regions used in the previous calibrations.\n\nThe O3N2 diagnostic performs better than the N2 diagnostic at high ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$. While N2 saturates at high metallicity, the intensity of collisionally excited oxygen lines is still falling with increasing oxygen abundance.\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\nN2O2 Method {#sec:N2O2}\n-----------\n\nOur new calibration of ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ based on N2O2 and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is\n\n$$\\begin{gathered}\n12 + \\log({\\rm O/H})_{\\rm N2O2} = 9.20 + 0.54 \\times \\log({\\rm N2O2}) \\\\\n   - 0.36 \\times {{\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}}.\\end{gathered}$$\n\nIn Figure\u00a0\\[fig:N2O2\\] we compare our measurements from the stacks with the N2O2 calibration from @Kewley02. At high metallicities, we find excellent agreement between the star forming galaxy main sequence of our stacks and the calibration from @Kewley02. This could be due to the fact that this calibration is insensitive to ionzation parameter. At fixed N2O2, stacks with high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ show lower ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ than stacks with lower ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, as one would expect in the case of inflow driven star formation.\n\n@Kewley02 explicitly state that the N2O2 calibration should only be used above $12+\\log$(O/H)$ > 8.6$ since this diagnostic derives its utility from the secondary nature of nitrogen at high metallicity. However, in the context of galaxy evolution where inflows and outflows have a strong effect on the oxygen abundance we argue that this selection criteria should instead be based on the value of the N2O2 diagnostic itself. For instance, consider a galaxy which has undergone prolonged star formation and enriched its ISM well above solar metallicity such that the secondary nature of nitrogen is unambiguous. Now, suppose this galaxy were to accrete a substantial amount of gas from the IGM. The ISM would be diluted, the metallicity would decrease, and the SFR would increase. The galaxy would move off the main sequence, increasing ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. All the while, the N2O2 ratio would remain largely unchanged, since the relative abundance of nitrogen and oxygen is unaffected by inflows of pristine gas [@Koppen05; @Masters14]. The high SFR stacks shown in Figure 14 of @Andrews13 are consistent with this picture of inflow driven dilution. Nitrogen can be secondary even at low metallicities, provided the galaxy is sufficiently chemically evolved.\n\nFigure 3 of @Kewley02 shows that the N2O2 diagnostic becomes sensitive to metallicity at $\\log$(N2O2) $\\sim -1.25$. Our Figure\u00a0\\[fig:N2O2\\] illustrates that this happens at the lower range probed by our stacks. The ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ of our stacks does show a clear dependence on N2O2, even at low metallicities. Unevolved galaxies for which nitrogen is still primary could potentially contaminate the stacks. However, the left panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dssfr\\] shows that there are relatively few galaxies with $\\log$(N2O2) $< -1.25$. Thus we are confident our N2O2 calibrations are valid even though we apply them at low metallicities.\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\nWhich Calibration Is Best? {#sec:use}\n--------------------------\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:grids\\] summarizes our results in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$\u2013${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ space and illustrates several systematic effects correlated with ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and/or ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$.\n\nThe top panel shows the distribution of stacks with measured ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$-${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ space. The color of each square reflects the metallicity. The second, third, and fourth panels show the residuals for the N2, O3N2, and N2O2 diagnostics, respectively. Red indicates where the strong line diagnostic overestimates the direct method metallicity, while blue indicates the alternative. Column $d$ in Table\u00a0\\[tab:fits\\] shows the mean residuals for each calibration. On average the calibrations are accurate to within 0.10 dex, although there are typically 2-3 stacks for each diagnostic that have substantially larger residuals. The calibrations perform worse for the highest metallicity stacks. This is evident in residuals shown in the top panels of Figures\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\], \\[fig:O3N2\\], and\u00a0\\[fig:N2O2\\]. The metallicities of the lowest mass stacks are also difficult to accurately predict. This is likely due to the small number ($\\sim 5$) of galaxies in these stacks. One or two galaxies with anomoulous line ratios can significantly influence the line ratios of the stack [@Andrews13].\n\nIn general, no single calibration vastly outperforms the others, though O3N2 does fare slightly better. O3N2 was the preferred diagnostic for 43% (47/110) of the stacks, followed by N2O2 with 30% (33/110), and N2 was ranked last with 27% (30/110). There does not appear to be any systematic trend where one calibration does better than the others, though N2O2 is only marginally worse than O3N2 for many of the stacks and is subject to fewer biases.\n\nThe N2O2 calibration has a larger dependence on ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ (0.36, column $d$ in Table\u00a0\\[tab:fits\\]) than the other calibrations ($\\sim 0.2$). This likely reflects the fact that N2 and O3N2 are sensitive to ionization parameter, whereas N2O2 is not. At fixed metallicity, a systematically high ionization parameter (correlated with high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$) biases the N2 and O3N2 line ratios in the direction of low metallicity. Thus stacks with high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ have metal poor line ratios relative to a stack of lower ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ and identical metallicity. This reduces the inferred dependence of metallicity on ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. While all three calibrations perform equally well for our sample, these biases may be important considerations for applications to other samples. We emphasize that the rms residuals of the fit to the stacks does not reflect the actual precision of the calibration. As noted in Section\u00a0\\[sec:justify\\_stack\\], the reliability of the calibrations is primarily determined by the scatter in a given line ratio at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, which is assumed to mean fixed O/H. This scatter is ultimately a function of ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, SFR, strong-line diagnostic, and sample selection. We include error bars in the lower corners of Figures\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\], \\[fig:O3N2\\], and\u00a0\\[fig:N2O2\\] to show the typical uncertainty for our different ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ bins, marginalized over ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$. The error bars ($\\sim 0.2$ dex) reflect the uncertainty in inferred O/H due to the scatter in strong-line ratio at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, and typically exceed the widths of the O/H distributions in our bootstrap analysis ($\\sim 0.15$ dex).\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\nDiscussion {#sec:discussion}\n==========\n\nApplication of New Calibrations to Local Galaxies {#sec:local}\n-------------------------------------------------\n\nWe first apply our newly derived strong line calibrations to the sample of individual star forming galaxies that went into our stacks. In Figures\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\_MZR\\], \\[fig:O3N2\\_MZR\\], and \\[fig:N2O2\\_MZR\\] we show the distribution of SDSS galaxies (gray contours) and ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$\u2013${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks (colored points) in the M-Z plane. All metallicities are computed using the appropriate strong line calibration. In Figure\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\_MZR\\] we apply the N2 calibration, in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:O3N2\\_MZR\\] we apply the O3N2 calibration, and in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:N2O2\\_MZR\\] we apply the new N2O2 calibration. In each panel the solid (dotted) red lines show the appropriate best fit MZR (scatter) from @Kewley08, in which the MZRs were measured by computing the median $\\log$(O/H) as a function of mass. The dot-dashed magenta lines show the MZR from @Tremonti04.\n\nIf each ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}-{\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ bin has a known ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$, the uncertainty in the calibration is dominated by the average scatter in a given diagnostic at fixed ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$. The error in any given measurement of ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ is typically much smaller than this. We estimate the scatter in a diagnostic at fixed ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ by averaging the scatter in the diagnostic over all masses at fixed ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. These uncertainties are shown as error bars in the bottom corner of the plots and are generally comparable to the uncertainties in the calibrations ($\\sim 0.10$ dex). The error bars on the points themselves represent the error on the mean. Due to the large number of galaxies in most stacks, the mean is typically measured to high precision.\n\nIn the case of N2 and O3N2, we find that our direct method strong line calibrations produce MZRs with higher (O/H) normalizations than the @Kewley08 results, as expected from Figures\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\] and\u00a0\\[fig:O3N2\\]. In the case of N2O2, the normalization of the MZR is only marginally higher than the results from @Kewley08; this is due to the fact that, without accounting for ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, our N2O2 calibration is very similar to that presented in @Kewley02. The slopes of all of our MZRs are roughly consistent with the results from @Kewley08 and also appear to flatten at low masses ($\\log({\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}) \\lesssim 8$). Each of the MZRs also agree well with the @Tremonti04 MZR.\n\nFigures\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\] and\u00a0\\[fig:O3N2\\] suggest that the ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}_{1.0}^{1.5}$ bins should follow the @Kewley08 MZR closest, when in fact it is the ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}_{0.5}^{1.0}$ bins. This is purely a selection effect due to the difference in binning schemes. @Kewley08 effectively binned in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, whereas we have binned in both ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. As shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:dssfr\\] (top left), the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$\u2013${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks with high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ have lower values of N2 than a corresponding mass stack. This is primarily because at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, higher ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ implies higher ${\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}$ flux, and thus lower N2. The reason we bin in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is to alleviate the dependence of N2 on ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$; the difference between our results and those of @Kewley08 effectively reveal the magnitude of this bias.\n\nWe find that the N2 MZR (Figure\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\_MZR\\]) asymptotes around solar metallicity and falls slightly below the MZR from @Tremonti04. This is in agreement with previous studies [@Baldwin81; @Pettini04] and occurs because nitrogen becomes the dominant coolant at high metallicity, so N2 saturates. At high stellar masses (and metallicities), O3N2 continues to decrease as the intensity of \\[\\] decreases with increasing metallicity. Figures\u00a0\\[fig:dssfr\\] and\u00a0\\[fig:O3N2\\_MZR\\] show that O3N2 begins to flatten at high ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, but this is likely due to the turnover in the MZR.\n\nIn the case of the N2O2 MZR (Figure\u00a0\\[fig:N2O2\\_MZR\\]), we note a marginally higher normalization, and significantly larger scatter at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, than the other calibrations. This is likely the result of a larger dependence on ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. As previously noted, the ionization parameter is likely correlated with ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ (see the right panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:BPT\\]). If this is true, the high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ stacks will be biased towards low N2 or high O3N2 [@Dopita00; @Kewley02; @Steidel14]. Given the slope of the strong line calibrations, this will mask the dependence of $\\log$(O/H) and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. Being largely insensitive to ionization parameter, N2O2 likely reflects the true relationship between $\\log$(O/H) and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$.\n\nFor most of the ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ tracks, the scatter in inferred (O/H) between points is surprisingly small and is much less than that seen in ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$. This is due to the fact that the inferred (O/H) is merely a reflection of how the strong line diagnostics vary as a function of mass. On average, the strong lines exhibit very smooth behavior with mass [@Kewley08]. This point was also raised in @Steidel14 and suggests that another parameter other than gas phase oxygen abundance (likely ionization parameter) is tightly coupled to both mass and the strong line ratios. Thus we are able to measure the average strong line value to exquisite precision, but the uncertainty in gas phase oxygen abundance for any one galaxy is set by the scatter in a particular diagnostic ratio at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$.\n\nThe ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ Relation {#sec:fmr}\n-----------------------------------------------------\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\nUsing the masses and newly derived oxygen abundances of galaxies in the local universe, we can investigate the presence of a Fundamental Metallicity Relation (FMR; @Mannucci10 [@LaraLopez10]). The formulation of the FMR from @Mannucci10 states that (1) galaxies lie along the projection of the local ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation that minimizes the scatter in metallicity, and (2) the relationship is redshift invariant. In this section we will focus on the first of these predictions; we will consider evolution of the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation with redshift in Section\u00a0\\[sec:highz\\].\n\n[@Salim14] presented a non-parametric analysis framework for investigating the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation in local galaxies. When investigating the nature of the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation, non-parametric techniques are preferred since they do not require a fixed SFR dependence at a given ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, as is required in the framework of @Mannucci10 or @LaraLopez10. Following @Salim14 [@Salim15], we examine the slope of $12+\\log$(O/H) as a function of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$. For each ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ bin, we assume the form\n\n$$12+\\log({\\rm O/H}) = \\beta + \\kappa*{\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}. \n\\label{eq:slope}$$\n\nWhile this introduces a parametrization, it allows for a direct comparison of the slope $\\kappa$ with previous studies [e.g. @Salim14; @Salim15]. The dependence of $\\log$(O/H) on SFR at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ is simply $\\frac{d\\log({\\rm O/H})}{d\\log({\\rm SFR})}\\big|_{\\small{M_{\\star}}} = \\frac{d\\log({\\rm O/H})}{d\\Delta \\log({\\rm SSFR})} = \\kappa$. This differs from the parameter $\\alpha$ that minimizes the scatter about a surface in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ space [e.g., @Mannucci10; @Yates12; @Andrews13]. It is straightforward to convert a value of $\\alpha$ to an equivalent value of $\\kappa$ if the parametrization of the FMR is known.\n\n@Salim14 find that the slope $\\kappa$ is a function of ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, and becomes flatter at higher masses. They also find that the slope is a function of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, and becomes steeper at higher ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. We apply their framework to the galaxies in our sample. We measure ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ with Equation\u00a0\\[eq:dssfr\\], and apply our new strong line calibrations to derive oxygen abundances.\n\nEach panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:salim\\_comp\\_n2\\] shows $\\log$(O/H) as a function of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ for a given ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ denoted in the bottom left corner. We include all galaxies and stacks with masses that fall within the $\\pm 0.25$ dex ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ window of each panel. The circles show the direct method abundances of the stacks. The stacks are 0.10 dex wide in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, so there are multiple stacks at fixed ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ within the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ window of each panel. The gray contours show the SDSS galaxies with oxygen abundances determined with our new calibration.\n\nFor each ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, we fit $\\log$(O/H) as a function of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ per Equation\u00a0\\[eq:slope\\]. The dashed red lines show the fits resulting from the SDSS galaxies; the dotted red lines show the fits to the stacks. Note that for higher masses ($\\log({\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}/M_{\\odot}) \\gtrsim 10.0$) there are few to no stacks with direct method abundances. While in some cases the slopes derived from the direct method differ from those derived from the individual galaxies (e.g., $\\log({\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}/M_{\\odot}) = 9.5$), we typically find agreement within the error bars.\n\nThe solid green line in each panel shows the median $\\log$(O/H) as a function of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. The relationship between $\\log$(O/H) and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is non-linear and appears to steepen at high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, particularly for the lower mass bins. This is in agreement with @Salim14 and illustrates the need for a non-parametric approach when investigating the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation. Since our detection of auroral lines is biased towards high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, we have relatively more direct method measurements at high ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, which effectively biases the fit to the stacks towards a steeper slope. Accounting for ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ does lead to a reduction in scatter; the scatter in (O/H) at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is somewhat lower than the scatter at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ alone. In the case of N2, the scatter in O/H at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ is $\\sim 0.12$, while the scatter around the running median is $0.07$.\n\nWe perform this analysis for the O3N2 and N2O2 diagnostics as well. The results for the O3N2 diagnostic are qualitatively similar to those of the N2 diagnostic. In Figure\u00a0\\[fig:salim\\_comp\\_n2o2\\] we examine the results of this non-parametric approach with the N2O2 diagnostic. The green line shows the median $\\log$(O/H) of the individual galaxies, while the dashed (dotted) red lines show the parametrized fit to the slope of the galaxies (stacks). Interestingly, the N2O2 diagnostic removes much of the nonlinearity of the relationship between $\\log$(O/H) and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$; the green and red lines agree across a wide range of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. Furthermore, the slope remains relatively steep, even at high masses, which is not the case for the other diagnostics.\n\nThe results of the linear fits for each diagnostic are shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:fmrFit\\]. The left panel shows the measured slope (for both the SDSS galaxies and direct method stack abundances). The right panel shows the corresponding intercept for each fit; the small circles show where the stacks fall in the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}-Z$ plane. The measured intercepts (right panel) closely track the star forming main sequence, which also follows the $Z \\propto {\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}^{1/3}$ scaling denoted by the dashed magenta line. This is consistent with momentum driven winds and a mass loading parameter $\\eta$ which scales approximately as $\\eta \\propto {\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}^{-1/3}$ [@Murray05; @Oppenheimer06].\n\nThe left panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:fmrFit\\] presents clear evidence for evolution of the slope $\\kappa$ as a function of ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ for the N2 and O3N2 diagnostics. The slope is steeper at lower masses, in agreement with previous studies [@Ellison08Apj; @Salim14]. We measure $\\kappa\\sim -0.2$ to $-0.4$. @Andrews13 measured $\\alpha = 0.66$ and the slope of the FMR to be 0.43 with the direct method. Converting their direct method $\\alpha$ to an equivalent value of $\\kappa$ yields $\\kappa \\sim -0.28$, which is in good agreement with our measurements. Furthermore, the tension between the slope derived from direct method abundances and that derived from strong line inferred abundances is significantly reduced from that found in @Andrews13. Our values of $\\kappa$ are on average steeper than @Salim14 found. This is at least in part due to the fact that our new calibrations incorporate ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ explicitly.\n\nThe nonlinear dependence of $\\log$(O/H) on ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ is most prominent in the low mass panels of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:salim\\_comp\\_n2\\]. There is a break in slope between $\\log$(O/H)$_{\\rm N2}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, which appears to denote a boundary between highly star forming galaxies and more moderately star forming galaxies. @Salim14 [@Salim15] interperet this break and the general flattening of the slope with ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ in the context of models from @Zahid14. They suggest that the ISM of the more evolved galaxies is saturated and thus the gas phase abundances are largely insensitive to inflows of pristine gas and the resulting variations in ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. In contrast, the more vigorously star forming galaxies have lower gas phase abundances which are more sensitive to inflows of pristine gas. However, the flattening in slope could also be due to the N2 diagnostic losing sensitivity at high metallicities. This would not, however, explain the similar behavior seen for the O3N2 diagnostic (see Figure\u00a0\\[fig:fmrFit\\]) which is expected to remain sensitive to oxygen abundance in the high metallicity regime.\n\nThe break in slope is not present in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:salim\\_comp\\_n2o2\\] for N2O2. Furthermore, the slope in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:salim\\_comp\\_n2o2\\] is relatively steep and constant for all ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$. Since the N2O2 diagnostic is insensitive to ionization parameter, this may mean that the ionization parameter is more tightly coupled to ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ in intensely star forming galaxies. For instance, suppose an increase in SFR in a highly star forming galaxy produced a larger increase in ionization parameter than in a more moderately star forming galaxy with the same stellar mass. This would bias the N2 and O3N2 diagnostics in the direction of lower metallicity and cause the slope between inferred $\\log$(O/H) and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ to steepen. This would explain why the break is present for N2 and O3N2, but not N2O2. We emphasize that Figures\u00a0\\[fig:salim\\_comp\\_n2\\] and\u00a0\\[fig:salim\\_comp\\_n2o2\\] show how changes in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ affect the diagnostics, from which we only *infer* a metallicity. While the break in slope may be a real effect resulting from the physical processes governing the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation, there remain potential biases associated with strong line calibrations.\n\nApplication of New Calibrations to High Redshift Galaxies {#sec:highz}\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\n\\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\odot$]{} \\[c\\]\\[\\]\\[1.\\][$\\star$]{}\n\nMost galaxies found in high redshift surveys are qualitatively similar to gas rich, metal poor, highly star forming galaxies in the local universe [@Steidel14; @Kriek14; @Shapley15; @delosReyes15]. This is at least in part a selection effect. At high redshift, bright emission line galaxies are easier to detect than quiescent galaxies. However, the average SFR and SSFR of the universe does indeed increase with redshift, peaking near $z \\sim 2$ [e.g., see the compilation by @AHopkins06]. In this section we investigate how the mean properties of high redshift galaxies compare to those of local star forming galaxies, as well as whether or not the diagnostic tools developed from galaxies in the local universe can yield useful information when applied to high redshift galaxies.\n\n### Are the Calibrations Valid at High Redshift?\n\nThe calibrations derived in Section\u00a0\\[sec:results\\] incorporate ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ relative to the local star forming main sequence. When applying these calibrations to high redshift galaxies there is an implicit comparison to the local star forming main sequence, rather than the star forming main sequence of the high redshift universe. Since the average star formation rate of the universe evolves with redshift, so does the star forming main sequence. In this sense, the local star forming main sequence is a somewhat arbitrary (albeit convenient) zero point for our calibrations. Utilizing a ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ defined relative to the high redshift star forming main sequence would require recalibrating the diagnostics using high redshift galaxies. This would merely amount to a zero-point shift [@Salim15], since in our framework the higher (S)SFRs would be balanced by lower metallicities.\n\nOne possible concern is whether or not it is appropriate to apply our calibrations to high redshift galaxies. @Steidel14 argue that the position of high redshift galaxies in the BPT diagram is largely independent of (O/H), and primarily determined by the ionization parameter $\\Gamma$, which is highly dependent on ${\\hbox{$T_{\\rm eff}$}}$, the density of star formation, and geometrical effects. They find that the correlation between (O/H) and the strong line ratios is most likely a result of the correlation between $\\Gamma$, ${\\hbox{$T_{\\rm eff}$}}$, and the stellar metallicity which, for young stellar populations, reflects the gas phase metallicity. The average ${\\hbox{$T_{\\rm eff}$}}$ may indeed evolve with redshift due to the compact, gas rich, low metallicity environments that become more common at higher redshifts. These conditions could result in stellar populations with abnormally hard ionizing spectra that drive unusual ionization conditions and abundances [@Eldridge09; @Brott11; @Levesque12; @Kudritzki00; @Kewley13a]. @Steidel14 show that a factor of 2.5 change in $\\Gamma$ has the same order of magnitude effect on N2 as a factor of five change in $Z$. Even in the local universe, a factor of 2.5 variation in ionization parameter from one object to another is not unreasonable [@Zahid12a], although the $z\\sim 2.3$ galaxies would require a *systematic* increase in ionization parameter of this order of magnitude. While there is evidence that the ionization conditions of high redshift galaxies are similar to local regions [@Nakajima13], the validity of local strong line calibrations at high redshift is further complicated by the fact that the abundance of nitrogen relative to oxygen may increase with redshift [@Steidel14; @Masters14].\n\nWhile we do not yet have direct method oxygen abundances for a large sample of $z \\geq 2$ galaxies, @Brown14 measured the direct method oxygen abundances and strong line ratios of several Lyman Break Analogs [LBAs; @Heckman05; @Hoopes07; @BasuZych07; @Overzier08; @Overzier09; @Overzier10; @Goncalves10]. LBAs are local ($z \\sim 0.2$) versions of the Lyman Break Galaxies which dominated the SFR of the universe at $z \\gtrsim 2.5$ [for a review of LBGs, see @Giavalisco02]. In the left panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:SL\\_highz\\] we compare the oxygen abundance determined with our new calibrations with the direct method (O/H) for the four LBAs from @Brown14. The circles, triangles, and inverted triangles denote the deviation of the inferred (O/H) from the direct method (O/H) for our N2, O3N2, and N2O2 calibrations respectively. The gray shaded region shows the average uncertainty of the direct method measurements.\n\nThe choice of star formation rate indicator is a source of systematic error. Our calibrations are derived using the SFRs from the ${\\hbox{MPA/JHU}}$ pipeline. In order to minimize systematic effects associated with the SFR of LBAs, we adopt the SFRs from the ${\\hbox{MPA/JHU}}$ catalog, which agree with the ${\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}$ derived SFRs from @Overzier09. While the ${\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}+24\\mu$m SFRs from @Overzier09 are regarded as the optimal SFR indicator, these values are systematically high compared to the ${\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}$ derived SFRs and result in correspondingly low oxygen abundances. Thus we recommend ${\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}$ derived SFRs when applying these calibrations.\n\nIn general, the oxygen abundances predicted by our new calibrations and the direct method oxygen abundances for these LBAs agree quite well. The biggest difference is the N2O2 based metallicity of the most massive LBA from @Brown14, J005527, which is 1$\\sigma$ larger than the direct method metallicity. However, this object displays features consistent with Wolf-Rayet stars, which may drive unusual (N/O) ratios [@Pagel86; @Henry00; @Brinchmann08; @LopezSanchez10; @Berg11]. We conclude that our new calibrations are suitable for use in LBAs, and that our new calibrations will produce reliable oxygen abundance estimates in the high redshift universe if the ionization conditions of LBAs are representative of their high-$z$ counterparts. Nevertheless, direct method abundance measurements for high redshift galaxies are still needed to determine if local calibrations are suitable for high redshift galaxies.\n\n### Application to MOSDEF $z\\sim2.3$ Galaxies\n\nThe MOSFIRE Deep Evolution Field (MOSDEF) survey [@Kriek14] is a spectrocopic survey investigating the rest frame optical emission lines of high redshift star forming galaxies. @Sanders15 used a sample of MOSDEF galaxies to stack spectra in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$\u2013SFR bins in order to measure the rest frame optical emission lines of $z\\sim2.3$ galaxies with high precision. We use the published ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, SFR, and emission line data from @Sanders15 to calculate ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ relative to the local star forming main sequence. We apply our new strong line calibrations to the high and low SFR stacks from @Sanders15 (shown as crosses in Figures\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\_MZR\\] and\u00a0\\[fig:O3N2\\_MZR\\]). We determine the uncertainty in oxygen abundances using a Monte Carlo technique similar to that used to determine the uncertainties in our own abundances (see Section\u00a0\\[sec:abund\\]). The error bars in the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ direction show the mass range of galaxies in the stack. These galaxies fall well below the local MZR. This is in agreement with @Sanders15, and other studies which have shown that high redshift, highly star forming galaxies tend to have low gas phase oxygen abundances [e.g. @Erb06; @Maiolino08; @Maier14].\n\nConceptually, if the gas fueling the star formation has low metallicity, then the ISM of highly star forming galaxies will be relatively metal poor [@Ellison08Apj; @Mannucci10; @LaraLopez10]. However, Figures\u00a0\\[fig:N2\\_MZR\\] and\u00a0\\[fig:O3N2\\_MZR\\] also show that high redshift galaxies from @Sanders15 are metal poor relative to our low-$z$ stacks with similar ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR. The right panel of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:SL\\_highz\\] shows a quantitative comparison of where high redshift galaxies fall relative to local galaxies with similar ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR. We find that the high redshift galaxies from @Sanders15 have metallicities that are on average $\\sim0.1-0.2$ dex lower than local galaxies of the same ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR. There is also evidence that the offset in $\\log$(O/H) increases with ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, as noted in @Salim15. This trend holds for both N2 and O3N2. We did not apply our N2O2 calibration as the \\[\\]\u00a0$\\lambda$3727 \u00c5\u00a0line does not fall within the spectral range of the MOSFIRE data reported by @Sanders15. The offset of the @Sanders15 galaxies toward lower oxygen abundances than local galaxies with the same ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR appears to contradict the existence of an FMR, and requires some redshift dependence of the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation.\n\n@Zahid14 use analytic and numerical models to quantify the evolution in their datasets. Their model, which they refer to as the Universal Metallicity Relation (UZR), assumes all galaxies evolve along the star forming main sequence. They model the MZR at any epoch as\n\n$$12+\\log({\\rm O/H}) = Z_O + \\log\\left[ 1 - \\exp\\left(-\\left[\\frac{{\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}}{M_O}\\right]^{\\gamma}\\right)\\right].\n\\label{eq:uzr}$$\n\nThey find that the shape of the MZR is constant (i.e. universal). Only the characteristic turnover mass ${\\hbox{$M_O$}}$ increases with redshift such that at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$, O/H decreases with redshift. Above ${\\hbox{$M_O$}}$, galaxies have essentially the same metallicity ${\\hbox{$Z_O$}}$.\n\n@Salim15 suggest that the high metallicities act as a buffer against inflows diluting the ISM, resulting in the break in $\\kappa$ seen in the top panels of Figure\u00a0\\[fig:salim\\_comp\\_n2\\]. With a sufficiently large sample of high redshift galaxies resolving the turnover in the MZR, it may be possible to directly test the evolution of ${\\hbox{$M_O$}}$ with redshift within the framework of Section\u00a0\\[sec:fmr\\]. If ${\\hbox{$M_O$}}$ increases with redshift as argued by @Zahid14, the break in $\\kappa$ should occur at a higher mass than observed for local samples of galaxies. @Salim15 examine the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation with the high redshift galaxies from @Steidel14, as well as local galaxies with relatively high values of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. Their results suggest that $\\kappa$ flattens at *high* ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, but current samples of high redshift galaxies are not yet complete enough to reveal a break in $\\kappa$ at lower values of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$.\n\nSummary {#sec:conc}\n=======\n\nWe have recalibrated strong line diagnostics with direct method oxygen abundances of galaxies and applied the new calibrations to investigate the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation. We stacked $\\sim 2 \\times 10^5$ spectra of star forming galaxies in the local universe in ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and offset from the star forming main sequence. Our main results are:\n\n-   We recalibrated the relationship between ${\\hbox{(O/H)$_{\\rm T_e}$}}$ and the N2, O3N2, N2O2 strong line ratios. This included incorporation of ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$ as an additional parameter.\n\n-   For the N2 and O3N2 diagnostics we find a higher (O/H) normalization, but similar slope, as previous calibrations. We attribute this difference to the fact that previous calibrations are based on individual regions. No single calibration significantly outperforms the others. The O3N2 diagnostic is the most accurate of the three for 43% (47/110) of the stacks, but N2O2 is typically a close second and subject to fewer biases.\n\n-   We apply our new calibrations to local star forming galaxies. In the context of galaxy evolution models, our result that the slope of our new calibrations is similar to previous calibrations implies the scaling of galactic outflows with stellar mass remains unchanged.\n\n-   We adopt the non-parametric framework presented in @Salim14 to investigate the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation in the local universe. When using the N2 and O3N2 diagnostics we find variation in the SFR dependence with both ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$, as noted in previous studies. The N2O2 diagnostic produces a nearly constant slope, independent of ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$. Below $\\log({\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}/{M_{\\odot}}) \\sim 10$, the slopes measured with strong line diagnostics are in agreement with each other and consistent with the direct method slope to within $\\sim10\\%$. At higher masses, the uncertainty in the direct method slope increases significantly, and the N2 and O3N2 inferred slopes flatten compared to N2O2. We note a modest reduction of scatter in $\\log$(O/H) at fixed ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and ${\\hbox{$\\Delta\\log$(SSFR)}}$.\n\n-   We also apply our new calibrations to high redshift galaxies presented in @Sanders15. We find these galaxies to be systematically metal poor compared to local galaxies of the same ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$}}$ and SFR, and conclude the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation evolves with redshift.\n\n-   It is possible that our O/H estimates of high redshift galaxies are biased by the ionization conditions of the high redshift universe. While direct method measurements of high redshift galaxies are required to definitively test if this is the case, we apply our new calibrations to the LBAs from @Brown14 and find consistent results with the direct method measurements of those systems.\n\nThere remains some degree of uncertainty as to whether or not these calibrations are valid in the high redshift universe. The ideal path forward would be to recalibrate these empirical relations at $z \\sim 2.3$. While direct method oxygen abundance determinations at high redshift are challenging, recent progress has been made. There have been several direct method abundance measurements obtained at $z \\sim 1$ [@Hoyos05; @Kakazu07; @Amorin10; @Amorin12], and @Yuan09 used gravitational lensing to measure ${\\hbox{[\\ion{O}{iii}]~$\\lambda$4363}}$ at $z\\sim1.7$. Most recently, @Jones15 showed that $\\alpha$ element strong line abundance diagnostics are reliable up to at least $z \\sim 0.8$. Additionally, @Steidel14 report that direct method oxygen abundances (in addition the \\[\\], \\[\\], ${\\hbox{H$\\alpha$}}$, ${\\hbox{H$\\beta$}}$, \\[\\], and \\[\\] optical strong lines) will soon be available for a subset of the KBSS-MOSFIRE targets at $z \\approx 2.36-2.57$. This will improve constraints on the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation and ionization conditions in the early universe.\n\nWhile we have restricted ourselves to two applications of our newly derived calibrations (the ${\\hbox{$M_{\\star}$--$Z$--${\\rm SFR}$}}$ relation and the high redshift universe), there are many other potential applications of these calibrations. For example, a set of abundance diagnostics based on direct method abundances of galaxies rather than individual regions is invaluable for any study concerned with gas phase abundances of galaxies, such as transient surveys like ASASSN [@Shappee14] and ZTF [@Bellm14]. There are also many applications to IFU spectroscopic galaxy surveys [e.g. MaNGA, @Bundy15], particularly in regions of galaxies where the weak lines are not detected. Lastly, next generation galaxy surveys like DESI [@DESI] will be able to make use of these calibrations to study much larger samples of galaxies.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nWe thank Roberto Maiolino, Gwen Rudie, Samir Salim, Ryan Sanders, and Chuck Steidel for comments on an early draft. We also appreciate many helpful comments and suggestions by the referee.\n\nWe appreciate the MPA-JHU group for making their catalog publicly available.\n\nThe STARLIGHT project is supported by the Brazilian agencies CNPq, CAPES and FAPESP and by the France-Brazil CAPES/Cofecub program.\n\nFunding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.\n\nThe SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.\n\n\\[lastpage\\]\n\n[^1]: E-mail: brown@astronomy.ohio-state.edu\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    In many biomedical applications, outcome is measured as a \u201ctime-to-event\u201d (eg. disease progression or death). To assess the connection between features of a patient and this outcome, it is common to assume a proportional hazards model, and fit a proportional hazards regression (or Cox regression). To fit this model, a log-concave objective function known as the \u201cpartial likelihood\u201d is maximized. For moderate-sized datasets, an efficient Newton-Raphson algorithm that leverages the structure of the objective can be employed. However, in large datasets this approach has two issues: 1) The computational tricks that leverage structure can also lead to computational instability; 2) The objective does not naturally decouple: Thus, if the dataset does not fit in memory, the model can be very computationally expensive to fit. This additionally means that the objective is not directly amenable to stochastic gradient-based optimization methods. To overcome these issues, we propose a simple, new framing of proportional hazards regression: This results in an objective function that is amenable to stochastic gradient descent. We show that this simple modification allows us to efficiently fit survival models with very large datasets. This also facilitates training complex, eg. neural-network-based, models with survival data.\n\n    **Keywords:** Survival Analysis, Cox Proportional Hazard model, Big data, Streaming Data, Stochastic Gradient Descent, Neural Networks.\nauthor:\n- |\n    Aliasghar Tarkhan and Noah Simon\\\n    Department of Biostatistics\\\n    University of Washington\\\n    Seattle, WA 98195-4322, USA\\\n    atarkhan@uw.edu and nrsimon@uw.edu\nbibliography:\n- 'ref.bib'\ntitle: 'BigSurvSGD: Big Survival Data Analysis via Stochastic Gradient Descent'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIt is commonly of interest in biomedical settings to characterize the relationship between characteristics of an individual and their risk of experiencing an event of interest [eg. progression of a disease, recovery, death, etc. see @Lee1997]. Outcomes of this type are known as \u201ctime-to-event\u201d outcomes, and characterizing such relationships is known as Survival analysis [@Schober2018]. In such applications, we often only have partial information on some patients due to censoring (e.g., they might leave the study before experiencing the event of interest).\n\nCox proportional hazards regression (CoxPH) [@Cox1972] is the most common tool for conducting survival analyses. The CoxPH model assumes a particular semi-parametric relationship between the risk at each given time of experiencing an event and the features of a patient (eg. age, sex, treatment assignment, etc). To estimate, parameters in this model CoxPH regression maximizes a log-concave function known as the \u201cpartial likelihood\u201d. Once estimated, this model can predict the person-specific risk of an event (as a function of their features). Such predictions are often used in personalized medicine, eg. in the development of prognostic and predictive biomarkers [@Bjorn2008]. To maximize the partial likelihood, it is most common to use an efficient second-order algorithm such as Newton-Raphson [@MITTAL2014] for datasets with few features (though potentially many observations). Traditionally, CoxPH has been used on data-sets with relatively few observations, though penalized extensions have been developed for high dimensional applications [@Simon2011].\n\nIt is increasingly common to have biomedical datasets with a large number of observations, especially with increasing use of electronic medical records [@Raghupathi2014]. Although the CoxPH regression model has been widely used for small-to-moderate numbers of observations, current methodologies for fitting the Cox model have issues on datasets with many observations. In particular, in fitting the Cox model, it is common to leverage the sequential structure of the partial likelihood to vastly speed up computation [from $O(n^2)$ to $O(n)$, see @Simon2011]. However, when there are a large number of observations, this can lead to computational instability (which we illustrate in this manuscript).\n\nThe second issue is that the partial likelihood does not naturally decouple over individuals or subsets of individuals. Thus, if the dataset does not fit in memory, the model can be very computationally expensive to fit: Standard distributed optimization methods such as those based the alternating direction method of multipliers [@Boyd2010] cannot be used. This additionally means that the objective is not directly amenable to stochastic gradient-based optimization methods [@Ruder2016]. Unfortunately, to fit more complex neural network-based models, it is most common to use stochastic-gradient-based optimization [@NN]. This decoupling issue makes it impossible or at least very impractical to fit neural-network-based models with time-to-event data.\n\nIn this paper, we propose a novel and simple framework for conducting survival analysis using the CoxPH model. Our framework is built upon an objective that is a modification of the usual partial likelihood function. In particular this modified objective decouples over subsets of observations, and allows us to employ stochastic-gradient-based methods that engage only a subset of our data at each iteration. We show that the parameters estimated by this new objective function are equivalent to the original parameters when the assumptions of the CoxPH model hold (and may actually be more robust in the case of model misspecification). In addition, our new objective function is amenable to optimization via stochastic-gradient based methods. Standard stochastic gradient-based algorithms are computationally efficient and stable for this objective and can easily scale to datasets that are too large to fit in memory. We discuss how our new framework can be implemented in both streaming [@Gaber2005] and non-streaming algorithms. We also discuss extending our framework to use mini-batches and we present some recommendations that we have found important, in practice, for performance.\n\nWe organize this paper as follows. In Section 2, we review the CoxPH regression model, the partial likelihood, and standard optimization tools used to maximize the partial likelihood. In Section 3, we present our new framework for fitting the CoxPH model and we prove the statistical equivalence of the parameters indicated by our optimization problem and those one from the standard CoxPH model. We also discuss applications of our proposed framework to both streaming and non-streaming algorithms. In addition, we discuss some recommendations that we have found important in practice for performance. In section \\[sec4\\] we discuss how our framework can be extended to left truncation and right censoring. In section \\[sec5\\], we discuss the equivalence of our optimization procedure to U-statistics based optimization. In Section \\[Sim\\], we provide simulation results that compare estimates from stochastic optimization of our modified objective to the current state of the art that estimates parameters by attempting to optimize the usual partial likelihood. In section \\[Conclusion\\], we conclude our paper and discuss some potential implications of our framework.\n\nCox Proportional Hazards (Cox PH) Model {#sec2}\n=======================================\n\nThe Cox PH model proposed by Cox [@Cox1972] is a commonly used semi-parametric regression model in the medical literature for evaluating the association between the time until some event of interest and a set of variable(s) measured on a patient. More formally, suppose on each patient we measure $T$ an event time, and $X = (X_1,\\ldots, X_p)$ a vector of numeric features. The Cox model engages with the so-called hazard function $$h(x,t) = \\frac{p(t|x)}{S(t|x)}$$ where $p(t|x) = \\frac{d}{dt}P(T < t|X=x)$, $S(t|x) = P(T > t|X=x)$. The hazard function, $h(x,t)$, can be thought of as the probability density of having an event at time $t$, given that a patient (with covariates $x$) has not had an event up until that time. In particular the Cox model assumes a particular form for the hazard function: $$\\begin{aligned}\nh(t, \\boldsymbol{x};\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*) = h_0(t)e^{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*}(\\boldsymbol{x})}\n\\label{e1}\\end{aligned}$$ where $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*}$ is a specified function of parameters $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*=(\\beta^*_1, \\beta^*_2, \\dots, \\beta^*_k)$ that determines the role played by $\\boldsymbol{x}$ in the hazard; and $h_0(t)$ is a baseline hazard function (independent of covariates). Note that $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*}(\\boldsymbol{x})$ may be assumed to be of different forms in different applications: For instance, in many scenarios $k$ is taken to be $p$, and the simple linear model $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x})=\\boldsymbol{x}^T\\boldsymbol{\\beta}=  + \\beta_1 x_1 + \\dots + \\beta_p x_p$ is used. This model assumes that the manner in which a patient\u2019s covariates modulate their risk of experiencing an event is independent of time. In particular it is encoded entirely in $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*}$. This simplifies estimation and interpretation of the predictive model.\n\nOur aim is to use data to estimate $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*$. In particular we will assume that we have a dataset with $n$ independent observations drawn from the model : $\\mathcal{D}^{(n)}= \\{\\mathcal{D}_i=(y_i, \\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})|i=1,2, \\dots, n\\}$. For the moment we assume that there is no censoring (all event times are observed), and no ties (all event times are unique). Estimation is conducted using the log-partial-likelihood: $$\\begin{aligned}\npl^{(n)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(n)}) &= \\operatorname{log}\\left(\\prod_{i=1}^{n} \\frac{h(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}; \\boldsymbol{\\beta})}{\\sum_{j \\in \\mathcal{R}_i}h(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)}; \\boldsymbol{\\beta})}\\right)\\nonumber\\\\\n&= \\sum_{i=1}^{n}\\left(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})-\\operatorname{log}\\left(\\sum_{j \\in \\mathcal{R}_i}e^{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)})}\\right)\\right)\n\\label{e2}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mathcal{R}_i = \\{j\\,|\\,t_j \\geq t_i\\}$ is the \u201crisk set for patient $j$\u201d. Note that aside from $\\mathcal{R}_j$, the expression in is independent of the event times. Extending this partial likelihood to deal with censoring, left-truncation and ties is quite straightforward [@Klein2003], however for ease of exposition we do not include it in this manuscript.\n\nUsing the log-partial-likelihood from equation\u00a0 an estimate of $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*$ can be obtained as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}^{(n)} = \\underset{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}{\\operatorname{argmin}}\\left\\{-pl^{(n)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(n)})\\right\\}\n\\label{e3}\\end{aligned}$$ When linear $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x})=\\bold{x}^{\\top}\\boldsymbol{\\beta}= \\beta_1 x_1 + \\dots + \\beta_p x_p$ is used, our objective function in is convex in $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}$, and thus the tools of convex optimization can be applied to find $\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}^{(n)}$ (see *Corollary 1* in Appendix \\[appA\\] for the proof of convexity). In the current gold standard [survival]{} package in [R]{} [@coxph2019], Newton-Raphson is used to minimize with linear $f$. In the later sections of this manuscript we will refer to this implementation as [coxph()]{}.\n\nFor linear $f$, one can show that $\\left\\|\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}^{(n)} - \\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{*}\\right\\|_2^2 = O_p\\left(n^{-1}\\right)$ which is rate optimal [as is standard for estimation in parametric models, see @Van2000].\n\nIn current state-of-the-art packages, the structure of the ordered structure of the loss (as well as the gradient, and hessian) are leveraged to improve computational efficiency. In particular, we examine the gradient $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\nabla_{\\beta}\\Big\\{-pl^{(n)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(n)})\\Big\\}= -\\sum_{i=1}^{n}\\Big(\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(i)})-\\frac{\\sum_{j \\in \\mathcal{R}_i}\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(j)})e^{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(j)})})}{\\sum_{j \\in \\mathcal{R}_i}e^{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(j)})}}\\Big).\n    \\label{e4}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x})=\\nabla_{\\beta}\\{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x})\\}$ is the gradient of $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x})$ with respect to $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}$. While a naive calculate would have $n^2$ computational complexity because of the nested summations, this is not necessary. In the case that the times are ordered $t_1 < t_2 <\\ldots < t_n$ we see that $R_{i} = R_{i+1}\\cup \\{i\\}$. This allows us to use cumulative sums and differences to calculate the entire gradient in $O(n)$ computational complexity, with a single $n\\operatorname{log}(n)$ complexity sort required at the beginning of the algorithm [@Simon2011]. This is also true for calculating the Hessian. Unfortunately, however, when employing this strategy, the algorithm becomes susceptible to roundoff issues, especially with a larger number of observations ($n$) and features ($p$), as seen in Section\u00a0\\[sec:sim-big\\].\n\nAdditional inspection of the gradient in shows why stochastic-gradient-based methods cannot be used to decouple gradient calculations over observations in our sample: While the gradient can be written as a sum over indices $i=1,\\ldots, n$, the denominator for the $i=1$ term involves all observations in the dataset. In the next section, we propose a novel simple modification of optimization problem\u00a0 that admits an efficient stochastic-gradient-based algorithm for estimating $\\beta^*$.\n\nBig survival data analysis using SGD: BigSurvSGD {#sec3}\n================================================\n\nWe begin by reformulating our problem. We consider a population parameter $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)}$, defined as the population minimizer of the expected partial likelihood of $s$ random patients (which we will refer to as \u201cstrata of size s\u201d) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)} = \\underset{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}{\\operatorname{argmin}}\\Big\\{\\mathbb{E}_{s}[-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]\\Big\\}\n\\label{e5}\\end{aligned}$$ Here we think of $\\mathcal{D}^{(s)}$ as a draw of $s$ random patients from our population. Note that the minimum value for $s$ is 2, otherwise, expression (2) becomes zero for all $\\beta$. By including a superscript $s$ in $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)}$, we note that this parameter may depend on $s$. In fact, when the assumptions of the Cox model hold then we have $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)} = \\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{*}$ for all $s$. The proof of this is quite simple, with details given in Appendix \\[appA\\].\n\nTo estimate $\\beta^{*}$, we select a small fixed $s$ ($s<<n$) and directly apply stochastic gradient descent to the population optimization problem . In practice this will amount to calculating stochastic gradients using random strata of size $s$. One may note that for $s$ small, there are on the order of $n^s$ such strata. However, results for stochastic gradient descent indicate that under strong convexity of , on the order of only $n$ steps should be required to obtain a rate optimal estimator (converging at a rate of $n^{-1}$ in MSE). See Appendix \\[appB\\] for the proof of this convergence rate $O(n^{-1})$.\n\nIn Section\u00a0\\[sec:sim-big\\], we see that this modification mitigates issues with roundoff error, and allows us to computationally efficiently fit survival models with millions of observations and many features.\n\nPairwise concordance ($s=2$)\n----------------------------\n\nAn interesting special case is when we choose strata of size $s=2$, and look at pairs of patients. Then, in the case of no censoring, the population minimizer in , i.e., $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(2)}$ maximizes the expectation of the pairwise log-partial likelihood $$\\begin{aligned}\n    pl^{(2)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(2)}) &= log\\Big(\\frac{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(1)})}{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(2)})+f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(1)})}\\Big)1(t_1<t_2)\\nonumber\\\\\n    &+log\\Big(\\frac{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(2)})}{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(1)})+f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(2)})}\\Big)1(t_2<t_1).\n    \\label{ep}\\end{aligned}$$ This log-partial-likelihood can be thought of as a smoothed version of the standard concordance measure used in the concordance index [@Peter2012]. Thus, even when the proportional hazards model does not hold, the parameter $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(2)}$ maintains a useful interpretation as the population minimizer of the average smoothed concordance index. is similar to the objective function for conditional logistic regression (CLR) with strata size $s=2$ [@Breslow1980]. In the deep learning literature, neural net models with a conditional logistic outcome layers are often referred to as Siamese Neural Networks [@Gregory2015], though, to our knowledge, these ideas have not been previously been applied to time-to-event data.\n\nOptimization with SGD\n---------------------\n\nSuppose that we have $n_s$ independent strata, $D^{(s)}_1, \\ldots, D^{(s)}_{n_s}$ each with $s$ independent patients drawn from our population (with $s\\geq 2$). For ease of notation, let $I_m$ denote the indices of patients in strata $D^{(s)}_m$ for each $m \\leq n_s$.\n\nWe first note, that for any $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}$ we have\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}\\mathbb{E}_s\\left[pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})\\right]= \\mathbb{E}_s\\left[\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}} \\left\\{pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m)\\right\\}\\right], \\qquad \\textrm{ for all $m\\leq n_s$}\n\\label{e6}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhen $\\bold{x}$ are drawn from a reasonable distribution (eg. bounded); and $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x})$ is not too poorly behaved (eg. lipschitz). Here $\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}} \\left\\{pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m)\\right\\}$ is defined analogously to using $\\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\nabla_{\\beta}\\Big\\{-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m)\\Big\\}= -\\sum_{i\\in I_m} \\left(\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(i)})-\\frac{\\sum_{j \\in \\mathcal{R}^m_i}\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(j)})e^{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(j)})})}{\\sum_{j \\in \\mathcal{R}^m_i}e^{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x}^{(j)})}}\\right)\n    \\label{e7}\\end{aligned}$$ where $R_i^m = \\{j\\,|\\,t_j \\geq t_i\\, \\textrm{ and } i,j\\in I_m\\}$ are risk sets that include only patients in stratum $m$; and $\\dot{f}_{\\beta}$ denotes the gradient of $f$ wrt $\\beta$.\n\nFrom here we can give the simplest version of our stochastic gradient descent (SGD) algorithm for . We choose an initial $\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(0)$ (perhaps $=0$), and at each iteration $m=1,\\ldots, n_s$, we update our estimate by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m) = \\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m-1) + \\frac{\\alpha_m}{s} \\times \\nabla_{\\beta} \\left\\{pl^{(s)}(\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m-1)|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m)\\right\\}.\n\\label{e8}\\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\\frac{\\alpha_m}{s}$ is the learning rate (and should be specified in advance, or determined adaptively as discussed later in Section\u00a0\\[sec:mmm\\]). The computation time to run $n_s$ steps of stochastic gradient descent according to for linear $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}$ is $\\sim sn_s  p = np$ (where $n = sn_s$ is the total sample size). If ordering of risk sets is not leveraged, then $\\sim nps$ computation is required. In contrast, Newton\u2019s algorithm for optimizing the full log-partial likelihood requires $\\sim np^2$ computation per iteration when the roundoff-error-prone updating rule is used (and $\\sim n^2p + np^2$ if not). Additionally, using these small strata of size $s$, we are not prone to roundoff issues when using stochastic optimization (because this sum is calculated separately for each strata).\n\n### Averaging over updates\n\nIt has been shown that SGD algorithms for *strongly convex objective-functions* are asymptotically more efficient if we use a running **average** of the iterates as the final estimate [@Ruppert1988; @Polyak1992]. Additionally in this case $\\alpha_m = \\alpha$ can be set to a fixed value (so long as it is sufficiently small). We denote the running-average estimator by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\tilde{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m) = \\frac{1}{m}\\sum_{i=1}^{m}\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(i)\n\\label{e9}\\end{aligned}$$ Note that the averaging process does not change the values of $\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m)$. In our simulations in the main manuscript, we use the averaged $\\tilde{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m)$. Strong convexity of the objective in depends on properties of $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}$ and (weakly) on the distribution of $\\bold{x}$. For linear $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}$, and $\\bold{x}$ with a non-degenerate distribution, this objective will be strongly convex (See Appendix B for the proof of strong convexity of our objective function). In such cases, standard results [@Bottou2010] show that $\\left\\|\\tilde{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m) - \\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)}\\right\\|_2^2 = O_p(m^{-1})$. As a reminder, this is the statistically optimal rate of convergence for estimating $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)}$ (or equivalently, $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{*}$ when the Cox model holds) from $m$ observations. See Appendix \\[appB\\] for the proof of this convergence rate $O(m^{-1})$ for averaging over iterates. When we use averaging over iterates, it has been shown that choosing the learning rate as $\\alpha_m=\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{m}}$ (C is a constant) gives us such an optimal convergence rate [@Eric2011]. We choose this learning rate in our simulation studies in Section \\[Sim\\] where we tune the constant $C$ to get the desired convergence rate.\n\nStreaming vs non-streaming\n--------------------------\n\nIn the discussion above, we imagined that observations were arriving in a continual stream of strata, and that we were more concerned with the cost of computation than the cost of data collection. The algorithm we described engaged with each strata only once (in calculating a single stochastic gradient). Algorithm 1 in Appendix \\[appC\\] details an implementation of a streaming algorithm in this imagined scenario. In practice, we generally have a fixed (though potentially large) number of observations, $n$, that are not naturally partitioned into strata. To employ SGD here, we randomly partition our observations into $n_s$ disjoint strata of size $s$, and then carry out our updates in . Additionally, in practice we may want to take more than one pass over the data (and similarly use more than $1$ random partitioning), we discuss this further in Section\u00a0\\[sec:mmm\\]. Algorithm 2 in Appendix \\[appC\\] details an implementation that takes multiple passes over the data (and includes additional bells and whistles discussed in Section \u00a0\\[sec:mmm\\]).\n\n### Mini-batches, Moment-based-learning-rate, and Multiple Epochs {#sec:mmm}\n\nFor small $s$, the stochastic gradients given in are potentially quite noisy. In these cases, rather than using only a single stratum to calculate the stochastic gradient, it may be preferable to average results over multiple strata. This is known as a using a mini-batch [@Ruder2016] in the SGD literature. In this survival context, we use batches of strata, so a larger strata size $s$ can eliminate the need for mini-batch sizes of greater than $1$.\n\nChoosing a reasonable value for the hyper-parameter $\\alpha_m$ (the learning rate) is critical for good practical performance of the algorithm. A number of publications have developed methods for adaptively selecting the learning rate using moments, including [Adagrad]{} [@Duchi2011], and [ADAM]{} [@Kingma2014]. However, it was shown that [ADAM]{} may not converge in some settings and an updated version called [AMSGrad]{} has been proposed [@Sashank2019]. We found substantially improved performance on simulated data with [AMSGrad]{} over the simple non-adaptive updating rule given in , especially in combination with averaging as discussed above.\n\nIn practice, taking only a single pass over the data leads to poor empirical performance. We generally use multiple passes (or \u201cepochs\u201d). In particular, for each epoch, we (1) randomly partition our data into strata; then (2) use the last updated iterate of $\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}$ from the previous epoch as the initial iterate of $\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}$ for the new epoch; and finally (3) apply a full pass of stochastic gradient descent (with eg. averaging and momentum) over the partitioned data. In practice we found that $\\sim 100$ epochs was more than enough for very robust convergence (often $10$ was fine).\n\nExtensions for Left Truncation and Right Censoring {#sec4}\n==================================================\n\nIn practice it is common for participants in a study to leave the study before experiencing an event. This is known as right censoring. In particular it is often assumed that a patient has some random \u201ctime until censoring\u201d $C$, and what we observe is $\\operatorname{min}(C,T)$, whichever happens first (the event or censoring), along with $\\delta = I(T<C)$ an indicator that the patient experienced an event (rather than censoring). Censored patients still contribute some information to estimation of $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{*}$ \u2014 in particular, if a patient is censored quite late, then there is a long period of time during which we know they did not experience an event (so likely we should estimate them to be low risk).\n\nIn some studies it is common to consider the event time $T$ as the age at which a patient had an event (rather than the calendar on study). This means that patients do not enroll in the study at $T=0$ (and patients can only be observed to fail once they are enrolled). This phenomenon, wherein patients enroll in a study at times other than $T=0$, is known as left-truncation.\n\nWhen i) the assumptions of the Cox model hold; and ii) censoring and truncation times are independent of event times conditional on covariates $\\bold{x}$, it is relatively straightforward to adapt cox regression to accommodate these missingness mechanisms. The partial likelihood is modified in 2 minor ways: 1) The outer summation is only taken over indices for which an event occurred (i.e. that were not censored); and 2) The risk sets, $R_i$, are modified to include only patients currently at risk (who have already been enrolled, and have not yet been censored, or had an event) [@Andersen1993]. We can similarly modify our objective function , and apply our algorithm with only minor modification (a slight change in the gradient).\n\nU-statistic based optimization {#sec5}\n==============================\n\nWhile in this manuscript we discuss obtaining an estimator by directly attempting to minimize the population objective function using SGD, there is a corresponding empirical minimization problem. In particular, for strata of size $s$, one could define an estimator $\\hat{\\beta}^s$ by $$\\hat{\\beta}^{(s)} = \\underset{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}{\\operatorname{argmin}}\\Big\\{-\\sum_{\\mathcal{D}^{(s)} \\subset \\mathcal{D}^{(n)}}pl^s(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})\\Big\\}\n\\label{e10}$$ As in a standard U-statistic [@Van2000], this sum is taken over all subsets of $s$ patients out of our original $n$ patients (resulting in ${n\\choose s} \\sim n^s$ terms). This appears to be a difficult optimization problem, given the enormous number of terms. However, our approach shows that, in fact, only $\\sim n$ of those terms need be considered: The majority contain redundant information. In fact, one could see this directly by noting that the objective function in\u00a0 decouples over subsets: An application of stochastic gradient descent here would involve sampling strata with replacement, and (assuming the objective is strongly convex), with averaging over iterates would converge to a tolerance of $1/n$ after $n$ steps. This approach which is known as *incomplete U-statistics* [@Gunnar1976] could be taken more generally for losses defined by $U$-statistics.\n\nSimulation Results {#Sim}\n==================\n\n**Data Generation**\n\nWe assume that our event time follows the Cox PH model with simple linear $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}$ detailed below. We generate the baseline hazard $h_0(t)$ using an exponential distribution with parameters $\\lambda=1$. We generate the censoring and event times independently. The details of the data simulation procedure are given below [@Bender2005] $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}=\\boldsymbol{1}_{P\\times 1}\\\\\n&X_i \\sim Uniform(-\\sqrt{3},\\sqrt{3})\\,\\, (\\text{unit-variance uniform variable}),\\\\\n&y_i \\sim exp(\\mu=e^{-\\boldsymbol{X}_i^T\\boldsymbol{\\beta^{*}}})\\,\\, (\\text{time to event/censoring}),\\\\\n&\\delta_i \\sim Bernoulli(p=1-p_c),\\,\\, p_c = Pr(t_i>c_i)\\\\\n\\label{e12}\\end{aligned}$$ where $y_i=min(t_i, c_i)$, i.e., time to event or censoring whichever comes first. Here $p_c$, the probability of censoring, is a parameter we can tune. Though this is not written in the form of , it is still consistent with the Cox PH model assumptions, with $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^{*}}}(\\boldsymbol{x}) = {\\boldsymbol{\\beta^{*}}}^{\\top}\\boldsymbol{x}$. In all comparisons, we include the performance of [coxph()]{} the gold standard [R]{} implementation of Newton\u2019s algorithm for maximizing the partial likelihood.\\\nWe used R version 3.6.1 [@R2019] to conduct the analyses. All simulations were conducted on a quad-core Intel Core i7-3520 M CPU @ 2.9GHz with 12 GB RAM. In all figures, we used mean of mean-square-error (MSE) over datasets for central tendency (curves) and standard error of MSE over datasets for variability (error bars o curves). Our implementation of the SGD procedure described in this manuscript is publicly available in the github repository: [https://github.com/atarkhan/bigSurvSGD]{} [@Tarkhan2020]. The implementation is written in [R]{}, with the computational back-end written in [C++]{}.\n\nSmall Data Results {#small-data-results .unnumbered}\n------------------\n\nWe first evaluate the statistical efficiency of our estimation procedure (using strata sizes of less than $n$). We evaluate mean-squared error (MSE) between estimators $\\tilde{\\beta}$, and $\\hat{\\beta}^{(n)}$ and the truth, $\\beta^{*}$ over 1000 simulated datasets with number of epochs up to 100. We see that for small strata sizes (eg. 2 and 5), there is some statistical inefficiency: Even though the convergence rate is still $\\frac{1}{n}$, the constant in front appears to be worse with small strata sizes. For large strata sizes, there appears to be nearly no statistical inefficiency. For practical purposes, the SGD-based estimators do quite well. This can be seen in Figure\u00a0\\[fig01\\].\n\nWe next evaluate the performance of averaged SGD with a fixed learning rate, against averaged SGD with an adaptive learning rate (using [AMSGrad]{}) with a fixed strata-size of $20$ for both. In addition, we try various numbers of epochs (from 10 to 100). Performance is shown in Figure\u00a0\\[fig02\\] for 1000 simulated datasets. We see that with enough epochs (around 100) both perform well. However, [AMSGrad]{} nearly reaches that performance with as few as 50 epochs, where using a fixed learning rate does not attain that performance with fewer than $100$ epochs. For both of these methods, we tuned our \\[initial\\] learning-rate to be optimal in these experiments.\n\n![$\\operatorname{log}_{10}$(MSE) of estimates from AveAMSGrad (with optimal $C$ for the learning rate defined as $\\alpha_m=\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{m}}$) for different strata sizes ($S$) with B=1, P=10, 100 epochs, and probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label=\"fig01\"}](fig1BarNoTitle.pdf \"fig:\")\\\n\n![$\\operatorname{log}_{10}(MSE)$ of estimates from averaged SGD (AveSGD), averaged AMSGrad (AveAMSGrad), and . We choose the proportionality constant $C=3$ and $C=2$ for learning rate defined as $\\alpha_m=\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{m}}$ for AveAMSGrad and AveSGD, respectively), S=20, B=1, P=10, and probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label=\"fig02\"}](fig2BarNoTitle.pdf)\n\nIn practice, we have found that [AMSGrad]{} is much more robust to misspecification of this initial learning rate. Figure \\[fig03\\] compares MSE of the estimate from AveAMSGrad for different choices of the proportionality constant in the learning rate over 1000 simulated datasets. We see that selecting the constant $C$ around 2$\\sim$5 in our learning rate (defined as $\\alpha_m=\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{m}}$) gives strong performance. However, AveAMSGrad is relatively robust to a wide range of the learning rates around the optimum value due to its capability of adapting the learning rate over iterates.\n\n![$\\operatorname{log}_{10}$(MSE) of estimates from AveAMSGrad based on sample size ($n$) with $B=1$, $P=10$, $S=20$, probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$, and different proportional constant $C$ for learning rate defined as $\\alpha_m=\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{m}}$[]{data-label=\"fig03\"}](fig3BarNoTitle.pdf)\n\nWe discussed the computational instability of [coxph()]{} in small-to-moderate sized datasets and how our framework can avoid such an instability. Figure \\[fig04\\] compares the MSE of estimates from for the small-to-moderate sample size ($n$) and number of features ($P$) over 1000 simulated datasets. As we see, performs poorly for larger $P$ and $n$. For instance, with $(P=50, n=1000)$ performs worse than $(P=50, n=100)$. This is because of computational instability with for the larger sample sizes and numbers of features. One important feature of these examples is that we include a large amount of signal (which increases as the number of features increases). With less signal, this instability is less pronounced unless very large sample sizes are used.\n\n![$\\operatorname{log}_{10}(MSE)$ of estimates from for different sample size ($n$) and different dimension of coefficient ($P$) with $s=20$ and probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label=\"fig04\"}](Fig4BarNoTitle.pdf)\n\nBig Data Results {#sec:sim-big .unnumbered}\n----------------\n\nWe next consider the numerical stability of our algorithm/framework (versus directly maximizing the full partial likelihood using Newton\u2019s algorithm). We generated 100 datasets and we only used one epoch for AveAMSGrad algorithm. Figure\u00a0\\[fig05\\] shows a surprising and unfortunate result for [coxph()]{}: We see that as sample size increases drastically, the performance of [coxph()]{} actually stops improving and starts getting worse! In particular for $p = 20$, [coxph()]{} is basically producing nonsense by the time we get to $10,000$ observations for this simulation setup. This indicates that for large datasets the current gold standard may be inadequate, though we do note that there is a large amount of signal in these simulations (more than we might often see in practice). In contrast [BigSurvSGD]{} has no such issues and gives quite strong performance even with only one epoch. Note did not add error bars for ease of illustration for this case.\n\n![MSE of estimates from AveAMSGrad (with proportional constant $C=3$ for learning rate defined as $\\alpha_m=\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{m}}$) and for different values of sample size ($n$) and dimension ($P$) with B=1, s=20, and probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label=\"fig05\"}](fig5BarNoTitle.pdf \"fig:\")\\\n\nWe next examine the computational efficiency of our framework and algorithm. Figure\u00a0\\[fig06\\] plots computing time (in seconds) for estimates of from and AveAMSGrad for different sample sizes (we did not add error bars for ease of illustration). We considered four different numbers of covariates $P=10, 20, 50$ and $P=100$ to examine the sensitivity of the computing time to the dimension of $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}$. In these examples, our algorithm read the data in chunks from the hard-drive (allowing us to engage with datasets difficult to fit in memory). The computing time of our proposed framework increases linearly in the sample size, $n$, (and in $p$). The computing time for also grows roughly linearly in $n$, though it grows quadratically in $p$ (which can be seen from the poor performance with $p=100$). Furthermore, fails for the medium-to-large datasets as it is poorly equipped to deal with datasets that do not easily fit in memory ([R]{} unfortunately generally deals somewhat poorly with memory management). For instance from Figure \\[fig06\\], with $P=100$ crashes after $10^5$ observations. As a reminder, the statistical performance of the output of [coxph()]{}, due to floating-point issues, degenerates much earlier.\n\n![Computation time (seconds) of estimates from [coxph]{} and AveAMSGrad (with C=3 for $\\alpha_m=\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{m}}$) based on sample size (n) with B=1, s=20, probability of censoring $p_c=0.2$.[]{data-label=\"fig06\"}](Fig2bNoTitle.pdf \"fig:\")\\\n\nConclusion {#Conclusion}\n==========\n\nWe propose a simple and novel framework for doing survival analysis under a Cox proportional hazards model. Our framework leverages a modified optimization problem which allows us apply iterative methods over only a subset of our observations at each time. In particular it allows us to leverage the tools of stochastic gradient descent (and its extensions). This results in an algorithm that is more computationally efficient and stable than the current state of the art. We showed that our framework can handle large survival datasets with little difficulty. This framework will also facilitate training complex models such as neural network with large survival datasets.\n\nAppendix {#appendix .unnumbered}\n========\n\nProof of consistency for parameter $\\bold{\\beta}^{(s)}$ in section 3 {#appA}\n====================================================================\n\n\\[app:theorem\\]\n\nIn this appendix, for the sake of completeness, we prove the Fisher consistency of parameter $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)}$. We treat the Cox proportional hazard model as a counting process [@SurvPoint2008]. We assume that censoring and survival times are independent given the covariate vector of interest $\\boldsymbol{x}$ and they follow the model (1) with true parameter $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*$. In the following, we define some terminology before proceeding with the proof.\n\n***Definition 1: $dN_i(u)$***. For patient $i$ with time to event $t_i$ define the counting process $dN_i(u)$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\int_a^b g(u)dN_i(u) = \\Bigg\\{ {0\\quad\\quad\\,\\,\\, if\\quad t_i\\not\\in [a,b] \\atop g(t_i)\\quad if\\quad t_i\\in [a,b]}.\\end{aligned}$$ For instance, if we define $g(u)=1$, the above expression is an indicator representing whether patient $i$ failed in interval $[a,b]$ (i.e., 1 represents failure and 0 otherwise). We further define $dN^{(s)}(u)=\\sum_{i}^s dN_i(u)$ which is a counting process for failure times over all $s$ patients. We assume that the failure time process is absolutely continuous w.r.t. Lebesgue measure on time so that there is at most one failure at any time $u$ (i.e., no ties).\n\n***Definition 2: $M_i(u)$***. We define $M_i(u)$ to be an indicator representing whether patient $i$ is at risk at time $u$, i.e., $t_i \\leq u$. By this definition, $M(u)=\\sum_{i}^sM_i(u)$ indicates number of patients who are at risk at time $u$. Note that the independent censoring assumption implies that those $M(u)$ patients at risk at time $u$ (who have not yet failed or been censored) represent a random sample of the sub-spopulation of patients who will survive until time $u$.\n\n***Definition 3: $F(u)$***. Let $F(u)$ denote the filtration that includes all information up to time $u$, i.e., $$\\begin{aligned}\n    F(u)=\\{(dN_i(t), M_i(t), x^{(i)}), i=1, \\dots, s\\,\\quad \\text{for $t<u$ and $dN^{(s)}(u)$}\\}\\end{aligned}$$ Note that given $F(u)$, we know whether patient $i$ failed or was censored (i.e., $\\delta_i$), when they failed/were censored (i.e., $y_i$), and their covariate vectors $\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}$.\\\nUsing the above definitions, one can write the log-partial-likelihood as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)}) = \\sum_{i=1}^s \\int_0^\\tau \\Big\\{f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})-log\\Big(\\sum_{l=1}^s M_l(u)exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))\\Big)\\Big\\} dN_i(u)\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\tau$ is the duration of the study. Note that we keep $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x})$ in the most general form and we only assume that it is differentiable in $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}$ for all $\\boldsymbol{x}$. Then the score function may be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    U^{s}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}) &= \\frac{\\partial pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})}{\\partial \\boldsymbol{\\beta}} \\nonumber\\\\\n    &= \\sum_{i=1}^s \\int_0^\\tau \\Big(\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})-\\frac{\\sum_{l=1}^s M_l(u)\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))}{\\sum_{l=1}^s M_l(u)exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))} \\Big)dN_i(u)\\nonumber\\\\\n    &= \\sum_{i=1}^s \\int_0^\\tau \\Big(\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})-\\sum_{l=1}^{s}w_l\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}) \\Big)dN_i(u)\\nonumber\\\\\n    &= \\sum_{i=1}^s\\int_0^\\tau \\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)-\\sum_{l=1}^{s}\\int_0^\\tau w_l\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}) dN^{(s)}(u).\n    \\label{A2}\\end{aligned}$$ where $w_l = \\frac{M_l(u)exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))}{\\sum_{l=1}^s M_l(u)exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))}$ is a weight proportional to the hazard of failure of patient $l$; $dN^{(s)}(u)=\\sum_{i=1}^sdN_i(u)$.\\\nNow we show that the parameter $\\boldsymbol{\\beta^{(s)}}$ is Fisher consistent, i.e., $E[U^{s}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*})]=0$. $$\\begin{aligned}\n    E_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}}[U^{s}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*})] &= E_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}}\\Big[\\sum_{i=1}^s\\int_0^\\tau \\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)-\\sum_{l=1}^{s}\\int_0^\\tau w_l\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})dN^{(s)}(u)\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\\n    &=\\sum_{i=1}^s\\int_0^\\tau E_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}}\\Big[\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)\\Big]-\\sum_{l=1}^{s}\\int_0^\\tau E_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}}\\Big[w_l\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})dN^{(s)}(u)\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(a)}{=}\\sum_{i=1}^s\\int_0^\\tau E_{F(u)}\\Big[E_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}|F(u)}[\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)]\\Big]\\nonumber \\\\\n    &\\,\\,- \\sum_{l=1}^{s}\\int_0^\\tau E_{F(u)}\\Big[E_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}|F(u)}[w_l\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})]dN^{(s)}(u)\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(b)}{=}\\sum_{i=1}^s\\int_0^\\tau E_{F(u)}\\Big[E_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}|F(u)}[\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN_i(u)]\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\ \n    &- \\sum_{l=1}^{s}\\int_0^\\tau E_{F(u)}\\Big[w_l\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})dN^{(s)}(u)\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(c)}{=}\\sum_{i=1}^s\\int_0^\\tau E_{F(u)}\\Big[w_i\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})dN^{(s)}(u)\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\ \n    &- \\sum_{l=1}^{s}\\int_0^\\tau E_{F(u)}\\Big[w_l\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})dN^{(s)}(u)\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\\n    &= 0\n    \\label{A3}\\end{aligned}$$ where (a) follows from the conditional expectation given the filtration $F(u)$; (b) follows from the fact that $w_l$ and $\\dot{f}_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$ are known given $F(u)$; (c) follows from the fact that $E_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}|F(u)}[dN_i(u))]=w_idN(u)$. Since $E_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*}}[U^{s}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta^*})]=0$, the parameter $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)}$ is Fisher consistent. In the following, we present a sufficient condition under which such a parameter is a global minmizer of $E[-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$.\\\n***Corollary 1:*** The $\\boldsymbol{\\beta^{(s)}}$ is a global minimizer of $E[-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$ if $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$ is an affine function of $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}$.\\\n*Proof*. Suppose that we choose $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$ a convex function of $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}$. Then, the first term inside summation of $-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})$ (i.e., $-f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$) is a concave function. We show that the second term inside summation of $-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})$, i.e., $log\\Big(\\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))\\Big)$ is a convex function through the following steps:\\\n*Step 1:* $exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))$ is a convex function because $exp(.)$ is a non-decreasing convex function and $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$ is convex [@Boyd2004 sec.\u00a03.2.4].\\\n*Step 2:* $\\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))$ is a convex function because non-negative weighted sums of convex functions is convex [@Boyd2004 sec.\u00a03.2.1].\\\n*Step 3:* $log\\Big(\\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))\\Big)$ is a convex function because $log(.)$ is non-decreasing concave function and $\\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)})$ is a convex function [@Boyd2004 sec.\u00a03.2.4].\\\nTherefore, expression $-f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})Y_i(u)+log\\Big(\\sum_{l=1}^s Y_l(u)exp(f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(l)}))\\Big)$ is the sum of a concave function and a convex function. A sufficient condition for convexity of this expression is convexity of $-f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$ or equivalently concavity of $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$. This means that $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$ needs to be both convex and concave at the same time. The only functions that satisfy this condition are affine functions [@Boyd2004 sec.\u00a03.1.1]. By choosing $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)})$ as an affine function, $-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})$ and hence $E[-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$ become convex functions. Therefore, the parameter $\\boldsymbol{\\beta^{(s)}}$ becomes a global minimizer of $E[-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$. $\\square$\n\nHaving the loss function $E[-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]$ a convex function motivates us to explore the convergence rate of SGD-based minimization algorithms in the next section.\n\nConvergence rate of SGD-based estimate {#appB}\n======================================\n\nIn this appendix, for the sake of completeness, we prove that our SGD-based estimate can achieve the convergence rate of $O(n^{-1})$ for choices $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\bold{x})=\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^T\\bold{x}$, $s=2$, and no ties. We also assume that our covariates are bounded, i.e., there exists some $C < \\infty$ such that $||\\bold{x}||<C$ with probability $1$ and that we consider a domain of optimization $\\bold{B}$ such that $\\underset{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}\\in \\bold{B}}{\\operatorname{max}}\\Big\\{||\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^T\\boldsymbol{x}||\\Big\\}<\\infty$.\\\nFor the sake of simplicity of proof, we rewrite our optimization procedure as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)} &= \\underset{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}{\\operatorname{argmin}}\\Big\\{\\mathbb{E}_{s}[-pl^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)})]\\Big\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n&= \\underset{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}{\\operatorname{argmin}}\\Big\\{\\mathbb{E}_{s}[L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})]\\Big\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n&= \\underset{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}{\\operatorname{argmin}}\\Big\\{L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\Big\\},\n\\label{B1}\\end{aligned}$$ and we estimate $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^{(s)}$ iteratively using SGD from strata of size $s$ through $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m) = \\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m-1) - \\alpha_m \\times\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m-1)|\\mathcal{D}^{(s)}_m).\n\\label{B2}\\end{aligned}$$ Authors in [@Eric2011] showed that if the loss function $L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ satisfies the 4 following conditions, then, we can achieve the optimal convergence rate of $O(m^{-1})$ by choosing $\\alpha_k=Cm^{-1}$ for the single SGD-based iterates $\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m)$ and $\\alpha_k=Cm^{-1}$, $r \\in [0.5, 1)$ for averaging over iterates $\\tilde{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(m)$ (i.e., Polyak-Ruppert average).\\\n**Condition 1:** Gradient of $L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ is an unbiased estimate of the gradient $L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$,\\\n**Condition 2:** Gradient of $L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ is D-Lipschitz-continuous, i.e., $\\forall$ $k\\geq 1$ and $\\forall$ $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_1, \\boldsymbol{\\beta}_2 \\in \\mathbb{R}^p$, there exists $D\\geq0$ such that, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    ||\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_1)-\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_2)||\\leq D||\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_1-\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_2||,\n    \\label{B3}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n**Condition 3:** $L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})=\\mathbb{E}_{s}[L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})]$ is $\\mu$-strongly convex, i.e., $\\forall$ $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_1, \\boldsymbol{\\beta}_2 \\in \\mathbb{R}^p$, there exists $\\mu>0$ such that, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_1) \\geq L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_2)+\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_2)^T(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_1-\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_2)+\\frac{\\mu}{2}||\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_1-\\boldsymbol{\\beta}_2||^2,\n    \\label{B4}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n**Condition 4:** Variance of the gradient of $L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ is bounded, i.e., there exists $\\sigma^2 \\in \\mathbb{R}_{+}$ such that for all $k\\geq$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\mathbb{E}(||\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^*)||^2) \\leq \\sigma^2, w.p.1,\n    \\label{B5}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn the following, we show that the loss function in our framework, i.e., $L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ satisfies all four conditions above.\\\n**Proof of Condition 1:**\\\nThis condition is automatically satisfied based on the definition of $L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})=\\mathbb{E}_{s}[L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})]$ in and that $\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})=\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}\\mathbb{E}_{s}[L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})]=\\mathbb{E}_{s}[\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})]$.\\\n**Proof of condition 2:** The loss function $L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ belongs to $C^\\infty$ continuous function family and proving is equivalent to proving $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\exists\\, D\\geq0,\\, s.t., \\,\\forall \\nu \\in S_\\nu=\\{\\nu: ||\\nu||_2 = 1\\},\\quad \\nu^T\\nabla^2_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\nu \\leq D\n    \\label{B6}.\\end{aligned}$$ For $f_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(\\boldsymbol{x})=\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^T\\boldsymbol{x}$, $s=2$ and assuming no ties, $\\nabla^2_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ can be simplified as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\nabla^2_{\\beta}\\Big\\{L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\Big\\}&= w(1-w)\\bold{X}\\begin{bmatrix}\n1 & -1 \\\\\n-1 & 1\n\\end{bmatrix}\\bold{X}^T\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\times\\Big(1(\\delta_1=1)1(y_1<y_2)+1(\\delta_2=1)1(y_2<y_1)\\Big)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=w(1-w)(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})^T\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\times\\Big(1(\\delta_1=1)1(y_1<y_2)+1(\\delta_2=1)1(y_2<y_1)\\Big)\n    \\label{B7}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\bold{X} = [\\bold{x}^{(1)}, \\bold{x}^{(2)}]$; $w = w_1(\\bold{x}^{(1)},\\bold{x}^{(2)}, \\boldsymbol{\\beta})= 1-w_2(\\bold{x}^{(1)},\\bold{x}^{(2)}, \\boldsymbol{\\beta})=\\frac{e^{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^T\\boldsymbol{x}^{(1)}}}{e^{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^T\\boldsymbol{x}^{(1)}}+e^{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^T\\boldsymbol{x}^{(2)}}}$. Note that $1(\\delta_1=1)1(y_1<y_2)+1(\\delta_2=1)1(y_2<y_1) \\leq 1$ and that $w(1-w)\\leq0.25$ because $0\\leq w \\leq 1$. Therefore we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\nu^T\\nabla^2_{\\beta}\\Big\\{L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\Big\\}\\nu&\\leq 0.25 \\times \\nu^T(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})^T\\nu\\nonumber\\\\\n    &=0.25\\times ||\\nu^T(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})||_2^2\\nonumber\\\\\n    & \\leq 0.25\\times ||(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})||_2^2\\times ||\\nu||_2^2\\nonumber\\\\\n    & \\stackrel{(a)}{\\leq} 0.25 \\times (||\\bold{x}^{(1)}||_2^2 + ||\\bold{x}^{(2)}||_2^2)\\nonumber\\\\\n    & \\leq 0.25 \\times 2 \\times max(||\\bold{x}^{(1)}||_2^2, ||\\bold{x}^{(2)}||_2^2)\\nonumber\\\\\n    & \\leq 0.5 \\times {\\underset{i}{\\operatorname{max}}{||\\bold{x}^{(i)}||_2^2}},\n    \\label{B8}\\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows the triangle inequality. Therefore, by assuming our covariates $\\boldsymbol{x}$ are bounded, gradient of $L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ is $D-$Lipschitz-continuous with $D=0.5 \\times {\\underset{i}{\\operatorname{max}}{||\\bold{x}^{(i)}||^2}}$. This completes the proof of **Condition 2**. $\\square$\\\n**Proof of condition 3:** The loss function $L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ belongs to the $C^\\infty$ continuous function family and proving is equivalent to proving $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\exists\\, \\mu>0, \\, s.t.\\, \\forall \\nu \\in S_\\nu=\\{\\nu: ||\\nu||_2 = 1\\},\\quad \\nu^TI(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\nu \\geq \\mu\n    \\label{B9}.\\end{aligned}$$ where $I(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}) = \\mathbb{E}_{s}[\\nabla^2_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})]$ is the expected Hessian matrix. Starting from , $I(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ can be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    I(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}) &=E_s\\Big[\\nabla^2_{\\beta}\\Big\\{L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\Big\\}\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\\n    &=E_{X, Y, \\Delta}\\Big[\\nabla^2_{\\beta}\\Big\\{L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\Big\\}\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(a)}{=}E_{X}\\Bigg[E_{Y|X}\\Big[E_{\\Delta|X, Y}[\\nabla^2_{\\beta}\\Big\\{L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\Big\\}]\\Big]\\Bigg]\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(b)}{=}(1-p_c)E_{X}\\Big[w(1-w)(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})^T(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\\n    &=(1-p_c) \\int_{X^{(1)}, X^{(2)}}\\Big[w(1-w)(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})^T(\\bold{x}^{(1)}-\\bold{x}^{(2)})\\Big]P_{X}(x)\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(c)}{=} (1-p_c) \\int_{\\bold{Z}}w(1-w)\\bold{Z}^T\\bold{Z}P_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\n    \\label{B10}\\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows the expansion of the intersection using conditional probabilities; $(b)$ follow from the fact that $p_c=E_{\\Delta}[1(\\delta_i=0))]=P_{\\Delta}(\\delta_i=0)$ is the probability of censoring and that we have $E_{Y}[1(y_1<y_2))+1(y_2<y_1)] = Pr(y_1<y_2) + Pr(y_2<y_1)=1$; $(c)$ follows from the change of variable $\\bold{Z}=\\bold{X}^{(1)}-\\bold{X}^{(2)}$. Note that since random variables $\\bold{X}^{(1)}$ and $\\bold{X}^{(2)}$ have density with respect to the Lebesgue measure, random variable $\\bold{Z}$ also has a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Then we can write $\\nu^TI(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\nu$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\nu^TI(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\nu &= (1-p_c)\\int_{\\bold{Z}}w(1-w)\\nu^T\\bold{Z}^T\\bold{Z}\\nu P_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\\nonumber\\\\\n    &= (1-p_c)\\int_{\\bold{Z}}w(1-w)||{\\nu}^T\\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\n    \\label{B11}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNow we prove strong convexity of $L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ by contradiction. The negation of statement is: $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\forall \\mu >0,\\, \\exists \\nu_\\mu \\in S_\\nu=\\{\\nu: ||\\nu||_2 = 1\\},\\, s.t.\\quad \\nu_\\mu^TI(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\nu_\\mu < \\mu.\n    \\label{B12}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n*Claim 1:* Suppose the statement in \\[B12\\] holds (or equivalently does not hold), then there exists a $\\nu^* \\in S_\\nu=\\{\\nu: ||\\nu||_2 = 1\\}$ such that we have $P_\\bold{z}(||{\\nu^*}^T\\bold{z}||_2=0)=1$.\\\n*Proof:* Since we assumed $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}^T\\boldsymbol{x}$ is bounded, there exists a constant $0<C_w<1$ such that $C_w<w<1-C_w$, and hence $w(1-w)>C_w^2$. Therefore, using , the statement implies that for any $\\mu>0$ there exists $\\nu_\\mu \\in S_\\nu$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\mu &> \\nu_\\mu^TI(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})\\nu_\\mu=(1-p_c)\\int_{\\bold{Z}}w(1-w)||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(a)}{>}(1-p_c)C_w^2\\int_{\\bold{Z}}||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\\nonumber\\\\\n    &=(1-p_c)C_w^2\\int_{\\bold{Z}}\\Big(1(||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2<\\epsilon))+1(||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2>\\epsilon)\\Big)||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\geq (1-p_c)C_w^2\\int_{\\bold{Z}}1(||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2>\\epsilon)||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2P_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\\nonumber\\\\\n    &> (1-p_c)C_w^2\\epsilon P_{\\bold{Z}}(||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2>\\epsilon).\n    \\label{B13}\\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\\epsilon$ is an arbitrary positive value. Therefore, for such a $\\nu_\\mu$, expression is equivalent to $$\\begin{aligned}\n    P_{\\bold{Z}}(||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2>\\epsilon) < \\frac{\\mu}{(1-p_c)C_w^2\\epsilon}\\quad \\forall \\mu, \\, \\epsilon>0\n    \\label{B14}\\end{aligned}$$ or equivalently, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    P_{\\bold{Z}}(||\\nu_\\mu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2<\\epsilon) >1- \\frac{\\mu}{(1-p_c)C_w^2\\epsilon}\\quad \\forall \\mu, \\, \\epsilon>0.\n    \\label{B15}\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there exists an infinite sequence $\\nu_1, \\dots, \\nu_k, \\dots$ such that for the choices of $\\mu_k(\\delta)=\\delta(1-p_c)C_w^2\\epsilon$ and $\\epsilon_k=\\frac{1}{k}$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\forall\\,\\delta>0\\,, \\exists\\,K>0\\,, s.t.\\,, \\forall\\, k > K: Pr(||\\nu_k^T\\bold{z}||_2\\leq \\frac{1}{k}) > 1-\\delta.\n    \\label{B16}\\end{aligned}$$ Since $S_\\nu$ is a compact space, this sequence has an infinite subsequence converging to a point $\\nu^* \\in S_\\nu$. For such a converging point $\\nu^*$, we can write, for all $k$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    ||{\\nu^*}^T\\bold{z}||_2 &= ||(\\nu^*-\\nu_{k}+\\nu_{k})^T\\bold{z}||_2\\nonumber\\\\\n    & \\stackrel{(a)}{\\leq} ||(\\nu^*-\\nu_{k})^T\\bold{z}||_2+||\\nu_{k}^T\\bold{z}||_2\\nonumber\\\\\n    & \\leq ||\\nu^*-\\nu_{k}||_2||\\bold{z}||_2+||\\nu_{k}^T\\bold{z}||_2\\nonumber\\\\\n    & \\stackrel{(b)}{\\leq} ||\\nu^*-\\nu_{k}||_2C_z+||\\nu_{k}^T\\bold{z}||_2,\n    \\label{B17}\\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows the triangle inequality and $(b)$ follows the boundedness of variable $\\bold{Z}$ (i.e., $||\\bold{z}||_2\\leq C_z$) due to boundedness of variable $\\bold{X}$. From , we may write $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\forall\\,\\delta>0\\,, \\epsilon>0\\,, \\exists\\,K_1>0\\,, s.t.\\,, \\forall\\, k > K_1: Pr(||\\nu_k^T\\bold{z}||_2\\leq \\frac{\\epsilon}{2}) > 1-\\delta,\n    \\label{B18}\\end{aligned}$$ and since $\\nu_k$ converges to $\\nu^*$, we may write $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\forall\\,\\delta>0\\,, \\epsilon>0\\,, \\exists\\,K_2>0\\,, s.t.\\,, \\forall\\, k > K_2: Pr(||\\nu^*-\\nu_k||_2\\leq \\frac{\\epsilon}{2C_z}) > 1-\\delta.\n    \\label{B19}\\end{aligned}$$ Then $\\forall\\,\\delta>0$ and $\\forall\\,\\epsilon>0$, for $K_{max}=max(K_1, K_2)$ we have that for all $k>K_{max}$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    Pr(||{\\nu^*}^T\\bold{z}||_2 &\\leq ||\\nu^*-\\nu_{k}||_2C_z+||\\nu_{k}^T\\bold{z}||_2\\nonumber\\\\\n    & \\leq \\frac{\\epsilon}{2C_z}\\times C_z + \\frac{\\epsilon}{2}=\\epsilon) > 1-\\delta,\n    \\label{B20}\\end{aligned}$$ taking $\\epsilon, \\delta \\rightarrow 0$, we have that $P_{\\bold{Z}}(||{\\nu^*}^T\\bold{z}||_2=0)=1$. This completes the proof of *Claim 1*. $\\square$\\\n*Claim 2:* If random variable $\\bold{X}^{(1)}$ and $\\bold{X}^{(2)}$ have density with respect to the Lebesgue measure, then we have $P_{\\bold{Z}}(||{\\nu}^T\\bold{z}||_2=0)<1$ for any $\\nu \\in S_\\nu=\\{\\nu: ||\\nu||_2 = 1\\}$.\\\n*Proof:* Random variables $\\bold{X}^{(1)}$ and $\\bold{X}^{(2)}$ have density with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Therefore, variable $\\bold{Z}$ also has a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Therefore, for any $\\nu \\in S_\\nu=\\{\\nu: ||\\nu||_2 = 1\\}$, $\\bold{Z}$ cannot only be on a plane orthogonal to $\\nu$. In other words, $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\forall \\nu \\in S_\\nu=\\{\\nu: ||\\nu||_2 = 1\\}, \\exists \\epsilon_{\\nu}>0\\, \\text{and}\\, \\exists \\delta_{\\nu}>0\\, s.t.\\quad P_{\\bold{Z}}(||{\\nu^*}^T\\bold{z}||_2^2>\\epsilon_{\\nu}) > \\delta_{\\nu}.\n    \\label{B21}\\end{aligned}$$ Then for any $\\nu \\in S_\\nu=\\{\\nu: ||\\nu||_2 = 1\\}$, the integral $\\int_{\\bold{Z}}||\\nu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2dP_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})$ can be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\int_{\\bold{Z}}||\\nu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2dP_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})&=\\int_{\\bold{Z}}\\Big(1(||\\nu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2<\\epsilon_{\\nu}))+1(||\\nu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2>\\epsilon_{\\nu})\\Big)||\\nu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2dP_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\geq \\int_{\\bold{Z}}1(||\\nu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2>\\epsilon_{\\nu})||\\nu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2dP_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\\nonumber\\\\ \n    &> \\epsilon_{\\nu}\\int_{\\bold{Z}}1(||\\nu^T\\bold{z}||_2^2>\\epsilon_{\\nu})dP_{\\bold{Z}}(\\bold{z})\\nonumber\\\\\n    &= \\epsilon_{\\nu} P_{\\bold{Z}}(||{\\nu^*}^T\\bold{z}||_2^2>\\epsilon_{\\nu})\\nonumber\\\\\n    &> \\epsilon_{\\nu} \\delta_{\\nu} > 0,\n    \\label{B22}\\end{aligned}$$ indicating that $P_{\\bold{Z}}(||{\\nu}^T\\bold{z}||_2=0)<1$ (or $P_{\\bold{Z}}(||{\\nu}^T\\bold{z}||_2=0)\\not=1$). This completes the proof of *Claim 2*. $\\square$\\\n*Claim 1* indicated that if the strong convexity statement does not hold, we must have $P_\\bold{z}(||{\\nu^*}^T\\bold{z}||_2=0)=1$. This is in contradiction with the result of *Claim 2* indicating that for random variable $\\bold{Z}$ with Lebesgue density we have $P_\\bold{z}(||{\\nu^*}^T\\bold{z}||_2=0)\\not=1$. Therefore, is not true and the statement holds, i.e., $L(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ is strongly convex. This completes the proof of **Condition 3**. $\\square$\\\n**Proof of condition 4:** The gradient of $L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})$ may be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta}) = \\sum_{i=1}^s1(\\delta_i=1)(\\bold{x}^{(i)}-\\sum_{j \\in R_i}w_j\\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)}).\n    \\label{B23}\\end{aligned}$$ Then we can write $$\\begin{aligned}\n    ||\\nabla_{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}L^{(s)}(\\boldsymbol{\\beta})||^2 &= ||\\sum_{i=1}^s1(\\delta_i=1)(\\bold{x}^{(i)}-\\sum_{j \\in R_i}w_j\\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)})||^2 \\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(a)}{\\leq} \\Big(\\sum_{i=1}^s(||1(\\delta_i=1)||\\times||\\bold{x}^{(i)}-\\sum_{j \\in R_i}w_j\\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)})||\\Big)^2\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(b)}{\\leq} \\Big(\\sum_{i=1}^s(||\\bold{x}^{(i)}||+||\\sum_{j \\in R_i}w_j\\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)}||)\\Big)^2\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\stackrel{(c)}{\\leq} \\Big(\\sum_{i=1}^s(||\\bold{x}^{(i)}||+ {\\underset{j \\in R_i}{\\operatorname{max}}{||\\boldsymbol{x}^{(j)}||)}} \\Big)^2\\nonumber\\\\\n    &\\leq 4S^2{\\underset{i}{\\operatorname{max}}{||\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}||^2}}\n    \\label{B24}\\end{aligned}$$ where $(a)$ follows from the triangle inequality; $(b)$ and $(c)$ follow from the triangle inequality and that $w_j\\leq1$. Therefore, given boundedness of covariates $\\bold{x}$, we can choose $\\sigma=2S{\\underset{i}{\\operatorname{max}}{||\\boldsymbol{x}^{(i)}}}||$. This completes the proof of **Condition 4**. $\\square$\\\nWe showed that all four conditions are satisfied and thus the results in [@Eric2011] give us our claimed convergence rates for both single SGD-based estimates and averaging over estimates (Polyak-Ruppert average).\n\nImplementation of streaming and non-streaming algorithms using BigSurvSGD {#appC}\n=========================================================================\n\nIn this section, we present the implementation of both streaming and non-streaming mini-batch stochastic gradient descent algorithms using our proposed framework BigSurvSGD. Without loss of generality, we only present algorithms without the moment-based step-size adaptation.\n\nImplementation of a streaming algorithm {#secAC1}\n---------------------------------------\n\nAs we discussed before, our proposed framework facilitates the implementation of an algorithm dealing with the streaming data. Such an implementation is very straightforward. The coefficient estimate (i.e., $\\boldsymbol{\\beta}$) is updated in a streaming fashion. Thus there is no need to collect all the data before estimation (as would be required by [coxph()]{}. Each mini-batch can be as small as the size of the strata we use. Thus we will not run into memory issues. Algorithm \\[algStreaming\\] gives the details of a streaming algorithm using our proposed framework.\n\n**Initialization**:\\\nChoose strata size $s$\\\n$\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(0)=\\boldsymbol{0}$\\\nChoose $C$ for $\\alpha_m=\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{m}}$\n\nImplementation of a non-streaming mini-batch gradient descent algorithm {#secAC2}\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn many cases, it is of interest to consider each datum more than once (this can empirically improve performance). In this case, we will still use a mini-batch stochastic gradient descent algorithm. Here we present the implementation of a non-streaming mini-batch gradient descent algorithm (that includes mini-batches and multiple epochs). We being by splitting our data evenly into mini-batches, each with $K$ strata of size $s$. Then we iteratively update the estimate using batches of strata. Using multiple, rather than single strata per batch results in more stable (less noisy) gradients. We use the learning rate $\\frac{\\alpha_m}{s\\times K}$ instead of $\\frac{\\alpha_m}{s}$ as the gradient in each step of mini-batch gradient descent is the sum of gradients over $K$ strata with size $s$. Algorithm \\[algMiniBatch\\] summarizes the implementation of a non-streaming mini-batch gradient descent algorithm using our proposed framework. One strength of such an implementation compared to [coxph()]{} is we can read batches of strata chunk-by-chunk from the hard drive. Therefore, such an implementation can handle large amounts of data without facing memory issues.\n\n**Initialization**:\\\nChoose strata size $s$\\\nChoose batch size $K$\\\nChoose number of epochs $n_E$\\\n$m=0$\\\n$\\hat{\\boldsymbol{\\beta}}(0)=\\boldsymbol{0}$\\\nChoose $C$ for $\\alpha_m=\\frac{C}{\\sqrt{m}}$\\\n\n0.2in\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We propose to compute Wasserstein barycenters (WBs) by solving for Monge maps with variational principle. We discuss the metric properties of WBs and explore their connections, especially the connections of Monge WBs, to K-means clustering and co-clustering. We also discuss the feasibility of Monge WBs on unbalanced measures and spherical domains. We propose two new problems \u2013 regularized K-means and Wasserstein barycenter compression. We demonstrate the use of VWBs in solving these clustering-related problems.'\nbibliography:\n- 'main.bib'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intro}\n============\n\nClustering distributional data according to their spatial similarities has been a core issue in machine learning.\n\nNumerous theories and algorithms for clustering problems have been developed to help understand the structure of the data and to discover homogeneous groups\n\nin their embedding spaces\n\n. Clustering algorithms also apply to unsupervised learning problems that pass information from known centroids to unknown empirical samples\n\n. Occasionally, researchers regard clustering as finding the optimal semi-discrete correspondence between distributional data or vice versa.\n\nOptimal transportation (OT) techniques have gained increasing popularity in the past two decades for measuring the distance between distributional data as well as aligning them together. Rooted in the OT theories, several OT-based clustering algorithms have emerged in recent years as alternatives, thanks to their efficiency and robustness. In these works, the researchers discovered the connections between different clustering problems and the OT problem through the Wasserstein barycenter (WB) formulation which computes a \u201cmean\u201d of one or multiple distributions. However, most of them deliver the results as *soft assignments* that need to be further discretized.\n\nIn this paper, we propose to compute the Wasserstein barycenter based on Monge OT and explore its natural connections to different clustering problems that prefer *hard assignments*. We base our OT solver on variational principles and coin our method as variational Wasserstein barycenters. We study the metric properties of WBs and use them to explain and solve different clustering-related problems such as regularized K-means clustering, co-clustering, and vector quantization and compression. We also show its immunity to unbalanced measures and its extension to measures on spherical domains. We discuss our method from different angles through comparison with other barycenter methods. We show the advantages of Monge OT-based barycenters in solving geometric clustering problems. We are among the first few that compute Monge barycenters and discover its connections to clustering problems.\n\nRelated Work and Our Contributions {#sec:related}\n==================================\n\nComputational clustering algorithms date back to\u00a0[@lloyd1982least; @forgy1965cluster] for solving K-means problems. From then, researchers have proposed different formulations and algorithms such as spectral clustering\n\nand density-based clustering\n\n. Mixture modeling, especially Gaussian mixture modeling, is also considered to be a robust solution to clustering problems\n\n. Hierarchical clustering\n\nand co-clustering\n\nalso attracted much attention in the machine learning community. [@xu2005survey] surveys some classic clustering algorithms.\n\nThe term \u201c*geometric clustering*\u201d appeared in the early literature, such as [@murtagh1983survey; @quigley2000fade], referring to clustering samples into subspaces according to their location in the metric space, usually the Euclidean space. In\u00a0[@applegate2011unsupervised], the authors discuss the connection between K-means and another famous problem \u2013 the OT distance, or the Wasserstein distance.\n\nThe transportation problem has attracted many mathematicians since its very birth. Monge first raised the problem\u00a0[@monge1781memoire] as finding a measure-preserving map between probability measures; Kantorovich extended the problem to finding a joint probability measure\u00a0[@kantorovich1942translocation]; Brenier further connected the OT problem to fluid dynamics and convex geometry\u00a0[@brenier1991polar]. It\u2019s early applications include comparing 1D histograms for image retrieval\u00a0[@rubner2000earth]. Thanks to efficient OT solvers, e.g., [@cuturi2013sinkhorn],\n\nOT has become a popular tool in machine learning with which we compare distributional data.\n\nMeanwhile, by regarding the OT distance as a metric, we can interpolate in the space of probability measure. [@mccann1997convexity] laid the foundation; [@agueh2011barycenters] developed the problem into a general scenario and coined the term \u201c*Wasserstein barycenters*\u201d. [@cuturi2014fast; @ho2017multilevel; @mi2018variational] relate WBs to K-means like clustering problems and [@leclaire2019fast; @lee2019hierarchical] explored the use of OT for hierarchical clustering. [@claici2018stochastic] is among the latest work on scalable semi-discrete Wasserstein barycenters. Most of them follow Kantorovich\u2019s static OT; few of them follow Monge\u2019s, or Brenier\u2019s, dynamic version that regards OT as a gradient flow in the probability space.\n\nCompared to previous work, our contribution is three-fold:\n\n1\\) We derive the WB based on Monge\u2019s OT formulation and explore its connections to different clustering problems; 2) We prove the metric properties of our WB and propose it as a metric for evaluating multi-marginal clustering algorithms; 3) We explore the advantages and disadvantages of Monge WB through empirical comparison with other methods.\n\nPrimer on Optimal Transportation {#sec:primer}\n================================\n\nWe begin by iterating key concepts of optimal transportation (OT), variational OT, and Wasserstein barycenters (WBs). Suppose $\\MU, \\NU$ are *Borel probability distributions* supported in *Polish spaces* $\\X(\\x)$, $\\Y(\\y)$, respectively. Let $\\MUS(\\X \\times \\Y)$ be the set of all probability distributions on $\\X \\times \\Y$. Then, we denote by $\\PS(\\MU,\\NU) = \\{\\PI \\in \\MUS(\\X \\times \\Y)\\ |\\ \\int_{\\X}d\\PI(\\x, \\y) = d\\NU(\\y), \\int_{\\Y}d\\PI(\\x, \\y) = d\\MU(\\x) \\}$ the set of all transportation maps $\\PI$ between $\\MU$ and $\\NU$. Thus, $\\PI$ is also the joint distribution of $\\MU$ and $\\NU$ and $d\\PI(\\x, \\y)$ specifies the *mass* transported across $\\x$ and $\\y$. In addition, we use $\\Dist(\\x, \\y): \\X \\times \\Y \\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}^{\\geq 0}$ to specify the transportation cost between $\\x$ and $\\y$.\n\nOptimal Transportation {#sec:ot}\n----------------------\n\nThe OT problem is to minimize the total transportation cost: $$\\min_{\\PI \\in \\PS(\\MU,\\NU)} \\EnergyL{1}[\\PI] = \\int_{\\X \\times \\Y} \\Dist(\\x, \\y)^p d\\PI(\\x, \\y), \\nonumber$$ where $p \\in [1, \\infty)$ indicates the moment of the cost function. Then, we call this minimum the *p-Wasserstein distance*: $$\\WL{p} = \\underset{\\PI \\in \\PS(\\MU,\\NU)}{\\inf} \\left(\\EnergyL{1}[\\PI]\\right)^{1/p}. \\nonumber$$ The above is the well-known Kantorovich\u2019s OT formulation that allows a partial map that splits the measure $d\\MU(\\x)$ during transportation. In Monge\u2019s original version, each location $\\x$ has a unique correspondence $\\y$. If we define such a map as $\\T: \\X \\rightarrow \\Y$, then we have $d\\PIL{\\T}(\\x, \\y) \\equiv d\\MU(x)\\delta[\\y = \\T(\\x)]$ and Monge OT: $$\\label{eq:monge}\n   \\TU{*} = \\argmin_{\\PI_{\\T} \\in \\PS(\\MU,\\NU)} \\EnergyL{1}[\\PI_{\\T}] \\equiv \\int_{\\X} \\Dist(\\x, \\T(\\x))^p d\\MU(\\x)$$ $\\T$ *pushes forward* $\\MU$ to $\\NU$, i.e. $\\NU = \\T\\#\\MU$; more rigorously, for any measurable set $B \\subset \\Y,\\ \\NU[B] = \\MU[\\TU{-1}(B)]$. We direct readers to [@villani2003topics; @peyre2019computational] for more on OT. In this paper, we focus on Monge OT. In particular, we narrow our discussion to $\\X, \\Y \\subseteq \\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $c(\\x, \\y)= \\|\\x - \\y\\|_{2}$, and $p = 2$ unless specified otherwise. Hence, we compute $\\WL{2}$.\n\nVariational Optimal Transportation {#sec:vot}\n----------------------------------\n\nDirectly computing a Monge map is highly intractable and variational methods have been adopted by many researchers. [@de2012blue; @gu2013variational; @levy2015numerical] offer three variational formulations. We follow\u00a0[@gu2013variational] and in this paper refer to it as *variational OT* or VOT.\n\nSuppose $\\NU$ is supported on $\\K$ discrete atoms $\\bm{\\y} = \\{\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\}_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\subset \\Y$. The problem becomes *semi-discrete OT*. VOT starts with a piece-wise linear function $\\theta_{\\bm{\\h}}(\\x) = \\underset{\\IdxCentroid}{\\max} \\{\\x \\yL{\\IdxCentroid} + \\hL{\\IdxCentroid}\\}$. Each $\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}$ associates with a *height* $\\hL{\\IdxCentroid}$. The gradient, $\\nabla\\theta_{\\bm{\\h}}(x) = \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}$ where $\\IdxCentroid$ induces the maximum, serves as a map from $\\X$ to $\\Y$. It induces a graph: $ \\bm{\\Region}_{\\bm{\\h}} = \\bigcup\\limits_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\left(\\RegionL{\\bm{\\h}}\\right)_{\\IdxCentroid}, \\left(\\RegionL{\\bm{\\h}}\\right)_{\\IdxCentroid} \\eqdef \\{\\x \\in \\X\\ |\\ \\x\\yL{\\IdxCentroid} + \\hL{\\IdxCentroid} \\geq \\x\\yL{\\IdxCentroidSecond} + \\hL{\\IdxCentroidSecond}, \\forall \\IdxCentroidSecond \\neq \\IdxCentroid\\}$. For simplicity, we remove $\\bm{\\h}$ and use $\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}$ instead. We introduce an energy: $$\\label{eq:vot}\n        \\ignore{\\min_{\\bm{\\h}}}\\ \\EnergyL{2}[\\bm{\\h}] \\eqdef \\int_{\\bm{0}}^{\\bm{\\h}} \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\int_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} d\\MU(\\x) d\\hL{\\IdxCentroid} - \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K}\\NU(\\yL{\\IdxCentroid})\\hL{\\IdxCentroid},$$ whose gradient, $\\big\\{\\int_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} d\\MU(\\x) - \\NU(\\yL{\\IdxCentroid})\\big\\}_{\\IdxCentroid}$, also integrates to $$\\label{eq:theta}\n    \\ignore{\\min_{\\bm{\\h}}}\\ \\EnergyL{3}[\\bm{\\h}] \\eqdef \\int_{\\X} \\theta_{\\bm{\\h}}(\\x) d\\MU(\\x) - \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K}\\NU(\\yL{\\IdxCentroid})\\hL{\\IdxCentroid}.$$ Meanwhile, the *Lagrangian duality* of Monge OT is $$\\label{eq:monge_dual}\n\\begin{gathered}\n    \\max_{\\bm{\\LagPhi}}\\ \\min_{\\T}\\ \\EnergyL{4}[\\bm{\\LagPhi},T] \n    \\eqdef \\\\ \\int_{\\X} \\big( \\|\\x - \\T(\\x)\\|_{2}^{2} + \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\LagPhiL{\\IdxCentroid} \\big) d\\MU(x)  - \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K} \\LagPhiL{\\IdxCentroid}\\NU(\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}),\n\\end{gathered}$$ where $\\bm{\\LagPhi} = \\{\\varphi_\\IdxCentroid\\}_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K}$. simplifies to $$\\label{eq:monge_ot_dual}\n\\begin{gathered}\n    \\max_{\\bm{\\LagPhi}}\\ \\EnergyL{4}[\\bm{\\LagPhi}] \\\\\n    = \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K} \\int_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}'} \\big(\\|\\x - \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2} + \\LagPhiL{\\IdxCentroid} \\big) d\\MU(\\x) - \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K} \\LagPhiL{\\IdxCentroid}\\NU(\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}),\n\\end{gathered}$$ $\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}' = \\{\\x \\in \\X\\ |\\ \\|\\x - \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2} + \\LagPhiL{\\IdxCentroid} \\leq \\|\\x - \\yL{\\IdxCentroidSecond}\\|_{2}^{2} + \\LagPhiL{\\IdxCentroidSecond}, \\forall \\IdxCentroidSecond \\neq \\IdxCentroid\\}$ which coincides with a *power Voronoi diagram*.\n\nWe provide detailed derivation for above formulas in Appendix and then prove their following connections.\n\n\\[th:energy\\_connection\\] **1**. The minimum point of $\\EnergyL{2}[\\bm{\\h}]$, , also minimizes $\\EnergyL{3}[\\bm{\\h}]$, . **2**. $\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid} \\equiv \\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}'$. **3**. $\\bm{\\Region}$ in $\\EnergyL{2}[\\bm{\\h}]$, , induces the Monge map $\\T: x \\rightarrow \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}$. **4**. Minimizing $\\EnergyL{2}[\\bm{\\h}]$, , is equivalent to maximizing $\\EnergyL{4}[\\bm{\\h}]$, .\n\nTherefore, we \u201cvariationally\u201d minimize $\\EnergyL{2}[\\bm{\\h}]$, , for a *height vector* $\\bm{\\h}$ and that will produce a Monge map $\\TU{*}$.\n\nWasserstein Barycenters {#sec:wb}\n-----------------------\n\nThe Wasserstein distance (WD) satisfies all metric properties. The *fr\u00e9chet mean* of a collection of distributions $\\MUNL{1:N} \\eqdef \\{\\MUL{i}\\}_{i=1}^{N}$ w.r.t the WD is called the *Wasserstein barycenter* (WB). It is the minimizer of the weighted average: $$\\label{eq:wb}\n    \\NU = \\underset{\\NU \\in \\MUS(\\Y)}{\\arg\\min} \\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\lambda_{i} \\WUL{2}{2}(\\MUL{i}, \\NU),$$ for $\\WeightL{i} \\in [0, 1]$ and $\\sum_i \\WeightL{i} = 1$. We simplify by assuming uniform weights and rewrite it as $$\\label{eq:wb2}\n    \\NU = \\underset{\\NU \\in \\MUS(\\Y)}{\\arg\\min} \\frac{1}{\\N} \\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\int_{\\XL{i}}\\|\\x - \\TLU{i}{*}(\\x)\\|_{2}^{2}d\\MUL{i}(\\x),$$ $s.t.\\ \\TLU{i}{*}\\#\\MUL{i} = \\NU$ OT for all $i$. Suppose the barycenter $\\NU$ is supported on $\\K$ discrete atoms $\\bm{\\y} = \\{\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\}_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K}$. If we fix $\\NU(\\yL{\\IdxCentroid})$ and only allow updating $\\bm{\\y}$, then readers can notice that is simultaneously solving $\\N$ *constrained K-means* problems\n\nusing the same set of centroids with fixed capacity, $\\bm{\\NU} = \\{\\NU(\\yL{\\IdxCentroid})\\}_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K}$. $\\TLU{i}{*}$ serves as the optimal *assignment function* in each K-means problem. Note that $\\TLU{i}{*}(\\x)$ is a *hard assignment* that has only one target because we solve Monge OT.\n\nTo clarify notation, we use $\\NU$ to denote the probability distribution whether continuous or discrete. If it is discrete, namely a collection of Dirac measures, then we use $\\bm{y}$ and $\\bm{\\NU}$ to denote its supports and measures. $\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}$ and $\\NUL{\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}}$ specify the location and measure of the $\\IdxCentroid$th Dirac measure.\n\nVariational Wasserstein Barycenters {#sec:vwb}\n===================================\n\nSolving the WB problem relies on alternatively solving $\\N$ OT problems and updating the barycenter, $\\NU$. Eventually, $\\NU$ minimizes the average WD between empirical distributions and the barycenter. A discrete distribution $\\NU$ consists of support and measure $(\\bm{\\y}, \\bm{\\NU}) = \\{(\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}, \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid})\\}_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K}$. Updating both of them, e.g., [@ye2017fast], is difficult and even troublesome in some cases (see Appendix). In this paper, we follow\u00a0[@cuturi2014fast] and only update one of them while fixing the other throughout the optimization.\n\nDiscrete Barycenters via VOT {#sec:wbvot}\n----------------------------\n\nWe first solve $N$ VOT problems\u00a0: $$\\label{eq:vwb}\n\\begin{gathered}\n    \\min_{\\{\\bm{\\hL{i}}\\}_{i=1}^{\\N}} \\EnergyL{5}[\\{\\bm{\\hL{i}}\\}] \\\\\n    \\eqdef \\frac{1}{\\N} \\sum_{i=1}^{\\N} \\left( \\int_{\\bm{0}}^{\\bm{\\hL{i}}} \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\int_{\\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} d\\MUL{i}(x) d\\hL{i, \\IdxCentroid} - \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K}\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}\\hL{i, \\IdxCentroid} \\right)\\\\ \\nonumber\n    \\end{gathered}$$ Its derivative w.r.t. the VOT optimizer $\\hL{i, \\IdxCentroid}$ is $$\\label{eq:vwb_dh}\n    \\nabla \\EnergyL{5}[\\bm{\\hL{i}}] = \\left\\{\\pdv{\\EnergyL{5}}{\\hL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} = \\int_{\\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} d\\MUL{i}(\\x) - \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}\\right\\}_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K},$$ which, in practice, can be replaced by its stochastic version, $$\\label{eq:vwb_sdh}\n    \\pdv{\\EnergyL{5}}{\\hL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} \\approx \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} \\MUL{i}(\\x) - \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}, \\nonumber$$ where $x$\u2019s are now Monte Carlo samples. Then, we can naturally adopt the gradient descent (GD) update: $$\\label{eq:vwb_gd}\n    \\bm{\\hL{i}}^{(t+1)} = \\bm{\\hL{i}}^{(t)} - \\eta \\nabla \\EnergyL{5}[\\bm{\\hL{i}}].$$ For completeness, we give the second-order derivative in Appendix. Its computation, however, involves integrating over the Voronoi facets and thus is intractable in general.\n\nTo solve for $\\NU$, we rewrite the objective of the WB\u00a0 as $$\\label{eq:wb3}\n\\begin{split}\n    \\min_{\\NU \\in \\MUS(\\Y)} \\EnergyL{6}[\\NU]\n    &\\eqdef \\frac{1}{\\N} \\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\int_{\\XL{i}}\\|\\x - \\TLU{i}{*}(\\x)\\|_{2}^{2}d\\MUL{i}(\\x) \\\\\n    & = \\frac{1}{\\N} \\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K} \\int_{\\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}}\\|\\x - \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2}d\\MUL{i}(\\x),\n\\end{split}$$ $s.t.\\ \\yL{\\IdxCentroid} = \\TLU{i}{*}(x)\\ \\forall \\x \\in \\XL{i}$. The critical point of this quadratic energy w.r.t. each $\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}$ has a closed form: $$\\label{eq:vwb_dy}\n\\begin{split}\n    \\yLU{\\IdxCentroid}{*}\n    = \\frac{\\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\int_{\\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} \\x d\\MUL{i}(\\x)}{N\\sum_{i = 1}^{N} \\int_{\\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} d\\MUL{i}(\\x)} \n    \\approx \\frac{\\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} x \\MUL{i}(\\x)}{N\\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} \\MUL{i}(\\x)}, \\nonumber\n\\end{split}$$ which is the center of mass of its correspondence across all measures. The latter expression is the \u201cstochastic\u201d version.\n\n![Ten random nested ellipses (top) averaged according to the Euclidean distance (left) and the Wasserstein distance (right) as implemented by VWB. For a better visual, we use the Euclidean sum instead. Middle is the Euclidean sum after re-centered. The VWB preserves the topology (rainbow colors) of the ellipses.[]{data-label=\"fig:vwb\"}](ed_vs_wd_color.pdf){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe last step is to derive the update rule for the measure $\\bm{\\NU}$. is not differentiable w.r.t. $\\bm{\\NU}$. Still, we follow [@cuturi2014fast; @mi2018regularized] and give the critical point and include the derivation in Appendix. $$\\label{eq:vwb_dv}\n\\begin{split}\n    \\NUUL{*}{\\IdxCentroid}\n    = \\frac{1}{N}\\sum_{i = 1}^{N} \\int_{\\RegionLU{i, \\IdxCentroid}{*}} d\\MUL{i}(\\x)\n    \\approx \\frac{1}{\\N} \\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\sum_{ \\x \\in \\RegionLU{i, \\IdxCentroid}{*}} \\MUL{i}(\\x), \\nonumber\n\\end{split}$$ where $\\RegionLU{i, \\IdxCentroid}{*} = \\{\\x\\in\\XL{i}\\ |\\ \\|\\x-\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2} < \\|\\x-\\yL{\\IdxCentroidSecond}\\|_{2}^{2}\\ \\forall \\IdxCentroidSecond \\neq \\IdxCentroid\\}$. $\\NULU{\\IdxCentroid}{*}$ coincides with the result of Lloyd\u2019s K-means algorithm in which the measure on each centroid accumulates all its assigned empirical measures.\n\nNow that we have derived the rules for updating $\\T$ and $\\NU$, we summarize our algorithm for computing the VWB of a collection of measures $\\{\\MUL{i}\\}_{i}$ in Appendix. As for the initial guess of the barycenter, if not specified, we can either run Lloyd\u2019s algorithm on all the measures as a whole and adopt the resulting $\\K$ centroids or uniformly sample the space $\\Y$. The choice of the measure on the centroids depends on the specific application. A ubiquitous choice is uniform Dirac measures, i.e. $\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} = \\frac{1}{\\K} \\delta[\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}]$. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:vwb\\] suggests that by regarding the WD as the metric, we can find a mean shape on the same manifold, if there exists one.\n\nOur method does converge since we follow coordinate descent and every step is convex [@grippo2000convergence], given the assumption we made in\u00a0\\[sec:ot\\] that $\\X, \\Y \\subset \\mathbb{R}^{n}$, $c(\\x, \\y)= \\|\\x - \\y\\|_{2}$, and $p = 2$. There are in total $\\mathcal{O}(\\K \\cdot \\N)$ variables for computing $N$ Monge maps $\\{\\TL{i}\\}_{i=1}^{\\N}$, and $\\mathcal{O}(\\K)$ variables as the support $\\bm{\\y}$ and $\\mathcal{O}(\\K)$ variables as the measure $\\bm{\\NU}$. We implemented VWB with PyTorch\u00a0[@paszke2019pytorch]. The code to reproduce the figures in this paper is at <https://github.com/icemiliang/pyvot>.\n\nMetric Properties of (V)WBs {#sec:metric_property}\n---------------------------\n\nIn spite of extensive studies on metric properties of OT over the past century, the metric properties of Wasserstein barycenters have yet been fully explored. Some pioneer work includes\u00a0[@papadakis2019approximation; @auricchio2018computing].\n\nHowever, most of them focus on the barycenter of two measures ($\\N=2$). We show in the following that WBs in general ($\\N \\geq 2$) induce a *generalized metric* (*n-metric*). First, let us define the total Wasserstein distance between the barycenter and all the marginal Borel measures: $$\\label{eq:wb_nmetric}\n    \\WBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:N}) \\eqdef \\underset{\\NU \\in \\MUS(\\Y)}{\\inf} \\frac{1}{N}\\sum_{i = 1}^{N} \\WUL{2}{2}(\\MUL{i}, \\NU),$$ Then, we raise the following two propositions and prove them in Appendix.\n\n\\[the:wb\\_nmetric\\] $\\WBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:N})$ defines a generalized metric among $\\{\\MUL{i}\\}_{i=1}^{\\N}$, $N \\geq 2$. Specifically, $\\WBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:N})$ satisfies the following properties.\\\n1) Non-negativity: $\\WBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:N}) \\geq 0$.\\\n2) Symmetry: $\\WBL{\\sigma_1(1:\\N)}(\\NU) = \\WBL{\\sigma_2(1:\\N)}(\\NU)$, where $\\sigma_1(1:N)$ and $\\sigma_2(1:\\N)$ are different permutations of the set ${1:\\N}$.\\\n3) Identity: $\\WBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:N}) = 0 \\Longleftrightarrow \\MUL{i} = \\MUL{j}, \\forall i \\neq j$.\\\n4) Triangle inequality: $\\WBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:N}) \\leq \\sum_{i=1}^{\\N} \\WBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:\\N+1 \\backslash i})$.\n\n\\[the:wb\\_nmetric\\_bigon\\] The bound of the triangle inequality in Proposition\u00a0\\[the:wb\\_nmetric\\] can be tightened by a linear factor. Specifically, we have $(N/2)\\ \\WBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:N}) \\leq \\sum_{i=1}^{\\N} \\WBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:\\N+1 \\backslash i})$.\n\nThe VWB $\\NU = \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K}\\NUL{j}\\delta[\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}] \\in \\MUS(\\Y)$, as a special case of WBs, certainly inherits the metric properties because there is not such a restriction on the continuity of $\\Y$. If we denote the total WD for the VWB with $\\VWBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:\\N})$ , then we have:\n\n\\[the:vwb\\_nmetric\\]\n\n$\\VWBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:\\N})$ induces an n-metric over all $\\MUL{i}$\u2019s. In particular, the equal signs in 1) non-negativity and 4) inequality hold if and only if all $\\MUL{i}$\u2019s and $\\NU$ have the same number of supports with positive Dirac measures $|\\MUL{i}| = |\\NU| = \\K,\\ \\forall i \\in \\{1,...,\\N\\}$.\n\n![Transshipment: transporting measures through a set of discrete relays. Colors on the measures specify correspondences.[]{data-label=\"fig:ship1\"}](ship1.pdf){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nApproximate WDs with VWBs \u2013 Transshipment {#sec:transship}\n-----------------------------------------\n\nWe consider the transshipment problem as finding a Monge map from the source to the target that passes through a relay measure in the middle (see Figure\u00a0\\[fig:ship1\\]). We solve it by VWBs. Our discussion comes directly from the conclusions in\u00a0\\[sec:metric\\_property\\]:\n\n\\[the:vwb\\_2metric\\] As a special case of Corollary\u00a0\\[the:vwb\\_nmetric\\], $\\VWBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:2})$ induces a (2-)metric between $\\MUL{1}$ and $\\MUL{2}$. It is lower-bounded by $\\frac{1}{4}\\WLU{2}{2}(\\MUL{1},\\MUL{2})$ when\n\n$|\\MUL{i}| = |\\NU| = K$.\n\nAppendix reveals the proof.\n\nThen, we can use a VWB to connect two measures and regard the total WD as an approximation to the true WD between them. We name it the *variational Wasserstein distance*, or *VWD*: $$\\label{eq:vwb_ship}\n\\begin{split}\n    \\VWLU{2}{2}(\\MUL{1}, \\MUL{2}) &\\eqdef 4 \\VWBL{\\NU}(\\MUNL{1:2})\\\\ \n    & =\\underset{\\NU \\in \\MUS(\\Y)}{\\inf} 2\\ \\WUL{2}{2}(\\MUL{1}, \\NU) + 2\\ \\WUL{2}{2}(\\MUL{2}, \\NU). \\nonumber\n\\end{split}$$ We use the toy data above to evaluate the approximation against the number of supports, $K$. The two Gaussian measures share the same covariance matrix; their means differ by 1. Thus, the true WD is $1$. We use the results from linear programming (LP) and Sinkhorn algorithms for reference. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:ship2\\] shows that VWD is still accurate with few supports. For each number of supports in the experiments, we run our algorithm 10 times with different random initial locations. We draw the error band with light color. Until $1500$ supports, ratio $0.3$, our algorithm produces stable approximations that have almost zero variance.\n\n![WDs between two Gaussian\u2019s vs. number of supports.[]{data-label=\"fig:ship2\"}](ship_error.pdf){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nOn Unbalanced Measures {#sec:unbalanced_ot}\n----------------------\n\nWhen measures are not probabilities or, more generally their integrals do not equal, we are solving *unbalanced OT*. [@benamou2003numerical] first explored the problem. Researchers since then have offered various formulations and perspectives to approach it, e.g. [@liero2018optimal] adding $f$-divergences as regularizers instead of constraints on the marginals. Here, we discuss VOT and VWBs for unbalanced measures. Without loss of generality, let us assume $\\int_{\\X}d\\MU(\\x) = w,\\ \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K} \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} = 1$. We denote the mass in each power Voronoi cell by $w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} = \\int_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}}d\\MU(\\x)$. Inspired by the discussion in\u00a0[@peyre2019computational], we propose to penalize the quadratic mismatch of the mass for each cell $\\IdxCentroid$. $$\\label{eq:unbalanced_vot}\n\\begin{gathered}\n\\min_{\\bm{\\Region}}\\ \\EnergyL{7}[\\bm{\\Region}] \\eqdef \n\\int_{\\X}  \\|\\x - T(\\x)\\|^2_2  d\\MU(\\x) + \\lambda \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K}  \\left( w_{\\IdxCentroid} - \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}\\right)^2,\n\\end{gathered}$$ s.t. $\\sum_{\\IdxCentroid} w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} = w$. If $\\lambda \\rightarrow \\infty, w = 1$, reverses to\u00a0.\n\nIn the following, we discuss in two cases: $\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} = \\frac{1}{\\K}$ and a more general one, $\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} \\in (0,1),\\ \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K} \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} = 1$.\n\n![Mass difference over iterations for VOT on balanced and unbalanced measures. They follow the same trend and converge at almost the same rate. The resulting clusters are exactly the same.[]{data-label=\"fig:uot\"}](iter.pdf){width=\"0.85\\columnwidth\"}\n\n**Case 1:** $\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} = \\frac{1}{\\K}$. It is trivial to verify that minimizing the second term in\u00a0 over $\\bm{\\Region}$ under its equality constraint yields all $w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}}$\u2019s equal to each other, i.e. $w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} = \\frac{1}{\\K}w$. On the other hand, the gradient of the VOT energy\u00a0 has the form $\\int_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} d\\MU(\\x) - \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} \\equiv w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} - \\frac{1}{\\K}w$. The question now is whether $w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} = \\frac{1}{\\K}w$ minimizes\u00a0. If so, then we can instead solve\u00a0 to minimize the second term in\u00a0.\n\nWhen $w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} = \\frac{1}{\\K}w$, the gradient $\\nabla\\EnergyL{2}[\\bm{\\h}] = \\{w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} - \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}\\}_{\\IdxCentroid}$ becomes constant and thus $\\bm{\\h}$ is being translated at a constant rate. Certainly, translation does not modify a power Voronoi diagram as specified in\u00a0. Therefore, $\\EnergyL{2}[\\bm{\\h}]$ saturates\n\n. For any other partition such that $\\exists\\ \\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}', w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}'} \\neq \\frac{1}{\\K}w$, we have $$\\begin{split}\n\\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\int_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} & \\left( \\|\\x - \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2} + \\hL{\\IdxCentroid} \\right) d\\MU(\\x) \\\\\n&\\leq \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\int_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}'} \\left( \\|\\x - \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2}  + \\hL{\\IdxCentroid} \\right) d\\MU(\\x).\n\\nonumber\n\\end{split}$$ Therefore, $w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} = \\frac{1}{\\K}w$ indeed minimizes\u00a0. Meanwhile, we know that an unweighted Voronoi diagram ($\\hL{\\IdxCentroid} = 0$) would minimize the first term in\u00a0. Thus, we can directly give the solution to as $\\{\\frac{\\lambda}{1 + \\lambda}\\hL{\\IdxCentroid}\\}_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K}$.\n\n**Case 2:** $\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} \\in (0,1),\\ \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K} \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} = 1$. It is also trivial to verify that minimizing the second term in\u00a0 over $\\bm{\\Region}$ yields $w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} = \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}w$ (replace $\\frac{1}{K}$ with $\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}$). $w_{\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} = \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}w$ also triggers the convergence of VOT as in Case 1.\n\nAt this point, we claim that VOT, , minimizes the total transportation cost regardless of the measures equal or not. We leave rigorous proofs to future work. We illustrate the convergence in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:uot\\]. The top half shows VOT between balanced measures and the bottom half shows unbalanced measures, $w = 900 = 500 + 2 \\times 200, \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} = \\frac{1}{3}$. Note that the gradient of the VOT and VWB, , correlates to the absolute measure values. Thus, we should scale the step size, $\\eta$ in , for each VOT according to the difference of the measure, i.e. $\\eta_i / w $, assuming the total for $\\NU$ is $1$. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:uot\\] shows that under the same (scaled) GD step size, VOT in two cases follows the same trend.\n\nWe apply VWBs to unbalanced measures and show in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:uvwb\\] the resulting barycenter of two Gaussian\u2019s of different samples, $5$k vs. $1$k. We choose $\\lambda = \\infty$ in . We can also see that Monge maps are absolutely *binary* and *sparse*.\n\n![Interpolating two Gaussian\u2019s of different number of samples by computing the VWB results in a mean isotropic Gaussian.[]{data-label=\"fig:uvwb\"}](4_4_2.pdf){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nOn Spherical Domains {#sec:svwb}\n--------------------\n\nOptimal transport on geometric domains other than the Euclidean domain extends its applications\u00a0[@solomon2015convolutional; @staib2017parallel; @cui2019spherical]. [@cui2019spherical] relates *spherical power Voronoi diagram* to OT on unit spheres. Inspired by that, we study our VWB on spherical domains and its metric properties.\n\nLet us define a new ground metric on a unit sphere, $\\mathbb{S}^2 \\times \\mathbb{S}^2 \\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}^{\\geq 0}$, as $\\Dist(\\x, \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}) = -\\ln\\langle\\x , \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\rangle$ and the OT distance: $$\\WL{1}' = \\underset{\\T \\in \\PSL{T}(\\MU,\\NU)}{\\inf} \\EnergyL{8}[\\PI] \\eqdef -\\int_{\\mathbb{S}^2} \\ln\\langle x , T(x) \\rangle d\\MU(\\x)$$ s.t. $\\int_{\\mathbb{S}^2}(\\psi \\circ T)d\\MU(x) = \\int_{\\mathbb{S}^2}\\psi d\\NU(y)$ for all non-negative $\\psi$.\n\n![Interpolating two Gaussian distributions on a sphere w.r.t. the VWD. By using the VWB, we can build sparse connection between the two domains via a few discrete relays.[]{data-label=\"fig:sphere\"}](sphere.pdf){width=\"0.7\\columnwidth\"}\n\nFollowing [@cui2019spherical], we define the *power distance* on a sphere as $c'(\\x, \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}) = -\\ln\\langle \\x , \\yL{\\IdxCentroid} \\rangle / \\cos r_{\\IdxCentroid}$ and thus the power Voronoi diagram in the spherical domain $\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid} \\eqdef \\{\\x \\in \\mathbb{S}^{2}\\ | c'(\\x, \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}) \\leq c'(\\x, \\yL{\\IdxCentroidSecond}), \\forall \\IdxCentroidSecond \\neq \\IdxCentroid\\}$. $r_{\\IdxCentroid}$ is the weight of each power cell, it relates to the VOT minimizers by $\\cos{r} = e^{h}$. Then, the derivation in \\[sec:vot\\] gives us the Monge map.\n\n$-\\ln\\langle\\x , \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\rangle$ does not satisfy triangle inequality but the other three metric properties. Thus, $\\WL{1}'$ inherits those properties. We notice that the proof for Proposition\u00a0\\[the:wb\\_nmetric\\] does not require triangle inequality. Therefore, the n-metric properties still hold for the barycenter w.r.t. $\\WL{1}'$. $$\\WBL{1:\\N}'(\\NU) \\eqdef \\underset{\\NU \\in \\MUS(\\Y)}{\\inf} \\frac{1}{\\N}\\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\WL{1}'(\\MUL{i}, \\NU)$$ Although $\\WL{1}'$ is not a true metric, we can still find a \u201cmean\u201d of multiple marginals by alternatively minimizing the total \u201cdistance\u201d as in\u00a0\\[sec:wbvot\\]. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:sphere\\] shows an example where the VWB simultaneously partitions two domains on the sphere. For simplicity, we draw connections with straight lines.\n\nGeometric Clustering via VWBs {#sec:gcvwb}\n=============================\n\nIn this section, we further connect VWBs to several clustering problems. We consider a fixed number of clusters, $K$, the quadratic Euclidean distance as the ground metric, and mainly the spatial relation between samples. We refer to this scenario as *geometric clustering*. From now on, we discretize the measures: $\\NU = \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{K}\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}\\delta[\\yL{\\IdxCentroid}], \\MUL{i} = \\sum_{j=1}^{n_i}\\MU(\\xL{j})\\delta[\\xL{j}]$ and assume that $n_i \\gg K,\\ \\forall i$.\n\nRegularized K-Means Clustering {#sec:regularized_kmeans}\n------------------------------\n\nIn light of the discovery of VWBs for unbalanced measures in\u00a0\\[sec:unbalanced\\_ot\\], we now introduce a relaxed version of the constrained K-means problem. We call it *regularized K-means*.\n\nThe classic K-means problem has the objective as follows: $$\\label{eq:kmeans}\n    \\min_{\\bm{\\Region}}\\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{K}\\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}}\\|\\x - \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2},\\ \\ \\yL{\\IdxCentroid} = \\frac{1}{|\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}|}\\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} \\x,$$ where $|\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}|$ is the number of samples supported in $\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}$. By adding the marginal constraint $\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} = \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}}\\MU(\\x)$ with pre-defined, fixed measures $\\{\\NUL{\\IdxCentroid}\\}_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{K}$, we turn\u00a0 into the *constrained K-means* problem\u00a0[@bradley2000constrained; @cuturi2014fast], or the *Wasserstein Means* problem coined in\u00a0[@ho2017multilevel]. As discussed in Section\u00a0\\[sec:unbalanced\\_ot\\], when the total measures do not equal, such constraints instead become regularizers. Then, we define the objective of the regularized K-means clustering problem as: $$\\label{eq:regularized_kmeans}\n    \\min_{\\bm{\\Region}, \\bm{\\y}}\\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K}\\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}}\\|\\x - \\yL{\\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2} + \\lambda \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid = 1}^{\\K} \\left( \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid} - w_{\\IdxCentroid} \\right)^{2},$$ where $w_{\\IdxCentroid} = \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}}\\MU(\\x)$. If $\\lambda = 0$, becomes K-means; if $\\lambda \\rightarrow \\infty$, becomes Monge OT. As practiced in\u00a0[@cuturi2014fast; @mi2018variational], we can alternatively solve for $\\bm{\\Region}$ and $\\yL{\\IdxCentroid} = 1/|\\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}|\\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{\\IdxCentroid}} \\x$. The energy\u00a0 will monotonically decrease and eventually converge into a cycle of one. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:regularized\\_kmeans\\] illustrates the regularized K-means result which informally looks like an interpolation between K-means and constrained K-means.\n\n![Results from different regularization strength $\\lambda$ in . Left is traditional K-means and right is constrained K-means.[]{data-label=\"fig:regularized_kmeans\"}](regularized_kmeans.pdf){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nCo-clustering Spatial Features in $\\mathbb{R}^{n}$ {#sec:co_cluster}\n--------------------------------------------------\n\nExtending the Wasserstein clustering procedure to multiple targets induces the co-clustering problem. In this section, we discuss the connection between co-clustering problems and VWBs. In particular, because we use quadratic Euclidean distances as the ground metric, we focus on co-clustering spatial features embedded in the Euclidean space.\n\nGiven multiple distributional data, the goal of co-clustering is to simultaneously partition each domain to 1) minimize the pairwise variance in the same cluster and 2) minimize the pairwise variance for each cluster across domains. We assume all samples reside in $\\mathbb{R}^{n}$ equipped with $\\|\\cdot\\|_{2}$, then: $$\\begin{split}\n    \\underset{\\RRegionL{i}}{\\min}\\ \\EnergyL{9}[\\RRegionL{i}] \\eqdef & \\sum_{i=1}^{\\N} \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\frac{1}{2|\\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}|} \\sum_{\\x,\\x' \\in \\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}} \\|\\x - \\x'\\|_{2}^{2} \\\\\n    + \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K}  \\sum_{1 \\leq i < j \\leq \\N} & \\frac{\\lambda_{i,j,\\IdxCentroid}}{|\\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}|+|\\RegionL{j,\\IdxCentroid}|} \\sum_{\\substack{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid} \\\\ \\x' \\in \\RegionL{j,\\IdxCentroid} }} \\|\\x - \\x'\\|_{2}^{2}. \\nonumber\n\\end{split}$$ where $|\\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}|$ is the number of samples in $\\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}$; $\\lambda_{i,j,\\IdxCentroid} \\in \\{0, 1\\}$ specifies the correspondence of the clusters across different domains. Thus, $\\sum_{i} \\lambda_{i,j,\\IdxCentroid} = 1$ and $\\sum_{j} \\lambda_{i,j,\\IdxCentroid} = 1$. As for K-means, we can simplify the pairwise variance with the mean of each cluster at each domain, $\\alpha_{i, \\IdxCentroid}$: $$\\label{eq:cocluster}\n\\begin{split}\n    \\underset{\\RRegionL{i}}{\\min}\\ \\EnergyL{9}[\\RRegionL{i}] \\equiv & \\sum_{i=1}^{\\N} \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\sum_{\\x\\in \\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}} \\|\\x - \\alpha_{i, \\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2} \\\\\n    + \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} &  \\sum_{i = 1}^{\\N} \\sum_{j \\neq i} \\lambda_{i,j,\\IdxCentroid} \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}} \\|\\x - \\alpha_{j, \\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2}.\n\\end{split}$$ where $\\alpha_{i, \\IdxCentroid} = \\frac{1}{|\\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}|} \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}} \\x$\n\nis the cluster center for each cluster at each domain. The first term of is solving $\\N$ K-means problems. The second term is solving $\\N(\\N-1)$ K-means problems but with the cluster centroids at other domains. Thus, we can further simplify the problem into: $$\\label{eq:cocluster2}\n\\begin{split}\n    \\underset{\\bm{\\RegionL{i}}}{\\min}\\ \\EnergyL{9}[\\bm{\\RegionL{i}}] \\equiv \\ignore{&\n    \\sum_{i=1}^{\\N} \\sum_{j=1}^{\\N} \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}} \\|\\x - \\alpha_{j, \\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2}\\\\}\n    &     \\sum_{i=1}^{\\N}  \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}} \\sum_{j=1}^{\\N} \\|\\x - \\alpha_{j, \\IdxCentroid}\\|_{2}^{2}\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$ Solving involves alternatively updating partition $\\{\\bm{\\RegionL{i}}\\}_{i}$ and the centroid $\\{\\alpha_{i, \\IdxCentroid}\\}_{i, \\IdxCentroid}$. When updating $\\{\\bm{\\RegionL{i}}\\}_{i}$ with fixed $\\{\\alpha_{i, \\IdxCentroid}\\}_{i, \\IdxCentroid}$, we can rewrite as $$\\label{eq:cocluster3}\n\\begin{split}\n    \\EnergyL{11}[\\RRegionL{i}]\n    = &     \\sum_{i=1}^{\\N}  \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}} \\left[\\x - \\left[\\sum_{j=1}^{\\N}  \\alpha_{j, \\IdxCentroid}\\right] \\right]^2 + C \\\\\n    \\eqdef &     \\sum_{i=1}^{\\N}  \\sum_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{\\K} \\sum_{\\x \\in \\RegionL{i,\\IdxCentroid}} \\left(\\x - \\hat{\\alpha_{\\IdxCentroid}} \\right)^2 + C.\n\\end{split}$$ $C$ is some constant. Thus, we convert co-clustering to $N$ $K$-means problems with the same set of centroids.\n\nThen, we can naturally impose a constraint on the weights, i.e $\\int_{\\RegionL{i, \\IdxCentroid}}d\\MUL{i}(\\x) = \\NUL{\\IdxCentroid},\\ \\forall i,\\ \\IdxCentroid$, to turn the problem into a VWB problem which is also an $N$ constrained K-means problem. Note, that it is trivial to extend it into a generalized VWB problem, by instead inserting the weighted constraint into the main objective as we did in \\[sec:regularized\\_kmeans\\].\n\n### Regularized VWBs for Co-Clustering {#sec:regularized_vwb}\n\nIn addition to purely clustering feature domains according to Wasserstein losses, we can regularize the correspondences based on prior knowledge. Inspired by [@alvarezmelis2019towards; @mi2018regularized], we regularize the correspondence by global invariances. Directly regularizing Monge correspondences is highly intractable because Monge maps are basically binary permutations and thus not differentiable. Therefore, we instead regularize the centroid update process.\n\nTo this end, instead of using the average of the centroids as we did in , we estimate the rigid transformation (isometry) between the VWB and the centroids of each domain by minimizing $\\|\\bm{\\y} - H_{i}\\bm{\\alpha}_{i}\\|_{2}^{2}\\ \\forall i$, subject to $H_i$ composing a rotation and a translation, i.e. $H_i = [R_i|t_i]$. This can be done by singular value decomposition (SVD) with minimum computational costs. After that, we average all the transformations by separately averaging rotations and translations. With the abuse of notation, we simply denote the process by $\\widetilde{H} = \\frac{1}{N} \\sum_{i} H_i$, but as we know, we need to factorize the rotations into quaternions before averaging them. The final location for the supports $\\bm{\\y}$ is given by $\\widetilde{\\bm{\\y}} = \\widetilde{H}\\bm{\\y}$.\n\nVector Quantization and Data Compression {#sec:compress}\n----------------------------------------\n\nLloyd\u2019s K-means algorithm was initially proposed for vector quantization and has been a fundamental choice for data compression. It centers at using fewer samples to approximate the entire distribution. In light of the connection between VWBs and K-means, we raise the problem of compressing multiple distributional data as a whole with Wasserstein barycenters and propose the VWB as a natural choice. It shares the same objective as the WB. Intuitively, we use sum of WDs to measure the compression error.\n\nBy using VOT, we obtain a surjection from each domain to the barycenter. Because we optimize over the height vector $\\hhL{i}$ , given empirical samples and the barycenter, we can fully recover the surjection by only using $\\hhL{i}$ at the negligible expense of computing the power distance as in . In this way, for a barycenter of size $\\K$ of $\\N$ empirical distributions each having $M$ samples, we reduce the storage burden from $\\mathcal{O}(\\N M\\K)$, as it would be for Sinkhorn distance-based methods, to $\\mathcal{O}(\\N\\K)$. This is particularly useful when $M$ is large and when we need to store multiple interpolations between marginals.\n\nFurthermore, with the VWB, we do not even need the original distributions to parameterize the compression maps because our method is based on the geometry of the data and given the height vector $\\hhL{i}$ and barycenter supports $\\bm{\\y}$ we can uniquely partition each original domain with a power Voronoi diagram $\\RRegionL{i}$; or, equivalently, the graph of the piece-wise linear function $\\theta_{\\bm{\\h}}(\\x) = \\underset{\\IdxCentroid}{\\max} \\{\\x \\yL{\\IdxCentroid} + \\hL{\\IdxCentroid}\\}$.\n\nApplications {#sec:exp}\n============\n\nWe demonstrate the use of VWBs with point cloud interpolation and image compression.\n\nPoint Cloud Interpolation with Global Invariance {#sec:point_cloud}\n------------------------------------------------\n\nShape interpolation is a typical application of Wasserstein barycenter techniques. We compute the barycenter that has the minimum weighted average WD to all the marginal shapes. When the marginals are congruence to each other, we can leverage the congruency to regularize the process to update the barycenter. We adopt the approach in \\[sec:regularized\\_vwb\\] and compute the VWB that has the minimum VWD to two marginal shapes. The correspondences are regularized by a rigid transformation in order to preserve the global structure of the shape. Ideally, we can obtain a \u201cmean\u201d shape that lies at the middle of the marginals and the rotations to the marginals share the same angles but in opposite directions. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:icp\\] shows the result that verifies our hypothesis.\n\nIn this experiment, we are given two Kittens off by an unknown rigid transformation. Our goal is to interpolate, by computing a regularized Wasserstein barycenter, a new Kitten in between that is rigid to the original Kittens and the amount of translation and rotation is linear to the weights of the two original Kittens.\n\nThe marginal Kittens each have $7,805$ sample points. We assume all the samples have equal weights. They are apart from each other by a rigid transformation composed by a random translation vector $t$ and a random rotation matrix $r$. In this example, they are as follows: $$t = \\begin{bmatrix} -1.97\\\\ -0.73\\\\ -0.30\\end{bmatrix}\n  \\quad\n  r = \\begin{bmatrix} 0.87 &-0.23 & 0.44 \\\\ 0.41 & 0.84 & -0.36 \\\\ -0.30 & 0.49 & 0.82\\end{bmatrix}$$\n\n![Point cloud interpolation that preserves global structures.[]{data-label=\"fig:icp\"}](icp_color_png.pdf){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe barycenter Kitten w.r.t. the VWD (variational Wasserstein distance) has $780$ supporting Dirac measures. The regularization strength, $\\lambda$, is $10$. One of the post-processing options to transport all the samples from the marginals is that for each sample find its nearest 3 or more cluster centers and use inverse barycenter coordinates to find its new location on the target Kitten in the middle.\n\nImage Compression {#sec:exp_partition}\n-----------------\n\nWe demonstrate the use of our method for data compression by quantizing the RGB colors of an image into a fixed number of clusters. See Figure\u00a0\\[fig:color\\] for the results. The top row shows the original images of dimension $128^2 \\times 3$. We embed all the pixels into the RGB color space $\\X = \\{x \\in \\mathbb{R}^{3}\\ |\\ \\|x\\|_{\\infty} \\leq 1 \\}$. Our goal is to compute, for example, $K=16$ centroids that partition all the pixels into their clusters. In this way, we compress the storage for each pixel from $24$ bits to $4$ bits. The second row in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:color\\] shows resulting images of using Lloyd\u2019s K-means(++) algorithm, and the third row shows the results of using our VOT solver. Compared to Lloyd\u2019s, VOT well distributes the centroids into the pixel domain, resulting in a smoother transition from color to color. The correspondences in the color space we show in Appendix also confirm this. Finally, we simultaneously merge and compress the colors from all three images by using VWB. The last row shows the resulting images sharing the same color distribution that only consists of 16 discrete centroids. It has the same $\\WL{2}$ to each original color distribution (marginal). In Appendix, we further show the results that comes from the centroids having different $\\WL{2}$\u2019s to each marginals, i.e. $\\lambda_{i} \\neq \\frac{1}{N}$ in . We show the RGB color distribution of each image in Appendix.\n\n![Quantizing RGB values from $24$ bits to $4$ bits by solving K-means, OT, and the WB. Solving OT results in smoother images; solving WBs can cluster and merge colors at the same time.[]{data-label=\"fig:color\"}](color.pdf){width=\"0.95\\columnwidth\"}\n\nDiscussion {#sec:discuss}\n==========\n\nWe conclude by discussing the advantages and disadvantages of VWBs and several future directions.\n\nAlgorithms solving K-means like clustering problems are in general sensitive to initial choices. Common solutions include using a subset of samples and spreading the seeds across the domain, e.g., K-means++. We tried the results from K-means++ as the initial choice for our barycenters and also tried a pre-defined Gaussian distribution whose mean is the average of the means of the marginals as prior knowledge. We did not find visible differences.\n\nMonge maps between discrete measures may not exist, e.g. transporting 3 Dirac points $\\{\\frac{1}{3}\\delta[\\xL{j}]\\}_{j=1}^{3}$ to 2 Dirac points $\\{\\frac{1}{2}\\delta[\\yL{j}]\\}_{\\IdxCentroid=1}^{2}$. In this case, splitting the mass becomes necessary\u00a0[@wang2013linear]. Moreover, there might be multiple solutions, and variational solvers cannot recover any of them. An example is transporting $\\{\\frac{1}{2}\\delta[\\xL{1}=(0,-1)], \\frac{1}{2}\\delta[\\xL{2}=(0,1)]\\}$ to $\\{\\frac{1}{2}\\delta[\\yL{1}=(1,0)], \\frac{1}{2}\\delta[\\yL{2}=(2,0)]\\}$. There exist two one-to-one maps but VOT cannot recover either because the target measures cannot be distinguished by the piece-wise linear function $\\theta_{\\bm{\\h}}(\\x) = \\max_{\\IdxCentroid} \\{\\x \\yL{\\IdxCentroid} + \\hL{\\IdxCentroid}\\}$, in \\[sec:vot\\]. Therefore, when dealing with stochastic GD, having sufficient samples to represent the domain is key to stabilize VWBs. Luckily, increasing the empirical samples adds little computational burden if we parallelly update the correspondence for each empirical according to its nearest neighbor. On the other hand, Sinkhorn iteration-based OT methods produce soft correspondences that unavoidably result from the entropic regularization, making them robust for discrete measures. Occasionally, the soft correspondences are even desirable because they make the correspondences differentiable\u00a0[@cuturi2019differentiable]; Monge correspondences, however, are basically permutations which are not differentiable. In summary, our VWB producing Monge maps is suitable for clustering or partitioning problems that require binary, sparse correspondence while Sinkhorn distance-based barycenters have been tested in numerous applications in machine learning for producing robust interpolations.\n\nThere are several future directions: 1) In the current implementation, we use exhaustive search to find the nearest centroid for each empirical sample, which takes about $80\\%$ of our run time. A faster alternative for nearest neighbor search based on the power distance, which is not a Minkowski distance, will significantly reduce the run time of the VWB; 2) Whether VWBs or WBs for unbalanced measures still induce a generalized metric deserves an answer; 3) Whether our discussion still holds for $ 1 \\leq p < 2$ and $p > 2$ deserves an answer; 4) Another branch of computing Monge OT is the multi-scale approach, e.g., [@merigot2011multiscale; @schmitzer2016sparse; @gerber2017multiscale]. It also partitions the target domain into sub-domains. Computing barycenters with multi-scale OT for clustering purposes is worth exploring.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'A generalized spin Sutherland model including a three-body potential is proposed. The problem is analyzed in terms of three first-order differential-difference operators, obtained by combining SUSYQM supercharges with the elements of the dihedral group\u00a0$D_6$. Three alternative commuting operators are also introduced.'\n---\n\n-0.25cm -0.25cm -0.5cm 16.3cm 22.3cm\n\n=cmmib10 at 12 pt =msym10 at 12pt \\#1\n\n\\#1\\#2\n\nplus 1pt minus 1pt\n\n[**Three-body generalization of the Sutherland model**]{}\n\n[**with internal degrees of freedom**]{}\n\nPACS: 03.65.Fd, 02.20.Df, 11.30.Pb\n\nIn recent years, the Sutherland one-dimensional $N$-particle model\u00a0[@sutherland] and its rational limit, the Calogero model\u00a0[@calogero], have received considerable attention in the literature because they are relevant to several important physical problems (for a list of references, see e.g.\u00a0[@cq]).\n\nThe Sutherland problem can be analyzed in terms of a set of $N$ commuting first-order differential-difference operators\u00a0[@poly], related to the root system of the ${\\cal A}_{N-1}$ algebra\u00a0[@perelomov] and known in the mathematical literature as Dunkl operators\u00a0[@dunkl]. Use of the latter leads to a Hamiltonian with exchange terms, connected with an extension of the model for particles with internal degrees of freedom, referred to as the spin Sutherland problem\u00a0[@ha; @bernard].\n\nA similar type of approach can be employed\u00a0[@buchstaber] for other integrable models related to root systems of Lie algebras\u00a0[@perelomov].\n\nIn the present letter, we shall deal with a generalized Sutherland three-particle problem including an extra three-body trigonometric potential. Such a problem is related to the exceptional Lie algebra $G_2$, whose Weyl group, of order\u00a012, is the dihedral group $D_6$\u00a0[@perelomov]. In contrast with the approaches used elsewhere\u00a0[@poly; @dunkl; @ha; @bernard; @buchstaber], our starting point will be an analysis of the problem in supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SUSYQM), thereby emphasizing the link between Dunkl operators and SUSYQM.\n\nLet us consider a system of three particles on a circle of length\u00a0$\\pi/a$ interacting via long-range two- and three-body potentials. Its Hamiltonian is defined by $$H = - \\sum_{i=1}^3 \\partial_i^2  \n       + g a^2 \\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j=1 \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j}^3 \\csc^2\n       \\left(a(x_i-x_j)\\right)\n       + 3f a^2  \\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j,k=1 \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i}^3 \n       \\csc^2  \\left(a(x_i+x_j-2x_k)\\right), \\label{eq:H}$$ where $x_i$, $i=1$, 2,\u00a03, $0\\le x_i\\le \\pi/a$, denote the particle coordinates, $\\partial_i \\equiv \\partial/\\partial x_i$, and $g$, $f$ are assumed not to vanish simultaneously and to be such that $g > -1/4$, $f > -1/4$. In the case where $g\\ne\n0$ and $f = 0$, Hamiltonian\u00a0(\\[eq:H\\]) reduces to the Sutherland Hamiltonian\u00a0[@sutherland].\n\nThroughout this paper, we shall use the notations $x_{ij} \\equiv\nx_i - x_j$, $i\\ne j$, and $y_{ij} \\equiv x_i + x_j - 2x_k$, $i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i$, where in the latter, index\u00a0$k$ is suppressed as it is entirely determined by $i$ and\u00a0$j$. Except where otherwise stated, we shall assume that the particles are distinguishable. In the case of indistinguishable particles, an additional symmetry requirement has to be imposed on the wave functions.\n\nFor distinguishable particles, the unnormalized ground-state wave function of Hamiltonian\u00a0(\\[eq:H\\]), is given by $\\psi_0(\\xb) = \\prod_{i\\ne j}\n\\left|\\sin(a x_{ij})\\right|^{\\kappa} \\left|\\sin(a y_{ij})\\right|^{\\lambda}$, and corresponds to the eigenvalue $E_0 = 8 a^2 (\\kappa^2 + 3 \\kappa \\lambda + 3\n\\lambda^2)$, where $$\\kappa \\equiv \\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n                                     \\case{1}{2} (1 + \\sqrt{1 + 4g}) & \\mbox{if $g\\ne 0$}\n                                          \\\\[0.1cm]\n                                     0                                              & \\mbox{if $g=0$}  \n                                   \\end{array}\\right., \\qquad\n  \\lambda \\equiv \\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n                                     \\case{1}{2} (1 + \\sqrt{1 + 4f}) & \\mbox{if $f\\ne 0$}\n                                          \\\\[0.1cm]\n                                     0                                              & \\mbox{if $f=0$}  \n                                     \\end{array}\\right.,\n  \\label{eq:kappa-lambda}$$ or, equivalently, $g = \\kappa (\\kappa - 1)$, $f = \\lambda (\\lambda - 1)$. The proof of this result is based upon the trigonometric identities $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j,k \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i} \\cot(a x_{ij})\n       \\cot(a x_{jk}) & = &  \\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j,k \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne \n       i} \\cot(a y_{ij}) \\cot(a y_{jk}) = 2, \\nonumber \\\\\n   \\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j,k \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i} \\cot(a x_{ij})\n       \\cot(a y_{jk}) & = & 4.        \\label{eq:trig2}  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe three-particle Hamiltonian\u00a0(\\[eq:H\\]) can be alternatively considered as that of a particle in three-dimensional space. By using the Andrianov [*et al*]{} generalization of SUSYQM for multidimensional Hamiltonians\u00a0[@andrianov], $H - E_0$ can therefore be regarded as the $H^{(0)}$ component of a supersymmetric Hamiltonian $\\hat H = {\\mathop{\\rm diag}\\nolimits}\\left(H^{(0)}, H^{(1)}, H^{(2)}, H^{(3)}\\right)$ with supercharge operators $\\hat Q^+$, $\\hat Q^- = \\left(\\hat Q^+\\right)^{\\dagger}$. The matrix elements of the latter can be expressed in terms of six differential operators $$Q^{\\pm}_i = \\mp \\partial_i - \\kappa a \\sum_{j\\ne i} \\cot(a x_{ij}) \n  - \\lambda a \\left(\\sum_{j\\ne i} \\cot(a y_{ij}) - {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle j,k \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i}}\\cot(a y_{jk})\\right),\n  \\qquad i = 1,2,3,      \\label{eq:charges}$$ which are obtained from the ground-state wave function by using the recipe $Q_i^{\\pm} = \\mp \\partial_i + \\partial_i \\chi(\\xb)$, where $\\chi(\\xb) = - \\ln\n\\psi_0(\\xb)$. In terms of such operators, $H^{(0)} = Q^+_i Q^-_i$ while $H^{(3)} =\nQ^-_i Q^+_i$. Apart from some additive constant, the latter turns out to be given by\u00a0(\\[eq:H\\]) with $g = \\kappa (\\kappa - 1)$, $f = \\lambda (\\lambda - 1)$ replaced by $g = \\kappa (\\kappa + 1)$, $f = \\lambda (\\lambda + 1)$, respectively.\n\nLet us now transform the supercharge operators $Q^-_i$ of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:charges\\]) into some differential-difference operators $$D_i = \\partial_i - \\kappa a \\sum_{j\\ne i} \\cot(a x_{ij}) K_{ij} \n  - \\lambda a \\left(\\sum_{j\\ne i} \\cot(a y_{ij}) L_{ij} - {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle j,k \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i}}\\cot(a y_{jk}) L_{jk}\n  \\right),      \\label{eq:D}$$ by inserting some finite group elements $K_{ij}$ and $L_{ij} \\equiv K_{ij} I_r$. Here $K_{ij}$ are particle permutation operators, while $I_r$ is the inversion operator in relative-coordinate space. In the centre-of-mass coordinate system to be used in the remainder of this paper, they satisfy the relations $$\\begin{aligned}\n  K_{ij} & = & K_{ji} = K_{ij}^{\\dagger}, \\qquad K_{ij}^2 = 1, \\qquad K_{ij} K_{jk} =\n          K_{jk} K_{ki} = K_{ki} K_{ij}, \\nonumber \\\\\n  K_{ij} I_r & = & I_r K_{ij}, \\qquad I_r = I_r^{\\dagger}, \\quad I_r^2 = 1,      \n          \\label{eq:K-Ir1} \\\\\n  K_{ij} x_j & = & x_i K_{ij}, \\quad K_{ij} x_k = x_k K_{ij}, \\quad I_r x_i = - x_i\n          I_r,       \\label{eq:K-Ir2}\\end{aligned}$$ for all $i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i$. The operators 1, $K_{ij}$, $K_{ijk} \\equiv K_{ij} K_{jk}$, $I_r$, $L_{ij}$, and $L_{ijk} \\equiv K_{ijk} I_r$, where $i$, $j$, $k$ run over the set {1, 2, 3}, are the 12 elements of the dihedral group\u00a0$D_6$\u00a0[@hamermesh].\n\nFrom their definition and Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:K-Ir1\\]),\u00a0(\\[eq:K-Ir2\\]), it is obvious that the differential-difference operators\u00a0$D_i$ are both antihermitian and $D_6$-covariant, i.e., $D_i^{\\dagger} = - D_i$, $K_{ij} D_j = D_i K_{ij}$, $K_{ij}D_k = D_k K_{ij}$, and $I_r D_i = - D_i I_r$, for all $i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i$. After some straightforward, although rather lengthy, calculations using again the trigonometric identities\u00a0(\\[eq:trig2\\]), one obtains that their commutators are given by $$\\left[D_i, D_j\\right] = - a^2 \\left(\\kappa^2 + 3 \\lambda^2 - 4 \\kappa \\lambda I_r\n  \\right) \\sum_{k\\ne i,j} \\left(K_{ijk} - K_{ikj}\\right), \\qquad i\\ne j, \n  \\label{eq:D-com}$$ and that $$\\begin{aligned}\n  -\\sum_i D_i^2 & = & - \\sum_i \\partial_i^2 + a^2 {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j}}\\csc^2(a x_{ij}) \\kappa\n       (\\kappa - K_{ij}) + 3 a^2 {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j}}\\csc^2(a y_{ij}) \\lambda (\\lambda - L_{ij})\n       \\nonumber\\\\\n  & & - 6 a^2 \\left(\\kappa^2 + 3 \\lambda^2\\right) - a^2 \\left(\\kappa^2 + \n       3 \\lambda^2 + 12 \\kappa \\lambda I_r\\right) \\left(K_{123} + K_{132}\\right).\n       \\label{eq:D-square}     \\end{aligned}$$\n\nFrom Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:D-com\\]), it is clear that the operators\u00a0$D_i$ do not commute among themselves, except in the $a \\to 0$ limit, i.e., in the rational case considered many years ago by Wolfes\u00a0[@wolfes], and by Calogero and Marchioro\u00a0[@marchioro]. Furthermore, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:D-square\\]) shows that the generalized Hamiltonian with exchange terms $$H_{exch} = - \\sum_i \\partial_i^2 + a^2 {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j}}\\csc^2(a x_{ij}) \\kappa\n  (\\kappa - K_{ij}) + 3 a^2 {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j}}\\csc^2(a y_{ij}) \\lambda (\\lambda - L_{ij})\n  \\label{eq:Hexch}$$ only differs by some exchange operators from the Hamiltonian $\\sum_i \\pi_i^2$, written in terms of the generalized momenta $\\pi_i = \\pi_i^{\\dagger} = - i D_i$. In those subspaces of Hilbert space wherein $\\left(K_{ij}, L_{ij}\\right) = (1,1)$, $(1,-1)$, $(-1,1)$, or\u00a0$(-1,-1)$, $H_{exch}$ reduces to Hamiltonian\u00a0(\\[eq:H\\]) corresponding to $(g,f) = (\\kappa (\\kappa-1), \\lambda\n(\\lambda-1))$, $(\\kappa (\\kappa-1), \\lambda (\\lambda+1))$, $(\\kappa (\\kappa+1),\n\\lambda (\\lambda-1))$, or $(\\kappa (\\kappa+1), \\lambda (\\lambda+1))$, respectively.\n\nAs in the case of the Sutherland problem\u00a0[@bernard], we can try to reformulate the present one in terms of some commuting, albeit non-covariant, differential operators\u00a0${\\hat D}_i$. Let $${\\hat D}_i = D_i + i \\kappa a \\sum_{j\\ne i} \\alpha_{ij} K_{ij} + i \\lambda a \\left(\n  \\sum_{j\\ne i} \\beta_{ij} L_{ij} - {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle j,k \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i}}\\beta_{jk} L_{jk}\\right),    \\label{eq:hatD}$$ where $\\alpha_{ij}$ and $\\beta_{ij}$ are some real constants. With such a choice, the transformed operators remain antihermitian, i.e., ${\\hat D}_i^{\\dagger} = - {\\hat D}_i$. We shall assume in addition that $\\alpha_{ji} = - \\alpha_{ij}$ and $\\beta_{ji} =\n\\beta_{ij}$. This assumption is justified by the fact that for\u00a0$\\lambda =\n0$\u00a0[@bernard], the operators\u00a0(\\[eq:hatD\\]) with $\\alpha_{ij} = - \\alpha_{ji} =\n- 1$, $i<j$, do fulfil the required property $\\left[{\\hat D}_i, {\\hat D}_j\\right] = 0$.\n\nFrom definition\u00a0(\\[eq:hatD\\]) and the $D_6$-covariance of\u00a0$D_i$, the new operators\u00a0${\\hat D}_i$ have the following transformation properties under\u00a0$D_6$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  K_{ij} {\\hat D}_j - {\\hat D}_i K_{ij} & = & - i \\kappa a \\left(2 \\alpha_{ij} + \\sum_{k\\ne i,j}\n       \\left(\\alpha_{ik} - \\alpha_{jk}\\right) K_{ijk}\\right) \\nonumber \\\\\n  & & - i \\lambda a \\sum_{k\\ne i,j} \\left(\\beta_{ik} - \\beta_{jk}\\right) I_r \n       \\left(K_{ijk} + 2 K_{ikj}\\right), \\qquad i\\ne j,      \\label{eq:hatD-cov1} \\\\\n  \\left[K_{ij}, {\\hat D}_k\\right] & = & i a \\left[\\kappa \\left(\\alpha_{ik} - \\alpha_{jk}\n       \\right) - \\lambda \\left(\\beta_{ik} - \\beta_{jk}\\right) I_r\\right] \\left(K_{ijk}\n       - K_{ikj}\\right), \\nonumber \\\\\n  & & i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i,       \\label{eq:hatD-cov2} \\\\\n  \\left\\{I_r, {\\hat D}_i\\right\\} & = & 2i \\kappa a \\sum_{j\\ne i} \\alpha_{ij} L_{ij}\n       + 2i \\lambda a \\left(\\sum_{j\\ne i} \\beta_{ij} K_{ij} - {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle j,k \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j\\ne k\\ne i}}\\beta_{jk} K_{jk}\n       \\right).          \\label{eq:hatD-cov3}\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, they can only be covariant provided $\\alpha_{ij} = \\beta_{ij} = 0$, i.e., when they coincide with the $D_i$\u2019s.\n\nBy using various properties of the operators\u00a0$D_i$, as well as the relation $\\sum_i\nD_i = 0$ valid in the centre-of-mass coordinate system, it is straightforward to show that if the constants $\\alpha_{ij}$, $\\beta_{ij}$ fulfil the three relations $$\\alpha_{12} \\alpha_{23} + \\alpha_{23} \\alpha_{31} + \\alpha_{31} \\alpha_{12}\n  =  -1, \\qquad \\beta_{12}\\beta_{23} + \\beta_{23} \\beta_{31} + \\beta_{31} \n  \\beta_{12} = -1,        \\label{eq:cond1}$$ $$(\\alpha_{23} - \\alpha_{31}) \\beta_{12} + (\\alpha_{31} - \\alpha_{12}) \\beta_{23}\n  + (\\alpha_{12} - \\alpha_{23}) \\beta_{31} = 4,      \\label{eq:cond2}$$ then the operators ${\\hat D}_i$ commute among themselves, and $H_{exch}$ only differs by some additive constant from the Hamiltonian $\\sum_i \\hat{\\pi}_i^2$, where $\\hat{\\pi}_i = \\hat{\\pi}_i^{\\dagger} = - i {\\hat D}_i$. Furthermore, this additive constant can be set equal to zero by normalizing $\\alpha_{ij}$ and\u00a0$\\beta_{ij}$ in such a way that the relations $$\\alpha_{12}^2 + \\alpha_{23}^2 + \\alpha_{31}^2 = 3, \\qquad \n  \\beta_{12}^2 + \\beta_{23}^2 + \\beta_{31}^2 = 3,      \\label{eq:norm}$$ are satisfied.\n\nThe constants $\\alpha_{ij} = - \\alpha_{ji} = -1$, $i<j$, used in Ref.\u00a0[@bernard], do fulfil the first relation in both Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:cond1\\]) and\u00a0(\\[eq:norm\\]). It should be stressed however that such equations admit other solutions too. It is then easy to prove that the remaining three relations in (\\[eq:cond1\\])\u2013(\\[eq:norm\\]) admit four, and only four, solutions for the $\\beta_{ij}$\u2019s, compatible with this choice for the\u00a0$\\alpha_{ij}$\u2019s: $(\\beta_{12},\n\\beta_{23}, \\beta_{31}) = (-1,1,1)$, $(-1,1,-1)$, $(- 5/3, 1/3, 1/3)$, and $(- 1/3,\n5/3, - 1/3)$.\n\nA relation can be established between $H_{exch}$ and a Hamiltonian ${\\cal\nH}^{(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ describing a one-dimensional system of three particles with $SU(n)$ \u201cspins\u201d (or colours in particle physics language), interacting via spin-dependent two and three-body potentials, $${\\cal H}^{(\\kappa,\\lambda)} = - \\sum_i \\partial_i^2 + a^2 {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j}}\\csc^2(a x_{ij})\n  \\kappa (\\kappa - P_{ij}) + 3 a^2 {\\sum_{\\scriptstyle i,j \\atop \\scriptstyle i\\ne j}}\\csc^2(a y_{ij}) \\lambda (\\lambda -\n  \\tilde P_{ij}).      \\label{eq:spinH}$$ Here each particle is assumed to carry a spin with $n$ possible values, and $P_{ij}$, $\\tilde P_{ij} \\equiv P_{ij} \\tilde P$ are some operators acting only in spin space. The operator\u00a0$P_{ij}$ is defined as the operator permuting the $i$th and $j$th spins, while ${\\tilde P}$ is a permutation-invariant and involutive operator, i.e., ${\\tilde P}\\sigma_i = \\sigma_i^* {\\tilde P}$, for some $\\sigma^*_i$ such that $P_{jk} \\sigma_i^* = \\sigma_i^* P_{jk}$ for all $i$, $j$,\u00a0$k$, and $\\sigma_i^{**} =\n\\sigma_i$. For $SU(2)$ spins for instance, $\\sigma_i = \\pm 1/2$, $P_{ij} =\n(\\sigma^a_i \\sigma^a_j + 1)/2$, where $\\sigma^a$, $a=1$, 2,\u00a03, denote the Pauli matrices, ${\\tilde P}$ may be taken as 1 or $\\sigma^1_1 \\sigma^1_2 \\sigma^1_3$, and accordingly $\\sigma_i^* =\n\\sigma_i$ or\u00a0$-\\sigma_i$. The operators $P_{ij}$ and\u00a0${\\tilde P}$ satisfy relations similar to those fulfilled by $K_{ij}$ and\u00a0$I_r$ (cf.\u00a0Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:K-Ir1\\]) and\u00a0(\\[eq:K-Ir2\\])), with $x_i$ and $-x_i$ replaced by $\\sigma_i$ and $\\sigma_i^*$ respectively. Hence 1, $P_{ij}$, $P_{ijk} \\equiv P_{ij} P_{jk}$, ${\\tilde P}$, $\\tilde P_{ij}$, and $\\tilde P_{ijk} \\equiv P_{ijk} \\tilde P$ realize the dihedral group\u00a0$D_6$ in spin space. Such a realization will be referred to as $D_6^{(s)}$ to distinguish it from the realization $D_6^{(c)}$ in coordinate space, corresponding to $K_{ij}$ and\u00a0$I_r$.\n\nThe Hamiltonian ${\\cal H}^{(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ remains invariant under the combined action of\u00a0$D_6$ in coordinate and spin spaces (to be referred to as $D_6^{(cs)}$), since it commutes with both $K_{ij} P_{ij}$ and $I_r {\\tilde P}$. Its eigenfunctions corresponding to a definite eigenvalue therefore belong to a (reducible or irreducible) representation of\u00a0$D_6^{(cs)}$. For indistinguishable particles that are bosons (resp.\u00a0fermions), only those irreducible representations of $D_6^{(cs)}$ that contain the symmetric (resp.\u00a0antisymmetric) irreducible representation of the symmetric group $S_3$ should be considered. There are only two such inequivalent representations, which are both one-dimensional and denoted by $A_1$ and $B_1$ (resp.\u00a0$A_2$ and $B_2$)\u00a0[@hamermesh]. They differ in the eigenvalue of $I_r\n{\\tilde P}$, which is equal to $+1$ or $-1$, respectively.\n\nIn such representations, for an appropriate choice of the parameters $\\kappa$,\u00a0$\\lambda$, ${\\cal H}^{(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ can be obtained from $H_{exch}$ by applying some projection operators. Let indeed $\\Pi_{B\\pm}$ (resp.\u00a0$\\Pi_{F\\pm}$) be the projection operators that consist in replacing $K_{ij}$ and $I_r$ by $P_{ij}$ (resp.\u00a0$-P_{ij}$) and $\\pm {\\tilde P}$, respectively, when they are at the right-hand side of an expression. It is obvious that $\\Pi_{B\\pm}(H_{exch}) = {\\cal H}^{(\\kappa,\\pm\\lambda)}$, and $\\Pi_{F\\pm}(H_{exch}) = {\\cal H}^{(-\\kappa,\\pm\\lambda)}$. If $H_{exch}$ has been diagonalized on a basis of functions depending upon coordinates and spins, then its eigenfunctions $\\Psi(\\xb,\\sigmab)$ are also eigenfunctions of ${\\cal\nH}^{(\\kappa,\\pm\\lambda)}$ (resp.\u00a0${\\cal H}^{(-\\kappa,\\pm\\lambda)}$) provided that $(K_{ij} - P_{ij}) \\Psi(\\xb,\\sigmab) = 0$ (resp.\u00a0$(K_{ij} + P_{ij}) \\Psi(\\xb,\\sigmab)\n= 0$) and $(I_r \\mp {\\tilde P}) \\Psi(\\xb,\\sigmab) = 0$. We shall not pursue the determination of the eigenfunctions of ${\\cal H}^{(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ any further, leaving a detailed derivation for a forthcoming publication.\n\nIn conclusion, in the present letter we did propose a three-body generalization of the Sutherland problem with internal degrees of freedom, related to a corresponding problem with exchange terms. For the latter, we did construct both $D_6$-covariant, but non-commuting, and commuting, but non-$D_6$-covariant differential-difference operators, interms of which the Hamiltonian can be expressed in a very simple way. We did show that whereas the former operators can be derived in a well-defined way from SUSYQM supercharges, there is some freedom in the choice of the latter.\n\n[99]{}\n\nB. Sutherland, Phys. Rev. A 4 (1971) 2019; A 5 (1972) 1372; Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975) 1083.\n\nF. Calogero, J. Math. Phys. 10 (1969) 2191, 2197; 12 (1971) 419.\n\nC. Quesne, J. Phys. A 28 (1995) 3533.\n\nA. P. Polychronakos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 703.\n\nM. A. Olshanetsky and A. M. Perelomov, Phys. Rep. 94 (1983) 313.\n\nC. F. Dunkl, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 311 (1989) 167.\n\nZ. N. C. Ha and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. B 46 (1992) 9359;\\\nK. Hikami and M. Wadati, Phys. Lett. A 173 (1993) 263;\\\nJ. A. Minahan and A. P. Polychronakos, Phys. Lett. B 302 (1993) 265.\n\nD. Bernard, M. Gaudin, F. D. M. Haldane and V. Pasquier, J. Phys. A 26 (1993) 5219.\n\nV. M. Buchstaber, G. Felder and A. P. Veselov, Elliptic Dunkl operators, root systems, and functional equations, preprint hep-th/9403178 (1994);\\\nT. Yamamoto, Phys. Lett. A 208 (1995) 293.\n\nA. A. Andrianov, N. V. Borisov and M. V. Ioffe, Phys. Lett. A 105 (1984) 19;\\\nA. A. Andrianov, N. V. Borisov, M. I. Eides and M. V. Ioffe, Phys. Lett. A 109 (1985) 143.\n\nM. Hamermesh, Group theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1962).\n\nJ. Wolfes, J. Math. Phys. 15 (1974) 1420.\n\nF. Calogero and C. Marchioro, J. Math. Phys. 15 (1974) 1425.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The linear complexity of a periodic sequence over $GF(p^m)$ plays an important role in cryptography and communication \\[12\\]. In this correspondence, we prove a result which reduces the computation of the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ to the computation of the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of $u$ period $n$ sequences. The conditions $u|p^m-1$ and $\\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$ are required for the result to hold. Some applications of this reduction in fast algorithms to determine the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of sequences over $GF(p^m)$ are presented.'\nauthor:\n- 'Hao Chen [^1]'\ntitle: '**Reducing the Computation of Linear Complexities of Periodic Sequences over $GF(p^m)$**'\n---\n\nBerlekamp-Massey algorithm, Games-Chan algorithm, linear complexity, minimal connection polynomial, cryptography\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nFor a period $N$ sequence ${\\bf a}=a_0,a_1,...,a_{N-1},a_0,...$ over a finite field $GF(p^m)$, its linear complexity $c({\\bf a})$ is defined to be the length of the shortest linear feedback shift register to generate it, i.e. the smallest positive integer $k$ such that there exist some $c_1,...,c_k$ in $GF(p^m)$ and $a_{i+k}=c_1a_{i+k-1}+ \\cdots +c_ka_i$ hold for all $i \\geq 0$. The polynomial $m({\\bf a})=1-(c_1x+ \\cdots +c_kx^k)$ is called the minimal connection polynomial \\[12\\].\\\nThe linear complexity of a periodic sequence is considered as the measure of its randomness and plays an important role in the application of the sequence in cryptography and communication. There are many works \\[1\\],\\[2\\],\\[4\\],\\[6\\],\\[8\\] ,\\[9\\],\\[10\\],\\[11\\],\\[14\\],\\[15\\] and \\[16\\] on efficient algorithms for determining the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of sequences. Some authors also have interesting results about the linear complexities of some special sequences (see \\[3\\],\\[7\\] and \\[13\\]). The famous Berlekamp-Massey algorithm \\[11\\] can be used to compute the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $N$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ with time complexity $O(N^2)$ (that is, at most $O(N^2)$ field operations in $GF(p^m)$). One of the main advantages of the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm is the input at the step $t$ of the algorithm is the first $t$ elements of the sequence. Actually, the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm only needs $2c({\\bf a})$ consecutive elements of the sequence to determine its linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial \\[12\\]. An adapted fast version of Berlekamp-Massey algorithm due to Blackburn \\[1\\] can be used with time complexity $O(N(\\log N)^2\\log\\log N)$.\\\nIn \\[6\\] Games and Chan gave a fast algorithm which can be used to determine the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $N=2^t$ binary sequence with time complexity $O(N)$. This algorithm was also generalized to compute the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $N=p^t$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ with time complexity $O(N)$ (see \\[5\\] and \\[8\\]). Based on the Games-Chan algorithm, some authors developed fast algorithms \\[9\\], \\[10\\] and \\[14\\] for computing the k-error linear complexities of period $N=2^t$ binary sequences and period $N=p^t$ sequences over $GF(p^m)$. G.Xiao et al. \\[15\\] and \\[16\\] gave fast algorithms to compute the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of period $N=p^t$ or $N=2p^t$ sequences over $GF(q)$ , when $q$ is a primitive root modulo $p^2$. For sequences of period $N=2^tn$, where $2^t|p^m-1$ and $\\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$, a fast algorithm which can be used to determine their linear complexities more efficiently was given in our paper \\[4\\].\\\nIt is well known that the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a periodic sequence over $GF(p^m)$ can be understood from its generating function. For a sequence ${\\bf\na}=a_0,a_1,...,a_{N-1},a_0,...$ over $GF(p^m)$ of period $N$, its generating function $A(x)=a_0+a_1x+ \\cdots +a_ix^i+ \\cdots =\\Sigma_{i \\geq 0}a_ix^i=\\frac %%@\n{a_0+a_1x+ \\cdots +a_{N-1}x^{N-1}}{1-x^N}$. Then the linear complexity of the sequence ${\\bf a}$ is $c({\\bf a})=\\deg(1-x^N)-\\deg(\\gcd(a_0+a_1x+ \\cdots +a_{N-1}x^{N-1},1-x^N))$ and the minimal connection polynomial is $m({\\bf a})(x)=\\frac {1-x^N}{\\gcd(a_0+a_1x+ \\cdots +a_{N-1}x^{N-1},1-x^N)}$ \\[12\\].\\\nIn this correspondence we prove a result which reduces the computation of the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of a period $un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ to the computation of the linear complexities and minimal connection polynomials of $u$ period $n$ sequences. This reduction result can be combined with various known algorithms to compute the linear complexities of sequences more efficiently. The main result of this correspondence can be thought as a generalization of the result in our previous paper \\[4\\].\n\nMain Result\n===========\n\nLet $m$ be a positive integer, $p$ be a prime number, $u$ be a positive integer such that $u$ divides $p^m-1$, and $n$ be a positive integer such that $\\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$ . It is clear there are $u$ distinct $u$-th roots of unity $x_0,...,x_{u-1}$, where $x_0=1$, in $GF(p^m)$ since $u|p^m-1$. From the condition $\\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$, we can find a unique $b_i \\in GF(p^m)$, which is the $n$-th root of $x_i$ for all $i=0,...,u-1$. The following result is the main result of this correspondence.\\\n[**Theorem.**]{} [*Suppose $p, m, u, n, x_0,...,x_{u-1},\nb_0,...,b_{u-1}$ are given as above. Let ${\\bf\na}=a_0,a_1,...,a_{un-1},a_0,a_1,...$ be a period $un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$. Let ${\\bf a^j}$ be the period $n$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ with its first period $a_0+a_nb_j^{n}+ \\cdots\n+a_{(u-1)n}b_j^{(u-1)n},...,a_ib_j^{i}+a_{n+i}b_j^{n+i}+ \\cdots\n+a_{(u-1)n+i}b_j^{(u-1)n+i},...,\na_{n-1}b_j^{n-1}+a_{2n-1}b_j^{2n-1}+ \\cdots +a_{un-1}b_j^{un-1}$, for $j=0,1,...,u-1$. Then $c({\\bf a})=c({\\bf a^0})+c({\\bf a^1})+\n\\cdots+c({\\bf a^{u-1}})$ and $m({\\bf a})(x)=m({\\bf\na^0})(b_0^{-1}x)m({\\bf a^1})(b_1^{-1}x) \\cdots m({\\bf a^{u-1}})(b_{u-1}^{-1}x)$.*]{}\\\n[**Proof.**]{} Let $f(x)=\\Sigma_{i=0}^{un-1}a_ix^i$. It is clear $\n1-x^{un}= \\prod_{i=0}^{u-1} (x_i-x^n)=x_1 \\cdots x_{u-1} (1-x^n)\n\\prod_{i=1}^{u-1} (1-(b_i^{-1}x)^n)$. Any two distinct polynomials among the $u$ polynomials $(1-x^n)$, $(1-(b_1^{-1}x)^n)$,..., $(1-(b_{u-1}^{-1}x)^n)$ are coprime in $GF(p^m)[x]$. Thus $\\gcd(f(x),1-x^{un})=\\gcd(f(x),1-x^n) \\prod_{i=1}^{u-1} \\gcd(f(x),1-(b_i^{-1}x)^n)$.\\\nIt is clear $\\gcd(f(x),1-x^n)=\\gcd(f_0(x),1-x^n)$, where $f_0(x)=\\Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1}(a_i+a_{n+i}+ \\cdots +a_{(u-1)n+i})x^i$. Thus $c({\\bf a^0})=\\deg(\\frac{1-x^n}{\\gcd(f(x),1-x^n)})$ and $m({\\bf\na^0})(x)=\\frac{1-x^n}{\\gcd(f(x),1-x^n)}$. For each $j$ satisfying $1\n\\leq j \\leq u-1$, we set $\\gcd(f(x),1-(b_j^{-1}x)^n)=g_j(x)$ and $\\gcd(f(b_j y),1-y^n)=h_j(y)$. Then $g_j(x)=h_j(b_j^{-1}x)$. We have $h_j(y)=\\gcd(f_j(y),1-y^n)$, where $f_j(y)=\\Sigma_{i=0}^{n-1}(a_ib_j^{i}+a_{n+i}b_j^{n+i}+ \\cdots\n+a_{(u-1)n+i}b_j^{(u-1)n+i})y^i$. Thus $c({\\bf\na^j})=\\deg(\\frac{1-y^n}{h_j(y)})$ and $m({\\bf\na^j})(y)=\\frac{1-y^n}{h_j(y)}$. Finally $c({\\bf\na})=un-[\\Sigma_{i=0}^{u-1} \\deg(\\gcd(f(x),1-(b_{i}^{-1}x)^n))]\n=c({\\bf a^0})+c({\\bf a^1})+ \\cdots +c({\\bf a^{u-1}})$ and $ m({\\bf\na})(x)=m({\\bf a^0})(b_0^{-1}x)m({\\bf a^1})(b_1^{-1}x)\n\\cdots m({\\bf a^{u-1}})(b_{u-1}^{-1}x)$. The conclusion is proved.\\\nWhen $u=2^tn$, the above result was proved in our previous paper \\[4\\].\n\nIn the reduction we need the storage of $u$ elements $b_0=1,b_1,...,b_{u-1} \\in GF(p^m)$ in advance. For a period $N=un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$, where $u|p^m-1$ and $\\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$, we need $\\frac{(u-1)N}{u}$ field operations to get the sequence ${\\bf a^0}$, $(u-1)N$ field operations to get the elements\\\n$ b_1,...,b_1^{(u-1)n-1},...,b_{u-1},...,b_{u-1}^{(u-1)n-1}$, and $\\frac{(2u-1)(u-1)N}{u}$ field operations to get the sequences ${\\bf a^1},...,{\\bf a^{u-1}}$. Thus the time complexity of the reduction in the main result is $3(u-1)N$ field operations in $GF(p^m)$.\\\n\nApplications\n============\n\nIn this section we use the main result and some known algorithms to give fast algorithms for computing the linear complexities of sequences over $GF(p^m)$.\n\n[**A. An easy example**]{}\\\nLet $p$ be an odd prime, $m$ be an arbitrary positive integer and $n$ be a positive integer such that $n$ and $p^m-1$ are coprime. Then we have a unique element $b$ in $GF(p^m)$ such that $b^n=-1$. Here we note $b^{2n}=1$. For arbitrary $a_0,...,a_{n-1} \\in GF(p^m)$, let ${\\bf\na}=a_0,a_1,...,a_{n-1},-a_0,-a_1,...,-a_{n-1},a_0,...$ be a period $2n$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ . Set ${\\bf\na'}=2a_0,2a_1b,...,2a_ib^i,...,2a_{n-1}b^{n-1},2a_0,...$ , which is a period $n$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$ . From the main result, the linear complexity $c({\\bf a})$ is the same as the linear complexity $c({\\bf a'})$ and the minimal connection polynomial $m({\\bf a})(x)$ is just $m({\\bf a'})(bx)$. Thus the linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial of the period $2n$ sequence ${\\bf a}$ can be determined from the period $n$ sequence ${\\bf a'}$.\\\n[**B. Combining with the generalized Games-Chan algorithm**]{}\\\nIn this subsection it is assumed that $p$ is a prime number, $m$ is a positive integer and $u$ is a positive integer such that $u$ divides $p^m-1$. We now give a fast algorithm to compute the linear complexity $c({\\bf a})$ of a period $N=up^h$ sequence ${\\bf a}$ over $GF(p^m)$ with time complexity $O(N)$. Here $u$ is understood as a constant not depending on the sequence. We need the storage of $u$ elements $b_0=1, b_1,...,b_{u-1}$ in advance.\\\n[**Input:**]{} A period $N=up^h$ sequence ${\\bf a}$ over $GF(p^m)$.\\\n[**Output:**]{} The linear complexity $c({\\bf a})$.\\\n[**Algorithm.**]{}\\\nPerform the reduction of the main result, we get $u$ period $p^h$ sequences ${\\bf a^0},...,{\\bf a^{u-1}}$.\\\nFor the period $p^h$ sequences ${\\bf a^0},...,{\\bf a^{u-1}}$, perform the following generalized Games-Chan algorithm [**GGC**]{}, the outputs are the linear complexities $c({\\bf a^0}),...,c({\\bf a^{u-1}})$.\\\n[**GGC Algorithm.**]{}\\\n1) Initial value: ${\\bf s}  \\leftarrow{\\bf s}=(s_0,...,s_{p^h-1})\n\\in\nGF(p^m)^{p^h}$, $N \\leftarrow p^h$, $c \\leftarrow 0$.\\\n2) Repeat the following a)-c) until $h=0$.\\\na) For a given $p^h$-tuple ${\\bf s}$, set ${\\bf\ns^{(i)}}=(s_{ip^{h-1}},...,s_{ip^{h-1}+p^{h-1}-1})$ for $i=0,...,p-1$, and ${\\bf b^{(u)}}=\\Sigma_{j=0}^{p-u-1}C_{p-j-1}^u\n{\\bf s^{(j)}}$, where $u=0,...,p-1$ and $C_{p-u-1}^u$\u2019s are the binomial coefficients.\\\nb) Find the smallest $w$ such that ${\\bf b^{(0)}}={\\bf\nb^{(1)}}=...={\\bf b^{(p-w-1)}}=0$ and ${\\bf b^{(p-w)}} \\neq 0$ for a $w \\in \\{1,...,p\\}$. Here if ${\\bf b^{(0)}} \\neq 0$, we set $w=p$.\\\nc) Do ${\\bf s} \\leftarrow {\\bf b^{(p-w)}}$, $c \\leftarrow (w-1)p^{h-1}+c$, and goto a).\\\n3) When $h=0$ and ${\\bf s}=(s_0) \\neq  0$, then $c \\leftarrow c+1$, otherwise $c \\leftarrow c$.\\\nThe final output $c$ of ${\\bf GGC}$ is the linear complexity $c({\\bf\ns})$ of the period $p^h$ sequence ${\\bf s}$ over $GF(p^m)$.\\\nFinally we get the linear complexity of $c({\\bf a})=\\Sigma _{i=0}^{u-1} c({\\bf a^{i}})$ from the main result.\\\nWe refer to \\[5\\],\\[8\\] and \\[10\\] for the generalized Games-Chan algorithm. [**GGC**]{} needs at most $2p^2N'$ field operations in $GF(p^m)$ for determining the linear complexity of a period $N'=p^h$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$. On the other hand we need at most $3(u-1)N$ field operations in the reduction for a given period $N=uN'$ sequence. Thus the above algorithm needs $3(u-1)N+u(2p^2\\frac{N}{u})=[3(u-1)+2p^2]N$ field operations in $GF(p^m)$, where $N$ is the period of the input sequence. The coefficient $3(u-1)+2p^2$ is a fixed constant not depending on the sequence. For example, the above fast algorithm can be used to determine the linear complexities of period $N=3 \\cdot 7^h$ sequences over $GF(7^m)$ and period $N=3 \\cdot 13^h$ sequences over $GF(13^m)$.\\\n[**Example.**]{} Let ${\\bf a}=123401520113061256331....$ be a period $21$ sequence over $GF(7)$. We want to compute its linear complexity and minimal connection polynomial by the above algorithm. First we note $b_0=1$, $b_1=4$ and $b_2=2$ in $GF(7)$. Then\\\n${\\bf a^0}=4424645, {\\bf a^1}=4366203, {\\bf a^2}=2622130$.\\\n$c({\\bf a})=c({\\bf a^0})+c({\\bf a^1})+c({\\bf a^2})$.\\\n$m({\\bf a})(x)=m({\\bf a^0})(x)m({\\bf a^1})(4x)m({\\bf a^2})(2x)$.\\\nIn the case of $p=7$ we use the generalized Games-Chan algorithm and get\\\n$c({\\bf a^0})=7,m({\\bf a^0})=(1-x)^7$,\\\n$c({\\bf a_1})=7,m({\\bf a^1})=(1-x)^7$,\\\n$c({\\bf a^2})=7,m({\\bf a^2})=(1-x)^7$.\\\nFinally we have $c({\\bf a})=21$ and $m({\\bf a})=(1-x)^7(1-4x)^7(1-2x)^7$.\\\nComparing with the Blackburn\u2019s algorithm given in \\[2\\], the reduction to the $u$ period $p^h$ sequences is the same as that in the Blackburn\u2019s algorithm, because in this case the $u$-th root of unity $\\alpha$ in \\[2\\] is an element of $GF(p^m)$.\\\n[**C. Combining with the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm** ]{}\\\nWe can also apply the reduction of the main result to compute the linear complexity of a period $N=un$ ($\\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$) sequence ${\\bf a}$ over $GF(p^m)$, where $u$ divides $p^m-1$ and $n$ is not a power of $p$. In this case, we apply the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm \\[11\\] with time complexity $O(n^2)$ (or the Blackburn\u2019s version \\[1\\] of Berlekamp-Massey algorithm with time complexity $O(n(\\log n)^2\\log\n\\log n)$ ) to the $u$ period $n$ sequences after the reduction. It is obvious that this would be more efficient than applying the Berlekamp-Massey algorithm directly to the original sequence. However when this reduction is used, we have to know the whole period of the sequence.\\\n[**D. Combining with the Xiao-Wei-Lam-Imamura algorithm**]{}\\\nLet $p$ and $q$ be two prime numbers. Suppose $q$ is a primitive root modulo $p^2$, that is, $q$ is the generator of the multiplicative group of residue classes (modulo $p^2$) which are coprime to $p$, then a fast algorithm for determining the linear complexity of a period $N=p^n$ sequence over $GF(q^m)$ with time complexity $O(N)$ was given in \\[16\\]. Combining with the reduction in our main result, we can determine the linear complexity of a period $N=up^n$ sequence over $GF(q^m)$ with time complexity $O(N)$, if $u$ divides $q^m-1$ , $q$ is a primitive root modulo $p^2$, $p$ and $q^m-1$ are coprime. For example, it is easy to check that $13$ is a primitive root modulo $25$, thus we can determine the linear complexities of period $N=3 \\cdot 5^n$ sequences over $GF(13^m)$(if $m \\neq %%@\n0$, $mod$ $ 4$) with time complexity $O(N)$.\\\n[**IV. Conclusion**]{}\\\nWe have proved a result reducing the computation of the linear complexity of a period $un$ sequence over $GF(p^m)$, where $u$ divides $p^m-1$ and $\\gcd(n,p^m-1)=1$, to the computation of the linear complexities of $u$ period $n$ sequences . Based on this reduction and some known algorithms we can compute the linear complexities of period $un$ sequences over $GF(p^m)$ more efficiently. It seems that the main result might be useful for other problems about the linear complexities of sequences over $GF(p^m)$.\\\n[**Acknowledgment.**]{} The author wishes to thank the Associate Editor and the anonymous referees for their helpful comments and criticisms on the 1st version of the paper. This work was supported in part by NNSF of China under Grant 90607005 and Distinguished Young Scholar Grant 10225106.\\\ne-mail: chenhao@fudan.edu.cn\\\n\nREFERENCES\n\n\\[1\\] S.R.Blackburn, Fast rational interpolation,Reed-Solomon decoding and the linear complexity profiles of sequences, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.43, no.2, pp.537-548, Mar. 1997.\\\n\\[2\\] S.R.Blackburn, A generalization of the Discrete Fourier Transform: determining the minimal polynomial of a periodic sequnce, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.40, no.5, pp.1702-1704, Sept. 1994.\\\n\\[3\\] S.R.Blackburn, The linear complexity of the self-shrinking generator, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,vol.43, no.5, pp.2073-2077, Sept. 1999.\\\n\\[4\\] H.Chen, Fast algorithms for determining the linear complexity of sequences over $GF(p^m)$ with period $2^tn$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.51, no.5, pp.1854-1856, May 2005.\\\n\\[5\\] C.Ding, G.Xiao and W.Shan, The stability theory of stream ciphers, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol.56, Springer-Verlag, 1991.\\\n\\[6\\] R.A.Games and A.H. Chan, A fast algorithm for determining the complexity of a binary sequence with period $2^n$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.29, no.1, pp.144-146, Jan. 1983.\\\n\\[7\\] F. Griffin and I.E.Shparlinski, On the linear complexity profile of the power generator. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.46, no.5, pp.2159-2162, Sept.2000.\\\n\\[8\\] K.Imamura and T.Moriuchi, A fast algorithm for determining the linear complexity of p-ary sequences with period $p^n$, p prime, IEICE Tech. Rep. IT 93-75, pp.73-78, 1993.\\\n\\[9\\] T.Kaida, S.Uehara and K.Imamura, An algorithm for the k-error linear complexity of sequences over $GF(p^m)$ with period $p^n$, p prime, Information and Computation, vol. 151, pp.134-147, 1999.\\\n\\[10\\] A.G.Lauder and K.G.Paterson, Computation the error linear complexity spectrum of a binary sequence with period $2^n$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.49, no.1, pp.273-280, Jan.2003.\\\n\\[11\\] J.L.Massey, Shift register synthesis and BCH decoding, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.15, no.1, pp.122-127, Jan.1969.\\\n\\[12\\] A. Menezes, P. van Oorschot and S.Vanstone, Handbook of applied cryptography, CRC Press Inc. 1997.\\\n\\[13\\] I.E.Shparlinski, On the linear complexity of the power generator, Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 2001, vol.23, no.1, pp.5-10, Jan.2001.\\\n\\[14\\] M.Stamp and C.F.Martin, An algorithm for the k-error linear complexity of binary sequences with period $2^n$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.39, no.4, pp.1398-1401, July 1998.\\\n\\[15\\] S.Wei, G.Xiao and Z.Chen, A fast algorithm for determining the minimal polynomial of a sequence with period $2p^n$ over $GF(q)$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.48, no.10, pp2754-2758, Oct.2002.\\\n\\[16\\] G.Xiao, S.Wei, K.Y.Lam and K.Imamura, A fast algorithm for determining the linear complexity of a sequence with period $p^n$ over $GF(q)$, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.46, no.6, pp.2203-2206, Sept.2000.\\\n[**Hao Chen**]{} was born in Anhui Province of China on Dec. 21, 1964. He is currently a professor in the Department of Computing and Information Technology of Fudan University, Shanghai, China. His research interests are cryptography and coding, quantum information and computation.\n\n[^1]: H. Chen is with the Department of Computing and Information Technology, School of Information Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, People\u2019s Republic of China\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In a multi-objective game, each individual\u2019s payoff is a *vector-valued* function of everyone\u2019s actions. Under such vectorial payoffs, Pareto-efficiency is used to formulate each individual\u2019s best-response condition, inducing Pareto-Nash equilibria as the fundamental solution concept. In this work, we follow a classical game-theoretic agenda to study equilibria. Firstly, we show in several ways that numerous pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria exist. Secondly, we propose a more consistent extension to mixed-strategy equilibria. Thirdly, we introduce a measurement of the efficiency of multiple objectives games, which purpose is to keep the information on each objective: the multi-objective coordination ratio. Finally, we provide algorithms that compute Pareto-Nash equilibria and that compute or approximate the multi-objective coordination ratio.'\nauthor:\n- Anisse Ismaili\nbibliography:\n- 'newMOG.bib'\ntitle: 'On Existence, Mixtures, Computation and Efficiency in Multi-objective Games'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nGame theory and microeconomics assume that individuals evaluate outcomes into scalars. However, bounded rationality can hardly be modeled consistently by agents simply comparing scalars: *\u201cThe classical theory does not tolerate the incomparability of oranges and apples.\u201d* [@simon1955behavioral]. Money is another case of scalarization of the values of outcomes. For instance, while \u2018making money\u2019 theoretically creates value [@adam1776inquiry], the tobacco industry making money and killing approximately six million people every year [@world2011report] is hardly a creation of value[^1]. In this work, we assume that agents evaluate outcomes over a finite set of distinct objectives[^2]; hence, agents have vectorial payoffs. For instance, in the case of tobacco consumers, this slightly more informative model would keep the information on these three objectives [@conover2014smoking]: smoking pleasure, cigarette cost and consequences on life expectancy. In literature, this model was called games with vectorial payoffs, multi-objective games or multi-criteria games; and several applications were considered (see e.g. [@zeleny1975games; @wierzbicki1995multiple]). Indeed, behaviors are less assumptively modeled by a partial preference: the Pareto-dominance. Using Pareto-efficiency in place of best-response condition induces Pareto-Nash (PN) equilibria as the solution concept for stability, without even assuming that individuals combine the objectives in a precise manner. Pareto-Nash equilibria encompass the outcomes, even under unknown, uncertain or inconsistent preferences.\n\nThis paper more particularly addresses two unexplored issues.(1) The algorithmic aspects of multi-objective games have never been studied. (2) Also, the efficiency of Pareto-Nash equilibria has never been a concern.\n\n*Related literature on mixed-strategies and similar strategy spaces.* Games with vectorial payoffs, or multi-objective games, were firstly introduced in the late fifties by Blackwell and Shapley [@blackwell1956analog; @shapley1959equilibrium]. The former shows the existence of a mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium in finite two-player zero-sum multi-objective games. The later generalizes this existence result to finite multi-objective games. Both use a definition of mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria that suffers an inconsistency: pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria are not included in the set of mixed-strategy Nash equilibria (see Sec. \\[sec:mixed\\]). Nonetheless, there is an established literature on games with vector payoffs that uses this definition. Deep formal works generalized known existence results [@shapley1959equilibrium] to individual action-sets being compact convex subsets of a normed space [@wang1993existence]. Weak Pareto-Nash equilibria can be approximated [@morgan2005approximations]. *Works related to pure strategies and algorithms.* [@wierzbicki1995multiple] achieves to characterize the entire set of Pareto-Nash equilibria by mean of augmented Tchebycheff norms. However, the number of dimensions that parameterize these Tchebycheff norms is algorithmically prohibitive. [@patrone2007multicriteria] shows that a MO potential function guarantees that a Pareto-Nash equilibrium exists in finite MO games.\n\nIn Section 3, we show in three different settings that pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria are guaranteed to exist, or very likely to be numerous. In Section 4, we show an inconsistency in the current concept of mixed-strategy PN equilibrium, and propose an extension to solve this flaw. In Section 5, in the fashion of the price of anarchy [@koutsoupias1999worst], we define a measurement of the worst-case efficiency of individualistic behaviors in games, compared to the optimum. In the multi-objective case, it is far from trivial, as worst-case equilibria and optima are not uniquely defined. In Section 6, we show how to compute the set of (worst) pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria for several game structures, and provide algorithms to compute and approximate our multi-objective coordination ratio.[^3]\n\nPreliminaries\n=============\n\nA *multi-objective game* (MO game, or MOG) is defined by the following tuple $\\left(N,\\{A^{i}\\}_{i\\in N},{{\\mathcal{D}}},\\{\\bm{u}^{i}\\}_{i\\in N}\\right)$:\n\n-   The agents set is $N=\\lbrace1,\\ldots,n\\rbrace$. Agent $i$ decides action $a^{i}$ in action-set $A^{i}$.\n\n-   The shared list of objectives is denoted by ${{\\mathcal{D}}}=\\lbrace1,\\ldots,d\\rbrace$ and every agent $i\\in N$ gets her payoff from function $\\bm{u}^{i}:A=A^{1}\\times\\ldots\\times A^{n}\\rightarrow\\mathbb{R}^{d}$ which maps every overall action to a *vector-valued* payoff; e.g., real $u_{k}^{i}(\\bm{a})$ is the payoff of agent $i$ on objective $k$ for action-profile $\\bm{a}=(a^{1},\\ldots,a^{n})$.\n\n![image](Figure1)\n\nThere are five shops (the nodes) in Ocean Shores: $N=\\{1,\\ldots,5\\}$. Each shop/agent $i$ decides between two activities: $A^{i}=\\{a^{i},b^{i}\\}$; for instance: renting bikes or buggies, selling clams or fruit, etc. That is, agent $i$, in his payoff table $u^i$, decides row $a^{i}$ or $b^{i}$. The edges define neighborhoods around every agent. The payoff of each agent also depends on the actions of her neighbors, and is differentiated on two objectives ${{\\mathcal{D}}}=\\{1,2\\}$ that it would hardly make sence to aggregate, for instance: sales revenue (to buy their daily lives) and the remaining natural resources (so that, in the future, their children could also live). (Here, the payoffs are random integers.)\n\nIn the subjective theory of value, every individual evaluates her endowment $(u_{1}^{i},\\ldots,u_{d}^{i})$ however she wants based on an utility function $v^{i}:{\\mathbb{R}^d}\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}$. The theory of multi-objective games [@blackwell1956analog; @shapley1959equilibrium] aims at allowing for individuals that behave according to several unknown, uncertain, or inconsistent utility functions. These utility functions are reduced to their common denominator: the Pareto-dominance, as defined below. That vector $\\bm{y}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}$ weakly-Pareto-dominates and respectively *Pareto-dominates* vector $\\bm{x}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}$ is denoted and defined by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\bm{y}{\\succsim}\\bm{x} & \\Leftrightarrow & \\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}},\\quad  y_k\\geq x_k,\\\\ \n\\bm{y}{\\succ}\\bm{x} &\\Leftrightarrow & \\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}},\\quad y_k\\geq x_k\\mbox{~~and~~}\\exists k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}}, y_k> x_k.\\end{aligned}$$ For the preferences of individuals, given an adversary action-profile$\\bm{a}^{-i}=(a^j\\mid j\\neq i)$, this defines a partial rationality on set$\\bm{u}^{i}(A^{i},\\bm{a}^{-i})=\\{\\bm{u}^{i}(b^{i},\\bm{a}^{-i})\\mid b^i\\in A^i\\}$, which is less assumptive than complete orders, since it does not presume any individual utility function $v^{i}:{\\mathbb{R}}^{d}\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}$. Formally, given a finite set of vectors $X\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}^d}$, the set of *Pareto-efficient* vectors is defined as the following set of non-Pareto-dominated vectors: $${\\mbox{EFF}}[X]=\\{\\bm{y}\\in X~~|~~\\forall \\bm{x}\\in X,\\mbox{~not~}(\\bm{x}{\\succ}\\bm{y})\\}.$$ Since Pareto-dominance is a partial order, it induces a multiplicity of Pareto-efficient vectors. These are the best compromises between objectives. Similarly, let ${\\mbox{WST}}[X]=\\{\\bm{y} \\in X|\\forall \\bm{x}\\in X,\\mbox{not}(\\bm{y}{\\succ}\\bm{x})\\}$ denote the worst vectors.\n\nIn a multi-objective game, individuals behave according to the Pareto -dominance, inducing the solution concept *Pareto-Nash equilibrium* (${\\mbox{PN}}$), formally defined as any action-profile $\\bm{a}\\in A$ such that for every agent $i\\in N$: $$\\bm{u}^{i}(a^{i},\\bm{a}^{-i})\\quad\\in\\quad{\\mbox{EFF}}\\left[\\quad \\{\\bm{u}^{i}(b^{i},\\bm{a}^{-i})\\mid b^{i}\\in A^{i}\\}\\quad\\right].$$ We call these conditions *Pareto-efficient responses*. Let ${\\mbox{PN}}\\subseteq A$ denote the set of Pareto-Nash equilibria. For instance, in Figure 1, action-profile $(b^{1},b^{2},a^{3},b^{4},b^{5})$ is a PN equilibrium, since each action, given the adversary local action profile (column), is Pareto-efficient among the given agent\u2019s two actions (rows). In this example, there are $13$ Pareto-Nash equilibria (depicted in Figure 2).\n\nSuch an encompassing solution concept provides the first phase for bounding the efficiency of games. It is well-known that individualistic behaviors can be far from the optimum/maximum in terms of utilitarian evaluation $u(\\bm{a})=\\sum_{i\\in N}u^{i}(\\bm{a})$. In single-objective games[^4], this inefficiency is measured by the *Coordination Ratio* $\\mbox{CR}=\\frac{\\min[u(PN)]}{\\max[u(A)]}$ [@koutsoupias1999worst], which is more commonly known as the *Price of Anarchy* [@roughgarden2009intrinsic]. However, in the multi-objective case, the utilitarian social welfare $\\bm{u}(\\bm{a})=\\sum_{i\\in N}\\bm{u}^{i}(\\bm{a})$ is a vector-valued function $\\bm{u}:A\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}^d$ with respect to $d$ objectives. To study the efficiency of Pareto-Nash equilibria, we introduce:\n\n-   set of *equilibria outcomes* $\\quad{\\mathcal{E}}\\quad=\\quad\\bm{u}({\\mbox{PN}})\\quad(\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d}),$\n\n-   set of *efficient outcomes* $\\quad{\\mathcal{F}}\\quad=\\quad{\\mbox{EFF}}[\\bm{u}(A)]\\quad(\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d})$.\n\n![Biobjective set of utilitarian outcomes $\\bm{u}(A)\\subset{\\mathbb{R}}^2$ in Ocean Shores.](Figure2.png)\n\n\u00a0\n\nThe utilitarian outcomes are a set of vectors, depicted above. Worst case equilibria and optima are not uniquely defined. The ratio of set of equilibria outcomes ${\\mathcal{E}}$ ($\\Diamond$) to set of efficient outcomes ${\\mathcal{F}}$ ($\\times$) would be a ratio of sets, which remains undefined. It would be crucial that such a definition keeps information for every objective. E.g., we want to remember that a car pollutes, or that a cigarette kills, not just that it makes some economic agents happy.\n\nNumerous pure strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria exist.\n====================================================\n\nThis section demonstrates the existence of pure strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria. Firstly, we write how the existence results from single-objective (SO) games can be retrieved in MO games. Secondly, we generalize the equilibria existence results of single-objective potential games to multi-objective potential games. Thirdly, we show that on average, numerous Pareto-Nash equilibria exist.\n\nReductions from MO games to SO games\n------------------------------------\n\nIn the literature, most rationalities are constructed by means of a utility function $v^{i}:{\\mathbb{R}}^{d}\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}$, which is monotonic with respect to the Pareto-dominance, that is: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\bm{x}{\\succ}\\bm{y} &\\Rightarrow& v^{i}(\\bm{x})> v^{i}(\\bm{y})\\end{aligned}$$ Such functions are called *Pareto-monotonic*. For instance, these include positive weighted sums, Cobb-Douglas utilities, and utility functions in general as assumed by the Arrow-Debreu theorem.\n\nA straightforward consequence is that the set of Pareto-efficient vectors contains the optima of any Pareto-monotonic utility function. Formally, given a MOG $\\Gamma$, from Pareto-monotonic utility functions $V=(v^{i}:{\\mathbb{R}^d}\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}|i\\in N)$ the single-objective game $V\\circ\\Gamma=(N,\\{A^{i}\\}_{i\\in N},\\{v^{i}\\circ \\bm{u}^{i}\\}_{i\\in N})$ results from the given utilities, and one has: ${\\mbox{PN}}(V\\circ\\Gamma)\\subseteq{\\mbox{PN}}(\\Gamma).$ In other words, Pareto-Nash equilibria encompass the game\u2019s outcome, regardless of the unknown preferences.\n\nAlso, inclusion ${\\mbox{PN}}(V\\circ\\Gamma)\\subseteq{\\mbox{PN}}(\\Gamma)$ argues for the guaranteed existence of numerous PN equilibria in MO games, under the following assumptions:\n\n1.  the structure of the SO game on every objective is the same,\n\n2.  equilibria are guaranteed in that structure of SO game,\n\n3.  and a positive linear combination of the MO game induces that SO game.\n\nThis remark is the canonical argument used in previous results (e.g. [@shapley1959equilibrium; @patrone2007multicriteria]).\n\nMulti-objective potentials\n--------------------------\n\nWe now explore potential games, as introduced for congestion games by Robert Rosenthal [@rosenthal1973class; @monderer1996potential] and recently generalized to MO games [@patrone2007multicriteria]. The existence of an MO potential function guarantees that at least one Pareto-Nash equilibrium exists [@patrone2007multicriteria]. We go further and completely characterize the set of PN equilibria.\n\nAn MO game $\\Gamma=\\left(N,\\{A^{i}\\}_{i\\in N},{{\\mathcal{D}}},\\{\\bm{u}^{i}\\}_{i\\in N}\\right)$ admits *(exact) potential function* $\\bm{\\Phi}:A\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ if and only if for every action-profile $\\bm{a}\\in A$, for every agent $i\\in N$ and for every action $b^{i}\\in A^{i}$, one has: $$\\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}},\\quad\n\\Phi_k(b^{i},\\bm{a}^{-i})-\\Phi_k(\\bm{a})\\quad=\\quad u^{i}_k(b^{i},\\bm{a}^{-i})-u^{i}_k(\\bm{a}).$$\n\nThat is, function $\\bm{\\Phi}$ additively accumulates the vectorial values of each deviation.\n\nGiven a vector valued function $\\bm{\\Phi}:A\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, let the set of *locally efficient* action-profiles ${\\mbox{LOC}}(\\bm{\\Phi})$ be the set of action-profiles $\\bm{a}\\in A$ such that: $$\\bm{\\Phi}(\\bm{a})\\quad\\in\\quad{\\mbox{EFF}}[\\{\\bm{\\Phi}(b^{i},\\bm{a}^{-i})\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^{d}\\mid i\\in N,b^{i}\\in A^{i}\\}].$$\n\nSet ${\\mbox{LOC}}(\\bm{\\Phi})$ corresponds to a generalization of local optima for function $\\bm{\\Phi}$, and is non-empty if sets $N$, ${{\\mathcal{D}}}$ and $A$ are finite. Moreover, due to the loose requirement for local efficiency, set ${\\mbox{LOC}}(\\bm{\\Phi})$ is likely to contain numerous action-profiles.\n\n\\[th:1\\] Let $\\Gamma=\\left(N,\\{A^{i}\\}_{i\\in N},{{\\mathcal{D}}},\\{\\bm{u}^{i}\\}_{i\\in N}\\right)$ be a *finite multi-objective game*[^5] that admits potential function $\\bm{\\Phi}$. Then, it holds that: $${\\mbox{PN}}(\\Gamma)\\quad=\\quad{\\mbox{LOC}}(\\bm{\\Phi})\\quad\\neq\\quad\\emptyset.$$\n\nThis theorem completely characterizes the set of Pareto-Nash equilibria as the set of locally efficient action-profiles for function $\\bm{\\Phi}$, which is a non-empty set with numerous action-profiles. More generally, Theorem \\[th:1\\] also holds when sets $N$ and ${{\\mathcal{D}}}$ are finite and sets $A^i$ are just compact.\n\nLikelihood of equilibrium in random games\n-----------------------------------------\n\nAnother manner to study whether a ${\\mbox{PN}}$-equilibrium exists is to provide a probability distribution on a family of finite games and then discuss the probability of ${\\mbox{PN}}$-equilibrium existence. A similar methodology was successfully applied [@goldberg1968probability; @dresher1970probability; @rinott2000number] to SO games in several settings where every SO payoff $u^{i}(\\bm{a})$ is independently and identically distributed by a uniform distribution on continuous intervals $[0,1]$. At the heart of this subsection, let random variable $Z$ denote the number of pure Nash-equilibria action-profiles in the game. In the SO case, there is almost surely only one best response. However, when considering MO games, a main technical difference lies in the average number of \u201cbest responses\u201d (or here, Pareto-efficient responses), which in most cases exceeds $1$, due to the surface-like shape of the Pareto-efficient set in ${\\mathbb{R}}^{d}$, surface which is $(d-1)$ dimensional. Here, we assume a probability distribution ${\\mathbb{P}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}$, that builds randomly the Pareto-efficient response tables of an $n$-agent normal form game with $\\alpha$ actions-per-agent: for every agent $i$ and every adversary action-profile $\\bm{a}^{-i}\\in\\prod_{j\\neq i}A^{j}$, there is a fixed number $\\beta:1<\\beta\\leq\\alpha$ of Pareto-efficient responses, for the sake of simplicity.\n\nGiven numbers $n\\geq2$ of agents, $\\alpha\\geq2$ of actions-per-agent and $\\beta\\leq\\alpha$ of Pareto-efficient responses, based on probability distribution ${\\mathbb{P}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}$, the number $Z$ of Pareto-Nash equilibria satisfies ${\\mathbb{E}}[Z] = \\beta^n$ and: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathbb{P}}\\left( (1-\\gamma)\\beta^n\\leq {Z} \\leq (1+\\gamma)\\beta^n \\right) & \\geq & 1 - \\frac{1}{\\gamma^2 \\beta^{n}},\\quad\\forall\\gamma\\in(0,1). \\end{aligned}$$\n\nIt argues for the existence of numerous Pareto-Nash equilibria when there are enough agents and efficient responses, and follows from the Bienaym\u00e9-Tchebychev inequality. For instance, (given $\\gamma=1/2$) the probability that the number of Pareto-Nash equilibria $Z$ is between $(1/2)\\beta^{n}$ and $(3/2)\\beta^{n}$, is at least $1-4\\beta^{-n}$, which for $\\beta=2$ efficient responses and $n=5$ agents, gives ${\\mathbb{P}}(16\\leq Z\\leq48)\\geq7/8$.\n\nConsistent extension to mixed strategies {#sec:mixed}\n========================================\n\nTo guarantee equilibrium existence by means of fixed-point theorems on compact sets [@vnmAndMorgenstern1944; @nash1950equilibrium], the finite action sets of every agent are expanded to include *mixed strategies*. That is: every agent $i$ decides a probability distribution $p^{i}$ in the set $\\Delta(A^{i})$ of probability distributions over his action-set $A^{i}$. Each payoff function $\\bm{u}^{i}$ is redefined to be the expected utility $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\bm{u}^{i}(\\bm{p}) &=& {\\mathbb{E}}_{\\bm{a}\\sim\\bm{p}}[\\bm{u}^{i}(\\bm{a})],\\end{aligned}$$ under the mixed-strategy profile $\\bm{p}=(p^{1},\\ldots,p^{n})\\in\\prod_{i\\in N}\\Delta(A^{i})$. This defines a mixed-extension of the original game. The stability concept induced is called a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium.\n\nIn MOGs, Pareto-Nash equilibria based on their original definition by Blackwell [@blackwell1956analog] and Shapley [@shapley1959equilibrium] (below) are those usually considered [@borm1988pareto; @corley1985games; @voorneveld1999potential; @zeleny1975games].\n\nGiven finite MO game $\\Gamma=\\left(N,\\{A^{i}\\}_{i\\in N},\\{{{\\mathcal{D}}}\\},\\{\\bm{u}^{i}\\}_{i\\in N}\\right)$, a mixed-strategy profile $\\bm{p}=(p^{1},\\ldots,p^{n})\\in\\prod_{i\\in N}\\Delta(A^{i})$ is a mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium if and only if it satisfies for every agent $i$: $$\\bm{u}^{i}(p^{i},\\bm{p}^{-i})\\in{\\mbox{EFF}}\\left[\\left\\{ \\bm{u}^{i}(q^{i},\\bm{p}^{-i})\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^{d}\\mid q^{i}\\in\\Delta(A^{i})\\right\\} \\right]$$\n\nThe rational behind this first definition is the following. For every agent $i$, mixed-strategy $p^{i}\\in\\Delta(A^{i})$ acts as a convex-combination of set of vectorial payoffs $\\bm{u}^{i}(A^{i},\\bm{p}^{-i})$ and the best-response condition is replaced by the fact that mixed-strategy $p^{i}$ should have a Pareto-efficient evaluation $\\bm{u}^{i}(p^{i},\\bm{p}^{-i})$ among the elements of this convex set of evaluations $\\{\\bm{u}^{i}(q^{i},\\bm{p}^{-i})\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^{d}\\mid q^{i}\\in\\Delta(A^{i})\\}$. That is, a mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium is a pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium in finite game $\\Gamma$\u2019s mixed extension. However, as depicted in Figure \\[fig:mix\\], Definition 1 fails to fulfill two fundamental requirements:\n\n1.  Pure-strategy equilibria must be included in mixed-strategy equilibria.\n\n2.  Mixed-strategies also enable to model a risk-averse agent.\n\nFigure 3 demonstrates these side effects.\n\nTo fulfill the two requirements, instead of efficient mixed actions, we consider mixtures of efficient pure-actions. As in Figure \\[fig:mix\\], it corrects both side effects.\n\nGiven a finite multi-objective game $\\left(N,\\{A^{i}\\}_{i\\in N},\\{{{\\mathcal{D}}}\\},\\{\\bm{u}^{i}\\}_{i\\in N}\\right)$, a mixed-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium is a mixed-strategy profile$\\bm{p}=(p^{1},\\ldots,p^{n})\\in\\prod_{i\\in N}\\Delta(A^{i})$, such that for every agent $i$ and action $a^{i}\\in A^{i}$ if $a^{i}$ is played with positive probability $p^{i}(a^{i})>0$, then it holds that $$\\bm{u}^{i}(a^{i},\\bm{p}^{-i})\\quad\\in\\quad{\\mbox{EFF}}\\left[\\bm{u}^{i}(A^{i},\\bm{p}^{-i})\\right].$$\n\n![Single-agent three-actions bi-objective game showing inconsistencies. (The coordinates correspond to the bi-objective valuation $(u_1,u_2)$.)[]{data-label=\"fig:mix\"}](Figure3.png)\n\n\u00a0\n\nThe three outcomes, $u(A)=\\{(1,4),(2,2),(4,1)\\}$, are depicted by black dots. With Def. 4, since the mixed outcomes are all convex-combinations of $\\{(1,4),(2,2),(4,1)\\}$, the Pareto-efficient mixed-strategies are here the convex-combinations of $\\{(1,4),(4,1)\\}$; and outcome $(2,2)$ is Pareto-dominated. Not every pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibrium is a mixed-strategy one, which is a severe inconsistency. Furthermore, since outcome $(2,2)$ is well balanced, it may also be decided with a non-null probability, e.g., if the agent\u2019s utility is concave [@cobb1928theory], or if she is risk-averse [@kahneman1979prospect]. Our *revised* definition considers instead all the convex-combinations of the Pareto-efficient pure actions $\\{(1,4),(2,2),(4,1)\\}$.\n\nThis generalized definition connects in the single-objective case to a less know definition of Nash-equilibria (see [@papadimitriou2007agt], page 30, Theorem 2.1). In this alternative definition, each mixed strategy must be a mixture of pure-strategies that are best-responses. In other words, the support of each mixed strategy must be included in the set of pure-strategy best-responses. Furthermore, concerning existence, since this revised definition contains the former one, (which is guaranteed to exist) the new definition is guaranteed to exist too.\n\nMulti-objective coordination ratio \n===================================\n\nIn the single-objective case, the coordination ratio measures the efficiency loss of equilibria compared to the optimum. In MO games, we claim that it is critical to study efficiency with respect to every objective. Even after the actions, the game analyst still has access to the vectorial payoffs. In this section, we follow the agenda outlined in the introduction, to define a *multi-objective coordination ratio* $\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ of the set of equilibria outcomes ${\\mathcal{E}}$ to the set of efficient outcomes ${\\mathcal{F}}$, that fills the critical purpose to keep information on each objective.\n\nFirst, we state the list of desirable properties that we want the ratio to satisfy. For the purpose of having meaningful divisions and ratios, some vectors are positive in this section. Given vectors $\\bm{\\rho},\\bm{y}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}$ and $\\bm{z}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, vector $\\bm{\\rho}\\star \\bm{y}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}$ is defined by $\\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}},(\\bm{\\rho}\\star \\bm{y})_{k}=\\rho_{k}y_{k}$. Vector $\\bm{y}/\\bm{z}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}$ is defined by $\\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}},(\\bm{y}/\\bm{z})_{k}=y_{k}/z_{k}$. Given vector $\\bm{r}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}$ and set of vectors $Y$, set $\\bm{r}\\star Y$ is defined by $\\{\\bm{r}\\star \\bm{y}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}|\\bm{y}\\in Y\\}$ and for $\\bm{r}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, set $Y/\\bm{r}$ is defined by $\\lbrace \\bm{y}/\\bm{r}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}|\\bm{y}\\in Y\\rbrace$. Given $\\bm{x}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}$, cone ${\\mathcal{C}}(\\bm{x})$ denotes $\\{\\bm{y}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}~|~\\bm{x}{\\succsim}\\bm{y}\\}$, and given $X\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d}$, cone-union ${\\mathcal{C}}(X\\text{)}$ is defined by $\\cup_{\\bm{x}\\in X}{\\mathcal{C}}(\\bm{x})$. Vector $\\bm{0}$ denotes a vector with $d$ zeros, and $\\bm{1}$ denotes a vector with $d$ ones.\n\nThe first property that we require from $\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ is to be on a *multi-objective ratio scale*. Given ${\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $\\bm{r}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, the following shall hold. $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}] \n&\\quad\\subseteq& \n{\\mathbb{R}^d}\\label{eq:ratio:6}\\\\ \n\\mbox{MO-CR}[\\{\\bm{0}\\},{\\mathcal{F}}] \n&\\quad=& \n\\{\\bm{0}\\}\\label{eq:ratio:7}\\\\ \n\\mbox{MO-CR}[\\bm{r}\\star{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}] \n& \\quad=& \n\\bm{r}\\star\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]\\label{eq:ratio:8}\\\\ \n\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},\\bm{r}\\star{\\mathcal{F}}] \n& \\quad=& \n\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]/\\bm{r}\\label{eq:ratio:9}\\\\ \n{\\mathcal{E}}\\subseteq{\\mathcal{F}}& \\quad\\Leftrightarrow& \n\\bm{1}\\in \\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]\\label{eq:ratio:10} \\end{aligned}$$ To fix these ideas one can think of $d=1$ and given two positive numbers $e,f$, to the properties of ratio $e/f$. Equation (\\[eq:ratio:6\\]) states that MO-CR is expressed in a multi-objective space. Equations (\\[eq:ratio:7\\]), (\\[eq:ratio:8\\]) and (\\[eq:ratio:9\\]) state that MO-CR is well-centered and sensitive on each objective to multiplications of outcomes, which is what we want. For instance, if ${\\mathcal{E}}$ is three times better on objective $k$, then so is MO-CR. If there are two times more efficient opportunities in ${\\mathcal{F}}$ on objective $k'$, then MO-CR is one half on objective $k'$. In other words, the efficiency of each objective independently reflects on MO-CR in a ratio-scale. Equation (\\[eq:ratio:10\\]) states that if all equilibria outcomes are efficient (i.e. ${\\mathcal{E}}\\subseteq{\\mathcal{F}}$), then this amounts to $\\bm{1}\\in\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$, i.e. the MO game is fully efficient.\n\nThese requirements rule out a set of first ideas. For instance, we can rule out comparisons of equilibria outcomes to ideal vector $\\mathcal{I}=(\\max_{z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}\\lbrace z_{k}\\rbrace|k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}})$ does not satisfy requirement (5) to have $\\bm{1}\\in\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ when ${\\mathcal{E}}\\subseteq{\\mathcal{F}}$. By starting from a social welfare $f:{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}_+$, taking ratio $\\min f({\\mathcal{E}})/\\max f({\\mathcal{F}})$, induces the same problem.\n\nThis measurement should also be non-dictatorial, in the sense that no point of view should be imposed on what the overall efficiency is: no prior choice must be done on the set of efficient outcomes. Formally, if two sets of efficient outcomes ${\\mathcal{F}},{\\mathcal{F}}'\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ differ even slightly, then this must reflect at least for some numerator set ${\\mathcal{E}}$ onto ratio $\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$. This amounts to a disjunction on efficient outcomes. Finally $\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ must provide guaranteed efficiency ratios that hold for every equilibrium outcome $\\bm{y}\\in{\\mathcal{E}}$, which amounts to a conjunction on equilibria outcomes. The definition below follows from these requirements.\n\nFirstly, the efficiency of *one* equilibrium $\\bm{y}\\in{\\mathcal{E}}$ is quantified without prior choices on what efficient outcome should we compare it to, as required: $$\\begin{aligned}\nR[\\bm{y},{\\mathcal{F}}]\\quad =\\quad \\bigcup_{\\bm{z}\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}{\\mathcal{C}}(\\bm{y}/\\bm{z}), \\end{aligned}$$ The idea is that we do not take sides with any efficient outcome. Instead, we define with flexibility and without a dictatorship a disjunctive set of guaranteed efficiency ratios, which lets the differences between two sets of efficient outcomes ${\\mathcal{F}},{\\mathcal{F}}'\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ reflect onto ratio $\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$.\n\nSecondly, in MOGs, on average, there are many Pareto-Nash equilibria. An efficiency *guarantee* $\\bm{\\rho}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}$ should hold for every equilibrium outcome. It induces this conjunctive definition of the set of guaranteed vectorial ratios: $$\\begin{aligned}\nR[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]\\quad=\\quad\\bigcap_{\\bm{y}\\in{\\mathcal{E}}} R[\\bm{y},{\\mathcal{F}}]. \\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn fact, because of the conjunction on equilibria outcomes, the set $R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ only depends on sets ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ (instead of set ${\\mathcal{E}}$) and ${\\mathcal{F}}$.\n\nFinally, if two bounds on efficiencies $\\bm{\\rho}$ and $\\bm{\\rho}'$ are such that $\\bm{\\rho}{\\succ}\\bm{\\rho}'$ (e.g. the former guarantees fraction $\\bm{\\rho}=(0.75,0.75)$ of efficiency and the later fraction $\\bm{\\rho}'=(0.5,0.5)$), then $\\bm{\\rho}'$ brings no more information; hence, MO-CR is defined using ${\\mbox{EFF}}$ on the guaranteed efficiency ratios $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$. These points are summed up in the following definition:\n\n\\[def:MOCR\\] Given an MO game, vector $\\bm{\\rho}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d}$ bounds its inefficiency (i.e. $\\bm{\\rho}\\in R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$) if and only if the following holds (see Fig. 4) : $$\\forall \\bm{y}\\in{\\mathcal{E}},\\quad\\exists \\bm{z}\\in{\\mathcal{F}},\\quad \\bm{y}/\\bm{z}{\\succsim}\\bm{\\rho}.$$ The multi-objective coordination ratio $\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ is then defined as: $$\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]\\quad=\\quad{\\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]].$$\n\n![Didactic depiction of a guaranteed vectorial ratio $\\bm{\\rho}$ from $\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$.](Figure4)\n\n\u00a0\n\nThe most famous results of the coordination ratio (or price of anarchy) are stated analytically on families of games, for instance on congestion games [@christodoulou2005price; @roughgarden2009intrinsic]. Such results would also be desirable in the multi-objective case. However, the underlying proofs do not survive this generalization: while best response inequalities can be summed in single-objective cases, here, non-Pareto-dominances cannot. This issue is independent of the chosen efficiency measurement and motivates numerical approaches, as proposed in the next section.\n\nComputation\n===========\n\nIn this section, we provide algorithms for computing the set of pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria and for computing the multi-objective coordination ratio.\n\nComputing pure-strategy Pareto-Nash equilibria\n----------------------------------------------\n\nIf the MO game is given in *normal form*, then it is made of the MO payoffs of every agent $i\\in N$ on every action-profile $\\bm{a}\\in A$. Since there are $n\\alpha^{n}$ such vectors, where recall that $n$ is the number of agents, $\\alpha$ the number of actions per agent and $d$ the number of objectives, the length of this input is $L(n)=n\\alpha^{n}d$. Then, enumeration of the action-profiles works efficiently with respect to length function $L$, using a simple argument similar to [@gottlob2005pure].\n\nGiven a MO game in normal form, computing the set of the best (resp. worst) equilibria outcomes ${\\mbox{EFF}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ (resp. ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$) takes polynomial time $$O(n\\alpha^{n+1}d+\\alpha^{2n}d)\\quad=\\quad O(L^{2}).$$ Moreover, if $d=2$, this complexity is lowered to quasi-linear-time $$O(n\\alpha^{n}\\log_{2}(\\alpha))=O(L\\log_{2}(\\alpha)).$$\n\nprovide compact representations of massive multi-agent games when the payoff functions of the agents only depend on a local subset of the agents [@kearns2001graphical]. Graphical games can be generalized in a straightforward manner to assuming vectorial payoffs. Formally, there is a support graph $G=(N,E)$ where each vertex represents an agent, and an agent $i$\u2019s evaluation function only depends on the actions of the agents in his inner-neighbourhood ${\\mathcal{N}}(i)=\\{j\\in N|(j,i)\\in E\\}$. That is $\\bm{u}^i:A^{{\\mathcal{N}}(i)}\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}^d$ maps each local action-profile $\\bm{a}^{{\\mathcal{N}}(i)}\\in A^{{\\mathcal{N}}(i)}$ to a multi-objective payoff $\\bm{u}^i(\\bm{a}^{{\\mathcal{N}}(i)})\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^d$.\n\nAn MOGG is a tuple $\\left(G=(N,E), \\{A^i\\}_{i\\in N}, {{\\mathcal{D}}}, \\{\\bm{u}^i\\}_{i\\in N}\\right)$. $N$ is the set of agents. $\\{A^i\\}_{i\\in N}$ are their individual action-sets. ${{\\mathcal{D}}}$ is the set of all objectives. Every function $\\bm{u}^i:A^{{\\mathcal{N}}(i)}\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{R}}^d$ is vector-valued, and its scope is vertex $i$\u2019s neighborhood.\n\nFigure 1 pictures a didactic instance of an MOGG. In the same manner as computing equilibria in graphical games was reduced to junction-tree algorithms [@daskalakis2006computing], it is also possible to exploit a generalized MO junction-tree algorithm [@dubus2009multiobjective; @gonzales2011decision]. However, even though this MO junction-tree algorithm is not in polynomial time (but rather pseudo-polynomial time), it still remains faster than browsing the Cartesian product of action-sets and is tractable on average, as experimented in the appendix. Symmetric games [@jiang2007computing] can also be generalized to MOGs:\n\nIn a *multi-objective symmetric game*, individual payoffs are not impacted by the agents\u2019 identities. There is one sole action-set $A^{\\ast}$ for every agent $i$. So, when deciding action $a^{\\ast}\\in A^{\\ast}$, the multi-objective reward only depends on the number of agents that decided every action. Consequently, the game is not specified for every action-profile $\\bm{a}\\in A=\\prod_{i\\in N}A^{\\ast}$ and every agent $i$, but rather for every action $a^{\\ast}\\in A^{\\ast}$ and every *configuration* $c:A^{\\ast}\\rightarrow\\mathbb{N}$, where number $c(a^{\\ast})\\in\\mathbb{N}$ indicates the number of agents deciding action $a^{\\ast}$. Therefore, the utility is given by a function $\\bm{u}^{\\ast}$ such that $\\bm{u}^{\\ast}(a^{\\ast},c)\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^{d}$ is the payoff for deciding action $a^{\\ast}$ when configuration $c$ occurs.\n\nThere is a number ${n+\\alpha-1 \\choose \\alpha-1}$ of configurations[^6] to which the MO symmetric game associates MO vectors. As a consequence, generalizing to vectorial payoffs, the representation length is $L=\\alpha{n+\\alpha-1 \\choose \\alpha-1}d$, and when the numbers $\\alpha$ and $d$ are fixed constant, length is $L(n)\\in\\Theta\\left(\\alpha n^{\\alpha}d\\right)$. Quite simply, for computing ${\\mathcal{E}}$, ${\\mbox{EFF}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$, configurations enumeration already takes polynomial time.\n\nGiven a multi-objective symmetric game with fixed $\\alpha$,\n\n-   computing ${\\mbox{PN}}$ and ${\\mathcal{E}}$ takes time $O(n^{\\alpha}\\alpha^{2}d)=O(L\\alpha)$;\n\n-   computing ${\\mbox{EFF}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ takes time $O(n^{2\\alpha}d)=O(L^{2})$. If $d=2$, this lowers to $O(L(\\alpha+\\log_{}(L)))$.\n\nComputing MO-CR\n---------------\n\nIn this subsection, we address the problem of computing the set $\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$, given sets of worst equilibria outcomes ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and efficient outcomes ${\\mathcal{F}}$. Algorithm 1 (below) computes such set. In the algorithm, set $D^{t}$ denotes a set of vectors. Given two vectors, $\\bm{x},\\bm{y}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, let $\\bm{x}\\wedge \\bm{y}$ denote the vector defined by $\\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}},~(\\bm{x}\\wedge \\bm{y})_{k}=\\min\\{x_{k},y_{k}\\}$, let $\\bm{x}^{\\bm{y}}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ be the vector defined by $\\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}}, (\\bm{x}^{\\bm{y}})_k=(x_k)^{y_k}$, and recall that $\\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}},~(\\bm{x}/\\bm{y})_{k}=x_{k}/y_{k}$.\n\n\u00a0\\\n\\[-1.5ex\\] [**create** ]{} $D^1\\leftarrow \\{\\bm{y}^1/\\bm{z}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}~|~\\bm{z}\\in{\\mathcal{F}}\\}$\\\n$D^q$\n\nAlgorithm 1 outputs $\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ in poly-time $O((qm)^{2d-1}d),$ where $q=|{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]|$ and $m=|{\\mathcal{F}}|$ denote the size of the inputs, and $d$ is fixed.\n\nAlgorithm 1 calculates product $\\cap_{\\bm{y}\\in{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]}\\cup_{\\bm{z}\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}{\\mathcal{C}}(\\bm{y}/\\bm{z})$, where there could be $m^q$ terms in the output. This set-algebra of cone-unions is compact.\n\nA decisive corollary is that given an MO game with length $L$ that satisfies $q=O(\\text{poly}(L))$, $m=O(\\text{poly}(L))$ and both sets ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}$ are computable in time $O(\\text{poly}(L))$, then one can compute $\\text{MO-CR}$ in polynomial time $O(\\text{poly}(L))$. For instance, it is the case with MO normal forms or MO symmetric games. So this approach is not intractable in the most basic cases.\n\nApproximation of the MO-CR for MO compact representations\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\nUnfortunately, Algorithm 1 is not practical when the MO game has a compact form and cardinalities $q,m$ are exponentials with respect to the compact size of the game\u2019s representation. For instance, this is the case for multi-objective graphical games. Theorem \\[th:approx\\] below answers this issue by taking only a small and approximate representation of sets ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}$, in order to output a guaranteed approximation of sets $\\text{MO-CR}$ or $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$. This suggests the following general method:\n\n1.  Given a compact MOG representation, compute quickly an approximation $E^{(\\varepsilon)}$ of ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and an approximation $F^{(\\varepsilon')}$ of ${\\mathcal{F}}$.\n\n2.  Then, given $E^{(\\varepsilon)}$ and $F^{(\\varepsilon')}$, use Algorithm 1 to approximate the MO-CR.\n\nFor this general method to be implemented rigorously, we must specify the precise definitions of the two approximations required in input, for the desired output to be indeed some approximation of the MO-CR.\n\nFirstly, let us specify the [output]{}. The ratios in $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$ must be represented, even approximately, but only by using valid ratios of efficiency, as below.\n\n\\[def:covering\\] Given $R\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $\\varepsilon>0$,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 $R^{(\\varepsilon)}\\subset R$ is a $(1+\\varepsilon)$-covering of $R$, if and only if: $$\\forall \\bm{\\rho}\\in R,\\quad\n\\exists \\bm{\\rho}'\\in R^{(\\varepsilon)}:\\quad\n(1+\\varepsilon)\\bm{\\rho}' {\\succsim}\\bm{\\rho}$$\n\nFor instance, $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$ is $(1+0)$-covered by $\\text{MO-CR}={\\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]]$. Denote $\\bm{\\varphi}:{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}\\rightarrow{\\mathbb{N}^d}$ the discretization into the $(1+\\varepsilon)$-logarithmic grid. Given a vector $\\bm{x}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, $\\bm{\\varphi}(x)$ is defined by: $\\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}},~~\\varphi_k(x)=\\lfloor\\log_{(1+\\varepsilon)}(x_k)\\rfloor$. A typical implementation of $(1+\\varepsilon)$-coverings are the logarithmic $(1+\\varepsilon)$-coverings, which consist in taking one vector of $R$ in each reciprocal image of $\\bm{\\varphi}(R)$. That is, for each $\\bm{l}\\in\\bm{\\varphi}(R)$, take one $\\bm{\\rho}$ in $\\bm{\\varphi}^{-1}(\\bm{l})$. The logarithmic grid is depicted in Fig. \\[fig:mo:approx\\].\n\nNow we must specify rigorously what approximate representations $E^{(\\varepsilon_1)}$ of set ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$, and $F^{(\\varepsilon_2)}$ of set ${\\mathcal{F}}$ we should take in input, in order to guarantee that $R[E^{(\\varepsilon_1)},F^{(\\varepsilon_2)}]$ is an $(1+\\varepsilon)$-covering of $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$. Definitions \\[def:under:covering\\] and \\[def:stick:covering\\] come from the need of specific approximate representations that will carry the guarantees to the approximate final output $R[E^{(\\varepsilon_1)},F^{(\\varepsilon_2)}]$.\n\n\\[def:under:covering\\] Given $\\varepsilon>0$, $E\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $E^{(\\varepsilon)}\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, $E^{(\\varepsilon)}$ $(1+\\varepsilon)$-[under]{}-covers $E$ if and only if: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\forall \\bm{y}\\in E,~~\n\\exists \\bm{y}'\\in E^{(\\varepsilon)} &:&\n\\bm{y}{\\succsim}\\bm{y}'\\\\\n\\text{and}~~~\n\\forall \\bm{y}'\\in E^{(\\varepsilon)},~~\n\\exists \\bm{y}\\in E &:&\n(1+\\varepsilon)\\bm{y}'{\\succsim}\\bm{y}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe first condition states that $E^{(\\varepsilon)}$ bounds $E$ from below. The second condition states that this lower bound is precise within a multiplicative $(1+\\varepsilon)$. Given $E$, one can implement Definition \\[def:under:covering\\] by using the log-grid (see e.g. Fig. \\[fig:mo:approx\\]): $$E^{(\\varepsilon)}\\leftarrow{\\mbox{WST}}\\left[~~\\left\\{~\\bm{e}^{\\bm{l}}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}\\mid \\bm{l}\\in\\bm{\\varphi}\\left({\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]\\right)\\right\\}~~\\right]$$ where $\\bm{\\varphi}({\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}])=\\{\\bm{\\varphi}(\\bm{y})\\in{\\mathbb{N}^d}\\mid\\bm{y}\\in {\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]\\}$, and given $\\bm{l}\\in{\\mathbb{N}^d}$, the vector $\\bm{e}^{\\bm{l}}$ is defined by $(\\bm{e}^{\\bm{l}})_k=(1+\\varepsilon)^{l_k}$. Now let us state what approximation is required on the set of efficient outcomes ${\\mathcal{F}}$.\n\n\\[def:stick:covering\\] Given $\\varepsilon>0$, $F\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $F^{(\\varepsilon)}\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, $F^{(\\varepsilon)}$ $(1+\\varepsilon)$-[stick]{}-covers $F$ if and only if: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\forall \\bm{z}'\\in F^{(\\varepsilon)},~~\n\\exists \\bm{z}\\in F &:&\n\\bm{z}'{\\succsim}\\bm{z}\\\\\n\\text{and}~~~\n\\forall \\bm{z}\\in F,~~\n\\exists \\bm{z}'\\in F^{(\\varepsilon)} &:&\n(1+\\varepsilon)\\bm{z}{\\succsim}\\bm{z}'\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe first condition is easily satisfiable by $F^{(\\varepsilon)}\\subseteq F$. The second condition states that $F^{(\\varepsilon)}$ sticks to $F$. Given $F$, one can implement Definition \\[def:stick:covering\\] as in Figure \\[fig:mo:approx\\]: Take one element of ${\\mathcal{F}}$ per cell of the logarithmic grid, and then take ${\\mbox{WST}}$ of this set of elements. Now we can state that with an approximate Phase 1, the precision transfers to Phase 2 in polynomial time, as follows.\n\n![MO approximations, depictions of under and stick coverings[]{data-label=\"fig:mo:approx\"}](art1/logGridphi.pdf)\n\n\u00a0\n\n$E^{(\\varepsilon)}$ (the green dots below ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$) is a $(1+\\varepsilon)$-under-covering of set ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$.\\\n$F^{(\\varepsilon)}$ (the three red dots in ${\\mathcal{F}}$) is a $(1+\\varepsilon)$-stick-covering of the dark-red set ${\\mathcal{F}}$.\n\n\\[lem:approx\\] Given $\\varepsilon_1,\\varepsilon_2>0$ and approximations $E$ of ${\\mathcal{E}}$ and $F$ of ${\\mathcal{F}}$, if $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\forall \\bm{y}\\in{\\mathcal{E}}, \\exists \\bm{y}'\\in E,\\quad \\bm{y}{\\succsim}\\bm{y}' &\n\\quad \\text{and}\\quad & \n\\forall \\bm{y}'\\in E, \\exists \\bm{y}\\in{\\mathcal{E}},\\quad (1+\\varepsilon_1)\\bm{y}'{\\succsim}\\bm{y}\\label{eq:approx:E}\\\\\n\\forall \\bm{z}'\\in F, \\exists \\bm{z}\\in{\\mathcal{F}},\\quad \\bm{z}'{\\succsim}\\bm{z} &\n\\quad \\text{and}\\quad & \n\\forall \\bm{z}\\in{\\mathcal{F}}, \\exists \\bm{z}'\\in F,\\quad (1+\\varepsilon_2)\\bm{z}{\\succsim}\\bm{z}'\\label{eq:approx:F}\\end{aligned}$$ holds, then it follows that $R[E,F]\\subseteq R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ and: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\forall \\bm{\\rho}\\in R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}],\\quad \\exists \\bm{\\rho}'\\in R[E,F],\\quad (1+\\varepsilon_1)(1+\\varepsilon_2)\\bm{\\rho}'{\\succsim}\\bm{\\rho}\\label{eq:approx:R}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nEquations (\\[eq:approx:E\\]) and (\\[eq:approx:F\\]) state approximation bounds as in Definitions \\[def:under:covering\\] and \\[def:stick:covering\\]. Equations (\\[eq:approx:E\\]) state that $(1+\\varepsilon_1)^{-1}{\\mathcal{E}}$ bounds below $E$ which bounds below ${\\mathcal{E}}$. Equations (\\[eq:approx:F\\]) state that ${\\mathcal{F}}$ bounds below $F$ which bounds below $(1+\\varepsilon_2){\\mathcal{F}}$. Crucially, whatever the sizes of ${\\mathcal{E}}$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}$, there exist such approximations $E$ and $F$ with respective sizes $O((1/\\varepsilon_1)^{d-1})$ and $O((1/\\varepsilon_2)^{d-1})$ [@papadimitriou2000approximability], yielding the approximation scheme below.\n\n\\[th:approx\\] Given a compact MOG of representation length $L$, precisions $\\varepsilon_1,\\varepsilon_2>0$ and two algorithms to compute approximations $E$ of ${\\mathcal{E}}$ and $F$ of ${\\mathcal{F}}$ in the sense of Equations (\\[eq:approx:E\\]) and (\\[eq:approx:F\\]) that take time $\\theta_{{\\mathcal{E}}}(\\varepsilon_1,L)$ and $\\theta_{{\\mathcal{F}}}(\\varepsilon_2,L)$, one can approximate $R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ in the sense of Equation (\\[eq:approx:R\\]) in time $O\\left(\\theta_{{\\mathcal{E}}}(\\varepsilon_1,L) \\quad+\\quad \\theta_{{\\mathcal{F}}}(\\varepsilon_2,L) \\quad+\\quad {(\\varepsilon_1 \\varepsilon_2)^{-(d-1)(2d-1)}}\\right)$.\n\nFor MO graphical games, Phase 1 could be instantiated with approximate junction-tree algorithms on MO graphical models [@dubus2009multiobjective]. For MO symmetric action-graph games, in the same fashion, one could generalize existing algorithms [@jiang2007computing]. More generally, for the worst equilibria ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and the efficient outcomes ${\\mathcal{F}}$, one could also use meta-heuristics with experimental guarantees.\n\nConclusion: discussion and prospects\n====================================\n\nAlong with equilibrium existence, potential functions also usually guarantee the convergence of best-response dynamics. This easily generalizes to dynamics where every deviation step is an individual Pareto-improvement. However, when studying a dynamics based on a refinement of the Pareto-dominance, convergence is not always guaranteed.\n\nPareto-Nash equilibria, which encompass the possible outcomes of MO games, very likely exist. The precision of PN-equilibria inevitably relies on the uncertainty on preferences. A promising research path would be to linearly constrain the utility functions of agents. This would induce a polytope and would boil down to another MO game where every objective corresponds to an extreme point of the induced polytope. The efficiency of several multi-objective games could be analyzed by using the contributions in this paper.\n\nProof of Theorem 1\n==================\n\nLet $0_d\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^d$ denote the $d$-dimensional MO vector with $d$ zero components. Let $a\\in A$ be an action-profile. To state that $a$ is a ${\\mbox{PN}}$-equilibrium is equivalent to state that for every agent $i$ and every individual deviation $b^i\\in A^i$, it holds that: $$u^i(b^i,a^{-i})\n\\quad\\not{\\succ}\\quad\nu^i(a)$$ From the definition of a potential $\\Phi$, it is equivalent to state that, for every agent $i$ and every individual deviation $b^i\\in A^i$, it holds that: $$\\Phi(b^i,a^{-i})-\\Phi(a)\n\\quad =\\quad\nu^i(b^i,a^{-i})-u^i(a)\n\\quad\\not{\\succ}\\quad\n0_d$$ That is, $\\Phi(b^i,a^{-i})\\not{\\succ}\\Phi(a)$, which means that $a\\in{\\mbox{LOC}}(\\Phi)$.\n\nFurthermore, the existence of local optima for the potential function generalizes to the MO case: The set of locally-Pareto-efficient action-profiles is necessarily non-empty, otherwise, given $t\\in\\mathbb{N}$, whatever the action-profile $a_{(t)}$, one could always find an action-profile $a_{(t+1)}$ in its neighbourhood of individual deviations, such that $\\Phi(a_{(t+1)}){\\succ}\\Phi(a_{(t)})$. Therefore, one could build an infinite sequence $(a_{(t)})_{t\\in\\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\\Phi(a_{(t+1)}){\\succ}\\Phi(a_{(t)})$; and since the Pareto-dominance ${\\succ}$ is a strict partial order and $\\Phi$ a (deterministic) function, one would have an infinite number of distinct action-profiles, contradicting the fact that $|A|\\leq \\alpha^n$ is finite.\n\nProof of Theorem 2\n==================\n\nWe will denote by ${\\mathbb{P}}_{n,\\alpha,\\pi}$ the probability distribution that draws a normal form game (SO or MO) with $n$ agents, $\\alpha=\\alpha^i=|A^i|$ actions-per-agent, and the payoffs $u^i(a)$ according to the distribution $\\pi$ on ${\\mathbb{R}}$ or ${\\mathbb{R}}^d$. Also, according to ${\\mathbb{P}}_{n,\\alpha,\\pi}$, given an agent $i$ and an action-profile $a=(a^i,a^{-i})$, let us denote by $X_{i,a}\\in\\{0,1\\}$ the random variable (RV) which is equal to $1$ if and only if for agent $i$, the action $a^i$ is a best response (or efficient response) to the adversary action-profile $a^{-i}$. Given an action-profile $a$, let us denote by $Y_{a}=\\min_{i\\in N}\\{X_{i,a}\\}$ the binary RV which is equal to $1$ if and only if the action-profile $a$ is a PN equilibrium. Finally, let $Z=\\sum_{a\\in A} Y_{a}$ denote the number of pure Nash-equilibria action-profiles in the game. For simplicity, we may use the name of a binary random variable as a shorthand for the event that this RV equals $1$. Since for every agent $i$ and every adversary action-profile $a^{-i}$ there is (almost surely) only one best-response $b^i\\in A^i$ in $u^i(A^i,a^{-i})$ (because payoffs are almost surely different), an IID uniform distribution on $[0,1]$ amounts to whatever IID distribution that will almost surely draw uniformly one single best-response in $u^i(A^i,a^{-i})$.\n\n*Generalization to multi-objective.* While in the SO case, there is almost surely only one best-response, when considering MO games, the main technical difference lies in the average number of \u201cbest-responses\u201d (or here, Pareto-efficient responses) which is in most cases greater than $1$, due to the $(d-1)$ dimensional surface-like shape of the Pareto-efficient set in ${\\mathbb{R}}^d$. For instance, it can be shown that when drawing a number $\\alpha$ of MO payoffs according to a uniform distribution on the simplex $\\mathcal{S}_{{{\\mathcal{D}}}}=\\{u\\in{\\mathbb{R}}_+^d\\mid \\sum_{k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}}}u_k\\leq 1\\}$, then by counting the vectors on the outer face, the number $\\beta$ of Pareto-efficient vectors among the $\\alpha$ vectors satisfies: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathbb{E}}[\\beta] & \\quad \\sim \\quad &\n\\frac{d}{(d!)^{1/d}}~~\\alpha^{\\frac{d-1}{d}}\n\\quad\\quad\\quad\\text{as}\\quad\n\\alpha\\rightarrow\\infty\n\\label{eq:integfac}\\end{aligned}$$ in the sense that the ratio of the left and right members of $\\sim$ tends to $1$. As a consequence, on the simplex $\\mathcal{S}_{{{\\mathcal{D}}}}$, one quickly has a number of Pareto-efficient responses $\\beta$ strictly greater than $1$ as the number of actions $\\alpha$ grows. (The number of objectives $d$ is fixed.)\n\nFor the sake of simplicity, we then assume a probability distribution ${\\mathbb{P}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}$, that builds randomly an $n$-agents normal form game with $\\alpha$ actions-per-agent. For the sake of simplicity, for every agent $i$, and every adversary action-profile $a^{-i}\\in\\prod_{j\\neq i} A^j$, there is a fixed number $\\beta:1\\leq\\beta\\leq\\alpha$ of Pareto-efficient responses (supposedly, according to some vectorial payoffs $u^i(A^i,a^{-i})$ selected independently and uniformly at random in $A^i$). Recall that the number $\\beta$ can be reasonably supposed greater than $1$ (see Equation \\[eq:integfac\\]).\n\n[@bienayme1867] Recall that the Bienaym\u00e9-Tchebychev inequality states that for a random variable $Z$ with expectancy ${\\mathbb{E}}[Z]$ and variance ${\\text{Var}}[Z]$, for every parameter $\\mu\\in{\\mathbb{R}}_+$ it holds that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathbb{P}}(|Z-{\\mathbb{E}}[Z]|\\geq \\mu) &\\leq & \\frac{{\\text{Var}}[Z]}{\\mu}\\end{aligned}$$ In simple words, a random variable is unlikely to spread more than its variance.\n\nLet us now study the expectation of the number of PN-equilibria ${\\mathbb{E}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}[Z]$. One has: $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\mathbb{E}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}\\left[Z\\right]  &=&  {\\mathbb{E}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}\\left[\\sum_{a\\in A} Y_a \\right] \\label{eq14}\\\\ &=&  \\sum_{a\\in A} {\\mathbb{E}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}\\left[ Y_a \\right] \\label{eq15}\\\\ &=&  \\sum_{a\\in A} {\\mathbb{E}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}\\left[ \\min_{i\\in N} X_{i,a} \\right] \\label{eq16}\\\\ &=&  \\sum_{a\\in A} {\\mathbb{P}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}\\left(\\wedge_{i\\in N} \\{X_{i,a}\\} \\right) \\label{eq17}\\\\ &=&  \\sum_{a\\in A} \\prod_{i\\in N} {\\mathbb{P}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}\\left( X_{i,a} \\right) \\label{eq18}\\\\ &=&  \\sum_{a\\in A} \\prod_{i\\in N} \\frac{\\beta}{\\alpha} \\label{eq19} \\\\ &=&  \\alpha^n (\\beta/\\alpha)^n \\label{eq110}\\\\ &=& \\beta^n \\label{eq111} \\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\\[eq14\\]) uses the definition of the RV $Z$. Equation (\\[eq15\\]) uses the linearity of expectation. Equation (\\[eq16\\]) uses the definition of the RV $Y_a$. Equation (\\[eq17\\]) formulates it as an event. Equation (\\[eq18\\]) uses the independence of payoffs between agents. Equation (\\[eq19\\]) uses the definition the probability ${\\mathbb{P}}_{n,\\alpha,\\beta}$: uniform. Equation (\\[eq110\\]) uses that $|A|=\\alpha^n$ and that $\\prod_{i\\in N}(\\beta/\\alpha)=(\\beta/\\alpha)^n$. Equation (\\[eq111\\]) concludes that: ${\\mathbb{E}}[Z]=\\beta^n$. Therefore, the number of PN-equilibria $Z$ is in expectation an exponential of basis $\\beta$ with respect to the number of agents $n$. Let us now study the variance of the number of PN-equilibria $Z$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  & &{\\text{Var}}\\left(Z\\right) \\\\ &=& {\\text{Var}}\\left(\\sum_{a\\in A} Y_a \\right)\\label{eq:112}\\\\ &=& \\sum_{a\\in A} \\sum_{b\\in A} {\\text{Cov}}(Y_a,Y_b)\\label{eq:113}\\\\ &=& \\sum_{a\\in A} \\sum_{b\\in A} {\\mathbb{E}}[Y_a Y_b] - {\\mathbb{E}}[Y_a] {\\mathbb{E}}[Y_b]\\label{eq:114}\\\\ &=& \\sum_{b\\in A} \\sum_{a\\in A} \\left(\\prod_{i\\in N}{\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \\left(\\frac{\\beta}{\\alpha}\\right)^{2n}\\right)\\label{eq:115} \\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\\[eq:112\\]) uses the definition of the RV $Z$. Equation (\\[eq:113\\]) is the variance of the sum of RVs $\\sum_{a\\in A} Y_a$. Equation (\\[eq:114\\]) uses the definition of the covariance ${\\text{Cov}}(Y_a,Y_b)$. In Equation (\\[eq:115\\]) the first terms ${\\mathbb{E}}[Y_a Y_b]=\\prod_{i\\in N}{\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b})$ result from the independences of payoffs between players. The second terms ${\\mathbb{E}}[Y_a]{\\mathbb{E}}[Y_b]=(\\beta/\\alpha)^{2n}$ result from the same calculus as for the expectation ${\\mathbb{E}}[Z]$. Remark that by symmetry, all the $\\alpha^n$ terms of the outer sum are equal. Fixing an action-profile $b\\in A$, let us continue this calculus below: $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\text{Var}}\\left(Z\\right) &=&  \\alpha^n \\sum_{a\\in A} \\left(\\prod_{i\\in N}{\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \\left(\\frac{\\beta}{\\alpha}\\right)^{2n}\\right)\\label{eq:116} \\end{aligned}$$Now, having fixed an action-profile $b\\in A$, given an action-profile $a$ and an agent $i$, let us study the value of the probability ${\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})$. Remark that it will depend on whether the random variables $X_{i,a}$ and $X_{i,b}$ are independent or not:\n\n-   If $a^{-i}\\neq b^{-i}$, then the payoffs are independent, and one has the probability: $${\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})={\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}){\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,b})=(\\beta/\\alpha)^2$$\n\n-   If $a^{-i}= b^{-i}$ with $a^i\\neq b^i$, then the payoffs are dependent, and one has the probability: $${\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})={\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}~|~X_{i,b}) {\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,b})=\\frac{(\\beta-1)\\beta}{\\alpha^2}$$\n\n-   Finally, if $a=b$, then ${\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})={\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a})=\\beta/\\alpha$.\n\nNow, (having fixed an action-profile $b\\in A$) let us study the terms in the sum $\\sum_{a\\in A}$. Given an action-profile $a\\in A$, one has:\\\n$\\bullet$ If $a=b$, which occurs exactly once, then ${\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})=\\beta/\\alpha$, and the term $\\prod\\nolimits_{i\\in N}{\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \\left(\\beta/\\alpha\\right)^{2n}$ equals $(\\beta/\\alpha)^n - \\left(\\beta/\\alpha\\right)^{2n}$.\\\n$\\bullet$ If for some agent $i$, it holds that $a^{-i}= b^{-i}$ with $a^i\\neq b^i$, then a distinct agent $j$ cannot satisfy $a^{-j}= b^{-j}$, because of $a^i\\neq b^i$; hence the other agents (other than agent $i$) fall into the case of $a^{-j}\\neq b^{-j}$. This occurs exactly $n(\\alpha-1)$ times, and then while it holds that ${\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a}, X_{i,b})=(\\beta-1)\\beta/\\alpha^2$ for agent $i$, for the other agents $j$, it holds that ${\\mathbb{P}}(X_{j,a}, X_{j,b})=(\\beta/\\alpha)^2$. Therefore, the term $\\prod\\nolimits_{i\\in N}{\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \\left(\\beta/\\alpha\\right)^{2n}$ equals $((\\beta-1)\\beta/\\alpha^2)(\\beta/\\alpha)^{2n-2} - \\left(\\beta/\\alpha\\right)^{2n}$, that is:\\\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n \\prod\\nolimits_{i\\in N}{\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) - \\left(\\beta/\\alpha\\right)^{2n} &=&  \\frac {(\\beta-1)\\beta^{2n-1}-\\beta^{2n}} {\\alpha^{2n}}\\\\ &=& \\frac {-\\beta^{2n-1}} {\\alpha^{2n}} \\end{aligned}$$ $\\bullet$ In the last case, if for every agent $i$, it holds that $a^{-i}\\neq b^{-i}$, then the term cancels.\\\nTo conclude, the variance of the number of Pareto-Nash equilibria is: $$\\begin{aligned}\n &&{\\text{Var}}\\left(Z\\right) \\\\ &=&  \\alpha^n \\sum_{a\\in A} \\left(\\prod\\nolimits_{i\\in N}{\\mathbb{P}}(X_{i,a} X_{i,b}) \\quad-\\quad \\left(\\beta/\\alpha\\right)^{2n}\\right)\\label{eq:117}\\\\ &=&  \\alpha^n \\left((\\beta/\\alpha)^n - (\\beta/\\alpha)^{2n}-n(\\alpha-1)\\beta^{2n-1}/ \\alpha^{2n}\\right)\\label{eq:118}\\\\ &=& \\beta^n \\left( 1 - (\\beta/\\alpha)^n - n(\\alpha-1)\\beta^{n-1}/\\alpha^{n}\\right)\\\\ &=& \\beta^n \\left( 1 - \\quad(\\beta/\\alpha)^n(1+n(\\alpha-1)/\\beta)\\quad\\right)\\\\ &\\leq & \\beta^n  \\end{aligned}$$ To finish, since we have an expectation ${\\mathbb{E}}[Z]=\\beta^n$ and a variance ${\\text{Var}}(Z)\\leq\\beta^n$, a straightforward use of the Bienaym\u00e9-Tchebychev inequality concludes that for any given number $\\gamma\\in(0,1)$, it holds that: $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\mathbb{P}}(|Z-\\beta^n|\\leq \\gamma \\beta^n) &\\geq & 1 - \\frac{\\beta^n}{\\gamma^2 \\beta^{2n}}\\\\ & = & 1 - \\frac{1}{\\gamma^2 \\beta^{n}} \\end{aligned}$$\n\nProofs concerning the properties of the multi-objective coordination ratio\n==========================================================================\n\nWe show that Definition \\[def:MOCR\\] satisfies the following. Given ${\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}\\subset{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ and $\\bm{r}\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}] \n&\\quad\\subseteq& \n{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}\\label{eq:ratio:6:bis}\\\\ \n\\mbox{MO-CR}[\\{\\bm{0}\\},{\\mathcal{F}}] \n&\\quad=& \n\\{\\bm{0}\\}\\label{eq:ratio:7:bis}\\\\ \n\\mbox{MO-CR}[\\bm{r}\\star{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}] \n& \\quad=& \n\\bm{r}\\star\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]\\label{eq:ratio:8:bis}\\\\ \n\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},\\bm{r}\\star{\\mathcal{F}}] \n& \\quad=& \n\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]/\\bm{r}\\label{eq:ratio:9:bis}\\\\ \n{\\mathcal{E}}\\subseteq{\\mathcal{F}}& \\quad\\Leftrightarrow& \n\\bm{1}\\in \\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]\\label{eq:ratio:10:bis} \\end{aligned}$$\n\nProperty (\\[eq:ratio:6:bis\\])By definition, set $\\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ is a set of vectors in ${\\mathbb{R}^d}$.\n\nProperty (\\[eq:ratio:7:bis\\])If ${\\mathcal{E}}=\\{\\bm{0}\\}$, then the condition $\\rho\\in R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$, which is $\\forall \\bm{y}\\in{\\mathcal{E}},$ $\\quad\\exists \\bm{z}\\in{\\mathcal{F}},$ $\\bm{y}/\\bm{z}{\\succsim}\\bm{\\rho}$, rewrites $\\bm{0}{\\succsim}\\bm{\\rho}$. Then ${\\mbox{EFF}}[{\\mathcal{C}}(\\bm{0})]=\\{\\bm{0}\\}$.\n\nProperty (\\[eq:ratio:8:bis\\])We just need to show that $R[\\bm{r}\\star{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]=\\bm{r}\\star R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$. Condition $\\rho\\in R[\\bm{r}\\star{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$ rewrites into $\\forall \\bm{y}\\in{\\mathcal{E}},\\quad\\exists \\bm{z}\\in{\\mathcal{F}},\\quad \\bm{r}\\star\\bm{y}/\\bm{z}{\\succsim}\\bm{\\rho}$. Then one has $\\rho\\in \\bm{r}\\star R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$. The converse also holds by a similar argument.\n\nProperty (\\[eq:ratio:9:bis\\])Similarly, one can show that $R[{\\mathcal{E}},\\bm{r}\\star{\\mathcal{F}}]=R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]/\\bm{r}$.\n\nProperty (\\[eq:ratio:10:bis\\])First, note that since ${\\mathcal{F}}$ dominates ${\\mathcal{E}}$, it is not possible to have $\\bm{\\rho}{\\succ}\\bm{1}$ in $R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$. Second, for every $\\bm{y}\\in{\\mathcal{E}}$, one can then take $z=y$, and since $\\bm{1}/\\bm{1}{\\succsim}\\bm{1}$, one has $\\bm{1}\\in R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$. One can also show that if ${\\mathcal{E}}\\not\\subseteq{\\mathcal{F}}$ then $\\bm{1}\\not\\in \\mbox{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$.\n\nProof of Theorem 3\n==================\n\nThe computation of the best equilibria outcomes ${\\mbox{EFF}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ can be achieved by (1) computing the PN equilibria ${\\mbox{PN}}\\subseteq A$, then (2) computing the equilibria outcomes ${\\mathcal{E}}=u({\\mbox{PN}})\\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^d$ and finally (3) computing the best equilibria outcomes ${\\mbox{EFF}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]\\subseteq{\\mathcal{E}}$ (or the worst ones ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]\\subseteq{\\mathcal{E}}$).\n\n\\(1) For this purpose, for every agent $i\\in N$ and each adversary action profile $a^{-i}\\in A^{-i}$, one has to compute which individual actions give a Pareto-efficient evaluation in $u^i(A^i,a^{-i})$ (which takes time $O(\\alpha^2d)$, or if $d=2$ then $O(\\alpha\\log_2(\\alpha))$), in order to mark which action-profiles can be a PN equilibrium from $i$\u2019s point of view. Hence, computing ${\\mbox{PN}}$ takes time $O(n \\alpha^{n-1} \\alpha^2 d)$ (or if $d=2$ $O(n \\alpha^{n} \\log_2(\\alpha) )$). In the worst case, ${\\mbox{PN}}=A$ hence $|{\\mbox{PN}}|=O(\\alpha^n)$.\n\nThen, (2) computing the image through total-utilitarianism ${\\mathcal{E}}=u({\\mbox{PN}})$ requires for each $a\\in {\\mbox{PN}}$ the addition of $n$ vectors, in time $nd|{\\mbox{PN}}|=O(n\\alpha^n d)$.\n\n\\(3) Finally, the computation of ${\\mbox{EFF}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ given ${\\mathcal{E}}$ takes time $O(|{\\mathcal{E}}|^2 d)=O(\\alpha^{2n} d)$; and the same holds for ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$. To sum up, the computation of ${\\mbox{EFF}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ (or of ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$) takes time $O(n \\alpha^{n+1} d + \\alpha^{2n} d)$. If $d=2$, this significantly lowers to $O(n\\alpha^n \\log_2(\\alpha))$, by using a data structure (e.g. an AVL tree) that orders vectors according to the first objective and does comparisons on the second objective.\n\nProof of Theorem 4\n==================\n\nSince the game is symmetric, every configuration $c$ represents an equivalence class in the set of action-profiles $A$; hence, a set of configurations represents a subset of the action-profiles. Therefore, in order to compute the set of Pareto-Nash equilibria ${\\mbox{PN}}\\subseteq A$, a set of configurations is an acceptable output and even a more compact one. The problem to decide if a given configuration $c$ is a (pure-strategy) Pareto-Nash equilibrium is easy: one only has to test for every action $a^\\ast\\in A^\\ast$ such that[^7] $c(a^\\ast)\\geq 1$, if that action is a Pareto-efficient individual decision. An individual deviation to another action $b^\\ast\\in A^\\ast$ induces the configuration $c'$ obtained from the configuration $c$ by subtracting 1 from the number $c(a^\\ast)$ and adding 1 to the number $c(b^\\ast)$ of agents deciding the action $b^\\ast$. Therefore, testing if a configuration $c$ is a ${\\mbox{PN}}$ equilibrium takes time $O(\\alpha^2 d)$. As a consequence, the computation of the set of ${\\mbox{PN}}$ equilibria takes times $O(n^\\alpha \\alpha^2 d)$, that is poly-time $O(L\\alpha)$. Also, computing an utilitarian evaluation $u(c)=\\sum_{a^\\ast\\in A^\\ast}c(a^\\ast)u^{\\ast}(a^\\ast,c)\\in{\\mathbb{R}}^d$ requires $O(\\alpha)$ multiplications and additions; hence computing the set of equilibria outcomes ${\\mathcal{E}}=u({\\mbox{PN}})$ (starting from the set ${\\mbox{PN}}$ which size is $O(L)$) also takes poly-time $O(L\\alpha)$. Since the number of equilibria outcomes is bounded by the number of configurations, it follows that computing the sets of best and worst equilibria ${\\mbox{EFF}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ takes time $O(n^{2\\alpha} d)$, that is poly-time $O(L^2)$.\n\nProof of Theorem 5\n==================\n\nIn order to compute $\\text{MO-CR}={\\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]]$, let us study the structure of $\\bigcap_{y\\in{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]}\\bigcup_{z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}{\\mathcal{C}}(y/z)$, by restricting a set-algebra to the following objects:\n\n\\[def:coneunion\\] For set of vectors $X\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, Cone-Union ${\\mathcal{C}}(X)$ is: $${\\mathcal{C}}(X) \\quad=\\quad\\bigcup_{x\\in X}{\\mathcal{C}}(x) \\quad=\\quad\\{y\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}~~|~~ \\exists x\\in X, x{\\succsim}y\\}$$ Let ${\\mathcal{C}}$ denote the set of all cone-unions of ${\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$.\n\nTo define an algebra on ${\\mathcal{C}}$, one can supply ${\\mathcal{C}}$ with $\\cup$ and $\\cap$.\n\n\\[prop:algebra\\]\u00a0\\\nGiven two descriptions of cone-unions $X^1,X^2\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, we have: $${\\mathcal{C}}(X^1)\\cup{\\mathcal{C}}(X^2)\\quad=\\quad{\\mathcal{C}}( X^1\\cup X^2 )$$ Given two descriptions of cones $x^1,x^2\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, we have: $${\\mathcal{C}}(x^1)\\cap{\\mathcal{C}}(x^2)\\quad=\\quad{\\mathcal{C}}(x^1\\wedge x^2)$$ where $x^1\\wedge x^2\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ is: $\\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}}, (x^1\\wedge x^2)_k=\\min\\{x^1_k,x^2_k\\}$.\\\nGiven two descriptions of cone-unions $X^1,X^2\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, we have: $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\mathcal{C}}(X^1)\\cap{\\mathcal{C}}(X^2) &=&\\left(\\cup_{x^1\\in X^1}{\\mathcal{C}}(x^1)\\right)\\cap\\left(\\cup_{x^2\\in X^2}{\\mathcal{C}}(x^2)\\right)\\\\ &=&\\bigcup_{(x^1,x^2)\\in X^1\\times X^2}{\\mathcal{C}}(x^1)\\cap{\\mathcal{C}}(x^2)\\\\ &=&\\bigcup_{(x^1,x^2)\\in X^1\\times X^2}{\\mathcal{C}}(x^1\\wedge x^2)\\\\ &=&{\\mathcal{C}}( X^1\\wedge X^2 ) \\end{aligned}$$ where $X^1\\wedge X^2=\\{x^1\\wedge x^2~|~x^1\\in X^1,~x^2\\in X^2\\}\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$.\\\nTherefore, $({\\mathcal{C}},\\cup,\\cap)$ is stable, and then is a set-algebra.\n\nThe three properties derive from set calculus.\n\nThe main consequence of Lemma \\[prop:algebra\\] is that $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]=\\cap_{y\\in{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]}\\cup_{z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}{\\mathcal{C}}(y/z)$ is a cone-union. Moreover, one can do the expansion for $\\cap_{y\\in{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]}\\cup_{z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}{\\mathcal{C}}(y/z)$ within the cone-unions, using expansions.\n\n\\[rk:app:cone\\] For a finite set $X\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, we have: ${\\mathcal{C}}(X)={\\mathcal{C}}({\\mbox{EFF}}[X])$.\n\nFirstly, we prove ${\\mathcal{C}}(X)\\subseteq{\\mathcal{C}}({\\mbox{EFF}}[X])$. If $y\\in{\\mathcal{C}}(X)$, then there exists $x\\in X$ such that $x{\\succsim}y$. There are two cases, $x\\in{\\mbox{EFF}}[X]$ and $x\\not\\in{\\mbox{EFF}}[X]$. If $x\\in{\\mbox{EFF}}[X]$, then $y\\in{\\mathcal{C}}({\\mbox{EFF}}[X])$, by definition of a cone-union. Otherwise, if $x\\not\\in{\\mbox{EFF}}[X]$, then there exists $z\\in X$ such that $z{\\succ}x$. And since $X$ is finite, we can find such a $z$ in ${\\mbox{EFF}}[X]$, by iteratively taking $z'{\\succ}z$ and $z\\leftarrow z'$, until $z'\\in{\\mbox{EFF}}[X]$, which will happen because $X$ is finite and ${\\succ}$ is transitive and irreflexive. Hence, there exists $z\\in{\\mbox{EFF}}[X]$ such that $z{\\succ}x{\\succsim}y$ and then $z{\\succ}y$. Consequently, $y\\in{\\mathcal{C}}({\\mbox{EFF}}[X])$, by definition of a cone-union. Conversely, $Y\\subseteq X\\Rightarrow {\\mathcal{C}}(Y)\\subseteq{\\mathcal{C}}(X)$ proves ${\\mathcal{C}}({\\mbox{EFF}}[X])\\subseteq{\\mathcal{C}}(X)$.\n\nAs a consequence of Remark \\[rk:app:cone\\], for $x\\in{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$, a simple cone ${\\mathcal{C}}(x)$ is fully described by its apex $x$. The main consequence of this remark is that ${\\mathcal{C}}(X)$ can be fully described and represented by ${\\mbox{EFF}}[X]$. For instance, since $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$ is a cone-union (thanks to Lemma \\[prop:algebra\\]), and since $\\text{MO-CR}={\\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]]$ (by definition of the MO-CR), then $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$ is fully represented (as a cone-union) by the MO-CR, which means that $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]={\\mathcal{C}}(\\text{MO-CR})$.\\\nRecall that $q=|{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]|$ and $m=|{\\mathcal{F}}|$. In this subsection, we also denote ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]=\\{y^1,\\ldots,y^q\\}$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}=\\{z^1,\\ldots,z^m\\}$. Let ${\\mathcal{A}}_q^m$ denote the set of functions $\\pi$ from $\\{1,\\ldots,q\\}$ to $\\{1,\\ldots,m\\}$. (We have: $|{\\mathcal{A}}_q^m|=m^q$.)\n\n\u00a0\\\nGiven ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]=\\{y^1,\\ldots,y^q\\}$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}=\\{z^1,\\ldots,z^m\\}$, we have: $$R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]=\\bigcup_{\\pi\\in{\\mathcal{A}}_q^m}\\bigcap_{t=1}^{q} {\\mathcal{C}}(y^t / z^{\\pi(t)})$$ and therefore: $$\\text{MO-CR}[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]\\quad=\\quad{\\mbox{EFF}}\\left[\\left\\{\\bigwedge\\nolimits_{t=1}^{q}y^t / z^{\\pi(t)}~~|~~\\pi\\in{\\mathcal{A}}_q^m\\right\\}\\right]$$\n\nFor the first statement, just think of an expansion. We write down $$R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]=\\cap_{y\\in{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]}\\cup_{z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}{\\mathcal{C}}(y/z)$$ into the layers just below. There is one layer per $y^t$ in ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]=\\{y^1,\\ldots,y^t,\\ldots,y^q\\}$: $$\\begin{array}{ccccccccccl} & ( & {\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^1}{z^1}) & \\cup & {\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^1}{z^2}) & \\cup & \\ldots & \\cup & {\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^1}{z^m})& )&\\text{layer 1}\\\\ \\bigcap & ( & {\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^2}{z^1}) & \\cup & {\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^2}{z^2}) & \\cup & \\ldots & \\cup & {\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^2}{z^m})& )&\\text{layer 2}\\\\ &&&&&\\vdots\\\\ \\bigcap & ( & {\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^q}{z^1}) & \\cup & {\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^q}{z^2}) & \\cup & \\ldots & \\cup & {\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^q}{z^m})& )&\\text{layer q} \\end{array}$$ Imagine the simple cones ${\\mathcal{C}}(\\frac{y^t}{z^{\\pi(t)}})$ as vertices and imagine edges going from each vertex of layer $t$ to each vertex of the next layer $(t+1)$. Let the function $\\pi:\\{1,\\ldots,q\\}\\rightarrow\\{1,\\ldots,m\\}$ denote a path from layer $1$ to layer $q$, where $\\pi(t)$ is the vertex chosen in layer $t$. The expansion into a union outputs as many intersection-terms as paths from the first layer to the last one. Consequently, in the result of the expansion into an union, each term is an intersection $\\bigcap_{t=1}^{q} {\\mathcal{C}}(y^t / z^{\\pi(t)})$. Then one has: $$\\begin{aligned}\n R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}] &=&\\bigcup_{\\pi\\in{\\mathcal{A}}_q^m}\\bigcap_{t=1}^{q} {\\mathcal{C}}(y^t / z^{\\pi(t)})\\\\ &=&\\bigcup_{\\pi\\in{\\mathcal{A}}_q^m} {\\mathcal{C}}\\left(\\bigwedge_{t=1}^{q} y^t / z^{\\pi(t)}\\right)\\\\ &=&{\\mathcal{C}}\\left(\\left\\{\\bigwedge\\limits_{t=1}^{q}y^t / z^{\\pi(t)}~~|~~\\pi\\in{\\mathcal{A}}_q^m\\right\\}\\right) \\end{aligned}$$ The second statement results from the first statement, Lemma \\[prop:algebra\\] and Remark \\[rk:app:cone\\]. That $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]={\\mathcal{C}}(\\text{MO-CR})$ and then ${\\mbox{EFF}}[R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]]=\\text{MO-CR}$ (from Remark 1) concludes the proof.\n\nUltimately, this proves the **correctness** of Algorithm 1 for the computation of MO-CR, given ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]=\\{y^1,\\ldots,y^q\\}$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}=\\{z^1,\\ldots,z^m\\}$. It consists in the iterative expansion/construction of the intersection $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$, which can be seen as dynamic programming on the paths of the layer graph. For $k\\in\\{1,\\ldots,q\\}$, we denote $D^t$ the description of the cone-union corresponding to the intersection: $${\\mathcal{C}}(D^t)=\\cap_{l=1}^{t} \\cup_{z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}} {\\mathcal{C}}(y^l/z)$$ Recursively, for $t>1$, ${\\mathcal{C}}(D^t)={\\mathcal{C}}(D^{t-1})~\\cap~(\\cup_{z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}~{\\mathcal{C}}(y^{t}/z))$. From Lemma \\[prop:algebra\\], Remark \\[rk:app:cone\\] and Corollary 1, in order to construct, we then have to iterate the following: $$D^t={\\mbox{EFF}}[\\{\\rho ~\\wedge~ (y^t/z)~~|~~\\rho\\in D^{t-1},~~z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}\\}]$$ We now proceed with the **time complexity** of Algorithm 1. At first glance, since there are $m^q$ paths in the layer graph, then there are $O(m^q)$ elements in MO-CR. Fortunately, they are much less, because we have:\n\n\u00a0\\\n\\[th:mopoa:poly\\] Given a MOG and denoting $d=|{{\\mathcal{D}}}|$, $q=|{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]|$ and $m=|{\\mathcal{F}}|$, we have: $$|\\text{MO-CR}|\\leq (qm)^{d-1}$$\n\nGiven $\\rho\\in\\text{MO-CR}$, for some $\\pi\\in{\\mathcal{A}}_q^m$, we have $\\rho=\\bigwedge\\nolimits_{t=1}^{q}y^t / z^{\\pi(t)}$, and then $\\forall k\\in{{\\mathcal{D}}}, \\rho_k=\\min_{t=1\\ldots q}\\{y^t_k / z^{\\pi(t)}_k\\}$. Therefore, $\\rho_k$ is exactly realized by the $k$th component of at least one cone apex $y^t / z^{\\pi(t)}$ in the layer graph (that is a vertex in the layer-graph above). Consequently, there are at most as many possible values for the $k$th component of $\\rho$, as the number of vertices in the layer graph, that is $qm$. This holds for the $d$ components of $\\rho$; hence there are at most $(qm)^d$ vectors in MO-CR. More precisely, by Lemma \\[lem:eff\\] (below), since MO-CR is an efficient set, then there are at most $(qm)^{d-1}$ vectors in MO-CR.\n\n\\[lem:eff\\] Let $Y\\subseteq{\\mathbb{R}^d_{+}}$ be a set of vectors, with at most $M$ values on each component: $$|~{\\mbox{EFF}}[Y]~|\\leq M^{d-1}$$\n\nFor instance, in ${\\mathbb{R}}^2_+$, considering the $M\\times M$ grid in the plane, there is at most one Pareto-efficient vector per column, hence $|{\\mbox{EFF}}[Y]|\\leq M$. Think of each vector as having one and $d-1$ components. Fixing these last components, a single-objective optimization problem on the first objective occurs. Hence there is one optimum. Furthermore, there are at most $M^{d-1}$ valuations realized on the $d-1$ other components. If you fix the $d-1$ last components, there is at most one Pareto-efficient vector: it maximizes the first component.\n\nIn Algorithm 1, there are $\\Theta(q)$ steps. At each step $t$, from Theorem \\[th:mopoa:poly\\], we know that $|D^{t-1}|\\leq (qm)^{d-1}$. Hence, $|\\{\\rho ~\\wedge~ (y^t/z)~~|~~\\rho\\in D^{t-1},~~z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}\\}|\\leq q^{d-1} m^d$, and the computation of the efficient set $D^t$ requires time $O((q^{d-1} m^d)^2 d)$. Ultimately, Algorithm 1 takes $q$ steps and then time $O(q (q^{d-1} m^d)(qm)^{d-1} d)=O((qm)^{2d-1}d)$. If $d=2$, this lowers to $O((q m)^2\\log_2(q m))$, by using a data structure (e.g. an AVL tree) that orders vectors according to the first objective and does comparisons on the second objective.\n\nProof of Lemma 1\n================\n\nThis proof simply consists in chaining the quantifiers in the definitions, that have been carefully chosen to prove the result.\n\n\\(1) First, let us show $R[E,F]\\subseteq R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$. Let $\\rho'$ be a ratio of $R[E,F]$ and let us show that: $$\\forall y\\in {\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],~~ \\exists z\\in {\\mathcal{F}},~~ \\text{ s.t.: } y{\\succsim}\\rho'\\star z$$ Take $y\\in{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$. From the first condition, there is a $y'\\in E$ such that $y{\\succsim}y'$. From MO-CR, there is a $z'$ such that $y'{\\succsim}\\rho'\\star z'$. From the third condition on $z'$, there exists $z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}$ such that $z'{\\succsim}z$. Recap: $y{\\succsim}y'{\\succsim}\\rho'\\star z'{\\succsim}\\rho'\\star z$.\n\n\\(2) Then, let $\\rho$ be a ratio of $R[{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}}]$, and let us show that$\\rho'=(1+\\varepsilon_1)^{-1}(1+\\varepsilon_2)^{-1}\\rho$\u00a0\u00a0 is in $R[E,F]$, that is: $$\\forall y'\\in E,~~ \\exists z'\\in F,~~ (1+\\varepsilon_1) y'{\\succsim}(1+\\varepsilon_2)^{-1} \\rho\\star z'$$ Take an element $y'$ of $E$. From the second condition, there is $y\\in{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ such that $(1+\\varepsilon_1)y'{\\succsim}y$. From MO-CR, there is $z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}$ such that $y{\\succsim}\\rho\\star z$. From the fourth condition on $z$, there exists $z'\\in F$ s.t. $z{\\succsim}(1+\\varepsilon_2)^{-1} z'$. Recap: $(1+\\varepsilon_1)y'{\\succsim}y{\\succsim}\\rho\\star z{\\succsim}(1+\\varepsilon_2)^{-1} \\rho\\star z'$.\n\nProof of Theorem 6\n==================\n\nApplying Algorithm 1 on $E$ and $F$ outputs an $((1+\\varepsilon_1)(1+\\varepsilon_2))$-covering of $R({\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}],{\\mathcal{F}})$. Moreover, since we have $|E|=O((1/\\varepsilon_1)^{d-1})$ and $|F|=O((1/\\varepsilon_2)^{d-1})$, Algorithm 1 takes time $O\\left(d/(\\varepsilon_1\\varepsilon_2)^{(d-1)(2d-1)}\\right)$.\n\nExperiments\n===========\n\nExperiments were conducted to assess the practicality of our polynomial time and approximation algorithms. We used C++STL on a Linux laptop equipped with CPUs at 1.40Ghz. We fixed $|A^i|=2$ actions per agent. For each parameter-values, we averaged the measures over 5 random instances[^8]. The evaluations $u^{i}_k(a^{\\mathcal{N}(i)})$ are drawn uniformly and independently in $|[1,16]|$. In Table 1 (for MOGs) we have $\\mathcal{N}(i)=N$. In Table 2 (for MO graphical games), the games were drawn on grid graphs with dimensions $n=n_1\\times n_2$, in order to experiment various treewidths[^9]. We chose $n_2\\in\\{1,2,3\\}$ for the interaction-graph\u2019s width, which corresponds to the treewidths $\\mathcal{T}\\in\\{2,4,6\\}$.\n\nComputational measures on MO normal forms\n-----------------------------------------\n\nIn Table \\[tab:mog\\], we experiment Algorithm 1 on MO games. Table 1\u2019s notations are: $d$ for the number of objectives; $n$ for the number of agents; T(P1) for the cpu-time (seconds) of Phase 1: computing ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}$; $m=|{\\mathcal{F}}|$ and $q=|{\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]|$; T(P2) for the cpu-time (seconds) of Phase 2: computing MO-CR given ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}$; and finally, (in order to assess the practicality of the algorithm\u2019s output) the size of the resulting MO-CR.\n\n$\\begin{array}{c|ccc|ccc|ccc}                                                                               &           \\multicolumn{3}{c|}{d=2}            &           \\multicolumn{3}{c|}{d=3}            &           \\multicolumn{3}{c}{d=4}         \\\\ \\hline                                                                            n  &   4   &   8   &   12  &   4   &   8   &   12  &   4   &   8   &   12  \\\\ \\hline                                                                            T(P1)  &   0.00    &   0.08    &   2.40    &   0.00    &   0.07    &   2.45    &   0.00    &   0.08    &   2.44    \\\\ m    &   4.2 &   5.6 &   8.2 &   5.4 &   17.8    &   41.2    &   7.2 &   36.4    &   105.8   \\\\ q    &   2.2 &   4   &   5.8 &   4.4 &   9.8 &   30.2    &   8   &   37.8    &   82.6    \\\\ \\hline T(P2) &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.01    &   0.20    &   0.00    &   0.48    &   30.85   \\\\ \\#\\text{MO-CR}   &   3.4 &   4.6 &   6   &   3.2 &   22.8    &   31.8    &   13.6    &   44.4    &   154.8   \\\\ \\hline                                                                            \n\\end{array} $\\\n\n*Observations.* Recall that the normal form is a representation of size $\\Theta(n\\alpha^n d)$. For instance, for $d=3$, Phase 1, and $n=4,8,12$, the instance to read is made of $192$, $6144$ and $147456$ scalars. The cpu-time cost of Phase 1 depends directly on the size of this input. For $d\\leq 3$, Algorithm 1 costs nothing, compared to Phase 1. For $d\\geq 4$, we begin to perceive the explosion of Algorithm 1 (Phase 2), while $m,q\\simeq 100$. This indicates a practical intractability for $d\\geq 4$. Recall that the cost of Algorithm 1 (Phase 2) for $d=4$ is $O((mq)^7)$.\n\nComputational measures on MO graphical games\n--------------------------------------------\n\nIn Table 2, we experiment the approximation scheme on MO graphical games. After Phase 1, we take smaller representations of ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}$: a $(1+\\varepsilon_1)$-under-covering of ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ with $\\varepsilon_1=6.5\\%$, and a $(1+\\varepsilon_2)$-stick-covering of ${\\mathcal{F}}$ with $\\varepsilon_2=3.5\\%$, all in order to ensure a $(1+\\varepsilon)$-covering of MO-CR, with $\\varepsilon\\simeq 6.5\\%+3.5\\%=10\\%$ (thanks to Theorem 6). Table 2\u2019s notations are the same as Table 1\u2019s, and we add: $n_2$ for the width of the interaction graph; $m_{\\varepsilon}$ for the resulting size (after a proper rounding) of the representation of ${\\mathcal{F}}$; and $q_{\\varepsilon}$ for the resulting size (after a proper rounding) of the representation of ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$.\n\n$\\begin{array}{c|ccc|ccc|ccc}                                                                               &   \\multicolumn{9}{c}{d=2}                                                                 \\\\\n \\hline                                                                             &   \\multicolumn{3}{c|}{n_2=1}                  &   \\multicolumn{3}{c|}{n_2=2}                  &   \\multicolumn{3}{c}{n_2=3}                   \\\\\n  \\hline                                                                             n  &   60  &   120 &   180 &   60  &   120 &   180 &   60  &   120 &   180 \\\\\n   \\hline                                                                            T(P1)  &   0   &   3   &   13  &   1   &   11  &   43  &   4   &   37  &   159 \\\\ m    &   92  &   212 &   347 &   76  &   186 &   316 &   65  &   174 &   300 \\\\ q    &   47  &   120 &   217 &   49  &   134 &   222 &   46  &   134 &   228 \\\\ \\hline                                                                            m_{\\varepsilon}    &   5   &   5   &   4.6 &   5.6 &   5   &   4.4 &   4.6 &   4.8 &   5   \\\\ q_{\\varepsilon}  &   7.4 &   7.4 &   7   &   7.6 &   7.4 &   7.2 &   7   &   7.4 &   7.6 \\\\ \\hline                                                                            T(P2)  &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.00    &   0.00    \\\\ \\#\\text{MO-CR}   &   3.8 &   2.6 &   3.6 &   3.4 &   3.4 &   3   &   3.6 &   2.4 &   3   \\\\ \\hline                                                                            \\multicolumn{10}{c}{}\\\\                                                                                &   \\multicolumn{9}{c}{d=3}                                                                 \\\\ \\hline                                                                               &   \\multicolumn{3}{c|}{n_2=1}                  &   \\multicolumn{3}{c|}{n_2=2}                  &   \\multicolumn{3}{c}{n_2=3}                   \\\\ \\hline                                                                            n  &   12  &   24  &   36  &   12  &   24  &   36  &   12  &   24  &   36  \\\\ \\hline                                                                            T(P1)  &   0   &   1   &   8   &   0   &   2   &   15  &   0   &   4   &   40  \\\\ m    &   42  &   263 &   777 &   44  &   249 &   596 &   49  &   190 &   474 \\\\ q    &   27  &   236 &   645 &   31  &   143 &   506 &   38  &   159 &   448 \\\\ \\hline                                                                            m_{\\varepsilon}    &   15.6    &   19.8    &   22.8    &   16.8    &   27.4    &   26.6    &   17.8    &   22  &   25.2    \\\\ q_{\\varepsilon}  &   24.8    &   45.8    &   53.2    &   26.2    &   59.2    &   63  &   27.8    &   45.2    &   53  \\\\ \\hline                                                                            T(P2)  &   0.01    &   0.02    &   0.03    &   0.01    &   0.05    &   0.06    &   0.01    &   0.03    &   0.06    \\\\ \\#\\text{MO-CR}   &   15.6    &   13.4    &   12.8    &   8.8 &   11.8    &   14.4    &   12.4    &   15  &   12.8    \\\\ \\hline                                                                            \n\\end{array}$\\\n\n*Observations.* As seen in Table 1 when $m,q\\simeq 100$, computing MO-CR would be experimentally intractable, if done directly on ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}$. Fortunately, thanks to the approximation scheme, Algorithm 1 costs almost nothing on the smaller representations of ${\\mbox{WST}}[{\\mathcal{E}}]$ and ${\\mathcal{F}}$, compared to computation of Phase 1.\n\nA raw example of MO-CR\n----------------------\n\n![MO-CR of one MOG with $n=7$ agents, $d=2$ objectives, $\\alpha=3$ actions-per-agent, and independent evaluations drawn uniformly in $\\{1,\\ldots,100\\}$](exampleXP.pdf)\n\nThe white part corresponds to the set of guaranteed ratios of efficiency\\\n$\\rho\\in R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]\\cap [0,1]^d$ and the dark-blue part to $\\rho\\notin R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$. Recall that if $\\rho\\in R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$, then $\\rho$ guarantees that for each equilibrium-outcome $y\\in{\\mathcal{E}}$, there exists an efficient-outcome $z^{(y)}$ such that $y {\\succsim}\\rho\\star z^{(y)}$. Conversely, if $\\rho\\notin R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$, then there exists an *in-efficient* equilibrium $y\\in{\\mathcal{E}}$, that is: such that whatever $z\\in{\\mathcal{F}}$, the guarantee $y {\\succsim}\\rho\\star z^{(y)}$ does *not* hold. In other words, for each $\\rho\\in R[{\\mathcal{E}},{\\mathcal{F}}]$, it holds that each equilibrium has at least $\\rho$ times some efficiency.\n\n[^1]: Tobacco consumers are free to value and choose cigarettes how it pleases them. However, is value the same when they inhale, as when they die suffocating?\n\n[^2]: It is a backtrack from the subjective theory of value, which typically aggregates values on each objective/commodity into a single scalar by using an utility function.\n\n[^3]: For the proofs, see the long paper:\n\n[^4]: In the single-objective case, Pareto-Nash and Nash equilibria coincide.\n\n[^5]: In a finite multi-objective game, sets $N$, $\\{A^{i}\\}_{i\\in N}$ and ${{\\mathcal{D}}}$ are finite.\n\n[^6]: To enumerate the number of ways to distribute number $n$ of symmetric agents into $\\alpha$ parts, one enumerates the ways to choose $\\alpha-1$ \u201cseparators\u201d in $n+\\alpha-1$ elements.\n\n[^7]: That is such that the action $a^\\ast$ is decided by someone.\n\n[^8]: Though only 5 random instances does not sound like much, the measures of cpu-time were already stable\n\n[^9]: For a formal definition of the treewidth, the reader may refer to [@dechter1989tree; @jensen1994influence] or [@ismaili2016computational].\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We discuss the possible extensions of Bethe/gauge correspondence to quantum integrable systems based on the super-Lie algebras of $A$ type. Along the way we propose the analogues of Nakajima quiver varieties whose cohomology and K-theory should carry the representations of the corresponding Yangian and the quantum affine algebras, respectively. We end up with comments on the ${{\\mathcal N}}=4$ planar super-Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions.'\naddress: 'Simons Center for Geometry and Physics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794 Kharkevich Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Moscow 127051 RussiaCenter for Advanced Studies, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, 1 Nobel Street, Moscow, 143026 Russia e-mail: nikitastring@gmail.com '\nauthor:\n- Nikita Nekrasov\ntitle: |\n    Superspin chains\\\n    $\\uparrow$ [and]{} $\\downarrow$\\\n    supersymmetric gauge theories\n---\n\n*To Martin Rocek on his super-anniversary, with love*\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nGauge theories with ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ super-Poincare symmetry have an interesting connection to quantum integrable systems. Perhaps the first instance of such a connection has been spotted in the studies of the two dimensional Yang-Mills theory [@Migdal], interpreted [@Witten:2d] as a topological field theory, which can by obtained [@Witten:1992xu] from a twisted version of the ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ theory by a (non-unitary) deformation, namely one turns on the twisted superpotentials ${\\tilde W}$ and ${\\tilde W}^{*}$ which are not complex conjugate. The expression [@Witten:1992xu] for the partition function of the theory on a compact Riemann surface makes it clear the physical states of the topological theory (which are the vacua of the supersymmetric theory) are in one-to-one correspondence with the states of a free particle living on the space of conjugacy classes $T/W$ of the gauge group $G$. For $G = SU(N)$ this system is equivalent to the system of free $N$ fermions on living on a circle. In [@Gorsky:1993pe] this relation has been generalized to allow for certain line operators in gauge theory. In the presence of line operators the formerly free fermions become interacting, but they dynamics remains integrable. The energy eigenvalues of the many-body system is identified with the vacuum expectation value of the local observable ${{\\text{Tr}}} {\\sigma}^{2}$, where $\\sigma$ is the complex adjoint scalar in vector multiplet. In [@MNS] the example of [@Gorsky:1993pe] has been upgraded: one studied the two dimensional (twisted) ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ $SU(N)$ gauge theory with adjoint chiral multiplet, of twisted mass [@AlvarezGaume:1983ab] $c$, and discovered that the vacua were in one-to-one correspondence with the stationary states of a system of $N$ particles $x_{1}, \\ldots , x_{N}$ on a circle, interacting with the repulsive potential $c {\\delta}(x_{i}-x_{j})$. This example has been further explored in [@GS]. Then, in [@Nekrasov:2009uh] the general correspondence has been identified: supersymmetric vacua of gauge theories with ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ $d=2$ Poincare supersymmetry (the theories need not be two dimensional) are the stationary states of some quantum integrable system, i.e. they are the joint eigenvectors of quantum integrals of motion. Moreover, this correspondence has a remarkable social feature: the textbook examples of supersymmetric gauge theories map to the textbook examples of quantum integrable systems. A large class of models has been found where the quantum integrable system is based on quantum algebras of the $A,D,E$-type, such as the spin chains with the corresponding spin group. The dual gauge theory is of the $A,D,E$ quiver-type. The mathematical consequence of this relation is the connection [@Nekrasov:2009uh] between quantum groups: Yangians, quantum affine algebras, elliptic quantum groups, and quantum cohomology, quantum K-theory, and elliptic cohomology, respectively. In the series of remarkable works [@MO; @Okounkov:2015spn; @Aganagic:2016jmx] this connection has been elucidated and put on the firm mathematical ground, moreover, for general quivers, not only of the (affine) $A,D,E$ type. On the physics side the quiver gauge theories in question are softly broken ${{\\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ theories (in two dimensions). The parameter of deformation, the twisted mass corresponding to a specific $U(1)$ R-symmetry, maps to the Planck constant of an integrable system.\n\nIn this paper we attempt to extend the realm of the correspondence to the case of super-algebra based quantum integrable systems. We should point out that gauge theories based on supergroups naively make no sense, as the invariant scalar product on the Lie superalgebra is not positive definite, so the theory is not unitary. Nevertheless, the supergroup gauge symmetry is possible in the context of topological field theory, such as Chern-Simons theory in three dimensions, albeit there are caveats [@Vafa:2001qf; @Mikhaylov:2015nsa; @Mikhaylov:2014aoa]. Also, the analytic continuation of a conventional gauge theory may reach the supergroup gauge theory [@Dijkgraaf:2016lym].\n\nOur motivation also includes the desire to get a better understanding of the integrable structure behind the planar limit of ${{\\mathcal N}}=4$ super-Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions. It has been discovered, first in a $SU(2)$ sector [@Minahan:2002ve] and then in the general case [@Beisert:2003yb; @Beisert:2004hm; @Beisert:2006ez; @Beisert:2006ib], that the spectrum of anomalous dimensions of local operators is that of a quantum integrable spin chain based on the Yangian $Y(\\mathfrak{gl}(4|4))$of the superconformal group , see the excellent review in [@Drummond:2010km]. For most of the integrable spin chains the Bethe equations can be cast in the form: = 1 , i = 1, \u2026, M \\[eq:bap\\] where $\\sigma_i$ are the Bethe roots, and ${\\tilde W}$ is the so-called Yang-Yang function. It can be shown, however, that the dressing phase [@Beisert:2006ib] entering the Bethe equations in the ${{\\mathcal N}}=4$ super-Yang-Mills and [@Arutyunov:2004vx] on the $AdS_{5} \\times {{\\mathbb S}}^{5}$ dual side, violates the potentiality of . Despite many works explaining the origin of the dressing phase and investigating its analytic structure, e.g.[@Sakai:2007rk; @Gromov:2007fn; @Dorey:2007xn] the satisfying explanation on the side of the supersymmetric gauge theory with ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ supersymmetry in two dimensions is missing. The explanation might be the further breaking of supersymmetry $(2,2) \\to (0,2)$ [@NS].\n\nIn this paper we make a modest step in this direction. We shall propose a class of ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ quiver gauge theories in two dimensions, whose supersymmetric vacua are in one-to-one correspondence with the Bethe states of closed spin chains based on the Yangian of $\\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. The section $\\bf 2$ starts with review of the simplest example of Bethe/gauge correspondence, where the quantum integrable system is the Heisenberg spin chain, while the supersymmetric gauge theory is the gauged linear sigma model with the target space being the cotangent bundle to the Grassmanian of $N$-dimensional planes $V$ in the $L$-dimensional complex vector space $W$. We recall Bethe equations, their Yang-Yang form, and the $T-Q$ equation which is equivalent to them. We also briefly review the generalizations: to other spin groups, to inhomogeneous, twisted and anisotropic cases. The section $\\bf 3$ reviews Bethe equations for the superspin chains, based on $\\mathfrak{gl}(M|N)$ algebra. The section $\\bf 4$ introduces the main character: the gauge theory with the proper structure of its supersymmetric vacua. We\u2019ll see that Bethe equations themselves do not fix the matter content uniquely. We shall propose a family of theories, $L_{\\vec t}$ with the parameters $\\vec t$ being the mass terms in the superpotential. The ${\\vec t} =0, \\infty$ theories can be topologically twisted so as to define an $A$-model. The intermediate theories flow, in the infrared, to the ${\\vec t} = \\infty$ point. However, we believe it is the ${\\vec t}=0$ which should be identified with the Bethe/gauge dual of the superspin chain, as the ${\\vec t} = \\infty$ being effectively a theory with fewer fields, is less rigid, and, in fact, has additional marginal deformation, which masks the Planck constant. The section $\\bf 5$ concludes with unfinished business and future directions.\n\n### Acknowledgement\n\nResearch was partly supported by RFBR grant 18-02-01081. I am grateful to M.\u00a0Aganagic, V.\u00a0Kazakov, A.\u00a0Okounkov, V.\u00a0Pestun, S.\u00a0Sethi, A.\u00a0Tseytlin and especially E.\u00a0Ragoucy for discussions. Part of this work was done while I visited Physics Department at Imperial College London in 2013-2017, and IHES in 2013-2018. The results were presented at the 2018 MSRI program \u201cEnumerative geometry beyond numbers\u201d organized by M.\u00a0Aganagic and A.\u00a0Okounkov and the 2018 Royal Society meeting \u201cQuantum integrability and quantum Schubert calculus\u201d organized by V.\u00a0Gorbounof and C.\u00a0Korff. I thank them for their hospitality.\n\nFinally, I would like to thank Martin Rocek for all his help and for all the conversations we had (and hopefully will have) on life and physics, supersymmetric or not so much.\n\nHeisenberg, Bethe, and Grassmann\n================================\n\nSpin chain\n----------\n\nThe Heisenberg spin chain = \\_[a=1]{}\\^[L]{} \\_[a]{} \\_[a+1]{} \u00a0, \\[eq:heisham\\] where \\_[a+L]{} = \\_[a]{} \u00a0, \\[eq:per\\] has an $SU(2)$ underlying symmetry: $\\vec\\sigma_{a} = \\left( {\\sigma}^x_a, {\\sigma}^y_a, {\\sigma}^z_a \\right)$ are the generators of $SU(2)$ acting at the site $a$ of the length $L$ spin chain. The eigenvectors ( [[C]{}]{}\\^[2]{} )\\^[ L]{} = \\_[N=0]{}\\^[L]{} [[H]{}]{}\\_[N]{} , \\_[[C]{}]{} [[H]{}]{}\\_[N]{} = (\n\nL\\\nN\n\n) are constructed, in the Bethe ansatz approach, from the solutions of the Bethe ansatz equations: \\_ = ( )\\^[L]{} , = 1, \u2026, N \\[eq:bae1\\] which can be, equivalently, represented via the so-called T-Q equation: P(x-u) Q(x+2u) + P(x+u) Q(x-2u) = T(x) Q(x) \\[eq:tq1\\] where Q(x) = \\_[=1]{}\\^[N]{} ( x - \\_ ) , \\[eq:qop\\] P(x) = x\\^[L]{} , \\[eq:ad1\\] and $T(x)$ is some polynomial of degree $L$. Finally, with the help of the $Y$-observable: Y(x) = one rewrites as: Y(x+2u) + D(x) = , D(x) = \\[eq:qchar1\\] the content of this equation being the absence of the poles of the left hand side in $x$, other then zeroes of $P(x-u)$. All this generalizes in a relatively straightforward way, both in terms of the spin group symmetry, and the possibilities of the choice of the Hamiltonian. Recall three upgrades: twisting, inhomogeneity and anisotropy. The first two don\u2019t change the underlying symmetry generating algebra, while the last one deforms the rational algebra (the Yangian) into the quantum affine and elliptic quantum algebras, respectively.\n\nThe inhomogeneity deforms the Hamiltonian in certain fashion, making the spin interactions, in general, $a$-dependent, and less local, while twisting deforms the boundary conditions to \\_[a+L]{} = [[q]{}]{}\\^[-]{} \\_[a]{} [[q]{}]{}\\^ \\[eq:twper\\] Both deformations preserve integrability. The only aspect of these deformations needed for the Bethe/gauge correspondence is their impact on Bethe equations: the Eqs. deform to \\_[\u2019 ]{} \u00a0= \u00a0[[q]{}]{} \\_[a=1]{}\\^[L]{} , = 1, \u2026, N \\[eq:bae2\\] where P(x) = \\_[a=1]{}\\^[L]{} (x - \\_[a]{}) , \\[eq:pp2\\] while deforms to P(x-u) Q(x+2u) + [[q]{}]{} P(x+u) Q(x-2u) = (1+[[q]{}]{}) T(x) Q(x) \\[eq:tq2\\] and to Y(x+2u) + [[q]{}]{} D(x) Y(x)\\^[-1]{} = (1+[[q]{}]{}) T(x)/P(x-u)\n\nGauge theory\n------------\n\nThe gauge theory for which describe its vacua, is the softly broken ${{\\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ supersymmetric gauge theory in two dimensions, with the gauge group $U(N)$, and $L$ hypermultiplets in fundamental representation. Viewed as an ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ theory, it has a vector multiplet $(A_{m}, {\\sigma})$, an adjoint-valued chiral multiplet ${\\Phi}$, and $L$ pairs of chiral multiplets $(Q_{a}, {\\tilde Q}^{a})$, $a = 1, \\ldots , L$, with $Q_{a} = (Q_{a}^{\\beta})_{{\\beta}=1}^{N}$ transforming in the fundamental $N$-dimensional representation ${\\bf N}$ of $U(N)$, ${\\tilde Q}^{a} =({\\tilde Q}^{a}_{\\beta})_{{\\beta}=1}^{N}$ transforming in the conjugate representation $\\bar{\\bf N}$. In addition, the theory has a superpotential $W = \\sum_{a=1}^{L} {\\tilde Q}^{a}{\\Phi}Q_{a}$, and the twisted masses $u, {\\mu}_{a}$, corresponding to the $U(1)_{u} \\times U(L)$ global symmetry: $U(L)$ acts on ${\\tilde Q}$ in the $L$-dimensional fundamental representation $\\bf L$, on $Q$ in the conjugate $\\bar{\\bf L}$. The $U(1)_{u}$ symmetry acts via: $({\\Phi}, Q, {\\tilde Q}) \\mapsto ({\\Phi}e^{2{\\mathrm{i}}\\alpha} , Q e^{-{\\mathrm{i}}\\alpha} , {\\tilde Q} e^{-{\\mathrm{i}}\\alpha})$. The list of relevant parameters of the theory concludes with the Fayet-Illiopoulos parameter $r$ and the abelian $\\theta$-angle, which are conveniently combined into = e\\^[2]{} e\\^[-r]{} \\[eq:kahler1\\] Suppose we are in the phase where the complex adjoint scalar $\\sigma$ in the vector multiplet has the vacuum expectation value ${\\sigma} = {\\rm diag} ({\\sigma}_1 , \\ldots , {\\sigma}_{N})$, as dictated by the potential ${{{\\rm tr}}} \\left( [{\\sigma}, {\\sigma}^{\\dagger}] \\right)^{2}$. The physical masses of the matter fields are:\n\n& |\\_ - \\_[\u2019]{} +2u| , \u00a0\\_\\^[\u2019]{} ,\\\n& |\\_ - \\_[a]{} -u | , \u00a0Q\\_[a]{}\\^ ,\\\n& |\\_[a]{} - \\_ - u| , \u00a0[Q]{}\\^[a]{}\\_ \u00a0.\\\n\\[eq:physma\\]\n\nAssuming they are all non-zero we integrate out the matter fields and the non-abelian degrees of freedom in the vector multiplet (these have masses $\\sim |{\\sigma}_{\\beta}  - {\\sigma}_{\\beta'}|$) to produce the effective twisted superpotential = [W]{}\\^[tree]{} + [W]{}\\^[1-loop]{} , where \\^[tree]{} = \\_[i=1]{}\\^[N]{} \\_[i]{} and, with ${\\varpi}(x) = \\frac{x}{2\\pi {\\mathrm{i}}} ( {\\rm log}(x) - 1 )$, $$\\begin{gathered}\n{\\tilde W}^{\\rm 1-loop} = \\sum_{\\rm fields} {\\varpi} (Q_{\\rm field} )  = \\\\\n\\sum_{\\beta,\\beta'}  {\\varpi} ({\\sigma}_{\\beta} - {\\sigma}_{\\beta'} + 2u) + \n\\sum_{\\beta,a} \\left( {\\varpi} ({\\sigma}_{\\beta} - {\\mu}_{a} - u) + {\\varpi} ( {\\mu}_{a} - {\\sigma}_{\\beta} - u ) \\right) \n\\label{eq:1loop}\\end{gathered}$$ The specific feature of the twisted superpotential, as opposed to the more familiar superpotential, is the multivaluedness of its first derivative, which is related to the discrete nature of the top component $F_{i}$ of the twisted chiral superfield $\\Sigma_{\\beta}  ={\\sigma}_{\\beta} + \\ldots + {\\vartheta}{\\tilde\\vartheta} F_{\\beta}$ which enters the Lagrangian of the effective theory through the twisted $F$-term $\\int d{\\vartheta}d{\\tilde\\vartheta} {\\tilde W} ({\\Sigma})$. The minima of the effective potential (which involves the coupling to the field strengths $(F_{\\beta})_{i=1}^{N}$ of the abelian gauge fields) are the solutions to the equations: 2 \u00a0= \u00a01 , \u00a0 = 1, \u2026, N \\[eq:susyvac\\] which happily coincide with . As long as the masses of the matter fields as well as those of the $W$-bosons are non-zero, the exactness of the one-loop approximation can be justified.\n\nThe implications of the identification of with are quite dramatic. One of the unexpected consequences is the realization that the Yangian of $\\mathfrak{sl}_{2}$, which is the spectrum generating algebra of the Heisenberg spin chain, must act in the union of Hilbert spaces of *different* quantum field theories, namely $U(N)$ gauge theories with all values of $N$, at least for $N \\leq L$. The specific realization of this novel symmetry is not yet completely understood, although the constructions of [@Nakajima; @Varagnolo; @MO] provide the tantalizing hints.\n\nGeneralizations\n---------------\n\nLet us now briefly review the generalization of the above correspondence to the case of a Lie algebra $\\mathfrak{g}_{Q}$ based on a quiver $Q$. The vertices $v \\in V_{Q}$ are the simple roots while the edges connecting the vertices encode their scalar products. The simple Lie algebras $\\mathfrak{sl}_{r+1}$, $\\mathfrak{so}_{2r}$, $\\mathfrak{e}_{r}$ with $r= 6, 7,8$ and their affine versions are associated with the quivers with $r$ ($r+1$) vertices, which coincide with their Dynkin diagrams.\n\nThe spin chain model based on $\\mathfrak{g}_{Q}$ depends on the choice of the representation ${{\\mathcal H}}_{\\bf w}$ of the Yangian $Y(\\mathfrak{g}_{Q})$, which, in turn, can be taken to be the tensor product of the so-called evaluation representations $R_{i}({\\mu})$, where $i \\in V_{Q}$ and ${\\mu} \\in {{\\mathbb C}}$: \\_[**w**]{} = \\_[i V\\_[Q]{}]{} \\_[=1]{}\\^[w\\_[i]{}]{} R\\_[i]{}(\\_\\^[(i)]{}) , \\[eq:repspin\\] where ${\\mu}_{\\alpha}^{(i)} \\in {{\\mathbb C}}$. The multiplicities ${\\bf w} = (w_{i})_{i \\in V_{Q}}$ are the analogues of $L$, and the evaluation points ${\\mu}_{a}^{(i)}$ are the analogues of the parameters ${\\mu}_{1}, \\ldots , {\\mu}_{L}$. Now, the analogue of the spin projection $N$ is the collection ${\\bf v} = (v_{i})_{i\\in V_{Q}}$, where $v_{i} \\in {{\\mathbb Z}}_{\\geq 0}$.\n\nThe Bethe ansatz equations in the case of general $Q$ are sometimes called the nested Bethe equations (in the case of the $A, D, E$ Dynkin diagrams they were written in [@Reshet; @KR]). The unknowns are the Bethe roots ${\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)}$, where $\\beta = 1, \\ldots , v_{i}$, $i \\in V_{Q}$. These equations have the Yang-Yang potential: $$\\begin{gathered}\n{\\tilde W}_{Q}  = \\frac{1}{2\\pi {\\mathrm{i}}} \\sum_{i \\in V_{Q}} \\ {\\rm log}{{\\mathfrak q}}_{i}\\, \\sum_{\\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} + \\\\\n \\sum_{i \\in V_{Q}} \\sum_{\\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} \\scriptstyle{\\left(  \\sum_{{\\beta}' = 1}^{v_{i}} {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} - {\\sigma}_{\\beta'}^{(i)} + 2u ) +\\sum\\limits_{a = 1}^{w_{i}} \\left( {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} - {\\mu}_{a}^{(i)} - u ) +  {\\varpi} ( - {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} + {\\mu}_{a}^{(i)} - u ) \\right) \\right)} + \\\\\n \\sum_{e \\in E_{Q}} \\sum_{{\\alpha} = 1}^{v_{s(e)}} \\sum_{{\\beta}=1}^{v_{t(e)}} \\scriptstyle{\\left( {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\alpha}^{(s(e))} - {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(t(e))} - u + {\\mu}_{e} ) + {\\varpi} ( - {\\sigma}_{\\alpha}^{(s(e))} + {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(t(e))} - u - {\\mu}_{e} ) \\right)}  \\\\\n \\label{eq:genyy}\n \\end{gathered}$$ where, in order to write the equations, one introduces some orientation of the edges, thereby defining two maps $s,t: E_{Q} \\to V_{Q}$, sending an edge $e \\in E_{Q}$ to its source $s(e)$ and the target $t(e)$, respectively. The new entry in is a ${\\mathbb C}$-valued $1$-cochain $({\\mu}_{e})_{e\\in E_{Q}}$ which can be eliminated by redefining ${\\mu}_{a}^{(i)}$\u2019s for simply-connected $Q$\u2019s. The observation of [@Nekrasov:2009uh] is that is precisely the effective twisted superpotential of the ${{\\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ theory in two dimensions with the gauge group G\\_[**v**]{} = \\_[iV\\_[Q]{}]{} \u00a0U(v\\_[i]{}) and the hypermultiplets in the representations R\\_[H]{} = \\_[i V\\_[Q]{}]{} Hom ([**w**]{}\\_[i]{} , [**v**]{}\\_[i]{}) \u00a0 \\_[e E\\_[Q]{}]{} Hom ([**v**]{}\\_[s(e)]{} , [**v**]{}\\_[t(e)]{}) where ${\\bf w}_{i} \\approx {{\\mathbb C}}^{w_{i}}$ are the multiplicity spaces, and ${\\bf v}_{i} \\approx {{\\mathbb C}}^{v_{i}}$ are the defining representations of $U(v_{i})$. The parameter $u$ is the twisted mass softly breaking the supersymmetry down to ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$, it corresponds to the $U(1)$ symmetry under which the ${{\\mathcal N}}=2$ adjoint chiral multiplets $\\Phi_{i}$ in ${{\\mathcal N}}=4$ vector multiplets have charge $+2$, while the ${{\\mathcal N}}=2$ chiral multiplets in fundamental $Hom ({\\bf w}_{i} , {\\bf v}_{i})$ and antifundamental $Hom ({\\bf v}_{i} , {\\bf w}_{i})$ representations, as well as both bi-fundamentals $Hom ({\\bf v}_{s(e)} , {\\bf v}_{t(e)})$ and its conjugates $Hom ({\\bf v}_{t(e)} , {\\bf v}_{s(e)})$ have charge $-1$. The parameters ${\\mu}_{e}$ are the twisted masses corresponding to the $U(1)_{e}$ symmetry under which $Hom ({\\bf v}_{t(e)} , {\\bf v}_{s(e)})$ has $+1$ charge, while $Hom ({\\bf v}_{s(e)} , {\\bf v}_{t(e)})$ has $-1$ charge. The evaluation parameters ${\\mu}_{a}^{(i)}$ are the twisted masses for the maximal torus of $U(w_{i})$.\n\nBethe ansatz for closed super-spin chains\n=========================================\n\nThe Bethe ansatz equations for the spin chains based on the superalgebra $\\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$ has been found long time ago. We use the formalism of [@Ragoucy:2007kg] and [@Belliard:2008di], adapted to our notations.\n\n### Principal gradation\n\nLet us first discuss the case of the principal gradation Dynkin diagram [@Frappat:1996pb].\n\nThe diagram has $n+m-1$ node, with $i = 1, \\ldots , m-1$ and $i=m+1, \\ldots\n m+n-1$ called the bosonic nodes and $i=m$ the fermionic node. The Bethe roots ${\\sigma}_{\\alpha}^{(i)}$, ${\\alpha} = 1, \\ldots , v_{i}$ are the roots of the polynomials $Q_{i}(x)$, $i = 1, \\ldots , m+n-1$ of degrees $v_{i}$, Q\\_[i]{}(x) = \\_[=1]{}\\^[v\\_[i]{}]{} ( x - \\_\\^[(i)]{} ) \\[eq:qbaxi\\] We also define $Q_{0}(x) = Q_{m+n}(x) \\equiv 1$. Then Bethe equations (we generalized them by including the twist parameters ${\\mathfrak q}_i$\u2019s) have the form: whenever $Q_{i}(x) = 0$:\n\n& \\_[i]{} = - , ,\\\n& \\_[m]{} = - ,\\\n& \\_[i]{} = - , ,\\\n\\[eq:baesusy\\]\n\nwith monic polynomials $P_{k}(x)$, $k = 1, \\ldots , m-1, \\pm , m+1,  \\ldots, m+n-1$. We see that can be cast in the form = 1 where ${\\tilde W}_{\\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)}$ is similar to the $Q = A_{m+n-1}$ Yang-Yang function , except that the node $i=m$ contributes differently, and the sign of $u$ is flipped in passing from $i < m$ to $i>m$: $$\\begin{gathered}\n{\\tilde W}_{\\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)}\n = \\frac{1}{2\\pi {\\mathrm{i}}} \\sum_{i =1}^{m+n-1} \\ {\\rm log}{{\\mathfrak q}}_{i}\\, \\sum_{\\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} + \\\\\n \\sum_{i =1}^{m-1} \\sum_{\\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} \\scriptstyle{\\left(  \\sum\\limits_{{\\beta}' = 1}^{v_{i}} {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} - {\\sigma}_{\\beta'}^{(i)} + 2u ) +\\sum\\limits_{a = 1}^{w_{i}} \\left( {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} - {\\mu}_{a}^{(i)} - u ) +  {\\varpi} ( - {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} + {\\mu}_{a}^{(i)} - u ) \\right) \\right)} + \\\\\n  + \\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}  \\sum_{{\\alpha} = 1}^{v_{i}} \\sum_{{\\beta}=1}^{v_{i+1}} \\scriptstyle{\\left( {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\alpha}^{(i)} - {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i+1)} - u) + {\\varpi} ( - {\\sigma}_{\\alpha}^{(i)} + {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i+1)} - u) \\right)}+  \\\\\n + \\sum_{\\beta = 1}^{v_{m}} \\sum_{a = 1}^{w} \\scriptstyle{\\left(    {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} - {\\mu}_{a}^{(+)}) +  {\\varpi} ( - {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} + {\\mu}_{a}^{(-)})  \\right)} + \\\\\n + \\sum_{i =m+1}^{m+n-1} \\sum_{\\beta = 1}^{v_{i}} \\scriptstyle{\\left(  \\sum\\limits_{{\\beta}' = 1}^{v_{i}} {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} - {\\sigma}_{\\beta'}^{(i)} - 2u ) +\\sum\\limits_{a = 1}^{w_{i}} \\left( {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} - {\\mu}_{a}^{(i)} + u ) +  {\\varpi} ( - {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i)} + {\\mu}_{a}^{(i)} + u ) \\right) \\right)} + \\\\\n + \\sum_{i=m}^{m+n-1}  \\sum_{{\\alpha} = 1}^{v_{i}} \\sum_{{\\beta}=1}^{v_{i+1}} \\scriptstyle{\\left( {\\varpi} ( {\\sigma}_{\\alpha}^{(i)} - {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i+1)} + u) + {\\varpi} ( - {\\sigma}_{\\alpha}^{(i)} + {\\sigma}_{\\beta}^{(i+1)} + u) \\right)}  \\\\\n \\label{eq:genyy2}\n \\end{gathered}$$ where P\\_[i]{}(x) = \\_[a=1]{}\\^[w\\_[i]{}]{} ( x - \\_[a]{}\\^[(i)]{} ) , i = 1, \u2026, m-1, , m+1, \u2026, n+m-1 \\[eq:pix\\] and ${\\rm deg}P_{+} = {\\rm deg}P_{-} = w$.\n\nGeneral Dynkin diagram\n----------------------\n\nThe general Dynkin diagram of $\\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$ is characterized by a collection of $p \\geq 1$ integers $0 < l_{1} < l_{2} < \\ldots < l_{p} < m+n$, labeling the chosen fermionic simple roots, where, for even $p = 2k$: n = \\_[i=1]{}\\^[p]{} (-1)\\^[i]{} l\\_[i]{} = d\\_[1]{} + d\\_[3]{} + \u2026+ d\\_[2k-1]{} \u00a0, and for odd $p=  2k+1$: m = \\_[i=1]{}\\^[p]{} (-1)\\^[i-1]{} l\\_[i]{} = d\\_[1]{} + d\\_[3]{} + \u2026+ d\\_[2k+1]{} \u00a0, where $d_{0} = m+n- l_{p}$, $d_{i} = l_{p+1-i} - l_{p-i}$, $i = 1, \\ldots, p-1$, $d_{p} = l_{1}$, so that all $d_{i} \\geq 1$, and $\\sum_i d_i = m+n$.\n\nIn this paper we shall not discuss the Bethe/gauge correspondence for the general Dynkin diagrams of the $\\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$ superalgebra. We leave this as an exercise.\n\nSupersymmetric gauge theory for superspin chain\n===============================================\n\nThe first observation about is that it is obtained by fusing two type $A$ quiver theories, $A_{m-1}$ and $A_{n-1}$, with the opposite values of the $u$-parameter. The fusing node $i=m$ is a $U(v_{m})$ ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ gauge theory which couples to both $A_{m-1}$ and $A_{n-1}$ theories.\n\nHere is the minimal construction, which we found in 2008 [^1] (the paper [@Orlando:2010uu] used the same construction in the $(m|n) = (2|1)$ case, albeit for $\\mathfrak{sl}$ rather $\\mathfrak{gl}$ superalgebra).\n\nStart with the $A_{m-1} \\times A_{n-1}$ ${{\\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ theory with the gauge group $G_{l} \\times G_{r}$ where $G_{l} = U(v_{1}) \\times \\ldots \\times U(v_{m-1})$, $G_{r} = U(v_{m+1}) \\times \\ldots \\times U(v_{m+n-1})$, the bi-fundamental hypermultiplets in $( {\\bf v}_{i+1}, {\\bar{\\bf v}}_{i})$, $i = 1, \\ldots , m-2$, and $i = m+1, \\ldots , m+n-2$, and fundamental hypermultiplets $({\\bar{\\bf w}}_{i}, {\\bf v}_{i})$, $i = 1, \\ldots, m-1$, and $i = m+1, \\ldots, m+n-1$. Now let us turn on the twisted mass $u$ for the $U(1)_{\\sf u}$ symmetry which acts as $U(1)_{u}$ on the fields of the $A_{m-1}$ sector and as $\\overline{U(1)_{u}}$ on the fields of the $A_{n-1}$ sector (i.e. the opposite charges). As usual, we turn on the twisted masses for the maximal tori of the flavor symmetry $U(w_{1}) \\times \\ldots \\times U(w_{m-1}) \\times U(w_{m+1}) \\times \\ldots \\times U(w_{m+n-1})$.\n\nNow we couple this theory to the ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ gauge theory with the gauge group $U(v_{m})$, and the bi-fundamental chiral multiplets $B_{m-1} \\oplus {\\tilde B}_{m-1}$ in $({\\bar{\\bf v}}_{m-1} , {\\bf v}_{m}) \\oplus ( {\\bar{\\bf v}}_{m}, {\\bf v}_{m-1})$ and $B_{m} \\oplus {\\tilde B}_{m}$ in $({\\bar{\\bf v}}_{m+1} , {\\bf v}_{m}) \\oplus ( {\\bar{\\bf v}}_{m}, {\\bf v}_{m+1})$ and the fundamental and anti-fundamental chirals $I_{m} \\in ({\\bar{\\bf w}_{-}}, {\\bf v}_{m})$ and $J_{m} \\in ({\\bar{\\bf v}_{m}}, {\\bf w}_{+})$, where the vector spaces ${\\bf w}_{\\pm}$ have equal rank $w$.\n\nThe matter fields couple to the ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ adjoint chirals at the $m-1$ and $m+1$ node through the superpotential (in addition to the superpotential inherited from the ${{\\mathcal N}}=(4,4)$ theory): \\_[1]{}W = \\_[[**v**]{}\\_[m]{}]{} ( B\\_[m-1]{} \\_[m-1]{} [B]{}\\_[m-1]{} ) - \\_[[**v**]{}\\_[m]{}]{} ( B\\_[m]{} \\_[m+1]{} [B]{}\\_[m]{} ) Thus, the chiral multiplets $B_{m-1}, {\\tilde B}_{m-1}$ have the charge $-1$ under $U(1)_{\\sf u}$ while $B_{m+1}, {\\tilde B}_{m+1}$ have the charge $+1$ (recall that ${\\Phi}_{i}$ has the charge $+2$ for $i < m$ and $-2$ for $i > m$).\n\nA family of theories\n--------------------\n\nThe minimal choice above reproduces the equations . However this choice lacks the rigidity one expects of the theory with the hidden $Y(\\mathfrak{sl}(m|n))$ symmetry. Namely, the $U(1)_{\\sf u}$ symmetry is a subgroup in $U(1)_{l} \\times U(1)_{r}$, where $U(1)_{l,r}$ acts as $U(1)_{u}$ on the $A_{m-1}$ and on the $A_{n-1}$ portions, respectively, including the bifundamentals $(B_{m-1}, {\\tilde B}_{m-1})$ and $(B_{m+1}, {\\tilde B}_{m+1})$ (which are fundamental hypermultiplets from the point of view of $A_{m-1}$ and $A_{n-1}$ portions, respectively). One can therefore deform this theory by two twisted masses $u_{l}, u_{r}$, so that the theory we discussed so far would correspond to the case $u_{l} + u_{r} = 0$. It is possible that such deformation also has an interesting Bethe/gauge dual (perhaps the generalized root systems of [@SSS:2018] would make an appearence, with ${\\kappa}/(1-{\\kappa}) = - u_{r}/u_{l}$).\n\nWe propose another solidifier. Introduce the triplet $({\\Phi}_{-}, {\\Phi}_{0}, {\\Phi}_{+})$ of $U(v_{m})$ adjoint chiral multiplets, with the $U(1)_{\\sf u}$ charges $+2, 0, -2$, respectively, and add the following terms to the superpotential: \\_[2]{}W = \\_[[**v**]{}\\_[m]{}]{} ( \\_[0]{} \\[\\_[+]{}, \\_[-]{}\\] - \\_[+]{} B\\_[m-1]{} [B]{}\\_[m-1]{} + \\_[-]{} B\\_[m+1]{} [B]{}\\_[m+1]{} ) \\[eq:d2w\\] and \\_[3]{} W = t\\_[1]{} \\_[[**v**]{}\\_[m]{}]{} \\_[+]{} \\_[-]{} + t\\_[2]{} \\_[[**v**]{}\\_[m]{}]{} \\_[0]{}\\^[2]{} \u00a0. \\[eq:lock\\] The $U(1)_{\\sf u}$-symmetry allows one to add terms like $U({\\Phi}_{0})$ with some gauge-invariant polynomial $U(x)$, or $\\sum_{l} s_{l} {{\\text{Tr}}} \\left( {\\Phi}_{+} {\\Phi}_{-}  {\\Phi}_{0}^{l}\\right)$, however our choices are limited by cubic polynomials as we wish to be able to lift these theories to renormalizable ${{\\mathcal N}}=1$ theories in four dimensions (with the XXZ and XYZ-type Bethe duals).\n\nThe term can be accompanied by the coupling ${\\delta}_{4}W = {{\\text{Tr}}} {\\Phi}_{0} IJ$ to yet another fundamental hypermultiplet $(I, J) \\in ({\\bar{\\bf w}_{0}} , {\\bf v}_{m}) \\oplus ({\\bar{\\bf v}_{m}}, {\\bf w}_{0})$. Neither $\\Phi_0$ nor $(I,J)$ contribute to the effective twisted superpotential ${\\tilde W}$ since ${\\Phi}_{0}$ has charge $0$ under $U(1)_{\\sf u}$ and $I$ and $J$ have the opposite charges (which can be absorbed into the twisted masses for $U(w_{0})$ flavor symmetry). The nice feature of the $({\\Phi}_{0, \\pm}, B_{m}, {\\tilde B}_{m}, B_{m-1}, {\\tilde B}_{m-1}, I,J)$ package is that its Higgs branch coincides with the moduli space of spiked instantons [@NekrasovF] which fit into a three dimensional variety (see [@Soibelman] for the recent work where using these moduli spaces the representations of the cohomological Hall algebra are constructed). In the absence of the $(I,J)$-matter fields the corresponding Higgs branch is the moduli space of folded instantons [@Nbpscft] which we shall discuss in the next section.\n\nWe should stress that only the ${\\delta}_{3}W$ term provides the rigidity $u_{l}+u_{r}= 0$. Once $t_{1}= t_{2} = 0$ we can turn on both $u_{l}$ and $u_{r}$, leading to the equations describing the quantum cohomology, i.e. the spectrum of the twisted chiral ring: whenever $Q_{i}(x) = 0$,\n\n& = - [[q]{}]{}\\_[i]{}\\^[-1]{} ,\\\n& ,\\\n& \u00a0 =\\\n& = - [[q]{}]{}\\_[m]{}\\^[-1]{} ,\\\n& = - [[q]{}]{}\\_[i]{}\\^[-1]{} ,\\\n& ,\\\n\\[eq:baesusy2\\]\n\nwhere ${{\\mathfrak q}}_{i} = e^{2\\pi {\\mathrm{i}}{\\vartheta}_{i} - r_{i}}$\u2019s are the Kahler moduli. The $t_{1} = t_{2} = 0$ locus has a bonus feature in the form of a $U(1)_{R}$ symmetry, under which all the fundamentals except $(I,J)$ and bi-fundamentals have charge $0$, all the ${\\Phi}_{i}$, ${\\Phi}_{\\pm}$ fields have charge $+1$, with ${\\Phi}_{0}$ having charge $-1$, and $I, J$ having charge $+1$. This symmetry is preserved by the $\\beta$-deformation: \\_[0]{} \\[ \\_[+]{}, \\_[-]{}\\] e\\^ ( \\_[0]{} \\_[+]{} \\_[-]{} ) - e\\^[-]{} ( \\_[0]{} \\_[-]{} \\_[+]{} ) \\[eq:betdef\\] Likewise, this $U(1)_{R}$ symmetry is restored in the limit where both $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ go to infinity, i.e. ${\\Phi}_{\\pm}$ and ${\\Phi}_{0}$ decouple.\n\nThe $U(1)_{R}$ symmetry can be used to define the topological field theory by $A$ twist. After the twist the fields ${\\Phi}_{i}, {\\Phi}_{\\pm}, I, J$ become the $(1,0)$-forms on the worldsheet $\\Sigma$, i.e. ${\\Phi}_{i} = {\\Phi}_{i,z} dz \\in {\\Gamma} \\left( {\\rm End}({{\\mathcal V}}_{i}) \\otimes K_{\\Sigma} \\right)$, $I = I_{z}dz \\in {\\Gamma} \\left( {\\rm Hom}( {\\bf w}_{0} , {{\\mathcal V}}_{m}) \\otimes K_{\\Sigma} \\right)$, while ${\\Phi}_{0}$ becomes the section of ${\\rm End}({{\\mathcal V}}_{m}) \\otimes {{\\mathcal T}}_{\\Sigma}$. The path integral localizes onto the solutions of the generalized Hitchin equations, which schematically read as follows: \\_[|z]{} ( [field]{} ) = ( W / [field]{} )\\^ where by the field we mean the lowest component of the chiral multiplet after the twisting.\n\nWhen $\\Sigma = D^{2}$ or ${\\Sigma} = {{\\mathbb C}}$ one can further deform the theory by subjecting it to the two-dimensional $\\Omega$-background. The path integral with the supersymmetric boundary conditions is expected to solve the quantum Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation based on superalgebras, cf. [@AOqm].\n\nConclusions and future prospects\n================================\n\nBethe/gauge correspondence between the finite-dimensional spin chains and two dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories (their anisotropic cousins corresponding to the three and four dimensional theories toroidally compactified to two dimensions) has a parallel correspondence between the quantum integrable systems with infinite-dimensional spaces of states, such as many-body systems, and the four (five, six) dimensional supersymmetric gauge theories subject to a two dimensional $\\Omega$-background (times a circle or a torus) [@NS09; @NPS]. The examples discussed in this paper are not an exception to that rule. Namely, there is a four-dimensional theory subject to a two dimensional $\\Omega$-background, which corresponds to a many-body system based on superalgebra $\\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$. It was shown in [@Nbpscft] that the [folded instanton]{} theory, i.e. a generalized gauge theory on the spacetime of the form: ${{\\mathbb C}} \\times {{\\mathbb C}} \\cup_{0} {{\\mathbb C}}$ (in other words, a union of the coordinate planes ${{\\mathbb C}}^{2}_{12}$ ($z_{3}= 0$) and ${{\\mathbb C}}^{2}_{23}$ ($z_{1}=0$) inside the three complex dimensional space ${{\\mathbb C}}^{3}$ with the coordinates $z_{1}, z_{2}, z_{3}$), with the local gauge groups $U(n)$ and $U(m)$ (and local matter content of the ${{\\mathcal N}}=2^{*}$ theory), respectively, subject to the $\\Omega$-deformations in ${{\\mathbb C}}^{1}_{1}$ and ${{\\mathbb C}}^{1}_{3}$ with the equivariant parameters ${{{\\varepsilon}}}_{1}$ and ${{{\\varepsilon}}}_{3}$, respectively, is a theory with the ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ super-Poincare invariance in two dimensions (i.e. in ${{\\mathbb C}}^{1}_{2}$). Its Bethe dual is the deformed elliptic Calogero-Moser system (the trigonometric version was studied in [@SV]): $$\\begin{gathered}\n{\\hat H} = - \\frac{\\kappa}{2} \\sum_{i=1}^{n} \\frac{{\\partial}^{2}}{\\partial x_{i}^2} - \\frac{1-\\kappa}{2} \\sum_{j=1}^{m} \\frac{{\\partial}^{2}}{\\partial y_{j}^2} + \\\\\n+ \\frac{\\kappa}{1-\\kappa} \\sum_{i< i'}  {\\wp} (x_{i} - x_{i'}) + \\frac{1-\\kappa}{\\kappa} \\sum_{j<j'} {\\wp} (y_{j} - y_{j'}) + \\sum_{i,j} {\\wp} (x_{i} - y_{j}) \\, , \n\\label{eq:defcm}\\end{gathered}$$ where = It was shown in [@Nbpscft] that the partition function of the theory with the surface defect inserted at some point in ${{\\mathbb C}}^{1}_{2}$ (with the monodromy defect at $0 \\in {{\\mathbb C}}^{1}_{1} \\cup_{0} {{\\mathbb C}}^{1}_{3}$) is the wavefunction of the quantum system . Specifically, such a partition function is obtained by integration over a ${{\\mathbb Z}}_{m+n}$-fixed locus in the moduli space of folded instantons, which is the space of solutions to the following system of equations:\n\n& \\[ \\_[+]{}, \\_[-]{} \\] = 0 ,\\\n& \\[ \\_[0]{}, \\_[+]{} \\] + B\\_[m+1]{}[B]{}\\_[m+1]{} = 0 ,\\\n& \\[ \\_[0]{} , \\_[-]{}\\] + [B]{}\\_[m]{} B\\_[m]{} = 0\\\n& \\_[-]{} B\\_[m+1]{} = \\_[+]{} [B]{}\\_[m]{} = [B]{}\\_[m+1]{} \\_[-]{} = B\\_[m]{} \\_[+]{} = 0 \u00a0.\n\nWe expect that a proper large $m,n$ limit of this model produces a super-version of the quantum intermediate long-wave equation, whose spectrum is determined from the Bethe equations similar to .\n\nOn the other hand, the surface defect of the folded instanton theory can be modelled on a two dimensional ${{\\mathcal N}}=(2,2)$ gauged linear sigma model albeit on the worldsheet made out of two copies of ${{\\mathbb C}}^1$ (more specifically ${{\\mathbb C}}^{1}_{1}$ and ${{\\mathbb C}}^{1}_{3}$) glued at one point $0$. On either component the low-energy effective target space is the cotangent bundle to the complete flag variety, $T^{*}Fl(m,m-1,\\ldots, 1)$ and $T^{*}Fl(n,n-1, \\ldots, 1)$, respectively. In addition, there are degrees of freedom localized at $0$, which describe some interaction between the two sigma models. We expect the equivalence between the four dimensional and the two dimensional viewpoints on this system is a way to make contact with the discrete dynamics approach to Bethe ansatz of superalgebras of [@Kazakov:2007fy].\n\nFinally, let us mention another extension of this work. In [@NPS] the $ADE$-type quiver gauge theories in four and five dimensions were analyzed using the $q$-character [@FR] observables, which were generalized to $qq$-characters in [@Nbpscft]. In [@Kimura:2017hez] the theories associated to the non-simply-laced algebras were constructed, together with the corresponding $qq$-characters. It must be possible to include the superalgebras into this picture as well, in particular to define the $qq$-characters for the Yangians and quantum affine algebras based on $\\mathfrak{sl}(m|n)$. The surface defects in these theories will presumably carry the ${{\\mathcal N}}=2$ structure in two and three dimensions that we described in this note.\n\n[KLLSW]{}\n\nM.\u00a0Aganagic, K.\u00a0A.\u00a0Intriligator, C.\u00a0Vafa and N.\u00a0P.\u00a0Warner, *The Glueball superpotential*, Adv.\u00a0Theor.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**7**]{}, no. 6, 1045 (2003) doi:10.4310/ATMP.2003.v7.n6.a4 \\[hep-th/0304271\\].\n\nM.\u00a0Aganagic and A.\u00a0Okounkov, *Elliptic stable envelope*, arXiv:1604.00423 \\[math.AG\\].\n\nM.\u00a0Aganagic and A.\u00a0Okounkov, *Quasimap counts and Bethe eigenfunctions*, Moscow Math.\u00a0J.\u00a0 [**17**]{}, no. 4, 565 (2017) \\[arXiv:1704.08746 \\[math-ph\\]\\].\n\nL.\u00a0Alvarez-Gaume and D.\u00a0Z.\u00a0Freedman, *Potentials for the Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Model*, Commun.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**91**]{}, 87 (1983). doi:10.1007/BF01206053\n\nG.\u00a0Arutyunov, S.\u00a0Frolov and M.\u00a0Staudacher, *Bethe ansatz for quantum strings*, JHEP [**0410**]{}, 016 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/10/016 \\[hep-th/0406256\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Beisert and M.\u00a0Staudacher, *The ${{\\mathcal N}}=4$ SYM integrable super spin chain*, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**670**]{}, 439 (2003) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2003.08.015 \\[hep-th/0307042\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Beisert, V.\u00a0Dippel and M.\u00a0Staudacher, *A Novel long range spin chain and planar ${{\\mathcal N}}=4$ super Yang-Mills*, JHEP [**0407**]{}, 075 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/07/075 \\[hep-th/0405001\\]. N.\u00a0Beisert, B.\u00a0Eden and M.\u00a0Staudacher, *Transcendentality and Crossing*, J.\u00a0Stat.\u00a0Mech.\u00a0 [**0701**]{}, P01021 (2007) doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2007/01/P01021 \\[hep-th/0610251\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Beisert, R.\u00a0Hernandez and E.\u00a0Lopez, *A Crossing-symmetric phase for $AdS_{5} x S^{5}$ strings*, JHEP [**0611**]{}, 070 (2006) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2006/11/070 \\[hep-th/0609044\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Beisert and P.\u00a0Koroteev, J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A [**41**]{}, 255204 (2008) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/25/255204 \\[arXiv:0802.0777 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nS.\u00a0Belliard and E.\u00a0Ragoucy, *Nested Bethe ansatz for \u2019all\u2019 closed spin chains*, J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A [**41**]{}, 295202 (2008) doi:10.1088/1751-8113/41/29/295202 \\[arXiv:0804.2822 \\[math-ph\\]\\].\n\nR.\u00a0Dijkgraaf, B.\u00a0Heidenreich, P.\u00a0Jefferson and C.\u00a0Vafa, *Negative Branes, Supergroups and the Signature of Spacetime*, JHEP [**1802**]{}, 050 (2018) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2018)050 \\[arXiv:1603.05665 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Dorey, D.\u00a0M.\u00a0Hofman and J.\u00a0M.\u00a0Maldacena, *On the Singularities of the Magnon S-matrix*, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**76**]{}, 025011 (2007) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.025011 \\[hep-th/0703104 \\[HEP-TH\\]\\].\n\nJ.\u00a0M.\u00a0Drummond, *Review of AdS/CFT Integrability, Chapter V.2: Dual Superconformal Symmetry*, Lett.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**99**]{}, 481 (2012) doi:10.1007/s11005-011-0519-4 \\[arXiv:1012.4002 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nL.\u00a0Frappat, P.\u00a0Sorba and A.\u00a0Sciarrino, *Dictionary on Lie superalgebras*, hep-th/9607161.\n\nE.\u00a0Frenkel, N.\u00a0Reshetikhin, *The $q$-characters of representations of quantun affine algebras and deformations of $W$-algebras*, arXiv:math/9810055v5 \\[math.QA\\]\n\nA.\u00a0A.\u00a0Gerasimov and S.\u00a0L.\u00a0Shatashvili, *Higgs Bundles, Gauge Theories and Quantum Groups*, Commun.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**277**]{}, 323 (2008) doi:10.1007/s00220-007-0369-1 \\[hep-th/0609024\\].\\\n*Two-dimensional gauge theories and quantum integrable systems*, Proc.\u00a0Symp.\u00a0Pure Math.\u00a0 [**78**]{}, 239 (2008) \\[arXiv:0711.1472 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Gorsky and N.\u00a0Nekrasov, *Hamiltonian systems of Calogero type and two-dimensional Yang-Mills theory*, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**414**]{}, 213 (1994) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90429-4 \\[hep-th/9304047\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Gromov, V.\u00a0Kazakov, K.\u00a0Sakai and P.\u00a0Vieira, *Strings as multi-particle states of quantum sigma-models*, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**764**]{}, 15 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.11.018 \\[hep-th/0603043\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Gromov and V.\u00a0Kazakov, *Asymptotic Bethe ansatz from string sigma model on ${{\\mathbb S}}^{3} \\times {{\\mathbb R}}$*, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**780**]{}, 143 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.03.025 \\[hep-th/0605026\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Gromov, V.\u00a0Kazakov and P.\u00a0Vieira, *Classical limit of Quantum Sigma-Models from Bethe Ansatz*, PoS SOLVAY [****]{}, 005 (2006) doi:10.22323/1.038.0005 \\[hep-th/0703137 \\[HEP-TH\\]\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Hutsalyuk, A.\u00a0Liashyk, S.\u00a0Z.\u00a0Pakuliak, E.\u00a0Ragoucy and N.\u00a0A.\u00a0Slavnov, *Scalar products of Bethe vectors in the models with $\\mathfrak{gl}(m|n)$ symmetry*, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**923**]{}, 277 (2017). doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2017.07.020\n\nR.A.Janik, *The $AdS_{5} \\times S^{5}$ superstring worldsheet $S$-matrix and crossing symmetry*, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**73**]{}, 086006 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.086006 \\[hep-th/0603038\\].\n\nV.A.Kazakov, A.Marshakov, J.A.Minahan and K.Zarembo, *Classical/quantum integrability in AdS/CFT*, JHEP [**0405**]{}, 024 (2004) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2004/05/024 \\[hep-th/0402207\\].\n\nV.\u00a0Kazakov, A.\u00a0S.\u00a0Sorin and A.\u00a0Zabrodin, *Supersymmetric Bethe ansatz and Baxter equations from discrete Hirota dynamics*, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**790**]{}, 345 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.06.025 \\[hep-th/0703147 \\[HEP-TH\\]\\].\n\nT.\u00a0Kimura and V.\u00a0Pestun, *Fractional quiver $W$-algebras*, Lett.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**108**]{}, no. 11, 2425 (2018) doi:10.1007/s11005-018-1087-7 \\[arXiv:1705.04410 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nA.N.\u00a0Kirillov, N.\u00a0Reshetikhin, *Representations of Yangians and multiplicities of the inclusion of the irreducible components of the tensor product of representations of simple Lie algebras* , (Russian) Zap. Nauchn. Sem. LOMI [**160**]{} (1987), Anal. Teor. Chisel i Teor. Funktsii. 8, 211\u00d0221, 301; translation in J. Soviet Math. [**52**]{} (1990), no. 3, 3156\u00d03164\n\nP.\u00a0P.\u00a0Kulish, J.\u00a0Sov.\u00a0Math [**35**]{} (1986) 2648 \u00a0. D.\u00a0Maulik and A.\u00a0Okounkov, *Quantum groups and quantum cohomology*, arXiv:1211.1287\n\nA.\u00a0A.\u00a0Migdal, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 69, 810 (1975)\n\nJ.\u00a0A.\u00a0Minahan and K.\u00a0Zarembo, *The Bethe ansatz for ${{\\mathcal N}}=4$ superYang-Mills*, JHEP [**0303**]{}, 013 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/03/013 \\[hep-th/0212208\\].\n\nV.\u00a0Mikhaylov, *Analytic Torsion, 3d Mirror Symmetry And Supergroup Chern-Simons Theories*, arXiv:1505.03130 \\[hep-th\\].\n\nV.\u00a0Mikhaylov and E.\u00a0Witten, *Branes And Supergroups*, Commun.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**340**]{}, no. 2, 699 (2015) doi:10.1007/s00220-015-2449-y \\[arXiv:1410.1175 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nG.\u00a0W.\u00a0Moore, N.\u00a0Nekrasov and S.\u00a0Shatashvili, *Integrating over Higgs branches*, Commun.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**209**]{}, 97 (2000) doi:10.1007/PL00005525 \\[hep-th/9712241\\].\n\nH.\u00a0Nakajima, *Quiver varieties and finite dimensional representations of quantum affine algebras* , arXiv:math/9912158\n\nN.\u00a0A.\u00a0Nekrasov and S.\u00a0L.\u00a0Shatashvili, *Supersymmetric vacua and Bethe ansatz*, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0Proc.\u00a0Suppl.\u00a0 [**192-193**]{}, 91 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2009.07.047 \\[arXiv:0901.4744 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nN.\u00a0A.\u00a0Nekrasov and S.\u00a0L.\u00a0Shatashvili, *Quantization of Integrable Systems and Four Dimensional Gauge Theories*, doi:10.1142/9789814304634$\\_$0015 arXiv:0908.4052 \\[hep-th\\]. N.\u00a0Nekrasov, V.\u00a0Pestun and S.\u00a0Shatashvili, *Quantum geometry and quiver gauge theories*, Commun.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**357**]{}, no. 2, 519 (2018) doi:10.1007/s00220-017-3071-y \\[arXiv:1312.6689 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Nekrasov, S.\u00a0Sethi, in progress\n\nN.\u00a0Nekrasov, *BPS/CFT correspondence: non-perturbative Dyson-Schwinger equations and qq-characters*, JHEP [**1603**]{}, 181 (2016) \\[arxiv:1512.05388 \\[hep-th\\]\\\n$\\underline{~~~~~~~~~~}$, *BPS/CFT correspondence II: Instantons at crossroads, Moduli and Compactness Theorem*, arXiv:1608.07272 \\[hep-th\\]\\\n$\\underline{~~~~~~~~~~}$, *BPS/CFT correspondence III: Gauge Origami Partition Function and $qq$-characters*, arXiv:1701.00189 \\[hep-th\\]\\\n$\\underline{~~~~~~~~~~}$, *BPS/CFT correspondence IV: sigma models and defects in gauge theory*, doi:10.1007/s11005-018-1115-7 arXiv:1711.11011 \\[hep-th\\]\\\n$\\underline{~~~~~~~~~~}$, *BPS/CFT correspondence V: BPZ and KZ equations from $qq$-characters*, arXiv:1711.11582 \\[hep-th\\]\\\nN.\u00a0Nekrasov and N.\u00a0S.\u00a0Prabhakar, *Spiked Instantons from Intersecting D-branes*, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**914**]{}, 257 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2016.11.014 \\[arXiv:1611.03478 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nA.\u00a0Okounkov, *Lectures on K-theoretic computations in enumerative geometry*, arXiv:1512.07363 \\[math.AG\\].\n\nD.\u00a0Orlando and S.\u00a0Reffert, *Relating Gauge Theories via Gauge/Bethe Correspondence*, JHEP [**1010**]{}, 071 (2010) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2010)071 \\[arXiv:1005.4445 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nA.\u00a0M.\u00a0Polyakov, *Supermagnets and sigma models*, doi:10.1142/9789812773784$\\_$0036, hep-th/0512310.\n\nE.\u00a0Ragoucy and G.\u00a0Satta, *Analytical Bethe Ansatz for closed and open ${\\mathfrak{gl}}(M|N)$ super-spin chains in arbitrary representations and for any Dynkin diagrams*, JHEP [**0709**]{}, 001 (2007) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2007/09/001 \\[arXiv:0706.3327 \\[hep-th\\]\\].\n\nM.\u00a0Rapcak, Y.\u00a0Soibelman, Y.\u00a0Yang and G.\u00a0Zhao, *Cohomological Hall algebras, vertex algebras and instantons*, arXiv:1810.10402 \\[math.QA\\].\n\nN.\u00a0Reshetikhin, *The spectrum of the transfer matrices connected with Kac-Moody algebras*, Lett. Math. Phys. 14 (10): 235-246, 1987 \u00a0.\n\nN.\u00a0Yu.\u00a0Reshetikhin and P.\u00a0B.\u00a0Wiegmann, Phys. Lett. [**B**]{}189 (1987) 125 .\n\nK.\u00a0Sakai and Y.\u00a0Satoh, *Origin of dressing phase in ${{\\mathcal N}}=4$ super Yang-Mills*, Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B [**661**]{}, 216 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.02.015 \\[hep-th/0703177\\].\n\nS.\u00a0Sahi, H.\u00a0Salmasian and V.\u00a0Serganova, *Capelli eigenvalue problem for Lie superalgebras and supersymetric polynominals* \\[arXiv:1807.07340 \\[math.RT\\]\\].\n\nC.\u00a0L.\u00a0Schultz, Physica [**A**]{}122 (1983) 71 \u00a0.\n\nV.\u00a0Serganova, lecture at the meeting *Representation Theory, Mathematical Physics and Integrable Systems*, on June 7, 2018 at the Centre International de Rencontres Math\u017dmatiques (Marseille, France), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPNC4A6MimA]{}\n\nA.\u00a0Sergeev and A.\u00a0Veselov, *Deformed quantum Calogero-Moser problems and Lie superalgebras*, Comm. Math. Phys., 245(2):249\u00d0278, 2004\\\nA.\u00a0Sergeev and A.\u00a0Veselov, *Generalised discriminants, deformed Calogero-Moser-Sutherland operators and super-Jack polynomials*, Adv. Math., 192(2):341\u00d0375, 2005.\n\nC.\u00a0Vafa, *Brane / anti-brane systems and $U(N|M)$ supergroup*, hep-th/0101218.\n\nM.\u00a0Varagnolo, *Quiver Varieties and Yangians*, arXiv:math/0005277\n\nE.\u00a0Witten, Comm. Math. Phys. 141 (1991) 153, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02100009\n\nE.\u00a0Witten, *Two-dimensional gauge theories revisited*, J.\u00a0Geom.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**9**]{}, 303 (1992) doi:10.1016/0393-0440(92)90034-X \\[hep-th/9204083\\].\n\n[^1]: Many thanks to E.\u00a0Ragoucy for helpful correspondence and patient explanations of the results in [@Ragoucy:2007kg] then and ten years later\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    The effect of the built-in supersymmetric quantum mechanical language on the spectrum of the (1+1)-Dirac equation, with position-dependent mass (PDM) and complexified Lorentz scalar interactions, is re-emphasized. The signature of the \u201cquasi-parity\u201d on the Dirac particles\u2019 spectra is also studied. A Dirac particle with PDM and complexified scalar interactions of the form $S\\left(\n    z\\right) =S\\left( x-ib\\right) $ (an inversely linear plus linear, leading to a $\\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric oscillator model), and $S\\left( x\\right)\n    =S_{r}\\left( x\\right) +iS_{i}\\left( x\\right) $ (a $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Scarf II model) are considered. Moreover, a first-order intertwining differential operator and an $\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity generator are presented and a complexified $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type model is used as an illustrative example.\n\n    PACS numbers: 03.65.Ge, 03.65.Pm, 03.65.Fd, 03.65. Ca\nauthor:\n- |\n    Omar Mustafa$^{1}$ and S.Habib Mazharimousavi$^{2}$\\\n    Department of Physics, Eastern Mediterranean University,\\\n    G Magusa, North Cyprus, Mersin 10,Turkey\\\n    $^{1}$E-mail: omar.mustafa@emu.edu.tr\\\n    $^{2}$E-mail: habib.mazhari@emu.edu.tr\ntitle: '(1+1)-Dirac particle with position-dependent mass in complexified Lorentz scalar interactions: effectively $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric.'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nA fermion bound to move in the $x$-direction (i.e., $p_{y}=p_{z}=0$) mandates the decomposition of the (3+1)-dimensional Dirac equation into two (1+1)-dimensional equations with two-component spinors and $2\\times 2$ Pauli matrices. Whilst the scalar, $S(x)$, and vector, $V(x)$, potentials preserve their Lorentz structures (i.e., the former is added to the mass term of Dirac equation while the minimal coupling is used, as usual, for the latter), the angular momentum and spin are absent in the process. Manifesting, in effect, a mathematically easily assessable and physically more transparent exploration of the (1+1)-Dirac world.\n\nNevertheless, the supersymmetric quantum mechanical terminology is realized (cf., e.g. \\[1-4\\]) as a *hidden/built-in symmetry* in the (1+1)-dimensional Dirac equation with \u201cthe mainly motivated by the MIT bag model of quarks\u201d Lorentz scalar potential \\[5\\]. For example, Nogami and Toyama \\[1\\] have reported that the associated supersymmetric Schr\u00f6dinger Hamiltonians $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ share the same energy spectrum including the lowest states unless Dirac equation allows a zero-mode (i.e., zero-energy bound-state). Moreover, Jackiw and Rebbi \\[4\\] have reported that if the Lorentz scalar potential is localized (i.e., $S(x)\\rightarrow 0$ for $x\\rightarrow \\pm \\infty $) no zero-mode is allowed. That is, only for some Lorentz scalar potentials exhibiting certain *topological* trends, Dirac equation admits zero-mode.\n\nAlthough the practical/experimental determination of the full spectrum is often proved impossible, exact solvability of quantum mechanical models (relativistic and non-relativistic) remains inviting and desirable. On the *exact-solvability* methodical side, however, attention was (by large) paid to the non-relativistic Schr\u00f6dinger equation, whereas the relativistic Klein-Gordon and Dirac equations are left unfortunates. Not only within the recent revival of the unusual non-Hermitian complexified Hamiltonians\u2019 settings \\[6-13\\] , but also within the usual Hermitian ones including those with position-dependent mass (PDM) \\[14-19\\].\n\nIn their pioneering generalization of the non-relativistic quantization recipe (i.e., $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Hamiltonians, where $\\mathcal{P}$ denotes parity and the complex conjugation $\\mathcal{T}$ \u00a0mimics time reversal.), Bender and Boettcher \\[6\\] have suggested a tentative weakening/relaxation of Hermiticity as a necessary condition for the reality of the spectrum (i.e., the reality of the spectrum is secured by the exactness of $\\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetry). However, Mostafazadeh \\[8\\] has introduced a broader class of the so-called pseudo-Hermitian Hamiltonians with real spectra (within which $\\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetric Hamiltonians form a subclass). He has, basically, advocated the \u201cuser-friendly\u201d consensus that neither Hermiticity nor $\\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetry serve as necessary conditions for the reality of the spectrum of a quantum Hamiltonian \\[6-13\\]. Yet, the existence of the real eigenvalues is realized to be associatedwith a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian provided that it is an $\\eta $-pseudo-Hermitian, $\\eta \\,H=H^{\\dagger }\\,\\eta $, with respect to the nontrivial \u201cmetric\u201d intertwining operator $\\eta $ ($=O^{\\dagger }O$, for some linear invertible operator $O:\\mathcal{H}{\\small \\rightarrow }\\mathcal{H}$, where $\\mathcal{H}$ is the Hilbert space). Furthermore, one may rather choose to be disloyal to the Hermiticity (cf., e.g., Bagchi and Quesne \\[10\\]), and \u201clinear\u201d and/or \u201cinvertible\u201d (cf., e.g., Solombrino \\[11\\] and Mustafa and Mazharimousavi \\[12\\]) conditions on the intertwiner $\\eta $, and hence relaxing $H$ to be an $\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermitian.\n\nOn the one (among others, some of which are readily mentioned above) of the main stimulants/inspirations of the present article, we may re-collect that quantum particles endowed with PDM constitute useful models for the study of many physical problems. In particular (but not limited to), they are used in the energy density many-body problem, in the determination of the electronic properties of semiconductors and quantum dots \\[cf., e.g., the sample of references in \\[12-19\\]), etc.\n\nIn the forthcoming text, we shall focus (in addition to the (1+1)-Dirac particle with PDM in complexified Lorentz scalar interactions) on two main spectral phenomenological properties. Namely the energy-levels crossings (manifested by the \u201cquasi-parity\u201d settings of Znojil\u2019s \\[10\\] attractive/repulsive-like core) and the related effects to the hidden/built-in supersymmetric terminology in the (1+1)-Dirac equation. Both in the usual Hermitian and the unusual complexified non-Hermitian settings.\n\nThe organization of this article is in order. In section 2, we discuss the (1+1)-Dirac equation with PDM and a Lorentz-scalar interaction and re-emphasize Nogami\u2019s and Toyama\u2019s \\[1\\] hidden/built-in supersymmetric language. We report, in section 3, some consequences of a complexified non-Hermitian $\\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetric Lorentz scalar potentials belonging to two different classes: $S\\left( x\\right) \\rightarrow S\\left( x-ib\\right)\n=S\\left( z\\right) ;$ $x,b\\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n,$ $z\\in \n\\mathbb{C}\n$ and $S\\left( x\\right) =S_{r}\\left( x\\right) +iS_{i}\\left( x\\right)\n;S_{r}\\left( x\\right) ,S_{i}\\left( x\\right) \\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n$; an inversely linear plus linear and a Scarf II models, respectively. In section 4, we explore one possibility of $\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity generators via a first-order intertwining differential operator. We exemplify this possibility by an $\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermitian $\\mathcal{PT}$ -symmetric periodic-type model. We conclude in section 5.\n\n(1+1)-Dirac equation with a position dependent mass and a Lorentz Scalar interactions\n=====================================================================================\n\nIn the presence of a time-independent position-dependent mass , $m\\left(\nx\\right) $, and a Lorentz scalar interaction, $S\\left( x\\right) $, the (1+1)-dimensional time-independent Dirac equation (in $c=\\hbar =1$ units) reads $$H_{D}\\Psi \\left( x\\right) =E\\Psi \\left( x\\right) \\text{ };\\text{ \\ \\ }H_{D}=\\alpha p+\\beta \\left[ m\\left( x\\right) +S\\left( x\\right) \\right] ,$$where $p=-i\\partial _{x},$ $\\alpha $ and $\\beta $ are the usual $2\\times 2$ Pauli matrices satisfying the relations $\\alpha ^{2}=\\beta ^{2}=1$ and $\\left\\{ \\alpha ,\\beta \\right\\} =0$, $E$ is the energy of the Dirac particle, and $\\Psi \\left( x\\right) $ is the two-component spinor. Equation (1) with $$\\Psi \\left( x\\right) =\\left( \n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\psi _{+}\\left( x\\right) \\\\ \n\\psi _{-}\\left( x\\right)\\end{array}\\right) \\text{ },\\text{ }\\alpha =\\sigma _{2}=\\left( \n\\begin{array}{cc}\n0 & -i \\\\ \ni & 0\\end{array}\\right) \\text{ },\\text{ }\\beta =\\sigma _{1}=\\left( \n\\begin{array}{cc}\n0 & 1 \\\\ \n1 & 0\\end{array}\\right)$$reduces (with $M\\left( x\\right) =m\\left( x\\right) +S\\left( x\\right) $) to$$\\left( \n\\begin{array}{cc}\n0 & -\\partial _{x}+M\\left( x\\right) \\\\ \n\\partial _{x}+M\\left( x\\right) & 0\\end{array}\\right) \\left( \n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\psi _{+}\\left( x\\right) \\\\ \n\\psi _{-}\\left( x\\right)\\end{array}\\right) =E\\left( \n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\psi _{+}\\left( x\\right) \\\\ \n\\psi _{-}\\left( x\\right)\\end{array}\\right)$$which decouples, in turn, into$$\\begin{gathered}\n\\left[ -\\partial _{x}+M\\left( x\\right) \\right] \\psi _{-}\\left( x\\right)\n=E\\psi _{+}\\left( x\\right) ,\\medskip \\\\\n\\left[ \\partial _{x}+M\\left( x\\right) \\right] \\psi _{+}\\left( x\\right)\n=E\\psi _{-}\\left( x\\right) .\\medskip\\end{gathered}$$This would, with $\\omega =\\pm 1$, imply a Schr\u00f6dinger-like equation$$\\begin{gathered}\n\\left\\{ -\\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{\\omega }\\left( x\\right) \\right\\} \\psi _{\\omega\n}\\left( x\\right) =\\lambda _{\\omega }\\psi _{\\omega }\\left( x\\right) ;\\medskip\n\\\\\nV_{\\omega }\\left( x\\right) =M\\left( x\\right) ^{2}-\\omega M^{\\prime }\\left(\nx\\right) \\text{ };\\text{ }\\lambda _{\\omega }=E_{\\omega }^{2},\\medskip\\end{gathered}$$where prime denotes derivative with respect to $x$ (i.e., $\\partial _{x}$). Nevertheless, a built-in supersymmetric quantum mechanical language is obvious in equation (7). That is, if the superpotential is defined as $W\\left( x\\right) =-M\\left( x\\right) $, \u00a0then the supersymmetric partner potentials are given by$$V_{\\omega }\\left( x\\right) =M\\left( x\\right) ^{2}-\\omega M^{\\prime }\\left(\nx\\right) =W^{2}\\left( x\\right) \\pm W^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) .$$In this case, one would label $H_{-}=$ $-\\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{-}\\left(\nx\\right) $ and $H_{+}=$ $-\\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{+}\\left( x\\right) $ as the two partner Hamiltonians (cf., e.g., Alhaidari \\[16\\], and Sinha and Roy \\[3\\]). Of course, such supersymmetric language would leave its fingerprints/signature on the spectrum, as shall be witnessed in the forthcoming experiments with both Hermitian and non-Hermitian models.\n\nConsequences of complexified non-Hermitian Lorentz scalar interactions\n======================================================================\n\nIn this section, we consider two cases: a Dirac particle with $S\\left(\nx\\right) \\rightarrow S\\left( x-ib\\right) =S\\left( z\\right) $ (where $\\mathbb{C}\n\\ni z=x-ib;$ $\\mathbb{R}\n\\ni x\\in \\left( -\\infty ,\\infty \\right) $, and $\\mathbb{R}\n\\ni \\func{Im}z=-b<0$, i.e., a simple constant downward shift of the coordinate is considered), and Dirac particle with $S\\left( x\\right)\n=S_{r}\\left( x\\right) +iS_{i}\\left( x\\right) $, where $S_{r}\\left( x\\right)\n,S_{i}\\left( x\\right) \\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n$.\n\nDirac particle with a complexified Lorentz scalar $S\\left(\nx\\right) \\rightarrow S\\left( z\\right) \\equiv S\\left( x-ib\\right) $: a $\\mathcal{PT-}$symmetrized Znojil\u2019s oscillator\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nA Dirac particle under the influence of $M\\left( z\\left( x\\right) \\right)\n=m\\left( x\\right) +S\\left( z\\left( x\\right) \\right) $ (where $z=x-ib;$ $x\\in\n\\left( -\\infty ,\\infty \\right) $, and $\\mathbb{R}\n\\ni \\func{Im}x=-b<0$, i.e., a simple constant downward shift of the coordinate is considered) would result in recasting (6) and (7) as$$\\left\\{ -\\partial _{z}^{2}+V_{\\omega }\\left( z\\right) \\right\\} \\psi _{\\omega\n}\\left( z\\right) =\\lambda _{\\omega }\\psi _{\\omega }\\left( z\\right) ;\\text{ }V_{\\omega }\\left( z\\right) =M\\left( z\\right) ^{2}-\\omega M^{\\prime }\\left(\nz\\right) .$$\n\nThen, a Dirac particle endowed with a mass function of the form $m(x)=Bx/4;$ $\\mathbb{R}\n\\ni B\\geq 0,$ under the influence of a complexified non-Hermitian Lorentz scalar interaction $S\\left( z\\right) =\\frac{B}{4}z+\\frac{A}{z}-i\\frac{B}{4}b$ would imply $$M\\left( z\\right) =\\frac{B}{2}z+\\frac{A}{z}.$$Which, in effect, yields two complexified non-Hermitian $\\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric partner potentials$$V_{\\omega }\\left( z\\right) =\\frac{1}{4}B^{2}z^{2}+\\frac{A\\left( A+\\omega\n\\right) }{z^{2}}+B\\left( A-\\frac{\\omega }{2}\\right) \\medskip .$$Moreover, it should be noted that $V_{+}\\left( z\\right) $ represents a $\\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric complexified oscillator perturbed by a \u201cshifted by a constant\u201d Znojil\u2019s \\[10\\] repulsive/attractive core, i. e., with the parametric choice $A=\\alpha -\\frac{1}{2};$ $\\alpha \\geq 0$, one gets$$\\frac{A\\left( A+1\\right) }{z^{2}}+B\\left( A+\\frac{1}{2}\\right) =\\frac{\\left(\n\\alpha ^{2}-\\frac{1}{4}\\right) }{z^{2}}+B\\left( A+\\frac{1}{2}\\right) ,$$cf., e.g. Mustafa and Znojil \\[7\\], and $V_{-}\\left( z\\right) $ represents a $\\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric oscillator perturbed by a shifted/rescaled, say, Znojil\u2019s \\[10\\] repulsive/attractive core, i.e.,$$\\frac{A\\left( A-1\\right) }{z^{2}}+B\\left( A-\\frac{1}{2}\\right) =\\frac{\\left(\n\\alpha ^{2}-\\frac{1}{4}\\right) -2\\left( \\alpha -\\frac{1}{2}\\right) }{z^{2}}-\\alpha B.$$Under these settings, one would map Znojil\u2019s results \\[10\\], taking into account our discussion on the supersymmetric-like partner potentials in (10), and obtain$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lambda _{+,q} &=&\\frac{B}{2}\\left( 4n+2q\\alpha +2\\alpha \\right) \\medskip\n\\medskip ;\\text{ }n=0,1,2,\\cdots ,\\medskip \\\\\n\\lambda _{-,q} &=&\\frac{B}{2}\\left[ 4n+\\left( \\alpha +1\\right) \\left(\n2-2q\\right) \\right] ;\\text{ }n=0,1,2,\\cdots .\\medskip\\end{aligned}$$We observe the supersymmetric language *\u201csignature\u201d* \u00a0in $\\lambda\n_{+,q=+1}=\\lambda _{-,q=+1}$ for even quasi-parity and $\\lambda\n_{+,q=-1}+const.=\\lambda _{-,q=-1}$ for odd quasi-parity, i.e., $$\\lambda _{+,q=+1}=\\lambda _{-,q=+1}=2B\\left( n+\\alpha \\right) ,$$and$$\\lambda _{-,q=-1}=\\lambda _{+,q=-1}+2B=2B\\left( n+1\\right) .\\medskip$$Leading, in effect, (with $E_{+,q}=+\\sqrt{\\lambda _{+,q}}$ and $E_{-,q}=-\\sqrt{\\lambda _{-,q}}$) to $$\\begin{aligned}\nE_{+,q} &=&\\left\\{ \n\\begin{tabular}{l}\n$E_{+,q=+1}=+\\sqrt{2B\\left( n+\\alpha \\right) }\\medskip $ \\\\ \n$E_{+,q=-1}=+\\sqrt{2Bn}\\medskip $\\end{tabular}\\right. , \\\\\nE_{-,q} &=&\\left\\{ \n\\begin{tabular}{l}\n$E_{-,q=+1}=-\\sqrt{2B\\left( n+\\alpha \\right) }\\medskip $ \\\\ \n$E_{-,q=-1}=-\\sqrt{2B\\left( n+1\\right) }\\medskip $\\end{tabular}\\right. .\\end{aligned}$$Yet, the *energy-levels crossing* phenomenon (a quasi-parity signature on the spectrum above) is also observed unavoidable. That is, the two sets of energies in (17) cross with each other when$$E_{+}\\left( n=n_{1},q=+1\\right) =E_{+}\\left( n=n_{2},q=-1\\right)\n\\Longrightarrow n_{2}-n_{1}=\\alpha$$and the sets of energies in (18) cross with each other when$$E_{-}\\left( n=n_{3},q=+1\\right) =E_{-}\\left( n=n_{4},q=-1\\right)\n\\Longrightarrow n_{4}-n_{3}=\\alpha -1.$$\n\nDirac particle with a complexified Lorentz scalar $S\\left(\nx\\right) =S_{r}\\left( x\\right) +iS_{i}\\left( x\\right) $: a $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Scarf II model\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this section we consider a class of a complexified Lorentz scalar models of the form $S\\left( x\\right) =S_{r}\\left( x\\right) +iS_{i}\\left( x\\right) $ and position-dependent mass $m\\left( x\\right) \\neq 0$ in $M\\left( x\\right)\n=m\\left( x\\right) +S\\left( x\\right) $. For simplicity of calculations, we take$$M\\left( x\\right) =\\tilde{M}\\left( x\\right) +iS_{i}\\left( x\\right) \\text{ };\\text{ }\\tilde{M}\\left( x\\right) =m\\left( x\\right) +S_{r}\\left( x\\right)$$\n\nIf we assume that $\\tilde{M}\\left( x\\right) =\\left( A+B\\right) \\tanh x$ and $S_{i}\\left( x\\right) =-\\left( A-B\\right) \\func{sech}x$ then$$M\\left( x\\right) =\\left( A+B\\right) \\tanh x-i\\left( A-B\\right) \\func{sech}x$$and consequently the corresponding supersymmetric $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric partner potentials are given by$$V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =-C_{1}\\func{sech}^{2}x-iC_{2}\\func{sech}x\\tanh\nx+\\left( A+B\\right) ^{2}$$where $C_{1}=2\\left( A^{2}+B^{2}\\right) +\\omega \\left( A+B\\right) $ and $C_{2}=\\left( 2A+2B+\\omega \\right) \\left( A-B\\right) $. It is obvious that $V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) $ is the well known complexified $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Scarf II model. Moreover, it should be noted that $V_{+}\\left(\nx\\right) $ and $V_{-}\\left( x\\right) $ imitate the pseudo-supersymmetric $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric partner potentials $U_{2}\\left( x\\right) $ and $U_{1}\\left( x\\right) $, respectively, reported in Eq.s (38)-(40) by Sinha and Roy \\[3\\]. The solution of which can be easily mapped into the above model, by taking the constant mass in Sinha and Roy \\[3\\] equals zero, to obtain$$E_{+,n}\\left( A,B\\right) =+\\sqrt{2\\left( A+B\\right) \\left( n+1\\right)\n-\\left( n+1\\right) ^{2}}\\text{ };\\text{ }n=0,1,2,\\cdots .$$$$E_{-,n}\\left( A,B\\right) =-\\sqrt{2\\left( A+B\\right) n-n^{2}}\\text{ };\\text{ }n=0,1,2,\\cdots .$$However, it is obvious that$$E_{+,n}\\left( A,B\\right) \\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n\\iff \\left[ 2\\left( A+B\\right) -1\\right] \\geq n$$and$$E_{-,n}\\left( A,B\\right) \\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n\\iff 2\\left( A+B\\right) \\geq n\\ .$$This result in effect documents the fact that $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry is not an enough condition to guarantee the reality of Dirac spectrum but rather it should be complemented by the condition $E_{n}^{2}\\geq 0$. Moreover, *energy-levels crossing* phenomenon introduces itself (in this case, of course, not as a quasi-parity effect but rather as a spectral property) in the following scenario: the energy levels in the set (24) perform *energy-levels crossing* among each other when$$E_{+,n_{1}}\\left( A,B\\right) =E_{+,n_{2}}\\left( A,B\\right) \\Longrightarrow\nn_{1}+n_{2}=2\\left( A+B-1\\right) ,$$and similar trend is also obvious in (25) when$$E_{-,n_{3}}\\left( A,B\\right) =E_{-,n_{4}}\\left( A,B\\right) \\Longrightarrow\nn_{3}+n_{4}=2\\left( A+B\\right) .$$\n\nConsequences of $\\protect\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity via a first-order intertwiner\n=====================================================================================\n\nA complexified non-Hermitian Lorentz scalar interaction, $S\\left( x\\right)\n=S_{r}\\left( x\\right) +iS_{i}\\left( x\\right) $, where $S_{r}\\left( x\\right)\n,S_{i}\\left( x\\right) \\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n$, would result in$$\\func{Re}V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =m\\left( x\\right) ^{2}+S_{r}\\left( x\\right)\n^{2}-S_{i}\\left( x\\right) ^{2}+2m\\left( x\\right) S_{r}\\left( x\\right)\n-\\omega \\left[ m^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) +S_{r}^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) \\right] ,$$$$\\func{Im}V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =2m\\left( x\\right) S_{i}\\left( x\\right)\n+2S_{i}\\left( x\\right) S_{r}\\left( x\\right) -\\omega S_{i}^{\\prime }\\left(\nx\\right)$$We may now work with a Schr\u00f6dinger-like non-Hermitian Hamiltonian operator $\\tilde{H}_{\\pm }=-\\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) $ with the eigenvalues $\\lambda _{\\pm }=E^{2}$. Then $\\tilde{H}_{\\pm }$ is an $\\eta \n$-weak-pseudo-Hermitian (admitting real eigenvalues $\\lambda _{\\pm\n}=E^{2}\\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n$) with respect to the first-order Hermitian intertwiner$$\\eta =-i\\,\\,\\partial _{x}+G\\left( x\\right) ,$$where $G\\left( x\\right) \\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n$, if it satisfies the intertwining relation $\\eta \\tilde{H}_{\\pm }=\\tilde{H}_{\\pm }^{\\dagger }\\,\\eta $ (it is not difficult to show that $\\left( \\eta \n\\tilde{H}_{\\pm }\\right) $ is Hermitian too).\n\nUnder such $\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity settings, the intertwining relation would result in $$\\func{Im}V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =-G^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) ,\\text{\\ and \\ \n}\\func{Re}V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =-G\\left( x\\right) ^{2}$$to yield, respectively,$$-G^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) =2m\\left( x\\right) S_{i}\\left( x\\right)\n+2S_{i}\\left( x\\right) S_{r}\\left( x\\right) -\\omega S_{i}^{\\prime }\\left(\nx\\right) ,$$$$-G\\left( x\\right) ^{2}=m\\left( x\\right) ^{2}+S_{r}\\left( x\\right)\n^{2}-S_{i}\\left( x\\right) ^{2}+2m\\left( x\\right) S_{r}\\left( x\\right)\n-\\omega \\left[ m^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) +S_{r}^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) \\right] .$$Consequently, Eq.(34) implies$$m\\left( x\\right) +S_{r}\\left( x\\right) =\\frac{-G^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right)\n+\\omega S_{i}^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) }{2S_{i}\\left( x\\right) }.$$Substituting (36) in (35) would yield$$\\left[ \\frac{-G^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) +\\omega S_{i}^{\\prime }\\left(\nx\\right) }{2S_{i}\\left( x\\right) }\\right] ^{2}-\\omega \\left[ \\frac{-G^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) +\\omega S_{i}^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) }{2S_{i}\\left( x\\right) }\\right] ^{\\prime }=\\left[ \\omega S_{i}\\left( x\\right) \\right] ^{2}-G\\left( x\\right) ^{2}.$$The simplest solution of which is given by (with $\\omega =\\pm 1$) the choice$$G_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =\\omega S_{i}\\left( x\\right) \\implies S_{i,\\pm\n}\\left( x\\right) =\\omega G\\left( x\\right) \\implies S_{r}\\left( x\\right)\n=-m\\left( x\\right) .$$\n\nIn the forthcoming experiment, we shall be interested in the family of complexified Lorentz scalar interactions of the form $S\\left( x\\right)\n=-m\\left( x\\right) +iS_{i}\\left( x\\right) $. With such settings in point, the Dirac Hamiltonian in (1) collapses into$$H_{D}=\\sigma _{2}p+i\\sigma _{1}S_{i}\\left( x\\right) =\\left( \n\\begin{array}{cc}\n0 & -\\partial _{x}+iS_{i}\\left( x\\right) \\\\ \n\\partial _{x}+iS_{i}\\left( x\\right) & 0\\end{array}\\right) .$$Consequently and without any loss of generality, one may very well recast our $\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermitian Schr\u00f6dinger-like Hamiltonian as$$\\tilde{H}_{\\pm }=-\\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =-\\partial\n_{x}^{2}-G\\left( x\\right) ^{2}-i\\omega G^{\\prime }\\left( x\\right) .$$\n\nAn $\\protect\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermitian $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type model\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nAn $\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity generator of a periodic nature of the form\n\n$$G(x)=-\\frac{4}{3\\cos ^{2}x-4}-\\frac{5}{4}$$\n\nwould imply $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type effective potentials$$V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =-G(x)^{2}-i\\omega G(x)^{\\prime }=\\frac{1}{9}\\frac{-30\\cos ^{2}x+24}{(\\cos ^{2}x-\\frac{4}{3})^{2}}+i\\frac{4\\omega \\sin 2x}{3(\\cos ^{2}x-\\frac{4}{3})^{2}}-\\frac{25}{16}$$which, in a straightforward manner, can be rewritten as$$V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =-\\frac{6}{(\\cos x+2i\\omega \\sin x)^{2}}-\\frac{25}{16}.$$It should be noted here that $V_{+}\\left( x\\right) $ is the $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type effective potential representing a *\u201cshifted by a constant\u201d* \u00a0Samsonov-Roy\u2019s \\[20\\] periodic potential model satisfying $V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =V_{\\mp }\\left( -x\\right) $. Hence, if we defined $$\\tilde{V}_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =-\\frac{6}{(\\cos x+2i\\omega \\sin x)^{2}},$$then (with $\\mathcal{P}$ denoting parity)$$\\mathcal{P}\\tilde{V}_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =\\tilde{V}_{\\pm }\\left( -x\\right)\n=-\\tilde{V}_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =\\tilde{V}_{\\mp }\\left( x\\right) .$$Consequently, $\\tilde{V}_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) $ and $\\tilde{V}_{\\mp }\\left(\nx\\right) $ mirror reflect each other. A result that provides a safe passage through the transformation $x\\longrightarrow y=-x$ and mandates$$\\tilde{H}_{\\pm }=-\\partial _{x}^{2}+V_{\\pm }\\left( x\\right) =-\\partial\n_{y}^{2}+V_{\\mp }\\left( y\\right)$$\n\nThe solution of which is reported for the interval $x\\in \\left( -\\pi ,\\pi\n\\right) $ (equivalently, $y\\in \\left( -\\pi ,\\pi \\right) $) with the boundary conditions $\\psi _{n,\\pm }\\left( -\\pi \\right) =\\psi _{n,\\pm }\\left( \\pi\n\\right) =0$ as$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\psi _{n,\\pm }\\left( x\\right) &=&\\left\\{ \\left[ \\left( 16-n^{2}\\right) \\cos\nx\\mp 2i\\left( n^{2}-4\\right) \\sin x\\right] \\sin \\left[ \\frac{n}{2}\\left( \\pi\n\\pm x\\right) \\right] \\right. \\medskip  \\notag \\\\\n&&\\left. \\mp 6n\\sin x\\cos \\left[ \\frac{n}{2}\\left( \\pi \\pm x\\right) \\right]\n\\right\\} (\\cos x\\pm 2i\\sin x)^{-1}\\medskip\\end{aligned}$$and$$E_{n,\\pm }=\\pm \\sqrt{\\lambda _{\\pm }}=\\pm \\sqrt{\\frac{n^{2}}{4}-\\frac{25}{16}}\\text{ };\\text{ \\ }n=3,4,5,\\cdots .\\medskip$$It should be reported here that the values of $n<3$ are scarified for the sake of the reality of the spectrum.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nIn this work, the effect of the built-in supersymmetric quantum mechanical language on the structure of the decomposed (1+1)-Dirac equation, with PDM and complexified Lorentz scalar interactions, is re-emphasized. In the process, the signature of the \u201cquasi-parity\u201d (manifested by Znojil\u2019s attractive/repulsive-like core \\[10\\]) is also studied. In so doing, a \u201cquasi-free\u201d Dirac particle with PDM (an inversely linear plus linear), a Dirac particle with PDM and complexified scalar interactions, $S\\left(\nz\\right) =S\\left( x-ib\\right) ;$ $x,b\\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n,$ $z\\in \n\\mathbb{C}\n$ (an inversely linear plus linear, leading to a $\\mathcal{PT-}$symmetric oscillator model), and $S\\left( x\\right) =S_{r}\\left( x\\right) +iS_{i}\\left(\nx\\right) ;S_{r}\\left( x\\right) ,S_{i}\\left( x\\right) \\in \n\\mathbb{R}\n$ (a $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric Scarf II model) are considered. Moreover, a first-order intertwining differential operator and an $\\eta $-weak-pseudo-Hermiticity generator are presented (a complexified $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric periodic-type model is used).\n\nIn the light of our experience above we have observed that the associated supersymmetric signature on the spectrum of the (1+1)-Dirac particle results in exact-isospectral (i.e., including the lowest states) partner Hamiltonians $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ for \u201ceven\u201d quasi-parity, however, they share the same energy spectrum with a \u201cmissing\u201d lowest state for \u201codd\u201d quasi-parity. Nevertheless, we may report that the *energy-levels crossing* is only feasible among positive-energy states (i.e., above $E=0$) or among negative-energy states (i.e., below $E=0$), at least as long as our illustrative examples are concerned. We may also add that neither the exactness of $\\mathcal{PT}$-symmetry nor pseudo-Hermiticity are enough conditions for the reality of the Dirac spectrum, they should be rather complemented by the condition $\\mathbb{R}\n\\ni E^{2}>0$. Finally, one may need to sacrifice some energy states for the sake of the reality of the Dirac particle spectrum.\n\n[99]{} N. Nogami and F. M. Toyama, Phys. Rev. **A 47** (1993) 1708\n\nN. Nogami and F. M. Toyama, Phys. Rev. **A 57** (1998) 93\n\nE. Witten, Nucl. Phys. **B 188** (1981) 513\n\nF. Cooper, A. Khare and U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rep. **251** (1995) 267\n\nC. V. Sukumar, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen.**\u00a018** (1985) 2917\n\nF. Cooper et al, Ann. Phys. **187** (1987) 1\n\nA S. de Castro and M. Hott, Phys. Lett **A 342** (2005) 53\n\nA. Sinha and P. Roy, Mod. Phys. Lett. **A 20** (2005) 2377\n\nR. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. **D 13** (1976) 3398\n\nA. Chodos et al, Phys. Rev. **D9** (1974) 3471\n\nC. L. Ho, Ann. Phys. **321** (2006) 2170\n\nC. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [\u00a0]{}**80** (1998) 5243\n\nC. M. Bender, S. Boettcher and P. N. Meisinger: J. Math. Phys. **40** (1999) 2201\n\nB. Bagchi, F. Cannata and C. Quesne, Phys. Lett. **A 269** (2000) 79\n\nA. Khare and B. P. Mandal, Phys. Lett. **A 272 (**2000) 53\n\nV. Buslaev and V. Grecchi, J. Phys.[\u00a0A: Math. Gen. ]{}**26** (1993) 5541\n\nM. Znojil and G. L\u00e9vai, Phys. Lett. A **271** (2000) 327\n\nB. Bagchi, S. Mallik, C. Quesne and R. Roychoudhury, Phys. Lett. **A 289** (2001) 34\n\nP. Dorey, C. Dunning and R. Tateo, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **4** (2001) 5679\n\nR. Kretschmer and L. Szymanowski, Czech. J.Phys **54** (2004) 71\n\nM. Znojil, F. Gemperle and O. Mustafa, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen. **35** (2002) 5781\n\nO. Mustafa and M. Znojil, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **35** (2002) 8929\n\nZ. Ahmed, Phys. Lett. **A 290 (**2001) 19\n\nA. Mostafazadeh, J. Math. Phys. **43 (**2002) 2814\n\nA. Mostafazadeh, Nucl.Phys. **B 640** (2002) 419\n\nA. Mostafazadeh, J. Math. Phys. **44 (**2003) 974\n\nA. Mostafazadeh, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen. **38** (2005) 3213\n\nA. Sinha and P. Roy, Czech. J. Phys. **54** ( 2004) 129\n\nL. Jiang, L. Z. Yi and C. S. Jia, Phys Lett **A 345** (2005) 279\n\nB. P. Mandal, Mod. Phys. Lett. **A 20** (2005)**\u00a0**655\n\nM. Znojil, H. B\u00edla and V. Jakubsky, Czech. J. Phys. **54** (2004) 1143\n\nA. Mostafazadeh and A. Batal, J. Phys.**A**: Math. Gen. **37** (2004) 11645\n\nO. Mustafa, J. \u00a0Phys. **A**: Math. Gen.**\u00a036** (2003) 5067\n\nB. Bagchi and C. Quesne, Phys. Lett. **A 301** (2002) 173\n\nM. Znojil, Phys. Lett. A **259** (1999) 220\n\nL. Solombrino, J. Math. Phys. **43** (2002) 5439\n\nO. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, Czech. J. Phys. **\u00a056** (2006) 967\n\nO. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, Phys. Lett. **A 357** (2006) 295\n\nC S Jia and A de Souza Dutra, J. \u00a0Phys. **A**: Math. Gen.**\u00a039** (2006) 11877, and the related comment,\n\nO. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Theor.**\u00a040** (2007) 863\n\nC. Quesne: Ann. Phys. **321** (2006) 1221\n\nC. Quesne and V.M. Tkachuk: J. \u00a0Phys. **A**; Math and Gen **37** (2004) 4267\n\nT. Tanaka: J. Phys. **A**; Math and Gen **39** (2006) 219\n\nO. von Roos, Phys. Rev. **B 27** (1983) 7547\n\nC. Gang, Phys Lett **A 329** (2004) 22\n\nL. Jiang, L.Z. Yi, and C.S. Jia: Phys. Lett. **A 345** (2005) 279\n\nO. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, Phys. Lett. **A 358\u00a0** (2006) 259\n\nO. Mustafa and S. H. Mazharimousavi, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen.**\u00a039** (2006) 10537\n\nA.D. Alhaidari: Int. J. Theor. Phys. **42** (2003) 2999\n\nA.D. Alhaidari: Phys. Rev. **A 66** (2002) 042116\n\nA. Puente and M. Casas: Comput. Mater Sci. **2** (1994) 441\n\nG. Bastard: *\u201cWave Mechanics Applied to Semiconductor Heterostructures\u201d ,* (1988) Les Editions de Physique, Les Ulis\n\nL.I. Serra and E. Lipparini: Europhys. Lett. **40** (1997) 667\n\nB. Bagchi and C. Quesne, Phys. Lett. **A 300** (2002) 173\n\nB.F. Samsonov, P. Roy, J. Phys. **A**: Math. Gen. 38 (2005) L249.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this work we provide updated constraints on coupled dark energy (CDE) cosmology with Peebles-Ratra (PR) potential and constant coupling strength $\\beta$. This modified gravity scenario introduces a fifth force between dark matter particles, mediated by a scalar field that plays the role of dark energy. The mass of the dark matter particles does not remain constant, but changes with time as a function of the scalar field. Here we focus on the phenomenological behavior of the model, and assess its ability to describe updated cosmological data sets that include the [*Planck*]{} 2018 cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature, polarization and lensing, baryon acoustic oscillations, the Pantheon compilation of supernovae of Type Ia, data on $H(z)$ from cosmic chronometers, and redshift-space distortions. We also study which is the impact of the local measurement of $H_0$ from SH0ES and the strong-lensing time delay data from the H0LICOW collaboration on the parameter that controls the strength of the interaction in the dark sector. We find a peak corresponding to a coupling $\\beta > 0$ and to a potential parameter $\\alpha > 0$, more or less evident depending on the data set combination. We show separately the impact of each data set and remark that it is especially CMB lensing the one data set that shifts the peak the most towards $\\Lambda$CDM. When a model selection criterion based on the full Bayesian evidence is applied, however, $\\Lambda$CDM is still preferred in all cases, due to the additional parameters introduced in the CDE model.'\nauthor:\n- 'Adri\u00e0 G\u00f3mez-Valent$^1$'\n- Valeria Pettorino$^2$\n- Luca Amendola$^1$\nbibliography:\n- 'UpdateCDE.bib'\ntitle: 'Update on Coupled Dark Energy and the $H_0$ tension'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#intro}\n============\n\nImportant observational hints in favor of the positive acceleration of the Universe appeared already more than twenty years ago, thanks to the detection of standardizable high-redshift supernovae of Type Ia (SNIa) and the measurement of their light-curves and redshifts [@Riess:1998cb; @Perlmutter:1998np]. Since then, many other probes have contributed to increase the evidence in favor of the late-time accelerated phase. They range e.g. from the detection of the baryon acoustic peak in the two-point correlation function of matter density fluctuations [@Cole:2005sx; @Eisenstein:2005su] to the very accurate measurement of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature anisotropies by WMAP [@Hinshaw:2012aka] and [*Planck*]{} [@Ade:2013sjv; @Ade:2015xua; @Aghanim:2018eyx]. At the phenomenological level, the easiest explanation for such acceleration is given by the presence of a very tiny cosmological constant in Einstein\u2019s field equations, with an associated energy density which is orders of magnitude lower than the quantum field theoretical estimates made for the vacuum energy density. Protecting such low value from radiative corrections is extremely difficult and constitutes the core of the so-called \u201cold\u201d cosmological constant problem, cf. e.g. [@Weinberg:1988cp; @Martin:2012bt; @Sola:2013gha]. In addition, explaining why the current value of this energy density is of the same order of magnitude as the matter energy density, the so-called \u201ccoincidence problem\u201d, is considered by part of the cosmological community as another problem that needs to be addressed. The cosmological constant is a pivotal ingredient of the standard cosmological model, also known as $\\Lambda$CDM or concordance model (cf. e.g. the reviews [@Peebles:2002gy; @Padmanabhan:2002ji]), which can explain most of the cosmological observations with high proficiency. Nevertheless, the aforementioned theoretical conundrums, together with few persistent tensions in some relevant parameters of the model as the Hubble parameter $H_0$ [@Aghanim:2018eyx; @Riess:2019cxk] and the root-mean-square ([*rms*]{}) of mass fluctuations at scales of $8h^{-1}$ Mpc [@Macaulay:2013swa], $\\sigma_8$ (or $S_8=\\sigma_8(\\Omega_m^{(0)}/0.3)^{0.5}$ [^1] [@Hildebrandt:2018yau]), with $h$ being the reduced Hubble parameter , motivate theoretical cosmologists to look for alternative scenarios in which these problems can be solved or, at least, alleviated, see [@AmendolaTsujikawaBook; @Joyce:2014kja] and references therein. Wherever the solution comes from, i.e. a departure from General Relativity or some sort of new field describing dark energy (DE), it must mimic very well the behavior of a cosmological constant at low redshifts, meaning that the corresponding effective equation of state (EoS) parameter must be very close to -1, and that the new component must not be able to cluster efficiently at low scales.\n\n![image](Omegas.png){width=\"7in\" height=\"2.4in\"}\n\nIn this paper we consider a scenario in which dark matter (DM) particles interact via a force mediated by a scalar field, which in turn drives cosmic acceleration. This scenario is referred to as *coupled dark energy* (CDE). It was originally proposed as a means of alleviating the coincidence problem [@Wetterich:1994bg; @Amendola:1999er], considering not only a potential energy density for quintessence to generate its dynamics, but also allowing an interaction with other sectors of the theory. These interactions extended the original quintessence models [@Peccei:1987mm; @Wetterich:1987fm; @Peebles:1987ek; @Ratra:1987rm]. They cannot be ruled out [*a priori*]{} and, hence, they must be duly constrained by experiments and observations.\n\nSome works already set constraints on this model, but using older cosmological data sets, for instance CMB data from the WMAP satellite and the South Pole Telescope [@Pettorino:2012ts], or considering past (2013, 2015) releases of [*Planck*]{} CMB data in combination with other data sets, as e.g. from baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) and SNIa, [@Pettorino:2013oxa; @Ade:2015rim]. Intriguingly, these works detected a likelihood peak at a non-vanishing value of the coupling constant. One of the main goals of this paper is then to critically revisit and update these results in the light of the recent strengthening of the $H_0$ tension and of the rich amount of currently available data at our disposal, in particular the [*Planck*]{} 2018 CMB temperature, polarization and lensing data, but also other new cosmological data, for instance Refs. [@Wong:2019kwg; @Gil-Marin:2018cgo]. For constraints on other models with DM-DE interactions see e.g. [@Xia:2013nua; @Pourtsidou:2016ico; @vandeBruck:2016hpz; @vandeBruck:2017idm; @Li:2014cee; @Li:2015vla; @DiValentino:2017iww; @Abdalla:2014cla; @Costa:2016tpb; @Sola:2017znb; @Sola:2017jbl; @Martinelli:2019dau; @Agrawal:2019dlm; @Pan:2020zza], and when the interaction is motivated in the context of the running vacuum models [@Sola:2017jbl; @Sola:2017znb; @Sola:2016ecz; @Gomez-Valent:2018nib; @Tsiapi:2018she].\n\nCoupled dark energy {#sect:CDEmodel}\n===================\n\nWe consider a CDE scenario, as studied in [@Amendola:1999er; @Amendola:2003wa; @Pettorino:2008ez], to which we refer for a detailed description. We here briefly recall the main equations. This CDE model is formulated in the so-called Einstein or observational frame [@Amendola:2019xqj]. Apart from the Standard Model of Particle Physics and a potential extension accounting for the origin of the neutrino masses, we consider a dark sector described by the following Lagrangian density: $$\\label{eq:DarkLagrangian}\n\\mathcal{L}_{\\rm dark} = -\\partial_\\mu\\phi\\partial^\\mu\\phi-V(\\phi)-m(\\phi)\\bar{\\psi}\\psi+\\mathcal{L}_{\\rm kin}[\\psi]\\,,$$ where $\\phi$ is the scalar field that plays the role of DE, with potential $V(\\phi)$, and $\\psi$ is the DM field, considered here to be of fermionic nature, just for illustrative purposes. The DM particles interact with the DE due to the $\\phi$-dependent mass term appearing in . Such interaction introduces a fifth force that alters the trajectory in space-time of the DM with respect to the one found in the uncoupled case. Depending on the strength of the force, this model can be force-accelerated, as opposed to fluid-accelerated, adopting the terminology of [@Amendola:2019xqj]. As we do not couple $\\phi$ to the standard model sector we avoid the stringent local (solar system) constraints on the violation of the weak equivalence principle [@Will:2005va], and also on screened fifth forces that couple $\\phi$ to non-dark matter, e.g. from Casimir experiments [@Elder:2019yyp], precision measurements of the electron magnetic moment [@Brax:2018zfb], or measurements of the E\u00f6tv\u00f6s parameter [@Berge:2017ovy]. They have no impact on the CDE model under study.\n\n![image](clsPk.png){width=\"7in\" height=\"2.4in\"}\n\nThe variation of the total action with respect to the metric leads as usual to Einstein\u2019s equations, and the covariant energy of the joint system DM-DE is conserved. Hence, $\\nabla^\\mu T^{\\phi}_{\\mu\\nu}= +Q_\\nu$ and $\\nabla^\\mu T^{dm}_{\\mu\\nu}=-Q_\\nu$, with $Q_\\nu$ defined as $$\\label{eq:source}\nQ_\\nu = \\beta \\kappa T^{dm}\\nabla_\\nu\\phi\\,,$$ where $\\kappa=\\sqrt{8\\pi G}$, $T^{dm}$ is the trace of the DM energy-momentum tensor, and $\\beta$ controls the strength of the interaction and is in general a function of $\\phi$. If set to zero, we recover the equations of uncoupled quintessence. In this work we consider $\\beta$ to be a positive constant.\n\nWe assume that the Universe is spatially flat, as supported by CMB information from [*Planck*]{} 2018 when combined with BAO [@Aghanim:2018eyx] and/or SNIa [@Efstathiou:2020wem], with the curvature parameter $\\Omega^{(0)}_K$ constrained to be lower than $\\sim 2\\%$ at $68\\%$ c.l. in $\\Lambda$CDM. Thus, we can make use of the Friedmann-Lema\u00eetre-Robertson-Walker metric, which at the background level reads $ds^2=a^2(\\tau)\\left[-d\\tau^2+\\delta_{ij}dx^i dx^j\\right]$, with $a$ being the scale factor, $\\tau$ the conformal time, and $x^i$ for $i=1,2,3$ the spatial comoving coordinates. In addition, we treat DM as a pressureless perfect fluid, so the conservation equations for DE and DM can be written, respectively, $$\\label{eq:KGeq}\n\\beta\\kappa a^2\\rho_{dm} = \\phi^{\\prime\\prime}+2\\mathcal{H}\\phi^\\prime+a^2\\frac{\\partial V}{\\partial\\phi}\\,,$$ $$\\label{eq:consDM}\n\\rho^\\prime_{dm}+3\\mathcal{H}\\rho_{dm}=-\\beta\\kappa\\rho_{dm}\\phi^\\prime\\,,$$ with $\\rho_{dm}$ the DM energy density, $\\mathcal{H}=a^\\prime/a$, and the primes denoting derivatives [*w.r.t.*]{} the conformal time. All the functions entering these equations are background quantities. If we assume the conservation of the number density of DM particles then their mass evolves as $m(\\phi)=m^{(0)}e^{\\beta\\kappa(\\phi^{(0)}-\\phi)}$.\n\nA feature of the model is that for $\\beta^2<3/2$ it has an unstable (saddle) fixed point at $(\\Omega_{dm},\\Omega_{\\phi})=(1-2\\beta^2/3,2\\beta^2/3)$, where $\\Omega_i=\\rho_i/\\rho_c$, with $\\rho_c$ the critical energy density. This fixed point (dubbed $\\phi$MDE in [@Amendola:1999er]) cannot be reached exactly, since there is also a non-null fraction of baryons, but the system can be quite close to it, since the DM energy density is much larger than the baryonic one (cf. ). During this phase the effective EoS parameter, i.e. the ratio of the total pressure and the critical energy density in the Universe, is given by $w_{\\rm eff}=\\Omega_{\\phi}$, and hence the deceleration parameter reads $q=\\frac{1}{2}(1+3\\,w_{\\rm eff})=\\frac{1}{2}+\\beta^2$. Thus, the coupling between DM and DE makes the Universe more decelerated with respect to the uncoupled quintessence case during the matter-dominated epoch (MDE). This fact together with the fifth force that enters now as a new source term in the Poisson equation help matter inhomogeneities to grow faster for larger values of $\\beta$. We also remark that for fixed values of the present energy densities, matter becomes dominant over radiation earlier in time when $\\beta>0$, with respect to the uncoupled case. In the CDE scenario, the equation for the DM density contrast $\\delta_{dm}=\\delta\\rho_{dm}/\\rho_{dm}$ at deep subhorizon scales ($k\\gg \\mathcal{H}$) and when non-linear processes are unimportant, reads, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:DMcontrast}\n\\delta_{dm}^{\\prime\\prime}+(\\mathcal{H}-&&\\beta\\kappa\\phi^\\prime)\\delta_{dm}^\\prime\\phantom{XXXX}\\nonumber\\\\\n&&-4\\pi Ga^2[\\rho_b\\delta_b+\\rho_{dm}\\delta_{dm}(1+2\\beta^2)]=0\\,.\\phantom{XX}\\end{aligned}$$ If we neglect the contribution of baryons, $\\delta_m(a)\\sim a^{1+2\\beta^2}$. Hence, larger values of $\\beta$ enhance the matter power spectrum (see the left plot of ) and leave an imprint on the CMB temperature anisotropies. First, the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect [@Sachs:1967er] is enhanced during the MDE earlier than in the uncoupled scenario, in which such effect is only relevant after matter-domination; second, the coupling affects lensing of CMB by large scale structure; the interaction also shifts the position of the acoustic peaks to larger multipoles due to the decrease of the sound horizon at the baryon-drag epoch, which is caused by the increase of the mass of the DM particles (this latter effect is however typically very small and subdominant). Finally, the amplitude is suppressed, because of the decrease of $\\rho_b/\\rho_{dm}$ at recombination. These two effects explain why the coupling strength is degenerate with the Hubble parameter today [@Pettorino:2013oxa], whose value is related to the position and overall amplitude of the first peak. These and other aspects of the structure formation were already discussed in [@Pettorino:2008ez; @Amendola:2011ie; @Baldi:2008ay; @Baldi:2010td]. See therein for further details, and also the plots in .\n\nThe quintessence potential only rules the dynamics of $\\phi$ in the late-time universe, after the MDE, when the interaction term appearing in the [*l.h.s.*]{} of becomes subdominant. It helps to slow down structure formation processes [*w.r.t.*]{} the flat-potential scenario (for a fixed value of the current DE density). Hence, it can compensate in lesser or greater extent (depending on its steepness) the enhancement of power generated by the fifth force during the MDE (cf. the left plot of and its caption).\n\nWe employ the Peebles-Ratra (PR) potential [@Peebles:1987ek; @Ratra:1987rm], $$\\label{eq:PeeblesRatra}\nV(\\phi) = V_0\\phi^{-\\alpha}\\,,$$ with $V_0$ and $\\alpha>0$ constants, and the former having dimensions of mass$^{4+\\alpha}$ in natural units, since $\\phi$ has dimensions of mass. We want to update the constraints on the parameters of the CDE model with PR potential that were obtained in some past works using older CMB data, from WMAP and/or past releases of [*Planck*]{} (cf. [@Amendola:2003eq; @Pettorino:2012ts; @Pettorino:2013oxa; @Ade:2015rim]), so it is natural to stick to here. Also because it has proved to be capable of improving the description of some cosmological data sets with respect to the $\\Lambda$CDM model in the non-interactive case [@Sola:2016hnq; @Ooba:2018dzf; @Sola:2018sjf].\n\nThe CDE model we are considering (i.e. CDE with PR potential) has three nested models, namely the $\\Lambda$CDM, the PR model, and the CDE model with flat potential. They are obtained from the full CDE model with in the limits $(\\alpha,\\beta)\\to (0,0)$, $\\beta\\to 0$ and $\\alpha\\to 0$, respectively. We also provide constraints on these scenarios in appendix B.\n\nFor recent studies on CDE with an exponential potential, see [@Xia:2013nua; @vandeBruck:2016hpz; @vandeBruck:2017idm; @Agrawal:2019dlm]. We report fitting results for this model too, in appendix C.\n\nMethodology {#sect:methodology}\n===========\n\nWe have implemented the CDE model described in in our own modified version of the Einstein-Boltzmann system solver `CLASS`[^2] [@Blas:2011rf], which allows us to solve the background and linear perturbations equations and produce the theoretical quantities of interest, as e.g. the matter power spectrum, the CMB anisotropies, the cosmological distances, etc. This implementation has been compared and validated with the interacting dark energy anisotropy (IDEA) code, used in [@Pettorino:2012ts; @Pettorino:2013ia; @Amendola:2007yx; @Ade:2015rim]. The Bayesian exploration of the parameter space of the model in the light of the various data sets described in has been carried out with the Monte Carlo sampler `Montepython`[^3] [@Audren:2012wb]. Our code lets us skip the shooting method that is employed in IDEA to match the initial conditions with the current values of the cosmological energy densities, and this allows us to improve the computational efficiency of our Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analyses, cf. appendix A for details. We have also used the `Python` package `GetDist`[^4] [@Lewis:2019xzd] to process the chains and obtain the mean values and uncertainties of the parameters reported in Tables \\[tab:tab1\\]-\\[tab:tab3\\], as well as the contours of Figs. \\[fig:betaCLs\\]-\\[fig:nolensVSlens\\_reduced\\]. Finally, we have computed the full Bayesian evidences for all the models and under the various data sets, by processing the corresponding Markov chains with the code `MCEvidence`[^5] [@Heavens:2017afc]. This has allowed us to carry out a rigorous model comparison analysis, which we present in .\n\nData {#sect:data}\n====\n\nSince the last fitting analysis of the CDE model with PR potential, in [@Ade:2015rim], new and more precise data have appeared in the literature. In this paper we perform an exhaustive update of the data sets with respect to those used in [@Ade:2015rim]. The most important changes are: (i) here we make use of the [*Planck*]{} 2018 CMB data [@Aghanim:2018eyx] instead of the 2015 release [@Ade:2015xua]; (ii) we fully update our BAO and redshift-space distortions (RSD) data sets, using now e.g. the data of the last release of the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey[^6] (BOSS); (iii) we substitute the SNIa sample from the Joint-Light-curve Analysis (JLA) [@Betoule:2014frx] by the Pantheon+MCT compilation [@Scolnic:2017caz; @Riess:2017lxs], which contains the former and includes 323 additional SNIa; (iv) we study the impact of the data on $H(z)$ obtained from cosmic chronometers; (v) instead of using the prior on $H_0$ from [@Efstathiou:2013via], $H_0=(70.6\\pm 3.3)$ km/s/Mpc, we use the measurement by the SH0ES collaboration reported in [@Riess:2019cxk] (see and comments therein); and (vi) we also study the effect that the inclusion of the strong-lensing time delay distances measured by H0LICOW has on our constraints. We use, therefore, a much richer data set here than the one employed in [@Ade:2015rim].\n\nOur data set is very similar to the one used by the [*Planck*]{} collaboration in their 2018 analysis of the $\\Lambda$CDM and minimal extensions of it [@Aghanim:2018eyx]. There are some differences, though, e.g. we analyze here the effect of cosmic chronometers and the H0LICOW data, something that was not done there. We refer the reader to and reference [@Aghanim:2018eyx] for details.\n\nDescription of the individual data sets {#sect:descData}\n---------------------------------------\n\nHere we list and describe the individual data sets that we employ in this work to constrain the CDE model that we have presented in , and its nested models. We will study their impact by considering different data set combinations, as explained in .\n\n### Cosmic microwave background {#sect:CMB}\n\nWe derive all the main results of this paper making use of the full TTTEEE+lowE CMB likelihood from *Planck* 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx], which includes the data on the CMB temperature (TT) and polarization (EE) anisotropies, and their cross-correlations (TE) at both low and high multipoles. We also study what is the impact of also including the CMB lensing likelihood [@Aghanim:2018oex]. Temperature and polarization spectra are already lensed, however the CMB lensing likelihood includes on top of lensed spectra also the 4-point correlation function. Lensing peak sensitivity is to lenses at $z\\approx 2$, half-way to the last-scattering surface, with deflection effects at redshifts which are relevant for dark energy models such as CDE. It has in particular been shown in [@Ade:2015rim] that CMB lensing pushes constraints towards $\\Lambda$CDM. As stated in [@Aghanim:2018eyx], we note that the lensing likelihood assumes a fiducial $\\Lambda$CDM model, with linear corrections to the fiducial model accounted for self-consistently. According to [@Aghanim:2018eyx] this procedure is unbiased, at least up to when the lensing spectrum differs from the fiducial spectrum by as much as 20$\\%$, estimated to be larger than differences allowed by the CMB lensing data. While further independent validation of such tests would be interesting for future analyses on modified gravity, we find it important to comment on results with/without CMB lensing inclusion for the purpose of testing non-minimal extensions of $\\Lambda$CDM, such as CDE.\n\n### Baryon acoustic oscillations {#sect:BAO}\n\nBaryon acoustic oscillations are a direct consequence of the strong coupling between photons and baryons in the pre-recombination epoch. After the decoupling of photons, the overdensities in the baryon fluid evolved and attracted more matter, leaving an imprint in the two-point correlation function of matter fluctuations with a characteristic scale of around $147$ Mpc that can be used as a standard ruler and to constrain cosmological models. It was firstly measured by [@Cole:2005sx; @Eisenstein:2005su] using the galaxy power spectrum. Since then, several galaxy surveys have been able to provide precise data on BAO, either in terms of the dilation scale $D_V$, $$\\frac{D_V(z)}{r_d}=\\frac{1}{r_d}\\left[D_M^2(z)\\frac{cz}{H(z)}\\right]^{1/3}\\,,$$ with $D_M=(1+z)D_{A}(z)$ being the comoving angular diameter distance and $r_d$ the sound horizon at the baryon drag epoch, or even by splitting (when possible) the transverse and line-of-sight BAO information and hence being able to provide data on $D_{A}(z)/r_d$ and $H(z)r_d$ separately, with some degree of correlation. The surveys provide the values of the measurements at some effective redshift(s). We employ the following BAO data points:\n\n-   $D_V/r_d$ at $z=0.122$ provided in [@Carter:2018vce], which combines the dilation scales previously reported by the 6dF Galaxy Survey[^7] (6dFGS) [@Beutler:2011hx] at $z=0.106$ and the one obtained from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey[^8] (SDSS) Main Galaxy Sample at $z=0.15$ [@Ross:2014qpa].\n\n-   The anisotropic BAO data measured by BOSS using the LOWZ ($z=0.32$) and CMASS ($z=0.57$) galaxy samples [@Gil-Marin:2016wya].\n\n-   The dilation scale measurements by WiggleZ[^9] at $z=0.44,0.60,0.73$ [@Kazin:2014qga]. The galaxies contained in the WiggleZ catalog are located in a patch of the sky that partially overlaps with those present in the CMASS sample by BOSS. Nevertheless, the two surveys are independent, work under different seeing conditions, instrumental noise, etc. and target different types of galaxies. The correlation between the CMASS and WiggleZ data has been quantified in [@Beutler:2015tla], were the authors estimated the correlation coefficient to be $\\lesssim 2\\%$. This justifies the inclusion of the WiggleZ data in our analysis, although their statistical weight is much lower than those from BOSS and in practice their use does not have any important impact on our results.\n\n-   $D_A/r_d$ at $z=0.81$ measured by the Dark Energy Survey (DES)[^10] [@Abbott:2017wcz].\n\n-   The anisotropic BAO data from the extended BOSS Data Release (DR) 14 quasar sample at $z=1.19,1.50,1.83$ [@Gil-Marin:2018cgo].\n\n-   The combined measurement of the anisotropic BAO information obtained from the Ly$\\alpha$-quasar cross and auto-correlation of eBOSS DR14 [@Blomqvist:2019rah; @Agathe:2019vsu], at $z=2.34$.\n\n### Supernovae of Type Ia {#sect:SNIa}\n\nWe consider $6$ effective points on the Hubble rate, i.e. $E(z)\\equiv H(z)/H_0$, and the associated covariance matrix. They compress the information of 1048 SNIa contained in the Pantheon compilation [@Scolnic:2017caz] and the 15 SNIa at $z>1$ from the Hubble Space Telescope Multi-Cycle Treasury programs [@Riess:2017lxs]. The compression effectiveness of the information contained in such SNIa samples is extremely good, as it is explicitly shown in [@Riess:2017lxs]. See, e.g. Fig. 3 of that reference and the corresponding explanations in the main text.\n\n### Cosmic chronometers {#sect:CCH}\n\nSpectroscopic dating techniques of passively\u2013evolving galaxies, i.e. galaxies with old stellar populations and low star formation rates, have become a good tool to obtain observational values of the Hubble function at redshifts $z\\lesssim 2$ [@Jimenez:2001gg]. These measurements do not rely on any particular cosmological model, although are subject to other sources of systematic uncertainties, as to the ones associated to the modeling of stellar ages, see e.g. [@Moresco:2012jh; @Moresco:2016mzx], which is carried out through the so-called stellar population synthesis (SPS) techniques, and also to a possible contamination due to the presence of young stellar components in such quiescent galaxies [@Lopez-Corredoira:2017zfl; @Lopez-Corredoira:2018tmn; @Moresco:2018xdr]. Given a pair of ensembles of passively-evolving galaxies at two di\ufb00erent redshifts it is possible to infer $dz/dt$ from observations under the assumption of a concrete SPS model and compute $H(z) = -(1 + z)^{-1}dz/dt$. Thus, cosmic chronometers allow us to obtain the value of the Hubble function at different redshifts, contrary to other probes which do not directly measure $H(z)$, but integrated quantities as e.g. luminosity distances.\n\nIn this work we use the 31 data points on $H(z)$ from CCH provided in [@Jimenez:2003iv; @Simon:2004tf; @Stern:2009ep; @Moresco:2012jh; @Zhang:2012mp; @Moresco:2015cya; @Moresco:2016mzx; @Ratsimbazafy:2017vga]. More concretely, we make use of the [*processed*]{} sample provided in Table 2 of [@Gomez-Valent:2018gvm], which is more conservative, since it introduces corrections accounting for the systematic errors mentioned above.\n\nSeveral authors have employed these data to reconstruct the expansion history of the Universe using Gaussian Processes and/or the so-called Weighted Function Regression method [@Yu:2017iju; @Gomez-Valent:2018hwc; @Haridasu:2018gqm]. These approaches do not rely on a particular cosmological model. They find extrapolated values of the Hubble parameter that are closer to the best-fit $\\Lambda$CDM value reported by [*Planck*]{} [@Aghanim:2018eyx], around $H_0\\sim (67.5-69.5)$ km/s/Mpc, but still compatible at $\\sim 1\\sigma$ c.l. with the local determination obtained with the distance ladder technique [@Riess:2018uxu; @Riess:2019cxk]. When BAO data and/or the SNIa from the Pantheon compilation are also incorporated in the analyses together with the CCH, the tension between the local measurement and the one inferred from the reconstruction arises again, but only at a small $\\sim 2\\sigma$ c.l. [@Yu:2017iju; @Gomez-Valent:2018hwc; @Haridasu:2018gqm].\n\n### Redshift-space distortions {#sect:RSD}\n\nMeasurements of the peculiar velocities of galaxies can be obtained from observations of their anisotropic clustering in redshift space. They allow galaxy redshift surveys to obtain constraints on the product of the growth rate of structure, $f(z)=\\frac{d\\ln \\delta_m(a)}{d\\ln a}$, and the [*rms*]{} of mass fluctuations at scales of $8h^{-1}$ Mpc, $\\sigma_8(z)$. Much of the statistical signal comes, though, from scales where nonlinear effects and galaxy bias are signi\ufb01cant and they must be accurately modeled. The modeling techniques have been improved in the last years, making data on RSD to be a reliable tool to constrain cosmological models. These are the measurements that we include in our RSD data set:\n\n-   The data point at $z=0.03$ obtained upon combining the density and velocity \ufb01elds measured by the 2MASS Tully-Fisher (2MTF) and 6dFGS peculiar-velocity surveys [@Qin:2019axr].\n\n-   The point reported by SDSS DR7 at $z=0.1$ [@Shi:2017qpr].\n\n-   The two data points provided by the Galaxy and Mass Assembly survey (GAMA) at $z=0.18$ [@Simpson:2015yfa] and $z=0.38$ [@Blake:2013nif].\n\n-   The four points at $z=0.22,0.41,0.60,0.78$ measured by WiggleZ [@Blake:2011rj].\n\n-   The RSD measurements by BOSS from the power spectrum and bispectrum of the DR12 galaxies contained in the LOWZ ($z=0.32$) and CMASS ($0.57$) samples [@Gil-Marin:2016wya].\n\n-   The two points at $z=0.60,0.86$ reported by the VIMOS Public Extragalactic Redshift Survey (VIPERS) [@Mohammad:2018mdy].\n\n-   The point at $z=0.77$ by VIMOS VLT Deep Survey (VVDS) [@Guzzo:2008ac; @Song:2008qt].\n\n-   The measurement by eBOSS DR14 at $z=1.19$, $1.50$, $1.83$ [@Gil-Marin:2018cgo].\n\n-   The Subaru FMOS galaxy redshift survey (FastSound) measurement at $z=1.36$ [@Okumura:2015lvp].\n\nThe internal correlations between the BAO and RSD data from [@Gil-Marin:2016wya] and [@Gil-Marin:2018cgo] have been duly taken into account through the corresponding covariance matrices provided in these two references.\n\n### Prior on $H_0$ {#sect:H0}\n\nIn some of our data set combinations (cf. ) we include the prior on the Hubble parameter $$H_{0,{\\rm SH0ES}}=(74.03\\pm 1.42) \\,{\\rm km/s/Mpc},$$ reported by the SH0ES Team in [@Riess:2019cxk]. It is obtained from the cosmic distance ladder and using an improved calibration of the Cepheid period-luminosity relation, based on distances obtained from detached eclipsing binaries located in the Large Magellanic Cloud, masers in the galaxy NGC $4258$ and Milky Way parallaxes. This value of the Hubble parameter is in $4.4\\sigma$ tension[^11] with the TTTEEE+lowE+lensing best-fit $\\Lambda$CDM model of [*Planck*]{} 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx], $H_0=67.36\\pm 0.54$ km/s/Mpc.\n\nIt has been recently argued in [@Camarena:2019rmj] (and later on also in [@Dhawan:2020xmp; @Benevento:2020fev]) that in cosmological studies it is better to use the SH0ES constraint on the absolute magnitude of the SNIa rather than the direct prior on $H_0$ when combined with low-redshift SNIa data. This is to avoid double counting issues. We do not have this problem, though, since we do not combine the Pantheon compilation with the prior from SH0ES in any of our main analyses (cf. ).\n\n### Strong-lensing time delay distances {#sect:RSD}\n\nIn combination with the prior on $H_0$ from SH0ES we also use the angular diameter distances reported by the H0LICOW collaboration[^12]. They analyze six gravitationally lensed quasars of variable luminosity. After measuring the time delay between the deflected light rays and modeling the lenses they are able to measure the so-called time-delay distances $D_{\\Delta t}$ (cf. [@Wong:2019kwg] and references therein). We use their reported six time-delay distances (one for each lensed system), and one distance to the deflector B1608+656, which according to the authors of [@Wong:2019kwg] is uncorrelated with the corresponding $D_{\\Delta t}$. The relevant information for building the likelihood can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of [@Wong:2019kwg], and their captions. Assuming the concordance model, these distances lead to a value of $H_0=(73.3^{+1.7}_{-1.8})$ km/s/Mpc, which is in $3.2\\sigma$ tension with the one obtained from the TTTEEE+lowE+lensing analysis by [*Planck*]{} [@Aghanim:2018eyx].\n\nCombined data sets {#sect:CombiData}\n------------------\n\nWe proceed now to describe the data set combinations under which we have obtained the main results of this work. They are discussed in detail in . We put constraints using the following combinations: (i) TTTEEE+lowE CMB data from [*Planck*]{} 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx], in order to see the constraining power of the CMB when used alone, and also to check whether these data lead to a higher value of $H_0$ than in the $\\Lambda$CDM. For simplicity, we will refer to this data set as P18 throughout the paper; (ii) P18+BSC, with BSC denoting the background data set BAO+SNIa+CCH; (iii) We add on top of the latter the linear structure formation information contained in the RSD data, P18+BSC+RSD; (iv) We study the impact of the CMB lensing by also adding the corresponding likelihood, P18lens+BSC+RSD; (v) Finally, we analyze the impact of the prior on $H_0$ from SH0ES [@Riess:2019cxk] and the H0LICOW angular diameter distances [@Wong:2019kwg] by using the data sets P18+SH0ES+H0LICOW, P18lens+SH0ES+H0LICOW and P18+BSC+SH0ES+H0LICOW. The distance ladder and strong-lensing time delay measurements of the Hubble constant are completely independent (see e.g. the reviews [@Verde:2019ivm; @Riess:2020sih]). When combined, they lead to $$\\label{eq:H0comb}\nH_{0,comb}=(73.74\\pm 1.10)\\,{\\rm km/s/Mpc}\\,,$$ in $5.2\\sigma$ tension with the best-fit $\\Lambda$CDM value reported by [*Planck*]{} 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx]. Hence, it is interesting to check what is the response of the CDE model under these concrete data sets, and to compare the results with those obtained using only the CMB likelihood.\n\n![image](betaCLs.png){width=\"6in\" height=\"3.1in\"}\n\nResults {#sect:results}\n=======\n\nOur main results are presented in Tables \\[tab:tab1\\]-\\[tab:tab2\\] and Figs. \\[fig:betaCLs\\]-\\[fig:nolensVSlens\\_reduced\\]. When we only employ the CMB temperature and polarization data from [*Planck*]{} 2018 [@Aghanim:2018eyx] (i.e. the P18 data set) to constrain the CDE model, the fitting values obtained for $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ are compatible at $1\\sigma$ c.l. with 0, i.e. with a cosmological constant and no interaction in the dark sector (cf. the first column in ). The value of $H_0$ remains low, roughly $4.1 \\sigma$ below the cosmic distance ladder measurement of [@Riess:2019cxk]. Similarly, when we combine *Planck* with BSC background data or with BSC+RSD, we get a value of $H_0$ which is $3.8\\sigma$ and $3.7\\sigma$ away from the SH0ES value, respectively.\n\nAs we have explained in , there is a degeneracy between the strength of the fifth force, i.e. the parameter $\\beta$, and the Hubble parameter. CDE is in principle able to lower the value of the sound horizon at the decoupling time, $r_s$, and the amplitude of the first peak of the $\\mathcal{D}^{TT}_{l}$\u2019s. The CMB data fix with high precision the angle $\\theta_*=r_s/D^{(c)}_A(z_{dec})$, with $D^{(c)}_A(z_{dec})$ the comoving angular diameter distance to the CMB last scattering surface. This means that in order to keep this ratio constant, $H_0$ will tend to grow for increasing values of the coupling strength, so that $D^{(c)}_A(z_{dec})$ decreases and compensates in this way the lowering of $r_s$, while keeping the height of the first peak compatible with data. This positive correlation between $H_0$ and $\\beta$ can be appreciated in the left-most contour plot of . The latter shows 1 and 2$\\sigma$ posterior probabilities for a selection of cosmological parameters. As discussed, we confirm from the first plot a mild degeneracy between $H_0$ and $\\beta$. The strength of the fifth force does not seem to be very degenerate with $\\sigma_8$ nor with the potential parameter $\\alpha$.\n\n![image](nolensVSlens_reduced.png){width=\"4.5in\" height=\"4.5in\"}\n\nImpact of adding background data on top of P18 can be grasped by looking at the one-dimensional posterior distributions of (in blue), and also at the numbers of the second column of . Using the P18+BSC combined data set we find that $\\beta$ and $\\alpha$ are now $\\sim 2.5$ and $\\sim 3.1\\sigma$ away from 0, respectively. The values of $H_0$ and $\\sigma_8$, are however compatible at $1\\sigma$ with the ones obtained using only the P18 data set. They are also fully compatible with those obtained with the $\\Lambda$CDM under the same data set, which read: $H_0=(68.29\\pm 0.37)$ km/s/Mpc, $\\sigma_8=0.812^{+0.006}_{-0.008}$. The peaks in $\\beta$ and $\\alpha$ may indicate a mild preference of low-redshift data, when combined with the CMB, for a non-null interaction in the dark sector and a running quintessence potential. As noted already in [@Ade:2015rim], we remark that this preference does not seem to correspond to a large improvement in the minimum value of $\\chi^2$ with respect to the $\\Lambda$CDM: under the P18+BSC data set, $\\chi^2_{min,{\\rm CDE}}-\\chi^2_{min,\\Lambda}$ is negative, but very close to 0, which means that the CDE model only is able to improve the description of the data in a very marginal way.\n\nThe addition of the RSD data to the P18+BSC combined data set doesn\u2019t change much the result: there is a very small shift in the peak of the one-dimensional posterior distribution for $\\alpha$ to larger values and the one for $\\beta$ to lower ones (see the yellow curves in ). These two facts reduce a little bit the value of $\\sigma_8$. The aforesaid peaks are now $\\sim 5$ and $\\sim 2\\sigma$ away from 0, respectively, with a reduction of $\\chi^2_{min}$ [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\\Lambda$CDM of 1.56 units (cf. , fourth column), i.e. pointing to a very small preference for CDE. The value of $H_0$ is almost unchanged.\n\nIf we include also the CMB lensing information, i.e. if we consider the P18lens+BSC+RSD combined data set, posterior probabilities squeeze, as expected, towards the $\\Lambda$CDM values. This can be seen in , and also in the fifth column of . Given the caveats explained in , we find important to highlight the specific impact of CMB lensing data with respect to the P18+BSC+RSD data set.\n\nIn order to further evaluate the level at which the degeneracy observed in the ($H_0$,$\\beta$)-plane can alleviate the tension in the Hubble parameter between *Planck* and $\\{$SH0ES, H0LICOW$\\}$ data, we perform a Monte Carlo analysis combining those data within the CDE model: results are shown in the third column in and correspond to red contours in . In this case, the best fit corresponds to a value of $\\beta =0.0294^{+0.0120}_{-0.0076}$, i.e. at $3\\sigma$ from zero coupling, a value of $\\alpha =1.32\\pm 0.18$, with $\\alpha > 0$ at $\\sim 7\\sigma$ c.l., and $H_0 =(69.43^{+0.72}_{-0.53})$ km/s/Mpc. The raise of $H_0$ is possible thanks to the increase of $\\beta$, which in turn needs also larger values of $\\alpha$. The tension with the SH0ES+H0LICOW measurement is slightly reduced from $4.8\\sigma$ (when only P18 is used to constrain the model, cf. the first column of ) to $3.5 \\sigma$ (when also the SH0ES+H0LICOW data are considered). This shifts the $H_0$ value $1.9\\sigma$ higher than the best fit using the P18 data set alone, within CDE. Combining also with background data, such as BSC, can partially break degeneracies and leads to $\\alpha =0.73^{+0.11}_{-0.27}$, with $\\alpha > 0$ at $3.8\\sigma$ and $H_0=(68.79^{+0.35}_{-0.40})$ km/s/Mpc at $4.3\\sigma$ from the SH0ES+H0LICOW value , reducing the chance of CDE to alleviate the tension, as shown in the penultimate column of the table. Finally, the impact of adding CMB lensing is shown in the last column, where now $\\beta=0.0197^{+0.0094}_{-0.0084}$ and $\\alpha =0.33^{+0.19}_{-0.23}$, with $\\beta>0$ and $\\alpha > 0$ at $2.2\\sigma$ and $1.6\\sigma$, respectively, i.e. shifting back towards $\\Lambda$CDM. In this case $H_0=(68.99\\pm 0.51)$ km/s/Mpc, $3.9\\sigma$ away from the SH0ES+H0LICOW value and even more had we included also BSC.\n\nFinally, we can further quantify the relative ability of the CDE model to describe the various data sets [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\\Lambda$CDM cosmology using the Bayes ratio, in alternative to the more approximate $\\chi^2$ estimate we mentioned so far. Given a data set $\\mathcal{D}$, the probability of a certain model $M_i$ to be the best one among a given set of models $\\{M\\}$ reads, $$\\label{eq:BayesTheorem}\nP(M_i|\\mathcal{D})=\\frac{P(M_i)\\mathcal{E}(\\mathcal{D}|M_i)}{P(\\mathcal{D})}\\,,$$ where $P(M_i)$ is the prior probability of the model $M_i$ and $P(\\mathcal{D})$ the probability of having the data set $\\mathcal{D}$. Obviously, the normalization condition $\\sum_{j\\in\\{M\\}}M_j=1$ must be fulfilled. The quantity $\\mathcal{E}(\\mathcal{D}|M_i)$ is the so-called marginal likelihood or evidence. If the model $M_i$ has $n$ parameters $p^{M_i}_1, p^{M_i}_2,...,p^{M_i}_n$, the evidence takes the following form, $$\\label{eq:evidence}\n\\mathcal{E}(\\mathcal{D}|M_i)=\\int \\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{D}|\\vec{p}^{M_i},M_i)\\pi(\\vec{p}^{M_i}) d^np^{M_i}\\,,$$ with $\\mathcal{L}(\\mathcal{D}|\\vec{p}^{M_i},M_i)$ being the likelihood and $\\pi(\\vec{p}^{M_i})$ the prior of the parameters entering the model $M_i$. The evidence is larger for those models that have more overlapping volume between the likelihood and the prior distributions, but penalizes the use of additional parameters having a non-null impact on the likelihood. Hence, the evidence constitutes a good way of quantifying the performance of the model by implementing in practice the Occam razor principle. If we compare the CDE and $\\Lambda$CDM models by assuming equal prior probability for both of them, i.e. $P({\\rm CDE})=P(\\Lambda {\\rm CDM})$, then we find that the ratio of their associated probabilities is directly given by the ratio of their corresponding evidences, i.e. $$\\label{eq:BayesRatio}\n\\frac{P({\\rm CDE}|\\mathcal{D})}{P(\\Lambda {\\rm CDM}|\\mathcal{D})}=\\frac{\\mathcal{E}(\\mathcal{D}|{\\rm CDE})}{\\mathcal{E}(\\mathcal{D}|\\Lambda {\\rm CDM})} \\equiv B_{{\\rm CDE},\\Lambda}\\,.$$ This is known as Bayes ratio and is the quantity we are interested in. For more details we refer the reader to [@KassRaftery1995; @Burnham2002; @AmendolaTsujikawaBook]. Notice that the computation of is not an easy task in general, since we usually work with models with a high number of (mostly nuisance) parameters, so the integrals under consideration becomes quite involved. We have computed the evidences numerically using the Markov chains obtained from the Monte Carlo analyses and with the aid of the numerical code `MCEvidence` [@Heavens:2017afc], which is publicly available (cf. ). We report the values obtained for the natural logarithm of the Bayes ratio in the last row of . For all the data sets under study we find values of $\\ln(B_{{\\rm CDE},\\Lambda})<-5$, which point to a preference of the $\\Lambda$CDM over the CDE model according to Jeffreys\u2019 scale [@KassRaftery1995; @Burnham2002; @AmendolaTsujikawaBook]. Although the CDE model we are studying here is able to reduce slightly the value of $\\chi^2_{min}$ [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\\Lambda$CDM, it has two additional parameters, namely $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$. Moreover, the initial value of the scalar field, $\\phi_{ini}$, is also left free in the Monte Carlo analysis, cf. Appendix A for details[^13]. It turns out that the decrease in $\\chi^2_{min}$ is insufficient to compensate the penalization introduced by the use of these extra parameters. If instead of using the evidences and the Bayes ratio to perform the model comparison we make use of e.g. the Akaike [@Akaike], Bayesian [@Schwarz1978] or Deviance [@DIC] information criteria, we reach similar conclusions[^14]. We want to note, though, that all these information criteria are approximations of the exact Bayesian approach. Although they allow to skip the demanding computation of the evidence , they are only reliable when the posterior distribution is close to a multivariate Gaussian (which is not the case under study), and the Akaike and Bayesian criteria do not take into account the impact of priors nor the existing correlations between the parameters.\n\nSimilar results and conclusions are reached using an exponential potential for the scalar field, instead of . They are presented and discussed in appendix C.\n\nFinally, our results are compatible with the ones in [@2020PhRvD.101f3502D]: the inclusion of background and CMB lensing shifts constraints towards $\\Lambda$CDM; the model is however different, as ours starts from modifying the Lagrangian, which is not available in [@2020PhRvD.101f3502D]; furthermore, the source function is also different and while the DE EoS parameter $w$ has to be fixed to a very specific value in [@2020PhRvD.101f3502D] in order to match stability conditions specific to that scenario, in our case it varies; the extra parameters leads then to a more negative Bayes ratio, preferring $\\Lambda$CDM, more than claimed in [@2020PhRvD.101f3502D].\n\nConclusions {#sect:conclusions}\n===========\n\nCosmological observations help to test the dark sector, and in particular interactions between dark matter particles, mediated by a dark energy scalar field, as in CDE cosmologies. Up to a conformal transformation, this is another way of testing gravity at large scales. In this paper we carried out this task in one of the simplest and most studied models, namely, a dark energy-dark matter conformal coupling with a Peebles-Ratra potential. CDE might probe helpful to explain the well-known tension between local and cosmological values of $H_0$. Any detection of a varying dark energy potential or interaction would clearly constitute a major result and it is therefore important to monitor the constraints that newer data impose. This is particularly true in view of earlier results that detected a non-zero value of the coupling $\\beta$ [@Pettorino:2013oxa; @Ade:2015rim].\n\nWe confirm the existence of a peak in the marginalized posterior distribution for $\\beta$ and $\\alpha$, more or less evident depending on the data set combination. While for P18 + SH0ES + H0LICOW $\\beta > 0$ at $3\\sigma$ and $\\alpha > 0$ at nearly $7 \\sigma$, inclusion of background data reduces the evidence to $\\beta > 0$ at $2.3\\sigma$ and $\\alpha > 0$ at nearly $3.8 \\sigma$. Inclusion of CMB lensing shifts both values to be compatible with $\\Lambda$CDM within 2$\\sigma$. We find it important to stress that specifically CMB lensing prefers $\\Lambda$CDM, and recalled in the caveats that would deserve further investigation in order to make this result robust also for models that depart from $\\Lambda$CDM as much as CDE. In all cases, we find that, overall, the peak does not correspond to a better Bayes ratio and $\\Lambda$CDM remains the favored model when employing Bayesian model comparison, given the extra parameters introduced within the model. With regard to $H_0$, we find that under the P18+SH0ES+H0LICOW combined data set the simple coupled model with constant coupling investigated in this work leads to a value in $3.5\\sigma$ tension with , or in 4.3$\\sigma$ tension when including further background data. The values of $\\sigma_8$ are also similar to those found in the $\\Lambda$CDM (i.e. $\\sigma_8\\sim 0.80-0.82$), even when RSD data are considered together with CMB and background data. In this case we find $\\beta=0.010^{+0.003}_{-0.009}$ and $\\beta=0.015^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$, with and without CMB lensing, respectively. For the values of the coupling strength preferred by the data we find the typical increase of the mass of the DM particles to be $m(\\phi_{ini})/m^{(0)}-1\\lesssim \\mathcal{O}(1)\\%$.\n\nThe question that naturally arises is then, which modification of CDE can help alleviating the tensions? One can immediately suppose that a varying $\\beta$ can go some way towards this. Or, it could be that a model with both energy- and momentum-couplings (see e.g. [@Amendola:2020ldb]), which can introduce a weaker gravity, helps with the tensions. These issues will be investigated in future publications.\n\n[**Acknowledgements**]{} This paper was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic. We thank our institutions for allowing us to work remotely. AGV is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Project number 415335479.\n\nAppendix A: Avoiding the shooting {#appendix-a-avoiding-the-shooting .unnumbered}\n=================================\n\nIDEA takes as input parameters the current energy densities of the various species and applies a shooting method (see e.g. [@StoerBulirsch1980]) to find the initial energy densities that lead to the present-day values specified in the input. This is of course a very useful and convenient way of implementing the model, since very often we are interested in computing theoretical quantities by fixing the current energy densities to concrete values, most of the times very close to the best-fit $\\Lambda$CDM ones. This trial and error method is unavoidable if one wants to do so. Nevertheless, this is not the most efficient way to proceed at the level of the Monte Carlo analysis. The avoidance of the shooting recursive process by directly using as input parameters the initial conditions of the energy densities instead of their current values allows us to save precious computational time. In our implementation of the CDE model in `CLASS` [@Blas:2011rf] we have skipped the shooting method proceeding in this way. The current energy densities and other quantities of interest, e.g. $H_0$ or $\\sigma_8$, are obtained as derived parameters after solving the complete set of Einstein-Boltzmann equations up to $a=1$. We also use as input parameter in the Monte Carlo the initial value of the scalar field, $\\phi_{ini}=\\phi(a_{ini})>0$, with $a_{ini}=10^{-14}$. On the contrary, $\\phi^\\prime_{ini}=\\phi^\\prime(a_{ini})$ can be expressed in terms of other input parameters. Let us show how. By solving in the radiation-dominated epoch (RDE) we find, $$\\label{eq:phiPrimeConst}\n\\phi^\\prime(\\tau)=150 \\beta\\, \\frac{\\Omega_{dm}(a_{ini})}{\\kappa a_{ini}}\\,\\varsigma\\sqrt{\\omega^{*}_r}+\\frac{c_0}{\\tau^2}\\,,$$ where $c_0$ is a dimensionless integration constant, $\\varsigma\\equiv 1\\,{\\rm km/s/Mpc}=2.1332\\times 10^{-44}$ GeV (in natural units), and $\\omega^{*}_r=\\omega_\\gamma(1+0.2271 N_{eff})$ is the reduced density parameter of radiation during the RDE. We consider three massive neutrinos with equal mass and $\\sum_\\nu m_\\nu=0.06$ eV, so $N_{\\rm eff}=3.046$. The parameter $\\omega_\\gamma$ is determined by the temperature of the CMB photons at present, which we set to the value reported in [@Fixsen:2009ug], $T^{(0)}_{\\gamma}=2.7255\\,K$. Notice that the ratio $\\Omega_{dm}(a)/a$ appearing in is kept constant during the RDE. To understand this let us consider equation . It can be rewritten as $$\\rho_{dm}^\\prime+3\\mathcal{H}\\rho_{dm}\\left(1-\\beta\\sqrt{\\frac{2}{3}\\Omega_{\\phi,{\\rm kin}}(a)}\\right)=0\\,,$$\n\nwith $\\Omega_{\\phi,{\\rm kin}}$ being the fraction of scalar field kinetic energy in the Universe. During the RDE $\\Omega_{\\phi,{\\rm kin}}\\sim 0$. In addition, $\\beta\\ll 1$, so we find that $\\rho_{dm}\\sim a^{-3}$ and, hence, $\\Omega_{dm}(a)/a=const.=\\Omega_{dm}(a_{ini})/a_{ini}$. The first term in the [*r.h.s.*]{} of is, therefore, constant. The solution does not depend on the form of the scalar field potential, since the impact of the latter is completely negligible during the RDE, and consists of a constant term plus a fast decaying mode, which we will call $\\phi^\\prime_{\\rm cons}$ and $\\phi^\\prime_{\\rm dec}$, respectively. In order to fulfill the BBN constraint on the total energy density at $a_{\\rm BBN}\\sim 10^{-9}$ one needs to demand $\\rho_\\phi(a_{\\rm BBN})\\lesssim 0.1\\cdot\\rho_r(a_{\\rm BBN})$ [@Uzan:2010pm]. This leads to the following condition: $|c_0|<10^{53}$. Now, using the value of $c_0$ that saturates the upper bound we can evaluate the ratio $\\phi^\\prime_{\\rm dec}(a)/\\phi^\\prime_{\\rm cons}(a)$ at any moment of the RDE (knowing that $a(\\tau)=100\\,\\tau\\,\\varsigma\\, \\sqrt{\\omega_r^{*}}$). In particular, we can compute it at a moment near the end of the RDE, e.g. at $\\tilde{a}=10^{-4}$, and see whether the decaying mode can still play an important role at that time. If we do so we obtain $\\phi^\\prime_{\\rm dec}(\\tilde{a})/\\phi^\\prime_{\\rm cons}(\\tilde{a})\\approx 10^{-5}/\\beta$. The values of the coupling strength explored in our Monte Carlo analyses are in the range $10^{-3}\\lesssim\\beta\\lesssim 10^{-1}$, so we find $$10^{-4}\\lesssim\\frac{\\phi^\\prime_{\\rm dec}(\\tilde{a})}{\\phi^\\prime_{\\rm cons}(\\tilde{a})}\\lesssim 10^{-2}\\,.$$ This tells us that the decaying mode will play no role in our analysis (even when $c_0$ takes the largest value allowed by the BBN condition), since the observables that we use to constrain the CDE model in this work are insensitive to $\\phi^\\prime$ at even lower values of the scale factor, i.e. at $a<\\tilde{a}$. This is very positive because, in practice, this allows us to set the initial condition of $\\phi^\\prime(a_{ini})=\\phi^\\prime_{\\rm cons}(a_{ini})$ and reduce in this way the number of parameters that are varied in each step of the Monte Carlo. This also helps to improve the efficiency of our code.\n\nAppendix B: Results for the nested models {#appendix-b-results-for-the-nested-models .unnumbered}\n=========================================\n\nHere we present and discuss the fitting results for the two nested models of the CDE scenario that are obtained by turning off the interaction, and also by using a constant potential while keeping active the interaction in the dark sector. These two models are obtained from the general CDE scenario described in by setting $\\beta=0$ and $\\alpha=0$, respectively. The former corresponds to the PR model [@Peebles:1987ek; @Ratra:1987rm]. In we show the constraints obtained for these models in the light of the P18+BSC+RSD data set, and also compare their statistical performance with the $\\Lambda$CDM and the full CDE model. In practice, they both have one additional parameter [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\\Lambda$CDM. The PR model has a very effective attractor solution for $\\phi$ and $\\phi^\\prime$ during the radiation-dominated epoch, which can be used to fix the initial conditions of the scalar field and its derivative, so only $\\alpha$ enters as an additional parameter (see e.g. [@Sola:2016hnq]). On the other hand, the CDE model with flat potential only has $\\beta$ as extra parameter, since the equations are invariant under translations of the scalar field and hence $\\phi_{ini}$ can be fixed to an arbitrary value, e.g. 0. Moreover, $\\phi^\\prime_{ini}$ can be set as explained in the appendix A. shows that in the context of the PR model it is possible to obtain much lower values of $\\sigma_8$, loosening in this way the $\\sigma_8$ tension. $H_0$, though, is below the one obtained with the $\\Lambda$CDM and the other two nested models. These results are fully aligned with those from [@Sola:2018sjf], but now we obtain lesser levels of evidence for the PR model, basically due to the use of the CMB high multipole polarization data, which were not employed in that reference. The reduction in the value of $\\chi^2_{min}$ [*w.r.t.*]{} the $\\Lambda$CDM is $\\sim 2$ units, but $\\ln(B_{{\\rm PR},\\Lambda})<-3$, so there is still more evidence for the concordance model when compared with the PR. One thing that we should explain is why the value of $\\chi^2_{min}$ obtained with the PR model is lower than in the general CDE model. We would expect this not to happen, since the latter is an extension of the former, with two extra free parameters. The reason is the following. In our Monte Carlo analysis for the CDE model we cannot explore the region of parameter space with a pure PR behavior. In order this to happen we should produce values of $\\beta$ in our chains much lower than the ones we actually produce (which are in all cases greater than $\\sim 10^{-3}$ due to the flat prior on $\\beta>0$ and its typical variance). These values of $\\beta$ always give rise to non-completely negligible effects in the MDE, and hence there is always a departure from the pure PR model. Thus, it is not strange that we find points in parameter space of the PR model which lead to lower values of $\\chi^2$ than those found in our analysis of the CDE.\n\nThe values of the parameters obtained for the CDE model with $\\alpha=0$ remain very close to the $\\Lambda$CDM ones (cf. the third column of ). The model sticks to the $\\Lambda$CDM because in this case there is no varying potential able to compensate the effects generated by the non-null coupling, so $\\beta$ is forced to remain small. In terms of Occam\u2019s razor and the corresponding Bayes ratio there is a preference for the $\\Lambda$CDM. The central value of $\\beta$ is almost four times smaller than in the general CDE model. Something similar happens in the PR model for $\\alpha$, which is now $\\sim 7$ times smaller than in the general CDE scenario. Due to the fact that $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ can compensate effects from each other, in the general CDE model these two parameters can be quite larger, as it is seen in the last column of .\n\nAppendix C: Constraints on CDE with exponential potential {#appendix-c-constraints-on-cde-with-exponential-potential .unnumbered}\n=========================================================\n\nIn this brief appendix we complement the results provided in the main body of the paper, which have been obtained using the power-law potential . In we provide constraints on CDE with the exponential potential $$\\label{eq:EXP}\nV(\\phi)=V_0e^{-\\lambda\\kappa\\phi} \\,.$$ The constant $\\lambda>0$ controls its steepness. As mentioned in , the quintessence potential only rules the scalar field dynamics in the late-time universe, after the $\\phi$MDE epoch, when the effects coming from the interaction in the dark sector are already subdominant. Therefore, we should not expect a change in the form of the potential to affect severely the constraints on the coupling strength $\\beta$, and this is actually what we find. By comparing the results provided in Tables I and III obtained under the same data sets we notice that both, the central values and uncertainties for $\\beta$, are almost identical. They are also similar to the values reported in Table II of [@vandeBruck:2017idm], which were obtained using the CMB likelihoods from [*Planck*]{} 2015, older SNIa, BAO and CCH data, and also older distance ladder priors on the Hubble parameter. Our constraints are a little bit tighter due to the updated (richer) data sets employed here. Also the values of $\\lambda$ are quite similar. We note, though, that the central values of $H_0$ are mildly ($\\sim 1\\sigma$) lower than those obtained with the Peebles-Ratra potential. The values of $\\ln\\,B_{{\\rm CDE},\\Lambda}$ are higher (lower in absolute value) since in this model the goodness of fit is kept at the same level as in the CDE model with PR potential, and $\\phi_{ini}$ plays no role and can be fixed, reducing thereby the complexity of the model. But they are still below -5. The results obtained with are hence fully consistent with those derived with .\n\n[^1]: The superscripts $(0)$ will denote from now on quantities evaluated at present, i.e. at $a=1$.\n\n[^2]: http://lesgourg.github.io/class\\_public/class.html\n\n[^3]: http://baudren.github.io/montepython.html\n\n[^4]: https://getdist.readthedocs.io/en/latest/\n\n[^5]: https://github.com/yabebalFantaye/MCEvidence\n\n[^6]: http://www.sdss3.org/surveys/boss.php\n\n[^7]: http://www.6dfgs.net/\n\n[^8]: https://www.sdss.org/\n\n[^9]: http://wigglez.swin.edu.au/site/\n\n[^10]: https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/es/\n\n[^11]: The tension (in terms of the number of $\\sigma$) between two quantities $A\\pm\\sigma_A$ and $B\\pm\\sigma_B$ is [*estimated*]{} in this work by using the formula $|A-B|/\\sqrt{\\sigma_A^2+\\sigma_B^2}$, which strictly speaking is only valid if the two values are normally distributed and independent.\n\n[^12]: http://shsuyu.github.io/H0LiCOW/site/\n\n[^13]: In the computation of the evidence for the CDE model we have employed the following flat priors for the extra parameters: $0<\\beta<0.1$, $0<\\alpha<2$, and $0<\\kappa\\phi_{ini}<50$. Slightly broader or tighter priors can be considered, but $\\ln(B_{{\\rm CDE},\\Lambda})$ only changes logarithmically, so our conclusions are not very sensitive to them.\n\n[^14]: For instance, Akaike criterion [@Akaike] is given by ${\\rm AIC}= \\chi^2_{min}+2n$, where $n$ is the number of parameters in the model (the degree of correlation between them is not taken into account). Considering that CDE with PR potential has an effective number of parameters between 2 and 3 we find $2.5<{\\rm AIC}_{\\rm CDE}-{\\rm AIC}_\\Lambda<6$ for the scenarios explored in , which leads to a positive preference for $\\Lambda$CDM, again using Jeffreys\u2019 scale [@KassRaftery1995; @Burnham2002; @AmendolaTsujikawaBook].\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present a calculation of the electromagnetic form factor of the pion in $N_f=2+1$ flavor lattice QCD. Calculations are made on the PACS-CS gauge field configurations generated using Iwasaki gauge action and Wilson-clover quark action on a $32^3\\times64$ lattice volume with the lattice spacing estimated as $a=0.0907(13)$\u00a0fm at the physical point. Measurements of the form factor are made using the technique of partially twisted boundary condition to reach small momentum transfer as well as periodic boundary condition with integer momenta. Additional improvements including random wall source techniques and a judicious choice of momenta carried by the incoming and outgoing quarks are employed for error reduction. Analyzing the form factor data for the pion mass at $M_\\pi \\approx 411$\u00a0MeV and 296\u00a0MeV, we find that the NNLO SU(2) chiral perturbation theory fit yields $\\left< r^2\\right>=0.441 \\pm 0.046~{\\rm fm}^2$ for the pion charge radius at the physical pion mass. Albeit the error is quite large, this is consistent with the experimental value of $0.452\\pm 0.011~{\\rm fm}^2$. Below $M_\\pi\\approx 300$\u00a0MeV, we find that statistical fluctuations in the pion two- and three-point functions become too large to extract statistically meaningful averages on a $32^3$ spatial volume. We carry out a sample calculation on a $64^4$ lattice with the quark masses close to the physical point, which suggests that form factor calculations at the physical point become feasible by enlarging lattice sizes to $M_\\pi L\\approx 4$.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Oanh Hoang Nguyen$^{a}$, Ken-Ichi Ishikawa$^{b}$, Akira Ukawa$^{a,c}$, Naoya Ukita$^{c}$\\\n    for PACS-CS Collaboration\ntitle: ' Electromagnetic form factor of pion from $N_f=2+1$ dynamical flavor QCD '\n---\n\nUT-CCS-60\\\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe electromagnetic form factor of pion is an interesting quantity to investigate in lattice QCD. Experimentally it has been measured in a set of experiments [@pdg]. Together with the nucleon form factors, it provides the first important test case of our understanding of hadron structure that arises from the quark content. From lattice QCD point of view, form factor calculations represent one of the first steps going beyond static quantities like the mass spectrum which require only two-point functions. The pion form factor is a natural first choice in this direction since usually pion Green\u2019s functions are statistically the most stable quantities in lattice QCD measurements. An interesting point with the pion form factor $G_\\pi(q^2)$ is its slope at the origin as a function of the momentum transfer squared $q^2$, [*i.e.,*]{} the pion charge radius defined by $$\\langle r^2\\rangle =6\\frac{dG_\\pi(q^2)}{dq^2}\\vert_{q^2=0}.$$ It has been known for some time from chiral perturbation theory analysis [@gasserleutwyler; @gasserleutwyler_2] that this quantity diverges logarithmically with vanishing pion mass squared. Quantitative confirmation of such a behavior would provide an important check on the control of chiral behavior in lattice QCD simulations toward the physical point.\n\nThe pioneering lattice QCD calculations of the pion form factor appeared more than 20 years ago [@martinelli; @draper], and a number of studies were carried out over the years. Recently, with the development of simulations with dynamical quarks, several groups have attempted calculations with $N_f=2$ [@brommel; @ETMC; @JLQCD] and $N_f=2+1$ [@RBC] dynamical flavors using a variety of quark actions. The $N_f=2$ calculations employed Wilson-clover [@brommel], twisted mass [@ETMC] or overlap [@JLQCD] quark action, and explored the pion mass region down to $M_\\pi\\approx 300$\u00a0MeV. The values for $\\langle r^2\\rangle$ from those simulations are significantly smaller than the experimental value, and NNLO fits of SU(2) chiral perturbation theory were needed to find consistency with it at the physical pion mass. For $N_f=2+1$ dynamical flavors, there has been a single calculation employing domain-wall quark action [@RBC], which made measurements at a single pion mass of $M_\\pi\\approx 300$\u00a0MeV. Carrying out NLO analyses in SU(2) and SU(3) chiral perturbation theory, this work found $\\langle r^2\\rangle$ to be consistent with the experimental value at the upper edge of a 10% error band.\n\nIn this paper we present our calculation of the electromagnetic form factor of pion in $N_f=2+1$ dynamical flavor QCD using the Wilson-clover quark action. For measurements we employ the $N_f=2+1$ PACS-CS gauge configurations generated on a $32^3\\times 64$ lattice using the Iwasaki gauge action and the Wilson-clover action at a lattice spacing estimated to be $a=0.0907(13)$\u00a0fm at the physical point [@pacscs]. Since the pion mass on this gauge configuration set covers the range from $M_\\pi\\approx 700$MeV down to $156$\u00a0MeV, we are able to examine both the known range above $M_\\pi\\approx 300$MeV and a novel range below toward the physical pion mass.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. In Sec.\u00a02 we present our method to calculate the pion form factor. In order to access the region of small momentum transfer, we use the method of partially twisted boundary condition [@boyle2007; @sachrajda2005; @bedaque2005; @jian], and in order to fight increasing computational cost for smaller pion mass, we apply the method of random wall source [@Z2_1; @Z2_2; @Z2_3; @Z2_4; @Z2_5; @RBC]. In addition we make use of a judicious choice of momenta carried by the incoming and outgoing quarks off the electromagnetic vertex, which helps in reducing statistical fluctuations in the form factor measurements. In Sec.\u00a03 we present the results of pion form factor measurements, and in Sec.\u00a04 we analyze the data as a function of the momentum transfer squared and pion mass. In particular we examine consistency with the predictions of chiral perturbation theory. Finally, in Sec.\u00a05, we discuss our findings closer to the physical point including the results of our test calculation on a $64^4$ lattice with the quark masses tuned to the neighbour of the physical point. We end this work with conclusions in Sec.\u00a06. A preliminary report of this work was presented in [@OanhNguyen].\n\nMethods\n=======\n\nPion electromagnetic form factor\n--------------------------------\n\nThe electromagnetic pion form factor $G_\\pi(Q^2)$ is defined by $$\\label{eq:fund4}\n\\left< \\pi^+(\\vec{p'})|J_\\mu|\\pi^+(\\vec{p})\\right> = (p_\\mu + p'_\\mu)G_\\pi(Q^2),$$ where $Q^2=-q^2=-(p'-p)^2$ is the four-momentum transfer, and $J_\\mu$ is the electromagnetic current given in $N_f=2+1$ QCD by $$\\label{eq:fund3}\nJ_\\mu = \\frac{2}{3} \\bar{u}\\gamma_\\mu{u}-\\frac{1}{3} \\bar{d}\\gamma_\\mu{d}-\\frac{1}{3} \\bar{s}\\gamma_\\mu{s}.$$ In the limit of vanishing four-momentum transfer $Q^2=0$, the form factor equals unity due to the charge conservation.\n\nWe extract the form factor from a suitable ratio of the pion two- and three-point functions. We use a ratio, which has the advantage of simultaneously reducing fluctuations and renormalizing the current, defined as $$\\label{eq:ratio}\nR(\\tau)=\\frac{C^{3pt}(\\vec{p'},t_f;\\vec{p},0;\\tau)}{C^{3pt}(\\vec{p'},t_f;\\vec{p'},0;\\tau)} \\frac{C^{2pt}(\\vec{p'},\\tau)}{C^{2pt}(\\vec{p},\\tau)}\n\\times \\frac{2E_\\pi(\\vec{p'})}{E_\\pi(\\vec{p})+E_\\pi(\\vec{p'})},$$ which converges as $$R(\\tau)\\to \\frac{G^{\\rm bare}_\\pi(Q^2)}{G^{\\rm bare}_\\pi(0)}=G_\\pi(Q^2),$$ for large $\\tau$ and $t_f$. $E_\\pi(\\vec{p})$ denotes pion energy for spatial momentum $\\vec{p}$, $C^{3pt}(\\vec{p'},t_f; \\vec{p},0;\\tau)$ is the three-point function with momenta $\\vec{p}$ at the source and $\\vec{p'}$ at the sink $t_f$, $$\\label{eq:C3pt}\nC^{3pt}(\\vec{p'},t_f; \\vec{p},0;\\tau) = \\left< \\pi^+(\\vec{p'},t_f) J_\\mu(\\tau) \\pi^+(\\vec{p},0)\\right>,$$ and $C^{2pt}(\\vec{p},\\tau)$ is the two-point function, $$\\label{eq:C2pt}\nC^{2pt}(\\vec{p},\\tau) = \\left< \\pi^+(\\vec{p},\\tau) \\pi^+(\\vec{p},0)\\right>.$$ After contraction of quark fields, the three-point function consists of the connected and disconnected contributions. The latter vanishes after the gauge field average due to charge conjugation invariance, and hence need not be calculated. Since we assume degeneracy of up and down quark masses in the present calculation, the connected contribution is equal to $$\\label{eq:3pt}\nC^{3pt}(\\vec{p'},t_f; \\vec{p},0;\\tau) = \\sum_{\\vec{y},\\vec{x}}e^{-i\\vec{p'}\\vec{y}+i\\vec{q}\\vec{x}} \n\\left<Tr[\\gamma_5 D^{-1}(0,x) \\gamma_\\mu D^{-1}(x,y) \\gamma_5 D^{-1}(y,0)]\\right>.$$ This contribution can be calculated by the traditional source method [@martinelli; @draper].\n\nChoice of momenta carried by quarks\n-----------------------------------\n\nThe ratio (\\[eq:ratio\\]) makes use of two- and three-point functions in an appropriate combination to extract the form factor for the renormalized current. The presence of ratios guarantee that statistical fluctuations are suppressed. Nonetheless, making simple choices such as $\\vec{p}\\ne 0$ and $\\vec{p'}=0$, we have observed an increasingly larger fluctuation of the ratio as pion mass is reduced, and this trend worsens for larger momenta. With an interesting choice of momenta, $\\vec{p'}\\ne \\vec{p}$ but $|\\vec{p'}|=|\\vec{p}|$, the ratio (\\[eq:ratio\\]) simplifies to $$\\label{eq:ratio3ptOnly}\nR'(\\tau)=\\frac{C^{3pt}(\\vec{p'},t_f;\\vec{p},0;\\tau)}{C^{3pt}(\\vec{p'},t_f;\\vec{p'},0;\\tau)}.$$ Since the two-point functions as well as the ratio of energies drop out, leaving just the ratio of three-point functions, we expect this choice to yield better signals than those choices for which all factors are present. Furthermore, one can choose 6 permutations in momentum directions while keeping $|\\vec{p'}|=|\\vec{p}|$, gaining more statistics.\n\nPartially twisted boundary condition\n------------------------------------\n\nThe minimum non-zero quark momentum $2\\pi/La$ for the periodic boundary condition on a $32^3\\times 64$ lattice with a 2\u00a0GeV inverse lattice spacing is about 0.4\u00a0GeV. To probe the region of smaller momentum transfer as well as to improve the resolution of four-momentum transfer, we apply the method of partially twisted boundary condition [@boyle2007; @sachrajda2005; @bedaque2005; @jian] in which valence quark fields are subjected to twisted boundary condition while periodic boundary condition is kept for sea quark fields. If one imposes the boundary condition given by $$\\label{eq:fund45}\n\\psi(x+Le_j)=e^{2\\pi i\\theta_j}\\psi (x), \\qquad j=1,2,3,$$ on a valence quark field, the spatial momentum of that quark is quantized according to $$\\label{eq:fund46}\np_j = \\frac{2\\pi n_j}{L} + \\frac{2\\pi \\theta_j}{L}, \\qquad j=1,2,3,$$ where $L$ denotes the spatial lattice size, $e_j$ the unit vector in the spatial $j$-th direction and $\\theta_j$ real parameter. In this way one can explore arbitrarily small momentum on the lattice by adjusting the value of twist $\\theta_j$.\n\nFor the meson two-point function consisting of quark and anti-quark propagators, we apply the twist only to quark and not to antiquark or vice versa. Similarly, for the three-point function, we twist only one or two out of the three quark propagators. In other words, we pretend that each valence quark line in the two- and three-point function quark diagrams carry a different flavor and select the appropriate flavor to apply twisting. In this way we can avoid a twist of a quark line cancelled by the opposite twist of the antiquark line carrying the same flavor [@boyle2007]. This procedure and the twisting of only valence quarks mean that we deal with partially quenched QCD with a different flavor symmetry content in the valence and sea quark sectors. As was discussed in detail in [@sachrajda2005; @bedaque2005] using chiral perturbation theory, the associated effects are expected to appear as finite-size effects exponentially small in spatial volume for channels which do not have final-state interactions such as three-point functions for form factor calculations. Since terms of such magnitude are also present in unitary theory with periodic valence and sea quarks, we ignore this issue in the present work.\n\nThe twisted boundary condition can be imposed on a periodic quark field configuration by the following transformation $$\\label{eq:fund47}\n\\psi(x) \\longrightarrow U(\\theta,x) \\psi(x) = e^{2\\pi i \\sum^{3}_{j=1}{\\theta_j x_j/L}} \\psi(x).$$ In practice we transfer the twist from the quark sector to the gluon sector by an ${\\rm U(1)}$ transformation on the spatial gluon link fields given by $$\\label{eq:fund48}\nU_i(x) \\rightarrow U^\\theta_i(x)=e^{2\\pi i \\theta_i/L}U_i(x), \\qquad i=1,2,3.$$ Thus valence quark propagators are solved with the periodic boundary condition but on the PACS-CS gauge configurations twisted by the U(1) transformation above.\n\nIn order to check that the term $\\frac{2\\pi \\theta_j}{L}$ acts as true physical momentum, we carried out a test of the energy-momentum dispersion relation of the pion on some PACS-CS configurations. Of the two valence quarks inside the pion, we twisted one quark with a twist angle $\\vec{\\theta}=(\\theta, \\theta, \\theta)$ and left the other untwisted. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:checkTBC13700\\](a) we plot the effective energy for the ground state, two values of the twist angle and their combination with the first integer momenta at the hopping parameters $\\kappa_{s}=0.1364$, $\\kappa_{ud}=0.13700$ where $M_\\pi \\approx 702$\u00a0MeV. The propagator is fitted over $t=7-27$ to extract the energy $E(\\vec p)$. Errors are estimated by the jackknife method with the bin size of 100 trajectories. The results are plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:checkTBC13700\\](b), together with the expected behavior, $$\\label{eq:DispersionRel}\nE\\left(\\vec p \\right)^2 = \\left( aM_\\pi \\right)^2 + \\left( \\frac{2\\pi}{L}\\vec n + \\frac{2\\pi}{L}\\vec\\theta \\right)^2,$$ which demonstrates clearly that the term $\\frac{2\\pi \\theta_j}{L}$ acts as true physical momentum. The two data points on the right represent combinations of an integer momentum $(1,0,0)$ and a twist. The energy-momentum relation is correctly reproduced in this case as well.\n\nRandom wall source\n------------------\n\nAt light quark masses the computing cost for inversion of Dirac operator becomes very expensive. Thus we have employed some improvements for obtaining the form factor with acceptable statistical errors at reasonable computing time. The first improvement is to utilize the random wall source. This method has a long history and has been applied to two-point functions in a variety of contexts. More recently, applications to three-point functions have shown their effectiveness for form factor calculations [@ETMC; @RBC]. We consider the use of $Z(2) \\otimes Z(2)$ random noisy source as introduced in [@Z2_3].\n\nConsider a set of random sources whose real and imaginary components are randomly chosen from $Z(2)$ for each site, color and spin, $$\\label{eq:Impr2}\n\\{\\eta^{(n)}(x)_{a\\alpha} \\in Z(2) \\otimes Z(2) | n = 1...N\\}.$$ This set has the property that in the limit $N \\rightarrow \\infty$ $$\\label{eq:Impr3}\n\\langle\\eta_{a\\alpha}^{(n)}(x) \\eta_{b\\beta}^{\\dagger(n)}(y)\\rangle_n = \n\\frac{1}{N}\\sum_{n=1}^N \\eta_{a\\alpha}^{(n)}(x) \\eta_{b\\beta}^{\\dagger(n)}(y) \\rightarrow \\delta_{xy}\\delta_{ab}\\delta_{\\alpha\\beta}.$$ To use this kind of source in calculating correlators, one can choose it to be a set of random wall source located at $t_0$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:Impr4}\n\\eta_{a\\alpha}^{(n)}(\\vec{x},t|t_0) \\in Z(2) \\otimes Z(2) &|& t = t_0 \\nonumber\\\\\n= 0 &|& t \\neq t_0,\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\label{eq:Impr5}\n\\langle\\eta_{a\\alpha}^{(n)}(\\vec{x},t|t_0) \\eta_{b\\beta}^{\\dagger(n)}(\\vec{y},t|t_0)\\rangle_n = \\delta_{xy}\\delta_{ab}\\delta_{\\alpha\\beta},\n \\qquad N \\rightarrow \\infty.$$ Making use of (\\[eq:Impr5\\]) to rewrite the pion two-point function at zero momentum as, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:Impr6}\n\\nonumber\nC(\\tau;\\vec{0}) &=& \\sum_{\\vec{x},\\vec{y}} tr \\left( D^{-1}(\\vec{y},t; \\vec{x},t_0) D^{-1\\dagger}(\\vec{y},t; \\vec{x},t_0) \\right) \\\\\\nonumber\n&=& \\sum_{\\vec{x},\\vec{y},\\vec{z}} \n\\Big( D^{-1}_{a\\alpha,b\\beta}(\\vec{y},t; \\vec{x},t_0) \\left[ \\delta_{xz}\\delta_{bc}\\delta_{\\beta\\kappa} \\right] \nD^{-1\\dagger}_{c\\kappa,a\\alpha}(\\vec{y},t; \\vec{z},t_0) \\Big)\\\\\n&=& \\sum_{\\vec{y}} \\left< \\psi^{(n)}(\\vec{y},t|t_0) \\psi^{\\dagger(n)}(\\vec{y},t|t_0) \\right>_n,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\psi^{(n)}$ is the solution vector of the Dirac equation, $$\\label{eq:Impr7}\n\\psi^{(n)}(\\vec{y},t|t_0) = \\sum_{\\vec{x}} D^{-1}(\\vec{y},t; \\vec{x},t_0) \\eta^{(n)}(\\vec{x},t|t_0).$$\n\n\\\n\nWith a random $Z(2) \\otimes Z(2)$ wall source the solution for quark propagator needs only single inversion instead of $3\\times 4=12$ corresponding to color and Dirac components required for a point source or smeared source. When the number of configurations in the ensemble is large enough, even if one uses a single random source for each configuration, (\\[eq:Impr5\\]) is expected to hold in the ensemble average. One may expect to obtain meson correlators of a similar statistical quality as with the traditional point source with only 1/12 of computing time.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:C2ptPointVSZ2\\], we compare the effective pion mass plot calculated on a set of 10 configurations at $\\kappa_s=0.1364,\\kappa_{ud}=0.13700$ ($M_\\pi \\approx 702~$MeV) from the PACS-CS ensemble using (a) point source, (b) single random $Z(2) \\otimes Z(2)$ wall source, and (c) smeared source. We observe that the signal with the random $Z(2) \\otimes Z(2)$ wall source is somewhat better than that for point source, while the signal for smeared source is better than that with the random $Z(2) \\otimes Z(2)$ wall source. Using 4 random wall sources for each configuration, we observed that the quality of signal becomes comparable to that for smeared source. Since the computing time is still $4/12=1/3$ for the random wall source, we employ the method of random wall source with 4 sets of random wall sources in our measurements. In addition we repeat measurements with the source located at $t=0,16,32,48$ since the time extent of our lattice is 64.\n\nMeasurements\n============\n\nWe apply our calculational setup to a subset of the PACS-CS gauge configurations [@pacscs] corresponding to the degenerate up-down hopping parameter in the set $\\kappa_{ud} = \\{0.13700$, $0.13727$, $0.13754$, $0.13770\\}$. The hopping parameter of strange quark is fixed at $\\kappa_s = 0.1364$.\n\nThe first set of measurements, which we call data set I, is made with an exponentially smeared source and local sink, setting the final pion at zero momentum $\\vec{p'}=\\vec{0}$ and varying that of the initial pion $\\vec{p}$ in the three-point function. The fixed sink time $t_f$ in the ratio (\\[eq:ratio\\]) needs to be chosen large enough to eliminate excited states contributions. However, statistical fluctuations increase as $t_f$ increases, and examining measurement results, we choose $t_f=24$ to balance the two opposite features. The twist technique is applied to the quark running from the source to the current. Two values are chosen for the twist angle $\\vec{\\theta}=\\left(\\theta, \\theta, \\theta\\right)$ such that the smallest four-momentum transfer of the current takes the value $Q^2({\\rm GeV^2})=0.01841$ or $0.04237$. Adding integer momenta, we then collect data for $Q^2$ in the range $0.01841 {\\rm ~GeV}^2 \\leq Q^2 \\leq 0.7302{\\rm ~GeV}^2$. The statistics of data set I is given in Table \\[table:stat\\_dataset1\\] together with pion and kaon mass. Results of data set I have been previously reported in [@OanhNguyen].\n\nIn order to extract the form factor, we fit the plateau of the ratio $R(\\tau)$ by a constant. The fitting range should be chosen around the symmetry point between the source and the sink, with additional considerations on the time interval required for the pion state to become dominant. Since we employ an exponential smeared source and a point sink, we shift the fitting range one time unit closer to the source than the symmetric point $t_f/2=12$.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:Plateau\\_PFF\\](a) we plot the ratio $R(\\tau)$ at various momentum transfer for the pion mass $M_\\pi \\approx 702$\u00a0MeV. At this pion mass we have good signals for all 7 values of the four-momentum transfer. There is a good plateau from $\\tau=8$ to 15 for every momentum transfer. Thus at this pion mass we can choose the fitting range from $\\tau=8$ to 15 to extract the form factor. However, as the pion mass decreases, the plateau signal becomes worse as exhibited in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:Plateau\\_PFF\\_296\\](a) for the lightest case of $M_\\pi\\approx 296$\u00a0MeV where the ratio $R(\\tau)$ at the two smallest momentum transfers, $Q^2({\\rm GeV^2})=0.01841$ and $0.04237$, is shown. We then choose larger values for the starting point of the fitting range for better suppression of excited states at lighter pion masses. The error is estimated by the jackknife method using 10 configurations corresponding to 50 hybrid molecular dynamics time units as the bin size after checking saturation of the magnitude of error as function of bin size. Fit results for the pion form factor are listed in Table \\[table:PFF\\_dataset1\\].\n\n   $\\kappa_{ud}$   $\\kappa_{s}$   $M_\\pi$ (MeV)   $M_K$ (MeV)   \\#conf measured       $\\theta$\n  --------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- ----------------- ------------------\n      0.13700         0.1364           702            792             40          0.18423, 0.28112\n      0.13727         0.1364           570            716             40          0.18467, 0.28265\n      0.13754         0.1364           411            637             40          0.18585, 0.28672\n      0.13770         0.1364           296            596             160         0.18814, 0.29450\n\n  : Statistics of data set I.[]{data-label=\"table:stat_dataset1\"}\n\n[c c c c c c c c c c]{}\\\n$Q^2$(GeV$^2$) & 0.01842 & 0.04237 & 0.1163 & 0.1258 & 0.1682 & 0.3651 & 0.7302\\\n$G_\\pi(Q^2)$ & .9825(24) & .9609(43) & .8834(120) & .8780(134) & .8511(188) & .7313(186) & .5875(200)\\\n\\\n\\\n$Q^2$(GeV$^2$) & 0.01842 & 0.04237 & 0.1132 & 0.1223 & 0.1623 & 0.3651 & 0.7302\\\n$G_\\pi(Q^2)$ & .9836(37) & .9604(61) & .8816(154) & .8746(160) & .8400(184) & .6934(212) & .5191(189)\\\n\\\n\\\n$Q^2$(GeV$^2$) & 0.01841 & 0.04237 & 0.1062 & 0.1143 & 0.1495 & 0.3651 & 0.7302\\\n$G_\\pi(Q^2)$ & .9730(54) & .9428(66) & .9036(315) & .8920(319) & .8805(476) & .5999(535) & .4706(574)\\\n\\\n\\\n$Q^2$(GeV$^2$) & 0.01842 & 0.04237 & 0.09612 & 0.1030 & 0.1324 & 0.3651 & 0.7302\\\n$G_\\pi(Q^2)$ & .9728(44) & .9372(72) & .8624(310) & .8456(343) & .7929(452) & .9758(3376) & .6115(1943)\\\n\nWe observe in Table \\[table:PFF\\_dataset1\\] for data set I that the error for the form factor becomes large toward small pion mass and large momentum transfer. In order to improve the quality of data, we repeat the measurements (i) choosing the incoming and outgoing pions to have momenta with the same magnitude $|\\vec{p'}|=|\\vec{p}|$, and (ii) applying 4 random $Z(2) \\otimes Z(2)$ wall sources located at $t=0,16,32,48$ for the lattice time extent of 64. The twist technique is applied to two quarks running from the source to the current and from the current to the sink. Five values are employed for the twist angle of form $\\vec{\\theta}=\\left(\\theta, 0, 0\\right)$ and its permutations such that four-momentum transfer of the current takes the value $Q^2({\\rm GeV}^2)=0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 0.10$. Those values of $\\theta$ are independent of $M_\\pi$ as is easily checked for the momentum configuration chosen here. The fixed sink time $t_f$ is chosen to be 28, larger than that of data set I, for better suppression of excited states and also from examination of the dependence of the ratio on $t_f$. The fitting range is chosen symmetric around $t=14$ since the source is local after averaging over the $Z(2) \\otimes Z(2)$ random numbers. We call this set of data as data set II. Statistics and results of data set II are tabulated in Table \\[table:stat\\_dataset2\\] and Table \\[table:PFF\\_DataSet2\\]. Results for $R'(\\tau)$ for $M_\\pi \\approx 702$\u00a0MeV are plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:Plateau\\_PFF\\](b). One can see that the form factors of the data set II have much smaller error bars compared to those of data set I. We also plot results for the case of pion mass $M_\\pi \\approx 296 \\rm MeV$ in Fig. \\[fig:Plateau\\_PFF\\_296\\](b).\n\n   $\\kappa_{ud}$   $\\kappa_{s}$   $M_\\pi$ (MeV)   $M_K$ (MeV)   \\#conf measured        $Q^2($ GeV $^2)$        \n  --------------- -------------- --------------- ------------- ----------------- ----------------------------- --\n      0.13700         0.1364           702            792             40          0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 1.0  \n      0.13727         0.1364           570            716             40          0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 1.0  \n      0.13754         0.1364           411            637             40          0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 1.0  \n      0.13770         0.1364           296            596             160         0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08, 1.0  \n\n  : Statistics of data set II.[]{data-label=\"table:stat_dataset2\"}\n\n  -------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------\n   $M_\\pi$(MeV)   bin size      0.02         0.04         0.06         0.08         0.10\n       702        50$\\tau$   0.9818(5)    0.9645(9)    0.9473(17)   0.9308(17)   0.9155(22)\n       570        50$\\tau$   0.9796(6)    0.9562(17)   0.9385(23)   0.9217(27)   0.9030(31)\n       411        50$\\tau$   0.9727(11)   0.9506(23)   0.9229(34)   0.9083(52)   0.8927(75)\n       296        50$\\tau$   0.9733(16)   0.9462(45)   0.9221(50)   0.8911(70)   0.8959(96)\n  -------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------\n\n  : Pion form factor obtained with data set II[]{data-label=\"table:PFF_DataSet2\"}\n\nPion electromagnetic form factor and charge radius\n==================================================\n\nMonopole analysis of the $Q^2$ dependence of the form factor\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\\\n\nFigure \\[fig:PQ2Mono\\] shows the momentum transfer dependence of our data for the pion form factor at all simulated pion masses. The data set I and II are consistent with each other within the estimated errors. The experimental pion form factor is phenomenologically reasonably described by a monopole form suggested by the vector meson dominance model, $$G_\\pi(Q^2) = \\frac{1}{1+{Q^2/M^2_{mono}}}.\n\\label{eq:Mono}$$ Our data are accordant with the ansatz; solid lines in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:PQ2Mono\\] are fits to the monopole form (\\[eq:Mono\\]). For monopole analysis, we utilize the form factor data in the range up to $Q^2 = 0.08~\\rm GeV^2$ at $M_\\pi = 296~\\rm MeV$ and up to 0.10 $\\rm GeV^2$ at 411\u00a0MeV, since at larger four-momentum transfers plateau signals are not clear. The fitted values of the monopole mass $M^2_{mono}$ can be used to estimate the pion electromagnetic charge radius [*via*]{} $\\left<r^2\\right>=6/M^2_{mono}$. Results are tabulated in Table \\[table:BothDataSet\\_r2\\] and plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[r2\\_Mpi\\]. The charge radius exhibits an increase as pion mass decreases.\n\n  ---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- -- --\n         $\\kappa_{ud}$           0.13700      0.13727      0.13754       0.13770       \n   $\\left<r^2\\right>$(fm$^2$)   0.2174(27)   0.2538(38)   0.3129(84)   0.3352(160)     \n         $\\chi^2/d.o.f$          0.51(12)     1.01(12)     1.12(19)     0.44(11)       \n  ---------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- -- --\n\n  : Pion squared charge radius calculated from the monopole fit of data set I and II. Errors are estimated by Jackknife method with bin size of 50 $\\tau$.[]{data-label=\"table:BothDataSet_r2\"}\n\nChPT analysis to NLO\n--------------------\n\nFor small values of momentum transfer and pseudo-scalar meson masses, we expect ChPT to provide a description of the pion form factor as a function of those variables. Here we analyze our data in terms of ChPT to NLO. The analytical expression for the form factor has been worked out long time ago both for ${\\rm SU(2)_L \\times SU(2)_R}$ [@gasserleutwyler] and ${\\rm SU(3)_L \\times SU(3)_R}$ [@gasserleutwyler_2] cases, which is given by $$G_\\pi^{SU(2),NLO}(Q^2)  = 1 + \\frac{2Q^2}{f^2}l^r_6 + \\frac{2M_\\pi^2}{f^2} \\left[ - \\frac{sL}{6} + \\frac{H(s)}{N} \\right],\n\\label{PFF_SU2_NLO}$$ and $$G_\\pi^{SU(3),NLO}(Q^2) = 1  - \\frac{4Q^2}{f^2_0}L^r_9 + \\frac{2M_\\pi^2}{f_0^2} \\left[  - \\frac{sL}{6} + \\frac{H(s)}{N} \\right] \n                            +  \\frac{M_K^2}{f_0^2} \\left[ - \\frac{s_KL_K}{6} + \\frac{H(s_K)}{N} \\right],\n\\label{PFF_SU3_NLO}$$ where $$H(x) = -\\frac{4}{3} + \\frac{5}{18}x - \\frac{x-4}{6} \\sqrt{\\frac{x-4}{x}}{\\rm log} \\left( \\frac{\\sqrt{\\frac{x-4}{x}}+1}{\\sqrt{\\frac{x-4}{x}}-1}\\right),$$ and $f$ and $f_0$ are the decay constant in the SU(2) and SU(3) chiral limit, respectively. In the above equations, we made use of the following definitions: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:constants}\nN &=& (4\\pi)^2,\\\\\\nonumber\ns &=& \\frac{-Q^2}{M_\\pi^2}, s_K = \\frac{-Q^2}{M_K^2},\\nonumber\\\\\nL &=& \\frac{1}{N}{\\rm log}(\\frac{M^2_\\pi}{\\mu^2}),L_K = \\frac{1}{N}{\\rm log}(\\frac{M^2_K}{\\mu^2}).\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Besides the decay constant at the chiral limit, the SU(2) formula (\\[PFF\\_SU2\\_NLO\\]) involves $l^r_6$ as the only unknown LEC, and the same situation holds for the SU(3) case, (\\[PFF\\_SU3\\_NLO\\]), with $L^r_9$ as the unknown LEC. Calculating the slope at the origin of the momentum transfer yields the expressions for the charge radius: $$\\left< r^2\\right>_{SU(2),NLO} = -\\frac{2}{f^2} \\left( 6l^r_6 + \\frac{1}{N} + L \\right),\n\\label{r2_SU2_NLO}$$ $$\\left< r^2\\right>_{SU(3),NLO} = -\\frac{2}{f_0^2} \\left( -12L^r_9 + \\frac{3}{2N} + L + \\frac{L_K}{2}\\right).\n\\label{r2_SU3_NLO}$$\n\n  ------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- -- --\n   $M_\\pi (\\rm MeV)$                                                                                                                                                         \n                       $l^r_6(\\mu=1/a)$   $\\chi^2/d.o.f$   $\\left< r^2 \\right>_{phys}$(fm$^2$)   $L^r_9(\\mu=1/a)$   $\\chi^2/d.o.f$   $\\left< r^2 \\right>_{phys}$(fm$^2$)     \n          296            -0.00737(45)        0.29(10)                   0.366(14)                  0.00256(19)         0.29(10)                   0.380(14)                  \n          411            -0.00728(26)        2.34(26)                   0.363(8)                   0.00260(11)         2.31(26)                   0.383(8)                   \n  ------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- -- --\n\n  : NLO ChPT fit of $G_\\pi(Q^2)$ at fixed pion mass $M_\\pi$. LEC\u2019s are calculated at $\\mu=1/a=2.176$\u00a0GeV. The decay constants in the chiral limit are taken from the work of PACS-CS collaboration [@pacscs]: $f=124.8(5.1) {\\rm \\ MeV}, f_0=116.0(8.8) {\\rm \\ MeV}$. Those values are determined with pion masses up to 411 MeV. Physical value of the squared charge radius, $\\left<r^2\\right>_{phys}$, is calculated at the physical pion mass for the SU(2) case and at the physical pion and kaon masses for the SU(3) case.[]{data-label=\"table:PFF_ChPT_NLO-f\"}\n\n\\\n\nIn Table \\[table:PFF\\_ChPT\\_NLO-f\\] we present results of NLO fits of the form factor for both SU(2) and SU(3) ChPT. Fits are made fixing the pion mass at each of the two lightest values, $M_\\pi=411$ and $296$\u00a0MeV, available in our data set. Let us first look at the SU(3) results. In this case the measured kaon and pion masses are used in the fit, while the physical masses are substituted for computing the charge radius at the physical point from the fit results. The charge radius extrapolated to the physical point, while consistent within the error for the two pion mass values, falls short of the experiment by about 15%. The SU(2) results in Table \\[table:PFF\\_ChPT\\_NLO-f\\] are similar. The value for the charge radius predicted at the physical pion mass is about 20% smaller than experiment. We find similar values in the previous studies [@brommel; @ETMC; @JLQCD; @RBC] carried out over a similar range of pion mass.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:R2\\_ChPT\\_NLO-f\\] we plot the fit curves of the pion form factor together with curves from the monopole ansatz for the case of $M_\\pi=296$\u00a0MeV for (a) SU(2) and (b) SU(3) ChPT to NLO. The pion mass dependence of the squared charge radius $\\left< r^2\\right> (\\rm fm^2)$ which results from the fits are given in the panels (c) and (d) for the SU(2) and SU(3) cases, respectively. Filled circles are the estimates from the monopole ansatz, and the asterisk on the left is the experimental value. As indicated in the panels (c) and (d), the NLO ChPT predictions for $\\left< r^2\\right>$ at 296\u00a0MeV are smaller than that obtained from the monopole ansatz. These differences are also visible in the panels (a) and (b) as indicated in the magnified region of small four-momentum transfers.\n\nThe NLO ChPT fit at $M_\\pi=296$\u00a0MeV has a smaller $\\chi^2/d.o.f$ compared to that of monopole fit tabulated in Table \\[table:BothDataSet\\_r2\\]. This is not the case at the pion mass of 411\u00a0MeV, however, where $\\chi^2/d.o.f$ of the NLO ChPT fit is significantly larger than that of the monopole fit. As we shall discuss below in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:R2\\_ChPT\\_NLO\\_411\\_Qsq010\\](a) for the SU(2) case, this is due to an upward curvature of the form factor data as $Q^2$ increases to 0.08 and 0.10\u00a0GeV$^2$. Higher order terms in $Q^2$ need to be included in order to explain the behavior of our data for the form factor at 411\u00a0MeV.\n\n  ------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- --\n   $M_\\pi (\\rm MeV)$                                                                                                                                                      \n                       $l^r_6(\\mu=1/a)$   $\\chi^2/d.o.f$   $\\left< r^2 \\right>_{phys}$(fm$^2$)   $L^r_9(\\mu=1/a)$   $\\chi^2/d.o.f$   $\\left< r^2 \\right>_{phys}$(fm$^2$)  \n          296            -0.01238(66)        0.29(10)                   0.457(18)                  0.00577(33)         0.29(10)                   0.462(18)               \n          411            -0.01408(45)        2.38(27)                   0.502(12)                  0.00666(22)         2.37(27)                   0.509(12)               \n  ------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------ ---------------- ------------------------------------- --\n\n  : NLO ChPT fit of $G_\\pi(Q^2)$ utilizing $M_\\pi^2/f_\\pi^2$ as the expansion parameter at fixed pion mass $M_\\pi$. Values of the decay constant at the simulation points are $f_\\pi = 151.7(2.7)\\rm MeV$ and 162.8(2.6)\u00a0MeV at $M_\\pi = 296 \\rm MeV$ and 411\u00a0MeV, respectively. The physical decay constant, $f^{phys}_\\pi = 132.7(5.5)\\rm MeV$, is obtained from analysis of data with pion masses up to 411 MeV. Physical value of the squared charge radius, $\\left<r^2\\right>_{phys}$, is calculated at the physical pion mass for the SU(2) case and and at the physical pion and kaon masses for the SU(3) case.[]{data-label=\"table:PFF_ChPT_NLO-fpi\"}\n\n\\\n\nWe now investigate the choice of the decay constant to be used in the NLO ChPT fit. With an uncertainty of order $O(p^6)$, the decay constant in (\\[PFF\\_SU2\\_NLO\\]) and (\\[PFF\\_SU3\\_NLO\\]) can be chosen to be $f_\\pi$ measured at each pion mass. Table \\[table:PFF\\_ChPT\\_NLO-fpi\\] shows results for NLO fits using $M_\\pi^2/f_\\pi^2$ as the expansion parameter. We observe a large difference in the results depending on whether one uses $f$ or $f_\\pi$ for the SU(2) case and $f_0$ or $f_\\pi$ for the SU(3) case. The fit results for $l^r_6$ and $L^r_9$ if one uses $f_\\pi$ are larger than those of the fit using $f$ and $f_0$ by 40 to 60%, which raises the values of $\\left< r^2 \\right>_{phys}$ at the physical point by 20 to 30%. Predictions for the charge radius from these fits overestimate the experimental value while those employing $f$ underestimate it. This uncertainty clearly indicates the importance of $p^6$ terms in the ChPT interpretation of our form factor data at the considered range of pion mass.\n\nComparison of results using $f$ and $f_\\pi$ for the SU(2) case at 411\u00a0MeV are made in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:R2\\_ChPT\\_NLO\\_411\\_Qsq010\\]. The left panels (a) and (c) are results obtained with $f$ while those using $f_\\pi$ are shown in the right panels (b) and (d). In both cases, NLO ChPT fits do not explain the upward curvature of the form factor data at $Q^2=0.08$ and 0.10\u00a0GeV$^2$.\n\nWe should note that the SU(2) ChPT analysis requires tuning of the strange quark mass $m_s$ to the physical value, or alternatively, the dependence of the SU(2) LEC\u2019s on $m_s$ around its physical value has to be determined from data. For the Wilson-clover quark action, there is an additional subtlety that the strange quark mass, as defined [*via*]{} the PCAC relation, varies with changing up-down quark hopping parameter even if the strange quark hopping parameter is kept fixed. Our data taken for only one value of the strange quark hopping parameter, however, is not detailed enough to fully resolve the $m_s$ dependence. We leave such a precise determination of the $m_s$ dependence for future work.\n\nChPT analysis to NNLO\n---------------------\n\nThe ChPT analysis to NLO presented in the previous subsection indicates that the NLO is not sufficient for the pion mass as large as $M_\\pi\\approx 300-400$\u00a0MeV. Attempts have been made to carry out fits to NNLO of ChPT [@ETMC; @JLQCD], and we try this procedure here for the SU(2) case.\n\nThe NNLO formula for the vector form factor is given by [@ChPT_NNLO] $$\\begin{aligned}\nG_\\pi^{SU(2),NNLO}(Q^2) = 1 &+& 2x_2\\left[ \\frac{1}{6}(s-4)\\bar{J}(s)+s\\left( -l^r_6 -\\frac{L}{6} - \\frac{1}{18N} \\right) \\right] \\nonumber\\\\\n&+& 4x_2^2\\left( P_V^{(2)}+U_V^{(2)} \\right) + O(x_2^3),\n\\label{eq:Gpi_SU2_NNLO}\\end{aligned}$$ where $$x_2=\\frac{M_\\pi^2}{f_\\pi^2},\n\\label{eq:parameter}$$ with $f_\\pi$ the decay constant at the pion mass $M_\\pi$, which is related to the decay constant $f$ in the SU(2) chiral limit through $$f_\\pi=f\\left[1 + 2\\frac{M_\\pi^2}{f^2}\\left(l^r_4-L\\right)\\right],\n\\label{eq:decayconstant}$$ at NLO of SU(2) ChPT. The two functions $P^{(2)}_V$ and $U^{(2)}_V$ are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nP^{(2)}_V&=&s\\Big[ -\\frac{1}{2}k_1+\\frac{1}{4}k_2 - \\frac{1}{12}k_4 + \\frac{1}{2}k_6 - l^r_4 \\left( 2l^r_6 + \\frac{1}{9N} \\right)\n+\\frac{23}{36}\\frac{L}{N} + \\frac{5}{576N} + \\frac{37}{864N^2} + r^r_{V1}\\Big]\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+ s^2\\Big[\\frac{1}{12}k_1 - \\frac{1}{24}k_2 + \\frac{1}{24}k_6\n+\\frac{1}{9N} \\left( l^r_1-\\frac{1}{2}l^r_2 + \\frac{1}{2}l^r_6 - \\frac{1}{12}L - \\frac{1}{384} - \\frac{47}{192N}\\right) + r^r_{V2}\\Big]\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nU^{(2)}_V&=&\\bar{J} \\Big[\n \\frac{1}{3}l^r_1(-s^2+4s) + \\frac{1}{6}l^r_2(s^2-4s) + \\frac{1}{3}l^r_4(s-4) + \\frac{1}{6}l^r_6(-s^2+4s)\\\\\\nonumber\n &&-\\frac{1}{36}L(s^2+8s-48)+\\frac{1}{N}\\left( \\frac{7}{108}s^2 - \\frac{97}{108}s + \\frac{3}{4} \\right)\\Big]\\\\\\nonumber\n&&+\\frac{1}{9}K_1(s) + \\frac{1}{9}K_2(s)\\left( \\frac{1}{8}s^2-s+4 \\right) + \\frac{1}{6}K_3(s) \\left( s-\\frac{1}{3} \\right) -\\frac{5}{3}K_4(s)\n,\\end{aligned}$$ and the integral functions $\\bar{J},K_1,K_2,K_3,K_4$ are defined by $$\\left[\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\bar{J} \\\\\nK_1\\\\\nK_2\\\\\nK_3\\\\\n\\end{array}\n\\right]\n=\\left[\n\\begin{array}{cccc}\n0        & 0   & z              & -4N   \\\\\n0        & z   & 0              & 0     \\\\\n0        & z^2 & 0              & 8     \\\\\nNzs^{-1} & 0   & \\pi^2(Ns)^{-1} & \\pi^2 \\\\\n\\end{array}\n\\right]\n\\left[\n\\begin{array}{c}\nh^3 \\\\\nh^2 \\\\\nh \\\\\n-(2N^2)^{-1} \\\\\n\\end{array}\n\\right],$$ and $$K_4=\\frac{1}{sz}\\left( \\frac{1}{2}K_1 + \\frac{1}{3}K_3 + \\frac{1}{N}\\bar{J} + \\frac{(\\pi^2-6)s}{12N^2} \\right)\n,$$ where $$h(s)=\\frac{1}{N\\sqrt{z}} ln\\frac{\\sqrt{z}-1}{\\sqrt{z}+1}, \\qquad z = 1-\\frac{4}{s}.$$ As well as notations in (\\[eq:constants\\]), we also use $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:constants2}\nk_i &=& [4l^r_i-\\gamma_iL] L,\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:gamma_consts}\n\\gamma_1=1/3, \\gamma_2=2/3, \\gamma_4=2, \\gamma_6=-1/3.\\end{aligned}$$ From (\\[eq:Gpi\\_SU2\\_NNLO\\]) the NNLO ChPT expression for the squared charge radius reads, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left< r^2 \\right>_{SU(2),NNLO} &=& -\\frac{2}{f_\\pi^2}\\left( 6l^r_6 + L + \\frac{1}{N} \\right)\\\\\\nonumber\n&+& \\frac{4M_\\pi^2}{f_\\pi^4} \\left[ -3k_1 + \\frac{3}{2}k_2 - \\frac{k_4}{2} + 3k_6 -12l^r_4l^r_6 \n+ \\frac{1}{N} \\left( -2l^r_4 + \\frac{31}{6}L + \\frac{13}{192} - \\frac{181}{48N} \\right) + 6r^r_{V1}\n \\right].\\end{aligned}$$\n\n    exp. parameter     $M_\\pi(\\rm MeV)$   $l^r_6(\\mu=1/a)$   $10^4 r^r_{V1}$   $10^4 r^r_{V2}$   $\\chi^2/d.o.f$   $\\left< r^2 \\right>_{phys}$     \n  ------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- ----------------- ---------------- ----------------------------- -- --\n     $M_\\pi^2/f^2$         296, 411         -0.0098(11)         1.67(51)          1.04(60)          0.63(9)                0.420(31)              \n   $M_\\pi^2/f_\\pi^2$       296, 411         -0.0103(18)         3.4(1.8)          3.3(1.6)          0.72(10)               0.441(44)              \n\n  : NNLO ChPT SU(2) fit of $G_\\pi(Q^2)$ using data at 2 lightest pion masses. The result in the first row is obtained by using $f=124.8(5.1)$\u00a0MeV in the SU(2) chiral limit [@pacscs], while that in the second row by substituting the measured values of $f_\\pi$. []{data-label=\"table:PFF_ChPT_SU2_NNLO_2lightest\"}\n\nFor checking the convergence at NNLO, we carry out fits employing both $M_\\pi^2/f^2$ and $M_\\pi^2/f_\\pi^2$ as the expansion parameter. For the former fit we use (\\[eq:decayconstant\\]) to reexpand the expression for the form factor to the necessary order, and use the value of $f$ obtained in [@pacscs]. Besides the pion decay constant the ChPT formula of the form factor to NNLO depends on 5 other LECs: $l^r_1-l^r_2/2,l^r_4,l^r_6,r^r_{V1},r^r_{V2}$. It is very difficult to find a stable fit in the 5-dimension parameter space. Therefore we fix $l^r_1,l^r_2$ at the phenomenology values since they were calculated with small error bar from experimental data[@ChPT_NNLO_4]. For $l^r_4$, which is only required in the formulation with $f_\\pi$, we apply the value obtained by an NLO fit of data in the range $M_\\pi\\leq 411$\u00a0MeV by the PACS-CS collaboration[@pacscs].\n\nWe find that stable fits are difficult to obtain unless we utilize data at more than a single pion mass in the fit procedure. The fit result obtained with data for the two pion masses $M_\\pi=296$ and 411\u00a0MeV, which were used for the NLO analysis, is listed in Table \\[table:PFF\\_ChPT\\_SU2\\_NNLO\\_2lightest\\] and shown in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig:ChPT\\_SU2\\_NNLO\\_2lightest-f\\] and \\[fig:ChPT\\_SU2\\_NNLO\\_2lightest-fpi\\]. Combining the data at the two pion masses is acceptable since strange quark mass does not vary much, $m_s=89.8(1.3)$ and 92.2(1.3)\u00a0MeV at $M_\\pi=296$ and 411\u00a0MeV, respectively [@pacscs]. We observe that the results for $l^r_6$ are consistent between the two fits within the error of 10\u201315% and so are the predictions for the squared charge radius at the physical point, indicating that ChPT reasonably converges at NNLO up to $M_\\pi\\approx 400$\u00a0MeV and $Q^2\\approx 0.01$\u00a0GeV$^2$. This is also seen by plotting the NLO and NNLO contributions separately as shown in Figs.\u00a0\\[fig:ChPT\\_SU2\\_NNLO\\_2lightest-f\\] and \\[fig:ChPT\\_SU2\\_NNLO\\_2lightest-fpi\\]. The squared charge radius predicted at the physical point is close to the experimental value and is consistent within statistics errors of 10%.\n\nToward the physical point \u2013 a $64^4$ lattice calculation \u2013 \n===========================================================\n\nWhile ChPT to NNLO yields a reasonable result for the physical pion charge radius, the estimated error of 10% is quite large. We feel that for a convincing understanding of the physical pion charge radius one needs to explore the region of pion mass closer to the physical point than the value $M_\\pi\\approx 300$\u00a0MeV analyzed so far.\n\nThe PACS-CS gauge configurations has one more set corresponding to $M_\\pi\\approx 156\\rm \\ MeV$. We tried to calculate the form factor on this set, and found that the pion two- and three-point correlators exhibit very large fluctuations, to the extent that taking a meaningful statistical average is difficult. This trend becomes more pronounced as the twist carried by quarks becomes larger. Since $LM_\\pi\\approx 2.3$ at this pion mass for $L=32$, we suspect that this phenomenon is caused by a small size of the lattice relative to the pion mass, and consequent increase of large fluctuations.\n\nA natural remedy to this difficulty is to employ larger lattices as one moves toward the physical pion mass. PACS-CS collaboration has been pushing a simulation on the physical point on a $64^4$ lattice as a continuation of the work on a $32^3\\times 64$ lattice. The hopping parameter of the run is adjusted to the best estimate of the physical point $(\\kappa_{ud}, \\kappa_s) = ( 0.137785, 0.13665)$. We have used a subset of those configurations to calculate the pion form factor on a $64^4$ lattice. This requires much computer time, and hence we have only 4 configurations measured so far. We used the same setup as for the data set II, namely, (i) the incoming and outgoing pions in the three-point function carry momenta of the same magnitude $|\\vec{p'}|=|\\vec{p}|$ but point in different directions, (ii) 4 random $Z(2) \\otimes Z(2)$ wall sources located at $t=0,16,32,48$ are employed, (iii) the twist technique is applied to the two quarks running from the source to the current and from the current to the sink, and (iv) four values are chosen for the twist angle $\\vec{\\theta}=\\left(\\theta, 0, 0\\right)$ and its permutations such that the four-momentum transfer of the current takes the value $Q^2({\\rm GeV}^2)=0.02, 0.04, 0.06, 0.08$. The fixed sink time $t_f$ is chosen to be 28.\n\n![Triangle symbols represent effective mass obtained from measurement of 4 configurations of a size $64^4$ with 4 source points located at $t=0,16,32,48$ and 4 random sources for each source location. Center lines exhibit PACS-CS estimation of pion mass calculated from larger statistics of 53 configurations.[]{data-label=\"fig:C2ptData_64latt\"}](Meff.eps)\n\nSince we use 4 random sources for each of the 4 locations of the source in time, our measurement on 4 configurations gives 64 two-point functions. The pion effective mass from our measurement together with the PACS-CS estimate of pion mass calculated from larger statistics of 53 configurations is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:C2ptData\\_64latt\\]. Although only 4 configurations have been used, one can already observe a plateau-like behavior for pion effective mass in this figure. The central value from the PACS-CS estimate corresponds to $M_\\pi\\approx 135$\u00a0MeV. This is somewhat smaller than the charged pion mass, and significantly smaller than $M_\\pi=156$\u00a0MeV considered earlier on a $32^3\\times 64$ lattice where we encountered problem of large fluctuations.\n\n![Momentum dependence of the form factor at $M_\\pi\\approx 135$\u00a0MeV with measurement taken on 4 configurations of a $64^4$ lattice. Black line is a fit of two data points closest to $Q^2=0$ to the monopole ansatz (\\[eq:Mono\\]).[]{data-label=\"fig:PFF_Q2_64latt\"}](GpivsQ2.eps)\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:PFF\\_64latt\\] we plot the ratio $R'(\\tau)$ obtained from the 4 configurations. Making a constant fit over $\\tau=12-16$ yields the result for the form factor displayed in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:PFF\\_Q2\\_64latt\\]. Our data seems reasonable up to $Q^2=0.06~$GeV$^2$. Estimating the slope at the origin by a monopole fit to the two points closest to $Q^2=0$, we obtain $\\left< r^2 \\right>=0.675(285) {\\rm fm}^2$. While the error is too large to seriously discuss consistency with experiment, it is certainly encouraging that the value is larger than those obtained at $M_\\pi$ of about 300\u00a0MeV, and that the physical point simulation appears possible for the pion electromagnetic form factor on a $64^4$ lattice.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe have presented a lattice calculation of the pion electromagnetic form factor in 2+1 dynamical flavor QCD with the O(a)-improved Wilson-clover quark action and Iwasaki gauge action.\n\nIn order to obtain data with reasonable error at light quark masses close to the physical point, we have utilized some improved techniques besides traditional methods for the form factor calculation. We have shown that, choosing momenta of the incoming and outgoing pions to have the same magnitude but different directions, the ratio for extracting the pion form factor becomes statistically much better behaved. We have confirmed the validity of the twisted boundary condition and employed it to explore the form factor in the region of small four-momentum transfer. Application of the random $Z(2) \\otimes Z(2)$ wall source has helped us to save computing time considerably.\n\n![$\\left< r^2 \\right>(\\rm fm^2)$ in comparison with previous studies. The left-most filled circle represents our NNLO SU(2) ChPT prediction at the physical pion mass.[]{data-label=\"fig:6464_r2\"}](R2vsMpi2.eps)\n\nOur data for the pion mean-square charge radius $\\left< r^2 \\right>$ agree with recent data of other groups, and show that $\\left< r^2 \\right>$ increases toward the physical value as $M_\\pi$ decreases. Nevertheless, on a $32^3\\times64$ lattice, we could extract reasonable data only down to $M_\\pi \\approx 296$\u00a0MeV.\n\nChPT analysis of the form factor utilizing NLO SU(3) or SU(2) formula lead to the squared charge radius which is smaller than experiment by 15\u201320%. Employing ChPT to NNLO improves the agreement. In fact our NNLO SU(2) fit using $M_\\pi^2/f_\\pi^2$ as the expansion parameter yields $\\left<r^2\\right>_{phys} = 0.441(44)(13)(\\rm fm^2)$ where the first error is statistical and the second error due to the error in the lattice spacing.\n\nWe feel that a complete explanation of the behavior of the squared charge radius would require successful calculation of the form factor below $M_\\pi\\approx 300$\u00a0MeV. Our experience points toward the necessity of enlarging the lattice size sufficiently. A sample calculation on a $64^4$ lattice indicates that the $64^4$ lattice with $M_\\pi L\\approx 4$ probably satisfies the requirement. We leave further exploration of the form factor calculation on such a lattice as future work.\n\nNumerical calculations for the present work have been carried out under the \u201cInterdisciplinary Computational Science Program\u201d of Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba. We thank the members of the PACS-CS Collaboration for discussions. This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Nos. 16740147, 18104005, 20740123, 20740139 ).\n\n[99]{}\n\nK. Nakamura [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), *Review of Particle Physics, J. Phys.* [**G37**]{}, 075021 (2010).\n\nJ. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, *Chiral perturbation theory to one loop*, *Ann. Phys.* [**158**]{}, 142 (1984)\n\nJ. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, *Chiral perturbation theory: expansions in the mass of the strange quark*, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B250**]{} (1985) 465.\n\nG. Martinelli, Christopher T. Sachrajda,, *A Lattice Calculation of the Pion\u2019s Form-Factor and Structure Function*, *Nucl. Phys.*, [**B306**]{}, 865 (1988)\n\nT. Draper, R. M. Woloshyn, W. Wilcox, and K.-F. Liu, *The pion form factor in lattice QCD , Nucl. Phys.* [**B318**]{}, 319 (1989)\n\nD. Brommel et al. (QCDSF/UKQCD Collaboration), *The Pion form-factor from lattice QCD with two dynamical flavours*, *Eur. Phys. J.*, [**C51**]{}, 335 (2007)\n\nR. Frezzotti et al., *Electromagnetic form factor of the pion from twisted-mass lattice QCD at N(f) = 2*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**79**]{}, 074506 (2009)\n\nS. Aoki et al. (JLQCD/TWQCD Collaboration), *Pion form factors from two-flavor lattice QCD with exact chiral symmetry*, *Phys. Rev.* [**D80**]{}, 034508 (2009)\n\nP. A. Boyle et al., *The pion\u2019s electromagnetic form factor at small momentum transfer in full lattice QCD*, *JHEP* [**0807**]{}, 112 (2008)\n\nS. Aoki et al. (PACS-CS Collaboration), *2+1 Flavor Lattice QCD toward the Physical Point*, *Phys. Rev.* [**D79**]{}, 034503 (2009)\n\nJonathan M. Flynn et al. *Hadronic form factors in lattice QCD at small and vanishing momentum transfer, JHEP* [**05**]{}, 016 (2007)\n\nC. T. Sachrajda and G. Villadoro, *Twisted boundary conditions in lattice simulations*, *Phys. Lett.*, [**B609**]{}, 73 (2005)\n\nP.F. Bedaque and J.-W. Chen, *Twisted valence quarks and hadron interactions on the lattice*, *Phys. Lett.*, [**B616**]{}, 208 (2005)\n\nF. J. Jiang and B. C. Tiburzi, *Flavor twisted boundary conditions, pion momentum, and the pion electromagnetic form factor, Phys. Lett* [**B645**]{}, 314 (2007)\n\nK. Bitar et al, *The QCD finite temperature transition and hybrid Monte Carlo, Nucl. Phys.* [**B313**]{} 348, (1989)\n\nH.R. Fiebig and R.M. Woloshyn, *Monopoles and chiral-symmetry breaking in three-dimensional lattice QED, Phys. Rev.* [**D42**]{} 3520, (1990).\n\nS.-J. Dong and K.-F. Liu, *Stochastic estimation with Z(2) noise*, *Phys. Lett.* [**B328**]{} (1994) 130 \\[[arXiv:hep-lat/9308015]{}\\]\n\nM. Foster and C. Michael, *Quark mass dependence of hadron masses from lattice QCD*, *Phys. Rev.* [**D59**]{} (1999) 074503\n\nC. McNeile and C. Michael, *Decay width of light quark hybrid meson from the lattice*, [*P*hys. Rev.]{} [**D73**]{} (2006) 074506 \\[[arXiv:hep-lat/0603007]{}\\]\n\nOanh Hoang Nguyen, *Pion form factor from 2+1 dynamical flavor lattice QCD using the O(a) improved Wilson-clover quark formalism*, *PoS(LATTICE 2009)* 129 \\[[arXiv:hep-lat/1003.3321]{}\\]\n\nRBC-UKQCD Collaborations, C. Allton [*et al.*]{}, *Physical results from $2+1$ flavor domain-wall QCD and SU(2) chiral perturbation theory*, *Phys. Rev. D* [**78**]{}, 114509 (2008).\n\nJ. Bijnens, G. Colangelo, and P. Talavera, *The vector and scalar form factors of the pion to two loops* *J. High Energy Phys.* [**05**]{} (1998) 014\n\nJ. Bijnens, and P. Talavera, *Pion and kaon electromagnetic form factors*, arXiv:hep-ph/0203049\n\nG. Colangelo, J. Gasser, and H. Leutwyler, *$\\pi\\pi$ scattering*, *Nucl. Phys.* [**B603**]{}, 125 (2001).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Given an immersion $\\varphi:{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, we give new approaches to determining the splitting of the pullback of the cotangent bundle. We also give new bounds on the splitting type for immersions which factor as $\\varphi:{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}\\cong D\\subset X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, where $X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ is obtained by blowing up $r$ distinct points $p_i\\in{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. As applications in the case that the points $p_i$ are generic, we give a complete determination of the splitting types for such immersions when $r\\leq 7$. The case that $D^2=-1$ is of particular interest. For $r\\leq8$ generic points, it is known that there are only finitely many inequivalent $\\varphi$ with $D^2=-1$, and all of them have balanced splitting. However, for $r=9$ generic points we show that there are infinitely many inequivalent $\\varphi$ with $D^2=-1$ having unbalanced splitting (only two such examples were known previously). We show that these new examples are related to a semi-adjoint formula which we conjecture accounts for all occurrences of unbalanced splitting when $D^2=-1$ in the case of $r=9$ generic points $p_i$. In the last section we apply such results to the study of the resolution of fat point schemes.'\naddress:\n- |\n    Dipartimento di Matematica e CIRAM\\\n    Universit\u00e0 di Bologna\\\n    40126 Bologna, Italy\n- |\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    University of Nebraska\\\n    Lincoln, NE 68588-0130 USA\n- |\n    Dipartimento di Matematica\\\n    Universit\u00e0 di Bologna\\\n    40126 Bologna, Italy\nauthor:\n- Alessandro Gimigliano\n- Brian Harbourne\n- Monica Id\u00e0\ndate: 'February 3, 2011'\ntitle: On plane rational curves and the splitting of the tangent bundle\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction {#intro}\n============\n\nWe work over an algebraically closed ground field ${K}$. We are interested in algebraic immersions $\\varphi:{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}\\to{{{\\bf P}^{n}}}$, thus $\\varphi$ is a projective morphism which is generically injective and generically smooth over its image. The fact that $\\varphi$ need not be everywhere injective or smooth means that the image $\\varphi({{{\\bf P}^{1}}})$ may have singularities. It is well-known that any vector bundle on ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$ splits as a direct sum of line bundles [@refB; @refG]. This applies in particular to the pullback $\\varphi^*T_{{{{\\bf P}^{n}}}}$ of the tangent bundle. It turns out to be more convenient, yet equivalent, for us to study the splitting of the pullback $\\varphi^*\\Omega_{{{{\\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)$ of the first twist of the cotangent bundle. Thus we will focus on $\\varphi^*\\Omega_{{{{\\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)$; it is isomorphic to ${{\\mathcal O}}_{{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}}(-a_1)\\oplus\\cdots\\oplus{{\\mathcal O}}_{{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}}(-a_n)$ for some integers $a_i$. By reordering if necessary we may assume $a_1\\leq\na_2\\leq\\cdots\\leq a_n$; we call $(a_1,\\ldots,a_n)$ the *splitting type* of $\\varphi^*\\Omega_{{{{\\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)$. Pulling the Euler sequence $$0\\to \\Omega_{{{{\\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)\\to {{\\mathcal O}}_{{{{\\bf P}^{n}}}}^{\\oplus n+1}\\to {{\\mathcal O}}_{{{{\\bf P}^{n}}}}(1)\\to 0$$ back via $\\varphi$, it follows that $a_1+\\cdots+a_n=d_C$, where $d_C$ is the degree of $C=\\varphi({{{\\bf P}^{1}}})$.\n\nThe question arises as to what splitting types can occur. Most of the work on this problem is moduli-theoretic: given putative splitting types, one asks if there are any $\\varphi$ with those invariants and if so, what one can say about the space of all such $\\varphi$, or about the generic $\\varphi$, etc. See for example [@refAs1; @refAs2; @refRm]. When $\\varphi$ is an embedding, one can ask for the splitting type of the normal bundle of $\\varphi({{{\\bf P}^{1}}})$. This question has also attracted attention; see for example among many others. However, if $n=2$ this latter question is not of much interest, both because the normal bundle is itself a line bundle and because $C$ must at most be either a line or a conic. In contrast, there is still much that is not yet understood regarding the splitting types of $\\varphi^*\\Omega_{{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}}(1)$.\n\nWhen $n=2$, the splitting types have the form $(a_1,a_2)$ for integers $0\\leq a_1\\leq a_2$ such that $a_1+a_2=d_C$. We will denote $(a_1,a_2)$ by $(a_C,b_C)$ and refer to it as the splitting type of $C$, and we will refer to $\\gamma_C=b_C-a_C$ as the *splitting gap*. When the gap is at most 1 (i.e., when $\\gamma_C$ is as small as parity considerations allow), we will say that $C$ has *balanced* splitting or is *balanced*, and we will say that $C$ is *unbalanced* if the gap is more than 1.\n\nThe multiplicities of the singularities of $C$ heavily influence $\\gamma_C$. For example, if $C$ has a point of multiplicity $m$, then results of Ascenzi [@refAs1] show that $$\\label{Ascenzibnds}\n\\min(m,d_C-m)\\leq a_C\\leq\\min\\Big(d_C-m,\\Big\\lfloor \\frac{d_C}{2}\\Big\\rfloor\\Big);$$ see Lemma \\[splitlem\\] and Proposition \\[Ascenzi\\]. These bounds are tightest when we use the largest possible value for $m$; i.e., when $m$ is the multiplicity $m_C$ of a point of $C$ of maximum multiplicity. If $2m_C+1\\geq d_C$, it follows from these bounds that $a_C=\\min(m_C,d_C-m_C)$ and hence $b_C=\\max(m_C,d_C-m_C)$ and $\\gamma_C=|2m_C-d_C|$. This prompts us to make the following definition.\n\nA rational projective plane curve $C$ is *Ascenzi* if $2m_C+1\\geq d_C$.\n\nAscenzi curves exist. For example, it is easy to see that for each $d\\geq 3$ there is a rational projective plane curve $C$ of degree $d_C=d$ with exactly one singular point, of multiplicity $m_C=d_C-1$. It follows that each such $C$ is Ascenzi, and its splitting type is $(1,d_C-1)$.\n\nThe main problem which we study here can be stated as follows:\n\n\\[compprob\\] Given a subspace $V=\\langle \\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2 \\rangle$ of dimension 3 in $K[{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}]_d$ which gives a linear series $g^2_d$ on ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$ defining a morphism which is an isomorphism on a nonempty open subset, find the splitting type $(a_C,b_C)$ for the rational curve $C\\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ given by the $g^2_d$, and, when $C$ is not Ascenzi, determine conditions on the singularities of $C$ which force the splitting to be unbalanced.\n\nThis problem is closely related to that of determining the syzygies of the homogeneous ideal $(\\varphi_0, \\varphi_1, \\varphi_2)$, since, as is well-known (see Lemma \\[b1\\]), $a_C$ is the least degree of such a syzygy. These syzygies are of independent interest; see for example [@refISV], which studies the loci of $V$\u2019s inside the Grassmaniann $G(3,K[{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}]_d)$ with respect to their syzygies, and determines the dimensions of the loci.\n\nWe give two additional computational solutions to the first part of Problem \\[compprob\\] by showing that $b_C$ can be computed in terms of the saturation degree of the ideal $(\\varphi_0, \\varphi_1, \\varphi_2)\\subset{K}[{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}]$ (see Theorem \\[b2\\]), and by showing how to determine $\\gamma_C$ using the computationally efficient method of moving lines (see Theorem \\[splittingM\\]), which was originally developed to compute implicit equations of curves when given a parameterization [@refSGD; @refSSQK].\n\nNote that for a general immersion $\\gamma_C$, the singularities of $C$ are nodes (i.e., $m_C\\leq 2$) whose disposition in ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ is almost never generic. Thus if $C$ is a general rational curve of degree $d_C>5$, then $C$ cannot be Ascenzi, and thus the splitting gap is not completely determined by . Nonetheless, Ascenzi proved that the general rational curve $C$ is balanced [@refAs1].\n\nBut what can one say if it is not $C$ which is general, but rather it is the points at which $C$ is singular which are general? Thus we propose to study $\\gamma_C$ for rational curves $C$ when the points at which $C$ is singular are generic points of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$; i.e., given generic points $p_1,\\ldots,p_r\\in{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, we require that $C$ be smooth away from the points $p_i$, and that $C'$ be smooth, where $C'$ is the proper transform of $C$ on the surface $X$ obtained as the blow up $\\pi:X\\to {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at the points $p_i$ (so not only is $C$ smooth away from the points $p_i$, but $C$ does not have any additional infinitely near singularities). The immersion $\\varphi$ in this situation factors as ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}=C'\\subset X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, so that $\\varphi({{{\\bf P}^{1}}})=\\pi(C')=C$. In general, given a smooth rational curve $D$ on $X$, it is convenient to use $a_D$, $b_D$ and $\\gamma_D$ with the obvious meanings; i.e., $a_D=a_{\\pi(D)}$ etc. Similarly, we will say that $D$ is Ascenzi if $\\pi(D)$ is. To simplify statements of our results, we will also say $D$ is Ascenzi if $\\pi(D)$ is a point. In these terms the problem we propose to study, which is still open, is:\n\n\\[prob\\] Given a blow up $\\pi:X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ generic points $p_i$, determine $\\gamma_D$ for smooth rational curves $D\\subset X$.\n\nGiven a curve $C\\subset{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ and distinct points $p_i$, we will denote ${\\rm mult}_{p_i}(C)$ by $m_i(C)$. Note if $m_i(C)= 0$, then $p_i\\not\\in C$, and if $m_i(C)= 1$, then $p_i\\in C$ but $C$ is smooth at $p_i$. Given the blow up $\\pi:X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at distinct points $p_1,\\ldots, p_r\\in{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ and a divisor $D$ on $X$, it is well known that the divisor class $[D]$ (i.e., the divisor modulo linear equivalence) can be written uniquely as $[dL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_rE_r]$, where $L$ is the pullback via $\\pi$ to $X$ of a line, and $E_i=\\pi^{-1}(p_i)$. If $D\\subset X$ is a smooth rational curve with $d>0$, then $C=\\pi(D)$ is also a rational curve, and we have $[D]=[d_CL-m_1(C)E_1-\\cdots-m_r(C)E_r]$. We will refer to the integer vector $(d_C,m_1(C),\\ldots,m_r(C))$ as the *numerical type* of $C$ (or, by extension, of $D$) with respect to the points $p_i$.\n\nThus for example, $(d,d-1)$ is an unbalanced Ascenzi type (i.e., the numerical type of an unbalanced Ascenzi curve) for every $d\\geq 4$. Computer calculations suggest many types also arise for unbalanced non-Ascenzi curves with generically situated singular points, but up to now only two have been rigorously justified (see Example \\[AEpairs\\] for these two). In contrast, the following theorem is proved in \u00a7\\[7pts\\]:\n\n\\[7ptthm\\] Let $X$ be the blow up of $r$ generic points of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. Among numerical types of smooth rational curves $D\\subset X$, the following holds:\n\n-   for $r\\le6$, $(10,4,4,4,4,4,4)$ is the unique non-Ascenzi type and curves of this type have balanced splitting;\n\n-   for $r=7$ there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi types, and for all but finitely many of these types the curves have unbalanced splitting.\n\nOur results in \u00a7\\[7pts\\] completely solve Problem \\[prob\\] for $r\\leq7$ by classifying the numerical types for all smooth rational curves $D\\subset X$ for $r\\leq 7$ generic points, and by determining the splitting gaps of curves of each type.\n\nFor larger values of $r$, a natural special case of Problem \\[prob\\] is to consider exceptional curves; i.e., smooth rational curves $D\\subset X$ with $D^2=-1$. This case arises, for example, when studying graded Betti numbers for minimal free resolutions of ideals of fat points supported at generic points $p_i$ (see [@refF1; @refF2; @refGHI1] and also \u00a7\\[appls\\]), but this case is of interest in its own right, since the exceptional curves represent an extremal case of Problem \\[prob\\]. Indeed, if ${\\rm char}({K})=0$, it is known [@refD1; @refD2] for every $r$ that every smooth rational curve $D\\subset X$ satisfies $D^2\\geq -1$. This is only conjectural if $r>9$ when ${\\rm char}({K})>0$, but it is true in all characteristics if $r\\leq9$. For if $r<9$, then $-K_X$ is ample, hence $D^2 \\geq -1$ follows from the adjunction formula, $D^2=2g_D-2-K_X\\cdot D$, since $g_D=0$ for a smooth rational curve $D$. If $r=9$, then $-K_X$ is merely nef, so this argument gives only $D^2\\geq -2$, but one can show that if $D^2=-2$, then $D$ reduces by a Cremona transformation centered in the points $p_i$ to $L-E_1-E_2-E_3$, which contradicts the fact that the points $p_i$ are generic. For an exposition of the conjectural status when $r>9$, see [@refH3].\n\nWhen $r<9$ it is known that there are only finitely many numerical types of exceptional curves, and they all are Ascenzi (see \u00a7\\[9pts\\]). Thus the first interesting case of Problem \\[prob\\] for exceptional curves is $r=9$, for which we have the following result (proved, as well as Theorem \\[thm2\\] below, in \u00a7\\[9pts\\]):\n\n\\[classificationthm\\] If $X$ is the blow up of $r=9$ generic points of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, then:\n\n-   $X$ has only finitely many Ascenzi exceptional curves;\n\n-   up to the permutations of the multiplicities, the only numerical type of an unbalanced Ascenzi exceptional curve is $(4,3,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1)$; but\n\n-   $X$ has infinitely many unbalanced non-Ascenzi exceptional curves.\n\nHeretofore only one non-Ascenzi exceptional curve was proved to have unbalanced splitting (this being the one of type $(8,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,1,1)$ [@refFHH Lemma 3.12(b)(ii)]; see Example \\[AEpairs\\]) when $r=9$. Computational experiments suggest that $X$ also has infinitely many balanced exceptional curves when $r=9$. Proving that is still an open problem, but it would follow (see Remark \\[infnonAscbal\\]) if Conjecture \\[9ptconj\\] which we state below is true.\n\nOur proof of Theorem \\[classificationthm\\](c) applies the following sufficient numerical criterion for an exceptional curve with $r=9$ to have unbalanced splitting:\n\n\\[thm2\\] Let $E$ be an exceptional divisor on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points $p_i$. If $d_E=E\\cdot L$ is even and each $m_i=E\\cdot E_i$ is odd, then $a_E\\leq (d_E-2)/2$ and $\\gamma_E\\geq 2$.\n\nThe hypothesis that $d_E$ be even and each $m_i$ be odd is equivalent to the existence of a divisor class $[A]$ on $X$ such that $2[A]=[E+K_X+L]$. The proof that $a_E\\leq (d_E-2)/2$ depends on showing that $A$ has nontrivial linear syzygies and relating these to syzygies of the trace of $A$ on $E$. I.e., it depends on showing that the kernel of $\\mu_A:H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(A))\\otimes H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(L))\\to H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(A+L))$ is nontrivial, and relating it to the kernel of $H^0( {{\\mathcal O}}_E(A))\\otimes H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(L))\\to H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_E(A+L))$.\n\nThe formula $[A]=[E+K_X+L]/2$, which we can paraphrase by saying that $A$ is a semi-adjoint of $L+E$, is suggestive of some deeper structure that so far remains mysterious, but extensive computational evidence suggests that the existence of $A$ is both necessary and sufficient for $C$ to be unbalanced. In fact, up to permutation of the entries, there are 1054 numerical types of exceptional curves $E$ on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points such that the image of $E$ is a curve $C$ of degree at most 61 (the number 61 is an arbitrary choice but large enough to give us some confidence in testing our conjectures). For all of these 1054 the splitting gap was computed to be at most 2 (according to computations using randomly chosen points in place of generic points), with the gap being exactly 2 in precisely the 39 cases for which an $A$ occurs with $2[A]=[E+K_X+L]$. We thus make the following conjecture:\n\n\\[9ptconj\\] Let $E$ be an exceptional divisor on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points $p_i$. Then there is a divisor class $[A]$ with $2[A]=[E+K_X+L]$ if and only if $\\gamma_E>1$, in which case $\\gamma_E=2$ and $a_E=(E\\cdot L-2)/2$.\n\nProving the conjecture would give a complete solution to Problem \\[prob\\] for exceptional curves with $r=9$. It would also allow one to determine the number of generators in every degree but one in any minimal set of homogeneous generators for any fat point ideal with support at up to 9 generic points of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$; see \u00a7\\[appls\\].\n\nComputational evidence suggests more is true. Conjecture \\[9ptconj\\] is a special case of the following more general conjecture which relates the occurrence of unbalanced splittings to the existence of a certain divisor $A$, but whereas Conjecture \\[9ptconj\\] specifies the divisor $A$ precisely, it is not yet clear how to find $A$ in the context of our more general conjecture. To state the conjecture, we need the following definition:\n\nThe *linear excess* of a divisor $A$, written ${\\rm le}(A)$, is the dimension of the kernel of $\\mu_A$.\n\nNote that if ${\\rm le}(A)=1$ then $h^0( {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A))\\geq2$, and in particular $|A|$ is not empty.\n\n\\[rptconj\\] Let $E$ be an exceptional divisor on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ generic points. Then $a_E = min \\{a\\ |\\ A\\cdot E = a\\}$, where the minimum is taken over all divisors $A$ such that $-K_X\\cdot A=2$, $h^1({{\\mathcal O}}_X(A))=0$ and ${\\rm le}(A)=1$. In particular, $E$ has unbalanced splitting if and only if $A\\cdot E <\\lfloor\\frac{E\\cdot L}{2}\\rfloor$ for some such divisor $A$.\n\nIn Section \\[compgap\\] we describe explicit computational methods for determining splitting invariants. All of the computational methods, however, involve first having a parameterization $\\varphi$. In case $C$ is the image in ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ of a smooth rational curve on a blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at generic points $p_i$, we recall in \u00a7\\[params\\] an efficient way to obtain a parameterization by reducing $C$ to a line via quadratic transformations (see also [@refGHI1 \u00a7A.2.1]). In \u00a7\\[eulerosubsect\\] and \u00a7\\[mul\\] we study the problem from a ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$-centered point of view. We show how the splitting type is related to the saturation index of the homogeneous ideal $(\\varphi_0, \\varphi_1, \\varphi_2)$ and we recover Ascenzi\u2019s result, Lemma \\[splitlem\\].\n\nIn Section \\[sect3\\] we obtain our new bounds on the splitting invariants of smooth rational curves $D$ on surfaces $X$ obtained by blowing up distinct points $p_i$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, which we apply to Problem \\[prob\\] to obtain our results for the case of $r\\leq 9$ generic points.\n\nFinally, in Section \\[appls\\] we explain how our results can be applied to the study of the graded Betti numbers of fat point subschemes of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. In particular, we describe an infinite family of fat point schemes having generic Hilbert function and \u201cbad resolution\".\n\nComputing the splitting gap {#compgap}\n===========================\n\nAscenzi\u2019s bounds {#Ascenzisubsect}\n----------------\n\nThe cotangent bundle $ \\Omega_{{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}}$ of the plane will be denoted simply by $\\Omega$. If $\\pi:X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ is the morphism obtained by blowing up distinct points $p_i$, then as noted above a basis for the divisor class group ${\\rm Cl}(X)$ (of divisors modulo linear equivalence) is given by the classes $[E_i]$ of the exceptional divisors $E_i=\\pi^{-1}(p_i)$ and the class $[L]$ of the pull back $L$ of a line in ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. Given a curve $C\\subset{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ of degree $d$, with singularities at $p_1,\\dots,p_r$, and multiplicity $m_{p_i}(C)=m_i$ at $p_i$, the class $[C']$ of the strict transform $C'$ of $C$ is $[dL-\\sum m_iE_i]$. If $C\\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ is an integral curve such that $C'\\subset X$ is smooth and rational, we identify ${{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(k)$ with ${{{\\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}}(k)$. We recall that $C'$ is an *exceptional curve* in $X$ if it is smooth and rational with $-1=(C')^2=d^2-\\sum m_i^2$, which by the adjunction formula implies $-1=K_X\\cdot C'=-3d+\\sum m_i$, since $[K_X]=[-3L+E_1+\\cdots+E_r]$.\n\nGiven a divisor $F$ on $X$, we will use $F$ to denote its divisor class and sometimes even the sheaf ${{\\mathcal O}}_X(F)$, and we will for convenience write $H^0(F)$ for $H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(F))$.\n\nNow assume that $C$ is the image of a smooth rational curve $C'\\subset X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ whose class is $[C']=[dL-\\sum_im_iE_i]$. The Euler sequence on ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ $$0 \\to \\Omega (1) \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}} \\otimes H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}}(1)) \\to{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}}(1) \\to 0$$ is a sequence of vector bundles, hence its pullback to $X$ restricted to $C'$ is still exact and gives a short exact sequence of bundles $$\\label{eqn1}\n0 \\to \\pi^*\\Omega (1)|_{C'} \\to{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}\\otimes H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{X}(L)) \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(d) \\to 0.$$ We have $$\\pi^*\\Omega(1)|_{C'}\\cong{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a_{C'})\\oplus{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b_{C'})$$ with $0\\leq a_{C'}\\leq b_{C'}$ and $a_{C'}+ b_{C'}=d=d_C$, where $d_C$ is the degree of $C$. We can now rewrite as $$\\label{eqnstar}\n0 \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a_{C'})\\oplus{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b_{C'}) \\to{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}\\otimes H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{X}(L)) \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(d) \\to 0.$$\n\nIn analogy with the Euler sequence, for each $i$ there is a bundle ${\\mathcal M_i}$ giving a short exact sequence of bundles $$0 \\to {\\mathcal M_i} \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_X \\otimes H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_X(L-E_i)) \\to{{{\\mathcal O}}}_X(L-E_i) \\to 0.$$ Restricting to $C'$ gives $$0 \\to {\\mathcal M_i}|_{C'} \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'} \\otimes H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_X(L-E_i)) \\to{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(L-E_i) \\to 0.$$ Using the injection of bundles ${{\\mathcal O}}_X(L-E_i)\\to{{\\mathcal O}}_X(L)$ one can show that ${\\mathcal M_i}$ is a subbundle of $\\pi^*\\Omega (1)|_{C'}$ isomorphic to ${{\\mathcal O}}_{C'}(m_i-d)$, and the sheaf quotient turns out to be isomorphic to the bundle ${{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-m_i)$. Given the isomorphism $\\pi^*\\Omega (1)|_{C'}\\cong {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a_C)\\oplus{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b_C)$, we thus have an exact sequence $$0\\to {{\\mathcal O}}_{C'}(m_i-d)\\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a_C)\\oplus{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b_C)\\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-m_i)\\to 0$$ from which the following result of Ascenzi [@refAs1] is a direct consequence (see the proof of Theorem 3.1 of [@refF1] for details; also see [@refF2]).\n\n\\[splitlem\\] Let $C$ be a rational plane curve of degree $d=d_C$ and assume that $C$ has a multiple point of multiplicity $m$; let $a=a_C$, $b=b_C$. Then we have $\\min(m,d-m)\\leq a\\leq \\min(d-m, \\lfloor\\frac{d}{2}\\rfloor)$. Thus if $d>2m+1$, then $m\\leq a\\leq \\lfloor\\frac{d}{2}\\rfloor$, while if $d\\leq 2m+1$ (i.e., $C$ is Ascenzi), then the splitting type is completely determined: if $d\\leq 2m$ it is $(d-m,m)$, and if $d=2m+1$ it is $(m,d-m)$.\n\nSplitting type, syzygies and the parameterization ideal {#eulerosubsect}\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe denote the homogeneous coordinate ring of ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$ by $S={K}[s,t]={K}[{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}]$ and that of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ by $R={K}[x_0,x_1,x_2]={K}[{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}]$.\n\nEvery rational curve $C \\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ can be defined parametrically by homogeneous polynomials $\\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2\\in S$ with no common factor and which give a $g^2_d$ series on ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$. They therefore define a morphism $\\varphi: {{{\\bf P}^{1}}} \\to {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ corresponding to the ring map\n\n$$\\label{eqn2}\n\\begin{array}{cccc}\n\\widetilde \\varphi : & R= {K}[x_0, x_1,x_2]& \\to           & S={K}[s,t]\\\\\n&&&\\\\\n                         & x_i                             & \\mapsto &\\varphi_i=\\varphi _i(s,t).\n\\end{array}$$\n\nThe kernel of this homomorphism is a principal ideal, generated by the implicit equation of the curve $C$.\n\nAssume as before that $C$ is the image of a smooth rational curve $C'\\subset X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ where $X$ is obtained by blowing up distinct points of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. For notational simplicity, we set $a=a_C$, $b=b_C$ and $V=H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{X}(L))$. Consider the sequence twisted by $k-d$ for various $k\\in \\mathbb Z$: $$0 \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a-d+k)\\oplus{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b-d+k) \\to\n{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-d+k)\\otimes V \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(k) \\to 0 \\eqno(\\star)_k$$ and search for the minimum $k\\geq0$ such that $(\\star)_k$ is exact on global sections. But $$H^1({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a-d+k)\\oplus{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b-d+k) )=0$$ if and only if $k\\geq b+d-1$, so for any $k\\geq b+d-1$ we have the following exact sequences $$0 \\to H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a-d+k))\\oplus H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b-d+k)) \\to H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-d+k))\\otimes V\n\\xrightarrow{\\psi_k} H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(k) ) \\eqno{(\\star\\star)_k}$$ with $\\psi_k$ surjective for $k\\geq b+d-1$. Note that we can identify $\\bigoplus_kH^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(k) )$ with $S$. Thus by taking the direct sum over all $k$, we obtain an exact sequence of graded $S$-modules. With this in mind, we will write $S( \\ell)_k$ in place of $H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(\\ell+k))$.\n\nNow choose three linear forms $f_0,f_1,f_2$ which give a basis of $V$. Then an arbitrary element $$\\sum_{i=1,\\dots,q} (h_i \\otimes \\sum_{j=0,1,2} c_{ij}f_j) \\in S(-d)_k \\otimes V$$ (where the $c_{ij}$ are constants) can be written as $\\sum_{j=0,1,2} \\widetilde h_j \\otimes f_j$ with $\\widetilde h_j= \\sum_{i=1,\\dots,q} c_{ij}h_i $, and the map $\\psi_k$ becomes $$\\begin{array}{cccc}\n\\psi _k: & S(-d)_k \\otimes V                              & \\to            & S_{k} \\\\\n&&& \\\\\n              & \\sum_{j=0,1,2} \\widetilde h_j \\otimes f_j& \\mapsto & \\sum _{j=0,1,2} (\\widetilde h_j)(f_j|_{C'})\n\\end{array}$$ or, applying the natural identification of $S(-d)_k \\otimes V$ with $S(-d)_k ^{\\oplus 3}$, $$\\begin{array}{cccc}\n\\psi _k: & S(-d)_k ^{\\oplus 3}& \\to & S_{k} \\\\\n&&& \\\\\n & ( \\widetilde h_0, \\widetilde h_1, \\widetilde h_2)& \\mapsto & \\sum _{j=0,1,2} (\\widetilde h_j)(f_j|_{C'})\n \\end{array}$$ Notice that in the identification of $C'$ with ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$, $|L|$ gives divisors of degree $d$ when restricted to $C'$, hence the $f_j|_{C'}$ are forms of degree $d$ in the coordinate ring of ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$. We usually choose $f_j=x_j$, $j=0,1,2$.\n\nTaking direct sums of $(\\star\\star)_k$ for $k\\geq b+d-1$ gives the following exact sequence of graded $S$-modules $$0 \\to(\\oplus _{k\\geq b+d-1} S(-a-d)_k)\\oplus (\\oplus _{k\\geq b+d-1} S(-b-d)_k) \\to \\oplus _{k\\geq b+d-1} S(-d)_k ^{\\oplus 3} \\xrightarrow{\\oplus\\psi_k}\\oplus _{k\\geq b+d-1} S_k\\to 0$$ and by sheafifying we get back the exact sequence $(\\star)_0$: $$0 \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-a-d)\\oplus{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-b-d) \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-d)^{ \\oplus3} \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'} \\to 0.$$\n\nNow assume the curve $C \\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ is given by parametric equations , and that the basis $f_0,f_1,f_2$ of $V$ we chose above is $x_0,x_1,x_2$. Since the restriction of $x_j$ to $C$ is $\\varphi_j$, we have $f_j|_{C'}=\\varphi_j$ for $j=0,1,2$.\n\nNotice that $C$ is a line if and only if there is a degree zero relation $\\sum c_j\\varphi_j =0$ among $\\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2$, with $c_j\\in {K}$; that is, if and only if $\\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2$ is not a minimal system of generators for the ideal $J :=  (\\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2)$. For the rest of \u00a7\\[eulerosubsect\\] we assume $C$ is not a line, i.e. that $d\\geq 2$. Also notice that if we change the basis $f_0,f_1,f_2$ of $V$ their restrictions to $C'$ still generate the same ideal $J$.\n\nRegarding $J$ as a graded $S$-module, consider its minimal graded free resolution $$\\label{eqn3}\n0 \\to  S(-c-d)\\oplus S(-e-d)\n\\xrightarrow{\\hbox{\\tiny$\\left(\n\\begin{matrix}\n\\alpha_0 & \\beta _0  \\\\\n\\alpha_1 & \\beta _1  \\\\\n\\alpha_2 & \\beta _2\n\\end{matrix}\n\\right)$}}\nS(-d)^{ \\oplus3}\n\\xrightarrow{\\hbox{\\tiny$(\\varphi_0\\ \\varphi_1\\ \\varphi_2)$}}\nJ\\to 0,$$ so we have $1\\leq c\\leq e$, $\\deg \\alpha_j=c$ and $\\deg \\beta_j=e$. If we sheafify the sequence , we get the following exact sequence of ${{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}={{{\\mathcal O}}}_{{{{\\bf P}^{1}}}}$-modules: $$\\label{eqn4}\n0 \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-c-d)\\oplus{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-e-d) \\to\n{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-d)^{ \\oplus3} \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'} \\to 0.$$ Since the zero scheme of the ideal $J$ is the empty set, hence by the homogeneous Nullstellensatz the associated sheaf is ${{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}$. Comparing this with $(\\star)_0$, we see that $(c,e)=(a,b)$, i.e.:\n\n\\[b1\\] Let $C$ be a rational plane curve of degree $d\\geq 2$ and consider the pair $(a,b)$ with $1\\leq a \\leq b$ and $a+b=d$. Then $(a,b)$ is the splitting type of $C$ if and only if $a$ is the minimal degree of a sygyzy of $J$.\n\nAlternatively, recall that the *saturation* of a homogeneous ideal $J\\subseteq(s,t)\\subset S$ is the largest homogeneous ideal ${\\rm sat}(J)\\subseteq (s,t)$ such that for some $i\\geq 1$, ${\\rm sat}(J)\\cap (s,t)^i=J\\cap (s,t)^i$. We call the least such $i$ the *saturation degree* of $J$. If $i=1$, we say $J$ is *saturated*. For example, if $J\\subseteq (s,t)$ has homogeneous generators with no non-constant common factor, such as $J=(s^3,t^2)$, then $(s,t)={\\rm sat}(J)$ by the homogeneous Nullstellensatz, and the saturation degree of $J$ is the least degree $i$ such that $J_i=S_i$. Thus the saturation degree in such a case can be computed from the Hilbert function of $J$ (i.e., from the function giving the dimension of $J_i$ as a function of $i$). We now have:\n\n\\[b2\\] Assume $C \\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ is a rational curve of degree $d\\geq 2$ with splitting type $(a,b)$, $a\\leq b$, which is given by parametric equations . If $\\sigma(\\varphi)$ denotes the saturation degree of the ideal $(\\varphi_0 ,\\varphi_1 , \\varphi_2)$, then $$b+d-1=\\sigma(\\varphi)\\leq 2d-2.$$\n\nIf $k\\geq b+d-1$ the sequence in degree $k$ is the same as $(\\star\\star)_k$. On the other hand, $(\\star\\star)_k$ is not exact on the right for $k\\leq d+b-2$, so $J_k=S_k$ if and only if $k\\geq b+d-1$, hence $b+d-1=\\sigma(\\varphi)$. Since $b\\leq d-1$, we also have $\\sigma(\\varphi) \\leq 2d-2$.\n\nParametric equations and multiple points {#mul}\n----------------------------------------\n\nAssume that our rational plane curve $C$ is given by parametric equations as in , and has a multiple point $p$ of multiplicity $m$, where $p=[\\ell_0,\\ell_1,\\ell_2]$. We can assume $\\ell_0=1$; we define $q(s,t)$ to be the greatest common factor of $\\varphi_1 (s,t)-\\ell_1\\varphi_0(s,t)$ and $\\varphi_2\n(s,t)-\\ell_2\\varphi_0(s,t)$. Hence there exist $h,g \\in S_{d-m}$ such that $\\varphi_1 =\\ell_1\\varphi_0+qh$ and $\\varphi_2\n=\\ell_2\\varphi_0+qg$.\n\nThe generic line through $p$, $\\alpha (x_1-\\ell _1x_0)+\\beta (x_2-\\ell _2x_0)=0$, meets $C$ at $p$ with multiplicity $m$; i.e., the equation $q(\\alpha h+\\beta g)=0$ has $m$ roots counted with multiplicity corresponding to the point $p$. Hence the polynomial $q$ defines a divisor $m_1p_1+\\dots + m_rp_r$ on ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$, with $\\varphi (p_1)=\\dots =\\varphi (p_r)=p$ and $m_1+\\dots+m_r=m$.\n\nThis means that for each point $p$ of multiplicity $m$ for $C$ the ideal $J=(\\varphi_0 ,\\varphi_1 , \\varphi_2)$ can be written as $J=(\\varphi_0, qh,qg)$ with $\\deg(\\varphi_0)=d$, $\n\\deg(q)=m$, $\\deg(h)=\\deg(g)=d-m$ for $q$, $g$, $h$ depending on the singular point $p$. This allows us to better understand Theorem \\[b2\\] and to recover Lemma \\[splitlem\\].\n\n\\[Ascenzi\\] Let $C \\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ be a rational plane curve of degree $d$ given parametrically by $\\varphi : {{{\\bf P}^{1}}} \\rightarrow {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, as before. Let $p\\in C$ be a multiple point $p$ of multiplicity $m\\geq 1$, and let $(a,b)$ be the splitting type of $C$. Then $a\\geq \\min \\{m,d-m\\}$ and $b\\leq \\max \\{m,d-m\\}$, with $(a,b)=(d-m,m)$ if $d\\leq 2m$, and $(a,b)=(m,d-m)=(m,m+1)$ if $d=2m+1$.\n\nAs above, let $J=(\\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2)=(\\varphi_0, qh,qg)$ where $\\varphi_0, q,h,g \\in S={K}[s,t]$, $\\deg(\\varphi_0)=d$, $\\deg(q)=m$ and $\\deg(h)=\\deg(g)=d-m$. Since $h,g$ have no common factor, as well as $\\varphi_0, qh,qg$, we have $\\dim\n_K \\langle h,g\\rangle=2$, and $J_{d} =\\langle\\varphi_0\\rangle\\oplus\n\\; q\\langle h,g\\rangle$. We now look at the multiplication maps $$\\nu _k: J_{d} \\otimes S_{k} \\to S_{d+k}.$$ Let $\\bar k$ be the least $k$ such that $\\nu _{\\bar k}$ is onto; the saturation degree $\\sigma (\\varphi)$ of $J$ is $d+\\bar k$, and by Theorem \\[b2\\], $b=\\bar k+1$.\n\nWe first prove that $\\nu _{m-2}$ is never onto, so we conclude that $b \\geq m$: we have $ Im(\\nu)_{m-2} = \\varphi _0 S_{m-2} +q(h,g)_{d-2}$ with $q(h,g)_{d-2} \\subseteq qS_{d-2}$, hence $\\dim Im(\\nu)_{m-2}\\leq m-1+d-1= d+m-2 <\\dim S_{d+m-2}$.\n\nSince both $(h,g)$ and $(\\varphi_0, q)$ are regular sequences in $S$, we have the minimal free resolutions for the ideals $(h,g)$ and $(\\varphi_0, q)$ of $S$: $$0\\to S(-2d+2m)\\to \\oplus ^2 S(-d+m) \\to (h,g)\\to 0 \\eqno{(\\star')}$$\n\n$$0\\to S(-d-m)\\to S(-d)\\oplus  S(-m) \\to (\\varphi_0 , q)\\to 0\n\\eqno{(\\star'')}$$\n\nAssume $d\\leq 2m$; then $(\\star')$ gives $\\dim (h,g)_{d-1} = 2\\dim S(m-1) - \\dim\nS(-d+2m-1) = 2m-(2m-d) = d$, so $(h,g)_{d-1}= S_{d-1}$, this implying that $(h,g)_{k}= S_{k}$ for $k\\geq d-1$.\n\nLet us consider $\\nu _{m-1}$. We have $J_{d} =\\langle \\varphi_0\\rangle \\oplus \\; q\\langle h,g\\rangle$, so that $Im (\\nu _{m-1})= \\varphi_0\nS_{m-1} + q(h,g)_{d-1}=\\varphi_0 S_{m-1} + qS_{d-1}=(\\varphi_0 ,\nq)_{d+m-1}$. The sequence $(\\star'')$ gives $\\dim (\\varphi_0 ,\nq)_{d+m-1} = m+d $, so that $\\nu _{m-1}$ is surjective and $b=m$ in this case. Since we are in the assumption $d-m\\leq m$, in particular we have $b\\leq \\max \\{m,d-m\\}$, and hence $a\\geq \\min \\{m,d-m\\}$.\n\nNow let $d= 2m+u$, with $u\\geq 1$. From the resolution $(\\star')$ of $(h,g)$ we get that $(h,g)_{d+u-1}=S_{d+u-1}$ and this implies, as in the previous case, that $\\nu_{d-m-1}$ is surjective, i.e. that $b\\leq d-m$. Since we are in the assumption $d-m>m$, we have $b\\leq \\max \\{m,d-m\\}$. In particular, when $u=1$, this trivially implies that $(a,b)=(m,d-m)=(m,m+1)$.\n\nA moving line algorithm for the splitting type {#CAD}\n----------------------------------------------\n\nThese kinds of questions are of interest also to people working in Computer Aided Geometric Design (CAD). In fact one of the problems they are interested in is how to compute the implicit function defining a rational plane curve which is given by parametric equations. This is a classical problem in algebraic geometry, traditionally solved via resultants, but this gives rise to computing determinants of rather large matrices, hence it is quite valuable to find more efficient ways to get the implicit equation. One of the ways this is done is by the method of \u201cmoving lines\" [@refCSC; @refSSQK; @refSGD]. We will see that this approach also offers algorithms with which we are able to deal with the splitting problem.\n\n\\[0\\] A *moving line of degree $k$ for $C$* is an equation of the form $\\alpha_0(s,t)x_0+\\alpha_1(s,t)x_1+\\alpha_2(s,t)x_2=0$ where $\\alpha_i(s,t)\\in K[s,t] _k$, such that $\\alpha_0(s,t)\\phi_0(s,t)+\\alpha_1(s,t)\\phi_1(s,t)+\\alpha_2(s,t)\\phi_2(s,t)$ is identically zero; hence a moving line of degree $k$ is nothing else than a family of lines parameterized by ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$, giving a syzygy of degree $k$ of the ideal $(\\phi_0,\\phi_1,\\phi_2)$ in ${\n\\kappa }[s,t] $. Hence, if $Syz(\\phi)$ is the sygyzy module of the parameterization $\\phi$ for the curve $C$, $(\\alpha_0,\\alpha_1,\\alpha_2)\\in Syz(\\phi)_k$.\n\nNow assume $d=2n$, and let us write explicitly the parameterization of $C$: $\\phi _i=\\phi_{i0}s^{2n}+\\dots+\\phi_{i,2n}t^{2n}$ for $i=0,1,2$. Consider a moving line in degree $n-1$ for $C$: $\\beta_0(s,t)x_0+\\beta_1(s,t)x_1+\\beta_2(s,t)x_2=0$ where $\\beta_i(s,t)=\\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}B_{ik}s^kt^{n-1-k}$, satisfying the condition $\\beta_0(s,t)\\phi_0(s,t)+\\beta_1(s,t)\\phi_1(s,t)+\\beta_2(s,t)\\phi_2(s,t)\\equiv 0,$ that is $$\\label{ast1}\n\\sum _{i=0}^{2}\\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\\sum _{j=0}^{2n}B_{ik}\\phi_{ij}s^{2n+k-j}t^{n-1-k+j}\\equiv 0.$$ Note that each monomial in $s$ and $t$ has total degree $3n-1$. Rewriting in terms of the powers $t^l$, we have $$\\label{ast2}\n\\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}\\sum _{i=0}^{2}\\sum _{a,b}B_{i,n-1-b}\\phi_{ia}s^{3n-1-l}t^l\\equiv 0,$$ where the inner sum is over all $a$ and $b$ such that $0\\leq a\\leq2n$, $0\\leq b\\leq n-1$ and $a+b=n-1-l$. This homogeneous polynomial is identically zero if and only if all of the coefficients are zero; i.e., if and only if for each $0\\leq l\\leq n-1$ we have $$\\sum _{i=0}^{2}\\sum _{a,b}B_{i,n-1-b}\\phi_{ia}=0.$$\n\nHence to say that there exists a moving line in degree $n-1$ for $C$ is equivalent to saying that the following linear system of $3n$ equations in the $3n$ variables $B_{00}, \\dots, B_{2,n-1}$ has a non-trivial solution: $$\\underbrace{\n\\left(\\begin{matrix}\n\\phi_{0,2n}&\\phi_{1,2n}&\\phi_{2,2n}&0& \\dots &0\\\\\n&\\dots& & &\\dots &\\\\\n0& \\dots &0&\\phi_{0,0}&\\phi_{1,0}&\\phi_{2,0}\n\\end{matrix}\\right)}_M\n\\left(\\begin{matrix}\nB_{00} \\\\\nB_{10}\\\\\nB_{20}\\\\\n\\vdots \\\\\nB_{0,n-1}\\\\\nB_{1,n-1}\\\\\nB_{2,n-1}\n\\end{matrix}\\right)\n=\n\\left(\\begin{matrix}\n0 \\\\\n0\\\\\n0\\\\\n\\vdots \\\\\n0\\\\\n0\\\\\n0\n\\end{matrix}\\right)$$ where the $3n\\times 3n$ matrix of the system $M(\\phi) = M = (m_{u,v})$ is defined by $m_{u,v}$ as follows: writing $v=3w+i$ as a multiple of 3 with remainder $i$ (so $0\\leq i \\leq2$), then $m_{u,v}=\\phi_{i,2n+w-u}$ if $0\\leq 2n+w-u\\leq 2n$, and $m_{u,v}=0$ otherwise.\n\nSo, if $d=2n$, we have proved that there exists a moving line in degree $n-1$ for $C$ if and only if $\\det M=0$. Moreover, ${\\rm rk}\\ M= 3n-p$ if and only if there are exactly $p$ independent moving lines in degree $n-1$ for $C$.\n\nIn the odd degree case, $d=2n+1$, the same kind of computation gives a condition analogous to , with an equation of degree $3n$ in $s,t$; hence $M$ becomes a $(3n+1) \\times 3n$ matrix, and the analogous linear system has a non-trivial solution if and only if ${\\rm rk}\\ M\\leq 3n-1$; as before we find that there are exactly $p$ independent moving lines in degree $n-1$ for $C$ if and only if ${\\rm rk}\\ M= 3n-p$.\n\nNotice that if there are exactly $p$ independent moving lines, i.e. $\\dim Syz(\\phi)_{n-1} =\np$, then there is a unique moving line of degree $n-p$, or, equivalently, the splitting type of $C$ is $(n-p,n+p)$.\n\nIn summary, we have the following result (see also [@refSGD Proposition 5.3]):\n\n\\[splittingM\\] Let $C\\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ be a rational curve of degree $d =2n+\\delta$, $\\delta \\in \\{0,1\\}$, parameterized by $\\phi _i=\\phi_{i0}s^{2n}+\\dots+ \\phi_{i,2n}t^{2n}$ for $i=0,1,2$, and define the $(3n+\\delta)\\times 3n$ matrix $$M(\\phi)=M = (m_{u,v})_{0\\leq u \\leq 3n-1+\\delta, 0\\leq v \\leq 3n-1}$$ as follows: writing $v=3w+i$ as a multiple of 3 with remainder $i$ (so $0\\leq i \\leq2$), then $m_{u,v}=\\phi_{i,2n+w-u}$ if $0\\leq 2n+w-u\\leq 2n$, and $m_{u,v}=0$ otherwise. Then the splitting type of $C$ is $(n-p,n+p)$ if and only if ${\\rm rk}\\ M =\n3n-p$.\n\nThus Theorem \\[splittingM\\] gives an algorithm to compute the splitting type of every rational plane curve once we have a parameterization for it.\n\nFinding parameterizations {#params}\n-------------------------\n\nLet $\\pi:X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ be the blow up of $r\\geq 3$ distinct points $p_i\\in{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. Then, as noted earlier, the divisor classes of $L, E_1,\\ldots,E_r$ give an integer basis for ${\\rm Cl}(X)$. This basis is, moreover, orthogonal with respect to the intersection form. The intersection form is uniquely specified by $L^2=1$ and the fact that $E_i^2=-1$ for all $i$.\n\nThe Weyl group $W(X)$ is a subgroup of orthogonal transformations on ${\\rm Cl}(X)$. It is generated by the elements $s_0,\\ldots,s_{r-1}\\in W(X)$ where $s_i(D)=D+(v_i\\cdot D)v_i$ and where $v_0=[L-E_1-E_2-E_3]$ and $v_i=[E_i-E_{i+1}]$ for $0<i<r$. Note that $W(X)$ really depends only on $r$, not on $X$. The action of the elements $s_1,\\ldots,s_{r-1}$ corresponds to permuting the classes of the divisors $E_i$, and the action of $s_0$ corresponds to a quadratic Cremona transformation $T$ centered at $p_1, p_2$ and $p_3$. But whereas $T$ is defined only when the points $p_1, p_2$ and $p_3$ are not collinear, $s_0$ is defined formally and thus it and every other element of $W(X)$ makes sense regardless of the positions of the points $p_i$. It is useful to note that $s_v(D)=D+(v\\cdot D)v\\in W(X)$ whenever $v=v_{ij}$ for $v_{ij}=[E_i-E_j]$, or $v=v_{ijk}$ for $v_{ijk}=[L-E_i-E_j-E_k]$ with $i<j<k$. When $v=v_{ijk}$, $s_v$ corresponds to a quadratic Cremona transformation $T'$ centered at $p_i,p_j,p_k$. Such a $T'$ can be given explicitly. For example, let $H_{ij},H_{ik},H_{jk}\\in R={K}[x_0,x_1,x_3]$ be linear forms where $H_{ij}$ defines the line through $p_i$ and $p_j$, and likewise for $H_{ik}$ and $H_{jk}$. Then a specific such $T'$ can be given by defining $T'(p)$ for any point $p=[a,b,c]$ other than $p_i,p_j$ and $p_k$ by $T'(p)=[(H_{ij}H_{ik})(a,b,c), (H_{ij}H_{jk})(a,b,c), (H_{ik}H_{jk})(a,b,c)]$, where, for example, $(H_{ij}H_{ik})(a,b,c)$ means evaluation of the form $H_{ij}H_{ik}$ at $(a,b,c)$. Moreover, the linear system of sections of $D=dL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_rE_r$ can be identified with those of $s_{v_{ijk}}D$, but where we regard $D$ as being with respect to blowing up the points $p_1,\\cdots,p_r$, under the identification we must regard $s_{v_{ijk}}D$ as being with respect to blowing up the points $q_1,\\ldots,q_r$, where $q_l=T'(p_l)$ for $l\\not\\in\\{i,j,k\\}$, and where $q_i=(1,0,0)$, $q_j=(0,1,0)$ and $q_k=(0,0,1)$.\n\nIf $C=\\pi(C')$ is a curve of positive degree, where $C'$ is some an exceptional curve on $X$, then as long as $r\\geq 3$ and the points $p_1,\\ldots,p_r$ are sufficiently general, there is in fact [@refN] a Cremona transformation $T:{{{\\bf P}^{2}}} -\\,\\!-\\!\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ whose locus of indeterminacy is contained in the set of points $p_i$ and such that the image of $C'$ is a line. One can find such a $T$ by finding a sequence of elements $u_1=v_{i_1j_1k_1},\\ldots, u_l=v_{i_lj_lk_l}$ such that $w=s_{u_1}\\cdots s_{u_l}$ where $w\\in W(X)$ is an element such that $w([C'])$ has the form $[L-E_i-E_j]$ for some $i<j$. Composing the quadratic Cremona transformations corresponding to each $s_{u_i}$ gives the desired transformation $T$. Pulling the parameterization of the line corresponding to $L-E_i-E_j$ back via $T$ gives a parameterization of $\\pi(C')$.\n\nSuppose we would like to parameterize a quartic $Q$ having double points at $p_1,p_2$ and $p_3$ and passing through $p_4,\\ldots,p_8$ for appropriately general points $p_i\\in{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. The class of the proper transform of $Q$ is $F=[4L-2E_1-2E_2-2E_3-E_4-\\cdots-E_8]$. We choose $u_1=[L-E_i-E_j-E_k]$ so that $u_1\\cdot F$ is as small as possible, hence $u_1=[L-E_1-E_2-E_3]$ and we define $F_1=s_{u_1}(F)=[2L-E_4-\\cdots-E_8]$. There are several choices for $u_2=[L-E_i-E_j-E_k]$ such that $u_2\\cdot F_1$ is as small as possible; e.g., $u_2=[L-E_6-E_7-E_8]$, which gives $F_2=s_{u_2}(F_1)=[L-E_4-E_5]$. Let $T_1$ be a Cremona transformation corresponding to $s_{u_1}$ (i.e., $T_1$ is a quadratic transformation centered at $p_1,p_2$ and $p_3$) and let $T_2$ be a Cremona transformation corresponding to $s_{u_2}$ (i.e., $T_2$ is a quadratic transformation centered at $T_1(p_6),T_1(p_7),T_1(p_8)$). If we take $T=T_2T_1$, then $T(Q)$ is the line $\\Lambda$ through $q_4=T_2T_1(p_4)$ and $q_5=T_2T_1(p_5)$. If $\\varphi$ is a parameterization of this line (given for example by the pencil of lines through any point not on the line $\\Lambda$), then $T^{-1}\\circ\\varphi$ parameterizes $Q$.\n\nIn general it is easier to compute the successive parameterizations $T_l^{-1}\\circ\\varphi$, $T_{l-1}^{-1}\\circ T_l^{-1}\\circ\\varphi$, $\\ldots$, $T^{-1}\\circ\\varphi=T_1^{-1}\\circ\\cdots\\circ T_l^{-1}\\circ\\varphi$, since this involves working in the ring $S={K}[s,t]$ which has only two variables, rather than first finding $T^{-1}$ (which would be in terms of elements of $R={K}[x_0,x_1,x_2]$) and then composing with $\\varphi$. Also, one should keep in mind that at each successive parameterization, the component functions may have a common factor which must be removed. For example, for our parameterization of $Q$ we can take the pencil of curves composing the complete linear system $|s_{u_1}s_{u_2}(L-E_1)|$. But $s_{u_1}s_{u_2}(L-E_1)=3L-2E_1-E_2-E_3-E_6-E_7-E_8$, so the components of the parameterization of $Q$ are the restrictions to $Q$ of a basis of the cubics singular at $p_1$ and passing through $p_2,p_3,p_6,p_7$ and $p_8$. But at each stage, $T_i$ is quadratic, so the composition $T^{-1}$ is defined in terms of homogeneous polynomials of degree $2l$, which in our case would be 4. The difference is accounted for by the components of $T^{-1}|_\\Lambda$ having a common factor, in this case a common linear factor.\n\nLooking for sygyzies coming from the plane {#dal piano}\n------------------------------------------\n\nHere we explain the idea which underlies Conjecture \\[rptconj\\]. We continue with the notation established earlier in this section. Let $\\varphi=(\\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2)$ be a parameterization of a rational plane curve of degree $d$, let $J=(\\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2)\\subset S$ be the ideal generated by the components of $\\varphi$, and let $\\widetilde \\varphi$ be the associated ring map given in . Consider a syzygy $(\\alpha_0, \\alpha_1, \\alpha_2)$ of $J$; thus $\\alpha_0\\varphi_0+ \\alpha_1\\varphi_1 + \\alpha_2\\varphi_2 =0$ for some $\\alpha_i\\in S_k$ for some $k$.\n\n\\[from the plane\\] We say that the sygyzy $(\\alpha_0, \\alpha_1, \\alpha_2)$ *comes from ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$* if there are $A_0,A_1,A_2\n\\in K[{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}]_q $, such that $A_0x_0+A_1x_1+A_2x_2=0$, and there exists $p\n\\in S_{dq-k}$, with $\\widetilde \\varphi(A_i) = p\\alpha_i$. Hence a sygyzy $(\\alpha_0, \\alpha_1, \\alpha_2)$ comes from ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ if and only if there exists $q\\in {\\mathbb N}$ such that the following colon ideal is nonzero in degree $dq-k$; i.e., $$[(\\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2)^q:(\\alpha_0,\\alpha_1,\\alpha_2)]_{dq-k} \\neq\n\\{0\\}.$$\n\n\\[8,3,3\\] Given the blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at general points $p_1,\\ldots,p_r$, the first and simplest example of a non-Ascenzi rational curve $C$ with unbalanced splitting type has class $[C]=[8L-3E_1-3E_2-\\dots -3E_7]$. Indeed, the splitting type of $C$ is $(3,5)$ (see [@refFHH] and [@refGHI2]). Notice that $C$ is not exceptional, but $[8L-3E_1-3E_2-\\dots -3E_7-E_8-E_9]$ is the class of an exceptional curve, and moreover this exceptional curve has the same splitting type as does $C$, and our discussion applies equally well to this exceptional curve as it does to $C$.\n\nGiven that the splitting type is $(3,5)$, Lemma \\[b1\\] tells us that the image $\\overline C$ of $C$ in ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ has a parameterization $\\varphi$ with a syzygy of degree 3. This syzygy in fact comes from ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. To see this, note that the linear system of cubics through 7 general points has a linear syzygy. In fact, there is a relation $A_0x_0+A_1x_1+A_2x_2=0$, where $A_0,A_1, A_2$ is a basis for $|3L-E_1-\\cdots-E_7|$ regarded as a subspace of the space of degree 3 forms $|3L|$ on ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. Moreover $(3L-E_1-\\cdots-E_7)\\cdot C=3$, hence the relation on the $A_i$\u2019s forces a relation of degree $k=3$ among the restrictions $\\varphi_i$ of the $L_i$\u2019s to $C$. Since $\\overline C$ has degree $d=8$, and each $A_i$ has degree $q=3$, we see each $\\widetilde\\varphi(A_i)$ has degree $24=dq$. The common factor $p$ is a form on ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$ of degree 21 vanishing on the inverse images in ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$ of the 7 points $p_i\\in\\overline C$, and we have $\\deg(p)=21=dq-k$. Even if we did not already know that $a_C=3$, we would see by Lemma \\[b1\\] that $a_C\\leq 3$. Since $a_C\\geq3$ by Lemma \\[splitlem\\], we recover the fact that $a_C=3$.\n\nIf, as is the case in the preceding example, $a_C$ is smaller than \u201cexpected\u201d (i.e., smaller than $\\lfloor\\frac{d}{2}\\rfloor$), then the three forms $\\varphi_0,\\varphi_1,\\varphi_2$ do not give a generic $g^2_d$, since for three generic forms of degree $d$ over ${{{\\bf P}^{1}}}$ the minimal degree of a syzygy is $\\lfloor\\frac{d}{2}\\rfloor$ by [@refAs1]. All known examples lead us to conjecture that this \u201cnon-generic situation\" occurs only when the presence of a syzygy of smaller than expected degree is \u201cforced\" by something happening in ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, i.e. because the syzygy comes from ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, and thus there is a linear relation in $k[{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}]$ among polynomials whose restriction to $C$ has degree $a<\\lfloor\\frac{d}{2}\\rfloor$ (modulo taking away common factors). Thus Conjecture \\[rptconj\\] comes from the expectation that what happened in Example \\[8,3,3\\] should be what always happens when we get unbalanced splitting. The explicit statement we give for Conjecture \\[rptconj\\] includes some additional restrictions on the $A_i$ (that they be sections of a divisor $A$ of a particular form), since examples lead us to expect these additional restrictions are always satisfied.\n\n\\[NBAC\\] Suppose $C$ is an Ascenzi plane curve with non-balanced splitting. Thus $C$ is of the form $(d,m_1,\\dots ,m_r)$ where we may assume $m_1>m_2\\geq\\dots \\geq m_r$, and we have $d<2m_1-1$. Then Conjecture 2 holds with $A=L-E_1$: there is a syzygy of degree $a_C=d-m_1$ on the parameterization functions $\\varphi_i$ parameterizing $C$; this syzygy comes from ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, specifically from the linear syzygy on the pencil of lines through $p_1$, and we have $a_C=(dL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_rE_r)\\cdot (L-E_1)$ as asserted by Conjecture \\[rptconj\\]. See also Remark \\[AEpairsrem\\].\n\n\\[K\\_7\\] In Example \\[8,3,3\\] we have $C^2=1$ and $A = -K_7$, where $-K_7=3L-E_1-\\cdots-E_7$ is an anticanonical divisor for the blow up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 7 points. In fact, $h^0(C)=3$ and $|C|$ is a homaloidal net (i.e., $[C]$ is in the Weyl group orbit of $[L]$), so a smooth irreducible curve $C_2\\in |2C|$ is rational, and we have $C_2\\cdot A=2a_C$. Thus by Conjecture \\[rptconj\\] we expect $a_{C_2}\\leq 2a_C$; i.e., that the splitting gap will be (at least) double for $C_2$, and this is indeed the case, as we now show. More generally, consider a smooth irreducible curve $C_r\\in|rC-(r-1)E_8|$. The fact that the splitting types of $C_r$ are $(3r,5r)$ follows by applying Lemma \\[splitlem\\] together with the forthcoming Proposition \\[unbalsplitting\\], using $A = 3L- E_1- \\dots - E_7$ as in Example \\[AEpairs\\]. In the same way we can construct a plethora of similar examples, such as a curve $C'_4$ of type $(32,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,2,2,2)$ and a curve $C'_6$ of type $(48,18,18,18,18,18,18,18,18,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2)$, whose splitting types are $4(3,5)=(12,20)$ and $6(3,5)=(18,30)$, respectively.\n\nSplitting type of rational plane curves with specified singularities {#sect3}\n====================================================================\n\nIn this section we will consider the splitting type for rational curves of the form $\\pi(D)$, where $D\\subset X$ is a smooth rational curve and $\\pi:X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ is the blowing up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ distinct points $p_1,\\ldots,p_r$. Note that if we write $[D]=[d_DL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_rE_r]$, there is no loss of generality in assuming that $m_D=m_1$ is the maximum of the $m_i$.\n\nNew bounds on splitting types {#newbnds}\n-----------------------------\n\nBy Lemma \\[splitlem\\], we have the bound $a_D\\leq d_D-m_D=A\\cdot D$, where $A=L-E_1$. As Remark \\[AEpairsrem\\] will explain, the following proposition generalizes this bound. It shows that we can sometimes get better bounds on $a_D$ by finding other divisors $A$ such that $\\mu_A$ has nontrivial kernel.\n\n\\[unbalsplitting\\] Let $X$ be obtained by blowing up $r$ distinct points of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. Let $L, E_1,\\ldots,E_r$ be the corresponding basis of the divisor class group of $X$. Let $D\\subset X$ be a smooth rational curve and let $A$ be a divisor such that $h^1(A)=0$, $H^0(A-D+L)=0$ and ${\\rm le}(A)\\ge1$. Then $a_D\\leq A\\cdot D$, and equality holds if, moreover, $D$ is exceptional such that ${\\rm le}(A)={\\rm le}(A+D)$ and $\\mu_A$ is surjective.\n\nSince ${\\rm le}(A)\\ge1$, we must have $h^0(A)>1$, hence $A\\cdot L>0$, so $h^2(X,A)=0$. Because $h^1(X,A)=0$ by hypothesis, by taking cohomology of $$0 \\to {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A) \\to {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A+L) \\to {{\\mathcal O}}_L(A+L) \\to 0$$ we see that $h^1(X, A+L)=0$. From the diagram $$\\begin{matrix}\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A-D)\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A)\\otimes H^0(L)\n& \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_D(A)\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n{} & {} & \\downarrow  & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & {} \\cr\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A-D+L)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A+L) & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_D(A+L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$ we get the following diagram, which has exact rows, by taking cohomology: $$\\begin{matrix}\n0 & \\to & H^0(A)\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_D(A))\\otimes H^0(L)\n& \\to & H^1(A-D)\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n{} & {} & \\downarrow \\raise3pt\\hbox to0in{$\\scriptstyle\\mu_A$\\hss} & {}\n& \\downarrow\\raise3pt\\hbox to0in{$\\scriptstyle\\mu_2$\\hss} & {}\n& \\downarrow\\raise3pt\\hbox to0in{$\\scriptstyle\\mu _3$\\hss} &\n{} & {} \\cr\n0 & \\to & H^0(A+L) & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_D(A+L))\n& \\to & H^1(A-D+L)& \\to & 0 \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$ Thus we get an inclusion ${\\rm ker}(\\mu_A)\\subseteq {\\rm ker}(\\mu_2)$ but by we have ${\\rm ker}(\\mu_2)=\nH^0(D, {{\\mathcal O}}_D(A\\cdot D-a_D))\\oplus H^0(D, {{\\mathcal O}}_D(A\\cdot D-b_D))$. Since $a_D\\leq b_D$, this means $0< h^0(D, {{\\mathcal O}}_D(A\\cdot D-a_D))$, hence $a_D\\leq A\\cdot D$. For the rest, a similar argument applied to $$\\begin{matrix}\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A)\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A+D)\\otimes H^0(L)\n& \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_D(A+D)\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n{} & {} & \\downarrow  & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & {} \\cr\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A+L)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A+D+L) & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_D(A+D+L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$ shows that $H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_D(A\\cdot D-a_D-1))\\oplus H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_D(A\\cdot D-b_D-1))=0$ if ${\\rm le}(A)={\\rm le}(A+D)$ and $\\mu_A$ is surjective, and hence that $A\\cdot D<a_D+1$, which gives $A\\cdot D=a_D$.\n\nThe following lemma will be useful in identifying candidate divisors $A$.\n\n\\[lelemma\\] Let $X$ be obtained by blowing up $r$ distinct points of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. Let $A=dL-\\sum_im_iE_i$ be a divisor on $X$ such that $d\\ge0$, $-K_X\\cdot A=2$ and $h^1(A)=0$.\n\n-   If $3h^0(A)-h^0(A+L)\\ge1$ (in which case we know ${\\rm le}(A)\\ge1$), then $A^2+1\\geq L\\cdot A$.\n\n-   If $A^2+1\\geq L\\cdot A$, then ${\\rm le}(A)\\ge1$.\n\nFrom $h^1(A)=0$, $A\\cdot L=d \\ge 0$ and $$0 \\to {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A) \\to {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A+L) \\to {{\\mathcal O}}_L(A+L) \\to 0$$ we see that $h^0(A+L)=h^0(A)+A\\cdot L+2$. Since $d\\ge0$, we have $h^2(A)=0$. Since also $h^1(A)=0$ and $-A\\cdot K_X=2$, we have $2h^0(A)=A^2-A\\cdot K+2=A^2+4$ by Riemann-Roch, which says $h^0(A)-h^1(A)+h^2(A)=(A^2-K_X\\cdot A)/2+1$. (a) This is just a calculation: $1\\le3h^0(A)-h^0(A+L)=2h^0(A)-A\\cdot L-2\n=A^2+2-A\\cdot L$, which gives the result.\n\n\\(b) This time we have ${\\rm le}(A)\\geq 3h^0(A)-h^0(A+L)=2h^0(A)-A\\cdot L-2\n=A^2+2-A\\cdot L\\ge1$.\n\n\\[AEpairsrem\\] Assume $X$ is obtained by blowing up $r\\ge1$ distinct points $p_i$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$, and consider a smooth rational curve $D\\subset X$ with $[D]=[d_DL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_rE_r]$. Assume that $m_D=m_1$ is the maximum of the $m_i$. Now let $A=L-E_1$. By Lemma \\[lelemma\\](b), we have ${\\rm le}(A)\\geq1$, although it is of course obvious in this case that $A$ has a nontrivial linear syzygy and it is not hard to check that in fact ${\\rm le}(A)=1$. If $d_D>2$ we have $(A-D+L)\\cdot L<0$ and hence $h^0(X, A-D+L)=0$ so by Proposition \\[unbalsplitting\\] we obtain $a_D\\leq (L-E_1)\\cdot D=d_D-m_D$, which is just the upper bound given in Lemma \\[splitlem\\].\n\n\\[AEpairs\\] Here we assume $X$ is obtained by blowing up $r=9$ generic points $p_i$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. (We pick $r=9$ to have a single value of $r$ big enough to accommodate the discussion in this example.) Two non-Ascenzi types of plane rational curves with generically situated singularities were previously known to have unbalanced splitting (both with gap 2), namely $(8,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,0,0)$ [@refFHH Lemma 3.12(b)(ii)] and $(12, 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2,0)$ [@refGHI1 \u00a7A2.1]. We show how our results recover the splittings in these cases. We focus on the first case (the second case can be done exactly the same way). First consider $A=3L-E_1-\\cdots-E_7$. Since the points $p_i$ are not special, it\u2019s clear that $h^1(X,A)=0$, so Lemma \\[lelemma\\](b) implies that ${\\rm le}(A)\\geq1$, but by [@refH2 Theorem IV.1] we know $\\mu_A$ is surjective. Since $h^0(X,A)=3$ and $h^0(X,A+L)=8$, we see in fact ${\\rm le}(A)=1$. Since $[8L-3(E_1+\\cdots+E_7)]$ is in the $W(X)$-orbit of $[L]$, we know (see [@refN]) that there is a smooth rational curve whose class is $[8L-3(E_1+\\cdots+E_7)]$; let $C$ be any such curve. We have $h^0(X, A-C+L)=0$ since $(A-C+L)\\cdot L<0$. Thus $a_C\\leq A\\cdot C=3$ by Proposition \\[unbalsplitting\\]. From Ascenzi\u2019s lower bound $a_C\\geq m_C=3$ we see that we actually have $a_C=3$ here. (If we instead consider the exceptional curve $E$ whose class is $[8L-3(E_1+\\cdots+E_7)-E_8-E_9]$, then the same argument shows that $a_E=3$, but moreover it is also true that ${\\rm le}(A+E)=1$, and thus $a_E=3$ would follow from Proposition \\[unbalsplitting\\] alone, but the simplest argument to show ${\\rm le}(A+E)=1$ involves using the fact that $a_E=3$.)\n\n\\[MoreAEpairs\\] Again let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ generic points. Here we determine the splitting for several non-Ascenzi exceptional curves $E$ using the same method as in the previous example but with different choices for $A$. First assume $[E]=[12L -5(E_1+\\cdots+E_4)-3(E_5+\\cdots+E_9)]$ but this time take $A=5L-2(E_1+\\cdots+E_4)-(E_5+\\cdots+E_9)$. It\u2019s clear that $A$ is effective and nef (since $A=D-K_X$ for $D=2L-E_1-\\cdots-E_4$ and both $D$ and $-K_X$ are effective and nef), and since $-K_X\\cdot A=2$ it follows from [@refH] that $h^1(X, A)=0$. Thus Lemma \\[lelemma\\](b) implies that ${\\rm le}(A)\\geq1$. As before, we have $(A-E+L)\\cdot L<0$ so $h^0(X, A-E+L)=0$. Thus $a_E\\leq A\\cdot E=5$ by Proposition \\[unbalsplitting\\] and using Ascenzi\u2019s lower bound we again have equality, $a_E=5$.\n\nHere are a few additional pairs which work the same way. For simplicity we give only the numerical types corresponding to $A$ and $E$. In each case we obtain $a_E=m_E$: $$\\begin{array}{llll}\nA:& (7, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1) &E:& (18, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3)\\\\\nA:& (9, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2)      &E:& (20, 9, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 5)\\\\\nA:& (7, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)      &E:& (20, 9, 9, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 3, 1)\\\\\nA:& (7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1) &E:& (20, 9, 9, 9, 9, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)\n\\end{array}$$ It is not always so easy to determine $a_E$ exactly. For example, if $E$ is an exceptional curve of type $(40, 15, 15, 15, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 9)$, then $A=(E+K_X+L)/2$ has type $(19, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4)$, and $h^1(X,A)=0$ by the methods of [@refH], while $h^0(X,A-E+L)=0$ since $(A-E+L)\\cdot L<0$. Applying Lemma \\[lelemma\\](b) we have ${\\rm le}(A)\\geq1$, but Proposition \\[unbalsplitting\\] and Ascenzi\u2019s bounds give only $15\\leq a_E\\leq A\\cdot E=19$. Computer calculations indicate that in fact $a_E=19$, as predicted by Conjecture \\[9ptconj\\].\n\nEach $A$ in Example \\[MoreAEpairs\\] has $-K_X\\cdot A=2$. For reasons that so far remain mysterious, when an exceptional curve $E$ has unbalanced splitting it always seems possible to find an $A$ such that not only do we have ${\\rm le}(A)=1$ and $E\\cdot A=a_E$, but in addition such that $-K_X\\cdot A=2$.\n\nSmooth rational curves on 7 point blow ups {#7pts}\n------------------------------------------\n\nHere we classify all classes $[C]=[dL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_rE_r]$ where $C$ is a smooth rational curve on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r\\leq7$ generic points. Since the case $r=7$ subsumes $r<7$, we will assume $r=7$. As we will see, $r=7$ is the least $r$ such that there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi $C$; moreover, all but finitely many of these are unbalanced. The method we use here can be used to find all Ascenzi and all non-Ascenzi $C$ when $r=8$, but there will be many more cases to analyze if one wants also to determine the splitting types. For $r\\leq8$, the Weyl group $W(X)$ is finite. The case $r>8$ will be more difficult, at least partly due to the fact that $W(X)$ is then infinite.\n\nIn the next result, we show that the class of every smooth rational curve $C$ on the blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 7 generic points is in the Weyl group orbit either of $E_7$, $H_0+dH_1$, $H_2+dH_1$, $2H_0$ or of $H_1$, where $H_0=L$, $H_1=L-E_1$ and $H_2=2L-E_1-E_2$.\n\n\\[list7\\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r\\leq7$ generic points. The numerical types $(d,m_1,\\ldots,m_7)$ of all smooth rational $C\\subset X$, up to permutations of the $m_i$\u2019s, are given in the following lists, where the corresponding splitting gap $\\gamma _C$ in each case which is not Ascenzi is given.\n\nThe types for the orbit of $E_7$ are $(0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $-1)$, $(1$, $1$, $1$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0$, $0)$, $(2$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $0$, $0)$ and $(3$, $2$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1$, $1)$, all of which are Ascenzi.\n\nThe types for the orbit of $H_0+dH_1$ are:to.5in $(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(4, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d = 0$; $\\gamma_C=|d-1|$to.5in $(5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d < 2$; $\\gamma_C=d$to.5in $(7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $(7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d = 0$; $\\gamma_C=d+1$to.5in $(8, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is never Ascenzi; $\\gamma_C=d+2$\n\nThe types for the orbit of $H_2+dH_1$ are:to.5in $( 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 4, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 4, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 6, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1)+d(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 6, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 6, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 6, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 7, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 7, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 8, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 8, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d < 2$; $\\gamma_C=d$to.5in $( 9, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2)+d(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzito.5in $( 9, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi if and only if $d = 0$; $\\gamma_C=d+1$to.5in $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3)+d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is never Ascenzi; $\\gamma_C=d+2$\n\nThe types for the orbit of $2H_0$ are:to.5in $( 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $( 4, 2, 2, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $( 6, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $( 8, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $( 8, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(10, 6, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2, 2)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0)$, which is not Ascenzi; $\\gamma_C=0$ to.5in $(12, 6, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 2)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(14, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 4)$, which is not Ascenzi; $\\gamma_C=2$ to.5in $(16, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6)$, which is not Ascenzi; $\\gamma_C=4$\n\nThe types for the orbit of $H_1$ are: to.5in $(1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1)$, which is Ascenzi to.5in $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, which is Ascenzi\n\nLet $C$ be a smooth rational curve on $X$. Because $r=7$, $X$ is a Del Pezzo surface, and hence $-K_X$ is ample. Thus by adjunction we have $C^2=-2-C\\cdot K_X \\geq -1$. In addition, $W(X)$ is finite (of order $2^{10}3^{4}5^17$; see [@refM 26.6]), and so is the set of classes $[C]$ of rational curves $C$ with $C^2=-1$ (i.e., the classes of exceptional curves). In fact, there are 56 of them (giving the 4 classes listed up to permutations in the statement of the theorem),and their classes are precisely the orbit of $E_7$ (see [@refM Proposition 26.1, Theorem 26.2(iii)]). We note that these all are Ascenzi.\n\nNow say $C^2>-1$; then $C$ is nef, hence there is an element $w\\in W(X)$ such that $D=w[C]$ is a non-negative integer linear combination of the classes of $H_0=L$, $H_1=L-E_1$, $H_2=2L-E_1-E_2$, and $H_i=3L-E_1-\\cdots-E_i$ for $3\\leq i\\leq 7$ [@refH Lemma 1.4, Corollary 3.2]. Note that $H_7=-K_X$.\n\nWrite $D=[\\sum_ia_iH_i]$. If $a_j>0$ for some $j\\geq 3$, then we have $-D\\cdot K_X\\leq D\\cdot H_j \\leq D\\cdot\\sum_ia_iH_i=D^2$, which violates $D^2=-2-D\\cdot K_X$. Thus $D=[a_0H_0+a_1H_1+a_2H_2]$. If $a_0$ and $a_2$ are both positive, then we get another violation, $-D\\cdot K_X\\leq D\\cdot (H_0+H_2) \\leq D^2$, so either $a_0=0$ or $a_2=0$. If $a_0=0$, we cannot have $a_2\\geq 2$, since then $D^2=a_1a_2+a_2(2a_2+a_1)\\geq 2(2a_2+a_1)=-D\\cdot K_X$. Likewise, if $a_2=0$, we cannot have $a_0>2$ nor can we have $a_0\\geq2$ if $a_1\\geq1$. All that is left are the classes of $H_0+dH_1$, $2H_0$, $H_1$ and $H_2+dH_1$ for $d\\geq0$, all of which it is easy to see are classes of smooth rational curves. For example, $H_0+dH_1$ corresponds to a plane curve of degree $d+1$ with a singular point of multiplicity $d$. To find the numerical types $(d_C,m_1,\\ldots,m_7)$ of all smooth rational $C$, it is now enough to compute the orbit of each $D$ under $W(X)$, as we have done to produce the lists in the statement of the theorem.\n\nWe now determine the splitting gaps for the non-Asscenzi cases. First consider the curve $C$ of type $(10,4,4,4,4,4,4)$. Since $a_C\\leq d_C/2 =5$, it suffices to show that $a_C>4$ to prove that the gap is 0. By twisting by ${{\\mathcal O}}_C(C)$, we obtain an exact sequence $$0\\to {{\\mathcal O}}_C(4-a_C)\\oplus{{\\mathcal O}}_C(4-b_C)\\to {{\\mathcal O}}_C(C)\\otimes H^0(L) \\to {{\\mathcal O}}_C(C+L) \\to0.$$ To show $a_C>4$ it now suffices to show this is exact on global sections, since $h^0(C, {{\\mathcal O}}_C(C)\\otimes H^0(L)) = 15 = h^0(C, {{\\mathcal O}}_C(C+L))$. But exactness follows from the fact that $H^0(C)\\otimes H^0(L)\\to H^0(C+L)$ is surjective (see [@refH2]) by taking global sections of the following diagram $$\\begin{matrix}\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(C)\\otimes H^0(L)\n& \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_C(C)\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n{} & {} & \\downarrow  & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & {} \\cr\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(L)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(C+L) & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_C(C+L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$ and applying the snake lemma.\n\nWe now find $a_C$ for the remaining non-Ascenzi cases. By applying Lemma \\[splitlem\\], and Proposition \\[unbalsplitting\\] with $A=3L-E_1-\\cdots-E_7$, we have $m_C\\leq a_C\\leq C\\cdot A$, and except for $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0) + d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$, in each case we have $m_C=C\\cdot A$, so $a_C=m_C$.\n\nFinally, we consider the case $(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 0) + d(5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1)$ for $d>0$. The preceding argument shows only that $2+2d\\leq a_C\\leq 3+2d$, but in fact, $a_C=3+2d$ for $d>0$ and $a_C=2$ for $d=0$ (hence the splitting gap is $|d-1|$). Certainly $a_C=5$ if $d=1$, since a curve of type $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1)$ is a proper transform of, but isomorphic to, a curve of type $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 0)$ and thus has the same splitting type.\n\nTo see $a_C=3+2d$ when $d>1$, let $F$ and $G$ be smooth rational curves with $[F]=[5L-2(E_1+\\cdots+E_6)]$ and let $[G]=[5L-2(E_1+\\cdots+E_6)-E_7]$. Thus $[C]=[F+dG]$; note also that $2F-C=F-dG$. Taking cohomology of the diagram $$\\begin{matrix}\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(2F-C)\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(2F)\\otimes H^0(L)\n& \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_C(2d+2)\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n{} & {} & \\downarrow  & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & {} \\cr\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+2F-C)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(2F+L) & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_C(7d+7) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$ gives the following commutative diagram: $$\\begin{matrix}\n0 & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(2F))\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_C(2d+2))\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & H^1({{\\mathcal O}}_X(2F-C))\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to & 0 \\cr\n{} & {\\vbox to.2in{\\vss}} & \\downarrow \\mu_2  & {\\lower.15in\\vbox to.15in{\\vss}} & \\downarrow \\mu_3 & {} & \\downarrow \\mu_1 & {} & {} \\cr\n0 & \\to  & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(2F+L)) & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_C(7d+7)) & \\to & H^1({{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+2F-C))  & \\to & 0 \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$\n\nFor each $i$, let $V_i={\\rm ker}(\\mu_i)$. The results of [@refH2] show that $V_2=0$. If we also show that $V_1=0$, then the snake lemma shows that $H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_C(2d+2-a_C))\\oplus H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_C(2d+2-b_C))=V_3=0$, and thus that $a_C>2d+2$, so $a_C=2d+3$.\n\nTo justify that $V_1=0$, consider $$\\begin{matrix}\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-(d+1)G)\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG)\\otimes H^0(L)\n& \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_G(1)\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n{} & {} & \\downarrow  & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & {} \\cr\n0 & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-(d+1)G)  & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG) & \\to & {{\\mathcal O}}_G(6) & \\to & 0. \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$ We know $h^0(X, {{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG))=h^0(X, {{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG))=0$ for all $d\\geq2$ since $(F-dG)\\cdot L<0$ and $(L+F-dG)\\cdot L<0$. Also, $h^2(X, {{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG))=h^2(X, {{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG))=0$ for all $d\\geq2$ by duality, since $G$ is nef and $G\\cdot(K_X-(F-dG)))<0$ and $G\\cdot(K_X-(L+F-dG))<0$. Thus we can use Riemann-Roch to obtain $h^1(X, {{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG)) = 2d-3$ and $h^1(X,{{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG)) = 7d-10$ when $d\\geq 2$.\n\nWhen $d=1$, $h^1(X, {{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG))=h^1(X, {{\\mathcal O}}_X(E_7))=0$ and $h^1(X, {{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG))=h^1(X, {{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+E_7))=0$. Taking cohomology when $d=1$ now gives a commutative diagram with exact rows: [$$\\begin{matrix}\n0 & \\to & H^0(X,{{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-G))\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_G(1))\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & H^1({{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-2G))\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to & 0 \\cr\n{} & {} & \\downarrow  & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & {} \\cr\n0 & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-G)) & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_G(6)) & \\to & H^1({{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-2G))  & \\to & 0. \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$]{} The left vertical map is an isomorphism and the middle vertical map is injective (since the splitting type of $G$ is $(2,3)$), so the snake lemma tells us that the right vertical map is injective.\n\nNow take cohomology again but with some $d\\geq 2$. We obtain another commutative diagram with exact rows: [$$\\begin{matrix}\n0 & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_G(1))\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & H^1({{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-(d+1)G))\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to & H^1({{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-dG))\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & 0 \\cr\n{} & {} & \\downarrow  & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & {} \\cr\n0 & \\to & H^0({{\\mathcal O}}_G(6)) & \\to & H^1({{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-(d+1)G))  & \\to & H^1({{\\mathcal O}}_X(L+F-dG)) & \\to & 0. \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$]{} By induction the right vertical map is injective and we saw above that the left one is also injective, hence so is the middle one; i.e., $V_1=0$ for all $d\\geq0$.\n\n\\(a) By inspection of the statement of Theorem \\[list7\\], we see that in order for $C$ to fail to be Ascenzi, its image in the plane must have at least 6 singular points, and we see that there is a unique numerical type with exactly 6, namely $(10, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)$, and its splitting gap is 0.\n\n\\(b) This follows from inspection of the statement of Theorem \\[list7\\].\n\nExceptional curves on 9 point blow ups {#9pts}\n--------------------------------------\n\nWe would like to apply our results to the case of blow ups $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points. To do so it will be helpful to collect some facts about the exceptional divisors on such an $X$.\n\nAs mentioned in the introduction, the case $r=9$ is the first interesting case for the problem of splitting types of exceptional curves on blow ups of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r$ generic points, since the exceptional curves have only finitely many numerical types when $r<9$. The numerical types for $r<8$ are obtained by deleting 0 entries from those for $r=8$ so it\u2019s enough to list the types for $r=8$. Up to permutations of the entries $m_i$, the types for $r=8$ are as follows [@refM]: $(0,0,\\ldots,0,-1)$, $(1,1,1,0,\\ldots,0)$, $(2,1,1,1,1,1,0,\\ldots,0)$, $(3,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,\\ldots,0)$, $(4,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1)$, $(5,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1)$, and $(6,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2)$. As is evident, these all are Ascenzi.\n\nFor $r=9$ it is well known that there are infinitely many numerical types of exceptional curves [@refN]. The recognition that only finitely many of them are Ascenzi seems to be new. To proceed to justify both of these facts, we begin by recalling how to write down the numerical types of exceptional curves for $r=9$. The result is old enough to be hard to attribute, especially in the form we will need, so for the convenience of the reader we include a proof.\n\n\\[enumexc\\] Let $X\\to {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ be obtained by blowing up $r=9$ distinct points $p_i$, with $L,E_1,\\ldots,E_9$ the usual basis of the divisor class group ${\\rm Cl}(X)$ with respect to this blow up.\n\n-   A class $[E]\\in {\\rm Cl}(X)$ satisfies $E^2=E\\cdot K_X=-1$ if and only if $[E]=v+(v^2/2)[K_X]+[E_9]$ for an element $v\\in{\\rm Cl}(X)$ with $v\\cdot K_X=v\\cdot E_9=0$. Moreover, the element $v$ is unique.\n\n-   Assume the points $p_i$ are generic. Then a class $[E]\\in {\\rm Cl}(X)$ satisfies $E^2=E\\cdot K_X=-1$ if and only if $[E]$ is the class of an exceptional curve. Thus the classes of exceptional curves are exactly the classes of the form $v+v^2[K_X]/2+[E_9]$ for $v\\in K_X^\\perp\\cap E_9^\\perp$.\n\n\\(a) If $[E]=v+(v^2/2)[K_X]+[E_9]$ where $v\\cdot K_X=v\\cdot E_9=0$, then it is just a calculation to check that $E^2=E\\cdot K_X=-1$. Conversely, if $E^2=E\\cdot K_X=-1$, then $(E-E_9)\\cdot K_X=0$. But $K_X^\\perp$ is negative semi-definite and even (i.e., $v\\in K_X^\\perp$ implies $2 | v^2\\leq 0$) with the only elements $v\\in K_X^\\perp$ having $v^2=0$ being multiples of $[K_X]=[-3L+E_1+\\cdots+E_9]$. If $r=(E-E_9)\\cdot E_9$, then $[(E-E_9)+rK_X]$ is in $K_X^\\perp\\cap E_9^\\perp$, which is known to be negative definite, spanned by the classes of the elements $r_0=L-E_1-E_2-E_3, r_1=E_1-E_2,\\ldots, r_7=E_7-E_8$. If we set $v=[(E-E_9)+rK_X]$, we obtain $[E]=v-r[K_X]+[E_9]$ and now using the fact that $E^2=E\\cdot K_X=-1$, we find that $v^2=-2r$, hence $[E]=v+v^2[K_X]/2+[E_9]$. To see uniqueness, assume $v+(v^2/2)[K_X]+[E_9]=w+(w^2/2)[K_X]+[E_9]$. Then $v+(v^2/2)[K_X]=w+(w^2/2)[K_X]$, so $v^2/2=-E_9\\cdot (v+(v^2/2)K_X)=\n-E_9\\cdot (w+(w^2/2)K_X)=w^2/2$, so $(v^2/2)[K_X]=(w^2/2)[K_X]$ and hence $v=w$.\n\n\\(b) To prove the backward implication, note that, by adjunction, if $E$ is an exceptional curve, then $E^2=E\\cdot K_X=-1$. Conversely, assume $E^2=E\\cdot K_X=-1$. Since $X$ is obtained by blowing up generic points, $[-K_X]$ is the class of a reduced and irreducible curve $\\Gamma$ with $-K_X^2=0$, and moreover there are no smooth rational curves $C$ with $-K_X\\cdot C=0$; such a curve $C$ must have $C^2=0$, but there are no such $(-2)$-curves, since $[C]$ would reduce by a Cremona transformation centered in the points $p_i$ to $[L-E_1-E_2-E_3]$ (see [@refH4 \u00a70], [@refK]), but the images $p_i'$ of the points $p_i$ under the transformation are generic [@refN proof of Lemm 2.5] so no three of the points $p_i'$ can lie on a line. Since $\\Gamma \\cdot E=1$ and there are no $(-2)$-curves, it follows by [@refLH Proposition 3.3] that $E$ is an exceptional curve.\n\nA class $E$ with $E^2=E\\cdot K_X=-1$ need not be the class of an exceptional curve when $r>9$; for example, $[K_X]$ is such a class when $r=10$, but since $L$ is nef and $L\\cdot K_X=-3$, $[K_X]$ is not the class of an effective divisor.\n\nWe now show for $r=9$ that there are only finitely many exceptional curves $E$ satisfying the condition $d_E\\leq 2m_E+1$ and hence there are only finitely many Ascenzi exceptional curves when $r=9$. In fact, we show more:\n\n\\[finAscprop\\] Let $X\\to {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ be obtained by blowing up $r=9$ distinct points $p_i$. Then for each integer $j$ there are only finitely many classes $E$ of exceptional curves such that $d_E-2m_E\\leq j$.\n\nLet $L,E_1,\\ldots,E_9$ be the basis of the divisor class group ${\\rm Cl}(X)$ with respect to the blow up $X\\to {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. Since $E$ is effective and $L$ is nef, we have $d_E=E\\cdot L\\geq 0$. Moreover, since $d_E-2m_E=E\\cdot(L-2E_i)$ for some $i$, it is enough to show for each $i$ that there are only finitely many $E$ such that $E\\cdot(L-2E_i)\\leq j$. The proof is the same for each $i$; we will thus consider the case $i=1$. Since any exceptional curve $C$ satisfies $C^2=C\\cdot K_X=-1$, it is enough to show that there are only finitely many classes $E$ (whether or not they are classes of exceptional curves) with $E^2=E\\cdot K_X=-1$ such that $E\\cdot(L-2E_1)\\leq j$ and such that $d_E\\geq0$. If we find an upper bound on $d_E$, depending only on $j$, we will be done. To obtain it, note by Proposition \\[enumexc\\](a) that we have $E=v+v^2[K_X]/2+[E_9]$ for some $v=[a_0r_0+a_1r_1+\\cdots+a_7r_7]=[a_0L-(a_0-a_1)E_1-b_2E_2-\\cdots-b_8E_8]\n\\in K_X^\\perp\\cap E_9^\\perp$. Hence $E\\cdot(L-2E_1)=-a_0+2a_1-v^2/2$, and, since $v\\cdot K_X=0$, $2a_0+a_1=b_2+\\cdots+b_8$. Thus the average $\\bar{b}=(b_2+\\cdots+b_8)/7$ is $(2a_0+a_1)/7$. Working formally over the rationals, let $w=[a_0L-(a_0-a_1)E_1-\\bar{b}(E_2+\\cdots+E_8)]$, so $w\\in K_X^\\perp\\cap E_9^\\perp$ and $w^2/2=(5a_0a_1-4a_1^2-2a_0^2)/7$. Due to the fact that the intersection form is negative semi-definite on $K_X^\\perp$ and the general fact for averages that the square of an average is at most the average of the squares and hence $7\\bar{b}^2\\leq b_2^2+\\cdots+b_8^2$, we have $0\\leq -w^2/2\\leq -v^2/2$. Thus $E\\cdot(L-2E_1)=-a_0+2a_1-v^2/2\\geq -a_0+2a_1-w^2/2=(2a_0^2+4a_1^2-5a_0a_1-7a_0+14a_1)/7$. The substitution $a_0=x+5y-2$ and $a_1=4y-3$ gives $(2a_0^2+4a_1^2-5a_0a_1-7a_0+14a_1)/7=(2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$.\n\nSince $d_E=E\\cdot L = a_0-3v^2/2$, we have $j\\geq E\\cdot (L-2E_1)=-a_0+2a_1-v^2/2=d_E/3-4a_0/3+2a_1$. Using the substitution $a_0=x+5y-2$ and $a_1=4y-3$ and simplifying gives $d_E\\leq 3j+4(x-y)+10$, where $j\\geq (2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$. Using Lagrange multipliers, we see that the maximum value of $x-y$ given $j\\geq (2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$ occurs for $x=\\lambda/4$ and $y=-\\lambda/28$ when $j= (2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$, hence $$d_E\\leq 3j+\\Big\\lfloor 4\\sqrt{4j+8}\\Big\\rfloor+10.\n\\eqno{(\\circ)}$$ Clearly there are only finitely many classes $E=d_EL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_9E_9$ with $d_E\\geq0$ and $E^2=-1$ satisfying $(\\circ)$.\n\n\\[BoundOnDegree\\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 9 distinct points. Then every Ascenzi exceptional curve $E\\subset X$ has $d_E\\leq 26$ and the only one with unbalanced splitting is $E=4L-3E_1-E_2-\\cdots-E_9$ (up to indexation of the $E_i$).\n\nThe Ascenzi exceptional curves $E$ satisfy $d_E-2m_E\\leq 1$. If we set $j=1$ in $(\\circ)$, then $d_E\\leq 26$; i.e., on a blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 9 points every Ascenzi exceptional curve $E$ must have $d_E\\leq 26$. In order for an Ascenzi exceptional curve $E$ to be unbalanced, we must have $m_E-(d_E-m_E)\\geq 2$; i.e., we must have $d_E-2m_E\\leq -2$. But in the notation of the proof of Proposition \\[finAscprop\\], $d_E-2m_E\\leq -2$ implies $-2\\geq E\\cdot(L-2E_1)\\geq (2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$, which forces $x=y=0$, hence $-2= E\\cdot(L-2E_1)=(2x^2+14y^2-14)/7$ and thus $|\\bar{b}|=|b_2|=\\cdots=|b_8|$. But $x=y=0$ gives $a_0=-2$, $a_1=-3$ and $\\bar{b}=-1$, so $E=4L-3E_1\\pm E_2\\pm \\cdots\\pm E_9$, and now $E\\cdot K_X=-1$ forces $E=4L-3E_1- E_2- \\cdots- E_9$.\n\n\\[AscenziList\\] Given fixed integers $d>0$ and $r>0$, it is not hard using the action of $W(X)$ to find all classes $[E]=[d_EL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_rE_r]$ of exceptional curves satisfying $d_E\\leq d$, where for efficiency it is best to require $m_1\\geq \\cdots\\geq m_r$. The method uses the fact that one can reduce any exceptional class $[E]$ to some $[E_i]$ by successively applying quadratic transforms $s_{ijk}$, centered at $E_i$, $E_j$ and $E_k$, choosing $i,j$ and $k$ so that $d_E$ drops as much as possible each time (just choose $i,j,k$ to maximize the sum $m_i+m_j+m_k$). Applying this in reverse, one starts with $[E_1]$ and applies $s_{ijk}$ for various choices of $i,j,k$. One continues doing this to the new classes one obtains; eventually one will have a list of classes $[E]$ with $d_E\\leq d$ such that whenever one applies $s_{ijk}$ for any choice of $i,j,k$ to any $[E]$ on the list one always obtains (up to permutations of the $m_i$) another $[E]$ on the list or an $E$ with $d>dE$. The list then is complete.\n\nBy using such an exhaustive procedure, we have found all $[E]$ with $d_E\\leq 61$ for a blow up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 9 generic points. There are all together 1054 exceptional classes $[E]=[d_EL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_9E_9]$ with $d_E\\leq 61$ and $m_1\\geq \\cdots\\geq m_9$. Of these, 42 are Ascenzi, as follows. By Corollary \\[BoundOnDegree\\], there are no other Ascenzi exceptional curves for $r=9$.\n\nThere is only one Ascenzi $E$ with $d_E-2m_E\\leq-2$. It\u2019s numerical type is:\n\n       4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\n\nThose Ascenzi $E$ with $d_E-2m_E=-1$ are:\n\n       1 1 1                  7 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1   11 6 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3\n       3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1        9 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2   13 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3\n       5 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1\n\nThose Ascenzi $E$ with $d_E-2m_E=0$ are:\n\n       0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1   8 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1   14  7 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3\n       2 1 1 1 1 1            8 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2   14  7 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4\n       4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1     10 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2   16  8 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4\n       6 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2     12 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2   18  9 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5\n       6 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1   12 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3   20 10 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6\n\nAnd those Ascenzi $E$ with $d_E-2m_E=1$ are:\n\n       5 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1     13 6 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3   19  9 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 4\n       7 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1   13 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 3 3   19  9 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5\n       9 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1   15 7 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 3   21 10 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 5\n       9 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2   15 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 4   21 10 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 6\n      11 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2   17 8 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4   23 11 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 6\n      11 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2   17 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 4   25 12 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7\n      13 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 2\n\nIn order to demonstrate that there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi exceptional curves on a blow up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points, it will be useful first to prove two lemmas.\n\n\\[usefullemma2\\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points. Let $E$ be an exceptional curve for which there is a divisor $A$ such that $[2A]=[E+K_X+L]$. Then $E$ has unbalanced splitting.\n\nWe easily check that $-K_X\\cdot A=2$. If $E\\cdot L=0$, then $E=E_i$ for some $i$ and there is no $A$ such that $[2A]=[E+K_X+L]$. Thus we may assume that $E\\cdot L>0$, and we now have $1+A^2=A\\cdot L=L\\cdot E/2-1\\geq 0$ since $L\\cdot E$ is even and positive. Since $A\\cdot L\\geq0$ we know $h^2(X, A)=0$. Now from Riemann-Roch we have $h^0(X,A)\\geq (A^2-K_X\\cdot A)/2+1=(1/2)(L\\cdot E/2-2-K_X\\cdot A)+1\n=(L\\cdot E)/4+1>0$.\n\nBy [@refLH Lemma 4.1], the class of every effective divisor is a non-negative sum of $[-K_X]$ and prime divisors of negative self-intersection. Since $X$ is a generic blow up, the only prime divisors of negative self-intersection are the exceptional curves [@refH]. But $E\\cdot L\\geq2$ so $2A\\cdot E=-2+L\\cdot E\\geq0$, and for any exceptional curve $C\\neq E$ we have $2A\\cdot C=(E+K_X+L)\\cdot C\\geq C\\cdot K_X=-1$. Since $2A\\cdot C$ is even we must have $2A\\cdot C\\geq0$. Since $A$ is effective and meets $-K_X$ and every exceptional curve non-negatively, $A$ is nef, but now $-K_X\\cdot A>0$ implies $h^1(X,A)=0$ by [@refH].\n\nWe now have ${\\rm le}(A)\\geq1$ by Lemma \\[lelemma\\], and since $(A-E+L)\\cdot L<0$, we have $h^0(X,A-C_A+L)=0$, so $a_E\\leq A\\cdot E$ Proposition \\[unbalsplitting\\], hence $\\gamma_E= d_E-2a_E\\geq d_E-2A\\cdot E=2$. Thus $E$ has unbalanced splitting.\n\n\\[usefullemma\\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points. Let $[E]=[dL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_9E_9]$ be the class of an exceptional curve with $m_1\\geq\\cdots\\geq m_9\\geq 0$ and $d\\geq 2m_1-1$. Let $A=E+E_1-sK_X$ for $s=d-2m_1+1$ and let $C_A=2A-K_X-L$. Then $[C_A]$ is the class of an exceptional curve with unbalanced splitting.\n\nDirect calculation shows $C_A^2=K_X\\cdot A=-1$, hence $[C_A]$ is the class of an exceptional curve by Proposition \\[enumexc\\], and it has unbalanced splitting by Lemma \\[usefullemma2\\].\n\nParts (a) and (b) follow from Corollary \\[BoundOnDegree\\]. Consider part (c). By Proposition \\[enumexc\\](b), there are infinitely many exceptional curves on $X$. For any fixed $d$, there can be at most finitely many classes $E=dL-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_9E_9$ with $E^2=-1$. Thus for any $d$, there are infinitely many exceptional curves $E$ with $E\\cdot L\\geq d$. By Corollary \\[BoundOnDegree\\], for $d>26$ none of these infinitely many exceptional curves is Ascenzi, and hence for each such exceptional curve $E$ we have $d_E> 2m_E+1$. For each such $E$ we thus have by Corollary \\[usefullemma\\] an unbalanced exceptional $C_A$ with $C_A\\cdot L>E\\cdot L\\geq d$, and hence there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi unbalanced exceptional curves.\n\nBy Lemma \\[usefullemma2\\], $E$ has unbalanced splitting since there is a divisor $A$ with $2A=E+K_X+L$, hence $\\gamma_E\\geq 2$ and $a_E=(d_E-\\gamma_E)/2\\leq (d_E-2)/2$.\n\n\\[infnonAscbal\\] Let $X$ be the blow up of $r=9$ generic points of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. Here we explain why there are infinitely many non-Ascenzi exceptional curves $E\\subset X$ for which there is no divisor $A$ satisfying $2A=E+K_X+L$. (Note if Conjecture \\[9ptconj\\] is true, each such $E$ must have balanced splitting.) We know $X$ has infinitely many classes $[E']=[d_{E'}L-m_1E_1-\\cdots-m_9E_9]$ of exceptional curves $E'$, and we may assume $m_1\\geq m_2\\geq \\cdots \\geq m_9\\geq 0$. We have seen that only finitely many of them are Ascenzi. As in the proof of Theorem \\[classificationthm\\], there are infinitely many $E'$ such that $2A=E'+K_X+L$ for some $A$. For each such $E'$, we thus see $d_{E'}$ is even and each $m_i$ is odd. Note that $E'\\cdot(L-E_7-E_8-E_9)>0$, because $m_1\\geq m_2\\geq \\cdots \\geq m_9\\geq 0$ implies $E'\\cdot(L-E_1-E_2-E_3)\\leq E'\\cdot(L-E_4-E_5-E_6)\\leq E'\\cdot(L-E_7-E_8-E_9)$, so if we had $E'\\cdot(L-E_7-E_8-E_9)\\leq0$, we would have $1=E'\\cdot(-K_X)=E'\\cdot((L-E_1-E_2-E_3)+(L-E_4-E_5-E_6)+(L-E_7-E_8-E_9))\\leq0$. But $[E]=s_{789}([E'])$ is the class of an exceptional curve $E$, and $E'\\cdot(L-E_7-E_8-E_9)>0$ implies that $d_E>d_{E'}$ where $d_E$ is odd.\n\n\\[twoptsofview\\] Let $X$ be the blow up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at $r=9$ generic points. By Conjecture \\[9ptconj\\], an exceptional curve $E$ on $X$ has unbalanced splitting if and only if there is a certain divisor $A$ with $-K_X\\cdot A=2$. In the conjecture, $[A]$ has the form $[E+K_X+L]/2$, but in Corollary \\[usefullemma\\], $[A]$ has the form $[E'+E''-sK_X]$ where $E'\\ne E''$ are exceptional curves and $s\\geq0$. However, as noted in the proof of Lemma \\[usefullemma2\\], the class of every effective divisor on $X$ is a non-negative sum of $[-K_X]$ and classes of prime divisors of negative self-intersection. Thus if $D$ is an effective divisor with $-K_X\\cdot D=d$, then we can write $[D]$ as a sum of classes of $d$ exceptional curves plus some non-negative multiple of $[-K_X]$. In particular, if $[A]=[E+K_X+L]/2$, then we also have $[A]=[E'+E''-sK_X]$ as above.\n\nApplication to graded Betti numbers for fat points {#appls}\n==================================================\n\nLet $p_1,\\ldots,p_r\\in{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ be points. A 0-dimensional subscheme $Z\\subset{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ with support contained in the set of points $p_i$ is called a *fat point* subscheme if it is defined by a homogeneous ideal $I\\subset\nR = {K}[{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}]$ of the form $I=\\cap_i(I(p_i)^{m_i})$ where each $m_i$ is a non-negative integer. In this case we will write $I=I_Z$, and $Z=m_1p_1+\\cdots+m_rp_r$. The least degree $t$ such that the homogeneous component $I_t$ of $I$ of degree $t$ is non-zero is denoted $\\alpha(Z)$, or just $\\alpha$ if $Z$ is understood.\n\nWe are interested in determining the minimal free graded resolution for the ideal $I$ of a scheme of fat points in ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$; our aim, following the work in [@refF1], [@refFHH], [@refGHI1], [@refGHI2] and [@refGHI3], is to study the graded Betti numbers of $I$ when the support of $Z$ is given by generic points in ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$.\n\nNotice that the values of the Hilbert function of $Z$, $h_Z(k) =\n\\dim R_k - \\dim I_k$, are described, under the genericity assumption, by a well known conjecture by means of which one can explicitly write down the function $h_Z$ given the multiplicities $m_i$. Various equivalent versions of this conjecture have been given (see [@refS], [@refH5], [@refGi], [@refHi]). We will refer to them collectively as the SHGH Conjecture. Roughly, the SHGH conjecture says that $h_Z(k)$ does not assume the expected value if and only if the linear system $|I_k|$ presents a multiple fixed rational component.\n\nWhen trying to state a conjecture for the graded Betti numbers of $I$, the situation turns out to be much more complicated. For general simple points, it is known that the minimal resolution is \u201cas simple as it can be\", i.e. for each $ k$, $\\mu_k : I_k \\otimes\nR_1 \\rightarrow I_{k+1}$ has maximal rank. So, the first problem that comes to mind is to understand in which cases the resolution of $I_Z$ can be different from the resolution of $l(Z)=length (Z)$ general simple points, which amounts to finding the values $k$ for which $\\mu_k$ does not have maximal rank.\n\nOf course there are trivial cases with \u201cbad resolution\", namely those for which $Z$ has \u201cbad postulation\". Hence we are interested first in finding cases where $Z$ is supported on generic points and has generic Hilbert function (assuming SHGH), but it has a \u201cbad resolution\". In those cases (e.g., see [@refGHI2 Remark 2.3]) it is easy to check that the only value of $k$ for which $\\mu_k$ might not have maximal rank is $k=\\alpha$.\n\nOur idea, consistent with the known examples, is that the \u201ctroubles\" are always given by the existence of rational curves whose intersection with the fat point scheme $Z$ is too high with respect to the behavior of the cotangent bundle on the curve, or, to be more precise, to the splitting of the pull back of the cotangent bundle on the normalization of the curve. In other words, the scheme $Z$ has a \u201ctoo high secant\" rational curve. This is the analogue of what happens with curves in ${{{\\bf P}^{3}}}$, where, for example, the generic rational quintic curve postulates well but has a bad resolution, and this is due to the fact that the quintic has a 4-secant line (see [@refGLP]).\n\nFor example, $Z=3p_1+3p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5$ should be generated by quintics, but it is not since the line $L$ through $p_1$ and $p_2$ is a fixed component for the quintics. Another way to look at this is that the intersection of $Z$ with $L$ is a scheme of length 6, while $\\Omega (6) \\vert_L \\cong {{\\mathcal O}}_{L}(4)\\oplus{{\\mathcal O}}_{L}(5)$, so that its sections vanishing on $Z$ also vanish along $L$; i.e., $Z\\cap L$ imposes independent conditions on one direct summand, but not on ${{\\mathcal O}}_{L}(4)$, with the result that the cokernel of $H^0(\\Omega (6) \\vert_L) \\to H^0(\\Omega (6)\\vert_Z)$ is non-zero. But this cokernel is the surjective image of the cokernel of $\\mu_5(Z)$, and hence $\\mu_5(Z)$ cannot be surjective (for a detailed explanation, see [@refGHI2], especially the commutative diagram in the proof of [@refGHI2 Proposition 4.2], analogous to below).\n\nOther plane curves $C$ can play the role of $L$, but understanding $\\Omega(k+1)\\vert_C$ is more difficult when $C$ is not a smooth rational curve, because when $C$ is not smooth and rational, $\\Omega\\vert_C$ need not split. One way to deal with this is to look at $(\\pi^*\\Omega (k+1))\\vert_{C'}$ for smooth rational curves $C'\\subset X$, where $\\pi:X\\to{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ is the blow up of points $p_i$ (and hence typically $C'$ is the normalization of some plane curve $C$). The forms in $I_k$ will correspond to divisors in the class of $F_k = kL-m_1E_1-\\dots\n-m_rE_r$. In order to study the maps $\\mu_k$, we will, equivalently, consider the maps $\\mu_{F_k}: H^0(F_k)\\otimes H^0(L) \\rightarrow\nH^0(F_{k}+L)$; since we are interested in the case $k=\\alpha$, we set $F=F_\\alpha$.\n\nSo consider a rational curve $C \\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ whose strict transform $C' \\subset X$ is smooth and irreducible; setting $t=F\\cdot C'$, $a=a_{C'}$, $b=b_{C'}$, via twisting the sequence by $F$ we get: $$\\label{eqn4b}\n0 \\to {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-a)\\oplus{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-b) \\to\nF|_{C'}\\otimes H^0(L) \\to (F+L)|_{C'} \\to 0.$$\n\nTaking cohomology, we get the map $\\bar \\mu_{C',F}:\nH^0(F\\vert_{C'})\\otimes H^0(L)  \\to H^0((F+L)\\vert_{C'})$ where $\\hbox{ker}(\\bar \\mu _{C',F})=H^0({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-a)\\oplus\n{{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-b))$.\n\nAssuming $H^1(F-C')=0$ and $L\\cdot (F-C')\\geq-1$, which imply $H^1(F-C'+L)=0$, we have (as in [@refGHI2]) the following commutative diagram:\n\n$$\\label{diagram}\n\\begin{matrix} {} & {} & 0 & {} & 0 & {} & 0 & {} & {} \\cr\n{} & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & {}\n\\cr 0 & \\to & H^0((F-C')\\otimes p^*\\Omega (1)) & \\to & H^0(F\\otimes\np^*\\Omega (1)) & \\to & \\hbox{ker}(\\bar \\mu _{C',F}) &\n\\xrightarrow{\\tau} & \\cr {} & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} &\n\\downarrow & {} & {} \\cr 0 & \\to & H^0(F-C')\\otimes H^0(L)  & \\to &\nH^0(F)\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to & H^0(F\\vert_{C'})\\otimes H^0(L) & \\to &\n0 \\cr {} & {} & \\downarrow \\raise3pt\\hbox to0in{$\\scriptstyle\\mu_{F-\nC'}$\\hss} & {} & \\downarrow\\raise3pt\\hbox\nto0in{$\\scriptstyle\\mu_{F}$\\hss} & {} & \\downarrow\\raise3pt\\hbox\nto0in{$\\scriptstyle\\bar \\mu _{C',F}$\\hss} & {} & {} \\cr 0 & \\to &\nH^0(F-C'+L) & \\to & H^0(F+L) & \\to & H^0((F+L)\\vert_{C'})& \\to & 0\n\\cr {} & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} &\n{} \\cr {} & \\xrightarrow{\\tau} & \\hbox{cok}\\mu_{F-{C'}} &\n\\to & \\hbox{cok}\\mu_{F} & \\to & \\hbox{cok}(\\bar \\mu _{C',F}) & \\to &\n0 \\cr {} & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {} & \\downarrow & {}\n& {} \\cr {} & {} & 0 & {} & 0 & {} & 0 & {} & {} \\cr\n\\end{matrix}$$\n\nIf $C'$ also satisfies $t=F\\cdot C' \\geq -1$, then $H^1(F\\vert_{ C'})\\otimes H^0(L) =0$ so the last vertical column of gives cok$(\\bar \\mu _{C',F})=H^1({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{\nC'}(t-a)\\oplus {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(t-b))$. In this case, $\\mu_{F}$ cannot have maximal rank if cok$(\\bar \\mu _{C',F})$ is \u201ctoo big\" (when $\\mu_{F}$ is expected to be surjective, too big means simply that cok$(\\bar \\mu _{C',F})$ is nonzero). We will now see how this all works with two examples which use rational curves $C\\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ with unbalanced splitting.\n\n\\[ex4111\\] Let $Z= 4p_1+p_2+\\cdots+p_9$. It is well known that $Z$ has good postulation; we have $l(Z)=18$, $\\dim\n(I_Z)_{4}=0$, $\\dim (I_Z)_{5}=3$ so $\\alpha(Z)\n=5$, and $\\dim (I_Z)_{6}=10$, hence one expects that $\\mu_{5}$ is injective and that $\\dim\n{\\rm coker}\\mu_{5}=1$. We will see that this does not happen. Consider a quartic curve $C\\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ passing through the $p_i$\u2019s and with a singularity of multiplicity 3 at $p_1$. Its strict transform is a divisor $C'=4L-3E_1-E_2-\\dots -E_9$ on $X$; $C'$ is Ascenzi with unbalanced splitting $(a_{C'},b_{C'})=(1,3)$. If we consider the diagram (\\[diagram\\]) where $F=F_{5}$ and $t=F\\cdot C'=20-20=0$, we get $\\dim {\\rm\ncok}(\\bar \\mu _{C',F})=h^1({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-1)\\oplus {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-3))=2$. This forces $\\dim {\\rm coker}\\mu_{F}\\geq 2$, and we actually have $\\dim {\\rm coker}\\mu_{F}= 2$, since $F-C'=L-E_1$, so the column on the left column of the diagram corresponds to the linear syzygies on the pencil of lines through the point $p_1$, but in that case we know cok$( \\mu_{F-C'})=0$.\n\n\\[ex44411\\] Let $Z= 4p_1+\\cdots+4p_7+p_8+p_9$; we know that $Z$ has good postulation and $(I_Z)_{11}$ is fixed component free (e.g. see [@refH]). Namely, we have $l(Z)=72$, $\\dim (I_Z)_{10}=0$, $\\dim\n(I_Z)_{11}=6$, $\\dim (I_Z)_{12}=19$, $\\alpha(Z) =11$, hence $\\mu_{11}$ is expected to be injective, with $\\dim {\\rm\ncok}(\\mu_{11})=1$, but we will see that this does not happen (see also [@refFHH]). This is due to the existence of a curve $C\\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ of degree 8 where $m(C)_{p_i}=3$ for $1\\leq i \\leq\n7$, and where $p_8$, $p_9$ are simple points of $C$, which by Example \\[AEpairs\\] gives $C'=8L-3E_1-\\dots -3E_7-E_8-E_9$ on $X$ having unbalanced splitting $(a_{C'},b_{C'})=(3,5)$. Now from diagram (\\[diagram\\]), with $F=F_{11}$ and $t=F\\cdot\nC'=88-86=2$, we get $\\dim {\\rm cok}(\\bar \\mu _{C',F})=h^1({{{\\mathcal O}}}_{\nC'}(-1)\\oplus {{{\\mathcal O}}}_{C'}(-3))=2$. We have $F-C'=-K_X$, so the column on the left of the diagram corresponds to the liner syzygies among forms of degree 3 in the resolution of the ideal of seven points in ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ for which we know cok$( \\mu_{F-C'})=0$. This implies that we actually have $\\dim {\\rm coker}\\mu_{F}= 2$.\n\nExamples \\[ex4111\\] and \\[ex44411\\] give particular instances of infinitely many fat point subschemes $Z\\subset{{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ with \u201cbad resolution\u201d, which we can obtain using the results of \u00a73:\n\n\\[9fatpts\\] Consider the blow up $X$ of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ at 9 generic points $p_1,\\dots,p_9$. Let $C'$ be an exceptional divisor on $X$ of type $(d,m_1,\\dots ,m_9)=(2d',2m_1'+1,\\dots ,2m_9'+1)$ with $d'\\geq2$ and consider the fat point subscheme $Z=(3m_1'+1)p_1+\\dots +(3m_9'+1)p_9\\subset {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. Then\n\n1.  $Z$ has maximal Hilbert function and $\\alpha(Z)=3d'-1$;\n\n2.  $\\mu_\\alpha$ is expected to be injective with $\\dim {\\rm\n    coker}(\\mu_\\alpha)=1$; but in fact\n\n3.  $ \\dim {\\rm coker}(\\mu_\\alpha)\\geq 2$.\n\nHence $Z$ does not have generic resolution.\n\nIf $A$ is a divisor of type $(d'-1,m_1',\\dots ,m_9')$, then $[2A]=[C'+K_X+L]$, so by Lemma \\[usefullemma2\\] (and its proof) $h^0(A)>0$ and $C'$ has unbalanced splitting; in particular, $\\gamma_{C'}\\geq 2$ and the splitting type of $C'$ is $(a_{C'},b_{C'})$ with $a_{C'}\\leq d'-1$. Note that $F=C'+A$ has type $(3d'-1, 3m_1'+1,\\dots , 3m_9'+1)$. Since $F$ is the sum of two effective divisors, $\\alpha(Z)=3d'+1$ follows if we check that $h^0(F-L)=0$. Consider the exact sequence: $$0\\to {{\\mathcal O}}_X(A-L) \\to {{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-L) \\to {{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-L)|_{C'} \\to 0.$$ Since $-K_X$ is nef and $-K_X\\cdot(2A-2L)=-K_X\\cdot(C'+K_X-L)<0$, we see that $h^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(2A-2L))=0$ and hence also $h^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(A-L))=0$. Moreover, $(F-L)\\cdot C'=-d'-2$, so $h^0({{\\mathcal O}}_X(F-L)|_{C'})=0$, hence $h^0(F-L)=0$ and so $\\alpha(Z)=3d'+1$.\n\nIn order to prove that $Z$ has maximal Hilbert function we only have to show that $h_Z(3d'+1)$ is maximal, i.e. that $h^0(F)$ has the expected dimension (equivalently, that $h^1(F)=0)$. But $-K_X\\cdot F=3$, so by [@refH], $h^1(F)=0$ if we show that $F$ is nef. But as noted in the proof of Lemma \\[usefullemma2\\], the class of every effective divisor is a non-negative sum of exceptional classes and non-negative multiples of $-K_X$. Thus $F$ is nef if $F\\cdot E\\geq0$ for every exceptional curve $E$, but $F=(3C'+K_X+L)/2$, so $F\\cdot C'=d'-2\\geq0$, while $F\\cdot E\\geq \\lceil(-1+E\\cdot L)/2\\rceil\\geq 0$ if $E\\neq C'$. Since $F$ is nef, it follows that $h^1(L, F+L)=0$, and since also $h^1(F)=0$, it follows and that $h^1(F+L)=0$. A straightforward (but tedious) computation now shows that $h^0(F+L)-3h^0(F)=1$, hence $\\mu_F$ is expected to be injective with $\\dim {coker}(\\mu_F)=1$, as claimed.\n\nArguing as we did for $F$, we also see that $A$ is nef, and since $-K_X\\cdot A>0$, we have $h^1(F-C')=h^1(A)=0$, so we can apply diagram (\\[diagram\\]) for our $F$ and $C'$. We have that $t=F\\cdot C'=d'-2\\geq a_{C'}-1$, so we get that $\\dim {\\rm coker}(\\bar \\mu _{C',F})= h^1({{\\mathcal O}}_C(d'-2-a_{C'})\\oplus {{\\mathcal O}}_C(d'-2-2d'+a_{C'}))$, and $a_{C'}-d'-2\\leq -3$, so $\\dim {\\rm coker}(\\bar \\mu _{C',F})\\geq 2$.\n\nNot all examples of fat point subschemes with good postulation and \u201cbad resolution\" follow the pattern illustrated above. In fact, a more complicated geometry is possible; for example, the curve $C'$ may have many irreducible rational components and need not even be reduced (see Examples 4.7, 6.3 in [@refGHI2]). Other examples can be found in [@refGHI1] or in [@refGHI2], where there are also two conjectures which describe completely what the situation could be.\n\nResolutions for subschemes $Z$ not possessing a maximal hilbert function are also of interest. Things are more complicated in this situation, but the \u201cunbalanced splitting\" idea can still be useful. Actually, when $r=9$ and the points $p_i$ are generic, then using [@refGHI1 Theorem 3.3(b)] and assuming Conjecture \\[9ptconj\\] if need be, we can in every degree $k$, except possibly degree $\\alpha(Z)+1$, find the minimal number of generators of $(I_Z)_k$, as we demonstrate in the next example.\n\n\\[exbignumbers\\] Let $Z=230p_1+225p_2+\\cdots+225p_8+95p_9$, for generic points $p_i \\in {{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$. The Hilbert function of the ideal $I_Z$ can be found by computing $h^0(X, F_k)$, where $F_k=kL-230E_1-225E_2-\\cdots-225E_8-95E_9$. We have $h^0(X, F_k)=0$ for $k<645$, $h^0(X, F_{645})=71$, $h^0(X, F_{646})=528$, $h^0(X,\nF_{647})=1176$, $h^0(X, F_k)=\\binom{k+2}{2}-\\deg\nZ=\\binom{k+2}{2}-209100$. We will compute the rank of each map $\\mu_k$, except for $k=645$.\n\nTo find the minimal number $\\nu_{k+1}$ of generators in each degree $k+1$ we must find the dimension of the cokernel of the usual maps $\\mu_{F_k}:H^0(F_k)\\otimes H^0(L)\\to\nH^0(F_{k+1})$. Clearly $\\nu_{645}=h^0(X, F_{645})=71$. The same algorithm that we use to compute $h^0(X, F_k)$ can be used to give a Zariski decomposition of $F_k$. This is useful since if $F_k=H+N$ where $H$ is effective and $N$ is effective and fixed in $|F_k|$, then $\\nu_{k+1}=\\dim {\\rm coker}(\\mu_H)+(h^0(X,\nF_{k+1})-h^0(X,H+L))$, and we know $h^0(X, F_{k+1})$ and $h^0(X,H+L)$. It is known that the dimension $\\delta_H$ of the kernel of $\\mu_H$ has bounds $h^0(X,H-(L-E_1))\\leq \\delta_H\\leq\nh^0(X,H-(L-E_1))+h^0(X,H-E_1)$. Bounds on $\\delta_H$ of course give bounds on $\\dim {\\rm coker}(\\mu_H)$. We find $N=20E$, where $E=20L-7E_1-\\cdots-7E_8-3E_9$ is an exceptional curve which by Conjecture \\[9ptconj\\] has splitting gap 2, and $H=245L-90E_1-85E_2\\cdots-85E_8-35E_9$ is nef and effective. We find $0=h^0(X,H-(L-E_1))\\leq \\delta_k\\leq\nh^0(X,F_k-(L-E_1))+h^0(X,F_k-E_1)=1$, $h^0(X, F_{k+1})=528$, $h^0(X,\nH+L)=318$ and $h^0(X,H)=h^0(X,F_k)=71$ for $k=645$, and hence $315\\leq \\nu_{646}\\leq 316$.\n\nFor $t=646$ we have $N=0$ and $H=F_k$. Doing the same calculation with this new Zariski decomposition gives $0\\leq \\nu_{647}\\leq 99$. But in fact, using the splitting gap of 2 from above and [@refGHI1 Theorem 3.3(b)] we have $\\dim{\\rm\ncoker}(\\mu_{F_{646}})=\\dim{\\rm coker}(\\mu_{L+20E})=\n\\binom{11}{2}+\\binom{9}{2}=91$. From the Hilbert function we see that the regularity of $I_Z$ is 647, so $\\nu_k=0$ for $t>647$. Given the Hilbert function and numbers of generators of $I_Z$ we compute all but one of the remaining graded Betti numbers: there are 286 syzygies in degree 647 and 190 in degree 648, but since we do not know the number of minimal generators in degree 646 we also do not know the number of syzygies. This example and others like it can be run at: <http://www.math.unl.edu/~bharbourne1/GHM/ResForFatPts.html>.\n\nNotice that if $\\dim (I_Z)_\\alpha\\le2$, then we can find the minimal number of generators of $I_Z$ also in degree $\\alpha(Z)+1$. If $\\dim (I_Z)_\\alpha=1$, then $(I_Z)_\\alpha\\otimes R_1\\to\n(I_Z)_{\\alpha+1}$ is injective so the number of generators in degree $\\alpha(Z)+1$ is just $\\dim (I_Z)_{\\alpha+1}-3$, while if $\\dim\n(I_Z)_\\alpha=2$ we can determine the dimension of the kernel of $(I_Z)_\\alpha\\otimes R_1\\to (I_Z)_{\\alpha+1}$ since $(I_Z)_\\alpha$ is a pencil; indeed, assuming $Z=\\sum_im_ip_i$ with $m_1\\geq \\cdots\\geq\nm_r$, the dimension of the kernel, which is either 0 or 1, is $\\dim\n(I_{Z-p_1})_{t-1}$.\n\n[CCMO]{}\n\nM.-G.\u00a0Ascenzi, [*The restricted tangent bundle of a rational curve in ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$*]{}, Comm. Algebra 16 (1988), no. 11, 2193-2208.\n\nM.-G.\u00a0Ascenzi, [*The restricted tangent bundle of a rational curve on a quadric in $P^3$*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 98 (1986), no. 4, 561\u2013566.\n\nG.\u00a0Birkhoff, [*A theorem on matrices of analytic functions*]{}, Math. Ann., 74, no. 1, 122\u2013133 (1913).\n\nH.\u00a0Clemens, [*On rational curves in $n$-space with given normal bundle*]{}, Advances in algebraic geometry motivated by physics (Lowell, MA, 2000), 137\u2013144, Contemp. Math., 276, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001.\n\nD.\u00a0Cox, T.\u00a0W.\u00a0Sederburg and F.\u00a0Chen, [*The moving line ideal basis of planar rational curves*]{}, Computer Aided Geometric Design 15 (1998) 803\u2013827.\n\nT.\u00a0de Fernex, [*Negative curves on very general blow-ups of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$*]{}, 199\u2013207, In: Projective Varieties with Unexpected Properties, M. Beltrametti et al. eds., A Volume in Memory of Giuseppe Veronese, de Gruyter, Berlin, 2005.\n\nT.\u00a0de Fernex, [*On the Mori cone of blow-ups of the plane*]{}, preprint (arXiv:1001.5243).\n\nD.\u00a0Eisenbud and A.\u00a0Van de Ven, [*On the normal bundles of smooth rational space curves*]{}, Math. Ann. 256 (1981), no. 4, 453\u2013463.\n\nD.\u00a0Eisenbud and A.\u00a0Van de Ven, [*On the variety of smooth rational space curves with given degree and normal bundle*]{}, Invent. Math. 67 (1982), 89\u2013100.\n\nS.\u00a0Fitchett, [*On Bounding the Number of Generators for Fat Point Ideals on the Projective Plane*]{}, J.\u00a0Algebra, 236 (2001), 502-521.\n\nS.\u00a0Fitchett, [*Corrigendum to: \u201cOn bounding the number of generators for fat point ideals on the projective plane\" \\[J. Algebra 236 (2001), no. 2, 502\u2013521\\]*]{}, J.\u00a0Algebra 276 (2004), no.\u00a01, 417\u2013419.\n\nS.\u00a0Fitchett, B.\u00a0Harbourne and S.\u00a0Holay, [*Resolutions of Fat Point Ideals Involving Eight General Points of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$*]{}, J. Algebra 244 (2001), 684\u2013705.\n\nF.\u00a0Ghione and G.\u00a0Sacchiero, [*Normal bundles of rational curves in ${{{\\bf P}^{3}}}$*]{}, Manuscripta Math. 33 (1980/81), no. 2, 111\u2013128.\n\nA. Gimigliano, [*On linear systems of plane curves*]{}, Thesis, Queen\u2019s University, Kingston (1987).\n\nA.\u00a0Gimigliano, B.\u00a0Harbourne, and M.\u00a0Id\u00e0, [*Betti numbers for fat point ideals in the plane: a geometric approach*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009), 1103\u20131127.\n\nA.\u00a0Gimigliano, B.\u00a0Harbourne, and M.\u00a0Id\u00e0, [*The role of the cotangent bundle in resolving ideals of fat points in the plane*]{}, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 213 (2009), 203\u2013214.\n\nA.\u00a0Gimigliano, B.\u00a0Harbourne, and M.\u00a0Id\u00e0, [*Stable Postulation and Stable Ideal Generation: Conjectures for Fat Points in the Plane*]{}, Bull. Belg. Math . Soc. Simon Stevin Volume 16, Number 5 (2009), 853\u2013860.\n\nA.\u00a0Grothendieck, [*Sur la classification des fibr\u00e9s holomorphes sur la sph\u00e8re de Riemann*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 79 (1957), 121\u2013138.\n\nL.Gruson, R.Lazarsfeld, Ch.Peskine, [*On a theorem of Castelnuovo and the Equations defining Space Curves*]{}, Invent. Math. 72 (1983), 491-506.\n\nB.\u00a0Harbourne, [*Complete linear systems on rational surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 289, 213\u2013226 (1985).\n\nB.\u00a0Harbourne, [*An Algorithm for Fat Points on ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$*]{}, Can. J. Math. 52 (2000), 123\u2013140.\n\nB.\u00a0Harbourne, [*Global aspects of the geometry of surfaces*]{}, Ann. Univ. Paed. Cracov. Stud. Math. 9 (2010), 5\u201341.\n\nB.\u00a0Harbourne, [*Blowings-up of ${{{\\bf P}^{2}}}$ and their blowings-down*]{}, Duke Math. J. 52, 129\u2013148 (1985).\n\nB.\u00a0Harbourne, [*Very ample divisors on rational surfaces*]{}, Math. Ann. 272, 139\u2013153 (1985).\n\nA.\u00a0Hirschowitz, [*Une conjecture pour la cohomologie des diviseurs sur les surfaces rationelles g\u00e9n\u00e9riques*]{}, Journ.\u00a0Reine Angew.\u00a0Math. 397 (1989), 208\u2013213.\n\nK.\u00a0Hulek, [*The Normal Bundle of a Curve on a Quadric*]{}, Math. Ann. 258 (1981), 201-206.\n\nG.\u00a0Ilardi, P.\u00a0Supino and J.\u00a0Valles, [*Geometry of syzygies via Poncelet varieties*]{}, Boll. UMI, serie IX, vol.\u00a0II (2009).\n\nV.\u00a0Kac, Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, New York: Cambridge University Press, (1994).\n\nM.\u00a0Lahyane and B.\u00a0Harbourne, [*Irreducibility of ($-1$)-classes of anticanonical rational surfaces*]{}, Pac.\u00a0J. Math., 218 No. 1 (2005), 101\u2013114.\n\nY.\u00a0I.\u00a0Manin, Cubic Forms. North-Holland Mathematical Library 4, 1986.\n\nM.\u00a0Nagata, [*On rational surfaces, II*]{}, Mem.Coll.\u00a0Sci.\u00a0Univ.\u00a0Kyoto, Ser.\u00a0A Math.\u00a033 (1960), 271\u2013293.\n\nZ.\u00a0Ran, [*Normal bundles of rational curves in projective spaces*]{}, Asian J.\u00a0Math.\u00a011 (2007), no. 4, 567\u2013608.\n\nL.\u00a0Ramella, [*La stratification du sch\u00e9ma de Hilbert des courbes rationelles de ${{{\\bf P}^{n}}}$ par le fibr\u00e9 tangent restreint*]{}, Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris S\u2019er. I, 311 (1990), pp. 181\u2013184.\n\nT.\u00a0Sederburg, R.\u00a0Goldman and H.\u00a0Du, [*Implicitizing rational curves by the method of moving algebraic curves*]{}, Journal of Symbolic Computation (1997) 23 153\u2013175.\n\nT.\u00a0Sederberg, T.\u00a0Saito, D.\u00a0Qi, K.\u00a0Klimaszewski, [*Curve implicitization using moving lines*]{}, Computer Aided Geometric Design 11 (1994), 687-706.\n\nB.\u00a0Segre. [*Alcune questioni su insiemi finiti di punti in Geometria Algebrica*]{}, Atti del Convegno Internaz. di Geom. Alg., Torino (1961).\n\n[^1]: Acknowledgments: We thank GNSAGA, and the University of Bologna, which supported visits to Bologna by the second author, who also thanks the NSA for supporting his research.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We report the discovery of a relatively faint ($V=15.5$) early-type WN star in the SMC. The line strength and width of He\u00a0II $\\lambda 4686$ emission is similar to that of the other SMC WNs, and the presense of N\u00a0V $\\lambda 4603,19$ emission (coupled with the lack of N\u00a0III) suggests this star is of spectral type WN3-4.5, and thus is similar in type to the other SMC WRs. Also like the other SMC WN stars, an early-type absorption spectrum is weakly present. The absolute magnitude is comparable to that of other (single) Galactic early-type WNs. The star is located in the Hodge\u00a053 OB association, which is also the home of two other SMC WNs. This star, which we designate SMC-WR12, was actually detected at a high significance level in an earlier interference-filter survey, but the wrong star was observed as part of a spectroscopic followup, and this case of mistaken identity resulted in its Wolf-Rayet nature not being recognized until now.'\nauthor:\n- Philip Massey\n- 'K. A. G. Olsen'\n- 'J. Wm. Parker'\ntitle: |\n    The Discovery of a Twelfth Wolf-Rayet Star\\\n    in the Small Magellanic Cloud\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nWolf-Rayet stars (WRs) are the evolved, He-burning descendents of the most massive stars, and their strong emission lines allow them to serve as an important tracer of the massive star content of nearby galaxies (see Massey 2003 for a recent review). Massey & Duffy (2001) recently completed a survey for Wolf-Rayet stars in the SMC, discovering two previously unknown ones, bringing the total to 11 known. Their study confirmed that there is not a significant population of WR stars still to be found in the SMC, although they expected that a few remained to be discovered. As they note, the number of WRs is thus a factor of 3-4 lower in the SMC than in the LMC (normalized per unit luminosity) despite the fact that the SMC and LMC have a comparable star-formation rate for massive stars. This is in accord with the suggestion that at the lower metallicity of the SMC only the highest mass massive stars possess sufficient stellar winds to evolve to the Wolf-Rayet phase. Studies of coeval regions in the SMC, LMC, and Milky Way seem to confirm this, as the turn-off masses in clusters containing WRs suggest that only stars with masses greater than $65\\cal M_\\odot$ may become WRs in the SMC, while the lowest progenitor mass for a WR in the LMC may be 30 $\\cal M_\\odot$ and $20\\cal M_\\odot$ in the Milky Way (Massey, Waterhouse, & DeGioia-Eastwood 2000; Massey, DeGioia-Eastwood, & Waterhouse 2001).\n\nThe authors and several additional collaborators are engaged in a spectroscopic survey of hot, massive stars in the Magellanic Clouds using the CTIO 4-m. During a recent run, we chanced across another previously unknown WR in the SMC. Here we describe this interesting object.\n\nObservations and Reductions\n===========================\n\nThe data were taken on the CTIO 4-m Blanco telescope during a four night observing run 18-21 December 2002 using the Hydra multi-object fiber position (Barden & Ingerson 1998). The instrument consists of 138 fibers (300$\\mu$m, which equals 2.0-arcsec in diameter) which can be positioned within a 40 arcmin diameter field of view. The fibers \u201cfeed\" a bench-mounted spectrograph, where we used grating KPGLD in second-order and a BG-39 blocking filter and a 400-mm focal length camera, behind which was a SITe 2096$\\times$4096 (15$\\mu$m pixels) CCD. The chip was binned by 2 in the dispersion direction, resulting in a dispersion of 0.45\u00c5\u00a0pixel$^{-1}$ and a spectral resolution of 3.5 pixels (1.6\u00c5). Our wavelength coverage extended from 3900\u00c5\u00a0to 4950\u00c5. The fiber-to-fiber sensitivity was removed by a combination of exposures of the illuminated \u201cgreat white spot\" each afternoon/morning along with projector flat exposures taken at each telescope position and fiber configuration. The pixel-to-pixel variations of the CCD were removed by means of a \u201cmilk flat\", an exposure through a diffuser screen of the illuminated fiber ends. Wavelength calibration was by means of a long He-Ne-Ar lamp exposure taken each afternoon, supplemented by shorter exposures taken at each field.\n\nThe data for the WR star was obtained on the second night of the run (19 Dec 2002). A sequence of four exposures, each of 1200\u00a0s, was taken of this field. The data were combined after extraction and processing. The seeing conditions were described in the observing log as \u201crotten\". At the time the Tololo seeing monitor was reporting the seeing as 2.4 arcsec, eventually improving to 1.2 arcsec near the end of the exposures.\n\nDiscussion: SMC-WR12\n====================\n\nThe spectrum of one of the targets in this field showed the characteristic broad, strong emission features of a Wolf-Rayet star of the WN sequence (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:spect\\]). He\u00a0II $\\lambda 4686$ is visible with an equivalent width (EW) of $-22$\u00c5\u00a0and a full-width at half-maximum of 21\u00c5. The strength of He\u00a0II $\\lambda4686$ argues that this star must be a WN-type Wolf-Rayet rather than an Of-type star, as even the most extreme Of-type stars known have EWs $>-10$\u00c5\u00a0(Conti & Leep 1974), although some SMC WNs stars do have EWs that overlap with Of stars (see Conti, Garmany, & Massey 1989 and Conti & Massey 1989). The weak presence of N\u00a0V $\\lambda 4603, 19$ emission also precludes the possibility that the star is an Of supergiant. The lack of N\u00a0III $\\lambda 4634, 42$ emission then makes the spectral class of type WN3-4.5. Unfortunately our spectrum is too noisy in the far blue to tell if NIV$\\lambda 4058$ is present or not, leading to the uncertainity in the subtype (Smith 1968, van der Hucht et al.\u00a01981). In any event the spectral type of this WN is \u201cearly\", similar to most of the other SMC WNs. Absorption is clearly visible at He\u00a0II $\\lambda 4542$, although there is no sign of He\u00a0I $\\lambda 4471$ in our somewhat noisy spectrum. We would thus describe the absorption spectrum as O3-O4. Although in general WRs do not show any absorption features, nearly all of the SMC WNs do, and the absorption features are mostly of the same O3-4 class (i.e., He\u00a0II). Massey & Duffy (2001) argue that the presence of absorption spectra in the SMC WRs is still not well-understood: either it is due to the fact that the stellar winds are weak (and hence one sees photospheric absorption) or it suggests that most of the SMC WRs are binaries. Recent radial velocity studies by Foellmi, Moffat, & Guerrero (2003) suggest that the binary fraction of WRs is normal in the SMC.\n\nWe compare the spectral characteristics and photometry to that of the other SMC WRs in Table\u00a01. The values for this newly found WR star (which we are designating SMC-WR12 for consistency; see Massey & Duffy 2001) are in fact in keeping with those of the other SMC stars. The most notable thing about this WR star is how similar it is to the others in terms of all of its properties, although it is on the faint end of the luminosity distribution of WRs in the SMC. However, the absolute visual magnitude (inferred by adopting $(B-V)_o=-0.32$, following Pyper 1966 and assuming a true distance modulus to the SMC of 18.9, following van den Bergh 2000) is quite normal for a (single) early-type WN in the Milky Way (Conti & Vacca 1990).\n\nSMC-WR12 was previously cataloged in the [*UBVR*]{} photometry of Massey (2002) as SMC-054730. A finding chart is given in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:fc\\]. The star is located in the Hodge\u00a053 OB association (Hodge 1985), which is also home to two of the other SMC WRs. Thus one-quarter of the known SMC WRs are found in this one rich association. An investigation of the [*unevolved*]{} stars in Hodge\u00a053 was carried out by Massey et al.\u00a0(2000), who found that the most massive H-burning stars had (initial) masses in the range of 50-80$\\cal M_\\odot$. This would suggest that the progenitors of the Hodge\u00a053 Wolf-Rayet stars had masses of comparable or slightly higher values, although the coevality of the region was considered \u201cquestionable\" as there were also evolved stars of 10-20$\\cal M_\\odot$ present.\n\nWe were naturally curious as to why this star was not detected on earlier surveys. The star is rather faint ($V=15.5$) to have been detected by the objective prism search of Azzopardi & Breysacher (1979), who cataloged the first eight WRs in Table\u00a01. (Some had been known previous to their survey.) In addition, the star\u2019s location in a relatively crowded region would create confusion for objective prism studies. Inspection of the working notes for the Massey & Duffy (2001) interference-filter imaging survey reveals that SMC-WR12 [*was*]{} detected at a very high significance level ($7\\sigma$), with a magnitude difference (0.36\u00a0mag) consistent with real WRs. The star was observed spectroscopically as part of that program, but the spectrum was that of a (foreground) G-type dwarf, and the first author incorrectly concluded that there had been something wrong with the interference-filter photometry: our notes say \u201c2 stars\", indicated we thought that crowding had compromised the photometry. In retrospect, the wrong star must have been observed spectroscopically. A careful comparison of the telescope coordinates for the old (October 2000) observations with that expected suggests that a star about 5-10 arcsec south was observed instead, likely the star 7 arcsec to the SW shown on the finding chart. This is unfortunate, but consistent with Massey & Duffy\u2019s caution that they \u201ccannot preclude a WR star or two \\[from\\] having been overlooked in our survey, particularly in crowded regions.\"\n\nWe are grateful for the generous allocation of observing time at CTIO, and the (as usual) excellent support received from the mountain staff. PM\u2019s role in this project was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant AST0093060. JWP\u2019s work was supported under NASA grant NAG5-9248. PM also thank Alaine Duffy, whose excellent note-taking during the October 2000 observing run made it easy to trace the case of the mistaken identity of the star actually observed.\n\nAzzopardi, M, & Breysacher, J. 1979, A&A, 75, 120\n\nBarden, S. C., & Ingerson, T. E. 1998, in Fiber Optics in Astronomy III, ed. S. Arribas, E. Mediavilla, & F. Watson (San Francisco: ASP), 60\n\nConti, P. S., & Massey, P. 1989, 337, 251\n\nConti, P. S., Massey, P., & Garmany, C. D. 1989, ApJ, 341, 113\n\nConti, P. S., & Vacca, W. D. 1990, AJ, 100, 431\n\nFoellmi, C., Moffat, A. F. J., & Guerrero, M. A. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 360\n\nHodge, P. 1985, PASP, 97, 530\n\nHodge, P. W., & Wright, F. W. 1977, The Small Magellanic cloud (Seattle: University of Washington Press)\n\nMassey, P. 2002, ApJS, 141, 81.\n\nMassey, P. 2003, ARA&A, 41, 15\n\nMassey, P., DeGioia-Eastwood, K., & Waterhouse, E. 2001, AJ, 121, 1050\n\nMassey, P., & Duffy, A. S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 713\n\nMassey, P., Waterhouse, E., & DeGioia-Eastwood, K. 2000, AJ, 119, 2214\n\nPyper, D. M. 1966, ApJ, 144, 13\n\nSmith, L. F. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 109\n\nvan den Bergh, S. 2000, The Galaxies of the Local Group (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.\u00a0Press)\n\nvan der Hucht, K. A., Conti, P. S., Lundstrom, I., & Stenhom 1981, Space Sci.\u00a0Rev., 28, 227\n\n[l l c c c c c c c c c c l]{}\n\nSMC-WR1 & AV\u00a02a & 00 43 42.23 & $-$73 28 54.9 & no & WN3+abs &O3-4 & 15.14 & $\n-0.04$ &$-4.6$ & $-$28 & 21 & Weak abs.\\\nSMC-WR2 & AV\u00a039a& 00 48 30.81 & $-$73 15 45.1 & near h15 &WN4.5+abs&O5: & 14.23 & $-$0.15 &$-5.2$ & $-$15 & 12\\\nSMC-WR3 & AV\u00a060a& 00 49 59.33 & $-$73 22 13.6 & near h17 &WN3+abs &&14.48 & $-$0.10 &$-5.1$ & $-$53 & 26 & Very weak abs.\\\nSMC-WR4 & AV\u00a081, Sk\u00a041& 00 50 43.41 & $-$73 27 05.1 &h21& WN6p&&13.35& $-$0.16&$-6.2$ & $-$45 & 15 & N\u00a0V abs?\\\nSMC-WR5 & HD\u00a05980 & 00 59 26.60 & $-$72 09 53.5&NGC\u00a0346=h45 & WN5&&11.08 & +0.03 & $-$8.9 & $-$85 & 18\\\nSMC-WR6 & AV 332, Sk 108 & 01 03 25.20 & $-$72 06 43.6 &NGC\u00a0371(e76)=h53 & WN3+abs &O7& 12.30 &$-$0.15 & $-7.1$& $-$8 & 28\\\nSMC-WR7 & AV\u00a0336a & 01 03 35.94 & $-$72 03 21.5 & NGC\u00a0371(e76)=h53& WN2+abs & O6&12.93&$-$ 0.05 &$-6.8$ & $-$16 & 27\\\nSMC-WR8 & Sk 188 & 01 31 04.22 & $-$73 25 03.9 & NGC\u00a0602c=h69 & WO4+abs &O4\u00a0V& 12.81 &$-$0.14 &$-6.6$ & $-$76 & 71\\\nSMC-WR9 & Morgan et al.\u00a0& 00 54 32.17 & $-$72 44 35.6 & no & WN3+abs &O3-4&15.23 &$-$0.13&$-4.3$ &$-22$ & 24\\\nSMC-WR10 & & 00 45 28.78 & $-$73 04 45.2 & NGC\u00a0249(e12)&WN3+abs & O3-4&15.76:& $-$0.08: &$-3.6$ & $-$24 & 23 & Strong neb.\\\nSMC-WR11 & & 00 52 07.36 & $-$72 35 37.4 & no & WN3+abs & O3-4&14.97&+0.18&$-5\n.5$ & $-$14 & 25 &\\\nSMC-WR12 & SMC-054730 & 01 02 52.07 & $-$72 06 52.6 & NGC\u00a0371(e76)=h53 & WN3-4.5+abs & O3-4 & 15.46 & $-$0.15 & $-4.0$ & $-$22 & 21 &\\\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Here we report on a transparent method to characterize individual layers in a double-layer electron system which forms in a wide quantum well and to determine their electron densities. The technique relies on the simultaneous measurement of the capacitances between the electron system and gates located on either side of the well. Modifications to the electron wave function due to the population of the second subband and appearance of an additional electron layer can be detected. The magnetic field dependence of these capacitances is dominated by quantum corrections caused by the occupation of Landau levels in the nearest electron layer. The technique should be equally applicable to other implementations of a double layer electron system.'\nauthor:\n- 'S.I.\u00a0Dorozhkin'\n- 'A.A.\u00a0Kapustin'\n- 'I.B.\u00a0Fedorov'\n- 'V.\u00a0Umansky'\n- 'K.\u00a0von\u00a0Klitzing'\n- 'J.H.\u00a0Smet'\ntitle: Characterization of individual layers in a bilayer electron system produced in a wide quantum well\n---\n\nINTRODUCTION\n============\n\nDouble-layer electron systems (DLESs) composed of a pair of coupled two-dimensional electron systems (2DESs) have attracted considerable attention due to the rich variety of collective phenomena they host\u00a0[@Ref1]. Of particular interest has been the equilibrium superfluid exciton condensate which emerges when the total number of electrons in the double layer system equals the degeneracy of a single spin split Landau level (see review article\u00a0[@Eisen2] and Refs. therein). While nearly all previous experiments were performed on GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures, this activity has recently received renewed impulse from both theoretical\u00a0[@MacDon; @Perali] and experimental\u00a0[@Tutuc; @Kim] studies on graphene-based devices.\n\nIn GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures the double layer system is formed either in a double quantum well device\u00a0[@Boebinger] or in a wide quantum well (QW) exhibiting a confinement potential with two minima located near the left and right barrier\u00a0[@Suen]. In the wide quantum well implementation, the electron layers can not be contacted separately, since annealed ohmic contacts short-circuit the two layers. In double quantum well structures suitable methods and sample designs have been developed\u00a0[@EisenMes] (see also recent paper\u00a0[@Ritchie] and Refs. therein) to separately contact the individual layers. This has enabled a far wider variety of experiments including interlayer tunneling and electron drag studies which have led to the discovery of a Bose-Einstein exciton condensate in this double layer system.\n\nBecause the fabrication of separately contacted double layer systems remains challenging, many studies continue to be carried out using simultaneously contacted 2DESs. In such cases, an essential task is the determination of the electron densities in the individual layers or subbands. This is usually attempted by analyzing the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations (SdHO), which are periodic in the inverse of the magnetic field, using Fourier transform techniques. In a single 2DES the minima of SdHO correspond to filling of integer numbers $i$ of spin split Landau levels and their magnetic field positions $B_{\\rm i}$ satisfy the condition $n_{\\rm s}=iLeB_{\\rm i}/h$, where $n_{\\rm s}$ is the electron areal density, $eB/h$ represents the degeneracy of a single spin split Landau level, and $L=1$ or 2 depending on whether spin splitting is resolved or not. The SdHO frequency $F$ in the inverse magnetic field is equal to $F=hn_{\\rm s}/eL$. Therefore, in a single 2DES the fundamental frequency ($L=2$) is observed at low magnetic fields when spin splitting is not resolved, whereas at higher field strength the harmonic with $L=1$ may appear. In DLESs the number of Fourier harmonics increases and the frequencies determined by the electron densities of the individual layers are complemented by their sum and difference. Namely, the frequency $F_{\\rm diff}\\propto |n_{\\rm s1}-n_{\\rm\ns2}|$ (here $n_{\\rm s1}$ and $n_{\\rm s2}$ are electron densities in two individual layers) originates from magnetointersubband oscillations\u00a0[@Polyan; @Coleridge; @PRB46; @Gusev; @Raikh] brought about by elastic intersubband scattering of electrons. The frequency $F_{\\rm sum}\\propto n_{\\rm s1}+n_{\\rm s2}$ has been associated with so-called single-layer behavior\u00a0[@Ritchie1996] involving the redistribution of electrons among the layers\u00a0[@Ritchie1996; @Dorozh2016]. The relative strength of different frequencies strongly depends on temperature\u00a0[@PRB46; @Gusev] since the magnetointersubband oscillations in contrast to SdHO are not sensitive to the temperature broadening of the Fermi distribution function\u00a0[@Polyan; @Raikh]. For a more detailed discussion of the Fourier analysis of magnetoresistance oscillations we refer the reader to the supplementary material\u00a0[@Supp] in Ref.\u00a0[@Ensslin].\n\nSAMPLES AND EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE\n==================================\n\nCapacitance measurements have been widely used for the characterization of the distribution of electric charges in semiconductors. In field-effect transistors containing a 2DES they also allow studying the compressibility of the electronic system\u00a0[@Stiles; @Krav1; @EisenPRL; @Krav2; @DorozhPRB2] as well as the energy gaps of incompressible integer\u00a0[@Stiles; @KhrpaiPRLI] and fractional quantum Hall ground states that may form\u00a0[@DorozhCap1993; @Eisen1994; @DorozhPRB1995; @KhrpaiPRL]. The capacitance technique was also previously used in experiments on DLESs\u00a0[@EisenPRL; @Ensslin2; @Dolgopolov1; @Dolgopolov2], however the compressibility of only one of the layers was measured. Here we extend the capacitance method to get access to the compressibility of the two individual layers in a wide quantum well. We show that it is possible to detect the integer filling of the Landau levels in each layer and, hence, to determine their individual electron densities.\n\nThis study has been performed on a Hall bar sample processed from a GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructure (see the experimental layout in Fig.1) where the electron system resides in a 60 nm wide GaAs quantum well (QW) located 140 nm below the sample surface. A homogeneously doped in-situ grown GaAs layer 850 nm below the QW served as a back gate. The QW was filled with electrons via modulation doping of the top AlGaAs layer at a distance of 65 nm from the QW. A Schottky front gate was created by evaporating a thin gold film on the sample surface. By changing the dc voltages between the electron system and the gates (front gate, $V_{\\rm\nFG}^{\\rm dc}$, and back gate, $V_{\\rm BG}^{\\rm dc}$) the total electron density $n_{\\rm tot}$ was varied in the range $1.5\\times\n10^{11}\\ {\\rm cm}^{-2}\\,-\\,2.5\\times 10^{11}\\,{\\rm cm}^{-2}$. Increasing $V_{\\rm BG}^{\\rm dc}$ resulted in the population of the second subband of the wide QW and gave rise to the formation of the second layer closer to the back gate as schematically illustrated in Fig.1. This will be confirmed experimentally below. The ohmic contacts to the electronic system shaped into a Hall bar enabled the acquisition of both the longitudinal and Hall resistances (For the sake of simplicity, only one contact is shown in Fig.1). The measurements were carried out with the sample immersed in liquid $^3{\\rm He}$ in the presence of a tunable magnetic field perpendicular to the QW-plane.\n\nRESULTS AND DISCUSSION\n======================\n\nThe capacitances between the electronic system and both gates were measured simultaneously using two dual-phase lock-in amplifiers (LI1 and LI2). To measure capacitances, the gate voltages were modulated with ac voltages $V_{\\rm BG}^{\\rm ac}=5\\,{\\rm mV}$ and $V_{\\rm FG}^{\\rm ac}=1\\,{\\rm mV}$ with different frequencies between 10 and 300 Hz produced by the internal oscillators of the lock-in amplifiers. The induced ac currents were added and converted to an ac voltage, $V_{\\rm S}^{\\rm ac}$, with a transimpedance amplifier. The two frequency components were detected separately with the two lock-in amplifiers. The out-of-phase and in-phase signals from both amplifiers were measured simultaneously. To minimize the stray capacitance, the gates were connected to coaxial cables. However, some stray capacitance remained in particular for the back gate which couples not only to the electronic system but also to the ohmic contact areas. This stray capacitance has been directly measured under conditions where the integer quantum Hall effect is well-developed. In this regime, the dissipative conductivity of the 2DES tends to zero and the bulk of the electronic system is not charged at the modulation frequencies used in the experiment\u00a0[@DorozhJETPL1986]. For a highly conducting 2DES, the out-of-phase signal is proportional to the capacitance. It includes the quantum correction brought about by the finite compressibility of the 2DES\u00a0[@Stiles] (for zero magnetic field see also Ref.\u00a0[@Luryi]). For a field-effect transistor composed of a 2DES in a narrow quantum well and a single gate the equation for the capacitance $C$ reads as\u00a0[@Stiles], $$\\frac{S}{C}=\\frac{S}{C_{\\rm\ng}}+\\frac{1}{e^2}\\frac{\\partial\\zeta}{\\partial n_{\\rm s}},\n\\label{cap}$$ where $S$ is the gated area of the sample, $\\zeta$ the chemical potential of the 2DES and $C_{\\rm g}=\\epsilon_{\\rm i} S/ d_0$ the geometric capacitance with $d_0$ the thickness of the insulating layer with dielectric permittivity $\\epsilon_{\\rm i}$ separating the gate and the center of weight of the electron wave function in the quantum well. The second term is inversely proportional to the electronic compressibility $\\kappa=(\\partial n_{\\rm s}/\\partial\n\\zeta)/n^2_{\\rm s}$. This term gives rise to capacitance minima when the electronic system turns less compressible at magnetic fields where the chemical potential is located in between Landau levels, i.e. near integer fillings of the Landau levels.\n\nThe formation of a second layer or occupation of the second subband is demonstrated in Fig.\u00a02. Shown are variations of the front and back gate capacitances with back gate voltage. Near $V^{\\rm dc}_{\\rm BG}\\approx 0.12$\u00a0V both capacitances display an abrupt increase. The back (front) gate capacitance rises by about 1.8\u00a0pF (0.4\u00a0pF) or 4% (0.14%). In terms of a classical planar capacitor this would correspond to a decrease of the distance between the capacitor plates of approximately 34 nm (0.2 nm) for the given distance of 850 nm (140 nm) between the QW and the back (front) gate. These results imply that electrons start to occupy the second subband and a new layer (back layer, BL) is formed, located about 34 nm closer to the back gate than the ground subband layer, i.e. front layer (FL)\u00a0[@Comment1]. At $B=0$, the center of weight of the wave function in the ground subband is hardly affected by the occupation of the second subband. It practically does not change also when raising $V_{\\rm BG}^{\\rm\ndc}>0.2$\u00a0V, i.e. with increasing electron density in the second subband.\n\nTypical magnetocapacitance data are presented in Fig.\u00a03(a). Each curve shows one set of minima whose positions are periodic in the inverse magnetic field. The periods are distinct for the $C_{\\rm\nBG}$ and $C_{\\rm FG}$ curves. Based on the previous magnetocapacitance studies of 2DES, we ascribe these magnetocapacitance minima to the integer filling of the Landau levels in the layer adjacent to a particular gate. From these oscillations, we determine the areal electron densities in both layers and mark the positions of the corresponding integer filling factors using numbered triangles (see Fig.3(a)).\n\nIt is instructive to compare the magnetocapacitance data with the magnetoresistance oscillations shown in Fig.3(b). Note the complicated behavior of these oscillations at $B>0.6$\u00a0T. Some of the magnetoresistance minima can be assigned to integer filling ($\\nu=7,8,10,11,14$) of a 2DES with an electron density $n_{\\rm\ntot}=21.7\\times 10^{10}\\,{\\rm cm}^{-2}=n_{\\rm FL}+n_{\\rm BL}$. The same density $n_{\\rm tot}$ is extracted from the Hall resistance. However, there are no minima at $\\nu=9,12,13$ and hence the sequence of oscillations is not periodic in the inverse of the magnetic field. For $B>0.6$\u00a0T the magnetoresistance minima in general do not coincide with any of the magnetocapacitance features. However, when the filling factor of both layers takes on an integer value ($\\nu_{\\rm FL}=5$, $\\nu_{\\rm BL}=2$ and $\\nu_{\\rm\nFL}=10$, $\\nu_{\\rm BL}=4$), the magnetoresistance shows deep minima ($\\nu=7$ and 14), which are accompanied by quantum Hall plateaus. For $B<0.6$\u00a0T the oscillation pattern exhibits two different frequencies. Two of the low frequency minima nearly coincide with $\\nu_{\\rm BL}=6$ and $\\nu_{\\rm BL}=8$ as indicated by the solid triangles in panel (b).\n\nIt is also informative to compare the electron densities obtained from the magnetocapacitance data with those determined from the Fourier spectrum analysis of the magnetoresistance oscillations displayed in the inset to Fig. 3(b). Four maxima can be identified in the spectrum. Two of them correspond to the oscillations from the individual layers as they are located rather close to the frequencies determined from the magnetocapacitance data (marked as BL and FL). Two other maxima lie at the sum (S) and difference (D) of these frequencies. Hence, in general, the determination of the electron densities from a Fourier spectrum requires careful analysis. Our comparison of the two methods illustrates that the magnetocapacitance data enable a straightforward interpretation and ensure a markedly improved accuracy.\n\nThe electron densities determined from the magnetocapacitance data are shown in Fig.4 for different front- and back-gate voltages. The electron density in a layer increases linearly with the voltage applied to the nearest gate and is only slightly affected by the voltage on the gate separated by the other layer. In the latter case the electron density dependence may even possess a negative slope (see the $n_{\\rm FL}(V_{\\rm BG}^{\\rm dc})$ dependence in Fig.4(a)). This is common in bilayer systems and has been attributed\u00a0[@Millard; @Smet] to exchange correlation induced negative compressibility\u00a0[@EisenPRL] of 2D electron systems at low density.\n\nAt first sight, the capacitance data look like those for two independent 2DES. However, the effect of coupling between the layers can be seen in Fig.3(a) as maxima on the $C_{\\rm BG}$ curve at the positions of some ($\\nu_{\\rm FL}=6,8,12$) minima of the $C_{\\rm FG}(B)$ dependence. These features are highlighted by double-sided arrows.\n\nCONCLUSION\n==========\n\nIn summary, we have shown that, compared to the magnetoresistance measurements, our capacitance technique reveals effects of Landau quantization in individual layers of a double-layer electron system produced in a wide quantum well. In particular, this method enables accurate determination of electron densities in each layer despite the absence of separate contacts to each layer.\n\nThe experiment and data evaluation of this work were supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant 17-02-00769). JHS and VU acknowledge support from the GIF.\n\nsee experimental chapter by J.\u00a0P.\u00a0Eisenstein and theoretical chapter by S.\u00a0M.\u00a0Girvin and A.\u00a0H.\u00a0MacDonald, in Das Sarma S. and Pinczuk A. (ed) 1997 Perspectives on Quantum Hall Effects (New York: Wiley)\n\nJ.\u00a0P.\u00a0Eisenstein, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5, 159 (2014). Exciton Condensation in Bilayer Quantum Hall Systems.\n\nH. Min, R. Bistritzer, J-J. Su, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 121401 (2008). Room-temperature superfluidity in graphene bilayers.\n\nA. Perali, D. Neilson, and A. R. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 146803 (2013). High-Temperature Superfluidity in Double-Bilayer Graphene.\n\nK. Lee, B. Fallahazad,J. Xue, D.C. Dillen, K. Kim, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Tutuc, Science [**345**]{}, 58 (2014). Chemical potential and quantum Hall ferromagnetism in bilayer graphene.\n\nX. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. I. Halperin, and P. Kim, Nat. Phys. [**13**]{}, 746 (2017). Quantum Hall drag of exciton condensate in graphene.\n\nG. S. Boebinger, H. W. Jiang, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 1793 (1990).\n\nY. W. Suen, J. Jo, M. B. Santos, L. W. Engel, S. W. Hwang, and M. Shayegan, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 5947 (1991).\n\nJ. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**57**]{}, 2324 (1990). Independently contacted two-dimensional electron systems in double quantum wells.\n\nU. S. de Cumis, J. Waldie, A. F. Croxall, D. Taneja, J. Llandro, I. Farrer, H. E. Beere, and D. A. Ritchie, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**110**]{}, 072105 (2017). A complete laboratory for transport studies of electron-hole interactions in GaAs/ AlGaAs ambipolar bilayers.\n\nD.\u00a0R.\u00a0Leadley, R.\u00a0Fletcher, R.\u00a0J.\u00a0Nicholas, F.\u00a0Tao, C.\u00a0T.\u00a0Foxon, and J.\u00a0J.\u00a0Harris, Phys.\u00a0Rev. B [**46**]{}, 12439 (1992). Intersubband resonant scattering in ${\\rm GaAs-Ga_{\\rm\n1-x}Al_{\\rm x}As}$ heterojunctions.\n\nN. C. Mamani, G. M. Gusev, T. E. Lamas, and A. K. Bakarov, Phys.\u00a0Rev. B [**77**]{}, 205327 (2008). Resonance oscillations of magnetoresistance in double quantum wells.\n\nV.\u00a0M.\u00a0Polyanovskii, Fiz.\u00a0Tekh.\u00a0Poluprovodn. [**22**]{}, 2230 (1988) \\[Sov.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0Semicond. [**22**]{}, 1408 (1988)\\].\n\nP. T. Coleridge, Semicond. Sci. Technol. [**5**]{}, 961 (1990). Inter-subband scattering in a 2D electron gas.\n\nM.\u00a0E.\u00a0Raikh and T.\u00a0V.\u00a0Shahbazyan, Phys.\u00a0Rev. B [**49**]{}, 5531 (1994). Magnetointersubband oscillations of conductivity in a two-dimensional electronic system.\n\nA. G. Davies, C. H. W. Barnes, K. R. Zolleis, J. T. Nicholls, M. Y. Simmons, and D. A. Ritchie, Phys.\u00a0Rev. B [**54**]{}, R 17331 (1996). Hybridization of single- and double-layer behavior in a double-quantum-well structure.\n\nS.\u00a0I.\u00a0Dorozhkin, JETP Letters [**103**]{}, 513 (2016) \\[Pis\u2019ma v ZhETF [**103**]{}, 578 (2016)\\]. Quantum Hall Effect in a System with an Electron Reservoir.\n\nSupplementary Material at http://link.aps.org/ supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.081306.\n\nF. Nichele, A. N. Pal, R. Winkler, C. Gerl, W. Wegscheider, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Phys.\u00a0Rev. B [**89**]{}, 081306(R) (2014). Spin-orbit splitting and effective masses in p-type GaAs two-dimensional hole gases.\n\nT.\u00a0P.\u00a0Smith, B.\u00a0B.\u00a0Goldberg, P.\u00a0J.\u00a0Stiles, and M.\u00a0Heiblum, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0B [**32**]{}, 2696(R) (1985). Direct measurement of the density of states of a two-dimensional electron gas.\n\nS.V. Kravchenko, V.M. Pudalov, S.G. Semenchinsky, Phys. Lett. A [**141**]{}, 71 (1989). Negative density of states of 2D electrons in a strong magnetic field.\n\nJ. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett. [**68**]{}, 674 (1992). Negative Compressibility of Interacting Two-Dimensional Electron and Quasiparticle Gases.\n\nS. V. Kravchenko, M. Caulfield, J. Singleton, H. Nielsen, and V. M. Pudalov, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0B [**47**]{}, 12961 (1993). Electron-electron interactions in the two-dimensional electron gas in silicon.\n\nS.I. Dorozhkin, J.H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, V. Umansky, R.J. Haug, and K. Ploog. Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 121301 (2001). Comparison between the compressibilities of the zero field and composite-fermion metallic states of the two-dimensional electron system.\n\nS.\u00a0I.\u00a0Dorozhkin, G.\u00a0V.\u00a0Kravchenko, R.\u00a0J.\u00a0Haug, K.\u00a0von\u00a0Klitzing, and K.\u00a0Ploog, JETP Lett. [**58**]{}, 834 (1993) \\[Pis\u2019ma Zh.\u00a0Eksp.\u00a0Teor.\u00a0Fiz. [**58**]{}, 893 (1993)\\]. Capacitance spectroscopy of the fractional quantum Hall effect: Temperature dependence of the energy gap.\n\nJ. P. Eisenstein, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0B [**50**]{}, 1760 (1994). Compressibility of the two-dimensional electron gas: Measurements of the zero-field exchange energy and fractional quantum Hall gap.\n\nS. I. Dorozhkin, R. J. Haug, K. von Klitzing, and K. Ploog, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0B [**51**]{}, 14729 (1995). Experimental determination of the quasiparticle charge and the energy gap in the fractional quantum Hall effect.\n\nV. S. Khrapai, A. A. Shashkin, M. G. Trokina, V. T. Dolgopolov, V. Pellegrini, F. Beltram, G. Biasiol and L. Sorba, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 086802 (2007). Direct Measurements of Fractional Quantum Hall Effect Gaps.\n\nV. S. Khrapai, A. A. Shashkin, and V. T. Dolgopolov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 126404 (2003). Direct Measurements of the Spin and the Cyclotron Gaps in a 2D Electron System in Silicon.\n\nK. Ensslin, D. Heitmann, R. R. Gerhardts, and K. Ploog, Phys.\u00a0Rev. B [**39**]{}, 12993 (1989). Population process of the upper subband in ${\\rm Al_{\\rm x}Ga_{\\rm l-x}As-GaAs}$ quantum wells.\n\nV. T. Dolgopolov, G. E. Tsydynzhapov, A. A. Shashkin, E. V. Deviatov, F. Hastreiter, M. Hartung, A. Wixforth, K. L. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Pis\u2019ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**67**]{}, 563 (1998) \\[JETP Lett. [**67**]{}, 595 (1998)\\]. Magnetic-field-induced hybridization of electron subbands in a coupled double quantum well.\n\nV. T. Dolgopolov, A. A. Shashkin, E. V. Deviatov, F. Hastreiter, M. Hartung, A. Wixforth, K. L. Campman, and A. C. Gossard, Phys.\u00a0Rev. B [**59**]{}, 13235 (1999). Electron subbands in a double quantum well in a quantizing magnetic field.\n\nS.\u00a0I.\u00a0Dorozhkin, A.\u00a0A.\u00a0Shashkin, N.\u00a0B.\u00a0Zhitenev, and V.\u00a0T.\u00a0Dolgopolov, JETP Lett. [**44**]{}, 241 (1986) \\[Pis\u2019ma Zh.\u00a0Eksp.\u00a0Teor.\u00a0Fiz. [**44**]{}, 189 (1986)\\]. \u201cSkin effect\u201d and observation of nonuniform states of a 2D electron gas in a metal-insulator-semiconductor structure.\n\nS.\u00a0Luryi, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**52**]{}, 501 (1988). Quantum capacitance devices.\n\nWe note that this estimate assumes infinite electron compressibility in the layers, which affects its accuracy.\n\nI. S. Millard, N. K. Patel, M. Y. Simmons, E. H. Linfield, D. A. Ritchie, G. A. C. Jones, and M. Pepper, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**68**]{}, 3323 (1996). Compressibility studies of double electron and double hole gas systems.\n\nD. Zhang, S. Schmult, V. Venkatachalam, W. Dietsche, A. Yacoby, K. von Klitzing, and J. Smet, Phys.\u00a0Rev. B [**87**]{}, 205304 (2013). Local compressibility measurement of the $\\nu_{\\rm tot}=1$ quantum Hall state in a bilayer electron system.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We study the heat transfer between elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces. We include both the heat transfer from the area of real contact, and the heat transfer between the surfaces in the non-contact regions. We apply a recently developed contact mechanics theory, which accounts for the hierarchical nature of the contact between solids with roughness on many different length scales. For elastic contact, at the highest (atomic) resolution the area of real contact typically consists of atomic (nanometer) sized regions, and we discuss the implications of this for the heat transfer. For solids with very smooth surfaces, as is typical in many modern engineering applications, the interfacial separation in the non-contact regions will be very small, and for this case we show the importance of the radiative heat transfer associated with the evanescent electromagnetic waves which exist outside of all bodies.'\nauthor:\n- 'B.N.J. Persson$^1$, B. Lorenz$^1$ and A.I. Volokitin$^{1,2}$'\ntitle: Heat transfer between elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces\n---\n\n**1. Introduction**\n\nThe heat transfer between solids is a topic of great importance. Classical applications include topics such as cooling of microelectronic devices, spacecraft structures, satellite bolted joints, nuclear engineering, ball bearings, tires and heat exchangers. Other potential applications involve microelectromechanical systems (MEMS). Heat transfer is also of crucial importance in friction and wear processes, e.g., rubber friction on hard and rough substrates depends crucially on the temperature increase in the rubber-countersurface asperity contact regions[@Flash].\n\nA large number of papers have been published on the heat transfer between randomly rough surfaces[@review]. However, most of these studies are based on asperity contact models such as the model of Greenwood and Williamson (GW)[@GW]. Recent studies have shown that the GW-model (and other asperity contact models[@Bush]) are very inaccurate[@inacc1; @inacc2], mainly because of the neglect of the long-range elastic coupling[@elast]. That is, if an asperity is pushed downwards somewhere, the elastic deformation field extends a long distance away from the asperity, which will influence the contact involving other asperities further away[@Bucher]. This effect is neglected in the GW theory, but it is included in the contact mechanics model of Persson[@JCPpers; @PerssonPRL; @JCPpers1; @PSSR; @Chunyan1], which we use in the present study. In addition, in the GW model the asperity contact regions are assumed to be circular (or elliptical) while the actual contact regions (at high enough resolution) have fractal-like boundary lines[@Borri; @Pei; @Chunyan1], see Fig. \\[contact\\]. Thus, because of their complex nature, one should try to avoid to directly involve the nature of the contact regions when studying contact mechanics problems, such as the heat or electric contact resistance. The approach we use in this paper does not directly involve the nature of the contact regions. Finally, we note that for elastically hard solids the area of real (atomic) contact $A$ may be a very small fraction of the nominal or apparent contact area $A_0$, even at high nominal squeezing pressures[@P3; @BookP].\n\n![ The black area is the contact between two elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces as obtained using molecular dynamics. For surfaces which have fractal-like roughness the whole way down to the atomic length scale, the contact at the highest magnification (atomic resolution) typically consists of nanometer-sized atomic clusters. Adapted from Ref. [@Chunyan1].[]{data-label=\"contact\"}](Fig.1.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nAnother important discovery in recent contact mechanics studies is that for elastic contact, the contact regions observed at atomic resolution may be just a few atoms wide, i.e., the diameter of the contact regions may be of the order of $\\sim 1 \\ {\\rm\nnm}$[@Chunyan; @Hyun; @Nature1]. The heat transfer via such small junctions may be very different from the heat transfer through macroscopic sized contact regions, where the heat transfer usually is assumed to be proportional to the linear size of the contact regions (this is also the prediction of the macroscopic heat diffusion equation), rather than the contact area. In particular, if the typical phonon wavelength involved in the heat transfer becomes larger than the linear size of the contact regions (which will always happen at low enough temperature) the effective heat transfer may be strongly reduced. Similarly, if the phonons mean free path is longer than the linear size of the contact regions, ballistic (phonon) energy transfer may occur which cannot be described by the macroscopic heat diffusion equation. These effects are likely to be of crucial importance in many modern applications involving micro (or nano) sized objects, such as MEMS, where just a few atomic-sized contact regions may occur. However, for macroscopic solids the thermal (and electrical) contact resistance is usually very insensitive to the nature of the contact regions observed at the highest magnification, corresponding to atomistic (or nanoscale) length scales. In fact, the heat transfer is determined mainly by the nature of the contact regions observed at lower magnification where the contact regions appear larger (see Sec. 5 and [@GreenW; @Barber]), see Fig. \\[HeatArea\\]. For example, in Sec. 2.2.1 we show that for self-affine fractal surfaces the contact resistance depends on the range of surface roughness included in the analysis as $\\sim r (H)-(q_0/q_1)^H$, where $q_0$ and $q_1$ are the smallest and the largest wavevector of the surface roughness included in the analysis, respectively, and $H$ is the Hurst exponent related to the fractal dimension via $D_{\\rm f} = 3-H$. The number $r(H)$ depends on $H$ but is of the order of unity. In a typical case $H\\approx 0.8$, and including surface roughness over one wavevector decade $q_0 < q < q_1 = 10 q_0$ results in a heat resistance which typically is only $\\sim 10\\%$ smaller than obtained when including infinitely many decades of length scales (i.e., with $q_1 = \\infty\\times q_0$). At the same time the area of real contact approaches zero as $q_0/q_1 \\rightarrow 0$. Thus, there is in general no relation between the area of real contact (which is observed at the highest magnification, and which determines, e.g., the friction force in most cases), and the heat (or electrical) contact resistance between the solids. One aspect of this in the context of electric conduction was pointed out a long time ago[@Archard]: if an insulating film covers the solids in the area of real contact, and if electrical contact occurs by a large number of small breaks in the film, the resistance may be almost as low as with no film. Similarly, the thermal contact resistance of macroscopic solids usually does not depend on whether the heat transfer occur by diffusive or ballistic phonon propagation, but rather the contact resistance is usually determined mainly by the nature of the contact regions observed at relative low magnification.\n\nNote that as $H$ decreases towards zero (or the fractal dimension $D_{\\rm f} \\rightarrow 3$) one needs to include more and more decades in the length scales in order to obtain the correct (or converged) contact resistance, and for $H=0$ (or $D_{\\rm f} = 3$) it is necessary to include the roughness on the whole way down to the atomic length scale (assuming that the surfaces remain fractal-like with $H=0$ the whole way down to the atomic length scale). Most natural surfaces and surfaces of engineering interest have (if self-affine fractal) $H > 0.5$ (or $D_{\\rm f} < 2.5$), e.g., surfaces prepared by crack propagation or sand blasting typically have $H\\approx 0.8$, and in these cases the contact resistance can be calculated accurately from the (apparent) contact observed at relatively low magnification. However, some surfaces may have smaller Hurst exponents. One interesting case is surfaces (of glassy solids) with frozen capillary waves[@PSSR; @Pires] (which are of great engineering importance[@Pires]), which have $H=0$. The heat transfer between such surfaces may be understood only by studying the system at the highest magnification corresponding to atomic resolution.\n\n![ The contact region (black area) between two elastic solids observed at low (left) and high (right) magnification. The contact resistance depends mainly on the long-wavelength roughness, and can usually be calculated accurately from the nature of the contact observed at low magnification (left).[]{data-label=\"HeatArea\"}](Fig.2.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nIn this paper we will consider the heat transfer between (macroscopic-sized) solids in the light of recent advances in contact mechanics. We will study the contribution to the heat transfer not just from the area of real contact (observed at atomic resolution), but also the heat transfer across the area of non-contact, in particular the contribution from the fluctuating electromagnetic field, which surrounds all solid objects[@rev1; @rev2]. For high-resistivity materials and for hard and very flat surfaces, such as those involved in many modern applications, e.g., MEMS applications, this non-contact radiative heat transfer may in fact dominate in the total heat transfer (at least under vacuum condition). We note that for flat surfaces (in vacuum) separated by a distance $d$ larger than the thermal length $d_{\\rm T}= c\\hbar /k_{\\rm B}T$, the non-contact heat transfer is given by the classical Stefan-Boltzman law, and is independent of $d$. However, for very short distances the contribution from the evanescent electromagnetic waves to the heat transfer will be many orders of magnitude larger than the contribution from propagating electromagnetic waves (as given by the Stefan-Boltzman law)[@rev1].\n\nIn most applications (but not in spacecraft applications) one is interested in the heat transfer between solid objects located in the normal atmosphere and sometimes in a fluid. Most solid objects in the normal atmosphere have organic and water contamination layers, which may influence the heat transfer for at least two reasons: (a) Thin (nanometer) contamination layers may occur at the interface in the asperity contact regions, which will effect the acoustic impedance of the contact junctions, and hence the propagation of phonon\u2019s between the solids (which usually is the origin of the heat transfer, at least for most non-metallic systems). (b) In addition, capillary bridges may form in the asperity contact regions and effectively increase the size of the contact regions and increase the heat transfer. In the normal atmosphere heat can also be transferred between the non-contact regions via heat diffusion or (at short separation) ballistic processes in the surrounding gas. For larger separations convective processes may also be important.\n\nIn the discussion above we have assumed that the solids deform elastically and we have neglected the adhesional interaction between the solids. The contact mechanics theory of Persson can also be applied to cases where adhesion and plastic flow are important, and we will briefly study how this may affect the heat transfer. Most solids have modified surface properties, e.g., metals are usually covered by thin oxide layers with very different conductivities than the underlying bulk materials. However, as mentioned above, this may not have any major influence on the contact resistance.\n\nRecently, intense research has focused on heat transfer through atomic or molecular-sized junctions[@junction1; @junction2]. In light of the discussion presented above, this topic may also be important for the heat transfer between solids, because of the nanometer-sized nature of the contact regions between solids with random roughness.\n\nThis paper is organized as follows: In Sec. 2 we describe the theory for heat transfer between two solids with randomly rough surfaces. We consider both the heat flow in the area of real contact, and between the surfaces in the non-contact area. Sec. 3 presents a short review of the contact mechanics theory which is used to obtain the quantities (related to the surface roughness) which determine the heat transfer coefficient. In Sec. 4 we present numerical results. In Sec. 5 we discuss the influence of plastic flow and adhesion on the heat transfer. Sec. 6 presents an application to the heat transfer between tires and the air and road surface. In Sec. 7 we discuss a new experiment. In Sec. 8 we present experimental results. In Sec. 9 we point out that the developed theory can also be applied to the electric contact resistance. Sec. 10 contains the summary and conclusion. Appendix A-E present details related to the theory development and some other general information relevant to the present study.\n\n![ Two elastic solids with nominally flat surfaces squeezed together with the nominal pressure $p_0$. The heat current $J_{\\rm z}({\\bf x})$ at the contacting interface varies strongly with the coordinate ${\\bf x} = (x,y)$ in the $xy$-plane. The average heat current is denoted by $J_0= \\langle J_{\\rm z}({\\bf x})\\rangle$.[]{data-label=\"contactblock\"}](Fig.3.ps){width=\"40.00000%\"}\n\n0.3cm **2. Theory**\n\n0.1cm **2.1 Heat transfer coefficient**\n\nConsider two elastic solids (rectangular blocks) with randomly rough surfaces squeezed in contact as illustrated in Fig. \\[contactblock\\]. Assume that the temperature at the outer surfaces $z=-d_0$ and $z=d_1$ is kept fixed at $T_0$ and $T_1$, respectively, with $T_0 > T_1$. Close to the interface the heat current will vary rapidly in space, ${\\bf J} = {\\bf J} ({\\bf x},z)$, where ${\\bf x}=(x,y)$ denote the lateral coordinate in the $xy$-plane. Far from the interface we will assume that the heat current is constant and in the $z$-direction, i.e., ${\\bf J}= J_0\\hat z$. We denote the average distance between the macro asperity contact regions by $\\lambda$ (see Ref. [@PSSR]). We assume that $\\lambda << L$, where $L$ is the linear size of the apparent contact between the elastic blocks. The temperature a distance $\\sim \\lambda$ from the contacting interface will be approximately independent of the lateral coordinate ${\\bf x} = (x,y)$ and we denote this temperature by $T_0'$ and $T_1'$ for $z= -\\lambda$ and $z=\\lambda$, respectively. The heat current for $|z| >> \\lambda$ is independent of ${\\bf x}$ and can be written as (to zero order in $\\lambda /d_0$ and $\\lambda /d_1$): $$J_0=-\\kappa_0 {T_0'-T_0\\over d_0} = -\\kappa_1 {T_1-T_1'\\over d_1},\\eqno(1)$$ where $\\kappa_0$ and $\\kappa_1$ are the heat conductivities of the two solid blocks. We assume that the heat transfer across the interface is proportional to $T_0'-T_1'$ and we define the heat transfer coefficient $\\alpha$ so that $$J_0=\\alpha (T_0'-T_1')\\eqno(2)$$ Combining (1) and (2) gives $$J_0={T_0-T_1\\over d_0 \\kappa_0^{-1} +d_1 \\kappa_1^{-1}+\\alpha^{-1}}\\eqno(3)$$ This equation is valid as long as $\\lambda << L$ and $\\lambda << d_0, \\ d_1$. Note that $\\alpha$ depends on the macroscopic (or nominal) pressure which act at the interface. Thus if the macroscopic pressure is non-uniform, as is the case in many practical applications, e.g., when a ball is squeezed against a flat, one need to include the dependence of $\\alpha$ on ${\\bf x}$. Thus in general $$J({\\bf x}) = \\alpha ({\\bf x}) \\left [ T_0'({\\bf x})-T_1'({\\bf x})\\right ]\\eqno(4)$$\n\nOne expect the contribution to $\\alpha$ from the area of real contact to be proportional to the heat conductivity $\\kappa$ (for simplicity we assume here two solids of the same material). Assuming only elastic deformation, contact mechanics theories show that for low enough squeezing pressure $p_0$, the area of real contact is proportional to $p_0$, and the size distribution of contact regions (and the interfacial stress probability distribution) are independent of $p_0$. Thus one expect that $\\alpha$ is proportional to $p_0$. For randomly rough surfaces the contact mechanics depends only on the (effective) elastic modulus $E^*$ and on the surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$. Thus the only way to construct a quantity which is proportional to $p_0 \\kappa$ and with the same dimension as $J_0/\\Delta T$, using the quantities which characterize the problem, is $$\\alpha \\approx {p_0 \\kappa \\over E^* u_0}$$ where $u_0$ is a length parameter which is determined from the surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$. For self-affine fractal surfaces, $C(q)$ depends only on the root-mean-square roughness $h_{\\rm rms}$, the fractal dimension $D_{\\rm f}$ which is dimension less, and on the low and high cut-off wavevectors $q_0$ and $q_1$. Thus in this case $u_0 = h_{\\rm rms} f(D_{\\rm f}, q_0/q_1, q_0h_{\\rm rms})$. This result is consistent with the analysis presented in Sec. 2.2.1. Using the GW-theory result in an expression for $\\alpha$ of the form given above, but with a different function $f$ which now (even for low squeezing pressures) also depends on $p_0/E^*$ (see, e.g., Ref. [@Popov]).\n\n0.1cm **2.2 Calculation of $\\alpha$**\n\nThe heat current ${\\bf J}$ and the heat energy density $Q$ are assumed to be given by $${\\bf J} = -\\kappa \\nabla T, \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\  Q=\\rho C_{\\rm V} T$$ where $\\kappa$ is the heat conductivity, $\\rho$ the mass density and $C_V$ the heat capacitivity. We consider a steady state condition where $Q$ is time independent. Thus the heat energy continuity equation $$\\nabla \\cdot {\\bf J} + {\\partial Q \\over \\partial t} =0$$ reduces to $$\\nabla^2 T = 0$$ We assume that the surface roughness at the interface is so small that when solving the heat flow equation we can consider the surfaces as flat. However the heat flow across the interface will be highly non-uniform and given by the heat current $J_z({\\bf x})$ (we assume $|\\nabla h| << 1$, where $h({\\bf x})$ is the surface height profile). Let us first study the heat flow in the upper solid. We can take into account the heat flow from the lower solid by introducing a heat source at the interface $z=0$ i.e. $$\\nabla^2 T= -2 J_z ({\\bf x})\\delta (z)/\\kappa_1\\eqno(5)$$ Similarly, when studying the temperature in the lower solid we introduce a heat sink on the surface $z=0$ so that $$\\nabla^2 T= 2 J_z({\\bf x})\\delta (z)/\\kappa_0\\eqno(6)$$ Let us first study the temperature for $z > 0$. We write $$J_z({\\bf x}) = \\int d^2q \\ J_z({\\bf q}) e^{i {\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}}\\eqno(7)$$ $$J_z({\\bf q}) = {1\\over (2 \\pi )^{2}} \\int d^2x \\ J_z ({\\bf x}) e^{-i {\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}}\\eqno(8)$$ From (5) we get $$T({\\bf x}, z) = T_1 - {1\\over \\kappa_1} J_0 (z-d_1)$$ $$-{1 \\over \\pi \\kappa_1} \\int d^2q dk {\\Delta J_z({\\bf q})\\over -q^2-k^2} e^{i({\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}+kz)}\\eqno(9)$$ where $J_0 = \\langle J_z({\\bf x}) \\rangle$ is the average heat current and $$\\Delta J_z({\\bf x}) = J_z({\\bf x})-J_0\\eqno(10)$$ Performing the $k$-integral in (9) gives $$T({\\bf x}, z) = T_1 - {1\\over \\kappa_1} J_0 (z-d_1)$$ $$+{1\\over \\kappa_1} \\int d^2q \\ {1\\over q} \\Delta J_z ({\\bf q}) e^{i{\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}-qz}\\eqno(11)$$ Similarly, one obtain for the temperature field for $z<0$: $$T({\\bf x}, z) = T_0 - {1\\over \\kappa_0} J_0 (z+d_0)$$ $$- {1\\over \\kappa_0} \\int d^2q \\ {1\\over q} \\Delta J_z({\\bf q}) e^{i{\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}+qz}\\eqno(12)$$ Let us define $$\\psi({\\bf x}) = T({\\bf x},-0)-T({\\bf x},+0)$$ Using (11) and (12) we get $$\\psi ({\\bf x}) = T_0-T_1-\\left ({d_0\\over \\kappa_0}+{d_1\\over \\kappa_1}\\right ) J_0$$ $$- {1\\over \\kappa } \\int d^2q \\ {1\\over q}  \\Delta J_z({\\bf q}) e^{i {\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}}\\eqno(13)$$ where $${1\\over \\kappa} = {1\\over \\kappa_0}+{1\\over \\kappa_1}\\eqno(14)$$ From (13) we get $$\\psi({\\bf q}) = M \\delta ({\\bf q}) - {1\\over \\kappa q} \\Delta J_z({\\bf q})\\eqno(15)$$ where $$M= T_0-T_1-\\left ({d_0\\over \\kappa_0}+{d_1\\over \\kappa_1}\\right ) J_0\\eqno(16)$$\n\nWe will now consider two different cases:\n\n0.15cm [**2.2.1 Heat flow through the area of real contact**]{}\n\nLet us consider the area of real contact. In the contact region $J_z({\\bf x})$ will be non-zero but $\\psi({\\bf x}) = T({\\bf x},+0)-T({\\bf x},-0)$ will vanish. On the other surface area $J_z({\\bf x})$ will vanish. Thus we must have $$J_z({\\bf x})\\psi ({\\bf x}) = 0$$ everywhere. This implies $$\\int d^2q' \\ J_z({\\bf q}-{\\bf q'}) \\psi ({\\bf q'}) = 0\\eqno(17)$$ for all ${\\bf q}$. Combining (15) and (17) gives $$M J_z({\\bf q}) - {1\\over \\kappa} \\int d^2 q' {1\\over q'} J_z({\\bf q}-{\\bf q'}) \\Delta J_z({\\bf q'})=0$$ The ensemble average of this equation gives $$M  \\langle J_z({\\bf q})\\rangle - {1\\over \\kappa} \\int d^2 q' {1\\over q'}\n\\langle J_z({\\bf q}-{\\bf q'}) \\Delta J_z({\\bf q'})\\rangle = 0\\eqno(18)$$ From (8) we get $$\\langle J_z({\\bf q}=0) \\rangle = (2\\pi )^{-2} A_0 J_0.$$ Thus the ${\\bf q = 0}$ component of (18) gives $$M A_0 J_0 - {(2\\pi )^2 \\over \\kappa} \\int d^2 q {1\\over q} \\langle |\\Delta J_z({\\bf q})|^2 \\rangle=0\\eqno(19)$$ where $A_0$ is the nominal contact area. Combining (16) and (19) and solving for $J_0$ gives an equation of the form (3) with $${1\\over \\alpha} =\n{(2\\pi )^2 \\over \\kappa} {1\\over A_0 J_0^2}\\int d^2 q {1\\over q} \\langle |\\Delta J_z({\\bf q})|^2 \\rangle \\eqno(20)$$\n\nWe now assume that the heat current at the interface is proportional to the normal stress: $$J_z({\\bf x}) \\approx \\mu \\sigma_z ({\\bf x}). \\eqno(21)$$ We can also write (21) as $$J_z({\\bf x})/J_0  \\approx \\sigma_z ({\\bf x})/p_0,\\eqno(22)$$ where $p_0$ is the average pressure. We note that (22) implies that the current density $J_z({\\bf x})$ will be non-vanishing exactly where the normal stress $\\sigma_z ({\\bf x})$ is non-vanishing, which must be obeyed in the present case, where all the heat current flow through the area of real contact. We note that the heat transfer coefficient depends mainly on the spatial [*distribution*]{} of the contact area and this is exactly the same for the pressure distribution $\\sigma ({\\bf x})$ as for the current distribution $J_z({\\bf x})$. Thus the fact that in a particular asperity contact region the pressure $\\sigma ({\\bf x})$ is not proportional to $J_z({\\bf x})$ is not very important in the present context (see Appendix A and below).\n\nSubstituting (22) in (20) gives $${1\\over \\alpha} \\approx\n{(2\\pi )^2 \\over \\kappa} {1\\over A_0 p_0^2}\\int d^2 q {1\\over q} \\langle |\\Delta \\sigma_z({\\bf q})|^2 \\rangle \\eqno(23)$$ We can write $$\\alpha \\approx {p_0^2 \\kappa \\over E^* U_{\\rm el}}\\eqno(24)$$ where $$U_{\\rm el} =\n{(2\\pi)^2 \\over  A_0 E^*} \\int d^2q {1 \\over q} \\langle |\\Delta \\sigma ({\\bf q})|^2 \\rangle\\eqno(25)$$ is the stored elastic energy per unit (nominal) surface area[@Chunyan1]. In (25) $E^*$ is the effective elastic modulus $${1\\over E^*} = {1-\\nu_0^2\\over E_0}+{1-\\nu_1^2\\over E_1},$$ where $E_0$ and $\\nu_0$ are the Young\u2019s elastic modulus and the Poisson ratio, respectively, for solid ${\\bf 0}$ and similar for solid ${\\bf 1}$. We have shown elsewhere that for small enough load[@PerssonPRL] $U_{\\rm el} \\approx u_0 p_0$ where $u_0$ is a length of order the root-mean-square surface roughness amplitude. Thus $$\\alpha \\approx {p_0 \\kappa \\over E^* u_0}.\\eqno(26a)$$ Note that for small load the squeezing pressure $p_0$ depends on the (average) interfacial separation $\\bar u$ via the exponential law $p_0 \\sim {\\rm exp}(-\\bar u/u_0)$. Thus the vertical stiffness $dp_0 /d\\bar u = - p_0/u_0$ so we can also write $$\\alpha \\approx - {\\kappa \\over E^*} {dp_0 \\over d\\bar u }.\\eqno(26b)$$ This equation is, in fact, exact (see Appendix B and Ref. [@Barber]), which shows that the heat transfer is mainly determined by the geometrical distribution of the contact area (given by the region where $\\sigma_z({\\bf x})$ is non-vanishing), and by the thermal interaction between the heat flow through the various contact spots (see Appendix A).\n\nThe length parameter $u_0$ in (26a) can be calculated (approximately) from the surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$ using[@JCPpers1] $$u_0 = \\surd \\pi \\int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \\ q^2 C(q) w(q)$$ where $$w(q) = \\left (\\pi \\int_{q_0}^q dq' q'^3 C(q') \\right )^{-1/2}$$ where $q_0$ is the long-distance cut-off (or roll-off) wavevector and $q_1$ the wavevector of the shortest wavelength roughness included in the analysis. Assume that the combined surface roughness is self affine fractal for $q_0 < q < q_1$. In this case $$C(q) = {H\\over \\pi} \\left ( {h_{\\rm rms} \\over q_0}\\right )^2 \\left ({q_0\\over q}\\right )^{2(H+1)}$$ where $H$ is the Hurst exponent related to the fractal dimension via $D_{\\rm f} = 3-H$. Substituting this $C(q)$ into the equations above gives $$u_0 \\approx \\left ({2(1-H)\\over \\pi H}\\right )^{1/2} h_{\\rm rms} \\left [ r (H)-\\left ({q_0\\over q_1}\\right )^H\\right ].$$ where $$r(H) = {H\\over 2(1-H)}\\int_1^\\infty dx \\ \\left (x-1\\right )^{-1/2} x^{-1/[2(1-H)]}$$ Note that $ r(H)$ is of order unity (see Ref. [@PerssonPRL]). As discussed in the introduction this implies that the contact resistance in general is determined accurately by one or two decades of the longest-wavelength roughness components, and that there is no relation between the area of real contact (which is observed at the highest magnification, and which determines, e.g., the friction force in most cases), and the contact resistance between the solids.\n\nNote that from (3) it follows that one can neglect the heat contact resistance if $$\\kappa /d << \\alpha$$ where $\\kappa /d $ is the smallest of $\\kappa_0 /d_0$ and $\\kappa_1 /d_1$. Using (25) this gives $$d >> u_0 (E^*/p_0)$$ We note that in modern high-tech applications the linear size (or thickness) $d$ of the physical system may be very small, and in these cases the contact heat resistance may be particular important.\n\nIf roughness occurs only on one length scale, say with wavelength $\\lambda$ and height $h$, then the pressure necessary for complete contact will be of order $$p_0 \\approx E^* h/\\lambda$$ Substituting this in (26a) gives $$\\alpha \\approx \\kappa / \\lambda\\eqno(27)$$ where we have used that $u_0 \\approx h$. Thus, $\\alpha^{-1} \\approx \\lambda \\kappa^{-1}$ which is the expected result because the denominator in (3) is only accurate to zero order in $\\lambda \\kappa^{-1}$. \\[Alternatively, substituting (27) in (3) gives a term of the type $(d+\\lambda) \\kappa^{-1}$ which is the correct result since $d$ in (3) should really be $d-\\lambda$.\\]\n\nAs an example[@Bahr], consider two nominal flat steel plates (in vacuum) with the thickness $d_0=d_1= 0.5 \\ {\\rm cm}$ and with the root-mean-square roughness $\\sim 1 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$. The plates are squeezed together with the nominal pressure $p_0 = 0.1 \\ {\\rm MPa}$. The ratio between the measured surface and bulk thermal contact resistance is about $150$. Using (3) we get $$\\Delta T /J_0 = 2d_0 \\kappa_0^{-1}+\\alpha^{-1}.$$ Thus, the (theoretical) ratio between the surface and the bulk contributions to the thermal resistance is: $${\\kappa_0 \\over 2 \\alpha d_0},$$ where $\\kappa_0$ is the heat conductivity of the bulk steel. Using (25) with $\\kappa = \\kappa_0/2$ this gives $${\\kappa_0 \\over 2 \\alpha d_0} = {u_0 \\over d_0} {E^*\\over p_0}\\eqno(28)$$ With (from theory) $u_0 \\approx 1 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$, and $E^* \\approx 110 \\ {\\rm GPa}$, $p_0 = 0.1 \\ {\\rm MPa}$ and $2d_0= 1 \\ {\\rm cm}$, from (28) the ratio between the thermal surface and bulk resistance is $\\approx 200$, in good agreement with the experimental data.\n\nThe discussion above assumes purely elastic deformations. However, plastic flow is likely to occur in the present application at short enough length-scales, observed at high magnification. Since the heat flow is determined mainly by the long-wavelength roughness components, i.e., by the roughness observed at relative low magnification, when calculating the heat transfer one may often assume that the surfaces deform purely elastically, even if plastic deformation is observed at high magnification, see Sec. 5.\n\n0.15cm [**2.2.2 Heat flow through the non-contact area**]{}\n\nLet us now assume that $$J_z({\\bf x}) = \\beta ({\\bf x}) \\left [ T({\\bf x},-0)-T({\\bf x},+0)\\right ]=\\beta({\\bf x})\\psi({\\bf x})$$ From (15) we get $$\\psi ({\\bf q}) = M \\delta ({\\bf q})$$ $$- {1\\over \\kappa q} \\int\nd^2q' \\ \\beta({\\bf q}-{\\bf q'})\\left [ 1 - {(2\\pi )^2 \\over A_0} \\delta({\\bf q}) \\right ] \\psi ({\\bf q'})\\eqno(29)$$ Next, note that $$J_0={1 \\over A_0}\\int d^2x \\ J_z({\\bf x}) = {1\\over A_0}\\int d^2x \\ \\beta({\\bf x}) \\psi ({\\bf x})$$ $$={(2\\pi )^2 \\over A_0 } \\int d^2q \\ \\beta (-{\\bf q}) \\psi ({\\bf q})\\eqno(30)$$\n\nEq. (29) can be solved by iteration. The zero-order solution $$\\psi ({\\bf q}) = M  \\delta ({\\bf q})$$ Substituting this in (30) gives $$J_0=M {(2\\pi )^2 \\over A_0} \\beta ({\\bf q=0})=  M\\bar \\beta\\eqno(31)$$ where $$\\bar \\beta = \\langle \\beta({\\bf x}) \\rangle = {1\\over A_0} \\int d^2x \\ \\beta({\\bf x})$$ is the average of $\\beta({\\bf x})$ over the whole interfacial area $A_0$. Substituting (16) in (31) and solving for $J_0$ gives an equation of the form (3) with $\\alpha = \\bar \\beta$.\n\nThe first-order solution to (29) is $$\\psi ({\\bf q}) = M \\delta ({\\bf q})-{M\\over \\kappa q}\n\\beta({\\bf q})\\left [ 1 - {(2 \\pi)^2 \\over A_0} \\delta ({\\bf q}) \\right ]\\eqno(32)$$ Substituting (32) in (30) gives again an equation of the form (3) with $$\\alpha = \\bar \\beta - {(2\\pi)^2 \\over \\kappa A_0 }\\int d^2q {1\\over q}\n\\langle | \\beta({\\bf q})|^2 \\rangle \\left [1-{(2 \\pi)^2 \\over A_0}\\delta ({\\bf q})\\right ], \\eqno(33)$$ where we have added $\\langle .. \\rangle$ which denotes ensemble average, and where we used that $$\\langle\\beta({\\bf q})\\beta(-{\\bf q})\\rangle = \\langle |\\beta({\\bf q})|^2\\rangle$$ We can rewrite (33) as follows. Let us define the correlation function $$C_\\beta ({\\bf q})= {1\\over (2\\pi)^2}\n\\int d^2x \\ \\langle \\beta ({\\bf x}) \\beta ({\\bf 0})\\rangle e^{i{\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}}\\eqno(34)$$ Note that $$C_\\beta ({\\bf q})  = {(2\\pi )^2 \\over A_0} \\langle |\\beta ({\\bf q})|^2\\rangle\\eqno(35)$$ This equation follows from the fact that the statistical properties are assumed to be translational invariant in the ${\\bf x}$-plane, and is proved as follows: $$C_\\beta ({\\bf q})= {1\\over (2\\pi)^2} \\int d^2x \\ \\langle \\beta({\\bf x})\\beta ({\\bf 0}) \\rangle e^{i {\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}}$$ $$= {1\\over (2\\pi)^2} \\int d^2x \\ \\langle \\beta({\\bf x}+{\\bf x'})\\beta ({\\bf x'}) \\rangle e^{i {\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}}$$ $$= {1\\over (2\\pi)^2} \\int d^2x'' \\ \\langle \\beta({\\bf x''})\\beta ({\\bf x'}) \\rangle e^{i {\\bf q}\\cdot ({\\bf x''}-{\\bf x'})}$$ This equation must be independent of ${\\bf x'}$ and we can therefore integrate over the ${\\bf x'}$-plane and divide by the area $A_0$ giving $$C_\\beta ({\\bf q}) =\n{1\\over  (2\\pi)^2 A_0}\\int d^2x' d^2x'' \\ \\langle \\beta({\\bf x''})\\beta ({\\bf x'})\n\\rangle e^{i {\\bf q}\\cdot ({\\bf x''}-{\\bf x'})}$$ $$= {(2\\pi)^2 \\over A_0} \\langle |\\beta ({\\bf q})|^2\\rangle$$ Let us define $$\\Delta \\beta ({\\bf x}) =  \\beta({\\bf x}) - \\bar \\beta\\eqno(36)$$ We get $$\\Delta \\beta ({\\bf q}) = \\beta({\\bf q})- \\bar \\beta \\delta ({\\bf q})$$ and thus $$\\langle | \\Delta \\beta ({\\bf q})|^2 \\rangle = \\langle | \\beta({\\bf q}) |^2  \\rangle\n\\left [1-{(2 \\pi)^2 \\over A_0}\\delta ({\\bf q})\\right ]\\eqno(37)$$ where we have used that $$\\bar \\beta \\delta({\\bf q}) = {(2\\pi )^2\\over A_0} \\beta({\\bf q}) \\delta ({\\bf q})$$ and that $$\\delta ({\\bf q}) \\delta ({\\bf -q}) = \\delta ({\\bf q}) {1\\over (2\\pi )^2} \\int d^2x \\ e^{-i{\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}} = \\delta ({\\bf q}) { A_0 \\over (2\\pi )^2}$$ Using (33) and (37) gives $$\\alpha = \\bar \\beta - {1\\over \\kappa}\\int d^2q q^{-1} C_{\\Delta \\beta}({\\bf q})\\eqno(38)$$\n\nLet us write $$\\langle \\Delta \\beta ({\\bf x}) \\Delta \\beta ({\\bf 0})\\rangle  =\n\\langle (\\Delta \\beta)^2\\rangle f({\\bf x})\\eqno(39)$$ where $f({\\bf 0})=1$. We write $$f({\\bf x}) =  \\int d^2q \\ f({\\bf q}) e^{i{\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}}$$ so that $f({\\bf x}={\\bf 0}) =1$ gives $$\\int d^2q \\ f({\\bf q}) =1\\eqno(40)$$ Using (39) and (40), Eq. (38) takes the form $$\\alpha = \\bar \\beta - \\langle (\\Delta \\beta )^2 \\rangle \\kappa^{-1} l \\eqno(41)$$ where the [*correlation length*]{} $$l= {\\int d^2 q \\ q^{-1} f({\\bf q)} \\over \\int d^2 q \\ f({\\bf q})}$$ For randomly rough surfaces with isotropic statistical properties $f({\\bf q})$ depends only on $q=|{\\bf q}|$ so that $$l= {\\int_0^\\infty dq \\ f(q) \\over \\int_0^\\infty dq \\ q f(q)}$$ Most surfaces of engineering interest are fractal-like, with the surface roughness power spectrum having a (long-distance) roll-off wavevector $q_0$. In this case one can show from that $l \\approx q_0^{-1}$. For the surface used in the numerical study presented below in Sec. 4 one have $q_0 \\approx 10^7 \\ {\\rm m}^{-1}$ (see Fig. \\[PowerSpectrumSiO2\\]). Furthermore, in this case (for amorphous silicon dioxide solids) $\\kappa \\approx 1 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ and if we assume that $\\langle (\\Delta \\beta)^2\\rangle $ is of order $ \\bar \\beta^2$ we get the ratio between the second and the first term in (41) to be of order $\\bar \\beta/(q_0 \\kappa) \\approx 0.01$, where we have used that typically (see Fig. \\[HeatAlphaSiO2\\]) $\\bar \\beta \\approx 0.1 \\ {\\rm MW /m^2K}$. Thus, in the application presented in Sec. 4 the second term in the expansion (41) is negligible.\n\nEq. (41) represent the first two terms in an infinite series which would result if (29) is iterated to infinite order. The result (41) is only useful if the first term $\\bar \\beta$ is much larger that the second term. If this is not the case one would need to include also higher order terms (in principle, to infinite order) which becomes very hard to calculate using the iterative procedure. By comparing the magnitude between the two terms in (41) one can determine if it is legitimate to include only the lowest order term $\\bar \\beta$.\n\nWe now consider two applications of (41), namely the contribution to the heat transfer from (a) the electromagnetic field (in vacuum) and (b) from heat transfer via a gas (e.g., the normal atmosphere) which we assume is surrounding the two solids.\n\n![ Solid line: The calculated \\[using (42)\\] heat current per unit area, $J_0$, between two (amorphous) silicon dioxide bodies, as a function of the temperature difference $\\Delta T$. The solids have flat surfaces separated by $d=1 \\ {\\rm nm}$. One solid is at the temperature $T=296 \\ {\\rm K}$ and the other at $T+\\Delta T$. Dashed line: linear function with the slope given by the initial slope (at $\\Delta T = 0$) of the solid line. []{data-label=\"DeltaT.J\"}](Fig.4.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n0.1cm **(a) Radiative contribution to $\\alpha$ (in vacuum)**\n\nThe heat flux per unit area between two black-bodies separated by $d>> d_T= c\\hbar /k_BT$ is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law $$J_0 = {\\pi^2 k_{\\rm B}^4 \\over 60 \\hbar^3 c^2} \\left (T_0^4-T_1^4\\right )$$ where $T_0$ and $T_1$ are the temperatures of solids ${\\bf 1}$ and ${\\bf 2}$, respectively, and $c$ the light velocity. In this limiting case the heat transfer between the bodies is determined by the propagating electromagnetic waves radiated by the bodies and does not depend on the separation $d$ between the bodies. Electromagnetic waves (or photons) always exist outside any body due to thermal or quantum fluctuations of the current density inside the body. The electromagnetic field created by the fluctuating current density exists also in the form of evanescent waves, which are damped exponentially with the distance away from the surface of the body. For an isolated body, the evanescent waves do not give a contribution to the energy radiation. However, for two solids separated by $d < d_{T}$, the heat transfer may increase by many orders of magnitude due to the evanescent electromagnetic waves\u2013this is often referred to as photon tunneling.\n\nFor short separation between two solids with flat surfaces ($d << d_{T}$), the heat current due to the evanescent electromagnetic waves is given by[@rev1] $$J_0 = {4\\over (2\\pi)^3} \\int_0^\\infty d\\omega \\ \\left (\\Pi_0(\\omega)-\\Pi_1(\\omega)\\right )$$ $$\\times \\int d^2q \\ e^{-2qd} {{\\rm Im} R_0(\\omega) {\\rm Im} R_1(\\omega) \\over\n|1-e^{-2qd} R_0(\\omega)R_1(\\omega) |^2}\\eqno(42)$$ where $$\\Pi (\\omega) = \\hbar \\omega \\left (e^{\\hbar \\omega /k_{\\rm B}T}-1\\right )^{-1}$$ and $$R(\\omega) = {\\epsilon (\\omega) -1 \\over \\epsilon (\\omega) + 1}$$ where $\\epsilon (\\omega)$ is the dielectric function. From (42) it follows that the heat current scale as $1/d^2$ with the separation between the solid surfaces. The heat current is especially large in the case of resonant photon tunneling between surface modes localized on the two different surfaces. The resonant condition corresponds to the case when the denominator in the integrand of (42) is small. Close to the resonance we can use the approximation $$R \\approx \\frac{\\omega_1}{\\omega -\\omega _0-i\\gamma },$$ where $\\omega_1$ is a constant and $\\omega_0$ is determined by the equation ${\\rm Re} [ \\epsilon (\\omega_0) + 1] =0$. In this case the heat current is determined by[@rev1] $$J_0 \\approx \\mu {\\gamma \\over d^2}\\left[\\Pi_0(\\omega_0)-\\Pi_1(\\omega_0)\\right],$$ where $\\mu \\approx [{\\rm log} (2\\omega _a/\\gamma )]^2/(8\\pi)$. If we write $T_1=T_0-\\Delta T$ and assume $\\Delta T/T_0 << 1$ we get $J_0=\\alpha \\Delta T$ with $$\\alpha \\approx \\mu {k_{\\rm B} \\gamma \\over d^2} {\\eta^2 {\\rm exp} (\\eta) \\over [{\\rm exp} (\\eta) -1 ]^2}\\eqno(43)$$ where $\\eta=\\hbar \\omega_0 /k_{\\rm B}T_0$.\n\nResonant photon tunneling enhancement of the heat transfer is possible for two semiconductor or insulator surfaces which can support low-frequency surface phonon-polariton modes in the mid-infrared frequency region. As an example, consider two clean surfaces of (amorphous) silicon dioxide (SiO$_2$). The optical properties of this material can be described using an oscillator model[@optical] $$\\epsilon (\\omega) = \\epsilon_\\infty + {a\\over \\omega_a^2 -\\omega^2 -i\\omega \\gamma_a}+{b\\over \\omega_b^2 -\\omega^2 -i\\omega \\gamma_b}$$ The frequency dependent term in this expression is due to optical phonon\u2019s. The values for the parameters $\\epsilon_\\infty$, $(a,\\omega_a,\\gamma_a)$ and $(b,\\omega_b,\\gamma_b)$ are given in Ref. [@optical]. In Fig. \\[DeltaT.J\\] we show the calculated heat current per unit area, $J_0$, as a function of the temperature difference $\\Delta T$. The solids have flat surfaces separated by $d=1 \\ {\\rm nm}$. One solid is at the temperature $T=296 \\ {\\rm K}$ and the other at $T+\\Delta T$. When $\\Delta T << T$, the heat transfer depends (nearly) linearly on the temperature difference $\\Delta T$ (see Fig. \\[DeltaT.J\\]), and we can define the heat transfer coefficient $\\alpha = J_0/\\Delta T$. In the present case (for $d=d_0 =1 \\ {\\rm nm}$) $\\alpha = \\alpha_0 \\approx 2\\times 10^6 \\ {\\rm W/m^2 K}$. If the surfaces are not smooth but if roughness occur so that the separation $d$ varies with the coordinate ${\\bf x}=(x,y)$ we have to first order in the expansion (41): $$\\alpha = \\bar \\beta = \\alpha_0 \\langle \\left (d_0/d \\right )^2 \\rangle\\eqno(44)$$ where $\\langle .. \\rangle$ stands for ensemble average, or average over the whole surface area, and where $\\alpha_0$ is the heat transfer between flat surfaces separated by $d=d_0$.\n\nIn the preset case the heat transfer is associated with thermally excited optical (surface) phonon\u2019s. That is, the electric field of a thermally excited optical phonon in one solid excites an optical phonon in the other solid, leading to energy transfer. The excitation transfer occur in both directions but if one solid is hotter than the other, there will be a net transfer of energy from the hotter to the colder solid. For metals, low-energy excited electron-hole pairs will also contribute to the energy transfer, but for good metals the screening of the fluctuating electric field by the conduction electrons leads to very ineffective heat transfer. However, if the metals are covered with metal oxide layers, and if the separation between the solids is smaller than the oxide layer thickness, the energy transfer may again be due mainly to the optical phonon\u2019s of the oxide, and the magnitude of the heat current will be similar to what we calculated above for (amorphous) silicon dioxide.\n\nLet us consider a high-tech application. Consider a MEMS device involving very smooth (amorphous) silicon dioxide slabs. Consider, for example, a very thin silicon dioxide slab rotating on a silicon dioxide substrate. During operation a large amount of frictional energy may be generated at the interface. Assume that the disk is pressed against the substrate with the nominal stress or pressure $p_0$. This does not need to be an external applied force but may be due to the long-ranged van der Waals attraction between the solids, or due to capillary bridges formed in the vicinity of the (asperity) contact regions between the solids. The heat transfer due to the area of real contact (assuming purely elastic deformation) can be calculated from (25). Let us make a very rough estimate: Surfaces used in MEMS application have typically a roughness of order a few nanometers. Thus, $u_0 \\sim 1 \\ {\\rm nm}$ and for (amorphous) silicon dioxide the heat conductivity $\\kappa \\approx 1 \\ {\\rm W/Km}$. Thus from (32): $$\\alpha \\approx (p_0/E) \\times 10^9 \\ {\\rm W/m^2 K}\\eqno(45)$$ In a typical case the nominal pressure $p_0$ may be (due to the van der Waals interaction and capillary bridges) between $10^6-10^7 \\ {\\rm Pa}$ and with $E\\approx 10^{11} \\ {\\rm Pa}$ we get from (45) $\\alpha \\approx 10^4 - 10^5 \\ {\\rm W/Km^2}$. If the root-mean-square roughness is of order $\\sim 1 \\ {\\rm nm}$ we expect the average separation between the surfaces to be of order a few nanometer so that $\\langle (d_0/d)^2 \\rangle \\approx 0.1$ giving the non-contact contribution to $\\alpha$ from the electromagnetic field of order \\[from (44)\\] $10^5 \\ {\\rm W/Km^2}$, i.e., larger than or of similar magnitude as the contribution from the area of real contact.\n\n0.1cm **(b) Contribution to $\\alpha$ from heat transfer via the surrounding gas or liquid**\n\nConsider two solids with flat surfaces separated by a distance $d$. Assume that the solids are surrounded by a gas. Let $\\Lambda$ be the gas mean free path. If $d >> \\Lambda$ the heat transfer between the solids occurs via heat diffusion in the gas. If $d << \\Lambda$ the heat transfer occurs by ballistic propagation of gas molecules from one surface to the other. In this case gas molecules reflected from the hotter surface will have (on the average) higher kinetic energy that the gas molecules reflected from the colder surface. This will result in heat transfer from the hotter to the colder surface. The heat current is approximately given by[@Bahrami1] $$J_0 \\approx {\\kappa_{\\rm gas} \\Delta T \\over d + a \\Lambda}$$ where $a$ is a number of order unity and which depend on the interaction between the gas molecules and the solid walls[@review]. For air (and most other gases) at the normal atmospheric pressure and at room temperature $\\Lambda \\approx 65 \\ {\\rm nm}$ and $\\kappa_{\\rm gas} \\approx 0.02 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$. For contacting surfaces with surface roughness we get to first order in the expansion in (41): $$\\alpha \\approx \\kappa_{\\rm gas} \\langle (d+\\Lambda )^{-1} \\rangle \\eqno(46)$$ where $\\langle .. \\rangle$ stand for ensemble average or averaging over the surface area. Eq. (46) also holds if the surfaces are surrounded by a liquid rather than a gas. In this case $\\kappa_{\\rm gas}$ must be replaced with the liquid heat conductivity $\\kappa_{\\rm liq}$ and in most cases one can put $\\Lambda$ equal to zero.\n\nIf we again consider a MEMS application where the average surface separation is of order nm we can neglect the $d$-dependence in (46) and get $\\alpha \\approx \\kappa_{\\rm gas}/\\Lambda \\approx 3\\times 10^5 \\ {\\rm W/m^2 K}$ which is similar to the contribution from the electromagnetic coupling.\n\n0.1cm **(c) Contribution to $\\alpha$ from heat transfer via capillary bridges**\n\nIf the solid walls are wet by water, in a humid atmosphere capillary bridges will form spontaneous at the interface in the vicinity of the asperity contact regions. For very smooth surfaces, such as in MEMS applications, the fluid (in this case water) may occupy a large region between the surfaces and will then dominate the heat transfer between the solids. Similarly, contamination layers (mainly organic molecules) which cover most natural surfaces may form capillary bridges between the contacting solids, and contribute in an important way to the heat transfer coefficient. The fraction of the interfacial surface area occupied by fluid bridges, and the separation between the solids in the fluid covered region, can be calculated using the theory developed in Ref. [@PerssonCapillary]. From this one can calculate the contribution to the heat transfer using (46): $$\\alpha \\approx \\kappa_{\\rm liq} \\langle d^{-1} \\rangle \\approx \\kappa_{\\rm liq} \\int_a^{d_{\\rm K}} du A_0 P(u) u^{-1}\\eqno(47)$$ where $P(u)$ is the distribution of interfacial separation $u$, and $A_0$ the nominal contact area. The lower cut-off $a$ in the integral is a distance of order a molecular length and $d_{\\rm K}$ is the maximum height of the liquid bridge which, for a system in thermal equilibrium and for a wetting liquid, is of order the Kelvin length. Note that $P(u)$ is normalized and that $$\\int_a^{d_{\\rm K}} du A_0 P(u) = \\Delta A\\eqno(48)$$ is the surface area (projected on the $xy$-plane) where the surface separation is between $a < u < d_{\\rm K}$.\n\n0.3cm **3. Contact mechanics: short review and basic equations**\n\nThe theory of heat transfer presented above depends on quantities which can be calculated using contact mechanics theories. Thus, the heat flux through the non-contact area (Sec. 2.2.2) depends on the average of some function $f[d({\\bf x})]$ of the interfacial separation $d({\\bf x})$. If $P(u)$ denote the probability distribution of interfacial separation $u$ then $$\\langle f(d) \\rangle = \\int_a^\\infty du \\ f(u) P(u)\\eqno(49)$$ where $a$ is a short-distance cut-off (typically of molecular dimension). The contribution from the area of real contact depends on the elastic energy $U_{\\rm el}$ stored in the asperity contact regions \\[see Eq. (23)\\]. In the limit of small contact pressure $U_{\\rm el}=p_0 u_0$, where $u_0$ is a length which is of order the root-mean-square roughness of the combined roughness profile. All the quantities $P(u)$, $U_{\\rm el}$ and $u_0$ can be calculated with good accuracy using the contact mechanics model of Persson. Here we will briefly review this theory and give the basic equations relevant for heat transfer.\n\n![\\[1x\\] An rubber block (dotted area) in adhesive contact with a hard rough substrate (dashed area). The substrate has roughness on many different length scales and the rubber makes partial contact with the substrate on all length scales. When a contact area is studied at low magnification it appears as if complete contact occur, but when the magnification is increased it is observed that in reality only partial contact occur. ](Fig.5.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nConsider the frictionless contact between two elastic solids with the Young\u2019s elastic modulus $E_0$ and $E_1$ and the Poisson ratios $\\nu_0$ and $\\nu_1$. Assume that the solid surfaces have the height profiles $h_0 ({\\bf x})$ and $h_1({\\bf x})$, respectively. The elastic contact mechanics for the solids is equivalent to those of a rigid substrate with the height profile $h({\\bf x}) = h_0({\\bf x})+\nh_1({\\bf x})$ and a second elastic solid with a flat surface and with the Young\u2019s modulus $E$ and the Poisson ratio $\\nu$ chosen so that[@Johnson2] $${1-\\nu^2\\over E} = {1-\\nu_0^2\\over E_0}+{1-\\nu_1^2\\over E_1}.\\eqno(50)$$\n\nThe contact mechanics formalism developed elsewhere[@PSSR; @JCPpers; @PerssonPRL; @JCPpers1] is based on the studying the interface between two contacting solids at different magnification $\\zeta$. When the system is studied at the magnification $\\zeta$ it appears as if the contact area (projected on the $xy$-plane) equals $A(\\zeta)$, but when the magnification increases it is observed that the contact is incomplete, and the surfaces in the apparent contact area $A(\\zeta)$ are in fact separated by the average distance $\\bar u(\\zeta)$, see Fig. \\[asperity.mag\\]. The (apparent) relative contact area $A(\\zeta)/A_0$ at the magnification $\\zeta$ is given by[@JCPpers; @JCPpers1] $${A(\\zeta)\\over A_0} = {1\\over (\\pi G )^{1/2}}\\int_0^{p_0} d\\sigma \\ {\\rm e}^{-\\sigma^2/4G}\n= {\\rm erf} \\left ( p_0 \\over 2 G^{1/2} \\right )\\eqno(51)$$ where $$G(\\zeta) = {\\pi \\over 4}\\left ({E\\over 1-\\nu^2}\\right )^2 \\int_{q_0}^{\\zeta q_0} dq q^3 C(q)\\eqno(52)$$ where the surface roughness power spectrum $$C(q) = {1\\over (2\\pi)^2} \\int d^2x \\ \\langle h({\\bf x})h({\\bf 0})\\rangle {\\rm e}^{-i{\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}}\\eqno(53)$$ where $\\langle ... \\rangle$ stands for ensemble average. The height profile $h({\\bf x})$ of the rough surface can be measured routinely today on all relevant length scales using optical and stylus experiments.\n\n![\\[asperity.mag\\] An asperity contact region observed at the magnification $\\zeta$. It appears that complete contact occur in the asperity contact region, but when the magnification is increasing to the highest (atomic scale) magnification $\\zeta_1$, it is observed that the solids are actually separated by the average distance $\\bar{u}(\\zeta)$. ](Fig.6.ps){width=\"35.00000%\"}\n\nWe define $u_1(\\zeta)$ to be the (average) height separating the surfaces which appear to come into contact when the magnification decreases from $\\zeta$ to $\\zeta-\\Delta \\zeta$, where $\\Delta \\zeta$ is a small (infinitesimal) change in the magnification. $u_1(\\zeta)$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $\\zeta$, and can be calculated from the average interfacial separation $\\bar u(\\zeta)$ and $A(\\zeta)$ using (see Ref.\u00a0[@JCPpers1]) $$u_1(\\zeta)=\\bar u(\\zeta)+\\bar u'(\\zeta) A(\\zeta)/A'(\\zeta),\\eqno(54)$$ where[@JCPpers1] $$\\bar{u}(\\zeta ) = \\surd \\pi \\int_{\\zeta q_0}^{q_1} dq \\ q^2C(q) w(q)$$ $$\\times \\int_{p(\\zeta)}^\\infty dp'\n \\ {1 \\over p'} e^{-[w(q,\\zeta) p'/E^*]^2},\\eqno(55)$$ where $E^*=E/(1-\\nu^2)$, and where $p(\\zeta)=p_0A_0/A(\\zeta)$ and $$w(q,\\zeta)=\\left (\\pi \\int_{\\zeta q_0}^q dq' \\ q'^3 C(q') \\right )^{-1/2}.$$\n\nThe distribution of interfacial separations $$P(u) = \\langle \\delta [u-u({\\bf x})]\\rangle$$ where $u({\\bf x}) = d({\\bf x})$ is the separation between the surfaces at point ${\\bf x}$. As shown in Ref. [@JCPpers1] we have (approximately) $$P(u)= \\int_1^\\infty d\\zeta \\ [-A'(\\zeta )] \\delta [u-u_1(\\zeta)]$$ Thus we can write (49) as $$\\langle f(d) \\rangle = \\int_1^{\\zeta_1} d\\zeta \\ [-A'(\\zeta )] f[u_1(\\zeta)]\\eqno(56)$$ where $\\zeta_1$ is defined by $u_1({\\zeta_1})=a$.\n\n![\\[block\\] An elastic block squeezed against a rigid rough substrate. The separation between the average plane of the substrate and the average plane of the lower surface of the block is denoted by $u$. Elastic energy is stored in the block in the vicinity of the asperity contact regions. ](Fig.7.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nFinally, the elastic energy $U_{\\rm el}$ and the length parameter $u_0$ can be calculated as follows. The elastic energy $U_{\\rm el}$ has been studied in Ref. [@elast]: $$U_{\\rm el} = A_0 E^* {\\pi \\over 2} \\int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \\ q^2 W(q,p)C(q).\\eqno(57)$$ In the simplest case one take $W(q,p)=P(q,p)=A(\\zeta) /A_0$ is the relative contact area when the interface is studied at the magnification $\\zeta = q/q_0$, which depends on the applied pressure $p=p_0$. A more accurate expression is $$W(q,p) = P(q,p) \\left [\\gamma +(1-\\gamma) P^2(q,p)\\right ].\\eqno(58)$$ However, in this case one also need to modify (55) appropriately (see Ref. [@JCPpers1]). The parameter $\\gamma$ in (58) seams to depend on the surface roughness. For self-affine fractal surfaces with the fractal dimension $D_{\\rm f} \\approx 2.2$ we have found that $\\gamma \\approx 0.5$ gives good agreement between the theory and numerical studies[@Chunyan1]. As $D_{\\rm f} \\rightarrow 2$ analysis of numerical data indicate that $\\gamma \\rightarrow 1$.\n\nFor small pressures one can show that[@JCPpers1]: $$p=\\beta E^* e^{- \\bar u/u_0},\\eqno(59)$$ where $$u_0 = \\surd \\pi \\gamma \\int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \\ q^2 C(q) w(q),\\eqno(60)$$ where $w(q)=w(q,1)$, and where $$\\beta = \\epsilon \\\n{\\rm exp}\\left [  {\\int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \\ q^2C(q) w(q) {\\rm log} w(q)\\over\n\\int_{q_0}^{q_1} dq \\ q^2C(q) w(q)}\\right ],\\eqno(61)$$ where (for $\\gamma = 1$) $\\epsilon=0.7493$.\n\n![\\[PowerSpectrumSiO2\\] Surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$ as a function of the wavevector $q$ on a log-log scale (with 10 as basis). For a typical surface used in MEMS applications with the root mean square roughness $2.5 \\ {\\rm nm}$ when measured over an area $10 \\ {\\rm \\mu m} \\times 10 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$. ](Fig.8.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[HeatAlphaSiO2\\] The contribution to the heat transfer coefficient $\\alpha$ from the direct contact area, and the non-contact contribution due to the fluctuating electromagnetic (EM) field and due to heat transfer via the surrounding gas. For a randomly rough surface with the (combined) surface roughness power spectrum shown in Fig. \\[PowerSpectrumSiO2\\]. ](Fig.9.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[relativeHumidity.logAlpha.contact.fluid\\] The logarithm (with 10 as basis) of the contribution to the heat transfer coefficient $\\alpha$ from the real contact areas, and from the water in the capillary bridges, as a function of the relative (water) humidity. For a randomly rough surface with the (combined) surface roughness power spectrum shown in Fig. \\[PowerSpectrumSiO2\\]. The squeezing pressure $p_0 = 4 \\ {\\rm MPa}$ and the effective solid elastic modulus $E^* = 86 \\ {\\rm GPa}$. The heat conductivity of water $\\kappa_{\\rm fluid} = 0.58  \\ {\\rm W/mK}$. ](Fig.10.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n0.3cm **4. Numerical results**\n\nIn this section we present numerical results to illustrate the theory. We focus on a MEMS-like application. In Fig. \\[PowerSpectrumSiO2\\] we show the surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$ as a function of the wavevector $q$ on a log-log scale (with 10 as basis) for a typical surface used in MEMS applications, with the root mean square roughness $2.5 \\ {\\rm nm}$ when measured over an area $10 \\ {\\rm \\mu m} \\times 10 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$. In Fig. \\[HeatAlphaSiO2\\] we show for this case the contribution to the heat transfer coefficient $\\alpha$ from the direct contact area, and the non-contact contribution due to the fluctuating electromagnetic (EM) field and due to heat transfer via the surrounding gas. In the calculation of the EM-contribution we have used (44) with $\\alpha_0\n= 2.0 \\ {\\rm MW/m^2K}$ (and $d_0 = 1 \\ {\\rm nm}$). For the contribution from the surrounding gas we have used (46) with $\\kappa_{\\rm gas} = 0.024 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ and $\\Lambda = 65 \\ {\\rm\nnm}$ (and $a=1$). For the contact contribution we used (25) with $\\kappa = 1 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$. In all calculations we have assumed $E^*\n= 86 \\ {\\rm GPa}$ and that the contact is elastic (no plastic yielding).\n\nWe have also studied the contribution to the heat transfer from capillary bridges which on hydrophilic surfaces form spontaneous in a humid atmosphere. The capillary bridges gives an attractive force (to be added to the external squeezing force), which pulls the solids closer together. We have used the theory presented in Ref. [@PerssonCapillary] to include the influence of capillary bridges on the contact mechanics, and to determine the fraction of the interface area filled with fluid at any given relative humidity. In Fig. \\[relativeHumidity.logAlpha.contact.fluid\\] we show the logarithm (with 10 as basis) of the contribution to the heat transfer coefficient $\\alpha$ from the real contact areas, and from the water in the capillary bridges, as a function of the relative (water) humidity. For relative humidity below $\\sim 0.4$ the contribution to the heat transfer from capillary bridges decreases roughly linearly with decreasing humidity (and vanish at zero humidity), and for relative humidity below $\\sim 0.015$ the heat transfer via the area of real contact will be more important than the contribution from the capillary bridges. However the contribution from heat transfer via the air or vapor phase (not shown) is about $\\sim 0.3 \\ {\\rm MW/m^2 K}$ (see Fig. \\[HeatAlphaSiO2\\]), and will hence give the dominant contribution to the heat transfer for relative humidity below $0.3$. The small increase in the contribution from the area of real contact for relative humidity around $\\sim 0.94$ is due to the increase in the contact area due to the force from the capillary bridges. For soft elastic solids (such as rubber) this effect is much more important: see Ref. [@PerssonCapillary] for a detailed discussion of this effect, which will also affect (increase) the heat transfer in a drastic way.\n\nWe note that heat transfer via capillary bridges has recently been observed in nanoscale point contact experiments[@capillary1]. In this study the authors investigated the heat transfer mechanisms at a $\\sim 100 \\ {\\rm nm}$ diameter point contact between a sample and a probe tip of a scanning thermal microscope. They observed heat transfer both due to the surrounding (atmospheric) air, and via capillary bridges.\n\n![\\[log.magnification.u0.logAelast.logAplast\\] The elastic $A_{\\rm el}$ and plastic $A_{\\rm pl}$ contact area as a function of magnification on a log-log scale (with 10 as basis). The penetration hardness $\\sigma_{\\rm Y} = 4 \\ {\\rm GPa}$ and the applied pressure $p_0= 4 \\ {\\rm MPa}$. Also shown is the asperity-induced elastic energy $U_{\\rm el}(\\zeta)$ in units of the full elastic energy $U_{\\rm el} (\\zeta_1)$ obtained when all the roughness (with wavevectors below $q_1 = \\zeta_1 q_0$) is included. The vertical dashed line indicate the magnification where $A_{\\rm el} = A_{\\rm pl}$. ](Fig.11.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n0.3cm **5. Role of adhesion and plastic deformation**\n\nIn the theory above we have assumed that the solids deform purely elastically. However, in many practical situations the solids will deform plastically at short enough length scale. Similarly, in many practical situations, in particular for elastically soft solids, the area of real contact may depend strongly on the adhesive interaction across the contacting interface. Here we will briefly discuss under which circumstances this will affect the heat transfer between the solids.\n\nThe contribution to the heat transfer from the area of real contact between two solids depends on the elastic energy $U_{\\rm el}$ stored in the asperity contact regions, or, at small enough applied loads, on the length parameter $u_0$. For most randomly rough surfaces these quantities are determined mainly by the long-wavelength, large amplitude surface roughness components. Similarly, the interfacial separation, which determines the non-contact contribution to the heat transfer, depends mainly on the long-wavelength, large amplitude surface roughness components. On the other hand, plastic deformation and adhesion often manifest themself only at short length scales, corresponding to high magnification. For this reason, in many cases one may assume purely elastic deformation when calculating the heat transfer, even if, at short enough length scale, all asperities have yielded plastically, or the adhesion has strongly increased the (apparent) contact area. Let us illustrate this with the amorphous silicon dioxide system studied in Sec. 4.\n\nIn Fig. \\[log.magnification.u0.logAelast.logAplast\\] we show the elastic and plastic contact area as a function of magnification on a log-log scale (with 10 as basis). Also shown is the asperity-induced elastic energy $U_{\\rm el}(\\zeta)$ in units of the full elastic energy $U_{\\rm el}(\\zeta_1)$ obtained when all the roughness (with wavevectors below $q_1 = \\zeta_1 q_0$) is included. Note that about $90 \\%$ of the full elastic energy is already obtained at the magnification where the elastic and plastic contact areas are equal, and about $60 \\%$ of the full elastic energy is obtained when $A_{\\rm pl} /A_{\\rm el} \\approx 0.01$. Thus, in the present case, to a good approximation, we can neglect the plastic deformation when studying the heat transfer. In the calculation we have assumed the penetration hardness $\\sigma_{\\rm Y} = 4 \\ {\\rm GPa}$ and the squeezing pressure $p_0 = 4 \\ {\\rm MPa}$. Thus, at high magnification, where all the contact regions are plastically deformed, the relative contact area $A/A_0 = p_0/\\sigma_{\\rm Y} = 0.001$ in good agreement with the numerical data in Fig. \\[log.magnification.u0.logAelast.logAplast\\].\n\nIf necessary, it is easy to include adhesion and plastic deformation when calculating the heat transfer coefficient $\\alpha$. Thus (26b) is also valid when adhesion is included, at least as long as adhesion is treated as a contact interaction. However, in this case the interfacial stiffness $dp_0/d\\bar u$ must be calculated including the adhesion (see Ref. [@CYang]). Plastic deformation can be included in an approximate way as follows. If two solids are squeezed together at the pressure $p_0$ they will deform elastically and, at short enough length scale, plastically. If the contact is now removed the surfaces will be locally plastically deformed. Assume now that the surfaces are moved into contact again at exactly the same position as the original contact, and with the same squeezing pressure $p_0$ applied. In this case the solids will deform purely elastically and the theory outlined in this paper can be (approximately) applied assuming that the surface roughness power spectrum $\\bar C(q)$ of the (plastically) deformed surface is known. In Ref. [@PSSR] we have described an approximately way of how to obtain $\\bar C(q)$ from $C(q)$ by defining (with $q=\\zeta q_0$) $$\\bar C(q) = \\left (1- {A_{\\rm pl}(\\zeta)\\over A_{\\rm pl}^0}\\right )C(q)$$ where $A_{\\rm pl}^0 = F_{\\rm N}/\\sigma_{\\rm Y}$. The basic picture behind this definition is that surface roughness at short length scales get smoothed out by plastic deformation, resulting in an effective cut-off of the power spectrum for large wavevectors (corresponding to short distances).\n\n![\\[hest2\\] Temperature distribution of rubber tread (thickness $d$) in contact with the air. The air temperature (for $z > d$) and the temperature at the outer ($z=d$) and inner ($z=0$) rubber surfaces are denoted by $T_{\\rm air}$, $T_1$ and $T_0$, respectively. ](Fig.12.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n0.3cm **6. Application to tires**\n\nHere we will briefly discuss heat transfer in the context of tires. The rolling resistance $\\mu_{\\rm R}$ of a tire determines the heat production in a tire during driving on a strait planar road at a constant velocity $v$. In a stationary state the energy produced per unit time, $W=\\mu_{\\rm R} F_{\\rm N} v$, must equal the transfer of energy per unit time, from the tire to the surrounding atmosphere and to the road surface. Here we will briefly discuss the relative importance of these two different contributions to the heat transfer.\n\nAssume for simplicity that the frictional heat is produced uniformly in the tread rubber, and assume a tire without tread pattern. Let $z$ be a coordinate axis perpendicular to the rubber surface. In this case at stationary condition the temperature in the tread rubber satisfies $T''(z)=-\\dot q/\\kappa$ where $\\dot q$ is the frictional heat produced per unit volume and unit time. We assume that the heat current vanish at the inner rubber surface ($z=0$, see Fig. \\[hest2\\]), so that $T'(0)=0$. Thus we get $T(z) = T_0-\\dot q z^2 /2\\kappa$. The heat current at the outer rubber surface $$J_0 =-\\kappa T'(d) = \\dot q d.\\eqno(62)$$ The temperature of the outer surface of the tread rubber $$T_1 = T(d) = T_0 -\\dot q d^2 /2\\kappa\\eqno(63)$$ Let us now assume that the heat transfer to the surrounding $$J_0 =\\alpha (T_1-T_{\\rm air})\\eqno(64)$$ Combining (62)-(64) gives $$T_1 = T_0-{T_0-T_{\\rm air} \\over 1+2\\kappa/d\\alpha}\\eqno(65)$$ For rubber $\\kappa \\approx 0.2 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ and with $d= 1 \\ {\\rm cm}$ and $\\alpha \\approx 100 \\ {\\rm W/m^2 K}$, as is typical for (forced) convective heat transfer between a tire and (dry) air (see Appendix E and Ref. [@Oh]), we get $$T_1 \\approx 0.3 T_0 + 0.7 T_{\\rm air}.$$ The temperature profile is shown (schematically) in Fig. \\[hest2\\]. In reality, the heat production, even during pure rolling, will be somewhat larger close to the outer surface of the tread and the resulting temperature profile in the tread rubber will therefore be more uniform than indicated by the analysis above.\n\nLet us now discuss the relative importance of the contributions to the heat transfer to the air and to the road. We assume that the heat transfer to the atmosphere and to the road are proportional to the temperature difference $T_1-T_{\\rm air}$ and $T_1 - T_{\\rm road}$, respectively. We get $$\\mu_{\\rm R} F_{\\rm N} v = \\alpha_{\\rm air} A_{\\rm surf} (T_1-T_{\\rm air})\n+ \\alpha_{\\rm road} A_0 (T_1 - T_{\\rm road})\\eqno(66)$$ where $A_{\\rm surf}$ is the outer surface area of the tread, and $A_0$ the nominal tire-road footprint area. For rubber in contact with a road surface $\\kappa$ in Eq. (22) is $ \\approx 0.2  \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ and with $p_0/E^* \\approx 0.04$ and $u_0 \\approx 10^{-3} \\ {\\rm m}$ (as calculated for a typical case) we get $\\alpha_{\\rm road} \\approx 10 \\ {\\rm W/m^2 K}$ which is smaller than the contribution from the forced convection. Since the nominal contact area between the tire and the road is much smaller than the total rubber tread area, we conclude that the contribution from the area of real contact between the road and the tire is rather unimportant. During fast acceleration wear process may occur, involving the transfer of hot rubber particles to the road surface, but such processes will not considered here. In addition, at the inlet of the tire-road footprint area, air may be be compressed and then rapidly squeezed out from the tire-road contact area resulting in strong forced convective cooling of the rubber surface in the contact area. A similar process involving the inflow of air occur at the exit of the tire-road footprint area. A detailed study of this complex process is necessary in order to accurately determine the heat transfer from a tire to the surrounding atmosphere and the road surface.\n\nFor a passenger car tire during driving on a strait planar road at a constant velocity $v$, the tire temperature which follows from (66) is in reasonably agreement with experiment. Thus, using (66) we get $$\\Delta T =T_1-T_{\\rm air} \\approx {\\mu_{\\rm R} F_{\\rm N} v \\over \\alpha_{\\rm air} A_{\\rm surf}}\\eqno(67)$$ and with $\\alpha_{\\rm air} =  100 \\ {\\rm W/m^2 K}$, $A_{\\rm surf} \\approx 0.5 \\ {\\rm m^2}$ and $\\mu_{\\rm R} \\approx 0.02$, $F_{\\rm N} = 3500 \\ {\\rm N}$ and $v=30 \\ {\\rm m/s}$ we get $\\Delta T \\approx 40 \\ ^\\circ {\\rm C}$.\n\nThe discussion above has focused on the stationary state where the heat energy produced in the tire per unit time is equal to the energy given off to the surrounding per unit time. However, for a rolling tire it may take a very long time to arrive at this stationary state. In the simplest picture, assuming a uniform temperature in the tire rubber, we get from energy conservation $$\\rho C_{\\rm v} {dT\\over dt} = \\dot q -{\\alpha \\over d} (T-T_{\\rm air})$$ or, if $T(0)=T_{\\rm air}$, $$T(t) = T_{\\rm air} +{\\dot q d \\over \\alpha} \\left (1-e^{-t/\\tau}\\right ),$$ where the relaxation time $\\tau = \\rho C_{\\rm V} d /\\alpha \\approx 200 \\ {\\rm sec}$. In reality, the temperature in the tire is not uniform, and this will introduce another relaxation time $\\tau'$, defined as the time it takes for heat to diffuse a distance $d$, which is of order $\\tau' = \\rho C_{\\rm V} d^2/\\kappa$. The ratio $\\tau' / \\tau  = \\alpha d /\\kappa$. For rubber $\\kappa \\approx 0.2 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ and assuming $d= 1 \\ {\\rm cm}$ and $\\alpha = 100 \\ {\\rm W/m^2 K}$ gives $\\tau' / \\tau \\approx 5$ or $\\tau' \\approx 10^3 \\ {\\rm sec}$. Experiment have shown that it typically takes $\\sim 30 \\ {\\rm minutes}$ to fully build up the tire temperature during rolling[@Oh].\n\nRubber friction depends sensitively on the temperature of the rubber, in particular the temperature close to the rubber surface in contact with the road. The temperature in the surface region of a tire varies rapidly in space and time, which must be considered when calculating the rubber friction[@Flash]. The shortest time and length scales are related to the contact between the road asperities and the rubber surface in the tire-road footprint contact area. During slip this generate intense heating which varies over length scales from a few micrometer to several mm, and over time scales shorter than the time a rubber patch stays in the footprint, which typically may be of order a few milliseconds. During this short time very little heat is transferred to the surrounding, and very little heat conduction has occurs inside the rubber, i.e., the heat energy mainly stays where it is produced by the internal friction in the rubber. This result in a [*flash temperature*]{} effect, which has a crucial influence on rubber friction[@Flash]. However, rubber friction also depends on the [*background temperature*]{} (usually denoted by $T_0$), which varies relatively slowly in space and time, e.g., on time scales from the time $\\sim 0.1 \\ {\\rm s}$ it takes for the tire to perform a few rotations, up to the time $\\sim 30 \\ {\\rm minutes}$ necessary to build up the full tire temperature after any change in the driving condition (e.g., from the start of driving). Note that the time variation of the background temperature $T_0$ depends on the surrounding (e.g., the air and road temperatures, humidity, rain, ...) and on the driving history, while the flash temperature effect mainly depends on the slip history of a tread block (or rubber surface patch) in the footprint contact area, but not on the outside air or road temperature, or atmospheric condition.\n\n![\\[experiment\\] Experiment to test the theory predictions for the heat transfer across interfaces. The increase in the temperature $T_1(t)$ of the water in the lower container, with increasing time $t$, determines the heat transfer between the upper and lower water container. ](Fig.13.ps){width=\"40.00000%\"}\n\n0.3cm **7. A new experiment**\n\nWe have performed a very simple experiment to test the theoretical predictions for the heat transfer. The setup consists of two containers, both filled with distilled water, standing on top of each other with a thin silicon rubber film in between. The upper container is made from copper (inner diameter $5 \\ {\\rm cm}$), and the water is heated to the boiling temperature (i.e., $T_0=100 ^\\circ\\mathrm{C}$). The lower container is made from PMMA with a cylindrical copper block at the top. To study the effect of surface roughness on the heat transfer, the copper block can be replaced by another copper block with different surface roughness. In the experiments presented below we used 3 copper blocks with different surface roughness.\n\nThe temperature $T_1(t)$ of the water in the lower container will increase with time $t$ due to the heat current $J_0$ flowing from the upper container to the lower container: $$J_0 = \\rho C_{\\rm V} \\dot T_1 d \\eqno(68)$$ where $d$ is the height of the water column in the lower container (in our experiment $d=3.5\\ {\\rm cm}$), and where $\\rho$ and $C_{\\rm V}$ are the water mass density and heat capacity respectively. We measure the temperature of the water in the lower container as a function of time, starting at $25^\\circ\\mathrm{C}$. To obtain a uniform temperature of the water in the lower container we mix it using a (magnetic-driven) rotating metal bar.\n\nWe have investigated the heat transfer using copper blocks with different surface roughness. To prepare the rough surfaces, we have pressed annealed (plastically soft) copper blocks with smooth surface against sandpaper, using a hydraulic press. We repeated this procedure several times to obtain randomly rough surfaces. The roughness of the copper surfaces can be changed by using sandpaper of different grade (consisting of particles with different (average) diameter). Due to the surface roughness, the contact between the top surface of the lower container and the thin silicon rubber sheet (thickness $d_0=2.5 \\ {\\rm mm}$) attached to the upper container, is only partial. The bottom surface of the upper container has been highly polished and we can neglect the heat resistance at this rubber-copper interface. Thus, most of the resistance to the heat flow arises from the heat diffusion through the rubber sheet, and from the resistance to the heat flow at the interface between the rubber and the rough copper block.\n\nThe rubber sheet (elastic modulus $E = 2.5 \\ {\\rm MPa}$, Poisson ration $\\nu = 0.5$) was made from a silicone elastomer (PDMS). We have used Polydimethylsiloxane because of its almost purely elastic behavior on the time scales involved in our experiments. The PDMS sample was prepared using a two-component kit (Sylgard 184) purchased from Dow Corning (Midland, MI). This kit consists of a base (vinyl-terminated polydimethylsiloxane) and a curing agent (methylhydrosiloxane-dimethylsiloxane copolymer) with a suitable catalyst. From these two components we prepared a mixture of 10:1 (base/cross linker) in weight. The mixture was degassed to remove the trapped air induced by stirring from the mixing process and then poured into cylindrical casts (diameter $5 \\ \\mathrm{cm}$ and height $d_0 = 2.5 \\ \\mathrm{%\nmm}$). The bottom of these casts were made from glass to obtain smooth surfaces (negligible roughness). The samples were cured in an oven at $80 \\ ^\\circ\\mathrm{C}$ for over 12 hours.\n\nUsing (3) we can write $$J_0 \\approx {T_0-T_1(t)\\over d_0 \\kappa_0^{-1}+\\alpha^{-1}}\\eqno(69)$$ where $\\kappa_0$ the heat conductivity of the rubber. Here we have neglected the influence of the copper blocks on the heat transfer resistance, which is a good approximation because of the high thermal conductivity of copper. Combining (68) and (69) gives $$\\tau \\dot T_1 = T_0-T_1(t)$$ where the relaxation time $$\\tau_0 = \\rho C_{\\rm V} d \\left ({d_0 \\over \\kappa_0}+{1\\over \\alpha} \\right ).$$ If we assume that $\\tau_0$ is time independent, we get $$T_1(t) = T_0+\\left [ T_1(0)-T_0 \\right ] e^{-t/\\tau_0}.\\eqno(70a)$$\n\nIn the study above we have assumed that there is no heat transfer from the lower container to the surrounding. However, if necessary one can easily take into account such a heat transfer: If we assume that the heat transfer depends linearly on the temperature difference between the water and the surrounding we can write $$J_1 = \\alpha_1 \\left (T_1 - T_{\\rm surr}\\right)$$ In this case it is easy to show that (70a) is replaced with $$T_1(t) = T_a+\\left [ T_1(0)-T_a \\right ] e^{-t/\\tau}.\\eqno(70b)$$ where $T_a$ is the temperature in the water after a long time (stationary state where $J_0=J_1$), and where the relaxation time $\\tau$ now is given by $$\\tau = \\rho C_{\\rm V} d {T_a-T_{\\rm surr} \\over T_0 - T_{\\rm surr}}\n\\left ({d_0 \\over \\kappa_0}+{1\\over \\alpha} \\right ).$$\n\nThe heat transfer across the rubber\u2013copper interface can occur via the area of real contact, or via the non-contact area via heat diffusion in the thin air film or via radiative heat transfer. Since all these heat transfer processes act in parallel we have $$\\alpha \\approx \\alpha_{\\rm gas} + \\alpha_{\\rm con} + \\alpha_{\\rm rad}.$$ Let us estimate the relative importance of these different contributions to $\\alpha$. Using the (diffusive) heat conductivity of air $\\kappa_{\\rm gas} \\approx 0.02 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ and assuming $\\langle d^{-1} \\rangle = (20 \\ {\\rm \\mu m})^{-1}$ gives $$\\alpha_{\\rm gas} = \\kappa_{\\rm gas} \\langle (d+\\Lambda )^{-1}\\rangle\n\\approx \\kappa_{\\rm gas} \\langle d^{-1}\\rangle \\approx 1000 \\ {\\rm W/m^2K}.$$ Let us assume that $p_0 \\approx 0.01 \\ {\\rm MPa}$, $E^* \\approx 2 \\ {\\rm MPa}$, $u_0 \\approx 10 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$ and (for rubber) $\\kappa_0 = 0.2 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$. Thus $$\\alpha_{\\rm con} = {p_0 \\kappa_0 \\over E^* u_0} \\approx 100 \\ {\\rm W/m^2K}.$$ Here we have used that $\\kappa \\approx \\kappa_0$ (since the heat conductivity $\\kappa_1$ of copper is much higher than for the rubber). Finally, assuming the radiative heat transfer is well approximated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law and assuming that $(T_0-T_1)/T_1 << 1$, we get with $T_0 = 373 \\ {\\rm K}$ $$\\alpha_{\\rm rad} \\approx {\\pi^2 k_{\\rm B}^4 \\over 60 \\hbar^3 c^2} 4 T_0^3 \\approx 10 \\ {\\rm W/m^2 K}$$\n\nNote that $\\alpha_{\\rm rad}$ is independent of the squeezing pressure $p_0$, while $\\alpha_{\\rm con} \\sim p_0$. The pressure dependence of $\\alpha_{\\rm gas}$ will be discussed below.\n\nIn the experiment reported on below the silicon rubber film has the thickness $d_0 = 2.5 \\ {\\rm mm}$ so that $d_0^{-1} \\kappa_0 \\approx 100 \\ {\\rm W/m^2K}$. Thus $${1\\over d_0^{-1} \\kappa_0}+{1\\over \\alpha} \\approx \\left ( {1\\over 100} + {1\\over 1000+100+10}\\right ) ({\\rm W/m^2K})^{-1}$$ and it is clear from this equation that in the present case the thin rubber film will give the dominant contribution to the heat resistance. This is in accordance with our experimental data presented below.\n\n![\\[all3\\] The surface roughness power spectrum of the three copper surfaces used in the experiment. The surfaces [**1**]{}, [**2**]{} and [**3**]{} have the root-mean-square roughness $42$, $88$ and $114 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$, respectively. ](Fig.14.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[pressure.alphafluid.all3\\] The variation of the of the heat transfer coefficient from the contact area ($\\alpha_{\\rm con}$) and from the air-gap ($\\alpha_{\\rm gas}$) with the squeezing pressure. The surfaces [**1**]{}, [**2**]{} and [**3**]{} have the power spectra\u2019s shown in Fig. \\[all3\\]. ](Fig.15.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[Surface1.and.3.cumulative.probability\\] The variation of the cumulative probability with the height (or gap-separation) $u$. The surfaces [**1**]{} and [**3**]{} (top) and [**2**]{} (bottom) have the power spectra\u2019s shown in Fig. \\[all3\\]. For each surface the curves are for the nominal squeezing pressures (from left to right): $11.8$, $23.7$, $35.5$, $47.3$, $59.2$ and $71.0 \\ {\\rm kPa}$. ](Fig.16.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n0.3cm **8. Experimental results and discussion**\n\nTo test the theory we have performed the experiment described in Sec. 7. We have performed experiments on four different (copper) substrate surfaces, namely one highly polished surface (surface [**0**]{}) with the root-mean-square (rms) roughness $64 \\ {\\rm nm}$, and for three rough surfaces with the rms roughness $42$, $88$ and $114 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$. In Fig. \\[all3\\] we show the surface roughness power spectrum of the three latter surfaces. Including only the roughness with wavelength above $\\sim 30 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$, the rms slope of all three surfaces are of order unity, and the normalized surface area $A/A_0 \\approx 1.5$ in all cases.\n\nIn Fig. \\[pressure.alphafluid.all3\\] we show for the surfaces [**1**]{}, [**2**]{} and [**3**]{}, the pressure dependence of heat transfer coefficient from the contact area ($\\alpha_{\\rm con}$) and from the air-gap ($\\alpha_{\\rm gas}$). Note that both $\\alpha_{\\rm con}$ and $\\alpha_{\\rm gas}$ varies (nearly) linearly with $p_0$. The latter may at first appear remarkable because we know that at the low (nominal) squeezing pressures used in the present calculation (where the area of real contact varies linearly with $p_0$), the average surface separation $\\bar u = \\langle u \\rangle$ depends logarithmically on $p_0$. However, the heat transfer via heat diffusion in the air gap depends on $\\langle (u+\\Lambda )^{-1} \\rangle$ which depends on $p_0$ almost linearly as long as $\\bar u >> \\Lambda$, which is obeyed in our case. This can be understood as follows: $\\langle u \\rangle$ is determined mainly by the surface regions where the surface separation is close to its largest value. On the other hand $\\langle (u+\\Lambda) ^{-1} \\rangle$ is determined mainly by the surface regions where $u$ is very small, i.e., narrow strips (which we will refer to as boundary strips) of surface area close to the area of real contact. Now, for small $p_0$ the area of real contact increases linearly with $p_0$ while the distribution of sizes of the contact regions is independent of $p_0$. It follows that the total area of the boundary strips will also increase linearly with $p_0$. Thus, since $\\langle (u+\\Lambda )^{-1} \\rangle$ is determined mainly by this surface area, it follows that $\\langle (u+ \\Lambda )^{-1} \\rangle$ will be nearly proportional to $p_0$. We note that in Fig. \\[HeatAlphaSiO2\\] $\\alpha_{\\rm gas}$ is nearly pressure independent, but this is due to the fact that the (combined) surface in this case is extremely smooth (root-mean-square roughness $2.5 \\ {\\rm nm}$) so that the $u$-term in $\\langle (u+\\Lambda)^{-1}\\rangle$ can be neglected compared to the gas mean free path $\\Lambda$, giving a nearly pressure independent gas heat transfer coefficient. However, in the system studied above $\\bar u$ is much larger than $\\Lambda$ and the result is nearly independent of $\\Lambda$.\n\nNote that in the present case (see Fig. \\[pressure.alphafluid.all3\\]) $\\alpha_{\\rm gas} >> \\alpha_{\\rm con}$ so that the present experiment mainly test the theory for the heat flow in the air gap.\n\nIn Fig. \\[Surface1.and.3.cumulative.probability\\] we show the variation of the cumulative probability with the height (or gap-separation) $u$ for the surfaces [**1**]{} and [**3**]{} (top) and [**3**]{} (bottom).\n\nIn Fig. \\[time.temp.surfaces.1.2.3.Boris\\] we show the measured (dots) and calculated \\[using (70b)\\] (solid lines) temperature in the lower container as a function of time. Results are for all four surfaces and for the nominal squeezing pressure $p_0 = 0.012 \\ {\\rm MPa}$. In Fig. \\[time.temp.surfaces.2.low.high.Boris\\] we show the measured (dots) and calculated (solid lines) temperature in the lower container as a function of time. Results are for surface [**2**]{} for the nominal squeezing pressure $p_0 = 0.012$ (lower curve) and $0.071 \\ {\\rm MPa}$ (upper curve). Note that there is no fitting parameter in the theory calculations, and the agreement between theory and experiment is relative good.\n\nThe heat resistance of the system studied above is dominated by the thin rubber film. The reason for this is the low heat conductivity of rubber (roughly 100 times lower than for metals). For direct metal-metal contact the contact resistance will be much more important. However, for very rough surfaces it is likely that plastic flow is observed already at such low magnification (corresponding to large length scales) that it will affect the contact resistance. Nevertheless, it is interesting to compare the theory predictions for elastic contact with experimental data for metal-metal contacts.\n\nIn Fig. \\[Fe.Cu.Al.new\\] we show the measured heat transfer coefficient for metal-metal contacts with steel, copper and aluminum[@data1]. The surfaces have the effective (or combined) rms surface roughness $h_{\\rm rms}=7.2 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$ (steel), $2.2 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$ (Cu) and $5.0 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$ (Al). Assume that the variation of $\\alpha$ with $p_0$ is mainly due to the area of real contact, i.e., we neglect the heat transfer via the thin air film between the surfaces. Fitting the data points in Fig. \\[Fe.Cu.Al.new\\] with strait lines gives the slope ${d\\alpha / dp_0} ({\\rm exp})$ (in units of ${\\rm {m/sK}}$): $$2\\times 10^{-4} \\ ({\\rm steel}), \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 7 \\times 10^{-3} \\ ({\\rm Cu}), \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1.2 \\times 10^{-3} \\ ({\\rm Al})$$ Using (26a) with $u_0 \\approx 0.4 h_{\\rm rms}$ (here we have assumed $\\gamma = 0.4$) gives ${d\\alpha / dp_0} ({\\rm theory})= \\kappa/E^*u_0$: $$1\\times 10^{-4} \\ ({\\rm steel}), \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 4 \\times 10^{-3} \\ ({\\rm Cu}), \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 1.3 \\times 10^{-3}  \\ ({\\rm Al})$$ The agreement between theory and experiment is very good taking into account that plastic deformation may have some influence on the result, and that an accurate analysis requires the full surface roughness power spectrum $C(q)$ (in order to calculate $u_0$ accurately, and in order to include plastic deformation if necessary (see Sec. 5)), which was not reported on in Ref. [@data1]. We note that experimental results such as those presented in Fig. \\[Fe.Cu.Al.new\\] are usually analyzed with a phenomenological model which assumes plastic flow and neglect elastic deformation. In this theory the heat transfer coefficient[@Yovanovich] $$\\alpha \\approx {\\kappa s p_0\\over h_{\\rm rms}\\sigma_{\\rm Y}}\\eqno(71)$$ is proportional to the rms [*surface slope*]{} $s$, but it is well known that this quantity is dominated by the very shortest wavelength roughness which in fact makes the theory ill-defined. In Ref. [@data1] the data presented in Fig. \\[Fe.Cu.Al.new\\] was analyzed using (71) with $s=0.035$, $0.006$ and $0.03$ for the steel, Cu and Au surfaces, respectively. However, analysis of polished surfaces with similar rms roughness as used in the experiments usually gives slopes of order unity when all roughness down to the nanometer is included in the analysis[@unpublished]. Using $s\\approx 1$ in (71) gives heat transfer coefficients roughly $\\sim 100$ times larger than observed in the experiments. (In our theory \\[Eq. (26a)\\] $s/\\sigma_{\\rm Y}$ in (71) is replaced by $1/E^*$, and since typically $E^*/\\sigma_Y \\approx 100$, our theory is consistent with experimental observations.)[@argued] We conclude that the theory behind (71) is incorrect or incomplete. A theory which includes both elastic and plastic deformation was described in Sec. 5.\n\n![\\[time.temp.surfaces.1.2.3.Boris\\] The measured (dots) and calculated (solid lines) temperature in the lower container as a function of time. Results are for all four surfaces and for the nominal squeezing pressure $p_0 = 0.012 \\ {\\rm MPa}$. ](Fig.17.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[time.temp.surfaces.2.low.high.Boris\\] The measured (dots) and calculated (solid lines) temperature in the lower container as a function of time. Results are for surface [**2**]{} for the nominal squeezing pressure $p_0 = 0.012$ (lower curve) and $0.071 \\ {\\rm MPa}$ (upper curve). ](Fig.18.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[Fe.Cu.Al.new\\] Variation of the heat transfer coefficient $\\alpha$ with the squeezing pressure $p_0$ for metal-metal contact with steel, copper and aluminum. The surfaces have the effective (or combined) root-mean-square surface roughness values $h_{\\rm rms}=7.2 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$ (steel), $2.2 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$ (copper) and $5.0 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$ (aluminum). The heat conductivity of the metals are $\\kappa = 54 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ (steel), $381 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ (copper) and $174 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ (aluminum). Based on experimental data from Ref. [@data1]. ](Fig.19.ps){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n0.3cm **9. Electric contact resistance**\n\nIt is easy to show that the problem of the electrical contact resistance is mathematically equivalent to the problem of the thermal contact resistance. Thus, the electric current (per unit nominal contact area) $J_0$ through an interface between solids with randomly rough surfaces can be related to the electric potential drop $\\Delta \\phi$ at the interface via $J_0 =\\alpha' \\Delta \\phi$ where, in analogy with (25), $$\\alpha' = {p_0 \\kappa' \\over E^* u_0}\\eqno(72)$$ where $\\kappa'$ is the electrical conductivity. However, from a practical point of view the problem of the electrical contact resistance is more complex than for the heat contact resistance because of the great sensitivity of the electric conductivity on the type of material (see Appendix D). Thus, in a metal-metal contact the contact resistance will depend sensitively on if the thin insulating oxide layers, which covers most metals, are fractured, so that direct metal-metal contact can occur. On the other hand, in most cases there will be a negligible contribution to the electric conductivity from the non-contact regions.\n\n0.3cm **10. Summary and conclusion**\n\nWe have studied the heat transfer between elastic solids with randomly rough but nominally flat surfaces squeezed in contact with the pressure $p_0$. Our approach is based on studying the heat flow and contact mechanics in wavevector space rather than real space which has the advantage that we do not need to consider the very complex fractal-like shape of the contact regions in real space. We have included both the heat flow in the area of real contact as well as the heat flow across the non-contact surface region. For the latter contribution we have included the heat transfer both from the fluctuating electromagnetic field (which surrounds all material objects), and the heat flow via the surrounding gas or liquid. We have also studied the contribution to the heat transfer from capillary bridges, which form spontaneously in a humid atmosphere (e.g., as a result of organic and water contamination films which occur on most solid surfaces in the normal atmosphere). We have presented an illustrative application relevant for MEMS applications involving very smooth amorphous silicon dioxide surfaces. In this case we find that all the mentioned heat transfer processes may be roughly of equal importance.\n\nWe have briefly discussed the role of plastic deformation and adhesion on the contact heat resistance. We have pointed out that even if plastic deformation and adhesion are important at short length scale (or high magnification) they may have a negligible influence on the heat transfer since the elastic energy stored in the asperity contact regions, which mainly determines both the interfacial separation and the contact heat transfer coefficient, is usually mainly determined by the long-wavelength surface roughness components, at least for fractal-like surfaces with fractal dimension $D_{\\rm f} < 2.5$ (which is typically obeyed for natural surfaces and surfaces of engineering interest).\n\n0.5cm [**Acknowledgments**]{}\n\nWe thank Christian Schulze (ISAC, RWTH Aachen University) for help with the measurement of the surface topography of the copper surfaces. A.I.V. acknowledges financial support from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant N 08-02-00141-a) and from DFG. This work, as part of the European Science Foundation EUROCORES Program FANAS, was supported from funds by the DFG and the EC Sixth Framework Program, under contract N ERAS-CT-2003-980409.\n\n[**Appendix A**]{}\n\nIn Sec. 2.2.1 we have assumed that $${1\\over J_0^2}\\int d^2 q {1\\over q} \\langle |\\Delta J_z({\\bf q})|^2 \\rangle \\approx\n{1\\over p_0^2}\\int d^2 q {1\\over q} \\langle |\\Delta \\sigma_z({\\bf q})|^2 \\rangle \\eqno(A1)$$ This equation is a consequence of the fact that for elastic solids with randomly rough surfaces the heat transfer coefficient depends mainly on the geometrical distribution of the contact area. This can be understood as follows. Let ${\\rm x}_n$ denote the center of the contact spot $n$ and let $I_n$ be the heat current through the same contact spot. We now approximate $$J_z({\\bf x}) \\approx \\sum_n I_n \\delta ({\\bf x}-{\\bf x}_n).$$ Thus $$A_0 J_0 = \\sum_n I_n$$ and $$J_z({\\bf q}) = {1\\over (2\\pi )^2} \\sum_n I_n e^{-i{\\bf q}\\cdot {\\bf x}_n}$$ Thus the left hand side (LHS) of (A1) becomes $${\\rm LHS}\\approx \\left ({A_0\\over (2\\pi )^2}\\right )^2 \\left (\\sum_n I_n \\right )^{-2}$$ $$\\times \\sum^\\prime_{mn} I_n I_m \\int d^2q \\\n{1\\over q} e^{i{\\bf q}\\cdot ({\\bf x}_m-{\\bf x}_n)}\\eqno(A2)$$ where the prime on the summation indicate that the term $m=n$ is excluded from the sum. Next note that $$\\int d^2q \\ {1\\over q} e^{i{\\bf q}\\cdot ({\\bf x}_m-{\\bf x}_n)}= {4 \\pi\n\\over |{\\bf x}_m-{\\bf x}_n |} \\eqno(A3)$$ Substituting (A3) in (A2) gives $${\\rm LHS} \\approx {A_0^2\\over 4 \\pi^3} \\left (\\sum_n I_n \\right )^{-2}\n\\sum^\\prime_{mn} {I_m I_n \\over |{\\bf x}_m-{\\bf x}_n|} \\eqno(A4)$$ If one assume that there is no correlation between the magnitude of $I_n$ (determined by the size of the contact) and its position, we can replace the individual current $I_n$ in the double summation in (A2) by their mean and get $${\\rm LHS}\n%={1\\over J_0^2}\\int d^2 q {1\\over q} \\langle |\\Delta J_z({\\bf q})|^2 \\rangle\n\\approx  {1\\over 4 n^2 \\pi^3}\n\\sum^\\prime_{mn} {1 \\over |{\\bf x}_m-{\\bf x}_n |}\\eqno(A5)$$ where $n=N/A_0$ is the concentration of contact spots and $N$ the total number of contact spots. In the same way as above one can simplify the expression involving the normal stress (right hand side (RHS) of (A1)). We write $$\\sigma({\\bf x}) = \\sum_n f_n \\delta ({\\bf x}-{\\bf x}_n)$$ where $f_n$ is the normal force acting in the contact $n$. Using this equation the RHS of (A1) becomes $${\\rm RHS} \\approx {A_0^2\\over 4 \\pi^3} \\left (\\sum_n f_n \\right )^{-2}\n\\sum^\\prime_{mn} {f_m f_n \\over |{\\bf x}_m-{\\bf x}_n|}\\eqno(A6)$$ If one assume that there is no correlation between the magnitude of $f_n$ and its position, we can replace the individual current $f_n$ in the double summation in (A6) by their mean and get $${\\rm RHS} \\approx  {1\\over 4 n^2 \\pi^3}\n\\sum^\\prime_{mn} {1 \\over |{\\bf x}_m-{\\bf x}_n |}\\eqno(A7)$$ Thus, ${\\rm LHS} \\approx {\\rm RHS}$ and we have proved the (approximate) equality (A1).\n\nSubstituting (A5) in (20) gives $${1\\over \\alpha} \\approx {1 \\over \\pi \\kappa n} {1\\over N} \\sum^\\prime_{mn}\n{1 \\over |{\\bf x}_m-{\\bf x}_n|}\\eqno(A8)$$ which agree with the derivation of Greenwood[@GreenW]. We refer to the article of Greenwood for an interesting discussion about the contact resistance based on the (approximate) expression (A8) for the contact resistance.\n\n0.5cm\n\n[**Appendix B**]{}\n\nThe normal (interfacial) stress $\\sigma_z({\\bf x})$ and the difference in the surface displacement $u_{0z}({\\bf x})-u_{1z}({\\bf x})$ at the interface can be considered to depend on the average interfacial separation $\\bar u$. The derivatives of these quantities with respect to $\\bar u$ are denoted by $\\sigma'_z$ and $\\phi$. In Appendix C we show that $$\\phi({\\bf q}) = \\delta ({\\bf q}) - {2\\over E^* q} \\Delta \\sigma'_z({\\bf q}).\\eqno(B1)$$ Note that (15) and (B1) are very similar. Thus, if we multiply both sides of (B1) with $M$ and define $M\\phi = \\psi$ then (B1) takes the form $$\\psi ({\\bf q}) = M \\delta ({\\bf q})-{\\mu \\over \\kappa q} \\Delta \\sigma'_z({\\bf q})\\eqno(B2)$$ where $$\\mu = {2 M \\kappa \\over E^*}\\eqno(B3)$$ Eq. (B2) is identical to (15) if we write $$J_z({\\bf q}) = \\mu \\sigma'_z({\\bf q}),\\eqno(B4)$$ or, equivalently, $$J_z({\\bf x})/J_0 =\\sigma'_z ({\\bf x})/p'_0$$ where $p'_0$ is the normal stiffness. We note that (B4) implies that the current density $J_z({\\bf x})$ will be non-vanishing exactly where the normal stress $\\sigma_z ({\\bf x})$ is non-vanishing, which must be obeyed in the present case, where all the heat current flow through the area of real contact. However, in order for $J_z({\\bf x})$ to be proportional to $\\sigma'_z({\\bf x})$ it is not enough that these functions obey similar (in the sense discussed above) differential equations, but both problems must also involve similar boundary conditions. Now in the area of non-contact both $J_z$ and $\\sigma_z$ and hence $\\sigma'_z$ must vanish. In the area of real contact the temperature field $T$ is continuous so that $\\psi = T({\\bf x},-0)-T({\\bf x},+0) = 0$, while the displacement field satisfies $\\Phi = u_{0z}-u_{1z} = h({\\bf x})$ so that (since $h({\\bf x})$ is independent of $\\bar u$), $\\phi = 0$ in the area of real contact. Thus, both problems involves the same boundary conditions and $J_z$ and $\\sigma'_z$ must therefore be proportional to each other.\n\nNote that (B4) gives $J_0 = \\mu p'_0$. Substituting (B3) in this equation and using the definition (16) gives an equation of the form (3) with $$\\alpha = - {\\kappa \\over E^*} {dp_0 \\over d\\bar u }.$$ This [*exact*]{} relation between the heat transfer coefficient and the normal stiffness per unit area has already been derived by Barber[@Barber] using a someone different approach.\n\n0.5cm [**Appendix C**]{}\n\nIn Ref. [@JCPpers] it was shown that the normal displacement $u_{0z}$ is related to the normal stress $\\sigma_z$ via $$u_{0z}({\\bf q})= -{2\\over E_0^* q}\\sigma_z({\\bf q}),\\eqno(C1)$$ where $E_0^* = E_0/(1-\\nu_0^2)$. In a similar way $$u_{1z}({\\bf q}) = {2\\over E_1^* q} \\sigma_z({\\bf q}).\\eqno(C2)$$ Let $\\Phi = u_{0z}-u_{1z}$ be the difference between the (interfacial) surface displacement fields. Using (C1) and (C2) gives $$\\Phi({\\bf q}) = -{2\\over E^* q} \\sigma_z({\\bf q})\\eqno(C3)$$ where $${1\\over E^*} = {1\\over E_0^*}+{1\\over E_1^*}$$ Note that the average of $\\Phi({\\bf x})$ is the average separation between the surfaces which we denote by $\\bar u$. Thus if $$\\sigma_z({\\bf x}) = p_0 + \\Delta \\sigma_z({\\bf x})$$ we get $$\\Phi({\\bf q}) = \\bar u \\delta({\\bf q})-{2\\over E^* q} \\Delta \\sigma_z({\\bf q})\\eqno(C4)$$ As the squeezing pressure $p_0$ increases, the average separation $\\bar u$ will decrease and we can consider $p_0$ as a function of $\\bar u$. The quantity $p'_0(\\bar u)$ is referred to as the normal stiffness per unit nominal contact area. Taking the derivative of (C4) with respect to $\\bar u$ gives $$\\phi({\\bf q}) = \\delta({\\bf q})-{2\\over E^* q} \\Delta \\sigma'_z({\\bf q})\\eqno(C5)$$ where $\\sigma'_z$ is the derivative of $\\sigma_z$ with respect to $\\bar u$ and where $\\phi = \\Phi'$ is the derivative of $\\Phi$ with respect to $\\bar u$.\n\n0.5cm [**Appendix D**]{}\n\nHeat conduction result from the collisions between atoms as in fluids, or by free electron diffusion as predominant in metals, or phonon diffusion as predominant in insulators. In liquids and gases, the molecules are usually further apart than in solids, giving a lower chance of molecules colliding and passing on thermal energy. Metals are usually the best conductors of thermal energy. This is due to the free-moving electrons which are able to transfer thermal energy rapidly through the metal. However, the difference in the thermal conductivity of metals and non-metals are usually not more than a factor $\\sim 100$. Typical values for the heat conductivity are $\\kappa \\approx 100 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ for metals, $\\approx 1 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ for insulators (e.g., metal oxides or polymers), $\\approx 0.1 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ for fluids (but for water $\\kappa \\approx 0.6 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$) and $\\approx 0.02 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ for gases at normal atmospheric pressure and room temperature.\n\nIn contrast to thermal heat transfer, electric conduction always involves the motion of charged particles (electrons or ions). For this reason the electric contact resistance is much more sensitive to oxide or contamination layers at the contacting interface then for the heat transfer. For the electric conduction the variation of the conductivity between good conductors (most metals), with the typical electric conductivity $\\kappa' \\approx 10^7 \\ {\\rm (\\Omega m)^{-1}}$, and bad conductors such as silicon dioxide glass or (natural) rubber where $\\kappa' \\approx 10^{-14} \\ {\\rm (\\Omega m)^{-1}}$, is huge. This makes the electrical contact resistance of metals sensitive to (nanometer) thin oxide or contamination layers. However, as pointed out in the Introduction, if there is a large number of small breaks in the film, the resistance may be almost as low as with no film.\n\n0.5cm [**Appendix E**]{}\n\nHere we briefly summarize some results related to forced convective heat transfer[@Landau]. When a fluid (e.g., air) flow around a solid object the tangential (and the normal) component of the fluid velocity usually vanish on the surface of the solid. This result in the formation of a thin boundary layer (thickness $\\delta$) at the surface of the solid where the fluid velocity rapidly increases from zero to some value which is of order the main stream velocity outside of the solid. If the temperature $T_1$ at the solid surface is different from the fluid temperature $T_{\\rm fluid}$, the fluid temperature in the boundary layer will also change rapidly from $T_1$ to $T_{\\rm fluid}$. Depending on the fluid flow velocity, the fluid viscosity and the dimension of the solid object the flow will be laminar or turbulent, and the heat transfer process is fundamentally different in these two limiting cases. In a typical case (for air) the thickness $\\delta \\approx 1 \\ {\\rm mm}$ and the heat transfer coefficient $\\alpha \\approx \\kappa / \\delta \\approx 10 \\ {\\rm W/m^2K}$.\n\nLet us consider heat transfer from a rotating disk as a model for the heat transfer from a tire[@Allen]. In this case it has been shown[@Popiel] that fully turbulent flow occur if the Reynolds number ${\\rm Re} > 2.5\\times 10^5$ where $${\\rm Re}= {\\omega R^2\\over \\nu} = {v_{\\rm R} R \\over \\nu}$$ where $R$ is the radius of the disk (or rather the distance from the center of the disk to some surface patch on the disk), $\\omega$ the angular velocity and $\\nu$ the kinematic viscosity of air. In typical tire applications ${\\rm Re} > 2.5\\times 10^5$ so turbulent flow will prevail in most tire applications. In this case the heat transfer coefficient is given approximately by[@Popiel]: $$\\alpha_{\\rm air} \\approx 0.019 {\\kappa_{\\rm air} \\over R} \\left ( {v_{\\rm R} R \\over \\nu} \\right )^{0.8}.$$ As an example, at $T=300 \\ {\\rm K}$ for air $\\nu = 15.7 \\times 10^{-6} \\ {\\rm m^2/s}$ and $\\kappa_{\\rm air} = 0.025 \\ {\\rm W/mK}$ and assuming $R=0.3 \\ {\\rm m}$ and $v_{\\rm R} = 30 \\ {\\rm m/s}$ we get $\\alpha_{\\rm air} \\approx 63 \\ {\\rm W/m^2K}$.\n\n[99]{}\n\nB.N.J. Persson, J. Phys.: Condensed Matter [**18**]{}, 7789 (2006).\n\nFor a review of thermal joint resistance models for rough surfaces, see, e.g., M. Bahrami, J.R. Culham, M.M. Yanavovich and G.E. Schneider, Applied Mechanics Reviews [**59**]{}, 1 (2006).\n\nJ.A. Greenwood and J.B.P. Williamson, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A**295**, 300 (1966).\n\nA.W. Bush, R.D. Gibson and T.R. Thomas, Wear **35**, 87 (1975).\n\nC. Campana, M.H. M\u00fcser and M.O. Robbins, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 354013 (2008)\n\nG. Carbone and F. Bottiglione, J. Mech. Phys. Solids [**56**]{}, 2555 (2008). See also Appendix A in B.N.J. Persson et al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 395006 (2008).\n\nB.N.J. Persson, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 312001 (2008).\n\nB.N.J. Persson, F. Bucher and B. Chiaia, Phys. Rev. B**65**, 184106 (2002).\n\nB.N.J. Persson, J. Chem. Phys. **115**, 3840 (2001); B.N.J. Persson, Eur. Phys. J. E**8**, 385 (2002)\n\nB.N.J. Persson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 125502 (2007).\n\nC. Yang and B.N.J. Persson, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, **20**, 215214 (2008)\n\nB.N.J. Persson, Surf. Science Reports **61**, 201 (2006).\n\nB.N.J. Persson and C. Yang, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 315011 (2008).\n\nM. Borri-Brunetto, B. Chiaia and M. Ciavarella, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. [**190**]{}, 6053 (2001).\n\nL. Pei, S. Hyun, J.F. Molinari and M.O. Robbins, J. Mech. Phys. Solids [**53**]{}, 2385 (2005).\n\nSee, e.g., B.N.J. Persson, O. Albohr, U. Tartaglino, A.I. Volokitin and E. Tosatti, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **17**, R1 (2005).\n\nB.N.J. Persson, [*Sliding Friction: Physical Principles and Applications*]{} 2nd edn (Springer, Heidelberg, 2000).\n\nC. Yang, U. Tartaglino and B.N.J. Persson, Eur. Phys. J E**19**, 47 (2006).\n\nS. Hyun, L. Pei, J.F. Molinarie and M.O. Robbins, Phys. Rev. E[**70**]{}, 026117 (2004).\n\nY.F. Mo, K.T. Turner and I. Szlufarska, Nature [**457**]{}, 1116 (2009).\n\nJ.A. Greenwood, Brit. J. Appl. Phys. [**17**]{}, 1621 (1966).\n\nJ.R. Barber, Proc. R. Soc. London A[**459**]{}, 53 (2003).\n\nJ.F. Archard, Wear [**2**]{}, 438 (1959).\n\nD. Pires, B. Gotsmann, F. Porro, D. Wiesmann, U. Duerig and A. Knoll, Langmuir [**25**]{}, 5141 (2009).\n\nA.I. Volokitin and B.N.J. Persson, Reviews of Modern Physics [**79**]{}, 1291 (2007).\n\nK. Joulain, J.P. Mulet, F. Marquier, R. Carminati and J.J. Greffet, Surf. Sci. Rep. [**57**]{}, 59 (2005).\n\nD. Segal and A. Nitzan, Chem. Phys. [**268**]{} 315 (2001); Chem. Phys. [**281**]{} 235 (2002).\n\nY. Selzer, M.A. Cabassi, T.S. Mayer and D.L. Allara, Nanotechnology [**15**]{}, S483 (2004).\n\nV. Popov, [*Kontaktmechanik und Reibung*]{}, Springer, Heidelberg (2009).\n\nM. Bahrami, J.R. Culham and M.M. Yanavovich, Proceedings of IMECE 2003, Washington, USA.\n\nD.Z.A. Chen, R. Hamam, M. Soljacic, J.D. Joannopoulos and G. Chen, Apllied Physics Letters [**90**]{}, 181921 (2007).\n\nM. Bahrami, M.M. Yanavovich and J.R. Culham, Journal of Thermophysics and heat transfer [**18**]{}, 326 (2004).\n\nB.N.J. Persson, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{}, 315007 (2008).\n\nK.L. Johnson, [*Contact Mechanics*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.\n\nL. Shi and A. Majumdar, J. Heat Transfer [**124**]{}, 329 (2002).\n\nC. Yang, B.N.J. Persson, J. Israelachvili and K. Rosenberg, Eur. Phys. Lett. [**84**]{}, 46004 (2008).\n\nB.S. Oh, Y.N. Kim, N.J. Kim, H.Y. Moon and H.W. Park, Tire Science and Technology [**23**]{}, 11 (1995).\n\nH. Y\u00fcnc\u00fc, Heat Mass Transfer [**43**]{}, 1 (2006).\n\nM.M. Yavanovich, AIAA-86-1164, presented at 16th thermo physics conference (1981), Polo Alto, CA, USA.\n\nAs an example, using AFM we have measured the height profile of a polished steel surface over a $10 {\\rm \\mu m}\\times 10 {\\rm \\mu m}$ surface area with the resolution $a=20 \\ {\\rm nm}$. From the numerical data we calculated the root-mean-square (rms) roughness $h_{\\rm rms} \\approx 0.1 \\ {\\rm \\mu m}$ and the rms slope $s \\approx 0.6$. Increasing the lateral resolution would increase the slope further since the slope is mainly determined by the short wavelength roughness.\n\nIt may be argued that, due to plastic deformation, the slope in (71) should be calculated including only the roughness with wavelength above some cut-off length. However, no discussion of this point was presented in Ref. [@Yovanovich].\n\nL.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1959).\n\nJ. Mc Allen, A.M. Cuitino and V. Sernas, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design [**23**]{}, 265 (1996).\n\nC.O. Popiel and L. Boguslawski, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer [**18**]{}, 170 (1975).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In 1972, K. Kenmotsu studied a class of almost contact Riemannian manifolds. Later, such a manifold was called a Kenmotsu manifold. This paper, we studied Kenmotsu manifolds with $(2n+s)$-dimensional $s-$contact metric manifold and this manifold, we have called generalized Kenmotsu manifolds. Necessary and sufficient condition is given for an almost $s-$contact metric manifold to be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.We show that a generalized Kenmotsu manifold is a locally warped product space. In addition, we study some curvature properties of generalized Kenmotsu manifolds. Moreover, we show that the $\\varphi $-sectional curvature of any semi-symmetric and projective semi-symmetric $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold is $-s$.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    [ ]{}\\\n    <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">Aysel TURGUT\u00a0VANLI and Ramazan SARI</span>\n---\n\n[^1] [^2] [^3]\n\nIntroduction {#introduction .unnumbered}\n============\n\nIn *[@Y],* K.Yano introduced the notion of a $f-$structure on a differentiable manifold $M$, i.e., a tensor fields $f$ of type $(1,1)$ and $rank$ $2n$ satisfying $f^{3}+f=0$ as a generalization of both (almost) contact (for $s=1$) and (almost) complex structures (for $s=0$). $TM$ splits into two complementary subbundles $\\mathcal{L=}$ $Im\\varphi $ and $\\mathcal{M=}$ $ker\\varphi $. The existence of which is equivalent to a reduction of the structural group of the tangent bundle to $\\mathit{U(n)\\times O(s)}$ *[@BL]*. H. Nakagawa in *[@Nak]* and *[@Nak2]* introduced the notion of globally framed f-manifolds (*called f-manifolds*), later developed and studied by Goldberg and Yano *[@G],* *[@GY],* *[@GY2]*. A wide class of globally frame $f$-manifolds was introduced in *[@BL],* by Blair according to the following definition. A metric $f$-structure is said to be a $K$-structure if the fundamental 2-form $\\Phi $, defined usually as $\\Phi (X,Y)=g(X,\\varphi Y)$, for any vector fields $X$ and $Y$ on $M$, is closed and the normality condition holds, that is; $[\\varphi ,\\varphi ]+2\\sum_{i=1}^{s}d\\eta ^{i}\\otimes \\xi _{i}=0$ where $[\\varphi ,\\varphi ]$ denotes the Nijenhuis torsion of $\\varphi $. Some authors studeid $f$-structure *[@BL2],* *[@CFF],* *[@YK]*. The Riemannian connection $\\nabla $ of a metric $f-$manifold satisfies the following formula *[@Bkitap],* $$\\begin{aligned}\n2g((\\nabla _{X}\\varphi )Y,Z) &=&3d\\Phi (X,\\varphi Y,\\varphi Z) -3d\\Phi(X,Y,Z)+g(N^{1}(Y,Z),\\varphi X)  \\notag \\\\\n&&+\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\{N^{2}(Y,Z)\\eta ^{i}(X)+2d\\eta\n^{i}(\\varphi Y,X)\\eta ^{i}(Z)-2d\\eta ^{i}(\\varphi Z,X)\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\},\\end{aligned}$$ where the tensor fields $N^{1}$ and $N^{2}$ are defined by $N^{1}=[\\varphi\n,\\varphi ]+2\\sum_{i=1}^{s}d\\eta ^{i}\\otimes \\xi _{i},$ $N^{2}(X,Y)=(L_{_{\\varphi X}}\\eta ^{i})(Y)-(L_{_{\\varphi Y}}\\eta ^{i})(X)$ respectively, which is by a simple computation can be rewritten as: $N^{2}(X,Y)=2d\\eta\n^{i}(\\varphi X,Y)-2d\\eta ^{i}(\\varphi Y,X).$\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+1)$ dimensional differentiable manifold. $M$ is called an *almost contact metric manifold* if $\\varphi $ is $(1,1)$ type tensor field, $\\xi $ is vector field, $\\eta $ is $1-$ form and $g$ is a compatible Riemannian metric such that $$\\varphi ^{2}=-I+\\eta \\otimes \\xi ,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\\eta (\\xi )=1$$$$g(\\varphi X,\\varphi Y)=g(X,Y)-\\eta (X)\\eta (Y)$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM).$\n\nIn addition, we have$$\\eta (X)=g(X,\\xi ),\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\\varphi (\\xi )=0,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\\eta (\\varphi )=0$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM)$ [@Bkitap].\n\nTo study manifolds with negative curvature, Bishop and O\u2019Neill introduced the notion of warped product as a generalization of Riemannian product *[@Bis]*. In 1960\u2019s and 1970\u2019s, when almost contact manifolds were studied as an odd dimensional counterpart of almost complex manifolds, the warped product was used to make examples of almost contact manifolds *[@Tan]*. In addition, S. Tanno classified the connected $(2n+1)$ dimensional almost contact manifold $M$ whose automorphism group has maximum dimension $(n+1)^{2}$ in *[@Tan]*$. $ For such a manifold, the sectional curvature of plane sections containing $\\xi $ is a constant, say $c$. Then there are three classes.\n\n$i)$ $c>0$, M is homogeneous Sasakian manifold of constant holomorphic sectional curvature.\n\n$ii)$ $c=0$, M is the global Riemannian product of a line or a circle with a K$\\ddot{a}$hler manifold of constant holomorphic sectional curvature.\n\n$iii)$ $c<0$, M is warped product space $\\mathbb{R}\n\\times _{f}\\mathbb{C}\n^{n}.$ Kenmotsu obtained some tensorial equations to characterize manifolds of the third case.\n\nIn 1972 , Kenmotsu abstracted the differential geometric properties of the third case. In *[@K],* Kenmotsu studied a class of almost contact Riemannian manifold which satisfy the following two condition,$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{X}\\varphi )Y &=&-\\eta (Y)\\varphi X-g(X,\\varphi Y)\\xi \\\\\n\\nabla _{X}\\xi &=&X-\\eta (X)\\xi  \\notag\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHe showed normal an almost contact Riemannian manifold with $(5)$ but not quasi Sasakian hence not Sasakian. He was to characterize warped product space $L\\times _{f}\\mathbb{C}\nE^{n}$ by an almost contact Riemannian manifold with $(5)$. Moreover, he show that every point of an almost contact Riemannian manifold with $(5)$ has a neighborhood which is a warped $(-\\epsilon ,\\epsilon )\\times _{f}V$ where $f(t)=ce^{t}$ and $V$ is K\u00e4hler.\n\nIn 1981 *[@Jan],* Janssens and Vanhecke, an almost contact metric manifold satisfiying this $(5)$ is called a Kenmotsu manifold. After this definition, some authors studied Kenmotsu manifold *[@DP], [@JDP], [@P], [@Pr].*\n\nThe paper is organized as follows: after a preliminary basic notions of $s-$contact metric manifolds theory, in Section 2, we introduced generalized almost Kenmotsu manifolds and generalized Kenmotsu manifolds. Necessary and sufficient condition is given for a $s-$contact metric manifold to be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold. The warped product $L^{s}\\times _{f}V^{2n}$ provides an example. In section 3, some curvature properties are given. In section 4, we studied Ricci curvature tensor. In section 5, we studied semi-symmetric properties of generalized Kenmotsu manifolds. We show that the $\\varphi $-sectional curvature of any semi-symmetric and projective semi-symmetric $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold is $-s$.\n\nPreliminaries\n=============\n\nIn *[@GY],* a $(2n+s)-$dimensional differentiable manifold $M$ is called metric $f-$manifold if there exist an $(1,1)$ type tensor field $\\varphi $, $s$ vector fields $\\xi _{1},\\dots ,\\xi _{s}$, $s$ $1$-forms $\\eta\n^{1},\\dots ,\\eta ^{s}$ and a Riemannian metric $g$ on $M$ such that$$\\varphi ^{2}=-I+\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}\\otimes \\xi _{i},\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\n&\n\\end{array}\\eta ^{i}(\\xi _{j})=\\delta _{ij}$$$$g(\\varphi X,\\varphi Y)=g(X,Y)-\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\eta\n^{i}(X)\\eta ^{i}(Y),$$for any $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),$ $i,j\\in \\{1,\\dots ,s\\}$. In addition, we have$$\\eta ^{i}(X)=g(X,\\xi _{i}),\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\n&\n\\end{array}g(X,\\varphi Y)=-g(\\varphi X,Y),\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\\varphi \\xi _{i} =0,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\\eta ^{i}\\circ \\varphi =0.$$\n\nThen, a $2$-form $\\Phi $ is defined by $\\Phi (X,Y)=g(X,\\varphi Y)$, for any $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM)$, called the *fundamental* $\\mathit{2}$*-form*.\n\nIn what follows, we denote by $\\mathcal{M}$ the distribution spanned by the structure vector fields $\\xi _{1},\\dots ,\\xi _{s}$ and by $\\mathcal{L}$ its orthogonal complementary distribution. Then, $TM=\\mathcal{L}\\oplus \\mathcal{M}$. If $X\\in \\mathcal{M}$ we have $\\varphi X=0$ and if $X\\in \\mathcal{L}$ we have $\\eta ^{i}(X)=0$, for any $i\\in \\{1,\\dots ,s\\}$; that is, $\\varphi\n^{2}X=-X$.\n\nIn a metric $f$-manifold, special local orthonormal basis of vector fields can be considered. Let $U$ be a coordinate neighborhood and $E_{1}$ a unit vector field on $U$ orthogonal to the structure vector fields. Then, from $(6)-(8)$, $\\varphi E_{1}$ is also a unit vector field on $U$ orthogonal to $E_{1}$ and the structure vector fields. Next, if it is possible, let $E_{2}$ be a unit vector field on $U$ orthogonal to $E_{1}$, $\\varphi E_{1}$ and the structure vector fields and so on. The local orthonormal basis $$\\{E_{1},\\dots ,E_{n},\\varphi E_{1},\\dots ,\\varphi E_{n},\\xi _{1},\\dots ,\\xi\n_{s}\\},$$so obtained is called an $f$*-basis*. Moreover, a metric $f$-manifold is *normal* if $$\\lbrack \\varphi ,\\varphi ]+2\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}d\\eta\n^{i}\\otimes \\xi _{i}=0,$$where $[\\varphi ,\\varphi ]$ is denoting the Nijenhuis tensor field associated to $\\varphi $.\n\nIn *[@Van],* \u00a0let $M$ a $(2n+s)-$dimensional metric $f-$manifold. If there exists $2$-form $\\Phi $ such that $\\eta ^{1}\\wedge\n...\\wedge \\eta ^{s}\\wedge \\Phi ^{n}\\neq 0$ on $M$ then $M$ is called an *almost s-contact metric manifold.* A normal almost s-contact metric manifold is called an s-contact metric manifold.\n\nGeneralized Kenmotsu Manifolds\n==============================\n\nAs is known in Kenmotsu manifold $dimker\\varphi =1$, since $ker\\varphi\n=sp\\{\\xi \\}$. It was to be $dimker\\varphi >1$\u00a0open question.\u00a0Firstly in 2003, L. Bhatt and K. K. Dube introduced*\u00a0Kenmotsu* $s$*-structure*; that is, an almost $s-$contact metric manifold $M$ is called a Kenmotsu $s-$manifold if *\u00a0* $$(\\nabla _{X}\\varphi )Y=g(\\varphi X,Y)\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\xi\n_{i}-\\varphi X\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}(Y)$$for any $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM)$ *[@Bd]*$.$ We will give their definition as a theorem in this paper.\n\nAfterwards in 2006, M. Falcitelli and A.M. Pastore introduced *Kenmotsu f.pk-manifold*. In *[@FP]*, *\u00a0*a metric $f.pk$-manifold $M$ of dimension $2n+s$, $s\\geq 1$, with $f.pk-$structure which is a metrik $f-$structure with parallelizable kernel. $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi\n_{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) $ is said to be a Kenmotsu $f.pk$-manifold if it is normal, the$1$-forms $\\eta ^{i}$ are closed and $d\\Phi =2\\eta ^{1}\\wedge\n\\Phi $ *.* They assume that $d\\Phi =2\\eta ^{i}\\wedge \\Phi $ for all $i=1,2,...,s$ in the definition of Kenmotsu $f.pk-$manifold. So, they remark that, since the $1$-forms $\\eta ^{i}$ are linearly independent and $\\eta\n^{i} $ $\\wedge \\Phi =\\eta ^{j}\\wedge \\Phi $ implies $\\eta ^{i}=\\eta ^{j}$, then the condition on $d\\Phi $ can be satisfied by a unique $\\eta ^{i}$ and they can assume that $d\\Phi =2\\eta ^{1}\\wedge \\Phi .$ It is clear that authors were equated 1-forms $\\eta ^{1},...,\\eta ^{s}$, which dual of $\\xi\n_{1},...,\\xi _{s}.$Thus, they studied unique 1-form $\\eta ^{1}.$\n\nIn this paper, all $\\eta ^{1},...,\\eta ^{s}$ $1-$forms are unequaled at the definition of generalized Kenmotsu manifolds.\n\n\\[Def\\] Let $M$ be an almost $s-$contact metric manifold of dimension $(2n+s)$, $s\\geq 1$, with $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) $ . $M$ is said to be a generalized almost Kenmotsu manifold if for all $1\\leq i\\leq s,$ $1-$forms $\\eta ^{i}$ are closed and $d\\Phi =2\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta\n^{i}\\wedge \\Phi .$ A normal generalized almost Kenmotsu manifold $M$ is called a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.\n\nNow, we construct an example of generalized Kenmotsu manifold.\n\nWe consider $(2n+s)-$dimensional manifold $$M=\\left\\{ (x_{1},...,x_{n},y_{1},...,y_{n},z_{1,}...,z_{s})\\in \\mathbb{R}^{2n+s}:\\sum_{\\alpha =1}^{s}{z_{\\alpha }}\\neq 0\\right\\}$$We choose the vector fields$$X_{i}=e^{-\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\\alpha }}\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial\nx_{i}},Y_{i}=e^{-\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\\alpha }}\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial\ny_{i}},\\xi _{\\alpha }=\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial z_{\\alpha }},1\\leq i\\leq n,1\\leq \\alpha \\leq s$$which are linearly indepent at each point of $M.$ Let $g$ be the Riemannian metric defined by$$g=e^{2\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\\alpha }}\\left[ \\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{n}\\left( dx_{i}\\otimes dx_{i}+dy_{i}\\otimes dy_{i}\\right) \\right]\n+\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}\\eta ^{\\alpha }\\otimes \\eta ^{\\alpha }.$$Hence, $\\left\\{ X_{1},...,X_{n},Y_{1},...,Y_{n},\\xi _{1},...,\\xi\n_{s}\\right\\} $ is an orthonormal basis. Thus, $\\eta ^{\\alpha }$ be the $1-$form defined by $\\eta ^{\\alpha }\\left( X\\right) =g(X,\\xi _{\\alpha }),\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\\alpha =1,...,s$ for any vector field $X$ on $TM.$ We defined the $(1,1)$ tensor field $\\varphi $ as $$\\varphi \\left( X_{i}\\right) =Y_{i},\\varphi \\left( Y_{i}\\right) =-X_{i},\\varphi \\left( \\xi _{\\alpha }\\right) =0,1\\leq i\\leq n,1\\leq \\alpha \\leq s.$$The linearity property of $\\varphi $ and $g$ yields that\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\eta ^{\\alpha }\\left( \\xi _{\\beta }\\right) &=&\\delta _{\\alpha \\beta },\\varphi ^{2}X=-X+\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}\\eta ^{\\alpha }\\left( X\\right)\n\\xi _{\\alpha }, \\\\\ng\\left( \\varphi X,\\varphi Y\\right) &=&g\\left( X,Y\\right)\n-\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}\\eta ^{\\alpha }\\left( X\\right) \\eta ^{\\alpha\n}\\left( Y\\right) ,\\end{aligned}$$\n\nfor any vector fields $X$, $Y$ on $M.$ Therefore,$(M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{\\alpha\n},\\eta ^{\\alpha },g)$ defines a metric $f-$manifold. We have $\\Phi\n(X_{i,},Y_{i})=-1$ and others are zero. Therefore, the essential non-zero component of $\\Phi $ is$$\\Phi (\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial x_{i}},\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial y_{i}})=g(\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial x_{i}},\\varphi \\frac{\\partial }{\\partial y_{i}})=-e^{2\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\\alpha }}$$and hence, we have $$\\Phi =-e^{2\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\\alpha }}\\sum_{i=1}^{n}dx_{i}\\wedge\ndy_{i}$$Therefore, we get $\\eta ^{1}\\wedge ...\\wedge \\eta ^{s}\\wedge \\Phi ^{n}\\neq 0$ on $M$. Thus $(M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{\\alpha },\\eta ^{\\alpha },g)$ is almost $s-$contact manifold. Consequently, the exterior derivative $d\\Phi $ is given by $$d\\Phi =2\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}dz_{\\alpha }\\wedge\n(-e^{2\\sum\\limits_{\\alpha =1}^{s}z_{\\alpha }})\\sum_{i=1}^{n}dx_{i}\\wedge\ndy_{i}.$$Therefore, $(M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{\\alpha },\\eta ^{\\alpha },g)$ is a generalized almost Kenmotsu manifold. It can be seen that $\\ (M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{\\alpha\n},\\eta ^{\\alpha },g)$ is normal. So, it is a\u00a0generalized Kenmotsu manifold. Moreover, we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left[ X_{i},\\xi _{\\alpha }\\right] &=&X_{i},\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\\left[ Y_{i},\\xi _{\\alpha }\\right] =Y_{i}, \\\\\n\\left[ X_{i},X_{j}\\right] &=&0,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\\left[ X_{i},Y_{i}\\right] =0,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\\left[ X_{i},Y_{j}\\right] =0 \\\\\n\\left[ Y_{i},Y_{j}\\right] &=&0,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}1\\leq i,j\\leq n,1\\leq {\\alpha }\\leq s.\\end{aligned}$$The Riemannian connection $\\nabla $ of the metric $g$ is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n2g(\\nabla _{X}Y,Z) &=&Xg(Y,Z)+Yg(Z,X)-Zg(X,Y) \\\\\n&&+g(\\left[ X,Y\\right] ,Z)-g(\\left[ Y,Z\\right] ,X)+g(\\left[ Z,X\\right] ,Y).\\end{aligned}$$Using the Koszul\u2019s formula, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla _{X_{i}}X_{i} &=&\\sum_{\\alpha =1}^{s}{\\xi _{\\alpha }},\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\\nabla _{Y_{i}}Y_{i}=\\sum_{\\alpha =1}^{s}{\\xi _{\\alpha }}, \\\\\n\\nabla _{X_{i}}X_{j} &=&\\nabla _{Y_{i}}Y_{j}=\\nabla _{X_{i}}Y_{i}=\\nabla\n_{X_{i}}Y_{j}=0 \\\\\n\\nabla _{X_{i}}\\xi _{\\alpha } &=&X_{i},\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\\nabla _{Y_{i}}\\xi _{\\alpha }=Y_{i},1\\leq i,j\\leq n,1\\leq {\\alpha }\\leq s.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe construct an example of generalized Kenmotsu manifold for $7-$dimensional.\n\nLet $n=2$ and $s=3$. The vector fields$$e_{1}=f_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial x_{1}}+f_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial y_{1}},$$$$e_{2}=-f_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial x_{1}}+f_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial y_{1}},$$$$e_{3}=f_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial x_{2}}+f_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial y_{2}},$$$$e_{4}=-f_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial x_{2}}+f_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial y_{2}},$$$$e_{5}=\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial z_{1}},e_{6}=\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial z_{2}},e_{7}=\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial z_{3}}$$where $f_{1}$ and $f_{2}$ are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nf_{1}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}) &=&c_{2}e^{-(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}\\cos\n(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})-c_{1}e^{-(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}\\sin (z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3}), \\\\\nf_{2}(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}) &=&c_{1}e^{-(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}\\cos\n(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})+c_{2}e^{-(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}\\sin (z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})\\end{aligned}$$for nonzero constant $c_{1},c_{2}.$ It is obvious that $\\left\\{\ne_{1},e_{2},e_{3},e_{4},e_{5},e_{6},e_{7}\\right\\} $ are linearly independent at each point of $M$. Let $g$ be the Riemannian metric given by $$g=\\frac{1}{f_{1}^{2}+f_{2}^{2}}\\sum_{i=1}^{2}(dx_{i}\\otimes\ndx_{i}+dy_{i}\\otimes dy_{i})+dz_{1}\\otimes dz_{1}+dz_{2}\\otimes\ndz_{2}+dz_{3}\\otimes dz_{3},$$where $\\left\\{ x_{1},y_{1},x_{2},y_{2},z_{1},z_{2},z_{3}\\right\\} $ are standard coordinates in $\\mathbb{R}\n^{7}$. Let $\\eta ^{1}$, $\\eta ^{2}$ and $\\eta ^{3}$ be the $1-$form defined by $\\eta ^{1}(X)=g(X,e_{5})$, $\\eta ^{2}(X)=g(X,e_{6})$ and $\\eta\n^{3}(X)=g(X,e_{7})$, respectively, for any vector field $X$ on $M$ and $\\phi\n$ be the $(1,1)$ tensor field defined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi (e_{1}) &=&e_{2},\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\n&\n\\end{array}\\varphi (e_{2})=-e_{1},\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\\varphi (e_{3})=e_{4},\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\n&\n\\end{array}\\varphi (e_{4})=-e_{3}, \\\\\n\\varphi (e_{5} &=&\\xi _{1})=0,\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\n&\n\\end{array}\\varphi (e_{6}=\\xi _{2})=0,\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\n&\n\\end{array}\\varphi (e_{7}=\\xi _{3})=0.\\end{aligned}$$Therefore, the essential non-zero component of $\\Phi $ is$$\\Phi (\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial x_{i}},\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial y_{i}})=-\\frac{1}{f_{1}^{2}+f_{2}^{2}}=-\\frac{2e^{2(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}},\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}i=1,2$$and hence $$\\Phi =-\\frac{2e^{2(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}\\sum_{i=1}^{2}dx_{i}\\wedge dy_{i}.$$Thus, we have $\\eta ^{1}\\wedge ...\\wedge \\eta ^{s}\\wedge \\Phi ^{n}\\neq 0$ on $M$. Consequently, the exterior derivative $d\\Phi $ is given by $$d\\Phi =-\\frac{4e^{2(z_{1}+z_{2}+z_{3})}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(dz_{1}+dz_{2}+dz_{3})\\wedge \\sum_{i=1}^{2}dx_{i}\\wedge dy_{i}.$$Since $\\eta ^{1}=dz_{1}$, $\\eta ^{2}=dz_{2}$ and $\\eta ^{3}=dz_{3},$ we find$$d\\Phi =2(\\eta ^{1}+\\eta ^{2}+\\eta ^{3})\\wedge \\Phi .$$In addition, Nijenhuis tersion of $\\varphi $ is equal to zero.\n\nLet $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right)$ be an almost $s$-contact metric manifold. $M$ is a generalized Kenmotsu manifold if and only if$$\\left( \\nabla _{X}\\varphi \\right) Y=\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\left\\{ g(\\varphi X,Y)\\xi _{i}-\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\varphi X\\right\\}$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),$ $i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} ,$ where $\\nabla $ is Riemannian connection on M.\n\nLet $M$ be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold. From $(1)$, $(6),(7)$ and $(8)$ \u00a0for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),$ we have$$\\begin{aligned}\ng\\left( \\left( \\nabla _{X}\\varphi \\right) Y,Z\\right) &=&3\\left\\{ \\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}(\\eta ^{i}\\wedge \\Phi )(X,\\varphi Y,\\varphi Z)-\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}(\\eta ^{i}\\wedge \\Phi )(X,Y,Z)\\right\\} \\\\\n&=&\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{3\\sum }}\\{\\frac{1}{3}(-\\eta ^{i}(X)\\Phi\n(\\varphi Y,\\varphi Z)+\\eta ^{i}(\\varphi Y)\\Phi (\\varphi Z,X)+\\eta\n^{i}(\\varphi Z)\\Phi (X,\\varphi Y)) \\\\\n&&-\\frac{1}{3}(-\\eta ^{i}(X)\\Phi (Y,Z)+\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\Phi (Z,X)+\\eta\n^{i}(Z)\\Phi (X,Y))\\} \\\\\n&=&\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\left\\{ -\\eta ^{i}(X)g(\\varphi\nY,\\varphi ^{2}Z)+\\eta ^{i}(X)g(Y,\\varphi Z)-\\eta ^{i}(Y)g(Z,\\varphi X)-\\eta\n^{i}(Z)g(X,\\varphi Y)\\right\\} \\\\\n&=&\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\left\\{ -\\eta ^{i}(Y)g(Z,\\varphi\nX)-\\eta ^{i}(Z)g(X,\\varphi Y)\\right\\} \\\\\n&=&g(\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\left\\{ g(\\varphi X,Y)\\xi _{i}-\\eta\n^{i}(Y)\\varphi X\\right\\} ,Z).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nConversely, firstly, using $(9)$ and $(8)$, we get$$\\varphi \\nabla _{X}\\xi _{j}=\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{-\\sum }}\\left\\{\ng(\\varphi X,\\xi _{j})\\xi _{i}-\\eta ^{i}(\\xi _{j})\\varphi X\\right\\}$$hence, we\u00a0get$$\\varphi ^{2}\\nabla _{X}\\xi _{j}=\\varphi ^{2}X.$$Therefore, we have$$\\nabla _{X}\\xi _{j}=-\\varphi ^{2}X.$$On the other hand, we get $$d\\eta ^{i}(X,Y)=\\frac{1}{2}\\{g(Y,-\\varphi ^{2}X)-g(X,-\\varphi ^{2}Y)\\}=0$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),$ $i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$ In addition, we know$$\\begin{aligned}\n3d\\Phi (X,Y,Z) &=&Xg(Y,\\varphi Z)-Yg(X,\\varphi Z)-Zg(X,\\varphi\nY)-g([X,Y],\\varphi Z)\\\\&&+g([X,Z],\\varphi Y)-g([Y,Z],\\varphi X) \\\\\n&=&g(Y,\\nabla _{X}\\varphi Z-\\varphi \\nabla _{X}Z)-g(X,\\nabla _{Y}\\varphi\nZ-\\varphi \\nabla _{Y}Z)+g(X,\\nabla _{Z}\\varphi Y-\\varphi \\nabla _{Z}Y).\\end{aligned}$$From hypothesis, we have$$\\begin{aligned}\n3d\\Phi (X,Y,Z) &=&\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\{g(\\varphi X,Z)g(Y,\\xi\n_{i})-\\eta ^{i}(Z)g(Y,\\varphi X)-g(\\varphi Y,Z)g(X,\\xi _{i})+\\eta\n^{i}(Z)g(X,\\varphi Y) \\\\\n&&+g(\\varphi Z,Y)g(X,\\xi _{i})-\\eta ^{i}(Y)g(X,\\varphi Z)\\} \\\\\n&=&2\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\{\\Phi (Z,X)\\eta ^{i}(Y)+\\Phi\n(X,Y)\\eta ^{i}(Z)+\\Phi (Y,Z)\\eta ^{i}(X)\\}.\\end{aligned}$$Then, we have,$$d\\Phi =2\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}\\wedge \\Phi .$$Moreover, the Nijenhuis torsion of $\\varphi $ is obtained$$\\begin{aligned}\nN_{\\varphi }(X,Y) &=&\\varphi \\left( -\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\{g(\\varphi X,Y)\\xi _{i}-\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\varphi X\\}+\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\{g(\\varphi Y,X)\\xi _{i}-\\eta ^{i}(X)\\varphi Y\\}\\right) \\\\\n&&+\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\{g(\\varphi ^{2}X,Y)\\xi _{i}-\\eta\n^{i}(Y)\\varphi ^{2}X\\}-\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}\\{g(\\varphi\n^{2}Y,X)\\xi _{i}-\\eta ^{i}(X)\\varphi ^{2}Y\\} \\\\\n&=&0.\\end{aligned}$$Hence, we have$$\\lbrack \\varphi ,\\varphi ]+2\\sum_{i=1}^{s}d\\eta ^{i}\\otimes \\xi _{i}=0.$$The proof is completed.\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$\\nabla _{X}\\xi _{j}=-\\varphi ^{2}X$$for all $X\\in \\Gamma (TM),i,$ $j\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$i)\\nabla _{\\xi _{j}}\\varphi =0,\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\n&\n\\end{array}\\nabla _{\\xi _{j}}\\xi _{i}=0$$$$ii)(L_{\\xi _{i}}\\varphi )X=0,\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\n&\n\\end{array}(L_{\\xi _{i}}\\eta ^{j})X=0$$$$iii)(L_{\\xi _{i}}g)(X,Y)=2\\{g(X,Y)-\\sum_{i=1}^{s}\\eta ^{i}(X)\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\}$$for all $X\\in \\Gamma (TM),$ $i,j\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$(\\nabla _{X}\\eta ^{i})Y=g(X,Y)-\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta\n^{j}(X)\\eta ^{j}(Y)$$\n\nfor all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nUsing $(8)$ and $(10)$ we get the desired result.\n\nWe have below the corollary in case $s=1$.\n\nLet $\\left( M^{2n+1},\\varphi ,\\xi ,\\eta\n,g\\right) $ be an almost contact metric manifold. $M$ is a Kenmotsu manifold if and only if $$\\left( \\nabla _{X}\\varphi \\right) Y=g(\\varphi X,Y)\\xi -\\eta (Y)\\varphi X$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),$ $i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} ,$ where $\\nabla $ is Riemannian connection on M *[@K]*.\n\nLet $F$ be \u00a0a K\u00e4hler manifold $f(t)=ke^{\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum\n}}t_{i}}$ be\u00a0a function on $\n\\mathbb{R}^{s},$ and k be a non-zero constant. Then the warped product space $M=\\mathbb{R}^{s}\\times _{f}F$ have a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.\n\nLet $(F,J,G)$ be a K\u00e4hler manifold and consider $M=\\mathbb{R}^{s}\\times _{f}F,$ with coordinates $(t_{1},...,t_{s},x_{1},...,x_{2n})$. We define $\\varphi $ tensor field, $1$-form $\\eta ^{i},$ vector field $\\xi _{i}$ and Riemannian metric tensor $g$ on $M$ as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi (\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial t_{i}},U) &=&(0,JU), \\\\\n\\eta ^{j}(\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial t_{i}},U) &=&\\delta _{ij},\n\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}\n\\xi _{i}=(\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial t_{i}},0) \\\\\ng_{f} &=&\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}dt^{i}\\otimes dt^{i}+f^{2}\\pi\n^{\\ast }(G)\\end{aligned}$$where $f(t)=ke^{\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}t_{i}},U\\in \\Gamma (F)$.\n\nThen $(M,\\varphi ,\\eta ^{i},\\xi _{i},g_{f})$ defines $s-$contact metric manifold. Now let us show that this manifold is a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.\n\nIt is clear that $\\eta ^{i}$ are closed. Thus, we have$$\\Phi (X,Y)=g_{f}(X,\\varphi Y)=f^{2}\\pi ^{\\ast }(G(X,JY))$$\n\nor $$\\Phi =f^{2}\\pi ^{\\ast }(\\Psi )$$where \u00a0is fundamental $2$-form of K$\\ddot{a}$hler manifold. Hence, we get\n\n$$d\\Phi =2c\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}e^{2\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}t_{i}}dt^{i}\\wedge \\pi ^{\\ast }(\\Psi )=2\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}dt^{i}\\wedge \\Phi .$$\n\nFinally torsion tensor $N_{\\varphi }$ of $M$ is vanish, since $\\eta ^{i}$ are closed and $N_{J}=0$.\n\nThen $(M=\\mathbb{R}\n^{s}\\times _{f}F,\\varphi ,\\eta ^{i},\\xi _{i},g_{f})$ is a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.\n\n$(\\mathbb{R}^{2}\\times _{f}V^{4},g_{f}=\\overset{2}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}dt^{i}\\otimes\ndt^{i}+f^{2}G)$ is warped product with coordinates $(t_{1},t_{2},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})$, where $f^{2}=k^{2}e^{\\overset{2}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}t_{i}}$. Take a orthonormal frame field $\\{\\overline{E}_{1},\\overline{E}_{2},\\overline{E}_{3},\\overline{E}_{4}\\}$ of $V^{4}$ and $\\{\\overline{e}_{5},\\overline{e}_{6}\\}$ of $\n\\mathbb{R}^{2}$ such that $\\overline{E}_{2}=J\\overline{E}_{1}$, $\\overline{E}_{4}=J\\overline{E}_{3}.$Then we obtain a local orthonormal field $\\{E_{1},E_{2},E_{3},E_{4},E_{5},E_{6}\\}$ of $\n\\mathbb{R}^{2}\\times _{f}V^{4}$ by$$\\begin{aligned}\nE_{1} &=&ke^{-\\overset{2}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}t_{i}}\\overline{E}_{1},\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}E_{2}=ke^{-\\overset{2}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}t_{i}}\\overline{E}_{2} \\\\\nE_{3} &=&-ke^{-\\overset{2}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}t_{i}}\\overline{E}_{3},\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}E_{4}=-ke^{-\\overset{2}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}t_{i}}\\overline{E}_{4} \\\\\nE_{5} &=&\\xi _{1},\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}E_{6}=\\xi _{2}.\\end{aligned}$$Then $\n\\mathbb{R}^{2}\\times _{f}V^{4}$ is a generalized Kenmotsu manifold.\n\nLet $(M^{2n+s},\\varphi ,\\eta ^{i},\\xi _{i},g)$ be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold, $V$ and $L$ are K\u00e4hler and a flat manifold with locally coordinates $(x_{1},...,x_{2n})$ and $(t_{1},...,t_{s})$\u00a0\u00a0respectively. Then $M$ \u00a0a locally warped product $L^{s}\\times _{f}V^{2n}$ \u00a0where $f(t)=ke^{\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}t_{i}}$ and $k$ a nonzero positive constant.\n\nWe know that $TM=\\mathcal{L}\\oplus \\mathcal{M}$. $ \\mathcal{L}\\ $ is clearly integrable, since $d\\eta ^{i}=0.$ Then $V$ integral manifold of $ \\mathcal{L}\\ $ is totally umbilical because $\\nabla _{X}\\xi _{i}=X.$ On the other hand $[\\xi _{i},\\xi _{j}]=0$ and $\\nabla _{\\xi _{i}}\\xi _{j}=0$, $\\mathcal{M}$ is integrable and $L$ integral manifold is\u00a0totally geodesic.\n\nWe select $J=\\varphi \\mid _{D}$ such that $J^{2}=-I,$ $G=g\\mid _{D}.$ Then $(V,J,G)$ is almost Hermitian manifold. Also torsion tensor $N_{J}=N_{\\varphi\n}=0$ and using $(9),$ we get $(\\nabla _{X}J)Y=0.$ Then \u00a0$(V,J,G)$ is K\u00e4hler manifold.\n\nThen $M=L\\times _{f}V$ is locally a warped product \u00a0and metric \u00a0is $$g_{f}=\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}dt^{i}\\otimes dt^{i}+f^{2}G.$$Its follows that $$(L_{\\xi _{i}}g_{f})(X,Y)=\\frac{2\\xi _{i}(f)}{f}G(X,Y)$$and using $(11)$, we get $$\\xi _{i}(f)=f,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}i=1,...,s.$$Thus,we have $$\\frac{\\partial f(t_{1},...,t_{s})}{\\partial t_{i}}=f(t_{1},...,t_{s}),\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}i=1,...,s.$$Therefore, we obtained $f(t_{1},...,t_{s})=ce^{\\overset{s}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}t_{i}}$ where c is nonzero constant.\n\nLet\u2019s go back to the example 2.3. Let $(\\mathbb{R}\n^{7},\\varphi ,\\eta ^{i},\\xi _{i},g)$ be a generalized Kenmotsu manifold where $i=1,2,3$. Take a orthonormal frame field $$\\left\\{ \\frac{\\partial }{\\partial z_{1}}=\\xi _{1},\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial z_{2}}=\\xi _{2},\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\\frac{\\partial }{\\partial z_{3}}=\\xi _{3}\\right\\}$$of $\\mathbb{R}\n^{3}$ and $$\\left\\{ \\frac{e^{2\\overset{3}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}z_{i}}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(f_{1}e_{1}-f_{2}e_{2}),\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\\frac{e^{2\\overset{3}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}z_{i}}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(f_{2}e_{1}+f_{1}e_{2}),\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\\frac{e^{2\\overset{3}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}z_{i}}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(f_{1}e_{3}-f_{2}e_{4}),\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\\frac{e^{2\\overset{3}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}z_{i}}}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}(f_{2}e_{3}+f_{1}e_{4})\\right\\}$$of $\\mathbb{R}\n^{4}.$ Then $\\mathbb{R}\n^{7}=\\mathbb{R}\n^{3}\\times\n\\mathbb{R}\n^{4}$ is product manifold, the structure by tensor $\\varphi $ and metric tensor $g.$ $\\mathbb{R}\n^{4}$ is the standard K\u00e4hler structure $(J,G)$. Here the Riemannian metric $g$ is warped product metric $$g_{0}+cf^{2}G$$where $g_{0}$\u00a0\u00a0is the Euclidean metric of $\\mathbb{R}\n^{3},$ f is the function defined on $\\mathbb{R}\n^{3}$ by$$f(z_{1},z_{2},z_{3})=e^{2\\overset{3}{\\underset{i=1}{\\sum }}z_{i}}\\text{and}\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}c=\\frac{1}{c_{1}^{2}+c_{2}^{2}}.$$\n\nSome Curvature Properties\n=========================\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$R(X,Y)\\xi _{i}=\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta ^{j}(Y)\\varphi\n^{2}X-\\eta ^{j}(X)\\varphi ^{2}Y\\}$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nFirstly, using $(10)$ and $(6)$ we get$$\\nabla _{X}\\nabla _{Y}\\xi _{i}=\\nabla _{X}Y+\\varphi ^{2}X\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{j}(Y)-\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta\n^{j}(\\nabla _{X}Y)\\xi _{j}+g(Y,-\\varphi ^{2}X)\\xi _{j}\\}$$and$$\\nabla _{\\lbrack X,Y]}\\xi _{i}=-\\varphi ^{2}\\nabla _{X}Y+\\varphi ^{2}\\nabla\n_{Y}X.$$Then,$$\\begin{aligned}\nR(X,Y)\\xi _{i} &=&\\nabla _{X}Y+\\varphi ^{2}X\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{j}(Y)-\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta ^{j}(\\nabla _{X}Y)\\xi\n_{j}+g(Y,-\\varphi ^{2}X)\\xi _{j}\\} \\\\\n&&-\\nabla _{Y}X-\\varphi ^{2}Y\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{j}(X)+\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta ^{j}(\\nabla _{Y}X)\\xi\n_{j}+g(X,-\\varphi ^{2}Y)\\xi _{j}\\} \\\\\n&&+\\varphi ^{2}\\nabla _{X}Y-\\varphi ^{2}\\nabla _{Y}X.\\end{aligned}$$From $(6)$ desired result.\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$R(X,\\xi _{i})Y=\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta ^{j}(Y)\\varphi\n^{2}X-g(X,\\varphi ^{2}Y)\\xi _{j}\\}$$$$R(X,\\xi _{j})\\xi _{i}=\\varphi ^{2}X,\\begin{array}{cc}\n\\begin{array}{c}\n\\end{array}\n&\n\\end{array}R(\\xi _{k},\\xi _{j})\\xi _{i}=0$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i,j,k\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\n*[@K] Let* $M$ be a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi ,\\eta ,g\\right) .$ Then we have$$\\begin{aligned}\nR(X,Y)\\xi &=&\\eta (Y)X-\\eta (X)Y \\\\\nR(X,\\xi )Y &=&g(X,Y)\\xi -\\eta (Y)X,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}R(\\xi ,\\xi )\\xi =0\\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM).$\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\\xi _{i}) &=&sg(Z,X)Y-sg(Z,Y)X-R(X,Y)Z \\\\\n&&+s\\underset{h=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{h}(Z)\\{\\eta ^{h}(Y)X-\\eta\n^{h}(X)Y\\}+\\underset{l=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{l}(Z)R(X,Y)\\xi _{l}\\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nUsing $(10)$ and $(13)$, we have$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\\xi _{i}) &=&\\nabla _{Z}\\{\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum\n}}\\{\\eta ^{j}(X)Y-\\eta ^{j}(Y)X\\}\\}-\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta\n^{j}(\\nabla _{Z}X)Y-\\eta ^{j}(Y)\\nabla _{Z}X\\} \\\\\n&&\\text{ \\ \\ }-\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta ^{j}(X)\\nabla\n_{Z}Y-\\eta ^{j}(\\nabla _{Z}Y)X\\}-R(X,Y)\\varphi ^{2}Z.\\end{aligned}$$From $(6)$, we get$$(\\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\\xi _{i})=\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{g(X,\\nabla\n_{Z}\\xi _{j})Y-g(Y,\\nabla _{Z}\\xi _{j})X\\}-R(X,Y)Z+\\underset{k=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{k}(Y)R(X,Y)\\xi _{k}.$$The proof competes from $(6)$ and $(10)$.\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold Then we have$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\\xi _{i}) &=&sg(Z,X)Y-sg(Z,Y)X-R(X,Y)Z,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}Z\\in \\mathcal{L} \\\\\n(\\nabla _{\\xi _{j}}R)(X,Y,\\xi _{i}) &=&0\\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\n*[@K] Let* $M$ be a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi ,\\eta ,g\\right) .$ Then we have$$(\\nabla _{Z}R)(X,Y,\\xi )=g(Z,X)Y-g(Z,Y)X-R(X,Y)Z,\\begin{array}{cc}\n&\n\\end{array}Z\\in \\mathcal{L}\\text{ and }(\\nabla _{\\xi }R)(X,Y,\\xi )=0.$$\n\nLet $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) $ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional locally-symmetric generalized Kenmotsu manifold. Then we have$$R(X,Y)Z=s\\{g(Z,X)Y-g(Z,Y)X\\}.$$\n\n*[@K] Let* M be a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi ,\\eta ,g\\right) .$ If M is a locally symmetric then we have$$R(X,Y)Z=g(Z,X)Y-g(Z,Y)X.$$\n\nThe $\\varphi -$sectional curvature of any locally symmetric generalized Kenmotsu manifold $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) $ is equal to $-s$.\n\nIn this case $s=1$, we obtain that the $\\varphi -$sectional curvature of any locally symmetric Kenmotsu manifold $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi ,\\eta ,g\\right) $ is equal to $-1$ *[@K].*\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$R(X,Y)\\varphi Z-\\varphi R(X,Y)Z=g(Y,Z)\\varphi X-g(X,Z)\\varphi Y-g(Y,\\varphi\nZ)X+g(X,\\varphi Z)Y$$$$R(\\varphi X,\\varphi Y)Z=R(X,Y)Z+g(Y,Z)X-g(X,Z)Y+g(Y,\\varphi Z)\\varphi\nX-g(X,\\varphi Z)\\varphi Y$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nRicci Curvature Tensor\n======================\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$S(X,\\xi _{i})=-2n\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{j}(X)$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nIf $\\{E_{1},E_{2},...,E_{2n+s}\\}$ are local orthonormal vector fields, then $S(X,Y)=\\underset{k=1}{\\overset{2n+s}{\\sum }}g(R(E_{k},X)Y,E_{k})$ defines a global tensor field $S$ of type $(0,2)$. Then, we obtain$$\\begin{aligned}\nS(X,\\xi _{i}) &=&\\underset{k=1}{\\overset{2n}{\\sum }}g(\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta ^{j}(X)\\varphi ^{2}E_{k}-\\eta ^{j}(E_{k})\\varphi\n^{2}X\\},E_{k})+\\underset{k=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}g(-\\varphi ^{2}X,\\xi _{k})\n\\\\\n&=&\\underset{j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{j}(X)\\underset{k=1}{\\overset{2n}{\\sum }}g(\\varphi ^{2}E_{k},E_{k}).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn this case $s=1$ we have $S(X,\\xi )=-2n\\eta (X)$ in [@K].\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$S(\\xi _{k},\\xi _{i})=-2n$$for all $X,Y\\in TM,i,k\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$ dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$S(\\varphi X,\\varphi Y)=S(X,Y)+2n\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta\n^{i}(X)\\eta ^{i}(Y)$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nWe can put $$X=X_{0}+\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}(X)\\xi _{i}\\text{ and }Y=Y_{0}+\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\xi _{i}$$ where $X_{0},Y_{0}\\in \\mathcal{L}$. Then from (16) and (17) we have,$$\\begin{aligned}\nS(X,Y) &=&S(X_{0},Y_{0})+\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\eta\n^{i}(X_{0})+\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}(X)\\eta ^{i}(Y_{0})+\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}(X)\\eta ^{i}(Y)S(\\xi _{i},\\xi\n_{i}) \\\\\n&=&S(X_{0},Y_{0})-2n\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}(X)\\eta\n^{i}(Y).\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\varphi X,\\varphi Y\\in \\mathcal{L}$ we get $S(X_{0},Y_{0})=S(\\varphi\nX,\\varphi Y)$ which implies the desired result.\n\nConsidering $s=1$ in *[@JDP],* we deduce $$S(\\varphi X,\\varphi Y)=S(X,Y)+2n\\eta (X)\\eta (Y).$$\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$ dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{\\varphi X}S)(\\varphi Y,\\varphi Z) &=&(\\nabla _{\\varphi X}S)(Y,Z)-\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\{S(X,\\varphi Z)+2ng(X,\\varphi\nZ)\\} \\\\\n&&-\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta ^{i}(Z)\\{S(X,\\varphi\nY)+2ng(X,\\varphi Y)\\}\\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nUsing $(9)$, we get$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{\\varphi X}S)(\\varphi Y,\\varphi Z) &=&\\nabla _{\\varphi X}S(Y,Z)+2n\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\nabla _{\\varphi X}\\eta\n^{i}(Z)+\\eta ^{i}(Z)\\nabla _{\\varphi X}\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\} \\\\\n&&+\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{-S(g(\\varphi ^{2}X,Y)\\xi _{i}-\\eta\n^{i}(Y)\\varphi ^{2}X,\\varphi Z)-S(\\nabla _{\\varphi X}Y,Z)-2n\\eta ^{i}(\\nabla\n_{\\varphi X}Y)\\eta ^{i}(Z) \\\\\n&&-S(\\varphi Y,g(\\varphi ^{2}X,Z)\\xi _{i}-\\eta ^{i}(Z)\\varphi\n^{2}X)-S(Y,\\nabla _{\\varphi X}Z)-2n\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\eta ^{i}(\\nabla _{\\varphi\nX}Z)\\}.\\end{aligned}$$From $(6)$, $(16)$ and $(17)$ we have$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{\\varphi X}S)(\\varphi Y,\\varphi Z) &=&(\\nabla _{\\varphi X}S)(Y,Z)+\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{2n\\eta ^{i}(Y)(\\nabla _{\\varphi X}\\eta\n^{i})Z+2n\\eta ^{i}(Z)(\\nabla _{\\varphi X}\\eta ^{i})Y \\\\\n&&-\\eta ^{i}(Y)S(X,\\varphi Z)-\\eta ^{i}(Z)S(\\varphi Y,X)\\}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nLet $M$ be a $(2n+s)$ dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold with structure $\\left( \\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) .$ Then we have$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{X}S)(\\varphi Y,\\varphi Z) &=&(\\nabla _{X}S)(Y,Z)+2n\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{g(X,Y)\\eta ^{i}(Z)+g(X,Z)\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\} \\\\\n&&+\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta ^{i}(Y)S(X,Z)+\\eta\n^{i}(Z)S(X,Y)\\}\\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\nThe Ricci tensor $S$ of a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold $M$ is called $\\eta -parallel$, if it satisfies$$(\\nabla _{X}S)(\\varphi Y,\\varphi Z)=0$$for all vector fields $X,Y$ and $Z$ on $M$.\n\nLet $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) $ a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold. $M$ has $\\eta -parallel$ if and only if$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{X}S)(Y,Z) &=&-2n\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{g(X,Y)\\eta\n^{i}(Z)+g(X,Z)\\eta ^{i}(Y)\\} \\\\\n&&-\\underset{i=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\{\\eta ^{i}(Y)S(X,Z)+\\eta\n^{i}(Z)S(X,Y)\\}\\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y,Z\\in \\Gamma (TM),i\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$\n\n[@K] Let $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi ,\\eta ,g\\right) $ a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold. $M$ has $\\eta -parallel$ if and only if$$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla _{X}S)(Y,Z) &=&-2n\\{g(X,Y)\\eta (Z)+g(X,Z)\\eta (Y)\\} \\\\\n&&\\text{ \\ \\ \\ }-\\eta (Y)S(X,Z)-\\eta (Z)S(X,Y)\\end{aligned}$$for all $X,Y,Z\\in \\Gamma (TM).$\n\nSemi-Symmetric Properties of Generalized Kenmotsu Manifolds\n===========================================================\n\nWith respect to the Riemannian connection $\\nabla $ of a generalized Kenmotsu manifold $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) $, we can prove:\n\nThe $\\varphi $- sectional curvature of any semi-symmetric $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta\n^{i},g\\right) $ is equal to $-s$.\n\nLet $X$ be a unit vector field. Since $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta\n^{i},g\\right) $ is semi-symmetric, then $$(R.R)(X,\\xi _{i},X,\\varphi X,\\varphi X,\\xi _{i})=0,$$for any $i,j\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$ Expanding this formula from $(7)$ and taking into account $(14)$, we get $$R(X,\\varphi X,\\varphi X,X)=-s,$$which completes the proof.\n\nObserve that, in the case $s=1$, by using the *Theorem 11* we obtain that a semi-symmetric Kenmotsu manifolds is constant curvature equal to $-1$ [@Bin].\n\nLet $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) $ be a $(2n+s)$ dimensional Ricci semi-symmetric generalized Kenmotsu manifold. Then its Ricci tensor field $S$ respect the Riemannian connection satisfies$$S(X,Y)=-2n\\{sg(\\varphi X,\\varphi Y)+\\underset{i,j=1}{\\overset{s}{\\sum }}\\eta\n^{i}(X)\\eta ^{j}(Y)\\}$$for any $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM).$\n\nSince $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right) $ is Ricci semi-symmetric, then $$S(R(X,\\xi _{i})\\xi _{j},Y)+S(\\xi _{j},R(X,\\xi _{i})Y)=0,$$for any $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM)$ and $i,j\\in \\left\\{ 1,2,...,s\\right\\} .$ Now, from $(14),$ $(15)$ and $(16)$ we get the desired result.\n\nIn this case $s=1$ we have following the corollary.\n\nAny Ricci semi-symmetric $(2n+1)-$dimensional Kenmotsu manifold is an Einstein manifold.\n\nConsidering $s=1$ in $(19)$, we deduce $$S(X,Y)=-2ng(X,Y)$$for any $X,Y\\in \\Gamma (TM).$\n\nFor the Weyl projective curvature tensor field $P$, the weyl projective curvature tensor $P$ of a $(2n+s)$-dimensional generalized Kenmotsu manifold $M$ is given by$$P(X,Y)Z=R(X,Y)Z-\\frac{1}{2n+s-1}\\{S(Y,Z)X-S(X,Z)Y\\}$$where $R$ is curvature tensor and $S$ is the ricci curvature tensor of $M$, we have the following theorem.\n\nThe $\\varphi $- sectional curvature of any projectively semi-symmetric generalized Kenmotsu manifold $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi _{i},\\eta ^{i},g\\right)\n$ is equal to $-s$.\n\nLet $X$ be a unit vector field. Then, from $(6)$ and taking into account $(14)$ and $(16)$ we have $$(R.P)(X,\\xi _{i},X,\\varphi X,\\varphi X,\\xi _{j})=(R.R)(X,\\xi _{i},X,\\varphi\nX,\\varphi X,\\xi _{j}).$$This completes the proof from the *Theorem 5.1*.\n\nLet $\\left( M,\\varphi ,\\xi ,\\eta ,g\\right) $ a $(2n+1)$-dimensional Kenmotsu manifold. The $\\varphi $- sectional curvature of any projectively semi-symmetric Kenmotsu manifold if and only if $M$ is an Einstein manifold.\n\n[9]{} <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">L. Bhatt and K. K. Dube</span>, Semi-invariant submanifolds of r-Kenmotsu manifolds, Acta Cienc. Indica Math. 29(1), (2003), 167-172. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">T.Q.Binh, L. Tamassy, U.C. De and M. Taraftar</span>, Same remarks on almost Kenmotsu manifolds, Math. Pan. 13(1), (2002), 31-39. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">R.L. Bishop and B. O\u2019Neill</span>, Manifolds of negative curvature, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 145(1969),1-50. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">D.E. Blair</span>, Geometry of manifolds with structural group $\nU(n)\\times O(s)$,\u00a0J. Differ. Geom. 4 (1970), 155-167. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">D.E. Blair, G. Ludden and K. Yano</span>, Differential geometric structures on principal toroidal bundles,Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 181 (1973), 175\u2013184. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">D.E. Blair</span>, Riemannian geometry of contact and Symplectic Manifolds,Birkhauser. Boston, Second Edition (2010). <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">J.L. Cabrerizo, L.M. Fernandez and M. Fernandez</span>, The curvature tensor fields on f- manifolds with complemented frames, An. Sctiintc. Univ. Al. I. Cuza Iacsi Sectc. I a Mat. 36 no. 2 (1990), 151-161. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">U.C. De and G. Pathok</span>, On 3-dimensional Kenmotsu manifolds, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 35 (2004), 159-165. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">M. Falcitelli and A.M. Pastore</span>, f-structures of Kenmotsu Type, Mediterr,\u00a0J, Math. 3 No.3-4 (2006), 549-564. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">S.I. Goldberg</span>, On the existence of manifolds with an f-structure, Tensor New Ser. 26 (1972), 323-329. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">S.I. Goldberg and K. Yano</span>, Globally framed f-manifolds, III. J.\u00a0MAth.15 (1971), 456-474. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">S.I. Goldberg and K. Yano</span>, On normal globally framed f-manifolds, Tohoku Math. Journal 22 (1972), 362-370. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">D. Janssens and L. Vanhecke</span>, Almost contact structures and curvature tensors, Kodai Math. j., 4(1981),1-27. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">J.B Jun,U.C. De and G. Pathak</span>, On Kenmotsu Manifolds, J. KoreanMath. Soc. 42 (2005), No. 3, 435-445. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">K. Kenmotsu</span>, A class of almost contact Riemannian manifolds, TohokuMath. J. II Ser. 24 (1972), 93-103. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">H. Nakagawa</span>, f-structures induced on submanifolds in spaces, almost Hermitian or\u00a0Kaehlerian, K=odai Math. Sem. Rep. 18 (1966), 161\u2013183. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">H. Nakagawa</span>, On framed f-manifolds, Kodai Math. Sem. Rep. 18 (1966), 293\u2013306. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">G. Piti\u015f</span>, Geometry of Kenmotsu manifolds, Publishing House of Transilvania University of Bra\u015fov, Bra\u015fov, (2007). <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">D.G. Prakasha,C.S. Bagewadi and N.S. Basavarajappa</span>, On Lorentzian $\\beta $-Kenmotsu manifolds,Int. J. Math. Anal, 17-20, (2008), 919\u2013927. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">S. Tanno</span>, The automorphism groups of almost contact Riemannian manifolds, Tohoku Math. J., 21 (1969), 21-38. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">J. Vanzura</span>, Almost $r-$contact structures, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Sci. Fis. Mat. 26 (1972), 97\u2013115. <span style=\"font-variant:small-caps;\">K. Yano</span>, On a structure defined by a tensor field f of type $(1,1)$ satisfying $f^{3}+f=0$, Tesor NS., 14, (1963) 99-109 . K. Yano and M. Kon, Structure on manifolds, Series in Pure Math.Vol. 3, World Scientific, Singapore, (1984).\n\n[^1]: 2010 *Mathematics Subject Classification*. Primary 53C15 ; Secondary 53C25, 53D10.\n\n[^2]: *Key words and phrases*. Kenmotsu manifolds, metric $f$-manifolds, s-contact metric manifolds, generalized Kenmotsu manifolds, semi-symmetric, ricci semi-symmetric, projective semi-symmetric.\n\n[^3]:\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    We compute the pion light-cone wave function and the pion quark distribution amplitude in the Nambu\u2013Jona-Lasinio model. We use the Pauli-Villars regularization method and as a result the distribution amplitude satisfies proper normalization and crossing properties. In the chiral limit we obtain the simple results, namely $\\varphi_\\pi\n    (x)=1 $ for the pion distribution amplitude, and $ \\int d^2 k_\\perp\n    \\Psi_\\pi(x,\\vec k_\\perp ) k_\\perp^2 = \\langle \\vec k_\\perp^2\n    \\rangle = -M \\langle \\bar u u \\rangle / f_\\pi^2$ for the second moment of the pion light-cone wave function, where $M$ is the constituent quark mass and $f_\\pi$ is the pion decay constant. After the QCD Gegenbauer evolution of the pion distribution amplitude good end-point behavior is recovered, and a satisfactory agreement with the analysis of the experimental data from CLEO is achieved. This allows us to determine the momentum scale corresponding to our model calculation, which is close to the value $Q_0=313$\u00a0MeV obtained earlier from the analogous analysis of the pion parton distribution function. The value of $\\langle \\vec k_\\perp^2\n    \\rangle$ is, after the QCD evolution, around $(400~{\\rm MeV})^2$. In addition, the model predicts a linear integral relation between the pion distribution amplitude and the parton distribution function of the pion, which holds at the leading-order QCD evolution.\nauthor:\n- Enrique Ruiz Arriola\n- Wojciech Broniowski\ndate: '12 August 2002, ver. 2'\ntitle: 'Pion light-cone wave function and pion distribution amplitude in the Nambu\u2013Jona-Lasinio model'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe study of high-energy exclusive processes\u00a0[@BL80] provides a convenient tool of learning about the quark substructure of hadrons. In this limit the total amplitude factorizes into a hard contribution, computable from perturbative QCD, and a soft matrix element which requires a non-perturbative treatment. From the point of view of chiral symmetry breaking a particularly interesting process is provided by the $\\gamma^* \\to \\gamma^* \\pi^0 $ transition form factor. For real photons its normalization is fixed by the anomalous breaking of chiral symmetry by the $\\pi^0 \\to \\gamma \\gamma $ decay. In addition, in the limit of large photon virtualities, factorization allows us to define the leading-twist pion distribution amplitude as a low energy matrix element whose normalization is fixed by the pion weak-decay constant, a spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking feature of the QCD vacuum. It seems obvious that such a process offers a unique opportunity not only to learn about the interplay between high and low energies, but also to understand the relation between the spontaneous and the anomalous chiral symmetry breaking. Radiative logarithmic corrections to the pion distribution amplitude (PDA) can be easily implemented through the QCD evolution equations\u00a0[@BL79; @Mu95], which yield for $Q^2 \\to \\infty$ the asymptotic wave function of the form $\\varphi_\\pi(x,\\infty) = 6 x(1-x)$. Moreover, the pion transition form factor has been measured by the CELLO\u00a0[@cello] and, recently, the CLEO collaborations\u00a0[@CLEO98]. A theoretical analysis of PDA based on these data and light-cone sum rules has been undertaken\u00a0[@SY00], showing that at $Q=2.4$\u00a0GeV PDA is neither asymptotic, nor possesses the double-hump structure [@CZ84] proposed in early works [@E791] [^1].\n\nThe pion distribution amplitude has been evaluated with QCD sum rules\u00a0[@MR; @RR; @BJ97; @BM; @BMS1; @BMS2], in standard\u00a0[@DP00] (only the second $\\xi$-moment) and transverse lattice approaches\u00a0[@Da01; @BS01; @BD02], and in chiral quark models\u00a0[@ET; @PP97; @PP99; @ADT00; @He00; @He01; @PR01; @ADT01; @ADT01a; @DVY02; @Do02]. In chiral quark models the results are not always compatible to each other, and even their interpretation has not always been the same. While in same cases there are problems with chiral symmetry and proper normalization\u00a0[@PP97; @PP99; @PR01], in other cases [@ADT00; @He00; @He01; @PR01; @ADT01; @DVY02; @Do02] it is not clear how to associate the scale at which the model is defined, necessary to define the starting point for the QCD evolution. Nevertheless, there is a precise way to identify the low energy scale, $Q_0$, at which the model is defined, namely the one at which the quarks carry $100\\%$ of the total momentum\u00a0[@JG80; @Ja85]. The fact that several calculations\u00a0[@PP97; @PP99; @He00; @He01; @PR01; @ADT01; @DVY02] produce a PDA strongly resembling the asymptotic form suggests that their working scale is already large, and the subsequent QCD evolution becomes unnecessary, or numerically insignificant. This also tacitly assumes that these models already incorporate the QCD radiative corrections.\n\nIn the present paper we compute the pion distribution amplitude and the pion light-cone wave function within the Nambu\u2013Jona-Lasinio (NJL) model\u00a0[@NJL61; @NJL] in a semibosonized form using the Pauli-Villars (PV) regularization method\u00a0[@PV49]. This method has been introduced in Refs.\u00a0[@Ru91; @SR92] in the context of chiral perturbation theory, as well as for chiral solitons. From the point of view of the NJL model the study of exclusive processes becomes interesting in its own right. Although factorization holds beyond doubt in QCD, it is far from obvious that any of the regularization schemes used to make a low-energy model well defined is compatible with factorization. In addition, we want to determine what is the low-energy scale, $Q_0$, the model corresponds to. Here we obtain it with help of the analysis of PDA and compare it to the $Q_0$ obtained in deep inelastic scattering (DIS) from the corresponding parton distribution function of the pion (PDF).\n\nTo a large extent our treatment of PDA parallels the calculation of PDF carried out in previous works\u00a0[@DR95; @WRG99; @DR02]. There, it has been argued that for inclusive processes, such as in deep inelastic scattering, by far the most convenient regularization scheme is the Pauli-Villars (PV) method. Such a regularization allows the extraction of the leading-twist contribution to the forward virtual Compton amplitude which possesses proper support and normalization. The relevance of regularization in chiral quark models should not be underestimated; it is not evident what is the most convenient way to cut-off high energies in such a way that most features of QCD are retained. Those include chiral symmetry, gauge invariance, and scaling properties. The main outcome of the calculation presented in Ref.\u00a0[@DR95] was that, at the scale $Q_0$ at which the model is defined, the valence PDF is a constant equal to one, $$q(x,Q_0) = \\bar q(1-x, Q_0) \\equiv V_\\pi(x,Q_0)/2=1.\n\\label{PDF1}$$ After QCD evolution at leading order (LO), impressive agreement with the analysis of Ref.\u00a0[@SM92] at the reference scale $Q=2 {\\rm\nGeV}$ has been achieved. At this scale the valence quarks carry $47\n\\%$ of the total momentum. This implies a rather low scale $Q_0$, as suggested by the evolution ratio $\\alpha(2 {\\rm GeV})/\\alpha(Q_0)=0.15\n$ relevant at leading order. For $\\alpha (2 {\\rm GeV}) = 0.32 $ listed in the PDG\u00a0[@PDG], and for the evolution with three flavors, this corresponds to\u00a0[^2] $$Q_0=313 \\, {\\rm MeV}, \\,\\,\\, \\alpha(Q_0)= 2.14 \n\\label{Q0}$$ (see Ref.\u00a0[@DR95] for details). The low scales are confirmed by the next-to-leading (NLO) analysis of Ref.\u00a0[@DR02], with the NLO effects small compared to the LO ones [^3]. Motivated by this success, in the present paper we investigate whether the evolution ratio and the values (\\[Q0\\]) found in deep inelastic scattering are compatible with the values extracted from a similar analysis of PDA at LO in the same model (NJL) with the same (PV) regularization. This is the main objective of this work.\n\nIn the NJL model PDA has already been estimated by several authors\u00a0[@He00; @He01; @DVY02]. The work of Refs.\u00a0[@He00; @He01] uses the Brodsky-Lepage cut-off regularization as suggested by the light-front quantization formalism. As a consequence, the asymptotic form $\\varphi(x,Q_0) = 6 x(1-x)$ is obtained without any additional evolution. On the other hand, the same regularization yields PDF of the form $x V_\\pi (x,Q_0) \\sim 6 x^2 (1-x)$\u00a0[@He01; @BH99] which is far from the asymptotic value $ x V_\\pi(x,\\infty)= x \\delta(x) =0$. This is a rather puzzling result, which may have to do with subtleties of introducing a regularization in the light-cone quantization method (see also Ref.\u00a0[@BH99]). For that reason we prefer to use a manifestly covariant formalism, where chiral symmetry can be easily implemented in presence of the regularization. In Ref.\u00a0[@DVY02] PDA has been extracted from the transition form factor by examining the asymptotic behavior for large photon virtualities. This requires introducing a regularization for an abnormal parity process which also modifies the chiral anomaly, and hence, for typical parameter values\u00a0[@BH88], the $\\pi^0 \\to\n\\gamma \\gamma $ decay rate is reduced by $40\\%$ of the current algebra value. Our approach is free of such problems.\n\nThe Nambu\u2013Jona-Lasinio model\n============================\n\nFor the reader\u2019s convenience we briefly review the NJL model in such a way that our results can be easily stated. The SU(2) NJL Lagrangian in the Minkowski space is given by [@NJL61; @NJL] $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal L}_{\\rm NJL} &=&\n\\bar{q} (i\\slashchar\\partial - M_0 )q  +\n{G \\over 2} \\left( (\\bar{q}  q)^2\n                        +(\\bar{q}\\vec \\tau i \\gamma_5 q)^2 \\right)  \\end{aligned}$$ where $q=(u,d )$ represents a quark spinor with $N_c $ colors, $\\vec \\tau $ are the Pauli isospin matrices, $ M_0 $ stands for the current quark mass, and $G $ is the coupling constant. In the limiting case of the vanishing $M_0$ the action is invariant under the global $SU(2)_R \\otimes SU(2)_L $ transformations. With help of bosonization, the vacuum-to-vacuum transition amplitude in presence of external vector and axial-vector currents,$(v,a)$, can be written as the path integral $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\langle 0| {\\rm T} {\\rm exp} \\Bigl\\{ i \\int d^4 x\n\\left [ \\bar q \\left ({\\slashchar v}+{\\slashchar a} \\gamma_5 \\right ) q \n\\right ] \\Bigr\\} |0 \\rangle \\\\\n&& = \\int D \\Sigma D \\vec \\Pi \\, {\\rm exp}\\{{\\rm i} S \\}.\\end{aligned}$$ The following Dirac operators $$\\begin{aligned}\n i {\\rm D} \\, & = & i\\slashchar{ \\partial } - M_0 - ( \\Sigma + i\\gamma_5\n\\vec \\tau \\cdot \\vec \\Pi ) + {\\slashchar v}+{\\slashchar a} \\gamma_5, \\\\ \ni {\\rm D}_5 & = & -i\\slashchar{ \\partial } - M_0 - (\n\\Sigma - i\\gamma_5 \\vec \\tau \\cdot \\vec \\Pi ) + {\\slashchar\nv}-{\\slashchar a} \\gamma_5 ,\\end{aligned}$$ are introduced. The fields $(\\Sigma,\\vec \\Pi )$ are dynamical, internal bosonic scalar-isoscalar and pseudoscalar-isovector fields, which after suitable renormalization can be interpreted as the physical $\\sigma$ and pion fields. The PV-regularized normal parity ($\\gamma_5$-even) contribution to the effective action is\u00a0[@Ru91; @SR92] $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{\\rm even} = - {i N_c \\over 2} \\sum_i c_i {\\rm tr} \\log ( {\\rm D} {\\rm D}_5 +\n\\Lambda_i^2 + i\\epsilon) \\nonumber \\\\\n-{1\\over 2G} \\int d^4 x\n( \\Sigma^2 + \\vec \\Pi^2 ),\\end{aligned}$$ with ${\\rm tr}$ denoting the trace in the Dirac and isospin space. In general, we assume $n$ PV subtractions, with the conditions $\\sum_{i=0}^n c_i \\Lambda_i^{2k}=0$ for $k=0, ... , n$ , and with $c_0=1$, $\\Lambda_0=0 $. At least two subtractions ($n=2$), which is the case used throughout this paper, are needed to regularize the quadratic divergence. The abnormal parity ($\\gamma_5$-odd) contribution to the effective action is $$\\begin{aligned}\nS_{\\rm odd} = - {iN_c \\over 2} \\left\\{  {\\rm tr} \\log ( {\\rm D}^2  ) - {\\rm tr} \\log\n({\\rm D}_5^2 ) \\right\\} \n\\label{eq:abnor} \\end{aligned}$$ Notice that no explicit finite cut-off regularization is introduced in the abnormal parity contribution, as demanded by a proper reproduction of the QCD chiral anomaly. This subtle and important point has been discussed in detail in Ref.\u00a0[@SR95].\n\nAny mesonic correlation function can be obtained from this gauge-invariantly regularized effective action by a suitable functional differentiation with respect to the relevant external fields. In practice, one usually works in the formal limit large $N_c$, in other words, at the one-quark-loop level. To fix the parameters in the PV-regularized NJL model we proceed as usual (see, [*e.g.*]{}, Ref.\u00a0[@SR92]). The effective potential leads to dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, thereby yielding a dynamical quark mass, $M$, and condensates given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle \\bar u u \\rangle = \\langle \\bar d d \\rangle = -{M - M_0 \\over\n2 G } = 4 N_c M   I_2,\\end{aligned}$$ where the quadratically-divergent integral, $I_2$, is defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\nI_2 &=& {i} \\int {d^4 k \\over (2\\pi)^4 } \\sum_i c_i {1\\over (-k^2\n+ M^2 + \\Lambda_i^2 -i \\epsilon )} \\nonumber \\\\ &=&\\frac1{(4\\pi)^2}\n\\sum_i c_i (\\Lambda_i^2+M^2) \\log ( \\Lambda_i^2+ M^2). \\label{I2}\\end{aligned}$$ The calculation of the relevant correlation function yields for the pion mass $$\\begin{aligned}\nm_\\pi^2 ={ 2 I_2 \\over F ( m_\\pi^2 ) }{M_0 \\over M -M_0 } .\\end{aligned}$$ The pion weak-decay constant, $f_\\pi$, and the pion-quark coupling constant, $g_{\\pi qq}$, are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nf_\\pi &=& 4 N_c M F ( m_\\pi^2 ) g_{\\pi qq}, \\label{fpi} \\\\ \n {1\\over g_{\\pi q q}^2} &=& 4N_c {d\\over d p^2 }\n \\Bigl\\{ p^2 F ( p^2 ) \\Bigr\\} \\Big|_{p^2 = m_\\pi^2},\n\\label{eq:deffpi} \\end{aligned}$$ respectively. We have introduced the following short-hand notation: $$\\begin{aligned}\nF (p^2) = \\int_0^1 dx F (p^2, x),\\end{aligned}$$ where, in terms of the PV-regularized one-loop integrals, $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& F (p^2, x) = -i \\int {d^4 k \\over (2\\pi)^4 } \\sum_i  \\times \\\\\n&& c_i {1\\over [-k^2 -x(1-x)p^2 + M^2 + \\Lambda_i^2 - i\\epsilon]^2} \\nonumber \\\\ \n&& = -\\frac1{(4\\pi)^2}\\sum_i c_i \\log\\left[ M^2 + \\Lambda_i^2 -x(1-x)p^2 \\right]. \n\\nonumber\n\\label{F}\\end{aligned}$$ The function $F$ in an obvious manner satisfies the symmetry relation $F (p^2 , x) = F (p^2, 1-x)$. In the case of two subtractions, and in the limit $\\Lambda_1 \\to\n\\Lambda_2 \\equiv \\Lambda $ used in this paper, we have $\\sum_i c_i f(\\Lambda_i^2) = f(0)\n- f(\\Lambda^2 ) + \\Lambda^2 f' (\\Lambda^2 ) $. In the numerical analysis of this paper we work in the strict chiral limit, with $M_0=0$. The parameters are fixed as usual; we adjust the cut-off, $\\Lambda$, in order to reproduce the physical pion weak-decay constant, $f_\\pi = 93.3 $ MeV. The coupling constant, $G$, is traded for the constituent quark mass, $M$, which remains the only free parameter of the model. In our study of the pion light-cone wave function we use two sets, which cover the range used in other phenomenological applications of the model: $M = 280$ MeV, $\\Lambda=871$ MeV (case of Ref. [@DR95]), and $M = 350$ MeV, $\\Lambda=770$ MeV. These give the quark condensate equal to $\\langle \\bar u u + \\bar d d \\rangle = - ( 290 {\\rm MeV} )^3$ and $- ( 271 {\\rm MeV} )^3$, respectively. As we shall see, the results are insensitive to the choice of parameters.\n\nPion light-cone wave function and pion distribution amplitude\n=============================================================\n\nThe pion light-cone wave function (the axial-vector component) is defined as the low-energy matrix element\u00a0[^4] $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\Psi_{\\pi } (x, \\vec k_\\perp ) = -\\frac{{i} \\sqrt{2} }{4\\pi\nf_\\pi} \\int d \\xi^- d^2 \\xi_\\perp e^{{i} (2x-1) \\xi^- p^+ -\n\\xi_\\perp \\cdot k_\\perp } \\nonumber \n\\times \\\\ && \\langle \\pi^+ (p) | \\bar u (\\xi^- ,\n\\xi_\\perp) \\gamma^+ \\gamma_5 d(0) | 0 \\rangle .\n\\label{eq:pda_def}\\end{aligned}$$ where $p^\\pm = m_\\pi $ and $\\vec p_\\perp= 0$. The pion distribution amplitude is defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi_{\\pi } (x) = \\int d^2 k_\\perp \\Psi_{\\pi } (x, \\vec\nk_\\perp) \\end{aligned}$$ Formally, in the momentum space, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:pda\\_def\\]) corresponds to integration over the quark momenta in the loop integral used in the evaluation of $f_\\pi$, but with $k^+ = p^+ x = m_\\pi x $ and $k_\\perp$ fixed. Thus, with the PV method and after working out the Dirac traces, we have to compute $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\Psi_{\\pi } (x, \\vec k_\\perp ) = -\\frac{ 2 i N_c M  g_{\\pi qq} }{\nf_\\pi} \\int \\frac{dk^+ dk^- }{(2\\pi)^4 } \\times \\nonumber \n\\\\ && \\frac{\\delta \\left(\nk^+ - x p^+ \\right)}{m_\\pi x(1-x) }\n   \\sum_j  c_j \\times  \\\\&& \\frac1{k^- - m_\\pi + \\frac{ \\vec k_\\perp^2 + M^2 + \\Lambda_j^2 +\ni 0^+ }{m_\\pi (1-x) } } \\, \\frac1{k^- - \\frac{ \\vec k_\\perp^2 + M^2 +\n\\Lambda_j^2 + i 0^+}{m_\\pi x } }\\nonumber,\\end{aligned}$$ where the location of the poles in the $k^-$ variable has been explicitly displayed. Evaluating the $k^-$ integral gives the pion LC wave function in the NJL model with the PV regularization: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Psi_{\\pi } (x, k_\\perp)&=& \\frac{4 N_c M g_{\\pi qq} }{16\\pi^3 f_\\pi}\n\\sum_j  c_j \\times \\nonumber \\\\\n&&\\frac1{k_\\perp^2 + \\Lambda_j^2 + M^2-x(1-x)m_\\pi^2 } .\\end{aligned}$$ The function is properly normalized, $$\\int d^2 k_\\perp dx \\Psi_{\\pi }\n(x, k_\\perp)=1,$$ and satisfies the crossing relation $$\\Psi_{\\pi}\n(x , \\vec k_\\perp ) = \\Psi_{\\pi} (1-x , \\vec k_\\perp ).$$ For $m_\\pi \\neq 0 $ it is non-factorizable in the $k_\\perp$ and $x$ variables. Integrating with respect to $k_\\perp$ yields the pion distribution amplitude, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi_{\\pi} (x)&=& 4 N_c M F ( m_\\pi^2 , x ) \\frac{g_{\\pi\nqq}}{f_\\pi}.\\end{aligned}$$ The crossing property, $\\varphi_\\pi(x)=\\varphi_\\pi(1-x)$ follows trivially, and Eq. (\\[fpi\\]) gives the correct normalization, namely $\\int dx \\, \\varphi_{\\pi} (x)=1$.\n\nAs a consequence of the PV condition with two subtractions one has, for large $k_\\perp$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Psi_{\\pi} (x, k_\\perp)& \\to & \\frac{4 N_c M^2}{16\\pi^3\nf_\\pi^2} \\frac{ \\sum_i c_i \\Lambda_i^4 }{k_\\perp^6},\\end{aligned}$$ which gives a finite normalization and a finite second transverse moment, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle k_\\perp^2 \\rangle &=& \\int d^2 k_\\perp \\int_0^1 dx \\, \\Psi_{\\pi}\n(x, k_\\perp) k_\\perp^2\\end{aligned}$$ In the chiral limit, $m_\\pi = 0$, one can use the Goldberger-Treiman relation for the constituent quarks, $ g_{\\pi qq} f_\\pi = M$. Then $f_\\pi^2 = 4N_c M^2 F(0)$, which gives the very simple formulas $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Psi_{\\pi} (x, k_\\perp)&=& \\frac{4 N_c M^2}{16\\pi^3 f_\\pi^2} \\sum_i\nc_i \\frac1{k_\\perp^2 + \\Lambda_i^2 + M^2 } ,\n\\label{eq:lc0} \n\\\\ \\varphi_\\pi (x) &=& 1 ,\\label{eq:pd0} \\\\ \\langle \\vec k_\\perp^2\n\\rangle &=& -\\frac{M \\langle \\bar u u \\rangle }{f_\\pi^2}.\n\\label{eq:kp0} \\end{aligned}$$ In the chiral limit $\\Psi_\\pi ( x, \\vec k_\\perp ) $ becomes trivially factorizable, since it is independent of $x$. A remarkable feature is that the last two relations, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:pd0\\]) and Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:kp0\\]), are independent of the PV regulators. A similar situation has also been encountered when computing PDF in the chiral limit\u00a0[@DR95]; it was a constant equal to one, regardless on the details of the PV regulator. We will show below that by putting together Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:pd0\\]) and the results of Ref.\u00a0[@DR95] an interesting relation follows.\n\nHigher transverse moments diverge if one restricts the number of Pauli-Villars subtractions to two, but Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:pd0\\]) and Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:kp0\\]) remain still valid if more subtractions are considered.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:lcwf\\]) we show the $k_\\perp$-dependence of the light-cone pion wave function in the chiral limit (finite pion mass corrections turn out to be tiny, at the level of a few %) for the PV regularization with two subtractions, and with $M=380 {\\rm MeV}$ and 350\u00a0MeV. For these values we get the transverse moment $ \\langle \\vec k_\\perp^2 \\rangle = (625 {\\rm\nMeV})^2 $, and $(634 {\\rm\nMeV})^2 $, respectively. This value is about a factor of two larger than the one found in Ref.\u00a0[@PR01], namely $(430{\\rm MeV})^2$, and a factor of four higher than the findings of Ref.\u00a0[@Zh94], $(316 {\\rm\nMeV})^2$, at the scale at which $\\alpha / \\pi \\sim 0.1 $, [*i.e.*]{} $Q \\sim 1-2 {\\rm GeV}$. As we shall see below, a part of the discrepancy can be attributed to the QCD radiative corrections.\n\n![The pion light-cone wave function in the chiral limit, evaluated in the Nambu\u2013Jona-Lasinio with the Pauli-Villars regularization with two subtractions and with the constituent quark mass $M= 280 {\\rm MeV}$ (solid line) and 350 MeV (dashed line), plotted as a function of the transverse momentum $k_\\perp$. The wave funcion does not depend on $x$. The normalization is such that $ \\int d^2 \\vec k_\\perp \\Psi_\\pi ( x ,\nk_\\perp )= \\varphi_\\pi (x) = 1 $. The second transverse moment is $\n\\langle \\vec k_\\perp^2 \\rangle = -M \\langle \\bar u u \\rangle\n/f_\\pi^2 = (625 {\\rm MeV})^2$ for $M= 280 {\\rm MeV}$ and $(634 {\\rm MeV})^2$ for $M=350 {\\rm MeV}$ . The scale relevant for the calculation, as inferred from the QCD evolution [@DR95], is $Q_0=313$\u00a0MeV. []{data-label=\"fig:lcwf\"}](lcwf.eps){width=\"8.5cm\"}\n\nIn non-local versions of the chiral quark model, where a momentum-dependent mass function is introduced as a physically motivated regulator, the trend to produce a constant PDA has also been observed if the constant mass limit is considered\u00a0[@PP97; @PP99; @PR01]. In those models such a limit effectively corresponds to removing the regulator, against the original spirit of the model. Unfortunately, for the genuine non-local case those calculations violate proper normalization of PDA, because the employed currents do not comply with the necessary Ward identities required by chiral symmetry. The problem has been addressed in Ref.\u00a0[@ADT01], where it has been found that about a third of the normalized PDA comes from the non-local currents. For a Gaussian mass function there is a clear flattening of $\\varphi_\\pi (x)$ in the central region of $0.2 \\le x \\le 0.8 $\u00a0[@Do02].\n\nWe stress that our result, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:pd0\\]), holds true without removing the Pauli-Villars regulator and is in harmony with chiral symmetry, since the starting point was the normal parity action, which by construction preserves chiral symmetry. Obviously, the fact that our final answer does not depend on the form of the PV regulators used makes any subsequent manipulation with the regulators fully irrelevant.\n\nAnother point is that PDA from Eq. (\\[eq:pd0\\]) and PDF from Eq. (\\[PDF1\\]) yield the relation $\\varphi_\\pi (x)= V_\\pi (x)/2 $ valid at a low scale $Q_0$. It is noteworthy that in the framework of QCD sum rules the same identity between PDA and PDF has also been obtained\u00a0[@BJ97] at some scale, although there the asymptotic form for PDA was assumed without the QCD evolution, while PDF was obtained by QCD evolution. We will show below that if evolution is undertaken for both PDA and PDF at the same low energy scale, an overall consistent picture arises.\n\nQCD evolution\n=============\n\nThe comparison of the leading-twist PDA to high-energy experimental data requires, like for PDF, the inclusion of radiative logarithmic corrections through the QCD evolution\u00a0[@BL79; @Mu95]. For the pion distribution amplitude this is done in terms of the Gegenbauer polynomials, by interpreting our low-energy model result as the initial condition. For clarity we work in the chiral limit, hence $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi_{\\pi} (x,Q_0) = 1.\n\\label{start}\\end{aligned}$$ Then, the LO-evolved distribution amplitude reads\u00a0[@BL79; @Mu95] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi_{\\pi} (x,Q) &=& 6x(1-x){\\sum_{n=0}^\\infty}'  C_n^{3/2} ( 2 x -1)\na_n (Q),\n\\label{eq:evolpda} \\end{aligned}$$ where the prime indicates summation over even values of $n$ only. The matrix elements, $a_n(Q)$, are the Gegenbauer moments given by $$\\begin{aligned}\na_n (Q)&=& \\frac23 \\frac{2n+3}{(n+1)(n+2)} \\left(\n \\frac{\\alpha(Q_{})}{\\alpha(Q_0) } \\right)^{\\gamma_n^{(0)} / (2\n \\beta_0)} \\times \\nonumber \\\\ &&\\int_0^1 dx C_n^{3/2} ( 2x -1)\n \\varphi_{\\pi} (x ,Q_0),\n\\label{Geg}\\end{aligned}$$ with $C_n^{3/2}$ denoting the Gegenbauer polynomials, and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\gamma_n^{(0)} &=& -2 C_F \\left[ 3 + \\frac{2}{(n+1)(n+2)}- 4\n\\sum_{k=1}^{n+1} \\frac1k \\right], \\nonumber \\\\ \n\\beta_0 &=& \\frac{11}3 C_A -\n\\frac23 N_F,\\end{aligned}$$ with $C_A = 3$, $C_F = 4/3$, and $N_F$ being the number of active flavors, which we take equal to three [^5]. With our constant amplitude (\\[start\\]) we get immediately $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_0^1 dx C_n^{3/2} ( 2x -1) \\varphi_{\\pi} (x ,Q_0) =1.\n\\label{ourGeg}\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for a given value of $Q$ we may predict PDA. We need, however, to know what the initial scale $Q_0$ is, or, equivalently, to know the evolution ratio $r=\\alpha(Q) / \\alpha(Q_0 )$. The fitting procedure of Ref.\u00a0[@SY00] yields $a_2 (2.4 {\\rm GeV}) = 0.12 \\pm 0.03$ (with the assumption $a_k=0$, $k > 2$). We treat this as experimental input, and then with help of Eqs. (\\[Geg\\],\\[ourGeg\\]) we get for the evolution ratio $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha(Q=2.4 {\\rm GeV}) / \\alpha(Q_0) = 0.15 \\pm 0.06 .\n\\label{ourQ}\\end{aligned}$$ which at LO implies $ Q_0 = 322 \\pm 45 {\\rm MeV}$, a value compatible within errors with (\\[Q0\\]).\n\nThe fit of Ref. [@SY00] with non-zero $a_4$ yields $a_2=0.19 \\pm 0.04 \\pm 0.09$ and $a_4=-0.14 \\pm 0.03 \\mp 0.09$. The central value of $a_2$ would imply, according to our prescription, the evolution ratio of $0.31$, and, correspondingly, $Q_0=0.47^{+0.51}_{-0.19}$\u00a0GeV, a much larger central value than (\\[Q0\\]), but with very large errors. For that reason, in the numerical studies below we use the value (\\[ourQ\\]) for the evolution ratio.\n\nWe can now predict the following lowest-order coefficients: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& a_4 (2.4 {\\rm GeV}) = 0.044 \\pm 0.016 \\nonumber \\\\\n% && \\left( {\\rm Ref. [5]: ~~~} \n% a_4=-0.14 \\pm 0.03 \\mp 0.09 \\right) \\nonumber \\\\ \n&& a_6 (2.4 {\\rm GeV}) = 0.023 \\pm 0.010 \\nonumber \\\\ \n&& a_8 (2.4 {\\rm GeV}) = 0.014 \\pm 0.006 \\\\ \n&& a_{10} (2.4 {\\rm GeV}) = 0.009 \\pm 0.005 \\nonumber \n%\\\\  \\dots \\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$\n\n![The pion distribution amplitude in the chiral limit evolved to the scale $Q^2 = (2.4 {\\rm GeV})^2 $. The two values for the evolution ratio $r=\\alpha(Q) / \\alpha(Q_0)$ reflect the uncertainties in the values of Ref.\u00a0[@SY00] based on an analysis of the CLEO data. We also show the unvolved PDA, $\\varphi_\\pi(x,Q_0)=1$, and the asymptotic PDA, $\\varphi_\\pi (x,\\infty)=6x(1-x)$.[]{data-label=\"fig:pda\"}](pda.ps){width=\"8.5cm\"}\n\nFor the sum of the Gegenbauer coefficients we get the estimate $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\sum_{n=2}^\\infty}' a_n (Q=2.4{\\rm GeV}) &=& \\int_0^1 dx \\frac{\\varphi_\\pi\n(x,Q=2.4 {\\rm GeV})}{6x(1-x)}-1  \\nonumber \\\\ &=& 0.25 \\pm 0.10\n\\label{eq:sumgeg} \\end{aligned}$$ where the uncertainties correspond to the uncertainties in Eq.\u00a0(\\[ourQ\\]).\n\nThe leading-twist contribution to the pion transition form factor is, at the LO in the QCD evolution\u00a0[@BL80], equal to $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{Q^2 F_{\\gamma^* \\to \\pi \\gamma} (Q) }{2 f_\\pi} \\Big|_{\\rm twist-2} = \n\\int_0^1 dx \\frac{\\varphi_\\pi (x,Q )}{6x(1-x)}\\end{aligned}$$ The experimental value obtained in CLEO\u00a0[@CLEO98] for the full form factor is $ Q^2 F_{\\gamma^* , \\pi \\gamma} (Q) / (2 f_\\pi) = 0.83 \\pm\n0.12 $ at $Q^2 = {\\rm (2.4 GeV)}^2 $. Our value for the integral, $1.25\n\\pm 0.10 $, overestimates the experimental result, although at the $2 \\sigma$-confidence level both numbers are compatible. Taking into account the fact that we have not included neither NLO effects nor an estimate of higher-twist contributions, the result is quite encouraging.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:pda\\] we show our PDA evolved to $Q\n= 2.4 {\\rm GeV} $, for two values of the evolution ratio, which reflect the uncertainties from Eq. (\\[ourQ\\]). We also show the initial and the asymptotic PDA\u2019s. It is interesting to note that after evolution our results closely resemble those found in transverse lattice approaches\u00a0[@Da01; @BS01; @BD02]. In particular, we get for the second $\\xi$-moment ($\\xi = 2x-1$), $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle \\xi^2 \\rangle &=& \\int_0^1 dx \\, \\varphi_\\pi (x, Q=2.4 {\\rm GeV} ) (2x-1)^2 \n\\nonumber \\\\ &=&\n0.040 \\pm 0.005,\\end{aligned}$$ to be compared with $ \\langle \\xi^2 \\rangle = 0.06 \\pm 0.02 $ obtained in the standard lattice QCD for $Q= 1/a = 2.6 \\pm 0.1 {\\rm\nGeV}$\u00a0[@DP00]. From the PDF calculation at LO of Ref.\u00a0[@DR95] we estimate that if the momentum fraction carried by the valence quarks at $ Q = 2 {\\rm GeV} $ is $0.47 \\pm 0.02 \\% $, then $Q_0$ is such that $\\alpha (Q_0)=2.14 $, and the evolution ratio at $Q=2 {\\rm\nGeV} $ is $r=0.15 $. Then, for $Q=2.4 {\\rm GeV}$ we get $r=0.14$ from the analysis of PDF, a value compatible, within uncertainties, with the present calculation, Eq.\u00a0(\\[ourQ\\]). This is a crucial finding, showing the consistency of the results obtained in our approach.\n\nOne might worry that the starting condition (\\[start\\]) does not satisfy the end-point vanishing behavior and therefore cannot be expanded in terms of the Gegenbauer polynomials. This is true, provided one insists on uniform pointwise convergence. However, the Gegenbauer polynomials form a complete set in the space of square-summable functions, hence convergence may be understood in a weak sense [^6]. The slow convergence is reflected by the fact that in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:pda\\] at least 30-100 Gegenbauer polynomials are needed for evolution ratios $r=0.9-0.21$ respectively. The convergence at the mid-point, $x=1/2$, is improved, since the series for $\\varphi(x,Q)$ is sign-alternating. At the end-points, $ x= 0,1$, the series diverges, since $ C_{2k}^{3/2}(\\pm 1) =  \\frac{1}{2} (2k+1)(2k+2)$, which means that the convergence in Eq. (\\[eq:evolpda\\]) is not uniform. In order to analyze the behavior close to the end-points in a greater detail we consider the large-$n$ contribution to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:evolpda\\]). We have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left( \\frac{\\alpha(Q) }{\\alpha(Q_0)} \\right)^{\\gamma_n^{(0)}/(2\n\\beta_0)} \\to n^{- \\frac{4 C_F}{ \\beta_0} \\ln\n\\frac{\\alpha(Q_{})}{\\alpha (Q_0)}},\\end{aligned}$$ hence, for $Q \\to Q_0 $, $ Q > Q_0 $, and with $x \\to 0$ (recall that the function is symmetric under $x \\to 1-x $), we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\varphi_{\\pi} (x \\to 0,Q ) & \\to & 8 x \\zeta \\left( \\frac{4 C_F}{2 \\beta_0}\n\\ln \\frac{\\alpha(Q_{})}{\\alpha (Q_0)} + 1 \\right),\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\zeta(z) = \\sum_{n=1}^\\infty n^{-z}$ is the Riemann $\\zeta$ function, and $\\zeta(1) = \\sum_{n=1}^\\infty n^{-1} = \\infty$. Thus the slope of the evolved PDA at the end-points becomes steeper and steeper as $Q \\to Q_0 $.\n\nThe QCD evolution also influences the value of the transverse moment. According to the work of Ref.\u00a0[@Zh94], $\\langle \\vec\nk_\\perp^2\\rangle $ can be expressed as $\\langle \\vec\nk_\\perp^2\\rangle = 5 m_0^2 / 36 $, where $m_0^2 = \\langle \\bar q\n\\sigma^{\\mu \\nu} F_{\\mu \\nu} q \\rangle / \\langle \\bar q q \\rangle $ is the ratio between the quark-gluon and quark condensates. The quantity $m_0^2$ is scale dependent and has been estimated to be $ m_0^2 (1 {\\rm GeV}) = 0.8 \\pm 0.2 {\\rm\nGeV}^2 $\u00a0[@BI82]. Using the corresponding anomalous dimensions, $4$ for $ \\langle \\bar q q \\rangle$ and $-2/3$ for $\\langle \\bar q\n\\sigma^{\\mu \\nu} F_{\\mu \\nu} q \\rangle $ [@VZS76], yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\langle k_\\perp^2 \\rangle_{Q_{}} }{\\langle k_\\perp^2 \\rangle_{Q_0} }\n&=& \\left( \\frac{\\alpha(Q_{})}{\\alpha(Q_0)} \\right)^{(4+2/3)/\\beta_0}\n\\nonumber \\\\ &=& \\left( \\frac{\\alpha(Q_{})}{\\alpha(Q_0)} \\right)^{14/(33-2N_f)}. \n\\label{ratk}\\end{aligned}$$ For $N_F=3$ this scale dependence can be seen in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:evol\\]). For the values $Q=1-2 \\, {\\rm GeV} $ one gets a reduction factor of $\n0.37-0.45 $ for the ratio (\\[ratk\\]), and $ \\langle k_\\perp^2 \\rangle_{Q} = (430\n{\\rm MeV})^2 - (380 {\\rm MeV})^2 $ for the second transverse moment, somewhat higher than the QCD sum rules estimate based on Ref.\u00a0[@Zh94], $(316 {\\rm MeV})^2$, or on Ref.\u00a0[@BI82], $(333 \\pm 40 {\\rm MeV})^2$.\n\n![Dependence of the second transverse moment of the pion light-cone wave function, $ \\langle k_\\perp^2 \\rangle_{Q_{}} / \\langle k_\\perp^2 \\rangle_{Q_0} $ (solid line), the second Gegenbauer moment $ a_2 (Q)/a_2(Q_0) $ of the pion distribution amplitude (dashed line), and the evolution ratio $r=\\alpha(Q)/\\alpha(Q_0)$ (dotted line), plotted as functions of the scale $Q$. The leading-order QCD evolution is applied. All quantities are relative to their values at the low energy scale, $Q_0 = 313 \\,{\\rm MeV}$, at which the momentum fraction carried the quarks equals unity\u00a0[@DR95], according to the prescription that in a quark model $Q_0$ is defined by the condition $ {\\langle x V_\\pi (x,Q_0) \\rangle }= 1 $. In our model $\\alpha(Q_0)=2.14$, $a_2(Q_0) = 7/18$, and $ \\langle k_\\perp^2 \\rangle_{Q_0} = (625 {\\rm MeV})^2$ for $M= 280 {\\rm MeV}$ and $(634 {\\rm MeV})^2$ for $M=350 {\\rm MeV}$ and in the chiral limit.[]{data-label=\"fig:evol\"}](evol.eps){width=\"8.5cm\"}\n\nThe relation to deep inelastic scattering\n=========================================\n\nAs we have already stated in Eq. (\\[PDF1\\]), the valence PDF for the pion in the chiral limit has also been found to be a constant equal to one\u00a0[@DR95]. At LO the non-singlet evolution of the PDF moments is quite similar to that of the Gegenbauer moments of PDA, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:evolpda\\]), namely $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\int_0^1 dx \\, x^n V_\\pi (x,Q) =\n\\\\ && \\left( \\frac{\\alpha(Q_{})}{\\alpha(Q_0)} \\right)^{\\gamma_n^{(0)}\n/ (2 \\beta_0)}  \\int_0^1 dx \\, x^n V_\\pi (x,Q_0)= \\nonumber \\\\ \n&& \\frac2{n+1} \\left( \\frac{\\alpha(Q_{})}{\\alpha(Q_0)}\n\\right)^{\\gamma_n^{(0)} / (2 \\beta_0)}. \\nonumber\n\\label{eq:evolpdf} \\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $n=2$, one obtains $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{a_2(Q)}{a_2 (Q_0)} = \\frac{\\langle x^2 V_\\pi (x,Q)\n\\rangle}{\\langle x^2 V_\\pi (x,Q_0)\n\\rangle} = \\left( \\frac{\\alpha(Q_{})}{\\alpha(Q_0)}\n\\right)^{\\gamma_2^{(0)} / (2 \\beta_0)}.\\end{aligned}$$ For $N_F=3$ this scale dependence for the ratios can be looked up in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:evol\\]). Using $ {\\langle x^2 V_\\pi (x,Q_0) \\rangle }= 2/3 $ and $a_2(Q_0)=7/18 $ yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{ a_2 (Q) }{\\langle x^2 V_\\pi (x,Q) \\rangle} &=& \\frac{7}{12},\\end{aligned}$$ hence $a_2 ( 2 {\\rm GeV}) = 0.12 \\pm 0.01 $ for $\\langle x^2 V_\\pi\n\\rangle = 0.20 \\pm 0.01 $\u00a0[@SM92] and $a_2 ( 2 {\\rm GeV} ) = 0.10\n\\pm 0.01 $ for $\\langle x^2 V_\\pi \\rangle = 0.17 \\pm 0.01\n$\u00a0[@GRV99].\n\nOne can combine Eqs.\u00a0(\\[PDF1\\],\\[eq:pd0\\],\\[eq:evolpda\\],\\[eq:evolpdf\\]) to obtain the following very interesting LO relation that holds in the considered model: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\varphi_\\pi (x,Q)}{6x(1-x)}-1 = \\int_0^1 dy K(x,y) V_\\pi ( y, Q )  ,\n\\label{eq:evol}\\end{aligned}$$ where the kernel $K$ is independent of $Q^2$, and is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\nK(x,y) = {\\sum_{n=2}^\\infty}' \\frac{(2n+3)}{3(n+2)} C_n^{3/2}\n(2x-1) y^{n}.\\end{aligned}$$ In general, the relation (\\[eq:evol\\]) holds in any model where PDA and PDF are simultaneously equal to unity at some scale $Q_0$, and are subsequently evolved at LO. Physically, Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:evol\\]) simply tells us that the departure of PDA at a given $Q^2$ from the asymptotic form is proportional to a weighted integral of PDF at the same $Q$. Clearly, $\\varphi_\\pi(x,Q) \\to 6 x (1-x) $ if $ V_\\pi (x,Q\n) \\to 2 \\delta (x) $ or, equivalently, $ x V_\\pi (x,Q) \\to 0$, since $K(x,0)=0$. Roughly speaking, in the present model the pion distribution function is as close to the asymptotic value as the non-singlet parton distribution. A remarkable feature of relation (\\[eq:evol\\]) is that it binds matrix elements related to exclusive (PDA) and to inclusive (PDF) processes.\n\nIn order to evaluate the kernel we use the symmetrized generating function of the Gegenbauer polynomials, $$\\begin{aligned}\nG(x,y) &=& {\\sum_{n=2}^\\infty}' C_n^{3/2} (2x-1) y^n = \\frac12\n\\left\\{ R_+^{-3/2} + R_-^{-3/2} \\right\\} -1 \\nonumber \\\\ R_\\pm &=& 1 \\mp\n2(2x-1)y + y^2, \\end{aligned}$$ whence one can obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nK(x,y) = \\frac2{3} G(x,y) - \\frac1{3y^2} \\int_0^y d y' y' G(x,y').\\end{aligned}$$ The integrals can be worked out to yield the final result $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& K(x,y) = \\frac{1}{24 R_+^{3/2} y^2 (x-1)x}\\times \\nonumber \\\\&&\n[8\\left( x-1 \\right) x y^2 + \n  R_+\\left( \\left(  2x-1 \\right) y-1\n     \\right) \\nonumber \\\\ && + 2{\\sqrt{R_+}}\n   \\left( x-1 \\right) x y^2\n   \\left( 1 + \\left( 2 - 4x \\right) y + \n     y^2 \\right) \\nonumber \\\\ &&  + R_+^{\\frac{3}{2}}\n   \\left( 1 - 8 \\left( x-1 \\right) x\n      y^2 \\right)] - \\quad \\left( y \\leftrightarrow - y \\right)\\end{aligned}$$ To test the success of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:evol\\]) we need some input for $V_\\pi(x,Q ) $. However, taking into account the fact that the agreement of the evolved valence PDF, $V_\\pi(x,Q ) $ with the parameterization of Ref.\u00a0[@SM92] at $Q^2 = 4 {\\rm GeV}^2 $ is almost perfect\u00a0[@DR95; @DR02], and that the results are almost insensitive to the evolution ratio, $ \\alpha(Q )/ \\alpha(Q_0 ) $, Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:pda\\] can be regarded as a direct prediction of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:evol\\]) taking Ref.\u00a0[@SM92] as input for $ V_\\pi\n(x,Q)$. A further consequence of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:evol\\]) may be obtained by integrating with respect to $x$ and performing the sum over $n$. Through the use of Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:sumgeg\\]) we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\sum_{n=2}^\\infty}' a_n (Q) = \\int_0^1 dy \\kappa(y) V_\\pi (y,Q) \\, \\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\kappa(y)&=& \\int_0^1  dx K(x,y) = {\\sum_{n=2}^\\infty}' \\frac{(2n+3)}{3(n+2)} y^{n} \\\\\n&=&  \\frac{3y^2+1}{6(1-y^2)} +\\frac{\\log (1 - y)  + \\log (1 + y) }{6y^2}  \\nonumber .  \\end{aligned}$$ Notice that, for $Q \\to \\infty $ we get $ V_\\pi (x,Q) \\to 2 \\delta (x)\n$ and since $\\kappa (y) = 7y^2 /12 + {\\cal O} (y^4) $ one gets ${\\sum_{n=2}^\\infty }' a_n (Q) \\to 0$, as expected. Finally, using the parameterization of Ref.\u00a0[@SM92] we get\u00a0[^7] $${\\sum_{n=2}^{\\infty}}' a_n (2 {\\rm GeV}) = 0.25 \\pm 0.03 ,$$ a value perfectly compatible with Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:sumgeg\\]) although with smaller uncertainties\u00a0[^8]. Again, this verifies the consistency of our approach.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nWe summarize our points. We have computed the light-cone pion wave function and the pion distribution amplitude in the Nambu\u2013Jona-Lasinio model. To this end, and to comply with previous results regarding the parton distribution functions, we have used the Pauli-Villars regularization method in such a way that chiral symmetry, gauge invariance, and relativistic invariance are preserved. As a result, we find that in the chiral limit the pion distribution amplitude, computed as a low energy matrix element of an appropriate operator, is a constant equal to one, $ \\varphi_\\pi(x)=1$, and the second transverse moment of the pion light-cone wave function is $\\langle \\vec k_\\perp^2 \\rangle = -M \\langle \\bar u u \\rangle\n/f_\\pi^2 $, with $M$ denoting the constituent quark mass. Both results are independent of the particular form of the Pauli-Villars regulators used. After the QCD evolution of the pion distribution amplitude to the experimentally accessible region we find a result still rather far away from the asymptotic form, $\\varphi_\\pi (x) = 6 x\n(1-x) $, but in a good agreement with the analysis of the experimental data from the CLEO collaboration. We can determine the working momentum scale for the model to be $Q_0=313$\u00a0MeV, a rather low value. Moreover, the scale $Q_0$ obtained in this work is compatible, within experimental uncertainties, to the value obtained from the previous analysis of the parton distribution functions, carried out within exactly the same model. At the scale $Q_0$ the quarks carry all the momentum of the pion. Our value obtained for the second transverse moment of the pion light-cone wave function, $\\langle \\vec k_\\perp^2\n\\rangle $, becomes, after the QCD evolution, not far from the estimates based on the QCD sum rules. Finally, we have also derived a model relation which binds the departure of the pion distribution amplitude from its asymptotic value to an integral involving the pion quark distribution function. The relation, specific to the feature of our model that at the scale $Q_0$ both the PDA and PDF are constant and equal to unity, has been successfully checked against the available data.\n\n0.5cm\n\nWe thank Micha\u0142 Prasza\u0142owicz for several stimulating discussions. This work has been partially supported by the DGES under contract PB98-1367 and by the Junta de Andaluc[\u00ed]{}a (Spain). Partial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores and the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, grant number 07/2001-2002, is also gratefully acknowledged.\n\n[99]{}\n\nG. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. [**D 22**]{} (1980) 2157.\n\nG. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Lett. [**B 87**]{} (1979) 359.\n\nD. M\u00fcller, Phys. Rev. [**D 51**]{} (1995) 3855.\n\nCELLO Collaboration (H.-J. Behrend et al.), Z. Phys. [**C 49**]{} (1991) 401.\n\nCLEO Collaboration (J. Gronberg et al.), Phys. Rev. [**D 57**]{} (1998) 33.\n\nA. Schmedding and O. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. [**D 62**]{} (2000) 116002.\n\nV. L. Chernyak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rept. [**112**]{} (1984) 173.\n\nE791 Collaboration (E. M. Aitala et al.), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001), 4768.\n\nS. V. Mikhailov and A. V. Radyushkin, JETP Lett. [**43**]{} (1986) 712; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**49**]{} (1989) 494; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**52**]{} (1990) 697; Phys. Rev. [**D 45**]{} (1992) 1754.\n\nA. V. Radyushkin and R. T. Ruskov, Nucl. Phys. [**B 482**]{} (1996) 625.\n\nV. M. Belyaev and M. B. Johnson, Phys. Rev. [**D 56**]{} (1997) 1481.\n\nA. P. Bakulev and S. V. Mikhailov, Phys. Lett. [**B 436**]{} (1998) 351.\n\nA. P. Bakulev, S.V. Mikhailov, and N. G. Stefanis, Phys. Lett. [**B 508**]{} (2001) 279.\n\nA. P. Bakulev, S. V. Mikhailov, and N. G. Stefanis, talk presented at 36th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and Hadronic Interactions, Les Arcs, France, 17-24 Mar 2001, e-Print Archive: hep-ph/0104290\n\nL. Del Debbio, M. Di Pierro, A. Dougal and C. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} (Proc. Suppl.) [**83-84** ]{} (2000) 235.\n\nS. Dalley, Phys. Rev. [**D 64**]{} (2001) 036006.\n\nM. Burkardt and S. K. Seal, Phys. Rev. [**D 65**]{} (2002) 034501.\n\nM. Burkardt and S. Dalley, hep-ph/0112007.\n\nS. V. Esaibegyan and S. N. Tamaran, Yad. Fiz. 51 (1990) 485 \\[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 51, 310\\]\n\nV. Yu. Petrov and P. V. Pobylitsa, hep-ph/9712203.\n\nV. Yu. Petrov, M. V. Polyakov, R. Ruskov, C. Weiss, and K. Goeke, Phys. Rev. [**D 59**]{} (1999) 114018.\n\nI. V. Anikin, A. E. Dorokhov, and L. Tomio, Phys. Lett. [**B 475**]{} (2000) 361.\n\nT. Heinzl, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} (Proc. Suppl.) 90 (2000) 83.\n\nT. Heinzl, Lect. Notes Phys. [**572**]{} (2001) 55, hep-th/0008096.\n\nM. Prasza\u0142owicz and A. Rostworowski, Phys. Rev. [**D 64**]{} (2001) 074003.\n\nI. V. Anikin, A. E. Dorokhov, and L. Tomio, Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**64**]{} (2001) 1329.\n\nI. V. Anikin, A. E. Dorokhov, and L. Tomio, Phys. of Part. and Nuclei [**31**]{} (2000) 509 \\[Fiz. Elem. Chastits i Atom. Yad. [**31**]{} (2000) 1023\\].\n\nA. E. Dorokhov, M. K. Volkov, and V. L. Yudichev, hep-ph/0203136.\n\nA. E. Dorokhov, talk presented at the 37th Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and Hadronic Interactions, Les Arcs, France, 16-23 March 2002, hep-ph/0206088.\n\nR. L. Jaffe and G. G. Ross, Phys. Lett. [**B 93**]{} (1980) 313.\n\nW. Pauli and F. Villars, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**21**]{} (1949) 434.\n\nE. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Lett. [**B 253**]{} (1991) 430.\n\nC. Sch\u00fcren, E. Ruiz Arriola, and K. Goeke, Nucl. Phys. [**A 547**]{} (1992) 612.\n\nR. M. Davidson and E. Ruiz Arriola, Phys. Lett. [**B 348**]{} (1995) 163.\n\nH. Weigel, E. Ruiz Arriola, and L. P. Gamberg, Nucl. Phys. [**B 560**]{} (1999) 383.\n\nR. M. Davidson and E. Ruiz Arriola, Act. Phys. Pol. [**B 33**]{} (2002) 1791.\n\nReview of Particle Properties, K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. [**D 66**]{} (2002) 010001.\n\nW. Bentz, T. Hama, T. Matsuki, and K. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. [**A 651**]{} (1999) 143.\n\nA. Blin, B. Hiller, and M. Schaden, Zeit. Phys. [**A 331**]{} (1988) 75.\n\nE. Ruiz Arriola and L. L. Salcedo, Nucl. Phys. [**A 590**]{} (1995) 703.\n\nA. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Lett. [**B 329**]{} (1994) 493.\n\nV. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe, Sov. Phys. JETP [**56**]{} (1982) 493. For a recent review see, [*e.g.*]{}, P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, in [*Handbook of QCD*]{}, ed. by M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001) vol. [**3**]{} p. 1495.\n\nA. Vainshtein, V. Zakharov, and M. Shifman, JETP Lett. [**23**]{} (1976) 602.\n\nM. Gluck, E. Reya, and I. Schienbein, Eur. Phys. Jour. [**C 10**]{} (1999) 313. This reference does not provide errors, so we assume similar errors as in Ref.\u00a0[@SM92].\n\n[^1]: A recent direct measurement of PDA via the di-jet production by the E791 collaboration [@E791] shows that at scales $Q \\simeq 5-6$ GeV, the possible admixture of the Chernyak-Zhitnitsky wave function is rather small\n\n[^2]: In this paper we use the LO QCD evolution, where $ \\alpha(Q)= ( 4 \\pi / \\beta_0 ) / \\log (Q^2 / \\Lambda_{\\rm QCD}^2\n    ) $ with $\\Lambda_{\\rm QCD}=226~{\\rm MeV} $ for $N_F=3$.\n\n[^3]: Admittedly, one may worry that such a low scale as in Eq. (\\[Q0\\]) may invalidate the use of perturbation theory. We hope that the correspoding value of $\\alpha /(2 \\pi )\\sim 0.3$, which typically is the expansion parameter, is low enough for the approach to make sense.\n\n[^4]: The light-cone coordinates are defined as $ k^\\pm = k^0 \\pm k^3 $ and $d^4 k = \\frac12 dk^+ dk^-\n    d^2 \\vec k_\\perp $\n\n[^5]: The one-loop anomalous dimension $\\gamma_n^{(0)} > 0 $, and $\\gamma_n^{(0)} \\to 8\n    C_F \\log n $ for large $n$, which coincides with the case of the non-singlet parton distribution functions used in Refs.\u00a0[@DR95; @DR02].\n\n[^6]: The condition for $\\varphi_\\pi(x)$ to belong to such a space is $ \\int_0^1 dx\n    \\frac{\\varphi_{\\pi}(x)}{x(1-x)} < \\infty$. The function $\\varphi_\\pi(x) =1 $ does not belong to this space, but it belongs to its closure. This resembles the well-known fact that plane waves do not belong to the space of square-summable functions in the interval $-\\infty < x < \\infty $, but nevertheless may be approximated by square summable-functions.\n\n[^7]: This is $ x\n    V_\\pi (x,Q) = A_V x^\\alpha (1-x)^\\beta $ with $A_V$ such that $\n    \\langle V_\\pi \\rangle = 2 $ and $\\alpha = 0.64 \\pm 0.03 $ and $\n    \\beta=1.08 \\pm 0.02 $ (the NA10 set) and $ \\beta = 1.15 \\pm 0.02 $ (the E615 set). Our estimate of error includes both sets.\n\n[^8]: Of course, this estimate does not include systematic uncertainties in NLO both for PDA and PDF.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Correspondence selection aiming at seeking correct feature correspondences from raw feature matches is pivotal for a number of feature-matching-based tasks. Various 2D (image) correspondence selection algorithms have been presented with decades of progress. Unfortunately, the lack of an in-depth evaluation makes it difficult for developers to choose a proper algorithm given a specific application. This paper fills this gap by evaluating eight 2D correspondence selection algorithms ranging from classical methods to the most recent ones on four standard datasets. The diversity of experimental datasets brings various nuisances including zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, JPEG compression, light change, different rendering styles and multi-structures for comprehensive test. To further create different distributions of initial matches, a set of combinations of detector and descriptor is also taken into consideration. We measure the quality of a correspondence selection algorithm from four perspectives, i.e., precision, recall, F-measure and efficiency. According to evaluation results, the current advantages and limitations of all considered algorithms are aggregately summarized which could be treated as a \u201cuser guide\u201d for the following developers.'\nauthor:\n- 'Chen\u00a0Zhao,\u00a0Jiaqi\u00a0Yang,\u00a0Yang\u00a0Xiao,\u00a0and Zhiguo\u00a0Cao [^1]'\nbibliography:\n- 'mybibfile.bib'\ntitle: Comparative evaluation of 2D feature correspondence selection algorithms\n---\n\n[Shell : Bare Demo of IEEEtran.cls for IEEE Journals]{}\n\n2D feature correspondence, feature matching, correspondence selection, inliers\n\nIntroduction {#sec:intr}\n============\n\nFeature correspondence selection is a fundamental and critical task in computer vision and robotics. It is the basis for a wide range of applications, such as structure-from-motion\u00a0[@snavely2008modeling], simultaneous localization and mapping\u00a0[@benhimane2004real], tracking\u00a0[@hare2012efficient], image stitching\u00a0[@brown2007automatic], and object recognition\u00a0[@lowe1999object], to name just a few.\n\nThe main purpose of correspondence selection is retrieving as many as correct correspondences (also known as *inliers*) from the initial feature matches. Usually, this task is under the background of feature matching. The general process of feature matching starts by detecting representative points, namely keypoints, for two images to be matched. Then, local descriptors such as SIFT\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive] and ORB\u00a0[@rublee2011orb] are employed to perform feature description for those keypoints. To build the connection between two images, keypoints with similar feature descriptors are matched, generating a set of raw feature matches. However, the initial feature matches often suffer from severe wrong matches (as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:inspr\\](a)) due to the limited distinctiveness of feature descriptors or/and external interferences such as noise and occlusion. This problem makes correspondence selection a necessity for accurate feature matching. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:inspr\\](b) shows that those matches after correspondence selection are far more consistent than the initial feature matches. This consensus allows massive high-level vision tasks. For instance, homography, affine and essential matrices can be estimated from those consistent correspondences, thus allowing us to compute the transformation between two images and warp them into a unified coordinate system\u00a0[@brown2007automatic]. Other applications also involve camera parameter estimation\u00a0[@snavely2008modeling] and object tracking\u00a0[@hare2012efficient]. Nonetheless, the correspondence selection problem is difficult in real applications due to several factors, e.g., zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, JPEG compression, light change, different rendering styles, multi-structures, and etc. Different scenarios will also lead to different distributions of feature matches which are linearly non-separable.\n\nTo address these problems, many approaches that have been presented during the past two decades can be divided into two categories\u00a0[@Ma2014Robust]: parametric and non-parametric methods. (i) For parametric methods, they seek consistent correspondences grounded on parametric geometric models. Typical methods include the random sample consensus (RANSAC)\u00a0[@fischler1981random], the progressive sample consensus (PROSAC)\u00a0[@Chum2005Matching], the universal framework for random sample consensus (USAC)\u00a0[@Raguram2013USAC], and etc. (ii) For non-parametric methods, they are independent from parametric model assumptions. Some of them search correspondence inliers via either feature similarity constraint or geometric constraint, such as the nearest neighbor similarity ratio (NNSR)\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive], spectral technique (ST)\u00a0[@Leordeanu2005A], game-theoretic matching (GTM)\u00a0[@albarelli2012imposing], graph-based affine invariant matching (GAIM)\u00a0[@Collins2014An] and locality preserving matching (LPM)\u00a0[@Ma2017Locality]. There are also constraint-independent non-parametric methods such as identifying point correspondences by correspondence function (ICF)\u00a0[@Li2010Rejecting], vector field consensus (VFC)\u00a0[@Ma2014Robust], grid-based motion statistics (GMS)\u00a0[@bian2017gms] and coherence based decision boundaries (CODE)\u00a0[@Lin2017CODE]. With the wealth of existing correspondence selection methods, however, it is on the one hand difficult for developers to choose the most proper method given a specific application and on the other hand confusing for researchers to compare these methods under different conditions. This problem is mainly due to the fact that most methods were tested under a specific application scenario and compared with a limited number of baselines.\n\nSome performance evaluations in the field of image feature matching also exist. For instance, Mikolajczyk et al.\u00a0[@mikolajczyk2005performance] and Heinly et al.\u00a0[@Heinly2012Comparative] evaluated the performance of several 2D feature descriptors. Aans et al.\u00a0[@Aan2012Interesting] investigated the performance of 2D feature detectors. Moreels et al.\u00a0[@moreels2007evaluation] performed an aggregated evaluation of both 2D detectors and descriptors. In addition to feature detectors and descriptors, Raguram et al.\u00a0[@Raguram2008A] tested the performance of a set of random sample consensus methods including the popular RANSAC and its variants. However, all these evaluations are either not in line with 2D correspondence selection or not comprehensive enough for an in-depth comparison. First, the critical step in correspondence selection is finding correspondence consensus, while feature detection and description aim at building high-quality initial feature correspondences (such quality is difficult to be guaranteed without correspondence selection\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive]). Second, the performance of non-parametric approaches and some recent algorithms remains unclear (only parametric methods were tested in\u00a0[@Raguram2008A]).\n\nIn these regards, we present the first comprehensive evaluation, to the best of our knowledge, for 2D correspondence selection from different perspectives in a uniform experimental framework. The considered methods in our evaluation range from classical algorithms to the most recent ones, typically covering both parametric and non-parametric approaches. To be specific, RANSAC\u00a0[@fischler1981random] and USAC\u00a0[@Raguram2013USAC] are selected from the parametric family, as RANSAC is arguably the most popular parametric approach and USAC is a well-known modified version of RANSAC. As for non-parametric methods, we choose NNSR\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive] as a representative of those methods based on descriptor similarity constraints. ST\u00a0[@Leordeanu2005A], GTM\u00a0[@albarelli2012imposing] and LPM\u00a0[@Ma2017Locality] are selected as they all rely on the geometric consensus. VFC\u00a0[@Ma2014Robust] and the recent GMS\u00a0[@bian2017gms] are taken into consideration since they eliminate outliers from the perspective of statistical measures. In order to compare those methods from different perspectives, we choose four standard datasets, i.e., VGG\u00a0[@Mikolajczyk2005A], Heinly\u00a0[@Heinly2012Comparative], Symbench\u00a0[@Snavely2012Image], AdelaideRMF\u00a0[@Wong2011Dynamic], as experimental platforms under the motivation to test those correspondence selection methods\u2019 overall performance when faced with a variety of nuisances rather than in their favoring circumstances. For instance, geometric constraints may turn to be vulnerable under rigid/non-rigid transformations such as zoom and rotation; feature similarity constraints are suspicious when the image undergoes blur and light changes; parametric models (the homography matrix) can hardly cope with scenes with parallax (all above conclusions have been verified in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:exper\\]). The considered datasets well cover these concerns. To be specific, VGG is a hybrid dataset containing challenges including zoom, rotation, blur, JPEG compression, light and viewpoint change. Heinly contains pure zoom and rotation. Symbench involves scenes with light changes and varying rendering styles. AdelaideRMF possesses viewpoint change and multi-structures, resulting in parallax. The behavior of each method is quantitatively measured using precision, recall and F-measure\u00a0[@bian2017gms; @lin2014bilateral; @Ma2017Locality]. In addition, the performance under preselected correspondences (with higher inlier ratios) and different detector-descriptor combinations are also accessed to test their flexibility with respect to the inlier ratio and correspondence distribution changes. Finally, the efficiency with respect to different scales of initial feature matches are examined. According to the experimental outcomes, we make an aggregated summary of the current advantages and limitations of our evaluated methods as well as their suitable applications.\n\nIn a nutshell, the contributions of this paper are threefold:\n\n-   A review and the core computation steps of eight state-of-the-art 2D correspondence selection algorithms are presented.\n\n-   We comprehensively evaluate and compare the performance, the robustness to a variety of perturbations and the efficiency of each algorithm on four standard datasets consisting of hundreds of images with zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, JPEG compression, light change, different rendering styles and multi-structures.\n\n-   Instructive summarizations including merits, demerits and suitable applications of the tested methods are given that can be served as a \u201cuser guide\u201d for the developers.\n\nThe remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:rela\\] gives a review of 2D correspondence selection algorithms and relevant evaluations. Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:method\\] presents the core computation steps of eight state-of-the-art approaches. Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:exper\\] describes the experimental setup including datasets, criteria and implementation details of the evaluated methods. Qualitative and quantitative experimental results are shown in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:res\\]. Summary and discussion are presented in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:sum\\]. Conclusions are finally drawn in Sect.\u00a0\\[sec:con\\].\n\nRelated work {#sec:rela}\n============\n\nThis section briefly reviews the prior works of 2D correspondence selection including both parametric and non-parametric categories. Relevant evaluations in the field of feature matching are also discussed.\n\nCorrespondence selection methods\n--------------------------------\n\nFor parametric methods, the most well-known algorithm is arguably RANSAC presented by Fischler et al.\u00a0[@fischler1981random]. RANSAC iteratively explores the space of model parameters by randomly sampling and estimates the most reliable model based on the maximum number of inliers. Then, outliers can be removed using the generated model. Several variants of RANSAC such as MLESAC\u00a0[@Torr2000MLESAC], LO-RANSAC\u00a0[@Chum2003Locally], PROSAC\u00a0[@Chum2005Matching] and USAC\u00a0[@Raguram2013USAC] were proposed in the following decades. MLESAC employs the maximum likelihood estimation rather than the inlier count to check the solutions. LO-RANSAC inserts an optimization process where the generated model is refined by the subset of inliers. A weighted sampling step is adopted instead of random sampling in PROSAC. This method sorts the raw correspondences by matching quality and generates hypotheses from the most promising correspondences. USAC extends the standard hypothesize-and-verify structure in RANSAC and presents a universal framework that integrates advantages of previous parametric methods. In addition, some other approaches relying on local parametric structures have also been developed, such as agglomerative correspondence clustering (ACC)\u00a0[@cho2009feature], multi-structures robust fitting (Multi-GS)\u00a0[@chin2010accelerated], Hough voting and inverted Hough voting (HVIV)\u00a0[@Chen2013Robust]. ACC uses Hessian-affine detector\u00a0[@Mikolajczyk2004Hessian], which is invariant to affine transformations, to estimate the local homography matrix as constraints. The initial correspondences are then clustered based on the constraints, and the clusters with inliers are supposed to be larger than the ones constituted by outliers. Multi-GS generates a series of tentative hypotheses by random sampling and considers that two correspondences from the same local structure are inliers if they share a common list of hypotheses. HVIV employs the BPLR detector\u00a0[@Kim2011Boundary] to cluster correspondences and estimates the homographic transformation for each correspondence as well. The most plausible correspondence in each cluster is then selected using normalized kernel density estimation.\n\nFor non-parametric methods, their theoretical foundations are not always the same. A widely-used strategy is exploiting the consistency information of local geometric structures or appearance (feature similarity). Specifically, Lowe et al.\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive] proposed a nearest neighbor similarity ratio (NNSR) method that assigns a penalty equaling to the ratio of the closest to the second-closest feature distance to each correspondence and treats those correspondences with low ratios as inliers. Leordeanu et al.\u00a0[@Leordeanu2005A] presented spectral technique (ST), where an affinity matrix is built using pairwise geometric constraints to remove mismatches in conflict with the most credible correspondences. Albarelli et al.\u00a0[@albarelli2012imposing] casted the selection of correspondences in a game theoretic framework, known as game-theoretic matching (GTM), where a natural selection process allows corresponding points that satisfy a mutual distance constraint to thrive. Cho et al.\u00a0[@Cho2010Reweighted] presented reweighted random walk algorithm (RRWM) for graph matching. An associated graph between two sets of candidate correspondences is drawn at first, and reliable nodes indicating the consistent correspondences in this graph are then selected by the reweighted random walk algorithm. Ma et al.\u00a0[@Ma2017Locality] proposed locality preserving matching (LPM) to improve inlier selection by maintaining the local neighborhood structures of those potential true matches. Some non-parametric approaches that formulate the correspondence selection problem as a statistics problem have also been used, e.g., vector field consensus (VFC)\u00a0[@Ma2014Robust] and grid-based motion statistics (GMS)\u00a0[@bian2017gms]. VFC supposes that the noise around inliers and outliers falls in different distributions. This approach estimates the probability of inliers by the maximum likelihood estimation for parameters in the mixture probabilistic model. Additionally, GMS rejects false matches by counting the quantity of matches in small neighborhoods and achieves real-time performance with an efficient grid-based score estimator.\n\nOther evaluations\n-----------------\n\nIn the feature matching field, some evaluations of 2D/3D local descriptors and detectors have been performed. For instance, Mikolajczyk et al.\u00a0[@mikolajczyk2005performance] evaluated the performance of 2D feature descriptors under transformations of rotation, zoom, viewpoint change, blur, JPEG compression, light change and keypoint localization errors. Moreels et al.\u00a0[@moreels2007evaluation] conducted an evaluation of several groups of 2D feature detectors and descriptors on images captured from the same 3D object with different viewpoints and lighting conditions. Heinly et al.\u00a0[@Heinly2012Comparative] performed an evaluation of several 2D binary descriptors, aiming at testing their descriptiveness under different feature detectors on several scenes with illumination change, viewpoint change, pure camera rotation and pure scale change. Aans et al.\u00a0[@Aan2012Interesting] investigated the performance of several 2D feature detectors on a particular dataset wherein each scene was depicted from 119 camera positions with a range of light directions. In 3D domain, Tombari et al.\u00a0[@tombari2013performance] compared two categories (i.e., fixed-scale and adaptive-scale) of 3D feature detectors in terms of distinctiveness, repeatability and efficiency under the nuisances of viewpoint changes, clutter, occlusions and noise. Guo et al.\u00a0[@guo2016comprehensive] tested the descriptiveness, robustness, compactness and efficiency of ten local geometric descriptors on eight datasets with radius variations, varying mesh resolution, Gaussian noise and etc. More relevant to our work is the evaluation performed by Raguram et al.\u00a0[@Raguram2008A], where RANSAC and a set of its variants were examined under different ratios of inliers. This paper, compared with\u00a0[@Raguram2008A], considers both parametric and non-parametric methods as well as a variety of nuisances for more comprehensive evaluation.\n\nConsidered methods {#sec:method}\n==================\n\nEight 2D correspondence selection algorithms including two parametric ones, i.e., RANSAC\u00a0[@fischler1981random] and USAC\u00a0[@Raguram2013USAC], and six non-parametric ones, i.e., NNSR\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive], ST\u00a0[@Leordeanu2005A], GTM\u00a0[@albarelli2012imposing], VFC\u00a0[@Ma2014Robust], GMS\u00a0[@bian2017gms], LPM\u00a0[@Ma2017Locality], are considered in our evaluation. Before introducing their theories, we give some general notations for better readability.\n\nGiven two images $(I,I^{'})$ to be matched, keypoints and local feature descriptors are computed for them as $(\\mathcal{K}, \\mathcal{K}^{'})$ and $(\\mathcal{F}, \\mathcal{F}^{'})$, respectively. This procedure can be accomplished using off-the-shelf detectors and descriptors, e.g., SIFT\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive]. To generate initial feature matches $\\cal C$, keypoints are matched with each other based on feature similarity, i.e., a correspondence (match) in $\\cal C$ is defined as $c=\\{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{x}^{'},\\arg \\mathop {\\max }\\limits_{{\\bf f}^{'}} \\; {s_{\\mathcal{F}(\\mathbf{f},\\mathbf{f}^{'})}} \\}$ with $\\mathbf{x}\\in{\\mathcal{K}}$, $\\mathbf{x}^{'}\\in{\\mathcal{K}^{'}}$, $\\mathbf{f}\\in{\\mathcal{F}}$, $\\mathbf{f}^{'}\\in{\\mathcal{F}^{'}}$ and $s_{\\mathcal{F}}$ being the feature similarity score. The objective of correspondence selection is digging out the maximum consensus (inlier) subset ${\\mathcal{C}_{inlier}}\\subseteq \\mathcal{C}$. Core principles and computation steps of evaluated algorithms are given as follows.\n\n**Nearest Neighbor Similarity Ratio\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive].** NNSR directly utilizes descriptor similarities to remove less distinctive matches. Specifically, the term equaling to the ratio of the closest to the second-closest feature distance to each correspondence is used as a penalty. Therefore, a correspondence is judged as inlier if $$\\label{eq:LRF1}\n{\\frac{\\parallel \\mathbf{f}-{\\mathbf{f}_{1}^{'}}{{\\parallel }_{2}}}{\\parallel \\mathbf{f}-{\\mathbf{f}_{2}^{'}}{{\\parallel }_{2}}}\\leq t_{nnsr}},$$ where $t_{nnsr}\\in [0,1]$, ${{\\| {\\cdot} \\|}_{2}}$ hereinafter denotes the $L_2$ norm (this distance metric is suggested in\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive]), $\\mathbf{f}_{1}^{'}$ and $\\mathbf{f}_{2}^{'}$ represent the most and the second most similar feature descriptors of $\\mathbf{f}$, respectively. Values of threshold $t_{nnsr}$ and other mentioned thresholds in the following are presented in Table\u00a0\\[tab:para\\].\n\n**Random Sample Consensus\u00a0[@fischler1981random].** RANSAC follows a hypothesize-and-verify framework by repeating procedures of random sampling and checking to maximize the object function. For 2D correspondence selection, the desired parametric model is usually a plane homography matrix or a fundamental matrix. Taking the homography matrix as an example, it first randomly samples several correspondences (at least 4) from $\\mathcal{C}$ and generates the model hypothesis ${\\mathbf{H}}_i$ for those samples at the $i$th iteration. Then, the hypothesis ${\\mathbf{H}}_i$ is verified via the following object function $$\\label{eq:LRF2}\n{O_i=\\sum\\limits_{ {c} \\in \\cal C }{h_i({c})}},$$ where $h(\\cdot)$ is a binary function defined as $$\\label{eq:LRF3}\nh_i({c})=\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{*{35}{l}}1,\\text{ if }{{{\\| {\\mathbf{x}^{'}}-{\\rho} \\left({\\mathbf{H}_i}\\left[ {\\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{\\bf x}\\\\1\\end{array}} \\right]\\right)\\|_2}}}\\le {{t}_{ransac}} \\\\\n0,\\text{ otherwise} \\\\\n\\end{array}\\right.,$$ with $\\rho([a_1\\;a_2\\;a_3]^{T})=[a_1/a_3\\;a_2/a_3]^{T}$ and $t_{ransac}$ being a threshold that determines the accuracy of a judged inlier. Above steps are repeated $n_{ransac}$ times and the model with the maximum object function is selected as the final model ${\\mathbf{H}}^{\\star}$. Correspondences agreeing with ${\\mathbf{H}}^{\\star}$ (producing 1 values using Eq.\u00a0\\[eq:LRF3\\]) are identified as inliers.\n\n**Spectral Technique\u00a0[@Leordeanu2005A].** ST locates the most reliable element by matrix decomposition. It assumes that the connection among correct matches is much tighter than the one among mismatches. Based on this assumption, ST first builds an adjacency matrix $\\mathbf{A}$ as $$\\label{eq:LRF5}\n{{{a}_{ij}}=\\min \\left( \\frac{{{\\| {\\mathbf{x}_{i}}-{\\mathbf{x}_{j}} \\|}_{2}}}{{{\\| \\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}-\\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \\|}_{2}}},\\text{ }\\frac{{{\\| \\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}-\\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \\|}_{2}}}{{{\\| {\\mathbf{x}_{i}}-{\\mathbf{x}_{j}} \\|}_{2}}} \\right)},$$ where $a_{ij}\\in{\\mathbf{A}}$ is the affinity between $c_i$ and $c_j$. Second, the principle eigenvector $\\mathbf{v}_{st}$ of $\\mathbf{A}$ is computed using the singular value decomposition algorithm. Third, the maximum element in $\\mathbf{v}_{st}$ is selected as ${v}_{i}$ indicating ${c}_{i}$ being the most reliable correspondence. Fourth, set $v_i$ to zero and remove other components of $\\mathcal{C}$ that are in conflict with ${c}_{i}$, i.e., $$\\label{eq:LRF6}\n{{{a}_{ij}}\\le t_{st}},$$ where $t_{st}$ is a predefined threshold. By repeating the third and fourth steps until $\\mathcal{C}$ is empty or ${v}_{i}=0$, the correspondences related to all elements selected from $\\mathbf{v}_{st}$ are determined as inliers.\n\n**Game Theory Matching\u00a0[@albarelli2012imposing].** GTM concentrates on extracting correspondences being consistent to the majority of $\\mathcal{C}$. Specifically, this strategy interprets the filtering process as a game-theoretic framework where players attempt to obtain high payoffs. At the beginning of this game, every two players extracted from a large population choose a pair of correspondences (served as strategies in this context) from $\\mathcal{C}$. Then they will receive a payoff linearly correlated to the coherence between these correspondences. The player who gets high payoffs will receive higher supports. In general, as the game going on, players will prefer to select more reliable correspondences to pursue higher pay-offs.\n\nGiven a pair of correspondences $(c_i,c_j)$, the payoff function is defined as $$\\label{eq:LRF7}\n{{\\Pi }_{ij}}={{e}^{-{{\\lambda }_{gtm}}\\max (\\left| {{T}_{i}}({\\mathbf{x}_{i}})-{{T}_{j}}({\\mathbf{x}_{i}}) \\right|,\\left| {{T}_{i}}({\\mathbf{x}_{j}})-{{T}_{j}}({\\mathbf{x}_{j}}) \\right|)}},$$ where ${\\lambda }_{gtm}$ is a selectivity parameter, $\\left|{\\cdot}\\right|$ represents the $L_1$ norm and $T_{i}(\\mathbf{x})$ is the similarity transformation estimated by (similarly for $T_{j}(\\mathbf{x})$) $$\\label{eq:LRFt}\n{{T}_{i}}(\\mathbf{x})=\\rho \\left( {\\mathbf{H}_{c_i}}\\left[ \\begin{matrix}\n\\mathbf{x}  \\\\\n1  \\\\\n\\end{matrix} \\right] \\right),$$ where $\\mathbf{H}_{c_i}$ is the homographic transformation of $c_i$. Note that this algorithm particularly requires the local affine transformation cue to compute the pay-off function. Next, the payoff matrix $\\mathbf{P}_{gtm}$ with the element in the $i$th row and $j$th column that is defined as $$\\label{eq:LRF8}\n{{{p}_{ij}}=\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{*{35}{l}}{{\\Pi}_{ij}},\\text{ if }i\\ne j  \\\\\n0,\\text{ otherwise}  \\\\\n\\end{array}\\right.},$$ can be generated. The population vector $\\mathbf{q}$ is updated by the evolutionary stable states algorithm (ESS\u2019s)\u00a0[@weibull1997evolutionary] as $$\\label{eq:LRF9}\n{{{q}_{i}}(k+1)={{q}_{i}}(k)\\frac{{{(\\mathbf{P}_{gtm}\\mathbf{q}(k)})_{i}}}{\\mathbf{q}{{(k)^{T}}}\\mathbf{P}_{gtm}\\mathbf{q}(k)}},$$ where $q_{i}$ represents the element in the $i$th row of $\\mathbf{q}$ and $k$ is the iteration number. After $n_{gtm}$ iterations, a correspondence $c_i$ is identified as inlier if its corresponding $q_{i}$ is higher than a threshold $t_{gtm}$.\n\n**Universal RANSAC\u00a0[@Raguram2013USAC].** USAC integrates a universal framework for RANSAC, where each original step is optimized by referring to the advantages of previous parametric approaches such as PROSAC\u00a0[@Chum2005Matching], SPRT test\u00a0[@matas2005randomized] and LO-RANSAC\u00a0[@Chum2003Locally]. Further, this algorithm inserts degeneracy and local optimization processes after generating the minimal-sample model.\n\nDuring the sampling step, USAC uses a weighted sampling algorithm named PROSAC\u00a0[@Chum2005Matching], where the initial correspondences are reordered at first based on the descending sort order of brute-force matching scores and correspondences with higher scores are preserved. At the checking stage of the model (homography matrix or fundamental matrix), a correspondence is judged as inlier by Eq.\u00a0\\[eq:LRF3\\] with the threshold $t_{\\mathbf{H}}$ or by the equation $$\\label{eq:LRF3'}\n{\\frac{{{\\left( {\\mathbf{y}^{'T}}{\\mathbf{F}_{i}}\\mathbf{y} \\right)}^{2}}}{\\left( {\\mathbf{F}_{i}}\\mathbf{y} \\right)_{1}^{2}+\\left( {\\mathbf{F}_{i}}\\mathbf{y} \\right)_{2}^{2}+\\left( \\mathbf{F}_{i}^{T}{\\mathbf{y}^{'}} \\right)_{1}^{2}+\\left( \\mathbf{F}_{i}^{T}{\\mathbf{y}^{'}} \\right)_{2}^{2}}}\\le {{t}_\\mathbf{F}},$$ where $\\mathbf{F}_{i}$ is the $i$th hypothetic fundamental matrix, $t_\\mathbf{F}$ is the threshold and ${\\bf y} = {[\\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}\n    {\\bf x}&1\n    \\end{array}]^T}$ (similarly for $\\mathbf{y}^{'}$). After generating the minimal-sample model, USAC verifies whether the model is interesting by the SPRT test\u00a0[@matas2005randomized]. The likelihood ratio can be computed after evaluating $n$ correspondences as $$\\label{eq:LRF10}\n{{{\\xi }_{n}}=\\prod\\limits_{i=1}^{n}{\\frac{p({{r}_{i}}|{\\mathbf{H}_{b}})}{p({{r}_{i}}|{\\mathbf{H}_{g}})}}},$$ where $\\mathbf{H}_{g}$ and $\\mathbf{H}_{b}$ respectively represent a \u201cgood\u201d model and a \u201cbad\u201d model, $r_{i}$ is equal to 1 if $c_i$ is consistent with the generated model and 0 otherwise, $p(1|\\mathbf{H}_g)$ is approximated by the inlier ratio and $p(r_i|\\mathbf{H}_b)$ follows a Bernoulli distribution. If the $\\xi_n$ is higher than an adaptive threshold, the model will be discarded. When fitting the fundamental matrix by epipolar geometry constraint, USAC utilizes DEGENSAC\u00a0[@Chum2005Two] for degeneracy. It assumes that the generated model is often incorrect in the context of images containing a dominant scene plane. Accordingly, DEGENSAC employs a homographic transformation to reject the generated fundamental model if there are five or more sampled correspondences lying on the same plane. Eventually, USAC adds a local optimization (LO-RANSAC\u00a0[@Chum2003Locally]) to refine the minimal-sample model. It re-samples correspondences only from the set of selected inliers and refines the previous model by the sampling subset. This whole process is repeated until achieving confidence in solution or iterations reach the upper bound $n_{usac}$.\n\n**Vector Field Consensus\u00a0[@Ma2014Robust].** VFC interpolates a vector field where the posteriori probability of a correct correspondence is estimated by the Bayes rule.\n\nFor a correspondence $c_i$, the transformation to a motion field is expressed as $(\\mathbf{x}_{i},\\text{ }\\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'})\\to(\\mathbf{u}_{i},\\text{ }\\mathbf{v}_{i})$, where $\\mathbf{u}_{i}=\\mathbf{x}_{i}$ and $\\text{ }\\mathbf{v}_{i}=\\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}-\\mathbf{x}_{i}$. In this motion field, VFC holds the assumption that the noise around inliers indicated by $z_{i}=1$ follows the Gaussian distribution and the noise around outliers indicated by $z_{i}=0$ follows the uniform distribution. Thus, the probability is a mixture model given by $$\\label{eq:LRF11}\n{p(\\mathcal{U}|\\mathcal{V},\\mathbf{\\theta} )=\\prod\\limits_{i=1}^{N}{(\\frac{\\gamma}{{{(2\\pi {{\\sigma }^{2}})}^{D/2}}}{{e}^{-\\frac{{{\\| {\\mathbf{v}_{i}}-\\mathbf{f}_{vfc}({\\mathbf{u}_{i}}) \\|}_{2}}}{2{{\\sigma }^{2}}}}}+\\frac{1-\\gamma }{a})}},$$ where $\\mathcal{\\theta}=\\left\\{{\\mathbf{f}_{vfc},\\sigma^{2},\\gamma}\\right\\}$ is a set of unknown parameters, $\\mathbf{f}_{vfc}$ is the vector field expected to be recovered, $\\gamma$ is the mixing coefficient of the mixture probability model, i.e, $p(z_{i}=1)=\\gamma$, $\\mathcal{U}$ and $\\mathcal{V}$ respectively are sets of $\\mathbf{u}$ and $\\mathbf{v}$, $\\sigma$ is the uniform standard deviation of Gaussian distribution, $\\frac{1}{a}$ is the probability density of the uniform distribution and $D$ is the dimension of the output space. VFC employs the EM\u00a0[@Dempster1977Maximum] algorithm to deal with the maximum likelihood estimation with latent variables. At E-step, the diagonal element of a diagonal matrix $\\mathbf{P}$, i.e., $p_{i}=p(z_{i}=1|\\mathbf{u}_{i},\\mathbf{v}_{i},\\theta)$, can be computed by the Bayes rule $$\\label{eq:LRF12}\n{{p_i} = \\frac{{\\gamma {e^{ - \\frac{{{{\\| {\\mathbf{v}_{i} - \\mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\\mathbf{u}_{i})} \\|}_2}}}{{2{\\sigma ^2}}}}}}}{{\\gamma {e^{ - \\frac{{{{\\| {\\mathbf{v}_{i} - \\mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\\mathbf{u}_{i})} \\|}_2}}}{{2{\\sigma ^2}}}}} + (1 - \\gamma )\\frac{{{{(2\\pi {\\sigma ^2})}^{D/2}}}}{a}}}}.$$ At M-step, a coefficient matrix $\\mathbf{C}$ is created first by $$\\label{eq:LRF13}\n{(\\mathbf{K}_{Gauss}+\\lambda_{vfc}{\\sigma^{2}}\\mathbf{P}^{-1})\\mathbf{C}=\\mathcal{V}},$$ where $\\mathbf{K}_{Gauss}$ is a matrix consisting of the Gaussian kernel $k(\\mathbf{u}_{i},\\mathbf{u}_{j}) = {e^{ - \\beta {{\\| {\\mathbf{u}_{i} - \\mathbf{u}_{j}} \\|}_2}}}$ and $\\lambda_{vfc}$ is a regularization constant. Second, the vector field $\\mathbf{f}_{vfc}$ is estimated by $$\\label{eq:LRF14}\n{\\mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\\mathbf{u}) = \\sum\\limits_{i = 1}^{N} {k}(\\mathbf{u},\\mathbf{u}_{i})\\mathbf{c}_{i}},$$ where $\\mathbf{c}_i\\in{\\mathbf{C}}$. Third, values of $\\sigma^{2}$ and $\\gamma$ are updated by $$\\label{eq:LRF15}\n{{\\sigma ^2} = \\frac{{{{(\\mathcal{V} - \\mathcal{F}_{vfc})}^T}\\mathbf{P}(\\mathcal{V} - \\mathcal{F}_{vfc})}}{{D \\cdot \\text{tr}(\\mathbf{P})}}},$$ and $$\\label{eq:LRF16}\n{\\gamma  = \\text{tr}(\\mathbf{P})/N},$$ where $\\mathcal{F}_{vfc}={({\\mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\\mathbf{u}_{1})}^T,...{\\mathbf{f}_{vfc}(\\mathbf{u}_{N})}^T)}^T$. The E-step and M-step are repeated until parameters are converged. Finally, the inlier set is generated as $$\\label{eq:LRF17}\n{\\mathcal{C}_{inlier}=\\left\\{{c}_i:p_i>t_{vfc}\\right\\}},$$ where $t_{vfc}$ is a predefined threshold.\n\n**Grid-based Motion Statistics\u00a0[@bian2017gms].** GMS proves that besides feature descriptiveness, feature number also contributes to the quality of correspondences. It supposes that the quantity of correspondences in a small neighborhood around a true match is larger than that around a false match under the smooth motion. In over-large neighborhoods, regions are divided into multiple small region pairs where distributions of correspondence number are approximated by Binomial distributions. Given a correspondence $c_i$, the joint statistical distribution is modeled as $$\\label{eq:LRF18}\n{{{S}_{i}}\\sim{\\ }\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{*{35}{l}}\n    B(Kn,{{p}_{t}}),\\text{ if }{{{c}}_{i}}\\text{ is inlier}  \\\\\n    B(Kn,{{p}_{f}}),\\text{ otherwise}  \\\\\n    \\end{array} \\right.},$$ where $S_{i}$ is the total number of correspondences in a region pair ($a$, $b$) around ${c}_i$, $K$ is the quantity of small region pairs, $p_t$ is the probability that the nearest neighbor of each keypoint in $a$ is located in $b$ under the condition that $a$ and $b$ view the same location, and $p_f$ is the probability provided that $a$ and $b$ view the different locations. $p_t$ and $p_f$ can be estimated by $$\\label{eq:LRF19}\n{p_t=\\delta+(1-\\delta)\\zeta{m}/M},$$ and $$\\label{eq:LRF20}\n{p_f=\\zeta(1-\\delta)(m/M)},$$ where $\\delta$ is the probability of a correspondence being correct, $m$ is the amount of keypoints in region $b$, $M$ is the size of $\\mathcal{K}^{'}$ in $I^{'}$, and $\\zeta$ is a factor added to balance deviations caused by repeated structures. A quantitative score is next designed to evaluate the distinction between two distributions as $$\\label{eq:LRF21}\n{{P}=\\frac{{{m}_{t}}-{{m}_{f}}}{{{s}_{t}}+{{s}_{f}}}},$$ where $m$ is the mean value and $s$ is the standard deviation. This equation can be simplified as $$\\label{eq:LRF22}\n{{P}\\propto \\sqrt{Kn}},$$ where the distinction is positive correlated to the number of correspondences.\n\nIn addition, to incorporate this approach into a real-time system, a fast gird-based score estimator is developed as follows. First, $I$ and $I^{'}$ are divided into $20\\times20$ non-overlapping cells. Second, for each cell in $I$, the cell containing the maximum amount of correspondences is grouped in $I^{'}$. Third, in cell-pair $(i,j)$ as well as its small neighborhoods (eight cell-pairs), $S_{ij}$ is estimated as $$\\label{eq:LRF23}\n{{{S}_{ij}}=\\sum\\limits_{k=1}^{K=9}{\\left| {{\\chi }_{{{i}^{k}}{{j}^{k}}}} \\right|}},$$ where $\\left|{\\chi}\\right|$ is the amount of correspondences in the cell-pair $(i^{k},j^{k})$. All correspondences in $(i,j)$ are judged as inliers if $S_{ij}>t_{gms}$, where $t_{gms}$ is a threshold approximated by $\\alpha \\sqrt{n_i}$ with $\\alpha$ being a given parameter and $n_i$ being the average (of the nine cell-pairs) amount of correspondences.\n\n**Locality Preserving Matching\u00a0[@Ma2017Locality].** This algorithm removes mismatches by digging out the local geometric structure consensus. With the hypothesis that the local structure around a correspondence may not change freely, a cost function is defined as $$\\label{eq:LRF24}\n\\begin{aligned}\nL({\\mathcal{K}_{inlier}},\\lambda_{lpm} )=\\sum\\limits_{i\\in {\\mathcal{K}_{inlier}}}{\\left( \\sum\\limits_{j|{\\mathbf{x}_{j}}\\in {\\mathcal{K}_{{\\mathbf{x}_{i}}}}}{{{\\left( d\\left( {\\mathbf{x}_{i}},{\\mathbf{x}_{j}} \\right)-d\\left( \\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'},\\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \\right) \\right)}^{2}}} \\right.}\\\\\n+\\left. \\sum\\limits_{j|{\\mathbf{x}_{j}}^{'}\\in {\\mathcal{K}^{'}_{\\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}}}}{{{\\left( d\\left( {\\mathbf{x}_{i}},{\\mathbf{x}_{j}} \\right)-d\\left( \\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'},\\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \\right) \\right)}^{2}}} \\right)+\\lambda_{lpm} \\left(N-\\left| {\\mathcal{K}_{inlier}} \\right| \\right),\n\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\lambda_{lpm}$ is a regularization parameter, $d$ is the Euclidean distance between two keypoints, $\\mathcal{K}_{\\mathbf{x}_i}$ and $\\mathcal{K}_{\\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}}^{'}$ respectively are sets of the $k$ nearest neighbors of $\\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}$, $N$ is the size of $\\mathcal{K}$, and $\\mathcal{K}_{inlier}$ is an inlier subset of $\\mathcal{K}$. Under non-rigid transformations such as deformation, the absolute distance in Eq.\u00a0\\[eq:LRF24\\] may not be preserved well. To address this issue, LPM converts the cost function to $$\\label{eq:LRF25}\n\\begin{aligned}\nL(\\mathcal{W},\\lambda_{lpm})=\\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{N}{{{w}_{i}}\\left(\\sum\\limits_{j|{\\mathbf{x}_{j}}\\in {\\mathcal{K}_{{\\mathbf{x}_{i}}}}}{d\\left( \\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'},\\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \\right)} \\right.}\\\\\n+\\left.\\sum\\limits_{j|\\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'}\\in {\\mathcal{K}^{'}_{\\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}}}}{d\\left( {\\mathbf{x}_{i}},{\\mathbf{x}_{j}} \\right)} \\right)+\\lambda_{lpm} \\left( N-\\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{N}{{{w}_{i}}} \\right),\n\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mathcal{W}$ is a set of indicators where $w_i=1$ indicates the inlier and $w_i=0$ otherwise. This equation can be further reorganized by merging the related items of $w_i$ as $$\\label{eq:LRF26}\nL(\\mathcal{W},\\lambda_{lpm} )=\\sum\\limits_{i=1}^{N}{{{w}_{i}}\\left( {{l}_{i}}-\\lambda_{lpm}  \\right)}+\\lambda_{lpm} N,$$ where $$\\label{eq:LRF27}\nl_i=\\sum\\limits_{j|{\\mathbf{x}_{j}}\\in {\\mathcal{K}_{{\\mathbf{x}_{i}}}}}{d\\left( \\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'},\\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'} \\right)}+\\sum\\limits_{j|\\mathbf{x}_{j}^{'}\\in {\\mathcal{K}^{'}_{\\mathbf{x}_{i}^{'}}}}{d\\left( {\\mathbf{x}_{i}},{\\mathbf{x}_{j}} \\right)}$$ is a constraint item measuring the local geometric structure changes. With the objective of minimizing the cost function, a correspondence with the cost, i.e., ${l_i}>\\lambda_{lpm}$, is negative. For this purpose, the correct correspondence set is determined by $$\\label{eq:LRF28}\n{{w}_{i}}=\\left\\{ \\begin{array}{*{35}{l}}\n1,\\text{ if }{{l}_{i}}\\le \\lambda_{lpm}   \\\\\n0,\\text{ otherwise}  \\\\\n\\end{array}\\right.,i=1,\\text{ }...\\text{ },N.$$\n\nExperimental setup {#sec:exper}\n==================\n\nThe experimental setup is introduced detailedly in this section. First, we list implementations and parameter settings of the evaluated methods. Second, characteristics of four datasets, the experimental criteria and the deployment are formulated.\n\nImplementations\n---------------\n\nIn our experiments, Hessian-affine detector\u00a0[@Mikolajczyk2004Hessian] and SIFT descriptor\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive] (a popular detector-descriptor combination\u00a0[@moreels2007evaluation]) are employed in default for image keypoint detection and description. Notice that another reason for using the Hessian-affine detector is that the evaluated GTM method requires local affine information, while we also consider different detector-descriptor combinations in Sect.\u00a0\\[sub:sub3\\]. The initial correspondence set $\\mathcal{C}$ is generated by brute-force matching, i.e., greedy comparison of two feature sets. Parameters and implementations for each algorithm are listed in Table\u00a0\\[tab:para\\].\n\n[lccccc]{} No. & Algorithm & Implementation & Parameters & Setting\\\n1 & NNSR\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive] & OPENCV & $t_{nnsr}$ & Adaptive\u00a0[@otsu1979threshold]\\\n2 & RANSAC\u00a0[@fischler1981random] & OPENCV & $t_{ransac}$ & 10*pix*\\\n& & & $n_{ransac}$ & 2000\\\n3 & ST\u00a0[@Leordeanu2005A] & MATLAB & $t_{st}$ & 0.3\\\n4 & GTM\u00a0[@albarelli2012imposing] & OPENCV & $t_{gtm}$ & Adaptive\u00a0[@otsu1979threshold]\\\n& & & $n_{gtm}$ & 100\\\n& & & $\\lambda{gtm}$ & 0.0001\\\n5 & USAC\u00a0[@Raguram2013USAC] & OPENCV & $n_{usac}$ & 850000\\\n& & & $t_{\\mathbf{H}}$ & 10*pix*\\\n& & & $t_{\\mathbf{F}}$ & 1.5*pix*\\\n6 & VFC\u00a0[@Ma2014Robust] & OPENCV & $\\beta $ & 0.1\\\n& & & $\\lambda_{vfc} $ & 3\\\n& & & $t_{vfc} $ & 0.75\\\n& & & $\\gamma $ & 0.9\\\n7 & GMS\u00a0[@bian2017gms] & OPENCV & $\\alpha $ & 4\\\n8 & LPM\u00a0[@Ma2017Locality] & MATLAB & $\\lambda_{lpm}$ & 6\\\n& & & $k$ & 4\\\n\nNotably, for NNSR and GTM we set $t_{nnsr}$ and $t_{gtm}$ adaptively using the OTSU\u00a0[@otsu1979threshold] algorithm to reduce thresholding errors as proper thresholds may vary in different scenarios even in different images.\n\nAll those methods are implemented in OPENCV or MATLAB with a PC equipped with a 3.2GHz processor and 8GB memory.\n\nDatasets\n--------\n\nWe perform our experiments on four datasets, i.e., VGG\u00a0[@Mikolajczyk2005A], Symbench\u00a0[@Snavely2012Image], Heinly\u00a0[@Heinly2012Comparative], and AdelaideRMF\u00a0[@Wong2011Dynamic]. Exemplar images from these datasets and a brief summarization of their inherited nuisances are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:dataset\\] and Table\u00a0\\[tab:dataset\\], respectively.\n\n[lccc]{} Dataset & Challenges & Matching pairs\\\nVGG\u00a0[@Mikolajczyk2005A] & Zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, & 40\\\n& light change and JPEG compression &\\\nSymbench\u00a0[@Snavely2012Image] & Light change, & 46\\\n& different rendering styles &\\\nHeinly\u00a0[@Heinly2012Comparative] & Zoom and rotation & 29\\\nAdelaideRMF\u00a0[@Wong2011Dynamic] & Multi-structures, & 38\\\n& viewpoint change &\\\n\n**The VGG dataset\u00a0[@Mikolajczyk2005A].** VGG is a hybrid dataset involving eight scenes. Each scene consists of six images with the first image being the reference one with respect to the others. Challenges including blur, viewpoint change, zoom, rotation, light change, and JPEG compression exist in this dataset. The ground-truth is the homography matrix $\\mathbf{H}$, indicating that the transformation between two images on each scene satisfies the plane homographic constraint.\n\n**The Symbench dataset\u00a0[@Snavely2012Image].** The Symbench dataset is composed of 46 image pairs. Each pair includes the same object with light change or different rendering styles. The homographic transformation $\\mathbf{H}$ of each image pair is given as the ground-truth.\n\n**The Heinly dataset\u00a0[@Heinly2012Comparative].** The Heinly dataset comprises images with dense or sparse viewpoint change, illumination, pure large-scale zoom or rotation. Considering that nuisances of viewpoint change and illumination have been covered in the other three datasets, we choose a subset of Heinly containing 29 pairs of image shot on 4 scenes with the specific challenges, i.e., pure zoom or rotation, to perform a more targeted test. The ground-truth is provided as the homographic transformation.\n\n**The AdelaideRMF dataset\u00a0[@Wong2011Dynamic].** AdelaideRMF includes 38 pairs of image with viewpoint change and multi-structures. The keypoint coordinates of initial correspondences are provided and the ground-truth correspondences are manually labeled in this dataset.\n\nMotivations of employing these datasets can be summarized as: (i) The eight scenes in the VGG dataset cover a peculiar wide range of interferences such as the rigid/non-rigid transformation and image quality variation. Both the generality to diverse conditions and the robustness to a specific nuisance can be assessed on this dataset. (ii) The focus of Symbench is the image quality variation caused by light change and different rendering styles that give rise to potential errors of feature detection and description. The performance in the context of image quality variation can be specifically evaluated. (iii) The subset of Heinly is selected with the aim of testing the performance under the condition of a geometrical structure deformation (pure zoom or rotation). (iv) AdelaideRMF aims at evaluating the performance of those correspondence selection algorithms where plane homographic constraint fails and multiple consistent correspondence sets are involved due to multi-structures. All above peculiarities make the evaluation benchmarks complementary to each other and allow us to find prominent algorithms under a specific nuisance.\n\nCriteria\n--------\n\nThe performance of evaluated algorithms is measured via precision, recall and F-measure as in\u00a0[@lin2014bilateral; @bian2017gms; @Ma2017Locality]. First, we denote the selected correspondence set, the ground-truth correspondence set and the correct subset in the selected correspondence set as $\\mathcal{C}_{inlier}$, $\\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{GT}$ and $\\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{correct}$, respectively. Then, the precision, recall and F-measure are respectively defined as $$\\label{eq:LRF30}\n\\text{Precision}=\\frac{\\left| \\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{correct}\\right|}{\\left| {\\mathcal{C}_{inlier}} \\right|},$$ $$\\label{eq:LRF31}\n\\text{Recall}=\\frac{\\left| \\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{correct} \\right|}{\\left| {\\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{GT}} \\right|},$$ and $$\\label{eq:LRF32}\n\\text{F-measure}=\\frac{2\\text{Precision}\\times\\text{Recall}}{\\text{Precision}+\\text{Recall}},$$ where $\\left|{\\cdot}\\right|$ denotes the cardinality of a set. A correspondence $c=\\{\\mathbf{x},\\mathbf{x}^{'}\\}$ belongs to $\\mathcal{C}_{inlier}^{GT}$ if $$\\label{eq:LRF29}\n{{{\\| {\\mathbf{x}_i^{'}}-{\\rho} \\left({\\mathbf{H}_{gt}}\\left[ {\\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{\\mathbf {x}_{i}}\\\\1\\end{array}} \\right]\\right)\\|_2}}}\\le t_{gt},$$ where $\\mathbf{H}_{gt}$ is the ground-truth homography matrix and $t_{gt}$ is a threshold set to $10$*pix* (*pix* being the unit of pixel) that controls the upper bound of the accuracy of a true inlier in our experiments.\n\nSimilarly, a correct correspondence in $\\mathcal{C}_{inlier}$ is defined as $$\\label{eq:LRF33}\n{{{\\| {\\mathbf{x}_i^{'}}-{\\rho} \\left({\\mathbf{H}_{gt}}\\left[ {\\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{\\mathbf {x}_{i}}\\\\1\\end{array}} \\right]\\right)\\|_2}}}\\le \\tau$$ with $\\tau$ being the matching tolerance. We vary $\\tau$ from 1*pix* to $t_{gt}$ with an interval of 1*pix*, thus generating a curve\u00a0[@lin2014bilateral; @bian2017gms].\n\nExperimental deployment {#subsec:exp_deploy}\n-----------------------\n\nOur experiments are deployed as follows. In Sect.\u00a0\\[sub:sub1\\], the overall performance of the evaluated algorithms in different scenarios, i.e., the four experimental datasets, is tested. In Sect.\u00a0\\[sub:sub2\\], the performance with preselected correspondences by NNSR, i.e., commonly employed to improve the inlier ratio of initial matches\u00a0[@Ma2014Robust; @Raguram2008A; @yang2016fast; @yang2017multi], is tested on the four datasets. In Sect.\u00a0\\[sub:sub3\\], different detector-descriptor combinations are considered to examine the performance variation of correspondence selection algorithms. Notice that different combinations of detector and descriptor are desired in different application contexts\u00a0[@Mikolajczyk2004Hessian; @moreels2007evaluation] and will result in different distributions and inlier ratios. In Sect.\u00a0\\[sub:sub4\\], the robustness to different nuisances, i.e., blur, viewpoint change, zoom, rotation, light change, and JPEG compression, is independently examined on the VGG dataset. In Sect.\u00a0\\[sub:sub5\\], we address concerns about the efficiency in those algorithms by examining their overall time cost on different datasets paired with the speed comparison under different scales of initial matches. Finally, some representative visual results of the evaluated algorithms are shown in Sect.\u00a0\\[sub:sub6\\].\n\nResults {#sec:res}\n=======\n\nFollowing the experimental arrangement in Sect.\u00a0\\[subsec:exp\\_deploy\\], this section presents the corresponding results together with necessary discussions and explanations.\n\nPerformance on the different datasets {#sub:sub1}\n-------------------------------------\n\nIn the following, we show the precision, recall and F-measure performance of our evaluated algorithms on different datasets, i.e., under different scenarios. In particular, the overall precision, recall and F-measure curves are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per1\\] for aggregately view and the F-measure scores for each image pair on the four datasets are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per2\\] to give a more detailed view. We mainly discuss the performance based on Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per1\\].\n\n### Performance on the VGG dataset\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:per1\\](a) shows outcomes on the VGG dataset. It is interesting to see that NNSR achieves the best precision performance, being marginally better than USAC, RANSAC and GMS. This result is due to the fact that the feature distinctiveness cue is rather selective with rich-textured images, e.g., images in the VGG dataset. On the down side, feature distinctiveness is sometimes ambiguous and not a robust constraint as we can see that the recall of NNSR is just mediocre. It indicates that many correct correspondences have been filtered by NNSR. For ST and LPM, they are generally inferior to the others on this dataset in terms of the F-measure. That is because ST may fail to locate the main cluster in the spectral domain if the ourlier ratio is large, resulting in quite poor recall performance. LPM achieves much better recall performance than ST, while its precision performance is surpassed by most compared ones. It arises from the loose constraint employed in LPM. Overall, USAC is the best method on this dataset. Explanation behind is that USAC is a parametric method and the parametric model of each image pair existed in this dataset can be properly fitted.\n\n### Performance on the Symbench dataset\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:per1\\](b) presents results on the Symbench dataset. All methods suffer a clear drop in performance on this dataset when compared with that on the VGG dataset, which is attributed to light change and various rendering styles. More specifically, we observed that the average inlier ratio of initial correspondences on this dataset is lower than $10\\%$. As previously explained, the feature distinctiveness constraint strongly relies on the discriminative power of the local feature descriptor. However, the rendering style variation makes it fairly challenging to maintain descriptiveness in this case. As a result, NNSR delivers very poor precision performance. Another significant difference compared to that on the VGG dataset is USAC\u2019s performance. One can see that USAC returns the most and the second most inferior precision and recall performance, respectively. That is because USAC may find empty inlier sets in some cases when its average estimated scores decreases owing to the multiple constraints in this algorithm\u00a0[@Raguram2013USAC]. In general, GMS and VFC are the two most well-behaved methods after referring their F-measure rankings. A common trait of these two algorithms is that both of them are independent from the descriptor similarity.\n\n### Performance on the Heinly dataset\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:per1\\](c) presents results on the Heinly dataset. Image pairs on this dataset only contain pure zoom or rotation, and we can observe that all methods obtain relatively decent performance on this dataset. In terms of precision, NNSR and RANSAC neatly outperform the others. Regarding recall, LPM and RANSAC are the two best ones. Note that the reason for the high recall of LPM is that most inliers are selected with the loose constraint designed by this algorithm. For NNSR and RANSAC, the former one is attributed to the high distinctiveness of SIFT (we will see its performance variation with less distinctive descriptors in Sect.\u00a0\\[sub:sub3\\]), whereas the latter one is owing to the powerful homography fitting ability of RANSAC. GMS, due to its sensitivity to large degrees of rotation\u00a0[@bian2017gms], shows worse results compared to its performance on the VGG and Symbench datasets.\n\n### Performance on the AdelaideRMF dataset\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:per1\\](d) presents results on the AdelaideRMF dataset. Two explanations should be given on this dataset. First, as only manual labeled ground-truth correspondences are available, we present the exact scores rather than curves with respect to matching tolerance for each method. Second, the keypoints on this dataset are not located by image detectors. Rather, they were labeled manually. Thus, GTM requiring local affine information and NNSR based on auto-detected keypoints are not assessed on this dataset. Since each scene in this dataset contains multiple planes, the fundamental matrix based on the epipolar geometry constraint is employed to approximate the parametric model for RANSAC and USAC. By observing the scores in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per1\\](d), one can see that GMS, LPM and VFC achieve the best precision, recall and F-measure performance, respectively. All the three methods are non-parametric. This is reasonable since the AdelaideRMF contains multi-structures, and the parametric assumption for methods like RANSAC and USAC will fail in this case.\n\n### Overall performance\n\nBy weighing up the results presented in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per1\\] and Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per2\\], we can draw the following conclusions. First, the performance of all correspondences selection algorithms is affected by the initial inlier ratio. For instance, the performance of all algorithms deteriorates dramatically on the Symbench dataset with less than 10% inliers. Second, NNSR simply relying on feature\u2019s distinctiveness produces pleasurable results if images are well-textured and clean. Third, parametric approaches, i.e., RANSAC and USAC, prefer the context that the transformation between two images can be well fitted by a parametric model. While non-parametric algorithms perform better in situations without large degrees of rigid/non-rigid transformation. Overall, VFC and RANSAC are the two best algorithms under across-dataset experiments.\n\nPerformance on selected matches {#sub:sub2}\n-------------------------------\n\nMany existing works\u00a0[@Ma2014Robust; @Raguram2008A; @yang2016fast; @yang2017multi] first prune false correspondences via NNSR and then use parametric or non-parametric methods to for further selection. This experiment then checks this scenario. Remarkably, since NNSR fails to work on the AdelaideRMF dataset, this dataset is not considered in this test. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per3\\] shows the difference between correspondences before and after applying NNSR, and results using NNSR-selected correspondences for selection are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per4\\].\n\nOn the VGG dataset shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per4\\](a), one can see that the performance of all methods has been improved using NNSR-selected matches compared to brute-force matches in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per1\\](a). Particularly, USAC manages to be the best method regarding precision, recall and F-measure. Also, gaps between most curves excluding that of ST are relatively small. On the Symbench and Heinly datasets, GMS and LPM respectively achieve the best overall performance, where LPM even produces an extremely high F-measure score, i.e., 97.27%, on the Heinly dataset. We can infer that LPM adapts well to initial correspondence sets with high inlier ratio.\n\nPerformance under different detectors and descriptors {#sub:sub3}\n-----------------------------------------------------\n\n[p[0.9cm]{}&lt;|p[0.8cm]{}&lt;p[0.6cm]{}&lt;p[0.6cm]{}&lt;p[0.5cm]{}&lt;p[0.5cm]{}&lt;p[0.4cm]{}&lt;p[0.4cm]{}&lt;p[0.4cm]{}&lt;]{} & & NNSR & RANSAC & ST & USAC & VFC & GMS & LPM\\\nSIFT + & Symbench & 9.34 & 3.02 & 1.22 & 3.27 & 11.56 & **11.64** & 9.36\\\nSIFT & Heinly & 94.13 & 95.43 & 33.82 & **98.75** & 83.08 & 40.29 & 89.84\\\nORB + & Symbench & 4.70 & 5.27 & 2.13 & 3.33 & 3.00 & **11.62** & 6.31\\\nORB & Heinly & 57.62 & 58.98 & 17.57 & 56.45 & 56.30 & 50.24 & **60.30**\\\nASIFT + & Symbench & 7.00 & 7.15 & 3.29 & 4.54 & 14.42 & **17.48** & 12.54\\\nASIFT & Heinly & 69.31 & **92.31** & 27.47 & 78.72 & 78.75 & 44.21 & 88.21\\\nBLOB + & Symbench & 4.62 & 2.35 & 0.95 & 1.97 & **6.25** & 0.50 & 2.19\\\nFREAK & Heinly & 68.63 & **76.25** & 20.32 & 74.45 & 68.71 & 4.30 & 66.64\\\n\nIn addition to Hessian-affine + SIFT, we also consider four other popular detector-descriptor combinations, i.e., SIFT + SIFT\u00a0[@lowe2004distinctive], ORB + ORB\u00a0[@rublee2011orb], ASIFT + ASIFT\u00a0[@Morel2009ASIFT], and BLOB\u00a0[@lindeberg1998feature] + FREAK\u00a0[@alahi2012freak]. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per5\\] shows the initial correspondences with these combinations on a sample image pair. Note that GTM is excluded in this test as it requires local affine information and these detectors do not provide this information. Also, the AdelaideRMF dataset is not considered due to human-labeled keypoints. The results are reported in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per6\\] and Table\u00a0\\[tab:fea\\].\n\nA common characteristic of these results is that the best correspondence selection algorithm generally varies with combinations of detector and descriptor. While we can still find some consistencies, e.g., the VFC method achieves pleasurable performance on the VGG dataset in spite of the descriptor-detector combinations. The performance of some methods fluctuates dramatically. For example, NNSR ranks the first with SIFT + SIFT while performs poorly using ASIFT + ASIFT on the VGG dataset. On the Symbench and Heinly datasets, GMS and RANSAC are two prominent methods under different kinds of detector-descriptor combinations.\n\nRobustness {#sub:sub4}\n----------\n\n![Sample image pairs from the 8 sub-categories of the VGG dataset including (a) zoom and rotation, (b) blur, (c) zoom and rotation, (d) viewpoint change, (e) light change, (f) blur, (g) JPEG compression and (h) viewpoint change.[]{data-label=\"fig:per7\"}](figure/total.pdf){width=\"0.9\\linewidth\"}\n\nIn this section, we independently evaluate the robustness of these algorithms to a specific nuisance, e.g., zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, light change and JPEG compression on the VGG dataset. Some exemplar images with different nuisances are exhibited in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per7\\]. Results are shown in Table\u00a0\\[tab:rob\\].\n\nUnder zoom and rotation (case1 and case3), USAC and RANSAC, i.e., two parametric methods, behave the best (F-measure is referred) mainly attributed to that zoom and rotation are faint impact on homography fitting. Under blur (case2 and case6), GMS and NNSR outperform others. GMS is independent from feature similarity constraint, thus making it rational. For NNSR, it is still explicable as SIFT is very robust to blur. Regarding viewpoint change (case4 and case8), USAC and VFC are the best methods. Note that VFC generally delivers good performance under all kinds of nuisances, being benefited from the consensus search in the non-parametric field. USAC also achieves the best performance under light change (case5) and JPEG compression (case7), being the one that is robust to the broadest categories of nuisances.\n\n[p[2.5cm]{}&lt;p[2cm]{}&lt;p[1cm]{}&lt;p[1cm]{}&lt;p[1cm]{}&lt;p[1cm]{}&lt;p[1cm]{}&lt;p[1cm]{}&lt;p[1cm]{}&lt;p[1cm]{}&lt;p[1cm]{}&lt;]{} & & NNSR & RANSAC & ST & GTM & UASC & VFC & GMS & LPM\\\nCase1 & Precision & **81.16** & 76.11 & 17.98 & 43.22 & 77.38 & 67.19 & 63.61 & 42.50\\\n(zoom and rotation) & Recall & 77.68 & 92.86 & 4.51 & 79.60 & **99.05** & 86.11 & 11.45 & 83.54\\\n& F-measure & 77.35 & 82.42 & 6.56 & 53.69 & **84.48** & 74.27 & 18.46 & 54.75\\\nCase2 & Precision & **74.57** & 36.87 & 44.23 & 67.00 & 49.66 & 29.44 & 41.71 & 27.73\\\n(blur) & Recall & **79.39** & 41.85 & 8.23 & 56.74 & 60.00 & 51.41 & 50.45 & 54.75\\\n& F-measure & **71.87** & 38.71 & 13.46 & 61.12 & 54.30 & 35.27 & 45.54 & 35.86\\\nCase3 & Precision & 61.53 & **70.54** & 15.97 & 44.92 & 67.41 & 49.38 & 58.57 & 44.59\\\n(zoom and rotation) & Recall & 57.91 & 83.28 & 1.97 & 52.16 & 79.95 & **99.22** & 57.21 & 76.43\\\n& F-measure & 53.74 & **74.81** & 3.50 & 44.83 & 73.12 & 61.91 & 56.35 & 55.10\\\nCase4 & Precision & 51.77 & 55.58 & 37.21 & 50.94 & **63.01** & 57.86 & 57.05 & 45.08\\\n(viewpoint change) & Recall & 61.63 & 66.38 & 3.52 & 68.55 & 79.73 & **97.08** & 75.52 & 83.97\\\n& F-measure & 51.75 & 58.56 & 6.41 & 55.69 & 70.23 & **71.23** & 64.55 & 56.56\\\nCase5 & Precision & 76.28 & 81.44 & 61.90 & 68.90 & **83.76** & 71.99 & 64.89 & 57.65\\\n(light change) & Recall & 63.75 & 86.97 & 6.76 & 80.35 & **100** & **100** & 87.95 & 84.46\\\n& F-measure & 68.00 & 82.34 & 11.61 & 73.94 & **91.11** & 82.49 & 74.37 & 67.90\\\nCase6 & Precision & 31.90 & 45.33 & 24.95 & 33.45 & 32.23 & 31.18 & **57.10** & 26.72\\\n(blur) & Recall & **69.13** & 27.06 & 2.57 & 39.10 & 40.00 & 40.00 & 47.00 & 66.81\\\n& F-measure & 31.49 & 28.86 & 4.34 & 34.29 & 35.68 & 35.02 & **50.80** & 35.82\\\nCase7 & Precision & 89.47 & 87.07 & 89.46 & 80.66 & **89.59** & 89.48 & 79.87 & 75.87\\\n(JPEG compression) & Recall & 61.17 & 97.41 & 28.59 & 94.42 & **100** & **100** & 96.70 & 93.38\\\n& F-measure & 72.42 & 91.81 & 43.07 & 86.88 & **94.43** & 94.26 & 87.25 & 83.43\\\nCase8 & Precision & 67.27 & 74.42 & 52.34 & 72.05 & 73.03 & 72.40 & **80.86** & 62.67\\\n(viewpoint change) & Recall & 61.08 & 79.03 & 4.02 & 80.12 & 80.00 & 79.51 & 73.10 & **81.76**\\\n& F-measure & 58.39 & 76.23 & 7.36 & 73.42 & **76.33** & 75.74 & 76.08 & 69.64\\\n\nEfficiency {#sub:sub5}\n----------\n\nTo provide an overview of the evaluated methods by taking both selection performance and efficiency into consideration, we present the efficiency *v.s.* F-measure plots on the four experimental datasets in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per8\\]. Owing to fast execution speed and overall decent performance, GMS strikes a good balance between selection performance and efficiency.\n\nIn order to further test an algorithms\u2019s efficiency regarding different numbers of initial correspondences, i.e., the number of initial correspondences may vary in different applications or with different feature detectors, we vary the amount of initial correspondences from $1000$ to $5000$ and record the average speed of the eight methods. This experiment has been repeated for 10 rounds and average statistics are retained. Because codes of these algorithms are implemented either in OpenCV (C++) or MATLAB, we assess methods within the same platform independently. In addition, the VFC method is evaluated on both platforms and can be a reference for comparing across-platform methods. Results are reported in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per9\\].\n\nFor methods implemented in OpenCV, the efficiency of GMS is beyond all others. That is because GMS involves a grid framework for fast scoring. NNSR ranks the second, as only sort operation is needed to rank correspondences. RANSAC is slightly slower than USAC, and the core time consumption of both methods is dedicated to hypothesis generation-verification. GTM, with the computational complexity of $O(n^2)$ ($n$ being the number of input correspondences), is significantly slower than the other five methods. The margin is rather significant as the number of correspondences increases. For methods implemented in MATLAB, LPM is very efficient as it relies on a simple yet efficient strategy by preserving local neighborhood structure. ST is the most inefficient method, being slower than others by tens of magnitude with dense correspondences. It is due to the fact that the time consumption for computing eigenvalues increases exponentially with the size of the affinity matrix.\n\nVisual results {#sub:sub6}\n--------------\n\n![Visual results of evaluated algorithms on examplar image pairs respectively taken from the (a) VGG, (b) Symbench, (c) Heinly and (d) AdelaideRMF datasets. For the best view, lines with different colors represent results of different algorithms.[]{data-label=\"fig:per10\"}](figure/visual.pdf){width=\"1.0\\linewidth\"}\n\nTo obtain a qualitative sense of outputs of evaluated algorithms, we present several visual results of these algorithms on the four experimental datasets in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per10\\].\n\nTwo main observations can be made from the figure. First, distributions of selected correspondences by different algorithms are generally different from each other. For instance, few correspondences are found by GTM on the *bread* in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:per10\\](d). However, NNSR and LPM get plenty of correspondences on it. Second, the quantity of selected correspondences also varies with different methods. In particular, LPM manages to return dense correspondences on most datasets, while ST seeks out much less than others.\n\nSummary and discussion {#sec:sum}\n======================\n\n[p[2.5cm]{}&lt;|p[3cm]{}&lt;|p[4cm]{}&lt;|p[3cm]{}&lt;]{} & **Superior methods & **Inferior methods\\\n& VGG & USAC, RANSAC, VFC & ST\\\n& Symbench & GMS & ST, USAC\\\n&Heinly & RANSAC, NNSR, LPM & ST, GTM, GMS\\\n& AdelaideRMF & VFC, LPM & ST, RANSAC\\\n&VGG & USAC, RANSAC, LPM & ST\\\n& Symbench & GMS, VFC & ST\\\n& Heinly & LPM, RANSAC, VFC & ST, GMS\\\n& SIFT+SIFT & USAC, NNSR, GMS & ST, RANSAC\\\n& ORB+ORB &LPM, GMS, USAC & ST, VFC\\\n& ASIFT+ASIFT & VFC, RANSAC, GMS & ST, USAC, NNSR\\\n& BLOB+FREAK & VFC, NNSR, RANSAC & ST, GMS, USAC\\\n& Zoom and rotation & USAC, RANSAC & ST, GTM, GMS\\\n&Blur & NNSR, GMS & ST, RANSAC\\\n& Viewpoint change & USAC, VFC & ST, NNSR\\\n& Light change & USAC, VFC & ST\\\n& JPEG compression & USAC, VFC & ST, NNSR\\\n& GMS, NNSR & ST, GTM\\\n****\n\nTo give a quick guidance for developers regarding proper algorithms in a specific case, we list the superior and inferior correspondence selection in Table\u00a0\\[tab:sum\\]. Also, peculiarities inherited to each evaluated algorithm are presented as follows:\n\n-   [**NNSR**]{} is arguably the most straightforward strategy to select correspondences. Its key strength is that repeatable patterns can be removed reliably in certain circumstances, provided that its employed feature detectors can locate the keypoints accurately and descriptors possess strong discriminative power, e.g., SIFT. Also, the high execution speed makes it suitable for real-time or near real-time systems. However, the limitation of NNSR is obvious because of the simple descriptor similarity constraint. It is vulnerable when image quality is low (e.g., facing with light change, blur, exposure, and style-transfer) and texture information is limited.\n\n-   [**RANSAC**]{} and [**USAC**]{}, i.e., two evaluated parametric approaches, can fit the parametric models including the homography and fundamental matrices between two images effectively, with the premise that the image pair has homography or epipolar geometry constraint. Thus, they are prior options in such circumstances. Nevertheless, such assumption also brings drawbacks, e.g., when non-rigid objects are captured in images with large scale of parallax or the pure rotation between two camera positions, resulting in the failure of RANSAC and USAC. Further, the reliable models may not be generated by limited iterations with high outlier ratios, which will give rise to expensive time cost. For RANSAC, the minimal-sample models sometimes fall into the local optimization. USAC optimizes over RANSAC, though, it does not guarantee convergence and may produce an empty inlier set due to strict constraints.\n\n-   [**ST**]{} and [**GTM**]{} are methods relying on the affinity matrix computed from initial matches. We can find that these two methods are relatively time-consuming, especially for the ST method. The performance of GTM is much better than ST, mainly because GTM employs local affine information to judge the compatibility of two correspondences. While ST is based on rigid constraint. ST, when inputted with high-quality correspondences, is able to achieve high precision performance (as verified in Sect.\u00a0\\[sub:sub2\\]). These two methods are optional for off-line applications desiring high precision and with high-quality input.\n\n-   [**LPM**]{} rejects outliers by the local structure consistency. The constraint item in LPM is relatively loose, resulting in high recall yet relatively low precision. LPM prefers scenarios where the geometric structure information is well preserved between the same local pattern in the image pairs, e.g., small degrees of rigid transformations. Similar to NNSR, it relies strongly on the discriminative power of the feature descriptor. In other words, retrieving the local consistency can be problematic if the local region contains too few inliers. We therefore suggest to choose LPM in the context that has well preserved geometric structures and requires dense correspondences.\n\n-   [**VFC**]{}, as revealed by our experiment, is the most robust method under all tested scenarios. This is attributed to the fact that VFC is independent from the feature similarity and parametric models. Specifically, it performs inlier selection in a vector field. VFC generalizes well under different application contexts and can cope with various kinds of nuisances, especially for viewpoint change, light change and JPEG compression.\n\n-   [**GMS**]{}, similar to VFC, is also independent from the feature similarity and parametric models. However, it assumes that the motion between two images is smooth. Accordingly, it behaves unsatisfactory for image pairs undergoing large degrees of rotation. While if the motion smoothness assumption holds, its performance is superior even for correspondence set with very limited number of inlier, e.g., correspondences generated from the Symbench dataset. Another attractive merit of GMS is the ultra fast execution speed even under several thousands of initial correspondences, making it a prior selection for real-time applications.\n\nConclusions {#sec:con}\n===========\n\nThis paper has comprehensively evaluated eight state-of**-th**e-art image correspondence selection algorithms, covering both parametric and non-parametric families. The experiments addressed several critical issues regarding correspondence selection, e.g., different application scenarios (datasets), inputs from different combinations of feature detector and descriptor, robustness under various challenging conditions including zoom, rotation, blur, viewpoint change, JPEG compression, light change, different rendering styles and multi-structures, and efficiency. Advantages and limitations, in light of experimental outcomes, are summarized so as to guide developers to choose a proper algorithm given a specific scenario.\n\nRemarkably, the performance of most existing algorithms changes dramatically in different scenarios and most methods fail to achieve satisfactory results when the inlier ratio of the initial correspondence set is low. We therefore believe the research should towards the development of correspondence selection algorithms with well generality and be robust to a low inlier rate.\n\nAcknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}\n==============\n\nWe are deeply grateful to the authors of the evaluated algorithms and datasets for making their contributions publicly available. This work is supported by the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) under Grant 2015AA015904.\n\n[^1]: C. Zhao, Jiaqi Yang, Y. Xiao, and Zhiguo Cao was with School of Artificial Intelligence and Automation, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, China e-mail: (hust\\_zhao@hust.edu.cn, jqyang@hust.edu.cn, Yang\\_Xiao@hust.edu.cn, zgcao@hust.edu.cn) (Corresponding author: Zhiguo Cao.)\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this paper we develop constructive invertibility conditions for the twisted convolution. Our approach is based on splitting the twisted convolution with rational parameters into a finite number of weighted convolutions, which can be interpreted as another twisted convolution on a finite cyclic group. In analogy with the twisted convolution of finite discrete signals, we derive an anti-homomorphism between the sequence space and a suitable matrix algebra which preserves the algebraic structure. In this way, the problem reduces to the analysis of finite matrices whose entries are sequences supported on corresponding cosets. The invertibility condition then follows from Cramer\u2019s rule and Wiener\u2019s lemma for this special class of matrices. The problem results from a well known approach of studying the invertibility properties of the Gabor frame operator in the rational case. The presented approach gives further insights into Gabor frames. In particular, it can be applied for both the continuous (on ${{\\mathbb{R}}^d}$) and the finite discrete setting. In the latter case, we obtain algorithmic schemes for directly computing the inverse of Gabor frame-type matrices equivalent to those known in the literature.'\nauthor:\n- 'Yonina C.\u00a0Eldar[^1], Ewa Matusiak[^2], Tobias Werther $^\\dagger$'\nbibliography:\n- 'twc.bib'\ntitle: A Constructive Inversion Framework for Twisted Convolution\n---\n\n\\[section\\] \\[theorem\\][Definition]{} \\[theorem\\][Lemma]{} \\[theorem\\][Proposition]{} \\[theorem\\][Corollary]{} \\[theorem\\][Example]{} \\[theorem\\][Remark]{}\n\n[Subject Classification: 44A35, 15A30, 42C15]{}\n\n[Key Words: Twisted convolution, Wiener\u2019s Lemma, Gabor frame, Invertibility of operators]{}\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nTwisted convolution arises naturally in the context of time frequency operators, more specifically in the treatment of Gabor frames [@CH03; @Gro01]. The study of inversion schemes of twisted convolution has, therefore, a major impact on the analysis of Gabor frames. Our method is originated by the Janssen representation of Gabor frame operators [@Jan95] and simplifies the approach given in [@WEN05]. A different, however, equivalent method for studying Gabor frame operators is the well known Zibulski-Zeevi representation [@ZZ97] based on a generalized Zak-transform.\n\nIn contrast to the standard convolution, the twisted convolution is not commutative. This is opposed to the possibility of applying powerful tools from harmonic analysis, such as Wiener\u2019s Lemma, in order to study twisted convolution operators. Recently, in [@WEN05], the authors described an new approach to classify the invertibility of $\\ell^1$-sequences with respect to the twisted convolution for rational parameters.\n\nIn this manuscript we extend the idea of [@WEN05] in the sense that we take a different approach which allows far better insights into the problem. Specifically, we only deal with sequences and show explicitly how efficient inversion schemes can be derived by rather simple (though sophisticated) manipulations of the twisted convolution. The essential idea is to split up the twisted convolution into a finite number of sums that can be incorporated into a special matrix algebra. In this matrix algebra we then prove a special type of Wiener Lemma which is the most challenging part from a mathematical perspective.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. The first section briefly outlines the basic definition of the twisted convolution. In this section we further discuss the example of twisted convolution on the finite group $Z_p\\times Z_p$. This example serves the purpose to motivate the introduction of the matrix algebra that appears in Section 3 where we prove Wiener\u2019s Lemma for a special subalgebra. Section 4 links the twisted convolution to time-frequency operators. More specifically, it shows how the results shown in Section 3 can be used in the context of Gabor frames. In the last section, we give a short outline of the application of the presented approach for inverting frame-like Gabor operators.\n\nTwisted Convolution\n===================\n\nLet $p$ and $q$ be integers and relatively prime. We define the [*twisted convolution*]{} for sequences $a,b\\in\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}^{2d}})$ by $$\\label{eq:twconv}\n({{a}\\,{\\natural}\\,{b}})_{m,n} = \\sum_{k,l\\in{\\mathbb{Z}^d}} a_{k,l}b_{m-k,n-l}{\\omega}^{{ (m-k) \\, \\cdot \\, l}}$$ where ${\\omega}= e^{2\\pi i q/p}$ and $\\cdot$ denotes the inner product in ${{\\mathbb{R}}^d}$. Although the twisted convolution depends on $p,q$ we do not specify this dependence because $p,q$ will always be given and fixed beforehand. In Section 4 we show how the twisted convolution is related to a class of operators with a special time-frequency representation.\n\nIn contrast to the conventional convolution with symbol $\\ast$, in which ${\\omega}=1$, the twisted convolution is not commutative, and turns $\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}^{2d}})$ into a non-commutative algebra with the delta-sequence $\\delta$ as its unit element.\n\nWe tackle the problem to study the invertibility of twisted convolution operators. Non-commutativity is the main subtle point in this problem. In fact, the question when the mapping $$C_b:a\\in\\ell^1 \\rightarrow {{a}\\,{\\natural}\\,{b}} \\in \\ell^1$$ for some $b\\in\\ell^1$ is invertible and how we can compute the inverse is more difficult than for a commutative setting. In particular, Wiener\u2019s Lemma which deals with the problem that if, for some $b \\in \\ell^1$, $C_b$ is invertible on $\\ell^2$ then the inverse is generated from an element again in $\\ell^1$, has to be proven separately. An abstract and more general proof of Wiener\u2019s Lemma for twisted convolution is given in [@GL03]. Herein, we focus on a constructive method for studying the invertibility of the twisted convolution with the rational parameter $q/p$.\n\nIn the following subsections we study the twisted convolution in a finite setting and draw analogies for approaching the problem of invertibility of $C_b$ in the general case.\n\nTwisted convolution on $\\bf {Z_p}\\times {Z_p}$\n----------------------------------------------\n\nIn what follows we describe the twisted convolution on the finite group $F = {Z_p}\\times {Z_p}$. The standard (commutative) convolution of two elements $f,g\\in{\\mathbb{C}}^{p\\times p}$ is defined by $$({{f}\\,\\ast\\,{g}})_{m,n} =\\sum_{k,l=0}^{p-1} f_{k,l}g_{m-k,n-l}\\,,$$ where operations on indices is performed modulo $p$.\n\nIn analogy to the infinite case, we define the twisted convolution ${{f}\\,{\\natural}\\,{g}}$ of two elements $f,g\\in{\\mathbb{C}}^{p\\times p}$ by $$({{f}\\,{\\natural}\\,{g}})_{m,n} = \\sum_{k,l = 0}^{p-1}  f_{k,l} g_{m-k,n-l}\n   {\\omega}^{(m-k)l}$$ with ${\\omega}= e^{2\\pi i q/p}$. For a fixed $g$, the twisted convolution can be seen as a linear mapping $C_g:f \\rightarrow {{f}\\,{\\natural}\\,{g}}$ whose matrix $G$ is block circulant with $p$ blocks, i.e., $$G = C(G_0,G_{p-1},\\dots,G_1)\n   =\\left (\n   \\begin{array}{cccc} G_0 & G_{p-1} & \\cdots & G_1 \\\\\n                            G_1 & G_0 & \\cdots & G_2 \\\\\n                \\vdots & \\vdots & & \\vdots \\\\\n                G_{p-1} & G_{p-2} & \\cdots & G_0\n   \\end{array} \\right )\\,.$$ Each block has entries of the form $$(G_j)_{kl} = {\\omega}^{jl}g_{j,k-l}\\,.$$ Note that for the regular convolution each block is itself circulant. For the invertibility of block circulant matrices we apply a well known result from Fourier analysis.\n\n[[@Dav94]]{} The matrix $G=C(G_0,G_{p-1},\\dots,G_1)$ is invertible if and only if every $\\hat{G}_s = \\sum_{r=0}^{p-1}e^{-2\\pi i sr/p}G_r$, $s=0,\\dots,p-1$, is invertible. In this case $$G^{-1} = C(H_0,H_{p-1},\\dots,H_1)$$ where $H_r = \\frac{1}{p}\\sum_{s=0}^{p-1}e^{2\\pi i sr/p}(\\hat{G}_s)^{-1}\\,.$\n\nBy analyzing $\\hat{G}_s$, we see that all blocks are unitary equivalent, in the sense that $$T_r\\hat{G}_sT^*_r = \\hat{G}_{s-qr}\\,,$$ where $T_r$ denotes the unitary matrix with entries $$(T_r)_{kl} =\n   \\left\\{\n   \\begin{array}{cl}\n     1 & \\mbox{if} \\quad p-r = l-k, \\\\\n     0 & \\mbox{else}\\,.\n   \\end{array}\n   \\right.$$ Since $p$ and $q$ are relatively prime, we obtain all blocks by such a unitary transformation. This implies that showing that if $\\hat{G}_0$ is invertible, then all $\\hat{G}_s$ are invertible for $s=1,\\dots,p-1$. In other words, the $p\\times p$ matrix $\\hat{G}_0$ contains all the information about the invertibility of $C_g$. An easy computation shows that the entries of $\\hat{G}_0$ are given by $$\\label{eq:entries}\n   (\\hat{G}_0)_{n,l} = \\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}{\\omega}^{nl}g_{k,n-l}\\,.$$ We will later see that this observation motivates the matrix algebra that we introduce to study the invertibility of the twisted convolution.\n\nNow, also all $\\hat{G}^{-1}_s$ satisfy the same unitary equivalence. It follows that we can read from $\\hat{G}^{-1}_0$ the element $g^{-1}$ which inverts the twisted convolution $f\\rightarrow\n{{f}\\,{\\natural}\\,{g}}$, i.e., ${{g^{-1}}\\,{\\natural}\\,{g}} = {{g}\\,{\\natural}\\,{g^{-1}}} = \\delta.$\n\nThe twisted convolution on $Z_p\\times Z_p$ serves as analogy for modelling the twisted convolution for the continuous and the finite dimensional case.\n\nMain results\n============\n\nOur aim is to find a way to describe those sequences that have an inverse in $(\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}^{2d}}),{\\natural})$. To this end we divide the twisted convolution into a finite sum of weighted normal convolutions of sequences that have disjoint support. We define such a sequence $a^{r,s}$ by $$\\label{eq:coset-seq}\n   (a^{r,s})_{k,l} = \\left\\{\n   \\begin{array}{ll}\n      a_{k,l} \\quad & \\mbox{if} \\quad (k,l) \\equiv_p (r,s)\\,, \\\\ [.2cm]\n      0 & \\mbox{else,}\n   \\end{array}\n   \\right.$$ where $r,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}$. Obviously, $a^{r,s}$ is supported on the coset $(r + p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}) \\times (s + p{\\mathbb{Z}^d})$ and $a = \\sum_{r,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\na^{r,s}$. For a sequence $a$ having a coset support only for one index, e.g., on ${\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times (s+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d})$, we simply write $a^{\\cdot,s}$. We write $\\equiv_p$ for denoting the equivalence of integers modulo $p$. The idea of slitting a sequence into a sum of sequences supported on cosets has first been introduced by K.\u00a0Gr[\u00f6]{}chenig and W.\u00a0Kozek in [@GK97].\n\n\\[lem1\\] Let $a,b,c$ be in $\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}^{2d}})$.\n\n-   For $r,s,u,v \\in {{Z_p}^d}$, ${{a^{r,s}}\\,\\ast\\,{b^{u,v}}}$ is a sequence supported on the coset $(u+r+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}) \\times (v+s+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d})$.\n\n-   If $c=c^{\\cdot,0}$ is invertible in $(\\ell^1,\\ast)$, then $c^{-1}$ is also supported on ${\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}$.\n\nLet $a^{r,s}, b^{u,v}$ be sequences in $\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}^{2d}})$ and $k,l \\in {{Z_p}^d}$. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n   (a^{r,s} \\ast b^{u,v})_{k+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d},l+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}} &=& \\sum_{m,n \\in {\\mathbb{Z}^d}} (a^{r,s})_{m,n}\n   (b^{u,v})_{k+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-m,l+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-n} \\\\\n   &=& \\sum_{m,n \\in {{Z_p}^d}} \\sum_{(t,w) \\equiv_p (m,n)} (a^{r,s})_{t,w}\n   (b^{u,v})_{k+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-t,l+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-w}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since $a^{r,s}$ is nonzero only for $(t,w) \\equiv_p (r,s)$, and $b^{u,v}$ for $(k-t,l-w) \\equiv_p (u,v)$, we obtain that $(k,l)$ has to be equivalent to $(u+r,v+s)$ modulo $p$ for $a^{r,s} \\ast b^{u,v}$ to be nonzero.\n\nTo show (b), let $c=c^{\\cdot,0}$ be invertible and $e$ be its inverse. Then $$\\delta = c \\ast e = c^{\\cdot,0} \\ast \\big( \\sum_{s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} e^{\\cdot,s} \\big )\n   = \\sum_{s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} c^{\\cdot,0} \\ast e^{\\cdot,s},$$ where, by previous calculations, $c^{\\cdot,0} \\ast e^{\\cdot,s}$ is a sequence supported on ${\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times (s+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d})$ for each $s \\in {{Z_p}^d}$. Since $\\delta =\n\\sum_{s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} \\delta^{\\cdot,s}$, and elements of the sum have disjoint supports, $c^{\\cdot,0} \\ast e^{\\cdot,s} = \\delta^{\\cdot,s}$. But since $\\delta^{\\cdot,s} = 0$ for $s \\neq 0$ and $\\delta^{\\cdot,0} =\n\\delta$, we conclude that $$c^{\\cdot,0} \\ast e^{\\cdot,s} = \\left \\{\n   \\begin{array}{cc}\n      \\delta & s = 0\\\\ [.2cm]\n      0 & s \\neq 0\n   \\end{array} \\right.$$ and therefore $e = e^{\\cdot,0}$.\n\nWith Definition (\\[eq:coset-seq\\]), we obtain for $u,v \\in {{Z_p}^d}$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n   ({{a}\\,{\\natural}\\,{b}})_{u+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d},v+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}} & = &\n   \\sum_{k,l \\in {\\mathbb{Z}^d}}a_{k,l}b_{u+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-k,v+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-l} {\\omega}^{{ (u-k) \\, \\cdot \\, l}} \\\\\n   & = & \\sum_{r,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} \\sum_{(k,l)\\equiv_p (r,s)} a_{k,l}\n   b_{u+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-k,v+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-l} {\\omega}^{{ (u-r) \\, \\cdot \\, s}} \\\\\n   & = & \\sum_{r,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} \\sum_{k,l \\in {\\mathbb{Z}^d}}\n   (a^{r,s})_{k,l}(b^{u-r,v-s})_{u+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-k,v+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}-l} {\\omega}^{{ (u-r) \\, \\cdot \\, s}} \\\\\n   & = & \\sum_{r,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} (a^{r,s}\\ast\n   b^{u-r,v-s})_{u+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d},v+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ (u-r) \\, \\cdot \\, s}}\\,.\\end{aligned}$$ In a more compact notation we have $$\\label{eq:comp}\n   ({{a}\\,{\\natural}\\,{b}})^{u,v} = \\sum_{r,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} a^{r,s} \\ast b^{u-r,v-s}\n   {\\omega}^{{ (u-r) \\, \\cdot \\, s}}\\,.$$ We observe now that the upper indices in (\\[eq:comp\\]) behave like a twisted convolution in ${{Z_p}^d}\\times {{Z_p}^d}$. What changes is that we have sequences as elements and standard convolution instead of multiplication.\n\nMotivated by the block circulant structure of the twisted convolution on ${Z_p}\\times{Z_p}$ as described in the previous section, we introduce a new matrix algebra which is isomorphic to $(\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}^{2d}}),{\\natural})$.\n\nBefore we do so, we fix an ordering of the elements from ${{Z_p}^d}$. Let $N= p^d$ and ${\\mathcal{I}}=\\{1,\\ldots,N \\}$. Then, to each $i \\in {\\mathcal{I}}$ we assign an element $k_i$ from ${{Z_p}^d}$ and set $k_1 = (0,\\ldots,0)$. We will often write $0$ instead of $k_1$.\n\nLet $({\\mathcal{M}},{\\circledast})$ be an algebra of $p^d \\times p^d$-matrices whose entries are $\\ell^1$-sequences and multiplication of two elements $A,B \\in {\\mathcal{M}}$ is given by $$({{A}\\,{\\circledast}\\,{B}})_{i,j} = \\sum_{l \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} {{A_{i,l}}\\,\\ast\\,{B_{l,j}}}\n   \\qquad i,j \\in{\\mathcal{I}}\\,.$$ The identity element ${\\mbox{Id}}$ is a matrix with $\\delta$ sequences on the diagonal.\n\n\\[thm1\\] Let $${\\mathcal{M}}_0 = {\\Big\\{ \\, A \\in {\\mathcal{M}}\\, \\Big| \\, A_{i,j} = \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n   {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} a^{m,k_i - k_j}, a \\in \\ell^1 ~\\text{and}~ i,j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}\\, \\Big\\}}.$$ Then ${\\mathcal{M}}_0$ is a subalgebra of ${\\mathcal{M}}$.\n\nDefine a mapping $\\phi \\colon (\\ell^1,{\\natural}) \\rightarrow ({\\mathcal{M}},{\\circledast})$ by $$\\label{eq:map-phi}\n   (\\phi(a))_{i,j} = \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} a^{m,k_i - k_j}.$$ Then $\\phi$ is linear, $(\\phi(\\delta))_{i,j} = \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n{\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} \\delta^{m,k_i-k_j} = \\delta$ if $i=j$ and zero otherwise. So $\\phi(\\delta) = {\\mbox{Id}}$. We emphasize that the mapping $\\phi$ has been motivated by the matrix $\\hat{G}_0$ described in the previous section. For $i,j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\big ( \\phi({{a}\\,{\\natural}\\,{b}}) \\big )_{i,j}\n  &=& \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}}\n  ({{a}\\,{\\natural}\\,{b}})^{m,k_i - k_j} = \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}}\n  \\sum_{l,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n  {\\omega}^{(m-l)\\cdot s} {{a^{l,s}}\\,\\ast\\,{b^{m-l,k_i- k_j-s}}} \\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{m,l,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j+s})} {\\omega}^{{ -l \\, \\cdot \\, s}}\n  {{a^{l,s}}\\,\\ast\\,{b^{m-l,k_i- k_j-s}}} \\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{m,l,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, s}} {\\omega}^{-l \\cdot (s-k_j)}\n  {{a^{l,s-k_j}}\\,\\ast\\,{b^{m-l,k_i-s}}}\\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{m,l,s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ l \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} {\\omega}^{{ s \\, \\cdot \\, (m-l)}}\n  {{a^{l,s-k_j}}\\,\\ast\\,{b^{m-l,k_i-s}}} \\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{s \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {{\\big ( \\sum_{l \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n  {\\omega}^{{ l \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}}a^{l,s-k_j} \\big )}\\,\\ast\\,{\\big ( \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n  {\\omega}^{{ s \\, \\cdot \\, (m-l)}} b^{m-l,k_i-s} \\big )}} \\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{n \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} {{\\big ( \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ k_n \\, \\cdot \\, m}}\n  b^{m,k_i-k_n}\\big)}\\,\\ast\\,{\\big ( \\sum_{l \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ l \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}}\n  a^{l,k_n-k_j} \\big )}} \\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{n \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} {{\\phi(b)_{i,n}}\\,\\ast\\,{\\phi(a)_{n,j}}} \\;= \\;\n  \\big ( {{\\phi(b)}\\,{\\circledast}\\,{\\phi(a)}} \\big )_{i,j}\\,.\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\\phi$ is an anti-homomorphism, that is, $$\\phi({{a}\\,{\\natural}\\,{b}}) = {{\\phi(b)}\\,{\\circledast}\\,{\\phi(a)}}.$$ Hence ${\\mathcal{M}}_0$ is an algebra, being an image of an anti-homomorphism.\n\nBefore stating the main theorem, we explore properties of elements of ${\\mathcal{M}}_0$. For $i,j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}$ and a matrix $A \\in {\\mathcal{M}}_0$ we define a new matrix $A(j,i)$ obtained from $A$ by substituting the $j$th row of $A$ with a vector of zeros having $\\delta$ on the $i$th position, and the $i$th column with a column of zeros having $\\delta$ on the $j$th position.\n\n\\[lem2\\] Let $A \\in \\mathcal{M}_0$. Then\n\n-   $\\det (A)$ is a sequence supported on ${\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}$.\n\n-   $\\det (A(1,i))$ is a sequence supported on ${\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times (k_i + p{\\mathbb{Z}^d})$ for $i \\in {\\mathcal{I}}$.\n\nLet $S_N$ be the group of permutations of the set ${\\mathcal{I}}$. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\det(A) &=& \\sum_{\\sigma \\in S_N } (-1)^{\\sigma} \\prod_{i=1}^{N}\n  A_{\\sigma(i),i}= \\sum_{\\sigma \\in S_N} (-1)^{\\sigma} \\prod_{i=1}^{N}\n  \\Big (\\sum_{m_i \\in {{Z_p}^d}}{\\omega}^{k_i \\cdot m_i} a^{m_i,k_{\\sigma(i)}-k_i}\\Big ) \\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{\\sigma \\in S_N} (-1)^{\\sigma}\n  \\sum_{m_1,\\ldots,m_{N} \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{\\sum_{i=1}^{N} { m_i \\, \\cdot \\, k_i}}\n  \\underbrace{a^{m_1,k_{\\sigma(1)}-k_1} \\ast \\cdots \\ast\n  a^{m_N,k_{\\sigma(N)}-k_N}}_{G_{m_1,\\ldots,m_N}}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\sigma$ is a permutation of ${\\mathcal{I}}$, $$(k_{\\sigma(1)}-k_1)+(k_{\\sigma(2)}-k_2)+\\cdots+(k_{\\sigma(N)}-k_N)=0.$$ Therefore, by Lemma \\[lem1\\], $G_{m_1,\\ldots,m_N}$ is a sequence supported on the coset $(\\sum_{i \\in {\\mathcal{I}}}m_i+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}) \\times p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}$. Since $\\sum_{i \\in{\\mathcal{I}}} m_i$ runs over all ${{Z_p}^d}$, we see that $\\det(A)$ is supported on the coset ${\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}$, i.e., $\\det(A) = \\det(A)^{\\cdot,0}$.\n\nIn order to compute the support of $\\det(A(1,i))$ for $i \\in {\\mathcal{I}}$, let $S_{N-1}$ denote the group of permutations of $\\{2,\\ldots,N\n\\}$. Then for $i=1,\\ldots,N$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\det(A(1,i))\n  &=& (-1)^{i+1} \\sum_{\\sigma \\in S_{N-1}}(-1)^{\\sigma}\n  A_{\\sigma(2),1} \\ast \\cdots \\ast A_{\\sigma(i),i-1}\n  \\ast A_{\\sigma(i+1),i+1} \\ast \\cdots \\ast A_{\\sigma(N),N}\\\\\n  &=& (-1)^{i+1} \\sum_{\\sigma \\in S_{N-1}} (-1)^{\\sigma}\n  \\sum_{m_2,\\ldots,m_N \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m_2 \\, \\cdot \\, k_1} + \\cdots +\n  { m_i \\, \\cdot \\, k_{i-1}}\n  + { m_{i+1} \\, \\cdot \\, k_{i+1}} + \\cdots + { m_{N} \\, \\cdot \\, k_N}} \\times \\\\\n  &\\times& \\underbrace{a^{m_2,k_{\\sigma(2)}-k_1} \\ast \\cdots\n  \\ast a^{m_i,k_{\\sigma(i)}-k_{i-1}}\n  \\ast a^{m_{i+1},k_{\\sigma(i+1)}-k_{i+1}} \\ast \\cdots \\ast\n  a^{m_N,k_{\\sigma(N)}-k_N}}_{G_{m_2,\\ldots,m_N}}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\sigma$ is a permutation of $\\{2,\\ldots,N\\}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n  &  (k_{\\sigma(2)}-k_1) + \\cdots + (k_{\\sigma(i)}-k_{i-1}) +\n  (k_{\\sigma(i+1)}-k_{i+1}) + \\cdots + (k_{\\sigma(N)}-k_N) & \\\\\n  &= \\; (k_{\\sigma(2)} + \\cdots + k_{\\sigma(N)}) - (k_1+k_2+\\cdots+k_N) + k_i &\\\\\n  &= \\; (k_{\\sigma(2)} + \\cdots + k_{\\sigma(N)}) - (k_2+\\cdots+k_N) + k_i \\; =\n  \\;k_i\\,.&\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by Lemma \\[lem1\\], $G_{m_2,\\ldots,m_N}$ is supported on $(\\sum_{i=2}^{N} m_i + p{\\mathbb{Z}^d}) \\times (k_i + p{\\mathbb{Z}^d})$, and since each $m_i$ runs over all ${{Z_p}^d}$, $\\det(A(1,i))$ is supported on ${\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times (k_i+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d})$. That is, $\\det(A(1,i)) = \\det(A(1,i))^{\\cdot,k_i}$.\n\nNow we are in the position to state and prove the main result\n\n\\[th:wiener\\][\\[Wiener\u2019s Lemma for ${\\mathcal{M}}_0$\\]]{} Let $A \\in{\\mathcal{M}}_0$. If $A$ is invertible in ${\\mathcal{M}}$, then $B=A^{-1} \\in {\\mathcal{M}}_0$.\n\nSince $A \\in {\\mathcal{M}}_0$ is invertible, $\\det(A)$ is an invertible sequence in $(\\ell^1,\\ast)$, and there exists a matrix $\\widetilde{B} \\in {\\mathcal{M}}$ such that ${{A}\\,{\\circledast}\\,{\\widetilde{B}}} = {\\mbox{Id}}$. By Lemma \\[lem2\\], $\\det(A) = \\det(A)^{\\cdot,0}$ and by Lemma \\[lem1\\] its inverse, $e = \\det(A)^{-1}$, is also supported on the same coset, hence $e = e^{\\cdot,0}$. By Cramer\u2019s rule the inverse of $A$ is given by $$\\widetilde{B}_{i,j} = {{\\det(A(j,i))}\\,\\ast\\,{e}}.$$ We see that by Lemma \\[lem2\\] (b), $\\widetilde{B}_{i,1}$ is a sequence supported on ${\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times (k_i+p{\\mathbb{Z}^d})$. Let $b$ be a sequence defined by $$b = \\widetilde{B}_{1,1}+\\widetilde{B}_{2,1} + \\ldots +\n   \\widetilde{B}_{N,1}.$$ Then $\\widetilde{B}_{i,1} = \\sum_{j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} b^{k_j,k_i}$. Define a new matrix, denoted by $B$, as $$B_{i,j} = \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} b^{m,k_i-k_j}.$$ Then $B \\in {\\mathcal{M}}_0$ and we will show that $B=\\widetilde{B}$, that is, $B$ is the inverse of $A$.\n\nSince $\\widetilde{B}$ is the inverse of $A$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n   {\\mbox{Id}}_{i,1} & = & \\big ( {{A}\\,{\\circledast}\\,{\\widetilde{B}}} \\big )_{i,1}\n   = \\sum_{j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} {{A_{i,j}}\\,\\ast\\,{\\widetilde{B}_{j,1}}} \\\\ &=&\n   \\sum_{j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}}\n   {{a^{m,k_i-k_j}}\\,\\ast\\,{\\widetilde{B}_{j,1}}} \\\\\n   &=& \\sum_{j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} {{a^{m,k_i-k_j}}\\,\\ast\\,{\\big ( \\sum_{n \\in {{Z_p}^d}} b^{n,k_j} \\big )}} \\\\ &=& \\sum_{j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}}\n   \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} \\sum_{n \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n   {{a^{m,k_i-k_j}}\\,\\ast\\,{b^{n,k_j}}} \\\\\n   &=& \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\\sum_{j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} \\sum_{n \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n   {\\omega}^{{ (m-n) \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} {{a^{m-n,k_i-k_j}}\\,\\ast\\,{b^{n,k_j}}} \\\\ &=&\n   \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}}G(m,k_i),\\end{aligned}$$ where $G(m,k_i) = \\sum_{j \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} \\sum_{n \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ (m-n) \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}}\n a^{m-n,k_i-k_j} \\ast b^{n,k_j}$ is a sequence supported on $(m+p{\\mathbb{Z}}) \\times (k_i+p{\\mathbb{Z}})$. Therefore, $G(k_1,k_1) = \\delta$ and $G(m,k_i) = 0$ for $m \\neq k_1$ and $i \\neq 1$. Using the above identity we will show that ${{A}\\,{\\circledast}\\,{B}} = {\\mbox{Id}}$, and by the uniqueness of the inverse we will conclude that $B=\\widetilde{B}$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n  & & \\big ( {{A}\\,{\\circledast}\\,{B}} \\big )_{i,j} \\; = \\; \\sum_{s \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} A_{i,s}\n  \\ast B_{s,j} \\; = \\\\ &=& \\sum_{s \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} \\Big ( \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n  {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_s}} a^{m,k_i-k_s} \\Big) \\ast \\Big ( \\sum_{n \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n  {\\omega}^{{ n \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} b^{n,k_s-k_j} \\Big ) \\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} \\sum_{s \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} \\sum_{n \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_s}}\n  {\\omega}^{{ n \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} a^{m,k_i-k_s} \\ast b^{n,k_s-k_j}\\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} \\sum_{s \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} \\sum_{n \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ (k_s+k_j) \\, \\cdot \\, m}}\n  {\\omega}^{{ n \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} a^{m,k_i-k_j-k_s} \\ast b^{n,k_s}\\\\ &=&\n  \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} \\sum_{s \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} \\sum_{n \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ (k_s+k_j) \\, \\cdot \\, (m-n)}}\n  {\\omega}^{{ n \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} a^{m-n,(k_i-k_j)-k_s} \\ast b^{n,k_s} \\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} \\sum_{s \\in {\\mathcal{I}}} \\sum_{n \\in {{Z_p}^d}}\n  {\\omega}^{{ (m-n) \\, \\cdot \\, k_s}} a^{m-n,(k_i-k_j)-k_s} \\ast b^{n,k_s} \\\\\n  &=& \\sum_{m \\in {{Z_p}^d}} {\\omega}^{{ m \\, \\cdot \\, k_j}} G(m,k_i-k_j) \\; = \\;\n  \\left \\{ \\begin{array}{cc}\n     \\delta & k_i - k_j = k_1 ~ \\Leftrightarrow ~ i=j;\\\\ [.2cm]\n     0 & k_i - k_j \\neq k_1 ~ \\Leftrightarrow ~ i \\neq j;\n  \\end{array} \\right.\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, ${{A}\\,{\\circledast}\\,{B}} =I$.\n\nTheorem \\[th:wiener\\] provides the key result to study invertibility of twisted convolution. Indeed, for a given sequence $a$ in $\\ell^1$ we look at the corresponding matrix $A = \\phi(a)$ as defined in (\\[eq:map-phi\\]). If $A$ is invertible in $({\\mathcal{M}},{\\circledast})$, which can be checked showing that the determinant is invertible in $(\\ell^1,\\ast)$, then its inverse $A^{-1}$ is of the form $\\phi(b)$ for another element $b$ in $\\ell^1$. This element $b$, in turn, provides the inverse of $a$ in $(\\ell^1,{\\natural})$.\n\nThe approach is constructive in the sense that algebraic methods such as Cramer\u2019s Rule can be applied to find the inverse of $A$. Then, the sequence $b$ can simply be read from the entries of $A^{-1}$ according to the mapping $\\phi$. In particular for small $p$ and $d$ this method leads to fast inversion schemes for the twisted convolution operator. In the last section we will show explicitly how this works in the case of $d=1$.\n\nTwisted convolution and Gabor analysis\n======================================\n\nCentral objects in time frequency analysis are modulation and translation operators. Although most of the upcoming notation can be given in the more general setting of locally compact Abelian groups we restrict ourselves to ${{\\mathbb{R}}^d}$ in order to simplify the readability of this article.\n\nFor $x,{\\omega}\\in{{\\mathbb{R}}^d}$ we define the translation operator and the modulation operator on $L^2({{\\mathbb{R}}^d})$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\nT_x f(\\cdot) &=& f(\\cdot - x)\\,, \\\\\nM_{\\omega}f(\\cdot) &=& e^{2\\pi i {\\omega}\\cdot} f(\\cdot)\\,,\\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Many technical details in time-frequency analysis are linked to the commutation law of the translation and modulation operator, namely, $$\\label{eq:commlaw}\n M_{\\omega}T_x\\, = \\, e^{2\\pi i { x \\, \\cdot \\, {\\omega}}}T_x M_{\\omega}\\,.$$ The time-frequency shift for $x,{\\omega}\\in{{\\mathbb{R}}^d}$ is denoted by $$\\pi(x,{\\omega}) = T_x M_{\\omega}.$$ It follows from (\\[eq:commlaw\\]) that $$\\label{eq:commlaw2}\n\\pi(x_1,{\\omega}_1)\\pi(x_2,{\\omega}_2) \\, = \\, e^{2\\pi i { x_2 \\, \\cdot \\, {\\omega}_1}}\n\\pi(x_1+x_2,{\\omega}_1+{\\omega}_2)\\,.$$ This shows that time-frequency shifts almost allow a group structure. Incorporating the additional phase factor into a more extended group law leads to the so-called Heissenberg group. For more details about this topic, the reader is referred to [@F89].\n\nGabor analysis deals with the problem of decomposing and reconstructing signals according to a special basis system which consists of regular time-frequency shifts of a single so-called window function [@FS98; @FS03]. Let ${\\Lambda}$ be a time-frequency lattice, i.e., a discrete subgroup of the time-frequency plane ${{\\mathbb{R}}^{2d}}$, and let $g$ be in $L^2({{\\mathbb{R}}^d})$. Then we define a Gabor system ${\\mathcal{G}}(g,{\\Lambda})$ by $${\\mathcal{G}}(g,{\\Lambda}) \\, = \\, {\\Big\\{ \\, \\pi({\\lambda})g \\, \\Big| \\, {\\lambda}\\in{\\Lambda}\\, \\Big\\}}\\,.$$ We associate with this Gabor system the positive operator $$S:f\\in L^2 \\rightarrow Sf = \\sum_{{\\lambda}\\in{\\Lambda}}\n   {\\langle f,\\pi({\\lambda})g\\rangle}\\pi({\\lambda})g \\,.$$ If the operator $S$ is bounded and invertible on $L^2({{\\mathbb{R}}^d})$, then ${\\mathcal{G}}(g,{\\Lambda})$ is called a frame and $S$ the associated frame operator, cf.\u00a0[@CH03].\n\nMany studies in Gabor analysis are devoted to the frame operator [@Gro01]. In what follows we will describe the so-called Janssen representation of such operators. To this end we need the notion of the adjoint lattice, i.e., $${{\\Lambda}^\\circ}\\, = \\, {\\Big\\{ \\, {{\\lambda}^\\circ}\\in{{\\mathbb{R}}^{2d}}\\, \\Big| \\, \\pi({\\lambda})\\pi({{\\lambda}^\\circ})=\n   \\pi({{\\lambda}^\\circ})\\pi({\\lambda}),\\, {\\lambda}\\in{\\Lambda}\\, \\Big\\}}\\,.$$ In [@DLL95; @FK98; @Jan95] it is shown that the frame operator $S$ satisfies Janssen representation, $$\\label{eq:jans-repr}\n   S \\, = \\, \\sum_{{{\\lambda}^\\circ}\\in{{\\Lambda}^\\circ}} {\\langle g,\\pi({{\\lambda}^\\circ})g\\rangle}\\pi({{\\lambda}^\\circ})\\,.$$ At this point, the question arises if we can deduce the invertibility of the operator $S$ from the Janssen coefficients $({\\langle g,\\pi({{\\lambda}^\\circ})g\\rangle})$. It is known from frame theory that if $S$ is invertible, then its inverse is of the same type, that is, it also has a Janssen representation.\n\nIn order to better understand the main ingredients of this problem we transfer the model to an operator algebra. To this end we restrict our discussion to so-called separable lattices of the form $${\\Lambda}\\, = \\, {\\alpha}{\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times {\\beta}{\\mathbb{Z}^d}$$ for some fixed positive numbers ${\\alpha}$ and ${\\beta}$. An easy computation based on (\\[eq:commlaw2\\]) shows that $${{\\Lambda}^\\circ}\\, = \\, {\\beta}^{-1} {\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\times {\\alpha}^{-1}  {\\mathbb{Z}^d}\\,.$$\n\nWe define the operator algebra ${\\mathcal{A}}$ as in [@GL03] by $${\\mathcal{A}}\\, = \\, {\\Big\\{ \\, S = \\sum_{k,l\\in{\\mathbb{Z}^d}}a_{k,l}\n       \\pi({\\beta}^{-1}k,{\\alpha}^{-1}l) \\, \\Big| \\, a=(a_{k,l})\\in\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}^{2d}}) \\, \\Big\\}}\\,.$$ The restriction to $\\ell^1$-sequences guarantees absolute convergence of the sum of time-frequency shifts. Let ${\\kappa}$ be the mapping $${\\kappa}:a\\in\\ell^1 \\rightarrow {\\kappa}(a) =  \\sum_{k,l\\in{\\mathbb{Z}^d}}a_{k,l}\n       \\pi({\\beta}^{-1}k,{\\alpha}^{-1}l)\\in{\\mathcal{A}}\\,.$$ Then, as already observed in [@Jan95], we have $${\\kappa}(a){\\kappa}(b) \\, = \\, {\\kappa}({{a}\\,{\\natural}\\,{b}})$$ and ${\\kappa}(\\delta) = {\\mbox{Id}}$ where $\\delta$ and ${\\mbox{Id}}$ denote the Dirac sequence and the identity operator, respectively. Both represent the unit element of the corresponding algebra. It follows that ${\\kappa}$ is an algebra homomorphism from $(\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}^{2d}}),{\\natural})$ to ${\\mathcal{A}}$, and invertibility of an element in ${\\mathcal{A}}$ can be transferred to the invertibility of the associated $\\ell^1$-sequence with respect to the twisted convolution.\n\nIt is important to observe, that all the results go through also for weighted $\\ell^1$-spaces. These facts are used to design dual Gabor windows of a special type, cf.\u00a0[@GL03].\n\nIn the following section we give an example of how this approach can be explicitly used in Gabor analysis of one-dimensional signals.\n\n[**Remark.**]{} The above results, with the help of metaplectic operators, carry over to the more general class of lattices, called symplectic lattices. A lattice ${\\Lambda}_s \\subseteq {{\\mathbb{R}}^{2d}}$ is called symplectic, if one can write ${\\Lambda}_s = {\\mathcal{D}}{\\Lambda}$ where ${\\Lambda}$ is a separable lattice and ${\\mathcal{D}}\\in GL_{2d}({\\mathbb{R}})$. To every ${\\mathcal{D}}\\in\nGL_{2d}({\\mathbb{R}})$, there corresponds a unitary operator $\\mu({\\mathcal{D}})$, called metaplectic, acting on $L^2({{\\mathbb{R}}^d})$. One can show that a Gabor system on a symplectic lattice is unitary equivalent to a Gabor system on a separable lattice under $\\mu({\\mathcal{D}})$, and $$S_{g}^{{\\Lambda}_s} = \\mu({\\mathcal{D}})^{-1} S_{\\mu({\\mathcal{D}})g}^{{\\Lambda}} \\mu({\\mathcal{D}}).$$ Hence, to analyze the invertibility of a frame operator $S$ associated to the window function $g \\in L^2({{\\mathbb{R}}^d})$ and symplectic lattice ${\\Lambda}_s$, it suffices to analyze a frame operator associated to $\\mu({\\mathcal{D}})g$ and a separable lattice ${\\Lambda}$. For more details see [@Gro01].\n\nApplication to one-dimensional signal space\n===========================================\n\nIn this section, we briefly describe how the presented inversion scheme applies to Gabor frame operators in a one-dimensional setting. A more detailed discussion also for finite dimensional signals is described in [@MWE05].\n\nAssume $d=1$. Let $a$ be in $\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}}^2)$ and ${\\alpha}, {\\beta}$ be constants such that ${\\alpha}{\\beta}= p/q$ with $p,q$ relative prime. Set $${\\kappa}(a) = \\sum_{k,l\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}}a_{k,l}\\pi({\\beta}^{-1}k,{\\alpha}^{-1}l)\\,.$$ In order to verify if ${\\kappa}(a)$ is invertible on $L^2({\\mathbb{R}})$ we simply look at the coefficient sequence $a$ and check whether $a$ is invertible in $(\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}}^2),{\\natural})$. To this end, we apply the above results and switch to the matrix $A$ whose entries are defined by $$A_{i,j} = \\sum_{m=0}^{p-1} {\\omega}^{mj}a^{m,i-j}\\,,$$ with ${\\omega}= e^{2\\pi i q/p}$. Next, we need to show that the matrix $A$ is invertible in $({\\mathcal{M}},{\\circledast})$. For example, we can calculate the determinate which is a sequence in $\\ell^1$ and show that it is invertible in $(\\ell^1,\\ast)$.\n\nAssume that the determinant of $A$ is invertible. We denote its inverse by $e$. By Cramer\u2019s Rule, we compute the first column of the inverse matrix $B$ of $A$ as $$B_{k,0} = {{\\det A(0,k)}\\,\\ast\\,{e}}\\,,$$ for $k=0,\\dots,p-1$. Then $$b = \\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}B_{k,0}$$ provides the inverse sequence of $a$ which, in turns, gives ${\\kappa}(a)^{-1} = {\\kappa}(b)$.\n\nNote that for $p=1$, the twisted convolution turn into normal convolution and we can simply apply the standard Fourier inversion scheme of sequences in $(\\ell^1({\\mathbb{Z}}^2),\\ast)$ since in this case the matrix $A$ reduces to the sequence $a$.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThe authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Ollendorff Minerva Center and from the European Union\u2019s Human Potential Programme, under the contract HPRN-CT-2003-00285 (HASSIP). We would also like to thank Karlheinz Gr[\u00f6]{}chenig and Yehoshua Y.\u00a0Zeevi for many fruitful discussions.\n\n[^1]: Dept.\u00a0of Electrical Engineering, Technion\u2013Israel Institute of Technology, 32000 Haifa, Israel. Tel.: +972-4-8293256, Fax.: +972-4-8295757, Email: `yonina@ee.technion.ac.il`\n\n[^2]: Faculty\u00a0of Math., University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria. Tel.: +43-1-4277-50693, Fax.: +43-1-4277-50690, Email: `ewa.matusiak@univie.ac.at`, `tobias.werther@univie.ac.at`.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this paper, we propose a fully discrete mixed finite element method for solving the time-dependent Ginzburg\u2013Landau equations, and prove the convergence of the finite element solutions in general curved polyhedra, possibly nonconvex and multi-connected, without assumptions on the regularity of the solution. Global existence and uniqueness of weak solutions for the PDE problem are also obtained in the meantime. A decoupled time-stepping scheme is introduced, which guarantees that the discrete solution has bounded discrete energy, and the finite element spaces are chosen to be compatible with the nonlinear structure of the equations. Based on the boundedness of the discrete energy, we prove the convergence of the finite element solutions by utilizing a uniform $L^{3+\\delta}$ regularity of the discrete harmonic vector fields, establishing a discrete Sobolev embedding inequality for the N\u00e9d\u00e9lec finite element space, and introducing a $\\ell^2(W^{1,3+\\delta})$ estimate for fully discrete solutions of parabolic equations. The numerical example shows that the constructed mixed finite element solution converges to the true solution of the PDE problem in a nonsmooth and multi-connected domain, while the standard Galerkin finite element solution does not converge.'\nauthor:\n- 'Buyang Li [^1]'\ntitle: '**Convergence of a decoupled mixed FEM for the dynamic Ginzburg\u2013Landau equations in nonsmooth domains with incompatible initial data [^2]** '\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe time-dependent Ginzburg\u2013Landau equation (TDGL) is a macroscopic phenomenological model for the superconductivity phenomena in both low and high temperatures [@GL; @GE; @Gennes; @Tinkham], and has been widely accepted in the numerical simulation of transition and vortex dynamics of both type-I and type-II superconductors [@FUD91; @LMG91]. In a non-dimensionalization form, the TDGL is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\eta\\frac{\\partial \\psi}{\\partial t} + i\\eta\\kappa\\psi\\phi\n+ \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla + \\mathbf{A}\\bigg)^{2} \\psi\n + (|\\psi|^{2}-1) \\psi  = 0,\n\\label{GLLPDEq1}\\\\[5pt]\n&\\frac{\\partial \\mathbf{A}}{\\partial t}  +\\nabla \\phi\n+ \\nabla\\times(\\nabla\\times{\\bf A})\n+  {\\rm Re}\\bigg[\\overline\\psi\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+ \\mathbf{A}\\bigg) \\psi\\bigg] =  \\nabla\\times {\\bf H} ,\n\\label{GLLPDEq2}\\end{aligned}$$ where the order parameter $\\psi$ is complex scalar-valued, the electric potential $\\phi$ is real scalar-valued and magnetic potential ${\\bf A}$ is real vector-valued; $\\eta>0$ and $\\kappa>0$ are physical parameters, and ${\\bf H}$ is a time-independent external magnetic field. In a domain $\\Omega\\subset\\R^3$ occupied by a superconductor, the following physical boundary conditions are often imposed: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\Big(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla\\psi +\n\\mathbf{A}\\psi\\Big) \\cdot{\\bf n} = 0\n&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega , \\\\\n&{\\bf n}\\times{\\bf B}={\\bf n}\\times {\\bf H}\n&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega , \\\\\n&{\\bf E}\\cdot{\\bf n}=0  &\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega , \n\\label{OrBDC3}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mathbf{n}$ denotes the unit normal vector on the boundary of the domain, ${\\bf B}=\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}$ and ${\\bf E}=-\\partial_t{\\bf A}-\\nabla\\phi$ denote the induced magnetic and electric fields, respectively.\n\nBesides -, an additional gauge condition is needed for the uniqueness of the solution $(\\psi,\\phi,{\\bf A})$. Under the gauge $\\phi=-\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A}$, the TDGL reduces to $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\eta\\frac{\\partial \\psi}{\\partial t} -i\\eta \\kappa \\psi \\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A}\n+ \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla + \\mathbf{A}\\bigg)^{2} \\psi\n + (|\\psi|^{2}-1) \\psi = 0,\n\\label{PDE1}\\\\[5pt]\n&\\frac{\\partial \\mathbf{A}}{\\partial t} \n+ \\nabla\\times(\\nabla\\times{\\bf A})\n-\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A}) \n+  {\\rm Re}\\bigg[\\overline\\psi\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+ \\mathbf{A}\\bigg) \\psi\\bigg] =  \\nabla\\times {\\bf H} ,\n\\label{PDE2}\\end{aligned}$$ and the boundary conditions can be written as [^3] $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\nabla\\psi\\cdot{\\bf n} = 0\n&&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega ,  \\label{PDEBC-00}\\\\\n&{\\bf n}\\times(\\nabla\\times{\\bf A})= {\\bf n}\\times{\\bf H}  \n&&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega , \\label{PDEBC-0}\\\\\n&{\\bf A}\\cdot{\\bf n}=0 \n&&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega .\n\\label{PDEBC}\\end{aligned}$$ Given the initial conditions $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{PDEini}\n\\psi(x,0)=\\psi_0(x)\\quad\\mbox{and}\\quad\n{\\bf A}(x,0)={\\bf A}_0(x),\\quad\\mbox{for}\\,\\, x\\in\\Omega , \\end{aligned}$$ the solution $(\\psi,{\\bf A})$ can be solved from -. Other gauges can also be used, and the solutions under different gauges are equivalent in the sense that they produce the same quantities of physical intereset [@CHL; @Tinkham], such as the superconducting density $|\\psi|^2$ and the magnetic field ${\\bf B}$.\n\nIn a smooth domain, well-posedness of - has been proved in [@CHL] and convergence of the Galerkin finite element method (FEM) was proved in [@CD01; @GLS] with different time discretizations by assuming that the PDE\u2019s solution is smooth enough, e.g. ${\\bf A}\\in L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf H}^1)\\cap L^2(0,T;{\\bf H}^2)$. In a nonsmooth domain such as a curved polyhedron, the magnetic potential ${\\bf A}$ may be only in $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div}))\\cap \nL^2(0,T;{\\bf H}^{1/2+\\delta})$, where $\\delta>0$ can be arbitrarily small (depending on the angle of the edges or corners of the domain), and so the Galerkin finite element solution may not converge to the solution of -. Some mixed FEMs were proposed in [@Chen97; @GS15], and the numerical simulations in [@GS15] show better results in nonsmooth domains, compared with the Galerkin FEM. Some discrete gauge invariant numerical methods [@Du98; @DJ05] are also promising to approximate the solution correctly. Convergence of these numerical methods have been proved in the case that the PDE\u2019s solution is smooth enough. However, whether the numerical solutions converge to the PDE\u2019s solution in nonsmooth domains where the magnetic potential is only in $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div}))\\cap \nL^2(0,T;{\\bf H}^{1/2+\\delta})$ is still unknown. Another problem is that the initial data ${\\bf A}_0$ are often incompatible with the boundary condition (see the numerical examples in [@ASPM11; @CD01; @Mu97], where ${\\bf n}\\times(\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_0)=0$ but ${\\bf n}\\times{\\bf H}\\neq 0$), and this also leads to low regularity of the solution.\n\nNumerical analysis of the TDGL under the zero electric potential gauge $\\phi=0$ has also been done in many works [@ASPM11; @GKL02; @GKLLP96; @MH98; @RPCA04; @VMB03; @WA02; @Yang]; also see the review paper [@Du05]. Since $\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}\\|_{L^2 }$ is not equivalent to $\\|\\nabla{\\bf A}\\|_{L^2 }$, both theoretical and numerical analysis are difficult under this gauge without extra assumptions on the regularity of the PDE\u2019s solution. Again, convergence of these numerical methods have been proved in the case that the PDE\u2019s solution is smooth enough.\n\nUnder either gauge, convergence of the numerical solutions has not been proved in nonsmooth domains such as general curved polyhedra, possibly nonconvex and multi-connected. Meanwhile, correct numerical approximations of the TDGL in domains with edges and corners are important for physicists and engineers [@ASPM11; @BKP05; @VMB03]. The difficulty of the problem is to control the nonlinear terms in the equations only based on the a priori estimates of the finite element solution. In this paper, we introduce a decoupled mixed FEM for solving - which guarantees that the discrete solution has bounded discrete energy, and prove convergence of the fully discrete finite element solution in general curved polyhedra without assumptions on the regularity of the PDE\u2019s solution. We control the nonlinear terms by proving a uniform $L^{3+\\delta}$ regularity for the discrete harmonic vector fields in curved polyhedra, establishing a discrete Sobolev compact embedding inequality ${\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div})\\hookrightarrow\n\\hookrightarrow {\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}$ for the functions in the N\u00e9d\u00e9lec element space, and introducing a $\\ell^2(W^{1,3+\\delta})$ estimate for fully discrete finite element solutions of parabolic equations, where $\\delta>0$ is some constant which depends on the given domain.\n\nMain results {#MainR}\n============\n\nA decoupled mixed FEM with bounded discrete energy\n--------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection, we introduce our assumptions on the domain and define the fully discrete finite element method to be considered in this paper. Then we introduce a discrete energy function (different from the free energy) and sketch a proof for a basic energy inequality satisfied by the finite element solution.\n\nA [*curved polyhedron (or polygon)*]{} is a bounded Lipschitz domain $\\Omega\\subset\\R^3$ (or $\\Omega\\subset\\R^2$), possibly nonconvex and multi-connected, such that its boundary is locally $C^\\infty$-isomorphic to the boundary of a polyhedron [@BS87], and there are $\\frak M$ pieces of surfaces $\\Sigma_1$, $\\cdots$, $\\Sigma_{\\frak M}$ transversal to $\\partial\\Omega$ such that $\\Sigma_i\\cap\\Sigma_j=\\emptyset$ for $i\\neq j$ and the domain $\\Omega_0:=\\Omega\\backslash\\Sigma$ is simply connected, where $\\Sigma=\\cup_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\Sigma_j$ (see Figure \\[FigD\\]) .\n\nThe integer $\\frak M$ is often referred to as the first Betti number of the domain. The existence of the surfaces $\\Sigma_j$, $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, is only needed in the analysis of the finite element solutions by using the Hodge decomposition [@KY09]. One does not need to know these surfaces in practical computation.\n\n[![Illustration of the domain [(]{}$\\Omega$ is the shadow region[)]{}.[]{data-label=\"FigD\"}](Fig1.eps \"fig:\"){height=\"1.3in\" width=\"1.5in\"}]{} [![Illustration of the domain [(]{}$\\Omega$ is the shadow region[)]{}.[]{data-label=\"FigD\"}](Fig2.eps \"fig:\"){height=\"1.3in\" width=\"1.5in\"}]{}\n\n[**Assumptions 2.1.**]{}$\\,\\,\\,$ We assume that $\\Omega\\subset\\R^3$ is a curved polyhedron which is partitioned into quasi-uniform tetrahedra. For any given integers $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Condrk}\nr\\geq 1 \n\\quad\\mbox{and}\\quad\nk\\geq 2r-1 ,\\end{aligned}$$ we denote by ${\\mathbb S}_h^{r}$ the complex-valued Lagrange finite element space of degree $\\leq r$, denote by ${\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$ the real-valued Lagrange finite element space of degree $\\leq k+1$, and let ${\\mathbb N}_h^k$ be either the N\u00e9d\u00e9lec 1st-kind H(curl) element space of order $k$ [@Ned80] or the N\u00e9d\u00e9lec 2nd-kind H(curl) element space of degree $\\leq k$ [@Ned86] (also see page 60 of [@AFW]).\n\nLet the time interval $[0,T]$ be partitioned into $0=t_0<t_1<\\cdots<t_N$ uniformly, with $\\tau=t_{n+1}-t_n$. For any given functions $f_n$, $n=0,1,\\cdots,N$, we define its discrete time derivative as $$\\begin{aligned}\nD_\\tau f^{n+1}:=(f^{n+1}-f^n)/\\tau ,\\quad\nn=0,1,\\cdots,N-1 .\\end{aligned}$$ We introduce a decoupled backward Euler scheme for solving -: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\eta D_\\tau \\psi^{n+1} \n-i\\eta\\kappa\\Theta(\\psi^{n})\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A}^n\n+ \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla + {\\bf A}^{n+1}\\bigg)^{2} \\psi^{n+1}\n + (|\\psi^{n+1}|^{2}-1) \\psi^{n+1}= 0, \n\\label{TD1}\\\\[5pt] \n& D_\\tau {\\bf A}^{n+1} \n-\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A}^{n+1})\n+ \\nabla\\times(\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}^{n+1})\n+  {\\rm Re}\\bigg[\\overline\\psi^{n}\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf A}^{n}\\bigg) \\psi^{n}\\bigg]\n=  \\nabla\\times {\\bf H}  , \n\\label{TD2}  \\end{aligned}$$ where we have used a cut-off function $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Theta(z):=z/\\max(|z|,1) ,\\quad\\forall~ z\\in\\C ,\\end{aligned}$$ which satisfies $\\Theta(z)=z$ if $|z|\\leq 1$. For any given integers $r$ and $k$ which satisfy the condition , we solve by the Galerkin FEM and solve by a mixed FEM. Let $(\\psi_{h}^{0}, {\\bf A}_h^0):=(\\psi_{0},\n{\\bf A}_0)$ at the initial time step and define $\\phi_h^0:=-\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A}_0$. We look for $\\psi_{h}^{n+1} \\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r$ and $(\\phi_{h}^{n+1},{\\bf A}_h ^{n+1} ) \n\\in {\\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1} \\times {\\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$, $n=0,1,\\cdots,N-1$, satisfying the equations $$\\begin{aligned}\n&(\\eta D_{\\tau}\\psi_{h}^{n+1}, \\varphi_h)  \n+ \\bigg( \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\bigg) {\\psi}_{h}^{n+1} \\,, \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\bigg) \\varphi_h\\bigg) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+((|\\psi_{h}^{n+1}|^{2}-1)\\psi_{h}^{n+1}, \\varphi_h) \n=- (i\\eta \\kappa\\Theta(\\psi_{h}^{n})\\phi_{h}^{n} ,\\varphi_h) \\, , \n&&\\forall\\, \\varphi_h \\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r ,\n\\label{FEM1} \\\\[10pt]\n& (\\phi_h ^{n+1}, \\chi_h) \n- ({\\bf A}_h^{n+1},\\nabla \\chi_h ) = 0 \\, , \n&&\\forall\\, \\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1}, \n\\label{FEM3} \\\\[10pt]\n&(D_{\\tau}{\\bf A}_{h}^{n+1},{\\bf a}_{h}) \n+(\\nabla\\phi_{h}^{n+1} \\, , {\\bf a}_{h} )\n+ (\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_h ^{n+1} \\, , \\nabla\\times {\\bf a}_{h}) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n& \n= ({\\bf H} \\, , \\nabla\\times {\\bf a}_{h}) \n-{\\rm Re}\\bigg(\\overline\\psi_h^{n}\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf A}_h^{n}\\bigg) \\psi_h^{n} , {\\bf a}_h\\bigg) \\, , \n  &&\\forall\\, {\\bf a}_h\\in  {\\mathbb N}_{h}^{k} .\n\\label{FEM2} \\end{aligned}$$ After solving $\\psi_h^{n+1}$, $\\phi_h^{n+1}$ and ${\\bf A}_h^{n+1}$ from the equations above, the magnetic and electric fields can be computed by ${\\bf B}_h^{n+1}=\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_h^{n+1} $ and ${\\bf E}_h^{n+1}=-D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\n-\\nabla\\phi_h^{n+1} $.\n\nFor simplicity, we have chosen $(\\psi_h^0,{\\bf A}_h^0)=(\\psi_0,{\\bf A}_0)$ at the initial step, which are not finite element functions. Due to the nonlinearities and the choice of the initial data, some integrals in and may need to be evaluated numerically in practical computations. In this paper, we focus on the analysis of the discretization errors of the finite element method and assume that all the integrals are evaluated accurately.\n\nSince we have not assumed any extra regularity of the PDE\u2019s solution, we need the condition to be compatible with the nonlinear structure of the equations in order to control a nonlinear term arising from (see for the details). If the PDE\u2019s solution is smooth enough, (e.g. consider the problem in a smooth domain), then the condition can be relaxed.\n\nWe define the discrete energy $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\cal G}_{h}^{n} \n&=\\int_\\Omega \n\\bigg(\\frac{1}{2}\\bigg|\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \n\\nabla\\psi_h^{n}  + {\\bf A}_h^{n}\\psi_h^{n} \\bigg|^2\n+\\frac{1}{4}\\big(|\\psi_h^{n}|^2-1)^2 \\bigg)\\d x \\\\\n&\\quad +\n\\int_\\Omega\n\\bigg(\\frac{1}{2} |\\nabla\\times {\\bf A}_h^{n}-{\\bf H}|^2\n+\\frac{1}{2} |\\phi_h^{n}|^2 \\bigg)\\d x {\\nonumber}\\end{aligned}$$ for $n=0,1,\\cdots,N$. By substituting $\\varphi_h=D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}$, $\\chi_h=\\phi_h ^{n+1}$ and ${\\bf a}_h=D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}$ into -, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{FEMEGDecay}\n&D_\\tau {\\cal G}_h^{n+1}\n+\\int_\\Omega \n\\big((\\eta-\\tau/2) |D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}|^2\n+|D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2 \n \\big) \\d x  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+\\int_\\Omega \n\\frac{\\tau}{2}\\bigg( \\bigg|D_\\tau\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \n\\nabla\\psi_h^{n+1} + {\\bf A}_h^{n}\\psi_h^{n+1} \\bigg)\\bigg|^2\n+\\big|D_\\tau\\phi_h^{n+1}|^2 \n+\\big|D_\\tau\\nabla\\times {\\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2 \\bigg)\\d x {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+\\int_\\Omega \\frac{\\tau}{2}\\bigg(|\\psi_h^{n+1}|^2|D_\\tau \\psi_h^{n+1}|^2 \n+\\frac{1}{2}|D_\\tau |\\psi_h^{n+1}|^2|^2 \\bigg)\\d x {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&= \n-\\int_\\Omega\ni\\eta\\kappa\\Theta(\\psi_h^{n})\\phi_h^{n}D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}\\d x \n+{\\rm Re}\\int_\\Omega \\tau D_\\tau\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \n\\nabla\\psi_h^{n+1} + {\\bf A}^{n+1}\\psi_h^{n+1}\\bigg) \n\\overline\\psi_h^{n}D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1} \\d x {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \\frac{\\eta}{2}\\int_\\Omega|D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}|^2\\d x\n+ \\frac{\\eta\\kappa^2}{2}\\int_\\Omega \n|\\phi_h^{n}|^2\\d x  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+\\int_\\Omega \\frac{\\tau}{2} \\bigg|D_\\tau\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \n\\nabla\\psi_h^{n+1} + {\\bf A}_h^{n}\\psi^{n+1}\\bigg)\\bigg|^2\\d x \n+\\int_\\Omega \\frac{\\tau}{2}|\\psi_h^{n}|^2|D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2 \\d x , \n$$ which reduces to $$\\label{FEMEGDecay0}\n\\begin{aligned}\n&D_\\tau {\\cal G}_h^{n+1}\n+\\int_\\Omega \n\\bigg(\\frac{\\eta-\\tau}{2} |D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}|^2\n+\\frac{1}{2}|D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2\n+\\frac{1-\\tau|\\psi_h^n|^2}{2}|D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2\n \\bigg) \\d x  \\\\\n &\\leq \\eta\\kappa^2{\\cal G}_h^{n}  .\n\\end{aligned}$$ Unlike the PDE\u2019s solution, it is not obvious whether the finite element solution satisfies $|\\psi_h^n|\\leq 1$ pointwisely. In Section \\[SecUnif\\] we shall prove $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{BDPsiDecay0}\n1-\\tau|\\psi_h^n|^2\\geq 0  \\end{aligned}$$ when $\\tau<\\tau_0$ (for some positive constant $\\tau_0$ which is independent of $\\tau$ and $h$). Then implies boundedness of the discrete energy via the discrete Gronwall\u2019s inequality. By utilizing the discrete energy, we derive further estimates which are used to prove compactness and convergence of the finite element solution.\n\nMain theorem\n------------\n\nLet $W^{s,p}$, $s\\geq 0$ and $1\\leq p\\leq\\infty$, be the conventional Sobolev spaces of real-valued functions defined on $\\Omega$, and let ${\\bf W}^{s,p}=W^{s,p}\\times W^{s,p}\\times W^{s,p}$ be the corresponding Sobolev space of vector fields. The case of integer $s$ can be found in [@Adams], and the characterization of more general function spaces with fractional $s$ can be found in [@Rychkov]. Let ${\\cal W}^{s,p}:=W^{s,p}+i\\,W^{s,p}$ denote the complex-valued Sobolev space and define the abbreviations $$\\begin{aligned}\n&L^p:=W^{0,p},\\quad\\,  \n{\\cal L}^p:={\\cal W}^{0,p},\\quad\\, \n{\\bf L}^p:={\\bf W}^{0,p} ,\n\\quad\\mbox{for $1\\leq p\\leq\\infty$,}\\\\\n&H^s:=W^{s,2},\\quad \n{\\cal H}^s:={\\cal W}^{s,2},\\quad \n{\\bf H}^s:={\\bf W}^{s,2},\n\\quad\\mbox{for $s\\geq 0$} . \\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we define $$\\begin{aligned}\n&{\\bf H}({\\rm curl}):=\n\\{{\\bf u}\\in {\\bf L}^2:\\,\n\\nabla\\times {\\bf u}\\in {\\bf L}^2\\}  , \\\\\n& {\\bf H}({\\rm div})\\,\\,:=\n\\{{\\bf u}\\in {\\bf L}^2:\\,\n\\nabla\\cdot {\\bf u}\\in L^2 \\}  ,\\\\\n&{\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div}):=\n\\{{\\bf u}\\in {\\bf L}^2:\\,\n\\nabla\\times {\\bf u}\\in {\\bf L}^2,\n\\,\\,\\,\\nabla\\cdot {\\bf u}\\in L^2 \\,\\,\\,\\mbox{and}\\,\\,\\, \n{\\bf u}\\cdot{\\bf n}=0\\,\\,\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega\\} . \\label{Def_Hcd_bd1}\n$$\n\nLet $\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+$, $\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-$, ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+$, ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-$, ${\\bf B}_{h,\\tau}^+$ and ${\\bf E}_{h,\\tau}^+$ be the piecewise constant functions on $(0,T]$ such that on each subinterval $(t_n,t_{n+1}]$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+(t)=\\psi_h^{n+1},  \n&&\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-(t)=\\psi_h^{n},  \\\\\n&{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+(t)={\\bf A}_h^{n+1},   \n&&{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-(t)={\\bf A}_h^{n} ,  \\\\\n&{\\bf B}_{h,\\tau}^+(t)={\\bf B}_h^{n+1}:=\n\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_{h}^{n+1},\n&&{\\bf E}_{h,\\tau}^+(t)={\\bf E}_h^{n+1}\n:=-D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}-\\nabla\\phi_h^{n+1}  .\n\\label{Eht1} \\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn this paper we prove the following theorem.\n\n\\[MainTHM\\] [*Under Assumption [2.1]{}, for any given $\\psi_0\\in {\\cal H}^1$ and ${\\bf A}_0\\in {\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div})$ such that $|\\psi_0|\\leq 1$, the system - has a unique finite element solution when $\\tau<\\eta$ $(\\eta$ is the parameter in , which converges to the unique solution of - as $\\tau,h\\rightarrow 0$ in the following sense: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+\\rightarrow \\psi \n&&\\mbox{strongly in\\, $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\cal L}^2)$\nand weakly$^*$\\, in\\, $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\cal H}^1)$ }, \\\\ \n&{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+\\rightarrow {\\bf A}\n&& \\mbox{strongly in\\, $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^2)$ \nand weakly$^*$ in\\, $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl}))$} , \\\\\n&\\phi_{h,\\tau}^+\\rightarrow \\phi \n&&\\mbox{strongly\\,\\,\\, in\\, $L^2(0,T;L^2)$ \nand weakly$^*$ in\\, $L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)$}, \\\\ \n&{\\bf B}_{h,\\tau}^+\\rightarrow {\\bf B}\n&&\\mbox{weakly$^*$\\, in\\, $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^2)$},\\\\\n&{\\bf E}_{h,\\tau}^+\\rightarrow {\\bf E}\n&&\\mbox{weakly\\,\\,\\, in\\, $L^2(0,T;{\\bf L}^2)$} . \\end{aligned}$$* ]{}\n\nIn the meantime of proving Theorem \\[MainTHM\\], we also obtain global well-posedness of the PDE problem - (see Appendix).\n\nIf $\\Omega$ is a curved polygon in $\\R^2$ and the external magnetic field ${\\bf H}$ is perpendicular to the domain, i.e. ${\\bf H}=(0,0,H)$, then - hold when ${\\bf H}$ is replaced by $H$, with the following two-dimensional notations: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\nabla\\times {\\bf A}\n=\\frac{\\partial A_2}{\\partial x_1}-\\frac{\\partial A_1}{\\partial x_2},\n\\qquad \n\\nabla\\cdot {\\bf A}=\\frac{\\partial A_1}{\\partial x_1}\n+\\frac{\\partial A_2}{\\partial x_2},\\\\\n&\\nabla\\times H=\\bigg(\\frac{\\partial H}{\\partial x_2},\\,\n-\\frac{\\partial H}{\\partial x_1}\\bigg),\\quad \n\\nabla\\psi=\\bigg(\\frac{\\partial \\psi}{\\partial x_1},\\,\n\\frac{\\partial \\psi}{\\partial x_2}\\bigg).\\end{aligned}$$ With these notations, - can also be used for solving the two-dimensional problem, and Theorem \\[MainTHM\\] can also be proved in the similar way.\n\nAn overview of the proof {#OverviewP}\n------------------------\n\nOur basic idea is to introduce $\\psi_{h,\\tau}$ and ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}$ ($\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+$ and ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+$) as the piecewise linear (piecewise constant) interpolation of the finite element solutions $\\psi_h^{n+1}$ and ${\\bf A}_h^{n+1}$ in the time direction, respectively, and denote by $\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-$ and ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-$ the piecewise constant interpolation of $\\psi_h^{n}$ and ${\\bf A}_h^{n}$, respectively. Rewrite the finite element equations as the following equations defined continuously in time: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[(\\eta \\partial_t\\psi_{h,\\tau}, \\varphi_{h,\\tau}) \n+\\bigg( \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+\\bigg)\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+ \\,, \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+\\bigg)\\varphi_{h,\\tau}\\bigg)\n \\bigg]\\d t {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+((|\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+|^{2}-1)\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+,\\varphi_{h,\\tau})\\bigg]\\d t=\n\\int_0^T(i\\eta \\kappa\n\\Theta(\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-)\\phi_{h,\\tau}^- ,\\varphi_{h,\\tau})\\d t   . {\\nonumber}\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[ (\\phi_{h,\\tau}^+, \\chi_{h,\\tau}) \n- ({\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+,\\nabla \\chi_{h,\\tau} ) \\bigg]\\d t= 0 \\, , \\\\[10pt]\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[ (\\partial_t{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau},{\\bf a}_{h,\\tau}) \n+ (\\nabla\\phi_{h,\\tau}^+ \\, ,{\\bf a}_{h,\\tau})\n+ (\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+  \\, , \\nabla\\times {\\bf a}_{h,\\tau})\n\\bigg]\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad +\\int_0^T\\bigg[ {\\rm Re}\\bigg(\\overline\\psi_{h,\\tau}^- \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-\\bigg) \\psi_{h,\\tau}^-  , {\\bf a}_{h,\\tau}\\bigg)\\bigg]\\d t\n=\\int_0^T\\bigg[ (\\nabla\\times{\\bf H} \\, ,{\\bf a}_{h,\\tau})\\bigg]\\d t  \\, . \n$$ If we can prove compactness and convergence of a subsequence of $\\partial_t\\psi_{h,\\tau}$, $\\psi_{h,\\tau}^\\pm$, $\\partial_t{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}$, ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^\\pm$, $\\phi_{h,\\tau}^\\pm$, and prove that the limits of any subsequence coincide with the PDE\u2019s solution, then we can conclude that the sequences $\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+$, and ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+$ converge to the PDE\u2019s solution as $h,\\tau\\rightarrow 0$.\n\nTo estimate the finite element solution (in order to prove the compactness), we introduce a discrete energy function ${\\cal G}_{h}^{n} $ and a special time-stepping scheme from which one can derive . By proving , we derive boundedness of the discrete energy from (via the discrete Gronwall\u2019s inequality). Based on the boundedness of the discrete energy, some further estimates need to be derived in order to prove convergence of the finite element solution. For example, in order to prove the weak convergence of a subsequence of $${\\rm Re}\\bigg[\\overline\\psi_{h,\\tau}^- \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-\\bigg) \\psi_{h,\\tau}^-\\bigg]$$ in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$, we need to prove the following convergence (for a subsequence): $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\mbox{$\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-$ converges \nweakly in $L^2(0,T;W^{1,3+\\delta})\\hookrightarrow L^2(0,T;L^\\infty)$\nfor some $\\delta>0$}, \\label{psihnL3}\\\\\n&\\mbox{$\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-$\\,\\, converges strongly in $L^\\infty(0,T;L^{6-\\epsilon})$ for arbitrarily small $\\epsilon>0$}\\\\\n&\\mbox{${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-$\\, converges strongly in $L^\\infty(0,T;L^{3+\\delta})$\nfor some $\\delta>0$} . \\label{AAhnL3}\\end{aligned}$$ The boundedness of the discrete energy only implies the boundedness of $$\\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;H^1)} , \\quad\n\\|{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)}, \\quad\n\\|\\nabla\\times {\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)} \n\\quad\n\\mbox{and}\\quad \n\\|\\phi_{h,\\tau}^-\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)} ,$$ which are not enough for $\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-$ and ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-$ to be compact and converge in the sense of -.\n\nWe shall prove by establishing a discrete Sobolev embedding inequality (Lemma \\[SobolevD\\]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{AhL33}\n\\|{\\bf A}_{h}^n\\|_{L^{3+\\delta}}\n\\leq C(\\|{\\bf A}_{h}^n\\|_{L^2}\n+\\|\\nabla\\times {\\bf A}_{h}^n\\|_{L^2}+\\|\\phi_{h}^n\\|_{L^2}) ,\\end{aligned}$$ and we also need to show that this embedding is compact. Since we allow the domain to be multi-connected, in order to prove , we need to use the discrete Hodge decomposition $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\bf A}_h^n =\n{\\bf c}_h + \\nabla\\theta_h \n+ \\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_{j,h}{\\bf w}_{j,h}  \\end{aligned}$$ and show that the divergence-free part ${\\bf c}_h$, the curl-free part $\\nabla\\theta_h $ and the discrete harmonic part $ \\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_{j,h}{\\bf w}_{j,h}$ are all bounded in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}$. For this purpose, we need to construct the basis functions ${\\bf w}_{j,h}$, $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, of the discrete harmonic vector fields and prove that they are bounded in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}$ (Lemma \\[RegDHarV\\]).\n\nIn order to prove , we rewrite the finite element equation of $\\psi_h^{n+1}$ in the form of $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\eta D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}\n-\\frac{1}{\\kappa^2}\\Delta_h\\psi_h^{n+1}\n=f_h^{n+1}\\end{aligned}$$ and prove the following inequality (Lemma 3.8): $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{LemW1qDa}\n\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{W^{1,q+\\delta}}^2\\leq \nC\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau\\|f_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^{q/2}}^2\n+C\\|\\psi_h^0\\|_{H^1}^2\n\\quad\\mbox{ \nfor some $q>3$ and $\\delta>0$. }\\end{aligned}$$ Then we prove $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau\\|f_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^{q/2}}^2\n&\\leq C+C\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{W^{1,q}}^2 {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq C+C_\\epsilon\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{H^{1}}^2\n+\\epsilon\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{W^{1,q+\\delta}}^2  ,\n\\quad\\forall\\,\\epsilon\\in(0,1) .\\end{aligned}$$ The last two inequalities imply $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{W^{1,q+\\delta}}^2\\leq \nC+C\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{H^{1}}^2\n+C\\|\\psi_h^0\\|_{H^1}^2\n\\leq C. \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe compactness and convergence of the finite element solution are proved based on the uniform estimates established. On one hand, in both and we need some constant $\\delta>0$ (which depends on the given curved polyhedron) to prove the convergence of the finite element solution. On the other hand, both and are sharp: for any $\\delta>0$ there exists a polyhedron such that and do not hold.\n\nProof of Theorem \\[MainTHM\\] {#SecProof}\n============================\n\nBy substituting $\\chi_h=\\phi_h^{n+1}$ and ${\\bf a}_h={\\bf A}_h^{n+1}$ into the equations $$\\begin{aligned}\n& (\\phi_h ^{n+1}, \\chi_h) \n- ({\\bf A}_h^{n+1},\\nabla \\chi_h ) = 0 \\, , \n&&\\forall\\, \\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1}, \\\\[10pt]\n&\\frac{1}{\\tau} ({\\bf A}_{h}^{n+1},{\\bf a}_{h}) \n+(\\nabla\\phi_{h}^{n+1} \\, , {\\bf a}_{h} )\n+ (\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_h ^{n+1} \\, , \\nabla\\times {\\bf a}_{h}) =0 ,\n  &&\\forall\\, {\\bf a}_h\\in  {\\mathbb N}_{h}^{k} ,\\end{aligned}$$ we see that the two equations above have only zero solution. Hence, for any given $(\\psi_h^{n},{\\bf A}_h^{n})\\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^{r} \\times {\\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$, the linear system - has a unique solution $(\\phi_h^{n+1},{\\bf A}_h^{n+1})\\in \n{\\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1} \\times {\\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$.\n\nUnder the condition $\\tau<\\eta$, it is easy to see that for any given ${\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\in{\\mathbb N}_h^k$ the nonlinear operator ${\\mathcal M}:  {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r\n\\rightarrow  {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r$ defined via duality by $$\\begin{aligned}\n({\\mathcal M}{\\mathscr S}_h,\\varphi_h)\n:&= \\frac{\\eta}{\\tau}({\\mathscr S}_h, \\varphi_h)  \n+ \\bigg( \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\bigg) {\\mathscr S}_h \\,, \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\bigg) \\varphi_h\\bigg) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+((|{\\mathscr S}_h|^{2}-1){\\mathscr S}_h, \\varphi_h) , \n&&\\forall\\, \\varphi_h \\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r ,\\end{aligned}$$ is continuous and monotone, i.e.[^4] $$\\begin{aligned}\n({\\mathcal M}{\\mathscr S}_h\n-{\\mathcal M}\\widetilde{\\mathscr S}_h,{\\mathscr S}_h-\\widetilde{\\mathscr S}_h)\n\\ge \\bigg(\\frac{\\eta}{\\tau}-1\\bigg)\\|{\\mathscr S}_h-\\widetilde{\\mathscr S}_h\\|_{L^2}^2 \\, , \n&&\\forall\\, {\\mathscr S}_h,\\widetilde{\\mathscr S}_h \\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r .\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, [@Showalter Lemma 2.1 and Corollary 2.2 of Chapter 2] implies that for any given $f_h\\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r$ the equation ${\\mathcal M}{\\mathscr S}_h=f_h$ has a solution ${\\mathscr S}_h\\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r$. In other words, equation has a solution $\\psi_h^{n+1}\\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r$. The uniqueness of the solution $\\psi_h^{n+1}\\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r$ is an obvious consequence of the monotonicity of the operator ${\\mathcal M}$.\n\nOverall, for any given $(\\psi_h^{n},{\\bf A}_h^{n})\\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^{r} \\times {\\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$, the system - has a unique solution $(\\psi_h^{n+1},\\phi_h^{n+1},{\\bf A}_h^{n+1})\\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r\\times {\\mathbb V}_{h}^{k+1} \\times {\\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$ when $\\tau<\\eta$. In the rest part of this paper, we prove the convergence of the finite element solution. Some frequently used basic lemmas are listed in Section \\[PreLem\\].\n\nPreliminary lemmas {#PreLem}\n------------------\n\nThe following lemma is concerned with the approximation properties of the smoothed projection operators of the finite element spaces [@AFW].\n\n\\[SmoothPr\\][ *There exist linear projection operators $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb S}: {\\cal L}^1\\rightarrow {\\mathbb S}_h^r,\n\\qquad\\quad\n\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}: L^1\\rightarrow {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1},\n\\qquad\\quad\n\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N}: {\\bf L}^1\\rightarrow {\\mathbb N}_h^k, \\end{aligned}$$ which satisfy $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\nabla (\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\chi)\n=\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} \\nabla \\chi,\n&&\\forall\\,\\chi\\in W^{1,1}  ,\\\\\n&\\|\\varphi-\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb S}\\varphi\\|_{{\\cal L}^p}\n\\leq Ch^{s+3/p-3/q}\\|\\varphi\\|_{{\\cal W}^{s,q}}, &&\n\\forall\\,\\varphi\\in {\\cal W}^{s,q},\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\n0\\leq s\\leq r+1, \\\\\n&\\|\\chi-\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\chi\\|_{L^p}\n\\leq Ch^{s+3/p-3/q}\\|\\chi\\|_{W^{s,q}}, &&\n\\forall\\,\\chi\\in W^{s,q},\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\n0\\leq s\\leq k+2, \\\\\n&\\|{\\bf a}-\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N}{\\bf a}\\|_{{\\bf L}^p}\n\\leq Ch^{s+3/p-3/q}\\|{\\bf a}\\|_{{\\bf W}^{s,q}}, \n&&\\forall\\,{\\bf a}\\in {\\bf W}^{s,q},\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\\,\n0\\leq s\\leq k+1, \\end{aligned}$$ for any $$\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n1\\leq q\\leq p\\leq 3/(3/q-s) &\\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\, 0\\leq s< 3/q,\\\\\n1\\leq q\\leq p<\\infty &\\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,\\,\\, s\\geq 3/q .\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$* ]{}\n\nThe authors of [@AFW] (page 66\u201370) only proved the $L^2$ boundedness of the smoothed projection operators. But their method can also be used to prove the $L^p$ boundedness without essential change. Then Lemma \\[SmoothPr\\] is obtained by using the Sobolev embedding $W^{s,q}\\hookrightarrow W^{s+3/p-3/q,p}$. Although the analysis of [@AFW] (page 66\u201370) only considered polyhedra, the extension to curved polyhedra is straightforward (as there are no boundary conditions imposed on these finite element spaces).\n\nIt is well known that the solution of the heat equation $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\partial_tu-\\Delta u =f  & \\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega ,\\\\\n\\nabla u\\cdot{\\bf n}=0 & \\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega ,\\\\\nu(x,0)=0, & \\mbox{for}\\,\\,x\\in\\Omega ,\n\\end{array}\\right. \\end{aligned}$$ possesses the maximal $L^p$-regularity (see Corollary 4.d of [@Weis1]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\|\\partial_tu\\|_{L^p(0,T;L^q)}\n+\\|\\Delta u\\|_{L^p(0,T;L^q)}\n\\leq C_{p,q}\\|f\\|_{L^p(0,T;L^q)} ,\\qquad \n1<p,q<\\infty .\\end{aligned}$$ In this paper, we need to use the maximal $\\ell^p$-regularity for time-discrete parabolic PDEs, which was proved in [@KLL Theorem 3.1].\n\n\\[DMPR\\][ *The solution of the time-discrete PDEs $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\nD_\\tau u^{n+1}-\\Delta u^{n+1}=f^{n+1}  & \\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega ,\\\\\n\\nabla u^{n+1}\\cdot{\\bf n}=0 & \\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega ,\\\\\nu^0=0,\n\\end{array}\\right. \\end{aligned}$$ $n=0,1,\\cdots$, satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\bigg(\\sum_{n=0}^m\\tau\\|D_\\tau u^{n+1}\\|_{L^q}^p\\bigg)^{\\frac{1}{p}}\n+\\bigg(\\sum_{n=0}^m\\tau\\|\\Delta u^{n+1}\\|_{L^q}^p\\bigg)^{\\frac{1}{p}} \n\\leq C_{p,q}\\bigg(\\sum_{n=0}^m\\tau\\|f^{n+1}\\|_{L^q}^p\\bigg)^{\\frac{1}{p}}\\end{aligned}$$ for any $1<p,q<\\infty$ and $m\\geq 0$, where the constant $C_{p,q}$ is independent of $\\tau$ and $m$.* ]{}\n\nWe introduce some lemmas in Section \\[DisHodg\\] on the discrete Hodge decomposition, with emphasis on the uniform regularity of the discrete harmonic functions in curved polyhedra. A discrete Sobolev embedding inequality for functions in the N\u00e9d\u00e9lec element space is proved in Section \\[SobNed\\]. With these mathematical tools, we present estimates and prove compactness/convergence of the finite element solution in Section \\[CompFES\\].\n\nDiscrete Hodge decomposition and harmonic vector fields {#DisHodg}\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nIt is well known that the following Hodge decompositions holds (for example, see [@AFW decomposition (2.18)]) [^5] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Hodge_D_L2}\n&{\\bf L}^2={\\bf C}(\\Omega)^\\perp\\oplus \n{\\bf G}(\\Omega)\\oplus \n{\\bf X}(\\Omega) , \\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n&{\\bf C}(\\Omega):=\\{{\\bf u}\\in {\\bf H}({\\rm curl}): \\nabla\\times{\\bf u} =0\\}, \\\\\n&{\\bf C}(\\Omega)^\\perp=\\{\\nabla\\times{\\bf u}: {\\bf u}\\in {\\bf H}({\\rm curl}),\\,\\,{\\bf u}\\times{\\bf n}=0\\} ,\\\\\n&{\\bf G}(\\Omega):=\\{\\nabla\\omega: \\omega\\in H^1\\} , \\\\\n&{\\bf X}(\\Omega):=\\{{\\bf w}\\in {\\bf H}({\\rm curl})\\cap{\\bf H}({\\rm div}):\\,\n\\nabla\\times{\\bf w}=0, \\,\\,\n\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf w}=0 ,\\,\\, {\\bf w}\\cdot{\\bf n}=0\\,\\,\\,\\mbox{on}\n\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega\\}  ,\\end{aligned}$$ ${\\bf C}(\\Omega)^\\perp$ denotes the orthogonal complement of ${\\bf C}(\\Omega)$ in ${\\bf L}^2$, and ${\\bf X}(\\Omega)$ is the space of harmonic vector fields.\n\nThe second type of space of harmonic vector fields is defined by [^6] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\widetilde {\\bf X}(\\Omega):=\\{{\\bf w}\\in {\\bf H}({\\rm curl})\\cap{\\bf H}({\\rm div}): \\nabla\\times{\\bf w}=0,\\,\\,\n\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf w}=0\n\\,\\,\\mbox{and}\\,\\, {\\bf w}\\times {\\bf n}=0\n\\,\\,\n\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega\\} ,\\end{aligned}$$ and we denote $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Def_Space_Y}\n\\widetilde {\\bf Y}(\\Omega):=\\{{\\bf w}\\in {\\bf H}({\\rm curl})\\cap{\\bf H}({\\rm div})\\cap \n\\widetilde {\\bf X}(\\Omega)^\\perp: {\\bf w}\\times {\\bf n}=0\\,\\,\n\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega \\} .\\end{aligned}$$ As a result of , any vector field ${\\bf v}\\in {\\bf L}^2$ has the Hodge decomposition (also see [@KY09 Appendix]) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{HodgeDM}\n{\\bf v} =\n\\nabla\\times {\\bf u} +\\nabla \\omega \n+\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_j{\\bf w}_j ,\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\bf u}\\in \\widetilde {\\bf Y}(\\Omega)$ is the solution of the problem [^7] [^8] $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\nabla\\times(\\nabla\\times {\\bf u})=\n\\nabla\\times {\\bf v} &&\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega,  \\label{PDE_hodge_u1}\\\\\n&\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf u}=0 &&\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega,\\\\\n&{\\bf u}\\times {\\bf n}=0\n&&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega ,  \\label{PDE_hodge_u3}\\end{aligned}$$ $\\omega$ is the solution of $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Eqomega}\n&\\Delta \\omega=\\nabla\\cdot {\\bf v}\n&&\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega,  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\nabla \\omega\\cdot{\\bf n}={\\bf v}\\cdot{\\bf n}\n&&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\, \\partial\\Omega,\\end{aligned}$$ and ${\\bf w}_j=\\nabla\\varphi_j$, $j=1,2,\\cdots,\\frak M$, form a basis for ${\\bf X}(\\Omega)$ with $\\varphi_j$ being the solution of $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{DHarmF}\n&\\Delta\\varphi_j=0 &&\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega\\backslash\\Sigma, {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\nabla \\varphi_j\\cdot{\\bf n}=0\n&&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\, \\partial\\Omega,  \\\\\n&[\\nabla \\varphi_j\\cdot{\\bf n}]=0\n\\quad\\mbox{and}\\quad [\\varphi_j]=\\delta_{ij}\n&&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\, \\Sigma_i ,\\quad i=1,2,\\cdots,\\frak M,  {\\nonumber}\\end{aligned}$$ ($\\delta_{ij}$ denotes the Kronecker symbol). The coefficients $\\alpha_j$, $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, are given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{DefAlphaj}\n\\alpha_j=({\\bf v},{\\bf w}_j)/\\|{\\bf w}_j\\|_{L^2}^2 . \\end{aligned}$$\n\nAlthough $\\varphi_j$ is only defined on $\\Omega\\backslash\\Sigma$, the gradient $\\nabla\\varphi_j$ has a natural extension to be a vector field in ${\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div})$ due to the interface conditions.\n\nTo study the regularity of ${\\bf w}_j$, we cite the following lemma on the regularity of the Poisson equation in a polyhedral domain. This result can be obtained by substituting fractional $k$ in Corollary 3.9 of [@Dauge] (also see page 30 of [@Dauge08] and (23.3) of [@Dauge88]).\n\n\\[RegPoiss\\] [*For any given curved polyhedron $\\Omega$, there exists a positive constant $\\delta_*>0$ such that the solution of the Poisson equation $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n-\\Delta \\varphi=f\n&\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega, \\\\\n\\nabla\\varphi\\cdot{\\bf n}=0\n&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega,\n\\end{array}\\right.  \\end{aligned}$$ with the normalization condition $\\int_\\Omega\\varphi\\d x=0$, satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\varphi\\|_{H^{3/2+\\alpha}(\\Omega)} \n\\leq C\\|f\\|_{H^{-1/2+\\alpha}(\\Omega)}  \n\\qquad\\mbox{for any $\\alpha\\in(0,\\delta_*]$} .\\end{aligned}$$* ]{}\n\nAs a consequence of Lemma \\[RegPoiss\\], we have the following result on the regularity of ${\\bf w}_j$, (which is also a consequence of Proposition 3.7 of [@ABDG], but for self-containedness we include a short proof here).\n\n\\[RegHarV\\] [ *For any given curved polyhedron $\\Omega$, there exists a positive constant $\\delta_*>0$ such that the harmonic vector fields ${\\bf w}_j$, $j=1,2,\\cdots,\\frak M$, are in ${\\bf H}^{1/2+\\delta_*}(\\Omega)$.* ]{}\n\n[*Proof of Lemma \\[RegHarV\\]*]{}.$\\,\\,\\,$ Let $\\Sigma_{j}'$ be a small perturbation of the surfaces $\\Sigma_{j}$ for each $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, such that $\\Sigma_j'\\cap\\Sigma_k=\\emptyset$ and $\\Omega\\backslash\\Sigma'$ is simply connected (where $\\Sigma'=\\cup_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\Sigma_j'$). Let $D_\\Sigma$ and $D_\\Sigma'$ be small neighborhoods of $\\Sigma$ and $\\Sigma'$, respectively, such that $\\overline D_\\Sigma\\cap\\overline D_\\Sigma'=\\emptyset$.\n\nBy using Lemma \\[RegPoiss\\] it is easy to show that the solution of satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\varphi_j\\in H^{3/2+\\delta_*}(\\Omega\\backslash\\overline D_\\Sigma) ,\n\\quad j=1,2,\\cdots,\\frak M ,\\end{aligned}$$ which implies that ${\\bf w}_j=\\nabla\\varphi_j$, $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, are $H^{1/2+\\delta_*}$ in the subdomain $\\Omega\\backslash\\overline D_\\Sigma$. Similarly, if we define $\\varphi_j'$ as the solution of with $\\Sigma_i$ replaced by $\\Sigma_i'$, then ${\\bf w}_j':=\\nabla\\varphi_j'$, $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, also form a basis of ${\\bf X}(\\Omega)$, and they are $H^{1/2+\\delta_*}$ in the subdomain $\\Omega\\backslash\\overline D_\\Sigma'$. Since ${\\bf w}_j$ can be expressed as linear combinations of ${\\bf w}_j'$, it follows that ${\\bf w}_j$ is $H^{1/2+\\delta_*}$ in the subdomain $\\Omega\\backslash \\overline{D_\\Sigma'}\\supset\\overline D_\\Sigma$. Therefore, ${\\bf w}_j$ is $H^{1/2+\\delta_*}$ in the whole domain $\\Omega$.\n\n[ *We define the following finite element subspaces of ${\\mathbb N}_h^k\\subset {\\bf H}({\\rm curl})$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&{\\bf C}_h(\\Omega):=\\{\n{\\bf v}_h\\in {\\mathbb N}_h^k:\\,\n\\nabla\\times{\\bf v}_h=0 \\} , \\\\\n&\n{\\bf G}_h(\\Omega):=\\{\n\\nabla\\chi_h:\\,\n\\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}\\} , \\\\\n&{\\bf X}_h(\\Omega):=\\{\n{\\bf v}_h\\in {\\mathbb N}_h^k:\\,\n\\nabla\\times {\\bf v}_h=0,\\,\\,\n({\\bf v}_h,\\nabla\\chi_h)=0,\\,\\,\n\\forall\\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}\\}\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\bf X}_h(\\Omega)$ is often referred to as the space of discrete harmonic vector fields.* ]{}\n\nWith the notations above, we have the discrete Hodge decomposition (page 72 of [@AFW]): $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{DHodgeD}\n{\\mathbb N}_h^k={\\bf C}_h(\\Omega)^\\perp\n\\oplus{\\bf G}_h(\\Omega)\\oplus {\\bf X}_h(\\Omega)  .\\end{aligned}$$ The following lemma is concerned with the regularity of the discrete harmonic vector fields.\n\n\\[RegDHarV\\] [*For any given curved polyhedron $\\Omega$, there exists a positive constant $h_0$ such that when $h<h_0$ the space ${\\bf X}_h(\\Omega)$ has an orthogonal basis $\\{{\\bf w}_{j,h}$: $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M\\}$ which satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\|{\\bf w}_{j,h}\\|_{L^{3+\\delta}}\\leq C \n\\qquad\\mbox{and}\\qquad\n\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\|{\\bf w}_{j,h}-{\\bf w}_j\\|_{L^{3+\\delta}}\n\\rightarrow 0 \\quad\\mbox{as}\\,\\,\\, h\\rightarrow 0  , \\end{aligned}$$ for any $0<\\delta<3\\delta_*/(1-\\delta_*)$, where $\\delta_*$ is given by Lemma \\[RegHarV\\].* ]{}\n\n[*Proof of Lemma \\[RegDHarV\\]*]{}.$\\,\\,\\,$ If ${\\bf v}_h\\in {\\bf X}_h(\\Omega)$, then $\\nabla\\times {\\bf v}_h=0$ and so the Hodge decomposition implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\bf v}_h =\n\\nabla \\omega \n+\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_j{\\bf w}_j .\\end{aligned}$$ Using the commuting property of the smoothed projection operator (Lemma \\[SmoothPr\\]) we derive $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{DPvh}\n{\\bf v}_h \n&= \\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N}\\nabla \\omega \n+\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_j\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j \n= \\nabla \\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\omega \n+\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_j\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j \n=: \\nabla \\omega_h \n+\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_j\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j ,\\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $\\omega_h:=\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\omega$ to simplify the notation. Since any ${\\bf v}_h\\in {\\bf X}_h(\\Omega)$ satisfies $({\\bf v}_h,\\nabla\\chi_h)=0$ for all $\\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$, it follows that $$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla \\omega_h,\\nabla\\chi_h)\n=-\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_j\n(\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j,\\nabla\\chi_h)\n=\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_j\n({\\bf w}_j-\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j,\\nabla\\chi_h),\n\\quad\\forall\\, \\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1} .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIf we define $\\omega_{j,h}\\in{\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$ (with the normalization $\\int_\\Omega\\omega_{j,h}\\d x=0$) as the finite element solution of $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{omegajh}\n(\\nabla \\omega_{j,h},\\nabla\\chi_h)\n=({\\bf w}_j-\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j,\\nabla\\chi_h),\n\\quad\\forall\\, \\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1} ,\\end{aligned}$$ then we have $\n\\omega_{h}=\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\n\\alpha_j \\omega_{j,h}  \n+{\\rm const} .\n$ Substituting this into , we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\bf v}_h\n=\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_j(\\nabla \\omega_{j,h} \n+ \\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j) .\\end{aligned}$$ We see that any vector field in ${\\bf X}_h(\\Omega)$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\bf w}_{j,h}:=\\nabla\\omega_{j,h} \n+\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j ,\\quad\nj=1,\\cdots,\\frak M .\\end{aligned}$$ The vector fields ${\\bf w}_{j,h}$, $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, must form a basis for ${\\bf X}_h(\\Omega)$ if they are linearly independent. Indeed, by substituting $\\chi_h=\\omega_{j,h}$ into , we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\nabla \\omega_{j,h}\\|_{L^2}\\leq\nC\\|{\\bf w}_j-\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j\\|_{L^2}\n\\leq Ch^{1/2+\\delta_*}\\|{\\bf w}_j\\|_{H^{1/2+\\delta_*}} .\n$$ Using the inverse inequality, we see that for $\\delta<3\\delta_*/(1-\\delta_*)$ there holds $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\nabla \\omega_{j,h}\\|_{L^{3+\\delta}}\\leq\nCh^{-1/2-\\delta/(3+\\delta)}\n\\|\\nabla \\omega_{j,h}\\|_{L^2}\n\\leq Ch^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)} \\rightarrow 0\n\\quad\\mbox{as}\\,\\,\\, h\\rightarrow 0 .\\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \\[SmoothPr\\] and Lemma \\[RegHarV\\], we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|{\\bf w}_{j,h}-{\\bf w}_j\\|_{L^{3+\\delta}}\n&\\leq\n\\|\\nabla \\omega_{j,h}\\|_{L^{3+\\delta}}\n+\\|\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N} {\\bf w}_j-{\\bf w}_j\\|_{L^{3+\\delta}}\\\\\n&\\leq Ch^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)}\\|{\\bf w}_j\\|_{H^{1/2+\\delta_*}} \n \\rightarrow 0\\quad \\mbox{as}\\,\\,\\,h\\rightarrow 0,\n&& j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M. \\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\\bf w}_j$, $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, are linearly independent and ${\\bf w}_{j,h}$ converges to ${\\bf w}_{j}$, there exists a positive constant $h_0$ such that ${\\bf w}_{j,h}$, $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, are also linearly independent when $h<h_0$.\n\nA Gram\u2013Schmidt orthogonalization process gives an orthogonal basis which still converges to the basis of ${\\bf X}(\\Omega)$ in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}$. The proof of Lemma \\[RegDHarV\\] is complete.\n\nA discrete Sobolev embedding inequality for the N\u00e9d\u00e9lec element space {#SobNed}\n---------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\\[DisDiv\\][ *For any given ${\\bf a}_h\\in {\\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}$, the unique function $\\zeta_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$ satisfying $$(\\zeta_h, \\chi_h)=-({\\bf a}_h,\\nabla\\chi_h) ,\n\\quad\\forall\\, \\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1} ,$$ is called the discrete divergence of ${\\bf a}_h$, denoted by $\\zeta_h:=\\nabla_h^{\\mathbb N}\\cdot{\\bf a}_h$. The discrete analogue of the ${\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div})$ norm is defined as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|{\\bf a}_h\\|_{{\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div})}\n:=\\|{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^2}+\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^2} \n+\\|\\nabla_h^{\\mathbb N}\\cdot{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^2}  .\\end{aligned}$$* ]{}\n\n\\[SobolevD\\] [*For any given curved polyhedron $\\Omega$, there exist positive constants $h_0$, $\\delta$ and $C$ such that if the set of functions $\\{{\\bf a}_h\\in {\\mathbb N}_{h}^{k}:\\, h>0\\}$ is bounded in the norm $\\|\\cdot\\|_{{\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div})}$, then it is compact in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}$, and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{aaa1}\n\\|{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^{3+\\delta}}\n\\leq C\\|{\\bf a}_h\\|_{{\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div})} \n\\quad\\mbox{when}\\,\\,\\, h<h_0.\\end{aligned}$$* ]{}\n\n[*Proof of Lemma \\[SobolevD\\]*]{}.$\\,\\,\\,$ The discrete Hodge decomposition implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\bf a}_h =\n{\\bf c}_h + \\nabla\\theta_h \n+ \\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_{j,h}{\\bf w}_{j,h} ,\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\bf c}_h\\in {\\bf C}_h(\\Omega)^\\perp$, $\\theta_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}$ and ${\\bf w}_{j,h}$, $j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M$, are the basis functions of ${\\bf X}_h(\\Omega)$ given in Lemma \\[RegDHarV\\]. We shall prove that the three functions are all compact in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$. Firstly, consider the continuous Hodge decomposition of ${\\bf a}_h$ (see ) $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\bf a}_h =\n\\nabla\\times {\\bf u}^h +\\nabla \\omega^h \n+\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_j^h{\\bf w}_j ,\\end{aligned}$$ where ${\\bf u}^h\\in \\widetilde {\\bf Y}(\\Omega)$ is the solution of the PDE problem [^9] $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\nabla\\times(\\nabla\\times {\\bf u}^h)=\\nabla\\times{\\bf a}_h ,\n&&\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega, {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf u}^h=0 , &&\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega,  \\\\\n&{\\bf u}^h\\times{\\bf n}=0\n&&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega .  {\\nonumber}\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the vector field ${\\bf c}^h:=\\nabla\\times {\\bf u}^h\\in {\\bf C}(\\Omega)^\\perp$ is the divergence-free part of ${\\bf a}_h$, which satisfies ${\\bf c}^h\\cdot{\\bf n}=0$ [^10] and the basic energy inequality $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{ccc1}\n\\|{\\bf c}^h\\|_{{\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div})}\n\\leq C\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^2 } .\n$$ Since ${\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div})\\hookrightarrow\n{\\bf H}^{1/2+\\delta_*}(\\Omega)$ for some $\\delta_*>0$ [^11] and ${\\bf H}^{1/2+\\delta_*}(\\Omega)$ is compactly embeddded into ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$ for $\\delta<3\\delta_*/(1-\\delta_*)$, it follows that the set $\\{{\\bf c}^h:\\, h>0\\}$ is compact in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$.\n\nSince $$\\nabla\\times({\\bf c}^h-{\\bf c}_h)\n=\\nabla\\times {\\bf c}^h-\\nabla\\times {\\bf c}_h \n=\\nabla\\times {\\bf a}_h\n- \\nabla\\times{\\bf a}_h =0 ,$$ it follows from [@AFW Theorem 5.11 on page 74] that [^12] $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N}{\\bf c}^h-{\\bf c}_h\\|_{L^2}\n\\leq C\\|{\\bf c}^h\\|_{H^{1/2+\\delta_*}}h^{1/2+\\delta_*}\n\\leq C\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^2} h^{1/2+\\delta_*} ,\\end{aligned}$$ and by using the inverse inequality we further derive $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N}{\\bf c}^h-{\\bf c}_h\\|_{L^{3+\\delta}}\n&\\leq Ch^{-1/2-\\delta/(3+\\delta)}\\|\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N}{\\bf c}^h\n-{\\bf c}_h\\|_{L^2} \n\\leq C\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^2}\nh^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)} .\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)>0$ when $\\delta<3\\delta_*/(1-\\delta_*)$, by using Lemma \\[SmoothPr\\] we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{ccc2}\n\\|{\\bf c}^h-{\\bf c}_h\\|_{L^{3+\\delta} }\n&\\leq \\|\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N}{\\bf c}^h-{\\bf c}^h\\|_{L^{3+\\delta} }\n+\\|\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb N}{\\bf c}^h-{\\bf c}_h\\|_{L^{3+\\delta} }{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \nC\\|{\\bf c}^h\\|_{H^{1/2+\\delta_*}(\\Omega)}h^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)}\n+C\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^2 }\nh^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)}{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\n\\leq C\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^2 }\nh^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)} \\rightarrow 0\n\\qquad\\mbox{as}\\,\\,\\, h\\rightarrow 0 .\\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\{{\\bf c}^h:\\, h>0\\}$ is compact in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$ and $\\|{\\bf c}^h-{\\bf c}_h\\|_{L^{3+\\delta} }\\rightarrow 0$ as $h\\rightarrow 0$, it follows that $\\{{\\bf c}_h:\\, h>0\\}$ is also compact in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$.\n\nSecondly, we let $\\zeta_h=\\nabla_h^{\\mathbb N}\\cdot{\\bf a}_h$ in the sense of Definition \\[DisDiv\\]. Due to the orthogonality of ${\\bf c}_h$ and ${\\bf w}_{j,h}$ with $\\nabla\\chi_h$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla\\theta_h,\\nabla\\chi_h)\n=({\\bf a}_h,\\nabla \\chi_h) \n=-(\\zeta_h, \\chi_h) , \\quad\\forall\\,\\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1} .\\end{aligned}$$ Let $\\theta^h$ be the solution of the PDE problem $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\Delta\\theta^h=\\zeta_h &&\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega, {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\nabla\\theta^h\\cdot{\\bf n}=0 &&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\partial \\Omega  ,\\end{aligned}$$ which satisfies (using Lemma \\[RegPoiss\\]) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{ccc3}\n\\|\\theta^h\\|_{H^{3/2+\\delta_*}(\\Omega)} \n\\leq C\\|\\zeta_h\\|_{L^2 } \n\\quad\\mbox{for some $\\delta_*>0$} .\\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the set $\\{\\nabla\\theta^h:\\, h>0\\}$ is bounded in ${\\bf H}^{1/2+\\delta_*}(\\Omega)$, which is compactly embedded into ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$ for $\\delta< 3\\delta_*/(1-\\delta_*)$. Moreover, according to the definition of $\\theta^h$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n(\\nabla(\\theta^h-\\theta_h),\\nabla\\chi_h)\n=0, \\quad\\forall\\,\\chi_h\\in {\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1}  .\\end{aligned}$$ By substituting $\\chi_h=\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\theta^h-\\theta_h$ into the last equation, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\nabla(\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\theta^h-\\theta_h)\\|_{L^2 }\n\\leq C\\|\\theta^h\\|_{H^{3/2+\\delta_*}(\\Omega)}h^{1/2+\\delta_*}\n\\leq C\\|\\zeta_h\\|_{L^2 }h^{1/2+\\delta_*} .\\end{aligned}$$ Again, by using the inverse inequality we derive $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\nabla(\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\theta^h-\\theta_h)\\|_{L^{3+\\delta} }\n&\\leq Ch^{-1/2-\\delta/(3+\\delta)}\n\\|\\nabla(\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\theta^h-\\theta_h)\n\\|_{L^2 } \n\\leq C\\|\\zeta_h\\|_{L^2 }h^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)} . \\end{aligned}$$ In view of Lemma \\[SmoothPr\\], we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{ccc4}\n\\|\\nabla\\theta^h-\\nabla\\theta_h\\|_{L^{3+\\delta} }\n&\\leq \\|\\nabla(\\theta^h-\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\theta^h)\\|_{L^{3+\\delta} }\n+\\|\\nabla(\\widetilde\\Pi_h^{\\mathbb V}\\theta^h-\\theta_h)\\|_{L^{3+\\delta} } {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq C\\|\\theta^h\\|_{H^{3/2+\\delta_*}(\\Omega)}\nh^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)}\n+C\\|\\zeta_h\\|_{L^2 }h^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)}{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\n\\leq C\\|\\zeta_h\\|_{L^2 }h^{\\delta_*-\\delta/(3+\\delta)} \n\\rightarrow 0\\quad\\mbox{as}\\,\\,\\, h\\rightarrow 0 .\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set of functions $\\{\\nabla\\theta_h:\\, h>0\\}$ is compact in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$.\n\nFinally, we note that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Alphaj2}\n|\\alpha_{j,h}|=|({\\bf a}_h,{\\bf w}_{j,h})|/\\|{\\bf w}_{j,h}\\|_{L^2}^2\n\\leq C\\|{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^2} \n\\leq C\\|{\\bf a}_h\\|_{{\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div})} ,\n\\quad j=1,\\cdots,\\frak M. \\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the set of numbers $\\{\\alpha_{j,h}:\\, h>0\\}$, are compact. Since ${\\bf w}_{j,h}$ converges to ${\\bf w}_j$ in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$ (see Lemma \\[RegDHarV\\]), it follows that $\\big\\{\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_{j,h}{\\bf w}_{j,h}:\\, h>0\\big\\}$ is compact in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$.\n\nOverall, we have proved that ${\\bf c}_h$, $\\nabla\\theta_h$ and $\\sum_{j=1}^{\\frak M}\\alpha_{j,h}{\\bf w}_{j,h}$ are all compact in ${\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}(\\Omega)$. The inequalities and - imply . The proof of Lemma \\[SobolevD\\] is complete.\n\nIf the domain $\\Omega$ is smooth or convex, then a similar proof yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{aaa-2}\n\\|{\\bf a}_h\\|_{L^{6}}\n\\leq C\\|{\\bf a}_h\\|_{{\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div})} .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nUniform estimates of the finite element solution {#SecUnif}\n------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection we prove the following lemma.\n\n\\[UniFEst\\] [*There exist positive constants $\\tau_0\\in(0,\\eta/2)$, $q>3$ and $C$ such that when $\\tau<\\tau_0$ the finite element solution satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{LUniFEst}\n&\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq N-1}\n\\big(\\|\\psi^{n+1}_h\\|_{H^1}+\\|{\\bf A}^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^q} \n+\\|\\phi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}+\n\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}\\big)  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&+\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau \\big(\\|D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}^2 \n+\\|D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}^2 \\big) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&+\\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\\tau \\big(\\|\\psi_{h}^{n+1}\\|_{W^{1,q}}^2\n+\\|\\phi_{h}^{n+1}\\|_{H^1}^2\n+\\|D_\\tau\\phi_{h}^{n+1}\\|_{(H^1)'}^2 \\big)\n\\leq C .  \\end{aligned}$$* ]{}\n\n[*Proof of Lemma \\[UniFEst\\]*]{}.$\\quad$ We shall prove the following inequality by mathematical induction: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{MathInd}\n\\|\\psi_h^n\\|_{L^\\infty}\\leq \\tau^{-1/2} .\\end{aligned}$$ Since $|\\psi_h^0|\\leq 1$, it follows that holds for $n=0$ when $\\tau<1$. In the following, we assume that the inequality holds for $0\\leq n\\leq m\\leq N-1$ and prove that it also holds for $n=m+1$. The generic constant $C$ of this subsection will be independent of $h$, $\\tau$ and $m$.\n\nUnder the induction assumption above, from we see that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq m}{\\cal G}_h^{n+1} \n+\\sum_{n=0}^m\\tau \\int_\\Omega \n\\bigg(\\frac{\\eta-\\tau}{2} |D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}|^2\n+\\frac{1}{2}|D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}|^2 \\bigg) \\d x\n\\leq C ,\n$$ which implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{FreeEngUni}\n&\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq m}\n\\bigg(\\bigg\\|\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h \n+ \\mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h\\psi^{n+1}_h\\bigg\\|_{L^2}\n+\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^4} \\bigg) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\n+\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq m}\n\\bigg(\\|\\phi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}+\n\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}\n+\\|{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}\\bigg){\\nonumber}\\\\\n&+\\sum_{n=0}^m\\tau \\big(\\|D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}^2 \n+\\|D_\\tau{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}^2\\big)\n\\leq C . \n$$ We assume $0\\leq n\\leq m$ below if there is no explicit mention of the range of $n$, and let $\\ell^p_{m}(W^{l,q})$ denote the space of sequences $(v_n)_{n=0}^m$, with $v_n\\in W^{l,q}$, equipped with the following norm: $$\\|(v_{n})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^p(W^{l,q})}\n:=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\displaystyle\\bigg( \\sum_{n=0}^m\\tau \n\\|v_{n}\\|_{W^{l,q}}^p\\bigg)^{\\frac{1}{p}} \n&\\quad\\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\, 1\\leq p<\\infty \n\\,\\,\\,\\mbox{and}\\,\\,\\, 1\\leq q\\leq \\infty ,\\\\[15pt]\n\\displaystyle\n\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq m}\\|v_{n}\\|_{W^{l,q}}\n&\\quad\\mbox{if}\\,\\,\\,  p=\\infty \\,\\,\\,\\mbox{and}\\,\\,\\, 1\\leq q\\leq \\infty .\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$\n\nIn view of , Lemma \\[SobolevD\\] implies the existence of $q>3$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{AhLinftLq} \n\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq m}\\|{\\bf A}^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^q}\n&\\leq C\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq m} (\\|\\phi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}\n+\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^2} \n+\\|{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2} ) \n \\leq C .\\end{aligned}$$ Let $\\bar q<6$ be the number satisfying $1/q+1/\\bar q=1/2$. By using H\u00f6lder\u2019s inequality we derive $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|{\\bf A}^{n+1}_h\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2} \n&\\leq C \\|{\\bf A}^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^q}\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^{\\bar q}} \n\\leq C\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^{\\bar q}} \n\\leq \\epsilon\\|\\nabla\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2} \n+C_\\epsilon\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2} ,\\end{aligned}$$ where we have also used the interpolation inequality $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^{\\bar q}} \n&\\leq C\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}^{3/\\bar q-1/2}\n\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{H^1}^{3/2-3/\\bar q}\n\\leq \\epsilon\\|\\nabla\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2} \n+C_\\epsilon\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2} ,\n\\quad\n\\forall\\, \\epsilon\\in(0,1) .\\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\nabla\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}\n&\\leq \\bigg\\|\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h \n+ \\mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h\\psi^{n+1}_h\\bigg\\|_{L^2}\n+\\|{\\bf A}^{n+1}_h\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \n\\bigg\\|\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h \n+ \\mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h\\psi^{n+1}_h\\bigg\\|_{L^2}\n+ \\epsilon\\|\\nabla\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2} \n+C_\\epsilon\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2} ,\\end{aligned}$$ which further reduces to (by choosing $\\epsilon=1/2$) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{psihLinfH1}\n\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq m}\\|\\nabla\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}\n&\\leq \nC\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq m}\\bigg\\|\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h \n+ \\mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h\\psi^{n+1}_h\\bigg\\|_{L^2}\n+C\\max_{0\\leq n\\leq m}\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}^2 \\leq C .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTo estimate $\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^\\infty}$, we need the following lemma.\n\n\\[LemmW1qD\\] [*There exists a positive constant $q_0\\in(3,4]$ such that for $3<q<q_0$ the finite element solution $\\psi_h^{n+1}\\in {\\mathbb S}_h^r$, $n=0,1,\\cdots,m$, of the equation $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{EQDPSI}\n\\eta D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}\n-\\frac{1}{\\kappa^2}\\Delta_h\\psi_h^{n+1}\n=f_h^{n+1}\\end{aligned}$$ satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{LemW1qD}\n\\|(\\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q+\\delta_q})}\\leq \nC\\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}\n+C\\|\\psi_h^0\\|_{H^1}\n\\quad\\mbox{\nfor some $\\delta_q>0$. }\\end{aligned}$$* ]{}\n\n[*Proof of Lemma \\[LemmW1qD\\]*]{}.$\\quad$ Let $\\theta^{n+1}$ be the solution of the PDE problem $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{EQDPSI2}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\displaystyle\n\\eta D_\\tau\\theta^{n+1}-\\frac{1}{\\kappa^2}\\Delta\\theta^{n+1}\n=f_h^{n+1} &\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega,\\\\[10pt]\n\\nabla\\theta^{n+1}\\cdot{\\bf n}=0 \n&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega ,\\\\[5pt]\n\\theta^0=\\psi_h^0 .\n\\end{array}\\right. \\end{aligned}$$ The function $\\theta^{n+1}$ can further be decomposed as $\\theta^{n+1}=\\widehat\\theta^{n+1}\n+\\widetilde\\theta^{n+1}$, which are solutions of $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\displaystyle\n\\eta D_\\tau\\widehat\\theta^{n+1}-\\frac{1}{\\kappa^2}\\Delta\\widehat\\theta^{n+1}\n=f_h^{n+1} &\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega,\\\\[10pt]\n\\nabla\\widehat\\theta^{n+1}\\cdot{\\bf n}=0 \n&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega ,\\\\[5pt]\n\\widehat\\theta^0=0 .\n\\end{array}\\right. \n\\quad\\mbox{and}\\quad \n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\displaystyle\n\\eta D_\\tau\\widetilde\\theta^{n+1}-\\frac{1}{\\kappa^2}\\Delta\\widetilde\\theta^{n+1}\n=0 &\\mbox{in}\\,\\,\\,\\Omega,\\\\[10pt]\n\\nabla\\widetilde\\theta^{n+1}\\cdot{\\bf n}=0 \n&\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega ,\\\\[5pt]\n\\widetilde\\theta^0=\\psi_h^0 ,\n\\end{array}\\right. \\end{aligned}$$ respectively. The solution $\\widehat\\theta^{n+1}$ satisfies (see Lemma \\[DMPR\\]) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|(D_\\tau\\widehat\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}\n+\\|(\\Delta\\widehat\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \\leq \nC\\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} ,\n\\quad \\forall\\, 2<q<\\infty, \\end{aligned}$$ and $\\widetilde\\theta^{n+1}$ satisfies the standard energy estimate $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|(D_\\tau\\widetilde\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^2)}\n+\\|(\\Delta\\widetilde\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^2)} \\leq \nC\\|\\widetilde\\theta^0\\|_{H^1} .\\end{aligned}$$ In view of the last two inequalities, for any $2<q\\leq 4$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{thL2Lq2}\n\\|(D_\\tau\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}\n+\\|(\\Delta\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \\leq \nC\\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \n+C\\|\\psi_h^0\\|_{H^1} .\\end{aligned}$$ If we define $\\overline\\theta^{n+1}:=\n\\frac{1}{|\\Omega|}\\int_\\Omega\\theta^{n+1}\\d x$ as the average of $\\theta^{n+1}$ over $\\Omega$, then Lemma \\[RegPoiss\\] implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|(\\theta^{n+1}-\\overline\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m \\|_{\\ell^2(H^{3/2+\\alpha})}  \n\\leq  \nC\\|(\\Delta\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^{-1/2+\\alpha}) } \\end{aligned}$$ for any $0<\\alpha<\\min(\\delta_*,\\frac{1}{2})$. The last inequality implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{thL2Lq3}\n\\|(\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^{3/2+\\alpha})}  \n\\leq  \nC\\|(\\Delta\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^{-1/2+\\alpha}) } \n+C\\|(\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^1)}  .\\end{aligned}$$ For any $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Defalpha}\n3<q=6/(2-\\alpha)<\\min(6/(2-\\delta_*),4)   ,\\end{aligned}$$ the Sobolev embedding $L^{q/2}\\hookrightarrow H^{-1/2+\\alpha}$ and - imply $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|(\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^{3/2+\\alpha})}  \n&\\leq C\\|(\\Delta\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^{-1/2+\\alpha}) }\n+C\\|(\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^1)}  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \nC\\|(\\Delta\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}\n+C\\|(D_\\tau\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^1)}\n+C\\|\\theta^0\\|_{L^1} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \nC\\|(\\Delta\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}\n+C\\|(D_\\tau\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}\n+C\\|\\theta^0\\|_{L^2} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \nC\\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \n+C\\|\\psi_h^0\\|_{H^1}  .\\end{aligned}$$ Again, the Sobolev embedding theorem implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{thetaW1qa}\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\|(\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,3/(1-\\alpha)})}  \n&\\leq C\\|(\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^{3/2+\\alpha})}  \\\\\n&\\leq \nC\\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \n+C\\|\\psi_h^0\\|_{H^1} .\n\\end{aligned}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nComparing and , we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\big(\\eta D_\\tau(\\theta^{n+1}-\\psi_h^{n+1}),\n\\varphi_h\\big) \n+\\frac{1}{\\kappa^2}\\big(\\nabla(\\theta^{n+1}-\\psi_h^{n+1}),\n\\nabla\\varphi_h\\big) \n=0 ,\\quad\\forall\\,\\varphi_h\\in {\\mathbb S}_h^r ,\\end{aligned}$$ which indicates that $\\psi^{n+1}_h$ is the finite element approximation of $\\theta^{n+1}$. The standard energy error estimate gives $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\|(P_h\\theta^{n+1}-\\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^\\infty(L^2)}\n+\\|(P_h\\theta^{n+1}-\\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^1)}  \\\\\n&\\leq C\\|(P_h\\theta^{n+1}-\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^1)}  \\\\\n&\n\\leq C\\|(\\theta^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^{3/2+\\alpha})}h^{1/2+\\alpha} \\\\\n&\\leq C(\\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \n+\\|\\psi_h^0\\|_{H^1})h^{1/2+\\alpha} ,\\end{aligned}$$ and by using the inverse inequality we derive $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{thetahW1qa}\n\\begin{aligned}\n\\|(P_h\\theta^{n+1}-\\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,3/(1-\\alpha)})} \n&\\le Ch^{-1/2-\\alpha}\\|(P_h\\theta^{n+1}-\\psi_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^1)} \\\\ \n&\\le C(\\|(f_h^{n+1})_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \n+\\|\\psi_h^0\\|_{H^1}) .\n\\end{aligned}\\end{aligned}$$ From we know that $3/(1-\\alpha)=q/(2-q/3)=q+\\delta_q$ for some $\\delta_q>0$. Since the $L^2$ projection operator $P_h$ is bounded on $W^{1,q+\\delta_q}$, the inequalities and imply .\n\nThe proof of Lemma \\[LemmW1qD\\] is complete.\n\nWe rewrite as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{ReWrEq}\n\\eta D_\\tau\\psi_h^{n+1}\n-\\frac{1}{\\kappa^2}\\Delta_h\\psi^{n+1}_h\n+\\frac{i}{\\kappa}P_h\\big(\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h\\cdot{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\big)\n+\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla_h\\cdot\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\big)  &\n  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n+P_h\\Big( |\\mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h|^2\\psi^{n+1}_h + \n(|\\psi^{n+1}_h|^{2}-1) \\psi^{n+1}_h \n+i\\eta\\kappa \\Theta(\\psi_h^{n})\\phi_h^n\\Big) &= 0 ,\\end{aligned}$$ where the discretes operators $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\Delta_h:{\\mathbb S}_h^r\\rightarrow {\\mathbb S}_h^r, \\\\\n&\\nabla_h\\cdot:{\\cal L}^2\\times {\\cal L}^2\n\\times {\\cal L}^2\\rightarrow {\\mathbb S}_h^r,\\\\\n&P_h:{\\cal L}^2\\rightarrow {\\mathbb S}_h^r\\end{aligned}$$ are defined via duality by $$\\begin{aligned}\n&(\\Delta_hu_h,v_h)=-(\\nabla u_h,\\nabla v_h) , &&\n\\forall\\, u_h,v_h\\in {\\mathbb S}_h^r ,\\\\\n&(\\nabla_h\\cdot {\\bf u},v_h)=-({\\bf u}_h,\\nabla v_h) , &&\n\\forall\\, {\\bf u}\\in {\\cal L}^2\\times {\\cal L}^2\\times {\\cal L}^2,\n\\,\\, v_h\\in {\\mathbb S}_h^r ,\\\\\n&(P_hu,v_h)=(u,v_h) , &&\n\\forall\\, u\\in {\\cal L}^2,\\,\\, v_h\\in {\\mathbb S}_h^r .\\end{aligned}$$ By applying Lemma \\[LemmW1qD\\] to , using H\u00f6lder\u2019s inequality and -, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{psihn1a}\n&\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q+\\delta_q})} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq C\\|\\psi^{0}_h\\|_{H^1}+\nC\\big\\|\\big(\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h\\cdot{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\big)_{n=0}^m \\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+C\\big\\|\\big(\\nabla_h\\cdot(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1})\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad\n+C\\big\\|\\big(|\\mathbf{A}^{n+1}_h|^2\\psi^{n+1}_h + \n(|\\psi^{n+1}_h|^{2}-1) \\psi^{n+1}_h \n-i\\eta\\kappa \\Theta(\\psi_h^{n})\\phi^n \\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq C+C\\big\\|\\big(\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q})}\n\\big\\|\\big({\\bf A}_h^{n+1} \\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^\\infty(L^q)} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+C\\big\\|\\big(\\nabla_h\\cdot(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1})\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+C\\big\\|\\big({\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\big)_{n=0}^m \\big\\|_{\\ell^\\infty(L^q)}^2\n\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^\\infty)} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad  \n+C\\big(\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^{6}(L^{3q/2})}^3\n\\!+\\!\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}   \n\\!+\\!\\big\\|\\big(\\phi_h^n\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \\big) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq C+C\\big(\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q})} \n+\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^\\infty)} \\big) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+C\\big\\|\\big(\\nabla_h\\cdot(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1})\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+C\\big(\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^6(L^{3q/2})}^3\n+\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})} \\big){\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq C+\\epsilon\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q+\\delta_q})}\n+C_\\epsilon\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(H^1)} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+C\\big\\|\\big(\\nabla_h\\cdot(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1})\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad \n +C\\big(\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^\\infty(H^1)}^3\n+\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^\\infty(H^1)} \\big){\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq C_\\epsilon\n+\\epsilon\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q+\\delta_q})}\n+C\\big\\|\\big(\\nabla_h\\cdot(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1})\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}  \\, ,   \\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the following interpolation inequality: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|(\\psi^{n+1}_h)_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(L^\\infty)}\n+\\|(\\psi^{n+1}_h)_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q})}\n&\\leq \\epsilon\\|(\\psi^{n+1}_h)_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q+\\delta_q})}\n+C_\\epsilon\\|(\\psi^{n+1}_h)_{n=0}^m\\|_{\\ell^2(H^1)} .\\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $\\|\\nabla_h\\cdot(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1})\\|_{L^{q/2}}$ on the right-hand side of , we let $q^*<6$ be the number satisfying $\n1/q^*+1/2=2/q \n$ and use a duality argument: for any $\\eta_h\\in{\\mathbb S}_h^r$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{CondrkN}\n&(\\nabla_h\\cdot(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1}),\\eta_h) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&=-(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1},\\nabla\\eta_h) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&=({\\bf A}_h^{n+1},\\eta_h\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h )\n-({\\bf A}_h^{n+1},\\nabla(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\eta_h) ) {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&=({\\bf A}_h^{n+1},\\eta_h\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h )\n-(\\phi_h^{n+1}, \\psi^{n+1}_h\\eta_h )\n\\qquad\\qquad\\qquad\\,\\, \\mbox{by using \\eqref{FEM3}\nand \\eqref{Condrk}} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq\\|{\\bf A}_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^q} \\|\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^q}\n\\|\\eta_h\\|_{L^{(q/2)'}} \n+\\|\\phi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}\\|\\psi^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^{q^*}}\n\\|\\eta_h\\|_{L^{(q/2)'}} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq C\\|\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^q}\n\\|\\eta_h\\|_{L^{(q/2)'}} \n+C\\|\\psi^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^{q^*}}\n\\|\\eta_h\\|_{L^{(q/2)'}} ,\n\\qquad\\qquad\\mbox{by using \\eqref{psihLinfH1}}\\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\nabla_h\\cdot(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1}) \\|_{L^{q/2}} \n&\\leq C(\\|\\nabla\\psi^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^q} + \\|\\psi^{n+1}_h\\|_{L^{q^*}})\\\\\n&\\leq C(\\|\\psi^{n+1}_h\\|_{W^{1,q}} + \\|\\psi^{n+1}_h\\|_{H^{1}}) ,\\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\big\\|\\big(\\nabla_h\\cdot(\\psi^{n+1}_h {\\bf A}_h^{n+1})\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^{q/2})}\n &\\leq \nC\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q})}\n+C\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(H^1)}\n {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \\epsilon\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q+\\delta_q})}\n+C_\\epsilon\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(H^1)} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \\epsilon\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q+\\delta_q})}\n+C_\\epsilon \\qquad \n\\mbox{by using \\eqref{psihLinfH1}} ,\\end{aligned}$$ which together with implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{DeltaPsi}\n\\big\\|\\big(\\psi^{n+1}_h\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q+\\delta_q})} \n\\leq C  .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFor any $1\\leq p\\leq\\infty$, the space $\\ell^p_{m}(W^{1,q})$ can be viewed as a subspace of $L^p(0,t_{m+1};W^{1,q})$ consisting of piecewise constant functions on each subinterval $(t_n,t_{n+1}]$. Since $$L^2(0,t_{m+1};W^{1,q})\\cap L^\\infty(0,t_{m+1};H^1)\n\\hookrightarrow L^{2/(1-\\theta)}(0,t_{m+1};W^{1,q_\\theta })\n\\quad\\mbox{for any $\\theta\\in(0,1)$},$$ with $\n\\frac{1}{q_\\theta}=\\frac{1-\\theta}{q}+\\frac{\\theta}{2} $ (see [@BL page 106] on the complex interpolation of vector-valued $L^p$ spaces), it follows that $\\ell_{m}^2(W^{1,q})\\cap \\ell_{m}^\\infty(H^1)\n\\hookrightarrow \\ell_{m}^{2/(1-\\theta)}(W^{1,q_\\theta })$. By choosing $\\theta$ to be sufficiently small we have $3<q_\\theta<q$ and so $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\big\\|\\big(\\psi_h^{n+1}\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^{2/(1-\\theta)}(L^{\\infty})}\n&\\leq\nC\\big\\|\\big(\\psi_h^{n+1}\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^{2/(1-\\theta)}(W^{1,q_\\theta})} \\\\\n&\\leq C\\big\\|\\big(\\psi_h^{n+1}\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q})} \n+C\\big\\|\\big(\\psi_h^{n+1}\\big)_{n=0}^m\\big\\|_{\\ell^\\infty(H^1)} \\\\\n&\\leq C .\\end{aligned}$$ In other words, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{n=0}^m\\tau\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^{\\infty}}^{2/(1-\\theta)} \n\\leq C_0\n\\quad\\implies\n\\quad\n\\|\\psi_h^{n+1}\\|_{L^{\\infty}}\n\\le (C_0^{(1-\\theta)/2}\\tau^{\\theta/2}) \\tau^{-1/2}\\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constant $C_0$ (which is independent of $m$). When $\\tau<\\tau_0:=C_0^{-(1-\\theta)/\\theta}$, we have $C_0^{(1-\\theta)/2}\\tau^{\\theta/2}<1$ and the last inequality implies for $n=m+1$. Hence, the mathematical induction on is completed under the condition $\\tau<\\tau_0$. As a consequence, - and hold for $m=N-1$.\n\nSubstituting ${\\bf a}_h=\\nabla\\phi_h^{n+1}$ in and using , we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\begin{aligned}\n(D_{\\tau}\\phi_{h}^{n+1},\\phi_{h}^{n+1}) \n+\\frac{1}{2}\\|\\nabla\\phi_{h}^{n+1}\\|_{L^2}^2\n&\\leq\nC\\biggl\\|{\\rm Re}\\bigg[\\overline\\psi_h^{n}\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf A}_h^{n}\\bigg) \\psi_h^{n}\\bigg]\\bigg\\|_{L^2}^2 \\\\\n&\\leq C\\|\\psi_h^{n}\\|_{L^6}^2 \n(\\|\\nabla \\psi_h^{n}\\|_{L^3}^2\n+\\|{\\bf A}_h^{n}\\|_{L^3}^2\\|\\psi_h^{n}\\|_{L^\\infty}^2) \\\\\n&\\leq C\\|\\psi_h^{n}\\|_{H^1}^2 \n(\\|\\psi_h^{n}\\|_{W^{1,3}}^2\n+C\\|\\psi_h^{n}\\|_{W^{1,q}}^2) \\\\\n&\\leq C\\|\\psi_h^{n}\\|_{H^1}^2 \\|\\psi_h^{n}\\|_{W^{1,q}}^2 .\n\\end{aligned}\\end{aligned}$$ Summing up the inequality above for $n=0, 1,\\dots,N-1$, and using with $m=N-1$, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{H1phi}\n\\|(\\nabla\\phi_{h}^{n+1})_{n=0}^{N-1}\\|_{\\ell^2(L^2)}^2\n&\\leq C\\|(\\psi_h^{n})_{n=0}^{N-1}\\|_{\\ell^\\infty(H^1)}^2 \n\\|(\\psi_h^{n})_{n=0}^{N-1}\\|_{\\ell^2(W^{1,q})}^2\n\\leq C .\\end{aligned}$$ Then substituting ${\\bf a}_h=\\nabla\\chi_h$ in , we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n&(D_{\\tau}\\phi_{h}^{n+1},\\chi_{h}) \n+(\\nabla\\phi_{h}^{n+1} \\, , \\nabla\\chi_{h} )\n+ {\\rm Re}\\bigg(\\overline\\psi_h^{n}\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf A}_h^{n}\\bigg) \\psi_h^{n} , \\nabla\\chi_{h}\\bigg) =0  \\, , \\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{H1phi2}\n\\begin{aligned}\n&\\big\\|\\big(D_\\tau\\phi_{h}^{n+1}\\big)_{n=0}^{N-1}\\big\\|_{\\ell^2((H^1)')}  \\\\\n&\\leq C\n\\bigg(\n\\big\\|\\big(\\nabla\\phi_h^{n+1}\\big)_{n=0}^{N-1}\\big\\|_{\\ell^2(L^2)}\n+\\biggl\\|\\bigg({\\rm Re}\\bigg[\\overline\\psi_h^{n}\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf A}_h^{n}\\bigg) \\psi_h^{n}\\bigg]\\bigg)_{n=0}^{N-1}\\bigg\\|_{\\ell^2(L^2)}  \\bigg)\n\\leq C . \n\\end{aligned} \\end{aligned}$$ via duality. The proof of Lemma \\[UniFEst\\] is complete.\n\nCompactness of the finite element solution {#CompFES}\n------------------------------------------\n\nFor $t\\in[t_n,t_{n+1}]$, $n=0,1,\\cdots,N-1$, we define $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\psi_{h,\\tau}(t)\n=\\frac{1}{\\tau}[(t_{n+1}-t)\\psi_h^n+(t-t_n)\\psi_h^{n+1}] ,\\\\\n&{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}(t)=\\frac{1}{\\tau}[(t_{n+1}-t){\\bf A}_h^n\n+(t-t_n){\\bf A}_h^{n+1}] ,\\\\\\\n&\\phi_{h,\\tau}(t)=\\frac{1}{\\tau}[(t_{n+1}-t)\n\\phi_h^n+(t-t_n)\\phi_h^{n+1}] .\n$$ In other words, $\\psi_{h,\\tau}$, ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}$ and ${\\bf B}_{h,\\tau}$ are the piecewise linear interpolation of the functions $\\psi_h^n$, ${\\bf A}_h^n$ and ${\\bf B}_h^n$ on the interval $[0,T]$, respectively. Then implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Epsi3} \n&\\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{H^1(0,T;L^2)}  \n+\\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;H^1)}  \n+ \\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{L^2(0,T;L^\\infty)}\n+ \\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{L^2(0,T;W^{1,q})}\n\\leq C ,\\\\\n&\\|{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}\\|_{H^1(0,T;L^2)}\n+\\|{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;L^q)}   \n+\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)}    \\leq  C ,\n\\label{Epsi3-2} \\\\\n&\\|\\phi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)}  \n+\\|\\phi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{L^2(0,T;H^1)}\n+\\|\\partial_t\\phi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{L^2(0,T;(H^1)')}  \\leq C .\n\\label{Epsi3-3}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe see that $\\psi_{h,\\tau}$ is bounded in $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\cal H}^1)\\cap H^{1}(0,T;{\\cal L}^2)\n\\hookrightarrow C^{\\theta/2}([0,T];{\\cal H}^{1-\\theta})$ for any $\\theta\\in(0,1)$. Since for any given $1<p<6$ there is a small $\\theta$ such that $C^{\\theta/2}([0,T];{\\cal H}^{1-\\theta})$ is compactly embedded into $C([0,T];{\\cal L}^p)$, implies compactness of $\\psi_{h,\\tau}$ in $C([0,T];{\\cal L}^p)$ for any $1<p<6$. Hence, for any sequence $(h_m,\\tau_m)\\rightarrow (0,0)$, the inequality implies the existence of a subsequence, also denoted by $(h_m,\\tau_m)$ for the simplicity of the notations, which satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\partial_t\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\partial_t\\Psi\n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;{\\cal L}^2)$}, \\label{Convpsi1}\\\\\n&\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\Psi \n&&\\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\cal H}^1)$ }, \\label{Convpsi1-2}\\\\\n&\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\Psi \n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;{\\cal W}^{1,q})$\nfor some $q>3$}, \\label{Convpsi2} \\\\ \n&\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\Psi \n&&\\mbox{strongly in $C([0,T];{\\cal L}^p)$\nfor any $1<p<6$} . \n\\label{Convpsi3}\\end{aligned}$$ for some function $\\Psi$.\n\nUsing the notation of Definition \\[DisDiv\\], we have $\\phi_{h,\\tau}=\\nabla_h^{\\mathbb N}\\cdot{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}$ and - imply that ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}$ is bounded in the norm of $$L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div}))\n\\cap H^1(0,T;{\\bf L}^2)\n\\hookrightarrow \nC^{\\theta/2}([0,T];{\\bf Y}_{1-\\theta}) ,\n\\quad\\forall\\,\\theta\\in(0,1) ,$$ where ${\\bf Y}_{1-\\theta}:=({\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div}),{\\bf L}^2)_{1-\\theta}$ is the real interpolation space between ${\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div})$ and ${\\bf L}^2$ (see [@BL]). Lemma \\[SobolevD\\] says that a set of functions which are bounded in the norm of ${\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div})$ is compact in ${\\bf L}^2$, which implies that a set of functions which are bounded in the norm of the interpolation space ${\\bf Y}_{1-\\theta}$ is also compact in ${\\bf L}^2$ (see Theorem 3.8.1, page 56 of [@BL]). Hence, $C^{\\theta/2}([0,T];{\\bf Y}_{1-\\theta})$ is compactly embedded into $C([0,T];{\\bf L}^2)$, and for any sequence ${\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}$ there exists a subsequence which converges to some function ${\\bf\\Lambda}$ strongly in $C([0,T];{\\bf L}^2)$. On the other hand, since ${\\bf H}_h({\\rm curl,div})\\hookrightarrow {\\bf L}^{q+\\delta}$ for some $q>3$ and $\\delta>0$, by choosing $\\theta$ small enough we have $C^{\\theta/2}([0,T];{\\bf Y}_{1-\\theta})\n\\hookrightarrow \nC([0,T];{\\bf L}^{q+\\delta/2})$. The boundedness of ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}$ in $C([0,T];{\\bf L}^{q+\\delta/2})$ implies the existence of a subsequence of ${\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}$ which converges weakly$^*$ to some function in $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^{q+\\delta/2})$. This weak limit must also be ${\\bf \\Lambda}$, and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}-{\\bf \\Lambda}\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^{q})}\n&\\leq \\|{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}-{\\bf \\Lambda}\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^2)}^{1-\\theta}\n\\|{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}-{\\bf \\Lambda}\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^{q+\\delta/2})}^\\theta {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq C\\|{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}-{\\bf \\Lambda}\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^2)}^{1-\\theta}\\end{aligned}$$ for some $\\theta>0$. In other words, ${\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\in C([0,T];{\\bf L}^{q})$ converges to ${\\bf\\Lambda}$ strongly in $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^q)$, which implies ${\\bf\\Lambda}\\in C([0,T];{\\bf L}^{q})$. To conclude, there exists a subsequence of $(h_m,\\tau_m)$, which is also denoted by $(h_m,\\tau_m)$ for the simplicity of the notations, such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\partial_t{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\partial_t{\\bf \\Lambda}\n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;{\\bf L}^2)$}, \\label{ConvA1}\\\\\n&\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\nabla\\times {\\bf\\Lambda}\n&&\\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^2)$}, \\label{ConvA3}\\\\ \n&{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow {\\bf \\Lambda}\n&&\\mbox{strongly in $C([0,T];{\\bf L}^q)$\nfor some $q>3$} , \n\\label{ConvA4}\\end{aligned}$$ for some function ${\\bf\\Lambda}$.\n\nSimilarly, implies the existence of a subsequence such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\Phi\n&&\\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)$}, \\label{ConvA2}\\\\ \n&\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\Phi\n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;H^1)$}, \\label{ConvA2-2}\\\\ \n&\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\Phi\n&&\\mbox{strongly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$} . \\label{ConvA2-2-2} \\end{aligned}$$ for some function $\\Phi$.\n\nFor any $\\chi\\in L^2(0,T;H^1)$ and finite element functions $\\chi_{h_m,\\tau_m}\\rightarrow \\chi$ in $L^2(0,T;H^1)$, equation implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T (\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m},\\chi) \\d t=\n\\int_0^T\\bigg[(\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m},\\chi-\\chi_{h_m,\\tau_m})\n+({\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m},\\nabla\\chi_{h_m,\\tau_m})\\bigg]\\d t\\end{aligned}$$ As $h_m,\\tau_m\\rightarrow 0$, the equation above tends to $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T(\\Phi,\\chi)\\d t=\n\\int_0^T({\\bf \\Lambda},\\nabla\\chi) \\d t ,\\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf \\Lambda}=-\\Phi\\in L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)\\cap \nL^2(0,T;H^1) .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNow we consider compactness of $\\psi_{h,\\tau}^\\pm$, ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^\\pm$ and $\\phi_{h,\\tau}^\\pm$ by utilizing the compactness of $\\psi_{h,\\tau}$, ${\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}$ and $\\phi_{h,\\tau}$. Since $\\psi_{h,\\tau}$ is bounded in $H^1(0,T;L^2)\\cap L^\\infty(0,T;H^1)\\hookrightarrow C^{(1-\\theta)/2}([0,T];L^{p_\\theta})$ for $$\\frac{1}{p_\\theta}=\\frac{1-\\theta}{2}+\\frac{\\theta}{6},\\qquad\n\\forall\\,\\theta\\in(0,1),$$ it follows that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}(t)-\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+(t)\\|_{L^{p_\\theta}}\n&=\\bigg\\|\\frac{t_{n+1}-t}{\\tau} \n(\\psi_{h,\\tau}(t_n)-\\psi_{h,\\tau}(t_{n+1}))\\bigg\\|_{L^{p_\\theta}}{\\nonumber}\\\\[5pt]\n&\\leq C\\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{C^{(1-\\theta)/2}([0,T];L^{p_\\theta})} \\tau^{(1-\\theta)/2}  \\end{aligned}$$ for $t\\in(t_n,t_{n+1})$, and so $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}-\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;L^{p_\\theta})}\n\\leq C\\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{C^{(1-\\theta)/2}([0,T];L^{p_\\theta})} \\tau^{(1-\\theta)/2}\n\\rightarrow 0\\quad\\mbox{as}\\,\\,\\, \\tau\\rightarrow 0 . \\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we also have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}-\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-\\|_{L^\\infty(0,T;L^{p_\\theta})}\n\\leq C\\|\\psi_{h,\\tau}\\|_{C^{\\alpha_p}([0,T];L^{p_\\theta})} \\tau^{(1-\\theta)/2}\n\\rightarrow 0\\quad\\mbox{as}\\,\\,\\, \\tau\\rightarrow 0 . \\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}$ converges strongly in $L^\\infty(0,T;L^{p_\\theta})$, it follows that both $\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^-$ and $\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+$ converge to the same function strongly in $L^\\infty(0,T;L^{p_\\theta})$. Hence, there exists a subsequence which satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^{\\pm}\\rightarrow \\Psi \n&&\\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\\infty(0,T;H^1)$ }, \\label{Convpsi1-3}\\\\ \n&\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^{\\pm}\\rightarrow \\Psi \n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;W^{1,q})$\nfor some $q>3$} , \\label{Convpsi3-3}\\\\\n&\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^{\\pm}\\rightarrow \\Psi \n&&\\mbox{strongly in $L^\\infty(0,T;L^p)$\nfor any $1<p<6$} \\label{Convpsi2-3} .\\end{aligned}$$ In a similar way one can prove $$\\begin{aligned}\n&{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}^{\\pm}\\rightarrow {\\bf \\Lambda}\n&&\\mbox{strongly in $L^\\infty(0,T;L^q)$\nfor some $q>3$} , \\label{ConvA4-3} \\\\\n&\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}^{\\pm}\\rightarrow\n\\nabla\\times{\\bf \\Lambda}\n&&\\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)$}, \\label{ConvA3-3}\\\\  \n&\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^{\\pm}\\rightarrow \\Phi=-\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A}\n&&\\mbox{weakly$^*$ in $L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)$}, \\label{ConvA2-3}\\\\ \n&\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^{\\pm}\\rightarrow \\Phi\n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;H^1)$} . \\label{ConvA2-3-3}\\\\\n&\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^{\\pm}\\rightarrow \\Phi\n&&\\mbox{strongly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$} . \\label{ConvA2-3-4}\\end{aligned}$$ From - and we see that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{ConvFhm}  \n&\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla\n+ {\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+\\bigg)\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+\\rightarrow \n\\overline\\Psi\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla + {\\bf\\Lambda}\\bigg)\\Psi  \n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$} ,\\\\\n&\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+\\bigg)\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+ \\rightarrow \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla + {\\bf\\Lambda}\\bigg)\\Psi\n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^3)$},\\\\\n&{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+\\cdot\n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+\\bigg)\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+ \\rightarrow \n{\\bf \\Lambda}\\cdot\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+ {\\bf\\Lambda} \\bigg)\\Psi \n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^{3/2})$} ,\\\\\n&\\Theta(\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^-)\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^- \n\\rightarrow \\Theta(\\Psi)\\Phi\n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$},\\\\\n&|\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+|^3 \n\\rightarrow |\\Psi|^3 \n&&\\mbox{weakly in $L^2(0,T;L^2)$} .\n\\label{WWWA}\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, from and we know that $\\Psi(\\cdot,0)=\\psi_0$ and ${\\bf \\Lambda}(\\cdot,0)={\\bf A}_0$.\n\nConvergence to the PDE\u2019s solution {#ConvgS}\n---------------------------------\n\nIt remains to prove $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Psi=\\psi,\\qquad\n{\\bf\\Lambda}={\\bf A}\\qquad\\mbox{and}\\qquad \n\\Phi=\\phi ,\\end{aligned}$$ so that - imply Theorem \\[MainTHM\\].\n\nFor any given $\\varphi\\in L^2(0,T;{\\cal H}^1)$, we choose finite element functions $\\varphi_{h,\\tau}\\in L^2(0,T;{\\mathbb S}_h^r)$ which converge to $\\varphi$ strongly in $L^2(0,T;{\\cal H}^1)$ as $h\\rightarrow 0$. Then implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[(\\eta \\partial_t\\psi_{h,\\tau}, \\varphi_{h,\\tau}) \n+ (i\\eta \\kappa\n\\Theta(\\psi_{h,\\tau}^-)\\phi_{h,\\tau}^- ,\\varphi_{h,\\tau})\\bigg]\\d t {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\n+\\int_0^T\\bigg[ \\bigg( \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+\\bigg)\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+ \\,, \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+\\bigg)\\varphi_{h,\\tau}\\bigg)  \n+((|\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+|^{2}-1)\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+,\\varphi_{h,\\tau})\\bigg]\\d t =0   . {\\nonumber}\\end{aligned}$$ Let $h=h_m\\rightarrow 0$ and $\\tau=\\tau_m\\rightarrow 0$ in the equation above and use and -. We obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{PDEPsiF}\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[(\\eta \\partial_t\\Psi, \\varphi)  \n+ (i\\eta \\kappa\\Theta(\\Psi)\\Phi,\\varphi) \n+ \\bigg( \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg)\\Psi \\,, \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg)\\varphi\\bigg)  \n\\bigg]\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\n+\\int_0^T((|\\Psi|^{2}-1)\\Psi,\\varphi) \\d t=0, \\end{aligned}$$ for any given $\\varphi\\in L^2(0,T;{\\cal H}^1)$. Now we prove $|\\Psi|\\leq 1$ by using the following lemma.\n\n\\[UnBDPsi\\] [*For any given ${\\bf \\Lambda}\\in \nL^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div}))$ and $\\Phi\\in L^\\infty(0,T;L^2)$, the nonlinear equation has a unique weak solution $\\Psi\\in L^2(0,T;{\\cal H}^1)\n\\cap H^1(0,T;({\\cal H}^1)')$ under the initial condition $\\Psi(\\cdot,0)=\\psi_0$. Moreover, the solution satisfies that $|\\Psi|\\leq 1$ a.e. in $\\Omega\\times(0,T)$.* ]{}\n\n[*Proof of Lemma \\[UnBDPsi\\]*]{}.$\\quad$ To prove uniqueness of the solution, let us suppose that there are two solutions $\\Psi,\\widetilde\\Psi\\in L^2(0,T;{\\cal H}^{1})\n\\cap H^1(0,T;({\\cal H}^1)')$ for the equation with the same initial condition. Then ${\\cal E}=\\Psi-\\widetilde\\Psi$ satisfies the equation $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T(\\eta \\partial_t{\\cal E}, \\varphi) \\d t\n+\\int_0^T (i\\eta \\kappa(\\Theta(\\Psi)-\\Theta(\\widetilde\\Psi))\\Phi,\\varphi) \n\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\n+ \\int_0^T\\bigg( \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg){\\cal E} \\,, \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg)\\varphi\\bigg)  \\d t\n+\\int_0^T(|\\Psi|^{2}\\Psi-|\\widetilde\\Psi|^{2}\\widetilde\\Psi,\\varphi) \n\\d t=\n\\int_0^T({\\cal E},\\varphi) \\d t\\end{aligned}$$ for any $\\varphi\\in L^2(0,T;{\\cal H}^1)$. Since $$\\begin{aligned}\n|\\Theta(\\Psi)-\\Theta(\\widetilde\\Psi)|\\leq |{\\cal E}|\n\\qquad\n\\mbox{and}\\qquad\n(|\\Psi|^{2}\\Psi-|\\widetilde\\Psi|^{2}\\widetilde\\Psi,\n\\Psi-\\widetilde\\Psi)\\geq 0 ,\\end{aligned}$$ by substituting $\\varphi(x,t)={\\cal E}(x,t)1_{[0,s]}(t)$ into the equation above, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{CalE1}\n&\\frac{\\eta}{2} \\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,s)\\|_{L^2}^2 \n+ \\int_0^s\\bigg\\|\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg){\\cal E}\\bigg\\|_{L^2}^2\\d t  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \n\\int_0^s\\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2\\d t\n+C\\|\\Phi\\|_{L^\\infty(0,s;L^2)}\\||{\\cal E}|^2\\|_{L^1(0,s;L^2)} {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \n\\int_0^s\\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2\\d t\n+C\\|{\\cal E}\\|_{L^2(0,s;L^4)}^2 {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\leq \nC_\\epsilon\\int_0^s\\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2\\d t\n+\\epsilon\\int_0^s\\|\\nabla {\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2 \\d t ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\epsilon\\in(0,1)$ is arbitrary.\n\nNote that ${\\bf\\Lambda}\\in L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div}))\n\\hookrightarrow L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf L}^q)$ for some $q>3$. If we let $\\bar q<6$ be the number satisfying $1/q+1/\\bar q=1/2$ and let $\\theta_q\\in(0,1)$ be the number satisfying $1/q=(1-\\theta_q)/2+\\theta_q/6$, then $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|\\nabla{\\cal E}\\|_{L^2}\n&\\leq \\kappa\\bigg\\|\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla{\\cal E}\n+ {\\bf \\Lambda}{\\cal E}\\bigg\\|_{L^2}\n+\\kappa \\|{\\bf \\Lambda}{\\cal E}\\|_{L^2}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\kappa\\bigg\\|\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla{\\cal E}\n+ {\\bf \\Lambda}{\\cal E}\\bigg\\|_{L^2}\n+\\kappa \\|{\\bf \\Lambda}\\|_{L^q}\\|{\\cal E}\\|_{L^{\\bar q}}  \\\\\n&\\leq \\kappa\\bigg\\|\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla{\\cal E}\n+ {\\bf \\Lambda}{\\cal E}\\bigg\\|_{L^2}\n+C\\|{\\cal E}\\|_{L^2}^{1-\\theta_q}\\|{\\cal E}\\|_{L^6}^{\\theta_q} \\\\\n&\\leq \n\\kappa\\bigg\\|\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla{\\cal E}\n+ {\\bf\\Lambda}{\\cal E}\\bigg\\|_{L^2}\n+ \\epsilon\\|\\nabla{\\cal E}\\|_{L^2} \n+C_\\epsilon\\|{\\cal E}\\|_{L^2} ,\\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{1}{2\\kappa}\\|\\nabla{\\cal E}\\|_{L^2}\n&\\leq \n\\bigg\\|\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla{\\cal E}\n+ {\\bf\\Lambda}{\\cal E}\\bigg\\|_{L^2}\n+C\\|{\\cal E}\\|_{L^2} .\\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the last inequality into , we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\frac{\\eta}{2} \\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,s)\\|_{L^2}^2 \n+ \\frac{1}{2\\kappa}\\int_0^s\\|\\nabla{\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2\\d t  \n\\leq \nC_\\epsilon\\int_0^s\\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2\\d t\n+\\epsilon\\int_0^s\\|\\nabla {\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2 \\d t ,\\end{aligned}$$ which further reduces to (by choosing sufficiently small $\\epsilon$) $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\frac{\\eta}{2} \\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,s)\\|_{L^2}^2 \n+ \\frac{1}{2\\kappa}\\int_0^s\\|\\nabla{\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2\\d t  \n\\leq \nC\\int_0^s\\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2\\d t .\\end{aligned}$$ By applying Gronwall\u2019s inequality we derive $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{0\\leq t\\leq T}\\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,t)\\|_{L^2}^2 \n\\leq \nC\\|{\\cal E}(\\cdot,0)\\|_{L^2}^2=0 ,\\end{aligned}$$ which implies the uniqueness of the weak solution of .\n\nUnder the regularity of ${\\bf \\Lambda}$ and $\\Phi$, existence of weak solutions of the weak formulated equation $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{PDEPsiF333}\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[(\\eta \\partial_t\\Psi, \\varphi)  \n+ (i\\eta \\kappa \\Psi \\Phi,\\varphi) \n+ \\bigg( \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg)\\Psi \\,, \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg)\\varphi\\bigg)  \n\\bigg]\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\n+\\int_0^T((|\\Psi|^{2}-1)\\Psi,\\varphi) \\d t=0, \n\\qquad\\forall\\,\\varphi\\in L^2(0,T;{\\cal H}^1), \\end{aligned}$$ is obvious if one can prove the a priori estimate $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{PWEst111}\n\\mbox{$|\\Psi|\\leq 1$\\,\\, a.e.\\, in\\,\\, $\\Omega\\times(0,T)$.}\\end{aligned}$$ To prove the above inequality, we let $(|\\Psi|^2-1)_+$ denote the positive part of $|\\Psi|^2-1$ and integrate this equation against $\\overline\\Psi(|\\Psi|^2-1)_+$. By considering the real part of the result, for any $t'\\in(0,T)$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\int_\\Omega\n\\bigg(\\frac{\\eta}{4}\\big(|\\Psi(x,t')|^2-1\\big)_+ ^2\\bigg)\\d x\n + \\int_0^{t'}\\int_\\Omega (|\\Psi|^{2}-1)^2_+ |\\Psi| ^2\\d x\\d t\\\\\n&=-\\int_0^{t'}{\\rm Re}\\int_\\Omega \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla  \\Psi+ {\\bf\\Lambda} \\Psi\\bigg)\n\\bigg(-\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+ {\\bf\\Lambda}\\bigg)[\\overline\\Psi (|\\Psi|^2-1)_+]\\d x\\d t\\\\\n&=-\\int_0^{t'}\\int_\\Omega \\bigg|\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \n\\nabla  \\Psi+ {\\bf\\Lambda} \\Psi\\bigg|^2\n (|\\Psi|^2-1)_+ \\d x \\d t\\\\\n&\\quad + \\int_0^{t'}{\\rm Re}\\int_{\\{|\\Psi|^2>1\\}} \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla  \\Psi\n+ {\\bf\\Lambda} \\Psi\\bigg)\\overline\\Psi \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}  \n\\Psi\\nabla\\overline\\Psi +\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\overline\\Psi \\nabla\\Psi \\bigg)\\d x\\d t\\\\\n&=-\\int_0^{t'}\\int_\\Omega \\bigg|\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \n\\nabla  \\Psi+ {\\bf\\Lambda} \\Psi\\bigg|^2\n (|\\Psi|^2-1)_+ \\d x\\d t\\\\\n&\\quad -\\int_0^{t'}{\\rm Re}\\int_{\\{|\\Psi|^2>1\\}}(|\\Psi|^2|\\nabla\\Psi|^2\n+ (\\overline\\Psi )^2\\nabla\\Psi\\cdot \\nabla\\Psi)\\d x\\d t\\\\\n& \\leq 0,\\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $\\int_\\Omega(|\\Psi(x,t')|^2-1)_+ ^2 \\d x\n=0$, and this gives . Since $|\\Psi|\\leq 1$, it follows that $\\Theta(\\Psi)=\\Psi$ and so reduces to . This proves the existence of weak solutions for satisfying $|\\Psi|\\leq 1$.\n\nThe proof of Lemma \\[UnBDPsi\\] is complete.\n\nLemma \\[UnBDPsi\\] implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n|\\Psi|\\leq 1 \\quad\\mbox{a.e. in $\\Omega\\times(0,T)$, }\\end{aligned}$$ which together with implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{PDEPsiFM}\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[ (\\eta \\partial_t\\Psi, \\varphi) \n+ (i\\eta \\kappa \\Psi\\Phi,\\varphi) \n+ \\bigg( \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg)\\Psi \\,, \n\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\nabla+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg)\\varphi\\bigg)\\bigg]\\d t  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\n+\\int_0^T ((|\\Psi|^{2}-1)\\Psi,\\varphi) \\d t=0, \n\\qquad\\qquad\\qquad\\forall\\, \\varphi\\in L^2(0,T;{\\cal H}^1).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFor any given ${\\bf a}\\in L^2(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl},{\\rm div}))$ and $\\chi\\in L^2(0,T;H^1)$, we let ${\\bf a}_{h,\\tau}\\in L^2(0,T;{\\mathbb N}_h^k)$ and $\\chi_{h,\\tau}\\in L^2(0,T;{\\mathbb V}_h^{k+1})$ be finite element functions such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n&{\\bf a}_{h,\\tau}\\rightarrow {\\bf a}\n&&\\mbox{strongly\nin $L^2(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl}))$ as $h\\rightarrow 0$} ,\\\\\n&\\chi_{h,\\tau}\\rightarrow \\chi\n&&\\mbox{strongly\nin $L^2(0,T;H^1)$ as $h\\rightarrow 0$} .\\end{aligned}$$ The equations - imply $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[ (\\phi_{h,\\tau}^+, \\chi_{h,\\tau}) \n- ({\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+,\\nabla \\chi_{h,\\tau} ) \\bigg]\\d t= 0 \\, , \\\\[10pt]\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[(\\partial_t{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau},{\\bf a}_{h,\\tau}) \n+ (\\nabla\\phi_{h,\\tau}^+ \\, ,{\\bf a}_{h,\\tau})\n+ (\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+  \\, , \\nabla\\times {\\bf a}_{h,\\tau})\\bigg]\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad +\\int_0^T\\bigg[ {\\rm Re}\\bigg(\\overline\\psi_{h,\\tau}^- \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^-\\bigg) \\psi_{h,\\tau}^-  , {\\bf a}_{h,\\tau}\\bigg)\\bigg]\\d t\n=\\int_0^T\\bigg[ (\\nabla\\times{\\bf H} \\, ,{\\bf a}_{h,\\tau})\\bigg]\\d t  \\, . \n$$ Let $h=h_m\\rightarrow 0$ and $\\tau=\\tau_m\\rightarrow 0$ in the last two equations and use and -. We obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T\\Big[ (\\Phi, \\chi) \n-  ({\\bf \\Lambda} ,\\nabla \\chi) \\Big] \\d t = 0 \\, , \n\\label{PDEPhiF}\\\\[10pt]\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[(\\partial_t{\\bf \\Lambda},{\\bf a}) \n+ (\\nabla\\Phi \\, , {\\bf a})\n+ (\\nabla\\times{\\bf \\Lambda}  \\, , \\nabla\\times {\\bf a})\n+ {\\rm Re}\\bigg(\\overline\\Psi\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg) \\Psi  , {\\bf a} \\bigg)\\bigg]\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&=\\int_0^T (\\nabla\\times{\\bf H} \\, ,{\\bf a} )  \\d t \\, ,\n\\label{PDEAF}\\end{aligned}$$ which hold for any given ${\\bf a}\\in L^2(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl},{\\rm div}))$ and $\\chi\\in L^2(0,T;H^1)$. Since implies $\\Phi=-\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf\\Lambda}$, can be rewritten as $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T\\bigg[(\\partial_t{\\bf \\Lambda},{\\bf a})  \n+ (\\nabla\\cdot {\\bf \\Lambda}\\, , \\nabla\\cdot{\\bf a})\n+ (\\nabla\\times{\\bf \\Lambda}  \\, , \\nabla\\times {\\bf a})\n+ {\\rm Re}\\bigg(\\overline\\Psi\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+{\\bf \\Lambda}\\bigg) \\Psi  , {\\bf a} \\bigg) \\bigg]\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n& = \\int_0^T(\\nabla\\times{\\bf H} \\, ,{\\bf a} ) \\d t  \\, ,\n\\qquad\\qquad\\qquad\\qquad\n\\qquad\\quad\\forall\\, {\\bf a}\\in L^2(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl},{\\rm div})) .\n\\label{PDEAF2}\\end{aligned}$$ From and we see that $(\\Psi,{\\bf\\Lambda})$ is a weak solution of the PDE problem - with the regularity $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\Psi\\in C([0,T];{\\mathcal  L}^2)\\cap \nL^\\infty(0,T;{\\mathcal  H}^1) ,\n\\quad \\partial_t\\Psi \\in L^2(0,T;{\\mathcal  L}^2),\n\\quad |\\Psi|\\leq 1~~\\mbox{a.e.~in~\\,}\\Omega\\times(0,T),\\\\\n& {\\bf \\Lambda}\\in C([0,T];{\\bf L}^2)\\cap \nL^{\\infty}(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl},{\\rm div})) , \n\\quad \\partial_t{\\bf \\Lambda}\\in L^2(0,T;{\\bf L}^2) . \\end{aligned}$$ Since the PDE problem - has a unique weak solution with the regularity above (see appendix), it follows that $\\Psi=\\psi$, ${\\bf\\Lambda}={\\bf A}$ and $\\Phi=\\phi$.\n\nOverall, we have proved that any sequence $(\\psi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+,\\phi_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+, {\\bf A}_{h_m,\\tau_m}^+)$ with $h_m,\\tau_m\\rightarrow 0$ contains a subsequence which converges to the unique solution $(\\psi,\\phi, {\\bf A})$ of the PDE problem - in the sense of -. This implies that $(\\psi_{h,\\tau}^+,\\phi_{h,\\tau}^+, {\\bf A}_{h,\\tau}^+)$ converges to $(\\psi,\\phi, {\\bf A})$ as $h,\\tau\\rightarrow 0$ in the sense of Theorem \\[MainTHM\\].\n\nThe proof of Theorem \\[MainTHM\\] is complete.\n\nNumerical example\n=================\n\nWe consider the equations $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\eta\\frac{\\partial \\psi}{\\partial t} -i\\eta \\kappa \\psi \\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A}\n+ \\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+ \\mathbf{A}\\bigg)^{2} \\psi\n + (|\\psi|^{2}-1) \\psi  = g ,\n\\label{NTPDE1}\\\\[5pt]\n&\\frac{\\partial \\mathbf{A}}{\\partial t} \n-\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A}) \n+ \\nabla\\times(\\nabla\\times{\\bf A})\n+  {\\rm Re}\\bigg[\\overline\\psi\\bigg(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n+ \\mathbf{A}\\bigg) \\psi\\bigg] \n=  {\\bf g}+\\nabla\\times H ,\n\\label{NTPDE2}\\end{aligned}$$ in a nonsmooth, nonconvex and multi-connected two-dimensional domain $\\Omega$, as shown in Figure \\[FigD2\\], where we use the notations $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\nabla\\times {\\bf A}\n=\\frac{\\partial A_2}{\\partial x_1}-\\frac{\\partial A_1}{\\partial x_2},\n\\qquad \n\\nabla\\cdot {\\bf A}=\\frac{\\partial A_1}{\\partial x_1}\n+\\frac{\\partial A_2}{\\partial x_2},\\\\\n&\\nabla\\times H=\\bigg(\\frac{\\partial H}{\\partial x_2},\\,\n-\\frac{\\partial H}{\\partial x_1}\\bigg),\\quad \n\\nabla\\psi=\\bigg(\\frac{\\partial \\psi}{\\partial x_1},\\,\n\\frac{\\partial \\psi}{\\partial x_2}\\bigg).\\end{aligned}$$ The artificial right-hand sides $H=\\nabla\\times{\\bf A}\\in C([0,T];{\\bf H}^2)$, $g\\in C([0,T];L^2)$ and ${\\bf g}\\in C([0,T];{\\bf L}^2)$ are chosen corresponding to the exact solution (written in the polar coordinates) $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\psi=t^2\\Phi(r)r^{2/3}\\cos(2\\theta/3),\\\\\n&{\\bf A}=\\Big (\\big( 4t^2 \\Phi(r)r^{-1/3}/3\n+t^2\\Phi'(r)r^{2/3}\\big)\\cos(\\theta/3),~\n\\big( 4t^2 \\Phi(r)r^{-1/3}/3\n+t^2\\Phi'(r)r^{2/3}\\big)\\sin(\\theta/3)\\Big ) ,  \\end{aligned}$$\n\n[![Illustration of the computational domain and the triangulation.[]{data-label=\"FigD2\"}](Fig3.eps \"fig:\"){height=\"1.5in\" width=\"1.7in\"}]{} [![Illustration of the computational domain and the triangulation.[]{data-label=\"FigD2\"}](Fig4.eps \"fig:\"){height=\"1.4in\" width=\"2.25in\"}]{}\n\n         $h$          $\\| \\psi_h^N -\\psi^N \\|_{L^2}$   $\\| |\\psi_h^N| -|\\psi^N| \\|_{L^2}$   $\\| {\\bf A}_h^N - {\\bf A}^N \\|_{L^2}$   $\\| {\\bf B}_h^N - {\\bf B}^N \\|_{L^2}$  \n  ------------------ -------------------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --\n         1/32                   3.3872E-03                         2.5568E-03                            9.2707E-02                              2.5726E-01                \n         1/64                   2.9051E-03                         1.7546E-03                            9.1339E-02                              1.7235E-01                \n        1/128                   2.7352E-03                         1.4476E-03                            9.0496E-02                              1.4259E-01                \n   convergence rate           $O(h^{0.09})$                      $O(h^{0.29})$                          $O(h^{0.01})$                           $O(h^{0.27})$              \n\n  : Errors of the mixed finite element solution with $\\tau=2h$.[]{data-label=\"Tab2\"}\n\n         $h$          $\\| \\psi_h^N -\\psi^N \\|_{L^2}$   $\\| |\\psi_h^N| -|\\psi^N| \\|_{L^2}$   $\\|  {\\bf A}_h^N - {\\bf A}^N \\|_{L^2}$   $\\|{\\bf B}_h^N - {\\bf B}^N \\|_{L^2}$  \n  ------------------ -------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- --\n         1/32                   5.0142E-03                         2.9762E-03                             4.1846E-03                              1.7284E-01               \n         1/64                   1.8455E-03                         1.4828E-03                             2.3881E-03                              8.7132E-02               \n        1/128                   7.5068E-04                         5.6680E-04                             1.4964E-03                              4.3196E-02               \n   convergence rate           $O(h^{1.29})$                      $O(h^{1.38})$                          $O(h^{0.67})$                           $O(h^{1.01})$              \n\n  : Errors of the mixed finite element solution with $\\tau=2h$.[]{data-label=\"Tab2\"}\n\nwhere the cut-off function $\\Phi(r)$ is given by $$\\Phi(r)=\\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{ll}\n0.1 & \\mbox{if}~~r<0.1,  \\\\\n\\Upsilon(r) &\\mbox{if}~~ 0.1\\leq r\\leq 0.4 ,\\\\\n0 & \\mbox{if}~~r>0.4, \n\\end{array}\\right.$$ and $\\Upsilon(r)$ is the unique $7^{\\rm th}$ order polynomial satisfying the conditions $\\Upsilon'(0.1)=\\Upsilon''(0.1)\n=\\Upsilon'''(0.1)=\\Upsilon(0.4)=\\Upsilon'(0.4)\n=\\Upsilon''(0.4)=\\Upsilon'''(0.4)=0$ and $\\Upsilon(0.1)=0.1$.\n\nWe solve - by the linear Galerkin FEM and our mixed FEM with $r=k=1$, respectively, with the same time-stepping scheme under the same quasi-uniform mesh, and present the errors of the numerical solutions in Table \\[Tab1\\]\u2013\\[Tab2\\], where $h$ denotes the distance between the mesh nodes on $\\partial\\Omega$ and the convergence rate of $\\psi_h^N$ is calculated based on the finest mesh size $h$. We see that the numerical solution of the Galerkin FEM does not decrease to zero, while the mixed finite element solution proposed in this paper has an explicit convergence rate $O(h^{0.67})$, which is consistent with the regularity ${\\bf A}\\in L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl, div}))\n\\hookrightarrow L^\\infty(0,T;{\\bf H}^{2/3-\\epsilon})$ (though we have not proved such explicit convergence rate in this paper).\n\nAppendix: Well-posedness of the PDE problem [**(\\[PDE1\\])-(\\[PDEini\\])**]{} {#appendix-well-posedness-of-the-pde-problem-pde1-pdeini .unnumbered}\n===========================================================================\n\n[ *There exists a unique weak solution of (\\[PDE1\\])-(\\[PDEini\\]) with the following regularity: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\psi\\in C([0,T];{\\mathcal  L}^2)\\cap \nL^\\infty(0,T;{\\mathcal  H}^1) ,\n\\quad \\partial_t\\psi \\in L^2(0,T;{\\mathcal  L}^2),\n\\quad |\\psi|\\leq 1~~\\mbox{a.e.~in~\\,}\\Omega\\times(0,T),\\\\\n& {\\bf A}\\in C([0,T];{\\bf L}^2)\\cap \nL^{\\infty}(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl},{\\rm div})) , \n\\quad \\partial_t{\\bf A}\\in L^2(0,T;{\\bf L}^2) . \\end{aligned}$$* ]{}\n\n[*Proof.*]{}$\\,\\,\\,$ From and we see that there exists a weak solution $(\\Psi,{\\bf\\Lambda})$ of - with the regularity above. It remains to prove the uniqueness of the weak solution.\n\nSuppose that there are two weak solutions $(\\psi,{\\bf A})$ and $(\\Psi,{\\bf\\Lambda})$ for the system -. Then we define $e=\\psi-\\Psi$ and ${\\bf E}={\\bf A}-{\\bf\\Lambda}$ and consider the difference equations $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T\\Big[\\big(\\eta\\partial_t e  ,\\varphi\\big)\n+ \\frac{1}{\\kappa^2}\\big(\\nabla  e, \\nabla\\varphi\\big) \n+ \\big(|{\\bf A}|^2   e,  \\varphi\\big) \\Big]\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n& =\\int_0^T\\Big[-\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\big({\\bf A}\\cdot\\nabla e ,\\varphi\\big)\n-\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\big({\\bf E}\\cdot\\nabla \\Psi ,\\varphi\\big)\n+\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\big(e {\\bf A},\\nabla\\varphi\\big)\n+\\frac{i}{\\kappa}\\big(\\Psi {\\bf E},\\nabla\\varphi\\big)  {\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad - \\big((|{\\bf A}|^2 -|{\\bf \\Lambda}|^2)  \\Psi,  \\varphi\\big)\n -\\big( (|\\psi|^{2}-1) \\psi-(|\\Psi|^{2}-1) \\Psi,\\varphi\\big)\\Big]\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\quad -\\int_0^T\\big(i\\eta\\kappa\\psi\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf E}\n+i\\eta\\kappa e\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf \\Lambda},\\varphi\\big)\\d t  ,\n\\label{UErEq1}\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\int_0^T\\Big[\\big(\\partial_t{\\bf E} ,{\\bf a}\\big)\n+ \\big(\\nabla\\times{\\bf E},\\nabla\\times{\\bf a}\\big)\n+\\big(\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf E},\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf a}\\big) \\Big]\\d t{\\nonumber}\\\\\n& =-\\int_0^T{\\rm Re} \\bigg( \n\\frac{i}{\\kappa}( \\overline\\psi\\nabla  \\psi- \\overline\\Psi \\nabla  \\Psi)\n+  {\\bf A}(|\\psi|^2-|\\Psi|^2)+|\\Psi|^2 {\\bf E}\\, ,\\, {\\bf a}\\bigg) \\d t ,\n\\label{UErEq2}\\end{aligned}$$ which hold for any $\\varphi\\in L^2(0,T;{\\mathcal H}^1)$ and ${\\bf a}\\in L^2(0,T;{\\bf H}({\\rm curl},{\\rm div}))$. Choosing $\\varphi(x,t)=e(x,t)1_{(0,t')}(t)$ in and considering the real part, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\frac{\\eta}{2} \\|e(\\cdot,t') \\|_{{\\cal L}^2}^2 \n+ \\int_0^{t'}\\Big(\\frac{1}{\\kappa^2}\\|\\nabla  e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}^2\n+  \\|{\\bf A}    e\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}^2\\Big)\\d t \\\\\n&\\leq \n\\int_0^{t'}\\Big(C\\|{\\bf A}\\|_{{\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}}\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}\n \\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^{6-4\\delta/(1+\\delta)}}\n+C\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}}\\|\\nabla \\Psi\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}\n\\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^{6-4\\delta/(1+\\delta)}}\\\\\n&\\quad \n+C\\| e\\|_{{\\cal L}^{6-4\\delta/(1+\\delta)}} \\|{\\bf A}\\|_{{\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}}\n\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}  +C\\| {\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}  \\\\\n&\\quad\n+C(\\|{\\bf A}\\|_{{\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}}+\\|{\\bf \\Lambda}\\|_{{\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}})\n\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2} \\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^{6-4\\delta/(1+\\delta)}} +C\\| e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}^2\n+C\\|\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf E}\\|_{L^2}\\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}\\Big)\\d t \\\\\n&\\leq \\int_0^{t'}\\Big(C\\|\\nabla e\\|_{L^2}\n (C_\\epsilon \\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}+\\epsilon\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2})\n +C\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf H}({\\rm curl},{\\rm div})}\n (C_\\epsilon \\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}+\\epsilon\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2})\\\\\n&\\quad\n+C\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}(C_\\epsilon \\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}\n+\\epsilon\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}) \n+C\\| {\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2} \\\\\n&\\quad\n+C\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}(C_\\epsilon \\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}\n+\\epsilon\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}) +C\\| e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}^2\n+C\\|\\nabla\\cdot {\\bf E}\\|_{L^2}\\| e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2} \\Big)\\d t\\\\  \n&\\leq \\int_0^{t'}\\Big(\\epsilon\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}^2+\n\\epsilon\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}^2\n+ \\epsilon\\|\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf E}\\|_{L^2}^2 \n+C_\\epsilon\\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}^2\n+ C_\\epsilon\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}^2\\Big)\\d t ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\epsilon$ can be arbitrarily small. By choosing ${\\bf a}(x,t)={\\bf E}(x,t)1_{(0,t')}(t)$ in , we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\frac{1}{2}\\|{\\bf E}(\\cdot,t')\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}^2 \n+\\int_0^{t'}\\Big(\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf E} \\|_{{\\bf L}^2}^2\n+\\|\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf E} \\|_{{\\bf L}^2}^2 \\Big)\\d t\\\\\n&\\leq \\int_0^{t'}\\Big(C \\| e\\|_{{\\cal L}^{6-4\\delta/(1+\\delta)}}\n\\|\\nabla  \\psi\\|_{L^2}\\| {\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}}\n+C\\|\\nabla  e \\|_{{\\cal L}^2} \\| {\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}  \\\\\n&\\quad\n+ (\\|e\\|_{L^{6-4\\delta/(1+\\delta)}}\\| {\\bf A}\\|_{{\\bf L}^{3+\\delta}}\n+\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2})\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{L^2}\\Big)\\d t\\\\\n&\\leq \\int_0^{t'}\\Big(C(C_\\epsilon \\| e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2} \n+\\epsilon\\|\\nabla  e \\|_{{\\cal L}^2})\n\\| {\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf H}({\\rm curl},{\\rm div})}\n+\\|\\nabla  e \\|_{{\\cal L}^2} \\| {\\bf E}\\|_{L^2} \\\\\n&\\quad + (\\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2} +\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}\n+\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2})\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}\\Big)\\d t\\\\\n&\\leq\n\\int_0^{t'}\\Big(\\epsilon\\|\\nabla e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}^2\n+\\epsilon\\|\\nabla\\times{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}\n+\\epsilon\\|\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}\n+C_\\epsilon  \\|e\\|_{{\\cal L}^2}^2\n+ C_\\epsilon  \\|{\\bf E}\\|_{{\\bf L}^2}^2\\Big)\\d t ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\epsilon$ can be arbitrarily small. By choosing $\\epsilon<\\frac{1}{4}\n\\min(1, \\kappa^{-2} )$ and summing up the two inequalities above, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&  \\frac{\\eta}{2}\\|e(\\cdot,t')\\|_{L^2}^2\n+\\frac{1}{2}\\|{\\bf E}(\\cdot,t')\\|_{L^2}^2 \n\\leq \n\\int_0^{t'}\\Big(C\\|e\\|_{L^2}^2 \n+C\\| {\\bf E}\\|_{L^2}^2\\Big)\\d t ,\\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\max_{t\\in(0,T)}\n\\bigg(\\frac{\\eta}{2}\\|e\\|_{L^2}^2\n+\\frac{1}{2}\\|{\\bf E}\\|_{L^2}^2\\bigg)=0  \\end{aligned}$$ via Gronwall\u2019s inequality. Uniqueness of the weak solution is proved.\n\n[**Acknowledgement.**]{}$\\quad$ I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Christian Lubich for the helpful discussions on the time discretization, and thank Prof. Weiwei Sun for the email communications on this topic. I also would like to thank Prof. Qiang Du for the communications in CSRC, Beijing, on the time-independency of the external magnetic field and the incompatibility of the initial data with the boundary conditions.\n\n[99]{} R.A. Adams: [*Sobolev spaces*]{}. New York, Academic Press, 1975.\n\nA.A. Abrikosov: Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1988).\n\nC. Amrouche, C. Bernardi, M. Dauge and V. Girault: Vector potentials in three-dimensional non-smooth Domains. [*Math. Meth. Appl. Sci.*]{}, 21 (1998), pp. 823\u2013864.\n\nD.N. Arnold, R.S. Falk, and R. Winther: Finite element exterior calculus, homological techniques, and applications. [*Acta Numerica*]{} (2006), pp. 1\u2013155.\n\nT.S. Alstr\u00f8m, M.P. S\u00f8rensen, N.F. Pedersen, and F. Madsen: Magnetic flux lines in complex geometry type-II superconductors studied by the time dependent Ginzburg\u2013Landau equation. [*Acta Appl. Math.*]{}, 115 (2011), pp. 63\u201374.\n\nB.J. Baelus, K. Kadowaki, and F.M. Peeters: Influence of surface defects on vortex penetration and expulsion in mesoscopic superconductors. [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, 71 (2005), 024514\n\nS. Bartels, C. Lubich, and A. Prohl: Convergent discretization of heat and wave map flows to spheres using approximate discrete lagrange multipliers. [*Math. Comp.*]{}, 78 (2009), pp. 1269\u20131292.\n\nJ. Bergh and J. L\u00f6fstr\u00f6m: [*Interpolation Spaces: An Introduction*]{}, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1976, Printed in Germany.\n\nC. Bernardi, M. Dauge and Y. Maday: [*Polynomials in the Sobolev World*]{}, Preprint IRMAR 07-14, Rennes, March 2007.\n\nM. Birman and M. Solomyak: $L^2$-theory of the Maxwell operator in arbitrary domains. [*Russ. Math. Surv.*]{}, 42 (1987), pp. 75\u201396.\n\nS. Chapman, S. Howison, and J. Ockendon: Macroscopic models for superconductivity. [*SIAM Review*]{}, 34(1992), pp. 529\u2013560.\n\nZ. Chen. Mixed finite element methods for a dynamical Ginzburg\u2013Landau model in superconductivity. [*Numer. Math.*]{}, 76 (1997), pp. 323\u2013353.\n\nZ. Chen and S. Dai: Adaptive Galerkin methods with error control for a dynamical Ginzburg\u2013Landau model in superconductivity. [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{}, 38 (2001), pp. 1961\u20131985.\n\nZ. Chen, K.H. Hoffmann, and J. Liang: On a non-stationary Ginzburg\u2013Landau superconductivity model. [*Math. Methods Appl. Sci.*]{}, 16 (1993), pp. 855\u2013875.\n\nM. Dauge: [*Elliptic Boundary Value Problems in Corner Domains*]{}. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1988.\n\nM. Dauge: Neumann and mixed problems on curvilinear polyhedra. [*Integr. Equat. 0per. Th.*]{}, 15 (1992), pp. 227\u2013261.\n\nM. Dauge: [*Regularity and singularities in polyhedral domains. The case of Laplace and Maxwell equations.*]{} Slides d\u2019un mini-cours de 3 heures, Karlsruhe, 7 avril 2008.\\\n<https://perso.univ-rennes1.fr/monique.dauge/publis/Talk_Karlsruhe08.html>\n\nP.G. De Gennes: Superconductivity of Metal and Alloys. [*Advanced Books Classics*]{}, Westview Press, 1999.\n\nQ. Du: Discrete gauge invariant approximations of a time dependent ginzburg-landau model of superconductivity. [*Math. Comp.*]{}, 67 (1998), pp. 965\u2013986.\n\nQ. Du: Numerical approximations of the Ginzburg\u2013Landau models for superconductivity. [*J. Math. Phys.*]{}, 46 (2005), 095109.\n\nQ. Du and L. Ju: Approximations of a Ginzburg\u2013Landau model for superconducting hollow spheres based on spherical centroidal Voronoi tessellations. [*Math. Comp.*]{}, 74 (2005), pp. 1257\u20131280.\n\nH. Frahm, S. Ullah, and A. Dorsey: Flux dynamics and the growth of the superconducting phase. [*Phys. Rev. Letters*]{}, 66 (1991), pp. 3067\u20133072. H. Gao, B. Li, and W. Sun: Optimal error estimates of linearized Crank\u2013Nicolson\u2013Galerkin FEMs for the time-dependent Ginzburg\u2013Landau equations. [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{}, 52 (2014), pp. 1183\u20131202.\n\nH. Gao and W. Sun: An efficient fully linearized semi-implicit Galerkin-mixed FEM for the dynamical Ginzburg\u2013Landau equations of superconductivity. [*J. Comput. Physics*]{}, 294 (2015), pp. 329\u2013345.\n\nV. Ginzburg and L. Landau: Theory of Superconductivity. [*Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.*]{}, 20 (1950), pp. 1064\u20131082.\n\nW.D. Gropp, H.G. Kaper, G.K. Leaf, D.M. Levine, M. Palumbo, and V.M. Vinokur: Numerical simulation of vortex dynamics in type-II superconductors. [*J. Comput. Phys.*]{}, 123 (1996), pp. 254\u2013266.\n\nL.P. Gor\u2019kov and G.M. Eliashberg: Generalization of the Ginzburg\u2013Landau equations for non-stationary problems in the case of alloys with paramagnetic impurities. [*Soviet Phys. JETP*]{}, 27 (1968), pp. 328\u2013334.\n\nD. Gunter, H. Kaper, and G. Leaf: Implicit integration of the time-dependent Ginzburg\u2013Landau equations of superconductivity. [*SIAM J. Sci. Comput.*]{}, 23 (2002), pp. 1943\u20131958.\n\nB. Kov\u00e1cs, B. Li, and Ch. Lubich: $A$-stable time discretizations preserve maximal parabolic regularity. Preprint, <https://na.uni-tuebingen.de/preprints.shtml>\n\nH. Kozono and T. Yanagisawa: $L^r$-variational inequality for vector fields and the Helmholtz-Weyl decomposition in bounded domains. [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{}, 58 (2009), pp. 1853\u20131920.\n\nF. Liu, M. Mondello, and N. Goldenfeld: Kinetics of the superconducting transition. [*Phys. Rev. Letters*]{}, 66 (1991), pp. 3071\u20133074.\n\nM. Mu: A linearized Crank\u2013Nicolson\u2013Galerkin method for the Ginzburg\u2013Landau model. [*SIAM J. Sci. Comput.*]{}, 18 (1997), pp. 1028\u20131039.\n\nM. Mu and Y. Huang: An alternating Crank\u2013Nicolson method for decoupling the Ginzburg\u2013Landau equations, [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{}, 35 (1998), pp. 1740\u20131761.\n\nJ.C. N\u00e9d\u00e9lec: Mixed finite element in $\\R^3$. [*Numer. Math.*]{}, 35 (1980), pp. 315\u2013341.\n\nJ.C. N\u00e9d\u00e9lec: A new family of mixed finite elements in $\\R^3$. [*Numer. Math.*]{}, 50 (1986), pp. 57\u201381.\n\nV.S. Rychkov: On restrictions and extensions of the Besov and Triebel\u2013Lizorkin spaces with respect to Lipschitz domains. [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{}, 60 (1999), pp. 237\u2013257.\n\nR.E. Showalter: Monotone Operators in Banach Spaces and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, volume 49, AMS 1997.\n\nM. Tinkham: [*Introduction to Superconductivity*]{}. 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1994.\n\nW. Richardson, A. Pardhanani, G. Carey, and A. Ardelea: Numerical effects in the simulation of Ginzburg\u2013Landau models for superconductivity. [*Int. J. Numer. Engng.*]{}, 59 (2004), pp. 1251\u20131272.\n\nD.Y. Vodolazov, I.L. Maksimov, and E.H. Brandt: Vortex entry conditions in type-II superconductors. Effect of surface defects. [*Physica C*]{}, 384 (2003), pp. 211\u2013226.\n\nT. Winiecki and C. Adams: A fast semi-implicit finite difference method for the TDGL equation. [*J. Comput. Phys.*]{}, 179 (2002), pp. 127\u2013139.\n\nL. Weis: A new approach to maximal $L^p$-regularity. in [*Evolution Equ. and Appl. Physical Life Sci.*]{}, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Mathematics 215, Marcel Dekker, New York (2001), pp. 195\u2013214.\n\nC. Yang: A linearized Crank\u2013Nicolson\u2013Galerkin FEM for the time-dependent Ginzburg\u2013Landau equations under the temporal gauge. [*Numerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations*]{}, 30 (2014), pp. 1279\u20131290.\n\n[^1]: Mathematisches Institut, Universit\u00e4t T\u00fcbingen, 72076 T\u00fcbingen, Germany. [li@na.uni-tuebingen.de]{}\n\n[^2]: The research stay of the author at Universit\u00e4t T\u00fcbingen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. This work was supported in part by the NSFC (grant no. 11301262).\n\n[^3]: Since implies $\\partial_t{\\bf A}\\cdot{\\bf n}=0$, and imply ${\\rm Re}\\big[\\overline\\psi\\big(\\frac{i}{\\kappa} \\nabla \n    + \\mathbf{A}\\big) \\psi\\big]\\cdot{\\bf n}=0$ and implies $[\\nabla\\times(\\nabla\\times {\\bf A}-{\\bf H})]\\cdot{\\bf n}=0$ (if a vector field ${\\bf u}$ satisfies ${\\bf n} \\times {\\bf u} = 0$ on $\\partial\\Omega$, then $(\\nabla\\times{\\bf u}) \\cdot{\\bf n}= 0$ on $\\partial\\Omega$), it follows from that $\\nabla\\phi\\cdot{\\bf n}=-\\nabla(\\nabla\\cdot{\\bf A})\\cdot{\\bf n}=0$ on each smooth piece of $\\partial\\Omega$. Hence, - imply .\n\n[^4]: The monotonicity makes use of the fact that $(|{\\mathscr S}_h|^{2}{\\mathscr S}_h-|\\widetilde{\\mathscr S}_h|^{2}\\widetilde{\\mathscr S}_h,\n    {\\mathscr S}_h-\\widetilde{\\mathscr S}_h)\\geq 0$ for all ${\\mathscr S}_h,\\widetilde{\\mathscr S}_h \\in {\\mathbb S}_{h}^r$.\n\n[^5]: By identifying the vector fields with the 2-forms, in terms of the notation of [@AFW decomposition (2.18)], we have ${\\bf C}(\\Omega)\\cong {\\mathfrak Z}^{*2}$, ${\\bf C}(\\Omega)^\\perp\\cong \\mathring{\\mathfrak B}^2$, ${\\bf G}(\\Omega)\\cong {\\mathfrak B}^{*2}$ and ${\\bf X}(\\Omega)\\cong \\mathring{\\mathfrak H}^2$.\n\n[^6]: By identifying the vector fields with the 2-forms, in terms of the notation of [@AFW definition (2.12)], we have $\\widetilde {\\bf X}(\\Omega)={\\mathfrak H}^2$.\n\n[^7]: By identifying the vector fields with the 2-forms, in terms of the notation of [@AFW definition (2.12)], we have $\\widetilde {\\bf X}(\\Omega)\\cong {\\mathfrak H}^2$ and $\\widetilde {\\bf Y}(\\Omega)\\cong H\\Lambda^2(\\Omega)\\cap \n    \\mathring H^*\\Lambda^2(\\Omega)\\cap {\\mathfrak H}^{2\\perp}$. Then, by using [@AFW Theorem 2.2 on page 23] and the Lax\u2013Milgram lemma, one can show that the problem - has a unique weak solution in $\\widetilde {\\bf Y}(\\Omega)$.\n\n[^8]: \\[FNbd\\] If ${\\bf v}\\cdot{\\bf n}$ is well defined on $\\partial\\Omega$, then the divergence-free part $\\nabla\\times{\\bf u}$ satisfies $(\\nabla\\times{\\bf u})\\cdot{\\bf n}=0$ on $\\partial\\Omega$, due to the boundary conditions in and .\n\n[^9]: See - for the definition of the space $\\widetilde {\\bf Y}(\\Omega)$.\n\n[^10]: See footnote \\[FNbd\\] on this boundary condition.\n\n[^11]: This is a immediate consequence of Lemma \\[RegPoiss\\] and the following decomposition proved in [@BS87]: $${\\bf H}({\\rm curl,div})=\n    {\\bf H}^1+ \\{\\nabla\\varphi:\\varphi\\in H^1,\\,\\,\n    \\Delta \\varphi\\in L^2,\\,\\,\\nabla\\varphi\\cdot{\\bf n}\n    =0\\,\\,\\mbox{on}\\,\\,\\partial\\Omega\\}.$$\n\n[^12]: By identifying the vector fields with the 1-forms, in terms of the notation of [@AFW Theorem 5.11 on page 74], we have ${\\bf C}(\\Omega)\\cong {\\mathfrak Z}^{1}$ and ${\\bf C}(\\Omega)^\\perp\\cong {\\mathfrak Z}^{1\\perp}$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We consider the compatibility conditions for a $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator. These conditions can be rewritten as certain triple relations involving anticommutators, so it is natural to look for solutions in terms of Lie superalgebras. In the recent classification of \u201cgeneralized quantum statistics\u201d for the basic classical Lie superalgebras\u00a0[@NJ], each such statistics is characterized by a set of creation and annihilation operators plus a set of triple relations. In the present letter, we investigate which cases of this classification also lead to solutions of the compatibility conditions. Our analysis yields some known solutions and several classes of new solutions.'\n---\n\n[**Solutions of the compatibility conditions\\\nfor a Wigner quantum oscillator**]{}\\\n\\[5mm\\] [**N.I.\u00a0Stoilova**]{}[^1] [**and J.\u00a0Van der Jeugt**]{}[^2]\\\nDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Ghent,\\\nKrijgslaan 281-S9, B-9000 Gent, Belgium.\n\nShort title: Wigner quantum oscillators\n\nPACS numbers: 03.65.-w,03.65.Fd,02.20.-a\n\nIn a previous paper\u00a0[@NJ] we made a classification of all generalized quantum statistics (GQS) associated with the basic classical Lie superalgebras $A(m|n)$, $B(m|n)$, $C(n)$ and $D(m|n)$. Each such statistics is determined by $M$ creation operators $x_i^+$ ($i=1,\\ldots,M$) and $M$ annihilation operators $x_i^-$ ($i=1,\\ldots,M$), which generate the corresponding superalgebra $G$ subject to certain triple relations ${\\cal R}$. This leads to a $\\mathbb{Z}$-grading of $G$ of the form $$G=G_{-2} \\oplus G_{-1} \\oplus G_0 \\oplus G_{+1} \\oplus G_{+2}, \n\\label{5grading}$$ with $G_{\\pm 1}= \\hbox{span}\\{x^\\pm_i,\\ i=1,\\ldots,M\\}$ and $G_{j+k}=[\\![ G_j,G_k ]\\!]$, where $[\\![\\cdot,\\cdot]\\!]$ is the Lie superalgebra bracket. The known cases, namely para-Bose and para-Fermi statistics\u00a0[@Green], and $A$-(super)statistics\u00a0[@Palev1]- appear as simple examples in the classification.\n\nIn the present letter we are dealing with a different problem, namely finding solutions of the compatibility conditions (CCs) of a Wigner quantum oscillator system. These compatibility conditions take the form of certain triple relations for operators. So formally the CCs appear as special triple relations among operators which resemble the creation and annihilation operators of a generalized quantum statistics. One can thus investigate which formal GQSs also provide solutions of the CCs. It turns out that the classification presented in\u00a0[@NJ] yields new solutions of these compatibility conditions.\n\nThe concepts of Wigner quantization\u00a0[@Palev2] and of a Wigner Quantum System (WQS)\u00a0[@Palev3] were introduced by Palev, inspired by\u00a0[@Wigner]. WQSs are noncanonical generalized quantum systems for which Hamilton\u2019s equations are identical to the Heisenberg equations and for which certain additional properties, valid for any quantum system, are also fulfilled. For more examples of WQSs and physical aspects, see\u00a0[@Yang]-[@Blasiak].\n\nLet us briefly describe a WQS consisting of $N$ $D$-dimensional isotropic harmonic oscillators. The Hamiltonian of this $N$-particle $D$-dimensional ($D=1,2,3$) harmonic oscillator system is given by $$\\hat{H}=\\sum_{\\alpha=1}^{N} \\Big({ {\\hat {\\bf P}}_\\alpha^2 \\over 2m}\n+{m\\omega^2\\over{2}}{{\\hat {\\bf R}}}_\\alpha^2 \\Big), \\label{Ham0}$$ with $m$ the mass and $\\omega$ the frequency of each oscillator. The Hamiltonian ${\\hat H}$ depends on the $2DN$ variables ${\\hat R}_{\\alpha i}$ and ${\\hat P}_{\\alpha i}$, with $\\alpha =1,\\ldots,N$ and $i=1,\\ldots,D$. In practice, the cases $D=1,2,3$ will be the most interesting, but we shall treat the general situation here.\n\nIn a Wigner quantum system, the operators ${\\hat {\\bf R}}_1,\\ldots,{\\hat {\\bf R}}_N$ and ${\\hat {\\bf P}}_1,\\ldots,{\\hat {\\bf P}}_N$ have to be defined in such a way that Hamilton\u2019s equations $${\\dot{{\\hat {\\bf P}}}}_\\alpha=-m\\omega^2{\\hat {\\bf R}}_\\alpha, \\ \\ {\\dot{{\\hat {\\bf R}}}}_\\alpha = {1\\over m}{\\hat {\\bf P}}_\\alpha\n    \\ ~ {\\rm for} ~\\ \\alpha=1,2,\\ldots,N,\n     \\label{Ham}$$ and the Heisenberg equations $${\\dot{{\\hat {\\bf P}}}}_\\alpha = {i\\over{\\hbar}}[\\hat{H},{\\hat {\\bf P}}_\\alpha], \\ \\\n     {\\dot{{\\hat {\\bf R}}}}_\\alpha = {i\\over{\\hbar}}[\\hat{H},{\\hat {\\bf R}}_\\alpha]\n     \\ ~ {\\rm for} ~ \\ \\alpha=1,2\\ldots,N,\n     \\label{Heis}$$ are identical as operator equations. These compatibility conditions (CCs) are as follows $$[\\hat{H},{\\hat {\\bf P}}_\\alpha]=i\\hbar m \\omega^2{\\hat {\\bf R}}_\\alpha ,\\ \\\n   [\\hat{H},{\\hat {\\bf R}}_\\alpha]=-{{i\\hbar}\\over{m}}{\\hat {\\bf P}}_\\alpha\n    \\ ~ {\\rm for} ~ \\ \\alpha=1,2,\\ldots,N.\n     \\label{comp}$$ To make the connection with basic classical Lie superalgebras we write the operators ${\\hat {\\bf P}}_\\alpha$ and ${\\hat {\\bf R}}_\\alpha$ ($\\alpha=1,2,\\ldots,N$) in terms of new operators (or vice versa): $$a_{\\alpha j}^\\pm = \\sqrt{cm \\omega \\over 4\\hbar}\n {\\hat R}_{\\alpha j} \\pm i \\mu \n  \\sqrt {c\\over 4m \\omega \\hbar} {\\hat P}_{\\alpha j}, \\qquad \\label{A}\n  (\\alpha=1,\\ldots,N;\\ j=1,\\ldots,D) \\nonumber$$ where $\\mu=+1$ or $-1$ and $c$ is an arbitrary positive constant (which can be chosen as an integer). The Hamiltonian $\\hat{H}$ is then $$\\hat{H} = {{\\omega\\hbar}\\over{c}}\\sum_{\\alpha =1}^N \\sum_{i=1}^D \\{a_{\\alpha i}^+,a_{\\alpha i}^-\\},\n     \\label{Halpha}$$ with $\\{\\cdot,\\cdot\\}$ an anticommutator. The compatibility conditions\u00a0(\\[comp\\]) take the form: $$\\sum_{\\alpha=1}^N  \\sum_{i=1}^D  [ \\{a_{\\alpha i}^+,a_{\\alpha i}^- \\},a_{\\beta j}^\\pm]\n=\\mp \\mu c\\; a_{\\beta j}^\\pm , \\qquad (\\beta =1,\\ldots,N;\\ j=1,\\ldots,D).\n\\label{comp1}$$ In the present form, the compatibility conditions are expressed as certain triple relations for a set of odd operators $a_{\\alpha i}^\\pm$. Thus it is natural to look for solutions of\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]) in the framework of Lie superalgebras. The classification of GQSs\u00a0[@NJ], also expressed by means of certain creation and annihilation operators (CAOs) $x_i^\\pm$ ($i=1,\\ldots,M$) satisfying triple relations\u00a0${\\cal R}$, can thus be used to investigate solutions of\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]). In the classification list of\u00a0[@NJ], we should now restrict ourselves to cases where all CAO\u2019s of ${\\cal R}$ consist of odd elements only. Therefore $G_{-1}$ and $G_{+1}$ are odd subspaces, and the grading\u00a0(\\[5grading\\]) is [*consistent*]{} with the $\\mathbb{Z}_2$-grading of the Lie superalgebra. Then, after identifying the $x_i^\\pm$ with the operators $a_{\\alpha j}^\\pm$ (eventually up to an overall constant), it remains to verify whether\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]) is satisfied. We shall now perform this investigation for the basic classical Lie superalgebras.\n\nFor the Lie superalgebra $sl(m|n)=A(m-1|n-1)$ there are two GQSs with all CAOs odd elements\u00a0[@NJ]. The first of these corresponds to a grading of length\u00a03 (i.e.\u00a0$G_{\\pm2}=0$ in\u00a0(\\[5grading\\])). In this case, the CAOs are given by: $$x_{rk}^- = e_{k, r+m+1}, \\quad x_{rk}^+ = e_{r+m+1,k}, \\qquad r=1,\\ldots,n;\\;\nk=1,\\ldots,m,$$ where $e_{ij}$ is a $(m+n)\\times(m+n)$ matrix with zeros everywhere except a $1$ on the intersection of row $i$ and column $j$ (corresponding to the defining $sl(m|n)$ representation). These operators satisfy the triple relations (we write in this paper only the relations from\u00a0${\\cal R}$ that are needed here; $r,s,t=1,\\ldots,n$; $i,j,k=1,\\ldots,m$) $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& [\\{x_{ri}^+,x_{sj}^-\\},x_{tk}^+]=\n\\delta_{ij}\\delta_{st} x_{rk}^+ -\\delta_{jk}\\delta_{rs} x_{ti}^+,  \\nonumber\\\\\n&& [\\{x_{ri}^+,x_{sj}^-\\},x_{tk}^-]=\n-\\delta_{ij}\\delta_{rt} x_{sk}^- +\\delta_{ik}\\delta_{rs} x_{tj}^-, \\label{sl}\\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\\sum_{r=1}^n\\sum_{k=1}^m  [ \\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^- \\},x_{sj}^\\pm]\n=\\pm (m-n) x_{sj}^\\pm. \\label{slmnsolution}$$ It is clear that such systems provide solutions for the CCs (as long as $m\\ne n$). First of all, taking $m=D$ and $n=N$ yields the $sl(D|N)$ solution of the CCs\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]) for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a_{\\alpha j}^\\pm = x_{\\alpha j}^\\pm$ ($\\alpha=1,\\ldots,N$; $j=1,\\ldots,D$). This is (at least for $D=3$) a known solution: see\u00a0[@PS1] for a discussion and some properties corresponding to this $sl(3|N)$ case.\n\nSecondly, one can take $m=1$ and $n=DN$, yielding the $sl(1|DN)$ solution of the CCs. In this case, one takes $a_{\\alpha j}^\\pm = x_{j+(\\alpha-1)D,1}^\\pm$ ($\\alpha=1,\\ldots,N$; $j=1,\\ldots,D$). This is again a known solution: see\u00a0[@Palev2], [@PS]-[@K2] for an investigation of the physical properties of the $sl(1|3N)$ solution of the Wigner quantum oscillator.\n\nObserve that one can always interchange the operators $a_{\\alpha j}^+$ with $a_{\\alpha j}^-$.\n\nNote that the cases $(m=N,n=D)$ or $(m=DN,n=1)$ also provide solutions, but these are not considered because of the isomorphism of $sl(m|n)$ and $sl(n|m)$. More generally, it is clear that by repartitioning the $mn$ operators $x_{rk}^+$ ($r=1,\\ldots,n$; $k=1,\\ldots,m$) into $N$ sets of $D$ operators (and analogously for the $x_{rk}^-$), (\\[slmnsolution\\]) still yields a solution of\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]). This means that all Lie superalgebras $sl(m|n)$ with $mn=DN$ provide a solution to the compatibility conditions for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.\n\nThe second type of GQS for the Lie superalgebra $sl(m|n)$ with all CAOs odd elements corresponds to a grading of length\u00a05\u00a0[@NJ]. In this situation there are several inequivalent GQSs, all of them leading to solutions of the CCs. Since the description is somewhat more complicated than the other cases, we shall give it in the Appendix.\n\nNext, we turn our attention to the Lie superalgebras $B(m|n)=osp(2m+1|2n)$. We know from\u00a0[@NJ] that there is one GQS with odd elements only. In terms of the defining $(2m+2n+1)$-dimensional representation of $B(m|n)$, the corresponding CAOs are given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\nx_{ri}^+ = e_{m+i, 2m+1+r}-e_{2m+1+n+r,i}, && \nx_{ri}^- = e_{i, 2m+1+n+r}+e_{2m+1+r,m+i},\\nonumber \\\\\nx_{r, -i}^+ = e_{i, 2m+1+r}-e_{2m+1+n+r,i+m}, && \nx_{r, -i}^- = e_{m+i, 2m+1+n+r}+e_{2m+1+r,i},\\nonumber \\\\\nx_{r 0}^+ = e_{2m+1, 2m+1+r}-e_{2m+1+n+r,2m+1}, &&\nx_{r 0}^- = e_{2m+1, 2m+1+n+r}+e_{2m+1+r,2m+1},\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ with $r=1,\\ldots,n$ and $i=1,\\ldots,m$. If we introduce the notation $$\\langle j\\rangle = \\left\\{ \\begin{array}{lll}\n {\\;\\; 1} & \\hbox{if} & j=1,\\ldots ,m \\\\ \n {-1} & \\hbox{if} & j=-m,\\ldots ,-1 \\nonumber \\\\\n {\\;\\; 0}  & \\hbox{if} & j=0 \\\\\n \\end{array}\\right.$$ the triple relations needed can be written as follows: $$[\\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\\},x_{sj}^{\\pm}]=\n\\pm \\langle k\\rangle \\langle j\\rangle \\delta_{|k||j|}\\; x_{sj}^{\\pm}\n\\mp \\delta_{rs}\\; x_{sj}^{\\pm},\n\\qquad(r,s =1,\\ldots,n;\\; k,j=-m,\\ldots,m).$$ This implies $$\\sum_{r =1}^{n} \\sum_{k=-m}^{m}[\\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\\},x_{sj}^{\\pm}]=\n\\mp (2m+1)x_{sj}^{\\pm}, \\qquad (s=1,\\ldots,n;\\; j=-m,\\ldots,m).\n\\label{osp-solution}$$ Again it is clear that this provides solutions for the CCs. For $D=2m+1$ and $N=n$, one obtains the $osp(D|2N)$ solution of the CCs\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]) for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a^\\pm_{\\alpha j} = x^\\pm_{\\alpha j}$ ($\\alpha=1,\\ldots,N$; $j=-m,\\ldots,m$). This is a new class of solutions of WQSs. Note that even the simplest case ($D=3$ and $N=1$, or $osp(3|2)$) is different from the $osp(3|2)$ solution of\u00a0[@osp32], since in the current case the operators $a^\\pm_{\\alpha j}$ correspond to root vectors of $osp(3|2)$ (which was not the case in\u00a0[@osp32]).\n\nAlternatively, one can also take $N=2m+1$ and $D=n$ in\u00a0(\\[osp-solution\\]). This yields the $osp(N|2D)$ solution of the CCs for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a^\\pm_{\\alpha j} = x^\\pm_{j \\alpha}$ ($\\alpha=-m,\\ldots,m$; $j=1,\\ldots,D$). More generally, it is clear that by repartitioning the $(2m+1)n$ operators $x_{rk}^+$ ($r=1,\\ldots,n$; $k=-m,\\ldots,m$) into $N$ sets of $D$ operators (and analogously for the $x_{rk}^-$), (\\[osp-solution\\]) still yields a solution of\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]). This means that all Lie superalgebras $osp(2m+1|2n)$ with $(2m+1)n=DN$ provide a solution to the compatibility conditions.\n\nFinally, one can have $m=0$ and $n=DN$, yielding the $B(0|DN)=osp(1|2DN)$ solution of the CCs. In this case, one obtains a solution for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a^\\pm_{\\alpha j} = x^\\pm_{j+(\\alpha-1)D,0}$ ($\\alpha=1,\\ldots,N$; $j=1,\\ldots,D$). This solution is not new; in fact it is (up to a constant) the known para-Bose solution\u00a0[@Palev2], [@GP]. Indeed, let us put $$b^+_r= \\sqrt{2}\\, x^+_{r0}, \\qquad b^-_r= -\\sqrt{2}\\, x^-_{r0},$$ for $r=1,\\ldots,DN$. Then these operators satisfy $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& [\\{ b_r^{\\xi}, b_s^{\\eta}\\} , b_t^{\\epsilon}]=\n(\\epsilon -\\xi) \\delta_{rt} b_s^{\\eta} +  (\\epsilon -\\eta)\\delta_{st}b_r^{\\xi},  \\label{pBose} \\\\\n&& \\qquad\\qquad \\xi, \\eta, \\epsilon =\\pm\\hbox{ or }\\pm 1;\\quad r,s,t=1,\\ldots,DN. \\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ These are the para-Bose operators of\u00a0[@Green]. For $osp(1|6N)$, it was observed in\u00a0[@PS1] that this yields a solution of the CCs for the $N$-particle 3-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.\n\nLet us now consider the Lie superalgebras $D(m|n)=osp(2m|2n)$. From\u00a0[@NJ] it follows that there are two GQSs with odd elements only. In terms of the defining $(2m+2n)$-dimensional representation of $D(m|n)$, the CAOs of the first system are given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\nx_{ri}^+ = e_{m+i, 2m+r}-e_{2m+n+r,i}, &&\nx_{ri}^- = e_{i, 2m+n+r}+e_{2m+r,m+i},\\nonumber \\\\\nx_{r, -i}^+ = e_{i, 2m+r}-e_{2m+n+r,i+m}, &&\nx_{r, -i}^- = e_{m+i, 2m+n+r}+e_{2m+r,i}\\label{D1} ,\\end{aligned}$$ with $r=1,\\ldots,n$ and $i=1,\\ldots,m$. It is easy to verify that these satisfy $$[\\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\\},x_{sj}^{\\pm}]=\n\\pm \\langle k\\rangle \\langle j\\rangle \\delta_{|k||j|}\\; x_{sj}^{\\pm}\n\\mp \\delta_{rs}\\; x_{sj}^{\\pm},\n\\qquad(r,s =1,\\ldots,n;\\; k,j=\\pm 1,\\ldots,\\pm m).$$ Thus it follows that $$\\sum_{r =1}^{n} \\sum_{0\\ne k=-m}^{m}[\\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\\},x_{sj}^{\\pm}]=\n\\mp 2m\\; x_{sj}^{\\pm}, \\qquad (s=1,\\ldots,n;\\; j=\\pm 1,\\ldots,\\pm m).\n\\label{osp2-solution}$$ For $D=2m$ and $N=n$, this yields the $osp(D|2N)$ solution of the CCs\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]) for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator, by taking $a^\\pm_{\\alpha j} = x^\\pm_{\\alpha j}$ ($\\alpha=1,\\ldots,N$; $j=\\pm 1,\\ldots,\\pm m$). This is a new class of solutions for the WQSs.\n\nAlternatively, one can take $N=2m$ and $D=n$ in\u00a0(\\[osp2-solution\\]). This yields the $osp(N|2D)$ solution of the CCs\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]), by taking $a^\\pm_{\\alpha j} = x^\\pm_{j \\alpha}$ ($j=1,\\ldots,D$; $\\alpha=\\pm 1,\\ldots,\\pm m$). As before, one can more generally repartition the $2mn$ operators $x_{rk}^+$ ($r=1,\\ldots,n$; $k=\\pm 1,\\ldots,\\pm m$) into $N$ sets of $D$ operators (and analogously for the $x_{rk}^-$); then (\\[osp2-solution\\]) still yields a solution of\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]). This means that all Lie superalgebras $osp(2m|2n)$ with $2mn=DN$ provide a solution to the compatibility conditions for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.\n\nThe Lie superalgebra $D(m|n)=osp(2m|2n)$ also admits a different GQS with odd elements only\u00a0[@NJ]. The CAOs of this second system are given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\nx_{ri}^+ = e_{2m+n+i,r}-e_{m+r,2m+i}, &&\nx_{ri}^- = e_{r,2m+n+i}+e_{2m+i,m+r},\\nonumber \\\\\nx_{r, -i}^+ = e_{m+r,2m+n+i}+e_{2m+i,r}, &&\nx_{r, -i}^- = e_{r,2m+i}-e_{2m+n+i,m+r}\\label{D2} ,\\end{aligned}$$ with $r=1,\\ldots,m$ and $i=1,\\ldots,n$. Although this looks similar to the first system, observe that it is essentially different. In\u00a0(\\[D1\\]), the subalgebra $G_0=[\\![ G_{-1}, G_{+1} ]\\!]$ is $sl(n)\\oplus so(2m)$, whereas in\u00a0(\\[D2\\]), it is $sl(m)\\oplus sp(2n)$\u00a0[@NJ]. In this case the operators\u00a0(\\[D2\\]) satisfy $$[\\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\\},x_{sj}^{\\pm}]=\n\\pm \\langle k\\rangle \\langle j\\rangle \\delta_{|k||j|}\\; x_{sj}^{\\pm}\n\\mp \\delta_{rs}\\; x_{sj}^{\\pm},\n\\qquad(r,s =1,\\ldots,m;\\; k,j=\\pm 1,\\ldots,\\pm n).$$ Now we have $$\\sum_{r =1}^{m} \\sum_{0\\ne k=-n}^{n}[\\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^-\\},x_{sj}^{\\pm}]=\n\\mp 2n\\; x_{sj}^{\\pm}, \\qquad (s=1,\\ldots,m;\\; j=\\pm 1,\\ldots,\\pm n).\n\\label{osp3-solution}$$ For $N=2m$ and $D=n$, this yields the second $osp(N|2D)$ solution of the CCs\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]), by taking $a^\\pm_{\\alpha j} = x^\\pm_{\\alpha j}$ ($j=1,\\ldots,D$; $\\alpha=\\pm 1,\\ldots,\\pm m$). As for the other cases, one can more generally repartition the $2mn$ operators $x_{rk}^+$ ($r=1,\\ldots,m$; $k=\\pm 1,\\ldots,\\pm n$) into $N$ sets of $D$ operators (and analogously for the $x_{rk}^-$) and still obtain a solution of\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]). Hence all Lie superalgebras $osp(2m|2n)$ with $2mn=DN$ provide a second type of solution to the compatibility conditions for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.\n\nThe solutions presented here for $D(m|n)$ remain valid also when $m=1$. In that case, the Lie superalgebra is usually denoted by $C(n+1)$: $C(n+1)=D(1|n)=osp(2|2n)$. In particular, $C(N+1)$ yields solutions for the $N$-particle 2-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator.\n\nTo conclude, our analysis of the compatibility conditions\u00a0(\\[comp1\\]) using the formal classification of GQS in\u00a0[@NJ] has given rise to several classes of new solutions for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator. The most interesting solutions are those with $D=1,2,3$. For example, for $D=1$ there are solutions in terms of the Lie superalgebras $sl(1|N)$ and $osp(1|2N)$; for $D=2$ there are solutions in terms of $sl(1|2N)$, $sl(2|N)$, $osp(2|2N)$ and $osp(2N|2)$; for $D=3$ there are solutions in terms of $sl(1|3N)$, $sl(3|N)$ and $osp(3|N)$ (apart from other types of partitioning).\n\nIn order to study physical properties of the new Wigner quantum systems (energy spectrum, position and momentum operators, etc.) one is lead to representation theory of the corresponding Lie superalgebra. The class of representations should be \u201cunitary\u201d, in the sense that $(a_{\\alpha j}^\\pm)^\\dagger = a_{\\alpha j}^\\mp$ must hold (by the Hermiticity of the position and momentum operators, see\u00a0(\\[A\\])). For interesting examples with intriguing physical properties, see the $sl(1|3)$\u00a0[@Palev2],[@K1] (or $sl(1|3N)$) solution for the ($N$-particle) 3-dimensional Wigner quantum oscillator\u00a0[@K2]. With the current list of new solutions obtained in this letter, we hope to investigate the physical properties of some of these in the future.\n\n[**Acknowledgments**]{}\n\nN.I.\u00a0Stoilova was supported by a project from the Fund for Scientific Research \u2013 Flanders (Belgium).\n\nAppendix {#appendix .unnumbered}\n========\n\nWe describe here the remaining GQSs for the Lie superalgebra $sl(m|n)$ with odd CAOs only. According to\u00a0[@NJ], there are two classes. For the first class, $l$ can be any index between $1$ and $m-1$, so assume that $l$ is fixed ($1\\leq l<m$). The CAOs are then described by the root vectors of\u00a0[@NJ eq.\u00a0(3.9)], but in order to deduce solutions for the CCs we need to multiply them by some overall constant. This gives, for $k=1,\\ldots,m$ and $r=1,\\ldots,n$: $$x^+_{rk} = \\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{lcc}\n\\sqrt{|2m-n-2l|}\\; e_{m+r,k} & \\hbox{for} & k\\leq l \\\\\n\\sqrt{|n-2l|} \\; e_{k,m+r} & \\hbox{for} & k>l\n\\end{array} \\right.$$ and $$x^-_{rk} = \\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{lcc}\n\\sqrt{|2m-n-2l|} \\; e_{k,m+r} & \\hbox{for} & k\\leq l \\\\\n\\epsilon \\sqrt{|n-2l|} \\; e_{m+r,k} & \\hbox{for} & k>l\n\\end{array} \\right.$$ where $\\epsilon=\\hbox{sgn}((n-2l)(2m-n-2l))$. Of course, we have to assume that $l$ is such that these factors do not vanish, i.e.\u00a0$(n-2l)(2m-n-2l)\\ne 0$. Then, one can deduce that $$\\sum_{r=1}^n\\sum_{k=1}^m  [ \\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^- \\},x_{sj}^\\pm]\n=\\mp \\nu\\; n(m-n) x_{sj}^\\pm \\label{slmn2solution}$$ where $\\nu=\\hbox{sgn}(2m-n-2l)$. Clearly, for $m\\ne n$ such systems provide solutions for the CCs for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator whenever $mn=DN$.\n\nFor the second class, $l$ can be any index between $1$ and $n-1$. Now the CAOs are described by the root vectors of\u00a0[@NJ eq.\u00a0(3.8)], again multiplied by some appropriate constant. This gives, for $k=1,\\ldots,m$ and $r=1,\\ldots,n$: $$x^+_{rk} = \\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{lcc}\n\\sqrt{|2n-m-2l|}\\; e_{m+r,k} & \\hbox{for} & r\\leq l \\\\\n\\sqrt{|m-2l|} \\; e_{k,m+r} & \\hbox{for} & r>l\n\\end{array} \\right.$$ and $$x^-_{rk} = \\left\\{\n\\begin{array}{lcc}\n\\sqrt{|2n-m-2l|} \\; e_{k,m+r} & \\hbox{for} & r\\leq l \\\\\n\\epsilon \\sqrt{|m-2l|} \\; e_{m+r,k} & \\hbox{for} & r>l\n\\end{array} \\right.$$ where $\\epsilon=\\hbox{sgn}((m-2l)(2n-m-2l))$. Again we assume that $l$ is such that these factors do not vanish, i.e.\u00a0$(m-2l)(2n-m-2l)\\ne 0$. Now one can deduce that $$\\sum_{r=1}^n\\sum_{k=1}^m  [ \\{x_{rk}^+,x_{rk}^- \\},x_{sj}^\\pm]\n=\\mp \\nu\\; m(n-m) x_{sj}^\\pm \\label{slmn3solution}$$ where $\\nu=\\hbox{sgn}(2n-m-2l)$. For $m\\ne n$ such systems provide another class of solutions for the CCs for the $N$-particle $D$-dimensional oscillator whenever $mn=DN$.\n\n[99]{}\n\nN.I.\u00a0Stoilova and J.\u00a0Van der Jeugt, \u201cA classification of generalized quantum statistics associated with basic classical Lie superalgebras,\u201d math-ph/0504013.\n\nH.S.\u00a0Green, [*Phys.\u00a0Rev.*]{} [**90**]{}, 270 (1953).\n\nT.D.\u00a0Palev, Lie algebraic aspects of quantum statistics. Unitary quantization (A-quantization), Preprint JINR E17-10550 (1977) and hep-th/9705032.\n\nT.D.\u00a0Palev, J.\u00a0Van der Jeugt, [*J.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*]{} [**43**]{}, 3850 (2002).\n\nA.\u00a0Jellal, T.D.\u00a0Palev and J.\u00a0Van der Jeugt, [*J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A: Math.\u00a0Gen.*]{} [**34**]{}, 10179 (2001); preprint hep-th/0110276.\n\nT.D.\u00a0Palev, N.I.\u00a0Stoilova and J.\u00a0Van der Jeugt, [*J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A: Math.\u00a0Gen.*]{} [**36**]{}, 7093 (2003).\n\nT.D.\u00a0Palev, [*J.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*]{} [**23**]{}, 1778 (1982).\n\nA.H.\u00a0Kamupingene, T.D.\u00a0Palev and S.P.\u00a0Tsaneva, [*J.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.* ]{} [**27**]{}, 2067 (1986).\n\nE.P.\u00a0Wigner, [*Phys.\u00a0Rev.*]{} [**77**]{}, 711 (1950).\n\nL.M.\u00a0Yang, [*Phys.\u00a0Rev.*]{} [**84**]{}, 788 (1951).\n\nL.\u00a0O\u2019Raifeartaigh and C.\u00a0Ryan, [*Proc.\u00a0Roy. Irish.\u00a0Acad.*]{} [**62 A**]{}, 83 (1963).\n\nS.\u00a0Okubo, [*Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D*]{} [**22**]{}, 919 (1980).\n\nV.I.\u00a0Man\u2019ko, G.\u00a0Marmo, E.C.G.\u00a0Sudarshan, and F.\u00a0Zaccaria, [*Int.\u00a0J.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Phys. B*]{} [**11**]{}, 1281 (1997).\n\nM.\u00a0Arik, N.M.\u00a0Atakishiyev and K.B.\u00a0Wolf, [*J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A*]{} [**32**]{}, L371 (1999) .\n\nE.\u00a0Kapuscik, [*Czech.\u00a0J.\u00a0Phys.*]{} [**50**]{}, 1279 (2000).\n\nA.\u00a0Horzela, [*Czech.\u00a0J.\u00a0Phys.*]{} [**50**]{}, 1245 (2000).\n\nN.M.\u00a0Atakishiyev, G.S.\u00a0Pogosyan, L.I.\u00a0Vicent and K.B.\u00a0Wolf, [*J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A*]{} [**34**]{}, 9381 (2001).\n\nP.\u00a0Blasiak, A.\u00a0Horzela, E.\u00a0Kapuscik, [*Journal of Optics B*]{} [**5**]{}, S245-S260, (2003).\n\nT.D.\u00a0Palev and N.I.\u00a0Stoilova, [*Rep.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*]{} [**49**]{}, 395 (2002).\n\nT.D.\u00a0Palev and N.I.\u00a0Stoilova, [*J.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*]{} [**38**]{}, 2506 (1997).\n\nR.C.\u00a0King, T.D.\u00a0Palev, N.I.\u00a0Stoilova and J.\u00a0Van der Jeugt, [*J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A: Math.\u00a0Gen.*]{} [**36**]{}, 4337 (2003).\n\nR.C.\u00a0King, T.D.\u00a0Palev, N.I.\u00a0Stoilova and J.\u00a0Van der Jeugt, [*J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A: Math.\u00a0Gen.*]{} [**36**]{}, 11999 (2003).\n\nT.D.\u00a0Palev and N.I.\u00a0Stoilova, [*J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A*]{} [**27**]{}, 7387 (1994).\n\nA.Ch.\u00a0Ganchev and T.D.\u00a0Palev, [*J.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Phys.*]{} [**21**]{}, 797 (1980).\n\n[^1]: E-mail: Neli.Stoilova@UGent.be; Permanent address: Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy, Boul.\u00a0Tsarigradsko Chaussee 72, 1784 Sofia, Bulgaria\n\n[^2]: E-mail: Joris.VanderJeugt@UGent.be\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    Compressed sensing (CS) demonstrates that sparse signals can be estimated from under-determined linear systems. Distributed CS (DCS) further reduces the number of measurements by considering joint sparsity within signal ensembles. DCS with jointly sparse signals has applications in multi-sensor acoustic sensing, magnetic resonance imaging with multiple coils, remote sensing, and array signal processing. Multi-measurement vector (MMV) problems consider the estimation of jointly sparse signals under the DCS framework. Two related MMV settings are studied. In the first setting, each signal vector is measured by a different independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) measurement matrix, while in the second setting, all signal vectors are measured by the same i.i.d. matrix. Replica analysis is performed for these two MMV settings, and the minimum mean squared error (MMSE), which turns out to be identical for both settings, is obtained as a function of the noise variance and number of measurements. To showcase the application of MMV models, the MMSE\u2019s of complex CS problems with both real and complex measurement matrices are also analyzed. Multiple performance regions for MMV are identified where the MMSE behaves differently as a function of the noise variance and the number of measurements.\n\n    Belief propagation (BP) is a CS signal estimation framework that often achieves the MMSE asymptotically. A phase transition for BP is identified. This phase transition, verified by numerical results, separates the regions where BP achieves the MMSE and where it is suboptimal. Numerical results also illustrate that more signal vectors in the jointly sparse signal ensemble lead to a better phase transition.\nauthor:\n- 'Junan Zhu,\u00a0, Dror\u00a0Baron,\u00a0, and Florent Krzakala [^1] [^2] [^3]'\ntitle: |\n    Performance Limits\\\n    for Noisy Multi-Measurement Vector Problems\n---\n\n[*Keywords*]{}:Approximate message passing, multi-measurement vector problem, replica analysis.\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nCompressed sensing (CS)\u00a0[@CandesRUP; @DonohoCS; @BaraniukCS2007] demonstrates that sparse signals can be estimated from under-determined linear measurements. Owing to the potential for radically reduced measurement rates, CS has become an active research area within signal processing. CS has many application areas including magnetic resonance imaging\u00a0[@JuYeKi07; @JuSuNaKiYe09], communication\u00a0[@Cotter2002scemp], and remote sensing\u00a0[@Ma2009deblur].\n\nDistributed CS (DCS)\u00a0[@HN05; @DuarteWakinBaronSarvothamBaraniuk2013] is based on the premise that joint sparsity within signal ensembles enables a further reduction in the number of measurements. Motivated by sensor networks\u00a0[@Pottie2000], preliminary work in DCS\u00a0[@Duarte2006IPSN; @HN05; @DuarteWakinBaronSarvothamBaraniuk2013] showed that the number of measurements required per sensor must account for the minimum features unique to that sensor while features that are common to multiple sensors are amortized. DCS led to a proliferation of research on the multi-measurement vector (MMV) problem\u00a0[@chen2006trs; @cotter2005ssl; @Mishali08rembo; @Berg09jrmm; @LeeKimBreslerYe2011; @LeeBreslerJunge2012; @YeKimBresler2015]. The MMV problem considers the estimation of a set of sparse signal vectors that share common supports, and has applications such as radar array signal processing, acoustic sensing with multiple speakers, magnetic resonance imaging with multiple coils\u00a0[@JuYeKi07; @JuSuNaKiYe09], and diffuse optical tomography using multiple illumination patterns. In MMV, thanks to the common support, the number of sparse coefficients that can be successfully estimated increases with the number of measurements. This property was evaluated rigorously for noiseless measurements using $l_0$ minimization\u00a0[@DuarteWakinBaronSarvothamBaraniuk2013]. To address measurement noise, estimation approaches for MMV problems have included greedy algorithms such as SOMP\u00a0[@tropp2006ass; @chen2006trs], $l_1$ convex relaxation\u00a0[@malioutov2005ssr; @tropp2006ass2], and M-FOCUSS\u00a0[@cotter2005ssl]. REduce MMV and BOost (ReMBo) has been shown to outperform conventional methods\u00a0[@Mishali08rembo], and subspace methods have also been used to solve MMV problems\u00a0[@LeeBreslerJunge2012; @YeKimBresler2015]. Statistical approaches\u00a0[@ZinielSchniter2011] often achieve the oracle minimum mean squared error (MMSE). However, the performance limits of MMV signal estimation in the presence of measurement noise have not been studied.\n\nReplica analysis is a statistical physics method that can be used to analyze the MMSE and phase transition for inverse problems\u00a0[@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Montanari2006; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015; @Lesieur2015]. Barbier and Krzakala\u00a0[@Barbier2015] studied the MMSE for estimating superposition codes using replica analysis. In this paper, we extend the derivation in Barbier and Krzakala\u00a0[@Barbier2015] to two related yet different MMV settings: ([*i*]{}) $J$ jointly sparse signals are measured by $J$ different dense matrices that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.), and ([*ii*]{}) $J$ jointly sparse signals are measured by $J$ identical i.i.d. matrices. We only consider dense i.i.d. Gaussian matrices in this work, while our analysis can be extended to other i.i.d. matrices easily.\n\nWe make several contributions in this paper. First, we obtain the information theoretic MMSE for the two MMV settings above under the Bayesian setting. Second, we show that in the large system limit the MMSE\u2019s for these two settings are identical to the single measurement vector (SMV) problem with a dense measurement matrix and a block sparse signal with fixed length blocks. Third, we derive the MMSE for SMV complex CS problems by noticing that SMV complex CS is essentially an MMV problem. Fourth, we identify several performance regions for MMV, where the MMSE has different characteristics based on channel noise variance and measurement rate. Finally, we find a phase transition for belief propagation algorithms (BP)\u00a0[@DMM2009; @CSBP2010; @Bayati2011; @Montanari2012; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015] applied to MMV problems, which separates regions where BP achieves the MMSE asymptotically and where it is suboptimal. BP simulation results confirm the phase transition results.\n\nThe remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We introduce our signal and measurement models in Section\u00a0\\[sec:model\\], followed by replica analyses for two MMV settings as well as two SMV complex CS problems in Section\u00a0\\[sec:main\\]. Section\u00a0\\[sec:proof\\] proves the results of Section\u00a0\\[sec:main\\]. Numerical results are discussed in Section\u00a0\\[sec:numeric\\] and we conclude in Section\u00a0\\[sec:conclusion\\].\n\n[**Notations:**]{} In this paper, bold capital letters represent matrices, bold lower case letters represent vectors, and normal font lower case letters represent scalars. The entry (scalar) in the $\\mu$-th row, $l$-th column of a matrix $\\F$ is denoted by $F_{\\mu,l}$, where the comma is often omitted. The $\\mu$-th entry (scalar) in a vector $\\z$ is denoted by $z_{\\mu}$.\n\nSignal and Measurement Models {#sec:model}\n=============================\n\n[**Signal model**]{}: We consider an ensemble of $J$ signal vectors, $\\underline{\\s}^j\\in\\mathbb{R}^N,\\ j\\in\\{1,...,J\\}$, where $j$ is the index of the signal. Consider a [*super symbol*]{} $\\s_l=[\\underline{s}_l^1,...,\\underline{s}_l^J]^T,\\ l\\in\\{1,...,N\\}$, where $[\\cdot]^T$ denotes the transpose. The super symbol $\\s_l$ follows a $J$-dimensional Bernoulli-Gaussian distribution, $$\\label{eq:jsm}\nP(\\s_l)=\\rho \\phi(\\s_l)+(1-\\rho)\\delta(\\s_l),$$ where $\\rho$ is the sparsity rate, $\\phi(\\s_l)$ is a $J$-dimensional Gaussian distribution with zero mean and identity covariance matrix, and $\\delta(\\s_l)$ is the delta function for $J$-dimensional vectors.\n\n\\[def:jointly\\_sparse\\] [*Ensembles of signals that obey\u00a0 are called jointly sparse.*]{}\n\n[**Measurement models**]{}: Each signal $\\underline{\\s}^j$ is measured by an i.i.d. Gaussian measurement matrix $\\underline{\\F}^j\\in\\mathbb{R}^{M\\times N}$, $\\underline{F}_{\\mu l}^j \\sim \\mathcal{N}(0,1/N)$, where $\\mu$ refers to the row index and $l$ is the column index. The measurements $\\underline{\\y}^j$ are corrupted by i.i.d. Gaussian noise $\\underline{\\z}^j$ consisting of entries $\\underline{z}_{\\mu}^j\\sim \\mathcal{N}(0,\\Delta)$, $$\\label{eq:MMVmodel}\n\\underline{\\y}^j=\\underline{\\F}^j\\underline{\\s}^j+\\underline{\\z}^j,\\quad j\\in\\{1,\\cdots,J\\}.$$ When the number of signal vectors $J=1$, this MMV model\u00a0 becomes an SMV problem. Our analyses in this paper are readily extended to other i.i.d. matrices, jointly sparse signals\u00a0, and other i.i.d. noise distributions.\n\n\\[def:MMV\\_set1\\] [*The setting MMV-1 refers to the measurement model in\u00a0 with all matrices $\\underline{F}^j$ being different.*]{}\n\n\\[def:MMV\\_set2\\] [*The setting MMV-2 refers to the measurement model in\u00a0 with all matrices $\\underline{F}^j$ being equal.*]{}\n\nIn the signal model\u00a0 and measurement model\u00a0, the sparsity rate $\\rho$, channel noise variance $\\Delta$, and number of channels $J$ are constant.\n\n\\[def:largeSystemLimit\\] The signal length $N$ scales to infinity, and the number of measurements $M=M(N)$ depends on $N$ and also scales to infinity, where the ratio approaches a positive constant $R$ for practical problems, $$\\label{eq:measurementRate}\n\\lim_{N\\rightarrow\\infty} \\frac{M(N)}{N} = R>0.$$\n\nWe call $R$ the measurement rate.\n\nReplica Analyses for MMV Settings {#sec:main}\n=================================\n\nSection\u00a0\\[sec:model\\] discussed two MMV settings. Both settings have applications in real-world problems such as magnetic resonance imaging\u00a0[@JuYeKi07; @JuSuNaKiYe09] and sensor networks\u00a0[@Pottie2000]. Although numerous algorithms for MMV signal estimation have been proposed\u00a0[@tropp2006ass; @chen2006trs; @malioutov2005ssr; @tropp2006ass2; @cotter2005ssl; @Mishali08rembo; @ZinielSchniter2011], what is missing is an information theoretic analysis of the best possible mean squared error (MSE) performance. Throughout this paper, we only consider the MSE as our performance metric.\n\nStatistical physics background and replica method {#sec:set1}\n-------------------------------------------------\n\n![Illustration of MMV channel\u00a0 with $J=3$ signal vectors (left), and one of its possible SMV forms (right). Different background patterns differentiate entries from different channels, and blank space denotes zeros.[]{data-label=\"fig:channel\"}](MMV_channel_v2.png){width=\"8.5cm\"}\n\nIn order to express\u00a0 using a single channel, we transform it to an SMV form. One possible way to do so is illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:channel\\]. The equivalent SMV problem is $$\\label{eq:MMVchannel}\n  \\y=\\F\\s+\\z,$$ where $\\F\\in\\mathbb{R}^{MJ\\times NJ}$ is the matrix, $\\y\\in\\mathbb{R}^{MJ}$ are the measurements, and the noise is $\\z\\in\\mathbb{R}^{MJ}$. Entries of the signal vectors $\\underline{\\s}^j$, measurement vectors $\\underline{\\y}^j$, and noise vectors $\\underline{\\z}^j$\u00a0 form the SMV signal $\\s$, measurements $\\y$, and noise $\\z$\u00a0 with $$s_{(l-1)J+j}=\\underline{s}^{j}_l,\\ y_{(j-1)M+\\mu}=\\underline{y}^j_{\\mu},\\ \\text{and}\\ z_{(j-1)M+\\mu}=\\underline{z}^j_{\\mu},$$ respectively. Entries of the matrix $\\underline{\\F}^j$\u00a0 form the SMV matrix $\\F$\u00a0 with $F_{(j-1)M+\\mu,(l-1)J+j}=\\underline{F}^j_{\\mu l}$; other entries of $\\F$ are zeros. The posterior for the estimate $\\x\\in\\mathbb{R}^{NJ}$, comprised of super symbols $\\x_l=[x_{(l-1)J+1},...,x_{lJ}]^T,\\ l\\in\\{1,...,N\\}$, is $$\\label{eq:pxy2}\n  P(\\x|\\y)=\\frac{1}{Z}{\\prod_{l=1}^{N}}P(\\x_l){\\prod_{\\mu=1}^{MJ}}\\l[\\frac{\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{1}{2\\Delta}(\\\\y_{\\mu}-{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}\\F_{\\mu l}\\x_l)^2}}{\\sqrt{2\\pi\\Delta}}\\r],$$ where $\\F_{\\mu l}=[F_{\\mu,(l-1)J+1}, \\ldots, F_{\\mu,lJ}]$ is a super symbol highlighted by the dashed area in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:channel\\], and the denominator $Z$ is the partition function\u00a0[@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015], $$\\label{eq:partition}\n  Z=\\int {\\prod_{l=1}^{N}}P(\\x_l){\\prod_{\\mu=1}^{MJ}}\\l[\\frac{\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{1}{2\\Delta}(y_{\\mu}-{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}\\F_{\\mu l}\\x_l)^2}}{\\sqrt{2\\pi\\Delta}}\\r]{\\prod_{l=1}^{N}}d\\x_l.$$ Note that multi-dimensional integrations such as\u00a0 are denoted by a single $\\int$ operator for brevity. Confining our attention to the Bayesian setting\u00a0[@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015], $P(\\x_l)$ follows the true distribution\u00a0, $P(\\x_l)=\\rho \\phi(\\x_l)+(1-\\rho)\\delta(\\x_l)$.\n\nBy creating an analogy between the channel\u00a0 and a many-body thermodynamic system\u00a0[@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015], the posterior\u00a0 can be interpreted as the Boltzmann measure on a disordered system with the following Hamiltonian, $$\\label{eq:Hamiltonian}\nH(\\x)=\\sum_{l=1}^N \\log [P(\\x_l)]+\\sum_{\\mu=1}^{MJ} \\frac{1}{2\\Delta}\\l(y_{\\mu}-\\sum_{l=1}^N\\F_{\\mu l} \\x_l\\r)^2.$$\n\nThe averaged free energy of the disordered system given by\u00a0 characterizes the thermodynamic properties of the system. Evaluating the fixed points (local maxima) in the free energy expression provides the MMSE for the channel\u00a0\u00a0[@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015]. [*Under the assumption of self-averaging*]{}\u00a0[@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015], the free energy is defined as[^4] $$\\label{eq:free_energy}\n  \\mathcal{F}=\\lim_{N\\rightarrow\\infty}\\frac{1}{N}\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\s,\\z}[\\log (Z)],$$ which is difficult to evaluate. The replica method\u00a0[@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015] introduces $n$ replicas of the estimate $\\x$ as $\\x^a,\\ a\\in\\{1,...,n\\}$, and the free energy\u00a0 can be approximated by the replica trick\u00a0[@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015], $$\\label{eq:replicaTrick}\n  \\mathcal{F}=\\lim_{N\\rightarrow\\infty}\\lim_{n\\rightarrow 0} \\frac{\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\s,\\z}[ Z^n]-1}{Nn}.$$ Note that the self-averaging property that leads to\u00a0 and the replica trick\u00a0, as well as the replica symmetry assumptions that appear in latter parts of this paper, are assumed to be valid in this work, and their rigorous justification is still an open problem in mathematical physics\u00a0[@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015].[^5]\n\n**Evaluating the free energy**: To evaluate the free energy\u00a0, we calculate $\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\s,\\z}\\l[Z^n\\r]$, where $\\cdot_{\\F,\\s,\\z}$ denotes expectation with respect to (w.r.t.) $\\F,\\s$, and $\\z$, and $Z$ is given in\u00a0: $$\\label{eq:EZn1}\n  \\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\s,\\z}\\l[Z^n\\r]\\!=\\!\\frac{\\mathbb{E}_{\\s}\\!\\l[\\displaystyle{\\int {\\prod_{l=1}^{N}}{\\prod_{a=1}^{n}}\\! P(\\x_l^a)\\!{\\prod_{\\mu=1}^{M}}\\!\\mathbb{X}_{\\mu}\\!{\\prod_{l=1}^{N}}{\\prod_{a=1}^{n}}d\\x_l^a}\\r]}{(2\\pi\\Delta)^{\\frac{nMJ}{2}}},$$ where $$\\label{eq:Xmu}\n  \\mathbb{X}_{\\mu}=\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}\\l[\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{1}{2\\Delta}{\\sum_{j=1}^{J}}{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}(v_{\\mu j}^a)^2}\\r],$$ $a$ is the replica index, $\\x^a_l$ is the $l$-th super symbol of $\\x^a$, and $$\\label{eq:v_mu_a}\nv_{\\mu j}^a={\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}\\F_{\\mu+M(j-1),l}(\\s_l-\\x_l^a)+z_{\\mu+M(j-1)}.$$\n\n\\[lemma:covIsSame\\] In the large system limit, the quantity $\\mathbb{X}_{\\mu}$\u00a0 is the same for both MMV-1 and MMV-2.\n\nLemma\u00a0\\[lemma:covIsSame\\] is proved in Section\u00a0\\[sec:proof\\]. Because of Lemma\u00a0\\[lemma:covIsSame\\], the free energy expressions for MMV-1 and MMV-2 should be identical in the large system limit. We state the result as a theorem and the detailed derivations appear in the Appendix.\n\n\\[th:free\\_energy\\] For settings MMV-1 and MMV-2, the free energy expressions as functions of $E$ are identical in the large system limit and are given in\u00a0.[^6]\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\mathcal{F}(E)&=&-\\frac{J}{2}R\\l\\{\\log[2\\pi(\\Delta+E)]+\\frac{\\rho+\\Delta}{E+\\Delta}\\r\\}\\!+\\!\\int\\!P(\\s_1)\\! \\int\\! \\log\\! \\l[ \\int P(\\x_1)\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{\\widehat{Q}+\\widehat{q}}{2}\\x_1^T\\x_1+\\widehat{m}\\x_1^T\\s_1+\n  \\sqrt{\\widehat{q}}\\h^T\\x_1}\\!d\\x_1\\!\\r]\\!\\mathcal{D}\\h \\ d\\s_1\\label{eq:free_energy3}\\\\\n  &=&-\\frac{J}{2}R\\l\\{\\log[2\\pi(\\Delta+E)]+\\frac{\\Delta}{E+\\Delta}\\r\\}+\\frac{JR(1-\\rho)}{2(R+E+\\Delta)}+\\rho\\int \\log \\Bigg[ \\rho \\l(\\frac{E+\\Delta}{R+E+\\Delta}\\r)^{J/2}+\\nonumber\\\\\n  &\\ &(1-\\rho)\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{R}{2(E+\\Delta)}\\g^T\\g}\\Bigg]\\mathcal{D}\\g+(1-\\rho)\\int \\log \\l[ \\rho \\l(\\frac{E+\\Delta}{R+E+\\Delta}\\r)^{J/2}+(1-\\rho)\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{R}{2(R+E+\\Delta)}\\h^T\\h}\\r]\\mathcal{D}\\h.\\label{eq:free_energy4}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n**MMSE**: The $E$ that maximizes the free energy\u00a0 the MMSE\u00a0[@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015]. After finding the $E_0$ that maximizes the free energy\u00a0, we obtain the MMSE, $D_0=E_0$, in the large system limit.\n\nThe MMSE for MMV-1 and MMV-2 is the same for the same measurement rate $R$, noise variance $\\Delta$, and number of signal vectors $J$.\n\n[**Remark 1:**]{} As the reader can see from the proof of Lemma\u00a0\\[th:free\\_energy\\] in Section\u00a0\\[sec:proof\\], the key reason that both MMV-1 and MMV-2 have an identical MMSE is that the entries in the super symbols $\\s_l$ and $\\x_l^{\\cdot}$ are i.i.d. That said, we suspect that the MMSE for MMV-1 and MMV-2 could differ by some higher order terms. If the entries of these super symbols are not i.i.d., which is true in some practical MMV applications\u00a0[@ZinielSchniter2013MMV], then it becomes more difficult to analyze the covariance matrix $\\G_{\\mu}$ as in Section\u00a0\\[sec:proof\\]. Therefore, we do not have an analysis for non-i.i.d. entries within $\\s_l$ and $\\x_l^{\\{\\cdot\\}}$. However, we speculate that MMV-1 might have lower MMSE than MMV-2 in that case.\n\n[**Link to SMV with block sparse signal:**]{} The signal $\\s$ in\u00a0 is a block sparse signal comprised of $N$ blocks of length $J$. We study a single measurement vector (SMV) problem by replacing the measurement matrix $\\F$ in\u00a0 with an i.i.d. Gaussian matrix ${\\mathbf A}\\in\\mathbb{R}^{MJ\\times NJ}$, i.e., $\\y={\\mathbf A}\\s+\\z$. The entries of ${\\mathbf A}$ follow the distribution, $A_{\\mu l}\\sim \\mathcal{N}(0,\\frac{1}{NJ})$. This SMV is similar to the setting in Barbier and Krzakala\u00a0[@Barbier2015], except for the different priors and different $\\ell_2$ norms in each row of ${\\mathbf A}$. We consider these differences while following their derivation\u00a0[@Barbier2015], and obtain the same free energy expression as\u00a0. We have also shown that MMV-1 and MMV-2 have the same MMSE in the large system limit. Hence, the three settings have the same free energy expression and their MMSE\u2019s are the same under the same noise variance $\\Delta$ and measurement rate $R$ in the large system limit.\n\nExtension to complex SMV {#sec:complex}\n------------------------\n\nMMV with jointly sparse signals is a versatile model that can be adapted to other problems. As an example, we show how the MMV model can be used to analyze the MMSE of a complex SMV.[^7] Consider the complex CS channel, $\\y^{\\mathcal{C}}=\\F^{\\mathcal{C}}\\s^{\\mathcal{C}}+\\z^{\\mathcal{C}}$, where $\\s^{\\mathcal{C}}=\\s^{\\mathcal{R}}+i\\s^{\\mathcal{I}}\\in\\mathbb{C}^N$, $\\F^{\\mathcal{C}}=\\F^{\\mathcal{R}}+i\\F^{\\mathcal{I}}\\in\\mathbb{C}^{M\\times N}$, $\\z^{\\mathcal{C}}=\\z^{\\mathcal{R}}+i\\z^{\\mathcal{I}}\\in\\mathbb{C}^M$, $\\y^{\\mathcal{C}}=\\y^{\\mathcal{R}}+i\\y^{\\mathcal{I}}\\in\\mathbb{C}^M$, $i=\\sqrt{-1}$, and $\\mathcal{R}$ and $\\mathcal{I}$ refer to the real and imaginary parts, respectively. The real and imaginary parts of the entries of $\\z^{\\mathcal{C}}$ both follow a Gaussian distribution, $z_l^{\\mathcal{R}}, z_l^{\\mathcal{I}}\\sim\\mathcal{N}(0,\\Delta), l\\in\\{1,...,M\\}$. Assume that the complex signal $\\s^{\\mathcal{C}}$ is comprised of two jointly sparse signals, $\\s^{\\mathcal{R}}$ and $\\s^{\\mathcal{I}}$, that satisfy the $J=2$ dimensional Bernoulli-Gaussian distribution\u00a0. We can extend the analysis of Section\u00a0\\[sec:set1\\] to two settings of complex CS: ([*i*]{}) the measurement matrix $\\F^{\\mathcal{C}}$ is real, and ([*ii*]{}) $\\F^{\\mathcal{C}}$ is complex.[^8]\n\n[**Real measurement matrix:**]{} Suppose that $\\F^{\\mathcal{C}}$ is real, $\\F^{\\mathcal{C}}=\\F^{\\mathcal{R}}\\in \\mathbb{R}^{M\\times N}$, and the entries of $\\F^{\\mathcal{R}}$ follow a Gaussian distribution, $F^{\\mathcal{R}}_{\\mu l}\\sim \\mathcal{N}(0,\\frac{1}{N})$. Complex CS with a real measurement matrix can be written as real-valued MMV, $$\\label{eq:complexRealMat}\n    \\y^{\\mathcal{R}}=\\F^{\\mathcal{R}}\\s^{\\mathcal{R}}+\\z^{\\mathcal{R}}\\ \\text{and}\\     \\y^{\\mathcal{I}}=\\F^{\\mathcal{R}}\\s^{\\mathcal{I}}+\\z^{\\mathcal{I}},$$ where $\\s^R$ and $\\s^I$ are jointly sparse and follow\u00a0. This formulation\u00a0 fits into MMV-2 for $J=2$. Hence, we can obtain the MMSE according to\u00a0.[^9]\n\n[**Complex measurement matrix:**]{} Consider a complex $\\F^{\\mathcal{C}}=\\F^{\\mathcal{R}}+i\\F^{\\mathcal{I}}\\in\\mathbb{C}^{M\\times N}$ with entries $F_{\\mu l}^{\\mathcal{R}}, F_{\\mu l}^{\\mathcal{I}}\\sim \\mathcal{N}(0,\\frac{1}{2N})$. Expanding out the complex channel, $\\y^{\\mathcal{C}}=\\F^{\\mathcal{C}}\\s^{\\mathcal{C}}+\\z^{\\mathcal{C}}$, we obtain the equivalent real-valued SMV channel, $$\\label{eq.realComplexChannel}\n  \\begin{bmatrix}\n    \\y^{\\mathcal{R}} \\\\\n    \\y^{\\mathcal{I}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}\n=\n  \\begin{bmatrix}\n    \\F^{\\mathcal{R}} & -\\F^{\\mathcal{I}}  \\\\\n    \\F^{\\mathcal{I}}  & \\F^{\\mathcal{R}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}\n    \\begin{bmatrix}\n    \\s^{\\mathcal{R}} \\\\\n    \\s^{\\mathcal{I}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}\n  +\n    \\begin{bmatrix}\n    \\z^{\\mathcal{R}} \\\\\n    \\z^{\\mathcal{I}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}.$$\n\nWe re-arrange\u00a0 as follows, $$\\label{eq:complexMatRearrange}\n\\underbrace{\\begin{bmatrix}\n    \\y^{\\mathcal{R}} \\\\\n    \\y^{\\mathcal{I}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}}_{\\overline{\\y}}\n\\!=\\!\n\\underbrace{\\begin{bmatrix}\n    \\F_{:,1}^{\\mathcal{R}},-\\F_{:,1}^{\\mathcal{I}},...,\\F_{:,N}^{\\mathcal{R}}, -\\F_{:,N}^{\\mathcal{I}} \\\\\n    \\F_{:,1}^{\\mathcal{I}},\\ \\ \\F_{:,1}^{\\mathcal{R}},...,\\F_{:,N}^{\\mathcal{I}},\\ \\  \\F_{:,N}^{\\mathcal{R}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}}_{\\overline{\\F}}\n    \\underbrace{\\begin{bmatrix}\n    s_1^{\\mathcal{R}}\\\\\n    s_1^{\\mathcal{I}}\\\\\n    \\vdots\\\\\n    s_N^{\\mathcal{R}}\\\\\n    s_N^{\\mathcal{I}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}}_{\\overline{\\s}}\n  \\!+\\!\n    \\underbrace{\\begin{bmatrix}\n    \\z^{\\mathcal{R}} \\\\\n    \\z^{\\mathcal{I}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}}_{\\overline{\\z}},$$ where $\\{:\\}$ refers to all the rows. In the re-arranged channel\u00a0, the measurement matrix $\\overline{\\F}$ consists of super symbols, $$\\label{eq:SMV_F}\n    \\overline{\\F}_{\\mu l}=\\left\\{\n                \\begin{array}{ll}\n                 &[F_{\\mu l}^{\\mathcal{R}},-F_{\\mu l}^{\\mathcal{I}}],\\ \\mu\\in\\{1,...,M\\}\\\\\n                 &[F_{\\mu l}^{\\mathcal{I}}, F_{\\mu l}^{\\mathcal{R}}],\\ \\mu\\in\\{M+1,...,2M\\}\n                \\end{array}\n            \\right.,\\\\$$ and the signal $\\overline{\\s}$ consists of $\\overline{\\s}_{l}=\\begin{bmatrix}\n    s_l^{\\mathcal{R}} \\\\\n    s_l^{\\mathcal{I}}\n  \\end{bmatrix},\\ l\\in\\{1,...,N\\}$. The measurements and noise are $\\overline{\\y}=\\begin{bmatrix}\n    \\y^{\\mathcal{R}} \\\\\n    \\y^{\\mathcal{I}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}$ and $\\overline{\\z}=\\begin{bmatrix}\n    \\z^{\\mathcal{R}} \\\\\n    \\z^{\\mathcal{I}}\n  \\end{bmatrix}$, respectively. Hence, $\\overline{y}_{\\mu}=\\sum_{l=1}^N \\overline{\\F}_{\\mu l}\\overline{\\s}_l+\\overline{z}_{\\mu},\\ \\mu\\in\\{1,...,2M\\}$.\n\nSection\u00a0\\[sec:proof\\] shows that the free energy and MMSE for SMV complex CS with complex measurement matrices are the same as MMV-1 with $J=2$. Note that in the free energy expression\u00a0 of MMV-1, the MSE, $D=E$\u00a0, is the average MSE of the $J$ entries of $\\s_l$. Therefore, in this complex CS setting, $D$ is the average MSE of the real and imaginary parts of the signal entries.\n\nProof of Lemma\u00a0\\[lemma:covIsSame\\] {#sec:proof}\n==================================\n\nIn this section, we show that the quantity $\\mathbb{X_{\\mu}}$ is the same for MMV-1 and MMV-2. Moreover, we show that complex SMV with a complex measurement matrix also yields the same $\\mathbb{X_{\\mu}}$ with $J=2$.\n\nFirst, we re-write\u00a0 in the vector form $$\\label{eq:XMuVector}\n\\mathbb{X}_{\\mu}\\!=\\!\\mathbb{E}_{\\v_{\\mu}}\\!\\left[\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{1}{2\\Delta}{\\sum_{j=1}^{J}}{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}(v_{\\mu j}^a)^2}\\right]\\!\n=\\!\\mathbb{E}_{\\v_{\\mu}}\\!\\left[\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{1}{2\\Delta}\\v_{\\mu}^T\\v_{\\mu}}\\right],$$ where $\\v_{\\mu}=[v_{\\mu 1}^1,...,v_{\\mu 1}^a,...,v_{\\mu J}^1$, $...,v_{\\mu J}^n]^T$ and $v_{\\mu j}^a$ is given in\u00a0. In order to calculate the expectation w.r.t. $\\v_{\\mu}$ in\u00a0, we calculate the distribution of $\\v_{\\mu}$, which is approximated by a Gaussian distribution, due to the central limit theorem. The mean is $\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}[v_{\\mu j}^a]=0$.\n\nWe now calculate the covariance matrix, $\\G_{\\mu}=\\mathbb{E}[\\v_{\\mu}\\v_{\\mu}^T]$. The matrix is separated into $J\\times J$ blocks of size $n\\times n$, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig.cov\\]. The main diagonal of $\\G_{\\mu}$ consists of entries $w_1=\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}[(v_{\\mu j}^a)^2]$. The entries in the blocks along the main diagonal (other than entries along the main diagonal itself) are $w_3=\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}[v_{\\mu j}^a v_{\\mu j}^b]$. The main diagonals of other blocks have entries $w_2=\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}[v_{\\mu j}^a v_{\\mu\\eta}^a]$, and other entries in these blocks are $w_4=\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}[v_{\\mu j}^a v_{\\mu \\eta}^b]$. We now calculate each of these values as follows for MMV-1, MMV-2, and complex SMV with a complex measurement matrix.\n\n![Covariance matrix $\\G_{\\mu}\\in\\mathbb{R}^{nJ\\times nJ}$. Each block in $\\G_{\\mu}$ has a size of $n\\times n$. The entries in the heavily marked blocks take the value $w_3$, except that entries along the dashed diagonal are $w_1$. The entries in the lightly marked blocks take the value $w_4$, except that entries along the dotted diagonal are $w_2$.[]{data-label=\"fig.cov\"}](MMV_cov_mat.png){width=\"3.5cm\"}\n\n[**MMV-1:**]{} We begin by calculating the diagonal entries of the covariance matrix $\\G_{\\mu}=\\mathbb{E}[\\v_{\\mu}\\v_{\\mu}^T]$, $$\\label{eq:vVar1}\n\\begin{split}\n    &w_1=\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}\\!\\l[(v_{\\mu j}^a)^2\\r]\\!=\\!{\\sum_{l,k=1}^{N,N}}\\!\\Bigg[(\\s_l-\\x_l^a)^T\\times\\\\\n    & \\mathbb{E}_{\\F}\\l\\{\\F_{\\mu+M(j-1), l}^T\\F_{\\mu+M(j-1), k}\\r\\}(\\s_k-\\x_k^a)\\Bigg]+\\Delta.\n\\end{split}$$ In\u00a0, $\\mathbb{E}_{\\F}\\l\\{\\F_{\\mu+M(j-1), l}^T\\F_{\\mu+M(j-1), k}\\r\\}=\\frac{\\delta_{k,l}}{N}\\widetilde{\\mathbf{I}}_J$ (cf. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:channel\\]), where $\\widetilde{\\mathbf{I}}_J$ is a $J\\times J$ matrix with only one 1 located at row $j$ and column $j$, and $\\delta_{k,l}=1$ when $k=l$, else zero. Hence,\u00a0 becomes $$\\begin{aligned}\n w_1&=& \\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}\\l[(v_{\\mu j}^a)^2\\r]=\\frac{1}{N}{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}} (s_{l,j}-x_{l,j}^a)^2+\\Delta\\label{eq:vVar2}\\\\\n  &=&\\!\\frac{1}{NJ}\\!{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}} \\!(\\s_l-\\x_l^a)^T (\\s_l-\\x_l^a)\\!+\\!\\Delta,\\label{eq:vVar2_1}\\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{l,j}$ and $x_{l,j}^a$\u00a0 denote the $j$-th entries in super symbols $\\s_l$ and $\\x_l^a$, respectively, and\u00a0 holds because all $J$ entries within the same super symbol ($\\s_l$ or $\\x_l^a$) are i.i.d.\n\nSimilarly, we obtain $$\\begin{split}\nw_2=&\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}[v_{\\mu j}^a v_{\\mu\\eta}^{a}] = \\frac{1}{N}{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(s_{l,j}-x_{l,j}^a)(s_{l,\\eta}-x_{l,\\eta}^{a})\\\\\n     &= \\frac{1}{NJ}{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\\s_l-\\x_l^a)^T (\\s_l^a-\\x_l^b),\\label{eq:sx_iid1}\n\\end{split}$$ where entries of $\\s_l^a$ follow the same distribution as entries of $\\s_l$ given $l$, and\u00a0 is due to ([*i*]{}) entries of $\\s_l$ being i.i.d., ([*ii*]{}) entries of $\\x_l^{\\{\\cdot\\}}$ being i.i.d. for fixed $l$, and ([*iii*]{}) the replica symmetry assumption\u00a0[@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical]. We also obtain $$\\label{eq:v_j_eta_a}\n\\begin{split}\nw_3=\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}[v_{\\mu j}^a v_{\\mu j}^b]\\!&=\\!\\frac{1}{NJ}\\!{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\\s_l\\!-\\!\\x_l^a)^T \\!(\\s_l-\\x_l^b)+\\Delta.\\\\\nw_4=\\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\z}[v_{\\mu j}^a v_{\\mu\\eta}^{b}]&=\\frac{1}{NJ}{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\\s_l-\\x_l^a)^T (\\s_l^a-\\x_l^b),\n\\end{split}$$\n\nWe now define the following auxiliary parameters $$\\label{eq:auxParamsSet1}\n\\begin{split}\nm_a=\\frac{\\displaystyle{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}} (\\x_l^a)^T\\s_l}{NJ},&\\quad Q_a=\\frac{\\displaystyle{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}} (\\x_l^a)^T\\x_l^a}{NJ}, \\\\\nq_{ab}=\\frac{\\displaystyle{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}} (\\x_l^a)^T\\x_l^b}{NJ},&\\quad\nq_0=\\frac{1}{NJ}{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\\s_l^a)^T \\s_l,\n\\end{split}$$ which allow us to express \u2013 as $$w_1=\\rho-2m_a+Q_a+\\Delta,$$ $$\\label{eq:ws2}\nw_2=q_0-(m_a+m_b)+q_{ab},$$ $$w_3 = \\rho-(m_a+m_b)+q_{ab}+\\Delta,$$ $$\\label{eq:ws4}\nw_4=q_0-(m_a+m_b)+q_{ab}.$$\n\nPlugging the distribution of $\\v_{\\mu}$, approximated by $P(\\v_{\\mu})=[(2\\pi)^n\\det (\\G_{\\mu})]^{-\\frac{1}{2}}\\exp(-\\frac{1}{2}\\v_{\\mu}^T\\G_{\\mu}^{-1}\\v_{\\mu})$, into\u00a0, we obtain $$\\label{eq:Xmu2}\n\\mathbb{X}_{\\mu}=\\l[\\det(\\mathbb{I}_n+\\frac{1}{\\Delta}\\G_{\\mu})\\r]^{-1/2}.$$\n\n[**MMV-2:**]{} For the matrix $\\F$\u00a0 in this setting, rows $jM+1,...,(j+1)M,\\ 2\\leq j \\leq J$, will be the right-shift of rows $(j-1)M+1,...,jM$. We express $v_{\\mu j}^a$\u00a0 as $$\\label{eq:v_mu_j_a_mmv2}\n  v_{\\mu j}^a={\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}\\F_{\\mu l}{\\bf T}_{j}(\\s_l-\\x_l^a)+z_{\\mu+M(j-1)},\\ \\mu\\in \\{1,\\cdots,M\\},$$ where $\\T_{j}$ is a $J\\times J$ transform matrix with the $j$-th entry of the first row being one and all other entries in $\\T_j$ being zeros. Using the same derivations as in MMV-1, it can be proved that the covariance matrix $\\G_{\\mu}=\\mathbb{E}[\\v_{\\mu}\\v_{\\mu}^T]$ in MMV-2 is identical to that of MMV-1. Therefore, $\\mathbb{X}_{\\mu}$ in MMV-1 and MMV-2 are identical in the large system limit.\n\n[**Complex SMV with complex measurement matrix:**]{} The derivations are the same as in MMV-2 above, except that we need to change $\\F_{\\mu l}$ in\u00a0 to $\\overline{\\F}_{\\mu l}$\u00a0 and replace $\\T_j$ by $$\\label{eq:TransMat}\n{\\bf T}=\\begin{bmatrix}\n    0 & 1 \\\\\n    -1 & 0\n  \\end{bmatrix},$$ because $\\overline{\\F}_{(\\mu+M)l}=\\overline{\\F}_{\\mu l}{\\bf T},\\ \\mu\\in\\{1,...,M\\}$. Using similar steps as above, we obtain that the covariance matrix $\\G_{\\mu}$ in this case, is also the same as that of MMV-1 with $J=2$.\n\n**Solving $\\mathbb{X}_{\\mu}$**: For such a structured matrix $\\G_{\\mu}$ (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig.cov\\]), elementary transforms show that the eigen-values (EV\u2019s) are comprised of one EV equal to $\\alpha_1=[w_1+(J-1)w_2]+(n-1)[w_3+(J-1)w_4],\\ (J-1)$ EV\u2019s equal to $\\alpha_2=(w_1-w_2)+(n-1)(w_3-w_4),\\ (n-1)$ EV\u2019s equal to $\\alpha_3=[w_1+(J-1)w_2]-[w_3+(J-1)w_4]$, and $(J-1)(n-1)$ EV\u2019s equal to $\\alpha_4=(w_1-w_2)-(w_3-w_4)$.\n\nOwing to replica symmetry\u00a0[@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical], we have $m_a=m_b=m$, $Q_a=Q$, and $q_{ab}=q$. Also, in the Bayesian setting, we have $m=q_0=q$ and $Q=\\rho$. Thus, $w_2=w_4=0$ ( and\u00a0), and $$\\label{eq:detSet2}\n\\begin{split}\n\\det (\\mathbb{I}_{nJ}+&\\frac{1}{\\Delta}\\G_{\\mu})= \\l(1+\\frac{\\alpha_1}{\\Delta}\\r)\\l(1+\\frac{\\alpha_2}{\\Delta}\\r)^{J-1}\\times\\\\\n&\\quad \\l(1+\\frac{\\alpha_1}{\\Delta}\\r)^{n-1}\\l(1+\\frac{\\alpha_1}{\\Delta}\\r)^{(n-1)(J-1)}\\\\\n&=\\l(1+n\\frac{w_3}{\\Delta+\\alpha_4}\\r)^J\\!\\l(1+\\frac{1}{\\Delta}\\alpha_4\\r)^{Jn}\\!.\n\\end{split}$$ Considering\u00a0, we simplify\u00a0, $$\\label{eq:XmuNew}\n\\lim_{n\\rightarrow 0}\\mathbb{X}_{\\mu}=\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{nJ}{2}\\l[\\frac{\\rho-2m+\\Delta+q}{Q-q+\\Delta}+\\log(Q-q+\\Delta)-\\log(\\Delta)\\r]},$$ where we rely on the following Taylor series, $$\\label{eq:firstOrder1}\n\\operatorname{e}^{nk}\\approx 1+nk\\Rightarrow \\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{n}{2}k}\\approx (1+nk)^{-1/2},\\ n\\rightarrow 0.$$\n\nNumerical Results {#sec:numeric}\n=================\n\nGiven a free energy expression for a CS problem, the MMSE can be obtained by evaluating the largest free energy\u00a0[@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @MezardMontanariBook; @Barbier2015]. Having derived the free energy for the two MMV settings in Section\u00a0\\[sec:main\\], this section calculates the MMSE under various cases. Different performance regions of MMV are identified, where the MMSE behaves differently as a function of the noise variance $\\Delta$ and measurement rate $R$. We identify a phase transition of belief propagation (BP) that separates regions where BP is optimal asymptotically or not. Simulation results match the predicted performance of BP.\n\nPerformance regions: Definitions and numerical results {#sec:PerfRegion}\n------------------------------------------------------\n\nWhen calculating the MMSE\u00a0 for different settings from the free energy expression\u00a0, four different [*performance regions*]{} will appear, as illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:freeEnergyProf\\] and discussed below.\n\n![Free energy as a function of MSE for different measurement rates $R$ (number of jointly sparse signal vectors $J=3$ and noise variance $\\Delta=-35$ dB). The black circles mark the largest free energy, and so they correspond to the MMSE.[]{data-label=\"fig:freeEnergyProf\"}](freeEnergyProfiles_J3.pdf){width=\"8cm\"}\n\n[**Regions 1 and 4:**]{} The free energy\u00a0 has one local maximum point w.r.t. the MSE $D$\u00a0. This $D$ leads to the globally maximum free energy and is the MMSE.\n\n[**Regions\u00a02 and\u00a03:**]{} There are 2 local maxima in the free energy, $D_1$ and $D_2$, where $D_1<D_2$. In Region\u00a02, the smaller MSE, $D_1$, leads to the larger local maximum free energy\u00a0 (hence, $\\mathcal{F}(D_1)$ is the global maximum), and is the MMSE. In Region\u00a03, the larger MSE, $D_2$, is the MMSE.\n\n[**Boundaries between regions:**]{} We denote the boundary separating regions\u00a01 and\u00a02 by the [*BP threshold*]{} $R_{BP}(\\Delta)$, the boundary separating regions\u00a02 and\u00a03 by the [*low noise threshold*]{} $R_l(\\Delta)$, and the boundary separating regions\u00a03 and\u00a04 by the [*critical threshold*]{} $R_c(\\Delta)$.\n\n[**Numerical results:**]{} Consider $J$-dimensional Bernoulli-Gaussian signals\u00a0 with sparsity rate $\\rho=0.1$. Evaluating the free energy\u00a0 with the noise variance $\\Delta$ from -20 dB to -50 dB and measurement rate $R$ from 0.11 to 0.24, we obtain the MMSE as a function of $\\Delta$ and $R$ for $J=1,3$, and $5$, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:PerformanceRegions\\].[^10] The darkness of the shades represents the natural logarithm of the MMSE, $\\ln$(MMSE). In all panels, the critical threshold $R_c(\\Delta)$, low noise threshold $R_l(\\Delta)$, and BP threshold $R_{BP}(\\Delta)$, as well as Regions\u00a01-4, are marked.\n\nIn Regions\u00a03 and\u00a04, the best-possible algorithm yields a large MMSE for all noise variances. In contrast, in Regions\u00a01 and\u00a02, the optimal algorithm yields an MMSE that decreases with the noise variance $\\Delta$. To summarize, the optimal algorithm yields poor estimation performance below the low noise threshold $R_{l}(\\Delta)$, and good performance above $R_{l}(\\Delta)$.\n\nWe further examine the MMSE as a function of the number of jointly sparse signal vectors $J$ and the measurement rate $R$. We plotted the MMSE in dB scale in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:MMSE\\_R\\_J\\]. The noise variance is -35 dB. We can see that the MMSE decreases with more signal vectors $J$ and greater measurement rate $R$. However, the MMSE depends less on $J$ as $J$ is increased. Note that the discontinuity in the MMSE surface in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:MMSE\\_R\\_J\\] is a result of the different performance regions that the various settings (different $J$ and $R$) lie in.\n\nBP phase transition {#sec:phaseTrans}\n-------------------\n\nBelief propagation (BP)\u00a0[@DMM2009; @CSBP2010; @Montanari2012; @Bayati2011; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015] is an algorithmic framework motivated by statistical physics, which can often achieve the optimal estimation performance (MMSE). When there are multiple local maxima $D_1<D_2$ in the free energy\u00a0, BP converges to the local maximum with the larger MSE, $D_2$\u00a0[@DMM2009; @Montanari2012; @Bayati2011; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical]. Hence, $D_2$ characterizes the [*predicted MSE*]{} for BP. Moving from Region\u00a01 to Region\u00a02 by decreasing the measurement rate $R$ with fixed noise variance $\\Delta$, the number of local maxima increases from 1 to 2. Therefore, BP estimation performance experiences a sudden deterioration (increase in MSE) when the measurement rate $R$ drops such that the combination of the noise variance $\\Delta$ and measurement rate $R$ moves from Region\u00a01 to Region\u00a02. The BP threshold, $R_{BP}(\\Delta)$, is the boundary between Regions\u00a01 and\u00a02, and is where the BP phase transition happens. That is, BP achieves poor estimation performance below $R_{BP}(\\Delta)$, and good performance above $R_{BP}(\\Delta)$.\n\n[**Remark 2**]{}: In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:PerformanceRegions\\], we see that increasing $J$ reduces the BP threshold $R_{BP}(\\Delta)$. Since BP achieves the MMSE when $R>R_{BP}(\\Delta)$, increasing $J$ is beneficial to applications that use BP as the estimation algorithm.\n\n[**Remark 3**]{}: We further analyzed the low noise ($\\Delta\\rightarrow 0$) and zero noise ($\\Delta=0$) cases. The critical threshold $R_c(\\Delta)$ converges to $\\rho$ as the noise variance $\\Delta$ is decreased for $J=1,3$, and $5$. We believe that this numerical result holds for every $J$. Moreover, this result matches the theoretical robust threshold of Wu and Verd[\u00fa]{}\u00a0[@WuVerdu2012] for $J=1$ in the low noise limit. Our numerical results also show that the BP threshold $R_{BP}(\\Delta)$ converges to some value for different $J$ as $\\Delta\\rightarrow 0$. Analyzing these observations rigorously is left for future work.\n\n![MMSE in dB as a function of measurement rate $R$ and number of jointly sparse signal vectors $J$ (noise variance $\\Delta=-35$ dB).[]{data-label=\"fig:MMSE_R_J\"}](MMSE_vs_R_J.pdf){width=\"8cm\"}\n\nBP simulation {#sec:AMPsim}\n-------------\n\nAfter obtaining the theoretic MMSE for MMV, as well as the predicted MSE for BP, we run some simulations to estimate the $\\underline{\\s}^j$ of channel\u00a0 in a Bayesian setting. The algorithm we use is approximate message passing (AMP)\u00a0[@DMM2009; @Montanari2012; @Bayati2011; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015], which is an approximation to the BP algorithm; related algorithms have been proposed by Ziniel and Schniter\u00a0[@ZinielSchniter2013MMV] and Kim et al.\u00a0[@KimChangJungBaronYe2011]. In the SMV case, when the measurement matrix and the signal have i.i.d. entries, AMP has the state-evolution (SE) property\u00a0[@DMM2011; @Bayati2011; @JavanmardMontanari2012; @Donoho2013; @Bayati2015] that tracks the evolution of the MSE at each iteration. Recently, Javanmard and Montanari proved that SE tracks AMP rigorously in an SMV setting with a spatially coupled measurement matrix\u00a0[@JavanmardMontanari2012]. According to our transform in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:channel\\], we can see that the proof\u00a0[@JavanmardMontanari2012] could be extended to the MMV setting. Note that SE allows to compute the highest equilibrium of Gibbs free energy\u00a0[@DMM2011; @Bayati2011; @JavanmardMontanari2012; @Donoho2013; @Bayati2015], which corresponds to the local optimum $D_2$ in Section\u00a0\\[sec:phaseTrans\\]. Hence, AMP often achieves the same MSE as BP and we use AMP simulation results to demonstrate that the MMSE can often be achieved.[^11] Considering the structure of $\\F$, we simplify the AMP algorithm in Barbier and Krzakala\u00a0[@Barbier2015] to obtain Algorithm\u00a0\\[algo:AMP\\_MMV\\],[^12] where $\\{\\Sigma_j\\}_{j=1}^J$, $\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J$, $\\{a_l^j\\}_{j=1}^J$ and $\\{v_l^j\\}_{j=1}^J$ refer to sets of all intermediate variables $\\Sigma_j$, pseudodata $R^j_l$, estimates $a_l^j$, and variances $v^j_l,\\ j\\in\\{1,...,J\\},\\ l\\in\\{1,...,N\\}$, respectively. The current iteration $t$, change in the estimate $\\delta$, and intermediate variables $\\Theta_j,\\ j\\in\\{1,...,J\\}$, are scalars. The intermediate variables $\\q^j$ and $\\w^j$ are vectors of length $M$. The functions $f_{a_l}(\\{\\Sigma_j\\}_{j=1}^J,\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J)$ and $f_{v_l}(\\{\\Sigma_j\\}_{j=1}^J,\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J)$ are given by $$\\begin{split}\n&f_{a_l}(\\{\\Sigma_j\\}_{j=1}^J,\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J)=\\\\\n&\\frac{\\rho\\frac{1}{\\Sigma_j+1}\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J}{\\rho+(1-\\rho){\\prod_{j=1}^{J}}\\l\\{\\sqrt{1+\\frac{1}{\\Sigma_j}}\\exp\\l[-\\frac{(R^j_l)^2}{2\\Sigma_j(\\Sigma_j+1)}\\r]\\r\\}},\n\\end{split}$$ $$\\begin{split}\n&f_{v_l}(\\{\\Sigma_j\\}_{j=1}^J,\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J)=-\\l[f_{a_l}(\\{\\Sigma_j\\}_{j=1}^J,\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J)\\r]^2\\\\\n&+\\frac{\\rho\\frac{1}{\\Sigma_j+1}\\l[(\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J)^2\\frac{1}{\\Sigma_j+1}+\\Sigma_j\\r]}{\\rho+(1-\\rho){\\prod_{j=1}^{J}}\\l\\{\\sqrt{1+\\frac{1}{\\Sigma_j}}\\exp\\l[-\\frac{(R^j_l)^2}{2\\Sigma_j(\\Sigma_j+1)}\\r]\\r\\}},\n\\end{split}$$ for $J$-dimensional Bernoulli-Gaussian signals\u00a0.\n\n\\\n[**Inputs:**]{} Maximum number of iterations $t_{max}$, threshold $\\epsilon$, sparsity rate $\\rho$, noise variance $\\Delta$, measurements $\\y^j$, and measurement matrices $\\F^j, \\forall j$\\\n[**Initialize:**]{} $t=1,\\delta=\\infty,\\w^j=\\y^j,\\Theta_j=0,v^j_l=\\rho\\Delta,a^j_l=0,\\forall l,j$\\\n$\\q^j=\\frac{\\y^j-\\w^j}{\\Delta+\\Theta_j}$\\\n$\\Theta_j=\\frac{1}{N}\\sum_{l=1}^N v^j_l$\\\n$\\w^j=\\F^j \\a^j-\\Theta_j \\q^j$\\\n$\\Sigma_j=\\frac{N(\\Delta+\\Theta_j)}{M}$ // Scalar channel noise variance\\\n$\\R^j=\\a^j+\\Sigma_j (\\F^j)^T \\frac{\\y^j-\\w^j}{\\Delta+\\Theta_j}$ // Pseudodata\\\n$\\widehat{\\a}^j=\\a^j$ // Save current estimate\\\n$\\{v^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J=f_{v_l}(\\{\\Sigma_j\\}_{j=1}^J,\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J)$ // Variance\\\n$\\{a^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J=f_{a_l}(\\{\\Sigma_j\\}_{j=1}^J,\\{R^j_l\\}_{j=1}^J)$ // Estimate\\\n\u00a0\u00a0$t=t+1$ // Increment iteration index.\\\n\u00a0\u00a0$\\delta=\\frac{1}{NJ}\\sum_{l=1}^N\\sum_{j=1}^J(\\widehat{a}^j_l-a^j_l)^2$ // Change in estimate\\\n[**Outputs:**]{} Estimate $\\a^j,\\forall j$\n\nWe simulated the signals in\u00a0 with $J=3$ signal vectors and sparsity rate $\\rho=0.1$ measured by a channel\u00a0 with measurement rate $R\\in[0.11,0.24]$ and noise variance $\\Delta\\in[-20,-50]$ dB. For each setting, we generated 50 signals of length $N=5000$, and the resulting MSE compared to the predicted BP MSE is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:AMPoverMSE\\].[^13]\n\n![AMP simulation results ($\\text{MSE}_{\\text{AMP}}$) compared to the predicted BP MSE ($\\text{MSE}_{\\text{BP}}$) with $J=3$ jointly sparse signal vectors. The dashed curve, solid curve, and the curve comprised of little circles correspond to thresholds $R_c(\\Delta),\\ R_l(\\Delta)$, and $R_{BP}(\\Delta)$, respectively. Regions 1-4 are also marked. The shade denotes $\\ln \\l(\\frac{\\text{MSE}_{\\text{AMP}}}{\\text{MSE}_{\\text{BP}}}\\r)$, which we expect to be 0 (completely dark shades) in the entire $R$ versus $\\Delta$ plane. The narrow bright band above the BP threshold indicates the mismatch of AMP simulated MSE to the BP predicted MSE.[]{data-label=\"fig:AMPoverMSE\"}](simMSE_over_predMSE_J3_TSP_v2.pdf){width=\"8cm\"}\n\nThe labels of the thresholds are omitted for brevity. We can see that AMP simulation results match with the predicted MSE of BP and BP phase transition from the replica analysis of Section\u00a0\\[sec:phaseTrans\\]. Note that there is a narrow band of light shades above the BP threshold, $R_{BP}(\\Delta)$ (the top threshold), meaning that the simulated MSE is greater than the predicted MSE; this is due to randomness in our generated signals and channels. Note that we also compared the AMP simulation results to that of the M-SBL algorithm\u00a0[@YeKimBresler2015], a widely used algorithm to solve the MMV problem. The M-SBL results were not as good. Indeed, because AMP is often an achievable to the MMSE, other algorithms are expected to provide greater MSE.\n\nConclusion {#sec:conclusion}\n==========\n\nWe analyzed the minimum mean squared error (MMSE) for two settings of multi-measurement vector (MMV) problems, where the entries in the signal vectors are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.), and share the same support. One MMV setting has i.i.d. Gaussian measurement matrices, while the other MMV setting has identical i.i.d. Gaussian measurement matrices. Replica analyses yield identical free energy expressions for these two settings in the large system limit when the signal length goes to infinity and the number of measurements scales with the signal length. Because of the identical free energy expressions, the MMSE\u2019s for both MMV settings are identical. By numerically evaluating the free energy expression, we identified different performance regions for MMV where the MMSE as a function of the channel noise variance and the measurement rate behaves differently. We also identified a phase transition for belief propagation algorithms (BP) that separates regions where BP achieves the MMSE asymptotically and where it is suboptimal. Simulation results of an approximated version of BP matched with the MSE predicted by replica analysis. As a special case of MMV, we extended our replica analysis to single measurement vector (SMV) complex CS, so that we can calculate the MMSE for SMV complex CS with real or complex measurement matrices.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThe work in this paper is based in part on preliminary work with Jong Min Kin, Woohyuk Chang, Bangchul Jung, and Jong Chul Ye\u00a0[@KimChangJungBaronYe2011]. The authors thank Lenka Zdeborov[\u00e1]{} for useful discussions about replica analysis, and Yanting Ma and Ryan Pilgrim for helpful comments. Junan Zhu also thanks Shikai Luo for helpful discussions.\n\nThis appendix follows the derivation of Barbier and Krzakala\u00a0[@Barbier2015], except for some nuances. Our compressed derivation makes the presentation self-contained.\n\nPlugging\u00a0 and the following identity\u00a0[@Barbier2015; @Krzakala2012probabilistic], $$\\begin{split}\n  &1=\\int \\exp\\Bigg\\{-{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}} \\l[\\widehat{m}_a\\l(m_a NJ-{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\\x_l^a)^T\\s_l\\r)\\r]+{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\\Bigg[\\\\\n  &\\widehat{Q}_a\\!\\l(Q_a\\frac{NJ}{2}\\!-\\!\\frac{1}{2}{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\\x_l^a)^T\\x_l^a\\r)\\Bigg]\\!-\\!{\\sum_{1\\leq a< b\\leq n}^{}}\\Bigg[\\widehat{q}_{ab}\\Bigg(q_{ab} NJ-\\\\\n  &{\\sum_{l=1}^{N}}(\\x_l^a)^T\\x_l^b\\Bigg)\\Bigg]\\!\\Bigg\\}\\!{\\prod_{a=1}^{n}}dQ_a\\  d\\widehat{Q}_{a}\\  dm_a \\ d\\widehat{m}_{a}\\! {\\prod_{1\\leq a<b\\leq n}^{}}\\! dq_{ab}\\ d\\widehat{q}_{ab},\n\\end{split}$$ into , we obtain $$\\label{eq:EZn3}\n\\begin{split}\n  \\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\s,\\z}&[Z^n]\\!=\\!(2\\pi\\Delta)^{-\\frac{nMJ}{2}}\\bigintsss\\! \\exp\\Bigg[NJ\\Bigg(\\frac{1}{2}{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\\widehat{Q}_aQ_a\\\\\n & -\\frac{1}{2}{\\sum_{\\substack{1\\leq a,b\\leq n\\\\a\\neq b}}^{}}\\widehat{q}_{ab}q_{ab}-{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\\widehat{m}_am_a\\Bigg)\\Bigg]\\l[{\\prod_{\\mu=1}^{M}} \\mathbb{X}_{\\mu}\\!\\r]\\times\\\\\n  &\\Gamma^N{\\prod_{a=1}^{n}}dQ_a\\  d\\widehat{Q}_{a}\\  dm_a\\  d\\widehat{m}_{a}\\!{\\prod_{\\substack{1\\leq a,b\\leq n\\\\a\\neq b}}^{}}\\! dq_{ab}\\ d\\widehat{q}_{ab},\n\\end{split}$$ where $$\\label{eq:Gamma_original}\n\\begin{split}\n&\\Gamma=\\!\\!\\!\\int\\! P(\\s_1)\\! \\l[{\\prod_{a=1}^{n}}P(\\x^a_1)\\r]\\!\\exp\\!\\Bigg[\\!-\\frac{1}{2}{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\\widehat{Q}_a(\\x^a_1)^T\\x^a_1+\\\\\n&\\frac{1}{2}{\\sum_{\\substack{1\\leq a,b\\leq n\\\\a\\neq b}}^{}}\\widehat{q}_{ab}(\\x^a_1)^T\\x^b_1+{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\\widehat{m}_a(\\x^a_1)^T\\s_1\\Bigg]d\\s_1 {\\prod_{a=1}^{n}}d\\x^a_1.\n\\end{split}$$\n\n$$\\label{eq:PhiJ}\n\\begin{split}\n  \\widetilde{\\Phi}_J&(m,\\widehat{m},q,\\widehat{q},Q,\\widehat{Q})=\\frac{J}{2}(Q\\widehat{Q}+q\\widehat{q}-2m\\widehat{m})-\\frac{MJ}{2N}\\l[\\frac{\\rho-2m+\\Delta+q}{Q-q+\\Delta}+\\log(Q-q+\\Delta)-\\log(\\Delta)\\r]+\\\\\n  &\\int P(\\s_1) \\l\\{ \\int \\log \\l\\{ \\int P(\\x_1)\\exp\\l[-\\frac{1}{2}(\\widehat{Q}+\\widehat{q})\\x_1^T\\x_1+\\widehat{m}\\x^T_1\\s_1+\n  \\sqrt{\\widehat{q}}\\h^T\\x_1\\r]d\\x_1\\r\\} \\mathcal{D}\\h \\r\\} d\\s_1-\\frac{MJ}{2N}\\log(2\\pi\\Delta).\n\\end{split}$$\n\n**Further simplification of\u00a0**: The Stratanovitch transform\u00a0[@Stratanovitch-Wiki] in $J$ dimensions is given by $$\\label{eq:strat}\n\\begin{split}\n  &\\exp\\!\\l[\\frac{\\widehat{q}}{2}\\!{\\sum_{\\substack{1\\!\\leq\\! a,b\\!\\leq n\\\\a\\neq b}}^{}}\\!(\\x^a_1)^T\\!\\x^b_1\\!\\r]\\!=\\!{\\prod_{j=1}^{J}}\\!\\exp\\!\\l[\\frac{\\widehat{q}}{2}{\\sum_{\\substack{1\\leq a,b\\leq n\\\\a\\neq b}}^{}}x^a_{1,j} x^b_{1,j}\\r]\\\\\n  &={\\prod_{j=1}^{J}}\\int\\exp\\l[\\sqrt{\\widehat{q}}h_j{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}x^a_{1,j}-\\frac{\\widehat{q}}{2}{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}(x^a_{1,j})^2\\r]\\mathcal{D}h_j\\\\\n  &=\\int\\exp\\l[\\sqrt{\\widehat{q}}\\h^T{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}\\x^a_1-\\frac{\\widehat{q}}{2}{\\sum_{a=1}^{n}}(\\x^a_1)^T\\x^a_1\\r]\\mathcal{D}\\h,\n\\end{split}$$ where $\\h=[h_1,...,h_J]^T$, and the differential $\\mathcal{D}h_j=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2\\pi}}\\operatorname{e}^{-h_j^2/2}d h_j$. With the Stratanovitch transform\u00a0, we simplify $\\Gamma$\u00a0 as follows, $$\\label{eq:Gamma}\n\\Gamma=\\int P(\\s_1)\\int\\l[f(\\h)\\r]^n \\mathcal{D}\\h\\ d\\s_1,$$ where $f(\\h)=\\int P(\\x_1)\\operatorname{e}^{-\\frac{\\widehat{Q}+\\widehat{q}}{2}\\x_1^T\\x_1+\\widehat{m}\\x_1^T\\s_1+\\sqrt{\\widehat{q}}\\h^T\\x_1}d\\x_1$, and we drop the super-script $a$ of $\\x_1^a$ owing to the replica symmetry assumption\u00a0[@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical]. In the limit of $n\\rightarrow 0$, using another Taylor series $[f(\\h)]^n\\approx 1+n\\log [f(\\h)]$, we have $\\int [f(\\h)]^n \\mathcal{D}\\h\\approx 1+n\\int \\log [f(\\h)] \\mathcal{D}\\h\\approx\\operatorname{e}^{n\\int \\log [f(\\h)]\\mathcal{D}\\h}$, so that $\\mathbb{E}\\{\\int[f(\\h)]^n\\mathcal{D}\\h\\}\\approx\\mathbb{E}\\{1+n\\int \\log [f(\\h)] \\mathcal{D}\\h\\}\\approx\\operatorname{e}^{\\mathbb{E}\\{n\\int \\log [f(\\h)]\\mathcal{D}\\h\\}}$. Hence, we can approximate\u00a0 as $$\\label{eq:Gamma1}\n\\Gamma=\\exp\\l\\{n\\int P(\\s_1) \\int\\log [f(\\h)] \\mathcal{D}\\h \\ d\\s_1\\r\\}.$$ Considering\u00a0, we rewrite as $$\\label{eq:EZn4}\n    \\mathbb{E}_{\\F,\\s,\\z}[Z^n]=\\int \\operatorname{e}^{nN\\widetilde{\\Phi}_J(m,\\widehat{m},q,\\widehat{q},Q,\\widehat{Q})}\n      dm\\ d\\widehat{m}\\ dq\\ d\\widehat{q}\\ dQ\\ d\\widehat{Q},$$ where $\\widetilde{\\Phi}_J(m,\\widehat{m},q,\\widehat{q},Q,\\widehat{Q})$ is given in\u00a0.\n\n**Free energy expression**: We now substitute\u00a0 into\u00a0. Assuming that the limits in\u00a0 commute and that we only evaluate\u00a0 at optimum points of $\\widetilde{\\Phi}_J$\u00a0\u00a0[@Barbier2015; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical], we have $\\mathcal{F}=\\widetilde{\\Phi}_J(m^*,\\widehat{m}^*,q^*,\\widehat{q}^*,Q^*,\\widehat{Q}^*)$, where the asterisks denote stationary points. Next, we calculate the stationary points: $$\\frac{\\partial \\widetilde{\\Phi}_J }{\\partial m}=0 \\Rightarrow \\widehat{m}^*=\\frac{R}{Q^*-q^*+\\Delta},$$ $$\\frac{\\partial \\widetilde{\\Phi}_J }{\\partial q}=0 \\Rightarrow \\widehat{q}^*=R\\frac{\\Delta+\\rho-2m^*+q^*}{(Q^*-q^*+\\Delta)^2},$$ $$\\frac{\\partial \\widetilde{\\Phi}_J }{\\partial Q}=0 \\Rightarrow \\widehat{Q}^*=R\\frac{2m^*-\\rho-2q^*+Q^*}{(Q^*-q^*+\\Delta)^2},$$ where $R$\u00a0 is the measurement rate. Because we are analyzing the MMSE, we must assume that the estimated prior matches the true underlying prior, which is a Bayesian setting. Thus, $q^*=m^*$ and $Q^*=\\rho$\u00a0. Let $E=q^*-2m^*+Q^*=Q^*-q^*$, then we obtain $\\widehat{q}^*=\\widehat{m}^*=\\frac{R}{E+\\Delta}$ and $\\widehat{Q}^*=0$. Therefore, we solve for the free energy as a function of $E$ in\u00a0. Using a change of variables, we obtain\u00a0, which is a function of $E$. Using\u00a0, the MSE is $$\\label{eq:DandE}\nD=E+Q-q=E+\\rho/N\\overset{N\\rightarrow \\infty}{\\longrightarrow} E.$$ Hence, in the large system limit, we can regard the free energy\u00a0 as a function of the MSE, $D$.\n\n[10]{}\n\nE.\u00a0Cand\u00e8s, J.\u00a0Romberg, and T.\u00a0Tao, \u201cRobust uncertainty principles: [E]{}xact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information,\u201d , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 489\u2013509, Feb. 2006.\n\nD.\u00a0Donoho, \u201cCompressed sensing,\u201d , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1289\u20131306, Apr. 2006.\n\nR.\u00a0G. Baraniuk, \u201cA lecture on compressive sensing,\u201d , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 118\u2013121, July 2007.\n\nH.\u00a0Jung, J.\u00a0C. Ye, and E.\u00a0Y. Kim, \u201c[Improved k-t [BLAST]{} and k-t [SENSE]{} using [FOCUSS]{}]{},\u201d , vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 3201\u20133226, May 2007.\n\nH.\u00a0Jung, K.\u00a0Sung, K.\u00a0S. Nayak, E.\u00a0Y. Kim, and J.\u00a0C. Ye, \u201c[k-t [FOCUSS]{}: a general compressed sensing framework for high resolution dynamic [MRI]{}]{},\u201d , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 103\u2013116, Jan. 2009.\n\nS.\u00a0F. Cotter and B.\u00a0D. Rao, \u201cSparse channel estimation via matching pursuit with application to equalization,\u201d , vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 374\u2013377, Mar. 2002.\n\nJ.\u00a0Ma and F.\u00a0X. Le\u00a0Dimet, \u201c[Deblurring from highly incomplete measurements for remote sensing]{},\u201d , vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 792\u2013802, Mar. 2009.\n\nJ.\u00a0Haupt and R.\u00a0Nowak, \u201c[S]{}ignal reconstruction from noisy random projections,\u201d , vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 4036\u20134048, Sept. 2006.\n\nM.\u00a0F. Duarte, M.\u00a0B. Wakin, D.\u00a0Baron, S.\u00a0Sarvotham, and R.\u00a0G. Baraniuk, \u201cMeasurement bounds for sparse signal ensembles via graphical models,\u201d , vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 4280\u20134289, July 2013.\n\nG.\u00a0J. Pottie and W.\u00a0J. Kaiser, \u201c[Wireless integrated network sensors]{},\u201d , vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 51\u201358, May 2000.\n\nM.\u00a0F. Duarte, M.\u00a0B. Wakin, D.\u00a0Baron, and R.\u00a0G. Baraniuk, \u201c[Universal distributed sensing via random projections]{},\u201d in [*Proc. Inf. Process. Sensor Networks (IPSN)*]{}, Nashville, TN, Apr. 2006.\n\nJ.\u00a0Chen and X.\u00a0Huo, \u201cTheoretical results on sparse representations of multiple measurement vectors,\u201d , vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 4634\u20134643, Dec. 2006.\n\nS.\u00a0F. Cotter, B.\u00a0D. Rao, K.\u00a0Engan, and K.\u00a0Kreutz-Delgado, \u201cSparse solutions to linear inverse problems with multiple measurement vectors,\u201d , vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 2477\u20132488, July 2005.\n\nM.\u00a0Mishali and Y.\u00a0C. Eldar, \u201cReduce and boost: recovering arbitrary sets of jointly sparse vectors,\u201d , vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 4692\u20134702, Oct. 2009.\n\nE.\u00a0Berg and M.\u00a0P. Friedlander, \u201cJoint-sparse recovery from multiple measurements,\u201d , Apr. 2009.\n\nO.\u00a0Lee, J.\u00a0M. Kim, Y.\u00a0Bresler, and J.\u00a0C. Ye, \u201cCompressive diffuse optical tomography: [N]{}oniterative exact reconstruction using joint sparsity,\u201d , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1129\u20131142, May 2011.\n\nK.\u00a0Lee, Y.\u00a0Bresler, and M.\u00a0Junge, \u201cSubspace methods for joint sparse recovery,\u201d , vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3613\u20133641, June 2012.\n\nJ.\u00a0C. Ye, J.\u00a0M. Kim, and Y.\u00a0Bresler, \u201cImproving [M-SBL]{} for joint sparse recovery using a subspace penalty,\u201d , vol. 63, no. 24, pp. 6595\u20136605, Dec. 2015.\n\nJ.\u00a0A. Tropp, A.\u00a0C. Gilbert, and M.\u00a0J. Strauss, \u201cAlgorithms for simultaneous sparse approximation. part [I]{}: Greedy pursuit.,\u201d , vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 572\u2013588, Mar. 2006.\n\nD.\u00a0Malioutov, M.\u00a0Cetin, and A.\u00a0S. Willsky, \u201cA sparse signal reconstruction perspective for source localization with sensor arrays,\u201d , vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 3010\u20133022, Aug. 2005.\n\nJ.\u00a0A. Tropp, \u201cAlgorithms for simultaneous sparse approximation. part [II]{}: Convex relaxation,\u201d , vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 589\u2013602, Mar. 2006.\n\nJ.\u00a0Ziniel and P.\u00a0Schniter, \u201cEfficient message passing-based inference in the multiple measurement vector problem,\u201d in [*Proc. IEEE 45th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., and Comput.*]{}, Nov. 2011, pp. 1447\u20131451.\n\nT.\u00a0Tanaka, \u201c[A statistical-mechanics approach to large-system analysis of CDMA multiuser detectors]{},\u201d , vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 2888\u20132910, Nov. 2002.\n\nD.\u00a0Guo and S.\u00a0Verd[\u00fa]{}, \u201cRandomly spread [CDMA]{}: [A]{}symptotics via statistical physics,\u201d , vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1983\u20132010, June 2005.\n\nA.\u00a0Montanari and D.\u00a0Tse, \u201cAnalysis of belief propagation for non-linear problems: The example of [CDMA]{} (or: How to prove [T]{}anaka\u2019s formula),\u201d in [*IEEE Inf. Theory Workshop*]{}, Mar. 2006, pp. 160\u2013164.\n\nF.\u00a0Krzakala, M.\u00a0M[\u00e9]{}zard, F.\u00a0Sausset, Y.\u00a0Sun, and L.\u00a0Zdeborov[\u00e1]{}, \u201cProbabilistic reconstruction in compressed sensing: [A]{}lgorithms, phase diagrams, and threshold achieving matrices,\u201d , vol. 2012, no. 08, pp. P08009, Aug. 2012.\n\nF.\u00a0Krzakala, M.\u00a0M[\u00e9]{}zard, F.\u00a0Sausset, Y.\u00a0Sun, and L.\u00a0Zdeborov[\u00e1]{}, \u201cStatistical-physics-based reconstruction in compressed sensing,\u201d , vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 021005, May 2012.\n\nM.\u00a0M[\u00e9]{}zard and A.\u00a0Montanari, , Oxford University press, 2009.\n\nJ.\u00a0Barbier and F.\u00a0Krzakala, \u201cApproximate message-passing decoder and capacity-achieving sparse superposition codes,\u201d , Mar. 2015.\n\nT.\u00a0Lesieur, F.\u00a0Krzakala, and L.\u00a0Zdeborov[\u00e1]{}, \u201cPhase transitions in sparse [PCA]{},\u201d in [*Proc. Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT)*]{}, July 2015, pp. 1635\u20131639.\n\nD.\u00a0L. Donoho, A.\u00a0Maleki, and A.\u00a0Montanari, \u201c[Message passing algorithms for compressed sensing]{},\u201d , vol. 106, no. 45, pp. 18914\u201318919, Nov. 2009.\n\nD.\u00a0Baron, S.\u00a0Sarvotham, and R.\u00a0G. Baraniuk, \u201cBayesian compressive sensing via belief propagation,\u201d , vol. 58, pp. 269\u2013280, Jan. 2010.\n\nM.\u00a0Bayati and A.\u00a0Montanari, \u201cThe dynamics of message passing on dense graphs, with applications to compressed sensing,\u201d , vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 764\u2013785, Feb. 2011.\n\nA.\u00a0Montanari, \u201cGraphical models concepts in compressed sensing,\u201d , pp. 394\u2013438, 2012.\n\nD.\u00a0Guo and C.\u00a0C. Wang, \u201cMultiuser detection of sparsely spread [CDMA]{},\u201d , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 421\u2013431, Apr. 2008.\n\nJ.\u00a0Barbier, M.\u00a0Dia, N.\u00a0Macris, and F.\u00a0Krzakala, \u201cThe mutual information in random linear estimation,\u201d , July 2016.\n\nG.\u00a0Reeves and H.\u00a0D. Pfister, \u201cThe replica-symmetric prediction for compressed sensing with gaussian matrices is exact,\u201d , July 2016.\n\nJ.\u00a0Ziniel and P.\u00a0Schniter, \u201cEfficient high-dimensional inference in the multiple measurement vector problem,\u201d , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 340\u2013354, Jan. 2013.\n\nJ.\u00a0Zhu and D.\u00a0Baron, \u201cPerformance regions in compressed sensing from noisy measurements,\u201d in [*Proc. 2013 Conf. Inference Sci. Syst. (CISS)*]{}, Baltimore, MD, Mar. 2013.\n\nY.\u00a0Wu and S.\u00a0Verd[\u00fa]{}, \u201cOptimal phase transitions in compressed sensing,\u201d , vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 6241 \u2013 6263, Oct. 2012.\n\nJ.\u00a0Kim, W.\u00a0Chang, B.\u00a0Jung, D.\u00a0Baron, and J.\u00a0C. Ye, \u201cBelief propagation for jointly sparse recovery,\u201d , Feb. 2011.\n\nD.\u00a0L. Donoho, A.\u00a0Maleki, and A.\u00a0Montanari, \u201cThe noise-sensitivity phase transition in compressed sensing,\u201d , vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 6920\u20136941, Oct. 2011.\n\nA.\u00a0Javanmard and A.\u00a0Montanari, \u201cState evolution for general approximate message passing algorithms, with applications to spatial coupling,\u201d , Dec. 2012.\n\nD.\u00a0Donoho, I.\u00a0Johnstone, and A.\u00a0Montanari, \u201cAccurate prediction of phase transitions in compressed sensing via a connection to minimax denoising,\u201d , vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 3396\u20133433, June 2013.\n\nM.\u00a0Bayati, M.\u00a0Lelarge, and A.\u00a0Montanari, \u201cUniversality in polytope phase transitions and message passing algorithms,\u201d , vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 753\u2013822, Feb. 2015.\n\n\u201cHubbard\u2013[S]{}tratonovich transformation,\u201d https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/\\\nHubbard%E2%80%93Stratonovich\\_transformation.\n\n[^1]: The work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under the Grant CCF-1217749, the U.S. Army Research Office under the Contract W911NF-14-1-0314, and the European Research Council under the European Union\u2019s 7th Framework Programme (FP/2007- 2013)/ERC Grant Agreement 307087-SPARCS.\n\n[^2]: Junan Zhu and Dror Baron are with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, NC State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail: {jzhu9, barondror}@ncsu.edu.\n\n[^3]: Florent Krzakala is with Sorbonne Universit[\u00e9]{}s, Universit[\u00e9]{} Pierre et Marie Curie Paris 6 and Ecole Normale Superieure, 75005 Paris, France. E-mail: florent.krzakala@ens.fr.\n\n[^4]: Part of the literature\u00a0[@Tanaka2002; @GuoVerdu2005] defines the free energy as the negative of\u00a0, so that fixed points of the free energy correspond to local minima.\n\n[^5]: Recently, the replica Gibbs free energy has been proven rigorously for the SMV case by Barbier et al.\u00a0[@BDMK2016] and Reeves and Pfister\u00a0[@ReevesPfister2016]. We conjecture that by generalizing these two works\u00a0[@BDMK2016; @ReevesPfister2016], our MMV analysis can be made rigorous; we leave it for future work.\n\n[^6]: The $J$-dimensional integrals in\u00a0 can be simplified to one-dimensional integrals using a change of coordinate to $J$-sphere coordinate. Note also that $E$ approaches the MSE in the large system limit; details appear in the appendix.\n\n[^7]: In Section\u00a0\\[sec:complex\\], we only deal with SMV CS, and omit the word \u201cSMV.\"\n\n[^8]: A replica analysis for complex CS with a real measurement matrix appears in Guo and Verd[\u00fa]{}\u00a0[@GuoVerdu2005]. Their derivation does not cover complex matrices.\n\n[^9]: As a reminder, the free energy of MMV-2 is identical to that of MMV-1 in the large system limit.\n\n[^10]: The MMV with $J=1$ becomes an SMV. The MMSE results in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:MMV\\_J1\\] match with the SMV MMSE in Krzakala et. al.\u00a0[@Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical] and Zhu and Baron\u00a0[@ZhuBaronCISS2013].\n\n[^11]: When the assumptions about the measurement matrix and signal\u00a0[@DMM2009; @Montanari2012; @Bayati2011; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @krzakala2012statistical; @Barbier2015] are violated, AMP might suffer from convergence issues.\n\n[^12]: Note that Algorithm\u00a0\\[algo:AMP\\_MMV\\] is a straightforward simplification of the AMP algorithm in Barbier and Krzakala\u00a0[@Barbier2015].\n\n[^13]: We simulated both $J$ different measurement matrices $\\underline{F}^j$ and $J$ identical $\\underline{F}^j$. Both results match the predicted BP MSE, which support our conclusion that the MMSE\u2019s of both settings are the same. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:AMPoverMSE\\] is with $J$ different $\\underline{F}^j$.\n"}
-{"text": "=1\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nHirota difference equation was introduced in the bilinear form (HBDE) as equation on the $\\tau$-function in\u00a0[@Hirota1977; @Hirota1981], $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\tau^{(1)}(n)\\tau^{(2,3)}(n)+\\tau^{(2)}(n)\\tau^{(3,1)}(n)+\\tau^{(3)}(n)\\tau^{(1,2)}(n)=0,\\label{hbde}\\end{gathered}$$ where $\\tau(n)=\\tau(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ is a function of 3 numbers (independent variables) $n_1,n_2,n_3\\in\\mathbb{Z}$. Here and below upper indexes 1, 2, 3 in parenthesis denote unity shifts $\\tau^{(i)}(n)=\\tau(n)|_{n_i\\to n_i+1}$, matrix $\\tau^{(i,j)}$ is antisymmetric and $\\tau^{(i,j)}(n)=\\tau(n)_{n_i\\to n_i+1, n_j\\to n_j+1}$ for $1\\leq{i}<{j}\\leq3$. HBDE has a lot of literature since it is known to generate by means of special limiting procedures many discrete and continuous integrable equations, such as Kadomtsev\u2013Petviashvili equation (KP), modified Kadomtsev\u2013Petviashvili equation, two-dimensional Toda lattice, sine-Gordon equation, Benjamin\u2013Ono equation, etc. Because of this HDE is often considered to be a fundamental integrable system. This equation also appears as the model-independent functional relation for eigenvalues of quantum transfer matrices. Detailed survey of the results referred to this equation is given in\u00a0[@Zabrodin1997; @Zabrodin2008], see also citations therein. Octahedral structure of HDE is studied in [@Saito]. Its elliptic solutions were considered in\u00a0[@Krichever/Wiegmann/Zabrodin]. In\u00a0[@Bogdanov/Konopelchenko] Hirota difference equation is called the generalized KP hierarchy. Some Hirota-like equations are derived in [@Fioravanti/Nepomechie]. Here we use the form of the Hirota difference equation that is convenient and natural for the Inverse scattering transform, but that is different from HBDE in (\\[hbde\\]). We introduce a\u00a0\u201cfield variable\u201d, i.e., function $v(n)=v(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ defined by means of equalities $$\\begin{gathered}\nv^{(1)}(n)-v^{(3)}(n)=\\frac{\\tau^{(3,1)}(n)\\tau(n)}{\\tau^{(1)}(n)\\tau^{(3)}(n)}, \\qquad\nv^{(2)}(n)-v^{(1)}(n)=\\frac{\\tau^{(1,2)}(n)\\tau(n)}{\\tau^{(2)}(n)\\tau^{(1)}(n)},\\label{vtau1}\\end{gathered}$$ where in analogy to the above we use notations $$\\begin{aligned}\n{3}\n& v^{(1)}(n)=v(n_1+1,n_2,n_3),\\qquad && v^{(2)}(n)=v(n_1,n_2+1,n_3), \\quad \\text{etc.},& \\label{5}\\\\\n&v^{(11)}(n)=v(n_1+2,n_2,n_3),\\qquad && v^{(12)}(n)=v(n_1+1,n_2+1,n_3), \\quad \\text{etc.}, & \\label{6}\\end{aligned}$$ but in contrast to the $\\tau^{(i,j)}$ matrix $v^{(i,j)}$ is symmetric. Summing up equations in (\\[vtau1\\]) we get by\u00a0(\\[hbde\\]) $$\\begin{gathered}\nv^{(3)}(n)-v^{(2)}(n)=\\frac{\\tau^{(2,3)}(n)\\tau(n)}{\\tau^{(2)}(n)\\tau^{(3)}(n)}.\\label{vtau2}\\end{gathered}$$ Notice that all these three equations follow consequently by cyclic permutation of the indexes $\\{1,2,3\\}$. Now, by (\\[vtau1\\]) we have that $\\big(v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}\\big)^{(3)}\\big(v^{(3)}-v^{(1)}\\big)=\\big(v^{(3)}-v^{(1)}\\big)^{(2)}\\big(v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}\\big)$, or $$\\begin{gathered}\nv^{(12)}\\big(v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}\\big)+v^{(23)}\\big(v^{(3)}-v^{(2)}\\big)+v^{(31)}\\big(v^{(1)}-v^{(3)}\\big)=0,\\label{n19}\\end{gathered}$$ that is the form of the Hirota difference equation (HDE) used below. This equation is known (see, e.g.,\u00a0[@Zabrodin1997]) to be the compatibility condition for the Lax pair given by any pair of the equations $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi^{(i)}=\\varphi^{(j)}+\\big(v^{(i)}-v^{(j)}\\big)\\varphi,\\qquad i,j=1,2,3.\\label{59'}\\end{gathered}$$ It is worth to mention that because of rational dependence on $\\tau$ of the r.h.s.\u2019s of\u00a0(\\[vtau1\\]) and\u00a0(\\[vtau2\\]) equations\u00a0(\\[hbde\\]) and\u00a0(\\[n19\\]) describe different classes of solutions, see [@Pogrebkov2011]. Say, the first one does not support solutions such that some of the differences in the l.h.s.\u2019s annihilates at some\u00a0$n$. On the other side, equation\u00a0(\\[n19\\]) is ill posed as it is: any function\u00a0$v(n)$ such that $$\\begin{gathered}\nv^{(i)}=v^{(j)} \\qquad \\text{for}\\quad  i\\neq{j} \\label{ill}\\end{gathered}$$ obeys this equation. Below we derive additional conditions that resolve this problem.\n\nHere we use the HDE to demonstrate a generic approach to construction of symmetries of integrable equations. In\u00a0[@Pogrebkov2011] it was shown that the HDE can be derived by dressing of a commutator identity on an associative algebra. More exactly, let us have some associative algebra with unity over the complex space $\\mathbb{C}$. Let us fix some complex mutually different parameters\u00a0$a_1$, $a_2$ and $a_3$. It is easy to see, that for any pair $A$, $B$ of elements of this algebra, such that in this algebra there exist\u00a0$(A-a_1)^{-1}$, $ (A-a_2)^{-1}$ and $(A-a_3)^{-1}$, we have the following identity: $$\\begin{gathered}\na_{12} \\big\\{(A-a_1)(A-a_2)B(A-a_1)^{-1}(A-a_2)^{-1}+(A-a_3)B(A-a_3)^{-1}\\big\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n\\qquad {}+\\text{cycle}(1,2,3)=0,\\label{1}\\end{gathered}$$ where $$\\begin{gathered}\n a_{ij}=a_{i}-a_{j},\\qquad a_{i}\\neq a_{j}\\qquad\\text{for}\\quad i\\neq{j}.\\label{8}\\end{gathered}$$ Due to a mutual commutativity of elements $A-a_i$, we can introduce dependence of $B$ on discrete \u201ctimes\u201d $n_i\\in\\mathbb{Z}$, $i=1,2,3$, by means of equation $$\\begin{gathered}\n B(n_1,n_2,n_3)=\\left(\\prod_{i=1}^{3}(A-a_i)^{n_i}\\right)B\\left(\\prod_{i=1}^{3}(A-a_i)^{n_i}\\right)^{-1}.\\label{4}\\end{gathered}$$ Denoting for shortness $B(n)=B(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ we use notation of the kind (\\[5\\]) and (\\[6\\]). In these terms (\\[1\\]) proves that $B(n)$ obeys the following difference equation $$\\begin{gathered}\na_{12}\\big\\{B^{(12)}+B^{(3)}\\big\\}+\\text{cycle}(1,2,3)=0,\\label{7}\\end{gathered}$$ that is a linearized version of the HDE (\\[n19\\]), as we explain after (\\[n18\\]) below. The special dressing procedure that enables such \u201cnonlinearization\u201d of equation\u00a0(\\[7\\]) was introduced in\u00a0[@Pogrebkov2011], where we also described derivation of integrable differential and difference-differential equations from HDE in limiting cases. Direct and inverse problems for the HDE were considered in\u00a0[@Pogrebkov2014]. Our construction here is based on the Abelian version of the HDE for simplicity. See\u00a0[@Pogrebkov2016] for analogous treatment of the non-Abelian HDE.\n\nThe article is organized as follows. In Section\u00a0\\[dress\\] we shortly present some steps of the dressing procedure necessary for our approach, see [@Pogrebkov2011] for details. The symmetries and their dressing are introduced and studied in Section\u00a0\\[symm\\]. In Section\u00a0\\[eqs\\] we list some integrable equations and corresponding Lax pairs that appear by consideration of the parameters of symmetries as independent variables. Additional symmetries and concluding remarks are presented in Section\u00a0\\[add\\].\n\nDressing procedure {#dress}\n==================\n\nIn order to introduce dressing procedure we fix representation of associative algebra. We realize it as set of operators\u00a0$F$,\u00a0$G$, etc., given by their symbols $\\widetilde{F}(n_1,z)$, $\\widetilde{G}(n_1,z)$, etc., being functions of the discrete variable $n_1\\in\\mathbb{Z}$ and $z\\in\\mathbb{C}$. We assume that these symbols have Fourier transform $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{F}(n_1,z)=\\oint_{|\\zeta|=1}\\frac{d\\zeta}{2\\pi i\\zeta}\\zeta^{n_1}f(\\zeta,z),\\label{f1}\\end{gathered}$$ where $f(\\zeta,z)$ is a function (distribution) of its variables, $\\zeta,z\\in\\mathbb{C}$, $|\\zeta|=1$. Notation of the kind $f(\\zeta,z)$ does not mean that any analyticity property of symbols with respect to $z$ are assumed. So there exists nontrivial operation of\u00a0$\\overline\\partial$-differentiation on this set of operators, i.e., to any operator $F$ we associate operator $\\overline\\partial{F}$ with symbol $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{(\\overline{\\partial}F)}(n_1,z)=\\frac{\\partial \\widetilde{F}(n_1,z)}{\\partial\\overline{z}},\\label{38}\\end{gathered}$$ where derivative is considered in the sense of distributions. As well on this set of operators we define composition $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{(FG)}(n_1,z)=\\oint_{|\\zeta|=1}\\frac{d\\zeta}{2\\pi i\\zeta}\\widetilde{F}(n_1,z\\zeta) \\sum_{m_1\\in\\mathbb{Z}}\\zeta^{n_1-m_1}\\widetilde{G}(m_1,z),\\label{fg}\\end{gathered}$$ if it exists. It is easy to check associativity of this composition law.\n\nAs the simplest examples let us consider unity and shift operators. The symbol of the unity (with respect to composition\u00a0([\\[fg\\]]{})) operator is\u00a01, and symbol of the operator\u00a0$T$ that shifts variable $n_1$ equals $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{T}(n_1,z)=z,$$ so that by (\\[fg\\]) for any $F$: $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{(TF)}(n,z)=z\\widetilde{F^{(1)}}(n,z),\\qquad \\widetilde{\\big(FT^{-1}\\big)}(n,z)=\\frac{1}{z}\\widetilde{F}(n,z),\\nonumber\\\\\n\\widetilde{\\big(TFT^{-1}\\big)}(n,z)=\\widetilde{F^{(1)}}(n,z),\\label{41}\\end{gathered}$$ where notation (\\[5\\]) was used. We see that symbol of operator $T$ is analytic, so that by\u00a0(\\[38\\]) $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\overline\\partial{T}=0,\\label{40}\\end{gathered}$$ that is very essential for the following construction. It is easy to see that any operator $F$ with symbol $\\widetilde{F}(n,z)=f(|z|)$, i.e., independent of\u00a0$n_1$ and\u00a0$\\arg{z}$, commute with an arbitrary operator in the sense of composition\u00a0(\\[33\\]).\n\nBelow we also use a multiplication operator $N_{1}$ with symbol $\\widetilde{N_1}(n_1,z)=n_1$. Due to\u00a0(\\[fg\\]) it is conjugate to operator $T$ in a\u00a0sense that $$\\begin{gathered}\n [T,N_1]=T,\\label{fg1}\\end{gathered}$$ and for a generic $F$ $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\widetilde{[N_1,F]}(n_1,z)=i\\frac{\\partial\\widetilde{F}(n_1,z)}{\\partial\\arg{z}}.\\label{fg2}\\end{gathered}$$\n\nWe consider now element $B$ in (\\[4\\]) to be an operator of this class, i.e., given by the symbol $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{B}(n_1,z)=\\oint_{|\\zeta|=1}\\frac{d\\zeta}{2\\pi i\\zeta}\\zeta^{n_1}b(\\zeta,z),\\label{f2}\\end{gathered}$$ with some function $b(\\zeta,z)$, cf.\u00a0(\\[f1\\]). If compare (\\[4\\]) and\u00a0(\\[41\\]) it is natural to set $$\\begin{gathered}\n A=T_1+a_1,\\qquad\\text{i.e.},\\qquad \\widetilde{A}(n,z)=z_1+a_1,\\label{44}\\end{gathered}$$ so that shift of $n_1$ in (\\[4\\]) (see notation (\\[5\\])) gives $$\\begin{gathered}\nB^{(1)}=TBT^{-1},\\label{n8}\\end{gathered}$$ that is valid for any operator due to (\\[41\\]). Specific for $B$ is that dependence on discrete variables\u00a0$n_2$ and\u00a0$n_3$ is given by\u00a0(\\[4\\]) and\u00a0(\\[44\\]): $$\\begin{gathered}\nB^{(2)}(n_2,n_3)\\equiv B(n_2+1,n_3) =(T+a_{12})B(n_2,n_3)(T+a_{12})^{-1},\\label{n9}\\\\\nB^{(3)}(n_2,n_3)\\equiv B(n_2,n_3+1)=(T+a_{13})B(n_2,n_3)(T+a_{13})^{-1}.\\label{n10}\\end{gathered}$$ that we denote below as $B(n)$ and the symbol as $\\widetilde{B}(n_1,n_2,n_3,z)$ ($\\widetilde{B}(n,z)$ for shortness). For operators which symbols depend on all three discrete variables the composition law\u00a0(\\[fg\\]) takes the form $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{(FG)}(n,z)=\\oint_{|\\zeta|=1}\\frac{d\\zeta}{2\\pi i\\zeta}\\widetilde{F}(n,z\\zeta) \\sum_{m_1\\in\\mathbb{Z}}\\zeta^{n_1-m_1}\\widetilde{G}(m_1,n_2,n_3,z).\\label{33}\\end{gathered}$$\n\nThanks to this equation, (\\[f2\\]), (\\[n9\\]) and (\\[n10\\]) the symbol of the operator $B(n)$ equals $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{B}(n,z)=\\oint_{|\\zeta|=1}\\frac{d\\zeta}{2\\pi i\\zeta}\\zeta^{n_1}\\left(\\frac{z\\zeta+a_{12}}{z+a_{12}}\\right)^{n_2}\n\\left(\\frac{z\\zeta+a_{13}}{z+a_{13}}\\right)^{n_3}b(\\zeta,z).\\label{b1}\\end{gathered}$$ It is reasonable to exclude its exponential growth with respect to $n_2$ and $n_3$. So we impose conditions $|z\\zeta+a_{12}|=|z+a_{12}|$, $|z\\zeta+a_{13}|=|z+a_{13}|$, that are equivalent to either $\\zeta=1$, or $\\overline{z}/{z} =\\zeta\\overline{a}_{12}/a_{12} =\\zeta\\overline{a}_{13}/a_{13}$. The first condition leads to a trivial constant operator in (\\[b1\\]), so we consider the second one only. Because of it: $\\overline{a}_{12}/a_{12}=\\overline{a}_{13}/a_{13}$, and thus (shifting phase of\u00a0$z$, if necessary) we can choose all $a_j$ to be real. This means that function $b(\\zeta,z)$ has support on the surface $\\zeta=\\overline{z}/z$. In the simplest case $b(\\zeta,z)= \\delta_{c}(\\zeta{z}/\\bar{z})\\widetilde{R}(z)$, where $\\delta_{c}$ is the $\\delta$-function on the unit circle and $\\widetilde{R}(z)$ is an arbitrary function of $z\\in\\mathbb{C}$. Then representation\u00a0(\\[b1\\]) for the symbol of\u00a0$B$ becomes $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{B}(n,z)=\\left(\\frac{\\overline{z}}{z}\\right)^{n_1}\\left(\\frac{\\overline{z}+a_{12}}{z+a_{12}}\\right)^{n_2}\n \\left(\\frac{\\overline{z}+a_{13}}{z+a_{13}}\\right)^{n_3}\\widetilde{R}(z).\\label{n11}\\end{gathered}$$ Taking property of the $n$-dependent factor here into account, it is reasonable to input condition that $\\widetilde{R}(\\overline{z})= \\overline{\\widetilde{R}(z)}$. Then also $\\widetilde{B}(n,\\overline{z})=\\overline{\\widetilde{B}(n,z)}$. In generic situation $b(\\zeta,z)$ in (\\[b1\\]) can be proportional to the finite sum of derivatives of $\\delta_{c}(\\zeta)$, that we do not consider here in order to avoid asymptotic growth of $\\widetilde{B}(n,z)$ by\u00a0$n$.\n\nThe dressing procedure is based on construction of the dressing operator $K(n)$ by means of the $\\overline\\partial$-problem $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\overline\\partial{K}(n)=K(n)B(n),\\qquad \\lim_{z\\to\\infty}\\widetilde{K}(n,z)=1,\\label{49}\\end{gathered}$$ where $\\widetilde{K}(n,z)$ is the symbol of operator $K(n)$. Evolutions (\\[n8\\])\u2013(\\[n10\\]) generate evolutions of the dressing operator: $\\overline\\partial{K}^{(j)}(n)=K^{(j)}(n)B^{(j)}(n)$, where we use notation\u00a0(\\[5\\]) for\u00a0$K(n)$. In order to describe these shifts we need to specify asymptotic condition in\u00a0(\\[49\\]) assuming decomposition $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{K}(n,z)=\\sum_{j=0}^{M}k_{j}(n)z^{-j}+o\\big(z^{-M}\\big),\\qquad z\\to\\infty,\\qquad k_{0}(n)\\equiv1,\\label{n24}\\end{gathered}$$ where $M$ is some finite positive number and functions $k_j(n)$ are independent of $z$, i.e., are operators that coincide with their symbols. By (\\[40\\]) and (\\[n8\\])\u2013(\\[n10\\]) we have that $\\overline\\partial{K}^{(j)}(T+a_{1j})={K}^{(j)}(T+a_{1j})B$, $j=1,2,3$ and $a_{11}=0$ by\u00a0(\\[8\\]). Thus ${K}^{(j)}(T+a_{1j})$ for any $j$ obeys the same equation as in (\\[49\\]) but its symbol grows linearly at $z$-infinity. Assuming unique solvability of the problem\u00a0(\\[49\\]) we see that there exist operators $P_{j}$ with symbols being entire functions of $z$, such that ${K}^{(j)}(T+a_{1j})=P_{j}K$. Asymptotic decomposition\u00a0(\\[n24\\]) shows that symbols $\\widetilde{P_{j}}(n,z)$ are polynomials of the first order with respect to $z$. Their coefficients follow from the latter equality and\u00a0(\\[n24\\]). Thus $P_{1}=T$, so that $K^{(1)}=TKT^{-1}$ as it must be for any operator under consideration. But results for shifts with respect to the second and third discrete variables are less trivial $$\\begin{gathered}\nK^{(2)}(T+a_{12})=K^{(1)}T+\\bigl[u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12}\\bigr]K,\\label{55}\\\\\nK^{(3)}(T+a_{13})=K^{(1)}T+\\bigl[u^{(3)}-u^{(1)}+a_{13}\\bigr]K,\\label{56}\\end{gathered}$$ where we denoted for simplicity $$\\begin{gathered}\nu=k_1\\label{54}\\end{gathered}$$ (see (\\[n24\\])), so we consider $u$ as operator with symbol $\\widetilde{u}(n,z)=u(n)$. Equations\u00a0(\\[55\\]) and\u00a0(\\[56\\]) are dressed versions of equations $$\\begin{gathered}\nB^{(2)}(T+a_{12})=B^{(1)}T+a_{12}B,\\qquad B^{(3)}(T+a_{13})=B^{(1)}T+a_{13}B,\\label{50}\\end{gathered}$$ that follow from (\\[n8\\])\u2013(\\[n10\\]). By construction, evolutions of $K$ with respect to the discrete \u201ctimes\u201d are compatible and compatibility of (\\[55\\]) and (\\[56\\]) gives $$\\begin{gathered}\n u^{(12)}(u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12})+a_{12}u^{(3)}+\\text{cycle}(1,2,3)=0,\\label{57}\\end{gathered}$$ that is the Hirota difference equation on the function $u=u(n_1,n_2,n_3)$. It is clear that\u00a0(\\[7\\]) is a linearization of this equation.\n\nSubstituting decomposition (\\[n24\\]) in (\\[55\\]) and (\\[56\\]) one defines coefficients $k_{j}$ of this decomposition. In this way we get $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\begin{split}\n& k_{j+1}^{(2)}+a_{12}k_{j}^{(2)}=k_{j+1}^{(1)}+\\big(u_{}^{(2)}-u_{}^{(1)}+a_{12}^{}\\big)k_{j}^{},\\\\ & k_{j+1}^{(3)}+a_{13}k_{j}^{(3)}=k_{j+1}^{(1)}+\\big(u_{}^{(3)}-u_{}^{(1)}+a_{13}^{}\\big)k_{j}^{},\\qquad j\\geq0.\\end{split}\\end{gathered}$$ In particular, $$\\begin{gathered}\nk_{2}^{(2)}-k_{2}^{(1)}=\\big(u_{}^{(2)}-u_{}^{(1)}\\big)u-a_{12}^{}\\big(u_{}^{(2)}-u\\big),\\label{n:30}\\\\\nk_{2}^{(3)}-k_{2}^{(1)}=\\big(u_{}^{(3)}-u_{}^{(1)}\\big)u-a_{13}^{}\\big(u_{}^{(3)}-u\\big),\\label{n:31}\\\\\nk_{3}^{(2)}-k_{3}^{(1)}=-a_{12}^{}k_{2}^{(2)}+\\big(u_{}^{(2)}-u_{}^{(1)}+a_{12}^{}\\big)k_{2},\\label{n:32}\\\\\nk_{3}^{(3)}-k_{3}^{(1)}=-a_{13}^{}k_{2}^{(3)}+\\big(u_{}^{(3)}-u_{}^{(1)}+a_{13}^{}\\big)k_{2}.\\label{n:33}\\end{gathered}$$ These relations are nonlocal and need assumptions on asymptotic behavior of coefficients $k_{j}(n)$ to be uniquely solvable.\n\nIn order to simplify the above relations we introduce the Jost solution as $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi(n,z)=z^{n_1}(z+a_{12})^{n_2}(z+a_{13})^{n_3}\\widetilde{K}(n,z),\\label{58:1}\\end{gathered}$$ Then equations (\\[55\\]) and (\\[56\\]) of the Lax pair take the form $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi^{(2)}=\\varphi^{(1)}+\\big(u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12}\\big)\\varphi,\\label{59} \\\\\n \\varphi^{(3)}=\\varphi^{(1)}+\\big(u^{(3)}-u^{(1)}+a_{13}\\big)\\varphi.\\label{60}\\end{gathered}$$ It is also worth to mention that the difference of these equations gives $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi^{(3)}=\\varphi^{(2)}+\\big(u^{(3)}-u^{(2)}+a_{23}\\big)\\varphi,\\label{61}\\end{gathered}$$ that is also symmetric with respect to the previous equations. Thus any two of these three equations can be taken as the Lax pair. Let us perform change of dependent variable $$\\begin{gathered}\nv(n)=u(n)-a_1n_1-a_2n_2-a_3n_3,\\label{n18}\\end{gathered}$$ where by construction $u(n)\\to0$ when $n\\to\\infty$. Thus by (\\[5\\]) and (\\[6\\]) $v^{(i)}-v^{(j)}=u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}$, so by (\\[n18\\]) we get HDE (\\[n19\\]) and its Lax pair\u00a0(\\[59\u2019\\]) from\u00a0(\\[57\\]) and (\\[59\\])\u2013(\\[61\\]). Moreover, the condition (\\[8\\]) and asymptotic behavior of $v(n)$ in\u00a0(\\[n18\\]) resolve the ill posedness of\u00a0(\\[n19\\]), see discussion of\u00a0(\\[ill\\]) in Introduction.\n\nContinuous symmetries of the Hirota difference equations {#symm}\n========================================================\n\nIn the case where nonlinear equation under consideration is integrable, i.e., has nontrivial Lax pair, construction of symmetries of the equation is equivalent to construction of the Lax pair, here (\\[59\\]), (\\[60\\]). Because of existence of the inverse problem such direct procedure, being rather complicated by itself, can be substituted by the following two steps (see\u00a0[@Zakharov/Manakov], where analogous approach was used for construction of integrable equations, and\u00a0[@Pogrebkov2000]). Taking that the Lax pair (\\[59\\]), (\\[60\\]) (or, strictly speaking, (\\[55\\]), (\\[56\\])) appeared as dressing of the \u201cbare\u201d pair (\\[50\\]), we start with construction of symmetries of (\\[50\\]). Then symmetries of the HDE itself are given by the dressing procedure, i.e., by the inverse problem (\\[49\\]). Because of (\\[n8\\])\u2013(\\[n10\\]) the simplest set of symmetries of the pair (\\[50\\]) is given by operators that commute with operator $T$, i.e., functions of operator $T$ itself. Explicitly, we introduce dependence of $B$ on a new (continuous) variable $t$ by means of relation $$\\begin{gathered}\n B_t(n,t)=[W,B(n,t)],\\label{n200}\\end{gathered}$$ where symbol of the operator $W$ equals $\\widetilde{W}(n,z)=w(z)$, being a meromorphic function of $z$. Because of the composition law (\\[33\\]) any such operator commutes with operator\u00a0$T$, thus thanks to\u00a0(\\[n8\\])\u2013(\\[n10\\]): $$\\begin{gathered}\n(B_{t})^{(j)}=\\big(B^{(j)}\\big)_{t},\\label{n2010}\\end{gathered}$$ where parenthesis denote order of operations. Moreover, let us have an operator $W'$ of the same kind and introduce dependence on $t'$ in analogy to (\\[n200\\]). Then $[W,W']=0$ and these symmetries commute: $\\partial_{t'}\\partial_{t}B(n,t,t')=\\partial_{t'}\\partial_{t}B(n,t,t')$. In terms of symbols we have thanks to\u00a0(\\[b1\\]) that $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{B}(n,t,z)=\\oint_{|\\zeta|=1}\\frac{d\\zeta}{2\\pi i\\zeta}\\zeta^{m_1}\\left(\\frac{z\\zeta+a_{12}}{z+a_{12}}\\right)^{m_2}\n\\left(\\frac{z\\zeta+a_{13}}{z+a_{13}}\\right)^{m_3}e_{}^{t(w(z\\zeta)-w(z))}b(\\zeta,z),$$ that preserves form of $\\widetilde{B}$, redefining $b(\\zeta,z)$ only. Our next step is to define dressing operators by means of\u00a0(\\[49\\]), so that $\\overline\\partial{K}_{t}(n,t)=K_{t}(n,t)B(n,t)+K(n,t)B_{t}(n,t)$, or thanks to\u00a0(\\[n200\\]): $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\overline\\partial{K}_{t}(n,t)+K(n,t)B(n,t)W=\\big(K_{t_n}(n,t)+K(n,t)W\\big)B(n,t).\\label{n202}\\end{gathered}$$ Below we consider special cases of such symmetries that enables explicit integration of this equation due to (\\[40\\]).\n\nSymmetries of the KP type\n-------------------------\n\nThis set of symmetries is generated by the simplest choices of operator $W$ in\u00a0(\\[n200\\]): $w(z)=z,z^{2},\\ldots$. In other words, we introduce dependence of operator $B$ on the times $t_1,t_2,\\ldots$ by means of the equations $B_{t_m}=[T^{m},B]$, $m=1,2,\\ldots$, and define dependence of the dressing operator on these times by means of (\\[n202\\]): $\\overline\\partial{K}_{t_m}+KBT^{m}=(K_{t_m}+KT^{m})B$. Thanks to\u00a0(\\[40\\]) this equation is equivalent to $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\overline\\partial\\big({K}_{t_m}+KT^{m}\\big)=\\big({K}_{t_m}+KT^{m}\\big)B.\\label{n21}\\end{gathered}$$ We see that the sum ${K}_{t_m}+KT^{m}$ obeys the same $\\overline\\partial$-equation as in\u00a0(\\[49\\]), but with different (polynomial with respect to $z$) asymptotic of symbol at $z$-infinity. Thus for any $m$ there exists operator $P_{m}$ such that $\\overline{\\partial}P_{m}=0$ and $$\\begin{gathered}\n {K}_{t_m}+KT^{m}=P_{m}K.\\label{n22}\\end{gathered}$$ Assuming that asymptotic in\u00a0(\\[49\\]) is differentiable, we see that symbol $\\widetilde{P}_{m}(n,t,z)$ is polynomial of the $m$-th power with respect to\u00a0$z$. Coefficients\u00a0$p_{m,j}$ of this polynomial, $$\\begin{gathered}\nP_{m}=\\sum_{j=0}^{m}p_{m,j}T^{j},\\label{n:22}\\end{gathered}$$ where symbols $\\widetilde{p}_{m,j}(n,t)$ depend on\u00a0$n$ and\u00a0$t$, but not on\u00a0$z$, are defined (in analogy to the standard Zakharov\u2013Shabat dressing procedure, [@Zakharov/Shabat]) by equality $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\big(\\widetilde{K}(n,t,z)z^{m}\\big)_{+}=\\big((\\widetilde{P_{m}K})(n,t,z)\\big)_{+},\\label{n23}\\end{gathered}$$ where $+$ denotes polynomial by $z$ part of symbols of operators.\n\nUnder substitution of (\\[n24\\]), where now coefficients $k_{j}$ depend on $t_n$, in (\\[n23\\]) we get recursion relations for coefficients in (\\[n:22\\]): $$\\begin{gathered}\n k_{m-m'}=\\sum_{i=m'}^{m}p_{m,i}k_{i-m'}^{(1\\times{i})},$$ where $k_{m}^{(1\\times{i})}(n_1,n_2,n_3,t)=k_{m}^{}(n_1+i,n_2,n_3,t)$ in correspondence to (\\[5\\]). In particular, $p_{m,m}(t,n,z)\\equiv1$ and for the three lowest symmetries we have explicitly $$\\begin{gathered}\nP_{1}=T+k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(1)}\\equiv T+u-u^{(1)},\\label{n25}\\\\\nP_{2}=T^{2}+\\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(11)}\\big)T+k_{2}^{}-k_{2}^{(11)}-\\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(11)}\\big)k_{1}^{(1)},\\label{n26}\\\\\nP_{3}=T^{3}+\\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(111)}\\big)T^{2}+\\big(k_{2}-k_{2}^{(111)}-\\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(111)}\\big)k_{1}^{(11)}\\big)T\\nonumber\\\\\n\\hphantom{P_{3}=}{}\n+k_{3}^{}-k_{3}^{(111)}-\\big(k_{2}^{}-k_{2}^{(111)}-\\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(111)}\\big) k_{1}^{(11)}\\big)k_{1}^{(1)}+\\big(k_{1}^{(111)}-k_{1}^{}\\big)k_{2}^{(11)},\\label{n27}\\end{gathered}$$ where for the upper indexes in parenthesis we use notation in (\\[5\\]), (\\[6\\]).\n\nNotice that action of the first symmetry on the dressing operator is given in terms of dependent variable\u00a0$u$ of the HDE\u00a0(\\[57\\]): $$\\begin{gathered}\nK_{t_1}=\\big(K^{(1)}-K\\big)T+\\big(u-u^{(1)}\\big)K,\\label{n28}\\end{gathered}$$ but action of this symmetry on the $u=k_{1}$ itself involves $k_{2}$. Indeed, by (\\[n24\\]) $1/z$ term of\u00a0(\\[n28\\]) gives $$\\begin{gathered}\nu_{t_1}=k_{2}^{(1)}-k_{2}^{}-\\big(u^{(1)}-u\\big)u,\\label{n29}\\\\\nk_{2,t_1}=k_{3}^{(1)}-k_{3}^{}-\\big(u^{(1)}-u\\big)k_{2},\\label{n291}\\end{gathered}$$ and so on. Coefficient $k_{2}$ in (\\[n24\\]) is given by (\\[n:30\\]), (\\[n:31\\]), so that action of this symmetry on\u00a0$u$ is nonlocal.\n\nCoefficients of polynomials (\\[n25\\])\u2013(\\[n27\\]) take a much simpler form if we write them in terms of $u$ and its derivatives with respect to\u00a0$t_m$. Thus, for the second symmetry, i.e., (\\[n22\\]) for $m=2$, we get by\u00a0(\\[n26\\]) and derivative of\u00a0(\\[n28\\]) by\u00a0$t_1$: $K_{t_2}-K_{t_1t_1}=\\big(P_2^{}-P_{1}^{2}-P_{1,t_1}^{}\\big)K+2K_{t_1}T$. But thanks to (\\[n25\\]) and (\\[n26\\]), (\\[n29\\]) $P_2^{}-P_{1}^{2}-P_{1,t_1}^{}=-2u_{t_1}$, so that $$\\begin{gathered}\n K_{t_2}-K_{t_1t_1}-2K_{t_1}T=-2u_{t_1}K.$$\n\nNext, thanks to (\\[n27\\]) we derive that $$\\begin{gathered}\n K_{t_3}-K_{t_1t_1t_1}=\\big(P_{3}-P_{1}^{3}-2P_{1,t_1}P_{1}-P_{1}P_{1,t_1}-P_{1,t_1t_1}\\big)K +3(P_{1}K)_{t_1}T.\\label{n314}\\end{gathered}$$ In order to simplify the r.h.s.\u00a0we use (\\[n29\\]) and (\\[n291\\]) to derive $$\\begin{gathered}\nk_{2}^{}-k_{2}^{(111)}-\\big(k_{1}^{}-k_{1}^{(111)}\\big)k_{1}^{(11)}\\\\\n\\qquad{} =-\\big(u+u_{}^{(1)}+u_{}^{(11)}\\big)_{t_1} +\\big(u^{(11)}-u^{(1)}\\big)^{ 2 } +\\big(u^{(1)}-u\\big)\\big(u^{(11)}-u\\big),\\\\ k_{3}^{(111)}-k_{3}^{}=\\big(k_{2}^{}+k_{2}^{(1)}+k_{2}^{(11)}\\big)_{t_1} \\\\\n\\hphantom{k_{3}^{(111)}-k_{3}^{}=}{} +\\big(u^{(1)}-u\\big)k_{2}^{}+\\big(u^{(11)}-u^{(1)}\\big)k_{2}^{(1)}+\\big(u^{(111)}-u^{(11)}\\big)k_{2}^{(11)},$$ that gives finally $$\\begin{gathered}\nP_{3}-P_{1}^{3}-2P_{1,t_1}P_{1}-P_{1}P_{1,t_1}-P_{1,t_1t_1}=-3u_{t_1}T-\\frac{3}{2}u_{t_1t_1}- \\frac{3}{2}u_{t_2}.\\label{n315}\\end{gathered}$$\n\nIt is clear that in the same way symmetries corresponding to the highest times $t_{m}$ can be studied. Specific property of all these symmetries is the analyticity (polynomiality) of operator $W$ that allowed us to rewrite\u00a0(\\[n202\\]) in the form\u00a0(\\[n21\\]) and to control asymptotic behavior of\u00a0$P_{m}$ by means of\u00a0(\\[n22\\]).\n\nSingular symmetries\n-------------------\n\nHere we consider symmetries defined by operators $W$ with symbols $w(z)$ being meromorphic functions of\u00a0$z$. Arbitrary symmetries of this kind need consideration based on the object more generic than the Jost solution, the so called Cauchy\u2013Jost function, see\u00a0[@Boiti/Pempinelli/Pogrebkov; @Grinevich/Orlov]. So here we consider only the simplest examples of such symmetries: those where $W$ is chosen to be one of operators $(T+a_{1j})^{-1}$, see notation (\\[8\\]) (in particular, $a_{11}=0$). We introduce dependence of operator $B$ on the set $t_{-}=\\{t_{-1}, t_{-2}$, $t_{-3}\\}$ of three continuous parameters by means of relations (cf.\u00a0(\\[n200\\])) $$\\begin{gathered}\n B_{t_{-j}}(n,t_{-})=\\big[(T+a_{1j})^{-1},B(n,t_{-})\\big],\\qquad j=1,2,3.\\label{n35}\\end{gathered}$$ Then (\\[n202\\]) gives $\\overline\\partial{K}_{t_{-j}}+KB(T+a_{1j})^{-1}=K_{t_{-j}}B+K(T+a_{1j})^{-1}B$. Multiplying this equation by $(T+a_{1j})$ from the right we get $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\overline\\partial\\bigl(K_{t_{-j}}(T+a_{1j})+K\\bigr)=\\bigl(K_{t_{-j}}(T+a_{1j})+K\\bigr)B^{(-j)},$$ where $B^{(-j)}=(T+a_{1j})^{-1}B(T+a_{1j})$, cf.\u00a0(\\[n8\\]), i.e., $$\\widetilde{B}^{(-j)}(n_1,n_2,n_3,t_{-},z)=\\widetilde{B}(n_1,n_2,n_3,t_{-},z)\\bigr|_{n_j\\to n_j-1},\\qquad j=1,2,3.$$ Taking now (\\[49\\]) into account, we see that there exist operators $V_{j}$, such that $$\\begin{gathered}\n K_{t_{-j}}(n,t_{-})(T+a_{1j})+K(n,t_{-})=V_{j}(n,t_{-})K^{(-j)}(n,t_{-}).\\label{n37}\\end{gathered}$$ In terms of the symbols this equation sounds as $$(z+a_{1j})\\widetilde{K}_{t_{-j}}(n,t_{-},z)+\\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},z)=\\big(\\widetilde{V_{j}K}\\big)^{(-j)}(n,t_{-},z),$$ and thanks to the asymptotic condition in (\\[49\\]) symbols of operators $V_{j}$ do not depend on $z$, so that $(\\widetilde{V_{j}K})^{(-j)}(n,t_{-},z)=\\widetilde{V_{j}}(n,t_{-})\\widetilde{K}^{(-j)}(n,t_{-},z)$. In spite of the singular behavior of the symbols of operators $(T+a_{1j})^{-1}$, we are not interested here in transformations that change spectrum of the Lax operators, so the dressing operator $K$ and its derivative\u00a0$K_{t_{-j}}$ have no pole singularities with respect to\u00a0$z$. Thus setting\u00a0$z=a_{j1}$ in the previous equality, we derive for the symbol of operator\u00a0$V_{j}$: $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{V_{j}}(n,t_{-})=\\frac{\\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}{\\widetilde{K}^{(-j)}_{}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}.\\label{n38}\\end{gathered}$$ This relation is highly nonlocal in terms of coefficients\u00a0$k_{j}$ of the expansion\u00a0(\\[n24\\]). On the other side action of this symmetry on these coefficients is easily given by means of\u00a0(\\[n37\\]). Say, thanks to\u00a0(\\[54\\]) $$\\begin{gathered}\nu_{t_{-j}}=V_{j}-1.\\label{n39}\\end{gathered}$$ In the same way other \u201csingular\u201d symmetries can be introduced and their action on the dressing operator and solution of the HDE can be derived.\n\nFormulation in terms of the Jost solutions\n------------------------------------------\n\nIn order to simplify the above results, we redefine the Jost solution (cf.\u00a0(\\[58:1\\])) as $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi(n,t, t_{-},z)=z^{n_1}(z+a_{12})^{n_2}(z+a_{13})^{n_3} \\nonumber\\\\\n \\hphantom{\\varphi(n,t, t_{-},z)=}{} \\times e^{t_1z+t_2z^{2}+t_3z^{3}+t_{-1}z^{-1}+t_{-2}(z+a_ { 12 } )^ { -1 }+t_{-3}(z+a_{13})^{-1}} \\widetilde{K}(n,t,t_{-},z).\\label{n32}\\end{gathered}$$ In this way we do not change equations (\\[59\\])\u2013(\\[61\\]) and the above results read as follows. Instead of (\\[n28\\]) we have $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi_{t_1}=\\varphi^{(1)}+\\big(u-u^{(1)}\\big)\\varphi.\\label{n33}\\end{gathered}$$ Next, by (\\[n22\\]) for $n=2$ and (\\[n25\\]) we reduce (\\[n26\\]) to $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\varphi_{t_2}=\\varphi^{(11)}+\\big(u-u^{(11)}\\big)\\varphi^{(1)}+\\big(k_{2}^{}-k_{2}^{(11)}-\\big(u-u^{(11)}\\big)u^{(1)}\\big)\\varphi,\\label{n331}\\end{gathered}$$ where $k_2$ must be defined by\u00a0(\\[n:30\\]). So in terms of the HDE variables $n_1$, $n_2$ and $n_3$ this symmetry is nonlocal. On the other side, taking $t_1$-dependence into account we derive by (\\[n29\\]) that $k_2^{}-k_2^{(11)}=-u^{}_{t_1}-u^{(1)}_{t_1}-\\big(u^{(1)}-u\\big) u-\\big(u^{(11)}-u^{(1)}\\big)u^{(1)}$, so that (\\[n331\\]) takes the form $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi_{t_2}=\\varphi^{(11)}+\\big(u-u^{(11)}\\big)\\varphi^{(1)}+\\big(\\big(u^{(1)}-u\\big)^{2}-u^{}_{t_1}-u^{(1)}_{t_1}\\big)\\varphi.\\label{n332}\\end{gathered}$$ Finally, due to (\\[n33\\]) we reduce this equality to more simple and familiar form: $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi_{t_2}=\\varphi_{t_1t_1}-2u_{t_1}\\varphi.\\label{n34}\\end{gathered}$$ Analogously, action of the symmetry (\\[n27\\]) in terms of the shifts of the discrete variables is given by expression that involves\u00a0$k_3$. But in terms of the $t_1$-derivatives equation (\\[n314\\]) reduces to $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi_{t_3}=\\varphi_{t_1t_1t_1}-3u_{t_1}\\varphi_{t_1}-\\frac{3}{2}u_{t_1t_1}\\varphi -\\frac{3}{2}u_{t_2}\\varphi\\label{n40}\\end{gathered}$$ due to (\\[n315\\]). It is necessary to mention that direct check that the above relations give symmetries of the HDE involves relations (\\[54\\]), (\\[n:30\\])\u2013(\\[n:33\\]) and (\\[n29\\]), (\\[n291\\]), (and some their consequences) and is rather cumbersome. In our approach commutativity of these symmetries with the HDE evolution follows from simple relations of the linear case.\n\nNotice also that under substitution (\\[n32\\]) symmetry (\\[n37\\]) reduces to $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\varphi_{t_{-j}}=V_{j}\\varphi^{(-j)},\\label{n41}\\end{gathered}$$ where $V_{j}=1+u_{t_{-j}}$ by (\\[n39\\]). Compatibility of this symmetry with the Lax pair\u00a0(\\[59\\]) and\u00a0(\\[60\\]) follows by\u00a0(\\[n38\\]), (\\[n39\\]), if we take into account that due to\u00a0(\\[55\\]) and\u00a0(\\[56\\]) $$\\begin{gathered}\na_{1j}\\widetilde{K^{(j)}}(n,t,t_{-},0)=\\big[u^{(j)}-u^{(1)}+a_{1j}\\big]\\widetilde{K}(n,t,t_{-},0),\\qquad j=1,2,3.$$\n\nEvolution equations generated by the standard symmetries {#eqs}\n========================================================\n\nAll symmetries introduced above, see (\\[n33\\])\u2013(\\[n41\\]), are compatible with HDE evolution, i.e., with any pair of equations (\\[59\\])\u2013(\\[61\\]). Moreover, these symmetries mutually commute by construction. Thus it is natural to assume that the discrete variables\u00a0$n_1$, $n_2$, $n_3$, and continuous ones $t_1$, $t_2$, $t_3$, $t_{-1}$, $t_{-2}$, $t_{-3}$, etc., can be considered equally in a sense that any three of them can be chosen as independent variables of a\u00a0(differential, or differential-difference) nonlinear integrable equation, with a Lax pair given by a proper choice from the list of all equations and (\\[n33\\])\u2013(\\[n41\\]). Then other variables serve as (discrete, or continuous) parameters of symmetries for this nonlinear equation. This assumption is obvious if the variable\u00a0$n_1$ is taken as one of independent variables, while needs special proof of closeness in a generic case. Here we consider some equations that result from the derived above symmetries of the HDE.\n\n=-1 Say, we see that (\\[n34\\]), (\\[n40\\]) is nothing but the Lax pair of the KPII equation (see [@Dryuma; @Kadomtsev/Petviashvili1970; @Zakharov/Shabat]) for $2u_{t_1}$, where $t_1$, $ t_2$ and $t_3$ are the standard KP times. Then relations and\u00a0(\\[n33\\]),\u00a0(\\[n41\\]) give the discrete and continuous symmetries of the KPII equation. The discrete symmetries are nothing but the B[\u00e4]{}cklund transformations of the\u00a0KPII. Some intermediate equations can be obtained in the following way. Let us choose variables\u00a0$n_1$,\u00a0$n_2$ and\u00a0$t_1$, and correspondingly let the Lax pair be given by\u00a0(\\[59\\]) and\u00a0(\\[n33\\]). Compatibility of these two equations gives[$$\\begin{gathered}\n \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial t_1}\\log\\big(u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12}\\big)+u^{(12)}-u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+u=0,\\label{n44}\\end{gathered}$$ or $\\partial_{t_1}\\log\\big(v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}\\big)+v^{(12)}-v^{(2)}-v^{(1)}+v=0$ in notation (\\[n18\\]).]{}\n\nAnother possibility is to choose variables $n_1$, $n_2$ and $t_2$ and the Lax pair given by\u00a0(\\[59\\]) and\u00a0(\\[n331\\]). Then corresponding nonlinear integrable equation reads as $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial t_2}\\log(u^{(2)}-u^{(1)}+a_{12}) +\\big[k_{2}^{(11)}-k_{2}^{} -(u^{(11)}-u^{})u^{(1)}\\big]^{(2)} \\nonumber\\\\\n\\qquad {} -\\big[k_{2}^{(11)}-k_{2}^{}-(u^{(11)}-u^{})u^{(1)}\\big]=0,\\label{n45}\\end{gathered}$$ where $k_2$ is defined by\u00a0(\\[n:30\\]). Thus this equation is nonlocal and it can be considered as the higher analog of the equation\u00a0(\\[n44\\]). Both these equations give continuous symmetries of the HDE, while evolution with respect to $n_3$ due to HDE evolution gives B[\u00e4]{}cklund transformation for both these nonlinear equations.\n\nLet us consider now choice of variables $n_1$, $t_1$ and $t_2$ with Lax pair given by\u00a0(\\[n33\\]) and\u00a0(\\[n332\\]). It is easy to check that condition of compatibility of these two equations reads as $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\big(u^{(1)}-u\\big)_{t_2}-\\big(u^{(1)}+u\\big)_{t_1t_1}+\\big(u^{(1)}-u\\big)^{2}=0.\\label{n46}\\end{gathered}$$ These equation can be considered as continuous symmetry of the (\\[n44\\]) with respect to the variable $t_2$, or as continuous symmetry of (\\[n45\\]) with respect to the variable\u00a0$t_1$. On the other side both\u00a0(\\[n44\\]) and\u00a0(\\[n45\\]) gives B[\u00e4]{}cklund transformations of\u00a0(\\[n46\\]), i.e., shift of the variable\u00a0$n_2$.\n\nThe same is valid for the singular symmetries introduced in\u00a0(\\[n35\\]). Taking\u00a0(\\[n41\\]) as one of equations of the Lax pair we have in the r.h.s.\u00a0shift of variable $n_j$. So we choose from the equation that gives a shift with respect to some other variable $n_i$, $i\\neq{j}$, in terms of the $n_j$-shift: $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi^{(i)}=\\varphi^{(j)}+\\big(u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}\\big)\\varphi,\\qquad i,j=1,2,3,\\qquad i\\neq{j}.\\label{n47}\\end{gathered}$$ Compatibility of this equation with (\\[n35\\]) gives two conditions, one of which is identity due to\u00a0(\\[n39\\]) and the another reduces to $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\frac{(1+u_{t_{-j}})^{(i)}}{1+u_{t_{-j}}}=\\frac{u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}}{(u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji})^{(-j)}},\\label{n48}\\end{gathered}$$ that is action of the $t_{-j}$-symmetry on the dependent variable of HDE. On the other side, taking\u00a0(\\[n38\\]) and\u00a0(\\[n39\\]) into account we rewrite this equality as $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\frac{u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}}{(u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji})^{(-j)}}=\n\\frac{\\widetilde{K}^{(i)}(a_{j1})\\widetilde{K}^{(-j)}(a_{j1})}{\\widetilde{K}^{(i,-j)}(a_{j1})\\widetilde{K}(a_{j1})},$$ that proves independence of the ratio $\\big(u^{(i)}-u^{(j)}+a_{ji}\\big)\\widetilde{K}(a_{j1})/\\widetilde{K}^{(i)}(a_{j1})$ on $n_j$. Assuming that $u(n,t_{-})$ decays and $\\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},z)\\to1$ when $n\\to\\infty$, we get $$\\begin{gathered}\nu^{(i)}(n,t_{-})-u^{(j)}(n,t_{-})+a_{ji}=a_{ji}\\frac{\\widetilde{K}^{(i)}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}{\\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})},\\label{n50}\\end{gathered}$$ i.e., relation of $u$ with the nonlocal objects in the r.h.s. The antisymmetry of the l.h.s.\u00a0with respect to $i$ and $j$ shows that $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\frac{\\widetilde{K}^{(i)}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}{\\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})}=\n\\frac{\\widetilde{K}^{(j)}(n,t_{-},a_{i1})}{\\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{i1})},\\qquad\n\\text{for any} \\quad i,j=1,2,3.$$ Further on, differentiating (\\[n50\\]) with respect to $t_{-j}$ and denoting $\\widetilde{K}(n,t_{-},a_{j1})=e^{\\psi(n,t_{-})}$ we get by means of (\\[n39\\]) integrable equation $$\\begin{gathered}\n a_{ji}\\big(\\psi^{(i)}-\\psi\\big)_{t_{-j}}=e^{\\psi-\\psi^{(i,-j)}}-e^{\\psi^{(j)}-\\psi^{(i)}},$$ with respect to the independent variables $n_i$, $n_j$ and $t_{-j}$. Its Lax pair follows from (\\[n41\\]) and\u00a0(\\[n47\\]) under above substitutions $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\varphi^{(i)}=\\varphi^{(j)}+a_{ji}e^{\\psi^{(i)}-\\psi}\\varphi,\\qquad  \\varphi_{t_{-j}}=e^{\\psi-\\psi^{(-j)}}\\varphi^{(-j)}.$$\n\nIn analogy we can consider an equation with one discrete and two continuous variables from the set $t_{-}$. We choose $n_1$, $t_{-1}$ and $t_{-2}$ and start from (\\[n41\\]) for $j=1,2$. Let, for shortness, $v(n,t_-)=u(n,t_-)-a_{1}n_1-a_{2}n_2+t_{-1}+t_{-2}$, cf.\u00a0(\\[n18\\]). Thanks to (\\[n39\\]) this enables us to rewrite (\\[n41\\]) as $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\varphi^{(1)}_{t_{-1}}=v^{(1)}_{t_{-1}}\\varphi,\\qquad \\varphi^{(2)}_{t_{-2}}=v^{(2)}_{t_{-2}}\\varphi.\\label{n55}\\end{gathered}$$ The first equation here goes as one of equations of the corresponding Lax pair, and we have to exclude shift with respect to the variable $n_2$ in order to get the second equation. For this aim we differentiate (\\[59\\]) with respect to $t_{-2}$ and substituting $\\varphi^{(2)}_{t_{-2}}$ by (\\[n55\\]) we get $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\varphi^{(1)}_{t_{-2}}=w\\varphi_{t_{-2}}+v^{(1)}_{t_{-2}}\\varphi,$$ i.e., the second equation of the Lax pair. Here we denoted $w=v^{(1)}-v^{(2)}$. Compatibility condition now sounds as $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\partial_{t_{-2}}\\log{v}_{t_{-1}}=\n\\frac{v_{t_{-2}}}{w^{(-1)}}-\\biggl(\\frac{v_{t_{-2}}}{w^{(-1)}}\\biggr)^{(1)},\\qquad \\partial_{t_{-1}}\\log{w}=\\biggl(\\frac{v_{t_{-1}}}{w^{(-1)}}\\biggr)^{(1)}-\\frac{v_{t_{-1}}}{w^{(-1)}}, $$ where the first equation can be considered as the evolution one on the function\u00a0$v(n,t_{-})$, while the second stands as definition of the auxiliary function\u00a0$w(n,t_{-})$.\n\nFinally, let us notice that symmetries of the set $t_{-}$ can be combined with the KP type symmetries due to their mutual commutativity. As an example we choose variables\u00a0$t_{1}$,\u00a0$n_j$ and\u00a0$t_{-j}$ for some $j=1,2,3$. Taking that (\\[n41\\]) includes shift with respect to the\u00a0$n_j$ (i.e., $\\varphi^{(-j)}$) into account, we use (\\[59\\]), (\\[60\\]) to exclude\u00a0$\\varphi^{(1)}$ from\u00a0(\\[n33\\]): $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\varphi_{t_1}=\\varphi^{(j)}+\\big(u-u^{(j)}+a_{1j}\\big)\\varphi.$$ Then due to (\\[n39\\]) condition of compatibility of this equation with (\\[n41\\]) gives $$\\begin{gathered}\n \\partial_{t_1}\\log(1+u_{t_{-j}})=2u-u^{(j)}-u^{(-j)}.\\label{n66}\\end{gathered}$$ This nonlinear integrable equation can be considered also as continuous symmetry of (\\[n48\\]). Differentiating (\\[n66\\]) by $t_{-j}$ we use (\\[n39\\]) to write the result in the form $\\partial_{t_1}\\partial_{t_{-j}}\\log{V}_{j}=2V_{j}^{}-V_{j}^{(j)}-V_{j}^{(-j)}$. Under substitution $V_{j}=e^{\\psi^{(j)}-\\psi}$ we conclude that difference $\\partial_{t_1}\\partial_{t_{-j}}\\log\\psi-e^{\\psi^{(j)}-\\psi}-e^{\\psi-\\psi^{(-j)}}$ is independent of $n_j$. Thus, under the same assumption as above on the asymptotic decay of $u$ (and then of $\\psi$) with respect to $n_j$, we get equation of the 2-dimensional Toda chain, $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\partial_{t_1}\\partial_{t_{-j}}\\psi=e^{\\psi^{(j)}-\\psi}-e^{\\psi-\\psi^{(-j)}}.$$ It is clear that this list of integrable equations that appear as obeying (\\[n2010\\]) symmetries of the HDE can be continued.\n\nAdditional symmetries {#add}\n=====================\n\nIn Section\u00a0\\[symm\\] we mentioned that symmetries of the HDE appear as dressing of symmetries that preserve the bare pair\u00a0(\\[50\\]). In this sense symmetries considered above are too restrictive. Indeed, condition that operator $W$ in\u00a0(\\[n200\\]) has symbol depending on the variable $z$ only leads to\u00a0(\\[n2010\\]), i.e., to commutativity of these symmetries with shifts of the independent variables of the HDE. This condition is enough, but not necessary in order to preserve (\\[n50\\]). Notice, that if some operator\u00a0$X$ obeys the same relations\u00a0(\\[50\\]) as operator\u00a0$B$, then thanks to\u00a0(\\[n8\\]) also $BX$ and $[X,B]$ obey these relations. As an example of operator $X$ we take\u00a0(\\[n11\\]) with $\\widetilde{R}(z)\\equiv1$. Thanks to\u00a0(\\[40\\]) we have that\u00a0$\\overline\\partial{X}$ also obeys\u00a0(\\[50\\]). Finally, we introduce operator $N=(\\overline\\partial{X})X^{-1}T$, symbol of which equals $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{N}(n,z)=n_1+n_2+n_3-\\frac{a_{12}n_2}{z+a_{12}}-\\frac{a_{13}n_3}{z+a_{13}}. \\end{gathered}$$ By (\\[33\\]) it is easy to check, that this operator can be written as $$\\begin{gathered}\n N(n_2,n_3)=(T+a_{12})^{n_2}(T+a_{13})^{n_3}N_{1}(T+a_{12})^{-n_2}(T+a_{13})^{-n_3}, \\end{gathered}$$ where operator $N_1$ was considered in (\\[fg1\\]), (\\[fg2\\]). Thus, in analogy to (\\[n200\\]) we introduce dependence of operator $B$ on a new variable $s\\in\\mathbb{R}$ by means of equation $$\\begin{gathered}\n B(n,s)=e^{isN}B(n)e^{-isN},\\qquad B(n,0)=B(n).\\label{a2}\\end{gathered}$$ Operator $N$ does not commute with shift operators in (\\[n8\\])\u2013(\\[n10\\]): it is easy to see that $$\\begin{gathered}\n [T,N]=T,\\qquad j=1,2,3,$$ and thanks to (\\[b1\\]) we get in terms of operator $B(0)=B(n_2,n_3)|_{n_2=n_3=0}$ $$\\begin{gathered}\n B(n,s)=(T+a_{12})^{n_2}(T+a_{13})^{n_3}e^{isN_1}B(0)e^{-isN_1}(T+a_{12})^{-n_2}(T+a_{13})^{-n_3},\\label{a:4}\\end{gathered}$$ or explicitly for the symbol of operator $B(n,s)$: $$\\begin{gathered}\n\\widetilde{B}(n,s,z)=\\oint_{|\\zeta|=1}\\frac{d\\zeta}{2\\pi i\\zeta}\\zeta^{n_1} \\left(\\frac{z\\zeta+a_{12}}{z+a_{12}}\\right)^{n_2}\\left(\\frac{z\\zeta+a_{13}}{z+a_{13}}\\right)^{n_3}b\\big(\\zeta,ze^{-is}\\big).\\label{a4}\\end{gathered}$$ The above mentioned noncommutativity results in the following observation. Defining in analogy to (\\[a2\\]) $$\\begin{gathered}\n B^{(j)}(n,s)=e^{isN}B^{(j)}(n)e^{-isN},\\label{a5}\n \\end{gathered}$$ we have $$\\begin{gathered}\n B^{(j)}(n,s)=\\big(Te^{-is}+a_{1j}\\big)B(n,s)\\big(Te^{-is}+a_{1j}\\big)^{-1},\\label{a6}\n \\end{gathered}$$ while by (\\[a:4\\]), or (\\[a4\\]) $$\\begin{gathered}\nB(n,s)^{(j)}=(T+a_{1j})B(n,s)(T+a_{1j})^{-1},\\label{a7}\\end{gathered}$$ that coincides with (\\[a6\\]) for $j=1$ only ($a_{11}=0$ by (\\[8\\])). On the other side, multiplying (\\[a7\\]) by $(T+a_{1j})$ we get that operator $B(n,s)$ obeys (\\[n8\\])\u2013(\\[n10\\]) for all $j=1,2,3$.\n\nThus we have an example of additional symmetry of the kind considered for the nonlinear Schr\u00f6dinger equation in\u00a0[@OS] and for the KPI in\u00a0[@Pogrebkov2000]. Dependence of the corresponding dressing operator $K(n,s)$ on $s$ must be defined again by the $\\overline\\partial$-problem\u00a0(\\[49\\]) with operator $B(n,s)$, but this consideration we postpone for the forthcoming article. Differential equations generated by this symmetry also deserve special consideration. It is interesting to mention that operator\u00a0$N$ can be taken as operator\u00a0$A$ in\u00a0(\\[4\\]). So it also generate some discrete integrable equation, since identity\u00a0(\\[1\\]) is valid for any operators\u00a0$A$ and\u00a0$B$. It is worth to mention that relation with HDE of some of equations obtained above is well known. Some of them appear as continuous limits of HDE, some as symmetries, see, e.g.,\u00a0[@Pogrebkov2011; @Zabrodin1997]. Here we used an example of the HDE to develop a generic scheme of construction of the symmetries, both ordinary and additional, that can be applied to any integrable nonlinear equation.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n----------------\n\nThis work has been funded by the Russian Academic Excellence Project \u20185-100\u2019.\n\n[99]{} =-0.5pt\n\nBogdanov L.V., Konopelchenko B.G., Generalized [KP]{} hierarchy: [M]{}\u00f6bius symmetry, symmetry constraints and [C]{}alogero\u2013[M]{}oser system, [*Phys.\u00a0D*](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789(01)00161-0) **152/153** (2001), 85\u201396, [solv-int/9912005](https://arxiv.org/abs/solv-int/9912005).\n\nBoiti M., Pempinelli F., Pogrebkov A.K., Cauchy\u2013[J]{}ost function and hierarchy of integrable equations, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11232-015-0367-y) **185** (2015), 1599\u20131613, [arXiv:1508.02229](https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02229).\n\nDryuma V.S., Analytic solution of the two-dimensional [K]{}orteweg\u2013de [V]{}ries [(KdV)]{} equation, *JETP Lett.* **19** (1974), 387\u2013388.\n\nFioravanti D., Nepomechie R.I., An inhomogeneous [L]{}ax representation for the [H]{}irota equation, [*J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0A: Math. Theor.*](https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aa5303) **50** (2017), 054001, 14\u00a0pages, [arXiv:1609.06761](https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.06761).\n\nGrinevich P.G., Orlov A.Yu., Virasoro action on [R]{}iemann surfaces, [G]{}rassmannians, [$\\det \\overline\\partial_J$]{} and [S]{}egal\u2013[W]{}ilson [$\\tau$]{}-function, in Problems of Modern Quantum Field Theory ([A]{}lushta, 1989), [*Res. Rep. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-84000-5_7), Springer, Berlin, 1989, 86\u2013106.\n\nHirota R., Nonlinear partial difference equations. [II]{}.\u00a0[D]{}iscrete-time [T]{}oda equation, [*J.\u00a0Phys. Soc. Japan*](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.43.2074) **43** (1977), 2074\u20132078.\n\nHirota R., Discrete analogue of a generalized [T]{}oda equation, [*J.\u00a0Phys. Soc. Japan*](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.50.3785) **50** (1981), 3785\u20133791.\n\nKadomtsev B.B., Petviashvili V.I., On the stability of solitary waves in weakly dispersive media, *Sov. Phys. Dokl.* **192** (1970), 539\u2013541.\n\nKrichever I., Wiegmann P., Zabrodin A., Elliptic solutions to difference non-linear equations and related many-body problems, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s002200050333) **193** (1998), 373\u2013396, [hep-th/9704090](https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9704090).\n\nOrlov A.Yu., Shul\u2019man E.I., Additional symmetries of the nonlinear Schr\u00f6dinger equation, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01017968) **64** (1985), 862\u2013866.\n\nPogrebkov A.K., On time evolutions associated with the nonstationary [S]{}chr\u00f6dinger equation, in L.[D]{}.\u00a0[F]{}addeev\u2019s [S]{}eminar on [M]{}athematical [P]{}hysics, [*Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser.\u00a02*](https://doi.org/10.1090/trans2/201/13), Vol.\u00a0201, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000, 239\u2013255, [math-ph/9902014](https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/9902014).\n\nPogrebkov A.K., Hirota difference equation and a commutator identity on an associative algebra, [*St.\u00a0Petersburg Math.\u00a0J.*](https://doi.org/10.1090/S1061-0022-2011-01153-7) **22** (2011), 473\u2013483.\n\nPogrebkov A.K., Hirota difference equation: inverse scattering transform, [D]{}arboux transformation, and solitons, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11232-014-0237-z) **181** (2014), 1585\u20131598, [arXiv:1407.0677](https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.0677).\n\nPogrebkov A.K., Commutator identities on associative algebras, the non-[A]{}belian [H]{}irota difference equation and its reductions, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1134/S0040577916060039) **187** (2016), 823\u2013834.\n\nSaito S., Octahedral structure of the [H]{}irota\u2013[M]{}iwa equation, *J.\u00a0Nonlinear Math. Phys.* **19** (2012), 539\u2013550.\n\nZabrodin A.V., Hirota difference equations, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02634165) **113** (1997), 1347\u20131392, .\n\nZabrodin A.V., B\u00e4cklund transformation for the [H]{}irota difference equation, and the supersymmetric [B]{}ethe ansatz, [*Theoret. and Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11232-008-0047-2) **155** (2008), 567\u2013584.\n\nZakharov V.E., Manakov S.V., Construction of multidimensional nonlinear integrable systems and their solutions, [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01078388) **19** (1985), 89\u2013101.\n\nZakharov V.E., Shabat A.B., A scheme for integrating the nonlinear equations of mathematical physics by the method of the inverse scattering problem.\u00a0I, [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01075696) **8** (1977), 226\u2013235.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The problem of computing the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton arises in a variety of applications in computational biology, text processing, and speech recognition. This paper presents linear-space algorithms for computing the edit-distance between a string and an arbitrary weighted automaton over the tropical semiring, or an unambiguous weighted automaton over an arbitrary semiring. It also gives an efficient linear-space algorithm for finding an optimal alignment of a string and such a weighted automaton.'\nauthor:\n- Cyril Allauzen\n- Mehryar Mohri\nbibliography:\n- 'lse.bib'\ntitle: 'Linear-Space Computation of the Edit-Distance between a String and a Finite Automaton'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe problem of computing the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton arises in a variety of applications in computational biology, text processing, and speech recognition [@durbin; @gusfield; @navarro-raffinot; @pevzner; @edit]. This may be to compute the edit-distance between a protein sequence and a family of protein sequences compactly represented by a finite automaton [@durbin; @gusfield; @pevzner], or to compute the error rate of a word lattice output by a speech recognition with respect to a reference transcription [@edit]. A word lattice is a weighted automaton, thus this further motivates the need for computing the edit-distance between a string and a weighted automaton. In all these cases, an optimal alignment is also typically sought. In computational biology, this may be to infer the function and various properties of the original protein sequence from the one it is best aligned with. In speech recognition, this determines the best transcription hypothesis contained in the lattice.\n\nThis paper presents linear-space algorithms for computing the edit-distance between a string and an arbitrary weighted automaton over the tropical semiring, or an unambiguous weighted automaton over an arbitrary semiring. It also gives an efficient linear-space algorithm for finding an optimal alignment of a string and such a weighted automaton. Our linear-space algorithms are obtained by using the same generic shortest-distance algorithm but by carefully defining different queue disciplines. More precisely, our meta-queue disciplines are derived in the same way from an underling queue discipline defined over states with the same level.\n\nThe connection between the edit-distance and the shortest distance in a directed graph was made very early on (see [@gusfield; @crochemore-hancart-lecroq; @crochemore-rytter; @crochemore-rytter02] for a survey of string algorithms). This paper revisits some of these algorithms and shows that they are all special instances of the same generic shortest-distance algorithm using different queue disciplines. We also show that the linear-space algorithms all correspond to using the same meta-queue discipline using different underlying queues. Our approach thus provides a better understanding of these classical algorithms and makes it possible to easily generalize them, in particular to weighted automata.\n\nThe first algorithm to compute the edit-distance between a string $x$ and a finite automaton $A$ as well as their alignment was due to Wagner\u00a0[@wagner] (see also [@wagner-seiferas]). Its time complexity was in $O(|x| |A|_Q^2)$ and its space complexity in $O(|A|_Q^2 |\\Sigma| + |x| |A|_Q)$, where $\\Sigma$ denotes the alphabet and $|A|_Q$ the number of states of $A$. Sankoff and Kruskal\u00a0[@sankoff] pointed out that the time and space complexity $O(|x| |A|)$ can be achieved when the automaton $A$ is acyclic. Myers and Miller\u00a0[@myers-miller89] significantly improved on previous results. They showed that when $A$ is acyclic or when it is a *Thompson automaton*, that is an automaton obtained from a regular expression using Thompson\u2019s construction [@thompson], the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in $O(|x| |A|)$ time and $O(|x| + |A|)$ space. They also showed, using a technique due to Hirschberg [@hirschberg], that the optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$ can be obtained in $O(|x| + |A|)$ space, and in $O(|x| |A|)$ time if $A$ is acyclic, and in $O(|x| |A| \\log |x|)$ time when $A$ is a Thompson automaton.\n\nThe remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section\u00a0\\[sec:preliminaries\\] introduces the definition of semirings, and weighted automata and transducers. In Section\u00a0\\[sec:edit-distance\\], we give a formal definition of the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton, or a weighted automaton. Section\u00a0\\[sec:algo\\] presents our linear-space algorithms, including the proof of their space and time complexity and a discussion of an improvement of the time complexity for automata with some favorable graph structure property.\n\nPreliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}\n=============\n\nThis section gives the standard definition and specifies the notation used for weighted transducers and automata which we use in our computation of the edit-distance.\n\n*Finite-state transducers* are finite automata [@perrin] in which each transition is augmented with an output label in addition to the familiar input label [@berstel; @eilenberg]. Output labels are concatenated along a path to form an output sequence and similarly input labels define an input sequence. *Weighted transducers* are finite-state transducers in which each transition carries some weight in addition to the input and output labels [@soittola; @kuich]. Similarly, *weighted automata* are finite automata in which each transition carries some weight in addition to the input label. A path from an initial state to a final state is called an *accepting path*. A weighted transducer or weighted automaton is said to be *unambiguous* if it admits no two accepting paths with the same input sequence.\n\nThe weights are elements of a semiring ${(\\Kset, {\\oplus}, {\\otimes}, {\\overline{0}}, {\\overline{1}})}$, that is a ring that may lack negation [@kuich]. Some familiar semirings are the tropical semiring ${(\\Rset_+ \\cup {\\{\\infty\\}}, \\min, +, \\infty, 0)}$ and the probability semiring ${(\\Rset_+ \\cup {\\{\\infty\\}}, +, \\times, 0, 1)}$, where $\\Rset_+$ denotes the set of non-negative real numbers. In the following, we will only consider weighted automata and transducers over the tropical semiring. However, all the results of section\u00a0\\[sec:algo:edit\\] hold for an unambiguous weighted automaton $A$ over an arbitrary semiring.\n\nThe following gives a formal definition of weighted transducers.\n\nA [*weighted finite-state transducer*]{} $T$ over the tropical semiring ${(\\Rset_+ \\cup {\\{\\infty\\}}, \\min, +, \\infty, 0)}$ is an 8-tuple ${T = (\\Sigma, \\Delta, Q, I, F, E, \\lambda, \\rho)}$ where $\\Sigma$ is the finite input alphabet of the transducer, $\\Delta$ its finite output alphabet, $Q$ is a finite set of states, $I \\subseteq Q$ the set of initial states, $F \\subseteq Q$ the set of final states, $E\n  \\subseteq Q \\times (\\Sigma \\cup {\\{\\epsilon\\}}) \\times (\\Delta \\cup\n  {\\{\\epsilon\\}}) \\times (\\Tset) \\times Q$ a finite set of transitions, $\\lambda: I \\rightarrow \\Tset$ the initial weight function, and $\\rho: F \\rightarrow \\Tset$ the final weight function mapping $F$ to $\\Tset$.\n\nWe define the [*size*]{} of $T$ as $|T| = |T|_Q + |T|_E$ where $|T|_Q\n= |Q|$ is the number of states and $|T|_E = |E|$ the number of transitions of $T$.\n\nThe weight of a path $\\pi$ in $T$ is obtained by summing the weights of its constituent transitions and is denoted by $w[\\pi]$. The weight of a pair of input and output strings $(x, y)$ is obtained by taking the minimum of the weights of the paths labeled with $(x, y)$ from an initial state to a final state.\n\nFor a path $\\pi$, we denote by $p[\\pi]$ its origin state and by $n[\\pi]$ its destination state. We also denote by $P(I, x, y, F)$ the set of paths from the initial states $I$ to the final states $F$ labeled with input string $x$ and output string $y$. The weight $T(x,\ny)$ associated by $T$ to a pair of strings $(x, y)$ is defined by: $$T(x, y) = \\min_{\\pi \\in P(I, x, y, F)} \\lambda(p[\\pi])\n+ w[\\pi] + \\rho(n[\\pi]).$$ Figure\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\](a) shows an example of weighted transducer over the tropical semiring.\n\n  ----- -----\n        \n   (a)   (b)\n  ----- -----\n\n*Weighted automata* can be defined as weighted transducers $A$ with identical input and output labels, for any transition. Thus, only pairs of the form $(x, x)$ can have a non-zero weight by $A$, which is why the weight associated by $A$ to $(x, x)$ is abusively denoted by $A(x)$ and identified with the *weight associated by $A$ to $x$*. Similarly, in the graph representation of weighted automata, the output (or input) label is omitted. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:examples\\](b) shows an example.\n\nEdit-distance {#sec:edit-distance}\n=============\n\nWe first give the definition of the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton.\n\nLet $\\Sigma$ be a finite alphabet, and let $\\Omega$ be defined by $\\Omega = (\\Sigma \\cup {\\{\\epsilon\\}}) \\times (\\Sigma \\cup\n{\\{\\epsilon\\}}) - {\\{(\\epsilon, \\epsilon)\\}}$. An element of $\\Omega$ can be seen as a symbol edit operation: $(a,\\epsilon)$ is a deletion, $(\\epsilon, a)$ an insertion, and $(a, b)$ with $a \\neq b$ a substitution. We will denote by $h$ the natural morphism between $\\Omega^*$ and $\\Sigma^* \\times \\Sigma^*$ defined by $h((a_1, b_1)\n\\cdots (a_n, b_n)) = (a_1 \\cdots a_n, b_1 \\cdots b_n)$. An [ *alignment*]{} $\\omega$ between two strings $x$ and $y$ is an element of $\\Omega^*$ such that $h(\\omega) = (x,y)$.\n\nLet $c : \\Omega \\rightarrow \\Rset_+$ be a function associating a non-negative cost to each edit operation. The cost of an alignment $\\omega = \\omega_1 \\cdots \\omega_n$ is defined as $c(\\omega) =\n\\sum_{i=1}^n c(\\omega_i)$.\n\nThe [*edit-distance*]{} $d(x, y)$ of two strings $x$ and $y$ is the minimal cost of a sequence of symbols insertions, deletions or substitutions transforming one string into the other: $$d(x, y) = \\min_{h(\\omega) = (x, y)} c(\\omega).$$ When $c$ is the function defined by $c(a, a) = 0$ and $c(a,\n  \\epsilon) = c(\\epsilon, a) = c(a,b) = 1$ for all $a$, $b$ in $\\Sigma$ such that $a \\not= b$, the edit-distance is also known as the Levenshtein distance. The [*edit-distance $d(x, A)$ between a string $x$ and a finite automaton $A$*]{} can then be defined as $$d(x, A) = \\min_{y \\in L(A)} d(x, y),$$ where $L(A)$ denotes the regular language accepted by $A$. The [ *edit-distance $d(x,A)$ between a string $x$ and a weighted automaton $A$ over the tropical semiring*]{} is defined as: $$d(x,A) = \\min_{y \\in \\Sigma^*} \\bigl(A(y) + d(x, y)\\bigr).$$\n\nAlgorithms {#sec:algo}\n==========\n\nIn this section, we present linear-space algorithms both for computing the edit-distance $d(x, A)$ between an arbitrary string $x$ and an automaton $A$, and an optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$, that is an alignment $\\omega$ such that $c(\\omega) = d(x, A)$.\n\nWe first briefly describe two general algorithms that we will use as subroutines.\n\nGeneral algorithms\n------------------\n\n### Composition. {#sec:composition}\n\nThe [*composition*]{} of two weighted transducers $T_1$ and $T_2$ over the tropical semiring with matching input and output alphabets $\\Sigma$, is a weighted transducer denoted by $T_1 \\circ\nT_2$ defined by: $$(T_1 \\circ T_2)(x, y) = \\min_{z \\in \\Sigma^*}\\ T_1(x,z) + T_2(z, y).$$ $T_1 \\circ T_2$ can be computed from $T_1$ and $T_2$ using the composition algorithm for weighted transducers [@pereira-riley; @ecai]. States in the composition $T_1 \\circ T_2$ are identified with pairs of a state of $T_1$ and a state of $T_2$. In the absence of transitions with ${\\epsilon}$ inputs or outputs, the transitions of $T_1 \\circ T_2$ are obtained as a result of the following matching operation applied to the transitions of $T_1$ and $T_2$: $$(q_1, a, b, w_1, q_1') \\mbox{ and } (q_2, b, c, w_2, q'_2)\n\\to ((q_1,q_2), a, c, w_1 + w_2, (q'_1,q'_2)).$$ A state $(q_1,q_2)$ of $T_1 \\circ T_2$ is initial (resp. final) iff $q_1$ and $q_2$ are initial (resp. final) and, when it is final, its initial (resp.final) weight is the sum of the initial (resp. final) weights of $q_1$ and $q_2$. In the worst case, all transitions of $T_1$ leaving a state $q_1$ match all those of $T_2$ leaving state $q_2$, thus the space and time complexity of composition is quadratic, that is $O(|T_1||T_2|)$.\n\n### Shortest distance. {#sec:sd}\n\nLet $A$ be a weighted automaton over the tropical semiring. The [*shortest distance*]{} from $p$ to $q$ is defined as $$d[p, q] = \\min_{\\pi \\in P(p, q)} w[\\pi].$$ It can be computed using the generic single-source shortest-distance algorithm of [@shortest-distance], a generalization of the classical shortest-distance algorithms. This generic shortest-distance algorithm works with an arbitrary *queue discipline*, that is the order according to which elements are extracted from a queue. We shall make use of this key property in our algorithms. The pseudocode of a simplified version of the generic algorithm for the tropical semiring is given in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:alg:shortest\\].\n\n[ $\\mbox{\\sc Shortest-Distance}(A,s)$ $p \\in Q$\\\n$d[p] \\EQ \\infty$\\\n$d[s] \\EQ 0$\\\n$S \\EQ {\\{s\\}}$\\\n$S \\not= \\emptyset$\\\n$q \\EQ \\HEAD(S)$\\\n$\\DEQUEUE(S)$\\\n$e \\in E[q]$\\\n$(d[s] + w[e] < d[n[e]])$\\\n$d[n[e]] \\EQ d[s] + w[e]$\\\n$(n[e] \\not\\in S)$\\\n$\\ENQUEUE(S,n[e])$\\\n]{}\n\nThe complexity of the algorithm depends on the queue discipline selected for $S$. Its general expression is $$\\label{eq:gen_exp}\n  O(|Q|+ \\mathsf{C(A)} \\max_{q \\in Q} \\mathsf{N(q)} |E| + (\\mathsf{C(I)} + \n  \\mathsf{C(X)}) \\sum_{q\\in Q} \\mathsf{N(q)}),$$ where $\\mathsf{N(q)}$ denotes the number of times state $q$ is extracted from queue $S$, $\\mathsf{C(X)}$ the cost of extracting a state from $S$, $\\mathsf{C(I)}$ the cost of inserting a state in $S$, and $\\mathsf{C(A)}$ the cost of an assignment.\n\nWith a shortest-first queue discipline implemented using a heap, the algorithm coincides with Dijkstra\u2019s algorithm [@dijkstra] and its complexity is $O((|E|+|Q|)\\log |Q|)$. For an acyclic automaton and with the topological order queue discipline, the algorithm coincides with the standard linear-time ($O(|Q|+|E|)$) shortest-distance algorithm [@rivest].\n\nEdit-distance algorithms {#sec:algo:edit}\n------------------------\n\nThe edit cost function $c$ can be naturally represented by a one-state weighted transducer over the tropical semiring $T_c = (\\Sigma, \\Sigma,\n{\\{0\\}}, {\\{0\\}}, {\\{0\\}}, E_c, {\\overline{1}}, {\\overline{1}})$, or $T$ in the absence of ambiguity, with each transition corresponding to an edit operation: $E_c = {\\{ (0, a, b, c(a, b), 0) | (a, b) \\in \\Omega\\}}$.\n\n\\[lem:edit\\] Let $A$ be a weighted automaton over the tropical semiring and let $X$ be the finite automaton representing a string $x$. Then, the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ is the shortest-distance from the initial state to a final state in the weighted transducer $U = X\n  \\circ T \\circ A$.\n\nEach transition $e$ in $T$ corresponds to an edit operation $(i[e],\n  o[e]) \\in \\Omega$, and each path $\\pi$ corresponds to an alignment $\\omega$ between $i[\\pi]$ and $o[\\pi]$. The cost of that alignment is, by definition of $T$, $c(\\omega) = w[\\pi]$. Thus, $T$ defines the function: $$T(u,v) = \\min_{\\omega \\in \\Omega^*} {\\{ c(\\omega)\\colon h(\\omega) = (u,v)\\}}\n  = d(u,v),$$ for any strings $u$, $v$ in $\\Sigma^*$. Since $A$ is an automaton and $x$ is the only string accepted by $X$, it follows from the definition of composition that $U(x,y) = T(x,y) + A(y) = d(x,y) + A(y)$. The shortest-distance from the initial state to a final state in $U$ is then: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\min_{\\pi \\in P_U(I, F)} w[\\pi] &=  \\min_{y \\in \\Sigma^*} \n  \\min_{\\pi \\in P_U(I, x, y, F)}  w[\\pi] \n = \\min_{y \\in \\Sigma^*} U(x,y) \\\\ \n&= \\min_{y \\in \\Sigma^*} \\bigl( d(x,y) + A(y) \\bigr) = d(x, A),\\end{aligned}$$ that is the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$.\n\n  ----- ----- --\n              \n   (a)   (b)  \n              \n   (c)   (d)  \n  ----- ----- --\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:edit\\] shows an example illustrating Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:edit\\]. Using the lateral strategy of the 3-way composition algorithm of [@3way] or an *ad hoc* algorithm exploiting the structure of $T$, $U = X \\circ T \\circ A$ can be computed in $O(|x| |A|)$ time. The shortest-distance algorithm presented in Section\u00a0\\[sec:sd\\] can then be used to compute the shortest distance from an initial state of $U$ to a final state and thus the edit distance of $x$ and $A$. Let us point out that different queue disciplines in the computation of that shortest distance lead to different algorithms and complexities. In the next section, we shall give a queue discipline enabling us to achieve a linear-space complexity.\n\nEdit-distance computation in linear space\n-----------------------------------------\n\nUsing the shortest-distance algorithm described in Section\u00a0\\[sec:sd\\] leads to an algorithm with space complexity linear in the size of $U$, i.e. in $O(|x| |A|)$. However, taking advantage of the topology of $U$, it is possible to design a queue discipline that leads to a linear space complexity $O(|x| + |A|)$.\n\nWe assume that the finite automaton $X$ representing the string $x$ is topologically sorted. A state $q$ in the composition $U = X \\circ T\n\\circ A$ can be identified with a triplet $(i, 0, j)$ where $i$ is a state of $X$, 0 the unique state of $T$, and $j$ a state of $A$. Since $T$ has a unique state, we further simplify the notation by identifying each state $q$ with a pair $(i, j)$. For a state $q = (i,\nj)$ of $U$, we will refer to $i$ by the *level of $q$*. A key property of the levels is that there is a transition in $U$ from $q$ to $q'$ iff ${\\textrm{level}}(q') = {\\textrm{level}}(q)$ or ${\\textrm{level}}(q') = {\\textrm{level}}(q) + 1$. Indeed, a transition from $(i,j)$ to $(i',j')$ in $U$ corresponds to taking a transition in $X$ (in that case $i' = i + 1$ since $X$ is topologically sorted) or staying at the same state in $X$ and taking an input-$\\epsilon$ transition in $T$ (in that case $i' = i$).\n\nFrom any queue discipline $\\prec$ on the states of $U$, we can derive a new queue discipline $\\prec_l$ over $U$ defined for all $q, q'$ in $U$ as follows: $$\\label{eq:queue}\nq \\prec_l q' \\text{ iff $\\bigl({\\textrm{level}}(q) < {\\textrm{level}}(q')\\bigr)$ or\n$\\bigl({\\textrm{level}}(q) = {\\textrm{level}}(q')$ and $q \\prec q'\\bigr)$}.$$\n\n\\[prop:algo\\] Let $\\prec$ be a queue discipline that requires at most $O(|V|)$ space to maintain a queue over any set of states $V$. Then, the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in linear space, $O(|x|+|A|)$, using the queue discipline $\\prec_l$.\n\nThe benefit of the queue discipline $\\prec_l$ is that when computing the shortest distance to $q = (i,j)$ in $U$, only the shortest distances to the states in $U$ of level $i$ and $i-1$ need to be stored in memory. The shortest distances to the states of level strictly less than $i - 1$ can be safely discarded. Thus, the space required to store the shortest distances is in $O(|A|_Q)$.\n\nSimilarly, there is no need to store in memory the full transducer $U$. Instead, we can keep in memory the last two levels active in the shortest-distance algorithm. This is possible because the computation of the outgoing transitions of a state with level $i$ only requires knowledge about the states with level $i$ and $i +\n  1$. Therefore, the space used to store the active part of $U$ is in $O(|A|_E + |A|_Q) = O(|A|)$. Thus, it follows that the space required to compute the edit-distance of $x$ and $A$ is linear, that is in $O(|x| + |A|)$.\n\nThe time complexity of the algorithm depends on the underlying queue discipline $\\prec$. A natural choice is for $\\prec$ is the shortest-first queue discipline, that is the queue discipline used in Dijkstra\u2019s algorithm. This yields the following corollary.\n\n\\[cor:cyclic\\] The edit-distance between a string $x$ and an automaton $A$ can be computed in time $O(|x| |A| \\log |A|_Q)$ and space $O(|x| + |A|)$ using the queue discipline $\\prec_l$.\n\nA shortest-first queue is maintained for each level and contains at most $|A|_Q$ states. The cost for the global queue of an insertion, $\\mathsf{C(I)}$, or an assignment, $\\mathsf{C(A)}$, is in $O(\\log\n  |A|_Q)$ since it corresponds to inserting in or updating one of the underlying level queues. Since $\\mathsf{N(q)} = 1$, the general expression of the complexity (\\[eq:gen\\_exp\\]) leads to an overall time complexity of $O(|x| |A| \\log |A|_Q)$ for the shortest-distance algorithm.\n\nWhen the automaton $A$ is acyclic, the time complexity can be further improved by using for $\\prec$ the topological order queue discipline.\n\n\\[cor:acyclic\\] If the automaton $A$ is acyclic, the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in time $O(|x| |A|)$ and space $O(|x| + |A|)$ using the queue discipline $\\prec_l$ with the topological order queue discipline for $\\prec$.\n\nComputing the topological order for $U$ would require $O(|U|)$ space. Instead, we use the topological order on $A$, which can be computed in $O(|A|)$, to define the underlying queue discipline. The order inferred by (\\[eq:queue\\]) is then a topological order on $U$.\n\nMyers and Miller [@myers-miller89] showed that when $A$ is a Thompson automaton, the time complexity can be reduced to $O(|x| |A|)$ even when $A$ is not acyclic. This is possible because of the following observation: in a weighted automaton over the tropical semiring, there exists always a shortest path that is *simple*, that is with no cycle, since cycle weights cannot decrease path weight.\n\nIn general, it is not clear how to take advantage of this observation. However, a Thompson automaton has additionally the following structural property: a *loop-connectedness* of one. The *loop-connectedness* of $A$ is $k$ if in any depth-first search of $A$, a simple path goes through at most $k$ back edges. [@myers-miller89] showed that this property, combined with the observation made previously, can be used to improve the time complexity of the algorithm. The results of [@myers-miller89] can be generalized as follows.\n\nIf the loop-connectedness of $A$ is $k$, then the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in $O(|x| |A| k)$ time and $O(|x| + |A|)$ space.\n\nWe first use a depth-first search of $A$, identify back edges, and mark them as such. We then compute the topological order for $A$, ignoring these back edges. Our underlying queue discipline $\\prec$ is defined such that a state $q = (i,j)$ is ordered first based on the number of times it has been enqueued and secondly based on the order of $j$ in the topological order ignoring back edges. This underlying queue can be implemented in $O(|A|_Q)$ space with constant time costs for the insertion, extraction and updating operations. The order $\\prec_l$ derived from $\\prec$ is then not topological for a transition $e$ iff $e$ was obtained by matching a back edge in $A$ and ${\\textrm{level}}(p[e]) = {\\textrm{level}}(n[e])$. When such a transition $e$ is visited, $n[e]$ is reinserted in the queue.\n\nWhen state $q$ is dequeued for the $l$th time, the value of $d[q]$ is the weight of the shortest path from the initial state to $q$ that goes through at most $l - 1$ back edges. Thus, the inequality $\\mathsf{N(q)} \\le k + 1$ holds for all $q$ and, since the costs for managing the queue, $\\mathsf{C(I)}$, $\\mathsf{C(A)}$, and $\\mathsf{C(X)}$, are constant, the time complexity of the algorithm is in $O(|x| |A| k)$.\n\nOptimal alignment computation in linear space\n---------------------------------------------\n\nThe algorithm presented in the previous section can also be used to compute an optimal alignment by storing a back pointer at each state in $U$. However, this can increase the space complexity up to $O(|x|\n|A|_Q)$. The use of back pointers to compute the best alignment can be avoided by using a technique due to Hirschberg [@hirschberg], also used by [@myers-miller88; @myers-miller89].\n\nAs pointed out in previous sections, an optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$ corresponds to a shortest path in $U = X \\circ T \\circ A$. We will say that a state $q$ in $U$ is a [*midpoint*]{} of an optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$ if $q$ belongs to a shortest path in $U$ and ${\\textrm{level}}(q) = {\\lfloor |x|/2 \\rfloor}$.\n\nGiven a pair $(x, A)$, a midpoint of the optimal alignment between $x$ and $A$ can be computed in $O(|x| + |A|)$ space with a time complexity in $O(|x| |A|)$ if $A$ is acyclic and in $O(|x| |A| \\log |A|_Q)$ otherwise.\n\nLet us consider $U = X \\circ T \\circ A$. For a state $q$ in $U$ let $d[q]$ denote the shortest distance from the initial state to $q$, and by $d^R[q]$ the shortest distance from $q$ to a final state. For a given state $q = (i,j)$ in $U$, $d[(i,j)] + d^R[(i,j)]$ is the cost of the shortest path going through $(i,j)$. Thus, for any $i$, the edit-distance between $x$ and $A$ is $d(x, A) = \\min_{j}\n  (d[(i,j)] + d^R[(i,j)])$.\n\nFor a fixed $i_0$, we can compute both $d[(i_0, j)]$ and $d^R[(i_0,j)]$ for all $j$ in $O(|x| |A| \\log |A|_Q)$ time (or $O(|x| |A|$ time if $A$ is acyclic) and in linear space $O(|x|+|A|)$ using the algorithm from the previous section forward and backward and stopping at level $i_0$ in each case. Running the algorithm backward (exchanging initial and final states and permuting the origin and destination of every transition) can be seen as computing the edit-distance between $x^R$ and $A^R$, the [*mirror images*]{} of $x$ and $A$.\n\nLet us now set $i_0 = {\\lfloor |x|/2 \\rfloor}$ and $j_0 = \\argmin_j (d[(i_0,j)]\n  + d^R[(i_0,j)])$. It then follows that $(i_0, j_0)$ is a midpoint of the optimal alignment. Hence, for a pair $(x, A)$, the running-time complexity of determining the midpoint of the alignment is in $O(|x|\n  |A|)$ if $A$ is acyclic and $O(|x| |A| \\log |A|_Q)$ otherwise.\n\nThe algorithm proceeds recursively by first determining the midpoint of the optimal alignment. At step 0 of the recursion, we first find the midpoint $(i_0,j_0)$ between $x$ and $A$. Let $x^1$ and $x^2$ be such that $x = x^1 x^2$ and $|x^1| = i_0$, and let $A^1$ and $A^2$ be the automaton obtained from $A$ by respectively changing the final state to $j_0$ in $A^1$ and the initial state to $j_0$ in $A^2$. We can now recursively find the alignment between $x^1$ and $A^1$ and between $x^2$ and $A^2$.\n\nAn optimal alignment between a string $x$ and an automaton $A$ can be computed in linear space $O(|x| + |A|)$ and in time $O(|x||A|)$ if $A$ is acyclic, $O(|x||A| \\log |x| \\log |A|_Q)$ otherwise.\n\nWe can assume without loss of generality that the length of $x$ is a power of 2. At step $k$ of the recursion, we need to compute the midpoints for $2^k$ string-automaton pairs $(x^i_k, A^i_k)_{1 \\le i\n    \\le 2^k}$. Thus, the complexity of step $k$ is in $O(\\sum_{i=1}^{2^k} |x^i_k| |A^i_k| \\log |A^i_k|_Q) = O(\n  \\frac{|x|}{2^k} \\sum_{i=1}^{2^k} |A^i_k| \\log |A^i_k|_Q)$ since $|x^i_k| = |x|/2^k$ for all $i$. When $A$ is acyclic, the $\\log$ factor can be avoided and the equality $\\sum_{i=1}^{2^k} |A^i_k| =\n  O(|A|)$ holds, thus the time complexity of step $k$ is in $O(|x||A|/2^k)$. In the general case, each $|A^i_k|$ can be in the order of $|A|$, thus the complexity of step $k$ is in $O(|x||A| \\log\n  |A|_Q)$.\n\nSince there are at most $\\log |x|$ steps in the recursion, this leads to an overall time complexity in $O(|x| |A|)$ if $A$ is acyclic and $O(|x| |A| \\log |A|_Q \\log |x|)$ in general.\n\nWhen the loop-connectedness of $A$ is $k$, the time complexity can be improved to $O(k |x| |A| \\log |x|)$ in the general case.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe presented general algorithms for computing in linear space both the edit-distance between a string and a finite automaton and their optimal alignment. Our algorithms are conceptually simple and make use of existing generic algorithms. Our results further provide a better understanding of previous algorithms for more restricted automata by relating them to shortest-distance algorithms and general queue disciplines.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We calculated profiles of CIV1550, SiIV 1400, NV1240 and OVI1035 doublet lines using results of 3D MHD simulations of disc accretion onto young stars with dipole magnetic field. It appeared that our calculations can not reproduce profiles of these lines observed (HST/GHRS-STIS and FUSE) in CTTSs\u2019s spectra. We also found that the theory predicts much larger CIV 1550 line flux than observed (up to two orders of magnitude in some cases) and argue that the main portion of accretion energy in CTTSs is liberated outside accretion shock. We conclude that the reason of disagreement between the theory and observation is strongly non-dipole character of CTTS\u2019s magnetic field near its surface. [^1]'\nauthor:\n- 'S.A. Lamzin$^1$, M.M. Romanova$^2,$ A.S. Kravtsova$^1$'\ndate: |\n     $^1$ Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Universitetskij prospect 13, Moscow, 119991, Russia; [*lamzin@sai.msu.ru, kravts@sai.msu.ru*]{}\\\n    $^2$ Department of Astronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-6801, USA; [*romanova@astro.cornell.edu*]{}\\\ntitle: On the origin of continuum and line emission in CTTSs\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nSince the beginning of the 1990s, there has been a consensus that the line and continuum emission observed in the spectra of classical T Tauri stars (CTTSs) results from the magnetospheric accretion of circumstellar material. More precisely, the magnetic field of the star is believed to stop the accretion disk from reaching the stellar surface. In some way the disk material becomes frozen in the magnetospheric field lines and slides along them toward the stellar surface, eventually being accelerated to velocities $V_0 \\sim 300$ km/s. The gas is then decelerated in an accretion shock (AS), whose radiation presumbly gives rise to the observed line and continuum emission.\n\nRadial extention of pre- and post-shock radiating regions of CTTS\u2019s AS is much smaller than stellar radius \u2013 $Z_{pre}, Z_{pst} \\ll R_*$ in figure\u00a0\\[fig:as-scheme\\], \u2013 making it possible to calculate the structure and spectrum of the AS in 1-D approximation (Lamzin, 1995). Calculations of Lamzin (1998) and Calvet & Gullbring (1998) indicated that the structure of the flow can be specified nearly unambiguously by two parameters: the velocity $V_0$ and density $\\rho_0$ (or particle number density $N_0)$ of the gas far in front of the shock.\n\n![Schematic structure of CTTS\u2019s AS.[]{data-label=\"fig:as-scheme\"}](fig1.epsi){height=\"7cm\"}\n\nCalvet & Gullbring (1998) used results of their calculations to derive the parameters of the accretion shock via modeling of the continuum spectral energy distributions of classical T Tauri stars. However, they did not took into account limb darkening effect and what is more the agreement between the calculated and observed spectra of the veiling continuum cannot be considered as a decisive support for the magnetospheric model, since boundary-layer models provide equally good agreement \u2013 see e.g. Basri & Bertout (1989). The line spectrum is far more informative, and comparisons of the calculated and observed intensities and profiles of emission lines enable detailed studies of the accretion processes.\n\nOptically thin lines are best suited for this purpose: their intensity ratios can be used to derive physical conditions independent of the geometry of the region where they are formed, and the line profiles provide information about both the velocity field and geometry of this region. The calculations of Lamzin & Gomez de Castro (1999) demonstrated that the OIII\\] 1663, SiIII\\] 1892 and CIII\\] 1909 lines should display the highest intensities among the optically thin lines, and just these lines were used to determine the accretion-shock parameters for several young stars in that paper. However, Gomez de Castro & Verdugo (2001, 2007) questioned whether these lines form in the AS. Spectral lines of neutral or singly ionized atoms apparantly form not only in AS but in magnetospheric flow and wind as well \u2013 see e.g. Edwards (2007) \u2013 and thus likewise cannot be used for diagnostic of AS.\n\nResonant UV lines of the CIV, SiIV, NV and OVI uv1 doublets looks as the most suitable lines for diagnostic of CTTSs\u2019s AS, especially lines of CIV 1550 doublet: they are strong in CTTS\u2019s spectra and calculation of their intensities is relatively simple.\n\nIntensities of CIV 1550 doublet lines: theory vs. observations {#sec:c4relint}\n==============================================================\n\nGenerally speaking, lines of C$^{+3},$ Si$^{+3},$ N$^{+4}$ and O$^{+5}$ ions form before and behind the shock front. Gas temperature in the pre-shock (precursor) zone of CTTSs does not exceed 20.000 K, but ions up to O$^{+5}$ (at $200 <V_0<400$ km/s) exist here due to photoionization of accreted matter by X-ray and UV quanta from post-shock cooling zone. When infalling gas crosses the shock front its temperature raises up to 1-3 MK and for example C$^{+3}$ ions almost complitely transform to C$^{+6}$ ions. Then gas cools and ions of interest appeares again but at that moment gas velocity is very close to zero \u2013 see Lamzin (1998) for details.\n\nLamzin (2003a) carried out non-LTE calculations of profiles of CIV 1550, SiIV 1400, NV 1240 and OVI 1035 doublet lines for a plane-parallel shock viewed at various angles. Calculations were performed for the range of preshock gas parameters $V_0,$ $N_0$ appropriate for CTTSs. Intensities of CIV 1548+1551 lines, normalized to ${\\cal F}=\\rho_0 V_0^4/4$ value, as a function of cosine $\\mu$ of an angle between the normal to the shock front and the line of site are presented in figure\u00a0\\[fig:delta-c4\\]. The ratio is expressed in percent, such as different lines in fugure respect to different infall gas velocities $(V_0=200,$ 300 and 400 km/s). Presented results were calculated for gas particle density $N_0=10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$ (left panel) and $10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$ (right panel).\n\n![Relative intensities of CIV 1550 doublet lines expressed in %. See text for details. []{data-label=\"fig:delta-c4\"}](fig2.epsi){height=\"7cm\"}\n\nThe value ${\\cal F}$ was chosen for normalisation because just this value expected to be equal to the bolometric flux of veiling continuum emission produced by AS. Indeed, according to current paradigm a half of X-ray and UV quanta from post-shock cooling zone moves to the stellar surface. These quanta are absorbed in upper layers of stellar atmosphere and then should be reradiated predominantly in the continuum \u2013 see Calvet & Gullbring (1998) for details. Thus the ratio $\\delta,$ depicted in figure\u00a0\\[fig:delta-c4\\], is theoretical prediction for ratio of CIV 1550 doublet line flux to bolometric flux of veiling continuum. Thus this ratio expected to be $\\simeq 1\\,\\%$ almost independenly on $V_0, N_0$ parameters of AS.\n\nMeanwile it was found that observed ratio is much smaller \u2013 see table\u00a0\\[tab:AS-delta\\] in which we summarised results of our analyses of CTTSs UV spectra observed from Hubble Space Telescope (Kravtsova & Lamzin, 2002a,b; Kravtsova, 2003; Lamzin et\u00a0al., 2004). The descripancy between the theory and observation is significant \u2013 more than two orders of magnitude in the case of RY Tau and DR Tau, such as this conclusion does not depend on current uncertainty of value and law of interstellar extinction in the direction to investigated stars.\n\n\u00a0\n\n  Star:            RY Tau   DR Tau   T Tau   DS Tau   BP Tau   DG Tau     Theory\n  --------------- -------- -------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------------\n  $\\delta,\\,\\%$    0.002    0.003    0.02\u00a0   0.02\u00a0    0.04\u00a0    0.07\u00a0    $\\sim 1.0$\u00a0\n\n  : Relative contribution of CIV lines in emission of AS[]{data-label=\"tab:AS-delta\"}\n\nWe suppose that this discrepancy means that the main portion of veiling continuum (up to 99 % in some cases juging from table\u00a0\\[tab:AS-delta\\]) originates outside CIV 1550 line formation region, i.e. outside [*strong*]{} (Mach number $M_{sh} \\gg 1)$ AS. In other words we conclude that the main portion of accreted matter does not pass throught the AS and falls to the star almost parallel to the stellar surface. In this part of accretion flow transformation of kinetic energy of infalling gas into the heat and then into radiation should occur in the same way(s) as in a boundary layer, i.e in a series of [*weak*]{} ($M_{sh} \\simeq 1)$ oblique shocks. One can estimate the maximal possible angle $\\gamma_{sh}$ between front of the weak oblique shocks and stellar surface as follows.\n\nIn the coronal equlibrium approximation C$^{+3}$ ions forms at $T\\simeq\n10^5$ K. Such temperature can be reached immediately behind the shock front if accreted gas velocity component $V_r$ normal to stellar surface is $\\simeq 70$ km/s. Therefore oblique ASs with $V_r$ less than this value can not contribute to CIV 1550 line emission of accretion flow but produce veiling continuum and emission in lines of neutral, singly or twice ionized atoms. If typical infall gas velocity $V_0$ is $\\simeq 300$ km/s, then $\\gamma_{sh} = \\sin^{-1}(V_r/V_0) < 15^o,$ i.e. gas producing such weak shocks indeed falls to the star almost parallel to its surface.\n\nProfiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines: theory vs. observations {#sec:c4prof}\n===========================================================\n\nAs was mentioned above CIV1550 doublet lines form in two spatially distinct regions of strong AS: in the radiative precursor and in the post-shock zone. Gas velocity in these regions are different: $V\\simeq \nV_0 \\sim 300$ km/s in the pre-shock zone and $\\sim 5-10$ km/s in the post-shock line formation region. As a result profile of e.g. CIV1548 line in the spectrum of plane-parallel shock, viewed from the direction perpendicular to the surface of shock front, should have two components: the first one is almost at zero-velocity position and the second is redshifted to $V_0.$ As follows from our calculations (Lamzin 2003a), both components are optically thick, resulting in FWHM of each componet $\\sim 20-30$ km/s, with relative strength depending on $V_0:$ at $V_0<300$ km/s \u201czero-velocity\u201d component is stronger than \u201chigh-velocity\u201d one and vice versa at $V_0>300$ km/s. If the shock is viewed from the direction, that makes an angle $\\theta$ with the perpendicular to the shock\u2019s surface, then \u201czero-velocity\u201d component should be seen practically at the same position but the redshift of \u201chigh-velocity\u201d peak should be now $V_0\\,\\mu,$ where $\\mu=\\cos \\theta.$ The same is true (in a qualitative way) for lines of SiIV 1400, NV1240 and OVI1035 doublets.\n\n![Profiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines in spectra of some CTTSs.[]{data-label=\"fig:c4-obsprof-1\"}](fig3.epsi){height=\"8cm\"}\n\nConsider now a part of CTTS\u2019s surface occupied with strong AS (accretion zone). Observed profile of e.g. CIV1548 line emitted by AS is a sum (an integral) of double-peaked profiles from all elementary area $\\Delta S$ of the accretion zone (multiplied to $\\mu\\,\\Delta S$ factor). All elementary areas are viewed at different angles due to curvature of stellar surface and these angles varies with time due to stellar rotation. One can expect that intensities of \u201czero-velocity\u201d components from all parts of accretion zone will be summarised and the (weighted) sum of high-velocity components will results in more or less wide red wing or separated redshifted component depending on distribution of $V_0,$ $N_0$ parameters in accretion zone and on its geometry. Obviously the profile should vary with time due to stellar rotation and non-stationary accretion as well.\n\nLamzin (2003b) calculated profiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines from strong AS assuming that: 1) matter falls to the star in radial direction; 2) $V_0$ and $N_0$ parameters of the shock are constant within accretion zone; 3) the zone has the shape of circular spot or sperical belt. Results of the calculations were compared with profiles of the lines in UV spectra of CTTSs observed with Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) and Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS). Observational data were extracted from Scientific Archive of Hubble Space Telescope (http://archive.stsci.edu/hst/\\\ntarget\\_descriptions.html). Calculated profiles differs significantly from observed ones presumbly because our assumptions about the character of accretion flow near stellar surface were not realistic enough.\n\n![Profiles of CIV 1550 and OVI 1035 doublet\u2019s components in spectra of T Tau (left panel) and TW Hya (right panel).[]{data-label=\"fig:c4-obsprof-2\"}](fig4.epsi){height=\"8cm\"}\n\nOne can expect better agreement if to use parameters of accretion flow derived from 3D MHD simulations of disc accretion to a slowly rotating magnetized young star with its dipole moment inclined at an angle $\\alpha$ to the stellar rotation axis. Accretion rate $\\dot M_{ac},$ polar magnetic field strength $B$ as well as mass and radius of the central star are free parameters of these simulations in addition to the angle $0 \\le \\alpha \\le 90^o$ \u2013 see Romanova et al. (2003) for details. Velocity field ${\\bf V}_0$ and gas density $\\rho_0$ at stellar surface, adopted from the simulations, we used as input parameters to calculate profiles of CIV1550, SiIV 1400, NV1240 and OVI1035 doublet lines. For all models we adopted $M_*= 0.8$ M$_\\odot,$ $R_* = 1.8$ R$_\\odot,$ $B=1-3$ kG and varied $\\alpha,$ $\\dot M_{ac}$ parameters in the $0^o-90^o$ and $10^{-8}-3\\cdot 10^{-7}$ M$_\\odot$/yr intervals respectively. Profiles were calculated for each accretion zone\u2019s model with different values of an angle between stellar rotation axis and the line of sight $(0^o \\le i \\le 90^o)$ as well as for a set of phases of stellar rotation periods, i.e. for different angles $\\psi$ (in $2\\pi$ units) between magnetic dipole axis and the plane, which contains rotation axis and the line of sight $(0\\le \\psi \\le 1).$\n\nObserved profiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines in DS Tau, BP Tau, DF Tau and DR Tau spectra are shown in figure\u00a0\\[fig:c4-obsprof-1\\]. Solid and dashed lines depicts CIV 1548 and CIV 1551 componens of the doublet. Profiles of CIV 1550 doublet\u2019s components in spectra of T Tau are shown in figure\u00a0\\[fig:c4-obsprof-2\\] (left column). T Tau is the only star where there is more than one high resolution UV spectrum and one can observe variability of CIV doublet lines profiles. Only in the case of TW Hya (right panel of the figure) there is possibility to obtain information about lines of OVI 1035 doublet \u2013 see Ardila (2007) for reference and details.\n\n![Theoretical profiles of CIV1548 line calculated for CTTS with dipole magnetic field, axis of which inclined at $\\alpha=30^o$ angle to the rotation axis of the star. See text for details.[]{data-label=\"fig:c4-a30i10i70\"}](fig5.epsi){height=\"12cm\"}\n\nWe plot in figure\u00a0\\[fig:c4-a30i10i70\\] results of our calculations for the model with $\\alpha=30^o,$ $\\dot M_{ac}\\simeq 4\\cdot 10^{-8}$ M$_\\odot$/yr, $i=10^o$ (left panel) and $i=70^o$ (right panel). Vertical row of profiles in each panel corresponds to the following set of rotation period phases (from top to bottom): $\\psi=0,$ 0.25, 0.5, 0.75. Profiles were normalized to maximal intensity of the line at $\\psi=0$ phase. It was assumed that accretion disk does not prevent to observe the part of the star that situated below disk\u2019s midplane \u2013 this is the reason why some profiles have extended blue wing.\n\nMatter falls to the star with dipole magnetic field at the angle $\\theta <90^o$ relative to its surface. In the absence of magnetic field oblique shock should arise in such situation, what means that: 1) the shock front is parallel to stellar surface; 2) velocity component $V_r$ which parallel to stellar radius is the pre-shock velocity $V_0.$ But bear in mind that accreted gas moves along magnetic field lines it also seems resonable to suppose that shock front is perpendicular to the magnetic field lines and therefore $V_0=V.$ To avoid discussion of this problem we calculated profiles for both cases: solid lines in figure\u00a0\\[fig:c4-a30i10i70\\] corresponds to profiles calculated for $V_0=V_r$ case and dashed \u2013 for $V_0=V$ case.\n\nSuch approach looks resonable at the moment because both types of theoretical profiles differs from profiles of CIV1548 line in spectra of CTTS presented in figures\u00a0\\[fig:c4-obsprof-1\\], \\[fig:c4-obsprof-2\\]. Observed profiles have only one peak, maximum of which is almost at zero velocity position. The only exception is DR Tau: profile its CIV1548 line consists of two redshifted components but intensity of \u201chigh-velocity\u201d component is larger than \u201clow-velocity\u201d one. Theoretical profiles calculated for models with another values of $\\alpha,$ $\\dot M_{ac}$ and $i$ parameters have qulitatively the same shape as in figure\u00a0\\[fig:c4-a30i10i70\\], i.e. also can not reproduce observations.\n\nWe suppose that the reason of the descripancy is too small divergency of accreted gas stream lines within accretion zone that itself occupies only $\\sim 5\\,\\%$ of stellar surface (Romanova et al., 2003). If divergency of the stream (and therefore magnetic field) lines within accretion zone would be larger then it seems possible to obtain single-peak profile with extended red wing similar to observed ones. Anyway our results indicate that magnetic field of CTTSs is signifificantly non-dipole near stellar surface in agreement with direct magnetic field measurements (Johns-Krull, 2007).\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe demonstrated that observed intensity and profiles of CIV 1550 doublet lines significantly differ from theoretical predictions based on the assumption that magnetic field of CTTSs near stellar surface is close to dipole. We conclude therefore that geometry of CTTS\u2019s magnetic field near stellar surface is strongly non-dipole. Multipole components of global magnetic field of young star or/and small-scale magnetic fields of active regions probably produce large divergency of accreted gas stream lines within accretion zone that presumbly can explain disagreement between the theory and observations.\n\n[*We thank the LOC of the Symposium for the invitation, financial support and hospitality.*]{}\n\nArdila D., 2007, this volume, p.103.\\\nBasri G. & Bertout C., 1989, *ApJ* 341, 340.\\\nCalvet N. & Gullbring E., 1998, *ApJ* 509, 802.\\\nEdwards S., 2007, this volume, p.171.\\\nG\u00f3mez de Castro A.I. & Lamzin S.A., 1999, *MNRAS* 304, 41.\\\nG\u00f3mez de Castro A.I. & Verdugo E., 2001, *ApJ* 548, 976.\\\nG\u00f3mez de Castro A.I. & Verdugo E., 2007, *ApJ* 654, 91.\\\nJohns-Krull C., 2007, this volume, p.31.\\\nKravtsova A.S., 2003, *Astron. Lett.* 29, 463.\\\nKravtsova A.S. & Lamzin S.A., 2002a, *Astron. Lett.* 28, 676.\\\nKravtsova A.S. & Lamzin S.A., 2002b, *Astron. Lett.* 28, 835.\\\nLamzin S.A., 1995, *A$\\&$A* 295, L20.\\\nLamzin S.A., 1998, *Astron. Rep.* 42, 322.\\\nLamzin S.A. & Gomez de Castro A.I., 1999, *Astron. Lett.* 24, 748 .\\\nLamzin S.A., 2003, *Astron. Rep.* 47, 498.\\\nLamzin S.A., 2003, *Astron. Rep.* 47, 540.\\\nLamzin S.A., Kravtsova A.S., Romanova M.M., Batalha C., 2004, *Astron. Lett.* 30, 413.\\\nRomanova M.M., Ustyugova G.V., Koldoba A.V., Wick J.V., Lovelace R.V.E., 2003, *ApJ* 595, 1009.\\\nRomanova M.M., Long M., Kulkarni A.K., Kurosawa R., Ustyugova G.V., Koldoba A.K. & Lovelace R.V.E., 2007, this volume, p.277.\\\nZeldovich Ya.B. & Raizer Yu.P., 1966, W.D. Hayes, R.F. Probstein, (eds.), *Elements of gasdynamics and the classical theory of shock waves* (New York: Academic Press).\\\n\n[^1]: Published in Proc. of IAU Symp. 243: \u201cStar-Disk Interaction in Young Stars\u201d, Grenoble, France, 2007, Eds. J. Bouvier & I. Appenzeller, p.115\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The metallicity of a star strongly effects both its evolution and the properties of the stellar remnant that results from its demise. It is generally accepted that stars with initial masses below $\\sim 8\\,M_\\odot$ leave behind white dwarfs and that some sub-population of these lead to Type\u00a0Ia supernovae. However, it is often tacitly assumed that metallicity has no effect on the rate of SNe\u00a0Ia. We propose that a natural consequence of the effects of metallicity is to significantly increase the SN\u00a0Ia rate in lower-metallicity galaxies. This is because lower-metallicity stars leave behind higher-mass white dwarfs, which should generally be easier to bring to an explosion. Using a simple model to relate the SN rate to galaxy age and metallicity, we find that the elevation in the rate of SNe\u00a0Ia in lower-mass galaxies measured by LOSS is readily explained. We also find that models using the same parameters agree well with cosmic SN\u00a0Ia rates up to $z\\approx2$. We discuss additional implications of metallicity, including for inferences of the SN\u00a0Ia delay time distribution and super-Chandrasekhar SNe.'\nauthor:\n- 'Matthew D.\u00a0Kistler, K.\u00a0Z.\u00a0Stanek, Christopher S.\u00a0Kochanek, Jos[\u00e9]{}\u00a0L.\u00a0Prieto, and Todd\u00a0A.\u00a0Thompson'\ntitle: The Impact of Metallicity on the Rate of Type Ia Supernovae\n---\n\nIntroduction {#section:introduction}\n============\n\nThe end result of the evolution of stars that produce white dwarfs is often a Type Ia supernova explosion, through a single-degenerate channel (e.g., @Whelan73), double-degenerate channel (e.g., @Iben:1984iz [@Webbink:1984ti]), or both. Since stellar evolution is obviously affected by metallicity, there is no a priori reason why the rate of SNe\u00a0Ia should not significantly depend on metallicity. From a theoretical standpoint, a preference for high metallicity was proposed by @Kobayashi:1998ii, whose single-degenerate model required a minimum metallicity of $\\sim 0.1\\,Z_\\odot$ in order to produce Type\u00a0Ia SNe. A similar preference for higher metallicity was seen in the single degenerate models of @Langer:2000fs. However, the strong predictions offered by these models, such as no Type\u00a0Ia SNe in dwarf galaxies and the outskirts of spirals, were not confirmed observationally (e.g., @Prieto). The viability of the single-degenerate channel to produce the majority of Type Ia SNe has been debated from both observational (e.g., @Leonard:2007nh [@Simon:2009hk; @Gilfanov:2010ip]) and theoretical viewpoints [@Ruiter:2009dk; @Kasen; @Hachisu], while simulations of double-degenerate mergers still do not yield normal SNe\u00a0Ia [@Pakmor:2009yx; @Fryer:2010jx].\n\nFrom the viewpoint of stellar evolution, we expect an opposite sign for the dependence of the rate of Type Ia SNe on metallicity. Stars of lower metallicity at a given mass generally produce more massive white dwarfs according to stellar evolution calculations (e.g., @Umeda:1998ij [@Marigo:2007xq; @Meng:2007ni]), which should make it easier for them to reach the Chandrasekhar mass and explode. For example, according to @Marigo:2007xq, a single star with an initial mass of $3\\,M_{\\odot}$ will leave behind a $\\simeq 0.7\\,M_{\\odot}$ white dwarf when evolved at solar metallicity ($Z_\\odot=0.019$), while a star with the same initial mass at much lower metallicity ($Z=0.001$) will leave behind a $>0.8\\,M_{\\odot}$ white dwarf. Due to the steepness of the stellar initial mass function (IMF), this leads to a larger number of possible SN\u00a0Ia progenitors. Obviously, producing a Type Ia SN explosion is a more complicated process than just evolving single stars (for example, see the discussion of common envelope phase treatment in @Ruiter:2009dk). However, the observed rate of Type Ia SNe implies that a large fraction ($\\sim 2-40$%) of all $3\\lesssim M \\lesssim 8\\,M_{\\odot}$ stars will explode as one (e.g., @Maoz:2007xw), which suggests that the binary evolution leading to SN\u00a0Ia production cannot be \u201cfragile\u201d.\n\nIn this paper, we propose that the Type Ia supernova rate has a strong dependence on stellar metallicity and examine the resulting observational implications. This is motivated by measurements of the nearby Type Ia supernova rates reported by the Lick Observatory SN Search (LOSS: @Leaman [@Li:2010ii; @Li:2010iii]). These measurements and their interpretation are discussed in Section\u00a0\\[section:ii\\]. In Section\u00a0\\[section:iii\\], we present a simple model that examines the SN\u00a0Ia rate as a function of galaxy mass/age, and incorporate the effects of metallicity in Section\u00a0\\[section:iv\\]. In Section\u00a0\\[section:v\\], we extend this into a treatment of the cosmic SN\u00a0Ia rate, including the relative effects on \u201cprompt\u201d and \u201cdelayed\u201d SNe. We summarize our arguments and include further discussion on analogous observations, SNe\u00a0Ia in galactic halos, galactic chemical evolution, and super-Chandrasekhar SNe in Section\u00a0\\[section:vi\\].\n\nThe Type Ia Supernova Rate in Galaxies {#section:ii}\n======================================\n\nAt present, the most complete and systematic search for nearby supernovae was conducted over the past decade by the Lick Observatory SN Search, with results recently detailed in @Leaman and @Li:2010ii [@Li:2010iii]. Here, we briefly discuss the implications of the LOSS findings for our present study. Of particular interest are the results pertaining to Type Ia supernovae.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\], we display the specific SN\u00a0Ia rate (rate per unit mass) versus galaxy mass as measured by LOSS [@Li:2010iii]. One is first struck by the steep dependence of this specific rate on galaxy mass. This variation of over an order of magnitude demands a physical explanation. The cause should be distinct from the origin of a similar pattern seen in the specific core-collapse supernova rate by LOSS, which likely arises mainly from the dependence of the specific star formation rate on galaxy mass [@Li:2010iii].\n\n![The specific rate of Type Ia supernovae versus host galaxy mass. Shown are data from LOSS for galaxies grouped by Hubble type [@Li:2010iii]. Our models are also displayed, which assume either a $\\Delta t^{-1}$ delay time distribution alone ([*solid line*]{}) or an additional dependence on stellar metallicity ([*dashed, dotted lines*]{}; see text).\\\n\\[Iarate\\]](Iarate){width=\"3.38in\"}\n\nImportantly, we also see that at a fixed mass the SN\u00a0Ia rate does not vary greatly between galaxies of different Hubble type. This suggests that by examining a large set of galaxies one can arrive at the global behavior of SNe Ia. We proceed by translating the LOSS measured specific SN\u00a0Ia rates in galaxies of various Hubble types from a function of galactic mass into one of galactic [*metallicity*]{}. To do this, we convert between galactic mass and median metallicity using the relation derived from SDSS data in @Gallazzi:2005df, as shown by the upper axis of Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\]. This technique effectively averages over a large representative galaxy population similar to that sampled by LOSS.\n\nSince there is a delay from stellar birth to SN\u00a0Ia explosion, a galaxy\u2019s SN\u00a0Ia rate depends upon the age of its white dwarf population. This is typically quantified by an empirical or theoretical delay-time distribution (DTD), which results in a SN\u00a0Ia rate that can be simply written as $$\\dot{N}_{\\rm Ia}(t) = \\int_{t_0}^{t} dt^\\prime \\, \\phi(t-t^\\prime) \\,  \\dot{\\rho}_*(t^\\prime),\n    \\label{eq:rate}$$ where $t_0$ is the age of the universe when SN\u00a0Ia progenitor stars first formed and $\\phi(t-t^\\prime)$ is the DTD, which maps between the rate of star formation at time $t^\\prime$, $\\dot{\\rho}_*(t^\\prime)$, and the SN\u00a0Ia rate at a later time $t=t^\\prime+\\Delta t$. Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rate\\]) can be used to calculate the expected SN\u00a0Ia rate of an individual galaxy or the universe as a whole, given a properly normalized $\\dot{\\rho}_*(t)$ (for the cosmic SN\u00a0Ia rate, we will use the star formation rate density). Recent studies have suggested that $\\phi$ roughly takes a $\\Delta t^{-1}=(t-t^\\prime)^{-1}$ form (e.g., @Totani:2008by [@Maoz:2010qm; @Maoz:2010dw]). The physics behind this relation remains unclear, although such a distribution may naturally result from binary mergers (see, e.g., @Ruiter:2009dk) or a single-degenerate scenario [@Hachisu:2008zw].\n\n@Gallazzi:2005df also derive $r$-band light-weighted galaxy ages, which vary from $\\sim 10^9$\u00a0yr at $10^9\\,M_\\odot$ to $\\sim 10^{10}$\u00a0yr at $10^{12}\\,M_\\odot$ (see their Fig.\u00a08), using galactic models with an exponentially declining star formation history from a time $t_{\\rm form}$ with subsequent random bursts. Ideally, one would have at hand the detailed history of star formation in every galaxy. This is understandably difficult to achieve with any certainty. Attempts have been made in this direction (e.g., @Brandt:2010jn [@Maoz:2010dw]); however, using what amounts to an average over the galaxy population should be suitable for comparison with global rates. We will use both of the @Gallazzi:2005df relations in estimating the expected SN\u00a0Ia rate in galaxies of varying mass.\n\nA Simple Galactic Rate Model {#section:iii}\n============================\n\nWe first attempt to explain the rate variations in galaxies of different mass as due to an age effect alone. If the @Gallazzi:2005df ages corresponded to a single-age stellar population at a given galactic mass, deriving the expected SN\u00a0Ia rate for a given DTD would be rather straightforward. For example, using a DTD for each galaxy of the form $$\\phi(\\Delta t) = \\phi_* \\, \\Delta t_{\\rm Gyr}^{-\\gamma}\\,,\n\\label{dtd}$$ with $t_{\\rm Gyr}=t/$(1 Gyr), and assuming that the entire galactic stellar mass, $M_g$, arose at a single time, $t_g$, in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rate\\]) would lead to a galactic specific SN\u00a0Ia rate at time $t$ of $$\\frac{\\dot{N}_g(t)}{M_g} = \\phi(t_{\\rm Gyr}-t_{g,\\,{\\rm Gyr}}) = \\frac{\\phi_*}{(t_{\\rm Gyr}-t_{g,\\,{\\rm Gyr}})^\\gamma}\\,.\n\\label{grate}$$ This description is incomplete, though. First, the SN\u00a0Ia rate at present reflects the galactic mass at the time of formation, as opposed to that measured today after stellar mass loss has occurred. We correct for this using the results of @Bruzual:2003tq for a Chabrier IMF (as used in the SDSS galaxy sample) by including a term of the form $M(t_g)/M(t)$.\n\nAdditionally, the ages are more accurately galactic averages, so that an assumption of instantaneous formation at $t_g$ will not properly reflect the effect of a DTD. To allow for a finite duration of star formation, we use a declining history of the form $e^{-t/\\tau}$, with $\\tau = 1$\u00a0Gyr, occurring since the time $t_g$ for each galaxy. We further make use of the 16/84% ranges in log\u00a0$t_g$ reported in @Gallazzi:2005df in order to weight the galaxy population with the DTD at fixed mass (rather than using only the median value). These should alleviate the effect of average ages by giving greater weight to the low-age tail of their derived distribution and by allowing for a non-negligible rate of star formation today, particularly for lower-mass galaxies, that is in rough agreement with the specific star formation rates measured by @Schiminovich:2007kw.\n\nThis leaves the issue of the efficiency of converting a stellar population into SNe Ia (see, e.g., @Maoz:2007xw). As we will discuss in Section\u00a0\\[section:iv\\], the DTD is also involved in shaping the cosmic SN\u00a0Ia history, with $\\phi_*$ again setting the overall normalization. Rather than attempting to incorporate theoretical models of the DTD (see, e.g., @Greggio:2010en), we use a DTD with a pure power law of the form $\\Delta t^{-\\gamma}$, with a lower cutoff $t_c$ to account for the minimum amount of time needed to produce CO WDs. Evidence for delay times as short as $\\lesssim\\,$100\u00a0Myr has been reported from, e.g., the study of SN remnants in the Magellanic Clouds [@Badenes:2009bs; @Maoz:2010pz], and we simply use $t_c=50$\u00a0Myr (see also the discussion in Section\u00a0\\[section:v\\]).\n\nThe results of using this approach are shown as the solid line in Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\], where we have used a $\\Delta t_{\\rm Gyr}^{-1}$ DTD with $\\phi_*=1.4\\times 10^{-3}\\,(10^{10}\\,M_\\odot)^{-1}\\,$yr$^{-1}$. A parametrization for this model is given in the Appendix. We see that the saturation in age at high masses results in a plateau, which should be a rather robust feature due to the relatively small scatter in estimated ages around $\\lesssim 10$\u00a0Gyr in this range, while the decrease in age at lower mass results in a rise in the SN\u00a0Ia rate. Overall, this simplified model agrees rather well with the LOSS data.\n\nIncorporating Metallicity Dependence {#section:iv}\n====================================\n\nHistorically, studies have focussed upon deriving the DTD without taking into account the possible effects of stellar metallicity on the SN\u00a0Ia rate in a galaxy, as we have done above. As we next show, this assumption may not be sufficient to determine the actual DTD and to extract its astrophysical origins. We distinguish here between metallicity effects as primary (those involved in the rate of explosions) and secondary (those affecting the detailed properties of individual explosions; e.g., @Timmes:2003xx), with our interest being in the former.\n\nWe now examine a plausible scenario for including a SN\u00a0Ia rate that varies with stellar metallicity. We propose that this arises from the effect of metallicity on the white dwarf produced. In general, it is expected that, for the same initial stellar mass, the white dwarf from a star of lower metallicity should be more massive. This may be due to decreased mass loss and/or opacity resulting in hotter burning over the lifetime of the star (e.g., @Umeda:1998ij [@Willson:2000kb; @Marigo:2007xq; @Meng:2007ni]). The simplest interpretation of this is that it should be easier to reach the requisite Chandrasekhar mass for explosion through the addition of mass via binary evolution or a double white dwarf merger.\n\nTo obtain a semi-quantitative estimate of the resulting change in the SN\u00a0Ia rate with metallicity, we must consider the effect of a varying WD mass over the range of metallicities for the galaxies in the LOSS sample. One may hope for guidance from the initial-final WD mass relation determined from young star clusters. However, the clusters in which detailed studies are possible are nearby and formed recently, which necessarily limits them to single, $\\sim\\,$solar metallicity stars (e.g., @Kalirai:2007tq [@Williams:2008ms]). We utilize the theoretical results of @Umeda:1998ij in combination with the empirical metallicity estimates in @Gallazzi:2005df. In decreasing the initial stellar metallicity from $Z=0.03$ to 0.004, roughly the range spanned in Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\], @Umeda:1998ij determined that an additional $\\sim 0.05-0.15\\,M_\\odot$ is added to the CO remnant at fixed initial mass (see their Fig.\u00a06).\n\nFig.\u00a08 of @Umeda:1998ij displays the relative number of SN\u00a0Ia progenitors obtained from their stellar evolution model as a function of metallicity after integrating over a Salpeter IMF from a lower initial stellar mass (which varies with $Z$) corresponding to fixed final WD mass to an upper mass at which point ONeMg WDs were expected to be produced (varying with $Z$ from $\\sim 7-8.5\\, M_\\odot$). Using a threshold WD mass of $0.85\\,M_\\odot$ yields a dependence on the rate with metallicity that can be approximately parametrized as $$N_{\\rm Ia}(Z) \\propto \\left(Z+0.003\\right)^{-0.5}\n\\label{umfit}$$ over the range $Z=0.004-0.03$. Using a lower threshold mass of $0.7\\,M_\\odot$ yields a slightly weaker dependence, due to the larger mass range, of approximately $$N_{\\rm Ia}(Z) \\propto \\left(Z+0.0015\\right)^{-0.3}.\n\\label{umfit2}$$ To derive galactic rates, we again use a SN\u00a0Ia rate for each galaxy $\\propto \\Delta t^{-\\gamma}$ and scale directly to the @Umeda:1998ij results, normalizing these relations to unity at $Z=0.025$, the metallicity of a characteristic $\\sim 10^{11}\\,M_\\odot$ galaxy in the LOSS sample. Assuming $Z_g$ and $t_g$ to be separable, we use the 16/84% ranges in log\u00a0$Z_g$ from @Gallazzi:2005df to again weight the galaxy distribution at fixed mass and introduce an overall term to account for the effect of metallicity in Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rate\\]), either $f_{0.85}(Z)$ or $f_{0.70}(Z)$.\n\n![The total masses of known WD-WD systems along with their calculated merger times due to gravitational wave losses. Shown are the three systems from the collection in @Nelemans:2005qb in which both WDs have masses exceeding 0.5\u00a0$M_\\odot$: two with firm masses ([*circles*]{}) and one with only a lower limit on the mass of the secondary ([*triangles*]{}). Assuming these to have all resulted from stars with $Z\\sim0.02$, we show the \u201cexpected\u201d total masses for a range of metallicities (as labeled) using the final masses derived in @Umeda:1998ij. The resulting merger times assume initial orbital separations as presently inferred for each. \\[masses\\]](masstime){width=\"3.35in\"}\n\nThe specific SN\u00a0Ia rates resulting from using the two metallicity scalings are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\]. For the $f_{0.85}$ model, $\\phi_* = 1.1\\times 10^{-3}\\,$$(10^{10}\\,M_\\odot)^{-1}\\,$yr$^{-1}$ with $\\Delta t_{\\rm Gyr}^{-0.8}$ (dashed line), while the $f_{0.70}$ model has $\\phi_* = 1.3\\times 10^{-3}\\,(10^{10}\\,M_\\odot)^{-1}\\,$yr$^{-1}$ and $\\Delta t_{\\rm Gyr}^{-0.9}$ (dotted line). After accounting for the weaker effects of the DTDs used, the rate does indeed rise more steeply at lower galactic masses than by taking into account age alone. This can be interpreted as a relative change in efficiency, an effect at the factor of $\\sim\\,$2 level over the mass range of Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\] for the $f_{0.85}$ model and slightly less for the $f_{0.70}$ case.\n\nBecause galaxy mass is strongly correlated with both age and metallicity, it is inevitable that the models are relatively degenerate and that inferences about the DTD from galaxy populations may err without accounting for metallicity. Our simplified treatment of galactic star formation histories may somewhat underpredict SN\u00a0Ia rates at intermediate masses. This may be refined through more detailed modeling, although, given the uncertainties in our inputs, we will not attempt to do so here. It is encouraging that such broad agreement with data is already seen using quite general assumptions.\n\nWe note here that the normalization of these models can be scaled up or down, although this will directly affect the normalization of the expected cosmic SN\u00a0Ia rates through the DTD, as we will discuss in the following Section. Note also that care should be taken in comparing these results, which examine the galaxy population as a whole, to those that distinguish between \u201cpassive\u201d and \u201cstar-forming\u201d galaxies (e.g., @Sullivan:2006ah).\n\nThe above is essentially based on an assumption of a single-degenerate scenario. While the full effects of metallicity on a double-degenerate scenario are likely more complicated, if we consider binaries with a uniform mass ratio distribution, the number that will exceed the Chandrasekhar limit depends on metallicity as $$N_{\\rm Ia} \\propto Z^{(x-1)\\,b/a} \\sim Z^{-0.4}\\,,\n\\label{binz}$$ where $x=2.35$ is the slope of the IMF, $a=0.5$ approximates the slope of the white dwarf initial-final mass relation of @Kalirai:2007tq, and $b \\simeq -0.08$ is the dependence of the final mass on metallicity, estimated from @Umeda:1998ij. The magnitude of the effect is very similar to the case already considered, so we do not repeat the calculations. This model does not include any effect of the higher implied masses on the rate of binary evolution or possible effects in triple systems based on the Kozai mechanism [@Thompson:2010dp].\n\nTo illustrate the above effect, we begin with the three known double WD binaries in which each component has a mass of at least $0.5\\,M_\\odot$ from @Nelemans:2005qb. These have primary/secondary masses of $0.71+0.55\\, M_\\odot$, $0.58+0.58\\, M_\\odot$, and $0.51\\,+ $ $>$$0.59\\, M_\\odot$, the last being a single-lined system with only a lower limit for the secondary. We assume that each WD arose from a solar-metallicity star and map from the WD masses to the initial stellar masses using the results of @Umeda:1998ij, mapping then to the WD masses calculated for these stellar masses at other metallicities. The $0.5\\,M_\\odot$ cut allows a straightforward translation without regards to systems with low-mass He WDs, etc. Keeping the initial binary separations fixed, we calculate the merger time due to gravitational wave losses for each system (see, e.g., @Thompson:2010dp). Fig.\u00a0\\[masses\\] displays the effect on these systems using this prescription, where it is seen that the total masses of all three systems would have been pushed beyond the Chandrasekhar mass limit and the merger time would have been significantly reduced at lower metallicities.\n\nThere is hope for new tests to reduce the uncertainty in the overall effect of metallicity. For example, in observations of SN\u00a0Ia host galaxies we would expect the hosts of SN\u00a0Ia to be slightly less metal-rich than the galaxy population as a whole for fixed galaxy mass. This effect would not be as marked as in the case of gamma-ray bursts (see @Stanek:2006gc), since no hard upper metallicity threshold prohibiting the production of a SN\u00a0Ia progenitor system is known to exist. An exception to this may be found at very high metallicity, as evidenced by the abundance of He rather than CO WDs in the metal-rich cluster NGC\u00a06791 (see @Kilic:2007yk) \u2013 very massive, metal-rich galaxies may show an additional deficit of SNe\u00a0Ia beyond that of our simple model. This may even be evident in the data at the high-mass end of Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\], although it is difficult to draw a strong conclusion at present.\n\nWe also note that the model that we have used only results in a rather modest rate change with metallicity. It does not attempt to account for changes in the remnant mass that occur during the AGB phase of an isolated star (see, e.g., @Vassiliadis1993 [@Bird:2010yz; @Renedo:2010vb]), which could result in a larger metallicity effect. Since both SN\u00a0Ia scenarios require binary evolution at some step in their evolution, this model should be adequate in this respect. We also have not attempted to vary the binary fraction with stellar mass or metallicity. This is not yet well understood either theoretically or empirically (see, e.g., @Mazeh:2006vh), particularly in the mass range of the progenitors of SNe\u00a0Ia, suggesting that substantial room for improvement exists on both fronts in this regime.\n\n![The cosmic rate of Type Ia supernovae. Shown are recent measurements from LOSS [@Li:2010iii], SDSS [@Dilday:2010qk], SCP [@Kuznetsova:2007ew], HST [@Dahlen:2008uj], SNLS [@Gonzalez] and Subaru Deep Field [@Graur]. A model assuming only a fixed $\\Delta t^{-1}$ delay time distribution and the cosmic SFR from @Kistler09 ([*thick solid line*]{}) can be compared to our models incorporating metallicity dependence (see text), which use either a $\\Delta t^{-0.9}$ DTD ([*thick dotted line*]{}) or $\\Delta t^{-0.8}$ DTD ([*thick dashed line*]{}). The components of these models with delays from stellar birth to explosion of less than 1\u00a0Gyr (\u201cprompt\u201d) and greater than 1\u00a0Gyr (\u201cdelayed\u201d) are also shown ([*thin lines*]{}; as labelled).\\\n\\[Iahist\\]](Iahist){width=\"3.38in\"}\n\nThe Cosmic Type Ia Supernova Rate {#section:v}\n=================================\n\nWe next examine the expectations for the cosmic rate of SNe\u00a0Ia by first considering a case without explicit metallicity dependence. We proceed by returning to Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rate\\]) with the comoving star formation rate density $\\dot{\\rho}_*(z)$ inferred up to $z \\sim 8$, using the @Yuksel:2008cu parametrization of the star formation history (SFH), $$\\begin{aligned}\n      \\dot{\\rho}_*(z)\n      & = &  \\dot\\rho_0 \\left[(1 + z)^{{a}{\\eta} } + \\left(\\frac{1 + z}{B}\\right)^{{b}{\\eta}} + \\left(\\frac{1 + z}{C}\\right)^{{c}{\\eta} } \\, \\right]^{1/\\eta}\n\\label{fit}\\end{aligned}$$ where $a = 3.4$, $b = -0.3$, and $c = -2$, with breaks at $z_1= 1$ and $z_2 = 4$ corresponding to $B = (1 + z_1)^{1-a/b} \\simeq 5100$ and $C =(1 + z_1)^{(b-a)/c} (1 + z_2)^{1-b/c}\\simeq 14$, which reflect the updated high-$z$ data from @Kistler09, and we use $\\eta \\simeq -10$ to smooth the transitions. The normalization is $\\dot{\\rho}_{0} = 0.014 \\,M_\\odot$\u00a0yr$^{-1}$\u00a0Mpc$^{-3}$, which we have scaled down by a factor of 0.7 from the Salpeter IMF normalization of @Hopkins:2006bw to be in better agreement with the galactic mass estimates in the previous Sections. In Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:rate\\]), we set $t_0\\sim 0.4$\u00a0Gyr corresponding to $z\\approx 10$.[^1]\n\nSince we must consider the shortest possible delay times in constructing the cosmic rate from the SFH, we again assume a power law DTD with a cutoff at $t_c=50$\u00a0Myr. We note that the results of @Umeda:1998ij (see also @Siess2007 [@Meng:2007ni]) suggest a maximum CO WD mass of $\\sim 1.1\\,M_\\odot$ that is nearly independent of metallicity. Since the effect of decreasing the metallicity is similar to increasing the stellar mass, we take this cutoff to be independent of $Z$ (and thus $z$) since the lifetimes of the stars giving the most massive CO WDs should be similar.\n\nWe use the same $\\phi_*$ and $\\Delta t_{\\rm Gyr}^{-1}$ DTD as in Section\u00a0\\[section:iii\\], with the resulting SN\u00a0Ia rate history shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[Iahist\\] (thick solid line). To compare with prior results (e.g., @Mannucci:2005xh [@Scannapieco:2005uh; @Sullivan:2006ah]), this history is broken down into the components with delay less than 1\u00a0Gyr (thin solid lines labelled as \u201cprompt\u201d) and greater than 1\u00a0Gyr (labelled as \u201cdelayed\u201d). We see that the \u201cprompt\u201d component is subdominant at $z=0$, in agreement with the rates in Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\]. Altering either the form of the DTD or $t_c$ can make the \u201cprompt\u201d component relatively more or less important (see, e.g., @Horiuchi for related discussion); however, this would in turn affect the specific SN\u00a0Ia rate models in Sections\u00a0\\[section:iii\\] and \\[section:iv\\].\n\nSince the universe as whole had a lower metallicity in the past, a relative enhancement should also be effected in the cosmic SN\u00a0Ia rate. As existing rate measurements average over the entirety of the galaxy population, this effect should not be dramatic at the present epoch, but, as for the specific rate, can be important in deriving the DTD. At low $z$, the gas-phase metallicity is typically higher than that of the stellar population [@Gallazzi:2005df]. The relation between galaxy mass and gas-phase metallicity is well determined at low $z$ [@Tremonti:2004et] and has been measured to evolve at higher redshifts, so that the typical metallicity decreases by $\\sim0.15$\u00a0dex per $z$ up to at least $z\\approx2$ (e.g., @Kewley [@Savaglio:2005hi; @Erb:2006qy; @Maiolino:2008gh]). We use $$Z(z) = 0.03 \\times 10^{-0.15\\,z}\n\\label{Zztop}$$ to account for stars forming from gas that is increasingly metal poor at higher $z$, with a resulting change in rate arising through either the relation approximated by Eq.\u00a0(\\[umfit\\]) for the $\\dot{n}_{0.85}$ model or Eq.\u00a0(\\[umfit2\\]) for the $\\dot{n}_{0.70}$ model, again normalizing each to unity at $Z=0.025$ to be consistent with our specific rate models. We also use the same values of $\\phi_*$ and DTD slopes as in the corresponding specific rate models.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[Iahist\\] shows the resulting cosmic rates for the $\\dot{n}_{0.85}$ (with $\\Delta t_{\\rm Gyr}^{-0.8}$; thick dashed line) and $\\dot{n}_{0.70}$ ($\\Delta t_{\\rm Gyr}^{-0.9}$; thick dotted line) models. Both models yield similar histories as the metallicity-independent case, with parametrizations for all three included in the Appendix. This is due to the relative increase of the rates with $z$ as compared to models with the same DTD without a metallicity enhancement. This is similar in spirit, but less dramatic, than the relative evolution likely due to stellar metallicity seen in the cosmic GRB rate (e.g., @Kistler). Both models are also broken down by delay time in Fig.\u00a0\\[Iahist\\] (thin dotted, dashed lines), which illustrates the underlying effect of altering the DTD.\n\nAs discussed for the specific SN\u00a0Ia rate, there is again a degeneracy between altering the DTD and including the effect of metallicity, although not quite as strong. That the metallicity effect works in the same direction as decreasing the index in the DTD in both cases, as seen in Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\] and Fig.\u00a0\\[Iahist\\], is something of a coincidence, owing to the fact that galaxy ages and metallicities both decrease with decreasing mass and the cosmic SFR rises with increasing $z$. This didn\u2019t have to be the case, though. We thus reiterate that an estimate of one component must account for the other until this degeneracy is broken. It is possible to perform a more elaborate study by varying all the parameters involved (see, e.g., @Horiuchi and @Graur for the metallicity-independent DTD); however, the qualitative effects of the models that we have considered are already sufficiently evident.\n\nDiscussion and Conclusions {#section:vi}\n==========================\n\nThe rate of Type Ia supernovae should be affected at some level by the effects of metallicity on stellar evolution. There may be various complications involved, such as the largely unresolved effects of binary evolution, but our simple model for the effects of metallicity should be broadly relevant. There has been significant effort devoted to investigating Type\u00a0Ia SN properties as a function of metallicity (e.g., @Hamuy:2000ya [@Gallagher:2008zi; @Howell:2008jv; @Neill:2009tr; @Sullivan:2010mg; @Konishi:2011ct]). Since the properties of SN\u00a0Ia have been seen to depend on metallicity, why not the rate?\n\nThe simple models that we have considered explain fairly well both the specific SN\u00a0Ia rates measured in nearby galaxies by LOSS and the observed normalization and evolution of the cosmic SN\u00a0Ia rate. Further progress can certainly be made with data that can break the degeneracy between decreasing metallicity and decreasing age. Indeed, evidence in this direction has been found in a comparison of SN\u00a0Ia host galaxies in SDSS by @Cooper:2009vk, who found that SNe\u00a0Ia in blue, star-forming hosts have a preference for lower-density environments, which they interpreted as being the effect of lower gas-phase metallicities.\n\nAs previously mentioned, the results of @Umeda:1998ij indicate that the maximum CO WD mass remains close to $\\sim 1.1\\,M_\\odot$ over a wide range of metallicities. If this is true, and binary evolution effects are neglected, then we would expect the relative rates of super-Chandrasekhar SNe\u00a0Ia arising from mergers to increase with lower metallicity in proportion to the normal SNe\u00a0Ia due to the power law form of the IMF (note that instabilities prohibit the necessary growth of even rapidly-rotating single WDs; @Piro:2008pr). However, recent observations of host galaxies may indicate an even stronger preference for low-metallicity hosts for super-Chandrasekhar SNe\u00a0Ia (e.g., @Taubenberger:2010qv [@Childress:2011hg]). Moreover, the maximum mass resulting from a merger under these assumptions is $\\sim 2.2\\,M_\\odot$, well below that inferred from SN\u00a02007if [@Scalzo:2010xd].\n\nAn explanation for both effects may arise from binary evolution. To achieve a higher total merger mass, without resorting to an ONeMg WD, at least one WD should gain mass while maintaining a CO composition. If the effect of inhibiting single degenerate SN\u00a0Ia production at $Z \\lesssim 0.1\\,Z_\\odot$ [@Kobayashi:1998ii; @Kobayashi:2008se] does hold, then the primary WD may instead be pushed close to, but not above, the threshold for explosion, so that the rate of massive mergers is further enhanced. The end state of the secondary resulting in a massive CO WD could then lead to a merger with total mass upwards of $\\sim 2.5\\,M_\\odot$.\n\nIf, contrary to @Umeda:1998ij, the CO WD mass limit actually increases modestly for lower metallicities, then the rate of such extreme super-Chandrasekhar mergers rises dramatically at lower metallicities without a need to turn to binary evolution for a solution. This is due to the presence of the threshold in reaching the requisite total merger mass, which would lead to a large relative difference between low/high-$Z$ galaxies. The stars giving rise to these massive white dwarfs would also evolve more rapidly and could thus lead to \u201cprompter\u201d explosions in low-$Z$ environments. Whether this scenario occurs is a question left for stellar evolutionary modeling and observations of host galaxies.\n\nAdditionally, observations of Milky Way dwarf spheroidal galaxies have revealed decreasing values of \\[$\\alpha$/Fe\\] with increasing \\[Fe/H\\], indicating the influence of Type\u00a0Ia supernovae down to metallicities of \\[Fe/H\\] $\\approx -2.5$ [@Kirby:2010dc]. Since model fits to these measurements are naturally sensitive to the SN\u00a0Ia rate over a range of metallicities, we urge exploration of the implications of an increased rate at low\u00a0$Z$, including super-Chandrasekhar mergers, on galactic chemical evolution.\n\nIn the category of interesting, but more anecdotal, evidence that low metallicity might be of significance for Type Ia supernovae, @Tovmassian:2010uq recently presented strong evidence that SBS1150+599A, a close binary star inside a metal-poor, Galactic halo planetary nebula PN G135.9+55.9 consists of two white dwarfs that will merge within a Hubble time. The estimated total mass of the binary is very close to the Chandrasekhar limit, making it a likely SN\u00a0Ia progenitor.\n\nIt is also interesting to note that the normalized rate of planetary nebulae in elliptical galaxies [@Buzzoni:2006ei] shows a very similar trend with metallicity to that discussed in our Fig.\u00a01. Indeed, their Figs.\u00a011 and 12 show about 10 times fewer planetary nebulae per unit luminosity in metal-rich, massive ellipticals compared to metal-poor, low-mass ellipticals. The mapping between PN production and SN\u00a0Ia explosion is of course uncertain; however, both involve the production of a white dwarf, and @Buzzoni:2006ei attribute finding fewer PNe in more metal rich ellipticals to a dependence of the initial-to-final mass relation on metallicity.\n\nSubstantial observational progress has been made in the study of SNe\u00a0Ia in the last decade and new data can be expected to better determine the extent to which metallicity affects the SN\u00a0Ia rate. Possible directions include detailed measurements of rates as a function of galaxy mass. Related to this is the expectation of a relatively higher SN\u00a0Ia rate in galactic halos, for a given stellar population age and total mass, due to the lower average metallicity. Such a bias may already be seen in the number of cases in which a SN\u00a0Ia occurred in the outer halo of a star-forming galaxy [@Prieto; @Khan:2010kj]. Elevated rates of other transients potentially involving a WD (e.g., @Thompson:2009km) should also be expected. Improved measurements of the cosmic SN\u00a0Ia rate, in combination with independent determinations of the DTD at constant metallicity, can determine whether the rate is larger than otherwise expected. Along with this, if the intrinsic properties of SNe Ia vary with metallicity, we would expect an evolution in the Type Ia luminosity function as the lower-$Z$ component becomes prominent at higher redshifts.\n\n\\[section:app\\]\n\nThe models that we have discussed are the result of combining several unrelated functions and thus are not necessarily amenable to convenient parametrization. Nonetheless, we find that a sigmoid function provides an adequate fit to our metallicity-independent model of the specific SN\u00a0Ia rate, $\\zeta_{\\rm Ia}$, with $$\\frac{\\zeta_{\\rm Ia}(M)}{(10^{10}\\,M_\\odot)^{-1}\\,{\\rm yr}^{-1}} = \\alpha \\, \\left[1+\\exp\\left(\\frac{\\log (M/M_\\odot)-M_*}{\\omega}\\right)\\right]^{-1}+\\beta\\,,\n\\label{zfit}$$ where $\\alpha=5\\times10^{-3}$, $\\beta=4.2\\times10^{-4}$, $M_*=10$, and $\\omega=0.33$ agrees with the model to within $<10\\%$ over the mass range displayed in Fig.\u00a0\\[Iarate\\]. The metallicity-dependent models can be fit with similar parameters.\n\nUsing the smoothly-broken piecewise form of Eq.\u00a0(\\[fit\\]), with $\\dot{\\rho}_0$ replaced by $\\dot{n}_0$, our cosmic rate models can be fit to within a few percent over the range $z=0-4$. The parameters used for the metallicity-independent model and the metallicity-dependent $\\dot{n}_{0.85}$ and $\\dot{n}_{0.70}$ models are given below in Table\u00a0\\[tab:params\\]. All three use $\\eta \\simeq -10$ to smooth the transitions.\n\n  Model               $\\dot{n}_0$ \\[yr$^{-1}$\u00a0Mpc$^{-3}$\\]    $a$     $b$      $c$     $z_1$   $z_2$    $B$      $C$\n  ------------------ -------------------------------------- ------- -------- -------- ------- ------- -------- -------\n  $Z$-free                     $2.5\\times10^{-5}$            $1.8$   $-0.8$   $-2.3$   $0.9$   $2.9$   $8.1$    $5.0$\n  $\\dot{n}_{0.85}$             $2.9\\times10^{-5}$            $1.4$   $-0.5$   $-2.0$   $0.9$   $2.9$   $11.5$   $5.1$\n  $\\dot{n}_{0.70}$             $2.8\\times10^{-5}$            $1.6$   $-0.7$   $-2.0$   $0.9$   $3.0$   $8.2$    $5.2$\n\n  : Parameters used in the fits of our three cosmic SN\u00a0Ia rate scenarios.[]{data-label=\"tab:params\"}\n\nWe thank John Beacom, Jonathan Bird, Shunsaku Horiuchi, Rubab Khan, Marc Pinsonneault, and Hasan Yuksel for helpful discussions and Weidong Li for providing us with the data in Fig.\u00a01. M.D.K.\u00a0acknowledges support provided by NASA through the Einstein Fellowship Program, grant PF0-110074. K.Z.S., C.S.K.\u00a0and T.A.T.\u00a0are supported in part by NSF grant AST-0908816. J.L.P.\u00a0acknowledges support from NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-51261.01-A awarded by the STScI, which is operated by AURA, Inc. for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555. T.A.T.\u00a0is supported in part by an Alfred P.\u00a0Sloan Foundation Fellowship.\n\nBadenes, C., Harris, J., Zaritsky, D., & Prieto, J.\u00a0L. 2009, , 700, 727 Bird, J.\u00a0C.\u00a0& Pinsonneault, M.\u00a0H. 2011, , 733, 81 Brandt, T.\u00a0D., Tojeiro, R., Aubourg, E., Heavens, A., Jimenez, R., & Strauss, M.\u00a0A. 2010, , 140, 804 Bruzual, G.\u00a0& Charlot, S. 2003, , 344, 1000 Buzzoni, A., Arnaboldi, M.\u00a0& Corradi, R.\u00a0L.\u00a0M. 2006, , 368, 877 Childress, M., et al. 2011, , 733, 3 Cooper, M.\u00a0C., Newman, J.\u00a0A.\u00a0& Yan, R. 2009, , 704, 687 Dahlen, T., Strolger, L.\u00a0G.\u00a0& Riess, A.\u00a0G. 2008, , 681, 462 Dilday, B., et al. 2010, , 713, 1026 Erb, D.\u00a0K., et al. 2006, , 644, 813 Fryer, C.\u00a0L., et al. 2010, , 725, 296 Gallazzi, A., Charlot, S., Brinchmann, J., White, S.\u00a0D.\u00a0M.\u00a0& Tremonti, C.\u00a0A. 2005, , 362, 41 Gallagher, J.\u00a0S., et al. 2008, , 685, 752 Gilfanov, M.\u00a0& Bogdan, A. 2010, Nature, 463, 924 Gonz[\u00e1]{}lez-Gait[\u00e1]{}n, S., et al.\u00a0 2011, , 727, 107 Graur, O., et al.\u00a0 arXiv:1102.0005 Greggio, L. 2010, , 406, 22 Hachisu, I., Kato, M.\u00a0& Nomoto, K. 2008, , 683, L127 Hachisu, I., Kato, M.\u00a0& Nomoto, K. 2010, , 724, L212 Hamuy, M., et al.\u00a0 2000, , 120, 1479 Hopkins, A.\u00a0M.\u00a0& Beacom, J.\u00a0F. 2006, , 651, 142 Horiuchi, S.\u00a0& Beacom, J.\u00a0F. 2010, , 723, 329 Howell, D.\u00a0A., et al. 2009, , 691, 661 Iben, I.\u00a0J.\u00a0& Tutukov, A.\u00a0V. 1984, , 54, 335 Kalirai, J.\u00a0S., et al. 2008, , 676, 594 Kasen, D., R[\u00f6]{}pke, F.\u00a0K.\u00a0& Woosley, S.\u00a0E. 2009, Nature, 460, 869 Kewley, L., & Kobulnicky, H.\u00a0A. 2005, in Starburst: From 30 Doradus to Lyman Break Galaxies, ed.\u00a0R.\u00a0de Grijs & R.\u00a0M.\u00a0Gonzalez Delgado (Dordrecht: Springer), 307 Khan, R., et al. 2011, , 726, 106 Kilic, M., Stanek, K.\u00a0Z.\u00a0& Pinsonneault, M.\u00a0H. 2007, , 671, 761 Kirby, E.\u00a0N., Cohen, J.\u00a0G., Smith, G.\u00a0H., Majewski, S.\u00a0R., Sohn, S.\u00a0T.\u00a0& Guhathakurta, P. 2011, , 727, 79 Kistler, M.\u00a0D., Y\u00fcksel, H., Beacom, J.\u00a0F., & Stanek, K.\u00a0Z. 2008, , 673, L119 Kistler, M.\u00a0D., Y\u00fcksel, H., Beacom, J.\u00a0F., Hopkins, A.\u00a0M.\u00a0& Wyithe, J.\u00a0S.\u00a0B. 2009, , 705, L104 Kobayashi, C., Tsujimoto, T., Nomoto, K., Hachisu, I.\u00a0& Kato, M. 1998, , 503, L155 Kobayashi, C.\u00a0& Nomoto, K. 2009, , 707, 1466 Konishi, K., et al. arXiv:1101.4269 Kuznetsova, N., et al. 2008, , 673, 981 Langer, N., Deutschmann, A., Wellstein, S.\u00a0& Hoeflich, P. 2000, \u00e5, 362, 1046 Leaman, J., Li, W., Chornock, R.\u00a0& Filippenko, A.\u00a0V. 2011, , 412, 1419 Leonard, D.\u00a0C. 2007, , 670, 1275 Li, W., et al. 2011a, , 412, 1441 Li, W., et al. 2011b, , 412, 1473 Maiolino, R., et al. 2008, , 488, 463 Mannucci, F., Della Valle, M.\u00a0& Panagia, N. 2006, , 370, 773 Maoz, D. 2008, , 384, 267 Maoz, D.\u00a0& Badenes, C. 2010, , 407, 1314 Maoz, D., Sharon, K., & Gal-Yam, A. 2010, , 722, 1879 Maoz, D., Mannucci, F., Li, W., Filippenko, A.\u00a0V., Della Valle, M.\u00a0& Panagia, N. 2011, , 412, 1508 Marigo, P.\u00a0& Girardi, L. 2007, , 469, 239 Mazeh, T., Tamuz, O.\u00a0& North, P. 2006, , 367, 1531 Meng, X., Chen, X.\u00a0& Han, Z. 2008, , 487, 625 Meng, X., Li, Z.\u00a0& Yang, W. arXiv:1105.5265 Neill, J.\u00a0D., et al. 2009, , 707, 1449 Nelemans, G., et al. 2005, , 440, 1087 Pakmor, R., Kromer, M., R[\u00f6]{}pke, F.\u00a0K., Sim, S.\u00a0A., Ruiter, A.\u00a0J.\u00a0& Hillebrandt, W. 2010, Nature, 463, 61 Piro, A.\u00a0L. 2008, , 679, 616 Prieto, J.\u00a0L., Stanek, K.\u00a0Z.\u00a0& Beacom, J.\u00a0F. 2008, , 673, 999 Renedo, I., et al. 2010, , 717, 183 Ruiter, A.\u00a0J., Belczynski, K.\u00a0& Fryer, C.\u00a0L. 2009, , 699, 2026 Savaglio, S., et al. 2005, , 635, 260 Scalzo, R.\u00a0A., et al. 2010, , 713, 1073 Scannapieco, E.\u00a0& Bildsten, L. 2006, , 629, L85 Schiminovich, D., et al. 2007, , 173, 315 Siess, L. 2007, , 476, 893 Simon, J.\u00a0D., et al. 2009, , 702, 1157 Stanek, K.\u00a0Z., et al. 2006, Acta Astron., 56, 333 Sullivan, M., et al. 2006, , 648, 868 Sullivan, M., et al. 2010, , 406, 782 Taubenberger, S., et al. 2011, , 412, 2735 Timmes, F.\u00a0X., Brown, E.\u00a0F.\u00a0& Truran, J.\u00a0W. 2003, , 590, L83 Thompson, T.\u00a0A. arXiv:1011.4322 Thompson, T.\u00a0A., Kistler, M.\u00a0D.\u00a0& Stanek, K.\u00a0Z. arXiv:0912.0009 Totani, T., Morokuma, T., Oda, T., Doi, M.\u00a0& Yasuda, N. 2008, , 60, 1327 Tovmassian, G., et al. 2010, , 714, 178 Tremonti, C.\u00a0A., et al. 2004, , 613, 898 Umeda, H., Nomoto, K., Yamaoka, H.\u00a0& Wanajo, S. 1999, , 513, 861 Vassiliadis, E.\u00a0& Wood, P.\u00a0R. 1993, , 413, 641 Webbink, R.\u00a0F. 1984, , 277, 355 Whelan, J.\u00a0& Iben, I. 1973, , 186, 1007 Williams, K.\u00a0A., Bolte, M.\u00a0& Koester, D. 2009, , 693, 355 Willson, L.\u00a0A. 2000, , 38, 573 Yuksel, H., Kistler, M.\u00a0D., Beacom, J.\u00a0F., & Hopkins, A.\u00a0M. 2008, , 683, L5\n\n[^1]: We use $\\Omega_{\\rm m} = 0.3$, $\\Omega_\\Lambda = 0.7$, and $H_0 = 70$\u00a0km/s/Mpc where needed, e.g., in converting $z\\leftrightarrow t$ and in rescaling the data in Fig.\u00a0\\[Iahist\\] using a common value of $H_0$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Via nonlocality distillation, a number of copies of a given nonlocal correlation can be turned into a new correlation displaying a higher degree of nonlocality. Apart from its clear relevance in situations where nonlocality is a resource, distillation protocols also play an important role in the understanding of information-theoretical principles for quantum theory. Here, we derive a necessary condition for nonlocality distillation from two copies and apply it, among other results, to show that $1$D and $2$D quantum voids \u2013faces of the nonlocal simplex set with no quantum realization\u2013 can be distilled up to PR-boxes. With that, we generalize previous results in the literature. For instance, showing a broad class of post-quantum correlations that make communication complexity trivial and violate the information causality principle.'\nauthor:\n- 'S. G. A. Brito'\n- 'M. G. M. Moreno'\n- 'A. Rai'\n- 'R. Chaves'\nbibliography:\n- 'Ref.bib'\ntitle: Nonlocality Distillation and Quantum Voids\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nQuantum correlations lie at the core of quantum enhanced information processing. Most prominently, entanglement [@RevModPhys.81.865] is a key ingredient in a variety of relevant applications, ranging from quantum computation [@nielsen2002quantum] to quantum metrology [@giovannetti2011advances] and quantum communication [@gisin2007quantum]. In the more recent years, another cornerstone in the foundations of quantum mechanics, Bell nonlocal [@RevModPhys.86.419] correlations have also been brought to the spotlight. As proved by John Bell in 1964 [@PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195], local measurements on distant entangled particles can generate correlations incompatible with any local realistic model, a result confirmed experimentally over and over [@hensen2015loophole; @PhysRevLett.115.250402; @PhysRevLett.115.250401] and of fundamental implication to our understanding of quantum theory. However, only more recently nonlocality has started to be seen as a resource. In a seminal paper [@PhysRevLett.67.661], Ekert showed that the violation of a Bell inequality can be employed in quantum cryptography. This result has been brought to its extreme with the emergence of the device-independent framework to quantum information where the success of protocols is achieved without the need of a precise description of the underlying physical apparatuses. Within this context, nonlocality is now seen as resource in a number of applications beyond cryptography such as entanglement [@PhysRevLett.111.030501] and randomness [@acin2016certified] certification, self-testing [@Mayers:2004:STQ:2011827.2011830] and communication complexity problems [@PhysRevLett.92.127901].\n\nAs it happens to entanglement, nonlocal correlations typically become more useful the stronger they get. For instance, the more the paradigmatic CHSH inequality [@PhysRevLett.23.880] is violated the better is the bound we can put in the amount of randomness of a given measurement outcome [@acin2016certified], the maximum being achieved exactly by maximum entangled states. In practice, however, due to noise and other uncontrollable source of errors, we often might have weak or not maximum entanglement or nonlocal correlations [@PhysRevA.89.042106; @PhysRevA.86.012108]. To circumvent that, one has to rely on a distillation protocol: starting from two or more copies of a given resource, one can through a set of free operations extract a smaller number of copies but with more of the resource of interest. In the case of entanglement, these free operations are local operations and classical communication (since they cannot create or increase entanglement) [@RevModPhys.81.865]. In turn, the resource theory of nonlocality [@de_Vicente_2014] implies that such free operations are the so-called wirings [@PhysRevA.73.012101] (see Figure \\[wiring\\]).\n\nThe first nonlocality distillation protocol has been introduced in [@forster] and, since then, a number of results have been obtained [@brunner; @hoyer; @PhysRevLett.106.020402; @PhysRevA.80.062107; @Lang_2014; @PhysRevA.83.062114], for instance showing the existence of bound nonlocality [@PhysRevLett.106.020402] and the fact that post-quantum correlations with a negligible amount of nonlocality can make communication complexity trivial [@brunner]. In spite of that, it is fair to say that few general conclusions have been obtained, typically referring to very specific classes of correlations. The difficulty relies on the fact that the number of possible wirings involved in a nonlocality distillation protocol increases very fast. As proven in [@PhysRevA.73.012101], the set of possible protocols define a convex set, the extremal points of which are finitely many deterministic wirings. However, already at simplest possible Bell scenario, the CHSH scenario with two parties and two dichotomic measurements per party [@PhysRevA.89.042106], there are $82^4 = 45.212.176$ deterministic wirings, reason why we have seen slow progress in this research direction.\n\nOn the more fundamental side, nonlocality distillation also plays a key role in the search for information-theoretical principles able to characterize the set of quantum correlations. It is known that special relativity alone cannot single out the quantum set, as there are correlation compatible with the non-signalling principle but beyond what can be achieved with quantum theory [@popescu1994quantum]. This has motivated the introduction of several new principles [@pawlowski2009information; @chaves2015information; @navascues2009glance; @fritz2013local; @navascues2015almost; @van2013implausible; @PhysRevLett.96.250401]. However, as noticed in [@PhysRevA.80.062107], whatever principle a physical theory fulfills, the set of correlations it generates should be closed under wirings, implying non trivial constraints on the search for physical principles and the axiomatization of quantum theory [@Lang_2014].\n\nIn this paper we aim to provide somewhat more general statements on nonlocality distillation and their implications for information theoretical principles. Because of the difficulty mentioned above, we focus here on the CHSH scenario and distillation protocols involving two copies of the nonlocal correlations. Within this context, we first obtain a general necessary condition for nonlocality distillation with two copies. Then we employ it to analyze faces of the nonlocal simplex of correlations with no quantum realization, the so called quantum voids [@PhysRevA.99.032106] (if the dimension of the face is $k$ then the quantum void is said to be $k$-dimensional. Using our necessary condition we prove that correlations in all $1$D and some of the $2$D quantum voids are distillable to maximal nonlocality. This allows us to generalize previous results in the literature. First, we show that there are whole faces of the non-signalling set violating the principle of non-trivial communication complexity. Finally, we show how a large class of correlations not violating Uffink\u2019s inequality (a necessary condition for a correlation to be compatible with the principle of information causality) can do so after a distillation protocol.\n\n![Illustration of a wiring protocol between two probability distributions (represented as boxes).[]{data-label=\"wiring\"}](wiring_schem.pdf)\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. In Section \\[sec:tool\\] we introduce the basic concepts and tools necessary to state our results. In Section \\[sec:NLdist\\] we propose a necessary condition for nonlocality distillation, that is then employed in Section \\[sec:NLqvoid\\] to prove that all $1$D quantum voids and some $2$D and $3$D quantum voids correlations are distillable. In Sections \\[sec:CC\\] and \\[sec:IC\\] we look for the consequences of distillation protocols in the non-trivial communication complexity [@van2013implausible] and information causality principles [@pawlowski2009information]. Finally, in Section \\[sec:discussion\\] we present our conclusions.\n\nToolbox {#sec:tool}\n=======\n\nWe will restrict our attention here to the simplest possible Bell scenario, also known as the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) scenario [@PhysRevLett.23.880]. It refers to two spatially separated parties, Alice and Bob, which upon receiving their shares of a joint physical system randomly and independently choose one of two possible dichotomic measurements to perform. Their measurement choices are labelled by the random variables $X$ and $Y$ and the measurement outcomes as $A$ and $B$, for Alice and Bob respectively. In the CHSH scenario all these variables are binary, that is, $x,y,a,b=0,1$. The results of a Bell experiment are encoded in a probability distribution of these variables $p(a,b,x,y)$ and since typically we do have control over the input distribution $p(x,y)$ it has become customary to work with the conditional probability distribution $p(a,b \\vert x,y)$. Within this context, the fundamental question is to understand what are the constraints implied by different kind of theories on the possible correlations that can be observed in a Bell experiment.\n\nUnder the assumption known as local realism, the probability distribution should be decomposable as $$\\label{pc}\np(a,b \\vert x,y) = \\sum_{\\lambda}p(\\lambda) p(a \\vert x, \\lambda) p(b \\vert y, \\lambda),$$ defining a set of correlation $\\mathcal{L}$ where we have explicitly imposed the following conditions. First, the \u201crealism\u201d condition implying the existence of a hidden variable $\\Lambda$ determining the probabilities of measurement outcomes even of measurement choices that have not been performed. Second, the locality condition stating that only variables in the causal past of the measurement outcomes might have a causal influence over their statistics, that is, $p(a\\vert x,y,b,\\lambda)= p(a\\vert x,\\lambda)$ (similarly for Bob). Finally, we also have to impose the measurement independence assumption (also known as \u201cfree will\u201d) implying that $p(x,y,\\lambda)=p(x,y)p(\\lambda)$.\n\nIn turn, the quantum description for this experiment, implies via the Born rule that the distribution should be written as $$\\label{pq}\np(a,b \\vert x,y) = \\mathrm{Tr}\\left[\\left(M_a^x \\otimes M_b^y \\right) \\rho \\right],$$ defining a set of correlations $\\mathcal{Q}$ where $M_a^x$ and $M_b^y $ describe measurement operators and $\\rho$ is the density operator describing the joint physical system shared by Alice and Bob. Bell\u2019s theorem [@PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195] shows that there are quantum distributions of the form incompatible with the classical description given by , the phenomenon known as quantum nonlocality that can be witnessed by the violation of the CHSH inequality [@PhysRevLett.23.880] $$\\label{chsh}\n\\mathrm{CHSH}= E_{00}+E_{01}+E_{10}-E_{11} \\leq 2$$ that in quantum case can achieve $\\mathrm{CHSH}= 2 \\sqrt{2}$ where $E_{xy}=P(a=b \\vert xy)-P(a \\neq b \\vert xy)$.\n\nA third possible description is to wonder what are the implications on the correlation arising from imposing special relativity to this Bell experiment. Because of the space-like separation between the parties, we see that the statistics observed locally by one of the parties should be completely independent of whatever choice of measurement the other party is doing, otherwise they could communicate superluminally. Mathematically, this is described by following set of linear constraints on the probabilities, known as non-signalling (NS) conditions: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{pns}\n& & p(a\\vert x) = \\sum_{b} p(a,b\\vert x,y) =  \\sum_{b} p(a,b\\vert x,y^{\\prime}) \\\\ \\nonumber\n& & p(b\\vert y) = \\sum_{a} p(a,b\\vert x,y) = \\sum_{a} p(a,b\\vert x^{\\prime},y),\\end{aligned}$$ defining a set of correlations $\\mathcal{NS}$. Strikingly, there are non-signalling correlation beyond what can be achieved with quantum theory [@popescu1994quantum]. In short, we know that these $3$ sets of correlations respect the following strict inclusion relation: $\\mathcal{L} \\subsetneq \\mathcal{Q} \\subsetneq \\mathcal{NS}$.\n\nThe sets $\\mathcal{L}$ and $\\mathcal{NS}$ are polytopes, convex sets described by a finite number of extremal points or equivalently a finitely many facets (linear inequalities). In the CHSH scenario, the extremal points of the $\\mathcal{NS}$ set have been fully characterized [@PhysRevA.71.022101], consisting of 8 extreme nonlocal points and 16 extreme local points described below. In a Bell scenario we restrict our attention to the probability distribution, regardless of the internal working of the measurement and state preparation devices. For this reason, it is typical to refer to correlations (alternatively, probability distributions) simply as boxes.\n\n-   **PR-box $PR(ab|xy)$**: a no-signaling correlation that maximally violates the CHSH inequality or one of its symmetries. There are 8 of such boxes: $$\\nonumber\n            PR^{\\mu\\nu\\sigma}(ab|xy)=\\frac{1}{2}\\delta_{a\\oplus b,xy\\oplus\\mu x\\oplus\\nu y\\oplus \\sigma},$$ where $\\delta_{[.],[.]}$ representing the Dirac\u2019s delta.\n\n-   **Local-box $L_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma\\theta}$**: there are 16 deterministic local boxes that can be parametrized as: $$\\nonumber\n        L_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma\\theta}(ab|xy)=\\delta_{a,\\alpha x\\oplus\\beta}\\delta_{b,\\gamma y\\oplus \\theta}.$$\n\nIn the CHSH scenario, any nonlocal distribution can be decomposed as the convex sum of a single PR-box plus up to eight more local deterministic strategies. For instance, any correlation violating the CHSH inequality can be written as $$\\label{defbox}\n        p(ab|xy)=c_0 PR(ab|xy) + \\sum_{\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma=0}^{1} c_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma} L_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma}(ab|xy),$$ where $$\\label{defPR}\n    PR(ab|xy)=PR^{000}(ab,xy),$$ $$\\label{deflocal}\n    L_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma}(ab|xy)=L_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma(\\alpha \\gamma\\oplus \\beta)}(ab|xy),$$ and $c_0 + \\sum_{\\alpha,\\beta,\\gamma=0}^{1} c_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma}=1$, $0\\leq c_0\\leq 1$ and $0\\leq c_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma}\\leq 1$ $\\forall$ $\\alpha$, $\\beta$, and $\\gamma$. In this case $\\mathrm{CHSH}(PR)=4$ (maximal violation) and $\\mathrm{CHSH}(L_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma})=2$ (these local points saturate the local bound of the inequality). Furthermore, any other nonlocal distribution can be achieved via local reversible transformations (relabelings) over such distribution. In this sense, in the CHSH scenario it is thus sufficient to consider only and we will do so in what follows. To simplify the notation, from now on we will refer to the local deterministic strategies as $L_i$ (where might assume eight different values $i=1,\\dots,8$). Here, we follow the notation in [@PhysRevA.99.032106], as shown in Table \\[Li\\_Labg\\].\n\n$\\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\n \\hline\n L_i & L_1 & L_2  & L_3 &L_4 & L_5 & L_6 & L_7& L_8  \\\\\n\\hline\n L_{\\alpha\\beta\\gamma} & L_{101} & L_{111} & L_{001} & L_{011} & L_{110} & L_{100} & L_{000} & L_{010} \\\\\n \\hline\n\\end{array}$\n\nAs will be described in more details below, we are interested here in nonlocality distillation. That is, starting with two copies with a certain degree of nonlocality we want that the final wired correlation has a higher nonlocality degree. For that, we first have to define a quantifier. Different measures have been considered before, the violation of the CHSH inequality itself [@forster] and the so called EPR-$2$ decomposition [@PhysRevLett.106.020402]. Here we employ the trace distance measure introduced in [@PhysRevA.97.022111], basically quantifying the minimum distance of the nonlocal point in question to the set of local correlations. In the CHSH scenario the trace distance quantifier has been shown to be equivalent to the CHSH inequality violation (up to a constant factor), reason why we consider here as a quantifier $NL(p)$ of the nonlocality of a given distribution $p=p(ab\\vert xy)$ the following quantity: $$NL(p)=\n            \\max\\left[ \\frac{\\Pi(\\mathrm{CHSH})-2}{2}, 0 \\right]$$ where $\\Pi(CHSH)$ stand for all eight simmetries of the CHSH inequality, thus bounding $NL=0$ for local points and $NL=1$ for the PR-box and its symmetries (maximal nonlocality).\n\nFaces of the nonlocal set and quantum voids {#nlsimplex .unnumbered}\n-------------------------------------------\n\nFollowing [@PhysRevA.99.032106], we represent a probability distribution $p(ab\\vert xy)$ as a vector $(p_1,p_2,...,p_{16})$, where the ordering of probabilities is as shown in Table\u00a0\\[tab2\\].\n\nOn considering the probabilities $p_2$, $p_3$, $p_6$, $p_7$, $ p_{10}$, $p_{11}$, $p_{13}$ and $p_{16}$ as free variables, the remaining eight probabilities can be expressed in terms of the free variables by using no-signaling and normalization conditions. Notice that the free variables corresponds to probabilities taking value zero in PR-box $(PR^{000})$ correlation, and for the local box $L_i$ the free variable probabilities are such that $p_k = 1$ for the correspondent free variable and zero for the other seven, where $k$ is the index of the correspondent free variable. In this way, we related $L_1\\rightarrow p_2$, $L_2\\rightarrow p_3$, $L_3\\rightarrow p_6$, $L_4\\rightarrow p_7$, $L_5\\rightarrow p_{10}$, $L_6\\rightarrow p_{11}$, $L_7\\rightarrow p_{13}$ and $L_8\\rightarrow p_{16}$.\n\nWe are interested in the region which is convex hull of the PR-box and eight local vertices $\\{L_i: 1\\leq i\\leq 8\\}$, which forms an eight dimensional simplex that we refer as the nonlocal simplex ($NLS$). In particular, we will consider the faces of $NLS$, where given a convex set $C\\subseteq R^n$ and a supporting hyperplane $H$ of $C$, the set of points in $H \\cap C$ defines a face of $C$ [@boyd2004convex]. Further, we will consider nonlocal faces of the region $NLS$, and all such faces can be derived by setting some of the free variable probabilities to zero.\n\nAs shown in [@PhysRevA.99.032106], nonlocal faces can give rise to quantum voids, faces where all nonlocal points are of a postquantum nature. Non-signalling faces of dimension four and smaller are all quantum voids, as well as some of the faces of dimension five and six. These are the sets we will focus throughout out the paper.\n\nNonlocality distillation and wirings {#sec:NLdist}\n====================================\n\nRepresenting the correlations as a box with inputs and outputs, a nonlocality distillation protocol can be basically understood as a wiring among two boxes, where for instance the outcomes of the first box can be used as the input for the second one. If we wire two distant distributions as $W(p(ab|xy),p^{\\prime}(ab|xy))$ we obtain a new distribution $q(ab|xy)$ given by: $$\\begin{aligned}\n         \\label{defwiring}\n              & & q(ab|xy) = W(p(ab|xy),p^{\\prime}(ab|xy))\\\\\n             \\nonumber\n             & & =\\sum_{a_1,a_2,x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2,y_1,y_2=0}^{1} \\chi_x(a,a_1,a_2,x_1,x_2)\\chi_y(b,b_1,b_2,y_1,y_2)\\cdot \\\\ \\nonumber\n             & &\\cdot p(a_1b_1|x_1y_1)p^{\\prime}(a_2b_2|x_2y_2)\n         \\end{aligned}$$ where $\\chi_x(a,a_1,a_2,x_1,x_2)$ represents the wiring performed locally by Alice and $\\chi_y(b,b_1,b_2,y_1,y_2)$ the wiring performed by Bob. Here $x_i$ and $y_j$ are respectively $i$th and $j$th inputs to Alice and Bob\u2019s boxes, and $a_i$ and $b_j$ are the outcomes from respective boxes, $a$ and $b$ are the final respective outputs of Alice and Bob; since two boxes are wired, $i,j \\in\\{1,2\\}$. All possible wirings for boxes with possible inputs and outputs have been characterized [@PhysRevA.73.012101] and form a convex set whose vertices are described according to five different classes in the Table below.\n\n        Potential couplers classes                                                  $\\chi(a,a_1,a_2,x_1,x_2)=1$ ($0$ otherwise)\n  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n              $\\chi_{\\mu}^D$                                                                   $x_1=x_2$ and $a=\\mu$\n          $\\chi_{\\mu\\nu\\sigma}^O$                                                   $x_1=x_2=\\mu$ and $a=a_{\\nu+1}\\oplus\\sigma$\n          $\\chi_{\\mu\\nu\\sigma}^X$                                             $x_1=\\mu$, $x_2=\\nu$, and $a=a_1\\oplus a_2\\oplus\\gamma$\n   $\\chi_{\\mu\\nu\\sigma\\delta\\epsilon}^A$                          $x_1=\\mu$, $x_2=\\nu$, and $a=(a_1\\oplus\\sigma)(a_2\\oplus\\delta)\\oplus\\epsilon$\n   $\\chi_{\\mu\\nu\\sigma\\delta\\epsilon}^S$   $x_{\\mu+1}=\\nu$, $x_{(\\mu\\oplus 1)+1}=a_{\\mu+1}\\oplus\\sigma$, and $a=a_{(\\mu\\oplus 1)+1}\\oplus\\delta a_{\\mu+1}\\oplus\\epsilon$\n\nBefore moving on to derive a necessary criterion for nonlocality distillation, let us mention that in the CHSH scenario [@PhysRevLett.23.880], some examples of sets closed under wirings are known. The set of local correlations, quantum correlations, and no-signaling correlations as well as several sets of correlations between local and quantum sets as well as all sets of correlations generated by different levels of the NPA hierarchy\u00a0[@NPA]. See Ref.\u00a0[@Lang_2014] for a discussion about sets of correlations closed under wirings. Now since some of these sets are very closely spaced (for example, NPA hierarchies), for points in these regions it is very hard to come up with distillation protocols; the only viable option is to find the wirings which generates a flow gazing on the boundary of the sets closed under wirings, which turns out to be a difficult task [@Lang_2014].\n\nConsidering two copies of an initial box $p(ab\\vert xy)$ given by , after the wiring we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nonumber\n    W(p,p)&=c_0^2 B_0^0+c_0\\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}(B^0_{i}+B_0^{i})\\\\\n    &+\\sum_{i,j=1}^{8}c_{i}c_{j}B^{i}_{j},\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{Bs}\n B_0^0(ab|xy)= & & W(PR(ab|xy),PR(ab|xy)) \\\\ \\nonumber\n    B_{i}^0(ab|xy)= & & W(PR(ab|xy),L_{i}(ab|xy)) \\\\ \\nonumber\n    B_0^{i}(ab|xy)= & &W(L_{i}(ab|xy),PR(ab|xy)) \\\\ \\nonumber\n    B^{i}_{j}(ab|xy)= & &W(L_{i}(ab|xy),L_{j}(ab|xy))\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe nonlocality of the initial distribution is $NL(p)=c_0$, since $NL$ is linear for the distribution and $NL(PR)=1$ and $NL(L_{i})=0$ for all $i$. For the wired distribution we obtain directly an upper bound for its nonlocality, given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{NLwired}\n    & &NL(W(p,p)) \\leq c_0^2 NL(B^0_0) \\\\ \\nonumber & & +c_0\\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}(NL(B^0_{i})+NL(B_0^{i})).\\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, to have nonlocality distillation we need $NL(W(p,p)) > NL(p)$ thus implying that $$\\begin{aligned}\n& & c_0NL(B^0_0) \\\\ \\nonumber \n& & +\\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}(NL(B^0_{i})+NL(B_0^{i})) > 1. \\end{aligned}$$\n\nSince $c_0+\\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}=1$, the condition for distillation becomes $$c_0(NL(B_0 ^0)-1)+\\sum_{i=1}^{8}c_{i}(NL(B^0_{i})+NL(B^{i}_0)-1)>0$$ As hinted by the expression above, looking at the nonlocality of the wired terms in can provide us with the necessary information to decide whether a given correlation is distilablle or not, something we will explore in what follows.\n\nBy testing all $82^4$ possible deterministic wirings on the wired distributions $B^0_0$, $B^{i}_0$ and $B_{i}^0$ one can prove that $NL(B^0_0)=\\left\\{0,1/2,1 \\right\\}$ and $NL(B^{i}_0)=\\left\\{0,1 \\right\\}$ as well as $NL(B_{i}^0)=\\left\\{0,1 \\right\\}$. The necessary condition above then reduces to $$\\label{necessary}\n    c_0(NL(B_0^0)-1)+\\sum_{i=0}^{2}\\tilde{c}_{i}(i-1)>0$$ where $\\sum_{i=0}^{2}\\tilde{c}_{i}=\\sum_{k=1}^{8} c_{k}$ and $\\tilde{c}_i$ is the sum of all coefficients $c_{k}$ for which $NL(B^0_{k})+NL(B^{k}_0)=i$. Notice that this necessary condition can be raised to a sufficient one if one can guarantee that every term in the initial distribution is being mapped under the wiring to a distribution of the same form .\n\nNonlocality distillation in quantum voids {#sec:NLqvoid}\n=========================================\n\nIn what follows we are going to consider whether entire faces of the nonlocal simplex (in particular, quantum voids) are distillable or not. In this case, since the coefficient $c_0$ in can vary as $0 < c_0 < 1$, a necessary condition for distillation is that $NL(B_0 ^0)=1$ (remember that only assume 3 possible values $NL(B_0 ^0)=\\left\\{0,1/2 ,1 \\right\\}$). Furthermore, without loss of generality, we can restrict to those wirings such that $B_0 ^0=PR(ab \\vert xy)$. Making this restriction, reduces the number of wirings from $82^4$ to $3152$, making a complete analysis of the wirings amenable. Furthermore, in this case, the necessary condition for distillation is then simply given by $$\\label{face_condition}\n    \\tilde{c}_2>\\tilde{c}_0.$$\n\nAll correlations in a $1$D quantum void can be distilled to a PR-box\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nConsider a generic $1$D quantum void described by the distribution $$p=c_0 PR+ (1-c_0)L_{i}.$$ In this case, the condition simply states that there should exist at least one wiring for which $\\tilde{c}_2=1$. Furthermore, this becomes a sufficient condition as well if the terms $B_{i}^{0}$ and $B_{0}^{i}$ are indeed mapped to $PR$. By searching over the $3152$ wirings, we found that for every local point $L_{i}$ there is a strategy doing that (see Table \\[1dvoid\\_strategies\\]). That is, every point in a $1$D quantum void is distillable and the nonlocality of the wired correlation is raised from $NL(p)=c_0$ to $NL(W(p,p))=c_0(2-c_0)$.\n\n$\\begin{array}{ |c|c|c|c|c|} \n \\hline\n L_i & x=0 & x=1 & y=0 & y=1 \\\\ \n \\hline\nL_1 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\\\\n L_2 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} \\\\\n L_3 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} \\\\\n L_4 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,1} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} \\\\\n L_5 & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,1} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} \\\\\n L_6 & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\\\\n L_7 & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} \\\\\n L_8 & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,1,1} & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,1,1} \\\\\n \\hline\n\\end{array}$\n\nFurthermore, as we will show below, not only every $1$D quantum void is distillable, but can as well be asymtotically distilled (by the iterative application of the same wiring) to a PR-box. Notice, that this does not follow directly from the fact that every nonlocal correlation in a $1$D quantum void is distillable. For instance, there are wirings that distill the nonlocality of the correlations but map them out of the $1$D void. However, if we can find a wiring that distill nonlocality keeping the correlation in the $1$D quantum void then we can guarantee violation up to a PR-box.\n\nFor example, for the one-dimensional face associated with $L_7$, using the wiring described in table \\[1dvoid\\_strategies\\] we have that $B_0^0=PR$, $B_0^7=PR$, $B_7^0=PR$ and $B_7^7=L_7$. Thus, $$\\begin{aligned}\nW(p,p)=(1-(1-c_0)^2)PR + (1-c_0)^2L_7\\end{aligned}$$ Now, if we wire two boxes of the form $p_m=(1-(1-c_0)^{2^{m-1}})PR + (1-c_0)^{2^{m-1}} L_7$ we get:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nq=(1-(1-c_0)^{2^m})PR+(1-c_0)^{2^m}L_7\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSo we can use the principle of induction, to assure that, starting with a box $p=c_0PR+(1-c_0)L_7$, after $n$ interactions of wirings, we have the box $Q_n$: $$\\begin{aligned}\nq_n=(1-(1-c_0)^{2^n})PR + (1-c_0)^{2^n}L_7\\end{aligned}$$ From that, we have that $q_n\\rightarrow PR$ as $n\\rightarrow\\infty.$\n\nAll correlations in some $2$D quantum voids can be distilled to a PR-box\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nConsider a generic $2$D quantum void described by the distribution $$p=c_0 PR+ (1-c_0)\\left( c_{i}L_{i} +c_{j}L_{j} \\right) .$$ where we can order the coefficients as $c_i \\geq c_j$. By searching over the $3152$ wirings such that $B^0_0=PR$ we found that there is always at most one value of $i$ (for all $i$) such that $B^0_{i}=B_0^{i}=PR$. Furthermore, there always exist a wiring such that $B^0_{j}$ and $B_0^j$ are mapped to a distribution of the form , that is, the condition becomes a sufficient condition for distillation. Thus, choosing a wiring such that $\\tilde{c}_2=c_i$ we always will distill the nonlocality of the distribution, unless $\\tilde{c_0}=c_j$ and $c_i=c_j$ (that is, we are at the isotropic line defined by the non-signalling facet). If $c_i=c_j$ we have to guarantee that $\\tilde{c_0}=0$, what only happen at a subset of $2$D quantum voids given by the sets consisting of the following pairs of local points: $(L_1L_2)$, $(L_1L_3)$, $(L_1L_5)$, $(L_2L_4)$, $(L_2L_6)$, $(L_3L_4)$, $(L_3L_8)$, $(L_4L_7)$, $(L_5L_6)$, $(L_5L_7)$, $(L_6L_8)$ and $(L_7L_8)$. All the other $2$D quantum voids are distillable but not at the isotropic line (see Fig. \\[2d\\_voids\\_distillable\\]).\n\n![Schematic representation of the $2$D quantum voids that are distillable up to a PR-box. If there exists one edge between two local vertices, then this set is completely distillable and there is at least one single strategy that can distill the entire void. For instance, the set $\\{PR,L_1,L_2\\}$ is completely distillable, however the set $\\{PR,L_1, L_7\\}$ is not.[]{data-label=\"2d_voids_distillable\"}](2Ddistillable.pdf)\n\nAs a matter of fact, not only all these $2$D quantum voids are fully distillable but can as well be distilled up to a PR-box. In Table \\[2dvoid\\_strategies\\] we show the example of a wiring strategy for each $2$D quantum void that being applied iteratively can bring any nonlocal correlation up to the PR-box.\n\n$\\begin{array}{ |c|c|c|c|c|} \n \\hline\n  L_iL_{j} & x=0 & x=1 & y=0 & y=1 \\\\ \n \\hline\nL_1L_2 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\\\\n L_1L_3 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} \\\\\nL_1L_5 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\\\\nL_2L_4& \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} \\\\\nL_2L_6 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,0,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,1} \\\\\nL_3L_4 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} \\\\\nL_3L_8 & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} \\\\\n L_4L_7& \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,1} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,1,1} & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,1} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} \\\\\nL_5L_6 & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,1} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{1,1,0} \\\\\nL_5L_7 & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,1,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,1,1,0} \\\\\nL_6L_8 & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,0,0,1,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} \\\\\nL_7L_8 & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} & \\chi ^X{}_{0,0,0} & \\chi ^S{}_{0,1,1,1,0} \\\\ \n\\hline\n\\end{array}$\n\nTo illustrate (see Fig. \\[flow\\_map\\]) that we choose the two-dimension face given by the local points $L_7$ and $L_8$ and employ the wiring presented in table \\[2dvoid\\_strategies\\] (which is the same as the example shown for the one-dimensional scenario). In this case we have $B_0^0=B_0^7=B_7^0=B_0^8=PR$, $B_7^7=B_8^8=L_7$, $B_8^7=B_7^8=L_8$, and $B_8^0=\\frac{1}{2}(L_7+L_8)$.\n\nGiven a box $p=c_{0}^{(0)} PR + c_7^{(0)}L_7+c_8^{(0)}L_8$, let $c_0^{(n)}$, $c_7^{(n)}$, and $c_8^{(n)}$ be the coefficients of $PR$, $L_7$, and $L_8$ respectively, after applying $n$ wirings. We have that the output $Q_n$ of the $n$-th wiring is: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nonumber\n& & q_n=\\left[2-c_0^{(n-1)}-c_8^{(n-1)}\\right]c_0^{(n-1)}PR+ \\\\  \\nonumber\n& & \\frac{1}{2}\\left[c^{(n-1)}_0c^{(n-1)}_8+ 2\\left(c_7^{(n-1)}\\right)^{2}+2\\left(c_8^{(n-1)}\\right)^{2}\\right]L_7+ \\\\ \\nonumber\n& & \\frac{1}{2}\\left[c_0^{(n-1)}+4c_7^{(n-1)}\\right]c_8^{(n-1)}L_8.\\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $c_0^{(n)}>c_0^{(n-1)}$ for all values of $c_8^{(n-1)}\\neq 1$ and $c_0^{(n-1)}\\neq 1$, and $\\frac{c_0^{(n)}}{c_0^{(n-1)}}=2-c_0^{(n-1)}-c_8^{(n-1)}\\rightarrow1$ only when $c_0^{(n-1)}\\rightarrow 1$ or $c_8^{(n-1)}\\rightarrow 1$, the last one cannot happen by hypothesis. Hence $c_0$ increases monotonically with $n$ implying that $q_n\\rightarrow PR$ as $n\\rightarrow\\infty$.\n\n![Flow map for the distillation in the $2$D quantum void $\\{PR,L_1,L_3\\}$. By applying successively the wiring strategy shown in Table \\[1dvoid\\_strategies\\] any point in this set is distilled to PR-box. Interestingly, the flow map shows that the wiring always moves the points up to the isotropic line (dashed red line) and then go up to the PR-box following that line. The dark region shows the region of correlations that do not violate Uffink\u2019s inequality (but do so after the distillation protocol). As well, it follows that all correlations in this void trivialize communication complexity.[]{data-label=\"flow_map\"}](2D_L1L3_flow_map_uffink.pdf)\n\nSome $3$D quantum voids are fully distillable\n---------------------------------------------\n\nConsider a generic $3$D quantum void described by the distribution $$p=c_0 PR+ (1-c_0)\\left( c_{i}L_{i} +c_{j}L_{j}  +c_{k}L_{k} \\right) .$$ where we can order the coefficients as $c_i \\geq c_j \\geq c_k$. Considering the $3152$ wirings such that $B^0_0=PR$ we have that there is at most one value of $i$ such that $B^0_{i}=B_0^{i}=PR$. The best one can do is to choose a wiring such that $\\tilde{c}_2= c_i$. To have distillation in whole $3$D void we should have $\\tilde{c}_1= c_j+c_k$ thus implying that $\\tilde{c}_0= 0$. However, this is achieved only for a subset of the possible $3$D voids given by $(L_1L_2L_3)$, $(L_1L_2L_4)$, $(L_1L_2L_5)$, $(L_1L_2L_6)$, $(L_1L_3L_4)$, $(L_1L_5L_6)$, $(L_2L_3L_4)$, $(L_2L_5L_6)$, $(L_3L_4L_7)$, $(L_3L_4L_8)$, $(L_3L_7L_8)$, $(L_4L_7L_8)$, $(L_5L_6L_7)$, $(L_5L_6L_8)$, $(L_5L_7L_8)$ and $(L_6L_7L_8)$. For all other cases it follows that $\\tilde{c}_2= c_i$, $\\tilde{c}_1= c_j$ thus implying that $\\tilde{c}_0= c_k$, case in which the necessary condition implies that at least the isotropic line where $c_i=c_j=c_k=1/3$ will not be distillable.\n\nA natural question is then whether distillable $3$D voids can all be distilled up to a PR-box. As mentioned before, a sufficient condition to achieve that is that the wiring maps the $3$D void to the same $3$D void. However, by searching over the $3152$ wirings we could not find any with this property. It could be, however, that searching over all wirings (not necessarily maping the $3$D void to another $3$D void) or considering a distillation protocols based on a higher number of copies would achieve that.\n\nNo non-signalling face of dimension $4$ or higher is fully distillable\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe argument given above showing that not every $3$D quantum void can be fully distilled can also be extended to non-signalling faces of dimension $4$ or higher. Consider the isotropic line of a $4$-dimensional NS face $$p=c_0 PR+ (1-c_0)/4\\left(L_{i} +L_{j}  +L_{k}+L_{m} \\right) ,$$ where the $4$ coefficients of the local part are the same and equal to $c_i=1/4$. The necessary criterion for distillation implies that $\\tilde{c}_2 > \\tilde{c}_0$. However, by restricting to the wirings such that $B^0_0=PR$ and making $\\tilde{c}_2=c_i$, the best we can have for this scenario is $\\tilde{c}_1 = c_j + c_k$, so necessarily $\\tilde{c}_0=c_m$. That is, there is no wiring satisfying the necessary condition for distillation. Clearly, the argument extends to dimensions higher than $4$, thus showing that in any non-signalling face with dimension $4$ or more, at least the isotropic line of that face will not be entirely distillable.\n\nInterestingly, the set $Q^{1}$ (the first level of the NPA hierarchy) can successfully reproduce some of the $4$D voids. At the same time, to our knowledge, there is no known closed set of correlations between $Q^{1}$ and NS-polytope, which may be an indication that the voids reproduced by $Q^{1}$ may be asymptotically distillable to the PR-box, if more than two copies are considered in the distillation protocol. However, for five dimensions and beyond, no asymptotic distillation to PR-box will be possible for all correlation in the quantum void. This follows from the fact that in these cases there is always a gap between the set of quantum correlations and $Q^{1}$.\n\nnonlocality distillation and trivial communication complexity {#sec:CC}\n=============================================================\n\nAmong the several principles introduced to try to explain why correlations beyond quantum mechanics are unlikely we have the so called non-trivial communication complexity. The basic setup involves two distant parties which locally receive bit strings $\\vec{x}$ and $\\vec{y}$ respectively and by exchanging a limited amount of information should compute function $f(\\vec{x},\\vec{y})$ depending on both bit strings. It seems natural that the amount of communication required should increase with the size of the bit strings. Quantum theory is compatible with that but, as shown by Van Dam [@van2013implausible], PR-boxes can make such communication complexity trivial, since their use with a single bit of exchanged information is enough to make such nonlocal computations. Later on, this result has been extended to show that any correlation achieving the value of $\\mathrm{CHSH} \\geq 4\\sqrt{2/3} \\approx 3.266$ would also trivialize communication complexity [@PhysRevLett.96.250401].\n\nAfterwards, by considering nonlocality distillation it has been shown that postquantum correlations arbitrarily close to the local set also can trivialize communication complexity [@brunner]. Considering the isotropic line of a $2$D quantum void given by $$c_0PR+(1-c_0)/2(L_7+L_8),$$ it has been shown in [@PhysRevLett.96.250401] a wiring protocol capable of distilling this distribution (after asymptotically many iterations) to a PR-box. Since a PR-box violates makes communication complexity trivial, so does this correlation. The results presented in the previous section, can thus be seen as a generalization of that. As we showed, not only the isotropic line of some $2$D quantum voids but the whole quantum void can be distilled to a PR-box, thus showing their incompatibility with the principle of non-trivial communication complexity.\n\nTightening Information Causality with nonlocality distillation {#sec:IC}\n==============================================================\n\nAnother information-theoretical principle that has attracted considerable interest is information causality [@pawlowski2009information]. As in the communication complexity scenario, we have two distant parties, Alice and Bob. Alice receives a N-bit string $\\vec{x} = (x_1,x_2, . . . ,x_{N})$, can send a M bits of information to Bob (where $M<N$, that is, there is bounded communication) in a message $m$ and Bob is asked to make a guess $\\beta_i$ of Alice\u2019s $i$-th bit. The information causality principle basically states that $\\sum_{i=1}^{N} I (x_i : \\beta_i )\\leq H(M)$ ($H(M)$ being the Shannon entropy of the message and $I (x_i : \\beta_i )$ the mutual information between Alice\u2019s input and Bob\u2019s guess). In other terms, the total potential information about Alice\u2019s bit string that is accessible to Bob cannot exceed the amount of information contained in the message. Quantum correlations are in accordance with information causality but the PR-box can be shown to violate it. This can be witnessed by the violation of the Uffink\u2019s inequality, a necessary condition for a given correlation to respect information causality and given by [@PhysRevLett.88.230406] $$(E_{00}+ E_{10})^2 +(E_{01}- E_{11})^2 \\leq 4  \n\\label{ufink}$$\n\nInterestingly, it is known that the set of correlations defined by Uffink\u2019s inequality is convex but it is not closed under wirings [@PhysRevA.80.062107]. That is, some correlations which do not violate Uffink\u2019s inequality can do so by nonlocality distillation [@PhysRevA.80.062107]. For instance, in [@PhysRevA.80.062107] this has been shown by considering a specific section of the non-signalling polytope and over a very small region of it. Our results can be used to extend that. As shown in [@PhysRevA.99.032106], some correlations of the $2$D quantum voids do not violate Uffink\u2019s inequality (see Fig.\u00a0\\[flow\\_map\\]). From $28$ $2$D-voids, $16$ of them has some correlations that do not violate Uffink\u2019s inequality which are: $(L_1L_3)$, $(L_1L_4)$, $(L_1L_7)$, $(L_1L_8)$, $(L_2L_3)$, $(L_2L_4)$, $(L_2L_7)$, $(L_2L_8)$, $(L_3L_5)$, $(L_3L_6)$, $(L_4L_5)$, $(L_4L_6)$, $(L_5L_7)$, $(L_5L_8)$, $(L_6L_7)$ and $(L_6L_8)$. From these $16$ sets, $4$ of them are distillable up to a PR-box, which are: $(L_1L_3)$, $(L_2L_4)$, $(L_5L_7)$ and $(L_6L_8)$. That is, by nonlocality distillation one can prove that all the correlations in these $2$D quantum voids indeed violate information causality.\n\nDiscussion {#sec:discussion}\n==========\n\nIn this paper we have derived a necessary condition for the nonlocality distillation of correlations in the CHSH scenario. By considering quantum voids \u2013faces of the non-signalling set \u2013 we have used this criterion to prove that all $1$D and some $2$D quantum voids can be distilled up to a the maximal nonlocal correlation, a PR-box. Also, we have proven that some $3$D quantum voids are fully distillable, that is, all correlations can have its nonlocality increased by wirings. However, we could not find any wirings capable of distilling correlation in $3$D void up to a PR-box, something that remains as an interesting open question. For quantum voids of dimension four or higher that is no longer possible, as the isotropic line in these voids is not distillable (at least with two copies). Interestingly, for $4D$ quantum voids and beyond, the isotropic line of these sets (defined by summing the local deterministic strategies with equal coefficients) cannot be distilled with two copies. A similar result has been proven also in the limit of infinitely many copies [@beigi2015monotone] for the so called isotropic-box and that can be understood as a particular case of the isotropic lines we consider here.\n\nBuilding up on these results, we show the relevance of nonlocality distillation on the understanding of information-theoretical principles for quantum theory. First, we provide a generalization of the results in [@brunner], showing that a large class of postquantum correlations (in $1$D and $2$D quantum voids) can make communication complexity trivial. Finally, we have shown how a distillation protocol can help understanding the set of correlations compatible with the information causality principle. More precisely, $2$D quantum void correlations that do not violate a necessary condition to respect information causality can do so after a distillation protocol. In view of all that, it would be interesting to analyze further the use of distillation protocols and in particular correlations in quantum voids to understand and characterize closed sets under wirings, in particular considering multipartite scenarios [@fritz2013local; @PhysRevLett.107.210403; @Chaves2017causalhierarchyof] to which very few principles have been introduced so far.\n\nWe acknowledge support from the Brazilian ministries MCTIC, MEC, and the CNPq (PQ Grant No. 307172$/$2017-1 and INCT-IQ and PDJ grant No. 154354$/$2018-0), the Serrapilheira Institute (Grant No. Serra-1708-15763), and from John Templeton Foundation via Grant Q-CAUSAL No. 61084.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    Stock market prediction is one of the most attractive research topic since the successful prediction on the market\u2019s future movement leads to significant profit. Traditional short term stock market predictions are usually based on the analysis of historical market data, such as stock prices, moving averages or daily returns. However, financial news also contains useful information on public companies and the market.\n\n    Existing methods in finance literature exploit sentiment signal features, which are limited by not considering factors such as events and the news context. We address this issue by leveraging deep neural models to extract rich semantic features from news text. In particular, a Bidirectional-LSTM are used to encode the news text and capture the context information, self attention mechanism are applied to distribute attention on most relative words, news and days. In terms of predicting directional changes in both Standard & Poor\u2019s 500 index and individual companies stock price, we show that this technique is competitive with other state-of-the-art approaches, demonstrating the effectiveness of recent NLP technology advances for computational finance.\naddress: |\n    Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\\\n    Queen\u2019s University, Canada\\\n    Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 2N8\nauthor:\n- Huicheng Liu\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\ntitle: 'Leveraging Financial News for Stock Trend Prediction with Attention-Based Recurrent Neural Network'\n---\n\nRecurrent Neural Network,Stock Prediction,Attention Mechanism,S&P 500\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nStock market prediction is the act of trying to determine the future value of a company stock\u00a0[@malkiel1985random]. Apparently, the successful prediction of a stock\u2019s future price can yield significant profit, making the prediction problem an area of strong appeal for both academic researchers and industry practitioners. However, Stock market prediction is usually considered as one of the most challenging issues among time series predictions due to its noise and volatile features\u00a0[@wang2012novel]. During the past decades, machine learning models, such as Support Vector Regression (SVR)\u00a0[@basak2007support] and Support Vector Machines(SVM)\u00a0[@hearst1998support], have been widely used to predict financial time series and gain high predictive accuracy \u00a0[@refenes1994stock; @das2012support; @lu2009financial].\n\nHow to accurately predict stock movement is still an open question with respect to the economic and social organization of modern society. The well-known efficient-market hypothesis (EMH)\u00a0[@malkiel2003efficient] suggests that stock prices reflect all currently available information and any price changes based on the newly revealed relevant information. However, due to the implicit correlations between daily events and their effect on the stock prices, finding relevant information that contribute to the change of price for each individual stock are difficult. Besides, the influences of events to stock prices can occur in indirect ways and act in chain reactions, which sets obstacles for precise market prediction. There are three approaches related to the information required to make a prediction. The first approach, technical analysis, is based on the premise that the future behavior of a financial time series is conditioned to its own past. Secondly, fundamental analysis, is based on external information as political and economic factors. A major source of information are text from the internet, these information are taken from unstructured data as news articles, financial reports or even microblogs. Nofsinger et al\u00a0[@nofsinger2001impact] shows that in some cases, investors tend to buy after positive news resulting in a stress of buying and higher stock prices, they sell after negative news resulting in a decrease of prices. Finally the third approach considers as all relevant information coming from both, financial time series and textual data.\n\nIn this work, our goal is to leverage public released financial news and train a model named Attention-based LSTM (At-LSTM) to make prediction on directional changes for both Standard & Poor\u2019s 500 index and individual companies stock price. Our model consists a Recurrent Neural network(RNN) to encode the news text and capture the context information, self attention mechanism is applied to distribute attention on most relative words, news and days . The model input are financial news titles extracted from Reuters and Bloomberg. Our model take advantages from the rapid development of deep neural networks and we show that our model is competitive with other state-of-the-art approaches, demonstrating the effectiveness of recent NLP technology advances for computational finance.\n\nThe rest of the paper are organized as follows. We introduce related work in Section 2. Followed by, we present some background and the methodologies for our proposed prediction model in Section 3. Experimental setup and results are demonstrated in Section 4. The paper finally concludes and point out future directions in Section 5.\n\nRelated work\n============\n\nStock market prediction is an intriguing time-series learning problem in finance and economics, which has attracted a considerable amount of research. Efforts on predicting stock market have been carried out based on different resources and approaches. For example, one of the most widely studied approach relies on analyzing recent prices and volumes on the market\u00a0[@schoneburg1990stock; @akgiray1989conditional; @goccken2016integrating; @adebiyi2014comparison; @kim2012simultaneous].\n\nAnalyzing stock market using relevant text is complicated but intriguing\u00a0[@wu2009stock; @xie2013semantic; @ding2014using; @ding2015deep; @ding2016knowledge; @chang2016measuring; @peng2015leverage; @luss2015predicting; @skuza2015sentiment; @sehgal2007sops]. For instance, a model with the name Enalyst was introduced in Lavrenko et al. Their goal is to predict stock intraday price trends by analyzing news articles published in the homepage of YAHOO finance. Mittermayer and Knolmayer implemented several prototypes for predicting the short-term market reaction to news based on text mining techniques. Their model forecast 1-day trend of the five major companies indices. Wu et al.\u00a0[@wu2009stock] predicted stock trends by selecting a representative set of bursty features (keywords) that have impact on individual stocks. Vivek Sehgal et al.\u00a0[@sehgal2007sops] introduced a method to predict stock market using sentiment. Similarly, Micha\u0142 Skuza et al.\u00a0[@skuza2015sentiment] used sentiment from postings on twitter to predict future stock prices. However, these methods have many limitations including unveiling the rules that may govern the dynamics of the market which makes the prediction model incapable to catch the impact of recent trends.\n\nMore recently, neural networks have been leveraged to further improve the accuracy of prediction. In general, neural networks are able to learn dense representations of text, which have been shown to be effective on a wide range of NLP problems, given enough training sample. This is the case in stock market prediction where the prices of stocks are available together with a great collection of relevant text data. This provides a good setting for exploring deep learning-based models for stock price prediction. More specifically, dense representations can represent related sentiment, events, and factual information effectively, which can then be extremely challenging to represent using sparse indicator features.\n\nAdvance of deep learning models has inspired increasing efforts on stock market prediction by analyzing stock-related text. For example, Ding et al.\u00a0[@ding2015deep] showed that deep learning representation of event structures yields better accuracy compared to discrete event features. They further augmented their approach \u00a0[@ding2016knowledge] to incorporating an outside knowledge graph into the learning process for event embedding. As another example, Chang et al.\u00a0[@chang2016measuring] used neural networks to directly learn representations for news abstracts, showing that it is effective for predicting the cumulative abnormal returns of public companies. Other work,e.g.,\u00a0[@kim2012simultaneous; @goccken2016integrating; @adebiyi2014comparison], has proposed different models of neural network that improve the prediction accuracy.\n\nMethodology\n===========\n\nIn this section, we first introduce some relative background on our prediction models. Followed by, we introduce the design of our proposed model to predict the directional movements of Standard & Poor\u2019s 500 index and individual companies stock price using financial news titles. The model is named as Attention-based LSTM (At-LSTM) and shown in Fig\u00a0\\[fig:traditional-convolutional-network\\].\n\nBackground\n----------\n\n### Bag of Words Model and Word Embedding\n\nThe Bag-of-Words model is a simplifying representation often used in Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval\u00a0[@Bag]. Also known as the vector space model. In this model, a text (such as a sentence or a document) is represented as a bag of its words, disregarding grammar and even word order but keeping multiplicity. The bag-of-words model is commonly used in document classification where the occurrence of each word represents a feature for training a classifier.\n\nWord Embedding is the collective name for a set of language modeling and feature learning techniques in Natural Language Processing (NLP) where words or phrases from the vocabulary are mapped to vectors of real numbers\u00a0[@Word]. Conceptually it involves a mathematical embedding from a space with one dimension per word to a continuous vector space with much lower dimension. Neural networks can be used to generate this mapping and the most common algorithm used are continuous bag of words(CBOW) and skip-gram algorithm\u00a0[@mikolov2013efficient].\n\nWord and phrase embeddings, when used as the underlying input representation, have been shown to boost the performance in NLP tasks such as syntactic parsing and sentiment analysis.\n\n### Convolutional Neural Network\n\nAs shown in figure\u00a0\\[fig:traditional-convolutional-network\\], Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is a class of deep, feed-forward artificial neural networks that has successfully been applied to analyzing visual imagery and NLP related tasks. Same as neural network, CNN are made up of neurons that have learnable weights and biases. Each neuron receives some inputs, performs a dot product and optionally follows it with a non-linearity. A Convolutional layer is composed by four consecutive operations: Convolution, subsampling(pooling), activation and dropout. The convolution layer can help select features so that CNN requires minimal pre-processing compared to other deep learning models. The core part of the Convolutional neural network is the convolution filter.\n\nConvolution filters leverage two important ideas that can help improve a machine learning system: sparse interaction and parameter sharing. Sparse interaction contrasts with traditional neural networks where each output is interactive with each input. As a result, the output is only interactive with a narrow window of the input. Parameter sharing refers to reusing the filter parameters in the convolution operations, while the element in the weight matrix of traditional neural networks are used only once to calculate the output.\n\n### Long-Short Term Memory\n\nLong Short Term Memory (LSTM) networks are a special kind of RNN, proposed by Hochreiter in 1997\u00a0[@hochreiter1997long]. LSTM units are a building unit for layers of a Recurrent Neural Network(RNN)\u00a0[@LSTM]. A RNN composed of LSTM units are often called an LSTM network. LSTM are explicitly designed to avoid the long-term dependency problem. A common LSTM unit is composed of a cell, an input gate, an output gate and a forget gate. The cell is responsible for \u201cremembering\u201d values over arbitrary time intervals; hence LSTM is capable of learning long-term dependencies.\n\n(ct) [$c_t$]{}; (int1) ; (x1) [$\\times$]{}; (ht) [$h_t$]{}; (x2) [$\\times$]{}; (int2) ; (x3) [$\\times$]{}; (ft) [$f_t$]{}; (it) [$i_t$]{}; (ot) [$o_t$]{};\n\ni/in [int2/x2, x2/ct, ct/int1, int1/x1, x1/ht, it/x2, ct/it, ct/ot, ot/x1, ft/x3]{} (i)\u2013();\n\n(ct) to\\[bend right=45\\] (ft);\n\n(ct) to\\[bend right=30\\] (x3); (x3) to\\[bend right=30\\] (ct);\n\n(fit) ;\n\n(fit.west|-int2) coordinate (aux)\u2013++(180:7mm) node\\[left\\][$x_t$]{}; (\\[yshift=1mm\\]aux)\u2013++(135:7mm); (\\[yshift=-1mm\\]aux)\u2013++(-135:7mm);\n\n(fit.north-|it) coordinate (aux)\u2013++(90:7mm) node\\[above\\][$x_t$]{}; (\\[xshift=1mm\\]aux)\u2013++(45:7mm); (\\[xshift=-1mm\\]aux)\u2013++(135:7mm);\n\n(fit.north-|ot) coordinate (aux)\u2013++(90:7mm) node\\[above\\][$x_t$]{}; (\\[xshift=1mm\\]aux)\u2013++(45:7mm); (\\[xshift=-1mm\\]aux)\u2013++(135:7mm);\n\n(fit.south-|ft) coordinate (aux)\u2013++(-90:7mm) node\\[below\\][$x_t$]{}; (\\[xshift=1mm\\]aux)\u2013++(-45:7mm); (\\[xshift=-1mm\\]aux)\u2013++(-135:7mm);\n\nThe expression long-short term refers to the fact that LSTM is a model for the short-term memory which can last for a long period of time. An LSTM is well-suited to classify, process and predict time series given time lags of unknown size and duration between important events. Besides, LSTM shows the promising result in sentence encoding in many NLP applications \u00a0[@sutskever2014sequence; @gers2002learning]. The LSTM archticture are shown in figure\u00a0\\[fig:traditional LSTM neural network\\], the computations of LSTM cells are:\n\n[1.0]{} $$\\begin{aligned}\n    f_t = \\sigma(W_f[h_{t-1},x_t] + b_f)\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n     i_t = \\sigma(W_i[h_{t-1},x_t] + b_i)\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\tilde{C}_t = tanh(W_C[h_{t-1}, x_t] + b_C)\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    C_t = f_t \\otimes C_{t-1} + i_t \\otimes \\tilde{C}_t\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n     o_t = \\sigma(W_o[h_{t-1},x_t] + b_o)\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    h_t = o_t \\otimes tanh(C_t)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe forget gate is described in Equation (1) and is used to decide whether a value should be reserved. The Input gate in Equation (2) is used to control which values should be updated through a certain time step. Here, a new value $\\tilde{C}_t$ is created as per Equation (3) using the $tanh$ function. Next, with Equation (4), the cell state will be updated from $C_{t-1}$ to $C_t$, $f_t$ and $i_t$ are used here to decide whether an information should be discarded. in Equation (5), an output gate is used to filter out redundant values. The final output is calculated by Equation (6). $W$ is the weight matrix and $b$ refers to the bias.\n\n### Optimization Algorithm and Loss Function\n\nIn this section, we will briefly introduce the Optimization algorithm and loss function we used in our prediction model.\n\n-   ***Adadelta Optimization Algorithm***: Apart from Stochastic Gradient Descent, Adaptive Gradient Algorithm or the famous Adam algorithm\u00a0[@kingma2014adam], we chose Adadelta\u00a0[@zeiler2012adadelta] as our optimization algorithm. Adadelta is an optimization algorithm that can be used to update network weights iterative based on training data. Adadelta combines the advantages of two other extensions of stochastic gradient descent, Adaptive Gradient Algorithm and Root Mean Square Propagation Algorithm. The method dynamically adapts over time using only first order information and has minimal computational overhead beyond vanilla Stochastic Gradient Descent\u00a0[@zeiler2012adadelta]. The method requires no manual tuning of a learning rate and appears robust to noisy gradient information, different model architecture choices, various data modalities and selection of hyperparameters.\n\n-   ***Cross Entropy Loss***: In information theory, the cross entropy between two probability distributions $p$ and $q$ over the same underlying set of events measures the average number of bits needed to identify an event drawn from the set\u00a0[@Cross]. Cross entropy is the most suitable loss function since we want to measure the output from our prediction model with it\u2019s true output. A binary cross entropy loss formula are shown in Equation (7). In which, $J(w)$ refers to the loss, $N$ refers to the number of examples, $y_n$ is the expected output and $\\tilde{y}_n$ is true output. We use this formula as our loss function in the model. $$\\begin{aligned}\n        J(w)=-\\frac{1}{N}H(p_n,q_n)=-\\frac{1}{N}\\displaystyle\\sum_{i=1}^{N} [y_n*\\log\\tilde{y}_n+(1-y_n)*\\log(1-\\tilde{y}_n)]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nModel design\n------------\n\nIn this subsection, we introduce the design of our Attention-based LSTM model (At-LSTM). The design has four stages: Input and Embedding layer, news-level Bi-LSTM and self-attention layer, day-level Bi-LSTM and self-attention layer and the final output and prediction layer. These stages will be described below and shown in figure \u00a0\\[fig:model\\].\n\n![\\[fig:model\\]Model Structure](Model.png){width=\"100.00000%\" height=\"3.5in\"}\n\n### Input and Embedding Layer\n\n***Model Input***: The same world event can be described in different expression ways. This variety makes the representation space for events very sparse. Several approaches\u00a0[@ding2015deep; @ding2016knowledge] represent the event as tuple $< S; V; O >$ to gain generalization. However, we argue that this representation is oversimplified and might lose lots of valuable information. Instead, we use the entire news title content as our models input and use LSTM-based encoder to encode it to a distributional representation to tackle with sparsity problem.\\\n***Word and Character Embedding***: For each input news, we remove the punctuation and then use a word embedding layer to calculate the embedded vectors for each word. The embedding layer takes a sequence of sentences as input, this sequence corresponds to a set of titles of news articles. These embedding are unique vectors of continuous values with length $w = (w_1,...,w_l)$ and $w_i\\in R^{m}$ for each word in the training corpus, $m$ is the word level embedding dimension.\n\nExisting pre-trained word embedding such as Glove\u00a0[@pennington2014glove] and Word2Vec\u00a0[@mikolov2013efficient] typically comes from general domains( Google News or Wikipedia, etc). However, these word embeddings often fail to capture rich domain specific vocabularies. We therefore train our own word embedding with financial domain news text consisting of news articles from Reuters an Bloomberg. The data are further described in Section 4.\n\nIn addition, we leverage character composition from Chen et al.\u00a0[@chen2017recurrent] and concatenate the character level composition with the original word embedding to gain rich represent for each word. The character composition feeds all characters of each word into a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) with max-pooling\u00a0[@kim2014convolutional] to obtain representations $c = (c_1,...,c_l)$ and $c_n\\in R^{n}$ for each word in the training corpus, $n$ is the character composition dimension. Finally, each word is represented as a concatenation of word-level embedding and character-composition vector $e_i = [w_i;c_i]$. A matrices $e^s\\in R^{k*(m+n)}$ can be used to represent a news after the embedding layer, where $k$ is the length of the news.\n\n### News Level Bi-LSTM and Self-Attention Layer\n\n***Bi-LSTM Encoding***: After the embedding layer, we fed the words and their context in the news title into a Bi-LSTM based sentence encoder to perform distributional representation. Bidirectional LSTM (Bi-LSTM) is a variant of LSTM which shows better result then uni-direction LSTM in recent NLP tasks as they can understand context better. A bidirectional LSTM runs a forward and backward LSTM on a sequence starting from the left and the right end, respectively\u00a0[@chen2017recurrent]. In this case, Bi-LSTM can not only preserve information from the past, but also catch the information from the future. We obtain the hidden vectors($\\overrightarrow{h_i}$ and $\\overleftarrow{h_i}$ shown in Equation (8) and (9)) from the sentence encoders and concatenate them to $H^t=[\\overrightarrow{h_1};\\overleftarrow{h_1},....,\\overrightarrow{h_m};\\overleftarrow{h_m}]$, $H_i^t\\in R^{2u}$ represents the $ith$ news title after encoding in date $t$ and $m$ refers to the sequence number.\n\n[1.0]{} $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\overrightarrow{h_n} = \\overrightarrow{LSTM}(e^s)\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\overleftarrow{h_n} = \\overleftarrow{LSTM}(e^s)\\end{aligned}$$\n\n***Word level Self-attention layer***: Instead of taking the average of the hidden vector after the sentence encoding, we leverage multi-hop self-attention mechanism\u00a0[@lin2017structured] on top of the Bi-LSTM layer. The attention mechanism takes the whole LSTM hidden states $H^t_i$ as input, and outputs a vector of weights $A$:\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    A = softmax(W_2tanh(W_1H_i^{t\\intercal}))\\end{aligned}$$\n\nShown in figure\u00a0\\[fig:attention\\], here $W_1$ is a weight matrix with a shape of $W_1\\in R^{d_a*2u}$ which u refers to the hidden unit of the news level Bi-LSTM. and $W_2$ is a vector of parameters with size $W_2\\in R^{r*d_a}$, $d_a$ and $r$ are hyper parameter that can be set arbitrarily. $H_i^t$ are sized $H_i^t\\in R^{n*2u}$, and the annotation vector $A$ will have a size $A\\in R^{r*n}$, the $softmax()$ ensures all the computed weights sum up to 1. Then we sum up the LSTM hidden states $H_i^t$ according to the weight provided by $A$ to get a vector representation $N_i^t$ for the input sentence. We can deem Equation (10) as a 2-layer MLP without bias, whose hidden units numbers are $d_a$ and parameters are ${W_1,W_2}$. We compute the $r$ weighted sums by multiplying the annotation matrix $A$ and LSTM hidden states $H_i^t$:\n\n![\\[fig:attention\\]Self attention mechanism](attention.PNG){width=\"100.00000%\" height=\"4.0in\"}\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    N_i^t = AH_i^t\\end{aligned}$$\n\nEventually, the sentence encoding vector $H_i^t$ then becomes a matrix $N_i^t\\in R^{r*2u}$ and we use $N_i^t$ to represent the $ith$ news title in date $t$ after encoding. By using multi-hop attention mechanism, the vector representation usually focuses on a specific component of the sentence, like a special set of related words or phrases. Therefore, it is expected to reflect an aspect, or component of the semantics in a sentence instead of adding attention on a specific word.\n\nShown in equation (12), we apply another MLP layer on top of our self-attention layer to learn which attention group should be rewarded with the highest assign value. We name this as attention-over-attention, the weight matrix have a shape of $W_3\\in R^r$, and the final representation of the sentence encoding vector $N_i^t$ are shaped as $N_i^t\\in R^{2u}$. At last, we use $N_i^t$to represent a news title encoded from the input.\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n    N_i^t = tanh(W_3N_i^t+b_1)\\end{aligned}$$\n\n***News level Self-attention layer***: Not all news contributes equally to predicting the stock trend. Hence, in order to reward the news that offers critical information, we apply the same structure multi-hop self-attention on top of the encoding layer to aggregate the news weighted by an assigned attention value. Specifically:\n\n[1.0]{} $$\\begin{aligned}\n    A = softmax(W_5tanh(W_4N^{t\\intercal}))\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n   D_t = AN^t\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    D_t = tanh(W_6D_t+b_2)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHere, $N^t=(N_1^t,....,N_m^t)$ and $N^t\\in R^{m*2u}$, in which $m$ refers to the number of news in date $t$. Note that the weights $[{W_4,W_5,W_6,b_2}]$ in the news level attention layer are different from the word level attention layer weight $[{W_1,W_2,W_3,b_1}]$. A vector $D_t$ represents the temporal sequence for all the news proposed in the date $t$. The merit of using multi-hop self-attention mechanism is that it learns and assign different groups of attention value to the news encoding. Formally, the first group of attention reward the news that contains positive sentiments to the stock market(\u201craise\u201d, \u201cgrowth\u201d or \u201cdecrease\u201d, \u201cdown\u201d etc). Whereas the second group of attention assign there reward to the news that mentions the major companies in the S&P 500 (\u201cMicrosoft\u201d,\u201cGoogle\u201d instead of a small company outside of the S&P 500).\n\nObviously, the attention layer can be trained end-to-end and thus gradually learn to assign more attention to the reliable and informative news based on its content.\n\n### Day level Bi-LSTM and self-attention layer\n\n[1.0]{} $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\overrightarrow{h_i} = \\overrightarrow{LSTM}(D_t)\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\overleftarrow{h_i} = \\overleftarrow{LSTM}(D_t)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe adopt day level Bi-LSTM to encode the temporal sequence of corpus vectors $D_i$, $t\\in [1,N]$. Shown in Equation (16) and (17), We obtain the hidden vectors($\\overrightarrow{h_i}$ and $\\overleftarrow{h_i}$) from the day-level Bi-LSTM and concatenate them to $H_i=[\\overrightarrow{h_1};\\overleftarrow{h_1},....,\\overrightarrow{h_N};\\overleftarrow{h_N}]$, $H_i$ represents a vector that encodes the temporal sequence $D_t$ where $N$ refers to the sequence number. Since the news published at different dates contribute to the stock trend unequally, we adopt self-attention mechanism again to reward the dates that contribute most to the stock trend prediction, Shown in Equation below:\n\n[1.0]{} $$\\begin{aligned}\n    A = softmax(W_8tanh(W_7H_i^\\intercal))\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    V = AD\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    V = tanh(W_9V+b_3)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn the formula, $D=(D_1,....,D_t)$ and $D\\in R^{N*2v}$ , $V\\in R^{2v}$ represents the final vector for all news proposed before the prediction date $t+1$ in a delay window with size $N$, where $v$ is the hidden unit number in the day level Bi-LSTM. Note that the weight matrix $[{W_7,W_8,W_9,b_3}]$ in the day level attention layer are different from the weight matrices mentioned in the previous section.\n\n### Output and Prediction Layer\n\nThe last stage of our At-LSTM model is a traditional fully connected layer with softmax as activation function whose output is the probability distribution over labels. In this work, the objective is to forecast the direction of daily price movements of the stock price, this direction are used to create a binary class label where a label \\[1,0\\] represents that the stock price will increase and label \\[0,1\\] represents that the stock price will decrease.\n\nExperiments\n===========\n\nExperimental Setup\n------------------\n\n### Data\n\nWe evaluated our model on a data set of financial news collected from Reuters and Bloomberg over the time period from October 2006 to November 2013. This data set was made publicly available by Ding et al.\u00a0[@ding2014using] and shown in table\u00a0\\[tab:Data set\\]. We further collected data from Reuters for 473 companies listed in the Standard & Poor\u2019s 500 over the time period started from November 2013 to march 2018. Meanwhile, the historical stock price data from October 2006 to March 2018 for all individual shares in Standard & Poor\u2019s 500 are collected from Yahoo Finance. The second part of the data are used for individual stock price prediction and shown in table \u00a0\\[tab:individual\\]. Due to the page limit, We only show the major companies listed in the S&P 500, this will also be applied in the result section.\n\n[ |p[3cm]{}||p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}| ]{}\\\nData set & Training & Development & Testing\\\nTime interval & 20/10/2006-27/06/2012 & 28/06/2012-13/03/2013& 14/03/2013-20/11/2013\\\nNews& 445,262 & 55,658 & 55,658\\\n\n[ |p[3cm]{}||p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}| ]{}\\\nCompany Symbol & Training news& Development news& Testing news\\\nGOOG & 5744 & 718 & 718\\\nAMZN & 3245 & 406 & 405\\\nCSCO & 2471 & 309 & 308\\\nMSFT & 4056 & 406 & 405\\\nAAPL & 9720 & 1215 & 1214\\\nINTC & 4355 & 545 & 544\\\nIBM & 2016 & 252 & 252\\\nAMD & 1224 & 153 & 153\\\nNVDA & 1440 & 168 & 167\\\nQCOM & 924 & 116 & 115\\\nWMT& 2793 & 350 & 349\\\nT& 1228 & 154 & 153\\\n\nFollowing Ding et al.\u00a0[@ding2014using] we focus on the news headlines instead of the full content of the news articles for prediction since they found it produced better results. We use news articles on each day and predict if the S&P 500 index closing price movement (increase or decrease) in the day $t+1$ compared with the closing price on day $t$.\n\n### Implementation Details\n\nAs mentioned in the previous section, We pre-trained 100 dimentional word embedding\u00a0[@mikolov2013efficient] with skip-gram algorithm on the data set shown in table\u00a0\\[tab:Data set\\], the size of the trained vocabulary is 153,214. In addition, firm names and an UNK token to represent any words out of the vocabulary are added to the vocabulary set, having an initial embedding initialized randomly with Gaussian samples. The word embedding are fine-tuned during model training. The character embedding has 15 dimensions, and CNN filters length are \\[1,3,5\\] respectively, each of those are 32 dimensions. The news level Bi-LSTM and day-level Bi-LSTM both have 300 hidden units, the day level LSTM window size $N$ has been set to 7. Hyper-parameters $d_a$ and $r$ in the self attention layer are set to 600 and 10, respectively. Mentioned in section 3, we use Adadelta for our optimization algorithm, the initial learning rate has been set to 0.04. Our model are trained for 200 Epoch.\n\nBase Lines and Proposed Model\n-----------------------------\n\nIn this subsection, we propose a few baselines to compare with our proposed model. For the sake of simplicity, the following notation identifies each model:\n\n-   ***SVM***: Luss and d\u2019Aspremont et al. \u00a0[@luss2015predicting] propose using Bags-of-Words to represent news documents, and constructed the prediction model using Support Vector Machines (SVMs).\n\n-   ***Bag-At-LSTM***: At-LSTM without sentence encoder. We take the average of the word embedding inputs instead of using Bi-LSTM to encode the news title.\n\n-   ***WEB-At-LSTM***: Same as our proposed model but without the character level composition.\n\n-   ***Ab-At-LSTM***: Instead of the news title, we use the news abstract as input for our model, the model structure remains the same.\n\n-   ***Doc-At-LSTM***: We further leverage a Hierarchical Attention Networks proposed by Yang et al.\u00a0[@yang2016hierarchical] to represent the entire news Document, this model adds a sentence level attention layer into our proposed model to differentiate more and less important content when constructing the document representation.\n\n-   ***Tech-At-LSTM***: We concatenate seven Technical indicator leveraged from Zhai et al.\u00a0[@zhai2007combining] shown in figure \u00a0\\[fig:tech\\] with the vector $V$ after the day level LSTM layer and fed together into the prediction layer.\n\n    ![\\[fig:tech\\]Self attention mechanism](tech.PNG){width=\"100.00000%\" height=\"3.0in\"}\n\n-   ***CNN-LSTM***: We use CNN instead of the news level self-attention layer. Note that the word and day level self-attention layer still remains the same. We want to see how well the self-attention layer works compared to CNN which is good at capturing local and semantic information from texts.\n\n-   ***E-NN***: Ding et al.\u00a0[@ding2014using] reported a system that uses structure event tuples input and standard neural network prediction model.\n\n-   ***EB-CNN***: Ding et al.\u00a0[@ding2015deep] proposed a model using event embedding input and Convolutional Neural Network as prediction model.\n\n-   ***KGEB-CNN***: Ding et al.\u00a0[@ding2016knowledge] further incorporated an outside knowledge graph into the learning process for event embedding. The model structure is the same as EB-CNN.\n\nResult and Discussion\n---------------------\n\nShown in table\u00a0\\[tab:Result\\], the results on the comparison between the models SVM and the rest of the models indicates that deep neural network model achieves better performance than the SVM model. Comparison between Bag-At-LSTM and At-LSTM demonstrates that sentence encoding with LSTM have slightly better result than Bag-of-words model. Furthermore, WEB-At-LSTM and At-LSTM indicates that the character level composition helps improved the models accuracy. The technical Indicator leveraged from Zhai et al.\u00a0[@zhai2007combining] doesn\u2019t show any performance improvement to our model. In contrast, it results in a decline on the accuracy and it might be caused by adding noise to the dense representation vector $V$ before the output and prediction layer. The comparison between CNN-LSTM and At-LSTM shows that the news level self-attention layer can help capture more relevant news titles and their temporal features. As Ding et al. concluded in\u00a0[@ding2014using], the news titles might contain more useful information where as the abstract or article might cause some negative effect to the model. The Ab-At-LSTM and Doc-At-LSTM confirmed this viewpoint since their accuracy are lower than the proposed model that only used the information from the title.\n\nOur proposed model has a 65.53% max accuracy and a average accuracy of 63.06% which is lower than the KGEB-CNN proposed by Ding et al., this is likely due to Knowledge graph event embedding (KGEB) is a more powerful method for model the content in news titles than the sequence embedding shown in this work.\n\n[|p[3cm]{}||p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|]{}\\\nModel & Average Accuracy & Max Accuracy\\\nSVM & 56.38% & \u2013\\\nBag-At-LSTM & 61.93% & 63.06%\\\nWEB-At-LSTM & 62.51% & 64.42%\\\nAb-At-LSTM & 60.6% & 61.93%\\\nDoc-At-LSTM & 59.96% & 60.6%\\\nTech-At-LSTM & 62.51% & 64.42%\\\nCNN-LSTM & 61.36% & 63.06%\\\nE-NN & 58.83% & \u2013\\\nEB-CNN & 64.21% & \u2013\\\nKGEB-CNN & **66.93**% & \u2013\\\nAt-LSTM & 63.06% & **65.53**%\\\n\nWe use the At-LSTM model for individual stock price prediction after confirmed that it out performs other approaches. The results are shown in table\u00a0\\[tab:indiResult\\], each stock shown in the table has more than 66% accuracy and the company WALMART has an average accuracy of 70.36% and max accuracy of 72.06%. Apparently, predicting individual stock price leads to higher accuracy than predicting S&P 500 index, and this is mainly due to the news article we used for input. In terms of the individual stock prediction, the news article we used are more relative to it\u2019s corresponding company. In contrast, we used the full corpus as input for S&P 500 index prediction and certainly this adds noise to our model and hence effects the accuracy.\n\n[|p[3cm]{}||p[3cm]{}|p[3cm]{}|]{}\\\nCompany & Average Accuracy & Max Accuracy\\\nGOOG & 68.75% & 71.25%\\\nAMZN & 67.32% & 69.46%\\\nCSCO & 66.82% & 67.62%\\\nMSFT & 67.92% & 69.89%\\\nAAPL & 67.52% & 69.42%\\\nINTC & 67.12% & 67.63%\\\nIBM & 69.49% & 71.41%\\\nAMD & 66.12% & 69.10%\\\nNVDA & 69.35% & 70.51%\\\nQCOM & 68.53% & 69.70%\\\nWMT& **70.36**% & **72.06**%\\\nT& 68.53% & 69.70%\\\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nThis paper has been motivated by the successes of Deep learning methods in Natural Language Processing task. we proposed a Attention-based LSTM model(At-LSTM) to predict the directional movements of Standard & Poor\u2019s 500 index and individual companies stock price using financial news titles. Experimental results suggests that our model is promising and competitive with the state-of-the-art model which incorporate knowledge graph into the learning process of event embeddings\u00a0[@ding2016knowledge].\n\nThere are some directions in our future work. While previous work and our result has found that including the body text of the news performs worse than just the headline, there may be useful information to extract from the body text, other directions include looking at predicting price movements at a range of time horizons, in order to gauge empirically how quickly information are absorbed in the market, and relate this to the finance literature on the topic. The financial time series are known by its volatility, in many cases small changes in the series that can be interpreted as noise. Moreover, the elimination of small variations makes the model focus only on news with significant variation on prices which might lead to accuracy increase.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'This paper presents detailed results of neutron imaging of argon bubble flows in a rectangular liquid gallium vessel with and without the application of external horizontal magnetic field. The developed image processing algorithm is presented and its capability to extract physical information from images of low signal-to-noise ratio is demonstrated. Bubble parameters, velocity components, trajectories and relevant statistics were computed and analysed. A simpler version of the code was applied to the output of computational fluid dynamics simulations that reproduced the experiment. This work serves to further validate the neutron radiography as a suitable method for monitoring gas bubble flow in liquid metals, as well as to outline procedures that might help others to extract data from neutron radiography images with a low signal-to-noise ratio resulting from high frame rate acquisitions required to resolve rapid bubble motion.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Mihails Birjukovs\\\n    Institute of Numerical Modelling\\\n    University of Latvia\\\n    Riga, Latvia, Jelgavas 3, 1004\\\n    `mihails.birjukovs@lu.lv`\\\n    Valters Dzelme\\\n    Institute of Numerical Modelling\\\n    University of Latvia\\\n    Riga, Latvia, Jelgavas 3, 1004\\\n    `valters.dzelme@lu.lv`\\\n    Andris Jakovics\\\n    Institute of Numerical Modelling\\\n    University of Latvia\\\n    Riga, Latvia, Jelgavas 3, 1004\\\n    `andris.jakovics@lu.lv`\\\n    Knud Thomsen\\\n    Research with Neutrons and Muons\\\n    Paul Scherrer Institut\\\n    Villigen, Switzerland, Forschungsstrasse 111, 5232\\\n    `knud.thomsen@psi.ch`\\\n    Pavel Trtik\\\n    Research with Neutrons and Muons\\\n    Paul Scherrer Institut\\\n    Villigen, Switzerland, Forschungsstrasse 111, 5232\\\n    `pavel.trtik@psi.ch`\\\ntitle: Dynamic neutron imaging of argon bubble flow in liquid gallium in external magnetic field\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nGas bubble flow through liquid metal in presence of static external magnetic field is of great interest, because this type of flow occurs during liquid metal stirring, purification, homogenization and crystallization processes, as well as in liquid metal column reactors [@r1; @r2]. Flow parameters must be tailored to each process, which requires the means for reliable control. To this end, application of static magnetic field has been proposed. Theoretical considerations and experimental evidence indicate that, depending on field orientation, one could achieve bubble jet stabilization and/or alter bubble velocity [@r3; @r4].\n\nOptimization of industrial processes requires both simulations and suitable experimental methods. Neutron radiography is, in the context of high frame rate flow monitoring, a relatively new and promising technique that can probe optically opaque liquid metals directly [@r5] in the sense that, in addition to qualitative observations and image-based velocimetry, it enables the study of bubble shape dynamics and characteristic oscillation frequencies, which are important comparison criteria for verification of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. For some higher-Z metals, neutron imaging, being conceptually similar to X-ray imaging, is more appropriate, enabling one to work with thicker (i.e. more representative) samples [@r5; @r6]. This is especially important for suppressing the influence of bubble-wall interactions. Thus, neutron radiography enables one to probe a broader class of multiphase flow systems [@r7; @r8], which motivates further validation of this approach as a reliable technique for verification of simulation results and for multiphase flow analysis.\n\nTo date, several noteworthy studies employing neutron radiography have been conducted, but most were focused on single phase flow analysis using tracer particles [@r5; @r6], solidification dynamics [@r6], or performed only qualitative analysis of bubble flow. The latter was rather restricted, mainly due to the challenges stemming from the low quality of obtained images \\[6\\]. Notable exceptions include the work by Zboray et al. [@r8; @r9; @r10], wherein image processing and phase tracking algorithms were implemented and flow assessed by neutron radiography was given a quantitative treatment. However, quantitative assessment of gas bubbles in the gas/liquid metal flow context is scarce. The objective of the present study was to acquire sequences of high temporal resolution neutron radiographies of argon (Ar) bubble flow in liquid gallium (Ga) and, for the first time, to perform image-based velocimetry and shape analysis for different Ar flow rates, with and without applied horizontal magnetic field.\n\nThe experiment {#sec:experiment}\n==============\n\nThe MHD system\n--------------\n\nExperiments were conducted at the thermal neutron imaging beamline *NEUTRA* at the Paul Scherrer Institute PSI [@r11]. The setup (Figure \\[fig:setup\\]a) consisted of a thin-walled glass container filled with liquid Ga, wherein Ar bubble flow was introduced via a submerged copper tube with a constricted nozzle, which ejected bubbles such that they ascended without wall interactions. The tube was bent so that the outlet was directed horizontally, yielding a useful effect \u2013 for a given flow rate, bubble size was constant regardless of nozzle constriction, and was prescribed by Ar/Ga surface tension. The container was connected to a pressurized Ar vessel and flow rate was measured and controlled using a digital mass flow controller (*MKS Instruments 1179B*).\n\n![(a) Photograph of the experimental setup and (b) its simplified representation with highlighted dimensions.[]{data-label=\"fig:setup\"}](SetupCombined.png){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nTo study the influence of applied horizontal magnetic field, the container was placed between two arrays of neodymium permanent magnets (Figure \\[fig:setup\\]b). Magnetic field flux density within the container (Figure \\[fig:magfield\\]) ranged from $60~mT$ to $500~mT$ and was roughly $300~mT$ within the bubble flow region, as determined by simulations and measurements. As shown in Figure \\[fig:magfield\\]a, the direction of the field was rather homogeneous along container vertical axis and did not exhibit too strong magnitude variations, as seen in Figure \\[fig:magfield\\]b.\n\n![Simulated magnetic field (a) within the melt container and (b) along its vertical axis.[]{data-label=\"fig:magfield\"}](MagFieldCombined.png){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nNeutron imaging\n---------------\n\nThe experimental setup was imaged at the measuring position $2$ of the *NEUTRA* beamline using a medium spatial resolution set-up (MIDI). After passing through the sample, the attenuated neutron beam was detected by $200 ~ \\mu m$ thick ${}^6$*LiF/ZnS* scintillator screen. The distance between the centre of the liquid Ga vessel and the detector was $32 ~ mm$. A sCMOS camera (*ORCA Flash 4.0*) was used to collect the scintillator light output. The utilized detector optics produced images with isotropic pixel size of $55.1 ~ \\mu m$, with a field of view (FOV) of $112.8$ x $112.8 ~ mm$. As such, the FOV was large enough to capture the entire trajectory of a bubble once it detached from the inlet.\n\nAll images were acquired with a high frame rate \u2013 $100$ frames per second (FPS) \u2013 to capture the motion of ascending bubbles in detail. Bubble trajectories were recorded for $10$ to $300 ~cm^3/min$ flow rates, with and without applied magnetic field. $30~s$ sequences were acquired for all flow rates, resulting in $3000$ images per measurement. Images were recorded for two types of $95$ x $150 ~mm$ glass containers, $20$- or $30~mm$ liquid Ga thickness.\n\nImage Processing\n================\n\nPreprocessing was performed in *ImageJ*: pixels with exceedingly high intensities were removed and $4000$ frame average dark current signal was subtracted from raw images, followed by normalization with respect to the $8000$ image average of the unobstructed beam signal to compensate for neutron beam non-uniformity. Afterwards, the images were imported into *Wolfram Mathematica 12* for post-processing.\n\nSeveral criteria dictated the *Mathematica* code development: reliable bubble and shape detection, minimization of false positive and detection failure rates, bubble detection throughout the entire FOV, robustness and applicability for the lowest possible signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Additional goals included high enough shape detection precision to enable phase interface (Ar/Ga and Ga/air) tracking and shape strain rate determination. After testing a large number of different options, the authors established that, thus far, the best approach is as it appears in Figure \\[fig:pipeline\\], wherein the constructed image processing pipeline is illustrated.\n\n![The image processing pipeline, from raw images to extracted phase boundary shapes.[]{data-label=\"fig:pipeline\"}](PipelineV2.png){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nCurvature flow filter (CFF) was chosen for denoising, since bubble shapes are elliptic and because CFF aggressively erodes sharp edges that are associated with observed image artefacts. CFF diffuses pixel brightness $I$ over a virtual time interval $\\tau$ according to Eq. \\[eq:curvature-flow\\], where diffusion rates tangential and normal to edges (localized at $\\Delta I = 0$) are regulated by a control function $c(I,k)$:\n\n$$\\label{eq:curvature-flow}\n\\pdv{I}{t} = |\\nabla I| \\cdot \\nabla \\left(  c(I,k) \\cdot \\frac{\\nabla I}{|\\nabla I|}  \\right); ~~t \\in [0,\\tau]$$\n\nwhere $k$ is a control parameter. Equation \\[eq:curvature-flow\\] was solved over image pixels using the finite difference method (FDM).\n\nAfter determining the appropriate parameters for all pipeline elements ($c(I,k) = exp(- |\\nabla I|^2/k^2)$ was chosen), frames from all measurements were processed. A representative example of input/output is shown in Figure \\[fig:detect\\]. Bubble shapes were identified (assumed to be Jordan curves) and analysed, and parameters such as projected area, centroid coordinates and semi axes were determined by fitting ellipses into detected shapes. For this, an additional subroutine consisting of short-range Gaussian blurring, Otsu binarization and morphological thinning was implemented.\n\n![(a) A sample pre-processed image with highlighted characteristic features and (b) a post-processed image with derived air/Ga and Ar/Ga interfaces.[]{data-label=\"fig:detect\"}](ProcessedFrame.png){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nFinally, logical and statistical filters were applied to resulting data, removing artefacts left over (if any) from preceding processing stages. Generated output and another set of logical filters were used to compute velocities, trace trajectories and derive parameter correlations.\n\nSimulations {#sec:simulations}\n===========\n\nThe experiment was modelled numerically to verify that observed effects are not artefacts due to imperfections in the setup. Simulations were carried out in an open-source finite volume method (FVM) package *OpenFOAM* using the volume of fluid (VOF) method, according to incompressible Navier-Stokes equations, a continuity equation and a transport equation for Ga volume fraction, with linear blending functions for density and viscosity. Boundary conditions were (see Figure \\[fig:setup\\]b for geometry): zero flow velocity at vessel walls; zero relative pressure at the top opening to allow for gas flow circulation; constant mass flow rate at the tube inlet.\n\nMagnetic field within the Ga container was computed using an open-source finite element method (FEM) package *Elmer* according to magnetic induction equation in terms of magnetic vector potential, and relevant force density contributions (gravity, Lorentz force, surface tension) were passed to *OpenFOAM* via *Elmer-OpenFOAM* (EOF) coupling library [@r12].\n\nMaterial physical properties were as follows - Ga density: $6080~kg/m^3$; Ga viscosity: $1.97~mPa \\cdot s$; Ga electrical conductivity: $3.70 \\cdot 10^6~S/m$; Ga surface tension: $0.72~N/m$; Ar density: $1.784~kg/m^3$; Ar viscosity: $2.30 \\cdot 10^{-5}~Pa \\cdot s$.\n\nPreliminary analysis and simulations show that the magnetic Reynolds number is $0.01 < Re_m < 0.1$, so current induced by metal flow through magnetic field should be important. However, in order to accelerate the computations significantly and obtain preliminary results, the authors decided to neglect (for now) the magnetic field produced by induced currents. The hydrodynamic Reynolds number near bubbles is within $10^3 < Re < 10^4$ and $Re \\sim 1$ elsewhere, so an appropriate turbulence model must be used. The $k$-equation subgrid-scale (SGS) large eddy simulation (LES) model was chosen to avoid artificial bubble trajectory stabilization due to overestimated turbulent viscosity introduced by a more standard $k$-$\\omega$ shear stress transport (SST) model. Estimates indicate that the E\u00f6tv\u00f6s number is $2.1 < Eo < 4.1$, which corresponds to a flow regime wherein bubbles are of slightly oscillating elliptic shapes.\n\nThe dynamic FVM mesh was comprised of roughly $450K$ elements with $2$x refinement at phase interfaces. Simulations were performed on a computational cluster at the University of Latvia (UL). A simpler shape detection algorithm was applied to CFD simulation results: short range local adaptive binarization, morphological thinning and filling transform, followed by Shen-Castan edge detection and thinning, yielded bubble contours.\n\nResults {#sec:results}\n=======\n\nFigure \\[fig:trajectories\\] clearly shows the effect of applying magnetic field \u2013 bubble trajectory spread is considerably reduced. Stabilization is brought about by electric current due to gallium flow through applied horizontal magnetic field, where flow is induced via fluid displacement by ascending bubbles. Induced current then interacts with magnetic field resulting in the Lorentz force that acts to reduce the velocity component perpendicular to the applied field. This, in turn, leads to bubble wake laminarization, preventing tail vortex detachment stabilizing bubble trajectory [@r2]. One can see that simulations and experiments are in very good agreement. The horizontal displacement of individual bubbles is also greatly reduced, as is evident from both Figure \\[fig:trajectories\\] and Figure \\[fig:velocimetry\\]a. While the horizontal velocity component is reduced (Figure \\[fig:velocimetry\\]a), the vertical, conversely, is increased (Figure \\[fig:velocimetry\\]b).\n\n![Several initial bubble trajectories for a $100 ~cm^3/min$ flow rate derived from simulations (a,d) and experiments (b,e). In cases (a,b) there is no magnetic field, and in (d,e) the field ($ \\sim 0.3 ~ T$) is applied. Simulation frame rate matches that of the experiment. Bubble detection points are color coded by order or appearance, dark purple to white. Inlet and free surface are located right beneath and above vertical boundaries of images, respectively. Bubbles are highlighted in experimental images (b,e) by dashed white circles. In (c,f), entire sets of detected bubbles over all frames are shown, without (c) and with (f) horizontal magnetic field. Dashed red lines indicate bubble set envelopes, derived using the statistics-sensitive non-linear iterative peak-clipping (SNIP) algorithm. $\\delta x$ and $\\Delta x$ in (c,f) stand for mean bubble set envelope thickness and maximum horizontal bubble spread, respectively. Distance scales in (c,f) are identical.[]{data-label=\"fig:trajectories\"}](TrajectoryVersus.png){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\n![Experimentally determined averaged (a) horizontal and (b) vertical velocity components of ascending bubbles at different elevations above the inlet, for different gas flow rates, without and with ($\\sim 0.3 ~ T$) applied magnetic field. Colored bands represent averaged curves plus their local errors.[]{data-label=\"fig:velocimetry\"}](VelocimetryCombined.jpg){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n\nThese observations are in qualitative agreement with known experimental results obtained by other research groups for similar system dimensionless parameters, which indicates that there are no major issues in the experiment, simulations or the image processing algorithm [@r2; @r3; @r4]. As expected from preliminary analysis, bubble shapes are slightly oscillating, and these shape perturbations are damped when horizontal magnetic field is applied - however, this requires further quantitative analysis. Previously conducted experiments indicate that slight vertical acceleration is expected at $Eo$ values considered herein \u2013 this is observed as well.\n\nConclusions {#sec:conclusions}\n===========\n\nThe influence of static and rather homogeneous horizontal external magnetic field on the motion of bubbles in an open pool of liquid Ga was investigated both experimentally (using neutron imaging) and *in silico* (using simulations).\n\nHigh temporal resolution neutron imaging (up to 100 FPS) of dynamics of ascending Ar bubbles (at different gas flow rates) in liquid Ga was performed at the thermal neutron beamline *NEUTRA*. The intrinsically low SNR neutron radiographs were processed via a uniquely tailored image processing pipeline, which enabled successfully perform bubble velocimetry for the resulting images.\n\nThe derived bubble trajectories reveal clear influence of applied magnetic field on bubble velocities, both horizontal and vertical. Significant suppression of horizontal displacement in trajectories is observed for all flow rates, along with reduced trajectory spread, leading to a much more stable flow regime. Vertical acceleration is observed in presence of magnetic field at elevations where the contrary holds without applied field. These observations are in qualitative agreement with known experimental results.\n\nThe preliminary CFD simulations also match the experimental results rather well. Statistical data and correlations regarding bubble size, aspect ratio and other parameters have been obtained as well. Thus, we may consider our methodology (the imaging setup and the image processing pipeline) successfully validated.\n\nAcknowledgements\n================\n\nThis work is based on experiments performed at the Swiss spallation neutron source SINQ, Paul Scherrer Institute. The authors would like to thank Jevgenijs Telicko (UL) and Jan Hovind (PSI) for their invaluable assistance with hardware during experiments, and Robert Zboray (Empa D\u00fcbendorf, Switzerland), for productive discussions regarding data post-processing. The authors acknowledge the support due to the ERDF project \u201dDevelopment of numerical modelling approaches to study complex multiphysical interactions in electromagnetic liquid metal technologies\u201d (No. 5 1.1.1.1/18/A/108). This is a preprint for the original paper: *IOS Press, International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics, M. Birjukovs et al., Argon Bubble Flow in Liquid Gallium in External Magnetic Field*. The paper has been accepted for publication and is pending print with a tracking ID *HES19-16*. A DOI link, volume number and article volume ID/page numbers will be added once the article is published.\n\n[99]{}\n\nS. Pavlovs, A. Jakovics, E. Baake, V. Sushkovs, Gas bubbles and liquid metal flow influenced by uniform external magnetic field, *International Journal of Applied Electromagnetics and Mechanics* **53** (2016), 1-11.\n\nC. Zhang, Liquid Metal Flows Driven by Gas Bubbles in a Static Magnetic Field, *PhD thesis* (2009).\n\nC. Zhang, S. Eckert, G. Gerbeth, Experimental study of single bubble motion in a liquid metal column exposed to a DC magnetic field, *International Journal of Multiphase Flow* **31** (2005), 824\u2013842.\n\nE. Strumpf, Experimental study on rise velocities of single bubbles in liquid metal under the influence of strong horizontal magnetic fields in a flat vessel, *International Journal of Multiphase Flow* **97** (2017), 168-185.\n\nM. Sarma, M. Scepanskis, A. Jakovics, K. Thomsen, R. Nikoluskins, P. Vontobel, T. Beinerts, A. Bojarevics, E. Platacis, Neutron Radiography Visualization of Solid Particles in Stirring Liquid Metal, *Physics Procedia* **69** (2015), 457-463.\n\nE. Baake, T. Fehling, D. Musaeva, T. Steinberg, Neutron radiography for visualization of liquid metal processes: bubbly flow for CO2 free production of Hydrogen and solidification processes in EM field, *IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering* **228** (2017).\n\nR. Zboray, P. Trtik, 800 fps neutron radiography of air-water two-phase flow, *Methods X* **5** (2018), 96-102.\n\nR. Zboray, P. Trtik, In-depth analysis of high-speed, cold neutron imaging of air-water two- phase flows, *Flow Measurement and Instrumentation* **66** (2019), 182-189.\n\nR. Zboray, V. Dangendorf, I. Mor, B. Bromberger, K. Tittelmeier, Time-resolved Fast Neutron Radiography of Air-water Two-phase Flows, *Physics Procedia* **69** (2014).\n\nR. Zboray, I. Mor, V. Dangendorf, M. Stark, K. Tittelmeier, M. Cortesi, R. Adams, High-frame rate, fast neutron imaging of two-phase flow in a thin rectangular channel, *Applied Radiation and Isotopes* **90** (2014), 122\u2013131.\n\nE. H. Lehmann, P. Vontobel, Properties of the radiography facility NEUTRA at SINQ and its use as European reference facility, *Nondestructive Testing And Evaluation* **16(2)** (2001), 191-202.\n\nJ. Vencels, P. Raback, V. Geza, Open-source Elmer FEM and OpenFOAM coupler for electromagnetics and fluid dynamics, *SoftwareX* **9** (2019).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We consider an American put option under the CEV process. This corresponds to a free boundary problem for a PDE. We show that this free boundary satisfies a nonlinear integral equation, and analyze it in the limit of small $\\rho$ = $2r/ \\sigma^2$, where $r$ is the interest rate and $\\sigma$ is the volatility. We use perturbation methods to find that the free boundary behaves differently for five ranges of time to expiry.'\n---\n\n[On a free boundary problem for an ]{}\\\n[American put option under the CEV process]{}\n\n[Miao Xu and Charles Knessl]{}\n\n[ Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science]{}\\\n[ University of Illinois at Chicago]{}\\\n[ 851 South Morgan Street]{}\\\n[ Chicago, IL 60607-7045]{}\n\n[e-mail: mxu6@uic.edu, knessl@uic.edu]{}\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe pricing and hedging of options has its origins in the Nobel prize winning work of Black, Scholes, and Merton $\\cite{cm}$, who assume that the price of an underlying asset $S(t)$ follows a geometric Brownian motion with constant volatility. The price $C(S,t)$ of a European call option at time $t$ for an asset with price $S$, strike $K$, and expiry $T$ is then readily established, and is presented in terms of the normal distribution function. However, there is sufficient empirical evidence $\\cite{dl}$ to suggest that in many cases the assumption of constant volatility does not match well to the observed market data. Rather, evidence points out that the implied volatility, which is obtained by equating the model price of an option to its market price and solving for the unknown volatility parameter, varies with the strike price across a wide range of markets. This phenomenon is known as the volatility smile or frown, depending on the shape of the curve, and is not captured by the Blacks-Scholes model with a constant volatility. As a result, there have been various ideas as to how to modify and extend the basic Black-Scholes framework, to account for this phenomenon. One of these is the constant elasticity of variance (CEV) diffusion model, which was introduced by Cox and Ross $\\cite{cr}$ in the context of European options. Unlike Black-Scholes, the CEV model is capable of reproducing the volatility smile.\n\nOther work on European options under a CEV process include Davydov and Linetsky $\\cite{dl}$, Hu and Knessl $\\cite{hk}$ and Lo, et. al. $\\cite{lyh}$. However, there exists little or no analytic work for the valuation of American options under a CEV process. The analysis of these options are more difficult than the corresponding European options in that the American options may be exercised prior to the expiration dates. Mathematically the American options lead to partial differential equations (PDE) with free boundaries, which can only rarely be solved exactly. In this paper, we apply asymptotic analysis to a CEV model to examine the behavior of the free boundary under different scaling regimes for the time to expiry, in the limit of small $\\rho$ = $2r / \\sigma^2$, where $r$ is the interest rate, and $\\sigma$ is the volatility. This limit has a small interest rate and/or large volatility, and is of particular relevance to the financial status of the current economy. We will employ singular perturbation methods, including matched asymptotic expansions. The main result is the derivation of a nonlinear integral equation that is satisfied by the free boundary, from which we shall analyze its asymptotic structure for five different ranges of time. The main results are summarized in section 2 and derived in section section 3.\n\nAsymptotic analysis and singular perturbation methods have been recently employed in the context of both European and American options, and this work includes Knessl $\\cite{ck1, ck2}$, Howison $\\cite{sh}$, Kuske and Keller $\\cite{kk}$, Addison, et al. $\\cite{ahk}$, Evans, et al. $\\cite{ekk}$, Fouque, et al. $\\cite{fps}$, and Widdicks, et al. $\\cite{wd}$.\n\nProblem Statement and Summary of Results\n========================================\n\nWe let $P(S,T_0)$ denote the price of an American put option for an asset with price $S$ at some time $T_0$ prior to expiry $T_F$. We assume that $S$ satisfies the stochastic differential equation $$dS = \\mu S \\ dt + \\sigma \\sqrt{S} \\ dW_t.$$ where $W_t$ is a standard Brownian motion, $\\sigma$ is the volatility of the underlying asset, and $\\mu = r$ is the risk-free interest rate. We note that unlike Black-Scholes, this model only guarantees non-negativity of $S$ ($S \\geq 0$), so the chance of absorption at 0, i.e., bankruptcy, occurs with positive probability.\n\nIntroducing the new variables $$t = \\frac{\\sigma^2}{2}(T_F - T_0), \\ \\  \\rho = \\frac{2r}{\\sigma^2},$$ we find that $P$ satisfies the following boundary value problem $$\\label{pde1}\nP_t = S P_{SS} + \\rho SP_S - \\rho P; \\ t > 0 , \\ S > \\alpha(t)$$ $$P(S,0) = \\max(K-S,0)$$ $$P(\\alpha(t), t) = K - \\alpha(t)$$ $$P_S(\\alpha(t), t) = -1$$ $$\\label{bc1} \n P(0,t) = 0$$ where $\\alpha(t)$ is the free boundary in the new time variable. We also have $P(S,t) = K - S$ for $0 < S < \\alpha(t)$, and $\\alpha(0) = K$. For $S \\leq \\alpha(t)$ the option should be exercised, and for $S > \\alpha(t)$ it should be held.\n\nWe convert $(\\ref{pde1})- (\\ref{bc1})$ into an integral equation by first making a change in coordinates, letting $$P(S,t) = K - S + \\tilde{P}(V,t),  \\ V = S - \\alpha(t)$$ where $V$ $\\geq$ 0. Then $\\tilde{P}$ satisfies the PDE $$\\label{pde2}\n\\tilde{P}_t - \\alpha'(t) \\tilde{P}_V = [V + \\alpha(t)]\\tilde{P}_{VV} + \\rho [V + \\alpha(t)]\\tilde{P}_V - \\rho K - \\rho \\tilde{P}; \\ V, t > 0$$ with the initial and boundary conditions $$\\tilde{P}(V,0) = V$$ $$\\label{bc2}\n\\tilde{P}(0,t) = \\tilde{P}_V (0,t) = 0.$$ We introduce the Laplace transform $$\\label{lp1}\nQ(\\theta, t) = \\int_{0}^{\\infty} e^{-\\theta V} \\tilde{P}(V,t) \\ dV.$$ Using $(\\ref{lp1})$ in $(\\ref{pde2})$ and $(\\ref{bc2})$ then yields $$\\label{pde3}\nQ_t + (\\theta^2 + \\rho \\theta) Q_\\theta = [\\alpha'(t) \\theta + (\\theta^2 + \\rho \\theta) \\alpha(t) - (2\\theta + 2\\rho)] Q - \\frac{\\rho K}{\\theta}.$$ with the initial condition $$\\label{bc3}\nQ(\\theta, 0) = \\frac{1}{\\theta^2}.$$ Using the method of characteristics, it can be shown that the only acceptable solution to $(\\ref{pde3})$ is $$\\label{pde4}\nQ(\\theta,t)  =  \\frac{K \\rho}{\\theta^2} e^{\\alpha(t)\\theta} \\int_{\\theta / \\rho}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{z+1}  \\exp \\left[-\\rho z \\alpha \\left(t+\\rho^{-1} \\log \\left(\\frac{\\theta+\\rho}{\\theta}\\frac{z}{z+1} \\right) \\right) \\right]  \\ dz.$$ The next result readily follows.\n\nThe option price $P(S,t)$ for the CEV model has the integral representation\n\n$$P(S,t) = K - S  + \\frac{1}{2 \\pi i} \\int_{Br} {e^{\\theta  V} Q(\\theta, t)} \\ d\\theta,$$\n\nwhere $\\Re(\\theta) > 0 $ on the Bromwich contour, and $Q(\\theta, t)$ is given by $(\\ref{pde4})$.\n\nMoreover, after setting $t = 0$ and using $\\alpha(0)=K$ and $(\\ref{bc3})$ in $(\\ref{pde4})$, it follows that $\\alpha(t; \\rho)$ satisfies the nonlinear integral equation (IE):\n\n$$\\label{IE}\n\\frac{e^{-K \\theta }}{K \\rho} = \\int_{\\theta / \\rho}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{z+1} \\exp \\left[-\\rho z \\alpha \\left(\\rho^{-1} \\log \\left(\\frac{\\theta+\\rho}{\\theta}\\frac{z}{z+1} \\right) \\right) \\right] \\ dz.$$\n\nIn the next section we use asymptotic methods to analyze this IE for five different scales of time $t$, in the limit of small $\\rho$. We let $\\rho = e^{-\\lambda}$ so that $\\lambda = - \\log \\rho \\rightarrow \\infty$. The final results for the free boundary $\\alpha(t; \\rho)$ are listed below, and we sketch the derivations in section 3.\\\n\n1.  $t = \\omega / \\lambda = O(\\lambda^{-1}), \\  0 < \\omega < K$: $$\\label{eq1}\n     \\alpha(t; \\rho) = (\\sqrt{\\omega} -\\sqrt{K})^2 + \\frac{\\log \\lambda}{\\lambda}\\frac{\\omega - \\sqrt{K \\omega}}{2} +   \\frac{1}{\\lambda}    \\frac{\\sqrt{K \\omega} -    \\omega}{2} \\log \\left(\\frac{4 \\pi K^2 \\omega}{K - \\       \\sqrt{K \\omega}}   \\right) +      o(\\lambda^{-1})$$\n\n2.  $t = K / \\lambda + O(\\lambda^{-2}), \\ \\lambda^2 t - \\lambda K = \\lambda( \\omega - K) = \\Lambda$: $$\\label{eq2}     \n       \\alpha(t; \\rho) = \\frac{1}{\\lambda^2} \\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda),$$ where $\\mathcal{F}(\\cdot)$ satisfies the nonlinear IE $$\\label{eq3}\n          \\frac{e^{-K\\nu}}{K} = \\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{\\xi} \\exp \\left[-\\xi F \\left(-\\nu K^2 - \\frac{1}{\\xi} \\right) \\right] \\ d\\xi.$$ For $\\Lambda \\rightarrow \\pm \\infty$, we have $$\\label{eq4}\n          \\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda) \\sim \\frac{\\Lambda^2}{4K} + \\frac{\\Lambda}{4} \\log( -\\Lambda) - \\frac{\\Lambda}{4} \\log(8 \\pi K^3),\\   \\Lambda \\rightarrow -\\infty$$ $$\\label{eq5}\n         \\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda) \\sim \\Lambda e^{-\\gamma} \\exp \\left[-\\frac{1}{K}\\exp \\left(\\frac{\\Lambda}{K} \\right) \\right], \\ \\Lambda \\rightarrow + \\infty$$ where $\\gamma$ is the Euler constant.\n\n3.  $t = \\omega / \\lambda = O(\\lambda^{-1}), \\ K < \\omega < \\infty$: $$\\label{eq6}\n          \\alpha(t; \\rho) \\sim  \\frac{\\omega - K}{\\lambda} e^{-\\gamma} \\exp \\left(-\\frac{1}{K} \\rho^{K / \\omega - 1} \\right);$$\n\n4.  $t = O(1), \\ 0 < t < \\infty$: $$\\label{eq7}\n         \\alpha(t; \\rho) \\sim te^{-\\gamma}\\exp \\left[-\\left(\\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{\\rho K} \\right) e^{-K/t} \\right];$$\n\n5.  $t = v / \\rho = O(\\rho^{-1}), \\ v > 0$: $$\\label{eq8}\n          \\alpha(t; \\rho) \\sim \\frac{1}{\\rho} e^{-\\gamma} \\exp \\left(\\frac{1}{e^{v}-1} \\right)(1-e^{-v}) \\exp \\left(-\\frac{1}{\\rho K} \\right).$$\n\nWe note that in four of the five cases the expression for $\\alpha(t; \\rho)$ is completely explicit, and only in case (ii) must we solve a nonlinear IE, which is somewhat simpler than the one in $(\\ref{IE})$. We can easily compute $P(S,t)$ as $t \\rightarrow \\infty$, which corresponds to the perpetual American option, where the problem reduces to solving an ordinary differential equation. Setting $P(S,\\infty) = P^\\infty(S)$ and using $\\alpha(\\infty)$ to denote the limiting value of the free boundary, we obtain from $(\\ref{pde1})-(\\ref{bc1})$\n\n$$P^\\infty(S) =  Ke^{\\rho \\alpha(\\infty)} \\int_{1}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{z^2}e^{-z \\rho S} \\ dz,$$\n\nwhere $\\alpha(\\infty)$ satisfies $$\\label{aper}\nK \\rho \\int_{1}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{z}e^{-\\rho \\alpha(\\infty) z} \\ dz = e^{-\\rho \\alpha(\\infty)}.$$ For $\\rho \\rightarrow 0$ we have $$\\label{fbper}\n\\alpha(\\infty) = \\frac{1}{\\rho} e^{-\\gamma} \\exp \\left(-\\frac{1}{\\rho K} \\right) [1 + O(\\rho)],$$ which is exponentially small.\n\nAnalysis\n========\n\nAnalysis for $t = \\omega / \\lambda$, $0 < \\omega < K $\n------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe first examine $(\\ref{IE})$ on the $t = O(\\lambda^{-1})$ scale, for small $\\rho$. Recalling that $\\lambda = -\\log \\rho$, we let $$\\theta = \\lambda \\beta, \\ z = \\frac{\\lambda(\\beta + x)}{\\rho}, \\ \\alpha(t; \\rho) \\sim \\alpha_0(\\omega; \\rho)$$ for $\\omega = (-\\log \\rho)t = O(1)$. Then $(\\ref{IE})$ can be approximated by $$\\label{ie1}\n\\frac{e^{\\lambda}}{K} = \\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{\\beta + x} e^{\\lambda \\Phi(x; \\beta, \\rho)}  [1 + O(e^{-\\lambda})] \\ dx,$$ where $\\Phi(x; \\beta, \\rho) = K \\beta - (\\beta + x) \\alpha_0(\\frac{x}{\\beta(x + \\beta)}; \\rho)$. For large $\\lambda$ and fixed $\\beta$, we evaluate the right hand side of $(\\ref{ie1})$ by an implicit form of the Laplace method, assuming for now that there is a saddle point where $$\\label{saddle}\n\\frac{\\partial \\Phi}{\\partial x} = -\\alpha_0 \\left(\\frac{x}{\\beta(x + \\beta)} \\right) - \\frac{1}{x + \\beta}\\alpha_0' \\left(\\frac{x}{\\beta(x + \\beta)} \\right) = 0.$$ Let us denote $x = x_*(\\beta)$ as the solution to $(\\ref{saddle})$. It follows that at $x = x_*$, $\\Phi \\sim 1$ so that $$\\label{spe}\n1 = K\\beta - (\\beta + x_*)\\alpha_0 \\left(\\frac{x_*}{\\beta(x_* + \\beta)} \\right).$$ Now let $\\omega = \\frac{x_*}{\\beta(x_* + \\beta)}$. Then from $(\\ref{saddle})$ we have $\\beta = \\frac{\\alpha_0'(\\omega)}{\\omega \\alpha_0'(\\omega) - \\alpha_0(\\omega)}$ which we use to eliminate $\\beta$ in $(\\ref{spe})$ to obtain the ODE\n\n$$[1-\\alpha_0'(\\omega)][\\omega \\alpha_0'(\\omega) - \\alpha_0(\\omega)] = K \\alpha_0'(\\omega)$$\n\nRewriting this as $$\\omega \\alpha_0'(\\omega) - \\alpha_0(\\omega) = \\frac{K \\alpha_0'(\\omega)}{1-\\alpha_0'(\\omega)},$$ we recognize this as the Clairaut equation. The solutions consist of a one-parameter family of lines and the singular solution $$\\label{wsol}\n\\alpha_0(\\omega) = (\\sqrt{\\omega} - \\sqrt{K})^2$$ which is the envelope of this family. The linear solutions $\\alpha_0(\\omega) = \\omega C - \\frac{KC}{1-C}$ must be rejected, since these lead to $\\alpha_0(0) \\neq K$. The above analysis applies only for $0 < \\omega < K$, since the solution $(\\ref{wsol})$ vanishes as $\\omega$ approaches $K$. Hence we expect different asymptotics for $\\omega \\approx K$.\n\nWe next analyze some higher order terms in the expansion of $\\alpha_0$. We evaluate $(\\ref{ie1})$ by using the Laplace method, which gives\n\n$$\\label{laplace}\n\\frac{e^{\\lambda}}{K} = \\frac{1}{\\beta + x_*} \\sqrt{\\frac{2\\pi}{-\\lambda \\Phi_{xx}(x_*; \\beta, \\rho)}} e^{\\lambda \\Phi(x_*; \\beta, \\rho)}[1 + O(\\lambda^{-1})],$$\n\nand expand $\\alpha_0$ as $$\\label{exp1}\n\\alpha_0(\\omega; \\rho) = \\alpha_0(\\omega) + \\frac{\\log \\lambda}{\\lambda} \\alpha_1(\\omega) + \\frac{1}{\\lambda} \\alpha_2(\\omega) + o(\\lambda^{-1}).$$ In order to balance the two sides of $(\\ref{laplace})$, we need $\\alpha_1$ to cancel the $\\sqrt{1 / \\lambda}$ factor. Hence, $$\\label{la1}\n\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\lambda}}\\exp \\left[-(\\beta + x_*)(\\log \\lambda) \\ \\alpha_1 \\left(\\frac{x_*}{\\beta(x_* + \\beta)} \\right) \\right] = 1.$$ Writing $(\\ref{la1})$ in terms of $\\omega$ we obtain $$\\label{wsol2}\n\\alpha_1(\\omega) = \\frac{1}{2} (\\omega - \\sqrt{K\\omega}).$$ To find the third order term $\\alpha_2$, we balance the $O(1)$ terms in $(\\ref{laplace})$, so that $$\\frac{1}{K} = \\frac{1}{\\beta + x_*} \\sqrt{\\frac{{2\\pi}}{-\\Phi_{xx}}} \\exp \\left[-(\\beta + x_*) \\alpha_2 \\left(\\frac{x_*}{\\beta(x_* + \\beta)} \\right)\\right].$$ It can be shown that $\\Phi_{xx}(x_*; \\beta, \\rho) \\sim -\\frac{1}{2} K^{\\frac{1}{2}} \\beta^{\\frac{3}{2}}x_*^{-\\frac{3}{2}}(x_* + \\beta)^{-\\frac{3}{2}}$ and then $$\\label{wsol3}\n\\alpha_2(\\omega) = \\frac{\\sqrt{K\\omega} - \\omega}{2} \\log \\left(\\frac{4\\pi K^2 \\omega}{K - \\sqrt{K\\omega}} \\right).$$ With $(\\ref{wsol})$, $(\\ref{exp1})$, $(\\ref{wsol2})$, and $(\\ref{wsol3})$ we have established $(\\ref{eq1})$.\n\nAnalysis for $t = \\omega / \\lambda$, $\\omega \\approx K $\n--------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe return to $(\\ref{IE})$ and introduce the scaling $$\\label{scale1}\n\\theta = \\lambda \\beta, \\ \\beta = \\frac{1}{K} + \\frac{\\nu}{\\lambda}, \\ \\omega = \\lambda t = K + \\frac{\\Lambda}{\\lambda}$$ with $$\\label{scale2}\n\\alpha(t; \\rho) = \\frac{1}{\\lambda^2} \\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda; \\rho) = \\frac{1}{\\lambda^2} \\mathcal{F} \\left(\\lambda^2 \\left(t-\\frac{K}{\\lambda} \\right); \\rho \\right).$$ Then we have $e^{-\\theta K} = \\rho e^{-K \\nu}$. Also by setting $z = (\\theta + y) / \\rho $ in $(\\ref{IE})$ this equation becomes $$\\label{ie2}\n\\frac{1}{K} e^{-K \\nu} = \\int_{0}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{\\theta + y + \\rho} \\exp \\left[-(\\theta + y) \\alpha \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} - \\frac{1}{\\theta + y} + O(\\rho); \\rho \\right) \\right] \\ dy.$$ With the scaling in $(\\ref{scale1})$ and $(\\ref{scale2})$ and the fact that $\\rho = e^{-\\lambda}$ is exponentially small, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lambda^2 \\alpha \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} - \\frac{1}{\\theta + y} + O(e^{-\\lambda}); \\rho \\right) & = \\lambda^2 \\alpha \\left(\\frac{K}{\\lambda} - \\frac{1}{\\lambda^2} \\left(\\nu K^2 + \\frac{1}{\\xi} \\right) + o(\\lambda^{-2}); \\rho \\right)\\notag \\\\\n& \\sim \\mathcal{F} \\left(-\\nu K^2 - \\frac{1}{\\xi} \\right)\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda)$ is the leading term in an expansion of $\\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda; \\rho)$. Then scaling $y = \\lambda^2 \\xi$ in $(\\ref{ie2})$ and letting $\\rho \\rightarrow 0$ $(\\lambda \\rightarrow \\infty)$ we obtain the limiting IE in $(\\ref{eq3})$. It does not seem possible to solve $(\\ref{eq3})$ explicitly for $\\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda)$. But we can infer the behavior as $\\Lambda \\rightarrow -\\infty$ by evaluating the integral in $(\\ref{eq3})$ by an implicit Laplace type expansion, similarly to what we did in section 3.1. This will verify the asymptotic matching between the $\\omega$-scale (for $\\omega < K$) and the $\\Lambda$-scale, and lead to $(\\ref{eq4})$. Now consider the limit $\\Lambda \\rightarrow +\\infty$. For $|\\nu| < 0$, we rewrite $(\\ref{eq3})$ as\n\n$$\\label{inte}\n\\begin{split}\n\\frac{e^{K |\\nu|}}{K}  & = \\int_{\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{\\eta} \\exp \\left[-\\frac{1}{\\eta} \\mathcal{F}(\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2 - \\eta) \\right] \\ d\\eta  \\\\ & + \\int_{0}^{1} \\frac{1}{u} \\left \\{ \\exp \\left[-\\frac{1}{u} \\frac{\\mathcal{F}(\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2 (1-u))}{\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2} \\right] - \\exp \\left[-\\frac{1}{u} \\frac{\\mathcal{F}(\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2)}{\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2} \\right] \\right \\}  \\\\ & + \n\\int_{\\frac{\\mathcal{F}(\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2)}{\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2}}^{\\infty} \\frac{e^{-v}}{v} \\ dv. \\hspace{1in}  \n\\end{split}$$\n\nHere we broke up the integral over $(0, \\infty)$ into the two ranges $(0, \\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2)$ and $(\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2, \\infty)$ and made some elementary substitutions. Now, for $\\Lambda \\rightarrow  - \\infty$ we have $\\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda) \\sim \\frac{\\Lambda^2}{4K}$ so that the first integral in the right hand side of $(\\ref{inte})$ will vanish as $\\nu \\rightarrow -\\infty$. If $\\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda) \\rightarrow 0$ as $\\Lambda \\rightarrow + \\infty$ the second integral in $(\\ref{inte})$ will also vanish, and the third may be approximated by using $$\\label{expint}\n\\int_{\\varepsilon}^{\\infty} \\frac{e^{-v}}{v} \\ dv =  - \\log \\varepsilon - \\gamma + O(\\varepsilon),\\;\\; \\varepsilon \\rightarrow 0^+.$$ Hence $(\\ref{inte})$ can be replaced by the asymptotic relation $$\\frac{e^{K \\lvert \\nu \\rvert}}{K} \\sim -\\log \\left[\\frac{\\mathcal{F}(\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2)}{\\lvert \\nu \\rvert K^2} \\right] - \\gamma$$ which upon exponentiation leads to the asymptotic result given in $(\\ref{eq5})$, for $\\mathcal{F}(\\Lambda)$ as $\\Lambda \\rightarrow \\infty$.\n\nAnalysis for $t = \\omega / \\lambda$, $K < \\omega < \\infty $\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn the remaining time ranges, $\\alpha(t; \\rho)$ will be exponentially small as $\\rho = e^{-\\lambda} \\rightarrow 0$, and our analysis of $(\\ref{IE})$ will rely heavily on the asymptotic form in $(\\ref{expint})$. We let $z = Z / \\rho$ in $(\\ref{IE})$ to obtain $$\\label{ie3}\n\\frac{e^{-K \\theta}}{K \\rho} = \\int_{\\theta}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{Z+\\rho} \\exp \\left[-Z \\alpha \\left(\\rho^{-1} \\log \\left(\\frac{\\theta + \\rho}{\\theta} \\frac{Z}{Z + \\rho} \\right) \\right) \\right] \\ dZ.$$ Now we scale $Z = \\lambda z_*$ and $\\theta = \\lambda \\theta_*$, let $\\alpha(t; \\rho) = \\tilde{\\alpha}(\\lambda t; \\rho)$ and note that in sections 3.1 and 3.2 we have already characterized $\\tilde{\\alpha}(\\lambda t; \\rho)$ for $\\lambda t = \\omega < K$ and $\\omega \\sim K$. We also simplify the argument of $\\alpha(\\cdot)$ in $(\\ref{ie3})$ using $$\\alpha \\left(\\frac{1}{\\rho} \\left[\\log \\left(1 + \\frac{\\rho}{\\theta} \\right) - \\log \\left(1 + \\frac{\\rho}{Z} \\right) \\right] \\right) = \\alpha \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} - \\frac{1}{Z} + O(\\rho) \\right) = \\tilde{\\alpha} \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta_*} - \\frac{1}{Z_*} + O(e^{-\\lambda} \\lambda) \\right).$$ When $Z = \\theta$ we have $z_* = \\theta_*$ and we rewrite the integral in $(\\ref{ie3})$ by splitting the range of integration into $z_* \\in (\\theta_*, \\theta_* / [1 - K \\theta_*])$ and $z_* \\in (\\theta_* / [1 -K \\theta_*], \\infty)$, thus obtaining $$\\frac{e^{-K \\lambda \\theta_*}}{K \\rho} \\sim \\left( \\int_{\\theta_*}^{\\frac{\\theta_*}{1-K \\theta_*}} + \\int_{\\frac{\\theta_*}{1-K \\theta_*}}^{\\infty} \\right) \\left( \\frac{1}{z_*} \\exp \\left[-\\lambda z_* \\tilde{\\alpha} \\left( \\frac{1}{\\theta_*} - \\frac{1}{z_*} \\right) \\right] \\right) \\ dz_*.$$ In the first range $\\tilde{\\alpha}(\\omega) \\sim (\\sqrt{K} - \\sqrt{\\omega})^2$ and the first integral will be $o(1)$ as $\\lambda \\rightarrow \\infty$, since $\\theta_*^{-1} - z_*^{-1} \\leq K$ when $z_* \\leq \\theta_* / [1 - K \\theta_*]$. In the second integral $\\tilde{\\alpha}$ will be exponentially small and the main contribution will come from very large values of $z_*$, where roughly $z_* = O(\\tilde{\\alpha}^{-1})$. Then we write $\\tilde{\\alpha}(\\theta_*^{-1} - z_*^{-1}) \\sim \\tilde{\\alpha}(\\theta_*^{-1})$ and using $(\\ref{expint})$ we conclude that $$\\label{ie4}\n\\frac{e^{-K \\lambda \\theta_*}}{K \\rho} \\sim \\int_{\\frac{\\theta_*}{1 - K \\theta_*}}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{z_*} \\exp \\left[-\\lambda z_* \\tilde{\\alpha} \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta_*} \\right) \\right] \\ dz_* \\sim - \\log \\left[\\lambda \\tilde{\\alpha} \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta_*} \\right) \\right] - \\gamma  - \\log \\left[\\frac{\\theta_*}{1 - K \\theta_*} \\right],$$ with an error that is $o(1)$ as $\\lambda \\rightarrow \\infty$. Then exponentiating $(\\ref{ie4})$ and replacing $\\theta_*$ by $\\omega^{-1}$ we obtain the asymptotic result in $(\\ref{eq6})$.\n\nFor $\\omega \\rightarrow K$ we note that $\\rho^{\\omega / K - 1} = \\rho^{-1} e^{-K / t} = \\rho^{-1} \\exp \\left[-\\frac{\\lambda K}{K + \\frac{\\Lambda}{\\lambda}} \\right]  \\\\\n= \\rho^{-1} \\exp \\left[-\\lambda + \\frac{\\Lambda}{K} + O(\\lambda^{-1}) \\right] \\sim \\exp \\left(\\frac{\\Lambda}{K} \\right)$ and $(\\omega - K) / \\lambda = \\Lambda / \\lambda^2$, which can be used to verify the asymptotic matching between the $\\Lambda$-scale and the $\\omega$-scale for $\\omega > K$, in the intermediate limit where $\\omega \\downarrow K$ and $\\Lambda \\rightarrow \\infty$.\n\nAnalysis for $t = O(1), 0 < t < \\infty $\n----------------------------------------\n\nNext we consider times $t = O(1)$. We scale $z = \\theta w / \\rho$. Since we again expect $\\alpha(t; \\rho)$ to be very small we assume a \u201cWKB-type\u201d ansatz of the form $$\\label{wkb}\n\\alpha(t; \\rho) \\sim g(t) \\exp \\left[-\\frac{1}{\\rho} f(t) \\right].$$ Expanding $\\alpha(t; \\rho)$ in $(\\ref{IE})$ for fixed $\\theta$ and $\\rho \\rightarrow 0$, and noting that $$\\frac{1}{\\rho} \\left[\\log \\left(1 + \\frac{\\rho}{\\theta} \\right) - \\log \\left(1 + \\frac{\\rho}{\\theta w} \\right) \\right] = \\frac{1}{\\theta} - \\frac{1}{\\theta w} - \\frac{1}{2} \\frac{\\rho}{\\theta^2} + O \\left(\\rho^2, \\frac{\\rho}{w^2} \\right),$$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n-\\theta w \\alpha \\left( \\frac{1}{\\rho} \\left[\\log \\left(1 + \\frac{\\rho}{\\theta} \\right) - \\log \\left(1 + \\frac{\\rho}{\\theta w} \\right) \\right] \\right) & \\sim -\\theta w g \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) \\exp \\left[-\\frac{1}{\\rho} f \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} - \\frac{1}{\\theta w} - \\frac{1}{2} \\frac{\\rho}{\\theta^2} \\right) \\right] \\\\\n& = -\\theta w g \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) \\exp \\left[-\\frac{1}{\\rho} f \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) + \\frac{1}{2 \\theta^2} f' \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) + O(\\rho) \\right]\\end{aligned}$$ Here we also used $f(\\theta^{-1} - (\\theta w)^{-1}) \\sim f(\\theta^{-1})$, since $w$ will be scaled to be exponentially large. Then setting $\\varepsilon = \\theta g \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) \\exp \\left[-\\frac{1}{\\rho} f \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) \\right] \\exp \\left[\\frac{1}{2 \\theta^2} f' \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) \\right]$, scaling $w = \\varepsilon^{-1} u$ and using $(\\ref{expint})$, $(\\ref{IE})$ asymptotically becomes $$\\label{asy1}\n\\frac{e^{-K \\theta }}{K \\rho} \\sim \\frac{1}{\\rho} f \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta}\\right) -\\gamma - \\log \\left[\\theta g \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) \\right] - \\frac{1}{2\\theta^2}f' \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) + o(1)$$ From the $O(\\rho^{-1})$ terms in $(\\ref{asy1})$ we conclude that $f \\left(1/ \\theta \\right) = K^{-1} e^{-K \\theta}$ and then the $O(1)$ terms determine $g(\\cdot)$ from $$\\label{match}\n\\theta g \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) = e^{-\\gamma} \\exp \\left[-\\frac{1}{2 \\theta^2} f' \\left(\\frac{1}{\\theta} \\right) \\right].$$ The above along with $(\\ref{wkb})$ establishes the asymptotic result in $(\\ref{eq7})$. The asymptotic matching between $(\\ref{eq6})$ and $(\\ref{eq7})$ is immediate, since $\\rho^{K/ \\omega - 1} = \\rho^{-1} e^{-K / t}$, and $(\\omega - K) / \\lambda \\sim \\omega / \\lambda = t$ as $\\omega \\rightarrow \\infty$.\n\nAnalysis for $t = v / \\rho  = O(\\rho^{-1}), v > 0$\n--------------------------------------------------\n\nWe assume that time to expiry for the option is large, with $t = v / \\rho = O(\\rho^{-1})$. On this time scale we assume that $$\\label{vwkb}\n\\alpha(t; \\rho) \\sim \\frac{1}{\\rho} \\exp \\left(-\\frac{1}{\\rho K} \\right) A(v),$$ where $A(\\cdot)$ will be determined from $(\\ref{IE})$. After scaling $\\theta = \\rho W$, $(\\ref{IE})$ becomes $$\\label{vie}\n\\frac{e^{-K \\rho W}}{K \\rho} \\sim \\int_{W}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{z+1} \\exp \\left[-ze^{-\\frac{1}{\\rho K}}A \\left(\\log \\left[\\frac{W+1}{W} \\frac{z}{z+1} \\right] \\right) \\right] \\ dz.$$ The major contribution to the integral in $(\\ref{vie})$ will once more come from large values of $z$, so we approximate $$A \\left(\\log \\left[\\frac{W + 1}{W} \\frac{z}{z + 1} \\right] \\right) \\sim A \\left(\\log \\left[\\frac{W + 1}{W} \\right] \\right),$$ and then applying this to $(\\ref{IE})$ along with $(\\ref{expint})$ leads to $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{e^{-K \\rho W}}{K \\rho} & \\sim - \\log \\left\\{e^{-\\frac{1}{\\rho K}} A \\left(\\log \\left[\\frac{W + 1}{W} \\right] \\right) \\right\\} - \\gamma  - \\log(W + 1) \\\\\n&= \\frac{1}{K \\rho} - \\gamma - \\log \\left\\{(W + 1) A \\left(\\log \\left[\\frac{W + 1}{W} \\right] \\right) \\right\\} + o(1).\\end{aligned}$$ Then after expanding $e^{-K \\rho W} = 1 - K \\rho W + O(\\rho^2)$ we conclude that $$A \\left(\\log \\left[\\frac{W + 1}{W} \\right] \\right) = e^{-\\gamma} \\frac{1}{W + 1} e^W$$ which determines the function $A(\\cdot)$ and establishes $(\\ref{eq8})$.\n\nFinally we verify the asymptotic matching between $(\\ref{eq7})$ and $(\\ref{eq8})$. For $v \\rightarrow 0$ we have $(e^v - 1)^{-1} = v^{-1} - \\frac{1}{2} + O(v)$ and $1 - e^{-v} \\sim v = \\rho t$. For $t \\rightarrow \\infty$ we have $e^{-K / t} = 1 - \\frac{K}{t} + O(t^{-2}) = 1 - \\frac{K \\rho}{v} + O(\\rho^2)$ so that $-(\\frac{1}{2} + \\frac{1}{\\rho K}) e^{-K / t} \\sim -v^{-1} + \\frac{1}{2}$ and the matching follows. As $v \\rightarrow \\infty$ we have $A(v) \\rightarrow e^{-\\gamma}$ and thus the expansion in $(\\ref{vwkb})$ agrees with the small $\\rho$ expansion of $\\alpha(\\infty; \\rho)$, as given in $(\\ref{fbper})$.\n\n[99]{}\n\nJ.A Addison, S.D. Howison, J.R. King. Ray methods for free boundary problems. [*Quart. Appl. Math.*]{}, 64(1):41-59, 2006.\n\nF. Black and M. Scholes. The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. [*J. Political Econom*]{}., 81:637-659, 1973.\n\nJ. Cox and S. Ross. The valuation of options for alternative stochastic processes. [*J. Financial Econom*]{}., 3:145-166, 1976.\n\nD. Davydov and V. Linetsky. The valuation and hedging of barrier and lookback options under the CEV process [*Management Science*]{}, 47:949-965, 2001.\n\nJ.D. Evans, R.A. Kuske, and J.B. Keller. American options on assets with dividends near expiry. [*Math. Finance*]{}, 12:219-237, 2002.\n\nJ.P. Fouque, G. Papanicolaou, R. Sircar, and K. Solna. Singular perturbations in option pricing. [*SIAM J. Appl. Math.*]{}, 63(5):1648-1665, 2003.\n\nS.D. Howison. Matched asymptotic expansions in financial engineering. [*J. Engrg. Math.*]{}, 53:385-406, 2005.\n\nF. Hu and C. Knessl. Asymptotics of barrier option pricing under the CEV process. [*Appl. Math. Finance*]{}, 17(3):261-300, 2010.\n\nC. Knessl. A note on a moving boundary problem arising in the American put option. [*Stud. Appl. Math.*]{}, 107(2):157-183, 2001.\n\nC. Knessl. Asymptotic analysis of the American call option with dividends. [*European J. Appl. Math.*]{}, 13(6):587-616, 2002.\n\nR.A Kuske and J.B. Keller. Optimal exercise boundary for an American put option. [*Appl. Math. Finance*]{}, 5:107-116, 1998.\n\nC.F. Lo, P.H. Yuen, and C.H. Hui. Pricing barrier options with square root process. [*Int. J. Theor. Appl. Finance*]{}, 5:805-818, 2001.\n\nM. Widdicks, P.W Duck, A.D. Andricopoulos, and D.P. Newton. The Black-Scholes equation revisited: Asymptotic expansions and singular perturbations. [*Math. Finance*]{}, 15(2):373-391, 2005.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The Baumslag-Solitar group is an example of an HNN extension. Spielberg showed that it has a natural positive cone, and that it is then a quasi-lattice ordered group in the sense of Nica. We give conditions for an HNN extension of a quasi-lattice ordered group $(G,P)$ to be quasi-lattice ordered. In that case, if $(G,P)$ is amenable as a quasi-lattice ordered group, then so is the HNN extension.'\naddress: 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.'\nauthor:\n- Astrid an Huef\n- Iain Raeburn\n- Ilija Tolich\ndate: '8 March, 2017'\ntitle: 'HNN extensions of quasi-lattice ordered groups and their operator algebras'\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nSince they were introduced by Nica [@Nica1992], quasi-lattice ordered groups and their $C^*$-algebras have generated considerable interest (see, for example, [@LacaRaeburn1996],[@LacaRaeburn2010]). The amenability of quasi-lattice ordered groups has been a deep subject (see, for example, [@CrispLaca2002],[@CrispLaca2007] and [@Li2012]). Quasi-lattice ordered groups are also examples of the more recent LCM semigroups [@BrownloweLarsenStammeier2016], [@Starling2015]. Here we generalise two recent results about the Baumslag-Solitar group.\n\nFirst, Spielberg proved that the Baumslag-Solitar group is quasi-lattice ordered [@Spielberg2012]. The Baumslag-Solitar group is an example of an HNN extension of ${\\mathbb{Z}}$, and hence we wondered if HNN extensions could provide new classes of quasi-lattice ordered groups. Spielberg also showed that a groupoid associated to the Baumslag-Solitar semigroup is amenable [@Spielberg2012 Theorem\u00a03.22].\n\nSecond, Clark, an Huef and Raeburn examined the phase-transitions of the Toeplitz algebra of the Baumslag-Solitar group [@HuefClarkRaeburn2015]. As part of their investigation they proved that the Baumslag-Solitar group is amenable as a quasi-lattice ordered group. The standard way to prove amenability, introduced by Laca and Raeburn [@LacaRaeburn1996], is to use a \u201ccontrolled map\u201d: an order-preserving homomorphism between quasi-lattice ordered groups. They observed that the height map, which counts the number of times the stable letter of the HNN extension appears in a word, is almost a controlled map, and then they adapted the standard proof in [@HuefClarkRaeburn2015 Appendix\u00a0A] to fit.\n\nOur innovation in this paper is a more general definition of a controlled map. We prove in Theorem\u00a0\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\] that if $(G,P)$ is a quasi-lattice ordered group and there is a controlled map $\\mu$ into an amenable group, and if $\\ker\\mu$ is an amenable quasi-lattice ordered group, then $G$ is amenable. The motivation for Theorem\u00a0\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\] was two-fold. First, if a normal subgroup $N$ of a group $G$ is amenable and $G/N$ is amenable, then $G$ is amenable, and second, Spielberg\u2019s result on amenability of groupoids [@Spielberg2014 Proposition\u00a09.3].\n\nIn Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\] we give conditions under which an HNN extension of a quasi-lattice ordered group is quasi-lattice ordered. This result allows us to construct many new examples of quasi-lattice ordered groups. Finally, we use Theorem\u00a0\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\] to prove that an HNN extension of an amenable quasi-lattice ordered group is amenable (Theorem\u00a0\\[HNN extensions are amenable as expected\\]).\n\nPreliminaries\n=============\n\nLet $P$ be a subsemigroup of a discrete group $G$ such that $P\\cap P^{-1}=\\{e\\}$. There is a partial order on $G$ defined by $$x\\leq y\\Leftrightarrow x^{-1}y\\in P\\Leftrightarrow y\\in xP.$$ The order is left-invariant in the sense that $x\\leq y$ implies $zx\\leq zy$ for all $z \\in G$. A partially ordered group $(G, P)$ is *quasi-lattice ordered* if every finite subset of $G$ with a common upper bound in $P$ has a least common upper bound in $P$ [@Nica1992 Definition 2.1]. By [@CrispLaca2002 Lemma 7], $(G,P)$ is quasi-lattice ordered if and only if: $$\\label{Crisp Laca}\n\\ \\hfill\n\\parbox{0.9\\textwidth}{\n if $x\\in PP^{-1}$, then there exist a pair  $\\mu, \\nu\\in P$ with $x=\\mu\\nu^{-1}$  such that $\\gamma, \\delta\\in P$ and $\\gamma\\delta^{-1}=\\mu\\nu^{-1}$ imply $\\mu\\leq \\gamma$ and $\\nu\\leq \\delta$. (The pair $\\mu, \\nu$ is unique.)}$$\n\nLet $(G, P)$ be a quasi-lattice ordered group, and let $x, y\\in G$. If $x$ and $y$ have a common upper bound in $P$, then their least common upper bound in $P$ is denoted $x\\vee y$. We write $x\\vee y=\\infty$ when $x$ and $y$ have no common upper bound in $P$ and $x\\vee y<\\infty$ when they have a common upper bound. An *isometric representation of $P$* in a $C^*$-algebra $A$ is a map $W:P\\to A$ such that $W_e=1$, $W_p$ is an isometry and $W_pW_q=W_{pq}$ for all $p,q\\in P$. We say that $W$ is *covariant* if $$\\label{covariance condition}\nW_pW^*_pW_qW^*_q=\\begin{cases}W_{p\\vee q}W^*_{p\\vee q}&\\text{if $p\\vee q<\\infty$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise.}\n\\end{cases}$$ Equivalently, $W$ is covariant if $$W^*_pW_q=\\begin{cases}W_{p^{-1}(p\\vee q)}W^*_{q^{-1}(p\\vee q)}&\\text{if $p\\vee q<\\infty$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise.}\\end{cases}$$ An example of a covariant representation is $T:P\\to B(\\ell^2(P))$ characterised by $T_p\\epsilon_x=\\epsilon_{px}$ where $\\{\\epsilon_x:x\\in P\\}$ is the orthonormal basis of point masses in $\\ell^2(P)$.\n\nIn [@Nica1992 \u00a7\u00a72.4 and 4.1] Nica examined two $C^*$-algebras associated to $(G, P)$. The reduced $C^*$-algebra $C^*_r(G,P)$ of $(G,P)$ is the $C^*$-subalgebra of $B(\\ell^2(P))$ generated by $\\{T_p:p\\in P\\}$. The universal $C^*$-algebra $C^*(G,P)$ of $(G,P)$ is generated by a universal covariant representation $w$; it is universal for covariant representations of $P$ in the following sense: for any covariant representation $W:P\\to A$ there exists a unital homomorphism $\\pi_W:C^*(G,P)\\to A$ such that $\\pi_W(w_p)=W_p$. It follows from that $$C^*(G,P)= \\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}\\{w_pw^*_q:p, q\\in P\\}.$$\n\nNica defined $(G,P)$ to be *amenable* if the homomorphism $\\pi_T:C^*(G,P)\\to C^*_r(G,P)$ is faithful [@Nica1992 \u00a74.2]. He identified an equivalent condition: there exists a conditional expectation $E:C^*(G,P)\\to \\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}\\{w_pw^*_p:p\\in P\\}$, and $(G,P)$ is amenable if and only if $E$ is faithful (that is, $E(a^*a)=0$ implies $a^*a=0$ for all $a\\in C^*(G,P)$). Laca and Raeburn took this second condition as their definition of amenability [@LacaRaeburn1996 Definition 3.4].\n\nOrder-preserving maps and amenability\n=====================================\n\nA key technique, introduced by Laca and Raeburn in [@LacaRaeburn1996 Proposition 6.6][^2], is the use of an order-preserving homomorphism between two quasi-lattice ordered groups which preserves the least upper bound structure. Crisp and Laca called such a homomorphism a *controlled map* [@CrispLaca2007]. If $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ are quasi-lattice ordered groups, $\\mu:G\\to K$ is a controlled map and $K$ is an amenable group, then $(G,P)$ is amenable as a quasi-lattice ordered group by [@LacaRaeburn1996 Proposition 6.6]. Motivated by work in [@HuefClarkRaeburn2015 Appendix\u00a0A] we now give a weaker definition for a controlled map. We then follow the program of [@HuefClarkRaeburn2015] to generalise [@LacaRaeburn1996 Proposition 6.6]. We state this generalisation in Theorem\u00a0\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\] below; its proof will take up the remainder of this section.\n\n\\[expanded controlled map definition\\] Let $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups. Let $\\mu:G\\to K$ be an order-preserving group homomorphism. For each $k\\in Q$, let $\\Sigma_k$ be the set of $\\sigma\\in \\mu^{-1}(k)\\cap P$ which are minimal in the sense that $$x\\in \\mu^{-1}(k)\\cap P \\text{\\ and\\ }x\\leq\\sigma\\Rightarrow \\sigma=x.$$ We say $\\mu$ is a *controlled map* if it has the following properties:\n\n1.  \\[cm-1\\] For all $x,y\\in G$ such that $x\\vee y<\\infty$ we have $\\mu(x)\\vee \\mu(y)=\\mu(x\\vee y)$.\n\n2.  \\[cm-2\\] For all $k\\in Q$, $\\Sigma_k$ is complete in the following sense: for every $x\\in \\mu^{-1}(k)\\cap P$ there exists $\\sigma\\in \\Sigma_k$ such that $\\sigma\\leq x$.\n\n3.  \\[cm-3\\] For all $k\\in Q$ and $\\sigma,\\tau\\in\\Sigma_k$ we have $\\sigma\\vee\\tau<\\infty\\Rightarrow\\sigma=\\tau$.\n\n\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\] Let $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups. Suppose that $\\mu:G\\to K$ is a controlled map. If $K$ is an amenable group and $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is an amenable quasi-lattice ordered group, then $(G,P)$ is amenable.\n\nWe start by showing that the kernel of a controlled map is a quasi-lattice ordered group.\n\nLet $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups, and suppose that $\\mu:G\\to K$ is a controlled map. Then $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is a quasi-lattice ordered group.\n\nIt is clear that $\\mu^{-1}(e)$ is a subgroup of $G$ and that$\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P$ is a unital semigroup. Suppose that $x,y\\in \\mu^{-1}(e)$ have a common upper bound $z\\in \\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P$. We know that $z$ is a common upper bound for $x,y$ in $P$, and hence $x\\vee y$ exists in $P$ and $x\\vee y\\leq z$. Now $\\mu(x\\vee y)=\\mu(x)\\vee \\mu(y)=e$, and hence $x\\vee y\\in \\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P$. Thus $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is a quasi-lattice ordered group.\n\nTo prove Theorem\u00a0\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\] we will show that the conditional expectation $$E:C^*(G,P)\\to \\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}\\{w_pw^*_p:p\\in P\\}$$ is faithful. We will use the amenability of $K$ to construct a faithful conditional expectation $\\Psi^\\mu:C^*(G,P)\\to{\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}$, and then show that $E$ is faithful when restricted to ${\\operatorname{range}}\\Psi^\\mu$. To construct $\\Psi^\\mu$ we follow the method of [@LacaRaeburn1996 Lemma 6.5] which uses a coaction.\n\nLet $G$ be a discrete group and let $A$ be a unital $C^*$-algebra. Let $$\\delta_G:C^*(G)\\to C^*(G)\\otimes_{\\min} C^*(G)$$ be the comultiplication of $G$ which is characterised by $\\delta_G(u_g)=u_g\\otimes u_g$ for $g\\in G$. A *coaction* of $G$ on $A$ is a unital homomorphism $\\delta:A\\to A\\otimes_{\\min} C^*(G)$ such that $$(\\delta\\otimes {{\\operatorname{id}}})\\circ\\delta=({{\\operatorname{id}}}\\otimes \\delta_G)\\circ \\delta.$$ We say that $\\delta$ is *nondegenerate* if $\\delta(A)(1\\otimes C^*(G))=A\\otimes_{\\min} C^*(G)$.\n\n\\[faithful coaction exists\\] Let $(G,P)$ be a quasi-lattice ordered group. Suppose that there exists a group $K$ and a homomorphism $\\mu:G\\to K$. Then there exists an injective coaction $$\\delta_\\mu:C^*(G,P)\\to C^*(G,P)\\otimes_{\\min} C^*(K)$$ characterised by $\\delta_\\mu(w_p)=w_p\\otimes u_{\\mu(p)}$ for all $p\\in P$.\n\nLet $W:P\\to C^*(G,P)\\otimes_{\\min}C^*(K)$ be characterised by $W_p=w_p\\otimes u_{\\mu(p)}$. We will show that $W$ is a covariant representation, and then take $\\delta_\\mu:=\\pi_W$. Unitaries are isometries and hence $W_p$ is isometric for all $p\\in P$. Observe that $W_e=w_e\\otimes u_{\\mu(e)}=1\\otimes 1$, and $$W_pW_q=w_pw_q\\otimes u_{\\mu(p)}u_{\\mu(q)}=w_{pq}\\otimes u_{\\mu(pq)}=W_{pq}\\text{ for all $p,q\\in P$.}$$ Thus $W$ is an isometric representation. To prove $W$ is covariant, we fix $x,y\\in P$ and compute: $$\\begin{aligned}\n      W_xW^*_xW_yW^*_y&=w_xw^*_xw_yw^*_y\\otimes u_{\\mu(x)}u^*_{\\mu(x)}u_{\\mu(y)}u^*_{\\mu(y)}\\\\\n      &=\\begin{cases}w_{x\\vee y}w^*_{x\\vee y}\\otimes 1&\\text{if $x\\vee y<\\infty$}\\\\0\\otimes 1&\\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}\\\\\n      &=\\begin{cases}w_{x\\vee y}w^*_{x\\vee y}\\otimes w_{\\mu(x\\vee y)}w^*_{\\mu(x\\vee y)}&\\text{if $x\\vee y<\\infty$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}\\\\\n      &=W_{x\\vee y}W^*_{x\\vee y}.\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Thus $W$ is a covariant representation of $P$. By the universal property of $C^*(G,P)$, there exists a homomorphism $\\delta_\\mu:=\\pi_W$, which has the desired properties. Since $W_e=1\\otimes 1$ it follows that $\\delta_\\mu$ is unital.\n\nTo prove the comultiplication identity, we compute on generators: for $p,q\\in P$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n      ((\\delta_\\mu\\otimes{{\\operatorname{id}}})\\circ \\delta_\\mu)(w_pw^*_q)&=(\\delta_\\mu\\otimes{{\\operatorname{id}}})(w_pw^*_q\\otimes u_{\\mu(pq^{-1})})\\\\\n      &=\\delta_\\mu(w_pw^*_q)\\otimes {{\\operatorname{id}}}(u_{\\mu(pq^{-1})})\\\\\n      &=w_pw^*_q\\otimes u_{\\mu(pq^{-1})}\\otimes u_{\\mu(pq^{-1})}\\\\\n      &=w_pw^*_q\\otimes \\delta_K(u_{\\mu(pq^{-1})})\\\\\n      &={{\\operatorname{id}}}\\otimes\\delta_K(w_pw^*_q\\otimes u_{\\mu(pq^{-1})})\\\\\n      &=(({{\\operatorname{id}}}\\otimes\\delta_K)\\circ \\delta_\\mu)(w_pw^*_q).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Hence $(\\delta_\\mu\\otimes{{\\operatorname{id}}})\\circ\\delta_\\mu=({{\\operatorname{id}}}\\otimes\\delta_K)\\circ \\delta_\\mu$. Thus $\\delta_\\mu$ is a coaction.\n\nTo show that $\\delta_\\mu$ is injective, let $\\pi:C^*(G,P)\\to B(H)$ be a faithful representation. We will show that $\\pi$ can be written as a composition of $\\delta_\\mu$ and another representation. Let $\\epsilon:C^*(K)\\to{\\mathbb{C}}$ be the trivial representation on ${\\mathbb{C}}$ such that $\\epsilon(u_k)=1$ for all $k\\in K$. By the properties of the minimal tensor product (see [@RaeburnWilliams1998 Proposition B.13]) there exists a homomorphism $$\\pi\\otimes \\epsilon:C^*(G,P)\\otimes_{\\min} C^*(G)\\to B(H)\\otimes{\\mathbb{C}}=B(H).$$ Since $$(\\pi\\otimes \\epsilon)\\circ \\delta_\\mu(w_p)=(\\pi\\otimes \\epsilon)(w_p\\otimes u_{\\mu(p)})=\\pi(w_p),$$ we have $\\pi=(\\pi\\otimes \\epsilon)\\circ \\delta_\\mu$. Now suppose that $\\delta_\\mu(a)=0$ for some $a\\in C^*(G,P)$. Then $0=(\\pi\\otimes \\epsilon)\\circ \\delta_\\mu(a)=\\pi(a)$. Since $\\pi$ is faithful, $a=0$. Hence $\\delta_\\mu$ is injective.\n\nTo prove that $\\delta_\\mu$ is a nondegenerate coaction we must show that $$\\delta_\\mu(C^*(G,P))(1\\otimes C^*(K))=C^*(G,P)\\otimes_{\\min} C^*(K).$$ It suffices to show that we can get the spanning elements $w_pw^*_q\\otimes u_k$, and this is easy: $$\\delta_\\mu(w_pw^*_q)(1\\otimes u_{\\mu(qp^{-1}) k})=w_pw^*_q\\otimes u_{\\mu(pq^{-1})}(1\\otimes u_{\\mu(qp^{-1}) k})=w_pw^*_q\\otimes u_k.$$ Thus $\\delta_\\mu$ is nondegenerate.\n\nLet $\\lambda$ be the left-regular representation of a discrete group $K$. There is a trace $\\tau$ on $C^*(K)$ characterised by $$ \\tau(u_k)= (\\lambda_k\\epsilon_e\\mid \\epsilon_e)=\\begin{cases}1 &\\text{if $k=e$}\\\\ 0&\\text{otherwise}.  \\end{cases}$$ It is well-known that if $K$ is an amenable group, then $\\tau$ is faithful.\n\n\\[conditional expectation construction\\] Let $(G,P)$ be a quasi-lattice ordered group. Suppose that there exist a group $K$ and a homomorphism $\\mu:G\\to K$. Let $$\\delta_\\mu:C^*(G,P)\\to C^*(G,P)\\otimes_{\\min} C^*(K)$$ be the coaction of Lemma\u00a0\\[faithful coaction exists\\]. Then $$\\Psi^\\mu:=({{\\operatorname{id}}}\\otimes \\tau)\\circ\\delta_\\mu$$ is a conditional expectation of $C^*(G,P)$ with range ${\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw_q^*: \\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}$. If $K$ is an amenable group, then $\\Psi^\\mu$ is faithful.\n\nSince ${{\\operatorname{id}}}\\otimes \\tau$ and $\\delta_\\mu$ are linear and norm decreasing, so is $\\Psi^\\mu$. Since $\\Psi^\\mu(w_e)=1$ the norm of $\\Psi^\\mu$ is $1$. We have $$\\label{expectation construction eqn}\n \\Psi^\\mu(w_pw^*_q)=\\begin{cases}w_pw^*_q&\\text{if $\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise,}\\end{cases}$$ and hence $\\Psi^\\mu\\circ\\Psi^\\mu=\\Psi^\\mu$. Thus $\\Psi^\\mu$ is a conditional expectation by [@Tomiyama1957].\n\nFrom we see that $\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(q)=\\mu(p)\\}\\subseteq {\\operatorname{range}}\\Psi^\\mu$. To show the reverse inclusion, fix $b\\in {\\operatorname{range}}\\Psi^\\mu$, say $b=\\Psi^\\mu(a)$ for some $a\\in C^*(G,P)$. Also fix $\\epsilon>0$. There exists a finite subset $F\\subseteq P\\times P$ such that $\\|a-\\sum_{(p,q)\\in F}\\lambda_{p,q}w_{p}w^*_{q}\\|<\\epsilon$. Since $\\Psi^\\mu$ is linear and norm-decreasing, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\epsilon&>\\Big\\|a-\\sum_{(p,q)\\in F}\\lambda_{p,q}w_{p}w^*_{q}\\Big\\|\n\\geq \\Big\\|\\Psi^\\mu\\Big(a-\\sum_{(p,q)\\in F}\\lambda_{p,q}w_{p}w^*_{q}\\Big)\\Big\\|\\\\\n&\n=\\Big\\|\\Psi^\\mu(a)-\\Psi^\\mu\\Big(\\sum_{(p,q)\\in F}\\lambda_{p,q}w_{p}w^*_{q}\\Big)\\Big\\|  =\\Big\\|b-\\sum_{(p,q)\\in F\\text{, }\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)}\\lambda_{p,q}w_{p}w^*_{q}\\Big\\|.\\end{aligned}$$ Thus $b\\in  \\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(q)=\\mu(p)\\}$, and ${\\operatorname{range}}\\Psi^\\mu=\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(q)=\\mu(p)\\}$.\n\nNow suppose that $K$ is amenable. To see that $\\Psi^\\mu$ is faithful, we follow the proof of [@LacaRaeburn1996 Lemma 6.5]. Let $a\\in  C^*(G,P)$ and suppose that $\\Psi^\\mu(a^*a)=0$. Let $f$ be an arbitrary state on $C^*(G,P)$. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n           0&=f(\\Psi^\\mu(a^*a))\n           =f\\circ({{\\operatorname{id}}}\\otimes \\tau)\\circ \\delta_\\mu(a^*a)\\\\\n           &=(f\\otimes \\tau)\\circ \\delta_\\mu(a^*a)\n           =\\tau\\circ(f\\otimes {{\\operatorname{id}}})\\circ\\delta_\\mu(a^*a).\n          \\end{aligned}$$ Since $K$ is amenable, $\\tau$ is faithful. Hence $(f\\otimes {{\\operatorname{id}}})\\circ\\delta(a^*a)=0$. This implies that for all states $f$ on $C^*(G,P)$ and states $g$ on $C^*(K)$, $$g\\circ (f\\otimes {{\\operatorname{id}}})\\circ\\delta_\\mu(a^*a)=(f\\otimes g)\\circ\\delta_\\mu(a^*a)=0.$$\n\nTo see that $\\delta_\\mu(a^*a)=0$, let $\\pi_1:C^*(G,P)\\to H_1$ and $\\pi_2:C^*(K)\\to H_2$ be faithful representations. Then $\\pi_1\\otimes\\pi_2$ is a faithful representation of $C^*(G,P)\\otimes_{\\min}C^*(K)$ on $B(H_1\\otimes H_2)$ by [@RaeburnWilliams1998 Corollary\u00a0B.11]. Fix unit vectors $h\\in H_1$, $k\\in H_2$. There exists a state $f_h\\otimes f_k$ on $C^*(G,P)\\otimes_{\\min}C^*(K)$ defined by $$f_h\\otimes f_k(x)=(\\pi_1\\otimes\\pi_2(x)(h\\otimes k)\\mid h\\otimes k).$$ Since $(f\\otimes g)\\circ\\delta_\\mu(a^*a)=0$ for all states $f$ of $C^*(G, P)$ and $g$ of $C^*(K)$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n  0&=f_h\\otimes f_k(\\delta_\\mu(a^*a))\\\\\n  &=(\\pi_1\\otimes\\pi_2(\\delta_\\mu(a^*a))(h\\otimes k)\\mid h\\otimes k)\\\\\n  &=(\\pi_1\\otimes\\pi_2(\\delta_\\mu(a))(h\\otimes k)\\mid \\pi_1\\otimes\\pi_2(\\delta_\\mu(a)) h\\otimes k)\\\\\n  &=\\|\\pi_1\\otimes\\pi_2(\\delta_\\mu(a))(h\\otimes k)\\|^2.\\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\\pi_1\\otimes\\pi_2(\\delta_\\mu(a^*a))=0$. Since $\\pi_1\\otimes \\pi_2$ is faithful, $\\delta_\\mu(a^*a))=0$. But $\\delta_\\mu$ is injective, and hence $a=0$, and $\\Psi^\\mu$ is faithful.\n\nNext we investigate the structure of $${\\operatorname{range}}\\Psi^\\mu={\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw_q^*:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}.$$ In the statement of the next lemma, note that we can view $C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ as a $C^*$-subalgebra of $C^*(G,P)$.\n\nLet $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups, and suppose that $\\mu:G\\to K$ a controlled map. Let $k\\in Q$, and let $F$ be a finite subset of $\\Sigma_k$. Let $$B_{k,F}:={\\operatorname{span}}\\{w_\\sigma Dw^*_\\tau:\\sigma,\\tau\\in F,D\\in C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)\\}.$$ Then $B_{k,F}$ is a closed $C^*$-subalgebra of ${\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw_q^*:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}$.\n\nTo see that $B_{k,F}$ is contained in ${\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw_q^*:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}$, it suffices to consider $D$ of the form $w_\\alpha w_\\beta^*$ where $\\mu(\\alpha)=\\mu(\\beta)=e$. Then $w_\\sigma Dw^*_\\tau=w_{\\sigma\\alpha}w_{\\tau\\beta}^*$ and $\\mu(\\sigma\\alpha)=\\mu(\\sigma)=k=\\mu(\\tau)=\\mu(\\tau\\beta)$. Thus $B_{k,F}$ is a subalgebra of ${\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw_q^*:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}$.\n\nWe will prove the lemma by showing that $B_{k,F}$ is isomorphic to $$M_{F}({\\mathbb{C}})\\otimes C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big).$$ By Definition\u00a0\\[expanded controlled map definition\\], the elements of $F$ have no common upper bound unless they are equal. So $$(w_{\\sigma}w^*_{\\tau})(w_{\\gamma}w^*_{\\delta})=w_{\\sigma\\tau^{-1}(\\tau\\vee\\gamma)}w^*_{\\delta\\gamma^{-1}(\\tau\\vee\\gamma)}=\\begin{cases}w_{\\sigma}w^*_{\\delta}&\\text{if $\\tau=\\gamma$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise.}\\end{cases}$$ Thus $\\{w_{\\sigma}w^*_{\\tau}:\\sigma,\\tau\\in F\\}$ is a set of matrix units in the $C^*$-algebra $\\overline{B_{k,F}}$. This gives a homomorphism $\\theta:M_{F}({\\mathbb{C}})\\to \\overline{B_{k,F}}$ which maps the matrix units $\\{E_{\\sigma,\\tau}:\\sigma,\\tau\\in F\\}$ in $M_{F}({\\mathbb{C}})$ to $\\{w_{\\sigma}w^*_{\\tau}:\\sigma,\\tau\\in F\\}\\subset {B_{k,F}}$. It is easy to check that the formula $$\\psi(D)=\\sum_{\\gamma\\in F}w_{\\gamma}Dw^*_{\\gamma}$$ gives a homomorphism $\\psi:C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)\\to B_{k,F}$. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\n      \\theta(E_{\\sigma,\\tau})\\psi(D)&=w_{\\sigma}w^*_{\\tau}\\sum_{\\gamma\\in F}w_{\\gamma}Dw^*_{\\gamma}\\\\\n      &=w_{\\sigma}w^*_{\\tau}w_{\\tau}Dw^*_{\\tau}\\quad\\text{($w^*_{\\tau}w_{\\gamma}=0$ unless $\\tau=\\gamma$)}\\\\\n      &=w_{\\sigma}Dw^*_{\\tau}\\\\\n      &=(\\sum_{\\gamma\\in F}w_{\\gamma}Dw^*_{\\gamma})w_{\\sigma}w^*_{\\tau}\\\\\n      &=\\psi(D)\\theta(E_{\\sigma,\\tau}).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Each $A\\in M_{F}({\\mathbb{C}})$ is a linear combination of the $E_{\\sigma,\\tau}$, and hence $\\psi(D)\\theta(A)=\\theta(A)\\psi(D)$ for all $A\\in M_{F}({\\mathbb{C}})$ and $D\\in C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$. Since the ranges of $\\theta$ and $\\psi$ commute, the universal property of the maximal tensor product gives a homomorphism $\\theta\\otimes_{\\max} \\psi$ of $M_{F}({\\mathbb{C}})\\otimes_{\\max}C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ into $\\overline{B_{k,F}}$.\n\nBy [@RaeburnWilliams1998 Theorem B.18] $$\\begin{aligned}\nM_{F}({\\mathbb{C}})\\otimes&_{\\max}C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)\\\\\n&={\\operatorname{span}}\\{E_{\\sigma,\\tau}\\otimes D: \\sigma,\\tau\\in F \\text{\\ and\\ } D\\in C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big) \\},\\end{aligned}$$ with no closure. So the range of $\\theta\\otimes_{\\max} \\psi$ is spanned by $\\theta(E_{\\sigma,\\tau})\\psi(D)=w_{\\sigma}Dw^*_{\\tau}$ and hence is $B_{k,F}$. Thus $B_{k,F}$ is a closed $C^*$-subalgebra of ${\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw_q^*:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}$.\n\nLet $\\{\\epsilon_x:x\\in P\\}$ be the usual basis for $\\ell^2(P)$. Let $T$ be the covariant representation of $(G,P)$ on $\\ell^2(P)$ such that $T_p\\epsilon_x=\\epsilon_{px}$, and let $\\pi_T$ be the corresponding homomorphism of $C^*(G,P)$ onto $C^*_r(G,P)$ such that $\\pi_T(w_p)=T_p$. For $k\\in Q$ we consider the subspaces $$H_k:=\\{\\epsilon_{\\gamma z}:\\gamma\\in\\Sigma_k,z\\in \\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\}.$$\n\n\\[isometric on H\\_k\\] Let $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups, and suppose that $\\mu:G\\to K$ is a controlled map. Let $k\\in Q$. Then\n\n1.  $H_k$ is invariant for $\\pi_T|_{B_{k,F}}$;\n\n2.  \\[isometric on H\\_k2\\] if $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is amenable, then $\\pi_T|_{B_{k,F}}$ is isometric on $H_k$.\n\nFor (1), let $\\sigma,\\tau\\in F$ and let $x,y\\in\\mu^{-1}(e)$ and let $\\epsilon_{\\gamma z}\\in H_k$. Then $w_{\\sigma}w_{x}w^*_yw^*_{\\tau}$ is a spanning element of $B_{k,F}$. Since $\\mu(\\tau)=k=\\mu(\\gamma)$ we have $$\\pi_T(w_{\\sigma}w_{x}w^*_yw^*_{\\tau})\\epsilon_{\\gamma z}=\n    \\begin{cases}\\epsilon_{\\sigma xy^{-1} z}&\\text{if $\\gamma=\\tau$ and $y\\leq z$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise.}\\end{cases}$$ If $\\pi_T(w_{\\sigma}w_{x}w^*_yw^*_{\\tau})\\epsilon_{\\gamma z}=0$ we are done. Otherwise, to see that $\\epsilon_{\\sigma xy^{-1} z}$ is back in $H_k$, suppose that $y\\leq z$. Then $y^{-1}z\\in P$. Since $\\sigma x\\in \\mu^{-1}(k)\\cap P$ we have $\\epsilon_{(\\sigma x)(y^{-1} z)}\\in H_k$. It follows that $H_k$ is invariant for $\\pi_T|_{B_{k,F}}$.\n\nFor (2) suppose that $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is amenable. We will show that $\\pi_T|_{B_{k,F}}$ is faithful on $H_k$. Take $B=\\sum_{\\sigma,\\tau\\in F} w_{\\sigma}D_{\\sigma,\\tau}w^*_{\\tau}\\in B_{k,F}$ and suppose that $\\pi_T(B)|_{H_k}=0$. Fix $\\gamma,\\delta\\in F$. Then $$T^*_{\\gamma}\\pi_T(B)T_{\\delta}=\\pi_T(w^*_{\\gamma})\\pi_T(B)\\pi_T(w_{\\delta})=\\pi_T(D_{\\gamma,\\delta})$$ Since $T_{\\delta}$ is an injection from $H_{e}$ to $H_k$ and $\\pi_T(B)|_{H_k}=0$, it follows that $\\pi_T(B)T_{\\delta}|_{H_e}=0$. Thus $\\pi_T(D_{\\gamma,\\delta})|_{H_e}=0$.\n\nBut the restriction $$(\\pi_T|_{C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)})|_{H_e}$$ is the Toeplitz representation of $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$, and hence is faithful by amenability. Thus $D_{\\gamma,\\delta}=0$. Repeating the argument finitely many times shows that all the $D_{\\sigma,\\tau}=0$ and hence that $B=0$. Thus $\\pi_T|_{B_{k,F}}$ is faithful on $H_k$, and therefore is isometric.\n\n\\[faithful on Bk\\] Let $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups, and suppose that $\\mu:G\\to K$ is a controlled map. Let $B_k=\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)=k\\}$. Let ${\\mathcal{F}}$ be the set of all finite sets $F\\subseteq \\Sigma_k$. Then $B_k=\\overline{\\cup_{F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}B_{k,F}}$. If $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is amenable, then $\\pi_T|_{B_{k}}$ is isometric on $H_k$.\n\nObserve that ${\\mathcal{F}}$ is a directed set partially ordered by inclusion with $E,F\\in {\\mathcal{F}}$ majorismajorizeded by $E\\cup F$. If $E\\subseteq F$, then $B_{k,E}\\subseteq B_{k,F}$. Thus $\\{B_{k,F}:F\\in {\\mathcal{F}}\\}$ is an inductive system with limit $\\overline{\\cup_{F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}B_{k,F}}$.\n\nFor each $F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}$ we have $B_{k,F}\\subseteq B_k$, and $B_k$ is closed. Therefore $\\overline{\\cup_{F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}B_{k,F}}\\subseteq B_k$. To prove the reverse inclusion it suffices to show that the spanning elements of $B_k$ are in $B_{k,F}$ for some $F$. Fix $p,q\\in P$ such that $\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)=k$ and consider $w_pw^*_q$. By Definition\u00a0\\[expanded controlled map definition\\], the set $\\Sigma_k$ of minimal elements is complete, and there exists $\\sigma,\\tau\\in\\Sigma_k$ such that $\\sigma\\leq p$ and $\\tau \\leq q$. Hence there exists $x,y\\in  P$ such that $p=\\sigma x$ and $q=\\tau y$. Thus $w_pw^*_q=w_{\\sigma x}w^*_{\\tau y}=w_{\\sigma}(w_xw^*_y)w^*_{\\tau}$ and $w_xw^*_y\\in  C^*\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$. Since $\\{\\sigma,\\tau\\}\\in{\\mathcal{F}}$ we have $w_pw^*_q\\in B_{k,\\{\\sigma,\\tau\\}}$. Thus $B_k\\subseteq \\overline{\\cup_{F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}}B_{k,F}}$, and equality follows.\n\nFinally, suppose that $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is amenable. Then $\\pi_T|_{B_{k,F}}$ is isometric on $H_k$ for all $F\\in{\\mathcal{F}}$ by Lemma\u00a0\\[isometric on H\\_k\\]. Since $\\pi_T$ is isometric on every $B_{k,F}$, its extension to the closure is also isometric.\n\nLet ${\\mathcal{I}}$ be the set of all finite sets $I\\subset Q$ that are closed under $\\vee$ in the sense that $s,t\\in I$ and $s\\vee t<\\infty$ implies that $s\\vee t\\in I$.\n\n\\[core is limit of CI\\] Let $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups, and suppose that $\\mu:G\\to K$ is a controlled map. For each $I\\in{\\mathcal{I}}$ let $$C_I=\\overline{\\operatorname{span}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\in I\\}.$$ Then $C_I$ is a $C^*$-subalgebra of ${\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw_q^*:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}$, $C_I={\\operatorname{span}}\\{B_k:k\\in I\\}$ and ${\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw_q^*:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}=\\overline{\\cup_{I\\in{\\mathcal{I}}}C_I}$.\n\nFix $I\\in{\\mathcal{I}}$. To see that $C_I$ is a $C^*$-subalgebra, it suffices to show that ${\\operatorname{span}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\in I\\}$ is a $*$-subalgebra. It\u2019s clearly closed under taking adjoints. Let $p,q,r,s\\in P$ such that $\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\in I$ and $\\mu(r)=\\mu(s)\\in I$. Then $$w_pw^*_qw_rw^*_s=\\begin{cases}w_{pq^{-1}(q\\vee r)}w^*_{sr^{-1}(q\\vee r)}&\\text{if $q\\vee r<\\infty$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise.}\\end{cases}$$ If $w_pw^*_qw_rw^*_s=0$ we are done. So suppose that $w_pw^*_qw_rw^*_s\\neq 0$. Then $q\\vee r<\\infty$. Since $\\mu$ is a controlled map and $\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)$, by Definition\u00a0\\[expanded controlled map definition\\], $$\\mu(pq^{-1}(q\\vee r))=\\mu(q\\vee r)=\\mu(q)\\vee \\mu(r).$$ Similarly, $\\mu(sr^{-1}(q\\vee r))=\\mu(q)\\vee \\mu(r)$. Since $I$ is closed under $\\vee$ we have $\\mu(q)\\vee \\mu(r)\\in I$, and hence $w_pw^*_qw_rw^*_s\\in {\\operatorname{span}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\in I\\}$. It follows that $C_I$ is a $C^*$-subalgebra.\n\nFor each $k\\in I$, we have $B_k\\subseteq C_I$, and so ${\\operatorname{span}}\\{B_k:k\\in I\\}\\subseteq C_I$. To show the reverse inclusion observe that for $w_pw^*_q\\in C_I$ we have $w_pw^*_q\\in B_{\\mu(p)}$. Since the finite span of closed subalgebras is closed, $\\overline{\\operatorname{span}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\in I\\}\\subseteq{\\operatorname{span}}\\{B_k:k\\in I\\}$. Thus $C_I={\\operatorname{span}}\\{B_k:k\\in I\\}$.\n\n\\[piT is faithful on core\\] Let $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups, and suppose that $\\mu:G\\to K$ is a controlled map. If $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is amenable, then $\\pi_T$ is faithful on $\\overline{\\operatorname{span}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}$.\n\nBy Lemma\u00a0\\[core is limit of CI\\], $\\overline{\\operatorname{span}}\\{w_pw^*_q:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}=\\overline{\\cup_{I\\in{\\mathcal{I}}}C_I}$. Thus it suffices to show that $\\pi_T$ is isometric on each $C_I$. Fix $I\\in {\\mathcal{I}}$. Suppose that $\\pi_T(R)=0$ for some $R\\in C_I$. Then there exist $R_k\\in B_k$ such that $R=\\sum_{k\\in I}R_k$ and then $\\sum_{k\\in I}\\pi_T(R_k)=0$.\n\nWe claim that if $k\\not\\leq j$, then $\\pi_T(B_k)|_{H_j}=0$ (it then follows that $\\pi_T(R_k)|_{H_j}=0$). To prove the claim, it suffices to show that $\\pi_T(w_q^*)\\epsilon_{\\gamma z}=0$ for all $q\\in \\mu^{-1}(k)\\cap P$ and $\\epsilon_{\\gamma z}\\in H_k$. We have $$\\pi_T(w_q^*)\\epsilon_{\\gamma z}=T^*_q\\epsilon_{\\gamma z}\n=\\begin{cases}\n\\epsilon_{q^{-1}\\gamma z} &\\text{if $q\\leq \\gamma z$}\\\\\n0&\\text{otherwise.}\n\\end{cases}$$ But $q\\leq \\gamma z$ implies $k=\\mu(q)\\leq \\mu(\\gamma z)=\\mu(\\gamma)=j$. So $k\\not\\leq j$ implies $\\pi_T(w_q^*)\\epsilon_{\\gamma z}=0$. Hence $\\pi_T(B_k)|_{H_j}=0$ if $k\\not\\leq j$ as claimed.\n\nLet $l$ be a minimal element of $I$ in the sense that $x\\leq l$ implies $x=l$. Then for $k\\in I$, we have $k\\not\\leq l$ unless $k=l$. Now $$0=\\sum_{k\\in I}\\pi_T(R_k)|_{H_l}=\\pi_T(R_l)|_{H_l}.$$ Since $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is amenable, $\\pi_T|_{B_l}$ is isometric on $H_l$ by Lemma\u00a0\\[faithful on Bk\\]. Thus $R_l=0$.\n\nLet $l_2$ be a minimal element of $I\\backslash\\{l\\}$. Then we can repeat the above argument to get $R_{l_2}=0$. Since $I$ is finite, we can continue to conclude that $R=0$.\n\nWe can now prove Theorem\u00a0\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\]\n\nSuppose that $K$ is an amenable group. To see $(G,P)$ is amenable, we will show that the conditional expectation $$E:C^*(G,P)\\to \\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}\\{w_pw^*_p:p\\in P\\}$$ is faithful. Let $\\Psi^\\mu$ be the conditional expectation of Lemma\u00a0\\[conditional expectation construction\\]. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\n  E(\\Psi^{\\mu}(w_pw^*_q))&=\\begin{cases}\\Psi(w_pw^*_q)&\\text{if $\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}\\\\\n  &=\\begin{cases}w_pw^*_p&\\text{if $p=q$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}\\\\\n  &=\\Psi(w_pw^*_q),\\end{aligned}$$ and hence $E=E\\circ\\Psi^{\\mu}$.\n\nSince $K$ is an amenable group, $\\Psi^\\mu$ is faithful by Lemma\u00a0\\[conditional expectation construction\\]. Let $P_z\\in B(\\ell^2(P))$ be the orthogonal projection onto ${\\operatorname{span}}\\{\\epsilon_z\\}$. It is straightforward to show that the diagonal map $\\Delta:B(\\ell^2(P))\\to B(\\ell^2(P))$ given by $$\\Delta(T)=\\sum_{z\\in P}P_zTP_z$$ is a conditional expectation such that $\\Delta\\circ \\pi_T=\\pi_T\\circ E$ and is faithful.\n\nNow suppose that $R\\in C^*(G,P)$ and $E(R^*R)=0$. Then $E(\\Psi^{\\mu}(R^*R))=0$ and so $\\pi_T\\circ E(\\Psi^{\\mu}(R^*R))=0$. This gives $\\Delta\\circ \\pi_T(\\Psi^\\mu(R^*R))=0$. Since $\\Delta$ is faithful, it follows that $\\pi_T(\\Psi^\\mu(R^*R))=0$. Since $\\big(\\mu^{-1}(e),\\mu^{-1}(e)\\cap P\\big)$ is amenable, Lemma\u00a0\\[piT is faithful on core\\] implies that $\\pi_T$ is faithful on ${\\overline{{\\operatorname{span}}}}\\{w_pw_q^*:\\mu(p)=\\mu(q)\\}={\\operatorname{range}}\\Psi^\\mu$. Thus $\\Psi^\\mu(R^*R)=0$, and then $R=0$ since $\\Psi^{\\mu}$ is faithful. Hence $E$ is faithful and $(G,P)$ is amenable.\n\nQuasi-lattice ordered HNN extensions\n====================================\n\nLet $G$ be a group, let $A$ and $B$ be subgroups of $G$, and let $\\phi:A\\to B$ be an isomorphism. The group with presentation $${G^*=\\langle G,t\\mid t^{-1}at=\\phi(a),a\\in A\\rangle}$$ is the *HNN extension of G* with respect to $A,B$ and $\\phi$. For every HNN extension $G^*$ the *height map* is the homomorphism $\\theta:G^*\\to {\\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $\\theta(g)=0$ for all $g\\in G$ and $\\theta(t)=1$.\n\nLet $c,d\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$. The Baumslag-Solitar group $${\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d)=\\langle x,t\\mid t^{-1}x^dt=x^c\\rangle =\\langle x,t\\mid tx^c=x^dt\\rangle$$ is an HNN extension of ${\\mathbb{Z}}$ with respect to $A=d{\\mathbb{Z}}$, $B=c{\\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\\phi:A\\to B$ given by $\\phi(dn)=cn$ for all $n\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$. Then ${\\mathbb{Z}}^*$ satisfies the relation $t^{-1}dt=\\phi(d)=c$. Let ${\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d)^+$ be the subsemigroup of ${\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d)$ generated by $x$ and $t$. Spielberg showed in [@Spielberg2012 Theorem\u00a02.11] that $({\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d), {\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d)^+)$ is quasi-lattice ordered for all $c,d> 0$; he also proved in [@Spielberg2012 Lemma 2.12] that $({\\operatorname{BS}}(c,-d),{\\operatorname{BS}}(c,-d)^+)$ is not quasi-lattice ordered unless $c=1$.\n\nTo work with an HNN extension we use a normal form for its elements from [@LyndonSchupp1977 Theorem 2.1]. We choose $X$ to be a complete set of left coset representatives for $G/A$ such that $xA\\neq x'A$ for $x\\neq x'\\in X$. Similarly, choose a complete set $Y$ of left coset representatives for $G/B$. Then a (right) *normal form relative to $X$ and $Y$* of $g\\in G$ is a product $$g=g_0t^{\\epsilon_1}g_1t^{\\epsilon_2}\\ldots g_{n-1}t^{\\epsilon_n}g_n$$ where:\n\n1.  $g_n$ is an arbitrary element of $G$.\n\n2.  If $\\epsilon_i=1$, then $g_{i-1}$ is an element of $X$\n\n3.  If $\\epsilon_i=-1$, then $g_{i-1}$ is an element of $Y$.\n\nBy [@LyndonSchupp1977 Theorem 2.1], for every choice of complete left coset representatives $X$ and $Y$, each $g\\in G^*$ has a unique normal form.\n\nOur goal is to generalise the properties of the Baumslag-Solitar group with $c, d>0$ to construct quasi-lattice ordered HNN extensions of other quasi-lattice ordered groups.\n\nLet $(G,P)$ be a quasi-lattice ordered group. Let $G^*$ be the HNN extension of $G$ with respect to subgroups $A$ and $B$ with an isomorphism $\\phi:A\\to B$. Let $P^*$ be the subsemigroup of $G^*$ generated by $P$ and $t$. In general, $(G^*,P^*)$ is not a quasi-lattice ordered group. For example, if $c>1$, then $({\\operatorname{BS}}(c,-d),{\\operatorname{BS}}(c,-d)^+)$ is not quasi-lattice ordered by [@Spielberg2012 Lemma 2.12]. We need some conditions on our subgroups $A$ and $B$ and on the isomorphism $\\phi$ which ensure that $(G^*,P^*)$ is quasi-lattice ordered.\n\nThere are two reasons why $({\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d),{\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d)^+)$ is easy to work with. The first is that there are natural choices of coset representatives: $\\{0,\\ldots,d-1\\}$ for $A=d{\\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\\{0,\\ldots,c-1\\}$ for $B=c{\\mathbb{Z}}$. The second is that the subgroup isomorphism $\\phi:md\\mapsto mc$ takes positive elements to positive elements. In particular, using this choice of representatives, every element $\\omega\\in{\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d)^+$ has a unique normal form $$\\omega=x^{m_0}tx^{m_1}t\\ldots x^{m_{n-1}}tx^{m_n}$$ where $0\\leq m_i<d$ for $i<n$ and $m_n\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$. This choice of coset representatives is associated to the division algorithm on ${\\mathbb{N}}$: for every $n\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ we can uniquely write $n=md+r$ for some $m\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ and $0\\leq r\\leq d-1$.\n\nIn general, for $G^*$ we would like a natural choice of coset representatives for $G/A$ and $G/B$ so that every element of $P^*$ has a unique normal form that is a sequence of elements in $P$ and $t$.\n\n\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\] Let $(G,P)$ be a quasi-lattice ordered group with subgroups $A$ and $B$. Suppose that:\n\n1.  There is an isomorphism $\\phi:A\\to B$ such that $\\phi(A\\cap P)=B\\cap P$;\n\n2.  Every left coset $gA\\in G/A$ such that $gA\\cap P\\neq \\emptyset$ has a minimal coset representative $p\\in P$: $q\\in gA\\cap P \\Rightarrow p\\leq q$;\n\n3.  For every $x,y\\in B$, $x\\vee y<\\infty\\Rightarrow x\\vee y\\in B$.\n\nLet $G^*=\\langle G,t\\mid t^{-1}at=\\phi(a),a\\in A\\rangle$ be the HNN extension of $G$ and let $P^*$ be the subsemigroup of $G^*$ generated by $\\{P,t\\}$. Then $(G^*,P^*)$ is quasi-lattice ordered.\n\nBefore we can prove Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\], we need to prove two lemmas. The first shows that elements of $P^*$ are guaranteed to have normal forms made up of elements of $P$ and $t$ if and only if condition (2) of Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\] holds. The second is a technical lemma which we will use several times in Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\] and in later proofs.\n\n\\[right lower bound gives unique normal form in P\\] Suppose that $(G,P)$ is a quasi-lattice ordered group with subgroups $A$ and $B$. Suppose that $\\phi:A\\to B$ is a group isomorphism such that $\\phi(A\\cap P)=B\\cap P$. Let $G^*=\\langle G,t\\mid t^{-1}at=\\phi(a),a\\in A\\rangle$ be the corresponding HNN extension of $G$ and let $P^*$ be the subsemigroup of $G^*$ generated by $P\\cup\\{t\\}$. Let $$L_A:=\\{p\\in P:  q\\in pA\\cap P\\Rightarrow p\\leq q\\}.$$ The following two statements are equivalent:\n\n1.  Every left coset $gA\\in G/A$ such that $gA\\cap P\\neq \\emptyset$ has a minimal coset representative $p\\in P$;\n\n2.  There exists a complete set $X$ of left coset representatives such that $L_A\\subseteq X$ and every $\\alpha\\in P^*$ has normal form $$\\label{normal form}\n          \\alpha=p_0tp_1t\\ldots p_{n-1}tp_n  \\text{\\ where $p_i\\in L_A$ for all $0\\leq i< n$, $p_n\\in P$.}$$\n\nAssume (1). Choose a complete set $X$ of coset representatives which contains $L_A$. Let $\\alpha\\in P^*$. If $\\theta(\\alpha)=0$ then $\\alpha\\in P$, and $\\alpha$ has form trivially.\n\nWe proceed by induction on $\\theta(\\alpha)\\geq 1$. Suppose that $\\theta(\\alpha)=1$. We may write $\\alpha=q_0tq_1$ for some $q_0,q_1\\in P$. Then $q_0A\\cap P\\neq \\emptyset$, and there exists $p_0\\in L_A$ such that $p_0A=q_0A$ and $p_0\\leq q_0$. Thus$p_0^{-1}q_0\\in P\\cap A$. Hence $q_0 =p_0a$ for some $a\\in A\\cap P$. Thus $\\alpha$ has normal form $$\\alpha=p_0atq_1=p_0t\\phi(a)q_1.$$ Since $\\phi(A\\cap P)=B\\cap P$ we have $\\phi(a)\\in P$ and so $X$ satisfies (2).\n\nSuppose that all $\\alpha$ with $1\\leq \\theta(\\alpha)\\leq k$ have normal form . Consider $\\alpha$ with $\\theta(\\alpha)=k+1$. We write $$\\alpha=q_0tq_1t\\ldots tq_ktq_{k+1}.$$ By assumption, we can write the first $2k+2$ terms of $\\alpha$ in normal form $$p_0tp_1t\\ldots p_{k-1}tr_k$$ where $p_i\\in L_A$ for $0\\leq i<k$ and $r_k\\in P$. There exists $p_k\\in L_A$ such that $r_kA=p_kA$ and $p_k\\leq r_k$. As above, we can write $r_k=p_ka$ for some $a\\in A\\cap P$. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n      \\alpha&=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tr_ktq_{k+1}\\\\\n      &=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_katq_{k+1}\\\\\n      &=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_kt\\phi(a)q_{k+1}.\n    \\end{aligned}$$ We set $p_{k+1}=\\phi(a)q_{k+1}$, which is in $P$ because $\\phi(a)$ is. Then $\\alpha=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_ktp_{k+1}$ has form . By induction, every $\\alpha$ has normal form . This implies (2).\n\nFor (2) $\\Rightarrow$ (1) we argue by contradiction: we will assume (2) holds but (1) doesn\u2019t. Let $X$ be a set of coset representatives satisfying (2), and suppose that there exists some coset $gA$ such that $gA\\cap P\\neq\\emptyset$ which has no minimal coset representative. Let $p\\in X$ be the coset representative of $gA$. Since $p$ is not minimal, there exists $q\\in gA\\cap P$ with $p\\not\\leq q$. Thus $p^{-1}q\\not\\in P$. Consider $qt\\in P^*$ in normal form: $$\\label{qt in normal form}\nqt=pp^{-1}qt=pt\\phi(p^{-1}q).$$ Since $\\phi(A\\cap P)=B\\cap P$ we have $\\phi(p^{-1}q)\\not \\in P$. So is not the normal form , a contradiction. Thus $(2)\\Rightarrow (1)$.\n\n\\[PP-1-closed is vee closed\\] Let $(G,P)$ be a quasi-lattice ordered group and let $B$ be a subgroup of $G$. Suppose that for every $x,y\\in B$, $x\\vee y<\\infty\\Rightarrow x\\vee y\\in B$. Then for all $x\\in B\\cap PP^{-1}$, there exist $\\mu,\\nu\\in B\\cap P$ such that $x=\\mu\\nu^{-1}$ and for all $p,q\\in P$ with $pq^{-1}=x$ we have $\\mu\\leq p$ and $\\nu\\leq q$.\n\nThe lemma says that if $x\\in PP^{-1}\\cap B$, then the minimal elements of must also be contained in $B$. In particular, if $\\phi(A\\cap P)=B\\cap P$, then $\\phi(x)\\in PP^{-1}$.\n\nFix $x\\in B\\cap PP^{-1}$. Say $x=st^{-1}$ with $s,t\\in P$. Then $x^{-1}s\\in P$ and $x\\leq s$. Also $e\\leq s$, and so $x\\vee e<\\infty$. Since $e,x\\in B$ we get $x\\vee e\\in B$. Let $\\mu=x\\vee e$ and $\\nu=x^{-1}(x\\vee e)$. Then $\\mu\\nu^{-1}=x\\vee e(x^{-1}(x\\vee e))^{-1}=x$.\n\nFix $p,q\\in P$ such that $x=pq^{-1}$. Then $x^{-1}p=(pq^{-1})^{-1}p=q$, and so $x\\leq p$. Therefore $\\mu=x\\vee e\\leq p$. Now $\\mu^{-1}p\\in P$, and then $\\nu^{-1}q=\\mu^{-1}p\\in P$ gives $\\nu\\leq q$.\n\nWe can now prove Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\]. Its proof is based on [@Spielberg2012 Theorem\u00a02.11], and our presentation is helped by Emily Irwin\u2019s treatment of [@Spielberg2012 Theorem\u00a02.11] in her University of Otago Honours thesis.\n\nFix $x\\in P^*P^{*-1}$. We shall prove that there exist $\\mu,\\nu\\in P^*$ with $x=\\mu\\nu^{-1}$ such that whenever $\\gamma\\delta^{-1}=x$ we have $\\mu\\leq \\gamma$ and $\\nu\\leq \\delta$ (see ).\n\nChoose $\\alpha,\\beta\\in P^*$ such that $x=\\alpha\\beta^{-1}$. Choose a complete set $X$ of left coset representatives of $G/A$ that contains $$L_A:=\\{p\\in P: q\\in pA\\cap P\\Rightarrow p\\leq q\\}.$$ By Lemma\u00a0\\[right lower bound gives unique normal form in P\\] we can write $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ in unique normal form: $$\\alpha=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_mtr \\text{ where $p_i\\in L_A$ and $r\\in P$};$$ $$\\beta=q_0tq_1t\\ldots tq_nts \\text{ where $q_i\\in L_A$ and $s\\in P$}.$$ Now $x=\\alpha\\beta^{-1}$ is equal to $$\\alpha\\beta^{-1}=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_mtrs^{-1}t^{-1}q_n^{-1}t^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1}.$$ First we look for initial cancellations in the middle of $\\alpha\\beta^{-1}$: if $rs^{-1}\\in B$, then we can replace $trs^{-1}t^{-1}$ with $\\phi^{-1}(rs^{-1})$. By assumption (3), Lemma\u00a0\\[PP-1-closed is vee closed\\] applies and there exist $b_1,b_2\\in P\\cap B$ such that $rs^{-1}=b_1b_2^{-1}$. Then $$\\phi^{-1}(rs^{-1})=\\phi^{-1}(b_1b_2^{-1})=\\phi^{-1}(b_1)\\phi^{-1}(b_2)^{-1}.$$ Since $\\phi(A\\cap P)=B\\cap P$ we have $\\phi^{-1}(b_1)\\phi^{-1}(b_2)^{-1}\\in PP^{-1}$. Then $$\\label{alpha beta inverse}\nx=\\alpha\\beta^{-1}=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_m\\phi^{-1}(b_1)\\phi^{-1}(b_2)^{-1}q_n^{-1}t^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1}.$$ We can repeat this process until there are no more cancellations available in the middle, and so we assume this is the case for the expression . This gives the following cases:\n\n1.  there are no $t$ and no more $t^{-1}$,\n\n2.  there are no more $t^{-1}$,\n\n3.  there are no more $t$,\n\n4.  there are $t$ and $t^{-1}$, and then the term with $t$ to the left and $t^{-1}$ to its right is not in $B$.\n\nIn each case, we will write down our candidates for $\\mu$ and $\\nu$ and prove that they are the required minimums.\n\n\\(1) Suppose that after initial cancellations, there are no more $t$ and no more $t^{-1}$. Then $\\alpha\\beta^{-1}=p_0q_0^{-1}$ is already in normal form. By there exist $\\sigma,\\tau\\in P$ such that $p_0q_0^{-1}=\\sigma\\tau^{-1}$ and for all $c,d\\in P$ such that $cd^{-1}=\\sigma\\tau^{-1}$ we have $\\sigma\\leq c$ and $\\tau\\leq d$. So we write $x=\\sigma\\tau^{-1}$ and choose as our candidates $\\mu=\\sigma$ and $\\nu=\\tau$.\n\nLet $\\gamma,\\delta\\in P^*$ such that $x=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}$. Let $\\theta$ be the height map. Then $\\theta(x)=0$ and hence $\\theta(\\gamma)=\\theta(\\delta)$. We will prove that $\\mu\\leq \\gamma$ and $\\nu\\leq \\delta$ by induction on $\\theta(\\gamma)$.\n\nFor $\\theta(\\gamma)=0$ we have $\\gamma,\\delta\\in P$ , and then $\\mu=\\sigma\\leq\\gamma$ and $\\nu=\\tau\\leq \\delta$. Let $k\\geq 0$ and suppose that for all $\\gamma,\\delta\\in P^*$ such that $\\theta(\\gamma)=\\theta(\\delta)=k$ and $x=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}$ we have $\\mu\\leq \\gamma$ and $\\nu\\leq \\delta$. Now consider $\\gamma,\\delta\\in P^*$ such that $x=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}$ and $\\theta(\\gamma)=\\theta(\\delta)=k+1$. We write $\\gamma=m_0t\\ldots m_ktm_{k+1}$ and $\\delta=n_0t\\ldots n_ktn_{k+1}$ in normal form where $m_i,n_i\\in L_A$ for $0\\leq i\\leq k$ and $m_{k+1}, n_{k+1}\\in P$. Next we reduce $x=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}$ towards normal form. We have $$x=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}=m_0t\\ldots m_ktm_{k+1}n_{k+1}^{-1}t^{-1}n_k\\ldots tn_0^{-1}.$$ Since $x$ has a unique normal form with no $t$ or $t^{-1}$, there must be some cancellation. Since the $m_i, n_i\\in L_A$ for $0\\leq i\\leq k$, the cancellation must occur across $m_{k+1}n_{k+1}^{-1}$. So $m_{k+1}n_{k+1}^{-1}\\in B$ and $tm_{k+1}n_{k+1}^{-1}t^{-1}=\\phi^{-1}(m_{k+1}n_{k+1}^{-1})$, and $$\\begin{aligned}\n      x&=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}=m_0t\\ldots tm_k(tm_{k+1}n_{k+1}^{-1}t^{-1})n_kt^{-1}\\ldots tn_0^{-1}\\\\\n      &=m_0t\\ldots tm_k\\phi^{-1}(m_{k+1}n_{k+1}^{-1})n_kt^{-1}\\ldots tn_0^{-1}\n    \\end{aligned}$$ By assumption (3), Lemma\u00a0\\[PP-1-closed is vee closed\\] applies and there exists $b_m,b_n\\in B\\cap P$ such that $m_{k+1}n_{k+1}^{-1}=b_mb_n^{-1}$ and $b_m\\leq m_{k+1}$ and $b_n\\leq n_{k+1}$. Then $$x=m_0t\\ldots tm_k\\phi^{-1}(b_m)\\phi^{-1}(b_n^{-1})n_kt^{-1}\\ldots tn_0^{-1}.$$ Since $\\phi(A\\cap P)=B\\cap P$ we have $m_{k+1}\\phi^{-1}(b_m),n_{k+1}\\phi^{-1}(b_n)\\in P$. But now we have $\\gamma'=m_0t\\ldots tm_k\\phi^{-1}(b_m)$ and $\\delta'=n_0t\\ldots tn_k\\phi^{-1}(b_n)$ such that $\\gamma'(\\delta')^{-1}=x$ and $\\theta(\\gamma)=\\theta(\\delta')=k$. By our induction hypothesis we have $\\mu\\leq \\gamma'$ and $\\nu\\leq \\delta'$.\n\nTo show that $\\mu\\leq \\gamma$ we compute: $$\\begin{aligned}\n      \\gamma&=m_0t\\ldots tm_ktm_{k+1}\\\\\n      &=m_0t\\ldots tm_ktb_mb_m^{-1}m_{k+1}\\\\\n      &=m_0t\\ldots tm_k\\phi^{-1}(b_m)tb_m^{-1}m_{k+1}\\quad\\text{(replacing $tb_m$ with $\\phi^{-1}(b_m)t$)}\\\\\n      &=\\gamma'tb_m^{-1}m_{k+1}.\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Since $b_m^{-1}m_{k+1}\\in P$ we have $tb_m^{-1}m_{k+1}\\in P^*$. Now $(\\gamma')^{-1}\\gamma\\in P^*$ and $\\gamma'\\leq \\gamma$. Since $\\mu\\leq \\gamma'$ this gives $\\mu\\leq \\gamma$. Similarly, $\\delta=\\delta'tb_n^{-1}n_{k+1}$ and so $\\nu\\leq \\delta$. By induction, for all $\\gamma,\\delta\\in P^*$ such that $x=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}$ we have $\\mu\\leq\\gamma$ and $\\nu\\leq \\delta$.\n\n\\(2) Suppose that after the initial cancellations there are no more $t^{-1}$ left. Then we have $x$ in normal form: $$x=\\alpha\\beta^{-1}=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}trs^{-1}$$ where $m\\geq n$. By there exist $\\sigma,\\tau\\in P$ such that $rs^{-1}=\\sigma\\tau^{-1}$ and $\\sigma\\leq r$ and $\\tau\\leq s$. So $$\\label{eq-x}\n    x=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}t\\sigma\\tau^{-1}.$$ Our candidates are $$\\mu=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}t\\sigma\\quad\\text{and}\\quad \\nu=\\tau.$$ Fix $\\gamma,\\delta\\in P^*$ such that $x=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}$. Say $\\gamma=m_0tm_1\\ldots tm_i$ and $\\delta= n_0t n_1\\ldots n_j$ in normal form. Then $$\\gamma\\delta^{-1}=m_0tm_1\\ldots tm_in_j^{-1}t^{-1}\\ldots n_1t^{-1}n_0.$$ Since $\\theta(\\gamma\\delta^{-1}) = \\theta(\\mu \\nu^{-1})=m-n$ we get $$i=\\theta(\\gamma)=\\theta(\\delta)+m-n$$ and hence $i\\geq m-n$. It follows from the uniqueness of normal form that there exists $\\gamma'\\in P^*$ such that $$\\gamma\\delta^{-1}=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}t\\gamma'\\delta^{-1}.$$ Thus $p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}t\\leq\\gamma$. From we have $(p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}t)^{-1}x=\\sigma\\tau^{-1}$. Since $ (p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}t)^{-1}\\gamma,\\delta\\in P^*$ and $(p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}t)^{-1}\\gamma\\delta=\\sigma\\tau^{-1}$, we can apply (1) above with $\\mu'=\\sigma$ and $\\nu'=\\tau$ to see that $\\sigma\\leq(p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}t)^{-1}\\gamma$ and $\\tau\\leq \\delta$. Hence $\\mu= p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{m-n-1}t\\sigma \\leq \\gamma$ and $\\nu\\leq \\delta$ as required.\n\n\\(3) Suppose that after the cancellations, there are no more $t$ left. Then $$x=rs^{-1}t^{-1}q_{n-m-1}^{-1}t^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1}$$ for some $r,s\\in P$. Consider $$x^{-1}=q_0tq_1t\\ldots tq_{n-m-1}tsr^{-1}.$$ By there exist $\\sigma,\\tau\\in P$ such that $rs^{-1}=\\sigma\\tau^{-1}$ and $\\sigma\\leq r$ and $\\tau\\leq s$. Let $$\\mu=\\sigma \\quad\\text{and}\\quad\\nu=q_0tq_1t\\ldots tq_{n-m-1}t\\tau.$$ By (2) they have the property that $x^{-1}=\\nu\\mu^{-1}$ and for all $\\gamma,\\delta\\in P^*$ such that $x^{-1}=\\delta\\gamma^{-1}$ we have $\\mu\\leq\\gamma$ and $\\nu\\leq\\delta$. Taking inverses, $x=\\mu\\nu^{-1}$ and for all $\\gamma,\\delta\\in P^*$ such that $x=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}$ we have $\\mu\\leq\\gamma$ and $\\nu\\leq\\delta$.\n\n\\(4) Suppose that after the initial cancellations there are both $t$ and $t^{-1}$ left. Then the term with $t$ to the left and $t^{-1}$ to its right is not in $B$. There exist $k\\leq m$ and $l\\leq n$ such that $$x=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_ktrs^{-1}t^{-1}q_l^{-1}t^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1}.$$ By there exist $\\sigma,\\tau\\in P$ such that $rs^{-1}=\\sigma\\tau^{-1}$ and $\\sigma\\leq r$ and $\\tau\\leq s$. Our candidate for $\\mu,\\nu$ are $$\\mu=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_kt\\sigma\\quad\\text{and}\\quad \\nu=q_0tq_1t\\ldots tq_lt\\tau.$$ Fix $\\gamma,\\delta\\in P^*$ such that $x=\\gamma\\delta^{-1}$. By the argument used in (2), there exists $\\gamma'\\in P^*$ such that $\\gamma\\delta^{-1}=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{j}t\\gamma'\\delta^{-1}$. Hence $\\gamma'=(p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{j}t)^{-1}\\gamma\\in P^*$ and $p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{j}t\\leq \\gamma$.\n\nConsider $\\gamma'\\delta^{-1}=\\sigma\\tau^{-1}t^{-1}q_k^{-1}t^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1}$. Here $\\gamma',\\delta\\in P^*$ and there are no $t$ in $\\gamma'\\delta^{-1}$ after cancellation. Applying (3) with $\\mu'=\\sigma$ and $\\nu'=\\nu$ to get $\\mu'=\\sigma \\leq \\gamma'$ and $\\nu'=\\nu \\leq \\delta$. Then $\\mu=p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{j}t\\sigma\\leq p_0tp_1t\\ldots tp_{j}t\\gamma' =\\gamma$.\n\nTheorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\] gives new examples of quasi-lattice ordered HNN extensions.\n\nWe can show that the Baumslag-Solitar group $({\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d),{\\operatorname{BS}}(c,d)^+)$ with $c,d>0$ is quasi-lattice ordered using Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\]. Since $({\\mathbb{Z}},{\\mathbb{N}})$ is totally ordered it is quasi-lattice ordered. Let $A=\\{dm:m\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$ and $B=\\{cm:m\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$. Every element $n\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ has a unique decomposition $n=r+md$ where $m\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ and $r\\in \\{0,1,\\ldots, d-1\\}$. The remainder $r$ is a choice of coset representative $n+A=r+A$. For all $n'\\in n+A\\cap {\\mathbb{N}}$ we have $n'=r+md+kd$ where $k\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}$ and $k\\leq m$. Thus $r\\leq n'$. Hence every coset of ${\\mathbb{Z}}/A$ has nontrivial intersection with ${\\mathbb{N}}$, and has a minimal coset representative in ${\\mathbb{N}}$. Since $B$ is totally ordered it is closed under taking least upper bounds. Define $\\phi:A\\to B$ by $\\phi(dm)=cm$. Then $\\phi(A\\cap{\\mathbb{N}})=B\\cap {\\mathbb{N}}$. So Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\] applies and gives that $({\\mathbb{Z}}^*,{\\mathbb{N}}^*)$ is quasi-lattice ordered.\n\n\\[example Z\\^2\\] We can generalise the previous example to $({\\mathbb{Z}}^2,{\\mathbb{N}}^2)$, which is quasi-lattice ordered by [@Nica1992 Example\u00a02.3(2)]. Fix $a,b,c,d\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$. Then $A=\\{(am,bn):m,n\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$ and $B=\\{(cm,dn):m,n\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$ are subgroups of ${\\mathbb{N}}^2$. Let $\\phi:A\\to B$ be defined by $\\phi((am,bn))=(cm,dn)$. This $\\phi$ satisfies $\\phi(A\\cap {\\mathbb{N}}^2)=B\\cap {\\mathbb{N}}^2$. For all $(m,n)\\in {\\mathbb{N}}^2$, the division algorithm on ${\\mathbb{N}}$ gives a unique decomposition $$(m,n)=(r_1,r_2)+(ja_1,ka_2) \\text{\\ for $j,k\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ and $r_1\\in \\{0,\\ldots a_1-1\\}$, $r_2\\in \\{0,\\ldots,a_2-1\\}$.}$$ Thus $(r_1,r_2)$ is a minimal left coset representative of $(m,n)+A$. For all $(m,n),(p,q)\\in B$, we have $$(m,n)\\vee(p,q)=(\\max\\{m,p,0\\},\\max\\{n,q,0\\})$$ and hence $(m,n)\\vee(p,q)\\in B$. So $B$ is closed under $\\vee$. By Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\], $({\\mathbb{Z}}^{2*},{\\mathbb{N}}^{2*})$ is a quasi-lattice ordered group with presentation $${\\mathbb{Z}}^{2*}=\\langle{\\mathbb{Z}}^2\\cup\\{t\\}\\mid (am,bn)t=t(cm,dn)\\rangle.$$ It is straightforward to extend this construction to $({\\mathbb{Z}}^n,{\\mathbb{N}}^n)$.\n\n\\[example free group\\] Consider the free group ${\\mathbb{F}}_2$ on $2$ generators $\\{a,b\\}$ and let ${\\mathbb{F}}_2^+$ be the subsemigroup generated by $e$, $a$ and $b$. The pair $({\\mathbb{F}}_2, {\\mathbb{F}}_2^+)$ is quasi-lattice ordered by [@Nica1992 Example 2.3(4)]. Let $A=\\{ a^n:n\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$, $B=\\{ b^n:n\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$ and $\\phi:A\\to B$ defined by $\\phi(a^n)=b^n$. Every $x\\in F_2^+$ can be written as a product of $y\\in {\\mathbb{F}}_2^+$ which does not end in $a$ followed by $a^n$ for some $n\\geq 0$. Then $y\\in xA$. Every $z\\in yA\\cap {\\mathbb{F}}_2^+$ begins with the word $y$ which is in ${\\mathbb{F}}_2^+$. It follows that $y\\leq z$. Thus $A$ has minimal left coset representatives in ${\\mathbb{F}}_2^+$. Since $B$ is totally ordered, it is trivially closed under $\\vee$. It follows from Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\] that $({\\mathbb{F}}_2^*,{\\mathbb{F}}_2^{+*})$ is a quasi-lattice ordered group with presentation $${\\mathbb{F}}_2^*=\\langle \\{a,b,t\\}\\mid at=tb\\rangle.$$\n\n\\[example free group 2\\] Building on $({\\mathbb{F}}_2, {\\mathbb{F}}_2^+)$ again, fix $s,u\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, and let $A=\\{ a^{ms}:m\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$, $B=\\{b^{mu}:m\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$ and $\\phi:A\\to B$ be $\\phi( a^{ms}) = b^{mu}$. Then $B$ is totally ordered and hence is closed under $\\vee$. To see that $A$ has minimal coset representatives, we observe that every $x\\in {\\mathbb{F}}_2^+$ is a product of a $y\\in {\\mathbb{F}}_2^+$ that does not end in $a$ followed by $a^n$ for some $n\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$. We write $n=r+js$ for some $j\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ and $r\\in \\{0,1,\\ldots,s-1\\}$. We choose $ya^r$ as our coset representative. Then for all $z\\in ya^rA\\cap {\\mathbb{F}}_2^+$ we have $ya^r\\leq z$. It follows from Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\] that $({\\mathbb{F}}_2^*,{\\mathbb{F}}_2^{+*})$ is a quasi-lattice ordered group with presentation $${\\mathbb{F}}_2^*=\\langle \\{a,b,t\\}\\mid a^st=tb^u\\rangle.$$ Taking $u=s=1$ gives Example\u00a0\\[example free group\\].\n\nReplacing $B$ by $B'=\\{a^{mu}:m\\in{\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$ gives a quasi-lattice ordered group $({\\mathbb{F}}_2^*,{\\mathbb{F}}_2^{+*})$ with presentation $${\\mathbb{F}}_2^*=\\langle \\{a,b,t\\}\\mid a^st=ta^u\\rangle.$$\n\nIn the next two examples we show that it is easy to find subgroups which do not have minimal left coset representatives.\n\nConsider the group $$G={\\mathbb{Z}}(\\sqrt{2})=\\{m+n\\sqrt{2}:m,n\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}\\}$$ with subsemigroup ${\\mathbb{Z}}(\\sqrt{2})^+={\\mathbb{Z}}(\\sqrt{2})\\cap [0,\\infty)$. Let $A={\\mathbb{Z}}(2\\sqrt{2})$. We claim there are no minimal coset representatives for $A$. Suppose, aiming for a contradiction, that there exists some coset representative $p\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}(\\sqrt{2})^+$ such that $$q\\in [p+{\\mathbb{Z}}(2\\sqrt{2})]\\cap {\\mathbb{Z}}(\\sqrt{2})^+\\Rightarrow p\\leq q.$$ Recall that ${\\mathbb{Z}}(2\\sqrt{2})$ is dense in ${\\mathbb{R}}$.[^3] Thus there exists some $a\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}(2\\sqrt{2})\\cap (0,p)$ hence $a\\leq p$. Thus $p-a\\in [p+{\\mathbb{Z}}(2\\sqrt{2})]\\cap {\\mathbb{Z}}(\\sqrt{2})^+$. But $p-a\\leq p$, giving a contradiction.\n\nConsider $({\\mathbb{Z}}^2,{\\mathbb{N}}^2)$, and let $A$ be the subgroup generated by $\\{(1,2),(2,1)\\}$. Consider the coset $$(1,0)+A=(0,1)+A.$$ Since $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ have no nonzero lower bound, there can be no choice of minimal coset representative.\n\nAmenability of $(G^*, P^*)$\n===========================\n\nIn this section we prove the following theorem.\n\n\\[HNN extensions are amenable as expected\\] Let $(G,P)$ be a quasi-lattice ordered group with subgroups $A$ and $B$. Suppose that $\\phi:A\\to B$ is an isomorphism which satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\]. Let $(G^*,P^*)$ be the corresponding HNN extension. If $(G,P)$ is amenable, then $(G^*,P^*)$ is amenable.\n\nTo prove the theorem we will show that the height map $\\theta: G^*\\to{\\mathbb{Z}}$ is a controlled map, that $(\\theta^{-1}(e),  \\theta^{-1}(e)\\cap P^*)$ is amenable, and then apply Theorem\u00a0\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\]. To prove that $(\\theta^{-1}(e),  \\theta^{-1}(e)\\cap P^*)$ is amenable, we start by investigating order-preserving isomorphisms between the semigroups of quasi-lattice ordered groups.\n\n\\[isomorphism preserves least upper bounds\\] Let $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups. Suppose that there is a semigroup isomorphism $\\phi:P\\to Q$. Then $\\phi$ is order-preserving. In particular, for $x,y\\in P$, $x\\vee y<\\infty$ if and only if $\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y)<\\infty$. If $x\\vee y<\\infty$ then $\\phi(x\\vee y)=\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y)$.\n\nTo see that $\\phi$ is order-preserving, let $x,y\\in P$ and $x\\leq y$. Then $y\\in xP$, and $\\phi(y)\\in \\phi(x)\\phi(P)=\\phi(x)Q$. Thus $\\phi(x)\\leq\\phi(y)$, and $\\phi$ is order-preserving.\n\nTo show that $\\phi$ preserves the least upper bound structure, first suppose that $x,y\\in P$ such that $x\\vee y<\\infty$. Since $\\phi$ is order-preserving it follows that $\\phi(x),\\phi(y)\\leq \\phi(x\\vee y)$. Thus $\\phi(x),\\phi(y)$ have a common upper bound in $Q$. Hence $\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y)$ exists and $\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y)\\leq \\phi(x\\vee y)$. Second, suppose that $\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y)<\\infty$ for some $x, y\\in P$. Since $\\phi^{-1}:Q\\to P$ is a semigroup isomorphism it is order-preserving. Thus $\\phi^{-1}(\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y))$ is an upper bound for $x=\\phi^{-1}(\\phi(x))$ and $y=\\phi^{-1}(\\phi(y))$. Hence $x\\vee y$ exists and $x\\vee y\\leq \\phi^{-1}(\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y))$. Thus $$\\phi(x\\vee y)\\leq\\phi\\circ\\phi^{-1}(\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y))=\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y).$$ Hence $x\\vee y<\\infty$ if and only if $\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y)<\\infty$, and $\\phi(x\\vee y)=\\phi(x)\\vee\\phi(y)$.\n\n\\[semigroup isomorphism preserves universal and amenability\\] Let $(G,P)$ and $(K,Q)$ be quasi-lattice ordered groups. Let $\\{v_p:p\\in P\\}$ and $\\{w_q:q\\in Q\\}$ be the generating elements of $C^*(G,P)$ and $C^*(K,Q)$, respectively. Suppose that there is a semigroup isomorphism $\\phi:P\\to Q$.\n\n1.  There exists an isomorphism $\\pi_{\\phi}:C^*(G,P)\\to C^*(K,Q)$ such that $\\pi_\\phi(v_p)=w_{\\phi(p)}$.\n\n2.  $(G,P)$ is amenable if and only if $(K,Q)$ is amenable.\n\n\\(1) We will show that $T:P\\to C^*(K,Q)$ defined by $T_p=w_{\\phi(p)}$ is a covariant representation of $P$, and then take $\\pi_\\phi:=\\pi_T$. Fix $p,q\\in P$. Since $\\phi$ is a semigroup isomorphism we have $$T_pT_q=w_{\\phi(p)}w_{\\phi(q)}=w_{\\phi(pq)}=T_{pq}$$ and $T_e=w_{\\phi(e_G)}=w_{e_K}=1$. Hence $T$ is an isometric representation. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\n  T_pT^*_pT_qT^*_q&=w_{\\phi(p)}w^*_{\\phi(p)}w_{\\phi(q)}w^*_{\\phi(q)}\\\\\n                  &=\\begin{cases}w_{\\phi(p)\\vee\\phi(q)}w^*_{\\phi(p)\\vee\\phi(q)}&\\text{if $\\phi(p)\\vee\\phi(q)<\\infty$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}\\\\\n                  \\intertext{which, using Lemma~\\ref{isomorphism preserves least upper bounds}, is equivalent to}\n                  &=\\begin{cases}w_{\\phi(p\\vee q)}w^*_{\\phi(p\\vee q)}&\\text{if $p\\vee q<\\infty$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}\\\\\n                  &=\\begin{cases}T_{p\\vee q}T^*_{p\\vee q}&\\text{if $p\\vee q<\\infty$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise.}\\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$ Hence $T$ is covariant. By the universal property of $C^*(G,P)$ there exists a homomorphism $\\pi_\\phi:C^*(G,P)\\to C^*(K,Q)$ such that $\\pi_\\phi(v_p)=T_p=w_{\\phi(p)}$.\n\nSince $\\phi^{-1}:Q\\to P$ is an isomorphism the argument above gives a homomorphism $\\pi_{\\phi^{-1}}:C^*(K,Q)\\to C^*(G,P)$ such that $\\pi_{\\phi^{-1}}(w_q)=v_{\\phi^{-1}(q)}$. In particular, $$\\pi_{\\phi^{-1}}(\\pi_\\phi(v_p))=\\pi_{\\phi^{-1}}(w_{\\phi(p)})=v_{\\phi^{-1}(\\phi(p))}=v_p$$ and $\\pi_{\\phi}(\\pi_{\\phi^{-1}}(w_q))=w_q$ It follows that $\\pi_\\phi$ is an isomorphism from $C^*(G,P)$ to $C^*(K,Q)$.\n\n\\(2) By symmetry it suffices to show that if $(K,Q)$ is amenable then $(G,P)$ is amenable. Let $E_Q$ and $E_P$ be the conditional expectations on $C^*(K,Q)$ and $C^*(G,P)$, respectively. To see $E_P=\\pi_{\\phi}^{-1}\\circ E_Q\\circ \\pi_{\\phi}$ we compute on spanning elements: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\pi_{\\phi}^{-1}\\circ E_Q\\circ \\pi_{\\phi}(v_pv^*_q)&=\\pi_{\\phi}^{-1}\\circ E_Q(w_{\\phi(p)}w^*_{\\phi(q)})\\\\\n                                            &=\\begin{cases}\\pi_{\\phi}^{-1}(w_{\\phi(p)}w^*_{\\phi(q)})&\\text{if $\\phi(p)=\\phi(q)$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}\\\\\n                                            &=\\begin{cases}\\pi_{\\phi}^{-1}(w_{\\phi(p)}w^*_{\\phi(q)})&\\text{if $p=q$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}\\\\\n                                            &=\\begin{cases}v_pv^*_q&\\text{if $p=q$}\\\\0&\\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}\\\\\n                                            &=E_P(v_pv^*_q).\n \\end{aligned}$$ Suppose that $(K,Q)$ is amenable. Then $E_Q$ is faithful. Suppose that $a\\geq 0$ and $E_P(a)=0$. Then $\\pi_\\phi(a)\\geq 0$, and $$0=E_P(a)=\\pi_{\\phi}^{-1}\\circ E_Q\\circ \\pi_{\\phi}(a) \\Rightarrow 0=E_Q\\circ \\pi_{\\phi}(a) \\Rightarrow 0=\\pi_{\\phi}(a)$$ because $E_Q$ is faithful. Since $\\pi_{\\phi}$ is faithful, $a=0$. Now $E_P$ is faithful, and hence $(G, P)$ is amenable.\n\nNext we need some lemmas which will be used to show that the height map $\\theta$ is a controlled map. In particular we need to identify the minimal elements of Definition\u00a0\\[expanded controlled map definition\\]. If $x\\in P^*$ has normal form $$x=p_0tp_1t\\ldots p_{n-1}tp_n$$ we call $p_0tp_1t\\ldots p_{n-1}t$ the *stem* of $x$ and write $${\\operatorname{stem}}(x)=p_0tp_1t\\ldots p_{n-1}t.$$ The set of stems is our candidate for the minimal elements.\n\n\\[p,q have cub in P\\* iff they have cub in P\\] Let $(G,P)$ be a quasi-lattice ordered group with subgroups $A$ and $B$. Suppose that $\\phi:A\\to B$ is an isomorphism which satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem\u00a0\\[(G\\*,P\\*) is left ql\\]. Let $p,q\\in P$. Then $p$ and $q$ have a common upper bound in $P^*$ if and only if $p$ and $q$ have a common upper bound in $P$.\n\nFirst suppose that $p$ and $q$ have a common upper bound $r\\in P$. Then $r\\in P^*$ and so $r$ is a common upper bound for $p$ and $q$ in $P^*$.\n\nSecond, suppose that $p$ and $q$ have a common upper bound $x\\in P^*$. If $\\theta(x)=0$, then $x\\in P$ and we are done. Suppose, aiming for a contradiction, that $\\theta(x)=k$ for some $k\\geq 1$, and that $p,q$ have no common upper bound $y$ with $\\theta(y)<k$.\n\nObserve that $p^{-1}x,q^{-1}x\\in P^*$, and that $\\theta(p^{-1}x)=\\theta(x)=\\theta(q^{-1}x)=k$. We write $p^{-1}x$ and $q^{-1}x$ in their normal forms: $$p^{-1}x=p_0tp_1t\\ldots p_{k-1}tp_k\\quad\\text{and}\\quad q^{-1}x=q_0tq_1t\\ldots q_{k-1}tq_k,$$ where $p_i,q_i\\in L_A$ for $i<k$ and $p_k,q_k\\in P$. Consider $$p^{-1}q=p^{-1}x(q^{-1}x)^{-1}=p_0tp_1t\\ldots p_{k-1}tp_kq_k^{-1}t^{-1}q_{k-1}^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1}.$$ Since $p^{-1}x(q^{-1}x)^{-1}=p^{-1}q$ and $p^{-1}q$ is in normal form we must have some cancellation. Since the first $k$ terms are already in normal form, $p_kq_k^{-1}\\in B$. By Lemma\u00a0\\[PP-1-closed is vee closed\\], there exist $b_1,b_2\\in B\\cap P$ such that $b_1\\leq p_k$, $b_2\\leq q_k$ and $b_1b_2^{-1}=p_kq_k^{-1}$. Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n   p^{-1}q&= p^{-1}x(q^{-1}x)^{-1}=p_0t\\ldots p_{k-1}t(p_kq_k^{-1})t^{-1}q_{k-1}^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1}\\\\\n    &=p_0t\\ldots p_{k-1}t(b_1b_2^{-1})t^{-1}q_{k-1}^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1} \\\\\n    &=p_0t\\ldots p_{k-1}\\phi^{-1}(b_1)tt^{-1}\\phi^{-1}(b_2)^{-1}q_{k-1}^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1} \\\\\n    &=p_0t\\ldots p_{k-1}\\phi^{-1}(b_1)\\phi^{-1}(b_2)^{-1}q_{k-1}^{-1}\\ldots t^{-1}q_0^{-1}.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging gives $$p(p_0t\\ldots tp_{k-1}\\phi^{-1}(b_1))=q(q_0tq_1t\\ldots tq_{k-1}\\phi^{-1}(b_2))\\in P^*.$$ Therefore $y=p(p_0tp_1t\\ldots p_{k-1}\\phi^{-1}(b_1))$ is a common upper bound for $p$ and $q$ in $P^*$ and $\\theta(y)=k-1$, giving us the contradiction we sought. Therefore $p$ and $q$ have a common upper bound $y$ with $\\theta(y)=0$, and hence they have a common upper bound in $P$.\n\nThe statement of Lemma\u00a0\\[stem preserves least upper bounds\\] is adapted from [@HuefClarkRaeburn2015 Lemma 3.4].\n\n\\[stem preserves least upper bounds\\] Let $x,y\\in P^*$ such that $x\\vee y<\\infty$. Write $$x={\\operatorname{stem}}(x)p \\text{ and } y={\\operatorname{stem}}(y)q \\text{\\ where $p,q\\in P.$}$$\n\n1.  If $\\theta(x)=\\theta(y)$, then ${\\operatorname{stem}}(x)={\\operatorname{stem}}(y)$ and $p\\vee q<\\infty$. In particular, $x\\vee y={\\operatorname{stem}}(x)(p\\vee q)$ and $\\theta(x\\vee y)=\\theta(x)=\\theta(y)$.\n\n2.  If $\\theta(x)<\\theta(y)$, then there exists $r\\in P$ such that $x\\vee y=yr$ and $\\theta(x\\vee y)=\\theta(y)$.\n\nIn particular, $\\theta(x \\vee y)=\\max\\{\\theta(x), \\theta(y)\\}$.\n\n\\(1) Suppose that $\\theta(x)=\\theta(y)$. We know that $x\\leq x\\vee y$ and $y\\leq x\\vee y$. Thus, by the uniqueness of normal forms, ${\\operatorname{stem}}(x)={\\operatorname{stem}}(y)$. Now by left invariance of the partial order we see that $$p={\\operatorname{stem}}(x)^{-1}x\\leq{\\operatorname{stem}}(x)^{-1}(x\\vee y)\\quad\\text{and}\\quad\nq={\\operatorname{stem}}(x)^{-1}y\\leq{\\operatorname{stem}}(x)^{-1}(x\\vee y).$$ Therefore $p$ and $q$ have a common left upper bound in $P^*$ and hence, by Lemma\u00a0\\[p,q have cub in P\\* iff they have cub in P\\], they have a common left upper bound in $P$ and $p\\vee q$ exists in $P$. By left invariance $x\\vee y={\\operatorname{stem}}(x)p\\vee q$. Further, $\\theta(x\\vee y)=\\theta(x)=\\theta(y)$.\n\n\\(2) Suppose that $\\theta(x)<\\theta(y)$. Since $x\\leq x\\vee y$ we have $x^{-1}(x\\vee y)\\in P^*$. We can write $x^{-1}(x\\vee y)=\\tau \\gamma u$ for some $u\\in P$, $\\tau\\in \\Sigma_{\\theta(y)-\\theta(x)}$ and $\\gamma\\in\\Sigma_{\\theta(x\\vee y)-\\theta(y)}$. Then $x\\vee y=x\\tau\\gamma u$.\n\nNow we have $x\\tau\\leq x\\vee y$ and $\\theta(x\\tau)=\\theta(x)+(\\theta(y)-\\theta(x))=\\theta(y)$. Write $x\\tau={\\operatorname{stem}}(x\\tau) w$ for some $w\\in P$. Therefore $x\\tau\\vee y<\\infty$ and $\\theta(x\\tau)=\\theta(y)$ so we can apply (1) to see that ${\\operatorname{stem}}(x\\tau)={\\operatorname{stem}}(y)$ and $x\\tau\\vee y={\\operatorname{stem}}(y)(q\\vee w)$.\n\nNow $x\\vee y\\leq{\\operatorname{stem}}(y)(q\\vee w)$. Therefore there exists some $r\\in P$ such that $x\\vee y={\\operatorname{stem}}(y)qr=yr$. Then $\\theta(x\\vee y)=\\theta(y)$.\n\nBy (1) and (2) we see that $$\\theta(x\\vee y)=\\begin{cases}\\theta(x)&\\text{if $\\theta(x)=\\theta(y)$}\\\\\\theta(y)&\\text{if $\\theta(x)<\\theta(y)$.}\\end{cases}$$ Thus $\\theta(x \\vee y)=\\max\\{\\theta(x), \\theta(y)\\}$.\n\nWe will use Theorem\u00a0\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\]; to do so we need to show that the height map $\\theta:(G^*,P^*)\\to ({\\mathbb{Z}}, {\\mathbb{N}})$ is a controlled map in the sense of Definition\u00a0\\[expanded controlled map definition\\], and that $(\\theta^{-1}(e),\\theta^{-1}(e)\\cap P^*)$ is amenable.\n\nTo see that $\\theta$ is order-preserving, let $x, y\\in P^*$ such that $x\\leq y$. Then $x^{-1}y\\in P^*$ and $\\theta(x^{-1}y)\\geq 0$. So $\n  0\\leq \\theta(x^{-1}y)=-\\theta(x)+\\theta(y)\n$ and hence $\\theta(x)\\leq \\theta(y)$. By Lemma\u00a0\\[stem preserves least upper bounds\\], if $x\\vee y<\\infty$, then $\\theta(x\\vee y)=\\max\\{\\theta(x),\\theta(y)\\}=\\theta(x)\\vee\\theta(y)$.\n\nFor every $k\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$, $\\Sigma_k$ is complete: if $x\\in \\theta^{-1}(k)\\cap P^*$, then ${\\operatorname{stem}}(x)\\in \\Sigma_k$ and $x={\\operatorname{stem}}(x)p$ for some $p\\in P$. Hence ${\\operatorname{stem}}(x)\\leq x$. By the uniqueness of normal forms, if $\\sigma,\\tau\\in \\Sigma_k$ and $\\sigma\\vee \\tau<\\infty$ then $\\sigma=\\tau$. Therefore $\\theta$ is a controlled map into the amenable group ${\\mathbb{Z}}$.\n\nSuppose that $(G,P)$ is amenable. Then $\\theta^{-1}(0)\\cap P^*$ is the set of elements of $P^*$ with height $0$, and hence they all have normal form $p_0$ for some $p_0\\in P$. Thus $\\theta^{-1}(0)\\cap P^*$ is isomorphic to $P$. Since $(G,P)$ is amenable, so is $(\\theta^{-1}(0),\\theta^{-1}(0)\\cap P^*)$ by Lemma\u00a0\\[semigroup isomorphism preserves universal and amenability\\]. Since $({\\mathbb{Z}},{\\mathbb{N}})$ is amenable, it now follows from Theorem\u00a0\\[p-controlled map implies amenable\\] that $(G^*,P^*)$ is an amenable quasi-lattice ordered group.\n\nSince $({\\mathbb{Z}}^2,{\\mathbb{N}}^2)$ and $({\\mathbb{F}}_2,{\\mathbb{F}}_2^+)$ are amenable quasi-lattice ordered groups [@Nica1992 \u00a75.1], Theorem\u00a0\\[HNN extensions are amenable as expected\\] implies that the HNN extensions $({\\mathbb{Z}}^{2*},{\\mathbb{N}}^{2*})$ and $({\\mathbb{F}}_2^{*},{\\mathbb{F}}_2^{+*})$ in Examples\u00a0\\[example Z\\^2\\]-\\[example free group 2\\] are amenable quasi-lattice ordered groups.\n\n[99]{}\n\nN.\u00a0Brownlowe, N.S. Larsen, and N.\u00a0Stammeier, *On ${C}^*$-algebras associated to right [LCM]{} semigroups*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **369** (2017), 31\u201368.\n\nL.O. Clark, A.\u00a0an\u00a0Huef, and I.\u00a0Raeburn, *Phase transitions of the [T]{}oeplitz algebras of [B]{}aumslag-[S]{}olitar semigroups*, Indiana Univ. Math. J. **65** (2016), 2137\u20132173.\n\nJ.\u00a0Crisp and M.\u00a0Laca, *On the [T]{}oeplitz algebras of right-angled and finite-type [A]{}rtin groups*, J. Austral. Math. Soc. **72** (2002), 223\u2013245.\n\nJ.\u00a0Crisp and M.\u00a0Laca, *Boundary quotients and ideals of [T]{}oeplitz ${C}^*$-algebras of [A]{}rtin groups*, J. Funct. Anal. **242** (2007), 127\u2013156.\n\nM.\u00a0Laca and I.\u00a0Raeburn, *Semigroup crossed products and the [T]{}oeplitz algebras of nonabelian groups*, J. Funct. Anal. **139** (1996), 415\u2013440.\n\nM.\u00a0Laca and I.\u00a0Raeburn, *Phase transition on the [T]{}oeplitz algebra of the affine semigroup over the natural numbers*, Adv. Math. **225** (2010), 643\u2013688.\n\nX.\u00a0Li, *Semigroup ${C}^*$-algebras and amenability of semigroups*, J. Funct. Anal. **262** (2012), 4302\u20134340.\n\nR.C. Lyndon and P.E. Schupp, Combinatorial Group Theory, Springer-Verlag, 1977.\n\nA.\u00a0Nica, *${C}^*$-algebras generated by isometries and [W]{}iener-[H]{}opf operators*, J. Operator Theory **27** (1992), 17\u201352.\n\nI.\u00a0Raeburn and D.P. Williams, Morita Equivalence and Continuous-Trace ${C}^*$-Algebras, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 60, Amer. Math. Soc., 1998.\n\nJ.\u00a0Spielberg, *${C}^*$-algebras for categories of paths associated to the [B]{}aumslag-[S]{}olitar groups*, J. Lond. Math. Soc. **86** (2012), 728\u2013754.\n\nJ.\u00a0Spielberg, *Groupoids and $C^*$-algebras for categories of paths*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **366** (2014), 5771\u20135819.\n\nC.\u00a0Starling, *Boundary quotients of ${C}^*$-algebras of right [LCM]{} semigroups*, J. Funct. Anal. **268** (2015), 3326\u20133356.\n\nJ.\u00a0Tomiyama, *On the projection of norm 1 on $W^*$-algebras*, Proc. Japan Acad. **33** (1957), 608\u2013612.\n\n[^1]: This research was supported by the Marsden Fund of the Royal Society of New Zealand and by a University of Otago Publishing Bursary\n\n[^2]: There is an error in the statement of [@LacaRaeburn1996 Proposition 6.6]: the final line should read \u201cif ${\\mathcal{G}}$ is amenable then $(G,P)$ is amenable\".\n\n[^3]: To see denseness observe that $0<(-2+2\\sqrt{2})<1$ and $(-2+2\\sqrt{2})^n\\in {\\mathbb{Z}}(\\sqrt{2})$ for all $n\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$. Thus for every open interval $(u,v)$ there exists $n$ such that $(-2+2\\sqrt{2})^n<v-u$. Hence there exists $k\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ such that $k(-2+2\\sqrt{2})^n\\in (u,v)$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Electric scooters are becoming immensely popular across the world as a means of reliable transportation around many cities. As these e-scooters rely on batteries, it is important to understand how many of these e-scooters have enough battery life to transport riders and when these e-scooters might require a battery replacement. To this end, we develop the first stochastic model to capture the battery life dynamics of e-scooters of a large scooter network. In our model, we assume that e-scooter batteries are removable and replaced by agents called **swappers**. Thus, to gain some insight about the large scale dynamics of the system, we prove a mean field limit theorem and a functional central limit theorem for the fraction of e-scooters that lie in a particular interval of battery life. Exploiting the mean field limit and the functional central limit theorems, we develop an algorithm for determining the number of **swappers** that are needed to guarantee levels of probabilistic performance of the system. Finally, we show through a stochastic simulation and real data that our stochastic model captures the relevant dynamics.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Jamol Pender\\\n    School of Operations Research and Information Engineering\\\n    Cornell University\\\n    228 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853\\\n    jjp274@cornell.edu\\\n- |\n    Shuang Tao\\\n    School of Operations Research and Information Engineering\\\n    Cornell University\\\n    293 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853\\\n    st754@cornell.edu\\\n- |\n    Anders Wikum\\\n    School of Operations Research and Information Engineering\\\n    Cornell University\\\n    206 Rhodes Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853\\\n    aew236@cornell.edu\\\nbibliography:\n- 'scooters.bib'\ntitle: A Stochastic Model for Electric Scooter Systems\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIt\u2019s a bird. It\u2019s a plane. Nah, it\u2019s a scooter! Electric scooter (e-scooter) companies are growing in popularity across the United States looking to take advantage of the ride-sharing and micro-mobility economy by providing an alternative to cars and bicycles. E-scooters were first introduced in September of 2017 in Santa Monica @Hall2018 when the micro-mobility company Bird Rides Inc. placed thousands of scooters all around the city. Bird\u2019s scooters were immediately popular with commuters, since they are convenient and are a low cost alternative to cars. These e-scooters can reach speeds of up to 25 miles per hour., but actually speeds vary by municipality. The e-scooter technology has become a prevalent form of transportation to provide a feasible solution to the last mile problem in the transportation literature.\n\nThese web-based e-scooters are controlled by rental networks and are easily operated by smartphones. Customers are able to use e-scooters by downloading mobile applications to their smartphones. The mobile applications (apps) then show customers an image of the nearest e-scooters to their GPS location and this information will direct customers to the nearest available e-scooter. A picture of the mobile application is given in Figure \\[Bird\\_App\\]. Using the information about available e-scooters, a customer will take an e-scooter and after completing their ride, customers can leave their e-scooter anywhere outside restricted zones, as indicated in the mobile application on their phone.\n\nCompanies operating e-scooters are rapidly expanding operations in the United States. For example, another company called Lime has a fleet of e-scooters that are available in more than 60 US cities. They also have an international presence in over 10 cities as well. Today, several major companies, including Bird and Lime, offer dockless e-scooter services, and several other companies, including the ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft, have recently entered the market as the demand continues to grow. Recent financial analyses show that Lime is valued over \\$1 billion and its rival Bird is valued at more than \\$2 billion. This growth will continue to accelerate as the demand grows for these e-scooters in many of the largest cities around the world.\n\nWhile e-scooter transportation should reduce emissions, and automobile congestion in local areas, e-scooters are not without accidents, see for example @allem2019electric [@kobayashi2019merging; @carville2018]. Although they are a convenient and affordable solution to transportation gaps, they are operated by batteries and need to be charged. The battery charging operations for these e-scooters consists of private individuals who go around and collect scooters to charge them. Bird scooter collectors are called \u201cBird Hunters\u201d and Lime scooter collectors are called \u201cLime Juicers\u201d. These collectors can make significant profits if they charge these scooters, see for example @goshtasb2018proposing. Generally, there is a flat payment for charging the e-scooter and the payment will increase depending on the difficulty of locating the scooter. Typically the \u201cBird Hunters\u201d will take the scooters home and after charging them overnight, need to drop them off as groups of three at dedicated assigned points called \u201cNests\u201d @bordes2019impacts. However, this particular way of charging e-scooters is not without incident. There have been several situations where juicers and hunters quarrel over the ability to charge the e-scooters @goshtasb2018proposing. There are also several places where juicers and hunters \u201cown\u201d a specific territory to charge the e-scooters. It would of great interest to eliminate this territorial behavior over charging the e-scooters.\n\nTo solve some of these issues, several e-scooter production companies are developing e-scooters with easily removable batteries. In this situation, instead of having \u201cjuicers\u201d and \u201chunters\u201d that need to charge the batteries, batteries are swapped by employees of the scooter company. We call these agents who replaced the dead batteries \u201cswappers\u201d. Many large scale e-scooter systems such as Bird and Lime already give their users the ability to see real-time availability and \u201cbattery life\u201d through a smartphone app and web API. A picture of the Bird app showing that $43\\%$ battery life for an e-scooter is given in Figure \\[Bird\\_App\\]. This information helps users make better decisions such as where to pick up e-scooters with enough battery life to get to their destination. It is also helpful for \u201cswappers\u201d who will replace the batteries when the scooter\u2019s battery life is below a predetermined threshold.\n\nHowever, in order to implement the \u201cswapping\u201d for a scooter company, we need to understand the battery life dynamics of a large scale e-scooter system. Understanding these dynamics will enable us to determine how many of these swappers are necessary to achieve the ideal performance of the e-scooter system. To this end, in this paper, we develop the first stochastic model that analyzes this \u201cswapping\u201d process along with the battery dynamics of e-scooters. Our goal in this work is to understand the dynamics of a removable e-scooter system and what proportion of the e-scooters have a particular fraction of battery life. In particular, we focus on understanding how many scooters are actually available to customers at a specific time when they want to travel. Our analysis yields new insights for staffing removable battery e-scooter systems that will be used in the future.\n\nMain Contributions of Paper\n---------------------------\n\nIn this section, we describe the contributions of our work in this paper.\n\n-   We construct the first stochastic e-scooter model using empirical processes, which measure the battery life dynamics. Since our model is difficult to analyze for a large number of scooters, we propose to analyze an empirical process that describes the proportion of scooters that have a certain fraction of battery life remaining. Our model is informed by real data collected from the JUMP API in Washington D.C.\n\n-   We prove a mean field limit and a central limit theorem for our stochastic e-scooter empirical process, showing that the mean field limit and the variance of the empirical process can be described by a system of $\\frac{K^2+3K}{2}$ differential equations where $K$ is the number equally sized intervals of battery life.\n\n-   We develop a novel algorithm based on our limit theorems for staffing the number of swappers that are needed to ensure that the proportion of scooters that have a small amount of battery is smaller than a given threshold.\n\nOrganization of Paper\n---------------------\n\nThe remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section\u00a0\\[Data\\] describes how we obtained and analyzed our e-scooter data. It also includes insights on how the data was used to inform our model and model parameters. In Section \\[Sec\\_Bike\\_Model\\], we introduce two stochastic e-scooter models. The first model assume that battery usage is instantaneous , while the second model assumes that battery usage occurs according to an exponential distribution. In Section, \\[Mean\\_Field\\_Limit\\], we prove the mean field limit of our stochastic e-scooter model showing that the mean field limit is a system of $K$ differential equations. In Section \\[Central\\_Limit\\], we prove a functional central limit theorem for the empirical process. We also show the variance of the diffusion limit can be approximated by a system of ordinary differential equations that are coupled to the mean field limit. In Section \\[Staffing\\], we use the mean field and central limit theorems to construct a staffing policy for the number of \u201cswappers\u201d need to satisfy probabilistic performance constraints. In Section \\[Numerics\\], we show that our results are indeed valid by comparing them to a stochastic simulation of the e-scooter system. In Section \\[Conclusion\\], we conclude and give directions for future work. Finally, additional proofs and theorems for our second model are given in the Appendix or Section \\[Appendix\\].\n\nPreliminaries of Weak Convergence\n---------------------------------\n\nFollowing @ko2018strong, we assume that all random variables in this paper are defined on a common probability space $(\\Omega, \\mathcal{F}, \\mathbb{P})$. Moreover, for all positive integers $k$, we let $\\mathcal{D}([0 , \\infty), \\mathbb{R}^k)$ be the space of right continuous functions with left limits (RCLL) in $\\mathbb{R}^k$ that have a time domain in $[0, \\infty)$. As is usual, we endow the space $\\mathcal{D}([0 , \\infty), \\mathbb{R}^k)$ with the usual Skorokhod $J_1$ topology, and let $M^k$ be defined as the Borel $\\sigma$-algebra associated with the $J_1$ topology. We also assume that all stochastic processes are measurable functions from our common probability space $(\\Omega, \\mathcal{F}, \\mathbb{P})$ into $(\\mathcal{D}([0 , \\infty), \\mathbb{R}^k), M^k)$. Thus, if $\\{\\zeta\\}^\\infty_{n=1}$ is a sequence of stochastic processes, then the notation $\\zeta^n \\rightarrow \\zeta$ implies that the probability measures that are induced by the $\\zeta^n$\u2019s on the space $(\\mathcal{D}([0 , \\infty), \\mathbb{R}^k), M^k)$ converge weakly to the probability measure on the space $(\\mathcal{D}([0 , \\infty), \\mathbb{R}^k), M^k)$ induced by $\\zeta$. For any $x \\in (\\mathcal{D}([0 , \\infty), \\mathbb{R}^k), M^k)$ and any $T > 0$, we define $$||x||_T \\equiv \\sup_{0 \\leq t \\leq T}  \\ \\max_{i = 1,2,...,k} |x_i(t)|$$ and note that $\\zeta^n$ converges almost surely to a continuous limit process $\\zeta$ in the $J_1$ topology if and only if $$||\\zeta^n - \\zeta||_T \\to 0 \\quad a.s.$$ for every $T > 0$.\n\nInsights from Electric Scooter Data {#Data}\n===================================\n\nIn this section, we describe some of the e-scooter trip data that we collected for this paper. This data is used to inform our stochastic models in the subsequent sections. With the real data, we can understand how e-scooter battery levels change when riders take trips, the rate of arrival to use e-scooters, and how long riders use the e-scooters in terms of time duration and distance. Below we describe how we collected raw geographic bike-share data, reconstructed likely trips, and filtered some data points that did not make sense from a rider perspective.\n\nThe Data Collection Process\n---------------------------\n\nGeneral Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) is an industry standard for sharing bike-share data that has been adopted by virtually every bike-sharing company, thanks in no small part to it being a requirement for operation in many US cities. GBFS is designed to provide a real-time snapshot of a city\u2019s fleet, which includes vehicle locations and battery levels for bikes that are not in active use. This information is also collected without keeping records of trips or personal information. In addition to providing more detailed monthly reports to the District Department of Transportation, maintaining a public API with GBFS data is a condition of operating in the Washington D.C. metro area.\n\n![Raw GBFS Data[]{data-label=\"raw_data\"}](./Raw_Jump_Data_Screenshot.png)\n\nThe dataset analyzed in this paper is based on GBFS data scraped from APIs maintained by JUMP for the D.C. metro area. The data was pulled from the JUMP API once per minute from the dates 01/01/2020 to 03/01/2020 during peak hours (6:00 \u2013 23:59) to coincide with vehicle location updates. After adding time stamps, the scraped data has the form shown in Figure \\[raw\\_data\\]. Note that the data has a vehicle type and some of them say \u201cbike\u201d. This is because JUMP operates both e-bikes and e-scooters and the data is collected for both. Since our analysis is centered around e-scooters, we removed the data for the e-bikes.\n\n  ---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n     $bike\\_id$             Unique identification String for each vehicle in fleet.\n   $is\\_disabled$   Boolean, 1 if vehicle is outside of approved geo-fences and 0 otherwise.\n   $is\\_reserved$     Boolean, 1 if vehicle is reserved through the JUMP app, 0 otherwise.\n     $battery$         Integer between 0 and 100 representing percent battery remaining.\n     $company$                         Company that operates the vehicle.\n       $type$                      Vehicle type, one of \u2018bike\u2019 or \u2018scooter\u2019.\n     $lat/lon$                  GPS location of vehicle at the given timestamp.\n       $time$                         Date/Time when API call is executed.\n      $epoch$               Time API call is executed, in seconds since 01/01/1970.\n  ---------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  : GBFS Data Fields\n\n\\[table:nonlin\\]\n\n#### Reconstructing E-Scooter Trips from Raw Data\n\nWe are ultimately interested in trip data for the purpose of informing the model parameters for our stochastic models. Though GBFS data explicitly excludes trip records, we were able to reconstruct trips by observing the times and locations at which bikes disappeared from and reentered the GBFS dataset. Using this information, our goal was to determine if a trip actually occurred or was it something else like rebalancing or strange movements of the e-scooter.\n\nMore explicitly, we compute the haversine distance between the start and end GPS coordinates. The start location is defined to be where the e-scooter first disappears from the data extraction from the API and the end location is where the e-scooter reappears in the data again. To mitigate noise from potential rebalancing, any disappearance with a distance less than 50 meters was removed from the dataset. Each of the remaining disappearances were tentatively designated as trips, with corresponding start and end times, locations, and battery levels. The distance of the trip was determined by the haversine distance between its start and end GPS coordinates, which is likely an underestimate of the true distance traveled on the e-scooter. Thus, when measuring the e-scooter drain rates, we are definitely overestimating this quantity in our analyses.\n\n![Cleaned Trip Data[]{data-label=\"trip_data\"}](./Cleaned_Trip_Data_Screenshot.png)\n\nOur final data filtering steps included removing trips corresponding to overnight disappearances, trips with an average velocity greater than the maximum theoretical speed of JUMP e-bikes (25 mph), and trips corresponding to recharging in which the e-scooter battery life increased. After the filtering process was complete, we were left with a dataset of 71,518 likely trips with format shown in Figure \\[trip\\_data\\] .\n\nInsights Gained from Data\n-------------------------\n\n#### Distance Traveled\n\nIn this section, we use the data we collected to understand how long riders travel on the e-scooters. On the right of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_cdf\\], we plot a histogram of the distances traveled by riders on the top plot. Since most of the data has less than 5 kilometers distance, we restricted the dataset to be less 5 kilometers. On the bottom right of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_cdf\\], we plot the cumulative density function (cdf) of the distance data. This cdf plot allows us to understand the quantiles or percentiles of the data more clearly than the histogram plot. In this context, we observe that the median distance or 50% quantile is roughly equal to 800 meters or close to half a mile. Moreover, we observe that about 80% of riders are traveling less than 1.5 kilometers.\n\n#### Time Duration of Riders\n\nOn the left of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_cdf\\], we plot a histogram of the time spent by riders with the e-scooters on the top plot. Since most of the data was less than one hour, we restricted the dataset to be less than one hour or 60 minutes. On the bottom left of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_cdf\\], we plot the cumulative density function (cdf) of the time duration data. This cdf plot allows us to understand the quantiles or percentiles of the data more clearly than the histogram plot. In this context, we observe that the median duration is roughly 8 minutes and about 80% of riders are traveling less than 15 minutes on an e-scooter.\n\n![Scooter Rental Duration Distribution (Left). Scooter Rental Distance Distribution (Right). []{data-label=\"Scooter_Duration_cdf\"}](./histogram_cdf_duration.png \"fig:\")\u00a0![Scooter Rental Duration Distribution (Left). Scooter Rental Distance Distribution (Right). []{data-label=\"Scooter_Duration_cdf\"}](./histogram_cdf_distance.png \"fig:\")\n\n#### Inter-arrival Times of Riders\n\nOn the left of Figure \\[Scooter\\_interarrival\\_cdf\\], we plot a histogram of the inter-arrival times of riders to e-scooters in the network. This histogram provides information about how many riders we should expect to arrive to the system during a time period. We should mention that the arrival rate should depend on time, however, we ignore this time dependence when looking at the inter-arrival times here. Since most of the data for the inter-arrival times was less than 20 minutes, we restricted the dataset to be less than 20 minutes. On the bottom left of Figure \\[Scooter\\_interarrival\\_cdf\\], we plot the cumulative density function (cdf) of the inter-arrival data. We observe that the median duration is roughly equal to 1 minute, however, this information is a bit misleading because of how the data is collected. Since the scooter API is updated only once per minute, it is impossible to observe an inter-arrival time less than one minute. Moreover, we observe that about 95% of the inter-arrival times are less than three minutes in length. On the right of Figure \\[Scooter\\_interarrival\\_cdf\\], we plot the arrival rate as a function of time average over the days of the data set. It is clear that the arrival rate is non-stationary and varies over the time of day. The two hump pattern (one in the morning and one in the afternoon) is also observed in this data and is common in ride-sharing data.\n\n![Scooter Rental Inter-Arrival Time Distribution (Left). Scooter Rental Arrival Rate Throughout the Day (Right). []{data-label=\"Scooter_interarrival_cdf\"}](./histogram_cdf_interarrival.png \"fig:\")\u00a0![Scooter Rental Inter-Arrival Time Distribution (Left). Scooter Rental Arrival Rate Throughout the Day (Right). []{data-label=\"Scooter_interarrival_cdf\"}](./arrival_rate.png \"fig:\")\n\n![Scooter Trip Duration vs. Change in Battery Life (Left). Scooter Trip Distance vs. Change in Battery Life (Right). []{data-label=\"Scooter_Duration_regression\"}](./reg_duration.png \"fig:\")\u00a0![Scooter Trip Duration vs. Change in Battery Life (Left). Scooter Trip Distance vs. Change in Battery Life (Right). []{data-label=\"Scooter_Duration_regression\"}](./reg_distance.png \"fig:\")\n\n#### Estimating Battery Life of E-Scooters\n\nAnother informative measurement from a data perspective is the battery usage dynamics of riders. On the left of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_regression\\], we show a scatterplot of trip time duration and the decrease of battery life. The plot measures for each trip, how long the customer used the e-scooter and what was the subsequent drain in the battery life of the e-scooter. On the right of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_regression\\], we show a scatterplot of trip distance and the decrease of battery life. This plot measures for each trip, how far in meters the customer drove the e-scooter and what was the subsequent drain in the battery life. We should emphasize that the e-scooter was not tracked during the entire time of usage and only the starting and ending GPS locations were used to compute the haversine distance between them. In both plots of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_regression\\], we observe that the relationship between time or distance with battery life is negative. We use regression analysis to explore these relationships in a formal way. Table \\[table:reg\\_result\\] summarizes the coefficients of different regression methods used to understand the relationship between % battery change and distance/duration.\n\n   feature   norm   intercept   slope\n  --------- ------ ----------- -------\n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n\n  : Regression coefficients for different methods[]{data-label=\"table:reg_result\"}\n\nWe observe that in both plots of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_regression\\] that performing the regression without an intercept increases the absolute value of the negative slopes. Moreover, we see that $L_1$ regression generally yields more negative slopes than their $L_2$ counterparts. This is especially true in the duration vs. battery plot on the left of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_regression\\]. Finally, we observe that the trip distance seems to be a better estimate of real trips versus the time duration of trips. This is consistent with the estimates of battery life that are reported from the Jump scooter company.\n\n![Scooter Rental % Battery Change Distribution. []{data-label=\"Scooter_Battery_cdf\"}](./histogram_cdf_battery.png)\n\n#### Battery Usage Per Trip\n\nFinally, on the top of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Battery\\_cdf\\], we plot a histogram of the battery used by customer. Since most of the data was less than 60% of the total battery life, we restricted the dataset to be less than 60 %. We observe that the histogram for battery usage almost looks exponentially distributed, but probably is more of a gamma distribution. On the bottom of Figure \\[Scooter\\_Battery\\_cdf\\], we plot the cdf of the battery usage data. We observe that the median battery usage is about 6% of battery life and about 80% of riders are using less than 10% of battery life of the scooter on each trip. From the data, we also observe that the minimum starting battery is about 21%. Thus, the average scooter can do about 13 trips before its battery needs to be swapped out for a new one.\n\nStochastic Models and Limit Theorems {#Sec_Bike_Model}\n====================================\n\nIn this section, we propose two new Markovian queueing models for the empirical process of e-scooters battery life. In our first model, we assume the battery usage time is instantaneous. However, in our second model, we assume the battery usage time is an exponentially distributed random variable. Although one can analyze each e-scooter individually, this is a high dimensional stochastic process and given the large scale of these e-scooter systems, we wish not to take on this intractable endeavor. As a result, we resort to using an empirical process perspective for the e-scooter system. The empirical process perspective reduces the dimension from the number of e-scooters, which is large, to the number of intervals of battery life one would like to keep track of. For example, in Washington D.C, each scooter company is allowed to operate at most 2500 scooters. However, the number of intervals of battery life for the scooters is at most 100. This represents an 25 fold reduction in dimension. However, it may not be necessary to even keep that much granularity for the purposes of this work. We suggest a value of $K = 10$ to give battery intervals of $10\\%$. This would yield a 250 fold reduction in dimension.\n\nThere is a large literature in the space of bike sharing and the sharing economy, see for example @hampshire2012analysis [@nair2013large; @schuijbroek2017inventory; @faghih2017empirical; @singla2015incentivizing; @jian2016simulation; @freund2020data]. Despite there being much research on bike sharing networks there is much less literature on electric scooters and their impact on transportation networks in large cities. Our goal in this work is to add to the growing literature in the sharing economy, but specifically for e-scooters. Our approach leverages new data resources for the scooters and uses the data to inform the structure of the stochastic models we will build in the sequel. Our new stochastic models leverage techniques from empirical process theory and weak convergence of martingales.\n\nEmpirical processes are not new and have been used in a variety of contexts in queueing theory, see for example @graham1997stochastic [@graham2000kinetic; @graham2000chaoticity; @graham2005functional; @li2014mean; @li2016mean; @mitzenmacher2016analyzing; @ying2016approximation; @iyer2011mean; @iyer2014mean; @yang2016mean; @yang2018mean; @yang2019information]. One of the first papers to consider empirical processes in ride-sharing is @mohamed2012mean, where the authors model bike sharing networks as a network of finite capacity single server queues. Using empirical processes, they prove a mean field limit theorem for the number stations that have $k$ bikes. In this context, the dimensionality is reduced from the total number of bikes in the network to roughly the size of the largest station. In large metropolitan cities like New York City and Washington D.C., this reduction is huge and useful. Recently, @tao2017stochastic, prove a central limit theorem for the same bike sharing model, showing that the central limit theorem is quite good at describing the fluctuations of the stochastic bike-sharing network process. Moreover, recent work by @fricker2016incentives [@bortolussi2016mean; @li2016bike; @li2016queueing; @li2017fluid; @el2018using] has also generalized the mean field limit theorems of @mohamed2012mean to the setting of non-stationary bike sharing systems and for Markovian arrival processes (MAPs) for the arrival and service distributions. More recently, @graef2019fractional extend the mean field model from ordinary differential equations to fractional ordinary differential equations. Generally, the mean field limit theorems provide rigorous support for using ordinary differential equations for describing the mean dynamics of the empirical measure. However, @graef2019fractional shows that using fractional ordinary differential equations might be more appropriate as they provide more flexibility than their non-fractional counterparts. Before we get specific about the models that we will describe in the sequel, we give some of the common notation that we will use throughout the remainder of the paper below in Table \\[table:nonlin\\].\n\n  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n      $i$                                           index for e-scooter\n      $N$                                          Number of e-scooters\n     $N^*$                                          Number of swappers\n      $K$                                        Battery life bucket size\n     $K_U$                                     Battery threshold for riding\n   $\\lambda$                             Arrival rate of recharger to a e-scooter\n     $\\mu$                                Arrival rate of customer to a e-scooter\n   $p_{ij}$    Probability of battery end up in bucket $j/K$ in a ride with starting battery in bucket $i/K$\n   $B_i(t)$                              Battery life of e-scooter $i$ at time $t$\n   $Y^N(t)$                      Empirical process of e-scooters battery life at time $t$\n  ----------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n  : Summary of Notation\n\n\\[table:nonlin\\]\n\nModel 1: Instantaneous Battery Usage {#model_1}\n------------------------------------\n\nHere we describe our first model for modeling the battery dynamics of an e-scooter network. We consider an empirical process of the battery life among all e-scooters in the system. The goal here is to model the distribution of battery life as Markov process and study the asymptotic behavior of the system as the number of e-scooters grows towards infinity i.e, $N \\to \\infty$. More specifically, we analyze a mean field and central limit theorem for the empirical process to help understand how different parameters can affect the system\u2019s performance.\n\n### Modeling Assumptions\n\n#### Customer Arrival (battery usage):\n\nWe assume that customers arrive to the system following a Poisson process with rate $\\mu N$ (uniform on geographical location). Only e-scooters with battery life above a certain threshold $K_U/K$ can be picked up and used by the customer. For simplicity of the model, we assume that after the customer picks up the e-scooter, the battery life changes immediately according to a probability matrix $P=(p_{ij})_{ij}$. Each element in the matrix $P=(p_{ij})_{ij}$ represents an e-scooter moving from the $i^{th}$ interval of battery life to the $j^{th}$ interval. Using the Jump scooter data we collected, we find the following empirical probability matrix $\\hat{P}$ when setting $K=5$, which is equal to\n\n$$\\hat{P}=\\begin{blockarray}{cccccc}\n[0,20\\%] & [20\\%,40\\%] & [40\\%,60\\%] & [60\\%,80\\%] & [80\\%,100\\%] \\\\\n\\begin{block}{(ccccc)c}\n0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & [0,20\\%] \\\\\n0.097 & 0.903 & 0 & 0 & 0 & [20\\%,40\\%]  \\\\\n0.003&  0.345&  0.652 & 0 &0& [40\\%,60\\%] \\\\\n0.0008 &    0.022 & 0.329 & 0.648 & 0 & [60\\%,80\\%]\\\\\n0.00 & 0.004 &   0.021 & 0.446 & 0.529 & [80\\%,100\\%] \\\\\n\\end{block}\n\\end{blockarray}$$ Here the first row of $\\hat{P}$ is zero because the minimum starting battery life is around 21% from the Jump scooters data.\n\n#### Swapper Arrival:\n\nWe assume that swappers arrive to the system following a Poisson process with rate $\\lambda N^*$. The probability of a e-scooter with battery life in bucket $k/K$ getting recharged is based on a choice model $\\frac{Y_k^N(t)g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y_i^N(t)g_i}$, where $\\{g_i\\}_{i=0}^{K-1}>0$ is a decreasing sequence on $i$. For simplicity of the model, we assume that after the swappers picks up the e-scooters, the battery life jumps to full immediately (i.e. neglecting swapping time).\n\n#### Remark:\n\nNote that instead of only recharge e-scooters with low battery, here we use a choice model for recharging that gives more weight to e-scooters with low battery life. With the choice model, there is a positive probability to recharge a e-scooter in bucket $\\left[\\frac{K-1}{K},1\\right]$. Without the choice model, we cannot guarantee the Lipschitz property of the drift function for the limiting mean field equations. The Lipschitz property is crucial for proving the mean field and central limit results in this work. However, one can set up the choice model $\\{g_i\\}_{i=0}^{K-1}$ so that the probability of recharging a e-scooter with high battery is low (In fact we only need $\\min_{i}\\{g_i\\} > 0$).\n\n### Markov Jump Process\n\nNow that we have described the dynamics of the model, we are now free to construct our empirical process model. To this end, we define the empirical process $Y_k^N(t)$ as the proportion of e-scooters with remaining battery life between $[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K})$. Thus, we can write $Y_k^N(t)$ as the following equation $$Y_k^N(t)=\\frac{1}{N}\\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\mathbf{1}\\left\\{\\frac{k}{K}\\leq B_i(t) < \\frac{k+1}{K}\\right\\}, \\quad k=0,\\cdots, K-1$$ where $N$ is the total number of e-scooters in the system, and $B_i(t)$ is the battery life of the $i^{th}$ e-scooter at time $t$. Moreover, we also assume that battery drainage of a single ride follows a discrete probability distribution, i.e. $$P(\\text{battery end up in } j/K \\text{ but started with battery in } i/K)=p_{ij}, \\quad j\\leq i=0,\\cdots, K-1.$$ If we condition on $Y_k^{N}(t)=y_k$, the transition rates of $y$ are specified as follows.\n\n#### Swapping Batteries:\n\nWhen there is a swapper arriving to the system to swap an e-scooter\u2019s battery with battery life in the interval $[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K}]$, the proportion of e-scooters with battery life in bucket $[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K}]$ goes down by $1/N$, the proportion of e-scooters with battery life in bucket $[\\frac{K-1}{K},1]$ goes up by $1/N$, and the transition rate $Q^N$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\nQ^{N}\\left(y,y+\\frac{1}{N}(\\mathbf{1}_{K-1}-\\mathbf{1}_{k}) \\right) &=&  \\lambda N^* \\frac{y_kg_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i} .\\end{aligned}$$\n\n#### Riding a Scooter:\n\nWhen there is a customer riding an e-scooter with battery life in the interval $[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K}]$ where $k\\geq K_U$, the proportion of e-scooters with battery life in the interval$[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K}]$ moves down by $1/N$ with probability $p_{kj}$. In addition, the proportion of e-scooters with battery life in the interval $[\\frac{j}{K},\\frac{j+1}{K}]$ moves up by $1/N$, and the transition rate $Q^N$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\nQ^{N} \\left(y,y+\\frac{1}{N}(\\mathbf{1}_{j}-\\mathbf{1}_{k}) \\right) &=&\n\\mu N p_{kj} y_k \\mathbf{1}\\{k\\geq K_U\\} \\mathbf{1}\\{j\\leq k\\}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWith the described transitions, one can show that $Y^N(t)$ is a Markovian jump process with the above transition rates. In Figure \\[model1\\_diagram\\], we illustrate the transitions between states in the model proposed above.\n\nDespite some complexity of our model, it is not completely realistic as we make the battery usage transitions instantaneous. What follows in the sequel is a generalization of our first model where the battery life transitions have an exponential distribution.\n\nModel 2: Exponentially Distributed Battery Usage Time {#model_2}\n-----------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this subsection, we propose a different model for the empirical process of battery life where battery usage time is considered to be exponentially distributed with rate $\\mu_U$. We use the same notation from Section \\[model\\_1\\] and introduce a new variable $R^N(t)$ as the number of e-scooters in use (riding by customers) at time $t$. Table \\[table:nonlin2\\] summarizes the additional notation we need for this new model.\n\n  ----------- ---------------------------------------------\n   $1/\\mu_U$               Mean trip duration\n   $R^N(t)$      Number of e-scooters in use at time $t$\n   $X^N(t)$    Proportion of e-scooters in use at time $t$\n  ----------- ---------------------------------------------\n\n  : Summary of Additional Model 2 Notation\n\n\\[table:nonlin2\\]\n\n### Modeling Assumptions\n\nNow we describe the following modeling assumptions we make for this new model.\n\n#### Customer Arrival (battery usage):\n\nWe assume that customers arrive to the system following a Poisson process with rate $\\mu (N-R^N(t))$ (uniform on geographical location). Only e-scooters with battery life above a certain threshold $K_U/K$ can be picked up and used by the customer. After the customer picks up the e-scooter, they will ride the e-scooter for a time that is exponentially distributed with rate $\\mu_U$, and after this the battery life changes immediately according to a probability matrix $P=(p_{ij})_{ij}$.\n\n#### Swapper Arrival:\n\nWe assume that swappers arrive to the system following a Poisson process with rate $\\lambda N^*\\left(1-\\frac{R^N(t)}{N}\\right)$, which is proportional to the number of e-scooters available at the time. The probability of a e-scooter with battery life in bucket $k/K$ getting swapped is based on a choice model $\\frac{Y_k^N(t)g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y_i^N(t)g_i}$, where $\\{g_i\\}_{i=0}^{K-1}>0$ is a decreasing sequence on $i$. For simplicity of the model, we assume that after the swapper picks up the e-scooter, the battery life jumps to full immediately (i.e. neglecting the swapping time).\n\n### Markov Jump Process\n\nNow that we have described the dynamics of the model, we are now free to construct our empirical process model. To this end, we define the fraction of e-scooters in use as $$X^N(t)=\\frac{R^N(t)}{N}$$\n\nBy conditioning on $(X^N(t),Y^{N}(t))=(x,y)$, the transition rates of $(x,y)$ are specified as follows:\n\n#### Battery Swapping:\n\nWhen there is a swapper arriving to the system to swap the battery of an e-scooter with battery life in the interval $[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K}]$, the proportion of e-scooters with battery life in the interval $[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K}]$ goes down by $1/N$, the proportion of e-scooters with battery life in the interval$[\\frac{K-1}{K},1]$ goes up by $1/N$, and the transition rate $Q^N$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\nQ^{N}\\left((x,y),\\left(x,y+\\frac{1}{N}(\\mathbf{1}_{K-1}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})\\right) \\right) &=&  \\lambda N^* (1-x)\\frac{y_kg_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n#### Customer Arrival:\n\nWhen there is a customer arriving to the system to pick up a e-scooter with battery life in the interval $[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K}]$ where $k\\geq K_U$,, the proportion of e-scooters in use goes up by $1/N$, and the transition rate $Q^N$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\nQ^{N}\\left((x,y),\\left(x+\\frac{1}{N},y\\right) \\right) &=&  \\mu N(1-x)\\sum_{k=K_U}^{K-1}y_k\\end{aligned}$$\n\n#### Battery Usage:\n\nWhen there is a customer riding a e-scooter with battery life in the interval $[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K}]$ where $k\\geq K_U$, the proportion of e-scooters with battery life in the interval $[\\frac{k}{K},\\frac{k+1}{K}]$ goes down by $1/N$, with probability $p_{kj}$ the proportion of e-scooters with battery life in the interval $[\\frac{j}{K},\\frac{j+1}{K}]$ goes up by $1/N$, and the proportion of e-scooters in use goes down by $1/N$, and the transition rate $Q^N$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\nQ^{N} \\left((x,y),\\left(x-\\frac{1}{N},y+\\frac{1}{N}(\\mathbf{1}_{j}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})\\right) \\right) &=&\n\\mu_U Nx p_{kj} y_k \\mathbf{1}\\{k\\geq K_U\\} \\mathbf{1}\\{j\\leq k\\}.\\end{aligned}$$ We the above transition rates, we have that $(X^N(t),Y^N(t))$ is a Markov jump process. In Figure \\[model2\\_diagram\\], we illustrate the transitions between states in the model proposed. Note that in order to make the illustration easier to understand, we break down $X^N(t)$ into each battery interval. Since we assume uniform arrival to scooters with battery life in all levels, we do not need to track the proportion of e-scooters in use in each battery bucket for the model to be Markovian. However, it will be needed when arrival rate depends on the battery life of e-scooters, in which case we can extend the state space to $$X_{u, k}^N(t)=\\frac{1}{N}\\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\mathbf{1}\\left\\{\\frac{k}{K}\\leq B_i(t) < \\frac{k+1}{K}, u_i(t)=u\\right\\}, \\quad k=0,\\cdots, K-1, u=0,1$$ where $u_i(t)=1$ denotes scooter $i$ is in use at time $t$ and $u_i(t)=0$ indicates when the $i^{th}$ e-scooter is idle at time $t$.\n\nNow that we have two models for the dynamic behavior of e-scooter systems, we want to understand some important behavior of the system. Since the system is quite large and is not easy to analyze directly, we resort to using asymptotic analysis. Thus, in the sequel we will prove mean field and central limit theorems for describe the mean and variance dynamics of the e-scooter system.\n\nMean Field Limit of Empirical Processes {#Mean_Field_Limit}\n=======================================\n\nIn this section, we prove the mean field limit for both of our empirical process of e-scooters battery life models. A mean field limit describes the large system dynamics of the e-scooters battery life and usage over time. Deriving the mean field limit allows us to gain insight about the average system behavior when the number of e-scooters is very large. Thus, we avoid the need to study an $N$-dimensional continuous time Markov chain and compute its steady state distribution in this high dimensional setting, which is quite intractable. We first state the mean field limit result for the stochastic model described in Section \\[model\\_1\\], the empirical process of e-scooter battery life with instantaneous battery usage.\n\n\\[fluid\\_limit\\] Let $|. |$ denote the Euclidean norm in $\\mathbb{R}^{K}$. Suppose that $\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\frac{N^*}{N}=\\gamma$, and $Y^{N}(0)\\xrightarrow{p} y(0)$, then we have for $\\forall \\epsilon>0$ $$\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}P\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq t_0}|Y^N(t)-y(t)|>\\epsilon\\right)=0,$$ where $y(t)$ is the unique solution to the following differential equation starting at $y(0)$, $$\\label{diff_eqn}\n{\\raisebox{-0.4pt}{$\\stackrel{\\bullet}{y}$}}=f(y)$$\n\nwhere $f:[0,1]^{K}\\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}^{K}$ is a vector field that satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eqn:b}\nf(y)&=&\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\left[ \\left(  \\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i} \\right)(\\mathbf{1}_{K-1}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})+\\sum_{j=0}^{k}\\mu p_{kj} (\\mathbf{1}_{j}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})\\mathbf{1}_{k\\geq K_U}\\right] y_k\\nonumber \\\\\\end{aligned}$$ or componentwise for $0\\leq j \\leq K-1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\nf_j(y)&=&\\underbrace{\\sum_{k=\\max(K_U,j)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{k,j}y_k}_{\\text{battery usage from scooters in $k$-th bucket}} +\\underbrace{\\lambda \\gamma \\mathbf{1}\\{j=K-1\\}}_{\\text{battery recharge to full}}-\\underbrace{\\mu y_j \\mathbf{1}\\{j\\geq K_U\\}}_{\\text{battery usage from scooters in $j$-th bucket}}\\nonumber\\\\\n& &-\\underbrace{\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma y_jg_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}}_{\\text{battery recharge to scooters in $j$-th bucket}} .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe full proof is provided in the Appendix (Section \\[Appendix\\]).\n\nNow we state the the mean field limit result for the stochastic model described in Section \\[model\\_2\\], the empirical process of e-scooter battery life with exponentially distributed battery usage time.\n\n\\[fluid\\_limit\\_model2\\] Let $|. |$ denote the Euclidean norm in $\\mathbb{R}^{K+1}$. Suppose that $\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\frac{N^*}{N}=\\gamma$, and $(X^N(0),Y^{N}(0))\\xrightarrow{p} (x(0),y(0))$, then we have for $\\forall \\epsilon>0$ $$\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}P\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq t_0}|(X^N(t), Y^N(t))-(x(t),y(t))|>\\epsilon\\right)=0$$ where $(x(t),y(t))$ is the unique solution to the following differential equation starting at $(x(0), y(0))$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{diff_eqn}\n{\\raisebox{-0.4pt}{$\\stackrel{\\bullet}{x}$}}&=&f_x(x, y),\\\\\n{\\raisebox{-0.4pt}{$\\stackrel{\\bullet}{y}$}}&=&f_y(x, y),\\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $f=(f_x,f_y):[0,1]\\times [0,1]^{K}\\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}\\times \\mathbb{R}^{K}$ is a vector field that satisfies $$\\begin{aligned}\nf_x(x,y)=\\underbrace{\\mu(1-x)\\sum_{k=K_U}^{K-1}y_k}_{\\text{customers picking up scooters}} -\\underbrace{\\mu_U x \\sum_{k=K_U}^{K-1}y_k}_{\\text{customers drop off scooters}},\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nf_y(x,y)&=&\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\left[ \\left(  \\frac{\\lambda \\gamma (1-x) g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i} \\right)(\\mathbf{1}_{K-1}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})+\\sum_{j=0}^{k}\\mu_U x p_{kj} (\\mathbf{1}_{j}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})\\mathbf{1}_{k\\geq K_U}\\right] y_k,\\nonumber \\\\\\end{aligned}$$\n\nor componentwise for $0\\leq j \\leq K-1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\nf_y(x,y)(j)&=&\\underbrace{\\sum_{k=\\max(K_U,j)}^{K-1}\\mu _U x p_{k,j}y_k}_{\\text{battery usage from scooters in $k$-th bucket}} +\\underbrace{\\lambda \\gamma(1-x) \\mathbf{1}\\{j=K-1\\}}_{\\text{battery recharge to full}}\\nonumber\\\\\n& &-\\underbrace{\\mu_U x y_j \\mathbf{1}\\{j\\geq K_U\\}}_{\\text{battery usage from scooters in $j$-th bucket}}-\\underbrace{\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma(1-x) y_jg_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}}_{\\text{battery recharge to scooters in $j$-th bucket}}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe proof ideas for Theorem \\[fluid\\_limit\\_model2\\] follow easily from the proof of Theorem \\[fluid\\_limit\\] so we do not prove them in this paper.\n\nSteady State Analysis\n---------------------\n\nBy the existence and uniqueness of the fluid limit, $y(t)$ has a unique steady state $\\bar{y}$ which satisfies\n\n$$\\sum_{k=\\max(K_U,j)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{k,j}\\bar{y}_k +\\lambda \\gamma \\mathbf{1}\\{j=K-1\\} =\\mu \\bar{y}_j \\mathbf{1}\\{j\\geq K_U\\}+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma \\bar{y}_jg_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}\\bar{y}_ig_i}$$ Specifically, $$\\sum_{k=K_U}^{K-1}\\mu p_{k,j}\\bar{y}_k  =\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma \\bar{y}_jg_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}\\bar{y}_ig_i}, \\quad \n0\\leq j<K_U$$ $$\\sum_{k=j}^{K-1}\\mu p_{k,j}\\bar{y}_k  =\\mu \\bar{y}_j+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma \\bar{y}_jg_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}\\bar{y}_ig_i}, \\quad K_U\\leq j<K-1$$ $$\\mu p_{K-1,K-1}\\bar{y}_{K-1} +\\lambda \\gamma =\\mu \\bar{y}_{K-1}+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma \\bar{y}_{K-1}g_{K-1}}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}\\bar{y}_ig_i},  \\quad j=K-1$$\n\nBoth mean field limits provide insights to the stochastic model, by providing ordinary differential equations that describe the mean proportion of scooters in a particular interval of battery life. In the first model, the dimension is reduced from $N$ scooters to $K$ intervals where $K$ is generally much lower than $N$. In the second model, the dimension is only increased to $K+1$, which is still much smaller than $N$, the number of e-scooters. We will describe in the sequel how these mean field limits can be used to construct staffing algorithms for agents who will swap out the batteries when they are low. However, the mean field limits only describe the mean dynamics of the stochastic models and say nothing about the stochastic fluctuations around the mean field limits. In the next section, we prove central limit theorems, centering around the mean field limits for our stochastic models. The central limit theorems will provide some rigorous support for confidence intervals around the mean field limits.\n\nCentral Limit Theorem of Empirical Process {#Central_Limit}\n==========================================\n\nIn this section, we derive the diffusion limit of our stochastic empirical process of scooters battery life model. Diffusion limits are critical for obtaining a deep understanding of the sample path behavior of stochastic processes around their mean. One reason is that diffusion limits describe the fluctuations around the mean or mean field limit and can help understand the variance or the asymptotic distribution of the stochastic process being analyzed. We define our diffusion scaled e-scooters sharing model by subtracting the mean field limit from the scaled stochastic process and rescaling it by $\\sqrt{N}$. Thus, we obtain the following expression for the diffusion scaled scooter battery life empirical process $$D^{N}(t)=\\sqrt{N}(Y^{N}(t)-y(t)).$$ Now we state the functional central limit theorem for the empirical process described in Section \\[model\\_1\\].\n\n\\[difftheorem\\] Consider $D^{N}(t)$ in $\\mathbb{D}(\\mathbb{R}_{+},\\mathbb{R}^{K})$ with the Skorokhod $J_{1}$ topology, and suppose that $\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\sqrt{N}\\left(\\frac{N^*}{N}-\\gamma\\right)< \\infty$. If $D^{N}(0)$ converges in distribution to $D(0)$, then $D^{N}(t)$ converges to the unique Ornstein Uhlenbeck (OU) process solving $D(t)=D(0)+\\int_{0}^{t}f'(y(s))D(s) ds+M(t)$ in distribution, where $f'(y)$ is specified as follows, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{b'}\n\\frac{\\partial f_j(y)}{\\partial y_k}&=&\\mu p_{k,j}\\mathbf{1}\\{k\\geq \\max\\{j,K_U\\}\\}-\\mu \\mathbf{1}\\{k=j\\geq K_U\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n& &+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_kg_jy_j}{(\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i)^2}-\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}\\mathbf{1}\\{j= k\\},\\end{aligned}$$ and $M(t) = (M_{0}(t),\\cdots,M_{K-1}(t))\\in \\mathbb{R}^{K}$ is a real continuous centered Gaussian martingale, with Doob-Meyer brackets given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\boldlangle M_{k}(t),M_{j}(t)\\boldrangle \n&=&\\begin{cases}\n\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\sum_{i=\\max(K_U,k+1)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{i,k}y_i(s) +\\left(\\mu(1-p_{k,k})\\mathbf{1}_{\\{k\\geq K_U\\}}\\right.\\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n+\\left.\\left.\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_i(s)g_i} \\right)y_k(s)\\right]ds, & k=j<K-1 \\nonumber\\\\\n\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\mu(1-p_{K-1,K-1})y_{K-1}(s)+\\lambda \\gamma\\left(1- \\frac{g_{K-1}y_{K-1}(s)}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_i(s)g_i}\\right)\\right]ds, & k=j=K-1\\\\\n-\\int_{0}^{t} \\left[\\mu p_{k,j}y_k(s)+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_i(s)g_i}y_j(s)\\mathbf{1}\\{k=K-1\\}\\right]ds,  & j<k, k\\geq K_U\\nonumber\\\\\n0. & \\text{otherwise}\n\\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$ Define $\\mathcal{A}(t)=f'(y(t))$, $\\mathcal{B}(t)=\\left(\\frac{d}{dt}\\boldlangle M_i(t),M_j(t)\\boldrangle  \\right)_{ij}$, then the covariance matrix $\\Sigma (t)=\\mathrm{Cov}[D(t),D(t)]$ satisfies $$\\frac{d\\Sigma(t)}{dt}=\\Sigma(t)\\mathcal{A}(t)^\\top+\\mathcal{A}(t)\\Sigma(t)+\\mathcal{B}(t).$$ Moreover, componentwise, for $i=0,1,\\cdots, K-2$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d\\Sigma_{ii}(t)}{dt} &=&2\\sum_{k=\\max\\{i,K_U\\}}^{K-1}\\Sigma_{ik}\\mu p_{k,i}-2\\left( \\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_i}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}+\\mu \\mathbf{1}\\{i\\geq K_U\\}\\right)\\Sigma_{ii} +2\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\Sigma_{ik}\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_kg_iy_i}{(\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i)^2}\\nonumber\\\\\n& &+\\sum_{k=\\max(i+1,K_U)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{k,i}y_k +\\left(\\mu(1-p_{i,i})\\mathbf{1}\\{i\\geq K_U\\}+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_i}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i} \\right)y_i,\\end{aligned}$$ and for $i=K-1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d\\Sigma_{K-1,K-1}(t)}{dt} \n&=&-2\\left( \\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_{K-1}}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}+\\mu \\right)\\Sigma_{ii}+2\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\Sigma_{ik}\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_kg_{K-1}y_{K-1}}{(\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i)^2}+\\mu(1-p_{K-1,K-1})y_{K-1}\\nonumber\\\\\n& &+\\lambda \\gamma\\left(1- \\frac{g_{K-1}y_{K-1}}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}\\right) ,\\end{aligned}$$ for $0\\leq i<j\\leq K-1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d\\Sigma_{ij}(t)}{dt}\n&=&\\sum_{k=\\max\\{j,K_U\\}}^{K-1}\\Sigma_{ik}\\mu p_{k,j}-\\left( \\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}+\\mu \\mathbf{1}\\{j\\geq K_U\\}\\right)\\Sigma_{ij}+\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\Sigma_{ik}\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_kg_jy_j}{(\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i)^2}\\nonumber\\\\\n& &\\sum_{k=\\max\\{i,K_U\\}}^{K-1}\\Sigma_{jk}\\mu p_{k,i}-\\left( \\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_i}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}+\\mu \\mathbf{1}\\{i\\geq K_U\\}\\right)\\Sigma_{ij}+\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\Sigma_{jk}\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_kg_iy_i}{(\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i)^2}\\nonumber\\\\\n& &-\\mu p_{j,i}y_j\\mathbf{1}\\{j\\geq K_U\\}-\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_i}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}y_i\\mathbf{1}\\{j=K-1\\}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn order to prove Theorem \\[difftheorem\\], we need to prove the following four results listed below step by step.\n\n-   (Lemma \\[martingale\\_brackets\\])$\\sqrt{N}M^{N}(t)$ is a family of martingales independent of $D^{N}(0)$ with Doob-Meyer brackets given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n    & &\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M^{N}_k(t),\\sqrt{N}M^{N}_j(t)\\boldrangle\\nonumber\\\\\n    &=&\\begin{cases}\n    \\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\sum_{i=\\max(K_U,k+1)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{i,k}Y^N_i(s) +\\left(\\mu(1-p_{k,k})\\mathbf{1}_{\\{k\\geq K_U\\}}\\right.\\right. & \\nonumber\\\\\n    +\\left.\\left.\\lambda N^*\\frac{ g_k}{N\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i} \\right)Y^N_k(s)\\right]ds, & k=j<K-1 \\nonumber\\\\\n    \\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\mu(1-p_{K-1,K-1})Y_{K-1}^N(s)+\\lambda \\frac{N^*}{N}\\left(1- \\frac{g_{K-1}Y_{K-1}^N(s)}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y_i^N(s)g_i}\\right)\\right]ds, & k=j=K-1\\\\\n    -\\int_{0}^{t} \\left[\\mu p_{k,j}Y^N_k(s)+\\lambda N^*\\frac{ g_j}{N\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y_i^N(s)g_i}Y_j^N(s)\\mathbf{1}\\{k=K-1\\}\\right]ds,  & j<k, k\\geq K_U\\nonumber\\\\\n    0. & \\text{otherwise}\n    \\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n-   (Lemma \\[L2bound\\]) For any $T\\geq 0$, $$\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}(|D^{N}(0)|^2)<\\infty \\Rightarrow \\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}(\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}|D^{N}(t)|^2)<\\infty.$$\n\n-   (Lemma \\[tightness\\]) If $(D^{N}(0))_{N=1}^{\\infty}$ is tight then $(D^{N})_{N=1}^{\\infty}$ is tight and its limit points are continuous.\n\n-   If $D^{N}(0)$ converges to $D(0)$ in distribution, then $D^{N}(t)$ converges to the unique OU process solving $D(t)=D(0)+\\int_{0}^{t}f'(y(s))D(s) ds+M(t)$ in distribution.\n\nWe provide the proofs of Lemma \\[martingale\\_brackets\\], Lemma \\[L2bound\\] and Lemma \\[tightness\\] in the Appendix (Section \\[Appendix\\]). For step 4), by Theorem 4.1 in Chapter 7 of @Ethier2009, it suffices to prove the following conditions hold\n\n1.  $$\\label{condition_1}\n    \\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left[\\sup_{t\\leq T}|D^N(t)-D^N(t-)|^2\\right]=0,$$\n\n2.  $$\\label{condition_2}\n    \\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left[\\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|\\int_{0}^{t}F^N(Y^N(s))ds-\\int_{0}^{t-}F^N(Y^N(s))ds\\right|^2\\right]=0,$$\n\n3.  for $0\\leq k,j\\leq K-1$, $$\\label{condition_3}\n    \\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left[\\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M^{N}_k(t),\\sqrt{N}M^{N}_j(t)\\boldrangle-\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M^{N}_k(t-),\\sqrt{N}M^{N}_j(t-)\\boldrangle\\right|^2\\right]=0,$$\n\n4.  for $0\\leq k,j\\leq K-1$, $$\\label{condition_4}\n    \\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M^{N}_k(t),\\sqrt{N}M^{N}_j(t)\\boldrangle-\\boldlangle M_k(t),M_j(t)\\boldrangle\\right|\\xrightarrow{p} 0,$$\n\n5.  $$\\label{condition_5}\n    \\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|\\int_{0}^{t}\\left\\{\\sqrt{N}[f(Y^N(s))-f(y(s))]-f'(y(s))D^{N}(s)\\right\\}ds\\right|\\xrightarrow{p} 0.$$\n\nCondition (\\[condition\\_1\\]) is easy to show by the fact that $D^N(t)$ has jump size of $1/\\sqrt{N}$. Condition (\\[condition\\_2\\]) follows by the fact that $F^N(y)$ is a Lipschitz function of $y$ and that condition (\\[condition\\_1\\]) holds. By Lemma \\[martingale\\_brackets\\] and the fact that $Y^N(t)$ has jump size of $1/N$, it is also easy to show that condition (\\[condition\\_3\\]) holds. For condition (\\[condition\\_4\\]), it follows from Proposition \\[driftbound\\] and Lemma \\[martingale\\_brackets\\] (see for example proof of Equation (\\[martingale\\_brackets\\_convergence\\]) for details).\n\nFinally, to show condition (\\[condition\\_5\\]), by Equation (\\[b\u2019\\]) we know that $f(y(t))$ is continuously differentiable with respect to $y(t)$. By the mean value theorem, for every $0\\leq s\\leq t$ there exists a vector $Z^{N}(s)$ in between $Y^{N}(s)$ and $y(s)$ such that $$f(Y^{N}(s))-f(y(s))=f'(Z^{N}(s))(Y^{N}(s)-y(s)).$$ Therefore, $$\\int_{0}^{t}\\left\\{\\sqrt{N}[f(Y^{N}(s))-f(y(s))]-f'(y(s))D^{N}(s)\\right\\}ds=\\int_{0}^{t}[f'(Z^{N}(s))-f'(y(s))]D^{N}(s)ds.$$ We know that $$\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\sup_{t\\leq T}|f'(Z^{N}(s))-f'(y(s))|=0\\quad \\text{in probability}$$ by the mean field limit convergence (Theorem \\[fluid\\_limit\\]) and the uniform continuity of $f'$. By applying Chebyshev\u2019s inequality we have that $D^{N}(s)$ is bounded in probability. Then, by Lemma 5.6 in @ko2018strong we have that $$\\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|\\int_{0}^{t}\\left\\{\\sqrt{N}[f(Y^N(s))-f(y(s))]-f'(y(s))D^{N}(s)\\right\\}ds\\right|\\xrightarrow{p} 0.$$\n\nLike in the mean field case, we now state the functional central limit theorem for the empirical process described in Section \\[model\\_2\\], where we consider battery usage time to be exponentially distributed.\n\n\\[difftheorem\\_model2\\] Define $$D^{N}(t)=\\sqrt{N}((X^N(t),Y^N(t))-(x(t),y(t))).$$ Consider $D^{N}(t)$ in $\\mathbb{D}(\\mathbb{R}_{+},\\mathbb{R}^{K+1})$ with the Skorokhod $J_{1}$ topology, and suppose that $$\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\sqrt{N}\\left(\\frac{N^*}{N}-\\gamma\\right)< \\infty.$$ Then if $D^{N}(0)$ converges in distribution to $D(0)$, then $D^{N}(t)$ converges to the unique OU process solving $D(t)=D(0)+\\int_{0}^{t}f'(x(s), y(s))D(s) ds+M(t)$ in distribution, where $f'(x,y)$ is specified as follows, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\partial f_x(x,y)}{\\partial x}&=&-(\\mu+\\mu_U)\\sum_{k=K_U}^{K-1}y_k,\\nonumber\\\\\n\\frac{\\partial f_x(x,y)}{\\partial y_k}&=&(\\mu(1-x)-\\mu_U x)\\mathbf{1}\\{k\\geq K_U\\}\\nonumber\\\\\n\\frac{\\partial f_y(x,y)(j)}{\\partial x}&=&\\sum_{k=\\max(K_U,j)}^{K-1}\\mu_Up_{kj}y_k-\\lambda\\gamma\\left(\\mathbf{1}\\{j=K-1\\}-\\frac{g_jy_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}g_iy_i}\\right)-\\mu_U y_j \\mathbf{1}\\{j\\geq K_U\\},\\nonumber\\\\\n\\frac{\\partial f_y(x,y)(j)}{\\partial y_k}&=&\\mu_U x p_{k,j}\\mathbf{1}\\{k\\geq \\max\\{j,K_U\\}\\}-\\mu_U x \\mathbf{1}\\{k=j\\geq K_U\\},\\nonumber\\\\\n& & +\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma (1-x) g_kg_jy_j}{(\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i)^2}-\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma (1-x)g_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}\\mathbf{1}\\{j= k\\},\\nonumber\\\\\\end{aligned}$$ and $M(t)=(M_{x}(t), M_{y,0}(t),\\cdots,M_{y,K-1}(t))\\in \\mathbb{R}^{K+1}$ is a real continuous centered Gaussian martingale, with Doob-Meyer brackets given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\boldlangle M_{x}(t) \\boldrangle & = & \\int_{0}^{t}\\left[(\\mu(1-x(s))+\\mu_U x(s))\\sum_{k=K_U}^{K-1}y_k(s)\\right]ds,\\\\\n\\boldlangle M_{x}(t), M_{y,j}(t)\\boldrangle & = & \\\n-\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\mu_U x(s)\\sum_{k=\\max\\{j,K_U\\}}^{K-1}p_{k,j}y_k(s)\\right]ds,\\end{aligned}$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n& &\\boldlangle M_{y,k}(t),M_{y,j}(t)\\boldrangle \\nonumber\\\\\n&=&\\begin{cases}\n\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\sum_{i=\\max(K_U,k+1)}^{K-1}\\mu_U x p_{i,k}y_i(s) +\\left(\\mu_Ux(1-p_{k,k})\\mathbf{1}_{\\{k\\geq K_U\\}}\\right.\\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n+\\left.\\left.\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma(1-x) g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_i(s)g_i} \\right)y_k(s)\\right]ds, & k=j<K-1 \\nonumber\\\\\n\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\mu_Ux(1-p_{K-1,K-1})y_{K-1}(s)+\\lambda \\gamma(1-x)\\left(1- \\frac{g_{K-1}y_{K-1}(s)}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_i(s)g_i}\\right)\\right]ds, & k=j=K-1\\\\\n-\\int_{0}^{t} \\left[\\mu_U x p_{k,j}y_k(s)+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma(1-x) g_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_i(s)g_i}y_j(s)\\mathbf{1}\\{k=K-1\\}\\right]ds,  & j<k, k\\geq K_U\\nonumber\\\\\n0. & \\text{otherwise}\n\\end{cases}\\nonumber\\\\\\end{aligned}$$ Define $\\mathcal{A}(t)=f'(x(t),y(t))$, $\\mathcal{B}(t)=\\left(\\frac{d}{dt}\\boldlangle M_i(t),M_j(t)\\boldrangle  \\right)_{ij}$, then the covariance matrix $\\Sigma (t)=\\mathrm{Cov}[D(t),D(t)]$ satisfies $$\\frac{d\\Sigma(t)}{dt}=\\Sigma(t)\\mathcal{A}(t)^\\top+\\mathcal{A}(t)\\Sigma(t)+\\mathcal{B}(t).$$\n\nThe proof ideas for Theorem \\[difftheorem\\_model2\\] follow easily from the proof of Theorem \\[difftheorem\\] so we do not prove them in this paper.\n\nInsights to Staffing Swappers {#Staffing}\n=============================\n\nIn Sections \\[Mean\\_Field\\_Limit\\] and \\[Central\\_Limit\\], we prove mean field and central limit theorems for the empirical process of battery life. In this section, we show how to use these limits for providing insights for staffing the number of swappers to keep the number of e-scooters with low battery life below a pre-specified threshold. Our limit theorems are useful because when the scale of the system $N$ is large enough, the empirical process representing battery life can be approximated by a normal distribution, which is extremely convenient from a computational perspective. As a result, we can approximate the tail probability of the empirical measure process by the following expression $$\\begin{aligned}\nP(Y_k^N(t)>x)\\approx P(y_k(t)+\\sqrt{\\Sigma_{kk}(t)/N}\\cdot Z>x)=1-\\Phi\\left(\\frac{x-y_k(t)}{\\sqrt{\\Sigma_{kk}(t)/N}}\\right).  \\end{aligned}$$ where $Z\\sim N(0,1)$ and $\\Phi$ is the cdf of standard normal distribution.\n\nSimilarly, if we want to consider several terms of the empirical process $(Y_{\\sigma(i)})_{i}$ where $\\sigma$ is a permutation on $\\{0,1,\\cdots,K-1\\}$. We have $$\\begin{aligned}\nP\\left(\\sum_{i=1}^{m}Y_{\\sigma(i)}^N(t)>x\\right)&\\approx & P\\left(\\sum_{i=1}^{m}y_{\\sigma(i)}(t)+\\sqrt{\\frac{1}{N}\\left(\\sum_{i=1}^{m}\\Sigma_{\\sigma(i)\\sigma(i)}(t)+2\\sum_{i<j}^{m}\\Sigma_{\\sigma(i)\\sigma(j)}(t)\\right)}\\cdot Z>x\\right)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&1-\\Phi\\left(\\frac{x-\\sum_{i=1}^{m}y_{\\sigma(i)}(t)}{\\sqrt{\\frac{1}{N}\\left(\\sum_{i=1}^{m}\\Sigma_{\\sigma(i)\\sigma(i)}(t)+2\\sum_{i<j}^{m}\\Sigma_{\\sigma(i)\\sigma(j)}(t))\\right)}}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAn important question the above analysis can help answer is how many swappers are needed to keep the proportion of e-scooters with low battery life lower than a threshold, i.e. $P(Y_0>x)<\\epsilon$ for given $(x,\\epsilon)$. Specifically, we construct the following algorithm for finding the solution numerically.\n\n\\[algo\\] Given $x>0, \\epsilon>0$, we have the following steps of finding the number of swappers needed to satisfy $P(Y_0^N>x)\\leq \\epsilon$.\n\n1.  Initialize $\\gamma=1$.\n\n2.  Evaluate $$f(\\gamma)=\\bar{y}_0(\\gamma)+\\sqrt{\\frac{\\bar{\\Sigma}_{00}(\\gamma)}{N}}\\Phi^{-1}(1-\\epsilon)-x$$ where $\\bar{y}_0(\\gamma),\\bar{\\Sigma}_{00}(\\gamma)$ are the limiting mean and variance of $Y^N_0(t)$ at equilibrium (which are computed from the mean field and diffusion limits).\n\n    If $f(\\gamma)>0$, set $\\gamma \\leftarrow 2\\gamma$ (double the value of $\\gamma$) and repeat step 2 until $f(\\gamma)<0$. Denote the final value of $\\gamma$ as $\\gamma_{\\max}$.\n\n3.  Apply bisection method on interval $[0,\\gamma_{\\max}]$ to find the root $\\gamma^*$ to $f(\\gamma)$. Then $\\gamma^*$ is the optimal number of swapper per e-scooter needed.\n\nThe main idea of the algorithm is to use the mean field and central limit theorems to construct quantiles for each interval of battery life. More specifically, we invert the quantiles to find the number of swappers to achieve the probabilistic performance given by system operator. We will demonstrate the usefulness of this algorithm in the next section, which is devoted to numerical examples.\n\nNumerical Examples and Simulation {#Numerics}\n=================================\n\nIn this section, we use numerical examples and simulation results to provide better insights to the behavior of the e-scooters system. The examples validate our theoretical results in Sections \\[Mean\\_Field\\_Limit\\] and \\[Central\\_Limit\\] by showing how accurate the mean field and diffusion limits are for approximating the mean and variance of the empirical process. We also illustrate how to use our results for staffing the number of swappers. The following simulation results are computed with the following parameter settings:\n\n-   The number of e-scooters $N=100$,\n\n-   The number of swappers $N^*=50$,\n\n-   Arrival rate of customers $\\lambda=1$,\n\n-   Arrival rate of swappers $\\mu=1$,\n\n-   Battery life bucket size $K=5$,\n\n-   Battery threshold for riding $K_U=1$,\n\n-   Battery usage probability $p_{ij}=\\frac{1}{i+1}\\mathbf{1}\\{j\\leq i\\}$.\n\nWe initialize the battery life of scooters at time 0 to be uniform in each interval of battery life, i.e. $Y^N(0)=[0.2,0.2,0.2,0.2,0.2]$.\n\nIn Figure \\[Sim\\_1\\], we simulate the e-scooter network according to the model dynamics where $K=5$ (intervals of battery life). It is important to note that we have only simulated one sample path in this picture and this is not an average of sample paths. Thus, we find that the mean field limit captures the sample path behavior of the empirical process dynamics for all of the proportions.\n\n\u00a0\n\nIn Figure \\[Sim\\_2\\], we average the dynamics over 100 sample paths. When compared to Figure \\[Sim\\_1\\], we observe that the averaged dynamics are closer to the mean field limit trajectories, which is to be expected. We also find that the mean field limit equations capture the averaged sample path behavior of the empirical process dynamics for all of the proportions.\n\n\u00a0\n\nIn Figure \\[Sim\\_3\\], we average the variance dynamics for each proportion over 100 sample paths. We observe that the variance dynamics are a bit more stochastic than the mean field limit simulations. However, we find that the variance dynamics are well approximated by the variance of the central limit theorem for the e-scooter process and for all of the proportions.\n\nTo give an example on the implementation of Algorithm \\[algo\\] in Section \\[Staffing\\], we set $(x,\\epsilon)=(10\\%,10\\%)$, i.e. find the minimum value of $\\gamma$ such that the probability that proportion of scooters with low battery life (&lt;20%) is more than 10% is no greater than 10%. The value of $\\gamma$ found through the algorithm is 0.527.\n\nIn Figure \\[hist\\_y0\\], we validate our algorithm by running 500 simulations using the optimal number of swappers found through Algorithm \\[algo\\] ($N=100$, $N^*=53$), and plot the distribution of $Y_0^N$ at equilibrium from the 500 simulations. Then we plot the 50%, 80%, 90% and 95% sample quantiles of $Y_0^N$ at equilibrium (pink solid lines) and compare them with the quantiles estimated from the algorithm (red solid lines), and we can see that the approximation using the algorithm is very close to reality. We also plot the normal distribution curve to see how good the approximation is to the distribution of $Y^N_0$. We find that the central limit approximations capture the quantile behavior of the e-scooter system quite well.\n\n   $(x,\\epsilon)$   0.01    0.05     0.1    0.15     0.2    0.25     0.3\n  ---------------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------\n        0.05        0.828   0.734   0.695   0.672   0.641   0.625   0.609\n        0.1         0.598   0.551   0.527   0.508   0.496   0.484   0.473\n        0.15        0.504   0.467   0.447   0.434   0.424   0.414   0.406\n        0.2         0.443   0.412   0.395   0.383   0.375   0.366   0.359\n        0.25        0.398   0.370   0.354   0.344   0.336   0.328   0.322\n        0.3         0.361   0.334   0.320   0.311   0.303   0.296   0.290\n\n  : Optimal $\\gamma$ for different values of $(x,\\epsilon)$ ($\\lambda=\\mu=1$)[]{data-label=\"table:gammas\"}\n\nTable \\[table:gammas\\] summarizes the optimal value of $\\gamma$ (number of swappers per e-scooter, for different values of $(x,\\epsilon)$. In addition, Figure \\[gamma\\_surface\\] provides a surface plot of $\\gamma$ over different values of $(x,\\epsilon)$ that are given in Table \\[table:gammas\\] .\n\nConclusion {#Conclusion}\n==========\n\nIn this paper, we construct two stochastic models for modeling the battery life dynamics for e-scooters in a large network. In full generality, the model is intractable when wants to keep track of each scooter\u2019s dynamics individually because of the high dimension. However, we propose to use empirical processes to capture the essential dynamics of battery life in e-scooter systems. Empirical processes describe the proportion of e-scooters that have battery life in a particular interval. To this end, we prove a mean field limit and a functional central limit theorem for our e-scooter network. We show that the mean and the variance of the empirical process can be approximated by a system of $\\frac{K^2 + 3K}{2}$ differential equations where $K$ is the number battery life intervals we want to keep. We use the mean and variance to also construct a numerical algorithm to compute the number of **swappers** needed to ensure that the fraction of scooters whose battery life is below a pre-determined threshold.\n\nThere are many directions for future work. As Figure \\[Scooter\\_Duration\\_cdf\\] shows, the trip durations are not exponential and are closer to a lognormal distribution or gamma distribution. An extension to general arrival and service distributions would aid in showing how the non-exponential distributions affect the dynamics of the empirical process. Recent work by @li2017nonlinear [@ko2017diffusion; @li2016mean; @pender2017approximations] provides a Poisson process representation of Markovian arrival processes. Thus, it might be useful to leverage this representation in future work where the arrivals and service distributions are non-renewal processes.\n\nAlthough not explicitly studied in this work, it would be interesting to explore the impact of non-stationary arrival rates and service rates. This would undoubtedly change the underlying dynamics, however, we should mention that our analysis is easily generalizable to this setting. Moreover, our numerical algorithm for determining the number of **swappers** does not depend on the stationarity of our model and would easily generalize to the non-stationary setting. One important feature that is important to know in the non-stationary rate context is the size of the amplitude and the frequency of the mean field limit when the arrival rate is periodic. One way to analyze the amplitude and the frequency is to use Lindstedt\u2019s method like in @novitzky2019nonlinear.\n\nLastly, it is also interesting to consider a spatial model of arrivals to the e-scooter network. In this case, we would consider customers arriving to the system via a spatial Poisson process and riders would choose among the nearest scooters with enough battery life to make their trip. This spatial process can model the real choices that riders make and would model the real spatial dynamics of e-scooter networks. We intend to pursue these extensions in future work.\n\nAppendix {#Appendix}\n========\n\nProof of Mean Field Limit Results {#proof-of-mean-field-limit-results .unnumbered}\n---------------------------------\n\nOur proof exploits Doob\u2019s inequality for martingales and Gronwall\u2019s lemma, and we use Proposition\u00a0\\[bound\\], Proposition\u00a0\\[Lipschitz\\], and Proposition\u00a0\\[drift\\] in the proof, which are stated after the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[fluid\\_limit\\].\n\nSince $Y^{N}(t)$ is a semi-martingale, we have the following decomposition of $Y^N(t)$ , $$\\label{semiY}\nY^{N}(t)=\\underbrace{Y^{N}(0)}_{\\text{initial condition}}+\\underbrace{M^{N}(t)}_{\\text{martingale}}+\\int_{0}^{t}\\underbrace{F^N(Y^{N}(s))}_{\\text{drift term}}ds$$ where $Y^{N}(0)$ is the initial condition and $M^{N}(t)$ is a family of martingales. Moreover, $\\int_{0}^{t}F^N(Y^{N}(s))ds$ is the integral of the drift term where the drift term is given by $F^N: [0,1]^{K}\\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}^{K}$ or $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{F^N}\nF^N(y)&=&\\sum_{x\\neq y}(x-y)Q^N(y,x)\\\\\n&=&\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\left[ \\left( \\frac{\\lambda N^*}{N}   \\frac{g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i} \\right)(\\mathbf{1}_{K-1}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})+\\sum_{j=0}^{k}\\mu p_{kj} (\\mathbf{1}_{j}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})\\mathbf{1}_{k\\geq K_U}\\right] y_k\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe want to compare the empirical measure $Y^N(t)$ with the mean field limit $y(t)$ defined by $$y(t)=y(0)+\\int_{0}^{t}f(y(s))ds.$$\n\nLet $|\\cdot|$ denote the Euclidean norm in $\\mathbb{R}^{K}$, then $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left|Y^N(t)-y(t)\\right|&=&\\left|Y^{N}(0)+M^{N}(t)+\\int_{0}^{t}F^N\n(Y^{N}(s))ds-y(0)-\\int_{0}^{t}f(y(s))ds\\right|\\nonumber \\\\\n& =& \\left|Y^{N}(0)-y(0)+M^{N}(s)+\\int_{0}^{t}\\left(F^N\n(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))\\right)ds \\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n& & \\left.+\\int_{0}^{t}(f(Y^{N}(s))-f(y(s)))ds\\right|.\\nonumber \\\\\\end{aligned}$$ Now define the random function $f^{N}(t)=\\sup_{s\\leq t}\\left|Y^{N}(s)-y(s)\\right|$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nf^{N}(t) &\\leq& |Y^{N}(0)-y(0)|+\\sup_{s\\leq t}|M^{N}(s)|+\\int_0^t|F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))|ds \\nonumber \\\\\n&&+\\int_{0}^{t}|f(Y^{N}(s))-f(y(s))|ds.\\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition \u00a0\\[Lipschitz\\], $f(y)$ is Lipschitz with respect to Euclidean norm. Let $L$ be the Lipschitz constant of $f(y)$, then. $$\\begin{aligned}\nf^{N}(t)&\\leq& |Y^{N}(0)-y(0)|+\\sup_{s\\leq t}|M^{N}(s)|+\\int_0^t|F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))|ds \\nonumber \\\\\n&&+\\int_{0}^{t}|f(Y^{N}(s))-f(y(s))|ds \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\leq& |Y^{N}(0)-y(0)|+\\sup_{s\\leq t}|M^{N}(s)|+\\int_0^t| F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))|ds \\nonumber \\\\ \n&&+L\\int_{0}^{t}|Y^{N}(s)-y(s)|ds \\nonumber \\\\\n&\\leq& |Y^{N}(0)-y(0)|+\\sup_{s\\leq t}|M^{N}(s)|+\\int_0^t| F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))|ds \\nonumber \\\\\n&&+L\\int_{0}^{t}f^{N}(s)ds.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy Gronwall\u2019s lemma (See @10.2307/1967124), $$f^{N}(t) \\leq \\left(|Y^{N}(0)-y(0)|+\\sup_{s\\leq t}|M^{N}(s)|+\\int_0^t| F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))|ds\\right)e^{Lt}.$$\n\nNow to bound $f^{N}(t)$ term by term, we define function $\\alpha: [0,1]^{K}\\rightarrow \\mathbb{R}^{K}$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_k(y)&=&\\sum_{x\\neq y}|x-y|^2Q^N(y,x)(k)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&\\begin{cases}\n\\frac{1}{N}\\sum_{i=\\max(K_U,k+1)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{i,k}y_i +\\frac{1}{N}\\left(\\mu(1-p_{k,k})\\mathbf{1}_{\\{k\\geq K_U\\}}+\\frac{\\lambda N^* g_k}{N\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i} \\right)y_k, & k<K-1\\nonumber\\\\\n\\frac{1}{N}\\mu(1-p_{K-1,K-1})y_{K-1}+\\lambda \\frac{N^*}{N^2}\\left(1- \\frac{g_{K-1}y_{K-1}}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i}\\right), & k=K-1\n\\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nand consider the following four sets $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Omega_0 &=& \\{|Y^{N}(0)-y(0)|\\leq \\delta \\}, \\\\\n\\Omega_1 &=& \\left\\{\\int_0^{t_0}|F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))|ds\\leq \\delta \\right\\}, \\\\\n\\Omega_2 &=& \\left\\{\\int_0^{t_0}\\alpha(Y^{N}(t))dt \\leq A(N)t_0 \\right\\}, \\\\\n\\Omega_3 &=& \\left\\{\\sup_{t\\leq t_0}|M_t^{N}|\\leq \\delta \\right\\} ,\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\delta=\\epsilon e^{-Lt_0}/3$. Here the set $\\Omega_{1}$ is to bound the initial condition, the set $\\Omega_{2}$ is to bound the drift term $F^N$ and the limit of drift term $b$, and the sets $\\Omega_{2},\\Omega_{3}$ are to bound the martingale $M^{N}(t)$.\n\nTherefore on the event $\\Omega_0\\cap \\Omega_1\\cap \\Omega_3$, $$\\label{e}\nf^{N}(t_0)\\leq 3\\delta e^{Lt_0}=\\epsilon.$$\n\nSince $\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\frac{N^*}{N}=\\gamma$, we can choose large enough $N$ such that $$\\frac{N^*}{N}\\leq 2\\gamma.$$ Thus, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_k(y)&=&\\sum_{x\\neq y}|x-y|^2Q(y,x)(k)\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq & \\frac{1}{N}\\sum_{i=\\max(K_U,k+1)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{i,k}y_i +\\frac{1}{N}\\left(\\mu(1-p_{k,k})\\mathbf{1}_{\\{k\\geq K_U\\}}+2\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma  g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}y_ig_i} \\right)y_k\\nonumber \\\\\n&\\leq &\\frac{1}{N}\\left(\\mu K +\\mu +2\\lambda \\gamma \\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n&\\lesssim & O(\\frac{1}{N}) .\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNow we consider the stopping time $$T=t_0\\wedge \\inf \\left\\{t\\geq 0:\\int _{0}^{t}\\alpha(Y^{N}(s))ds>A(N)t_0\\right\\},$$ and by Proposition \u00a0\\[bound\\], we have that $$\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq T}|M^{N}(t)|^2\\right)\\leq 4\\mathbb{E}\\int_{0}^{T}\\alpha(Y^N(t))dt\\leq 4A(N)t_0.$$ On $\\Omega_2$, we have $T =t_0$, so $\\Omega_2 \\cap \\Omega_3^{c}\\subset \\{\\sup_{t\\leq T}|M^{N}_t|>\\delta\\}$. By Chebyshev\u2019s inequality we have that $$\\mathbb{P}(\\Omega_2 \\cap \\Omega_3^{c})\\leq \\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq T}|M^{N}_t|>\\delta\\right)\\leq \\frac{\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq T}|M^{N}(t)|^2\\right)}{\\delta^2}\\leq 4A(N)t_0/\\delta^2.$$ Thus, by Equation (\\[e\\]), we have the following result, $$\\begin{split}\n\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq t_0}|Y^{N}(t)-y(t)|>\\epsilon\\right)&\\leq \\mathbb{P}(\\Omega_0^c\\cup \\Omega_1^c\\cup \\Omega_3^c)\\\\\n&\\leq \\mathbb{P}(\\Omega_2 \\cap \\Omega_3^{c})+\\mathbb{P}(\\Omega_0^{c}\\cup \\Omega_1^{c}\\cup \\Omega_2^{c})\\\\\n&\\leq 4A(N)t_0/\\delta^2+\\mathbb{P}(\\Omega_0^{c}\\cup \\Omega_1^{c}\\cup \\Omega_2^{c})\\\\\n&=36A(N)t_0 e^{2Lt_0}/\\epsilon^2+\\mathbb{P}(\\Omega_0^{c}\\cup \\Omega_1^{c}\\cup \\Omega_2^{c}).\n\\end{split}$$\\\nLet $A(N)=\\frac{4(C+\\gamma)}{N}$, then $\\Omega_{2}^{c}=\\emptyset$. And since $Y_0^N\\xrightarrow{p} y(0)$, $\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}(\\Omega_{2}^{c})=0$. Therefore we have $$\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq t_0}|Y^{N}(t)-y(t)|>\\epsilon\\right)=\\lim_{N\\rightarrow\\infty}\\mathbb{P}(\\Omega_{1}^{c}) .$$ By Proposition \\[drift\\], $\\lim_{N\\rightarrow\\infty}\\mathbb{P}(\\Omega_{1}^{c})=0$. Thus, we proved the final result $$\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq t_0}|Y^{N}(t)-y(t)|>\\epsilon\\right)=0.$$\n\n\\[bound\\] For any stopping time $T$ such that $\\mathbb{E}(T)<\\infty$, we have $$\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq T}|M^{N}(t)|^2\\right)\\leq 4\\mathbb{E}\\int_{0}^{T}\\alpha(Y^N(t))dt.$$\n\nSee proof of Proposition 4.2 (page 46) in @tao2017stochastic.\n\n\\[Lipschitz\\] The drift function $f(y)$ given in Equation (\\[eqn:b\\]) is a Lipschitz function with respect to the Euclidean norm in $\\mathbb{R}^{K}$.\n\nDenote $\\|\\cdot\\|$ the Euclidean norm in $\\mathbb{R}^{K}$. Consider $y,\\tilde{y}\\in [0,1]^{K}$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\|f(y)-f(\\tilde{y})\\|&\\leq& 2\\left(\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma \\max_i g_i}{\\min_i g_i}+\\mu\\right)\\|y-\\tilde{y}\\|\\end{aligned}$$ which proves that $f(y)$ is Lipschitz with respect to Euclidean norm in $\\mathbb{R}^{K}$.\n\n\\[drift\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[fluid\\_limit\\], we have for any $\\epsilon>0$ and $s\\geq 0$, $$\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}P(|F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))|>\\epsilon)= 0.$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left| F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))\\right|&=&\\left|\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\left(\\frac{N^*}{N}-\\gamma\\right)\\frac{Y^{N}(s)(k)g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^{N}(s)(i)g_i}(\\mathbf{1}_{K-1}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})\\right|\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq & 2\\left|\\frac{N^*}{N}-\\gamma\\right|\\left|\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\frac{\\max_i g_i}{\\min_i g_i} \\right|\\nonumber\\\\\n&=& 2\\frac{K\\max_i g_i}{\\min_i g_i} \\left|\\frac{N^*}{N}-\\gamma\\right|  \\rightarrow 0\\end{aligned}$$\n\nProof of Central Limit Results {#proof-of-central-limit-results .unnumbered}\n------------------------------\n\n\\[martingale\\_brackets\\] $\\sqrt{N}M^{N}(t)$ is a family of martingales independent of $D^{N}(0)$ with Doob-Meyer brackets given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n& &\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M^{N}_k(t),\\sqrt{N}M^{N}_j(t)\\boldrangle\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&\\begin{cases}\n\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\sum_{i=\\max(K_U,k+1)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{i,k}Y^N_i(s) +\\left(\\mu(1-p_{k,k})\\mathbf{1}_{\\{k\\geq K_U\\}}\\right.\\right. & \\nonumber\\\\\n+\\left.\\left.\\lambda N^*\\frac{ g_k}{N\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i} \\right)Y^N_k(s)\\right]ds, & k=j<K-1 \\nonumber\\\\\n\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\mu(1-p_{K-1,K-1})Y_{K-1}^N(s)+\\lambda \\frac{N^*}{N}\\left(1- \\frac{g_{K-1}Y_{K-1}^N(s)}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y_i^N(s)g_i}\\right)\\right]ds, & k=j=K-1\\\\\n-\\int_{0}^{t} \\left[\\mu p_{k,j}Y^N_k(s)+\\lambda N^*\\frac{ g_j}{N\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y_i^N(s)g_i}Y_j^N(s)\\mathbf{1}\\{k=K-1\\}\\right]ds,  & j<k, k\\geq K_U\\nonumber\\\\\n0. & \\text{otherwise}\n\\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy Dynkin\u2019s formula, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M_k^{N}(t)\\boldrangle&=&\\int_{0}^{t}N\\sum_{x\\neq Y^{N}(s)}|x-Y^{N}(s)|^2 Q(Y^{N}(s),x)(k)ds\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&\\int_{0}^{t}N\\alpha_k(Y^N(s))ds\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&\\begin{cases}\n\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\sum_{i=\\max(K_U,k+1)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{i,k}Y^N_i(s) +\\left(\\mu(1-p_{k,k})\\mathbf{1}_{\\{k\\geq K_U\\}}\\right.\\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n+\\left.\\left.\\frac{\\lambda N^* g_k}{N\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i} \\right)Y^N_k(s)\\right]ds, & k<K-1\\nonumber\\\\\n\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\mu(1-p_{K-1,K-1})Y^N_{K-1}(s)+\\lambda \\frac{N^*}{N}\\left(1- \\frac{g_{K-1}Y^N_{K-1}(s)}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i}\\right)\\right]ds, & k=K-1\n\\end{cases}\\\\\n&\\triangleq &\\int_{0}^{t}(F^N_{+}(Y^{N}(s))(k)+F^N_{-}(Y^{N}(s))(k))ds\\end{aligned}$$ where $$F^N_{+}(Y^{N}(s))(k)=\\begin{cases}\n\\sum_{i=\\max(K_U,k+1)}^{K-1}\\mu p_{i,k}Y^N_i(s), & k<K-1 \\\\\n\\lambda \\frac{N^*}{N}\\left(1- \\frac{g_{K-1}Y^N_{K-1}(s)}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i}\\right), & k=K-1\n\\end{cases}$$ and $$F^N_{-}(Y^{N}(s))(k)=\\begin{cases}\n\\left(\\mu(1-p_{k,k})\\mathbf{1}_{\\{k\\geq K_U\\}}+\\frac{\\lambda N^* g_k}{N\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i} \\right)Y^N_k(s), & k<K-1 \\\\\n\\mu(1-p_{K-1,K-1})Y^N_{K-1}(s), & k=K-1\n\\end{cases}$$ To compute $\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M_k^{N}(t),\\sqrt{N}M_j^{N}(t)\\boldrangle$ for $j<k$ and $k\\geq K_U$, since $$\\begin{split}\n&\\boldlangle M_k^{N}(t)+M_j^{N}(t)\\boldrangle\\\\\n=&\\int_{0}^{t}\\sum_{x\\neq Y^{N}(s)}\\left|x_k+x_j-Y^{N}(s)(k)-Y_{j}^{N}(s)\\right|^2 Q(Y^{N}(s),x)ds\\\\\n=&\\frac{1}{N}\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\mu\\left(\\sum_{i=\\max(j+1,K_U),i\\neq k}^{K-1}p_{i,j}+\\sum_{i=k+1}^{K-1}p_{i,k}\\right)Y^N_i(s) +\\left(\\mu(1-p_{j,j})+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i} \\right)Y^N_j(s) \\right.\\\\\n& \\left. +\\left(\\mu(1-p_{k,k}-p_{k,j})+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i} \\right)Y^N_k(s)+\\lambda \\gamma \\{k=K-1\\}\\right]ds\n\\end{split}$$ We have that $$\\begin{split}\n&\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M_k^{N}(t),\\sqrt{N}M_j^{N}(t)\\boldrangle\\\\\n=&\\frac{N}{2}\\left[\\boldlangle M_k^{N}(t)+M_j^{N}(t)\\boldrangle-\\boldlangle M_k^{N}(t)\\boldrangle-\\boldlangle M_j^{N}(t)\\boldrangle\\right]\\\\\n=&\\frac{1}{2}\\int_{0}^{t}\\left[\\mu\\left(\\sum_{i=\\max(j+1,K_U),i\\neq k}^{K-1}p_{i,j}+\\sum_{i=k+1}^{K-1}p_{i,k}\\right)Y^N_i(s) +\\left(\\mu(1-p_{j,j})+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_j}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i} \\right)Y^N_j(s) \\right.\\\\\n& \\left. +\\left(\\mu(1-p_{k,k}-p_{k,j})+\\frac{\\lambda \\gamma g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^N_i(s)g_i} \\right)Y^N_k(s)+\\lambda \\gamma \\{k=K-1\\}\\right]ds\\\\\n&-\\frac{1}{2}\\int_{0}^{t}(F^N_{+}(Y^{N}(s))(k)+F^N_{+}(Y^{N}(s))(j)+F^N_{-}(Y^{N}(s))(k)+F^N_{-}(Y^{N}(s))(j))ds\\\\\n=&-\\int_{0}^{t} \\left[\\mu p_{k,j}Y^N_k(s)+\\lambda N^*\\frac{ g_j}{N\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y_i^N(s)g_i}Y_j^N(s)\\mathbf{1}\\{k=K-1\\}\\right] ds.\n\\end{split}$$ Finally, $M_k^N$ and $M_j^N$ are independent when $j,k\\leq K_U$, thus in this case the Doob-Meyer brackets is equal to 0.\n\n\\[driftbound\\] For any $s\\geq 0$, $$\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\sqrt{N}\\left|F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))\\right|=0.$$ where $F^N$ is the drift function defined in Equation (\\[F\\^N\\]).\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n& &\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\sqrt{N}\\left|F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))\\right|\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\sqrt{N}\\left|\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\left(\\frac{N^*}{N}-\\gamma\\right)\\frac{Y^{N}_{k}(s)g_k}{\\sum_{i=0}^{K-1}Y^{N}_{i}(s)g_i}(\\mathbf{1}_{K-1}-\\mathbf{1}_{k})\\right|\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq & \\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}2\\sqrt{N}2\\left|\\frac{N^*}{N}-\\gamma\\right|\\left|\\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\\frac{\\max_i g_i}{\\min_i g_i} \\right|\\nonumber\\\\\n&=& \\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}2\\sqrt{N}\\frac{K\\max_i g_i}{\\min_i g_i} \\left|\\frac{N^*}{N}-\\gamma\\right| \\nonumber\\\\\n&=&0\\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\[L2bound\\] For any $T\\geq 0$, if $$\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left(|D^{N}(0)|^2 \\right) < \\infty ,$$ then we have $$\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}|D^{N}(t)|^2 \\right) < \\infty .$$\n\nBy Proposition \\[driftbound\\], $\\sqrt{N}|F^N(Y^{N}(s))-f(Y^{N}(s))|=O(1)$, then $$\\begin{split}\n|D^{N}(t)|&\\leq |D^{N}(0)|+\\sqrt{N}|M^{N}(t)|+O(1)t+\\int_{0}^{t}\\sqrt{N} |f(Y^{N}(s))-f(y(s))|ds\\\\\n&\\leq|D^{N}(0)|+\\sqrt{N}|M^{N}(t)|+O(1)t+\\int_{0}^{t}\\sqrt{N}L|Y^{N}(s)-y(s)|ds\\\\\n&=|D^{N}(0)|+\\sqrt{N}|M^{N}(t)|+O(1)t+\\int_{0}^{t}L|D^{N}(s)|ds.\n\\end{split}$$ By Gronwall\u2019s Lemma, $$\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}|D^{N}(t)|\\leq e^{LT}\\left(|D^{N}(0)|+O(1)T+\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}|\\sqrt{N}M^{N}(t)|\\right),$$ then $$\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t \\leq T}|D^{N}(t)|^2\\right)\\leq e^{2LT}\\left[\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}(|D^{N}(0)|)+O(1)T+\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}\\sqrt{N}|M^{N}(t)|\\right)\\right]^2.$$ We know that $$\\left[\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}\\sqrt{N}|M^{N}(t)|\\right)\\right]^2\\leq N\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}|M^{N}(t)|^2\\right)\\leq 4NA(N)T,$$ and that $A(N)=O(\\frac{1}{N})$. Therefore $$\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}\\sqrt{N}|M^{N}(t)| \\right)<\\infty.$$ Together with our assumption that $\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}(|D^{N}(0)|^2)<\\infty$, we have $$\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t \\leq T}|D^{N}(t)|^2 \\right)<\\infty.$$\\\n\n\\[tightness\\] If $(D^{N}(0))_{N=1}^{\\infty}$ is tight then $(D^{N})_{N=1}^{\\infty}$ is tight and its limit points are continuous.\n\nTo prove the tightness of $(D^{N})_{N=1}^{\\infty}$ and the continuity of the limit points, we can apply results from @billingsley2013convergence, which implies that we only need to show the following two conditions holds for each $T>0$ and $\\epsilon>0$,\n\n-   $$\\lim_{K\\rightarrow \\infty}\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}|D^{N}(t)|>K \\right)=0,$$\n\n-   $$\\lim_{\\delta\\rightarrow 0}\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(w(D^{N},\\delta,T)\\geq \\epsilon \\right)=0$$\n\nwhere for $x\\in \\mathbb{D}^{d}$, $$w(x,\\delta,T)=\\sup\\left\\{\\sup_{u,v\\in[t,t+\\delta]}|x(u)-x(v)|:0\\leq t\\leq t+\\delta\\leq T\\right\\}.$$ By Lemma \\[L2bound\\], there exists $C_{0}>0$ such that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\lim_{K\\rightarrow \\infty}\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P} \\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}|D^{N}(t)|>K \\right) &\\leq& \\lim_{K\\rightarrow \\infty}\\limsup_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\frac{\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{0\\leq t\\leq T}|D^{N}(t)|^2 \\right)}{K^2} \\\\\n&\\leq&  \\lim_{K\\rightarrow \\infty}\\frac{C_{0}}{K^2} \\\\\n&=&0,\\end{aligned}$$ which proves condition (i).\n\nFor condition (ii), we have that\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nD^N(u) - D^N(v) &=& \\underbrace{\\sqrt{N} \\cdot ( M^N(u) - M^N(v))}_{\\text{first term}} + \\underbrace{\\int^{u}_{v} \\sqrt{N} \\left( F^N(Y^N(z)) - f(Y^N(z))  \\right) dz}_{\\text{second term}} \\nonumber \\\\&+& \\underbrace{\\int^{u}_{v} \\sqrt{N} \\left( f(Y^N(z)) - f(y(z))  \\right) dz }_{\\text{third term}}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nfor any $0<t\\leq u<v\\leq t+\\delta\\leq T$. Now it suffices to show that each of the three terms of $D^N(u) - D^N(v)$ satisfies condition (ii). In what follows, we will show that each of the three terms satisfies condition (ii) to complete the proof of tightness.\n\nFor the first term, similar to the proof of Proposition \u00a0\\[drift\\], we can show that $$\\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|F^N_{+}(Y^N(t))-f_{+}(Y^N(t))\\right|\\xrightarrow{p}0, \\quad \\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|F^N_{-}(Y^N(t))-f_{-}(Y^N(t))\\right|\\xrightarrow{p}0.$$ And by the proof of Proposition \\[Lipschitz\\], $f_{+}(y), f_{-}(y)$ are also Lipschitz with constant $L$, then by the fact that the composition of Lipschitz functions are also Lipschitz, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\max\\left\\{\\sup_{t\\leq T}|f_{+}(Y^N(t))-f_{+}(y(t))|,\\sup_{t\\leq T}|f_{-}(Y^N(t))-f_{-}(y(t))|\\right\\}\\leq L\\sup_{t\\leq T}|Y^N(t)-y(t)|.\\end{aligned}$$ By Theorem \\[fluid\\_limit\\], $$\\sup_{t\\leq T}|Y^N(t)-y(t)|\\xrightarrow{p} 0.$$ Thus for any $\\epsilon>0$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n& &\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M_k^N(t)\\boldrangle- \\boldlangle M_k(t)\\boldrangle\\right|>\\epsilon\\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n&=&\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|\\int_{0}^{t}\\left(F^N_{+}(Y^{N}(s))+F^N_{-}(Y^{N}(s))- f_{+}(y(s))-f_{-}(y(s))\\right)ds\\right|>\\epsilon\\right)\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq & \\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq T}T\\left|F^N_{+}(Y^N(t))- f_{+}(Y^{N}_{t})\\right|>\\epsilon/3\\right)+\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq T}T\\left|F^N_{-}(Y^N(t))- f_{-}(Y^{N}_{t})\\right|>\\epsilon/3\\right)\\nonumber\\\\\n& &+\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{t\\leq T}2LT\\left|Y^N(t)- y(t)\\right|>\\epsilon/3 \\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n&=& 0,\\end{aligned}$$ which implies $$\\label{martingale_brackets_convergence}\n\\sup_{t\\leq T}\\left|\\boldlangle \\sqrt{N}M^N_k(t)\\boldrangle- \\boldlangle M_k(t)\\boldrangle\\right|\\xrightarrow{p} 0.$$ We also know that the jump size of $D^{N}(t)$ is $1/\\sqrt{N}$, therefore $$\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{E}\\left[\\sup_{0<t\\leq T}\\left|M^{N}(t)-M^{N}(t-)\\right| \\right]=0.$$ By Theorem 1.4 in Chapter 7 of @Ethier2009, $\\sqrt{N}M^{N}(t)$ converges to the Brownian motion $M(t)$ in distribution in $\\mathbb{D}(\\mathbb{R}_{+},\\mathbb{R}^{K+1})$. By Prohorov\u2019s theorem, $(\\sqrt{N}M^{N})_{N=1}^{\\infty}$ is tight. And since $M(t)$ is a Brownian motion, its sample path is almost surely continuous.\n\nFor the second term, we have by Proposition \\[driftbound\\] that the quantity $ \\sqrt{N} \\left( F^N(Y^N(z)) - f(Y^N(z))  \\right) $ is bounded for any value of $z\\in [0,T]$. Therefore, there exists some constant $C_{1}$ that does not depend on $N$ such that $$\\sup_{z\\in [0,T]}\\sqrt{N} \\left| F^N(Y^N(z)) - f(Y^N(z))  \\right|\\leq C_{1}.$$ Then $$\\begin{aligned}\n& &\\lim_{\\delta\\rightarrow 0}\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{u,v\\in [0,T],|u-v|\\leq \\delta}\\int^{u}_{v} \\sqrt{N} \\left| F^N(Y^N(z)) - f(Y^N(z))  \\right| dz > \\epsilon \\right)\\nonumber \\\\ \n&\\leq &  \\lim_{\\delta\\rightarrow 0}\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\delta \\sup_{z\\in [0,T]}\\sqrt{N} \\left| F^N(Y^N(z)) - f(Y^N(z))  \\right|  > \\epsilon \\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n&\\leq & \\lim_{\\delta\\rightarrow 0}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\delta C_{1}  > \\epsilon \\right)\\nonumber \\\\\n&=& 0.\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have proved the oscillation bound for the second term. Finally for the third term we have that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\int^{u}_{v} \\sqrt{N} \\left| f(Y^N(z)) - f(y(z))  \\right| dz & \\leq& \\int^{u}_{v} \\sqrt{N} L\\left| Y^N(z) - y(z) \\right| dz\\nonumber \\\\\n&=& \\int^{u}_{v} L \\cdot \\left|D^N(z)\\right| dz \\nonumber\\\\\\\n&\\leq & L\\delta \\sup_{t\\in [0,T]}|D^{N}(t)|.\\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \u00a0\\[L2bound\\], $$\\begin{aligned}\n& &\\lim_{\\delta\\rightarrow 0}\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(\\sup_{u,v\\in [0,T],|u-v|\\leq \\delta}\\int^{u}_{v} \\sqrt{N} \\left| f(Y^N(z)) - f(y(z))  \\right| dz>\\epsilon\\right)\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq &\\lim_{\\delta\\rightarrow 0}\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\mathbb{P}\\left(L\\delta\\sup_{t\\in [0,T]}|D^{N}(t)|>\\epsilon\\right)\\nonumber\\\\\n&\\leq & \\lim_{\\delta\\rightarrow 0}\\lim_{N\\rightarrow \\infty}\\frac{\\mathbb{E}\\left(\\sup_{t\\in [0,T]}|D^{N}(t)|^2\\right)}{(\\epsilon/L \\delta)^2}\\nonumber \\\\\n&\\leq &\\lim_{\\delta\\rightarrow 0}\\frac{C_{0}(L\\delta)^2}{\\epsilon^2}\\nonumber \\\\\n&=& 0,\\end{aligned}$$ which implies that the oscillation bound holds for the third term.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We construct massive open string states around a classical solution in the oscillator formulation of Vacuum String Field Theory. In order for the correct mass spectrum to be reproduced, the projection operators onto the modes of the left- and right-half of the string must have an anomalous eigenvalue $1/2$, and the massive states are constructed using the corresponding eigenvector. We analyze numerically the projection operators by regularizing them to finite size matrices and confirm that they indeed have eigenvalue $1/2$. Beside the desired massive states, we have spurious massive as well as massless states, which are infinitely degenerate. We show that these unwanted states can be gauged away.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    Hiroyuki [Hata]{}[^1], and Hisashi [Kogetsu]{}[^2]\\\n    [*Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan*]{}\ndate: 'August, 2002'\ntitle: '\\'\n---\n\n=17.5pt plus 0.2pt minus 0.1pt\n\naddtoreset[equation]{}[section]{}\n\nIntroduction and summary\n========================\n\nVacuum String Field Theory (VSFT) [@RSZ:0012251; @RSZ:0102112; @Rastelli:2001vb; @RSZ:0106010] has been proposed as a string field theory expanded around the tachyon vacuum. In order for VSFT to really be connected to ordinary bosonic string theory on an unstable D25-brane, there must exist a Lorentz and translationally invariant classical solution of VSFT satisfying the following two requirements: the fluctuation modes around the solution reproduce the open string spectrum, and the energy density of the solution is equal to the D25-brane tension. Recently, there has been much progress in understanding the above problem. In particular, a full classical solution of VSFT including the ghost part has been presented in [@HK:0108150] using the oscillator formulation, and the tachyon and the massless vector fluctuation modes have been constructed there. They have shown that the tachyon mass is correctly reproduced. However, the massless vector mode contains an arbitrary vector in the level number space, implying that there are infinite number of massless vector states. This problem was later resolved by Imamura [@Imamura:0204031]: most of the massless vector modes can be gauged away by VSFT gauge transformation leaving only one physical vector mode.\n\nThe purpose of this paper is to carry out the oscillator construction of fluctuation modes representing higher level massive modes of open string.[^3] This is in fact a non-trivial and interesting problem. Let us take, as a candidate massive state with mass squared equal to $(k-1)\\alpha'$, a state given as $k$ matter creation operators $a_n^{\\mu\\dagger}$ acting on the tachyon state. It is a natural extension of the tachyon and massless vector states of [@HK:0108150]. However, naive analysis shows that this kind of states are all massless. The wave equation (namely, the linearized equation of motion), ${{\\mathcal{Q}}_{\\rm B}}\\Phi=0$, for the fluctuation $\\Phi$ of the above type is reduced to a simple algebraic equation consisting only of the projection operators, $\\rho_+$ and $\\rho_-$, onto the modes of the left- and right-half of the string [@Rastelli:2001rj]. The masslessness is a consequence of the basic property of projection operators, $\\rho_\\pm^2 =\\rho_\\pm$.\n\nWe find, however, that the above mode can represent a massive state with the expected mass squared, $(k-1)\\alpha'$, if $\\rho_\\pm$ has an anomalous eigenvalue $1/2$ despite that it is a projection operator. Such an anomalous eigenvalue is of course impossible for projection operators in a finite dimensional space. However, there is a subtle point for $\\rho_\\pm$ which is an operator in the infinite dimensional space of string level number. In fact, the eigenvector ${\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(\\kappa)}$ of the matrix representation of the Virasoro algebra $K_1=L_1+ L_{-1}$ (the eigenvalue $\\kappa$ is continuous and extending from $-\\infty$ to $\\infty$) is at the same time the eigenvector of $\\rho_\\pm$ and the corresponding eigenvalue is the step function $\\theta(\\pm\\kappa)$ [@RSZ:0111281]. Therefore, the vector ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$ is the eigenvector of $\\rho_\\pm$ with eigenvalue $\\theta(0)$, which is indefinite but could be the desired value $1/2$. To verify whether this expectation is correct, we have to study $\\rho_\\pm$ with some kind of regularization. In this paper, we analyze numerically the eigenvalue problem of $\\rho_\\pm$ regularized to finite size matrices to obtain results supporting the above expectation: $\\rho_\\pm$ has an eigenvalue and an eigenvector which tend to $1/2$ and ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$, respectively, as the size of the matrices is increased.\n\nEven if $\\rho_\\pm$ has the expected anomalous eigenvalue $1/2$, there still remains a problem to be solved for the construction of higher level open string modes. Analysis of the wave equation for fluctuations of the above type, $(a^\\dagger)^k{| \\rm tachyon \\rangle}$, shows that there still exists infinite degeneracy of massive states with mass squared equal to $\\ell\\alpha'$ ($\\ell\\le k-2$). In addition, we also have spurious massless states mentioned above. We have to show that these unwanted states are not physical ones. This problem is solved in the same manner as in the massless vector case [@Imamura:0204031]: infinite number of spurious states can be gauged away. However, we need gauge transformations of a different kind from that used in [@Imamura:0204031] in order to remove all the unwanted massive states.\n\nOur construction of massive open string states is not complete, and there remain a number of future problems. First, we have to present a rigorous analytic proof of the existence of the anomalous eigenvalue $1/2$ of the projection operators $\\rho_\\pm$. Second, as we shall see later, we construct only the highest spin states at a given mass level. The construction of lower spin states is our remaining subject. Finally, in our analysis we consider the wave equation ${{\\mathcal{Q}}_{\\rm B}}\\Phi=0$ only in the Fock space of first quantized string states. Namely, our massive modes $\\Phi$ satisfy the wave equation in the sense of ${\\langle \\rm Fock |} {{\\mathcal{Q}}_{\\rm B}}{| \\Phi \\rangle} = 0$ for any Fock space element ${\\langle \\rm Fock |}$. However, analysis of the potential height problem of the D25-brane solution of VSFT shows that we have to consider the equation of motion in a larger space including the states constructed upon the D25-brane solution [@Rastelli:2001wk; @Okawa:0204012; @Reexam]. This is our important future problem.\n\nThe organization of the rest of this paper is as follows. In sec.\u00a02, we analyze the equation of motion for our candidate massive modes and argue that $\\rho_\\pm$ needs an anomalous eigenvalue $1/2$. In sec.\u00a03, we present numerical analysis of the eigenvalue problem of finite size $\\rho_\\pm$. In sec.\u00a04, we show that the spurious states are unphysical ones which can be removed by gauge transformations. In appendix \\[evaluation\\], we present technical details used in the text.\n\nMassive modes {#section-massive}\n=============\n\nThe action of VSFT is given by [@RSZ:0012251; @RSZ:0102112; @RSZ:0106010] $$S=-K{\\left}({\\frac{1}{2}}\\Psi\\cdot{\\mathcal{Q}}\\,\\Psi + \\frac13\\,\\Psi\\cdot(\\Psi*\\Psi){\\right}),\n\\label{eq:VSFT-action}$$ where $K$ is a constant and the BRST operator ${\\mathcal{Q}}$ of VSFT consists purely of ghost oscillators: $${\\mathcal{Q}}=c_0+\\sum_{n=1}^\\infty f_n\\left(c_n +(-1)^n c_n^\\dagger\\right) .\n\\label{eq:cQ}$$ The VSFT action (\\[eq:VSFT-action\\]) is invariant under the gauge transformation, $$\\delta_\\Lambda\\Psi={\\mathcal{Q}}\\Lambda+\\Psi*\\Lambda-\\Lambda*\\Psi.\n\\label{eq:dLPsi}$$ The D25-brane configuration of VSFT is a translationally and Lorentz invariant solution ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}$ to the equation of motion: $${\\mathcal{Q}}{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}+{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}*{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}=0 .\n\\label{eq:EOM}$$ Assuming that ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}$ factorizes into the matter part ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}$ and the ghost one ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}$, ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}={\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}\\otimes{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}$, (\\[eq:EOM\\]) is reduced into the following two: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}={\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}*{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}},\n\\label{eq:EOMm}\n\\\\\n&{\\mathcal{Q}}{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}+{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}*{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}=0 .\n\\label{eq:EOMg}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHere we shall fix our convention for the Neumann coefficient matrices. The matter part of the three-string vertex defining the $*$-product is given in the oscillator representation by $${| V^{\\mathrm{m}} \\rangle}_{123}=\n\\exp\\!{\\left}(-\\sum_{r,s=1}^3\\sum_{m,n\\geq 0}{\\frac{1}{2}}a_m^{(r)\\dagger}V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{(r)\\dagger}\n{\\right}){| p_1 \\rangle}{| p_2 \\rangle}{| p_3 \\rangle} ,\n\\label{eq:V}$$ with $a_0=\\sqrt{2}\\,p$ (we are taking the convention of $\\alpha'=1$). The Neumann coefficient matrices and the vectors, $M_\\alpha$ and ${\\boldsymbol{v}}_\\alpha$ ($\\alpha=0,\\pm$), are related to $V^{rs}$ in (\\[eq:V\\]) as follows: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&(M_0)_{mn}= (C V^{rr})_{mn},\\quad\n(M_\\pm)_{mn}=(C V^{r,r\\pm 1})_{mn} ,\n{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&({\\boldsymbol{v}}_0)_n = V^{rr}_{n0},\\quad\n({\\boldsymbol{v}}_\\pm)_n = V^{r,r\\pm 1}_{n0} ,\n\\quad (m,n\\ge 1)\\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is the twist matrix, $C_{mn}=(-1)^m\\delta_{mn}$.\n\nThe matter part solution ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}$ to (\\[eq:EOMm\\]) has been obtained as a squeezed state [@KP:0008252; @RSZ:0102112]: $${| {\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}\\rangle}=\\left[\\det(1-T{\\mathcal{M}})\\right]^{13}\n\\exp\\biggl(-{\\frac{1}{2}}\\sum_{m,n\\ge 1}a_m^\\dagger (CT)_{mn}a_n^\\dagger\n\\biggr){| 0 \\rangle} ,$$ where the matrix $T$ is given in terms of $M_0$ by $$T=\\frac{1}{2 M_0}\\left(1+M_0-\\sqrt{(1-M_0)(1+3M_0)}\\right) .\n\\label{eq:T}$$ The ghost part solution ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}$ to (\\[eq:EOMg\\]) has also been obtained by taking the Siegel gauge and assuming the squeezed state form [@HK:0108150]. Beside determining ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}$, (\\[eq:EOMg\\]) fixes the coefficients $f_n$ in ${\\mathcal{Q}}$ (\\[eq:cQ\\]) which are arbitrary for the gauge invariance alone.\n\nLet us express the VSFT field $\\Psi$ as a sum of ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}$ and the fluctuation $\\Phi$: $$\\Psi={\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}+ \\Phi .\n\\label{eq:Psi=Psic+Phi}$$ Then the linear part of the equation of motion for $\\Phi$ reads $${{\\mathcal{Q}}_{\\rm B}}\\Phi\\equiv\n{\\mathcal{Q}}\\Phi+{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}*\\Phi+\\Phi*{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}=0 ,\n\\label{eq:wtcQ}$$ where ${{\\mathcal{Q}}_{\\rm B}}$ is the BRST operator around the classical solution ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}$. We would like to construct the fluctuation modes $\\Phi$ corresponding to higher level open string states and satisfying the wave equation (\\[eq:wtcQ\\]). We assume the factorization for these modes and that the ghost part is common to that of ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}}$: $$\\Phi={\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}\\otimes{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}.\n\\label{eq:Phi=PhimPsicg}$$ Then the wave equation for the matter part ${\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}$ is given by $${\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}={\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}*{\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}+{\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}*{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}.\n\\label{eq:EOMf}$$ In the following we are interested only in the matter part ${\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}$ of the fluctuation modes and omit its superscript $\\mathrm{m}$. Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:EOMf\\]) has been solved for the tachyon mode ${\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}$ [@HK:0108150]. Explicitly, it is given by $${| {\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}\\rangle}=\\exp\\biggl(\n-\\sum_{n\\ge 1}t_n a_n^\\dagger a_0 +ip\\,\\widehat x\\biggr)\n{| {\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}\\rangle} ,\n\\label{eq:tachyon}$$ with $${\\boldsymbol{t}}=3(1+T)(1+3M_0)^{-1}{\\boldsymbol{v}}_0.$$ It has been shown that ${\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}$ (\\[eq:tachyon\\]) satisfies (\\[eq:EOMf\\]) when the momentum $p_\\mu$ carried by ${\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}$ is on the tachyon mass-shell $p_\\mu^2=-m_{\\rm tachyon}^2=1$.\n\nNow we shall start constructing fluctuation modes at a generic mass level. As a candidate fluctuation mode with mass squared equal to $k-1$, let us take the following one; $k$ creation operators acting on the tachyon mode ${\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}$: $${| {\\Phi^{(k)}}\\rangle}=\\sum_{n_1,\\cdots,n_k\\ge 1}\n\\beta^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_k}_{{n_1}\\cdots{n_k}}\n{a_{n_1}^{\\mu_1\\dagger}}\\cdots{a_{n_k}^{\\mu_k\\dagger}}\n{| {\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}\\rangle} ,\n\\label{eq:massive-state}$$ where $\\beta$ is an unknown coefficient satisfying $$\\beta^*_{n_1\\cdots n_k}=(-1)^k(-1)^{\\sum_{i=1}^k n_i}\n\\beta_{n_1\\cdots n_k} ,\n\\label{eq:bb*}$$ which is due to the hermiticity constraint of ${\\Phi^{(k)}}$ (see appendix \\[evaluation\\]). Substituting (\\[eq:massive-state\\]) into (\\[eq:EOMf\\]), we obtain equations determining $\\beta$. The detailed calculation using the oscillator expression of the three-string vertex is presented in appendix \\[evaluation\\]. Although the assumed state (\\[eq:massive-state\\]) has fixed number $k$ of creation operators $a^\\dagger$ acting on ${\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}$, there emerge on the RHS of (\\[eq:EOMf\\]) states with fewer number of $a^\\dagger$ acting on ${\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}$ besides those with $k$ $a^\\dagger$s. In order to eliminate these unwanted terms, we impose the following transverse and traceless conditions on $\\beta$:[^4] $$\\begin{aligned}\n&p_{\\mu_1}\\beta^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_k}=0,\n\\label{eq:transverse-condition}\n\\\\\n&\\beta_{\\mu_1}{}^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_{k-1}}=0 .\n\\label{eq:traceless-condition}\\end{aligned}$$ Then the equation for the coefficient $\\beta$ is given by $$\\beta_{m_1\\cdots m_k}- 2^{-p^2}\n\\Bigl({(\\rho_-)}_{m_1n_1}\\cdots {(\\rho_-)}_{m_kn_k}\n+{(\\rho_+)}_{m_1n_1}\\cdots {(\\rho_+)}_{m_kn_k}\n\\Bigr)\\beta_{n_1\\cdots n_k}\n=0 ,\n\\label{eq:mass-eq}$$ with $$\\rho_\\pm=\\frac{TM_\\pm+M_\\mp}{(1+T)(1-M_0)}.\n\\label{eq:rhopmcomm}$$ The matrices $\\rho_\\pm$ are projection operators [@Rastelli:2001rj] satisfying $$\\left(\\rho_\\pm\\right)^2=\\rho_\\pm,\\quad\n\\rho_+\\rho_-=\\rho_-\\rho_+=0,\\quad\n\\rho_+ +\\rho_-=1 .\n\\label{eq:proj}$$\n\nEqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:mass-eq\\]) and (\\[eq:proj\\]) lead to a disappointing result that our states (\\[eq:massive-state\\]) can represent only massless states. Namely, multiplying (\\[eq:mass-eq\\]) by $\\rho_{s_1}\\!\\otimes\\!\\rho_{s_2}\\!\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes\\!\\rho_{s_k}$ with $s_i=+$ or $-$, we find that the equations for the purely $\\rho_+$ component $(\\rho_+\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes\\rho_+)\\beta$ and the purely $\\rho_-$ one $(\\rho_-\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes\\rho_-)\\beta$ are reduced to $$\\bigl(1- 2^{-p^2}\\bigr)(\\rho_\\pm\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes\\rho_\\pm)\n\\beta=0 ,$$ implying that they are massless states. On the other hand, (\\[eq:mass-eq\\]) tells that the mixed components, for example, $(\\rho_+\\otimes\\rho_-\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes\\rho_-)\\beta$, are equal to zero. In the case of vector state with $k=1$, eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:mass-eq\\]) with $\\rho_+ +\\rho_-=1$ substituted reproduces the result of [@HK:0108150] that this is a massless state and the coefficient $\\beta_n^\\mu$ is arbitrary.\n\nThe above result is inevitable so long as the basic equations (\\[eq:proj\\]) are valid. However, there is a subtle point concerning the eigenvalues of $\\rho_\\pm$. Recall that the eigenvalue problem of the Neumann coefficient matrices $M_0$ and $M_1\\equiv M_+ - M_-$ has been solved in [@RSZ:0111281]. They found that these matrices are expressed in terms of a single matrix $K_1$ which is the matrix representation of the Virasoro algebra $L_1+L_{-1}$, and the eigenvalue problem of $M_\\alpha$ is reduced to that of $K_1$. Let ${\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(\\kappa)}$ be the eigenvector of $K_1$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $\\kappa$: $$K_1{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(\\kappa)}=\\kappa{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(\\kappa)} .\n\\label{eq:Kf=kf}$$ The distribution of $\\kappa$ is uniform and extending from $-\\infty$ to $\\infty$. This eigenvector ${\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(\\kappa)}$ is at the same time that of $M_0$, $M_1$, $T$ and hence $\\rho_\\pm$. In particular we have $$\\rho_\\pm{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(\\kappa)}=\\theta(\\pm\\kappa){\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(\\kappa)} ,\n\\label{eq:rhof=kappaf}$$ where $\\theta(\\kappa)$ is the step function $$\\theta(\\kappa)=\n\\begin{cases}\n1 & (\\kappa > 0) \\\\ 0 & (\\kappa <0)\n\\end{cases} .\n\\label{eq:theta}$$ The subtle point is the eigenvalue of $\\rho_\\pm$ at $\\kappa=0$. In fact, it has been known that there is an eigenvector ${\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(\\kappa=0)}$, which is twist-odd, $C{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}=-{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}$. However, the eigenvalue $\\theta(\\kappa=0)$ of $\\rho_\\pm$ is indefinite.\n\nIf we are allowed to set $\\theta(0)=1/2$ in (\\[eq:rhof=kappaf\\]), which would look most plausible, the fluctuation (\\[eq:massive-state\\]) represents a massive state at the expected mass level, $$p^2=1-k ,$$ by adopting either of the following two choices of $\\beta_{n_1\\cdots n_k}^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_k}$ concerning its dependence on the level number indices $n_1\\cdots n_k$:\n\n-   $\\beta$ is the tensor product of $k$ ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$s, $$\\beta={{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes{{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}.\n    \\label{eq:b=f...f}$$\n\n-   $\\beta$ is the tensor product of $(k-1)$ ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$s and one arbitrary vector ${\\boldsymbol{w}}$, $$\\beta={{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}\\otimes\\cdots\\otimes{{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}\\otimes{\\boldsymbol{w}} .\n    \\label{eq:b=f...fw}$$\n\nIn both cases we have to multiply (\\[eq:b=f...f\\]) and (\\[eq:b=f...fw\\]) by a transverse and traceless tensor carrying the Lorentz indices, and carry out symmetrization if necessary. Quite similarly, by taking $\\beta$ which is a tensor product of $\\ell$ ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$s and $k-\\ell$ arbitrary vectors ($\\ell \\le k-1$), we obtain a state at mass level $p^2=-\\ell$.[^5]\n\nNow we have to resolve two problems. One is whether $\\rho_\\pm$ really has eigenvalue $1/2$. Second, even if this is the case, we have infinite degeneracy of massive as well as massless states which are apparently physical ones. We have to show that these spurious states are gauge artifacts. Analysis of these two questions is the subject of the following two sections.\n\nNumerical analysis of ${\\boldsymbol{\\rho_\\pm}}$\n===============================================\n\nAs seen in the previous section, the existence of the eigenvalue $1/2$ of the \u201cprojection operators\u201d $\\rho_\\pm$ was essential for the construction of the massive fluctuation modes. The corresponding eigenvector is expected to be ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$, the zero-mode of $K_1$. It is obvious that we need some regularization for studying this expectation since what we want to know is the value of the step function $\\theta(\\kappa)$ (\\[eq:theta\\]) at $\\kappa=0$. In the following, we shall show numerically that $\\rho_\\pm$ has indeed eigenvalue $1/2$ by regularizing them to finite size matrices.\n\nWe have solved numerically the eigenvalue problem of the regularized $\\rho_+$ obtained by replacing $M_0$ and $M_1$ in it with $L\\times L$ ones. Since we have $\\rho_-=C\\rho_+ C$, we do not need to repeat the analysis for $\\rho_-$. The expression (\\[eq:rhopmcomm\\]) of $\\rho_\\pm$ was in fact obtained by naively using the non-linear relations among the Neumann coefficient matrices [@GJ1; @GJ2] upon the original expressions, which are given by (see appendix \\[evaluation\\]) $$\\rho_\\pm =(M_+,M_-)(1-T{\\mathcal{M}})^{-1}\n\\begin{cases}\n{\n            \\left(\\begin{smallmatrix} 0\\\\ 1 \\end{smallmatrix}\\right)}\\\\{\n            \\left(\\begin{smallmatrix} 1\\\\ 0 \\end{smallmatrix}\\right)}\n\\end{cases} ,\n\\label{eq:rhopmorig}$$ with $${\\mathcal{M}}=\\begin{pmatrix}\nM_0 & M_+ \\\\ M_- & M_0\n\\end{pmatrix} .\n\\label{eq:cM}$$ Since the non-linear relations no longer hold for regularized $M_\\alpha$ and naive use of them may be dangerous near $\\kappa=0$ [@Anomaly; @HatMorTer; @Reexam], we have employed the original expression (\\[eq:rhopmorig\\]) in our numerical analysis.\n\nTables \\[rho+-even-eigenvalue\\] \u2013 \\[rho+-odd-eigenvector\\] show the result of our calculations. Since the eigenvalue distributions are qualitatively different between even and odd $L$, we have carried out the analysis for each of these two cases. In the case of even $L$, all the eigenvalues of $\\rho_+$ are close to either $0$ or $1$ except two \u201canomalous\u201d ones, $\\lambda^{(1)}$ and $\\lambda^{(2)}$ , which are given in table \\[rho+-even-eigenvalue\\] for various even $L$. Though the raw values of these anomalous eigenvalues are not so close to $1/2$, their values at $L=\\infty$ obtained by fitting are surprisingly close to the expected value of $1/2$.\n\n     $L$      $\\lambda^{(1)}$   $\\lambda^{(2)}$\n  ---------- ----------------- -----------------\n     $50$         $0.771$           $0.259$\n    $100$         $0.752$           $0.279$\n    $150$         $0.742$           $0.289$\n    $200$         $0.735$           $0.295$\n    $300$         $0.726$           $0.304$\n    $500$         $0.716$           $0.314$\n   $\\infty$       $0.512$           $0.489$\n\n  : Anomalous eigenvalues of $\\rho_+$ (\\[eq:rhopmorig\\]) for various even $L$. The values at $L=\\infty$ have been obtained by the fitting function of the form $\\sum_{k=0}^5 c_k/\\left(\\ln L\\right)^k$. We use the same fitting function also in other tables \\[rho+-even-eigenvector1\\] \u2013 \\[rho+-odd-eigenvector\\]. []{data-label=\"rho+-even-eigenvalue\"}\n\n     $L$      $a^{(1)}_3$   $a^{(1)}_5$   $a^{(1)}_7$   $a^{(1)}_9$   $a^{(1)}_{11}$   $b^{(1)}_4$   $b^{(1)}_6$   $b^{(1)}_8$   $b^{(1)}_{10}$   $b^{(1)}_{12}$\n  ---------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- ----------------\n     $50$       $1.104$       $1.185$       $1.256$       $1.320$        $1.382$        $-1.073$       $1.119$      $-1.030$        $1.208$          $-1.257$\n    $100$       $1.086$       $1.150$       $1.204$       $1.251$        $1.295$        $-1.040$       $1.055$      $-1.067$        $1.079$          $-1.092$\n    $150$       $1.077$       $1.134$       $1.183$       $1.223$        $1.260$        $-1.026$       $1.029$      $-1.030$        $1.032$          $-1.035$\n    $200$       $1.072$       $1.125$       $1.168$       $1.205$        $1.239$        $-1.018$       $1.015$      $-1.010$        $1.007$          $-1.005$\n    $300$       $1.065$       $1.113$       $1.151$       $1.185$        $1.215$        $-1.009$       $0.998$      $-0.987$        $0.977$          $-0.970$\n    $500$       $1.058$       $1.100$       $1.134$       $1.163$        $1.189$        $-1.000$       $0.981$      $-0.964$        $0.949$          $-0.937$\n   $\\infty$     $0.999$       $1.003$       $1.008$       $1.012$        $1.008$        $-0.944$       $0.883$      $-0.819$        $0.735$          $-0.606$\n\n  :  Components of the vectors ${\\boldsymbol{a}}^{(1)}$ and ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(1)}$ for various even $L$. []{data-label=\"rho+-even-eigenvector1\"}\n\n     $L$      $a^{(2)}_3$   $a^{(2)}_5$   $a^{(2)}_7$   $a^{(2)}_9$   $a^{(2)}_{11}$   $b^{(2)}_4$   $b^{(2)}_6$   $b^{(2)}_8$   $b^{(2)}_{10}$   $b^{(2)}_{12}$\n  ---------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- ----------------\n     $50$       $1.064$       $1.114$       $1.159$       $1.201$        $1.243$        $-1.030$       $1.038$      $-1.047$        $1.058$          $-1.074$\n    $100$       $1.056$       $1.096$       $1.130$       $1.161$        $1.189$        $-1.014$       $1.006$      $-0.998$        $0.992$          $-0.988$\n    $150$       $1.052$       $1.089$       $1.112$       $1.146$        $1.170$        $-1.007$       $0.994$      $-0.981$        $0.970$          $-0.961$\n    $200$       $1.049$       $1.084$       $1.113$       $1.138$        $1.160$        $-1.003$       $0.987$      $-0.972$        $0.958$          $-0.947$\n    $300$       $1.046$       $1.079$       $1.105$       $1.128$        $1.147$        $-0.999$       $0.979$      $-0.960$        $0.944$          $-0.930$\n    $500$       $1.043$       $1.072$       $1.096$       $1.117$        $1.134$        $-0.994$       $0.970$      $-0.949$        $0.930$          $-0.913$\n   $\\infty$     $0.991$       $0.988$       $0.987$       $0.983$        $0.970$        $-0.941$       $0.888$      $-0.840$        $0.785$          $-0.704$\n\n  :  Components of the vectors ${\\boldsymbol{a}}^{(2)}$ and ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(2)}$ for various even $L$. []{data-label=\"rho+-even-eigenvector2\"}\n\nAnalysis of the eigenvectors of these anomalous eigenvalues is presented in tables \\[rho+-even-eigenvector1\\] and \\[rho+-even-eigenvector2\\]. Let us denote by ${\\boldsymbol{u}}^{(1)}$ and ${\\boldsymbol{u}}^{(2)}$ the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalues $\\lambda^{(1)}$ and $\\lambda^{(2)}$, respectively. These eigenvectors do not have a definite twist. We define a twist-odd vector ${\\boldsymbol{a}}^{(i)}$ ($i=1,2$) with components $a_{2n+1}^{(i)}=u_{2n+1}^{(i)}/f^{(0)}_{2n+1}$, and a twist-even one ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(i)}$ with $b_{2n}^{(i)}=u_{2n}^{(i)}/u_{2}^{(i)}$. Here, ${\\boldsymbol{u}}^{(i)}$ is normalized so that $u_1^{(i)}=1$, and the components of ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$ are given by [@RSZ:0111281] $$f^{(0)}_n =\n\\begin{cases}\n\\displaystyle\n\\frac{(-1)^{(n-1)/2}}{\\sqrt{n}} & n\\mbox{: odd} \\\\\n0 & n\\mbox{: even}\n\\end{cases}\n\\label{eq:fz_n}$$ Components of ${\\boldsymbol{a}}^{(i)}$ and ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(i)}$ for various even $L$ and their values at $L=\\infty$ obtained by fitting are given in tables \\[rho+-even-eigenvector1\\] and \\[rho+-even-eigenvector2\\] for $i=1$ and $2$, respectively. They strongly support that all (odd) components of ${\\boldsymbol{a}}^{(i)}$ are equal to one and that ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(1)}$ and ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(2)}$ are equal to each other.[^6] This implies that ${\\boldsymbol{u}}^{(1)}$ and ${\\boldsymbol{u}}^{(2)}$ are given as linear combinations of two vectors, ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$ which is twist-odd and ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(1)}(={\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(2)})$ which is twist-even. Therefore, in the limit $L\\to\\infty$, the projection operator $\\rho_+$ has the eigenvalue $1/2$ which is doubly degenerate, and the corresponding eigenvectors are ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$ and ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(1)}$. The norm of ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(1)}$ seems to have worse divergence than that of ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$ which is logarithmically divergent. We do not know whether ${\\boldsymbol{b}}^{(1)}$, which appears only for even $L$, has any relevance to the construction of fluctuation modes.\n\n     $L$      $\\lambda$\n  ---------- -----------\n     $49$      $0.525$\n     $99$      $0.523$\n    $149$      $0.522$\n    $199$      $0.521$\n    $299$      $0.520$\n    $499$      $0.519$\n   $\\infty$    $0.501$\n\n  : Anomalous eigenvalues of $\\rho_+$ (\\[eq:rhopmorig\\]) for various odd $L$ and their extrapolation to $L=\\infty$. []{data-label=\"rho+-odd-eigenvalue\"}\n\n     $L$       $a_3$     $a_5$     $a_7$     $a_9$    $a_{11}$\n  ---------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----------\n     $49$     $1.104$   $1.187$   $1.262$   $1.332$   $1.402$\n     $99$     $1.084$   $1.147$   $1.201$   $1.249$   $1.293$\n    $149$     $1.075$   $1.131$   $1.178$   $1.217$   $1.255$\n    $199$     $1.069$   $1.121$   $1.163$   $1.200$   $1.232$\n    $299$     $1.063$   $1.109$   $1.146$   $1.179$   $1.208$\n    $499$     $1.056$   $1.097$   $1.123$   $1.158$   $1.182$\n   $\\infty$   $0.997$   $1.000$   $1.001$   $0.993$   $0.961$\n\n  : Components of the vector ${\\boldsymbol{a}}$ for various odd $L$ and their extrapolation to $L=\\infty$. []{data-label=\"rho+-odd-eigenvector\"}\n\nIn the case of odd $L$, we have only one anomalous eigenvalue $\\lambda$ largely deviated from either $0$ or $1$. Table \\[rho+-odd-eigenvalue\\] shows this eigenvalue $\\lambda$ for various odd $L$ and its extrapolation to $L=\\infty$. As expected, the table \\[rho+-odd-eigenvalue\\] supports that $\\lambda\\to 1/2$ as $L\\to\\infty$. The eigenvector ${\\boldsymbol{u}}$ of this eigenvalue $\\lambda$ does not have definite a twist for a finite $L$. However, its twist-even component is negligibly small compared with the twist-odd one. In fact, the norm of the twist-even part, $(1+C){\\boldsymbol{u}}/2$, is at most $0.6\\%$ of the norm of the whole vector ${\\boldsymbol{u}}$.[^7] Therefore, we have studied only the twist-odd vector ${\\boldsymbol{a}}$ with components $a_{2n+1}=u_{2n+1}/f^{(0)}_{2n+1}$. The results given in table \\[rho+-odd-eigenvector\\] again support our expectation that ${\\boldsymbol{u}}$ is equal to ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$.\n\nIn summary, in both even and odd $L$ cases, our numerical analysis of the eigenvalue problem of $\\rho_\\pm$ (\\[eq:rhopmorig\\]) confirms our expectation that $\\rho_\\pm$ has an anomalous eigenvalue $1/2$ and the corresponding eigenvector is ${{\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(0)}}$.\n\nGauging away the spurious states\n================================\n\nIn sec.\u00a0\\[section-massive\\] we have shown that we can construct massive fluctuation modes if the projection operator $\\rho_\\pm$ has eigenvalue $1/2$. This property has been verified numerically in the last section. However, there still remains a problem: we have infinite degeneracy of massive and massless states as we saw in the last part of sec.\\[section-massive\\]. In this section we shall show that these spurious states can in fact be gauged away. Our argument here is an application of that given in [@Imamura:0204031] for spurious massless vector states.\n\nFor simplicity we restrict ourselves to the lowest massive state $\\Phi^{(k=2)}$: $${| \\Phi^{(2)} \\rangle}=\\beta_{mn}^{\\mu\\nu}\na^{\\mu\\dagger}_m a^{\\nu\\dagger}_n {| {\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}\\rangle} ,\n\\label{eq:Phi2}$$ where $\\beta_{mn}^{\\mu\\nu}$ is traceless and transverse with respect to its Lorentz indices. However, the following argument can straightforwardly be extended to ${\\Phi^{(k)}}$ with larger $k$. Fourier-expanding $\\beta_{mn}$ in terms of the eigenvector ${\\boldsymbol{f}}^{(\\kappa)}$ of $K_1$, $$\\beta_{mn}^{\\mu\\nu}=\\int\\!d\\kappa\\int\\!d\\lambda\\,\nf^{(\\kappa)}_m f^{(\\lambda)}_n {\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)},\n\\label{eq:intrepbeta}$$ and substituting it into the equation for $\\beta$, (\\[eq:mass-eq\\]) with $k=2$, we obtain the following equation for ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$: $$\\left(1 - 2^{-p^2}\\left[\\theta(-\\kappa)\\theta(-\\lambda)\n+\\theta(\\kappa)\\theta(\\lambda)\\right]\\right){\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}=0 .\n\\label{eq:eombetakl}$$ The construction of massive states given in sec.\\[section-massive\\] (see the paragraph containing (\\[eq:b=f...f\\]) and (\\[eq:b=f...fw\\])) can be restated as follows in terms of the spectral function ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$. First, (\\[eq:eombetakl\\]) implies that ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ must have support only in the regions $\\{\\kappa\\ge 0,\\lambda\\ge 0\\}$ and $\\{\\kappa\\le 0,\\lambda\\le 0\\}$. Taking into account that $\\theta(0)=1/2$ as we have seen in the previous section, there are three possible types of ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ giving massive as well as massless states (table \\[tab:bkl\\]). Since the function $g(\\kappa)$ for the type-B state and ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ for the type-C are arbitrary except that they are smooth (and has support only in the regions stated above for ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ for type-C), these two types of states are infinitely degenerate. We shall show that the type-B and C states can in fact be removed by gauge transformations of VSFT.\n\n       ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$   $\\mbox{(mass)}^2$\n  --- ------------------------------------ -------------------\n   A    $\\delta(\\kappa)\\delta(\\lambda)$            $1$\n   B       $\\delta(\\kappa)g(\\lambda)$              $1$\n   C       arbitrary smooth function                0\n\n  : Three types of $(\\kappa,\\lambda)$-dependence of ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ satisfying (\\[eq:eombetakl\\]) and the corresponding mass squared. The function $g(\\kappa)$ is an arbitrary smooth function. The whole ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ must be symmetric under the exchange of $(\\mu,\\kappa)$ and $(\\nu,\\lambda)$. []{data-label=\"tab:bkl\"}\n\nThe gauge transformation of VSFT, (\\[eq:dLPsi\\]), expressed in terms of the fluctuation $\\Phi$ (\\[eq:Psi=Psic+Phi\\]) reads $\\delta_\\Lambda\\Phi={{\\mathcal{Q}}_{\\rm B}}\\Lambda+\\Phi *\\Lambda-\\Lambda *\\Phi$ with ${{\\mathcal{Q}}_{\\rm B}}$ defined by (\\[eq:wtcQ\\]). We shall consider the inhomogeneous part $$\\delta_\\Lambda^{\\mathrm{I}}\\Phi={{\\mathcal{Q}}_{\\rm B}}\\Lambda ,\n\\label{eq:dLI}$$ of the whole transformation, and in particular take the following type of $\\Lambda$: $$\\Lambda= \\Lambda^{\\mathrm{m}}\\otimes {\\mathcal{I}}^{\\mathrm{g}}, \n\\label{eq:trf-form}$$ where ${\\mathcal{I}}^{\\mathrm{g}}$ is the ghost part of the identity string field ${\\mathcal{I}}={\\mathcal{I}}^{\\mathrm{m}}\\otimes{\\mathcal{I}}^{\\mathrm{g}}$ satisfying ${\\mathcal{I}}^{\\mathrm{g}}*{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}={\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}*{\\mathcal{I}}^{\\mathrm{g}}={\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}$ for ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{g}}$ of (\\[eq:EOMg\\]) and ${\\mathcal{Q}}\\,{\\mathcal{I}}^{\\mathrm{g}}=0$ [@Kishimoto:0110124; @KO:0112169; @Imamura:0204031]. For this $\\Lambda$ and fluctuation $\\Phi$ of the factorized form (\\[eq:Phi=PhimPsicg\\]), we have $$\\delta_\\Lambda^{\\mathrm{I}}{\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}= {\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}*\\Lambda^{\\mathrm{m}}-\\Lambda^{\\mathrm{m}}*{\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}.\n\\label{eq:dLIPhim}$$ As the matter part $\\Lambda^{\\mathrm{m}}$ of the gauge transformation string field, we take $${| \\Lambda^{\\mathrm{m}} \\rangle}\n= \\gamma_{mn}^{\\mu\\nu} a^{\\mu\\dagger}_m a^{\\nu\\dagger}_n\n{| {\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}\\rangle} ,\n\\label{eq:L=gaaPhit}$$ with the coefficient $\\gamma_{mn}^{\\mu\\nu}$ being traceless and transverse with respect to $\\mu$ and $\\nu$. Then, (\\[eq:dLIPhim\\]) is given by $$\\delta_\\Lambda^{\\mathrm{I}}{| {\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}\\rangle} = 2^{-p^2}\n\\Bigl({(\\rho_-)}_{mp}{(\\rho_-)}_{nq}-{(\\rho_+)}_{mp}{(\\rho_+)}_{nq}\\Bigr)\n\\gamma_{pq}^{\\mu\\nu}a^{\\mu\\dagger}_m a^{\\nu\\dagger}_n\n{| {\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}\\rangle} ,\n\\label{eq:dLIPhimgamma}$$ which is expressed as the following transformation on the spectral function ${\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ of (\\[eq:intrepbeta\\]): $$\\delta_\\Lambda^{\\mathrm{I}}{\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}= 2^{-p^2}\n\\Bigl(\\theta(-\\kappa)\\theta(-\\lambda)-\\theta(\\kappa)\\theta(\\lambda)\n\\Bigr){\\gamma^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)},\n\\label{eq:dLbeta}$$ where ${\\gamma^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ is defined for $\\gamma_{mn}^{\\mu\\nu}$ similarly to (\\[eq:intrepbeta\\]).\n\nEq.\u00a0(\\[eq:dLbeta\\]) implies that the type-B and C states are unphysical ones which can be eliminated by the present gauge transformation. First, the type-B states are gauged away by taking $\\delta(\\lambda)g(\\kappa)\\epsilon(\\kappa)$ as the $(\\kappa,\\lambda)$-dependence of ${\\gamma^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$. Here, $\\epsilon(\\kappa)$ is the signature function $\\epsilon(\\kappa)=\\theta(\\kappa)-\\theta(-\\kappa)$. Second, ${\\gamma^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$ for gauging away the type-C states is ${\\gamma^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}=-2^{p^2}\\left[\\theta(-\\kappa)\\theta(-\\lambda)-\n\\theta(\\kappa)\\theta(\\lambda)\\right]{\\beta^{\\mu\\nu}(\\kappa,\\lambda)}$. It is obvious that the type-A states cannot be removed by the present gauge transformation.\n\nFinally in this section we shall comment on the relation between the gauge transformation used in this paper and that in [@Imamura:0204031]. Our gauge transformation string field $\\Lambda^{\\mathrm{m}}$ (\\[eq:L=gaaPhit\\]) is of different type from that used in [@Imamura:0204031]; the latter is based on the identity string field instead of the classical solution ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}$. If we have adopted $\\Lambda^{\\mathrm{m}}$ of the type of [@Imamura:0204031], we would have obtained (\\[eq:dLIPhimgamma\\]) with $\\rho_\\pm$ replaced by $(1+T)\\rho_\\pm$. This gauge transformation cannot remove the type-B states which are absent for the vector case discussed in [@Imamura:0204031].\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nWe would like to thank K.\u00a0Hashimoto, Y.\u00a0Imamura, E.\u00a0Itou, H.\u00a0Kajiura, I.\u00a0Kishimoto, Y.\u00a0Matsuo, S.\u00a0Moriyama, T.\u00a0Muramatsu, K.\u00a0Ohmori, T.\u00a0Takahashi and S.\u00a0Teraguchi for valuable discussions and comments. The works of H.H. was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (\\#12640264).\n\nDerivation of (\\[eq:mass-eq\\]) {#evaluation}\n==============================\n\nIn this appendix we outline a derivation of (\\[eq:mass-eq\\]) from the equation of motion (\\[eq:EOMf\\]). First we shall mention the hermiticity constraint (\\[eq:bb\\*\\]). We impose the following hermiticity condition on the matter part ${\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}$ of a string field of the type (\\[eq:Phi=PhimPsicg\\]): $${}_2{\\langle {\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}|}=\\prod_{r=1,2}\\int\\!\\frac{d^{26}p_r}{(2\\pi)^{26}}\n\\,(2\\pi)^{26}\\delta^{26}(p_1+p_2)\n\\,{}_{12}{\\langle R^{\\mathrm{m}}| {\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}\\rangle}_1 ,\n\\label{eq:ref-beta-k}$$ where the matter reflector (two-string vertex) ${\\langle R^{\\mathrm{m}} |}$ is defined by $${}_{12}{\\langle R^{\\mathrm{m}} |}={\\langle p_1 |}{\\langle p_2 |}\n\\exp\\biggl(-\\sum_{n\\geq 1}(-1)^n a^{(1)}_na^{(2)}_n\\biggr) .\n\\label{eq:R}$$ This constraint reduces the number of degrees of freedom in ${\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}$ to half and ensures the hermiticity of the action. Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:bb\\*\\]) for $\\beta$ is immediately obtained by plugging the expression (\\[eq:massive-state\\]) into (\\[eq:ref-beta-k\\]) and using that ${\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}$ itself satisfies (\\[eq:ref-beta-k\\]).\n\nThe wave equation (\\[eq:EOMf\\]) for the matter fluctuation ${\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}$ is rewritten in the oscillator representation as $${| {\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}\\rangle}_3-{}_1{\\langle {\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}|}_2{\\langle {\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}| {V^{\\mathrm{m}}}\\rangle}_{123}\n-{}_1{\\langle {\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}|}_2{\\langle {\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}| {V^{\\mathrm{m}}}\\rangle}_{123}=0 ,\n\\label{eq:EOMV}$$ where we have omitted the integrations $\\left(\\prod_{r=1}^3\\int d^{26}p_r/(2\\pi)^{26}\\right)\n(2\\pi)^{26}\\delta^{26}(p_1+p_2+p_3)$ in the second and third terms. Let us consider the second term of (\\[eq:EOMV\\]) with ${\\Phi^{(k)}}$ (\\[eq:massive-state\\]) substituted for ${\\Phi^\\mathrm{m}}$, ${}_1{\\langle {\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}|}_2{\\langle {\\Phi^{(k)}}| {V^{\\mathrm{m}}}\\rangle}_{123}$. The basic formula for this calculation is obtained from the well-known formula valid for any bosonic oscillators satisfying $[a_i,a^\\dagger_j]=\\delta_{ij}$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n& {\\langle 0 |}\\exp {\\left}(  - {\\frac{1}{2}}a_i A_{ij} a_{j}-\nK_ia_i {\\right})\n  \\exp {\\left}( -{\\frac{1}{2}}a_i^\\dagger B_{ij}\n  a_{j}^\\dagger -J_ia_i^\\dagger{\\right}){| 0 \\rangle}{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\qquad=[\\det {\\left}(1-AB{\\right})]^{-1/2}\n\\exp {\\left}(-{\\frac{1}{2}}JPAJ-{\\frac{1}{2}}KBPK+JPK {\\right}) ,\n\\label{eq:exp}\\end{aligned}$$ with $P=(1-AB)^{-1}$. Letting $(-{\\partial}/{\\partial}K_{i_1})\\cdots(-{\\partial}/{\\partial}K_{i_k})$ act on (\\[eq:exp\\]), we get $$\\begin{aligned}\n&{\\langle 0 |}a_{i_1}\\cdots a_{i_k}\n\\exp\\!\\left(-{\\frac{1}{2}}a_i A_{ij} a_{j}-K_ia_i\\right)\n\\exp\\!\\left(-{\\frac{1}{2}}a_i^\\dagger B_{ij}\n  a_{j}^\\dagger -J_ia_i^\\dagger\\right){| 0 \\rangle}{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&=[\\det {\\left}(1-AB{\\right})]^{-{\\frac{1}{2}}}\\Biggl\\{\n\\prod_{a=1}^k(KBP-JP)_{i_a}\n{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&\\qquad\n+\\sum_{a>b}(BP)_{i_a i_b}\\prod_{c\\ne a,b}(KBP-JP)_{i_c}\n+ \\ldots \\Biggr\\}\n\\exp {\\left}(-{\\frac{1}{2}}JPAJ-{\\frac{1}{2}}KBPK+JPK {\\right}) ,\n\\label{eq:k-differentiation}\\end{aligned}$$ where we have omitted terms with more than one $(BP)_{i_a i_b}$ factors. In our applications of (\\[eq:k-differentiation\\]), the index $i$ represents the level number $n$, the Lorentz index $\\mu$ and the string index $r=1,2$. Contracting (\\[eq:k-differentiation\\]) with $(\\beta^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_k}_{n_1\\cdots n_k})^*$, the terms containing the $(BP)_{i_a i_b}$ factors drop out due to the traceless condition (\\[eq:traceless-condition\\]), while due to the transverse condition the $(KBP-JP)_{i}$ factor with $i=(n,\\mu,r=2)$ contributes only $-a_m^{\\mu (3)\\dagger}\\!\\left(\\rho_- C\\right)_{mn}$ with $\\rho_-$ defined by (\\[eq:rhopmorig\\]). Therefore, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n{}_1{\\langle {\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}|}_2{\\langle {\\Phi^{(k)}}| {V^{\\mathrm{m}}}\\rangle}_{123}\n&=2^{-p^2}\n(-1)^k a^{\\mu_1(3)\\dagger}_{m_1}\\cdots a^{\\mu_k(3)\\dagger}_{m_k}\n(\\rho_-C)_{m_1n_1}\\cdots(\\rho_-C)_{m_kn_k}\n(\\beta^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_k}_{n_1\\cdots n_k})^*{| {\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}\\rangle}\n{\\nonumber}\\\\\n&=2^{-p^2}\na^{\\mu_1(3)\\dagger}_{m_1}\\cdots a^{\\mu_k(3)\\dagger}_{m_k}\n{(\\rho_-)}_{m_1n_1}\\cdots {(\\rho_-)}_{m_kn_k}\n\\beta^{\\mu_1\\cdots\\mu_k}_{n_1\\cdots n_k}{| {\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}\\rangle} ,\\end{aligned}$$ where we have used ${\\Psi_\\mathrm{c}^\\mathrm{m}}*{\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}=2^{-p^2}{\\Phi_\\mathrm{t}}$ and the hermiticity (\\[eq:bb\\*\\]). This gives the $\\rho_-$ term of (\\[eq:mass-eq\\]). Derivation of the $\\rho_+$ term of (\\[eq:mass-eq\\]) from the last term of (\\[eq:EOMV\\]) is quite similar.\n\n[99]{}\n\nL.\u00a0Rastelli, A.\u00a0Sen and B.\u00a0Zwiebach, \u201cString field theory around the tachyon vacuum,\u201d \\[arXiv:hep-th/0012251\\]. L.\u00a0Rastelli, A.\u00a0Sen and B.\u00a0Zwiebach, \u201cClassical solutions in string field theory around the tachyon vacuum,\u201d \\[arXiv:hep-th/0102112\\]. L.\u00a0Rastelli, A.\u00a0Sen and B.\u00a0Zwiebach, \u201cBoundary CFT construction of D-branes in vacuum string field theory,\u201d JHEP [**0111**]{}, 045 (2001) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0105168\\]. L.\u00a0Rastelli, A.\u00a0Sen, and B.\u00a0Zwiebach, \u201cVacuum string field theory,\u201d \\[arXiv:hep-th/0106010\\]. H.\u00a0Hata and T.\u00a0Kawano, \u201cOpen string states around a classical solution in vacuum string field theory,\u201d JHEP [**0111**]{}, 038 (2001) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0108150\\]. L.\u00a0Rastelli, A.\u00a0Sen and B.\u00a0Zwiebach, \u201cA note on a proposal for the tachyon state in vacuum string field theory,\u201d JHEP [**0202**]{}, 034 (2002) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0111153\\]. R.\u00a0Rashkov and K.\u00a0S.\u00a0Viswanathan, \u201cA note on the tachyon state in vacuum string field theory,\u201d arXiv:hep-th/0112202. R.\u00a0Rashkov and K.\u00a0S.\u00a0Viswanathan, \u201cA proposal for the vector state in vacuum string field theory,\u201d arXiv:hep-th/0201229. Y.\u00a0Okawa, \u201cOpen string states and D-brane tension from vacuum string field theory,\u201d JHEP [**0207**]{}, 003 (2002) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0204012\\]. Y.\u00a0Imamura, \u201cGauge transformations on a d-brane in vacuum string field theory,\u201d \\[arXiv:hep-th/0204031\\]. L.\u00a0Rastelli, A.\u00a0Sen and B.\u00a0Zwiebach, \u201cHalf strings, projectors, and multiple D-branes in vacuum string field theory,\u201d JHEP [**0111**]{}, 035 (2001) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0105058\\]. L.\u00a0Rastelli, A.\u00a0Sen and B.\u00a0Zwiebach, \u201cStar algebra spectroscopy,\u201d JHEP [**0203**]{}, 029 (2002) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0111281\\]. H.\u00a0Hata and S.\u00a0Moriyama, \u201cReexamining classical solution and tachyon mode in vacuum string field theory,\u201d arXiv:hep-th/0206208. V.\u00a0A.\u00a0Kostelecky and R.\u00a0Potting, \u201cAnalytical construction of a nonperturbative vacuum for the open bosonic string,\u201d Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0D [**63**]{}, 046007 (2001) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0008252\\]. D.\u00a0J.\u00a0Gross and A.\u00a0Jevicki, \u201cOperator Formulation Of Interacting String Field Theory,\u201d Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**283**]{}, 1 (1987). D.\u00a0J.\u00a0Gross and A.\u00a0Jevicki, \u201cOperator Formulation Of Interacting String Field Theory. 2,\u201d Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0B [**287**]{}, 225 (1987). H.\u00a0Hata and S.\u00a0Moriyama, \u201cObservables as twist anomaly in vacuum string field theory,\u201d JHEP [**0201**]{}, 042 (2002) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0111034\\]. H.\u00a0Hata, S.\u00a0Moriyama and S.\u00a0Teraguchi, \u201cExact results on twist anomaly,\u201d JHEP [**0202**]{}, 036 (2002) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0201177\\]. I.\u00a0Kishimoto, \u201cSome properties of string field algebra,\u201d JHEP [**0112**]{}, 007 (2001) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0110124\\]. I.\u00a0Kishimoto and K.\u00a0Ohmori, \u201cCFT description of identity string field: Toward derivation of the VSFT action,\u201d JHEP [**0205**]{}, 036 (2002) \\[arXiv:hep-th/0112169\\].\n\n[^1]: [hata@gauge.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp]{}\n\n[^2]: [kogetsu@gauge.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.jp]{}\n\n[^3]: In this paper we shall consider only the oscillator formulation of VSFT. For the construction of the fluctuation modes using boundary conformal field theory, see [@Rastelli:2001wk; @Rashkov:2001js; @Rashkov:2002xz; @Okawa:0204012].\n\n[^4]: Due to these two conditions, (\\[eq:transverse-condition\\]) and (\\[eq:traceless-condition\\]), our construction of massive modes is restricted only to the highest spin states at a given mass level.\n\n[^5]: See sec.\u00a04 for precise form of these states in the case $k=2$.\n\n[^6]: If we adopt the fitting by polynomials of $1/L$, we obtain better coincidence between $b_{2n}^{(1)}$ and $b_{2n}^{(2)}$ at $L=\\infty$ for larger $n$.\n\n[^7]: In the case of even $L$, the norms of the even and odd parts of ${\\boldsymbol{u}}^{(i)}$, $(1\\pm C){\\boldsymbol{u}}^{(i)}/2$, are of the same order.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present a lattice analysis of a confining Yang-Mills theory without Goldstone boson. We have analytically investigated the model by a strong coupling expansion and by an intensive lattice Monte Carlo simulation using standard lattice QCD methods. We show that this theory is an interesting candidate for describing weak bosons as composite particles.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    A. Galli\\\n    [*Paul Scherrer Institute, CH-5231 Villigen PSI, Switzerland*]{}\ntitle: 'Composite Weak Bosons: a Lattice Analysis'\n---\n\nThe Standard Model [@SM] (SM) describes the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions by a gauge theory based on the group $G_{SM}=SU(3)\\times SU(2)\\times U(1)$ which is broken by the Higgs mechanism to $SU(3)\\times U(1)$. The theory is essentially determined once the matter fields and their transformation under the local gauge transformations of $G_{SM}$ are specified. The matter fields (leptons and quarks) and the Higgs boson are considered to be elementary. They interact with each other by the exchange of gauge bosons which are also considered to be elementary. The structure of the SM has been phenomenologically confirmed to high accuracy.\\\nIn spite of the beautiful corroboration of the SM by experiments a natural questions arises: How elementary are the leptons, the quarks, the Higgs bosons and the gauge bosons? The idea that the SM itself is an effective theory of another, more fundamental, theory, where quarks, leptons and bosons are composites of more fundamental fields, is almost as old as the SM itself. The idea of quark and lepton compositeness is motivated by the observed connection between quarks and leptons, by the generation puzzle and by the existence of too many parameters in the SM. The Higgs compositeness is motivated by the fine tuning problem. The W and Z compositeness is motivated by their relation to a composite Higgs and by the observation that all short-range interactions are residual interactions of a more fundamental long-range interaction.\\\nThe substructures, the new fundamental fields, are supposed to carry a new internal quantum number (which we refer to [*hypercolor*]{}) and the quarks, leptons and bosons are hypercolorless composite systems of them. The binding of the substructures due to hypercolor is viewed as an analogy with the color confinement mechanism of QCD. However, since the SM spectrum is different from the hadron spectrum, the hypercolor interaction has to be described by a strongly coupled Yang-Mills theory [*different*]{} from QCD.\\\nSeveral models treat the quarks, leptons and bosons as composite systems. Today a conspicuous number of theorems exist which have ruled out most of the existing models and radically restricted the possibilities of constructing realistic composite models [@1]. One particular model has survived: The Yang-Mills theory without Goldstone bosons [@11]. This model is a usual confining Yang-Mills theory with $SU(2)$ local hypercolor gauge group, $SU(2)$ global isospin group and generalized Majorana fermions in the fundamental representation of the local and global symmetry groups.\\\nWe consider a gauge theory whose fermion content is represented by a Weyl spinor $F_{\\alpha,a}^A(x)$. Here $\\alpha$ denotes the (undotted) spinor index ($\\alpha=1,2$), $A$ denotes the fundamental representation index of a global SU(2) isospin group ($A=1,2$) and $a$ denotes the fundamental representation index of the local SU(2) hypercolor gauge group ($a=1,2$). We introduce the generalized Majorana spinor $\\psi$ starting from the Weyl spinors $F$ and its conjugate $F^\\dagger$ $$\\psi(x)=\\left(\\begin{array}{c}F(x)\\\\QF^\\dagger(x)\\end{array}\\right)=\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\\\0&Q\\end{array}\\right){\\varphi}(x)$$ and its adjoint $$\\bar\\psi(x)=(F^T(x)Q,F^\\dagger(x))={\\varphi}^T(x)\n\\left(\\begin{array}{cc}Q&0\\\\0&1\\end{array}\\right).$$ The matrix $Q$ represents the antisymmetric matrix in spin, hypercolor and isospin space. Of course the fields $\\psi$ and $\\bar{\\psi}$ are not independent fields. The choice of the global isospin group $SU(2)$ and of the local hypercolor group $SU(2)$ allows us to write a gauge invariant mass term for the generalized Majorana fermion fields $$\\bar{\\psi}\\psi=FQF+F^\\dagger QF^\\dagger.$$ Note that this choice is unique if one deals with Majorana fermions. Because of the existence of the mass term we can define the Yang-Mills action on the lattice in Euclidean space in the form of a Wilson action. For further details we refer to ref. [@13].\\\nTo be precise, this model considers the photon to remain elementary and switched off. The weak gauge bosons $W^{\\pm}$ and $Z^0$ then form a mass degenerate triplet. The vector isotriplet bound state of the substructure represents the W-boson triplet. To be viable a composite model of the weak bosons has to reproduce the known weak boson spectrum: the lightest bound states have to be the W-bosons and heavier bound states have to lie in an experimentally unexplored energy range. The only possibility of having a Yang-Mills theory which reproduces the weak boson spectrum is to choose the degrees of freedom in a way that they naturally avoid bound states lighter than the vector isotriplet of the theory which characterizes the W-boson triplet. This is possible if the unwanted light bound states which naturally show up as Goldstone bosons or pseudo Goldstone bosons in many models (like, for example, a pseudoscalar isomultiplet, which would be the pion analogue of QCD) are avoided. The choice of the generalized Majorana fermions in this model avoids the $SU_A(2)$ global chiral symmetry of the Yang-Mills Lagrangian because left- and right-handed degrees of freedom are not independent. The axial current (which would generate the $SU_A(2)$ chiral symmetry) does not exist and it is not possible to have a breaking of $SU_A(2)$ with the related low lying Goldstone bosons. In fact, the pseudoscalar isotriplet vanishes by the Pauli principle (it is a symmetric combination of Grassmann variables).\\\nBecause of the confining character of this theory, we need non-perturbative methods to make predictions. It is important that the fermion theory under discussion can be defined by a gauge invariant lattice regularization. A lattice regularization \u00e0 la Wilson [@12] is possible because the choice of the isospin group $SU(2)$ allows us to replace the Dirac mass term and the Dirac-type Wilson term by a hypercolor gauge invariant Majorana type expression.\\\nAn extensive strong coupling expansion analysis [@13] of the spectrum of this theory has shown that the spin one isotriplet bound state (the right quantum number to represent the W-boson of the SM) could be the lightest state if the pseudoscalar isosinglet acquires a mass by the chiral anomaly in analogy with the $\\eta'$ in QCD.\\\nWe also calculated the spectrum of the lightest bound states by a quenched Monte Carlo simulation [@MC] and we showed that the vector isotriplet bound state of this theory is the lightest one. We have performed our Monte Carlo simulations using the following standard technique of lattice QCD:\n\n1.  We used the quenched approximation. As in QCD we assume that the quenched approximation is reasonable also in our model.\n\n2.  To generate the quenched gauge configurations we used the heat-bath and over relaxed updating (1 heat-bath sweep for 6 over relaxed sweeps).\n\n3.  We used the symmetrized Peskin\u2019s formula [@peskin] and the cooling algorithm [@cool] to measure the topological charge of the gauge configurations. Topological non-trivial configurations are needed to evaluate the chiral anomaly contribution to the mass of the pseudoscalar isosinglet bound state.\n\n4.  To invert the fermion matrix we used the minimal residual and the conjugate gradient algorithms.\n\n5.  We used the smearing technique [@smearing] (PSI-Wuppertal smearing) to obtain early plateaux in the local masses.\n\nTo connect the measured quantities to physics we have to fix the lattice spacing $a$. For setting the lattice spacing $a$ we identify the experimental value of the $W-$boson triplet $M_W=80$ GeV with the value of the mass of the vector isotriplet determined from the simulations and extrapolated to the chiral limit. We expect that the mass of the substructure is much smaller than a typical binding energy, therefore in analogy with QCD we extrapolated the bound state masses to the chiral limit, determined by the critical hopping parameter. In our model there is [*no*]{} Goldstone boson which can identify the chiral limit. However, the critical hopping parameter can be evaluated by assuming that the pseudoscalar isosinglet behaves like a Goldstone boson when the contribution of the chiral anomaly is switched off and therefore it is massless.\\\nWe have performed the simulations on different lattices and with different values of $\\beta$ to control finite $a$ and volume effects. In some simulations we have calculated the masses of bound states without the contribution of the chiral anomaly. These simulations confirmed the results of the strong coupling expansion. In other simulations we have used and improved the method of ref. [@ito] to evaluate the chiral anomaly contribution to the mass of the pseudoscalar isosinglet bound state. This computation required the evaluation of disconnected fermion loops and the generation of topological non-trivial gauge configurations. The mass of the pseudoscalar isosinglet turned out to be larger than the vector isotriplet mass.\\\nAs a main result our lattice simulations has shown that the vector isotriplet bound state, which represents the weak boson triplet, is the lightest bound state in our model as it should be for any viable candidate of electroweak composite model. In addition we have also predicted the masses of the first bound states which are heavier than the vector isotriplet representing the weak boson triplet. These bound states are an additional vector isotriplet, a vector isosinglet and a pseudoscalar isosinglet with masses in the range of a few hundred GeV. These predictions open new interesting experimental perspectives at LEPII and LHC.\n\n[99]{} S.L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys. B22 (1961) 579; A. Salam and J.C. Ward, Phys. Lett. 13 (1964) 166; S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett 19 (1967) 1264 J.M. Gipson, Y. Tosa and R.E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. D32 (1985) 284; D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1830; S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 2081; E. Witten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 2351; G. \u2019t Hooft et al., recent Developments in Gauge Theories (Plenum Press, New York 1980); S. Weinberg and E. Witten, Phys. Lett. 96B (1980) 59; C. Vafa and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B234 (1984) 173; W. Buchm\u00fcller, R.D. Peccei and T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. 124B (1983) 67; M. Claudson, E. Fahri and R.L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D34 (1986) 873, and references therein H. Schlereth, Phys. Lett. B267 (1991) 513 K. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 2445 A. Galli, PSI preprint PSI-PR-94-08, submitted to Phys. Rev. D A.Galli, PSI preprint PSI-PR-94-20, submitted to Nuc. Phys. B M.Peskin, Cornell University preprint CLNS 395 (1978), Thesis; P. Di Vecchia et al., Nucl. Phys. B192 (1981) 392 B.Berg, Phys. Lett. B104 (1981) 475; M.Teper, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 20 (1991) 159 S.G\u00fcsken, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 20 (1991) 465; C.Alexandrou, et al., Nucl. Phys. B414 (1994) 815 S. Itho, Y. Iwasaki and T. Yoshi\u00e9, Phys. Lett. 145B (1984) 93;Phys. Lett. 184B (1987) 375;Phys. Rev. D36 (1987) 527\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In turbulent superfluid He II, the quantized vortex lines interact via the classical Biot\u2013Savart law to form a complicated vortex tangle. We show that vortex tangles with the same vortex line density will have different energy spectra, depending on the normal fluid which feeds energy into the superfluid component, and identify the spectral signature of two forms of superfluid turbulence: Kolmogorov tangles and Vinen tangles. By decomposing the superfluid velocity field into local and nonlocal contributions, we find that in Vinen tangles the motion of vortex lines depends mainly on the local curvature, whereas in Kolmogorov tangles the long-range vortex interaction is dominant and leads to the formation of clustering of lines, in analogy to the \u2019worms\u2018 of ordinary turbulence.'\nauthor:\n- 'L.\u00a0K.\u00a0Sherwin-Robson'\n- 'C.\u00a0F.\u00a0Barenghi'\n- 'A.\u00a0W.\u00a0Baggaley'\ntitle: Local and nonlocal dynamics in superfluid turbulence\n---\n\nIntroduction {#section:1}\n============\n\nThe hydrodynamics of helium\u00a0II is noteworthy for two reasons: its two-fluid nature (an inviscid superfluid and a viscous normal fluid), and the fact that superfluid vorticity is constrained to thin, discrete vortex lines of fixed (quantized) circulation [@Donnelly]; in ordinary (classical) fluids, by contrast, the vorticity is a continuous field. Turbulence in helium\u00a0II (called superfluid turbulence, or quantum turbulence) consists of a three-dimensional tangle of interacting vortex lines. The properties of this new form of turbulence and current thinking (in terms of theory and experiments) have been recently reviewed [@Barenghi-Skrbek-Sreeni; @Nemirovskii].\n\nUnder certain conditions, it has been argued [@Vinen-Niemela; @Skrbek-Sreeni] that the turbulent tangle is characterized by a single length scale, the average distance $\\ell$ between the vortex lines, which is inferred from the experimentally observed vortex line density $L$ (length of vortex line per unit volume) as $\\ell \\approx L^{-1/2}$. Models based on this property describe fairly well the pioneering experiments of Vinen [@Vinen], in which an applied heat flux drives the superfluid and the normal fluid in opposite directions (thermal counterflow). More recently, such \u2018Vinen\u2019 tangles were created at very low temperatures by short injections of ions [@Walmsley-Golov], exhibiting the characteristic decay $L \\sim t^{-1/2}$ predicted by Vinen [@Baggaley-ultraquantum].\n\nUnder different conditions, however, the experimental evidence is consistent with a more structured vortex tangle [@Vinen-Niemela; @Volovik], where the kinetic energy is distributed over a range of length scales according to the same Kolmogorov law which governs ordinary turbulence. \u2018Kolmogorov\u2019 tangles have been generated at high temperatures by stirring liquid helium with grids [@Donnelly-grid] or propellers [@Tabeling; @Salort], and at very low temperatures by an intense injection of ions [@Walmsley-Golov], exhibiting the decay $L \\sim t^{-3/2}$ expected from the energy spectrum [@Donnelly-grid; @Baggaley-ultraquantum].\n\nThe experimental evidence for these two forms of superfluid turbulence is only indirect and arises from macroscopic observables averaged over the experimental cell, such as pressure [@Tabeling; @Salort] and vortex line density [@Donnelly-grid], not from direct visualization of vortex lines. In a recent paper [@Sherwin] we have characterized the energy spectrum of the two forms of turbulence, and showed that \u2019Kolmogorov\u2019 turbulence contains metastable, coherent vortex structures [@Baggaley-structures; @Baggaley-Laurie], similar perhaps to the \u2018worms\u2019 which are observed in ordinary turbulence [@Frisch]. The aim of this work is to go a step further, and look for the dynamical origin of the reported spectral difference and coherent structures.\n\nIt is well known [@Saffman] that in an incompressible fluid the velocity field ${{\\bf {v}}}$ is determined by the instantaneous distribution of vorticity ${{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\omega$}}}$ via the Biot-Savart law:\n\n$${{\\bf {v}}}({{\\bf {x}}})=\\frac{1}{4 \\pi} \\int \\frac{{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\omega$}}}({{\\bf {x}}}') \\times ({{\\bf {x}}}-{{\\bf {x}}}')  }\n{\\vert {{\\bf {x}}}-{{\\bf {x}}}' \\vert^3   } d^3{{\\bf {x}}}'\n\\label{eq:BS1}$$\n\nwhere the integral extends over the entire flow. The question which we address is whether the velocity at the point ${{\\bf {x}}}$ is mainly determined by the (local) vorticity near ${{\\bf {x}}}$ or by (nonlocal) contributions from further away. Since the quantization of the circulation implies that the velocity field around a vortex line is strictly $1/r$ (where $r$ is the radial distance from the line), from the predominance of local effects we would infer that the vorticity is randomly distributed and nonlocal effects cancel each other out; conversely, the predominance of nonlocal effects would suggest the existence of coherence structures.\n\nIf the vorticity were a continuous field, the distinction between local and nonlocal would involve an arbitrary distance, however in our problem the concentrated nature of vorticity introduces a natural distinction between local and nonlocal contributions, as we shall see.\n\nMethod {#section:2}\n======\n\nThe two most popular models [@Barenghi-Skrbek-Sreeni] for studying superfluid turbulence are the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE) and the Vortex Filament Model (VFM). Each has advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage of the GPE over the VFM is that vortex reconnections are solutions of the equation of motion and do not require an ad\u2013hoc algorithmic procedure. On the other hand, the experimental context of our interest is liquid helium at intermediate temperatures where the effects of the friction are important (at the chosen value $T=1.9~K$, typical of experiments, the normal fluid fraction is 42 percent). We must keep in mind that, although the GPE is a good quantitative model of weakly interacting atomic gases, it is only an idealized model of liquid helium; moreover, the GPE applies only at very low temperatures, and there is not yet a consensus[@Proukakis2008] on its finite-temperature generalizations. This is why, following the approach of Schwarz[@Schwarz], we choose to use the VFM and model superfluid vortex lines as space curves ${{\\bf {s}}}(\\xi,t)$ (where $t$ is time and $\\xi$ is arc length) of infinitesimal thickness and circulation $\\kappa=9.97 \\times 10^{-4}~\\rm cm^2/s$ which move according to\n\n$$\\label{eq:Schwarz}\n\\frac{ds}{dt} = {{\\bf {v}}}_s + \\alpha {{\\bf {s}}}' \\times ({{\\bf {v}}}_n^{ext} - {{\\bf {v}}}_s) \n- \\alpha' {{\\bf {s}}}' \\times [{{\\bf {s}}}' \\times ({{\\bf {v}}}_n^{ext} - {{\\bf {v}}}_s)].$$\n\nHere $\\alpha$ and $\\alpha'$ are temperature-dependent friction coefficients [@BDV; @DB], ${{\\bf {v}}}_n$ is the normal fluid velocity, and a prime denotes derivative with respect to arc length (hence ${{\\bf {s}}}'=d{{\\bf {s}}}/d\\xi$ is the local unit tangent vector, and $C=\\vert {{\\bf {s}}}''\\vert$ is the local curvature; the radius of curvature, $R=1/C$, is the radius of the osculating circle at the point ${{\\bf {s}}}$). The superfluid velocity consists of two parts: ${{\\bf {v}}}_s={{\\bf {v}}}_s^{ext}+{{\\bf {v}}}_s^{self}$. The former ${{\\bf {v}}}_s^{ext}$ represents any externally applied superflow; the latter ${{\\bf {v}}}_s^{self}$ the self-induced velocity at the point ${{\\bf {s}}}$, results from Equation\u00a0\\[eq:BS1\\] in the limit of concentrated vorticity:\n\n$${{\\bf {v}}}_s^{self}({{\\bf {s}}})=\n-\\frac{\\kappa}{4\\pi} \\oint_{\\mathcal{L}} \n\\frac{({{\\bf {s}}}- {{\\bf {r}}})}{|{{\\bf {s}}}- {{\\bf {r}}}|^3} \\times {{\\bf {dr}}},\n\\label{eq:BS2}$$\n\nwhere the line integral extends over the entire vortex configuration $\\mathcal{L}$.\n\nWe discretised the vortex lines into a large number of points ${{\\bf {s}}}_j$ ($j=1, \\cdots N$). The minimal separation $\\delta$ between the points is such that the vortex curves are sufficiently smooth (at the temperatures of interest here, the friction, controlled by the parameters $\\alpha$ and $\\alpha'$, damps out high frequency perturbations called Kelvin waves). The VFM assumes that vortex lines are infinitely thin, thus Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:BS2\\]) is valid only if $\\vert {{\\bf {s}}}- {{\\bf {r}}}\\vert >> a_0$ where $a_0$ is the vortex core (the region around the vortex axis where the superfluid density drops from its bulk value to zero). Thus the integral diverges if one attempts to find the velocity at ${{\\bf {r}}}={{\\bf {s}}}$. As remarked by Schwarz, the occurrence of a similar problem in classical hydrodynamics is not helpful, since the physics of the vortex core is different. The solution to the problem which was proposed by Schwarz [@Schwarz1985] and thereafter adopted in the helium literature is based on Taylor expanding the integrand around the singularity and comparing against the well-know expression for the self-induced velocity of a circular ring. In this way he obtained a decomposition of the self-induced velocity at the point ${{\\bf {s}}}_j$ (Eq.\u00a0\\[eq:BS2\\]) into the following local and nonlocal contributions:\n\n$${{\\bf {v}}}_s^{self}({{\\bf {s}}}_j)={{\\bf {v}}}_s^{loc}({{\\bf {s}}}_j)+{{\\bf {v}}}_s^{non}({{\\bf {s}}}_j)=\n\\frac{\\kappa}{4\\pi} \\ln \\left( \\frac{\\sqrt{\\Delta \\xi_{+}\\Delta \\xi_{-}}}{a_0} \\right) \n{{\\bf {s}}}'_j \\times {{\\bf {s}}}''_j \n+ \\frac{\\kappa}{4\\pi} \\oint_{\\mathcal{L}'} \\frac{({{\\bf {s}}}_j - {{\\bf {r}}})}{|{{\\bf {s}}}_j - {{\\bf {r}}}|^3} \\times {{\\bf {dr}}}\\label{eq:BS3}$$\n\nwhere $\\Delta \\xi_{+}$ and $\\Delta \\xi_{-}$ are the arc lengths of the curves between the point ${{\\bf {s}}}_j$ and the adjacent points ${{\\bf {s}}}_{j-1}$ and ${{\\bf {s}}}_{j+1}$ along the vortex line. $\\mathcal{L}'$ is the original vortex configuration $\\mathcal{L}$ but now without the section between ${{\\bf {s}}}_{j-1}$ and ${{\\bf {s}}}_{j+1}$. The superfluid vortex core radius $a_0 \\approx 10^{-8}~\\rm cm$ acts as cutoff parameter. Details and tests of the numerical techniques against the experimental and the numerical literature are published elsewhere [@Baggaley-reconnections; @Baggaley-stats; @Baggaley-PNAS; @Adachi]. Note that the local contribution is proportional to ${{\\bf {s}}}' \\times {{\\bf {s}}}''$, in the binormal direction.\n\nAll calculations are performed in a cubic periodic domain of size $D=0.1$ using an Adams-Bashforth time-stepping method (with typical time step $\\Delta t =5 \\times 10^{-5}~\\rm s$), a tree-method [@Baggaley-tree] with opening angle $\\theta=0.4$, and typical minimal resolution $\\delta=1.6 \\times 10^{-3}~\\rm cm$. For example, an increase in the numerical resolution from $\\delta =0.0016$ to $\\delta =0.0008$ produces a small increase of 2.5% in the importance of the nonlocal contribution in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:8\\]). Moreover, the tests against experiments mentioned above [@Baggaley-stats; @Baggaley-PNAS; @Adachi], guarantee that the numerical resolution is sufficient, and put the distinction between ${{\\bf {v}}}_s^{loc}$ and ${{\\bf {v}}}_s^{non}$ on solid ground.\n\nIt is known from experiments [@Bewley2008] and from more microscopic models [@Koplik; @Zuccher; @Allen2014] that colliding vortex lines reconnect with each other. An algorithmic procedure is introduced to reconnect two vortex lines if they become sufficiently close to each other. This procedure (although arbitrary, unlike the GPE as mentioned before) has been extensively tested [@Baggaley-reconnections]; various slightly different reconnection algorithms have been proposed and have never been found in disagreement with experimental observations.\n\nWe choose a temperature typical of experiments, $T=1.9~\\rm K$ (corresponding to $\\alpha=0.206$ and $\\alpha'=0.00834$). In all three cases, the initial condition consists of a few seeding vortex loops, which interact and reconnect, quickly generating a turbulent vortex tangle which appears independent of the initial condition.\n\nWe study the following three different regimes of superfluid turbulence, characterized by the following forms of the normal fluid\u2019s velocity field ${{\\bf {v}}}_n^{ext}$:\n\n1.  [**Uniform normal flow.**]{} Firstly, to model turbulence generated by a small heat flux at the blocked end of a channel (thermal counterflow), we impose a uniform normal fluid velocity ${{\\bf {v}}}_n^{ext}=V_n {\\hat {\\bf x}}$ in the x-direction (which we interpret as the direction of the channel) which is proportional to the applied heat flux; to conserve mass, we add a uniform superflow ${{\\bf {v}}}_s^{ext}= -(\\rho_n/\\rho_s) V_n {\\hat {\\bf x}}$ in the opposite direction, where $\\rho_n$ and $\\rho_s$ are respectively the normal fluid and superfluid densities. Eqs.\u00a0(\\[eq:Schwarz\\]) and (\\[eq:BS3\\]) are solved in the imposed superflow\u2019s reference frame. This model is the most used in the literature, from the pioneering work of Schwarz [@Schwarz] to the recent calculations of Tsubota and collaborators [@Adachi].\n\n2.  [**Synthetic turbulence.**]{} To model turbulence generated by pushing helium through pipes or channels [@Salort] using plungers or bellows or by stirring it with grids [@Donnelly-grid] or propellers [@Tabeling], we start from the observation that, due to liquid helium\u2019s small viscosity $\\mu$, the normal fluid\u2019s Reynolds number ${\\rm Re}=V D/\\nu_n$ is usually large (where $V$ is the rms velocity and $\\nu_n=\\mu/\\rho_n$ the kinematic viscosity), hence we expect the normal fluid to be turbulent. We assume ${{\\bf {v}}}_s^{ext}={\\bf 0}$ and [@Osborne-2006]\n\n    $${{\\bf {v}}}_n^{ext}({{\\bf {s}}},t)=\\sum_{m=1}^{M}({\\bf A}_m \\times {\\bf k}_m \\cos{\\phi_m}\n    +{\\bf B}_m \\times {\\bf k}_m \\sin{\\phi_m}),\n    \\label{eq:KS}$$\n\n    where $\\phi_m={{\\bf {k}}}_m \\cdot {{\\bf {s}}}+ f_m t$, ${{\\bf {k}}}_m$ are wavevectors and $f_m=\\sqrt{k^3_m E(k_m)}$ are angular frequencies. The random parameters ${\\bf A}_m$, ${\\bf B}_m$ and ${\\bf k}_m$ are chosen so that the normal fluid\u2019s energy spectrum obeys Kolmogorov\u2019s scaling $E(k_m)\\propto k_m^{-5/3}$ in the inertial range $k_1<k< k_M$, where $k_1 \\approx 2 \\pi/D$ and $k_M$ correspond to the outer scale of the turbulence and the dissipation length scale respectively. Then we define the Reynolds number via ${\\rm Re}=(k_M/k_1)^{4/3}$. The synthetic turbulent flow defined by Eq.\u00a0(\\[eq:KS\\]) is solenoidal, time-dependent, and compares well with Lagrangian statistics obtained in experiments and direct numerical simulations of the Navier-Stokes equation. It is therefore physically realistic and numerically convenient to model current experiments on grid or propeller generated superfluid turbulence.\n\n3.  [**Frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence.**]{} Synthetic turbulence, being essentially the superposition of random waves, lacks the intense regions of concentrated vorticity which are typical of classical turbulence [@Frisch]. For this reason we consider a third model: a turbulent flow ${{\\bf {v}}}_n^{ext}$ obtained by direct numerical simulation (DNS) of the classical Navier-Stokes equation in a periodic box with no mean flow. Since the simultaneous calculation of superfluid vortices and turbulent normal fluid would be prohibitively expensive, we limit ourselves to a time snapshot of ${{\\bf {v}}}_n^{ext}$. In other words, we determine the vortex lines under a \u2019frozen\u2018 turbulent normal fluid. Our source for the DNS data is the John Hopkins Turbulence Database [@JHTDB1; @JHTDB2], which consists of a velocity field on a $1024^3$ spatial mesh. The estimated Reynolds number is ${\\rm Re} \\approx (L_0/\\eta_0)^{4/3}=3205$ where $L_0$ is the integral scale and $\\eta_0$ the Kolmogorov scale. Although ${\\rm Re}=3205$ is not a very large Reynolds number, at $T=1.9~K$ helium\u2019s viscosity is $\\mu=1.347 \\times 10^{-5}~\\rm g/(cm~ s)$, the normal fluid density is $\\rho_n=0.0611~\\rm g/cm^3$, the kinematic viscosity is $\\nu_n=\\mu/\\rho_n=0.22 \\times 10^{-3}~\\rm cm/s$ [@DB], and therefore ${\\rm Re}=UD/\\nu_n=3205$ corresponds to the reasonable speed $U=0.7~\\rm cm/s$ in a typical $D=1~\\rm cm$ channel. To keep the resulting vortex line density of this model to a computationally practical value, we rescale the velocity components such that they are 60 percent of their original values, thus obtaining the vortex line density $L \\approx 20,0000~\\rm cm^{-2}$. To obtain Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:11\\] the scaling factor is only 45 percent, yielding $L \\approx 6,000~\\rm cm^{-2}$; because of the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equation, this procedure is clearly an approximation but is sufficient for our aim of driving a less intense of more intense vortex tangle.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\] shows the magnitude of the normal velocity field plotted (at a fixed time $t$) on the $xy$ plane at $z=0$, corresponding to models 2 and 3 (we do not plot the normal fluid velocity for model 1 because it is uniform). It is apparent that models 1, 2 and 3 represent a progression of increasing complexity of the driving normal flow. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:1\\], note in particular the localized regions of strong velocity which appear in model 3.\n\nResults\n=======\n\nThe intensity of the turbulence is measured by the vortex line density $L=\\Lambda/V$ (where $\\Lambda$ is the superfluid vortex length in the volume $V=D^3$), which we monitor for a sufficiently long time, such that the properties which we report, refer to a statistically steady state of turbulence fluctuating about a certain average $L$ (we choose parameters so that $L$ is typical of experiments).\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\] shows the initial transient of the vortex line density followed by the saturation to statistically steady-states of turbulence corresponding to model 1 (uniform normal flow), model 2 (synthetic normal flow turbulence) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence). In all cases, the intensity of the drive is chosen to generate approximately the same vortex line density, $L \\approx 20,000~\\rm cm^{-2}$.\n\nSnapshots of the vortex tangles are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:3\\]. The vortex tangle driven by the uniform normal fluid (model 1, left) appears visually as the most homogeneous; the vortex tangle driven by the frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3, right) appears as the least homogeneous. What is not apparent in the figure is the mild anisotropy of the tangle driven by the uniform normal fluid. To quantify this anisotropy, we calculate the projected vortex lengths in the three Cartesian directions ($\\Lambda_x$, $\\Lambda_y$, $\\Lambda_z$) and find $\\Lambda_x/\\Lambda=0.34 <  \\Lambda_y/\\Lambda=\\Lambda_z/\\Lambda=0.54$ for model 1, confirming a small flattening of the vortices in the yz plane (this effect was discovered by the early investigations of Schwarz [@Schwarz]). In comparison, models 2 and 3 are more isotropic: for model 2 (tangle driven by synthetic turbulence) we find $\\Lambda_x/\\Lambda=0.50$, $\\Lambda_y/\\Lambda=0.47$ and $\\Lambda_z/\\Lambda=0.49$), and for model 3 (tangle driven by frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence) we obtain $\\Lambda_x/\\Lambda=0.48$, $\\Lambda_y/\\Lambda=0.50$, $\\Lambda_z/\\Lambda=0.49$.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:4\\] and \\[fig:5\\] shows the average curvature $C=< C_j>$ (sampled over the discretization points $j=1, \\cdots N$) and the distributions of local curvatures $C_j=\\vert {{\\bf {s}}}_j'' \\vert$. The tangle generated by model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence) has the smallest average curvature: the presence of long lines (large radius of curvature $R=1/\\vert {{\\bf {s}}}'' \\vert$) is indeed visible in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\]. In terms of curvature, the tangles generated by models 1 and 2 are more similar to each other - the average curvature is almost twice as large as for model 3, indicating that the vortex lines are more in the form of small loops.\n\nHowever, vortex line density (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\]), visual inspection (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:3\\]) and curvature (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:4\\] and \\[fig:5\\]) do not carry information about the [*orientation*]{} of the vortex lines, a crucial ingredient of the dynamics. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:6\\] shows the energy spectrum $E_s(k)$, defined by $$\\frac{1}{V} \\int_V \\frac{1}{2}{\\bf v}_s^2 dV=\\int_0^{\\infty} E_s(k) dk\n\\label{eq:spectrum}$$\n\nwhere $k$ is the magnitude of the three-dimensional wavevector. The energy spectrum describes the distribution of kinetic energy over the length scales. The spectra of the tangles generated by synthetic normal flow turbulence (model 2) and by the frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3) are consistent with the classical Kolmogorov scaling $E_s(k) \\sim k^{-5/3}$ for $k < k_{\\ell}=2 \\pi/\\ell$; the kinetic energy is clearly concentrated at the largest length scales (small $k$). In contrast, the spectrum of the tangle generated by the uniform normal fluid (model 1) peaks at the intermediate length scales, and at large wavenumbers is consistent with the shallower $k^{-1}$ dependence of individual vortex lines.\n\nA natural question to ask is whether our results are affected by the particular vortex reconnection algorithm used. In principle, both the large $k$ region and the small $k$ region of the spectrum could be affected: the former, because vortex reconnections involve changes of the geometry of the vortices at small length scales, the latter because the energy flux may be affected. To rule out this possibility we have performed simulations using the reconnection algorithm of Kondaurova et al. [@Kondaurova], which tests whether vortex filaments would cross each others path during the next time step (for details, see also ref.\u00a0[@Baggaley-reconnections]). Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:7\\]) is very similar to Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:6\\]), confirming that the shape of the energy spectra does not depend on the reconnection algorithm.\n\nIt is also instructive to examine the spatial distribution of the superfluid energy densities arising from the three normal fluid models: Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:8\\] displays the superfluid energy density $\\epsilon_s=\\vert {{\\bf {v}}}_s  \\vert^2/2$ on the $xy$ plane averaged over $z$. The left panel (model 1, uniform normal flow) shows that $\\epsilon_s$ is approximately constant, that is to say the vortex tangle is homogeneous; the middle and right panels (model 2 and 3 for synthetic normal flow turbulence and frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence) show that the energy density is increasingly nonhomogeneous, particularly model 3. The localized regions of large energy density correspond to vortex lines which are locally parallel to each other, reinforcing each other\u2019s velocity field rather than cancelling it out.\n\nThe natural question which we ask is what is the cause of the spectral difference shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:6\\]. To answer the question we examine the local and nonlocal contributions to the superfluid velocity, defined according to Equation\u00a0\\[eq:BS3\\]. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:9\\] shows the fraction $v^{non}/v^{self}$ of the superfluid velocity which arises from nonlocal contributions, where $v^{non}=<\\vert {{\\bf {v}}}_{non}({{\\bf {s}}}_j)\\vert>$ and $v^{self}=<\\vert {{\\bf {v}}}_{self}({{\\bf {s}}}_j)\\vert>$ are sampled over the discretization points $j=1, \\cdots N$ at a given time $t$. The difference is striking. Nonlocal effects are responsible for only 25 percent of the total superfluid velocity field in the tangle generated by the uniform normal fluid (model 1), for 45 percent in the tangle generated by synthetic normal flow turbulence (model 2), and for more than 60 percent in the tangle generated by frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3).\n\nFinally, we explore the dependence of the result on the vortex line density $L$ by generating statistically steady states of turbulence driven by uniform normal fluid (model 1) and synthetic turbulence (model 2) with different values of $L$, see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:10\\]. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:11\\] shows that for model 1 (uniform normal flow) the relative importance of nonlocal contributions remains constant at about 25 percent over a wide range of vortex line density, from $L \\approx 6000$ to $L \\approx 20,000~ {\\rm cm^{-2}}$, whereas for model 2 (synthetic normal flow turbulence) and 3 (frozen Navier\u2013Stokes turbulence), it increases with $L$.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nTurbulent vortex tangles can be produced in the laboratory using various means: by imposing a flux of heat, by pushing liquid helium\u00a0II through pipes, or by stirring it with moving objects. The numerical experiments presented here show that reporting the vortex line density $L$ is not enough to characterize the nature of the superfluid turbulence which can be generated in helium\u00a0II. Vortex tangles with the same value of $L$ may have very different energy spectra, depending on the normal fluid flow which feeds energy into the vortex lines, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:6\\]. If the normal fluid is turbulent, energy is contained in the large eddies and is distributed over the length scales consistent with the classical $k^{-5/3}$ Kolmogorov law at large $k$, suggesting the presence of a Richardson cascade. If the normal fluid is uniform, most of the energy is contained at the intermediate length scales, and the energy spectrum scales consistently with $k^{-1}$ at large $k$. Using a terminology already in the literature, we identify these two forms of superfluid turbulence as \u2018Kolmogorov tangles\u2019 and \u2018Vinen tangles\u2019 respectively.\n\nThe superfluid velocity field is determined by the instantaneous configuration of vortex lines. Since the superfluid velocity field decays only as $1/r$ away from the axis of a quantum vortex line, the interaction between vortex lines is long-ranged, at least in principle. By examining the ratio of local and nonlocal contributions to the total velocity field, we have determined that in Vinen tangles far-field effects tend to cancel out ($v_s^{non}/v_s^{self} \\approx 25 \\%$ independently of $L$), the motion of a vortex line is mainly determined by its local curvature, and the vortex tangle is homogeneous. In Kolmogorov tangles, on the contrary, nonlocal effects are dominant and increase with the vortex line density; this stronger vortex-vortex interaction leads to the clustering of vortex lines, for which the vortex tangle is much less homogeneous and contains coherent vorticity regions, in analogy to what happens in ordinary turbulence. The presence of intermittency effects such as coherent structures in the driving normal fluid, which we have explored with model 3, enhances the formation of superfluid vortex bundles, resulting in a more inhomogeneous superfluid energy and in larger nonlocal contributions to the vortex lines\u2019 dynamics.\n\nFuture work will explore the problem for turbulence with nonzero mean flow.\n\nWe thank Kalin Kanov for help with DNS data.\n\n[10]{}\n\nR.J. Donnelly (1991) [*Quantized Vortices In Helium II*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).\n\nC.F. Barenghi, L. Skrbek and K.R. Sreenivasan, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA [**111**]{}, 4647 (2014).\n\nS. Nemirovskii, Phys. Rep. [**524**]{} 85 (2013)\n\nW.\u00a0F. Vinen and J.\u00a0J. Niemela, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**128**]{}, 167 (2002).\n\nL. Skrbek and K.R. Sreenivasan, Phys. Fluids [**24**]{}, 0113 (2012).\n\nW.F. Vinen, Proc. R. Soc. A [**240**]{} 114 (1957).\n\nP.M. Walmsley and A.I. Golov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 245301 (2008).\n\nA.W. Baggaley, C.F. Barenghi, and Y.A. Sergeev, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 060501 (2012).\n\nG.E. Volovik J. Low Temp. Phys. [**136**]{}, 309 (2004).\n\nM.R. Smith, R.J. Donnelly, N. Goldenfeld, and W.F. Vinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{} 2583 (1993).\n\nJ. Maurer, and P. Tabeling, Europhys. Lett. [**43**]{}, 29 (1998).\n\nJ. Salort J, et al., Phys. Fluids [**22**]{}, 125102 (2010).\n\nA.W. Baggaley, L.K. Sherwin, C.F. Barenghi, and Y.A. Sergeev, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 104501 (2012).\n\nA.W. Baggaley, C.F. Barenghi, A. Shukurov, and Y.A. Sergeev, Europhys. Lett. [**98**]{}, 26002 (2012).\n\nA.W. Baggaley, J. Laurie, and C.F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 205304 (2012).\n\nU. Frisch, [*Turbulence. The legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995).\n\nP.G. Saffman, [*Vortex Dynamics*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992).\n\nN.P. Proukakis and B. Jackson, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. [**40**]{}, 203002 (2008)\n\nK.W. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 2398 (1988).\n\nK.W. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{}, 5782 (1985).\n\nC. F. Barenghi, R. J. Donnelly, W. F. Vinen, J. Low Temp. Physics [**52**]{}, 189 (1983).\n\nR. J. Donnelly, C. F. Barenghi, J. Phys. Chem. Reference Data [**27**]{}, 1217 (1998).\n\nJ. Koplik and H. Levine, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1375 (1993).\n\nG.P. Bewley, M.S. Paoletti, K.R. Sreenivasan, and D.P. Lathrop, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA [**105**]{}, 13707 (2008).\n\nS. Zuccher, M. Caliari, and C.F. Barenghi (2012), Phys. Fluids (24): 125108.\n\nA.J. Allen, S. Zuccher, M. Caliari, N.P. Proukakis, N.G. Parker, and C.F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 013601 (2014).\n\nA.W. Baggaley, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**168**]{}, 18 (2012).\n\nA.W. Baggaley, and C.F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. E [**84**]{}, 067301 (2011).\n\nA.W. Baggaley and R. H\u00e4nninen, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA [**111**]{}, 4667 (2014)\n\nH. Adachi, S. Fujiyama, and M. Tsubota, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 104511 (2010).\n\nA.W. Baggaley and C.F. Barenghi, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**66**]{}, 3 (2012).\n\nD.R. Osborne, J.C. Vassilicos, K. Sung, and J.D. Haigh (2006), Phys. Rev. E [**74**]{}, 036309 (2006).\n\nThe data set is available at the website [*turbulence.pha.jhu.edu*]{}\n\nY. Li, E. Perlman, M. Wan, Y. Yang, R. Burns, C. Meneveau, R. Burns, S. Chen, A. Szalay & G. Eyink. J. Turbulence [**9**]{}, No. 31 (2008).\n\nL.P. Kondaurova, V.A. Andryuschenko, and S.K. Nemirovskii, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**150**]{}, 415 (2008).\n\n![(color online). Magnitude of the driving normal fluid velocity field, $\\vert {{\\bf {v}}}_n^{ext} \\vert$, plotted on the $xy$-plane at $z=0$ corresponding to model 2 (synthetic normal flow turbulence, left) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence, right). The velocity scales (cm/s) are shown at right of each panel. Note the more localized, more intense regions of velocity which are present in model 3. []{data-label=\"fig:1\"}](figure1a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"45.00000%\"} ![(color online). Magnitude of the driving normal fluid velocity field, $\\vert {{\\bf {v}}}_n^{ext} \\vert$, plotted on the $xy$-plane at $z=0$ corresponding to model 2 (synthetic normal flow turbulence, left) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence, right). The velocity scales (cm/s) are shown at right of each panel. Note the more localized, more intense regions of velocity which are present in model 3. []{data-label=\"fig:1\"}](figure1b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n![ (color online). Evolution of the vortex line density $L$ (cm$^{-2}$) vs time $t$ (s) for model 1 (red line, uniform normal flow), model 2 (black line, synthetic normal fluid turbulence) and model 3 (dashed blue line, frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence). The inset displays the oscillations of $L$ vs $t$ in more detail. Parameters: temperature $T=1.9~\\rm K$, $V_n=1~\\rm cm/s$ (for model 1), ${\\rm Re}= 79.44$ (for model 2), and ${\\rm Re}= 3025$ (for model 3). []{data-label=\"fig:2\"}](figure2.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"55.00000%\"}\\\n\n![ Snapshot of the vortex tangle for model 1 (uniform normal fluid, left), model 2 (synthetic turbulence, middle) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence, right) at time $t=20~\\rm s$ (parameters as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:2\\]). []{data-label=\"fig:3\"}](figure3a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"30.00000%\"} ![ Snapshot of the vortex tangle for model 1 (uniform normal fluid, left), model 2 (synthetic turbulence, middle) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence, right) at time $t=20~\\rm s$ (parameters as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:2\\]). []{data-label=\"fig:3\"}](figure3b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"30.00000%\"} ![ Snapshot of the vortex tangle for model 1 (uniform normal fluid, left), model 2 (synthetic turbulence, middle) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence, right) at time $t=20~\\rm s$ (parameters as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:2\\]). []{data-label=\"fig:3\"}](figure3c.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"30.00000%\"}\n\n![ (color online). Average curvature $C$ ($\\rm cm^{-1}$) vs time $t$ ($\\rm s$) for model 1 (uniform normal flow, red line), model 2 (synthetic turbulence, black line) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence, dashed blue line). Parameters as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:2\\]). []{data-label=\"fig:4\"}](figure4.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"55.00000%\"}\\\n\n![ (color online). Left: Probability density function of the curvature, ${\\rm PDF}(C)$, vs curvature, $C$ ($\\rm cm^{-1}$), corresponding to model 1 (uniform normal flow, red line), model 2 (synthetic turbulence, black line) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence, dashed blue line). Right: the same data plotted on a log log scale, where the matching slopes on the plot illustrate that we have the same Kelvin waves in all three models (because they are all at the same temperature). Parameters as in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\].[]{data-label=\"fig:5\"}](figure5a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"45.00000%\"} ![ (color online). Left: Probability density function of the curvature, ${\\rm PDF}(C)$, vs curvature, $C$ ($\\rm cm^{-1}$), corresponding to model 1 (uniform normal flow, red line), model 2 (synthetic turbulence, black line) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence, dashed blue line). Right: the same data plotted on a log log scale, where the matching slopes on the plot illustrate that we have the same Kelvin waves in all three models (because they are all at the same temperature). Parameters as in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:2\\].[]{data-label=\"fig:5\"}](figure5b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"43.00000%\"}\n\n![ (color online). Energy spectrum $E(k)$ (arbitrary units) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\\rm cm^{-1}$) (time averaged over the saturated regime) corresponding to vortex tangles generated by uniform normal fluid (model 1, top), synthetic normal fluid turbulence (model 2, middle) and frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3, bottom). The dashed lines indicate the $k^{-1}$ (top) and the $k^{-5/3}$ dependence (middle and bottom), respectively. Parameters as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:2\\]). The compensated spectra $k E_s(k)$ and $k^{5/3} E_s(k)$ in the insets show the regions of $k$\u2013space where the approximate scalings $k^{-1}$ and $k^{-5/3}$ apply. []{data-label=\"fig:6\"}](figure6a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"42.00000%\"}\\\n![ (color online). Energy spectrum $E(k)$ (arbitrary units) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\\rm cm^{-1}$) (time averaged over the saturated regime) corresponding to vortex tangles generated by uniform normal fluid (model 1, top), synthetic normal fluid turbulence (model 2, middle) and frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3, bottom). The dashed lines indicate the $k^{-1}$ (top) and the $k^{-5/3}$ dependence (middle and bottom), respectively. Parameters as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:2\\]). The compensated spectra $k E_s(k)$ and $k^{5/3} E_s(k)$ in the insets show the regions of $k$\u2013space where the approximate scalings $k^{-1}$ and $k^{-5/3}$ apply. []{data-label=\"fig:6\"}](figure6b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"42.00000%\"}\\\n![ (color online). Energy spectrum $E(k)$ (arbitrary units) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\\rm cm^{-1}$) (time averaged over the saturated regime) corresponding to vortex tangles generated by uniform normal fluid (model 1, top), synthetic normal fluid turbulence (model 2, middle) and frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3, bottom). The dashed lines indicate the $k^{-1}$ (top) and the $k^{-5/3}$ dependence (middle and bottom), respectively. Parameters as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:2\\]). The compensated spectra $k E_s(k)$ and $k^{5/3} E_s(k)$ in the insets show the regions of $k$\u2013space where the approximate scalings $k^{-1}$ and $k^{-5/3}$ apply. []{data-label=\"fig:6\"}](figure6c.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"42.00000%\"}\n\n![ (color online). Energy spectrum $E(k)$ (arbitrary units) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\\rm cm^{-1}$) (time averaged over the saturated regime) as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:6\\]), but the simulations are performed using the reconnection algorithm of Kondaurova et al. [@Kondaurova]. Note that there is no significant difference from spectra obtained using our standard algorithm, see Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:6\\]). Vortex tangles generated by uniform normal fluid (model 1, top), synthetic normal fluid turbulence (model 2, middle) and frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3, bottom). The dashed lines indicate the $k^{-1}$ (top) and the $k^{-5/3}$ dependence (middle and bottom), respectively. Parameters: temperature $T=1.9~\\rm K$, $V_n=0.75~\\rm cm/s$ (for model 1), ${\\rm Re}= 81.59$ (for model 2), and ${\\rm Re}= 3025$ (for model 3).[]{data-label=\"fig:7\"}](figure7a.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"42.00000%\"}\\\n![ (color online). Energy spectrum $E(k)$ (arbitrary units) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\\rm cm^{-1}$) (time averaged over the saturated regime) as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:6\\]), but the simulations are performed using the reconnection algorithm of Kondaurova et al. [@Kondaurova]. Note that there is no significant difference from spectra obtained using our standard algorithm, see Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:6\\]). Vortex tangles generated by uniform normal fluid (model 1, top), synthetic normal fluid turbulence (model 2, middle) and frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3, bottom). The dashed lines indicate the $k^{-1}$ (top) and the $k^{-5/3}$ dependence (middle and bottom), respectively. Parameters: temperature $T=1.9~\\rm K$, $V_n=0.75~\\rm cm/s$ (for model 1), ${\\rm Re}= 81.59$ (for model 2), and ${\\rm Re}= 3025$ (for model 3).[]{data-label=\"fig:7\"}](figure7b.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"42.00000%\"}\\\n![ (color online). Energy spectrum $E(k)$ (arbitrary units) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\\rm cm^{-1}$) (time averaged over the saturated regime) as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:6\\]), but the simulations are performed using the reconnection algorithm of Kondaurova et al. [@Kondaurova]. Note that there is no significant difference from spectra obtained using our standard algorithm, see Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:6\\]). Vortex tangles generated by uniform normal fluid (model 1, top), synthetic normal fluid turbulence (model 2, middle) and frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3, bottom). The dashed lines indicate the $k^{-1}$ (top) and the $k^{-5/3}$ dependence (middle and bottom), respectively. Parameters: temperature $T=1.9~\\rm K$, $V_n=0.75~\\rm cm/s$ (for model 1), ${\\rm Re}= 81.59$ (for model 2), and ${\\rm Re}= 3025$ (for model 3).[]{data-label=\"fig:7\"}](figure7c.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"42.00000%\"}\n\n![ Superfluid energy density $\\epsilon_s=\\vert {{\\bf {v}}}_s  \\vert^2/2$ smoothed over the average inter-vorex spacing $\\ell$, plotted on the $xy$ plane and averaged over $z$. Left: model 1 (uniform normal fluid); middle: model 2 (synthetic turbulence); right: model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence). Parameters as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:2\\]). []{data-label=\"fig:8\"}](figure8.eps){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n![(color online). Ratio of nonlocal to total self-induced velocity as a function of time $t$ $\\rm (s) $ for tangles generated by uniform normal fluid (model 1, red line, bottom), synthetic normal fluid turbulence (model 2, black line, middle) and frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence (model 3, blue line, top). Parameters as in Fig.\u00a0(\\[fig:2\\]). []{data-label=\"fig:9\"}](figure9.eps \"fig:\"){width=\"65.00000%\"}\\\n\n![ (color online). Evolution of the vortex line density $L$ (cm$^{-2}$) vs time $t$ (s) for model 1 (red line, uniform normal flow, respectively at $V_n=1~\\rm (cm/s)$ (top), $V_n=0.75~\\rm (cm/s)$ (middle) and $V_n=0.55~\\rm (cm/s)$ (bottom)), model 2 (black line, synthetic normal fluid turbulence, respectively at $Re=79.44$ (top), $Re=81.59$ (middle) and $Re=83.86$ (bottom)), and model 3 (dashed blue line, frozen Navier-Stokes turbulence, at $Re=3025$). []{data-label=\"fig:10\"}](figure10.eps){width=\"60.00000%\"}\n\n![(color online). Ratio $v^{non}/v^{self}$ as a function of vortex line density $L$ $(\\rm cm^{-2})$ corresponding to model 1 (uniform normal flow, red circles), model 2 (synthetic normal flow turbulence, black crosses) and model 3 (frozen Navier-Stokes equation, blue stars). []{data-label=\"fig:11\"}](figure11.eps){width=\"65.00000%\"}\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this paper we study the distribution of the non-trivial zeros of the zeta-function $\\zeta(s)$ (and other L-functions) under Montgomery\u2019s pair correlation approach. We use semidefinite programming to improve the asymptotic bounds for $N^*(T)$, $N_d(T)$ and $N({\\lambda},T)$.'\naddress:\n- 'IMPA - Instituto Nacional de Matem\u00e1tica Pura e Aplicada - Estrada Dona Castorina, 110, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil 22460-320'\n- 'Hausdorff Center for Mathematics, Universit\u00e4t Bonn, Endenicher Allee 60, 53115 Bonn, Germany'\n- 'Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mathematics, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Simons building (Building 2), Room 2-241'\nauthor:\n- 'Andr\u00e9s Chirre, Felipe Gon\u00e7alves and David de Laat'\ntitle: 'Pair Correlation Estimates for the Zeros of the Zeta-Function via Semidefinite Programming'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIn this paper we give improved asymptotic bounds for several quantities related to the zeros of the zeta-function (and other functions) under Montgomery\u2019s pair correlation approach [@M]. The key idea is to replace the usual bandlimited auxiliary functions by the class of functions used in the linear programming bounds developed by Cohn and Elkies [@CE] for the sphere packing problem. The advantage of this framework is that it reduces the problems to convex optimization problems that can be solved numerically via semidefinite programming. For all problems we considered this produces better bounds than any bandlimited construction.\n\nBackground\n----------\n\nLet $\\zeta(s)$ be Riemann\u2019s zeta-function. It is well-known that all non-trivial zeros of $\\zeta(s)$ are located in the critical strip $0<{{\\rm Re}\\,}s<1$, and the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is the statement that all these zeros are aligned in the line ${{\\rm Re}\\,}s=1/2$. Let $N(T)$ count the number of zeros $\\rho = \\beta + i \\gamma$ of $\\zeta(s)$, repeated according the multiplicity, such that $0<\\beta<1$ and $0 <\\gamma \\leq T$. The Riemann-von Mangoldt formula (in its weaker form) states that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{RvMformula}\nN(T) =  (1+o(1)) \\frac{T}{2\\pi} \\log T.\\end{aligned}$$ Let $$N^{*}(T):=\\displaystyle\\sum_{0<\\gamma\\leq T}m_{\\rho},$$ where the sum is over the non-trivial zeros of $\\zeta(s)$ counting multiplicities[^1] and $m_\\rho$ is the multiplicity of $\\rho$. In addition to RH, it is also conjectured that all zeros of $\\zeta(s)$ are simple, and therefore it is [*conjectured*]{} that $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{NstarNconjecure}\nN^{*}(T) \\sim N(T).\\end{aligned}$$ To study the distribution of the zeros of zeta, Montgomery defined the pair correlation function $$\\label{paircorrelfunction}\nN(x,T):=\\sum_{\\substack{0< {\\gamma},{\\gamma}'\\leq T \\\\ 0<{\\gamma}'-{\\gamma}\\leq \\frac{2\\pi x}{\\log T}}} 1$$ and [*conjectured*]{} that $$N(x,T) \\sim N(T)\\int_0^x \\bigg(1-\\frac{\\sin^2(\\pi y)}{(\\pi y)^2}\\bigg){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}y.$$ Note that by the average gap between zeros is $\\frac{2\\pi}{\\log T}$, hence $N(x,T)$ is counting zeros not greater than $x$ times the average gap.\n\nOne line of research to understand and give evidence for the conjectures above is to produce bounds of the form $$\\label{prob1}\nN^*(T) \\leq (1+c) N(T),$$ and $$\\label{prob2}\nN(x,T) \\gg N(T),$$ with $c,x>0$ as small as possible, as $T\\to\\infty$. These two problems have been widely studied with several improvements being made over the years. One of the approaches is to use some suitable explicit formula (relating sums with integrals) with an auxiliary function $f$ in some class ${\\mathcal{A}}$ and produce an inequality relating the quantity we are interested to bound with some functional ${\\mathcal{Q}}(f)$ over ${\\mathcal{A}}$. Minimizing (or maximizing) the functional over the class ${\\mathcal{A}}$ would then produce the best bound one can possibly get with that specific approach. Nowadays, this idea is a standard technique in analytic number theory (introduced first by Beurling and Selberg) and the following are some references (clearly not a complete list) where the main approach is exactly that: Large sieve inequalities [@GV; @HV]; Erd\u00f6s-Tur\u00e1n inequalities [@CV2; @Va]; Hilbert-type inequalities [@CL3; @CLV; @CV2; @GMK; @GV; @Va]; Tauberian theorems [@GV]; Bounds in the theory of the Riemann zeta-function and $L$-functions [@CC; @CChi; @CChiM; @CCLM; @CCM; @CCM2; @CF; @CS; @Chi; @Ga; @GG]; Prime gaps [@CMS].\n\nFrom our point of view, our main contribution connects here. So far the only class ${\\mathcal{A}}$ used for problems and was some Paley-Wiener space of bandlimited functions. We relax the bandlimited condition by requiring only certain sign conditions on the auxiliary function that match exactly with the very same conditions required by the linear programming bounds for the packing problem (see Section \\[prelims\\] for a detailed explanation). This relation is what ultimately inspired and allowed us to perform numerical computations to find good test functions for the functionals we derive in Section \\[prelims\\]. Furthermore, as far as we know, it is the first time this method is used in the zeta-function theory.\n\nMain Results\n============\n\n\\[thmNstar\\] Assuming RH we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    N^*(T)\\leq ({1.3208}+o(1))N(T).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Assuming GRH we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    N^*(T)\\leq ({1.3155}+o(1))N(T).\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nMontgomery [@M] was the first to show the constant $1.3333...$. This result was later improved to $1.3275$ by Cheer and Goldston [@CG]. Assuming the generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH), Goldston, Gonek, \u00d6zl\u00fck and Snyder [@GGOS] improved it to $1.3262$. To the best of our knowledge, our bounds are the current best.\n\nTheorem\u00a0\\[thmNstar\\] has an important application to estimating the quantity of simple zeros of $\\zeta(s)$. Let $$N_s(T):=\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\substack{0<\\gamma\\leq T\\\\ m_\\rho=1}}1.$$ Using the fact that $${N_s(T)\\geq \\displaystyle\\sum_{0<{\\gamma}\\leq T}(2-m_\\rho)}=2N(T)-N^{*}(T).$$ we obtain the following corollary.\n\nAssuming RH we have $${N_s(T)}\\geq ({0.6792} + o(1)){N(T)}.$$ Assuming GRH we have $${N_s(T)}\\geq ({0.6845} + o(1)){N(T)}. $$\n\nUnder the pair correlation approach the previous best result known is due by Cheer and Goldston [@CG] showing that $67.27\\%$ of the zeros are simple. Assuming GRH, Goldston, Gonek, \u00d6zl\u00fck and Snyder [@GGOS] showed that $67.38\\%$ are simple. In this way, we improved all these bounds. However, by a different technique, still assuming RH, Bui and Heath-Brown [@BHB] improved the result to $70.37\\%$, which currently is the best.\n\nCombining the above result of Bui and Heath-Brown with Theorem \\[thmNstar\\] and an argument of Ghosh, we can bound the proportion of distinct zeros of zeta. Let $$N_d(T) := \\sum_{0<\\gamma\\leq T} \\frac{1}{m_\\rho},$$ be the number of distinct zeros of $\\zeta(s)$ with $0<{\\gamma}\\leq T$. Using the inequality $$2N_s(T)\\leq \\displaystyle\\sum_{0<\\gamma\\leq T}\\dfrac{(m_\\rho-2)(m_\\rho-3)}{m_\\rho}=N^{*}(T)-5N(T)+6N_d(T).$$ in conjunction with the estimate $$N_s(T) \\geq (0.7037+o(1))N(T)$$ and Theorem \\[thmNstar\\], we deduce the following corollary.\n\nAssuming RH we have $${N_d(T)}\\geq ({0.8477} + o(1)){N(T)}.$$ Assuming GRH we have $${N_d(T)}\\geq ({0.8486} + o(1)){N(T)}. $$\n\nUsing the pair correlation approach, the best previous result known is due to Farmer, Gonek and Lee [@FGL] with constant $0.8051$. By a different technique, assuming RH, Bui and Heath-Brown [@BHB] improved the constant to $0.8466$. To the best of our knowledge, our new bounds are the current best.\n\nWe also obtain improved results for Montgomery\u2019s pair correlation function.\n\n\\[thmpaircorreltation\\] Assuming RH and we have $$N({0.6039},T)\\gg N(T).$$ Assuming GRH and we have $$N(0.5769,T)\\gg N(T).$$\n\nMontgomery [@M] showed that $N(0.68..., T)\\gg N(T)$, and in [@GGOS] it is pointed out that it is not difficult to modify Montgomery\u2019s argument to derive the sharper constant $0.6695$. This result was improved by Goldston, Gonek, \u00d6zl\u00fck and Snyder [@GGOS] with constant $0.6072$. Later, Carneiro, Chandee, Littmann and Milinovich [@CCLM] improved the constant to $0.6068...$. Assuming GRH and , Goldston, Gonek, \u00d6zl\u00fck and Snyder showed the constant $0.5781...$. To the best of our knowledge, our new bounds are the current best.\n\nResults for zeros of Dirichlet L-functions\n------------------------------------------\n\nTo obtain averaged bounds for the percentage of simple zeros of primitive Dirichlet L-functions we use the framework established by Chandee, Lee, Liu and Radziwi\u0142\u0142\u00a0[@CLLR]. Let $\\Phi$ be a real-valued smooth function supported in the interval $[a,b]$ with $0<a<b<\\infty$. Define its Mellin transform by $$\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(s)=\\int_{0}^{\\infty}\\Phi(x)x^{s-1}{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x.$$ For a character $\\chi$ mod $q$, let $L(s,\\chi)$ be its associated Dirichlet L-function. Under GRH, all non-trivial zeros of $L(s,\\chi)$ lie on the critical line ${{\\rm Re}\\,}s = 1/2$. Let $$N_{\\Phi}(Q):=\\displaystyle\\sum_{Q\\leq q\\leq 2Q}\\dfrac{W(q/Q)}{\\varphi(q)}\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\substack{\\chi  \\ (\\mathrm{mod} \\ q) \\\\ \\text{primitive}}} \\displaystyle\\;\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi}\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\big|^2,$$ where $W$ is a non-negative smooth function supported in $(1,2)$, and where the last sum is over all non-trivial zeros ${\\tfrac12}+i\\gamma_\\chi$ of the Dirichlet $L$-function $L(s,\\chi)$. In [@CLLR Lemma 2.1] it is shown that $$N_{\\Phi}(Q)\\sim\\dfrac{A}{2\\pi}Q\\log Q \\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(ix)\\big|^2{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x,$$ where $$A={\\mathcal{M}}W(1)\\displaystyle\\prod_{p\\ \\text{prime}}\\bigg(1-\\dfrac{1}{p^2}-\\dfrac{1}{p^3}\\bigg).$$ Let $$N_{\\Phi,s}(Q)=\\displaystyle\\sum_{Q\\leq q\\leq 2Q}\\dfrac{W(q/Q)}{\\varphi(q)}\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\substack{\\chi  \\ (\\mathrm{mod} \\ q) \\\\ \\text{primitive}}} \\displaystyle\\;\\sum_{\\substack{\\gamma_\\chi \\\\ \\text{simple}}}\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\big|^2.$$ The quantity $$\\liminf_{Q\\to\\infty}\\frac{N_{\\Phi,s}(Q)}{N_{\\Phi}(Q)}$$ then measures (in average) the proportion of simple zeros among all primitive Dirichlet L-functions.\n\nIn addition, for the following theorem, we require that $\\Phi(x)$ and ${\\mathcal{M}}\\Phi(ix)$ are non-negative functions. We note that we can also further relax the conditions on $\\Phi$ so to include the function given by ${\\mathcal{M}}\\Phi(ix) = (\\sin x/x)^2$, as was established in [@CLLR] and [@S].\n\n\\[thmsimplezerosofdir\\] Assuming GRH we have $$N_{\\Phi,s}(Q)\\geq (0.9350+o(1))N_{\\Phi}(Q).$$\n\nUsing the pair correlation approach, the best previous result known is due to Sono [@S], showing that $93.22\\%$ of the zeros are simple. To the best of our knowledge, our bound is the current best.\n\nResults for zeros of $\\xi'(s)$\n------------------------------\n\nWe can extend our analysis to the zeros of $\\xi'(s)$, where $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\xi(s)=\\frac{1}{2}s(s-1)\\pi^{-\\frac{s}{2}}\\Gamma\\bigg(\\frac{s}{2}\\bigg)\\zeta(s).\\end{aligned}$$ It is known that $\\xi'(s)$ has only zeros in the critical strip $0<{{\\rm Re}\\,}s<1$ and that RH implies that all its zeros satisfy ${{\\rm Re}\\,}s=1/2$. Let $N_1(T)$ count the number of zeros $\\rho_1=\\beta_1+i\\gamma_1$ of $\\xi'(s)$ (with multiplicity) such that $0< \\gamma_1 \\leq T$. It is also known that $$\\begin{aligned}\nN_1(T) =  (1+o(1)) \\frac{T}{2\\pi} \\log T.\\end{aligned}$$ We can then similarly define the function $$N_{1}^{*}(T):=\\displaystyle\\sum_{0<\\gamma_1\\leq T}m_{\\rho_1},$$ where $m_{\\rho_1}$ is the multiplicity of the zero $\\rho_1$.\n\n\\[thmn1star\\] Assuming RH we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n    N_1^*(T)\\leq (1.1175+o(1))N_1(T).\n    \\end{aligned}$$\n\nTo the best of our knowledge, this bound is the current best.\n\nDefining the functions $N_{1,s}(T)$ and $N_{1,d}(T)$ (quantity of simple and distinct zeros respectively) for $\\xi'(s)$ and using the inequalities $${N_{1,s}(T) \\geq 2 N_1(T) - N_1^*(T)}$$ and $${N_{1,d}(T) \\geq \\frac{3}{2}N_1(T)-\\frac{1}{2}N_1^*(T)},$$ that can be derived the same way as for $\\zeta(s)$, we obtain the following corollary.\n\nAssuming RH we have $$N_{1,s}(T)\\geq (0.8825+o(1))N_1(T). $$ and $$N_{1,d}(T)\\geq (0.9412+o(1))N_1(T). $$\n\nThe best previous result is due to Farmer, Gonek and Lee [@FGL], showing that more than $85.83\\% $ of the zeros of $\\xi'(s)$ are simple. To the best of our knowledge, our new bounds are the current best.\n\nDerivation of the optimization problems {#prelims}\n=======================================\n\nLet ${\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$ be the class of even continuous functions $f\\in L^1({\\mathbb{R}})$ satisfying the following conditions:\n\n1.  ${\\widehat}f(0)=f(0)=1$;\n\n2.  ${\\widehat}f\\geq 0$;\n\n3.  $f$ is eventually non-positive.\n\nBy eventually non-positive we mean that $f(x)\\leq 0$ for all sufficiently large $|x|$. We then define the last sign change of $f$ by $$r(f)=\\inf \\big\\{r>0: f(x)\\leq 0 \\text{ for } |x|\\geq r\\big\\}.$$ It is easy to show that if $f\\in A_{LP}$, then ${\\widehat}f \\in L^1({\\mathbb{R}})$.\n\nA remarkable breakthrough in the sphere problem was achieved by Cohn and Elkies in [@CE], where they showed that if $\\Delta({\\mathbb{R}}^d)$ is the highest sphere packing density in ${\\mathbb{R}}^d$ then $$\\Delta({\\mathbb{R}}^d) \\leq {\\mathcal{Q}}(f)$$ for any $f\\in  {\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}({\\mathbb{R}}^d)$ (this is the analogous class in higher dimensions defined for radial functions $f$), where $${\\mathcal{Q}}(f) = \\frac{\\pi^{d/2}}{(d/2)!2^{d}}r(f)^d.$$ With this approach they generated numerical upper bounds, called linear programming bounds, for the packing density for dimensions up to $36$ (nowadays it goes much higher) that improved every single upper bound known at the time and still are the current best. These upper bounds in dimensions $8$ and $24$ revealed to be extremely close to the lower bounds given by the $E_8$ root lattice and the $\\Lambda_{24}$ Leech lattice, revealing that in these special dimensions the linear programming approach could exactly act as the dual problem. This is what inspired Viazovska [@V; @CKMRV] to follow their program and solve the sphere packing problem in dimensions $8$ and $24$. What is interesting and surprising to us is that the same space ${\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$ can be used (but with a functional different than ${\\mathcal{Q}}(f)$) to produce numerical bounds in analytic number theory.\n\nThe general strategy to study problems and is based on Montgomery\u2019s function $$\\begin{aligned}\nF(x,T)=\\frac{1}{N(T)}\\sum_{0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T}T^{ix(\\gamma-\\gamma')}w(\\gamma-\\gamma'),\\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over pairs of ordinates of zeros (with multiplicity) of $\\zeta(s)$ and $w(u)=\\frac{4}{4+u^2}$. The first step is to use Fourier inversion to obtain $$\\label{explicit_formula}\n\\displaystyle\\sum_{0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T}g\\bigg((\\gamma-\\gamma')\\dfrac{\\log T}{2\\pi}\\bigg)w(\\gamma-\\gamma')=N(T)\\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\widehat{g}(x)F(x,T){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x,$$ for suitable functions $g$, and use some known asymptotic estimate for $F(x,T)$ as $T\\to\\infty$ (which is proven only under RH or GRH). Secondly, after a series of inequalities, we produce a minimization problem over ${\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$ for some functional ${\\mathcal{Z}}$. We then approach the problem numerically, using the class of functions used for the sphere packing problem in [@CE] and sum-of-squares/semidefinite programming techniques to optimize over these functions. The same basic strategy can be, in principle, carried out for other functions where we have a pair correlation approach. Indeed, we will also derive functionals related to the zeros of $\\xi'(s)$ and a certain average of primitive Dirichlet L-functions.\n\nBounding $N^*(T)$ and $N(x,T)$\n------------------------------\n\nUltimately, the functionals we need to define depend on the asymptotic behavior of $F(x,T)$. To analyze the function $N^{*}(T)$ we define the functionals $${\\mathcal{Z}}(f)  =r(f) + \\frac{2}{r(f)}\\int_0^{r(f)}f(x)x{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x$$ and $${\\widetilde}{\\mathcal{Z}}(f)=r(f) + \\frac{2}{r(f)}\\int_0^{r(f)}f(x)x{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x + 3\\int_{r(f)}^{\\frac{3}{2}r(f)}f(x){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x -  \\frac{2}{r(f)}\\int_{r(f)}^{\\frac{3}{2}r(f)}f(x)x{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x.$$\n\n\\[thmsimplezerosofxi\\] Let $f\\in {\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$. Assuming RH we have $$N^*(T)\\leq ({\\mathcal{Z}}(f)+o(1))N(T).$$ Assuming GRH, for every fixed small $\\delta>0$ we have $$N^*(T)\\leq ({\\widetilde}{\\mathcal{Z}}(f) + O(\\delta) + o(1))N(T).$$\n\nWe start assuming only RH. Refining the original work of Montgomery [@M], Goldston and Montgomery [@GM Lemma 8] stated that $$\\label{Fasymptotics}\nF(x,T) = \\big(T^{-2|x|}\\log T+|x|\\big)(1+o(1)),$$ uniformly for $|x|\\leq 1$. Let $f\\in {\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$ and let $g(x)={\\widehat}f(x/r(f))/r(f)$. We can then use the explicit formula in conjunction with the asymptotic formula above to obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T}  g\\bigg((\\gamma-\\gamma')\\dfrac{\\log T}{2\\pi}\\bigg)w(\\gamma-\\gamma')  = N(T)\\left[\\widehat{g}(0) +\\int_{-1}^{1}{{\\widehat}g}(x)|x|{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x + \\int_{|x|>1}{{\\widehat}g}(x)F(x,T){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x + o(1)\n\\right],\\end{aligned}$$ where the $o(1)$ above is justified since ${\\widehat}g$ is continuous and $T^{-2|x|}\\log T\\to{{\\boldsymbol}\\delta}_0(x)$ as $T\\to\\infty$ (in the distributional sense). Moreover, since $F(x,T)$ is non-negative and ${\\widehat}g(x)\\leq 0$ for $|x|\\geq 1$ we deduce that $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\sum_{0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T}g\\bigg((\\gamma-\\gamma')\\dfrac{\\log T}{2\\pi}\\bigg)w(\\gamma-\\gamma') &  \\leq N(T)\\left[ {\\widehat}g(0)+2\\int_{0}^{1}{{\\widehat}g}(x)x{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x + o(1)\\right]  = N(T)\\left[\\frac{{\\mathcal{Z}}(f)}{r(f)} + o(1)\\right].\\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, clearly we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T} g\\bigg((\\gamma-\\gamma')\\dfrac{\\log T}{2\\pi}\\bigg)w(\\gamma-\\gamma') \\geq g(0)\\sum_{0<\\gamma\\leq T} m_\\rho = \\frac{N^*(T)}{r(f)}.\\end{aligned}$$ Combining these results we show the first inequality in the theorem.\n\nAssume now GRH. It is then shown in [@GGOS] that for any fixed and sufficiently small $\\delta >0$ we have $$\\label{Fasymptoticmore}\nF(x,T) \\geq \\frac{3}{2}-|x| - o(1),$$ uniformly for $1\\leq |x|\\leq \\frac{3}{2}-\\delta$ as $T\\to \\infty$. Using this estimate and the fact that ${\\widehat}g(x)\\leq 0$ for $|x|\\geq 1$ we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{ 0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T}{\\widehat}g\\bigg((\\gamma-\\gamma')\\dfrac{\\log T}{2\\pi}\\bigg)w(\\gamma-\\gamma')& \\leq N(T)\\left[{{\\widehat}g}(0) + 2\\int_{1}^{\\frac{3}{2}-\\delta}{{\\widehat}g}(x)\\left(\\frac{3}{2}-x\\right){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x + o(1)\n\\right] \\\\\n& = N(T)\\left[\\frac{{\\widetilde}{\\mathcal{Z}}(f)}{r(f)}+o(1) +O(\\delta)\\right].\\end{aligned}$$ Arguing as before we finish the proof.\n\nTo analyze $N(x,T)$ we define the [function]{} $${\\mathcal{P}}(f) = \\inf \\big\\{{\\lambda}>0: p_f({\\lambda}) > 0 \\big\\},$$ where $$p_f({\\lambda})=-1+\\frac{{\\lambda}}{r(f)}+ \\frac{2r(f)}{{\\lambda}}\\int_0^{\\frac{{\\lambda}}{r(f)}}{\\widehat}f(x)x{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x,$$ and the [function]{} $${\\widetilde}{\\mathcal{P}}(f) = \\inf\\big\\{{\\lambda}>0: {\\widetilde}p_f({\\lambda}) > 0 \\big\\},$$ where $${\\widetilde}p_f({\\lambda})=-1+\\frac{{\\lambda}}{r(f)}+ \\frac{2r(f)}{{\\lambda}}\\int_0^{\\frac{{\\lambda}}{r(f)}}{\\widehat}f(x)x{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x +3\\int_{\\frac{{\\lambda}}{r(f)}}^{\\frac{3{\\lambda}}{2r(f)}}{\\widehat}f(x){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x -  \\frac{2r(f)}{{\\lambda}}\\int_{\\frac{{\\lambda}}{r(f)}}^{\\frac{3{\\lambda}}{2r(f)}}{\\widehat}f(x)x{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x.$$ Note that these functions are well defined since $p_f$ and ${\\widetilde}p_f$ are $C^1$ functions that assume $-1$ at ${\\lambda}=0$, and using the fact that $\\widehat{f}\\in L^1(\\mathbb{R})$ one can show $$\\lim_{{\\lambda}\\to\\infty} \\frac{p_f({\\lambda})}{{\\lambda}} = \\lim_{{\\lambda}\\to\\infty} \\frac{{\\widetilde}p_f({\\lambda})}{{\\lambda}} =\\frac{1}{r(f)} > 0.$$\n\n\\[thmsmallgapszerosofxi\\] Let $f\\in {\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$ and ${\\varepsilon}>0$. Assuming RH and we have $$N({\\mathcal{P}}(f)+\\varepsilon,T)\\gg N(T).$$ Assuming GRH we have $$N({\\widetilde}{\\mathcal{P}}(f)+\\varepsilon,T)\\gg N(T).$$\n\nIn the following we only exhibit the proof assuming RH since under GRH the proof is very similar, and the only extra information needed is in . Let $f\\in{\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$ and $\\lambda>0$. Applying the explicit formula for $g(x)= f(r(f)x/{\\lambda})$ in conjunction with we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T}g\\bigg((\\gamma-\\gamma')\\dfrac{\\log T}{2\\pi}\\bigg)w(\\gamma-\\gamma') = N(T)\\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\widehat{g}(x)F(x,T){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x\n& \\geq N(T)\\left[{\\widehat}g(0)+2\\int_{0}^{1}{\\widehat}g(x)x{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x+o(1)\\right]\n\\\\ & = N(T)\\left[1+p_f({\\lambda})+o(1)\\right].\\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\\widehat}f\\geq 0$, we have $\\|f\\|_{\\infty}=f(0)=1$. Recall now the pair correlation function $N(x,T)$ defined in . We have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T}g\\bigg((\\gamma-\\gamma')\\dfrac{\\log T}{2\\pi}\\bigg)w(\\gamma-\\gamma') & = N^*(T) +2\\sum_{\\substack{0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T\\\\ 0<\\gamma-\\gamma'}}f\\bigg((\\gamma-\\gamma')\\dfrac{r(f)\\log T}{2\\pi{\\lambda}}\\bigg)w(\\gamma-\\gamma')  \\\\\n& \\leq N^*(T) +2\\sum_{\\substack{0<\\gamma, \\gamma'\\leq T\\\\ 0<\\gamma-\\gamma' \\leq \\frac{2\\pi {\\lambda}}{\\log T}}}f\\bigg((\\gamma-\\gamma')\\dfrac{r(f)\\log T}{2\\pi{\\lambda}}\\bigg)w(\\gamma-\\gamma') \\\\\n& \\leq N^*(T)+2N({\\lambda},T) \\\\ & = (1+o(1))N(T) + 2N({\\lambda},T),\\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we have used . Then, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\frac{N({\\lambda},T)}{N(T)}\\geq \\frac{p_f({\\lambda})}{2}+o(1).\\end{aligned}$$ Noting that $N({\\lambda},T)$ increases with ${\\lambda}$, we can then choose ${\\lambda}$ arbitrarily close to ${\\mathcal{P}}(f)$ and obtain the desired result.\n\nBounding $N_{\\Phi,s}(Q)$\n------------------------\n\nDefine the following functional over ${\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$: $${\\mathcal{L}}(f) = \\frac{r(f)}{2} + \\dfrac{4}{r(f)}\\int_{0}^{\\frac{r(f)}{2}}x f(x){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x+2\\int_{\\frac{r(f)}{2}}^{r(f)}f( x){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x.$$ We have the following theorem.\n\n\\[thmnphi\\] Let $f\\in{\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$. Assuming GRH, for every fixed small $\\delta>0$ we have $$N_{\\Phi,s}(Q) \\geq (2- {\\mathcal{L}}(f) + O(\\delta) + o(1))N_{\\Phi}(Q).$$\n\nFor $Q>1$ and $x\\in{\\mathbb{R}}$, we define the pair correlation function $F_\\Phi$ by $$\\begin{aligned}\nF_\\Phi(Q^{x},W)=\\dfrac{1}{N_{\\Phi}(Q)}\\displaystyle\\sum_{Q\\leq q\\leq 2Q}\\dfrac{W(q/Q)}{\\varphi(q)}\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\substack{\\chi \\ (\\mathrm{mod} \\ q)\\\\ \\mathrm{primitive}}}\\bigg|\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi}\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)Q^{i\\gamma_\\chi{x}}\\bigg|^2.\\end{aligned}$$ Using the asymptotic large sieve, Chandee, Lee, Liu and Radziwi\u0142\u0142[@CLLR] showed the following asymptotic formula under GRH $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{FPhiasymp}\n& F_{\\Phi}(Q^{{x}},W)  \\\\ & = (1+o(1))\\bigg[1-(1-|x|)_++\\Phi\\big(Q^{-|{x}|}\\big)^2\\log Q \\bigg(\\dfrac{1}{2\\pi}\\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(it)\\big|^2{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}t\\bigg)^{-1}\\bigg] + O\\Big(\\Phi(Q^{-|{x}|})\\log^{1/2} Q\\Big)\\nonumber,\\end{aligned}$$ which holds uniformly for $|{x}|\\leq 2-\\delta$ as $Q\\to\\infty$, for any fixed and sufficiently small $\\delta>0$. Let $$N^*_{\\Phi}(Q):=\\displaystyle\\sum_{Q\\leq q\\leq 2Q}\\dfrac{W(q/Q)}{\\varphi(q)}\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\substack{\\chi \\ (\\mathrm{mod} \\ q) \\\\ \\text{primitive}}}\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi}m_{\\rho_\\chi}\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\big|^2,$$ where $m_{\\rho_\\chi}$ denote the multiplicity of the nontrivial zero $\\rho_\\chi={\\tfrac12}+i\\gamma_\\chi$ of $L(s,\\chi)$. Since $$\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\substack{\\gamma_\\chi\\\\\\text{simple}}}\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\big|^2\\geq \\displaystyle\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi}(2-m_{\\rho_\\chi})\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\big|^2$$ we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{ineqNstarwithN}\nN_{\\Phi,s}(Q)\\geq 2N_{\\Phi}(Q)-N^{*}_{\\Phi}(Q).\\end{aligned}$$ For any $g\\in L^1({\\mathbb{R}})$ with ${\\widehat}g\\in L^1({\\mathbb{R}})$ we have the following explicit formula (Fourier inversion) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\sum_{Q\\leq q\\leq 2Q} \\dfrac{W(q/Q)}{\\varphi(q)}\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\substack{\\chi \\ (\\mathrm{mod} \\ q) \\\\ \\text{primitive}}}\\displaystyle\\;\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi, \\gamma'_\\chi}\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma'_\\chi)\\,\\widehat{g}\\bigg(\\dfrac{(\\gamma_\\chi-\\gamma'_\\chi)\\log Q}{2\\pi}\\bigg)\n     =N_{\\Phi}(Q)\\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}g(x)F_{\\Phi}(Q^x,W){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x .\\end{aligned}$$ Letting $f\\in\\mathcal{A}_{LP}$ and $g(x)=f(r(f)x/(2-\\delta))$, for any primitive character $\\chi  \\ (\\mathrm{mod} \\ q)$ we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n&\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi, \\gamma'_\\chi}\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma'_\\chi)\\,\\widehat{g}\\bigg(\\dfrac{(\\gamma_\\chi-\\gamma'_\\chi)\\log Q}{2\\pi}\\bigg) \\\\ & = \\displaystyle\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi}m_{\\rho_\\chi}\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\big|^2\\,\\widehat{g}(0) \\nonumber + \\displaystyle\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi\\neq \\gamma'_\\chi}\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma'_\\chi)\\,\\widehat{g}\\bigg(\\dfrac{(\\gamma_\\chi-\\gamma'_\\chi)\\log Q}{2\\pi}\\bigg) \\nonumber \\\\\n        & \\geq \\dfrac{2-\\delta}{r(f)}\\,\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi}m_{\\rho_\\chi}\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\big|^2. \n        \\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $$\\begin{aligned}\n& \\sum_{Q\\leq q\\leq 2Q} \\dfrac{W(q/Q)}{\\varphi(q)}\\displaystyle\\sum_{\\substack{\\chi \\ (\\mathrm{mod} \\ q) \\\\ \\text{primitive}}}\\displaystyle\\;\\sum_{\\gamma_\\chi, \\gamma'_\\chi}\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma_\\chi)\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(i\\gamma'_\\chi)g\\bigg(\\dfrac{(\\gamma_\\chi-\\gamma'_\\chi)\\log Q}{2\\pi}\\bigg)  \\geq \\dfrac{2-\\delta}{r(f)}N^*_{\\Phi}(Q).\\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, observing that $$\\Phi\\big(Q^{-|{x}|}\\big)^2\\log Q \\bigg(\\dfrac{1}{2\\pi}\\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\big|\\mathcal{M}\\Phi(it)\\big|^2{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}t\\Big)\\to {{\\boldsymbol}\\delta}(x),$$ as $Q\\to \\infty$ (in the distributional sense) and that $$\\log^{1/2} Q \\int_{-(2-\\delta)}^{2-\\delta} g(x) \\Phi(Q^{-|x|}){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x \\leq 2\\log^{-1/2} Q \\int_{Q^{-({2-\\delta})}}^1 \\Phi(t)\\frac{{\\,\\text{\\rm d}}t}{t} = O(\\log^{-1/2} Q),$$ we can use the asymptotic estimate to obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\int_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}g({x})F_{\\Phi}(Q^{x},W){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}{x}\n  & \\leq \\int_{-(2-\\delta)}^{2-\\delta}g({x})F_{\\Phi}(Q^{x},W){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}{x} \\\\ & =  g(0)+ \\int_{-(2-\\delta)}^{2-\\delta}g({x})(1-(1-|x|)_+){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x + O(\\log^{-1/2} Q) + o(1)\n\\\\ & =\\frac{2 {\\mathcal{L}}(f)}{r(f)} + O(\\delta) + o(1).\\end{aligned}$$ We then conclude that $$N^*_{\\Phi}(Q) \\leq N_{\\Phi}(Q) \\left({\\mathcal{L}}(f) + O(\\delta) + o(1) \\right).$$ Using we finish the proof.\n\nBounding $N_1^*(T)$\n-------------------\n\nSimilarly to the case of the Riemann zeta-function, the functionals that we need to define depend on the asymptotic behavior of the function $F_1(x,T)$ defined by $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{5_9_18:57pm}\nF_1(x,T)=N_1(T)^{-1}\\displaystyle\\sum_{0<\\gamma_1, \\gamma'_1 \\leq T}T^{i\\alpha(\\gamma_1-\\gamma'_1)}w(\\gamma_1-\\gamma'_1),\\end{aligned}$$ where $x\\in\\mathbb{R}$, $T>0$ and the sum is over pairs of ordinates of zeros (with multiplicity) of $\\xi'(s)$. To analyze $N_1^{*}(T)$ we define the following functional $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\mathcal{Z}}_{1}(f) =r(f)+\\dfrac{2}{r(f)}\\int_{0}^{r(f)}x\\, f(x){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x-\\dfrac{8}{r(f)^2}\\int_{0}^{r(f)}x^2\\, f(x){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x  +\\displaystyle\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty}\\dfrac{2c_k}{r(f)^{2k+1}}\\int_{0}^{r(f)}x^{2k+1}\\, f(x){\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x,\\end{aligned}$$ where $c_k=2^{2k+1}\\frac{(k-1)!}{(2k)!}$.\n\n\\[thmsimplezerosofxiprime\\] Let $f\\in {\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$. Assuming RH, for every fixed small $\\delta >0$ we have $$N_1^*(T)\\leq ({\\mathcal{Z}}_1(f) + O(\\delta) + o(1))N_1(T).$$\n\nA result similar to for the function $F_1(x,T)$ defined in is also known (see [@FGL Theorem 1.1]), which is the following: for any fixed small $\\delta>0$ we have $$F_1(x,T)=T^{-2|x|}\\log T+|x| - 4|x|^2+\\displaystyle\\sum_{k=1}^{\\infty}c_k |x|^{2k+1}+ o(1)(1+T^{-2|x|}\\log T),$$ uniformly for $|x|\\leq 1-\\delta$ as $T\\to\\infty$, where $c_k=2^{2k+1}\\frac{(k-1)!}{(2k)!}$. The proof then follows the same strategy as the proof for $\\zeta(s)$ and we leave the details to the reader.\n\nNumerically optimizing the bounds\n=================================\n\nGoing back to the sphere packing problem, since we obviously have $\\Delta({\\mathbb{R}}^1)=1$, this shows $r(f)\\geq 1$ for all $f\\in {\\mathcal{A}}_{LP}$. The last sign change equals $1$ for two (suspiciously) well-known functions: the hat function $$H(x)=(1-|x|)_+,$$ whose Fourier transform is ${\\widehat}H(x)=\\frac{\\sin^2(\\pi x)}{(\\pi x)^2}$, and Selberg\u2019s function $$S(x)=\\frac{\\sin^2(\\pi x)}{(\\pi x)^2(1-x^2)},$$ whose Fourier transform is supported in $[-1,1]$ and given by ${\\widehat}S(x)=1-|x|+\\frac{\\sin(2\\pi x)}{2\\pi}$ for $|x|<1$. In particular, we can use these two functions to evaluate the functionals derived in Section \\[prelims\\] to obtain bounds, but this does not result in the best possible bounds. To obtain better bounds we use the class of functions used in the linear programming bounds by Cohn and Elkies [@CE] for sphere packing. That is, we consider the subspace $\\mathcal A_{LP}(d)$ consisting of the functions $f \\in \\mathcal A_{LP}$ of the form $$\\label{eq:subspace} \nf(x) = p(x) e^{-\\pi x^2},$$ where $p$ is an even polynomial of degree $2d$.\n\nIn [@CE], optimization over a closely related class of functions is done by specifying the functions by their real roots and optimizing the root locations. For the sphere packing problem this works very well, where in ${\\mathbb{R}}^{24}$ it leads to a density upper bound that is sharp to within a factor $1 + 10^{-51}$ of the optimal configuration [@CM]. We have also tried this approach for the optimization problems in this paper, but this did not work very well because the optimal functions seem to have very few real roots, which produces a strange effect in the numerical computations, where the last forced root tends to diverge when you increase the degree of the polynomial[^2]. Instead we use sum-of-squares characterizations and semidefinite programming, as was done in [@dLOV] for the binary sphere packing problem.\n\n*Semidefinite programming* is the optimization of a linear functional over the intersection of a cone of positive semidefinite matrices (real symmetric matrices with nonnegative eigenvalues) and an affine space. A semidefinite program is often given in block form, which can be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\text{minimize} \\; \\sum_{i=1}^I \\mathrm{tr}(X_iC_i) : \\; & \\sum_{i=1}^I \\mathrm{tr}(X_iA_{i,j}) = b_j \\text{ for } j \\in [m],\\\\\n& \\,X_1,\\ldots,X_I \\in \\mathbb R^{n \\times n} \\text{ positive semidefinite},\\end{aligned}$$ where $I\\in {\\mathbb{N}}$ gives the number of blocks, $\\{C_i\\} \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^{n \\times n}$ is the objective, and $\\{A_{i,j}\\} \\subseteq {\\mathbb{R}}^{n \\times n}$, $b \\in {\\mathbb{R}}^m$ give the linear constraints (for notational simplicity we take all blocks to have the same size). Semidefinite programming is a broad generalization of linear programming (which we recover by setting $n=1$ in the above formulation), and, as for linear programming, there exist efficient algorithms for solving them. The reason semidefinite programming comes into play here, is that we can model polynomial inequality constraints as sum-of-squares constraints, which in turn can be written as semidefinite constraints; see, e.g., [@Bl].\n\nProof of Theorems \\[thmNstar\\], \\[thmsimplezerosofdir\\], and \\[thmn1star\\]\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nTo obtain the first part of Theorem\u00a0\\[thmNstar\\] from Theorem\u00a0\\[thmsimplezerosofxi\\] we need to minimize the functional ${\\mathcal{Z}}$ over the space $\\mathcal A_{LP}(d)$. We can see this as a bilevel optimization problem, where we optimize over scalars $R \\geq 1$ in the outer problem, and over functions $f \\in \\mathcal A_{LP}(d)$ satisfying $r(f) = R$ in the inner problem. The outer problem is a simple one dimensional optimization problem for which we use Brent\u2019s method [@Br]. The inner problem can be written as a semidefinite program as we discuss below. The numerical results suggest that the optimal $R$ goes to $1$ as $d \\to \\infty$ (which is itself intriguing and so far we have no explanation), but for fixed $d$ we need to optimize $R$ to obtain a good bound.\n\nA polynomial $p$ that is nonnegative on $[R,\\infty)$ can be written as $s_1(x) + (x-R) s_2(x)$, where $s_1$ and $s_2$ are sum-of-squares polynomials with $\\mathrm{deg}(s_1),\\mathrm{deg}(s_2(x))+1 \\leq \\deg(p)$; see, e.g., [@PS]. This shows that functions of the form that are non-positive on $[R,\\infty)$ can be written as $$f(x) = -\\big(s_1(x^2) + (x^2-R^2) s_2(x^2)\\big) e^{-\\pi x^2}.$$\n\nLet $v(x)$ be a vector whose entries form a basis of the univariate polynomials of degree at most $d$. The polynomials $s_1$ and $s_2$ are sum-of-squares if and only if they can be written as $s_i(x) = v(x)^{\\sf T} X_i v(x)$ for some positive semidefinite matrices $X_i$ of size $d+1$. That is, we can parameterize functions of the form that are non-positive on $[R,\\infty)$ by two positive semidefinite matrices $X_1$ and $X_2$ of size $d+1$.\n\nThe space of functions of the form is invariant under the Fourier transform. Since a polynomial of degree $2d$ that is nonnegative on $[0,\\infty)$ can be written as $s_3(x) + x s_4(x)$, where $s_i(x) = v(x)^{\\sf T} X_i v(x)$ for $i=3,4$ are sum-of-squares polynomials of degree $2d$, we have that $\\hat f$ is of the form $${\\widehat}{f}(x) = \\big(s_3(x^2) + x^2 s_4(x^2)\\big)  e^{-\\pi x^2}.$$\n\nLet $\\mathcal T$ be the operator that maps $x^{2k}$ to the function $\\frac{k!}{\\pi^k} L_k^{-1/2}(\\pi x^2)$, where $L_k$ is the Laguerre polynomial of degree $k$ with parameter $-1/2$. Then, for $p$ an even polynomial, we have that $(\\mathcal Tp)(x) e^{-\\pi x^2}$ is the Fourier transform of $p(x) e^{-\\pi x^2}$. We can now describe the functions of the form that are non-positive on $[R,\\infty)$ and have nonnegative Fourier transform by positive semidefinite matrices $X_1,\\ldots,X_4$ of size $d+1$ whose entries satisfy the linear relations coming from the identity $I(X_1,\\ldots,X_4) = 0$, where $$I(X_1,\\ldots,X_4) = \\mathcal T\\big(-s_1(x^2) - (x^2-R^2) s_2(x^2)\\big) - \\big(s_3(x^2) + x^2 s_4(x^2)\\big).$$ Here $\\mathcal T(-s_1(x^2) - (x^2-R^2) s_2(x^2))$ is a polynomial whose coefficients are linear combinations in the entries of $X_1$ and $X_2$, and the same for $s_3(x^2) + x^2 s_4(x^2)$ with $X_3$ and $X_4$. The linear constraints on the entries of $X_1,\\ldots,X_4$ are then obtained by expressing $I(X_1,\\ldots,X_4)$ in some polynomial basis and setting the coefficients to zero.\n\nThe conditions $f(0) = 1$ and $f(R) = 0$ are linear in the entries of $X_1$ and $X_2$, and the condition ${\\widehat}f(0)=1$ is a linear condition on the entries of $X_3$ and $X_4$. Finally, the objective ${\\mathcal{Z}}(f)$ is a linear combination in the entries of $X_1$ and $X_2$, which can be implemented by using the identity $$\\int x^m e^{-\\pi x^2} {\\,\\text{\\rm d}}x = -\\frac{1}{2\\pi^{m/2+1/2}} \\Gamma\\Big(\\frac{m+1}{2}, \\pi x^2\\Big),$$ where $\\Gamma$ is the upper incomplete gamma function. Hence, the problem of minimizing ${\\mathcal{Z}}(f)$ over functions $f \\in \\mathcal A_{LP}(d)$ that satisfy $r(f) = R$ is a semidefinite program.\n\nTo obtain the second part of Theorem\u00a0\\[thmNstar\\] from Theorem\u00a0\\[thmsimplezerosofxi\\] and to obtain Theorem\u00a0\\[thmsimplezerosofdir\\] from\u00a0\\[thmnphi\\] we use the same approach with a different functional. To obtain Theorem\u00a0\\[thmn1star\\] from Theorem\u00a0\\[thmsimplezerosofxiprime\\] we also do the same as above, but now truncate the series in the functional ${\\mathcal{Z}}_{1}$ at $k=15$ and add the easy to compute upper bound $10^{-10}$ on the remainder of the terms.\n\n### Implementation and numerical issues {#sec:rig}\n\nIn implementing the above as a semidefinite program we have to make two choices for the polynomial basis that we use: the basis defining the vector $v(x)$, and the basis to enforce the identity $I(X_1,\\ldots,X_4) = 0$. This choice of bases is important for the numerical conditioning of the resulting semidefinite program. Following [@dLOV] we choose the Laguerre basis $\\{L_n^{-1/2}(2\\pi x^2)\\}$, as this seems natural and performs well in practice (it multiplied by $e^{-\\pi x^2}$ is the complete set of even eigenfunctions of the Fourier transform). We solve the semidefinite programs using sdpa-gmp [@Nakata], which is a primal-dual interior point solver using high precision floating point arithmetic. For the code to generate the semidefinite programs and to perform the post processing we use Julia [@BEKV], Nemo [@FHHJ], and Arb [@J] (where we use Arb for the ball arithmetic used in the verification procedure). For all computations we use $d=40$. In solving the systems we observe that $X_1$ can be set to zero everywhere without affecting the bounds, so that $r(f) = R$ holds exactly for the function $f(x) = (R^2 - x^2) v(x^2)^{\\sf T} X_2 v(x^2) e^{-\\pi x^2}$ defined by $X_2$.\n\nThe above optimization approach uses floating point arithmetic and a numerical interior point solver. This means the identity $I(0, X_2, X_3, X_4) = 0$ will not be satisfied exactly, and, moreover, because the solver can take infeasible steps the matrices $X_2$, $X_3$, and $X_4$ typically have some eigenvalues that are slightly negative. In practice this leads to incorrect upper bounds if the floating point precision is not high enough in relation to the degree $d$. Here we explain the procedure we use to obtain bounds that are guaranteed to be correct. This is an adaptation of the method from [@Lo] and [@dLOV].\n\nWe first solve the above optimization problem numerically to find $R$ and $f$ for which we have a good objective value $v = {\\mathcal{L}}(f)$. Then we solve the semidefinite program again for the same value of $R$, but now we solve it as a feasibility problem with the additional constraint ${\\mathcal{L}}(f) \\leq v + 10^{-6}$. The interior point solver will try to give the analytical center of the semidefinite program, so that typically the matrices are all positive definite; that is, the eigenvalues are all strictly positive. Then we use interval arithmetic to check rigorously that $X_2$, $X_3$, and $X_4$ are positive definite, and we compute a rigorous lower bound $b$ on the smallest eigenvalues of $X_3$ and $X_4$.\n\nUsing interval arithmetic we compute an upper bound $B$ on the largest coefficient of $I(0, X_2, X_3,X_4)$ in the basis given by the $2d+1$ entries on the diagonal and upper diagonal of the matrix $(R^2 - x^2) v(x^2) v(x^2)^{\\sf T}$. If $b \\geq (1+2d)B$, then it follows that it is possible to modify the corresponding entries in $X_3$ and $X_4$ such that these matrices stay positive definite and such that $I(0,X_2,X_3,X_4) = 0$ holds exactly [@Lo]. This shows that the Fourier transform of the function $f(x) = (R^2 - x^2) v(x^2)^{\\sf T} X_2 v(x^2)e^{-\\pi x^2}$ is nonnegative.\n\nWe use interval arithmetic to compute $f(0) = R^2 s_2(0)$, $\\mathcal T((R^2-x^2) s_2(x^2))(0)$, and ${\\mathcal{Z}}(f)$, $\\tilde {\\mathcal{Z}}(f)$, ${\\mathcal{Z}}_1(f)$, or ${\\mathcal{L}}(f)$. We can then compute rigorous bounds by observing that, for example, the first part of Theorem\u00a0\\[thmNstar\\] can be written as follows: Suppose $f$ is a continuous $L^1({\\mathbb{R}})$ function with $f(x) \\leq 0$ for $|x| \\geq R$ and with nonnegative Fourier transform, then $$N^*(T) \\leq \\left(\\frac{f(0)}{\\hat f(0)} {\\mathcal{Z}}(f) + o(1)\\right) N(T).$$\n\nIn the arXiv version of this paper we attach the files \u2018Z-$40$.txt\u2019, \u2018tildeZ-$40$.txt\u2019, \u2018L-$40$.txt\u2019, and \u2018Z1-$40$.txt\u2019 that contain the value of $R$ on the first line and the matrices $X_2, X_3$ and $X_4$ on the next $3$ lines (all in $100$ decimal floating point values). For convenience it also contains the coefficients of $f$ in the monomial basis on the last line (but these are not used in the verification procedure). We include a script to perform the above verification and compute the bounds rigorously, as well as the code for setting up the semidefinite programs, using a custom semidefinite programming specification library.\n\nProof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thmpaircorreltation\\]\n----------------------------------------\n\nTo obtain the first part of Theorem\u00a0\\[thmpaircorreltation\\] from Theorem\u00a0\\[thmsmallgapszerosofxi\\] we need to minimize the function ${\\mathcal{P}}$ over the space $\\mathcal A_{LP}$. We can formulate this as a bilevel optimization problem in which we optimize over $R \\geq 1$ in the outer problem. In the inner problem we perform a binary search over $\\Lambda$ to find the smallest $\\Lambda$ for which there exists a function $f \\in \\mathcal A_{LP}(d)$ that satisfies $f(R) = 0$, $f(x) \\leq 0$ for $|x| \\geq R$, and $p_f(\\Lambda) \\geq 0$.\n\nTo get a bound whose correctness we can verify rigorously we replace the constraints $f(0)=1$, ${\\widehat}f(0) = 1$, and $p_f(\\Lambda) \\geq 0$ by $f(0) = 1-10^{-10}$, ${\\widehat}f(0) = 1+10^{-10}$, and $p_f(\\Lambda) \\geq 10^{-10}$. We then use the above optimization approach to find good values for $R$ and $\\Lambda$. We then add $10^{-6}$ to $\\Lambda$ and solve the feasibility problem again to get the strictly feasible matrices $X_2,X_3$, and $X_4$. By performing the same procedure as in \\[sec:rig\\] we can verify that the Fourier transform of the function $f$ defined by $X_2$ is nonnegative everywhere, and using interval arithmetic we can check that the inequalities $f(0) \\leq 1$, ${\\widehat}f(0) \\geq 1$, and $p_f(\\Lambda) > 0$ all hold. Note that this verification procedure does not actually check that $\\Lambda$ is equal to or even close to ${\\mathcal{P}}(f)$, but the proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thmsmallgapszerosofxi\\] also works if we replace ${\\mathcal{P}}(f)$ by any $\\Lambda$ for which $p_f(\\Lambda)$ is strictly positive. To obtain the second part of the theorem, we do the same except that we replace $p_f$ by ${\\widetilde}p_f$.\n\nIn the arXiv version of this paper we attach the files \u2018P-$40$.txt\u2019, \u2018tildeP-$40$.txt\u2019, that have the same layout as the files mentioned in \\[sec:rig\\], with an additional line containing the value of $\\Lambda$. We again include the code to perform the verification and to produce the files.\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nWe are very thankful to Emanuel Carneiro and Micah Milinovich for the helpful discussions, suggestions and references.\n\n[100]{}\n\nJ.\u00a0Bezanson, A.\u00a0Edelman, S.\u00a0Karpinski and V.B.\u00a0Shah, , SIAM Rev. 59 (2017), 65\u201398.\n\nG.\u00a0Blekherman, P.\u00a0Parrilo, R.\u00a0Thomas, ,\n\nR.\u00a0P.\u00a0Brent, Algorithms for Minimization Without Derivatives, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Ch. 3-4.\n\nH. M. Bui and D. R. Heath-Brown, , Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 45 (2013), no. 5, 953\u2013961.\n\nE. Carneiro and V. Chandee, Bounding $\\zeta(s)$ in the critical strip, J. Number Theory 131 (2011), no. 3, 363\u2013384.\n\nE. Carneiro and A. Chirre, Bounding $S_n(t)$ on the Riemann hypothesis, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 164 (2018), no. 2, 259\u2013283.\n\nE. Carneiro, A. Chirre and M. B. Milinovich, Bandlimited approximations and estimates for the Riemann zeta-function, Publ. Mat., to appear.\n\nE. Carneiro, V. Chandee, F. Littmann and M. B. Milinovich, Hilbert spaces and the pair correlation of zeros of the Riemann zeta-function, J. Reine Angew. Math. 725 (2017), 143\u2013182.\n\nE. Carneiro, V. Chandee and M. B. Milinovich, Bounding $S(t)$ and $S_1(t)$ on the Riemann Hypothesis, Math. Ann. 356 (2013), no. 3, 939\u2013968.\n\nE. Carneiro, V. Chandee and M. Milinovich, A note on the zeros of zeta and $L$-functions, Math. Z. 281 (2015), no. 1-2, 315\u2013332.\n\nE. Carneiro and R. Finder, On the argument of $L$-functions, Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 46 (2015), no. 4, 601\u2013-620.\n\nE. Carneiro and F. Littmann, Extremal functions in de Branges and Euclidean spaces, Adv. Math. 260 (2014), 281\u2013349.\n\nE. Carneiro, F. Littmann, and J. D. Vaaler, Gaussian subordination for the Beurling-Selberg extremal problem, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 365 (2013), no. 7, 3493\u20133534.\n\nE. Carneiro, M.B. Milinovich, K. Soundararajan, [ Fourier optimization and prime gaps]{}, Comment. Math. Helv., to appear.\n\nE.\u00a0Carneiro and J.\u00a0D.\u00a0Vaaler, Some extremal functions in Fourier analysis II, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), no. 11, 5803\u20135843.\n\nV. Chandee, Y. Lee, S.-C. Liu and M. Radziwi\u0142\u0142, Simple zeros of primitive Dirichlet $L$-functions and the asymptotic large sieve, Q. J. Math 65 (2014), no. 1, 63\u201387.\n\nV. Chandee and K. Soundararajan, Bounding $|\\zeta(1/2+it)|$ on the Riemann hypothesis, Bull. London Math. Soc. 43 (2011), no. 2, 243\u2013250.\n\nA. Y. Cheer and D. A. Goldston, Simple zeros of the Riemann zeta-function, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 118 (1993), no. 2, 365\u2013372.\n\nA. Chirre, A note on Entire $L$-functions, Bull. Braz. Math. Soc., to appear.\n\nH. Cohn and N. Elkies, , Ann. of Math. (2) 157 (2003), no. 2, 689\u2013714.\n\nH. Cohn and F. Gon\u00e7alves, An optimal uncertainty principle in twelve dimensions via modular forms, arXiv:1712.04438 \\[math.CA\\].\n\nH. Cohn and S. D. Miller, , .\n\nH.\u00a0Cohn, A.\u00a0Kumar, S.\u00a0D.\u00a0Miller, D.\u00a0Radchenko, and M.\u00a0Viazovska, The sphere packing problem in dimension $24$, Ann.\u00a0of Math.\u00a0(2) [185]{} (2017), no.\u00a03, 1017\u20131033.\n\nD. Farmer, S. Gonek and Y. Lee, Pair correlation of the zeros of the derivative of the Riemann $\\xi$-function, J. Lond. Math. Soc.(2) 90 (2014), no. 1, 241\u2013269.\n\nC.\u00a0Fieker, W.\u00a0Hart, T.\u00a0Hofmann and F.\u00a0Johansson, ,\n\nP. X. Gallagher, Pair correlation of zeros of the zeta function, J. Reine Angew. Math. 362 (1985), 72\u201386.\n\nD. A. Goldston and S. M. Gonek, A note on S(t) and the zeros of the Riemann zeta-function, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 39 (2007), no. 3, 482\u2013486.\n\nD. A. Goldston, S. M. Gonek, A. E. \u00d6zl\u00fck and C. Snyder, On the pair correlation of zeros of the Riemann zeta-function, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 80 (2000), no. 1, 31\u201349.\n\nD. A. Goldston and H. L. Montgomery, Pair correlation of zeros and primes in short intervals, in [*Analytic number theory and Diophantine problems*]{} (ed. A. C. Adolphson, J. B. Conrey, A. Ghosh and R. I. Yager), Birkha\u00fcser, Boston (1987), 183\u2013203.\n\nF. Gon\u00e7alves, M. Kelly and J. Madrid, One-sided band-limited approximations of some radial functions, Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 46 (2015), no. 4, 563\u2013599.\n\nS. W. Graham and J.\u00a0D.\u00a0Vaaler, A class of extremal functions for the Fourier transform, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 265 (1981), no. 1, 283\u2013302.\n\nJ. Holt and J. D. Vaaler, The Beurling-Selberg extremal functions for a ball in the Euclidean space, Duke Math. J. 83 (1996), no. 1, 202\u2013248.\n\nF. Johansson, Arb: efficient arbitrary-precision midpoint-radius interval arithmetic, IEEE Transactions on Computers, 66 (2017), no. 8, 1281\u20131292.\n\nD.\u00a0de Laat, F.\u00a0Oliveira, F.\u00a0Vallentin, Upper bounds for packings of spheres of several radii, Forum Math.\u00a0Sigma 2 (2014), e23, 42 pp.\n\nJ. L\u00f6fberg, Pre- and post-processing sums-of-squares programs in practice IEEE Trans.\u00a0Automat.\u00a0Control 54 (2009), 1007\u20131011.\n\nH. L. Montgomery, The pair correlation of zeros of the zeta function, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 24, Providence (1973), 181\u2013193.\n\nM.\u00a0Nakata, A numerical evaluation of highly accurate multiple-precision arithmetic version of semidefinite programming solver: SDPA-GMP,-QD and-DD, In Computer-Aided Control System Design (CACSD), 2010 IEEE International Symposium on, pages 29\u201334. IEEE, 2010.\n\nG.\u00a0P\u00f3lya, G.\u00a0Szeg\u00f6, Problems and theorems in analysis. II, Classics in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, 1998; Translated from German by C.\u00a0E.\u00a0Billigheimer; Reprint of the 1976 English translation.\n\nK. Sono, A note on simple zeros of primitive Dirichlet L-functions, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 93 (2016), no. 1, 19\u201330.\n\nJ.\u00a0D.\u00a0Vaaler, Some extremal functions in Fourier analysis, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 12 (1985), no. 2, 183\u2013216.\n\nM.\u00a0S.\u00a0Viazovska, The sphere packing problem in dimension $8$, Ann.\u00a0of Math.\u00a0(2) [185]{} (2017), no. 3, 991\u20131015.\n\n[^1]: For every sum over zeros in this article the involved quantities should be repeated according to the multiplicity of the zero.\n\n[^2]: It is worth mentioning that, in a related uncertainty problem, Cohn and Gon\u00e7alves [@CGo] discovered the same kind of instability in low dimensions.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    A function $F:\\mathbb{F}_{p^n}\\rightarrow \\mathbb{F}_{p^m},$ is a vectorial $s$-plateaued function if for each component function $F_{b}(\\mu)=Tr_n(\\alpha F(x)), b\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^m}^*$ and $\\mu \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$, the Walsh transform value $|\\widehat{F_{b}}(\\mu)|$ is either $0$ or $ p^{\\frac{n+s}{2}}$. In this paper, we explore the relation between (vectorial) $s$-plateaued functions and partial geometric difference sets. Moreover, we establish the link between three-valued cross-correlation of $p$-ary sequences and vectorial $s$-plateaued functions. Using this link, we provide a partition of $\\mathbb{F}_{3^n}$ into partial geometric difference sets. Conversely, using a partition of $\\mathbb{F}_{3^n}$ into partial geometric difference sets, we constructed ternary plateaued functions $f:\\mathbb{F}_{3^n}\\rightarrow \\mathbb{F}_3$. We also give a characterization of $p$-ary plateaued functions in terms of special matrices which enables us to give the link between such functions and second-order derivatives using a different approach.\n\n    partial geometric designs, partial geometric difference sets, plateaued functions, three-valued cross-corelation function.\\\naddress: 'Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Ankara University, Tandogan, Ankara, 06100, Turkey.'\nauthor:\n- Ay\u00e7a \u00c7e\u015fmelio\u011flu\n- Oktay Olmez\ntitle: Graphs of Vectorial Plateaued Functions as Difference Sets\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nA (block) design is a pair $(\\mathcal{P}, \\mathcal{B})$ consisting of a finite set $\\mathcal{P}$ of points and a finite collection $\\mathcal{B}$ of nonempty subsets of $\\mathcal{P}$ called blocks. Designs serve as a fundamental tool to investigate combinatorial objects. Also designs have attracted many researchers from different fields for solutions of applications problems including binary sequences with $2$-level autocorrelation, optical orthogonal codes, low density parity check codes, synchronization, radar, coded aperture imaging, and optical image alignment, distributed storage systems and cryptographic functions with high nonlinearity[@chung1989; @delsarte; @dillon1974; @ding2015; @olmez2].\n\nOne of the main construction method of designs is called difference set method. This method served as a powerful tool to construct symmetric designs, error correcting codes, graphs and cryptographic functions [@assmus1992; @bernasconi2001; @bjl; @brouwer2012; @buratti2011; @dingbook; @dingbook2; @pott; @pott2011]. This paper will focus on the links between designs and a family of a function known as plateaued functions from cryptography. Especially we will investigate the connections between partial geometric difference sets and graph of plateaued functions.\n\nA function from the field $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_p$ is called a $p$-ary function. If $p=2$ then the function is simply called as Boolean. $p$-ary functions with various characteristics have been an active research subject in cryptography. Bent functions and plateaued functions are two well-known families which has prominent properties in this field [@carlet2003; @CCC; @Carlet; @Carlet1; @Carlet2; @CarM; @Mes1; @Mes2]. These two families of functions can be characterized by their Walsh spectrum. A function $f$ from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_p$ is called an $s$-plateaued function if the Walsh transform $|\\widehat{f}(\\mu)|\\in \\{0,p^{\\frac{n+s}{2}}\\}$ for each $\\mu \\in\\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. A $0$-plateaued function $f$ is called as bent and its Walsh transform satisfies $|\\widehat{f}(\\mu)|= p^{\\frac{n}{2}}$ for each $\\mu \\in\\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. Plateaued functions and bent functions play a significant role in cryptography, coding theory and sequences for communications [@Carlet1; @Carlet2; @CarM].\n\nBoolean bent functions were introduced by Rothaus in [@rot1976]. These functions have optimal nonlinearity and can only exist when $n$ is even. In [@dillon1974], it is shown that the existence of Boolean bent functions is equivalent to the existence of a family of difference sets known as Hadamard difference sets. Boolean plateaued functions are introduced by Zheng and Zhang as a generalization of bent functions in [@ZZ]. Boolean plateaued functions have attracted the attention of researchers since these functions provide some suitable candidates that can be used in cryptosystems. A difference set characterization of these functions was recently provided by the second author. In [@olmez2], it is shown that the existence of Boolean plateaued functions is equivalent to the existence of partial geometric difference sets.\n\nIn arbitrary characteristic, the graph of $f:\\mathbb{F}_{p^n}\\rightarrow \\mathbb{F}_{p^m}$, $G_{f}=\\{(x,f(x)):x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\}$, plays an important role for the relation to difference sets, [@pott1; @tan2010]. For instance, the graph of a $p$-ary bent function can be recognized as a relative difference set. In general, a characterization of plateaued functions in terms of difference sets is not known. A partial result in this direction is provided in [@cmt] for partially bent functions which is a subfamily of plateaued functions.\n\nThere are recent result concerning explicit characterization of plateaued functions in odd characteristics through their second order derivatives in [@CMOS; @mos1; @mos2].\n\nIn this paper, we first investigate the link between the graph of a plateaued function and partial geometric difference set. We also provide several characterization of plateaued functions in terms of associated difference set properties. By using these characterization we provide a family of vectorial plateaued functions which has an interesting connection to three-valued cross correlation functions.\n\nThe organization of the paper is as follows. In Section 2, we provide preliminary results concerning partial geometric difference sets. In Section 3, we mainly provide the links between vectorial plateaued functions and partial geometric difference sets. We also provide a construction as a result of our characterizations. In Section 4, we focus on $p-$ary plateaued function. We provide several characteristics which are obtained from Butson-Hadamard-like matrices. This section also provides results concerning partially bent functions and partial geometric designs.\n\nPreliminaries\n=============\n\nLet $G$ be a group of order $v$ and let $S \\subset G$ be a $k$-subset. For each $g \\in G$, we define $$\\delta(g):=|\\{(s,t)\\in S \\times S \\colon g=st^{-1}\\}|.$$ Next we define the difference sets of our interest.\n\nLet $v, k$ be positive integers with $v>k>2$. Let $G$ be a group of order $v$. A $k$-subset $S$ of $G$ is called a partial geometric difference set (PGDS) in $G$ with parameters $(v, k; \\alpha,\\beta)$ if there exist constants $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$ such that, for each $x\\in G$, $$\\sum\\limits_{y\\in S}\\delta(xy^{-1})=\\left \\{\\begin{array}{ll} \\alpha & \\mbox{if } x\\notin S,\\\\\n    \\beta & \\mbox{if } x\\in S.\\\\ \\end{array} \\right .$$\n\nThere are two subclasses of PGDS namely difference sets and semiregular relative difference sets which have deep connections with coding theory, and cryptography [@assmus1992; @dingbook; @dingbook2]:\n\n-   A $(v,k,\\lambda)$-difference set (DS) in a finite group $G$ of order $v$ is a $k$-subset $D$ with the property that $\\delta(g)=\\lambda$ for all nonzero elements of $G$.\n\n-   A $(m,u,k,\\lambda)$-relative difference set (RDS) in a finite group $G$ of order $m$ relative to a (forbidden) subgroup $U$ is a $k$-subset $R$ with the property that $$\\delta(g)=\\begin{cases} \n    k & g=1_G \\\\\n    \\lambda & g\\in G \\backslash U\\\\\n    0 & otherwise \\\\\n    \\end{cases}$$ The RDS is called [*semiregular*]{} if $m = k = u \\lambda$.\n\nClearly a $(v,k,\\lambda)$-DS is a $(v,k; k\\lambda, n+k\\lambda)$-PGDS and an $(m,u,k,\\lambda)$ semiregular RDS is a $(mu,k; \\lambda(k-1), k(\\lambda+1)-\\lambda)$-PGDS [@olmez1].\n\nGroup characters are powerful objects to investigate various types of difference sets. A [*character*]{} $\\chi$ of an abelian group $G$ is a homomorphism from $G$ to the multiplicative group of the complex numbers. The character $\\chi_0$ defined by $\\chi_0(g) = 1$ for all $g \\in G$ is called the [*principal character*]{}; all other characters are called [*nonprincipal*]{}. We define the character sum of a subset $S$ of an abelian group $G$ as $\\chi(S):= \\sum_{s \\in S} \\chi(s)$.\n\n\\[chartheoryPGDS\\] A $k$-subset $S$ of an abelian group $G$ is a partial geometric difference set in $G$ with parameters $(v,k;\\alpha,\\beta)$ if and only if $|\\chi (S)|=\\sqrt{\\beta-\\alpha}$ or $\\chi (S)=0$ for every non-principal character $\\chi$ of $G$.\n\nFor instance, let $f$ be a $p$-ary bent function from the field $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p}$. The set $G_f=\\{(x,f(x)): x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} \\}$ is called graph of $f$. Any non-principal character $\\chi$ of the additive group of $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\times \\mathbb{F}_p$ satisfies $|\\chi(G_f)|^2=p^n$ or $0$. This observation yields that $G_f$ is a $(p^{n+1},p^n, p^{2n-1}-p^{n-1},p^{2n-1}-p^{n-1}+p^n)$-PGDS in $H=\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\times\\mathbb{F}_{p}$.\n\nWalsh transform provides interesting connections between $p$-ary functions and difference sets. For a prime $p$, we define a primitive complex $p$-th root of unity $\\zeta_p=e^{\\frac{2\\pi i}{p}}$. Let $f$ be a function from the field $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_p$ and let $F(x)=\\zeta_p^{f(x)}$. The Walsh transform of $f$ is defined as follows: $$\\displaystyle \\widehat{f}(\\mu)=\\sum_{x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}}  \\zeta_p^{f(x)-Tr_n(\\mu x)},~~~\\mu \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$$ where $$Tr_n(z)=\\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}z^{p^i}.$$\n\nThe convolution of $F$ and $G$ is defined by $$(F * G)(a)=\\sum_{x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^n} } F(x)G(x-a).$$ We will also take advantage of the convolution theorem of Fourier analysis. The Fourier transform of a convolution of two functions is $$\\widehat{F * G}=\\widehat{F}\\cdot \\widehat{G}.$$\n\nResults on Vectorial Functions\n==============================\n\nLet $F$ be a vectorial function from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$. For every $b\\in \\mathbb{F}^*_{p^{m}}$, the component function $F_b$ of $F$ from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_p$ is defined as $F_{b}(x)=Tr_m(bF(x))$. A vectorial function is called *vectorial plateaued* if all its nonzero component functions are plateaued. If the nonzero component functions of a vectorial plateaued function are s-plateaued for the same $0 \\leq s \\leq n$ then $F$ is called as *s-plateaued* following the terminology in [@mos1].\n\nThe set $G_{F}=\\{(x,F(x)):x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\}$ is called the graph of $F$. Next we will characterize vectorial functions by their graphs.\n\n\\[plateaued-PGDS\\] Let $F:\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} \\rightarrow \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$ be a vectorial function. Then the graph of $F$ is a $(p^{n+m},p^n; \\alpha,\\beta)$ partial geometric difference set in $H=\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\times\\mathbb{F}_{p^m}$ satisfying $\\beta-\\alpha=\\theta$ if and only if $|\\widehat{F_b}(a)| \\in \\{0, \\sqrt{\\theta}\\}$ for all non zero $b \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$ and $a \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$. In particular, $\\alpha=p^{2n-m}-p^{n+s-m}$ and $\\beta=p^{n+s}+p^{2n-m}-p^{n+s-m}$.\n\nA non-principal character of $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\times \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$ can be written as $\\chi_{(a,b)}(x,y)=\\zeta_p^{Tr_{n}(ax)+Tr_m(by)}$ for a nonzero $(a,b) \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\times \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$. For any nonzero $b \\in {{\\mathbb F}}_{p^n}$, the Walsh transform of $F_b$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\widehat{F_b}(a)=&\\sum_{x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}}\\zeta_p^{-Tr_{n}(ax)+Tr_m(bF(x))}=\\sum_{x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}}\\chi_{(-a,b)}(x,F_b(x)) \\\\\n    =&\\chi_{(-a,b)}(G_F)\n    \\end{aligned}$$ for any $a \\in F_{p^m}$. Therefore $|\\widehat{F_b}(a)| \\in \\{0, \\sqrt{\\theta}\\} |$ for all non zero $b \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$ if and only if $G_{F}=\\{(x,F(x)):x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\}$ is a $(p^{n+m},p^n;\\alpha,\\beta)$ partial geometric difference set satisfying $\\beta-\\alpha=\\theta$. Using the well-known *Parseval identiy*, one immediately sees that $\\theta=p^{n+s}$ and $|\\{a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}:\\widehat{F_b}(a)\\neq 0\\}|=p^{n-s}$ for some $0 \\leq s \\leq n$. The parameters of a partial geometric difference set satisfies the relation in [@olmez1] and hence we have $$p^{3n}=(\\beta-\\alpha)p^n+\\alpha\\nu=p^{n+s}p^n+\\alpha\\nu.$$ Then we see that $\\alpha=p^{2n-m}-p^{n+s-m}$ and $\\beta=p^{n+s}+p^{2n-m}-p^{n+s-m}$.\n\nTheorem \\[plateaued-PGDS\\] implies that a vectorial function $F:\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} \\rightarrow \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$ is s-plateaued if and only if its graph is a partial geometric difference set with the parameters $(p^{n+m},p^n;p^{2n-m}-p^{n+s-m},p^{n+s}+p^{2n-m}-p^{n+s-m})$. Note that Theorem \\[plateaued-PGDS\\] is also valid for $m=1$, i.e. the case of p-ary functions. Since for an $s$-plateaued $p$-ary function $f:\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\rightarrow \\mathbb{F}_{p}$, the function $bf(x)$ is $s$-plateaued for each $b\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p}^*$, we can consider $f$ as a vectorial $s$-plateaued function. The case $s=0$ is the case of vectorial bent functions and if we additionally have $m=n$, these vectorial functions are known as *planar* functions [@ColM].\n\nNext we will investigate links between vectorial $s-$plateaued functions and partial geometric difference sets.\n\n\\[diff-plateauedprop\\] Let $F:\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\rightarrow \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$ be a vectorial function. Then $F$ is $s$-plateaued if and only if $$\\sum\\limits_{a \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}}|\\{s \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\colon  y=F(s+x-a)-F(s)+F(a)\\}|=\\left \\{\\begin{array}{ll} \\alpha & \\mbox{if } y\\neq F(x),\\\\\n    \\beta & \\mbox{if } y=F(x)\\\\ \\end{array} \\right .$$\n\n$$\\begin{split}\n    \\delta((x,y))&=|\\{((s_1,t_1),(s_2,t_2))\\in G_F \\times G_F \\colon x=s_1-s_2, y=t_1-t_2=F(s_1)-F(s_2)\\}|\\\\\n    &=|\\{s_2 \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\colon  y=F(s_2+x)-F(s_2)\\}|\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$ So the criteria for PGDS is given by $$\\sum\\limits_{a \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}}\\delta((x-a,y-F(a)))=\\left \\{\\begin{array}{ll} \\alpha & \\mbox{if } y\\neq F(x),\\\\\n    \\beta & \\mbox{if } y=F(x)\\\\ \\end{array} \\right .$$ and hence $$\\sum\\limits_{a \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}}|\\{s \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\colon  y=F(s+x-a)-F(s)+F(a)\\}|=\\left \\{\\begin{array}{ll} \\alpha & \\mbox{if } y\\neq F(x),\\\\\n    \\beta & \\mbox{if } y=F(x)\\\\ \\end{array} \\right .$$\n\nThe above result can be associated with the derivative of an $s-$plateaued function. The derivative of a vectorial function is defined by $$D_aF(x)=F(x+a)-F(x).$$\n\nTo see the connection let us first replace $y$ in the expression $$y=F(s+x-a)-F(s)+F(a)$$ by $F(x)-c$ for $c \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. Hence we have $$c=F(s)-F(a)-F(s+x-a)+F(x)=D_{s-a}F(a)-D_{s-a}F(x).$$ This observation yields $$\\begin{aligned}\n &\\sum\\limits_{a \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}}|\\{s \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\colon  y=F(s+x-a)-F(s)+F(a)\\}|\\\\\n =&\\sum\\limits_{a \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}}|\\{s \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\colon  D_{s-a}F(a)-D_{s-a}F(x)=c\\}|\\\\\n =&\\sum\\limits_{a \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}}|\\{t \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\colon  D_tF(a)-D_tF(x)=c\\}|\\\\\n =&|\\{(t,a) \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\times \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\colon  D_tF(a)-D_tF(x)=c\\}|\\\\\n =&N_F(c, x)\n \\end{aligned}$$ where $N_F(c, x)$ represents the number of pairs $(t,a) \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\times \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ such that $$D_tF(a)-D_tF(x)=c$$ as in Section 2 of [@mos1]. Thus we will have the following result concerning the derivative and PGDS parameters.\n\n\\[diff2-plateaued\\] Let $F$ be a function from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p^m}$. Then the set $G_F$ is a PGDS with parameters $(p^{n+m},p^n ;\\alpha, \\beta)$ if and only if $$N_F(c, x)=  \\begin{cases} \n    \\alpha, & c\\ne 0 \\\\\n    \\beta, & c = 0 \\\\\n    \\end{cases}$$ for all $x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$ and some constants $\\alpha$ and $\\beta$.\n\nUsing Theorem \\[diff2-plateaued\\], Proposition \\[diff-plateauedprop\\] and Theorem \\[plateaued-PGDS\\], we are able to prove Theorem 8i. in [@mos1] with a different approach using the properties of partial geometric difference sets. This gives an interesting relation between the parameters of a PGDS and the second order derivatives of (vectorial) plateaued functions.\n\nA family of vectorial $s-$plateaued functions\n---------------------------------------------\n\nIn this section, we will discuss the link between vectorial $s$-plateaued functions $F(x)=x^d$ from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ and the cross-correlation function between two $p$-ary $m$-sequences that differ by a decimation $d$. An $m$-sequence and its decimation is defined by $u(t)=\\sigma^t$ and $v(t)=u(dt)$ where $\\sigma$ is a primitive element of the finite field. The cross-correlation between the sequences $u$ and $v$ is defined by $$\\theta(\\tau)=\\sum_{t=0}^{p^n-2}\\zeta_p^{u(t+\\tau)-v(t)}.$$ It can be shown that $$\\theta(\\tau)=-1+\\sum_{x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} }\\zeta_p^{Tr_n(ax+x^d)}$$ where $a=-\\sigma^\\tau$. Therefore for $F_1(x)=Tr(x^d)$, we have $$\\label{CC-Walsh}\n \\theta(\\tau)=-1+\\widehat{F_1}(-a).$$\n\n\\[cross-plateaued\\] Let $F(x)=x^{d}$ be a vectorial function from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ with $gcd(d,p^n-1)=1$. If the cross-correlation of the $p$-ary $m$-sequences that differ by decimation $d$ takes three values, namely $-1, -1+p^{\\frac{n+s}{2}}$ and $-1-p^{\\frac{n+s}{2}}$, then $F$ is a vectorial $s$-plateaued function.\n\nFor each $b\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}^*$, we denote by $F_b(x)$ the function $F_b(x)=Tr(bF(x))=Tr(bx^d)$. The walsh transform $$\\widehat{F_b}(0)=\\sum_{x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_p^{Tr_n(bx^d)}=0$$ since $x^d$ is a permutation. For each $a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}^*$, the Walsh transform of $F_b(x)$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\widehat{F_b}(a)&=\\sum_{x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_p^{Tr_n(bx^d-ax)}\\\\\n    &=\\sum_{x \\in\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}  }\\zeta_p^{Tr_n(c^dx^d-\\frac{a}{c}cx)}\\\\\n    &=\\sum_{y \\in\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}  }\\zeta_p^{Tr_n(y^d-\\mu y)}\\\\\n    &=\\widehat{F_1}(\\mu)\n    \\end{aligned}$$ where $b=c^d$ and $\\mu=a/c$. Note that any $b\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}^*$ can be written as $b=c^d$ for some $c \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}^*$. Then using Equation (\\[CC-Walsh\\]), we immediately obtain the result that $F(x)$ is vectorial s-plateaued.\n\nLet $p$ be an odd prime and $n,k$ be positive integers with $gcd(n,k)=s$. If $ n/s$ is odd then $\\gcd{(p^n-1,d)}=1$ for $d=(p^{2k}+1)/2$ and $d=p^{2k}-p^k+1$.\n\nThere are only finitely many known functions with a three-valued cross-correlation. Trachtenberg proved the following in his thesis [@trachtenberg]. Let $n$ be an odd integer and $k$ be an integer such that $gcd(n,k)=s$. Then for each of the decimations $d=\\frac{p^{2k}+1}{2}$ and $d=p^{2k}-p^k+1$ the cross-correlation function $\\theta_d(\\tau)$ takes the values $-1,-1\\pm p^{\\frac{n+s}{2}}$.\n\nThis result is generalized later by Helleseth in Theorem 4.9 in [@helleseth]. He showed that if $gcd(n,k)=s$ and $ n/s$ is odd then for the same decimations, $\\theta_d(\\tau)$ has the values $-1,-1\\pm p^{\\frac{n+s}{2}}$. Our result implies that the corresponding vectorial functions are $s-$plateaued.\n\nPott et. al. provided a classification of weakly regular bent functions via partial difference sets, [@tan2010]. In this classification authors showed that a function from $\\mathbb{F}_3^n$ to $\\mathbb{F}_3$ when $n$ is even satisfying $f(-x) = f(x)$ and $f(0)=0$ is weakly regular if and only if a $D_1=\\{x: f(x)=1\\}$ and $D_2=\\{x: f(x)=2\\}$ are partial difference sets. Later in [@olmez3], the author provided a similar classification for weakly regular bent functions from $\\mathbb{F}_3^n$ to $\\mathbb{F}_3$ when $n$ is odd via partial geometric difference sets. Next we will also show that our vectorial functions have a similar classification in the case of $p=3$ and $d=\\frac{3^{2k}+1}{2}$.\n\n\\[partitioned\\]. Let $n \\ge 3$ be an integer and $d=\\frac{3^{2k}+1}{2}$ with $\\gcd{(n,k)}=s$ and $n/s$ is odd. For $i=0,1,2$ the sets $D_i=\\{x: F(x)=Tr_n(x^d)=i\\}$ are $(3^n, 3^{n-1}, 3^{2n-3}-3^{n-2}, 3^{n-1}+3^{2n-3}-3^{n-2})$ partial geometric difference sets in the additive group of $\\mathbb{F}_{3^{n}}$.\n\nFor each $a\\in {{\\mathbb F}}_{3^n}^*$, Suppose that $\\chi_a(D_1)=x_a+y_a \\zeta_3$ with $x_a,y_a\\in \\mathbb{R}$. Actually, when we are calculating $\\chi_a(D_1)$, we are summing powers of $\\zeta_3$ as many times as the number of elements in $D_1$ for which $Tr_{n}(ax)=0,1$ or $2$. In other words, if we set $$D_{1,i}=\\{x\\in D_1:Tr(x)=i\\}, i=0,1,2$$ we have $$\\chi_a(D_1)=|D_{1,0}|+|D_{1,1}|\\zeta_3+|D_{1,2}|\\zeta_3^2=(|D_{1,0}|-|D_{1,2}|)+(|D_{1,1}|-|D_{1,2}|)\\zeta_3$$ and hence $$x_a=|D_{1,0}|-|D_{1,2}|,y_a=|D_{1,1}|-|D_{1,2}|$$ are both in $\\mathbb{Z}$. Also note that for any $x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^n}$, $$F_1(-x)=Tr((-x)^d)=Tr(-x^d)=-F_1(x)$$ and that gives us $$x\\in D_1 \\Longleftrightarrow 2x \\in D_2.$$ As a consequence, $\\chi_a(D_2)=\\overline{\\chi_a(D_1)}=x_a+y_a \\zeta_3^2$. Since $D_i$\u2019s form a partition of the additive group of $\\mathbb{F}_{3^{n}}$ $$\\chi_a(D_0)+ \\chi_a(D_1)+\\chi_a(D_2)=0,$$ and we obtain $$\\chi_a(D_0)=y_a-2x_a$$ Consider the Walsh transform values $\\widehat{F_1}(a), \\widehat{F_1}(-a)$ of $F_1(x)=Tr_n(x^d)$. $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\widehat{F_1}(-a)&=\\sum_{x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^{n}}}\\zeta_3^{Tr_{n}(ax+x^d)}\\\\\n    &=\\chi_a(D_0)+\\zeta_3\\chi_a(D_1)+\\zeta_3^2\\chi_a(D_2)\\\\\n    &=y_a-2x_a+\\zeta_3(x_a+y_a \\zeta_3)+\\zeta_3^2(x_a+y_a \\zeta_3^2)\\\\\n    &=y_a-2x_a+\\zeta_3(x_a+y_a)+\\zeta_3^2(x_a+y_a)=-3x_a\\\\\n    \\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\widehat{F_1}(a)&=\\sum_{x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^{n}}}\\zeta_3^{Tr_{n}(-ax+x^d)}\\\\\n    &=\\chi_{-a}(D_0)+\\zeta_3\\chi_{-a}(D_1)+\\zeta_3^2\\chi_{-a}(D_2)\\\\\n    &=\\overline{\\chi_a(D_0)}+\\zeta_3\\overline{\\chi_a(D_1)}+\\zeta_3^2\\overline{\\chi_a(D_2)}\\\\\n    &=\\overline{\\chi_a(D_0)}+\\zeta_3\\chi_a(D_2)+\\zeta_3^2\\chi_a(D_1)\\\\\n    &=y_a-2x_a+\\zeta_3(x_a+y_a \\zeta_3^2)+\\zeta_3^2(x_a+y_a \\zeta_3)\\\\\n    &=3(y_a-x_a).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Since $\\widehat{F_1}(a),\\widehat{F_1}(-a)\\in \\{0,\\pm3^{(n+s)/2}\\}$, $$(x_a,y_a) \\in \\{(0,0),(0,C),(0,-C),(C,C),(C,0),(C,2C),(-C,-C),(-C,-2C),(-C,0)\\}$$ where $C=3^{(n+s-2)/2}$. In the following table values of $\\chi_a(D_0),\\chi_a(D_1),\\chi_a(D_2), W_{F}(a),W_{F}(-a)$ corresponding to each possible $(x_a,y_a)$ tuple is given.\n\n[ | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c | c |]{} & $(0,0)$ & $(0,C)$ & $(0,-C)$ & $(C,C)$ & $(C,0)$ & $(C,2C)$ & $(-C,-C)$ & $(-C,-2C)$ & $(-C,0)$\\\n$\\chi_a(D_0)$ & $0$ & $C$ & $-C$ & $-C$ & $-2C$ & $0$ & $C$ & $0$ & $2C$\\\n$\\chi_a(D_1)$ & $0$ & $C\\zeta_3$ & $-C\\zeta_3$ & $-C\\zeta_3^2$ & $C$ & $C\\zeta_3-C\\zeta_3^2$ & $C\\zeta_3^2$ & $C\\zeta_3^2-C\\zeta_3$ & $-C$\\\n$\\chi_a(D_2)$ & $0$ & $C\\zeta_3^2$ & $-C\\zeta_3^2$ & $-C\\zeta_3$ & $C$ & $C\\zeta_3^2-C\\zeta_3$ & $C\\zeta_3$ & $C\\zeta_3-C\\zeta_3^2$ & $-C$\\\n$\\widehat{F_1}(a)$ & $0$ & $0$ & $0$ & $-3C$ & $-3C$ & $-3C$ & $3C$ & $3C$ & $3C$\\\n$\\widehat{F_1}(-a)$ & $0$ & $-3C$ & $3C$ & $-0$ & $-3C$ & $3C$ & $0$ & $-3C$ & $3C$\\\n\nThe tuples $(C,2C)$ and $(-C,-2C)$ are impossible since $$|\\chi_a(D_1)|=\\sqrt{x_a^2-x_ay_a+y_a^2}=\\sqrt{3C^2}=\\sqrt{3^{n+s-1}}$$ which contradicts the fact that $|\\chi_a(D_1)|\\in \\mathbb{Z}$ since $n+s-1$ is odd. Therefore the sets $D_1,D_2$ are PGDS.\n\nNext we will show that the tuples $(C,0)$ and $(-C,0)$ are also impossible.\n\nFirst note that $\\widehat{F_1}(0)=0$ since the function $Tr(x^d)$ is balanced. For a non-zero element $a$ the following holds $$\\begin{split}\n    \\widehat{F_1}(a)\\widehat{F_1}(-a) =& \\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_0)+\\zeta_p\\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_2)+\\zeta_p^2(\\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_1))\\\\\n    &+\\zeta_p\\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_1)+\\zeta_p^2\\chi_a(D_1)\\chi_a(D_2)+(\\chi_a(D_1)\\chi_a(D_1))\\\\\n    &+\\zeta_p^2(\\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_2))+(\\chi_a(D_2)\\chi_a(D_2)+\\zeta_p\\chi_a(D_1)\\chi_a(D_2)\\\\\n    &=\\left( \\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_0)+ \\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_1)+ \\chi_a(D_1)\\chi_a(D_1)\\right) (2-\\zeta_p-\\zeta_p^2)\\\\\n    &=3\\left( \\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_0)+ \\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_1)+ \\chi_a(D_1)\\chi_a(D_1)\\right)\\\\\n    &=3\\left( \\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_0)- \\chi_a(D_1)\\chi_a(D_2)\\right)\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$ We need the following auxiliary lemma.\n\nLet $S$ be a $k-$subset of an abelian group $G$ of order $v$. Then $$\\displaystyle \\sum_{i=0}^{v-1}\\chi_i(SS^{-1})= \\sum_{i=0}^{v-1}\\chi_i(ke+\\sum_{g\\in G-{e}}a_gg)=vk.$$\n\nIn the group ring $\\mathbb{Z}G$ the product $SS^{-1}=k\\cdot e+\\sum_{g\\in G-{e}}a_g\\cdot g$ where $a_g \\in \\mathbb{Z}$. Then $$\\begin{split}\n        \\displaystyle \\sum_{i=0}^{v-1}\\chi_i(SS^{-1}) &= \\sum_{i=0}^{v-1}\\chi_i(ke+\\sum_{g\\in G-{e}}a_gg)\\\\\n        &= \\sum_{i=0}^{v-1}k\\cdot \\chi_i(e)+\\sum_{g\\in G-{e}}a_g\\cdot  \\sum_{i=0}^{v-1}\\chi_i(g)\\\\\n        &=vk\n        \\end{split}$$ This holds since for any $g\\in G-{e}$ we have $\\sum_{i=0}^{v-1}\\chi_i(g)=0$ and $\\sum_{i=0}^{v-1}\\chi_i(e)=v.$\n\nUsing the previous lemma for $S=D_0,D_1$ separately, we obtain $$\\begin{split}\n    \\sum_{a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^n}}\\widehat{F_1}(a)\\widehat{F_1}(-a)&=3\\sum_{a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^n}}\\left( \\chi_a(D_0)\\chi_a(D_0)- \\chi_a(D_1)\\chi_a(D_2)\\right)\\\\\n    &=3\\sum_{a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^n}} \\chi_a(D_0D_0^{-1})- 3\\sum_{a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^n}}\\chi_a(D_1D_1^{-1})\\\\\n    &=3\\cdot 3^{n}\\cdot 3^{n-1}-3\\cdot 3^{n}\\cdot 3^{n-1}\\\\\n    &=0\n    \\end{split}$$ On the other hand, using the values from the table, we can also write $$\\sum_{a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^n}}\\widehat{F_1}(a)\\widehat{F_1}(-a)= 9(\\Lambda_1 +\\Lambda_2)C^2$$ where $\\Lambda_1=|\\{a \\in {{\\mathbb F}}_{3^n}^*:(x_a,y_a)=(C,0)\\}|, \\Lambda_2=|\\{a \\in {{\\mathbb F}}_{3^n}^*:(x_a,y_a)=(-C,0)\\}|$. This implies that for any $a\\in {{\\mathbb F}}_{3^n}^*$, $(x_a,y_a) \\ne (C,0), (-C,0)$ and hence $D_0$ is also a PGDS.\n\nBy Theorem \\[cross-plateaued\\] we have PGDS with parameters $(v=p^{2n}, k=p^n, \\alpha=p^{n}-p^s, \\beta=p^{s+n}+p^{n}-p^s)$. If $p=3$ then by Theorem \\[partitioned\\] we also have PGDS with parameters $(v=3^{n}, k=3^{n-1}, \\alpha=3^{2n-3}-3^{n-2}, \\beta=3^{n-1}+3^{2n-3}-3^{n-2})$. Here we also note that not all decimation will lead such a partition of the finite field $ {{\\mathbb F}}_{3^n}$. For instance, let $D_i=\\{x: F(x)=Tr_n(x^d)=i\\}$ for $d=3^{2}-3+1$. Then computational results imply that none of the $D_i$\u2019s is a partial geometric difference set in ${{\\mathbb F}}_{3^5}$. In general, it is a challenging task to characterize all functions which can be used to obtain a partition of a group into partial geometric difference sets.\n\nIf there is such a partition we can define a set of complex vectors $$z_{a}=(\\chi_a(D_0),\\chi_a(D_1),\\chi_a(D_2))$$ for any $a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^n}$. Let $$e=(1,\\zeta_3, \\zeta_3^2).$$ Then norm of the complex inner product of any vector $z_{a}$ and $e$ is either $0$ or $C$ for some integer $C$.\n\nLet $D_0$, $D_1$ and $D_2$ be a partition of $\\mathbb{F}_{3^n}$ and $\\lambda=3^{\\frac{n+s-1}{2}}$ be an integer. Suppose for $i=0,1,2$ each $D_i$ is a partial geometric difference set such that $\\chi_a(D_i) \\in  \\{0, \\pm \\lambda,\\pm \\lambda \\zeta_3,\\pm \\lambda \\zeta_3^2\\}$ for each nonprincipal character $\\chi_a$. If one of the cases holds\n\n-   $|D_0|=|D_1|=|D_2|$,\n\n-   $|D_i|=|D_j|=3^{n-1}-3^{\\frac{n+s-2}{2}}$ and $|D_k|=3^{n-1}+2.3^{\\frac{n+s-2}{2}}$,\n\n-   $|D_i|=|D_j|=3^{n-1}+3^{\\frac{n+s-2}{2}}$ and $|D_k|=3^{n-1}-2.3^{\\frac{n+s-2}{2}}$.\n\nand $|<z_a,e>|^2$ is either $0$ or $3\\lambda^2$ then $$f(x)=\\begin{cases} \n    0, & x \\in D_0\\\\\n    1, & x\\in D_1\\\\\n    2, & x\\in D_2\\\\\n    \\end{cases}$$ is an $s$-plateaued function.\n\nThe Walsh transform $$\\widehat{f}(0)=\\sum_{x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_3^{f(x)}=|D_0|+\\zeta_3|D_1|+\\zeta_3^2|D_2|.$$ With the conditions given in the theorem, we obtain $$\\widehat{f}(0)=\\begin{cases}\n    0 & \\text{if}\\; |D_0|=|D_1|=|D_2|,\\\\\n    3^{\\frac{n+s}{2}} & \\text{if}\\;|D_i|=|D_j|=3^{n-1}-3^{\\frac{n+s-2}{2}}, |D_k|=3^{n-1}+2.3^{\\frac{n+s-2}{2}},\\\\\n    -3^{\\frac{n+s}{2}}  & \\text{if}\\; |D_i|=|D_j|=3^{n-1}+3^{\\frac{n+s-2}{2}}, |D_k|=3^{n-1}-2.3^{\\frac{n+s-2}{2}}.\n    \\end{cases}$$ For each $a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{3^n}^*$, the Walsh transform of $f(x)$ is $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\widehat{f}(a)&=\\sum_{x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_3^{f(x)-Tr_n(ax)}\\\\\n    &=\\sum_{x \\in D_0} \\zeta_3^{Tr_n(-ax)} + \\zeta_3\\sum_{x \\in D_1} \\zeta_3^{Tr_n(-ax)} + \\zeta_3^2\\sum_{x \\in D_2} \\zeta_3^{Tr_n(-ax)}\\\\\n    &=\\chi_{-a}(D_0)+\\zeta_3 \\chi_{-a}(D_1) + \\zeta_3^2\\chi_{-a}(D_2).\n    \\end{aligned}$$ Then with the assumptions of the theorem and after some easy calculations one can show that $|\\widehat{f}(a)|^2 \\in \\{0,3\\lambda^2\\}$.\n\nResults on p-ary Functions\n==========================\n\nIn this section we will develop some tools to characterize $p-$ary $s-$plateaued functions. Our results are mimicking the results of [@olmez2].\n\n\\[Matrix-Eq\\] Let $f$ be a function from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p}$ and $M=(m_{x,y})$ be a $p^n \\times p^n$ matrix where $m_{x,y}=\\zeta_p^{f(x+y)}$. Then, $f$ is an $s$-plateaued function if and only if $$MM^*M=p^{n+s}M \\label{Mfequation}$$ where $M^*$ is the adjoint of the matrix $M$.\n\nSuppose $f$ is an plateaued function with $|\\widehat{f}(x)| \\in \\{0, p^{(n+s)/2}\\}$ for all $x \\in  \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$. Then, $$\\begin{split}\n    (MM^*M)_{x,y}&=\\sum_{z\\in\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\left(\\sum_{c\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} m_{x,c}\\overline{m_{z,c}}\\right)m_{z,y} \\\\\n    &=\\sum_{z\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\left(\\sum_{c\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} F(x+c)\\overline{F(z+c)}\\right)F(z+y) \\\\\n    &=\\sum_{c\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} F(x+c)\\left(\\sum_{w\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} } \\overline{F(w)}F(w+y-c)\\right)\\\\\n    &=\\sum_{c\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} (\\overline{F}*F)(c-y)F(x+c) \\\\\n    &=\\sum_{u\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} (F*\\overline{F})(u-x-y)F(u) \\\\\n    &=((F*\\overline{F})*F)(x+y).\n    \\end{split}$$ Let $A=(F*\\overline{F})*F$. Then, the Fourier transform of $A$ is $\\widehat{A}=\\widehat{F}\\cdot\\widehat{\\overline{F}}\\cdot\\widehat{F}$. Now by Fourier inversion $$\\begin{split}\n    A(x+y)&=\\frac{1}{p^{n}}\\sum_{\\beta \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\widehat{F}(\\beta)\\widehat{\\overline{F}}(\\beta)\\widehat{F}(\\beta)\\zeta_p^{Tr((x+y)\\beta)}\\\\\n    &=p^{n+s}\\frac{1}{p^{n}}\\sum_{\\beta \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\widehat{F}(\\beta)\\zeta_p^{Tr((x+y) \\beta)}\\\\\n    &=p^{n+s}F(x+y).\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$ Hence the equation holds.\n\nSuppose $MM^*M=p^{n+s}M$. This implies $((F*\\overline{F})*F)(x)=p^{n+s}F(x)$ for all $x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. Apply the Fourier transform on both of the sides. Then, $$\\widehat{F}(x)(\\widehat{F}(x)\\cdot \\overline{\\widehat{F}(x)}-p^{n+s})=0$$ for all $x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. Hence, $|\\widehat{F}(x)| \\in \\{0, p^{(n+s)/2}\\}$ for all $x \\in  \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}.$\n\nAn $n \\times n$ complex matrix $M$ is called a Butson-Hadamard matrix if $$MM^* =nI_n.$$ It is easy to see that a $q^n \\times q^n $ Butson-Hadamard matrix $M$ also satisfies $$MM^*M=q^nM.$$ Our result implies that $M$ can be associated with $0-$plateaued function. This indicates the well-known connection between Butson-Hadamard matrices and bent functions.\n\nAs a corollary of Lemma \\[Matrix-Eq\\], we can characterize $s$-plateaued functions with their first and second derivatives. First and second derivative of a $p-$ary function is defined by $$D_af(x)=f(x+a)-f(x)$$ and $$D_aD_bf(x)=f(x+a+b)+f(x)-f(x+a)-f(x+b)$$ respectively.\n\n$f$ is an $s$-plateaued function from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p}$ if and only if the expression $\\sum_{a,b\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_p ^{D_aD_b f(u)}$ does not depend on $u \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} $. This constant expression equals to $p^{n+s}$.\n\nSince the equation $$MM^*M=p^{n+s}M$$ holds, $$M^*MM^*=p^{n+s}M^*$$ holds too. Fix two non-zero elements $x$ and $y$ of $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ and let $u=x+y$. $$\\begin{split}\n    \\sum_{z\\in\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\left(\\sum_{c\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\overline{m_{x,c}}m_{z,c}\\right)\\overline{m_{z,y}} &=\\sum_{z\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\left(\\sum_{c\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_p^{-f(x+c)}\\zeta_p^{f(z+c)}\\right)\\zeta_p^{-f(z+y)} \\\\\n    &=\\sum_{c,z\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_p ^{-f(x+c)+f(z+c)-f(z+y)}\\\\\n    &=p^{n+s}\\zeta_p ^{-f(x+y)}\n    \\end{split}$$ Now let $z=a+x$ and $c=b+y$. Then $$p^{n+s}=\\sum_{a,b\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_p ^{-f(x+y+b)+f(a+b+x+y)-f(a+x+y)+f(x+y)}$$ holds. Thus, $$p^{n+s}=\\sum_{a,b\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_p ^{D_aD_b f(u)}.$$\n\nLet $\\Delta_f(a)=\\sum_{x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^n}} \\zeta_p^{D_af(x)}$. $f$ is an $s$-plateaued function from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p}$ if and only if $\\sum_{a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\overline{\\Delta_f(a)}\\Delta_f(a)=p^{2n+s}$.\n\nWe have $$MM^*MM^*=p^{n+s}MM^*.$$Let $$N=MM^*.$$ Then $$\\begin{split}\n    (N)_{0,a}&=\\sum_{x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_p^{f(x)-f(a+x)} \\\\\n    &=\\overline{\\Delta_f(a)}\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$ and $$\\begin{split}\n    (N)_{a,0}&=\\sum_{x\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\zeta_p^{f(a+x)-f(x)} \\\\\n    &=\\Delta_f(a)\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$ Therefore $$\\begin{split}\n    (N^2)_{0,0}&=\\sum_{a\\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}} \\overline{\\Delta_f(a)}\\Delta_f(a)\\\\\n    &=p^{n+s}(N)_{0,0}\\\\\n    &=p^{2n+s}\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$\n\nNow we will use our characterization to provide a simple construction of $s$-plateaued functions. If $A$ is an $m \\times n$ matrix and $B$ is an $s \\times t$ matrix, then the Kronecker product $A \\otimes B$ is the $ms \\times nt$ block matrix:\n\n$${\\displaystyle \\mathbf {A} \\otimes \\mathbf {B} ={\\begin{bmatrix}a_{11}\\mathbf {B} &\\cdots &a_{1n}\\mathbf {B} \\\\\\vdots &\\ddots &\\vdots \\\\a_{m1}\\mathbf {B} &\\cdots &a_{mn}\\mathbf {B} \\end{bmatrix}},}$$\n\nLet $f: \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} \\to \\mathbb{F}_{p} $ and $g : \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}} \\to \\mathbb{F}_{p}$ be $s_1$-plateaued and $s_2$-plateaued functions respectively. Let $M$ and $N$ be the matrices whose entries determined by $m_{x,y}=\\zeta_p^{f(x+y)}$ and $n_{a,b}=\\zeta_p^{g(a+b)}$. Let $P=M \\otimes N$ be the Kronecker product of $M$ and $N$. Then $$PP^*P=p^{n+m+s_1+s_2}P$$ holds.\n\nLet $P=M \\otimes N$. Then $$\\begin{split}\n    PP^*P&=\\left( M \\otimes N\\right) \\left( M^* \\otimes N^*\\right)\\left( M \\otimes N\\right)   \\\\\n    &=\\left( MM^*M\\right) \\otimes \\left( NN^*N \\right)\\\\\n    &=\\left( p^{n+s_1}M\\right) \\otimes \\left( p^{m+s_2}N \\right)\\\\\n    &=p^{n+m+s_1+s_2} \\left( M\\otimes N\\right) \\\\\n    &=p^{n+m+s_1+s_2}P\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$\n\nLet $f: \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} \\to \\mathbb{F}_{p} $ and $g : \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}} \\to \\mathbb{F}_{p}$ be two $s_1$-plateaued and $s_2$-plateaued functions respectively. Then there exists an $(s_1+s_2)$-plateaued function from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n+m}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p}$.\n\nLet $M$ and $N$ be matrices associated with $f$ and $g$ such that $m_{x,y}=\\zeta_p^{f(x+y)}$ and $n_{a,b}=\\zeta_p^{g(a+b)}$. Let $P=M \\otimes N$. We need to show that there exist a function $h$ such that the entries of $P$ can be associated with $h$.\n\nWe will index the rows and columns of $P$ by the elements of $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n+m}}$. First note that there is a subgroup $H$ of the additive group of $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n+m}}$ which is isomorphic to the additive group of $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$. Let us fix a transversal $T=\\{\\gamma_1,\\gamma_2,\\dots, \\gamma_{p^n} \\}$ of this subgroup in $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n+m}}$. Now order the rows and columns of $P$ by $\\gamma_1+H$, $\\gamma_2+H$, ..., $\\gamma_{p^n}+H$ in the block form. Here we have isomorphisms namely $$\\phi_1: H \\to \\mathbb{F}_{p^{m}}$$ and $$\\phi_2: \\{\\gamma_1+H,\\gamma_2+H,\\dots, \\gamma_{p^n}+H \\} \\to \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$$\n\nIf $x,y \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n+m}}$ then $x=\\gamma_i+u$ and $y=\\gamma_j+v$ for unique elements $u,v \\in H$. Now let us examine the $xy$-th entry of $P$. $$P_{x,y}=\\zeta_p^{f(\\phi_2(\\gamma_i+H)+\\phi_2(\\gamma_j+H))} \\cdot \\zeta_p^{g(\\phi_1(u)+\\phi_1(v))}= \\zeta_p^{h(x+y)}$$ where $h$ is the desired $(s_1+s_2)$-plateaued function from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n+m}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p}.$ Moreover if $y=0$ then $\\gamma_j=v=0$. Thus $$h(x)= f(\\phi_2(\\gamma_i+H))+g(\\phi_1(u)).$$\n\nPartially bent functions \n-------------------------\n\nThis section is devoted to investigate a family of $s-$plateaued functions known as partially bent functions. A $p-$ary function is called partially bent if the derivative $D_af$ is either balanced or constant for any $a \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^n}$. Here we will provide some characterization via their associated designs.\n\nLet $f$ be an $s$-plateaued function and for $a \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} $ define the set $$T_a=\\{x+a,f(x)+f(a): x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} \\}.$$ Fix an element $a$ of $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} $, then the graph of $f$ can be also written as $$G_f=\\{(x,f(x)): x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\}=\\{(x+a,f(x+a)): x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\}.$$\n\nLet $f$ be an $s$-plateaued function with $f(0)=0$. If $f$ has a linear structure $\\Lambda$ then $T_a=G_f$ for all $a \\in \\Lambda$.\n\nLet $f$ be an $s$-plateaued function with $f(0)=0$ and linear structure $\\Lambda$ of dimension $m$. Then the incidence matrix $A$ of the design associated with the partial geometric difference set $G_f$ can be written as a Kronecker product of $1\\times p^m$ all-ones matrix $j$ and an incidence matrix $N$ of a partial geometric design.\n\nLet $j$ be the $1\\times p^m$ all-ones matrix. Let $D$ be the block design associated with $G_f$ where the point set is $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} \\times \\mathbb{F}_{p} $ and the blocks are the translates of the graph of $f$. Suppose $\\textbf{B}$ is a block in $D$. Note that $\\textbf{B}=(u,v)+G_f$ for some $(u,v) \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}} \\times \\mathbb{F}_{p}.$ Then for each $a\\in \\Lambda$ we have $$\\textbf{B}+(a,f(a))=\\textbf{B}$$ since $$(u,v)+G_f=\\{(x+u+a,f(x+a)+v): x \\in \\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}\\}.$$ Thus each block is repeated $p^m$ many times. Therefore, $A=j\\otimes N$ for some incidence matrix $N$. Now we are going to show that $N$ is an incidence matrix of a partial geometric design. Since $A$ is an incidence matrix of a partial geometric design, $$\\begin{split}\n    AA^tA&=(\\beta-\\alpha) j \\otimes N+\\alpha J_{p^n \\times p^n}\\\\\n    &=j \\otimes (\\beta-\\alpha) N+\\alpha j \\otimes J_{p^n \\times p^{n-m}}\\\\\n    &= j\\otimes (\\beta-\\alpha) N+\\alpha J_{p^n \\times p^{n-m}}.\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$ We also have\n\n$$\\begin{split}\n    AA^tA&=jj^tj\\otimes NN^tN\\\\\n    &=p^m j\\otimes NN^tN\\\\\n    &=j\\otimes p^m NN^tN.\\\\\n    \\end{split}$$ By comparing the left hand sides we can conclude that the equation $$NN^tN=\\frac{(\\beta-\\alpha)}{p^m} N+\\frac{\\alpha}{p^m} J_{p^n \\times p^{n-m}}$$ holds.\n\nLet $f$ be an $s$-plateaued function from $\\mathbb{F}_{p^{n}}$ to $\\mathbb{F}_{p}$. Then the set $D_f$ is a PGDS with parameters $(p^{n+1},p^n ; p^{2n-1}-p^{n+s-1}, p^{2n-1}-p^{n+s-1}+p^{n+s})$. If $f$ is a partially bent function then there is an integer $s\\geq 0$ such that $f$ is $s$-plateaued and the linear space of $f$ has dimension $s$. Our observation yields the following result.\n\nIf $f$ is partially bent function then $f$ can be associated with a partial geometric design with parameters $$v=p^{n+1}, b=p^{n+1-s}, k=p^n, r=p^{n-s}, \\alpha= p^{2n-1-s}-p^{n-1}, \\beta=p^n+p^{2n-1-s}-p^{n-1}.$$\n\n[1]{}\n\nE. F. Assmus and J. D. Key. Designs and their Codes. Cambridge University Press, No. 103. (1992).\n\nA. Bernasconi, B. Codenotti, and J. M. Vanderkam. A characterization of bent functions in terms of strongly regular graphs. IEEE Transactions on Computers, Sep 1(9): pp. 984-5 (2001).\n\nT. Beth, D. Jungnickel, and H. Lenz. Design Theory, Cambridge University Press, second edition, (1999).\n\nA. E. Brouwer, O. Olmez and S. Y. Song. Directed strongly regular graphs from $1\\frac{1}{2}$-designs. European Journal of Combinatorics, 33(6): pp. 1174 -1177 (2012).\n\nM. Buratti, Y. Wei, D. Wu, P. Fan, and M. Cheng: Relative difference families with variable block sizes and their related OOCs. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 57: pp. 7489-7497 (2011).\n\nC. Carlet and E. Prouff. On plateaued functions and their constructions. In Fast Software Encryption, Springer: pp. 54-73 (2003).\n\nA. Canteaut, C. Carlet, P. Charpin, C. Fontaine. On cryptographic properties of the cosets of $r (1, m)$. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 47(4), pp. 1494-1513 (2001).\n\nC. Carlet. Partially-bent functions. Designs, Codes and Cryptography 3(2), pp. 135-145 (1993).\n\nC. Carlet. Boolean functions for cryptography and error correcting codes.Boolean models and methods in mathematics, computer science, and engineering 2, pp. 257-397 (2010).\n\nC. Carlet. Boolean and vectorial plateaued functions and APN functions. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 61(11), pp. 6272-6289 (2015).\n\nC. Carlet and S. Mesnager. Four decades of research on bent functions. Designs, Codes and Cryptography 78(1), 5-50 (2016).\n\nC. Carlet, S. Mesnager, F. \u00d6zbudak, A. S[i]{}nak. Explicit characterizations for plateauedness of $p-$ary (vectorial) functions. In: Second International Conference on Codes, Cryptology and Information Security (C2SI-2017), In Honor of Claude Carlet. pp. 328-345 (2017).\n\nA. \u00c7e\u015fmelio\u011flu, W. Meidl, A. Topuzo\u011flu. Partially bent functions and their properties. In: Larcher, G., Pillichshammer, F., Winterhof, A., Xing, C. (eds.) Applications of Algebra and Number Theory, pp. 22-40. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014).\n\nR.S. Coulter, R.W. Matthews. Bent polynomials over finite fields. Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society 56(3), pp. 429-437 (1997).\n\nF. R. K. Chung, J. A. Salehi, and V. K. Wei. Optical orthogonal codes: design, analysis, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 35: pp. 595-604 (1989).\n\nPh. Delsarte. Weights of linear codes and strongly regular normed spaces. Discrete Mathematics, 3(1): pp. 47-64 (1972).\n\nJ. F. Dillon. Elementary Hadamard difference sets. PhD thesis, University of Maryland, (1974).\n\nT. W. Cusick, C. Ding and A. Renvall. Stream Ciphers and Number Theory. North-Holland Mathematical Library, The Netherlands: North-Holland/Elsevier, Amsterdam, vol. 55. (1998).\n\nC. Ding. Linear codes from some 2-designs. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 61(6): pp. 3265-3275 (2015).\n\nC. Ding. Codes from difference sets. World Scientific Publishing Company, (2015).\n\nT. Helleseth. Some results about the cross-correlation function between two maximal linear sequences, Discrete Mathematics 16, pp. 209-232 (1976).\n\nS. Mesnager. Characterizations of plateaued and bent functions in characteristic p. In: International Conference on Sequences and Their Applications. pp. 72-82 (2014).\n\nS. Mesnager. Bent functions: Fundamentals and Results. Switzerland, Springer, pp. 1-544 (2016).\n\nS. Mesnager, F. \u00d6zbudak, A. S[i]{}nak. Results on characterizations of plateaued functions in arbitrary characteristic. Cryptography and information security in the Balkans, BalkanCryptSec 2015, Koper, Slovenia, Revised Selected Papers. In: Pasalic E., Knudsen L.R. (eds.) LNCS 9540, pp. 17-30. Springer, Berlin (2016)\n\nS. Mesnager, F. \u00d6zbudak, A. S[i]{}nak. On the $p$-ary (cubic) bent and plateaued (vectorial) functions. Des. Codes Cryptogr., vol 86 (8), pp 1865-1892 (2018).\n\nO. Olmez. Symmetric $1\\frac12$-designs and $1\\frac12$-difference sets. J. Combin. Designs. vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 252-269, (2014).\n\nO. Olmez. Plateaued functions and one-and-half difference sets. Designs, Codes and Cryptography, Sep 1 vol. 76, No. 3, pp. 537-49, (2015).\n\nO. Olmez. A link between combinatorial designs and three-weight linear codes. Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 86(4), pp. 817-833 (2018).\n\nA. Pott. Finite Geometry and Character Theory, Springer, 1995.\n\nA. Pott. Nonlinear functions in abelian groups and realtive difference sets. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 138 (1-2), pp.177-193 (2004).\n\nA. Pott, Y. Tan, T. Feng, and S. Ling. Association schemes arising from bent functions. Designs, Codes and Cryptography, 59(1), pp. 319-331 (2011).\n\nO. S. Rothaus. On bent functions. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 20(3), pp. 300-305 (1976).\n\nH. M. Trachtenberg. On the cross-correlation functions of maximal linear sequences. Ph. D Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (1970).\n\nY. Tan, A. Pott, and T. Feng. Strongly regular graphs associated with ternary bent functions. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 117(6), pp. 668-682 (2010).\n\nY. Zheng, X. M. Zhang. Plateaued functions. In: ICICS. vol. 99, pp. 284-300 (1999).\n\n[^1]: Oktay Olmez\u2019s research was supported by TUBITAK Research Grant Proj. No. 115F064.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We discuss that observational constraints on neutrino cooling processes may restrict the spectrum of quark matter phases admissible for compact star interiors.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    D.\u00a0Blaschke$^{1,2}$ and J.\u00a0Berdermann$^3$\\\n    \\\n    $^1$Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland\\\n    $^2$Bogoliubov Laboratory for Theoretical Physics, JINR Dubna, Russia\\\n    $^3$DESY, Platanenallee 6, D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany\ntitle:  Neutrinos in dense quark matter and cooling of compact stars\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe existence of quark matter in compact star (CS) interiors is debated controversially since observations of the thermal emission from objects like RXJ 1856.5-3754 [@Trumper:2003we] indicate large masses and/or luminosity radii requiring a stiff equation of state (EoS) at high densities. Although this seemingly excludes a phase transition accompanied with a softening of the EoS, it has been demonstrated [@Alford:2006vz] that modern QCD motivated theories could fulfill such observational constraints, e.g., due to the presence of vector mean fields which stiffen the quark matter EoS [@Klahn:2006iw]. Investigations of color superconducting quark matter phases (for a recent review, see [@Alford:2007xm]) show that large diquark pairing gaps of $\\sim 10 - 100$ MeV are possible, which lower the critical density for the chiral symmetry restoration due to their competition with the chiral condensate. This entails early quark deconfinement unless color forces remain strong enough to confine even (almost) massless quarks in a new phase of chirally symmetric hadronic matter, the hypothetic quarkyonic phase [@McLerran:2007qj; @Andronic:2009gj]. Here, we will not yet consider quarkyonic matter, but discuss the viability of three-flavor (CFL), two-flavor (2SC) and one-flavor (d-CSL) color superconducting phases under constraints for mass and radius as well as CS cooling.\n\nSpin-0 phases which pair quarks of different flavor and opposite spins with large gaps (2SC and CFL) might be too fragile to withstand the stress of flavor asymmetry and strong magnetic fields in neutron stars. It is not clarified yet whether the occurrence of the celebrated CFL phase in the core of a hybrid star leads necessarily to a gravitational instability [@Klahn:2006iw] as a result of the strong softening of the EoS (for an exception, see [@Pagliara:2007ph]). Disregarding the hadronic shell even interesting mass twin sequences are possible [@Sandin:2007zr]. If hybrid stars with CFL quark matter cores may form a third CS family, this might allow for a new paradigm to explain the Janus-faced CS phenomenology: large luminosity radii vs. millisecond rotation periods, fast cooling vs. slow cooling etc.\n\nAfter the new color superconductivity phases with large Spin-0 pairing gaps (2SC and CFL) were suggested in 1997, a discussion of late time cooling scenarios has been performed in [@Blaschke:1999qx; @Page:2000wt], followed by a full transport calculation with nontrivial temperature profile evolution in hybrid stars with CSC quark matter cores [@Blaschke:2000dy]. These calculations showed that the pairing pattern where all quarks are paired with large gaps delay the cooling and may be excluded by the observation of fast coolers like the Vela pulsar, unless they form a third family.\n\nIn these works as well as in the detailed study in Ref.\u00a0[@Jaikumar:2005hy] the fact was ignored that in the 2SC phase the quarks with one of the colors (e.g., the blue ones) remain unpaired so that the fast direct Urca (DU) process is operative, entailing too fast cooling. For heuristic purposes, a residual single-color pairing of the blue quarks (X-gap) has been introduced [@Grigorian:2004jq] and it has been found that the best cooling phenomenology would be obtained for hybrid stars with superconducting quark matter cores in the 2SC+X phase when this smallest gap is in the range between 100 keV and 1 MeV, with a decreasing density dependence [@Blaschke:2005dc; @Popov:2005xa]. An alternative to the postulated 2SC+X phase which provides a microscopic approach to the pairing pattern in accordance with cooling phenomenology is the isotropic color-spin-locking (CSL) phase [@Aguilera:2005tg] for which quarks of the same flavor are paired in a spin-1 state. This phase is thus rather inert against the neutron star stress.\n\nRecently, it has been argued that the different quark flavors could occur sequentially, i.e. at different threshold densities in neutron star matter [@Blaschke:2008br; @Blaschke:2008vh]. In analogy to the neutron drip in the crust, a down-quark drip density can occur in the core, when d-quarks undergo a chiral restoration and partial nucleon dissociation leads to the formation of a superconducting single-flavor subphase (d-CSL) immersed in nuclear matter. This mixture of d-CSL and nuclear matter can extend from the interior to the crust core boundary in stable hybrid star configurations which fulfill the stringent mass-radius constraints mentioned above. It also bears interesting perspectives for the neutrino transport and cooling properties [@Blaschke:2008br; @Blaschke:2007bv] which we discuss now a bit more in detail.\n\nNeutrino emissivity and deep crustal heating\n============================================\n\nAccording to [@Stejner:2006tj], two interesting phenomena, the superbursters and the soft X-ray transients may be probe the existence of CS deep crustal heating processes subject to the following constraints\\\n1. A thin baryonic crust of the star with a width between 100 to 400 m.\\\n2. An energy release of 1 to 100 MeV per accreted nucleon by conversion at the crust-core boundary.\\\n3. The thermal conductivity has to be in the range of $10^{19}-10^{22}~{\\rm erg~cm^{-1}~s^{-1}~K^{-1}}$.\\\n4. The fast DU neutrino emissivity process should be strongly suppressed or not operational.\\\nFollowing the suggestion of Refs.\u00a0[@Page:2005ky; @Cumming:2005kk], the conversion of nuclear matter to CFL strange quark matter, powered by continuous accretion in a LMXB may provide a mechanism for the deep crustal heating. As the nuclei penetrate into the quark matter core a conversion energy between 1 to 100 MeV is released per accreted nucleon. This heats the core until an equilibrium temperature is reached and the heating is balanced by neutrino emission. As the DU neutrino emission process is strongly suppressed by large CFL gaps, the heat produced at the crust-core boundary is not radiated away but conducted so that the fusion ignition condition gets fulfilled.\\\nIn [@Blaschke:2008br] we have shown that a d-quark CSL/nuclear phase mixture can also fulfill the above constraints on the deep crustal heating mechanism. In particular, we estimated the heat per accreted nucleon from the d-quark drip due to partial chiral restoration to the order of $10$ MeV and the DU process which we exclude in the nuclear subphase does also not occur in d-CSL subphase since the Fermi sea of up quarks is closed. An interesting question for the d-CSL/nuclear matter phase to be clarified is the possible role of confining interactions between the colored d-quarks which would energetically forbid a rather dilute d-quark admixture and sets a threshold for the d-quark drip. It may well be that the proper account for confining interactions within a chiral model theory would lead to a modification of the nucleon properties rather than to their partial dissociation at the chiral restoration for the down quarks. A modified quarkyonic phase for isospin asymmetric matter could be suggested.\n\nPerspectives\n============\n\nHybrid Stars with a mixture of nuclear matter and d-CSL quark matter phases fulfill not only stringent constraints for large radii and masses but provide also a viable deep crustal heating process. This mixed phase should probably better described as a kind of quarkyonic matter, once this gets accessible to a theoretical description. Further investigation needs the idea that CFL quark core stars form a third CS family providing a possible explanation to a different class of CS phenomena as, e.g., GRBs [@Ouyed:2005tm; @Berdermann:2006rk], SGRs, AXPs and XDINs [@Niebergal:2009yb].\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n----------------\n\nWe are grateful to our colleagues for discussions and collaboration. D.B. acknowledges an EPS Fellowship, and partial support by MNiSW grant No. N N 202 231837, by RFBR grant No. 08-02-01003-a and by CompStar, a Research Networking Programme of the European Science Foundation.\n\n[99]{}\n\n-2pt\n\nJ.\u00a0E.\u00a0Tr\u00fcmper, V.\u00a0Burwitz, F.\u00a0Haberl and V.\u00a0E.\u00a0Zavlin, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0Proc.\u00a0Suppl.\u00a0 [**132**]{}, 560 (2004). M.\u00a0Alford, D.\u00a0Blaschke, A.\u00a0Drago, T.\u00a0Kl\u00e4hn, G.\u00a0Pagliara and J.\u00a0Schaffner-Bielich, Nature [**445**]{}, E7 (2007) \\[arXiv:astro-ph/0606524\\]. T.\u00a0Kl\u00e4hn, D.\u00a0Blaschke, F.\u00a0Sandin, Ch.\u00a0Fuchs, A.\u00a0Faessler, H.\u00a0Grigorian, G.\u00a0R\u00f6pke and J.\u00a0Tr\u00fcmper, [Phys.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0B]{} [**654**]{}, 170 (2006). M.\u00a0G.\u00a0Alford, A.\u00a0Schmitt, K.\u00a0Rajagopal and T.\u00a0Sch\u00e4fer, Rev.\u00a0Mod.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**80**]{}, 1455 (2008). L.\u00a0McLerran and R.\u00a0D.\u00a0Pisarski, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 A [**796**]{}, 83 (2007). A.\u00a0Andronic [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0911.4806 \\[hep-ph\\]. G.\u00a0Pagliara and J.\u00a0Schaffner-Bielich, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0 D [**77**]{}, 063004 (2008). F.\u00a0Sandin and D.\u00a0Blaschke, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0 D [**75**]{}, 125013 (2007). D.\u00a0Blaschke, T.\u00a0Kl\u00e4hn and D.\u00a0N.\u00a0Voskresensky, Astrophys.\u00a0J.\u00a0 [**533**]{}, 406 (2000). D.\u00a0Page, M.\u00a0Prakash, J.\u00a0M.\u00a0Lattimer and A.\u00a0Steiner, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett.\u00a0 [**85**]{}, 2048 (2000). D.\u00a0Blaschke, H.\u00a0Grigorian and D.\u00a0N.\u00a0Voskresensky, Astron.\u00a0Astrophys.\u00a0 [**368**]{}, 561 (2001). P.\u00a0Jaikumar, C.\u00a0D.\u00a0Roberts and A.\u00a0Sedrakian, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0 C [**73**]{}, 042801 (2006). H.\u00a0Grigorian, D.\u00a0Blaschke and D.\u00a0Voskresensky, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0 C [**71**]{}, 045801 (2005). D.\u00a0Blaschke, D.\u00a0N.\u00a0Voskresensky and H.\u00a0Grigorian, Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 A [**774**]{}, 815 (2006). S.\u00a0Popov, H.\u00a0Grigorian and D.\u00a0Blaschke, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0 C [**74**]{}, 025803 (2006). D.\u00a0N.\u00a0Aguilera, D.\u00a0Blaschke, M.\u00a0Buballa and V.\u00a0L.\u00a0Yudichev, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0 D [**72**]{}, 034008 (2005). D.\u00a0Blaschke, F.\u00a0Sandin, T.\u00a0Kl\u00e4hn and J.\u00a0Berdermann, Phys. Rev. [**C**]{} (in press), arXiv:0807.0414 \\[nucl-th\\]; AIP Conf.\u00a0Proc.\u00a0 [**1038**]{}, 183 (2008). D.\u00a0Blaschke, F.\u00a0Sandin and T.\u00a0Kl\u00e4hn, J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0G [**35**]{}, 104077 (2008). D.\u00a0B.\u00a0Blaschke and J.\u00a0Berdermann, AIP Conf.\u00a0Proc.\u00a0 [**964**]{}, 290 (2007). M.\u00a0Stejner and J.\u00a0Madsen, [Astron.\u00a0Astrophys.]{} [**458**]{}, 523 (2006). D.\u00a0Page and A.\u00a0Cumming, [Astrophys.\u00a0J.]{}\u00a0[**635**]{}, L157 (2005). A.\u00a0Cumming, J.\u00a0Macbeth, J.\u00a0J.\u00a0M.\u00a0in \u2019t Zand and D.\u00a0Page, Astrophys.\u00a0J.\u00a0 [**646**]{}, 429 (2006). R.\u00a0Ouyed, R.\u00a0Rapp and C.\u00a0Vogt, Astrophys.\u00a0J.\u00a0 [**632**]{}, 1001 (2005) \\[arXiv:astro-ph/0503357\\]. J.\u00a0Berdermann et al., Prog.\u00a0Part.\u00a0Nucl.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0 [**57**]{} (2006) 334. B.\u00a0Niebergal, R.\u00a0Ouyed, R.\u00a0Negreiros and F.\u00a0Weber, arXiv:0906.3043 \\[astro-ph.HE\\].\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- Alain Dresse\n- |\n    Marc Henneaux[Also at Centro de Estudios Cient\u00edficos de Santiago, Casilla 16443, Santiago 9, Chile]{}\\\n    Facult\u00e9 des Sciences, Universit\u00e9 Libre de Bruxelles,\\\n    Campus Plaine C.P. 231, B-1050 Bruxelles (Belgium)\ntitle: BRST Structure of Polynomial Poisson Algebras\n---\n\n\\#1\\#2[[\\#1\\#2]{}]{} =0 ${\\global\\advance\\parenthesis by1\\left(}\n\\def$[by-1)]{} $${\\relax} \\def$$ \\#1 \\#1[0=\\#1sp0 by 30]{}\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nPolynomial algebras with a Lie bracket fulfilling the derivation property $$[f g, h] = f [g,h] + [f,h]g$$ are called polynomial Poisson algebras and play an increasingly important role in various areas of theoretical physics [@Nak:; @Pri:; @Skl:; @Zam:; @FatZam:; @Oh:; @TarTakFad:; @BakMat:; @BhaRam:; @GraZhe:]. In terms of a set of independent generators $G_a$, $a = 1, \\ldots, n$, the brackets are given by $$\\label{basic_bracket}\n[G_a, G_b] = C_{ab}(G)$$ where $C_{ab} = - C_{ba}$ are polynomials in the $G$\u2019s[^1]. If the polynomials $C_{ab}(G)$ vanish when the $G$\u2019s are set equal to zero, i.e. if they have no constant part, the polynomial algebra is said to be first class, in analogy with the terminology for constrained Hamiltonian systems (see e.g. [@HenTei:QuaGauSys]). An important class of first class Poisson algebras are symmetric algebras over a finite dimensional Lie algebra. In that case, the bracket (\\[basic\\_bracket\\]) belongs to the linear span of the $G_a$\u2019s, i.e. the $C_{ab}(G)$ are homogeneous of degree one in the $G$\u2019s, $[G_a, G_b] = C_{ab}{}^c G_c$. We shall call this situation the \u201cLie algebra case\u201d, and refer to the non Lie algebra case as the \u201copen algebra case\u201d using again terminology from the theory of first class constrained systems [@HenTei:QuaGauSys][^2].\n\nThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the BRST structure of first class Poisson algebras. The BRST formalism has turned out recently to be the arena of a fruitful interplay between physics and mathematics (see e.g. [@HenTei:QuaGauSys] and references therein). A crucial ingredient of BRST theory is the recursive pattern of homological perturbation theory [@Sta:] which allows one to construct the BRST generator step by step. In most applications, however, this recursive construction collapses almost immediately, and, to our knowledge, no example has been given so far for which the full BRST machinery is required (apart from the field-theoretical membrane models [@Hen:PhyLet; @FujKub:]). We show in this paper that Poisson algebras\u2014actually, already quadratic Poisson algebras\u2014offer splendid examples illustrating the complexity of the BRST construction. While Lie algebras yield a BRST generator of rank 1 (see e.g. [@HenTei:QuaGauSys]), the BRST charge for quadratic Poisson algebras can be of arbitrarily high rank. We also point out that BRST concepts provide intrinsic characterizations of Poisson algebras.\n\nIn the next section, we briefly review the BRST construction. We then discuss how it applies to Poisson algebras, even when the generators $G_a$ are not realized as phase space functions of some dynamical system. We analyze the BRST cohomology and introduce the concepts of covariant and minimal ranks, for which an elementary theorem is proven. Quadratic algebras are then shown to provide models with arbitrarily high rank. These contain \u201cself-reproducing\u201d algebras for which the bracket of $G_a$ with $G_b$ is proportional to the product $G_a G_b$. The first few terms in the BRST generator are also computed for more general algebras by means of a program written in REDUCE. The paper ends with some concluding remarks on the quantum case.\n\nA Brief Survey of the BRST Formalism\n====================================\n\nWe follow the presentation of [@HenTei:QuaGauSys], to which we refer for details and proofs. Given a set of independent functions $G_a(q,p)$ defined in some phase space $P$ with local coordinates $(q^i, p_i)$ and fulfilling the first class property $[G_a, G_b] \\approx 0$, where $\\approx$ denotes equality on the surface $G_a(q,p) = 0$, one can introduce an odd generator $\\Omega$ (\u201cthe BRST generator\u201d) in an extended phase space containing further fermionic conjugate pairs $(\\eta^a, {{\\cal P}}_a)$ (the \u201cghost pairs\u201d) which has the following properties : $$\\begin{aligned}\n[\\Omega, \\Omega] &=& 0 \\label{nilpotency} \\\\\n\\Omega &=& G_a \\eta^a + \\mbox{``more''}.\\end{aligned}$$ Here, \u201cmore\u201d stands for terms containing at least one ghost momentum ${{\\cal P}}_a$. We take the ghosts $\\eta^a$ to be real and their momenta imaginary, with graded Poisson bracket $$[{{\\cal P}}_a, \\eta^b] = - \\delta_a{}^b$$\n\nThe BRST derivation $s$ in the extended phase space is generated by $\\Omega$, $$s \\bullet = [ \\bullet, \\Omega]$$ and is a differential ($s^2 = 0$) because of (\\[nilpotency\\]). One also introduces a grading, the \u201cghost number\u201d by setting $${\\mbox{gh}}\\eta^a = - {\\mbox{gh}}{{\\cal P}}_a = 1, \\quad {\\mbox{gh}}q^i = {\\mbox{gh}}p_i = 0.$$ The ghost number of the BRST generator is equal to 1.\n\nThe BRST generator $\\Omega$ is constructed recursively as follows. One sets $$\\Omega = {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} + {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} + \\cdots$$ where ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ contains $k$ ghost momenta. One has ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} = G_a \\eta^a$. The nilpotency condition becomes, in terms of ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$, $$\\label{delta-om=d}\n\\delta {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p+1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} + {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D \\end{array}} = 0$$ where ${\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D \\end{array}}$ involves only the lower order ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (s)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ with $s \\leq p$ and is defined by $$\\label{d-p}\n{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D \\end{array}} = 1 / 2 \\left[\n  \\sum^p_{k=0} [{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} , {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p-k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}]_{\\mbox{orig}} +\n  \\sum^{p-1}_{k=0} [ {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k+1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} ,\n  {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p-k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}]_{{{\\cal P}}, \\eta}\n\\right].$$\n\nHere, the bracket $[\\; , \\;]_{\\mbox{orig}}$ refers to the Poisson bracket in the original phase space, which only acts on the $q^i$ and $p_i$, and not on the ghosts, whereas $[\\; , \\;]_{{{\\cal P}}, \\eta}$ refers to the Poisson bracket acting only on the ghost and ghost momenta arguments and not on the original phase space variables. The \u201cKoszul\u201d differential $\\delta$ in (\\[delta-om=d\\]) is defined by $$\\label{koszul}\n\\delta q^i = \\delta p_i = 0, \\quad \\delta \\eta^a = 0, \\quad \\delta\n{{\\cal P}}_a = - G_a$$ and is extended to arbitrary functions on the extended phase space as a derivation. One easily verifies that $\\delta^2 = 0$.\n\nGiven ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (s)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ with $s \\leq p$, one solves (\\[delta-om=d\\]) for ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p+1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$. This can always be done because $\\delta\n{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D \\end{array}} = 0$, and because $\\delta$ is acyclic in positive degree. One then goes on to ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p+2)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ etc... until one reaches the complete expression for $\\Omega$. The last function ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ that can be non zero is ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (n-1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ where $n$ is the number of constraints. Indeed, the product $\\eta^{a_1} \\cdots \\eta^{a_n} \\eta^{a_{n+1}}$ of $n+1$ anticommuting ghost variables in ${\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (n)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}$ is zero. The function ${\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p+1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}$ is determined by (\\[delta-om=d\\]) up to a $\\delta$-exact term. This amounts to making a canonical transformation in the extended phase space.\n\nFirst Class Polynomial Poisson algebras\n=======================================\n\nThe standard BRST construction recalled in the previous section assumes that the $G_a$\u2019s are realized as functions on some phase space, and allows the $C^c{}_{ab}$ in $$[G_a, G_b] = C^c{}_{ab} G_c$$ to be functions of $q^i$ and $p_i$. However, when the $C^c{}_{ab}$\u2019s depend on the $q$\u2019s and $p$\u2019s only through the $G_a$\u2019s themselves, as is the case when the $G_a$\u2019s form a first class polynomial Poisson algebra, one can define the BRST generator directly in the algebra $\\Bbb{C}\\,({{\\cal P}}_a) \\otimes \\Bbb{C}\\,(G_a) \\otimes \\Bbb{C}\\,(\\eta^a)$ of polynomials in the $G$\u2019s, the $\\eta$\u2019s and the ${{\\cal P}}$\u2019s without any reference to the explicit realization of the $G$\u2019s as phase space functions[^3]. That is, the BRST generator can be associated with the Poisson algebra itself.\n\nThe reason for which this can be done is that both the Koszul differential $\\delta$ defined by (\\[koszul\\]) [*and*]{} the ${\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D \\end{array}}$ in (\\[d-p\\]) involve only $G_a$ and not $q^i$ or $p_i$ individually. Thus, ${\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p+1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}$ can be taken to depend only on $G_a$. The BRST generator is defined accordingly in the algebra $\\Bbb{C}\\,({{\\cal P}}_a)\n\\otimes \\Bbb{C}\\,(G_a) \\otimes \\Bbb{C}\\,(\\eta_a)$.\n\nOne can give an explicit solution of (\\[delta-om=d\\]) in terms of the homotopy $\\sigma$ defined on the generators by $$\\sigma G_a = - {{\\cal P}}_a, \\quad \\sigma {{\\cal P}}_a = \\sigma G_a = 0$$ and extended to the algebra $\\Bbb{C}\\,({{\\cal P}}_a) \\otimes \\Bbb{C}\\,(G_a) \\otimes\n\\Bbb{C}\\,(\\eta_a)$ as a derivation, $$\\label{sigma}\n\\sigma = - {{\\cal P}}_a \\frac{\\partial}{\\partial G_a}.$$ One has $$\\sigma \\delta + \\delta \\sigma = N$$ where $N$ counts the degree in the $G$\u2019s and the ${{\\cal P}}$\u2019s. Hence, if ${\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D_m \\end{array}}$ is the term of degree $m$ in $(G, {{\\cal P}})$ of ${\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D \\end{array}}$, a solution of (\\[delta-om=d\\]) is given by $$\\label{om-p}\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p+1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} = - \\sum_m 1/m \\left( \\sigma {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D \\end{array}}_m\n\\right)$$ since $\\delta {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D \\end{array}}=0$ [@HenTei:QuaGauSys] and $m >\n0$ (one has $m \\geq p$ and for $p=0$, $m \\geq 1$ because $[{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}},\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}]$ contains $G_a$ by the first class property).\n\nIt should be stressed that the partial derivations $\\partial/\\partial\nG_a$ in(\\[sigma\\]) are well defined because the functions on which they act depend only on on $G_a$. For an arbitrary function of $q^i,\np_i$, $\\partial F / \\partial G_a$ would not be well defined even if the constraints $G_a$ are independent (i.e. irreducible) as here. One must specify what is kept fixed. For example, if there is one constraint $p_1 = 0$ on the four-dimensional phase space $(q^1, p_1),\n(q^2, p_2)$, then $\\partial p_2 / \\partial p_1 = 0$ if one keeps $q^1,\nq^2$ and $p_2$ fixed, but $\\partial p_2 / \\partial p_1 = 1$ if one keeps $q^1, q^2$ and $p_2 - p_1$ fixed. Note that the subsequent developments require only that the $C^a{}_{b c}$ be functions of the $G_a$, but not that these functions be polynomials. We consider here the polynomial case for the sole sake of simplicity.\n\nAs mentioned earlier, the solution (\\[om-p\\]) of the equation (\\[delta-om=d\\]) is not unique. We call it the \u201ccovariant solution\u201d because the homotopy $\\sigma$ defined by (\\[sigma\\]) is invariant under linear redefinitions of the generators.\n\n[**Example:**]{} for a Lie algebra $$[G_a, G_b] = C^c{}_{ab} G_c$$ the covariant BRST generator is given by $$\\label{L-A-omega}\n\\Omega = G_a \\eta^a - 1/2 {{\\cal P}}_a C^a{}_{bc} \\eta^c \\eta^b.$$ Its nilpotency expresses the Jacobi identity for the structure constants $C^a{}_{bc}$. One has ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} = 0$ for $p \\geq\n2$.\n\nIn general, the BRST generator $\\Omega$ for a generic Poisson algebra contains higher order terms whose calculation may be quite cumbersome. However, because the procedure is purely algorithmic, it can be performed by means of an algebraic program like REDUCE.\n\nThe cohomology of the Poisson algebra may be defined to be the cohomology of the BRST differential $s$ in the algebra $\\Bbb{C}\\,({{\\cal P}}_a)\n\\otimes \\Bbb{C}\\,(G_a) \\otimes \\Bbb{C}\\,(\\eta_a)$. Because $s$ contains $\\delta$ as its piece of lowest antighost number (with ${\\mbox{antigh}}({{\\cal P}}_a) = 1, {\\mbox{antigh}}(\\mbox{anything else}) = 0$), and because $\\delta$ provides a resolution of the zero-dimensional point $G_a =\n0$, standard arguments show that the cohomology of $s$ is isomorphic to the cohomology of the differential $s'$ in $\\Bbb{C}\\,(\\eta^a)$, $$\\label{eq:sPrime}\ns' \\eta^a = 1/2 C^a{}_{bc} \\eta^b \\eta^c$$ where $C^a{}_{bc}$ is defined by $$C^a{}_{bc} = \\left.\\frac{\\partial C_{bc}}{\\partial G_a}\\right|_{G = 0}$$\n\nThe $C^a{}_{bc}$ fulfill the Jacobi identity so that $s'^2 = 0$. Hence, they are the structure constants of a Lie algebra, which is called the Lie algebra underlying the given Poisson algebra.\n\nBecause of (\\[eq:sPrime\\]), the BRST cohomology of a Poisson algebra is isomorphic to the cohomology of the underlying Lie algebra. For a different and more thorough treatment of Poisson cohomology, see [@Hue:].\n\nRank\n====\n\nAgain in analogy with the terminology used in the theory of constrained systems, we shall call [*\u201ccovariant rank\u201d*]{} of a first class polynomial Poisson algebra the degree in ${{\\cal P}}_a$ of the covariant BRST generator. This concept is invariant under linear redefinitions of the generators because the covariant BRST generator is itself invariant if one transforms the ghosts and their momenta as $$\\begin{aligned}\nG_a &\\rightarrow& \\bar{G}_a = A_a{}^b G_b \\\\\n{{\\cal P}}_a &\\rightarrow& \\bar{{{\\cal P}}}_a = A_a{}^b {{\\cal P}}_b \\\\\n\\eta^a &\\rightarrow& \\bar{\\eta}^a = (A^{-1})_b{}^a \\eta^b\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe shall call [*\u201cminimal rank\u201d*]{} the degree in ${{\\cal P}}_a$ of the solution of $[ \\Omega, \\Omega] = 0$ of lowest degree in ${{\\cal P}}$ (i.e., one chooses at each stage ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p+1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ in such a way that $\\Omega$ has lowest possible degree in ${{\\cal P}}$). It is easy to see that for a Lie algebra, the concepts of covariant and minimal ranks coincide. As we shall see on an explicit example below, they do not in the general case.\n\nNow, for a Lie algebra, the rank is not particularly interesting in the sense that it does not tell much about the structure of the algebra : the rank of a Lie algebra is equal to zero if and only if the algebra is abelian. It is equal to one otherwise. For non linear Poisson algebras, the rank is more useful. All values of the rank compatible with the trivial inequality $$rank \\leq n-1$$ may occur. Thus, the rank of the BRST generator provides a non trivial characterization of Poisson algebras. Conversely, non linear Poisson algebras yield an interesting illustration of the full BRST machinery where higher order terms besides ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ are required in $\\Omega$ to achieve nilpotency.\n\nUpper bound on the rank\n=======================\n\nOne can understand the fact that the rank of a Lie algebra is at most equal to one by introducing a degree in $\\Bbb{C}\\,({{\\cal P}}_a) \\otimes\n\\Bbb{C}\\,(G_a) \\otimes \\Bbb{C}\\,(\\eta_a)$ different from the ghost degree as follows.\n\nAssume that one can assign a \u201cdegree\u201d $n_a \\geq 1$ to the generators $G_a$ in such a way that the bracket decreases the degree by at least one, $$\\label{deg-g=n}\n\\deg G_a = n_a, \\; \\deg([G_a, G_b]) \\leq n_a + n_b - 1.$$ Then, one can bound the covariant and minimal ranks of the algebra by $\\sum_a (n_a - 1) + 1$, $$r \\leq \\sum_a (n_a - 1) + 1$$\n\nIn the case of a Lie algebra, one can take $n_a = 1$ for all the generators since $\\deg([G_a, G_b])$ is then equal to one and fulfills (\\[deg-g=n\\]). The theorem then states that the rank is bounded by one, in agreement with (\\[L-A-omega\\]).\n\nAssign the following degrees to $\\eta^a$ and ${{\\cal P}}_a$, $$\\deg \\eta^a = - n_a + 1, \\; \\deg {{\\cal P}}_a = n_a - 1$$ If $\\delta A = B$ and $\\deg B = b$, then $\\deg A = b - 1$ since $\\delta$ increases the degree by one. Now ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} = G_a\n\\eta^a$ is of degree one. It follows that $[{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}},\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}] = [{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}},{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}]_{\\mbox{orig}}$ is of degree $\\leq 1$ and hence, by (\\[delta-om=d\\]) and (\\[d-p\\]), $\\deg {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}\n\\leq 0$. More generally, one has $\\deg {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} \\leq -k + 1$. Indeed, if this relation is true up to order $k-1$, then it is also true at order $k$ because in $$\\delta {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} \\sim [{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (r)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}},{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (s)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}]_{\\mbox{orig}} + [{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (r')} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}},\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (s')} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}]_{{{\\cal P}}, \\eta}$$ ($r+s = k-1, \\; r' + s' = k$), the right hand side is of degree $\\leq\n-k+2$. Thus $\\deg {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} \\leq -k + 2 - 1 = -k + 1$.\n\nBut the element with most negative degree in the algebra is given by the product of all the $\\eta$\u2019s, which has degree $-\\sum_a(n_a - 1)$. Accordingly, ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ is zero whenever $-k+1 >= - \\sum_a(n_a - 1)$, which implies $r \\leq \\sum_a(n_a-1)+1$ as stated in the theorem.\n\n[**Remarks:**]{}\n\n1.  One can improve greatly the bound by observing that the $\\eta$\u2019s do not come alone in ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$. There are also $k$ momenta ${{\\cal P}}_a$ which carry positive degree. This remark will, however, not be pursued further here.\n\n2.  One can actually assign degrees smaller than one to the generators $G_a$. For instance, in the case of an Abelian Lie algebra, one may take $deg G_a = 1/2, \\; \\deg \\eta^a = 1/2, \\deg {{\\cal P}}_a = -\n    1/2$. Because the degree of a ghost number one object is necessarily greater than or equal to $1/2$, the condition $\\deg {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} \\leq -k+1$ (if ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} \\neq 0$) implies ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} = 0$ for $k > 0$.\n\nSelf-reproducing algebras\n=========================\n\nWhile Lie algebras are characterized by the existence of a degreee that is decreased by the bracket, one may easily construct examples of Poisson algebras for which such a degree does not exist. The simplest ones are quadratic algebras for which $[G_a, G_b]$ is proportional to $G_a, G_b$ $$[G_a, G_b] = M_{ab} G_a G_b \\quad\\quad\\mbox{no summation on $a,b$}$$ with $M_{ab} = -M_{ba}$. The Jacobi identity is fulfilled for arbitrary $M$\u2019s. Since $\\deg(G_a G_b) = n_a + n_b$, the inequality (\\[deg-g=n\\]) is violated for any choice of $n_a$. Because $[G_a, G_b]$ is proportional to $G_a G_b$, we shall call these algebras \u201cself-reproducing algebras\u201d.\n\nThe most general self-reproducing algebra with three generators is given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n[G_1, G_2] &=& \\alpha\\, G_1 G_2 \\\\{}\n[G_2, G_3] &=& \\beta \\, G_2 G_3 \\\\{}\n[G_3, G_1] &=& \\gamma \\, G_1 G_3.\\end{aligned}$$ This Poisson algebra can be realized on a six-dimensional phase space by setting $$G_1 = \\exp(p_2 + \\alpha q_3), G_2 = \\exp(p_3 + \\beta q_1), G_3 =\n\\exp(p_1 + \\gamma q_2).$$ The covariant BRST charge for this model is equal to $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Omega &=&\\eta^1 \\, G_1 + \\eta^2 \\, G_2 + \\eta^3 \\, G_3 + \\\\\n\\nonumber\n& & 1/2 \\,\n  (\\alpha \\,\\eta^{2}\\,\\eta^{1}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{2}\\,G_{1}\n  -\\alpha \\,\\eta^{2}\\,\\eta^{1}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{1}\\,G_{2}\n  -\\beta \\,\\eta^{3}\\,\\eta^{2}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{3}\\,G_{2} \\\\ \\nonumber\n& &\\mbox{~~~~~~}\n  -\\beta \\,\\eta^{3}\\,\\eta^{2}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{2}\\,G_{3}\n  +\\gamma \\,\\eta^{3}\\,\\eta^{1}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{3}\\,G_{1}\n  +\\gamma \\,\\eta^{3}\\,\\eta^{1}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{1}\\,G_{3}) + \\\\ \\nonumber\n& & 1/12 \\, (\n  ( - \\alpha \\,\\beta +2\\,\\alpha \\,\\gamma  -\\beta \\,\\gamma )\n     \\,\\eta^{3}\\,\\eta^{2}\\,\\eta^{1}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{3}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{2}\\,G_{1} + \\\\\n\\nonumber & &\\mbox{~~~~~~~~~}\n  ( -2\\,\\alpha \\,\\beta +\\alpha \\,\\gamma +\\beta \\,\\gamma )\n     \\,\\eta^{3}\\,\\eta^{2}\\,\\eta^{1}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{3}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{1}\\,G_{2} +\\\\\n\\nonumber & &\\mbox{~~~~~~~~~}\n  ( -\\alpha \\,\\beta -\\alpha \\,\\gamma +2\\,\\beta \\,\\gamma )\n     \\,\\eta^{3}\\,\\eta^{2}\\,\\eta^{1}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{2}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{1}\\,G_{3}\n)\\end{aligned}$$ and is of rank 2 (the maximum possible rank) unless $\\alpha = \\beta =\n\\gamma$, or $\\alpha = \\beta = 0$, $\\gamma \\neq 0$, in which case it is of rank 1.\n\nExamples\n========\n\nWe now give the BRST charge (or the first terms of the BRST charge) for some particular Poisson algebras. The examples have been treated using REDUCE, using the treatment of summation over dummy indices developed in [@Dre:CanExp; @Dre:Imacs]. Details of the implementation of the BRST algorithm can be found in [@BurCapDre:]. All dummy variables are noted as $d_i$ where $i$ is an integer. Unless stated otherwise, there is an implicit summation on all dummy variables. For the examples in which the Jacobi identity is not trivially satisfied, the expressions have been normalized so that no combinations of terms in a polynomial belongs to the polynomial ideal generated by the left hand side of the Jacobi identity. In particular, polynomials in this ideal are represented by identically null expressions.\n\nSelf-Reproducing Algebras\n-------------------------\n\nAs we have just defined, the basic Poisson brackets for the generators $G_d$ of the [*self-reproducing algebra*]{} are given by $$[G_{d_1}, G_{d_2}] = M_{d_1 d_2} G_{d_1} G_{d_2}$$ without summation over the dummy variables $d_1$ and $d_2$. The matrix $M$ is antisymmetric, but otherwise arbitrary.\n\nThe seven first orders of the covariant BRST charge are given by $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[G_{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\n\\]\n\\cr}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\frac{G_{d_{1}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\n        \\eta^{d_{2}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{2}}}{\n        2}\n\\]\n\\cr}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (2)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\frac{-\n        \\(G_{d_{1}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\n          \\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\\eta^{d_{3}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{2}}\\,\n          {{\\cal P}}_{d_{3}}\\,\n          \\(M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\n            +M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\n          \\)\n        \\)\n        }{\n        12}\n\\]\n\\cr}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (3)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\frac{-\n        \\(G_{d_{1}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,\n          M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\n          \\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\\eta^{d_{4}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{2}}\\,\n          {{\\cal P}}_{d_{3}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{4}}\n        \\)\n        }{\n        24}\n\\]\n\\cr}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (4)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\(G_{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\\eta^{d_{4}}\\,\\eta^{d_{5}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{2}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{3}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{4}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{5}}\\,\\nl\n    \\off{3499956}\n    \\(-\n      \\(M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,\n        M_{d_{1}d_{5}}\n      \\)\n      +4\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{5}}\\,\n      M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\n      +M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\n      -M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{2}d_{5}}\n      -M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{5}}\\,\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\n      +M_{d_{1}d_{5}}\\,\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{5}}\n      -M_{d_{1}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\n    \\)\n  \\)\n  /720\n\\]\n\\Nl}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (5)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\(G_{d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{4}}\\,\\eta^{d_{5}}\\,\\eta^{d_{6}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{1}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{3}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{4}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{5}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{6}}\\nl\n    \\off{3499956}\n    \\,\n    \\(-\n      \\(M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\n      \\)\n      +2\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{5}d_{6}}\n      +M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\nl\n      \\off{4100703}\n      \\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{5}}\n      -M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\n      -M_{d_{2}d_{5}}\\nl\n      \\off{4100703}\n      \\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{5}}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{2}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{5}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{4100703}\n      +M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\n      -M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{5}d_{6}}\n    \\)\n  \\)\n  /1440\n\\]\n\\Nl}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (6)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\(G_{d_{3}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\\eta^{d_{4}}\\,\\eta^{d_{5}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{6}}\\,\\eta^{d_{7}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{1}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{2}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{4}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{5}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{6}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{7}}\\,\\nl\n    \\off{3499956}\n    \\(-\n      \\(M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{6}}\\,\n        M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      \\)\n      -M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,\n      M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      +2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,\n      \\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\n      +M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -13\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,\n      M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,\n      M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +4\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -4\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +4\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{2}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\n      +5\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\n      +M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,\n      M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -5\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\n      -M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{1}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -8\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\n      +2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,\n      \\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      M_{d_{3}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\n      +12\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\n      -6\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -5\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +5\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +5\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +13\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -5\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +5\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -8\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +M_{d_{1}d_{3}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      M_{d_{2}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\n      +M_{d_{1}d_{4}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      +5\\,M_{d_{1}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{4}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -8\\,M_{d_{1}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n      -2\\,M_{d_{1}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{6}}\\,\n      M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +6\\,M_{d_{1}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{7}}\n      -6\\,\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      M_{d_{1}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{2}d_{7}}\\,M_{d_{3}d_{7}}\\,\n      M_{d_{4}d_{5}}\\,M_{d_{4}d_{6}}\\,M_{d_{6}d_{7}}\n    \\)\n  \\)\n  /60480\n\\]\n\\Nl}$$\n\nThese expressions are not particularly illuminating but are of interest because they generically do not vanish and hence, define higher order BRST charges. This can be seen by means of the following example, in which only the brackets of the first generator with the other ones are non vanishing, and taken equal to $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{eq:maxquad}\n[G_1, G_{\\alpha}] &=& G_1 G_{\\alpha} = - [ G_{\\alpha}, G_1]\n    \\quad  (\\alpha = 2,3,\\ldots,n),\\\\{}\n[G_{\\alpha}, G_{\\beta}] &=& 0.\\end{aligned}$$ For this particular self-reproducing algebra, all orders of the covariant BRST charge can be explicitly computed. One finds $$\\begin{aligned}\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} &=& \\eta^a G_a \\\\\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} &=& \\alpha_k ({\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ T_1 \\end{array}} + (-)^{k+1} {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ T_2 \\end{array}})\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ T_1 \\end{array}} &=& G_1 \\eta^{\\alpha_1} \\cdots \\eta^{\\alpha_k} \\eta^1\n                 {{\\cal P}}_{\\alpha_1} \\cdots {{\\cal P}}_{\\alpha_k} \\\\\n{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ T_2 \\end{array}} &=& G_{\\alpha_k} \\eta^{\\alpha_1} \\cdots \\eta^{\\alpha_k} \\eta^1\n                 {{\\cal P}}_1 {{\\cal P}}_{\\alpha_1} \\cdots {{\\cal P}}_{\\alpha_{k-1}}\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_1 &=& -1/2, \\; \\alpha_2 = -1/12, \\; \\alpha_3 = 0 \\\\\n\\alpha_k &=& -\\frac{1}{k+1} \\sum_{l=1}^{k-3} \\alpha_{l+1} \\alpha_{k-l-1}\n            \\quad \\mbox{for $k > 3$}\\label{eq:AlpRec}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThis can be seen as the only non zero brackets involved in the construction of the BRST charge are $$\\begin{aligned}\n[{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ T_1 \\end{array}}, {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}]_{\\mbox{orig}} &=& (-)^{k+1}{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ S \\end{array}} \\\\{}\n[{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ T_1 \\end{array}}, {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (l)} \\\\ T_2 \\end{array}}]_{\\eta{{\\cal P}}} &=&\n  (-)^{l(k+1)}{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k+l-1)} \\\\ S \\end{array}},\\end{aligned}$$ where $${\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ S \\end{array}} = G_1 G_\\alpha \\eta^{\\alpha_1} \\cdots \\eta^{\\alpha_k} \\eta^\\alpha\n\\eta^1\n                 {{\\cal P}}_{\\alpha_1} \\cdots {{\\cal P}}{\\alpha_k}.$$ We further have $$\\label{eq:sigmaS}\n\\sigma {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ S \\end{array}} = (-)^{k+1} {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k+1)} \\\\ T_2 \\end{array}} - {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k+1)} \\\\ T_1 \\end{array}}$$ Given these relations, it is straightforward to verify (39). First, one easily checks that (39) is correct for $k=1$ with $\\alpha_1$ equal to 1/2. Let us then assume that (39) is true for $k = 0, 1 ...$ up to $p$. One then obtains $${\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ D \\end{array}} = \\beta_p  {\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p)} \\\\ S \\end{array}}$$ with $\\beta_p$ given by $$\\beta_p = (-)^{p+1} \\alpha_p - \\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} (-)^{p(k+1)} \\alpha_{k+1}\n\\alpha_{p-k} = - \\sum_{k=1}^{p-2} (-)^{p(k+1)} \\alpha_{k+1} \\alpha_{p-k}$$ from which one gets, using (\\[eq:sigmaS\\]), that ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (p+1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ is indeed given by (39) with $\\alpha_{p+1}$ equal to $$\\alpha_{p+1} = \\frac{\\beta_p}{p+2}$$ Observe now that $\\alpha_k = 0$ for $k$ odd, $k \\neq 1$. This can again be shown by recurrence. First note that $\\alpha_3$ = 0. Now let $p$ be even, $p > 3$. Suppose $\\alpha_k = 0$ for $k$ odd, $1 < k < p$. All terms in the relation defining $\\beta_{p}$ are proportional to an $\\alpha_m$ with $m$ odd, $1 < m < p$, since $k+1$ and $p-k$ have opposite parities. Therefore, $\\beta_p = 0 = \\alpha_{p+1}$ and thus $\\alpha_k\n= 0$ for $k$ odd, $k > 1$. Accordingly only $\\alpha_k $ with $k$ even can be different from zero. The expression for $\\alpha_k$ reduces then to (43) since $k+1$ must be even in (49).\n\nAlthough $\\alpha_k = 0$ for $k$ odd, $k > 1$, one easily sees that $\\alpha_k < 0$ for $k$ even. This is true for $k =\n2$ as $\\alpha_2 = -1/12$. Let $p$ be even, and suppose $\\alpha_m < 0$ for $1 < m < p$, $m$ even. Then, all terms in the sum in the recurrence relation (\\[eq:AlpRec\\]) are strictly positive, so that $\\alpha_p < 0$. Since $\\alpha_p \\neq 0$, the quadratic algebra (\\[eq:maxquad\\]) provides examples of systems with arbitrarily high covariant rank.\n\nNote also that the minimal rank is equal to one: indeed, the non covariant BRST charge given by $$\\tilde{\\Omega}={{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} + {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}} +  ({{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ T \\end{array}}}_1 - {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ T \\end{array}}}_2)/2 =\n\\eta^a G_a - G_a \\eta^a \\eta^1 {{\\cal P}}_1$$ is nilpotent and $$\\delta({{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ T \\end{array}}}_1 - {{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ T \\end{array}}}_2) = 0$$ so $\\tilde{\\Omega}$ is indeed a valid BRST charge. This shows that the minimal and covariant ranks are in general different.\n\nFinally, it is easy to modify slightly the basic brackets so as to induce non zero covariant ${{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (k)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}$ with $k$ odd. One simply replaces (\\[eq:maxquad\\]) by $$\\begin{aligned}\n[G_{n-1}, G_n] &=& G_{n-1} G_n = - [G_n, G_{n-1}] \\\\{}\n[G_1, G_n] &=& - G_1 G_n, \\\\{}\n[G_1, G_{\\alpha}] &=& G_1 G_{\\alpha} \\quad (\\alpha \\neq n).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nPurely Quadratic Algebras\n-------------------------\n\nA generalization of the above is the pure quadratic algebra. The basic Poisson brackets are then given by $$[G_{d_1}, G_{d_2}] = D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3 d_4} G_{d_3} G_{d_4}$$ where $D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3 d_4}$ is antisymmetric in $d_1, d_2$ and symmetric in $d_3, d_4$. The Jacobi identity implies that $$D_{d_4 d_1}^{d_5 d_6} D_{d_2 d_3}^{d_4 d_7} + \\mbox{symm}(d_5, d_6,\nd_7) + \\mbox{cyclic}(d_1,d_2,d_3) = 0$$\n\nThe first orders of the covariant BRST charge are given by $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[G_{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\n\\]\n\\cr}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (1)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\frac{D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n           d_{4}d_{3}}\\,G_{d_{4}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\n        \\eta^{d_{2}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{3}}}{\n        2}\n\\]\n\\cr}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (2)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\frac{D_{d_{2}d_{3}}^{\n           d_{6}d_{5}}\\,D_{d_{6}d_{1}}^{\n                           d_{7}d_{4}}\\,G_{d_{7}}\\,\n        \\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\n        {{\\cal P}}_{d_{4}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{5}}}{\n        6}\n\\]\n\\cr}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (3)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\frac{-\n        \\(D_{d_{2}d_{3}}^{\n             d_{8}d_{7}}\\,D_{d_{4}d_{1}}^{\n                             d_{9}d_{5}}\\,D_{d_{8}d_{9}}^{\n          d_{10}d_{6}}\\,G_{d_{10}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\n          \\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\\eta^{d_{4}}\\,\n          {{\\cal P}}_{d_{5}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{6}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{7}}\n        \\)\n        }{\n        24}\n\\]\n\\cr}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (4)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\(\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{4}}\\,\\eta^{d_{5}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{6}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{7}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{8}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{9}}\\,\n    \\nl\n    \\off{3499956}\n    \\(3\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n            d_{13}d_{6}}\\,D_{d_{4}d_{5}}^{\n                             d_{12}d_{9}}\\,\n      D_{d_{10}d_{3}}^{\n         d_{11}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{12}d_{13}}^{\n                          d_{10}d_{7}}\\,G_{d_{11}}\n      +4\\,D_{d_{3}d_{4}}^{\n             d_{10}d_{9}}\\,D_{d_{5}d_{2}}^{\n                              d_{13}d_{6}}\\,\n      D_{d_{10}d_{11}}^{\n         d_{12}d_{8}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,D_{d_{13}d_{1}}^{\n           d_{11}d_{7}}\\,G_{d_{12}}\n      -4\\,D_{d_{4}d_{5}}^{\n             d_{12}d_{9}}\\,D_{d_{10}d_{3}}^{\n                              d_{11}d_{8}}\\,\n      D_{d_{12}d_{1}}^{\n         d_{13}d_{7}}\\,D_{d_{13}d_{2}}^{\n                          d_{10}d_{6}}\\,G_{d_{11}}\n    \\)\n  \\)\n  /360\n\\]\n\\Nl}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (5)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\(D_{d_{12}d_{13}}^{\n       d_{14}d_{10}}\\,G_{d_{14}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\\eta^{d_{4}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{5}}\\,\\eta^{d_{6}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{7}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{8}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{9}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{10}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{11}}\\nl\n    \\off{3499956}\n    \\,\n    \\(-\n      \\(2\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n              d_{16}d_{7}}\\,D_{d_{5}d_{6}}^{\n                               d_{15}d_{11}}\\,\n        D_{d_{15}d_{3}}^{\n           d_{12}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{16}d_{4}}^{\n                            d_{13}d_{9}}\n      \\)\n      +3\\,D_{d_{1}d_{3}}^{\n             d_{16}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{4}d_{5}}^{\n                              d_{12}d_{11}}\\,\n      \\nl\n      \\off{4100703}\n      D_{d_{6}d_{2}}^{\n         d_{15}d_{7}}\\,D_{d_{15}d_{16}}^{\n                          d_{13}d_{9}}\n      -4\\,D_{d_{4}d_{5}}^{\n             d_{12}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{6}d_{1}}^{\n                               d_{15}d_{7}}\\,\n      D_{d_{15}d_{3}}^{\n         d_{16}d_{9}}\\,D_{d_{16}d_{2}}^{\n                          d_{13}d_{8}}\n    \\)\n  \\)\n  /720\n\\]\n\\Nl}$$ $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n{{\\renewcommand{\\arraystretch}{.7}     \\begin{array}[b]{@{}c@{}} {\\scriptscriptstyle (6)} \\\\ \\Omega \\end{array}}}=\n\\[\\(\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{4}}\\,\\eta^{d_{5}}\\,\\eta^{d_{6}}\\,\n    \\eta^{d_{7}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{8}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{9}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{10}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{11}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{12}}\\,\n    {{\\cal P}}_{d_{13}}\\,\\nl\n    \\off{3499956}\n    \\(6\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n            d_{17}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{6}d_{7}}^{\n                             d_{16}d_{13}}\\,\n      D_{d_{14}d_{5}}^{\n         d_{15}d_{12}}\\,D_{d_{16}d_{17}}^{\n                           d_{18}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{18}d_{4}}^{\n      d_{19}d_{10}}\\,D_{d_{19}d_{3}}^{\n                        d_{14}d_{9}}\\,G_{d_{15}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -9\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n             d_{18}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{3}d_{4}}^{\n                              d_{19}d_{9}}\\,\n      D_{d_{6}d_{7}}^{\n         d_{16}d_{13}}\\,D_{d_{14}d_{5}}^{\n                           d_{15}d_{12}}\\,D_{d_{16}d_{17}}^{\n      d_{14}d_{10}}\\,D_{d_{18}d_{19}}^{\n                        d_{17}d_{11}}\\,G_{d_{15}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +12\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n              d_{18}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{3}d_{4}}^{\n                               d_{19}d_{9}}\\,\n      D_{d_{6}d_{7}}^{\n         d_{17}d_{13}}\\,D_{d_{14}d_{15}}^{\n                           d_{16}d_{12}}\\,D_{d_{17}d_{18}}^{\n      d_{15}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{19}d_{5}}^{\n                        d_{14}d_{10}}\\,G_{d_{16}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -10\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n              d_{18}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{6}d_{7}}^{\n                               d_{16}d_{13}}\\,\n      D_{d_{14}d_{5}}^{\n         d_{15}d_{12}}\\,D_{d_{16}d_{3}}^{\n                           d_{17}d_{9}}\\,D_{d_{17}d_{19}}^{\n      d_{14}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{18}d_{4}}^{\n                        d_{19}d_{10}}\\,G_{d_{15}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +24\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n              d_{18}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{6}d_{7}}^{\n                               d_{16}d_{13}}\\,\n      D_{d_{14}d_{5}}^{\n         d_{15}d_{12}}\\,D_{d_{16}d_{17}}^{\n                           d_{14}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{18}d_{4}}^{\n      d_{19}d_{10}}\\,D_{d_{19}d_{3}}^{\n                        d_{17}d_{9}}\\,G_{d_{15}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      -4\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n             d_{18}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{6}d_{7}}^{\n                              d_{17}d_{13}}\\,\n      D_{d_{14}d_{15}}^{\n         d_{16}d_{12}}\\,D_{d_{17}d_{4}}^{\n                           d_{15}d_{9}}\\,D_{d_{18}d_{5}}^{\n      d_{19}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{19}d_{3}}^{\n                        d_{14}d_{10}}\\,G_{d_{16}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      +4\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n             d_{19}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{6}d_{7}}^{\n                              d_{16}d_{13}}\\,\n      D_{d_{14}d_{5}}^{\n         d_{15}d_{12}}\\,D_{d_{16}d_{17}}^{\n                           d_{18}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{18}d_{3}}^{\n      d_{14}d_{9}}\\,D_{d_{19}d_{4}}^{\n                       d_{17}d_{10}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,G_{d_{15}}\n      -6\\,D_{d_{1}d_{3}}^{\n             d_{18}d_{9}}\\,D_{d_{5}d_{6}}^{\n                              d_{14}d_{13}}\\,\n      D_{d_{7}d_{2}}^{\n         d_{17}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{14}d_{15}}^{\n                          d_{16}d_{12}}\\,D_{d_{17}d_{18}}^{\n      d_{19}d_{11}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,D_{d_{19}d_{4}}^{\n           d_{15}d_{10}}\\,G_{d_{16}}\n      -4\\,D_{d_{1}d_{3}}^{\n             d_{19}d_{9}}\\,D_{d_{5}d_{6}}^{\n                              d_{14}d_{13}}\\,\n      D_{d_{7}d_{2}}^{\n         d_{17}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{14}d_{15}}^{\n                          d_{16}d_{12}}\\,\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      D_{d_{17}d_{18}}^{\n         d_{15}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{19}d_{4}}^{\n                           d_{18}d_{10}}\\,G_{d_{16}}\n      -16\\,D_{d_{5}d_{6}}^{\n              d_{14}d_{13}}\\,D_{d_{7}d_{1}}^{\n                                d_{17}d_{8}}\\,\n      D_{d_{14}d_{15}}^{\n         d_{16}d_{12}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,D_{d_{17}d_{4}}^{\n           d_{18}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{18}d_{3}}^{\n                             d_{19}d_{10}}\\,\n      D_{d_{19}d_{2}}^{\n         d_{15}d_{9}}\\,G_{d_{16}}\n      +16\\,D_{d_{6}d_{7}}^{\n              d_{16}d_{13}}\\,D_{d_{14}d_{5}}^{\n                                d_{15}d_{12}}\\nl\n      \\off{3827636}\n      \\,D_{d_{16}d_{4}}^{\n           d_{17}d_{11}}\\,D_{d_{17}d_{3}}^{\n                             d_{19}d_{10}}\\,\n      D_{d_{18}d_{1}}^{\n         d_{14}d_{8}}\\,D_{d_{19}d_{2}}^{\n                          d_{18}d_{9}}\\,G_{d_{15}}\n    \\)\n  \\)\n  /15120\n\\]\n\\Nl}$$\n\nAgain, these expressions are not particularly illuminating. The point emphasized here is that the calculation of the BRST charge is purely algorithmic and follows a general, well-established pattern.\n\nSince homogeneous quadratic algebras contain the self-reproducing algebras as special case, they are generically of maximal covariant rank. More on this in [@ADresse3].\n\nL-T algebras\n------------\n\nWe now consider adding a linear term to the quadratic algebra above. The basic Poisson brackets for the generators $G_d$ are given by $$[G_{d_1}, G_{d_2}] = C_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3}  \\, G_{d_3} +\n   D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3 d_4} G_{d_3} G_{d_4}$$ where $ C_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3} $ and $D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3 d_4}$ are antisymmetric in $d_1, d_2$, and $D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3 d_4}$ is symmetric in $d_3, d_4$. A particular instance of such an algebra is given by Zamolodchikov algebras [@Zam:]. We will start with a specific example, and consider general quadratically nonlinear Poisson algebras next.\n\nThe generators in the example are assumed to split into $L_{a}$ and $T_b$, $a = 1, \\ldots n_1$, $b = n_1 + 1, \\ldots, n$, with the brackets $$\\begin{aligned}\n[L_{a_1}, L_{a_2}] &=& \\tilde{C}_{a_1 a_2}^{a_3} L_{a_3} \\nonumber \\\\{}\n[L_{a_1}, T_{b_1}] &=& \\tilde{C}_{a_1 b_1}^{a_2} L_{a_2} +\n                       \\tilde{C}_{a_1 b_1}^{b_2} T_{b_2}\n  \\label{eq:zam} \\\\{}\n[T_{b_1}, T_{b_2}] &=& \\tilde{C}_{b_1 b_2}^{a_1} L_{a_1} +\n                       \\tilde{C}_{b_1 b_2}^{b_3} T_{b_3} +\n                       \\tilde{D}_{b_1  b_2}^{a_1 a_2} L_{a_1} L_{a_2}\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ so that contractions of $\\tilde{D}$ are impossible.\n\nGoing back to the notations $G_{d_i} = \\{L_{a}, T_{b}\\}$, $d = 1,\n\\ldots, n$ the Jacobi identity imply $$C_{d_1 d_2}^{d_4} C_{d_3 d_4}^{d_5} + \\mbox{cyclic}(d_1,d_2,d_3) = 0$$ $$\\{D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_4 d_5} C_{d_3 d_4}^{d_6} + \\mbox{symm}(d_5, d_6) \\} + \\\\\n  C_{d_1 d_2}^{d_4} D_{d_3 d_4}^{d_5 d_6} + \\mbox{cyclic}(d_1,d_2,d_3) = 0$$ and contractions of $D$ vanish.\n\nFor instance, the conditions (\\[eq:zam\\]) are fulfilled if one takes for the $L$\u2019s the generators of a semi-simple Lie algebra and take the $T$\u2019s to commute with the $L$\u2019s and to close on the Casimir element: $$\\begin{aligned}\n[L_a, T_b] &=& 0 \\\\{}\n[T_{b_1}, T_{b_2}] &=& \\delta_{b_1 b_2} k^{a_1 a_2} L_{a_1} L_{a_2}\\end{aligned}$$ where $k^{a_1 a_2}$ is the Killing bilinear form. The Jacobi identity is verified because the Casimir element commutes with the $L$\u2019s.\n\nThe previous theorem on the rank yields, by taking $n(l) = 1$ and $n(T) = 3/2$, that the rank is bounded by $1/2 m + 1$, where $m$ is the number of T-generators. Actually, the rank is much lower, since the covariant BRST charge is computed to be $$\\displaylines{\\qdd\n\\Omega =\n\\[\\frac{1}{2}\n  \\,C_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n       d_{3}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{2}}\\,\n  {{\\cal P}}_{d_{3}}\n  +\n  \\frac{1}{24}\n  \\,C_{d_{8}d_{9}}^{\n       d_{6}}\\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n                  d_{8}d_{7}}\\,D_{d_{3}d_{4}}^{\n  d_{9}d_{5}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{2}}\\nl\n  \\off{2695321}\n  \\,\\eta^{d_{3}}\\,\\eta^{d_{4}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{5}}\\,\n  {{\\cal P}}_{d_{7}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{6}}\n  +\n  \\frac{1}{2}\n  \\,D_{d_{1}d_{2}}^{\n       d_{4}d_{3}}\\,G_{d_{4}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\\,\n  \\eta^{d_{2}}\\,{{\\cal P}}_{d_{3}}\n  +G_{d_{1}}\\,\\eta^{d_{1}}\n\\]\n\\Nl}$$ which is identical to the result in [@SchSevNie:QuaBRSChaQua].\n\nGeneralizations\n---------------\n\nThe previous L-T algebras can be generalized in various directions. One may consider the general quadratic non homogeneous Poisson structure $$\\begin{aligned}\n&  [G_{d_1}, G_{d_2}] = C_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3}  \\, G_{d_3} +\n     D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3 d_4} G_{d_3} G_{d_4} & \\\\\n&  C_{d_1 d_2}^{d_4} C_{d_3 d_4}^{d_5} + \\mbox{cyclic}(d_1,d_2,d_3)\n    = 0 &  \\\\\n&  \\{D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_4 d_5} C_{d_3 d_4}^{d_6} + \\mbox{symm}(d_5, d_6) \\} +\n    C_{d_1 d_2}^{d_4} D_{d_3 d_4}^{d_5 d_6} + \\mbox{} \\quad\\quad &\n    \\nonumber \\\\\n& \\quad \\quad \\mbox{cyclic}(d_1,d_2,d_3)  = 0 &\\\\\n&  D_{d_4 d_1}^{d_5 d_6} D_{d_2 d_3}^{d_4 d_7} + \\mbox{symm}(d_5, d_6,\n    d_7) + \\mbox{cyclic}(d_1,d_2,d_3) = 0&\\end{aligned}$$ with $ C_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3} $ and $D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3 d_4}$ antisymmetric in $d_1, d_2$, and $D_{d_1 d_2}^{d_3 d_4}$ symmetric in $d_3, d_4$. One may also include higher order terms in the bracket while preserving the existence of a degree decreased by the bracket, as in the so called spin 4 algebra : $$\\begin{aligned}\n[L_{a_1}, L_{a_2}] &=& C_{a_1 a_2}^{a_3} L_{a_3} \\\\{}\n[L_{a_1}, T_{b_1}] &=& C_{a_1 b_1}^{b_2} T_{b_2} \\\\{}\n[L_{a_1}, W_{c_1}] &=& C_{a_1 c_1}^{c_2} W_{c_2} \\\\{}\n[T_{b_1}, T_{b_2}] &=& C_{b_1 b_2}^{a_1} L_{a_1} +  C_{b_1 b_2}^{b_3} T_{b_3} +\n                       D_{b_1  b_2}^{a_1 a_2} L_{a_1} L_{a_2} \\\\{}\n[T_{b_1}, W_{c_1}] &=& C_{b_1 c_1}^{b_2} T_{b_2} +\n                       D_{b_1 c_1}^{a_1  b_2} L_{a_1} T_{b_2} \\\\{}\n[W_{c_1}, W_{c_2}] &=& C_{c_1 c_2}^{a_1} L_{a_1} +\n                       D_{c_1  c_2}^{a_1 a_2} L_{a_1} L_{a_2} +\n                       E_{c_1  c_2}^{a_1 a_2 a_3} L_{a_1} L_{a_2} L_{a_3}.\\end{aligned}$$ If one sets $n(L) = 1, n(T) = 3/2, L(W) = 2$, one gets $n([A,B]) \\leq\nn(A) + n(B)$.\n\nWe have checked, using REDUCE, that in both cases the first seven terms in $\\Omega$ are generically non zero.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe have shown in this paper that polynomial Poisson algebras provide a rich arena in which the perturbative features of the BRST construction are perfectly illustrated. We believe this to be of interest because models of higher rank are rather rare and are usually thought not to arise in practice. Non polynomial Poisson algebras(e.g. of the type arising in the study of quantum groups) can also be analyzed along the same BRST lines and should provide further models of higher rank.\n\nWe have not discussed the quantum realization of Poisson algebras, and whether the nilpotency condition for the BRST generator is maintained quantum-mechanically. This is a difficult question, which is model-dependent. Indeed, while the ghost contribution to $\\Omega^2$ can be evaluated independently of the specific form of the $G_a$\u2019s in terms of the canonical variables $(q^i, p_i)$ (once a representation of the ghost anticommutation relations is chosen), the \u201cmatter\u201d contribution to $\\Omega^2$ depends on the \u201canomaly\u201d terms in $[G_a, G_b]$, which, in turn, depend on the specific form of the $G_a$\u2019s. It would be interesting to pursue this question further.\n\nAcknowledgments\n===============\n\nWe are grateful to Jim Stasheff and Claudio Teitelboim for fruitful discussions at the early stages of this research. This work has been supported in part by research funds from FNRS (Belgium) and by a research contract with the Commission of the European Communities.\n\n[10]{}\n\nM.\u00a0Nakamura. , 37:195, 1967.\n\nS.B. Priddy. , 152:39, 1970.\n\nE.K. Sklyanin. , 16:263, 1982.\n\nA.\u00a0B. Zamolodchikov. , 65:1205, 1985.\n\nV.A. Fateev and A.\u00a0B. Zamolodchikov. , B280:644, 1987.\n\nY.G. Oh. , 12:87, 1986.\n\nV.O. Tarasov, L.A. Takhatadzlupan, and L.D. Faddeev. , 57:1059, 1983.\n\nI\u00a0Bakas and P.\u00a0Mathieu. , 208B:101, 1988.\n\nK.\u00a0H. Bhaskara and K.\u00a0Rama. , 32:2319, 1991.\n\nYa.\u00a0I. Granovskii, A.\u00a0S. Zhedanov, and I.\u00a0M. Lutsenko. , 91:474, 1992.\n\nM.\u00a0Henneaux and C.\u00a0Teitelboim. . Princeton University Press, 1992.\n\nV.K.A.M. Gugenheim and J.D. Stasheff. , 38:237, 1986; J.D. Stasheff. ,19:287, 1988 and references therein.\n\nM.\u00a0Henneaux. , 120B:75, 1983.\n\nK.\u00a0Fujikawa and J.\u00a0Kubo. , 199B:75, 1987.\n\nJ.\u00a0Huebschmann. Extensions of Lie algebras. Heidelberg preprint, 1989.\n\nA.\u00a0Dresse. Canonical form of expressions involving dummy variables. Submitted to J. Symb. Comp.\n\nA.\u00a0Dresse. Treatment of dummy variables and BRST theory in computer algebra. In [*Proceedings of the IMACS Symposium SC\u20131993*]{}, 1993.\n\nA.\u00a0Burnel, H.\u00a0Caprasse, and A.\u00a0Dresse. in preparation.\n\nA.\u00a0Dresse. Ph.D. Thesis, U.L.B. (in preparation).\n\nK.\u00a0Schoutens, A.\u00a0Sevrin, and P.\u00a0van Nieuwenhuizen. , 124:87, 1989.\n\n[^1]: We shall restrict here the analysis to ordinary polynomial algebras with commuting generators, but one can easily extend the study to the graded case with both commuting and anticommuting generators.\n\n[^2]: It should be stressed that the polynomial algebra generated by the $G$\u2019s, equipped with the bracket (\\[basic\\_bracket\\]) is [*always*]{} an infinite-dimensional Lie algebra, even in the \u201copen algebra\u201d case.\n\n[^3]: In agreement with the notations of [@HenTei:QuaGauSys], we denote the algebra of polynomials in the anticommuting variables ${{\\cal P}}_a$ with complex coefficients by $\\Bbb{C}\\,({{\\cal P}}_a)$, and not by the more familiar notation $\\Lambda({{\\cal P}}_a)$. A typical element of $\\Bbb{C}\\,({{\\cal P}}_1)$ is $a + b {{\\cal P}}_1$ with $a, b \\in \\Bbb{C}\\,$ since $({{\\cal P}}_1)^2 = 0$.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We obtain a simple presentation of the hyperelliptic mapping class group ${{\\mathcal{M}}^h}(N)$ of a nonorientable surface $N$. As an application we compute the first homology group of ${{\\mathcal{M}}^h}(N)$ with coefficients in $H_1(N;{{\\mathbb{Z}}})$.'\naddress: ' Institute of Mathematics, University of Gda\u0144sk, Wita Stwosza 57, 80-952 Gda\u0144sk, Poland '\nauthor:\n- Micha\u0142\u00a0Stukow\ntitle: A finite presentation for the hyperelliptic mapping class group of a nonorientable surface\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLet $N_{g,s}^n$ be a smooth, nonorientable, compact surface of genus $g$ with $s$ boundary components and $n$ punctures. If $s$ and/or $n$ is zero, then we omit it from the notation. If we do not want to emphasise the numbers $g,s,n$, we simply write $N$ for a surface $N_{g,s}^n$. Recall that $N_{g}$ is a connected sum of $g$ projective planes, and $N_{g,s}^n$ is obtained from $N_g$ by removing $s$ open disks and specifying the set $\\Sigma=\\{{{z}_1,\\dotsc,{z}_{n}}\\}$ of $n$ distinguished points in the interior of $N_g$.\n\nLet ${\\textrm{Diff}}(N)$ be the group of all diffeomorphisms ${h\\colon N\\to N}$ such that $h$ is the identity on each boundary component and $h(\\Sigma)=\\Sigma$. By ${{\\mathcal{M}}}(N)$ we denote the quotient group of ${\\textrm{Diff}}(N)$ by the subgroup consisting of maps isotopic to the identity, where we assume that isotopies fix $\\Sigma$ and are the identity on each boundary component. ${{\\mathcal{M}}}(N)$ is called the *mapping class group* of $N$.\n\nThe mapping class group ${{\\mathcal{M}}}(S_{g,s}^n)$ of an orientable surface is defined analogously, but we consider only orientation preserving maps. If we include orientation reversing maps, we obtain the so-called *extended mapping class group* ${{\\mathcal{M}}}^{\\pm}(S_{g,s}^n)$.\n\nSuppose that the closed orientable surface $S_g$ is embedded in ${{\\mathbb{R}}}^3$ as shown in Figure \\[r01\\], in such a way that it is invariant under reflections across $xy,yz,xz$ planes. Let ${{\\varrho}\\colon S_g\\to S_g}$ be the *hyperelliptic involution*, i.e. the half turn about the $y$-axis.\n\n![Surface $S_g$ embedded in ${{\\mathbb{R}}}^3$.[]{data-label=\"r01\"}](R01){width=\"90.00000%\"}\n\nThe *hyperelliptic mapping class group* ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(S_g)$ is defined to be the centraliser of ${\\varrho}$ in ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_g)$. In a similar way we define the *extended hyperelliptic mapping class group* ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h\\pm}(S_g)$ to be the centraliser of ${\\varrho}$ in ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_g)$.\n\nBackground\n----------\n\nThe hyperelliptic mapping class group turns out to be a very interesting and important subgroup of the mapping class group. Its algebraic properties have been studied extensively \u2013 see [@Bir-Hil; @Kawazumi1] and references there. Although ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(S_g)$ is an infinite index subgroup of ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_g)$ for $g\\geqslant 3$, it plays surprisingly important role in studying its algebraic properties. For example Wajnryb\u2019s simple presentation [@Wajn_pre] of the mapping class group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_g)$ differs from the presentation of the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(S_g)$ by adding one generator and a few relations. Another important phenomenon is the fact, that every finite cyclic subgroup of maximal order in ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_g)$ is conjugate to a subgroup of ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(S_g)$ [@MaxHyp].\n\nHomological computations play a prominent role in the theory of mapping class groups. Let us mention that in the case of the hyperelliptic mapping class group, B\u00f6digheimer, Cohen and Peim [@BoedCoh] computed $H^*({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(S_g);{{\\mathbb{K}}})$ with coefficients in any field ${{\\mathbb{K}}}$. Kawazumi showed in [@Kawazumi1] that if $\\textrm{ch}({{\\mathbb{K}}})\\neq 2$ then $H^*({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(S_g);H^1(S_g;{{\\mathbb{K}}}))=0$. For the integral coefficients, Tanaka [@Tanaka] showed that $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(S_g);H_1(S_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}}))\\cong{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2$. Let us also mention that Morita [@MoritaJacFou] showed that in the case of the full mapping class group, $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_g);H_1(S_g,{{\\mathbb{Z}}}))\\cong{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_{2g-2}$.\n\nMain results\n------------\n\nThe purpose of this paper is to extend the notion of the hyperelliptic mapping class group to the nonorientable case. We define this group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N)$ in Section \\[sec:def:hiper\\] and observe that it contains a natural subgroup ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N)$ of index 2 (Remark \\[rem:positiv:subg\\]).\n\nThen we obtain simple presentations of these groups (Theorems \\[th:004\\] and \\[tw:pres:pos\\]). By analogy with the orientable case, these presentations may be thought of as the first approximation of a presentation of the full mapping class group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N)$. In fact, for $g=3$ the hyperelliptic mapping class group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N)$ coincide with the full mapping class group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N)$ (see Corollary \\[Presen:g3:Bir\\]). If $g\\geq 4$, then Paris and Szepietowski [@SzepParis] obtained a simple presentation of ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N)$, which can be rewritten (Proposition 3.3 and Theorem 3.5 of [@StukowSimpSzepPar]) so that it has the hyperelliptic involution ${\\varrho}$ as one of the generators, and the hyperelliptic relations (Theorem\u00a0\\[th:004\\]) appear among defining relations.\n\nAs an application of obtained presentations we compute the first homology groups of ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N)$ and ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N)$ with coefficients in $H_1(N;{{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ (Theorems \\[tw:hom:positive\\] and \\[tw:hom:full\\]).\n\nDefinitions of ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ and ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g)$ {#sec:def:hiper}\n===========================================================================\n\nLet $S_{g-1}$ be a closed oriented surface of genus $g-1\\geqslant 2$ embedded in ${{\\mathbb{R}}}^3$ as shown in Figure \\[r01\\], in such a way that it is invariant under reflections across $xy,yz,xz$ planes, and let ${j\\colon S_{g-1}\\to S_{g-1}}$ be the symmetry defined by $j(x,y,z)=(-x,-y,-z)$. Denote by $C_{{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_{g-1})}(j)$ the centraliser of $j$ in ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_{g-1})$. The orbit space $S_{g-1}/{\\langle j \\rangle}$ is a nonorientable surface $N_{g}$ of genus $g$ and it is known (Theorem 1 of [@BirChil1]) that there is an epimorphism $${\\pi_j\\colon C_{{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_{g-1})}(j)\\to {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_{g})}$$ with kernel $\\ker \\pi_j={\\langle j \\rangle}$. In particular $${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_{g})\\cong C_{{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_{g-1})}(j)/{\\langle j \\rangle}.$$ Observe that the hyperelliptic involution ${\\varrho}$ is an element of $C_{{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_{g-1})}(j)$. Hence the following definition makes sense.\n\nDefine the *hyperelliptic mapping class group* ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N)$ of a closed nonorientable surface $N$ to be the centraliser of $\\pi_j({\\varrho})$ in the mapping class group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N)$. We say that $\\pi_j({\\varrho})$ is the *hyperelliptic involution* of $N$ and by abuse of notation we write ${\\varrho}$ for $\\pi_j({\\varrho})$.\n\nIn order to have a little more straightforward description of ${\\varrho}$ observe, that the orbit space $S_{g-1}/{\\langle j \\rangle}$ gives the model of $N_g$, where $N_g$ is a connected sum of an orientable surface $S_r$ and a projective plane (for $g$ odd) or a Klein bottle (for $g$ even) \u2013 see Figure \\[r02\\].\n\n![Nonorientable surface $N_g$.[]{data-label=\"r02\"}](R02){width=\"96.00000%\"}\n\nTo be more precise, $N_g$ is the left half of $S_{g-1}$ embedded in ${{\\mathbb{R}}}^3$ as in Figure \\[r01\\] with boundary points identified by the map $(x,y,z)\\mapsto (-x,-y,-z)$. Note that $g=2r+1$ for $g$ odd and $g=2r+2$ for $g$ even. In such a model, ${{\\varrho}\\colon N_g\\to N_g}$ is the map induced by the half turn about the $y$-axis.\n\nObserve that the set of fixed points of ${{\\varrho}\\colon N_g\\to N_g}$ consists of $g$ points $\\{p_1,p_2,\\ldots,p_g\\}$ and the circle $p$. Therefore ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N)$ consists of isotopy classes of maps which must fix the set $\\{p_1,p_2,\\ldots,p_g\\}$ and map the circle $p$ to itself. Moreover, the orbit space $N_g/{\\langle {\\varrho}\\rangle}$ is the sphere $S_{0,1}^g$ with one boundary component corresponding to $p$ and $g$ distinguished points corresponding to $\\{p_1,p_2,\\ldots,p_g\\}$. Since elements of ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ may not fix $p$ point\u2013wise, it is more convenient to treat $p$ as the distinguished puncture $p_{g+1}$, hence we will identify $N_g/{\\langle {\\varrho}\\rangle}$ with the sphere $S_0^{g,1}$ with $g+1$ punctures. The notation $S_0^{g,1}$ is meant to indicate that maps of $S_0^{g,1}$ (and their isotopies) could permute the punctures $p_1,\\ldots,p_g$, but must fix $p_{g+1}$.\n\nThe main goal of this section is to prove the following theorem.\n\n\\[tw:002\\] If $g\\geqslant 3$ then the projection $N_g\\to N_g/{\\langle {\\varrho}\\rangle}$ induces an epimorphism $${\\pi_{\\varrho}\\colon {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)\\to {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})}$$ with $\\ker \\pi_{\\varrho}={\\langle {\\varrho}\\rangle}$.\n\nConsider the following diagram $$\\xymatrix@C=3pc@R=3pc{\n C_{{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_{g-1})}({\\langle j,{\\varrho}\\rangle})\\ar^{\\pi_{\\varrho}}[r]\\ar^{\\pi_j}[d]&C_{{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{2g})}(j)\\ar^{\\pi_j}[d]\\\\\n {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)\\ar@{-->}^{\\pi_{\\varrho}}[r] \\ar@/^1pc/@{->}[u]^{i_j} &{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})\n}$$ The left vertical map is the restriction of the projection $${\\pi_j\\colon C_{{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_{g-1})}(j)\\to {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_g)}$$ to the subgroup consisting of elements which centralise ${\\varrho}$. The nice thing about $\\pi_j$ is that it has a section $${i_j\\colon {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_g)\\to C_{{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_{g-1})}(j)}.$$ In fact, for any $h\\in{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_g)$ we can define $i_j(h)$ to be an orientation preserving lift of $h$.\n\nThe upper horizontal map is the restriction of the homomorphism $${\\pi_{\\varrho}\\colon {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h\\pm}(S_{g-1})\\to {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{2g})}$$ induced by the orbit projection $S_{g-1}\\to S_{g-1}/{\\langle {\\varrho}\\rangle}$. The fact that this map is a homomorphism was first observed by Birman and Hilden [@Bir-Hil]. The kernel of this map is equal to ${\\langle {\\varrho}\\rangle}$.\n\nThe right vertical map is again the homomorphism induced by the orbit projection $S^{2g}_0\\to\nS^{2g}_0/{\\langle j \\rangle}$. However now ${j\\colon S^{2g}_0\\to S^{2g}_0}$ is a reflection with a circle of fixed points. The existence of $\\pi_j$ in such a case follows from the work of Zieschang (Proposition 10.3 of [@Zies1]).\n\nHence there is the homomorphism $${\\pi_{\\varrho}\\colon {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)\\to {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})}$$ defined as the composition $$\\pi_{\\varrho}=\\pi_j\\circ \\pi_{\\varrho}\\circ i_j.$$ Moreover, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ker \\pi_{\\varrho}&=\\ker (\\pi_j\\circ \\pi_{\\varrho}\\circ i_j)=(\\pi_j\\circ \\pi_{\\varrho}\\circ i_j)^{-1}(id)\\\\\n&=i_j^{-1}(\\pi_{\\varrho}^{-1}(\\pi_j^{-1}(id)))=i_j^{-1}(\\pi_{\\varrho}^{-1}({\\langle j \\rangle}))=i_j^{-1}({\\langle j,{\\varrho}\\rangle})={\\langle {\\varrho}\\rangle}.\n\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTheorem \\[tw:002\\] is not true if $N=N_2$. This corresponds to the fact that the Birman-Hilden theorem does not hold for the closed torus $S=S_1$.\n\n\\[rem:positiv:subg\\] Theorem \\[tw:002\\] shows that the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ contains a very natural subgroup of index 2, namely $${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g)=\\pi_{\\varrho}^{-1}({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})).$$ Geometrically, the subgroup ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g)$ consists of these elements, which preserve the orientation of the circle $p$ (the circle fixed by ${\\varrho}$). As we will see later (see Remark \\[uw:perspective\\]), it seems that the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N)$ corresponds to ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(S)$, whereas ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(N)$ corresponds to ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h\\pm}(S)$.\n\nPresentations for groups ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})$ and ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})$\n================================================================================================\n\nLet $w_1,w_2,\\ldots,w_g$ be simple arcs connecting punctures $p_1,\\ldots,p_{g+1}$ on a sphere $S_0^{g+1}$ as shown in Figure \\[r03\\].\n\n![Sphere $S_0^{p+1}$ and elementary braid ${\\sigma}_i$.[]{data-label=\"r03\"}](R03){width=\"80.00000%\"}\n\nRecall that to each such arc $w_i$ we can associate the elementary braid ${\\sigma}_i$ which interchanges punctures $p_i$ and $p_{i+1}$ \u2013 see Figure \\[r03\\]. The following theorem is due to Magnus [@Mag_sfer]. It is also proved in Chapter 4 of [@Bir-BLMCG].\n\n\\[th:00\\] If $g\\geqslant 1$, then ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g+1})$ has the presentation with generators ${\\sigma}_1,\\ldots,{\\sigma}_g$ and defining relations: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   &{\\sigma}_k{\\sigma}_j={\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_k\\quad\\text{for $|k-j|>1$},\\\\\n&{\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_{j+1}{\\sigma}_j={\\sigma}_{j+1}{\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_{j+1}\\quad\\text{for $j=1,\\ldots,g-1$},\\\\\n&{\\sigma}_1\\cdots {\\sigma}_{g-1}{\\sigma}_g^2{\\sigma}_{g-1}\\cdots {\\sigma}_1=1,\\\\\n&({\\sigma}_1{\\sigma}_2\\cdots {\\sigma}_{g})^{g+1}=1.\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn order to avoid unnecessary complications, from now on assume that $g\\geqslant 3$. Recall that we denote by ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})$ the subgroup of ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g+1})$ consisting of maps which fix $p_{g+1}$.\n\n\\[th:001\\] If $g\\geqslant 3$, then ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})$ has the presentation with generators ${\\sigma}_1,\\ldots,{\\sigma}_{g-1}$ and defining relations:\n\n1.  ${\\sigma}_k{\\sigma}_j={\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_k$ for $|k-j|>1$ and $k,j<g$,\n\n2.  ${\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_{j+1}{\\sigma}_j={\\sigma}_{j+1}{\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_{j+1}$ for $j=1,2,\\ldots,g-2$,\n\n3.  $({\\sigma}_1\\cdots {\\sigma}_{g-1})^g=1$.\n\nBy Lemma 2.2 of [@Big-lin], $${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})\\cong B_{g}/{\\langle \\Delta^2 \\rangle},$$ where $B_{g}={{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_{0,1}^{g})$ is the braid group on $g$ strands, and $$\\Delta^2=({\\sigma}_1\\cdots {\\sigma}_{g-1})^g$$ is the generator of the center of $B_g$. Since $B_g$ has the presentation with generators ${\\sigma}_1,\\ldots,{\\sigma}_{g-1}$ and defining relations (A1), (A2), this completes the proof.\n\nTheorem \\[th:001\\] can be also algebraically deduced from Theorem \\[th:00\\]. Since ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})$ is a subgroup of index $g+1$ in ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g+1})$, for the Schreier transversal we can take $$(1,{\\sigma}_{g},{\\sigma}_{g}{\\sigma}_{g-1},\\ldots,{\\sigma}_{g}{\\sigma}_{g-1}\\cdots {\\sigma}_1).$$ If we now apply Reidemeister-Schreier process, as generators for ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})$ we get ${\\sigma}_1,\\ldots,{\\sigma}_{g-1}$ and additionally $\\tau_1,\\ldots,\\tau_g$ where $$\\tau_k=\\begin{cases}\n          {\\sigma}_g\\cdots{\\sigma}_{k+1}{\\sigma}_k^2{\\sigma}_{k+1}^{-1}\\cdots{\\sigma}_g^{-1}&\\text{for $k=1,\\ldots,g-1$}\\\\\n{\\sigma}_g^2&\\text{for $k=g$}.\n         \\end{cases}$$ As defining relations we get\n\n1.  ${\\sigma}_k{\\sigma}_j={\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_k$ for $|k-j|>1$ and $k,j<g$,\n\n2.  ${\\sigma}_k\\tau_j=\\tau_j{\\sigma}_k$ for $j\\neq k,k+1$,\n\n3.  ${\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_{j+1}{\\sigma}_j={\\sigma}_{j+1}{\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_{j+1}$ for $j=1,2,\\ldots,g-2$,\n\n4.  ${\\sigma}_k\\tau_{k+1}{\\sigma}_{k}^{-1}=\\tau_{k+1}^{-1}\\tau_k\\tau_{k+1}$ for $k=1,2,\\ldots,g-1$,\n\n5.  ${\\sigma}_k\\tau_k{\\sigma}_{k}^{-1}=\\tau_{k+1}$ for $k=1,2,\\ldots,g-1$,\n\n6.  $\\tau_1\\tau_2\\cdots \\tau_g=1$,\n\n7.  ${\\sigma}_{g-1}\\cdots{\\sigma}_2{\\sigma}_1\\tau_1{\\sigma}_1{\\sigma}_2\\cdots {\\sigma}_{g-1}=1$,\n\n8.  $\\left({\\sigma}_{g-1}{\\sigma}_{g-2}\\cdots{\\sigma}_{1}\\tau_1\\right)^g=1$.\n\nIf we now remove generators $\\tau_1,\\ldots,\\tau_g$ from the above presentation, we obtain the presentation given by Theorem \\[th:001\\]. The computations are lengthy, but completely straightforward.\n\nRecall that by ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})$ we denote the extended mapping class group of the sphere $S_0^{g,1}$, that is the extension of degree 2 of ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})$. Suppose that the sphere $S_0^{g,1}$ is the metric sphere in ${{\\mathbb{R}}}^3$ with origin $(0,0,0)$ and that punctures $p_1,\\ldots,p_g$ are contained in the $xy$-plane. Let ${{\\sigma}\\colon {S_0^{g,1}}\\to {S_0^{g,1}}}$ be the map induced by the reflection across the $xy$-plane. We have the short exact sequence. $$\\xymatrix{\n1\\ar[r]&{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})\\ar[r]&{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})\\ar[r]&{\\langle {\\sigma}\\rangle}\\ar[r]&1.\n}$$ Moreover, ${\\sigma}{\\sigma}_i{\\sigma}^{-1}={\\sigma}_i^{-1}$ for $i=1,\\ldots,g-1$. Therefore Theorem \\[th:001\\] implies the following.\n\n\\[th:003\\] If $g\\geqslant 3$, then ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})$ has the presentation with generators ${\\sigma}_1,\\ldots,{\\sigma}_{g-1},{\\sigma}$ and defining relations:\n\n1.  ${\\sigma}_k{\\sigma}_j={\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_k$ for $|k-j|>1$ and $k,j<g$,\n\n2.  ${\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_{j+1}{\\sigma}_j={\\sigma}_{j+1}{\\sigma}_j{\\sigma}_{j+1}$ for $j=1,2,\\ldots,g-2$,\n\n3.  $({\\sigma}_1\\cdots {\\sigma}_{g-1})^g=1$,\n\n4.  ${\\sigma}^2=1$,\n\n5.  ${\\sigma}{\\sigma}_i{\\sigma}={\\sigma}_i^{-1}$ for $i=1,2,\\ldots,g-1$.\n\nPresentations for groups ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ and ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g)$\n=====================================================================================\n\nBy Theorem \\[tw:002\\] there is a short exact sequence. $$\\xymatrix{\n1\\ar[r]&{\\langle {\\varrho}\\rangle}\\ar[r]&{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)\\ar[r]^{\\pi_{\\varrho}}&{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})\\ar[r]&1.\n}$$ Moreover, it is known that as lifts of braids ${\\sigma}_1,\\ldots,{\\sigma}_{g-1}\\in{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})$ we can take Dehn twists $t_{a_1},\\ldots,t_{a_{g-1}}\\in {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ about circles $a_1,\\ldots,a_{g-1}$ \u2013 cf Figure \\[r02\\] (small arrows in this picture indicate directions of twists). As a lift of ${\\sigma}$ we take the symmetry $s$ across the $xy$ plane (the second lift of ${\\sigma}$ is the symmetry ${\\varrho}s$, that is the symmetry across the $yz$ plane).\n\nTo obtain a presentation for the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ we need to lift relations (B1)\u2013(B5) of Theorem \\[th:003\\]. Each relation of the form $$w({\\sigma}_1,\\ldots,{\\sigma}_{g-1},{\\sigma})=1$$ lifts either to $w(t_{a_1},\\ldots,t_{a_{g-1}},s)=1$ or to $w(t_{a_1},\\ldots,t_{a_{g-1}},s)={\\varrho}$. In order to determine which of these two cases does occur it is enough to check whether the homeomorphism $w(t_{a_1},\\ldots,t_{a_{g-1}},s)$ changes the orientation of the circle $a_1$ or not. This can be easily done and as a result we obtain the following theorem.\n\n\\[th:004\\] If $g\\geqslant 3$, then ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ has the presentation with generators $t_{a_1},\\ldots,t_{a_{g-1}},s,{\\varrho}$ and defining relations:\n\n1.  $t_{a_k}t_{a_j}=t_{a_j}t_{a_k}$ for $|k-j|>1$ and $k,j<g$,\n\n2.  $t_{a_j}t_{a_{j+1}}t_{a_j}=t_{a_{j+1}}t_{a_j}t_{a_{j+1}}$ for $j=1,2,\\ldots,g-2$,\n\n3.  $(t_{a_{1}}\\cdots t_{a_{g-1}})^g=\\begin{cases}\n                                                  1&\\text{for $g$ even}\\\\\n    {\\varrho}&\\text{for $g$ odd,}\\\\\\end{cases}$\n\n4.  $s^2=1$,\n\n5.  $st_{a_j}s=t_{a_j}^{-1}$ for $j=1,2,\\ldots,g-1$,\n\n6.  ${\\varrho}^2=1$,\n\n7.  ${\\varrho}t_{a_j}{\\varrho}=t_{a_j}$ for $j=1,2,\\ldots,g-1$,\n\n8.  ${\\varrho}s{\\varrho}=s$.\n\n\\[cr:001\\] If $g\\geqslant 3$, then $$H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g))=\\begin{cases}\n                   {{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2&\\text{for $g$ odd}\\\\\n{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2&\\text{for $g$ even.}\n                  \\end{cases}$$\n\nRelation (C2) implies that the abelianization of the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ is an abelian group generated by $t_{a_1},s,{\\varrho}$. Defining relations take form $$\\begin{aligned}\n   &t_{a_1}^{(g-1)g}=\\begin{cases}\n            1&\\text{for $g$ even}\\\\\n{\\varrho}&\\text{for $g$ odd}\\\\\\end{cases}\\\\\n&s^2=1,\\quad t_{a_1}^2=1,\\quad {\\varrho}^2=1.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Hence $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g))={\\langle t_{a_1},s \\rangle}\\simeq {{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ for $g$ odd and $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g))={\\langle t_{a_1},s,{\\varrho}\\rangle}\\simeq\n{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ for $g$ even.\n\nThe main theorem of [@Chil] implies that the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_3)$ is generated by $a_1,a_2$ and a crosscap slide which commutes with ${\\varrho}$. Hence ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_3)={{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_3)$ and Theorem \\[th:004\\] implies the following.\n\n\\[Presen:g3:Bir\\] The group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_3)$ has the presentation with generators $t_{a_1},t_{a_2},s$ and defining relations:\n\n1.  $t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_1}=t_{a_2}t_{a_1}t_{a_2}$,\n\n2.  $(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_1})^4=1$,\n\n3.  $s^2=1$,\n\n4.  $st_{a_j}s=t_{a_j}^{-1}$ for $j=1,2$.\n\nBy Theorem \\[th:004\\], the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_3)$ is generated by $t_{a_1},t_{a_2},{\\varrho},s$ with defining relations:\n\n1.  $t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1}=t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}$,\n\n2.  $(t_{a_{1}}t_{a_2})^3={\\varrho}$,\n\n3.  $s^2=1$,\n\n4.  $st_{a_j}s=t_{a_j}^{-1}$ for $j=1,2$,\n\n5.  ${\\varrho}^2=1$,\n\n6.  ${\\varrho}t_{a_j}{\\varrho}=t_{a_j}$ for $j=1,2$,\n\n7.  ${\\varrho}s{\\varrho}=s$.\n\nUsing (C2), we can rewrite (C3) in the form $$\\begin{aligned}\n {\\varrho}=t_{a_{1}}t_{a_2}t_{a_{1}}(t_{a_2}t_{a_{1}}t_{a_2})=t_{a_{1}}t_{a_2}t_{a_{1}}(t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1\n})=(t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1})^2.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Hence we can remove ${\\varrho}$ from the generating set and then (C6) will transform into (D2). It remains to check that relations (C7) and (C8) are superfluous. Let start with (C7). $$\\begin{aligned}\nt_{a_1}{\\varrho}t_{a_1}^{-1}&=t_{a_1}(t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1})(t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1})t_{a_1}^{-1}\\\\\n&=t_{a_1}(t_{a_2}t_{a_{1}}t_{a_2})(t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1})t_{a_1}^{-1}=\n(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_{1}})(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_{1}})={\\varrho}\\\\\nt_{a_2}{\\varrho}t_{a_2}^{-1}&=t_{a_2}(t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1})(t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1})t_{a_2}^{-1}\\\\\n&=t_{a_2}(t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1})(t_{a_2}t_{a_{1}}t_{a_2})t_{a_2}^{-1}=\n(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_{1}})(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_{1}})={\\varrho}\\end{aligned}$$ Now we check (C8). $$\\begin{aligned}  \ns{\\varrho}s&=\ns(t_{a_1}t_{a_{2}}t_{a_1})^2s=(t_{a_1}^{-1}t_{a_{2}}^{-1}t_{a_1}^{-1})^2=(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_1})^{-2\n} = (t_{a_1}t_{a_2}t_{a_1})^{2}={\\varrho}.\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy restricting homomorphism ${\\pi_{\\varrho}\\colon {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(N_g)\\to {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{\\pm}(S_0^{g,1})}$ to the subgroup ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g)$ we obtain the exact sequence $$\\xymatrix{\n1\\ar[r]&{\\langle {\\varrho}\\rangle}\\ar[r]&{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g)\\ar[r]^{\\pi_{\\varrho}}&{{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(S_0^{g,1})\\ar[r]&1.\n}$$ Now if we lift the presentation from Theorem \\[th:001\\], we get the following.\n\n\\[tw:pres:pos\\] If $g\\geqslant 3$, then ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g)$ has the presentation with generators $t_{a_1},\\ldots,t_{a_{g-1}},{\\varrho}$ and defining relations:\n\n1.  $t_{a_k}t_{a_j}=t_{a_j}t_{a_k}$ for $|k-j|>1$ and $k,j<g$,\n\n2.  $t_{a_j}t_{a_{j+1}}t_{a_j}=t_{a_{j+1}}t_{a_j}t_{a_{j+1}}$ for $j=1,2,\\ldots,g-2$,\n\n3.  $(t_{a_{1}}\\cdots t_{a_{g-1}})^g=\\begin{cases}\n                                                  1&\\text{for $g$ even}\\\\\n    {\\varrho}&\\text{for $g$ odd,}\\\\\\end{cases}$\n\n4.  ${\\varrho}^2=1$,\n\n5.  ${\\varrho}t_{a_j}{\\varrho}=t_{a_j}$ for $j=1,2,\\ldots,g-1$.\n\n\\[cr:002\\] If $g\\geqslant 3$, then $$H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g))=\\begin{cases}\n                   {{\\mathbb{Z}}}_{2(g-1)g}&\\text{for $g$ odd}\\\\\n{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_{(g-1)g}\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2&\\text{for $g$ even.}\n                  \\end{cases}$$\n\nRelation (E2) implies that the abelianization of the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g)$ is an abelian group generated by $t_{a_1},{\\varrho}$. Defining relations take form: $$\\begin{aligned}\n   &t_{a_1}^{(g-1)g}=\\begin{cases}\n            1&\\text{for $g$ even}\\\\\n{\\varrho}&\\text{for $g$ odd,}\\\\\\end{cases}\\\\\n&{\\varrho}^2=1.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Hence $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g))={\\langle t_{a_1} \\rangle}\\simeq {{\\mathbb{Z}}}_{2(g-1)g}$ for $g$ odd and $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g))={\\langle t_{a_1},{\\varrho}\\rangle}\\simeq\n{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_{(g-1)g}\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ for $g$ even.\n\n\\[uw:perspective\\] To put Corollaries \\[cr:001\\] and \\[cr:002\\] into perspective, recall that in the oriented case (Theorem 8 of [@Bir-Hil]), $$\\begin{aligned}\n   {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(S_g)=\\langle& t_{a_1},\\ldots,t_{a_{2g+1}},{\\varrho}{\\;|\\;}t_{a_k}t_{a_j}=t_{a_j}t_{a_k},\\ t_{a_j}t_{a_{j+1}}t_{a_j}=t_{a_{j+1}}t_{a_j}t_{a_{j+1}},\\\\\n &(t_{a_1}t_{a_2}\\cdots t_{a_{2g+1}})^{2g+2}=1,\\ {\\varrho}=t_{a_1}t_{a_2}\\cdots t_{a_{2g+1}}t_{a_{2g+1}}\\cdots t_{a_2}t_{a_1},\\\\ &{\\varrho}^2=1, {\\varrho}t_{a_1}{\\varrho}=t_{a_1}\\rangle,\\quad\n\\text{where $j=1,2,\\ldots,2g$, $|k-j|>1$}.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ The presentation for the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h\\pm}(S_g)$ is obtained from the above presentation by adding one generator $s$ and three relations: $$s^2=1,\\ st_{a_1}s=t_{a_1}^{-1},\\ {\\varrho}s{\\varrho}=s.$$ Consequently, $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h\\pm}(S_g))={{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2$ and $$H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(S_g))=\\begin{cases}\n            {{\\mathbb{Z}}}_{4g+2}&\\text{for $g$ even}\\\\\n{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_{8g+4}&\\text{for $g$ odd.}\\\\\\end{cases}$$ This suggests that algebraically the group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N)$ corresponds to ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(S)$, whereas ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(N)$ corresponds to ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h\\pm}(S)$.\n\nComputing $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g); H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}}))$ and $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(N_g); H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}}))$\n====================================================================================================================================\n\nHomology of groups\n------------------\n\nLet us briefly review how to compute the first homology of a group with twisted coefficients. Our exposition follows [@Brown; @Tanaka].\n\nFor a given group $G$ and $G$-module $M$ (that is ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}G$-module) we define the *bar resolution* which is a chain complex $(C_n(G))$ of $G$-modules, where $C_n(G)$ is the free $G$-module generated by symbols $[h_1|\\cdots|h_n]$, $h_i\\in G$. For $n=0$, $C_0(G)$ is the free module generated by the empty bracket $[\\cdot]$. Our interest will restrict to groups $C_2(G),C_1(G),C_0(G)$ for which the boundary operator ${\\partial_n\\colon C_n(G)\\to C_{n-1}(G)}$ is defined by formulas: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_2([h_1|h_2])&=h_1[h_2]-[h_1h_2]+[h_1],\\\\\n   \\partial_1([h])&=h[\\cdot]-[\\cdot].\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe homology of $G$ with coefficients in $M$ is defined as the homology groups of the chain complex $(C_n(G)\\otimes M)$, where the chain complexes are tensored over ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}G$. In particular, $H_1(G;M)$ is the first homology group of the complex $$\\xymatrix@C=3pc@R=3pc{C_2(G)\\otimes M\\ar[r]^{\\ \\partial_2\\otimes {\\rm id}}&C_1(G)\\otimes M\n\\ar[r]^{\\ \\partial_1\\otimes {\\rm id}}&C_0(G)\\otimes M.}$$ For simplicity, we denote $\\partial\\otimes {\\rm id}={\\overline{\\partial}}$ henceforth.\n\nIf the group $G$ has a presentation $G=\\langle X\\,|\\,R\\rangle$, denote by $${\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}={\\langle [x]\\otimes m{\\;|\\;}x\\in X, m\\in M \\rangle}{\\subseteq}C_1(G)\\otimes M.$$ Then, using the formula for $\\partial_2$, one can show that $H_1(G;M)$ is a quotient of ${\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}\\cap \\ker{\\overline{\\partial}}_1$.\n\nThe kernel of this quotient corresponds to relations in $G$ (that is elements of $R$). To be more precise, if $r\\in R$ has the form $x_1\\cdots x_k=y_1\\cdots y_n$ and $m\\in M$, then $r$ gives the relation (in $H_1(G;M)$) $${\\overline{r}}\\otimes m\\!:\\ \\sum_{i=1}^{k}x_1\\cdots x_{i-1}[x_i]\\otimes m=\\sum_{i=1}^{n}y_1\\cdots y_{i-1}[y_i]\\otimes m.\\label{eq_rew_rel}$$ Then $$H_1(G;M)={\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}\\cap \\ker{\\overline{\\partial}}_1/{\\langle {\\overline{R}} \\rangle},$$ where $${\\overline{R}}=\\{{\\overline{r}}\\otimes m{\\;|\\;}r\\in R,m\\in M\\}.$$\n\nAction of ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(N_g)$ on $H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}})$\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nLet $c_1,\\ldots,c_g$ be one-sided circles indicated in Figure \\[r04\\]. In this figure surface $N_g$ is represented as the sphere with $g$ crosscaps (the shaded disks represent crosscaps, hence their interiors are to be removed and then the antipodal points on each boundary component are to be identified).\n\n![Surface $N_g$ as a sphere with crosscaps.[]{data-label=\"r04\"}](R04){width=\"80.00000%\"}\n\nThe same set of circles is also indicated in Figure \\[r02\\] \u2013 for a method of transferring circles between two models of $N_g$ see Section 3 of [@Stukow_HomTw].\n\nRecall that $H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ as a ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}$-module is generated by $\\gamma_1=[c_1],\\ldots,\\gamma_g=[c_g]$ with respect to the single relation $$2(\\gamma_1+\\gamma_2+\\cdots+\\gamma_g)=0.$$ There is a ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2$-valued intersection paring $\\langle\\,,\\rangle$ on $H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ defined as the symmetric bilinear form (with values in ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2$) satisfying $\\langle\\gamma_i,\\gamma_j\\rangle=\\delta_{ij}$ for $1\\leqslant i,j\\leqslant g$. The mapping class group ${{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_g)$ acts on $H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ via automorphisms which preserve $\\langle\\,,\\rangle$, hence there is a representation $${\\psi\\colon {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}(N_g)\\to {\\rm Iso}(H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}}))}.$$ In fact it is known that this representation is surjective \u2013 see [@Pinkal; @Gadgil].\n\nSince we have very simple geometric definitions of $t_{a_i},s,{\\varrho}\\in {{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ it is straightforward to check that $$\\begin{aligned}\n   \\psi(t_{a_i})&=I_{i-1}\\oplus \\begin{bmatrix}\n0&1\\\\\n-1&2\\end{bmatrix}\\oplus I_{g-i-1}\\\\\n\\psi(t_{a_i}^{-1})&=I_{i-1}\\oplus \\begin{bmatrix}\n2&-1\\\\\n1&0\n    \\end{bmatrix}\\oplus I_{g-i-1}\\\\\n\\psi(s)&=\\begin{bmatrix}\n          -1&2&-2&2&\\ldots&(-1)^{g}\\cdot 2\\\\\n0&1&-2&2&\\ldots&(-1)^{g}\\cdot 2\\\\\n0&0&-1&2&\\ldots&(-1)^{g}\\cdot 2\\\\\n0&0&0&1&\\ldots&(-1)^{g}\\cdot 2\\\\\n\\vdots&\\vdots&\\vdots&\\vdots&\\ddots&\\vdots\\\\\n0&0&0&0&\\ldots& (-1)^{g}\\cdot 1\n         \\end{bmatrix}\n\\\\\n\\psi({\\varrho})&=-I_g\n  \\end{aligned}$$ where $I_k$ is the identity matrix of rank $k$.\n\nThe above matrices are written with respect to the generating set $(\\gamma_1,\\gamma_2,\\ldots,\\gamma_g)$. Note that $H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ is not free, hence one has to be careful with matrices \u2013 two different matrices may represent the same element.\n\nComputing ${\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}\\cap \\ker {\\overline{\\partial}}_1$\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nObserve that if $G={{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$, $M=H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ and $h\\in G$ then $${\\overline{\\partial}}_1([h]\\otimes \\gamma_j)=(h-1)[\\cdot]\\otimes \\gamma_j=[\\cdot]\\otimes(\\psi(h)^{-1}-I_g)\\gamma_j.$$ If we identify $C_0(G)\\otimes M$ with $M$ by the map $[\\cdot]\\otimes m\\mapsto m$, this formula takes form $${\\overline{\\partial}}_1([h]\\otimes \\gamma_j)=(\\psi(h)^{-1}-I_g)\\gamma_j.$$ Let us denote $[{\\varrho}]\\otimes \\gamma_j, [s]\\otimes \\gamma_j,\n[t_{a_i}]\\otimes \\gamma_j$ respectively by ${\\varrho}_j,s_j$ and $t_{i,j}$. Using the above formula, we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n{\\overline{\\partial}}_1({\\varrho}_j)&=-2\\gamma_j\\\\\n{\\overline{\\partial}}_1(s_j)&=\\begin{cases}\n-2\\sum_{k=1}^{j}\\gamma_k &\\text{for $j$ odd}\\\\\n-{\\overline{\\partial}}_1(s_{j-1}) &\\text{for $j$ even}\n                       \\end{cases}\n\\\\\n   {\\overline{\\partial}}_1(t_{i,j})&=\\begin{cases}\n                              \\gamma_i+\\gamma_{i+1}&\\text{for $j=i$}\\\\\n-\\gamma_i-\\gamma_{i+1}&\\text{for $j=i+1$}\\\\\n0&\\text{otherwise.}\n                             \\end{cases}\n  \\end{aligned}$$\n\nLet $g\\geqslant 3$ and $G={{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g)$ then ${\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}\\cap\\ker{\\overline{\\partial}}_1$ is the abelian group which admits the presentation with generators:\n\n1.  $t_{i,j}$, where $i=1,\\ldots,g-1$ and $j=1,\\ldots,i-1,i+2,\\ldots,g$\n\n2.  $t_{j,j}+t_{j,j+1}$, where $j=1,\\ldots,g-1$\n\n3.  $2t_{j,j}+{\\varrho}_j+{\\varrho}_{j+1}$ , where $j=1,\\ldots,g-1$\n\n4.  $\\begin{cases}\n     2t_{1,1}+2t_{3,3}+\\cdots+2t_{g-2,g-2}-{\\varrho}_g&\\text{for $g$ odd}\\\\\n    2t_{1,1}+2t_{3,3}+\\cdots+2t_{g-1,g-1}&\\text{for $g$ even}\n          \\end{cases}$\n\nand relations $$\\begin{aligned}\nr_{t_j}\\!&:0=2t_{j,1}+\\cdots +2(t_{j,j}+t_{j,j+1})+\\cdots+2t_{j,g}\\quad\\text{for $j=1,\\ldots,g-1$}\\\\\nr_{{\\varrho}}\\!&:\\begin{cases}\n              2(2t_{1,1}+{\\varrho}_1+{\\varrho}_2)+\\cdots+2(2t_{g-2,g-2}+{\\varrho}_{g-2}+{\\varrho}_{g-1})\\\\\n\\qquad\\qquad =2(2t_{1,1}+2t_{3,3}+\\cdots+2t_{g-2,g-2}-{\\varrho}_g)\\quad \\text{for $g$ odd}\\\\\n              2(2t_{1,1}+{\\varrho}_1+{\\varrho}_2)+\\cdots+2(2t_{g-1,g-1}+{\\varrho}_{g-1}+{\\varrho}_{g})\\\\\n\\qquad\\qquad\\qquad =2(2t_{1,1}+2t_{3,3}+\\cdots+2t_{g-1,g-1})\\quad \\text{for $g$ even.}\n             \\end{cases}\n\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy Theorem \\[tw:pres:pos\\], ${\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}$ is generated by $t_{i,j}$ and ${\\varrho}_j$. Using formulas for ${\\overline{\\partial}}_1(t_{i,j})$ and ${\\overline{\\partial}}_1({\\varrho}_j)$ it is straightforward to check that elements (F1)\u2013(F4) are elements of $\\ker{\\overline{\\partial}}_1$. Moreover, $$2t_{j,1}+2t_{j,2}+\\cdots+2t_{j,g}=[t_{a_j}]\\otimes 2(\\gamma_1+\\cdots +\\gamma_g)=0,$$ hence $r_{t_j}$ is indeed a relation. Similarly we check that $r_{{\\varrho}}$ is a relation.\n\nObserve that using relations $r_{t_j}$ and $r_{{\\varrho}}$ we can substitute for $2t_{j,g}$ and $2{\\varrho}_1$ respectively, hence each element in ${\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}$ can be written as a linear combination of $t_{i,j},{\\varrho}_j$, where each of $t_{1,g},t_{2,g},\\ldots,t_{g-1,g},{\\varrho}_1$ has the coefficient 0 or 1. Moreover, for a given $x\\in {\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}\\subset C_1(G)\\otimes H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}})$ such a combination is unique. Hence for the rest of the proof we assume that linear combinations of $t_{i,j},{\\varrho}_j$ satisfy this condition.\n\nSuppose that $h\\in{\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}\\cap \\ker{\\overline{\\partial}}_1$. We will show that $h$ can be uniquely expressed as a linear combination of generators (F1)\u2013(F4).\n\nFirst observe that $h=h_1+h_2$, where $h_1$ is a combination of generators (F1)\u2013(F2), and $h_2$ does not contain generators of type (F1) nor elements $t_{j,j+1}$. Moreover, $h_1$ and $h_2$ are uniquely determined by $h$.\n\nNext we decompose $h_2=h_3+h_4$, where $h_3$ is a combination of generators (F3) and $h_4$ does not contain ${\\varrho}_j$ for $j<g$. As before, $h_3$ and $h_4$ are uniquely determined by $h_2$.\n\nElement $h_4$ has the form $$h_4=\\sum_{j=1}^{g-1} \\alpha_jt_{j,j}+\\alpha {\\varrho}_g,$$ for some integers $\\alpha,\\alpha_1,\\ldots,\\alpha_{g-1}$. Hence $$0={\\overline{\\partial}}_1(h_4)=\\alpha_1\\gamma_1+(\\alpha_1+\\alpha_2)\\gamma_2+\\cdots+(\\alpha_{g-2}+\n\\alpha_{g-1})\\gamma_{g-1}+(\\alpha_{g-1}-2\\alpha)\\gamma_g.$$ If $g$ is odd this implies that $$\\alpha_1=\\alpha_3=\\cdots=\\alpha_{g-2}=2k,\\ \\alpha_2=\\alpha_4=\\cdots=\\alpha_{g-1}=0,\\ \\alpha=-k,$$ for some $k\\in{{\\mathbb{Z}}}$. For $g$ even we get $$\\alpha_1=\\alpha_3=\\cdots=\\alpha_{g-1}=2k,\\ \\alpha=\\alpha_2=\\alpha_4=\\cdots=\\alpha_{g-2}=0.$$ In each of these cases $h_4$ is a multiple of the generator (F4).\n\nBy an analogous argument we get\n\n\\[gen\\_ker\\_roz\\] Let $g\\geqslant 3$ and $G={{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^h(N_g)$ then ${\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}\\cap\\ker{\\overline{\\partial}}_1$ is the abelian group which admits the presentation with generators: (F1)\u2013(F4),\n\n1.  $s_j+s_{j-1}$, where $j$ is even,\n\n2.  $s_j-{\\varrho}_1-{\\varrho}_2-\\cdots-{\\varrho}_j$, where $j$ is odd.\n\nThe defining relations are $r_{t_j}$, $r_{{\\varrho}}$ and $$r_{s}\\!:\\begin{cases}\n0=2(s_2+s_1)+2(s_4+s_3)+\\cdots+2(s_{g-1}+s_{g-2})\\\\\n\\qquad\\qquad\\qquad\\qquad\\  +2(s_{g}-{\\varrho}_1-{\\varrho}_2-\\cdots-{\\varrho}_g)\\quad\\text{for $g$ odd}\\\\\n            0=2(s_2+s_1)+2(s_4+s_3)+\\cdots+2(s_g+s_{g-1})\\quad\\text{for $g$ even.}\n           \\end{cases}$$\n\nRewriting relations\n-------------------\n\nUsing formula we rewrite relations (E1)\u2013(E5) as relations in $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g); H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}}))$.\n\nRelation (E1) is symmetric with respect to $k$ and $j$, hence we can assume that $j+1<k$. This relation gives $$\\begin{aligned}r^{(E1)}_{k,j:i}\\!:0&=([t_{a_k}]+t_{a_k}[t_{a_j}]-[t_{a_j}]-t_{a_j}[t_{a_k}])\\otimes \\gamma_i\\\\\n&=t_{k,i}+[t_{a_j}]\\otimes \\psi(t_{a_k}^{-1})\\gamma_i-t_{j,i}-[t_{a_k}]\\otimes \\psi(t_{a_j}^{-1})\\gamma_i\\\\\n&=\\pm\\begin{cases}\n   0&\\text{if $i\\neq k,k+1,j,j+1$}\\\\\nt_{j,k}+t_{j,k+1}&\\text{if $i=k$ or $i=k+1$}\\\\\nt_{k,j}+t_{k,j+1}&\\text{if $i=j$ or $i=j+1$.}\n  \\end{cases}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Relation (E2) gives $$\\begin{aligned}r^{(E2)}_{j:i}\\!:0=&\n([t_{a_j}]+t_{a_{j}}[t_{a_{j+1}}]+t_{a_{j}}t_{a_{j+1}}[t_{a_{j}}]\\\\\n&-[t_{a_{j+1}}]-t_{a_{j+1}}[t_{a_{j}}]-t_{a_{j+1}}t_{a_{j}}[t_{a_{j+1}}])\\otimes \\gamma_i\\\\\n=&\\begin{cases}\n                 t_{j,i}-t_{j+1,i}&\\text{\\hspace{-1.5cm}if $i\\neq j,j+1,j+2$}\\\\\n t_{j,j+2}-t_{j+1,j}&\\text{\\hspace{-1.5cm}if $i=j+2$}\\\\\n(*)+2(t_{j,j}+t_{j,j+1})&\\text{\\hspace{-1.5cm}if $i=j$}\\\\\n(*)-(t_{j,j}+t_{j,j+1})-(t_{j+1,j+1}+t_{j+1,j+2})&\\text{if $i=j+1$.}\n                 \\end{cases}\n\\end{aligned}$$ In the above formula $(*)$ denotes some expression homologous to 0 by previously obtained relations. Carefully checking relations $r^{(E1)}_{k,j:i}$ and $r^{(E2)}_{j:i}$ we conclude that generators (F1) generate a cyclic group, and generators (F2) generate a cyclic group of order at most 2.\n\nWe next turn to the relation (E5). It gives $$\\begin{aligned}r^{(E5)}_{j:i}\\!:0=&([{\\varrho}]+{\\varrho}[t_{a_j}]-[t_{a_j}]-t_{a_j}[{\\varrho}])\\otimes \\gamma_i\\\\\n   &=\\begin{cases}\n        -2t_{j,i}&\\text{if $i\\neq j,j+1$}\\\\\n -2t_{j,j}-{\\varrho}_j-{\\varrho}_{j+1}&\\text{if $i=j$}\\\\\n({\\varrho}_j+{\\varrho}_{j+1}+2t_{j,j})-2(t_{j,j}+t_{j,j+1})&\\text{if $i=j+1$.}\n       \\end{cases}\n\\end{aligned}$$ These relations imply that generators (F3) are homologically trivial, and generators (F1) generate at most ${{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2$.\n\nWe now turn to the most difficult relation, namely (E3). This relation gives $$\\begin{aligned}\nr^{(E3)}_{i}\\!:0&=\\sum_{k=0}^{g-1}\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}(t_{a_1}\\cdots t_{a_{g-1}})^kt_{a_1}\\cdots t_{a_{n-1}}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes \\gamma_i-{\\varepsilon}{\\varrho}_i\\\\\n&=\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes \\psi(t_{a_1}\\cdots t_{a_{n-1}})^{-1} \\sum_{k=0}^{g-1}\\psi(t_{a_1}\\cdots t_{a_{g-1}})^{-k}\\gamma_i-{\\varepsilon}{\\varrho}_i\\\\\n&=\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes Y_{n} \\sum_{k=0}^{g-1}Y_{g}^k\\gamma_i-{\\varepsilon}{\\varrho}_i.\n\\end{aligned}$$ Where ${\\varepsilon}=0$ for $g$ even, ${\\varepsilon}=1$ for $g$ odd, and $Y_n=\\psi(t_{a_1}\\cdots t_{a_{n-1}})^{-1}$. Using the matrix formula for $\\psi(t_{a_i}^{-1})$, we obtain $$Y_n\\gamma_i=\\begin{cases}\n               -\\gamma_{i-1}&\\text{if $2\\leq i\\leq n$}\\\\\n\\gamma_{i}&\\text{if $i> n$}\\\\\n2\\gamma_1+\\cdots+2\\gamma_{n-1}+\\gamma_n&\\text{if $i=1$.}\n              \\end{cases}$$ In particular $$Y_g^k\\gamma_i=(-1)^k\\gamma_{i-k},$$ where we subtract indexes modulo $g$. Therefore we have $$r^{(E3)}_{i}\\!:0=\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes Y_{n}\\sum_{k=0}^{g-1}(-1)^k\\gamma_{i-k}-{\\varepsilon}{\\varrho}_i.$$ In order to simplify computations we replace relations: $$r_1^{(E3)},\\ r_2^{(E3)},\\ldots,\\ r_g^{(E3)}$$ with relations: $$r_1^{(E3)}+r_2^{(E3)},\\ r_2^{(E3)}+r_3^{(E3)},\\ldots,r_{g-1}^{(E3)}+r_g^{(E3)},\\ r_g^{(E3)}.$$ Let us begin with $r_g^{(E3)}$. $$\\begin{aligned}\nr_g^{(E3)}\\!:0=&\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes Y_{n}\\sum_{k=0}^{g-1}(-1)^k\\gamma_{g-k}-{\\varepsilon}{\\varrho}_{g}\\\\\n=&\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes \\left(\\sum_{k=0}^{g-n-1}(-1)^k\\gamma_{g-k}+\\sum_{k=g-n}^{g-2}(-1)^{k+1}\\gamma_{g-k-1}\\right.\\\\\n&\\qquad + (-1)^{g-1}(2\\gamma_1+\\cdots+2\\gamma_{n-1}+\\gamma_n)\\bigg)-{\\varepsilon}{\\varrho}_{g}.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Since all generators of type (F1) are homologous to a single generator, say $t$, and $2t=0$, the above relation can be rewritten as $$r_g^{(E3)}\\!:0=\n(g-1)(g-2)t+\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes \\left((-1)^{g-n-1}\\gamma_{n+1}+(-1)^{g-1}\\gamma_n\\right)-{\\varepsilon}{\\varrho}_{g}.$$ If $g$ is even, this gives the relation $$\\begin{aligned}\nr_g^{(E3)}\\!:0=&(-t_{1,1}+ t_{1,2})+(-t_{2,2}-t_{2,3})+\\cdots+(-t_{g-1,g-1}+t_{g-1,g})\\\\\n=&(t_{1,1}+ t_{1,2})-(t_{2,2}+t_{2,3})+\\cdots+(t_{g-1,g-1}+t_{g-1,g})\\\\\n&-2(t_{1,1}+t_{3,3}+\\cdots+t_{g-1,g-1}).\n\\end{aligned}$$ If $g$ is odd, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\nr_g^{(E3)}\\!:0=&(t_{1,1}- t_{1,2})+(t_{2,2}+t_{2,3})+\\cdots+(t_{g-1,g-1}+t_{g-1,g})-{\\varrho}_g\\\\\n=&-(t_{1,1}+ t_{1,2})+(t_{2,2}+t_{2,3})-\\cdots+(t_{g-1,g-1}+t_{g-1,g})\\\\\n&+2(t_{1,1}+t_{3,3}+\\cdots+t_{g-2,g-2})-{\\varrho}_g.\n\\end{aligned}$$ In both cases relation $r_g^{(E3)}$ implies that generator (F4) is superfluous.\n\nNow we concentrate on the relation $r_i^{(E3)}+r_{i+1}^{(E3)}$. $$\\begin{aligned}\n   r_i^{(E3)}+r_{i+1}^{(E3)}&\\!:0=\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes Y_{n}\n\\sum_{k=0}^{g-1}(-1)^k\\left(\\gamma_{i-k}+\\gamma_{i+1-k}\\right)-{\\varepsilon}({\\varrho}_i+{\\varrho}_{i+1})\\\\\n&=\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes Y_{n}\n\\left(\\gamma_{i+1}+(-1)^{g-1}\\gamma_{i+1}\\right)-{\\varepsilon}({\\varrho}_i+{\\varrho}_{i+1}).\n  \\end{aligned}$$ If $g$ is even, this relation is trivial, and if $g$ is odd it gives $$\\begin{aligned}\n   r_i^{(E3)}&+r_{i+1}^{(E3)}\\!:0=2\\sum_{n=1}^{g-1}[t_{a_n}]\\otimes Y_{n}\n\\left(\\gamma_{i+1}\\right)-({\\varrho}_i+{\\varrho}_{i+1})\\\\\n&=2(t_{1,i+1}+\\cdots+t_{i,i+1}-t_{i+1,i}-\\cdots-t_{g-1,i})-({\\varrho}_i+{\\varrho}_{i+1})\\\\\n&=(*)+2(t_{i,i}+t_{i,i+1})-(2t_{i,i}+{\\varrho}_i+{\\varrho}_{i+1}).\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Hence this relation gives no new information.\n\nRelation $(E4)$ gives no new information, hence we proved the following theorem.\n\n\\[tw:hom:positive\\] If $g\\geqslant 3$, then $$H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h+}(N_g); H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}}))={{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2.$$\n\nComputing $H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(N_g); H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}}))$\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIf $G={{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(N_g)$, then by Proposition \\[gen\\_ker\\_roz\\] the kernel ${\\langle {\\overline{X}} \\rangle}\\cap\\ker{\\overline{\\partial}}_1$ has two more types of generators: (F5), (F6), and by Theorem \\[th:004\\] there are three additional relations: (C4),(C5),(C8). $$\\begin{aligned}\n   r_i^{(C4)}\\!:0&=[s]\\otimes \\gamma_i+s[s]\\otimes\\gamma_i=s_i+[s]\\otimes\\psi(s)\\gamma_i\\\\\n&=2(-1)^i\\left(s_1+s_2+\\cdots+s_{i-1}+\\frac{1+(-1)^i}{2}s_i\\right).\n  \\end{aligned}$$ This (inductively) implies that each generator of type (F5) has order at most 2. $$\\begin{aligned}\n   r_i^{(C8)}\\!:0&=([{\\varrho}]+{\\varrho}[s]-[s]-s[{\\varrho}])\\otimes\\gamma_i={\\varrho}_i-2s_i-[{\\varrho}]\\otimes \\psi(s)\\gamma_i\\\\\n&={\\varrho}_i-2s_i-(-1)^i(2{\\varrho}_1+2{\\varrho}_2+\\cdots +2{\\varrho}_{i-1}+{\\varrho}_i)\\\\\n&=\\begin{cases}\n   -2(s_i-{\\varrho}_1-\\cdots-{\\varrho}_i)&\\text{ for $i$ odd}\\\\\n-2(s_{i-1}+s_i)+2(s_{i-1}-{\\varrho}_1-\\cdots -{\\varrho}_{i-1})&\\text{ for $i$ even.}\n  \\end{cases}\n  \\end{aligned}$$ This implies that generator (F6) has also order at most 2. $$\\begin{aligned}\n   r_i^{(C5)}\\!:0&=([t_{a_j}]+t_{a_j}[s]+t_{a_j}s[t_{a_j}]-[s])\\otimes \\gamma_i\\\\\n&=t_{j,i}+[s]\\otimes\\psi(t_{a_j}^{-1})\\gamma_i+[t_{a_j}]\\otimes \\psi(s)\\psi(t_{a_j}^{-1})\\gamma_i-s_i.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ If $i\\neq j$ and $i\\neq j+1$, then $$r_i^{(C5)}\\!:0=(-1)^i\\left(2t_{j,1}+\\cdots+2t_{j,i-1}+(1+(-1)^i)t_{j,i}\\right),$$ which gives no new information. If $i=j$ or $i=j+1$ and $j$ is odd, then $$r_i^{(C5)}\\!:0=(*)\\pm [(s_j+s_{j+1})+(t_{j,j}+t_{j,j+1})],$$ where as usual $(*)$ denotes homologically trivial element. This relation implies that generators (F5) are superfluous.\n\nFinally, if $i=j$ or $i=j+1$ and $j$ is even then $$r_i^{(C5)}\\!:0=(*)\\pm[(s_{j+1}-{\\varrho}_1-\\cdots-{\\varrho}_{j+1})-(s_{j-1}-{\\varrho}_1-\\cdots-{\\varrho}_{j-1})].$$ This implies that all generators of type (F6) are homologous, hence we proved the following.\n\n\\[tw:hom:full\\] If $g\\geqslant 3$, then $$H_1({{{\\mathcal{M}}}}^{h}(N_g); H_1(N_g;{{\\mathbb{Z}}}))={{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2\\oplus{{\\mathbb{Z}}}_2.$$\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThe author wishes to thank the referee for his/her helpful suggestions.\n\n[10]{}\n\nS.\u00a0J. Bigelow and R.\u00a0D. Budney. The mapping class group of a genus two surface is linear. , 1:699\u2013708, 2001.\n\nJ.\u00a0S. Birman. . Number\u00a082 in Ann. of Math. Studies. Princeton Univ. Press, 1974.\n\nJ.\u00a0S. Birman. and D.\u00a0R.\u00a0J. Chillingworth. On the homeotopy group of a non\u2013orientable surface. , 71:437\u2013448, 1972.\n\nJ.\u00a0S. Birman and H.\u00a0M. Hilden. On mapping class groups of closed surfaces as covering spaces. In [*Advances in the theory of [R]{}iemann surfaces*]{}, number\u00a066 in Ann. of Math. Studies, pages 81\u2013115. Princeton Univ. Press, 1971. Proc. Conf., Stony Brook, N.Y., 1969.\n\nC.\u00a0F. B[\u00f6]{}digheimer, F.\u00a0R. Cohen, and M.\u00a0D. Peim. Mapping class groups and function spaces. In [*Homotopy Methods in Algebraic Topology*]{}, volume 271 of [ *Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 17\u201339, 2001. Proc. Conf., Boulder, 1999.\n\nK.\u00a0S. Brown. . Number\u00a087 in Grad. Texts in [M]{}ath. Springer\u2013[V]{}erlag, 1982.\n\nD.\u00a0R.\u00a0J. Chillingworth. A finite set of generators for the homeotopy group of a non\u2013orientable surface. , 65:409\u2013430, 1969.\n\nS.\u00a0Gadgil and D.\u00a0Pancholi. Homeomorphisms and the homology of non\u2013orientable surfaces. , 115(3):251\u2013257, 2005.\n\nN.\u00a0Kawazumi. Homology of hyperelliptic mapping class groups for surfaces. , 76:203\u2013216, 1997.\n\nW.\u00a0Magnus. ber automorphismen von [F]{}undamentalgruppen beraneter [F]{}lachen. , 109:617\u2013646, 1934.\n\nS.\u00a0Morita. Families of jacobian manifolds and characteristic classes of surface boundles [I]{}. , 39:777\u2013810, 1989.\n\nL.\u00a0Paris and B.\u00a0Szepietowski. A presentation for the mapping class group of a nonorientable surface. arXiv:1308.5856v1 \\[math.GT\\], 2013.\n\nU.\u00a0[P]{}inkal and J.\u00a0D. Mc[C]{}arthy. Representing homology automorphisms of nonorientable surfaces. Max Planc Inst. preprint MPI/SFB 85-11. Available at <http://www.math.msu.edu/~mccarthy>, 2004.\n\nM.\u00a0[S]{}tukow. Conjugacy classes of finite subgroups of certain mapping class groups. , 28(2):101\u2013110, 2004.\n\nM.\u00a0Stukow. The twist subgroup of the mapping class group of a nonorientable surface. , 46(3):717\u2013738, 2009.\n\nM.\u00a0[S]{}tukow. A finite presentation for the mapping class group of a nonorientable surface with [D]{}ehn twists and one crosscap slide as generators. arXiv:1310.2722v2 \\[math.GT\\], 2013.\n\nA.\u00a0Tanaka. The first homology group of the hyperelliptic mapping class group with twisted coefficients. , 115:19\u201342, 2001.\n\nB.\u00a0Wajnryb. A simple presentation for the mapping class group of an orientable surface. , 45(2\u20133):157\u2013174, 1983.\n\nH.\u00a0Zieschang. On the [H]{}omeotopy [G]{}roups of [S]{}urfaces. , 206:1\u201321, 1973.\n\n[^1]: Supported by MNiSW grant N201 366436.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We propose the eigenvalue problem of an anisotropic diffusion operator for image segmentation. The diffusion matrix is defined based on the input image. The eigenfunctions and the projection of the input image in some eigenspace capture key features of the input image. An important property of the model is that for many input images, the first few eigenfunctions are close to being piecewise constant, which makes them useful as the basis for a variety of applications such as image segmentation and edge detection. The eigenvalue problem is shown to be related to the algebraic eigenvalue problems resulting from several commonly used discrete spectral clustering models. The relation provides a better understanding and helps developing more efficient numerical implementation and rigorous numerical analysis for discrete spectral segmentation methods. The new continuous model is also different from energy-minimization methods such as geodesic active contour in that no initial guess is required for in the current model. The multi-scale feature is a natural consequence of the anisotropic diffusion operator so there is no need to solve the eigenvalue problem at multiple levels. A numerical implementation based on a finite element method with an anisotropic mesh adaptation strategy is presented. It is shown that the numerical scheme gives much more accurate results on eigenfunctions than uniform meshes. Several interesting features of the model are examined in numerical examples and possible applications are discussed.'\nauthor:\n- 'Jingyue Wang[^1]'\n- 'Weizhang Huang[^2]'\ntitle: 'Image Segmentation with Eigenfunctions of an Anisotropic Diffusion Operator [^3] '\n---\n\n[**Key Words.**]{} eigenvalue problem, image segmentation, finite-element schemes, mesh adaptation, anisotropic diffusion.\n\n[**AMS 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification.**]{} 65N25, 68U10, 94A08\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nWe are concerned with image segmentation using the eigenvalue problem of an anisotropic linear diffusion operator, $$-\\nabla \\cdot (\\mathbb{D}\\nabla u)=\\lambda u, \\quad \\text{ in }\\Omega\n\\label{eq:HW-eigen}$$ subject to a homogeneous Dirichlet or Neumann boundary condition, where the diffusion matrix $\\mathbb{D}$ is symmetric and uniformly positive definite on $\\Omega$. In this study, we consider an anisotropic diffusion situation where $\\mathbb{D}$ has different eigenvalues and is defined based on the gray level of the input image.\n\nA method employing an eigenvalue problem to study image segmentation is referred to as a spectral clustering method in the literature. This type of methods have extracted great interest from researchers in the past decade; e.g., see [@Grady-01; @shi_normalized_2000; @Wu-Leahy-1993]. They are typically derived from a minimum-cut criterion on a graph. One of the most noticeable spectral clustering methods is the normalized cut method proposed by Shi and Malik [@shi_normalized_2000] (also see Section\u00a0\\[SEC:relation-1\\] below) which is based on the eigenvalue problem $$(D-W) {\\bf u} = \\lambda D {\\bf u} ,\n\\label{eq:Malik-Shi-eigen}$$ where ${\\bf u}$ is a vector representing the gray level value on the pixels, $W$ is a matrix defining pairwise similarity between pixels, and $D$ is a diagonal matrix formed with the degree of pixels (cf. Section 2.2 below). The operator $L=D-W$ corresponds to the graph Laplacian in graph spectral theory. An eigenvector associated with the second eigenvalue is used as a continuous approximation to a binary or $k$-way vector that indicates the partitions of the input image. Shi and Malik suggested that image segmentation be done on a hierarchical basis where low level coherence of brightness, texture, and etc. guides a binary (or $k$-way) segmentation that provides a big picture while high level knowledge is used to further partition the low-level segments.\n\nWhile discrete spectral clustering methods give impressive partitioning results in general, they have several drawbacks. Those methods are typically defined and operated on a graph or a data set. Their implementation cost depends on the size of the graph or data set. For a large data set, they can be very expensive to implement. Moreover, since they are discrete, sometimes their physical and/or geometrical meanings are not so clear. As we shall see in Section\u00a0\\[SEC:relation-1\\], the normalized cut method of Shi and Malik [@shi_normalized_2000] is linked to an anisotropic diffusion differential operator which from time to time can lead to isotropic diffusion.\n\nThe objective of this paper is to investigate the use of the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) of an anisotropic diffusion operator for image segmentation. This anisotropic model can be viewed as a continuous, improved anisotropic generalization of discrete spectral clustering models such as (\\[eq:Malik-Shi-eigen\\]). The model is also closely related to the Perona-Malik anisotropic filter. The advantages of using a continuous model for image segmentation include (i) It has a clear physical interpretation (heat diffusion or Fick\u2019s laws of diffusion in our case); (ii) Many well developed theories of partial differential equations can be used; (iii) Standard discretization methods such as finite differences, finite elements, finite volumes, and spectral methods can be employed; and (iv) The model does not have be discretized on a mesh associated with the given data set and indeed, mesh adaptation can be used to improve accuracy and efficiency. As mentioned early, we shall define the diffusion matrix $\\mathbb{D}$ using the input image and explore properties of the eigenvalue problem. One interesting property is that for many input images, the first few eigenfunctions of the model are close to being piecewise constant, which are very useful for image segmentation. However, this also means that these eigenfunctions change abruptly between objects and their efficient numerical approximation requires mesh adaptation. In this work, we shall use an anisotropic mesh adaptation strategy developed by the authors [@Huang-Wang-13] for differential eigenvalue problems. Another property of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) is that eigenfunctions associated with small eigenvalues possess coarse, global features of the input image whereas eigenfunctions associated with larger eigenvalues carry more detailed, localized features. The decomposition of features agrees with the view of Shi and Malik [@shi_normalized_2000] on the hierarchical structure of image segmentation but in a slightly different sense since all eigenfunctions come from low level brightness knowledge.\n\nThe paper is organized as follows. In Section\u00a0\\[SEC:eigen\\], we give a detailed description of the eigenvalue problem based on an anisotropic diffusion operator and discuss its relations to some commonly used discrete spectral clustering models and diffusion filters and some other models in image segmentation. Section\u00a0\\[SEC:implement\\] is devoted to the description of the finite element implementation of the model and an anisotropic mesh adaptation strategy. In Section\u00a0\\[SEC:numerics\\], we present a number of applications in image segmentation and edge detection and demonstrate several properties of the model. Some explanations to the piecewise constant property of eigenfunctions are given in Section\u00a0\\[SEC:piecewise\\]. Concluding remarks are given in Section\u00a0\\[SEC:conclusion\\].\n\nDescription of the eigenvalue problem {#SEC:eigen}\n=====================================\n\nEigenvalue problem of an anisotropic diffusion operator\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe shall use the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) subject to a Dirichlet or Neumann boundary condition for image segmentation.\n\nWe are inspired by the physics of anisotropic heat transport process (e.g., see [@Gunter-Yu-Kruger-Lackner-05; @Sharma-Hammett-07]), treating the dynamics of image diffusion as the transport of energy (pixel values) and viewing the eigenvalue problem as the steady state of the dynamic process. Denote the principal diffusion direction by $v$ (a unit direction field) and its perpendicular unit direction by $v^{\\perp}$. Let the conductivity coefficients along these directions be $\\chi_{\\parallel}$ and $\\chi_{\\perp}$. ($v$, $\\chi_{\\parallel}$, and $\\chi_{\\perp}$ will be defined below.) Then the diffusion matrix can be written as $$\\mathbb{D}=\\chi_{\\parallel}vv^{T}+\\chi_{\\perp}v^{\\perp}(v^{\\perp})^{T} .\n\\label{D-1}$$ When $\\chi_{\\parallel}$ and $\\chi_{\\perp}$ do not depend on $u$, the diffusion operator in (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) is simply a linear symmetric second order elliptic operator. The anisotropy of the diffusion tensor $\\mathbb{D}$ depends on the choice of the conductivity coefficients. For example, if $\\chi_{\\parallel}\\gg\\chi_{\\perp}$, the diffusion is preferred along the direction of $v$. Moreover, if $\\chi_{\\parallel}=\\chi_{\\perp}$, the diffusion is isotropic, having no preferred diffusion direction.\n\nTo define $\\mathbb{D}$, we assume that an input image is given. Denote its gray level by $u_0$. In image segmentation, pixels with similar values of gray level will be grouped and the interfaces between those groups provide object boundaries. Since those interfaces are orthogonal to $\\nabla u_0$, it is natural to choose the principal diffusion direction as $v=\\nabla u_{0}/|\\nabla u_{0}|$. With this choice, we can rewrite (\\[D-1\\]) into $$\\mathbb{D} = \\frac{\\chi_{\\parallel}}{|\\nabla u_{0}|^{2}}\n\\begin{bmatrix}|\\partial_x u_{0}|^{2}+\\mu |\\partial_y u_{0}|^{2} & (1-\\mu)\\left|\\partial_x u_{0}\\partial_y u_{0}\\right|\\\\\n(1-\\mu)\\left|\\partial_x u_{0} \\partial_y u_{0}\\right| & |\\partial_y u_{0}|^{2}+\\mu |\\partial_x u_{0}|^{2} \\end{bmatrix}\n\\label{D-2}$$ where $\\mu = \\chi_{\\perp}/\\chi_{\\parallel}$. We consider two choices of $\\chi_{\\parallel}$ and $\\mu$. The first one is $$\\chi_{\\parallel}=g(|\\nabla u_{0}|), \\quad \\mu = 1, \n\\label{D-3}$$ where $g(x)$ is a conductance function that governs the behavior of diffusion. This corresponds to linear isotropic diffusion. As in [@Perona-Malik-90], we require $g$ to satisfy $g(0)=1$, $g(x)\\ge0$, and $g(x)\\to 0$ as $x \\to \\infty$. For this choice, both $\\chi_{\\parallel}$ and $\\chi_{\\perp}$ becomes very small across the interfaces of the pixel groups and therefore, almost no diffusion is allowed along the normal and tangential directions of the interfaces.\n\nThe second choice is $$\\chi_{\\parallel}=g(|\\nabla u_{0}|), \\quad \\mu=1+|\\nabla u_{0}|^{2}.\n\\label{D-4}$$ This choice results in an anisotropic diffusion process. Like the first case, almost no diffusion is allowed across the interfaces of the pixel groups but, depending on the choice of $g$, some degree of diffusion is allowed on the tangential direction of the interfaces. We shall show later that with a properly chosen $g$ the eigenfunctions of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) capture certain \u201cgrouping\u201d features of the input image $u_{0}$ very well. This phenomenon has already been observed and explored in many applications such as shape analysis [@Reuter-09; @Reuter-06], image segmentation and data clustering [@Grady-01; @shi_normalized_2000; @Shi-Malik-2001; @Wu-Leahy-1993], and high dimensional data analysis and machine learning [@Belkin_towards_2005; @Nadler_diffusion_2005; @Nadler_diffusion_2006; @Luxburg-2007]. In these applications, all eigenvalue problems are formulated on a discrete graph using the graph spectral theory, which is different from what is considered here, i.e., eigenvalue problems of differential operators. The application of the latter to image segmentation is much less known. We shall discuss the connection of these discrete eigenvalue problems with continuous ones in the next subsection.\n\nIt is noted that the gray level function $u_0$ is defined only at pixels. Even we can view $u_{0}$ as the \u201cground truth\u201d function (assuming there is one function whose discrete sample is the input image), it may not be smooth and the gradient cannot be defined in the classical sense. Following [@Alvarez-Lions-92; @Catte-Lions-92], we may treat $u_{0}$ as a properly regularized approximation of the \u201ctrue image\u201d so that the solution to the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) exists. In the following, we simply take $u_{0}$ as the linear interpolation of the sampled pixel values (essentially an implicit regularization from the numerical scheme). More sophisticated regularization methods can also be employed.\n\nWe only deal with gray level images in this work. The approach can be extended to color or texture images when a diffusion matrix can be defined appropriately based on all channels. In our computation, we use both Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions, with the latter being more common in image processing.\n\nRelation to discrete spectral clustering models {#SEC:relation-1}\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nThe eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) is closely related to a family of discrete spectral clustering models, with the earliest one being the normalized cut method proposed by Shi and Malik [@shi_normalized_2000]. To describe it, we define the degree of dissimilarity (called $cut$) between any two disjoint sets $A,B$ of a weighted undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ (where $V$ and $E$ denote the sets of the nodes and edges of the graph) as the total weight of the edges connecting nodes in the two sets, i.e., $$cut(A,B)=\\sum_{p\\in A,\\; q\\in B}w(p,q).$$ Wu and Leahy [@Wu-Leahy-1993] proposed to find $k$-subgraphs by minimizing the maximum cut across the subgroups and use them for a segmentation of an image. However, this approach usually favors small sets of isolated nodes in the graph. To address this problem, Shi and Malik [@shi_normalized_2000] used the normalized cut defined as $$Ncut(A,B)=\\frac{cut(A,B)}{assoc(A,A\\cup B)}+\\frac{cut(A,B)}{assoc(B,A\\cup B)} ,$$ where $assoc(A,A\\cup B)=\\sum_{p\\in A,\\; q\\in A\\cup B}w(p,q)$. They sought the minimum of the functional $Ncut(A,B)$ recursively to obtain a $k$-partition of the image. The edge weight $w(p,q)$ is chosen as $$w(p,q)=\\begin{cases}\ne^{-|u_{q}-u_{p}|^2/\\sigma^2}, & q\\in\\mathcal{N}_{p},\\\\\n0, & {\\rm otherwise,}\n\\end{cases}$$ where $\\mathcal{N}_{p}$ is a neighborhood of pixel $p$ and $\\sigma$ is a positive parameter. Shi and Malik showed that the above optimization problem is NP-hard but a binary solution to the normalized cut problem can be mapped to a binary solution to the algebraic eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:Malik-Shi-eigen\\]) with $D$ being a diagonal matrix with diagonal entries $d_{p}=\\sum_{q}w(p,q)$ and $W$ being the weight matrix $(w(p,q))_{p,q}^{N\\times N}$. Eigenvectors of this algebraic eigenvalue problem are generally not binary. They are used to approximate binary solutions of the normalized cut problem through certain partitioning.\n\nTo see the connection between the algebraic eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:Malik-Shi-eigen\\]) (and therefore, the normalized cut method) with the continuous eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]), we consider an eigenvalue problem in the form of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) with the diffusion matrix defined as $$\\mathbb{D} = \\begin{bmatrix}e^{-|\\partial_{x}u_{0}|^2/\\sigma^2} & 0\\\\\n0 & e^{-|\\partial_{y}u_{0}|^2/\\sigma^2} \\end{bmatrix}\n\\label{D-5}$$ A standard central finite difference discretization of this problem on a rectangular mesh gives rise to $$\\frac{(c_{E_{i,j}}+c_{W_{i,j}}+c_{N_{i,j}}+c_{S_{i,j}})u_{i,j}-c_{E_{i,j}}u_{i+1,j}-c_{W_{i,j}}u_{i-1,j}-c_{N_{i,j}}u_{i,j+1}-c_{S_{i,j}}u_{i,j-1}}{h^{2}}=\\lambda u_{i,j},\n\\label{eq:orthotropic-fe-scheme}$$ where $h$ is the grid spacing and the coefficients $c_{E_{i,j}},\\; c_{W_{i,j}},\\; c_{N_{i,j}},\\; c_{S_{i,j}}$ are given as $$\\begin{aligned}\nc_{E_{i,j}} = e^{-|u_{i+1,j}-u_{i,j}|^2/\\sigma^2},\\quad\nc_{W_{i,j}} = e^{-|u_{i-1,j}-u_{i,j}|^2/\\sigma^2},\\\\\nc_{N_{i,j}} = e^{-|u_{i,j+1}-u_{i,j}|^2/\\sigma^2},\\quad\nc_{S_{i,j}} =  e^{-|u_{i,j-1}-u_{i,j}|^2/\\sigma^2}.\\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that (\\[eq:orthotropic-fe-scheme\\]) is almost the same as (\\[eq:Malik-Shi-eigen\\]) with the neighborhood $\\mathcal{N}_{i,j}$ of a pixel location $(i,j)$ being chosen to include the four closest pixel locations $\\{(i+1,j),(i-1,j),(i,j+1),(i,j-1)\\}$. The difference lies in that (\\[eq:Malik-Shi-eigen\\]) has a weight function on its right-hand side. Moreover, it can be shown that (\\[eq:orthotropic-fe-scheme\\]) gives [*exactly*]{} the algebraic eigenvalue problem for the average cut problem $${\\rm min}\\frac{cut(A,B)}{|A|}+\\frac{cut(A,B)}{|B|} ,$$ where $|A|$ and $|B|$ denote the total numbers of nodes in $A$ and $B$, respectively. Notice that this problem is slightly different from the normalized cut problem and its solution is known as the Fiedler value. Furthermore, if we consider the following generalized eigenvalue problem (by multiplying the right-hand side of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) with a mass-density function), $$-\\nabla \\cdot \\left(\\begin{bmatrix}e^{-|\\partial_{x}u_{0}|^2/\\sigma^2} & 0\\\\\n0 & e^{-|\\partial_{y}u_{0}|^2/\\sigma^2} \\end{bmatrix}\n\\nabla u\\right)= (e^{-|\\partial_x u_{0}|^2/\\sigma^2} + e^{-|\\partial_y u_{0}|^2/\\sigma^2}) \\lambda u, \n\\label{eq:pm-aniso-1}$$ we can obtain (\\[eq:Malik-Shi-eigen\\]) exactly with a proper central finite difference discretization.\n\nThe above analysis shows that either the average cut or normalized cut model can be approximated by a finite difference discretization of the continuous eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) with the diffusion matrix (\\[D-5\\]) which treats diffusion differently in the $x$ and $y$ directions. While (\\[D-5\\]) is anisotropic in general, it results in isotropic diffusion near oblique interfaces where $\\partial_x u_0 \\approx \\partial_y u_0$ or $\\partial_x u_0 \\approx - \\partial_y u_0$. This can be avoided with the diffusion matrix (\\[D-2\\]) which defines diffusion differently along the normal and tangential directions of group interfaces. In this sense, our method consisting of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) with (\\[D-2\\]) can be regarded as an improved version of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) with (\\[D-5\\]), and thus, an improved continuous generalization of the normalized cut or the average cut method.\n\nIt should be pointed out that there is a fundamental difference between discrete spectral clustering methods and those based on continuous eigenvalue problems. The former are defined and operated directly on a graph or data set and their cost depends very much on the size of the graph or data. On the other hand, methods based on continuous eigenvalue problems treat an image as a sampled function and are defined by a discretization of some differential operators. They have the advantage that many standard discretization methods such as finite difference, finite element, finite volume, and spectral methods can be used. Another advantage is that they do not have to be operated directly on the graph or the data set. As shown in [@Huang-Wang-13], continuous eigenvalue problems can be solved efficiently on adaptive, and especially anisotropic adaptive, meshes (also see Section\u00a0\\[SEC:numerics\\]).\n\nIt is worth pointing out that the graph Laplacian can be connected to a continuous diffusion operator by defining the latter on a manifold and proving it to be the limit of the discrete Laplacian. The interested reader is referred to the work of [@Belkin_towards_2005; @Nadler_diffusion_2005; @Nadler_diffusion_2006; @Singer-06; @Luxburg-2007].\n\nRelation to diffusion models\n----------------------------\n\nThe eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) is related to several diffusion models used in image processing. They can be cast in the form $$\\frac{\\partial u}{\\partial t}=\\nabla \\cdot \\left(\\mathbb{D}\\nabla u\\right) \n\\label{eq:linear-diffusion}$$ with various definitions of the diffusion matrix. For example, the Perona-Malik nonlinear filter [@Perona-Malik-90] is in this form with $\\mathbb{D} = g(|\\nabla u|) I$, where $g$ is the same function in (\\[D-3\\]) and $I$ is the identity matrix. The above equation with $\\mathbb{D}$ defined in (\\[D-2\\]) with $\\mu=1$ and $\\chi_{\\parallel}=g(|\\nabla u_{0}|)$ gives rise to a linear diffusion process that has similar effects as the affine Gaussian smoothing process [@Nitzberg-Shiota-92]. The diffusion matrix we use in this paper in most cases is in the form (\\[D-2\\]) with $\\mu$ and $\\chi_{\\parallel}$ defined in (\\[D-4\\]). A similar but not equivalent process was studied as a structure adaptive filter by Yang et al. [@Yang-Burger-96]. The diffusion matrix (\\[D-2\\]) can be made $u$-dependent by choosing $\\mu$ and $\\chi_{\\parallel}$ as functions of $\\nabla u$. Weickert [@Weickert-1996] considered a nonlinear anisotropic diffusion model with a diffusion matrix in a similar form as (\\[D-2\\]) but with $\\nabla u_0$ being replaced by the gradient of a smoothed gray level function $u_\\sigma$ and with $\\chi_{\\parallel} = g(|\\nabla u_\\sigma|)$ and $\\mu = 1/g(|\\nabla u_\\sigma|)$.\n\nInterestingly, Perona and Malik [@Perona-Malik-90] considered $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\partial u}{\\partial t}  = \\nabla \\cdot \\left(\\begin{bmatrix}g(|\\partial_{x}u |) & 0\\\\\n0 & g(|\\partial_{y} u|) \\end{bmatrix}\\nabla u\\right) \n\\label{eq:pm-linear-diffusion}\\end{aligned}$$ as an easy-to-compute variant to the Perona-Malik diffusion model (with $\\mathbb{D} = g(|\\nabla u|) I$). Zhang and Hancock in [@Zhang-Hancock-08] considered $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{\\partial u}{\\partial t} = -\\mathcal{L}(u_0) u,\n\\label{eq:Zhang-Hancock}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\mathcal{L}$ is the graph Laplacian defined on the input image $u_0$ and image pixels are treated as the nodes of a graph. The weight between two nodes $i,j$ is defined as $$w_{i,j}=\\begin{cases}\ne^{-(u_{0}(i)-u_{0}(j))^{2}/\\sigma^{2}},  & \\quad \\text{ for }\\|i-j\\|\\le r\\\\\n0, & \\quad \\text{otherwise}\n\\end{cases}$$ where $r$ is a prescribed positive integer and $\\sigma$ is a positive parameter. As in Section\u00a0\\[SEC:relation-1\\], it can be shown that this model can be regarded as a discrete form of a linear anisotropic diffusion model. It has been reported in [@Buades-Chien-08; @Nitzberg-Shiota-92; @Yang-Burger-96; @Zhang-Hancock-08] that the image denoising effect with this type of linear diffusion model is comparable to or in some cases better than nonlinear evolution models.\n\nNumerical Implementation {#SEC:implement}\n========================\n\nThe eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) is discretized using the standard linear finite element method with a triangular mesh for $\\Omega$. The finite element method preserves the symmetry of the underlying continuous problem and can readily be implemented with (anisotropic) mesh adaptation. As will be seen in Section\u00a0\\[SEC:numerics\\], the eigenfunctions of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) can have very strong anisotropic behavior, and (anisotropic) mesh adaptation is essential to improving the efficiency of their numerical approximation.\n\nWhile both Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions are considered in our computation, to be specific we consider only a Dirichlet boundary condition in the following. The case with a Neumann boundary condition can be discussed similarly.\n\nWe assume that a triangular mesh $\\mathcal{T}_{h}$ is given for $\\Omega$. Denote the number of the elements of $\\mathcal{T}_h$ by $N$ and the linear finite element space associated with $\\mathcal{T}_h$ by $V^{h}\\subset H_{0}^{1}\\left(\\Omega\\right)$. Then the finite element approximation to the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) subject to a Dirichlet boundary condition is to find $0 \\not\\equiv u^h \\in V^{h}$ and $\\lambda^h \\in \\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\\int_{\\Omega}(\\nabla v^h)^t \\mathbb{D}\\nabla u^h  =\\lambda^h \\int_{\\Omega} u^h v^h,\\qquad\\forall v^h\\in V^{h}.\n\\label{eq:fem-1}$$ This equation can be written into a matrix form as $$A {\\bf u} = \\lambda^h M {\\bf u},$$ where $A$ and $M$ are the stiffness and mass matrices, respectively, and ${\\bf u}$ is the vector formed by the nodal values of the eigenfunction at the interior mesh nodes.\n\nAn error bound for the linear finite element approximation of the eigenvalues is given by a classical result of Raviart and Thomas [@Raviart-Thomas-83]. It states that for any given integer $k$ ($1\\le k\\le N$), $$0\\le\\frac{\\lambda_{j}^{h}-\\lambda_{j}}{\\lambda_{j}^{h}}\\le C(k)\\sup_{v\\in E_{k},\\|v\\|=1}\\| v-\\Pi_{h}v\\|_E^{2},\n\\qquad1\\le j\\le k$$ where $\\lambda_j$ and $\\lambda_j^h$ are the eigenvalues (ordered in an increasing order) of the continuous and discrete problems, respectively, $E_{k}$ is the linear space spanned by the first $k$ eigenfunctions of the continuous problem, $\\Pi_{h}$ is the projection operator from $L^{2}(\\Omega)$ to the finite element space $V^{h}$, and $\\| \\cdot \\|_E$ is the energy norm, namely, $$\\| v-\\Pi_{h}v\\|_E^{2} = \\int_\\Omega \\nabla (v-\\Pi_{h}v)^t \\mathbb{D} \\nabla (v-\\Pi_{h}v).$$ It is easy to show (e.g., see [@Huang-Wang-13]) that the project error can be bounded by the error of the interpolation associated with the underlying finite element space, with the latter depending directly on the mesh. When the eigenfunctions change abruptly over the domain and exhibit strong anisotropic behavior, anisotropic mesh adaptation is necessary to reduce the error or improve the computational efficiency (e.g. see [@Boff-10; @Huang-Wang-13]).\n\nAn anisotropic mesh adaptation method was proposed for eigenvalue problems by the authors [@Huang-Wang-13], following the so-called $\\mathbb{M}$-uniform mesh approach developed in [@Huang-05; @Huang-06; @Huang-Russell-11] for the numerical solution of PDEs. Anisotropic mesh adaptation provides one advantage over isotropic one in that, in addition to the size, the orientation of triangles is also adapted to be aligned with the geometry of the solution locally. In the context of image processing, this mesh alignment will help better capture the geometry of edges than with isotropic meshes. The $\\mathbb{M}$-uniform mesh approach of anisotropic mesh adaptation views and generates anisotropic adaptive meshes as uniform ones in the metric specified by a metric tensor $\\mathbb{M} = \\mathbb{M}(x,y)$. Putting it in a simplified scenario, we may consider a uniform mesh defined on the surface of the gray level $u$ and obtain an anisotropic adaptive mesh by projecting the uniform mesh into the physical domain. In the actual computation, instead of using the surface of $u$ we employ a manifold associated with a metric tensor defined based on the Hessian of the eigenfunctions. An optimal choice of the metric tensor (corresponding to the energy norm) is given [@Huang-Wang-13] as $$\\mathbb{M}_{K}=\\det\\left(H_{K}\\right)^{-1/4}\\max_{(x,y)\\in K}\\|H_{K}\\mathbb{D}(x,y)\\|^{1/2}\\left(\\frac{1}\n{|K|}\\|H_{K}^{-1}H\\|_{L^{2}(K)}^{2}\\right)^{1/2}H_{K},\\qquad\\forall K\\in\\mathcal{T}_{h}$$ where $K$ denotes a triangle element of the mesh, $H$ is the intersection of the recovered Hessian matrices of the computed first $k$ eigenfunctions, and $H_{K}$ is the average of $H$ over $K$. A least squares fitting method is used for Hessian recovery. That is, a quadratic polynomial is constructed locally for each node via least squares fitting to neighboring nodal function values and then an approximate Hessian at the node is obtained by differentiating the polynomial. The recovered Hessian is regularized with a prescribed small positive constant which is taken to be $0.01$ in our computation.\n\nAn outline of the computational procedure of the anisotropic adaptive mesh finite element approximation for the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) is given in Algorithm\u00a0\\[alg:aniso\\]. In Step 5, BAMG (Bidimensional Anisotropic Mesh Generator) developed by Hecht [@Hecht-Bamg-98] is used to generate the new mesh based on the computed metric tensor defined on the current mesh. The resultant algebraic eigenvalue problems are solved using the Matlab eigenvalue solver [eigs]{} for large sparse matrices. Note that the algorithm is iterative. Ten iterations are used in our computation, which was found to be enough to produce an adaptive mesh with good quality (see [@Huang-05] for mesh quality measures).\n\n1\\. Initialize a background mesh.\n\n2\\. Compute the stiffness and mass matrices on the mesh.\n\n3\\. Solve the algebraic eigenvalue problem for the first $k$ eigenpairs.\n\n4\\. Use the eigenvectors obtained in Step 3 to compute the metric tensor.\n\n5\\. Use the metric tensor to generate a new mesh (anisotropic, adaptive) and go to Step 2.\n\nNumerical results {#SEC:numerics}\n=================\n\nIn this section, all input images are of size $256\\times256$ and normalized so that the gray values are between 0 and 1. The domain of input images is set to be $[0,1]\\times[0,1]$. All eigenfunctions are computed with a homogeneous Neumann boundary condition unless otherwise specified. When we count the indices of eigenfunctions, we ignore the first trivial constant eigenfunction and start the indexing from the second one.\n\nProperties of eigenfunctions\n----------------------------\n\n### Almost piecewise constant eigenfunctions\n\nA remarkable feature of the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) with the diffusion matrix (\\[D-2\\]) is that for certain input images, the first few eigenfunctions are close to being piecewise constant. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:synth1\\], we display a synthetic image containing 4 objects and the first 7 eigenfunctions. The gaps between objects are 4 pixel wide. To make the problem more interesting, the gray level is made to vary within each object (so the gray value of the input image is not piecewise-constant). We use the anisotropic diffusion tensor $\\mathbb{D}$ defined in (\\[D-2\\]) and (\\[D-4\\]) with $$g(x)=\\frac{1}{(1+x^{2})^{\\alpha}}, \n\\label{D-6}$$ where $\\alpha$ is a positive parameter. Through numerical experiment (cf. Section\u00a0\\[SEC:4.1.6\\]), we observe that the larger $\\alpha$ is, the closer to being piecewise constant the eigenfunctions are. In the same time, the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) is also harder to solve numerically since the eigenfunctions change more abruptly between the objects. We use $\\alpha = 1.5$ in the computation for Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:synth1\\]. The computed eigenfunctions are normalized such that they have the range of $[0,255]$ and can be rendered as gray level images. The results are obtained with an adaptive mesh of 65902 vertices and re-interpolated to a $256\\times256$ mesh for rendering.\n\nThe histograms of the first 3 eigenfunctions together with the plot of the first 10 eigenvalues are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:synth7hist\\]. It is clear that the first 3 eigenfunctions are almost piecewise constant. In fact, the fourth, fifth, and sixth are also almost piece constant whereas the seventh is clearly not. (Their histograms are not shown here to save space but this can be seen in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:synth1\\].)\n\nFig.\\[fig:nzsynth1x\\] shows the results obtained an image with a mild level of noise. The computation is done with the same condition as for Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:synth1\\] except that the input image is different. We can see that the first few eigenfunctions are also piecewise constant and thus the phenomenon is relatively robust to noise.\n\n![The input synthetic image and the first 7 eigenfunctions (excluding the trivial constant eigenfunction), from left to right, top to bottom. The results are obtained with the diffusion matrix defined in (\\[D-2\\]), (\\[D-4\\]), and (\\[D-6\\]) ($\\alpha = 1.5$).[]{data-label=\"fig:synth1\"}](synth7_set){width=\"10cm\"}\n\n![The first 10 eigenvalues and the histograms of the first 3 eigenfunctions in Fig.\\[fig:synth1\\]. The $x$ and $y$ axes of the histograms are the gray value and the number of pixels having the same gray value.[]{data-label=\"fig:synth7hist\"}](synth7ev.pdf)\n\n![The first 10 eigenvalues and the histograms of the first 3 eigenfunctions in Fig.\\[fig:synth1\\]. The $x$ and $y$ axes of the histograms are the gray value and the number of pixels having the same gray value.[]{data-label=\"fig:synth7hist\"}](synth7hist_2.pdf)\n\n![The first 10 eigenvalues and the histograms of the first 3 eigenfunctions in Fig.\\[fig:synth1\\]. The $x$ and $y$ axes of the histograms are the gray value and the number of pixels having the same gray value.[]{data-label=\"fig:synth7hist\"}](synth7hist_3.pdf)\n\n![The first 10 eigenvalues and the histograms of the first 3 eigenfunctions in Fig.\\[fig:synth1\\]. The $x$ and $y$ axes of the histograms are the gray value and the number of pixels having the same gray value.[]{data-label=\"fig:synth7hist\"}](synth7hist_4.pdf)\n\n![A noisy synthetic image and the first 7 eigenfunctions, left to right, top to bottom. \\[fig:nzsynth1x\\]](nzsynth1x_set){width=\"10cm\"}\n\n### Eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) versus Laplace-Beltrami operator\n\nEigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator (on surfaces) have been studied for image segmentation [@Shah-00; @Sochen-Kimmel-Malladi-98] and shape analysis [@Reuter-09; @Reuter-06]. Thus, it is natural to compare the performance of the Laplace-Beltrami operator and that of the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]). For this purpose, we choose a surface such that the Laplace-Beltrami operator has the same diffusion matrix as that defined in (\\[D-2\\]), (\\[D-4\\]), and (\\[D-6\\]) and takes the form as $$- \\nabla \\cdot \\left(\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{1+|\\nabla u|^{2}}}\\begin{bmatrix}1+|\\partial_y u_{0}|^{2} & -|\\partial_x u_{0}\\partial_y u_{0}|\\\\\n-|\\partial_x u_{0}\\partial_y u_{0}| & 1+|\\partial_x u_{0}|^{2}\n\\end{bmatrix}\\nabla u\\right) = \\lambda \\sqrt{1+|\\nabla u_0|^{2}}\\; u .\n\\label{LB-1}$$ The main difference between this eigenvalue problem with (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) is that there is a weight function on the right-hand side of (\\[LB-1\\]), and in our model the parameter $\\alpha$ in (\\[D-6\\]) is typically greater than 1.\n\nThe eigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator obtained with a clean input image of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:nzsynth1x\\] are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:LB-eigenfunctions\\]. From these figures one can see that the eigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator are far less close to being piecewise constant, and thus, less suitable for image segmentation.\n\n![The clean input image of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:nzsynth1x\\] and the first 7 eigenfunctions of its associated Laplace-Beltrami operator.[]{data-label=\"fig:LB-eigenfunctions\"}](LBsynth1x_set){width=\"10cm\"}\n\n### Open or closed edges\n\nWe continue to study the piecewise constant property of eigenfunctions of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]). Interestingly, this property seems related to whether the edges of the input image form a closed curve. We examine the two input images in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:openarc\\], one containing a few open arcs and the other having a closed curve that makes a jump in the gray level. The first eigenfunction for the open-arc image changes gradually where that for the second image is close to being piecewise constant.\n\n![From left to right, input image with open arcs, the corresponding first eigenfunction, input image with connected arcs, the corresponding first eigenfunction.[]{data-label=\"fig:openarc\"}](openarc){width=\"10cm\"}\n\n### Anisotropic mesh adaptation\n\nFor the purpose of image segmentation, we would like the eigenfunctions to be as close to being piecewise constant as possible. This would mean that they change abruptly in narrow regions between objects. As a consequence, their numerical approximation can be difficult, and (anisotropic) mesh adaptation is then necessary in lieu of accuracy and efficiency. The reader is referred to [@Huang-Wang-13] for the detailed studies of convergence and advantages of using anisotropic mesh adaptation in finite element approximation of anisotropic eigenvalue problems with anisotropic diffusion operators. Here, we demonstrate the advantage of using an anisotropic adaptive mesh over a uniform one for the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) with the diffusion matrix defined in (\\[D-2\\]), (\\[D-4\\]), and (\\[D-6\\]) and subject to the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition. The input image is taken as the Stanford bunny; see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:bunny41\\]. The figure also shows the eigenfunctions obtained on an adaptive mesh and uniform meshes of several sizes. It can be seen that the eigenfunctions obtained with the adaptive mesh have very sharp boundaries, which are comparable to those obtained with a uniform mesh of more than ten times of vertices.\n\n![Top row: the image of the Stanford bunny and the first 3 eigenfunctions computed with an anisotropic adaptive mesh with 45383 vertices; Bottom row: the first eigenfunction on a uniform mesh with 93732, 276044, 550394 vertices and on an adaptive mesh with 45383 vertices, respectively. All eigenfunctions are computed with the same diffusion matrix defined in (\\[D-2\\]), (\\[D-4\\]), and (\\[D-6\\]) ($\\alpha = 1.5$) and subject to the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition.[]{data-label=\"fig:bunny41\"}](bunny_set_cmp){width=\"10cm\"}\n\n### Anisotropic and less anisotropic diffusion\n\nNext, we compare the performance of the diffusion matrix (\\[D-2\\]) (with (\\[D-4\\]), (\\[D-6\\]), and $\\alpha = 1.5$) and that of a less anisotropic diffusion matrix (cf. (\\[eq:pm-linear-diffusion\\]), with (\\[D-6\\]) and $\\alpha = 1.5$) $$\\mathbb{D} = \\begin{bmatrix}g(|\\partial_{x}u_0 |) & 0\\\\ 0 & g(|\\partial_{y} u_0|) \\end{bmatrix} .\n\\label{D-7}$$ The eigenfunctions of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) with those diffusion matrices with the Stanford bunny as the input image are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:ani-vs-iso\\]. For (\\[D-7\\]), we compute the eigenfunction on both a uniform mesh of size $256\\times256$ and an adaptive mesh of 46974 vertices. The computation with (\\[D-2\\]) is done with an adaptive mesh of 45562 vertices. The most perceptible difference in the results is that the right ear of the bunny (not as bright as other parts) almost disappears in the first eigenfunction with the less anisotropic diffusion matrix. This can be recovered if the conductance is changed from $\\alpha = 1.5$ to $\\alpha = 1.0$, but in this case, the eigenfunction becomes farther from being piecewise-constant. The image associated with the first eigenfunction for (\\[D-2\\]) seems sharper than that with (\\[D-7\\]).\n\n![The first eigenfunction of (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) with the Stanford bunny and with the diffusion matrix (\\[D-2\\]) and a less anisotropic one (\\[D-7\\]). From left to right, (\\[D-2\\]) on an adaptive mesh of 45562 vertices, (\\[D-7\\]) on a uniform mesh of size $256\\times256$, and (\\[D-7\\]) on an adaptive mesh of 46974 vertices.[]{data-label=\"fig:ani-vs-iso\"}](bunny_aniVSiso){width=\"10cm\"}\n\n### Effects of the conductance $g$ {#SEC:4.1.6}\n\nWe now examine the effects of the conductance and consider four cases: $g_1$ ((\\[D-6\\]) with $\\alpha = 1.0$), $g_2$ ((\\[D-6\\]) with $\\alpha = 1.5$), $g_3$ ((\\[D-6\\]) with $\\alpha = 3.0$), and $$g_{4}(x)=\\begin{cases}\n(1-(x/\\sigma)^{2})^{2}/2, & \\text{ for }|x|\\le\\sigma\\\\\n\\epsilon, & \\text{ for }|x|>\\sigma\n\\end{cases}$$ where $\\sigma$ and $\\epsilon$ are positive parameters. The last function is called Tukey\u2019s biweight function and considered in [@Black-Sapiro-01] as a more robust choice of the edge-stopping function in the Perona-Malik diffusion. We show the results with (\\[D-2\\]) on the Stanford bunny in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:g-choice\\]. We take $\\sigma=9$ and $\\epsilon=10^{-6}$ for Tukey\u2019s biweight function. Increasing the power $\\alpha$ in $g(x)$ defined in (\\[D-6\\]) will make eigenfunctions steeper in the regions between different objects and thus, closer to being piecewise constant. Tukey\u2019s biweight function gives a sharp result but the body and legs are indistinguishable.\n\n![Top row: the graphs of $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$. Middle row: the first eigenfunctions on the bunny image for $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$, respectively. Bottom row: the histograms of the corresponding first eigenfunctions.[]{data-label=\"fig:g-choice\"}](g_curves.pdf)\n\n![Top row: the graphs of $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$. Middle row: the first eigenfunctions on the bunny image for $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$, respectively. Bottom row: the histograms of the corresponding first eigenfunctions.[]{data-label=\"fig:g-choice\"}](bunnyef_2_1.png)\n\n![Top row: the graphs of $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$. Middle row: the first eigenfunctions on the bunny image for $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$, respectively. Bottom row: the histograms of the corresponding first eigenfunctions.[]{data-label=\"fig:g-choice\"}](bunnyef_2_1dot5.png)\n\n![Top row: the graphs of $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$. Middle row: the first eigenfunctions on the bunny image for $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$, respectively. Bottom row: the histograms of the corresponding first eigenfunctions.[]{data-label=\"fig:g-choice\"}](bunnyef_2_2.png)\n\n![Top row: the graphs of $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$. Middle row: the first eigenfunctions on the bunny image for $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$, respectively. Bottom row: the histograms of the corresponding first eigenfunctions.[]{data-label=\"fig:g-choice\"}](bunnyef_tukey.png)\n\n![Top row: the graphs of $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$. Middle row: the first eigenfunctions on the bunny image for $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$, respectively. Bottom row: the histograms of the corresponding first eigenfunctions.[]{data-label=\"fig:g-choice\"}](bunnyefhist_2_1.pdf)\n\n![Top row: the graphs of $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$. Middle row: the first eigenfunctions on the bunny image for $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$, respectively. Bottom row: the histograms of the corresponding first eigenfunctions.[]{data-label=\"fig:g-choice\"}](bunnyefhist_2_1dot5.pdf)\n\n![Top row: the graphs of $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$. Middle row: the first eigenfunctions on the bunny image for $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$, respectively. Bottom row: the histograms of the corresponding first eigenfunctions.[]{data-label=\"fig:g-choice\"}](bunnyefhist_2_2.pdf)\n\n![Top row: the graphs of $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$. Middle row: the first eigenfunctions on the bunny image for $g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4$, respectively. Bottom row: the histograms of the corresponding first eigenfunctions.[]{data-label=\"fig:g-choice\"}](bunnyefhist_tukey.pdf)\n\nApplications in Edge Detection and Image Segmentation\n-----------------------------------------------------\n\nEigenfunctions can serve as a low level image feature extraction device to facilitate image segmentation or object edge detection. Generally speaking, eigenfunctions associated with small eigenvalues contain \u201cglobal\u201d segmentation features of an image while eigenfunctions associated with larger eigenvalues carry more information on the detail. Once the eigenfunctions are obtained, one can use numerous well developed edge detection or data clustering techniques to extract edge or segmentation information. We point out that spectral clustering methods also follow this paradigm. In this section, we focus on the feature extraction step and employ only simple, well known techniques such as thresholding by hand, $k$-means clustering, or Canny edge detector in the partitioning step. More sophisticated schemes can be easily integrated to automatically detect edges or get the segmentations.\n\nWe point out that boundary conditions have an interesting effect on the eigenfunctions. A homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition forces the eigenfunctions to be zero on the boundary and may wipe out some structures there (and therefore, emphasize objects inside the domain). It essentially plays the role of defining \u201cseeds\u201d that indicates background pixels on the image border. The idea of using user-defined seeds or intervene cues has been widely used in graph based image segmentation methods [@Grady-01], [@Rother-Blake-04], [@Shi-Yu-04], [@Malik-Martin-04]. The PDE eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) can also be solved with more sophisticated boundary conditions that are defined either on the image border or inside the image. On the other hand, a homogeneous Neumann boundary condition tends to keep those structures. Since mostly we are interested in objects inside the domain, we consider here a homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition. The diffusion matrix defined in (\\[D-2\\]), (\\[D-4\\]), and (\\[D-6\\]) ($\\alpha = 1.5$) is used.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:Lenna\\_ef1\\], we show the first eigenfunctions obtained with Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions with Lenna as the input image. For the edge detection for Lenna, it is natural to extract the \u201cbig picture\u201d from the first eigenfunction and get the edge information from it. We show the edges obtained by thresholding a few level lines in the top row of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:lenna-contour\\]. Since any level line with value $s$ is the boundary of the level set $L_{s}=\\{(x,y):I(x,y)\\ge s\\}$ of an image $I$, and $L_{s}$ is non-increasing with respect to $s$, the level line is \u201cshrinking\u201d from the boundary of a wider shape to empty as $s$ increases from 0 to 255. Some intermediate steps give salient boundaries of the interior figure. However, to make the \u201cshrinking\u201d automatically stop at the correct edge, other clues potentially from mid or high level knowledge in addition to the low level brightness info should be integrated in the edge detection step. We also use the MATLAB function [imcontour]{} to get major contours, and apply $k$-means clustering to the eigenfunctions with $k=2,3,4,5$, shown in the second row of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:lenna-contour\\].\n\n![From left to right, Lenna, first eigenfunctions obtained with Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions, respectively.[]{data-label=\"fig:Lenna_ef1\"}](lenna){width=\"10cm\"}\n\n![Top row: contour drawing by MATLAB (with no level parameters specified), level line 50, 240, 249; bottom row: segmentation with $k$-means, $k=2,3,4,5$.[]{data-label=\"fig:lenna-contour\"}](lenna_gallery){width=\"12cm\"}\n\nWe next compute for an image with more textures from [@MartinFTM01] (Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:tiger-gallery\\]). This is a more difficult image for segmentation or edge detection due to many open boundary arcs and ill-defined boundaries. We display the the first eigenfunction and the $k$-means clustering results in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:tiger-gallery\\]. The $k$-means clustering does not capture the object as well as in the previous example. Better separation of the object and the background can be obtained if additional information is integrated into the clustering strategy. For instance, the edges detected by the Canny detector (which uses the gradient magnitude of the image) on the first eigenfunction clearly give the location of the tiger. Thus, the use of the gradient map of the first eigenfunction in the clustering process yields more accurate object boundaries. For comparison, we also show the edges detected from the input image with the Canny detector.\n\n![Top row: the input image, the edges of the input image with the Canny detector, Level lines with value 50, 240, 254. bottom row: the first eigenfunction, the edges of the first eigenfunction with the Canny detector, $k$-means clustering with $k=2,3,4$.[]{data-label=\"fig:tiger-gallery\"}](tiger_gallery){width=\"14cm\"}\n\nAnother way to extract \u201csimple\u201d features is to change the conductance $g$ (e.g., by increasing $\\alpha$ in (\\[D-6\\])) to make the eigenfunctions closer to being piecewise constant. This makes eigenfunctions more clustered but wipes out some detail of the image too. To avoid this difficulty, we can employ a number of eigenfunctions and use the projection of the input image into the space spanned by the eigenfunctions to construct a composite image. A much better result obtained in this way with 64 eigenfunctions is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:tigerfin\\].\n\n![From left to right, the first eigenfunction with $\\alpha = 2$ in (\\[D-6\\]), the projection of the tiger image into the space spanned by the first 64 eigenfunctions, the contour of the projection image, the $k$-means clustering with $k=2$ of the projection image.[]{data-label=\"fig:tigerfin\"}](tiger_eigen_1.png)\n\n![From left to right, the first eigenfunction with $\\alpha = 2$ in (\\[D-6\\]), the projection of the tiger image into the space spanned by the first 64 eigenfunctions, the contour of the projection image, the $k$-means clustering with $k=2$ of the projection image.[]{data-label=\"fig:tigerfin\"}](tiger_fin_1.png)\n\n![From left to right, the first eigenfunction with $\\alpha = 2$ in (\\[D-6\\]), the projection of the tiger image into the space spanned by the first 64 eigenfunctions, the contour of the projection image, the $k$-means clustering with $k=2$ of the projection image.[]{data-label=\"fig:tigerfin\"}](tigerfin_contour.pdf)\n\n![From left to right, the first eigenfunction with $\\alpha = 2$ in (\\[D-6\\]), the projection of the tiger image into the space spanned by the first 64 eigenfunctions, the contour of the projection image, the $k$-means clustering with $k=2$ of the projection image.[]{data-label=\"fig:tigerfin\"}](tigerfin_kmeans2.pdf)\n\nIt should be pointed out that not always the first few eigenfunctions cary most useful information of the input image. Indeed, Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:sports-gallery\\] shows that the first eigenfunction carries very little information. Since the eigenfunctions form an orthogonal set in $L^{2}$, we can project the input image onto the computed eigenfunctions. The coefficients are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:sports-components\\]. We can see that the coefficients for the first two eigenfunctions are very small compared with those for the several following eigenfunctions. It is reasonable to use the eigenfunctions with the greatest magnitudes of the coefficients. These major eigenfunctions will provide most useful information; see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:sports-gallery\\].\n\n![Top row: from left to right, the input image and the first 6 eigenfunctions. Bottom row: from left to right, the edges on the input image (Canny), the edges on the 3rd and 4th eigenfunctions (Canny), the $k$-means clustering results with $k=3$ for the 3rd and the 4th eigenfunctions, respectively; Level line of value 205 of the 3rd eigenfunction, level line of value 150 of the 4th eigenfunction.[]{data-label=\"fig:sports-gallery\"}](sports-gallery){width=\"14cm\"}\n\n![The coefficients of the input image projected onto the first 64 eigenfunctions in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:sports-gallery\\].[]{data-label=\"fig:sports-components\"}](sports-comp)\n\nThe piecewise constant property of eigenfunctions {#SEC:piecewise}\n=================================================\n\nAs we have seen in Section\u00a0\\[SEC:numerics\\], the eigenfunctions of problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) are localized in sub-regions of the input image and the first few of them are close to being piecewise constant for most input images except for two types of images. The first type of images is those containing regions of which part of their boundaries is not clearly defined (such as open arcs that are common in natural images). In this case, the first eigenfunction is no longer piecewise-constant although the function values can still be well clustered. The other type is input images for which the gray level changes gradually and its gradient is bounded (i.e., the image contrast is mild). In this case, the diffusion operator simply behaves like the Laplace operator and has smooth eigenfunctions. For other types of images, the gray level has an abrupt change across the edges of objects, which causes the conductance $g(|\\nabla u_0|)$ to become nearly zero on the boundaries between the objects. As a consequence, the first few eigenfunctions are close to being constant within each object. This property forms the basis for the use of the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) (and its eigenfunctions) in image segmentation and edge detection. In this section, we attempt to explain this property from the physical, mathematical, and graph spectral points of view. We hope that the analysis, although not rigorous, provides some insight of the phenomenon.\n\nFrom the physical point of view, when the conductance $g(|\\nabla u_0|)$ becomes nearly zero across the boundaries between the objects, the diffusion flux will be nearly zero and each object can be viewed as a separated region from other objects. As a consequence, the eigenvalue problem can be viewed as a problem defined on multiple separated subdomains, subject to homogeneous Neumann boundary conditions (a.k.a. insulated boundary conditions) on the boundary of the whole image and the internal boundaries between the objects. Then, it is easy to see that the eigenfunctions corresponding to the eigenvalue 0 include constant and piecewise constant (taking a different constant value on each object) functions. This may explain why piecewise constant eigenfunctions have been observed for most input images. On the other hand, for images with mild contrast or open arc object edges, the portion of the domain associated any object is no longer totally separated from other objects and thus the eigenvalue problem may not have piecewise constant eigenfunctions.\n\n![A piecewise smooth function representing an input image with two objects.[]{data-label=\"fig:a-fun\"}](funf)\n\nMathematically, we consider a 1D example with an input image with two objects. The gray level of the image is sketched in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:a-fun\\]. The edge is located at the origin, and the segmentation of the image is a 2-partition of $[-L,0]$ and $[0,L]$. The 1D version of the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) reads as $$- \\frac{d}{d x}\\left(g(|u_0'(x) |)\\frac{d u}{d x} \\right) =\\lambda u ,\n\\label{eq:example1}$$ subject to the Neumann boundary conditions $u'(-L)=u'(L)=0$. We take the conductance function as in (\\[D-6\\]) with $\\alpha = 2$. Although $u_0$ is not differentiable, we could imagine that $u_0$ were replaced by a smoothed function which has a very large or an infinite derivative at the origin. Then, (\\[eq:example1\\]) is degenerate since $g(|u_0'(x)|$ vanishes at $x=0$. As a consequence, its eigenfunctions can be non-smooth. Generally speaking, studying the eigenvalue problem of a degenerate elliptic operator is a difficult task, and this is also beyond the scope of the current work. Instead of performing a rigorous analysis, we consider a simple approximation to $g(|u_0'(x)|)$, $$g_{\\epsilon}(x)=\\begin{cases}\ng(|u_0'(x)|), & \\text{ for }-L\\le x<-\\epsilon{\\rm \\ or\\ }\\epsilon<x\\le L\\\\\n0, & \\text{ for }-\\epsilon \\le x\\le \\epsilon\n\\end{cases}$$ where $\\epsilon$ is a small positive number. The corresponding approximate eigenvalue problem is $$- \\frac{d}{d x}\\left(g_\\epsilon(|u_0'(x) |)\\frac{d u}{d x} \\right) =\\lambda u .\n\\label{eq:exampe1-approx}$$ The variational formulation of this eigenvalue problem is given by $$\\min_{u\\in H^1(-L,L)}\\int_{-L}^{L}g_{\\epsilon}(|u_0'(x)|)(u')^{2}, \\quad \\text{ subject to } \\int_{-L}^{L}u^{2}=1 .\n\\label{eq:ex1-variation-prob}$$ Once again, the eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:exampe1-approx\\]) and the variational problem (\\[eq:ex1-variation-prob\\]) are degenerate and should be allowed to admit non-smooth solutions.\n\nThe first eigenvalue of (\\[eq:exampe1-approx\\]) is 0, and a trivial eigenfunction associated with this eigenvalue is a constant function. To get other eigenfunctions associated with 0, we consider functions that are orthogonal to constant eigenfunctions, i.e., we append to the optimization problem (\\[eq:ex1-variation-prob\\]) with the constraint $$\\int_{-L}^{L}u=0.\n\\label{eq:ex1-constraints}$$ It can be verified that an eigenfunction is $$u_{\\epsilon}(x)=\\begin{cases}\n-c, & \\text{ for }x\\in [-L,-\\epsilon)\\\\\n\\frac{c x}{\\epsilon}, & \\text{ for } x\\in [-\\epsilon, \\epsilon]\\\\\nc, & \\text{ for } x\\in (\\epsilon, L]\n\\end{cases}\n\\label{1D-solution}$$ where $c = (2 (L-2\\epsilon/3))^{-1/2}$. This function is piecewise constant for most part of the domain except the small region $[-\\epsilon, \\epsilon]$. Since the original problem (\\[eq:example1\\]) can be viewed to some extent as the limit of (\\[eq:exampe1-approx\\]) as $\\epsilon \\to 0$, the above analysis may explain why some of the eigenfunctions of (\\[eq:example1\\]) behave like piecewise constant functions.\n\nThe piecewise constant property can also be understood in the context of the graph spectral theory. We first state a result from [@Mohar-Alavi-91; @Luxburg-2007].\n\nAssume that $G$ is a undirected graph with $k$ connected components and the edge weights between those components are zero. If the nonnegative weights matrix $W$ and the diagonal matrix $D$ are defined as in Section\u00a0\\[SEC:relation-1\\], then the multiplicity of the eigenvalue 0 of the matrix $D-W$ equals the number of the connected components in the graph. Moreover, the eigenspace of eigenvalue 0 is spanned by the indicator vectors $1_{A_{1}},\\cdots,1_{A_{k}}$ of those components ${A_{1}},\\cdots, {A_{k}}$. \\[prop-1\\]\n\nThis proposition shows that the eigenvalue zero of the algebraic eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:Malik-Shi-eigen\\]) could admit multiple eigenvectors as indicators of the components. As shown in Section\u00a0\\[SEC:relation-1\\], (\\[eq:Malik-Shi-eigen\\]) can be derived from a finite difference discretization of the continuous eigenvalue problem (\\[eq:HW-eigen\\]) (with a proper choice of $\\mathbb{D}$). Thus, the indicators of the components can also be regarded as discrete approximations of some continuous eigenfunctions. This implies that the latter must behave like piecewise constant functions. Interestingly, Szlam and Bresson [@Szlam-Bresson-10] recently proved that global binary minimizers exist for a graph based problem called Cheeger Cut where the minimum of the cut is not necessarily zero.\n\nIn the continuous setting, a properly designed conductance $g(|\\nabla u_0|)$ can act like cutting the input image $u_0$ into subregions along the boundary of the subregions and forcing the eigenvalue problem to be solved on each subregion. In a simplified case, we can have the following continuous analogue of Proposition\u00a0\\[prop-1\\]. The proof is straightforward.\n\nSuppose $\\Omega\\subset \\mathbb{R}^2 $ is a bounded Lipschitz domain, $u_0 \\in SBV(\\Omega)$ (the collect of special functions of bounded variation) and the discontinuity set $K$ of $u_0$ is a finite union of $C^{1}$ closed curves, $g(\\cdot)$ is a bounded positive continuous function. We define $g(|\\nabla u_0|)=0$ for $(x,y)\\in K$, and $g(|\\nabla u_0|)$ takes its usual meaning for $(x,y)\\in\\Omega\\backslash K$. For any function $u\\in SBV(\\Omega)$, assuming $\\Gamma$ is the discontinuity set of $u$, we define the Rayleigh quotient on $u$ as $$R(u)=\\frac{\\widetilde{\\int}_{\\Omega}(\\nabla u)^{T}g(|\\nabla u_0|)\\nabla u}{\\int_{\\Omega}u^{2}} ,$$ where $$\\widetilde{\\int}_{\\Omega}(\\nabla u)^{T}g(|\\nabla u_0|)\\nabla u=\\begin{cases}\n\\int_{\\Omega\\backslash K}g(\\nabla u_0|)|\\nabla u|^{2}, & \\text{ for }\\Gamma\\subseteq K\\\\\n\\infty, & \\text{ for } \\Gamma\\nsubseteq K .\n\\end{cases}$$ Then, the minimum of $R(u)$ is zero and any piecewise constant function in $SBV(\\Omega)$ with discontinuity set in $K$ is a minimizer. \\[prop-2\\]\n\nThe eigenvalue problem related to the above variational problem can be formally written as\n\n$$-\\nabla \\cdot \\left(g(|\\nabla u_0|)\\nabla u\\right)=\\lambda u.\n\\label{eq:general-eigen-prob}$$\n\nThe equation should be properly defined for all $u_0$, $u$ possibly in the space of $BV$. This is a degenerate elliptic problem which could admit discontinuous solutions, and it seems to be far from being fully understood. In the following proposition, we suggest a definition of weak solution in a simplified case. The property indicates that problem (\\[eq:general-eigen-prob\\]) is quite different from a classical elliptic eigenvalue problem if it has a solution in $BV$ that takes a non-zero constant value on an open set. The proof is not difficult and thus omitted.\n\nSuppose $\\Omega$ is a bounded Lipschitz domain in $R^{2}$, $u_0\\in SBV(\\Omega)$ and the discontinuity set $K$ of $u_0$ is a finite union of $C^{1}$ closed curves, $g(\\cdot)$ is a bounded positive continuous function. We define $g(|\\nabla u_0|)=0$ for $(x,y)\\in K$, and $g(|\\nabla u_0|)$ takes its usual meaning for $(x,y)\\in\\Omega\\backslash K$. We define $u\\in SBV(\\Omega)$ to be a weak eigenfunction of (\\[eq:general-eigen-prob\\]) satisfying a homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition if $$\\int_{\\Omega}(\\nabla u)^{T}g(|\\nabla u_0|)\\nabla\\phi=\\int_{\\Omega}\\lambda u\\phi,\n\\quad \\forall \\phi \\in C_{0}^{1}(\\Omega)$$ where, assuming that $\\Gamma$ is the discontinuity set of $u$, the integral on the left side is defined by $$\\int_{\\Omega}(\\nabla u)^{T}g(|\\nabla u_0|)\\phi=\\begin{cases}\n\\int_{\\Omega\\backslash K}(\\nabla u)^{T}g(\\nabla u_0|)\\phi, & \\Gamma\\subseteq K\\\\\n\\infty, & {\\rm \\Gamma\\nsubseteq K.}\n\\end{cases}$$ If a weak eigenfunction $u\\in SBV(\\Omega)$ exists and takes a non-zero constant value on a ball $B_{\\epsilon}(x_{0}, y_0)\\subset\\Omega$, then the corresponding eigenvalue $\\lambda$ is zero. \\[prop-3\\]\n\nIf (\\[eq:general-eigen-prob\\]) indeed admits non-zero piecewise-constant eigenfunctions, one can see an interesting connection between (\\[eq:general-eigen-prob\\]) (for simplicity we assume a homogeneous Dirichlet boundary condition is used) and Grady\u2019s Random Walk image segmentation model [@Grady-01] where multiple combinatorial Dirichlet problems are solved for a $k$-region segmentation with predefined seeds indicating segmentation labels. Using a similar argument in Section 2.2, one can show that the numerical implementation of the method is equivalent to solving a set of Laplace problems which are subject to a Neumann boundary condition on the image border and Dirichlet boundary conditions on the seeds and are discretized on a uniform mesh for potentials $u^{i}$, $i=1,\\cdots,k$. These boundary problems read as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\nabla \\cdot \\left(\\begin{bmatrix}g(|\\partial_{x}u_{0}|) & 0\\\\\n0 & g(|\\partial_{y}u_{0}|)\n\\end{bmatrix}\\nabla u^{i}\\right) & = & 0,\\ {\\rm in}\\ \\Omega\\backslash S\n\\label{eq:Grady-model}\\\\\n\\frac{\\partial u^{i}}{\\partial n} & = & 0,\\ {\\rm on}\\ \\partial\\Omega \\nonumber \\\\\nu^{i} & = & 1,\\ {\\rm in}\\ S_{i} \\nonumber \\\\\nu^{i} & = & 0,\\ {\\rm in}\\ S\\backslash S_{i}\n\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ where $S_{i}$ is the set of seeds for label $i$ and $S$ is the set of all seeds. This problem with a proper choice of $g$ also gives a solution that has well clustered function values, a phenomenon called \u201chistogram concentration\u201d in [@Buades-Chien-08].\n\nNote that when $\\lambda=0$, the following equation, which is an anisotropic generalization of (\\[eq:general-eigen-prob\\]), $$-\\nabla \\cdot\n\\left(\\begin{bmatrix}g(|\\partial_{x}u_{0}|) & 0\\\\\n0 & g(|\\partial_{y}u_{0}|)\n\\end{bmatrix}\\nabla u^{i}\\right) = \\lambda u^i,$$ becomes exactly the Laplace equation in Grady\u2019s model which is the Euler-Lagrange equation of the energy $$\\int_{\\Omega}(\\nabla u)^{T}\\begin{bmatrix}g(|\\partial_{x}u_{0}|) & 0\\\\\n0 & g(|\\partial_{y}u_{0}|)\n\\end{bmatrix}\\nabla u .\n\\label{eq:bv-energy}$$ While the proper definition of functional (\\[eq:bv-energy\\]) for general $u$, $u_{0}$ possibly in $BV$ is missing, we can still define it for a simpler case as in Proposition 5.2. Then, there is no unique minimizer of this energy, and, as stated in Proposition 5.2, any minimizer of the above energy in $SBV$ yields the minimum value 0 in the ideal case (with proper $g$ and $u_{0}$ as in Proposition 5.2). While the eigenvalue method considers the minimizer of the above energy on the admissible set $\\left\\{ u:u|_{\\partial\\Omega}=0,\\int u^{2}\\ dx=1\\right\\} $, the Random Walk method considers the minimizer satisfying boundary conditions in (\\[eq:Grady-model\\]). Both gives piecewise-constant minimizers that can be used for image segmentation.\n\nConcluding remarks {#SEC:conclusion}\n==================\n\nWe have introduced an eigenvalue problem of an anisotropic differential operator as a tool for image segmentation. It is a continuous and anisotropic generalization of some commonly used, discrete spectral clustering models for image segmentation. The continuous formulation of the eigenvalue problem allows for accurate and efficient numerical implementation, which is crucial in locating the boundaries in an image. An important observation from numerical experiment is that non-trivial, almost piecewise constant eigenfunctions associated with very small eigenvalues exist, and this phenomenon seems to be an inherent property of the model. These eigenfunctions can be used as the basis for image segmentation and edge detection. The mathematical theory behind this is still unknown and will be an interesting topic for future research.\n\nWe have implemented our model with a finite element method and shown that anisotropic mesh adaptation is essential to the accuracy and efficiency for the numerical solution of the model. Numerical tests on segmentation of synthetic, natural or texture images based on computed eigenfunctions have been conducted. It has been shown that the adaptive mesh implementation of the model can lead to a significant gain in efficiency. Moreover, numerical results also show that the anisotropic nature of the model can enhance some nontrivial regions of eigenfunctions which may not be captured by a less anisotropic or an isotropic model.\n\n[10]{}\n\nL.\u00a0Alvarez, P.-L. Lions, and J.-M. Morel. Image selective smoothing and edge detection by nonlinear diffusion. [II]{}. , 29(3):845\u2013866, 1992.\n\nM.\u00a0Belkin and P.\u00a0Niyogi. Towards a theoretical foundation for laplacian-based manifold methods. In [*Learning theory*]{}, pages 486\u2013500. Springer, 2005.\n\nM.\u00a0Black, G.\u00a0Sapiro, D.\u00a0Marimont, and D.\u00a0Heeger. Robust anisotropic diffusion. , 7(3):421\u2013432, 1998.\n\nD.\u00a0Boffi. Finite element approximation of eigenvalue problems. , 19:1\u2013120, 2010.\n\nA.\u00a0Buades, A.\u00a0Chien, J.\u00a0M. Morel, and S.\u00a0J. Osher. Topology preserving linear filtering applied to medical imaging. , 1:26\u201350, 2008.\n\nF.\u00a0Catt[\u00e9]{}, P.-L. Lions, J.-M. Morel, and T.\u00a0Coll. Image selective smoothing and edge detection by nonlinear diffusion. , 29(1):182\u2013193, 1992.\n\nL.\u00a0Grady. Random walks for image segmentation. , 28(11):1768\u20131783, 2006.\n\nS.\u00a0Gunter, Q.\u00a0Yu, J.\u00a0Kruger, and K.\u00a0Lackner. Modelling of heat transport in magnetised plasmas using non-aligned coordinates. , 209:354\u2013370, 2005.\n\nF.\u00a0Hecht. Bamg: bidimensional anisotropic mesh generator. , 1998.\n\nW.\u00a0Huang. Metric tensors for anisotropic mesh generation. , 204(2):633\u2013665, 2005.\n\nW.\u00a0Huang. Mathematical principles of anisotropic mesh adaptation. , 204(1):276\u2013310, 2006.\n\nW.\u00a0Huang and R.\u00a0D. Russell. , volume 174 of [*Applied Mathematical Sciences*]{}. Springer, New York, 2011.\n\nD.\u00a0Martin, C.\u00a0Fowlkes, and J.\u00a0Malik. Learning to detect natural image boundaries using local brightness, color, and texture cues. , 11(13):293\u2013327, 2001.\n\nD.\u00a0Martin, C.\u00a0Fowlkes, D.\u00a0Tal, and J.\u00a0Malik. A database of human segmented natural images and its application to evaluating segmentation algorithms and measuring ecological statistics. In [*Proc. 8th Int\u2019l Conf. Computer Vision*]{}, volume\u00a02, pages 416\u2013423, July 2001.\n\nB.\u00a0Mohar and Y.\u00a0Alavi. The laplacian spectrum of graphs. , 2:871\u2013898, 1991.\n\nB.\u00a0Nadler, S.\u00a0Lafon, R.\u00a0Coifman, and I.\u00a0Kevrekidis. Diffusion maps, spectral clustering and eigenfunctions of fokker-planck operators. In [*[NIPS]{}*]{}, 2005.\n\nB.\u00a0Nadler, S.\u00a0Lafon, R.\u00a0R. Coifman, and I.\u00a0G. Kevrekidis. Diffusion maps, spectral clustering and reaction coordinates of dynamical systems. , 21(1):113\u2013127, 2001.\n\nM.\u00a0Nitzberg and T.\u00a0Shiota. Nonlinear image filtering with edge and corner enhancement. , 14(8):826\u2013833, 1992.\n\nP.\u00a0Perona and J.\u00a0Malik. Scale-space and edge detection using anisotropic diffusion. , 12(7):629\u2013639, 1990.\n\nP.-A. Raviart and J.-M. Thomas. . Collection Math\u00e9matiques Appliqu\u00e9es pour la Ma\u00eetrise. \\[Collection of Applied Mathematics for the Master\u2019s Degree\\]. Masson, Paris, 1983.\n\nM.\u00a0Reuter, S.\u00a0Biasotti, D.\u00a0Giorgi, G.\u00a0Patan[\u00e8]{}, and M.\u00a0Spagnuolo. Discrete laplace-beltrami operators for shape analysis and segmentation. , 33(3):381\u2013390, 2009.\n\nM.\u00a0Reuter, F.-E. Wolter, and N.\u00a0Peinecke. Laplace-beltrami spectra as \u201cshape-dna\u201d of surfaces and solids. , 38(4):342\u2013366, 2006.\n\nC.\u00a0Rother, V.\u00a0Kolmogorov, and A.\u00a0Blake. Grabcut: Interactive foreground extraction using iterated graph cuts. , 23(3):309\u2013314, 2004.\n\nJ.\u00a0Shah. Riemannian drums, anisotropic curve evolution, and segmentation. , 11(2):142\u2013153, 2000.\n\nP.\u00a0Sharma and G.\u00a0Hammett. Preserving monotonicity in anisotropic diffusion. , 227:123\u2013142, 2007.\n\nJ.\u00a0Shi and J.\u00a0Malik. Normalized cuts and image segmentation. , 22(8):888\u2013905, 2000.\n\nJ.\u00a0Shi and M.\u00a0Malik. A random walks view of spectral segmentation. , 1(1):1, 2001.\n\nA.\u00a0Singer. From graph to manifold [L]{}aplacian: the convergence rate. , 21(1):128\u2013134, 2006.\n\nN.\u00a0Sochen, R.\u00a0Kimmel, and R.\u00a0Malladi. A general framework for low level vision. , 7(3):310\u2013318, 1998.\n\nA.\u00a0D. Szlam and X.\u00a0Bresson. Total variation, cheeger cuts. , pages 1039\u20131046, 2010.\n\nU.\u00a0Von\u00a0Luxburg. A tutorial on spectral clustering. , 17(4):295\u2013416, 2007.\n\nJ.\u00a0Wang and W.\u00a0Huang. A study on anisotropic mesh adaptation for finite element approximation of eigenvalue problems with anisotropic diffusion operators. .\n\nJ.\u00a0Weickert. Theoretical foundations of anisotropic diffusion in image processing. , Suppl. 11:221\u2013236, 1996.\n\nZ.\u00a0Wu and R.\u00a0Leahy. An optimal graph theoretic approach to data clustering: Theory and its application to image segmentation. , 15(11):1101\u20131113, 1993.\n\nG.-Z. Yang, P.\u00a0Burger, D.\u00a0Firmin, and S.\u00a0Underwood. Structure adaptive anisotropic image filtering. , 14(2):135\u2013145, 1996.\n\nS.\u00a0Yu and J.\u00a0Shi. Segmentation given partial grouping constraints. , 26(2):173\u2013183, 2004.\n\nF.\u00a0Zhang and E.\u00a0Hancock. Graph spectral image smoothing using the heat kernel. , 41(11):3328\u20133342, 2008.\n\n[^1]: Department of Mathematics, the University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, U.S.A. ([*jwang@math.ku.edu*]{}).\n\n[^2]: Department of Mathematics, the University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, U.S.A. ([*whuang@ku.edu*]{}).\n\n[^3]: This work was supported in part by the NSF under Grant DMS-1115118.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'The ionization dynamics of a Xenon cluster with 40 atoms is analyzed under a pump probe scenario of laser pulses where an infrared laser pulse of 50 fs length follows with a well defined time delay a VUV pulse of the same length and peak intensity. The mechanism of resonant energy absorption due to the coincidence of the IR laser frequency with the frequency of collective motion of quasi free electrons in the cluster is mapped out by varying the time delay between the pulses.'\nauthor:\n- Christian Siedschlag\n- 'Jan M. Rost'\ntitle: '**Surface plasma resonance in small rare gas clusters by mixing IR and VUV laser pulses**'\n---\n\nIn recent years, much work has been devoted to the ionization mechanisms of clusters in few-cycle, intense laser fields (i.e. pulse lengths of the order of 100 fs and intensities $I=10^{13} \\ldots 10^{16} \\mathrm{W/cm^2}$): from the case of plasmon excitation when exposing metal clusters to relatively weak fields [@SuRe00] over [*enhanced ionization*]{} akin of molecular ionization for small rare gas clusters in intense fields [@SiRo02] to collective excitation of a plasma resonance in clusters of intermediate [@SaRo03] to large sizes [@jung04], ultimately leading to ionic charge states of 40+ and higher [@ditmire], thus potentially providing a new source for the generation of x-rays, energetic ions or electrons and, via nuclear fusion, even neutrons [@jortner]. A new parameter regime for laser-cluster interaction has been proven to become accesible with the first experiment using VUV-FEL light of 98nm wavelength for the ionization of rare gas clusters [@Waal02], soon followed by the first proposals for an explanation of the unexpectedly high charge states seen in this experiment [@SaGr03; @SiRo04].\n\nWhile XUV-cluster interaction is still the subject of an ongoing debate, there seems to be a more or less common understanding regarding the qualitative picture of IR laser-cluster interaction: during the rising part of the laser pulse, a few electrons are ionized [^1] leaving the cluster with a net positive charge which leads to an expansion typically on the same time scale as the duration of the laser pulse. Hence, effects which depend on the internuclear distances can be resolved by varying the pulse length [@kolal99] and/or applying pump-probe techniques [@dopal01; @Zaal04]. The resolution of an optimum time delay $\\Delta t$ and the contrast of the signal in a pump-probe experiment increases if $\\Delta t \\gg T$, the length of each pulse. Since $\\Delta t \\approx t_{c}$, the critical expansion time of the cluster at which maximum absorption of energy from the cluster pulse is possible, long times $t_{c}$ are desirable which implies large clusters consisting of heavy atoms (slower Coulomb explosion). Also, the large number of quasi-free electrons temporarily trapped in the cluster, lead to a good contrast for the optimized versus non-optimized signal [@Zaal04].\n\nThe critical time $t_{c}$ originates from a critical radius $R_{c} = R(t_{c})$ of the cluster, usually larger than the equilibrium radius $R_{0}$, where energy absorption is most efficient. For larger clusters (resonant mechanism) this radius is determined by the surface plasma frequency approximately given by $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{plasmon}\n\\Omega_{t}=\\sqrt{\\frac{N_{t}Z_{t}}{R_{t}^3}}= \\frac{\\omega_{pl}}{\\sqrt{3}},\\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{t}$ is the number of atoms/ions in the cluster, $Z_{t}$ is their average charge, $R_{t}$ is the cluster radius and $\\omega_{pl}$ the bulk plasma frequency. The indices $t$ indicate a slow dependence on time (at this point we want to emphasize that, at least as long as the cluster is neutral, the surface [*plasma*]{} resonance is mathematically completely equivalent to the surface [*plasmon*]{} resonance and can be derived along the same pathway. Nevertheless, we prefer to call it a plasma resonance since there is in principle a physical difference between a metal cluster being excited perturbatively and a rare gas cluster turned into a nanoplasma by a nonperturbative laser field). If $\\Omega_t \\approx \\omega$, the laser frequency, then the cloud of electrons which are trapped inside the cluster behaves like a (damped) harmonic oscillator driven to resonance [@SaRo03], leading to efficient energy absorption and ionization.\n\nThe most important prerequisite for this mechanism is a significant amount of trapped (quasi-free) electrons before $R_{c}$ is reached, which can be achieved in two ways: either the laser field strength is small enough to leave enough electrons inside the cluster before $R=R_{c}$; this possibility is limited, however, by the fact that the inner ionization process will eventually not start if the field strength is too small, so that no quasi-free electrons will be created in the first place. For metal clusters, this problem does obviously not occur; on the other hand, one has to ionize the cluster to a certain degree in order to start the expansion process, and the range of intensities and pulse lengths which can start the Coulomb explosion while at the same time keeping the valence electron cloud intact is quite small [@calv00]. On the other hand, the force that keeps the electrons inside the cluster is generated by the space charge of the ions. Hence, going to larger clusters while leaving the average ion charge constant, will make it more and more difficult for electrons to leave the cluster, so that the number of trapped electrons will increase with the cluster size. This is the reason why the resonance absorption is much clearer seen with IR pulses for large clusters (compare [@dopal01] with [@Zaal04]).\n\nTo summarize, resonant absorption in intense IR fields occurs (i) for metal clusters in weak fields ($I \\lesssim 10^{13}\n\\mathrm{W/cm^2}$); the size of the clusters then only plays a role in so far as it will change the expansion speed, which has to be accounted for by changing the pulse lengths accordingly; or (ii) for clusters with $N \\gtrsim 10^{2}$ and intensities of $I\\lesssim 10^{14} \\mathrm{W/cm^2}$, where a substantial fraction of the quasi-free electrons which are created by the laser is kept inside the cluster, so that a collective oscillation can develop.\n\nIn the case of small rare gas clusters in strong IR fields, none of the above scenarions applies. Rather, ionization is dominated by [ *charge enhanced ionization*]{}, known already from diatomic molecules, where the shape of the interatomic barrier leads to an optimal distance between the cluster nuclei which results in an efficient interplay between inner and outer ionization [@enhanced]: the neighbouring charges must be close enough to start an [*ionization avalanche*]{} [@SiRo02] once the first electrons are created; on the other hand, they must not be too close in order to decrease the space charge which prevents the electrons from escaping the cluster. Obviously, the whole process relies on the ionization of the first electrons relatively early in the pulse; once the field strength drops significantly below the field strength $F_{th}$ required to field-ionize a single cluster atom ($F_{th}=E_b^2/4$, where $E_b$ is the first atomic ionization energy), the avalanche will not be started and the cluster will survive the radiation relatively undamaged. For Xe clusters, for example, $F_{th}=0.0493$ a.u., which corresponds to an intensity of $I_{th}=8.53\\cdot 10^{13}\n\\mathrm{W/cm^2}$.\n\nAs has been shown in the Hamburg experiment, the threshold for an ionization avalanche is considerably lower when using VUV instead of IR light. With intensities of the order of $10^{12} \\ \\mathrm{W/cm^2}$ and a photon energy of 12.7 eV, complete breakup of Xe clusters and unexpectedly high ionic charges have been observed [@Waal02]. These findings can be explained [@SiRo04] by using standard atomic photoabsorption rates but taking into account the effective (inner) ionization threshold which is lowered by the surrounding charges in a cluster (see Fig \\[fig1\\]). Due to this mechanism and due to the fact that the quiver amplitude is two orders of magnitude smaller than for IR radiation, a VUV pulse is much more efficient in creating quasi-free electrons than an IR pulse of the same peak intensity.\n\nThis opens up an elegant way to study the dynamics of collectively excited electrons and hence the resonance absorption mechanism in a [*small*]{} cluster by combining a VUV pump pulse with a time delayed IR probe pulse: The VUV pulse generates a large number of quasi-free electrons. At same time the cluster gets only moderately charged and a slow expansion sets in mainly driven by the hydrodynamic pressure of the quasi-free electrons. Hence, one can observe with a time delayed probe pulse very cleanly the optimum condition for energy absorption by the quasi-free electrons as a function of cluster size starting at a size as small as $N=40$ as we will demonstrate with the following pump-probe scenario: a Xe$_{40}$ cluster is first irradiated by a 50 fs VUV pulse ($\\omega=12.7$ eV, $I=7.9\\cdot10^{12} \\\n\\mathrm{W/cm^2}$) Then, after a variable time delay $\\Delta t$, we apply a second pulse of the same length and intensity, but now with a wavelength of 780 nm. The simulation has been done using the quasiclassical model introduced in [@SiRo02].\n\n\\[\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][atom]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][cluster]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][x \\[a.u.\\]]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][potential energy \\[arb. units\\]]{} ![Comparison of the inner ionization process for a single atom and a model cluster of three atoms. The effective barrier is lowered in a cluster due to the charged environment.[]{data-label=\"fig1\"}](atom_cluster.xfig.eps \"fig:\")\n\n\\[\\]\\[\\]\\[0.9\\][$\\Delta t=0$ a.u.]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[0.9\\][$\\Delta t=1000$ a.u.]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[0.9\\][$\\Delta t=3500$ a.u.]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[0.9\\][$\\Delta t=8000 $ a.u.]{} \\[t\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][charge state]{} \\[b\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][counts \\[arb. units\\]]{} ![Single ion charge spectra after the interaction of Xe$_{40}$ with a VUV pump pulse followed by an IR probe pulse as a function of the delay $\\Delta t$ between the two pulses. The highest (maximum and average) charge states are created for $\\Delta t$=3500 a.u.[]{data-label=\"fig2\"}](charge_spectra.xfig.eps \"fig:\")\n\nThe charge spectra after the interaction of the cluster with the two pulses is shown in Fig. \\[fig2\\] for various times delay $\\Delta t$. Two features stand out: first of all, ions with charges of $5+$ or $6+$ are produced already with these comparatively low intensities. In fact, the ionization efficiency is comparable to the results from our calculation in [@SiRo04], where only a single VUV pulse was applied, but with an intensity one order of magnitude higher than in the present case (note that, with an average charge per atom of 2.5 for $\\Delta t$=3500 a.u., the space charge of the Xe$_{40}$ cluster from the present work is approximately equal to the space charge of the Xe$_{80}$ cluster from [@SiRo04], where an average charge per atom of only 1.5 was achieved, so that the two cases can really be compared). This shows that by combining VUV and IR pulses, significantly higher charge states can be achieved than by applying an IR or a VUV pulse alone. Second, we see that the ionization is most efficient for a time delay of $\\Delta t$=3500 a.u.\\\n\n\\[t\\]\\[\\]\\[0.8\\][delay \\[a.u.\\]]{} \\[b\\]\\[\\]\\[0.8\\][abs. energy \\[a.u.\\]]{} \\[b\\]\\[\\]\\[0.8\\][aver. charge/atom]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][a)]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][b)]{} ![Absorbed energy \\[a)\\] and average charge per atom \\[b)\\] as a function of time delay between the VUV and the IR pulse.[]{data-label=\"fig3\"}](energy_charge.xfig.eps \"fig:\")\n\nThe absorbed energy and the average charge state per atom after the cluster has disintegrated are shown in [Fig.\u00a0\\[fig3\\]]{} as a function of the time delay $\\Delta t$. The curve for the energy absorption as well as the one for the charge shows a maximum $\\Delta t \\approx$ 3500 a.u. between the pump VUV and the probe IR pulse. If our physical picture is correct, this maximum should be due to the existence of a collective resonance with frequency $\\Omega_{t}$ of the quasi-free electrons that were created by the VUV pulse. This resonance is most efficiently excited by the IR pulse when the laser frequency $\\omega=\\Omega_{t}$. We will now proceed to give evidence for this hypothesis.\\\nIn principle there are two ways to check numerically whether the electron cloud is at resonance with the laser field: first, treating the electrons and ions of the cluster as a homogenic positively and negatively charged sphere, respectively, one ends up with the resonance condition $\\Omega_{t}=\\omega$. However, the definition [Eq.\u00a0(\\[plasmon\\])]{} of $\\Omega_{t}$ is by no means unique, since one has to define a cluster \u201cvolume\u201d which itself is time dependent (through the increase of the cluster radius) and so are the charge of the ions and the number of electrons. The resonance condition can be determined more reliably by calculating the phase difference between the oscillation of the electronic center of mass (ECM) and the driving laser field $F(t) = F_{t}\\cos\\omega t$ [@SaRo03]: if one assumes a collective oscillation with a damping constant $\\gamma$, the time-dependent dipole amplitude for the ECM reads $$\\begin{aligned}\nX(t)=A_t \\cos(\\omega-\\phi_t)\\end{aligned}$$ with $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{amplitude}\nA_t&=F_{t}/\\sqrt{(\\Omega_t^2-\\omega^2)^2+(2\\Gamma_t\\omega)^2}\\\\\n\\phi_t&=\\arctan(2\\Gamma_t\\omega/(\\Omega_t^2-\\omega^2)).\\end{aligned}$$ For $\\phi_t=\\pi/2$ the system is at resonance and the laser cycle averaged energy absorption $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\langle dE/dt\\rangle = \\frac 1T\\int_{0}^{T}\\frac{dX_{t}}{dt}F(t)\\,dt\\propto \\sin\\phi_{t}\\end{aligned}$$ is at its maximum. Note, however, that the amplitude $X_{t}$ does not necessarily increase considerably at resonance due to strong damping (see [Eq.\u00a0(\\[amplitude\\])]{}). Hence, we take the condition $\\phi_t=\\pi/2$ as the [*definition*]{} for the plasmon resonance and calculate $\\phi_{t}$ from the phase lag between the driving field $F(t)$ and the dipole oscillation $dX_{t}/dt$ by extracting the maximum of the time correlation $c(\\delta t)$ between the two signals, where $$\\begin{aligned}\nc(\\delta t)=\\int_{t_1}^{t_2} F(t) X(t+\\delta t) \\, dt\n\\label{corr_eq}\\end{aligned}$$ (note that $\\delta t \\neq \\Delta t$!). We chose the limits of integration in [Eq.\u00a0(\\[corr\\_eq\\])]{} to be 10 IR cycles before and after the maximum of the probe laser; the radial evolution $R_{t}$ of the cluster is sufficiently slow so that the phase lag only changes by a small amount during that time. The outcome of this calculation is shown in Fig. \\[fig4\\]. Indeed the phase lag is equal to $\\pi/2$ for $\\Delta t\\approx\n3800 a.u.$. This proves that the maxima in Fig. \\[fig3\\] are due to a resonance of the collective electron oscillation with the driving laser field.\n\nHence, the VUV pump combined with a IR probe pulse can map out the internal collective cluster dynamics very clearly and may be the only possibility to resolve this dynamics for small clusters. The reason is simply that the VUV pulse produces a large number of quasi-free electrons which can participate in collective electron motion. On the other hand the VUV pulse itself does not couple to this collective motion. Hence, only the probe pulse probes literally the collective electron dyamics. Using two IR pulses for pump and probe make this distinction difficult: The pump pulse must be very short in order not to \u201cprobe\u201d itself the collective electron dynamics. On the other hand, if it is very short it will not produce a significant number of quasi-free electron which could move collectively since they are produced most efficiently through resonant coupling. In the next phase of the VUV-FEL at Hamburg, a pump-probe facility as \u201cused\u201d in this theoretical investigation will be available for experiments. Furthermore a similar experiment, but much simpler than the one at DESY as far as the experimental set is concerned, is planned in Saclay [@hubertus]; it is planned to use an 800 nm femtosecond laser, together with its 9th harmonic (delivering photons with $E\\approx$ 14 eV) as the IR and VUV pulse, respectively; the intensities will be a bit lower than the ones considered here, but this should only result in a quantitative difference. The present paper shows that indeed, interesting and unique experiments can be done with such a time-delayed combination of pulses.\\\nThis work is part of the research program of FOM (Fundamental Research on Matter), which is subsidized by the NWO (Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Research).\n\n\\[t\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][delay \\[a.u.\\]]{} \\[b\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][phase lag]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][$\\frac{\\pi}{2}$]{} \\[\\]\\[\\]\\[1\\][$\\pi$]{} ![Phase lag between the center-of-mass oscillation of the electron cloud and the driving laser field as a function of time delay between the VUV and the IR pulse.[]{data-label=\"fig4\"}](phaselag \"fig:\")\n\n[99]{} E.\u00a0Suraud and P.\u00a0G. Reinhard, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2296 (2000). T. Seideman, M.Y. Ivanov and P.B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2819 (1995). Ch. Siedschlag and J.M. Rost, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett. [**89**]{}, 173401 (2002); Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0A [**67**]{}, 013404 (2003). U. Saalmann and J.M. Rost, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett. [**91**]{}, 223401 (2003). C. Jungreuthmayer, M. Geissler, J. Zanghellini and T. Brabec, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett. [**92**]{}, 133401 (2004). T. Ditmire, T. Donnelly, A.M. Rubenchik, R.W. Falcone and M.D. Perry, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0A [**53**]{}, 3379 (1996). I. Last and J. Jortner, J.\u00a0Phys.\u00a0Chem.\u00a0A [**106**]{}, 10872 (2002). H. Wabnitz [*et. al.*]{}, Nature [**420**]{}, 482 (2002). R. Santra and C. H. Greene, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett. [**91**]{}, 233401 (2003). Ch. Siedschlag and J.M. Rost, Phys.\u00a0Rev.\u00a0Lett. [**93**]{}, 043402 (2004). L.\u00a0K[\u00f6]{}ller, M.\u00a0Schumacher, J.\u00a0K[\u00f6]{}hn, S.\u00a0Teuber, J.\u00a0Tiggesb[\u00e4]{}umker, and K.\u00a0H. Meiwes-Broer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 3783 (1999). T. D\u00f6ppner, Th. Diederich, J. Tiggesb\u00e4umker, and K.\u00d0H. Meiwes\u00d0Broer, Eur. Phys. J. D [**16**]{}, 13 (2001). S. Zamith, T. Martchenko, Y. Ni, S. A. Aseyev, H. G. Muller, and M. J. J. Vrakking, Phys.\u00a0 Rev. [**A 70**]{}, 011201(R) (2004). F. Calvayrac, P.-G. Reinhard, E. Suraud and C.A. Ullrich, Phys.\u00a0Rep. [**337**]{}, 493 (2000) H. Wabnitz, private communication.\n\n[^1]: For rare gas clusters, the concepts of [*inner*]{} and [*outer*]{} ionization, the first being the ionization of an electron out of an atomic orbital into the cluster environment, the latter the process of an electron leaving the cluster as a whole, have proven to be very useful. If one is dealing with the valence electrons of a metal cluster, the inner ionization step is skipped, since these electrons can already move freely throughout the cluster. From the second shell onwards, metal clusters should not behave different from rare gas clusters\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'I present a detailed derivation of wideband optical pulses interacting with a Raman transition in the kind of scheme currently used to generate the ultra broadband light fields needed to create ultrashort pulses. In contrast to the usual approach using separate field envelopes for the pump, Stokes, and anti-Stokes spectral lines, I use a [*single*]{} field envelope. This requires the inclusion of few-cycle corrections to the pulse propagation. The single-field model makes fewer approximations and is mathematically (and hence computationally) simpler, although it does require greater computational resources to implement. The single-field theory reduces to the traditional multi-field one using appropriate approximations.'\nauthor:\n- Paul Kinsler\ntitle: 'Wideband pulse propagation: a detailed calculation including Raman processes'\n---\n\n=10000\n\n[*This report should be read along with the paper Phys. Rev. [**72**]{}, 033804 (2005) \u201cWideband pulse propagation: single-field and multi-field approaches to Raman interactions\u201d by P. Kinsler, G.H.C. New [@Kinsler-N-2005pra] for proper context. This document is primarily intended as a complete (as possible) record of the calculational steps that were necessarily abbreviated (or omitted) from that published work. It is an edited version of a longer document from which on-going work has been excised; and, as a \u201cwork in progress\u201d, despite my best efforts, may contain occasional mistakes. Please contact me if you have any comments, corrections or queries.* ]{}\n\n\\[\\*\\] I worked at this institution while doing the bulk of this calculation. My main project was with Jon Marangos & Prof. GHC New on ultrabroadband multifrequency Raman generation, and I was funded with money from the EPSRC.\n\n\u00a0\n\nWWW: QOLS Group <http://www.qols.ph.ic.ac.uk/>\\\nWWW: Physics Dept. <http://www.ph.ic.ac.uk/>\\\nWWW: Imperial College <http://www.ic.ac.uk/>\\\nEmail: Paul Kinsler <Dr.Paul.Kinsler@physics.org>\\\nEmail: G.H.C. New <g.new@ic.ac.uk>\n\nIntroduction {#s-intro}\n============\n\nAn important aim of current wideband Raman experiments is to try to efficiently generate few-cycle pulses [@Harris-S-1998prl; @Sokolov-WYYH-2001prl; @Hakuta-SKL-2000prl; @Sali-MTHM-2004ol]. If driven strongly enough, the two-photon Raman transition modulates the incoming field by adding sidebands separated by the transition frequency. Wideband fields are generated as these sidebands generate sidebands of their own (and so on), thus generating a wide comb of frequency components separated by the transition frequency. If a scheme can be implemented that adjusts the phases of each component appropriately, then few- or single- cycle optical pulses can be obtained (see e.g. [@Sokolov-WYYH-2001prl]). Standard theoretical treatments of this process split the field into fields components centred on the teeth of this comb. The approach has the advantage that the components can be modeled reasonably well with slowly varying envelopes, but of course it has the disadvantage of needing to keep track of a large number of components.\n\nIn experiments like those of Sali et.al. [@Sali-MTHM-2004ol; @Sali-KNMHTM-2005pra], the Raman transition is driven near-resonantly by a pair of intense pump pulses about 100fs long; compared to the transition frequency of about 130THz, the spectra of each pump pulse (and hence the generated sidebands) are relatively narrow. This means that a multi-component model is still not unreasonable, even if numerical considerations might demand that the arrays used to store these spectra overlap in frequency space. However, if we were to move to shorter pump pulses, or to a single (much shorter) pump pulse with enough bandwidth to efficiently excite the transition, we would reach the regime where the \u201cteeth\u201d from the spectral comb significantly overlap. At this point, not only would we be forced to move from an SVEA (Slowly Varying Envelope Approximation) solution of the field propagation to a more accurate Generalized Few-cycle Envelope Approximation (GFEA) [@Kinsler-N-2003pra; @Kinsler-FCPP], but the utility of multiple field components becomes questionable. In this regime it can be advantageous to treat the field as a single unit, rather than splitting it into pieces. Note that this approach still differs from solutions of Maxwell\u2019s equations such as FDTD (finite difference time domain)[@Joseph-T-1997itap] or PSSD (pseudospectral spatial domain)[@Tyyrell-KN-2005jmo], because our single-field is based on a second-order wave equation, and uses a convenient choice of carrier function to define a field envelope.\n\nFollowing these considerations, we now derive a [*single-field*]{} model for Raman generation, and, apart from that notable detail, follow an analogous path to that of Hickman, Paisner, and Bischel (HPB) [@Hickman-PB-1986pra]. In the model, we find that the coupling constants retain an oscillatory behaviour at the transition frequency, and that it is this that impresses the sideband modulation on the propagating field. Since the field is not only wideband, but contains significant sideband components, we need to propagate this (no longer slowly varying) field envelope using the GFEA. The necessity of allowing for these can be demonstrated by converting the single-field model into a multi-field counterpart \u2013 without the envelope-gradient corrections, we will not get a correct multi-field model.\n\nSummary of the theory and the numerical implementation {#ss-intro-theorysummary}\n------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe model the wideband Raman generation process in the following way. We specify the field frequencies ($\\omega_i$) of interest, which are usually at integer spacings of the transition frequency ($\\omega_A$) from the main pump laser frequency ($\\omega_0$). Each of these field components is described usin a standard envelope theory (i.e. as $A_i(t)$) with a time-history, allowing us to simulate pulses as they travel through the Raman medium. The Raman medium is modelled as a two-level atom using a (its) Bloch vector $(u,v,w)$, and this Bloch vector is driven by each combination of spectrally adjacent field components ($\\sim \\sum A_i A_{-1}$). Each of the field components $A_i$ is driven by the atomic polarization ($\\sim v$) in combination with its pair of adjacent field components (i.e. $A_{i-1},\nA_{i+1}$).\n\nEach field component evolves as \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\partial_z A_j\n&=&\n\\frac{\\sigma \\omega_j \\alpha_{12}}\n     { \\epsilon_0 c_0}\n\\left\\{\n  -\n  \\left[\n     v' \n   -\n     \\imath u'\n  \\right]\n   A_{j+1}\n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j+1} -k'_j) z - \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n +\n  \\left[\n     v' \n   +\n     \\imath u'\n  \\right]\n    A_{j-1}\n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j-1} -k'_j) z + \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n\\right\\}\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n - \n  \\left( k_j - k_0 \\right) A_j\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe transition evolves as ($\\rho_{12}' \\equiv (u',v') $) $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\partial_t \\rho_{12}' \n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta + 2 \\imath g' \\sum_j A_j^* A_j \n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n+ \n8 \\imath f' \\sum_j A_{j}  A_{j-1}^*\n. w \n. e^{+\\imath \\left( k_j-k_{j-1}  \\right) z - \\imath \\Delta t } \\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+  4 \\imath f' \\sum_j\n\\left[ \n  A_j^*A_{j+1}\n  \\rho_{12}' \n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j+1} -k_j \\right) z - \\imath \\Delta t } \n-\n  A_j^*A_{j-1}\n  \\rho_{12}'^* \n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j-1} -k_j \\right) z + \\imath \\Delta t } \n\\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHere $\\sigma$ is the number density of the atoms or molecules; $\\gamma_1$, $\\gamma_2$ are the population and polarization decay rates for the transition; $f'$ is the field-transition coupling constant; $g'$ is the stark shift coefficient; $\\omega_j, k_j$ are the frequencies and wavevectors for the field components, $\\Delta$ gives a rotating frame for $\\rho_{12} \\rightarrow \\rho_{12}'$\n\nAdditionally, a Cauchy dispersion is applied to the propagation of the field components.\n\nBecause each of the field components has a time-history, this translates to a spectral width. In typical cases with roughly nanosecond pulse lengths, the bandwidth of each component will be tiny compared to the transition frequency, so there will be large uneventful gaps in the total spectrum. In contrast, if the pulse lengths drop to (say) roughly 100 femtoseconds, the bandwidths of the field components will form a noticeable fraction of the total spectrum\n\nA comment on Cauchy dispersion {#ss-intro-comments}\n------------------------------\n\nAs regards the mismatch terms in the Raman model, Geoff New has remarked (email, 20040121) that there\u2019s a key point about the $\\gamma_n$\u2019s that is not made properly in most of the McDonald et al publications; since it is usually said rather enigmatically that the $\\gamma$\u2019s are \u201cparameterized\u201d by $\\gamma_1$. The point is that if one assumes a Cauchy-type law for the refractive index variation, all the gamma\u2019s are linked by a recurrence relation, and so you only need to specify one of them, from which all the others will follow. The point is made properly (to GN\u2019s knowledge) only in ref [@McDonald-NCLL-1998jmo].\n\nSingle-field wideband Raman {#s-singlefieldraman}\n===========================\n\n[*Note: This single field derivation does mean some of the approximations as to the \u201cslowness\u201d of the field variation seem somewhat stringent. However, since a conversion to a multi-field model is possible, it would seem the field variation constraints are less stringent than they would first appear.* ]{}\n\nCoupled wavefunction equations {#ss-single-coupled-wnf}\n------------------------------\n\nI start by considering the wave function $\\psi$ of a single molecule (e.g. H$_2$) and the electric field $E$, and write the time-dependent wave function by expanding it in terms of the eigenfunctions in the field-free (i.e. $E=0$) case. This means I can get the expansion coefficients by solving for an effective Schr\u00f6edinger equation that contains a two-photon Rabi frequency created by means of an interaction term based on a field-dependent dipole moment. I assume a dispersionless medium and write all equations in terms of position $z$ and retarded times $t=t_{lab}-z/c$. Here I follow the method of HPB [@Hickman-PB-1986pra], but use only a single $E$ field rather than multiple components. Note that HPB use [*Gaussian*]{} units, so there can appear to be inconsistencies when comparing my formulae (in S.I.) to theirs.\n\nI denote the known molecular eigenfunctions of the unperturbed Hamiltonian $H_0$ as $\\left| n \\right>$, and their corresponding energies $\\hbar W_n$. I want to obtain the solution to \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\left( H_0 + V \\right) \\psi \n&=& \n  \\imath \\hbar \n  \\frac{\\partial \\psi}\n       {\\partial t}\n\\label{eqn-hamltonian-def}\n\\\\\n\\textrm{for} ~~~ ~~~\nV &=& \n-d E \n\\label{eqn-perturbation-def}\n\\\\\n\\psi &=&\n\\sum_n\n  c_n e^{-\\imath W_n t} \\left| n \\right>\n,\n\\label{eqn-psi-def}\\end{aligned}$$ \u00a0 where $d$ is the electronic dipole moment operator and the $c_n$ are a set of complex probability amplitudes.\n\nA standard derivation for the equations of motion of the $c_i$ co-efficients proceeds as \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\imath \\hbar \n  \\frac{\\partial}\n       {\\partial t}\n  \\sum_i c_i e^{-\\imath W_i t}\n    \\left| i \\right>\n&=&\n\\left( H_0 + V \\right) \n  \\sum_j c_j e^{-\\imath W_j t}\n    \\left| j \\right>\n\\\\\n  \\imath \\hbar \n  \\sum_i \n  \\left\\{\n    -\\imath W_i \n    c_i \n    e^{-\\imath W_i t}\n  +\n    e^{-\\imath W_i t}\n    \\frac{\\partial c_i}\n         {\\partial t}\n  \\right\\}\n    \\left| i \\right>\n&=&\n\\left( H_0 + V \\right) \n  \\sum_j c_j e^{-\\imath W_j t}\n    \\left| j \\right>\n\\\\\n  \\imath \\hbar \n\\left< n \\right|\n  \\sum_i \n  \\left\\{\n    -\\imath W_i \n    c_i \n    e^{-\\imath W_i t}\n  +\n    e^{-\\imath W_i t}\n    \\frac{\\partial c_i}\n         {\\partial t}\n  \\right\\}\n    \\left| i \\right>\n&=&\n\\left< n \\right|\n\\left( H_0 + V \\right) \n  \\sum_j c_j e^{-\\imath W_j t}\n    \\left| j \\right>\n\\\\\n  \\imath \\hbar \n  \\left\\{\n    -\\imath W_n \n    c_n \n    e^{-\\imath W_n t}\n  +\n    e^{-\\imath W_n t}\n    \\frac{\\partial c_n}\n         {\\partial t}\n  \\right\\}\n&=&\n  \\hbar\n  c_n\n  W_n\n    e^{-\\imath W_n t}\n +\n  \\sum_j \n    c_j \n    e^{-\\imath W_j t}\n    \\left< n \\right|\n      -d.E\n    \\left| j \\right>\n\\\\\n  \\imath \\hbar \n  \\left\\{\n    -\\imath W_n \n    c_n\n  +\n    \\frac{\\partial c_n}\n         {\\partial t}\n  \\right\\}\n&=&\n  \\hbar\n  W_n\n  c_n\n -\n  \\sum_j \n    c_j \n    e^{-\\imath W_j t + \\imath W_n t}\n    \\left< n \\right|\n      d.E\n    \\left| j \\right>\n\\\\\n  \\imath \\hbar \n    \\frac{\\partial c_n}\n         {\\partial t}\n&=&\n -\n  \\sum_j \n    c_j \n    e^{-\\imath \\left( W_j - W_n \\right) t}\n    \\left< n \\right|\n      d.E\n    \\left| j \\right>\n.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe now use perturbation theory, & $d_{nm} = \\left< n \\right| \\hat{d} \\left| n \\right>$, following two independent (but related) strands.\n\n### CASE (i): Electric field {#sss-single-Efield}\n\nThis strand leaves the perturbing potential as a function of electric field $E$, and does not replace it with a carrier-envelope description. Although apparently the simplest strategy, it is generally impractical as it imposes constraints on the field and other model parameters that are too restrictive to be useful.\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\imath \\hbar \\frac{d c_n}{dt}\n&=&\n-\n\\sum_i\n  c_i\n  d_{ni} E \n  \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_i - W_n \\right) t \\right]\n\\\\\n\\textrm{... assume } c_n, d_{ni} && \n\\textrm{vary only slowly, so I can integrate just the exponentials }\n\\\\\nc_i\n&=&\n-\n \\frac{1}{ \\imath \\hbar}\n \\sum_j\n  c_j\n  d_{ij} E \n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_j - W_i \\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {-\\imath \\left( W_j-W_i \\right) }\n\\\\\n&=&\n\\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n\\sum_j\n  c_j\n  d_{ij} E\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_j - W_i \\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_i-W_j}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNow substitute the $c_i$ solution into the $d c_n / dt$ equations, and introduce the shorthand notation $W_{ij} = W_i - W_j$, \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\imath \\hbar \\frac{d c_n}{dt}\n&=&\n-\n\\sum_i\n  \\left[\n    \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n    \\sum_j\n      c_j\n      d_{ij} E\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{ji} t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_i-W_j}\n  \\right]\n  d_{ni} E \n  \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{in} t \\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n\\sum_i\n    \\sum_j\n      c_j\n      d_{ij} E\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{ji} t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij} }\n  d_{ni} E \n  \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{in} t \\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\n      E^2\n  \\sum_j \n    \\frac{1}{\\hbar}\n    \\sum_i\n      d_{ni} d_{ij} c_j\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{jn} t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_i-W_j}\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\n  \\sum_j \n    c_j\n    \\alpha_{nj} E^2\n,\n\\label{eqn-single-E-DcnDt}\\end{aligned}$$ \u00a0 where \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_{nj}\n&=&\n\\frac{1}{\\hbar}\n\\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{jn} t \\right]\n    \\sum_i\n    \\frac{ d_{ni} d_{ij} }\n         {W_i-W_j}\n\\label{eqn-single-E-alpha}\n\\\\\n\\textrm{UNITS:} ~~~~\n\\left[ \\alpha_{nj} \\right]\n&\\equiv& J^{-1} s^{-1} . Cm . Cm . \\left( s^{-1} \\right)^{-1}\n~~~~ = C^2 m^2 J^{-1}\n~~~~ = \\left( J V^{-1} \\right)^2 m^2 J^{-1}\n~~~~ = J m^2 V^{-2}\n\\\\\n\\textrm{UNITS:} ~~~~\n\\left[ \\frac{\\alpha_{nj}}{\\hbar} E^2\\right]\n&\\equiv&\nJ m^2 V^{-2} . J^{-1} s^{-1} . \\left( V m^{-1} \\right)^2\n~~~~ = J . J^{-1}  \\times V^{-2} . V^2 \\times  m^2 . m^{-2} \\times s^{-1}\n~~~~ = s^{-1}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSince we are only interested in the end states $j=1, 2$, between which the Raman transition occurs, we only need calculate $c_1, c_2$; however we still retain the sum over all $i$ intermediates states, as they affect the coupling between $1$ and $2$. The diagonal couplings $\\{ \\alpha_{nj}, n = j\n\\}$ are real; but the off-diagonal couplings $\\{ \\alpha_{nj}, n \\neq j \\}$ undergo complex oscillations according to the difference in their energy levels.\n\nTheir [*frequency dependence*]{} is discussed after the following subsection; HPB\u2019s corresponding parameters, which [*do not oscillate*]{}, were assumed to be frequency independent.\n\n### CASE (ii): Electric Field Envelope {#sss-single-Eenvelope}\n\nThis strand replaces the electric field $E$ with a carrier-envelope description, but, unlike HPB, I use only a single carrier-envelope component rather than a set indexed by some integer $j$. This is necessary, because in the previous strand I ended up with coupling constants $\\alpha_{nj}$ with strong frequency dependences.\n\nI introduce the envelope and carrier [@Gabor-1946jiee] for the field: \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\nE &=& \n  \\left[\n    A e^{-\\imath \\omega_0 t} + A^* e^{+\\imath \\omega_0 t} \n  \\right]\n\\label{eqn-single-EfromA}\n\\\\\n\\textrm{so that } ~~~~ ~~~~\n\\imath \\hbar \\frac{d c_n}{dt}\n&=&\n-\n\\sum_l\n  c_l\n  d_{nl} \n  \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_l - W_n \\right) t \\right]\n  \\left[\n    A e^{-\\imath \\omega_0 t} + A^* e^{+\\imath \\omega_0 t} \n  \\right]\n\\\\\n\\textrm{now use~}l\\rightarrow i; \\textrm{~and assume ~} &c_n, d_{ni}&\n\\textrm{vary only slowly, so I can integrate just the exponentials }\n\\\\\nc_i\n&=&\n-\\frac{1}{ \\imath \\hbar}\n\\sum_j\n  c_j\n  d_{ij} \n  \\left[ \n    A\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_j - W_i + \\omega_0\\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {-\\imath \\left( W_j-W_i+\\omega_0 \\right) }\n    +\n    A^*\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_j - W_i - \\omega_0 \\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {-\\imath \\left( W_j-W_i-\\omega_0 \\right) }\n  \\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n\\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n\\sum_j\n  c_j\n  d_{ij}\n  \\left[ \n    A\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_j - W_i + \\omega_0\\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_i-W_j-\\omega_0}\n    +\n    A^*\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_j - W_i - \\omega_0 \\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_i-W_j+\\omega_0}\n  \\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNote the swap of $\\left(W_j-W_i\\right)$ to $-\\left( W_i-W_j \\right)$ in the denominators. Now substitute the $c_i$ solution into the $d c_n / dt$ equations (using $l\\rightarrow j$), and introduce the shorthand notation $W_{ij} = W_i - W_j$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\imath \\hbar \\frac{d c_n}{dt}\n&=&\n-\n\\sum_i\n  \\left\\{\n    \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n    \\sum_j\n      c_j\n      d_{ij} \n  \\left[ \n    A\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_{ji} + \\omega_0\\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}-\\omega_0}\n    +\n    A^*\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_{ji} - \\omega_0 \\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}+\\omega_0}\n  \\right]\n  \\right\\}\n  d_{ni} E \n  \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{in} t \\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n\\sum_i\n    \\sum_j\n      c_j\n      d_{ij} \n  \\left[ \n    A\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_{ji} + \\omega_0\\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}-\\omega_0}\n    +\n    A^*\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_{ji} - \\omega_0 \\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}+\\omega_0}\n  \\right]\n  d_{ni} \n  \\left[\n    A e^{-\\imath \\omega_0 t} + A^* e^{+\\imath \\omega_0 t} \n  \\right]\n  \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{in} t \\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n\\sum_i\n    \\sum_j\n      c_j\n      d_{ni} \n      d_{ij} \n  \\left[ \n    A\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_{jn} + \\omega_0\\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}-\\omega_0}\n    +\n    A^*\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_{jn} - \\omega_0 \\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}+\\omega_0}\n  \\right]\n  \\left[\n    A e^{-\\imath \\omega_0 t} + A^* e^{+\\imath \\omega_0 t} \n  \\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n\\sum_i\n    \\sum_j\n      c_j\n      d_{ni} \n      d_{ij} \n  \\left\\{\n    A^2\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_{jn} + 2 \\omega_0\\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}-\\omega_0}\n   +\n    A A^*\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{jn} t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}-\\omega_0}\n\\right.\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n\\left.\n   +\n    A^* A \n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{jn} t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}+\\omega_0}\n   +\n    {A^*}^2\n    \\frac{\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( W_{jn} - 2 \\omega_0 \\right) t \\right]\n         }\n         {W_{ij}+\\omega_0}\n  \\right\\}\n\\\\\n&\\approx&\n-\\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n\\sum_i\n    \\sum_j\n      c_j\n      d_{ni} \n      d_{ij} \n      A A^*\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{jn} t \\right]\n  \\left\\{\n    \\frac{1}\n         {W_{ij}-\\omega_0}\n   +\n    \\frac{1}\n         {W_{ij}+\\omega_0}\n  \\right\\}\n;\n~~ \\textrm{by discarding the $2 \\omega_0$ terms;}\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n\\sum_i\n    \\sum_j\n      c_j\n      d_{ni} \n      d_{ij} \n      A A^*\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{jn} t \\right]\n    \\frac{W_{ij}+\\omega_0 ~~ + ~~ {W_{ij}-\\omega_0}}\n         { \\left( W_{ij}-\\omega_0 \\right) \\left( W_{ij}+\\omega_0 \\right) }\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n\\sum_i\n    \\sum_j\n      c_j\n      d_{ni} \n      d_{ij} \n      A A^*\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{jn} t \\right]\n    \\frac{2 W_{ij} }\n         {W_{ij}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n\\\\\n&=&\n-    \n  A A^*\n\\sum_j\n  c_j\n  \\sum_i\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n      d_{ni} \n      d_{ij} \n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{jn} t \\right]\n    \\frac{2 W_{ij} }\n         {W_{ij}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\n\\sum_j\n  c_j\n  \\alpha_{nj}'\n   ~~ . 2 \\left| A \\right|^2\n\\label{eqn-single-A-DcnDt}\\end{aligned}$$ \u00a0 where \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_{nj}'\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{jn} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{ni} \n      d_{ij} \n    \\frac{W_{ij} }\n         {W_{ij}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n\\label{eqn-single-A-alpha}\n~~~~ ~~~~ = ~~\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ +\\imath W_{nj} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{ni} \n      d_{ij} \n    \\frac{W_{ij} }\n         {W_{ij}^2-\\omega_0^2}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThese redefined $\\alpha_{nj}'$ parameters still oscillate, as they must because unlike in the HPB derivation, there is no frequency difference between field components to cancel with the Raman transition frequency. The coupling also varies with frequency, which is discussed next.\n\nRaman coupling parameters: approximations\n-----------------------------------------\n\nI now discuss two particular (and vital) approximations applied to the Raman coupling parameters.\n\nFirst, note that (as in HPB), I will take the indices $1$ and $2$ to correspond to the two states involved in the (Raman) transition of interest; these will be the $0$ and $1$ vibrational (or perhaps rotational) levels of the electronic ground state. Indices $3$ and above will correspond to (quoting HPB) \u201ctranslational motion on higher electronic states\u201d.\n\n[*Note: I can see that assigning these indices to higher electronic states will conveniently keep the energy separations for transitions to greater than that of the $1 \\leftrightarrow 2$ transitions, but it\u2019s not so clear to me why I can ignore all the higher vibrational (or rotational) states.*]{}\n\nSince I am interested only in the Raman transition, I specialise the above equations for the coefficients $c_n$, calculating $c_1$ and $c_2$ only, and assuming that the $d_{12} = \\left< 1 \\right| d \\left| \\right>$ dipole moment is zero. This means we will only be including transitions between indices $1$ and $2$ that [*go via one of the higher states*]{} $j \\ge 3$, since we still allow $d_{1j}, ~d_{2j} \\neq 0 ~~ \\forall j \\ge 3$. Further, I solve for the coefficients for the higher states in terms of $c_1$ and $c_2$, in an adiabatic approximation justified when $c_1$ and $c_2$ vary only slowly compared to the exponential terms.\n\n[*Note: Separate from the oscillations that occur in my coupling parameters (but not in HPB), there is the issue of [*frequency dependence*]{} which applies to both HPB and my parameters.*]{}\n\nFor both HPB (their eqn.(15)), and my field-carrier based derivation (eqn.(\\[eqn-single-A-alpha\\])), the presence of the field carrier in the denominator is helpful. Since it can reasonably be assumed to be much greater than the inter(Raman)-level energy differences, the fractional terms will be correspondingly small, and so the $\\alpha_{nj}$ ($\\alpha_{nj}'$) parameters can be assumed to be independent of frequency (or at least nearly so).\n\nThis is not in any way obviously (or even partially) true for the no-carrier $E$ based (eqn.(\\[eqn-single-E-alpha\\]), $\\alpha_{nj}$) parameters, which depend only on the difference in Raman levels \u2013 at best you might perhaps hope that the denominators were approximate multiples of each other.\n\n### Near-zero difference\n\nHere I assume that the forward and backward transitions (between levels 2 and 1) have nearly the same amplitude. It is not self-evidently true, but HPB must have made an equivalent assumption. In any case, since $\\alpha_{12}'^* - \\alpha_{21}'$ is the difference of similar terms, it will be smaller by at worst a factor of two ($(1+\\delta-1) / (1+\\delta+1) \\sim \\delta/2$) \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_{12}'^* - \\alpha_{21}'\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ +\\imath W_{21} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{1i}^* \n      d_{i2}^*  \n    \\frac{ W_{i2} }\n         {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n~~~~\n-\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{12} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{2i} \n      d_{i1} \n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n\\\\\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{1i}^*  \n      d_{i2}^*  \n    \\left[\n      \\frac{ W_{i2} }\n           {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2} \n     -\n      \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n           {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n    \\right]\n          \\exp \\left[ +\\imath W_{21} t \\right]\n\\\\\n&\\approx&\n0\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThis approximation allows me to equate $\\alpha_{21}'$ to $\\alpha_{12}'^*$, and hence change $- \\alpha_{21}' c_1^* c_1\n+ \\alpha_{12}'^* c_2 c_2^* \\longrightarrow \n\\alpha_{21}' \\left( c_2^* c_2\n- c_1^* c_1 \\right)$ in the $\\rho_{12}$ equation below. This is a vital step in getting to a simple form equivalent to the Bloch equations.\n\n### Sum is double\n\nThis follows from the above assumption (as per HPB) that the forward and backward transitions (between levels 2 and 1) have nearly the same amplitude. This approximation allows me to replace $\\alpha_{21}'$ with $\\alpha_{12}'$ in the $w$ equation below, which simplifies my notation and makes the coupling term match that in the $\\rho_{12}$ equation, important in getting to true Bloch equations.\n\n\u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_{12}' + \\alpha_{21}'^*\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{21} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{1i} \n      d_{i2} \n    \\frac{ W_{i2} }\n         {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n~~~~\n+\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ +\\imath W_{12} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{2i}^* \n      d_{i1}^* \n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n\\\\\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{1i} \n      d_{i2} \n    \\left[\n      \\frac{ W_{i2} }\n           {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2} \n     +\n      \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n           {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n    \\right]\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{21} t \\right]\n\\\\\n&\\approx&\n\\bar{\\alpha}_{12}  \n  e^{-\\imath W_{21} t}\n\\label{eqn-alpha-bar}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n### Sum is cosine\n\nI do not reduce the exponential sum to a (trig) cosine function, for potential use later when matching and/or differencing exponentials. However, this sum is does not occur, so the $\\bar{a}_{12}$ is never used. \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_{12}' + \\alpha_{21}'\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{21} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{1i} \n      d_{i2} \n    \\frac{ W_{i2} }\n         {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n~~~~\n+\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{12} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{2i} \n      d_{i1} \n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n\\\\\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{1i} \n      d_{i2} \n    \\left[\n      \\frac{ W_{i2} }\n           {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2} \n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{21} t \\right]\n     +\n      \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n           {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n          \\exp \\left[ +\\imath W_{21} t \\right]\n    \\right]\n\\\\\n&\\approx&\n\\bar{a}_{12}  \\left[ e^{-\\imath W_{21} t} + e^{+\\imath W_{21} t} \\right]\n\\label{eqn-alpha-bar-B}\\end{aligned}$$\n\n### Stark Shifts\n\nHere I calculate the Stark shift term \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_{11}' - \\alpha_{22}'^*\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ -\\imath W_{11} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{1i} \n      d_{i1} \n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n~~~~\n-\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n          \\exp \\left[ +\\imath W_{22} t \\right]\n  \\sum_i\n      d_{2i}^* \n      d_{i2}^* \n    \\frac{ W_{i2} }\n         {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n\\\\\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n  \\sum_i\n  \\left[\n      d_{i1}^*d_{i1} \n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n - \n      d_{2i}^* d_{2i}\n    \\frac{ W_{i2} }\n         {W_{i2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n  \\right]\n\\label{eqn-alpha-stark}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSimplify assuming $W_{21} \\ll W_{i1}, W_{i2}$, while assuming $W_{i1}/\\left(W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2 \\right) \\sim 1$; or, more accurately, that \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n1 \n&\\gg&\n      \\frac{W_{21}^n}{ W_{i1}^n}\n    \\frac{ W_{i1}^2 }\n         {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n~~~~ ~~~~ \\textrm{for } ~~~~ n ~ = ~~1, ~2\n,\\end{aligned}$$\n\nand keeping only the terms first order in $W_{21}/W_{i1}, W_{21}/W_{i2}$, etc \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\alpha_{11}' - \\alpha_{22}'^*\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n  \\sum_i\n  \\left\\{\n      \\left| d_{1i} \\right|^2\n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n - \n      \\left| d_{2i} \\right|^2\n    \\frac{ W_{i1} + W_{21} }\n         {W_{i1}^2+ 2W_{i1} W_{21} + W_{21}^2 -\\omega_0^2}\n  \\right\\}\n\\\\\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n  \\sum_i\n  \\left\\{\n      \\left| d_{1i} \\right|^2\n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n - \n      \\left| d_{2i} \\right|^2\n    \\frac{ W_{i1} + W_{21} }\n         {\n           \\left( W_{i1}^2 -\\omega_0^2 \\right) \n         }\n    \\frac{ 1}\n         {\n           \\left[ \n                  1 \n                + \\left( 2W_{21} / W_{i1} + W_{21}^2/ W_{i1}^2 \\right)\n                   W_{i1}^2 / \\left( W_{i1}^2 -\\omega_0^2 \\right)\n           \\right]\n         }\n  \\right\\}\n\\\\\n&=&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n  \\sum_i\n  \\left\\{\n      \\left| d_{1i} \\right|^2\n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n - \n      \\left| d_{2i} \\right|^2\n    \\frac{ W_{i1} + W_{21} }\n         { W_{i1}^2 -\\omega_0^2 }\n           \\left[ \n                  1 \n                - \\left( 2 \\frac{W_{21}}{ W_{i1} } \n                         + \\frac{W_{21}^2}{ W_{i1}^2}\n                  \\right)\n                   \\frac{W_{i1}^2}{ \\left( W_{i1}^2 -\\omega_0^2 \\right)}\n                + ...\n           \\right]\n  \\right\\}\n\\\\\n&\\approx&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n  \\sum_i\n  \\left\\{\n      \\left| d_{1i} \\right|^2\n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n - \n      \\left| d_{2i} \\right|^2\n    \\frac{ W_{i1} + W_{21} }\n         {W_{i1}^2 -\\omega_0^2 }\n           \\left[ \n                  1 \n                - 2 \\frac{W_{21}}{ W_{i1} }\n                    \\frac{W_{i1}^2 }{ \\left( W_{i1}^2 -\\omega_0^2 \\right)}\n           \\right]\n  \\right\\}\n\\\\\n&\\approx&\n      \\frac{1}{ \\hbar}\n \\sum_i\n \\left\\{\n  \\left[\n      \\left| d_{1i} \\right|^2\n - \n      \\left| d_{2i} \\right|^2\n - \n      \\left| d_{2i} \\right|^2\n      \\frac{W_{21}}{ W_{i1}}\n  \\right]\n    \\frac{ W_{i1} }\n         {W_{i1}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n - \n  \\left[\n      2 \\left| d_{2i} \\right|^2\n      \\frac{W_{21}}{ W_{i1}}\n  \\right]\n      \\frac{ W_{i1}^3 }\n           { \\left( W_{i1}^2 -\\omega_0^2 \\right)^2 }\n \\right\\}\n\\label{eqn-alpha-stark-approx}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIgnoring the $W_{21}$ transition frequency terms, this is just the difference in the energy shifts of the two levels with field intensity. This is a purely [*real*]{} quantity, with no imaginary part.\n\nTwo photon Bloch equations\n--------------------------\n\nFrom now on, I use $\\mathscr{I}$ (a script \u201cI\u201d) to represent $E^2$ if following on from \\[sss-single-Efield\\] and eqns.(\\[eqn-single-E-DcnDt\\], \\[eqn-single-E-alpha\\]); or to represent $2\\left| A \\right|^2$ if following on from \\[sss-single-Eenvelope\\] and eqns.(\\[eqn-single-A-DcnDt\\], \\[eqn-single-A-alpha\\]). Since it is the envelope-carrier description of the field $E$ which is most useful (in \\[sss-single-Eenvelope\\]), for most purposes $\\mathscr{I} = 2\\left| A \\right|^2$ holds; remember that it is difficult to maintain the accuracy of the approximations relied on above for the $E^2$ picture (in \\[sss-single-Efield\\]). I also drop the prime on the $\\alpha_{nj}'$ parameters used in the (Case Iii)) \u201c$2\\left| A \\right|^2$\u201d electric field envelope model.\n\nSince we are only interested in $c_1, c_2$, and because we keep only stationary or slowly varying terms, we can write equations for $c_1, c_2$ as \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\imath \\hbar\n\\frac{d c_1}{dt}\n&=&\n- \\alpha_{11} \\mathscr{I} c_1 \n- \\alpha_{12} \\mathscr{I} c_2\n\\\\\n\\Longrightarrow\n~~~~ ~~~~\n\\imath \\hbar\n\\frac{d c_1^*}{dt}\n&=&\n+ \\alpha_{11}^* \\mathscr{I} c_1^* \n+ \\alpha_{12}^* \\mathscr{I} c_2^*\n\\\\\n\\imath \\hbar\n\\frac{d c_2}{dt}\n&=&\n- \\alpha_{21} \\mathscr{I} c_1\n- \\alpha_{22} \\mathscr{I} c_2\n\\\\\n\\Longrightarrow\n~~~~ ~~~~\n\\imath \\hbar\n\\frac{d c_2^*}{dt}\n&=&\n+ \\alpha_{21}^* \\mathscr{I} c_1^*\n+ \\alpha_{22}^* \\mathscr{I} c_2^*\n\\\\\n\\textrm{In matrix form: } \n~~~~ ~~~~\n\\frac{d}{dt}\n\\left[\n\\begin {array}{c}\nc_1\n\\\\\nc_2\n\\end {array}\n\\right]\n&=&\n  -\\frac{1}{\\imath \\hbar}\n \\left[\n   \\begin {array}{cc}\n     \\alpha_{11} \\mathscr{I} & \\alpha_{12} \\mathscr{I} \\\\\n     \\noalign{\\medskip}\n     \\alpha_{21} \\mathscr{I} & \\alpha_{22} \\mathscr{I} \\\\\n   \\end {array}\n  \\right]\n~\n\\left[\n\\begin {array}{c}\nc_1\n\\\\\nc_2\n\\end {array}\n\\right]\n\\label{eqn-single-dcdt}\n,\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAlternative formulations: Kien et.al. (KLKOHS), Hickman et.al. (HPB)\n--------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThis interlude compares my matrix equation for $c_1, c_2$ to those from Kien et.al.[@Kien-LKOHS-1999pra] (KLKOHS) and Hickman et.al. [@Hickman-PB-1986pra] (HPB). This is useful as a fixed point of refernce beween the approaches, enabling quick conversions between the parameter variables.\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\textrm{cf. (KLKOHS) eqn.(13): } ~~~~ ~~~~\n\\frac{d}{dt}\n\\left[\n\\begin {array}{c}\nc_a\n\\\\\nc_b\n\\end {array}\n\\right]\n&=&\n -\\frac{1}\n       {\\imath \\hbar}\n\\left[\n\\begin {array}{cc}\n\\hbar \\Omega_{aa} & \\hbar \\Omega_{ab} \\\\\n\\noalign{\\medskip}\n\\hbar \\Omega_{ba} & \\hbar \\Omega_{bb} - \\delta \\\\\n\\end {array}\n\\right]\n~\n\\left[\n\\begin {array}{c}\nc_a\n\\\\\nc_b\n\\end {array}\n\\right]\n,\n\\label{eqn-KLKOHS-dcdt}\n\\\\\n\\textrm{where $B_q$ are KLKOHS's $E_q$ envelopes:}\n~~~~ ~~~~\n  E \n&=&\n  \\frac{1}{2} \n  \\left[\n     B_q e^{\\imath \\Xi} + B_q^* e^{-\\imath \\Xi} \n  \\right]\n\\\\\n  \\hbar \\Omega_{aa}\n&=&\n  \\frac{\\hbar }{2}\n  \\sum_q\n    a_q B_q B_q^*\n\\\\\n  \\hbar \\Omega_{ab}\n&=&\n  \\frac{\\hbar }{2}\n  \\sum_q\n    d_q B_q B_q^*\n~~~~ ~~~~\n=\n \\hbar \\Omega_{ba}^*\n\\\\\n  \\hbar \\Omega_{bb}\n&=&\n  \\frac{\\hbar }{2}\n  \\sum_q\n    b_q B_q B_{q+1}^* \\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\textrm{cf. (HPB) eqn.(13): } ~~~~ ~~~~\n  \\frac{d}{dt}\n  \\left[\n   \\begin {array}{c}\n      c_1\n      \\\\\n      c_2\n    \\end {array}\n  \\right]\n&=&\n  -\\frac{1}{\\imath \\hbar}\n  \\left[\n    \\begin {array}{cc}\n      -H_{11} & -H_{12}  \\\\\n      \\noalign{\\medskip}\n      -H_{21} & -H_{22}  \\\\\n    \\end {array}\n  \\right]\n~\n\\left[\n\\begin {array}{c}\nc_1\n\\\\\nc_2\n\\end {array}\n\\right]\n\\label{eqn-HPB-dcdt}\n,\n\\\\\n\\textrm{where $\\alpha_{Hij}$ are HPB's $\\alpha_{ij}$ parameters:}\n~~~~ ~~~~\n  H_{11} \n&=&\n  -\\frac{1}{4}\n \\sum_j \\alpha_{H11} (\\omega_j) V_j V_j^*\n\\\\\n  H_{12} \n&=&\n  -\\frac{1}{4}\n \\sum_j \\alpha_{H12} (\\omega_j) V_j V_{j-1}^*\n~~~~ ~~~~ = \n  H_{21}^*\n\\\\\n  H_{22} \n&=&\n  -\\frac{1}{4}\n \\sum_j \\alpha_{H22} (\\omega_j) V_j V_j^*\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThus comparing the Rabi-like parts of my eqn (\\[eqn-single-dcdt\\]) with that of KLKOHS (my eqn (\\[eqn-KLKOHS-dcdt\\])) and that of HPB (my eqn (\\[eqn-HPB-dcdt\\])), gives \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\alpha_{12} \\mathscr{I} = \\alpha_{12} . 2 A^*A = \\hbar f' . 2 A^*A\n~~~~ ~~~~\n&=&\n  \\frac{\\hbar}{2}\n  \\sum_q\n    d_q B_q B_{q+1}^*\n=\n  \\hbar\n  \\sum_q\n    d_q \n    .\n    \\frac{1}{2}\n    B_q B_{q+1}^*\n~~~~ ~~~~\n= \n -\\frac{1}{4}\n  \\sum_j\n    \\alpha_{H12}(\\omega_j) V_j V_{j-1}^*\\end{aligned}$$\n\n\u00a0\u00a0 This uses KLKOHS: $ E = \\frac{1}{2} \\left( B_1 + B_1^* + B_2 + B_2^* \\right)$\\\n$\\rightarrow E^2 = \\frac{1}{4} \\left( B_1^2 + B_1^{*2} + B_2^2 + B_2^{2*} \n+ 2 B_1 B_1^* + 2 B_2 B_2^* + 2 B_1 B_2^* + 2 B_1^* B_2 \n\\right)$\\\n$\\rightarrow E_{1-2}^2 \\sim \\frac{1}{4} 2 B_1 B_2^* = \\frac{1}{2} B_1 B_2^*$\\\nwhich tells us the size of the field contribution to the KLKOHS Rabi-like term.\n\n\u00a0\u00a0 This uses HPB: which tells us the size of the field contribution to the HPB Rabi-like term. (cf KLKOHS). So $\\Omega_{aa}=\\alpha_{11}\n\\mathscr{I} / \\hbar$, $\\Omega_{ab}=\\alpha_{12} \\mathscr{I} / \\hbar$, $\\Omega_{bb}= \\alpha_{22} \\mathscr{I} / \\hbar$ (temporarily ignoring their detuning $\\delta$); and looking ahead to the definition of $f=\n\\bar{\\alpha}_{12}/2\\hbar =  \\left( \\alpha_{12}+\\alpha_{21} \\right) /2\\hbar$ gives us $\\Omega_{ab}=f \\mathscr{I}$, noting $\\mathscr{I}=2 A_q A_{q+1}^*$, compared to $\\mathscr{I}=\\frac{1}{2}E_q E_{q+1}^*$. Note that KLKOHS have defined $\\Omega_{ab}=\\frac{1}{2} \\sum_q d_q E_q E_{q+1}^*$, so that $f=d_q$.\n\nTwo photon Bloch equations (cont)\n---------------------------------\n\nAn important difference between KLKOHS & HPB, and my equations is that my $\\alpha_{ij}$ coupling parameters retain a \u201cslow\u201d time dependence at the Raman frequency $W_{12}$. I now turn my equations (\\[eqn-single-dcdt\\]) into Bloch equations by first working out $d/dt$ of $c_1^* c_1$, $c_2^* c_2$, and $c_1^* c_2$, \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\imath \\hbar\n\\frac{d c_1^* c_1}{dt}\n=\n \\imath \\hbar\nc_1^* \\frac{d c_1}{dt}\n+\n \\imath \\hbar\nc_1 \\frac{d c_1^*}{dt}\n&=&\n- \\alpha_{11}   \\mathscr{I} c_1^* c_1 \n- \\alpha_{12}   \\mathscr{I} c_1^* c_2\n+ \\alpha_{11}^* \\mathscr{I} c_1 c_1^*\n+ \\alpha_{12}^* \\mathscr{I} c_1 c_2^*\n\\\\\n&=&\n+ \\alpha_{12}^* \\mathscr{I} c_1 c_2^*\n- \\alpha_{12}   \\mathscr{I} c_1^* c_2\n- \\left[ \\alpha_{11} - \\alpha_{11}^* \\right] \\mathscr{I} c_1^* c_1\n\\\\\n&=&\n+ \\mathscr{I} \\left( \\alpha_{12}^* c_1 c_2^* - \\alpha_{12} c_1^* c_2 \\right)\n; ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \\textrm{since} ~~ \\alpha_{11}=\\alpha_{11}^*\n\\\\\n \\imath \\hbar\n\\frac{d c_2^* c_2}{dt}\n=\n \\imath \\hbar\n c_2^* \\frac{d c_2}{dt}\n+\n \\imath \\hbar\n c_2 \\frac{d c_2^*}{dt}\n&=&\n- \\alpha_{21} \\mathscr{I} c_2^* c_1 \n- \\alpha_{22} \\mathscr{I} c_2^* c_2\n+ \\alpha_{21}^* \\mathscr{I} c_2 c_1^*\n+ \\alpha_{22}^* \\mathscr{I} c_2 c_2^*\n\\\\\n&=&\n- \\alpha_{21} \\mathscr{I} c_2^* c_1 \n+ \\alpha_{21}^* \\mathscr{I} c_2 c_1^*\n- \\left[ \\alpha_{22} - \\alpha_{22}^* \\right] \\mathscr{I} c_2^* c_2\n\\\\\n&=&\n- \\mathscr{I} \\left( \\alpha_{21}  c_2^* c_1 - \\alpha_{21}^* c_2 c_1^* \\right)\n; ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \\textrm{since} ~~ \\alpha_{22}=\\alpha_{22}^*\n\\\\\n \\imath \\hbar\n\\frac{d c_1 c_2^*}{dt}\n=\n \\imath \\hbar\nc_1 \\frac{d c_2^*}{dt}\n+\n \\imath \\hbar\nc_2^* \\frac{d c_1}{dt}\n&=&\n+ \\alpha_{21}^* \\mathscr{I} c_1 c_1^*\n+ \\alpha_{22}^* \\mathscr{I} c_1 c_2^*\n- \\alpha_{11} \\mathscr{I} c_2^* c_1\n- \\alpha_{12} \\mathscr{I} c_2^* c_2\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\\left( \\alpha_{11} - \\alpha_{22}^* \\right) \\mathscr{I} c_2^* c_1 \n+ \\alpha_{21}^* \\mathscr{I} c_1 c_1^*\n- \\alpha_{12} \\mathscr{I} c_2^* c_2\n\\\\\n&=&\n- \\left( \\alpha_{11} - \\alpha_{22}^* \\right) \\mathscr{I} c_1 c_2^* \n- \\alpha_{12} \\mathscr{I}  \\left[ c_2 c_2^* - c_1^* c_1 \\right]\n; ~~~~ ~~~~ \\textrm{since} ~~ \\alpha_{21}^* \\approx \\alpha_{12}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nUse $\\rho_{12} = c_1 c_2^*$ and $w=c_2 c_2^*-c_1^* c_1$, \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\imath \\hbar\n\\frac{d w}{dt}\n&=&\n- \\mathscr{I} \\left( \\alpha_{21}   c_2^* c_1 - \\alpha_{21}^* c_2 c_1^* \\right)\n- \\mathscr{I} \\left( \\alpha_{12}^* c_1 c_2^* - \\alpha_{12}   c_1^* c_2 \\right)\n\\\\\n&=&\n  \\mathscr{I} \n  \\left( \n   - \\alpha_{12}^* c_1   c_2^* \n   + \\alpha_{21}^* c_1^* c_2 \n   - \\alpha_{21}   c_1   c_2^*\n   + \\alpha_{12}   c_1^* c_2 \n  \\right)\n\\\\\n&=&\n -\n  \\mathscr{I} \\left( \\alpha_{12}^* + \\alpha_{21}   \\right) c_1 c_2^*\n +\n  \\mathscr{I} \\left( \\alpha_{21}^* + \\alpha_{12}   \\right) c_1^* c_2\n\\\\\n&=&\n -\n  \\mathscr{I} \\left( \\alpha_{12}^* + \\alpha_{21}   \\right) \\rho_{12}\n +\n  \\mathscr{I} \\left( \\alpha_{21}^* + \\alpha_{12}   \\right) \\rho_{12}^*\n\\\\\n \\imath \\hbar\n\\frac{d \\rho_{12}}{dt}\n&=&\n-\n  \\left( \\alpha_{11} - \\alpha_{22}^* \\right) \\mathscr{I} \n  c_1 c_2^*\n- \n  \\alpha_{12} \\mathscr{I} \n  \\left[ c_2 c_2^* - c_1^* c_1 \\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\n  \\left( \\alpha_{11} - \\alpha_{22}^* \\right) \\mathscr{I} \\rho_{12}\n-\n  \\alpha_{12} \\mathscr{I} w\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHence\u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d \\rho_{12}}{dt}\n&=&\n  \\imath \n  \\frac{\\left( \\alpha_{11} - \\alpha_{22}^* \\right) }\n     {\\hbar}\n  \\mathscr{I} \\rho_{12}\n+ \\imath \n  \\frac{\\alpha_{12} }{ \\hbar}\n  \\mathscr{I} w\n\\label{eqn-basic2pbloch-rho}\n\\\\\n\\frac{dw}{dt}\n&=&\n+ \\imath\n  \\frac{\\left( \\alpha_{12}^* + \\alpha_{21} \\right) }\n       { \\hbar}\n  \\mathscr{I} \n    \\rho_{12}\n   - \n \\imath\n  \\frac{\\left( \\alpha_{21}^* + \\alpha_{12} \\right) }\n       { \\hbar}\n  \\mathscr{I} \n    \\rho_{12}^*\n,\n\\label{eqn-basic2pbloch-w}\n\\\\\n&=&\n+ \\imath\n  \\frac{2 \\alpha_{12}^* }\n       { \\hbar}\n  \\mathscr{I} \n    \\rho_{12}\n   - \n \\imath\n  \\frac{ 2 \\alpha_{12} }\n       { \\hbar}\n  \\mathscr{I} \n    \\rho_{12}^*\n.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTransformations of the Bloch Equations {#aa-single-transforms}\n--------------------------------------\n\nI define a new coupling parameter $f'$ (c.f. $\\omega_B$), following the definition of $\\bar{\\alpha}_{12}$ in eqn.(\\[eqn-alpha-bar\\]), and $\\omega_b = W_2 - W_1 = W_{21}$. I also define a $\\omega_A$, which corresponds to the intensity dependent shift detuning shift proportional to $(\\alpha_{22} - \\alpha_{11})$. Thus, factoring any complex phase of $\\bar{\\alpha}_{12}$ into the angle $\\delta'$, I get \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  f' e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t}\n&=&\n  \\frac{\\alpha_{12}}\n       { \\hbar}\n~~~~ ~~~~\n\\simeq\n  \\frac{\\bar{\\alpha}_{12}}\n       { 2 \\hbar}  \n  e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t - \\imath \\delta'}\n; ~~~~ ~~~~\n  \\alpha_{12}\n= \n  \\frac{1}{\\hbar} \n  e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t} \n  \\sum_j d_{ij}d_{j2} \\frac{-W_{j2}}{W_{j2}^2-\\omega_0^2}\n\\label{eqn-blochcoupling}\n\\\\\n  g' \n&=&\n  \\frac{\\alpha_{11} - \\alpha_{22}^*}\n       { \\hbar}\n~~~~ ~~~~\n\\textrm{NB: this is a real quantity, see eqns.\n(\\ref{eqn-alpha-stark}, \\ref{eqn-alpha-stark-approx})}\n\\label{eqn-blochstark}\n\\\\\n\\omega_B \n&=& \\frac{\\left( \\alpha_{12} + \\alpha_{21}^* \\right) }\n       { 2 \\hbar}\n  \\mathscr{I} \n~~~~\n= \\frac{\\bar{\\alpha}_{12}}\n       { 2 \\hbar}\n  e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t - \\imath \\delta'}\n  \\mathscr{I} \n~~~~\n= \n  f' \n  e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t - \\imath \\delta'}\n \\mathscr{I}\n\\label{eqn-blochcoupling-wB}\n\\\\\n\\omega_A \n&=& \n  \\frac{\\left( \\alpha_{11} - \\alpha_{22}^* \\right) }\n       {\\hbar}\n   \\mathscr{I}\n\\label{eqn-blochcoupling-wA}\n.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe Bloch equations (\\[eqn-basic2pbloch-rho\\], \\[eqn-basic2pbloch-w\\]) can now be rewritten \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d \\rho_{12}}{dt}\n&=&\n  \\imath g' \\mathscr{I} \n  \\rho_{12}\n+ \n  \\imath f' \\mathscr{I} w \n  e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t  - \\imath \\delta'}\n\\\\\n\\frac{dw}{dt}\n&=&\n+\n  2 \\imath f' \n  \\mathscr{I} \n  \\left[ \n    \\rho_{12}\n    e^{+\\imath \\omega_b t  + \\imath \\delta'}\n   - \n    \\rho_{12}^*\n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t  - \\imath \\delta'}\n  \\right]\n.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn analogy to both the standard two level atom Bloch equations, and those in HPB (HPB 18), these equations can have losses introduced, in \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\frac{d \\rho_{12}}{dt}\n&=&\n-\n  \\gamma_2 \\rho_{12}\n+\n  \\imath g' \\mathscr{I} \n  \\rho_{12}\n+\n  \\imath f' \\mathscr{I} w \n  e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t  - \\imath \\delta'}\n\\\\\n\\frac{dw}{dt}\n&=&\n-\n  \\gamma_1\n  \\left(\n    w - w_i\n  \\right)\n+\n  2 \\imath f' \n  \\mathscr{I} \n  \\left[ \n    \\rho_{12}\n    e^{+\\imath \\omega_b t  + \\imath \\delta'}\n   - \n    \\rho_{12}^*\n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t  - \\imath \\delta'}\n  \\right]\n.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn the standard atom-field case, the atom and field frequencies are similar, so an atom carrier could be chosen to match its evolution the field carrier frequency, leading naturally to a detuning term. However, in the Raman situation, the atomic frequency is far removed from the field frequency, so the frequency evolution that appears in the definition of $\\psi$ (eqn.(\\[eqn-psi-def\\])) is sufficient.\n\nHere I define two things (a) new $u, v$ variables that represent the density matrix element $\\rho_{12}$, and (b) allow for a \u201cdetuning\u201d rotation in $\\rho_{12}$. This detuning rotation looks rather like a carrier+envelope representation for $\\rho_{12}$, but without a \u201c+c.c.\u201d since $\\rho_{12}$ is a complex quantity. There is no need for any kind of carrier+envelope transformation for the inversion $w$.\n\nSo, \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\rho_{12} \n= \\frac{u}{2} + \\imath \\frac{v}{2}  \n&=& \n\\rho_{12}' \\exp \\left( -\\imath \\Delta t -\\imath \\delta' \\right)\n= \\frac{u'}{2}  + \\imath \\frac{v'}{2}\n\\label{eqn-blochcoupling-rho12-uv}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nI now adapt the Bloch equations to allow for the rotation in $\\rho_{12}$, and introduce a detuned transition frequency $\\omega_b'=\\omega_b-\\Delta$, \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_t \n\\left( \n  \\rho_{12}' e^{-\\imath \\Delta t -\\imath \\delta'} \n\\right)\n&=&\n-\n  \\imath \\Delta \\rho_{12}\n  e^{-\\imath \\Delta t-\\imath \\delta'}\n+\n  e^{-\\imath \\Delta t-\\imath \\delta'}\n  \\partial_t \n  \\rho_{12}'\n\\\\\n&=&\n-\n  \\gamma_2 \n  \\rho_{12}' e^{-\\imath \\Delta t-\\imath \\delta'} \n+\n  \\imath g' \\mathscr{I} \n  \\rho_{12}' e^{-\\imath \\Delta t-\\imath \\delta'} \n+ \n  \\imath f' \\mathscr{I}  w e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t-\\imath \\delta'} \n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \n  \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+\n  2 \\imath f' \\mathscr{I}\n  \\left( \n    \\rho_{12}'   \n    e^{-\\imath \\Delta t-\\imath \\delta'} \n    e^{+\\imath \\omega_b t+\\imath \\delta'} \n   -\n    \\rho_{12}'^* \n    e^{+\\imath \\Delta t+\\imath \\delta'} \n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t-\\imath \\delta'} \n  \\right)\n\\\\\n\\Longrightarrow ~~~~ ~~~~\n  e^{-\\imath \\Delta t-\\imath \\delta'}\n  \\partial_t \n  \\rho_{12}' \n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta\n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}' e^{-\\imath \\Delta t-\\imath \\delta'}\n+\n  \\imath g' \\mathscr{I} \n  \\rho_{12}' e^{-\\imath \\Delta t-\\imath \\delta'}\n+ \n \\imath f' \\mathscr{I}  w e^{-\\imath \\omega_b t-\\imath \\delta'} \n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+\n  2 \\imath f' \\mathscr{I}  \n  \\left( \n    \\rho_{12}'\n    e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n   -\n    \\rho_{12}'^*\n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n  \\right)\n\\\\\n\\Longrightarrow ~~~~ ~~~~\n  \\partial_t \\rho_{12}' \n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta\n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n+\n  \\imath g' \\mathscr{I} \n  \\rho_{12}' \n+ \n    \\imath f' \\mathscr{I}  \n    e^{\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+ \n  2 \\imath f' \\mathscr{I}  \n  \\left( \n    \\rho_{12}'\n    e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n   -\n    \\rho_{12}'^*\n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n  \\right)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNotice that we have made the fixed complex phase (the $\\delta'$) vanish from the equations; this is not dependent on the presence of a finite \u201cdetuning\u201d $\\Delta$. In what follows, $\\Delta=0$, and there are two cases depending on the chosen meaning for $\\mathscr{I}$; however note that [*both give the same result*]{}.\n\nCASE (i): $\\mathscr{I} = E^2$: continue by applying the carrier+envelope for the $E$ field $E = A e^{-\\imath \\omega_0 t} + A^* e^{+\\imath \\omega_0 t}$.\n\nCASE (ii): $\\mathscr{I} = 2A^*A$: we can jump straight to eqn.(\\[eqn-rbpostRWA-w0-rho\\], \\[eqn-rbpostRWA-w0-w\\]) (i.e. $(D)$), since the RWA was made when deriving the couplings $\\alpha_{nj}$.\n\nThe CASE (i) $\\mathscr{I} = E^2$ starting point is \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\partial_t \\rho_{12}'\n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta + \\imath g' \\mathscr{I} \n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n ~~~~\n+ \n \\imath f' \\mathscr{I} w\n  e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n ~~~~\n+  2 \\imath f' \\mathscr{I}\n\\left( \n  \\rho_{12}'\n  e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n-\n  \\rho_{12}'^*\n  e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n\\right)\n,\n\\\\\n(B) \\Longrightarrow ~~~~ ~~~~\n  \\partial_t \\rho_{12}'\n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta + \\imath g' E^2\n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n ~~~~\n\\imath f' E^2 \n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n  .\n  w\n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n ~~~~\n+  2 \\imath f' E^2\n  \\left( \n    \\rho_{12}'\n    e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n  -\n    \\rho_{12}'^* \n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n  \\right)\n,\n\\\\\n(C) \\Longrightarrow ~~~~ ~~~~\n  \\partial_t \\rho_{12}' \n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta + \\imath g' E^2\n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n ~~~~\n+ \n \\imath f' \n\\left[ \n  A e^{-\\imath \\omega_0 t} + A^* e^{+\\imath \\omega_0 t} \n\\right]^2\n w \n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \n \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n ~~~~\n+  \n 2 \\imath f' \n\\left[ \n  A e^{-\\imath \\omega_0 t} + A^* e^{+\\imath \\omega_0 t} \n\\right]^2\n\\left( \n  \\rho_{12}\n    e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n-\n  \\rho_{12}^*\n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n\\right)\n,\n~~~~\n\\\\\n(\\textrm{apply a RWA about}~ \\omega_0) ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n&:::& \n\\left[ \n  A e^{-\\imath \\omega_0 t} + A^* e^{+\\imath \\omega_0 t} \n\\right]^2 \n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ =\n\\left[ \n  A^2   e^{-2 \\imath \\omega_0 t} \n+ 2 A^* A \n+ {A^*}^2 e^{+2 \\imath \\omega_0 t} \n\\right]\n\\\\\n\\Longrightarrow  ~~~~ ~~~~\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ \\approx\n2 A^* A \n\\\\\nCASE(ii) ~\\&~ (D) \\Longrightarrow ~~~~ ~~~~\n  \\partial_t \\rho_{12}' \n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta + 2 \\imath g' A^* A\n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n ~~~~\n+ \n2 \\imath f' A^* A w\n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n\\label{eqn-rbpostRWA-w0-rho}\n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \n  \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n ~~~~\n+ \n  4\\imath f' \n    A^* A \n\\left( \n  \\rho_{12}\n    e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n-\n  \\rho_{12}^*\n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n\\right)\n\\label{eqn-rbpostRWA-w0-w}\n,\n\\\\\n(E) ~~~~ ~~~~\n  \\partial_t \\rho_{12}' \n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta + 2 \\imath g' A^* A\n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n+ \n  2 \\imath f' A^*A w .\n    e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n\\label{eqn-rbpostRWA-wb-rho}\n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \n  \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+ \n  4 \\imath f' \n  A^* A\n  \\left( \n    \\rho_{12}'\n      e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t}  \n   -\n    \\rho_{12}'^* \n      e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n  \\right) \n\\label{eqn-rbpostRWA-wb-w}\n,\n\\\\\n(F: \\textrm{split ~} \\rho_{12},) \\Longrightarrow ~~~~ ~~~~\n  \\partial_t u'\n&=&\n-\n  \\gamma_2 u' \n- \n  \\left( \\Delta + 2 g' A^* A \\right) v' \n  ~~~~\n+ \n  4 f' A^* A w  . \\sin \\left( \\omega_b' t \\right)\n\\label{eqn-rbpostRWA-last-u}\n\\\\\n  \\partial_t v'\n&=&\n-\n  \\gamma_2 v' \n+ \n  \\left( \\Delta + 2 g' A^* A \\right) u'\n  ~~~~\n+ \n  4 f' A^* A w  . \\cos \\left( \\omega_b' t \\right)\n\\label{eqn-rbpostRWA-last-v}\n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w' - w_i \\right)  \n~~~~\n -  4  f' A^* A u'  . \\sin \\left( \\omega_b' t \\right)\n~~~~\n -  4  f' A^* A v'  . \\cos \\left( \\omega_b' t \\right)\n,\n\\label{eqn-rbpostRWA-last-w}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNote $2\\rho_{12} = u+\\imath v$, since $\\rho_{12}=c_1 c_2^*$, as per eqn.(\\[eqn-blochcoupling-rho12-uv\\]); this means the $2$ in the $u,v$ equations becomes $4$, whereas the $4$ in the $w$ equation isn\u2019t doubled to $8$. Note (again) that the Stark shift parameter $g'$ is real valued.\n\n### Rotations\n\nLooking at eqns.(\\[eqn-rbpostRWA-last-u\\], \\[eqn-rbpostRWA-last-v\\], \\[eqn-rbpostRWA-last-w\\]), we can see three rotation angles: $\\theta_{uv} = \\Delta$, $\\theta_{uw} = 4 f' A^* A \\sin \\left( \\omega_b t - \\delta' \\right) $, and $\\theta_{vw} = 4 f' A^* A \\cos \\left( \\omega_b t - \\delta' \\right)$, which apply to the coordinate pairs $\\left( u', v' \\right) $, $\\left( u', w\\right) $, and $\\left( v', w\\right) $ respectively. For extra generality, I will allow a complex valued $f' = f_r + \\imath f_i$, but note that previous definitions make $f'$ real. )\n\nIn vector notation, ignoring the losses, we can construct a torque vector $\\vec{\\Omega}$ (unchecked signs), \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_t u' &=& 0.u' - \\theta_{uv}.v' + \\theta_{uw}.w\n\\\\\n\\partial_t v' &=& \\Delta.u' + 0.v' - \\theta_{vw}.w\n\\\\\n\\partial_t w &=& -\\theta_{uw}.u' + \\theta_{vw}.v' + 0.w\n\\\\\n\\frac{d}{dt} \\left[ u', v', w \\right]\n&=&\n\\left[ -4 f'_r A^* A,\n       ~~ -4 f'_i A^* A,\n       ~~ \\Delta\n\\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n\\left[ \\theta_{vw}, ~ \\theta_{uw}, ~ \\theta_{uv}\n\\right]\n\\times\n\\left[ u', v', w \\right] \n\\\\\n\\Longrightarrow ~~~~ ~~~~\n\\frac{d}{dt} \\vec{U} &=& \\vec{\\Omega} \\times \\vec{U}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nI should now be able to turn this into a (unitary) rotation matrix for the $\\vec{U}$ vector.\n\nThe polarization driving the field {#ss-single-driving}\n----------------------------------\n\nThere is a distinction between the atomic polarization $P$, and the effect on the field of that atomic polarization. This is beause we are dealing with a nonlinear interaction. I denote the (effective) Raman polarization $\\mathscr{P}$, and this quantity is the one that appears in the wave equation. Allen and Eberly [*\u201cOptical resonance and two level atoms\u201d*]{} [@AllenEberly-ORTLA] have, for the standard (non-Raman) case (skipping the integral), an eqn.(AE 4.2) \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n(AE ~ 4.2) ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~\nP(t,z) &=& \n\\mathscr{N} d \n\\left[ \n    u \\cos(\\omega t - Kz) - v \\sin(\\omega t - Kz)\n\\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHPB, after summing the electric field components (which absorbs a $1/2$), have \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n(HPB ~ 21) ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~\nP &=& \n \\frac{1}{4}\n e^{-\\imath \\theta}\n\\left( \n  u + \\imath v\n\\right)\n\\sigma\n\\alpha_{12}\n\\sum_j\n\\left[\n  V_j e^{ \\imath \\omega_{j-1} t}\n +\n  V_j^* e^{ -\\imath \\omega_{j+1} t}\n\\right]\n~~~~ \n+ c.c.\n\\\\\n&=&\n \\frac{1}{2}\n e^{-\\imath \\theta}\n\\left( \n  u + \\imath v\n\\right)\n\\sigma\n\\alpha_{12}\n  e^{ -\\imath \\omega_b t}\n \\frac{1}{2}\n\\sum_j\n\\left[\n  V_j e^{ \\imath \\omega_j t}\n +\n  V_j^* e^{ -\\imath \\omega_j t}\n\\right]\n~~~~ \n+ c.c.\n\\\\\n&=&\n \\frac{1}{2}\n e^{-\\imath \\theta}\n\\left( \n  u + \\imath v\n\\right)\n\\sigma\n\\alpha_{12}\n  e^{ -\\imath \\omega_b t}\nE\n~~~~ \n+ c.c.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nI now write down the the polarization envelope $B$, in my variables, and based on the same carrier as the electric field. I also introduce a complex factor equivalent to HPB\u2019s $e^{ -\\imath \\theta}$, for closer matching of the expressions. \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mathscr{P} ~~\n= \n  \\mathscr{B} e^{-\\imath \\Xi}\n +\n  \\mathscr{B}^* e^{+\\imath \\Xi}\n &=& \n \\rho_{12}\n e^{-\\imath \\theta }\n\\sigma\n\\alpha_{12}\n\\left( \n  A e^{-\\imath \\Xi}\n +\n  A^* e^{+\\imath \\Xi}\n\\right)\n~~~~\n+ c.c.\n\\\\\n &=& \n \\zeta \\rho'_{12}\n e^{-\\imath \\theta}\n\\sigma . \n     \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}\n           e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n\\left( \n  A e^{-\\imath \\Xi}\n +\n  A^* e^{+\\imath \\Xi}\n\\right)\n~~~~ \n+ c.c.\n\\\\\n &=& \n \\zeta \n \\rho'_{12}\n e^{-\\imath \\theta}\n\\sigma . \n     \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n           e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n\\left( \n  A e^{-\\imath \\Xi}\n +\n  A^* e^{+\\imath \\Xi}\n\\right)\n+ \n \\zeta \n {\\rho'_{12}}^*\n e^{+\\imath \\theta}\n\\sigma . \n     \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n           e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n\\left( \n  A^* e^{+\\imath \\Xi}\n +\n  A e^{-\\imath \\Xi}\n\\right)\n\\\\\n&=&\n \\zeta \n \\rho'_{12}\n e^{-\\imath \\theta}\n\\sigma . \n     \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n           e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n  A e^{-\\imath \\Xi}\n~~~~\n+\n \\zeta \n {\\rho'_{12}}^*\n e^{+\\imath \\theta}\n\\sigma . \n     \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n           e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n  A e^{-\\imath \\Xi}\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& + \n \\zeta \n \\rho'_{12}\n e^{-\\imath \\theta}\n\\sigma . \n     \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n          e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n  A^* e^{+\\imath \\Xi}\n~~~~\n+\n \\zeta \n {\\rho'_{12}}^*\n e^{+\\imath \\theta}\n\\sigma . \n     \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n           e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n  A^* e^{+\\imath \\Xi}\n\\\\\n&=&\n \\zeta \n \\sigma . \n \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n\\left\\{\n \\rho'_{12}\n           e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t -\\imath \\theta} \n+\n {\\rho'_{12}}^*\n           e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t +\\imath \\theta} \n\\right\\}\n  A e^{-\\imath \\Xi}\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& + \n \\zeta \n \\sigma . \n \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n\\left\\{\n  \\rho'_{12}\n          e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t -\\imath \\theta} \n+\n {\\rho'_{12}}^*\n           e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t +\\imath \\theta} \n\\right\\}\n  A^* e^{+\\imath \\Xi}\n\\\\\n&=&\n \\zeta \n \\sigma . \n \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n X(t)\n  A e^{-\\imath \\Xi}\n + \n \\zeta \n \\sigma . \n \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n X(t)\n  A^* e^{+\\imath \\Xi}\n\\\\\n\\textrm{ where the real valued is } ~~~~\n  X(t) \n&=& \n  \\left\\{\n    \\rho'_{12}\n           e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t  -\\imath \\theta} \n    +\n    {\\rho'_{12}}^*\n           e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t  +\\imath \\theta}     \n  \\right\\}\n\\label{eqn-single-Xrho}\n\\\\\n&=&\n  \\left\\{\n    \\frac{1}{2}\n    \\left( u' + \\imath v' \\right)\n           e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t -\\imath \\theta} \n   +\n    \\frac{1}{2}\n    \\left( u' - \\imath v' \\right)\n           e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t +\\imath \\theta} \n  \\right\\}\n\\\\\n&=&\n  \\left\\{\n    u' \\cos \\left( \\omega_b' t - \\theta \\right)\n   -\n    v' \\sin  \\left( \\omega_b' t - \\theta \\right)\n  \\right\\}\n\\label{eqn-single-X}\n\\\\\n\\textrm{and} ~~~~ ~~~~\n  \\mathscr{B}(t) \n&=&\n  \\zeta \n  \\sigma \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'\n  X(t) A(t)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFrom the post-$\\omega_0$ RWA at eqns.(\\[eqn-rbpostRWA-last-u\\], \\[eqn-rbpostRWA-last-v\\], \\[eqn-rbpostRWA-last-w\\]); above; and an un-scaled eqn. ([FCPP](../_pulse-fewcyc/fewcyc.dvi) 3.48), \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\partial_t u'\n&=&\n  -\\gamma_2 u' \n  -\\left( \\Delta + 2 g' A^* A \\right) v' \n  ~~~~\n  + 4 f' A^* A w \\sin( \\omega_b' t )\n\\label{eqn-single-Aprop-du}\n\\\\\n  \\partial_t v'\n&=&\n  -\\gamma_2 v \n  + \\left( \\Delta + 2 g' A^* A \\right) u'\n  ~~~~\n  + 4 f' A^* A w \\cos( \\omega_b' t )\n\\label{eqn-single-Aprop-dv}\n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w' - w_i \\right)  \n  ~~~~\n-  4 f' A^* A . \\sin(\\omega_b' t ) u'\n  ~~~~\n-  4 f' A^* A . \\cos(\\omega_b' t ) v'\n,\n\\label{eqn-single-Aprop-dw}\n\\\\\n\\partial_z A(t) \n&=&\n\\frac{2 \\imath \\pi \\omega_0}{c_0 n_0} \n\\frac{ \\mathscr{B}(t) }{4 \\pi \\epsilon_0}\n,\n~~~~ ~~~~\n\\textrm{ NB: units } [A]/m=\\frac{s^{-1}}{m.s^{-1}} [\\mathscr{B}]\n~~\\rightarrow [A] = [\\chi] [B] [A]\n~~\\rightarrow [\\chi] = [B^{-1}] = 1\n\\\\\n&=&\n  \\frac{\\imath \\omega_0}{2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0} \n  \\mathscr{B}(t)\n\\\\\n&=&\n\\imath \n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\bar{\\alpha}_{12} \\omega_0}{2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0 } \n ~.~\n    \\left[ \n       u' \\cos \\left( \\omega_b' t - \\theta \\right)\n      -\n       v' \\sin \\left( \\omega_b' t  - \\theta \\right)\n    \\right]\n ~.~\n A(t) \n\\\\\n&=&\n\\imath \n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\bar{\\alpha}_{12} \\omega_0}{2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0 } \n ~.~\nA(t) X(t)\n\\label{eqn-single-Apropagate}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nComparing the prefactor of eqn.(\\[eqn-single-Apropagate\\]) to that of the corrected (HPB 22), \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\textrm{(HPB 22)} ~~~~ ~~~~\n\\frac{\\partial V_j}{\\partial z}\n&=&\n\\frac{\\sigma \\alpha_{12}}{4 \\epsilon_0 c}\n\\omega_j\n\\left[\n  e^{-\\imath \\theta} \\left(u-\\imath v\\right) V_{j+1}\n -\n  e^{+\\imath \\theta} \\left(u+\\imath v\\right) V_{j-1}\n\\right]\\end{aligned}$$ \u00a0 we can see that the only apparent differences are a factor of $n_0$, and in that HPB have a $e^{\\pm \\imath \\theta}$ term that I omit. By imagining the cosine term split up into $+$ and $-$ frequency exponentials, it is easy to see how the relations between $V_j$ and $V_{j\\pm 1}$ will arise. Note the appearance (in HPB) of a carrier-dependent $\\omega_i$ term, which in a standard multi-field approach would lead to different prefactors on the different $\\partial_\\xi A_i$ equations.\n\n### Simulation \u201cphoton\u201d variables\n\nScale the field $E$ into square-root intensity \u201cphoton\u201d variables, from $I = 2 n_0 c_0 \\epsilon_0 E^2$, so that \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\nA_p(t)\n&=&\n\\sqrt{2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0 } ~ . ~ A(t)\n\\label{eqn-aphotonscale}\n\\\\\nf_p &=& \n\\frac{f'}{2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0};\n~~~~ ~~~~\ng_p ~=~\n\\frac{g'}{2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0};\n\\label{eqn-fphotonscale}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHence $f' A^*A \\longrightarrow f_p A_p^* A_p$, so that \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\partial_t u'\n&=&\n-\n  \\gamma_2 u' \n-\n  \\left( \\Delta + 2 g_p A^* A \\right) v' \n  ~~~~\n+ \n  4 f_p A_p^* A_p w \\sin(\\omega_b' t)\n\\\\\n  \\partial_t v'\n&=&\n- \n  \\gamma_2 v \n+ \n   \\left( \\Delta + 2 g_p A^* A \\right) u'\n  ~~~~\n+ \n   4 f_p A_p^* A_p w \\cos(\\omega_b' t)\n\\\\\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w' - w_i \\right)  \n  ~~~~\n-  4 f_p A_p^* A_p u'  \\sin(\\omega_b' t)\n  ~~~~\n-  4 f_p A_p^* A_p v'  \\cos(\\omega_b' t)\n\\\\\n  \\partial_z A_p(t)\n&=&\n  \\imath\n  \\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\bar{\\alpha}_{12} \\omega_0}\n       { 2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0}\n  A_p(t)\n  X(t)\n\\label{eqn-single-Appropagate2}\n\\\\\n&=&\n  \\imath\n  \\zeta \\sigma \\omega_0\n  \\frac{ 4 \\hbar c_n n_0 \\epsilon_0 f_p}\n       { 2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0}\n  A_p(t)\n  X(t)\n\\\\\n&=&\n  \\imath\n  \\frac{\\zeta}{2} \n  \\left( 4 \\sigma \\hbar \\right)\n  \\omega_0 f_p\n  A_p(t)\n  X(t)\n~~~~ ~~~~\n=\n  \\imath\n  \\frac{\\zeta}{2}\n  \\omega_0 R f_p\n  A_p(t)\n  X(t); ~~~~\n  R = 4 \\sigma \\hbar\n\\label{eqn-single-Apropphoton}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nsince \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\bar{\\alpha}_{12} = 2 \\hbar f' \n~~~~ \\rightarrow \n  \\frac{\\bar{\\alpha}_{12}}{2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0} = 2 \\hbar f_p\n~~~~ \\rightarrow \n  \\bar{\\alpha}_{12} = 4 \\hbar c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0  f_p\\end{aligned}$$\n\nScalings:\\\n$\\hbar = 1.05\\times10^{-34}$Js $\\rightarrow 1.05\\times10^{-10}$nJ.fs\\\n$\\sigma = X$m$^{-3} \\rightarrow X\\times10^{-18} \\mu$m$^{-3}$\\\n$2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0 = 5.31 \\times 10^{-3}$m.s$^{-1}$\u00a0.\u00a0J.m$^{-1}$.V$^{-2}\n\\rightarrow 5.31 \\times 10^{-3}$\u00a0.\u00a0J.s$^{-1}$.V$^{-2}\n\\rightarrow 5.31 \\times 10^{-9}$\u00a0.\u00a0nJ.fs$^{-1}$.V$^{-2}$\n\nScalings:\\\n$[c \\epsilon_0 ] = m.s^{-1} ~.~ J.m^{-1}.V^{-2} ~~~ = J.s^{-1}.C^2.J^{-2}\n~~~ = C^2. J^{-1}.s^{-1} ~~~ = C^2 ~.~ 10^{-9} nJ^{-1} ~.~ 10^{-15} fs^{-1}\n~~~ = 10^{-24} . C^2 .  nJ^{-1} . fs^{-1} $\\\n$[\\epsilon_0 ] = J.m^{-1}.V^{-2} ~~~ = J.m^{-1}.C^2.J^{-2}\n~~~ = C^2 . J^{-1} . m^{-1} = C^2 ~.~ 10^{-9} nJ^{-1} ~.~ 10^{-6} \\mu m^{-1}\n~~~ = 10^{-15} . C^2 .  nJ^{-1} . \\mu m^{-1} $\\\n\n### Comments on the field propagation\n\nWe can see that the derivative of $A$ is proportional to $\\imath A$, hence the (time-domain) evolution just rotates each point $A(t)$ differently without changing its amplitude. This might seem to imply that we will never get a shorter pulse than we put in; but note that the $A$ is an [*envelope*]{}, and the field is $A + A^*$, so that in principle the phase of $A$ might be such that its amplitudes cancel in certain $t$ regions but not others, leading to a shorter pulse (and the magnetic field $H$ also, since the fields are plane polarized). However, it seems unlikely that this will happen (barring some miraculous coincidence) from purely Raman effects.\n\nIf I can predict the output spectral phases though, a structure with a suitably designed dispersion [*might*]{} be able to impose the desired phases. It would only be necessary to get the dispersion right at the comb points of the spectrum. See Shverdin et.al. [@Shverdin-WYYH-2004pre], who do a four-wave mixing optimization procedure in their experiment to match their phases appropriately.\n\nThe steady state and gain co-efficient {#ss-steadystate}\n--------------------------------------\n\nStarting from the eqns.(\\[eqn-single-Aprop-du\\], \\[eqn-single-Aprop-dv\\], \\[eqn-single-Aprop-dw\\]), assume $v'$ is steady state (NB $\\gamma_2 = 1/T_2$), so (with $w=-1$) \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_t \\approx 0\n~~~~ ~~~~\n&=& \n-\\gamma_2 v' + 4 f' A^* A  (-1) \\cos(\\omega_b t)\n\\\\\n\\Longrightarrow ~~~~ ~~~~\nv_0' &=& \n\\frac{4 f'}{\\gamma_2}  ~.~  A^* A . \\cos(\\omega_b t)\n~~~~ ~~~~ =\n4 f' T_2 ~.~  A^* A . \\cos(\\omega_b t)\\end{aligned}$$\n\nI now use the field propagation equation (\\[eqn-single-Apropphoton\\]), with the $A$ field envelope on each side scaled into \u201cphoton\u201d variables. Inserting the steady state of $v'$ calculated immediately above, we have \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_z A_p \n&=& \n\\imath\n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\bar{\\alpha}_{12} \\omega_0}\n     {2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0}\nA_p v_0' \\sin(\\omega_b t)\n\\\\\n&=& \n\\imath\n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\bar{\\alpha}_{12} \\omega_0}\n     { 2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0}\nA_p \n~.~\n4 f' T_2 ~.~  A^* A . \\cos(\\omega_b t) .  \\sin(\\omega_b t)\n\\\\\n&=& \n\\imath\n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\bar{\\alpha}_{12} \\omega_0}\n     {2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0}\nA_p \n~.~\n  4 T_2\n\\frac{\\bar{\\alpha}_{12}}\n     {2 \\hbar} \n\\frac{A_p^* A_p}\n     {2 c_0 n_0 \\epsilon_0} \n   \\left[ \\cos(\\omega_b t) .  \\sin(\\omega_b t) \\right]\n\\\\\n&=& \n\\imath\n\\frac{ \\zeta \\sigma \\omega_0 T_2 \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}^2}\n     { 2 c_0^2 n_0^2 \\epsilon_0^2 \\hbar }\nA_p \n  A_p^* A_p .\n   \\left[ \\cos(\\omega_b t) .  \\sin(\\omega_b t) \\right]\n\\\\\n&=& \n \\imath G_p \nA_p \n  A_p^* A_p .\n   \\left[ \\cos(\\omega_b t) .  \\sin(\\omega_b t) \\right]\n,\n\\\\\nG_p &=& \n\\frac{ \\zeta }{2}\n\\frac{ \\sigma \\omega_0 T_2 \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}^2}\n     { c_0^2 n_0^2 \\epsilon_0^2 \\hbar }\n\\label{eqn-ssgain-Gp}\n.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nApparently, therefore, this $G_p$ corresponds to the usual \u201cgain co-efficient\u201d $g$: \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\textrm{cf (SMN) } ~~~~ ~~~~\ng' &=&\n\\frac{ \\sigma \\omega_0 T_2 \\alpha_{12}^2 }\n     { c^2 \\epsilon_0^2 \\hbar }\n\\label{eqn-ssgain-gp-smn}\n,\\end{aligned}$$\n\nand we can assume that they are identical but for a factor of $2 n_0^2 /\n\\zeta$. I do not know whether SMN silently assumes $n_0=1$, or factors $n_0$ into $c$. In any case $n_0=1$ is usually accurate enough in gases.\n\nHowever, one hidden complication with my above equation is that $A_p$ includes both the center \u201cpump\u201d field and the Raman sideband we are amplifying \u2013 thus to properly check the gain co-efficient, we should expand it into its components, as is done below.\n\n### Pump and sideband calculation\n\n$A_p$ includes both fundamental $A_1$ and its Raman sideband $A_2=A_2' \ne^{-\\imath \\omega_b t}$. For the moment, I leave the calculation in a rather abbreviated state \u2013 probably it should be shifted to the Multi-field section following later. So \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\nA_p A_p^* A_p\n&=&\n \\left[ A_1   + A_2   \\right]\n \\left[ A_1^* + A_2^* \\right]\n \\left[ A_1   + A_2   \\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n  \\left[ \n    A_1 A_1^* + A_1 A_2^* + A_2 A_1^* + A_2 A_2^*\n  \\right]\n \\left[ A_1   + A_2   \\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n    A_1 A_1^* A_1 + A_1 A_2^* A_1 + A_2 A_1^* A_1 + A_2 A_2^* A_1 \n +\n    A_1 A_1^* A_2 + A_1 A_2^* A_2 + A_2 A_1^* A_2 + A_2 A_2^* A_2\n\\\\\n\\textrm{1st order terms in $A_2$ only:}\n~~~~ ~~~~\n&\\simeq&\n  A_1^2 A_2^* + 2 A_2 A_1^* A_1\n\\\\\n\\textrm{drop counter rotating $A_1^2 A_2^*$: }\n~~~~ ~~~~\n&\\simeq&\n  2 A_2 A_1^* A_1\n.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThus the sideband envelope $A_2'$ evolves as \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_z A_2' \n&=& \n \\imath G_p \n A_2' \n .\n  2 A_1^* A_1 . \\cos(\\omega_b t)\n\\\\\n&=& \n \\imath G_p \n   A_2'\n .\n   I_1 . \\cos(\\omega_b t)\n\\\\\n&=& \n \\imath G'_p \n  A_2'\n .\n  I_1 . \\cos(\\omega_b t)\n,\n\\\\\n\\textrm{where}\n~~~~ ~~~~\n  G'_p\n&=& \n  \\frac{ \\zeta }{2}\n  \\frac{ \\sigma \\omega_0 T_2 \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}^2}\n       { c_0^2 n_0^2 \\epsilon_0^2 \\hbar }\n~~~~ ~~~~\n=\n  G_p\\end{aligned}$$\n\nsince $I_m = \\frac{1}{2} A_m^* A_m$. I don\u2019t convert $A_2'$ into $I_2$ because it occurs equally on both side of the equation.\n\nMulti-field variant of single-field Raman theory {#s-multifield}\n================================================\n\nThe single-field Raman model above can be converted into a traditional multi-field model as developed in e.g. HPB [@Hickman-PB-1986pra] or Syed, McDonald and New [@Syed-MN-2000josab] by replacing the field envelope with a sum of multiple envelopes using carrier exponentials spaced at the Raman frequency. When doing this, I will only get the correct multi-field form if few-cycle (either SEWA or GFEA) corrections to the field evolution part of the theory are applied to the effective polarization caused by the Raman transition.\n\nThe idea is to replace the single field envelope with a sum of multiple envelopes spaced at the Raman frequency, which are best placed to represent the comb of frequencies generated by the Raman interaction. Note that it will not necessarily be identical to HPB and/or SMN, because the field equations are derived from a propagation equation using a $\\omega_0, \\beta_0$ carrier, but it will be very closely related.\n\nStarting from eqns.(\\[eqn-rbpostRWA-wb-rho\\],\\[eqn-rbpostRWA-wb-w\\]), Since the single-field evolution equation (eqn.(\\[eqn-single-Apropagate\\])) uses an envelope $A$ that is based on a carrier (see eqn.(\\[eqn-single-EfromA\\])), the single-field envelope $A$ is replaced with $A_j$\u2019s at frequency $\\omega_j = \\omega_0 + j \\omega_b$ with wavevector $k_j =\nk(\\omega_j)$; thus $\\omega'_j = \\omega_j - \\omega_0$, $k'_j = k_j - k(\\omega_0) = k_j - k_0$; also $\\beta \\leftrightarrow k$. The single-field envelope in terms of the new $A_j$\u2019s is \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\nA = \\sum_j A_j \\exp\\left[ -\\imath \\left( \\omega_j t - k_j z \\right) \\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nPolarization ($ \\rho_{12}'$) {#ss-multifield-rho}\n----------------------------\n\nFirst I will handle the polarization ($ \\rho_{12}'$) equation (from eqn.(\\[eqn-rbpostRWA-w0-rho\\])) (watch for any $\\omega_b' = \\omega_b - \\Delta$ confusion, and note $2\\rho_{12}'=u'+\\imath v'$) \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\partial_t \\rho_{12}' \n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta + 2 \\imath g' A^* A\n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n+ \n  2 \\imath f' A^*A w \n     e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t } \n\\\\\n(A1) ~~ \\Longrightarrow ~~\n  \\partial_t \\rho_{12}' \n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta \n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n+\n  2 \\imath g' \\rho_{12}'\n    \\sum_j \\sum_k A_j^*A_k \n      e^{+\\imath \\left( \\omega_j - \\omega_k \\right) t} \n      e^{+\\imath \\left( -k_j + k_k \\right) z } \n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~\n+ \n2 \\imath f' \\sum_j \\sum_k A_j^*A_k w \ne^{+\\imath \\left( \\omega_j - \\omega_k - \\omega_b' \\right) t} \ne^{+\\imath \\left( -k_j + k_k \\right) z } \n\\\\\n&=&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta \n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n+\n  2 \\imath g' \\rho_{12}'\n    \\sum_j \\sum_k A_j^*A_k \n      e^{+\\imath \\left( j - k \\right) \\omega_b t} \n      e^{+\\imath \\left( -k_j + k_k \\right) z } \n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~\n+ \n2 \\imath f' \\sum_j \\sum_k A_j^*A_k w \ne^{+\\imath \\left( j - 1 - k \\right) \\omega_b t + \\imath \\Delta t} \ne^{+\\imath \\left( k_k-k_j  \\right) z } \n\\\\(RWA) ~~~~ ~~~~\n&\\approx&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta \n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n+\n  2 \\imath g' \\rho_{12}'\n    \\sum_j A_j^*A_j w \n+ \n4 \\imath f' \\sum_j A_j^*A_{j-1} \n. w \n. e^{+\\imath \\Delta t } \n. e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j+1}-k_j  \\right) z } \n\\\\\n&\\approx&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta + 2 \\imath g' \\sum_j A_j^* A_j\n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n+ \n4 \\imath f' \\sum_j A_{j}  A_{j+1}^*\n. w \n. e^{+\\imath \\Delta t } \n. e^{+\\imath \\left( k_j-k_{j-1}  \\right) z } \n\\\\\n&\\approx&\n  \\left(\n     -\\gamma_2 + \\imath \\Delta + 2 \\imath g' \\sum_j A_j^* A_j\n  \\right) \n  \\rho_{12}'\n+ \n4 \\imath f' w . \n  \\mathbb{R}e\n    \\left[\n      \\sum_j A_{j}  A_{j+1}^*\n      . e^{+\\imath \\Delta t } \n      . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_j-k_{j-1}  \\right) z } \n    \\right]\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~\n+ \n4 \\imath^2 f' w . \n  \\mathbb{I}m\n    \\left[\n      \\sum_j A_{j}  A_{j+1}^*\n      . e^{+\\imath \\Delta t } \n      . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_j-k_{j-1}  \\right) z } \n    \\right]\n\\\\\n\\left(\\textrm{split}~ \\rho_{12}'\\right)\n~~~~\n~~~~\n  \\partial_t u \n&=& \n -\\gamma_2 u \n - \n  \\left(\n     \\Delta + 2 g' \\sum_j A_j^* A_j\n  \\right) \n  v\n -\n  8 f' w . \n  \\mathbb{I}m\n    \\left[\n      \\sum_j A_{j}  A_{j+1}^*\n      . e^{+\\imath \\Delta t } \n      . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_j-k_{j-1}  \\right) z } \n    \\right]\n\\\\\n  \\partial_t v \n&=& \n -\\gamma_2 v\n + \n  \\left(\n     \\Delta + 2 g' \\sum_j A_j^* A_j\n  \\right) \n  u\n + \n  8 f' w . \n  \\mathbb{R}e\n    \\left[\n      \\sum_j A_{j}  A_{j+1}^*\n      . e^{+\\imath \\Delta t } \n      . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_j-k_{j-1}  \\right) z } \n    \\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWhere the factor $2 \\imath f'$ turns into $4 \\imath f'$ because the double summation gives two identical terms that only occur once in the single summation. When split into equations for $u'$ and $v'$, the corresponding factor becomes $8 \\imath f'$. This equation for $\\rho_{12}'$ is equivalent to (SMN 2)[@Syed-MN-2000josab], except I have just $k_j-k_{j-1}$ whereas they have $\\Delta_j = k_j - k_{j-1} - k_0 + k_{-1}$; however note they have the reverse sign in their carrier wave, so the only physical difference is the $k_0 - k_{-1}$ part; also my definitions of the coupling differs slightly.\n\nInversion ($w$) {#ss-multifield-w}\n---------------\n\nAnd now the inversion ($w$) equation (also from eqn.(\\[eqn-rbpostRWA-w0-rho\\])) (watch for any $\\omega_b$ vs $\\omega_b'$ confusion) \u2013 \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+ 4 \\imath f' \n   A^* A\n\\left[\n  \\rho_{12}' e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n-\n  \\rho_{12}'^* e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n\\right]\n\\\\\n(A2) ~~\n\\partial_t w\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+ 4 \\imath f' \n   \\sum_j \\sum_k A_j^*A_k \n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( \\omega_j - \\omega_k \\right) t} \n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( -k_j + k_k  \\right) z} \n\\left[\n  \\rho_{12}' e^{+\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n-\n  \\rho_{12}'^* e^{-\\imath \\omega_b' t} \n\\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+  4 \\imath f' \n  \\sum_j \\sum_k \n\\left[\n  A_j^*A_k \n  \\rho_{12}' \n          e^{+\\imath \\left( j -k +1 \\right) \\omega_b t - \\imath \\Delta t } \n-\n  A_j^*A_k \n  \\rho_{12}'^* \n          e^{+\\imath \\left( j -k -1 \\right) \\omega_b t + \\imath \\Delta t} \n\\right]\n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_k -k_j \\right) z} \n\\\\(RWA) ~~\n&\\approx&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+  8 \\imath f' \\sum_j\n\\left[ \n  A_j^*A_{j+1}\n  \\rho_{12}' \n         . e^{-\\imath \\Delta t }\n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j+1} -k_j \\right) z } \n-\n  A_j^*A_{j-1}\n  \\rho_{12}'^* \n         . e^{+\\imath \\Delta t }\n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j-1} -k_j \\right) z } \n\\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+  4 \\imath f' \\sum_j\n\\left[ \n  A_j^*A_{j+1}\n  \\left( u' + \\imath v' \\right)\n         . e^{-\\imath \\Delta t }\n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j+1} -k_j \\right) z } \n\\right.\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n\\left.\n-\n  A_{j+1}^*A_{j}\n  \\left( u' - \\imath v' \\right)\n         . e^{+\\imath \\Delta t }\n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j} -k_{j+1} \\right) z } \n\\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n+ \n 4 \\imath u' f' \\sum_j\n\\left[ \n  A_j^*A_{j+1}\n         . e^{-\\imath \\Delta t }\n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j+1} -k_j \\right) z } \n  - c.c.\n\\right]\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n-\n 4 v' f' \\sum_j\n\\left[ \n  A_j^*A_{j+1}\n         . e^{-\\imath \\Delta t }\n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j+1} -k_j \\right) z } \n  + c.c.\n\\right]\n\\\\\n&=&\n- \\gamma_1 \\left( w - w_i \\right)  \n- \n 8 u' f' \\sum_j\n\\mathbb{I}\\textrm{m} \\left[ \n  A_j^*A_{j+1}\n         . e^{-\\imath \\Delta t }\n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j+1} -k_j \\right) z } \n\\right]\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n-\n 8 v' f' \\sum_j\n\\mathbb{R}\\textrm{e} \\left[ \n  A_j^*A_{j+1}\n         . e^{-\\imath \\Delta t }\n         . e^{+\\imath \\left( k_{j+1} -k_j \\right) z } \n\\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNote the RWA\u2019s above (for both polarization and inversion equations) discard modulations at frequency of multiples of $\\omega_b$. Quite a lot of physics has been removed by these RWA approximations, although it is very reasonable except in the very wideband limit. For example, the effect of next-nearest neighbour field components acting on the transition have been ignored, as have all more distant field-field interactions. In the next-nearest neighbour case, the dropped terms would impose a rapid $\\omega_b$ oscillation onto the polarization $\\rho_{12}$, which would in turn tend to impose sidebands at $\\pm \\omega_b$ onto each field component. It is reasonable to ignore such sidebands in the narrowband limit studied by most users of a multi-field Raman theory; but, in principle one might extend a multi-field theory to include them by inventing a scheme to apply the sidebands to the field component they are (near) resonant with.\n\nFields ($A_j$) {#ss-multifield-A}\n--------------\n\nNote that the field evolution equation already has a carrier of $\\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( \\omega_0 t - k_0 z \\right) \\right]$ factored out of it. Thus I use $A'$ from $A = A' \\exp \\left[ -\\imath \\left( \\omega_0 t - k_0 z \\right) \\right]$, not $A$. Finally, I need to insert the GFEA few-cycle correction to the polarization term, because my ($j\\ne 0$) sub-envelopes $A_j$ have an $\\imath j \\omega_b t$ time dependence that cannot be neglected.\n\nFrom eqns.(\\[eqn-single-Apropagate\\], \\[eqn-single-Xrho\\]), I get \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\partial_z A'(t)\n&=&\n\\imath \n\\left[\n 1 + \\frac{\\imath \\partial_t }{\\omega_0}\n\\right]\n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\omega_0 \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'}\n     {2 \\epsilon_0 c_0}\nA'(t) X(t)\n\\label{eqn-single-Apropagate2-copy}\n\\\\\n\\partial_z \n\\sum_j A_j \\exp\\left[ -\\imath \\left( \\omega'_j t - k'_j z \\right) \\right]\n&=&\n  \\imath \n\\left[\n 1 + \\frac{\\imath \\partial_t}{\\omega_0}\n\\right]\n  \\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\omega_0 \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'}\n       {2 \\epsilon_0 c_0}\n  \\left[\n    \\rho_{12}'    e^{ +\\imath \\omega_b' t }\n   +\n    \\rho_{12}'^*  e^{ -\\imath \\omega_b' t }\n  \\right]\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&&\n~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \\times \n  \\sum_j A_j \\exp\\left[ -\\imath \\left( \\omega'_j t - k'_j z \\right) \\right]\n\\\\\n(\\textrm{match} ~ \\omega_j ~ \\textrm{terms})  ~~~~\n  \\left[\n    \\imath \n    k'_j \n      A_j\n  +\n    \\partial_z A_j\n  \\right]\n  e^{-\\imath j \\omega_b t }\n&=&\n\\imath \n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'}\n     {2 \\epsilon_0 c_0}\n  \\left\\{\n    A_{j+1} \\rho_{12}' \n      \\exp\\left[ +\\imath (k'_{j+1} -k'_j) z - \\imath \\Delta t \\right]\n\\right.\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n\\left.\n   + \n   A_{j-1} \\rho_{12}'^* \n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j-1} -k'_j) z + \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n  \\right\\}\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \\times  ~~~~ \n\\left[\n \\omega_0  + \\imath \\partial_t\n\\right]\n  e^{-\\imath j \\omega_b t }\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThen, using \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\left[\n   \\omega_0  + \\imath \\partial_t\n  \\right]\n  e^{-\\imath j \\omega_b t }\n&\\longrightarrow&\n   \\omega_0 \n  e^{-\\imath j \\omega_b t }\n-\n   \\imath^2\n   j \\omega_b\n  e^{-\\imath j \\omega_b t }\n~~~~\n\\longrightarrow\n~~~~\n  \\left[\n       \\omega_0 + j \\omega_b\n  \\right]\n  e^{-\\imath j \\omega_b t }\n~~~~\n\\longrightarrow\n~~~~\n  \\omega_j\n  e^{-\\imath j \\omega_b t }\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSo \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\left[\n    \\imath \n    k'_j \n      A_j\n  +\n    \\partial_z A_j\n  \\right]\n  e^{-\\imath j \\omega_b t }\n&=&\n\\imath \n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'}\n     {2 \\epsilon_0 c_0}\n  \\left\\{\n    A_{j+1} \\rho_{12}' \n      \\exp\\left[ +\\imath (k'_{j+1} -k'_j) z - \\imath \\Delta t \\right]\n\\right.\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n\\left.\n   + \n   A_{j-1} \\rho_{12}'^* \n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j-1} -k'_j) z + \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n  \\right\\}\n~~~~ \\times  ~~~~ \n \\omega_j\n  e^{-\\imath j \\omega_b t }\n\\\\\n    \\imath \n    k'_j \n      A_j\n  +\n    \\partial_z A_j\n&=&\n\\imath \n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\omega_j \\bar{\\alpha}_{12}'}\n     {4 \\epsilon_0 c_0}\n  u\n  \\left[\n   A_{j+1}\n      \\exp\\left[ +\\imath (k'_{j+1} -k'_j) z - \\imath \\Delta t \\right]\n   + \n    A_{j-1}\n      \\exp\\left[ +\\imath (k'_{j-1} -k'_j) z + \\imath \\Delta t \\right]\n  \\right]\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~\n-\n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\omega_j \\alpha_{12}}\n     {4 \\epsilon_0 c_0}\n  v\n  \\left[\n   A_{j+1}\n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j+1} -k'_j) z  - \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n   -\n    A_{j-1}\n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j-1} -k'_j) z  + \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n  \\right] \n~~~~ ~~~~\n\\\\\n    \\partial_z A_j\n&=&\n\\frac{\\zeta \\sigma \\omega_j \\alpha_{12}}\n     {4 \\epsilon_0 c_0}\n\\left\\{\n  -\n  \\left[\n     v \n   -\n     \\imath u\n  \\right]\n   A_{j+1}\n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j+1} -k'_j) z - \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n +\n  \\left[\n     v \n   +\n     \\imath u\n  \\right]\n    A_{j-1}\n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j-1} -k'_j) z + \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n\\right\\}\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n - \n  \\imath \\left( k_j - k_0 \\right) A_j\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThis is in agreement with both HPB[@Hickman-PB-1986pra] barring the opposite sign on the RHS \u2013 similar agreement occurs with SMN[@Syed-MN-2000josab] once I identify $q = (v+\\imath u)$. Note that generally $\\Delta=0$, as it just controls a frame rotation for $\\rho_{12}$.\n\nNote that we can assume, quite reasonably, that the multi-field envelopes $A_j$ will be better behaved than the single-field envelope $A$. However, we have made [*more*]{} approximations, notably by RWA\u2019ing away all the off-resonant cross terms driving the atomic transition so a multi-field approach is not always better. These off-resonant terms are at $2\\omega_0 \\pm \\omega_b$ \u2013 see just prior to the starting point above of eqns.(\\[eqn-rbpostRWA-w0-rho\\], \\[eqn-rbpostRWA-w0-w\\]).\n\nIn photon variables, the above field propagation equation is (using $R=4 \\hbar \\sigma$, also note $\\zeta=2$ to conserve energy) \u00a0 $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\partial_z A_{p,j}\n&=&\n  \\frac{\\zeta}{4}\n  R\n  \\omega_j f_p\n\\left\\{\n  -\n  \\left[\n     v \n   -\n     \\imath u\n  \\right]\n   A_{p,j+1}\n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j+1} -k'_j) z - \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n +\n  \\left[\n     v \n   +\n     \\imath u\n  \\right]\n    A_{p,j-1}\n      \\exp\\left( +\\imath (k'_{j-1} -k'_j) z + \\imath \\Delta t \\right)\n\\right\\}\n\\nonumber\n\\\\\n&& ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ \n - \n  \\left( k_j - k_0 \\right) A_{p,j}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nComparisons {#s-comparisons}\n===========\n\nSee [*\u201cWideband pulse propagation: single-field and multi-field approaches to Raman interactions\u201d*]{} by Kinsler and New [@Kinsler-N-2005pra].\n\nSummary {#s-summary}\n=======\n\nI describe how to model a multi-frequency field such as that seen in a wideband Raman generation experiment using a single field envelope rather than a set of envelopes, one at each Stokes or anti-Stokes frequency. This requires that the field be propagated taking into account wideband effects, as described by either the SEWA theory of Brabec and Krausz [@Brabec-K-1997prl], or the more general GFEA of Kinsler and New [@Kinsler-N-2003pra].\n\nThe usefulness of this single-field approach is not restricted to the Raman interaction described in this paper. It would be equally valuable for a near-degenerate optical parametric oscillator, or indeed any system where any two or more field components contain spectra that start to overlap as the pump or probe pulses get shorter.\n\nIt is important to note that it will usually only be more efficient to use a single-field simulation if pump pulses are very short, and effects like the next-nearest neighbour field interactions, neglected in the multi-field theory, need to be included, or if the extra computational overhead is not inconvenient. This is because in a single-field simulation, a very fine time-resolution is necessary to model the polarization and field oscillations closely enough to get good numerical convergence. However, this situation improves when the Raman transition has a smaller frequency compared to the pump pulse frequencies. One useful side effect of the fine time resolution is that it naturally gives a wide spectral bandwidth, so that many Stokes and anti-Stokes lines are modeled quite naturally. Further, our single-field model could be invaluable in modeling a short pulse pump-probe experiment where the probe frequency does not match any of the Stokes or anti-Stokes spectral lines generated by the pump pulse(s). A multi-field simulation would then need arrays for both the pump and probe Raman \u2018ladders\u2019\u2019 of Stokes/anti-Stokes lines, and the role of next nearest neighbour interactions (ignored in the multi-field model) could well become more significant.\n\nIn summary, the advantages of our single-field approach are twofold. First, it includes more physics than the multi-field approach, even compared to a multi-field approach enhanced by adding GFEA corrections to the propagation of the field components. Secondly, it deals effortlessly with the complications of overlapping spectra in the multi-field case.\n\n[19]{} natexlab\\#1[\\#1]{}bibnamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}bibfnamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}citenamefont \\#1[\\#1]{}url \\#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\\[2\\][\\#2]{} \\[2\\]\\[\\][[\\#2](#2)]{}\n\n, ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v72/e033804>.\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , , , , , ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v72/e013813>.\n\n, ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v67/e023813>.\n\n, (), <http://arXiv.org/physics/0212014>.\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , ****, (), [http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/openurl.asp?genre=article&i%\nd=doi:10.1080/09500340512331334086](http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/openurl.asp?genre=article&i%\nd=doi:10.1080/09500340512331334086).\n\n, , , ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v33/p1788>.\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , , , ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v60/p1562>.\n\n, ** (, ).\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n\n, , , ****, ().\n\n, ****, ().\n\n, , , , , ****, ().\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Variational inference approximates the posterior distribution of a probabilistic model with a parameterized density by maximizing a lower bound for the model evidence. Modern solutions fit a flexible approximation with stochastic gradient descent, using Monte Carlo approximation for the gradients. This enables variational inference for arbitrary differentiable probabilistic models, and consequently makes variational inference feasible for probabilistic programming languages. In this work we develop more efficient inference algorithms for the task by considering importance sampling estimates for the gradients. We show how the gradient with respect to the approximation parameters can often be evaluated efficiently without needing to re-compute gradients of the model itself, and then proceed to derive practical algorithms that use importance sampled estimates to speed up computation. We present importance sampled stochastic gradient descent that outperforms standard stochastic gradient descent by a clear margin for a range of models, and provide a justifiable variant of stochastic average gradients for variational inference.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    [**Joseph Sakaya**]{}\\\n    Helsinki Institute for Information Technology\u00a0HIIT\\\n    Department of Computer Science\\\n    University of Helsinki, Finland\\\n    \\\n    Helsinki Institute for Information Technology\u00a0HIIT\\\n    Department of Computer Science\\\n    University of Helsinki, Finland\\\nbibliography:\n- 'paper.bib'\ntitle: Importance Sampled Stochastic Optimization for Variational Inference\n---\n\nINTRODUCTION\n============\n\nVariational inference considers parametric approximations for posterior densities of probabilistic models. Following @Jordan1999 the classical variational approximation algorithms are based on coordinate descent algorithms for which individual steps of the algorithm are often carried out analytically. This limits the use of variational approximation to models with conjugate priors (or simple extensions of those) and restricts the family of potential approximating distributions based on analytic tractability.\n\nRecent advances in variational approximation have lead to a phase transition; instead of closed-form updates, the approximation is nowadays often fit using generic gradient descent techniques instead \u2013 for a good overview see, [*e.g.*]{}, @gal. The key behind these advances is in using Monte Carlo approximation to estimate the gradient of the objective function that is an integral over the approximating distribution. This can be done in two alternative ways. The *reparameterization estimate* [@dsvi; @vae; @salimans] allows expressing the gradient of the objective function using the gradients of the model itself, whereas the *score function estimate* [@bbvi] is based on gradients of the approximation. Given the new family of algorithms we can apply variational approximation for a considerably wider range of probabilistic models, enabling for example use of variational inference as the inference backend in probabilistic programming languages [@advi; @pymc3; @edward].\n\nThe main research efforts in variational inference are nowadays geared towards making the approach applicable to a still wider family of models, by constructing even more flexible approximations [@rezende15; @ranganath16; @kingma16] or by generalizing the gradient estimators [@grep; @naesseth]. The question of how exactly the resulting optimization problem is solved has largely remained unattended to \u2013 practically all authors are satisfied with standard stochastic gradient descent (SGD) as the underlying optimizer, although some effort has been put into improving convergence by reducing the variance of the gradient estimate near the optimum [@roeder17].\n\nWe turn our attention to the optimizer itself, looking into ways of speeding up the computation of gradient-based variational approximation. Practically all of the computational effort during learning goes into evaluating the gradient of the model (or the approximation if using the score-function estimate). Our contribution is in reducing the number of times we need to evaluate the gradient of the model during the optimization process, based on an importance sampling scheme specifically designed for optimization problems where the gradients are computed using Monte Carlo approximation.\n\nThe key observation is that the gradient of the objective function with respect to the parameters of the approximation consists of two parts. One part is the gradient of the model itself, evaluated at parameter values drawn from the approximation, whereas the other part is the gradient of the transformation used in the reparameterization estimate. We show that the gradient required for optimization can be computed for the newly updated approximation without re-computing the first part, which is computationally heavier. Instead, we can re-use existing computation by appropriately modifying and re-weighting the available terms.\n\nWe show how to formulate this idea in a justified manner, by constructing an importance sampling estimate for the gradient. Importance sampling is typically used for cases where one cannot sample from the distribution of interest but instead has to resort to sampling from a related proposal distribution. In our case we could sample from the distribution of interest \u2013 the current approximation \u2013 but choose not to, since by using an earlier approximation as a proposal we can avoid costly computation. The idea is conceptually similar to the way @ep reuses samples from previous iterations in expectation propagation.\n\nSince the advances in our case are related to the computation of the gradient itself, the idea can readily be combined with several optimization algorithms. In this work, we derive practical algorithms extending standard SGD and stochastic average gradients [@sage]. We demonstrate them in learning a variational approximation for several probabilistic models, showing how they improve the convergence speed in a model-independent manner.\n\nIn the following we first give a brief overview of the state-of-the-art in gradient-based variational approximation, covering both the gradient estimates and stochastic optimization algorithms in Section\u00a02. We then proceed to describe the importance sampling estimate for the gradient in Section\u00a03, followed by practical optimization algorithms outlined in Section\u00a04. Empirical experiments and illustrations are provided in Section\u00a05.\n\nBACKGROUND\n==========\n\nVARIATIONAL APPROXIMATION\n-------------------------\n\nVariational inference refers to approximating the posterior distribution $p(z|x)$ of a probabilistic model $p(x,z)$ using a distribution $q_\\lambda(z)$ parameterized by $\\lambda$. Usually this is achieved by maximizing a lower bound $\\mathcal{L}(\\lambda)$ for the evidence (also called the marginal likelihood) $p(x)$: $$\\mathcal{L}(\\lambda) = \\int q_\\lambda(z) \\log \\frac{p(x, z)} {q_\\lambda(z)}\\ \\delta z \\le p(x).\n  \\label{eq:ELBO}$$ Traditionally, the problem has been made tractable by assuming a factorized mean-field approximation and models with conjugate priors, resulting in closed-form coordinate ascent algorithms specific for individual models \u2013 for a full derivation and examples, see, [*e.g.*]{}, @blei16.\n\nIn recent years several novel types of algorithms applicable for a wider range of models have been proposed [@dsvi; @vae; @salimans; @bbvi], based on direct gradient-based optimization of the lower bound . The core idea behind these algorithms is in using Monte Carlo estimates for the loss and its gradient $$\\nabla_{\\lambda} \\mathcal{L}(\\lambda) = \n  \\nabla_\\lambda \\mathbb{E}_{q_\\lambda(z)}[\\log p(x,z) - \\log q_\\lambda(z)].\n  \\label{eq:ELBOgrad}$$ Given such estimates, the inference problem can be solved by standard gradient descent algorithms. This enables inference for non-conjugate likelihoods and for complex models for which closed-form updates would be hard to derive, making variational inference a feasible inference strategy for probabilistic programming languages [@advi; @edward; @pymc3]. In the following, we briefly describe two alternative strategies of estimating the gradient. In Section \\[sec:method\\] we will then show how the proposed importance sampling technique is applied for both cases.\n\n### REPARAMETERIZATION ESTIMATE\n\nThe reparameterization estimate for (and consequently ) is based on representing the approximation $q_\\lambda(z)$ using a differentiable transformation $z = f(\\epsilon,\n\\lambda)$ of an underlying standard distribution $\\phi(\\epsilon)$ that does not have any free parameters. The core idea of how this enables computing the gradient was developed simultaneously by @vae [@salimans] and @dsvi with many of the mathematical details visible already in the early work by @opper. Plugging the transformation $f(\\cdot)$ into gives $$\\mathcal{L}(\\lambda) = \\int \\phi(\\epsilon) \\log \\frac{p(x,\n  f(\\epsilon,\\lambda))|\\operatorname*{det}_{J_f}(\\epsilon,\n  \\lambda)|}{\\phi(\\epsilon)}\\ \\delta \\epsilon,$$ where the integral is over the standard distribution that does not depend on $z$, and $|\\operatorname*{det}_{J_f}(\\epsilon, \\lambda)|$ is the absolute value of the determinant of the Jacobian of $f(\\epsilon, \\lambda)$. Consequently, it can be replaced by a stochastic approximation $$\\mathcal{L}(\\lambda) = \\frac{1}{M} \\sum_{m=1}^M \\log \\frac{p(x,\n  f(\\epsilon_m,\\lambda))|\\operatorname*{det}_{J_f}(\\epsilon_m,\n  \\lambda)|}{\\phi(\\epsilon_m)},$$ where $\\epsilon_m$ is drawn from $\\phi(\\epsilon)$. We can now easily compute the gradients using the chain rule, by first differentiating $\\log p(x, f(\\epsilon, \\lambda))$ w.r.t $z$ and then $z = f(\\epsilon,\n\\lambda)$ w.r.t $\\lambda$, resulting in\n\n\\_ () \\_[m=1]{}\\^M . \\[eq:MCELBO\\]\n\nThe combination of the standard distribution $\\phi(\\epsilon)$ and the transformation $f(\\epsilon, \\lambda)$ defines the approximation family. For example, $\\phi(\\epsilon) = \\mathcal{N}(0, I)$ and $f(\\epsilon, \\lambda=\\{\\mu, L\\}) = \\mu + L \\epsilon$ defines arbitrary Gaussian approximations [@opper; @dsvi], where $L$ is the Cholesky factor of the covariance. To create richer approximations we can concatenate multiple transformations; @advi combines the transformation above with a rich family of univariate transformations designed for different kinds of parameter constraints. For example, by using $f(\\epsilon, \\lambda=\\{\\mu, L\\}) = \\operatorname*{Softplus}(\\mu + L \\epsilon)$ we can approximate parameters constrained for positive values. Alternatively, we can directly reparameterize other common distributions such as Gamma or Dirichlet \u2013 see @naesseth [@grep] for details.\n\n### SCORE FUNCTION ESTIMATE\n\nAn alternative estimate for can be derived based on manipulation of the log-derivatives; the use of the estimate for simulation of models was originally presented by @score and its use for variational approximation by @bbvi. The estimate for $\\nabla_\\lambda \\mathcal{L}(\\lambda) $ is provided by $$\\mathbb{E}_{q_\\lambda(z)}[(\\log p(x,z) - \\log q_\\lambda(z)) \\nabla_\\lambda \\log q_\\lambda(z)],$$ which again leads into a straightforward Monte Carlo approximation of $\\nabla_\\lambda \\mathcal{L}(\\lambda)$ as $$\\frac 1M \\sum_{m = 1}^M(\\log p(x,z_m) - \\log q_\\lambda(z_m)) \\nabla_\\lambda \\log q_\\lambda(z_m),\n  \\label{eq:score}$$ where $z_m \\sim {q_\\lambda(z)}$. The notable property of this technique is that it does not require derivatives of the model (that is, $\\log p(x, z)$) itself, but instead relies solely on derivatives of the approximation. This is both a pro and a con; the model does not need to be differentiable, but at the same time the estimate is not using the valuable information the model gradient provides. This is shown to result in considerably higher variance compared to the reparameterization estimate, often by orders of magnitude. Variance reduction techniques [@bbvi] help, but for differentiable models the reparameterization technique is typically considerably more efficient [@naesseth; @grep].\n\nSTOCHASTIC GRADIENT OPTIMIZATION\n--------------------------------\n\nGiven estimates for the gradient computed with either method, the optimization problem[^1] is solved by standard gradient descent techniques. In practice all of the automatic variational inference papers have resorted to stochastic gradient descent (SGD) on mini-batches, adaptively tuning the step lengths with the state-of-the-art techniques.\n\nIn recent years several more advanced stochastic optimization algorithms have been proposed, such as stochastic average gradients (SAG) [@sage], stochastic variance reduced gradients (SVRG) [@svrg], and SAGA that combines elements of both [@saga]. However, to our knowledge these techniques have not been successfully adapted for automatic variational inference. In Section \\[sec:isag\\] we will present a new variant of SAG that works also when the gradients are estimated as Monte Carlo approximations, and therefore briefly describe below the basic idea behind stochastic average gradients.\n\nSAG performs gradient updates based on an estimate for the full batch gradient, obtained by summing up gradients stored for individual data points (or for mini-batches to save memory). Whenever a data point is seen again during the optimization the stored gradient for that point is replaced by the gradient evaluated at the current parameter values. The full gradient estimate hence consists of individual gradients estimated for different parameter values; the most recently computed gradients are accurate but the ones computed long time ago may correspond to vastly different parameter values. This introduces bias [@saga], but especially towards the convergence the variance of the estimated full batch gradient is considerably smaller than that of the latest mini-batch, speeding up convergence.\n\nMETHOD {#sec:method}\n======\n\nAll gradient-based optimization algorithms follow the same basic pattern of computing a gradient for a mini-batch of samples and updating the parameters. The computational effort required goes almost solely into evaluating the gradient of the loss. To speed up the optimization, we next present a technique that allows computationally lighter evaluation of the gradient in scenarios where the gradient is computed using a Monte Carlo approximation. The presentation here is based on the reparameterization estimate that benefits more off this treatment \u2013 as will become evident later \u2013 but for completeness we discuss also the score function estimate in Section\u00a0\\[sec:score\\].\n\nThe Monte Carlo approximation for estimating the gradient depends on the data $x$ and a set of $M$ parameters $z_m$ drawn from the current approximation. As highlighted in , the actual computation factorizes into $\\nabla_z p(x, z_m)$ that depends only on $x$ and $z_m$ and into $\\nabla_\\lambda f(\\epsilon, \\lambda)$ and $\\nabla_{\\lambda}|\\text{det}_{J_f}(\\epsilon_m, \\lambda)|$ that depend only on $\\epsilon_m$ and $\\lambda$. The former part is typically considerably more computationally expensive. The observation that the slower part does not directly depend on the parameters hints that it should be possible to avoid re-computing the term even if the approximation changes, and this indeed is the case as explained next.\n\nAssume we have already estimated the gradient at some parameters $\\lambda$, implying that we have also evaluated $\\nabla_z p(x, z_m)$ for some set of $z_m$. The question now is how to estimate the gradient at parameters $\\lambda' = \\lambda + \\delta$ that are (typically only slightly) different. It turns out this can be done using the well-known concept of *importance sampling* originally designed for approximating expectations when we cannot directly draw samples from the density of interest. In our case, however, we *could* draw samples directly from the new approximation, but *choose not to* since the gradient can be estimated also using the old approximation as a proposal distribution. That is, we are using importance sampling for an unusual reason but can still use all the standard tools.\n\nTypically, we use importance sampling to find the expectation of a function $f(z)$ over the target distribution $p(z)$ if we are able to draw samples only from a proposal distribution $q(z)$. The expectation of $f(z)$ over $p(z)$ can then be approximated by The quantities $w_m = {p(z_m)}/ {q(z_m)}$ are the *importance weights* that correct the bias introduced by sampling from the wrong distribution $q(z)$ [@bishop]. The weights $w_m$ are non-negative and tend to zero when $p(z)$ is completely mismatched to $q(z)$, and $w_m > 1$ when the sample $z_m$ is more likely under the $p(z)$. The estimate above is unbiased, but has high \u2013 potentially infinite \u2013 variance when $q(z)$ and $p(z)$ are dissimilar. Next we show how importance sampling can be used for evaluating the reparameterization gradient .\n\nTo save computation we want to re-use the model gradients $\\nabla_z\n\\log p(x, z_m)$ already available for certain values of $z_m$ and hence need to consider estimates that keep these values fixed. This means we need to find the $\\epsilon_m'$ under the new approximation $q_{\\lambda'}(z)$ that correspond to these values, by computing $\\epsilon_m' = f^{-1}(z_m, \\lambda')$. Given these values we can evaluate the necessary quantities to compute both the importance weights and the other terms ($\\nabla_{\\lambda} f(\\epsilon_{m}',\n\\lambda')$ and $\\nabla_{\\lambda}|\\text{det}_{J_f}(\\epsilon_m,\n\\lambda)|$) required for evaluating the gradient itself.\n\nThe resulting importance sampling estimate for is\n\n\\^i\\_ () \\_[m=1]{}\\^M w\\_m, \\[eq:impgrad\\]\n\nwhere the $i$ in $\\nabla^i_{\\lambda} \\mathcal{L}(\\lambda) $ refers to the importance-sampled estimate of the gradient. The computationally expensive part of the gradient $\\nabla_{z} \\log p(x, z_m)$ is already available and need not be computed. The rest of the terms are efficient to evaluate, and hence the whole gradient estimate is obtained in a fraction of a time compared to computing it from scratch. The importance weights are provided by $$w_m = \n  \\frac{\\phi(\\epsilon_m')}{\\phi(\\epsilon_m)} \\label{eq:weight}$$ and hence only require evaluating densities of the standard distribution underlying the approximation. The above description is summarized in Algorithm\u00a0\\[alg:impgrad\\] and illustrated graphically in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:normal\\].\n\nIt is also worth noting that if $f(\\cdot)$ is constructed as a series of transformations, for example as element-wise transformations of reparameterized normal distribution as done by [@advi], then parts of the term $\\nabla_{\\lambda}|\\text{det}_{J_f}(\\epsilon'_m,\n\\lambda')|$ can (and naturally should) also be re-used. This is, however, of secondary importance compared to the computational saving of re-using $\\nabla_z \\log p(x, z_m)$.\n\nA practical challenge with importance sampling is that for high-dimensional densities the weights $w_m$ easily tend to zero. Variational approximation is, however, often conducted for approximations that factorize over the parameters of the approximation as $q(\\lambda) = \\prod_{s} q(\\lambda_{S_s})$, where $\\{S_s\\}$ is a partitioning of the parameter vector. The importance sampling estimate can \u2013 and should \u2013 be done for each factor separately, since the gradient $\\nabla_z \\log p(x, z_m)$ can be computed for each approximation factor independently even if $\\log p(x, z_m)$ itself does not factorize. We show in Section\u00a0\\[sec:dimensionality\\] that the technique helps at least until factors consisting of roughly ten parameters.\n\n$\\epsilon_m' \\leftarrow\n  f^{-1}(z_m, \\lambda')$ $w_m \\leftarrow\n  \\frac{\\phi(\\epsilon'_m)}{\\phi(\\epsilon_m)}$ Calculate $\\nabla^i_{\\lambda} \\mathcal{L}(\\lambda)$ using\n\nREPARAMETERIZATION GRADIENT EXAMPLE\n-----------------------------------\n\nTo further clarify the derivation above, we next illustrate the procedure for the common scenario of Gaussian reparameterization combining $\\phi(\\epsilon) = \\mathcal{N}(0, I)$ with $z = \\mu + L\n\\epsilon$, denoting $\\lambda = \\{\\mu, L\\}$. Given a set of $z_m$ drawn from $q(\\lambda)$ we want to estimate the gradient evaluated at $\\lambda'$ using .\n\nFirst we compute $\\epsilon_m' = f^{-1}(z_m, \\lambda') = L^{-1}(z_m -\n\\mu)$ and evaluate $\\phi(\\epsilon_m')$ under the standard normal distribution. The weight $w_m$ can then readily be evaluated using , computing $\\phi(\\epsilon_m)$ as well if it has not already been evaluated because of being used for another importance sampling estimate.\n\nTo compute the gradient we need to re-compute $\\nabla_{\\lambda} f(\\epsilon_m', \\lambda')$ and $\\nabla_{\\lambda}|\\text{det}_{J_f}(\\epsilon'_m, \\lambda')|$. For $\\mu$ these terms are simply identity and zero, whereas for $L$ we get $z_m$ and $\\nabla_{L} \\log |L'| \\equiv \\Delta_{L'}$. The exact form of $\\Delta_{L'}$ depends on the assumptions made for $L$; see @dsvi for details. The final importance sampled estimate for the gradient is then $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\nabla_{\\mu}^{i} \\mathcal{L}(\\mu', L') &\\approx\n  \\frac{1}{M} \\sum_{m=1}^M w_m \\nabla_{z} \\log p(x, z_m)\\\\\n  \\nabla_{L}^{i} \\mathcal{L}(\\mu', L') &\\approx \\frac{1}{M}\n  \\sum_{m=1}^M w_m \\left [ \\nabla_{z} \\log p(x, z_m)\n    \\epsilon'_m     + \\Delta_{L'} \\right ]. \\notag\\end{aligned}$$\n\nAn important observation here is that the importance sampling procedure does not merely re-weight the terms $\\nabla_z \\log p(x,\nz_m)$, but in addition the transformation that converts them into the $\\lambda$ space changes because of the new values of $\\epsilon_m'$. These values depend on the approximation parameters in a non-linear fashion and hence the gradient itself is a non-linear transformation of the gradient evaluated at $\\lambda$ (for a graphical illustration, see Figure\u00a0\\[fig:normalcontour\\]). This is crucially important for development of the practical optimization algorithms in Section\u00a0\\[sec:algorithms\\]; if the transformation was linear then the importance sampling estimate would not necessarily provide improvement over careful adaptation of element-wise learning rates.\n\nSCORE FUNCTION ESTIMATE {#sec:score}\n-----------------------\n\nAbove we discussed the importance sampling estimate from the perspective of the reparameterization estimate. For completeness we also show how it can be applied for the score function estimate, and discuss why it is less useful there.\n\nThe Monte Carlo approximation for the score function is obtained directly by drawing samples from the approximation $q(\\lambda)$. To approximate the gradient for $q(\\lambda')$ we merely use the standard importance sampling equation to obtain the approximation $$\\frac{1}{M} \\sum_{m=1}^M w_m \\left[\\log p(x, z_m) - \\log\n  q_\\lambda(z_m)\\right] \\nabla_{\\lambda} \\log q_\\lambda(z_m),$$ where $w_m = \\frac{q(z|\\lambda')}{q(z|\\lambda)}$. This is still an unbiased estimate, but the computational saving is typically smaller than in the reparameterization case. We do not need to evaluate $\\log\np(x, z_m)$ since the samples $z_m$ are kept constant, but all other terms need to be computed again and evaluating the gradient of the approximation is not cheap. This estimate is only useful when the evaluation of the log probability utterly dominates the total computation.\n\nALGORITHMS {#sec:algorithms}\n==========\n\nIn the following we describe example optimization algorithms based on the importance sampling idea. The details are provided for a straightforward variant of SGD and for a generalization of stochastic average gradients, but other related algorithms could be instantiated as well.\n\nIMPORTANCE SAMPLED SGD\n----------------------\n\nStochastic gradient descent estimates the gradient based on a mini-batch and then takes a step along the gradient direction, typically using adaptive learning rates such as those by @adam [@adagrad].\n\nThe importance sampled SGD (I-SGD; Algorithm\u00a0\\[alg:isgd\\]) follows otherwise the same pattern, but for each mini-batch we conduct several gradient steps instead of just one. For the first one we evaluate the gradient directly using . After updating the approximation we apply Algorithm\u00a0\\[alg:impgrad\\] to obtain an importance-sampled estimate for the gradient evaluated at the new parameter values, and proceed to take another gradient step using that estimate. For each step we use a proper estimate for the mini-batch gradient that can, after the first evaluation, be computed in a fraction of a time. After taking a few steps we then proceed to analyze a new mini-batch, again needing to compute the gradient from scratch since now $x$ has changed.\n\nAfter passing through the whole data we have evaluated $\\log p(x, z)$ and its gradient once for every data point, just as in standard SGD. However, we have taken considerably more gradient steps, possibly by a factor of ten. Alternatively, we can think of it as performing more updates given a constant number of model gradient evaluations.\n\nA practical detail concerns the choice of how many steps to take for each mini-batch. This choice is governed by two aspects. On one hand we should not use the importance sampled estimate if the approximation has changed too much since computing the $\\nabla_z \\log p(x, z_m)$ terms, recognized typically as $w_m$ tending to zero. On the other hand, we should not take too many steps even if the approximation does not change dramatically, since the gradient is still based on just a single mini-batch.\n\nThe empirical experiments in this paper are run with a simple heuristic that randomly determines whether to take another step with the current mini-batch or to proceed to the next one. This introduces a single tuning parameter $t$ that controls the expected number of steps per mini-batch. The algorithm is robust for this choice; we obtain practical speedups with values ranging from $t = 0.5$ to $t=0.9$. Finally, importance-sampling could in principle result in very large gradients if $w_m \\gg 1$ for some $m$; we never encountered this in practice, but a safe choice is to proceed to the next batch if that happens.\n\nFor a practical illustration of the algorithm, see Figure\u00a0\\[fig:normalcontour\\] that approximates the posterior over the mean and precision of a normal model. Here $t=0.9$ and hence we take on average $9$ importance-sampled gradient steps for each mini-batch. The I-SGD algorithm reaches the optimum in roughly as many steps as conventional SGD but achieves it almost ten times faster.\n\nIMPORTANCE SAMPLED SAG {#sec:isag}\n----------------------\n\nStochastic average gradients [@sage] stores the batch gradient and iteratively updates it for the samples in a given mini-batch. In the following we derive a variant of SAG (Algorithm\u00a0\\[alg:isag\\]) that uses importance sampling to both re-weight and update the gradients for the historical mini-batches using , helping to detect and avoid using stale gradients whose parameter values have changed so much since computing them.\n\nWhen visiting a new mini-batch we compute the gradient using . For all previously visited mini-batches we compute the importance weights and modify the gradient according to . The whole gradient is formed by summing up the terms for all mini-batches. It is important to note that the importance sampling changes the weight of the gradient, decreasing it towards zero for the mini-batches evaluated under clearly different parameter settings, and transforms the gradient to better match one that would have been calculated under the current approximation.\n\nThis algorithm provides a justified version of SAG for automatic variational inference. The computational cost is higher than for standard SAG since we need to evaluate the importance weights and compute the terms related to the gradient of the transformation for all past mini-batches. There is, however, no additional memory overhead and the amount of evaluations for the gradient of the model itself is the same. This overhead for importance sampling the gradients for other batches is not negligible, but usually still small enough that the resulting algorithm outperforms a naive implementation of SAG because of vastly more accurate gradient estimates, as shown in Section \\[sec:isage\\]. In case updating the past gradients becomes too costly, a simple remedy is to use only the latest $K$ mini-batches for some reasonable choice of $K$.\n\nEXPERIMENTS\n===========\n\nIn this section we first demonstrate how the behavior of importance sampling depends on the dimensionality of the approximation. We then empirically compared both I-SGD and I-SAG for real variational inference tasks on a range of alternative models and settings.\n\nDIMENSIONALITY OF THE APPROXIMATION {#sec:dimensionality}\n-----------------------------------\n\nFigure \\[fig:weight-decay\\] studies importance weights of approximations factorized at different granularities on a 100-dimensional diagonal multivariate Gaussian. An important observation is that even if importance sampling itself fails for factors of high dimensionality, the I-SGD algorithm degrades gracefully. For low-dimensional factors, up to at least 5-10 dimensions, we can safely take 5-10 steps with each mini-batch while still having accurate gradient estimates. When the dimensionality of individual factors reaches around $25$ the weights tend to zero already after a single gradient step, but the algorithm does not break down. It merely needs to proceed immediately to the next step, reverting back to standard SGD.\n\n[.28]{}\n\n[.28]{}\n\n[.28]{}\n\n[.28]{}\n\n[.28]{}\n\n[.28]{}\n\nIMPORTANCE SAMPLED SGD {#sec:impsamsgd}\n----------------------\n\nWe show in Figure\u00a0\\[fig:experiments\\] how I-SGD consistently bests SGD for a variety of different models, especially for the reparameterization estimate. For these experiments we use fully factorized mean-field approximation,\n\nWe first apply the reparameterization estimate for three probabilistic models: (a) a diagonal multivariate Gaussian with a standard normal prior on the mean and Gamma priors on the precisions, trained on $N =\n50000$ data points of $D = 500$ dimensions; (b) a Bayesian linear regression model with standard normal priors on the weights and a Gamma prior on the precision with $N = 50000$ and $D = 500$; and (c) a Gaussian mixture model with the usual conjugate priors, $N = 10000$, $D = 2$ and $K = 25$ clusters. We used fully factorized variational approximations for all models, with $\\operatorname*{Softplus}$ transforms for the positively constrained precision parameters and the stick breaking transform for the mixture weights of the last model. For all three choices the I-SGD algorithm with $t=0.9$ converges to the same optimal solution as SGD, but does so in roughly an order of magnitude faster. For fair comparison the size of the mini-batch, the initial learning rate were chosen for each method to work well for SGD, forcing I-SGD to use the same choices. For both algorithms, we used M = 1 sample to estimate the gradients and Adam [@adam] to adaptively control the learning rate during optimization.\n\nWe then compare I-SGD and SGD using the score function estimates on a Poisson likelihood with a single Gamma prior on the rate (d), and Bayesian linear regression models with large (e) and small (f) mini-batch. The variational approximations used were the same as the priors. For the sub-plots (d) and (e) evaluating the log-probability takes long compared to evaluating the gradient of the approximation because of a large mini-batch size, and hence I-SGD is faster. With a smaller mini-batch size (f) the advantage is lost because evaluating the gradient of the approximation starts to dominate. We used $M =\n100$ samples and did not consider variance reduction techniques for simplicity.\n\nIMPORTANCE SAMPLED SAG {#sec:isage}\n----------------------\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[fig:sag\\] compares the I-SAG algorithm (Algorithm\u00a0\\[alg:isag\\]) against naive implementation of SAG [@sage]. Both algorithms are initialized by passing once through the data with I-SGD, to provide the initial estimate for the full batch gradient.\n\nWhile SAG eventually converges to the right solution, the progress is slow and erratic due to stale mini-batch gradients being accumulated into the full gradient. I-SAG fixes the issue by not only down-weighting gradients corresponding to mini-batches visited several updates ago, but also by transforming the gradients to match the current approximation. The additional computation required for adapting the gradients for other mini-batches results in a computational overhead of, here, roughly 30% per iteration, but the improved accuracy of the batch gradient estimate is more than enough to overcome this.\n\nStochastic running average (SRA) provides another baseline that down-weights older mini-batches exponentially. Similar to I-SAG, it avoids using mini-batches with badly outdated gradient estimates, by using a simple weighting scheme without transforming the gradients. It outperforms SAG, but converges more slowly than I-SAG. Hence, I-SAG is stable implementation of SAG for variational inference, outperforming the alternative of running averages often considered as a remedy for the issues of SAG.\n\nDISCUSSION\n==========\n\nAutomatic variational inference using automatically differentiated gradients has in recent years become a feasible technique for inference for a wide class of probabilistic models, extending the scope of variational approximations beyond simple conjugate models towards practical probabilistic inference engines. While standard computational platforms and advances in convex optimization are readily applicable for gradient-based variational inference, the need to use Monte Carlo approximation to estimate the gradients necessarily induces a computational overhead \u2013 with very few samples the gradients are noisy whereas the cost grows linearly as a function of the samples.\n\nOur work addressed this central element, discussing ways to speed up the gradient-based inference of variational approximations. By highlighting how the gradient computation separates into two steps we derived an importance-sampling estimate for the gradient that often only needs to evaluate the computationally cheaper part to provide the estimate. Skipping the computationally costly evaluation of the gradient of the model itself as often as possible lead to a practical speedup that is independent of other improvements provided by more advanced optimization algorithms [@svrg; @saga]. Our method relies on the inverse transformation being unique and efficient to compute. This might not be the case for complex structured approximations or approximations parameterized by neural networks; we leave more efficient extensions for such cases as future work.\n\nWe demonstrated the core idea in creating a more efficient stochastic gradient descent algorithm for both reparameterization [@dsvi; @advi] and score function [@bbvi] estimates used for variational inference. In addition, we formulated a theoretically justified variant of stochastic average gradients [@sage] applicable for variational inference. The idea, however, extends well beyond these special cases. For example, the rejection sampling variational inference [@naesseth] can be readily combined with our importance sampling strategy and is expected to result in a similar speedup.\n\nOur main focus was in practically applicable algorithms, with much of the theoretical analysis left for future work. Two particular directions are immediately apparent: (a) The decision of when to use importance sampling estimates and (b) the behavior for approximations that do not factorize into reasonably small factors. In this work we showed how simple randomized procedure for determining whether to re-compute the gradient for a new mini-batch results in practical and robust algorithm, but more theoretically justified decisions such as inspecting for example the variance of the importance sampling estimate could be considered. The proposed algorithms are efficient for approximating factors of dimensionality up to roughly ten; for factors of higher dimensionality the algorithms revert back to the standard variants since all gradients need to be computed from scratch for every iteration.\n\n### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n\nThis work was financed by the Academy of Finland (decision number 266969) and by the *Scalable Probabilistic Analytics* project of Tekes, the Finnish funding agency for innovation.\n\n[^1]: Here cast as minimization of negative evidence, to maintain consistent terminology with gradient descent literature\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We report a determination of the antiproton magnetic moment, measured in a three-body system, independent of previous experiments. We present results from a systematic study of the hyperfine (HF) structure of antiprotonic helium where we have achieved a precision more than a factor of 10 better than our first measurement. A comparison between the experimental results and three-body quantum electrodynamic (QED) calculations leads to a new value for the antiproton magnetic moment $\\mu^{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}_{s} \\, = \\, -2.7862 (83) \\mu_{N}$, which agrees with the magnetic moment of the proton within 2.9\u00a0$\\times$\u00a010$^{-3}$.'\naddress:\n- 'Stefan Meyer Institute for Subatomic Physics, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, A-1090 Vienna, Austria.'\n- 'Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.'\n- 'KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, H-1525 Budapest, PO Box 49, Hungary.'\n- 'Max-Planck-Institut f\u00fcr Quantenoptik, Hans-Kopfermann-Strasse 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany.'\n- 'Institute of Nuclear Research of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, H-4001 Debrecen, PO Box 51, Hungary'\nauthor:\n- 'T.\u00a0Pask'\n- 'D.\u00a0Barna'\n- 'A.\u00a0Dax'\n- 'R.\u00a0S.\u00a0Hayano'\n- 'M.\u00a0Hori'\n- 'D.\u00a0Horv\u00e1th'\n- 'S.\u00a0Friedreich'\n- 'B.\u00a0Juh\u00e1sz'\n- 'O.\u00a0Massiczek'\n- 'N.\u00a0Ono'\n- 'A.\u00a0S\u00f3t\u00e9r'\n- 'E.\u00a0Widmann'\nbibliography:\n- 'ps205.bib'\n- 'hbar.bib'\n- 'EBW-new.bib'\n- 'DH-new.bib'\n- 'RSH-new.bib'\ntitle: 'Antiproton magnetic moment determined from the HFS of ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}\\rm{He}^+}}$'\n---\n\nAntiprotonic helium ,Microwave spectroscopy ,Hyperfine structure ,CPT invariance 36.10.-k ,32.10.Fn ,33.40.+f\n\nAntiprotonic helium (${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}\\rm{He}^+}}$) is a three body system consisting of an antiproton, a helium nucleus and an electron (${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}$, He$^{++}$, e$^-$)\u00a0[@Yamazaki:93; @Yamazaki:02; @Hayano:2007]. It is formed by stopping antiprotons in a helium medium. Because of its mass, the ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}$ occupies states of principle quantum number $n$\u00a0$\\sim$\u00a038 with the highest probability, while the e$^-$ remains in the ground state. The vast proportion of newly formed ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}\\rm{He}^+}}$ atoms proceed rapidly (within nanoseconds) to an ionised state by Auger excitation of the electron. The antiproton then annihilates almost instantaneously (within picoseconds) with one of the nucleons in the helium nucleus due to the overlap of their wavefunctions. However, a small proportion ($\\sim$\u00a03%) occupy circular states $n$\u00a0$\\sim$\u00a0$l$, where $l$ is the total angular momentum quantum number. Auger decay is then supressed by the large ionisation energy ($\\sim~25$\u00a0eV) and degeneracy is lifted due to the presence of the electron\u00a0[@Condo:64]. These states become relatively long lived (metastable) because the only decay channel available to them is the radiative one, and they cascade from ($n$,\u00a0$l$)\u00a0$\\rightarrow$\u00a0($n-1$,\u00a0$l-1$) with typical energy level spacings $\\sim$\u00a02\u00a0eV and lifetimes of $\\sim$\u00a01.5\u00a0$\\mu$s.\n\nShortly after its discovery, in 1991\u00a0[@Iwasaki:91], laser spectroscopy measurements were performed on various levels of the ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}\\rm{He}^+}}$ cascade\u00a0[@Morita:94; @Torii:99; @Hori:01; @Hori:03]. Compared with three-body Quantum Electrodynamic (QED) calculations these measurements were used to determine the antiproton-to-electron mass ratio ($m_{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}/m_{\\rm{e}}$). Over the years, improvements to the experimental system have increased the precision to 2\u00a0ppb\u00a0[@Hori:06], which is one of the best tests of CPT invariance in the baryon sector. In 1997 the hyperfine structure was first revealed by laser spectroscopy\u00a0[@Widmann:97] and, in 2002, measured via a laser-microwave-laser technique\u00a0[@Widmann:02].\n\nThis paper concludes a systematic study, commenced in 2006\u00a0[@Pask:2008], where the error has been reduced by more than a factor of 10 over the first measurement\u00a0[@Widmann:02] and a new value for the antiproton spin magnetic moment $\\mu^{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}_{s}$ has been determined by comparison with QED calculations.\n\n![(a) Schematic view of the level splitting of ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}\\rm{He}^+}}$ for the ($n$,\u00a0$l$)\u00a0$\\rightarrow$\u00a0($n$\u00a0$-$\u00a01,\u00a0$l$\u00a0+\u00a01) electric dipole transitions. The laser transitions $f^{+}$ and $f^{-}$, from the parent to daughter states, are indicated by straight lines and the microwave transitions, between the quadruplets of the parent, by wavy ones. For this experiment $(n,L)$\u00a0=\u00a0(37,\u00a035) and $(n',L')$\u00a0=\u00a0(38,\u00a034). (b) Laser resonance profile demonstrating the two sharp peaks and HF laser splitting $\\Delta f$\u00a0$\\equiv$\u00a0$f^- \\, - \\, f^+$. Although there are four SHF laser transitions only the HF ones can be resolved in this experiment.[]{data-label=\"fig:HF_trans\"}](HF_Trans.eps)\n\nThe *hyperfine (HF)* splitting\u00a0[@Yamazaki:02] of ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}\\rm{He}^+}}$ arises from the coupling of the e$^-$ spin $\\vec{S}_{e}$ with the ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}$ orbital angular momentum $\\vert \\vec{L} \\vert$\u00a0$\\sim$\u00a035$\\hbar$ and results in a doublet structure of the order $\\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$\u00a0=\u00a010\u00a0-\u00a015\u00a0GHz. The interaction between the antiproton spin $\\vec{S}_{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}$ with $\\vec{S}_{e}$ and $\\vec{L}$ causes a *superhyperfine (SHF)* splitting of size $\\nu_{\\rm{SHF}}$\u00a0=\u00a0150\u00a0-\u00a0300\u00a0MHz. A schematic of the energy level structure is presented in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:HF\\_trans\\]a.\n\nThe theoretical framework for the level splitting has been developed by two separate groups\u00a0[@Bakalov:98; @Korobov:01; @Yamanaka:01; @Kino:03APAC] which all use the same Hamiltonian, first derived by Bakalov and Korobov\u00a0[@Bakalov:98], but different variational methods to extract the energy eigen values.\n\nThe HF doublet is characterised by the quantum number $\\vec{F}$\u00a0=\u00a0$\\vec{L}$\u00a0+\u00a0$\\vec{S}_{e}$ and the SHF quadruplet by $\\vec{J}$\u00a0=\u00a0$\\vec{F}$\u00a0+\u00a0$\\vec{S}_{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}$ = $\\vec{L}$\u00a0+\u00a0$\\vec{S}_{e}$\u00a0+\u00a0$\\vec{S}_{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}$. An electron spin flip transition can be induced by an oscillating magnetic field, resulting in two M1 transitions: $\\nu^{+}_{\\rm{HF}}: \\, J^{++} \\, = F^{+} \\, + \\, \\frac{1}{2} \\,  \\longleftrightarrow \\, J^{-+} \\, = F^{-} \\, + \\, \\frac{1}{2}$ and $\\nu^{-}_{\\rm{HF}}: \\, J^{+-} \\, = F^{+} \\, - \\, \\frac{1}{2} \\, \\longleftrightarrow \\, J^{--} \\, = F^{-} \\, - \\, \\frac{1}{2}$\n\nBakalov and Widmann\u00a0[@Bakalov:07] indicate the sensitivity of certain states on $\\mu^{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}_{s}$ and the precision required to improve its value over the most precise measurement\u00a0[@Kreissl:88]. Some of these states are not practical due to limitations in laser capability. Others, like the ($n$,\u00a0$L$)\u00a0=\u00a0(39,\u00a035) state, which are within laser capabilities, have a HF laser splitting $\\Delta f$\u00a0=\u00a00.5 GHz, of the same order as the Doppler broadening $\\Delta f_{D}$\u00a0=\u00a0420\u00a0MHz. The previously measured (37,\u00a035) state remains the best candidate for a precision study because there is an easily stimulated laser transition between the ($n$,\u00a0$L$)\u00a0=\u00a0(37,\u00a035) and (38,\u00a034) states with $\\Delta f$\u00a0=\u00a01.75\u00a0GHz. It is therefore possible to individually resolve the $F^{\\pm}$ states, demonstrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:HF\\_trans\\]b, since $\\Delta f_{D}$\u00a0=\u00a0320\u00a0MHz. The parent state is also relatively highly populated, containing some 0.3% of the antiprotons stopped in the target\u00a0[@Hori:02].\n\nThe laser spectroscopy experiments employ a technique by which the annihilation decay products are detected\u00a0[@Yamazaki:02]. A sharp prompt peak is first observed, where the majority of states annihilate within picoseconds of formation, then an exponential tail, where the metastable states cascade more slowly towards the nucleus. This tail constitutes the background.\n\nA narrow band pulsed laser is scanned over the region of an expected transition between a radiative decay dominated parent state and an Auger decay dominated daughter. Because the daughter state is relatively short lived ($\\sim$\u00a010\u00a0ns), resonance is indicated by a sharp peak against the background at the time of the pulse. The ratio of the peak area to this background (peak-to-total) indicates the size of the population transferred.\n\nThe HF splitting measurement method is illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:subfig:timing\\] where the first laser pulse remained fixed to the $f^+$ transition between the (37,\u00a035) and (38,\u00a034) states, creating a population asymmetry. A microwave pulse, if on resonance with either $\\nu^{+}_{\\rm{HF}}$ or $\\nu^{-}_{\\rm{HF}}$, then transferred the population from $J^{-+}$ or $J^{--}$ to refill the $F^+$ state. A second laser pulse was tuned to the same $f^+$ transition and fired with a delay $T$\u00a0=\u00a0200\u00a0-\u00a0500\u00a0ns from the first, which measured the population transfer. Plotting the peak-to-total of the second laser induced annihilation peak as a function of microwave frequency yields the two HF transitions as distinct peaks\u00a0[@Pask:2008].\n\n![Microwave frequency profiles averaged from scans at a common pressure $p$\u00a0=\u00a0150\u00a0mbar and laser delays $T$\u00a0=\u00a0200\u00a0ns, 350\u00a0ns and 500\u00a0ns. The broadening is due to the Fourier transform of the rectangular microwave pulse of length $T$.[]{data-label=\"fig:All\"}](All_scans_at_150mb.eps)\n\nThe experiment was carried out at CERN\u2019s Antiproton Decelerator (AD) which provided a pulsed beam of (1\u00a0-\u00a03)\u00a0$\\times$\u00a0$10^{7}$ antiprotons with length $\\sim$\u00a0200\u00a0ns and energy 5.3\u00a0MeV. Every 90\u00a0-\u00a0120\u00a0s, such a pulse was stopped in a helium gas target at a temperature of 6.1\u00a0K and pressures $p$\u00a0=\u00a0150\u00a0-\u00a0500\u00a0mbar (number density 1.7-6.2\u00a0$\\times$\u00a010$^{20}$\u00a0cm$^{-3}$). The antiproton annihilation products passed through one of two Lucite plates either side of the target where their Cherenkov photons were detected by photomultipliers (PMT)\u00a0[@CherHori:03] and the signal was displayed on a digital oscilloscope. The PMTs were gated off for the ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}$ arrival so that only the 3% metastable tail was recorded.\n\n  $p$ (mbar)         $T$ (ns)   $P$ (W)   ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}$ shots   $\\nu^{+}_{\\rm{HF}}$ (GHz)   $\\Gamma_+$ (MHz)   $\\nu^{-}_{\\rm{HF}}$ (GHz)   $\\Gamma_-$ (MHz)\n  ------------------ ---------- --------- ------------------------------------------ --------------------------- ------------------ --------------------------- ------------------\n  150                200        15        1070                                       12.896 45(12)               3.84(8)            12.924 30(14)               4.70(3)\n  150                350        5         1028                                       12.896 709(78)              2.76(8)            12.924 579(59)              2.21(4)\n  150                500        3         2236                                       12.896 688(48)              1.68(6)            12.924 470(41)              1.48(4)\n  250\u00a0[@Pask:2008]   350        5         2938                                       12.896 651(35)              2.24(2)            12.924 431(35)              2.41(3)\n  250\u00a0[@Pask:2008]   500        3         230                                        12.896 53(12)               2.55(7)            12.924 446(65)              1.65(5)\n  500                350        5         1844                                       12.896 525(80)              2.06(5)            12.924 446(99)              2.01(7)\n\nThe pulse-amplified continuous wave (CW) laser system\u00a0[@Hori:06; @Hori:09p] was constructed by splitting a CW laser of wavelength $\\lambda$\u00a0$\\sim$\u00a0726.1\u00a0nm into two seed beams. These were each pulse amplified by a NG:Yag laser and three Bethune dye cells, the second delayed by a time $T$ after the first. The pump beams were stretched so that the pulse lengths of the two lasers were 18\u00a0ns and 13\u00a0ns\u00a0[@Pask:2008], slightly longer than the Auger lifetime of the daughter state, to achieve a high depopulation efficiency.\n\nThe microwave apparatus was similar to that described in Sakaguchi *et al.*\u00a0[@Sakaguchi:04] and a schematic is displayed in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:subfig:target\\]. The microwave pulse was synthesised by a vector network analyser (Anritsu 37225B) referenced to a 10\u00a0MHz satellite signal (HP\u00a058503B) and amplified by a travelling wave tube amplifier (TMD PTC6358). A waveguide carried the pulse to a custom made stainless steel cylindrical cavity, with central frequency $\\sim$\u00a012.91\u00a0GHz, which provided the desired shape for the field (TM$_{110}$ mode) at the target. Steel meshes (92% transparency) covered both ends of the cavity so that antiprotions and the two laser beams could enter the target from opposite directions. The cavity was overcoupled to the waveguide to achive a broad frequency range $\\sim$\u00a0100\u00a0MHz. A mu-metal shell surrounded the target region to protect from external magnetic fields. Indeed the field measured in three dimensions within the target was $B$\u00a0$<$\u00a00.03\u00a0G.\n\nPreviously, different choke positions of a triple-stub-tuner were used to match the impedance of the waveguide to that of the cavity for a range of frequencies\u00a0[@Sakaguchi:04]. This time, a constant microwave power $P$ was produced at the target by firing a predetermined signal strength down the unmatched waveguide. Most of the signal was reflected and dumped to a 50\u00a0$\\mathrm{\\Omega}$ terminator by a three-way circulator. This removed standing waves from the system and allowed the relatively small amount of power absorbed by the cavity to be controlled to within 1\u00a0dB over the frequency range. The power was monitored by an undercoupled pickup antenna situated opposite the waveguide.\n\nTable \\[tab:List\\] shows a summary of all data measured for this experiment. The line shape was determined in Pask *et al.*\u00a0[@Pask:2008] to be $$\\label{eq:linewidth}\nX(\\omega) = \\frac{|2b|^2}{|2b|^2+(\\omega_0-\\omega)^2}\\sin^2 \\bigg\\{ \\frac{1}{2} \\Big[|2b|^2+(\\omega_0-\\omega)^2 \\Big]^{\\frac{1}{2}}T \\bigg\\}.$$ Data measured with the same $p$ and $T$ were fitted simultaneously with common parameters for height, width and central frequency. Two data sets were systematically examined: 1) Microwave power dependence, and 2) Pressure dependence\n\n1\\) The ac Stark effect shifts the E1 transitions by less than one part in $10^9$\u00a0[@Hori:06]. Its equivalent, the ac Zeeman shift of the M1 transitions is far weaker and therefore far too small to be resolved. A power dependence measurement was nevertheless examined for a complete understanding of the systematics. At a constant pressure $p$\u00a0=\u00a0150\u00a0mbar, resonance profiles were measured with various laser delays $T$\u00a0=\u00a0200\u00a0ns, 350\u00a0ns and 500\u00a0ns at microwave powers carefully chosen to achieve a $\\pi$-pulse\u00a0[@Pask:2008p], $P$\u00a0=\u00a015\u00a0W, 5\u00a0W and 3\u00a0W, respectively. For illustrative purposes the average of these scans is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:All\\] where the the dominating broadening effect was due to the Fourier transform of the rectangular microwave pulse of length $T$\u00a0[@Pask:2009p]. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:subfig:power\\_points\\] shows that no power dependent trend was observed, therefore all data measured at common target densities could be averaged.\n\n2\\) In 2006 Korenman predicted a collisional shift of $\\Delta$\u00a0$\\equiv$\u00a0d$\\nu/$d$p$\u00a0=\u00a00.3\u00a0kHz/mbar\u00a0[@Korenman:2006] and, for the first time, a resolution has been achieved to examine this. High statistic microwave resonance profiles were measured at $p$\u00a0=\u00a0150\u00a0mbar and 500\u00a0mbar. Previous measurements had been made at $p$\u00a0=\u00a0250\u00a0mbar\u00a0[@Pask:2008].\n\nThe results are displayed in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:subfig:density\\_points\\] and clearly show that, if any such density dependence existed, the trend may have the same magnitude but opposite sign. Extrapolating the points to zero density can be performed with lines of average gradient $\\Delta$\u00a0=\u00a0$-$0.26\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.2\u00a0kHz/mbar. Such a large error neither confirms nor precludes conclusively the existence of a shift. The two fits in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:subfig:density\\_points\\] are shown with the same gradient because no density shift was observed for the difference between the transitions $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$\u00a0=\u00a0$\\nu^{-}_{\\rm{HF}}$\u00a0$-$\u00a0$\\nu^{+}_{\\rm{HF}}$, see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:Diff\\], in accordance with predictions.\n\nA more recent calculation\u00a0[@Korenman:2009p], based on measurements of the collisional broadening\u00a0[@Pask:2009p], predicts $\\Delta$\u00a0=\u00a0$-$0.048\u00a0kHz/mbar which is less than the experimental precision. As a negative slope contradicts the predictions, the average of each measurement was taken but the error used was that of the extrapolation to zero density from the fit.\n\n![The difference for $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$ between experiment and theory\u00a0[@Korobov:01; @Kino:03APAC] as a function of target pressure. The experimental values are shown as squares ($\\blacksquare$). The point shown at $x$\u00a0=\u00a00 and represented by a circle ([$\\bullet$]{}) represents the average of the total data.[]{data-label=\"fig:Diff\"}](Exp_The_All_Diff.eps)\n\nOther systematic effects that influence the measurement include external magnetic fields, precision of the microwave frequency source, shot-to-shot microwave power fluctuations and variances in the laser position and fluence from day to day. However these effects have been determined to be far smaller than the shot-to-shot fluctuations of the antiproton beam. Data was measured over a long period to reduce these drift effects and variations in the ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}$ intensity have been reduced by normalising the second laser induced annihilation peak with the first (proportional to the number of antiprotons captured). Despite these considerations the reduced chi-squared $\\chi_{\\rm{red}}$ of the fit was $\\chi_{\\rm{red}} \\, \\sim \\, 3$. To adjust for this the error bars were inflated by $\\sqrt{\\chi_{\\rm{red}}} \\, \\sim \\, 1.7$.\n\nBakalov calculated that a broadening of $\\nu^{\\pm}_{\\rm{HF}}$ due to an external magnetic field occurs at a rate of $\\Gamma_{\\pm}$\u00a0$\\sim$\u00a05.6\u00a0MHz/G\u00a0[@Bakalov:2009p]. The similarity between the Fourier transform of the microwave pulse and the spectral line widths\u00a0[@Pask:2009p] confirms that the target region was well shielded during the experiment. Due to referencing to a 10\u00a0MHz GPS receiver, the precision of the frequency source is several orders of magnitude less than the resolution of this experiment. Thefore the statistical errors are much greater than the systematic.\n\n                          $\\nu^{+}_{\\rm{HF}}$ (GHz)   $\\nu^{-}_{\\rm{HF}}$ (GHz)   $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$ (MHz)\n  ----------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------------\n  This work               12.896 641(63)              12.924 461(63)              27.825(33)\n  2002\u00a0[@Widmann:02]      12.895 96(34)               12.924 67(29)               28.71(44)\n  Korobov\u00a0[@Korobov:01]   12.896 3(13)                12.924 2(13)                27.896(33)\n  Kino\u00a0[@Kino:03APAC]     12.896 0(13)                12.923 9(13)                27.889(33)\n\nThe individual transition frequencies have a negligible dependence on $\\mu^{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}_{s}$. However $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$ is directly proportional to this value. The predicted density shift for $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$ is far smaller, $\\Delta$\u00a0=\u00a00.003\u00a0Hz/mbar\u00a0[@Korenman:2009p] than the precision of this experiment. If this is the case, the total splitting can be calculated from the difference between each pair of transitions that were measured at common densities $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$\u00a0=\u00a0$\\sum^N_i (\\nu^{-}_{\\rm{HF}_i}$\u00a0$-$\u00a0$\\nu^{+}_{\\rm{HF}_i})/N$, rather than the difference between the sum of each transition measurement $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$\u00a0=\u00a0$(\\sum^N_i\\nu^{-}_{\\rm{HF}_i}$\u00a0$-$\u00a0$\\sum^N_i\\nu^{+}_{\\rm{HF}_i})/N$, where $i$ is the index of a measurement and $N$\u00a0=\u00a03 is the total number of density dependent measurements. Figure\u00a0\\[fig:Diff\\] displays $\\Delta \\nu_{HF}$ as a function of target pressure compared to the two most recent theories.\n\nFitting a first order polynomial, results in a gradient almost half that of its associated error, $\\Delta$\u00a0=\u00a00.24\u00a0$\\pm$\u00a00.37 kHz/mbar, so the above holds and the data can be averaged to obtain a final value of $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$. Table\u00a0\\[tab:Results\\] presents the data for the recent and previous experiments compared to the two most up to date theories.\n\nThis work demonstrates the completion of a systematic experimental study on the HF splitting of the (37,\u00a035) state of ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}\\rm{He}^+}}$. The experimental error of $\\nu^{\\pm}_{\\rm{HF}}$ has been reduced by a factor 20 less than that of the theoretical calculations and, although $\\Delta_{\\rm{exp-th}}$\u00a0=\u00a0300\u00a0-\u00a0600\u00a0kHz, it is well within the estimated theoretical error 1.3\u00a0MHz. The experimental precision for $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$ has reached that of theory and has been improved by more than a factor of 10 over the first measurement\u00a0[@Widmann:02]. There is a two sigma agreement between theory and experiment.\n\nThe sensitivity $S$ of $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$ on $\\mu^{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}_{s}$ for the (37,\u00a035) state is $S$\u00a0$\\equiv$\u00a0d$E$/d$\\mu^{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}_{s}$\u00a0=\u00a010.1\u00a0MHz/$\\mu_{N}$\u00a0[@Bakalov:07], where $\\mu_{N}$ is the nuclear magneton. Thus the magnetic moment can be determined to be:\n\n$$\\mu^{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}_{s} \\, = \\, -2.7862 (83) \\mu_{N},$$\n\nwhere the uncertainty has been calculated by adding $\\Delta_{\\rm{exp-th}}$ with the errors of theory and experiment in quadrature, resulting in a one sigma error, slightly less than the value determined by Kreissl *et\u00a0al.*\u00a0[@Kreissl:88], while the deviation from the magnitude of the proton spin magnetic moment, $\\mu^p_s \\, = \\, 2.792847351(28)$, is similar but opposite in sign.\n\nThe absolute values for the magnetic moments of the proton and antiproton are in agreement within\n\n$$\\frac{\\mu^p_s \\, - \\mid \\mu^{{\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}}_{s} \\mid}{\\mu^p_s} \\, = \\, (2.4 \\, \\pm \\, 2.9) \\, \\times \\, 10^{-3}.$$\n\nThe limit of experimental precision has been reached for the (37,\u00a035) state. The study of other states with larger $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$ could potentially increase the precision but the system cannot generally be improved due mainly to uncontrollable fluctuations of the AD beam. Preparations are underway to measure the HF splitting of ${\\ensuremath{\\overline{\\rm{p}}}}^3 \\rm{He}^+$ which, because of the additional helion spin, provides a more thorough test of the theory but yields no further information on the magnetic moment. The theorists are currently working on an $\\alpha^6$ calculation but a significant change in $\\Delta \\nu_{\\rm{HF}}$ is not expected.\\\nThe authors would like to acknowledge V.\u00a0Korobov (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Russia), D.\u00a0Bakalov (INRNE, Bulgaria) for many helpful discussions. We thank two undergraduate students: P.\u00a0Somkuti and K.\u00a0Umlaub who contributed to this project. We are also grateful to the AD operators for providing the antiproton beam. This work was supported by Monbukagakusho (grant no. 15002005), by the Hungarian National Research Foundation (NK67974 and K72172), the EURYI Award of the European Science Foundation and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the Munich-Centre for Advanced Photonics (MAP) Cluster of DFG and the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'It is necessary for a mobile robot to be able to efficiently plan a path from its starting, or current, location to a desired goal location. This is a trivial task when the environment is static. However, the operational environment of the robot is rarely static, and it often has many moving obstacles. The robot may encounter one, or many, of these unknown and unpredictable moving obstacles. The robot will need to decide how to proceed when one of these obstacles is obstructing it\u2019s path. A method of dynamic replanning using RRT\\* is presented. The robot will modify it\u2019s current plan when an unknown random moving obstacle obstructs the path. Various experimental results show the effectiveness of the proposed method.'\nauthor:\n- \n- \nbibliography:\n- 'Thesis\\_bibliography.bib'\ntitle: |\n    Dynamic Path Planning and Replanning\\\n    for Mobile Robots using RRT\\*\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nPath planning has been one of the most researched problems in the area of robotics. The primary goal of any path planning algorithm is to provide a collision free path from a start state to an end state within the configuration space of the robot. Probabilistic planning algorithms, such as the Probabilistic Roadmap Method (PRM) [@Kavraki_96] and the Rapidly-exploring Random Tree (RRT) [@Lavalle98], provide a quick solution at the expense of optimality. Since its introduction the RRT algorithm has been one of the most popular probabilistic planning algorithms. The RRT is a fast, simple algorithm that incrementally generates a tree in the configuration space until the goal is found.\n\nThe RRT has a significant limitation in finding an asymptotically optimal path, and has been shown to never converge to an asymptotically optimal solution [@Karaman_2] [@Karaman_1]. There is extensive research on the subject of improving the performance of the RRT. Simple improvements such as the Bi-Directional RRT and the Rapidly-exploring Random Forest (RRF) improve the search coverage and speed at which a single-query solution is found. The Anytime RRT [@Ferguson_1] provides a significant improvement in cost-based planning. The RRT\\* algorithm provides a significant improvement in the optimality of the RRT and has been shown to provide an asymptotically sub-optimal solution [@Karaman_2].\n\nSince the introduction of the RRT\\* algorithm, research has expanded to discover new ways to improve upon the algorithm. Research includes adding heuristics [@Perez_1] [@Gammell_1] or bounds [@Salzman_1] to the algorithm in order to maintain the convergence of the algorithm but reduce the execution time. Additional research attempts to guide the algorithm through intelligent sampling [@Islam_1], or guided sampling through an artificial potential field [@Qureshi_1].\n\nIn many scenarios the operational environment is rarely static. The path from a single query will often be obstructed during execution. For that reason the topic of replanning is very important to robotic path planning. It is not feasible to discard an entire search tree and start over. One method is to store waypoints and regrow trees called the ERRT [@Bruce_2002]. Another method (DRRT) is to place the root of the tree at the goal location, so that only a small number of branches may be lost or invalidated when replanning [@Ferguson_2]. The Multipartite RRT maintains a set of subtrees that may be pruned and reconnected, along with previous states to guide regrowth. It is essentially a combination of DRRT and ERRT [@Kuffner_1]. More recently the RRT\\* algorithm has been incorporated into replanning. RRT^X^ is an algorithm that uses RRT\\* to continuously update the path during execution [@Otte]. The RRT^X^ is able to compensate for instantaneous changes in the static environment which is outside the scope of this work.\n\nThe contribution of this paper is the method using the RRT\\* algorithm for replanning in a dynamic environment with random, unpredictable moving obstacles. Also included is the comparison of RRT and RRT\\* algorithms in a complex 2-D environment.\n\nThe remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section II provides an overview of the RRT\\* algorithm. Section III will present the replanning method using RRT\\* in a dynamic environment. Section IV contains the results from all simulations. Section V presents the conclusions and future work.\n\nRobot Path Planning using the RRT\\*\n===================================\n\nThe RRT\\* algorithm provides a significant improvement in the quality of the paths discovered in the configuration space over it\u2019s predecessor the RRT. The quality of the path is determined by the cost associated with moving from the start location to the end location. While RRT\\* does produce higher quality paths, the algorithm does have a longer execution time. The longer execution time of RRT\\* is due to the algorithm making many additional calls to the local planner in order to continuously improve the discovered paths. RRT\\* operates in a very similar way as RRT. The algorithm builds a tree using random samples from the configuration space of the robot and connects new samples to the tree as they are discovered. There are two primary differences between RRT and RRT\\*. The first difference is in the method that new edges are added to the tree. The second difference is an added step to change the tree in order to reduce path cost using the newly added vertex. Each of these differences contributes to the improvement of discovered paths over time and is reason RRT\\* will converge to an asymptotically sub-optimal solution.\n\nWhen a random vertex is added to the tree, the RRT will select the nearest neighbor as the parent for this new vertex and edge. RRT\\* will select the best neighbor as the parent for the new vertex. While finding the nearest neighbor, RRT\\* considers all the nodes within a neighborhood of the random sample. RRT\\* will then examine the cost associated with connecting to each of these nodes. The node yielding the lowest cost to reach the random sample will be selected as the parent, and the vertex and edge are added accordingly.\n\n[latex@errorgobble]{}\n\n$T \\leftarrow $InitializeTree() $T \\leftarrow $InsertNode($\\emptyset$,$q_{init}$,$T$)\n\nThe RRT\\* algorithm begins in the same way as the RRT. However, when selecting the nearest neighbor the algorithm also selects the set of nodes, $Q_{near}$, in the tree that are in the neighborhood of the random sample $q_{rand}$. Line 6 of Algorithm 3 is the first major difference between RRT\\* and the RRT. Instead of selecting the nearest neighbor to the random sample, the $ChooseParent()$ function will select the best parent from the neighborhood of nodes.\n\n[latex@errorgobble]{}\n\n$q_{min} \\leftarrow q_{nearest}$ $c_{min} \\leftarrow $Cost($q_{nearest}$) + c($q_{rand}$) $q_{min}$\n\nAlgorithm 4 describes the $ChooseParent()$ function. This function maintains the node with the lowest total cost for reaching $q_{rand}$. At line 1 of Algorithm 4 the nearest neighbor, $q_{nearest}$, is considered the minimum cost neighbor, or $q_{min}$. On line 2 the cost associated with reaching the new random sample $q_{rand}$ by using $q_{nearest}$ as the parent is stored as the current best cost, or $c_{min}$. The algorithm then searches the set of nodes in the neighborhood of $q_{rand}$. The $Steer()$ function on line 4 of Algorithm 4 will return a path from the nearby node, $q_{near}$ to $q_{rand}$. If this path is obstacle free and has a lower cost than the current minimum cost, then the nearby node becomes the best neighbor, $q_{min}$ and this cost becomes the best cost $c_{min}$ (lines 7-9 of Algorithm 4). When all nearby nodes have been examined the function returns the best neighbor. The new random node is inserted into the tree using $q_{min}$ as the parent. The next step is the second major difference between the RRT\\* and the RRT algorithms. Line 8 of Algorithm 3 calls the $Rewire()$ function.\n\n[latex@errorgobble]{}\n\n$T$\n\nThe $Rewire()$ function, described in Algorithm 5, changes the tree structure based on the newly inserted node $q_{rand}$. This function again uses the nearby neighborhood of nodes, $Q_{near}$, as candidates for rewiring. The $Rewire()$ function uses the $Steer()$ function to get the path, except this time the path will start from the new node, $q_{rand}$ and go to the nearby node $q_{near}$. If this path is obstacle free and the total cost of this path is lower than the current cost to reach $q_{near}$ (line 3 of Algorithm 5). Then the new node $q_{rand}$ is a better parent than the current parent of $q_{near}$. The tree is then rewired to remove the edge to the current parent of $q_{near}$, and add an edge to make $q_{rand}$ the parent of $q_{near}$. This is done using the $ReConnect()$ function on line 4 of Algorithm 5.\n\nThe functions $ChooseParent()$ and $Rewire()$ change the structure of the search tree when compared to the RRT algorithm. The tree generated by the RRT has branches that move in all directions. The tree generated by the RRT\\* algorithm rarely has branches that move back in the direction of the parent. The $ChooseParent()$ function ensures edges are created and always moving away from the start location. The $Rewire()$ function changes the internal structure of the tree to ensure internal vertices do not add unnecessary steps on any discovered path. The $ChooseParent()$ and $Rewire()$ functions guarantee the paths discovered will be asymptotically sub-optimal because these functions are always minimizing the costs to reach each node within the tree.\n\nDynamic Replanning\n==================\n\nOverview\n--------\n\nA real world environment is not static, and it is full of moving obstacles. These obstacles are often moving in unpredictable directions, which makes planning tasks to avoid them difficult. When a moving obstacle is known and is following a known trajectory, the configuration space can be modified to account for this trajectory. When the obstacle is unknown, the robot will need to be able to dynamically determine a course of action in order to avoid a collision. In this section a method of dynamic replanning is proposed in order to avoid a random obstacle when it is detected by the robot.\n\nSimulation Environment\n----------------------\n\nFor the following simulations the environment remains very similar. The robot is given a configuration space from which to build a tree using RRT\\* and determine the best path to reach the goal configuration from the start configuration. In all the experiments below, the robot was allowed a tree of varying sizes to evaluate the performance with different node densities. During the simulation a few random moving obstacles are added to the environment, described in the next section. These obstacles represent a region of the configuration space that would be a collision if the robot were to enter.\n\n### Path Execution\n\nAfter the initial planning process, the robot begins to execute the optimal path found by the search tree. The robot traverses the optimal path by selecting the next node and required velocity vector to reach it, see lines 3 and 4 of Algorithm 6. This process is described in Algorithm 7 below. When the vertex is reached the robot changes the velocity vector to move toward the next node. This process continues until the robot reaches the goal node. If the robot encounters a random moving obstacle that is obstructing the path a replan event occurs.\n\n[latex@errorgobble]{}\n\nSetObsDestination($numObs$) SetObsVelocities($numObs$) SetRobotDestination() SetRobotVelocity()\n\nRandom Moving Obstacles\n-----------------------\n\nThe random moving obstacles force the robot to dynamically plan around the obstacle using RRT\\*. In order for the obstacles to move about the environment, a graph is created to provide the paths between the static obstacles, and the vertices are the intersections of these paths. Upon initialization of the simulation the obstacles are placed at random vertices. The vertices are chosen such that the robot will have a chance to move before encountering a random obstacle. When the simulation begins the moving obstacles choose a random adjacent vertex and begins moving toward that vertex, see lines 1 and 2 of Algorithm 6. When the vertex is reached a new random vertex is chosen and the obstacle moves in the new direction, line 6 of Algorithm 6.\n\n### Random Obstacle Detection\n\nRobots operating in a real world scenario will have sensors, such as a LIDAR, to detect both static and dynamic obstacles. Sensors are not included in this simulation. Instead a detection range is placed on the robot. The simulation controls whether or not a moving obstacle is within the detection range of the robot (lines 7 and 8 of Algorithm 7). If a moving obstacle is within range the $Steer()$ function is used, by the simulation, to determine if any static obstacles are blocking the robot\u2019s line of sight to the moving obstacle.\n\n[latex@errorgobble]{}\n\n$robotLocation \\leftarrow robotLocation + robotVelocity$\n\nThe obstacle must be observed for a minimum of two time steps in order to determine the direction that the obstacle is moving. Once the direction is observed the robot can determine if the moving obstacle is blocking the path or not, line 11 of Algorithm 7. If the robot decides that the path is blocked, the replanning event begins.\n\nPath Replanning\n---------------\n\nPath replanning begins with the determination of whether or not the moving obstacle is blocking the path, described in the next section. Algorithm 8, below, lists all the steps executed during the replanning process. The next step is to find the location along the optimal path that is beyond the obstacle. Next, the tree generated by RRT\\* is modified and expanded in order to find a path around the obstacle. Finally, the best path around the obstacle is chosen and the execution of this sub-path begins. Each of these steps is described in the following sub-sections.\n\n[latex@errorgobble]{}\n\nInvalidateNodes() GetReplanGoalLocation() SetReplanSamplingLimits() Rewire($T$, $Q_{all}$, $NULL$, $q_{robot}$) RRT\\*($q_{robot}$) SetReplanPath()\n\n### Path Obstruction\n\nThe method for determining if the moving obstacle is blocking the path is a series of trigonometric functions using a direction vector from the robot to the moving obstacle and a comparison between the robot velocity vector and the moving obstacle velocity vector. Since the configuration space is 2-Dimensional, the inverse tangent can be used to find the angles of the vectors. To obtain the direction vector to the moving obstacle the equation is: $$angle_{direction} = atan2((Y_{obs} - Y_{robot}), (X_{obs} - X_{robot})).$$ Where $ (X_{robot},Y_{robot})$ is the position of the robot and $ (X_{obs},Y_{obs})$ is the position of the obstacle. This will return an angle in degrees over the range $ (-180, 180)$. Similarly the angle of the robot\u2019s velocity vector can be obtained using the following equation: $$angle_{V_{robot}} = atan2(V_{j}, V_{i}).$$ Where $V_{i}$ and $V_{j}$ are the X and Y components of the robot velocity vector. Using the angles from (1) and (2) the difference can be taken to see if they are similar. If the absolute value of the difference between the two angles is less than some threshold, then the robot is moving toward the moving obstacle. Note, the angle difference is normalized to be in the range$ (-180, 180)$ before the absolute value is taken. This is done for all angle comparisons: $$|angle_{direction} - angle_{V_{robot}}| < angle_{thresh}.$$ If the robot is moving in the direction of the random obstacle the velocity vectors are examined. Substituting the obstacle velocity into (2) above the angle of the obstacle velocity can be obtained. Next, the differences between the velocity vectors is found: $$angle_{V_{diff}} = |angle_{V_{robot}} - angle_{V_{obs}}| .$$ There are three possibilities from this point. If the angle difference between the velocity vectors is less than the angle threshold, then the robot and the obstacle are moving in a similar direction. Second, if the angle difference between the velocity vectors is greather than $ 180 - angle_{thresh}$, then the robot and the obstacle are approximately moving toward each other. Last, if the angle difference falls outside of these ranges the moving obstacle and the robot are moving in different directions.\n\nFor the first case: The robot will simply follow the obstacle, until the obstacle changes direction, or the path takes the robot away from the obstacle. The robot will then choose from one of the other conditions. For the second case: The robot quickly activates a replan event to get out of the way. The random obstacle may move out of the way on its own, but there is no way of predicting that will occur. Finally, if the robot and the obstacle are moving in different directions, the robot ignores the obstacle unless it gets too close. This third condition catches the event that the robot moves out from a corner and a random obstacle is detected very close by. This event is best summed up with the following example: When two people approach a hallway intersection they will run into each other if they continue on their current course, it is only when they see each other that they can adjust to avoid a collision.\n\n### Select Replan Goal Location\n\nThe second step in the replan event, line 2 in Algorithm 8, is to find a location that will navigate the robot around the random obstacle. First, any nodes that are in collision with a random moving obstacle are invalidated, not deleted. The only exception is the goal location of the optimal path. After this step an assumption had to be made to simplify and speed up the rest of the replanning process. The assumption is that the robot is currently following the best path in order to reach the goal location and should return to this path after the moving obstacle is avoided. Using this assumption only the nodes along the optimal path are examined. Nodes that are farther from the robot than the random obstacle are candidate nodes. The node on the optimal path that is immediately following the node that is closest to the obstacle, without colliding, will be the replan goal location.\n\n### Modify Search Tree\n\nThe third step is to modify the original search tree in order to find a way around the moving obstacle. First a node is added to the tree at the robot\u2019s current location. Using the distance to the replan goal node as a metric, a sampling area is established, line 3 in Algorithm 8. Then, using $Rewire()$, every node within the sampling area is rewired such that the robot\u2019s current location becomes the parent of that node. New nodes are then sampled within this area and added to the tree using RRT\\*. Since there are already many nodes in the tree only a small number will need to be added. However, the number of nearest neighbors used during the $ChooseParent()$ function and the $Rewire()$ function is increased. This increase allows each new node to direct the existing tree toward the replan goal location.\n\n### Sub-path Selection and Execution\n\nWhen the search tree modification is complete the best path to the replan goal location is found. Path execution will begin again as it did at the beginning of the simulation. When the robot reaches the replan goal location, the execution of the original optimal path resumes. If the robot encounters another moving obstacle and determines the path is obstructed again. The replanning is repeated, however the replan goal location will always be a node on the original optimal path.\n\nResults\n=======\n\nThe Simulation Environment\n--------------------------\n\nThe environment for all of the experiments is a complex 2-Dimensional environment that will also serve as the configuration space for the robot. The environment is complex due to the number of obstacles and several narrow passages. There are also several sub-optimal paths where the algorithm may get stuck. For each experiment the path cost is measured in Euclidean distance. The environment is also intended to mimic a potential real world situation where there would be streets or sidewalks and open areas such as parks and plazas. In the RRT\\* results presented below, the algorithm is allowed a maximum of 5000 nodes. The optimal path length is 98.48 units.\n\nRRT\\* Results\n-------------\n\nThe RRT\\* evaluation was conducted in the following way: There is not a growth factor for extending the tree and the tree is goal oriented. The expecation as the tree grows will be long branches. These branches are often inefficient, the RRT\\* $Rewire()$ function will remove these long inefficient branches as the algorithm executes in favor of shorter, lower cost branches. The algorithm also has a maximum number of nearest neighbors, or neighborhood size that is configurable to the algorithm. This implementation of RRT\\* has a maximum number of nearest neighbors equal to 1% of the total number of nodes.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[F.movietree2:c\\] shows the result of the search tree using the RRT\\* algorithm. The best path length found is 103.96 units.\n\nDynamic Replanning Results\n--------------------------\n\nThe simulation results shown below demonstrate the robot\u2019s ability to plan a path around the moving obstacle and reach the goal. Using RRT\\* during the replanning step allows an efficient path to be found to avoid the moving obstacle and continue on the original optimal path. Since the obstacles move randomly, it is possible for the robot to execute the optimal path and never be obstucted by a moving obstacle. Only examples where the robot did encounter these obstacles are shown.\n\nThe first set of results use a search tree containing 2000 nodes. Upon completion of the search tree the moving obstacles are placed randomly within the configuration space, and the simulation begins. Fig.\u00a0\\[F.movietree1:a\\] shows the search tree found by the robot upon reaching 2000 nodes.\n\nWhen executing this path the robot encounters two random obstacles near the center of the configuration space. One obstacle moves across the path and obstructs the robot. The robot triggers a replanning event at this time. Fig.\u00a0\\[F.movietree1:b\\] shows when the robot encountered the moving obstacles and replanned to avoid them. A second obstacle is nearby and can be seen by the robot and must be considered when replanning. Following the replanning steps in Algorithm 8, the robot will select a goal location, then modify the search tree to avoid the obstruction.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[F.movietree1:c\\] shows the full modified search tree. There is an obvious empty region of the configuration space where the moving obstacles are located. The abscence of branches within this area shows the robot has considered this space as obstacle space, rather than free space. Note, the nodes in this region are not removed, they are considered invalid. If the robot should need to replan again, and this area is free of any moving obstacles, these nodes would be available.\n\nWhen the robot reaches the replanning goal location the original path can resume. Fig.\u00a0\\[F.movietree1:d\\] shows the completed path, along with the final positions of the random moving obstacles. The magenta line shows the path followed by the robot. The sections in blue are unexecuted portions of the original path.\n\nThe second set of results is similar to the first, with one exception. The random moving obstacle initial positions were selected in order to increase the probability the robot would encounter one, or many, while executing the path. Fig.\u00a0\\[F.movietree2:a\\] shows the starting locations of the moving obstacles. The robot was obstructed three times during the execution of the path and successfully planned around the moving obstacle each time. Fig.\u00a0\\[F.movietree2:b\\] shows the final positions of moving obstacles and the path followed by the robot.\n\nThe final set of results is a simulation with a search tree containing 5000 nodes and 3 obstacles moving at random in the configuration space. The three moving obstacles in this simulation were placed similarly to those in the second simulation. In this simulation the robot encounters a moving obstacle very early in the execution of the path. The robot finds a path around the moving obstacle and completes the path. Fig.\u00a0\\[F.movietree2:d\\] shows the final positions of the obstacles and the executed path.\n\nConclusion and Future Work\n==========================\n\nThe replanning method presented performs well and is a good first step toward a more robust method of replanning when unknown randomly moving obstacles obstruct the robot\u2019s path. Future work will research a floating replan goal location to minimize the total remaining cost to the query goal. Minimizing the modifications to the original search tree is another area of improvement. This method has only been implemented in a 2-Dimensional configuration space. The algorithm must be expanded and modified to operate in higher dimension configuration spaces. The simulations up to this point have been with small numbers of moving obstacles, further research is needed to determine how the algorithm performs when there are many random moving obstacles. Additional research is pursuing multi-robot systems. Efficient path planning and replanning will benefit: cooperative sensing systems [@La_2; @La_4], formation control systems[@La_1; @La_3; @La_5; @La_7; @La_ICRA10] , and target tracking and observation [@La_6].\n\n![Replanning results from the first set[]{data-label=\"F.movietree1\"}](movie1.png \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"5cm\"} \\[F.movietree1:a\\]\n\n![Replanning results from the first set[]{data-label=\"F.movietree1\"}](movie1-snapshot-sm.png \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"5cm\"} \\[F.movietree1:b\\]\n\n![Replanning results from the first set[]{data-label=\"F.movietree1\"}](movie1-replanTree-sm.png \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"5cm\"} \\[F.movietree1:c\\]\n\n![Replanning results from the first set[]{data-label=\"F.movietree1\"}](movie1-final-sm.png \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"5cm\"} \\[F.movietree1:d\\]\n\n![A sample RRT\\* search tree containing 5000 nodes and replanning results from the second and third sets. []{data-label=\"F.movietree2\"}](movie2-snapshot-sm.png \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"5cm\"} \\[F.movietree2:a\\]\n\n![A sample RRT\\* search tree containing 5000 nodes and replanning results from the second and third sets. []{data-label=\"F.movietree2\"}](movie2-final-sm.png \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"5cm\"} \\[F.movietree2:b\\]\n\n![A sample RRT\\* search tree containing 5000 nodes and replanning results from the second and third sets. []{data-label=\"F.movietree2\"}](RRT-star5000-103p960-sm.png \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"5cm\"} \\[F.movietree2:c\\]\n\n![A sample RRT\\* search tree containing 5000 nodes and replanning results from the second and third sets. []{data-label=\"F.movietree2\"}](movie3-final-sm.png \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\" height=\"5cm\"} \\[F.movietree2:d\\]\n"}
-{"text": "---\naddress: 'Physics Department, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708-0305'\nauthor:\n- 'K. M. O\u2019Hara, M. E. Gehm, S. R. Granade, S. Bali, and J. E. Thomas'\ntitle: 'Stable,\u00a0Strongly\u00a0Attractive,\u00a0Two-State\u00a0Mixture\u00a0of\u00a0Lithium\u00a0Fermions\u00a0in\u00a0an\u00a0Optical\u00a0Trap'\n---\n\n\\#1[[$\\backslash$\\#1]{}]{}\n\nTrapped, ultracold atomic vapors offer exciting new opportunities for fundamental studies of an interacting Fermi gas in which the temperature, density and interaction strength can be independently controlled. Recently, a degenerate gas of fermionic $^{40}{\\rm K}$ has been produced by using a two-state mixture to enable s-wave scattering and evaporation in a magnetic trap\u00a0[@Jin1]. By removing one species, the properties of the noninteracting degenerate gas were measured, demonstrating that the momentum distribution and the total energy obey Fermi-Dirac statistics\u00a0[@Jin1]. However, the properties of interacting two-state fermionic vapors have not been explored experimentally.\n\nTheoretical treatments of an interacting Fermi gas have focused extensively on $^{6}{\\rm\nLi}$\u00a0[@BCS; @Stringari; @HighTC; @Hydrodynamic; @Parametric; @Cooperpair; @BruunBurnett; @ConMatRev]. Certain two-state $^{6}{\\rm Li}$ mixtures are predicted to be strongly attractive, i.e., they have anomalously large and negative scattering lengths\u00a0[@Elastic] arising from a near-zero energy resonance in the triplet state\u00a0[@s-wave]. It has been predicted that these strongly attractive mixtures can undergo a transition to a superfluid state at a relatively high transition temperature\u00a0[@BCS; @HighTC]. In addition, the two-state effective interaction potential is widely tunable in a magnetic field, permitting systematic studies of fundamental phenomena such as collective oscillations for both the normal and superfluid phases\u00a0[@Stringari; @Hydrodynamic; @Parametric], as well as new tests of superconductivity theory\u00a0[@HighTC].\n\nUnfortunately, magnetically trappable mixtures in $^{6}{\\rm Li}$ with large s-wave scattering lengths are not stable, since there are correspondingly large spin-exchange and dipolar decay rates\u00a0[@BCS; @Cooperpair; @Elastic]. Hence, the methods employed to study degenerate $^{40}{\\rm K}$ are not applicable. For this reason, we developed an ultrastable ${\\rm CO}_{2}$ laser trap to confine a stable mixture of the two lowest $^{6}{\\rm Li}$ hyperfine states\u00a0[@O'Hara]. However, attaining a large and negative scattering length in this mixture requires high magnetic fields $B \\geq  800$ G to exploit either a Feshbach resonance or the triplet scattering length\u00a0[@Cooperpair; @Elastic].\n\nIn this Letter, we show that there exists another stable hyperfine state mixture in $^{6}{\\rm Li}$ which has the following unique properties. First, we predict that the scattering length $a$ is large, negative, and widely tunable at [*low*]{} magnetic field $B$. By monitoring the rate of evaporation from the ${\\rm CO}_{2}$ laser trap at a fixed well depth, we measure $|a|=540_{-100}^{+210}\\,a_{0}$ at $B=8.3$ G. This result confirms for the first time that very large scattering lengths exist in $^{6}{\\rm Li}$ mixtures. The predicted scattering length is $-490\\,a_{0}$ at $B=8.3$ G, consistent with our observations, and is expected to increase to $-1615\\,a_{0}$ as $B\\rightarrow 0$. Second, we find that this system is stable against spin exchange collisions provided that $B\\neq 0$. In addition, the dipolar decay rate is predicted to be very small\u00a0[@Verhaar], consistent with our observations. Finally, in the experiments, a Raman $\\pi$ pulse is employed to abruptly create an interacting mixture from a noninteracting one, a desirable feature for studies of many-body quantum dynamics\u00a0[@Zoller].\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:levels\\] shows the hyperfine states for $^{6}{\\rm Li}$ labelled $|1\\rangle -|6\\rangle$, in order of increasing energy in a magnetic field. At low field, the states $|1\\rangle$ and $|2\\rangle$ correspond to the $|F=1/2,\\,m\\rangle$ states, while states $|3\\rangle$ through $|6\\rangle$ correspond to states $|F=3/2,\\,m\\rangle$. At nonzero magnetic field, only the magnetic quantum number $m$ is conserved. The subject of this paper is the $|3\\rangle - |1\\rangle$ mixture.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:a31\\] shows the scattering length $a_{31}$ for the $|3\\rangle - |1\\rangle$ mixture as a function of magnetic bias field $B$. We estimate $a_{31}(B)$ by using the asymptotic boundary condition (ABC) approximation\u00a0[@Elastic]. This calculation incorporates the singlet and triplet scattering lengths\u00a0[@s-wave], $a_{S}=45.5\\pm 2.5\\,a_{0}$ and $a_{T}=-2160\\pm 250\\,a_{0}$, and a boundary radius which we take to be $R=40\\,a_{0}$\u00a0[@Elastic]. The scattering length varies from $-1620\\,a_{0}$ ($\\simeq 3a_{T}/4$ as $B\\rightarrow 0$) to $-480\\,a_{0}$ at $B=10$ G. The results of our approximate calculation for $B=0$ to $B=200$ G are confirmed within 10% by van Abeelen and Verhaar\u00a0[@Verhaar] using a coupled channel calculation which includes the uncertainties in the potentials. At higher fields, near 800 G, we believe the scattering length exhibits a Feshbach resonance (not shown). Above this resonance, the scattering length approaches the triplet scattering length of $-2160\\,a_{0}$.\n\nThe $|3\\rangle - |1\\rangle$ mixture is stable against spin-exchange collisions provided that a small bias magnetic field is applied. Spin-exchange inelastic collisions conserve the two-particle total magnetic quantum number $M_{T}$, where $M_{T}=-1$ for the $|\\{3,1\\}\\rangle$ state. Note that $\\{,\\}$ denotes the antisymmetric two-particle spin state, as required for s-wave scattering which dominates at low temperatures. There are no lower-lying antisymmetric states with $M_{T}=-1$. Hence, exothermic collisions are precluded. The only other states with $M_{T}=-1$ are $|\\{4,2\\}\\rangle$ and $|\\{5,3\\}\\rangle$. Without an adequate bias magnetic field, transitions to these states lead to population in level $|4\\rangle$. Then, exothermic $| \\{3,4\\}\\rangle\\rightarrow |\\{3,2\\}\\rangle$ and $|\\{4,1\\}\\rangle\n\\rightarrow |\\{1,2\\}\\rangle$ collisions can occur. With an adequate bias magnetic field, the energy of states $|\\{4,2\\}\\rangle$ and $|\\{5,3\\}\\rangle$ can be increased relative to that of state $|\\{3,1\\}\\rangle$ by more than the maximum relative kinetic energy, i.e., twice the well depth during evaporative cooling. By energy conservation, spin-exchange transfer is then suppressed. In this case, the inelastic rate is limited to magnetic dipole-dipole (dipolar) interactions which contain a rank 2 relative coordinate operator of even parity\u00a0[@BCS]. Since parity is conserved and ${\\rm\np-wave}\\rightarrow {\\rm p-wave}$ scattering is frozen out at low temperature, the dominant dipolar process is a small ${\\rm\ns}\\rightarrow {\\rm d}$ rate in which $|\\{3,1\\}\\rangle\\rightarrow |\\{1,2\\}\\rangle$\u00a0[@Verhaar].\n\nIn the experiments, the ${\\rm CO}_{2}$ laser trap is initially loaded from a magneto-optical trap (MOT)[@O'Hara]. At the end of the loading period, the MOT laser beams are tuned near resonance and the intensity is lowered to decrease the temperature. Then, optical pumping is used to empty the $F=3/2$ state to produce a 50-50 mixture of the $|1\\rangle -|2\\rangle$ states. These states are noninteracting at low magnetic field, i.e, the scattering amplitude vanishes as a result of an accidental cancellation\u00a0[@Elastic]. With a ${\\rm CO}_{2}$ laser trap depth of $330\\,\\mu$K, up to $4\\times 10^{5}$ atoms are confined in the lowest-lying hyperfine states at an initial temperature between 100 and 200 $\\mu$K. A bias magnetic field of 8.3 G is applied to split the two-particle energy states by $\\simeq 16$ MHz. This is twice the maximum attainable energy at our largest well depth of $400\\,\\mu{\\rm K}=8$ MHz. After a delay of 0.5 second relative to the loading phase, a pair of optical fields is pulsed on to induce a Raman $\\pi$ pulse. This pulse transfers the population in state $|2\\rangle$ to state $|3\\rangle$ in two microseconds, initiating evaporative cooling in the resulting $|3\\rangle\n-|1\\rangle$ mixture. The optical fields are detuned from resonance with the D2 transition by $\\simeq 700$ MHz to suppress optical pumping. If the Raman pulse is not applied, the trapped atoms remain in the noninteracting $|1\\rangle-|2\\rangle$ mixture and exhibit a purely exponential decay with a time constant $\\simeq 300$ seconds.\n\nAn acousto-optic modulator (A/O) in front of the ${\\rm CO}_{2}$ laser controls the laser intensity, which is reduced to yield a shallow trap depth of $100\\,\\mu$K. By using a shallow well, we avoid the problem that the elastic cross section becomes independent of the scattering length at high energy, as described below. In addition, the shallow well greatly reduces the number of loaded atoms and makes the sample optically thin, simplifying calibration of the number of trapped atoms. To determine the trap parameters, the laser power is modulated and parametric resonances\u00a0[@Hansch] are observed at drive frequencies of $2\\nu$ for three different trap oscillation frequencies $\\nu$: At $100\\,\\mu$K well depth, $\\nu_{x}=2.4$ kHz $\\nu_{y}=1.8$ kHz and $\\nu_{z}=100$ Hz, where the trap laser beam propagates along ${\\bf z}$. Using the measured total power as a constraint, we obtain the trap intensity $1/e^{2}$ radii, $w_{x}=50\\,\\mu$m and $w_{y}=67\\,\\mu$m, and the axial intensity $1/e^{2}$ length, $z_{f}\\simeq 1.13$ mm, where $z_{f}$ is consistent with the expected Rayleigh length within 15%.\n\nThe number of atoms in the trap $N(t)$ is estimated using a calibrated photomultiplier. The detection system monitors the fluorescence induced by pulsed, retroreflected, $\\sigma_{\\pm}$ probe and repumper beams which are strongly saturating ($I/I_{sat}=26$ for the strongest transition). To simplify calibration, only the isotropic component of the fluorescence angular distribution is measured: The collecting lens is placed at the magic angle\u00a0[@Magic] of $55^{\\circ}$ ($P_{2}(\\cos\\theta )=0$) with respect to the propagation direction of the probe beams. The net efficiency of the detection system is determined using laser light of known power. The primary uncertainty in the calibration arises from the excited state population fraction, which we estimate lies between 1/4 and 1/2.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:number\\] shows the number of trapped atoms $N(t)$ measured for the $|3\\rangle -|1\\rangle$ mixture at a well depth $U_{0}=100\\,\\mu$K and a bias field of 8.3 G as a function of time between 5 ms and 20 seconds after evaporation is initiated. For times beyond 50 seconds (not shown), the evaporation stagnates, and we observe an exponential decay of the cooled $|3\\rangle -|1\\rangle$ mixture with a time constant of 370 seconds over a period of a few hundred seconds. The error bars are the standard deviation of the mean of ten complete runs through the entire time sequence.\n\nA model based on the s-wave Boltzmann equation\u00a0[@Walraven] is used to predict $N(t)$ for comparison to the experiments. This equation is modified to include the density of states for a gaussian potential well\u00a0[@O'Hara] and to include the energy dependence of the elastic cross section. Assuming a short range potential and a symmetric (s-wave) spatial state, the cross section takes the form $$\\sigma (k)=\\frac{8\\pi a_{31}^{2}}{1+k^{2}a_{31}^{2}},\n\\label{eq:cross}$$ where $\\hbar k$ is the relative momentum. For $k|a_{31}|<<1$, the cross section is maximized. When $k|a_{31}|>>1$, the cross section approaches the unitarity limit $8\\pi /k^{2}$ which is independent of $a_{31}$. Note that $k|a_{31}|=1$ corresponds to a relative kinetic energy of $\\epsilon =\\hbar^{2}/(2\\mu\\,a_{31}^{2})$, where $\\mu =M/2$ is the reduced mass. For $|a_{31}|=500\\,a_{0}$, $\\epsilon =115\\,\\mu$K.\n\nFor a two-state mixture of fermions, the effective cross section is reduced from that of Eq.\u00a0\\[eq:cross\\] by a factor of 2 since pairs of colliding atoms are in an antisymmetric hyperfine state with a probability 1/2. This effective cross section is used in a Boltzmann collision integral for each state $i=1,3$. A decay term $-N_{i}(t)/\\tau$ with $\\tau =370$ sec is added to account for the measured trap lifetime. A detailed description of our coupled Boltzmann equation model will be published elsewhere.\n\nThe coupled s-wave Boltzmann equations for the two states are numerically integrated to determine $N(t)$ using the well parameters as fixed inputs. From the calibrated photomultiplier signal, assuming that 1/3 of the atoms are in the excited state, we obtain an initial total number $N_{0}=44,000$. For this case, the initial collision rate in Hz is estimated to be $1/(2\\pi \\tau_{c})\\simeq N_{0}M\\sigma_{0}\\nu^{3}/(k_{B}T)$, where $\\nu^{3}=\\nu_{x}\\nu_{y}\\nu_{z}$, $\\sigma_{0}=8\\pi a_{31}^{2}$, and $M$ is the $^{6}{\\rm Li}$ mass. Assuming $|a_{31}|=500\\,a_{0}$, $\\tau_{c} =30$ ms. Hence, for $t>0.3$ seconds, when on average 10 collisions have occurred, the sample should be thermalized as assumed in the theory.\n\nThe best fit to the data starting with 22,000 atoms in each state is shown as the solid curve in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:number\\]. The $\\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom for this fit is 1.4 and is found to be very sensitive to the initial temperature $T_{0}$ of the atoms in the optical trap. &gt;From the fit, we find $T_{0}=46\\mu$K, which is less than the well depth. We believe that this low temperature is a consequence of the MOT gradient magnet, which is turned off after the MOT laser beams. The effective well depth of the optical trap is therefore reduced until the gradient is fully off, allowing hotter atoms to escape before the Raman pulse is applied to create the $|3\\rangle -|1\\rangle$ mixture. The fit is most sensitive to data for $t>0.5$ second, where the thermal approximation is expected to be valid. From the fit, we obtain the scattering length $|a_{31}|=540\\pm 25\\, a_{0}$, which is within 10% of the predictions of Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:a31\\]. The quoted error corresponds to a change of 1 in the total $\\chi^{2}$.\n\nWe determine the systematic errors in $a_{31}$ due to the uncertainties in the calibration and in the population imbalance as follows. The data is fit for an initial number of atoms $N_{0}$ of 58,000 and 29,000, corresponding to an excited state fraction of 1/4 and 1/2. This yields $|a_{31}|=440\\pm 20\\,a_{0}$ and $|a_{31}|=750\\pm 42\\,a_{0}$, respectively. Note that for the larger scattering lengths, the cross section given by Eq.\u00a0\\[eq:cross\\] approaches the unitarity limit and the error increases. We assume that the initial population imbalance for states $|3\\rangle$ and $|1\\rangle$ is comparable to that of states $|2\\rangle$ and $|1\\rangle$ in the optically pumped MOT. To estimate the latter population imbalance, we use state-selective Raman $\\pi$ pulses to excite $|2\\rangle\\rightarrow |3\\rangle$ or $|1\\rangle\\rightarrow |6\\rangle$ transitions in the MOT. Probe-induced fluorescence signals from states $|3\\rangle$ or $|6\\rangle$ show that the initial $|1\\rangle$ and $|2\\rangle$ populations are equal within 10%. Note that residual population in state $|2\\rangle$ is expected to be stable and weakly interacting, since we estimate $|a_{32}|<30\\,a_{0}$ for $0\\leq B\\leq 50$ G using the ABC method, and $a_{12}\\simeq  0$\u00a0[@Elastic]. Using the parameters for the fit shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:number\\], but changing the initial mixture from 50-50 to 60-40, we find a slight increase in the fitted scattering length from $540\\,a_{0}$ to $563\\,a_{0}$. Thus, the uncertainty in the calibration of the number of atoms produces the dominant uncertainty and $|a_{31}|=540^{+210}_{-100}\\,a_{0}$.\n\nTo demonstrate that evaporative cooling is occuring, rather than just trap loss, we have also measured the final temperature of the mixture using release and recapture\u00a0[@Chu] from the ${\\rm CO}_{2}$ laser trap. We obtain $9.8\\pm 1\\,\\mu$K, which is within 10 % of the final temperature of $8.7\\,\\mu$K predicted by the Boltzmann equation model. An excellent fit to the data is obtained for the final temperature, which describes a thermal distribution. However, the initial temperature is not so readily measured, as it is nonthermal before evaporation is initiated, and is rapidly changing during evaporation, unlike the final temperature, which stagnates.\n\nGood fits to the evaporation data are obtained neglecting inelastic collisions, suggesting that the dipolar rate for the $|3\\rangle -|1\\rangle$ mixture is small, in contrast to the scattering length. A limit on the dipolar loss rate for the $|3\\rangle -|1\\rangle$ mixture can be estimated from the $\\tau\n=370$ second lifetime of the mixture after evaporation stagnates. For equal populations in both states, dipolar decay results in an initial loss rate $\\dot{n}=-Gn^{2}/4$, where $G$ is the dipolar rate constant and $n$ is the total density. To obtain a high density, the trap is loaded at a well depth of $330\\,\\mu$K and the temperature of the atoms is reduced by evaporation to $T\\simeq 30\\pm 1\\,\\mu$K. The number of atoms remaining in each state after evaporation is estimated to be $N=6.5\\pm 2.2\\times\n10^{4}$, where the uncertainty is in the calibration. We cannot rule out the possibility that one state is depleted on a long time scale, since we do not directly measure the individual state populations. However, we believe that, after evaporation stagnates in the deep well, a $|3\\rangle-|1\\rangle$ mixture remains, since subsequent reduction of the well depth yields final temperatures consistent with evaporative cooling. Note that the mixture ratio is not critical: An 80-20 mixture yields an initial loss rate $\\dot{n}=-0.16\\,Gn^{2}$, $\\simeq 2/3$ that of a 50/50 mixture. For a fixed $330\\,\\mu$K trap depth, $\\nu^{3}=2.6\\pm\n0.3\\,{\\rm kHz}^{3}$, and the phase space density for one state in the harmonic approximation is then $\\rho_{ph}=N/(k_{B}T/h\\nu\n)^{3}=7\\times 10^{-4}$. This corresponds to a maximum total density of $n=2\\,\\rho_{ph}/\\lambda_{B}^{3}=6.4\\times 10^{11}/{\\rm\ncm}^{3}$, where $\\lambda_{B}\\equiv h/\\sqrt{2\\pi M\\,k_{B}T}$. Since the exponential decay time of the $|3\\rangle -|1\\rangle$ mixture is similar to that obtained in the noninteracting $|1\\rangle\n-|2\\rangle$ mixture, we assume the loss is dominated by background gas collisions. Thus, we must have $Gn/4<<1/\\tau$, which yields $G<<2\\times 10^{-14}{\\rm cm}^{3}/{\\rm sec}$. This result is consistent with the value $G\\simeq 2\\times 10^{-15}\\,{\\rm cm}^{3}/{\\rm sec}$ predicted for the dipolar rate constant at $30\\,\\mu$K by van Abeelen and Verhaar\u00a0[@Verhaar].\n\nFuture experiments will employ continuous evaporation by slowly reducing the well depth\u00a0[@Adams]. In this case, very large scattering lengths can be obtained at low temperatures and small well depths by using a reduced bias magnetic field $B$. By adiabatically recompressing the well, experiments can be carried out with the precooled atoms in a deep trap to obtain high density as well. In such experiments, the final low temperature limits the number of atoms in the high energy tail of the energy distribution, exponentially suppressing spin-exchange collisions for $B\\neq 0$. For example, if a total of $3\\times 10^{5}$ atoms were contained in our trap at a well depth of $400\\,\\mu$K, the Fermi temperature $T_{F}=7\\,\\mu$K and the Fermi density is $4\\times 10^{13}/{\\rm cm}^{3}$. At a temperature of $T=0.1\\, T_{F}=0.7\\,\\mu$K, a bias field of $B=0.16$ G would split the two-particle hyperfine states by $k_{B}T_{F}+12\\,k_{B}T$, suppressing the spin exchange rate by $\\exp ( -12)$, and giving $a_{31}\\simeq -1200\\,a_{0}$. Alternatively, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:a31\\], large $a_{31}$ can be obtained at moderate $B\\simeq 300$ G.\n\nIn conclusion, we have observed that an optically trapped $|3\\rangle -|1\\rangle$ mixture of $^{6}{\\rm Li}$ atoms has a very large scattering length at low magnetic field. This mixture is stable against spin-exchange collisions provided that a small bias magnetic field is applied. The evaporation curves measured for this mixture are in good agreement with a model based on an s-wave Boltzmann equation which neglects inelastic processes. We have predicted that the scattering interactions are strongly attractive and widely tunable at low magnetic field. If the parameters described above for deep wells can be attained, the system will be close to the threshold for superfluidity\u00a0[@BCS] and ideal for investigating frequency shifts and damping in collective oscillations\u00a0[@Stringari; @Hydrodynamic]. Further, since s-wave interactions can be turned on and off in a few microseconds, this system is well suited for studies of many-body quantum dynamics.\n\nThis research has been supported by the Army Research Office and the National Science Foundation.\n\nB. DeMarco, and D. S. Jin, Science [**285**]{}, 1703 (1999). H. T. C. Stoof, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 10 (1996); See also, M. Houbiers et al., Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, 4864 (1997). L. Vichi and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, 4734 (1999). R. Combescot, Phys. Rev Lett. [**83**]{}, 3766 (1999). G. M. Bruun, and C. W. Clark, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 5415 (1999). , cond-mat/9906392. M. Houbiers and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 1556 (1999). G. Bruun, et al., Eur. Phys. J. D [**7**]{}, 433 (1999). M. Houbiers and H. T. C. Stoof, cond-mat/9808171. M. Houbiers, et al., Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, R1497 (1998). E. R. I. Abraham, et al., Phys. Rev A [**55**]{}, R3299 (1997). K. M. O\u2019Hara, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4204 (1999). We are indebted to F. A. van Abeelen and B. J. Verhaar who calculated the inelastic $|\\{3,1\\}\\rangle\\rightarrow\n|\\{1,2\\}\\rangle$ dipolar rate and confirmed our calculations of the magnetic field dependence of $a_{31}$. P. T\u00f6rm\u00e4 and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 487 (2000). S. Friebel, et al., Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, R20 (1998). , ed. G. W. Drake, (AIP Press, New York, 1996), p. 176. O. J. Luiten, et al., Phys. Rev. A [**53**]{}, 381 (1996). S. Chu, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{}, 48 (1985). C. S. Adams, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3577 (1995).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Strong spin-orbit coupling (SOC) can result in ground states with non-trivial topological properties. The situation is even richer in magnetic systems where the magnetic ordering can potentially have strong influence over the electronic band structure. The class of AMnBi$_2$ (A = Sr, Ca) compounds are important in this context as they are known to host massive Dirac fermions with strongly anisotropic dispersion, which is believed to be due to the interplay between strong SOC and magnetic degrees of freedom. We report the optical conductivity of YbMnBi$_2$, a newly discovered member of this family and a proposed Weyl semi-metal (WSM) candidate with broken time reversal symmetry. Together with density functional theory (DFT) band structure calculations, we show that the complex conductivity can be interpreted as the sum of an intra-band Drude response and inter-band transitions. We argue that the canting of the magnetic moments that has been proposed to be essential for the realization of the WSM in an otherwise antiferromagnetically ordered system is not necessary to explain the optical conductivity. We believe our data is explained qualitatively by the uncanted magnetic structure with a small offset of the chemical potential from strict stochiometry. We find no definitive evidence of a bulk Weyl nodes. Instead we see signatures of a gapped Dirac dispersion, common in other members of AMnBi$_2$ family or compounds with similar 2D network of Bi atoms. We speculate that the evidence for a WSM seen in ARPES arises through a surface magnetic phase. Such an assumption reconciles all known experimental data.'\nauthor:\n- Dipanjan Chaudhuri\n- Bing Cheng\n- Alexander Yaresko\n- 'Quinn D. Gibson'\n- 'R. J. Cava'\n- 'N. P. Armitage'\ntitle: 'An optical investigation of the strong spin-orbital coupled magnetic semimetal YbMnBi$_2$'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nCorrelated electron systems with strong SOC have been the subject of intensive research in recent years. The interplay of electronic correlations and SOC can result in emergent topological phases and has opened up a completely new direction in condensed matter physics. This interplay can be very different depending on the specifics of the electronic correlation. In weakly to moderately interacting electron systems, SOC can lead to non-trivial band topology as observed in conventional topological insulators [@moore2009topological], Dirac and Weyl semi-metals [@Balents; @turner2013beyond; @armitage2017weyl], axion insulators [@wan2012computational] and topological superconductors [@qi2011topological]. More recently, the effects of SOC on strongly correlated systems are being explored with the realization of new material systems with heavy 4d/5d transition metal compounds [@doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-020911-125138]. The iridates deserve special mention in this category and have been instrumental in exploring much of this uncharted territory [@schaffer2015recent; @rau2015spin].\n\nIn addition to the emergence of topologically non-trivial ground states, the interplay between SOC and magnetic degrees of freedom themselves is also quite interesting. The family of AMnBi$_2$(A = Sr, Ca) compounds are particularly important in this context. Being structurally similar to iron based superconductors, they are referred to as manganese pnictides, which contain layers of Mn-Bi edge sharing tetrahedra and a Bi square net separated by a layer of A atoms [@guo2014coupling]. These compounds were expected from first principles DFT band calculations to host highly anisotropic Dirac dispersions with a finite gap at the Dirac point due to SOC [@lee2013anisotropic]. Such predictions were confirmed experimentally through magnetization, magneto-transport measurements [@park2011anisotropic; @wang2012two] and later using angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) [@feng2013strong]. What makes these compounds particularly interesting is the antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordering of the spin magnetic moment on the Mn$^{2+}$ atoms which has a $3d^5$ electronic configuration. The magnitude of the ordered moment is around $4\\mu_B$ with an ordering temperature $\\sim$300K as observed in several experiments [@lee2013anisotropic; @guo2014coupling]. Strong in-plane super exchange is responsible for the N\u00e9el-type AFM ordering observed in the $ab$ plane with a rather weak inter-layer magnetic coupling whose nature is dependent on the A atom [@guo2014coupling].\n\nMore recently, new members have been added to this family by substituting the rare earth elements with lanthanides such as Europium and Ytterbium. Whereas EuMnBi$_2$ appears to be very similar to its rare earth sister compounds [@PhysRevB.90.075109], YbMnBi$_2$ appears to have richer behavior and has been proposed as a prospective candidate for type II Weyl semi-metal (WSM) [@borisenko2015time]. Unlike most WSMs discovered so far that are non-centrosymmetric systems (TaAs, NbAs, NbP, TaP, SrSi$_2$, etc) with broken inversion symmetry, YbMnBi$_2$ has been proposed to be a potential WSM with broken time reversal symmetry (TRS). A magnetic WSM has continued to be elusive to date, with the possible exception of potential WSM phases in pyrochlore iridates [@sushkov2015optical] and magnetic heuslers under magnetic field [@hirschberger2016chiral]. In contrast to the other members of the AMnBi$_2$ family, ARPES has shown a Fermi surface that appears to be continuous with the hole-like lenses touching the electron-like pockets at what has been interpreted to be the Weyl nodes. It should be noted, that the band structure calculations predict that a TRS breaking WSM state can only be realized in this compound if a canting of the magnetic moment ($\\sim$10$^\\circ$) from the $c$ axis, resulting in an effective in-plane ferromagnetic component along (110) direction, is assumed in addition to the established AFM ordering. Although such a band structure is in reasonable agreement with the ARPES results, the ad-hoc assumption of canted antiferromagnetism has not been supported by neutron scattering experiments [@FuhrmanPrivateCommunication; @wang2016two]. Moreover, the magnetic space group found via neutron scattering that describes the AFM ordering in YbMnBi$_2$ has a symmetry breaking that does not allow canting of Mn magnetic moments away from the $c$ axis. From general considerations, the only way canting can occur is via an AFM transition that is not second order, or a lattice symmetry that is not tetragonal. Transport measurements reported in [@wang2016two] further supports a quasi two dimensional Dirac dispersion in this compound.\n\nA number of interesting proposals have been made for the optical properties of WSMs [@hosur2013recent]. An ideal 3D Weyl state comprises at least a pair of non-degenerate band crossings in momentum space with the Fermi level at the nodal point. In 3D Dirac or Weyl systems, the joint density of states increases with frequency and is proportional to $\\omega^2$ whereas the dipole optical matrix element goes as $\\omega^{-1}$ as a result of which at low frequencies, the real optical conductivity is linear in $\\omega$. In real systems however it is hard to achieve such fine tuning in the Fermi energy ($E_F$) and hence a cut-off is set by the Fermi level such that the real part of the conductivity is expected to be $$\\sigma_1(\\omega) = \\dfrac{N G_0 \\omega}{24 v_F}\\Theta(\\omega-2E_F) \\cdot \\label{eq:lin}$$ where $N$ is the number of massless fermion species in the Brillouin zone, $G_0 = 2e^2/h$ is the quantum conductance and $v_F$ is the Fermi velocity. Experimental evidence of such linear optical conductivity with zero intercepts has been reported in Eu$_2$Ir$_2$O$_7$ [@sushkov2015optical] and TaAs [@xu2016optical] among others [@armitage2017weyl]. A more detailed theoretical analysis of the inter-band optical response of TRS breaking WSMs [@PhysRevB.93.085442] however predicts that the single linear optical conductivity should be broken into two regions of quasi-linear conductivity with different slopes by a peculiar kink. The kink is a manifestation of the van Hove singularity, appearing at a frequency that corresponds to the energy difference between the bands crossing to form the Weyl nodes at the extrema between the two nodes. Such a feature has been experimentally observed in the inversion symmetry broken WSM TaAs [@xu2016optical].\n\nIn this paper, we report the complex optical conductivity of YbMnBi$_2$ obtained from Kramers-Kronig (KK) constrained variational dielectric function (VDF) fitting of the reflectivity [@chaudhuri2016optical]. A comparison of the experimental optical spectra with that calculated from the DFT band structure shows that the low energy features in the spectrum can be attributed to specific inter-band transitions and are not a signature of the van Hove singularity as proposed elsewehere [@chinotti2016electrodynamic]. The optical spectra has also been compared to the calculated band structures with both canted and uncanted AFM ordering which opens the possibility of reconciling the ARPES experiments with the neutron scattering and transport results. We believe our optical data is explained qualitatively by the uncanted magnetic structure with a small offset of the chemical potential from strict stochiometry.\n\nExperimental and Computational Details\n======================================\n\n\\\n![\\[fig:ref\\] (a) Reflectivity of YbMnBi$_2$ measured using FTIR spectroscopy. (b) Raw reflectivity data at 300 K along with reflectivity curve as obtained from VDF fitting. (c) Resistivity of the sample measured using a 4-probe technique along with the Drude scattering rates.](ref_fitting_log.png \"fig:\"){width=\"48.00000%\"}\\\n\n![\\[fig:ref\\] (a) Reflectivity of YbMnBi$_2$ measured using FTIR spectroscopy. (b) Raw reflectivity data at 300 K along with reflectivity curve as obtained from VDF fitting. (c) Resistivity of the sample measured using a 4-probe technique along with the Drude scattering rates.](res_sc_rt.png){width=\"53.00000%\"}\n\nOptical properties were measured on a cleaved (001) surface ($\\sim 3$ mm $\\times$ 3 mm) of a high quality YbMnBi$_2$ crystal using Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. For details of the sample preparation please refer to Ref.[@borisenko2015time]. The as-grown (001) surface of another slightly smaller crystal was also measured and had identical results. Fourier transform spectroscopy in known to offer excellent signal to noise and frequency resolution. Reflectivity of YbMnBi$_2$ single crystals were measured using a commercial FTIR spectrometer (Bruker, Vertex 80V, Source: Globar/Hg Arc Lamp, Detectors: DLaTGS/MCT/Bolometer) across far and mid infrared spectral ranges spanning from 50 cm$^{-1}$ to 8500 cm$^{-1}$ (i.e. 1.5-2500 THz) for several temperatures between 5 K and 300 K. The reflection spectra at each temperature were referenced to that of elemental gold, deposited on the sample in situ by thermal evaporation. To extend the measurement across a broader spectral range, the infrared spectra was supplemented by visible reflection spectrum between 11150 cm$^{-1}$ and 29000 cm$^{-1}$ measured at room temperature using commercial spectrophotometry (Hitachi, U-3010) and referenced to an aluminum mirror. Additionally, the DC resistivity of the sample has been measured using conventional 4-probe measurements down to 2K.\n\nFigure \\[fig:ref\\](a) shows the measured reflectivity in the infrared regime. The reflectivity tends to 1 at low frequencies and drops with a broad plasma edge-like feature above 4000 cm$^{-1}$ indicating metallic behavior. Besides the usual Drude response, two distinct features are observed in the reflectivity spectra that becomes particularly prominent at low temperatures. The lowest one is close to 200 cm$^{-1}$ where there is an abnormal increase in reflectivity and the second feature is a rather broad bump around 950 cm$^{-1}$.\n\nBand structure calculations were performed using the linear muffin-tin orbital method [@And75] as implemented in the relativistic PY LMTO computer code. Some details of the implementation can be found in Ref.\u00a0. Calculations were done assuming collinear AFM ordering of Mn moments which were aligned along the $c$ axis. Completely filled Yb$^{2+}$ 4$f^{14}$ states were treated as semi-core states. SOC was added to the LMTO Hamiltonian in the variational step. All theoretical results presented below were obtained within the local spin-density approximation (LSDA) with the Perdew-Wang parameterization [@PW92] for the exchange-correlation potential. Test calculations were also done using the PBE GGA potential. [@PBE96] They showed that the use of GGA slightly increases exchange splitting of Mn $d$ states but has only minor effect on Bi $p$ derived bands. Brillouin zone (BZ) integrations during the self-consistency loop were done on a 32$\\times$32$\\times$16 mesh using the improved tetrahedron method. [@BJA94]\n\nMatrix elements for interband optical transitions were calculated in the dipole approximation. Then, the real part of the optical conductivity was calculated using the tetrahedron method and the imaginary part was obtained using the Kramers-Kronig relations.\n\nWe found that a very dense $k$ mesh should be used in order to achieve convergence of the conductivity below 0.3 eV. For instance, the in-plane conductivity spectrum calculated on the 32$\\times$32$\\times$16 mesh shows a broad peak centered at 0.18 eV. The peak shifts to $\\sim$0.10 eV ($\\sim$1000 cm$^{-1}$), becomes narrower, and its height doubles when a denser 80$\\times$80$\\times$48 mesh with almost 40000 symmetry inequivalent $k$ points in BZ is used. The use of even denser 128$\\times$128$\\times$48 ($\\sim$10$^6$ $k$ points) mesh still leads to a small ($<$0.01 eV) shift of the peak position and 10% increase of its height. However, since calculations on such a dense mesh becomes extremely time consuming we present in the next section conductivity spectra calculated on the 80$\\times$80$\\times$48 mesh. It is worth noting, that above 0.5 eV convergence of the calculated conductivity spectrum is achieved already on the 32$\\times$32$\\times$16 mesh.\n\nAnalysis and Results\n====================\n\n\\\n![(a) Real and (b) imaginary part of conductivity. Solid and dashed lines represent the measured and extrapolated frequency regimes respectively. The markers at 8 cm$^{-1}$ in (a) represents the dc conductivity calculated from \\[fig:ref\\](c)[]{data-label=\"fig:sigma\"}](sigma2.png \"fig:\"){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\nThe complex optical conductivity of the sample has been calculated from the reflectivity spectrum using KK constrained VDF fitting [@kuzmenko2005kramers]. This technique is an alternative to using conventional KK transformations to calculate the complex conductivity from a single measurement and is particularly useful in dealing with multiple reflection/transmission data from different disjoint frequency ranges. The method, implemented using the software RefFIT, involves an initial fitting of the reflectivity spectra to a standard Drude-Lorentz oscillator model with a few oscillators and then performing a KK constrained variational fitting with many oscillators of the difference spectra. For YbMnBi$_2$, the reflectivity spectra for each temperature has been fitted with one Drude and six Lorentz oscillators which has then been subjected to the VDF fitting analysis. Figure \\[fig:ref\\](b) shows the actual infrared and visible reflectivity data at 300K along with the output of the VDF fitting. In addition to reflectivity, the dc conductivity at each temperature as obtained from 4-probe resistivity measurements (see figure \\[fig:ref\\](c)) have also been used to constrain the VDF fitting subroutine. The real and imaginary parts of the complex conductivity thus obtained are shown in figure \\[fig:sigma\\](a) and \\[fig:sigma\\](b) respectively.\n\nWe model the low frequency response ($<$150 cm$^{-1}$) for all temperatures by a single Drude oscillator. Figure \\[fig:ref\\](c) shows the Drude scattering rate, $\\Gamma_D$, as a function of temperature. Note that the temperature dependence of $\\Gamma_D$ scales as resistivity within experimental error. At low temperatures, the resistivity of YbMnBi$_2$ has a strong temperature dependence showing the dominant role of inelastic scattering from either electron-electron or electron-phonon interactions. The similarity in temperature dependence of resistivity and $\\Gamma_D$ thus points to the coherent nature of the quasiparticles within the Drude subsystem. The measured Drude plasma frequency at 5K is 1.74 eV.\n\nThe two most prominent features in the real part of the optical conductivity are the low energy peaks around 200 cm$^{-1}$ and 950 cm$^{-1}$. Such peaks in conductivity are ordinarily attributed to inter-band electronic transitions. To investigate this further, the Drude contribution (which mostly captures the intra-band optical conductivity) was subtracted. In general, strong electronic correlation can give low frequency intra-band contributions that would not generally be captured through a Drude term only. One possible way to isolate such effects is through the extended Drude model [@allen1977optical] analysis which can account for inelastic scattering due to electron-electron or electron-phonon interactions that can be frequency dependent even at low frequencies. However, the extended Drude model is only reliable much below the energy scales of inter-band transitions and thus it is not particularly useful in this context where the lowest possible inter-band transition could be as low as 200 cm$^{-1}$. We will therefore ignore such effects for now and assume that all the remaining high frequency optical conductivity is primarily from inter-band transitions and compare it to the inter-band optical conductivity calculated from band structure.\n\n\\\n![(a) Band structure calculated along symmetry lines in tetragonal BZ. Bands crossing the Fermi level, which are discussed below, are plotted with blue (37,38), red (39,40), and green (41,42) lines. and (b) comparison of the calculated optical conductivity with experiment[]{data-label=\"fig:bs\"}](S1_band.png \"fig:\"){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\nCalculated inter-band optical conductivity (see figure \\[fig:bs\\](b)) is in rough agreement with the experimental observations at low frequencies and successfully reproduces a peak at 950 cm$^{-1}$ (green arrows) although the predicted amplitude is much larger. However, as one can see, the calculated conductivity is significantly higher than the experimental one almost all throughout the frequency range. The origin and significance of this peak will be discussed further below.\n\nThe more striking feature is perhaps the almost complete absence of a large peak close to 200 cm$^{-1}$ (red arrows) in the calculated optical conductivity spectra which might be indicative of some deeper inconsistencies. As the band structure in figure \\[fig:bs\\](a) does not include the canting of the Mn$^{2+}$ moments that is believed to be necessary for the magnetic WSM phase, a next obvious step is to include that in the DFT calculations.\n\n\\\n\\\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0![Band structure calculated along symmetry lines for a canting of (a) 5$^{\\circ}$ and (b) 10$^{\\circ}$ from the c-axis. The solid and dashed lines of the same colors represent the bands that were degenerate without canting. (c) Comparison of the calculated optical conductivity for different canting with experiment[]{data-label=\"fig:cant\"}](S1_cant.png \"fig:\"){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\nFigure \\[fig:cant\\](a) and \\[fig:cant\\](b) shows the band structure along (001) for a canting of 5$^{\\circ}$ and 10$^{\\circ}$ from the c-axis respectively. Two sets of Weyl points develop in the band structure for the canted system. The first set consists of two pair of Weyl nodes at momentum coordinates (0.193,0.193,0.12), (0.193,0.193,-0.09) and symmetry related points. In figure \\[fig:cant\\](a) and \\[fig:cant\\](b), along the $k$-space cut along the M-$\\Gamma$ line, the Weyl point can be seen to be developing near 200 meV. The other four Weyl nodes are at (0.394, 0.045, 0.131) and symmetry related points. Details of these Weyl node structures have been discussed in reference [@borisenko2015time]. Note that for all points, there are certain non-idealities (both in distortions of the bands and their position from E$_F$) when compared to the simplest Weyl band structure proposed in [@PhysRevB.93.085442] which would make the observation of Weyl physics in the optical response challenging.\n\nThe inter-band conductivity for these three levels of canting, as well as the experimental data is plotted in figure \\[fig:cant\\](c). Note that a peak slightly above 200 cm$^{-1}$ gradually develops as one includes the effect of canting in the band structure. Nevertheless, one must be cautious in claiming this to be evidence for the WSM phase as there are noticeable alterations in the band structure unrelated to WSM physics that might bring about the observed changes in optical conductivity. The principal modification to the band structure from canting is the lifting of two fold degeneracy of the bands close to the Fermi level. This is the feature that gives rise to the Weyl nodes in the calculated band structure. However, this also opens up the possibility of having transitions between these previously degenerate bands as not all of them are above or below the Fermi level. The signatures of such inter-band transitions are not expected to be directly related to the existence of the Weyl nodes as one can see that they are generally far from the Fermi level.\n\nIf the important changes to the optical conductivity are indeed from the bands being rearranged around the Fermi level, somewhat similar changes may be observed by a shift of the chemical potential. Moreover, doping is rather common in semimetallic systems and thus exploring this possiblity is important. This was investigated by shifting the chemical potential above the calculated charge neutral Fermi level (see figure \\[fig:fermi\\](a)). An enhancement in the spectral weight under the calculated peak at 200 cm$^{-1}$ is seen upon shifting chemical potential by 20 meV above the charge neutral Fermi level (see figure \\[fig:fermi\\](b)). Thus it is possible that that the observed peak at 200 cm$^{-1}$ is simply indicative of a low energy inter-band transitions and not a signature of Weyl nodes as postulated elsewhere [@chinotti2016electrodynamic].\n\n![Band structure along (001) with Fermi level at 0 meV (blue solid line) and 20 meV above (red dashed line). (b) Calculated optical conductivity for the corresponding Fermi levels.[]{data-label=\"fig:fermi\"}](Fig05a_paqo80_dEf \"fig:\"){width=\"45.00000%\"}\\\n![Band structure along (001) with Fermi level at 0 meV (blue solid line) and 20 meV above (red dashed line). (b) Calculated optical conductivity for the corresponding Fermi levels.[]{data-label=\"fig:fermi\"}](S1_fermi.png \"fig:\"){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\nTo investigate the origin of these two peaks more closely, we decomposed the calculated conductivity into individual inter-band contributions. Figure \\[fig:dec\\](a) shows the result of that decomposition. These calculations provide more definitive proof to support that the peak in conductivity at 200 cm$^{-1}$ is indeed an inter-band transition from the set of degenerate bands that is mostly above the Fermi level (bands 39, 40) to the immediate higher one (bands 41, 42). This is why when the Fermi level is shifted to higher energies, the occupation in the lower degenerate set of bands (39, 40) and consequently the transition probability increases. Hence we observe the enhancement of the amplitude of the peak in conductivity upon shifting the Fermi level and is a probable cause of the experimentally observed peak.\n\n![(a) Decomposition of the the total inter-band optical conductivity into individual band transitions. Transitions from bands (39, 40) to (41, 42) result in the peak at 200 cm$^{-1}$ whereas transitions from bands (37, 38) to (39, 40) is the origin of the peak at 950 cm$^{-1}$. (b) Similar decomposition assuming a 10$^{\\circ}$ canted AFM order in the band structure.[]{data-label=\"fig:dec\"}](S1_dec.png \"fig:\"){width=\"48.00000%\"}\\\n![(a) Decomposition of the the total inter-band optical conductivity into individual band transitions. Transitions from bands (39, 40) to (41, 42) result in the peak at 200 cm$^{-1}$ whereas transitions from bands (37, 38) to (39, 40) is the origin of the peak at 950 cm$^{-1}$. (b) Similar decomposition assuming a 10$^{\\circ}$ canted AFM order in the band structure.[]{data-label=\"fig:dec\"}](S1_dec_canted.png \"fig:\"){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\nIt is interesting to note that in the context of the conductivity calculated from the band structure with canted AFM order, the origin of the peak at 200 cm$^{-1}$ is somewhat different than in the context of the uncanted structure, despite appearing at a similar energy scale. A decomposition into different inter-band contribution indicates that in this structure the peak is primarily from transitions between the previously degenerate bands, i.e., bands 37$\\rightarrow$38 and 39$\\rightarrow$40 (Band labels given in Fig. \\[fig:bs\\]). Although there is not much evidence from our experiment to choose one over the other, we do not favor this as the correct interpretation of our data as a canted order is not supported by neutron scattering experiments or theoretical considerations. However, this calculation further elucidates the fact that this peak is not a signature of Weyl node, even in a band structure that incorporates the effects of canted AFM order.\n\nA possible explanation for the discrepancy in amplitude of the 200 cm$^{-1}$ peak would be electronic correlation effects which can potentially add to the intra-band conductivity but would not be captured through simple subtraction of the Drude contribution. As an alternative to this peak being an inter-band excitation, it may arise from the coupling of conduction electrons to magnetism. Neutron scattering experiments on YbMnBi$_2$ [@FuhrmanPrivateCommunication] show prominent spin wave excitations in the energy range $\\sim$ 120 - 340 cm$^{-1}$ which matches the energy scale of the low energy peak observed in conductivity. The extent of this coupling is hard to estimate solely from optical conductivity measurements. One can expect such correlations to redistribute the Drude spectral weight giving an effective mass of the quasiparticles, $m^*$, different from the band mass, $m_b$. Such mass renormalizations can be extracted using extended Drude model analysis but as argued before, it would be unreliable in the present context because of the low lying inter-band transitions. However we can roughly characterize the renormalization effect by spectral weight analysis. We make use of the conductivity sum rule $$\\dfrac{Z_0}{\\pi^2}\\int_0^{\\omega_c} \\sigma_1(\\omega) d\\omega = \\omega_p^2 = \\dfrac{4\\pi n e^2}{m_b}$$ where $Z_0$ is vacuum impedance, $n$ is the carrier density and $\\omega_c$ is chosen appropriately to include the bandwidth of interest. If we interpret both the Drude term and peak at 200 cm$^{-1}$ both as inter-band contributions, then the ratio of the total spectral weight to the Drude piece gives a measure of the renormalized mass. A naive estimate of this electron-magnon coupling constant from this exercise, $\\gamma = m^*/m_b -1 = 0.4$. This is however a rather crude estimate as we know that there is a finite contribution to the conductivity at these frequencies from inter-band transitions and hence these numbers are only a rough guide. It would be interesting to estimate coupling constants from the neutron scattering data.\n\nThe peak at 950 cm$^{-1}$ is clearly from the inter-band transition between the bands of interest that would host the Weyl nodes in the canted structure i.e., right above (39,40) and below (37,38). However, because of the other low energy transition, it is nearly impossible to isolate any signature of the Weyl nodes if they exist in the optical conductivity spectrum. The peak derives from the quasi-2D Bi $p$-states (see Supplementary Materials) and is indicative of the linear dispersion. A sharp peak in conductivity is ordinarily expected to appear if a pair of occupied initial and empty final bands have nearly parallel dispersion in a large volume in $k$-space. Such an energy dispersion may occur if the Fermi level is inside a gap, which opens due to avoided crossing of two bands, and the size of the gap is constant in a large part of Brillouin zone. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that this peak is a signature of a Dirac dispersion with a small mass gap. This gap between the \u201clens\u201d shaped Fermi surfaces from the (37,38) bands and the \u201cboomerang\u201d shaped Fermi surfaces from the (39,40) bands (see figure \\[fig:dirac\\](a) (inset)) extends along $k_z$ over the whole Brillouin zone as the derived Bi $p$ bands are quasi-2D. This is further supported by partial conductivity calculations where we have integrated over cylindrical regions in $k$-space centered around points shown in the inset in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:dirac\\](a). The radius of each cylinder was chosen to be $\\approx 0.1\\times\\frac{2\\pi}{a}$ and the results clearly indicate that the major contribution to this peak is from the D-point which is between the \u201clens\u201d and the \u201cboomerang\u201d shaped Fermi surfaces where the Fermi level lies in the gap. Calculations also indicate that the magnitude of this gap does not depend on $k_z$ as expected. The contribution from B and X-points are also quite significant but as these points are in close proximity to the D-point, it is not surprising because the cylindrical volumes are not mutually exclusive. This is the reason why these spectra are not additive.\n\n![(a) Decomposition of the the inter-band contribution to the optical conductivity from the transition between the bands (37,38) $\\rightarrow$ (39,40) from different parts of the Fermi surface (fig. inset) (b) Linear fit of the inter-band transition peaked at 950cm$^{-1}$.[]{data-label=\"fig:dirac\"}](dirac_dec.png \"fig:\"){width=\"48.00000%\"}\\\n![(a) Decomposition of the the inter-band contribution to the optical conductivity from the transition between the bands (37,38) $\\rightarrow$ (39,40) from different parts of the Fermi surface (fig. inset) (b) Linear fit of the inter-band transition peaked at 950cm$^{-1}$.[]{data-label=\"fig:dirac\"}](vf.png \"fig:\"){width=\"48.00000%\"}\n\nWe can isolate the low frequency features of this particular inter-band contribution from the conductivity measured experimentally by fitting the peak at 200 cm$^{-1}$ to a Lorentz oscillator and subtracting it from the previously calculated inter-band conductivity. The resultant shows a roughly linear regime between 300 cm$^{-1}$ and 950 cm$^{-1}$ that can be fitted to a straight line with zero intercept (see figure \\[fig:dirac\\](b)). With the assumption that this linearity is due to the Dirac dispersion, we can calculate the Fermi velocity using equation . There are four Dirac points in each Brillouin zone of YbMnBi$_2$ [@borisenko2015time] and thus the calculated Fermi velocity is (1.1$\\pm$0.4)$\\times$10$^5$ cm/s \\[or 0.045$\\pm$0.01 eV$\\cdot$\u00c5\\]. This estimated Fermi velocity is within the range expected from ARPES which varies between 9 eV$\\cdot$\u00c5(perpendicular to the $k_xk_y$ plane) and 0.043 eV$\\cdot$\u00c5(along $k_z$). As discussed before, anisotropic Dirac cones are a hallmark of AMnBi$_2$ compounds and our observations here on YbMnBi$_2$ fits well into this description. The existence of a Dirac fermionic dispersion is also in good agreement with the reported magneto-transport experiments [@PhysRevB.93.085442].\n\nWe note that our interpretation of these peaks is at odds with another recent optical study [@chinotti2016electrodynamic] that has observed similar features in low energy conductivity but proposes that the peak around 200 cm$^{-1}$ derives from the van Hove singularity in a simplified WSM band structure. We do not favor this interpretation as realistic band structure calculations of YbMnBi$_2$ show it to exhibit certain non-idealities that will obscure the canonical behavior given in Ref. [@PhysRevB.93.085442]. Moreover, the Weyl state appears to be dependent on the existence of the magnetic structure for which there is no evidence. To reiterate, the the gross features of the optical response can be explained by the electronic structure of a uncanted state with a slightly shifted chemical potential.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe have measured the reflectivity of YbMnBi$_2$ in the infrared regime and calculated the optical conductivity. The various features in the conductivity has been interpreted using DFT band structure calculations. We believe that the low energy peaks in conductivity at 200 cm$^{-1}$ and 950 cm$^{-1}$ are true inter-band transitions and the spectrum can be explained reasonably well without invoking a canted magnetic structure which is necessary to realize Weyl nodes in this system. The conductivity leading up to the peak at 950 cm$^{-1}$ is consistent with a linear Dirac dispersion with a small gap. Although canting of the Mn moments does improve the agreement of the calculated spectra with the experiments, similar effect can also be achieved by small shift in Fermi level. Precise control of the Fermi level in semimetals is rather difficult which when considering the lack evidence for canting, we believe makes the latter outcome more likely. However, in either case the high relative amplitude of the low energy peak is not apparent from band structure calculations but could be an manifestation of electronic correlation effects.\n\nOne must still reconcile the ARPES data that shows reasonably convincing evidence for Weyl physics [@borisenko2015time], with neutron scattering experiments [@FuhrmanPrivateCommunication; @wang2016two] that does not show evidence for canting and our optical data that does not need it. Moreover, we should reiterate that the crystal structure of this compound does not allow for a canted magnetic structure to develop through a second order phase transition. All of these considerations can be accommodated if we assume that the reduced symmetry of the surface allows a surface magnetic structure reconstruction that is consistent with the canted state and a surface Weyl phase. It is possible that the surface of this compound hosts a true WSM through the breaking of time-reversal symmetry. Detailed measurements of the surface electronic structure or magnetism would be very useful in this regard.\n\nAcknowledgements\n================\n\nWe would like to thank C. Broholm, S. Borisenko and W. Fuhrman for helpful discussions and E. S. Arinze and N. Drichko for assistance with visible range reflectivity measurements. Optical measurements at JHU were supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences under Contract DE-FG02-08ER46544. Sample growth at Princeton was supported by the ARO MURI on topological insulators, Grant W911NF-12-0461.\n\n[31]{}ifxundefined \\[1\\][ ifx[\\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \\[1\\][ \\#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \\[1\\][ \\#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}\u201c\u201c\\#1\u201d\u201d@noop \\[0\\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \\[0\\][\u2018\\\n12\u2018\\$12 \u2018&12\u2018\\#12\u201812\u2018\\_12\u2018%12]{}@startlink\\[1\\]@endlink\\[0\\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} NP\u00a0Armitage, EJ\u00a0Mele, and Ashvin Vishwanath. Weyl and dirac semimetals in three dimensional solids. , 2017. @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [\u00a0]{} @noop [ ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} in\u00a0@noop [**]{}\u00a0() @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{} , ****, (). , , , ** (, , ). , ****, (). , , , ****, (). , , , ****, (). @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****,\u00a0 ()]{}\n\nFermi surface map for the different band structures\n===================================================\n\nThe Fermi surface for $k_z=0$ corresponding to the different band structure calculations are plotted in fig. \\[fig:fs\\].\n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\\\n\u00a0\\\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\\\n\u00a0\\\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\\\n\u00a0\\\n\nFat bands\n=========\n\n\u00a0\\\nThe origin of the peak in optical conductivity at 950 cm$^{-1}$, as discussed in the main text, is predominantly from the transition across the linearly dispersing bands. These massive Dirac like dispersion derives from the quasi-2D Bismuth $p$-states. So-called \u201cfat bands\u201d in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:ocm\\] clearly show that the strongly dispersing bands are almost exclusively composed of Bi $p$ states \\[Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:ocm\\] (a)\\] whereas the relatively flat bands forming the electron pockets near the $Z$ point originate from Mn $d$ states \\[Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:ocm\\] (b)\\].\\\n\u00a0\\\nIt is worth mentioning, that the wave functions of the predominantly Bi $p$ derived bands have also contributions of Bi $s$ and $d$ states which allows dipole transitions between these bands.\n\n![Band plots showing orbital contributions from (a) Bi $p$ states and (b) Mn $d$ states.[]{data-label=\"fig:ocm\"}](FigS2_FB_MnBi2.pdf){width=\"\\textwidth\"}\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We use a discrete dislocation dynamics (DDD) approach to study the motion of a dislocation under strong stochastic forces that may cause bending and roughening of the dislocation line on scales that are comparable to the dislocation core radius. In such situations, which may be relevant in high entropy alloys (HEA) exhibiting strong atomic scale disorder, standard scaling arguments based upon a line tension approximation may be no longer adequate and corrections to scaling need to be considered. We first study the wandering of the dislocation under thermal Langevin forces. This leads to a linear stochastic differential equation which can be exactly solved. From the Fourier modes of the thermalized dislocation line we can directly deduce the scale dependent effective line tension. We then use this information to investigate the wandering of a dislocation in a crystal with spatial, time-independent (\u2019quenched\u2019) disorder. We establish the pinning length and show how this length can be used as a predictor of the flow stress. Implications for the determination of flow stresses in HEA from molecular dynamics simulations are discussed.'\naddress:\n- 'Institute of Materials Simulation (WW8), Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-N[\u00fc]{}rnberg (FAU), Dr.-Mack-Str. 77, 90762 F[\u00fc]{}rth, Germany'\n- 'Department of Engineering and Mechanics, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, People$''$s Republic of China'\nauthor:\n- 'Jian-Hui Zhai'\n- Michael Zaiser\nbibliography:\n- 'references.bib'\ntitle: 'Properties of dislocation lines in crystals with strong atomic-scale disorder'\n---\n\n,Discrete Dislocation Dynamics,Langevin force,Spatial force field ,High Entropy Alloys\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nDiscrete dislocation dynamics (DDD) as a mesoscale method to simulate plastic deformation by considering dislocation motion, reactions, and interactions with other defects has been developed over the past decades to simulate deformation of bulk materials [@Zbib1998_IJMS; @Verdier1998_MSMSE] and micropillars [@Schwarz1999_JAP; @Ghoniem1999_PRB; @Weygand2002_MSMSE]. Most of these simulations consider the evolution of dislocation systems in a deterministic setting, without explicitly accounting for stochastic influences that may be either due to thermal fluctuations (\u2019annealed disorder\u2019) or due to spatially random but temporally constant forces arising from small-scale (e.g. chemical) disorder (\u2019quenched disorder\u2019). Such random effects may be significant in novel materials with a large degree of atomic scale disorder such as HEA. They are the main focus of the present study.\n\nThermal effects can be considered by incorporating Langevin forces into the equations of motion [@Ronnpagel1993_PSS; @Mohles1996_CMS; @Hiratani2002_JEMT; @Hiratani2003_JNM]. R[\u00f6]{}nnpagel et al. [@Ronnpagel1993_PSS] developed a stochastic model that considers the effects of temperature in a line tension model within Brownian dynamics scheme. They simulated dislocation glide in a stress field which was generated by localized obstacles and found that the effective attack frequency (inverse of waiting time) was indepedent of the choice of segment length and the activation enthalpy was dependent on applied stress and temperature. Mohles and R[\u00f6]{}nnpagel [@Ronnpagel1993_PSS] studied dislocations in a field of obstacles or interacting with obstacle walls. They found that the activation volume for overcoming such obstacles was independent on the spacing of obstacle and the drag coefficient had no influence on waiting time. Their simulation system focused on two dimensional problems [@Ronnpagel1993_PSS; @Mohles1996_CMS]. Hiratani and Zbib [@Hiratani2002_JEMT; @Hiratani2003_JNM] extended the model proposed by R[\u00f6]{}nnpagel et al. [@Ronnpagel1993_PSS] to three-dimensional simulations and used it to simulate dislocation glide through weak obstacles which were represented by stacking fault tetrahedra (SFTs). They found that dislocation motion was obstacle-controlled when the applied stress was below a critical resolved shear stress (CRSS), otherwise drag-controlled [@Hiratani2002_JEMT]; the dislocation line was found to exhibit a self-affine structure as manifested by non-trivial height-difference correlations of dislocation shapes [@Hiratani2003_JNM]. Langevin forces were implemented in different ways in these simulation schemes. Some researchers directly applied Langevin forces on dislocation nodes [@Ronnpagel1993_PSS; @Mohles1996_CMS], while others applied Langevin force on dislocation segments [@Hiratani2002_JEMT; @Hiratani2003_JNM]. In this paper we show that, to prevent artefacts, in a nodal dislocation dynamics scheme Langevin forces should be directly applied to dislocation nodes.\n\nSolid solution strengthening is a common method to strengthen materials where foreign atoms interact with dislocations and impede their movement [@Argon2008_OUP] (\u2019pinning\u2019). This is one particular example of a class of problems studied extensively in statistical physics, namely the pinning of elastic manifolds by random fields, see [@Chauve2000_PRB]. Concepts of elastic manifold depinning and the associated statistical phenomena were applied to the athermal motion of dislocations by Zapperi and Zaiser [@Zapperi2001_MSEA] and Bako et. al. [@Bako2008_PRB], and to dislocation motion at finite temperature by Ioffe and Vinokur [@Ioffe1987_JPC] and Zaiser [@Zaiser2002_PM].\n\nThe behavior of dislocations in pinning fields created by the superposition of forces from multiple pinning centers depends crucially on the minimal wavelength of dislocation shape fluctuations. If this wavelength is comparable to the spacing of pinning centers along the dislocations, i.e., if the dislocation bends around the pinning centers individually, we speak of strong pinning, otherwise if the wavelength is larger than the pinning center spacing, we speak of weak or collective pinning. Fleischer [@Fleischer1961_AM; @Fleischer1963_AM] considered solute atoms as strong pinning centers. Labusch [@Labusch1970_PSS; @Labusch1972_AM] developed a statistical model to consider describe the interaction between dislocations and solute atoms where the solute atoms act as weak pinning centres atoms. The Fleischer model is appropriate to dilute solid solutions, where spacings between solute atoms are large, whereas the Labusch model is suitable for concentrated solid solutions and has been also applied to high entropy alloys (HEAs) [@Toda2015_AM; @Wu2016_AM; @Varvenne2016_AM; @Varvenne2017_AM]. Note that the concepts of \u2019strong\u2019 vs \u2019weak\u2019 pinning do not relate to the magnitude of the CRSS: In highly dilute solid solutions, the CRSS is low but pinning may be \u2019strong\u2019 in the above defined technical sense, whereas in HEA the CRSS is high but pinning may be technically \u2019weak\u2019.\n\nTheoretical approaches to dislocation pinning, envisaged as elastic manifold pinning, often rely on a line tension approximation. This idea may be problematic in HEA where the atomic scale disorder may be strong and cause roughening of dislocations down to the nanometre scale, such that the minimal dislocation \u2019wavelength\u2019 is no longer small compared to the dislocation core radius. Here we investigate systematically the corrections that need to be applied to standard pinning theories as a consequence. The remainder of this paper is organized as following. Section \\[sec:2\\] gives an overview of results from statistical physics concering the dynamics of elastic lines under the influence of random forces, and introduces several concepts that will be used in Sections to analyze the results of the dislocation dynamics simulations.\n\nSection \\[sec:3\\] introduces discrete dislocation dynamics (DDD) under the influence of Langevin forces in \\[sec:3.1\\], the model is validated in \\[sec:3.2\\]. Results of simulations are reported in Section \\[sec:4\\], where spatio-temporal roughening under the influence of thermal forces is studied in \\[sec:4.1\\]. Comparison with analytical predictions from Section \\[sec:2\\] allows us to determine an effective, scale dependent line energy which is used in Section \\[sec:4.2\\] for studying dislocation glide under the influence of spatially random forces and applied stresses. Relations are given that allow to determine a characteristic pinning length from the zero-stress relaxed structure of the dislocation, and to relate this pinning length to the zero-temperature CRSS. Implications for determining CRSS values in HEA from molecular and ab-initio simulations are discussed and conclusions are given in Section \\[sec:5\\].\n\nScaling theory of elastic lines in random fields {#sec:2}\n================================================\n\nThermal fluctuations\n--------------------\n\nThe thermal equilibrium shape of an elastic line under the influence of thermal fluctuations can be deduced from simple thermodynamic arguments. We consider an elastic line of length $L$ and line energy ${\\cal T}$ pinned at both ends. The initial line direction is identified with the $x$ direction of a Cartesian coordinate system. The fundamental modes of the line are given by $y_n(x) = A_n \\sin(n \\pi x/L)$ where $n$ is a positive integer number. The associated energy is $$E_n = \\frac{{\\cal T}}{2} \\int \\left(\\frac{\\partial y_n(x)}{\\partial x} \\right)^2 dx = n^2 \\frac{{\\cal T} \\pi^2}{4 L} A_n^2.$$ From the equipartition theorem it then follows that $E_n = k_BT/2$, hence $$A_n^2 = \\frac{2k_B T}{ {\\cal T}L} \\left(\\frac{L}{\\pi n}\\right)^2,\n\\label{eq:intens}$$ i.e., the square mode amplitude (\u2019intensity\u2019) is expected to be proportional to temperature and inversely proportional to the square of the wave number. Conversely, from measurements of the mode amplitude the line energy ${\\cal T}$ can be deduced as $${\\cal T} =  \\frac{2 k_B T}{L} \\frac{1}{(\\pi n A_n)^{2}}\n\\label{eq:linetens}$$ For the case of dislocations, this provides an easy check to see whether a line tension approximation is warranted or whether corrections must be taken into account.\n\nDefining the mode wave vector as $q = n \\pi/L$ and noting that the phases of the different Fourier modes are independent random variables, we can deduce, in the limit $L \\to \\infty$ the scaling of the power spectrum of the line as $P(k) \\propto q^{-a}$ where $a = 2$. Using general results for self affine manifolds [@Schmittbuhl1995_PRE], this implies that the line shape represents, in the limit $L \\to \\infty$, a self affine fractal with roughness exponent $\\zeta = (a-1)/2 = 0.5$, i.e., it is equivalent to the graph of a random walk. We will investigate later to which extent this result is correct for dislocations.\n\nTo investigate the wandering dynamics, we consider an initially straight elastic line moving under the influence of thermal forces in an over-damped manner with a drag coefficient per unit length $B$. For a nearly straight line of line energy ${\\cal T}$, the wandering dynamics under the influence of thermal Langevin forces is described by the annealed Edwards-Wilkinson equation $$B \\frac{d y}{d t} = {\\cal T}\\frac{\\partial^2 y}{\\partial x^2} + f_T (x,t)\n\\label{eq:aedwilk}$$ where $f_T$ is a Gaussian random force with the correlation function $$\\langle f_T(x,t) f_T(x',t') \\rangle = 2 k_{\\rm B} T B \\delta(x-x') \\delta (t-t').$$ The linearity of the governing equation allows for analytical solution in Fourier space, see e.g. [@Nattermann1992_PRA]. The evolution equation of the Fourier modes has the structure of an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process; its solutions are Gaussian random variables with the correlation function $$\\langle A(q,t) A(q',t') \\rangle = \\frac{k_B T}{ {\\cal T}} \\frac{1}{q^2} \\left(1 - \\exp\\left[ - \\frac{2 {\\cal T}}{B} q^2 t\\right ] \\right) \\delta(q - q')$$ or in terms of the wave number $$\\langle A(n,t) A(n',t') \\rangle = \\frac{2 k_B T}{ {\\cal T} L} \\left(\\frac{L}{\\pi n}\\right)^2 \\left(1 - \n\\exp\\left[ - \\frac{2 \\pi^2 {\\cal T}}{BL^2} n^2 t\\right ] \\right) \\delta_{nn'}$$\n\nSpatially fluctuating forces\n----------------------------\n\nIf the elastic line is subject to spatially fluctuating but temporally fixed forces, the evolution is given by the quenched Edwards-Wilkinson equation $$B \\frac{d y}{d t} = {\\cal T}\\frac{\\partial^2 y}{\\partial x^2} + f_{\\rm q} (x,y) + f_{\\rm ext}\n\\label{eq:qedwilk}$$ where $f_{\\rm ext}$ is an externally applied driving force per unit length and the random force $f_{\\rm q}$ has the correlation function $$\\langle f_{\\rm q}(x,y) f_{\\rm q}(x',y') \\rangle = \\hat{f}^2 \\xi \\delta(x-x') \\phi(y-y').$$ where $\\hat{f}$ is a characteristic force per unit length created by a random potential of correlation length $\\xi$ and it is understood that we consider the line on scales well above the correlation length. The function $\\phi(y)$ where $\\phi(0) = 1, \\int \\phi dy = \\xi$ describes short-range correlations of the random force in the $y$ direction of motion of the line. Owing to the $y$ dependence of the random force, is intrinsically nonlinear.\n\nTo understand the energy scales associated with , let us consider a bulge of length $L$ and width $\\xi$ on an otherwise straight dislocation. The characteristic restoring force due to line tension is then easily estimated as $F_{\\rm LT} \\approx {\\cal T} \\xi/L$. The total random force acting on the bulge is a random variable with zero mean and standard deviation $F_{\\rm R} = \\hat{f} \\sqrt{\\xi L}$. Comparing the random and the restoring force defines a characteristic length, the so-called pinning length, given by $$L_{\\rm p} = \\left(\\frac{\\cal T}{\\hat{f}}\\right)^{2/3} \\xi^{1/3}\n\\label{eq:lpin}$$ Below this length, the restoring force prevails, i.e., the line is bound to remain essentially straight. On scales above this length, the line will in the absence of an external driving force wander by an amount of the order of $\\xi$ to reach the nearest energy minimum. For an initially straight line parallel to the $y$ axis this leads to a characteristic line shape where the line is straight but inclined on scales below $L_{\\rm p}$, and exhibits irregular fluctuations with a standard deviation of the order of $\\xi$ while keeping its original orientation on scales above $L_{\\rm p}$. This allows us to obtain estimates of the pinning length directly from the shape of the relaxed line.\n\nAveraging the pinning force over the pinning length defines a characteristic force per unit length. If the external force is smaller than this effective pinning force, the line is likely to be trapped into some metastable configuration. If the external force is large enough to make all metastable configurations disappear, the line will move indefinitely (depinning). The critical force for depinning can be estimated by comparing the external force to the pinning force, averaged over the pinning length. This gives $$f_{\\rm ext,c}= \\hat{f} \\sqrt{\\frac{\\xi}{L_{\\rm p}}} = \\hat{f}^{4/3} {\\cal T}^{-1/3} \\xi^{1/3}.\n\\label{eq:fpin}$$ In the context of dislocation theory, this argument corresponds to the weak pinning limit. An interesting aspect is that, if the pinning length is known, we may relate the critical force directly to the pinning length by eliminating the characteristic force $\\hat{f}$ from Eqs. (\\[eq:lpin\\]) and (\\[eq:fpin\\]) to obtain $$f_{\\rm ext,c}= \\frac{{\\cal T}\\xi^{1/3}}{L_{\\rm p}^2}.\n\\label{eq:fpinL}$$ As we shall demonstrate, this relationship allows to obtain, in the weak pinning regime, rough estimates of the pinning force in a numerically very efficient manner.\n\nDiscrete Stochastic Dislocation Dynamics {#sec:3}\n========================================\n\nDescription of model {#sec:3.1}\n--------------------\n\nIn the present model which focuses on core effects, a non singular theory [@Cai2006_JMPS; @Arsenlis2007_MSMSE] is considered. After discretization of the dislocation into nodes connected by segments, the equation of motion of dislocation node $i$ is escribed by the following equation: $$\\label{equ:1}\nm_{0}L_{i} \\bm{a}_{i}=-BL_{i} \\bm{v}_{i} + \\bm{F}_{i}^{\\rm disloc} + \\bm{F}_{i,T} + \\bm{F}_{i}^{\\rm a} + \\bm{F}_{i}^{\\rm q}.$$ Here $m_{0}\\approx\\rho b^{2}/2$ is the effective dislocation mass per unit length, , $\\rho$ and $b$ are the material mass density and magnitude of Burgers vector, respectively; $L_{i}$ is an effective length associated with node $i$ due to dislocation segments connecting to it; $B$ is the drag coefficient per unit length; $ \\bm{f}_{i}^{\\rm disloc} $ includes the self force $\\bm{f}_{i}^{\\rm self}$, core force $\\bm{f}_{i}^{\\rm core} $ and the force from dislocation segment-segment interactions; $\\bm{f}_{i,T}$ is a Langevin force which accounts for thermal fluctuations; $\\bm{f}_{i}^{\\rm a}$ is the force due to the externally applied stress and $\\bm{f}_{i}^{\\rm q}$ is the force due to a spatial force field that may be used to model the influence of atomic disorder.\n\nThe Langevin force is a stochastic force of magnitude (see \\[app:1\\]) $$\\bm{F}_{i,T} =\\Lambda_{i,j}\\sqrt{\\frac{2Bk_{B}TL_{i}}{\\Delta t_{j}}}\\bm{s}_{i},$$ where $\\Lambda_{i,j}$ is a normal distributed Gaussian random number; $k_{B}$ is Boltzmann\u2019s constant; $T$ is absolute temperature; $\\Delta t_{j}$ is the increment of time at simulation step $j$, and the unit vector $\\bm{s}_{i}$ denotes the effective glide direction of node $i$.\n\n   Temperature(K)   Drag coefficient($\\mu$Pa$\\bm{\\cdot}$s)\n  ---------------- ----------------------------------------\n        300                           30\n        600                           60\n        900                           90\n        1200                         120\n\n  : Temperature dependence of drag coefficient, after [@Hiratani2002_JEMT].\n\n\\[table:1\\]\n\n[|c|c|c|c|c|&gt;p[1.2cm]{}|c|c|c|]{} & & & &\\\n& (i) &(ii) &(i) &(ii) &(i) &(ii) &(i) &(ii)\\\n300 & 299 & 299 &52.7 &16.6 &52.3 &17.2 & $\\sim$31.6&$\\sim$36.5\\\n600 & 596 & 596 &74.5 &23.5 &72.9 &23.6 & $\\sim$21.2& $\\sim$16.7\\\n900 & 894 & 896 &91.2 &28.8 &92.5 &29.8 & $\\sim$13.1& $\\sim$15.9\\\n1200 & 1189& 1189&105.3 &33.3 &105.7 & 32.4& $\\sim$9.0& $\\sim$8.2\\\n\n\\[table:2\\]\n\nValidation: thermal equilibrium properties {#sec:3.2}\n------------------------------------------\n\nTo validate our model implementation, we consider an initially straight edge dislocation which we assume to run in $x$ direction and move in the $xy$ plane under the influence of thermal forces. After sufficient simulation time, once thermal equilibrium has been reached, the mean kinetic energy for each degree of freedom should be $k_{B}T/2$ and the distribution of nodal velocities along the local directions $\\bm{s}_{i}$ should follow Maxwell\u2019s distribution with a theoretical standard deviation (SD) of $\\sqrt{k_{B}T/(m_{0}L_{i})}$. Two different simulations are considered in this part: (i) an edge dislocation line with fixed endpoints which is discretized into 1000 dislocation segments with segment length 20$b$; (ii) a similar edge dislocation line with non-equidistant nodes and $L_{i}$ changing from 20$b$ to 200$b$. The time step $\\Delta t_{j}$ is chosen constant and equals 50fs. For larger time steps, the mean kinetic energy and velocity distribution can be used to determine whether the selection is suitable or not. A series of temperatures (300K, 600K, 900K and 1200K) are simulated to check the correctness of the Langevin force implementation. Material parameters are taken from [@Hiratani2002_JEMT] in order to compare with these simulations, in which Langevin force were applied on dislocation segments rather than nodes. The shear modulus and Poisson ratio are $\\mu$=54.6 GPa and $\\nu$=0.324, respectively; the magnitude of Burgers vector $b$=0.256nm and mass density is $\\rho$=8900kg/m$^{3}$. The drag coefficient is assumed proportional to temperature and listed in Table \\[table:1\\].\n\nKinetic temperatures and velocity distributions for different Langevin temperatures are shown in Figs. \\[fig:kinetic\\_temperature\\] and \\[fig:velocity\\_distribution\\], respectively for a dislocation with equi-distant nodes. The principle of equipartition is observed in Fig. \\[fig:kinetic\\_temperature\\] and the distribution of velocity about a specified node follows a Maxwell distribution with simulated SD close to the theoretical value $\\sqrt{k_{B}T/(m_{0}L_{i})}$ as shown in Fig. \\[fig:velocity\\_distribution\\]. Simulated temperature, theoretical value of standard deviation (TSD), simulated SD and time $t_{\\rm equ}$ for thermal equilibration are shown in Table \\[table:2\\] (for dislocations with equi-distant nodes (case (i)) and for dislocations with variable node spacing (case (ii)), in the latter case, the SD and TSD data refer to the node with the largest associated effective length. As we can see, simulated temperatures are very close to the given temperatures (maximum relative error is within 1%) and the simulated SD of velocity distribution has matches the theoretical values. A non-equidistant node distribution scheme has no detrimental influence on the agreement between theory and simulation. $t_{\\rm equ}$ is mainly influenced by drag coefficient and decreases with increasing drag coefficient. The influence of dislocation segment length is also studied. Simulated temperature, TSD, simulated SD and $t_{\\rm equ}$ for different dislocation segment lengths in a simulation of type (i) are shown in Table \\[table:3\\] where $\\Delta t$=50fs and $T$=1200K. The table shows that different dislocation segment lengths have no influence on simulated temperature and thermal equilibration time decreases with increased dislocation length, which is the opposite of the result obtained when Langevin forces are applied on dislocation segments [@Hiratani2002_JEMT].\n\n   Length($b$)   simulated temperature(K)   TSD(m/s)   simulated SD(m/s)   $t_{equ}$(ps)\n  ------------- -------------------------- ---------- ------------------- ---------------\n       100                 1188               47.1           47.0            $\\sim$8.7\n       200                 1190               33.3           32.3            $\\sim$8.1\n       400                 1190               23.5           23.7            $\\sim$5.8\n       800                 1185               16.6           15.4            $\\sim$4.4\n\n\\[table:3\\]\n\nSimulation results {#sec:4}\n==================\n\nSpatio-temporal roughening of a dislocation line under influence of thermal forces {#sec:4.1}\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nWe simulate an edge dislocation of length $2 \\times 10^4 b$ pinned at its endpoints. The line direction is identified with the $x$ direction of a Cartesian coordinate system, the glide plane is the $xy$ plane. The system is assumed to be of infinite extension in $z$ direction and periodic boundary conditions are imposed on a simulation cell of extension $2 \\times 10^4 b$ in $x$ and $2 \\times 10^4 b$ in $y$ direction. The dislocation is discretized into 1000 nodes with an inital spacing of $20b$.\n\nIn our investigation of the spatio-temporal behavior of the dislocation under the influence of thermal forces, we first consider a dislocation that has been evolving for sufficient time to establish thermal equilibrium. In this case the amplitudes of its Fourier modes fulfill Eq. .\n\n![Top: Fourier mode amplitudes of a thermally equilibriated dislocation against wave number; dashed line: $A_n^2 \\propto n^{-2}$ as expected for an elastic line according to ; bottom: effective line energy as determined from , full: guide to the eye.\\[fig:eqdis\\]](eqdis.pdf){width=\"3.3in\"}\n\nThe amplitudes of the Fourier modes of the equilibrated dislocation are shown in Figure \\[fig:eqdis\\], top. We observe that, for short wavelengths (large wave numbers), characteristic deviations occur from the $A_n^2 \\propto n^{-2}$ behavior expected according to Eq. \\[fig:eqdis\\]. Of course, in our simulations the self-interaction of a dislocation line is described by a non-local interaction kernel which is much more complex than a simple elastic line. So the question arises whether we can understand the deviations and quantify them.\n\nTo this end, we first use to determine a wave number dependent line energy. This is shown in Figure \\[fig:eqdis\\], bottom. We can see that, for long-wavelength fluctuations, the data can be well described by an approximately constant line energy. However, on short scales (large wave numbers) the effective line tension seems to be decreasing. To understand this behavior, we have, in Appendix A, calculated the Fourier transform of the non-singular dislocation self interaction kernel [@Cai2006_JMPS; @Arsenlis2007_MSMSE], both for an isolated dislocation and for a periodic array of rigidly coupled dislocations as implied in the present simulations by our boundary conditions.\n\n![\\[fig:rougheningT\\]Top: time evolution of the structure function $R(d,t)$, simulation at $T$=300K; dashed line: $R \\propto\n    (d/{\\cal T}(d)^{0.5}$, average over 10 simulations; bottom: scaled structure function $w = R (k_{\\rm B}T)^{-0.5} B^{0.25} {\\cal T}^{0.25} t^{-0.25}$ as function of scaled displacement $u = d({\\cal T} t/B)^{-0.5}$; data for different temperatures as shown in legend, data at each temperature for times $t=0.05ns, t= 0.5ns, t=3ns$.](rougheningT.pdf){width=\"3.3in\"}\n\nIn a next step, we investigate the transient dynamics before the dislocation has reached thermal equilibrium, starting from an initially straight dislocation line configuration which, under the influence of thermal fluctuations, gradually develops a self affine shape $y(x)$. We statistically characterize this process by the structure factor $R(d,t)$ defined as: $$\\label{equ:3}\nR(d,t)=\\left\\langle \\left\\langle \\left| y(x,t)-y(x+d,t)\\right|\\right\\rangle_{x}\\right\\rangle _{N}$$ where $\\left\\langle \\right\\rangle_N $ means average over an ensemble of $N$ simulations and $\\left\\langle \\right\\rangle_x$ the average over all $x$ positions for which $y(x+d,t)$ can be computed. The time evolution of $R(d,t)$ is shown in Figure \\[fig:rougheningT\\] for $T=300$K. For a given time, the function $R(d,t)$ exhibits two regimes: At small $d$, thermal equilibrium has been reached, and the line has a self affine shape where the structure function is time independent and approximately follows the theoretically expected scaling for an elastic line, $R \\propto (d k_{\\rm B} T/{\\cal T})^{\\zeta}$ with $\\zeta = 0.5$ [@Nattermann1992_PRA]. The apparent deviations from slope 0.5 on the double-logarithmic plot can be accounted for by noting that the effective line energy of the dislocation decreases on small scales. Setting ${\\cal T} \\propto \\ln(d/b)$ produces a good representation of the data.\n\nThe overall behavior of $R(d,t)$ can be described by the equation $$R(d,t) = \\left(\\frac{d k_{\\rm B} T}{{\\cal T}}\\right)^{\\zeta} \\Phi\\left(\\frac{\\cal T}{B} \\frac{t}{d^z}\\right)$$ with the roughness exponent $\\zeta = 0.5$ and the dynamic exponent $z=2$ for the elastic line under thermal forces. The scaling function $\\Phi$ has the following properties: $\\Phi(x) \\to \\Phi_{\\infty}\\; {\\rm for}\\; x \\to \\infty, \\Phi(x) \\propto x^{\\zeta/z}\\;\n{\\rm for}\\; x \\to 0$. This implies that, for sufficiently large $d$, the structure function approaches an approximately $d$ independent value $R_{\\infty} \\propto T^{\\zeta} B^{-\\zeta/z} {\\cal T}^{\\zeta(1-z)/z} t^{\\zeta/z}$. With $\\zeta = 0.5$, $z = 2$, and a linear temperature dependency $B \\propto T$, we find that $R_{\\infty} \\propto T {0.25} t^{0.25}$. Figure \\[fig:rtimetemp\\] shows that the time- and temperature dependence of $R_{\\infty}$ is in good agreement with this expectation.\n\n![Top: time dependence of the asymptotic structure factor $R_{\\infty}$ at a temperature of 1200 K, full line: slope 0.25 of the double-logarithmic plot; bottom: temperature dependence of $R_{\\infty}$ at time $3ns$, full line: slope 0.25 of the double-logarithmic plot. \\[fig:rtimetemp\\]](Rtimetemp.pdf){width=\"3.3in\"}\n\nA generic representation of the roughening behavior at all times and all temperatures is obtained by introducing the new variables $u = d({\\cal T} t/B)^{-1/z}$ and $w = R (k_{\\rm B}T)^{-\\zeta} B^{\\zeta/z} {\\cal T}^{\\zeta(z-1)/z} t^{-\\zeta/z}$ in which the structure factor has the universal form $$w = u^{\\zeta} \\Phi(u^{-z}).$$ This is illustrated in Figure \\[fig:rougheningT\\], bottom, which shows a compilation of structure factor curves pertaining to different temperatures and roughening times after re-scaling to the universal variables $u$ and $w$. The plot demonstrates the existence of an underlying generic scaling curve that represents the evolving shapes at all times and temperatures.\n\nRoughening and pinning in a spatially random force field {#sec:4.2}\n--------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn this section, we investigate the interaction of a dislocation with a spatial time-independent force field. Spatially random force fields can be used to model structural disorder on the atomic scale as prominent in random solid solutions and high-entropy alloys. Such disorder is, at low to intermediate temperatures, time independent (\u2019quenched disorder\u2019) and creates spatially fluctuating internal stresses and ensuing forces on the dislocations which depend on position and have zero average value. We use a simple model where a random force at the point $(x,y)$ is created by the superposition of forces from randomly located pinning points, each of which creates a Gaussian pinning potential: $$f(x,y)=\\hat{f}\\sum_{i=1}^{N}\\frac{(x-x_{i})}{\\xi}e^{-\\frac{(x-x_{i})^{2}+(y-y_{i})^{2}}{2\\xi^{2}}}.$$ Here $x_{i},y_{i}$ are the coordinates of pinning center $i$; $N$ is total number of randomly distributed pinning centers; $\\xi$=$\\sqrt{A/N}$ is the range of the pinning potential which also determines the correlation length of the random pinning force, and $\\hat{f}$ defines the characteristic magnitude of the spatial force field.\n\n![Top: determination of the pinning length, simulation with $\\hat{f} = 0.04$N/m at zero applied stress; bottom: dependence of pinning length on amplitude $\\hat{f}$ of the pinning field.[]{data-label=\"fig:pinlength\"}](pinlength.pdf){width=\"3.3in\"}\n\nTo quantify the action of the pinning force on the dislocation, we again consider the structure factor $R(d)$ which we evaluate for an ensemble of initially straight dislocations interacting with a pinning potential of range $\\xi = 20 b$ and variable strength. During relaxation at zero applied stress, the dislocations develop local roughness as they adjust their line shape to minimize their energy in the random pinning field. The corresponding structure factor is shown in Figure \\[fig:pinlength\\]: On small scales one finds an increasing $R(d)$ function with an approximately linear dependency, $R \\propto d^{\\zeta}$ with $\\zeta =1$, as indicative for an inclined dislocation line that has moved under the influence of random forces while remaining locally straight. On large scales the function $R(d)$ is constant as indicative of uncorrelated random displacements of the initially straight line in both directions. A crossover length $L_{\\rm p}$ can be constructed as shown in Figure \\[fig:pinlength\\] by fitting two curves $R \\propto d$ and $R = {\\rm const.}$ to the two branches and identifying the crossover length (\u2019pinning length\u2019) with the intersection point.\n\nResults are shown in Figure \\[fig:pinlength\\], top which shows the thus determined pinning length as a function of the strength of the pinning field. As expected according to , the pinning length decreases with increasing pinning field. However, this decrease is only in the regime of weak pinning fields quantitatively described by the theoretical slope of -2/3. At large fields, the pinning length saturates because $L_{\\rm p}$ cannot become larger than the physical spacing $\\xi$ of the pinning centers. This corresponds to a transition from weak to strong pinning.\n\nWe now turn to the behavior of the dislocation line under applied stress. An increasing applied stress causes the dislocation to move between metastable configurations until, at a critical stress, metastability is lost and the dislocation moves indefinitely (depinning). In terms of the self affine roughness of the dislocation line, roughening extends to larger and larger scales until, at the critical stress, the dislocation exhibits a self affine shape on all scales with roughness exponent $\\zeta \\approx 1$. This roughening is illustrated in Figure \\[fig:roughquenched\\] for two different amplitudes $\\hat{f}$ of the pinning field.\n\n![Evolution of the structure function $R(d,\\tau)$ under increasing applied shear stress in a stationary pinning field; top: amplitude of the pinning field $\\hat{f}$ = 0.128 N/m, bottom: $\\hat{f}$ = 0.004 N/m; the resolved shear stress is given as a fraction of the critical resolved shear stress (crss), see Figure \\[fig:crss\\], top, for the respective crss values.\\[fig:roughquenched\\]](roughquenched.pdf){width=\"3.3in\"}\n\nWe define the critical resolved shear stress (crss) as the minimum stress required to move the dislocation once across the periodic simulation cell of width $2000b$ in the (mean) direction of dislocation motion. To compare with the prediction for an elastic line, Eq. (\\[eq:fpin\\]), we need to specify a line energy: We identify the wave vector corresponding to the pinning length as $q_{\\rm p} = 2 \\pi/L_{\\rm p}$ and obtain the corresponding line energy from Figure \\[fig:eqdis\\], thus assuming that pinning is controlled by an effective value of the line energy on the scale of the pinning length. This allows us to calculate a pinning force from Eq. (\\[eq:fpin\\]), from which the predicted crss derives by simply setting $f_{\\rm c} = \\tau_{\\rm c}b$. Predicted crss values are compared to values deduced from the simulations in Figure \\[fig:crss\\], top. It can be seen that in the regime of weak pinning, here up to a force amplitude of about $\\hat{f}=$0.02 N/m, corresponding to a pinning length of about 100$b$, the simulated crss data (black squares in Figure \\[fig:crss\\], top) follow to a good approximation the prediction for an elastic line (red circles in Figure \\[fig:crss\\], top). Deviations occur in the regime of strong pinning, corresponding to the regime where the pinning length deviates from the weak pinning result and tends towards a saturation: In this regime, we see a cross-over from an exponent $p=4/3$ in the $\\tau_{\\rm c} \\propto \\hat{f}^p$ relationship to an exponent of 1. The transition occurs at a pinning length of $L_{\\rm p} \\approx 5 \\xi$, for larger pinning lengths the weak pinning relations are well fulfilled.\n\nWe next turn to the possibility of predicting the crss on the basis of the pinning length alone using Eq. (\\[eq:fpin\\]). As can be seen in Figure \\[fig:crss\\], bottom, this equation produces excellent results in the weak pinning regime $L_{\\rm p} > 100 b = 5 \\xi$.\n\n![Top: critical resolved shear stress as function of amplitude $\\hat{f}$ of the random force field, full squares: crss values determined from our simulations, open circles: prediction from Eq. (\\[eq:fpin\\]); bottom: critical resolved shear stress as function of pinning length (pinning length as in Figure \\[fig:pinlength\\]), full squares: crss values determined from our simulations, open circles: prediction from Eq. (\\[eq:fpinL\\]). \\[fig:crss\\]](CRSS.pdf){width=\"3.3in\"}\n\nThis finding is important because it suggests that, in the weak pinning regime, estimates of the zero-temperature critical resolved shear stress can be obtained by studying the static properties of a dislocation at zero stress on scales of the pinning length only - scales that are accessible to molecular or even ab-initio simulation methods. Depinning, on the other hand, involves complex spatio-temporal processes and avalanche dynamics covering a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, which require mesoscopic methods such as discrete dislocation dynamics for their simulation.\n\nDiscussion and Conclusions {#sec:5}\n==========================\n\nWe have analyzed the roughening of a dislocation line under the influence of thermal forces which has provided us with a method to determine, for the DDD model analyzed, a length-scale dependent effective line energy that controls the energy associated with perturbations of a straight line. We then studied the behavior of the simulated dislocation in a stationary random field created by pinning centers of spacing and interaction range $\\xi$. Using scaling relations typical of elastic lines in the regime of weak pinning, we found that we can determine a pinning length $L_{\\rm p}$ from analyzing the relaxed shape of a initially straight dislocation at zero applied stress. The main result of our investigation is that, in the weak pinning regime where $L_{\\rm p} > \\xi$, it is possible to obtain estimates of the depinning stress (the critical resolved shear stress needed to move the dislocation across the pinning field) without explicit knowledge of the pinning field strength, based upon the pinning length, the interaction range $\\xi$ which relates to the density of the pinning obstacles, and the scale dependent dislocation line energy.\n\nWhat is the use of this result? First of all we note that determining the pinning length can be done by static relaxation of the dislocation in a comparatively small periodic simulation cell. For the construction shown in Figure \\[\\] to work, it is sufficient that the simulation cell extends over about 5 pinning lengths in the direction parallel to the dislocation and about 5 $\\xi$ in the perpendicular direction. Depinning, on the other hand, is preceded by a sequence of increasingly complex metastable configuurations where the dislocation develops self affine roughness on all scales and, as can be inferred from Figure \\[\\], accurate determination of the flow stress requires a simulation cell that extends over about $1000 \\xi$ in the direction parallel and over $100\\xi$ in the direction perpendicular to the dislocation. Hence, the size of the simulation cells needed for determination of $\\tau_{\\rm c}$ and of $L_{\\rm p}$ differs by a factor of about 200. In addition, direct determination of the crss needs a search algorithm to find the critical stress at which, in such a simulation, metastability is lost, which necessitates a sequence of relaxation steps or a simulation of the time dependent dynamics under a very slowly ramping external stress.\n\nIn a conventional solution hardened alloy, e.g. a binary alloy system for which reliable inter-atomic potentials are available, it is nevertheless possible to perform medium-scale molecular dynamics simulations to directly determine the crss [@Rodary2004_PRB] from atomic simulation. This direct approach cuts out the need to parametrize a meso-scale model: In a concentrated solid solution the solute spacing and hence the correlation length $\\xi$ is expected to be of the order of $\\xi \\sim 2b$ only, hence a system of size $100 \\times 100 \\times 1000 \\xi^3$ as used in our study is accessible to large-scale MD simulations. In medium- or high-entropy alloy systems for which phenomenological potentials are available, similar simulations may be performed as demonstrated by [@Rao2017_AM] for the quarternary CoFeNiTi system. The here presented method may then allow for a computationally efficient screening of the space of compositions within such an alloy system in view of establishing optimal mechanical properties, by performing serial simulations of small systems and establishing the composition dependence of the pinning length from the respective relaxed dislocation configurations.\n\nTo show that our ideas are indeed applicable to high-entropy alloys we refer to experimental data from the literature. For fcc equi-atomic CoCrFeMnNi alloy a solute contribution to strength of about 300 MPa has been reported [@Otto2013_AM] while the shear modulus amounts to $\\mu$=81 GPa and the Young\u2019s modulus to 203 MPa [@Laplanche2015_JAC]. Using a line energy estimate of $0.3 \\mu b^2$ and correlation length $\\xi \\approx b$ we find from Eq. (\\[eq:fpin\\]) a characteristic pinning length $L_{\\rm p} > 9 \\xi$ which indicates that this alloy is well within the weak pinning regime (see also the work of Varvenne et. al. [@Varvenne2016_AM] who apply weak-pinning type averaging methods to the same alloy). For bcc equi-atomic TaNbHfZrTi the solute contribution to strength is about 700MPa [@Senkov2011_JAC] which with an estimated shear modulus of $\\mu$=40 GPa [@Senkov2011_JAC] and similar line energy and correlation length estimates implies a characteristic pinning length $L_{\\rm p} \\approx 5 \\xi$, still at the borderline of the weak pinning regime. Finally, in a computational study of a quarternary CoFeNiTi alloy data determined by [@Rao2017_AM] inidcate a disorder contribution to the $T=0$ crss of screw dislocations of $0.02 \\mu$ (difference between the crss values of the random alloy and the disorder-homogeneized alloy), which corresponds to a disorder-associated pinning length of $L_{\\rm p} \\approx 7 \\xi$, again within the weak pinning regime. It is thus likely that weak pinning ideas can be applied to HEA or, more generally speaking, to compositionally complex random alloys, and that the method proposed here allows for a rapid screening of the composition space in such alloy systems where reliable potentials are available. We note that, in fcc HEA, an additional complication arises from the typically low stacking fault energy and resulting high degree of core splitting, which implies that the concept of solute pinning must be applied to split dislocations of even independently pinned particals. We will discuss the resulting modifications to the present considerations elsewhere but note that, as long as the splitting distance is larger than the pinning length, the analysis of weak pinning can be applied to the two partial dislocations separately.\n\nAcknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}\n================\n\nThis work is funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant 1Za-8/1. Discussions with Daniel Weygand and Volker Mohles are gratefully acknowledged.\n\nDerivation of Langevin force on a dislocation {#app:1}\n=============================================\n\nWithout external applied stress and spatial force field Eq. (\\[equ:1\\]) can be rewritten as $$\\label{equ:a1}\nm_{0}L_{i} \\bm{a}_{i}=-BL_{i} \\bm{v}_{i} + \\bm{F}_{i}^{\\mathit{disloc}} + \\bm{F}_{i,T}$$ where $\\bm{F}_{i}^{\\rm{disloc}}=-U_{\\bm r_{i}}$, $U$ is total potential energy of the dislocation network [@Bulatov2006_OUP] and $\\bm r_{i}$ is the position of node $i$. $L_{i}$ is the effective segmeint length associated with node $i$ and can be expressed as: $$L_{i} = \\sum\\limits_{j=1}^N0.5L_{ij}$$ where $ j $ labels the $N$ nodes connected to node $ i $ by connecting segments of length $L_{ij}$. For a straight line not connected into a network, as considered here, $N =2$. Eq. (\\[equ:a1\\]) can be rewritten as following: $$\\bm{a}_{i} + \\gamma\\bm{v}_{i} = \\bm{\\mathit{\\Gamma}}_{i}^{\\rm disloc} + \\bm{\\mathit{\\Gamma}}_{i,T}$$ where $\\gamma=B/m_{0}$ and $\\bm{\\mathit{\\Gamma}}_{i}=\\bm{\\mathit{F}}_{i}/(m_{0}L_{i})$ denotes a force per unit mass.\n\nThe Langevin force describing a thermal white noise has the following statistical properties [@Risken1996_SPRINGER]: $$\\begin{split}\n&\\left\\langle \\mathit{\\Gamma}_{i,T}\\left( t\\right)\\right\\rangle = 0  \\\\\n&\\left\\langle {\\mathit{\\Gamma}}_{i,T}(t){\\mathit{\\Gamma}}_{i,T}(t')\\right\\rangle  = q\\delta(t-t')\n\\end{split}\n\\label{equ:a4}$$ where the noise strength $q$ is given by $$q=2\\gamma k_{B}T/(m_{0}L_{i})=2Bk_{B}T/(m_{0}^{2}L_{i})$$ where $k_{B}$ is Boltzmann constant and $T$ is absolute temperature. In a numerical implementation, we statistically integrate the Langevin force over the elementary time step, yielding $${\\mathit{\\Gamma}}_{i,T}(t_{j} \\leq t<t_{j}+\\Delta t_{j})=\\Lambda_{i,j}\\sqrt{\\frac{2Bk_{B}T}{m_{0}^{2}L_{i}\\Delta t_{j}}}$$ where $\\Lambda_{i,j}$ is a Gaussian distributed random variable of zero mean and unit variance, and $\\Delta t_{j}$ is the length of simulation time step $j$. Accordingly, the Langevin force on a dislocation segment of length $L_{i}$ has the following form: $$\\label{equ:a7}\n{\\mathit{F}}_{i,T}( t_{j} \\leq t<t_{j}+\\Delta t_{j})  = \\Lambda_{i,j}\\sqrt{\\frac{2Bk_{B}TL_{i}}{\\Delta t_{j}}}$$ and the Langevin force per unit length is: $$\\label{equ:a8}\n{\\mathit{f}}_{i,T}(t_{j} \\leq t<t_{j}+\\Delta t_{j})=\\Lambda_{i,j}\\sqrt{\\frac{2Bk_{B}T}{L_{i}\\Delta t_{j}}}$$\n\nFollowing the suggestion of [@Mohles1996_TUB], the component of the Langevin force along the dislocation line direction is ignored to avoid numerical problems and the nodal Langevin force is thus given by the following expression: $$\\bm{s}_{i} = \\sum\\limits_{j=1}^NL_{ij}\\bm{s}_{ij}/|\\sum\\limits_{j=1}^NL_{ij}\\bm{s}_{ij}|$$ where $\\bm{s}_{ij} = \\bm{n}_{ij}\\times\\bm{t}_{ij}$ is the glide direction of segment $i-j$, $\\bm{n}_{ij}$ and $\\bm{t}_{ij}$ are the unit normal vectors of glide plane and the unit line direction vector of dislocation segment $i-j$, respectively. Combining magnitude and direction gives the Langevin force and force per unit length as: $$\\begin{split}\n&\\bm{\\mathit{F}}_{i,T} = {\\mathit{F}}_{i,T}\\bm{s}_{i} \\\\\n&\\bm{\\mathit{f}}_{i,T} = {\\mathit{f}}_{i,T}\\bm{s}_{i}\n\\end{split}\n$$\n\nReferences {#references .unnumbered}\n==========\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'In this paper, the design and analysis of a new bandwidth-efficient signaling method over the bandlimited intensity-modulated direct-detection (IM/DD) channel is presented. The channel can be modeled as a bandlimited channel with nonnegative input and additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). Due to the nonnegativity constraint, standard methods for coherent bandlimited channels cannot be applied here. Previously established techniques for the IM/DD channel require bandwidth twice the required bandwidth over the conventional coherent channel. We propose a method to transmit without intersymbol interference in a bandwidth no larger than the bit rate. This is done by combining Nyquist or root-Nyquist pulses with a constant bias and using higher-order modulation formats. In fact, we can transmit with a bandwidth equal to that of coherent transmission. A trade-off between the required average optical power and the bandwidth is investigated. Depending on the bandwidth required, the most power-efficient transmission is obtained by the parametric linear pulse, the so-called \u201cbetter than Nyquist\" pulse, or the root-raised cosine pulse.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    \\\n    [^1]\nbibliography:\n- 'MyDatabase\\_EA.bib'\ntitle: Bandlimited Intensity Modulation\n---\n\nIntensity-modulated direct-detection (IM/DD), strictly bandlimited signaling.\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\ndemand for high-speed data transmission systems has introduced new design paradigms for optical communications. The need for low-complexity and cost-effective systems has motivated the usage of affordable optical hardware (e.g., incoherent transmitters, optical intensity modulators, multimode fibers, direct-detection receivers) to design short-haul optical fiber links (e.g., fiber to the home and optical interconnects)[@4528765; @5875697] and diffuse indoor wireless optical links [@gfeller2005wireless; @kahn2002wireless; @hranilovic2005design]. These devices impose three important constraints on the signaling design. First, the transmitter only modulates information on the instantaneous intensity of an optical carrier, contrary to conventional coherent channels where the amplitude and phase of the carrier can be used to send information . In the receiver, only the optical intensity of the incoming signal will be detected [@kahn2002wireless]. Due to these limitations, the transmitted signal must be nonnegative. Such transmission is called intensity modulation with direct detection (IM/DD). Second, the peak and average optical power (i.e., the peak and average of the transmitted signal in the electrical domain) must be below a certain threshold for eye- and skin-safety concerns [@kahn2002wireless] and to avoid nonlinearities present in the devices [@westbergh200932; @inan2009impact]. In conventional channels, such constraints are usually imposed on the peak and average of the squared electrical signal. Third, the bandwidth is limited due to the impairments in the optoelectronic devices [@hranilovic2005design; @4132995] and other limitations (e.g., modal dispersion in short-haul optical fiber links [@5223628] and multipath distortion in diffuse indoor wireless optical links[@kahn2002wireless]). Consequently, the coherent modulation formats and pulse shaping methods designed for conventional electrical channels (i.e., with no nonnegativity constraint on the transmitted signal) cannot be directly applied to IM/DD channels.\n\nPulse shaping for the purpose of reducing intersymbol interference (ISI) in conventional channels has been previously investigated in , [@5055024; @1089824; @beaulieu2002better; @1369626; @chandan05; @192386]. Much research has been conducted on determining upper and lower bounds on the capacity of IM/DD channels considering power and bandwidth limitations [@farid2010capacity; @hranilovic2004capacity; @farid2009capacity; @lapidoth2009capacity; @you2002capacity; @you2002upper]. In [@kahn2002wireless; @16882; @524287; @780164; @490239; @HranilovicLattice; @karout2010power; @FSOIMDD], the performance of various modulation formats in IM/DD channels were studied using rectangular or other time-disjoint (i.e., infinite-bandwidth) pulses. Hranilovic in [@1577875] pioneered in investigating the problem of designing strictly bandlimited pulses for IM/DD channels with nonnegative pulse-amplitude modulation (PAM) schemes. He showed the existence of nonnegative bandlimited Nyquist pulses, which can be used for ISI-free transmission over IM/DD channels, and evaluated the performance of such pulses. He also showed that any nonnegative root-Nyquist pulse must be time limited (i.e., infinite bandwidth). Hence receivers with matched filters are not suitable for Hranilovic\u2019s signaling method. He concluded that transmission is possible with a bandwidth twice the required bandwidth over the corresponding conventional electrical channels. This work was extended to other Nyquist pulses that can introduce a trade-off between bandwidth and average optical power in [@4132995; @bhandari2007squared].\n\nIn this paper, we present a new signaling method for bandlimited IM/DD channels, in which the transmitted signal becomes nonnegative by the addition of a constant direct-current (DC) bias. This method provides us with two benefits: (i) We can transmit ISI-free with a bandwidth equal to that of coherent conventional channels, while benefiting from the reduced complexity and cost of IM/DD system. (ii) We can implement the system using either Nyquist pulses with sampling receiver or root-Nyquist pulses with matched filter receiver. By being able to use a larger variety of pulses, the transmitted power can be reduced compared with known methods, which is advantageous in power-sensitive optical interconnects and indoor wireless optical links. We also evaluate the spectral efficiency and optical power efficiency of binary and 4-PAM formats with Nyquist and root-Nyquist pulses for achieving a specific noise-free eye opening or a specific symbol-error-rate (SER).\n\nThe remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section \\[sec:SYSTEM-MODEL\\] presents the system model. In Section \\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\], we define the Nyquist pulses that have been used extensively for conventional bandlimited channels, as well as the ones that have been suggested for nonnegative bandlimited channels. In Section \\[sec:RootPulse-shaping\\], the root-Nyquist pulses used in this study are introduced. Section \\[sec:Required-DC-bias\\] discusses a method of computing the required DC bias for a general pulse. Section \\[sec:RESULTS\\] introduces the performance measures and analyzes the performance of the system under different scenarios. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section \\[sec:CONCLUSIONS\\] on the performance of the system.\n\nSystem Model\\[sec:SYSTEM-MODEL\\]\n================================\n\nIn applications such as diffuse indoor wireless optical links and short-haul optical fiber communications, where inexpensive hardware is used, IM/DD is often employed. In such systems, the data is modulated on the optical intensity of the transmitted light using an optical intensity modulator such as a laser diode or a light-emitting diode. This optical intensity is proportional to the transmitted electrical signal. As a result, the transmitted electrical signal must be nonnegative. This is in contrast to conventional electrical channels, where the data is modulated on the amplitude and phase of the carrier . In the receiver, the direct-detection method is used in which the photodetector generates an output which is proportional to the incident received instantaneous power [@780164]. Another limitation, which is considered for safety purposes, is a constraint on the peak and average optical power, or equivalently, a constraint on the peak and average of the signal in the electrical domain [@4132995; @farid2010capacity; @hranilovic2004capacity; @lapidoth2009capacity; @kahn2002wireless]. In this study, we consider the IM/DD transmission system with a strict bandwidth limitation and general $M$-level modulation.\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:system\\] represents the system model for an IM/DD optical transmission system. It can be modeled as an electrical baseband transmission system with additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and a nonnegativity constraint on the channel input [@4132995; @kahn2002wireless; @kahn2002experimental; @gfeller2005wireless]. We consider an ergodic source with independent and identically distributed information symbols $a_{k}\\in\\mathcal{C}$, where $k\\in\\mathbb{Z}$ is the discrete time instant, and $\\mathcal{C}$ is a finite set of constellation points. Based on these symbols, an electrical signal $I(t)$ is generated. The optical intensity modulator converts the electrical signal to an optical signal with optical carrier frequency $f_{\\mathrm{c}}$ and random phase $\\theta$, given by $O(t)=\\sqrt{2x(t)} cos\\left(2\\pi f_{\\mathrm{c}} t+\\theta \\right)$, where $x(t)$ is the intensity of the optical signal. This intensity is a linear function of $I(t)$ [@kahn2002wireless], given by $$x(t)=JI(t)=JA\\left(\\mu+\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}a_{k}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right),\\label{eq:TxSignal}$$ where $J$ is the laser conversion factor, $A$ is a scaling factor that can be adjusted depending on the desired transmitted power, $\\mu$ is the required DC bias, $q(t)$ is an arbitrary pulse, and ${T_\\mathrm{s}}$ is the symbol duration.\n\nThree requirements are placed on $x(t)$: it should be nonnegative, bandlimited, and ISI-free. The nonnegativity constraint, $x(t)\\geq0$ for all $t\\in\\mathbb{R}$, is fulfilled by choosing $\\mu$ in (\\[eq:TxSignal\\]) sufficiently large, see Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Required-DC-bias\\]. This DC bias is added equally to each symbol to maintain a strictly bandlimited signal $x(t)$, in contrast to works like [@karout2010power; @780164; @HranilovicLattice] in which the bias is allowed to vary with time. The bandwidth constraint is fulfilled by choosing the pulse $q(t)$ such that $$Q(\\omega)=\\intop_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t)e^{-j\\omega t}dt=0,\\; |\\omega|\\geq 2\\pi B,\\label{eq:bandwidthLimitation}$$ where $Q(\\omega)$ denotes the Fourier transform of $q(t)$. The condition of ISI-free transmission, finally, is fulfilled by either choosing $q(t)$ as a Nyquist pulse, see Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\], when using a sampling receiver, or choosing $q(t)$ as a root-Nyquist pulse (also known as ${T_\\mathrm{s}}$-orthogonal pulse), see Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:RootPulse-shaping\\], when using a matched filter in the receiver. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:TxSig\\_RC\\] illustrates an example of the transmitted intensity given by (\\[eq:TxSignal\\]) where $\\mathcal{C}=\\left\\{ 0,1\\right\\} $.\n\nDepending on the application, it is desirable to minimize the average optical power or the peak optical power [@4132995; @hranilovic2004capacity; @lapidoth2009capacity; @kahn2002wireless; @westbergh200932; @inan2009impact]. The average optical power is $$P_{\\mathrm{opt}}=\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\intop_{0}^{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ x(t)\\right\\} dt,\\nonumber$$ where $\\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ \\cdot\\right\\} $ denotes expectation, which for the definition of $x(t)$ in (\\[eq:TxSignal\\]) yields $$\\begin{aligned}\nP_{\\mathrm{opt}} & =\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\intop_{0}^{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}JA\\left(\\mu+\\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ a_{k}\\right\\}\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right)dt\\nonumber\\\\\n&=JA\\left(\\mu+\\mathbb{E}\\left\\{ a_{k}\\right\\}\\overline{q}\\right),\\label{eq:OpticalPower}\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\overline{q}=\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\intop_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t)dt=\\frac{Q(0)}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}.\\label{eq:Overbar_q}$$ The peak optical power is$$P_\\mathrm{max} = \\max x(t)= JA \\left(\\mu+\\max \\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty} a_k q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}}) \\right)\n\\label{pmax}$$where the maximum is taken over all symbol sequences $\\ldots, a_{-1}, a_0, a_1, a_2,\\ldots$ and all times $t$.\n\nThe optical signal then propagates through the channel and is detected and converted to the electrical signal [@kahn2002wireless; @hranilovic2004capacity] $$y(t)=Rh(t)\\otimes x(t)+n(t),\\nonumber$$ where $R$ is the responsivity of the photodetector, $\\otimes$ is the convolution operator, $h(t)$ is the channel impulse response, and $n(t)$ is the noise. In this study, the channel is considered to be flat in the bandwidth of interest, i.e., $h(t)=H(0)\\delta(t)$. Without loss of generality, we assume that $R=J=1$ [@kahn2002wireless] and $H(0)=1$. Since the thermal noise of the receiver and the shot noise induced by ambient light are two major noise sources in this setup, which are independent from the signal, $n(t)$ can be modeled as a zero-mean AWGN with double-sided power spectral density $N_0/2$ [@kahn2002wireless; @audeh2002performance; @lapidoth2009capacity; @proakis2001digital]. Although the input signal to the channel $x(t)$ must be nonnegative, there is no such constraint on the received signal $y(t)$ [@farid2010capacity].\n\nThe received signal passes through a filter with impulse response $g(t)$, resulting in $$r(t)=y(t)\\otimes g(t),\\label{eq:FilteredSignal}$$ which is then sampled at the symbol rate. In this paper, two scenarios are considered for the receiver filter:\n\n\\(i) Similarly to [@1577875; @4132995], $y(t)$ can enter a sampling receiver, which in this paper is assumed to have a rectangular frequency response to limit the power of the noise in the receiver, and is given by $$G(\\omega)=\\begin{cases}\n\\begin{array}{cc}\nG(0) & |\\omega|<2\\pi B\\\\\n0 & |\\omega|\\geq 2 \\pi B\\end{array}.\\end{cases}\\label{eq:G(f)}$$ (ii) According to our proposed method, $y(t)$ can enter a matched filter receiver with frequency response $G(\\omega)=\\zeta Q^{*}(\\omega)$ where [$\\left( \\cdot \\right)^*$]{} is the complex conjugate and $\\zeta$ is an arbitrary scaling factor. This type of filter will limit the power of the noise, and can also result in ISI-free transmission if the pulses are root-Nyquist (see Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:RootPulse-shaping\\]).\n\nThe system model introduced in this section is a generalization of the one in [@4132995], which is obtained by considering $\\mathcal{C}\\subset\\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and setting $\\mu=0$ in (\\[eq:TxSignal\\]). If $\\mu=0$, the pulse $q(t)$ should be nonnegative to guarantee a nonnegative signal $x(t)$. In our proposed system model, by introducing the bias $\\mu$, the nonnegativity condition can be fulfilled for a wider selection of pulses $q(t)$ and constellation $\\mathcal{C}\\subset\\mathbb{R}$.\n\nBandlimited Nyquist Pulses\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\]\n===============================================\n\nIn order to have ISI-free transmission with a sampling receiver, the pulse $q(t)$ must satisfy the Nyquist criterion [@5055024]. In other words, for any $k\\in\\mathbb{Z}$ , $$q(k{T_\\mathrm{s}})=\\begin{cases}\nq(0), & k=0,\\\\\n0, & k\\neq0.\\end{cases}\\label{eq:NyquistInTime}$$ The most popular Nyquist pulses are the classical \u201csinc\u201d pulse, defined as ${\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}(x)= \\sin(\\pi x)/(\\pi x)$, and the raised-cosine (RC) pulse [@proakis2001digital Sec.\u00a09.2]. Many other Nyquist pulses have been proposed recently for the conventional channel; see [@alexandru11; @assimonis11] and references therein.\n\nIn this paper, we evaluate some of these pulses, defined in Table\u00a0\\[pulse-def\\], for IM/DD transmission. Our selected pulses are the RC pulse, the so-called \u201cbetter than Nyquist\u201d (BTN) pulse [@beaulieu2002better], which in [@1369626] was referred to as the parametric exponential pulse, the parametric linear (PL) pulse of first order [@1369626], and one of the polynomial (Poly) pulses in [@chandan05]. Their bandwidth can be adjusted via the parameter $0 \\le \\alpha \\le 1$ such that their lowpass bandwidth is $B=(1+\\alpha)/(2{T_\\mathrm{s}})$. Since these pulses may be negative, they must be used in a system with $\\mu>0$. We denote these four pulses as *regular* Nyquist pulses.\n\nAnother option is to use *nonnegative* Nyquist pulses, which satisfy all the three aforementioned constraints. As a result, in (\\[eq:TxSignal\\]), $\\mu=0$ and $q(t)\\geq0$ for all $t\\in\\mathbb{R}$. In [@4132995], it has been shown that pulses that satisfy these requirements must be the square of a general Nyquist pulse. This will result in having pulses with bandwidth twice that of the original Nyquist pulses. Three pulses that satisfy these constraints were introduced in [@4132995], and we use them in our study for compatibility with previous works: squared sinc (S2), squared RC (SRC), and squared double-jump (SDJ), also defined in Table\u00a0\\[pulse-def\\]. Their low-pass bandwidth is $B=1/{T_\\mathrm{s}}$ for S2 and $B=(1+\\alpha)/{T_\\mathrm{s}}$ for SRC and SDJ, where $0\\le\\alpha\\le 1$.\n\nFigs. \\[fig:TxSig\\_RC\\] and \\[fig:TxSig\\_SquareRC\\] depict the normalized transmitted signal $x(t)/A$ using the RC and SRC pulses, respectively, assuming $\\mathcal{C}= \\left\\{0,1\\right\\}$. The most important parameters of the pulses are summarized in Table \\[tab:All\\_Info\\_Nyq\\].\n\nBandlimited Root-Nyquist Pulses\\[sec:RootPulse-shaping\\]\n========================================================\n\nISI-free transmission is achieved with the pulses in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\] as long as the input of the sampling unit satisfies the Nyquist criterion given in (\\[eq:NyquistInTime\\]). In addition to the method of using a Nyquist pulse in the transmitter and a rectangular filter in the receiver, other scenarios can be designed that generate Nyquist pulses at the input $r(t)$ of the sampling unit. In one of these methods, the transmitted pulse is a root-Nyquist pulse, and the receiver contains a filter matched to the transmitted pulse . Consequently, the output of the matched filter will be ISI-free if for any integer $k$ $$\\intop_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t)q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})dt=\\begin{cases}\nE_{{q}} & k=0\\\\\n0 & k\\neq0\n\\end{cases}\n\\label{eq:Root_Nyquist Criteria},$$ where ${E_q}=\\intop_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}q^{2}(t)dt.$ Tables \\[pulse-def\\] and \\[tab:All\\_Info\\_Nyq\\] also includes two root-Nyquist pulses that have been previously used for conventional coherent channels, where again $0\\leq \\alpha \\leq 1$. These are the root raised cosine (RRC) pulse and the first-order Xia pulse [@xia1997family]. Both have the lowpass bandwidth $B=(1+\\alpha)/(2{T_\\mathrm{s}})$.\n\nAlthough the output of the matched filter for both the first order Xia pulse and the RRC pulse are similar ($r(t)$ consists of RC pulses in both cases), the RRC is symmetric in time, whereas the Xia pulse has more energy in the precursor (i.e., the part of the pulse before the peak) [@tan2004transmission]. Moreover, the maximum of Xia pulse does not happen at the origin. The important point with the Xia pulse is that it is both a Nyquist and a root-Nyquist pulse.\n\nIn contrast to Nyquist pulses, from which nonnegative Nyquist pulses can be generated by squaring the original pulse (see Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\]), the square of a root-Nyquist pulse is not root-Nyquist anymore. Moreover, [@4132995] has proven that there is no nonnegative root-Nyquist pulse with strictly limited bandwidth.\n\nRequired DC Bias \\[sec:Required-DC-bias\\]\n=========================================\n\nOur goal is to find the lowest $\\mu$ that guarantees the nonnegativity of $x(t)$. From (\\[eq:TxSignal\\]) and $x(t)\\geq0$, the smallest required DC bias is $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\mu & =-\\min_{\\forall a,-\\infty< t < \\infty}\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}a_{k}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}}) \\label{eq:DC1}\\\\\n &=-\\min_{\\forall a,-\\infty< t < \\infty}\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\left[\\left(a_{k}-L\\right)q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})+Lq(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right] \\label{eq:DC2}\\end{aligned}$$ where $L=(\\hat{a}+\\check{a})/2$, $\\hat{a}=\\max_{a\\in \\mathcal{C}}a$, and $\\check{a}=\\min_{a\\in \\mathcal{C}}a$. The notation $\\forall a$ in and means that the minimization should be over all $a_k \\in \\mathcal{C}$ where $k = \\ldots,-1,0,1,2,\\ldots$ Going from (\\[eq:DC1\\]) to (\\[eq:DC2\\]), we created a factor ($a_{k}-L$) which is a function of $a_{k}$ and symmetric with respect to zero. As a result, the minimum of the first term in (\\[eq:DC2\\]) occurs if, for all $k$, either $a_{k}=\\hat{a}$ and $q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})<0$ or $a_{k}=\\check{a}$ and $q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})>0$. In both cases, due to the fact that the factor $\\hat{a}-L=-(\\check{a}-L)$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\mu &=\\max_{0\\leq t< {T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\left[\\left(\\hat{a}-L\\right)\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\left|q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right|-L\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right].\\label{eq:DC}\\end{aligned}$$ The reason why (\\[eq:DC\\]) is minimized over $0\\leq t< {T_\\mathrm{s}}$ is that $\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})$ and $\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}|q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})|$ are periodic functions with period equal to ${T_\\mathrm{s}}$. Since for all pulses defined in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\] and \\[sec:RootPulse-shaping\\], $q(t)$ rescales with ${T_\\mathrm{s}}$ as $q(t)=v(t/{T_\\mathrm{s}})$ for some function $v(t)$, then $\\mu$ is independent of ${T_\\mathrm{s}}$.\n\nTo simplify (\\[eq:DC\\]), Lemma\u00a0\\[LemFS\\] and Corollary\u00a0\\[CorrAvval\\] will be helpful, since they prove that the second term in (\\[eq:DC\\]) does not change over time.\n\n\\[LemFS\\] For an arbitrary pulse $q(t)$, $$\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})=\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\sum_{n=-\\infty}^{\\infty}Q\\left(\\frac{2\\pi n}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)e^{\\frac{j2\\pi nt}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}}.$$\n\nSince $f(t)=\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})$ is a periodic function with period ${T_\\mathrm{s}}$, it can be expanded as a Fourier series. Its Fourier series coefficients are $$\\begin{aligned}\nC_{n} & =\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\intop_{-{T_\\mathrm{s}}/2}^{{T_\\mathrm{s}}/2}f(t)e^{-\\frac{j2\\pi nt}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}}dt\\nonumber \\\\\n&=\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\intop_{-{T_\\mathrm{s}}/2}^{{T_\\mathrm{s}}/2}\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})e^{-\\frac{j2\\pi nt}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}}dt.\\label{eq:Fourier Coeffs}\\end{aligned}$$ Since both $n$ and $k$ are integers, $e^{j2\\pi nk}=1$. As a result, (\\[eq:Fourier Coeffs\\]) can be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\nC_{n} & =\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\intop_{-{T_\\mathrm{s}}/2}^{{T_\\mathrm{s}}/2}\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})e^{-\\frac{j2\\pi n}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})}dt\\nonumber \\\\\n& =\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\intop_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t)e^{-\\frac{j2\\pi nt}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}}dt=\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}Q\\left(\\frac{2\\pi n}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right).\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$f(t)=\\sum_{n=-\\infty}^{\\infty}C_{n}e^{\\frac{j2\\pi nt}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}}=\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\sum_{n=-\\infty}^{\\infty}Q\\left(\\frac{2\\pi n}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)e^{\\frac{j2\\pi nt}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}},\\label{eq:bandlimited}$$ which proves the lemma.\n\nThe usefulness of this lemma follows from the fact that for bandlimited pulses $q(t)$, (\\[eq:bandlimited\\]) is reduced to a finite number of terms. As a special case, we have the following corollary.\n\nIf $q(t)$ is a bandlimited pulse defined in (\\[eq:bandwidthLimitation\\]), where $B{T_\\mathrm{s}}\\leq 1$, then (\\[eq:bandlimited\\]) can be written as $$f(t)=\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})=\\frac{1}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}Q(0).\\label{eq:coroll1}$$In other words, for such $q(t)$, this sum is not a function of time. \\[CorrAvval\\]\n\nSince $B{T_\\mathrm{s}}\\leq 1$, the sum in (\\[eq:bandlimited\\]) has only one nonzero term (i.e., $Q(0)$ can be nonzero whereas $Q(2\\pi n /{T_\\mathrm{s}})=0$ for all $n\\neq 0$ due to (\\[eq:bandwidthLimitation\\])).\n\nAs a result of Corollary \\[CorrAvval\\], (\\[eq:DC\\]) for the regular Nyquist pulses and root-Nyquist pulses considered in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\] and \\[sec:RootPulse-shaping\\] (but not SRC and SDJ) can be written as $$\\mu=\\left(\\hat{a}-L\\right)\\max_{0\\leq t< {T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\left|q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right|-L\\frac{Q(0)}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}},\\label{eq:DC_New}$$ where $Q(0)=\\overline{q}{T_\\mathrm{s}}$ for all pulses, see (\\[eq:Overbar\\_q\\]). It appears that solving the summation in (\\[eq:DC\\_New\\]) is impossible analytically even for simple pulses.\n\nFor bandlimited pulses where $B{T_\\mathrm{s}}\\leq 1$, the transmitted signal (\\[eq:TxSignal\\]) is unchanged if all constellation points in $\\mathcal{C}$ are shifted by a constant offset. \\[CorrSevom\\]\n\nSince the chosen pulse has limited bandwidth given by (\\[eq:bandwidthLimitation\\]), using (\\[eq:coroll1\\]) given in Corollary \\[CorrAvval\\], the transmitted signal (\\[eq:TxSignal\\]) can be written as $$\\begin{aligned}\nx(t)=A\\left(\\mu+\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\left(a_{k}-L+L\\right)q\\left(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}}\\right)\\right)\\nonumber\\\\ = A\\left(\\mu+\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\left(a_{k}-L\\right)q\\left(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}}\\right)+L\\frac{Q(0)}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)\\label{eq:alaki}.\\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the required bias given by (\\[eq:DC\\_New\\]), (\\[eq:alaki\\]) can be written as $$x(t)=A\\Bigg(\\left(\\hat{a}-L\\right)\\max_{0\\leq t< {T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\left[\\sum_{i=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\left|q(t-i{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right|\\right]+\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\left(a_{k}-L\\right)q\\left(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}}\\right)\\Bigg).\\label{eq:symmetric}$$ It can be seen that (\\[eq:symmetric\\]) only depends on symbols through $\\hat{a} - L$ and $a_{k}-L$. Both terms are independent of the constellation offset.\n\nTheorem \\[CorrSevom\\] shows that for narrow-band pulses defined in (\\[eq:bandwidthLimitation\\]), the constellation offset does not have an effect on the performance. This result which holds for intensity modulated channels (with nonnegative transmitted signal requirement) is in contrast to the standard result for conventional channels. For instance, binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) and on-off keying (OOK) are equivalent in this IM/DD system, whereas BPSK is 3 dB better over the conventional AWGN channel [@proakis2001digital Sec.\u00a05]. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RequiredDC\\] illustrates the required DC bias (\\[eq:DC\\_New\\]) for various pulses considering any nonnegative $M$-PAM constellation ($\\mathcal{C}=\\left\\{ 0,1,...,M-1\\right\\} $). In case of Nyquist pulses, due to the fact that by increasing $\\alpha$, the ripples of the pulses decrease, the required DC bias decreases as well. It can be seen that the Poly and RC pulses always require more DC bias than other Nyquist pulses. The PL and BTN pulses require approximately the same DC bias. The BTN pulse requires slightly less DC bias in $0.250\\le \\alpha \\le 0.256$, $0.333\\le \\alpha \\le 0.363$, and $0.500 \\le \\alpha \\le 0.610$, while the PL is better for all other roll-off factors in the range $0 < \\alpha < 1$.\n\nThe RRC pulse has a different behavior. For $0< \\alpha \\le 0.420$, similar to Nyquist pulses, by increasing the roll-off factor, the required DC bias decreases, and is approximately equal to the required DC bias for BTN and PL. However, when $0.420\\le \\alpha < 1$, the required DC bias starts to fluctuate slightly around $\\mu=0.25\\hat{a}$ and the minimum happens for $\\alpha =0.715$. The reason for this behavior is that in RRC, the peak is a function of $\\alpha$, see Table\u00a0\\[pulse-def\\]. As a result, by increasing the roll-off factor, there will be a compromise between the reduction in the sidelobe amplitude and the increase in peak amplitude. For small values of $\\alpha$, the sidelobe reduction is more significant than the peak increase, and as a result, the required DC bias decreases. The Xia pulse always requires the largest DC bias. For $0< \\alpha \\le 0.730$, similar to other pulses, by increasing the roll-off factor, the required DC bias for Xia pulses decreases. However, when $0.730\\le \\alpha < 1$, the required DC bias starts to fluctuate slightly and starts to approach the required DC for RRC.\n\nThe expression for $\\mu$ given in (\\[eq:DC\\]) illustrates the reason why the double-jump and sinc pulses are not considered in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\]. These pulses decay as $1/|t|$. As a result, the summation in (\\[eq:DC\\]) does not converge to a finite value. Hence, they require an infinite amount of DC bias to be nonnegative.\n\nAnalysis and Results\\[sec:RESULTS\\]\n===================================\n\nReceived Sequence for Sampling Receiver\\[subsec:RxSequence\\_Nyq\\]\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n\nConsidering the assumptions mentioned in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:SYSTEM-MODEL\\], the received signal (\\[eq:FilteredSignal\\]) is $$\\begin{aligned}\nr(t) &=\\left(x(t)+n(t)\\right)\\otimes g(t) \\nonumber\\\\\n &=A\\left(\\mu+\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}a_{k}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right)\\otimes g(t)+z(t) \\nonumber\\\\\n & =AG(0)\\left[\\mu+\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}a_{k}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right]+z(t),\\label{eq:receivedSignal}\\end{aligned}$$ where (\\[eq:receivedSignal\\]) holds since $g(t)$ has a flat frequency response given by (\\[eq:G(f)\\]) over the bandwidth of $q(t)$ given by (\\[eq:bandwidthLimitation\\]); Therefore, the convolution has no effect on $x(t)$. The noise at the output of the receiver filter, which is given by $z(t)=n(t)\\otimes g(t)$, is zero mean additive white Gaussian with variance $\\sigma_{z}^2=G(0)^2N_{0}B$.\n\nApplying the Nyquist criterion given in (\\[eq:NyquistInTime\\]) to the sampled version of (\\[eq:receivedSignal\\]), we can write the $i$-th filtered sample as $$r(i{T_\\mathrm{s}})=AG(0)\\left[\\mu+a_{i}q(0)\\right]+z(i{T_\\mathrm{s}}).\\label{eq:RecSamplesEQ}$$ for any constellation $\\mathcal{C}$. The received waveform $r(t)$, for several Nyquist pulses, is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[eye-diagrams\\], in the form of eye diagrams in a noise-free setting ($z(t) = 0$). As expected, the output samples $r(i {T_\\mathrm{s}})$ are ISI-free.\n\nReceived Sequence for Matched Filter Receiver\\[subsec:RxSequence\\_MF\\]\n----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nSimilar to Sec.\u00a0\\[subsec:RxSequence\\_Nyq\\], the received signal will be $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\vspace{-3mm}\nr(t) & =\\left(x(t)+n(t)\\right)\\otimes g(t) \\nonumber \\\\\n& =A\\left(\\mu+\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}a_{k}q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right)\\otimes \\zeta q(-t)+u(t) \\nonumber \\\\\n& =A\\zeta \\Big(\\mu\\intop_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(-t)dt+\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}a_{k}\\intop_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(\\tau-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})q(\\tau-t)d\\tau\\Big)+u(t) \\nonumber \\\\\n& =A\\zeta \\left(\\mu Q(0)+\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}a_{k}\\intop_{-\\infty}^{\\infty}q(\\tau)q(\\tau-t+k{T_\\mathrm{s}})d\\tau\\right)+u(t)\\label{eq:MF_Output}\\end{aligned}$$ where $u(t)$ is zero mean additive white Gaussian noise with variance $\\sigma_{u}^{2}=\\zeta^2N_{0}{E_q}/2$. Applying the root-Nyquist criterion given in (\\[eq:Root\\_Nyquist Criteria\\]) to the sampled version of (\\[eq:MF\\_Output\\]), the $i$-th filtered sample will be, for any constellation $\\mathcal{C}$, $$r(i{T_\\mathrm{s}})=A\\zeta \\left(\\mu Q(0)+a_{i}{E_q}\\right)+u(i{T_\\mathrm{s}}).\\label{eq:Rec_MF}$$\n\nComparison Between Pulses\n-------------------------\n\nAs mentioned in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:SYSTEM-MODEL\\], it may be desirable to minimize the average or peak optical power. The next theorem shows that these two criteria are equivalent for narrow-band pulses ($B{T_\\mathrm{s}}< 1$) and symmetric constellations ($\\mathbb{E}\\{a_k\\} = L$).\n\n\\[th:pmax\\] If $B{T_\\mathrm{s}}< 1$ and $\\mathbb{E}\\{a_k\\} = L$, then $P_\\mathrm{max} = 2 P_\\mathrm{opt}$.\n\nFrom and Corollary \\[CorrAvval\\], $$\\begin{aligned}\nP_{\\mathrm{max}} &=JA\\left(\\mu+\\max_{\\forall a,-\\infty< t < \\infty}\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\left[\\left(a_{k}-L\\right)q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})+Lq(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})\\right]\\right)\\\\\n&=JA\\left(\\mu+\\max_{\\forall a,-\\infty< t < \\infty}\\left[\\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}\\left(a_{k}-L\\right)q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})+\\frac{LQ(0)}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right]\\right).\\end{aligned}$$ In analogy to , the maximum is $$\\begin{aligned}\nP_{\\mathrm{max}} &=JA\\left(\\mu+(\\hat{a}-L)\\max_{0\\leq t<{T_\\mathrm{s}}} \\sum_{k=-\\infty}^{\\infty}|q(t-k{T_\\mathrm{s}})|+\\frac{LQ(0)}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right) =JA\\left(2\\mu+2\\frac{LQ(0)}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ which compared with completes the proof.\n\nTo compare the optical power of various pulses, a criterion called optical power gain is used, which is defined as[@4132995] $$\\Upsilon=10\\log_{10}\\left(\\frac{P_{\\mathrm{opt}}^{\\mathrm{ref}}}{P_{\\mathrm{opt}}}\\right),\\nonumber$$ where $P_{\\mathrm{opt}}^{\\mathrm{ref}}$ is the average optical power for a reference system. (According to Theorem\u00a0\\[th:pmax\\], $\\Upsilon$ would be the same if defined in terms of $P_\\mathrm{max}$, for all pulses in our study except SRC and SDJ.) Similarly to [@1577875], this reference is chosen to be the S2 pulse with OOK modulation and sampling receiver, for which no bias is needed. Using (\\[eq:OpticalPower\\]), $P_{\\mathrm{opt}}^{\\mathrm{ref}}=A_{\\mathrm{ref}}\\mathbb{E}_{\\mathrm{ref}}\\left\\{a_k\\right\\}$ and $$\\Upsilon=10\\log_{10}\\left(\\frac{A_{\\mathrm{ref}}\\mathbb{E}_{\\mathrm{ref}}\\left\\{a_k\\right\\}}{A\\left(\\mu+\\mathbb{E}\\left\\{a_k\\right\\}\\overline{q}\\right)}\\right)\\label{eq:OptGainGeneral}$$ where $A_{\\mathrm{ref}}$ and $\\mathbb{E}_{\\mathrm{ref}}\\left\\{a_{k}\\right\\}$ are the scaling factor and the symbol average for the reference system, respectively. Defining $$\\Delta a=\\min_{a,a'\\in\\mathcal{C},a\\neq a'}\\left|a-a'\\right|\\label{eq:MinDistance}$$ as the minimum distance between any two constellation points $a$ and $a'$, $\\mathbb{E}_{\\mathrm{ref}}\\left\\{a_k\\right\\}=\\Delta a_{\\mathrm{ref}}/2$, where $\\Delta a_{\\mathrm{ref}}$ is the minimum distance for the reference system. The expressions in (\\[eq:OptGainGeneral\\]) and (\\[eq:MinDistance\\]) hold in general for all finite set of constellation points $\\mathcal{C}$.\n\nInitially, we compare the pulses in a noise-free setting. For any Nyquist pulse with a sampling receiver, the minimum eye opening after filtering is given by (\\[eq:RecSamplesEQ\\]) as $$\\min_{ a,a'\\in \\mathcal{C}, a\\neq a'} \\left|AG(0)\\left(\\mu+aq(0)\\right)-AG(0)\\left(\\mu+a'q(0)\\right)\\right|=AG(0)\\Delta a q(0). \\label{eq:MinEye_Sample}$$ As a result, to have equal eye opening we require ${A_{\\mathrm{ref}}}/{A}={\\Delta a q(0)}/{\\Delta a_{\\mathrm{ref}}}$, which substituted into yields $$\\Upsilon=10\\log_{10}\\left(\\frac{\\Delta a q(0)}{\\mu+\\mathbb{E}\\left\\{a_k\\right\\}\\overline{q}}\\right).\\label{eq:OptGainEye}$$\n\nFig.\u00a0\\[fig:OptPower\\_Eye\\] demonstrates the comparison of the optical power gain for various pulses defined in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\] for both OOK and 4-PAM formats, where the signals are scaled to have equal eye opening. The S2 pulse with OOK modulation, which is used as a baseline for comparison, is shown in the figure with an arrow. The results for SRC and SDJ have been derived before in [@4132995 Fig.\u00a04], whereas the results for other pulses are novel, where $T_{\\mathrm{b}}={T_\\mathrm{s}}/\\log_{2}M$ is the bit rate. OOK is chosen rather than BPSK for compatibility with [@4132995], although these binary formats are entirely equivalent for $BT_{\\mathrm{b}}\\leq 1$, as shown in Theorem \\[CorrSevom\\]. In these examples, we use $\\Delta a = \\Delta a_\\mathrm{ref}$; however, rescaling the considered constellation $\\mathcal{C}$ would not change the results, as it would affect the numerator and denominator of equally.\n\nFor the nonnegative pulses in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\] (i.e., SRC and SDJ) with OOK, where $\\mu=0$, by increasing the bandwidth, the optical power gain, which depends on $\\alpha$ through its dependence on $\\overline{q}$, increases since $\\overline{q}$ decreases. The results in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:OptPower\\_Eye\\] are consistent with [@4132995 Fig.\u00a04], where the same nonnegative pulses were presented. It can be seen that when the regular Nyquist pulses (RC, BTN, PL, and Poly) are used, and the nonnegativity constraint is satisfied by adding a DC bias, transmission is possible over a much narrower bandwidth. However, since the DC bias consumes energy and does not carry information, the optical power gain will be reduced.\n\nThere is a compromise between bandwidth and optical power gain, due to the fact that $\\mu$ will be reduced by increasing the roll-off factor (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RequiredDC\\]), whereas the required bandwidth increases. The highest optical power gain for all pulses will be achieved when the roll-off factor $\\alpha$ is one. The reason is that by increasing the roll-off factor, the required bias, which is the only parameter in (\\[eq:OptGainEye\\]) that depends on $\\alpha$, decreases. The BTN and the PL pulses have approximately similar optical power gain, and the Poly and RC pulses have smaller gains, due to higher $\\mu$, which is also visible in the eye diagrams of Fig.\u00a0\\[eye-diagrams\\]. Comparing the binary and 4-PAM cases for the same $\\alpha$ and $\\Delta a$, we can see in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:OptPower\\_Eye\\] that by using higher-order modulation formats, the optical power gain for all pulses decreases, since in (\\[eq:OptGainEye\\]), $\\mathbb{E}\\left\\{a_{k}\\right\\}$ and $\\mu$ will increase. For $0.5<BT_{\\mathrm{b}}<1$, the optical power gain for the best 4-PAM system with nonnegative Nyquist pulses is up to 2.39\u00a0dB less than the gain of the best OOK system with regular Nyquist pulses.\n\nFor any root-Nyquist pulse with a matched filter receiver, the minimum eye opening after filtering is given by (\\[eq:Rec\\_MF\\]) as $$\\min_{a,a'\\in \\mathcal{C}, a\\neq a'} \\left|A \\zeta\\left(\\mu Q(0)+a{E_q}\\right)-A\\zeta\\left(\\mu Q(0)+a'{E_q}\\right)\\right|=A\\zeta\\Delta a {E_q}.\\label{eq:MinEye_MFR}$$ Since the eye openings in and depend on the receiver filter gains $G(0)$ or $\\zeta$, pulses should be compared using the same receiver filter. In particular, it is not relevant to compare the sampling receiver with matched filters in this context, since the outcome would depend on the ratio $G(0)/\\zeta$, which can be chosen arbitrarily. This is the reason why root-Nyquist pulses are not included in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:OptPower\\_Eye\\]. It appears from Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:OptPower\\_Eye\\] that the studied pulses become more power-efficient when the bandwidth is increased. A higher bandwidth, however, for sampling receiver means that the receiver filter admits more noise, which reduces the receiver performance. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:OptPower\\_BER\\], we therefore compare the average optical power gain of Nyquist and root-Nyquist pulses, when the power is adjusted to yield a constant SER equal to $10^{-6}$. Since the amount of noise after the matched filter receiver does not depend on the bandwidth, we considered this fact as a potential advantage, and therefore included root-Nyquist pulses in the following analysis. Similarly to the previous case, the S2 pulse with OOK and sampling receiver is used as a baseline for comparison.\n\nSo far the analysis holds for a general $\\mathcal{C}$. To find the optical power gain as a function of SER for the sampling receiver, we first apply a maximum likelihood detector to (\\[eq:RecSamplesEQ\\]), assuming a special case in which $\\mathcal{C}$ is an $M$-PAM constellation, which yields the SER $$P_{\\mathrm{err}}=2\\frac{M-1}{M}Q\\left(\\frac{AG(0)\\Delta a q(0)}{2\\sqrt{G(0)^2N_{0}B}}\\right)$$where $$Q(x)=\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{2\\pi}}\\intop_{x}^{\\infty}\\exp\\left(\\frac{-x^{2}}{2}\\right)dx$$ is the Gaussian Q-function. As a result, $$A=\\frac{2}{\\Delta a q(0)}Q^{-1}\\left(P_{\\mathrm{err}}\\frac{M}{2\\left(M-1\\right)}\\right)\\sqrt{N_{0}B}$$ and $$\\frac{A_{\\mathrm{ref}}}{A}=\\frac{\\Delta a q(0)}{\\Delta a_{\\mathrm{ref}}}\\frac{Q^{-1}\\left(P_{\\mathrm{err}}\\right)}{Q^{-1}\\left(P_{\\mathrm{err}}\\frac{M}{2\\left(M-1\\right)}\\right)}\\sqrt{\\frac{B_{\\mathrm{ref}}}{B}},\\label{eq:Ratio_Sampl}$$ where $B_{\\mathrm{ref}}=1/T_\\mathrm{b}$ is the bandwidth of the reference pulse. The optical power gain now follows from (\\[eq:OptGainGeneral\\]).\n\nFor the matched filter receiver, by applying the maximum likelihood detector to (\\[eq:Rec\\_MF\\]), the SER will be $$\\begin{aligned}\nP_{\\mathrm{err}}=2\\frac{M-1}{M}Q\\left(\\frac{A\\Delta a{E_q}\\zeta}{2\\sqrt{\\frac{\\zeta^2N_{0}{E_q}}{2}}}\\right)\\nonumber\\\\\n\\qquad=2\\frac{M-1}{M}Q\\left(A\\Delta a\\sqrt{\\frac{{E_q}}{2N_{0}}}\\right).\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ As a result, $$A=\\frac{1}{\\Delta a}Q^{-1}\\left(P_{\\mathrm{err}}\\frac{M}{2\\left(M-1\\right)}\\right)\\sqrt{\\frac{2N_{0}}{{E_q}}}$$and $$\\frac{A_{\\mathrm{ref}}}{A}=\\frac{\\Delta a}{\\Delta a_{\\mathrm{ref}}}\\frac{\\sqrt{2}Q^{-1}\\left(P_{\\mathrm{err}}\\right)}{Q^{-1}\\left(P_{\\mathrm{err}}\\frac{M}{2\\left(M-1\\right)}\\right)}\\sqrt{{E_q}B_{\\mathrm{ref}}}.\\label{eq:Ratio_MFRx}$$\n\nIn contrast to the case with equal eye openings (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:OptPower\\_Eye\\]), Nyquist and root-Nyquist pulses can be compared with each other when the SER is kept constant, since neither (\\[eq:Ratio\\_Sampl\\]) nor (\\[eq:Ratio\\_MFRx\\]) depend on the filter gains $G(0)$ and $\\zeta$.\n\nBy increasing the bandwidth, the gain for SRC decreases slightly, whereas it increases for SDJ, where $\\mu=0$ for both cases. The reason is that for these pulses by increasing $\\alpha$, both $\\overline{q}$ and the ratio $A_{\\mathrm{ref}}/A$ decreases. We observe that for the regular Nyquist pulses in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\], the gain increases by increasing the bandwidth. The reason is that by increasing the roll-off factor, the required bias decreases much faster (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RequiredDC\\]) than the speed of increase in bandwidth. The BTN and the PL pulses have approximately similar gain, and the gain of the RC and Poly pulses are always smaller than the gain of the other two pulses. In case of the matched filter receiver, the noise variance does not depend on bandwidth. As a result, the ratio $A_{\\mathrm{ref}}/A$ in (\\[eq:Ratio\\_MFRx\\]) is not a function of the roll-off factor and the optical power gain only depends on the roll-off factor through its dependence on the required DC bias. In Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:OptPower\\_BER\\], the optical power gain of the RRC pulse increases for $0.5<BT_{\\mathrm{b}}\\le 0.71$, and a wide gap is maintained with respect to the Nyquist pulses. For $0.71<BT_{\\mathrm{b}}\\le 1$, since the required DC is slightly fluctuating, the same happens for the optical power gain of RRC, and the maximum optical power gain happens at $BT_{\\mathrm{b}}=0.86$, where it is $\\Upsilon = -0.22$\u00a0dB. The Xia pulse has a similar behavior, though it is not better than all Nyquist pulses.\n\nFor $\\alpha\\rightarrow1$, the optical power gain of the Xia, RC, and RRC pulses are approximately equal. In this case, although the output of matched filter will be equal to an RC pulse by either using RRC or Xia pulse, the performance will be different for other values of $\\alpha$. By increasing the modulation level from binary to 4-PAM, for the same $\\alpha$ and $\\Delta a$, the optical power gain for all pulses decrease, since the required DC bias and symbol average increase while the ratio $A_{\\mathrm{ref}}/A$ decreases. For $0.5<BT_{\\mathrm{b}} < 1$, the optical power gain of the regular Nyquist pulses and root-Nyquist pulses with OOK modulation is significantly more than the gain for the all nonnegative Nyquist pulses with 4-PAM.\n\nWhen the roll-off factor is equal to zero (i.e., the normalized bandwidth $BT_{\\mathrm{b}}$ for the biased pulses with binary modulation is equal to 0.5 and for the biased pulses with 4-PAM is equal to 0.25), the regular Nyquist pulses discussed in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Pulse-shaping\\] and the root-Nyquist pulses in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:RootPulse-shaping\\] will become equal to a sinc pulse with bandwidth $1/(2{T_\\mathrm{s}})$. As discussed in Sec.\u00a0\\[sec:Required-DC-bias\\], the required DC will be infinite for the sinc pulse. Hence, the gain $\\Upsilon$ will asymptotically go to $-\\infty$ when $\\alpha\\rightarrow0$.\n\nConclusions \\[sec:CONCLUSIONS\\]\n===============================\n\nIn this work, a pulse shaping method for strictly bandlimited IM/DD systems is presented, in which the transmitted electrical signal must be nonnegative. The proposed approach adds a constant DC bias to the transmitted signal, which allows a wider selection of transmitted pulses without violating the nonnegativity constraint. This allows us to use Nyquist or root-Nyquist pulses for ISI-free transmission, with narrower bandwidth compared to previous works. It is possible to transmit with a bandwidth equal to that of ISI-free transmission in conventional coherent channels. To compare our proposed transmission schemes with previously designed schemes and to see the effect of increasing the modulation level, we evaluated analytically the average optical power versus bandwidth in two different scenarios. The optimization of modulation formats means a tradeoff between the two components of the optical power: the constellation power, which carries the data and is similar to the coherent case, and the bias power, which is constant. We prove the somewhat unexpected results that for narrowband transmission ($B{T_\\mathrm{s}}\\le 1 $), the two powers balance each other perfectly, so that OOK and BPSK have identical performance regardless of the pulse.\n\nIn the first scenario, the Nyquist pulses are compared when the noise-free eye opening is equal for all the pulses and modulation formats. Of the studied pulses, the SDJ pulse with OOK is the best known, as previously shown in [@4132995] over $B T_\\mathrm{b}\\ge 1$. At $0.5<B T_\\mathrm{b}< 1$, the PL and BTN pulses with binary modulation have the best performance, being up to $2.39$\u00a0dB better than SDJ with 4-PAM modulation. Similarly, the 4-PAM BTN and PL pulses have highest gain over $0.25<B T_\\mathrm{b}< 0.5$.\n\nIn the second scenario, all pulses have equal SER. Of the studied pulses, the SDJ with OOK modulation and sampling receiver has the highest gain for $B T_\\mathrm{b}\\ge 1$. At $0.869<B T_\\mathrm{b}< 1$, the binary PL pulse has the best performance, whereas for $0.5<B T_\\mathrm{b}\\leq 0.869$, the RRC pulse with matched filter receiver achieves the highest gain. The gain of RRC in this scenario is up to $0.74$\u00a0dB over the best Nyquist pulse and $2.80$\u00a0dB over the best known results with unbiased PAM. It seems possible that further improvements can be achieved by utilizing the most recently proposed Nyquist pulses [@1369626; @beaulieu2002better; @chandan05; @alexandru11; @assimonis11], or their corresponding root-Nyquist pulses, and carefully optimizing their parameters.\n\nExtensions to $M$-PAM systems with $M>4$ are straightforward, in order to gain even more spectral efficiency at the cost of reduced power efficiency. This might be important for designing power- and bandwidth-efficient short-haul optical fiber links (e.g., fiber to the home and optical interconnects) [@4528765; @5875697] and diffuse indoor wireless optical links [@gfeller2005wireless; @kahn2002wireless; @hranilovic2005design].\n\n![image](Diagram5.eps){width=\"1\\linewidth\"}\n\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   Pulse  Definition $q(t)$\n  ------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n    RC    $\\begin{cases}\n          \\frac{\\pi}{4}{\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right),& t = \\pm \\frac{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}{2\\alpha}, \\\\\n          {\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{ t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right) \\frac{\\cos\\left(\\frac{\\pi\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)}{1-(\\frac{2\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}})^{2}},& \\text{otherwise}\n          \\end{cases}$\n\n    BTN   ${\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)\\frac{\\frac{2\\pi\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}\\ln2}\\sin\\left(\\frac{\\pi\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)+2\\cos\\left(\\frac{\\pi\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)-1}{\\left(\\frac{\\pi\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}\\ln2}\\right)^2+1}$\n\n    PL    ${\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right){\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)$\n\n   Poly   $\\begin{cases}\n          1,& t = 0, \\\\\n          3{\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{ t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right) \\frac{{\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{\\alpha t}{2{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)^2-{\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)}{\\left(\\frac{\\pi\\alpha t}{2{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)^{2}},& \\text{otherwise}\n          \\end{cases}$\n\n    S2    ${\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}^{2}\\left(\\frac{ t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)$\n\n    SRC   $q_{\\mathrm{RC}}^2(t)$, where $q_\\mathrm{RC}$ is the RC pulse defined above\n\n    SDJ   $\\left[\\left(\\frac{1-\\alpha}{2}\\right){\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{(1-\\alpha) t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)+\\left(\\frac{1+\\alpha}{2}\\right){\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{(1+\\alpha) t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)\\right]^{2}$\n\n    RRC   $\\begin{cases}\n          1-\\alpha+\\frac{4\\alpha}{\\pi}, & t=0,\\\\\n          \\frac{\\alpha}{\\sqrt{2}}\\left[(1+\\frac{2}{\\pi})\\sin(\\frac{\\pi}{4\\alpha})+(1-\\frac{2}{\\pi})\\cos(\\frac{\\pi}{4\\alpha})\\right], & t=\\pm\\frac{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}{4\\alpha},\\\\\n          \\frac{\\sin\\left(\\frac{\\pi(1-\\alpha)t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)+\\frac{4\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\cos\\left(\\frac{\\pi(1+\\alpha)t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)}{\\frac{\\pi t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\left(1-\\left(\\frac{4\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)^{2}\\right)}, & \\text{otherwise}\\end{cases}$\n\n    Xia   ${\\mathop{\\mathrm{sinc}}\\nolimits}\\left(\\frac{t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)\\frac{\\cos\\left(\\frac{\\pi \\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}\\right)}{\\frac{2\\alpha t}{{T_\\mathrm{s}}}+1}$\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n   Pulse     Nyquist      root-Nyquist   $\\overline{q}$           $q(0)$           $B {T_\\mathrm{s}}$   ${E_q}/{T_\\mathrm{s}}$\n  ------- -------------- -------------- ---------------- ------------------------ -------------------- ------------------------\n    RC     $\\checkmark$                       $1$                  $1$               $(1+\\alpha)/2$    \n    BTN    $\\checkmark$                       $1$                  $1$               $(1+\\alpha)/2$    \n    PL     $\\checkmark$                       $1$                  $1$               $(1+\\alpha)/2$    \n   Poly    $\\checkmark$                       $1$                  $1$               $(1+\\alpha)/2$    \n    S2     $\\checkmark$                       $1$                  $1$                    $1$          \n    SRC    $\\checkmark$                   $1-\\alpha/4$             $1$                 $1+\\alpha$      \n    SDJ    $\\checkmark$                   $1-\\alpha/2$             $1$                 $1+\\alpha$      \n    RRC                   $\\checkmark$        $1$         $1-\\alpha+4\\alpha/\\pi$     $(1+\\alpha)/2$              $1$\n    Xia    $\\checkmark$   $\\checkmark$        $1$                  $1$               $(1+\\alpha)/2$              $1$\n\n![\\[fig:TxSig\\_RC\\]The normalized transmitted signal $x(t)/A$ for $\\mathcal{C}= \\left\\{0,1\\right\\}$ and using an RC pulse with $\\alpha=0.6$ as $q(t)$. It can be seen that without using the bias $\\mu=0.184$ (see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:RequiredDC\\]), the RC pulse would create a signal $x(t)$ that can be negative.](TransSignal_RC){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[fig:TxSig\\_SquareRC\\]The normalized transmitted signal $x(t)/A$ for $\\mathcal{C}= \\left\\{0,1\\right\\}$ and using an SRC pulse with $\\alpha=0.6$ as $q(t)$. In this case, the required DC $\\mu$ is zero.](TransSignal_SquareRC){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[fig:RequiredDC\\]The normalized minimum DC bias $\\mu/\\hat{a}$ vs. roll-off factor $\\alpha$ for a variety of pulses and $M$-PAM. The dotted line represents the required bias for the RC pulse at $\\alpha=0.6$, see Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:TxSig\\_RC\\].](RequiredDC){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n\\[t\\]\\[t\\][$t/{T_\\mathrm{s}}$]{}\n\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n   [![Noise-free eye diagrams for (a) RC, (b) PL, (c) BTN, and (d) Xia pulses with OOK modulation ($\\mathcal{C} = \\{0,1\\}$) and sampling receiver. All pulses have $\\alpha=0.60$ and are normalized to have the same optical power $\\bar{q}=1$.[]{data-label=\"eye-diagrams\"}](Eye_Raised_Cosine \"fig:\"){width=\"7cm\"}]{}   [![Noise-free eye diagrams for (a) RC, (b) PL, (c) BTN, and (d) Xia pulses with OOK modulation ($\\mathcal{C} = \\{0,1\\}$) and sampling receiver. All pulses have $\\alpha=0.60$ and are normalized to have the same optical power $\\bar{q}=1$.[]{data-label=\"eye-diagrams\"}](Eye_ParametricLinear \"fig:\"){width=\"7cm\"}]{}\n                                                                                                                                                       \\[-2ex\\] (a)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (b)\n     [![Noise-free eye diagrams for (a) RC, (b) PL, (c) BTN, and (d) Xia pulses with OOK modulation ($\\mathcal{C} = \\{0,1\\}$) and sampling receiver. All pulses have $\\alpha=0.60$ and are normalized to have the same optical power $\\bar{q}=1$.[]{data-label=\"eye-diagrams\"}](Eye_BetterNyq \"fig:\"){width=\"7cm\"}]{}      [![Noise-free eye diagrams for (a) RC, (b) PL, (c) BTN, and (d) Xia pulses with OOK modulation ($\\mathcal{C} = \\{0,1\\}$) and sampling receiver. All pulses have $\\alpha=0.60$ and are normalized to have the same optical power $\\bar{q}=1$.[]{data-label=\"eye-diagrams\"}](Eye_Xia_Unmatched \"fig:\"){width=\"7cm\"}]{}\u00ca\n                                                                                                                                                       \\[-2ex\\] (c)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 (d)\n  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n![\\[fig:OptPower\\_Eye\\]The optical power gain $\\Upsilon$ versus normalized bandwidth $BT_{\\mathrm{b}}$ for various Nyquist pulses with a sampling receiver. The noiseless eye opening for all pulses is equal. The curves for $BT_{\\mathrm{b}}\\geq 1$ agree with [@4132995].](OptPower_Eye){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n![\\[fig:OptPower\\_BER\\]The optical power gain versus normalized bandwidth $BT_{\\mathrm{b}}$ for various pulses with a sampling receiver (S) or matched filter receiver (MF). The SER for all pulses is $10^{-6}$.](OptPower_BER){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\n[^1]: Research supported in part by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) under grant RE07-0026. The material in this paper was presented in part at the IEEE Global Communications Conference, Houston, TX, Dec.\u00a02011.\n\n    M.\u00a0Tavan is with the Wireless Information Network Laboratory (WINLAB), Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA (e-mail: mt579@eden.rutgers.edu). E.\u00a0Agrell and J.\u00a0Karout are with the Department of Signals and Systems, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden (e-mail: agrell@chalmers.se, johnny.karout@chalmers.se).\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present new algorithm for growth of non-clustered planar graphs by aggregation of cells with given distribution of size and constraint of connectivity $k = 3$ per node. The emergent graph structures are controlled by two parameters\u2014chemical potential of the cell aggregation and the width of the cell size distribution. We compute several statistical properties of these graphs\u2014fractal dimension of the perimeter, distribution of shortest paths between pairs of nodes and topological betweenness of nodes and links. We show how these topological properties depend on the control parameters of the aggregation process and discuss their relevance for the conduction of current in self-assembled nanopatterns.'\nauthor:\n- Milovan \u0160uvakov and Bosiljka Tadi\u0107\ntitle: 'Topology of Cell-Aggregated Planar Graphs'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIn recent years increased interests in various networks realizations [@SD_book; @nets_review] revealed that several new types of graphs termed [*structured graphs*]{} are more appropriate mathematical objects to describe complex network\u2019s geometry than traditional [*random graphs*]{} [@BB_book]. The variety of structures was found to emerge through evolution processes in which nodes and links are added sequentially according to specified rules, in particular, the preferential attachment rules lead to strongly inhomogeneous [*scale-free graphs*]{} [@SD_book]. In contrast to the evolving networks, which comprise a class of [*causal*]{} graphs, the class of [*homogeneous*]{} graphs consists of graphs with fixed number of nodes and fluctuating or rewiring links according to given rules or certain optimization processes. Complex graph structures may emerge in this procedures, especially when certain global or local optimization constraints are imposed [@Stefan].\n\nPlanar graphs are special class of graphs that can be embedded in a Euclidean plane. A graph is planar [*iff it does not contain a subdivision of $K_5$ (5-clique) and $K_{3,3}$ (minimal non-planar graph with 6 nodes)*]{} [@BB_book]. Consequently, planar graphs fulfill Euler\u2019s law: $N_p+N=E+1$, which is relating the number of nodes $N$, links $E$ and polygons $N_p$.\n\nIn this work we suggest a new method for growing a planar cellular graph by attachment of objects\u2014cells (polygons) of length $n_p$, which are chosen from a given distribution $f(n_p)$. The polygons are added sequentially in time starting from an initial polygon. In addition, we strictly impose the constraint on number of links per node $k=3$, which is thus fulfilled everywhere in the interior of the graph and on some nodes on the graph boundary. The attachment of cells is controlled by two parameters\u2014the width of the distribution of cell sizes $\\mu_2$ and the parameter $\\nu$ that plays the role of chemical potential of cell aggregation. In the limit of vanishing attachment potential $\\nu \\to 0$ the growth process resembles the one in diffusion-limited aggregation [@DLA]. However, aggregated are spatially extended cells of particles rather than single particles.\n\nEmergent structures of cellular networks are resembling of soap froths [@Stabans_froth] or patterns of nano-particles self-assembled through nonlinear dynamic processes [@SA_book; @Philip_SA]. Typically, a pattern of cells appears when nano-particles are immersed in a liquid film, which is then allowed to evaporate until holes of different sizes open-up leaving particles in the walls between the holes [@Philip_SA; @Philip_REP]. Generally, the structure of the patterns effects the physical processes on them, such as current transport [@MSetal]. It is therefore important to understand the topology of the aggregated cellular networks in detail. Here we study the topological properties, such as shortest paths between nodes, topological centrality, and fractality of the graph\u2019s perimeter in different cellular networks obtained by varying the control parameters of the aggregation processes.\n\nCell Aggregation\n================\n\nThe basic idea is to make growing model of planar graph with given distribution of cell (polygon) sizes $f(n_p)$ and with degree of nodes $2 \\le k \\le 3$.\n\nTopological constraint\n----------------------\n\nFor this purpose we observe some topological constraints on the distribution of cell sizes: (i) $f(n_p)$ is defined for $n_p \\geq 3$, for non-clustered graph we fix $f(3)=0$; (ii) planar graph obeys Euler\u2019s law: $N_p+N=E+1$. Among these the homogeneous plane-filling structures are of special interest [@Stabans_froth]. For this class of graphs majority of nodes are in the interior of the graph, ie., nodes with degree $k=3$. Therefor $3N \\approx 2E$ and Euler\u2019s law becomes $$\\label{Euler1}\n6N_p=2E+6.$$ For large system with distribution of cell sizes $f(n_p)$ we have $$N=N_p\\sum_{n_p} \\frac{n_pf(n_p)}{3},\\; E=N_p\\sum_{n_p} \\frac{n_pf(n_p)}{2}.$$ Substituting second relation into (\\[Euler1\\]): $6N_p=N_p\\sum_{n_p} n_pf(n_p)+6$, then for large $N_p \\gg 1$ one can find that the average cell size is equal to six $$\\label{tc}\n\\langle n_p \\rangle \\equiv \\sum_{n_p} n_pf(n_p)=6.$$\n\nWe use lognormal distribution of polygon size $$\\label{lnormal}\nf(n_p) = \\frac{1}{s \\sqrt{2\\pi} x} e^{-\\frac{\\ln^2{x/x_0}}{2s^2}},$$ which is most often found in experiments [@Philip_SA]. Using the condition (\\[tc\\]) the number of independent parameters in (\\[lnormal\\]) is reduced $$\\langle n_p \\rangle = 6 \\quad \\Rightarrow \\quad x_0=6e^{-s^2/2}, \\; s^2 = \\ln \\left( 1+ \\frac{\\mu_2}{36} \\right),$$ where second central moment $\\mu_2$ remains as the control parameter in our case.\n\nModel\n-----\n\nStarting from an initial cell, at each time step a new cell with size taken from the distribution $f(n_p)$ is attached to the graph boundary of the graph according to the following rules:\n\n1.  In the aggregation only nodes with degree 3 can be closed inside the graph;\n\n2.  New link can be assigned only to nodes with degree 2;\n\n3.  Potential nesting place is searched as an array of nodes on graph boundary with degree 3 limited with two nodes of degree 2. The nested part of the cell is identified with the nodes of the nesting string. Therefore, number of extra nodes to be added is $n=n_p-l$, where $l$ is length of the nesting string. We select the nesting place with probability $p \\sim e^{-\\nu n}$, where the parameter $\\nu$ plays the role of the chemical potential for addition of new nodes.\n\n$\\begin{array}{c@{\\hspace{0.1in}}c}\n\\includegraphics[width=0.48\\textwidth]{suvakov_iccs06_fig1a.eps} &\n\\includegraphics[width=0.48\\textwidth]{suvakov_iccs06_fig1b.eps}\\\\\n\\mbox{Open} & \\mbox{Closed}\n\\end{array}$\n\nWe implemented this algorithm in *C++* according to following steps:\n\n    Initial graph: one polygon of size np taken from f(np) \n    For i=2 to Np\n      np = next random from distribution f(np)\n      If(there is no nodes on graph boundary with degree 2) exit(1)\n      For all j=(periphery node with degree 2)\n        d=distance to the next node on graph boundary with degree 2\n        Number of new nodes n = np-d-1\n        If(n>0) p(j)=exp(-nu*n)\n      End of loop j\n      If(there is no j with n>0) exit(2)\n      Normalize p(j)\n      j = next random from distribution p(j)\n      Add new polygon with size np linked with \n        node j and next node on graph boundary with degree 2\n    End of loop i\n    exit(0)\n\nDepending on model parameters of the growth process and it stochasticity three possible exit cases are:\n\n-   exit(0) - Open structure (planar graph with $N_p$ polygons);\n\n-   exit(1) - Closed structure (after some number of step there are no more nodes of degree 2 and structure stops to grow, no nesting places of any size);\n\n-   exit(2) - No nesting place available for current cell. In this case one can take next cell, which in turn perturbs the actual distribution.\n\nWe never experienced the exit(2) situation for the range of parameters $\\mu_2 \\in [0.5, 2.0]$, $\\nu \\in [0,5]$ and $N_p=1000$ in huge number of samples. Two examples of the emergent open and closed structures are shown on Fig. \\[ozslika\\]. More examples of cellular networks are shown in Fig. \\[velikaslika\\] for varying parameters $\\mu_2$ and $\\nu$..\n\n$\\begin{array}{c@{\\hspace{0.1in}}c@{\\hspace{0.1in}}c}\n\\mbox{$\\mu_2$} & \\mbox{$\\nu=0.0$} & \\mbox{$\\nu=1.0$} \\\\\n\\mbox{$0.5$} &\n\\includegraphics[width=0.45\\textwidth]{suvakov_iccs06_fig2a.eps} &\n\\includegraphics[width=0.45\\textwidth]{suvakov_iccs06_fig2b.eps} \\\\\n\\mbox{$2.0$} &\n\\includegraphics[width=0.45\\textwidth]{suvakov_iccs06_fig2c.eps} &\n\\includegraphics[width=0.45\\textwidth]{suvakov_iccs06_fig2d.eps} \\\\\n\\end{array}$\n\nFractal Dimension of Network Perimeter\n======================================\n\n![Scaling of the network perimeter for (a) $\\mu_2=0$ hexagons only (b) $\\mu_2=2.0$[]{data-label=\"FD\"}](suvakov_iccs06_fig3.eps){width=\"100.00000%\"}\n\nDuring the nesting growing process in one step number of nodes $N$ increases by $n<n_p$. Number of added nodes $n$ at each step depends on the cell size and length of the nesting string. Therefore, $N \\approx \\kappa N_p$ where $\\kappa=\\langle n \\rangle$ is average growth rate. For open structures (see Fig. \\[ozslika\\]-\\[velikaslika\\]) boundary of the graph becomes fractal, depending on the control parameters. In fact, length of the graph boundary $L$ grows as a power of the number of cells $N_p$ (or network size $N$) with fractal dimension $D$ defined by $L \\sim N_p^D$.\n\nIn Fig. \\[FD\\] we show how number of nodes on the graph boundary increases with $N_p$. Each point is averaged over $10$ emergent growing networks. The dimension $D$ is in the range $\\frac{1}{2} \\le D \\le 1$, when $D=1$ correspond to structures of high fractality, that is obtained for small values of the parameter $\\nu$. $D=\\frac{1}{2}$ correspond to planar \u201ccircle like\u201d structures with reduced fractality. For $\\mu_2>0$ we observe a continuous crossover between these two limits (see Fig. \\[FD\\]b for $\\mu_2=2$). However, in structures with homogeneous cell distribution ($\\mu_2=0$ - hexagons only) a sharp transition seems to occur at $\\nu_c \\approx 1.5$.\n\nShortest Paths and Centrality on Cellular Networks\n==================================================\n\nIn this section we consider global topological properties of the cell-aggregated planar graphs and their dependence on the control parameters $\\mu_2$ and $\\nu$.\n\nShortest Paths\n--------------\n\nShortest path between two nodes is defined as path along the smallest number of intermediate links [@BB_book]. We implemented an algorithm for counting shortest paths of Dijksta type [@NW_book]. In Fig. \\[DSP\\] we show distribution of lengths of shortest paths between all pairs of nodes on network. All networks are for fixed $\\mu_2=1.0$ and approximately of the same size $N \\approx 1000$ nodes. Each point in Fig. \\[DSP\\] is averaged over 100 sample networks. We found similar results for other $\\mu_2$ values.\n\nAll these networks have similar topology at local level, because the number of links at all interior nodes is constant $k=3$. Therefore, distributions of shortest distances at small scale are similar for all values of parameter $\\nu$. Differences in global topology appear on large scale for lengths larger then peak value $l_0 \\sim 25$, which manifest in occurrence of additional peaks (see Fig. \\[DSP\\]). The probability of long paths increases for larger values of the parameter $\\nu$. Whereas in the limit $\\nu=0$ the distribution of length of shortest paths on large scale can be approximated with a normal distribution (inset on Fig. \\[DSP\\]).\n\nCentrality Measures {#centrality}\n-------------------\n\nBetweenness centrality of a node in network is defined by [@Freeman; @BB_book] $$C_B(v)=\\sum_{s\\neq v \\neq t} \\frac{\\sigma_{st}(v)}{\\sigma_{st}}$$ where $\\sigma_{st}$ is total number of shortest paths between nodes $s$ and $t$, and $\\sigma_{st}(v)$ is number of these paths that node $v$ lies on. Betweenness of links is defined in analogous way. In our algorithm, we record number of shortest paths through each node and through each link on a network. In Fig. \\[DBC\\] we show distributions of betweenness of nodes and links averaged over 100 sample networks with fixed $\\mu_2=1.0$ and size $N \\approx 1000$ nodes.\n\nFor inhomogeneous networks, distributions of these two betweenness measures can be substantially different. In our case, however, they are similar because all interior nodes have fixed degree $k=3$. We find that distributions at small scale strongly depend on parameter $\\nu$, which results from the graph boundary. Similar conclusions hold for other $\\mu_2$ values.\n\nIn Fig. \\[velikaslika\\] thick lines represent links with large betweenness. For this type of networks the strongest lines, which make the skeleton of the graph, are connecting the nodes with largest centrality measure.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nWe have introduced a new algorithm for growth of graphs by aggregation process of extended objects - polygons with size distribution. Depending on aggregation conditions, which are determined by two parameters controlling the distribution width and attachment potential, we can get a wide spectrum of emergent structures. In this paper we presented some results for the case of lognormal distribution of cells and additional constraints, leading to the emergent non-clustered planar graphs with a constant node connectivity. The algorithm works for variety of cell distributions and constraints, that may result in diverse opened (fractal) or closed structures. For instance, for a special set of parameters we can get closed structures of $C_{60}$ type.\n\nWe measured several topological properties of these networks in quantitative details\u2014fractality of the graph boundary, shortest paths, and betweenness centrality. This properties are important for some dynamical process on networks such as electrical conductivity [@MSetal] via single electron tunneling [@Philip_SA; @Nano_book].\n\n[**Acknowledgments:**]{}\\\nM.S. thanks financial support from the Marie Curie Research and Training Network MRTN-CT-2004-005728 project. B.T. is supported by the program P1-0044 of the Ministry of high education, science and technology (Slovenia).\n\n[12]{}\n\nDorogovtsev, S. N., and Mendes, J. F. F.: [*Evolution of Networks.*]{} Oxford University Press 2003 Boccaleti S., Latora V. [*et al.*]{}: *Complex Networks: Structure and Dynamics*. Physics Reports (in press) Bollob\u00e1s, B.: *Modern Graph Theory.* Springer (New York) 1998. Biely C., and Thurner S.: *Statistical Mechanics of Scale Free Networks at a Critical Point: Complexity Without Irreversibility.* cond-mat/0506140. Newman, M. E. J.: **The structure and function of complex networks.** SIAM Rev. [**46**]{} (2003) 167-225 Witten, T. A., and Sander L.M.: [*Diffusion-Limited Aggregation, a Critical Phenomenon.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{} (1981) 1400-1403\n\nStavans, J.: *Evolution of cellular structures.* Rep. Prog. Phys. [**56**]{} (1993) 733-789\n\nB. Tadi\u0107, [*From Microscopic Rules to Emergent Cooperativity in Large-Scale Patterns*]{}, in [**Systems Self-Assembly: multidisciplinary snapshots**]{}, N. Krasnogor, S. Gustafson, D. Pelta, J. L. Verdegay (Eds.) Elsevier(2005). Moriarty, P., Taylor M. D. R., and Brust, M.: *Nanostructured Cellular Networks.* Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{} (2002) 248303 Moriarty, P. : *Nanostructured materials.* Pep. Prog. Phys. [**64**]{} (2001) 297-381 M. \u0160uvakov [*et al.*]{} (in preparation)\n\nAhuja, R. K., Magnanti, T. L., and Orlin, J. B.: *Network Flows: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications.* Prentice Hall (New Jersey) 1993 Freeman, L.C.: *A set of measures of centrality based on beetweenness.* Sociometry [**40**]{} (1977) 35-41\n\nFerry, D. K. and Goodnick, S. M. *Transport in Nanostructures.* Cambridge University Press 1997\n"}
-{"text": "---\nauthor:\n- 'P. Delorme'\n- 'L. Albert'\n- 'T. Forveille'\n- 'E. Artigau'\n- 'X. Delfosse'\n- 'C. Reyl\u00e9'\n- 'C. J. Willott'\n- 'E. Bertin'\n- 'S. M. Wilkins'\n- 'F. Allard'\n- 'D. Arzoumanian'\nbibliography:\n- 'bib.bib'\ntitle: |\n    Extending the Canada-France brown Dwarfs Survey to the near-infrared:\\\n    first ultracool brown dwarfs from CFBDSIR [^1]\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe significant improvement in detector technology, data storage, and analysis facilities in the past decade has made it possible to carry out wide-field surveys covering a large fraction of the sky instead of targeting specific sources. The wealth of data from these surveys necessitate a complex dedicated computer analysis to single out relevant scientific information. These surveys, such as DENIS [@Epchtein.1997], SDSS [@York.2000], 2MASS [@Skrutskie.2006], UKIDSS [@Lawrence.2007], and CFBDS [@Delorme.2008b] contain hundreds of millions of astrophysical sources and led to many advances in various fields, notably to identify extremely rare objects and build robust statistical studies.\n\nThe survey we are presenting here, the Canada-France Brown Dwarfs Survey-InfraRed aims at finding ultracool brown dwarfs (T$_{eff}<$ 650K) of which only 6 are currently published by @Warren.2007 [@Delorme.2008a; @Burningham.2008; @Burningham.2009; @Burningham.2010sub]. @Lucas.2010sub have very recently identified a probably even cooler object. These rare objects are in many ways the intermediate \u201cmissing link\" between the cold atmospheres of the Solar System\u2019s giant planets and cool stellar atmospheres. The physics and chemistry of their atmospheres, dominated by broad molecular absorption bands, are very planetary-like [see @Kulkarni.1997 for instance] and the cool brown dwarfs spectra are the key to constraining planetary and stellar atmosphere models. Nowadays, the Teff$<$700K atmosphere temperature regime is troublesome for modellers. A few ultracool late T brown dwarfs have now been discovered with effective temperatures below 650K. These discoveries step into unexplored territory and a new generation of models is emerging. It is facing several difficulties. 1) Out-of-equilibrium chemistry plays an important role, resulting for instance in NH$_3$ being less prevalent than expected [@Cushing.2006]. 2) Fine details of convection control both the L/T transition and the dredge up of hot chemical species in late T atmospheres. 3) Water cloud formation and dust nucleation play important roles. 4) Line opacities of several molecules, in particular NH$_3$ and, to a lesser extent, CH$_4$ are unknown and cause important spectroscopic feature mismatches. As a good example of the need for refined models, @Burningham.2009 have recently determined that a T8.5 dwarf companion to an M star was actually $\\sim$15% cooler than model fitting would have predicted and @Dupuy.2009 and @Liu.2008 reached similar conclusions when studying brown dwarf binaries with dynamical masses.\n\nUnder those circumstances, observations are key to the development of the models. Only five brown dwarfs with temperatures below 650K (T8.5) are currently known from recent discoveries by UKIDSS and CFBDS, and this small number prevents discerning general trends from individual peculiarities. @Kirkpatrick.1999 and @Burgasser.2002 could rely on samples of 20-25 objects to respectively define the L and T spectral types. In this article we present the CFBDSIR, a near infrared (hereafter NIR) extension to the CFBDS that will provide a WIRCAM [@Puget.2004] $J$-band coverage down to $J_{vega}=20.0$ for 10$\\sigma$ detections atop 335 square degrees of CFBDS MegaCam [@Boulade.2003proc] $z'$-band imaging with a 5$\\sigma$ detection limit of $z'_{AB}$=23.25-24.05. All optical magnitudes presented in this article are AB magnitudes, while all NIR magnitudes are Vega magnitudes. When the CFBDSIR is complete, we hope to achieve a threefold increase in sample size to 15-20 characterised ultracool brown dwarfs and possibly find a few substellar objects significantly cooler than 500K of which none is known yet outside the solar system. This will define general trends and dispersions around them, permitting the study of ultracool dwarfs not only as individual interesting objects, but as a population. This will help define the T/Y spectral transition that is expected to occur in this temperature range. In section 1 we present the rationale of this new wide-field survey and the observations at its core. In section 2 we describe the data reduction and the data analysis methods we used to identify ultracool brown dwarfs candidates. Finally, we present the spectra and the photometry of the first ultracool brown dwarf identified with CFBDSIR in section 3.\n\nObservations\n============\n\nFar-red and near infrared photometric properties of brown dwarfs\n----------------------------------------------------------------\n\nField brown dwarfs are cool objects, with a temperature range that currently extends from $\\sim$2500K (early L) to $\\sim 525$K [latest objects identified, e.g. @Leggett.2009]. Even cooler, and still to be found, brown dwarfs should close the temperature gap between late type T-dwarfs and solar system Jovian planets($\\sim$110K). These objects do exist [see @Burgasser.2009proc for instance] because low-mass brown dwarfs already observed in young clusters must cool down to this temperature range when they age. Brown dwarfs spectra differ significantly from a black body, and have considerable structure from deep absorption lines and bands. The spectral energy distribution of 500K brown dwarfs peaks in the in the $J$ band in the near infrared (even colder objects should emit more energy in the mid-infrared), and they are therefore most easily detected in that wavelength range. Their NIR $JHK$ colours are, however, not distinctive at a modest signal-to-noise ratio [see @Metchev.2008 for instance], and brown dwarfs are more easily recognised by including at least one photometric band blueward of 1\u00a0$\\mu$m. At those wavelengths the steep slope of their spectra stands out, and they have very distinctively red $i'-z'$ and $z'-J$ colours. The CFBD Survey [@Delorme.2008b] took advantage of their distinctive $i'-z'$ colours to identify hundreds of L and T-dwarfs. However, the reddest and coolest brown dwarfs have extremely red $z'-J$ colours and are much easier to detect in the NIR than on original CFBDS far-red images. A WIRCam $J$-band coverage of CFBDS fields is a straightforward and efficient way to cumulate both the very effective selection criteria using far-red colour information and the NIR detection sensitivity to ultracool brown dwarfs. Since the overlap of CFBDS with existing NIR surveys with a relevant depth [such as UKIDSS, @Lawrence.2007] is marginal, it was impossible to rely on archive data.\n\nThe resulting survey, CFBDSIR, identifies astrophysical sources on $J$-band WIRCam [@Puget.2004] images and selects ultracool brown dwarfs candidates depending upon their $z'-J$ colours, using $z'$ magnitudes from CFBDS MegaCam [@Boulade.2003proc] images. The $z'-J$ colour has a wide range for brown dwarfs, varying from 2.6 for mid-L types to over 4.5 for late-T types (Fig.\u00a0\\[zJspT\\]). It therefore provides (at least at a good signal-to-noise ratio) a good selection criteria to identify ultracool brown dwarfs. They usually have $z'-J>$3.8, as confirmed by atmosphere models such as BT-Settl [@Allard.2007], synthetic MegaCam/WIRCam colours derived from known objects [@Delorme.2008b] and direct observational data [@Delorme.2008a; @Burningham.2008; @Burningham.2009]. Models suggest that cooler objects, not yet discovered (T$<$500K), are even redder. Figure \u00a0\\[zJspT\\] however shows that the colour-spectral type relation for late T-dwarfs has a wide spread, meaning that this $z'-J$ colour range also contains some warmer mid-T dwarfs. Follow-up photometry of candidates in $H$ and $K_{\\rm s}$ band easily distinguishes the relatively blue very late T from the redder mid-T-dwarfs [see @Lodieu.2007 for instance]. Only very rare astrophysical objects share the same $z'JHK$ colour range: very high-redshift starburst-galaxies, extremely red Balmer break galaxies, and atypical broad absorption-lines quasars at moderately high redshift ($z\\geq 2$), such as those described in @Hall.2002. However, those objects can be differenciated from brown dwarfs using only photometry: they are not as red in $i'-z'$ as ultracool brown dwarfs and will appear in the $i'$ CFBDS images whereas brown dwarfs will not. Quasars with redshift z$>$7 cannot be distinguished from cool brown dwarfs using the CFBDSIR $i',z',J$ and optical photometry, but we would be lucky to find just one of these extremely interesting objects. None has been discovered yet, and extrapolation of the z$=$6 luminosity function [@Willott.2010] suggests that wider or/and deeper surveys will be needed to find one. Other possible contaminants are detector artefacts and variable objects whose luminosity changed between $z'$ and $J$ exposures.\n\nThe survey\n----------\n\n[**WIRCam NIR data.**]{} This article focuses on the results obtained from a 66 square degrees pilot subset of CFBDSIR whose final coverage is expected to be 335 square degree. CFBDSIR WIRCam imaging goes to a depth of $J_{vega}=20.0$ for a point-source detection limit of 10$\\sigma$, which ensures accurate photometry and rejects most spurious detections. Images were acquired at CFHT in QSO mode with seeing varying from 0.6to 1.0during semesters 2006B, 2007A, and 2009B. These WIRCam images overlap the existing $z'$-band images of CFBDS; i.e., each $\\sim$ 1 square degree MegaCam field is covered by nine 21\u2019 by 21\u2019 WIRCam $J$-band 45-second exposures. For the sake of efficiency, no dithering is done. Instead, the 9 adjacent fields observed in sequence are used for sky construction. Each 9-field patch is actually observed twice, generally one night apart, in order to identify and remove any moving solar system object, for a total integration time of 90 seconds. The second sequence is observed with few pixels offset to average the fixed noise pattern seen on the WIRCam detectors. The 10$\\sigma$ limiting depth of $J_{vega}=20.0$ ensures that all confirmed ultracool brown dwarf candidates can be observed with low-resolution spectrographs on 8-meter class telescopes.\\\n[**Optical data.**]{} The optical data consist of the $z'$-band images used for the CFBD Survey. This survey is made of public and P.I. data and associated 4 sub-surveys of different area shallowness, namely the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey-Very Wide,CFHTLS-Wide, CFHTLS-Deep and Red-sequence Cluster Survey-2 (RCS2), described in detail by @Delorme.2008b. The CFBDSIR only targets the 3 shallower components, as shown in Table \\[maglim\\]. This table compares the limiting magnitude, the maximum distances of detection for mid-L, mid T and the latest T-dwarfs, together with the areas covered by each survey. The similar table 1 in @Delorme.2008b incorrectly uses the maximal magnitude limit for the CFHTLS-WIDE, instead of the average one. The value of 23.3 stated in Table \\[maglim\\] here corrects this error. The 335 square degrees CFBDSIR probes about 2.8 times more volume for late T-dwarfs than the $\\sim$900 square degree CFBDS, and even more for redder (and thus likely cooler) objects. Figure \\[cfbdsir\\_map\\] shows the sky coverage of CFBDSIR as of March 2010. The optical data is public and available on the CFHT archive, while the NIR data becomes public after the standard one-year CFHT proprietary period.\\\n\n![Map of observed CFBDSIR fields as of March 2010. Dashed lines are +/-20 degrees of galactic latitude. \\[cfbdsir\\_map\\]](14277fg1.ps){width=\"8cm\"}\n\n[|X|X|X|X|X|X|]{} Survey Name& $z'_{AB}$ $10\\sigma$ ($5\\sigma$) detection limit& mid-L maximal detection (pc) & mid-T maximal detection (pc) & T9 maximal detection (pc) & Final coverage (sq deg)\\\nCFBDS:RCS-2 & 22.5 (23.25) & 185 & 80 &16 & 600\\\nCFBDS:CFHTLS-Very Wide & 22.8 (23.55) & 215 & 90 & 18 & 150\\\nCFBDS:CFHTLS-Wide & 23.3 (24.05) & 270 & 115 & 22 & 170\\\nSurvey Name& $J_{vega}$ $10\\sigma$ detection limit & mid-L maximal detection (pc) & mid-T maximal detection (pc)& T9 maximal detection (pc) & Final coverage(sq deg)\\\nCFBDSIR & 20.0 & 235 & 145 & 35 & 335\\\n\nCFBDS initial detections are made in $z'$ and only better than $10\\sigma$ detections are used. CFBDSIR makes the initial detection in $J$, using only better than $10\\sigma$ detections in $J$, and is only limited in $z'$ by no detections. We define any $z'$-band object with a signal below the $5\\sigma$ threshold as a no detection or \u201dz\u2019-dropout\".\n\n[**Survey rationale.**]{} Ultracool brown dwarfs have $z'_{AB}-J_{vega}>3.8$ for the MegaCam and WIRCam photometric systems, with some already observed at $z'-J=4.5$. Given the relative depth of the optical and NIR exposures, most of the T-dwarfs earlier than T7 detected in the $J$-band image will have a $z'$-band counterpart. The objects detected at $J$ and not at $z'$ (hereafter $z$-dropouts) are thus good candidates for some of the coolest T-dwarfs known ($>$T7), and possibly even cooler Y dwarfs.\n\nSince our most interesting candidates are likely to only be detected in $J$-band, we need to carefully eliminate most sources of contamination in this band. The main contaminants are detectors artefacts, variable objects and asteroids. As described in detail in section \\[data\\_analysis\\], our point spread function (hereafter PSF) analysis removes most artefacts, while all asteroids are eliminated because they move between the two exposures taken at each pointing. Supernovae and other strongly variable objects have to be rejected during the follow-up, but their numbers are kept low thanks to the relative shallowness of the survey. Since we select all PSF-looking $z'$-band dropouts, CFBDSIR also very efficiently identifies high-proper motion objects: if the proper motion is high enough that a $J$-band source cannot be cross-matched with its $z'$-band counterpart, the automatic pipeline keeps the candidate in the selection as a $z'$-band dropout. Visual examination of all selected candidates subsequently identifies those high proper motion sources easily.\\\n[**NIR Follow-up.**]{} The NIR follow-up of CFBDSIR candidates removes the remaining candidates but also provides an efficient characterisation of the confirmed candidates. Ultracool brown dwarfs can be singled out by their blue $J-H$ and $H-K$ colours owing to stronger H$_2$O, CH$_4$ and probably NH$_3$ absorption than earlier T dwarfs. The CFBDSIR follow-up of the first 66 square degrees from CFBDSIR required about 3.5 nights on SOFI [@Moorwood.1998] at NTT. We were able to observe all 55 T-dwarfs candidates identified and to confirm 6 of them as T-dwarfs, including 3 ultracool brown dwarfs (later than T7 dwarfs and possible Y dwarfs) candidates. The rationale of the NIR follow-up is the following.\n\n-   A short (5 to 10 minute dithered image, with 30-s individual exposures), $J$-band exposure confirms the candidate and eliminates any remaining contaminants from variable sources, such as supernovae or detector artefacts. For confirmed candidates, this image also provides good signal-to-noise (from 20 to about 100, depending on the target magnitude) $J$-band photometry, better than the photometry on the detection image.\n\n-   All candidates confirmed with this SOFI $J$ photometry are imaged in $H$-band to characterise them as ultracool brown dwarfs or earlier T-dwarfs. A 10-20 minute dithered sequence, with 20-s individual exposures, usually achieve good signal-to-noise photometry, with an accuracy better than 5%.\n\n-   All confirmed candidates with measured $J-H<$0.1 are potential ultra-cool brown dwarfs that can be further characterised by acquiring $K_{\\rm s}$-band photometry, if enough observing time is available. A 15-30 minute dithered sequence, with 15-s exposures typically achieves good signal-to-noise photometry in $K_{\\rm s}$.\n\nIt should be noted that this very efficient confirmation and characterisation photometric follow-up is made possible by visitor-mode observation combined with the automatic image reduction by SOFI pipeline *Gasgano*. A simple photometric analysis can be carried out by the observer only minutes after the exposures allowing $J$ and possibly $H$ and $K_{\\rm s}$ photometry to be derived on-the-fly. It is then possible to choose the follow-up strategy most suited to each individual candidate. The final astrometric and photometric calibration is done using 2MASS [@Skrutskie.2006] stars in the field as references.\n\nSurvey analysis\n===============\n\nUltracool brown dwarfs are extremely red objects 25 to 60 times (3.5 to 4.5 magnitudes) brighter in $J$-band that in $z'$ band. This means that even if our $z'$ images are about 3 to 4 magnitudes deeper than the detection $J$-band images, many of our candidates with strong $J$ band detection will not appear at all in the $z'$ images. However, a non detection in $z'$ band is a very strong sign that the candidate is a very red astrophysical source with $z'-J>3.5$, exactly what we are looking for. The other alternative is that these sources are spurious, such as unrecognised artefacts (remaining detector cross-talk, unflagged hot pixel, optical ghost, etc.) on the $J$ image. Since ultracool brown dwarfs are extremely rare ( our preliminary estimate is $\\sim$ 1 per 25 square degree, so fewer than 1 per $500~000$ sources down to $J$=20.0), false detection rates of even 1 per 10$^4$ real sources would greatly outnumber true brown dwarfs. We therefore need a very robust analysis of the discovery images to tie down the number of artefacts before we finally weed them out during the photometric follow-up of the candidates.\n\nImage reduction\n---------------\n\nThe WIRCam observations targeted 335 existing MegaCam fields from CFBDS, that have already been observed in $i'$ and $z'$. The reduction of MegaCam data is described by @Delorme.2008b.\n\nImages were run through the \u2018I\u2018iwi Interpretor of the WIRCam Images (\u2018I\u2018iwi - [www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/WIRCam]{}) at CFHT, which does non-linearity correction, dark subtraction, flat-fielding, sky subtraction, bad pixel masking, photometric calibration, and rough astrometric calibration. Cross-talk subtraction was also performed on the 06B and 07A data, affected by amplifier to amplifier cross-talk.\n\nEach set of 2 times 9 WIRCam images covering one $z'$ MegaCam image was then co-aligned, using the $z'$ image used as the astrometric reference. This astrometric calibration was performed with *Scamp* [@Bertin.2006], and the images were stacked using *Swarp*[@Bertin.2002]. This produced $\\sim$1 square degree WIRCam images aligned with each targeted MegaCam field.\n\nImage analysis {#data_analysis}\n--------------\n\nSince our stacks are only 2 exposures deep, the final frame is the average of both exposures. To easily reject moving solar system objects from our detection catalogues, we also produced a \u201dminimum\u201c image of both exposures. This combined image contains the lower of the pixel values of the two exposures, and is effectively devoid of all those objects that moved by more than one FWHM between the exposures. We carried out the analysis using the double-image mode of *Sextractor* [@Bertin.1996], with source detection on the \u201dminimum\u201d image and photometric measurements on the average image, using PSF fitting. The different analysis steps are described here:\n\n-   Spatially variable PSF models of the images are built with PSFex [@Bertin.2010], using single stars within the image as prototypes..\n\n-   The sources on the minimal image are identified using *Sextractor*. Their astrometry and photometry are derived by PSF fitting. (The latter is discarded from thereon, but is included in the fit). Since moving objects are at different positions in the two exposures that were stacked to produce the minimal image, they do not appear in the resulting source list.\n\n-   A flux-only PSF fitting at the position of the sources identified on the minimal sum stacked image is then carried out on the average stacked image. This step produces the final WIRCam $J$-band catalogue.\n\n-   The MegaCam $z'$-band catalogue of the corresponding field is then produced using a similar position and flux PSF fitting with *Sextractor*.\n\n-   The $J$-band and $z'$-band catalogues are cross-matched so that each source in the $J$-band catalogue is associated with a $z'$ magnitude. In case there is no $z'$-band couterpart to a $J$-band detection, which is then a \u201c$z$-dropout\", the source is given the 5 sigma detection magnitude limit of the full $z'$ image as its $z'$ magnitude and the corresponding $z'-J$ colour is then considered as a lower limit of its actual colour.\n\nFiltering and candidate selection\n---------------------------------\n\nThe selection of ultracool brown dwarfs candidates in our catalogue aims at the greatest possible completeness (i.e. finding most of the ultracool dwarfs actually detectable on the images) while keeping the number of contaminants down to an acceptable level. Contaminants are particularly critical because the most promising candidates are the $z$-dropouts for which only a $J$ magnitude and a $z'-J$ lower limit on the colour is known. To keep the number of contaminants relatively low, we only selected sources with a signal-to-noise ratio above 10 in the $J$-band stack.\n\nAs visible in Fig. \\[zJspT\\], brown dwarfs later than T8 populate the $z'-J>$3.8 colour range. This figure as well as Fig. \\[wilkins\\] make use of spectra from http://www.jach.hawaii.edu/$\\sim$skl/LTdata.html [@Martin.1999; @Kirkpatrick.2000; @Geballe.2001; @Leggett.2002; @Burgasser.2003; @Knapp.2004; @Golimowski.2004; @Chiu.2006]. As described in @Delorme.2008b these colours are synthesised from the spectra using the filters, atmosphere, telescope and detector transmission and sensitivity of the instruments used in CFBDSIR. Given the large colour spread of late T-dwarfs, we set a very conservative colour selection threshold of $z'-J>$3.5, to select as many ultracool dwarfs as possible. Since the 3.5$<z'-J<$3.8 colour range is mainly populated by warmer T-dwarfs and is still very far from any densely populated colour locus, as illustrated by Fig. \\[colpop\\], including it in our selection does not increase the number of contaminants significantly.\n\n![$z'-J$ colour spectral type relation. The green symbols represent synthetic MegaCam/WIRCam colours for known objects with publicly available spectra. The black dashed line is the resulting averaged colour-spectral type relation. Red points show the observational colours and spectral types of CFBDS spectroscopically confirmed T-dwarfs. \\[zJspT\\] ](14277fg2.ps)\n\nIn addition to this colour selection, the main filtering criterion is based on the $\\chi ^2$ from PSF fitting, to distinguish point sources from galaxies and artefacts, following the same method as described in @Delorme.2008b. Since brown dwarfs are point sources, this morphological rejection of all non-point-source-like objects effectively removes many non-stellar contaminants.\n\nThis automated selection produces an average of 6 candidates per square degree. Each of these is visually examined to remove remaining contaminants. In addition to inspecting both the $z'$-band and the $J$-band images, we examine the $i'$-band image (available from the CFBDS), to reject some variable contaminants, as well as possible contamination by atypical broad absorption line quasars, none of which is known to be very red in both $z'-J$ and $i'-z'$ [P.Hall, private communication and @Hall.2002]. Since the 5$\\sigma$ detection limits of the CFBDS $i'$ images (between 24.5 and 25.5) are significantly deeper than the $z'$ images, broad absorption line quasars with $z'-J>3.5$ should be visible on the $i'$ image. We identified one such object, CFBDSIR232451-045852, with $z'-J=$4.7 and $i'-z'$=0.9.\n\nVery high-redshift (z$>$6), star-forming galaxies and evolved galaxies with strong Balmer/4000\u00c5\u00a0breaks at z$\\sim$2, shown in Fig. \\[wilkins\\], are other possible contaminants. While the surface density of J$\\sim$20 high-redshift, star-forming galaxies is unknown (the brightest of these objects discovered so far have J$_{vega}\\sim$25 [@Ouchi.2009], five magnitudes fainter than our detection limit), the expected exponential cut-off in the luminosity function suggests that the probability of finding any such galaxy in CFBDSIR is extremely low. Balmer/4000\u00c5\u00a0break galaxies at z$\\sim$2.5 do enter the fringe of our selected colour range; however, their $i'-J$ colour is typically below 5, ensuring they are detected in the $i'$-band CFBDS images and are then eliminated from our candidate list.\n\nAfter this final visual check, we end up with about 1 ultracool brown dwarf candidate per square degree, which has to be confirmed with pointed NIR observations.\n\n![Colour-magnitude diagram of all sources detected with a signal-to-noise greater than 10 in a 1 square-degree stacked WIRCam image from CFBDSIR. Since no other filtering is applied, these sources can be stars, galaxies, or detector artefacts. In this specific instance, none of the red objects is a brown dwarf. \\[colpop\\]](14277fg3.ps)\n\n![Colour-colour diagram of known stars and brown dwarfs from spectral type O (deep-blue dots) to T (dark-red dots). The blue line shows the colours of high-redshift-starburst galaxies, while the red line refers to red Balmer-break galaxies. These lines follow a redshift evolution and specific redshift steps are indicated by numbers near the lines. The colours are synthesised from spectra, and take into account the actual transmission and detector sensitivity of the MegaCam and WIRCam instruments used in CFBDSIR. \\[wilkins\\]](14277fg4.ps)\n\nResults\n=======\n\nPhotometric confirmation of 3 ultracool brown dwarfs\n----------------------------------------------------\n\nThe 55 candidates found in a 66 square degree subset of the data were followed-up with photometry at the ESO New Technology Telescope, using the SOFI near infrared camera during visitor mode runs 083.C-0797(A) and 082.C-0506(A), in July 2009 and March 2009. These pointed NIR observations confirm six T-dwarfs, of which 3 are robust ultracool brown dwarf candidates. Those are likely to be either very late T-dwarfs ($>$T8) or cooler Y dwarfs. The brighter 2 of the 3 earlier T candidates are re-identifications of CFBDS-discovered brown dwarfs, spectroscopically confirmed as T3.5 and T5 (Albert et al., submitted.).\n\nThe candidates identified in the remaining 269 square degrees have not yet been followed-up, and they certainly include mostly contaminants. Extrapolating the results from the 66 square degree pilot subset of CFBDSIR to the full survey, we expect to find $\\sim$15 ultracool brown dwarfs. Low-resolution NIR spectroscopy of the confirmed ultracool brown dwarfs will be needed to derive spectral types and characterise their cool atmosphere physics.\\\n[**Photometric properties of ultra-red brown dwarf candidates**]{}\n\n![Colour-colour diagram of some of the latest brown dwarfs known, $>$T8, later than spectrum used for up to date spectral classification scheme together with the 3 CFBDSIR ultracool dwarfs candidates. The regular T-dwarf approximate colour range is highlighted in the upper left corner. Note that given the strong dispersion in colours of T dwarfs, some mid/late T do spread out of this indicative colour range. \\[zJJH\\]](14277fg5.ps){width=\"8cm\"}\n\nAfter the March 2009 $J, H$, and $K_s$ follow-up observations, one candidate stood out as particularly interesting. We then obtained additional WIRCam $J, H$, and $K_s$ photometry for this object, CFBDSIR J145829+101343 (hereafter CFBDSIR1458). The resulting magnitudes are presented in Table\u00a0\\[mag\\]. The SOFI photometry in this table has additional uncertainty because its calibration is bootstrapped from a small number of good 2MASS reference stars in the narrow field of the SOFI NTT images, especially so in the $H$ and $Ks$ bands.\n\nCFBDSIR1458 colours are detailed in Table\u00a0\\[colours\\] and shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[f\\_chart\\], and can be summarised as follows:\n\n-   Very red far-red colours: $z'-J=$3.94, which Table\u00a0\\[colours\\] compares to those of other ultracool brown dwarfs;\n\n-   Very blue NIR colours, with \\[$J-H$;$J-K_{\\rm s}$\\]=\\[-0.46;-0.94\\], pointing to very strong molecular absorptions in the $H$ and $K$ bands. The $J-K_{\\rm s}$ colour of -0.94 approximately translates into a $J-K$ colour of -1.02 [@Stephens.2004; @Leggett.2010].\n\n   ![image](14277fg6a.ps)   ![image](14277fg6b.ps)\n  ------------------------ ------------------------\n   ![image](14277fg6c.ps)   ![image](14277fg6d.ps)\n\nA second follow-up run at NTT on July 2009, confirmed 2 other ultra-red objects, CFBDSIR221903.07+002417.92 and CFBDSIR221505.06+003053.11 (hereafter CFBDSIR2219 and CFBDSIR2215), with even redder $z'-J$ colours, typical of ultracool brown dwarfs. These objects have redder $z'-J$ than any known T8+ brown dwarf. CFBDSIR2215, however, has only a moderately blue $J-H$ colour, which would be compatible with an earlier (i.e. T5-T7) spectral type, suggesting a peculiar spectrum. The photometric properties of these objects are described in Table\u00a0\\[colours\\] and Fig.\u00a0\\[zJJH\\].\n\n   Filter        $z'$             $J$              $H$              $K$s\n  -------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ----------------\n   Mag(1)   $23.60\\pm$0.24   19.66$\\pm$0.02   20.12$\\pm$0.13   20.60$\\pm$0.37\n   Mag(2)         -          19.72$\\pm$0.04   19.96$\\pm$0.16   20.13$\\pm$0.32\n\n  : (1) $J,~H,~Ks$ CFHT WIRCam Vega photometry and $z'_{AB}$ MegaCam photometry of CFBDSIR1458. (2)$J,~H,~Ks$ NTT SOFI Vega photometry. \\[mag\\]\n\n         Object            $z'-J$            $J-H$            $J-K$       \n  -------------------- --------------- ----------------- ---------------- --\n   ULAS0034$~^{1,3}$    3.90$\\pm$0.06   -0.28$\\pm$0.05    -0.12$\\pm$0.06  \n    CFBDS0059$~^{2}$    3.86$\\pm$0.06   -0.21$\\pm$0.06    -0.67$\\pm$0.06  \n   ULAS1335$~^{1,5}$    4.14$\\pm$0.10   -0.35$\\pm$0.01    -0.38$\\pm$0.03  \n   2MASS0939$~^{1,4}$         -         0.18$\\pm$0.181    -0.58$\\pm$0.10  \n    WOLF940B$~^{6}$     3.99$\\pm$0.13   -0.61$\\pm$0.04    -0.69$\\pm$0.05  \n      CFBDSIR1458       3.94$\\pm$0.24   -0.46$\\pm$0.13    -1.02$\\pm$0.37  \n      CFBDSIR2219       4.45$\\pm$0.10   -0.20$\\pm$0.085         -         \n      CFBDSIR2215       4.30$\\pm$0.12   -0.11$\\pm$0.08          -         \n\n  : Colours of ultracool brown dwarfs.\\[colours\\]\n\nReferences:\n\n$^1$@Leggett.2009, $^2$@Delorme.2008a $^3$@Warren.2007, $^4$@Tinney.2005, $^5$@Burningham.2008, $^6$@Burningham.2009\n\nWhile CFBDSIR2219 and CFBDSIR2215 are queued for NIR spectroscopic characterisation, we already obtained a spectrum of CFBDSIR1458, which we discuss in section 4.2.\n\n[**Proper motion of CFBDSIR1458**]{}\\\nSince the $z'$ MegaCam image and the $J$ WIRCam image are co-aligned by the CFBDSIR pipeline the proper motion is easily measured from these 2 images. CFBDSIR1458 moves by +0.58\u00a0in RA and -0.95\u00a0in DEC between the July 15, 2004 date of the $z'$ image and April 1, 2007 date of the $J$ image. The centroiding and image alignment uncertainties are low, at 0.035, but the error budget has to include chromatic refraction and the uncertain parallactic motion. The estimated spectroscopic distance is $\\sim$23pc, with a likely range of 15\u201330\u00a0pc (Table\u00a0\\[pm\\]), which translates to a 0.04maximum error from the parallax. Due to the very steep spectral energy distribution in the $z'$ band, chromatic refraction here is of the order of the measurement error. We also measured the proper motion between the $J$-band WIRCam discovery image and the $J$ band NTT follow-up image, finding +0.32\u00a0in RA and -0.80\u00a0in DEC between April 1, 2007 and March 5, 2009. This second measurement has smaller centroiding and image-alignment uncertainties, 0.03, minimal chromatic refraction uncertainties since the two $J$-band observations were obtained at similar airmasses, and a small unceretainty from the parallax because the two observations were coincidentally obtained at closely matched times of the year. It is therefore our preferred proper motion measurement, and is consistent with the previous one. Table\u00a0\\[pm\\] presents the resulting yearly motion and kinematic parameters.\n\n   RA(.yr$^{-1}$)    DEC(.yr$^{-1}$)   RA(km.s$^{-1}$)   DEC(km.s$^{-1}$)\n  ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------\n   +0.17$\\pm$0.016   -0.41$\\pm$0.016         18                 46\n\n  : Yearly proper motion for CFBDSIR1458. \\[pm\\]\n\nThe systematic errors induced by chromatic refraction and parallax effects are not corrected. The estimate of the absolute tangential velocity assumes a distance of 23pc.\n\nSpectroscopic confirmation of a new ultracool brown dwarf\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\n[**Observations and reduction**]{}\n\nAfter reduction and analysis of the March 7, data, an ESO Director Discretionary Time observation request was submitted on March 20, 2009 to obtain low-resolution NIR spectroscopy of CFBDSIR1458. This proposal for 4 hours of $H$-band observation, totalling 150 minutes of exposure on target, was accepted on April 22. The first observations were acquired on May 4, and the last on September 1, on average at high airmass, varying from 1.4 to more than 2.0.\n\nThe spectrum was extracted and calibrated using our own IDL procedures. The reduction proceeded as follows. The sequence of spectral images were flat-fielded using an internal flat taken immediately after the science frames. Since the trace was too faint for its position to be accurately determined, its curvature was derived from the reference star spectrum. The frames were then pair-subtracted, effectively removing most of the sky, dark current and hot pixels contributions. Each frame was collapsed along the spectral dimension to determine the positive and negative traces positions. We then extracted the spectra using positive and negative extraction boxes that have identical but opposite integrals; this minimised the contribution from residual sky line that would have remained from the pair subtraction. The same operation was performed on the A0 telluric calibration star. Spectra derived from individual image pairs were then median-combined into final target and calibration star spectra. A telluric absorption spectrum was derived using the calibration-star spectra. A black body spectrum with a temperature of 10 000K was assumed for the A0 star and hydrogen-lines were interpolated over. The target spectrum was then divided by the derived telluric transmission spectrum. A first-order wavelength calibration was obtained from an argon-lamp spectrum, and fine-tuned by registering bright OH lines obtained from a sum of the pair of images of interest.\\\n[**Spectroscopic properties**]{}\n\nThe resulting spectrum (Fig.\\[spectra\\]) has a low signal-to-noise owing to the faintness of the target ($H_{vega}=20.12$) and its relatively high airmass at the time of the observations. We plan to obtain better signal-to-noise observations, as well as $J$ and $K$-band low-resolution spectrum, but we were already able to derive from the present $H$-band spectrum the spectroscopic indices described by @Burgasser.2006 and @Delorme.2008a, which quantify the strength of key molecular absorption bands. As shown in Table \\[indices\\], this classifies CFBDSIR1458 as an ultracool brown dwarf with spectral type later than T8 and a temperature in the same range ($\\sim $500-600K) as the coolest brown dwarfs known. Direct comparison of the CFBDSIR1458 $H$-band spectrum with other ultracool brown dwarfs (See Figs. \\[spectra\\] and \\[spectra\\_zoom\\]) visually confirms that H$_2$O and CH$_4$ absorption in its atmosphere are significantly stronger than they are on 2MASS0415 [@Burgasser.2003] the T8 spectral template. This also strongly suggests that CFBDSIR1458 is indeed a later-than-T8 ultracool brown dwarf. The comparison with even cooler objects is less clear cut, mainly because of the low signal-to-noise of the spectrum, as emphasised by the strong variations in the spectral indices for 2 different -but both sufficiently sampled- binning of CFBDSIR1458 spectrum visible in Table \\[indices\\]. However, both the spectrum and the indices would tend to show that CFBDSIR1458 is not cooler than the coolest brown dwarfs already known.\n\nThis intermediate spectral feature would tentatively put CFBDSIR1458 in the same class as WOLF940B, that was classified as T8.5 by @Burningham.2009 who assigned a temperature of 550-600K to this object. Given the similarities in the $H$-band indices of both objects, a reasonable estimate would put CFBDSIR1458 in the same temperature range. However, this rough estimate will need to be confirmed by higher signal-to-noise multi-bands spectroscopic observations. In particular, its very blue $J-K$ colour could be due to sub-solar metallicity [@Leggett.2010]. Additional observations would also enable looking for the NH$_3$ absorption in the CFBDSIR1458 spectrum, such as the probable absorption band identified by @Delorme.2008a. IRAC imaging in the 4.5micron channel would also be very valuable since temperature can be reliably derived from the \\[$H-4.5$\\] colour [@Leggett.2010].\n\n       Object        Sp. Type   H$_2$O-H   CH$_4$-H   NH$_3$-H\n  ----------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------\n       Gl570D          T7.5      0.208      0.137      0.672\n      2MASS0415         T8       0.183      0.104      0.625\n      WOLF940B        T8+/Y?     0.141      0.091      0.537\n   CFBDSIR1458 (1)    T8+/Y?     0.149      0.046      0.568\n   CFBDSIR1458 (2)    T8+/Y?     0.146      0.087      0.582\n      ULAS0034        T8+/Y?     0.133      0.096      0.516\n      CFBDS0059       T8+/Y?     0.119      0.084      0.526\n      ULAS1335        T8+/Y?     0.114      0.077      0.564\n\nThe 2 values for CFBDSIR1458 were derived using a median-binning of the spectra over (1) 17 pixels (resolution $\\sim$170) (2) 6 pixels(resolution 500). The other values are from @Burgasser.2006 [@Warren.2007; @Burningham.2008; @Delorme.2008a; @Burningham.2009]\n\n![$H$-band spectra of CFBSIR1458 compared with CFBDS0059, one the 2 coolest brown dwarfs known. Both spectra have been median-binned over 6 pixels to match the full ISAAC spectral resolution of 500. \\[spectra\\]](14277fg7.ps){width=\"8cm\"}\n\n![Zoom on the $H$-band peak of the spectra of CFBSIR1458 compared with CFBDS0059 and 2MASS0415 [@Burgasser.2003], the T8 spectral template. The CFBSIR1458 ISAAC spectrum has been median-binned to a resolution of 170. \\[spectra\\_zoom\\]](14277fg8.ps){width=\"8cm\"}\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe have described CFBDSIR, a new NIR survey dedicated at finding ultracool brown dwarfs and using WIRCam camera on the the CFHT. Complementing existing deep far-red data by new $J$-band observations, we select brown dwarfs candidates on their very red $z'-J$ colour. A robust PSF analysis allows us to derive reliable colours and to distinguish point-source-like brown dwarfs from most contaminants. The candidates are then confirmed by follow-up pointed NIR observations in $J$-band and confirmed ultracool brown dwarfs are imaged in $H$ and $K_{\\rm s}$ bands. We used these photometric measurements to identify several new brown dwarfs, including 3 objects likely as cool as and possibly even cooler than any published brown dwarfs.\n\nWe presented CFBSIR1458, the first CFBDSIR ultracool brown dwarf confirmed by spectroscopy. The analysis of its $H$-band spectra, though at relatively low-signal-to-noise, robustly confirms it as later than T8 spectral type and hints at a temperature in the 550-600K range, so among the coolest brown dwarfs discovered. When the 335 square degree survey is completed, we expect to discover a sample of 10 to 15 ultracool brown dwarfs, more than doubling the currently known population of later than T8 objects and enabling study of them as a population rather than extreme individual objects. This will put strong constraints on cool stellar and planetary atmosphere, and with additional mid-infrared follow-up, will help to define the selection criteria for the upcoming WISE survey.\n\nThanks go to the queue observers at CFHT who obtained data for this paper. This research has made use of the VizieR catalogue access tool, of SIMBAD database and of Aladin, operated at CDS, Strasbourg. This research has benefitted from the M, L, and T-dwarf compendium housed at DwarfArchives.org and maintained by Chris Gelino, Davy Kirkpatrick, and Adam Burgasser. Financial support from the \u201dProgramme National de Physique Stellaire\" (PNPS) of CNRS/INSU, France, is gratefully acknowledged.\n\n[^1]: Based on observations obtained with WIRCam, a joint project of CFHT, Taiwan, Korea, Canada, France, and the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institute National des Sciences de l\u2019Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique of France, and the University of Hawaii. Based on observations obtained with MegaPrime/MegaCam, a joint project of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institut National des Sciences de l\u2019Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) of France, and the University of Hawaii. This work is based in part on data products produced at TERAPIX and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre as part of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey, a collaborative project of NRC and CNRS. Based on observations made with the ESO New Technology Telescope at the La Silla Observatory under programs ID 082.C-0506(A) and 083.C-0797(A) with SOFI at NTT and ESO VLT Director Discretionary Time program 282.C-5075 with ISAAC.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: '$\\alpha$-cluster excited states in $^{32}$S are investigated with an extended $^{28}$Si+$\\alpha$ cluster model, in which the $^{28}$Si core deformation and rotation, and the $\\alpha$-cluster breaking are incorporated. In the GCM calculation with the extended $^{28}$Si+$\\alpha$ cluster model, the $\\alpha$-cluster excited states are obtained near the $^{28}$Si+$\\alpha$ threshold energy. The $^{28}$Si core deformation and rotation effects, and also the $\\alpha$-clusters breaking in the $^{28}$Si+$\\alpha$ system are discussed. It is found that the rotation of the oblately deformed $^{28}$Si core gives a significant effect to the $\\alpha$-cluster excited states whereas the $\\alpha$-cluster breaking gives only a minor effect.'\naddress:  \nauthor:\n- ', , and'\ntitle: '$\\alpha$-cluster excited states in $^{32}$S'\n---\n\n\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We provide an easily verifiable condition for local $k$-connectedness of an inverse limit of polyhedra.'\naddress:\n- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412, USA'\n- 'Faculty of Mathematics, Informatics, and Mechanics, University of Warsaw, Banacha 2, 02-097 Warszawa, Poland'\nauthor:\n- 'G.\u00a0C.\u00a0Bell'\n- 'A.\u00a0Nag\u00f3rko'\nbibliography:\n- 'references2.bib'\ntitle: 'Local $k$-connectedness of an inverse limit of polyhedra'\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nThe N\u00f6beling space characterization theorem\u00a0[@ageev2007a; @ageev2007b; @ageev2007c; @levin2006; @nagorkophd] states that if a space is strongly universal in the class of $n$-dimensional separable complete metric spaces and is $k$-connected and locally $k$-connected for each $k < n$, then it is homeomorphic to the $n$-dimensional N\u00f6beling space $N^{2n+1}_n$.\n\nIn geometric group theory many spaces arise naturally as inverse limits of polyhedra (simplicial complexes endowed with the metric topology). In particular, boundaries at infinity of hyperbolic spaces can be expressed as such. Striking examples of applications of the N\u00f6beling space characterization theorem are proofs that the boundary at infinity of the curve complex of the $(n+5)$-punctured $2$-dimensional sphere is homeomorphic to the $n$-dimensional N\u00f6beling space $N^{2n+1}_n$\u00a0[@henselprzytycki2011; @gabai2014].\n\nIn the present paper we prove a condition for local $k$-connectedness of an inverse limit of polyhedra that is easy to verify. It is designed to aid detection of local $k$-connectedness in many examples of spaces arising in geometric group theory. We prove the following theorem.\n\nLet $K$ and $L$ be simplicial complexes. We say that a map $p \\colon K \\to L$ is [[**$n$-regular**]{}]{} if it is quasi-simplicial (i.e. it is simplicial into the first barycentric subdivision $\\beta L$ of $L$) and if for each simplex $\\delta$ of $\\beta L$ the inverse image $p^{-1}(\\delta)$ has vanishing homotopy groups in dimensions less than $n$ (regardless of the choice of basepoint).\n\n\\[thm:main theorem\\] Let $$X = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow}\\big( K_1 \\xleftarrow{p_1} K_2 \\xleftarrow{p_2} \\cdots \\big).$$ Assume that for each $i$ the following conditions are satisfied.\n\n1.  $K_i$ is a locally finite-dimensional simplicial complex endowed with the metric topology.\n\n2.  $p_i$ is a quasi-simplicial map that is surjective and $n$-regular.\n\nThen $X$ is locally $k$-connected for each $k < n$, and each short projection $\\pi^m_i \\colon K_m \\to K_i$ and each long projection $\\pi_i \\colon X \\to K_i$ is a weak $n$-homotopy equivalence (it induces homomorphisms on homotopy groups in dimensions less than $n$, regardless of the choice of basepoint).\n\nNote that there is no assumption of local finiteness of complexes in the statement of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:main theorem\\].\n\nIt is known that (under suitable assumptions) if the bonding maps in the inverse limit are $n$-soft, then the inverse limit is $k$-connected for $k < n$,\u00a0[@chigogidze1989]. The condition for local $k$-connectedness given in the present paper may be regarded as a combinatorial analog of this statement for inverse limits of polyhedra. Note that $n$-regular bonding maps need not be $n$-soft.\n\nPreliminaries\n=============\n\nIn this section we set the basic definitions and reference known results that will be used in the later sections.\n\nAbsolute extensors in dimension $n$\n-----------------------------------\n\nWe say that a space $X$ is [[**$k$-connected**]{}]{} if each map $\\varphi \\colon S^k \\to X$ from a $k$-dimensional sphere into $X$ is null-homotopic in $X$.\n\nWe say that a space $X$ is [[**locally $k$-connected**]{}]{} if for each point $x \\in X$ and each open neighborhood $U \\subset X$ of $x$ there exists an open neighborhood $V$ of $x$ such that each map $\\varphi \\colon S^k \\to V$ from a $k$-dimensional sphere into $V$ is null-homotopic in $U$.\n\nWe say that a metric space $X$ is an [[**absolute neighborhood extensor in dimension\u00a0$n$**]{}]{} if every map into $X$ from a closed subset $A$ of an $n$-dimensional metric space extends over an open neighborhood of $A$. The class of absolute neighborhood extensors in dimension $n$ is denoted by $ANE(n)$ and its elements are called $ANE(n)$-spaces.\n\nWe say that a metric space $X$ is an [[**absolute extensor in dimension\u00a0$n$**]{}]{} if every map into $X$ from a closed subset of an $n$-dimensional metric space $Y$ extends over the entire space $Y$. The class of absolute extensors in dimension\u00a0$n$ is denoted by $AE(n)$ and its elements are called $AE(n)$-spaces.\n\n\\[def:AE(C)\\] Let\u00a0$\\mathcal{C}$ be a class of topological spaces. We let $AE(\\mathcal{C})$ denote the class of [[**absolute extensors for all spaces from the class $\\mathcal{C}$**]{}]{}. We write $AE(X)$ for $AE(\\{X\\})$.\n\nAbsolute extensors and absolute neighborhood extensors in dimension $n$ were characterized by Dugundji in the following theorem.\n\n\\[thm:dugundji\\] Let $X$ be a metric space. Then,\n\n1.  $X\\in ANE(n)\\iff X$ is locally $k$-connected for all $k< n$; and\n\n2.  $X\\in AE(n)\\iff X\\in ANE(n)$ and $X$ is $k$-connected for all $k< n$.\n\n\\[lem:union is ae\\] Assume that $A_1 \\subset A_2 \\subset \\ldots$ is a sequence of subsets of a metric space such that each $A_i$ is closed and for each $i$, $A_i \\subset \\operatorname{Int}A_{i+1}$. If for each $i$, $A_i$ is $AE(n)$, then $A = \\bigcup_i A_i$ is $AE(n)$.\n\nPolyhedra\n---------\n\nFor a simplicial complex, the underlying polyhedron has two topologies, the Whitehead (weak) topology and the metric topology. The metric topology is the topology of point-wise convergence of barycentric coordinates\u00a0[@hu1965 p. 100]. The weak topology is metrizable if and only if the complex is locally finite, and it coincides with the metric topology in this case. Since we work in the metric category with complexes that are not locally finite, [**we always assume the metric topology on simplicial complexes**]{}\u00a0[@lundell1969; @hu1965].\n\nLet $K$ be a simplicial complex. We let $\\tau(K)$ denote the [[**triangulation of\u00a0$K$**]{}]{} (the set of simplices of $K$). We let $V(K)$ denote the [[**vertex set of $K$**]{}]{}. We let $\\beta K$ denote the [[**barycentric subdivision of $K$**]{}]{} (i.e., the same space but with a finer triangulation $\\tau(\\beta K)$).\n\n\\[def:polyhedron metric\\] Let $K$ be a simplicial complex. Let $\\kappa > 0$. Let $\\ell_1(V(K))$ denote the Banach space $\\{ x \\in \\mathbb{R}^{V(K)} \\colon \\sum_{v \\in V(K)} | (x)_v | < \\infty \\}$, where $(x)_v$ denotes the $v$-th coordinate, equipped with the standard $\\| \\cdot \\|_1$ norm. For $v \\in v(K)$ define $e_v \\colon V(K) \\to \\mathbb{R}$ by the formula $e_v(w) = 0$ for $w \\neq v$ and $e_v(v) = \\kappa$. We embed each vertex $v$ of $K$ as $e_v \\in \\ell_1(V(K))$ and extend this embedding to $K$ to be affine on each simplex of $K$. We consider $K$ to be a subspace of $\\ell_1(V(K))$. We call the induced metric on $K$ the [[**metric of scale $\\kappa$ on $K$**]{}]{}. For $\\kappa=1$ it is the standard metric, as defined in\u00a0[@hu1965 p. 100]. The topology induced by this metric is called [[**the metric topology**]{}]{}.\n\nA [[**polyhedron**]{}]{} is a simplicial complex endowed with the metric topology.\n\nLet $K$ and $L$ be polyhedra. We say that $K$ is a [[**full subpolyhedron**]{}]{} of $L$ if whenever the vertices $v_0,\\ldots, v_n$ span a simplex in $K$ and each $v_i$ is a vertex in $L$, then the $v_i$ span a simplex in $L$.\n\n\\[lem:complex is ane\\] A locally finite-dimensional polyhedron is a complete metric $ANE(\\infty)$-space.\n\nIt is complete by\u00a0[@hu1965 Lemma\u00a011.5]. It is an $ANE(\\infty)$-space by\u00a0[@hu1965 Theorem 11.3].\n\nLet $K$ and $L$ be simplicial complexes and let $p \\colon K \\to L$. We say that $p$ is [[**quasi-simplicial**]{}]{} if it is a simplicial map into $\\beta L$.\n\n\\[lem:qs is lipschitz\\] Assume that $K$ and $L$ are polyhedra endowed with metrics of scale $\\kappa$ and $\\lambda$ respectively. If $p \\colon K \\to L$ is quasi-simplicial, then it is $\\frac{\\lambda}{2\\kappa}$-Lipschitz.\n\nWeak $n$-homotopy\n-----------------\n\nWe say that a map is a [[**weak $n$-homotopy equivalence**]{}]{} if it induces isomorphisms on homotopy groups of dimensions less than $n$, regardless of the choice of basepoint.\n\nLet ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ be a cover of a space $X$. We say that the two maps $f, g \\colon Y \\to X$ are [[**${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$-close**]{}]{} if for each $y \\in Y$ there exists $F \\in {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ such that $f(y), g(y) \\in F$.\n\nLet ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$ be a cover of a space $X$. We say that two maps $f, g \\colon Y \\to X$ are [[**${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$-homotopic**]{}]{} if there exists a homotopy $H \\colon Y \\times [0, 1] \\to X$ whose paths refine ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$, i.e. for each $y \\in Y$ there exists $U \\in {{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$ such that $H(\\{ y \\} \\times [0, 1])\\subset U$.\n\nCarrier Theorem {#sec:carrier theorem}\n---------------\n\nLet\u00a0$\\mathcal{C}$ be a class of topological spaces. We say that a cover ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ of a topological space is a $\\mathcal{C}$-cover, if for each $\\mathcal{A} \\subset \\mathcal{F}$ the intersection $\\bigcap \\mathcal{A}$ is either empty or belongs to $\\mathcal{C}$.\n\nWe say that a cover is [[**locally finite-dimensional**]{}]{} if its nerve is locally finite-dimensional.\n\nA [[**carrier**]{}]{} is a function $C \\colon {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}} \\to {{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ from a cover\u00a0${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ of a space\u00a0$X$ into a collection\u00a0${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ of subsets of a topological space such that for each $\\mathcal{A} \\subset {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ if $\\bigcap_{A\\in\\mathcal{A}}A \\neq \\emptyset$, then $\\bigcap_{A \\in\n  \\mathcal{A}} C(A) \\neq \\emptyset$. We say that a map\u00a0$f$ is [[**carried by\u00a0$C$**]{}]{} if it is defined on a closed subset of\u00a0$X$ and $f(F) \\subset C(F)$ for each $F \\in {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$. Here we write $f(F)$ to mean $f(F\\cap \\operatorname{dom}(f)).$\n\nAssume that $C \\colon {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}} \\to {{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ is a carrier such that\u00a0${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ is a cover of a space\u00a0$X$ and\u00a0${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ is an $AE(X)$-cover of another space. If\u00a0${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ is closed, locally finite, and locally finite-dimensional, then each map carried by\u00a0$C$ extends to a map of the entire space\u00a0$X$, also carried by\u00a0$C$.\n\nIf ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ is a closed locally finite locally finite-dimensional $AE(n)$-cover of a space $Y$, then any two ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$-close maps from a metric space of dimension less than $n$ into $Y$ are ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$-homotopic.\n\nCovers\n------\n\nWe regard covers as indexed collections of sets and use the usual notation, ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}} = \\{ F_i \\}_{i \\in I}$, where $I$ denotes the indexing set.\n\n\\[def:stars\\] Let $K$ be a polyhedron. Let $L \\subset K$ be a subcomplex of $K$. The [[**open star $\\operatorname{ost}_K L$ of $L$ in $K$**]{}]{} is the complement of the union of all simplices of $K$ that do not intersect $L$: $$\\operatorname{ost}_K L = K \\setminus \\bigcup \\{ \\delta \\in \\tau(K) \\colon \\delta \\cap L = \\emptyset \\}\\text{.}$$ The [[**barycentric star $\\operatorname{bst}_K L$ of $L$ in $K$**]{}]{} is the union of all simplices of $\\beta K$ that intersect $L$: $$\\operatorname{bst}_K L = \\bigcup \\{ \\delta \\in \\tau(\\beta K) \\colon \\delta \\cap L \\neq \\emptyset \\}\\text{.}$$\n\nWe let $${{\\mathcal{O}_{K}}} = \\{ \\operatorname{ost}_K \\{ v \\} \\colon v \\in V(K) \\}$$ denote the [[**cover of $K$ by open stars of vertices**]{}]{}. We let $${{\\mathcal{B}_{K}}} = \\{ \\operatorname{bst}_K \\{ v \\} \\colon v \\in V(K) \\}$$ denote a [[**cover of $K$ by barycentric stars of vertices**]{}]{}.\n\n\\[lem:stars\\] Let $K$ be a polyhedron. The cover ${{\\mathcal{B}_{K}}}$ by barycentric stars of vertices is a closed locally finite $AE(\\infty)$-cover of $K$. Moreover, if\u00a0$K$ is locally finite-dimensional, then ${{\\mathcal{B}_{K}}}$ is locally finite-dimensional. The cover\u00a0${{\\mathcal{O}_{K}}}$ by open stars of vertices is an open $AE(\\infty)$-cover of $K$.\n\nLet $$X = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow} \\left(   \n  K_1\\xleftarrow{p_1}K_2\\xleftarrow{p_2}\\cdots \\right)$$ Let $v(K_i)$ denote the set of vertices of $K_i$. We let $${{\\mathcal{O}_{K_i}}} = \\{ O_v = \\operatorname{ost}_{K_i} v \\}_{v \\in v(K_i)}$$ be the cover of $K_i$ by open stars of vertices of $K_i$ (see Definition\u00a0\\[def:stars\\]) and $${{\\mathcal{O}_{i}}} = \\{ \\pi^{-1}_i(\\operatorname{ost}_{K_i} v) \\}_{v \\in v(K_i)}$$ be the cover of $X$ by sets of threads that pass through elements of ${{\\mathcal{O}_{K_i}}}$.\n\nLet $$X = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow} \\left(   \n  K_1\\xleftarrow{p_1}K_2\\xleftarrow{p_2}\\cdots \\right)$$ Let $v(K_i)$ denote the set of vertices of $K_i$. We let $${{\\mathcal{B}_{K_i}}} = \\{ \\operatorname{bst}_{K_i} v \\}_{v \\in v(K_i)}$$ be the cover of $K_i$ by barycentric stars of vertices of $K_i$ (see Definition\u00a0\\[def:stars\\]) and $${{\\mathcal{B}_{i}}} = \\{ \\pi^{-1}_i(\\operatorname{bst}_{K_i} v) \\}_{v \\in v(K_i)}$$ be the cover of $X$ by sets of threads that pass through elements of ${{\\mathcal{B}_{K_i}}}$.\n\nWe say that a cover ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}} = \\{ F_i \\}_{i \\in I}$ is [[**isomorphic**]{}]{} to a cover ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}} = \\{ G_i \\}_{i \\in I}$ if for each $J \\subset I$ we have $$\\bigcap_{j \\in J} F_j \\neq \\emptyset \\iff \n    \\bigcap_{j \\in J} G_j \\neq \\emptyset.$$ Note the identical indexing set of ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ and ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$.\n\nLet $p \\colon Y \\to Z$ be a map. Let ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}} = \\{ F_i \\}_{i \\in I}$ be a cover of $Z$. A [[**pull-back of ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$**]{}]{} is a cover $p^{-1}({{\\mathcal{F}_{}}})$ of $Y$ defined by the formula $$p^{-1}({{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}) = \\{ p^{-1}(F_i) \\}_{i \\in I}.$$ The pull-back $p^{-1}({{\\mathcal{F}_{}}})$ retains the indexing set $I$ of ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$.\n\n\\[lem:pullback properties\\] Let $f \\colon X \\to Y$ be a map, let ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ be a cover of $Y$ and let $f^{-1}({{\\mathcal{G}_{}}})$ be a pull-back of ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$.\n\n1.  If $f$ is surjective, then the covers $f^{-1}({{\\mathcal{G}_{}}})$ and ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ are isomorphic.\n\n2.  If ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ is open / closed / locally finite / locally finite-dimensional, then so is $f^{-1}({{\\mathcal{G}_{}}})$.\n\nNerve Theorem\n=============\n\nA Nerve Theorem in its abstract form states that if two spaces admit isomorphic $AE(n)$-covers, then they are weak $n$-homotopy equivalent. For general spaces, some local finiteness and dimension restrictions are placed on the covers\u00a0[@nagorko2007]. In our case we need such a theorem without these restrictions, which we are able to prove for polyhedra covered by subcomplexes.\n\nThe goal of this section is to prove the following theorem.\n\n\\[thm:nregular pullback\\] If a quasi-simplicial map $p \\colon K \\to L$ of polyhedra is surjective and $n$-regular, then it is a weak $n$-homotopy equivalence and the pull-back $p^{-1}({{\\mathcal{B}_{L}}})$ is an $AE(n)$-cover of $K$.\n\nThe main tool used in the proof is Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:nerve theorem\\], which when applied to a canonical map into the nerve of a cover\u00a0[@nagorko2007] implies the usual Nerve Theorem.\n\nNerve Theorem for non locally finite covers\n-------------------------------------------\n\n\\[lem:deformation\\] If $K$ is a full subpolyhedron of a polyhedron $L$, then\n\n1.  $K$ is a deformation retract of $\\operatorname{bst}_L K$; and\n\n2.  $K$ is a deformation retract of $\\operatorname{ost}_L K$.\n\nWe let $V_L$ denote the set of vertices of $L$ and $V_K \\subset V_L$ denote the set of vertices of $K$. We regard $L$ as a subspace of $\\ell_1(V_L)$ (see Definition\u00a0\\[def:polyhedron metric\\]). Let $p \\colon L \\to \\ell_1(V_L)$ be the map that sends all coordinates that do not belong to $K$ to $0$, defined by the formula $$\\left( p(x) \\right)_v =\n  \\left\\{\n  \\begin{array}{ll}\n  0 & v \\in V_L \\setminus V_K \\\\\n  (x)_v & v \\in V_K\n  \\end{array}\n  \\right..$$\n\nWe have $$\\operatorname{ost}_L K = \\{ x \\in L \\colon p(x) \\neq 0 \\}.$$ Let $q \\colon \\operatorname{ost}_L K \\to L$ be defined by the formula $$q(x) = \\frac{p(x)}{\\| p(x) \\|_1}.$$ We define a map $\\varPhi \\colon \\operatorname{ost}_L K \\times [0, 1] \\to L$ by the formula $$\\varPhi(x, t) = t \\cdot q(x) + (1-t)\\cdot x\\text{.}$$ Observe that $\\operatorname{supp}\\varPhi(x, t) \\subset \\operatorname{supp}(p(x))$ and $V_K \\cap \\operatorname{supp}\\varPhi(x, t) \\neq \\emptyset$, hence $\\varPhi(x, t) \\in \\operatorname{ost}_L K$. Note that $\\varPhi(x, 1) \\in K$ because $K$ is a full subcomplex. Hence $\\varPhi$ is a deformation retraction of $\\operatorname{ost}_L K$ to $K$.\n\nObserve that $$\\operatorname{bst}_L K = \\{ x \\in L \\colon \\exists_{v \\in V_K} (x)_v \\geq \\max \\{ (x)_w \\colon w \\in V_L \\} \\}.$$ Since $\\varPhi$ preserves the relation $\\exists_{v \\in V_K} (x)_v \\geq \\max \\{ (x)_w \\colon w \\in V_L \\}$, $\\varPhi$ restricted to $\\operatorname{bst}_L K \\times [0,1]$ is into $\\operatorname{bst}_L K$, hence it is a deformation retraction of $\\operatorname{bst}_L K$ to $K$.\n\n\\[cor:open star swelling\\] If $K$ is a polyhedron and $\\mathcal{K} = \\{ K_i \\}_{i \\in I}$ is an $AE(n)$-cover of $K$ by subcomplexes, then the collection $$\\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} \\mathcal{K} = \\{ \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} K_i \\}_{i \\in I}$$ is an open $AE(n)$-cover of $K$. Moreover, $\\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} \\mathcal{K}$ and $\\mathcal{K}$ are isomorphic covers of $K$.\n\nObserve that if $\\{ A_j \\}_{j \\in J}$ is a collection of subcomplexes of a polyhedron\u00a0$K$, then $$\\bigcap_{j \\in J} \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} A_j = \n       \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} \\bigcap_{j \\in J} A_j.$$ An application of Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:deformation\\] finishes the proof.\n\n\\[lem:uclose uhomotopic\\] If ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$ is an open $AE(n)$-cover of a space $Y$, then any two ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$-close maps from a metric space of dimension less than $n$ into $Y$ are ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$-homotopic.\n\nLet ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$ be an open $AE(n)$-cover of a metric space $Y$. Let $X$ be a metric space of dimension less than $n$. Let $f, g \\colon X \\to Y$ be ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$-close. We have to show that $f$ and $g$ are homotopic by a homotopy whose paths refine ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$.\n\nLet ${{\\mathcal{V}_{}}} = \\{ V_U \\}_{U \\in {{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}}$ be the collection of subsets of $X$ defined by $V_U = f^{-1}(U) \\cap g^{-1}(U)$. Since $f$ and $g$ are ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$-close, ${{\\mathcal{V}_{}}}$ is an open cover of $X$.\n\nLet ${{\\mathcal{W}_{}}}$ be a closed, locally finite cover of $X$ with multiplicity at most $n$ that refines ${{\\mathcal{V}_{}}}$. Let ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}} = \\{ W \\times [0,1] \\colon W \\in {{\\mathcal{W}_{}}} \\}$ be a cover of $X \\times [0,1]$. Note that ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ is a closed, locally finite, locally finite-dimensional cover of $X \\times [0,1]$.\n\nLet $H_0 \\colon K \\times \\{ 0, 1 \\} \\to Y$ be the map defined by $H_0(x, 0) = f(x)$ and $H_0(x,1) = g(x)$.\n\nLet $C \\colon {{\\mathcal{V}_{}}} \\to {{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$ be the map defined by $C(V_U) = U$. It is a carrier and both $f$ and $g$ are carried by $C$, directly from the definition of ${{\\mathcal{V}_{}}}$. Let $D \\colon {{\\mathcal{W}_{}}} \\to {{\\mathcal{V}_{}}}$ be a map such that for each $W \\in {{\\mathcal{W}_{}}}$ we have $W \\subset D(W)$. The map $D$ exists because ${{\\mathcal{W}_{}}}$ refines ${{\\mathcal{V}_{}}}$. Let $E \\colon {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}} \\to {{\\mathcal{W}_{}}}$ be a map defined by $D(W \\times [0,1]) = W$. The composition $C \\circ D \\circ E$ is a carrier and $H_0$ is carried by it. Observe that ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$ is an $AE(X \\times [0,1])$-cover of $Y$\u00a0(see Definition\u00a0\\[def:AE(C)\\]). By the Carrier Theorem, $H_0$ can be extended to a map $H \\colon X \\times [0,1]$ that is carried by $C \\circ D \\circ E$. Clearly, $H$ is a homotopy between $f$ and $g$. For each path $\\{ x \\} \\times [0, 1] \\subset X \\times [0,1]$ there exists element $W \\times [0, 1] \\in {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ such that $\\{ x \\} \\times [0, 1] \\subset W \\times [0, 1]$, as ${{\\mathcal{W}_{}}}$ is a cover of $X$. Since $H$ is carried into ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$, the whole path lies in an element of ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$. Therefore $H$ is a ${{\\mathcal{U}_{}}}$-homotopy.\n\n\\[thm:nerve theorem\\] Let $\\mathcal{K} = \\{ K_i \\}_{i \\in I}$ be a cover of a polyhedron $K$ by subcomplexes. Let $\\mathcal{L} = \\{ L_i \\}_{i \\in I}$ be a cover of a polyhedron $L$ by subcomplexes. Let $p \\colon K \\to L$ be a surjective simplicial map that maps elements of\u00a0$\\mathcal{K}$ into the corresponding elements of $\\mathcal{L}$ (i.e. $p(K_i) \\subset L_i$ for each $i \\in I$). If $\\mathcal{K}$ and $\\mathcal{L}$ are isomorphic $AE(n)$-covers, then $p$ is a weak $n$-homotopy equivalence.\n\nTo begin, we will show that $p$ induces monomorphisms on homotopy groups of dimensions less than $n$. Let $m < n$. Let $\\varphi \\colon S^m \\to K$. Assume that $p \\circ \\varphi$ is null-homotopic in $L$. Let $\\varPhi \\colon B^{m+1} \\to L$ denote such a null-homotopy ($\\varPhi_{\\mid S^m} = p \\circ \\varphi$). We have to show that $\\varphi$ is null-homotopic in $K$.\n\nLet ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ be a finite closed cover of $B^{m+1}$ with mesh small enough so that for each $F \\in {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ we can pick $i_F \\in I$ such that $$(\\ast)\\  \\varphi(F \\cap S^m) \\subset \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} K_{i_F} \\text{ and } \n    (\\ast\\ast)\\  \\varPhi(F) \\subset \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} L_{i_F}.$$ By $(\\ast\\ast)$, a map $C \\colon \\mathcal{F} \\to \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} \\mathcal{L}$ defined by $C(F) = \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} L_{i_F}$ is a carrier. Since $\\mathcal{K}$ and $\\mathcal{L}$ are isomorphic, the map $C' \\colon \\mathcal{F} \\to \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} \\mathcal{K}$ defined by $C'(F) = \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} K_{i_F}$ is a carrier as well. By $(\\ast)$, $\\varphi$ is carried by $C'$. By Corollary\u00a0\\[cor:open star swelling\\], $\\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} \\mathcal{K}$ is an $AE(n)$-cover. By the Carrier Theorem, $\\varphi$ extends to a map $\\tilde \\varphi \\colon B^{m+1} \\to K$ that is carried by $C'$. This is a null-homotopy of $\\varphi$ in $K$ and we are done with the proof that $p$ induces monomorphisms on homotopy groups of dimensions less than $n$.\n\nNext we will show that $p$ induces epimorphisms on homotopy groups of dimensions less than $n$. Let $m < n$. Let $\\psi \\colon S^m \\to L$. Let ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ be a closed finite cover of $S^m$ that refines $\\psi^{-1}(\\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} \\mathcal{L})$. For each $G \\in {{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ pick $i_G \\in I$ such that $\\psi(G) \\subset \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} L_{i_G}$. Then the map $D \\colon {{\\mathcal{G}_{}}} \\to \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} \\mathcal{L}$ defined by $D(G) = \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} L_{i_G}$ is a carrier and $\\psi$ is carried by $D$. Since $\\mathcal{K}$ and $\\mathcal{L}$ are isomorphic, the map $D'(G) = \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} K_{i_G}$ is a carrier as well. By Corollary\u00a0\\[cor:open star swelling\\], $\\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta K} \\mathcal{K}$ is an $AE(n)$-cover. By the Carrier Theorem, there exists a map $\\tilde \\psi \\colon S^m \\to K$ that is carried by $D'$. Observe that if $x \\in G \\in {{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$, then $\\tilde \\psi(x) \\in \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta_K} K_{i_G}$ and $\\psi(x) \\in \\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} L_{i_G}$. Since $p(K_{i_G}) \\subset L_{i_G}$, the maps $\\psi$ and $p \\circ \\tilde \\psi$ are $\\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} \\mathcal{L}$-close. By Corollary\u00a0\\[cor:open star swelling\\], $\\operatorname{ost}_{\\beta L} \\mathcal{L}$ is an $AE(n)$-cover and by Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:uclose uhomotopic\\], $\\psi$ and $p \\circ \\tilde \\psi$ are homotopic. Hence $p$ induces epimorphisms on homotopy groups of dimensions less than $n$. This concludes the second part of the proof.\n\nProof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:nregular pullback\\]\n------------------------------------------\n\n\\[lem:simplicial regular\\] Let $K$ and $L$ be polyhedra. If $p \\colon K \\to L$ is a simplicial, surjective map such that for each $\\delta \\in \\tau(L)$ the inverse image $p^{-1}(\\delta)$ is an $AE(n)$, then $p$ is a weak $n$-homotopy equivalence.\n\nApply Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:nerve theorem\\] with the cover $\\mathcal{L} = \\tau(L)$ of $L$ and the cover $\\mathcal{K} = p^{-1}(\\mathcal{L})$ of $K$.\n\n(Proof of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:nregular pullback\\]) The map $p$ is simplicial onto $\\beta K$ and satisfies the conditions of Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:simplicial regular\\], hence it is a weak $n$-homotopy equivalence.\n\nLet $\\mathcal{A} \\subset {{\\mathcal{B}_{L}}}$ such that $\\bigcap_{A \\in \\mathcal{A}} A \\neq \\emptyset$. By Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:stars\\], $\\bigcap_{A \\in \\mathcal{A}} A$ is an absolute extensor in dimension $n$. We have $B = \\bigcap_{A \\in \\mathcal{A}} p^{-1}(A) = p^{-1}(\\bigcap_{A \\in \\mathcal{A}} A)$. The map $p_{|B} \\colon B \\to \\bigcap_{A \\in \\mathcal{A}} A$ satisfies the conditions of Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:simplicial regular\\], hence it is a weak $n$-homotopy equivalence. Therefore $B$ has vanishing homotopy groups in dimensions less than $n$ and by Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:dugundji\\], it is an absolute extensor in dimension $n$. Hence $p^{-1}({{\\mathcal{B}_{L}}})$ is an $AE(n)$-cover.\n\nA lifting condition\n===================\n\n\\[lem:single lift\\] Let $p \\colon Y \\to Z$ be a surjective map of metric spaces. Let\u00a0${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ be a cover of $Z$. Assume that either ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ is an open cover or ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ is a closed, locally finite, locally finite-dimensional cover. Assume that $p^{-1}({{\\mathcal{F}_{}}})$ is an $AE(n)$-cover.\n\nLet $X$ be an at most $n$-dimensional metric space. Let $f \\colon X \\to Z$. Let $A$ be a closed subset of $X$. Let $g_0 \\colon A \\to Y$ be a map such that $p \\circ g_0 = f_{|A}$ (a lift of $f$ on $A$).\n\nThen there exists a map $g \\colon X \\to Y$ that satisfies the following conditions:\n\n1.  $g_{|A} = g_0$ ($g$ extends $g_0$); and\n\n2.  $p\\circ g$ is ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$-close to $f$.\n\nWe have the following commutative diagram. $$\\xymatrix@M=8pt@C=35pt{\n    Y \\ar[r]^{p} & Z  \\\\\n    A \\ar@{^{(}->}[r] \\ar[u]_{g_0} & X \\ar[u]^{f} \\ar@{.>}[ul]_{g} \\\\\n    }$$ Let $\\mathcal{P} = p^{-1}({{\\mathcal{F}_{}}})$ and ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}} = f^{-1}({{\\mathcal{F}_{}}})$. Let $C \\colon {{\\mathcal{G}_{}}} \\to \\mathcal{P}$ be defined by the formula $C(f^{-1}(F)) = p^{-1}(F)$. Since $p$ is surjective, $C$ is a carrier. For each $F \\in {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ and each $x \\in f^{-1}(F) \\cap A$ we have $g_0(x) \\in p^{-1}(f(x)) \\in p^{-1}(F)$; hence $g_0$ is carried by $C$.\n\nLet $\\mathcal{H}$ be a closed locally finite locally finite-dimensional cover of $X$ such that $\\mathcal{H}$ refines ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$. If ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ is an open cover, then $\\mathcal{H}$ exists as a refinement of an open cover ${{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$. If ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ is closed locally finite locally finite-dimensional, then we can take $\\mathcal{H} = {{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$, which has the required properties by Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:pullback properties\\]. Let $D \\colon \\mathcal{H} \\to {{\\mathcal{G}_{}}}$ be any map such that $H \\subset D(H)$ for each $H \\in \\mathcal{H}$.\n\nObserve that $C \\circ D \\colon \\mathcal{H} \\to \\mathcal{P}$ is a carrier, $g_0$ is carried by $C \\circ D$, $\\mathcal{P}$ is an $AE(n)$-cover, $X$ is at most $n$-dimensional metric space and $\\mathcal{H}$ is closed, locally finite and locally finite-dimensional. By the Carrier Theorem, there exists a map $g \\colon X \\to Y$ that extends $g_0$ and that is carried by $C \\circ D$. This implies that for each $x \\in X$ there exists $F \\in {{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$ such that $x \\in f^{-1}(F)$ and $g(x) \\subset p^{-1}(F)$. Therefore $p(g(x)) \\in F$ so $p \\circ g$ is ${{\\mathcal{F}_{}}}$-close to $f$.\n\nA lifting condition for inverse limits\n--------------------------------------\n\n\\[def:limit\\] Let $$Z=\\lim_{\\longleftarrow}\\left( Z_1\\xleftarrow{p_1}Z_2\\xleftarrow{p_2}\\cdots \\right).$$ Let ${{\\mathcal{F}_{i}}}$ be a cover of $Z_i$. We define the following conditions.\n\n1.  For each $i$, $Z_i$ is a complete metric space.\n\n2.  For each $i$, the bonding map $p_i \\colon Z_{i+1} \\to Z_i$ is surjective and $1$-Lipschitz.\n\n3.  For each $i$, ${{\\mathcal{F}_{i}}}$ is either an open cover or a closed, locally finite, locally finite-dimensional cover.\n\n4.  For each $i$, the pull-back $p_i^{-1}({{\\mathcal{F}_{i}}})$ is an $AE(n)$-cover.\n\n5.  $\\sum_i \\operatorname{mesh}{{\\mathcal{F}_{i}}} < \\infty$.\n\nWe denote short projections in the inverse limit by $\\pi^k_i \\colon Z_k \\to Z_i (k > i)$ and long projections in the inverse limit by $\\pi_k \\colon Z \\to Z_k$.\n\n\\[lem:limit lift\\] Let $$Z=\\lim_{\\longleftarrow}\\left( Z_1\\xleftarrow{p_1}Z_2\\xleftarrow{p_2}\\cdots \\right).$$ Let ${{\\mathcal{F}_{i}}}$ be a cover of $Z_i$. Assume that conditions of Definition\u00a0\\[def:limit\\] are satisfied.\n\nLet $X$ be an at most $n$-dimensional metric space. Let $f \\colon X \\to Z_1$. Let $A$ be a closed subset of $X$. Let $g_0 \\colon A \\to Z$ be a map such that $\\pi_1 \\circ g_0 = f_{|A}$ (a lift of $f$ on $A$).\n\nThen there exists a map $g \\colon X \\to Z$ such that $g_{|A} = g_0$ ($g$ extends $g_0$).\n\nLet $f_1 = f$. Applying Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:single lift\\] for each $i>1$ we construct a map $f_i \\colon X \\to Z_i$ that satisfies the following conditions.\n\n1.  $p_{i-1} \\circ f_{i}$ is ${{\\mathcal{F}_{i-1}}}$-close to $f_{i-1}$.\n\n2.  $\\pi_i \\circ g_0 = f_i\\mid_A$.\n\nFor each $k$ and each $m > k$ we let $$a_m^k=\\pi^m_k\\circ f_m: X \\to Z_k.$$ By (i), we have ${{d_{\\sup\\nolimits}}}(f_m, p_m \\circ f_{m+1}) \\leq \\operatorname{mesh}{{\\mathcal{F}_{m}}}$. By (B) the short projection $\\pi^m_k$ is $1$-Lipschitz, hence ${{d_{\\sup\\nolimits}}}(a^k_m, a^k_{m+1})\n  = {{d_{\\sup\\nolimits}}}(\\pi^m_k \\circ f_m, \\pi^m_k \\circ p_m \\circ f_{m+1}) \\leq \\operatorname{mesh}{{\\mathcal{F}_{m}}}$. Therefore for $l > m$ we have $${{d_{\\sup\\nolimits}}}(a^k_l, a^k_m) \\leq {{d_{\\sup\\nolimits}}}(a^k_l, a^k_{l-1}) + {{d_{\\sup\\nolimits}}}(a^k_{l-1}, a^k_{l-2})\n    + \\cdots + {{d_{\\sup\\nolimits}}}(a^k_{m+1}, a^k_m) \\leq$$ $$\\leq \\operatorname{mesh}{{\\mathcal{F}_{l-1}}} + \\operatorname{mesh}{{\\mathcal{F}_{l-2}}} + \\cdots + \\operatorname{mesh}{{\\mathcal{F}_{m+1}}} + \\operatorname{mesh}{{\\mathcal{F}_{m}}}.$$ By (E), the sequence $a_m^k$ is uniformly convergent. Let $$a^k = \\lim_{m \\to \\infty} a_m^k.$$ By (A), $Z_k$ is complete, hence $a^k \\colon X \\to Z_k$ is well defined.\n\nIt follows from the definition that $p_k \\circ a^{k+1}_m = a^k_m$. Passing to the limit we have $$p_k \\circ a^{k+1} = \\lim_{m \\to \\infty} p_k \\circ a^{k+1}_m = \\lim_{m \\to\\infty} a^k_m = a^k.$$ Therefore, for each $x$ the sequence $(a^k(x))_k$ is a thread in $Z$ and we can define a map $g \\colon X \\to Z$ by the formula $$(g(x))_k = a^k(x).$$\n\nObserve that by (ii) and by the definition of $a^k_m$ we have $$a^k_m |_A = \\pi^m_k \\circ f_m |_A = \\pi^m_k \\circ \\pi_m \\circ g_0  |_A = \\pi_k \\circ g_0 |_A.$$ Therefore $a^k\\mid_A = \\pi_k \\circ g_0$ for each $k$, hence $g |_A = g_0 |_A$.\n\n\\[thm:ane condition\\] Let $$Z=\\lim_{\\longleftarrow}\\left( Z_1\\xleftarrow{p_1}Z_2\\xleftarrow{p_2}\\cdots \\right).$$ Let ${{\\mathcal{F}_{i}}}$ be a cover of $Z_i$. If the conditions of Definition\u00a0\\[def:limit\\] are satisfied and $Z_1$ is an $ANE(n)$, then $Z$ is an $ANE(n)$.\n\nWe will show that $Z$ is an $ANE(n)$ directly from the definition. Let $X$ be an at most $n$-dimensional metric space and let $A\\subset X$ be a closed subset. Take $g_0\\colon A\\to Z$. By assumption, $Z_1$ is an $ANE(n)$ so we can extend $\\pi_1\\circ g_0:A\\to Z_1$ to a map $f_1:U\\to Z_1$, where $U$ is an open neighborhood of $A$ in $X$. By Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:limit lift\\], $f_1$ can be lifted to a map $g \\colon U \\to Z$ such that $g_{|A} = g_0$. This is the extension of $f$ we sought.\n\nLocal $k$-connectedness of inverse limits of polyhedra\n======================================================\n\nLet $$\\label{eq:sequence}\\tag{L}\n    X = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow}\\left( K_1 \\xleftarrow{p_1} K_2 \\xleftarrow{p_2} \\cdots.\\right)$$ Fix $m$ and let $A \\subset K_m$ be a subcomplex of $K_m$. A [[**restriction of to $A$**]{}]{} is the inverse limit $$\\label{eq:restriction}\\tag{R}\n    X' = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow} \\left(K'_m \\xleftarrow{p'_m} K'_{m+1} \\xleftarrow{p'_{m+1}} \\cdots\\right),$$ where $K'_m =\\ A$ and for each $j \\geq m$, $K'_{j+1} = p^{-1}_j(K'_j)$ and $p'_j = p_j \\mid_{K'_{j+1}}$.\n\n\\[lem:restriction\\] Let be the restriction of\u00a0 to a subcomplex $A \\subset K_m$.\n\nIf, for each $i$, satisfies the conditions:\n\n1.  $K_i$ is a polyhedron and\n\n2.  $p_i$ is a quasi-simplicial map that is surjective and $n$-regular,\n\nthen so does . The inverse limit $X'$ is homeomorphic to $\\pi_m^{-1}(A)$, where $\\pi_m \\colon X \\to X_m$ denotes the long projection.\n\nWe have $$\\pi^{-1}_m(A) = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow} \\left(K'_1 \\xleftarrow{p'_1} K'_{2} \\xleftarrow{p'_{2}} \\cdots\\right),$$ where $K'_j = p_j(K'_{j+1})$ and $p'_j = p_j \\mid_{K'_{j+1}}$ for $j < m$. The restriction is the same sequence with first $m-1$ elements removed. This changes the metric on the limit, but not the topology, hence $X'$ is homeomorphic to $\\pi_m^{-1}(A)$.\n\nThe other conditions are trivial to verify.\n\n\\[thm:ane limit of polyhedra\\] Let $$X = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow} \\left(K_1 \\xleftarrow{p_1} K_2 \\xleftarrow{p_2} \\cdots\\right).$$ Assume that for each $i$ the following conditions are satisfied:\n\n1.  $K_i$ is a locally finite-dimensional polyhedron; and\n\n2.  $p_i$ is a quasi-simplicial map that is surjective and $n$-regular.\n\nThen\n\n1.  $X$ is an $ANE(n)$;\n\n2.  each short projection $\\pi^k_i \\colon K_k \\to K_i$ and each long projection $\\pi_i \\colon X \\to X_i$ is a weak $n$-homotopy equivalence;\n\n3.  for each $i$, the covers ${{\\mathcal{O}_{i}}}$ and ${{\\mathcal{B}_{i}}}$ are $AE(n)$-covers of $X$.\n\nFix a metric of scale $2^{-i}$ on $K_i$ (see Definition\u00a0\\[def:polyhedron metric\\]). Let $(*)$ denote the inverse limit $$X = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow} \\left( K_1 \\xleftarrow{p_1} K_2 \\xleftarrow{p_2} \\cdots\\right)$$ along with a sequence ${{\\mathcal{B}_{K_i}}}$ of covers, where ${{\\mathcal{B}_{K_i}}}$ is a cover of $K_i$ by barycentric stars of vertices.\n\nWe will verify that $(*)$ satisfies conditions (A)\u2013(E) of Definition\u00a0\\[def:limit\\].\n\nCondition (A): By Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:complex is ane\\], every $K_i$ is a complete metric space.\n\nCondition (B): By condition (II), $p_i$ is surjective. By the choice of scale on $K_i$ and Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:qs is lipschitz\\], each bonding map is $1$-Lipschitz.\n\nCondition (C): By Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:stars\\], each ${{\\mathcal{B}_{K_i}}}$ is a closed, locally finite, locally finite-dimensional cover.\n\nCondition (D): By assumption $p_i$ is quasi-simplicial and $n$-regular. Hence by Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:nregular pullback\\], the pull-back $p_i^{-1}({{\\mathcal{B}_{K_i}}})$ is an $AE(n)$-cover.\n\nCondition (E): By the choice of the metric on $K_i$, we have $\\sum_i \\operatorname{mesh}{{\\mathcal{B}_{K_i}}} \\leq \\sum_i \\operatorname{diam}K_i < \\infty$.\n\nTo prove (1) it is enough to verify the conditions of Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:ane condition\\] for $(*)$. We just verified conditions of Definition\u00a0\\[def:limit\\]. By Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:complex is ane\\], $K_1$ is an $ANE(n)$. We are done.\n\nBy Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:nregular pullback\\] each $p_i$ is a weak $n$-homotopy equivalence and therefore all the short projections $\\pi^k_i$ are weak $n$-homotopy equivalences. To finish the proof of (2), we must show that\n\n-   for fixed $i>0$ and $m<n$, the long projection $\\pi_i:X\\to K_i$ induces a monomorphism on the homotopy group of dimension $m$, regardless of the choice of base point; and\n\n-   for fixed $i>0$ and $m<n$, the long projection $\\pi_i:X\\to K_i$ induces an epimorphism on the homotopy group of dimension $m$, regardless of the choice of base point.\n\nWe prove (mono). Fix $i > 0$ and $m < n$. Let $\\varphi \\colon S^m \\to X$. Assume that $\\pi_i \\circ \\varphi$ is null-homotopic in $K_i$. Let $\\varPhi \\colon B^{m+1} \\to K_i$ denote the null-homotopy ($B^{m+1}$ denotes the $m+1$-dimensional unit ball in $\\mathbb{R}^{m+1}$). We have the following commutative diagram: $$\\xymatrix@M=8pt@C=35pt{\n    X \\ar[r]^{\\pi_i} & K_i  \\\\\n    S^m \\ar@{^{(}->}[r] \\ar[u]_{\\varphi} & B^{m+1} \\ar[u]^{\\varPhi} \\ar@{.>}[ul]_{\\tilde \\varPhi} \\\\\n    }$$ The inverse limit $$X = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow} \\left(K_i \\xleftarrow{p_i} K_{i+1} \\xleftarrow{p_{i+1}} \\cdots \\right)$$ along with the sequence of covers by barycentric stars of vertices (which we obtain by truncating (\\*)) satisfies the conditions of Definition\u00a0\\[def:limit\\]. Since $B^{m+1}$ is at most $n$-dimensional, by Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:limit lift\\], there exists a lift $\\tilde \\varPhi$ such that the diagram is commutative. This lift is a null-homotopy of $\\varphi$ in $X$, hence $\\pi_i$ induces a monomorphism on the homotopy group of dimension $m$. We will show (epi) at the end of the proof.\n\nNext we prove (3). To begin, we will show that for each $i$, ${{\\mathcal{B}_{i}}}$ is an $AE(n)$-cover. Let $\\mathcal{A}$ be a collection of elements of ${{\\mathcal{B}_{i}}}$ such that the intersection $\\bigcap \\mathcal{A}$ is non-empty. By the definition of ${{\\mathcal{B}_{i}}}$, we have $\\mathcal{A} = \\{ \\pi_i^{-1}(\\operatorname{bst}_{K_i} v) \\}_{v \\in V}$ for some set of vertices $V$ of $K_i$. Let $A = \\bigcap_{v \\in V} p_i^{-1}(\\operatorname{bst}_{K_i} v)$. Since $p_i$ is quasi-simplicial, $A$ is a subcomplex of $K_{i+1}$. By Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:nregular pullback\\], $A$ has vanishing homotopy groups in dimensions less than $n$. Let $$\\tag{**}\n    X' = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow} \\left( K'_{i+1} \\xleftarrow{p'_{i+1}} K'_{i+2} \\xleftarrow{p'_{i+2}} \\cdots\\right),$$ where $K'_{i+1} =\\ A$ and for each $j \\geq i+1$, $K'_{j+1} = p^{-1}_j(K'_j)$ and $p'_j = p_j \\mid_{K'_{j+1}}$, be the restriction of (\\*) to $A$. By Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:restriction\\] it satisfies assumptions (I) and (II) and is homeomorphic to $\\bigcap \\mathcal{A}$. Hence from what we have already proven, $X' = \\bigcap \\mathcal{A}$ is an $ANE(n)$ and the long projection $\\pi_{i+1} \\colon \\bigcap \\mathcal{A} \\to A$ induces monomorphisms on homotopy groups of dimensions less than $n$. Since $A$ has vanishing homotopy groups in these dimensions, so does $\\bigcap \\mathcal{A}$. By Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:dugundji\\], $\\bigcap \\mathcal{A}$ is an $AE(n)$ hence ${{\\mathcal{B}_{i}}}$ is an $AE(n)$-cover.\n\nIt follows from Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:union is ae\\] that ${{\\mathcal{O}_{i}}}$ is an $AE(n)$-cover, as open stars are (infinite) unions of iterated barycentric stars.\n\nFinally, we prove (epi). Fix $i > 0$ and $m < n$. Let $\\varphi \\colon S^m \\to K_i$. Let $\\mathcal{O}$ be a cover of $K_i$ by open stars of vertices. We have just shown that $\\pi_i^{-1}(\\mathcal{O})$ is an $AE(n)$-cover. Hence by Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:single lift\\], there exists a map $\\psi \\colon S^m \\to X$ such that $\\pi_i \\circ \\psi$ and $\\varphi$ are $\\mathcal{O}$-close. By Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:uclose uhomotopic\\], these maps are homotopic. This shows that $\\pi_i$ induces epimorphisms on homotopy groups of dimensions less than $n$. Hence $\\pi_i$ is a weak $n$-homotopy equivalence.\n\nLet $$X = \\lim_{\\longleftarrow} \\left(K_1 \\xleftarrow{p_1} K_2 \\xleftarrow{p_2} \\cdots\\right).$$ Assume that for each $i$, (I) $K_i$ is a locally finite-dimensional polyhedron; (II) $p_i$ is a quasi-simplicial map that is surjective and $n$-regular. Let $Y$ be a metric space of dimension less than $n$ and let $f, g \\colon Y \\to X$. Then if $f$ is ${{\\mathcal{O}_{i}}}$-close to $g$, then $f$ is ${{\\mathcal{O}_{i}}}$-homotopic to $g$.\n\nBy Theorem\u00a0\\[thm:ane limit of polyhedra\\](3), ${{\\mathcal{O}_{i}}}$ is an $AE(n)$-cover of $X$. By Lemma\u00a0\\[lem:uclose uhomotopic\\], $f$ and $g$ are ${{\\mathcal{O}_{i}}}$-homotopic.\n\n[^1]: This research was supported by the NCN (Narodowe Centrum Nauki) grant no. 2011/01/D/ST1/04144.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We analyze backward step control globalization for finding zeros of G\u00e2teaux-differentiable functions that map from a Banach space to a Hilbert space. The results include global convergence to a distinctive solution characterized by propagating the initial guess by a generalized Newton flow with guaranteed bounds on the discrete nonlinear residual norm decrease and an (also numerically) easily controllable asymptotic linear residual convergence rate. The convergence theory can be exploited to construct efficient numerical methods, which we demonstrate for the case of a Krylov\u2013Newton method and an approximation-by-discretization multilevel framework. Both approaches optimize the asymptotic linear residual convergence rate, either over the Krylov subspace or through adaptive discretization, which in turn yields practical and efficient stopping criteria and refinement strategies that balance the nonlinear residuals with the relative residuals of the linear systems. We apply these methods to the class of nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems and present numerical results for the Carrier equation and the minimum surface equation.'\nauthor:\n- Andreas Potschka\ntitle: '[Backward step control for Hilbert space problems]{}'\n---\n\nIntroduction {#sec:introduction}\n============\n\nLet $U$ be a Banach space with norm ${\\left\\lVert.\\right\\rVert}_U$ and $V$ be a Hilbert space (we discuss generalizations to Banach spaces in section\u00a0\\[sec:Banach\\]) with inner product ${\\left(.,.\\right)}_V$ and norm $\\smash[t]{{\\left\\lVertv\\right\\rVert}_V = \\smash[b]{\\sqrt{{\\left(v,v\\right)}_V}}}$ for $v \\in V$. For some open subset $D \\subseteq U$, let $F: D \\to V$ be continuously G\u00e2teaux differentiable\u00a0[@Hamilton1982 3.1.1.\u00a0Def.] with derivative $F': D\n\\times U \\to V$, i.e., $$F'(u, \\delta u) = \\lim_{h \\to 0} \\frac{1}{h} \\left( F(u+h \\delta u) - F(u)\n  \\right)$$ exists for all $u \\in D$, $\\delta u \\in U$ and $F'$ is continuous as a function from the product space $D \\times U$ to $V$ (which is a weaker requirement than continuity of $F'$ considered as a map from $D$ to $\\mathcal{L}(U, V)$, the Banach space of all bounded linear operators from $U$ to $V$). Note that continuous G\u00e2teaux differentiability implies linearity of $F'$ in the second argument [@Hamilton1982 3.2.5\u00a0Thm.]. In the following, we write $A(u) \\delta u$ shorthand for $A(u, \\delta u)$ whenever an operator $A$ is linear in the second argument. We consider the problem of finding an unknown $u \\in D$ such that $$\\label{eqn:FOfxIsZero}\n  F(u) = 0_V$$ with a Newton-type iteration: Given $u_0 \\in D$, find a suitable approximation $M: D \\times V \\to U$ (linear in the second argument) of the inverse of $F'(u)$ and a step size sequence $(t_k)_{k \\in \\mathbb{N}}$ satisfying $t_k \\in [0, 1]$ such that the iteration $$\\label{eqn:Newton}\n  u_{k+1} = u_k + t_k \\delta u_k \\quad \n  \\text{with } \\delta u_k = -M(u_k) F(u_k)$$ converges to a solution $u^\\ast \\in D$ of . The first and main part of this article is devoted to finding a suitable step size sequence $(t_k)_{k \\in \\mathbb{N}}$ in section\u00a0\\[sec:convergence\\]. Out of the many ways to construct $M(u)$, we elaborate on two choices in section\u00a0\\[sec:designM\\]. For convenience, we define the negative generalized Newton flow $f: D \\to U$ as $$f(u) = M(u)F(u).$$ As in [@Potschka2016], our convergence analysis will be based on generalized Newton paths $u^k: [0, \\infty) \\to U$, which are defined as the solutions of the initial value problems $$\\label{eqn:genDavidenko}\n  \\frac{{{\\mathrm d}}u^k}{{{\\mathrm d}}t}(t) = -f(u^k(t)) \\quad \n  \\text{for } t \\in [0, \\infty) \\quad \n  \\text{with } u^k(0) = u_k.$$ We shall prove existence and uniqueness of solutions to in our setting in Theorem \\[thm:arclength\\]. Note that is an explicit Euler discretization of with step sizes $(t_k)_{k \\in \\mathbb{N}}$. If $M$ is chosen as the inverse of $F'$ then is a damped Newton method and is the Davidenko differential equation [@Davidenko1953]. The equivalence of the Newton method with explicit Euler on the Davidenko differential equation has been exploited by various authors (see, e.g., [@Deuflhard1974; @Brezinski1975; @Ascher1987; @Bock2000b; @Deuflhard2006]).\n\nIn the theory and the numerics below, the operator $M$ does not appear explicitly anymore and only the function $f$ will be required, which implicitly defines $M(u)$ in the direction $F(u)$. As it turns out, all other directions of $M(u)$ are not important. This observation leads to crucial improvements in the assumptions stated in [@Potschka2016].\n\nThe convergence theory below lends itself immediately to the construction of numerical algorithms for the approximate solution of via . In particular, it can be used to construct $M(u)$ from $F'(u)$ by finite-dimensional approximation, which can then be exploited to construct adaptive discretization schemes that optimize the contraction rate of the algorithm in $V$. In the case of Finite Element analysis, our approach delivers a multi-level Newton adaptive mesh refinement algorithm [@Hohmann1994] that can be used straight-forward as another tool complementing refinement strategies based on a posteriori error estimation (see, e.g., [@Graetsch2005; @Ainsworth2000; @Becker2001]).\n\nHistorically, Newton-type methods come in two flavors: Either, we do not solve the linearized systems with operator $F'(u_k)$ and right-hand side $-F(u_k)$ exactly, which is usually known under the name *inexact Newton* method [@Dembo1982; @Ypma1984]. Alternatively, we apply an approximation $M(u)$ of the inverse of $F'(u)$ directly, an approach which is sometimes called *approximate Newton* method and which is the classical form of Quasi-Newton methods [@Dennis1977]. As pointed out by Bank and Rose [@Bank1981], the two flavors are in fact different formulations of the same class of methods. As mentioned above, our analysis is based on the approximate Newton formulation in order to define the generalized Newton path , but the control of the linearized residual in the sense of inexact Newton methods emerges as the $\\kappa$-condition A\\[ass:kappa\\], which is identical to a choice of $\\eta_k = \\kappa < 1$ for the residual forcing sequence $(\\eta_k)$ first proposed in [@Dembo1982]. In turn, the classical analysis of the local rates of convergence in [@Dembo1982] carries over to our setting if $\\kappa$ is allowed to be reduced from iteration to iteration in the sense of a forcing sequence once we are close to a solution. This shall, however, not be the focus of this paper, where we focus on the preasymptotic global convergence and are content with locally linear convergence rates.\n\nSimilar to [@Deuflhard1991], we base our globalization approach on a continuous curve, but we substitute here the exact Newton path (obtained with the choice $M(u) = \\smash[t]{F'(u)}^{-1}$ from ) by a generalized Newton path, which is allowed to have $M(u) \\neq\n\\smash[t]{F'(u)}^{-1}.$ Following ideas of [@Hohmann1994], we can use the (contravariant) $\\kappa$-condition A\\[ass:kappa\\] to design a multilevel Newton-type method for the construction of $M$ based on adaptive discretization. This leads to adaptive discretizations solely based on balancing the discretization residual with the nonlinear residual of the Newton-type method. We remark that this convenient black-box approach might be inferior to more involved schemes that balance the discretization errors and nonlinear errors (instead of residuals) [@Rannacher2013] or exploit underlying (energy) minimization properties [@Deuflhard1998] for particular problem classes. Nonetheless, our method is the first for which convergence to the closest solution in the sense of the generalized Newton flow can be proven.\n\n#### Contributions\n\nIn this article, we extend the convergence analysis of backward step control for from the finite-dimensional to the Hilbert space setting. We provide reasonable assumptions and convergence results for with backward step control. The main result is convergence to a distinct solution characterized by the propagation of the initial guess by the generalized Newton flow provided that no singularity of the problem interferes. In addition, we prove an a priori bound on the nonlinear reduction of the residual norm. The convergence theory can be exploited to construct efficient numerical algorithms, which we discuss for the case of a Krylov\u2013Newton method and a Finite Element approximation. Both are based on the optimization of the residual contraction constant, which yields in the latter case an efficient adaptive mesh refinement strategy. The results are demonstrated for the numerical solution of the Carrier equation and the minimal surface equation.\n\n#### Overview\n\nIn section\u00a0\\[sec:convergence\\], we discuss the general assumptions, derive and motivate the method of backward step control, provide reasons why implicit and higher-order time stepping methods for are not advisable, provide step size bounds, and establish the notion of generalized Newton paths, which are the central ingredient for the analysis of local and global convergence of backward step control. We then discuss extensions to Banach spaces and present an algorithmic realization with a minimal working Matlab example code for the solution of $\\arctan(u) = 0$. In section\u00a0\\[sec:designM\\], we exploit the convergence analysis to construct two Newton-type methods, a Krylov\u2013Newton method and a method based on approximation-by-discretization. We apply these methods in section\u00a0\\[sec:ellipticPDE\\] to the class of nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems and provide numerical results for the Carrier equation and the minimum surface equation.\n\n#### Notation\n\nWe denote the open ball of radius $r>0$ around $u\\in U$ by $B(u,r)$ and the Laplace operator by ${\\Delta}= \\nabla \\cdot \\nabla$. As usual, we write $C^0$ for the space of continuous functions, $H^1_0(\\Omega)$ for the Sobolev space of square integrable functions on a bounded domain $\\Omega \\subset \\mathbb{R}^n$ that vanish at the boundary and admit square integrable derivatives, and $H^{-1}(\\Omega)$ for its dual space. The Euler number is denoted by $e =\n\\sum_{k=0}^{\\infty} \\frac{1}{k!}$.\n\nConvergence analysis {#sec:convergence}\n====================\n\nThe overall structure of the backward step control convergence analysis in Hilbert spaces is similar to the finite-dimensional case [@Potschka2016]. The intricate interplay of the changes in the details, however, advises us to present the convergence analysis in a self-contained fashion.\n\nDiscussion of assumptions\n-------------------------\n\nWe start with the following definitions.\n\nThe *level function* $T: D \\to \\mathbb{R}$ is $T(u) = \\frac{1}{2} {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V^2.$\n\nThe *level set of $u \\in D$* is $\\smash[t]{\\widetilde{\\mathcal{T}}}(u) = \\left\\{ \\bar{u} \\in D \\mid\n  T(\\bar{u}) \\le T(u) \\right\\}.$\n\nThe *path connected level set of $u \\in D$* is $$\\mathcal{T}(u) = \\left\\{ \\bar{u} \\in \\widetilde{\\mathcal{T}}(u)\n  \\mid \\exists \n  c \\in C^0\\left([0, 1], \\widetilde{\\mathcal{T}}(u)\\right)\n      \\text{with } c(0) = u, c(1) = \\bar{u} \\right\\}.$$\n\nFor $r \\in (1, \\infty)$ the *set of $r$-regular points* is $$\\mathcal{R}_r = \\left\\{ u \\in D \\mid r^{-1} {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V <\n  {\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U < r {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V \\right\\}.$$\n\nThe *set of $\\infty$-regular points* is $\\mathcal{R}_\\infty = \\bigcup_{r \\in (1, \\infty)} \\mathcal{R}_r$.\n\nWe remark that if $u \\in D \\setminus \\mathcal{R}_\\infty$, which means that $u\n\\not\\in \\mathcal{R}_r$ for all $r\n\\in (1, \\infty)$, then $M(u)$ is either not bounded or does not admit a bounded inverse [@Yosida1978 \u00a7I.6, Cor.\u00a02, 3]. The contrary is, however, not true: $M(u)$ may be unbounded or not admit a bounded inverse although $u \\in\n\\mathcal{R}_r$ for some $r \\in (1, \\infty)$, because in the definition of $\\mathcal{R}_r$ only the action of $M(u)$ in direction $F(u)$ is of interest.\n\nWe require the following assumptions to hold true:\n\n\\[ass:validIni\\] There exists an $r \\in (1, \\infty)$ such that $u_0 \\in \\mathcal{R}_r$, and ${\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V > 0$.\n\n\\[ass:kappa\\] There exists a $\\kappa < 1$ such that for all $u \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap\n  \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ $${\\left\\lVertF(u) - F'(u) f(u)\\right\\rVert}_V \\le \\kappa {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V.$$\n\n\\[ass:omega\\] There exists an $\\omega < \\infty$ such that for all $u \\in \\mathcal{T}(u_0), t\n  \\in [0, 1]$ $${\\left\\lVert\\left[ F'(u) - F'(u-tf(u)) \\right] f(u)\\right\\rVert}_V \\le \\omega t {\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U\n  {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V.$$\n\n\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] There exists an $L < \\infty$ such that for all $u, \\bar{u} \\in\n  \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ $${\\left\\lVertf(u) - f(\\bar{u})\\right\\rVert}_U \\le L {\\left\\lVertu - \\bar{u}\\right\\rVert}_U.$$\n\n\\[ass:gamma\\] For all $\\eta > 0$ there exist constants $\\gamma$, $t_\\gamma > 0$ such that for all $t \\in [0, t_\\gamma]$, $u \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ with ${\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U > \\eta$ $${\\left\\lVertf(u-tf(u)) - f(u)\\right\\rVert}_U \\ge \\gamma t.$$\n\nThe main difference in the assumptions here compared to the finite-dimensional setting in [@Potschka2016] is the weakening of A\\[ass:kappa\\] and A\\[ass:omega\\] from a formulation with matrices to a formulation which requires the properties to hold only in the direction of the residual $F(u)$. Thus, all requirements can be postulated without using norms for operators that map between $U$ and $V$. Apart from the avoidance of operator norms, we had to replace all arguments based on compactness of bounded sets by other means for the proofs in the Hilbert space case. The discussion of the assumptions in [@Potschka2016] still applies to a large extent here: We require in A\\[ass:validIni\\] that $u_0$ is an $r$-regular point but not a solution. The central $\\kappa$-condition A\\[ass:kappa\\] is a contravariant version of Bock\u2019s covariant $\\kappa$-condition [@Bock1987] in the sense that it quantifies on the one hand the deviation of the inexact increment $\\delta u = -M(u) F(u)$ from the Newton increment $\\delta\nu^\\mathrm{Newton} = -F(u)^{-1} F(u)$ in the $V$-norm $${\\left\\lVertF'(u) \\left[ \\delta u^\\mathrm{Newton} - \\delta u \\right]\\right\\rVert}_V\n  = {\\left\\lVertF(u) - F'(u)f(u)\\right\\rVert}_V\n  \\le \\kappa {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V$$ in comparison to Bock\u2019s covariant $\\kappa^\\mathrm{cov} < 1$ in the $U$-norm (see also [@Potschka2013 section\u00a05.2]) $$\\label{eqn:kappa_Bock}\n  {\\left\\lVertM(u - f(u)) \\left[ F(u) - F'(u)f(u) \\right]\\right\\rVert}_U \n  \\le \\kappa^\\mathrm{cov} {\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U.$$ On the other hand, $\\kappa$ in A\\[ass:kappa\\] characterizes the asymptotic Q-linear convergence rate of the residual norms ${\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V$, whereas $\\kappa^\\mathrm{cov}$ in characterizes the asymptotic R-linear convergence rate of the error ${\\left\\lVertu_k - u_\\ast\\right\\rVert}_U$ if $u_\\ast =\n\\lim_{k \\to \\infty} u_k$ (for a discussion of different affine invariances see [@Deuflhard2006]). The $\\omega$-condition A\\[ass:omega\\] measures a combination of the nonlinearity and the well-posedness of because if $F'$ is Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant $L'$, then we obtain $${\\left\\lVert\\left[ F'(u) - F'(u - tf(u)) \\right] f(u)\\right\\rVert}_V \\le L' t {\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U^2$$ and boundedness of $M(u)$ in direction $F(u)$ with constant $C$ implies A\\[ass:omega\\] with $\\omega = CL'$. The Lipschitz condition A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] is classical. The nonstandard assumption A\\[ass:gamma\\] follows, for instance, if $f$ is bi-Lipschitz with constant $\\ell$ $${\\left\\lVertf(u - tf(u)) - f(u)\\right\\rVert}_U \\ge \\ell t {\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U$$ with $\\gamma = \\eta \\ell$ and $t_\\gamma$ arbitrary.\n\nBackward step control\n---------------------\n\nNewton-type methods are explicit Euler discretizations with step sizes $t_k$ of the generalized Newton flow . Thus, the convergence of Newton-type methods is strongly connected to the stability problem of the explicit Euler method. Implict Euler, in contrast, has ideal stability properties: It is an L-stable method (see, e.g., [@Hairer1996]). Hence, in order to determine $t_k$, we consider the backward iterate $$\\bar{u}_k(t_k) := u_{k+1} + t_k f(u_{k+1}) = u_k + t_k g(u_k, t_k) \\quad\n\\text{with } g(u, t) := f(u - tf(u)) - f(u).$$ The point $\\bar{u}_k(t_k)$ is the starting point of a (stable) implicit Euler step for that arrives exactly at $u_{k+1}$, the result of a possibly unstable explicit Euler step starting from $u_k$. The idea of backward step control is based on a backward error argument: If a small perturbation of the starting point $u_k$ can be found from which a stable implicit Euler step arrives exactly at $u_{k+1}$, we can accept the step size. We thus require that the distance between $u_k$ and $\\bar{u}_k(t_k)$ is bounded by some fixed constant $H>0$ through the choice $$\\label{eqn:BSC} \\tag{BSC}\n  t_k = \\min \\mathcal{B}_H(u_k) \\quad \\text{where }\n  \\mathcal{B}_H(u) = \\left\\{ t \\in [0, 1] \\mid H = t {\\left\\lVertg(u,t)\\right\\rVert}_U\n  \\right\\} \\cup \\{1\\},$$ which implies ${\\left\\lVert\\bar{u}_k(t_k) - u_k\\right\\rVert}_U \\le H$ (with equality for $t_k <\n1$) by continuity of $g$.\n\nImplicit and higher-order time stepping methods\n-----------------------------------------------\n\nThe question whether explicit Euler is really the best method to solve arises naturally. We can answer this question affirmatively for two reasons: First, all implicit methods have the drawback that an approximated inverse of an operator involving derivatives of the approximated inverse $M(u)$ would be required, e.g., in the case of the implicit Euler method $$\\begin{aligned}\n  0 &= u_{k+1} + t_k f(u_{k+1}) - u_k,\n  \\intertext{with a local Newton corrector}\n  u_{k+1}^{i+1} &= u_{k+1}^i - \\left[ {{\\mathrm I}}_U + t_k f'(u_{k+1}^i) \\right]^{-1}\n  \\left( u_{k+1}^i + t_k f(u_{k+1}^i) - u_k \\right),\\end{aligned}$$ which is not readily available and would require higher regularity of $M$ than guaranteed by the assumptions above. Second, higher order methods would destroy the well-known locally quadratic convergence of the Newton method, where $M(u) = (F'(u))^{-1}$. This can be seen from the homotopy formulation $$\\label{eqn:uHomotopy}\n  F(u(t)) - e^{-t} F(u_0) = 0,$$ which we can differentiate with respect to $t$ to arrive exactly at provided that $F'(u(t))$ stays invertible. Thus, the second order truncation error of explicit Euler is required to obtain locally quadratic convergence, because higher consistency orders would result in the locally linear convergence dictated by .\n\nWe have not explored multi-step methods of order one further. The possible outcome of this line of research is unfortunately unclear at present and exceeds the scope of this paper.\n\nStep size bounds\n----------------\n\n\\[lem:localFullSteps\\] If A\\[ass:validIni\\] and A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] hold, then delivers full steps $t_k = 1$ in the vicinity of a solution $u^\\ast \\in\n  \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$.\n\nLet $u_k \\in B(u^\\ast, L^{-2} H)$. Hence, it holds for all $t \\in [0, 1]$ that $$t {\\left\\lVertg(u_k, t)\\right\\rVert}_U \n  \\overset{\\text{A\\ref{ass:fLipschitz}}}{\\le} L t^2 {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U\n  = L t^2 {\\left\\lVertf(u_k) - f(u^\\ast)\\right\\rVert}_U \n  \\overset{\\text{A\\ref{ass:fLipschitz}}}{\\le} L^2 t^2 {\\left\\lVertu_k - u^\\ast\\right\\rVert}_U < H.$$ Thus, $\\mathcal{B}_H(u_k) = \\{1\\}$ and $t_k = 1$ by virtue of .\n\n\\[lem:lowerStepsizeBound\\] If A\\[ass:validIni\\] and A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] hold, then generates for all $u_k \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ step sizes that are either $t_k = 1$ or have the lower bounds $$t_k \\ge \\frac{\\sqrt{H}}{\\sqrt{L {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U}}\n  > \\frac{\\sqrt{H}}{\\sqrt{rL{\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V}}\n  \\ge \\frac{\\sqrt{H}}{\\sqrt{rL{\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V}}.$$\n\n*Proof\u00a0* If $t_k < 1$, then $$t_k^2 \\overset{\\eqref{eqn:BSC}}{=} \\frac{t_k H}{{\\left\\lVertg(u_k, t_k)\\right\\rVert}_U}\n  \\overset{\\text{A\\ref{ass:fLipschitz}}}{\\ge}\n  \\frac{H}{L {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U}\n  > \\frac{H}{rL{\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V}\n  \\ge \\frac{H}{rL{\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V}. \\qedhere$$\n\n\\[lem:upperStepsizeBound\\] Let A\\[ass:validIni\\] and A\\[ass:gamma\\] hold and let $\\bar{t}\n  \\in (0, 1)$ and $\\eta > 0$. Then there exists an ${\\overline{H}} > 0$ such that for all $H \\in (0, {\\overline{H}}]$ and $u \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap\n  \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ with ${\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U \\ge \\eta$ it holds that $\\min\n  \\mathcal{B}_H(u) \\le \\bar{t}$.\n\n*Proof by contradiction\u00a0* We assume to the contrary that for all ${\\overline{H}} > 0$ there exists an $H\n  \\in (0, {\\overline{H}}]$ and a $u \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ satisfying ${\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U \\ge \\eta$ and $\\min \\mathcal{B}_H(u) > \\bar{t}$. Then, A\\[ass:gamma\\] guarantees the existence of $\\gamma$, $t_\\gamma > 0$ such that for $t := \\min \\{ t_\\gamma, \\bar{t} \\} < \\min \\mathcal{B}_H(u)$ we obtain from that $${\\overline{H}} \\ge H \\ge t {\\left\\lVertg(u, t)\\right\\rVert}_U \\ge \\gamma t^2 > 0.$$ Because $\\eta$ and thus $\\gamma$ and $t$ are independent of ${\\overline{H}}$, we obtain a contradiction for ${\\overline{H}} \\to 0$.\n\n\\[lem:dampedStepBound\\] Let A\\[ass:validIni\\], A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\], and A\\[ass:gamma\\] hold and let $\\eta > 0$. Then there exists an ${\\overline{H}} > 0$ such that for all $H\n  \\in (0, {\\overline{H}}]$ and $u \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ it holds that $${\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U \\min \\mathcal{B}_H(u) \\le \\eta.$$\n\nWe choose $\\bar{t} \\in (0, 1)$ sufficiently small so that it satisfies $r\n  {\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V \\bar{t} \\le \\eta.$ Then, Lemma \\[lem:upperStepsizeBound\\] yields the existence of an ${\\overline{H}} > 0$ such that for all $H \\in (0, {\\overline{H}}]$ and all $u \\in\n  \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ with ${\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U \\ge \\eta$ it holds that $\\min \\mathcal{B}_H(u) \\le \\bar{t}$. Hence, $${\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U \\min \\mathcal{B}_H(u)\n  \\overset{\\text{A\\ref{ass:validIni}}}{<} \n  r {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V \\bar{t} \\le r {\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert} \\bar{t} \\le \\eta.$$ For the remaining $u \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ the assertion holds by virtue of ${\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U < \\eta$.\n\nFinite arclength of generalized Newton paths\n--------------------------------------------\n\nIn the next step, we study the generalized Newton paths given by .\n\n\\[lem:Fdescent\\] If A\\[ass:validIni\\], A\\[ass:kappa\\], A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] and $u_k \\in\n  \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ hold, then there exists $\\bar{t} > 0$ such that has a unique local solution $u^k(t) \\in\n  \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_k)$ for $t \\in [0, \\bar{t})$ which satisfies $${\\left\\lVertF(u^k(t))\\right\\rVert}_V \\le e^{-(1-\\kappa)t} {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V \\quad \n  \\text{for all } t \\in [0, \\bar{t}).$$\n\nThe Picard\u2013Lindel\u00f6f theorem [@Amann1990 II.7, exercise 3] yields with A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] the existence of a unique local solution $u^k(t)$ to in some neighborhood $(-\\bar{t}, \\bar{t})$ of $t =\n  0$. Without loss of generality, $\\bar{t} > 0$ is small enough to ensure $u^k(t) \\in \\mathcal{R}_r$ for $t \\in [0, \\bar{t})$ because $\\mathcal{R}_r$ is open. For ease of notation, we abbreviate $u^k(t)$ by $u$. The Cauchy\u2013Schwarz inequality and A\\[ass:kappa\\] show that the level function is nonincreasing along this solution because $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\frac{{{\\mathrm d}}}{{{\\mathrm d}}t} T(u) &= {\\left(F(u), F'(u) \\frac{{{\\mathrm d}}u}{{{\\mathrm d}}t}\\right)}_V\n    = -{\\left(F(u), F'(u) f(u)\\right)}_V\\\\\n    &= -{\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V^2 + {\\left(F(u), F(u) - F'(u) f(u)\\right)}_V\\\\\n    &\\le -{\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V^2 + \\kappa {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V^2\n    = -2(1-\\kappa) T(u) \\le 0.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Gronwall\u2019s inequality (see, e.g., [@Amann1990]) yields $$T(u^k(t)) \\le e^{-2 (1-\\kappa) t} T(u_k)$$ and thus $u^k(t) \\in \\mathcal{T}(u_k)$ for $t \\in [0, \\bar{t})$. The assertion follows after multiplication by two and taking square roots.\n\nWe show in Theorem \\[thm:arclength\\] below that the quantities in the following definition are well-defined under suitable assumptions.\n\n\\[def:regularpart\\] For $r \\in (1,\\infty)$, we define the *$r$-regular part $u_r^k$* of the generalized Newton path $u^k$ as the solution to the initial value problem $$\\frac{{{\\mathrm d}}u_r^k}{{{\\mathrm d}}t}(t) = \n  \\begin{cases}\n    -f(u_r^k(t)) & \\text{for } u_r^k(t) \\in \\mathcal{R}_r,\\\\\n    0 & \\text{otherwise},\n  \\end{cases}\n  \\quad \\text{for } t \\in [0, \\infty),\n  \\quad \\text{with } u_r^k(0) = u_k.$$ We denote its limit by $u_k^\\ast = \\lim_{t \\to \\infty} u^k_r(t)$ and define $t_k^\\ast = \\inf \\{t \\in [0, \\infty) \\mid u_r^k(t) \\not\\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\}$ with the usual convention that $\\inf \\varnothing = \\infty$.\n\n\\[thm:arclength\\] Let A\\[ass:validIni\\], A\\[ass:kappa\\], and A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] hold. If $u_k \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$, then the $r$-regular part of the generalized Newton path exists uniquely and has a finite arclength $\\ell(u_r^k)$ satisfying $${\\left\\lVertu_k - u_k^\\ast\\right\\rVert}_U \\le\n  \\ell(u_r^k) < \\frac{r}{1 - \\kappa} {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V \n  < \\frac{r^2}{1 - \\kappa} {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U.$$ If $u_k^\\ast \\in \\mathcal{R}_r$, then $F(u_k^\\ast) = 0$.\n\n*Proof\u00a0* The unique local solution of Lemma \\[lem:Fdescent\\] can be extended uniquely in $\\mathcal{T}(u_k)$ by repeated application of the Picard\u2013Lindel\u00f6f theorem either until $u^k(t) \\not \\in \\mathcal{R}_r$ for some $t = t_k^\\ast$ or to the whole interval $t \\in [0, \\infty)$. In the first case, the $r$-regular part is uniquely determined by $u_r^k(t) = u_r^k(t_k^\\ast)$ for all $t \\ge t_k^\\ast$. We can now use the definition of $\\mathcal{R}_r$ and Lemma \\[lem:Fdescent\\] in order to show $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\ell(u_r^k) &= \\int_{0}^{\\infty} {\\left\\lVert\\frac{{{\\mathrm d}}u_r^k}{{{\\mathrm d}}t}(t)\\right\\rVert}_U {{\\mathrm d}}t\n    = \\int_{0}^{t_k^\\ast} {\\left\\lVertf(u^k(t))\\right\\rVert}_U {{\\mathrm d}}t\n    < r \\int_{0}^{t_k^\\ast} {\\left\\lVertF(u^k(t))\\right\\rVert}_V {{\\mathrm d}}t \\\\\n    &\\le r \\int_{0}^{\\infty} e^{-(1-\\kappa)t} {{\\mathrm d}}t {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V\n    = \\frac{r}{1-\\kappa} {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V < \\frac{r^2}{1-\\kappa}\n    {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U. \n  \\end{aligned}$$ We obtain the lower arclength bound by noting that the shortest path between $u_k$ and $u_k^\\ast$ has arclength ${\\left\\lVertu_k - u_k^\\ast\\right\\rVert}_U$. If $u_k^\\ast \\in\n  \\mathcal{R}_r$, then $t_k^\\ast = \\infty$ and Lemma \\[lem:Fdescent\\] reveals $${\\left\\lVertF(u_k^\\ast)\\right\\rVert}_V \\le \\lim_{t \\to \\infty} e^{-(1-\\kappa)t}{\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V =\n  0.\n  \\qedhere$$\n\nLocal convergence\n-----------------\n\nWe use the next lemma to prove discrete descent of the residual norm.\n\n\\[lem:kappaScaled\\] A\\[ass:kappa\\] holds if and only if for all $u \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap\n  \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$ and $t \\in [0, 1]$ $${\\left\\lVertF(u) - t F'(u) f(u)\\right\\rVert}_V \n  \\le \\left[ 1 - (1-\\kappa) t \\right] {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V.$$\n\n*Proof\u00a0* As in [@Potschka2016], the nontrivial direction of the proof follows from the convexity of the functional $\\varphi(t) = {\\left\\lVertF(u) - t F'(u) f(u)\\right\\rVert}_V$ and A\\[ass:kappa\\] according to $$\\varphi(t) \\le (1-t)\\varphi(0) + t \\varphi(1) \n  \\le \\left[ (1-t) + \\kappa t \\right] {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V.\n  \\qedhere$$\n\n\\[lem:Fdecrease\\] Let A\\[ass:validIni\\], A\\[ass:kappa\\] and A\\[ass:omega\\] hold. If $u_k\n  \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}(u_0)$, then $${\\left\\lVertF(u_{k+1})\\right\\rVert}_V \\le \\left[ 1 - (1-\\kappa) t_k + \\frac{\\omega}{2}\n  {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U t_k^2 \\right] {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V.$$ Furthermore, if there exists a $\\theta < 1$ such that the step size sequence satisfies $$\\omega t_k {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U \\le 2 \\theta (1 - \\kappa),$$ then $${\\left\\lVertF(u_{k+1})\\right\\rVert}_V \\le \\left[ 1 - (1-\\theta) (1-\\kappa) t_k \\right]\n  {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V.$$\n\nBecause $F'$ is continuously G\u00e2teaux differentiable, we can apply [@Hamilton1982 3.2.2.\u00a0Thm. and 2.1.4.\u00a0Thm.] to show that for $u \\in D$ and $\\delta u \\in U$ $$F(u + t_k \\delta u) - F(u) =\n    \\int_{0}^{1} F'(u + \\tau t_k \\delta u) t_k \\delta u {{\\mathrm d}}\\tau\n    \\overset{\\tau = \\frac{t}{t_k}}{=} \\int_{0}^{t_k} F'(u + t \\delta u) \\delta\n    u {{\\mathrm d}}t.$$ Using Lemma \\[lem:kappaScaled\\] and A\\[ass:omega\\] we obtain the first assertion from $$\\begin{aligned}\n    & \\quad\\, {\\left\\lVertF(u_{k+1})\\right\\rVert}\n    = {\\left\\lVertF(u_k) - \\int_{0}^{t_k} F'(u_k - \\tau f(u_k)) f(u_k) {{\\mathrm d}}\\tau\\right\\rVert}_V\\\\\n    &= {\\left\\lVertF(u_k) - t_k F'(u_k) f(u_k) + \\int_{0}^{t_k} \\left[ F'(u_k) -\n    F'(u_k - \\tau f(u_k)) \\right] f(u_k) {{\\mathrm d}}\\tau\\right\\rVert}_V\\\\\n    &\\le {\\left\\lVertF(u_k) - t_k F'(u_k) f(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V\n    + \\int_{0}^{t_k} {\\left\\lVert\\left[ F'(u_k) - F'(u_k - \\tau f(u_k)) \\right]\n    f(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V {{\\mathrm d}}\\tau\\\\\n    &\\le \\left[ 1 - (1 - \\kappa) t_k + \\frac{\\omega}{2} {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U t_k^2\n    \\right] {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ The second assertion follows immediately.\n\nWe can now state a local convergence theorem.\n\n\\[thm:localConvergence\\] Let A\\[ass:validIni\\], A\\[ass:kappa\\], and A\\[ass:omega\\] hold. If there exists a $\\bar{t} \\in (0,1)$ such that $t_k \\ge \\bar{t}$ for all $k \\in \\mathbb{N}$ and if there exists a $\\theta \\in (0, 1)$ such that for some $k \\in\n  \\mathbb{N}$ the iterate $u_k$ satisfies $$\\mathcal{T}(u_k) \\subseteq \\mathcal{R}_r\n  \\quad \\text{and} \\quad\n  \\omega r {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V \\le 2 \\theta (1 - \\kappa),$$ then $(u_k)_{k \\in \\mathbb{N}}$ converges to some point $u^\\ast \\in\n  \\mathcal{T}(u_k)$ with $F(u^\\ast) = 0$.\n\nBecause $t_k \\in [0, 1]$, we have $$\\omega t_k {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U \\le \\omega {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U\n  \\overset{\\text{A\\ref{ass:validIni}}}{\\le} \\omega r {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V\n  \\le 2 \\theta (1 - \\kappa).$$ Hence, repeated application of Lemma \\[lem:Fdecrease\\] yields for all $j \\in\n  \\mathbb{N}$ $$\\label{eqn:geomFConv}\n    {\\left\\lVertF(u_{k+j})\\right\\rVert}_V \n    \\le q^j {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V \\quad \\text{with }\n    q := 1 - (1-\\theta)(1-\\kappa) \\bar{t}.$$ Because $q < 1$, ${\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V$ converges geometrically. In addition, we obtain that $(u_k)_{k \\in\n  \\mathbb{N}}$ is a Cauchy sequence by virtue of $$\\begin{aligned}\n    {\\left\\lVertu_k - u_{k+j}\\right\\rVert}_U &\\le \\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} {\\left\\lVertu_{k+i} - u_{k+i-1}\\right\\rVert}_U\n    = \\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} t_{k+i} {\\left\\lVertf(u_{k+i})\\right\\rVert}_U\\\\\n    &\\le r \\sum_{i=0}^{j-1} {\\left\\lVertF(u_{k+i})\\right\\rVert}_V \n    \\le r {\\left\\lVertF(u_{k})\\right\\rVert}_V \\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty} q^i \n    = \\frac{r}{1-q} {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert} \\overset{k \\to \\infty}{\\longrightarrow} 0.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $(u_{k})_{k \\in \\mathbb{N}}$ converges to some $u^\\ast \\in \\mathcal{T}(u_k)\n  \\subseteq \\mathcal{R}_r$ and implies $F(u^\\ast) = 0$.\n\nFor the rate of convergence, we obtain the following result:\n\n\\[lem:linearconvergence\\] Under the assumptions of Theorem \\[thm:localConvergence\\], ${\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V$ converges linearly with asymptotic linear convergence rate $\\kappa < 1$.\n\nBecause $u_k \\in \\mathcal{R}_r$, it follows that ${\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U \\le r\n  {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V \\to 0$. Hence, there is a sequence $(\\theta_K)_{K \\in\n  \\mathbb{N}}$ with $\\theta_K \\in [0, 1)$ and $\\theta_K \\to 0$ such that $$\\omega t_k {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U \\le 2 \\theta_K (1 - \\kappa) \\quad \\text{for all } k\n  \\ge K.$$ Lemma \\[lem:localFullSteps\\] and repeated application of Lemma \\[lem:Fdecrease\\] then deliver $${\\left\\lVertF(u_{K+1})\\right\\rVert}_V \\le \\left[ 1 - (1-\\theta_K)(1-\\kappa) \\right]\n  {\\left\\lVertF(u_K)\\right\\rVert}_V,$$ where $1 - (1-\\theta_K)(1-\\kappa) \\to \\kappa$ as $K \\to \\infty$.\n\nIn order to obtain methods with guaranteed superlinear or quadratic local convergence, it is necessary to appropriately drive $\\kappa$ to zero as $F(u_k)\n\\to 0$ as exhaustively described by the means of forcing sequences $\\eta_k =\n\\kappa$ in [@Dembo1982].\n\nGlobal convergence\n------------------\n\nThe following lemmas are required for the main theorem, which assures convergence of the iterates to $u_0^\\ast$. As a prerequisite, we prove that every neighborhood of an isolated zero $u^\\ast$ of $F$ contains a path connected level set that contains a neighborhood of $u^\\ast$.\n\n\\[lem:boundedLevelSets\\] Let A\\[ass:validIni\\], A\\[ass:kappa\\], and A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] hold. If there exist $\\varepsilon > 0$ and $u^\\ast \\in D$ such that $u^\\ast$ is the only zero of $F$ on $B(u^\\ast, \\varepsilon) \\subseteq \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap\n  \\mathcal{T}(u_0),$ then there exists an $\\tilde{\\varepsilon} > 0$ with $$\\bigcup_{u \\in B(u^\\ast, \\tilde{\\varepsilon})} \\mathcal{T}(u) \n  \\subseteq B(u^\\ast, \\varepsilon).$$\n\n*Proof by contradiction\u00a0* We assume to the contrary that there exists a sequence $(u_n)_{n \\in\n  \\mathbb{N}}$ with ${\\left\\lVertu_n - u^*\\right\\rVert}_U < \\frac{\\varepsilon}{2n}$ and $\\mathcal{T}(u_n) \\not\\subseteq B(u^*, \\varepsilon)$. Hence, there exists a sequence $(\\tilde{v}_n)_{n \\in \\mathbb{N}}$ with $\\tilde{v}_n \\in \\mathcal{T}(u_n)$ and ${\\left\\lVert\\tilde{v}_n - u^\\ast\\right\\rVert}_U \\ge\n  \\varepsilon$. Because $\\mathcal{T}(u_n)$ is path connected, there exist continuous functions $c_n: [0, 1] \\to \\mathcal{T}(u_n)$ with $c_n(0) = u_n$ and $c_n(1) = \\tilde{v}_n$. Because ${\\left\\lVertc_n(0) - u^*\\right\\rVert}_U <\n  \\frac{\\varepsilon}{2}$ and ${\\left\\lVertc_n(1) - u^*\\right\\rVert}_U \\ge \\varepsilon$, the intermediate value theorem yields the existence of $v_n = c_n(\\tau_n) \\in\n  \\mathcal{T}(u_n)$ for some $\\tau_n \\in [0, 1]$ satisfying $$\\label{eqn:annulus}\n    {\\left\\lVertv_n - u^*\\right\\rVert}_U = \\frac{\\varepsilon}{2}.$$ By Theorem \\[thm:arclength\\], we obtain for the distance to the limit $v_n^\\ast$ of the $r$-regular part of the generalized Newton path emanating from $v_n$ that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    {\\left\\lVertv_n - v_n^\\ast\\right\\rVert}_U \n    &\\le \\ell(v_r^n) < \\frac{r}{1-\\kappa} {\\left\\lVertF(v_n)\\right\\rVert}_V\n    \\le \\frac{r}{1-\\kappa} {\\left\\lVertF(u_n)\\right\\rVert}_V\n    < \\frac{r^2}{1-\\kappa} {\\left\\lVertf(u_n)\\right\\rVert}_U\\\\\n    &= \\frac{r^2}{1-\\kappa} {\\left\\lVertf(u_n) - f(u^*)\\right\\rVert}_U\n    \\le \\frac{r^2L}{1-\\kappa} {\\left\\lVertu_n - u^*\\right\\rVert}_U <\n    \\frac{r^2L\\varepsilon}{2(1-\\kappa)n} \\to 0,\n  \\end{aligned}$$ which implies for some sufficiently large $n$ that $v^*_n \\in B(u^*,\n  \\varepsilon) \\subseteq \\mathcal{R}_r$ and thus $F(v^*_n) = 0$. By we get $v_n^* \\neq u^*$ in contradiction to the uniqueness of $u^*$. We also need a bound on the deviation of two neighboring generalized Newton paths emanating from $u_k$ and $u_{k+1}$.\n\n\\[lem:oneStepError\\] Let A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] hold. If $u^k(t_k + \\tau)$, $u^{k+1}(\\tau) \\in\n  \\mathcal{T}(u_k)$ for all $\\tau \\in [0, t]$, then $${\\left\\lVertu^k(t_k + t) - u^{k+1}(t)\\right\\rVert}_U \n  \\le \\frac{1}{2} {\\left\\lVertf(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U L e^{L(t_k+t)} t_k^2.$$\n\nWe use the integral form of the Gronwall inequality as in [@Potschka2016 Lem.\u00a08.5].\n\nIn order to prove an a priori bound on the decrease of the nonlinear residual for , we need the following Lemma.\n\n\\[lem:sqrtBound\\] Let $h > 0$. If a sequence $(a_k)_{k \\in \\mathbb{N}}$ of nonnegative numbers satisfies $a_{k+1}^2 \\le a_k^2 - 2 h a_k$ for all $k \\in \\mathbb{N},$ then $a_k \\le \\max \\{a_0 - k h, 0\\}$ for all $k \\in \\mathbb{N}.$\n\nIf $a_k \\le 2 h$, it follows that $a_{k+1} = 0$ by virtue of $0 \\le a_{k+1}^2 \\le a_k (a_k - 2h) \\le 0.$ If $a_k > 2 h$, we immediately obtain $a_{k+1}^2 \\le a_k^2 - 2 h a_k + h^2 = (a_k - h)^2.$ Taking the square root completes the proof.\n\nWe can now prove the main theorem of this article.\n\n(0,0) circle (1); (-0.9,0) circle (0.7); (0,-2) arc (-90:90:2); (0,2) arc (90:270:2); (0,2) \u2013 (-1,2); (-1,2) arc (90:150:5); (0,-2) \u2013 (-1,-2); (-1,-2) arc (90:150:1); (0,0) \u2013 (-1,0); (-1,0) arc (90:150:3); (-1,-0.1) \u2013 (-1,0.1); (-0.8,-0.1) \u2013 (-0.8,0.1); (-0.8,-0.7) arc (-90:90:0.7); (-0.8,-0.7) \u2013 (-1,-0.7); (-0.8,0.7) \u2013 (-1,0.7); (-1,0.7) arc(90:150:3.7); (-1,-0.7) arc(90:150:2.3); (0,0) circle (2pt) node\\[right\\] [$u_0^\\ast$]{}; (-0.9,-1.2) \u2013 (-0.9,0) node [(0,0) circle (1pt);]{}; at (0,-1.4) [$u^0\\left( \\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} t_i \\right)$]{}; at (0,1) [$B(u_0^\\ast, \\frac{\\varepsilon}{2})$]{}; at (-3.8,1.5) [$\\mathcal{N}_\\varepsilon$]{}; at (-3,0.5) [$\\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}$]{}; at (-2.5,-0.1) [$u^0(t)$]{};\n\n\\[thm:convergenceBSC\\] Let A\\[ass:validIni\\], A\\[ass:kappa\\], A\\[ass:omega\\], A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\], and A\\[ass:gamma\\] hold. If there exists an $\\varepsilon > 0$ such that $$\\mathcal{N}_\\varepsilon := \\bigcup_{t \\in [0, \\infty)} B(u^0(t), \\varepsilon)\n  \\subseteq \\mathcal{R}_r$$ and $u_0^\\ast$ is an isolated zero of $F$, then there exist constants ${\\overline{H}} >0$, $K < \\infty$, and $c > 0$ such that the following statements hold true:\n\n1.  For all $H \\in (0, {\\overline{H}}]$ iteration with step size selection converges to $u_0^\\ast$.\n\n2.  After $\\smash[t]{\\bar{k}} = \\lceil K / \\smash[t]{\\sqrt{H}} \\rceil$ steps, $u_{\\bar{k}}$ lies in the region of local full step convergence.\n\n3.  The sequence of residual norms ${\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V$ decreases geometrically and satisfies the additional a priori bound $$\\sqrt{{\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V}\n            \\le \\sqrt{{\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V} - k c \\sqrt{H}$$ for all $k \\in \\{ i \\in \\mathbb{N} \\mid t_j < 1, j = 0, \\dotsc, i \\}$, which includes $k = \\smash[t]{\\bar{k}}.$\n\nBecause $u_0^\\ast$ is an isolated zero of $F$, we can assume without loss of generality that $\\varepsilon > 0$ was chosen small enough such that $u_0^\\ast$ is the only zero of $F$ in $\\mathcal{N}_\\varepsilon$. Let now $\\theta \\in (0, 1)$. We further assume without loss of generality $\\varepsilon$ to be sufficiently small to satisfy $\\omega r^2 L \\varepsilon \\le 2 \\theta (1-\\kappa)$. It follows with A\\[ass:validIni\\] and A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\] that for all $u\n  \\in B(u_0^\\ast, \\varepsilon)$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n    \\omega r {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V \n    &< \\omega r^2 {\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U\n    = \\omega r^2 {\\left\\lVertf(u) - f(u_0^\\ast)\\right\\rVert}_U\\\\\n    &\\le \\omega r^2 L {\\left\\lVertu - u_0^\\ast\\right\\rVert}_U\n    < \\omega r^2 L \\varepsilon\n    \\le 2 \\theta (1 - \\kappa).\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Thus, Theorem \\[thm:localConvergence\\] establishes that $B(u_0^\\ast,\n  \\varepsilon)$ is contained in the region of local full step convergence. By possibly reducing $\\varepsilon$ further according to Lemma \\[lem:boundedLevelSets\\], we can guarantee that if $u_{k} \\in\n  B(u_0^\\ast, \\varepsilon)$ for some $k \\in \\mathbb{N}$, then $(u_k)_k$ converges to the unique zero $u_0^\\ast$ in $\\mathcal{N}_\\varepsilon.$ For the first statement, it now remains to show that $u_k \\in B(u_0^\\ast,\n  \\varepsilon)$ for some $k \\in \\mathbb{N}.$\n\nTo this end, we choose $T_\\ast < \\infty$ such that $${\\left\\lVertu^0(t) - u_0^\\ast\\right\\rVert}_U \\le \\frac{\\varepsilon}{2} \\quad \\text{for all } t\n  \\ge T_\\ast - 1.$$ Because $u_0^\\ast$ is the only zero of $F$ on $\\mathcal{N}_\\varepsilon$, we can choose an $\\tilde{\\varepsilon} \\in (0, \\frac{\\varepsilon}{2})$ such that there is an $\\eta > 0$ satisfying $${\\left\\lVertf(u)\\right\\rVert}_U > \\eta \\quad \\text{for all } \n  u \\in \\mathcal{T}(u_0) \\cap \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}, \\text{ where }\n  \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}} := \\bigcup_{t \\in [0, T_\\ast]} B(u^0(t),\n  \\tilde{\\varepsilon}).$$ From A\\[ass:gamma\\] we obtain the existence of constants $\\gamma > 0$ and $t_\\gamma \\in (0, 1)$ such that $$\\label{eqn:lbg}\n    {\\left\\lVertg(u, t)\\right\\rVert}_U \\ge \\gamma t \\quad \\text{for all } t \\in [0, t_\\gamma]\n    \\text{ and } u \\in \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}.$$ We can then use $\\bar{t} = t_\\gamma$ in Lemma \\[lem:upperStepsizeBound\\] to obtain a constant ${\\overline{H}} > 0$ such that $$\\label{eqn:ubtk}\n    \\min \\mathcal{B}_H(u) \\le t_\\gamma < 1 \\quad \\text{for all } H \\in (0,\n    {\\overline{H}}] \\text{ and } u \\in \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}.$$ In anticipation of a later argument in the proof, we can assume without loss of generality that ${\\overline{H}}$ is sufficiently small to satisfy $$\\label{eqn:smallHbar}\n    T_\\ast e^{L T_\\ast}\\left( rL {\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V \\right)^{\\frac{3}{2}}\n    \\smash[t]{{\\overline{H}}}^{\\frac{1}{2}} \\le 2 \\gamma \\tilde{\\varepsilon}.$$ Combining the inequalities and with , we see that $$\\label{eqn:lbtk2}\n    \\gamma t_k^2 \\le t_k {\\left\\lVertg(u_k, t_k)\\right\\rVert}_U \\le H \\quad \\text{for all } H \\in\n    (0, {\\overline{H}}] \\text{ and } u_k \\in \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}.$$ We now choose an $H$-dependent $\\bar{k} \\in \\mathbb{N}$ that satisfies $$T_\\ast - 1 \\le \\sum_{i=0}^{\\bar{k}-1} t_i \\le T_\\ast$$ and show by induction that $u_k \\in \\mathcal{T}(u_0) \\cap\n  \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}$ for all $k \\le \\bar{k}$, which clearly holds true for $k=0$ because $u_0 = u^0(0) \\in B(u_0, \\tilde{\\varepsilon}).$ We can now assume inductively that $u_i \\in \\mathcal{T}(u_0) \\cap\n  \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}$ for all $i \\le k-1$ with $k \\le \\bar{k}$ in order to show $u_k \\in  \\mathcal{T}(u_0) \\cap\n  \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}.$ Because $\\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}} \\subseteq \\mathcal{R}_r$, it follows from that $t_i < 1$. Hence, Lemma \\[lem:lowerStepsizeBound\\] yields $$T_\\ast \\ge\n  \\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} t_i \\ge k \\frac{\\sqrt{H}}{\\sqrt{r L {\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V}},$$ which implies the bound $$\\label{eqn:ubkbar}\n    k \\le \\frac{T_\\ast \\sqrt{rL{\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V}}{\\sqrt{H}}.$$ We then obtain by a telescope argument, Lemma \\[lem:oneStepError\\], A\\[ass:validIni\\], , , and that $$\\begin{aligned}\n    {\\left\\lVertu^0 \\left( \\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} t_i \\right) - u_k\\right\\rVert}_U\n    &\\le \\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} {\\left\\lVertu^j \\left( \\sum_{i=j}^{k-1} t_i \\right) -\n    u^{j+1} \\left( \\sum_{i=j+1}^{k-1} t_i \\right)\\right\\rVert}_U\\\\\n    &\\le\n    \\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \\frac{1}{2} {\\left\\lVertf(u_{j})\\right\\rVert}_U L e^{L T_\\ast} t_j^2\n    < \\frac{rL e^{LT_\\ast} {\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V}{2 \\gamma} H k\\\\\n    &\\le \\frac{T_\\ast e^{LT_\\ast} \\left( rL {\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V\n    \\right)^{\\frac{3}{2}} }{2 \\gamma} \\sqrt{H} \\le \\tilde{\\varepsilon}.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ Because $\\sum_{i=0}^{k-1} t_i \\le T_\\ast$, we have established by induction that $u_k \\in \\mathcal{T}(u_0) \\cap \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}$ for all $k \\le \\bar{k}$. Finally, $u_{\\bar{k}} \\in B(u_0^\\ast, \\varepsilon)$ by virtue of $${\\left\\lVertu_0^\\ast - u_{\\bar{k}}\\right\\rVert}_U\n  \\le {\\left\\lVert u_0^\\ast - u^0 \\left( \\sum_{i=0}^{\\bar{k}-1} t_i \\right)\\right\\rVert}_U\n  + {\\left\\lVert u^0 \\left( \\sum_{i=0}^{\\bar{k}-1} t_i \\right) - u_{\\bar{k}}\\right\\rVert}_U\n  < \\frac{\\varepsilon}{2} + \\tilde{\\varepsilon} < \\varepsilon.$$ This proves the first statement. The second assertion follows from by choosing $K = T_\\ast\n  \\sqrt{r L {\\left\\lVertF(u_0)\\right\\rVert}_V}$ for $k = \\bar{k}$. For the third statement, we obtain from the lower step size bound of Lemma \\[lem:lowerStepsizeBound\\] and Lemma \\[lem:Fdecrease\\] that for all $k$ with $t_k < 1$ it holds that $$\\begin{gathered}\n    {\\left\\lVertF(u_{k+1})\\right\\rVert}_V \\le \\left[ 1 - (1-\\theta)(1-\\kappa)t_k \\right]\n    {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V\n    \\le {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V - 2 c \\sqrt{H {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V},\\\\\n    \\text{with } c = \\frac{(1-\\theta)(1-\\kappa)}{2 \\sqrt{rL}} > 0.\n  \\end{gathered}$$ Hence, the residual norm sequence converges geometrically and Lemma \\[lem:sqrtBound\\] yields the a priori bound with $a_k =\n  \\sqrt{{\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V}$ and $h = c \\sqrt{H}$. Because we established $u_k \\in\n  \\mathcal{N}_{\\tilde{\\varepsilon}}$ for all $k \\le \\smash[t]{\\bar{k}}$ in the proof of the first statement, we obtain $t_k < 1$ for all $k \\le\n  \\smash[t]{\\bar{k}}$ from , which completes the proof.\n\nA note on generalizations to Banach spaces {#sec:Banach}\n------------------------------------------\n\nThe only step in the convergence proof that exploits the Hilbert space structure of $V$ is Lemma \\[lem:Fdescent\\]. All remaining steps can be carried out even if $V$ is only a Banach space. The general approach here is to modify the used level function and to require an additional assumption akin to condition A\\[ass:kappa\\].\n\nIn this section, we shortly present the necessary modifications for the special case of the Lebesgue space $V =\nL^p(\\Omega)$ of real-valued $p$-integrable functions with $ 2 < p <\n\\infty$ and $\\Omega \\subset \\mathbb{R}^n$. First, we need to consider a different level function $$T_p(u) = \\frac{1}{p} {\\left\\lVertF(u)\\right\\rVert}_V^p \n= \\frac{1}{p} \\int_{\\Omega} {\\left\\lvertF(u)(s)\\right\\rvert}^p {{\\mathrm d}}s,$$ with analogously defined level sets $\\mathcal{T}_p(u)$. In addition to A\\[ass:kappa\\], we require pointwise that $$\\left[F(u) - F'(u)f(u)\\right](s) \\le \\kappa {\\left\\lvertF(u)(s)\\right\\rvert} \\quad \\text{for almost all } s\n\\in \\Omega \\text{ and all } u \\in \\mathcal{R}_r \\cap \\mathcal{T}_p(u_0).$$ Standard arguments on the differentiability of $p$-norms (see, e.g., [@Lieb2001 Thm. 2.6]) then deliver with the abbreviation $u = u^k(t)$ that $$\\begin{aligned}\n  & \\quad\\, \\frac{{{\\mathrm d}}}{{{\\mathrm d}}t} T_p(u^k(t))\n  = -\\int_{\\Omega} {\\left\\lvertF(u)(s)\\right\\rvert}^{p-2} \\left[ F(u)(s) \\cdot ( F'(u) f(u)) (s)\n  \\right] {{\\mathrm d}}s\\\\\n  &= -\\int_{\\Omega} {\\left\\lvertF(u)(s)\\right\\rvert}^p {{\\mathrm d}}s \n  + \\int_{\\Omega} {\\left\\lvertF(u)(s)\\right\\rvert}^{p-2} \\left[ F(u)(s) \\cdot (F(u) - F'(u) f(u))\n  (s) \\right] {{\\mathrm d}}s\\\\\n  &\\le -p T_p(u)\n  + \\int_{\\Omega} {\\left\\lvertF(u)(s)\\right\\rvert}^{p-1} (F(u) - F'(u) f(u)) (s) {{\\mathrm d}}s\\\\\n  &\\le -p(1-\\kappa) T_p(u) \\le 0.\\end{aligned}$$ After application of Gronwall\u2019s inequality, multiplication by $p$ and taking the $p$-th root, we establish the result of Lemma \\[lem:Fdescent\\] $${\\left\\lVertF(u^k(t))\\right\\rVert}_V \\le e^{-(1-\\kappa)t} {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V.$$\n\nAlgorithmic realization {#sec:realization}\n-----------------------\n\nThe algorithmic realization of can be carried over verbatim from the finite-dimensional setting laid out in [@Potschka2016 section\u00a010] with the use of ${\\left\\lVert.\\right\\rVert}_U$ for all occuring norms. As in [@Potschka2016], we do not use monotone iterations [@Galantai2014] for numerical computations here but use the bisection procedure with exponentially smoothed step size prediction. For convenience, we sketch it again: In order to determine $t_k$ from , we approximately compute a zero of the Lipschitz continuous scalar function $t \\mapsto t {\\left\\lVertg(u_k, t)\\right\\rVert}_U - H$ by a bracketing procedure. Numerically, we are content with a $t_k$ that satisfies $$\\label{eqn:HlHu}\n  H'_k := t_k {\\left\\lVertg(u_k, t_k)\\right\\rVert}_U \\in [H^\\mathrm{l}, H^\\mathrm{u}] \n  \\quad \\text{or} \\quad\n  t_k \\approx 1 \\text{ and } H'_k < H^\\mathrm{l},$$ where $H^\\mathrm{l} < H$ and $H^\\mathrm{u} > H$ are close to $H$.\n\nFor illustration purposes, we provide in Table \\[alg:example\\_atan\\] example code in Matlab, which computes for the real-valued function $F(u) =\n\\arctan(u)$ the iterates $u_1, \\dotsc, u_5$ of iteration with $M(u) = F'(u)^{-1} = u^2 + 1$ and step sizes $t_k$ satisfying , starting from $u_0 = 2$ for $H = 0.8$. Full step Newton diverges for this choice of $u_0$. For the sake of brevity, the remaining algorithmic parameters suggested in [@Potschka2016 section\u00a010.2] are used as explict values in the code and termination and error checks are omitted.\n\n      k       t         u        du       dup    Hprime\n      0  1.0000   2.0e+00  -5.5e+00   1.7e+01   2.3e+01  decrease t\n      0  0.5000   2.0e+00  -5.5e+00   1.0e+00   3.3e+00  decrease t\n      0  0.2500   2.0e+00  -5.5e+00  -7.6e-01   1.2e+00  accept t\n      1  0.2335   6.2e-01  -7.6e-01  -4.9e-01   6.3e-02  increase t\n      1  0.6168   6.2e-01  -7.6e-01  -1.5e-01   3.8e-01  accept t\n      2  0.7543   1.5e-01  -1.5e-01  -3.4e-02   8.6e-02  accept t\n      3  1.0000   3.4e-02  -3.4e-02   2.7e-05   3.4e-02  accept t\n      4  1.0000  -2.7e-05   2.7e-05  -1.3e-14   2.7e-05  accept t\n      5  1.0000   1.3e-14  -1.3e-14  -0.0e+00   1.3e-14  accept t\n      \n\nWe display the output in Table \\[tab:output\\]. Each line in the output corresponds to one evaluation of $f(u) = M(u) F(u)$, not counting the initial evaluation of $f(u_0)$. We observe that for $k = 0$, two bisection steps are required to reduce $t_0$ to $\\frac{1}{4}$. For $k = 1$, one bisection step is required to increase $t_1$ to above $0.6$. For $k \\ge 2$, the predicted step sizes are accepted without further bisection steps. The iterate $u_5$, which is known already at the end of iteration 4, is an acceptable solution candidate, because ${\\left\\lVert\\delta u_5\\right\\rVert}_2 \\approx 1.3 \\cdot 10^{-14}$.\n\nThe smoothed step size prediction in line 5 is vital for reducing the number of bracketing steps. The predicted step size often already satisfies in all but a few iterations and thus almost no extra computational effort in terms of increment evaluations $f(u_k)$, which typically comprise setting up and solving one linear system, is required for the globalization procedure in most iterations.\n\nDiscussion of drawbacks\n-----------------------\n\nBackward step control appears to suffer from two substantial drawbacks: First, it depends on a problem specific parameter $H > 0$ that needs to be chosen sufficiently small for convergence, but not too small to cause unecessarily many iterations and thus inefficiency of the method. Second, it may not converge in one step on affine linear problems. We argue here that these two seemingly detrimental properties are actually *necessary* for the class of methods that converge to the closest solution (in the sense of the Newton flow): Let us assume we want to solve a one-dimensional nonlinear equation $F(u) = 0$, $F:\n\\mathbb{R} \\to \\mathbb{R}$, with a certain *parameter-free* nonlinear method. Assume it produces a sequence of iterates $(u^k)_{k \\in \\mathbb{N}}\n\\subset \\mathbb{R}$ that converges to some $u^\\ast \\neq u^0$. Because $u^0$ cannot be an accumulation point of $(u^k)_{k \\in \\mathbb{N}}$, we can find the closest iterate $u^j$ to $u^0$ for some $j \\in \\mathbb{N}$. Any function that differs from $F$ only on the open interval $I$ between $u^0$ and $u^j$ will inevitably lead to the same iterates $(u^k)_{k \\in \\mathbb{N}}$ if we apply the parameter-free nonlinear method to it. Thus, we can modify $F$ smoothly on $I$ to introduce zeros of $F$ that are closer to $u^0$ than $u^\\ast$. We illustrate this construction for an affine linear $F$ in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:drawback\\]. We conclude that any method that provably converges to the closest zero must depend on a parameter such as $H$ to account for problem specific quantities that are virtually impossible to estimate numerically.\n\nMoreover, existing globalization methods [@Deuflhard1991; @Hohmann1994; @Deuflhard1998; @Deuflhard2006] are not parameter free either, because they require an initial step size guess $t_0$ that needs to be sufficiently small.\n\nDesign of Newton-type methods {#sec:designM}\n=============================\n\nThe convergence analysis of backward step control lends itself immediately to the design of globally convergent Newton-type methods. The two required steps are:\n\n1.  Define $M$ (or directly $f$) respecting the $\\kappa$-condition A\\[ass:kappa\\].\n\n2.  Use to determine the step size sequence $(t_k)$.\n\nThe second step is generic. For the first step, we give two important examples in the following two sections. Both methods find approximations $\\delta u_k$ of the Newton increment $\\delta\nu_k^\\mathrm{Newton}$ determined by the (infinite-dimensional) linear system $$\\label{eqn:HilbertSpaceNewton}\n  F'(u_k) \\delta u_k^\\mathrm{Newton} = -F(u_k).$$ We emphasize that the operator $M(u_k)$ is implicitly determined by requiring $\\delta u_k = -M(u_k) F(u_k)$. It is not required to actually compute $M(u_k)$, as long as we have $\\delta u_k$. However, we need to make sure that $f$ is Lipschitz continuous with respect to $u$.\n\nKrylov\u2013Newton methods {#sec:KrylovNewton}\n---------------------\n\nKrylov subspace methods like CG, MINRES, or GMRES [@Hestenes1952; @Paige1975; @Saad1986] for the iterative solution of linear systems, originally developed for large but finite-dimensional sparse systems, can also be stated for infinite-dimensional linear operators. The convergence theory is more complicated in the infinite-dimensional case (see, e.g., [@Nevanlinna1993; @Gasparo2008]). The structure of the linear mapping $F'(u_k): U \\to V$ does usually not immediately admit the application of Krylov subspace methods, unless a left preconditioner $P_k: V \\to U$ is available, such that $A_k := P_k F'(u_k)$ is an endomorphism on $U$. Then, the $m$-th iterate $\\delta u_k^{m}$ of a Krylov subspace method applied to is an approximate solution restricted to the (at most $m$-dimensional) $m$-th Krylov subspace $$\\mathcal{K}^m(A_k, P_k F(u_k)) = \\left\\{ q(A_k) P_k F(u_k) \\mid\n  q \\text{ is a polynomial of degree less than } m \\right\\}.$$ We now focus on residual minimizing Krylov subspace like GMRES and MINRES, which are constructed on the basis of the additional optimality requirement $$\\label{eqn:residual_minimizing}\n  \\delta u_k^m = \\operatorname*{arg~min}_{\\delta u \\in \\mathcal{K}^m(A_k, P_k F(u_k))}\n  {\\left\\lVertP_k F(u_k) + A_k \\delta u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U.$$ As in [@Guennel2014], we investigate the important special case where $V = U^\\ast$. In this setting, we can choose $P_k$ as the Riesz isomorphism and immediately obtain $$\\label{eqn:Krylov}\n  \\begin{aligned}\n    {\\left\\lVertP_k F(u_k) + A_k \\delta u_k)\\right\\rVert}_U &=\n    {\\left\\lVertP_k \\left[ F(u_k) + F'(u_k) \\delta u_k \\right]\\right\\rVert}_U\\\\\n    &= {\\left\\lVertF(u_k) + F'(u_k) \\delta u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V.\n  \\end{aligned}$$ In the light of and , the $\\kappa$-condition A\\[ass:kappa\\] is nothing but the classical relative termination condition used by Krylov subspace methods with given relative tolerance $\\kappa$. In other words, GMRES and MINRES choose from the Krylov subspace the increment that achieves the smallest left-hand side in the condition of A\\[ass:kappa\\] and thus yield (with Lemma \\[lem:linearconvergence\\]) an asymptotic linear convergence rate bounded above by $\\kappa$ for the nonlinear Krylov\u2013Newton method. Also for other Krylov space methods like preconditioned CG, the most commonly used termination criterion is that of the relative residual, even though the relative residual is not guaranteed to decrease monotonically. Thus, the backward step convergence theory of section\u00a0\\[sec:convergence\\] delivers suitable termination criteria for the inner linear iterations. In particular, a rather loose relative stopping criterion of, say, $\\kappa =\n\\frac{1}{10}$ delivers asymptotically already one decimal digit of accuracy per nonlinear iteration.\n\nWith this approach, there is one theoretic gap we need to close: The increment $-f(u_k) = -M(u_k) F(u_k) = \\delta u_k^m$ depends on the number of Krylov subspace iterations $m$, which is determined adaptively. As a concatenation of a finite number of Lipschitz continuous operations, the $m$-th Krylov iterate depends Lipschitz continuously on $u_k$, but changes in $m$ from one nonlinear $k$-iteration to another can lead to discontinuities in the operator $M$. However, a small modification of the above approach can make sure that $M(u)$ and thus $f(u)$ are Lipschitz continuous with respect to $u$, as required for A\\[ass:fLipschitz\\]: Instead of using the final iterate $\\delta u_k^m$, we could use a linear combination $f(u_k) = (1-\\alpha_k) \\delta\nu_k^{m-1} + \\alpha_k \\delta u_k^m$ of the two last iterates such that instead of the inequality A\\[ass:kappa\\] the equality $$\\nu(\\alpha_k) := {\\left\\lVertF(u_k) + F'(u_k) \\left[ (1-\\alpha_k) \\delta u_k^{m-1} +\n\\alpha_k \\delta u_k^m \\right]\\right\\rVert}_V = \\kappa {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V$$ holds for some $\\alpha_k \\in [0, 1]$. This is always possible by virtue of the intermediate value theorem applied to the continuous function $\\nu(\\alpha)$, which satisfies $\\nu(0) > \\kappa {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}$ and $\\nu(1) \\le \\kappa\n{\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}$ because the Krylov subspace method has terminated in step $m$ but not yet in step $m-1$. If we now assume that there is an upper bound on the number of Krylov iterations required to satisfy the relative termination criterion A\\[ass:kappa\\] on the level set of $u^0$, we can establish Lipschitz continuity of $M$.\n\nBased on our experience in practical computations, however, it is more efficient to always use $\\alpha_k = 1$ and robustify the bisection procedure for the approximate solution to against discontinuities of $g$ by relaxing the lower bound $H^\\mathrm{l}$ in closer to zero. This might give rise to smaller than necessary step sizes $t_k$, which has not been observed to be problematic in practical computations, but usually delivers faster local residual contraction once $t_k = 1$.\n\nWe report numerical results of a Krylov\u2013Newton method for the Carrier equation in section\u00a0\\[sec:carrier\\].\n\nApproximation by discretization {#sec:M_by_discretization}\n-------------------------------\n\nFollowing the multilevel Newton approach of [@Hohmann1994], we can also compute an approximate solution $\\delta u_k$ by first discretizing and then (approximately) solving the discretized system. The $\\kappa$-condition A\\[ass:kappa\\] yields a computable criterion for checking if the approximation is accurate enough to ensure convergence in $U$. If not, we need to improve the discretization (and possibly the accuracy of the approximate solution to the resulting finite-dimensional linear system).\n\nIn this conceptually simple approach, challenges can arise in the evaluation of the $V$-norms in A\\[ass:kappa\\]. We address these issues for the case of an elliptic partial differential equation in section\u00a0\\[sec:minsurf\\]. Moreover, the evaluation of the $V$-norm in A\\[ass:kappa\\] can provide a means to adaptively discretize and in turn also the original nonlinear problem.\n\nAs in section\u00a0\\[sec:KrylovNewton\\], the procedure for approximating a solution to usually involves some discrete decisions, for instance the marking and refinement of certain discretization cells as $k$ increases. Thus, the so constructed $f(u)$ is not Lipschitz continuous. A smoothed formulation akin to the interpolation construction in section\u00a0\\[sec:KrylovNewton\\] exceeds the scope of this article and shall be investigated in future work.\n\nNumerical examples from nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems {#sec:ellipticPDE}\n==================================================================\n\nIn this section, we illustrate the general paradigms presented in section\u00a0\\[sec:M\\_by\\_discretization\\] for the class of elliptic boundary value problems on a bounded domain $\\Omega \\subset {{\\mathbb R}}^n$ with continuously differentiable boundary $\\partial \\Omega$ that can be cast as nonlinear root-finding problems with the Sobolev spaces $U = H^1_0(\\Omega)$ and $V =\nH^{-1}(\\Omega)$.\n\nBased on the Poincar\u00e9 inequality (see, e.g., [@Evans2010]), we can use the inner product $${\\left(u,v\\right)}_U = \\int_{\\Omega} \\nabla u \\cdot \\nabla v$$ for the Hilbert space $U$. For the Hilbert space $V$, we can then compute norms via the Riesz representation theorem [@Yosida1978 \u00a7III.3]: For every $v\n\\in V$, there exists a uniquely determined $r_v \\in U$ such that $$\\label{eqn:RieszRepresentation}\n  {\\left(u, r_v\\right)}_U = \\int_{\\Omega} v u \\text{ for all } u \\in U\n  \\quad \\text{and} \\quad\n  {\\left\\lVertv\\right\\rVert}_V = {\\left\\lVertr_v\\right\\rVert}_U.$$\n\nWe investigate the numerical performance of backward step control on two nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems on bounded domains $\\Omega$ with continuously differentiable boundary.\n\nAll algorithmic parameters of backward step control are chosen as in [@Potschka2016] unless otherwise stated.\n\nPreconditioned Krylov subspace methods {#sec:PGMRES}\n--------------------------------------\n\nWe first illustrate the general Krylov subspace method approach presented in section\u00a0\\[sec:KrylovNewton\\]. As our focus in the case of Krylov\u2013Newton methods here lies on a concise algorithmic statement rather than ultimate computational speed, we use Chebfun [@Battles2004; @Driscoll2014] as an algorithmic tool for the numerical results in section\u00a0\\[sec:carrier\\], because it allows to compute numerically with functions (represented as adaptively truncated Chebyshev expansions) instead of numbers [@Trefethen2007] and supports the automatic computation of Fr\u00e9chet derivatives by the use of automatic differentiation in function space [@Birkisson2012].\n\nBecause the linear operators in Chebfun are implemented in strong form, we also use the strong form of the inner product in $U$ $${\\left(u,v\\right)}_U = -\\int_{-1}^{1} u {\\Delta}v = -\\int_{-1}^{1} v {\\Delta}u,$$ (which requires $u$ or $v$ to have square integrable second derivatives). It follows from that $$-\\int_{-1}^{1} u {\\Delta}r_v = {\\left(u, r_v\\right)}_U = \\int_{-1}^{1} v u \n\\quad \\text{for all } u \\in U,$$ and, thus, $r_v = -{\\Delta}^{-1} v$ and $${\\left\\lVertv\\right\\rVert}_V^2 = {\\left\\lVertr_v\\right\\rVert}_U^2 = {\\left\\lVert-{\\Delta}^{-1} v\\right\\rVert}_U^2.\n$$ In Chebfun, ${\\Delta}^{-1}$ can be evaluated efficiently using ultraspherical spectral collocation [@Olver2013]. Based on these prerequisites, we modified Chebfun\u2019s builtin GMRES to use the inner product and norm of $U$ (instead of $L^2(\\Omega)$) in combination with ${\\Delta}^{-1}$ as a preconditioner, which yields the correct residual norm ${\\left\\lVert{\\Delta}^{-1}v\\right\\rVert}_U = {\\left\\lVertv\\right\\rVert}_V$. We note that we could have used MINRES or even CG because the resulting left-preconditioned linear system is self-adjoint and positive definite in the case at hand [@Guennel2014]. This does not affect our results dramatically, because GMRES produces the same iterates as MINRES for self-adjoint systems. However, the current version of Chebfun does not ship a MINRES implementation. The numerical results for the Carrier equation in section\u00a0\\[sec:carrier\\] indicate that using the Riesz isomorphism as a preconditioner works satisfactorily in our example.\n\n### Application to the Carrier equation {#sec:carrier}\n\nFor $\\varepsilon > 0$, we want to determine a real-valued function $u(x)$ on $x \\in [-1, 1]$ that solves the nonlinear second order boundary value problem $$\\label{eqn:carrier}\n  \\varepsilon {\\Delta}u + 2 (1-x^2) u + u^2 = 1, \\quad u(\\pm 1) = 0,$$ which\u2014according to [@Bender1999 \u00a79.7]\u2014is due to Carrier. For small $\\varepsilon$, it becomes challenging to solve because of the existence of many local solutions (compare Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:carrier\\_solution\\]).\n\nWe apply the GMRES\u2013Newton method described in section\u00a0\\[sec:PGMRES\\] to and illustrate the convergence of the method in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:carrier\\_convergence\\] for $\\varepsilon\n= 10^{-3}$, $\\kappa = 10^{-2}$, and varying values of $H = H_\\mathrm{rel}\n{\\left\\lVert\\delta u_0\\right\\rVert}_U$, where we choose $H_\\mathrm{rel} \\in \\{ 0.5, 0.1, 0.05,\n0.01 \\}$. The initial guess is $u_0 = 0$ and the termination criterion is ${\\left\\lVertF(x_k)\\right\\rVert}_V \\le 10^{-11}$. The relative GMRES termination tolerance $\\kappa$ was chosen rather large but at the same time small enough to ensure sufficiently fast local convergence with two decimal digits per iteration. We first observe that no convergence can be obtained for $H_\\mathrm{rel} = 0.5$, even though ${\\left\\lVertF(u_{41})\\right\\rVert}_V$ drops below $2.6 \\cdot 10^{-5}$ and ${\\left\\lVert\\delta u_7\\right\\rVert}_U \\approx 0.28$. From these numbers we can estimate the nonlinearity of the problem in terms of $\\omega$ and its well-posedness in terms of $r$ based on Lemma \\[lem:Fdecrease\\], which yields $$\\omega \\ge 2 (1 - \\kappa) / (t_7 {\\left\\lVertf(u_7)\\right\\rVert}_U) \\approx 7.1\n\\quad \\text{and} \\quad\n\\omega r \\ge 2 (1 - \\kappa) / (t_{41} {\\left\\lVertF(u_{41})\\right\\rVert}_V) \\approx 7.6 \\cdot\n10^{4}$$ and shows that the problem is highly nonlinear.\n\nFor the remaining choices of $H_\\mathrm{rel}$ we obtain convergence, albeit a different local solution is found for $H_\\mathrm{rel} = 0.1$ than for the others (compare Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:carrier\\_solution\\]), which nicely confirms the theory of Theorem \\[thm:convergenceBSC\\]. As guaranteed by Lemma \\[lem:localFullSteps\\], full steps $t_k = 1$ are taken in the vicinity of a solution and we can clearly observe the asymptotic linear convergence rate of $\\kappa = 10^{-2}$ for the residual norm predicted by Lemma \\[lem:linearconvergence\\]. The final increment norms seem rather large because we do not compute $\\delta u_k$ if ${\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V$ is already below $10^{-11}$. Thus, the last increment norm lags behind by one iteration and would be much smaller if we computed it again for the final iterate.\n\nIn Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:carrier\\_gmres\\], we see that the number of GMRES iterations needed in each nonlinear iteration stays moderately small. In each GMRES iteration, one operator-vector-multiplication must be carried out, which we compute via Chebfun as a directional derivative of $F$. In total, 1255 ($H_\\mathrm{rel} = 0.1$), 1455 ($H_\\mathrm{rel} = 0.05$), and 2471 ($H_\\mathrm{rel} = 0.01$) directional derivatives of $F$ are required to solve the problem.\n\nIn addition, we can observe from Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:carrier\\_gmres\\] that the predicted step size $t_k$ needs to be corrected only in few iterations $k$ by the backward step control bisection procedure outlined in section\u00a0\\[sec:realization\\]. In the first iteration, four ($H_\\mathrm{rel} = 0.1, 0.05$) and five ($H_\\mathrm{rel} = 0.01$) bisection steps are required to reduce the initial step size guess $t_0 = 1$. In all other iterations marked by $\\bullet$ in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:carrier\\_gmres\\], only one additional bisection step is necessary, except in iteration $k=8$ for $H_\\mathrm{rel} = 0.1$ and $k=21$ for $H_\\mathrm{rel} = 0.01$, where two bisection steps need to be taken. This backs up our claim that the computational overhead of backward step control is small.\n\nApproximation by Finite Elements {#sec:FE}\n--------------------------------\n\nIn contrast to section\u00a0\\[sec:PGMRES\\], we now explicitly discretize the increment $\\delta u_k$ and the step determination equation by Finite Elements: To this end, let $\\mathcal{C}$ be a partition of $\\Omega$ into cells $C \\in\n\\mathcal{C}$. We can then construct the finite-dimensional Finite Element subspace $$U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p = \\left\\{ u \\in C^0(\\Omega) \\mid u \\text{ is a polynomial\nof degree $p$ on each } C \\in \\mathcal{C} \\right\\} \\subset U.$$ The increment is then determined by finding $\\delta u_k \\in U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p$ such that $$\\label{eqn:discretizedincrement}\n  (F'(u_k) \\delta u_k) \\varphi = -F(u_k) \\varphi \\quad \n  \\text{for all } \\varphi \\in U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p.$$ By fixing a nodal basis of $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p$, we obtain a linear system with a large but sparse (typically symmetric positive definite) ${\\left\\lvertU_{\\mathcal{C}}^p\\right\\rvert}$-by-${\\left\\lvertU_{\\mathcal{C}}^p\\right\\rvert}$ matrix.\n\n### Computation of norms in $V$\n\nThe discretization in the previous paragraph is completely standard. We now describe the non-standard part, which comprises the computation of $$\\label{eqn:kappak}\n  {\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V \\quad \\text{and} \\quad \n  \\kappa_k := \\frac{{\\left\\lVertF(u_k) + F'(u_k) \\delta u_k\\right\\rVert}_V}{{\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V}$$ in the space $V = H^{-1}(\\Omega)$. To this end, we use again the Riesz representation . However, using the same Finite Element subspace $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p$ for the discretization of would yield the wrong value $\\kappa_k = 0$ because the numerator vanishes. Moreover, using $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p$ would also give wrong results for ${\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V$ because the residual projected on $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p$ converges locally quadratic (as a Newton method on a finite-dimensional space) if we solve exactly, but does not see the discretization error. Thus, we need to solve on richer Finite Element spaces. The numerical results in section\u00a0\\[sec:minsurf\\] indicate that choosing $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^{p+1}$ seems to be sufficient for good estimates of the required $V$-norms.\n\n### Adaptive mesh refinement to minimize the contraction rate $\\kappa$\n\nUsing $p$-refinement for the solution of instead of refinement of $\\mathcal{C}$ has two advantages: First, the increase in the degrees of freedom ${\\left\\lvert\\smash[b]{\\smash[t]{U_{\\mathcal{C}}^{p+1}}}\\right\\rvert}$ with respect to ${\\left\\lvertU_{\\mathcal{C}}^p\\right\\rvert}$ is only moderate if $p$ is moderately large, e.g., $p = 3$. Second, the squared norm $\\smash[t]{{\\left\\lVertr_v\\right\\rVert}}_U^2$ can then be written as a sum of contributions from each cell $C \\in \\mathcal{C}$, which indicate which cells should ideally be refined if $\\kappa_k$ is larger than a desired residual contraction rate $\\kappa < 1$ prescribed by the user. The cellwise contributions $\\kappa_k$ can be treated in the same fashion as existing cellwise error indicators.\n\n### Application to the minimum surface equation {#sec:minsurf}\n\nIn this section, we consider the classical minimum surface problem in the following special form: Let ${\\left\\lvert.\\right\\rvert}$ denote the Euclidean norm in $\\mathbb{R}^2$ and let $\\Omega = \\left\\{ x \\in \\mathbb{R}^2 \\mid\n{\\left\\lvertx\\right\\rvert}_2 < 1 \\right\\}$ and $u^\\partial(x) = \\sin(2 \\pi (x_1 + x_2))$. We seek a function $u$ on $\\Omega$ that equals $u^\\partial$ on $\\partial\n\\Omega$ and minimizes the area of its graph $$\\min I(u) = \\int_{\\Omega} \\sqrt{1 + \\smash[t]{{\\left\\lvert\\nabla u\\right\\rvert}}^2} \\quad\n  \\text{s.t.} \\quad u\\big|_{\\partial\\Omega} = u^\\partial\\big|_{\\partial\\Omega}.$$ With the spaces $U = H^1_0(\\Omega)$ and $V = H^{-1}(\\Omega)$ as before, the minimum is described as the solution $u \\in u^\\partial + U$ to the variational problem $$F(u) \\varphi := \\int_{\\Omega} \\nabla \\varphi \\cdot {\\mathbf{g}}(\\nabla u)\n = 0 \\quad \\text{for all } \\varphi \\in U,\n \\quad \\text{where } {\\mathbf{g}}({\\mathbf{v}}) := \\left(1 +\n \\smash[t]{{\\left\\lvert{\\mathbf{v}}\\right\\rvert}}^2\\right)^{-\\frac{1}{2}} {\\mathbf{v}}.$$ Thus, $F$ maps $u^\\partial + U$ to $V$. Its G\u00e2teaux derivative $F':\n(u^\\partial + U) \\times U \\to V$ can then be expressed as $$\\left( F'(u) \\delta u \\right) \\varphi\n= \\int_{\\Omega} \\nabla \\varphi \\cdot {\\mathbf{g}}'(\\nabla u) \\nabla \\delta u,$$ where the Jacobian of ${\\mathbf{g}}$ is given by $${\\mathbf{g}}'({\\mathbf{v}}) = \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{1 + \\smash[t]{{\\left\\lvert{\\mathbf{v}}\\right\\rvert}}^2}} \\left( {{\\mathrm I}}_2 -\n  \\frac{1}{1 + \\smash[t]{{\\left\\lvert{\\mathbf{v}}\\right\\rvert}}^2} {\\mathbf{v}} {\\mathbf{v}}^T \\right).$$ We recall that $F$ is continuously G\u00e2teaux differentiable from $U = H^1_0(\\Omega)$ (with norm $\\smash[t]{{\\left\\lVertu\\right\\rVert}}_U^2 = \\int_{\\Omega}\n\\smash[t]{{\\left\\lvert\\nabla u\\right\\rvert}}^2$) to $V = H^{-1}(\\Omega)$. To see this, we use the chain rule [@Hamilton1982 3.3.4.\u00a0Thm.] on the continuously G\u00e2teaux differentiable $L^2(\\Omega, \\mathbb{R}^2)$ inner product and the Nemytskii operator defined by ${\\mathbf{g}}$. The Nemytskii operator defined by ${\\mathbf{g}}$ mapping from $L^2(\\Omega,\n\\mathbb{R}^2)$ to itself is continuously G\u00e2teaux differentiable by virtue of [@Goldberg1992 Thm.\u00a08, Rem.\u00a06], because ${\\mathbf{g}}$ and its Jacobian are uniformly bounded ${\\left\\lvert{\\mathbf{g}}({\\mathbf{v}})\\right\\rvert} \\le 1$ and ${\\left\\lvert{\\mathbf{g}}'({\\mathbf{v}})\\right\\rvert}_{2 \\times 2}\n\\le 1$ (where ${\\left\\lvert.\\right\\rvert}_{2 \\times 2}$ denotes the spectral norm of 2-by-2 matrices), implied by the eigenvalues $$\\frac{1}{ \\sqrt{1 + \\smash[t]{{\\left\\lvert{\\mathbf{v}}\\right\\rvert}}^2}}\n  \\left( 1 - \\frac{\\smash[t]{{\\left\\lvert{\\mathbf{v}}\\right\\rvert}}^2}{1 + \\smash[t]{{\\left\\lvert{\\mathbf{v}}\\right\\rvert}}^2} \\right)\n  \\quad \\text{and} \\quad\n  \\frac{1}{\\sqrt{1 + \\smash[t]{{\\left\\lvert{\\mathbf{v}}\\right\\rvert}}^2}},$$ of ${\\mathbf{g}}'({\\mathbf{v}})$ corresponding to the eigenspace spanned by ${\\mathbf{v}}$ and its complement. We remark here that $F$ does not satisfy the stronger property of being continuously Fr\u00e9chet differentiable as a mapping from $H^1_0(\\Omega)$ to $H^{-1}(\\Omega)$ as noted in [@Wachsmuth2014].\n\nWe solve the resulting system only approximately with a preconditioned Conjugate Gradient (PCG) method [@Hestenes1952]. The resulting inexactness also contributes to the computations of $\\kappa_k$ in .\n\nAll computations were obtained with the software package deal.II [@Bangerth2016; @Bangerth2007].\n\n### Efficient computation of Riesz representations\n\nAs described in section\u00a0\\[sec:FE\\], the Riesz representations $r_v$ need to be computed from in order to compute the $V$-norms entering $\\kappa_k$. The following algorithmical and computational approaches are important to prevent the computation times for the solution of on the richer Finite Element subspace $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^{p+1}$ from dominating the overall computational effort:\n\n1.  We found that PCG with a symmetric Gauss\u2013Seidel smoother as preconditioner delivers good results. In the computations reported below, we employed a Chebyshev smoother of degree four because it yields a slightly better performance than Gauss\u2013Seidel when running the code on several processors in parallel. The use of multigrid does not pay off because it usually involves a rather expensive setup machinery on unstructured meshes (see, e.g., [@Janssen2011]) and the right-hand sides of consist mainly of high-frequency residuals in $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^{p+1} \\setminus U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p$, the low frequency residuals having been mostly eliminated on $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p$ already.\n\n2.  In order to avoid a possible memory bottleneck caused by storing the stiffness matrix discretized on the high-dimensional space $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^{p+1}$, we use a matrix-free realization of the Laplacian [@Kronbichler2012].\n\n3.  Because the resulting computation times are then dominated by the bandwidth of the access to main memory, we perform all computations involved in the (matrix-free) matrix-vector products for the solution of only with single instead of double precision floating point arithmetic. The numerical results below indicate that this approach is still sufficiently accurate, while being considerably faster.\n\n4.  Because $\\kappa_k$ only steers the algorithm but does not affect the quality of the iterates $x_k$ directly, it can be computed with rather low accuracy requirements in the PCG method. We use relative stopping criteria of $0.1$ and $0.05$ for the numerator and the denominator of $\\kappa_k$ in .\n\n### Details about the numerical setup\n\n![Left: The initial mesh for the solution of the minimum surface equation has 425 cells. With $p=3$, the resulting Finite Element space has 2929 degrees of freedom. Right: The accepted and discarded values of $\\kappa_k$ in the numerical solution of the minimum surface equation. Discarded values are marked with $\\circ$ at fractional iteration numbers, the values of $\\kappa_k$ on the finally successful mesh are marked with $\\times$ at integer iteration numbers. The discarded values of $\\kappa_k$ converge to 1, while the accepted ones approach approximately 0.08.[]{data-label=\"fig:initialmesh\"}](initialmesh){height=\"30mm\"}\n\nWe discretize and by nodal Finite Elements of order $p = 3$ and $p\n+ 1 = 4$, respectively, on quadrilaterals with tensor product polynomials using Gauss\u2013Lobatto nodes. For the elements on the curved boundary, we employ polynomial tranformations of degree seven from the reference cell to the physical cells. The relative tolerance of PCG for the solution of is $0.001$ (in the Euclidean norm on the discretized vectors).\n\nAs a starting guess, we let $u_0$ be the Finite Element interpolation of $u^\\partial$ on the coarsest mesh depicted in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:initialmesh\\]. In a first phase, we iterate until the increment norm in $U$ is below 0.01 without computing any $V$-norms. This first phase is a finite-dimensional Newton method ($\\kappa = 0$) globalized with backward step control ($H_{\\mathrm{rel}} = 0.05$, $t_0 = 1$) on the Finite Element subspace $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^p$ belonging to the initial mesh.\n\nFor the successive phase of nonlinear adaptive mesh refinement described in section\u00a0\\[sec:FE\\], we choose $\\kappa = 0.5$. If $\\kappa_k > \\kappa$, we mark all cells for refinement that have a contribution of more than $2^{-p}$ times the maximum cell contribution to $\\kappa_k$, up to a given maximum number of 200,000 cells. The resulting number of cells might be slightly higher in the final mesh due to mesh smoothing in deal.II. In the first eight iterations, the step size is gradually increased from $t_0 =\n0.0625$ to $t_7 = 0.9738$. All other iterations are performed with full steps $t_k = 1$. The mesh is refined for the first time in iteration 11, kept for iteration 12, and then successively refined in each further step until the maximum number of cells is reached in iteration 21. We can furthermore observe from Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:initialmesh\\] that from iteration 16 on, the first trial value of $\\kappa_k$ before the refinement is always one (up to three decimal digits), which shows that no further improvement can be achieved by performing more nonlinear iterations on the current discretization, which is automatically detected correctly by the algorithm.\n\nWe compare in Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:minsurfConvergence\\] the convergence of the residual norm ${\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V$ (computed afterwards with high accuracy on a refined mesh, which is generated by one additional global refinement step of the triangulation of the final mesh) of backward step control $\\kappa$-optimizing adaptive mesh refinement with the convergence when using mesh refinement with the deal.II builtin Kelly error indicator [@Kelly1983; @Gago1983]. In contrast to the theory of backward step control, there is no theoretical guideline for the Kelly indicator on how many nonlinear iterations to run before another round of refinement is triggered. We choose to refine as soon as the increment norm ${\\left\\lVert\\delta\nu_k\\right\\rVert}_U$ becomes less than or equal to a factor $\\rho > 0$ of the error estimate returned on the last mesh by the Kelly indicator. Fig.\u00a0\\[fig:minsurfConvergence\\] shows that $\\kappa$-optimizing adaptive mesh refinement delivers the best ratio of residual norm versus CPU time and versus the number of degrees of freedom compared to mesh refinement based on the Kelly indicator for varying values of $\\rho = 0.5, 0.1, 0.01$.\n\nThe computations for the solution of the minimum surface equation with a final number of 1.5 million degrees of freedom using $\\kappa$-optimizing mesh refinement took 112s wall clock time on the four cores of a mid 2012 MacBook Pro, 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7, 8 GB. Out of this grand total, the computations necessary for estimating $\\kappa_k$ took only 18s, even though they need to be performed on the high-dimensional Finite Element space $U_{\\mathcal{C}}^{p+1}$.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nWe presented a comprehensive convergence analysis for , a method that globalizes the convergence of Newton-type methods for the solution of in a Hilbert space setting. We proved that under the reasonable assumptions A\\[ass:validIni\\]\u2013A\\[ass:gamma\\] the iterates $u_k$ either leave the region of $r$-regular points $\\mathcal{R}_r$ (in which case we need to adjust $M$ or embed $F$ in a suitable homotopy in order to prevent attraction to singularities) or converge to the distinctive solution $u_0^\\ast$ (the initial guess $u_0$ propagated by the generalized Newton flow ) provided that $H > 0$ is chosen sufficiently small. Moreover, we provided an $H$-dependent a priori bound on the decrease of ${\\left\\lVertF(u_k)\\right\\rVert}_V$ and characterized the asymptotic linear residual convergence rate by $\\kappa$. We provided efficient numerical methods based on the blueprint of bounding and optimizing $\\kappa$ in each iteration, either over a finite-dimensional subspace in a Krylov\u2013Newton method or through an adaptive Finite Element discretization, in order to balance the nonlinear residual norm with the residual norm of the linear systems. We applied these methods to the class of nonlinear elliptic boundary value problems and presented numerical results for the Carrier equation in a Chebfun implementation and for the minimum surface equation in deal.II. The challenge to efficiently compute norms in $V = H^{-1}(\\Omega)$ via the Riesz preconditioner can be addressed by suitable numerical methods and techniques.\n\nThe author is grateful to Felix Lenders and to Gerd Wachsmuth for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript and to the anonymous reviewers for their fruitful comments. This work was funded by the European Research Council through S. Engell\u2019s and H.G. Bock\u2019s ERC Advanced Investigator Grant MOBOCON (291 458) and by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under grants 05M2013-GOSSIP and 05M2016-MOPhaPro.\n\n[10]{} \\[1\\][[\\#1]{}]{} urlstyle \\[1\\][DOI\u00a0\\#1]{}\n\nAinsworth, M., Oden, J.: A posteriori error estimation in finite element analysis. Pure and Applied Mathematics (New York). Wiley-Interscience \\[John Wiley & Sons\\], New York (2000)\n\nAmann, H.: Ordinary differential equations, *de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics*, vol.\u00a013. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin (1990)\n\nAscher, U., Osborne, M.: [A]{} note on solving nonlinear equations and the natural criterion function. ournal of [O]{}ptimization [T]{}heory and [A]{}pplications **55**(1), 147\u2013152 (1987)\n\nBangerth, W., Davydov, D., Heister, T., Heltai, L., Kanschat, G., Kronbichler, M., Maier, M., Turcksin, B., Wells, D.: The `deal.II` library, version 8.4. Journal of Numerical Mathematics **24** (2016)\n\nBangerth, W., Hartmann, R., Kanschat, G.: [deal.II]{} \u2013 a general purpose object oriented finite element library. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. **33**(4), 24/1\u201324/27 (2007)\n\nBank, R., Rose, D.: Global approximate [N]{}ewton methods. Numer. Math. **37**(2), 279\u2013295 (1981)\n\nBattles, Z., Trefethen, L.: An extension of [MATLAB]{} to continuous functions and operators. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. **25**(5), 1743\u20131770 (2004)\n\nBecker, R., Rannacher, R.: An optimal control approach to a posteriori error estimation in finite element methods. Acta Numer. **10**, 1\u2013102 (2001)\n\nBender, C., Orszag, S.: Advanced mathematical methods for scientists and engineers. [I]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York (1999). Asymptotic methods and perturbation theory, Reprint of the 1978 original\n\nBirkisson, A., Driscoll, T.: Automatic [F]{}r\u00e9chet differentiation for the numerical solution of boundary-value problems. ACM Trans. Math. Software **38**(4) (2012)\n\nBock, H.: [R]{}andwertproblemmethoden zur [P]{}arameteridentifizierung in [S]{}ystemen nichtlinearer [D]{}ifferentialgleichungen, *Bonner Mathematische Schriften*, vol. 183. Universit\u00e4t Bonn, Bonn (1987)\n\nBock, H., Kostina, E., Schl\u00f6der, J.: [O]{}n the [R]{}ole of [N]{}atural [L]{}evel [F]{}unctions to [A]{}chieve [G]{}lobal [C]{}onvergence for [D]{}amped [N]{}ewton [M]{}ethods. In: M.\u00a0Powell, S.\u00a0Scholtes (eds.) [S]{}ystem [M]{}odelling and [O]{}ptimization. [M]{}ethods, [T]{}heory and [A]{}pplications, pp. 51\u201374. Kluwer (2000)\n\nBrezinski, C.: Numerical stability of a quadratic method for solving systems of nonlinear equations. Computing **14**(3), 205\u2013211 (1975)\n\nDavidenko, D.: [O]{}n a new method of numerical solution of systems of nonlinear equations. oklady [A]{}kad. [N]{}auk [SSSR]{} ([N]{}.[S]{}.) **88**, 601\u2013602 (1953)\n\nDembo, R., Eisenstat, S., Steihaug, T.: Inexact [N]{}ewton methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. **19**(2), 400\u2013408 (1982)\n\nDennis Jr., J., Mor\u00e9, J.: Quasi-[N]{}ewton methods, motivation and theory. SIAM Rev. **19**(1), 46\u201389 (1977)\n\nDeuflhard, P.: [A]{} [M]{}odified [N]{}ewton [M]{}ethod for the [S]{}olution of [I]{}ll-conditioned [S]{}ystems of [N]{}onlinear [E]{}quations with [A]{}pplications to [M]{}ultiple [S]{}hooting. umer. [M]{}ath. **22**, 289\u2013311 (1974)\n\nDeuflhard, P.: Global inexact [N]{}ewton methods for very large scale nonlinear problems. Impact Comput. Sci. Engrg. **3**(4), 366\u2013393 (1991)\n\nDeuflhard, P.: [N]{}ewton methods for nonlinear problems, *Springer Series in Computational Mathematics*, vol.\u00a035. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Affine invariance and adaptive algorithms\n\nDeuflhard, P., Weiser, M.: Global inexact [N]{}ewton multilevel [FEM]{} for nonlinear elliptic problems. In: Multigrid methods [V]{} ([S]{}tuttgart, 1996), *Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. Eng.*, vol.\u00a03, pp. 71\u201389. Springer, Berlin (1998)\n\nDriscoll, T., Hale, N., Trefethen, L. (eds.): Chebfun guide. Pafnuty Publications, Oxford (2014)\n\nEvans, L.: Partial differential equations, *Graduate Studies in Mathematics*, vol.\u00a019, second edn. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2010)\n\nGago, J.d.S., Kelly, D., Zienkiewicz, O., Babu[\u0161]{}ka, I.: A posteriori error analysis and adaptive processes in the finite element method. [II]{}. [A]{}daptive mesh refinement. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. **19**(11), 1621\u20131656 (1983)\n\nGal\u00e1ntai, A., Abaffy, J.: Always convergent iteration methods for nonlinear equations of [L]{}ipschitz functions. Numer. Algor. pp. 1\u201311 (2014)\n\nGasparo, M., Papini, A., Pasquali, A.: Some properties of [GMRES]{} in [H]{}ilbert spaces. Numer. Func. Anal. Opt. **29**(11\u201312), 1276\u20131285 (2008)\n\nGoldberg, H., Kampowsky, W., Tr\u00f6ltzsch, F.: On [N]{}emytskij operators in [$L_p$]{}-spaces of abstract functions. Math. Nachr. **155**, 127\u2013140 (1992)\n\nGr[\u00e4]{}tsch, T., Bathe, K.J.: A posteriori error estimation techniques in practical finite element analysis. Comput. & Structures **83**(4-5), 235\u2013265 (2005)\n\nG\u00fcnnel, A., Herzog, R., Sachs, E.: A note on preconditioners and scalar products in [K]{}rylov subspace methods for self-adjoint problems in [H]{}ilbert space. Electron. Trans. Numer. Anal. **41**, 13\u201320 (2014)\n\nHairer, E., Wanner, G.: Solving Ordinary Differential Equations [I]{}[I]{}, *Springer Series in Computational Mathematics*, vol.\u00a014, second edn. Springer, Berlin (1996)\n\nHamilton, R.: The inverse function theorem of [N]{}ash and [M]{}oser. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) **7**(1), 65\u2013222 (1982)\n\nHestenes, M., Stiefel, E.: Methods of conjugate gradients for solving linear systems. J. Res. Nat. Bur. Standards **49**, 409\u2013436 (1952)\n\nHohmann, A.: Inexact [G]{}auss [N]{}ewton methods for parameter dependent nonlinear problems. Ph.D. thesis, Freie Universit\u00e4t Berlin (1994)\n\nJanssen, B., Kanschat, G.: Adaptive multilevel methods with local smoothing for [$H^1$]{}- and [$H^{\\rm curl}$]{}-conforming high order finite element methods. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. **33**(4), 2095\u20132114 (2011)\n\nKelly, D., Gago, J.d.S., Zienkiewicz, O., Babu[\u0161]{}ka, I.: A posteriori error analysis and adaptive processes in the finite element method. [I]{}. [E]{}rror analysis. Internat. J. Numer. Methods Engrg. **19**(11), 1593\u20131619 (1983)\n\nKronbichler, M., Kormann, K.: A generic interface for parallel cell-based finite element operator application. Comput. & Fluids **63**, 135\u2013147 (2012)\n\nLieb, E., Loss, M.: Analysis, *Graduate Studies in Mathematics*, vol.\u00a014, second edn. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2001)\n\nNevanlinna, O.: Convergence of iterations for linear equations. Lectures in mathematics. Birkh[\u00e4]{}user, Basel, Boston, Berlin (1993)\n\nOlver, S., Townsend, A.: A fast and well-conditioned spectral method. SIAM Rev. **55**(3), 462\u2013489 (2013)\n\nPaige, C., Saunders, M.: [S]{}olutions of sparse indefinite systems of linear equations. . [N]{}umer. [A]{}nal. **12**(4), 617\u2013629 (1975)\n\nPotschka, A.: A direct method for parabolic [PDE]{} constrained optimization problems. Advances in [N]{}umerical [M]{}athematics. Springer (2013)\n\nPotschka, A.: Backward step control for global [N]{}ewton-type methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. **54**(1), 361\u2013387 (2016)\n\nRannacher, R., Vihharev, J.: Adaptive finite element analysis of nonlinear problems: balancing of discretization and iteration errors. J. Numer. Math. **21**(1), 23\u201361 (2013)\n\nSaad, Y., Schultz, M.: [GMRES]{}: A generalized minimal residual algorithm for solving nonsymmetric linear systems. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput. **7**(3), 856\u2013869 (1986)\n\nTrefethen, L.: Computing numerically with functions instead of numbers. Math. Comput. Sci. **1**(1), 9\u201319 (2007)\n\nWachsmuth, G.: Differentiability of implicit functions: [B]{}eyond the implicit function theorem. J. Math. Anal. Appl. **414**(1), 259\u2013272 (2014)\n\nYosida, K.: Functional analysis, fifth edn. Springer-[V]{}erlag (1978)\n\nYpma, T.: Local convergence of inexact [N]{}ewton methods. SIAM J. Numer. Anal. **21**(3), 583\u2013590 (1984)\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Let $K/F$ be a quadratic tamely ramified extension of a non-Archimedean local field $F$ of characteristic zero. In this paper, we give an explicit formula for Langlands\u2019 lambda function $\\lambda_{K/F}$.'\naddress: |\n     Chennai Mathematical Institute\\\n    H1, Sipcot It Park, Siruseri\\\n    Kelambakkam, 603103\\\n    India\nauthor:\n- '**Sazzad Ali Biswas**'\ntitle: 'Langlands\u2019 Lambda function for quadratic tamely ramified extensions'\n---\n\n**Introduction**\n================\n\nLet $K/F$ be a finite subextension (but need not be Galois) in $\\overline{F}/F$, where $\\overline{F}$ is an algebraic closure of a non-Archimedean local field $F$ of characteristic zero. Let $\\psi$ be a nontrivial additive character of $F$. Then Langlands\u2019s lambda function (or simply $\\lambda$-function) (cf. [@RL]) of the extension $K/F$ is: $$\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi):=W(\\text{Ind}_{G_K}^{G_F}(1_K),\\psi),$$ where $1_K$ is the trivial representation of $G_K:=\\text{Gal}(\\overline{F}/K)$. Here $W$ denotes for local constant (or epsilon factor) (cf. [@JT1]). We also can define the $\\lambda$-function via Deligne\u2019s constant $c(\\rho):=\\frac{W(\\rho)}{W(\\det(\\rho))}$, where $\\rho$ is a finite dimensional representation of $G_F$ and $\\det(\\rho)$ is the determinant of $\\rho$.\n\nLanglands has shown (cf. Theorem 1 on p. 105 of [@JT1]) that the local constants are [**weakly**]{} extendible functions. Therefore, to compute the local constant of any induced local Galois representation, we have to compute the $\\lambda$-function explicitly. Since the local Langlands correspondence preserves local constants, the explicit computation of local constants is an important part of the Langlands program. In the automorphic side of the local Langlands correspondence, we have local converse theorem (cf. [@JWC], [@GH]), but so far we do not have any such converse theorem in the Galois side [**because**]{} explicit computation of $\\lambda$-functions (hence epsilon factors of local Galois representations) are not known. In the previous paper [@SABNT] the author gave an explicit computation of the lambda function for any tamely ramified Galois extension assuming the computation of the lambda function for a tamely ramified quadratic extension. In this paper we provide a formula for the tamely ramified quadratic case, thus completing the work in [@SABNT].\n\nWe should mention that in [@TS] Saito has computed the $\\lambda$-function for an arbitrary extension assuming the residual characteristic of the base field is not equal to 2 (cf. Theorem on p. 508 of [@TS]). In Theorem II 2B on p. 508 of [@TS], when ramification index is [**even**]{}, Saito has computed the lambda functions for even degree extensions via the [**Legendre symbol**]{} and [**Hilbert symbol**]{}.\n\nIn this paper, we also compute this $\\lambda$-functions for quadratic tamely ramified extensions. In our computation, we use the classical quadratic [**Gauss sums**]{} and these computations are different from the Saito\u2019s result and explicit. The main idea for tamely ramified quadratic extension case is to reduce the $\\lambda$-functions computation to the classical quadratic Gauss sums computations.\n\nIn this paper, as mentioned above, we compute lambda functions for quadratic tamely ramified extensions explicitly. This, together with the work in [@SABNT], yields an explicit computation of lambda functions for all tamely ramified extensions.\n\nWe now state the main theorem of this paper.\n\n\\[Theorem 3.21\\] Let $K$ be a tamely ramified quadratic extension of $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ with $q_F=p^s$. Let $\\psi_F$ be the canonical additive character of $F$. Let $c\\in F^\\times$ with $-1=\\nu_F(c)+d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, and $c'=\\frac{c}{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)}$, where $F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ is the maximal unramified extension in $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$. Let $\\psi_{-1}=c'\\cdot\\psi_F$, then $$\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_F)=\\Delta_{K/F}(c')\\cdot\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_{-1}),$$ where $$\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_{-1})=\\begin{cases}\n                                               (-1)^{s-1} & \\text{if $p\\equiv 1\\pmod{4}$}\\\\\n                                                  (-1)^{s-1}i^{s} & \\text{if $p\\equiv 3\\pmod{4}$}.\n                                            \\end{cases}$$ If we take $c=\\pi_{F}^{-1-d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$, where $\\pi_F$ is a norm for $K/F$, then $$\\Delta_{K/F}(c')=\\begin{cases}\n                   1 & \\text{if $\\overline{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)}\\in k_{F_0}^{\\times}=k_{F}^{\\times}$ is a square},\\\\\n                   -1 & \\text{if $\\overline{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)}\\in k_{F_0}^{\\times}=k_{F}^{\\times}$ is not a square}.\n                  \\end{cases}$$ Here \u201coverline\u201d stands for modulo $P_{F_0}$ and $c'\\cdot \\psi_F(x):=\\psi_F(c'x)$ for all $x\\in F$.\n\n\\[Remark 1.2\\]\n\nBut in general, computation of $\\lambda_{K/F}$, where $K/F$ is a wildly ramified quadratic extension, seems subtle. When $F={\\mathbb{Q}}_2,$ in Example 3.4.14, pp. 60-63 of [@SABT], we have explicit computation for $\\lambda_{K/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2}$. In [@MW], one also can find some particular cases (cf. on pp. 252-255 of [@MW]). But if $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2$ is an arbitrary finite extension and $K/F$ is [**quadratic**]{} extension, then computation of $\\lambda_{K/F}$ is still [**open.**]{} And if $K$ is an abelian extension with $N_{K/F}(K^\\times)={F^\\times}^2$, we have the following theorem.\n\n\\[Theorem 3.26\\] Let $F$ be an extension of ${\\mathbb{Q}}_2$. Let $K$ be the abelian extension for which $N_{K/F}(K^\\times)={F^\\times}^2$. Then $\\lambda_{K/F}=1$.\n\nOn pp. 7-8, Theorem \\[Theorem 3.21\\] and Theorem \\[Theorem 3.26\\] are proven.\n\n**Notations and Preliminaries**\n===============================\n\nLet $F$ be a non-Archimedean local field of characteristic zero, i.e., a finite extension of the field $\\mathbb{Q}_p$ (field of $p$-adic numbers), where $p$ is a prime. Let $O_F$ be the ring of integers in the local field $F$ and $P_F=\\pi_F O_F$ is the unique prime ideal in $O_F$ and $\\pi_F$ is a uniformizer, i.e., an element in $P_F$ whose valuation is one, i.e., $\\nu_F(\\pi_F)=1$. Let $q_F$ be the cardinality of the residue field $k_F$ of $F$. Let $U_F=O_F-P_F$ be the group of units in $O_F$. Let $P_{F}^{i}=\\{x\\in F:\\nu_F(x){\\geqslant}i\\}$ and for $i{\\geqslant}0$ define $U_{F}^i=1+P_{F}^{i}$ (with proviso $U_{F}^{0}=U_F=O_{F}^{\\times}$). We also consider that $a(\\chi)$ is the conductor of nontrivial character $\\chi: F^\\times\\to \\mathbb{C}^\\times$, i.e., $a(\\chi)$ is the smallest integer $m{\\geqslant}0$ such that $\\chi$ is trivial on $U_{F}^{m}$. We say $\\chi$ is unramified if the conductor of $\\chi$ is zero and otherwise ramified. Throughout the paper, when $K/F$ is unramified we choose uniformizers $\\pi_K=\\pi_F$. And when $K/F$ is ramified (both tame and wild) we choose uniformizers $\\pi_F=N_{K/F}(\\pi_K)$, where $N_{K/F}$ is the norm map from $K^\\times$ to $F^\\times$. In this paper $\\Delta_{K/F}:=\\det(\\text{Ind}_{K/F}(1))$.\n\nThe conductor of any nontrivial additive character $\\psi$ of the field $F$ is an integer $n(\\psi)$ if $\\psi$ is trivial on $P_{F}^{-n(\\psi)}$, but nontrivial on $P_{F}^{-n(\\psi)-1}$.\n\nLocal constant formula for character\n------------------------------------\n\nFor a nontrivial multiplicative character $\\chi$ of $F^\\times$ and nontrivial additive character $\\psi$ of $F$, we have (cf. [@JT1], p. 94): $$\\label{eqn 2.5}\n W(\\chi,\\psi)=\\chi(c)q_F^{-a(\\chi)/2}\\sum_{x\\in\\frac{U_F}{U_{F}^{a(\\chi)}}}\\chi^{-1}(x)\\psi(x/c),$$ where $c=\\pi_{F}^{a(\\chi)+n(\\psi)}$.\n\n\\[Definition of canonical additive character\\]\n\nWe define the non trivial additive character of $F$, $\\psi_F:F\\to\\mathbb{C}^\\times$ as the composition of the following four maps:\n\n$F\\xrightarrow{\\mathrm{Tr}_{F/\\mathbb{Q}_p}}\\mathbb{Q}_p\\xrightarrow{\\alpha}\\mathbb{Q}_p/\\mathbb{Z}_p\n \\xrightarrow{\\beta}\\mathbb{Q}/\\mathbb{Z}\\xrightarrow{\\gamma}\\mathbb{C}^\\times$,\n\nwhere\n\n1.  $\\mathrm{Tr}_{F/\\mathbb{Q}_p}$ is the trace from $F$ to $\\mathbb{Q}_p$,\n\n2.  $\\alpha$ is the canonical surjection map,\n\n3.  $\\beta$ is the canonical injection which maps $\\mathbb{Q}_p/\\mathbb{Z}_p$ onto the $p$-component of the divisible group $\\mathbb{Q}/\\mathbb{Z}$ and\n\n4.  $\\gamma$ is the exponential map $x\\mapsto e^{2\\pi i x}$, where $i=\\sqrt{-1}$.\n\nFor every $x\\in\\mathbb{Q}_p$, there is a rational $r$, uniquely determined modulo $1$, such that $x-r\\in\\mathbb{Z}_p$. Then $\\psi_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(x)=\\psi_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(r)=e^{2\\pi i r}$. The nontrivial additive character $\\psi_F=\\psi_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}\\circ \\rm{Tr}_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ of $F$ is called the **canonical additive character** (cf. [@JT1], p. 92).\n\nClassical Gauss sums\n--------------------\n\nLet $k_q$ be a finite field. Let $p$ be the characteristic of $k_q$; then the prime field contained in $k_q$ is $k_p$. The structure of the [**canonical**]{} additive character $\\psi_q$ of $k_q$ is the same as the structure of the canonical (see the definition \\[Definition of canonical additive character\\]) character $\\psi_F$, namely [**it comes by trace**]{} from the canonical character of the base field, i.e.,\n\n$\\psi_q=\\psi_p\\circ \\text{Tr}_{k_q/k_p}$,\n\nwhere\n\n$\\psi_p(x):=e^{\\frac{2\\pi i x}{p}}$ for all $x\\in k_p$.\n\n**Gauss sums:** Let $\\chi, \\psi$ be a multiplicative and an additive character respectively of $k_q$. Then the Gauss sum $G(\\chi,\\psi)$ is defined by $$G(\\chi,\\psi)=\\sum_{x\\in k_{q}^{\\times}}\\chi(x)\\psi(x).$$ For computation of $\\lambda_{K/F}$, where $K/F$ is a tamely ramified quadratic extension, we will use the following theorem.\n\n\\[Theorem 2.7\\] Let $k_q$ be a finite field with $q=p^s$, where $p$ is an odd prime and $s\\in\\mathbb{N}$. Let $\\chi$ be the quadratic character of $k_q$ and let $\\psi$ be the canonical additive character of $k_q$. Then $$G(\\chi,\\psi)=\\begin{cases}\n               (-1)^{s-1}q^{\\frac{1}{2}} & \\text{if $p\\equiv 1\\pmod{4}$},\\\\\n               (-1)^{s-1}i^sq^{\\frac{1}{2}} & \\text{if $p\\equiv 3\\pmod{4}$}.\n              \\end{cases}$$\n\n**Explicit computation of $\\lambda_{K/F}$, where $K/F$ is a quadratic extension**\n=================================================================================\n\nLet $K/F$ be a quadratic extension of the field $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$. Let $G=\\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ be the Galois group of the extension $K/F$. Let $t$ be the **ramification break or jump** (cf. [@JPS]) of the Galois group $G$ (or of the extension $K/F$). Then it can be proved that the conductor of $\\omega_{K/F}$ (the quadratic character of $F^\\times$ associated to $K$ by class field theory) is $t+1$. When $K/F$ is unramified we have $t=-1$, therefore the conductor of a quadratic character $\\omega_{K/F}$ of $F^\\times$ is zero, i.e., $\\omega_{K/F}$ is unramified. And when $K/F$ is tamely ramified we have $t=0$, then $a(\\omega_{K/F})=1$. In the wildly ramified case (which occurs if $p=2$) it can be proved that $a(\\omega_{K/F})=t+1$ is, [**up to the exceptional case $t=2\\cdot e_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2}$**]{}, always an **even number** which can be seen by the filtration of $F^\\times$ (cf. p. 50 of [@SABT]).\n\n**Computation of $\\lambda_{K/F}$, where $K/F$ is a tamely ramified quadratic extension**\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe existence of a tamely ramified quadratic character $\\chi$ (which is not unramified) of a local field $F$ implies $p\\ne2$ for the residue characteristic. Then\n\n$F^\\times/{F^\\times}^2\\cong V$\n\nis isomorphic to Klein\u2019s $4$-group. So we have only $3$ nontrivial quadratic characters in that case, corresponding to $3$ quadratic extensions $K/F$. One is unramified and other two are ramified. The unramified case is well settled. The two ramified quadratic characters determine two different quadratic ramified extensions of $F$.\\\nIn the ramified case we have $a(\\chi)=1$ because it is tame, and we take $\\psi$ of conductor $-1$. Then we have $a(\\chi)+n(\\psi)=0$ and therefore in the formula of $W(\\chi,\\psi)$ (cf. equation (\\[eqn 2.5\\])) we can take $c=1$. So we obtain: $$\\label{eqn 3.33}\n W(\\chi,\\psi)=q_{F}^{-\\frac{1}{2}}\\sum_{x\\in U_F/U_{F}^{1}}\\chi^{-1}(x)\\psi(x)=\n q_{F}^{-\\frac{1}{2}}\\sum_{x\\in k_{F}^{\\times}}\\chi'^{-1}(x)\\psi'(x),$$ where $\\chi'$ is the quadratic character of the residue field $k_{F}^{\\times}$, and $\\psi'$ is an additive character of $k_F$. When $n(\\psi)=-1$, we observe that both [**the ramified characters $\\chi$ give the same $\\chi'$, hence the same $W(\\chi,\\psi)$**]{}, because one is different from other by a quadratic unramified character twist. To compute an explicit formula for $\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_{-1})$, where $K/F$ is a tamely ramified quadratic extension and $\\psi_{-1}$ is an additive character of $F$ with conductor $-1$, we need to use [**classical quadratic Gauss sums**]{}.\n\nLet $\\psi_{-1}$ be an additive character of $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ of conductor $-1$, i.e., $\\psi_{-1}:F/P_F\\to{\\mathbb{C}}^\\times$. Now restrict $\\psi_{-1}$ to $O_F$, it will be one of the characters $a\\cdot\\psi_{q_F}$, for some $a\\in k_{q_F}^{\\times}$ and usually it will not be $\\psi_{q_F}$ itself. Therefore, choosing $\\psi_{-1}$ is very important and we have to choose $\\psi_{-1}$ such a way that its restriction to $O_F$ is exactly $\\psi_{q_F}$. Then we will be able to use the quadratic classical Gauss sum in the $\\lambda$-function computation. We also know that there exists an element $c\\in F^\\times$ such that $$\\label{eqn 3.34}\n \\psi_{-1}=c\\cdot\\psi_F$$ induces the canonical character $\\psi_{q_F}$ on the residue field $k_F$.\n\nNow question is: [**Finding proper $c\\in F^\\times$ for which $\\psi_{-1}|_{O_F}=c\\cdot\\psi_F|_{O_F}=\\psi_{q_F}$**]{}, i.e., the canonical character of the residue field $k_F$.\n\nFrom the definition of conductor of the additive character $\\psi_{-1}$ of $F$, we obtain from the construction (\\[eqn 3.34\\]) $$\\label{eqn 3.35}\n -1=\\nu_F(c)+n(\\psi_F)=\\nu_F(c)+d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p},$$ where $d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is the exponent of the different $\\mathcal{D}_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. In the next two lemmas we choose the proper $c$ for our requirement.\n\n\\[Lemma 3.20\\] Let $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ be a local field and let $\\psi_{-1}$ be an additive character of $F$ of conductor $-1$. Let $\\psi_F$ be the canonical character of $F$. Let $c\\in F^\\times$ be any element such that $-1=\\nu_F(c)+d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, and $$\\label{eqn 3.36}\n  \\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(c)=\\frac{1}{p},$$ where $F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ is the maximal unramified subextension in $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$. Then the restriction of $\\psi_{-1}=c\\cdot\\psi_F$ to $O_F$ is the canonical character $\\psi_{q_F}$ of the residue field $k_F$ of $F$.\n\nSince $F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ is the maximal unramified subextension in $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$, we have $\\pi_{F_0}=p$, and the residue fields of $F$ and $F_0$ are isomorphic, i.e., $k_{F_0}\\cong k_{F}$, because $F/F_0$ is totally ramified extension. Then every element of $O_F/P_F$ can be considered as an element of $O_{F_0}/P_{F_0}$. Moreover, since $F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ is the maximal unramified extension, then from Proposition 2 of [@AW] on p. 140, for $x\\in O_{F_0}$ we have $$\\rho_{p}(\\text{Tr}_{F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(x))=\\text{Tr}_{k_{F_0}/k_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}(\\rho_0(x)),$$ where $\\rho_0,\\,\\rho_p$ are the canonical homomorphisms of $O_{F_0}$ onto $k_{F_0}$, and of $O_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ onto $k_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, respectively. Then for $x\\in k_{F_0}$ we can write $$\\label{eqn 3.50}\n  \\text{Tr}_{F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(x)=\\text{Tr}_{k_{F_0}/k_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}(x).$$ Furthermore, since $F/F_0$ is totally ramified, we have $k_{F}=k_{F_0}$, then the trace map for the tower of the residue fields $k_{F}/k_{F_0}/k_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$ is: $$\\label{eqn 3.51}\n \\text{Tr}_{k_F/k_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}(x)=\\text{Tr}_{k_{F_0}/k_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}\\circ\\text{Tr}_{k_F/k_{F_0}}(x)=\\text{Tr}_{k_{F_0}/k_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}(x),$$ for all $x\\in k_F$. Then from the equations (\\[eqn 3.50\\]) and (\\[eqn 3.51\\]) we obtain $$\\label{eqn 3.52}\n \\text{Tr}_{F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(x)=\\text{Tr}_{k_F/k_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}(x)$$ for all $x\\in k_F$.\n\nSince the conductor of $\\psi_{-1}$ is $-1$, for $x\\in O_F/P_F(=O_{F_0}/P_{F_0}$ because $F/F_0$ is totally ramified) we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n  \\psi_{-1}(x)\n  &=c\\cdot\\psi_F(x)\n  =\\psi_{F}(cx)\n  =\\psi_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(\\text{Tr}_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(cx))\n  =\\psi_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(\\text{Tr}_{F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}\\circ\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(cx))\\\\\n  &=\\psi_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(\\text{Tr}_{F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(x\\cdot\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(c)))\\\\\n  &=\\psi_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(\\text{Tr}_{F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(\\frac{1}{p}x)), \\quad\\text{since $x\\in O_F/P_F=O_{F_0}/P_{F_0}$ and $\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(c)=\\frac{1}{p}$}\\\\\n  &=\\psi_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(\\frac{1}{p}\\text{Tr}_{F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(x)), \\quad\\text{because $\\frac{1}{p}\\in{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$}\\\\\n &=e^{\\frac{2\\pi i \\text{Tr}_{F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(x)}{p}},\\quad\\text{because $\\psi_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}(x)=e^{2\\pi i x}$}\\\\\n&=e^{\\frac{2\\pi i\\text{Tr}_{k_F/k_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}(x)}{p}},\\quad \\text{using equation $(\\ref{eqn 3.52})$}\\\\\n&=\\psi_{q_F}(x).\n \\end{aligned}$$ This competes the lemma.\n\nThe next step is to produce good elements $c$ more explicitly. By using Lemma \\[Lemma 3.20\\], in the next lemma we see more general choices of $c$.\n\n\\[Lemma 3.21\\] Let $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ be a tamely ramified local field and let $\\psi_{-1}$ be an additive character of $F$ of conductor $-1$. Let $\\psi_F$ be the canonical character of $F$. Let $F_0/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ be the maximal unramified subextension in $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$. Let $c\\in F^\\times$ be any element such that $-1=\\nu_F(c)+d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$, then\n\n$c'=\\frac{c}{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)}$,\n\nfulfills conditions (\\[eqn 3.35\\]), (\\[eqn 3.36\\]), and hence $\\psi_{-1}|_{O_F}=c'\\cdot\\psi_F|_{O_F}=\\psi_{q_F}$.\n\nBy the given condition we have $\\nu_{F}(c)=-1-d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}=-1-(e_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}-1)=-e_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. Then we can write $c=\\pi_{F}^{-e_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}u(c)=p^{-1}u(c)$ for some $u(c)\\in U_F$ because $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p$ is tamely ramified, hence $p=\\pi_{F}^{e_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$. Then we can write $$\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)=p\\cdot\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(c)=p\\cdot p^{-1}u_0(c)=u_0(c)\\in U_{F_0}\\subset U_{F},$$ where $u_0(c)=\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(u(c))$, hence $\\nu_{F}(\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc))=0$. Then the valuation of $c'$ is:\n\n$\\nu_F(c')=\\nu_F(\\frac{c}{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)})=\\nu_F(c)-\\nu_F(\\text{Tr}_{F/F_{0}}(pc))$\\\n$=\\nu_F(c)-0=\\nu_{F}(c)=-1-d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$.\n\nSince $\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)=u_0(c)\\in U_{F_0}$, we have\n\n$\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(c')=\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(\\frac{c}{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)})\n  =\\frac{1}{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)}\\cdot\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(c)=\\frac{1}{p\\cdot\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(c)}\\cdot\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(c)=\\frac{1}{p}$.\n\nThus we observe that here $c'\\in F^\\times$ satisfies equations (\\[eqn 3.35\\]) and (\\[eqn 3.36\\]). Therefore, from Lemma \\[Lemma 3.20\\] we can see that $\\psi_{-1}|_{O_F}=c'\\cdot\\psi_{F}|_{O_F}$ is the canonical additive character of $k_F$.\n\nBy Lemmas \\[Lemma 3.20\\] and \\[Lemma 3.21\\] we get many good (in the sense that $\\psi_{-1}|_{O_F}=c\\cdot\\psi_{F}|_{O_F}=\\psi_{q_F}$) elements $c$ which we will use in our next theorem to calculate $\\lambda_{K/F}$, where $K/F$ is a tamely ramified quadratic extension.\n\nFrom [@BH], p. 190, part (2) of the Proposition, we have $$\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_{-1})=\\lambda_{K/F}(c'\\psi_{F})=\\Delta_{K/F}(c')\\cdot \\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_F).$$ Since $\\Delta_{K/F}$ is quadratic, we can write $\\Delta_{K/F}=\\Delta_{K/F}^{-1}$. So we obtain $$\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_F)=\\Delta_{K/F}(c')\\cdot\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_{-1}).$$ Now we have to compute $\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_{-1})$, and which we do in the following:\\\nSince $[K:F]=2$, we have $\\text{Ind}_{K/F}(1)=1_F\\oplus\\omega_{K/F}$. The conductor of $\\omega_{K/F}$ is $1$ because $K/F$ is a tamely ramified quadratic extension, and hence $t=0$, so $a(\\omega_{K/F})=t+1=1$. Therefore, we can consider $\\omega_{K/F}$ as a character of $F^\\times/U_{F}^{1}$. So the restriction of $\\omega_{K/F}$ to $U_{F}$, $\\text{res}(\\omega_{K/F}):=\\omega_{K/F}|_{U_F}$, we may consider as the uniquely determined character of $k_{F}^{\\times}$ of order $2$. Since $c'$ satisfies equations (\\[eqn 3.35\\]), (\\[eqn 3.36\\]), then from Lemma \\[Lemma 3.21\\] we have $\\psi_{-1}|_{O_F}=c'\\cdot\\psi_F|_{O_F}=\\psi_{q_F}$, and this is the canonical character of $k_F$. Then from equation (\\[eqn 3.33\\]) we can write $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_{-1})\n    &=q_{F}^{-\\frac{1}{2}}\\sum_{x\\in k_{F}^{\\times}}\\text{res}(\\omega_{K/F})(x)\\psi_{q_F}(x)\\\\\n &=q_{F}^{-\\frac{1}{2}}\\cdot G(\\text{res}(\\omega_{K/F}),\\psi_{q_F}).\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by Theorem \\[Theorem 2.7\\] we have $$G(\\text{res}(\\omega_{K/F}),\\psi_{q_F})=\\begin{cases}\n                    (-1)^{s-1}q_{F}^{\\frac{1}{2}} & \\text{if $p\\equiv 1\\pmod{4}$}\\\\\n                    (-1)^{s-1}i^{s}q_{F}^{\\frac{1}{2}} & \\text{if $p\\equiv 3\\pmod{4}$}.\n                   \\end{cases}$$ By using the classical quadratic Gauss sum we obtain $$\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi_{-1})=\\begin{cases}\n                    (-1)^{s-1} & \\text{if $p\\equiv 1\\pmod{4}$}\\\\\n                    (-1)^{s-1}i^{s} & \\text{if $p\\equiv 3\\pmod{4}$}.\n                   \\end{cases}$$\n\nWe also can write $\\Delta_{K/F}=\\det(\\text{Ind}_{K/F}(1))=\\det(1_F\\oplus \\omega_{K/F})=\\omega_{K/F}.$ So we have $$\\Delta_{K/F}(\\pi_F)=\\omega_{K/F}(\\pi_F)=1,$$ because $\\pi_F\\in N_{K/F}(K^\\times)$.\n\nUnder the assumption of the Theorem \\[Theorem 3.21\\] we have $\\pi_F\\in N_{K/F}(K^\\times)$, $\\Delta_{K/F}=\\omega_{K/F}$ and $c'=\\frac{c}{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)}$, where $c\\in F^\\times$ with $\\nu_F(c)=-1-d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}$. Then we can write $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\Delta_{K/F}(c')\n =\\omega_{K/F}(c')\n &=\\omega_{K/F}\\left(\\frac{c}{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)}\\right)\\\\\n &=\\omega_{K/F}\\left(\\frac{\\pi_{F}^{-e_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}u(c)}{u_0(c)}\\right),\n \\quad\\text{where $c=\\pi_{F}^{-e_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}u(c)$, $\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)=u_0(c)\\in U_{F_0}$}\\\\\n &=\\omega_{K/F}(\\pi_{F}^{-e_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}})\\omega_{K/F}(v),\\quad\\text{where $v=\\frac{u(c)}{u_0(c)}\\in U_F$}\\\\\n   &=\\omega_{K/F}(x)\\\\\n &=\\begin{cases}\n                  1 & \\text{when $x$ is a square element in $k_{F}^{\\times}$}\\\\\n                  -1 & \\text{when $x$ is not a square element in $k_{F}^{\\times}$},\n                 \\end{cases}\\end{aligned}$$ where $v=xy$, with $x=x(\\omega_{K/F},c)\\in U_{F}/U_{F}^{1}$, and $y\\in U_{F}^{1}$.\n\nIn particular, if we choose $c$ such a way that $u(c)=1$, i.e., $c=\\pi_{F}^{-1-d_{F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_p}}$, then we have $\\Delta_{K/F}(c')=\\Delta_{K/F}(\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)).$ Since $\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)\\in O_{F_0}$ is a unit and $\\Delta_{K/F}=\\omega_{K/F}$ induces the quadratic character of $k_{F}^{\\times}=k_{F_0}^{\\times}$, then for this particular choice of $c$ we obtain $$\\Delta_{K/F}(c')=\\begin{cases}\n                   1 & \\text{if $\\overline{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)}$ is a square in $k_{F_0}^{\\times}$}\\\\\n                   -1 & \\text{if $\\overline{\\text{Tr}_{F/F_0}(pc)}$ is not a square in $k_{F_0}^{\\times}$}.\\\\\n                  \\end{cases}$$\n\n**Computation of $\\lambda_{K/F}$, where $K/F$ is a wildly ramified extension**\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn the case $p=2$, the square class group of $F$, i.e., $F^\\times/{F^\\times}^2$ can be very large (cf. Theorem 2.29 on p. 165 of [@TYM]), so we can have many quadratic characters but they are wildly ramified, not tame. In Remark \\[Remark 1.2\\], we mention the current status of the this wildly ramified quadratic case.\n\nLet $G=\\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$. From Theorem 2.29 on p. 165 of [@TYM], if $F/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2$, we have $|F^\\times/{F^\\times}^2|=2^m,\\,(m{\\geqslant}3)$ and the $2$-rank of $G$ (i.e., the dimension of $G/G^2$ as a vector space over ${\\mathbb{F}}_2$) $\\text{rk}_2(G)\\ne 1$ and $G$ is not metacyclic. Then from Bruno Kahn\u2019s result, the second Stiefel-Whitney class $s_2(\\text{Ind}_{K/F}(1))=0$ (cf. Theorem 1 of [@BK]). Since $s_2(\\text{Ind}_{K/F}(1))=0$, the Deligne constant $c(\\text{Ind}_{K/F}(1))=1$ (cf. Theorem 3 on p. 129 of [@JT1]). Again since here $\\text{rk}_2(G)\\ne 1$ and $G$ is not metacyclic, we have $\\Delta_{K/F}\\equiv 1$. Therefore, we can conclude that $$\\lambda_{K/F}(\\psi)=c(\\text{Ind}_{K/F}(1))\\cdot W(\\Delta_{K/F},\\psi)=1,$$ where $\\psi$ is a nontrivial additive character of $F$.\n\n\\[Example wild\\]\n\nIn this case, we have (cf. pp. 60-63 of [@SABT]): $$\\lambda_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_2(\\sqrt{5})/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2}=1, \\lambda_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_2(\\sqrt{-1})/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2}=i, \\lambda_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_2(\\sqrt{-5})/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2}=i,\n\\lambda_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_2(\\sqrt{2})/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2}=1,$$ $$\\lambda_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_2(\\sqrt{10})/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2}=-1, \n\\lambda_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_2(\\sqrt{-2})/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2}=i, \\lambda_{{\\mathbb{Q}}_2(\\sqrt{-10})/{\\mathbb{Q}}_2}=-i.$$\n\n**Acknowledgements.** I would like to thank Prof. E.-W. Zink, Humboldt University, Berlin for suggesting this problem and his constant valuable advice and comments. I express my gratitude to the referee for his/her valuable comments and suggestions for the improvement of the paper.\n\n[99]{}\n\nS.A. Biswas, Local Constants for Galois Representations - Some Explicit Results, Ph.D. Thesis, <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.06089.pdf>.\n\nS.A. Biswas, Computation of the Lambda function for a finite Galois extension, Journal of Number Theory, Volume 186, May 2018, Pages 180-201, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnt.2017.09.025.>\n\nC.J. Bushnell, G. Henniart, The local Langlands conjecture for $GL(2)$, Springer-Verlag, 2006.\n\nJ. W. Cogdell, L-functions and converse theorems for $GL_n$, IAS/Park City Mathematics Series, Volume [**12**]{}, 2002, pp. 97-177.\n\nG. Henniart, Charact\u00e9risation de la correspondence de Langlands locale par les facteurs $\\epsilon$ de paires, Invent. Math [**113**]{}(1993), no. 2, 339-350.\n\nB. Kahn, La deuxi\u00e8me classe de Stiefel-Whitney d\u2019une repr\u00e9sentation r\u00e9guli\u00e8re. I, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S\u00e9r. I Math. [**297**]{} (1983), no. 6, 313-316.\n\nT.Y. Lam, Introduction to quadratic forms over fields, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Volume [**67**]{}, AMS, Providence, Rhode Island, 2004.\n\nR.P. Langlands, On the functional equation of the Artin $L$-functions, unpublished article, <https://publications.ias.edu/sites/default/files/a-ps.pdf>.\n\nR. Lidl, H. Niederreiter, Finite fields, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its applications, Cambridge University press 2000.\n\nC.J. Moreno, A. Wan, Unusual applications of quadratic Gaussian sums, DIMACA Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, Volume [**64**]{}, 2004, pp. 227-264.\n\nT. Saito, Local constant of $\\text{Ind}_{K}^{L}1$, Comment. Math. Helvetici [**70**]{} (1995), 507-515.\n\nJ-P. Serre, Local field, Springer-Verlag, 1979.\n\nJ. Tate, Local Constants, Algebraic Number Fields (L-functions and Galois properties), in: A. Fr\u00f6hlich (Ed.), Proceedings of Symposium, 1977, pp. 89-131.\n\nA. Weil, Basic number theory, Third edition, Springer-Verlag, 1974.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present a concept for control of the ion polarization, called a transparent spin method. The spin transparency is achieved by designing such a synchrotron structure that the net spin rotation angle in one particle turn is zero. The polarization direction of any ions including deuterons can be efficiently controlled using weak quasi-static fields. These fields allow for dynamic adjustment of the polarization direction during an experiment. The main features of the Transparent Spin method are illustrated in a figure-8 collider. The results are relevant to the Electron-Ion Collider considered in the US, the ion-ion collider NICA constructed in Russia, and a polarized Electron-ion collider planned in China.'\nauthor:\n- 'Yu.N. Filatov'\n- 'A.M. Kondratenko'\n- 'M.A. Kondratenko'\n- 'Ya.S. Derbenev'\n- 'V.S. Morozov'\ntitle: Transparent Spin Method for Spin Control of Hadron Beams in Colliders\n---\n\n*Introduction.*\u00a0\u2014 Polarized beam experiments have been and remain a crucial tool in understanding particle and nuclear structure and reactions from the first principles [@b:principles]. In particular, polarized light ion ($p$, $d$, ${}^3He$) and electron beams are necessary for the successful operation of a proposed high-luminosity polarized *Electron-Ion Collider* (EIC) that is currently under active design [@b:EIC_MEIC; @b:EIC_eRHIC; @b:EIC_China]. Technologies for production of polarized light ions already exist or will be operational in the near future at several colliders worldwide\u00a0[@b:IonSource].\n\nAfter a polarized beam is generated by a source, the first task is to preserve the beam\u2019s polarization in the process of its acceleration to the final energy. The next task is to maintain the polarization during a long-term experimental run. There are presently complete and efficient solutions to these tasks for future colliders under design and consideration. In general, they are based on using the *Siberian Snake*\u00a0[@b:AccSnake1; @b:AccSnake2; @b:SYLee] and *figure-8 orbit* techniques\u00a0[@b:AccFig8]. Both techniques eliminate depolarizing *spin resonances*\u00a0[@b:SYLee] by making the spin tune energy independent. Presently, polarization preservation using helical snakes\u00a0[@b:RHICSnakes] has been successfully demonstrated up to high energies in a proton-proton collider, RHIC. Other techniques for suppressing depolarization during acceleration have also been proposed, for example, by employing high super-periodicity in the design of a synchrotron\u00a0[@b:HighPeriodicity].\n\nA typical task of a collider setup is adjustment of the required polarization direction at the interaction point (IP). In RHIC, *fixed* longitudinal polarization at a specific IP is set using a pair of *spin rotators* turning the spins by $\\pm 90^\\circ$ [@b:RHICSnakes]. Another task is change of the polarization direction during an experiment and, in particular, frequent flips of the polarization to minimize systematic errors. Experimentally verified spin-flipping schemes are based on adiabatically sweeping an RF magnet\u2019s frequency through an induced spin resonance [@b:RFflip]. This technique is used in RHIC for spin flipping with an efficiency of 97% in the energy range of 24 to 255\u00a0GeV\u00a0[@b:RFflipRHIC]. However, every single crossing of an RF resonance causes some polarization loss that limits the admissible number of spin flips during an experiment.\n\nThis paper presents a new method for ion polarization control called a *Transparent Spin* (TS) technique. This technique allows one to first preserve the polarization during acceleration and maintain it in the collider mode. It then enables flexible and efficient manipulation of the polarization direction of any particle species. The polarization can be adjusted to any direction at any orbital location during the whole time of an experiment. Such an adjustment causes practically no polarization\u00a0loss.\n\nThe ideas of the TS method were first formulated in the design process of the figure-8 booster and collider synchrotrons of the JLEIC project [@b:baseJLEIC]. They were further developed and applied in the design of the racetrack rings of the NICA hadron collider project [@b:NICA1].\n\n*Transparent spin concept.*\u00a0\u2014 According to the basic theorem about the spin motion of a particle moving along an arbitrary periodic closed orbit\u00a0[@b:axisN], there always exists a periodic spin axis $\\vec{n}(z)=\\vec{n}(z+C)$ such that the spin motion can be in general represented as precession about $\\vec{n}(z)$ with a spin tune $\\nu$. Here $z$ is the distance along the closed orbit, $C$ is the orbit circumference, and $2\\pi\\nu$ is the phase advance of the spin precession per particle turn. The $\\vec{n}(z)$ axis is unique if the spin precession frequency is not a harmonic of the particle circulation frequency. Due to the spin tune spread associated with the beam emittances, the resulting beam polarization is established along $\\vec{n}$\u00a0[@b:AlongAxisN; @b:Derbenev1973polkin].\n\nThe TS method is based on designing such a magnetic structure of a synchrotron that the net effect of the synchrotron elements on the spin for motion along the design closed orbit is compensated over a single particle turn. The magnetic lattice of the synchrotron becomes \u201ctransparent\u201d to the spin. A natural example of such a structure is a flat figure-8 ring. In \u201ctransparent\u201d structures, the spin motion becomes degenerate: any spin direction at any orbital location repeats every particle turn. This means that the particles are in a *TS resonance* with $\\nu=0$. The spin motion in such a situation is highly sensitive to small perturbations of the magnetic fields along the orbit. At the same time, this sensitivity allows one to implement a simple and efficient spin control system using a *spin navigator* (SN). An SN is a flexible device consisting of elements with weak *constant* or *quasi-stationary* magnetic fields rotating the spins about a desirable direction $\\vec{n}_N$ by a small angle $2\\pi\\nu_N$. Such a navigator has practically no effect on the orbital beam dynamics\u00a0[@b:SmallSol; @b:smallField].\n\nIn an ideal synchrotron lattice, the stable polarization axis $\\vec{n}$ in the straight housing the SN coincides with the SN axis $\\vec{n}_N$ and the resulting spin tune $\\nu$ equals $\\nu_N$. Clearly, to control the spin, one must use a sufficiently strong SN to dominate over the effect of the small perturbative fields around a particle\u2019s trajectory. There are two sources of these fields: lattice imperfections and focusing magnetic and bunching RF fields experienced by particles during their free transverse and longitudinal (betatron and synchrotron) oscillations.\n\nLet us illustrate the TS method using a figure-8 orbit as an example.\n\n*Spin motion in a figure-8 synchrotron.*\u00a0\u2014 In an ideal figure-8 synchrotron, rotation of the spins in one arc is compensated by an opposite rotation in the other arc. When a particle is moving on a flat design orbit, the spin tune is zero for any particle energy, so the spin motion is degenerate.\n\nWhen a particle\u2019s trajectory deviates from the design orbit, the particle experiences perturbing magnetic fields. The effect of these fields on the spin in a large number of particle turns can be expressed in terms of the *TS resonance field* $\\vec{\\omega}$ (TS-field). In the absence of SNs, the direction of $\\vec{\\omega}$ defines the direction of the stable spin axis $\\vec{n}=(\\vec{\\omega}/\\omega)$ while its absolute value, or the *TS resonance strength*, $\\omega=|\\vec{\\omega}|$ defines the particle\u2019s spin tune: $\\nu=\\omega$, i.e. the spin completes a full rotation about the $\\vec{n}$ axis in $1/\\omega$ particle turns around the orbit\u00a0[@b:EIC_MEIC]. The TS resonance spin field is a 3D extension of the conventional 2D resonance strength concept for cases when the spin motion is degenerate. Conventional codes, such as DEPOL\u00a0[@b:DEPOL], are valid for synchrotrons with a distinct polarization direction and calculate the spin field component transverse to this direction.\n\nTo set the required polarization direction, an SN is inserted into the synchrotron lattice. For example, a weak solenoid inserted into an experimental straight stabilizes the longitudinal polarization direction in that straight.\n\n*Strength of the TS resonance.*\u00a0\u2014 The TS-field $\\vec{\\omega}$ consists of two parts: the coherent field associated with the closed orbit distortion caused by lattice imperfections and the incoherent field associated with the beam emittances.\n\nWith *fixed* element alignment errors, the field of a synchrotron is constant and does not change during an experiment. Since alignment errors are random, our analysis uses an rms strength obtained statistically assuming independent distributions of element misalignments\u00a0[@b:EIC_MEIC; @b:statModel]. The magnitude of is non-zero only in the second order of the particle\u2019s oscillation amplitudes and is proportional to the beam emittances. In practice, significantly exceeds \u00a0[@b:EIC_MEIC].\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[f:W\\_JLEIC\\] shows an analytic calculation of and for deuterons and protons as functions of the beam momentum for JLEIC\u2019s figure-8 collider ring [@b:AccJLEIC]. is calculated assuming random uncorrelated transverse shifts of all quadrupoles giving an rms closed orbit excursion of 100\u00a0$\\mu$m. The calculation of assumes normalized transverse emittances of 1 mm$\\cdot$mrad.\n\n![\\[f:W\\_JLEIC\\] TS resonance strengths for deuterons and protons in JLEIC versus the beam momentum.](W_JLEIC_deut \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\\\n![\\[f:W\\_JLEIC\\] TS resonance strengths for deuterons and protons in JLEIC versus the beam momentum.](W_JLEIC_prot \"fig:\"){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe deuteron grows with momentum but does not exceed $3\\cdot 10^{-5}$. The proton is $ 10^{-4}$ \u2013 $10^{-3}$ in the whole momentum range with exception of narrow interference peaks where the spin effects of the arc magnets add up coherently. In both cases, is about two orders of magnitude lower than in the whole momentum range.\n\n*Polarization control condition.*\u00a0\u2014 In the presence of a navigator, the particle spins are precessing about an effective spin field $\\vec{h}$ consisting of the navigator and TS fields\u00a0[@b:axisN]: $$\\vec{h}(z)=\\nu_N \\,\\vec{n}_N(z)+\\vec{\\omega}(z)\\,.$$ At the SN location, $\\vec{n}_N(z)$ coincides with the SN\u2019s spin rotation axis. In the rest of the ring, $\\vec{n}_N(z)$ evolves according to the Thomas-BMT equation.\n\nTo stabilize and control the polarization, the navigator strength must significantly exceed the TS resonance strength (the control condition) $$\\nu_N \\gg \\omega \\,.$$\n\nPolarization then points along the navigator field direction $\\vec{n}_N$. The angle of uncontrolled deviation of the polarization from $\\vec{n}_N$ is of the order of $\\omega/\\nu_N$.\n\nIn the above example, depending on the beam momentum, the SN strength must be large compared to for deuterons and $10^{-4}$\u2013$10^{-2}$ for protons to control their polarization.\n\n*Acceleration in TS mode.*\u00a0\u2014 Note that $\\vec{h}$ is a function of energy. Typically, during acceleration, $\\vec{h}$ changes adiabatically slowly, i.e. in a characteristic time of the field change, the spin makes a large number of turns about the field. In that case, the spin initially oriented along $\\vec{h}$ follows it during the whole acceleration process and polarization is preserved. Since, in figure-8 accelerators as well as in accelerators with two snakes, the spin tune does not explicitly depend on energy, synchrotron oscillations have practically no effect on the spin dynamics. We showed analytically and numerically that, in the presence of an appropriate spin navigator, effects of imperfections, coupling, betatron and synchrotron oscillations can be neglected\u00a0[@b:EIC_MEIC].\n\nFigure\u00a0\\[f:Sz\\_deut\\] shows the longitudinal spin component of a deuteron during acceleration in JLEIC [@b:AccJLEIC]. The simulation is done using a spin tracking code Zgoubi [@b:Zgoubi]. The simulation parameters are chosen based on a prediction of the same model that is used to analytically calculate the TS-resonance strength in Fig.\u00a0\\[f:W\\_JLEIC\\]. The field ramp rate is 3\u00a0T/min. The longitudinal polarization direction is stabilized by a solenoid with a maximum field integral of about 7\u00a0T$\\cdot$m. Such a solenoid provides a navigator strength of $\\nu_N=3\\cdot 10^{-3}$ and the control condition is satisfied with a large margin. The change in the longitudinal spin component does not exceed a value of $2\\cdot 10^{-5}$ as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[f:Sz\\_deut\\].\n\n![\\[f:Sz\\_deut\\] Longitudinal spin component of a deuteron as a function of the beam momentum during acceleration in JLEIC.](Sz_deut){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nWhen accelerating protons in the same lattice, the same solenoid provides an SN strength of . Figure\u00a0\\[f:Sz\\_prot\\] shows the longitudinal spin components of three protons with $\\Delta p/p=0$ (green line), $\\Delta p/p=10^{-3}$ (red line) and $\\Delta p/p=-10^{-3}$ (blue line). The graphs of the longitudinal spin components practically do not differ from each other (the red line covers up the blue and green lines), i.e. the synchrotron energy modulation has no noticeable effect on the ion spin motion.\n\n![\\[f:Sz\\_prot\\] Longitudinal spin component during acceleration of three protons in JLEIC.](Sz_prot){width=\"\\columnwidth\"}\n\nThe control condition in Fig.\u00a0\\[f:Sz\\_prot\\] is met almost everywhere except for narrow energy regions of the interference peaks (see Fig.\u00a0\\[f:W\\_JLEIC\\]) where the navigator strength is comparable to . However, crossing of these peaks during acceleration does not depolarize the beam. As illustrated in Fig.\u00a0\\[f:Sz\\_prot\\], they only cause coherent deviation of the spins from the longitudinal direction by angles determined by both the navigator and the coherent part of the TS-resonance strengths. The beam polarization restores its longitudinal direction in places where the control condition is again satisfied. This indicates that, in this example, the change in spin occurs adiabatically during acceleration. These tracking results agree well with the analytic calculation of the TS resonance strength in Fig.\u00a0\\[f:W\\_JLEIC\\].\n\nThis example suggests that if the goal is to simply preserve the polarization degree, the spin control condition can be relaxed to a weaker one of $\\nu_N \\gg {\\mbox{$\\omega _\\text{emitt}$}}$. Direction control can be restored by accounting for in the SN setting. can be measured experimentally.\n\n*Spin navigators.*\u00a0\u2014 Spin navigators can be technically realized in different ways using longitudinal and transverse fields\u00a0[@b:baseJLEIC; @b:smallField]. As an example, let us consider a spin navigator design based on weak solenoids, which have no effect on the closed orbit.\n\nA single solenoid stabilizes the longitudinal polarization direction at its location. One can set any polarization direction in the horizontal plane ($xz$) at the IP by introducing a second solenoid into the collider\u2019s lattice. Figure\u00a0\\[f:SN\\_2sol\\] shows a schematic of such a spin navigator where the two solenoids are separated by an arc dipole\u00a0[@b:SmallSol].\n\n![\\[f:SN\\_2sol\\] Schematic of a spin navigator for control of the ion polarization in the collider\u2019s plane using small solenoids.](SN_2sol_2){width=\"0.9\\columnwidth\"}\n\nOne can similarly design a 3D spin navigator for control of all three polarization direction components\u00a0[@b:baseJLEIC].\n\n*TS collider features.*\u00a0\u2014 Let us briefly formulate some of the new capabilities that become available when operating polarized beams in the TS mode.\n\n[**1.**]{}\u00a0Acceleration of the polarized beams.\u00a0\u2014 Energy independence of the spin tune in figure-8 TS synchrotrons and racetracks with two snakes allows for acceleration of beams without polarization loss. Besides, the figure-8 design solves a serious problem of accelerating polarized $p$ and ${}^3 He$ beams in the booster energy range and polarized deuteron beams to the EIC energies, where full Siberian Snakes are technically challenging\u00a0[@b:AccJLEIC].\n\n[**2.**]{}\u00a0Long-term polarization maintenance.\u00a0\u2014 One of the critical issues for any collider is a potential depolarization caused by higher order stationary spin resonances associated, in particular, with the beam-beam space charge interaction in the presence of a large spin tune spread. A long-term polarization maintenance was experimentally demonstrated in RHIC with two Siberian Snakes, where the polarization is sustained for many hours\u00a0[@b:pol_RHIC]. This success is achieved due to compensation of the spin tune spread by the snakes and a fine selection of the betatron tunes. Accordingly, with a proper tuning of the orbital oscillations, one should observe a similar stabilizing effect of the figure-8 configuration for all polarized ion species of an EIC.\n\n[**3.**]{}\u00a0Polarization control.\u00a0\u2014 An SN allows for flexible manipulation of the polarization direction not only at the IP but at any orbital location. It is also an efficient instrument for matching of the required polarization direction at injection of the beam into any of the synchrotrons of the collider complex. In addition, an SN simplifies the polarimetry by allowing adjustment of an optimal polarization orientation at a polarimeter.\n\n[**4.**]{}\u00a0On-line monitoring of the polarization.\u00a0\u2014 The TS mode gives a unique opportunity of quickly determining the polarization during an experiment, or on-line monitoring of the polarization. When adiabatically manipulating the polarization, its value is preserved at a high precision. The polarization vector is then a function of the SN magnetic fields and can be monitored using their set values. The relative accuracy $\\Delta$ of the polarization direction obtained this way is determined by the ratio of the TS resonance strength to the SN strength: $\\Delta\\sim\\omega/\\nu_N \\ll 1$.\n\n[**5.**]{}\u00a0Spin flipping.\u00a0\u2014 Spin flipping can be realized using a couple of SN solenoids that allow one to simultaneously control the polarization direction as well as the spin tune. The spin tune can be maintained constant during a spin flip thus avoiding any possibility of crossing the TS resonance or any of the higher-order spin resonances, which prevents polarization loss. To preserve the polarization degree during spin manipulation, the spin direction must change adiabatically. This condition can be specified as: $\\tau \\gg 1/\\nu$, where $\\tau$ is the number of particle turns necessary to flip the spin. For JLEIC, the flip time requirements are \u00a0ms for protons and $t_d\\gg 0.1$\u00a0s for deuterons\u00a0[@b:JLEICflip].\n\n[**6.**]{}\u00a0Ultra-high precision experiments.\u00a0\u2014 It may be of interest to consider compensation of the coherent part of the TS resonance strength at a selected energy using an SN. Furthermore, an appropriate design of the magnetic lattice may significantly suppress the emittance-dependent part as well. This may create new opportunities for ultra-high precision experiments with polarized beams in synchrotrons such as search for a permanent electric dipole moment of charged spinning particles.\n\n*TS racetrack with two identical Siberian snakes.*\u00a0\u2014 The TS mode of polarized colliding beams can also be realized in a synchrotron with a racetrack orbit geometry in its entire energy range by installing two identical Siberian Snakes in the opposite straights of the collider. For example, it is planned to use two solenoidal snakes in the NICA collider to operate it in the TS mode with polarized protons and deuterons in the momentum range of up to 13.5\u00a0GeV/c\u00a0[@b:NICA2].\n\n*TS mode in high-energy hadron colliders.*\u00a0\u2014 The TS mode can also be efficiently used in high energy polarized $pp$ colliders such as RHIC, LHC and future ultra-high energy projects. Earlier studies have shown that, using a system of many snakes around a collider ring\u00a0[@Derbenev:1983tt; @Derbenev:1988tt; @b:SSC] or, alternatively, using spin-compensated quadrupoles, one could stabilize the coherent spin to hundreds of TeV and higher energies\u00a0[@b:spin_comp_quad]. Such systems can be adjusted to accommodate the TS spin dynamics with its advantages for spin control and manipulation discussed above.\n\n*Proof-of-principle TS experiment in RHIC.*\u00a0\u2014 RHIC is currently the only operating collider allowing experiments with polarized protons. In normal operation, the axes of its two helical snakes are orthogonal to each other and the spin tune is a half-integer\u00a0[@b:RHICSnakes]. The snake design allows one to change the snake axis orientations by adjusting the currents of helical magnet pairs. To experimentally test the TS mode, we plan to configure the snake axes to have the same orientations\u00a0[@b:testRHIC]. Operation of RHIC in the TS mode may expand its capabilities for polarized proton experiments.\n\n*TS mode at an integer spin resonance.*\u00a0\u2014 One may consider the possibility of arranging the TS mode at an integer spin resonance $\\nu=\\gamma G=k$ (an imperfection resonance) in a conventional racetrack synchrotron even without snakes. However, in contrast to the above examples, the energy dependence of the spin tune limits the efficacy of the TS mode at integer resonances. Nevertheless, integer resonances may be used to test and tune polarization manipulation devices (i.e. spin navigators) in the TS mode at low energies available at conventional synchrotrons such as COSY (Julich), AGS (Brookhaven), and Nuclotron (Dubna). This mode of operation is also of interest for the EIC at BNL for manipulation of the deuteron polarization direction using spin navigators near the points of integer spin resonances, which occur about every 13\u00a0GeV. However, this question requires further study.\n\n*Conclusions.*\u00a0\u2014 We presented a concept of a Transparent Spin method for control of hadron polarization in colliders and identified its main features. The Transparent Spin mode in figure-8 colliders and in racetracks with two identical snakes allows one to:\n\n-   Control of the polarization by weak magnetic fields not affecting the orbital dynamics,\n\n-   Accelerate the beam without polarization loss,\n\n-   Maintain stable polarization during an experiment,\n\n-   Set any required polarization direction at any orbital location in a collider,\n\n-   Change the polarization direction using a spin navigator during an experiment,\n\n-   Monitor the polarization on-line during an experiment,\n\n-   Do frequent coherent spin flips of the beam to reduce experiment\u2019s systematic errors,\n\n-   Carry out ultra-high precision experiments.\n\nThe TS mode allows one to significantly expand the capabilities of polarized beam experiments at the EIC in the US, NICA in Russia, EicC in China, and other future facilities. It makes it possible for the RHIC-based EIC to manipulate the polarization during experiments in the whole energy ranges for protons and ${}^3He$ as well as for deuterons near energies corresponding to integer spin resonances. Solenoidal snakes of the NICA collider allow for operation with polarized protons and deuterons in the whole momentum range of up to 13.5\u00a0GeV/c.\n\nA proof-of-principle experimental test of the Transparent Spin mode is currently in preparation. Its goal is to validate the TS concept as a new effective tool in addition to existing polarized beam accelerator techniques.\n\nThis material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics under contract DE-AC05-06OR23177.\n\n[99]{} A.\u00a0Accardi *et al*., Eur. Phys. J. **A52**(9), 268 (2016). A.M.\u00a0Kondratenko *et al*., arXiv:1604.05632 (2016).\n\nE.C.\u00a0Aschenauer *et al*., arXiv:1409.1633 (2014).\n\nX.\u00a0Chen, arXiv:1809.00448 (2018).\n\nA.\u00a0Sy, ICFA-BD Newsletter **74**, 99 (2018).\n\nYa.S.\u00a0Derbenev and A.M.\u00a0Kondratenko, Sov. Phys. Doklady **20**, 562 (1976).\n\nYa.S.\u00a0Derbenev and A.M.\u00a0Kondratenko, AIP Conf. Proc. **51** (1979), p.\u00a0292.\n\nS.Y.\u00a0Lee, *Spin Dynamics and Snakes in Synchrotrons* (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997).\n\nYa.S.\u00a0Derbenev, University of Michigan report, UM HE 96-05 (1996).\n\nV.I.\u00a0Ptitsin and Yu.M.\u00a0Shatunov, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A **398**, 126 (1997).\n\nV.H.\u00a0Ranjbar *et al*., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams **21**, 111003 (2018).\n\nV.S.\u00a0Morozov *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **91**, 214801 (2003).\n\nH.\u00a0Huang *et al*., Phys. Rev. Lett. **120**, 264804 (2018).\n\nV.S.\u00a0Morozov *et al*., in Proc. IPAC\u201915 (2015), p.\u00a02301.\n\nA.D.\u00a0Kovalenko *et al.*, PEPAN **45**, 321 (2014).\n\nYu.N.\u00a0Filatov *et al*., EPJ Web Conf. **204**, 10014 (2019).\n\nYa.S.\u00a0Derbenev, A.M.\u00a0Kondratenko, and A.N.\u00a0Skrinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP **33**, 658 (1971).\n\nYa.S.\u00a0Derbenev and A.M.\u00a0Kondratenko, Sov. Phys. JETP **35**, 1230 (1972).\n\nYa.S.\u00a0Derbenev and A.M.\u00a0Kondratenko, Sov. Phys. JETP **37**, 968 (1973); Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **64**, 1918 (1973).\n\nV.S.\u00a0Morozov *et al*., PoS (PSTP 2013) 026 (2013).\n\nA.M.\u00a0Kondratenko *et al*., in Proc. Inl. Workshop EIC\u201914, JLab, Newport News, VA, MOCAUD3 (2014).\n\nE.D.\u00a0Courant, AIP Conf. Proc. **42**, 94 (1978);\\\nE.D.\u00a0Courant and R.D.\u00a0Ruth, BNL Rep. BNL-51270 (1980).\n\nV.S.\u00a0Morozov *et al*., in Proc. of IPAC\u201919 (2019), p.\u00a02791. V.S.\u00a0Morozov *et al*., in Proc. of IPAC\u201917 (2017), p.\u00a03014.\n\nF.\u00a0M$\\acute{\\text{e}}$ot, Nucl. Instr. Meth A **427**, 353 (1999).\n\nM.\u00a0Harrison, S.\u00a0Peggs, and T.\u00a0Roser, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. **52**, 425 (2002).\n\nV.S.\u00a0Morozov *et al.*, in Proc. of NA-PAC\u201916 (2016), p.\u00a0558. Ya.S.\u00a0Derbenev and A.M.\u00a0Kondratenko, Conf.\u00a0Proc.\u00a0C **830811** (1983), p.\u00a0413.\n\nYa.S.\u00a0Derbenev and A.M.\u00a0Kondratenko, in Proc. 8th Int\u2019l Symposium on High-energy Spin Physics, Minneapolis, MN, September 12-17, 1988 (1988), p.1474.\n\nS.Y.\u00a0Lee and E.D.\u00a0Courant, Phys. Rev. D **41**, 292 (1990).\n\nA.W.\u00a0Chao and Ya.S.\u00a0Derbenev, Part. Acc. **36**, 25 (1991).\n\nV.S.\u00a0Morozov *et al*., in Proc. of IPAC\u201919 (2019), p.\u00a02783.\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Within the composite operator formalism we derive a formula for the pion decay constant $f_{\\pi}$, as defined directly from the residue at the pion pole of the meson propagator, rather than from the matrix element of the axial current. The calculation is performed under some simplifying assumptions, and we verify the complete consistency with soft-pion results, in particular with the Adler-Dashen relation. The formula one obtains for (the pole-defined) $f_{\\pi}^2$ differs from the previous Pagels-Stokar expression by an additive term, and it still provides $f_{\\pi}^2$ in terms of the quark self-energy. We make some numerical estimates leading to $(30 \\div 40)\\%$ deviation for $f_{\\pi}^2$ with respect to the Pagels-Stokar formula.'\nauthor:\n- |\n    A.Barducci, R.Casalbuoni, M.Modugno, G.Pettini\\\n    [Dipartimento di Fisica, Univ. di Firenze and I.N.F.N., Sezione di Firenze ]{}\\\n    R.Gatto\\\n    [D\u00e9partement de Physique Th\u00e9orique, Univ. de Gen\u00e8ve]{}\ndate: |\n    UGVA-DPT 1997/03-972\\\n    Firenze Preprint - DFF-273/03/1997\ntitle: |\n    \u00a0\n\n    UNIVERSIT\u00c9 DE GEN\u00c8VE\\\n\n    SCHOLA GENEVENSIS MDLIX\n\n    [ **CORRECTIONS TO THE PAGELS-STOKAR FORMULA FOR $f_{\\pi}$ [^1]**]{}\n---\n\n458.5pt -21pt -1pt\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIn quantum chromodynamics the pion, as well-known, is a pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson associated with the spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry. Its decay constant $f_{\\pi}$ plays a key dynamical role in the chiral symmetry breaking mechanism of QCD, and analogous quantities appear in other theories which use similar paradigms, such as electroweak symmetry breaking through a new strong sector. In 1979 Pagels and Stokar proposed an approximate expression for the calculation of $f_{\\pi}$ [@pagels]. Their derivation used a sum rule due to Jackiw and Johnson [@jackiw], plus additional assumptions within the so-called dynamical perturbation theory, and allowed for an approximate expression for $f_{\\pi}$, as defined from the matrix element of the axial current, in terms of the quark self-energy. The formula is of great utility in QCD and also in theories derived from the old technicolour concept.\n\nThere has been a vast literature on the Pagels-Stokar (PS) formula with the general conclusion that it leads to a sensible result for $f_{\\pi}$, within uncertainties not easily controllable in view of the theoretical approximations present in the derivation [@miranski]. The Pagels-Stokar expression for the pion decay constant is\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nf_{PS}^2&=&{d(\\underline{r})\\over(2\\pi)^2}\\int_0^\\infty d k^2~ k^2~\n{\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)-{1\\over 2} k^2 \\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\\displaystyle{\nd \\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\\over d k^2}\\over\n\\left[\\displaystyle k^2+\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)\\right]^2}\\\\\n&&\\nonumber \\end{aligned}$$\n\nwhere $d(\\underline{r})$ is the dimension of the quark colour representation ($d(\\underline{r})=3$ in QCD) and $\\Sigma_{0}$ is the dynamical quark self-energy in the chiral limit.\n\nWe shall present below a new formula for $f_{\\pi}$, which shares with the PS formula the advantage of only depending on the self-energy $\\Sigma_{0}$, and that we derive within the composite operator formalism developed in ref. [@cjt] and as modified in ref. [@bcd]. Within such schemes one could think of two different calculations of the pion decay constant. One can evaluate the coupling of the pseudo-Goldstone to the axial-vector current. Alternatively, one can directly evaluate the residue at the pion pole of the meson propagator. These procedures correspond to different definitions, but only the second one agrees with the current-algebra and soft-pion results [@genrev] (in particular the Adler-Dashen relation). We shall follow the second procedure, that is calculating the residue at the pion pole. Within the composite operator formalism, for a first approximate understanding, we discuss here the so-called \u201crigid case\u201d, in which the presumably small logarithmic corrections coming from the renormalization-group analysis are neglected. For the asymptotic behaviour of the self-energy function we choose the one dictated by the operator product expansion (OPE) [@miranski] up to a logarithm which we neglect. The motivation for such approximate study is mainly that in this way it is possible to derive analitically the complete expression for the effective action at two fermion loops. Furthermore a phenomenological analysis we have previously performed of the pseudoscalar masses [@bcd] in this contest did not show any major inadequacy of such a treatment. Our expression for $f_{\\pi}^2$ is\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nf_{\\pi}^2 &=& {d(\\underline{r})\\over(2\\pi)^2}\n\\int_0^\\infty d k^2~\\left[\nk^2~{\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)-{1\\over 2} k^2 \\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\n{\\displaystyle {d \\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\\over{d k^2}}}\\over\n\\big[k^2+\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)\\big]^2}\n\\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\qquad\\qquad+\\left.{\\displaystyle k^6 \n\\left({d\\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\\over d k^2}\\right)^2\n- k^4\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)\\left({d \\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\\over d k^2 }\\right)^2 - k^4\n\\Sigma_{0}(k^2){d \\Sigma_{0}(k^2) \\over d k^2 }\\over 2\n{\\big[k^2+\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)\\big]^2}\n}\\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe first term in Eq. (2) is $f_{PS}^2$ of Eq. (1). By writing $f_{\\pi}^2$ = $f_{PS}^2$ $(1+{\\delta}^2)$, to get an evaluation of $\\delta$ we can go back to two different Ansatz for $\\Sigma_{0}$ we had used in the past to study low energy QCD [@bcd; @giulio]. We find for $\\delta^2$ values such as 0.35 and 0.37, suggesting that the correction to the Pagels-Stokar expression is presumably large $(30 \\div 40)\\%$ and presumably rather insensitive to the modification of the self-energy shape, provided the ultra-violet behaviour in $k^2$ is roughly maintained.\n\nThe effective action\n====================\n\nWe start from the effective Euclidean action for the composite operator formalism $$\\Gamma( {\\bf\\Sigma} ) = - {\\rm Tr}\\ln\\left[{\\bf S}_0^{-1} + {\\delta\n\\Gamma_2 \\over\\delta{\\bf S}}\\right] + {\\rm Tr}\\left[ {\\delta \\Gamma_2\n\\over\\delta{\\bf S} }{\\bf S}\\right] -{\\bf \\Gamma}_2({\\bf S})\n+ counterterms$$ where ${\\bf S}^{-1}_0= (i\\hat{p}- {\\bf m})$, [**m**]{} is the bare quark mass matrix, ${\\bf \\Gamma}_2({\\bf S})$ is the sum of all two-particle irreducible vacuum diagrams with fermionic propagator ${\\bf S}$ and ${\\bf \\Sigma} = \n-\\delta{\\bf \\Gamma}_2/\\delta{\\bf S}$. Eq. (3) is the modification of the effective action of Cornwall, Jackiw and Tomboulis [@cjt] which was introduced in ref. [@bcd] to account for the correct stability properties of the theory. At two-loop level ${\\bf \\Gamma}_2=\n{1\\over2}{\\rm Tr}({\\bf S}\\Delta{\\bf S})$, where $\\Delta$ is the gauge boson propagator, so that ${\\bf \\Sigma} = - \\Delta{\\bf S}$, ${\\rm Tr}\\left[{\\delta{\\bf \\Gamma}_2/\\delta{\\bf S}}\\right] = \n2{\\bf \\Gamma}_2$, and one can rewrite Eq. (3) in terms of ${\\bf \\Sigma}$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Gamma( {\\bf\\Sigma} ) &=& - {\\rm Tr}\\ln\\left[{\\bf S}_0^{-1} -{\\bf \\Sigma}\n\\right] + {\\bf \\Gamma}_2({\\bf \\Sigma}) + counterterms\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&- {\\rm Tr}\\ln\\left[{\\bf S}_0^{-1} -{\\bf \\Sigma}\n\\right] + {1\\over 2}{\\rm Tr}\\left({\\bf \\Sigma}\\Delta^{-1}{\\bf \\Sigma}\n\\right) + counterterms\\end{aligned}$$\n\nHere the variable ${\\bf \\Sigma}$ plays the role of a dynamical variable. At the minimum of the functional action, that is when the Schwinger-Dyson equation is satisfied, ${\\bf \\Sigma}$ is nothing but the fermion self-energy . A parametrization for ${\\bf \\Sigma}$, employed in [@bcd], was $${\\bf\\Sigma}=({\\bf s} + i \\gamma_5{\\bf p})f(k)\\equiv {\\bf\\Sigma}_s\n+i\\gamma_5 {\\bf\\Sigma}_p$$ with a suitable Ansatz for $f(k)$, and with [**s**]{} and [**p**]{} scalar and pseudoscalar constant fields respectively.\n\nThe effective potential\n=======================\n\nThe effective potential one obtains from Eq. (4) (see ref. [@bcd]) is $$\\begin{aligned}\nV={\\Gamma\\over\\Omega}&=& -{8\\pi^2 d(\\underline{r})\\over 3 C_2(\\underline{r})\ng^2}\n\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}{\\rm tr}\\left[{\\bf \\Sigma}_s\\Box_k{\\bf \\Sigma}_s\n+{\\bf \\Sigma}_p\\Box_k{\\bf \\Sigma}_p\\right]-\\nonumber\\\\\n&&- d(\\underline{r})~{\\rm Tr}\\ln\\left[i\\hat{k} - \\left({\\bf m}+{\\bf \\Sigma}_s\n\\right)-i\\gamma_5{\\bf \\Sigma}_p\\right] + \\delta Z~{\\rm tr}({\\bf m}{\\bf s})\\end{aligned}$$ where $C_2(\\underline{r})$ is the quadratic Casimir of the fermion colour representation (for $SU(3)_c$ $C_2 = 4/3$) and ${\\bf \\Sigma}_s = \\lambda_{\\alpha} s_{\\alpha} f(k)/ \\sqrt{2}$, ${\\bf \\Sigma}_p = \\lambda_{\\alpha} p_{\\alpha} f(k)/ \\sqrt{2}$, ${\\bf m} = \\lambda_{\\alpha}m_{\\alpha}/ \\sqrt{2}$ ($\\alpha=0,\\cdots,8$, $\\lambda_0 = \\sqrt{2/3}$, $\\lambda_i =$ Gell-Mann matrices, $i=1,\\cdots,8$). Furthermore $\\delta Z$ has a divergent piece to compensate the leading divergence proportional to ${\\rm tr}({\\bf m}{\\bf s})$ in the logarithmic term. For a quark of mass $m$ the effective potential is $$\\begin{aligned}\nV(s, p, m) &=& -{ d(\\underline{r}) c}\n\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\\left[{\\Sigma}_s\\Box_k{ \\Sigma}_s\n+{ \\Sigma}_p\\Box_k{ \\Sigma}_p\\right]-\\nonumber\\\\\n&&- 2d(\\underline{r})\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n\\ln\\left[k^2 + \\left( m+{\\Sigma}_s\\right)^2 + {\\Sigma}_p^2\\right] \n+ \\delta Z m s\\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $c=2\\pi^2/g^2$. In ref. [@bcd] after fixing $\\delta Z$ so as to cancel the leading divergence proportional to $m s$ in the logarithm, we had imposed the normalization condition $$\\lim_{ m\\rightarrow0}{1\\over m}\\left.{\\partial V\\over\n\\partial\\langle\\bar{\\psi}\\psi\\rangle}\\right|_{extr}=1$$ or, with $\\langle\\bar{\\psi}\\psi\\rangle = \n\\left(d(\\underline{r})M^3/2\\pi^2\\right) c \\bar{s}$ $$\\lim_{ m\\rightarrow0}{1\\over m}\\left.{\\partial V\\over\n\\partial s}\\right|_{extr}={d(\\underline{r})M^3\\over2\\pi^2}c$$ where $M$ is a momentum scale for the self energy and $\\bar{s}$ is the extremum of the effective potential. The extrema of the effective potential in the massless case $m=0$ depend only on $c$. Therefore Eq. (9) becomes, in this case, an equation for $c$ and M is left undetermined. This is nothing but the usual dimensional transmutation. The numerical values for $c$ and $s_0$, the minimum of the effective potential in the massless case, are obtained once one has fixed the Ansatz for $f(k)$.\n\nWith $\\Sigma_0(k) = s_0 f(k)$ we shall write in general $$\\delta Z = d(\\underline{r})\\left[{M^3\\over2\\pi^2}c +\n{4\\over s_0}\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}{\n{\\Sigma}_{0s}\\over k^2+ {\\Sigma}_{0s}^2}\\right]$$ The gap equation, from $\\displaystyle{d V\\over d s}=0$, is $${d(\\underline{r})\\over \\bar{s}}\\left[-2c \\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n\\bar{\\Sigma}_s\\Box_k\\bar{\\Sigma}_s - 4\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n{(m + \\bar{\\Sigma}_s)\\bar{\\Sigma}_s\\over k^2+ (m+\\bar{\\Sigma}_s)^2}\\right]\n+m\\delta Z = 0$$ where $\\bar{\\Sigma}_s=\\bar{s}f(k)$ and $\\bar{s}$ is the value at the minimum in the presence of the bare mass.\n\nLet us now turn to the effective action. The fields [**s**]{} and [**p**]{} depend in this case on the space coordinates and we shall use the Weyl symmetrization prescription $${\\bf\\Sigma}=({\\bf s} + i \\gamma_5{\\bf p})f(k)\\rightarrow\n{1\\over2}\\left[\n{\\bf s}({\\bf x}) + i\\gamma_5 {\\bf p}({\\bf x}),f({\\bf k})\n\\right]_{+}$$ We are interested in oscillations around the minimum of the effective potential, so we introduce $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\chi$}}}({\\bf x})={\\bf s}({\\bf x})-\\bar{\\bf s},\\qquad\n{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\pi$}}}({\\bf x})={\\bf p}({\\bf x})-\\bar{\\bf p}\\equiv{\\bf p}({\\bf x})\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&{\\bf v}({\\bf x})={{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\chi$}}}({\\bf x})+i\\gamma_5{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\pi$}}}({\\bf x})\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\bar{\\bf S }(k)=i\\hat{k}- \\left( ({\\bf m} +\\bar{\\bf \\Sigma}_s(k)\\right)\\end{aligned}$$ The [*Tr ln*]{} term in Eq. (4), which we denote as $\\Gamma_{log}$, becomes $$\\Gamma_{log}=-{\\rm Tr}\\ln \\left[i\\hat{k} - {\\bf m} -{\\bf \\Sigma}\\right]\n=-{\\rm Tr}\\ln \\left[\\bar{\\bf S }^{-1} -{1\\over2}\\left[\n{\\bf v}({\\bf x}),f({\\bf k})\\right]_{+}\\right]$$ As we are interested in the 2-points function, we expand to second order in ${\\bf v}({\\bf x})$ and after some calculation we obtain for the Fourier transform of $\\Gamma_{log}$ in Eq. (14) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Gamma_{log}&=&d(\\underline{r})\\Big\\{\n-2\\Omega\\int{d^4k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n{\\rm tr}\\ln\\left[\nk^2 + \\left({\\bf m} +\\bar{\\bf \\Sigma}_s(k)\\right)^2\n\\right] +\\int{d^4k\\over(2\\pi)^4}f(k){\\rm tr}\n\\left[\\bar{\\bf S}(k){{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\chi$}}}(0)\\right]\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+\n{1\\over2}\\int{d^4k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\\int{d^4q\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n{\\rm tr}\\left[\n\\bar{\\bf S}(k)i\\gamma_5 V(k, k+q){{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\pi$}}}(-q)\\bar{\\bf S}(k+q)\ni\\gamma_5 V(k+q, k){{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\pi$}}}(q)\\right. \\nonumber\\\\\n&&+\\Big. \\Big. (pseudoscalar\\leftrightarrow scalar,\ni\\gamma_5\\leftrightarrow {\\bf 1})\\Big]+ \\cdots\\Big\\}\\end{aligned}$$ where $$V(k_1,k_2)\\equiv {1\\over2}\\left[f(k_1) + f(k_2)\\right]$$\n\nFor $\\Gamma_2$ we obtain (working in Landau\u2019s gauge) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Gamma_2&=& -{d(\\underline{r})\\; c}\\;\\Omega\n\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}{\\rm tr}\\left[\\bar{\\bf \\Sigma}_s\n\\Box_k\\bar{\\bf \\Sigma}_s\\right]\\nonumber\\\\\n&& -{2d(\\underline{r}) c}\n\\left(\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}f(k)\\Box_k f(k)\\right){\\rm tr}\n(\\bar{\\bf s}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\chi$}}}(0))\\nonumber\\\\\n&& +\\int{d^4 q\\over(2\\pi)^4}{\\rm tr}\n\\Big\\{\n-{d(\\underline{r}) c}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\pi$}}}(-q)\n\\left( \\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}f(k)\\Box_k f(k) \\right)\n{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\pi$}}}(q)\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+ (pseudoscalar \\leftrightarrow scalar)\\Big\\}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFor the counterterm one has $$\\Gamma_{ct}={\\rm tr}({\\bf m}\\bar{\\bf s})\\Omega\\delta Z +\n {\\rm tr}({\\bf m}{{\\mbox{\\boldmath $\\chi$}}}(0))\\delta Z$$\n\nThe improved expression for $f_{\\pi}$\n=====================================\n\nWe note that each term in the effective action consists of a constant, a linear and a quadratic term in the fields. The constant term gives back the original potential Eq. (6) at the minimum. Such a term controls the normalization. The linear term vanishes by virtue of the gap equation, Eq. (11). The quadratic term stands up for the effective action up to the second order in the fields. In space-time coordinates $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Gamma&=&\\int{d^4 x}{d^4 y}\\int{d^4 q\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n{\\rm e}^{\\displaystyle -iq(x - y)}\\pi_{\\alpha}(x)\\cdot\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\cdot{\\rm tr}\\left\\{\n -{d(\\underline{r}) c}\n{\\lambda_{\\alpha}\\over\\sqrt{2}}\n\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}f(k)\n\\Box_k f(k) {\\lambda_{\\beta}\\over\\sqrt{2}}+\\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+\\left.\n{1\\over2}d(\\underline{r})\\int{d^4k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n\\left[\n\\bar{\\bf S}(k)i\\gamma_5{\\lambda_{\\alpha}\\over\\sqrt{2}}\n V(k, k+q)\\bar{\\bf S}(k+q)\ni\\gamma_5{\\lambda_{\\beta}\\over\\sqrt{2}}\n V(k+q, k)\\right]\\right\\} \\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\cdot\\pi_{\\beta}(y) +\\left. (pseudoscalar\\leftrightarrow scalar,\ni\\gamma_5\\leftrightarrow {\\bf 1}\\right)+ \\cdots\\end{aligned}$$\n\nFrom $$G^{-1}_{\\alpha\\beta}(x-y)={\\delta^2\\Gamma\\over\\delta\\pi_{\\alpha}(x)\n\\delta\\pi_{\\beta}(y)}$$\n\none finds for the Fourier transform of $G^{-1}_{\\alpha\\beta}(x-y)$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nG^{-1}_{\\alpha\\beta}(q^2)&=&{\\rm tr}\\left\\{\n -{2 d(\\underline{r}) c}{\\lambda_{\\alpha}\\over\\sqrt{2}}\n\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4} f(k)\n\\Box_k f(k) {\\lambda_{\\beta}\\over\\sqrt{2}}+\\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+\\left.\nd(\\underline{r})\\int{d^4k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n\\left[\n\\bar{\\bf S}(k)i\\gamma_5{\\lambda_{\\alpha}\\over\\sqrt{2}}\n V(k, k+q)\\bar{\\bf S}(k+q)\ni\\gamma_5{\\lambda_{\\beta}\\over\\sqrt{2}}\n V(k+q, k)\\right]\\right\\}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy using the gap equation to eliminate $c$ we get, for a quark of mass $m$ $$\\begin{aligned}\nG^{-1}_{\\alpha\\beta}(q^2)&=&\nd(\\underline{r})\\int{d^4k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n{\\rm tr}\\left[\n\\bar{S}(k)i\\gamma_5 V(k, k+q)\\bar{S}(k+q)\ni\\gamma_5 V(k+q, k)\\right]\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+{4~d(\\underline{r})\\over\\bar{s}^2}\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n{(m + \\bar{\\Sigma}_s)\\bar{\\Sigma}_s\\over \nk^2+ (m+\\bar{\\Sigma}_s)^2}\n-{m\\over\\bar{s}}\\delta Z\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe can eliminate $\\delta Z$ by using the normalization condition, see Eq. (10), and the relation $\\langle\\bar{\\psi}\\psi\\rangle = \n\\left(d(\\underline{r})M^3/2\\pi^2\\right) c \\bar{s}$ to obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\nG^{-1}(q^2)&=&-{m\\over\\bar{s}^2}\\langle\\bar{\\psi}\\psi\\rangle\n+ d(\\underline{r})\\left\\{-{4 m\\over\\bar{s}s_0}\n\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n{{\\Sigma}_{0}(k)\\over k^2+{\\Sigma}_{0}^2(k)}\\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+{4\\over\\bar{s}^2}\\int{d^4 k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n{(m + \\bar{\\Sigma}_s)\\bar{\\Sigma}_s\\over k^2+ (m+\\bar{\\Sigma}_s)^2}\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+\\left.\\int{d^4k\\over(2\\pi)^4}\n{\\rm tr}\\left[\n\\bar{S}(k)i\\gamma_5V(k, k+q)\\bar{S}(k+q)\ni\\gamma_5V(k+q, k)\\right]\\right\\}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNote that the second and third terms in Eq. (23) regularize each other in the ultraviolet.\n\nIn the limit of small quark masses, expanding in $q^{\\mu}$, we find $$G^{-1}(q^2)\\equiv \\left({F\\over\\sqrt{2}s_0}\\right)^2\\cdot\n\\left(q^2 - {2m\\over F^2}\\langle\\bar{\\psi}\\psi\\rangle_0\\right)$$\n\nwith $$\\begin{aligned}\nF^2 &=& {d(\\underline{r})\\over(2\\pi)^2}\n\\int_0^\\infty d k^2~\\left[\nk^2~{\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)-{1\\over 2} k^2 \\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\n{\\displaystyle {d \\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\\over{d k^2}}}\\over\n\\big[k^2+\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)\\big]^2}\n\\right.\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\qquad\\qquad+\\left.{\\displaystyle k^6\n\\left( {d\\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\\over d k^2}\\right)^2\n- k^4\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)\\left({d \\Sigma_{0}(k^2)\\over d k^2 }\\right)^2 - k^4\n\\Sigma_{0}(k^2){d \\Sigma_{0}(k^2) \\over d k^2 }\\over 2\n{\\big[k^2+\\Sigma_{0}^2(k^2)\\big]^2}\n}\\right]\\end{aligned}$$\n\nIn Minkowski metrics the propagator (24) has a pole at $q^2 = m^2_{\\pi} = -2 m \\langle\\bar{\\psi}\\psi\\rangle_0/F^2$, with residue $(\\sqrt{2}s_0/F)^2$, where $\\langle\\bar{\\psi}\\psi\\rangle_0=(d(\\underline{r})M^3/2\\pi^2) c s_0$. The Adler-Dashen relation (which follows from the symmetries and current algebra) requires the identification $f^2_{\\pi}= F^2$, so that $q^2 = m^2_{\\pi} = -2 m \\langle\\bar{\\psi}\\psi\\rangle_0/f^2_{\\pi}$. The rescaling factor $b$ relating the canonical field $\\varphi_{\\pi}$ (with unit residue at the pole) to the field $\\pi$, $\\varphi_{\\pi}=b\\pi$, is then $b=-f_{\\pi}/\\sqrt{2}s_0$, as indeed follows from current algebra and soft pions theorem (see ref. [@bcd]). Comparison of (25) with the Pagels-Stokar formula (1) leads to our new formula (2) of the introduction.\n\nTo get a numerical insight into the problem we use the dynamical calculations in ref. [@bcd; @giulio], where overall fits to low energy QCD were made on the basis of two alternative Ansatz for $\\Sigma(k)= s f(k)$: a smooth Ansatz $f(k) =\nM^3 /(M^2 + k^2)$ for which the relevant parameters took values $c=0.554$, $s_0=-4.06$, and a step-function Ansatz $f(k) =M [\\theta(M^2 -k^2)\n+(M^2/k^2) \\theta(k^2 - M^2)]$ for which one found $c=0.32$, $s_0=-2.69$. Our new expression for $f_{\\pi}$ has $f^2_{\\pi} = f^2_{PS}(1 +\\delta^2)$, where $\\delta$ follows from Eq. (25). We find $\\delta^2 = 0.347$ in the case of the smooth Ansatz, and $\\delta^2 = 0.376$ for the step-function Ansatz. We want to remark that in the massless limit we consider, the correction $\\delta$ depends only on $s_0$ (or $c$) and the shape of $f(k)$, but not on $M$. In particular, because of the fact that the relevant contribution to the chiral symmetry breaking phenomenon comes from relatively short-distance effects, the corrections will depend mainly on the ultraviolet behaviour of the self-energy. That is, the correction does not depend on the fit we have made to low energy QCD.\n\nIt therefore seems that: $(i)$ the corrections are relevant with respect to the old Pagels-Stokar formula; $(ii)$ the corrections do not seem to vary in a sensible way when varying the Ansatz for the self energy, at least within the Ansatz we have used.\n\nIt is obvious that the next step one should take is to see whether the neglected corrections, which we know must be there, can modify the results. However, due to previous experience from the study of the pseudoscalar masses [@bcd], we would not expect substantial changes in the overall picture of dynamical symmetry breaking.\n\nFinally we may stress that the new formula (2) we have obtained for $f_{\\pi}$, within the approximations made, does not require additional inputs beyond those already present in the Pagels-Stokar formula.\n\n[*This work has been carried out within the program Human Capital and Mobility (BBW/OFES 95.0200; CHRXCT 94-0579)*]{}\n\n[99]{}\n\nH. Pagels and S. Stokar, Phys.Rev. [**D20**]{} (1979) 2947. R. Jackiw and K. Johnson, Phys. Rev. [**D8**]{} (1973) 2386. For a review and for additional references: V. A. Miransky, \u201cDynamical Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Field Theories\", World Scientific, Singapore (1993); K. Aoki, M. Bando, T. Kugo, M. G. Mitchard and H. Nakatani, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**84**]{} (1990) 683; P. Jain and H. J. Munczek, Phys. Rev [**D44**]{} (1991) 1873, Phys. Lett. [**B282**]{} (1992) 157 ; T. Kugo and M. G. Mitchard, Phys Lett. [**B282**]{} (1992) 162, Phys. Lett. [**B286**]{} (1992) 355. J. M. Cornwall, R. Jackiw and E. Tomboulis, Phys. Rev. [**D10**]{} (1974) 2428. A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici and R. Gatto, Phys. Lett. [**147B**]{} (1984) 460, Phys. Rev. [**D38**]{} (1988) 238; R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, D. Dominici and R. Gatto, Phys. Lett. [**150B**]{} (1985) 295; R. Casalbuoni, in [*Proceedings of the International Symposium on Composite Models of Quarks and Leptons*]{}, Tokyo, Japan, 1985, edited by H. Terazawa and M. Yasu\u00e9 (Institute for Nuclear Study, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 1985). For general reviews of the field and references see: S. L. Adler and R. F. Dashen, \u201cCurrent Algebra and Applications\u201d, Benjamin, New York (1968); S. B. Treiman, R. Jackiw and D. J. Gross, \u201cLectures on Current Algebra and Applications\u201d, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey (1972); V. De Alfaro, S. Fubini, G. Furlan and C. Rossetti, \u201cCurrent in Hadron Physics\u201d, North Holland, Amsterdam (1973); E. Commins and P. H. Bucksbaum, \u201cWeak Interactions of Leptons and Quarks\u201d, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (1983); H. Georgi, \u201cWeak Interactions and Modern Particle Theory\u201d, Benjamin-Cummings, Menlo Park, California (1984). A. Barducci, R. Casalbuoni, S. De Curtis, R. Gatto and G. Pettini, Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{} (1992) 2203.\n\n[^1]: Partially supported by the Swiss National Foundation\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    An alternative approximation scheme has been used in solving the Schr\u00f6dinger equation for the exponential-cosine-screened Coulomb potential. The bound state energies for various eigenstates and the corresponding wave functions are obtained analytically up to the second perturbation term.\n\n    Keywords: Exponential-cosine-screened Coulomb potential, Perturbation theory\n\n    PACS\u00a0NO: 03.65.Ge\naddress: |\n    $^{\\ast }$Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Near East\\\n    University, Nicosia, North Cyprus, Mersin-10, Turkey\nauthor:\n- 'Sameer M. Ikhdair[^1]'\ntitle: 'A perturbative treatment for the exponential-cosine-screened Coulomb potential '\n---\n\n Introduction\n=============\n\nThe generalized exponential-cosine-screened Coulomb (GECSC) potential or the generalized cosine Yukawa (GCY) potential: $$V\\left( r\\right) =-\\left( \\frac{A}{r}\\right) \\exp (-\\delta r)\\cos (g\\delta\nr),$$ where $A$ is the strength coupling constant and $\\delta $ is the screening parameter, is known to describe adequately the effective interaction in many-body enviroment of a variety of fields such as atomic, nuclear, solid-state, plasma physics and quantum field theory \\[1,2\\]. It is also used in describing the potential between an ionized impurity and an electron in a metal \\[3,4\\] or a semiconductor \u00a0\\[5\\] and the electron-positron interaction in a positronium atom in a solid \\[6\\]. The potential in (1) with $g=1$ is known as a cosine-screened Coulomb potential. The static screened Coulomb (SSC) potential ($g=0$ case) is well represented by Yukawa form: $V(r)=-(\\alpha Ze^{2})\\exp (-\\delta r)/r$ which emerges as a special case of the ECSC potential in (1) with $A=\\alpha Ze^{2},$ where $\\alpha\n=(137.037)^{-1}$ is the fine-structure constant and $Z$ is the atomic number, is often used for the description of the energy levels of light to heavy neutral atoms \\[7\\]. It is known that SSC potential yields reasonable results only for the innermost states when $Z$ is large. However, for the outermost and middle atomic states, it gives rather poor results. Although the bound state energies for the SSC potential with $Z=1$ have been studied \\[7\\].\n\nThe Schr\u00f6dinger equation for such a potential does not admit exact solutions. So various approximate methods \\[8\\] both numerical and analytical have been developed \u00a0Hence, the bound-state energies of the ECSC potential were first calculated for the $1s$ state using numerical \\[3,8,9\\] and analytical \\[10,11\\] methods and for the $s$ states by a variational method \\[12\\]. Additionally, the energy eigenvalues of the ECSC potential \\[13\\] have been recalculated for the $1s$ state with the use of the ground-state logarithmic perturbation theory \\[14,15\\] and the Pad\u00e9 approximant method. The problem of determining the critical screening parameter $\\delta _{c}$ for the $s$ states was also studied \\[16\\].\n\nIt has also been shown that the problem of screened Coulomb potentials can be solved to a very high accuracy \\[17\\] by using the hypervirial relations \\[18,19,20\\] and the Pad\u00e9 approximant method. The bound-state energies of the ECSC potential for all eigenstates were accurately determined within the framework of the hypervirial Pad\u00e9 scheme \\[21\\]. Further, the large-N expansion method of Mlodinow and Shatz \\[22\\] was also applied to obtain the energies of the ground and first excited $s-$ states and the corresponding wave functions. Recently, we studied the bound-states of the ECSC potential for all states using the shifted large $N-$ expansion technique \\[23\\].\n\nIn this paper, we investigate the bound-state properties of ECSC potential using a new perturbative formalism \\[24\\] which has been claimed to be very powerful for solving the Schr\u00f6dinger equation to obtain the bound-state energies as well as the wave functions in Yukawa or SSC potential problem \\[24,25\\] in both bound and continuum regions. This novel treatment is based on the decomposition of the radial Schr\u00f6dinger equation into two pieces having an exactly solvable part with an addiitional piece leading to either a closed analytical solution or approximate treatment depending on the nature of the perturbed potential.\n\nThe contents of this paper is as follows. In section \\[TM\\] we breifly outline the method with all necessary formulae to perform the current calculations. In section \\[A\\] we apply the approach to the Schr\u00f6dinger equation with the ECSC potential and present the results obtained analytically and numerically for the bound-state energy values. Finally, in section \\[CR\\] we give our concluding remarks.\n\nThe Method {#TM}\n==========\n\nFor the consideration of spherically symmetric potentials, the corresponding Schr\u00f6dinger equation, in the bound state domain, for the radial wave function reads\n\n$$\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\\frac{\\psi _{n}^{\\prime \\prime }(r)}{\\psi _{n}\\left(\nr\\right) }=V(r)-E_{n},$$\n\nwith\n\n$$V\\left( r\\right) =\\left[ V_{0}(r)+\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\\frac{\\ell (\\ell +1)}{r^{2}}\\right] +\\Delta V(r),$$\n\nwhere $\\Delta V(r)$ is a perturbing potential and $\\psi _{n}(r)=\\chi\n_{n}(r)u_{n}(r)$ is the full radial wave function, in which $\\chi _{n}(r)$ is the known normalized eigenfunction of the unperturbed Schr\u00f6dinger equation whereas $u_{n}(r)$ is a moderating function corresponding to the perturbing potential. Following the prescription of Ref. 24, we may rewrite (2) as\n\n$$\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\\left( \\frac{\\chi _{n}^{\\prime \\prime }(r)}{\\chi _{n}(r)}+\\frac{u_{n}^{\\prime \\prime }(r)}{u_{n}(r)}+2\\frac{\\chi _{n}^{\\prime\n}(r)u_{n}^{\\prime }(r)}{\\chi _{n}(r)u_{n}(r)}\\right) =V(r)-E_{n}.$$\n\nThe logarithmic derivatives of the unperturbed $\\chi _{n}(r)$ and perturbed $u_{n}(r)$ wave functions are given by\n\n$$W_{n}(r)=-\\frac{\\hbar }{\\sqrt{2m}}\\frac{\\chi _{n}^{\\prime }(r)}{\\chi _{n}(r)}\\text{ \\ \\ and \\ \\ }\\Delta W_{n}=-\\frac{\\hbar }{\\sqrt{2m}}\\frac{u_{n}^{\\prime }(r)}{u_{n}(r)},$$\n\nwhich leads to\n\n$$\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\\frac{\\chi _{n}^{\\prime \\prime }(r)}{\\chi _{n}(r)}=W_{n}^{2}(r)-\\frac{\\hbar }{\\sqrt{2m}}W_{n}^{^{\\prime }}(r)=\\left[ V_{0}(r)+\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\\frac{\\ell (\\ell +1)}{r^{2}}\\right] -\\varepsilon _{n},$$\n\nwhere $\\varepsilon _{n}$ is the eigenvalue for the exactly solvable potential of interest, and\n\n$$\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}}{2m}\\left( \\frac{u_{n}^{\\prime \\prime }(r)}{u_{n}(r)}+2\\frac{\\chi _{n}^{\\prime }(r)u_{n}^{\\prime }(r)}{\\chi _{n}(r)u_{n}(r)}\\right)\n=\\Delta W_{n}^{2}(r)-\\frac{\\hbar }{\\sqrt{2m}}\\Delta W_{n}^{\\prime\n}(r)+2W_{n}(r)\\Delta W_{n}(r)=\\Delta V(r)-\\Delta \\varepsilon _{n},$$\n\nin which $\\Delta \\varepsilon _{n}=E_{n}^{(1)}+E_{n}^{(2)}+\\cdots $ is the correction term to the energy due to $\\Delta V(r)$ and $E_{n}=\\varepsilon\n_{n}+\\Delta \\varepsilon _{n}.$ If Eq. (7), which is the most significant piece of the present formalism, can be solved analytically as in (6), then the whole problem, in Eq. (2) reduces to the following form\n\n$$W_{n}(r)+\\Delta W_{n}(r))^{2}-\\frac{\\hbar }{\\sqrt{2m}}(W_{n}(r)+\\Delta\nW_{n}(r))^{\\prime }=V(r)-E_{n},$$\n\nwhich is a well known treatment within the frame of supersymmetric quantum theory (SSQT) \\[26\\]. Thus, if the whole spectrum and corresponding eigenfunctions of the unperturbed interaction potential are known, then one can easily calculate the required superpotential $W_{n}(r)$ for any state of interest leading to direct computation of related corrections to the unperturbed energy and wave function.\n\nFor the perturbation technique, we can split the given potential in Eq.(2) into two parts. The main part corresponds to a shape invariant potential, Eq. (6), for which the superpotential is known analytically and the remaining part is treated as a perturbation, Eq. (7). Therefore, it is obvious that ECSC potential can be treated using this prescription. In this case, the zeroth-order term corresponds to the Coulomb potential while higher-order terms consitute the perturbation. However, the perturbation term in its present form cannot be solved exactly through Eq. (7). Thus, one should expand the functions related to the perturbation in terms of the perturbation parameter $\\lambda $,\n\n$$\\Delta V(r;\\lambda )=\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty }\\lambda _{i}V_{i}(r),\\text{ \\ \\ }\\Delta W_{n}(r;\\lambda )=\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty }\\lambda _{i}W_{n}^{(i)}(r),\\text{ \\ }E_{n}^{(i)}(\\lambda )=\\sum_{i=1}^{\\infty }\\lambda _{i}E_{n}^{(i)},$$\n\nwhere $i$ denotes the perturbation order. Substitution of the above expansions into Eq. (7) and equating terms with the same power of $\\lambda $\u00a0on both sides up to $O(\\lambda ^{3})$ gives\n\n$$2W_{n}(r)W_{n}^{(1)}(r)-\\frac{\\hbar }{\\sqrt{2m}}\\frac{dW_{n}^{(1)}(r)}{dr}=V_{1}(r)-E_{n}^{(1)},$$\n\n$$W_{n}^{(1)2}(r)+2W_{n}(r)W_{n}^{(2)}(r)-\\frac{\\hbar }{\\sqrt{2m}}\\frac{dW_{n}^{(2)}(r)}{dr}=V_{2}(r)-E_{n}^{(2)},$$\n\n$$2(W_{n}(r)W_{n}^{(3)}(r)+W_{n}^{(1)}(r)W_{n}^{(2)}(r))-\\frac{\\hbar }{\\sqrt{2m}}\\frac{dW_{n}^{(3)}(r)}{dr}=V_{3}(r)-E_{n}^{(3)}.$$\n\nHence, unlike the other perturbation theories, Eq. (7) and its expansion, Eqs. (10-12), give a flexibility for the easy calculations of the perturbative corrections to energy and wave functions for the $nth$ state of interest through an appropriately chosen perturbed superpotential.\n\nApplication to the ECSC Potential {#A}\n=================================\n\nConsidering the recent interest in various power-law potentials in the literature, we work through the article within the frame of low screening parameter. In this case, the ECSC potential can be expanded in power series of the screening parameter $\\delta $ as \\[10\\]\n\n$$V(r)=-\\left( \\frac{A}{r}\\right) \\exp (-\\delta r)\\cos (\\delta r)=-\\left( \n\\frac{A}{r}\\right) \\sum_{i=0}^{\\infty }V_{i}(\\delta r)^{i},$$\n\nwhere the perturbation coefficients $V_{i}$ are given by\n\n$$V_{1}=-1,\\text{ }V_{2}=0,\\text{ }V_{3}=1/3,\\text{ }V_{4}=-1/6,\\text{ }V_{5}=1/30,\\cdots .$$\n\nWe now apply this approximation method to the ECSC potential with the angular momentum barrier\n\n$$V(r)=-\\left( \\frac{A}{r}\\right) e^{-\\delta r}\\cos (\\delta r)+\\frac{\\ell\n(\\ell +1)\\hbar ^{2}}{2mr^{2}}=\\left[ V_{0}(r)+\\frac{\\ell (\\ell +1)\\hbar ^{2}}{2mr^{2}}\\right] +\\Delta V(r),$$\n\nwhere the first piece is the shape invariant zeroth-order which is an exactly solvable piece corresponding to the unperturbed Coulomb potential with $V_{0}(r)=-A/r$ while $\\Delta V(r)=A\\delta -(A\\delta\n^{3}/3)r^{2}+(A\\delta ^{4}/6)r^{3}-(A\\delta ^{5}/30)r^{4}+\\cdots $ is the perturbation term. The literature is rich with examples of particular solutions for such power-law potentials employed in different fields of physics, for recent applications see Refs. \\[27,28\\]. At this stage one may wonder why the series expansion is truncated at a lower order. This can be understood as follows. It is widely appreciated that convergence is not an important or even desirable property for series approximations in physical problems. Specifically, a slowly convergent approximation which requires many terms to achieve reasonable accuracy is much less valuable than the divergent series which gives accurate answers in a few terms. This is clearly the case for the ECSC problem \\[29\\]. However, it is worthwhile to note that the main contributions come from the first three terms. Thereby, the present calculations are performed up to the second-order involving only these additional potential terms, which suprisingly provide highly accurate results for small screening parameter $\\delta .$\n\nGround State Calculations $\\left( n=0\\right) $\n----------------------------------------------\n\nIn the light of Eq. (6), the zeroth-order calculations leading to exact solutions can be carried out readily by setting the ground-state superpotential and the unperturbed exact energy as\n\n$$W_{n=0}\\left( r\\right) =-\\frac{\\hbar }{\\sqrt{2m}}\\ \\frac{\\ell +1}{r}+\\sqrt{\\frac{m}{2}}\\frac{A}{(\\ell +1)\\hbar },\\text{ \\ \\ }E_{n}^{(0)}=-\\frac{mA^{2}}{2\\hbar ^{2}(n+\\ell +1)^{2}},\\text{ \\ \\ \\ }n=0,1,2,....$$\n\nand from the literature, the corresponding normalized Coulomb bound-state wave function \\[30\\]\n\n$$\\chi _{n}(r)=N_{n,l}^{(C)}r^{\\ell +1}\\exp \\left[ -\\beta r\\right] \\times\nL_{n}^{2\\ell +1}\\left[ 2\\beta r\\right] ,$$\n\nin which $N_{n,l}^{(C)}=\\left[ \\frac{2mA}{\\left( n+\\ell +1\\right) \\hbar ^{2}}\\right] ^{\\ell +1}\\frac{1}{(n+\\ell +1)}\\frac{1}{\\sqrt{\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}}{mAn!}(n+2\\ell +1)!}}$ is a normalized constant,\u00a0\u00a0$\\beta =\\frac{mA}{\\left(\nn+\\ell +1\\right) \\hbar ^{2}}$ and $L_{n}^{k}\\left( x\\right)\n=\\sum_{m=0}^{n}(-1)^{m}\\frac{(n+k)!}{\\left( n-m\\right) !(m+k)!m!}x^{m}$ is an associate Laguarre polynomial function \\[31\\].\n\nFor the calculation of corrections to the zeroth-order energy and wavefunction, one needs to consider the expressions leading to the first- and second-order perturbation given by Eqs. (10\u201311). Multiplication of each term in these equations by $\\chi _{n}^{2}(r)$, and bearing in mind the superpotentials given in Eq. (5), one can obtain the straightforward expressions for the first-order correction to the energy and its superpotential: $$E_{n}^{(1)}=\\int_{-\\infty }^{\\infty }\\chi _{n}^{2}(r)\\left( -\\frac{A\\delta\n^{3}}{3}r^{2}\\right) dr,\\text{ }W_{n}^{(1)}\\left( r\\right) =\\frac{\\sqrt{2m}}{\\hbar }\\frac{1}{^{X_{n}^{2}(r)}}\\int^{r}\\chi _{n}^{2}(x)\\left[ E_{n}^{(1)}+\\frac{A\\delta ^{3}}{3}x^{2}\\right] dx,$$ and also for the second-order correction and its superpotential:\n\n$$E_{n}^{(2)}=\\int_{-\\infty }^{\\infty }\\chi _{n}^{2}(r)\\left[ \\frac{A\\delta\n^{4}}{6}r^{3}-W_{n}^{(1)2}\\left( r\\right) \\right] dr,\\text{ }$$ $$W_{n}^{(2)}\\left( r\\right) =\\frac{\\sqrt{2m}}{\\hbar }\\frac{1}{^{X_{n}^{2}(r)}}\\int^{r}\\chi _{n}^{2}(x)\\left[ E_{n}^{(2)}+W_{n}^{(1)2}(x)-\\frac{A\\delta ^{4}}{6}x^{3}\\right] dx\\ ,$$ for any state of interest. The above expressions calculate $W_{n}^{(1)}(r)$ and $W_{n}^{(2)}(r)$\u00a0explicitly from the energy corrections $E_{n}^{(1)}$ and $E_{n}^{(2)}$ respectively, which are in turn used to calculate the moderating wave function $u_{n}(r).$\n\nThus, through the use of Eqs. (18) and (19), after some lengthy and tedious integrals, we find the zeeroth order energy shift and their moderating superpotentials as\n\n$$E_{0}^{(1)}\\ =-\\frac{\\hbar ^{4}\\left( \\ell +1\\right) ^{2}\\left( \\ell\n+2\\right) \\left( 2\\ell +3\\right) }{6Am^{2}}\\delta ^{3},$$\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\nE_{0}^{(2)} &=&\\frac{\\hbar ^{6}\\left( \\ell +1\\right) ^{3}\\left( \\ell\n+2\\right) \\left( 2\\ell +3\\right) \\left( 2\\ell +5\\right) }{24A^{2}m^{3}}\\delta ^{4} \\\\\n&&-\\frac{\\hbar ^{10}\\left( \\ell +1\\right) ^{6}\\left( \\ell +2\\right) \\left(\n2\\ell +3\\right) \\left( 8\\ell ^{2}+37\\ell +43\\right) }{72A^{4}m^{5}}\\delta\n^{6},\\end{aligned}$$\n\n$$W_{0}^{(1)}(r)=-\\frac{\\hbar \\left( \\ell +1\\right) \\delta ^{3}r}{3\\sqrt{2m}}\\left\\{ r-\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}\\left( \\ell +1\\right) \\left( \\ell +2\\right) }{Am}\\right\\} ,$$ $$W_{0}^{(2)}(r)=-\\frac{\\hbar \\delta ^{4}cr}{2\\sqrt{2m}}\\left\\{ \\delta\n^{2}r^{3}+ar^{2}+b\\left[ r+\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}(\\ell +1)(\\ell +2)}{Am}\\right]\n\\right\\} -\\frac{\\hbar \\left( \\ell +1\\right) }{\\sqrt{2m}A}E_{0}^{(2)},$$ in which\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\na &=&\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}(\\ell +1)(3\\ell +7)\\delta ^{2}}{Am}-\\frac{3Am}{\\hbar\n^{2}(\\ell +1)^{2}},\\text{ \\ }b=\\left[ \\frac{\\hbar ^{4}(\\ell +1)^{2}(8\\ell\n^{2}+37\\ell +43)\\delta ^{2}}{2A^{2}m^{2}}-\\frac{3}{2}\\frac{(2\\ell +5)}{(\\ell\n+1)}\\right] ,\\text{ }  \\nonumber \\\\\n\\text{c} &=&\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}(\\ell +1)^{3}}{9Am}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTherefore, the analytical expressions for the lowest energy and full radial wave function of an ECSC potential are then given by\n\n$$E_{n=0,\\ell }=E_{n=0,\\ell }^{(0)}+A\\delta +E_{0}^{(1)}+E_{0}^{(2)}+\\cdots ,\\text{ }\\psi _{n=0,\\ell }(r)\\approx \\chi _{n=0,\\ell }(r)u_{n=0,\\ell }(r),$$\n\nin which\n\n$$u_{n=0,\\ell }(r)\\approx \\exp \\left( -\\frac{\\sqrt{2m}}{\\hbar }\\int^{r}\\left(\nW_{0}^{(1)}\\left( x\\right) +W_{0}^{(2)}\\left( x\\right) \\right) dx\\right) .$$\n\nHence, the explicit form of the full wave function in (22) for the ground state is\n\n$$\\psi _{n=0,\\ell }(r)=\\left[ \\frac{2mA}{(\\ell +1)\\hbar ^{2}}\\right] ^{\\ell +1}\\frac{1}{(\\ell +1)^{2}}\\sqrt{\\frac{Am}{\\hbar ^{2}(2\\ell +1)!}}r^{\\ell\n+1}\\exp (P(r)),$$\n\nwith $P(r)=\\sum_{i=1}^{5}p_{i}r^{i}$ is a polynomial of fifth order having the following coefficients: $$p_{1}=\\frac{(\\ell +1)}{A}E_{0}^{(2)}-\\frac{Am}{(\\ell +1)\\hbar ^{2}},\\text{ \\ \n}p_{2}=\\frac{9}{4}\\frac{(\\ell +2)}{(\\ell +1)^{2}}c^{2}d\\delta ^{4},\\text{ \\ }p_{3}=\\frac{1}{6}cd\\delta ^{4},\\text{ }p_{4}=\\frac{1}{8}ac\\delta ^{4},\\text{ \n}p_{5}=\\frac{1}{10}c\\delta ^{6},\\text{\\ }$$ in which $d=b+\\frac{6Am}{\\hbar ^{2}(\\ell +1)^{2}\\delta }$ and other parameters are given in (21).\n\nExcited state calculations $(n\\geq 1)$\n--------------------------------------\n\nThe calculations procedures lead to a handy recursion relations in the case of ground states, but becomes extremely cumbersome in the description of radial excitations when nodes of wavefunctions are taken into account, in particular during the higher order calculations. Although several attempts have been made to bypass this difficulty and improve calculations in dealing with excited states, (cf. e.g. \\[32\\], and the references therein) within the frame of supersymmetric quantum mechanics.\n\nUsing Eqs. (5) and (17), the superpotential $W_{n}(r)$ which is related to the excited states can be readily calculated through Eqs. (18) and (19). So the first-order corrections in the first excited state $(n=1)$ are\n\n$$E_{1}^{(1)}=-\\frac{\\hbar ^{4}\\left( \\ell +2\\right) ^{2}\\left( \\ell +7\\right)\n\\left( 2\\ell +3\\right) }{6Am^{2}}\\delta ^{3},$$ \u00a0\n\n$$W_{1}^{(1)}(r)\\approx -\\frac{\\hbar \\left( \\ell +2\\right) \\delta ^{3}}{3\\sqrt{2m}}\\left\\{ r^{2}+\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}(\\ell +2)(\\ell +3)}{Am}r-\\frac{2\\hbar\n^{4}(\\ell +1)(\\ell +2)^{2}}{A^{2}m^{2}}\\right\\} .$$\n\nConsequently, the use of the approximated first two terms of $W_{1}^{(1)}(r)$ in the preceeding equation in (19) gives the energy correction in the second-order as\u00a0\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ E_{1}^{(2)} &\\approx &\\frac{\\hbar ^{6}\\left( \\ell +2\\right) ^{3}\\left(\n\\ell +11\\right) \\left( 2\\ell +3\\right) \\left( 2\\ell +5\\right) }{24A^{2}m^{3}}\\delta ^{4}  \\nonumber \\\\\n&&-\\frac{\\hbar ^{10}\\left( \\ell +2\\right) ^{6}\\left( \\ell +3\\right) \\left(\n2\\ell +3\\right) \\left( 7\\ell ^{2}+101\\ell +211\\right) }{72A^{4}m^{5}}\\delta\n^{6},\\end{aligned}$$\n\nor\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ E_{1}^{(2)} &\\approx &\\frac{\\hbar ^{6}\\left( \\ell +2\\right) ^{3}\\left(\n\\ell +11\\right) \\left( 2\\ell +3\\right) \\left( 2\\ell +5\\right) }{24A^{2}m^{3}}\\delta ^{4}  \\nonumber \\\\\n&&-\\frac{\\hbar ^{10}\\left( \\ell +2\\right) ^{5}\\left( 16\\ell ^{5}+294\\ell\n^{4}+1795\\ell ^{3}+5085\\ell ^{2}+6878\\ell +3568\\right) }{72A^{4}m^{5}}\\delta\n^{6},\\end{aligned}$$\n\nif all the terms in (26) are used. Therefore, the approximated energy value of the ECSC potential corresponding to the first excited state is\u00a0\n\n$$E_{n=1,\\ell }=E_{1}^{(0)}+A\\delta +E_{1}^{(1)}+E_{1}^{(2)}+\\cdots .$$\n\nThe related radial wavefunction can be expressed in an analytical form in the light of Eqs (18), (19) and (22), if required. The appromation used in this work would not affect considerably the sensitivity of the calculations. On the other hand, it is found analytically that our investigations put forward an interesting hierarchy between $W_{n}^{(1)}(r)$ terms of different quantum states in the first order after circumventing the nodal difficulties elegantly,\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\n$$W_{n}^{(1)}(r)\\approx -\\frac{\\hbar \\left( n+\\ell +1\\right) \\delta ^{3}}{3\\sqrt{2m}}\\left\\{ r^{2}+\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}(n+\\ell +1)(n+\\ell +2)}{Am}r-\\frac{2\\hbar ^{4}(n+\\ell )(n+\\ell +1)^{2}}{A^{2}m^{2}}\\right\\} ,$$\n\nwhich, for instance, for the second excited state $\\left( n=2\\right) $ leads to the first-order correction\n\n$$\\ E_{2}^{(1)}=-\\frac{\\hbar ^{4}\\left( \\ell +3\\right) ^{2}\\left( \\ell\n+2\\right) \\left( 2\\ell +23\\right) }{6Am^{2}}\\delta ^{3},$$\n\n$$W_{2}^{(1)}(r)\\approx -\\frac{\\hbar \\left( \\ell +3\\right) \\delta ^{3}}{3\\sqrt{2m}}\\left\\{ r^{2}+\\frac{\\hbar ^{2}(\\ell +3)(\\ell +4)}{Am}r-\\frac{2\\hbar\n^{4}(\\ell +2)(\\ell +3)^{2}}{A^{2}m^{2}}\\right\\} .$$\n\nThus, the use of the approximated first two terms of $W_{2}^{(1)}(r)$ in the preceeding equation(19) gives the energy correction in the second-order as\u00a0\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\ E_{2}^{(2)} &=&\\frac{\\hbar ^{6}\\left( \\ell +2\\right) \\left( \\ell +3\\right)\n^{2}\\left( 2\\ell +5\\right) \\left( 2\\ell ^{2}+45\\ell +153\\right) }{24A^{2}m^{3}}\\delta ^{4}  \\nonumber \\\\\n&&-\\frac{\\hbar ^{10}\\left( \\ell +2\\right) \\left( \\ell +3\\right) ^{5}(16\\ell\n^{4}+474\\ell ^{3}+3879\\ell ^{2}+12118\\ell +12873)}{72A^{4}m^{5}}\\delta ^{6}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nTherefore, the approximated energy eigenvalue of the ECSC potential corresponding to the second excited state is\u00a0\n\n$$E_{n=2,\\ell }=E_{2}^{(0)}+A\\delta +E_{2}^{(1)}+E_{2}^{(2)}+\\cdots .$$\n\nFor the numerical work, some numerical values of the perturbed energies of the $1s$ and $2s$ states, in the atomic units we take $\\hbar =m=A=1,$ for different values of the screening parameter $\\delta $ in the range $0\\leq\n\\delta \\leq 0.10$ are displayed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The results are consistent to order $\\delta ^{6\\text{ }}$with earlier results obtained by applying different methods in Refs. \\[9,22,23\\]. Further, we display the results for the energy eigenvalues of $2s,$ $2p,$ $3s,$ $3p,$ and $3d$ states in Tables 3 and 4. Our results are then compared with accurate energy eigenvalues obtained by other authors. Thus, through the comparison of our results with those of Refs. \\[9,10,22,23\\] for large $n$ and $\\ell -$ values and small screening parameter values yields indeed excellent results.\n\nOn the other hand, we take $A=\\sqrt{2}$ and $\\delta =\\sqrt{2}G.$ Cosequently, we compute the binding energies $(-E_{n,\\ell })$ of the lowest-lying states, $1s$ to $3d,$ for various values of $\\delta .$ Hence, the detailed analysis of the results in terms of various domains of parameters $A$ and $\\delta $ of ECSC potential are displayed in Table 5. For further study of the bound-state energies and normalizations with analytical perturbation calculation in Table 6. We consider $A=Z=4,$ $8,$ $16,$ 24 in order to cover the range of low to high atomic numbers. For low strength of $A=Z,$ the energy eigenvalues nobtained are in good agreement with the other methods for low values of the screening parameter $\\delta .$ Obviously, when $\\delta $ is small the Coulomb field character prevails and the method has been adjusted to that. However, the results become gradually worse as $A$ and/or $\\delta $ are large.\n\nConcluding Remarks {#CR}\n==================\n\nWe have shown that the bound-state energies of the exponential cosine screened Coulomb (ECSC) potential for all eigenstates can be accurately determined within the framework of a new approximation formalism. Avoiding the disadvantages of the standard non-relativistic perturbation theories, the present formulae have the same simple form both for ground and excited states and provide, in principle, the calculation of the perturbation corrections up to any arbitrary order in analytical or numerical form.\n\nAdditionally, the application of the present technique to ECSC potential is really of great interest leading to analytical expressions for both energy eigenvalues and wave functions. Comparing various energy levels with different works in the literature we find that this treatment is quite reliable and further analytical calculations with this non-perturbative scheme would be useful. In particular, the method becomes more reliable as the potential strength increases.\n\nThe author wishes to dedicate this work to his son Musbah for his love and assistance.\n\nP. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 86, 694 (1952); R. Kubo, Phys. Rev. 87, 568 (1952).\n\nR. A. Ferrell and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. A 9, 846 (1974); A. J. Bray, J. Phys. A 7, 2144 (1974); E. Brezin, J. Phys. A 12, 759 (1979).\n\nV. L. Bonch-Bruevich and V. B. Glasko, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 4, 147 (1959).\n\nN. Takimoto, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 14, 1142 (1959).\n\nV. L. Bonch-Bruevich and Sh. M. Kogan, Sov. Phys. Solid State 1,1118 (1960) C. Weisbuch and B. Vinter, Quantum Semiconductor Heterostructures (Academic Press, New York, 1993); P. Harrison, Quantum Wells, Wires and Dots (John Wiley and Sons, England, 2000).\n\nE. P. Prokopev, Sov. Phys. Solid State 9, 993 (1967).\n\nR. Dutt and Y. P. Varshni, Z. Phys. D 2, 207 (1986).\n\nR. Dutt, A. Ray and P. P. Ray, Phys. Lett. A 83, 65 (1981); C. S. Lam and Y. P. Varshni, Phys. Rev. A 4, 1875 (1971); D. Singh and Y. P. Varshni, Phys. Rev. A 28, 2606 (1983).\n\nH. de Meyer[*\u00a0et al*]{}., J. Phys. A 18, L 849 (1985).\n\nC. S. Lai, Phys. Rev. A 26, 2245 (1982).\n\nR. Dutt [*et al*]{}., J. Phys. A 18, 1379 (1985).\n\nC. S. Lam and Y. P. Varshni, Phys. Rev. A 6, 1391 (1972).\n\nV. L. Eletsky, V. S. Popov, and V. M. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. A 84, 235 (1981).\n\nA. D. Dolgov and V. S. Popov, Phys. Lett. B 79, 403 (1978).\n\nY. Aharanov and C. K. Au, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1582 (1979)\n\nP. P. Ray and A. Ray, Phys. Lett. B 78, 443 (1981).\n\nC. S. Lai, Phys. Rev. A 23, 455 (1981).\n\nJ. D. Hirschfelder, J. Chem. Phys. 33, 1462 (1960).\n\nJ. Killingbeck, Phys. Lett. A 65, 87 (1978).\n\nM. Grant and C. S. Lai, Phys. Rev. A 20, 718 (1979).\n\nC. S. Lai, Phys. Rev. A 26, 2245 (1982).\n\nR. Sever and C. Tezcan, Phys. Rev. A 35, 2725 (1987).\n\nS. M. Ikhdair and R. Sever, Z. Phys. D 28,1 (1993).\n\nB. G\u00f6n\u00fcl, K. K\u00f6ksal and E. Bakir, \\[arXiv:quant-ph/0507098\\]; B. G\u00f6n\u00fcl, Chin. Phys. Lett. 21, 1685 (2004).\n\nB. G\u00f6n\u00fcl, Chin. Phys. Lett. 21, 2330 (2004); B. G\u00f6n\u00fcl and M. Ko\u00e7ak, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 355 (2005); B. G\u00f6n\u00fcl, N. \u00c7elik and E. Ol\u011far, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 1683 (2005); B. G\u00f6n\u00fcl and M. Ko\u00e7ak, \\[arXiv: quant-ph/0412161\\]; ibid. \\[arXiv: quant-ph/0503055\\].\n\nF. Cooper, A. Khare and U. P. Sukhatme, Phys. Rep. 251, 267 (1995).\n\nM. Zonjil, J. Math. Chem. 26, 157 (1999).\n\nM. Alberg and L. Wilets, Phys. Lett. A 286, 7 (2001).\n\nD. J. Doren and D. R. Herschbach, Phys. Rev. A 34, 2665 (1986).\n\nH. A. Bethe and E. E. Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics of One- and Two-Electron Atoms (springer, Berlin, 1957).\n\nL. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Tables of Integrals, Series and Products (Academic, New York, 1965).\n\nC. Lee, Phys. Lett. A 267, 101 (2000).\n\n  ----------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------- --------------------\n  $\\delta $   $1/N$ \\[22\\]     Dynamical \\[9\\]      Shifted $1/N$ \\[23\\]   $E_{n,\\ell }$\n  0.01        $-0.490$ $001$   $-0.490$ $001$ $0$                          $-0.490$ $000$ $9$\n  0.02        $-0.480$ $008$   $-0.480$ $007$ $8$   $-0.480$ $007$ $83$    $-0.480$ $007$ $8$\n  0.03        $-0.470$ $026$   $-0.470$ $026$ $0$                          $-0.470$ $025$ $9$\n  0.04        $-0.460$ $061$   $-0.460$ $060$ $9$   $-0.460$ $061$ $01$    $-0.460$ $060$ $8$\n  0.05        $-0.450$ $117$   $-0.450$ $117$ $4$                          $-0.450$ $117$ $2$\n  0.06        $-0.440$ $200$   $-0.440$ $200$ $4$   $-0.440$ $200$ $57$    $-0.440$ $200$ $0$\n  0.07        $-0.430$ $313$                                               $-0.430$ $313$ $4$\n  0.08        $-0.420$ $461$   $-0.420$ $463$ $6$   $-0.420$ $463$ $86$    $-0.420$ $461$ $7$\n  0.09        $-0.410$ $647$                                               $-0.410$ $648$ $8$\n  0.1         $-0.400$ $875$   $-0.400$ $883$ $9$   $-0.400$ $884$ $21$    $-0.400$ $878$ $5$\n  ----------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------- --------------------\n\n  : Comparison of bound energy eigennvalues for $0\\leq \\protect\\delta\n  \\leq 0.1$ for the $1s$ state in atomic units.\n\n  ----------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------- --------------------\n  $\\delta $   $1/N$ \\[22\\]     Dynamical \\[9\\]      Shifted $1/N$ \\[23\\]   $E_{n,\\ell }$\n  0.01        $-0.115$ $013$   $-0.115$ $013$ $5$                          $-0.115$ $013$ $4$\n  0.02        $-0.105$ $103$   $-0.105$ $103$ $6$   $-0.105$ $103$ $61$    $-0.105$ $103$ $3$\n  0.03        $-0.095$ $334$   $-0.095$ $336$ $6$                          $-0.095$ $334$ 6\n  0.04        $-0.085$ $755$   $-0.085$ $769$ $0$   $-0.085$ $769$ $59$    $-0.085$ $762$ $1$\n  0.05        $-0.076$ $406$   $-0.076$ $449$ $7$                          $-0.076$ $432$ 6\n  0.06        $-0.067$ $311$   $-0.067$ $421$ $7$   $-0.067$ $426$ $08$    $-0.067$ 390 0\n  0.07        $-0.058$ $482$                                               $-0.058$ 680 0\n  0.08        $-0.049$ $915$   $-0.050$ $392$ $2$   $-0.050$ $408$ $25$    $-0.050$ 357 6\n  0.09        $-0.041$ $598$                                               $-0.042$ 494 5\n  0.1         $-0.033$ $500$   $-0.034$ $967$ $7$   $-0.035$ $004$ $67$    $-0.035$ 188 0\n  ----------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------- --------------------\n\n  : Comparison of bound energy eigennvalues for $0\\leq \\protect\\delta\n  \\leq 0.1$ for the $2s$ state in atomic units.\n\n  ------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------- --------------------\n  State   $\\delta $   $E[10,10]$ \\[10\\]   $E[10,11]$ \\[10\\]   Pertur.\\[10\\]    Variational \\[10\\]   Shifted \\[23\\]         $E_{n,\\ell }$\n  $2s$    $0.10$      $-0.034$ $941$      $-0.034$ $941$      $-0.034$ $425$   $-0.034$ $935$       $-0.035$ $004$ $67$    $-0.035$ 188 0\n  $2p$                $-0.032$ $469$      $-0.032$ $469$      $-0.032$ $042$                        $-0.032$ $470 $ $15$   $-0.032$ 673 3\n  $2s$    $0.08$      $-0.050$ $387$      $-0.050$ $387$      $-0.050$ $222$   $-0.050$ $384$       $-0.050$ $408$ $25$    $-0.050$ 357 6\n  $2p$                $-0.048$ $997$      $-0.048$ $997$                                            $-0.048$ $996$ $93$    $-0.048$ $993$ $9$\n  $2s$    $0.06$      $-0.067$ $421$      $-0.067$ $421$      $-0.067$ $385$   $-0.067$ $421$       $-0.067$ $426$ $08$    $-0.067$ 390 0\n  $2p$                $-0.066$ $778$      $-0.066$ $778$                                            $-0.066$ $777$ $29$    $-0.066$ $761$ $1$\n  $2s$    $0.04$      $-0.085$ $769$      $-0.085$ $769$      $-0.085$ $767$   $-0.085$ $769$       $-0.085$ $769$ $59$    $-0.085$ $762$ 1\n  $2p$                $-0.085$ $591$      $-0.085$ $591$                                            $-0.085$ $559$ $13$    $-0.085$ $552$ $0$\n  $2s$    $0.02$      $-0.105$ $104$      $-0.105$ $104$      $-0.105$ $104$   $-0.105$ $104$       $-0.105$ $103$ $61$    $-0.105$ $103$ $3$\n  $2p$                $-0.105$ $075$      $-0.105$ $075$      $-0.105$ $075$                        $-0.105$ $074 $ $64$   $-0.105$ $074$ 4\n  ------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------- --------------------\n\n  : Energy eigenvalues as a function of screening parameter $\\protect\\delta $ for the $2s$ and $2p$ states in atomic units.\n\n  ------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------- --------------------\n  State   $\\delta $   $E[10,10]$ \\[10\\]   $E[10,11]$ \\[10\\]   Pertur. \\[10\\]   Variational \\[10\\]   Shifted \\[23\\]         $E_{n,\\ell }$\n  $3s$    $0.06$      $-0.005$ $461$      $-0.005$ $462$      $-0.004$ $538$   $-0.005$ $454$       $-0.005$ $666$ $38$    $-0.007$ $077$ $8$\n  $3p$                $-0.004$ $471$      $-0.004$ $472$                                            $-0.004$ $492$ $33$    $-0.005$ 405 8\n  $3d$                $-0.002$ $308$      $-0.002$ $309$                                            $-0.002$ $313$ $56$    $-0.002$ $924$ $0$\n  $3s$    $0.05$      $-0.011$ $576$      $-0.011$ $576$                                            $-0.011$ $685$ $44$    $-0.011$ $952$ $3$\n  $3p$                $-0.010$ $929$      $-0.010$ $929$      $-0.010$ $538$                        $-0.010$ $939 $ $85$   $-0.011$ $111$ $7$\n  $3d$                $-0.009$ $555$      $-0.009$ $555$      $-0.009$ $292$                        $-0.009$ $555 $ $42$   $-0.009$ $694$ $0$\n  $3s$    $0.04$      $-0.018$ $823$      $-0.018$ $823$      $-0.018$ $707$   $-0.018$ $822$       $-0.018$ $867$ $16$    $-0.018$ $858$ $6$\n  $3p$                $-0.018$ $453$      $-0.018$ $453$                                            $-0.018$ $457$ $05$    $-0.018$ $450$ $5$\n  $3d$                $-0.017$ $682$      $-0.017$ $682$                                            $-0.017$ $682$ $08$    $-0.017$ $691$ $0$\n  $3s$    $0.02$      $-0.036$ $025$      $-0.036$ $025$      $-0.036$ $022$   $-0.036$ $025$       $-0.036$ $027$ $38$    $-0.036$ $021$ $3$\n  $3p$                $-0.035$ $968$      $-0.035$ $968$      $-0.035$ $965$                        $-0.035$ $967 $ $71$   $-0.035$ $964$ $0$\n  $3d$                $-0.035$ $851$      $-0.035$ $851$      $-0.035$ $849$                        $-0.035$ $850 $ $66$   $-0.035$ $849$ $0$\n  ------- ----------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------------------- ---------------------- --------------------\n\n  : Energy eigenvalues as a function of screening parameter $\\protect\\delta $ for the $3s,$ $3p$ and $3d$ states in atomic units.\n\n  --------- ------- ------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- --------------------\n  G         State   $-E_{0,0}$          State   $-E_{1,0}$          State   $-E_{0,1}$          State   $-E_{1,1}$          State   $-E_{0,2}$\n  $0.002$   $1s$    $0.996$ $000$ $0$   $2s$    $0.246$ $000$ $2$   $2p $   $0.246$ $000$ $1$   $3p$    $0.107$ $112$ $0$   $3d$    $0.107$ $111$ $4 $\n  $0.005$           $0.990$ $000$ $2$           $0.240$ $003$ $4$           $0.240$ $002$ $4$           $0.101$ $125$ $5$           $0.101$ $116$ $0$\n  $0.010$           $0.980$ $001$ $9$           $0.230$ $026$ $9$           $0.230$ $019$ $3$           $0.091$ $221$ $7$           $0.091$ $147$ $5$\n  $0.020$           $0.960$ $015$ $6$           $0.210$ $206$ $6$           $0.210$ $148$ $9$           $0.071$ $928$ $1$           $0.071$ $361$ $7$\n  $0.025$           $0.950$ $030$ $2$           $0.200$ $395$ $3$           $0.200$ $285$ $7$           $0.062$ $648$ $5$           $0.061$ $566$ $5$\n  $0.050$           $0.900$ $234$ $4$           $0.152$ $865$ $2$           $0.152$ $099$ $1$           $0.022$ $223$ $5$           $0.014$ $137$ $4$\n  --------- ------- ------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- ------------------- ------- --------------------\n\n  : Energy eigenvalues of the ECSC potential in units of $\\hbar =m=1,$ $A=2^{1/2}$ \u00a0and $\\protect\\delta =GA.$\n\n  ------ --------- ----- ---------------- ------ --------- ----- ----------------\n  $A$    $\\ell $   $n$   $-E_{n,\\ell }$   $A$    $\\ell $   $n$   $-E_{n,\\ell }$\n  $4$    $0$       $0$   $3.207$ $029$    $16$   $0$       $1$   $12.825$ $303$\n  $8$    $0$       $0$   $14.403$ $752$          $0$       $2$   $4.023$ $139$\n         $1$       $0$   $2.433$ $587$           $1$       $1$   $4.009$ $505$\n  $16$   $0$       $0$   $60.801$ $938$   $24$   $0$       $1$   $31.217$ $455$\n         $1$       $0$   $12.818$ $287$          $0$       $2$   $11.279$ $786$\n  $24$   $0$       $0$   $139.201$ $31$          $1$       $1$   $11.269$ $899$\n         $1$       $0$   $31.212$ $563$          $1$       $2$   $4.412$ $177$\n         $2$       $0$   $11.249$ $961$          $2$       $1$   $4.380$ $887$\n                                                 $2$       $2$   $1.411$ $568$\n  ------ --------- ----- ---------------- ------ --------- ----- ----------------\n\n  : Energy eigenvalues of the ECSC potential for all states in units of $\\hbar =2m=1,$ and $\\protect\\delta =0.2$ $fm^{-1}.$\n\n[^1]: sameer@neu.edu.tr\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: |\n    In this paper we consider bubbling solutions to the general Liouville system: $$\\label{abeq1}\n    \\Delta_g u_i^k+\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}\\rho_j^k\\left(\\frac{h_j e^{u_j^k}}{\\int h_j e^{u_j^k}}-1\\right)=0\\quad\\text{in \\,}M,\\,\\, i=1,...,n \\,\\, (n\\ge 2)$$ where $(M,g)$ is a Riemann surface, and $A=(a_{ij})_{n\\times n}$ is a constant non-negative matrix and $\\rho_j^k\\to \\rho_j$ as $k\\to \\infty$. Among other things we prove the following sharp estimates.\n\n    1.  The location of the blowup point.\n\n    2.  The convergence rate of $\\rho_j^k-\\rho_j$, $j=1,..,n$.\n\n    These results are of fundamental importance for constructing bubbling solutions. It is interesting to compare the difference between the general Liouville system and the $SU(3)$ Toda system on estimates (1) and (2).\naddress:\n- |\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    Taida Institute of Mathematical Sciences\\\n    National Taiwan University\\\n    Taipei 106, Taiwan \n- |\n    Department of Mathematics\\\n    University of Florida\\\n    358 Little Hall P.O.Box 118105\\\n    Gainesville FL 32611-8105\nauthor:\n- 'Chang-shou Lin'\n- Lei Zhang\ntitle: 'On Liouville systems at critical parameters, Part 1: one bubble'\n---\n\n[^1]\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nLet $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemann surface whose volume is normalized to be $1$, $h_1,...,h_n$ be positive $C^3$ functions on $M$, $\\rho_1,..,\\rho_n$ be nonnegative constants. In this article we continue our study of the following Liouville system defined on $(M,g)$: $$\\label{mainsys}\n\\Delta_g u_i+\\sum_{j=1}^n\\rho_j a_{ij} (\\frac{h_je^{u_j}}{\\int_Mh_je^{u_j}dV_g}-1)=0,\\quad i\\in I:=\\{1,..,n\\}$$ where $dV_g$ is the volume form, $A=(a_{ij})$ is a non-negative constant matrix, $\\Delta_g$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator ($-\\Delta_g\\ge 0$). When $n=1$ and $a_{11}=1$, equation is the mean field equation of the Liouville type: $$\\label{equfromsys}\n\\Delta_g u+\\rho\\left(\\frac{h e^u}{\\int_M h e^udV_g}-1\\right)=0\\quad\\text{in \\,}M.$$ Therefore, the Liouville system is a natural extension of the classical Liouville equation, which has been extensively studied for the past three decades. Both the Liouville equation and the Liouville system are related to various fields of geometry, Physics, Chemistry and Ecology. For example in conformal geometry, when $\\rho=8\\pi$ and $M$ is the sphere $\\mathbb S^2$, equation is equivalent to the famous Nirenberg problem. For a bounded domain in $\\mathbb R^2$ and $n=1$, a variant of can be derived from the mean field limit of Euler flows or spherical Onsager vortex theory, as studied by Caglioti, Lions, Marchioro and Pulvirenti[@lion1; @lion2], Kiessling[@kiess], Chanillo and Kiessling[@chanillo1] and Lin [@linarch]. In classical gauge field theory, equation is closely related to the Chern-Simons-Higgs equation for the abelian case, see [@caffarelli; @hong; @jackiw; @yang]. Various Liouville systems are also used to describe models in the theory of self-gravitating systems [@aly], Chemotaxis[@childress; @keller], in the physics of charged particle beams[@bennet; @debye; @kiess2; @kiessling2], in the non-abelian Chern-Simons-Higgs theory[@dunne; @jostlinwang; @yang] and other gauge field models [@dziar; @phys; @kimleelee]. For recent developments of these subjects or related Liouville systems in more general settings, we refer the readers to [@barto1; @barto3; @ChenLin1; @chenlin2; @chenlinnew; @clwang; @CSW; @CSW1; @licmp; @linduke; @linarch; @lwy; @lwz; @linzhang1; @nolasco2; @rubinstein; @spruck; @wolansky1; @wolansky2; @zhangcmp; @zhangccm] and the references therein.\n\nFor any solution $u$ of , clearly adding any constant to $u$ gives another solution. So it is nature to assume $u\\in \\,{^\\text{\\r{}}\\hspace{-.33cm}H}^1(M)$, where $${^\\text{\\r{}}\\hspace{-.33cm}H}^1(M)=\\left\\{\nu\\in L^2(M)\\,\\Big|\\, |\\nabla_g u|\\in L^2(M)\\text{ and }\\int_M  u\\,dV_g=0\n\\right\\}.$$ Corresponding to (\\[mainsys\\]) we set $${^\\text{\\r{}}\\hspace{-.33cm}H}^{1,n}=\\,{^\\text{\\r{}}\\hspace{-.33cm}H}^1(M)\\times\\cdots\\times\\,{^\\text{\\r{}}\\hspace{-.33cm}H}^1(M)$$ to be the space for solutions. For any $\\rho=(\\rho_1,\\cdots, \\rho_n)$, $\\rho_i>0 (i\\in I=\\{1,...,n\\})$, let $\\varPhi_\\rho$ be a nonlinear functional defined in ${^\\text{\\r{}}\\hspace{-.33cm}H}^{1,n}$ by $$\\varPhi_\\rho(u)=\\frac{1}{2}\\sum_{i,j\\in I} a^{ij}\\int_M \\nabla_g u_i\\cdot \\nabla_g u_j dV_g-\\sum_{j\\in I}\\rho_j\\log\\int_M h_j e^{u_j}dV_g$$ where $(a^{ij})_{n\\times n}$ is the inverse of $A=(a_{ij})_{n\\times n}$. It is easy to see that equation is the Euler-Lagrangian equation of $\\varPhi_\\rho$.\n\nIf the matrix $A$ satisfies the following two assumptions: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& (H1):\\quad \\mbox{ $A$ is symmetric, nonnegative, irreducible and invertible}. \\\\\n&&(H2): \\quad a^{ii}\\leq 0,\\,\\, \\forall i\\in I, \\quad a^{ij}\\geq 0, \\,\\, \\forall i\\ne j,\n\\quad \\sum_{j\\in I}a^{ij}\\geq 0, \\,\\, \\forall i\\in I,\\end{aligned}$$ the authors prove in [@linzhang2] that for $\\rho$ satisfying $$\\label{gammaN}\n8\\pi N\\sum_{i\\in I}\\rho_i<\\sum_{i,j\\in I}a_{ij}\\rho_i\\rho_j<8\\pi (N+1)\\sum_{i\\in I}\\rho_i,$$ there is a priori estimate for all solutions $u$ to (\\[mainsys\\]), and the Leray-Schauder degree $d_{\\rho}$ for equation (\\[mainsys\\]) is $$d_{\\rho}=\n\\frac{1}{N!}\\bigg ((-\\chi_M+1)...(-\\chi_M+N) \\bigg )\\quad \\text{if } \\mbox{ (\\ref{gammaN}) holds }$$ where $\\chi_M$ is the Euler characteristic of $M$. Moreover, if $\\rho^k$ tends to the hyper-surface $\\{\\rho;\\quad 8\\pi N\\sum_{i\\in I}\\rho_i=\\sum_{i,j\\in I}a_{ij}\\rho_i\\rho_j\\}$, there exist exactly $N$ disjoint blowup points (see [@linzhang2]).\n\nThe proof of the a priori bound in [@linzhang2] relies on the sharp estimate for a sequence of bubbling solutions to (\\[mainsys\\]). Let $u^k$ be the blowup solutions corresponding to $\\rho^k$ and $B(p_t,\\delta_0)$ ($t=1,..,N$) be disjoint balls around distinct blowup points in $M$. Then under assumptions $(H1)$ and $(H2)$, the behavior of $u^k$ around any $p_t$ is fully bubbling, that is, the maximum values of any components of $u^k$ in any of the balls are of the same magnitude: $$\\max_{B(p_t,\\delta_0)} u_i^k = \\max_{B(p_t,\\delta_0)} u_j^k +O(1), \\quad \\forall i, j\\in I.$$ Moreover, after a suitable scaling around each blowup point $p_t$, $u^k$ converges to an entire solution $\\tilde U=(\\tilde U_1,..,\\tilde U_n)$ of the following Liouville system: $$\\label{12apr23e2}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta \\tilde U_i+\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}e^{\\tilde U_j}=0,\\quad \\mbox{in }\\,\\, \\mathbb R^2, \\\\\n\\\\\n\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}e^{\\tilde U_i}<\\infty, \\quad \\tilde U_i \\mbox{ is radial},\\,\\, \\forall i\\in I.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$\n\nOne may expect the limiting entire solution to be different around each blowup point, however the authors proved that $\\tilde U$ is independent of blowup points, and only depends on the ratio of $\\rho_1^k-\\rho_1:\\rho_2^k-\\rho_2:..\\rho_n^k-\\rho_n$ (see [@linzhang1]). Naturally it leads to the question: how to construct bubbling solutions with the help of this information?\n\nIn this paper and subsequent ones, we are devoted to study the bubbling phenomenon of Liouville systems: how to accurately estimate the bubbling solutions of (\\[mainsys\\]) and how to construct them. These are quite challenging analytic problems. In general, blowup analysis for a system of equations is much harder than that for the single equation. One reason is that the Pohozaev identity, a balancing condition, is no longer so powerful as in the scalar case. Another reason is that there are too many entire solutions: the parameter $\\sigma=(\\sigma_1,...,\\sigma_n)$ ($\\displaystyle{\\sigma_i=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}e^{u_i}}$), which represents the energy of the entire solution, forms a submanifold of $n-1$ dimension. However, for the Liouville equation, the energy is just one number: $\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}e^u=8\\pi$.\n\nIn this article we consider the case of one blowup point, and always assume $(H1)$ only. Let $\\rho=(\\rho_1,...,\\rho_n)$ and $$\\label{12jun20e1}\n \\Lambda_J(\\rho)=8\\pi \\sum_{i\\in J} \\rho_i-\\sum_{i,j\\in J}a_{ij}\\rho_i\\rho_j$$ for any $J\\subset I:=\\{1,...,n\\}$. Define $$\\Gamma_1=\\{\\rho; \\,\\, \\Lambda_I(\\rho)=0\\quad \\mbox{ and }\\Lambda_J(\\rho)>0 \\mbox{ for all } \\emptyset \\subsetneq J \\subsetneq I \\,\\, \\}.$$ Note that if $(H2)$ also holds also, then $\\Lambda_I(\\rho)=0$ implies $\\Lambda_J(\\rho)>0$ for all $J\\subsetneq I$ ( see [@linzhang2]). For any $\\rho$ we define $(m_1,...,m_n)$ by $$\\label{12apr23e1}\n m_i=\\frac 1{2\\pi} \\sum_{j\\in I} a_{ij}\\rho_j.$$ The quantity $m_i$ can be interpreted by the entire solution $\\tilde U$ of (\\[12apr23e2\\]). In fact $$\\rho_i=\\int_{\\mathbb R^2} e^{\\tilde U_i}dx, \\quad i\\in I,$$ and $$\\label{12apr23e3}\n \\tilde U_i(x)=-m_i \\log |x| +O(1),\\quad \\mbox{ for $|x|$ near infinity. }$$ The integrability of $e^{\\tilde U_i}$ implies $m_i>2$ for all $i$. On the other hand $\\Lambda_I(\\rho)=0$ can be written as $\\sum_{i\\in I}(m_i-4)\\rho_i=0$. Thus either $\\min\\{m_1,...,m_n\\}<4$ or $m_i=4$ for all $i\\in I$. We also note that (\\[12apr23e3\\]) implies that $\\Gamma_1$ is a smooth submanifold because the normal vector at $\\rho\\in \\Gamma_1$: $$(\\sum_{j\\in I} a_{ij} \\rho_j-4\\pi,...,\\sum_{j\\in I} a_{nj}\\rho_j -4\\pi),$$ has all its components positive.\n\nThe asymptotic behavior of $\\tilde U_i(x)$ shows that the decay rate of $e^{\\tilde U_i(x)}$ is $O(|x|^{-m})$, where $$m=\\min\\{m_1,...,m_n\\}.$$ In this article we define $Q\\in \\Gamma_1$ with $m=4$, i.e. $m_i=4$ for all $i$. Thus the decay rate of $e^{\\tilde U_i}$ for $\\rho=Q$ is $O(|x|^{-4})$. The difference on the decay rate for $Q$ and $\\rho\\neq Q$ will have great effects on bubbling analysis later.\n\nLet $u^k=(u_1^k,...,u_n^k)$ be a sequence of blow up solutions to (\\[mainsys\\]) with $\\rho=\\rho^k$ such that $\\rho^k\\to \\rho\\in \\Gamma_1$. The point $Q$ defined above is of particular importance, the readers will see that in our main theorems below, the asymptotic behavior of blowup solutions, the nature of $\\Lambda_I(\\rho^k)$ and the location of blowup point are all significantly different depending on $\\rho=Q$ or not.\n\nLet $p$ be the blowup point of $u^k$ and $$\\label{12apr23e4}\n M_k=\\max_{B(p,\\delta)} \\bigg ( u_1^k(x)-\\log \\int_M h_1e^{u_1^k}dV_g \\bigg ),$$ $$\\label{12apr23e5}\n \\epsilon_k=e^{-\\frac 12 M_k}.$$ Since $\\rho^k\\to \\Gamma_1$, there is only one blowup point $p$. It is easy to see that $u^k$ fully blows up at $p$ (see Lemma \\[ful\\]): $$\\label{12apr23e6}\n \\max_{B(p, \\delta_0)}(u_i^k(x)-\\log \\int_M h_i e^{u_i^k}dV_g)=M_k+O(1), \\quad i\\in I.$$\n\nOur first result is on the location of the blowup point $p$. Let $p_k\\to p$ be where the maximum of $\\{u_1^k,..,u_n^k\\}$ is attained, then we have\n\n\\[locations\\] Let $\\rho^k\\to \\rho\\in \\Gamma_1$ and all $\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i$ have the same sign.\n\n1.  If $\\rho\\neq Q$, then $$\\label{11july13e7}\n    \\sum_{i\\in I} \\bigg (\\nabla (\\log h_i)(p_k)+2\\pi m\\nabla_1 \\gamma(p_k,p_k)\\bigg )\n    \\rho_{i} =O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2}).$$\n\n2.  If $\\rho=Q$, then $$\\label{11july13e8}\n    \\sum_i\\bigg (\\nabla (\\log h_i)(p_k)+8\\pi  \\nabla_1 \\gamma(p_k,p_k) \\bigg )\\rho_{i}=O(\\epsilon_k^2\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}).$$ where $\\nabla_1$ denotes the derivative with respect to the first variable, and $\\gamma(x,y)$ stands for the regular part of the Green\u2019s function.\n\nOur second result is about the decay rate of $\\Lambda_I(\\rho^k)$. To state the result, we need to define the following quantity $D_i$ ($i\\in I=\\{1,...,n\\}$): $$\\label{leadingD}\nD_i=\\lim_{\\delta_0\\to 0}\\big (\\delta_0^{2-m}-\\frac{m-2}{2\\pi}\n\\int_{M\\setminus B(p,\\delta_0)}\\frac{h_i(x)}{h_i(p)}e^{2\\pi m (G(x,p)-\\gamma(p,p))}dV_g \\big )$$ provided that $m<4$. The limit is well defined if $m<4$, see section 6.\n\n\\[rhoto1mle4\\] Suppose $\\rho^k\\to \\rho\\in \\Gamma_1$ and $\\rho\\neq Q$, if all $\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i$ have the same sign, then $$\\Lambda_I(\\rho^k)\n=8\\pi^2\\sum_{i\\in I_1}(e^{c_i}D_i+o(1))\\epsilon_k^{m-2},$$ where $I_1$ is a subset of $I$ where $m_i=m$ for all $i\\in I_1$, $c_i$ is a constant determined in (\\[12jun29e1\\]). $o(1)\\to 0$ as $k\\to \\infty$.\n\nIf $M$ is a flat torus with fundamental cell domain $\\Omega\\subset \\mathbb R^2$, then $D_i$ can be written as $$D_i=\\frac{m-2}{2\\pi }\\bigg (\n\\int_{\\mathbb R^2\\setminus \\Omega} \\frac{1}{|x-p|^m}dx-\\lim_{\\delta_0\\to 0}\\int_{\\Omega\\setminus B_{\\delta_0}}\n\\frac{H_i(x,p)}{|x-p|^m}dx\\bigg )$$ where $$H_i(x,p)=\\frac{h_i(x)}{h_i(p)}e^{2\\pi m(\\gamma(x,p)-\\gamma(p,p))}-1, \\quad i\\in I.$$ See [@ccl] and [@clwang] for related discussions.\n\nThe assumption that all $\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i$ have the same sign seems due to some technical difficulties. When $n=2$ and $\\rho\\neq Q$, this assumption is not needed for both Theorem \\[locations\\] and Theorem \\[rhoto1mle4\\].\n\n\\[rhotome4\\] Suppose $\\rho^k\\to \\rho\\in \\Gamma_1$ and $\\rho=Q$. If all $\\rho_i^k-Q_i$ have the same sign, then $$\\label{12apr23e10}\n\\Lambda_I(\\rho^k)\n=-16\\pi^2(\\sum_{i\\in I} b_i e^{c_i}+o(1))\\epsilon_k^2\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$ where $$b_i=\\frac 14\\bigg (\\Delta \\, \\log h_i(p)-2K(p)+8\\pi+|\\nabla \\, \\log h_i(p)+8\\pi \\nabla_1\\gamma(p,p)|^2\\bigg ),$$ $c_i$ is determined in (\\[12jun29e1\\]).\n\nImportant information on bubbling solutions can be observed on the two cases: $\\rho\\neq Q$ and $\\rho=Q$. Theorem \\[rhoto1mle4\\], which is on $\\rho\\neq Q$, has its leading term in $\\Lambda_I(\\rho^k)$ involved with global information of the manifold, while the leading term in Theorem \\[rhotome4\\], which corresponds to $\\rho=Q$, only depends on the geometric information at the blowup point. Moreover, the error terms in Theorem \\[rhoto1mle4\\] and Theorem \\[rhotome4\\] respectively also indicate the different asymptotic behaviors of blowup solutions near the singularity. All these differences in the two cases will lead to separate strategies in the construction of bubbling solutions in forthcoming works.\n\nSince Liouville systems and Toda systems share a lot of common features, it is informative to compare our main theorems with the ones for the $SU(3)$ Toda system. First, the location of the blowup point in Theorem \\[locations\\] is a critical point of a combination of $\\log h_i$, $\\rho_i$ and $\\gamma$ ($\\nabla_1 \\gamma$ vanishes if the Riemann surface has constant curvature). However for the $SU(3)$ Toda system, the blowup point $p$ is a critical point of both $\\log h_1$ and $\\log h_2$, i.e. $p$ satisfies (see [@lwz]) $$\\nabla h_1(p)=\\nabla h_2(p)=0.$$ Second, for the $SU(3)$ Toda system, the convergence rate of $\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i$ is estimated to be $$\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i=(e^{\\tilde c_i}b_i+o(1))\\epsilon_k^2\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1},$$ where $b_i$ is the term in (\\[12apr23e10\\]). Nevertheless our result in (\\[12apr23e10\\]) is again a combination of the $b_i$s. The comparison of the results reflects some major difference between the Toda system and our Liouville system:\n\n1.  The dimension of kernel space of the linearized operator at an entire solution is $8$ for $SU(3)$ Toda system, and is $3$ for our Liouville system.\n\n2.  The set $\\Gamma:=\\{(\\rho_1,...,\\rho_n);\\quad\n    \\rho_i=\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}e^{u_i},\\quad (u_1,..,u_n) \\mbox{ is an entire solution}\\,\\, \\}$ is only a point for $SU(3)$ Toda system, while for the Liouville system it is a $(n-1)$ dimensional manifold.\n\nAs far as the blowup analysis is concerned, our Liouville system has disadvantages in both respects, as the kernel space is too small and $\\Gamma$ is too large. For a sequence of bubbling solutions, it is extremely difficult to pin-point suitable approximating solutions from $\\Gamma$, because at the beginning, the local energy of bubbling solutions could be estimated in some rough way. This rough estimate of the local energy leads to a small perturbation of global bubbling solutions. This perturbation on global solutions, albeit small, has a non-negligible effect on the approximation of blowup solutions. This difficulty is particularly evident when we study bubbling solutions with multiple blowup points in [@linzhang4]. Therefore our method to obtain those sharp results is different from ones in Chen-Lin [@ChenLin1] for the mean field equations and Lin-Wei-Zhao [@lwz] for the $SU(3)$ Toda system (The methods in [@ChenLin1] and [@lwz] are similar).\n\nThe organization of the paper is as follows. In section two we first prove a uniqueness theorem for globally defined linearized Liouville systems. This result plays a central role for the delicate blowup analysis in sections three to five. The main idea of the proof uses a monotonicity property of solutions and we introduce a way to use maximum principles suitable for Liouville systems. In the second part of section two, we study the asymptotic behavior of global solutions to the Liouville system on $\\mathbb R^2$ and obtain some Pohozaev identities. In section three and section four we obtain a sharp expansion result for blowup solutions around a blowup point. Then in section five, for local equations we use Pohozaev identity to determine the locations of blowup points. Then in section six we return to the equation on manifold and compute the leading term for $\\rho^k\\to \\rho$ in both situations ($\\rho\\neq Q$ or $\\rho=Q$) and complete the proofs of the main theorems.\n\n[**Acknowledgement**]{} Part of the paper was finished when the second author was visiting Taida Institute for Mathematical Sciences (TIMS) in March 2011 and June 2012. He is very grateful to TIMS for their warm hospitality. He also would like to thank the National Science Foundation for the partial support (NSF-DMS-1027628).\n\nPreliminary results on the Liouville systems\n============================================\n\nIn this section we prove two theorems on the Liouville systems with the matrix $A$ satisfying $(H1)$. They are important for the blowup analysis and the computation of the leading terms of $\\rho\\to \\Gamma_1$ in this paper and $\\rho\\to \\Gamma_N$ in the forthcoming work [@linzhang4].\n\nA uniqueness theorem for the linearized system of $n$ equations\n---------------------------------------------------------------\n\nIn the first subsection we prove a uniqueness theorem for the linearized system of $n$ equations.\n\n\\[uniqlin\\] Let $A$ be a matrix that satisfies (H1), $u=(u_1,..,u_n)$ be a radial solution of $$\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n-\\Delta u_i=\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}e^{u_j}\\,\\, \\mbox{in}\\,\\, \\mathbb R^2,\\quad i\\in I=\\{1,..,n\\}\\\\\n\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}e^{u_i}<\\infty.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Suppose $\\phi=(\\phi_1,..,\\phi_n)$ satisfies $$-\\Delta \\phi_i=\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}e^{u_j}\\phi_j,\\quad i\\in I.$$\n\n1.  $$\\label{1027e1}\n    |\\phi_i(x)|\\le C(1+|x|)^{\\tau},\\quad x\\in \\mathbb R^2,$$\n\n    for some $\\tau\\in (0,1)$ and $$\\phi_i(0)=0,\\quad i\\in I.$$ Then there exist $c_1,c_2\\in \\mathbb R$ such that $$\\phi_i(x)=c_1u_i'(r)\\frac{x_1}r+c_2u_i'(r)\\frac{x_2}r \\quad \\mbox{in}\\quad \\mathbb R^2, \\quad i\\in I.$$\n\n2.  If $\n    |\\phi_i(x)|\\le C$ for all $x\\in \\mathbb R^2$, then there exist $c_0,c_1,c_2\\in \\mathbb R$ such that $$\\phi_i(x)=c_0(ru_i'(r)+2)+c_1u_i'(r)\\frac{x_1}r+c_2u_i'(r)\\frac{x_2}r,\\quad \\mathbb R^2 ,\\quad i\\in I.$$\n\n3.  If $\\phi_i(x)=O(|x|^2)$ near $0$ and $|\\phi_i(x)|\\le C(1+|x|)^{2-\\epsilon_0}$ for some $\\epsilon_0>0$, then $\\phi_i\\equiv 0$.\n\nBefore the proof of Theorem \\[uniqlin\\] we first establish\n\n\\[1129lem1\\] Let $A$ and $u$ be as in Theorem \\[uniqlin\\], let $\\Phi=(\\Phi_1,..,\\Phi_n)$ solve $$\\label{12e1}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Phi_i''(r)+\\frac 1r\\Phi_i'(r)-\\frac 1{r^2}\\Phi_i(r)+\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}e^{u_j}\\Phi_j=0,\\quad 0<r<\\infty, \\\\\n\\\\\n|\\Phi_i(r)|\\le Cr/(1+r)^{\\epsilon_0} \\quad \\mbox{ for some }\\epsilon_0\\in (0,1),  \\quad \\forall i\\in I.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Then there exists a constant $C$ such that $\\Phi_i(r)=Cu_i'(r)$ for $i\\in I$.\n\n[**Proof of Lemma \\[1129lem1\\]:**]{}\n\nThe proof is in two steps. First we show that under the assumption of $\\Phi_i$ at infinity we have the following sharper decay estimate: $$\\label{phidecay}\n|\\Phi_i(r)|\\le Cr(1+r)^{-2},\\quad 0<r<\\infty,\\quad i\\in I.$$\n\nIndeed, let $\\bar \\psi_i(r)=\\Phi_i(r)/r$. By direct computation we see that $\\bar \\psi=(\\bar \\psi_1,...,\\bar \\psi_n)$ satisfies $$\\label{12e2}\n\\bar \\psi_i''(r)+\\frac 3r\\bar \\psi_i'(r)+\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{u_j}\\bar \\psi_j=0, \\quad 0<r<\\infty.$$ Clearly in order to show (\\[phidecay\\]) we only need to show $|\\bar \\psi_i(r)|\\le Cr^{-2}$ for $r>1$ under the assumption that $|\\bar \\psi_i(r)|\\le Cr^{-\\epsilon_0}$ for $i\\in I$ and $r>1$. Let $$\\tilde \\psi_i(t)=\\bar \\psi_i(e^t)\\quad \\mbox{ and }\\quad \\tilde u_i(t)=u_i(e^t)+2t,$$ it is easy to see that $\\tilde \\psi(t)=(\\tilde \\psi_1(t),..,\\tilde\n\\psi_n(t))$ satisfies $$\\label{psidc1}\n\\tilde \\psi_i''(t)+2\\tilde \\psi_i'(t)+\\sum_{j\\in I}a_{ij}e^{\\tilde u_j(t)}\\tilde \\psi_j(t)=0,\\quad -\\infty<t<\\infty$$ and our goal is to show $$\\label{psidc2}\n\\tilde \\psi_i(t)=O(e^{-2t})$$ knowing $\\tilde \\psi_i(t)=O(e^{-\\epsilon_0t})$ for $t>0$, $i\\in I$. Set $$l_i=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\sum_{j\\in I}a_{ij}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}e^{u_j},\\quad l=\\min\\{l_1,..,l_n\\}.$$ By Lemma \\[globalcpt\\] below $l>2$. Let $$h_i(t)=-\\sum_{j\\in I}a_{ij}e^{\\tilde u_j(t)}\\tilde \\psi_j(t)=O(e^{(2-l-\\epsilon_0)t}),\\quad t>0.$$ Then $$\\tilde \\psi_i(t)=C_0+C_1 e^{-2t}+\\frac 12\\int_0^th_i(s)ds-\\frac 12e^{-2t}\\int_0^te^{2s}h_i(s)ds.$$ Using the asymptotic rate of $h_i(t)$ at infinity we further have $$\\tilde \\psi_i(t)=(C_0+\\frac 12\\int_0^{\\infty}h_i(s)ds)+C_1e^{-2t}+O(e^{(2-l-\\epsilon_0)t}).$$ Since $\\tilde \\psi_i(t)$ tends to $0$ as $t$ goes to infinity we know $\\tilde \\psi_i(t)=O(e^{-2t})$ if $l+\\epsilon_0\\ge 4$, in which case (\\[psidc2\\]) is established. Otherwise we obtain $\\tilde \\psi_i(t)=O(e^{(2-l-\\epsilon_0)t})$. In the latter case, we apply the same procedure to obtain a better decaying rate of $\\tilde \\psi_i(t)$ at infinity. After finite steps, (\\[psidc2\\]) is established.\n\nIn the second step we complete the proof of the Lemma \\[1129lem1\\]. By way of contradiction we suppose there is a solution $\\Phi=(\\Phi_1,..,\\Phi_n)$ that satisfies (\\[12e1\\]) and $\\Phi$ is not a multiple of $f=(u_1'(r),..,u_n'(r))$. Let $\\psi_i^0=-u_i'(r)/r$, then clearly both $\\psi^0=(\\psi_1^0,..,\\psi_n^0)$ and $\\bar \\psi=(\\bar \\psi_1,..,\\bar \\psi_n)$ satisfy (\\[12e2\\]). We verify by direct computation that $$\\int_0^re^{u_j}\\psi_j^0(\\sigma)\\sigma^3ds=-\\int_0^r(e^{u_j})'\\sigma^2d\\sigma\n=-e^{u_j(r)}r^2+2\\int_0^re^{u_j}\\sigma d\\sigma>0.$$ Note that the last inequality is justified by $u'_i(r)<0$ for $r>0$ and $i\\in I$. Also, since $e^{u_i}\\le Cr^{-2-\\delta}$ for some $\\delta>0$ and $r>1$, $\\displaystyle{\\int_0^{\\infty}e^{u_i}\\psi_i^0(\\sigma)\\sigma^3d\\sigma<\\infty}$. Based on the computation above we set $$S=\\bigg \\{ t|\\, \\psi_i^t=\\psi_i^0+t(\\psi_i^0-\\bar \\psi_i) \\, \\mbox{and }\\,\n\\int_0^re^{u_i}\\psi_i^t(\\sigma )\\sigma^3d\\sigma>0,\\,\\, \\forall r>0,\\,\\, i\\in I\\,  \\bigg \\}.$$ Let $\\bar \\psi=(\\bar \\psi_1,..,\\bar \\psi_n)$ and $\\psi^0=(\\psi_1^0,..,\\psi_n^0)$. We first observe that $\\psi_i^0(0)>0$. Suppose $\\bar \\psi \\not\\equiv \\psi^0$, we can assume that $\\bar \\psi_1(0)\\neq 0$ and $|\\bar \\psi_i(0)|<\\psi_i^0(0)$ for all $i\\in I$.\n\nFrom the definition of $S$ we immediately see that $0\\in S$. Moreover, since $|\\bar \\psi_i(r)|\\le Cr^{-2}$ near infinity, we can choose $|t|<\\delta$ with $\\delta$ small so that all $|t|<\\delta$ belong to $S$. Another immediate observation is that $S$ has a lower bound. Indeed, for $T$ sufficiently negative, $\\psi_1^T(0)<0$, which is impossible to have $\\int_0^re^{u_1}\\psi_1^T(\\sigma)\\sigma^3d\\sigma>0$ for $r$ small.\n\nLet $T=\\inf S$ and let $t_m\\to T^+$. The sequence $\\psi^{t_m}_i$ obviously converges to a function $\\psi_i$, which is just $\\psi_i^0+T(\\psi_i^0-\\bar \\psi_i)$. $\\psi=(\\psi_1,..,\\psi_n)$ satisfies the property $$\\label{12e4}\n\\int_0^re^{u_i(\\sigma)}\\psi_i(\\sigma)\\sigma^3d\\sigma\\ge 0,\\quad \\forall r>0,\\quad i=1,..,n.$$ On the other hand, from the behavior of $\\bar \\psi$ and $\\psi^0$ at infinity (both are $O(r^{-2})$) we immediately observe that $$\\int_0^{\\infty}e^{u_i(r)}\\psi_i(r)r^3dr<\\infty.$$ In regard to (\\[12e2\\]) we have $$\\label{12e3}\nr^3\\psi_i'(r)=-\\int_0^r\\sum_{j}a_{ij}e^{u_j}\\psi_j\\sigma^3 d\\sigma, \\quad 0<r<\\infty.$$ From (\\[12e4\\]) and (\\[12e3\\]) we see that $\\psi_i$ is non-increasing. Since we have known that $|\\psi_i(r)|\\le Cr^{-2}$ near infinity we have $$\\label{12e6}\n\\psi_i(r)\\ge 0, \\quad \\forall r>0, \\quad i\\in I.$$\n\nIt is not possible to have all $\\psi_i(0)=0$ because this implies $\\psi_i\\equiv 0$, a contradiction to the assumption that $\\bar \\psi$ is not a multiple of $\\psi^0$. Therefore without loss of generality we assume $\\psi_1(0)>0$. Then we further claim that $\\psi_i$ is strictly decreasing for all $i\\in I$. Indeed, let $I_1=\\{ j\\in I| \\, a_{1j}>0 \\, \\}$, for each $j\\in I_1$ we use (\\[12e6\\]) and $\\psi_1(0)>0$ to obtain $$r^3\\psi_j'(r)\\le -\\int_0^ra_{1j}e^{u_1}\\psi_1\\sigma^3d\\sigma<0, \\quad 0<r<\\infty.$$ Therefore for each $j\\in I_1$, $\\psi_j$ is strictly decreasing, which immediately implies that $\\psi_j(0)>0$. We can further define $I_2=\\{ i\\in I| \\, a_{ij}>0 \\mbox{ for some }j\\in I_1. \\}$. Then the same argument shows that $\\psi_i$ is strictly decreasing for each $i\\in I_2$ as well. Since the matrix $A=(a_{ij})_{n\\times n}$ is irreducible, this process exhausts all $i\\in I$.\n\n(\\[12e3\\]) yields $\\psi_i'(r)\\le -Cr^{-3}$ for $r>1$ and $i\\in I$. Then by using $\\lim_{r\\to \\infty}\\psi_i(r)=0$ we further have $$\\label{12e5}\n\\psi_i(r)\\ge Cr^{-2},\\quad r\\ge 1.$$ Then it is easy to see that for $t=T-\\epsilon$ with $\\epsilon>0$ small, we also have $$\\int_0^re^{u_i}\\psi_i^t(\\sigma)\n\\sigma^3d\\sigma>0,\\quad \\mbox{for all } r>0,$$ a contradiction to the definition of $T$. Lemma \\[1129lem1\\] is proved. $\\Box $\n\n[**Proof of Theorem \\[uniqlin\\]:**]{} We first prove the third statement. The following function plays an important role: Let $f=(f_1,..,f_n)=(u_1',..,u_n')$. Then $$\\label{85e1}\n-\\Delta f_i=\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{u_j}f_j-\\frac 1{r^2}f_i,\\quad i=1,..,n.$$\n\nLet $\\phi^k=(\\phi_1^k,..,\\phi_n^k)$ be defined as $$\\phi_i^k(r)=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_0^{2\\pi}\\phi_i(r\\cos \\theta,r\\sin \\theta)\\cos k\\theta d\\theta,\\quad i\\in I.$$ Then $\\phi^k$ satisfies $$\\label{85e2}\n-\\Delta \\phi_i^k=\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{u_j}\\phi_j^k-\\frac{k^2}{r^2}\\phi_i^k,\\quad i\\in I, \\quad k=2,..$$ Clearly $\\phi_i^k(r)=o(r)$ near $0$ and $\\phi_i^k(r)=O(r^{2-\\epsilon_0})$ at $\\infty$. We claim that $$\\label{11mar29e1}\n\\phi_i^k(r)\\equiv 0,\\quad \\forall k\\ge 2,\\quad \\mbox{provided that }\\,\\, \\phi_i^k(r)=O(r^{k-1+\\tau}), \\,\\, r>1,\\,\\,  k\\ge 2.$$ Note that the growth condition in (\\[11mar29e1\\]) is weaker than what is assumed in the assumption in Theorem \\[uniqlin\\].\n\nThe argument below also applies if $\\phi$ is projected on $\\sin k\\theta$. First we show that $\\phi_i^k=o(r^{-1})$ as $r\\to \\infty$. Indeed, using $\\phi_j^k(x)\\le C|x|^{k-1+\\tau}$ we write $\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{u_j}\\phi^k_j$ as $O(r^{k-1+\\tau-2-\\delta_0})$ (for some $\\delta_0>0$). Let $g(t)=\\phi_i^k(e^t)$, then from (\\[85e2\\]) $g(t)$ satisfies $$g''(t)-k^2g(t)=h(t),\\quad t\\in \\mathbb R$$ where $$\\label{11mar29e2}\nh(t)=O(e^{(k-1+\\tau-\\delta_0)t})\\quad  t>0.$$ Let $g_1(t)=e^{kt}$ and $g_2(t)=e^{-kt}$ be two fundamental solutions of the homogeneous equation, a general solution $g(t)$ is of the form $$g(t)=c_1g_1(t)+c_2g_2(t)-\\frac{g_1(t)}{2k}\\int_0^tg_2(s)h(s)ds+\\frac {g_2(t)}{2k}\\int_0^tg_1(s)h(s)ds$$ where $c_1,c_2$ are constants. Using (\\[11mar29e2\\]) in the above we obtain $$g(t)=c'_1g_1(t)+c'_2g_2(t)+O(e^{(k-1+\\tau-\\delta_0)t}),\\quad \\mbox{for }t>1$$ where $c'_1,c'_2$ are two constants. Since $g(t)=O(e^{(k-1+\\tau )t})$ for $t\\to \\infty$, we see that $c'_1=0$ and therefore $g(t)=O(e^{(k-1+\\tau-\\delta_0)t})$ as $t\\to \\infty$. Equivalently $$\\label{11mar29e3}\n\\phi_i^k(r)=O(r^{k-1+\\tau-\\delta_0}) \\quad i\\in I.$$ With (\\[11mar29e3\\]) we further obtain $$\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{u_j}\\phi^k_j=O(r^{k-1+\\tau-2-2\\delta_0}).$$ Consequently $\\phi_i^k(x)=O(r^{k-1+\\tau-2\\delta_0})$. Keep doing this for finite steps we obtain that $\\phi_i^k$ decays faster than $r^{-1}$ at infinity. The asymptotic theory of ODE can be similarly used to show that $\\phi_i^k(r)=o(r)$ as $r\\to 0$.\n\nTo get a contradiction, without loss of generality, we may assume that some of $\\phi_i^k$, say $\\phi_1^k(r)>0$ for some $r>0$ and $$\\max_{\\mathbb R^+}\\bigg (\\frac{\\phi_1^k(r)}{f_1(r)}\\bigg )\n=\\max_{1\\le j\\le n}\\bigg (\\max_{\\mathbb R^+}\\frac{\\phi_j^k(r)}{f_j(r)}\\bigg ).$$ By noting $\\phi_1^k(r)=o(r)$ as $r\\to 0$ and $\\phi_1^k(r)=o(\\frac 1r)$ as $r\\to \\infty$, $\\phi_1^k/\nf_1(r)$ attains its maximum at some point $r_0\\in \\mathbb R^+$. Let $w_1(r)=\\phi_1^k(r)/f_1(r)$. By a direct computation, $w_1(r)$ satisfies $$\\label{1019e1}\n\\Delta w_1+2\\nabla w_1\\cdot \\frac{\\nabla f_1}{f_1}+\\frac{1-k^2}{r^2}w_1=\\sum_{j=2}^na_{1j}e^{u_j}\n\\bigg (\\frac{w_1f_j-\\phi_j}{f_1}\\bigg ).$$ Now we apply the maximum principle at $r=r_0$, and obtain $$\\Delta w_1(r_0)\\le 0,\\quad \\mbox{and}\\quad \\nabla w_1(r_0)=0.$$ Since $k>1$, (\\[1019e1\\]) yields $$\\label{1019e2}\n\\sum_{j=2}^na_{1j}e^{u_j}\\bigg (\\frac{w_1f_j-\\phi_j^k}{f_1}\\bigg )(r_0)<0$$ because $w_1(r_0)>0$. On the other hand, for $j\\ge 2$, $$w_1(r_0)f_j(r_0)-\\phi_j^k(r_0)=f_j(r_0)(\\frac{\\phi_1^k(r_0)}{f_1(r_0)}-\\frac{\\phi_j^k(r_0)}{f_j(r_0)})\\ge\n0,$$ which obviously contradicts (\\[1019e2\\]). Therefore (\\[11mar29e1\\]) is established. When $k=1$, $\\phi_i^1\\equiv 0$ because by Lemma \\[1129lem1\\], $\\phi_i^1(r)=Cu_i'(r)$. By the assumption $\\phi_i^1(x)=O(|x|^2)$ near $0$, $C=0$. The third statement of Theorem \\[uniqlin\\] is established.\n\nAgain by Lemma \\[1129lem1\\] the first statement of Theorem \\[uniqlin\\] is established.\n\nFinally, the second statement of Theorem \\[uniqlin\\] is an immediate consequence of Lemma 3.1 of [@linzhang1]. Theorem \\[uniqlin\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nA Pohozaev identity for global solutions\n----------------------------------------\n\n\\[globalcpt\\] Let $u=(u_1,...,u_n)$ be an entire, radial solution of $$\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}-\\Delta u_i=\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}e^{u_j}, \\quad \\mbox{in}\\quad \\mathbb R^2, \\\\\n\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}e^{u_i}<\\infty\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $A$ is a constant matrix that satisfies $(H1)$. Let $$c_i=u_i(0)+\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}\\log |\\eta |(\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}e^{u_j(\\eta)})d\\eta,$$ $$\\sigma_{i}=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}e^{u_i},\\quad l_i=\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}\\sigma_{j},\\,\\, l=\\min\\{l_{1},...,l_{n}\\}$$ and $$\\sigma_{iR}=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{B_R}e^{u_i}.$$ Then for some $\\delta_0>0$ $$\\label{12apr29e1}\ne^{u_i(r)}=e^{c_i}r^{-l_i}(1+o(r^{-\\delta_0})), \\quad r>1,$$ $$\\label{1105e1}\n4\\sum_{i\\in I}\\sigma_{iR}=\\sum_{i,j\\in I}a_{ij}\\sigma_{iR}\\sigma_{jR}+2\\sum_{i\\in I}e^{c_{i}}R^{2-l_{i}}+O(R^{2-l-\\delta_0}).$$\n\n[**Proof of Lemma \\[globalcpt\\]:**]{}\n\nIt is well known that $$\\label{11may27e2}\nu_i(x)=-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}\\log |x-\\eta |(\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}e^{u_j(\\eta)})d\\eta+c_i.$$ Indeed, let $w_i$ be the function defined by the right hand side of (\\[11may27e2\\]). Then $w_i-u_i$ is a harmonic function. Since they both have logarithmic growth at infinity, $w_i-u_i=c$. Evaluating both functions at $0$ we have $c=c_i$.\n\nClearly $$\\label{12apr24e1}\nu_i(x)+l_{i}\\log |x|=-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}\\log \\frac{|x-\\eta |}{|x|}\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{u_j(\\eta)}d\\eta+c_{i}.$$ Using $\\sum_j a_{ij}e^{u_j(r)}=O(r^{-2-\\delta_0})$ for some $\\delta_0>0$ and $r$ large, we obtain, by elementary estimates, $$u_i(r)=-l_i \\log r+c_i+o(r^{-\\delta_0}),$$ which leads to $$\\label{11may30e1}\n\\sigma_{i}=\\sigma_{iR}+\\frac{e^{c_{i}}}{l_{i}-2}R^{2-l_{i}}+O(R^{2-l_{i}-\\delta}).$$ We arrive at (\\[1105e1\\]) by using (\\[11may30e1\\]) in the Pohozaev identity for $\\sigma$: $$4\\sum_{i} \\sigma_{i}=\\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}\\sigma_{i}\\sigma_{j}.$$ Lemma \\[globalcpt\\] is established. $\\Box$.\n\nFirst order estimates {#blowup}\n=====================\n\nLet $(h_1^k,...,h_n^k)$ be a family of positive, $C^3$ functions on $B_1$ with a uniform bound on their positivity and $C^3$ norm: $$\\label{hikn}\n\\frac 1C\\le h_i^k(x)\\le C,\\quad \\|h_i^k\\|_{C^3(B_1)}\\le C, \\quad x\\in B_1, \\quad i=1,..,n.$$ In the next three sections we consider a sequence of locally defined, fully blown-up solutions $u^k=(u_1^k,...,u_n^k)$ and we shall derive their precise asymptotic behavior near their singularity and the precise location of their singularity. Here we abuse the notation $u^k=(u_1^k,...,u_n^k)$ and it is independent of the one used in the introduction.\n\nSpecifically we assume that $u^k$ satisfies the following equation in $B_1$, the unit ball: $$\\label{uik}\n-\\Delta u_i^k=\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}h_j^ke^{u_j^k},\\quad i=1,..,n,\\quad x\\in B_1,$$ with $0$ being the only blowup point in $B_1$: $$\\max_Ku_i^k\\le C(K), \\quad \\forall K\\subset\\subset \\bar B_1\\setminus \\{0\\}, \\,\\, \\mbox{ and } \\max_{B_1}u_i^k\\to \\infty,$$ with bounded oscillation on $\\partial B_1$: $$\\label{88e1}\n|u_i^k(x)-u_i^k(y)|\\le C,\\forall x,y\\in \\partial B_1,\\quad C\\mbox{ independent of }k$$ and uniformly bounded energy: $$\\label{89e1}\n\\int_{B_1}e^{u_i^k}\\le C,\\quad C \\mbox{ is independent of } k.$$ Finally we assume that $u^k$ is a fully blown-up sequence, which means when re-scaled according its maximum, $\\{u_k\\}$ converges to a system of $n$ equations: Let $u_1^k(0)=\\max_{B_1}u_1^k$ and $\\epsilon_k=e^{-\\frac 12u_1^k(0)}$, and $$\\label{vikdef}\nv_i^k(y)=u_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)-u_1^k(0),\\quad y\\in \\Omega_k:=B(0,\\epsilon_k^{-1}).$$ Then $v^k=(v_1^k,...,v_n^k)$ converges in $C^2_{loc}(\\mathbb R^2)$ to $v=(v_1,..,v_n)$, which satisfies $$\\label{817e1}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}-\\Delta v_i=\\sum_{j}a_{ij}\\tilde h_j(0)e^{v_j},\\quad \\mathbb R^2,\\quad i=1,..,n\\\\\n\\\\\n\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}e^{v_i}<\\infty,\\quad i=1,..,n,\\quad v_1(0)=0,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $\\tilde h_j(0)=\\lim_{k\\to \\infty}h_j^k(0)$.\n\nFor the rest of the paper we set $$m_i:=\\frac{1}{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij} \\tilde h_j(0)e^{v_j}>2,\\quad i\\in I$$ and $m=\\min\\{m_1,...,m_n\\}$. In this section we derive a first order estimate for $v^k$ in $\\Omega_k$. In [@linzhang1] the authors prove that there is a sequence of global radial solutions $U^k=(U_1^k,..,U_n^k)$ of (\\[817e1\\]) such that $$\\label{11mar9e1}\n |u_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)-U_i^k(y)|\\le C,\\quad \\mbox{for } |y|\\le r_0\\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$ From (\\[11mar9e1\\]) we have the following spherical Harnack inequality: $$\\label{11mar9e3}\n |u_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)-u_i^k(\\epsilon_k y')|\\le C$$ for all $|y|=|y'|=r\\le r_0\\epsilon_k^{-1}$ and $C$ is a constant independent of $k,r$. (\\[11mar9e3\\]) will play an essential role in the first order estimate. To improve (\\[11mar9e1\\]) we introduce $\\phi_i^k$ to be a harmonic function: $$\\label{816e5}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n-\\Delta \\phi_i^k=0,\\quad B_1,\\\\\n\\\\\n\\phi_i^k=u_i^k-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\partial B_1}u_i^k,\\quad \\mbox{on}\\quad \\partial B_1.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Obviously $\\phi_i^k(0)=0$ by the mean value theorem and $\\phi_i^k$ is uniformly bounded on $B_{1/2}$ because of (\\[88e1\\]). Later in section 6, when the results in section 3,4,5 will be used to prove the main theorems, the function $\\phi_i^k$ will be specified when we consider the system defined on Riemann surface.\n\nLet $V^k=(V_1^k,..,V_n^k)$ be the radial solutions of $$\\label{88e2}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}-\\Delta V_i^k=\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^k}\\quad \\mathbb R^2,\\quad i\\in I\\\\  \\\\\nV_i^k(0)=v_i^k(0),\\quad i\\in I\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $v_i^k$ is defined in (\\[817e1\\]). It is easy to see that any radial solution $V$ of (\\[88e2\\]) exists for all $r>0$ and $e^{V_i}\\in L^2(\\mathbb R^2)$. The main result of this section is to prove that $V_i^k(y)+\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)$ is the first order approximation to $v_i^k(y)$.\n\n\\[thm2\\] Let $A$, $u^k$, $h^k=(h_1^k,..,h_n^k)$ ,$\\phi_i^k$ and $v^k$ be described as above. Then for any $\\delta>0$, there exist $k_0(\\delta)>1$ and $C$ independent of $k$ and $\\delta$ such that for all $k\\ge k_0$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{11mar9e2}\n&&|D^{\\alpha}(v_i^k(y)-V_i^k(y)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_ky))|\\\\\n&\\le &\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}C\\epsilon_k(1+|y|)^{3-m+\\delta-|\\alpha|},\\quad m\\le 3,\\\\\nC\\epsilon_k(1+|y|)^{\\delta-l},\\quad m>3,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.\n\\quad |y|<\\epsilon_k^{-1}/2,\\quad |\\alpha|=0,1,2. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\n\n\\[11def1\\] $$\\sigma_i^k=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2} h_i^k(0)e^{V_i^k},\\,\\, m_i^k=\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}\\sigma_j^k,\\,\\, m^k=\\min \\{m_1^k,..,m_n^k\\}.$$ From Theorem \\[thm2\\] it is easy to see that $\\lim_{k\\to\\infty}m_i^k=m_i$. Thus $m_i^k\\ge 2+\\delta_0$ for some $\\delta_0>0$ independent of $k$.\n\nTo prove Theorem \\[thm2\\], we have $$\\label{1020e1}\n-\\Delta (v_i^k(y)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_ky))=\\sum_ja_{ij}H_j^k(\\epsilon_ky)e^{v_j^k(y)-\\phi_j^k(\\epsilon_ky)},\\,\\, \\mbox{ in } \\Omega_k\\,\\, \\big( \\mbox{ see (\\ref{vikdef})} \\big )$$ where $$\\label{Hik}\nH_i^k(\\cdot)=h_i^k(\\cdot)e^{\\phi_i^k(\\cdot)}.$$ Since $\\phi_i^k(0)=0$ we have $H_i^k(0)=h_i^k(0)$. Also, the definition of $\\phi_i^k$ implies that $v_i^k-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot)$ is a constant on $\\partial \\Omega_k$.\n\nTo estimate the error term $w_i^k=v_i^k-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k \\cdot )-V_i^k$. We find $w_i^k$ satisfies $$\\label{wik01}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta w_i^k(y)+\\sum_ja_{ij}H_j^k(\\epsilon_ky)e^{\\xi_j^k}w_j^k=-\\sum_ja_{ij}(H_j^k(\\epsilon_ky)-H_j^k(0))e^{V_j^k}, \\\\ \\\\\nw_i^k(0)=0,\\quad i\\in I,\\quad \\nabla w_1^k(0)=O(\\epsilon_k),\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $\\xi_i^k$ is defined by $$\\label{1211e1}\ne^{\\xi_i^k}=\\int_0^1e^{tv_i^k+(1-t)V_i^k}dt.$$\n\nSince both $v^k$ and $V^k$ converge to $v$, $w_i^k=o(1)$ over any compact subset of $\\mathbb R^2$. The first estimate of $w_i^k$ is the following\n\n\\[1020lem1\\] $$\\label{820e1}\nw_i^k(y)=o(1)\\log (1+|y|)+O(1),\\quad \\mbox{ for } y\\in \\Omega_k.$$\n\n[**Proof**]{}: By (\\[11mar9e3\\]) $$|v_i^k(y)-\\bar v_i^k(|y|)|\\le C, \\quad \\forall y\\in \\Omega_k$$ where $\\bar v_i^k(r)$ is the average of $v_i^k$ on $\\partial B_r$: $$\\bar v_i^k(r)=\\frac{1}{2\\pi r}\\int_{\\partial B_r}v_i^k.$$ Thus we have $e^{v_i^k(y)}=O(r^{-2-\\delta_0})$ and $e^{V_i^k(y)}=O(r^{-2-\\delta_0})$ where $r=|y|$ and $\\delta_0>0$. Then $$r(\\bar w_i^k)'(r)=\\frac 1{2\\pi }\\bigg (\\int_{B_r}\\sum_ja_{ij}H_j^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot)e^{v_j^k}\n-\\int_{B_r}\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^k}\\bigg )$$\n\nIt is easy to use the decay rate of $e^{v_i^k}$, $e^{V_i^k}$ and the closeness between $v_i^k$ and $V_i^k$ to obtain $$r(\\bar w_i^k)'(r)=o(1),\\quad r\\ge 1.$$ Hence $\\bar w_i^k(r)=o(1)\\log r$ and (\\[820e1\\]) follows from this easily. Lemma \\[1020lem1\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nThe following estimate is immediately implied by Lemma \\[1020lem1\\]: $$e^{\\xi_i^k(y)}\\le C(1+|y|)^{-m+o(1)}\\quad \\mbox{ for } y\\in \\Omega_k=B(0,\\epsilon_k^{-1}).$$\n\nBefore we derive further estimate for $w_i^k$ we establish a useful estimate for the Green\u2019s function on $\\Omega_k$ with respect to the Dirichlet boundary condition:\n\n\\[greenk\\] Let $G(y,\\eta)$ be the Green\u2019s function with respect to Dirichlet boundary condition on $\\Omega_k$. For $y\\in \\Omega_k$, let $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Sigma_1&=&\\{\\eta \\in \\Omega_k;\\quad |\\eta |<|y|/2 \\quad \\}\\\\\n\\Sigma_2&=&\\{\\eta \\in \\Omega_k;\\quad |y-\\eta |<|y|/2 \\quad \\}\\\\\n\\Sigma_3&=&\\Omega_k\\setminus (\\Sigma_1\\cup \\Sigma_2).\\end{aligned}$$ Then in addition for $|y|>2$, $$\\label{1020e5}\n|G(y,\\eta)-G(0,\\eta)|\\le \\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\nC(\\log |y|+|\\log |\\eta ||),\\quad \\eta\\in \\Sigma_1,\\\\\nC(\\log |y|+|\\log |y-\\eta ||),\\quad \\eta\\in \\Sigma_2,\\\\\nC|y|/|\\eta |,\\quad \\eta \\in \\Sigma_3.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$\n\n[**Proof:**]{} The expression for $G(y,\\eta)$ is $$G(y,\\eta)=-\\frac{1}{2\\pi}\\log |y-\\eta |+\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\log (\\frac{|y|}{\\epsilon_k^{-1}}|\\frac{\\epsilon_k^{-2}y}{|y|^2}-\\eta |), \\quad y,\\eta\\in \\Omega_k.$$ In particular $$G(0,\\eta)=-\\frac{1}{2\\pi}\\log |\\eta |+\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1},\\quad \\eta\\in \\Omega_k.$$ Therefore we write $G(y,\\eta)-G(0,\\eta)$ as $$\\label{1020e3}\nG(y,\\eta)-G(0,\\eta)=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\log \\frac{|\\eta |}{|y-\\eta |}\n+\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\log |\\frac{y}{|y|}-\\frac{|y|\\eta}{\\epsilon_k^{-2}}|.$$\n\nThe proof of (\\[1020e5\\]) for $\\eta\\in \\Sigma_1$ is obvious. For $\\eta \\in \\Sigma_2$, (\\[1020e5\\]) also obviously holds if either $|y|$ or $|\\eta |$ is less than $\\frac 78 \\epsilon_k^{-1}$ because in this case $$\\bigg |\\log \\big | \\frac{y}{|y|}-\\epsilon_k^2|y|\\eta \\big |\\bigg |\\le C.$$ Consequently $$\\begin{aligned}\n|G(y,\\eta)-G(0,\\eta)|&\\le &C(\\log |\\eta |+\\big |\\log |y-\\eta |\\big |+C)\\\\\n&\\le &C(\\log |\\eta  |+\\big |\\log |y-\\eta |\\big |).\\end{aligned}$$ Therefore for $\\eta\\in \\Sigma_2$ we only need to consider the case when $|y|,|\\eta|>\\frac 78\\epsilon_k^{-1}$. In this case it is immediate to observe that $$\\bigg |\\log |\\frac{y}{|y|}-\\epsilon_k^2|y|\\eta |\\bigg |<C, \\quad \\mbox{ if }\\,\\, \\angle (\\frac{y}{|y}, \\frac{\\eta}{|\\eta |})>\\frac{\\pi}8$$ where $\\angle(\\cdot,\\cdot)$ is the angle between two unit vectors. Thus for $\\eta\\in \\Sigma_2$ we only consider the situation when $|y|,|\\eta|>\\frac 78\\epsilon_k^{-1}$, $\\angle(\\frac{y}{|y|},\\frac{\\eta}{|\\eta |})<\\frac{\\pi}8$. For this case we estimate $G(y,\\eta)-G(0,\\eta)$ as follows: $$|G(y,\\eta)-G(0,\\eta)|\\le |G(y,\\eta)|+|G(0,\\eta)|$$ $$|G(0,\\eta)|\\le C\\log |y|.$$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n|G(y,\\eta)|&\\le &\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\big |\\log |y-\\eta |\\big |+\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\log \\frac 87+\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\big |\\log |\\frac{\\epsilon_k^{-2}y}{|y|^2}-\\eta |\\big |\\\\\n&\\le & C(\\log |y|+\\big |\\log |y-\\eta |\\big |)\\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality holds because $$|y-\\eta |\\le |\\frac{\\epsilon_k^{-2}y}{|y|^2}-\\eta |<C|y|,$$ which implies $$\\big |\\log |\\frac{\\epsilon_k^{-2}y}{|y|^2}-\\eta | \\big |\\le C(\\big |\\log |y-\\eta |\\big |+\\log |y|).$$ The second case of (\\[1020e5\\]) (when $\\eta\\in \\Sigma_2$) is proved.\n\nFor $\\eta\\in \\Sigma_3$, we first consider when $|\\eta|>2|y|$. In this case $$|\\log \\frac{|\\eta |}{|\\eta -y|}|=|\\log |\\frac{\\eta}{|\\eta |}-\\frac{y}{|\\eta |}||\\le C\\frac{|y|}{|\\eta |}.$$ For the second term, since $\\eta,y\\in \\Omega_k$ and $|\\eta |>2|y|$, we have $|y||\\eta |<\\frac 12 \\epsilon_k^{-2}$, consequently $$\\bigg |\\log |\\frac{y}{|y|}-\\frac{|y|\\eta }{\\epsilon_k^{-2}}| \\bigg |\\le C|y||\\eta |\\epsilon_k^2\\le C\\frac{|y|}{|\\eta |}.$$ So (\\[1020e5\\]) is proved in this case. Now we consider $\\frac{|y|}2\\le |\\eta |\\le 2|y|$ and $|\\eta -y|\\ge \\frac{|y|}2$. For the first term we have $$\\bigg |\\log \\frac{|\\eta |}{|y-\\eta |}\\bigg |\\le \\log 4\\le C\\frac{|y|}{|\\eta |}.$$ For the second term, we want to show $$\\label{1027e5}\n\\bigg |\\log |\\frac{y}{|y|}-\\frac{|y|\\eta }{\\epsilon_k^{-2}}| \\bigg |\\le C\\le C\\frac{|y|}{|\\eta |}.$$ If either $|y|\\le \\frac{15}{16}\\epsilon_k^{-1}$ or $|\\eta |\\le \\frac{15}{16}\\epsilon_k^{-1}$ we have $$|\\frac{y}{|y|}-\\frac{|y|\\eta}{\\epsilon_k^{-2}}|\\ge \\frac{1}{16},$$ therefore (\\[1027e5\\]) obviously holds. For $\\frac{15}{16}\\epsilon_k^{-1}<|y|, |\\eta |\\le \\epsilon_k^{-1}$, using $|y-\\eta |>\\frac 12|y|$ we obtain easily $$\\bigg |\\frac{y}{|y|}-\\frac{|y|\\eta}{\\epsilon_k^{-2}}\\bigg |\\ge \\frac 38.$$ Therefore (\\[1020e5\\]) is proved in all cases. Lemma \\[greenk\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\n[**Proof of Theorem \\[thm2\\]:**]{} First we prove (\\[11mar9e2\\]) for $\\alpha=0$. We consider the case $m\\le 3$, the proof for the case $m>3$ is similar. By way of contradiction, we assume $$\\Lambda_k:=\\max_{y\\in\\Omega_k}\\frac{\\max_{i\\in I}|w_i^k(y)|}{\\epsilon_k(1+|y|)^{3+\\delta-m}}\\to \\infty.$$ Suppose $\\Lambda_k$ is attained at $y_k\\in \\bar \\Omega_k$ for some $i_0\\in I$. We thus define $$\\bar w_i^k(y)=\\frac{w_i^k(y)}{\\Lambda_k\\epsilon_k(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}}.$$ Here we require $\\delta$ to be small so that $m-2-\\delta>0$ (Thus $3-m+\\delta<1$). It follows from the definition of $\\Lambda_k$ that for $y\\in \\Omega_k$ $$\\label{11apr20e1}\n|\\bar w_i^k(y)|=\\frac{|w_i^k(y)}{\\Lambda_k\\delta_k(1+|y|)^{3+\\delta-m}}\\frac{(1+|y|)^{3+\\delta-m}}{(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}}\\le \\frac{(1+|y|)^{3+\\delta-m}}{(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}}.$$ The equation for $\\bar w_i^k$ is $$\\label{11apr20e2}\n-\\Delta \\bar w_i^k(y)=\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{\\xi_j^k}\\bar w_j^k+o(1)\\frac{(1+|y|)^{1-m}}{(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}},\n\\quad \\Omega_k$$ for $i\\in I$. Here $\\xi_i^k$ is given by (\\[1211e1\\]). $\\xi_i^k$ converges to $v_i$ in $C^2_{loc}(\\mathbb R^2)$. Besides, we also have $\\bar w_i^k(0)=0$ for all $i$ and $\\nabla \\bar w_1^k(0)=o(1)$. If a subsequence of $y_k$ stays bounded, then along a subsequence $\\bar w^k=(\\bar w_1^k,..,\\bar w_n^k)$ converges to $\\bar w=(\\bar w_1,...,\\bar w_n)$ that satisfies $$\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n-\\Delta \\bar w_i=\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j(0)e^{v_j}\\bar w_j,\\quad \\mathbb R^2, \\quad i\\in I,\\\\\n\\bar w_i(0)=0,\\quad \\nabla \\bar w_1(0)=0,\\quad |\\bar w_i(y)|\\le C(1+|y|)^{3+\\delta-m},\\quad y\\in \\mathbb R^2.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Thanks to (1) of Theorem \\[uniqlin\\] $$\\bar w_i(x)=c_1\\frac{\\partial v_i}{\\partial x_1}+c_2\\frac{\\partial v_i}{\\partial x_2}.$$ Since $\\nabla \\bar w_{1}(0)=0$ we have $c_1=c_2=0$, thus $\\bar w_i\\equiv 0$ for all $i$. On the other hand, the fact that $\\bar w_{i_0}^k(y_k)=\\pm 1$ for some $i_0\\in I$ implies that $\\bar w_{i_0}(\\bar y)=\\pm 1$ where $\\bar y$ is the limit of $y_k$. This contradiction means that $y_k\\to \\infty$. Next we shall show a contradiction if $|y_k|\\to \\infty$. By the Green\u2019s representation formula for $\\bar w_i^k$, $$\\bar w_i^k(y)=\\int_{\\Omega_k}G(y,\\eta)(-\\Delta \\bar w_i^k(\\eta))d\\eta + \\bar w_i^k|_{\\partial \\Omega_k}$$ where $\\bar w_i^k|_{\\partial \\Omega_k}$ is the boundary value of $\\bar w_i$ on $\\partial \\Omega_k$ ( which is a constant). From (\\[11apr20e1\\]) and (\\[11apr20e2\\]) we have $$|-\\Delta \\bar w_i^k(\\eta)|\\le \\frac{C(1+|\\eta |)^{3+\\delta-2m}}{(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}}+\n\\frac{C(1+|\\eta |)^{1-m+\\delta}}{\\Lambda_k(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}}.$$\n\nThus for some $i\\in I$ we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n \\label{11apr20e3}\n&&1=|\\bar w_i^k(y_k)-\\bar w_i^k(0)|\\\\\n&\\le &C\\int_{\\Omega_k}|G(y_k,\\eta)-G(0,\\eta)|\\bigg (\\frac{(1+|\\eta |)^{3+\\delta-2m}}{(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}}\n+\\frac{(1+|\\eta |)^{1-m+\\delta}}{\\Lambda_k(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}}\\bigg ),\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where the constant on the boundary is canceled out. To compute the right hand side of the above, we decompose the $\\Omega_k$ as $\\Omega_k=\\Sigma_1\\cup \\Sigma_2\\cup \\Sigma_3$ as in Lemma \\[greenk\\]. Using (\\[1020e5\\]) we have $$\\int_{\\Sigma_1\\cup \\Sigma_2}|G(y_k,\\eta)-G(0,\\eta)|(1+|\\eta |)^{3+\\delta-2m}d\\eta=O(1)(\\log |y_k|)(1+|y_k|)^{(5+\\delta-2m)_+}$$ where $$(1+|y_k|)^{\\alpha_+}=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}(1+|y_k|)^{\\alpha}, &\\quad \\alpha>0, \\\\\n\\log (1+|y_k|), &\\quad \\alpha=0, \\\\\n1, &\\quad \\alpha<0.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ $$\\int_{\\Sigma_3}|G(y_k,\\eta)-G(0,\\eta)|(1+|\\eta |)^{3+\\delta-2m}d\\eta=O(1)(1+|y_k|)^{5+\\delta-2m}.$$ Hence $$\\int_{\\Omega_k}|G(y_k, \\eta)-G(0,\\eta)|\\frac{(1+|\\eta |)^{3+\\delta-2m}}{(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}}d\\eta\n=O(1)(1+|y_k|)^{2-m}.$$ Similarly we can compute the other term: $$\\int_{\\Omega_k}|G(y_k, \\eta)-G(0, \\eta)|\\frac{(1+|\\eta |)^{1-m+\\delta}}{\\Lambda_k(1+|y_k|)^{3+\\delta-m}}d\\eta=O(1)\\Lambda_k^{-1}(\\log (1+|y_k|))^{-\\frac{\\delta}2}.$$ By the computations above we see that the right hand side of (\\[11apr20e3\\]) is $o(1)$, a contradiction to the left hand side of (\\[11apr20e3\\]). Thus (\\[11mar9e2\\]) is established for $\\alpha=0$. The estimates for $|\\alpha|=1$ and $2$ follow easily by scaling and standard elliptic estimates. Therefore Theorem \\[thm2\\] is completely proved. $\\Box$\n\nSecond order estimates\n======================\n\nIn this section we improve the estimates in Theorem \\[thm2\\] for $m<4$ and $m=4$, respectively. Let $p_{i,k}$ be the maximum point of $v_i^k(\\cdot)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot)$. The following lemma estimates the location of $p_{i,k}$.\n\n\\[pik\\] $p_{i,k}=O(\\epsilon_k),\\quad i\\in I. $\n\n[**Proof :**]{} Applying Theorem \\[thm2\\] to $v_i^k-\\phi_i^k(\\delta \\cdot )$ on $B_1$: $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{11mar12e2}\n&&D^{\\alpha}(v_i^k(y)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_ky))\\\\\n&=&D^{\\alpha}(V_i^k(|y|))+O(\\epsilon_k),\\quad |y|<1,\\quad |\\alpha |=0,1,2. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ The equation for $V_i^k$ is $$(V_i^k)''(r)+\\frac 1r(V_i^k)'(r)+\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}H_j^k(0)e^{V_j^k(r)}=0,\\quad r>0.$$ From $(V_i^k)'(0)=0$, we see $\\lim_{r\\to 0}(V_i^k)'(r)/r=(V_i^k)''(0)$. Thus $$\\label{11apr4e2}\n(V_i^k)''(0)=-\\frac 12\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}H_j^k(0)e^{V_j^k(0)}<-C$$ for some $C>0$ independent of $k$. Since $p_{i,k}$ is the maximum point of $v_i^k(\\cdot)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot)$, we deduce from (\\[11mar12e2\\]) that $(V_i^k)'(|p_{i,k}|)=O(\\epsilon_k)$, thus from (\\[11apr4e2\\]) we have $p_{i,k}=O(\\epsilon_k)$. Lemma \\[pik\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nThe main result in this section is to find the $\\epsilon_k$ approximation to $v_i^k(\\cdot)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot)$. It is most convenient to write the expansion around one of the $p_{i,k}$s. We choose $p_{1,k}$ and shall use $\\Phi^k=(\\Phi_1^k,..,\\Phi_n^k)$ to denote the projection of $v_i^k(\\cdot)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot)$ onto $span\\{\\sin \\theta, \\cos\\theta\\}$. i.e. $$\\label{11aug11e1}\n\\Phi^k_i(r\\cos\\theta,r\\sin\\theta)=\\epsilon_k(G_{1,i}^k(r)\\cos \\theta+G_{2,i}^k(r)\\sin\\theta), \\quad i\\in I$$ with $G_{t,i}^k(r)$ ($t=1,2$) satisfying some ordinary differential equations to be specified later.\n\nSet $v^{1,k}=(v^{1,k}_1,..,v^{1,k}_n)$ as $$\\label{vi0kd}\nv^{1,k}_i(\\cdot)=v_i^k(\\cdot+p_{1,k})-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k(\\cdot+p_{1,k}))$$ in $$\\label{omegai0kd}\n\\Omega_{1,k}:=\\{\\eta;\\,\\, \\eta+p_{1,k}\\in \\Omega_k\\,\\, \\}.$$ Using $\\nabla v_i^k(0)=O(\\epsilon_k)$ (by Theorem \\[thm2\\]) and $\\phi_i^k(0)=0$ we observe that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{11mar12e1}\n&&v^{1,k}_i(0)=v_i^k(p_{1,k})-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k p_{1,k})\\\\\n&=&v_i^k(0)+\\nabla v_i^k(0)\\cdot p_{1,k}+O(|p_{1,k}|^2)+O(p_{1,k}\\epsilon_k)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&v_i^k(0)+O(\\epsilon_k^2) \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ The equation that $v^{1,k}$ satisfies is (combining (\\[11mar9e2\\]) and (\\[1020e1\\])) $$\\label{vpke}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta v_i^{1,k}+\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}H_j^{1,k}(y)e^{v_j^{1,k}}=0,\\quad \\mbox{in}\\,\\, \\Omega_{1,k}\\\\\n\\\\\n\\nabla v_1^{1,k}(0)=0, \\quad \\nabla v_i^{1,k}(0)=O(\\epsilon_k),\\quad i=2,...,n\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $H^{1,k}=(H^{1,k}_1,...,H^{1,k}_n)$ is defined by (see (\\[Hik\\])) $$\\label{hi0k}\nH_i^{1,k}(\\cdot)=H_i^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot+\\epsilon_kp_{1,k})=h_i^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot +\\epsilon_kp_{1,k})e^{\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot +\\epsilon_kp_{1,k})}.$$ Trivially $$\\label{12feb16e1}\nH_i^{1,k}(0)=h_i^k(0)+O(\\epsilon_k^2).$$\n\nIn the coordinate around $p_{1,k}$ and we seek to approximate $v_i^{1,k}$ in $\\Omega_{1,k}$. The first term in the approximation of $v^{1,k}$ is $V^k$. Here we note that the domain $\\Omega_{1,k}$ is shifted from the ball $\\Omega_k$ by $p_{1,k}$.\n\nWe shall use five steps to establish an approximation of $v_i^{1,k}$ without distinguishing $m=4$ or not.\n\n[**Step one:**]{}\n\nLet $w^{1,k}=(w^{1,k}_1,..,w^{1,k}_n)$ be the difference between $v^k$ and $V^k$: $$w^{1,k}_i(y)=v^{1,k}_i(y)-V^{k}_i(|y|), \\quad y\\in \\Omega_{1k}.$$ Taking the difference between (\\[vpke\\]) and (\\[88e2\\]), we have $$\\Delta w_i^{1,k}+\\sum_j a_{ij}H_j^{1,k}(y)e^{V_j^k+w_j^{1,k}}-\\sum_j a_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^k}=0,$$ which is $$\\Delta w_i^{1,k}+\\sum_j a_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^k}(\\frac{e^{w_j^{1,k}}H_j^{1,k}(y)}{h_j^k(0)}-1)=0.$$ Here we observe that the oscillation of $V_i^k $ on $\\partial \\Omega_k$ is $O(\\epsilon_k^2)$. Indeed, recall that $\\Omega_{1,k}$ is the shift of the large ball $\\Omega_k$ by $p_{1,k}$. Let $y_1,y_2\\in\n\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}$, one can find $y_3$ such that $|y_3|=|y_2|$ and $|y_3-y_1|\\le C\\epsilon_k$. Since $(V_i^{k})'(r)\\sim r^{-1}$ for $r>1$ and $|y_1|\\sim \\epsilon_k^{-1}$, we have $$\\label{12jun19e1}\nV_i^{,k}(y_1)-V_i^{k}(y_2)=V_i^{k}(y_1)-V_i^{k}(y_3)=O(\\epsilon_k^2).$$\n\nWith (\\[12jun19e1\\]) we further write the equation for $w_i^{1,k}$ as $$\\label{newwk}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta w_i^{1,k}+ \\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^{k}}w_j^{1,k} =E_i^k,\\quad \\Omega_{1,k}.\\\\\n\\\\\nw_i^{1,k}(0)=O(\\epsilon_k^2),\\,\\, i\\in I,\\quad \\bar w_i^{1,k}=O(\\epsilon_k^2) \\mbox{ on } \\partial \\Omega_{1,k},\\\\\n\\\\\n\\nabla w_{1}^{1,k}(0)=0,\\quad \\nabla w_i^{1,k}(0)=O(\\epsilon_k),\\quad i\\in I\\setminus \\{1\\}\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $$\\label{ewik}\nE_i^k=-\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^{k}}\\bigg (\\frac{H_j^{1,k}(y)}{h_j^k(0)}e^{w_j^{1,k}}-1-w_j^{1,k}\\bigg ).$$ Similar to Theorem \\[thm2\\] we also have\n\n\\[wi0ki\\] For any $\\delta>0$, there exists $k_0(\\delta)>1$ such that for some $C>0$ independent of $k$ and $\\delta$, the following estimate holds for all $k\\ge k_0$: $$\\label{wi0k}\n|w^{1,k}_i(y)|\\le \\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\nC\\epsilon_k(1+|y|)^{3-m+\\delta},\\,\\, m\\le 3,\\\\\nC\\epsilon_k(1+|y|)^{\\delta},\\,\\, m> 3,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.\n \\quad y\\in \\Omega_{1,k}.$$\n\n[**Proof:**]{} Using the definition of $v^{1,k}$ and Theorem \\[thm2\\] we have $$|v_i^{1,k}(y)-V_i^k(y+p_{1,k})|\\le \\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\nC\\epsilon_k (1+|y|)^{3-m+\\delta},\\quad m\\le 3, \\\\\nC\\epsilon_k (1+|y|)^{\\delta},\\quad m>3.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ On the other hand we clearly have $$|V_i^k(y)-V_i^k(y+p_{1,k})|\\le C\\epsilon_k(1+|y|)^{-1}$$ by mean value theorem and the estimate of $\\nabla V_i^k$. Lemma \\[wi0ki\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nUsing Lemma \\[wi0ki\\] and (\\[12feb16e1\\]) we now rewrite $E_i^k$, clearly $$E_i^k=-\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{V_j^{k}}(H_j^{1,k}(y)-h_j^k(0))+(H_j^k(y)-h_j^k(0))w_j^{1,k}+O((w_j^{1,k})^2).$$ By Lemma \\[wi0ki\\] and (\\[12feb16e1\\]), the last two terms are $O(\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{2-m})$ regardless whether $m\\ge 3$ or not. Thus $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{ewik1}\nE_i^k&=& -\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{V_j^{k}}(H_j^{1,k}(y)-h_j^k(0))+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|y|)^{2-m}\\\\\n&=&-\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{V_j^{k}}(H_j^{1,k}(y)-H_j^{1,k}(0))+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|y|)^{2-m} \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where in the last step we used (\\[12feb16e1\\]) again.\n\n[**Step Two: Estimate of the radial part of $w^{1,k}$:**]{}\n\nLet $g^{k,0}=(g_1^{k,0},...,g^{k,0}_n)$ be the radial part of $w^{1,k}$: $$g_i^{k,0}(r)=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_0^{2\\pi}w_i^{1,k}(r\\cos \\theta, r\\sin \\theta)d\\theta.$$ Due to the radial symmetry of $V_i^k$, $g^{k,0}$ satisfies $$\\label{11apr8e1}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\nL_i g^{k,0}\n=-\\frac{\\epsilon_k^2}4\\sum_ja_{ij}\\Delta H_j^{1,k}(0)r^2e^{V_j^{k}}\n+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+r)^{\\delta-m}\\\\\n\\\\\ng_i^{k,0}(0)=O(\\epsilon_k^2),\\quad i\\in I, \\quad \\frac{d}{dr}g_{1}^{k,0}(0)=0.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where ( for simplicity we omit $k$ in $L_i$) $$L_ig^{k,0}=\\frac{d^2}{dr^2}g_i^{k,0}+\\frac 1r\\frac{d}{dr}g_i^{k,0}+\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^{k}(0)e^{V^{k}_j}g_j^{k,0}$$ We claim that for $\\delta>0$, there exists $k_0(\\delta)>1$ such that for all $k\\ge k_0$ $$\\label{11mar29e4}\n|g_i^{k,0}(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+r)^{4-m+\\delta},\\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}$$ holds for some $C$ independent of $k$ and $\\delta$. So, $g_i^{k,0}(r)$ can be discarded as an error term.\n\nTo prove (\\[11mar29e4\\]), we first observe that $m\\le 4$ and by (\\[11apr8e1\\]) $$|L_ig^{k,0}|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+r)^{2-m+\\delta/2}.$$ Let $f^k=(f_1^k,..,f_n^k)$ be the solution of $$\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\frac{d^2}{dr^2}f_i^k+\\frac 1r\\frac{d}{dr}f_i^k=L_ig^{k,0}, \\\\\n\\\\\nf_i^k(0)=\\frac{d}{dr}f_i^k(0)=0.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Then elementary estimate shows $$\\label{12feb13e1}\n|f_i^k(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+r)^{4-m+\\delta}.$$ If $m>\\frac 52$, we claim $$\\label{11apr5e1}\n|g_i^{k,0}(r)-f_i^k(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+r)^{\\delta}, \\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$\n\nIndeed, let $\\bar g^{k}=g^{k,0}-f^{k}$, then clearly $$\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\nL_i\\bar g^k=F_i^k, \\\\\n\\\\\n\\bar g_i^k(0)=O(\\epsilon_k^2), \\quad \\frac{d}{dr}\\bar g_{1}^k(0)=0,\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where $$F_i^k:=-\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^{k}(0)e^{V^{k}_j}f_j^k=O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+r)^{4-2m+\\delta}.$$\n\nBy considering $\\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\\frac 1r\\frac{d}{dr}$ as $\\Delta $ in $\\mathbb R^2$ and $\\bar g^k$ a solution with boundary oscillation $0$ in $B(0,\\epsilon_k^{-1})$, we obtain (\\[11apr5e1\\]) by the argument for Theorem \\[thm2\\]. Here we note that to apply Theorem \\[uniqlin\\], it is essential to require $6-2m+\\delta<1$ (it holds if $m>5/2$), the estimate on the Green\u2019s function in Lemma \\[greenk\\] and the condition $\\frac{d}{dr}\\bar g_{1}^k(0)=0$. Since $m\\le 4$, $O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+r)^{\\delta}$ is part of the error.\n\nIf $m\\le \\frac 52$ we apply the same ideas by adding more correction functions to $g^{k,0}$: Let $N$ satisfy $2+(2-m)N<1$, we add $N$ correcting functions to make the right hand side of the equation of the order $O(\\epsilon_k^2(1+r)^{(2-m)N+\\delta})$. Note that each correction can be discarded as an error in the sense that they are smaller than the right hand side of (\\[11jun14e5\\]). Using $2+2N-mN<1$ and the argument in the proof of Theorem \\[thm2\\] we obtain (\\[11mar29e4\\]).\n\n[**Step Three: The projection on $\\sin\\theta$ and $\\cos \\theta$**]{}\n\nIn this step we consider the projection of $w^{1,k}$ over $\\cos\\theta$ and $\\sin \\theta$, respectively: $$\\epsilon_kG_{1,i}^k(r)=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_0^{2\\pi}w_i^{1,k}(r,\\theta)\\cos\\theta d\\theta, \\quad\n\\epsilon_kG_{2,i}^k(r)=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_0^{2\\pi}w_i^{1,k}(r,\\theta)\\sin\\theta d\\theta.$$ Let $$\\label{1224e2}\n\\Phi_i^k=\\epsilon_kG_{1,i}^k(r)\\cos \\theta +\\epsilon_kG_{2,i}^k(r) \\sin \\theta$$ clearly $G_{1,i}^k$ and $G_{2,i}^k$ solve the following linear systems: For $0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}$ and $t=1,2$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{1030e1}\n(\\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\\frac 1r\\frac{d}{dr}-\\frac{1}{r^2})G^k_{t,i}+\\sum_j a_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^k}G^k_{t,j}\\\\\n=-\\sum_ja_{ij}\\partial_tH_j^{1,k}(0)re^{V_j^{k}}\n+O(\\epsilon_k)(1+r)^{2-m}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThen $\\Phi^k$ solves $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\Delta \\Phi_i^k+\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^{k}}\\Phi_j^k\\\\\n\\label{1224e3}\n&=&-\\epsilon_k\\sum_ja_{ij}(\\partial_1H_j^{1,k}(0)y_1+\\partial_2H_j^{1,k}(0)y_2)e^{V_j^{k}}\n+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|y|)^{2-m}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\n\nBy the long behavior of $w^{1,k}$ (Lemma \\[wi0ki\\]) we have $$\\label{11mar21e1}\n|G_{1,i}^k(r)|+|G_{2,i}^k(r)|\\le \\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}C(1+r)^{3-m+\\delta}, \\,\\, m\\le 3, \\\\\nC(1+r)^{\\delta}, \\,\\, m>3.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Note that $G_{t,i}^k(0)=0$ and $G_{t,i}^k(r)=O(r)$ near $0$.\n\n[**Step Four: Projection of $w^{1,k}$ onto higher frequencies** ]{}\n\nLet $$g^{k,l}=(g^{k,l}_1,...,g^{k,l}_n)$$ be the projection of $w^{1,k}$ on $\\sin l\\theta$. In this step we first establish a preliminary estimate for all these projections:\n\n\\[11jun14lem3\\] There exist $l_0\\ge 3$ and $C>0$ independent of $k,l$ such that $$|g_i^{k,l}(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2r^2,\\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}, \\quad \\forall l\\ge l_0.$$\n\n[**Proof:**]{}\n\nBy (\\[newwk\\]), (\\[ewik1\\]) and Lemma \\[wi0ki\\] $g^{k,l}$ satisfies $$\\label{11mar31e1}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n(\\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\\frac{1}r\\frac{d}{dr}-\\frac{l^2}{r^2})g_i^{k,l}+\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^{k}}g_j^{k,l}=h_{ikl}\\\\\n\\\\\ng_i^{k,l}(0)=0.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ where, applying the Taylor expansion of $H_j^{i,k}$ up to the second order, $$\\label{12mar9e1}\n|h_{ikl}(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+r)^{2-m+\\delta/2}$$ for some $C$ independent of $k$ and $l$. Thus $$\\label{11apr5e9}\n\\Delta g_i^{k,l}-\\frac{l^2}{r^2}g_i^{k,l}+\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^{k}(0)e^{V^{k}_j}g_j^{k,l}>-c_0\\epsilon_k^2(1+r)^{2-m+\\delta}$$ for some $c_0>0$. Let $$g(r)=\\frac{r^2}4\\int_r^{\\infty}\\frac{c_0}s(1+s)^{2-m+\\delta}ds+c_0\\frac{r^{-2}}4\\int_0^rs^3(1+s)^{2-m+\\delta}ds+r^2.$$ Then clearly $g(r)>0$ for $r>0$, $g$ solves $$\\label{11apr11e11}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\ng''+\\frac 1r g'-\\frac{4}{r^2}g(r)=-c_0r^2(1+r)^{-m+\\delta}, \\quad r>0, \\\\\n\\\\\ng(0)=g'(0)=0.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ and $$g(r)=r^2+O(r^{4-m+\\delta}), \\quad r>1, \\quad g(r)\\le Cr^2\\log (\\frac 1r+1),\\quad r\\le 1.$$ Clearly by Lemma \\[wi0ki\\] $$\\label{11apr5e7}\n\\epsilon_k^2g(\\epsilon_k^{-1})>\\max_{y\\in \\partial \\Omega_{1,k}}|w^{1,k}_i(y)|\\ge |g_i^{k,l}(\\epsilon_k^{-1})|.$$ The reason that we include $r^2$ in the definition of $g(\\cdot)$ is because by Lemma \\[wi0ki\\] we only know $w_i^{1,k}(x)=O(\\epsilon_k (1+|x|)^{\\delta})$ for $m>3$. Let $g^k=(g_1^k,..,g_n^k)=\\epsilon_k^2(g,..,g)$, then it is easy to see that for $l_0$ sufficiently large and $l>l_0$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{11apr5e8}\n&&\\Delta g_i^k-\\frac{l^2}{r^2}g_i^k+\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^{k}(0)e^{V^{k}_j}g_j^k\\\\\n&=&-\\epsilon_k^2c_0(1+r)^{2-m+\\delta}+\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^{k}(0)e^{V^{k}_j}g_j^k-\\frac{l^2-4}{r^2}g_i^k \\nonumber\\\\\n&\\le &-\\epsilon_k^2c_0(1+r)^{2-m+\\delta}.\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ To prove Lemma \\[11jun14lem3\\] it is enough to show $$\\label{11jun15e1}\n|g_i^{k,l}(r)|\\le C g_i^k, \\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1},\\quad l\\ge l_0.$$ with $C$ independent of $k$ and $l$. To this end, we shall use (\\[11apr5e9\\]) and the initial value $$\\label{11apr5e10}\ng_i^{k,l}(r)=o(r) \\mbox{ near }0.$$ In the following we use the argument in the proof of Theorem \\[uniqlin\\]. Let $\\psi_i^k=g_i^k-g_i^{k,l}$, by (\\[11apr5e7\\]),(\\[11apr5e8\\]),(\\[11apr5e9\\]) and (\\[11apr5e10\\]) $$\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta \\psi_i^k-\\frac{l^2}{r^2}\\psi_i^k+\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^{k}(0)e^{V^{k}_j}\\psi_j^k<0,\\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}, \\\\\n\\\\\n\\psi_i^k(r)=o(r)\\mbox{ near }0, \\quad \\psi_i^k(\\epsilon_k^{-1})>0 \\mbox{ for all } i.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Our goal is to prove $\\psi_i^k(r)>0$ for all $0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}$. To do this, let $f^k=(f^k_1,...,f^k_n)$ be the positive solution to the homogeneous system: $$\\Delta f_i^k-\\frac{1}{r^2}f_i^k+\\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^{k}(0)e^{V^{k}_j}f_j^k=0, \\quad r>0$$ such that $$f_i^k(r)\\sim r, \\mbox{ near } 0, \\quad f^k_i(r)\\sim \\frac 1r \\mbox{ near } \\infty, \\quad f_i^k(r)>0 \\mbox{ for all } r>0.$$ If $\\psi_i^k$ is not always non-negative we assume $$\\min_{\\mathbb R^+}\\frac{\\psi_1^k(r)}{f_1^k(r)}=\\min_{1\\le i\\le n}\\min_{\\mathbb R^+}\\frac{\\psi_i^k(r)}{f_i^k(r)}<0.$$ Suppose the minimum is attained at $r_k$. By the behavior of $\\psi_i^k$ and $f_i^k$, we have $0<r_k<\\epsilon_k^{-1}$. Let $w_1^k=\\psi_1^k/f_1^k$, then $w_1^k$ satisfies $$\\Delta w_1^k+2\\nabla w_1^k\\cdot \\frac{\\nabla f_1^k}{f_1^k}+\\frac{1-l^2}{r^2}w_1^k=\n\\sum_{j=2}^na_{1j}h_j^{k}(0)e^{V^{k}_j}(\\frac{w_1^kf_j^k-\\psi_j^k}{f_1^k}).$$ Evaluating both sides at $r_k$, the left hand side is strictly positive while the right hand side is non-positive by the definition of $w_1^k$. This contradiction proves (\\[11jun15e1\\]). Finally since $g(r)=O(r^2\\log\\frac 1r)$ near $0$, $g_i^{k,l}(r)=O(\\epsilon_k^2r^2)$ near $0$ for $l\\ge l_0\\ge 3$. Lemma \\[11jun14lem3\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\n\\[11jun14lem4\\] Given $\\delta>0$, there exist $C(\\delta)>0$ independent of $k,l$ and $k_0(\\delta)>1$ such that for $l\\ge 3$ and $k\\ge k_0$ $$\\label{11may2e4}\n|g^{k,l}_i(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{(m-2-\\delta)^+}(\\epsilon_kr)^l+\\frac{C}{l^2}\\epsilon_k^2r^2(1+r)^{2-m+\\delta},\\quad r\\le \\frac 12 \\epsilon_k^{-1}$$ where $$(m-2-\\delta)^+=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\nm-2-\\delta \\quad \\mbox{ if }\\quad m\\le 3 \\\\\n1-\\delta\\quad \\mbox{ if }\\quad m>3.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$\n\n[**Proof:**]{}\n\nBy Lemma \\[11jun14lem3\\], (\\[11mar31e1\\]) can be rewritten as as $$(\\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\\frac 1r\\frac{d}{dr}-\\frac{l^2}{r^2})g_i^{k,l}=\\bar h_{ikl},\\quad\ng_i^{k,l}(0)=0$$ where $$\\label{11may2e2}\n|\\bar h_{ikl}(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+r)^{2-m+\\delta},\\quad k\\ge k_0(\\delta)$$ for some $C$ independent of $k$ and $l$. By standard ODE theory $$\\label{11may2e1}\ng_i^{k,l}(r)=c^i_{1kl}r^l+c^i_{2kl}r^{-l}-\\frac{r^{l}}{2l}\\int_r^{\\epsilon_k^{-1}}s^{-l+1}\\bar h_{ikl}(s)ds\n-\\frac{r^{-l}}{2l}\\int_0^rs^{l+1}\\bar h_{ikl}(s)ds.$$ When $r\\to 0$, it is easy to see that the last two terms in (\\[11may2e1\\]) both tend to $0$. Thus $c^i_{2kl}=0$. Let $I_3$ and $I_4$ represent the last two terms in (\\[11may2e1\\]), respectively. By (\\[11may2e2\\]), we have $$\\label{11may2e3}\n|I_3(r)|+|I_4(r)|\\le \\frac{C\\epsilon_k^2}{l^2}(1+r)^{4-m+\\delta}$$ where $C$ is independent of $k$ and $l$. On the other hand, using the information of $w^{1,k}$ for $r\\sim \\epsilon_k^{-1}$, we know $$\\label{12apr27e5}\n|g^{k,l}_i(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{(m-2-\\delta)^+}, \\quad r\\sim \\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$ In regard to (\\[11may2e3\\]) and (\\[11may2e1\\]) we have $$\\label{12apr27e6}\n|c^i_{1kl}|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{(m-2-\\delta)^++l}.$$ Hence (\\[11may2e4\\]) follows immediately. Lemma \\[11jun14lem4\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nLet $z^k=(z_1^k,...,z_n^k)$ be the projection of $w^{1,k}$ to $span\\{ \\sin l\\theta, \\cos l\\theta, l\\ge 2\\}$, i.e. $$z_i^{k}=\\sum_{l=2}^{\\infty}\\bigg (g_i^{k,l}(r)\\sin l\\theta + \\tilde g_i^{k,l}(r)\\cos l \\theta \\bigg )$$ where $\\tilde g_i^{k,l}$ is the projection of $w_i^{1,k}$ on $\\cos l \\theta$. $\\tilde g_i^{k,l}$ has similar estimates as that for $g_i^{k,l}$. Then Lemma \\[11jun14lem4\\] leads to $$\\label{11jun17e1}\n|z_i^k(y)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{4-m+\\delta}, \\quad |y|\\le \\frac 12\\epsilon_k^{-1}$$ for $m\\le 3$. However for $m>3$, Lemma \\[11jun14lem4\\] only gives $$\\label{12jun20e5}\n|z_i^k(y)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{3-\\delta}(1+|y|)^2+C\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{4-m+\\delta}, \\quad |y|\\le \\frac 12\\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$ In the following we shall get rid of the first term on the right hand side of (\\[12jun20e5\\]). To this end, we need to evaluate the value of $w^{1,k}$ on $\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}$.\n\n\\[wikbry\\] (a) If $m<4$, then $$\\label{11apr11e10}\n|w_i^{1,k}(y)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2}\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1},\\quad y\\in \\partial \\Omega_{1,k}.$$ (b) If $m=4$ and $|m_i^k-4|\\le C/\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}$ for all $i$, then $$\\label{11jun13e3}\n|w_i^{1,k}(y)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(\\log \\epsilon_k)^2,\\quad y\\in \\partial \\Omega_{1,k}.$$\n\nThe assumption $|m_i^k-4|\\le C/\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}$ when $m=4$ is natural and will be justified in the proof of the main theorems in section 6. We also remark that in (\\[11apr11e10\\]) we use $\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2}\\log 1/\\epsilon_k$ instead of the crude $\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta}$ as before.\n\n[**Proof:**]{}\n\nThe Green\u2019s representation formula for $w^{1,k}_i$ gives (see (\\[newwk\\])) $$\\begin{aligned}\nO(\\epsilon_k^2)=w_i^{1,k}(0)=\\int_{\\Omega_{1,k}}G(0,\\eta)\\big ( \\sum_ja_{ij}h_j^{1,k}(0)e^{V_j^{k}}w_j^{1,k}(\\eta)-E_i^k(\\eta))d\\eta \\nonumber\\\\\n-\\int_{\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}}\\partial_{\\nu}G(0,\\eta)w_i^{1,k}(\\eta)dS_{\\eta} \\label{11jun13e5}\\end{aligned}$$ where $G(\\cdot, \\cdot)$ is the Green\u2019s function on $\\Omega_{1,k}$ with respect to the Dirichlet boundary condition. We observe that $$\\label{11jun13e6}\nG(0,\\eta)=-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\log |\\eta |+\\frac 1{2\\pi} \\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}+O(\\epsilon_k^2).$$ Indeed, since $\\Omega_{1,k}$ is a translation of $\\Omega_k$ by $p_{1,k}$ ( recall $p_{1,k}=O(\\epsilon_k)$), the oscillation of $\\log |\\eta|$ on $\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}$ is $O(\\epsilon_k^2)$. Thus the oscillation of the regular part of $G(0, \\eta)$ is $O(\\epsilon_k^2)$, which leads to (\\[11jun13e6\\]). On the other hand let $\\bar w_i^{1,k}$ be the average of $w^{1,k}_i$ on $\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}$, using the fact that $v^{1,k}_i$ is constant on $\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}$ and $V_i^k$ has oscillation $O(\\epsilon_k^2)$ on $\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}$ we have $$\\label{11jun13e7}\nw_i^{1,k}(y)=\\bar w_i^{1,k}+O(\\epsilon_k^2), \\quad \\forall y\\in \\partial \\Omega_{1,k}.$$ Thus $$\\label{11jun13e8}\n-\\int_{\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}}\\partial_{\\nu}G(0,\\eta)w_i^{1,k}(\\eta)dS_{\\eta}\n=\\bar w_i^{1,k}+O(\\epsilon_k^2).$$ By using (\\[11jun13e6\\]), (\\[11jun13e7\\]) and (\\[11jun13e8\\]) in (\\[11jun13e5\\]) we have $$-\\bar w_i^{1,k}+O(\\epsilon_k^2)=\\int_{\\Omega_{1,k}}(\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\log \\frac{\\epsilon_k^{-1}}{|\\eta |})\\bigg (\\sum_j a_{ij}h_j^{k}(0)e^{V_j^{k}}w_j^{1,k}(\\eta)\n-E_i^k(\\eta)\\bigg )d\\eta$$ To evaluate the right hand side, we divide $\\Omega_{1,k}$ into a symmetric part: $D_1:=B(0, \\epsilon_k^{-1}-|p_{1,k}|)$ and a nonsymmetric part: $\\Omega_{1,k}\\setminus D_1$ and use $I_1$ and $I_2$ to represent the corresponding integrals on them. If $\\eta\\in \\Omega_{1,k}\\setminus D_1$, it is easy to see from $|p_{1,k}|=O(\\epsilon_k)$ that $$\\log (\\frac{\\epsilon_k^{-1}}{|\\eta |})=O(\\epsilon_k^2) \\mbox{ and } | \\Omega_{1,k}\\setminus D_1|=O(1).$$ Moreover for $\\eta\\in \\Omega_{1,k}\\setminus D_1$, by (\\[wi0k\\]) and (\\[ewik1\\]) $$w_j^{1,k}(\\eta)=O(\\epsilon_k^{1-\\epsilon}),\n\\quad E_i^k(\\eta)=O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k}).$$ Combining these facts we have $I_2=O(\\epsilon_k^2)$.\n\nTo evaluate $I_1$, since $\\log (\\epsilon_k^{-1}/|\\eta |)$ is radial, by symmetry only the projections of $w_j^{1,k}$ and $E_i^k$ onto $1$ remain. By (\\[11mar29e4\\]) and (\\[ewik1\\]) $$|I_1|\\le C\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}\\int_{D_1}\\epsilon_k^2(1+|\\eta |)^{2-m^k}d\\eta.$$ (Note that we use the fact that $e^{V_k(x)}\\le C(1+|y|)^{-m^k}$ for $C$ independent of $k$.) Therefore if $m<4$, $I_1=O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2})\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}$. If $m=4$ and $|m_i^k-4|\\le C\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}$ we have $(1+r)^{-m^k}\\le C(1+r)^{-4}$, thus by elementary computation $$|I_1|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(\\log \\epsilon_k)^2.$$ Lemma \\[wikbry\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nBy Lemma \\[wikbry\\], (\\[12apr27e5\\]) can be replaced by $$|g^{k,l}_i(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta}, \\quad r\\sim \\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$ Correspondingly, the estimate for $c_{1kl}^i$ becomes $$|c_{1kl}^i|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta+l}.$$ Then it is easy to see that the first term in (\\[12jun20e5\\]) can be removed.\n\n[**Step five:**]{}\n\nFor the projection on $span\\{\\sin \\theta, \\cos \\theta\\}$, we write (\\[1030e1\\]) as $$(\\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\\frac 1r\\frac{d}{dr}-\\frac{1}{r^2})G_{1,i}^k=h(r),\\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}$$ where $h$ is the collection of other terms. By (\\[11mar21e1\\]) $$|h(r)|\\le C(1+r)^{1-m+\\delta}.$$ Then $$\\label{12mar8e1}\nG_{1,i}^k=c_{1k}r+\\frac{c_{2k}}r-\\frac r2\\int_r^{\\infty}h(s)ds-\\frac{r^{-1}}2\\int_0^r s^2 h(s)ds.$$ Since $G_{1,i}$ is bounded near $0$, $c_{2k}=0$. Using $G_{1,i}^k(\\epsilon_k^{-1})=O(\\epsilon_k^{m-3-\\delta})$ we have $$|c_{1k}|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta}.$$ Then it is easy to see from (\\[12mar8e1\\]) that $$\\label{11jun23e1}\n|G_{t,i}^k(r)|\\le Cr(1+r)^{2-m+\\delta}, \\, t=1,2, \\, \\, \\mbox{ when } m>3.$$ Similarly (\\[11jun23e1\\]) also holds for $G_{2,i}^k$.\n\nCombining the results in the five steps we arrive at the following estimate without distinguishing $m<4$ or not.\n\n\\[cruexp\\] Given $\\delta>0$, there exist $C(\\delta)>0$, $k_0(\\delta)>1$ such that for $|y|\\le \\epsilon_k^{-1}/2$ and $|\\alpha |=0,1$, the following holds for all $k\\ge k_0$ $$\\label{11jun14e5}\n|D^{\\alpha}(v_i^{1,k}(y)-V_i^k(y)-\\Phi_i^k(y))|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{4-m-|\\alpha |+\\delta}.$$ where $$\\Phi_i^k(y)=\\epsilon_k(G_{1,i}^k(r)\\cos\\theta+G_{2,i}^k(r)\\sin \\theta)$$ with $$\\label{11jun14e6}\n|G_{t,i}^k(r)|\\le Cr(1+r)^{2-m+\\delta}\\quad t=1,2.$$\n\nNote that the estimate for $|\\alpha |=0$ follows directly from the five steps. The estimate for $|\\alpha |=1$ follows from standard gradient estimate for elliptic equations.\n\nTheorem \\[cruexp\\] does not distinguish $m<4$ or $m=4$. In the following we apply Theorem \\[cruexp\\] to obtain more accurate estimates for $m<4$ and $m=4$, respectively. Both results in the sequel (Theorem \\[expthm1\\] and Theorem \\[expthm2\\]) play a crucial role in determining the location of maximum points of bubbling solutions.\n\n\\[expthm1\\] Suppose $m<4$, then for $|y|\\le \\epsilon_k^{-1}/2$ and $i\\in I$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{mle4e1}\n&&|D^{\\alpha}\\big (v_i^k(y)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)-V_i^k(y-p_{1,k})-\\Phi^k_i(y-p_{1,k})\\big )|\\\\\n&\\le &\nC\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{4-m^k-l}\\log (2+|y|)\n\\quad |\\alpha |=0,1 \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $v_i^k,\\phi_i^k,V_i^k,\\Phi_i^k$ are defined by (\\[vikdef\\]), (\\[816e5\\]), (\\[88e2\\]) and (\\[11aug11e1\\]), respectively. Moreover $G_{t,i}^k$ ($t=1,2, i\\in I$) satisfy $$\\label{11jun9e1}\n|G_{t,i}^k(r)|\\le Cr(1+r)^{2-m^k}\\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$\n\n[**Proof:**]{}\n\nWe use the same notations as in the proof of Proposition \\[cruexp\\]. First we consider the radial part of $w^{1,k}$: Recall $m<4$. Using Proposition \\[cruexp\\] and (\\[11apr8e1\\]) we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&(\\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\\frac 1r\\frac{d}{dr})g_i^{k,0}\\\\\n&=&-\\sum_j a_{ij}h_j^k(0)e^{V_j^k}g_j^{k,0}-\\frac{\\epsilon_k^2}4\\sum_ja_{ij}\\Delta H_j^{1,k}(0)r^2e^{V_j^k}+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+r)^{\\epsilon-m}\\\\\n&=&O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+r)^{2-m^k},\\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1},\\end{aligned}$$ and $$g_i^{k,0}(0)=O(\\epsilon_k^2).$$\n\nMultiplying $r$ on both sides of the equation and integrating, we obtain $$|g_i^{k,0}(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2\\log (2+r).$$\n\nNext we consider the projection of $w^{1,k}$ on $\\sin\\theta $ and $\\cos\\theta$. Let $\\omega^k=(\\omega_1^k,...,\\omega_n^k)$ be $$\\omega_i^k=w^{1,k}_i-g^{k,0}_i.$$ Then $\\omega^k$ satisfies $$\\Delta \\omega_i^k+\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}h^{k}_j(0)e^{V^{k}_j}\\omega_j^k=E_{1,i}^k, \\quad \\Omega_{1,i}$$ where $E_{1,i}^k$ is the projection of the original right hand side on the subspace spanned by $\\sin k\\theta$ and $\\cos ku$ ($k=1,2,..$). Since $g_i^{k,0}$ is a radial function, from the asymptotic behavior of $g^{k,0}$ it is easy to see that the oscillation of it on $\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}$ is $O(\\epsilon_k^2)$, therefore the oscillation of $\\omega_i^k$ on $\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}$ is $O(\\epsilon_k^2)$. Let $\\bar \\omega_i^k$ be the average of $\\omega_i^k$ on $\\partial \\Omega_{1,k}$, then by $\\omega_i^k(0)=0$ we have $$0=\\int_{\\Omega_{1,k}}G(0,\\eta)(\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}h^{k}_j(0)e^{V^{k}_j}\\omega_j^k(\\eta)-E_{1,i}^k(\\eta))d\\eta+\\bar \\omega_i^k+O(\\epsilon_k^2).$$ Using (\\[11jun13e6\\]) in the equation above we have $\\bar \\omega_i^k=O(\\epsilon_k^2)$, thus $$\\label{12mar9e3}\n\\omega_i^k=O(\\epsilon_k^2),\\quad \\mbox{ on } \\quad \\partial \\Omega_{1,k}.$$ Since we have known that $ \\epsilon_k G_{t,i}^k(\\epsilon_k^{-1})=O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2})$, we can improve the estimate of $\\Phi^k$ using (\\[12mar8e1\\]). The estimate of $G_{t,i}^k$ now is $$|G_{t,i}^k(r)|\\le Cr(1+r)^{2-m^k}, \\quad r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}$$ and $$|\\frac{d}{dr}G_{t,i}^k|\\le Cr(1+r)^{1-m^k},\\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}/2$$ which leads to $$\\label{11jun16e1}\n|\\nabla \\Phi^{k}_i(y)|\\le C\\epsilon_kr(1+r)^{1-m^k},\\quad |y|<\\epsilon_k^{-1}/2.$$ As far as the projection of $w^{1,k}$ on higher frequencies is concerned, since we have (\\[12mar9e3\\]), for $g^{k,l}$ we now have, instead of Lemma \\[11jun14lem4\\] $$\\label{11jun16e2}\n|g^{k,l}_i(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2}(\\epsilon_k r)^{l}+\\frac{C}{l^2}\\epsilon_k^2r^2(1+r)^{2-m^k}, l\\ge 2.$$ As before we let $z_i^k=w^{1,k}_i-\\Phi_i^{k}$, then $z_i^k$ satisfies $$\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\Delta z_i^k=O(\\epsilon_k^2)|y|^2(1+|y|)^{-m^k},\\quad \\Omega_{1,k}\\subset \\mathbb R^2, \\\\\n\\\\\nz_i^k=O(\\epsilon_k^2)\\quad \\mbox{ on }\\quad \\partial \\Omega_{1,k}.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Because of (\\[11jun16e2\\]) we have $$|z_i^k(y)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{4-m^k}, \\quad |y|\\le \\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$ By standard re-scaling method $$\\label{11jun16e3}\n|\\nabla z_i^k(y)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{3-m^k},\\quad |y|<\\epsilon_k^{-1}/2.$$ We have established $$|D^{\\alpha}(v_i^{1,k}(y)-V_i^{k}(y)-\\Phi_i^{k}(y)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{4-m^k-|\\alpha |}\\log (2+|y|)$$ for $|\\alpha |=0,1$ and $|y|\\le \\epsilon_k^{-1}/2$. Recall that $v_i^{1,k}$ is defined in (\\[vi0kd\\]). Instead of using the coordinate around $p_{1,k}$ we use the coordinate around the origin to obtain (\\[mle4e1\\]).\n\nTheorem \\[expthm1\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\n\\[expthm2\\] If $m=4$ and $|m_i^k-4|\\le C/\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}$ for all $i\\in I$, then we have, for $|y|\\le \\epsilon_k^{-1}/2$ and $i\\in I$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{m4e1}\n&&| D^{\\alpha}(v_i^k(y)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)-V_i^k(y-p_{1,k})-\\Phi_i^{k}(y-p_{1,k})\\big )|\\\\\n&\\le &\nC\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{-|\\alpha |}(\\log (2+|y|))^2.\n\\quad |\\alpha |=0,1, \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\Phi^{k}$ is of the form stated in (\\[11aug11e1\\]) with $G_{t,i}^k$ ($t=1,2$) satisfying $$\\label{11jun9e3}\n|G_{t,i}^k(r)|\\le Cr(1+r)^{-2},\\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1},\\quad i\\in I.$$\n\n[**Proof:**]{}\n\nFor $m=4$ we use (\\[11mar29e4\\]) to write (\\[11apr8e1\\]) as $$\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n(\\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\\frac 1r\\frac{d}{dr})g_i^{k,0}=-\\epsilon_k^2\\sum_j a_{ij}\\frac{\\Delta H_j^{1,k}(0)}4 r^2e^{V_j^{k}}+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+r)^{-4+\\epsilon}, \\\\\n\\\\\ng_i^{k,0}(0)=O(\\epsilon_k^2),\\quad \\frac{d}{dr}g_i^{k,0}(0)=0.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Note that $(1+r)^{-m^k}\\le C(1+r)^{-4}$. Multiplying both sides by $r$ and integrating, we have $$g_i^{k,0}(r)=-\\epsilon_k^2\\sum_j a_{ij}\\frac{\\Delta H_j^{1,k}(0)}4\\int_0^rt^3e^{V_j^{k}(t)}(\\log r-\\log t)dt+O(\\epsilon_k^2)\\log (1+r).$$ To evaluate the integral, we use (\\[12apr24e1\\]) to write $$H_i^{1,k}(0)e^{V_i^{k}(t)}=e^{c_i^k}t^{-m^k}+O(t^{-4-\\epsilon_0}), \\quad t>1$$ for some $\\epsilon_0>0$. Under the assumption of Theorem \\[expthm2\\]: $|m_i^k-4|\\le C/\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}$ we have $t^{-m^k}=O(t^{-4})$, thus $$|g_i^{k,0}(r)|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(\\log (2+r))^2,\\quad 0<r<\\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$ The projection on higher frequencies has the same estimates as in the case for $m<4$. Specifically, let $\\omega_i^k$ be the same as in Theorem \\[expthm1\\]. Then (\\[12mar9e3\\]) also holds. Correspondingly (\\[11jun16e1\\]), (\\[11jun16e2\\]) and (\\[11jun16e3\\]) still hold with $m^k=4$ by the same proof. Theorem \\[expthm2\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nLocation of the blowup points\n=============================\n\nIn this section we determine the locations of the blowup points in Theorem \\[expthm1\\] and Theorem \\[expthm2\\].\n\n\\[location\\] Under the same assumptions as in Theorem \\[expthm1\\] $$\\label{10050404}\n|\\sum_i\\bigg (\\frac{\\partial_l h_i^k(0)}{h_i^k(0)}+\\partial_l \\phi_i^k(0)\\bigg )\\sigma_i^k|\n\\le C\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2},\\quad l=1,2,$$ where $C$ is independent of $k$. On the other hand, under the assumptions in Theorem \\[expthm2\\] we have $$\\label{11jun28e1}\n|\\sum_i\\bigg (\\frac{\\partial_l h_i^k(0)}{h_i^k(0)}+\\partial_l \\phi_i^k(0)\\bigg )\\sigma_i^k|\n\\le C\\epsilon_k^2\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1},\\quad l=1,2,$$ where $\\sigma_i^k$ is defined in Definition \\[11def1\\].\n\n[**Proof of Theorem \\[location\\]:**]{} Recall $H_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)=h_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)e^{\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)}$ and $H_i^{1,k}$ is defined in (\\[hi0k\\]). Let $\\tilde \\Omega_k=B(0, \\epsilon_k^{-1}/2)$, we use the following Pohozaev identity for the equation for $v^{1,k}$: For $\\xi\\in S^1$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{10050406}\n&&\\qquad \\sum_i\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^{1,k}(y)e^{v_i^{1,k}(y)}\\\\\n&=&\\int_{\\partial \\tilde \\Omega_k}(\\xi\\cdot \\nu)\\sum_ie^{v_i^{1,k}}H_i^{1,k}\n+\\sum_{ij}a^{ij}\\bigg (\\partial_{\\nu}v_i^{1,k}\\partial_{\\xi}v_j^{1,k}\n-\\frac 12\\nabla v_i^{1,k}\\nabla v_j^{1,k}(\\xi \\cdot \\nu)\\bigg )\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ According to the definition of $H_i^{1,k}$ in (\\[hi0k\\]) $$\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^{1,k}(y)=\\epsilon_k\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^k(0)+\\sum_{l=1}^2\\epsilon_k^2\\partial_{\\xi l}H_i^k(0)y^l+O(\\epsilon_k^3(1+|y|)^2).$$ Using the expansion of $v_i^{1,k}$ in Proposition \\[cruexp\\] ( which holds for $m<4$ and $m=4$) we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^{1,k}(y)e^{v_i^{1,k}(y)}\\\\\n&=&\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}(\\epsilon_k\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^k(0)+\\sum_{l=1}^2\\epsilon_k^2\\partial_{\\xi l}H_i^k(0)y^l+O(\\epsilon_k^3(1+|y|)^2))\\\\\n&&\\cdot \\bigg (e^{V_i^{k}(y)}(1+\\Phi_i^{k})+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|y|)^{4-2m+\\epsilon} \\bigg )dy.\\end{aligned}$$ By symmetry we have $$\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}\\sum_{l=1}^2\\epsilon_k^2\\partial_{\\xi l}H_i^k(0)y^l e^{V_i^{k}(y)}\n=\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k} \\epsilon_k\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^k(0) e^{V_i^{k}(y)} \\Phi_i^k(y)dy=0.$$ Also by elementary estimates we have $$\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}\n\\big (\\sum_{l=1}^2\\epsilon_k^2\\partial_{\\xi l}H_i^k(0)y^l+O(\\epsilon_k^3(1+|y|)^2) \\big )\n\\big (e^{V_i^{k}(y)}\\Phi_i^{k}+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|y|)^{4-2m+\\epsilon} \\big )=O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1})$$ and $$\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}\\epsilon_k\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^k(0)O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|y|)^{4-2m+\\epsilon}=O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1}).$$ Thus $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^{1,k}(y)e^{v_i^{1,k}(y)}\\\\\n&=&\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k} \\epsilon_k\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^k(0) e^{V_i^{k}(y)} + O(\\epsilon_k^3(1+|y|)^2) e^{V_i^k(y)}.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nThe only difference on whether $m<4$ or $m=4$ is on this term. For $m<4$, direct computation gives $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^{1,k}(y)e^{v_i^{1,k}(y)}\\\\\n&=&\\epsilon_k\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^k(0)\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}e^{V_i^{k}(y)}dy\n+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1}).\\\\\n&=&\\epsilon_k\\frac{\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^k(0)}{H_i^k(0)}\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k} H_i^k(0)e^{V_i^{k}(y)}dy+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1})\\\\\n&=&2\\pi \\epsilon_k \\partial_{\\xi}(\\log H_i^k)(0)\\sigma_i^k+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1}).\\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand for $m=4$, using the closeness between $m_i^k$ and $4$, we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\int_{\\tilde \\Omega_k}\\partial_{\\xi}H_i^{1,k}(y)e^{v_i^{1,k}(y)}\\\\\n&=&2\\pi \\epsilon_k \\partial_{\\xi} (\\log H_i^k)(0)\\sigma_i^k+O(\\epsilon_k^{3}\\log\\epsilon_k^{-1}).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nNext we estimate the right hand side of the Pohozaev identity. The key point in this part is that the only difference between Theorem \\[expthm1\\] and Theorem \\[expthm2\\] is on the radial part of $w_i^{1,k}$: $g_i^{k,0}$. The projections of $w_i^{1,k}$ on higher frequencies ($ \\omega_i^k$ ) have the same estimates. i.e. (\\[12mar9e3\\])- (\\[11jun16e3\\]) hold for $m<4$ and $m=4$. The detail is as follows: First by the decay rate of $v_i^{1,k}$ one sees easily that $$\\int_{\\partial \\tilde \\Omega_k}(\\xi\\cdot \\nu)\\sum_ie^{v_i^{1,k}}H_i^{1,k}=O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1}).$$ Before evaluating the remaining two terms we first observe that by (\\[11jun16e1\\]) and (\\[11jun16e3\\]) that $$\\nabla v_i^{1,k}=\\nabla V_i^{k}+\\nabla g_i^{k,0}+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1}),\\quad y\\in \\partial \\tilde \\Omega_k.$$ Moreover, by symmetry we have $$\\int_{\\partial \\tilde \\Omega_k}\\partial_{\\nu}V_i^{k}\\partial_{\\xi}g^{k,0}_j=\\int_{\\partial \\tilde \\Omega_k}\\partial_{\\xi}V_i^{k}\\partial_{\\nu}g^{k,0}_j=0.$$ Thus $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\sum_{i,j}\\int_{\\partial \\tilde \\Omega_k}a^{ij}\\partial_{\\nu}v_i^{1,k}\\partial_{\\xi}v_j^{1,k} \\\\\n&=&\\sum_{i,j}\\int_{\\partial \\tilde \\Omega_k}a^{ij}\\big ((\\partial_{\\nu}(V_i^{k}+g_i^{k,0})+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1})\\big )\n\\big (\\partial_{\\xi}(V_j^{k}+g^{k,0}_j)+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1})\\big )\\\\\n&&=O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1}).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSimilarly in the last integral: $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\sum_{i,j}\\int_{\\partial \\tilde \\Omega_k}a^{ij}\\nabla v_i^{1,k}\\nabla v_j^{1,k} (\\xi\\cdot \\nu)\\\\\n&=&\\sum_{i,j}\\int_{\\partial \\tilde \\Omega_k}a^{ij}(\\frac{d}{dr}(V_i^{k}+g_i^{k,0})+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1}))\n(\\frac{d}{dr}(V_j^{k}+g_j^{k,0})+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1}))(\\xi\\cdot \\nu)\\\\\n&=&O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-1}).\\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \\[location\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nThe leading term for $\\rho^k\\to \\rho\\in \\Gamma_1$ \n==================================================\n\nIn this section we complete the proofs of Theorem \\[rhoto1mle4\\], Theorem \\[rhotome4\\] and Theorem \\[locations\\]. The notation $u^k$ refer to the one in the introduction. Let $$\\label{11jun25e1}\n\\Theta_i^k=u_i^k-\\log \\int_M h_ie^{u_i^k}dV_g,\\quad i\\in I.$$ Then we have $$\\label{1013e1}\n -\\Delta_g \\Theta_i^k=\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}\\rho_j^k(h_je^{\\Theta_j^k}-1).$$ where $$\\label{1013e2}\n \\int_Mh_ie^{\\Theta_i^k}dV_g=1,\\quad Vol(M)=1.$$ $\\Theta^k=(\\Theta_1^k,..,\\Theta_n^k)$ is a sequence of blow-up solutions. We use $p_k$ to denote the point where the maximum of $\\Theta^k$ on $M$ is taken. Take the local coordinates around $p_k$. Then $ds^2$ has the form $e^{\\psi(y_{p_k})}(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)$ where $$|\\nabla\\psi(0)|=0,\\quad \\psi(0)=0,\\quad \\Delta \\psi=-2Ke^{\\psi},$$ $K$ is the Gauss curvature. In local coordinates, (\\[1013e1\\]) becomes $$\\label{1013e3}\n -\\Delta \\Theta_i^k=\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}\\rho_j^ke^{\\psi}(h_je^{\\Theta_j^k}-1), \\quad \\mbox{in}\\quad B_{\\delta_0}$$ for some $\\delta_0$ small. Let $f_i^k$ solve $$\\label{1013e4}\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n \\Delta f_i^k=\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}\\rho_j^ke^{\\psi},\\quad B_{\\delta_0}\\\\\n \\\\\n f_i^k(0)=0,\\quad \\nabla f_i^k(0)=0.\n \\end{array}\n \\right.$$ and $f_i^k$ has bounded oscillation on $\\partial B_{\\delta_0}$. Set $$\\tilde \\Theta_i^k=\\Theta_i^k(p_k+\\cdot)-f_i^k\\quad \\mbox{and }\\quad \\tilde h_i^k=\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k+\\cdot)e^{\\psi+f_i^k},$$ then $\\tilde \\Theta_i^k$ satisfies $$\\label{1013e5}\n-\\Delta \\tilde \\Theta_i^k=\\sum_ja_{ij}\\tilde h_j^ke^{\\tilde \\Theta_j^k},\\quad B_{\\delta_0}.$$ Note that from the definition of $\\tilde h_i^k$, $f_i^k$ and $\\psi$, the following can be verified by direct computation: $$\\label{11jun18e1}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n\\tilde h_i^k(0)=\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k), \\quad \\nabla \\tilde h_i^k(0)=\\rho_i^k \\nabla h_i(p_k), \\\\\n\\\\\n\\Delta \\tilde h_i^k(0)=\\rho_i^k \\bigg (\\Delta h_i(p_k)+h_i(p_k)(-2K(p_k)+\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}\\rho_j^k)\\bigg ).\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$\n\nLet $M_k=\\max_{i\\in I}\\max_M\\Theta_i^k$, $\\epsilon_k=e^{-\\frac 12 M_k}$, $$\\label{11mar7e2}\n\\tilde v_i^k(y)=\\tilde \\Theta_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)+2\\log \\epsilon_k=\\tilde \\Theta_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)-M_k,$$ then we have $$\\label{11jun11e1}\n\\Delta \\tilde v_i^k(y)+\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij} \\tilde h_j^k(\\epsilon_ky)e^{\\tilde v_j^k(y)}=0,\\quad |y|\\le \\delta_0\\epsilon_k^{-1}.$$\n\nThe following lemma proves that the $\\Theta^k$ is a fully blown up sequence.\n\n\\[ful\\] Along a subsequence $(\\tilde v_1^k,...,\\tilde v_n^k)$ converge in $C^2_{loc}(\\mathbb R^2)$ to a system of $n$ equations.\n\n[**Proof:**]{} By way of contradiction we assume that only $l$ ($l<n$) components of $(\\tilde v_1^k,..,\\tilde v_n^k)$ converge to a system of $l$ equations. Without loss of generality we assume that the first $l$ components of $(\\tilde v_1^k,..,\\tilde v_n^k)$ converge to $(\\tilde v_1,..,\\tilde v_l)$ that satisfies $$-\\Delta \\tilde v_i=\\sum_{j=1}^l a_{ij} \\tilde h_j e^{\\tilde v_j}, \\quad i=1,..,l. \\mbox{ in } \\mathbb R^2$$ where $\\tilde h_i=\\rho_i h_i(p)$. Let $$\\sigma_{i,v}=\\frac 1{2\\pi} \\int_{\\mathbb R^2} \\tilde h_i e^{\\tilde v_i}.$$ Then the entire solution $(\\tilde v_1,...,\\tilde v_l)$ with finite energy satisfies $$\\sum_{j=1}^l a_{ij}\\sigma_{j, v}>2.$$ Let $J=\\{1,...,l\\}$, then by Theorem C in [@linzhang2] $(\\tilde v_1,...,\\tilde v_l)$ also satisfies $$\\frac 1{4\\pi^2} \\Lambda_J(\\sigma_v):=4\\sum_{i\\in J}\\sigma_{i,v}-\\sum_{i,j\\in J} a_{ij} \\sigma_{i,v}\\sigma_{j, v}=0.$$ By (\\[1013e2\\]) $$\\frac{\\rho_i^k}{2\\pi}\\ge \\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{B(p_k,\\delta)}\\rho_i^k h_i e^{\\Theta_i^k}dV_g\n=\\frac{1}{2\\pi }\\int_{B_{\\delta}}\\tilde h_i^k e^{\\tilde \\Theta_i^k}dx.$$ Thus by letting $k\\to \\infty$ we have $$\\frac{\\rho_i}{2\\pi }\\ge \\sigma_{i,v},\\quad i=1,..,l.$$ Let $s_i=\\frac{\\rho_i}{2\\pi }-\\sigma_{i,v}$, $i\\in J$, then easy to see $$\\label{12jun22e1}\n\\frac{1}{4\\pi^2}(\\Lambda_J(\\rho)-\\Lambda_J(\\sigma_v))=-2\\sum_{i\\in J}(\\sum_{j\\in J} a_{ij}\\sigma_{j,v}-2)s_i-\\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}s_is_j\\le 0.$$ Since $\\Lambda_J(\\sigma_v)=0$, (\\[12jun22e1\\]) is a violation of the definition of $\\Gamma_1$ in the introduction. Lemma \\[ful\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nLet $\\phi^k=(\\phi_1^k,...,\\phi_n^k)$ be the harmonic function that takes $0$ at $0$ and that kills the oscillation of $\\tilde \\Theta^k$ on $\\partial B_{\\delta_0}$. The first term in the expansion of $\\tilde v^k-\\phi^k(\\epsilon_k\\cdot)$ is $U^k(\\cdot -p_{1,k})$ where $U^k=(U_1^k,..,U_n^k)$ satisfies $$\\label{11jun25e2}\n\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll}\n-\\Delta U_i^k=\\sum_ja_{ij}\\tilde h_j^k(0)e^{U_j^k}\\quad \\mathbb R^2, \\\\\nU_i^k(0)=\\tilde v_i^k(0),\\quad i\\in I.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$ Moreover, $U_i^k+\\log (\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k))$ satisfies $$-\\Delta (U_i^k +\\log (\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k)))=\\sum_ja_{ij}e^{U_j^k+\\log (\\rho_j^k h_j(p_k))}\\quad \\mathbb R^2.$$ Set $$\\label{12apr29e2}\n\\bar \\sigma_i^k=\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k) e^{U_i^k},\\quad m_i^k=\\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}\\bar \\sigma_j^k.$$ Correspondingly $$m^k=\\min\\{m_1^k,..,m_n^k\\},\\quad m=\\lim_{k\\to \\infty} m^k.$$ Later we shall show that $m$ is equal to the one defined in (\\[12apr23e1\\]). In regard to Lemma \\[globalcpt\\] we set $c_i^k$ as $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{11jun25e3}\nc_i^k=U_i^k(0)+\\log (\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k))+\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}\\log |\\eta |\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}\\tilde h_j^k(0)e^{U_j^k}d\\eta\n\\\\\n=\\Theta_i^k(p_k)-M_k+\\log (\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k))+\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{\\mathbb R^2}\\log |\\eta |\\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}\\rho_j^k h_j(p_k)e^{U_j^k}d\\eta,\n\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\\label{12jun29e1}\nc_i=\\lim_{k\\to \\infty} c_i^k.$$ According to Proposition \\[cruexp\\], the expansion of $\\tilde v_i^k$ can be written as $$\\label{11jun17e8}\n\\tilde v_i^k(y)=U_i^k(y-p_{1,k})+\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)+\\Phi_i^{k}(y-p_{1,k})+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|y|)^{4-m+\\epsilon}$$ on $B(0,\\delta_0\\epsilon_k^{-1})$, where $p_{1,k}=O(\\epsilon_k)$, $$\\Phi_i^{k}(y)=\\epsilon_k(G_{1,i}^k(r)\\cos \\theta +G_{2,i}^k(r)\\sin \\theta )$$ such that $$|G_{t,i}^k(r)|\\le Cr(1+r)^{2-m^k},\\quad 0<r<\\delta_0 \\epsilon_k^{-1},\\quad t=1,2.$$\n\nHere we note that the Green\u2019s function is of the form $$G(x,\\eta)=-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\log |x-\\eta |\\chi +\\gamma(x,\\eta)$$ where $\\chi$ is a cut-off function such that $\\chi\\equiv 1$ in $B_{\\epsilon_1}$ for some $\\epsilon_1>0$ ($2\\epsilon_1$ is less than the injectivity radius of $M$) and $\\chi\\equiv 0$ outside $B_{2\\epsilon_1}$. In the sequel we always assume $\\delta_0<\\epsilon_1/4$.\n\nThe Green\u2019s representation formula for $\\Theta_i^k$ is $$\\label{11may23e1}\n\\Theta_i^k(x)=\\bar \\Theta_i^k+\\int_MG(x,\\eta)(\\sum_ja_{ij}\\rho_j^kh_je^{\\Theta_j^k})dV_g.$$\n\nNext we claim that $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{nov2e5}\n&&|\\bar \\Theta_i^k+\\frac{m_i^k-2}2M_k-c_i^k+\\log (\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k))+2\\pi\\gamma(p_k,p_k)m_i^k|\\nonumber \\\\\n&\\le & C_0(\\delta_0)\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta}\\end{aligned}$$ where $\\delta>0$ is small positive number, $\\bar \\Theta_i^k$ is the average of $\\Theta_i^k$ on $M$, $C_0(\\cdot)$ is a positive function such that $C_0(\\delta_0)\\to \\infty$ as $\\delta_0\\to 0$. To see this, let $x=p_k$ in (\\[11may23e1\\]), $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Theta_i^k(p_k)&=&\\bar \\Theta_i^k-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\log |p_k-\\eta |\\sum_{j}a_{ij}\\rho_j^k h_j e^{\\Theta_j^k}dV_g \\nonumber\\\\\n&&+\\int_{B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\gamma(p_k, \\eta)\\sum_{j}a_{ij}\\rho_j^k h_j e^{\\Theta_j^k}dV_g \\nonumber\\\\\n\\label{11mar7e0}\n&&+\\int_{M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)}G(p_k,\\eta)\\sum_ja_{ij}\\rho_j^kh_je^{\\Theta_j^k}dV_g.\\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $$\\label{11mar7e1}\n\\rho_j^kh_je^{\\Theta_j^k}dV_g(\\eta)=\\rho_j^kh_je^{f_j^k+\\psi}e^{\\Theta_j^k-f_j^k}d\\eta=\\tilde h_j^ke^{\\tilde \\Theta_j^k}d\\eta.$$ Then by the definition of $\\epsilon_k$, $\\tilde v^k$, $c_i^k$ we obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{11jun24e2}\n&&-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\log |p_k-\\eta |\\sum_ja_{ij}\\rho_j^kh_je^{\\Theta_j^k}dV_g\\\\\n&=&-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0\\epsilon_k^{-1})}(\\log (\\epsilon_k|\\eta_1|))\\sum_ja_{ij}(\\tilde h_j^ke^{\\phi_j^k})(\\epsilon_k\\eta_1)e^{\\tilde v_j^k(\\eta_1)-\\phi_j^k(\\epsilon_k\\eta_1)}d\\eta_1 \\nonumber\\\\\n&=&-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0\\epsilon_k^{-1})}(\\log \\epsilon_k+\\log |\\eta_1|)\\sum_ja_{ij}H_j^{1,k}(\\eta)\ne^{v_j^{1,k}(\\eta_1)}\nd\\eta_1 \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where, by the same kind of notations used in section \\[blowup\\] and section 4, $$v_i^{1,k}(\\cdot)=\\tilde v_i^k(p_{1,k}+\\cdot)-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_kp_{1,k}+\\epsilon_k\\cdot)$$ and $$\\label{11jun25e4}\nH_i^{1,k}(\\cdot )=\\tilde h_i^k(\\epsilon_k p_{1,k}+\\epsilon_k \\cdot )e^{\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_kp_{1,k}+\\epsilon_k \\cdot)}.$$\n\nBy (\\[11jun18e1\\]) we have $$H_i^{1,k}(0)=\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k)+O(\\epsilon_k^2), \\quad \\nabla H_i^{1,k}(0)=\\epsilon_k \\rho_i^k \\nabla h_i(p_k)+O(\\epsilon_k^3)$$ and $$H_i^{1,k}(\\eta)=\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k)+ \\epsilon_k \\rho_i^k \\nabla h_i(p_k)\\cdot \\eta +O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|\\eta |)^2.$$ On the other hand by Proposition \\[cruexp\\] $$e^{v_i^{1,k}(\\eta_1)}=e^{U_i^{k}}(1+\\Phi_i^{k}(\\eta_1)+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|\\eta_1|)^{4-m+\\delta}).$$ Hence $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{11jun24e1}\n&&H_i^{1,k}(\\eta)e^{v_i^{1,k}(\\eta)}\\\\\n&=& (\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k)+\\epsilon_k \\rho_i^k \\nabla h_i(p_k)\\cdot \\eta +\\Phi_i^{k}(\\eta))e^{U_i^k(\\eta)}\n+O(\\epsilon_k^2)(1+|\\eta |)^{2-m+\\delta}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Using (\\[11jun24e1\\]) in the evaluation of (\\[11jun24e2\\]) we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\int_{B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\log |p_k-\\eta |\\sum_ja_{ij}\\rho_j^kh_je^{\\Theta_j^k}dV_g\\\\\n&=&\\frac{M_k}2m_i^k+\\Theta_i^k(p_k)-M_k-c_i^k+\\log (\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k))+C_0(\\delta_0)(\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta}).\\end{aligned}$$\n\nSimilarly $$\\int_{B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\gamma(p_k,\\eta)\\sum_ja_{ij}\\rho_j^kh_je^{\\Theta_j^k}dV_g=\\gamma(p_k,p_k)2\\pi m_i^k+C_0(\\delta_0)(\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta}).$$ For the final term in (\\[11mar7e0\\]) by the following crude estimate established in [@linzhang2] $$\\Theta_i^k(x)=-\\frac{m_i^k-2}2 M_k +O(1), \\quad x\\in M\\setminus B(p_k, \\delta_0), \\quad O(1)\\to \\infty \\mbox{ if } \\delta_0\\to 0$$ it is easy to see $$\\int_{M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)}G(p_k,\\eta)\\sum_j a_{ij} \\rho_j^k h_j e^{\\Theta_j^k} dV_g=C_0(\\delta_0)O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta}).$$ Thus, back to (\\[11mar7e0\\]), $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Theta_i^k(p_k)=\\bar \\Theta_i^k+\\frac{M_k}2m_i^k+\\Theta_i^k(p_k)-M_k-c_i^k+\\log (\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k))\\\\\n+\\gamma(p_k,p_k)2\\pi m_i^k+O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta}).\\end{aligned}$$ Then (\\[nov2e5\\]) follows.\n\nNext for $x\\in M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)$, by (\\[11may23e1\\]) and standard estimates $$\\label{11july6e3}\n\\Theta_i^k(x)=\\bar \\Theta_i^k+2\\pi G(x,p_k)m_i^k+C_0(\\delta_0)\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\delta}.$$ Consequently by (\\[11july6e3\\]) and (\\[nov2e5\\]) $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{1216e1}\ne^{\\Theta_i^k(x)}&=&e^{\\bar \\Theta_i^k+2\\pi G(x,p_k)m_i^k}+E_{\\delta_0},\\quad x\\in M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0) \\\\\n&=&\\epsilon_k^{m_i^k-2}\\frac{e^{c_i^k}}{\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k)} e^{2\\pi m_i^k (G(x,p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))} +E_{\\delta_0}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\\label{11131e1}\n|E_{\\delta_0}|\\le C_0(\\delta_0)\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2+\\delta}.$$ In the sequel we shall always use $E_{\\delta}$ to represent a term bounded by the right hand side of (\\[11131e1\\]).\n\nProof of Theorem \\[rhoto1mle4\\].\n--------------------------------\n\nIn this case $m<4$. Since $\\int_M h_ie^{\\Theta_i^k}dV_g=1$ we write $$\\rho_i^k=\\int_{B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\rho_i^kh_ie^{\\Theta_i^k}dV_g+\\int_{M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\rho_i^kh_ie^{\\Theta_i^k}dV_g\n=\\rho_{ia}^k+\\rho_{ib}^k.$$ By (\\[11mar7e1\\]), (\\[11mar7e2\\]) $$\\rho_{ia}^k=\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0)}\\tilde h_i^ke^{\\tilde \\Theta_i^k}d\\eta=\n\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0\\epsilon_k^{-1})}\\tilde h_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)e^{\\tilde v_i^k(y)}dy.$$ Let $$I_1=\\{i\\in I;\\quad \\lim_{k\\to \\infty}m_i^k=\\lim_{k\\to \\infty} m^k.\\quad \\}.$$ Using the expansion of $\\tilde v_i^k$ in (\\[11jun17e8\\]) we have (since $m<4$) $$\\label{rhoia}\n\\rho_{ia}^k=\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0\\epsilon_k^{-1})}\\tilde h_i^k(0)e^{U_i^k(y)}dy+o(\\delta_0)\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2},\\quad i\\in I_1.$$ Now for $i\\not \\in I_1$ we have $$\\label{rhoia1}\n\\rho_{ia}^k=\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0\\epsilon_k^{-1})}\\tilde h_i^k(0)e^{U_i^k(y)}dy+E_{\\delta_0},\\quad i\\not \\in I_1$$ and $$\\label{rhobc}\n|\\rho_{ib}^k|=E_{\\delta_0},\\quad i\\not \\in I_1.$$ It is easy to see from (\\[12apr29e2\\]) and (\\[11jun18e1\\]) that the $m$ defined by (\\[12apr29e2\\]) is the same as the one in (\\[12apr23e1\\]).\n\nCombining (\\[rhoia\\]), (\\[rhoia1\\]), (\\[rhobc\\]) and Lemma \\[globalcpt\\] we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\sum_i \\frac{4}{2\\pi}\\rho_{ia}^k-\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}\\frac{\\rho_{ia}^k}{2\\pi}\\frac{\\rho_{ja}^k}{2\\pi}\\\\\n&=&2\\sum_{i\\in I_1}e^{c_i^k}\\delta_0^{2-m_i^k}\\epsilon_k^{m_i^k-2}+o(\\delta_0)\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2}+E_{\\delta_0}.\\end{aligned}$$ Using (\\[rhoia1\\]), (\\[rhobc\\]) to change from $\\rho_{ia}^k$ to $\\rho_i^k$, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{1105e2}\n&&\\frac{4}{2\\pi}\\sum_i\\rho_i^k =\\sum_{ij}a_{ij}\\frac{\\rho_i^k}{2\\pi}\\frac{\\rho_j^k}{2\\pi}+2\\sum_{i\\in I_1}e^{c_i^k}\\delta_0^{2-m_i^k}\\epsilon_k^{m_i^k-2}\\\\\n&&-2\n\\sum_{i\\in I_1}(m_i^k-2)\\frac{\\rho_{ib}^k}{2\\pi}+o(\\delta_0)\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2}+E_{\\delta_0}. \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$\n\nUsing (\\[1216e1\\]) we have\n\n$$\\begin{aligned}\n\\rho_{ib}^k&=&\\int_{M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\rho_i^kh_ie^{\\Theta_i^k}dV_g\\\\\n&=&\\epsilon_k^{m_i^k-2}\\int_{M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\frac{h_i(x)e^{c_i^k}}{h_i(p_k)}e^{2\\pi m_i^k(G(x,p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))}dV_g\n+E_{\\delta_0},\\quad i\\in I_1.\\end{aligned}$$\n\nCombining terms we have $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\frac{4}{2\\pi}\\sum_i\\rho_i^k-\\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}\\frac{\\rho_i^k}{2\\pi}\\frac{\\rho_j^k}{2\\pi} \\nonumber\\\\\n&=&2\\sum_{i\\in I_1}e^{c_i^k}\\epsilon_k^{m_i^k-2}\\bigg (\\delta_0^{2-m_i^k}-\\frac {m_i^k-2}{2\\pi}\\int_{M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\n\\frac{h_i(x)}{h_i(p_k)}e^{2\\pi m_i^k(G(x,p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))}dV_g \\bigg )\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\qquad \\qquad \\qquad +o(\\delta_0)\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2}+E_{\\delta_0}. \\label{11jun22e1}\\end{aligned}$$\n\nWe claim that for fixed $k$ the following limit exists: $$\\label{leadterm1}\n\\lim_{\\delta_0\\to 0}\\bigg (\\delta_0^{2-m_i^k}-\\frac {m_i^k-2}{2\\pi}\\int_{M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\ne^{2\\pi m_i^k(G(x,p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))}\\frac{h_i}{h_i(p_k)}dV_g \\bigg )$$ Indeed, write the second integral as the sum of one integral over $B(p_k,\\delta_1)\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)$ and the other over $M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_1)$, where $\\delta_1$ is chosen small enough so that in $B(p_k,\\delta_1)$, $$\\label{11mar9e5}\ndV_g=e^{\\psi}dx\\quad \\mbox{ where }\\psi(x)=O(|x|^2)\\mbox{ in }B_{\\delta_1}.$$ In the local coordinate at $p_k$, it suffices to prove $$\\lim_{\\delta_0\\to 0}\\bigg (\\delta_0^{2-m_i^k}-\\frac {m_i^k-2}{2\\pi}\\int_{B_{\\delta_1}\\setminus B_{\\delta_0}}\ne^{2\\pi m_i^k(G(p_k+x,p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))}\\frac{h_i(p_k+x)}{h_i(p_k)}dV_g(x) \\bigg )$$ exists. Since $$G(p_k+x,p_k)=-\\frac 1{2\\pi}\\log |x|+\\gamma(p_k+x,p_k),$$ we use (\\[11mar9e5\\]) and the Taylor expansions of $h_i$ and $\\gamma(p_k+x,p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k)$ to obtain $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&e^{2\\pi m_i^k(G(p_k+x,p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))}h_i(x+p_k)/h_i(p_k) dV_g\\\\\n&=&|x|^{-m_i^k}(1+\\sum_{l=1}^2c_lx^l+O(|x|^2)) dx.\\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1,c_2$ are some constants. Observe that the terms with $c_1,c_2$ disappear in the integration and $m_i^k<4-\\epsilon_1$ for some $\\epsilon_1>0$ for all $i\\in I_1$, thus the limits in (\\[leadterm1\\]) exists.\n\nThe following lemma states the closeness between $\\rho^k$ to $\\rho$ if $m<4$. It will be used to simplify the leading terms in the statements of main theorems.\n\n\\[close1\\] Let $\\rho^k\\to \\rho\\in \\Gamma_1$ ($\\rho\\neq Q$) such that all $\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i$ have the same sign, then $$\\label{11jun22e2}\n\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i=O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\epsilon})\\quad \\mbox{ and }\\quad m_i^k-m_i=O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\epsilon}).$$\n\n[**Proof of Lemma \\[close1\\]:**]{} Let $s_i^k=\\rho_i-\\rho_i^k$. Then all $s_i^k$ are of the same sign. By (\\[11jun22e1\\]) we have $$\\sum_i (m_i-2)s_i^k=O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\epsilon}).$$ Thus (\\[11jun22e2\\]) holds and Lemma \\[close1\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nUsing (\\[11jun22e2\\]) in (\\[11jun22e1\\]) we can rewrite the leading term as $$\\begin{aligned}\n&&\\frac{4}{2\\pi}\\sum_i\\rho_i^k-\\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}\\frac{\\rho_i^k}{2\\pi}\\frac{\\rho_j^k}{2\\pi} \\nonumber\\\\\n&=&2\\sum_{i\\in I_1}e^{c_i^k}\\epsilon_k^{m-2}\\bigg (\\delta_0^{2-m}-\\frac {m-2}{2\\pi}\\int_{M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\n\\frac{h_i(x)}{h_i(p_k)}e^{2\\pi m(G(x,p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))}dV_g \\bigg )\\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\qquad +o(\\delta_0)\\epsilon_k^{m-2}+E_{\\delta_0}.\\end{aligned}$$ Since $c_i^k\\to c_i$, the $c_i^k$ can be replaced by $c_i$ in (\\[12jun29e1\\]). Theorem \\[rhoto1mle4\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nNext we establish the following lemma regardless of $m=4$ or not.\n\n\\[graest\\] $$\\label{graphik}\n\\nabla \\phi_i^k(0)=2\\pi m_i^k\\nabla_1 \\gamma(p_k,p_k)+O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\epsilon}).$$ where $\\nabla_1$ means the differentiation with respect to the first component.\n\n[**Proof of Lemma \\[graest\\]:**]{}\n\nFirst from (\\[11july6e3\\]), for $x\\in \\partial B(p_k,\\delta_0)$ $$\\begin{aligned}\n&& \\tilde \\Theta_i^k(x)=\\Theta_i^k(x)-f_i^k(x)\\\\\n&=&\\bar \\Theta_i^k-m_i^k\\log |x-p_k|+2\\pi m_i^k \\gamma(x,p_k)-f_i^k(x)+O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\epsilon}).\\end{aligned}$$ For the first derivative, by standard estimates $$|D^l(\\tilde \\Theta_i^k)(x)-D^l(-m_i^k\\log |x-p_k|+2\\pi m_i^k \\gamma(x,p_k)-f_i^k(x))|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{m-2-\\epsilon}, \\quad l=0,1$$ for $x\\in B(p_k, \\delta_0)$. On the other hand, we recall that $\\tilde v_i^k(y)=\\tilde \\Theta_i^k(\\epsilon_ky)+2\\log \\epsilon_k$. According to Proposition \\[cruexp\\] $$|D^l(\\tilde v_i^k(y)-U_i^k(y-p_{1,k})-\\phi_i^k(\\epsilon_k y)-\\Phi_i^{k}(y-p_{1,k})|\\le C\\epsilon_k^2(1+|y|)^{4-m+\\epsilon-l}$$ for $l=0,1$ and $|y|\\le 2\\delta_0\\epsilon_k^{-1}$. Using the asymptotic behavior $U_i^k$ for $|y|\\sim \\epsilon_k^{-1}$ (\\[12apr29e1\\]) we have $$U_i^k(y-p_{1,k})+\\log (\\rho_i^kh_i(p_k))=-\\frac{m_i^k}2M_k-m_i^k\\log |x|+c_i^k+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2})$$ where $|x|=\\epsilon_k |y|$. Thus by (\\[nov2e5\\]) for $l=0$ we have $$\\label{11july7e11}\n\\phi_i^k(x)=2\\pi m_i^k(\\gamma(x,p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))-f_i^k(x)+O(\\epsilon_k^{2-\\epsilon}), \\quad x\\in B(p_k,2\\delta_0)\\setminus B(p_k, \\delta_0/2).$$ Thus the comparison on $l=1$ and (\\[1013e4\\]) yield (\\[graphik\\]). Lemma \\[graest\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nProof of Theorem \\[rhotome4\\]\n-----------------------------\n\nIn this case $m=4$, we first give a rough estimate of $\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i$.\n\n\\[lemq4\\] Let $\\rho^k$ tend to $Q$ such that all $\\rho_i^k-Q_i$ have the same sign. Then $$\\label{11jun17e9}\nm_i^k-4=O(\\epsilon_k^{2-\\epsilon}),\\quad \\rho_i^k-\\rho_i=O(\\epsilon_k^{2-\\epsilon})\\quad \\forall i\\in I.$$\n\n[**Proof of Lemma \\[lemq4\\]:**]{} Since $\\rho^k\\to Q$, $m=4$, then all $m_i^k\\to 4$. Recall that $\\rho_i^k=2\\pi\\bar \\sigma_i^k+O(\\epsilon_k^{2-\\epsilon})$, The rest of the proof is the same as that in the proof of Lemma \\[close1\\]. Lemma \\[lemq4\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nBy (\\[11jun28e1\\]) $$\\sum_i(\\partial_l \\log \\tilde h_i^k(0)+\\partial_l \\phi_i^k(p_k))\\bar \\sigma_i^k=O(\\epsilon_k^2\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}),$$ then by (\\[11jun18e1\\]) $$\\label{locationm4}\n\\sum_{i=1}^n \\bigg (\\partial_l(\\log h_i+\\phi_i^k)(p_k) \\bigg )\\bar \\sigma_i^k=O(\\epsilon_k^2)\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1},\\quad l=1,2.$$\n\nThe distance from $\\rho^k$ to $\\Gamma_1$ can be computed as follows: $$\\rho_i^k=\\int_{B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\rho_i^k h_i e^{\\Theta_i^k} dV_g +\\int_{M\\setminus B(p_k,\\delta_0)} \\rho_i^k h_i e^{\\Theta_i^k} dV_g.$$ By (\\[11jun17e9\\]) and Theorem \\[expthm2\\] the second integral is $O(\\epsilon_k^2)$, this is the same as the computation for the single equation [@ChenLin1]. Therefore $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{11july5e1}\n&&\\rho_i^k= \\int_{B(p_k,\\delta_0)}\\rho_i^k h_i e^{\\Theta_i^k} dV_g+O(\\epsilon_k^2)\\\\\n&=&\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0)}\\tilde h_i^k e^{\\phi_i^k}e^{\\tilde \\Theta_i^k-\\phi_i^k}d\\eta+O(\\epsilon_k^2)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0 \\epsilon_k^{-1})}H_i^{1,k}(\\eta)e^{v_i^{1,k}(\\eta)}d\\eta+O(\\epsilon_k^2)\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0 \\epsilon_k^{-1})} \\rho_i^k h_i(p_k) e^{U_i^k(\\eta)}d\\eta+\\int_{B(0,\\delta_0 \\epsilon_k^{-1})}\n\\frac 14 \\Delta H_i^{1,k}(0)|\\eta |^2 e^{U_i^k(\\eta)}d\\eta \\nonumber\\\\\n&&\\qquad +O(\\epsilon_k^2).\\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ The first integral on the right hand side of the above is $2\\pi \\bar \\sigma_i^k+O(\\epsilon_k^2)$. To evaluate the second term on the right hand side, we first use the definition of the $H_i^{1,k}$ in (\\[11jun25e4\\]), (\\[11jun17e9\\]), (\\[11jun18e1\\]) and (\\[graphik\\]) to have $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{h1kdel}\n\\Delta H_i^{1,k}(0)=\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k)\\bigg (\\frac{\\Delta h_i(p_k)}{h_i(p_k)}-2K(p_k)+8\\pi\\\\\n+16\\pi \\frac{\\nabla h_i(p_k)}{h_i(p_k)}\\cdot \\nabla_1\\gamma(p_k,p_k)\n+64\\pi^2 |\\nabla_1\\gamma(p_k,p_k)|^2\\bigg )\\epsilon_k^2+O(\\epsilon_k^{4-\\epsilon}). \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ For $e^{U_i^k}$ we use the definition of $c_i^k$ in (\\[11jun25e3\\]) and (\\[12apr29e1\\]) to have $$\\label{11jun25e8}\n\\rho_i^k h_i(p_k) e^{U_i^k(\\eta)}=e^{c_i^k} |\\eta |^{-4}+O(|\\eta |^{-4-\\delta_0}),\\quad |\\eta |>1$$ for some $\\delta_0>0$ independent of $k$. Using (\\[h1kdel\\]) and (\\[11jun25e8\\]) in the computation of the second integral of $\\rho_i^k$ we have $$\\rho_i^k=2\\pi \\bar \\sigma_i^k+2\\pi \\epsilon_k^2 \\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}\nb_i^ke^{c_i^k}+O(\\epsilon_k^2).$$ where $$\\begin{aligned}\nb_i^k=\\frac 14\\bigg (\\frac{\\Delta h_i(p_k)}{h_i(p_k)}-2K(p_k)+8\\pi+16\\pi \\frac{\\nabla h_i(p_k)}{h_i(p_k)}\\nabla_1\\gamma(p_k,p_k)\n+64\\pi^2|\\nabla_1 \\gamma(p_k,p_k)|^2\\bigg )\\\\\n=\\frac 14\\bigg (\\Delta\\, \\log h_i(p_k)-2K(p_k)+8\\pi\n+|\\nabla \\log h_i(p_k)+8\\pi \\nabla_1\\gamma(p_k,p_k)|^2\\bigg )\\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\label{11jun8e1}\n&&4\\sum_i\\frac{\\rho_i^k}{2\\pi}-\\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}\\frac{\\rho_i^k}{2\\pi}\\frac{\\rho_j^k}{2\\pi}\\\\\n&=&\\epsilon_k^2\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}(\\sum_i (4-2m_i^k)b_i^k e^{c_i^k})+O(\\epsilon_k^2). \\nonumber\\\\\n&=&-4\\epsilon_k^2\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}\\sum_i b_i^k e^{c_i^k} +O(\\epsilon_k^2). \\nonumber\\end{aligned}$$ Theorem \\[rhotome4\\] is established. $\\Box$\n\nEven though there is a cut-off function in the definition of $\\chi$, changing the domain of this cut-off function does not change $\\nabla_1\\gamma(p_k,p_k)$.\n\n[**Proof of Theorem \\[locations\\]:**]{}\n\nBy going through the proof of Lemma \\[graest\\] using Theorem \\[rhoto1mle4\\] for $\\rho\\neq Q$ or Theorem \\[rhotome4\\] for $\\rho=Q$ instead of Proposition \\[cruexp\\] one sees easily that $$\\phi_i^k(x)=2\\pi m_{i}^k (\\gamma(p_k+x, p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))\n-c_{i}^k-f_{i}^k(x)+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2})$$ if $\\rho\\neq Q$. On the other hand $$\\phi_{i}^k(x)=2\\pi m_{i}^k (\\gamma(p_k+x, p_k)-\\gamma(p_k,p_k))\n-c_{i}^k-f_{i}^k(x)+O(\\epsilon_k^{2}\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1})$$ if $\\rho=Q$. Correspondingly $$\\label{11july13e5}\n\\nabla \\phi_{i}^k(0)=2\\pi m_{i}^k \\nabla_1\\gamma(p_k, p_k)+O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2})$$ if $\\rho\\neq Q$ and $$\\label{11july13e6}\n\\nabla \\phi_{i}^k(0)=2\\pi m_{i}^k \\nabla_1\\gamma (p_k, p_k)+O(\\epsilon_k^{2}\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1})$$ if $\\rho=Q$. Theorem \\[location\\] yields $$|\\sum_i(\\partial_l(\\log h_{i}^k)(0)+\\partial_l \\phi_{i}^k(0))\\sigma_{i}^k|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2} \\quad \\mbox{ if } \\rho\\neq Q$$ and $$|\\sum_i (\\partial_l (\\log h_{i}^k)(0)+\\partial_l\\phi_{i}^k(0))\\sigma_{i}^k|\\le C\\epsilon_k^{2}\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1} \\quad \\mbox{ if } \\rho= Q.$$ Also the proofs of Theorem \\[rhoto1mle4\\] and Theorem \\[rhotome4\\] give $$\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i=O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2})=O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2}), \\quad m<4$$ and $$\\rho_i^k-\\rho_i=O(\\epsilon_k^{m^k-2})\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}=O(\\epsilon_k^2\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1}), \\quad m=4.$$ So $$\\bar \\sigma_i^k-\\frac{\\rho_i}{2\\pi}=\\left\\{\\begin{array}{ll} O(\\epsilon_k^{m-2}) &\\quad m<4,\\\\\nO(\\epsilon_k^2\\log \\epsilon_k^{-1})&\\quad m=4.\n\\end{array}\n\\right.$$\n\nBy (\\[11july13e5\\]) and (\\[11july13e6\\]) we obtain (\\[11july13e7\\]) and (\\[11july13e8\\]) in Theorem \\[locations\\]. Theorem \\[locations\\] is established $\\Box$\n\n[99]{}\n\nJ. J. Aly, Thermodynamics of a two-dimensional self-gravitating system, Phy. Rev. A 49, No. 5, Part A (1994), 3771\u20133783.\n\nD. Bartolucci, Compactness result for periodic multivortices in the electroweak theory, Nonlinear Anal., 53 (2003), 277\u2013297.\n\nD. Bartolucci and G. Tarantello, Liouville type equations with singular data and their applications to periodic multivortices for the electroweak theory, Comm. Math. Phys., 229 (2002), 3\u201347.\n\nW. H. Bennet, Magnetically self-focusing streams, Phys. Rev. 45 (1934), 890\u2013897.\n\nL. A. Caffarelli, Y. Yang, Vortex condensation in the Chern-Simons Higgs model: an existence theorem, Comm. Math. Phys. 168 (1995), no. 2, 321\u2013336.\n\nE. Caglioti, P. L. Lions, C. Marchioro, C, M. Pulvirenti, A special class of stationary flows for two-dimensional Euler equations: a statistical mechanics description, Comm. Math. Phys. 143 (1992), no. 3, 501\u2013525.\n\nE. Caglioti, P. L. Lions, C. Marchioro, C, M. Pulvirenti, A special class of stationary flows for two-dimensional Euler equations: a statistical mechanics description. II, Comm. Math. Phys. 174 (1995), no. 2, 229\u2013260.\n\nS. A. Chang, C. C. Chen, C. S. Lin, Extremal functions for a mean field equation in two dimension. (English summary) Lectures on partial differential equations, 61\u201393, New Stud. Adv. Math., 2, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2003. S. Chanillo, M. K-H Kiessling, Rotational symmetry of solutions of some nonlinear problems in statistical mechanics and in geometry, Comm. Math. Phys. 160 (1994), no. 2, 217\u2013238.\n\nS. Chanillo, M. K-H Kiessling, Conformally invariant systems of nonlinear PDE of Liouville type, Geom. Funct. Anal. 5 (1995), no. 6, 924\u2013947.\n\nJ. L. Chern, Z. Y. Chen and C. S. Lin, Uniqueness of topological solutions and the structure of solutions for the Chern-Simons with two Higgs particles, Comm. Math. Phys. 296 (2010), 323\u2013351.\n\nC. C. Chen, C. S. Lin, Sharp estimates for solutions of multi-bubbles in compact Riemann surfaces, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 55 (2002), no. 6, 728\u2013771.\n\nC. C. Chen, C. S. Lin, Topological degree for a mean field equation on Riemann surfaces, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 56 (2003), no. 12, 1667\u20131727.\n\nC. C. Chen, C. S. Lin, Mean field equations of Liouville type with singular data: Sharper estimates, Discrete and continuous dynamic systems, Vol 28, No 3, 2010, 1237-1272.\n\nC. C. Chen, C. S. Lin and G. Wang, Concentration phenomena of two-vortex solutions in a Chern-Simons model, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5), 3 (2004), 367\u2013397.\n\nW. X. Chen, C. M. Li, Classification of solutions of some nonlinear elliptic equations. Duke Math. J. 63 (1991), no. 3, 615\u2013622.\n\nS. Childress and J. K. Percus, Nonlinear aspects of Chemotaxis, Math. Biosci. 56 (1981), 217\u2013237.\n\nM. Chipot, I. Shafrir, G. Wolansky, On the solutions of Liouville systems, J. Differential Equations 140 (1997), no. 1, 59\u2013105.\n\nM. Chipot, I. Shafrir, G. Wolansky, Erratum: \u201cOn the solutions of Liouville systems\u201d \\[J. Differential Equations 140 (1997), no. 1, 59\u2013105; MR1473855 (98j:35053)\\], J. Differential Equations 178 (2002), no. 2, 630.\n\nP. Debye and E. Huckel, Zur Theorie der Electrolyte, Phys. Zft 24 (1923), 305\u2013325.\n\nG. Dunne, Self-dual Chern-Simons Theories, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. m36, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1995.\n\nJ. Dziarmaga, Low energy dynamics of $[U(1)]^N$ Chern-Simons solitons and two dimensional nonlinear equations, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994), 5469\u20135479.\n\nL. Ferretti, S.B. Gudnason, K. Konishi, Non-Abelian vortices and monopoles in SO(N) theories, Nuclear Physics B, Volume 789, Issues 1-2, 21 January 2008, Pages 84-110.\n\nJ. Hong, Y. Kim and P. Y. Pac, Multivortex solutions of the Abelian Chern-Simons-Higgs theory, Phys. Rev. Letter 64 (1990), 2230\u20132233.\n\nR. Jackiw and E. J. Weinberg, Selfdual Chern Simons vortices, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990), 2234\u20132237.\n\nJ. Jost, C. S. Lin and G. F. Wang, Analytic aspects of the Toda system II: bubbling behavior and existence of solutions, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 59 (2006), no. 4, 526\u2013558.\n\nE. F. Keller and L. A. Segel, Traveling bands of Chemotactic Bacteria: A theoretical analysis, J. Theor. Biol. 30 (1971), 235\u2013248.\n\nM. K.-H. Kiessling, Statistical mechanics of classical particles with logarithmic interactions, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 46 (1993), no. 1, 27\u201356.\n\nM. K.-H. Kiessling, Symmetry results for finite-temperature, relativistic Thomas-Fermi equations, Commun. Math. Phys. 226 (2002), no. 3, 607\u2013626.\n\nM. K.-H. Kiessling and J. L. Lebowitz, Dissipative stationary Plasmas: Kinetic Modeling Bennet Pinch, and generalizations, Phys. Plasmas 1 (1994), 1841\u20131849.\n\nC. Kim, C. Lee and B.-H. Lee, Schr\u00f6dinger fields on the plane with $[U(1)]^N$ Chern-Simons interactions and generalized self-dual solitons, Phys. Rev. D (3) 48 (1993), 1821\u20131840.\n\nY. Y. Li, Harnack type inequality: the method of moving planes, Comm. Math. Phys. 200 (1999), no. 2, 421\u2013444.\n\nC. S. Lin, Topological degree for mean field equations on S2, Duke Math. J. 104 (2000), no. 3, 501\u2013536.\n\nC. S. Lin, Uniqueness of solutions to the mean field equations for the spherical Onsager vortex, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 153 (2000), no. 2, 153\u2013176.\n\nC. S. Lin, J. C. Wei, D. Ye, Classifcation and nondegeneracy of $SU(n+1)$ Toda system, to appear on Invent. Math.\n\nC. S. Lin, J. C. Wei, C. Zhao, Sharp estimates for fully bubbling solutions of a $SU(3)$ Toda system, to appear on GAFA.\n\nC. S. Lin, L. Zhang, Profile of bubbling solutions to a Liouville system. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\u00e9 Anal. Non Lin\u00e9aire 27 (2010), no. 1, 117\u2013143.\n\nC. S. Lin, L. Zhang, A topological degree counting for some Liouville systems of mean field equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. volume 64, Issue 4, pages 556\u2013-590, April 2011.\n\nC. S. Lin, L. Zhang, Sharp estimates for blowup solutions to general Liouville systems, Part II, work in progress.\n\nM. Nolasco, G. Tarantello, Vortex condensates for the SU(3) Chern-Simons theory, Comm. Math. Phys. 213 (2000), no. 3, 599\u2013639.\n\nI. Rubinstein, Electro diffusion of Ions, SIAM, Stud. Appl. Math. 11 (1990).\n\nJ. Spruck, Y. Yang, Topological solutions in the self-dual Chern-Simons theory: existence and approximation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Anal. Non Lineaire 12 (1995), no. 1, 75\u201397.\n\nG. Wolansky, On steady distributions of self-attracting clusters under friction and fluctuations, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 119 (1992), 355\u2013391.\n\nG. Wolansky, On the evolution of self-interacting clusters and applications to semi-linear equations with exponential nonlinearity, J. Anal. Math. 59 (1992), 251\u2013272.\n\nY. Yang, Solitons in field theory and nonlinear analysis, Springer-Verlag, 2001.\n\nL. Zhang, Blowup solutions of some nonlinear elliptic equations involving exponential nonlinearities. Comm. Math. Phys. 268 (2006), no. 1, 105\u2013133.\n\nL. Zhang, Asymptotic behavior of blowup solutions for elliptic equations with exponential nonlinearity and singular data. Commun. Contemp. Math. 11 (2009), no. 3, 395\u2013411.\n\n[^1]: Zhang is supported in part by NSF Grant 0900864 (1027628)\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'Dissipating of disorder quantum vortices in an annular two-dimensional Bose-Einstein condensate can form a macroscopic persistent flow of atoms. We propose a protocol to create persistent flow with high winding number based on a double concentric ring-shaped configuration. We find that a sudden geometric quench of the trap from single ring-shape into double concentric ring-shape will enhance the circulation flow in the outer ring-shaped region of the trap when the initial state of the condensate is with randomly distributed vortices of the same charge. The circulation flows that we created are with high stability and good uniformity free from topological excitations. Our study is promising for new atomtronic designing, and is also helpful for quantitatively understanding quantum tunneling and interacting quantum systems driven far from equilibrium.'\nauthor:\n- Xiyu Chen\n- Tao Yang\n- 'Wen-Li Yang'\n- 'Wu-Ming Liu'\ntitle: Turbulent cascade induced persistent current of cold atomic superfluids\n---\n\nStudy of persistent flow of superfluid enables understanding of fundamental characteristics of superfluidity and may lead to applications in high-precision metrology and atomtronics[@PRL.95.143201; @PRL.103.140405; @nature.506.200]. Thanks to the technical development for achieving tailored trapping potential with arbitrary geometries, quantum transport experiments with quantum gases can be carried out in Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) systems with weak interatomic interactions, which can be accurately described in the frame of the mean-field Gross-Pitaveskii (GP) equation[@RMP.73.307]. Two-dimensional (2D) annular BECs in ring-shaped traps[@PRL.95.143201; @PRA.74.023617; @PRL.99.260401; @NJP.10.043012], sustaining persistent currents with a quantized circulation around any closed path[@PRL.99.260401; @PRL.106.130401; @PRA.86.013629; @nature.506.200; @PRL.111.205301] with the corresponding phase winding of the macroscopic wave function being an integer multiple of $2\\pi$, attract growing interest as an atomic analog of superconducting quantum interference device constituting a basic element for atomtronic circuits[@PRA.75.023615; @PRL.103.140405; @NJP.19.020201; @Jopt.18.093001], and are analogous to persistent currents in superconducting rings with a quantized magnetic flux.\n\nThe direct macroscopic circulation flow of superfluid BECs in annular traps can be achieved by rotating [a perturbing potential]{}[@PRA.58.580; @PRL.110.025302]. Although it is efficient, excitations in the condensate flow are hardly avoidable when the rotation is fast. Internal atomic state manipulation[@PRL.99.260401; @PRL.106.130401; @PRL.110.025301] is another way to achieve circulation states. However, the experimental setup is difficult for magnetically trapped condensates due to the coupling of different Zeeman substates. Generating circulation states by phase imprinting[@PRA.86.013629; @PRL.97.170406; @PRA.97.043615] is also hard to be applied in systems with complex structures. Matter-wave guiding of BECs over large distances was realized experimentally in a neutral-atom accelerator ring based on magnetic time-averaged adiabatic potentials which can result in accelerating of BECs with hypersonic velocities but nonuniform density[@nature.570.205].\n\nGenerally, adding energy into a system through transient stirring usually leads to more disorder. However, in 2D superfluids, vortex bending and tilting and Kelvin wave perturbations are suppressed. Hence, the well known inverse energy cascade[@PhysFluids.10.1417; @PhysFluids.11.671; @PhysFluids.12.233; @RepProgPhys.43.547; @PhysRep.362.1], i.e. the emergence of order from turbulence, is induced by the inhibition of energy dissipation at small length scales[@PRL.113.165302; @PRA.93.043614; @Science.364.1264; @Science.364.1267]. One of the most remarkable phenomena is the formation of Onsager vortex clusters[@Nuo.Cim.6.279], which can be used as a vortex thermometry[@PRL.120.034504]. Moreover, in toroidal BECs, a large-scale persistent flow of atoms can be induced by the decay of 2D quantum turbulence (2DQT) in form of disordered vortex distributions, indicating energy transport from small to large length scales[@PRL.111.235301].\n\nAlthough the decay of turbulent cascade is studied extensively, the unpredictability inherent to turbulent systems is further confounded by physical properties such as boundaries and spatial dimensionality. It is of interest to investigate the dissipative dynamics of 2DQT with varying geometries. Moreover, by driving the systems far away from equilibrium through a sudden geometrical quench of the trapping potential, we may find out some novel nonequilibrium phenomena. In this letter, by designing a BEC system in [a double concentric ring-shaped trap]{}, we study quantitatively the quench dynamics of condensates with random vortex distributions and the emergence of persistent atom flows (currents) with high winding numbers in this novel geometry, which will facilitate the study of superfluidity and quantum tunneling in a large range of transport regimes.\n\n![Proposed experimental configuration (a) and some typical density distributions of the condensate with the corresponding phase diagrams during the dynamics of the system (b)-(e). The trap is deformed suddenly from the initial single ring-shaped configuration to a double concentric ring-shaped configuration at the beginning of the dynamical process. []{data-label=\"fig1\"}](fig1.pdf){width=\"50.00000%\"}\n\nAt zero temperatures, the complex-valued mean field order parameter of a trapped 2D condensate with $N$ atoms satisfies the GP equation of the form $$\\begin{aligned}\ni\\hbar\\frac{\\partial \\psi}{\\partial t}=\\left(-\\frac{\\hbar^2}{2m}\\nabla^2+V_{trap}+g_{2D}N\\left|\\psi\\right|^2\\right)\\psi\\text{,}\\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{2D}$ is the 2D coupling constant and the order parameter $\\psi$ is normalized to 1. To avoid the detrimental effects of density variation, our system is based on an experimentally accessible box potential[@PRL.110.200406; @nature.539.72] where the condensates are spatially uniform away from the boundaries. Then, an 2D annular BEC is prepared in a double-concentric ring-shaped box potential of the form $$\\begin{aligned}\nV_{trap}=\\left\\{\n   \\begin{array}{rcl}\n 0      &    &{(R_1< r < R_{2}) \\,\\bigcup\\, (R_3 < r < R_{4})}\\\\\n V_{0}  &    & elsewhere   \\end{array}\\right.\\end{aligned}$$ with $r=\\sqrt{x^{2}+y^2}$. [This configuration can be realized in the optical-box trap formed by two hollow tube beam and two sheet beams as shown schematically in Fig.\\[fig1\\](a).]{} $R_j\\ (j=1,3)$ and $R_k\\ (k=2,4)$ being the inner and outer radius of the two concentric rings, respectively. The width of the potential barrier between the two rings is then $d=R_3-R_2$. The units of time and length are $t_0=1/\\omega_z$ and $a_0=\\sqrt{\\hbar/m\\omega_z}$, respectively. If not specified, we choose $V_0=1.43\\hbar\\omega_z$ and $d=1.25a_0$. In our study, the superfluid system contains a BEC of $N=10^5$ $^{87}$Rb atoms with $\\omega_z=2\\pi\\times 700$ Hz.The injection of angular momentum by vortex imprinting is embedded in vortex distribution rather than the macroscopic annular superflow, which is the same as in Ref.[@PRL.111.235301]. The randomly distributed vortices can be seeded in the condensate cloud by employing the phase imprinting technology or optical obstacle stirring. The initial states of the system are obtained by the imaginary time evolution of the GP equation numerically. We note that the vortices can be seeded into the system either initially or during the dynamic process, which will not affect the intrinsic physics. However, the latter will excite stronger density wave oscillations in the system.\n\n![ Typical density profiles of the evolution of the condensate initially prepared in a double concentric ring-shaped trap with corresponding phase diagrams and vortex distributions (a)-(c), and the time evolution of the winding number of the persistent current (d) with 20 initially seeded vortices.[]{data-label=\"fig2\"}](fig2.pdf){width=\"50.00000%\"}\n\n![Typical density profiles of the evolution of the condensate initially prepared in a sing ring-shaped trap and then released in a double concentric ring-shaped trap with corresponding phase diagrams (a)-(c), and the time evolution of the averaged winding number of the persistent current for 64 realizations (d) with 20 initially seeded vortices.[]{data-label=\"fig3\"}](fig3-1.pdf \"fig:\"){width=\"40.00000%\"} ![Typical density profiles of the evolution of the condensate initially prepared in a sing ring-shaped trap and then released in a double concentric ring-shaped trap with corresponding phase diagrams (a)-(c), and the time evolution of the averaged winding number of the persistent current for 64 realizations (d) with 20 initially seeded vortices.[]{data-label=\"fig3\"}](fig3-2.eps \"fig:\"){height=\"20.00000%\" width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nThe properties of the system under geometry-quench processes away from equilibrium are less straightforward. To gain insight into the role of the quenched trapping potential, we load atoms in a single ring trap initially to obtain an annular condensate as shown in Fig.\\[fig1\\]b, and then tune the trapping potential into a double ring geometry as schematically shown in Fig.\\[fig1\\]a. Initially, there are no vortices and circular current in the system. After suddenly released in the double ring trap, atoms appears in the outer ring region through tunnelling across the barrier between the two rings with highly disordered density distribution as shown in Fig.\\[fig1\\]c. With increasing homogeneity of density distribution of the condensate in the outer ring trap, vortex-antivortex pairs excited as shown in Fig.\\[fig1\\]d without changing the total angular momentum of the system. Finally, the system reach a steady state with a few vortex pairs with symmetric distribution within the outer ring, while the density distribution of the condensate in the inner ring tends to be uniform as shown in Fig.\\[fig1\\]e. This quadrupole structure is generally unstable in a 2D disk-shaped condensate[@SRep.6.29066]. The generation of topological excitations is similar to that during the interfering and merging of BECs in a double well potential[@PRA.87.023603; @PRA.88.043602]. For condensate initially loaded in a double concentric ring trap, the ground state gives uniform density distribution in both inner and outer rings. Then, a number of vortices with the same charge, for example $s=+1$, but random positions, are excited in the inner ring region. Due to the narrow region of the ring-shaped condensate, the vortices are not far from the boundary (barrier potential between two rings). During the evolution of the system, there are ghost vortices with opposite charge emerging within the flimsy between the two parts of the condensate, whose locations are identified by the yellow points as shown in Fig.\\[fig2\\]a-\\[fig2\\]c. The number of the ghost vortices are about the same as that of the vortices. The same as previous study about 2DQT in an annular 2D quantum fluid with amount of vortices, persistent atom flow forms spontaneously in the inner ring as the number of vortices varies (decreases with respect to the initial vortex number). As shown in Fig.\\[fig2\\]d, the current in the outer ring-shaped condensate emerges following the appearance of the current of the inner condensate. They will finally approach steady values. The variation of the circular current accompanies with the creation and annihilation of vortices in the system. The average growth or decay of the current is quantized with integer numbers indicated by the steps shown in Fig.\\[fig2\\], which means the transition between different quantized persistent current states. In Ref.[@PRA.80.021601], decay of the atomic current through a barrier in a toroidal BEC was in the form of $2\\pi$ sharp drops, leaving steps on the time evolution of the circulation (winding) number. During the time evolution, most of the ghost vortices are pinned within the barrier region and can hardly escape to the condensate cloud. But we did identify that at some stage this happened as shown in Fig.\\[fig2\\]b-\\[fig2\\]c. Moreover, the initially seeded vortices can hardly tunnel from the inner ring-shaped condensate into the outer one, and no vortices excited in the outer ring-shaped condensate comparing with the situation in Fig.\\[fig1\\].\n\n![Variation of the winding number of the circulation flow with respect to the number of initially seeded vortex. []{data-label=\"fig4\"}](fig4.pdf){height=\"20.00000%\" width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\nNext, we set the initial state of the system to be a single ring-shaped condensate with randomly distributed vortices of the same charge, and then deform the trap into a double concentric ring-shaped geometry as what we have done for the condensate without the initial vortices in Fig.\\[fig1\\]. The condensate originally in the inner ring tunnels through the barrier and spread in the outer ring-shaped region of the trap as shown in Fig.\\[fig3\\]a. Formation of vortex pairs still occurs in the outer ring-shaped condensate during the tunneling process while the density distribution of the condensate is getting more and more uniform as shown in Figs.\\[fig3\\]b-\\[fig3\\]c, which is similar to the evolution of the initial state without vortices in the inner ring-shaped condensate (see Fig.\\[fig1\\](c)). However, different from the results shown in Fig.\\[fig1\\](e), all the initially seeded and dynamically excited vortices in the system decay eventually accompanied by the emergence of persistent currents in both inner and outer rings. Comparing with the result of the system without quenching of the trapping potential as shown in Fig.\\[fig2\\], the winding number of the current in the outer ring turns to be much larger, which means that the transfer of angular momentum from vortices to global atom flows is much more efficient in this case. The gray and red lines in Fig.\\[fig3\\]g are the time evolution of the winding number of the atom flows in the inner ring and the outer ring, respectively, with a random distribution of 20 initially seeded vortices. In Ref.[@PRL.110.025302], the circulation caused by a rotating barrier is only stable when the angular frequency of the barrier is small, while the system becomes dynamically unstable with high angular frequencies resulting from the excitations of vortices are in the condensate cloud. [The error bars show the [standard deviation]{} of 64 realizations for a given initial vortex distribution.]{} The circulation flow of the outer ring-shaped condensate reaches its steady state much faster than the inner ring-shaped condensate. In Fig.\\[fig4\\], we show that the average winding number of the outer ring-shaped condensate increases [linearly]{} with increasing initial number of the seeded vortices. For 30 initial vortices, the winding number of the circulation flow is -16, while that of the inner ring-shaped BEC is only -3.\n\nWe also investigate the effects of the thickness and hight of the middle flimsy barrier on the winding number of the circulation flow as shown in Fig.\\[fig5\\]. The number of the initial vortices is kept to be 20. [For $d$ larger than $5a_0$]{} or [$V_0$ larger than 6$\\hbar\\omega_z$]{}, the tunneling is strongly suppressed to prevent the emergence of the circulation flow in the outer ring-shaped trap. The winding number of the outer ring-shaped condensate does not vary monotonically with respect to $d$ and $V_0$. There exists a specific value of these parameters to obtain maximum persistent current of the circulation flow. The variations of the winding number with respect to both parameters satisfy Gaussian distributions.\n\n![Variation of the winding number of the circulation flow with respect to the number of initially seeded vortex. []{data-label=\"fig5\"}](fig5.pdf){height=\"20.00000%\" width=\"45.00000%\"}\n\n[In conclusion, we propose a novel setup and a quench protocol which can be used to generate persistent currents of circular condensate flows with high winding numbers. For a double ring-shaped condensate, if we quench vortices with the same charge and random distributions, the circular condensate flows can emerge in both inner and outer ring-shaped condensate due to 2D turbulent cascade and quantum tunneling. The differences of the winding numbers of the two flows are not significant. If we quench the condensate with randomly distributed like vortices by deforming the trap from a single ring-shaped geometry into a concentric double ring-shaped one, the winding number of the outer ring shaped condensate will be much larger than that of the inner ring-shaped condensate flow. However, if the initial state of the system is without any vortices, the geometric quench itself cannot generate persistent atom flows in the system. The persistent currents generated in our system are with nearly uniform density distributions and free from vortex excitations. This method is much more efficient to create circulation flows of atoms than the technique of rotating barrier and may be used to design complex devices based on ultracold atoms. ]{}\n\nAcknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}\n===============\n\nThis work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grants Nos. 11775178, 11947301 and 61835013, National Key R&D Program of China under grants No. 2016YFA0301500, the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under grants Nos. XDB01020300 and XDB21030300, the Major Basic Research Program of Natural Science of Shaanxi Province under grants Nos. 2017KCT-12 and 2017ZDJC-32. This research is also supported by The Double First-class University Construction Project of Northwest University.\n\n[37]{}ifxundefined \\[1\\][ ifx[\\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \\[1\\][ \\#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \\[1\\][ \\#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}\u201c\u201c\\#1\u201d\u201d@noop \\[0\\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \\[0\\][\u2018\\\n12\u2018\\$12 \u2018&12\u2018\\#12\u201812\u2018\\_12\u2018%12]{}@startlink\\[1\\]@endlink\\[0\\]@bib@innerbibempty [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.143201) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.140405) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1038/nature12958) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.307) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1103/PhysRevA.74.023617) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.260401) [****, ()](\\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/043012) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.130401) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1103/PhysRevA.86.013629) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.205301) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.75.023615) [****, ()](\\doibase 10.1088/1367-2630/aa5a6d) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1088/2040-8978/18/9/093001) [****, ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.58.580) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.025302) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.025301) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.170406) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1103/PhysRevA.97.043615) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1038/s41586-019-1273-5) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1063/1.1762301) @noop [****,\u00a0]{} [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1063/1.870297) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1088/0034-4885/43/5/001) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(01)00064-3) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.165302) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.043614) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1126/science.aat5718) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1126/science.aat5793) [****, ()](\\doibase 10.1007/BF02780991) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.034504) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase\n  10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.235301) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.200406) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1038/nature20114) [****,\u00a0 ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep29066) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.87.023603) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.043602) [****,\u00a0 ()](\\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.021601)\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'A numerical approach to disordered 2D superconductors described by BCS mean field theory is outlined. The energy gap and the superfluid density at zero temperature and the quasiparticle density of states are studied. The method involves approximate self-consistent solutions of the Bogolubov-de$\\,$Gennes equations on finite square lattices. Where comparison is possible, the results of standard analytic approaches to this problem are reproduced. Detailed modeling of impurity effects is practical using this approach. The [*range*]{} of the impurity potential is shown to be of [*quantitative importance*]{} in the case of strong potential scatterers. We discuss the implications for experiments, such as the rapid suppression of superconductivity by Zn doping in Copper-Oxide superconductors.'\naddress: ' Research Center in Superconductivity, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom '\nauthor:\n- 'T. Xiang and J. M. Wheatley'\ntitle: ' Non-magnetic impurities in two dimensional superconductors '\n---\n\nepsf\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nIt is well established that chemical substitutions on copper oxide superconductors can qualitatively alter the properties of these materials in both their normal and superconducting states[@Exp]. In the normal state,impurity substitution can be used to test models of electronic transport. In the superconducting state, impurity scattering effects are sensitive to order parameter symmetry[@Theory] as well as other properties. It is well known that non-magnetic impurities are pair breakers in d-wave or other non-trivial pairing states with nodes of the energy gap on the Fermi surface. They produce a finite lifetime of the quasiparticles around the gap nodes and a finite density of states at low energy.\n\nIn order to parameterize impurity scattering, a physical picture for the normal state, the superconducting state and the impurity is required. In this paper we are motivated by Zn doping experiments in cuprates which we assume can be treated as a pure potential scatterer of fermions which obey Luttinger\u2019s theorem. Since d-orbitals of Zn$^{++}$ are fully occupied, it is naively expected to behave as a non-magnetic impurity. However, electronic correlations may modify this picture somewhat. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance measurements by Mahajan and co-workers[@NMR] show that the copper spin correlations are severely modified on neighboring Cu sites, which could in principle give rise to effects analogous to the spin-flip scattering process of conventional magnetic impurities. As discussed recently by Borkowski and Hirschfeld[@BH], the unknown relative strength of spin flip and impurity scattering rates in Zn doped systems poses an obstacle to the quantitative analysis of experiments involving Zn even within the conventional BCS formalism.\n\nEven if spin-flip scattering is negligible, the modification of copper spin correlations in the vicinity of an impurity site has the effect of increasing the range of an effective scattering potential. Information about the effective potential in $YBa_2(Cu_{1-x}Zn_x)_3O_{6.9}$ can be obtained from the residual sheet resistance estimated by extrapolation from the normal state. The residual resistance from two dimensional potential scattering is given by the approximate expression[@ziman] $$\\Delta\\rho = {1\\over \\pi} x\n{\\displaystyle h\\over \\displaystyle e^2}\n\\sum_l\\sin^2(\\delta_l-\\delta_{l+1}).\n\\label{rr}$$ $\\delta_l$ are the phase shifts which are constrained to satisfy the Friedel sum-rule $\\Delta Z={2\\over \\pi}\\sum_{l=-\\infty}^\\infty \\delta_l$. $\\Delta Z$ is the difference in the number of conduction electrons in the system without impurities and with one impurity. If we assume Zn removes one electron from the conduction band (i.e. $\\Delta Z=-1$) and the effective potential is an impenetrable disc of radius $a$, we estimate that the residual sheet resistance is $\\approx 0.6k\\Omega$ for $x=0.01$ in the $l=0$ dominant scattering channel ($a\\sim 0.54/k_f$), which is a factor three smaller than the experimental value $1.7k\\Omega$[@RR]. This discrepancy may indicate appreciable phase shifts in one or more higher angular momentum channels. In fact the $l=2$ \u201cnear resonant channel\", which requires a larger radius of the scattering potential ($a\\sim 2.8/k_f$)[@phaseshifts] yields $\\approx 1.8k\\Omega$ for $x=0.01$. Recently Poilblanc, Scalapino, and Hanke[@Poilblanc] have investigated the effects of non-magnetic impurities in antiferromagnetically correlated systems. They find that the scatterings in $l\\le 2$ channels are strong in that system.\n\nThe above discussion suggests that detailed structure of the impurity potential is important in making a quantitative study of Zn doped materials. As seen below, lattice effects may also be of quantitative importance for short coherence length superconductors. Recently, in a brief report[@Tao], we presented a numerical study of the disorder effect in two dimensional superconductors of various pairing symmetries in the limit of strong impurity potentials. We demonstrated that a short but finite range potential has a much stronger effect than an on-site (\u201c$\\delta$-function\u201d) potential. In fact the finite range of the potential may be the primary reason for the rapid suppression of pairing correlations with impurity concentration in $YBa(Cu,Zn)O$. The importance of finite potential range has been pointed out recently by Balatsky et al[@Balatsky] in connection with non-universal behavior of the low frequency conductance in d-wave superconductors.\n\nIn this paper we present a more detailed study of the disorder effect in two dimensional superconductors. The model used here is a lattice BCS mean-field Hamiltonian with disorder defined by, $$H[\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau} ]\n=-t\\sum_{\\langle {\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf r}^\\prime \\rangle \\sigma}\nc_{{\\mathbf r}\\sigma}^\\dagger c_{{\\mathbf r}^\\prime\\sigma}\n+\\sum_{{\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf \\tau}}\n(\\Delta_{{\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf \\tau}}c_{{\\mathbf r}\\uparrow}^\\dagger\nc_{{\\mathbf r}+{\\mathbf \\tau}\\downarrow}^\\dagger +\nh.c.)+\\sum_{{\\mathbf r}\\sigma}(\\sum_{{\\mathbf r}_{i}}\nV_{{\\mathbf r}_{i},\\mathbf r}-\\mu )\nc_{{\\mathbf r}\\sigma}^\\dagger c_{{\\mathbf r}\\sigma} ,\n\\label{ee1}$$ where $\\langle {\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf r}^\\prime\\rangle $ denotes nearest neighbors, $\\mu$ is the chemical potential. $V_{{\\mathbf r}_{i},\\mathbf r}$ is a scattering potential of an impurity at ${\\mathbf r}_i$. Lacking detailed knowledge of the scattering potential in high-$T_c$ cuprates, we assume a model potential form for it: $V_{{\\mathbf r}_i,\\mathbf r}$=$V_0\\delta_{{\\mathbf r}_i,\\mathbf r}\n+V_1(\\delta_{{\\mathbf r}_i-{\\mathbf r} \\pm \\hat x}\n+\\delta_{{\\mathbf r}_i-{\\mathbf r} \\pm \\hat y}) $. When $V_1=0$, it is a $\\delta$-function potential, otherwise it is finite ranged. $\\Delta_{{\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf \\tau}}$ is the superconducting gap parameter. For a given filling factor of electrons $n_e$, $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ and $\\mu$ should be determined self-consistently from the relations $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Delta_{{\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf \\tau}}&=&J\\langle c_{{\\mathbf r}\n\\uparrow}c_{{\\mathbf r}+\n{\\mathbf \\tau}\\downarrow}\\rangle _{\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}},\n\\label{gapeq} \\\\\nn_e&=&{1\\over N}\\sum_{{\\mathbf r} \\sigma} \\langle c_{{\\mathbf r}\n\\sigma}^{\\dag} c_{{\\mathbf r}\\sigma}\n\\rangle _{\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}},\n\\label{numbereq}\\end{aligned}$$ where J is the coupling constant (assumed disorder independent), $N$ is the system size, and $\\langle  A \\rangle _{\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}}$ means the average of A in the ground state of $H[\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}]$. Without disorder $\\Delta_{{\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf \\tau}}$ is independent of ${\\mathbf r}$ and has a particular symmetry with respect to ${\\mathbf \\tau}$. In this paper only the on-site s-wave pairing state $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}\n=\\Delta \\delta_{\\mathbf \\tau 0}$ and the d-wave pairing state $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}=\\Delta (\\delta_{{\\mathbf \\tau}\\pm \\hat x}-\n\\delta_{{\\mathbf \\tau}\\pm \\hat y})$ in two dimensions will be considered.\n\nThe Hamiltonian (\\[ee1\\]) is bilinear in fermion operators and can be diagonalized by solving a one-particle problem. $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ and $\\mu$ should be determined self-consistently from Eqs. \\[gapeq\\] and \\[numbereq\\], which amount to solving the Bogolubov-de Gennes equations for the disordered superconductor. For simplicity in calculation, we perform a particle-hole transformation for the down-spin electrons, i.e. $c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}\n\\longleftrightarrow c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}^\\dagger$, and re-express (\\[ee1\\]) as $$\\begin{aligned}\nH^\\prime [\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau} ]& =&\n-t\\sum_{\\langle {\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf r}^\\prime \\rangle }\n(c_{{\\mathbf r}\\uparrow}^\\dagger c_{{\\mathbf r}^\\prime\\uparrow}\n- c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}^\\dagger\nc_{{\\mathbf r}^\\prime\\downarrow})\n+\\sum_{{\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf \\tau}}\n(\\Delta_{{\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf \\tau}}\nc_{{\\mathbf r}\\uparrow}^\\dagger\nc_{{\\mathbf r}+{\\mathbf \\tau}\\downarrow} +\nh.c.)\\nonumber\\\\\n&&+\\sum_{{\\mathbf r}}(\\sum_{{\\mathbf r}_i}\nV_{{\\mathbf r}_i,\\mathbf r}-\\mu )\n( c_{{\\mathbf r}\\uparrow}^\\dagger c_{{\\mathbf r}\\uparrow}\n-c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}^\\dagger\nc_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow})+const.\n\\label{ee2}\\end{aligned}$$ $H^\\prime$ has the usual tight binding model form, but the hopping constant, the chemical potential, and the impurity potential have opposite signs for the up spin electrons and the down spin electrons[@half]. In the remainder of the paper we set the hopping constant t=1.\n\nIn Sec. II, the numerical method and essential approximation is outlined. Results for the disorder dependence of the zero temperature gap and superfluid density $\\rho_s$ as well as the quasiparticle density of states $\\rho$ are presented. In Sec. III, a concluding remark is given.\n\nNumerical method and results\n============================\n\nGap parameter and superfluid density\n------------------------------------\n\nIn the presence of disorder, the energy gap is space dependent. We determine $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ by iteratively solving $H^\\prime$ with the self-consistent conditions. We start from an initial gap function $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ with a certain pairing symmetry. After diagonalizing $H^\\prime$, we find a new gap function $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ from the self-consistent equations and then use it as input to repeat the above process until the self-consistent conditions are satisfied. This is a strict self-consistent iterative process. However, since the gap function at every site needs be adjusted to satisfy the self-consistent equations, this is excessively time consuming when an average over a large number of impurity configurations is required. We shall however perform this strict self-consistent iteration procedure only for studying the properties of a single impurity system and for checking the accuracy of the approximation used in many-impurity cases.\n\nAs mentioned above, to solve the self-consistent equations, the Hamiltonian needs be exactly diagonalized. This can be done, however, only on small lattices in the presence of disorder. For a superconductor, a characteristic length scale is the superconducting correlation length $\\xi\\sim {\\hbar}v_F/\\pi\\Delta$. If $\\xi$ is larger than the dimension of the system, the finite size effect is large and the analysis of the disorder effect may be subtle. To avoid this situation, we shall limit our calculations only to cases where $\\xi$ is much smaller than the dimension of the system.\n\nThe existence of a finite superfluid density $\\rho_s$ is a defining property of superconductors. Experimentally $\\rho_s$ is determined from the microwave measurement of the penetration depth. $\\rho_s$ on a finite lattice can be evaluated directly from the current-current correlation function, using the eigenfunctions obtained from the iteration procedure described above, [@super] $${\\rho_s \\over 4} =\\langle -K_x\\rangle\n-\\Lambda_{xx}(q_x=0,q_y\\rightarrow 0,\\omega =0)$$ where $\\langle A\\rangle =Tr(Ae^{-\\beta H})/Tre^{-\\beta H}$, $\\langle K_x\\rangle $ is the kinetic energy along x-direction, and $$\\begin{aligned}\n\\Lambda_{xx}({\\mathbf q},\\omega )&=& {i\\over V}\\int_{-\\infty}^tdt'\ne^{i\\omega (t-t')}\\langle\n[J_x^p(-{\\mathbf q},t),J_x^p({\\mathbf q},t')]\\rangle\n\\nonumber\\\\\n&=&{1\\over V}\\sum_{n_1\\not= n_2}{A_{n_1,n_2}(-q)A_{n_2,n_1}(q)\n\\over \\omega +i\\delta +E_{n_1}-E_{n_2}}\n(\\langle c_{n_1}^\\dagger c_{n_1}\\rangle\n- \\langle c_{n_2}^\\dagger c_{n_2}\\rangle  )\\end{aligned}$$ with $c_n = \\sum_{{\\mathbf r}\\sigma }\n\\phi_n({\\mathbf r},\\sigma ) c_{{\\mathbf r}\\sigma }$ the quasiparticle operator and $$A_{n,m}({\\mathbf q})= \\sum_{{\\mathbf r}\\sigma}\ne^{i{\\mathbf q}\\cdot {\\mathbf r}}(\n\\phi_n({{\\mathbf r}+x\\sigma }) \\phi_m({{\\mathbf r}\\sigma })\n-\\phi_n({{\\mathbf r}\\sigma }) \\phi_m({{\\mathbf r}+x\\sigma })).$$\n\nBefore studying disordered systems, we consider a one-impurity system. We first consider the change of the gap function induced by an impurity. Fig. \\[fig1\\] shows the self-consistent energy gap $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r \\tau}$ for a s-wave superconducting state with one impurity on a 21$\\times$21 lattice. Since the scattering potential is short ranged, the gap function changes only in the vicinity of the impurity. Far away from the impurity, $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ approaches to the value of the energy gap without disorder. In a region with a length scale of the range of scattering potential around the impurity site $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r}$ is largely reduced due to the strong suppression of the probability of an electron hopping to this region by the impurity scattering. Beyond this region, there exists a relatively larger region with a length scale comparable with the superconducting correlation length $\\xi$ where a weak oscillation of $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ in space is observed. This oscillation is due to the interplay between the impurity scattering and the superconducting correlations. Because of the lattice effect, $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ is not isotropic in space. It is relatively strong along the diagonal direction. Along other directions, it is too weak to be resolved from the figure. For the d-wave state, similar results have been found. But the oscillation of $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ along two axes seems more apparent in this case.\n\nFor finite impurity doping systems where many impurity configurations are used in the disorder average we shall approximate $\\Delta_{{\\mathbf r}{\\mathbf \\tau}}$ in (\\[ee1\\]) by the average of the pairing correlation functions $\\langle c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}\nc_{{\\mathbf r}+{\\mathbf \\tau}\\uparrow}\\rangle$ in space, ${\\bar\\Delta}_{\\mathbf \\tau}$, so that only a simplified self-consistent equation, $$\\bar{\\Delta}_{\\tau}\n={1\\over N}\\sum_{\\mathbf r}J\\langle c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}\nc_{{\\mathbf r}+{\\mathbf \\tau}\\uparrow}\\rangle_{{\\bar\\Delta}_\\tau}$$ needs be solved. This approximation is to ignore the fluctuation of $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ (but not $\\langle c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}\nc_{{\\mathbf r}+{\\mathbf \\tau}\\uparrow}\\rangle$) in space.\n\nThe errors resulting from the above approximation can be found by directly comparing the results obtained with and without the approximation. We have calculated the errors for the pairing amplitude for several arbitrarily chosen configurations of impurities in both strong and weak scattering potential limits. For all the cases we have studied, we find that the relative errors in the average energy gap are small compared with the combined errors produced by the disorder average or the finite size effect. For example, for a randomly chosen system of 3 impurities on a 14$\\times$14 lattice, the relative errors in the average energy gap are 0.1% (0.6%) in a weak potential $V_0=2$ and $V_1=0$ and 2%(2%) in a strong potential $V_0=20$ and $V_1=0$ for the s-wave (d-wave) pairing state. As the impurity concentration increases, the error increases slightly. The errors for the local pairing correlation functions $\\langle c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}\nc_{{\\mathbf r}+{\\mathbf \\tau}\\uparrow}\\rangle$ are larger than that for the average gap, but still small. Fig. \\[fig2\\], as an example, shows the relative error pattern for the local correlation function $\\langle c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}\nc_{{\\mathbf r}+{\\mathbf \\tau}\\uparrow}\\rangle$ for a s-wave pairing state. We find that the errors for $\\langle c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}\nc_{{\\mathbf r}+{\\mathbf \\tau}\\uparrow}\\rangle$ are largest (about 5%) at the impurity sites. Clearly $\\langle c_{{\\mathbf r}\\downarrow}\nc_{{\\mathbf r}+{\\mathbf \\tau}\\uparrow}\\rangle$ is overestimated in the vicinity of impurities and underestimated far away from the impurities. Nevertheless it is encouraging that the error made in neglecting off-diagonal disorder is small[@lambert].\n\nUsing the above approximation, we have evaluated the average gaps $\\bar\\Delta$ for both s- and d-wave pairing states in different scattering potentials. For all the cases we have studied, we find that $\\bar\\Delta$ decays almost linearly with x for small x. Fig. \\[fig3\\] shows ${\\bar\\Delta}_\\tau$ as a function of the impurity concentration x for both pairing states in a strong $\\delta$-function scattering potential $V_0=20$ on a 14$\\times$14 lattice. All four curve shown in the figure are nearly parallel to each other although their values at x=0, i.e. $\\bar\\Delta (0)$, are quite different. This remarkable behavior indicates that the reduction of $\\Delta$ by disorder ($d\\Delta / dx$) is determined only by the scattering potential to a first approximation and is independent of the pairing symmetries and the values of the energy gaps for pure samples. This nearly universal property of the energy gap could be of use in future studies of disordered superconductors. For weak $\\delta$-function potentials or finite but short ranged potentials, similar results for $\\bar\\Delta$ have been found. But for a weak $\\delta$-function potential the slope of the decay of $\\bar\\Delta$ with x becomes smaller.\n\nOur calculations for $\\bar\\Delta$ and $\\rho_s$ have been done mostly on lattices with size ranged from 10$\\times$10 to 18$\\times$18 sites. In general, $\\bar\\Delta$ and $\\rho_s$ are size dependent. However, for the quantities which are physically more interesting, the relative energy gap $\\bar\\Delta (x)/\\Delta (0)$ and the relative superfluid density $\\rho_s (x)/\\rho_s (0)$, the finite size effect is small. A comparison for $\\bar\\Delta (x)/\\Delta (0)$ and $\\rho_s (x)/\\rho_s (0)$ for the s- and d-wave states with a $\\delta$-function potential $V_0=8$ on lattices of 10$\\times$10, 14$\\times$14, and 18$\\times$18 sites is given in Fig. \\[fig4\\]. Similar results have been found for other impurity potentials. In general, we find that the finite size effect for $\\rho_s$ is larger than that for ${\\bar\\Delta}_\\tau$ when ${\\bar\\Delta}_\\tau$ is small (i.e. large $\\xi$). Physically this is because that $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ is determined only by the local pair correlation function while $\\rho_s$ is determined by the current-current correlation function at long wavelengths which in turn is determined by the properties of the eigenfunction on the whole lattice.\n\nFig. \\[fig5\\] shows $\\bar{\\Delta} (x)/\\bar{\\Delta} (0)$ and $\\rho_s (x)/\\rho_s (0)$ as functions of $x$ for the s- and d-wave pairing states in three potentials. For a weak $\\delta$-function potential, $\\bar{\\Delta}\n(x)/\\bar{\\Delta} (0)$ and $\\rho_s (x)/\\rho_s (0)$ decrease very slowly with $x$ and the difference between the s- and d-wave pairing states is also small. With increasing $V_0$, the difference between these two pairing states increases. The disorder has stronger effect on the d-wave state than the s-wave state; in particularly, $\\rho_s$ falls much faster in the d-wave state than in the s-wave state. This property may be useful for distinguishing a d-wave pairing state from a s-wave pairing state in the unitary scattering limit from an experimental point of view. But if an off-site scattering potential (i.e. $V_1$ term) is present, this difference will be eventually reduced. The disorder effect is clearly strongly enhanced in a finite range potential than in a $\\delta$-function potential.\n\nFig. \\[fig6\\] shows $\\bar{\\Delta} (V_0,V_1)/\\bar{\\Delta} (0,0)$ as functions of $V_0$ for the s- and d-wave pairing states with $x$=0.02. The qualitative behaviors of $\\bar{\\Delta} (V_0,V_1)/\\bar{\\Delta} (0,0)$ are similar for all the cases shown in the figure. $\\bar{\\Delta} (V_0,V_1)/\\bar{\\Delta} (0,0)$ decreases with $V_0$ for small $V_0$, but soon becomes saturated when $V_0$ surpasses the band width. $d\\bar{\\Delta}/dx$ for the s- and d-wave states can be very large depending on the value of $V_1$.\n\nDensity of states\n-----------------\n\nNow we consider the effect of disorder on the density of states of quasiparticles. We calculate the density of states using a recursion method[@recursion]. This method addresses the local density of states of an infinite lattice. In this method, the density of states $\\rho (E)$ is obtained from the imaginary part of the one-particle Green\u2019s function $G(E)$. $$\\rho (E)=\\lim_{\\epsilon\\longrightarrow 0}-{1\\over \\pi} {\\hbox {Im}}\n G(E+i\\epsilon).$$\n\nGiven a starting state $|0\\rangle$, the recursion method is defined by recurrence relations $$H|0\\rangle = a_0 |0\\rangle + b_1 |1\\rangle \\label{rec1}$$ and $$H|n\\rangle = b_n |n-1\\rangle +a_n |n\\rangle + b_{n+1} |n+1\\rangle\n\\qquad (n >0), \\label{rec2}$$ where $\\{ |n\\rangle \\}$ is a set of normalized bases generated automatically from equations (\\[rec1\\]) and (\\[rec2\\]). From the a\u2019s and b\u2019s generated, $G(E)$ can be expressed in a continued fraction form $$G(E)={1\\over\\displaystyle (E-a_0)-{\\displaystyle b_1^2\\over\n\\displaystyle (E-a_1)-{\\displaystyle b_2^2\\over\n\\displaystyle (E-a_2)- \\cdot\\cdot\\cdot}}}.$$ In real calculation, this continued fraction is truncated at a certain step and the remainder of the continued fraction is replaced by a parameter which is determined such that the error is minimized. We truncate the continued fraction at a step when the difference between the result obtained at that step and that with 5 more steps is smaller than the error demanded. In using the recursion method, the values of $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ and $\\mu$ obtained previously on finite lattices will be used. When the impurity concentration is finite, the approximation $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}={\\bar\\Delta}_\\tau$ is assumed. For one impurity system, the strict self-consistent solution for $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ on a small lattice around the impurity is used, while for the rest part of the lattice $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ are approximated by the average value of $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ on the edges of the small lattice.\n\nAs discussed by Byers et al[@byers; @choi] the densities of states in the vicinity of the impurity is in principle measurable via the spatial variation of the tunneling conductance around an impurity with a scanning-tunneling-microscope study of the surface of a superconductor. In continuum space, the local density of states (or the tunneling conductance) around an impurity has been calculated by Byers et al[@byers] for both the s- and d-wave pairing states and by Choi[@choi] for the d-wave pairing state. They find that the density of states for a give energy oscillates in space and depends strongly on the anisotropy of the gap parameter. When the energy is larger than $\\Delta$, the oscillation is largest in the directions of the gap maxima and smallest in the directions of the gap minima. In lattice space, however, we find that their results are partly altered. Fig. \\[fig7\\] shows the impurity induced density of states as a function of distance from an impurity along two directions for the s- and d-wave pairing states. (Here the fully self-consistent isolated impurity result for the gap function on a 21 $\\times$ 21 lattice shown in Fig. \\[fig1\\] is used as an input.) The density of states oscillates in space with an energy and direction dependent wavelength in agreement with the results of Ref. [@byers]. In the s-wave case, the oscillation along the diagonal direction is much larger than that along the x-axis direction, in contrast to the isotropic s-wave pairing state in continuum space. Since the energy gaps are the same on the Fermi surface for a s-wave states, this difference is purely a lattice effect. For the d-wave pairing state, the oscillations along two directions are not so different as shown in Refs. [@byers; @choi]. The impurity induced density of states decays slightly faster along the x-axis direction than along the diagonal direction.\n\nTo compute the density of states with finite doping of impurities, we have used the results of the average gap $\\bar\\Delta$ obtained previously. The fluctuation of $\\Delta_{\\mathbf r\\tau}$ in space is ignored in this calculation. Fig. \\[fig8\\] shows the density of states for the s- and d-wave pairing states with different potentials and x. The main results are summarized as follows:\n\n\\(a) For s-wave pairing with weak potential or strong potential with very small x, $\\rho$ has no qualitative change with respect to the case without disorder. In particularly, the energy gap still exists and is hardly changed by disorder in agreement with Anderson theorem[@pwa].\n\n\\(b) For the d-wave pairing state with weak scattering potential, the change of $\\rho$ with respect to the case without disorder is small. But $\\rho$ at the Fermi energy $E_F$ becomes finite, in consistent with the non-magnetic impurity scattering theory in the Born scattering limit[@GK].\n\n\\(c) For the d-wave pairing state with very strong onsite potential, $\\rho$ shows a peak around $E_F$. This results agrees very well with the self-consistent t-matrix theory for the d-wave superconductor in the unitary scattering limit[@PEAK]. On the other hand it also shows that the approximations made in the self-consistent t-matrix theory, such as ignoring the vertex corrections and the energy dependence of the self-energy, are valid for the d-wave state.\n\n\\(d) For the d-wave pairing state with a strong on-site potential or both pairing states with a finite range potential, $\\rho$ at $E_F$ grows quickly with increasing x and becomes comparable with the average density of states at some critical x. For the s-wave pairing state with a strong $\\delta$-function potential, a finite gap remains when x is smaller than a critical value x$_c$ within numerical errors. When x$>$x$_c$, the gap vanishes (but $\\rho_s$ and ${\\bar\\Delta}$ are non-zero), $\\rho$ at $E_f$ is small and increases slowly with increasing x.\n\n\\(e) All singularities of $\\rho$ are suppressed by disorder average in these calculations. We have not found any evidence for the singular behavior predicted recently by Nersesyan et al[@ntw] within numerical error.\n\nConclusion\n==========\n\nWe have discussed a straightforward numerical technique which allows detailed effects of various impurity potentials on superconductors to be investigated with a BCS mean field framework. In particular we evaluated the gap parameter, the superfluid density, and the density of states for the s-wave and d-wave superconducting states with non-magnetic impurities, as functions of impurity concentrations and scattering potentials. For one impurity systems, the local density of states induced by impurity oscillates in space, in agreement with known analytic results. For s-wave pairing, the energy gap and the density of states are hardly affected by weak disorder (i.e. either weak scatterers or dilute strong scatterers), consistent with Anderson theorem. In dilute impurity limit, our results agree well with the self-consistent t-matrix theory in both Born and unitary scattering limits, and in both s- and d- pairing states. For the d-wave pairing state, the density of states at $E_F$ becomes finite even for weak scattering potential, consistent with the Born scattering theory of the d-wave superconductor. For the d-wave pairing state with strong on-site potential, the density of states is in good agreement with the self-consistent t-matrix theory for the d-wave superconductor in the unitary limit. For strong scatterers, the energy gap of the s-wave state disappears beyond a critical doping level which is sensitive to the range of the impurity potential. A finite range potential is shown to have a stronger effect than a short range potential in either pairing state. For Zn doped YBaCuO, experiments find that $T_c$ varies almost linearly with $x$ and drops about 25% for 2% Zn doping[@TC]. If we assume the change of $T_c$ is equivalent to the change of $\\bar{\\Delta}$ at zero temperature, we find that $d\\bar{\\Delta}/dx$ in a $\\delta$-function potential is too small to fit quantitatively with experiments even in unitary scattering limit. However for a finite range potential, no such difficulty exists.\n\nAcknowledgement\n===============\n\nWe wish to thank J. Loram, J. Cooper, and P. Hirschfeld for helpful communications.\n\nGang Xiao, F. H. Streitz, A. Gavrin, Y. W. Du, and C. L. Chien, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 8782 (1987); Y. Maeno, T. Tomita, M. Kyogoku, S. Awaji, Y. Aoki, K. Hoshino, A. Minami, and T. Fujita, Nature [**328**]{}, 512 (1987); K. Ishida, Y. Kitaoka, T. Yoshitomi, N. Ogatta, T. Kamino, and K. Asayama, Physica C [**179**]{}, 29 (1991).\n\nFor recent discussions, see W. H. Hardy, D. A. Bonn, D. C. Morgan, R. Liang, and K Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3999 (1993); P. J. Hirschfeld and N. Goldenfeld, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 4219 (1993); P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1887 (1993).\n\nA. V. Mahajan, H. Alloul, G. Collin, and J. F. Marucco, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 3100 (94).\n\nL. S. Borkowski and P. J. Hirschfeld, preprint.\n\nA derivation for the impurity residual resistivity in 3D can be found from G. D. Mahan, \u201cMany-particle physics\" (2nd edition, 1990 Plenum Press, New York), Chapter 7.\n\nT. R. Chien, Z. Z. Wang, and N. P. Ong, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2088 (1991).\n\nIt is worth noting some features of this 2D scattering problem. Using the impenetrable disc model with radius $a$ we find that $k_f a=0.542$ satisfies the sum rule with near unitary scattering in the $l=0$ channel; the corresponding phase shifts are $\\delta_0 = -0.75 {(\\pi / 2)}$, $\\delta_1 =-0.12{(\\pi / 2)}$, $\\delta_2 = -0.005{(\\pi / 2)}$ etc. The next values of $k_f a$ compatible with the sum rule are $1.52$ and $2.787$. The latter value leads to scattering phase shifts $\\delta_0 = -0.25 {(\\pi / 2)}$, $\\delta_1 = 0.64{\\pi / 2}$, $\\delta_2 = -0.69{(\\pi / 2)}$, $\\delta_3 =-0.26{(\\pi / 2)}$ and $\\delta_4 = -0.06{(\\pi / 2)}$; they are appreciable in all channels up to $l=2$. This set of phase shifts leads to the best agreement with the $YBCO$ data.\n\nD. Poilblanc, D. J. Scalapino, and W. Hanke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 884 (1994).\n\nT. Xiang and J.M. Wheatley, Physica C, to be published.\n\nA. V. Balatsky, A. Rosengren, and B. L. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{} 720 (1994).\n\nThe results presented here are for a half-filled band. For the simple tight-binding model used here, this has a van Hove singularity at the Fermi surface in the normal state. This fact plays no role in our $T=0$ calculations however. To see this note that (a) in the absence of disorder, the superconducting gap pushes the van Hove singularity far from the Fermi surface, (b) in the presence of disorder, all singularities in the density of states are rapidly suppressed after the disorder average, even in the normal state. The chemical potential $\\mu$ must be determined self-consistently along with $\\Delta$ even at half filling, because particle-hole symmetry is destroyed by disorder.\n\nD. J. Scalapino, S. R. White, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 2830 (1992).\n\nFor a discussion of the effect of off-diagonal disorder, see for example, V. C. Hui and C. J. Lambert, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**5**]{} 697 (1993).\n\nR. Haydock, V. Heine, and M. J. Kelly, J. Phys. C [**5**]{}, 2845 (1972).\n\nJ. M. Byers, M. E. Flatte, and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 3363 (1993).\n\nC. H. Choi, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 3491 (1994).\n\nP. W. Anderson, J. Phys. Chem. Solids, [**11**]{}, 26 (1959); L. P. Gorkov, Sov. Phys. JETP [**10**]{}, 998 (1960).\n\nL. P. Gorkov and P. A. Kalugin, Pis\u2019ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**41**]{} 208 (1985) \\[JETP Lett. [**41**]{} 253 (1985)\\].\n\nP. J. Hirschfeld, P. Wolfle, and D. Einzel, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 83 (1988).\n\nA. A. Nersesyan, A. M. Tsvelik, and F. Wenger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2628 (1994).\n\nA. Janossy, J. R. Cooper, L. C. Brunel, and A. Carrington, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 3442 (1994); J. R. Cooper, private communication.\n"}
-{"text": "\\#1[[$\\backslash$\\#1]{}]{}\n\nIn order to understand the mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity in doped cuprates, a central issue has been the evolution of the electronic structure with hole doping near the filling-control metal-insulator transition (MIT). In spite of extensive photoemission studies, it still remains unclear how the electronic structure evolves, especially, between underdoped metal and antiferromagnetic insulator. For a systematic study of the doping dependence near the MIT, La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (LSCO) is a suitable system. It has the simplest crystal structure with single CuO$_2$ layers and the hole concentration in the CuO$_2$ plane is well controlled over a wide range and uniquely determined by the Sr concentration $x$ (and small oxygen non-stoichiometry). So far photoemission studies of high-$T_{c}$ cuprates were concentrated on Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_8$ (BSCCO) and YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-y}$ (YBCO) systems. With the LSCO system, one can investigate the electronic structure of the CuO$_2$ plane continuously from the heavily overdoped limit ($x\\sim0.35$) to the undoped insulator ($x=0$) in a single system.\n\nRecently, in underdoped cuprates a \u201cnormal-state gap\u201d behavior above $T_c$ has been observed by angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) in BSCCO [@ARPES] and a \u201cspin-gap behavior\u201d by NMR in YBCO [@Yasuoka]. The magnitude of the normal-state gap is of the same order as the superconducting gap at optimal doping. Meanwhile, underdoped cuprates have characteristic temperatures which are considerably [*higher*]{} than $T_{c}$ in the uniform magnetic susceptibility [@chi], the electronic specific heat [@Loram], the Hall coefficient [@Hwang] and the electrical resistivity [@chi]. All these characteristic temperatures show similar behaviors in LSCO: they increase from $\\sim$300 K at optimal doping $x\\sim0.15$ to $\\sim$600 K at $x\\sim0.1$ for the LSCO system, suggesting a pseudogap-type electronic structure. In addition, it can be reconciled only if a pseudogap is opened at the chemical potential that both the electronic specific heat coefficient $\\gamma$ [@Loram; @Momono] and the chemical potential shift with doping [@chempot] are suppressed towards the MIT. To obtain a full picture of the evolution of those \u201cgaps,\u201d it is also necessary to know the total density of state (DOS), which is most directly observed by angle-integrated photoemission spectroscopy (AIPES). In the present study, we have performed high-resolution AIPES measurements and made a systematic study of the doping dependence of the electronic structure of the LSCO system, focusing on the evolution of a pseudogap, in a wide hole concentration range from $x=0$ (undoped) to $x=0.3$ (heavily overdoped).\n\nHigh-quality single crystals of LSCO were grown by the traveling-solvent floating-zone method. The samples had $T_c$\u2019s of 18, 34, 32, 21 and 0 K for $x = 0.074, 0.13, 0.175, 0.203$ and 0.30, respectively, with transition widths of about 0.5 K. All the samples were annealed to make the oxygen content stoichiometric. The $x=0$ sample was annealed in a reducing atmosphere (100 Torr O$_2$ at 800$^\\circ$C) and confirmed that the N\u00e9el temperature was higher than 250 K, meaning that the hole concentration was less than 0.004 [@CYchen]. Photoemission measurements were carried out using the He [I]{} line ($h\\nu=21.4$ eV) with an overall energy resolution of $\\sim22$ meV. The base pressure in the spectrometer was in the $10^{-11}$ Torr range. Clean surfaces were obtained by [*in situ*]{} scraping with a diamond file in every 40 minutes. In order to minimize the degradation of sample surfaces, the measurements were performed at $T\\sim18$ K. Only $x=0$ sample was measured at $\\sim70$ K to avoid charging effect, but still a slight charging effect (at most $\\sim10$ meV) could not be eliminated. Energies were carefully calibrated using Au evaporated on each sample so that its uncertainty was about 1 meV. The spectra were corrected for the He [ I]{}$^\\ast$ satellite assuming that He [I]{}$^\\ast$/He [I]{} ratio is constant in all the spectra.\n\nFigure \\[spectra\\] shows photoemission spectra for various compositions. The whole valence-band spectra given in the inset show no trace of a hump at $\\sim-9$ eV, indicating the high sample quality and the cleanliness of the sample surfaces. The spectra have been normalized to the maximum intensity of the valence band since the area of the valence band was hard to determine accurately due to the experimentally ambiguous background. As $x$ decreases, the intensity at the chemical potential $\\mu$ decreases and disappears in the insulating phase ($x=0$). While in the overdoped region ($x > 0.2$) the spectra show an ordinary metallic Fermi edge, in the underdoped region ($x < 0.15$) the spectra show a pseudogap-type lineshape around $\\mu$ in the sense that the spectral intensity gradually diminishes towards $\\mu$ from somewhat below $\\mu$ as marked by vertical bars in Fig.\u00a0\\[spectra\\]. Here the vertical bars indicate the points of maximum curvature. It appears that a rather large pseudogap develops with decreasing $x$, with its width and depth increasing towards $x=0$. Note that the energy scale of the DOS suppression is as large as the order of $\\sim0.1$ eV (\u201chigh-energy pseudogap\u201d) and therefore that it does not correspond to the \u201cnormal-state gap\u201d which has a magnitude similar to the superconducting gap ($\\sim25$ meV for BSCCO) and has been observed in the ARPES spectra of underdoped BSCCO (\u201clow-energy pseudogap\u201d) [@ARPES]. In view of the energy scale, the marked feature in the AIPES spectra may rather correspond to the broad feature at ($\\pi$,0) in the ARPES spectra of underdoped BSCCO . Unfortunately, since the present spectra were taken at a low temperature ($T\\sim18$ K), one cannot judge whether the low-energy normal-state gap is opened or not in the underdoped LSCO.\n\nIn order to determine the spectral DOS at $\\mu$, $\\rho(\\mu)$, and the precise position of the leading edge, the spectra near $\\mu$ ($>-0.1$ eV) have been fitted to a linear DOS multiplied by the Fermi-Dirac distribution function convoluted with a Gaussian of the instrumental resolution, as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[fitting\\]. The obtained $\\rho(\\mu)$ are shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[Allin1\\]\u00a0(a), where error bars include uncertainties in the normalization procedure due to subtle changes in the valence-band lineshape. In Fig.\u00a0\\[Allin1\\]\u00a0(a), $\\rho(\\mu)$ is compared with the specific heat coefficient $\\gamma$ [@Momono] and the Pauli-paramagnetic component $\\chi_s^c$ of the spin susceptibility [@chi]. The three quantities, $\\rho(\\mu)$, $\\gamma$ and $\\chi_s^c$, show quite similar $x$-dependences: for $x>0.2$, with decreasing $x$ they slowly increase or remain nearly constant, take a maximum around $x=0.2$ and then decrease towards $x\\sim0$ for $x<0.2$. A similar behavior was predicted by Hubbard-model calculations [@Duffy] although the absolute value of the calculated $\\rho(\\mu)$ was much higher than the observed one. Using the quasiparticle (QP) density at $\\mu$, $N^\\ast(\\mu)$, obtained from $\\gamma$ \\[$N^\\ast(\\mu) = \n\\gamma/(\\frac{1}{3}\\pi^2 k_B^2)$\\], and the unrenormalized DOS at $\\mu$, $N_b(\\mu)$, calculated by band theory [@LSCObandcalc], one can deduce the mass enhancement factor $m^\\ast/m_b\\equiv \nN^\\ast(\\mu)/N_b(\\mu)$ and the renormalization factor $Z \\equiv \n\\rho(\\mu) / N^\\ast(\\mu)$ as shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[Allin1\\]\u00a0(b). Figures\u00a0\\[Allin1\\]\u00a0(a) and (b) imply that the decrease in $m^\\ast$ is driven by the decrease in $\\rho(\\mu)$ associated with the development of the high-energy pseudogap. The renormalization factor (or equivalently the QP spectral weight) $Z$ also decreases towards $x=0$, but it is not clear whether $Z$ goes to zero or remains finite as $x \\rightarrow 0$ because of experimental uncertainties. It should be noted that the QP mass is enhanced as $x$ decreases for $x>0.2$, i.e., in the region where the pseudogap is absent. The behavior for $x>0.2$ is similar to that of the typical Mott MIT system La$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$TiO$_3$, which shows a QP mass ($\\propto m^* \n\\propto\\gamma$) enhancement with decreasing $x$ until the boundary of the antiferromagnetic (AF) phase is reached [@TiOspecheat].\n\nThe energy of the high-energy pseudogap $\\Delta_{PG}$ was defined by the binding energy of the point of maximum curvature determined by taking the second derivatives (as marked by the vertical bars in Fig.\u00a0\\[spectra\\]). The $\\Delta_{PG}$ values are plotted in Fig.\u00a0\\[Allin1\\]\u00a0(c), which shows that $\\Delta_{PG}$ follows the $x$-dependence of the characteristic temperatures $T_{\\chi}$ [@chi] and $T_H$ [@Hwang]. Here $T_{\\chi}$ and $T_H$ are temperatures at which the magnetic susceptibility $\\chi$ takes a maximum and below which the Hall coefficient $R_H$ increases, respectively. It has also been reported that the temperature $T_{\\rho}$ below which the electrical resistivity $\\rho$ deviates downward from the linear-$T$ behavior follows $T_{\\chi}$ and $T_{H}$ [@chi]. The similar $x$-dependences of $\\Delta_{PG}$, $T_{\\chi}$, $T_H$ and $T_{\\rho}$ imply that these temperatures are closely related to the development of the high-energy pseudogap. We may therefore refer to those characteristic temperatures as the \u201cpseudogap temperature\u201d $T_{PG}$. We then find $\\Delta_{PG}/k_BT_{PG}\\simeq3$, indicating the interaction is in the strong coupling regime.\n\nIn the low-energy region, the position of the leading-edge midpoint obtained from the fitting is shown in Fig.\u00a0\\[Allin1\\]\u00a0(d). In going from the overdoped region to the optimum doping, the edge is shifted downward by $\\sim 4$ meV. If we attribute the shift to the opening of a superconducting gap, we obtain the ratio $2\\Delta/k_BT_c\\sim2$, which is smaller than the typical value ($4-6$) deduced from ARPES of BSCCO and YBCO [@Dessau]. However, if the superconducting gap is anisotropic as in $d$-wave pairing, it is understandable that the angle-integrated spectra fitted to the simple step function give a smaller leading-edge shift than the ARPES data.\n\nIn the underdoped regime, since $\\rho(\\mu)$ is small and the slope of DOS at $\\mu$, $\\partial\\rho(\\omega)/\\partial\\omega|_{\\omega=\\mu}$, is steep, the Fermi edge is obscured at high temperatures and the Fermi-Dirac distribution lose its meaning. The crossover temperature for such a disappearance of the Fermi edge is thus given by $T_F = \n(1/\\pi k_B) \\rho(\\omega)/\\frac{\\partial\\rho(\\omega)} \n{\\partial\\omega}|_{\\omega=\\mu}$ \\[Fig.\u00a0\\[Allin1\\]\u00a0(e)\\] and may be called the \u201ccoherence temperature\u201d of the doped holes. $T_F$ may also be understood as the \u201cFermi temperature\u201d of the doped holes because if one linearly extrapolates the DOS $\\rho(\\omega)$ beyond $\\mu$, then a hole pocket has the Fermi energy of $\\varepsilon_F \n\\equiv \\pi k_BT_F$. For such a hole pocket, transport at high temperatures $T\\gg T_F$ would be dominated by the incoherent charge dynamics of the doped holes [@Jaklik]. Figure\u00a0\\[Allin1\\]\u00a0(e) shows that $T_F$ becomes very low ($<100$K) in the underdoped regime, indicating that the thermodynamic and transport properties behave as those in \u201cincoherent metals.\u201d Note that $T_F$ is considerably lower than $T_{PG}$ and even lower than $J/\\pi k_B$ in the underdoped region. Under such a condition, the kinetic energy gain of the doped holes alone may be insufficient to destroy the AF order, and alternatively the disappearance of the long-range order may be attributed to strong quantum fluctuations characteristic of two-dimensional systems. Figure\u00a0\\[Allin1\\]\u00a0(e) also suggests that for small $x$, $T_F$ scales with $x^2$ rather than $x$. According to the hyperscaling hypothesis of MIT [@Imada], the critical behavior of $T_F$ and chemical potential shift $\\Delta\\mu$ near MIT is given by $T_F\\propto x^{z/d}$ and $\\Delta\\mu \\propto x^{z/d}$, where $z$ is the dynamical exponent of the MIT and $d$ is the spatial dimension ($d=2$). Thus the present result ($T_F\\propto x^2$) implies $z=4$ and is consistent with the observed suppression of the chemical potential shift ($\\Delta\\mu \\propto x^{2}$) in underdoped LSCO [@chempot]. This $z$ value is distinctly different from that of an ordinary metal-to-band insulator transitions, where $z=2$.\n\nFinally, let us discuss the microscopic origin of the pseudogap behavior. Since the energy scale of the present pseudogap is of the order of the super-exchange energy $J\\sim0.1$ eV, it is tempting to associate the pseudogap with the development of AF correlations or short-range AF order in the underdoped region [@Schrieffer; @Pines]. In this scenario, when the temperature is lowered below $T_{PG}$, the AF correlation length increases and consequently the DOS shows a pseudogap reminiscent of the AF band gap [@Preuss]. The observed pseudogap may also be related with the short-range stripe order because it also originates from AF correlations. It has been stressed that LSCO is close to the instability of stripe order even in the metallic phase [@Emery; @Tranquada]. Since $T_F \\ll T_{PG}\\sim \nJ/\\pi k_B$ in the underdoped region, the system cannot be regarded as a normal Fermi liquid which is weakly perturbed by AF correlation but rather as an AF state perturbed by the motion of doped holes. As an alternative scenario, a pseudogap may be produced by preformed Cooper pairs, which lose their coherence above $T_{c}$ but still keep local pairing, [@Trivedi; @Kivelson; @Imada2], or by spinon pairing which already occurs above $T_c$ [@Fukuyama]. However, interactions which lead to such pairing would have only small energies; that is, the energy scale of such a pseudogap should be of the same order as that of the superconducting gap ($\\Delta_{SC}= 10 -20$ meV) at least in the slightly underdoped region. Probably, such a low-energy pseudogap corresponds to the spin gap in NMR of YBCO, the normal-state gap in ARPES of BSCCO and the gap observed by tunneling spectroscopy and is related with the drop in the electric resistivity just above $T_c$ [@Tunnel]. On the other hand, the high-energy pseudogap observed in the present work corresponds to the anomalies in the magnetic susceptibility, the Hall effect and the specific heat. Then the question may arise whether the high-energy pseudogap and the low-energy normal-state gap or spin gap are interrelated or not. Further studies are necessary to resolve this interesting issue, which is directly related to the mechanism of superconductivity in the doped cuprates.\n\nIn conclusion, we have found a large pseudogap on the energy scale of 0.1 eV in the DOS of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ by AIPES. The presented spectra have given us a clear view of the evolution of the pseudogap from the overdoped metal to the undoped insulator. Its evolution with decreasing $x$ is represented by the increase of the pseudogap energy $\\Delta_{PG}$ and the suppression of the spectral DOS $\\rho(\\mu)$ as well as the QP density at $\\mu$ near the AF insulating phase. Consequently, the coherence temperature $T_F$ is much smaller than $\\Delta_{PG}$ in the underdoped region, suggesting that an incoherent metallic state may dominate the thermodynamic and transport properties of the underdoped cuprates. The origin of the present large pseudogap is most likely due to AF correlations or short-range AF order, while its relation to the smaller \u201cnormal-state gap\u201d or \u201cspin gap\u201d remains an open question and should be addressed in future studies.\n\nWe would like to thank M.\u00a0Imada and Z.-X.\u00a0Shen for helpful discussions. This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) and Special Promotion Funds of the Science and Technology Agency, Japan.\n\nPresent address: Joint Research Center for Atom Technology, National Institute for Advanced Interdisciplinary Research, 1-1-4 Higashi, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan. Present address: The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN), SPring-8, Kamigori-cho, Hyogo 678-12, Japan.\n\nD. S. Marshall [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4841 (1996); H. Ding [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**382**]{}, 51 (1996).\n\nH. Yasuoka, T. Imai, and T. Shimizu, [*in Strong Correlation and Superconductivity*]{} edited by H. Fukuyama, S. Maekawa, and A. P. Malozemof (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989) p.\u00a0254; M. Takigawa [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 247 (1991).\n\nT. Nakano [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 16000 (1994).\n\nJ. W. Loram [*et al.*]{}, Physica (Amsterdam) [ **235C**]{}, 134 (1994)\n\nH. Y. Hwang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 2636 (1994); T.\u00a0Nishikawa, J.\u00a0Takeda, and M. Sato, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**63**]{}, 1441 (1994).\n\nN. Momono [*et al.*]{}, Physica (Amsterdam) [**233C**]{}, 395 (1994).\n\nA. Ino [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2101 (1997).\n\nC. Y. Chen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 392 (1991).\n\nZ.-X.\u00a0Shen and J.\u00a0R.\u00a0Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 1771 (1997).\n\nD. Duffy [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 5597 (1997).\n\nL. F. Mattheiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 1028 (1987).\n\nY. Tokura [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2126 (1993).\n\nZ.-X. Shen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **70**]{}, 1553 (1993).\n\nJ. Jakli\u010d and P. Prelov\u0161ek, Phys. Rev. B [ **52**]{}, 6903 (1995).\n\nM. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**64**]{}, 2954 (1995).\n\nJ.\u00a0R.\u00a0Schrieffer and A.\u00a0P.\u00a0Kampf, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**56**]{}, 1673 (1995)\n\nJ.\u00a0Schmalian, D.\u00a0Pines and B.\u00a0Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 3839 (1998).\n\nR.\u00a0Preuss [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 1122 (1997).\n\nM. I. Salkola, V. J. Emery, and S. A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 155 (1996).\n\nJ. M. Tranquada [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**375**]{} 561 (1995).\n\nS. Doniach and M. Inui, Phys. Rev. B [**41**]{}, 6668 (1990); N.\u00a0Trivedi and M. Randeria, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 312 (1995).\n\nV. J. Emery and S. A. Kivelson, Nature (London) [**374**]{}, 434 (1995).\n\nM. Imada, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn [**62**]{}, 1105 (1993).\n\nT. Tanamoto, H. Kohno, and H. Fukuyama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**61**]{}, 1886 (1992).\n\nN.\u00a0Momono [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Chem. Solids, in press.\n"}
-{"text": "---\naddress:\n- 'Copenhagen University, Mathematics Department, Universitetsparken 5, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark. E-mail [grubbmath.ku.dk]{}'\n- 'Institut f\u00fcr Mathematik, Universit\u00e4t Hannover, Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover, Germany.'\nauthor:\n- Gerd Grubb and Elmar Schrohe\ntitle: 'Traces and quasi-traces on the Boutet de Monvel algebra'\n---\n\namstex =1 1200 \u2018=11 @ \u2018==23.5truecm =16.5truecm\n\n\\#1[ ]{} \\#1[{[\\#1]{}}]{}\n\nE-mail [schrohemath.uni-hannover.de]{} Canonical trace \u2014 Nonlocal invariant \u2014 Pseudodifferential boundary value problems \u2014 Boutet de Monvel calculus \u2014 Asymptotic resolvent trace expansions 58J42, 35S15\n\nWe construct an analogue of Kontsevich and Vishik\u2019s canonical trace for pseudodifferential boundary value problems in the Boutet de Monvel calculus on compact manifolds with boundary. For an operator $A$ in the calculus (of class zero), and an auxiliary operator $B$, formed of the Dirichlet realization of a strongly elliptic second-order differential operator and an elliptic operator on the boundary, we consider the coefficient $C_0(A,B)$ of $(-\\lambda)^{-N}$ in the asymptotic expansion of the resolvent trace $\\operatorname{Tr}(A(B-\\lambda)^{-N})$ (with $N$ large) in powers and log-powers of $\\lambda$. This coefficient identifies with the zero-power coefficient in the Laurent series for the zeta function $\\operatorname{Tr}(AB^{-s})$ at $s=0$, when $B$ is invertible. We show that $C_0(A,B)$ is in general a quasi-trace, in the sense that it vanishes on commutators $[A,A']$ modulo local terms, and has a specific value independent of the auxiliary operator, modulo local terms. The local \u201cerrors\u201d vanish when $A$ is a singular Green operator of noninteger order, or of integer order with a certain parity; then $C_0(A,B)$ is a trace of $A$. They do not in general vanish when the interior ps.d.o. part of $A$ is nontrivial.\n\n[*Keywords:*]{} Canonical trace \u2014 Nonlocal invariant \u2014 Pseudodifferential boundary value problems \u2014 Boutet de Monvel calculus \u2014 Asymptotic resolvent trace\n\n[*Math.\u00a0classification:*]{} 58J42 \u2013 35S15\n\n1\\. Introduction\n\nIn their work on the geometry of determinants of elliptic operators, Kontsevich and Vishik [@KV] introduced the [*canonical trace*]{}, a novel functional $\\operatorname{TR} A$ defined for a class of pseudodifferential operators ($\\psi$do\u2019s) $A$ on a closed $n$-dimensional manifold $X$. What makes it remarkable is that it extends the standard operator trace, and hereby complements the noncommutative residue.\n\nThe noncommutative residue $\\operatorname{res}A$ was discovered by Wodzicki [@W] and, independently, by Guillemin [@Gu]; it is a trace (i.e., a nontrivial linear functional which vanishes on commutators) on the full algebra ${\\Cal A}$ of all classical pseudodifferential operators on $X$. The noncommutative residue turns out to be the only trace on $\\Cal A$ with this property, up to multiples. Moreover, the value of $\\operatorname{res}A$ is determined from finitely many terms in the asymptotic expansion of the symbol of $A$ (in fact, from the component of homogeneity $-n$ in this expansion); we call such functionals \u201clocally determined\u201d.\n\nIt vanishes on operators of noninteger order or of order $<-n$, and it is here that Kontsevich and Vishik\u2019s functional takes over: $\\TR A$ is well-defined and nontrivial when $A$ is of noninteger order or of order $<-n$, and it vanishes on commutators $[A,A']$ of these types. It is \u201cglobal\u201d in that the value of $\\TR A$ depends on the full operator and cannot be determined from the terms in the asymptotic expansion of the symbol. The canonical trace equals the standard trace when the order is $<-n$; it is moreover defined on integer-order operators with certain parity properties, see below.\n\nIn this article we shall generalize the canonical trace to pseudodifferential boundary value problems in the calculus of Boutet de Monvel [@B].\n\nThe original approach of [@KV] is based on studies of generalized zeta functions $\\zeta (A,P,s)=\\Tr(AP^{-s})$ and certain regularizations of them, where $P$ is an auxiliary elliptic operator. This does not extend easily to the situation of manifolds with boundary; in the case without boundary, $P^{-s}$ is a classical $\\psi $do again (by Seeley [@S]), whereas complex powers of elliptic boundary problems fall outside the calculus of Boutet de Monvel. However, the introduction of $\\TR A$ can instead be based on trace expansions of heat operators $ Ae^{-tP}$ (Lesch [@L]) or resolvents $A(P-\\lambda )^{-N}$ (Grubb [@G4]), where the latter admit a direct generalization to manifolds with boundary (Grubb and Schrohe [@GSc]).\n\nTherefore, let us explain the functional of [@KV] from the resolvent point of view: Let $A$ be a classical $\\psi $do of order $\\nu$; its symbol has an expansion in local coordinates $a\\sim\n\\sum_{j\\ge 0}a_{\\nu -j}$ with $a_{\\nu -j}(x,\\xi )$ smooth in $(x,\\xi )$ and homogeneous of degree $\\nu -j$ in $\\xi $ for $|\\xi |\\ge 1$. When $P$ is an auxiliary elliptic operator of integer order $m>0$ with no principal symbol eigenvalues on $\\Bbb R_-$, a calculation in local coordinates shows that the operator family $A(P-\\lambda )^{-N}$ has for $N>(n+\\nu )/m$ a trace expansion $$\\Tr (A(P-\\lambda )^{-N})\n\\sim\n\\sum_{j\\ge 0}\\tilde c_{j}(-\\lambda )^{\\frac {n+\\nu -j}m-N}\n+\\sum_{k\\ge 0}\n\\bigl(\\tilde c'_{k}\\log (-\\lambda )+\\tilde\nc''_{k}\\bigr)(-\\lambda )^{-k-N},\\tag 1.1$$ for $\\lambda \\to \\infty$ in a small sector around $\\Bbb R_-$, cf. Grubb and Seeley [@GS1]. Here each $\\tilde c_j$ (and each $\\tilde c_k'$) comes from a specific homogeneous term in the symbol of $A(P-\\lambda)^{-N}$, whereas the $\\tilde c''_k$ depend on the full symbol. So the coefficients $\\tilde c_j$ and $\\tilde c_k'$ depend each on a finite set of homogeneous terms in the symbols of $A$ and $P$; we call such coefficients \u2018locally determined\u2019 (or \u2018local\u2019), while the $\\tilde\nc''_k$ are called \u2018global\u2019. When $\\nu \\notin\n\\Bbb Z$, the $\\tilde c'_k$ vanish. When $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$ and $(j-n-\\nu\n)/m$ is an integer $k\\ge 0$, both $\\tilde c_j$ and $\\tilde c''_k$ contribute to the power $(-\\lambda )^{-k-N}$; their sum is independent of the choice of local coordinates, whereas the splitting in $\\tilde c_j$ and $\\tilde c''_k$ depends in a well-defined way on the symbol structure in local coordinates (see or [@G4; @Th.; @1.3]).\n\nIn (1.1), $m\\cdot \\tilde c_0'= \\operatorname{res}A$, depending solely on $A$, cf.\u00a0[@W], [@Gu]. Moreover, cf.\u00a0[@KV], [@G4], $$\\operatorname{TR} A= \\tilde c''_0\\tag1.2$$ in the following four cases:\n\n\u201c(1)\u201d $\\nu <-n$,\n\n\u201c(2)\u201d $\\nu \\notin\\Bbb Z$,\n\n\u201c(3)\u201d $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$, $A$ is even-even and $n$ is odd,\n\n\u201c(4)\u201d $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$, $A$ is even-odd and $n$ is even; in the cases (3) and (4), $P$ is taken to be even-even with $m$ even. In all the cases (1)\u2013(4), $\\operatorname{res}A=0$, there is no contribution to $(-\\lambda)^{-N}$ from the first sum in (1.1), and $$\\tilde c''_0=\\int\\slint \\tr a(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi dx,\\tag1.3$$ where $\\tslint \\tr a(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi $ is a finite part integral (explained in detail in Section 3 below).\n\nWhen $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z $, we say that $A$ or $a$ has [*even-even*]{} alternating parity (in short: is even-even), when the symbols with even (resp. odd) degree $\\nu -j$ are even (resp. odd) in $\\xi $: $$a_{\\nu -j}(x,-\\xi )=(-1)^{\\nu -j}a_{\\nu -j}(x,\\xi ) \\text{ for }|\\xi\n|\\ge 1,\\tag1.4$$ and the derivatives in $x$ and $\\xi $ likewise have this property. $A$ and $a$ are said to have [*even-odd*]{} alternating parity in the reversed situation, where the symbols with even (resp. odd) degree $\\nu -j$ are odd (resp. even) in $\\xi $: $$a_{\\nu -j}(x,-\\xi )=(-1)^{\\nu -j-1}a_{\\nu -j}(x,\\xi ) \\text{ for\n}|\\xi |\\ge 1,\\tag1.5$$ etc. These properties are preserved under coordinate changes. For brevity, we shall say that $A$ (or $a$) [*has a parity that fits with the dimension $n$*]{}, when (3) or (4) holds.\n\n[@KV] only considered the cases (1)\u2013(3); the operators satisfying (3) were called odd-class operators. (4) was included in [@G4].\n\nThe relations can also be formulated in terms of the generalized zeta function $\\zeta (A,P,s)=\\Tr(AP^{-s})$; here we assume $P$ invertible for simplicity. It is known from [@W], [@Gu] that $\\zeta\n(A,P,s)$ extends meromorphically from large $\\operatorname{Re}s$ across $\\operatorname{Re}s=0$ with a simple pole at $0$, $$\\zeta (A,P,s)=C_{-1}(A,P)s^{-1}+C_0(A,P)+O(s) \\text{ for }s\\to 0;\\tag1.6$$ this follows also by translating (1.1) to a statement on the pole structure of $\\zeta (A,P,s)$ (as e.g.\u00a0in ). Here$$\\aligned\nC_{-1}(A,P)&=\\tilde c'_0=\\tfrac 1m \\operatorname{res}A,\\\\\nC_0(A,P)&=\\tilde c_{\\nu +n}+\\tilde c''_0,\n\\endaligned\\tag1.7$$ with $\\tilde c_{\\nu +n}$ defined as 0 if $\\nu <-n$ or $\\nu\n\\notin\\Bbb Z$. In the cases (1)\u2013(4), $\\tilde c_{\\nu +n}$ and $\\operatorname{res}A$ vanish (for any choice of local coordinates), so that$$\\operatorname{TR}A=\n\\tilde c''_0 =C_0(A,P)\n=\\zeta (A,P,0).\\tag1.8$$\n\nThe coefficient $C_0(A,P)$ has an interest also when none of the conditions (1)\u2013(4) is satisfied. Then it has the properties:$$C_0(A,P)-C_0(A,P') \\text{ and }C_0([A,A'],P)\\text{ are locally\ndetermined}.\\tag1.9$$ Moreover, $C_0(A,P)$ can be written as (1.3) plus local terms. Functionals with properties as in (1.9) for a system of auxiliary elliptic operators $P$ will be called quasi-traces.\n\nBy use of more functional calculus, defining $\\log P$, one can moreover show that the two expressions in (1.9) are noncommutative residues of suitable combinations of the given operators and $\\log P$; cf. [@KV] and Okikiolu [@O] for $C_0(A,P)-C_0(A,P')$, cf.\u00a0Melrose and Nistor [@MN] for $C_0([A,A'],P)$. (In works of Melrose et al., notation such as $\\widehat{\\operatorname{Tr}}(A)$ or $\\Tr_P(A)$ is used for $C_0(A,P)$; it is called a regularized trace there.)\n\nIn order to extend the definition of the canonical trace to operators in the calculus of Boutet de Monvel [@B] on an $n$-dimensional compact $C^\\infty$-manifold $X$ with boundary $\\partial X=X'$, we shall rely on resolvent expansions analogous to (1.1). To this end we choose an auxiliary operator $P_{1,\\operatorname{D}}$, which is the (invertible) Dirichlet realization of a strongly elliptic principally scalar second-order differential operator.\n\nIt was shown in [@GSc] that when $A=P_++G$ is a pseudodifferential boundary operator ($\\psi$dbo) in this calculus of order $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$ with $G$ of class 0, then there is a trace expansion for $N>(n+\\nu )/2$: $$\\Tr(A(P_{1,\\operatorname{D}}-\\lambda )^{-N})\\sim \\sum_{j\\ge\n0}\\!\\tilde c_{j}(-\\lambda)\n^{\\frac{n+\\nu - j}{2}-N}\n+\\sum_{k\\ge\n0}(\\tilde c'_k\\log (-\\lambda )+\\tilde c''_k)(-\\lambda )\n^{-\\frac k2-N}.\n\\tag 1.10$$ The proof depends on a reduction to parameter-dependent $\\psi $do\u2019s on $X'$, where [@GS1] can be used; it is easily generalized to cases where $A=G$ of noninteger order $\\nu $ and class 0. When $\\nu\n\\notin\\Bbb Z$, the $\\tilde c'_k$ vanish.\n\nAs explained e.g.\u00a0in [@GS2] this yields the expansions: $$\\align\n\\Tr(Ae^{-tP_{1,\\operatorname{D}}})\\sim\n\\sum_{j\\ge 0}\nc_{j} t\n^{\\frac{j-n-\\nu  }{2}}\n+\\sum_{k\\ge 0}(-  c'_k\\log t +  c''_k)t\n^{\\frac k2},\\tag1.11\\\\\n \\Gamma (s)\\Tr\n(AP_{1,\\operatorname{D}}^{-s})\\sim \\sum_{j\\ge 0}\\frac{\nc_j }\n{s+\\frac{j-n-\\nu  }{2}}\n+\\sum_{k\\ge 0}\\Bigl(\\frac{  c'_k}{(s+\\frac k2)^2} +\\frac{\nc''_k}\n{s+\\frac k2}\\Bigr) .\\tag1.12\n\\endalign$$ In (1.10), $\\lambda \\to\\infty $ in a sector of $\\Bbb C$; in (1.11), $t\\to 0+$; (1.12) describes the pole structure of the meromorphic extension of $\\Gamma (s)\\Tr\n(AP_{1,\\operatorname{D}}^{-s})$ to $\\Bbb C$. The coefficients $c_j,  c_k', c''_k$ are proportional to the coefficients $\\tilde c_j, \\tilde c_k', \\tilde\nc''_k$ in (1.10) by universal constants; in particular,$$c'_0=\\tilde c'_0,\\quad c''_0=\\tilde c''_0, \\quad c_{\\nu +n}=\\tilde\nc_{\\nu +n},\\tag1.13$$ where $c_{\\nu +n}$ and $\\tilde c_{\\nu +n}$ are taken as 0 when $\\nu\n<-n$ or $\\nu \\notin\\Bbb Z$. The coefficients $c_j$ and $c_k'$ are locally determined, whereas the $c''_k$ are global.\n\nRelation (1.12) implies that the generalized zeta function $\\zeta\n(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}},s)=\\Tr (AP^{-s}_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ extends meromorphically with $$\\gathered\n\\zeta\n(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}},s)=C_{-1}(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})s^{-1}\n+C_0(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})+O(s) \\text{ for }s\\to 0,\\\\\nC_{-1}(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\\tilde c'_0,\\quad\nC_0(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\\tilde c_{\\nu +n}+\\tilde c''_0.\n\\endgathered\\tag1.14$$ In [@FGLS], an analogue of Wodzicki\u2019s noncommutative residue was introduced by Fedosov, Golse, Leichtnam, and Schrohe for operators in Boutet de Monvel\u2019s calculus. In [@GSc] we were able to show that the coefficient $\\tilde\nc_0'=C_{-1}(A,P_{1,\\operatorname D})$ in the above expansions satisfies the relation $$\\tilde c_0'=\\tfrac12 \\res A.\\tag1.15$$\n\nWe shall presently investigate $C_0(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ as a candidate for a canonical trace. We establish quasi-trace properties as in (1.9), with formulas for the \u201cvalue modulo local terms\u201d. Moreover, we extract some cases where $C_0(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is independent of $P_{1,\\operatorname{D}}$ and vanishes on commutators $[A,A']$, so that it is a trace. Here we show in particular that $C_0([A,A'],P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=0$ whenever $A$ and $A'$ are singular Green operators of class zero and orders $\\nu$ and $\\nu'$ with $\\nu+\\nu'<1-n$ or $\\nu+\\nu'\\notin \\Bbb Z$; the same is true when $\\nu+\\nu'$ is an integer and a certain parity holds, provided we narrow down slightly the class of admissible auxiliary operators $P_1$. When $A=P_++G$ and $A'=P'_++G'$ both have nontrivial pseudodifferential part (and hence the orders are integer), however, one cannot hope for more than the quasi-trace property, see Remark 4.2 for a discussion of this point.\n\nIn contrast with the boundaryless case, the powers $P_{1,\\operatorname{D}}^s$ are far from belonging to the $\\psi $dbo calculus when $s\\notin \\Bbb Z$, so we do not expect to find residue formulas as in [@KV], [@O], [@MN].\n\nThe quasi-trace property has an interest in itself, for situations where one has some control over the local terms. Our formulas for $C_0(P_+,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ in Theorem 4.1 and for $C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ in Theorem 3.6 moreover show how the values are related to formulas for the boundaryless manifolds $\\widetilde X$ resp. $X'$.\n\n2\\. Preliminaries\n\nLet $X$ be an $n$-dimensional compact $C^\\infty $ manifold with boundary $\\partial X=X'$, $X$ and $X'$ provided with $C^\\infty $ vector bundles $E$ and $E'$. We can assume that $X$ is smoothly imbedded in an $n$-dimensional manifold $\\widetilde X$ without boundary, provided with a vector bundle $\\widetilde E$ such that $E=\\widetilde E|_X$. We consider the algebra of (one-step) polyhomogeneous operators in the calculus of Boutet de Monvel $$\\pmatrix P_++G & K\\\\ \\quad&\\quad \\\\T&S\n\\endpmatrix\n\\:\n\\matrix\nC^\\infty (E)&&C^\\infty(E)\\\\\n\\oplus&\\longrightarrow&\\oplus\\\\\n C^\\infty (E')&& C^\\infty (E')\n\\endaligned.\n \\tag2.1$$ Here $P$ is a pseudodifferential operator satisfying the transmission condition. The subscript \u2018$+$\u2019 indicates that we are taking the truncation of $P$ to $X$, i.e., the operator given by extending a function in $C^\\infty (E)$ by zero to a function in $L^2(\\widetilde X,\\widetilde E)$, applying $P$, and restricting the result to $X^\\circ$; the transmission property assures that this gives an element of $C^\\infty (E)$. Moreover, $G$ is a singular Green operator (s.g.o.), $K$ a Poisson operator, $T$ a trace operator, and $S$ a pseudodifferential operator on $X'$. We assume that all are of order $\\nu$. Details on the calculus can e.g. be found in [@G2].\n\nAs a first observation we note that for classical (one-step polyhomogeneous) $\\psi $do\u2019s $P$ of order $\\nu $ on $\\widetilde X$, the calculus of Boutet de Monvel requires $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$ in order for the transmission condition to be satisfied at $\\partial X$. The definition of the operators $G$, $K$ and $T$ (and, of course, $S$), however, extends readily to noninteger $\\nu\n$, so one can also ask for an extension of the canonical trace to operators of the form $$\\pmatrix G & K\\\\ T&S\n\\endpmatrix ,\\tag2.2$$ with pseudodifferential part equal to zero and all elements of order $\\nu \\in \\Bbb R$.\n\nWe next fix an auxiliary operator: We let $P_1$ be a second-order strongly elliptic differential operator in $\\widetilde E$ with scalar principal symbol, and denote by $P_{1,D}$ its Dirichlet realization on $X$. By possibly shifting the operator by a constant, we can assume that $P_1$ and $P_{1,\\operatorname{D}}$ have positive lower bound, so that the resolvents $Q_\\lambda =(P_1-\\lambda )^{-1}$ and $R_\\lambda =(P_{1,\\operatorname{D}}-\\lambda )^{-1}$ are defined for $\\lambda $ in a region$$\\Lambda =\\{ \\,\\lambda \\in\\Bbb C\\mid \\arg\\lambda \\in [\\tfrac \\pi\n2-\\varepsilon ,\\tfrac{3\\pi }2+\\varepsilon] \\text{ or }|\\lambda |\\le\nr(\\varepsilon )\\,\\}\\tag2.3$$ with suitable $\\varepsilon>0$ and $r(\\varepsilon)>0$. Moreover, we take a strongly elliptic second-order pseudodifferential operator $S_1$ on $C^\\infty(X',E')$ and set $\nB=\\pmatrix P_{1,D}& 0\\\\ 0&S_1\\endpmatrix.\n$ Then $$\\aligned\n&\\Tr \\Bigg(\\pmatrix P_++G & K\\\\ T&S\n\\endpmatrix(B-\\lambda)^{-N}\\Bigg)\\\\\n&\\qquad\\qquad= \\Tr_X \\left((P_++G)(P_{1,D}-\\lambda)^{-N}\\right)\n+\\Tr_{X'}\\left(S(S_1-\\lambda)^{-N}\\right)\\endaligned\\tag2.4$$ is well-defined for $N>(n+\\nu)/2$. The behavior of $\\Tr_{X'}\\left(S(S_1-\\lambda)^{-N}\\right)$ is well-known from the theory of $\\psi $do\u2019s on manifolds without boundary, so we shall restrict the attention to $$\\Tr_X \\left((P_++G)(P_{1,D}-\\lambda)^{-N}\\right)\\text{ if $\\nu\n\\in\\Bbb Z$},\\text{ and }~~ \\Tr_X\n\\left(G(P_{1,D}-\\lambda)^{-N}\\right)\\text{ if $\\nu\n\\in\\Bbb R\\setminus \\Bbb Z$}.\\tag2.5$$ We henceforth denote $P_++G=A$.\n\nA natural candidate for an extension of the canonical trace is the functional $A\\mapsto C_0(A,P_{1,\\operatorname D})$ which associates with the $\\psi$dbo $A=P_++G$ the coefficient of $(-\\lambda )^{-N}$ in (1.10), equal to the coefficient of $s^0$ in the Laurent expansion of $\\zeta(A,P_{1,\\operatorname D},s)$ at $s=0$ (1.14). We shall show that this is indeed a good choice at least in two cases:\n\n\\(i) $A=G$ is a singular Green operator of noninteger order $\\nu$ and class zero with vanishing pseudodifferential part;\n\n\\(ii) $A=P_++G$ is of integer order $\\nu$ with a pseudodifferential operator $P$ of normal order $0$ and $G$ of class zero (we say that a $\\psi\n$do symbol has normal order $d$ when it is $O(\\xi _n^{d})$ at the boundary).\n\nThere are two conditions involved, namely on the class of the singular Green part and on the normal order of the pseudodifferential part in (ii). They are both natural, and related:\n\nIf $G$ is effectively of class $r>0$, i.e., if it can be written in the form $G=G_0+\\sum_{j=0}^{r-1} K_j\\gamma_j$, where $G_0$ is a singular Green operator of class zero, $\\gamma_ju=(\\partial _n^ju)|_{X'}$, and the $K_j$ are Poisson operators with $K_{r-1}\\ne 0$, then $G$ will not be bounded on $L^2(E)$, much less of trace class, even if its order is arbitrarily low, cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0. As we are looking for a functional coinciding with the standard trace for operators of sufficiently low order, we shall exclude operators of positive class. An expansion analogous to (1.10) still exists, with the sum over $k\\ge 0$ replaced by a sum over $k\\ge k_0$ with a possibly negative starting index $k_0$. In this case, however, the coefficient $c'_0$ will not in general coincide with the noncommutative residue, cf. [@GSc; @Remark; @1.2].\n\nFor operators $P$ having the transmission property, we find that $C_0(P_+, P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ does indeed have a value modulo local terms that is independent of $P_1$ modulo local terms. The commutator $[P_+,P_+']$ of two pseudodifferential operators $P$ and $P'$ truncated to $X$, however, will be of the form $P_+''+G''$, where, in general, the singular Green operator $G''$ will be of class $r>0$ unless both $P$ and $P'$ are of normal order $\\le 0$, cf. [@G2; @Section; @2.6]. Hence we can only hope to show the commutator property for this class.\n\nRecall (cf. e.g. [@G2; @Lemma; @1.3.1]) that any $\\psi $do $P$ having the transmission property at $X'$ can be written as a sum $$P=P^{(1)}+P^{(2)}+P^{(3)},\\tag 2.6$$ where $P^{(1)}$ is a differential operator, $P^{(2)}$ is a $\\psi $do whose symbol has normal order $-1$, and the symbol of $P^{(3)}$ has, near $X'$, a large power of $x_n$ as a factor to the left or right.\n\nFor a [*differential*]{} operator $P^{(1)}$, the expansion in (1.10) (with $A=P^{(1)}$) is valid without the second series over $k$; all terms are locally determined. Therefore $C_{-1}(P^{(1)},P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ vanishes, and $C_0(P^{(1)},P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is local in this case, and so is $C_0(P^{(1)},P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})-C_0(P^{(1)},P_{2,\\operatorname{D}})$ for another choice of auxiliary operator $P_2$. Thus $C_0(P^{(1)},P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ satisfies the first part of the requirement for being a quasi-trace (with value zero modulo local terms). As mentioned above, differential operators of positive normal order will be left out from the commutator considerations. So will operators of type $P^{(3)}$, since the structure is not preserved under differentiation of symbols.\n\nAt this point we can state a part of the results we will show in this paper:\n\nLet $A=P_++G$ and $A'=P'_++G'$ be of orders $\\nu $ resp. $\\nu\n'$, with $P$ resp. $P'$ vanishing if $\\nu $ resp. $\\nu ' \\notin \\Bbb\nZ$, and with $G$ and $G'$ of class $0$. Let $P_1$ and $P_2$ be two auxiliary operators as explained above. Then\n\n[(i)]{} $$C_{0}(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})-C_{0}(A,P_{2,\\operatorname{D}})\\text{\nis locally determined};\\tag2.7$$ it vanishes if $\\nu <-n$ or $\\nu \\notin \\Bbb Z$, and otherwise depends solely on the terms of the first $\\nu +n+1$ homogeneity degrees in the symbols of $P_++G $, $P_1$ and $P_2$.\n\n[(ii)]{} If $\\nu $ and $\\nu '\\in\\Bbb Z$, assume that $P$ and $P'$ have normal order $0$; if $\\nu $ or $\\nu '\\in \\Bbb R\\setminus \\Bbb Z\n$, assume that $P$ and $P'$ are zero. Then $$C_{0}([A,A'],P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})\\text{\nis locally determined};\\tag2.8$$ it vanishes if $\\nu +\\nu '<-n$ or $\\nu +\\nu '\\notin \\Bbb Z$, and otherwise depends solely on the terms of the first $\\nu +\\nu '+n+1$ homogeneity degrees in the symbols of $P_++G $, $P'_++G'$ and $P_1$.\n\n(Actually, the number of homogeneous terms entering from $G$ is one step lower; see the statements in Section 3.)\n\nThe operators of the form $A=P_++G$ of integer order with $G$ of class zero and $P$ of normal order $\\le 0$ form an algebra; Theorem 2.1 shows that $C_0(A,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is a quasi-trace on this algebra as well as on the singular Green operators of class zero.\n\nSimilarly as in [@GSc], our analysis is based on precise information about the resolvent. We therefore recall the structure of $R_\\lambda  =(P_{1,\\operatorname{D}}-\\lambda)^{-1}$: The Dirichlet problem $$(P_1-\\lambda )u=f\\text{ on }X,\\quad \\gamma _0u=\\varphi \\text{ on\n}X',\\tag2.9$$ is solved by a a row matrix $$\\pmatrix P_1-\\lambda \\\\ \\gamma _0\n\\endpmatrix^{-1}=\n\\pmatrix R_\\lambda   & K_\\lambda\n\\endpmatrix = \\pmatrix Q_{\\lambda ,+}+G_\\lambda  & K_\\lambda\n\\endpmatrix ,\\text{ with }G_\\lambda  =- K_\\lambda  \\gamma\n_0Q_{\\lambda ,+}.\\tag2.10$$ This is seen as follows: We denote by $K_\\lambda $ the Poisson operator solving the semi-homogeneous problem with $f=0$, i.e., $K_\\lambda \\varphi$ is the solution $u$ of the equations $$(P_1-\\lambda )u=0\\text{ on }X,\\quad \\gamma _0u=\\varphi \\text{ on }X'.$$ The resolvent $R_\\lambda $ of $P_{1,\\operatorname{D}}$ should solve the other semi-homogeneous problem, with $\\varphi =0$. With $Q_{\\lambda ,+}$ denoting the truncation to $X$ of the resolvent $Q_\\lambda $ of $P_1$ on $\\widetilde X$, one can easily check that $R_\\lambda =Q_{\\lambda ,+}- K_\\lambda  \\gamma_0Q_{\\lambda ,+}$ solves the problem; it has the singular Green operator part $G_\\lambda  =- K_\\lambda  \\gamma_0Q_{\\lambda ,+}$.\n\nWe shall also study powers of the resolvent and write them in the form $$R^N_\\lambda =(Q_{\\lambda ,+}+G_\\lambda)^{N}=(Q^N_\\lambda\n)_++G^{(N)}_\\lambda\n.\\tag 2.11$$ Note that $$R_\\lambda ^{N}=\\tfrac 1{(N-1)!}\\partial _\\lambda\n^{N-1}R_\\lambda ,\\quad Q_{\\lambda ,+}^{N}=\\tfrac 1{(N-1)!}\\partial\n_\\lambda\n^{N-1}Q^N_{\\lambda ,+},\\quad G^{(N)}_\\lambda =\\tfrac\n1{(N-1)!}\\partial _\\lambda ^{N-1}G_\\lambda ;\n\\tag 2.12$$ this allows us to replace calculations for powers of $R_\\lambda $ by calculations for $\\lambda $-derivatives.\n\nWe shall now start with the proof of Theorem 2.1. The case where $A=G$ is a singular Green operator of class zero and the pseudodifferential part vanishes can be attacked more directly and will be studied first.\n\n3\\. Traces on the algebra of singular Green operators\n\nLet $G$ be a singular Green operator in $E$ of order $\\nu \\in\\Bbb R$ and class 0, and consider $GR^N_\\lambda = GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}+GG^{(N)}_\\lambda$. In [@GSc] we introduced the auxiliary variable $\\mu =(-\\lambda )^{\\frac12}$ and phrased the results in terms of $\\mu$ instead of $\\lambda $. In the present paper we shall keep $\\lambda $ as an index, but will often use $\\mu $ in symbol computations. Some formulas from [@GSc] and some immediate consequences are collected in Appendices A and B, to which we refer in the following.\n\nAs mentioned already, the proof in [@GSc] of the expansion (1.10) for $A=G$ is straightforwardly modified to allow $\\nu \\notin\\Bbb Z$. For an analysis of the coefficients, we apply a partition of unity $1=\\sum_{i=1}^{i_0}\\theta _i$ subordinate to a cover of $X$ by coordinate patches $U _j$, $j=1,\\dots,j_0$, with trivializations $\\psi _j\\:E|_{U_j}\\to V_j\\times\n\\Bbb C^{\\operatorname{dim}E}$, $V_j\\subset\\subset \\crnp$, $U_j\\cap\n\\partial X$ mapped into $\\partial \\crnp$, such that any two of the functions $\\theta _{i_1}$ and $\\theta _{i_2}$ are supported in one of the coordinate patches $U _{j(i_1,i_2)}$. Replacing $G$ by $\\sum_{i_1,i_2\\le i_0}\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta _{i_2}$, we find from $GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}$ and $GG^{(N)}_\\lambda\n$ a system of terms $$G=\\sum_{i_1,i_2\\le i_0}(\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta _{i_2}Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}+\n\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta\n_{i_2}G^{(N)}_\\lambda ),\\tag3.1$$ where $\\theta _{i_1}$ and $\\theta _{i_2}$ are supported either in an interior coordinate patch (with closure in the interior) or a patch meeting the boundary, and we can study each term in the local coordinates. Since $\\theta _{i_2}G^{(N)}_\\lambda $ is strongly polyhomogeneous of order $-\\infty $ when $\\theta _{i_2}$ is supported in the interior, its kernel is smooth and is $O(\\lambda ^{-M})$ for any $M$. Hence the terms $\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta_{i_2}G^{(N)}_\\lambda $ that are supported in the interior have traces that are $O(\\lambda ^{-M})$ for any $M$ and can be disregarded in the following. For the terms $\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta _{i_2}Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}$ supported in the interior, $\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta _{i_2}$ is of order $-\\infty $; they will be covered by Lemma 3.1 below, which gives: $$\\Tr(\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta\n_{i_2}Q^N_{\\lambda ,+})=\n\\Tr(\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta\n_{i_2})(-\\lambda )^{-N}+O(\\lambda ^{-N-1/2}).\\tag3.2$$ For the terms supported in patches meeting the boundary we can use the results of [@GSc] in an accurate way.\n\nLet us first recall some elements of the basic symbol calculus we use, namely the calculus of parameter-dependent $\\psi $do\u2019s introduced in [@GS1]. It will be used both in the $(n-1)$-dimensional setting, relevant for operators on $X'$, and in the $n$-dimensional setting, relevant for operators on $\\widetilde X$.\n\nFor $m\\in\\Bbb R$, the usual pseudodifferential symbol space $S^m(\\Bbb\nR^{n'}\\stimes\\Bbb R^{n'})$ consists of the functions $s(x,\\xi )\\in\nC^\\infty (\\Bbb R^{n'}\\stimes\\Bbb R^{n'})$ satisfying estimates$$|D_{x}^\\beta D_{\\xi }^\\alpha s(x,\\xi )|\\le C_{\\alpha ,\\beta\n}\\ang{\\xi }^{m-|\\alpha |},$$ for all $\\alpha ,\\beta \\in \\Bbb N^{n'}$. (We denote $(1+|\\xi\n|^2)^{\\frac12}=\\ang\\xi $, $\\{0,1,2,\\dots\\}=\\Bbb N$.) The parameter-dependent version we shall use here is $S^{m,d,s}(\\Bbb\nR^{n'}\\stimes\\Bbb R^{n'},\\Gamma  )$, for $m\\in\\Bbb\nR$, $d$ and $s\\in\\Bbb Z$, and with $\\Gamma $ denoting a sector in $\\Bbb C\\setminus \\{0\\}$; it was introduced in [@G3], where a detailed account can be found. Here $S^{m,d,s}(\\Bbb\nR^{n'}\\stimes\\Bbb R^{n'},\\rp )$ is defined as the space of $C^\\infty\n$ functions $f(x,\\xi ,\\mu )$ on $\\Bbb R^{n'}\\stimes\\Bbb\nR^{n'}\\stimes\\rp $ such that, with $z=1/\\mu $,$$\\multline\n\\partial _z^j[z^{d}|(\\xi ,1/z)|^{-s}f(x,\\xi ,1/z)]\\in\nS^{m+j}(\\Bbb R^{n'}\\stimes \\Bbb R^{n'}),\\\\\n\\text{with symbol estimates uniform in $z$ for }z\\le 1.\n\\endmultline$$ For more general $\\Gamma $, the estimates have to hold on each ray in $\\Gamma $, uniformly in closed subsectors of $\\Gamma $. When the symbols moreover are holomorphic in $\\mu \\in\\Gamma ^\\circ$ (just for $|(\\mu ,\\xi\n')|\\ge \\varepsilon $ with some $\\varepsilon $ depending on the closed subsector), we speak of holomorphic symbols. The indication $\\Bbb\nR^{n'}\\stimes \\Bbb R^{n'}$ (and $\\Gamma $) will often be omitted. We say that $f(x,\\xi\n,\\mu )$ is (weakly) polyhomogeneous in $S^{m,d,s}(\\Gamma  )$, when there is a sequence of symbols $f_{j}$ in $S^{m-j,d,s}(\\Gamma )$, homogeneous in $(\\xi ,\\mu )$ of degree $m-j+d+s$ for $|\\xi |\\ge 1$, such that $f-\\sum_{j<J}f_j$ is in $S^{m-J,d,s}(\\Gamma )$ for all $J\\in\\Bbb N$ (strongly polyhomogeneous if the homogeneity holds for $|(\\xi ,\\mu )|\\ge 1$, with appropriate remainder estimates).\n\nThese spaces $S^{m,d,s}$ are a generalization of the spaces $S^{m,d}$ introduced in [@GS1] (in fact, $S^{m,d}(\\Gamma )$ equals the space of holomorphic symbols in $S^{m,d,0}(\\Gamma )$); they satisfy $$\\aligned\nS^{m,d,s}&\\subset S^{m+s,d,0}\\cap\nS^{m,d+s,0}\\text{ if }s\\le 0,\\\\\nS^{m,d,s}&\\subset S^{m+s,d,0}+\nS^{m,d+s,0}\\text{ if }s\\ge 0,\n\\endaligned\\tag3.3$$ by [@GS1; @Lemma; @1.13]. The notation with the third upper index spares us from keeping track of such intersections and sums in general calculations. (It was used systematically in [@G3], [@G5], [@G6].)\n\nWhen $f\\in S^{m,d,0}$, there is an expansion in decreasing powers of $\\mu $ starting with $\\mu ^d$: $$f(x,\\xi ,\\mu )=\\sum_{0\\le k<N}\\mu ^{d-k}f_{(k)}(x,\\xi)+O(\\mu\n^{d-N}\\ang\\xi ^{m+N}),\\quad \\text{any $N$};\\tag3.4$$ in fact the $N$\u2019th remainder is in $S^{m+N,d-N,0}$. Such expansions play an important role in the proof of the following fact: When $F=\\operatorname{OP}(f(x,\\xi ,\\mu ))$ has a polyhomogeneous symbol in $S^{m,d,0}$ such that all terms are integrable with respect to $\\xi $, then by , the kernel of $F$ has an asymptotic expansion on the diagonal: $$K(F,x,x,\\mu )\\sim \\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}c_j(x)\\mu ^{m+d+n'-j}+\\sum_{k\\in\\Bbb\nN}(c'_k(x)\\log\\mu +c''_k(x))\\mu ^{d-k};\\tag 3.5$$ here the coefficients $c_j(x)$ and $c'_k(x)$ with $k=-m+j-n'$ are local, determined from the strictly homogeneous version of the $j$\u2019th homogeneous term in the symbol of $F$, whereas the $c''_k(x)$ depend on the full operator (are global). If $m\\notin\\Bbb Z$, all $c'_k$ are zero. When $F$ is a $\\psi $do family on $\\widetilde X$ (or on $X'$), the trace expansion for $F$ is found by establishing expansions (3.5) for components of $F$ in local coordinate systems, carrying them back to $\\widetilde X$ and integrating the fibrewise traces over $\\widetilde X$; this leads to a similar expansion of $\\Tr F$: $$\\Tr(F )\\sim \\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}c_j\\mu ^{m+d+n'-j}+\\sum_{k\\in\\Bbb\nN}(c'_k\\log\\mu +c''_k)\\mu ^{d-k}.\\tag 3.6$$ Of course, such a calculation depends on the choice of partitions of unity and local coordinates, but it is useful for qualitative information. The final result (3.6) is independent of the choices, in the sense that the collected coefficient of each power or log-power is so (for $k=j-m-n'\\in\\Bbb N$, $c_j+c''_k$ is independent of the choices).\n\nThis is the basis for the trace expansions we shall show. For purely $\\psi $do terms on $X$, the expansions will be established relative to $\\widetilde X$, but the integration of the kernels will be restricted to $X$. For all the other types of operators, the main idea is to reduce the considerations to $\\psi $do\u2019s over the boundary $X'$. In all cases the point is to show that the resulting symbols belong to suitable $S^{m,d,0}$-spaces such that (3.5) can be established.\n\nSince we are particularly interested in the nonlocal coefficient $c_0''$, we have to be very careful with remainders and smoothing terms. Recall from that when an operator $F$ with symbol in $S^{m,d,0}$ is of order $-\\infty $ (i.e., lies in $S^{-\\infty ,d,0}$), then it has a $C^\\infty $ kernel $K(F,x,y,\\mu )$ with an expansion in $C^\\infty $ terms$$K(F,x,y,\\mu )=\\sum_{0\\le l<L}K_l(x,y)\\mu ^{d-l}+K'_L(x,y,\\mu ),\\tag3.7$$ for all $L$, with $K'_L$ and its $(x,y)$-derivatives being $O(\\ang \\mu\n^{d-L})$. Moreover, since $\\partial _z^j(z^d F)=(-\\mu ^2\\partial _\\mu )^j(\\mu\n^{-d}F)$ has symbol in $S^{-\\infty ,0,0}$ for all $j$, there are expansions $$K((-\\mu ^2\\partial _\\mu )^j(\\mu\n^{-d}F),x,y,\\mu )=\\sum_{0\\le l<L}K^{(j)}_l(x,y)\\mu ^{-l}+K^{(j)\\prime}_L(x,y,\\mu ),\\tag3.8$$ for all $L$, with $K^{(j)\\prime}_L$ and its $(x,y)$-derivatives being $O(\\ang \\mu\n^{-L})$. Conversely, these kernel properties characterize the operators $F$ with symbol in $S^{-\\infty ,d,0}$ (as is seen straightforwardly from the definition).\n\nIt follows from (3.3) that $S^{-\\infty ,d,s}=S^{-\\infty ,d+s,0}$. In the proof that a polyhomogeneous symbol lies in a symbol space $S^{m,d,s}$ one shows the symbol properties for the homogeneous terms and treats the remainders by establishing the kernel expansionss (3.8) (with $d$ replaced by $d+s$) with smoother coefficients and a higher number of terms, the higher the index of the remainder is taken.\n\nThe sector $\\Gamma $ used in the present work is$$\\Gamma =\\{\\,\\mu \\in\\Bbb C\\setminus \\{0\\}\\mid |\\arg \\mu |\\le\\tfrac \\pi\n4+\\tfrac\n\\varepsilon 2\n\\,\\},\\tag3.9$$ for some $\\varepsilon>0$, since $\\lambda =-\\mu ^2$ runs in $\\Lambda $ defined in (2.3). [*All symbols to be considered in this paper will be holomorphic on $\\Gamma ^\\circ$*]{}; this fact will not be mentioned explicitly each time.\n\nOne of the technical points in [@GSc] was that in compositions of two operators, the right-hand factor is taken in $y$-form and the resulting symbol is considered in $(x,y)$-form so that one does not need to consider the asymptotic expansion in the usual symbol composition formula (cf.\u00a0e.g.\u00a0 (3.31) below). However, the passage from one of these forms to another can induce low-order errors. These have to be dealt with carefully in the present situation, where nonlocal contributions are in focus. Also for this reason, the following analysis of the effect of smoothing operators is important.\n\nSmoothing parts of $Q_\\lambda $ and $G_\\lambda $ are easy to deal with, since they have smooth kernels that are $O(\\lambda ^{-M})$ for any $M$. For compositions containing smoothing parts of $G$, we recall that an s.g.o. of order $-\\infty $ is simply an operator with $C^\\infty $ kernel on $X$. So is $P_+$ when $P$ is of order $-\\infty $. Such operators enter as follows (for $G^{\\pm}$, cf. (A.14)):\n\nLet $G$ be an operator with $C^\\infty $ kernel, compactly supported in $\\crnp\\stimes\\crnp$. Then the traces of $GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}$, $GG^{(N)}_\\lambda $ and $GG^\\pm(Q^N_\\lambda )$ have expansions $\\sum_{j\\ge 0}c''_j\\mu ^{-2N-j}$, where $$\\alignedat2\n\\text{\\rm (i)}&&\\quad\nc''_0&= \\Tr G \\text{ in the expansion of }\\Tr(GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}),\\\\\n\\text{\\rm (ii)}&&\\quad c''_0&= 0 \\text{ in the expansions of\n$GG^{(N)}_\\lambda $ and\n$GG^\\pm(Q^N_\\lambda )$.}\n\\endaligned \\tag3.10$$\n\nFirst consider the cases in (ii); here we use that the symbol of the $\\lambda\n$-dependent factor has the structure described in Lemma A.4 with $\\mu^2=-\\lambda$. Consider a term $G_{J,j,j'}=\\operatorname{OPG}(g_{J,j,j'}(x',\\xi ',\\xi\n_n,\\eta _n,\\mu ))$ with $g_{J,j,j'}=s_{J,j,j'}(\\kappa +i\\xi\n_n)^{-j}(\\kappa '-i\\eta _n)^{-j'}$ ($\\kappa $ and $\\kappa '$ taking values $\\kappa ^+$ or $\\kappa ^-$), $s_{J,j,j'}\\in\nS^{0,0,j+j'-1-2N-J}$; its kernel is $$\\aligned\nK(G_{J,j,j'},x,y,\\mu )\n&=\n\\int e^{i (x'-y')\\cdot \\xi '+ix_n\\xi\n_n-iy_n\\eta _n}g_{J,j,j'}(x',\\xi ',\\xi _n,\\eta _n,\\mu )\\,\\d\\xi \\d\\eta\n_n\\\\\n&= c_jc_{j'}\n\\int e^{i (x'-y')\\cdot \\xi '}s_{J,j,j'}(x',\\xi ',\\mu\n)x_n^{j-1}y_n^{j'-1}e^{-\\kappa x_n-\\kappa 'y_n}\\,\\d\\xi ',\n\\endaligned$$ since $\\Cal F^{-1}_{\\xi _n\\to x_n}(\\kappa +i\\xi\n_n)^{-j}=c_jx_n^{j-1}e^{-\\kappa x_n}$. Now $$\\aligned\nK(GG_{J,j,j'},x,y,\\mu )&=\\int_{\\rnp}K(G,x,z)K(G_{J,j,j'}, z,y,\\mu )\\,dz\n,\\\\\n\\Tr (GG_{J,j,j'})&=\\int_{\\rnp}\\tr\\int_{\\rnp}K(G,x,z)K(G_{J,j,j'}, z,x,\\mu\n)\\,dzdx .\\endaligned$$ To evaluate the latter, we insert a Taylor expansion of $K(G,x,z)$ w.r.t.$(x_n,z_n)$:$$K(G,x,z)=\\sum_{m,m'<M}b_{m,m'}(x',z')x_n^mz_n^{m'} +x_n^Mz_n^Mb'_M(x,z),$$ and use that $$\\aligned\n\\int_0^\\infty x_n^{m+j-1}e^{-\\kappa x_n}\\,dx_n&=c'_{m+j}\\kappa\n^{-m-j},\\\\\n|\\int_0^\\infty f(x_n)x_n^{M+j-1}e^{-\\kappa x_n}\\,dx_n|&\\le\n\\sup |f(x_n)e^{-\\kappa x_n/2}\\int_0^\\infty x_n^{M+j-1}e^{-\\kappa\nx_n/2}\\,dx_n|\\\\\n&\\le\nC\\kappa\n^{-M-j}.\n\\endaligned$$ This gives when integrations in $(x_n,z_n)$ are performed: $$\\multline\n\\Tr (GG_{J,j,j'})=\\sum_{m,m'<M}c_{jj'mm'}\\\\\n\\int\\tr\nb_{m,m'}(x',z')\\kappa ^{-m-j'}(\\kappa ')^{-m'-j}e^{i(z'-x')\\cdot \\xi\n'}s_{J,j,j'}(\nz',\\xi ',\\mu )\\,\\d \\xi 'dz'dx'\\\\\n\\quad+\\int O(\\ang{(\\xi ',\\mu )} ^{-2M-1-2N-J})\\,\\d\\xi '.\n\\endmultline$$ Each term in the sum over $m,m'$ is the trace of a $\\psi $do $S_{J,j,j',m,m'}$ on $\\Bbb\nR^{n-1}$ composed of the operator with kernel $c_{jj'mm'}b_{m,m'}(x',y')$ (smooth compactly supported) and the operator with symbol $$\\kappa (x',\\xi ',\\mu )^{-m-j'}\\kappa\n'(x',\\xi ',\\mu )^{-m'-j}s_{J,j,j'}(\nx',\\xi ',\\mu )\\in S^{0,0,-m-m'-1-2N-J};$$ so $S_{J,j,j',m,m'}$ has symbol in $S^{-\\infty\n,0,-m-m'-1-2N-J}=S^{-\\infty ,-m-m'-1-2N-J,0}$ and consequently a trace expansion as in (3.7) with $d\\le-2N-1$ in all cases. The remainder is $O(\\mu ^{-2M-1-2N-J+n-1})$. Since $M$ can be taken arbitrarily large, this shows (ii).\n\nFor (i), let $\\widetilde G$ be an operator on $\\Bbb R^n$ with compactly supported $C^\\infty $ kernel such that $G=r^+\\widetilde G\ne^+$ (its kernel can be constructed by extending the kernel of $G$ smoothly across $x_n=0$ and $y_n=0$). Then $$GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}=\\widetilde G_+Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}=(\\widetilde\nGQ^N_{\\lambda })_+-G^+(\\widetilde G)G^-(Q^N_{\\lambda }).$$ Here $G^+(\\widetilde G)G^-(Q^N_{\\lambda })$ is of the type we considered above, having a trace expansion with $d\\le -2N-1$. For $(\\widetilde\nGQ^N_{\\lambda })_+$ we use the result known from [@GS1] (cf.\u00a0also ) that the kernel of $\\widetilde GQ^N_{\\lambda }$ has an expansion on the diagonal $$K(\\widetilde GQ^N_{\\lambda },x,x,\\mu )\\sim \\sum_{j\\ge 0}c''_j(x)\\mu\n^{-2N-j},\\text{ with }c''_0(x)=K(\\widetilde G,x,x ).\\tag 3.11$$ The expansion of $\\Tr(\\widetilde GQ^N_\\lambda )_+$ is found by integrating the matrix trace of (3.11) over $\\rnp$, where $K(\\widetilde G,x,x )=K( G,x,x )$, so (i) follows, with $c''_0=\\int_{\\rnp}\\tr K( G,x,x )\\, dx=\\Tr G$.\n\nAs already mentioned, this lemma takes care of the interior parts of $GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}$, cf. (3.1), (3.2).\n\nFor the parts $\\theta\n_{i_1}G\\theta\n_{i_2}G^{(N)}_\\lambda $ at the boundary, we can use Proposition B.3 directly; it shows that they contribute only locally to the coefficient of $\\lambda^{-N}$.\n\nIt remains to consider terms $\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta\n_{i_2}Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}$ in patches intersecting the boundary. Here we can draw on the fine analysis of such terms made in [@GSc] to find the contribution to $c'_0$ in (1.12); it can be used also to isolate the contribution to $c''_0$ modulo local terms. This will give not only a proof of (2.7) but also a \u201cvalue\u201d (modulo local terms) of the constant.\n\nTo simplify the presentation, we can unify the treatment of the coordinate patches by spreading out the images $V_{j(i_1,i_2)}$ of the sets $U_{j(i_1,i_2)}$ by linear translations in the $x'$-variable, to obtain sets $V'_{i_1,i_2}$ with positive distance (in the $x'$-direction) from one another. Then the sum of the localized operators $\\theta _{i_1}G\\theta _{i_2}$ acts in $\\crnp\\times \\Bbb C^{\\operatorname{dim}E}$; we shall denote it by $G$ again or, if a distinction from the original $G$ is needed, by $\\underline\nG$. $R_{\\lambda }$ is likewise considered in these coordinates and may be denoted $\\underline R_\\lambda $ if needed for precision.\n\nRecall that when $G$ is defined on $\\crnp$ from a symbol $g(x',\\xi ',\\xi\n_n,\\eta _n)$ with Laguerre expansion (B.15), then the operator $\\tr_nG$ is defined as the $\\psi $do on $\\Bbb\nR^{n-1}$ with symbol $$\\tr_ng(x',\\xi ')=\\int g(x',\\xi ',\\xi _n,\\xi\n_n)\\,\\d\\xi _n=\\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}d_{jj}(x',\\xi ').$$ Recall also (cf. e.g. [@G1]) that a singular Green operator on $\\overline {\\Bbb\nR}^n_+$ with compact $x'$-support is trace-class, when its order is $<-n+1$. Then $\\tr_nG$ is trace-class on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$ and $\\Tr _{\\Bbb R^n} G=\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}(\\tr_n G)$.\n\nWe shall now apply the result of Proposition B.5; that $\\tr_n(GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+})=\\widetilde S_0+\\widetilde S_1$, with $\\widetilde\nS_0=\\op'(\\tr_ng(x',\\xi\n')\\alpha ^{(N)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu ))$ (cf. (A.12)) and $\\widetilde S_1$ having symbol in $S^{\\nu +1,-2N-1,0}\\cap S^{\\nu -2N,0,0}$. This result was used in [@GSc] to pinpoint the first logarithmic coefficient $\\tilde c_0'$ in (1.10), using that only $\\widetilde S_0$ contributes to it. But the fact that $\\widetilde\nS_1$ has $d$-index $-1-2N$ also implies that it contributes only locally to $\\tilde c_0''$, so nonlocal contributions to $\\tilde c''_0$ come entirely from $\\widetilde S_0$.\n\nIn the localized situation, denote $\\tr_nG=\\ttilde G$ and denote its symbol $\\tr_ng=\\ttilde g$, expanded in homogeneous terms $\\ttilde g\\sim\\sum_{j\\ge 0}\\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}$.\n\nWe shall use the notion of a regularized integral (or finite part integral) $\\tslint f(\\xi\n)\\,\\d\\xi $ as in Lesch [@L], [@G4], for polyhomogeneous functions $f(\\xi )$ of $\\xi \\in\\Bbb R^{n'}$ (it will be used with $n'=n-1$ or $n$): $\\tslint f( \\xi )\\,\\d\\xi $ is the constant term in the expansion of $\\int_{|\\xi|\\le\\mu }f(\\xi) \\d\\xi$ into powers of $\\mu$ and $\\log \\mu$. In more detail:\n\nWhen $f( \\xi )$ is integrable in $\\xi $, $\\tslint f( \\xi )\\,\\d\\xi $ is the usual integral $\\int_{\\Bbb\nR^{n'}}f( \\xi )\\,\\d\\xi $. When $f_{\\nu-j}( \\xi )$ is homogeneous of order $\\nu -j$ in $\\xi $ for $|\\xi |\\ge 1$, then $$\\int_{|\\xi |\\le \\mu }f_{\\nu -j}\\,\\d\\xi =\\int_{|\\xi |\\le 1 }\nf_{\\nu -j}\\,\\d\\xi +\\int_{1\\le |\\xi |\\le \\mu  }f_{\\nu -j}\\,\\d\\xi ,\\tag3.12$$ where a calculation in polar coordinates gives $$\\aligned\n\\int_{1\\le |\\xi |\\le \\mu }&f_{\\nu -j}( \\xi)\\,\\d\\xi\n=\\int_1^\\mu r^{\\nu -j +n'-1}\\,dr\n\\int_{|\\xi |=1}f_{\\nu -j} ( \\xi )\\,\\d S(\\xi )\\\\\n&=\\cases \nc_{j}(\\frac{\\mu ^{\\nu -j +n'}}{\\nu -j+n'}-\\frac1{\\nu\n-j+n'})&\\text{ if }\\nu -j+n'\\ne 0,\\\\\nc_{j}\\log \\mu &\\text{ if }\\nu -j+n'= 0;\\endcases\\\\\nc_{j}&= \\int_{|\\xi |=1}f_{\\nu -j}( \\xi\n)\\,\\d S(\\xi ).\\endaligned\\tag3.13$$ Here, $$\\slint f_{\\nu -j}( \\xi )\\,\\d\\xi =\\int_{|\\xi |\\le 1}f_{\\nu -j}\\,\\d\\xi\n+\\cases -\\frac1{\\nu\n-j+n'}c_j&\\text{ if }\\nu -j+n'\\ne 0,\\\\\n0 &\\text{ if }\\nu -j+n'= 0;\\endcases\\tag3.14$$ this is consistent with the integrable case. (Such calculations were basic in the proof of .) More generally, when $f(x, \\xi )$ is a classical symbol of order $\\nu $, $f(x, \\xi )\\sim \\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}f_{\\nu -j}(x,\\xi\n)$, then there is an asymptotic expansion for $\\mu \\to\\infty $, $$\\int _{|\\xi |\\le \\mu }f(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi \\sim \\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N, j\\ne\n\\nu +n'}f _j(x)\\mu ^{n'+\\nu -j}+f '_0(x)\\log \\mu +f ''_0(x),\n\\tag3.15$$ and we set $$\\slint f(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi =f ''_0(x).\\tag3.16$$ (This is related to Hadamard\u2019s definition of the finite part \u2014 [*partie finie*]{} \u2014 of certain integrals .) In view of (3.12)\u2013(3.14), we have the precise formula: $$\\multline\n\\slint f(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi\n=\\sum_{0\\le j\\le \\nu +n'}\\bigl(\\int_{|\\xi|\\le 1}\nf_{\\nu -j}(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi -\n\\tfrac{1-\\delta _{\\nu +n',j}}{\\nu +n'-j}\n\\int_{|\\xi |=1}f_{\\nu -j}\\,\\d S(\\xi )\\bigr)\\\\\n+\\int_{\\Bbb R^{n'}}\n(f-\\sum_{j \\le \\nu +n'}f_{\\nu -j})\\,\\d\\xi ,\n\\endmultline\\tag3.17$$ where $\\delta _{r,s}$ is the Kronecker delta. (One can replace the sum over $j\\le \\nu +n'$ by the sum over $j\\le J$ for any $J\\ge \\nu +n'$.)\n\nLet $F=\\op (f(x,\\xi))$ be the $\\psi$do associated with the above symbol. It was shown by Lesch [@L; @Section; @5] that the density $\\omega (F)=\\tslint f(x,\\xi)\\,\\d\\xi dx$ is invariant under the change of the symbol induced by diffeomorphisms of open sets, when $\\nu\\not\\in\\Bbb Z$ or $\\nu<-n'$. Moreover, it was observed in [@G4] that the proof of [@L] extends to the cases where $\\nu \\in \\Bbb Z$ and $f$ has a parity that fits with the dimension $n'$, cf. (1.4)\u2013(1.5)ff. So in all these cases, $\\omega (F)$ depends only on $F$, not on the representation of its symbol in local coordinates. As a consequence, we can consider this density also for $\\psi$do\u2019s having the mentioned properties on a manifold $M$ of dimension $n'$. Note that when $M$ is compact, $\\int_M\\tslint \\tr\nf(x,\\xi)\\,\\d\\xi dx=\\Tr(F)$ if $\\nu<-n'$.\n\nThe notation is used in the following with $n'=n-1$. It was shown in (by working out explicitly in this case) that when $f(x',\\xi ')$ is the symbol of a classical $\\psi $do $F$ on $\\Bbb\nR^{n-1}$, and $S=\\operatorname{OP}'(s(x',\\xi '))$ is an auxiliary second-order uniformly elliptic operator with no principal eigenvalues on $\\Bbb\nR_-$, then the kernels of $F(S+\\mu\n^2)^{-N}$ and $\\operatorname{OP}'(f(x',\\xi ')(s(x',\\xi\n')+\\mu ^2)^{-N})$ with $N>(\\nu +n-1)/2$ have diagonal expansions of the form$$K(x',x',\\mu )\\sim \\sum_{j\\ge 0}b_j(x')\\mu ^{n-1+\\nu\n-j-2N}+\\sum_{k\\ge 0}(b'_k(x')\\log \\mu +b''_k(x'))\\mu\n^{-k-2N}, \\tag3.18$$ where the $b'_k$ are 0 if $\\nu \\notin\\Bbb Z$, and $$\\aligned\nb_{\\nu +n-1}(x')+b''_0(x')&=\\slint f(x',\\xi ')\\,\\d\\xi '+\\text{ local\nterms, if $\\nu $ is integer $\\ge 1-n$},\\\\\nb''_0(x')&=\\slint f(x',\\xi ')\\,\\d\\xi ' \\text{ if $\\nu <1-n$ or }\n\\nu \\notin \\Bbb Z.\\endaligned\n\\tag3.19$$ Moreover, if $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$ and $f$ has a parity that fits with the dimension $n-1$, then $b_{\\nu +n-1}(x')=0$ and the second formula in (3.19) holds. (Furthermore, the sum over $k$ in (3.18) for the operators $F(S+\\mu\n^2)^{-N}$ and $\\operatorname{OP}'(f(s+\\mu ^2)^{-N})$ skips the terms where $k/2\\notin \\Bbb Z$, but we need to refer to the general expansion below. In parity cases, the $b_j$ are zero for $\\nu +n-1-j$ even, and the $b'_k$ are zero.) What we shall show now is that $\\alpha ^{(N)}$ plays to a large extent the same role as $(s+\\mu ^2)^{-N}$. We shall deal with the special cases where $\\nu <1-n$ or $\\nu \\notin \\Bbb Z$ here, whereas parity cases will be discussed later, around Theorem 3.15.\n\nOne has for $\\widetilde\nS_0=\\operatorname{OP}'(\\ttilde g\\alpha ^{(N)})$, when $N>(n-1+\\nu\n)/2$: The kernel of $\\widetilde S_0$ has an expansion on the diagonal: $$K(\\widetilde S_0,x',x',\\mu )\n\\sim \\sum_{j\\ge 0} a_{j}(x')\\mu ^{{n-1+\\nu - j}-2N}+\\sum_{k\\ge\n0}(a'_k(x')\\log \\mu + a''_k(x'))\\mu\n^{- k-2N},\\tag 3.20$$ where the terms $a_j(x')$, and $a'_k(x')$ for $k=\\nu +n-1-j$, depend on the first $j+1$ homogeneous terms in the symbols $\\ttilde g(x',\\xi ')$ and $\\alpha ^{(N)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$; the $a''_k(x')$ are global.\n\nIf $\\nu <-n+1$ or $\\nu \\in \\Bbb R\\setminus \\Bbb Z$, then $$a''_0(x')=\\slint\n\\ttilde g(x',\\xi ')\\,\\d\\xi ',\n\\tag3.21$$ whereas if $\\nu $ is an integer $\\ge -n+1$,$$a_{\\nu +n-1}(x')+a''_0(x')=\\slint\n\\ttilde g(x',\\xi ')\\,\\d\\xi '+\\text{ local terms},\n\\tag3.22$$ where the local terms depend on the first $\\nu +n$ homogeneous terms in the symbols of $\\ttilde g$ and $\\alpha ^{(N)}$. The $a'_k$ vanish if $\\nu \\notin\\Bbb Z$.\n\nThe existence of the expansion is assured by , since $\\widetilde S_0$ has a weakly polyhomogeneous symbol in $S^{\\nu ,-2N,0}\\cap S^{\\nu -2N,0,0}$, so the main point is to prove the formulas for $a''_0$ resp.\u00a0$a_{\\nu +n-1}+a''_0$. Recall that $$K(\\widetilde S_0,x',x',\\mu )=\\int_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}\\ttilde g(x',\\xi\n')\\alpha ^{(N)} (x',\\xi ',\\mu )\\,\\d\\xi '.$$ First consider $\\ttilde g'=\\ttilde g-\\sum_{j\\le\n\\nu +n-1}\\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}$, it is of order $\\nu -J<-n+1$ where $J=\\max\\{n+[\\nu ],0\\}$, hence integrable in $\\xi '$. Since$$\\alpha ^{(N)}=\\mu ^{-2N}+\\alpha ^{(N)}_1(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$$ with $\\alpha ^{(N)}_1\\in S^{0,-2N,0}\\cap S^{1,-2N-1,0}$ (cf. (A.13)ff.), $\\ttilde g'\\alpha ^{(N)}_1$ is in $S^{\\nu -J,-2N,0}\\cap\nS^{1+\\nu -J,-2N-1,0}$, and we can write $$K(\\operatorname{OP}'(\\ttilde g'\\alpha ^{(N)} ),x',x',\\mu )=\\mu\n^{-2N}\\int_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}\\ttilde\ng'\\,\\d\\xi '+\\int_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}\\ttilde\ng'\\alpha ^{(N)}_1\\,\\d\\xi '.\\tag3.23$$ By , the last integral has an expansion as in (3.18) with $\\nu $ replaced by $\\nu -J$ and the sum over $k$ starting with $k=1$. This expansion has no term with $\\mu\n^{-2N}$, so the only contribution from $\\ttilde g'$ to the coefficient of $\\mu\n^{-2N}$ is $\\int \\ttilde g' \\,\\d\\xi =\\tslint \\ttilde g' \\,\\d\\xi$. This ends the proof in the case $\\nu <-n+1$, where $\\ttilde g=\\ttilde\ng'$.\n\nFor the homogeneous terms $\\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}$, we use an analysis as in : Let $\\mu \\in\\Bbb R_+$ and write the contribution from $\\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}$ as $$\\int_{|\\xi '|\\ge \\mu }\\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}(x',\\xi\n')\\alpha ^{(N)} (x',\\xi ',\\mu )\\,\\d\\xi '+\\int_{|\\xi '|\\le \\mu }\\ttilde\ng_{\\nu -j}(x',\\xi\n')\\alpha ^{(N)} (x',\\xi ',\\mu )\\,\\d\\xi '.$$ The first integral gives a local term $\\tilde a_j(x')\\mu ^{n-1+\\nu\n-j-2N}$, since the integrand is homogeneous in $(\\xi ',\\mu )$ of degree $\\nu -j-2N$. Note that when $\\nu \\in\\Bbb R\\setminus \\Bbb Z$, the power cannot be ${-2N}$. The second integral may be written$$\\int_{|\\xi '|\\le \\mu }\\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}\\alpha ^{(N)} \\,\\d\\xi '=\\mu\n^{-2N}\\int_{|\\xi '|\\le \\mu }\\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}(x',\\xi\n')\\,\\d\\xi '+\\int_{|\\xi '|\\le \\mu }\\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}\\alpha^{(N)}_1\n\\,\\d\\xi '.\\tag3.24$$ Here $\\int_{|\\xi '|\\le \\mu }\\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}\\,\\d\\xi '$ is calculated as in (3.12)\u2013(3.14), contributing $\\tslint \\ttilde g_{\\nu -j}\\,\\d\\xi '$ to the coefficient of $\\mu\n^{-2N}$. For the last integral in (3.24) we observe that since $\\ttilde\ng'\\alpha ^{(N)}_1$ is in $S^{\\nu -J,-2N,0}\\cap\nS^{1+\\nu -J,-2N-1,0}$, with $d$-index $\\le -2N-1$, the consideration of this integral in the proof of shows that it contributes only locally to the coefficient of $\\mu ^{-2N}$, and not at all if $\\nu \\notin\\Bbb Z$.\n\nSimilar statements hold when $\\ttilde g$ is given in $(x',y')$-form; then $\\ttilde g(x',\\xi ')$ is replaced by $\\ttilde g(x',x',\\xi ')$ in [(3.21)]{} and [(3.22)]{}. The extension to this case is carried out as in [@G4; @Remark; @1.4].\n\nIn view of the information on general compositions recalled before the theorem, we have in particular:\n\nLet $S=\\operatorname{OP}'(s(x',\\xi '))$ be a second-order uniformly elliptic operator on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$ with no principal eigenvalues on $\\Bbb\nR_-$. Comparing the expansion [(3.18)]{} for the kernel of $\\ttilde G(S+\\mu ^2)^{-N}$ with the expansion [(3.20)]{} for the kernel of $\\widetilde S_0$, one has that $$\\aligned\na''_0(x')&=b''_0(x')+\\text{ local\nterms, if $\\nu $ is integer $\\ge 1-n$},\\\\\na''_0(x')&=b''_0(x')\\text{ if $\\nu <1-n$ or }\n\\nu \\notin \\Bbb Z.\\endaligned\n\\tag3.25$$\n\nWe then find:\n\nLet $G$ be a singular Green operator on $X$ of order $\\nu \\in\\Bbb R$ and class $0$.\n\n$1^\\circ$ Let $g(x',\\xi ,\\eta _n)$ be the symbol of the operator in a localization to $\\crnp$ as described above. Then $$C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\n\\int\\slint\n\\tr (\\tr_ng)(x',\\xi ')\\,\\d\\xi 'dx'+\\text{ local\nterms};\\tag 3.26$$ it holds with vanishing local terms if $\\nu <-n+1$ or $\\nu \\in\\Bbb R\\setminus \\Bbb Z$.\n\n$2^\\circ$ Let $P_1$ and $P_2$ be two choices of auxiliary strongly elliptic operators. Then $$C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})- C_0(G,P_{2,\\operatorname{D}})\n\\tag3.27$$ is locally determined; it vanishes if $\\nu <-n+1$ or $\\nu \\in \\Bbb\nR\\setminus\\Bbb Z$.\n\nConsider $G$ and $Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}$ carried over to $\\crnp$. Here we have $$\\Tr(GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+})=\\Tr_{\\Bbb\nR^{n-1}}\\tr_n(GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+})=\n\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}\\widetilde S_{0}+\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}\\widetilde S_{1},\n\\tag3.28$$ as in Proposition B.5. Since $\\widetilde S_{1}$ has symbol in $S^{\\nu\n+1,-2N-1,0}\\cap S^{\\nu -2N,0,0}$, it has a diagonal kernel expansion as in (3.18) with the sum over $k$ starting with $k=1$, so the coefficient of $\\mu ^{-2N}$ is locally determined (vanishing if $\\nu \\in\\Bbb\nR\\setminus\\Bbb Z $ or $\\nu <1-n$). For $\\widetilde S_{0}$, we have the diagonal kernel expansion from Theorem 3.3. We integrate the matrix traces in $x'$, and we add on $\\Tr(GG^{(N)}_\\lambda )$, which is described in Proposition B.3. This gives a trace expansion as in (1.10), with coefficient of $(-\\lambda )^{-N}=\\mu ^{-2N}$ equal to $$\\int \\slint \\tr \\tr_ng\\,\\d\\xi 'dx'+\\text{\nlocal terms}$$ (no local terms if $\\nu \\in\\Bbb\nR\\setminus \\Bbb Z $ or $\\nu <1-n$); this shows $1^\\circ$.\n\nNow if $P_1$ is replaced by $P_2$ in these calculations, $1^\\circ$ implies that the contribution to the coefficient of $\\mu ^{-2N}$ is modified only in the local terms, vanishing if $\\nu <-n+1$ or $\\nu \\in \\Bbb\nR\\setminus\\Bbb Z$; this shows $2^\\circ$.\n\n\\(a) Another choice of local coordinates and partition of unity will give another decomposition in (3.1), but this will modify the term of a given order in the localized symbol only by terms of the same and higher order.\n\n\\(b) When $\\nu \\notin \\Bbb Z$ or $\\nu<-n+1$, or $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$ and $\\tr_n g$ has a parity that fits with the dimension $n-1$, then $\\int \\tslint \\tr\n\\tr_ng\\,\\d\\xi 'dx'$ will be invariant under such choices, by Remark 3.2.\n\n\\(c) In the localized situation, we find by integration from Corollary 3.5 that $$C_0( G, P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=C_0(\\tr_n\n G, S)\n+\\text{ local terms,}\\tag 3.29$$ for any auxiliary operator $S$ as described there. This reduces the calculation of $C_0$ on $\\rnp$ to a calculation of a $C_0$ on $\\Bbb\nR^{n-1}$, modulo local terms (vanishing if $\\nu <1-n$ or $\\nu \\notin \\Bbb Z$).\n\nWe have hereby obtained (2.7) in the case $A=G$. Now we turn to (2.8), the commutation property of $C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$. We shall give a proof that reduces it to the commutation property for closed manifolds (cf. e.g.\u00a0[@G4]), using a variant of the preceding analysis.\n\nHere we want to consider $G$ given in a different form in the localized situation, namely in the form $$G=\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\\Phi _jC_{jk}\\Phi ^*\n_k\\tag 3.30$$ explained in Lemma B.6. When $G=\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\\Phi _jC_{jk}\\Phi ^*\n_k$, then $$\\Tr_{\\rnp}(GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+})=\\Tr_{\\rnp}(\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\\Phi\n_jC_{jk}\\Phi ^*\n_k Q^N_{\\lambda ,+})=\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}(C_{jk}\\Phi ^*\n_k Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}\\Phi _j),$$ since the sum over $j,k$ is rapidly decreasing in the relevant symbol- and operator norms. Here the $C_{jk}$ and $\\Phi ^*\n_k Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}\\Phi _j$ are $\\psi $do\u2019s on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$; to use their properties, we have to investigate $\\Phi ^* _k Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}\\Phi _j$.\n\nIt was a typical feature of the calculations in [@GSc] that we used the passage from $x'$-form to $y'$-form and vice versa in the compositions in such a way that the case of $\\psi $do symbols over the boundary was reached before it was necessary to verify asymptotic composition formulas such as $$a(x',\\xi ',t)\\circ b(x',\\xi ',s)\\sim \\sum_{\\alpha \\in \\Bbb\nN^{n-1}}\\tfrac{1}{\\alpha !}D _{\\xi'} ^\\alpha\na(x',\\xi ',t)\\partial^\\alpha _{x '}b(x',\\xi ',s),\\tag3.31$$ with parameters $t$ and $s$. In the $S^{m,d,s}$-spaces over the boundary, the composition formulas work as usual (), whereas the mixture of $\\mu $-dependence and $\\mu $-independence makes it harder to see what goes on in compositions of the $\\psi $dbo symbols reaching into the interior of $X$. Here we rely heavily on the special rational structure of the symbols entering in $Q_\\lambda $. (The compositions are not covered by [@G3].)\n\nIn compositions containing $\\Phi ^*\n_k Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}\\Phi _j$, we have to deal with terms of the form$$\\operatorname{OPT}(\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma (\\xi ') )) \\op (q_{-2-J}(x,\\xi ,\\mu\n))_+\\operatorname{OPK}(\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi _n,\\sigma (\\xi ') ))$$ (and their $\\lambda $-derivatives), which do require asymptotic expansions. In fact, when $q_{2-J}$ is independent of $x_n$, the two factors to the right give a relatively simple Poisson symbol depending on $x'$, but then in the composition with the trace symbol to the left (depending on $\\xi '$ through $\\sigma (\\xi\n')$), there will be an infinite expansion as in (3.31), where remainder estimates have to be shown. We shall treat this by going back to the original proof of the pseudodifferential composition rule by Taylor expansion, keeping track of the properties of the terms, in particular the remainder, by use of the exact formulas. A composition to the left with $C_{jk}=\\op'(c_{jk}(x',\\xi '))$ does not make the expression harder to deal with, since $\\op'(c_{jk}(x',\\xi\n'))\\operatorname{OPT}(\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma )) =\\operatorname{OPT}(c_{j,k}(x',\\xi ')\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma ))$, so we include that in the following.\n\nLet $C_{jk}=\\op'(c_{jk}(x',\\xi '))$ be of order $\\nu $ and let $$S_{J,j,k}=\\op'(c_{jk}(x',\\xi '))\\operatorname{OPT}(\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma )) \\op (q_{-2-J}(x,\\xi ,\\mu\n))_+\\operatorname{OPK}(\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi _n,\\sigma )).\\tag 3.32$$ For each $J\\in\\Bbb N$, $S_{J,j,k}$ is a $\\psi $do with symbol in $S^{\\nu ,0,-2-J}$, the $(N-1)$\u2019st $\\lambda $-derivatives of the symbol lying in $S^{\\nu ,0,-2N-J}$.\n\nIn view of the expansion in (A.5), $S_{J,j,k}=\\sum_{J/2+1\\le m\\le\n2J+1}S_{J,j,k,m}$, where $$\\aligned\nS_{J,j,k,m}&=C_{jk}\\Phi _k^*\\op \\Bigl(\\frac{r_{J,m}(x,\\xi\n)}{(p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{m}}\\Bigr)_+\\Phi _j\\\\\n&=\\operatorname{OPT}(c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma )) \\op \\Bigl(\\frac{r_{J,m}(x,\\xi\n)}{(p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{m}}\\Bigr)_+\\operatorname{OPK}(\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi\n_n,\\sigma )),\n\\endaligned\\tag 3.33$$ and we have to show the property for each of the terms in the expansion. The function $r_{J,m}$ is a polynomial in $\\xi $ of degree $2m-J-2\\ge 0$. Let us drop the indexations on $r_{J,m}$ and $p_{1,2}$, and simply write the fraction as $r(p+\\mu\n^2)^{-m}=q$.\n\nWe first consider the case where these symbols are independent of $x_n$. Here one has immediately: $$\\operatorname{OP}(q(x',\\xi ,\\mu\n))_+\\operatorname{OPK}(\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi _n,\\sigma\n))=\\operatorname{OPK}(b(x',\\xi ,\\mu )),\\quad b=h^+_{\\xi _n}(q\\hat\\varphi\n_j).$$ To prepare for the composition of this Poisson operator with the trace operator $\\operatorname{OPT}(c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k)$ to the left, we apply the usual procedure for changing an operator from $x'$-form to $y'$-form: $$\\multline\n\\operatorname{OPK}(b(x',\\xi ,\\mu ))v=\\int e^{i(x'-y')\\cdot \\xi\n'+ix_n\\xi _n}b(x',\\xi ,\\mu )v(y')\\,dy'\\d \\xi \\\\\n=\\int e^{i(x'-y')\\cdot \\xi\n'+ix_n\\xi _n}\\sum_{|\\alpha |<M}\n\\tfrac 1{\\alpha !}(x'-y')^\\alpha\n\\partial _{x'}^\\alpha b(y',\\xi ,\\mu )v(y')\\,dy'\\d \\xi \\\\\n+\\int e^{i(x'-y')\\cdot \\xi\n'+ix_n\\xi _n}\\sum_{|\\alpha |=M}\\tfrac {M(x'-y')^\\alpha}{\\alpha\n!}\\int_0^1(1-h)^{M-1}\n\\partial _{x'}^\\alpha b(y'+(x'-y')h,\\xi ,\\mu )v(y')\\,dhdy'\\d \\xi \\\\\n=\\sum_{|\\alpha |<M}\\operatorname{OPK}(b_\\alpha (y',\\xi ,\\mu\n))v+\\operatorname{OPK}(b_M(x',y',\\xi ,\\mu ))v;\n\\endmultline$$ here we have replaced $(x'-y')^\\alpha e^{i(x'-y')\\cdot\\xi '}$ by $D_{\\xi '}^\\alpha e^{i(x'-y')\\cdot\\xi '}$ and integrated by parts w.r.t.\u00a0$\\xi '$ (in the oscillatory integrals), and set $$\\aligned\nb_\\alpha (y',\\xi ,\\mu )&=\\tfrac 1{\\alpha !}\\overline\nD_{\\xi '}^\\alpha\n\\partial _{y'}^\\alpha b(y',\\xi ,\\mu ),\\\\\nb_M(x',y',\\xi ,\\mu )&=\\sum_{|\\alpha |=M}\\tfrac M{\\alpha !}\\overline\nD_{\\xi '}^\\alpha\n\\int_0^1(1-h)^{M-1}\n\\partial _{x'}^\\alpha b(y'+(x'-y')h,\\xi ,\\mu )\\,dh.\n\\endaligned\\tag3.34$$\n\nNow we compose with $\\operatorname{OPT}(c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k)$ in front. For each term in the sum over $|\\alpha |<M$, this gives:$$\\gather\n\\operatorname{OPT}(c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k)\\operatorname{OPK}(b_\\alpha )=\\operatorname{OP}'(s_\\alpha\n(x',y',\\xi ',\\mu )),\\text{ where}\\\\\ns_\\alpha (x',y',\\xi ',\\mu )=\\int c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k\\tfrac 1{\\alpha\n!}\\overline\nD_{\\xi '}^\\alpha\n\\partial _{y'}^\\alpha h^+_{\\xi _n}(q\\hat\\varphi _j)\\,\\d \\xi _n\n=\\int c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k\\tfrac 1{\\alpha !}\\overline\nD_{\\xi '}^\\alpha\n\\partial _{y'}^\\alpha (q(y',\\xi ,\\mu )\\hat\\varphi _j)\\,\\d \\xi _n.\n\\endgather$$ In the last step it is used that $\\overline D_{\\xi '}^{\\alpha\n}\\partial _{y'}^\\alpha $ commutes with $h^+_{\\xi _n}$ and that $\\overline\nD_{\\xi '}^\\alpha\n\\partial _{y'}^\\alpha (q\\hat\\varphi _j)$ is a sum of terms with a similar structure as $q\\hat\\varphi _j$, so that one can remove $h^+$ in the calculation of the plus-integral, as in (B.5). More precisely,$$\\gathered\n\\overline\nD_{\\xi '}^\\alpha\n\\partial _{y'}^\\alpha (q\\hat\\varphi _j)=\\sum_{\\gamma \\le\\alpha\n}\\tbinom\\alpha \\gamma \\overline\nD_{\\xi '}^{\\alpha-\\gamma }\n\\partial _{y'}^\\alpha q\\overline D_{\\xi '}^\\gamma \\hat\\varphi _j,\n\\text{ where}\\\\\n\\overline\nD_{\\xi '}^{\\alpha-\\gamma }\n\\partial _{y'}^\\alpha q=\\sum_{m\\le m'\\le m+|\\alpha -\\gamma |}\\frac\n{r_{m'}(y',\\xi )}{(p+\\mu ^2)^{m'}},\\quad\n\\overline D_{\\xi '}^\\gamma \\hat\\varphi _j=\\sum_{|j'-j|\\le |\\gamma\n|,j'\\ge 0}r'_{j'}(\\xi ')\\hat\\varphi _{j'};\n\\endgathered\\tag3.35$$ here the $r_{m'}(y',\\xi )$ are polynomials in $\\xi $ of degree $\\le 2m'-J-2-|\\alpha -\\gamma |$ (vanishing if this number is $<0$) and the $r'_{j'}(\\xi ')$ are in $S^{-|\\gamma |}$ (found from (B.2)). It follows that$$\\overline\nD_{\\xi '}^\\alpha\n\\partial _{y'}^\\alpha (q(y',\\xi ,\\mu )\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi _n,\\sigma ))=\\sum\n\\frac {r_{\\alpha\n,m',j'}(y',\\xi )}{(p+\\mu ^2)^{m'}}\\hat\\varphi _{j'},\\tag3.36$$ where the sum is over $m\\le m'\\le m+|\\alpha |$, $|j-j'|\\le |\\alpha |$, $j'\\ge 0$, and the $r_{\\alpha ,m',j'}(y',\\xi )$ are in $S^{2m'-J-2-|\\alpha |}(\\Bbb R^{n-1},\\Bbb R^n)$; they are polynomials in $\\xi\n_n$ of degree $\\le 2m'-J-2$, vanishing if this number is $<0$. Each $r_{\\alpha ,m',j'}(p+\\mu ^2)^{-m'}$ is decomposed in simple fractions with poles $\\pm i\\kappa ^\\pm$ as in (A.7): $$\\frac{r_{\\alpha ,m',j'}(y',\\xi )}{(p(y',\\xi )+\\mu\n^2)^{m'}}= \\sum_{1\\le m''\\le m'}\\frac{r^+_{\\alpha ,m',j',m''}(y',\\xi ',\\mu\n)}{(\\kappa ^+(y',\\xi ',\\mu )+ i\\xi\n_n)^{m''}}+\\sum_{1\\le m''\\le m'}\\frac{r^-_{\\alpha ,m',j',m''}(y',\\xi ',\\mu\n)}{(\\kappa ^-(y',\\xi ',\\mu )- i\\xi\n_n)^{m''}};\\tag3.37$$ here the numerators are of order $m''-|\\alpha |-J-2$, lying in $S^{-|\\alpha |,0,m''-J-2}$ (since the $\\mu $-independent factors coming from derivatives of $\\hat\\varphi _j$ have order down to $ -|\\alpha |$), and each $\\lambda $-differentiation lowers the third upper index by $2$.\n\nWe can now apply Lemma B.4 to the compositions of $c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat \\varphi }_k$ with (3.37) (recalling from (B.1) that the normalized Laguerre functions have a factor $(2\\sigma )^{\\frac12}$). This gives $\\psi $do symbols in $(x',y')$-form on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$, lying in $S^{\\nu -|\\alpha |,0,m''-J-2}\\cdot\nS^{1,0,-m''-1}\\subset S^{\\nu +1-|\\alpha |,0,-J-3}$ if $j'\\ne k$, and in $S^{\\nu -|\\alpha |,0,-J-2}$ if $j'=k$.\n\nSumming over the indices we find that $s_\\alpha (y',\\xi ',\\mu )\\in\nS^{\\nu -|\\alpha |,0,-J-2}$, and each $\\lambda $-differentiation lowers the third upper index by $2$.\n\nFrom the sequence of symbols $s_\\alpha $, one constructs a symbol $s\\in S^{\\nu ,0,-J-2}$ having the asymptotic expansion $s\\sim\n\\sum_{\\alpha \\in\\Bbb N^{n-1}}s_\\alpha $ in the usual way. There remains the question of how well this represents a symbol of the operator given in (3.33). This will be dealt with by a consideration of the remainder after $M$ terms, using the formula in (3.34).\n\nWe shall use the strategy explained after (3.7). In order to be able to distinguish between the various covariables, we shall write here explicitly $\\hat\\varphi (\\xi _n,[\\xi '])$ and $\\hat\\varphi (\\xi _n,[\\eta '])$ instead of $\\hat\\varphi (\\xi _n,\\sigma )$. Consider, for large $M$, $$\\multline\n\\operatorname{OPT}(c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k)\\operatorname{OPK}(b_M )v(x')\\\\\n=\\int_{\\Bbb R^{4n-3}}\ne^{i(x'-z')\\cdot \\xi '+i(z'-y')\\cdot \\eta '}c_{jk}(x',\\xi\n')\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\xi\n_n,[\\xi ']) h^+_{\\xi  _n}\\bigl[\\sum_{|\\alpha |=M}\\tfrac M{\\alpha\n!}\\overline\nD_{\\eta  '}^\\alpha\\\\\n \\int_0^1(1-h)^{M-1}\n\\partial _{z'}^\\alpha  q(y'+(z'-y')h,\\eta ',\\xi _n,\\mu )\n\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi\n_n,[\\eta '])\\bigr]v(y')\\,dh\\d\n\\xi _ndy'\\d\\eta 'dz'\\d\\xi '\\\\\n=\\int_{\\Bbb R^{4n-3}}\ne^{i(x'-z')\\cdot \\xi '+i(z'-y')\\cdot \\eta '}c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\xi\n_n,[\\xi '])\n\\sum_{|\\alpha |=M}\\tfrac M{\\alpha !}\\overline\nD_{\\eta  '}^\\alpha\n\\int_0^1(1-h)^{M-1}\\\\\n\\times\\partial _{z'}^\\alpha  q(y'+(z'-y')h,\\eta ',\\xi _n,\\mu )\n\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi\n_n,[\\eta '])v(y')\\,dh\\d\n\\xi _ndy'\\d\\eta 'dz'\\d\\xi ';\n\\endmultline\\tag3.38$$ here we have again commuted $\\overline D_{\\eta  '}^{\\alpha\n}\\partial _{z'}^\\alpha $ and $h^+_{\\xi _n}$, and removed the latter because of the special structure as rational functions. The kernel of this operator is $$\\aligned\n&K_M(x',y ',\\mu )=\\int_{\\Bbb R^{3n-2}}\ne^{i(x'-z')\\cdot\\xi '+i(z'-y')\\cdot \\eta '}c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\xi\n_n,[\\xi'])\\sum_{|\\alpha |=M}\\tfrac M{\\alpha !}\\overline\nD_{\\eta  '}^\\alpha\\\\\n&\\times \\int_0^1(1-h)^{M-1}\n\\partial _{z'}^\\alpha  q(y'+(z'-y')h,\\eta ',\\xi _n,\\mu )\n\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi\n_n,[\\eta '])\\,dh\\d\\xi _nd\\eta 'dz'\\d\\xi '.\n\\endaligned\\tag3.39$$\n\nPerforming the differentiations $\\overline D_{\\eta  '}^{\\alpha\n}\\partial _{z'}^\\alpha $, one gets a sum of similar expressions, now with order $M$ steps lower in the Poisson operator. Consider one term in such an expression, it is of the form (3.39) with $q$ replaced by a fraction $r'(p+\\mu ^2)^{-m'}$ as in (3.36), with $r'$ in $S^{2m'-J-2-M}$: $$\\aligned\n&\\operatorname{OPT}(c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi}_k)\n\\operatorname{OPK}(b')v(x')\n\\\\&\\quad=\\int_{\\Bbb R^{4n-3}}\ne^{i(x'-z')\\cdot \\xi '+i(z'-y')\\cdot \\eta '}c_{jk}\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\xi\n_n,[\\xi '])\\int_0^1(1-h)^{M-1}\\\\\n&\\quad\\times\n\\frac{r'(y'+(z'-y')h,\\eta ',\\xi _n)}{(p(y'+(z'-y')h,\\eta ',\\xi _n)+\\mu ^2)^{m'}}\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi\n_n,[\\eta '])v(y')\\,dh\\d\n\\xi _ndy'\\d\\eta 'dz'\\d\\xi '.\n\\endaligned\\tag3.40$$\n\nInsert in (3.40) the expansion of the denominator from Lemma A.1: $$(p+\\mu ^2)^{-m'}=\\sum_{0\\le i <L}c_{m',i }\\mu ^{-2m'-2i }p^i\n+\\mu ^{-2m'-2L}p'_L.\\tag 3.41$$ The composed operators resulting from the terms in the sum over $i $ are of the form $\\mu ^{-2m'-2i }S_i $, where $S_i $ is a $\\mu\n$-independent $\\psi $do on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$ of order $\\le\\nu+2m'+2i -J-2-M$ (with $i <L$). These operators belong to the calculus. Taking $M$ large in comparison with $2L$ we can assure that their kernels have any given finite degree of smoothness.\n\nThe contribution from $\\mu ^{-2m'-2L}p'_L$ equals $\\mu ^{-2m'-2L} S'$, where $S'$ has a form as in (3.40) with $(p+\\mu\n^2)^{-m'}$ replaced by $p'_L$; it is a $\\psi $do on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$ of order $\\le\\nu+2m'+2L -J-2-M$. The estimates (A.2) imply that the entries satisfy all symbol estimates [*with uniform estimates in* ]{}$\\mu \\in\\Gamma $ for $|\\mu |\\ge 1$. Then $ S'$ maps $$S'\\: H^{s}(\\Bbb R^{n-1})\\to H^{s-\\nu-2m'-2L+J+2+M}(\\Bbb R^{n-1})\n, \\text{ any }s\\in\\Bbb R,$$ with uniform estimates in $\\mu \\in\\Gamma $ for $|\\mu |\\ge 1$, since the norms of such mappings are estimated in terms of the symbol seminorms. Taking $M$ large in comparison with $2L$, we can achieve that the kernel of $S'$ is a smooth as we want, with uniform bounds on the $(x',y')$-derivatives.\n\nIt follows that $$S_{J,j,k,m}-\\op'\\bigl(s(x',y',\\xi ',\\mu\n)\\bigr)=S_{J,j,k,m}-\\op'\\bigl(\\sum_{|\\alpha\n|<M}s_\\alpha \\bigr)-\\op'\\bigl(s-\\sum_{|\\alpha\n|<M}s_\\alpha \\bigr)\\tag3.42$$ has a kernel expansion as in (3.7) (for $d=-J-2$), where $L$ and the degree of smoothness can be as high as we want, since $M$ can be taken arbitrarily large. Since differentiation in $\\lambda $ lowers the $d$-index by two steps, and $\\partial _\\lambda =-2\\mu \\partial _\\mu $, the information required for (3.8) is likewise found in this way. This shows that $S_{J,j,k,m}$ is a $\\psi $do with symbol $\\sim s$ in $S^{\\nu ,0,-J-2}$. Its $\\lambda\n$-derivatives are treated in a similar way.\n\nThis shows the proposition in the case where the symbols are independent of $x_n$. Now let $q_{-2-J}$ depend on $x_n$, and consider again (3.32). By a Taylor expansion in $x_n$, $q_{-2-J}$ is of the form$$\\multline\nq_{-2-J}(x,\\xi ,\\mu )=\\sum_{0\\le r<M}\\tfrac 1{r!}x_n^r\\partial\n_{x_n}^rq_{-2-J}(x',0,\\xi ,\\mu )\\\\\n+\\tfrac1{(M-1)!}{x_n^M}\\int_0^1(1-h)^{M-1}\n\\partial _{x_n}^{M}q_{-2-J}(x',hx_n,\\xi ,\\mu )\\,dh.\n\\endmultline\\tag 3.43$$ For the terms in the sum over $r$, we observe that the factor $x_n^r$ goes together with the trace operator to the left $\\operatorname{OPT}(c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\xi\n_n,\\sigma ))$ and replaces its symbol by $c_{jk} D_{\\xi\n_n}^r\\bar{\\hat\\varphi\n}_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma )$ \\[G2, (2.4.14)\\]. This lowers the degree \u2014 but not the $d$-index \u2014 by $r$ steps; more precisely it gives $c_{jk}[\\xi\n']^{-r}$ times a linear combination of adjacent Laguerre functions, cf. (B.2). The resulting composition is of the type we have dealt with above, giving a symbol in $S^{\\nu -r,0,-2-J}$.\n\nThe last term in (3.43) is a linear combination of terms of the form $$x_n^M\\int_0^1(1-h)^{M-1}\\partial\n_{x_n}^{M}\\bigl(\\frac{r(x',hx_n,\\xi )}{(p(x',hx_n,\\xi )+\\mu\n^2)^m}\\bigr)\\,dh,$$ with $r$ polynomial in $\\xi $ of order $2m-2-J\\ge 0$; consider one such term. Insert the expansion (3.41) of $(p+\\mu ^2)^{-m}$. The composed operators resulting from the terms in the sum over $i $ are of the form $\\mu ^{-2m-2i }S_i\n$ with $S_i $ of order $\\le \\nu +2m+2i -2-J-M$ (with $i <L$). The operators belong to the calculus, with more smoothness of the kernels, the larger $M$ is taken in comparison with $2L$. Finally, the contribution from $p'_L$ is of the form $\\mu\n^{-2m-2L}\\widetilde S$, with $$\\gathered\n\\widetilde S=\\operatorname{OPT}(c_{jk}D_{\\xi _n}^M\n\\bar{\\hat\\varphi}_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma))\n\\operatorname{OP}( \\tilde q_{L}(x,\\xi ,\\mu))_+\n\\operatorname{OPK}(\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi_n,\\sigma )),\\\\\n\\tilde q_{L}(x,\\xi ,\\mu )=\n\\tfrac1{(M-1)!}\\int_0^1(1-h)^{M-1}\\partial\n_{x_n}^{M}\\bigl({r(x',hx_n,\\xi )}p'_{L}(x',hx_n,\\xi ,\\mu\n)\\bigr)\\,dh.\\endgathered\\tag 3.44$$ The estimates (A.2) imply that for all indices:$$|D_{x}^\\beta D_\\xi ^\\alpha \\tilde q_{L}(x,\\xi ,\\mu )|\\le\nC'_{\\alpha ,\\beta }\\ang\\xi ^{2m-2-J+2L-|\\alpha |},\\tag 3.45$$ with $C'_{\\alpha ,\\beta }$ independent of $\\mu \\in\\Gamma $ for $|\\mu |\\ge\n1$. Then the resulting operator $\\widetilde S$ maps $H^{s}(\\Bbb R^{n-1})$ to $ H^{s-\\nu-2m+2+J-2L+M+1}(\\Bbb R^{n-1})$ for any $s\\in\\Bbb R$, with uniform estimates in $\\mu \\in\\Gamma $ for $|\\mu |\\ge 1$. Taking $L$ large, and $M$ large in comparison with $2L$, we can obtain that the resulting kernel is a smooth as we want, with coefficient $\\mu ^{-2m-2L}$ of as low order as we want.\n\nAs in the preceding considerations, this allows us to conclude that the whole composed operator belongs to the calculus, with symbol properties as asserted.\n\nIn the above proof, one can moreover keep track of the size of symbol seminorms in their dependence on $j$ and $k$. It follows from Lemma B.4 and the results on $\\xi '$-derivatives and $\\xi _n$-derivatives we used, that for each $J$, the symbol seminorms resulting from calculations with Laguerre funtions are only polynomially increasing in $j$ and $k$. Thus if the symbol seminorms of the $c_{jk}$ are rapidly decreasing in $j$ and $k$, as they are when the $c_{jk}$ come from an s.g.o.\u00a0as in Lemma B.6, summations in $j$ and $k$ of operators $S_{J,j,k}$ will converge in the relevant symbol seminorms.\n\nNote that for $J\\ge 1$, the $(N-1)$\u2019st derivatives of the symbols of the operators $S_{J,j,k}$ lie in $S^{\\nu ,0,-2N-1}\\subset S^{\\nu\n-2N-1,0,0}\\cap S^{\\nu ,-2N-1,0}$ (cf. (3.3)); hence in their diagonal kernel expansions as in (3.18), the sum over $k$ starts with $k\\ge 1$, so that they contribute only locally to the coefficient of $\\mu ^{-2N}$. Thus only the terms with $J=0$, $$\\aligned\n\\tfrac{\\partial _\\lambda ^{N-1}}{(N-1)!}S_{0,j,k}&=\n\\tfrac{\\partial _\\lambda ^{N-1}}{(N-1)!}C_{jk}\\Phi\n^*_k\\op((p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{-1})_+\\Phi _j\\\\\n&=C_{jk}\\Phi\n^*_k\\op((p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{-N})_+\\Phi _j\n\\endaligned \\tag3.46$$ can contribute nonlocally to the coefficient of $\\mu ^{-2N}$. We can use the analysis in the proof of Proposition 3.8 to distinguish the contributing part still further:\n\nWe have for each $N\\ge 1$ that$$C_{jk}\\Phi\n^*_k\\op((p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{-N})_+\\Phi _j\n=\\op'\\big(\\delta _{jk}c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')\\alpha ^{(N)}(y',\\xi ',\\mu\n)\\big)+\\widetilde S_{0,j,k,N},\\tag3.47$$ where $\\alpha ^{(N)}$ is as defined in [(A.12)]{} and $\\widetilde\nS_{0,j,k,N}$ has symbol in $S^{\\nu +1,0,-2N-1}$.\n\nFirst let $q$ be independent of $x_n$, and consider how $q_{-2}=(p+\\mu ^2)^{-1}$ (with $p=p_{1,2}$) enters in the proof of Proposition 3.8, for $N=1$. Whenever we apply a differentiation $\\partial _{x'}^\\alpha $ with $|\\alpha |>0$ to $q$, it produces a sum of rational functions with denominators $(p+\\mu ^2)^{-m}$ with $m\\ge 2$ and $\\mu\n$-independent numerators, so only the undifferentiated term $q_{-2}$ retains the power $-1$. Therefore the resulting terms in (3.35) with $|\\alpha |>0$ have denominators $(p+\\mu ^2)^{-m'}$ with $m'\\ge 2$. Then when we decompose in simple fractions and apply Lemma B.4, we get symbols lying in $S^{\\nu +1,0,-3}$. There remains the term$$c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')\\int\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma )(p(y',\\xi\n',\\xi _n)+\\mu ^2)^{-1}\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi _n,\\sigma )\\,\\d\\xi _n.$$ Here Lemma B.4 shows that it gives a symbol in $S^{\\nu +1,0,-3}$ when $j\\ne k$, whereas it gives $c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')\\alpha ^{(1)}(y',\\xi\n',\\mu )\\in S^{\\nu ,0,-2}$ when $j= k$ (note that the norming factors $(2\\sigma )^\\frac12$ in the Laguerre functions eliminate the division by $2\\sigma $ in (B.8)).\n\nThis shows the claim for $N=1$, and in view of the information on $\\lambda $-derivatives, it follows for general $N$.\n\nWhen $q$ depends on $x_n$, we consider the Taylor expansion (3.43). Again, any derivative $\\partial _{x_n}^r$ with $r>0$ produces rational functions with $p+\\mu ^2$ in powers $\\ge 2$ in the denominators. So we find that the Taylor terms, except for the first one, lead to symbols with lower third index. The first term is dealt with above.\n\nConsider a localized situation, where $G$ is given in the form [(3.30)]{} and the symbols $c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')$ have compact $x'$-support. Define the diagonal sum$$C=\\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}C_{jj}, \\text{ with symbol }c(x',\\xi\n')=\\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}c_{jj}(x',\\xi ').\\tag 3.48$$ Then $$\\Tr _{\\Bbb R^n_+}(GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+})=\\Tr_{\\Bbb\nR^{n-1}}\\op'(c(x',\\xi ')\\alpha ^{(N)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu ))+\\Tr_{\\Bbb\nR^{n-1}}\\widetilde S',\\tag 3.49$$ where $\\widetilde S'$ has symbol in $S^{\\nu +1,0,-2N-1}$. It follows that for $N>(\\nu\n+n-1)/2$, the trace has an expansion (with all $c'_k=0$ if $\\nu\n\\notin\\Bbb Z$): $$\\Tr_{\\rnp}(GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+})\\sim \\sum_{j\\ge 1}\\! c_{j}(-\\lambda)\n^{\\frac{n+\\nu - j}{2}-N}\n+\\sum_{k\\ge\n0}( c'_k\\log (-\\lambda )+ c''_k)(-\\lambda )\n^{-\\frac k2-N},\n\\tag 3.50$$ where $$c''_0=\\int \\slint \\tr c(x',\\xi ')\\,\\d\\xi 'dx'+\\text{\nlocal terms}\\tag3.51$$ (with vanishing local terms if $\\nu \\in\\Bbb\nR\\setminus \\Bbb Z $ or $\\nu <1-n$).\n\nFor each $j,k$, we conclude from Proposition 3.10 that $$\\aligned\n\\Tr _{\\Bbb R^n_+}(\\Phi _jC_{jk}\\Phi ^*_kQ^N_{\\lambda ,+})&=\n\\Tr _{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}(C_{jk}\\Phi ^*_kQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}\\Phi _{j})\n\\\\&=\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}\\op'(\\delta _{jk}c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')\\alpha\n^{(N)}(y',\\xi ',\\mu\n))+\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}\\widetilde S'_{0,j,k,N}\n\\\\ &=\\Tr_{\\Bbb\nR^{n-1}}\\op'(\\delta _{jk}c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')\\alpha ^{(N)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu\n))+\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}\\widetilde S'_{0,j,k,N}.\n\\endaligned$$ with pseudodifferential operators $\\tilde S'_{0,j,k,N}$ having symbols in $S^{\\nu+1,0,-2N-1}$. For the last equality it is used that the trace is calulated from the diagonal values of the kernel, where $y'$ is taken equal to $x'$. The formula (3.49) follows by summation over $j$ and $k\\in\\Bbb N$, using that $(C_{jk})_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}$ is rapidly decreasing in $j$ and $k$ and that the symbol seminorms of the composed operators are polynomially controlled in $j$ and $k$, as indicated in Remark 3.9.\n\nSince $c_{jj}\\alpha^{(N)}\\in S^{\\nu-2N,0,0}\\cap S^{\\nu,-2N,0}$, the trace expansion follows from (3.5) with the statement (3.51) as in the proof of Theorem 3.3. (We have replaced $j$ by $j+1$ in (3.18) and inserted $\\mu =(-\\lambda )^{\\frac12}$, to facilitate comparison with (1.10).)\n\nWe have as an immediate corollary (using Proposition B.3 for $GG^{(N)}_\\lambda $):\n\nLet $G$ be a singular Green operator on $X$ of order $\\nu \\in\\Bbb R$ and class $0$. Consider a localization $\\underline G$ to $\\crnp$ as described after Lemma [3.1]{}, write$$\\underline G=\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\\Phi _j\\underline C_{jk}\\Phi ^*\n_k,\\quad \\underline C= \\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}\\underline C_{jj},\\tag3.52$$ with $\\underline C=\\op'(c(x',\\xi '))$, and carry $\\underline C$ back to an operator $C$ on $X'$ by use of the considered coordinate mappings. Then $$C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\\int\\slint\n\\tr c(x',\\xi ')\\,\\d\\xi ' dx'\n+\\text{ local terms,}\\tag 3.53$$ with vanishing local terms if $\\nu <-n+1$ or $\\nu \\in\\Bbb R\\setminus \\Bbb\nZ$. In particular, we have for the localized operators as well as for the operators on $X,X'$: $$\\aligned\nC_0(\\underline G,\\underline P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})&=C_0(\\underline\nC,\\underline S)+\\text{ local terms,}\\\\\nC_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})&=C_0(C,S)+\\text{ local terms,}\n\\endaligned\\tag 3.54$$ for any auxiliary elliptic second-order operator $S$ on $X'$ with no principal symbol eigenvalues on $\\Bbb R_-$.\n\nThis can be used to show the commutation property for $C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$:\n\nWhen $G$ and $G'$ are singular Green operators of orders $\\nu$ resp. $\\nu'$ and class 0, then $C_0([G,G'],P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is locally determined; it vanishes if $\\nu +\\nu '\\notin\\Bbb Z$ or $\\nu +\\nu '<1-n$.\n\nExpand the localized versions in series with Laguerre operators, $$\\underline G=\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\\Phi _j\\underline C_{jk}\\Phi ^*\n_k,\\quad\n\\underline G'=\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\\Phi _j\\underline C'_{jk}\\Phi ^*_k.$$ In view of (B.13),$$\\aligned\n[\\underline G,\\underline G']&=\\sum_{j,k,l,m}\\Phi _j \\underline C_{jk} \\Phi\n_k^*\\Phi _l\n\\underline C'_{lm} \\Phi _m^* - \\sum_{j,k,l,m}\\Phi _j \\underline C'_{jk}\n\\Phi\n_k^*\\Phi _l \\underline C_{lm} \\Phi _m^*\\\\\n&=\\sum_{j,k,m}\\Phi _j (\\underline C_{jk} \\underline\nC'_{km}-\\underline C'_{jk} \\underline C_{km})\n \\Phi _m ^* ,\n\\endaligned$$ and the diagonal sum associated with this operator as in (3.52) is: $$\\sum_{j,k} (\\underline C_{jk} \\underline C'_{kj}-\\underline C'_{jk}\n\\underline C_{kj})=\\sum_{j,k} \\underline C_{jk} \\underline\nC'_{kj}-\\sum_{j,k}\\underline C'_{kj}\n\\underline C_{jk}=\\sum_{j,k} [\\underline C_{jk}, \\underline C'_{kj}].$$ This series converges in the relevant symbol seminorms, in view of the rapid decrease of the $\\underline C_{jk}$ and $\\underline C'_{jk}$ for $j,k\\to\\infty $. Then it follows from Theorem 3.12 that $$C_0([\\underline G,\\underline G'],\\underline\nP_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=C_0(\\sum_{j,k}[\\underline C_{jk},\n\\underline C'_{kj}],\\underline S)+ \\text{ local terms }.$$ Now we use the fact known for closed manifolds (cf. e.g. [@G4]) that each $C_0([\\underline C_{jk},\\underline C'_{kj}],\\underline S)$ is local, defined from specific homogeneous terms in the symbols; then so is the sum. In particular, they vanish in the cases $\\nu\n+\\nu '\\notin\\Bbb Z$ or $\\nu +\\nu '<1-n$; then so does the sum. The resulting statements carry back to the manifold situation. Hence $C_0([G,G'], P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is local.\n\nIt may be remarked that when $G=\\sum _{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\\Phi\n_jC_{jk}\\Phi ^*_k$ on $\\crnp$ with $C_{jk}=\\op'(c_{jk}(x',\\xi '))$, then the symbol of $G$ has the same principal part as $\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\\hat\\varphi _j(\\xi _n,\\sigma\n)c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\eta _n,\\sigma )$, but need not equal the full symbol. Likewise, the normal trace $\\tr_n G$ has the same principal symbol as the diagonal sum $\\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}C_{jj}$, but not always the same full symbol. In any case, the above considerations show that they give the same contribution to $C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ (modulo local terms, if $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$, $\\nu \\ge -n$).\n\nThis ends the proof that $C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is a quasi-trace on s.g.o.s. We can also describe cases where it is a trace; more about that below.\n\nThe local terms, we have talked about so far, are defined from the symbols on $X$. But in fact, it is only the behavior in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of $X'$ that enters:\n\nAssume that a normal coordinate $x_n$ has been chosen such that a suitable neighborhood $X_1$ of $X'$ in $X$ is represented by the product $X_1=X'\\times [0,1]$, with $x\\in X_1$ written as $x=(x',x_n)$, $x'\\in X'$ and $x_n\\in [0,1]$. We can also assume that $E|_{X_1}$ is the lifting of $E|_{X'}$. Let $\\chi (t)$ be a $C^\\infty $ function on $\\crp$ that is 1 for $t\\le 1$ and $0$ for $t\\ge 2$, and, for $\\varepsilon <\\frac12$, let $$\\chi _\\varepsilon (x)=\\cases \\chi (x_n/\\varepsilon )\\text{ for }x\\in\nX_1,\\\\\n0\\text{ for }x\\in X\\setminus X_1.\\endcases\\tag3.55$$ Then we can write $$G=G_{\\operatorname{b}}+G_{\\operatorname{i}}; \\quad\nG_{\\operatorname{b}}=\\chi _{\\varepsilon /4}G\\chi _{\\varepsilon\n/4},\\tag3.56$$ here $G_{\\operatorname{b}}$ is supported in $X_{\\varepsilon\n/2}=X'\\times [0,\\varepsilon /2]$, and $G_{\\operatorname{i}}$ is of order $-\\infty $ (in particular it is trace-class). The auxiliary local coordinates can be chosen such that the variable $x_n$ is preserved for the patches intersecting with $X_1$; then $\\tr_n\nG_{\\operatorname{b}}$ has a meaning as a $\\psi $do on $X'$.\n\n[(i)]{} With the decomposition defined above, $$C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=C_0(G_{\\operatorname{b}},P_{1,D})+\\Tr_X\nG_{\\operatorname{i}}+ \\text{ local terms},\\tag 3.57$$ where the local terms depend on the symbol of $P_1$ and the first $\\nu +n$ symbols of $G$ on $X_\\varepsilon $ only.\n\n[(ii)]{} If $\\nu \\in \\Bbb R\\setminus \\Bbb Z$ or $\\nu <-n+1$, then $$C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\\operatorname{TR}_{X'}(\\tr_n\nG_{\\operatorname{b}})+\\Tr_X\nG_{\\operatorname{i}}.\\tag 3.58$$ For such values of $\\nu $, $C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is a canonical trace on the operators $G$: $$C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\\TR G,\\tag3.59$$ in the sense that it satisfies:\n\n\u201c(1)\u201d $C_0(G, P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is independent of $P_1$ if $\\nu \\notin\\Bbb Z$ or $\\nu <1-n$;\n\n\u201c(2)\u201d $C_0([G,G'],P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=0$ if $\\nu +\\nu\n'\\notin\\Bbb Z$ or $\\nu +\\nu '<1-n$.\n\n[(iii)]{} If $\\nu < 1-n$, $$\\TR G=\\Tr_X G.\\tag 3.60$$\n\nFor (i), note that since $\\chi _{\\varepsilon /4}=\\chi _{\\varepsilon /2}\\chi _{\\varepsilon /4}\n$ $$\\Tr(G_{\\operatorname{b}}R_\\lambda ^N)=\\Tr(\\chi _{\\varepsilon /2}\\chi\n_{\\varepsilon /4}G\\chi _{\\varepsilon /2}R_\\lambda ^N)=\n\\Tr(\\chi _{\\varepsilon /4}G\\chi _{\\varepsilon\n/2}R_\\lambda ^N\\chi _{\\varepsilon /2}),$$ which shows that only the behavior of $ R_\\lambda $ on $X_\\varepsilon $ and the behavior of $G$ on $X_{\\varepsilon /2}$ enter in the calculation of $C_0(G_{\\operatorname{b}},\nP_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$.\n\nAs noted in the preceding theorems, the formulas are exact without unspecified local terms, when $\\nu $ is as in (ii). Moreover, $C_0(G_{\\operatorname{b}},\nP_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=C_0(\\tr_nG_{\\operatorname{b}},S)$ then by (3.29), for the allowed auxiliary elliptic operators $S$. For the manifold $X'$ without boundary we have from [@KV], [@L], [@G4] that $C_0(\\tr_n\nG_{\\operatorname{b}},S)=\\TR\n(\\tr_n G_{\\operatorname{b}})$ for such $\\nu $. This shows (3.58). The statements in (1) and (2) have been shown further above.\n\nFor (iii), we note that when $\\nu <1-n$, $G_{\\operatorname{b}}$ is trace-class with continuous kernel, and $$\\Tr G_{\\operatorname{b}}=\\Tr _{X_\\varepsilon\n}G_{\\operatorname{b}}=\\int_{X'}\\int_0^\\varepsilon\nK(G_{\\operatorname{b}}, x,x)\\,dx_ndx'=\\Tr_{X'}(\\tr_n\nG_{\\operatorname{b}}).\\tag3.61$$ Then $C_0( G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\\Tr G_{\\operatorname{b}}+\\Tr\nG_{\\operatorname{i}}=\\Tr G$.\n\nIf $G_{\\operatorname{b}}$ is written in the local coordinates in the composition form (3.52), one can show similar formulas with $C$ instead of $\\tr_nG_{\\operatorname{b}}$.\n\nWhen $\\nu $ is integer, it may be so that $\\tr_n\nG_{\\operatorname{b}}$ or $C$ has a parity that fits with the dimension $n-1$, cf. (1.4)\u2013(1.5)ff. One could then try to show a canonical trace property of $C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ as in the corresponding situation for operators given directly on the closed manifold $X'$ as in [@G4]. This is further supported by the fact that since $\\kappa ^+(x',-\\xi ',\\mu )=\\kappa ^{-}(x',\\xi ',\\mu\n)$, $\\alpha ^{(1)}$ is even-even, cf. (A.12). However, there are a lot of terms that give local contributions; not only lower order terms in compositions but notably all the $c_{lm}(x',\\xi ')$ with $l\\ne m$ in the symbol $\\sum_{l,m\\in\\Bbb N}c_{lm}\\hat\\varphi\n_l\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_m$ of $G$; cf. Lemma B.4: For $l>m$, the resulting symbols involve $\\kappa ^+$, for $l<m$ $\\kappa ^-$, on the principal level. A high degree of symmetry seems required, or we can restrict the auxiliary operators to a nicer type:\n\nConsider $G$ as defined on the cylinder $X'\\times \\crp$ (after being cut down to a neighborhood $X_\\varepsilon $ of $X'$). Referring to this fixed choice of normal coordinate, we assume that the symbol of $P_1$ is not only even-even with respect to $\\xi $ (as any differential operator is), but it is so with respect to $\\xi '$. This holds when there are no terms with $D_{x_n}$ times a first-order operator in $x'$, for example when$$P_1=D_{x_n}^2+P'_1,\\tag3.62$$ where $P'_1$ is a second-order elliptic differential operator on $X'$. We can take $P'_1$ with positive principal symbol, to assure strong ellipticity of $P_1$ (a little more generality could be allowed).\n\nAssume that $G=\\opg(\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}c_{jk}\\hat\\varphi\n_j\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k)$ (expressed in local coordinates on $X'$, using $x_n$ as the normal coordinate), with the $c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')$ all being even-even or all being even-odd. Then when $GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}$ and $GG^{(N)}_\\lambda $ are calculated, we find that $$\\tr_n GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}\\text{ and }\\tr_n GG^{(N)}_\\lambda$$ are even-even of order $\\nu -2N$, resp. even-odd of order $\\nu\n-2N$. An application of the proof of to these two $\\psi $do\u2019s on $X'$ gives that in the even-even case, the local contributions to the coefficient of $\\mu ^0$ and to $\\log \\mu $ vanish if $n-1$ is odd, and in the even-odd case, the local contributions to the coefficient of $\\mu ^0$ and to $\\log \\mu $ vanish if $n-1$ is even. So indeed, restricting the auxiliary operators to those of the form (3.62), we have a canonical trace in suitable parity cases. We have shown:\n\nLet $G$ be given on the cylinder $X'\\times \\crp$ with points $(x',x_n)$ and let $P_1$, in addition to being strongly elliptic with scalar principal symbol, be of the form [(3.62)]{}. Let $G$ be of order $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$, with symbol $\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb\nN}c_{jk}(x',\\xi ')\\hat\\varphi\n_j(\\xi _n,\\sigma )\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\eta _n,\\sigma )$ (for a choice of local coordinates on $X'$, with $x_n$ as normal coordinate). Then $$C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\\TR (\\tr_n G)\\tag3.63$$ holds in the following cases:\n\n[(i)]{} All the $c_{jk}$ are even-even and $n$ is even.\n\n[(ii)]{} All the $c_{jk}$ are even-odd and $n$ is odd.\n\nIn this sense, we may say that s.g.o.s have the canonical trace $$\\TR G=\\TR_{X'}(\\tr_n G),\\tag3.64$$in the above cases (i) and (ii). One can also show that $C_0([G,G'], P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=0$ when, in the case $n$ even, the $c_{jk}$ and $c'_{jk}$ are either all even-even or all even-odd; in the case $n$ odd it holds when all the $c_{jk}$ are even-even and all the $c'_{jk}$ are even-odd.\n\nIf $G$ is given in the form (3.52), the statements hold with $\\tr_n G$ replaced by $C=\\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}C_{jj}$.\n\nOne could also introduce a parity concept directly for s.g.o.\u00a0symbols $g$, but it involves some unpractical shifts: Recall that in the polyhomogeneous expansion $g\\sim\\sum_{l\\ge 0}g_{\\nu -1-l}$, the homogeneity degree of the $l$\u2019th term is $\\nu -1-l$, one step lower than the order. Since the $\\varphi _j$ depend on $\\xi '$ through $\\sigma (\\xi ')=[\\xi ']$, the parity statements on the $c_{jk}$ correspond to the opposite parity in $\\xi '$ for $g$, relative to the degrees. \u2014 Observe moreover that the parity property depends on the choice of normal coordinate (cf. the general transformation rule [@G2; @(2.4.62)ff.]).\n\nFor an example where the result may be of interest, let us mention that the singular Green part of the solution operator for the Dirichlet or Neumann problem for a strongly elliptic differential operator of the form (3.62) has even-even parity for the coefficients $c_{jk}$ in the Laguerre expansion of the symbol. (This is seen by calculations related to those in Remark 4.2 below, for fixed $\\lambda $.) Then it has a canonical trace if $n$ is even.\n\nIf we merely have that $\\tr_n g$ has a parity that fits the dimension $n-1$ (instead of all $c_{jk}$ having it), then there holds at least that $\\TR (\\tr_n G)=C_0(\\tr_n G,S)$ is well-defined independently of $S$ when $n$ is even, resp. odd, by the result for closed manifolds ([@KV], [@G4]) applied to $X'$. This number can then be viewed as the nonlocal part of $C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$, in an explicit way.\n\nThe application of [@GS1; @pf.; @of; @Th.; @2.1] to $\\tr_n GR^N_\\lambda $ shows even more, namely that in the parity cases (i) and (ii) in Theorem 3.15, all the coefficients $\\tilde c_j$ with $\\nu +n-1-j$ even and all the log-coefficients $\\tilde c'_k$ with $k$ even vanish in (1.10) (cf. also ). This holds also for the pointwise kernel expansions as in (3.18).\n\nFinally, let us mention another useful application of the method leading to Theorem 3.13:\n\nWhen $K$ is a Poisson operator of order $\\nu\n$ and $T$ is a trace operator of class $0$ and order $\\nu '$, then, for auxiliary operators $P_{1,\\operatorname{D}}$ and $S$ as above, $$C_0(KT,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=C_0(TK,S) +\\text{ local terms};\\tag 3.65$$ the local terms vanishing if $\\nu +\\nu '<1-n$ or $\\notin\\Bbb Z$.\n\nApplying a partition of unity, we can reduce to the case where the operators are given on $\\rnp$ (with compact $x'$-support). Here we write (cf. Lemma B.7) $$K=\\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}\\Phi _jC_j,\\quad T=\\sum_{k\\in\\Bbb N}C'_k\\Phi _k^*,$$ with rapidly decreasing sequences $(C_j)_{j\\in\\Bbb N}$ and $(C'_k)_{k\\in\\Bbb N}$ of $\\psi $do\u2019s on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$ of order $\\nu\n-\\frac12$ resp. $\\nu '+\\frac12$ (and with compact $x'$-support). By (3.54) and (B.13),$$\\aligned\nC_0(KT, P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})&=C_0(\\sum_{j,k\\in \\Bbb N}\\Phi\n_jC_jC'_k\\Phi  _k^*, P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})\\\\\n&=C_0(\\sum_{j}C_jC'_j,S)+\\text{ local terms};\\\\\nC_0(TK,S)&=C_0(\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}C'_k\\Phi _k^*\\Phi _jC_j,S)\n=C_0(\\sum_{j}C'_jC_j,S).\n\\endaligned$$ The latter equals $C_0(\\sum_{j}C_jC'_j,S)$ modulo local terms, by the commutativity property for $\\psi $do\u2019s on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$ and the rapid decrease of the $C_j$ and $C'_j$. This shows the identity (3.65), and the vanishing statement follows in the usual way.\n\n4\\. The integer order case with nonvanishing $\\psi $do part\n\nConsider now the case where $A$ equals $P_++G$, of order $\\nu \\in\\Bbb\nZ$. Here $C_0(P_++G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=C_0(P_+,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})\n+C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$, where $C_0(G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ has already been analyzed. For the determination of $C_0(P_+,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$, we rewrite as follows: $$\\aligned\n\\Tr(P_+R_\\lambda ^N)&=\\Tr(P_+Q_{\\lambda ,+} ^N)+\\Tr(P_+G_\\lambda\n^{(N)})\\\\\n&=\\Tr((PQ^N_{\\lambda })_+)-\\Tr(G^+(P)G^-(Q^N_{\\lambda }))+\\Tr(P_+G_\\lambda\n^{(N)}).\n\\endaligned\\tag4.1$$ It follows from the results of [@GSc] recalled in Appendix B that the last two terms have expansions as in Proposition B.3, contributing only locally to $C_0(P_+,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$. For the first term, we find the desired information by considering $PQ^N_\\lambda $ on $\\widetilde X$. As in Section 3 (see the details after Lemma 3.1), we can use local coordinates and a subordinate parition of unity, now covering all of $\\widetilde X$ with open sets $U_i$, such that subsets of $X$ resp. $\\widetilde X\\setminus X$ are mapped to subsets of $\\crnp$ resp. $\\rnm$, the intersections of the $U_i$ with $X'$ being mapped into $\\partial \\crnp$. Again we can replace the images $V_{j(i_1,i_2)}$ by sets $V'_{i_1,i_2}$ with positive distance from one another (in the $x'$-direction), so that we can refer to one localized operator. By and the more detailed information in , the kernel of $PQ^N_\\lambda $ in the localized situation has a diagonal expansion:$$K( PQ^N_\\lambda ,x,x)\n\\sim\n\\sum_{ j\\in \\Bbb N  } \\tilde c_{ j}(x)(-\\lambda )  ^{\\frac{\\nu +n -j}2-N}+\n\\sum_{k\\in \\Bbb N}\\bigl( \\tilde c'_{ k}(x)\\log (-\\lambda )  +\\tilde c''_{\nk}(x)\\bigr)(-\\lambda ) ^{-k-N},\n\\tag4.2$$ where $$c_{\\nu +n}(x)+c''_0(x)=\\slint p(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi +\\text{ local\nterms}.\\tag4.3$$ From the sets mapped into $\\crnp$, we find $\\Tr_{X}((PQ^N_\\lambda )_+)$ by integrating over ${\\Bbb R^n_+}$. Then (4.2) implies $$\\Tr_X((PQ^N_\\lambda )_+)\\sim \\sum_{ j\\in \\Bbb N  } \\tilde c_{ j,+}(-\\lambda\n)  ^{\\frac{\\nu +n -j}2-N}+\n\\sum_{k\\in \\Bbb N}\\bigl( \\tilde c'_{ k,+}\\log (-\\lambda )  +\\tilde c''_{\nk,+}\\bigr)(-\\lambda ) ^{-k-N},\n\\tag4.4$$ where the coefficients are obtained from the coefficients in (4.2) by integration in $x$. In particular, in view of (4.3),$$c_{\\nu +n,+}+c''_{0,+}=\\int_{\\Bbb R^n_+} \\slint  \\tr p(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi dx\n+\\text{ local terms.}\\tag4.5$$ Here $c_{\\nu +n,+}$ is also locally determined, so we can conclude:\n\nLet $P$ be of order $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$, having the transmission property at $X'$. In the localized situation, $$C_0(P_+,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\\int_{\\Bbb R^n_+} \\slint \\tr p(x,\\xi\n)\\,\\d\\xi\ndx+\\text{ local terms.}\\tag4.6$$ When $P_1$ and $P_2$ are two choices of auxiliary operator, then $C_0(P_+,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})-C_0(P_+,P_{2,\\operatorname{D}})$ is locally determined.\n\nIt only remains to establish the last statement: It holds, since the global term $\\int_{\\Bbb R^n_+} \\tslint \\tr p(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi dx$ cancels out in the calculation of the difference in local coordinates, leaving only locally determined terms.\n\nAs usual, we can ask for cases where the local terms vanish. They do so for $\\nu <-n$, where $$C_0(P_+,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})=\\Tr P_+$$ is easily seen. For $\\nu \\ge -n$, one can analyze cases with parity properties, but they will in general not have vanishing local contributions, as the following considerations show: Let $P_+=I$, the simplest possible choice, and let $P_1$ be of the simple form (3.62) with $P'_1$ selfadjoint positive. We have to expand$$\\Tr(IR^N_\\lambda )=\\Tr (Q^N_{\\lambda ,+})+ \\Tr (G^{(N)}_\\lambda ).$$ Since $Q_\\lambda $ is even-even,$$\\Tr (Q^N_{\\lambda ,+})\\sim\\sum_{j'\\in\\Bbb N}\\tilde c_{2j',+}(-\\lambda\n)^{\\frac n2-j'-N},$$ which contributes to the power $(-\\lambda )^{-N}$ when $n$ is [*even*]{}. On the cylinder $X'\\times \\crp$, the Dirichlet s.g.o.\u00a0$G_\\lambda $ can be explicitly constructed (cf.\u00a0(2.10)) to be$$\\gathered\nG_\\lambda =-K_{A_\\lambda }(2A_\\lambda )^{-1}T_{A_\\lambda },\\text{ where}\\\\\nA_\\lambda =(P'_1-\\lambda )^{\\frac12},\\; K_{A_\\lambda }\\:\nv(x')\\mapsto e^{-x_nA_\\lambda }v,\\;T_{A_\\lambda }\\:u(x)\\mapsto\n\\int_0^\\infty e^{-x_nA_\\lambda }u(x',x_n)\\,dx_n;\n\\endgathered$$ with notation as in [@G6]. Then $\\tr_n G_\\lambda =-(2A_\\lambda\n)^{-2}=-\\frac14(P'_1-\\lambda )^{-1}$. This is a resolvent on $X'$, and the $N$\u2019th derivative has a trace expansion $$\\Tr (G^{(N)}_\\lambda )=\\Tr_{X'}(\\tr_n G_\\lambda ^{(N)})\n\\sim\\sum_{j'\\in\\Bbb N}a_{2j'}(-\\lambda\n)^{\\frac {n-1}2-j'-N},$$ which contributes to the power $(-\\lambda )^{-N}$ when $n$ is [*odd*]{}.\n\nHowever, in cases where $p$ has a parity that fits with the dimension $n$, one can at least observe that the integral $\\int_{\\Bbb R^n_+} \\tslint \\tr p(x,\\xi )\\,\\d\\xi dx$ has a coordinate invariant meaning (cf. Remark 3.2), so it gives an explicit value that can be considered as the nonlocal part of $C_0(P_+,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$.\n\nTheorem 4.1 assures the validity of (2.7) for $C_0(P_++G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$. In the proof of (2.8), we restrict the attention to operators $P$ of normal order $\\le 0$.\n\nFor (2.8), it would be possible to refer again to Laguerre expansions (as in the considerations of s.g.o.s in Section 3), using that $P$ on the symbol level acts like a Toeplitz operator. More precisely, if one writes $p(x',0,\\xi )=\\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb Z}a_j(x',\\xi ')\\hat\\psi _j(\\xi _n,\\sigma\n)$ with $$\\hat\\psi _j(\\xi _n,\\sigma )=\\frac{(\\sigma -i\\xi _n)^j}{(\\sigma +i\\xi\n_n)^{j}},\\tag4.7$$ then in the one-dimensional calculus based on Laguerre expansion in $L_2(\\rp)$, $p(x',0,\\xi ',D_n)_+$ acts like the Toeplitz operator with matrix $(a_{j-k})_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}$, cf. . With some effort, the localness of $C_0([P_+,G'],P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ and $C_0([P_+,P'_+],P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ can be proved by use of the localness of $C_0$ on commutators over $X'$, but the interpretations and composition rules for the involved operators are not altogether simple to deal with. Instead we shall rely on repeated commutator techniques.\n\nIn order to study the commutator of a pseudodifferential operator $P_+$ of order $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$ with an operator $A'=P'_++G'$ of order $\\nu '\\in \\Bbb Z$, we write:$$\\Tr([P_+,A']R_\\lambda ^N)=\n\\Tr([P_+,A']Q_{\\lambda ,+} ^N)+\\Tr([P_+,A']G_\\lambda^{(N)}).\\tag4.8$$ We know from Proposition B.3 that the second term contributes only locally to $C_0$, and go on with an analysis the first term: $$\\aligned\n\\Tr([P_+,A']&Q_{\\lambda ,+} ^N)=\\Tr(A'Q_{\\lambda ,+}\n^NP_+)-\\Tr(A'P_+Q_{\\lambda ,+} ^N)\\\\\n&=\\Tr(A'[Q_{\\lambda } ^N,P]_+)-\\Tr(A'G^+(Q_{\\lambda } ^N)G^-(P))+\n\\Tr(A'G^+(P)G^-(Q_{\\lambda } ^N))\\\\\n&=\\Tr(A'[Q_{\\lambda } ^N,P]_+)-\\Tr(G^-(P)A'G^+(Q_{\\lambda } ^N))+\n\\Tr(A'G^+(P)G^-(Q_{\\lambda } ^N)).\n\\endaligned\\tag4.9$$ Again, the last two terms contribute only locally to $C_0$, by Proposition B.3. It is used that our hypotheses on $P$ assure that the s.g.o.s $G^{\\pm}(P)$ are of class 0.\n\nNow consider the remaining term $\\Tr(A'[Q_{\\lambda } ^N,P]_+)$. The expression $[Q_{\\lambda } ^N,P]_+$ is not very convenient in the boundary calculus, as a mixture of strongly polyhomogeneous parameter-dependent and arbitrary parameter-independent interior operators. However, we shall now show that it can be reduced to an expression with $\\lambda $-dependent factors to the right only, with better decrease in $\\lambda $ than $Q_\\lambda $, plus a manageable remainder term.\n\nLet $P$ be of order $\\nu $ and normal order $\\le 0$. For $r>0$, let $P_{(r)}$ denote the $r$\u2019th commutator of $P$ with $P_1$: $$P_{(1)}=[P,P_1],\\;\nP_{(2)}=[[P,P_1],P_1],\\;\\dots,\\;P_{(r)}=[\\cdots[[P,P_1],P_1]\\dots,P_1];\\tag4.10$$ it is of order $\\nu +r$ and of normal order $\\le \\min\\{\\nu +r,2r\\}$).\n\nFor any $M>0$, $[Q_\\lambda ,P]$ may be written as$$[Q_\\lambda ,P]=P_{(1)}Q_\\lambda ^2+P_{(2)}Q_\\lambda\n^3+\\dots+P_{(M)}Q_\\lambda ^{M+1}+Q_\\lambda P_{(M+1)}Q_\\lambda\n^{M+1}.\\tag4.11$$\n\nSince $P_1$ has scalar principal symbol and is of order 2, $[P,P_1]$ is of order $\\nu +1$. Since $P$ is of normal order 0 and $P_1$ is of normal order 2, $[P,P_1]$ is of normal order 2 (e.g., $\\partial _{x_1}p_{1,2}$ is generally so). Similarly, every subsequent commutation lifts the order by 1 and the normal order by 2, so the $r$\u2019th commutator is of order $\\nu +r$ and normal order $\\le 2r$. Since it has the transmission property, it also has normal order $\\le \\nu +r$. This explains the first statement. The second statement follows by successive applications of the following calculation: $$\\aligned\n[Q_\\lambda ,P_{(r)}]&=Q_\\lambda P_{(r)}-P_{(r)}Q_\\lambda\n=Q_\\lambda P_{(r)}(P_1-\\lambda )Q_\\lambda -Q_\\lambda (P_1-\\lambda\n)P_{(r)}Q_\\lambda \\\\\n&=Q_\\lambda [P_{(r)},P_1]Q_\\lambda=Q_\\lambda P_{(r+1)}Q_\\lambda =\nP_{(r+1)}Q_\\lambda^2+ [Q_\\lambda ,P_{(r+1)}]Q_\\lambda;\n\\endaligned$$ hence $$\\aligned\n[Q_\\lambda ,P]&= P_{(1)}Q_\\lambda ^2+[Q_\\lambda ,P_{(1)}]Q_\\lambda\n=\\dots \\\\\n&=P_{(1)}Q_\\lambda ^2+P_{(2)}Q_\\lambda\n^3+\\dots+P_{(M)}Q_\\lambda ^{M+1}+[Q_\\lambda ,P_{(M)}]Q_\\lambda ^{M}\\\\\n&=P_{(1)}Q_\\lambda ^2+P_{(2)}Q_\\lambda\n^3+\\dots+P_{(M)}Q_\\lambda ^{M+1}+Q_\\lambda P_{(M+1)}Q_\\lambda\n^{M+1}.\\quad\\square\n\\endaligned$$\n\nLet $P$ and $P'$ be $\\psi $do\u2019s of order $\\nu $ resp. $\\nu '\\in\\Bbb Z$ and normal order $\\le 0$, and let $G'$ be an s.g.o.\u00a0of order $\\nu '$ and class $0$; denote $P'_++G'=A'$. For $N>(\\nu +\\nu '+n)/2$, $\\Tr(A'[Q_\\lambda ^N,P]_+)$ has an expansion$$\\Tr(A'[Q_\\lambda ^N,P]_+)\n\\sim\\sum_{j\\ge\n0}\\!a_{j}(-\\lambda)\n^{\\frac{n+\\nu +\\nu '- j}{2}-N}\n+\\sum_{k\\ge\n1}(a'_k\\log (-\\lambda )+a''_k)(-\\lambda )\n^{-\\frac k2-N}.\\tag 4.12$$\n\nWe know from the preceding calculation that there is an expansion as in (1.10) with $\\nu $ replaced by $\\nu +\\nu '$; the point is to show that the series in $k$ starts with a lower power than $-N$.\n\nRecalling that $Q_\\lambda ^N=\\tfrac 1{(N-1)!}\\partial _\\lambda\n^{N-1}Q_\\lambda $, we find from (4.11): $$\\multline\n[Q^N_\\lambda ,P]=c_1P_{(1)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+1}+c_2P_{(2)}Q_\\lambda\n^{N+2}+\\dots+c_MP_{(M)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+M}\\\\\n+\\sum_{1\\le l\\le N}c'_{l}Q_\\lambda ^{l}P_{(M+1)}Q_\\lambda\n^{N+M+1-l}.\\endmultline\\tag4.13$$ In order to establish the expansion (4.12) we shall study the terms $$P'_+(P_{(r)}Q^{(N+r)}_\\lambda)_+ \\\n\\text{ and }\n\\ G'(P_{(r)}Q^{(N+r)}_\\lambda)_+; \\quad 1\\le r\\le M; \\tag4.14$$ as well as $$A'(Q_\\lambda ^{l}P_{(M+1)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+M+1-l})_+ ;\\quad\n1\\le l\\le N. \\tag4.15$$ The operator $Q_\\lambda ^{l}P_{(M+1)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+M+1-l}$ is a $\\psi$do on $\\widetilde X$ with a symbol in $S^{\\nu+M+1,0,-2N-2M-2}$. The compositions in (4.15) will therefore be trace-class on $L^2(X)$ when $\\nu -M-2N-1\\le 0$, $\\nu '+\\nu -M-2N-1<-n$, and their trace will for any given $M'$ be $O(\\lambda^{-M'})$ for sufficiently large $M$. Our assertion will thus be true for these terms.\n\nWe turn to the terms in (4.14), considered in local coordinates. In view of (2.6), we can decompose $P_{(r)}= P_{(r)}'+P_{(r)}''$, where $P_{(r)}''$ is a differential operator of order $\\le \\nu+r$ and normal order $\\le \\min\\{\\nu +r,2r\\}$, and $P_{(r)}'$ has the property that $G^+(P'_{(r)})$ is of class 0, as a sum of an operator of normal order 0 and an operator with a factor $x_n^{M'}$ to the right, $M'\\ge 2r$. Then $$(P_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})_+\n=P'_{(r),+}Q_{\\lambda ,+}^{N+r}+G^+(P'_{(r)})G^-(Q_{\\lambda\n}^{N+r})+(P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})_+. \\tag4.16$$\n\nNote that $$P''_{(r)}=\\sum_{0\\le j\\le 2r}S_j(x,D_{x'})D_{x_n}^j$$ with tangential differential operators $S_j$ of order $\\nu +r-j$. The symbol of $Q^{N+r}_\\lambda $ has the structure described in (A.10), with typical term $r_{N+r,J,m}(p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{-m}$ where $J+2N+2r\\le 2m\\le 4J+2N+2r$ and $r_{N+r,J,m}$ is polynomial in $\\xi $ of degree $\\le 2m-2N-2r-J$. When this is multiplied by $\\xi _n^{2r}$ and we redefine $J+2r=J'$, we get a term with numerator of order $\\le 2m-2N-J'$ and denominator $(p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{m}$, $J'+2N\\le 2m\\le 4J'+2N-6r\\le 4J'+2N$; this is of the type in the symbol expansion of $Q^N_\\lambda $. Similarly, multiplication by $\\xi _n^{j}$ for $j\\le 2r$ gives terms of the types in the symbol expansions of $Q^{N'}_\\lambda $ with $N'\\ge N$. The point of this analysis is that we can write $$G^-(P''_{(r)}Q^{N+r}_\\lambda )=\\sum_{0\\le j\\le\n2r}S_j(x,D_{x'})G^-(D_{x_n}^jQ^{N+r}_\\lambda ),\n\\tag4.17$$ where the factors $G^-(D_{x_n}^{j}Q^{N+r}_\\lambda )$ have structures like the $G^-(Q^{N'}_\\lambda )$, $N'\\ge N$, so that Proposition B.3 can be applied.\n\nThe composition of $A'$ with the terms in (4.16) gives a number of terms: $$\\aligned\n\\text{(i) }&P'_+P'_{(r),+}Q_{\\lambda ,+}^{N+r}=(P'P'_{(r)})_+Q_{\\lambda\n,+}^{N+r} -\nG^+(P')G^-(P'_{(r)})Q_{\\lambda ,+}^{N+r}\\\\\n&=(P'P'_{(r)}Q_{\\lambda\n}^{N+r} )_+\n-G^+(P'P'_{(r)})G^-(Q_{\\lambda ,+}^{N+r})-G^+(P')G^-(P'_{(r)})Q_{\\lambda\n,+}^{N+r} ,\\\\\n\\text{(ii) }&G'P'_{(r),+}Q_{\\lambda ,+}^{N+r},\\\\\n\\text{(iii) }&A'G^+(P'_{(r)})G^-(Q_{\\lambda\n}^{N+r}),\\\\\n\\text{(iv) }&P'_+(P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})_+=\n(P'P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})_+-\nG^+(P')G^-(P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r}),\\\\\n\\text{(v) }&G'(P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})_+.\n\\endaligned$$ To the terms in (i) and (iii) with the s.g.o.-factor $G^-(Q_\\lambda\n^{r+N})$ we can apply Proposition B.3 with $\\nu ,N$ replaced by $\\nu +\\nu ',N+r$; here the series in $k$ starts with the power $(-\\lambda )^{-\\frac12-N-r}$.\n\nThe term $G^+(P')G^-(P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})$ in (iv) with the s.g.o.-factor $G^-(P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{r+N})$ is written in view of (4.17) as $$G^+(P')G^-(P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})=\n\\sum_{0\\le j\\le\n2r}G^+(P')S_j(x,D_{x'})G^-(D_{x_n}^jQ^{N+r}_\\lambda) ,$$ where each $G^+(P')S_j(x,D_{x'})$ is of class 0. Proposition B.3 applies and gives contributions as in (4.12).\n\nFor the terms in (i) and (ii) of the form of an s.g.o.\u00a0composed with $Q^{r+N}_{\\lambda ,+}$, we apply Proposition B.5. Since $r\\ge 1$, the series in $k$ has only powers $\\le -1-N$ of $\\lambda $, so the contribution to the coefficient of $(-\\lambda )^{-N}$ is local.\n\nFor (v), we rewrite $G'(P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})_+=(G'P''_{(r),+})Q_{\\lambda ,+}\n^{N+r}$, noting that the leftover term for the product is zero, since $P''_{(r)}$ is a differential operator. Now $G'P''_{(r),+}$ is an s.g.o.\u00a0of order $\\nu'+\\nu+r$ and class $\\le\\min\\{\\nu+r, 2r\\}$. It therefore has a representation $$G_0 + \\sum_{0\\le j\\le 2r-1} K_j\\gamma_j$$ with an s.g.o.\u00a0$G_0$ of order $\\nu+\\nu'+r$ and class 0 and Poisson operators $K_j$ of order $\\nu+\\nu'+r-j$. The composition $G_0Q_{\\lambda ,+}^{N+r}$ is like (ii); Proposition B.5 applies to give an expansion (4.12).\n\nNext we decompose $K_j$ according to Lemma B.7: $K_j=\\sum_{l\\ge 0}\\Phi_lC_{jl}$ with a rapidly decreasing sequence $(C_{jl})_l$ in $S^{\\nu+\\nu'+r-j+\\frac12}$. Then $$\\Tr(K_j\\gamma_jQ^{N+r}_{\\lambda,+})=\n\\sum_{l\\ge 0}\n\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}(\\gamma_0\\partial^j_{x_n}\nQ^{N+r}_{\\lambda ,+}\\Phi_lC_{jl}).$$ The composition $\\gamma_0\\partial_{x_n}^jQ^{N+r}_{\\lambda ,+}\\Phi_l$ is a $\\psi$do on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$ with the symbol $$\\sum_{j_1+j_2=j}\\binom{j}{j_1}\n\\int^+\n(i\\xi_n)^{j_1}\\,\\partial^{j_2}_{x_n}q^{\\circ(N+r)}(x',0,\\xi,\\mu)\\,\n\\hat\\varphi_l(\\xi_n,\\sigma)\\d\\xi_n.\\tag 4.18$$ We know from (A.8)\u2013(A.11) that $(i\\xi_n)^{j_1}\\partial_{x_n}^{j_2}q^{\\circ(N+r)}_{-2(N+r)-J}$ is a finite sum of terms of the form $\\xi_n^{j_1}r_{J,m}(p_{12}+\\mu^2)^{-m}$ with a polynomial $r_{J,m}$ of degree $\\le 2m-2(N+r)-J$. Decomposing it into simple fractions, we obtain a sum of terms of the form $r^\\pm_{J,k}(\\kappa^\\pm\\pm i\\xi_n)^{-k}$ with $r^\\pm_{J,k}(x',\\xi',\\mu)$ strongly homogeneous in $(\\xi',\\mu)$ of degree $\\le j+k-2(N+r)-J$. Inserting this into (4.18) and using Lemma B.1, we see that $\\gamma_jQ^{N+r}_{\\lambda ,+}\\Phi_l$ has its symbol in $S^{\\frac12,0,-2N-2r+j}$; the symbol seminorms grow at most polynomially in $l$. Since $j<2r$, we then reach the expansion (4.12).\n\nThe remaining $\\psi $do terms in (i) and (iv), $(P'P'_{(r)}Q_{\\lambda\n}^{N+r} )_+$ and $(P'P''_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})_+$, add up to $(P'P_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{N+r})_+$, which is treated as in Theorem 4.1, using the pointwise kernel expansion on $\\widetilde X$. Here $P'P_{(r)}Q_\\lambda ^{r+N}$ has symbol in $S^{\\nu '+\\nu +r,\n0,-2r-2N}\\subset S^{\\nu '+\\nu -r-2N,0,0}$$\\cap S^{\\nu '+\\nu +r,\n-2r-2N,0}$ with $d$-index $\\le -2-2N$ since $r\\ge 1$, so we get an expansion contributing only locally to the coefficient of $(-\\lambda )^{-N}$.\n\nWe now have all the ingredients for the proof of:\n\nLet $P$ and $P'$ be $\\psi $do\u2019s of order $\\nu $ resp. $\\nu '\\in\\Bbb Z$ and normal order $0$, and let $G$ and $G'$ be singular Green operators of order $\\nu $ resp.\u00a0$\\nu '$ and class $0$. Then $C_0([P_++G,P'_++G'],P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is locally determined.\n\nWe have that $$[P_++G,P'_++G']=[P_++G,P'_+]+[P_+,G']+[G,G'].$$ The last term was shown in Theorem 3.13 to contribute locally to $C_0$. For the two other terms we have the analysis above, through (4.8), (4.9) and Proposition 4.4, showing that they contribute only locally to $C_0$.\n\nThis completes the proof that (2.8) holds also for operators of type $A=P_++G$, so $C_0(P_++G,P_{1,\\operatorname{D}})$ is indeed a quasi-trace on such operators. In addition, we have found the interesting information that the contribution from $P_+$ can be traced back to a pointwise defined contribution from $P$ over $\\widetilde X$, and that the contribution from $G$ can be traced back to an interior trace contribution of order $-\\infty $ plus a contribution from the normal trace on $X'$; here both $\\widetilde X$ and $X'$ are compact manifolds without boundary.\n\nAppendix A. The structure of the auxiliary operators\n\nWe here recall the symbol formulas established and used in [@GSc], and some useful consequences. The parameter-dependent entries were indexed by $\\mu =(-\\lambda )^{\\frac12}$ in [@GSc]; we simply replace this here by indexation by $\\lambda $, although $\\mu $ can still appear as a variable.\n\nThroughout this paper, we denote by $[\\xi ']$ a positive $C^\\infty $ function of $\\xi\n'$ that coincides with $|\\xi '|$ for $|\\xi '|\\ge 1$. It will often be denoted $\\sigma (\\xi ')$ or just $\\sigma $.\n\nThe principal (second-order) symbol of $P_1$ is denoted $p_{1,2}$, so the principal symbol of $Q_\\lambda $ is $q_{-2}=(p_{1,2}-\\lambda)^{-1}\n=(p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{-1}$.\n\nWe assume $P_1$ to be strongly elliptic; this means that the principal symbol $p_{1,2}(x,\\xi )$ has positive real part when $\\xi \\ne 0$. Since $|\\operatorname{Im}p_{1,2}(x,\\xi )|\\le |p_{1,2}(x,\\xi )|\\le\nC\\operatorname{Re}p_{1,2}(x,\\xi )$, there is a sector $\\Gamma $ such that $p_{1,2}(x,\\xi )+\\mu ^2\\ne 0$ when $\\mu \\in \\Gamma \\cup \\{0\\}$, $(\\xi\n,\\mu\n)\\ne (0,0)$; cf. also (3.9).\n\nThe following observation will be useful:\n\nLet $p (x,\\xi )$ be a uniformly strongly elliptic homogeneous second-order differential operator symbol on $\\Bbb R^n$, with $p-\\lambda =p+\\mu ^2$ invertible for $\\mu \\in\\Gamma $. Then for any $m$, $L>0$,$$\\aligned\n(p +\\mu ^2)^{-m}&=\n\\sum_{0\\le j <L}c_{m,j } \\mu ^{-2m-2j } p^{j }+\n\\mu ^{-2m-2L } p'_L(x,\\xi ,\\mu ), \\text{ where}\\\\\n p'_L(x,\\xi ,\\mu )&=\\sum_{0\\le k\\le m}c_{m,L,k}\n p ^{L+k}(p +\\mu ^2)^{-k}. \\endaligned\\tag A.1$$ Here one has for all indices:$$|\\partial _\\lambda ^N\\partial _x^\\beta \\partial _\\xi ^\\alpha\np'_L(x,\\xi ,\\mu )|\\le C_{\\alpha ,\\beta ,N\n}\\ang\\xi ^{2L-|\\alpha |-2N},\\tag A.2$$ with constants $C_{\\alpha ,\\beta ,N}$ independent of $\\mu \\in\\Gamma $ for $|\\mu |\\ge 1$.\n\nOne has for $b\\in \\Bbb C\\setminus\\{1\\}$, $L\\ge 1$, $$\\aligned (1-b)^{-m}=&\\frac1{(m-1)!}\\partial_b^{m-1}\\frac1{1-b}=\n\\frac1{(m-1)!}\\partial_b^{m-1}\\Bigl(\\sum_{0\\le k <L+m-1}b^k\n+\\frac{b^{L+m-1}}{1-b}\\Bigr)\n\\\\\n=&\\sum_{0\\le j <L}c_j b^{j }+\\sum_{1\\le l\\le m}\n\\frac{c'_lb^{L+l-1}}{(1-b)^{l}}.\n\\endaligned\\tag A.3$$ An application to $1-b=1+p /\\mu ^2$ gives$$\\aligned\n(p +\\mu ^2)^{-m}&=\\mu ^{-2m}(1+p /\\mu ^2)^{-m}\\\\\n&=\\mu ^{-2m}\\bigl(\\sum_{0\\le j <L}c_j \\mu ^{-2j\n}p ^j +\\sum_{1\\le l\\le m}c'_l\\mu\n^{-2L-2l+2}p ^{L+l-1}\n(1+p /\\mu ^2)^{-l}\\bigr)\\\\\n&=\\sum_{0\\le j <L}c_j  \\mu ^{-2m-2j\n}p ^j +\\mu ^{-2m-2L+2}\\sum_{1\\le l\\le m}c'_lp ^{L+l-1}\n(p +\\mu ^2)^{-l}.\n\\endaligned$$ Insertion of $\\mu ^2(p +\\mu ^2)^{-1}=1-p (p +\\mu ^2)^{-1}$ in the last sum leads to (A.1). Since $p $ is polynomial of degree 2, $(p +\\mu ^2)^{-1}$ is $C^\\infty $ and homogeneous in $(\\xi ,\\mu\n)$ of degree $-2$ for $(\\xi ,\\mu )\\ne 0$, and $\\partial\n_\\lambda ^N(p-\\lambda )^{-l}=c_{l,N}(p-\\lambda )^{-l-N},$ $$\\multline\n|\\partial _\\lambda ^N\\partial _x^\\beta\n\\partial _\\xi ^\\alpha p'_L(x,\\xi ,\\mu )|\n\\le C'_{\\alpha ,\\beta ,N}\\sum_{0\\le k\\le m,\\alpha '\\le\\alpha }\n(\\partial _\\xi ^{\\alpha '}p^{L+k})\n|(\\xi ,\\mu )|^{-2k-2N-|\\alpha -\\alpha '|}\\\\\n\\le C_{\\alpha ,\\beta,N}\n\\ang\\xi ^{2L-|\\alpha |-2N}\\endmultline$$ for $|\\mu |\\ge 1$, showing (A.2).\n\nLet $\\xi =(\\xi ',\\xi _n)$ in local coordinates at the boundary, then for $(\\xi ',\\mu )\\ne (0,0)$, the strong ellipticity implies that the polynomial in $\\xi _n$ $$p_{1,2}(x',0,\\xi ',\\xi _n)+\\mu ^2=a(x')\\xi _n^2+b(x',\\xi ')\\xi\n_n+c(x',\\xi ')+\\mu ^2\\tag A.4$$ has two roots $\\varrho _1(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$ and $\\varrho _2(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$ in $\\Bbb C\\setminus \\Bbb R$. When $\\mu \\in\\crp$, one of the roots, say $\\varrho _1$, lies in $\\Bbb C_+$ and the other, $\\varrho\n_2$, in $\\Bbb C_-$. For, $a\\xi _n^2+b\\xi _n+c+\\mu ^2$ can be carried into $\\operatorname{Re}a\\,\\xi _n^2+\\operatorname{Re}b\\,\\xi\n_n+\\operatorname{Re}c+\\mu ^2$ by a homotopy that preserves the property of having positive real part, and for the latter polynomial, the roots are placed in this way; they depend continuously on the polynomial, hence cannot cross the real axis. The placement of the roots is also preserved when $\\mu $ is moved to a general element of $\\Gamma $. Thus we can denote the roots $\\pm i\\kappa ^{\\pm}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$, where $\\kappa ^\\pm$ have positive real part; they depend smoothly on $(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$ for $(\\xi ',\\mu )\\ne (0,0)$. They are homogeneous of degree 1 in $(\\xi ',\\mu )$ and bounded away from $\\Bbb R$ for $|(\\xi ',\\mu\n)|=1$, $\\mu \\in \\Gamma \\cup \\{0\\}$, so in fact they take values in a sector $\\{|\\arg z|\\le \\frac \\pi 2-\\delta \\}$ for some $\\delta >0$.\n\nWe recall from (with some small precisions):\n\nThe symbol of $Q_\\lambda $ has the following form in local coordinates, for $\\mu \\in \\Gamma $: $$\\aligned\nq(x,\\xi ,\\mu )&\\sim \\sum_{l\\in\\Bbb N}q_{-2-l}(x,\\xi ,\\mu ),\\text{ with}\\\\\nq_{-2}(x,\\xi ,\\mu )&=(p_{1,2}(x,\\xi )+\\mu ^2)^{-1}I,\\\\\nq_{-2-J}(x,\\xi ,\\mu )&=\\sum_{J/2+1\\le m\\le 2J+1}\\frac{r_{J,m}(x,\\xi\n)}{(p_{1,2}(x,\\xi )+\\mu ^2)^{m}},\\text{ for }J\\ge 0;\\endaligned\\tag A.5$$ here the $r_{J,m}$ are $(\\operatorname {dim} E\\times \\operatorname{dim} E)$-matrices of homogeneous polynomials in $\\xi $ of degree $2m-2-J$ with smooth coefficients, and the remainders $q^{\\prime}_{-2-M}=q-\\sum_{0\\le\nJ<M}q_{-2-J}$ satisfy estimates for all indices $\\partial _{x}^\\beta \\partial _\\xi\n^\\alpha\n\\partial _\\mu ^kq^{\\prime}_{-2-M}=O(\\ang{\\xi ',\\mu\n}^{-2-M-|\\alpha |-k})$, for $|\\mu |\\ge 1$, $\\mu $ in closed subsectors of $\\Gamma $.\n\nConcerning $q(x',0,\\xi )$, we have: Writing $$\\aligned\np_{1,2}(x',0,\\xi )+\\mu ^2&=a(x')(\\xi _n-i\\kappa ^+(x',\\xi ',\\mu ))\n(\\xi _n+i\\kappa ^-(x',\\xi ',\\mu ))\\\\\n&=\na(x')(\\kappa ^+(x',\\xi ',\\mu )+i\\xi _n)\n(\\kappa ^-(x',\\xi ',\\mu )-i\\xi _n),\\endaligned\\tag A.6$$ we can decompose each term in simple fractions (at $x_n=0$): $$\\aligned\n\\frac{r_{J,m}(x',0,\\xi )}{(p_{1,2}(x',\\xi )+\\mu\n^2)^{m}}&=h^+\\frac{r_{J,m}}{(p_{1,2}+\\mu\n^2)^{m}}+h^-\\frac{r_{J,m}}{(p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{m}},\\\\\nh^\\pm \\frac{r_{J,m}}{(p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{m}}&=\n\\sum_{1\\le j\\le m}\\frac{r^\\pm_{J,m,j}(x',\\xi ',\\mu\n)}{(\\kappa ^\\pm(x',\\xi ',\\mu )\\pm i\\xi\n_n)^{j}},\\endaligned\\tag A.7$$ where the $r_{J,m,j}^\\pm(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$ are strongly homogeneous of degree $j-J-2$ in $(\\xi ',\\mu )$. This gives a decomposition of $q(x',0,\\xi ',\\mu )$: $$q=h^+q+h^-q=q^{+}+q^{-},\\quad\nq^{\\pm}(x',\\xi ,\\mu )\\sim\\sum_{\nJ\\ge 0}q^{ \\pm}_{-2-J}(x',\\xi ,\\mu ),$$with terms as in [(A.7)]{}.\n\nThe structure of the normal derivatives is similar: We have $$\\partial _{x_n}^lq_{-2-J}(x,\\xi ,\\mu )\n=\\sum_{1+J/2\\le m\\le 2J+1+l}\n\\frac{r^{l}_{J,m}(x,\\xi)}{(p_{1,2}(x,\\xi )+\\mu ^2)^{m}},$$ for all $l$, with homogeneous polynomials $r^{l}_{J,m}(x,\\xi )$ of degree $2m-2-J$ in $\\xi $. At $x_n=0$ we can decompose as before, obtaining $$\\aligned\n\\quad \\partial _{x_n}^lq=\\partial _{x_n}^lq^++\\partial _{x_n}^lq^{-},&\n\\quad\n\\partial _{x_n}^lq^{\\pm}(x',\\xi ,\\mu )\n\\sim\\sum_{J\\ge 0}\n\\partial _{x_n}^lq^{\\pm}_{-2-J}(x',\\xi ,\\mu ),\\\\\n\\partial _{x_n}^lq_{-2-J}(x',\\xi ,\\mu )\n&=\\partial _{x_n}^lq^{+}_{-2-J}(x',\\xi ,\\mu\n)+\\partial _{x_n}^lq^{-}_{-2-J}(x',\\xi ,\\mu ),\\\\\n\\partial _{x_n}^lq^{\\pm}_{-2-J}(x',\\xi ,\\mu )\n&=\\sum_{1\\le j\\le 2J+1+l}\n\\frac{r^{l,\\pm}_{J,j}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )}\n{(\\kappa ^\\pm(x',\\xi ',\\mu )\\pm i\\xi_n)^{j}},\n\\endaligned\\tag A.8$$ where the numerators $r^{l,\\pm}_{J,j}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$ are strongly homogeneous of degree $j-J-2$.\n\nIt is useful to observe that the $r^{\\pm}_{J,m,j}$ as well as $\\kappa ^{\\pm}$ are in fact functions of $(x',\\xi\n',\\lambda )$, $\\lambda =-\\mu ^2$, strongly quasihomogeneous in $(\\xi\n',\\lambda )$ with weight $(1,2)$ in the following sense: We say that $r(x',\\xi ',\\lambda )$ is $(1,2)$-homogeneous in $(\\xi ',\\lambda )$ of degree $d$, when $$r(x',t\\xi ',t^2\\lambda )=t^{d}r(x',\\xi ',\\lambda );\\tag A.9$$ it is strongly so if (A.9) holds for $|\\xi '|+|\\lambda |\\ge \\varepsilon $, weakly so if it holds for $|\\xi '|\\ge \\varepsilon $. Then since $r(x',\\xi ',\\lambda )=t^{-d}r(x',t\\xi ',t^2\\lambda )$, it is readily checked that $\\partial _\\lambda ^Nr$ is $(1,2)$-homogeneous of degree $d-2N$. Thus for the symbols that depend on $\\mu $ through $\\lambda $ in this way, differentiation with respect to $\\lambda $ lowers the homogeneity degree in $(\\xi ',\\mu )$ by two steps, preserving strong homogeneity. The estimates of $\\lambda $-derivatives of the remainders $q^{\\prime}_{-2-M}$ likewise improve by two steps for each derivative.\n\nThese considerations of $\\lambda $-derivatives, playing on the strong quasi-homogeneity of symbols coming from $R_\\lambda $, will replace the calculations for higher powers of $R_\\lambda $ used in [@GSc], cf. (2.12). (The calculus in [@GH] is set up to handle the anisotropic homogeneity in terms of $\\xi '$ and $\\lambda $ and could give further information on higher terms in the full trace expansions, but for the discussion of the leading nonlocal term we carry out here, the calculus of [@GS1] will suffice.) For convenience, we recall explicitly the structure of the formulas for symbols connected with higher powers of $Q_\\lambda $, denoting the symbol of $Q_\\lambda ^N=\\frac{\\partial _\\lambda^{N-1}}{(N-1)!}Q_\\lambda $ by $q^{\\circ N}$: $$\\aligned\nq^{\\circ N}(x,\\xi ,\\mu )\n&\\sim \\sum_{l\\in\\Bbb N}q^{\\circ N}_{-2N-l}(x,\\xi ,\\mu ),\n\\text{ with }q^{\\circ N}_{-2N}=(p_{1,2}+\\mu ^2)^{-N},\\\\\nq^{\\circ N}_{-2N-J}(x,\\xi ,\\mu )&=\\sum_{J/2+N\\le m\\le 2J+N}\n\\frac{r_{N,J,m}(x,\\xi)}{(p_{1,2}(x,\\xi )+\\mu ^2)^{m}},\n\\text{ for }J\\ge 0,\n\\endaligned\\tag A.10$$ where the $r_{N,J,m}$ are homogeneous polynomials in $\\xi $ of degree $2m-2N-J$ with smooth coefficients. Moreover for $x=(x',0)$, $$\\aligned\nq^{\\circ N}&=h^+q^{\\circ N}+h^-q^{\\circ N}=q^{\\circ N,+}+q^{\\circ N,-},\\\\\nq^{\\circ N,\\pm}(x',\\xi ,\\mu )&\\sim\\sum_{\nJ\\ge 0}q^{\\circ N, \\pm}_{-2-J}(x',\\xi ,\\mu ),\\\\\nq^{\\circ N, \\pm}_{-2-J}(x',\\xi ,\\mu )&=\\sum_{1\\le j\\le\n2J+N}\\frac{r^\\pm_{N,J,j}(x',\\xi ',\\mu\n)}{(\\kappa ^\\pm(x',\\xi ',\\mu )\\pm i\\xi\n_n)^{j}};\n\\endaligned\\tag\nA.11$$ here $r_{N,J,j}^\\pm(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$ are strongly homogeneous of degree $j-J-2N$ in $(\\xi ',\\mu )$.\n\nFor $\\partial_{x_n}^l q^{\\circ N}(x,\\xi ,\\mu )$ and $\\partial_{x_n}^l q^{\\circ N,\\pm}(x',\\xi ,\\mu )$, we obtain corresponding results: Their structure is as in (A.10) and (A.11), except that now the summation will be over the sets $J/2+N\\le m\\le 2J+N+l$ and $1\\le j\\le 2J+N+l$.\n\nThe following symbols derived from the principal symbol of $q$ at $x_n=0$ played an important role in : $$\\aligned\n\\alpha ^{(1)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )&=[h^+q_{-2}(x',0,\\xi ,\\mu )]_{\\xi _n=-i\\sigma\n}+\n[h^-q_{-2}(x',0,\\xi ,\\mu )]_{\\xi _n=i\\sigma }\\\\\n&=q^+_{-2}(x',\\xi ',-i\\sigma ,\\mu )+q^-_{-2}(x',\\xi ',i\\sigma ,\\mu\n)\\\\\n&=\\frac 1{(\\kappa ^++\\kappa ^-)(\\kappa ^++\\sigma )}+\\frac 1{(\\kappa\n^++\\kappa ^-)(\\kappa ^-+\\sigma )},\\\\\n\\alpha ^{(N)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )&=[h^+q^{\\circ N}_{-2N}(x',0,\\xi ,\\mu )]_{\\xi\n_n=-i\\sigma }+\n[h^-q^{\\circ N}_{-2N}(x',0,\\xi ,\\mu )]_{\\xi _n=i\\sigma }\\\\\n&=\\tfrac{\\partial _\\lambda ^{N-1}}{(N-1)!}\\alpha ^{(1)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu );\n\\endaligned\\tag A.12$$ here $\\sigma =[\\xi ']$, and $\\alpha ^{(N)}$ is weakly polyhomogeneous in $S^{-2N,0,0}\\cap S^{0,-2N,0}$ (in fact in $S^{0,0,-2N}$, see below). The crucial information established in [@GSc; @Lemma; @5.5] was that the coefficient of $\\mu\n^{-2N}$ in the expansion in powers of $\\mu $ (as in (3.4)) is 1: $$\\alpha ^{(N)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )=\\mu ^{-2N}+\n\\alpha ^{(N)}_1(x',\\xi ',\\mu )\\text{ with } \\alpha ^{(N)}_1(x',\\xi ',\\mu\n)\\in S^{1,-2N-1,0};\n\\tag A.13$$ the remainder $\\alpha _1^{(N)}$ is also in $S^{0,-2N,0}$ since $\\alpha ^{(N)}$ and $\\mu ^{-2N}$ are so.\n\nThe symbols $(\\kappa ^\\pm+\\sigma )^{-1}$ are weakly polyhomogeneous, belong to $S^{0,0,-1}$ and have $N$\u2019th $\\lambda $-derivatives in $S^{0,0,-1-2N}$. For each $N$, $\\alpha ^{(N)}$ is weakly polyhomogeneous lying in $S^{0,0,-2N}$.\n\nFirst note that $\\kappa ^\\pm$ and $(\\kappa ^\\pm)^{-1}$ are strongly polyhomogeneous in $(\\xi ',\\mu )$ of degree $1$ resp. $-1$, so they lie in $S^{0,0,1}$ resp. $S^{0,0,-1}$. As noted above, they are strongly $(1,2)$-homogeneous in $(\\xi ',\\lambda )$ of degree 1 resp. $-1$; hence the $N$\u2019th $\\lambda $-derivatives lie in $S^{0,0,1-2N}$ resp. $S^{0,0,-1-2N}$. Similarly, since $\\kappa ^+$ and $\\kappa ^-$ lie in a proper subsector of $\\{z\\in\\Bbb C\\mid \\operatorname{Re}z>0\\}$, $|\\kappa ^++\\kappa ^-|\\ge \\operatorname{Re}(\\kappa ^++\\kappa ^-)\\ge\nc_0|(\\xi ',\\mu )|$ with $c_0>0$, so also $(\\kappa ^++\\kappa ^-)^{-1}$ belongs to $S^{0,0,-1}$, with $N$\u2019th $\\lambda $-derivatives in $S^{0,0,-1-2N}$.\n\nIt was observed in [@GSc] that $(\\kappa ^\\pm+\\sigma )^{-1}\\in\nS^{-1,0}\\cap\nS^{0,-1}$; we now recall the proof showing how it also assures that $(\\kappa ^\\pm+\\sigma )^{-1}\\in S^{0,0,-1}$:\n\nLet $\\kappa $ stand for $\\kappa ^+$ or $\\kappa ^-$. Write $(\\kappa  +\\sigma\n)^{-1}=(\\kappa  )^{-1}(1+\\sigma /\\kappa  )^{-1}$. We know already that $(\\kappa\n )^{-1}\\in S^{0,0,-1}$, so it remains to show that $(1+\\sigma /\\kappa\n )^{-1}$ is in $S^{0,0,0}$. Since $\\sigma \\in S^{1,0,0}$ and $(\\kappa  )^{-1}\\in\nS^{0,0,-1}\\subset S^{-1,0,0}$, $\\sigma /\\kappa  $ is in $S^{0,0,0}$, and so is $1+\\sigma\n/\\kappa  $. Moreover, it is bounded in $(\\xi ',\\mu )$ (for $\\mu \\in\\Gamma $, $|\\mu |\\ge 1$). Since $\\operatorname{Re}\\kappa  >0$, $\\sigma <\\sigma +\\operatorname{Re}\\kappa  \\le |\\sigma +\\kappa  |$, so also the inverse $(1+\\sigma\n/\\kappa  )^{-1}=\\kappa  /(\\kappa  +\\sigma )=1-\\sigma /(\\sigma\n+\\kappa  )$ is bounded. Then (just the beginning of the proof) shows that the inverse $(1+\\sigma\n/\\kappa  )^{-1}$ does belong to $S^{0,0,0}$.\n\nFor the $\\lambda $-derivatives, we observe that $\\partial _\\lambda (\\kappa  +\\sigma )^{-1}=\n- (\\kappa   +\\sigma )^{-2}\\partial _\\lambda \\kappa  \\in\nS^{0,0,-3}$ by the composition rules, and hence by successive application, $\\partial _\\lambda ^k(\\kappa  +\\sigma )^{-1}\\in S^{0,0,-1-2k}$ for all $k$.\n\nUsing these informations, it is now seen from the form of $\\alpha\n^{(1)}$ in (A.12) that it lies in $S^{0,0,-2}$ with $k$\u2019th $\\lambda $-derivatives in $S^{0,0,-2-2k}$, so $\\alpha ^{(N)}\\in S^{0,0,-2N}$.\n\nBesides $G^{(N)}_\\lambda $ (cf. (2.11)), we also need to consider the s.g.o.s $G^{\\pm}(Q^N)$, which arise from compositions such as $$P_+Q^N_{\\lambda ,+}=(PQ^N_\\lambda )_+-G^+(P)G^-(Q^N_\\lambda ).\\tag A.14$$ Their symbols have the following structure:\n\nThe operators $G^{(N)}_\\lambda $ and $G^{\\pm}(Q^N)$ have symbols of the form$$\\aligned\ng(x',\\xi ,\\eta _n,\\mu )&\\sim\n\\sum_{J\\in\\Bbb N}g_{-2N-1-J}(x',\\xi ,\\eta _n,\\mu ),\\text{ with }\\\\\ng_{-2N-1-J}(x',\\xi ,\\eta _n,\\mu )&=\\sum_{ \\Sb j\\ge 1,\\,j'\\ge 1\\\\\nj+j'\\le 2J+N+1\\endSb}\\tfrac{s_{J,j,j',N}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )}\n{(\\kappa +i\\xi\n_n)^{j}(\\kappa '-i\\eta\n_n)^{j'}};\n\\endaligned\\tag A.15$$ here $(\\kappa ,\\kappa ')$ equals $(\\kappa ^+,\\kappa ^-)$ for $G^{(N)}_\\lambda $, $(\\kappa ^+,\\kappa ^+)$ for $G^{+}(Q^N)$, and $(\\kappa ^-,\\kappa ^-)$ for $G^{-}(Q^N)$. The numerators $s_{J,j,j',N}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )$ are strongly homogeneous in $(\\xi ',\\mu )$ of degree $j+j'-J-2N-1$. They are in fact functions of $(x',\\xi\n',\\lambda )$, $\\lambda =-\\mu ^2$, strongly $(1,2)$-homogeneous in $(\\xi\n',\\lambda )$ of the indicated degrees, such that differentiation with respect to $\\lambda $ gives a strongly $(1,2)$-homogeneous symbol of $2$ steps lower degree.\n\nFor the remainders $g'_{-2N-1-M}=g-\\sum_{0\\le\nJ<M}g_{-2N-1-J}$, the sup-norms in $\\xi _n$ resp. $(\\xi\n_n,\\eta _n)$ are bounded by $\\ang{\\xi ',\\mu }$ in powers $-2N-1-M$, decreasing by $|\\alpha |$ for differentiations in $(\\xi ,\\eta _n)$ of order $\\alpha $, and by $2$ for each differentiation in $\\lambda $ (no change of the power for differentiations in $x'$).\n\nThe formulas for the symbols of $G^{(N)}_\\lambda $ and $G^\\pm(Q^N_\\lambda )$ come from . The remainder estimates hold since the symbols are strongly polyhomogeneous in $(\\xi ,\\eta _n,\\mu )$ so that standard estimates hold when $|\\mu |$ is considered as an extra cotangent variable (on each ray). The strong (1,2)-polyhomogeneity $(\\xi\n,\\eta _n,\\lambda )$ assures the statements on $\\lambda$-derivatives.\n\nAppendix B. Formulas for compositions with Laguerre functions\n\nRecall the formulas for the (Fourier transformed) Laguerre functions we use in expansions of parameter-independent operators: $$\\hat\\varphi '_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma )=\\frac{(\\sigma -i\\xi _n)^k}{(\\sigma\n+i\\xi _n)^{k+1}},\\quad\\hat\\varphi _k(\\xi _n,\\sigma )\n=(2\\sigma )^{\\frac12}\\frac{(\\sigma -i\\xi _n)^k}{(\\sigma\n+i\\xi _n)^{k+1}};\\tag B.1$$ A priori, $\\sigma$ here might be any positive number, but we will take $\\sigma=[\\xi']$. The $\\hat\\varphi _k$ are the [*normalized*]{} Laguerre functions, which for $k\\in\\Bbb Z$ form an orthonormal basis of $L_2(\\Bbb R)$. Differentiations in $\\xi '$ and $\\xi _n$ follow the rules$$\\aligned\n\\partial_{\\xi_j}\\hat\\varphi_k(\\xi_n,\\sigma)\n&=\\big(k\\hat\\varphi_{k-1}-\n\\hat\\varphi_{k}\n-(k+1)\n\\hat\\varphi_{k+1}\\big)(2\\sigma)^{-1}\\partial_{\\xi_j}\\sigma ,\\quad\nj<n,\\\\\n\\partial_{\\xi_n}\\hat\\varphi_k(\\xi_n,\\sigma)\n&=-i\\big(k\\hat\\varphi_{k-1}+\n(2k+1)\\hat\\varphi_{k}\n+(k+1)\n\\hat\\varphi_{k+1}\\big)(2\\sigma)^{-1} ;\n\\endaligned\n\\tag B.2$$ here $\\partial _{\\xi _j}\\sigma =\\xi _j\\sigma ^{-1}$ for $|\\xi '|\\ge 1$.\n\nWe have from [@GSc] the following formulas for $\\xi _n$-compositions of Laguerre funtions and rational functions involving $\\kappa ^\\pm$:\n\nFor all $m\\ge 0$ and $j\\ge 1$: $$\\int \\frac{(\\sigma \\pm i\\xi _n)^m}{(\\sigma \\mp i\\xi _n)^{m+1}}\\frac{1}\n{(\\kappa ^\\pm(x',\\xi ',\\mu )\\pm i\\xi\n_n)^{j}}\\,\\d\\xi _n=\\sum_{m'\\ge 0,\\, |m'-m|<j}(\\kappa^\\pm) ^{1-j}\na^\\pm_{jm'}\\frac{(\\sigma -\\kappa ^\\pm)^{m'}}{(\\sigma\n+\\kappa ^\\pm\n)^{m'+1}},\n\\tag B.3$$ with universal constants $a^\\pm_{jm'}$ that are $O(m^j)$ for fixed $j$. The resulting expressions are weakly polyhomogeneous $\\psi $do symbols belonging to $S^{0,0,-j}(\\Bbb R^{n-1}\\times\\Bbb R^{n-1},\\Gamma )$, with $\\partial\n_\\lambda ^N$ of the symbols lying in $S^{0,0,-j-2N}(\\Bbb\nR^{n-1}\\times\\Bbb R^{n-1},\\Gamma )$.\n\nThe formulas are shown in [@GSc; @Lemma; @3.2]. The statements on symbol classes follow since $\\sigma =[\\xi ']\\in S^1\\subset\nS^{1,0,0}$, $\\kappa ^{\\pm}\\in S^{0,0,1}$ with $N$\u2019th $\\lambda\n$-derivatives in $S^{0,0,1-2N}$, and $(\\sigma\n+\\kappa ^{\\pm})^{-1}\\in S^{0,0,-1}$ with $N$\u2019th $\\lambda\n$-derivatives in $S^{0,0,-1-2N}$, by Lemma A.3. For the derivatives of the composed expressions one can use the formulas [@GSc; @(3.21)] for the derivatives of $(\\sigma -\\kappa\n^\\pm)^m(\\sigma +\\kappa ^\\pm)^{-m}$.\n\nThese formulas enter in calculations of compositions such as $GG^{(N)}_\\lambda $ and $GG^{\\pm}(Q^N_\\lambda )$, where the symbol of $G$ is Laguerre expanded and the rational structure of the symbols of $G^{(N)}_\\lambda\n$ and $G^\\pm(Q^N_\\lambda )$ (A.15) is used.\n\nThe symbol $$s_{j,j',m}=\n\\int \\frac{(\\sigma -i\\xi _n)^m}{(\\sigma\n+i\\xi _n)^{m+1}}\\frac\n{1}{(\\kappa ^++ i\\xi\n_n)^{j}(\\kappa ^--\ni\\xi\n_n)^{j'}}\\,\\d\\xi _n$$ satisfies for $m\\ge 0$, $j$ and $j'\\ge 1$: $$s_{j,j',m}=\\sum_{\\Sb |m-m'|\\le j''< j'\\\\  m'\\ge\n0\\endSb}b_{jj'j''m'}(\\kappa ^-)^{-j''}\\frac{(\\sigma -\\kappa\n^-)^{m'}}{(\\sigma +\\kappa ^-)^{m'+1}}(\\kappa ^++\\kappa ^-)^{-j-j'+1+j''},\n\\tag B.4$$ where the $b_{jj'j''m'}$ are universal constants that are $O(m^{j'})$ for fixed $j,j'$. This is a weakly polyhomogeneous symbol in $S^{0,0,-j-j'}$, with $N$\u2019th $\\lambda $-derivatives in $S^{0,0,-j-j'-2N}$, for all $N$. There is a similar formula for $m\\le 0$, with $j$ and $j'$ interchanged, $\\kappa ^+$ and $\\kappa ^-$ interchanged.\n\nThe formulas were shown in [@GSc; @Lemma; @4.2], and the symbols are analyzed as in the preceding proof.\n\nThese formulas enter in calculations of compositions such as $P_+G^{(N)}_\\lambda $ and $P_+G^\\pm(Q^N_\\lambda )$, where the symbol of $P$ is Laguerre expanded and the rational structure of the s.g.o.\u00a0is used.\n\nComposition formulas involving $\\psi $do\u2019s on the interior contain $h^+_{\\xi _n}$- and $h^-_{\\xi _n}$-projections. We recall from [@GSc; @(3.9); @(4.8)] that the projections can be removed in certain integrals, e.g.: When $\\tilde q$ is a rational function of $\\xi\n_n$ of the form $r(x',\\xi ',\\mu )(\\kappa ^{\\pm}\\pm i\\xi _n)^{-j}$, then$$\\multline\n\\int \\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma ) h^+_{\\xi _n}[\\tilde\nq(x',\\xi ,\\mu )\\hat\\varphi _l(\\xi _n,\\sigma )]\\,\\d \\xi _n\n=\\int \\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma ) \\tilde\nq(x',\\xi ,\\mu )\\hat\\varphi _l(\\xi _n,\\sigma )\\,\\d \\xi _n\\\\\n=\\int h^-_{\\xi _n}[\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_k(\\xi _n,\\sigma ) \\tilde\nq(x',\\xi ,\\mu )]\\hat\\varphi _l(\\xi _n,\\sigma )\\,\\d \\xi _n.\n\\endmultline\\tag B.5$$ To see this, note that the integrand in all three expressions is $O(\\xi _n^{-2})$ for $|\\xi _n|\\to \\infty $ in $\\Bbb C$ and meromorphic with no real poles, so that the integral can be replaced by the integral over a large contour in $\\Bbb C_+$ (the \u201cplus-integral\u201d) or the integral over a large contour in $\\Bbb C_-$. The first equality holds since $\\bar{\\hat \\varphi }_kh^- [\\tilde\nq\\hat\\varphi _l]$ is meromorphic with no poles in $\\Bbb\nC_+$ and is $O(\\xi _n^{-2})$ for $|\\xi _n|\\to \\infty $ in $\\Bbb C$, hence contributes with 0. The second equality holds since $h^+[\\bar{\\hat \\varphi }_k\\tilde\nq]\\hat\\varphi _l$ is meromorphic with no poles in $\\Bbb C_-$, and is $O(\\xi _n^{-2})$ for $|\\xi _n|\\to \\infty $ in $\\Bbb C$, hence contributes with 0.\n\nThe above formulas were used in to show that the trace expansions of terms where $G$ or $P_+$ is composed with one of the parameter-dependent singular Green operators [*do not*]{} contribute to the residue coefficient $\\tilde c_0'$ in (1.10). It was in fact shown that they give expansions where the summation over $k$ as in (1.10) starts with $k\\ge 1$, so they do not contribute to the nonlocal coefficient $\\tilde c''_0$ either. This is important for our present study and will therefore be formulated explicitly:\n\nWhen $G$ is of class $0$ and order $\\nu\n\\in\\Bbb R$, or $P$ is of order $\\nu \\in\\Bbb Z$, the operators $GG^{(N)}_\\lambda $, $GG^{\\pm}(Q^N_\\lambda )$, $P_+G^{(N)}_\\lambda $ and $P_+G^{\\pm}(Q^N_\\lambda )$ have trace expansions of the form $$\\sum_{j\\ge\n1}\\!a_{j}(-\\lambda)\n^{\\frac{n+\\nu - j}{2}-N}\n+\\sum_{k\\ge\n1}(a'_k\\log (-\\lambda )+a''_k)(-\\lambda )\n^{-\\frac k2-N}.\\tag B.6$$ For the compositions with $G$ in front, this is essentially the content of , see in particular (3.20) there. We have replaced the index $l$ there by $j=l+1$ in the first sum, $k=l+1$ in the second sum, to facilitate the comparison with (1.10); recall also that $\\mu =(-\\lambda )^{\\frac12}$. The arguments there extend immediately to noninteger $\\nu $.\n\nFor the compositions with $P_+$ in front, the statement is covered by the calculations in , see in particular (4.3) there (which contains neither nonlocal nor logarithmic terms, since $p'_{(l)}$ is a differential operator) and (4.14) there.\n\nIn each case, the result is found by showing that in local coordinates, the symbol of $\\tr_n$ of the operator contains so many negative powers of $\\kappa ^{\\pm}$ and $\\kappa ^{\\pm}+\\sigma $ that it is in $S^{\\nu +1,-2N-1,0}\\cap S^{\\nu -2N,0,0}$, so that $d=-2N-1$ in (3.6).\n\nWhen $\\nu \\notin\\Bbb Z$, the log-coefficients $a'_k$ vanish in (B.6), since the degrees of the homogeneous symbols are noninteger.\n\nThe conclusions of the proposition hold also if the symbol $q$ of $Q_\\lambda $ is replaced by one of its $(x,\\xi )$-derivatives, since they have a similar structure.\n\nThe next lemma is used in calculations of compositions of the type $GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+}$.\n\nLet $$s^{\\pm}_{j,l,m}(y',\\xi ',\\mu )=\\int \\frac\n{(\\sigma - i\\xi\n_n)^{l}}{(\\sigma + i\\xi\n_n)^{l+1}}\\frac{(\\sigma +\ni\\xi\n_n)^{m}}{(\\sigma -\ni\\xi\n_n)^{m+1}}\\frac1{(\\kappa\n^{\\pm}\\pm i\\xi _n)^j}\\,\\d\\xi _n.\n\\tag B.7$$ One has for $l,m\\in\\Bbb Z$, $j\\ge 1$: $$\\alignedat2\n&\\text{For $m<l$, }&&s^+_{j,l,m}=0,\\quad\ns^-_{j,l,m}=\\sum_{ |l-m-1-m'|<j,\\,  m'\\ge\n0}(\\kappa^-) ^{1-j}b'_{jm'}\\frac{(\\sigma -\\kappa ^-)^{m'}}{(\\sigma +\\kappa\n^-\n)^{m'+2}},\\\\\n&\\text{For $m=l$, }&&s^+_{j,l,l}=\\frac1{(\\kappa ^++\\sigma )^j 2\\sigma\n},\\quad s^-_{j,l,l}=\\frac1{(\\kappa ^-+\\sigma )^j 2\\sigma },\\\\\n&\\text{For $m>l$, }&&s^+_{j,l,m}=\\sum_{ |m-l-1-m'|<j,\\, m'\\ge\n0}(\\kappa ^+) ^{1-j}b_{jm'}\\frac{(\\sigma -\\kappa\n^+)^{m'}}{(\\sigma +\\kappa ^+\n)^{m'+2}},\\quad s^-_{j,l,m}=0,\n\\endalignedat\\tag B.8$$ with $b_{jm'}$ and $b'_{jm'}$ being $O(l^jm^j)$ for fixed $j$.\n\nWhen $m\\ne l$, the resulting symbols are in $S^{0,0,-j-1}$ having $N$\u2019th $\\lambda $-derivatives in $S^{0,0,-j-1-2N}$; for $m=l$, they are in $S^{-1,0,-j}$, with $N$\u2019th $\\lambda $-derivatives in $S^{1,0,-j-2N}$.\n\nIt follows (cf(A.12)) that$$\\tr_n (\\hat\\varphi _l(\\xi _n,\\sigma )h^+(q^{\\circ N}_{-2N}(x',\\xi\n',\\eta _n,\\mu\n)\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_m(\\eta _n,\\sigma )))=\\cases \\alpha\n^{(N)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )&\\text{ if }l=m,\\\\\ns_{lm}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )&\\text{ if }l\\ne m,\\endcases\\tag B.9$$ where $s_{lm}\\in S^{1,0,-2N-1}$, the symbol seminorms being polynomially bounded in $l$ and $m$.\n\nThe formulas in (B.8) were shown in [@GSc; @Lemma; @5.2], and the symbols are analyzed as in Lemma B.1.\n\nFormula (B.9) is deduced from (B.7)\u2013(B.8) using (B.5) and noting that (B.7) contains non-normalized Laguerre functions $\\hat\\varphi '_l$ and $\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }'_m$ so that we get an extra factor $2\\sigma $ from the normalized Laguerre functions. The statements for $l\\ne m$ follow straightforwardly from the descriptions in (B.8). The statements for $l=m$ were proved in ; they can be verified very simply by doing the calculation for $N=1$ and passing via $\\lambda $-derivatives to the general case.\n\nThe important point in this lemma is that a symbol contributing to $\\tilde c'_0$ and $\\tilde c''_0$ does appear, but with a special form that allows further clarification (using the information (A.13)).\n\nWe summarize some results from [@GSc] on compositions of the form $GQ^N_{\\lambda,+} $ in the following statement:\n\nConsider $GQ^N_{\\lambda\n,+}$ in a localization to $\\Bbb R^n_+$. Here $$\\tr_n(GQ^N_{\\lambda ,+})=\\widetilde S_0+\\widetilde S_1\\text{ with }\n\\widetilde\nS_0=\\op'(\\tr_ng(x',\\xi\n')\\alpha ^{(N)}(x',\\xi ',\\mu )),\n\\tag B.10$$ where $\\widetilde S_0$ and $\\widetilde S_1$ are $\\psi $do\u2019s on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$ with symbols in $S^{\\nu ,-2N,0}\\cap S^{\\nu -2N,0,0}$ resp. $S^{\\nu +1,-2N-1,0}\\cap S^{\\nu -2N,0,0}$. The traces $\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}(\\widetilde S_0)$ and $\\Tr_{\\Bbb R^{n-1}}(\\widetilde S_1)$ have expansions $$\\sum_{j\\ge\n1}\\!a_{j}(-\\lambda)\n^{\\frac{n+\\nu - j}{2}-N}\n+\\sum_{k\\ge\n0}(a'_k\\log (-\\lambda )+a''_k)(-\\lambda )\n^{-\\frac k2-N},\\tag B.11$$ where the sum over $k$ starts at $k=1$ for $\\widetilde S_1$, and the value of $a'_0$ can be determined more precisely for $\\widetilde S_0$.\n\nThis is proved in , see in particular Prop.\u00a05.3, 5.4, and Sect. 5.b there.\n\nWe have in fact in view of Lemma A.3 that $\\widetilde S_0\\in\nS^{\\nu ,0,-2N}$, and also the information on $\\widetilde S_1$ can be upgraded to $S^{\\nu +1,0,-2N-1}$ by a closer analysis (as in Section 3 in this paper, using methods from Proposition 3.8 to handle the case where $q$ depends on $x_n$).\n\nLet us introduce a notation for the Poisson and trace operators on $\\rnp$ (Laguerre operators) defined from Laguerre functions: $$\\Phi _j=\\opk(\\hat{\\varphi}_j(\\xi_n,\\sigma)),\\quad \\Phi ^*\n_k=\\opt(\\bar{\\hat{\\varphi}}_k(\\xi_n,\\sigma)).\\tag B.12$$ Here $\\Phi _j$ maps $L_2(\\Bbb R^{n-1})$ continuously (in fact isometrically) into $L_2(\\rnp)$, and its adjoint is $\\operatorname{OPT}(\\bar{\\hat\\varphi }_j)$. Moreover, because of the orthonormality of the $\\hat\\varphi _j$, $$\\Phi ^*_j\\Phi\n_k=\\delta _{jk}I,\\tag B.13$$ where $I$ is the identity operator on functions on $\\Bbb R^{n-1}$.\n\nA singular Green operator $G$ on $\\rnp$ of order $\\nu$ and class 0 can be written in the form $$G=\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N} \\Phi _j C_{jk}\n\\Phi ^*_k\n,\\quad C_{jk}=\\op'(c_{jk}(x',\\xi')) , \\tag B.14$$ with a rapidly decreasing sequence $(c_{jk})_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}$ in $S^{\\nu}$.\n\nThe symbol $g$ of $G$ has a Laguerre expansion: $$g(x',\\xi',\\xi_n,\\eta_n) = \\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}\nd_{jk}(x',\\xi'){\\hat\\varphi}_j(\\xi_n,\\sigma)\n\\bar{{\\hat\\varphi}}_k(\\eta_n,\\sigma),\n\\tag B.15$$ with $(d_{jk})_{j,k\\in\\Bbb N}$ rapidly decreasing in $S^{\\nu}$, i.e., the relevant symbol seminorms on $\\ang k^{N}\\ang\nj^{N'}d_{jk}$ are bounded in $j,k$ for any $N,N'\\in\\Bbb N$. Then $$G=\\sum_{k\\in\\Bbb N} \\opk \\big(\\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}\nd_{jk}(x',\\xi'){\\hat\\varphi}_j(\\xi_n,\\sigma)\\big)\\circ\n\\opt\\big(\\bar{\\hat\\varphi}_k(\\eta_n,\\sigma)\\big).$$ Each Poisson operator $\\opk(\\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}\nd_{jk}(x',\\xi'){\\hat\\varphi}_j(\\xi_n,\\sigma))$ has a symbol in $y'$-form, $l_k(y',\\xi)$. Since the $d_{jk}$ are rapidly decreasing in $S^{\\nu}$, the sequence $(l_k)$ is rapidly decreasing in the topology of Poisson symbols of order $\\nu+\\frac12$. We now expand $l_k$ in a Laguerre series: $$l_k(y',\\xi) = \\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N} c_{jk}(y',\\xi')\\hat\\varphi_j(\\xi_n,\\sigma)\n,$$ and conclude from [@G2; @Lemma; @2.2.1] that $(c_{jk})$ is rapidly decreasing in $S^{\\nu}$. Since $$\\opk(l_k) = \\sum_{j\\in\\Bbb N}\n\\opk(\\hat\\varphi_j(\\xi_n,\\sigma))\\op'(c_{jk}(x',\\xi')),$$ we obtain $$G=\\sum_{j,k\\in\\Bbb\nN}\\opk\\big(\\hat\\varphi_j(\\xi_n,\\sigma)\\big)\\op'\\big(c_{jk}(x',\\xi')\\big)\n\\opt\\big(\\bar{\\hat\\varphi}_k(\\eta_n,\\sigma)\\big),$$ which shows the assertion.\n\nThe last part of the proof shows the following useful result:\n\nA Poisson operator $K$ of order $\\nu+\\frac12$ on $\\overline{\\Bbb R}^{n}_+$ can be written $K=\\sum_{j\\ge 0}\\Phi_jC_j$ with a rapidly decreasing sequence $(C_j)$ of $\\psi$do\u2019s with symbols in $S^\\nu$.\n\nElmar Schrohe was partially supported by the European Research and Training Network \u2018Geometric Analysis\u2019 (Contract HPRN-CT-1999-00118).\n\n\\[\\] L. Boutet de MonvelBoundary problems for pseudo-differential operatorsActa Math.1261971 11\u201351\n\n\\[\\]B. V. Fedosov, F. Golse, E. Leichtnam, E. Schrohe The noncommutative residue for manifolds with boundary J. Funct. Anal. 1421996 1\u201331\n\n\\[\\] G. Grubb Singular Green operators and their spectral asymptotics Duke Math. J. 51 1984 477\u2013528\n\n\\[\\] Functional calculus of pseudodifferential boundary problems, Progress in Math. vol. 65, Second Edition Birkh\u00e4userBoston 1996 first edition issued 1986\n\n\\[\\] A weakly polyhomogeneous calculus for pseudodifferential boundary problems J. Funct. Anal. 184 2001 19\u201376\n\n\\[\\] A resolvent approach to traces and determinants AMS Contemp.\u00a0Math.\u00a0Proc. 366 2005 67\u201393\n\n\\[\\] Spectral boundary conditions for generalizations of Laplace and Dirac operators Comm. Math. Phys. 2003 240 243\u2013280\n\n\\[\\] Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 24 2003 1\u201351\n\n\\[\\] G. Grubb and L. Hansen Complex powers of resolvents of pseudodifferential operators 2002 Comm. Part. Diff. Eq. 27 2333\u20132361\n\n\\[\\]G. Grubb and E. Schrohe Trace expansions and the noncommutative residue for manifolds with boundary J. Reine Angew. Math. (Crelle\u2019s Journal) 2001 167\u2013207 536\n\n\\[\\]G. Grubb and R. Seeley Weakly parametric pseudodifferential operators and Atiyah-Patodi-Singer boundary problems Invent. Math. 121 1995 481\u2013529\n\n\\[\\] Zeta and eta functions for Atiyah-Patodi-Singer operatorsJ. Geom. Anal.1996 6 31\u201377\n\n\\[\\]V. Guillemin A new proof of Weyl\u2019s formula on the asymptotic distribution of eigenvalues Adv. Math. 102 1985 184\u2013201\n\n\\[\\]Le probl\u00e8me de Cauchy et les \u00e9quations aux d\u00e9riv\u00e9es partielles lin\u00e9aires hyperboliques J. Hadamard Hermann Paris 1932\n\n\\[\\] M. Kontsevich and S. Vishik Geometry of determinants of elliptic operators Functional Analysis on the Eve of the 21\u2019st Century (Rutgers Conference in honor of I. M. Gelfand 1993), Vol. I S. Gindikin et al. Progr. Math. 131, Birkh\u00e4user Boston 1995 173\u2013197\n\n\\[\\] M. Lesch On the noncommutative residue for pseudodifferential operators with log-polyhomogeneous symbols Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 1999 17 151\u2013187\n\n\\[\\] R. Melrose and V. Nistor Homology of pseudodifferential operators I. Manifolds with boundary manuscript, arXiv:funct-an/9606005\n\n\\[\\] K. Okikiolu The multiplicative anomaly for determinants of elliptic operators Duke Math. J. 79 1995 723\u2013750\n\n\\[\\] R. T. SeeleyComplex powers of an elliptic operator Amer. Math. Soc. Proc. Symp. Pure Math.101967288\u2013307\n\n\\[\\] M. Wodzicki Local invariants of spectral asymmetry Invent. Math. 1984 75 143-178\n"}
-{"text": "---\nabstract: 'We present results from new deep HST/ACS photometry of I\u00a0Zw\u00a018, the most metal-poor blue compact dwarf galaxy in the nearby universe. It has been previously argued that this is a very young system that started forming stars only $\\lesssim 500$ Myr ago, but other work has hinted that older ($\\gtrsim 1$ Gyr) red giant branch (RGB) stars may exist in this galaxy. Our deeper data indeed reveal evidence for an RGB. Underlying old ($\\gtrsim 1$ Gyr) populations are therefore present in even the most metal-poor systems, implying that star formation started at $z \\gtrsim 0.1$. The RGB tip (TRGB) magnitude and the properties of Cepheid variables identified from our program indicate that I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 is farther away ($D = 19.0 \\pm 1.8$ Mpc) than previously believed.'\n---\n\nIntroduction\n============\n\nWithin the framework of hierarchical formation, dwarf ($M$ $\\lesssim$ 10$^9$ M$_{\\odot}$) galaxies are the first systems to collapse and start forming stars, supplying the building blocks for the formation of more massive galaxies through merging and accretion. As remnants of this process, present-day dwarfs may have been sites of the earliest star-formation (SF) activity in the universe. However, the most metal-poor ($12 + \\log (O/H) \\lesssim 7.6$, corresponding to $Z$ $\\lesssim$ 1/20 Z$_{\\odot}$) dwarf irregular (dIrr) and blue compact dwarf (BCD) galaxies have been repeatedly pointed out as good candidate \u201cprimeval\u201d galaxies in the nearby universe, with possible ages less than 100-500 Myr (e.g., Izotov & Thuan 1999). If some of these objects turn out to be young galaxies, their existence would support the view that SF in low-mass systems has been inhibited until the present epoch (e.g., Babul & Rees 1992). The discovery of a nearby primordial galaxy would thus have revolutionary cosmological implications. On the other hand, the lack of such systems would provide strong constraints on the chemical and physical evolution of low-metallicity dIrr/BCDs.\n\nThe only direct way to unambiguously infer the evolutionary status of a metal-poor dIrr/BCD galaxy is to resolve it into stars with deep HST observations, and study stellar features in the color-magnitude diagram (CMD). The brightest of these features that contains stars of significant age is the Red Giant Branch (RGB), formed by low-mass stars with ages $\\sim 1$-13 Gyr that are burning H in a shell around a He core. In the last 15 years all metal-poor dIrr galaxies in the Local Group and BCDs with $D \\lesssim 15$ Mpc have been imaged with HST. Interestingly, an RGB has been detected in all those galaxies for which photometric data exist that go deep enough to reach the RGB tip (TRGB, brightest phase of the RGB) in the CMD (e.g., SBS\u00a01415+437, Aloisi et al.\u00a02005, and references therein).=-2\n\nThe only possible exception so far is the BCD I\u00a0Zw\u00a018. With an oxygen abundance $12 + \\log (O/H) = 7.2$, corresponding to $Z = 1/50$ Z$_{\\odot}$, I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 is the \u201cprototype\u201d member of its class, and the most metal-poor galaxy in the nearby universe. Many HST studies have focused on the evolutionary status of I\u00a0Zw\u00a018. After other groups had already resolved the brightest individual stars in the galaxy, our group was the first to go deep enough to detect asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars in HST/WFPC2 images with ages of at least several hundreds Myr and possibly up to a few Gyrs (Aloisi et al.\u00a01999). These results were confirmed by \u00d6stlin (2000) through deep HST/NICMOS imaging. More recently, Izotov & Thuan (2004) presented new deep HST/ACS observations. Their $I$ vs.\u00a0$V-I$ CMD shows no sign of an RGB, from which they concluded that the most evolved (AGB) stars are not older than 500 Myr and that I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 is a bona fide young galaxy. This result was subsequently challenged by Momany et al.\u00a0(2005) and our group (Tosi et al.\u00a02006) based on a better photometric analysis of the same data. This showed that many red sources do exist at the expected position of an RGB, and that their density in the CMD drops exactly where a TRGB would be expected. However, the small number statistics, the large photometric errors, and the incompleteness at the TRGB, did not allow a conclusive statement about the possible existence of an RGB in I\u00a0Zw\u00a018. =-2\n\nNew HST/ACS Observations\n========================\n\nWe were awarded 24 additional orbits with ACS over a three-month period starting in October 2005 (GO program 10586, PI Aloisi) to better understand the evolutionary status of I\u00a0Zw\u00a018. The observations were obtained in 12 different epochs in F606W and F814W to: (1) build a deeper CMD to search for RGB stars; (2) detect and characterize Cepheids at the lowest metallicity available in the local universe; and (3) use both the Cepheids and a possible TRGB detection to determine an accurate distance to I\u00a0Zw\u00a018. In this paper we will present the preliminary results from the new deep photometry. Preliminary results from the study of the variable stars in this metal-poor galaxy are discussed in Fiorentino et al.\u00a0(2007, in this volume). Detailed descriptions of the observational program, the implications for the evolutionary state and distance of I\u00a0Zw\u00a018, and the results on Cepheid variability will be presented in forthcoming papers in the refereed literature.=-2\n\nPSF-fitting photometry was performed on deep images that were obtained by combining the exposures in each filter with MultiDrizzle. After application of CTE and aperture corrections, the count rates were transformed to Johnson-Cousins $V$ and $I$ magnitudes. Values shown and discussed hereafter are corrected for $E(B-V) = 0.032$ mag of Galactic foreground extinction, but not for any extinction intrinsic to I\u00a0Zw\u00a018. The archival ACS data in F555W and F814W (GO program 9400, PI Thuan) were also re-processed in a similar manner. The two ACS datasets were then combined using several different approaches and rejection schemes. The results discussed here were obtained by demanding that stars should be detected in all the four deep images ($V$ and $I$ for both datasets). At the expense of some depth, this approach has the advantage of minimizing the number of false detections and therefore providing relatively \u201cclean\u201d CMDs.\n\n![(*a*) HST/ACS CMD for I\u00a0Zw\u00a018. Median photometric errors at $V-I = 1$ (determined by comparison of measurements from GO-9400 and GO-10586) are shown as function of $I$-band magnitude on the right side of the panel. Padua isochrones from 5.5 Myr to 10 Gyr are overlaid, with the RGB phase for isochrones from 1.7 to 10 Gyr colored red. The isochrones have metallicity $Z = 0.0004$ (as inferred from the HII regions of I\u00a0Zw\u00a018) and are shown for the distance $D=19$ Mpc ($m-M = 31.39$). The CMD shown here includes stars in both the main and secondary bodies of I\u00a0Zw\u00a018. (*b*) HST/ACS CMD for SBS\u00a01415+437 (Aloisi et al.\u00a02005). The main evolutionary sequences seen in the data are indicated in approximate sense as colored straight lines: main sequence (MS), blue supergiants (BSG), red supergiants (RSG), the red giant branch (RGB) with its tip (TRGB), the asymptotic giant branch (AGB), and carbon stars. Both CMDs are corrected for Galactic foreground extinction. Dashed lines are estimates of the 50% completeness level. The vertical axes of the panels are offset from each other by 0.66 mag, which is the difference in distance modulus between the galaxies (see Fig.\u00a02). Some $\\sim 10$ times more stars were detected in SBS 1415+437, owing to its smaller distance; stars for this galaxy are shown with smaller symbols. The faint red stars in both galaxies indicate that these metal-poor BCD galaxies started forming stars $\\gtrsim 1$ Gyr ago.](aloisi_fig1.ps){width=\"0.93\\hsize\"}\n\n![$I$-band LFs for stars with red colors in the range $V-I =\n0.75$\u20131.5 mag, inferred from the CMDs in Fig.\u00a01. Normalizations are arbitrary. Vertical marks indicate the positions of the TRGB, as determined using a Savitzky-Golay filtering technique developed by one of us (see Cioni et al.\u00a02000). At these magnitudes there is a steep LF drop towards brighter magnitudes, due to the end of the RGB sequence. By contrast, the LF drop towards fainter magnitudes at $I \\gtrsim 28$ mag is due to incompleteness in both cases. Apart from a shift $\\Delta\n(m-M) \\approx 0.66$, these metal-poor BCD galaxies have very similar LFs.](aloisi_fig2.ps){width=\"0.80\\hsize\"}\n\nResults and Interpretation\n==========================\n\nFig.\u00a01a shows the resulting $I$ vs.\u00a0$V-I$ CMD of I\u00a0Zw\u00a018. The CMD shows faint red stars exactly at the position where an RGB would be expected (see the Padua isochrones overplotted in the figure). Figure\u00a02 shows the luminosity function (LF) of the red stars. It shows a sharp drop towards brighter magnitudes, exactly as would be expected from a TRGB. The magnitude of the discontinuity, $I\n= 27.32 \\pm 0.10$, implies a distance modulus $m-M = 31.39 \\pm 0.20$ (e.g., Bellazzini et al.\u00a02001), i.e., $D = 19.0 \\pm 1.8$ Mpc. This assumes that the evolved RGB stars have negligible intrinsic extinction. The TRGB distance is consistent with the preliminary analysis of the first few Cepheid variables identified by our program. Comparison of their Wesenheit relation to the Wesenheit relation inferred from new theoretical Cepheid pulsation models at the metallicity of I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 yields $m-M =\n31.28 \\pm 0.26$ (Fiorentino et al.\u00a02007, in this volume). This agreement further supports our interpretation of the LF drop in Figure\u00a02 as a TRGB feature.=-2\n\nThe evidence for an RGB in I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 is further strengthened by comparison to another BCD, SBS\u00a01415+437, observed by us with a similar HST/ACS set-up (Aloisi et al.\u00a02005). This galaxy is not quite as metal poor as I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 ($12 + \\log (O/H) = 7.6$) and is somewhat nearer at $D\n\\approx 13.6$ Mpc. But taking into account the differences in distance and completeness, the CMDs of these galaxies look very similar. Since SBS 1415+437 has an unmistakable RGB sequence, this suggests that such an RGB sequence exists in I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 as well. It has previously been suggested that I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 has no stars with ages $\\gtrsim 500$ Myr. It is therefore interesting to ask the question whether there exist Star Formation Histories (SFHs) which do not have stars older than $\\sim 1$ Gyr (and by extension, do not have an RGB), yet which can still fit: (1) the observed number of faint red stars in I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 ($V-I \\gtrsim\n1.0$, $I \\gtrsim 27.3$); and (2) the observed LF drop-off at $I\n\\approx 27.3$. Preliminary results of SFH modeling that we have performed indicate that such SFHs do not exist.\n\nConclusions\n===========\n\nWe have obtained new deep HST/ACS observations of I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 that provide improved insight into the evolutionary status of this benchmark metal-poor BCD. Our results indicate that this galaxy contains RGB stars, in agreement with findings for other local metal-poor BCDs studied with HST. Underlying old ($\\gtrsim 1$ Gyr) populations are therefore present in even the most metal-poor systems, so they must have started forming stars at $z \\gtrsim 0.1$. Deeper studies (well below the TRGB) will be needed to pinpoint the exact onset of star formation in these galaxies. We find that at $D = 19.0 \\pm 1.8$ Mpc, I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 is more distant than the values $\\sim 15$ Mpc that have often been assumed in previous work. This may explain why it has remained difficult for so long to unambiguously detect or rule out the presence of old resolved (RGB) stars in this object. The data that we are compiling on Cepheid stars in I\u00a0Zw\u00a018 will be unique for probing the properties of variable stars at metallicities that have never before been probed.\n\nSupport for proposals \\#9361 and \\#10586 was provided by NASA through a grant from STScI, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.\n\n1999, *AJ* 118, 302\n\n2005, *ApJ* 631, L45\n\n1992, *MNRAS* 255, 346\n\n2001, ApJ, 556, 635\n\n2000, A&A, 359, 601\n\n1999, *ApJ* 511, 639\n\n2004, *ApJ* 616, 768\n\n2005, *A&A* 439, 111\n\n2000, *ApJ* 535, L99\n\n2006, *Proc. IAU Symp.\u00a0235*, eds.\u00a0F.\u00a0Combes & J.\u00a0Palous, in press\n"}